Trust, transparency, and the facts about Sheep Creek 

by Scott Osterman, Senior Advisor, U.S. Critical Materials

I read Michael Howell’s recent column in the Bitterroot Star with interest and concern, not because I dismiss the questions he raises, but because his piece relies on insinuation rather than facts, particularly when it comes to my own record and the Sheep Creek project proposed by U.S. Critical Materials (USCM).  

Let me start with the personal issue directly, because it matters to the broader conversation about  trust. During my time as Director of the Montana Department of Commerce, allegations were made about my conduct. Those allegations were investigated by the Montana Legislative Auditor through the state’s fraud hotline process. The conclusion was clear: I did not violate state policy. No findings of wrongdoing were made. That is not spin or opinion; it’s the formal conclusion of the independent authority charged with making that determination.  

Reasonable people can disagree about mining, land use, and development in the Bitterroot Valley. But suggesting that a project should be dismissed because of vague claims about “tainted reputations,” after those claims have already been examined and resolved, does not advance an honest public discussion.  

Now to the project itself.  

First, Sheep Creek is not a proposal for open-pit mining. Ever. This is a key point that continues to be misunderstood or misrepresented. What is being evaluated is underground vein mining of vertical deposits—widely recognized as the least disruptive mining method from an environmental standpoint. There will be no pit like Butte, no strip mine, and no surface processing facility.  

Second, what is currently underway is exploration, not mining. Exploration exists to answer a basic question: should mining even be considered here at all? It involves limited, temporary disturbance, rigorous data collection, and multiple off-ramps if environmental or technical concerns cannot be addressed. Exploration does not predetermine approval of a mine. It reduces uncertainty so decisions can be made based on evidence rather than fear.  

Third, environmental stewardship is not an afterthought for this project; it’s foundational. USCM understands the history of legacy mining damage in Montana, including at Butte, and we share the community’s determination that those mistakes never be repeated. Sheep Creek benefits from characteristics that make responsible evaluation possible: existing roads and historic adits, non acidic rock, and mineralogy that has been tested by Idaho National Laboratory, Montana Tech, and  independent labs.  

Water protection is a central concern, and rightly so. The Sheep Creek project will not draw water from Sheep Creek. All water used will come from water entering the mine, a well, or be trucked in, and it will be fully recycled. There will be zero discharge. Baseline and continuous monitoring of water, air, and wildlife will be publicly available, potentially in real time. If data shows unacceptable impacts, the project stops. Period. 

There will be no on-site rare earth processing and no use of chemical separation at Sheep Creek. There will be no permanent tailings facility. Non-mineral-bearing rock will be removed for off-site use or returned underground for backfilling. The physical footprint will remain small, limited initially under Montana’s Small Mine Exclusion to no more than five acres.  

Some have raised concerns about radiation or asbestos. Testing conducted to date shows radiation levels far below any threshold of concern established by federal regulators. Actinolite, the mineral sometimes cited, does not automatically mean asbestos. Only fibrous actinolite qualifies, and extensive testing has not identified asbestos at the site. Monitoring will continue, transparently and independently.  

Why does any of this matter beyond the Bitterroot? Because Sheep Creek contains something rare and strategically important: the only known primary source of gallium in the United States, along with unusually high concentrations of rare earth elements. Gallium alone has more than 3,000 military applications, including in radar, satellites, secure communications, and advanced medical technologies. Today, the United States relies  heavily on foreign, and often adversarial, sources for these materials. That is not an abstract talking  point; it’s a documented national security vulnerability recognized across administrations and by Congress.  

Acknowledging that reality does not mean sacrificing environmental values. It means confronting a hard truth: these materials will come from somewhere. The choice is whether they come from jurisdictions with weak standards and little transparency, or from projects subject to the strongest environmental laws in the world, full public scrutiny, and enforceable reclamation bonding.  

USCM has been candid that it should have engaged sooner and more directly with the local community, particularly as the federal FAST-41 process moved quickly. That is a fair criticism, and it’s one we are correcting now. FAST-41 does not waive a single environmental requirement. It simply makes timelines, documents, and agency coordination visible to the public. Every required public comment period remains intact.  

Going forward, USCM is committed to exceeding minimum legal requirements. That includes establishing an independent advisory board, inviting third-party scientific review, strengthening bonding and monitoring commitments, and beginning discussions on a Good Neighbor Agreement shaped by local priorities.  

No one is asking the Bitterroot to accept blind trust. Trust should be earned through data, transparency, and accountability. Skepticism is healthy. Misinformation is not.  

The responsible path forward is neither automatic approval nor reflexive rejection. It’s disciplined evaluation – grounded in science, governed by law, and informed by the voices of the people who care most about this place.  

That is the conversation Sheep Creek deserves, and it’s the one I hope we can now have.