Comment period draws more than 9,000 submissions about the Stibnite Mine, which is opposed by the Nez Perce Tribe, Idaho Rivers United and others
Bound for Glory: In central Idaho, the Glory Hole lake (bottom right) is actually an abandoned mine pit. As part of new mining activity, Midas Gold intends to backfill the pit and reconstruct the East Fork South Fork Salmon River (lower left) atop the backfill to allow fish passage. In Meadow Creek Valley (left) the Hangar Flats pit would consume part of the north side of the hill and leave behind a permanent toxic pit lake, according to the Idaho Conservation League. Photo courtesy of Jane Pargiter/EcoFlight
By Steve Dent/IdahoNews6. November 19, 2020. The public comment period has ended on the environmental impact statement the U.S. Forest Service drafted for a proposed mine near the headwaters of the South Fork of the Salmon River in central Idaho.
Midas Gold has spent 10 years putting the draft together. Based in Vancouver, Canada, Midas wants to mine for gold, silver and antimony at the Stibnite Mine site about 50 miles east of McCall.
There were more than 9,600 comments on the Stibnite Mine proposal. Seventy-four of Idaho’s 105 state legislators voiced support for the mine, citing mainly economic reasons, jobs and the $1 billion Midas Gold plans on investing in a mine that would have a 20-year lifespan.
Almost unanimously, the legislators supported Alternative 2 in the EIS. Alternative 2 is Midas Gold’s preferred plan of action after the company reworked its original plans to include more mitigation efforts.
We didn’t find any lawmakers who voiced opposition to the project.
Numerous groups oppose the mine. Opponents include Idaho Rivers United, the Idaho Conservation League, Native American tribes, American Whitewater, Trout Unlimited, anglers, kayakers, recreators and basically anybody whose quality of life depends on the river.
Most of the municipalities surrounding the mine wrote language that wasn’t for or against the mine, but they voiced concerns and added suggestions to the EIS draft.
The city of McCall brought up Highway 55 intersection safety with concerns about added truck traffic. The city asked about a hazardous materials team, because Valley County doesn’t have one. The city also wanted to know if there would be any impacts on the North Fork of the Payette River.
Children of the workers who mined for resources during World War II offered their support for the project and thanked Midas Gold for cleaning up the area left behind when mining regulations weren’t what they are today.
Mitigation efforts promised
In interviews, Midas Gold highlighted the project’s economic impact on rural Idaho, the company’s $1 billion dollar investment into the state and the jobs the mine would create.
The company also said the impact-statement drafting process helped the company address concerns. One result, it said, is Midas’ decision to put in more mitigation efforts to protect the South Fork of the Salmon River watershed.
The Idaho Conservation League said it believes the mining could ruin a pristine area used by boaters, anglers and people who rely on the water to make a living.
Street of dreams: Meadow Creek Lookout Road forms the boundary of the 2.3-million-acre Frank Church—River of No Wilderness (right side of road). On the left side of the road, drainage flows into the Stibnite Gold Project area. According to the Idaho Conservation League, a tailings storage facility holding toxic material would be located about a mile to the left of the road, which, under the Midas Gold proposal, would be converted into a major haul road. Photo courtesy of Jane Pargiter/EcoFlight
The next drainage over, the Middle Fork of the Salmon River, is protected by Congress through the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. Boaters need to win a lottery to float the Middle Fork in summer.
Meanwhile, the South Fork features a rowdier whitewater playground, doesn’t have the same watershed protections and has a long history of mining.
Midas Gold said it plans on restoring the area before beginning mining operations.
The National Environmental Policy Act requires a 45-day comment period on draft environmental impact statements. The Forest Service set a 60-day period and then extended that to 75, which drew ire from both sides, with critics believing the process was moving either too slowly or too fast.
“Some of those comments that are substantial could very well impact the outcome on what is in the final EIS,” said Brian Harris of the Payette National Forest. “What is in the final EIS will steer the decision-maker, the forest supervisor, on how she will move forward with approval for the project.”
Boise-based reporter Steve Dent grew up in Bozeman, Montana.
This story is reprinted with permission from IdahoNews6.
