Cliff Lake is one of the dozens of alpine lakes that lie along the crest of the Cabinet Mountains in the Kootenai National Forest. Photo © Randy Beacham
The young grizzly bear must have seen me first. I was standing on a wooden bridge over the East Fork of Rock Creek in the Cabinet Mountains of northwest Montana, watching the bear disappear into the forest. I felt I had seen a ghost—a fleeting image of one of the last bears from a rare population whose habitat is threatened by what could turn out to be two of the largest hard rock silver and copper mines in North America.
The Revett Formation, a mineral deposit, lies underneath this 94,000-acre wilderness managed by the Kootenai National Forest. Two companies share the Revett mineral rights. Sterling Mining Company owns the Rock Creek Mine, and Mines Management owns the Montanore Mine. If their permits are approved, these companies would be the first to tunnel underneath a designated wilderness for the purpose of hard rock mining. The environmental impacts of these mines on the area’s lakes and grizzlies may be irreversible, but the U.S. Forest Service says it may have no choice but to allow the mining to proceed.
One of the primary concerns of mining opponents is water. There is no shortage of water in this wettest region in the inland northwest, whose higher elevations average more than 100 inches of precipitation a year. Tucked away within the Cabinet’s steep canyon walls are towering, lush rainforests more reminiscent of Washington’s Olympic National Park than Montana’s Big Sky Country. In addition, 100 alpine lakes lie along the crest of this slender, elongated mountain range.
Several of these mountain lakes are located directly above the ore deposits, and two major fault lines crisscross the bodies of metals. The Forest Service and Montana Department of Environmental Quality were given the task of preparing an environmental impact statement for the Rock Creek Mine proposal. During this review it became apparent that these lakes could be drained as a result of shifting created by cracks and fissures along the fault lines. In response, the Kootenai District of the Forest Service altered the original mining proposal by requiring that the company leave a 1,000-foot buffer below the lakes. However, a clause in the Rock Creek Final Environmental Impact Statement renders the mitigation meaningless. It allows Sterling to request an amendment to permit mining in the buffer zone before the end of the project if shifting—also called subsidence—has not occurred up to that point. The clause introduces the possibility that before closing up shop, the buffer zone below a lake could still be mined and the lakes could drain. Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, known for his pro-development politics, recently came out against the mine because of the potential for lake drainage.
Concern over grizzly bears also has prompted opposition to the proposed mining. As part of the Record of Decision for the mine, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed a biological opinion relating to threatened and endangered wildlife species, foremost of which is the grizzly bear. The Cabinet Mountain grizzly population—an isolated group of approximately fifteen—survives only through continual transplantation of bears from the Northern Continental Divide ecosystem. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposal for grizzly protection has been controversial from the start. In March 2002, the agency voluntarily withdrew the biological opinion in the face of a lawsuit filed by nine environmental groups claiming that it didn’t offer adequate protection for grizzly bear and bull trout populations. After the second rewrite, the same groups were successful in having the biological opinion thrown out in court. U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy sided with the plaintiffs, who stated that Fish and Wildlife was wrong in saying that the Rock Creek Mine would pose no jeopardy to protected Cabinet Mountain grizzly bear and bull trout populations. In the case of grizzly bears, Molloy noted that the agency acknowledged that one or two bears would likely be displaced. With fewer than five female bears in this population, even the loss of two animals would be devastating.
The latest biological opinion, released in October 2006, shocked mine opponents. Instead of defending grizzly bear habitat, the Fish and Wildlife Service recommended that Sterling perform additional mitigation, including hiring a game warden and a troubleshooting biologist, to do outreach and education as well as deal with any bears that come into conflict with the public. Additional measures include the purchase of bear-proof garbage containers. While mine opponents acknowledge the need for these additional measures, they also point to numerous studies—including some in the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem—which show that grizzly bear survival depends on large blocks of secure, core habitat. Cesar Hernandez, a member of one of the local environmental groups opposed to the Rock Creek Mine, is skeptical that the extra outreach and education will overcome the possible negative impacts of bringing in a large work force of people from outside of the region, many of whom will not be used to hunting and recreating in grizzly bear habitat.
More than ten conservation groups have joined in lawsuits over the mine, and 72 percent of 3,000 comments received from the local region—Montana, Idaho and Washington—were opposed to the mine. Council members in Sandpoint, Idaho, concerned that wastewater discharge into the Clark Fork River could pollute the pristine waters of adjacent Lake Pend Oreille, have passed three resolutions against the mine. Avista Utilities, an energy company which operates two dams on the Clark Fork, fears mine runoff may hurt its bull trout restoration efforts. And perhaps the most surprising opposition comes from one of the world’s largest jewelry companies. In 2004, the CEO of Tiffany & Co., Michael J. Kowalski, took out a full-page advertisement in the Washington Post criticizing the Forest Service for giving conditional approval to the Rock Creek Mine. Kowalski’s ad claimed that wilderness areas, scenic watersheds, cold-water fisheries and fragile ecosystems are inappropriate for mineral development.
In the face of such overwhelming opposition, approval of the mining operations would seem unlikely. But Bob Casteneda, former supervisor of the Kootenai National Forest, says whereas the Forest Service has the authority to regulate mining operations and mitigate effects, it cannot legally deny permits for mining underneath the wilderness. One law that limits the agency’s authority, ironically, is the Wilderness Act, which allows grandfathered claims regulated under the 1872 Mining Act, a law enacted at a time when environmental oversight was nonexistent.
Montanore Mine was permitted in 1993 and exploratory drilling took place until 1996, when the mine was shut down 2,000 feet short of the ore body due to low silver prices and water quality problems. Mines Management purchased the mine in 2002 and initiated a notice of intent to re-permit in 2005. The Forest Service’s draft environmental impact statement is due to be released in 2008.
I still recall my first trip into the Cabinet Wilderness. To me, its virgin forests, sky-scraping peaks and crystal-clear mountain lakes are strikingly similar to those on the west side of Glacier National Park, minus the roads. Would we allow Glacier’s lakes to be undermined, its rivers polluted and the wildlife habitat adjoining the park be destroyed—all in the name of corporate profits enabled by a ripe-for-revision 125-year-old mining law? Will the conservationists’ lawsuits prevail? Will I ever again glimpse a grizzly in the Cabinets, or only a ghost? Time will tell.