U.s. Study Notes Protected Bull Trout Grounds Are Upstream From Joint Watershed

[TerryH]

From the Edmonton Journal, Dec. 3

 

Fish lie in way of open-pit coal mine

 

U.S. study notes protected bull trout grounds are upstream from joint watershed

U.S. government scientists studying the Flathead River watershed straddling the B.C.-Montana border say they’ve discovered the prime spawning site for a threatened species of trout.

 

It is on the Canadian side of the system and in the shadow of a proposed mountaintop coal mine that drew fire from U.S. president-elect Barack Obama during his drive to the White House.

 

Biologists with the U.S. Geological Survey and the Montana state Wildlife Department say the findings pinpoint the mouth of Foisey Creek in southeastern B.C. — near the planned site of a controversial open-pit coal operation proposed by Toronto-based Cline Mining Corp. — as a “critical” site in the lifecycle of the protected bull trout, which often migrates from U.S. waters to Canada to reproduce.

 

It’s a discovery, the scientists say, that adds to previous evidence showing threats to the watershed’s population of cross-border cutthroat trout, and which should clinch the environmental case against the mine.

 

“The 2008 spawning surveys indicate that the river section immediately downstream of the proposed mine site contained the highest numbers of bull trout ‘redds’ ” — nesting areas where eggs are laid in river cobble — “in the interconnected river and lake transboundary system,” USGS aquatic geologist Clint Muhlfeld said. “Development of an open-pit, mountaintop coal mine will negatively impact these important populations and the habitats upon which they depend for persistence.”

 

The study showed that about 30 per cent of all redds in the north fork of the Flathead — and 70 per cent of all redds in the Canadian section of the watershed — are found next to the proposed mine.

 

The Flathead River — which has its headwaters in southeastern B.C. near the Alberta boundary but flows south through northern Montana before spilling into Flathead Lake — has for decades been a source of conflict between environmentalists determined to preserve its “pristine” upper valley and energy companies hoping to exploit the drainage basin’s rich supply of coal and methane.

A coal mine proposal in the 1980s was rejected after a panel under the International Joint Commission responsible for shared U.S.-Canadian waterways ruled the development could adversely affect fish populations.

 

Cline’s proposed Lodgepole mine, located about 50 kilometres south of Fernie, B.C., would produce an estimated two million tonnes of coal per year over the mine’s 20-year lifespan, generate hundreds of jobs and some $3 billion.

 

Although the company has tried to reassure critics that its economic objectives would be carefully balanced by measures to protect the Flathead ecosystem, the proposal has sparked opposition on both sides of the border. Currently under environmental review in B.C., the planned mine has been denounced by Canadian and American nature groups as ecologically ruinous and has drawn fire from Montana officials — including Gov. Brian Schweitzer — who have argued there’s a risk to water quality along the U.S. stretch of the river.

 

In June, during his bid to become president, the Obama campaign released a statement saying: “Barack Obama supports efforts by Senator Max Baucus and Senator Jon Tester, as well as Gov. Brian Schweitzer, to stop the Cline mine. The Flathead River and Glacier National Park are treasures that should be conserved for future generations.”

 

Muhlfeld said U.S. wildlife officials have discussed their concerns about Flathead River fish with the B.C. government and Cline Mining Corp.

 

The company did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the latest findings.

 

 

“From what we know now, without a doubt, there’s no way they can punch in a mine without seriously affecting Montana’s fishery,” Mark Deleray, a biologist with the state wildlife office, told a Montana newspaper last week about the bull trout study. “These fish need all the parts — quality, connected habitats — and the mine site is a key part of the habitat.”

 

[troutlover]

so where do we start sending the letters.?

[Taco]

Does someone know if the bull trout in Elk River drainage threatened too??

[sirocco]

It depends on the location of the mine. It sounds like it's on the Flathead side of the range, and if it remains there the Elk drainage bulls should be okay. However, the name of the mine implies that it's connected to Lodgepole Creek which is on the Elk drainage side of the range, and if so, then the Elk drainage bulls would be at a similar risk. That's all pure speculation on my part though.

 

As a side note, the Flathead population of Bull Trout is one of the largest remaining populations in North America, and has been making a terrific comeback due to the isolation of their spawning grounds and largely due to protective measures that have been put in place in Montana to help them out. It would be a true shame if all of this hard work was quashed by this proposed mine.

 

Yeah, so does anyone know who to write to?

[Taco]

Not quite what I'm asking......how threatened are the bulls in the Elk drainage?? Anyone?

[sirocco]

Oh, sorry that my mistake. Their numbers are on the rise as well.

[Highlander]

It's worth noting that there are are 5 operating coal mines in the Elk River drainage and no-one is suggesting that those mines are having a detrimental effect on the Bull Trout in that system. By all accounts the population is very healthy.

 

Lets be clear about this, the opponents of the mine are using Bull Trout as an excuse to oppose the mine development. If coal mining could not be carried out in a manner designed to have a minimal impact on Bull Trout (and Westslopes), then the Elk River would be a lifeless sewer and not perhaps the best westlope river in N. America.

[Taco]

It's worth noting that there are are 5 operating coal mines in the Elk River drainage and no-one is suggesting that those mines are having a detrimental effect on the Bull Trout in that system. By all accounts the population is very healthy.

 

Lets be clear about this, the opponents of the mine are using Bull Trout as an excuse to oppose the mine development. If coal mining could not be carried out in a manner designed to have a minimal impact on Bull Trout (and Westslopes), then the Elk River would be a lifeless sewer and not perhaps the best westlope river in N. America.

 

 

yup

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

It would be interesting to understand all the logic from both sides. There are many, many incidents of the Americans turning a blind eye to Canadian environmental concerns but bully their agenda hard.

 

Beware the spin doctors. I say that since I have studied bull trout populations in great detail as a biologist. The biggest threat to bull trout populations is over harvest.

 

Again...anyone have any papers they can email me on this from both sides?

 

Cheers

 

Sun

[Pipes]

While it is important to evaulate this from the protection side, Taco does bring up a relevant and significant point. Sun, I might be able to share some reports, but will have to check first. I have spent significant time on mitigating impacts to the local streams in the elk valley at all 5 mines. Specifically, my role was to ensure the streams and rivers were not being contaminated with anything detrimental to the trout population. There's a lot that goes into it. While some debates can be made for the overall impact to the land, I can ensure you from first hand experience that the trout populations have not been noticeably impacted.

When an issue comes up, the mine itself will contact me immediatley looking for assistance. We then work along side the BC government to ensure the correct actions are used.

I can also tell you that there is some very good fishing right next to these mines, which supports that they are doing something right.

[Taco]

or even a world class fishery downstream of a million people

[rehsifylf]

It would be interesting to understand all the logic from both sides. There are many, many incidents of the Americans turning a blind eye to Canadian environmental concerns but bully their agenda hard.

 

Beware the spin doctors. I say that since I have studied bull trout populations in great detail as a biologist. The biggest threat to bull trout populations is over harvest.

 

Again...anyone have any papers they can email me on this from both sides?

 

Cheers

 

Sun

 

the logic from one side is easy - see softwood lumber dispute.