Researcher John Weaver presented his findings at a meeting last week in Kalispell.
“What really has become clear is the need to protect the Flathead for large and mid-sized carnivores,” responded Rich Moy. “Many of these species need secure habitat areas for survival and conductivity zones for moving from place to place across the border.”
Since its inception, the group has been concerned about possible upstream energy development and has opposed Canadian proposals to extract coal and coalbed methane from southeastern British Columbia.
On Thursday, they heard from Weaver, a scientist for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, and Moy called the presentation “very important and compelling.”
Weaver, considered an internationally renowned wildlife biologist, has for years been studying the Canadian Flathead, just north of Glacier Park. The river drainage spills south across the border, forming the park's western boundary before flowing into Flathead Lake.
Downstream interests, including the Flathead Basin Commission, have long worried about water quality impacts from upstream development, but Weaver's studies have added to that concern by sounding the alarm about terrestrial species, as well.
Weaver was joined in his recent work by a team of scientists from Alberta and British Columbia.
“What he presented,” Moy said, “is a strong scientific basis for why regional protections are needed. This area is certainly one ecological unit, with an invisible line between the state and the province.”
Elk cross that line freely with the seasons, as do bears and bobcats and wolverines, Weaver said.
The Montana side is secured by perhaps the most stringent land-use protections in America. The Canadian side is the proposed site of a coal mine and coalbed methane field.
Weaver's studies showed that in British Columbia's Elk River Valley, west of the Flathead, bear densities are far lower in areas with mines than in areas without.
And Canada's Highway 3 “is a major barrier for female grizzlies,” Moy said. Male bears seem to brave the road with some regularity, but females tend to shy from the auto activity. That means genetics clump on one side or the other, and gene flow is pinched.
That's a big deal, Moy said, because any energy development would come with lots of busy roads, all with the potential of further fragmenting the grizzly's range. It's a problem for Canada, certainly, but also for Glacier Park, because many park bears spend a portion of their year north of the border.
There is no reason, Moy said, to think that big coal trucks passing every 10 minutes or so would present any less a barrier than does Highway 3.
Already, scientists know many of the bull trout living in Glacier Park's western waters spawn in the Canadian headwaters now targeted for mining. Combined, the aquatic and terrestrial migratory information is “definitely the kind of data the state would want to use when informing its position on any B.C. energy plans,” Moy said. “The Canadian Flathead has now been specifically identified as an important core area for Montana's fish and wildlife.”
But how and when the state might present that information to its northern neighbors remains unknown.
Last week, Canada's federal government announced it would conduct its own “comprehensive review” of the Cline Mining Corp. proposal, which would dig coal from the Flathead's headwaters. Before that announcement, the environmental review process was under the authority of British Columbia, and many downstream felt the provincial processes were inadequate.
The adequacy of the federal approach won't be known until January, when Canadian regulators release a draft document showing the scope of their planned environmental review.
Previously, Moy and others had requested a vigorous review that included an international scientific panel. Canada's government resisted.
“Now the question is, will it be truly comprehensive?” Moy said. “Will it consider transboundary impacts? Will it include cumulative impacts? Will Montana have a seat? We just have to wait and see what comprehensive really means.”
He hopes it means a long look beyond the immediate coal mine, because Canadian environmental law does not allow a similar federal review of coalbed methane projects. The only way to obtain a comprehensive analysis of Flathead methane plans, perhaps, is to view those projects in light of the coal review.
“The good news is we still have some time to find answers to those questions,” Moy said. “We've been assured the coalbed methane project is on hold, and it won't move for this winter, at least.”
But the critters will, “and we need to make sure Montana's wildlife isn't blocked off from what it needs to survive.”
Reporter Michael Jamison can be reached at 1-800-366-7186 or at mjamison@missoulian.com
Federal budget bill includes funds for mining impact study
The nation's biggest budget bill now includes $885,960 to study the environmental impacts of mining in Canada's Flathead River basin, just north of Glacier National Park.
The money is focused on both fish and wildlife studies, chronicling existing environmental conditions and defining the nature and breadth of threat posed by Canadian coal and coalbed methane development.
It also is intended to assess the level of risk posed by various energy proposals, and to provide data that can inform ongoing reviews of those proposals.
“There are some places that are just too special to mine in or near,” said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who helped insert the funding into the nation's budget bill. “The Flathead is critical to our state's and to our country's outdoor heritage.”
Michael Jamison, Missoulian
|
 |
 |
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)