Note 4 - Commitments, Contingencies and Obligations	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Note 4. Commitments, Contingencies and Obligations General We follow GAAP guidance in determining our accruals and disclosures with respect to loss contingencies, and evaluate such accruals and contingencies for each reporting period. Accordingly, estimated losses from loss contingencies are accrued by a charge to income when information available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability could be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Legal expenses associated with the contingency are expensed as incurred. If a loss contingency is not probable or reasonably estimable, disclosure of the loss contingency is made in the financial statements when it is at least reasonably possible that a material loss could be incurred. Rio Grande Silver Guaranty Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Rio Grande Silver Inc. (“Rio”), is party to a joint venture with Emerald Mining & Leasing, LLC (“EML”) and certain other parties with respect to a land package in the Creede Mining District of Colorado that is adjacent to other land held by Rio. Rio holds a 70% interest in the joint venture. In connection with the joint venture, we are required to guarantee certain environmental remediation-related obligations of EML to a third party up to a maximum liability to us of $2.5 million. As of March 31, 2017, we have not been required to make any payments pursuant to the guaranty. We may be required to make payments in the future, limited to the $2.5 million maximum liability, should EML fail to meet its obligations to the third party. However, to the extent that any payments are made by us under the guaranty, EML, in addition to other parties, has jointly and severally agreed to reimburse and indemnify us for any such payments. We have not recorded a liability relating to the guaranty as of March 31, 2017. Lucky Friday Water Permit Matters Over the last several years the Lucky Friday unit has experienced several regulatory issues relating to its water discharge permits and water management more generally. In December 2013, the EPA issued to Hecla Limited a notice of violation (“2013 NOV”) alleging certain storm water reporting violations under Lucky Friday’s Clean Water Act Multi-Sector General Stormwater Permit for Industrial Activities. The alleged violations were resolved. The 2013 NOV also contained a request for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act directing Hecla Limited to undertake a comprehensive groundwater investigation of Lucky Friday’s tailings pond no. 3 to evaluate whether the pond is causing the discharge of pollutants via seepage to groundwater that is discharging to surface water. We completed the investigation mandated by the EPA and submitted a draft report to the agency in December 2015. We are waiting for the EPA’s response and we cannot predict what the impact of the investigation will be. Hecla Limited strives to maintain its water discharges at the Lucky Friday unit in full compliance with its permits and applicable laws, however, we cannot provide assurance that in the future it will be able to fully comply with the permit limits and other regulatory requirements regarding water management. Johnny M Mine Area near San Mateo, McKinley County, New Mexico In May 2011, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Johnny M Mine Area near San Mateo, McKinley County, New Mexico, and asserted that Hecla Mining Company may be responsible under CERCLA for environmental remediation and past costs the EPA has incurred at the site. Mining at the Johnny M was conducted for a limited period of time by a predecessor of our subsidiary, Hecla Limited. In August 2012, Hecla Limited and the EPA entered into a Settlement Agreement and Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action (“Consent Order”), pursuant to which Hecla Limited agreed to pay (i) $1.1 million to the EPA for its past response costs at the site and (ii) any future response costs at the site under the Consent Order, in exchange for a covenant not to sue by the EPA. Hecla Limited paid the $1.1 million to the EPA for its past response costs and in December 2014, submitted to EPA the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (“EE/CA”) for the site. The EE/CA evaluates three alternative response actions: 1) no action, 2) off-site disposal, and 3) on-site disposal. The range in estimated costs of these alternatives is $0 to $221 million. In the EE/CA, Hecla Limited recommended that EPA approve on-site disposal, which is currently estimated to cost $5.6 million, on the basis that it is the most appropriate response action under CERCLA. In June 2015, the EPA approved the EE/CA, with a few minor conditions. The EPA still needs to publish the EE/CA for public notice and comment, and the agency will not make a final decision on the appropriate response action until the public comment process is complete. It is anticipated that Hecla Limited will implement the response action selected by the EPA pursuant to an amendment to the Consent Order or a new order. Based on the foregoing, we believe it is probable that Hecla Limited will incur a liability for remediation at the site, and our best estimate of that liability as of the date of this report is $5.6 million, and we have accrued that amount. There can be no assurance that Hecla Limited’s liability will not be more than $5.6 million, or that its ultimate liability will not have a material adverse effect on Hecla Limited’s or our results of operations or financial position. In September 2016, Hecla Limited was served with a lawsuit filed by an individual in state court in New Mexico alleging personal injury claims of several millions of dollars arising from alleged exposure to contaminants as a result of allegedly living on land adjacent to the Johnny M Mine site. The case was subsequently removed to federal court in New Mexico, and Hecla Limited filed a motion to dismiss. We do not yet have enough information to conclude if Hecla Limited has any liability or to estimate any loss that it may incur. Carpenter Snow Creek Site, Cascade County, Montana In July 2010, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Carpenter Snow Creek Superfund Site located in Cascade County, Montana. The Carpenter Snow Creek Site is located in a historic mining district, and in the early 1980s Hecla Limited leased 6 mining claims and performed limited exploration activities at the site. Hecla Limited terminated the mining lease in 1988. In June 2011, the EPA informed Hecla Limited that it believes Hecla Limited, among several other viable companies, may be liable for cleanup of the site or for costs incurred by the EPA in cleaning up the site. The EPA stated in the June 2011 letter that it has incurred approximately $4.5 million in response costs and estimated that total remediation costs may exceed $100 million. Hecla Limited cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of liability, if any, relating to this matter because of, among other reasons, the lack of information concerning the site. Senior Notes On April 12, 2013, we completed an offering of $500 million aggregate principal amount of 6.875% Senior Notes due 2021. The net proceeds from the offering of the Senior Notes were used to partially fund the acquisition of Aurizon Mines Ltd. ("Aurizon") and for general corporate purposes, including expenses related to the Aurizon acquisition. Aurizon held our Casa Berardi mine and other interests in Quebec, Canada. In 2014, we completed additional issuances of our Senior Notes in the aggregate principal amount of $6.5 million, which were contributed to one of our pension plans to satisfy the funding requirement for 2014. Interest on the Senior Notes is payable on May 1 and November 1 of each year, commencing November 1, 2013. See Note 9 for more information. Other Commitments Our contractual obligations as of March 31, 2017 included approximately $1.8 million for various costs. In addition, our open purchase orders at March 31, 2017 included approximately $0.2 million, $2.1 million and $9.5 million, respectively, for various capital and non-capital items at the Lucky Friday, Casa Berardi and Greens Creek units. We also have total commitments of approximately $12.3 million relating to scheduled payments on capital leases, including interest, primarily for equipment at our Greens Creek, Lucky Friday and Casa Berardi units (see Note 9 for more information). As part of our ongoing business and operations, we are required to provide surety bonds, bank letters of credit, and restricted deposits for various purposes, including financial support for environmental reclamation obligations and workers compensation programs. As of March 31, 2017, we had surety bonds totaling $112.8 million in place as financial support for future reclamation and closure costs, self-insurance, and employee benefit plans. The obligations associated with these instruments are generally related to performance requirements that we address through ongoing operations. As the requirements are met, the beneficiary of the associated instruments cancels or returns the instrument to the issuing entity. Certain of these instruments are associated with operating sites with long-lived assets and will remain outstanding until closure of the sites. We believe we are in compliance with all applicable bonding requirements and will be able to satisfy future bonding requirements as they arise. Other Contingencies When we acquired Revett Mining Company, Inc. (now known as Hecla Montana, Inc.) in June 2015, it was the subject of a lawsuit filed in Montana state court by a former employee of its wholly owned subsidiary, Troy Mine, Inc., alleging that Revett was responsible for injuries he suffered while working for Troy Mine. The case is continuing with plaintiff claiming injuries totaling several millions of dollars. Although we are vigorously defending the suit, it is possible that Revett faces some liability in the case; however, we are unable to estimate the amount or range of any potential liability. Insurance is currently providing a defense to Revett, however there is no guarantee it would provide coverage for any losses incurred. We also have certain other contingencies resulting from litigation, claims, EPA investigations, and other commitments and are subject to a variety of environmental and safety laws and regulations incident to the ordinary course of business. We currently expect that the resolution of such contingencies will not materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, in the future, there may be changes to these contingencies, or additional contingencies may occur, any of which might result in an accrual or a change in current accruals recorded by us, and there can be no assurance that their ultimate disposition will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Note

Commitments, Contingencies and Obligations

General

We follow GAAP guidance in determining our accruals and disclosures with respect to loss contingencies, and evaluate such accruals and contingencies for each reporting period. Accordingly, estimated losses from loss contingencies are accrued by a charge to income when information available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability could be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Legal expenses associated with the contingency are expensed as incurred. If a loss contingency is not probable or reasonably estimable, disclosure of the loss contingency is made in the financial statements when it is at least reasonably possible that a material loss could be incurred.

Rio Grande Silver Guaranty

Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Rio Grande Silver Inc. (“Rio”), is party to a joint venture with Emerald Mining & Leasing, LLC (“EML”) and certain other parties with respect to a land package in the Creede Mining District of Colorado that is adjacent to other land held by Rio. Rio holds a

70%

interest in the joint venture. In connection with the joint venture, we are required to guarantee certain environmental remediation-related obligations of EML to a

third

party up to a maximum liability to us of

$2.5

million. As of

March

31,

2017,

we have not been required to make any payments pursuant to the guaranty. We

may

be required to make payments in the future, limited to the

$2.5

million maximum liability, should EML fail to meet its obligations to the

third

party. However, to the extent that any payments are made by us under the guaranty, EML, in addition to other parties, has jointly and severally agreed to reimburse and indemnify us for any such payments. We have not recorded a liability relating to the guaranty as of

March

31,

2017.

Lucky Friday Water Permit Matters

Over the last several years the Lucky Friday unit has experienced several regulatory issues relating to its water discharge permits and water management more generally. In

December

2013,

the EPA issued to Hecla Limited a notice of violation

(“2013

NOV”)

alleging certain storm water reporting violations under Lucky Friday’s Clean Water Act Multi-Sector General Stormwater Permit for Industrial Activities. The alleged violations were resolved. The

2013

NOV

also contained a request for information under Section

308

of the Clean Water Act directing Hecla Limited to undertake a comprehensive groundwater investigation of Lucky Friday’s tailings pond no.

to evaluate whether the pond is causing the discharge of pollutants via seepage to groundwater that is discharging to surface water.

We completed the investigation mandated by the EPA and submitted a draft report to the agency in

December

2015.

We are waiting for the EPA’s response and we cannot predict what the impact of the investigation will be.

Hecla Limited strives to maintain its water discharges at the Lucky Friday unit in full compliance with its permits and applicable laws, however, we cannot provide assurance that in the future it will be able to fully comply with the permit limits and other regulatory requirements regarding water management.

Johnny M Mine Area near San Mateo, McKinley County, New Mexico

May

2011,

the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Johnny M Mine Area near San Mateo, McKinley County, New Mexico, and asserted that Hecla Mining Company

may

be responsible under CERCLA for environmental remediation and past costs the EPA has incurred at the site. Mining at the Johnny M was conducted for a limited period of time by a predecessor of our subsidiary, Hecla Limited. In

August

2012,

Hecla Limited and the EPA entered into a Settlement Agreement and Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action (“Consent Order”), pursuant to which Hecla Limited agreed to pay (i)

$1.1

million to the EPA for its past response costs at the site and (ii) any future response costs at the site under the Consent Order, in exchange for a covenant not to sue by the EPA. Hecla Limited paid the

$1.1

million to the EPA for its past response costs and in

December

2014,

submitted to EPA the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (“EE/CA”) for the site. The EE/CA evaluates

three

alternative response actions:

no action,

off-site disposal, and

on-site disposal. The range in estimated costs of these alternatives is

$221

million. In the EE/CA, Hecla Limited recommended that EPA approve on-site disposal, which is currently estimated to cost

$5.6

million, on the basis that it is the most appropriate response action under CERCLA. In

June

2015,

the EPA approved the EE/CA, with a few minor conditions. The EPA still needs to publish the EE/CA for public notice and comment, and the agency will not make a final decision on the appropriate response action until the public comment process is complete. It is anticipated that Hecla Limited will implement the response action selected by the EPA pursuant to an amendment to the Consent Order or a new order. Based on the foregoing, we believe it is probable that Hecla Limited will incur a liability for remediation at the site, and our best estimate of that liability as of the date of this report is

$5.6

million, and we have accrued that amount. There can be no assurance that Hecla Limited’s liability will not be more than

$5.6

million, or that its ultimate liability will not have a material adverse effect on Hecla Limited’s or our results of operations or financial position.

September

2016,

Hecla Limited was served with a lawsuit filed by an individual in state court in New Mexico alleging personal injury claims of several millions of dollars arising from alleged exposure to contaminants as a result of allegedly living on land adjacent to the Johnny M Mine site. The case was subsequently removed to federal court in New Mexico, and Hecla Limited filed a motion to dismiss. We do not yet have enough information to conclude if Hecla Limited has any liability or to estimate any loss that it

may

incur.

Carpenter Snow Creek Site, Cascade County, Montana

July

2010,

the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Carpenter Snow Creek Superfund Site located in Cascade County, Montana. The Carpenter Snow Creek Site is located in a historic mining district, and in the early

1980s

Hecla Limited leased

mining claims and performed limited exploration activities at the site. Hecla Limited terminated the mining lease in

1988.

June

2011,

the EPA informed Hecla Limited that it believes Hecla Limited, among several other viable companies,

may

be liable for cleanup of the site or for costs incurred by the EPA in cleaning up the site. The EPA stated in the

June

2011

letter that it has incurred approximately

$4.5

million in response costs and estimated that total remediation costs

may

exceed

$100

million. Hecla Limited cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of liability, if any, relating to this matter because of, among other reasons, the lack of information concerning the site.

Senior Notes

April

12,

2013,

we completed an offering of

$500

million aggregate principal amount of

6.875%

Senior Notes due

2021.

The net proceeds from the offering of the Senior Notes were used to partially fund the acquisition of Aurizon Mines Ltd. ("Aurizon") and for general corporate purposes, including expenses related to the Aurizon acquisition. Aurizon held our Casa Berardi mine and other interests in Quebec, Canada. In

2014,

we completed additional issuances of our Senior Notes in the aggregate principal amount of

$6.5

million, which were contributed to

one

of our pension plans to satisfy the funding requirement for

2014.

Interest on the Senior Notes is payable on

May

and

November

of each year, commencing

November

2013.

See

Note

for more information.

Other Commitments

Our contractual obligations as of

March

31,

2017

included approximately

$1.8

million for various costs. In addition, our open purchase orders at

March

31,

2017

included approximately

$0.2

million,

$2.1

million and

$9.5

million, respectively, for various capital and non-capital items at the Lucky Friday, Casa Berardi and Greens Creek units. We also have total commitments of approximately

$12.3

million relating to scheduled payments on capital leases, including interest, primarily for equipment at our Greens Creek, Lucky Friday and Casa Berardi units (see

Note

for more information). As part of our ongoing business and operations, we are required to provide surety bonds, bank letters of credit, and restricted deposits for various purposes, including financial support for environmental reclamation obligations and workers compensation programs. As of

March

31,

2017,

we had surety bonds totaling

$112.8

million in place as financial support for future reclamation and closure costs, self-insurance, and employee benefit plans. The obligations associated with these instruments are generally related to performance requirements that we address through ongoing operations. As the requirements are met, the beneficiary of the associated instruments cancels or returns the instrument to the issuing entity. Certain of these instruments are associated with operating sites with long-lived assets and will remain outstanding until closure of the sites. We believe we are in compliance with all applicable bonding requirements and will be able to satisfy future bonding requirements as they arise.

Other Contingencies

When we acquired Revett Mining Company, Inc. (now known as Hecla Montana, Inc.) in

June

2015,

it was the subject of a lawsuit filed in Montana state court by a former employee of its wholly owned subsidiary, Troy Mine, Inc., alleging that Revett was responsible for injuries he suffered while working for Troy Mine. The case is continuing with plaintiff claiming injuries totaling several millions of dollars. Although we are vigorously defending the suit, it is possible that Revett faces some liability in the case; however, we are unable to estimate the amount or range of any potential liability. Insurance is currently providing a defense to Revett, however there is no guarantee it would provide coverage for any losses incurred.

We also have certain other contingencies resulting from litigation, claims, EPA investigations, and other commitments and are subject to a variety of environmental and safety laws and regulations incident to the ordinary course of business. We currently expect that the resolution of such contingencies will not materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, in the future, there

may

be changes to these contingencies, or additional contingencies

may

occur, any of which might result in an accrual or a change in current accruals recorded by us, and there can be no assurance that their ultimate disposition will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.