Despite years of development, the Forest Service asserts that DOING NOTHING to address legacy pollution at Stibnite would be less damaging than what Perpetua proposes
It would take up to 100 years for stream temperatures to return to baseline conditions at Stibnite mine. Photo credit: EcoFlight
The controversial and deeply flawed proposal to construct a massive open-pit gold mine at the headwaters of the South Fork Salmon River is moving forward. However, the fight is nowhere near over. Idaho Rivers United and our partners remain steadfast in our opposition to this project, or any project, that needlessly puts our rivers and fisheries in jeopardy for corporate profit.
On Friday, September 6th, the Forest Service published the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Draft Record of Decision (DROD). These documents are intended to provide a refined assessment of the Stibnite Gold Project's impacts on public lands administered by the Payette and Boise National Forests.
Part of this updated assessment includes incorporating comments previously submitted by the public, including those by Idaho Rivers United and our supporters. While the Forest Service must consider and respond to any relevant comments previously submitted, that does not mean that all suggested remedies will be incorporated into the final version of the project presented in the FEIS and DROD.
Despite the thousands of comments submitted with legitimate concerns regarding the project's impacts on water, Endangered Species Act protected species such as Chinook salmon and bull trout, critical wildlife habitat, recreation, and vocal Tribal opposition, our initial assessments have not uncovered any significant improvement in the overall project design.
While we are disappointed by the Forest Service's lack of meaningful changes, they are hamstrung by the antiquated General Mining Law of 1872. As we’ve covered in the past, this law established hard rock mining as the highest use of public lands. As a result, the Forest Service believes that they legally cannot deny a mine plan such as the Stibnite Gold Project.
Despite this fact, they do acknowledge that even with all of the promises made by Perpetua that this project is the only possible way to address legacy pollution originating from Stibnite, “[t]he No Action Alternative is the environmentally preferable alternative.” While proposed mitigation measures related to fish barriers and stream restorations would not occur under the No Action Alternative, “the two action alternatives would result in more new surface disturbance and associated impacts,” (DROD pg. 35).
In other words, even with all of the mitigation measures proposed and time invested in designing a project aimed at reducing the environmental harm from previous ventures, doing nothing would be less environmentally damaging than what is being proposed.
As we continue to review and analyze these documents, many of our previous concerns appear to be validated by the Forest Service’s updated language surrounding the uncertainty of proposed mitigation measures.
Take stream temperatures for example. In our previous comments, we voiced concerns that the proposed mitigation measures associated with stream temperature reduction were predicated on shade cover provided by riparian planting and the lack of sufficient soil required to achieve these lofty goals.
In the DROD, the FS acknowledges that the project “may not provide sufficient growth media quantity and quality to achieve reclamation standards for the project,” (DROD pg 14) and that “[l]ong-term performance of stream temperature reduction measures may have the potential to not fully achieve the forecasted stream temperature results,” (DROD pg 18). They go on to state that if the project fails to achieve these critical temperature reductions, “stream temperatures downstream of the Yellow Pine pit area could also be greater than existing conditions.”
While acknowledging this uncertainty, the FS failed to require any meaningful changes in the project design. Rather, they propose additional mitigation measures such as placing large container plants along stream reaches, installing temporary shade structures, or leaving streams in diverted channels or pipes indefinitely. All of these measures are unacceptable and are a far cry from the promises made by Perpetua.
Additionally, none of their modeling related to stream temperature predictions accounted for climate change in any sense. Even under the best-case scenario presented in the Supplemental Draft EIS, it would take up to 100 years for stream temperatures to return to baseline conditions, if at all based on this new language related to the high level of uncertainty associated with this project.
As we continue working through the weeks ahead to develop our formal objections, we want to remind you of what is at risk if this project moves forward and highlight our key concerns for anyone new to this project.
At the core of the Stibnite Gold Project lies a fundamental difference of opinion between the beliefs and values held by Perpetua Resources and those in opposition to the project. While Perpetua and their supporters prefer to frame the project as the best path to remediate the damages done by previous mining ventures and secure a domestic source of antimony, we fundamentally disagree.
We don’t dispute that the Stibnite area has been ravaged by the mining industry and contains chronic sources of legacy pollution. However, we know there are solutions to these issues that exist beyond a double-down approach. Perpetua Resources’ narrative of environmental remediation is misleading.
Perpetua presents the project as a means to the end of the environmental issues at the mine site. However, the project footprint encompasses more undisturbed lands than those of concern resulting in a net loss of critical habitat for westslope cutthroat trout and Endangered Species Act-listed Chinook salmon and bull trout among other legitimate and concerning environmental impacts.
This project is a gold mine masquerading as a critical mineral project. Despite Perpetua Resources' reliance that the project would secure a vital domestic source of antimony and enhance national security, the reality is that the promised benefits are vastly overstated. The estimated 148 million pounds of antimony that would be extracted over the life of the mine would theoretically cover three years of average U.S. consumption based on reports from the USGS. This limited supply undermines the narrative that Stibnite is a solution for national security and shows that the project's environmental trade-offs far outweigh the minor strategic gains.
More importantly, there currently is no domestic option to refine and utilize the antimony received by this project. The raw antimony would be exported, likely to Asia, for refinement, then re-imported prior to any domestic utilization.
As we continue to review the FEIS and develop our formal objections, it's essential for the public to recognize that the perceived benefits of this project do not justify the environmental damage it would cause. The promise of securing antimony is not the silver bullet Perpetua claims, and the long-term impacts on our natural resources and critical habitats far outweigh the project’s overstated contributions to national security. Our goal remains clear: to protect Idaho’s rivers and landscapes from projects like Stibnite that promise much but deliver little while leaving behind a lasting legacy of harm.
Author’s note: This current phase of review entails slightly different opportunities for the public to engage. While the previous permitting phases provide opportunities for any interested party to submit comments, once a FEIS and Draft Record of Decision have been published the formal objection process begins. Only individuals who previously submitted specific comments may object to issues raised that were not addressed or to new information that has come to light. More information is available on the Forest Service project page.
