Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., will attend the first of those meetings, set for Monday morning in Kalispell. Organizers will collect comments on the scope of environmental assessment needed before a Canadian coal mine can be built in southeastern British Columbia.
The region has long been contentious, with the state and province sparring over the future of industrial development in sensitive watersheds. Two decades back, an international commission recommended mining plans be dropped there due to the likelihood of pollution flowing south of the border.
Montana officials have fought coal mine development there since the late 1970s.
The most recent proposal, by Cline Mining Corp., involves a mountaintop-removal mine generating 2 million tons of coal per year for 20 years. If approved, it would be built in the headwaters of the Flathead River system, about 20 miles north of the park.
But approval depends upon an environmental assessment, the scope of which still must be decided. Last year, officials in British Columbia invited Montana to the table for talks about what that environmental assessment should look like.
“The process is intended to create a guide for the mining company in terms of what to put in their environmental study package,” said Garry Alexander, project assessment director for B.C.'s Environmental Assessment Office.
Now, Alexander's office is holding local meetings in the province to collect comments on the draft plan.
But to attend, Montanans would have to commit to a full day, perhaps two, of international travel, “and that's pretty tough for people down here to swing,” said Caryn Miske.
Miske is executive director of the Flathead Basin Commission, a multi-agency forum created by the governor's office some 20 years ago in response to similar coal mining plans.
“We felt the Canadian meeting schedule was really onerous for Montanans,” Miske said, “so we decided to hold public meetings down here.”
Among those presenting information at the Montana meetings are scientists from state and federal agencies, many of whom were involved in the initial negotiations that resulted in this latest draft.
The Montana delegation was dismayed with that draft, noting in an Oct. 18 letter to their Canadian counterparts that downstream concerns had been ignored.
“The state of Montana submitted 129 comments in total,” wrote state officials, “that resulted in no change to the revised draft.”
“I would hope that Montana doesn't feel ignored,” Alexander said. “We all want to ensure that all the environmental, social, heritage, health and economic impacts are identified.”
Alexander declined to discuss the particulars of Montana's frustration, as outlined in the Oct. 18 letter, saying only that a response to that missive was forthcoming.
“We want to hear from all the stakeholders,” he said, “including those in Montana.”
Yet despite the state's itemizing 16 pages of known scientific data gaps, and an additional seven pages by the National Park Service, “none of these comments were responded to,” according to the state's letter.
Downstream interests, as well as many in Canada, have pushed for a more comprehensive environmental review, studying the natural baseline conditions throughout the region. That is the only way, they say, to measure impacts later.
They also have asked for a “cumulative effects” review, which would take into account other development projects proposed in the wilderness region.
But Cline has insisted upon studying only the immediate mine site, the haul road and the loading facility.
And even those studies are too slim, Montana officials say.
Currently, the state wrote in its Oct. 18 letter, “no baseline data for grizzly bears exists at the proposed mine site.” There remain no plans to collect such data.
Documents prepared by the multi-agency Flathead Basin Commission conclude, “British Columbia does not currently possess sufficient information to accurately determine the impacts” of the Cline mine.
It is a position shared by state regulators.
“We are gravely concerned at the lack of information provided thus far,” state officials wrote, “and the lack of commitment on the part of the proponent (Cline) to carrying out the necessary scientific and technical research to conduct an accurate and responsible assessment of the proposed open-pit coal mine.”
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, charged with managing grizzlies and other species protected under federal law, also commented on the environmental assessment plan, concluding “it is not credible or logical to evaluate the Lodgepole mine solely in the context of its immediate, direct impacts.”
Instead, the agency recommended expanding the scope of the review to include both the broader region, as well as other nearby projects. The current draft does not call for such analysis.
Public comments collected at both the British Columbia and Montana meetings will be used to create a final template for environmental study. Miske said the Flathead Basin Commission will accept written comments, and will record all oral comments, forwarding them to Canadian officials for consideration.
Form letters and petitions will not be accepted, Alexander said, and he encourages participants to write letters specific to the details of the draft plan. All comments, he said, must come with both a name and an address, and should go beyond basic support or opposition to the proposal.
Miske's concern, however, is that regardless of the ultimate scope of environmental review, the mine itself is simply in the wrong spot.
“You can't mitigate for it,” she said. “Not when you're putting waste dumps right into the tributaries. We're not opposed to coal mining, but this is just not an appropriate place for a mine. To put a mine right in the headwaters, and to literally have waste dumps right in the adjacent tributaries, it just doesn't make sense.”
Canadian data from a nearby mountain coal mine - 10 miles from the Cline site, in the drainage that flows into Montana's Koocanusa Reservoir - have raised several surprising red flags. Preliminary studies there show selenium levels many times higher than the natural baseline, well beyond Montana state standards, and nitrate/nitrite levels orders of magnitude beyond normal.
And despite the small size of that coal project, biodiversity also has been affected, Miske said, with only seven species of macroinvertebrates found in waters associated with the mine, compared to 75 species in unaffected streams.
That's according to the Canadians' own studies, Miske said, and that's just the sort of data that have state officials alarmed, prompting them to request more exhaustive environmental research prior to considering mine authorization.
“The proposed mine,” they wrote, “poses serious threats to the natural resource values of the Flathead National Wild and Scenic River, Glacier National Park, the world's first International Peace Park at Waterton-Glacier, a World Biosphere Reserve, World Heritage Site and the Crown of the Continent.”
Commissioners back funding for talks with British Columbia
KALISPELL - Flathead County commissioners have thrown their support behind legislation that would spend more than $300,000 of state money to continue work with British Columbia regarding a coal mine proposal north of the border.
On Jan. 9, commissioners unanimously signed a letter endorsing House Bill 189, which would provide funding for baseline scientific research as well as travel for Montana delegates involved in talks with B.C. It would also fund a new position for an environmental specialist, who would collect and analyze data related to the project.
Called the Lodgepole mine, the controversial coal project would be located about 20 miles north of Glacier National Park, in the headwaters of the Flathead River system.
Scientists, politicians, residents and activists south of the border have expressed concerns that the mine could impact Montana's fish and wildlife populations, and could spill pollutants across the international line.
Contaminants could reach Flathead Lake within 48 hours of release, according to scientists at the Flathead Lake Biological Station.
Others are concerned about grizzly bears and other sensitive species, which use the transboundary area as core habitat, and about bull trout, a protected fish that is born and lives part of its life in the proposed mine area before migrating south to Montana waters.
In their letter of support, Flathead County commissioners joined their Lake County counterparts in backing state funding for continued talks between Montana and British Columbia.
“We believe that this funding is imperative to safeguard the economic and environmental integrity of water quality and other natural resources,” they wrote. “If we miss this opportunity to gather baseline water quality data, we will forego the opportunity to demonstrate cause and effect” once the mine is built.
Also, the commissioners wrote, failure to fully participate in the negotiation process would eliminate Montana's opportunity to have its concerns heard.
“Therefore,” the commissioners wrote, “the legislative request is a small price to pay in light of the natural amenities at stake.”
At least a portion of the money would be matched by provincial and federal funds.
Currently, the bill has broad bipartisan support in both the Montana House and Senate, including much of the Flathead Valley's legislative delegation.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)