Address by Rich Moy
Chair,
Flathead Basin Commission
Presented July 10, 2006 to
the Annual Meeting of the Flathead Lakers
I was raised in Missoula, and have watched Western Montana change over
the past 60 years.
As a teenage, I spent many hours camping, fishing and hunting in the
Mission, Swan and Bitterroot mountains of Western Montana. I also spent
many days helping a friend work his cattle ranch in the Bitterroot
Valley. I remember fondly, one Christmas eve driving the narrow two
lane highway home to Missoula from Hamilton after a day of duck hunting.
It was snowing lightly. You would see darkness along the highway except
for the falling snow, the lights from the distant ranch houses scattered
along the foothills and the reflection of the colorful Christmas lights
against the backdrop of snow in the small communities of Victor,
Florence and Stevensville. It is a memory that I cherish.
Today, the Bitterroot valley has become one large urban sprawl from
Missoula to past Hamilton. Some think this growth is progress. The
ranchland of my friends in the Bitterroot are now subdivisions. The
values and way of life that I cherished growing up and spending time in
that valley are gone and quite probably, ranching and farming may soon
be gone from the valley unless something changes. I do know there are
folks trying to preserve the last remnants of farming.
I also have strong ties to the Flathead-first, as teenager camping with
my parents on Flathead Lake and fishing some of the lakes in the
headwaters of the Swan drainage. I first camped in the basin in 1955. I
loved fishing for Kokanee salmon and swimming in Flathead Lake. When I
was in college. I purchased shore frontage on Flathead Lake, then in
1990, I moved to Swan Lake where I spend most of my summer weekends.
I also had the privilege of working eleven summers in Glacier National
Park. The best part of my Glacier experience is that this is where I
met my wife, Gigi. She was working as a park aide and naturalist. I
literally picked her up at the Loop on the Going-to-the-Sun Highway, as
she was hitch hiking over Logan Pass with a friend. We have been married
now for almost 30 years. Gigi was raised in Kalispell. When we were
married, everyone knew the name Gigi Brunberger, the skier and runner,
and no one knew who I was.
Like the Bitterroot, the Flathead has change drastically since the
1960s, but not to the same degree. There is still a glimmer of hope for
the Flathead valley. However, there appears to be no vision for what
the Flathead valley should look like in the future. Growth and new
subdivisions just happen. No one appears to be pro-active in making the
right decisions; a few are reacting to change, but most do nothing.
There is little long-range planning going on in the basin. Civil
dialogue has been severely handicapped, especially during the past
decade. Hopefully, the growth policy of the upper Flathead valley will
provide some guidance, but I will not hold my breath.
What the basin needs is for the silent majority to take charge and
create a clear vision of what the valley should look like in 5 years, 10
years, 50 years from now and work to make that vision a reality.
George Byrd Grinnell had a vision for the area now called Glacier
National Park. He was the person that pushed the hardest for creating
Glacier National Park. The park would not have happened if it was left
up to folks within the Flathead valley. In the Kalispell Interlake an
editorial stated in 1908 that it could only find one person who
supported the creation of Glacier Park. Back then, the Kalispell Chamber
of Commerce opposed the creation of Glacier Park, as it did not feel the
area was spectacular enough and would not attract visitors. Folks could
only see the potential for resource extraction and the idea of making
money. Does the message sound familiar today?
So, what is the future vision for the Flathead valley? Again, I don't
believe there is one. No one is asking what should the Flathead valley
should look like in 5, 10, 50 years from now. It pays to look at trend
analyses over time-the clear benefit of using GIS maps. If you
understand past changes, you have a better view of what the future could
look like if you do nothing. Folks need to ask, "what are the values
that we want to protect in the Flathead?
The Flathead Basin Commission is trying to look into the future for
water quality. We are re-thinking what our vision should be for the
basin. The Statutory Mission for the Commission is "To protect the
existing high quality of the Flathead Lake aquatic environment; the
waters that flow into, out of, or are tributary to the Lake; and the
natural resources and environment of the Flathead Basin."
To better meet our statutory mission, the FBC has created A new Vision
statement as part of its strategic plan that it has been working on for
the last few months. The Vision is "The Flathead Basin Commission,
working with our communities and stakeholders, is leading efforts to
improve and protect water quality and the natural resources in the
Flathead Basin and is realizing measurable results."
The Commission wanted to create a new road map for its future actions.
We want to become more effective at meeting our Mission statement of
protecting water quality and our results must be measurable.
Presently, I believe the Flathead and the Basin Commission are losing
the battle to protect water quality within the Flathead and especially
in the Lake. Even though the Lake looks clean today, according to Dr.
Stanford, primary productivity is increasing and has increased since the
mid-1970s when water quality data was first collected. The FBC would
like to change this trend in nutrient loading into the Lake.
The challenge for the Commission and all of us is how to allow for
future population growth while at the same time, protect water quality?
The Commission set interim water quality targets or TMDLs based on 25
years of data and analysis by the Flathead Lake Biological Station. The
targets are the 1977 level of nutrient loading into the Lake. This level
was chosen, as it is the nutrient loading that we must achieve to
protect the lake from large algae blooms. The challenge for the
Commission is how do you decrease the nutrient loading to the lake,
while providing for future growth and how much growth is enough-if
existing trends continue. It has been projected that Flathead County
will have 120,000 residents by 2020. How many people can the basin
sustain, 200,000; 500,000; or more?
The increased nutrients into the Lake are coming primarily from non
point sources of pollution, such as storm runoff, agriculture,
groundwater from septic systems, and the airshed.
The Basin Commission is realizing that it needs to refocus its attention
away from its Voluntary Nutrient Reduction Strategy (VNRS) and more on
actions that effect land use decisions as they could have the greatest
impact on water quality. The Commission needs to change from reacting to
issues to becoming more proactive and preventing water quality problems
from developing.
Based on experiences from other large lakes, and groundwater supplies,
when you contaminated them, the cost and time it takes to mitigate and
clean them up far exceeds the cost of doing the right thing the first
time. As all of you know, prevention is significantly cheaper than
remediation. This is the reason the Commission plans on holding a
"Large Lakes Conference" this fall or next year so Flathead residents
and the Commission can learn how other communities have addressed
population growth and its affect on water quality.
In the future, the Commission plans to focus more on educating basin
residents about sources of water quality contamination, the types and
benefits of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and what needs to be done
to protect water quality. The Commission hopes to become the catalyst to
help basin residents become more actively involved with protecting water
quality. Basin residents need to understand the importance of using BMPs
and what happens if you make poor land use decisions.
The Commission still plan to continue implementing its Voluntary
Nutrient Reduction Strategy, but to a lesser degree. In the past few
years, the FBC raised about $2 million dollars of grant funds to restore
riparian habitats and mitigate non-point sources of pollutions. We
still want to construct a few demonstration projects as a tool to
educate residence on ways to restore streamside habitats and wetlands
and how to build natural buffer strips around our lakes and between
homes and water sources.
The Commission plans to take a tour of Ashley Creek to show how it has
used some of the grant funds to mitigate non point sources of pollution
and the restoration of streamside habitat at its August meeting and you
are welcome to join us.
We also plan to continue with our volunteer water quality-monitoring
program. If more residence become knowledgeable of water quality, the
greater the likelihood they will take an interested in protecting water
quality and educating their neighbors.
We also need to work toward a sustainable economy that preserves a
quality environment and a quality of life. A sustainable economy and
quality environment go hand in hand. It is easier to sustain the
Flathead economy when you have a quality environment to live and play.
If you destroy your environment, the sustainability of your economy will
likely deteriorate.
We know that the Flathead economy depends in a large part, on the
construction industry. But construction is not sustainable and at some
point interest rates will increase that will impact this economic
sector.
The service sector, such as recreation and tourism, on the other hand,
is sustainable. But again, recreation and tourism depend up on a quality
environment such as clean air, clean water, and protection of critical
habitats.
The resource industries have been declining over the past 15 years from
about 17% of the Flathead economy to about 7% today. It would be nice
to stop this downward trend, but it may be difficult.
With today's technology, professionals are moving to the Flathead
because they are looking for a healthy environment and a livable
community and many of them bring their jobs with them.
As many of you know, the protection of private property is important,
but not if your neighbors actions degrade your property. We need to
assess the long-term affects of land use decisions and how they affect
our property, our neighbors' property, and our communities. We know that
urban sprawl brings new and more expensive roads, contamination of
ground water, and a larger tax burden, which may eventually decrease our
property values.
We must remember that the upper Flathead valley is one large bathtub of
groundwater. When you contaminate groundwater, the discharge will
eventually pollute Flathead Lake or one of the many streams that
receives ground water. Ground water discharge from the aquifers in the
alluvial Flathead valley will not go to the center of the earth; all the
water at some point will enter the Flathead River drainage. We know
that the cost to mitigate contaminate groundwater is extremely
expensive. If you do not make the right decision now, it will cost you
or your children significantly in the future.
Who should create the Vision for the Flathead?
Local governments are key players. However, they are having a difficult
time keeping up with growth issues. But what local government can do
and it is working in Helena, Missoula and Bozeman, is to create a Water
Quality District for the upper Flathead valley. It places the power
where it belongs, within local communities.
State government cannot help. It is more regulatory in nature and again
is reacting continually to new subdivisions. For example the subdivision
section of DEQ consists of 7 employees that addressed 1,585 subdivision
applications last year. This year, the number of subdivision
applications has already exceeded 1,230. This figure does not include
the municipal exemptions that are about twice this number. Last year,
DEQ received 404 applications for subdivisions within Flathead County.
The federal government can't solve your problems and quite frankly, no
one wants them to. Most federal agencies are having a tough time
reacting to issues and have no jurisdiction over growth. As you know,
federal budgets for agencies like the Forest Service, EPA, and Parks
Service have been cut because of the large and continually increasing
federal deficit and the need to fund the war in Iraq and mitigate
impacts associated with Katrina.
So, it is up to valley residences to create a vision for the future of
this valley and they need to direct city and county governments.
How can we tell British Columbia to protect Glacier National Park and
Flathead Lake when we are not willing to protect these resources
ourselves? What we do to our landscape in the upper Flathead Valley
will have a far greater impact to Flathead Lake than any one coal mine
in the Flathead Basin of B.C. This is not to say that Cline and other
coalmines that are being proposed will not have a significant impact on
the North Fork of the Flathead River and Glacier National Park, because
they will.
In the mid-1980s, it appears to me that Flathead valley residences were
more concerned over water quality than they are today. For example, over
25,000 people signed a petition and were more united again the proposed
(Sage Creek) called the Cabin Creek Coal Mine located three miles north
of the International Border in B.C.
About 15 years ago, I gave a presentation to this group on the outcome
of the International Joint Commission (IJC) process on the Cabin Creek
coalmine. Let me spend a few minutes on that process. The IJC process
took three years to complete and it involved over 50 scientists with
equal numbers from both countries. In its decision, the IJC invoked
Article IV of the Boundary Waters Treaty and ruled against the mine.
Article VI states that neither country can pollute waters to the
detriment of health and environment of the other country. Based on
Article VI, the IJC made three very important recommendations;
1) The Cabin Creek mine is not approved as
presently designed.
2) The mine cannot receive regulatory approval
unless the impacts are reasonably mitigated to the satisfaction of both
countries, and
3) The Governments consider, with the
appropriate jurisdictions, opportunities for defining and implementing
compatible, equitable and sustainable development activities and
management strategies in the upper Flathead River Basin.
The second and third recommendations are very significant.
The second recommendation may have set a precedent that gives the
United States and Montana the authority to veto a mine in the
transboundary Flathead if it is shown that the mine would have a
negative impact on Glacier National Park and the North Fork of the
Flathead River or any of the species listed as endangered or threatened.
This is based on Article VI of the Treaty. The IJC can only make
recommendations to governments, as it has no authority to push
recommendations. It is up to both federal governments to accept the
recommendations. Unfortunately, Canada did not accept the IJC
recommendations based on advice from B.C. Since Article VI of the Treaty
was invoked and the Treaty should be binding on governments, it would be
interesting to see how an international court would rule on this issue.
Colin Powell stated that the position of the U.S. State Department is
that the IJC recommendations still hold for any mine at that Cabin Creek
site. Because of this, Premier Campbell of B.C. decided not to issue
licenses for coal tenures at the old Sage Creek coal mine site on Cabin
Creek and has established a reserve over the area to preclude mining in
this area for, I believe 10 years. In June 2005, the U.S. State
Department stated that the United States government has been following
the activities in the Flathead River area closely and has stated to the
Canadian government that the U.S. considers the analysis and conclusions
of the IJC's 1988 report to still be valid and stated that it would
apply to other mine sites within the B.C. Flathead. The U.S. Government
has also stated repeatedly that it would welcome discussions with Canada
concerning an IJC reference on the coalfield development in the Flathead
River Basin. Please note that the U.S. State Department position
encompasses the entire Flathead River Basin of B.C. Canada's position
is that Montana and B.C. should address the issue among themselves.
The third IJC recommendation is visionary and has interested Montana
since 1988. Governor Schwinden testified and supported the creation of
an International Conservation Reserve for the Transboundary Flathead
based on the third IJC recommendation. Again, That recommendations
stated, "Governments consider, with the appropriate jurisdictions,
opportunities for defining and implementing compatible, equitable and
sustainable development activities and management strategies in the
upper Flathead River Basin."
The framework for this agreement was created, in part, on a napkin in
the bar after the Kalispell public hearing on the Cabin Creek Coalmine
Report. Jon O'Rioridan who was the British Columbia representative and
myself put the initial concepts together, but Jim Posewitz, who was the
U.S. co-chair of the Flathead River International Study Board took the
napkin and flushed out the International Conservation Reserve proposal.
The International Conservation Reserve focused on: protecting the
special amenities of the drainage and special designations; establishing
a research program within the tranboundary Flathead; creating a local
sustainable economy that is based on recreation and tourism, but still
protecting the remoteness and pristine nature of the drainage; and
creating an endowment to fund the research. A binational group would
oversee compatible management activities and research, and the
expenditures of funds.
Governor Stephens, a Canadian, wanted to have an agreement with B.C.
before he left office, based on the third IJC recommendation and
appointed a Montana negotiating team including myself. But before we
could negotiate with British Columbia on the transboundary Flathead, we
needed a Vision for our side of the border-the North Fork of the
Flathead. In 1990, this lead to the development of the North Fork
Conceptual Strategy.
As you might guess, folks in the North Fork are very independent and
span the full spectrum on political believes. They ranged from the very
liberal environmentalists to conservative property-rights owners who
wanted to be left alone. After the first three meetings, we were unable
to obtain an agreement among the 19 citizen participants on anything.
There was enormous amount of hostility among the local participants. At
the beginning of the fourth meeting and in frustration, we asked the
citizen members to identify their values and Vision for the North Fork
and it was amazing how things started to gel. They rallied around the
following three values or goals:
1) Preserve, and if necessary restore water and
air quality to sustain the environment for fish, wildlife, and people.
2) Preserve and if necessary restore the
ecological integrity and biodiversity of the drainage including, but not
limited to the many special designations including Glacier National Park
the Wild and Scenic River, International Biosphere Reserve and the habit
necessary to sustain endangered species and species of special concern
such as bull trout and cutthroat trout
3) Provide for sustainable, multiple resource
uses that meet the above two goals.
They all wanted to continue to enjoy that which they had experienced
historically and to preserve the reasons for moving to the North Fork in
the first place-a rather remote and primitive, but beautiful and wild
place.
What was so positive about this strategy is that it suggested compatible
management actions and uses for the entire North Fork basin-the private
lands, the river, the U.S. forestlands and the North Fork country of
Glacier National Park. The strategy addressed the basin holistically as
one unit. There was clear ownership in the document by the citizen
representatives. At the signing ceremony, the North Fork residence held
a potluck feast to celebrate the outcome.
Five Montana Governors from both parties tried to implement the third
IJC recommendation with British Columbia, but without success. As I
stated, it started with Governor Schwinden, a democrat, followed by
three republican governors-Stephens, Racicot, Martz and now Governor
Schweitzer-a democrat. Every time a governor wrote to a premier of B.C.,
the response was the same, they all were gracious but said they needed
to complete a land use process. They have completed three-land use
process since 1990.
The first process took four years and was called the CORE process, or
"Commission on Resources and the Environment". It was a collaborative
process involving all relevant stakeholders called the East Kootenai
Roundtable. B.C. allowed us in the process to provide information and
comments, but we were not allowed to sit at the table. We thought the
recommendations from the Roundtable were reasonable. But we were very
disappointed when the B.C. Cabinet changed the recommendations in favor
of the mining lobby.
The next process called the "Southern Rocky Mountain Wildlife Management
Plan" focused first on the need to protect wildlife in its decision
making process on land uses. A year later, Premier Campbell was elected
with an overriding majority and on his first day in office, he threw out
the Wildlife Management Plan and created another one that focused on
resource extraction in the Flathead-B.C. had opened up the tranboundary
Flathead to mining. We understood the new focus of the plan even before
it was completed-as it was a political decision-and in a away like the
former plan, except the wildlife plan was very compatible with the
management strategies and preservation agendas on the U.S. side of the
border.
So, when I hear B.C. officials' state that they used lots of data and
public involvement in developing the latest Southern Rocky Mountain
Management Plan, I am skeptical.
Today, we are again assessing the impacts of a proposed mine north of
the International Border. This mine sits on top of a mountain range that
separates the Flathead and Wigman drainages. The impacts could be
significant because they could impact not one, but two watersheds, and
two river systems, and both have viable stocks of Bull Trout. The
impacts on mid size and large carnivores such as lynx, wolverine,
grizzlies, wolves, and mountain lions could be significant as the mine
and haul road will cause habitat fragmentation. The operations of mining
coal and transporting it by 40-ton haul trucks every five minutes, 365
days a year for 20 years from the mine site to the rail terminal at
Morrissey will likely impact the clean air of Glacier and Waterton Lakes
National Parks. At this Lodgepole site, Cline Corp, backed by Japanese
financing, would like to remove a complete mountaintop and send the
metallurgic coal to China for steel production.
B.C. has graciously allowed us to participate in its regulatory process
and it touts how good its different regulatory processes are. I have
told them that I will assume their regulatory processes are fine, but I
am more interested in the data. We need at least three years of baseline
data to understand what the potentials impacts could be on the landscape
and ways to mitigate the impacts. Only with baseline data and an
accurate assessment of mine discharges, the affected areas and
operational controls will we understand the impacts of the mine and ways
to mitigate them. However, we still do not know the complete design of
the mine so it is very difficult for us to identify data needs and
potential areas for data collection. B.C. had promised to submit the
design to us early last April.
When we conducted the Cabin Creek mine site assessment in 1985-1988
after B.C.'s Stage II regulatory process was completed, we realized that
so much was not known about that mine and potential impacts. We had to
rely on best professional judgment, data from other mines in the Elk
River valley or we had to state in the report that we were unable to
project impacts for a lack of data. Back then we never looked at the
impacts to carnivores, birds, amphibians and many other indigenous
species. There were a number of water quality parameters that were not
assessed. One of the strengths of the Cabin Creek reports, however, is
that they identified a large number of areas where data had to be
collected before any further mine assessment should go forward in the
B.C. Flathead drainage.
As part of our present involvement in the BC regulatory process, I want
to see three things happen. First, Cline Corp must incorporate all our
comments on data needs into the Terms of Reference. This is the document
that defines what Cline needs to use to prepare in its mine application.
Second, B.C. and the Canadian Federal government must use the Canadian
Federal Assessment Act to complete a Cumulative Impact Assessment of all
potential resource development actions in the Flathead basin of B.C. as
part of the Cline application. B.C. would like us to put on blinders and
only assess the impacts of the Cline Mine, and this is not acceptable.
Third, we need a three-year baseline assessment of existing conditions
as a basis to project impacts from the mine.
There is a second mining company, called "Lillyburt" from Australia,
which is presently testing coal at the headwaters of the Flathead River.
These coal deposits are located under the North Fork River and its
riparian corridor. Again, the company would like to export coal to
China for steel production. I would not be surprised if this company
starts the B.C. regulatory process sometime next year. The potential
impacts from this mine site could be devastating to the U.S.
Montana is again working with B.C. to create an Action Plan or
Memorandum of Understanding that implement the Environmental Accord that
was signed by Premier Campbell and Governor Martz in September 2003.
That Agreement calls for the creation of an initiative or Action Plan to
"identify, coordinate and promote mutual efforts to ensure the
protection, conservation, and enhancement of our shared environment for
the benefit of current and future generations".
In June, two of my colleagues and I met in Victoria with three B.C.
deputy ministers and key staffs to negotiate the language and terms of
the MOU. The first thing we did was asked them to consider a larger
Vision for the protection of the Crown of the Continent without mining.
When I asked them if any of them had been in the transboundary Flathead,
only one staff person answered, yes.
I tried to convince them as I did with the political leaders from
Alberta in May at the Montana-Alberta Advisory Council meeting that we
need to become more visionary with the protection of the Crown of the
Continent-like George Byrd Grinnell did with the creation of Glacier.
The Crown of the Continent is a very special place and is
ecologically significant for many reasons. Let me identify a few of
them.
Much of the area is pristine, never been disturbed by man. Over 3.2
million acres are protected as wilderness, wildlife refuges and Glacier
and Waterton Lakes National Park. However, 95% of the protection is in
Montana, 4% in Alberta and 1% is in B.C.
This region is where four ecosystems converge in one place. The wet
cedar/hemlock rain forest pushes from the west against the dry plains
along the Rocky Mountain Front. The region is also the northern edge of
the Southern ecosystem where Bobcats are found and southern extend of
the Northern eco-region where you can find lynx.
For the above reasons there are more carnivores species found here than
any other region in North America. This area also contains the highest
density of Grizzly bears found anywhere outside of the Pacific coastal
regions in B.C. and Alaska and the region is known for its high
diversity of flora and fauna species.
This is the true headwater of our continent where waters flow into three
oceans; Pacific, Atlantic and Artic Oceans. Triple Divide Peak is
located in Glacier National Park.
This area also has the highest level of federal protected found anywhere
in North America.
It encompasses two national Parks (Glacier National Park in the U.S. and
Waterton Lakes NP in Canada) and five large wilderness areas.
First international Peace Park ever created by any two countries. In
1933, the Rotarians in Alberta and Montana were instrumental in creating
this first ever International Peace Park to commemorate the good will
and cooperation between our two countries.
Designated both as A World Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve.
The three forks of the Flathead are designated as Wild and Scenic Rivers
Six species are listed as endangered under U.S. federal law.
If we can protect the health and ecological integrity of the Crown of
the Continent, what a wonderful legacy we would be leaving our children.
Again, there is a need to create a compatible Vision for the Flathead
valley. It seems to me that many of the developers do not have a vision
for the future of the valley. And I do not believe what is happening is
in the best interest of the valley or its residents. The citizens of
the Flathead need to take back the power and create this vision.
Presently, a very small vocal minority controls decisions in the
Flathead. I was disappointed to see the full-page add in the Daily
Interlake in June the day before the primary elections in Kalispell.
The distortions of the truth about an old college friend of mine, who
ran for the State senate recently from Bigfork, was completely uncalled
for.
Civil discourse is absolutely critical for our form of democracy to
work. But it should be based on truths. I am very concerned by the
blatant untruths and spin doctoring we hear today and that much of it is
accept as the truth. How can people make the right decisions when the
information is faulty?
The Vision for the future of the Flathead valley is not solidified:
someone needs to create this Vision and then a road map to achieve the
vision. The Federal and State Government cannot do it and should not do
it. It must come from its citizens.
So where do you start? Start with the values that the Flathead citizens
desire most to protect; Is it clean water, clean air; safe and livable
community, good schools, and stable economy?
Who should take the lead? It should be a coalition of the Lakers, the
Flathead legislative delegation, Flathead Basin Commission, respected
leaders and others local groups.
You must become the leaders of the basin. The Basin needs more people
like Paul Williams and groups like the Lakers. If you don't take charge,
you could loose your sense of community. You need to frame the
foundation for the Flathead valley and its communities. You must ensure
that the Flathead valley has livable communities, clean and healthy
communities and economically stable communities.
In closing, I believe the words of A.B. Guthrie are still appropriate
when he stated in his 1959 letter to Joe Howard about Howards's book
entitled "Montana High, Wide and Handsome." He stated, "What Howard
really has done is to encourage the spirit of Montanans to lessen the
suspicion of novelty, to promote a disposition to examine what has been
sanctified. It is hardly too much to say that a public conscience has
grown and is still growing out of it. Subjects are opener, individuals
bolder, and the mental climate more bracing. In addition to all this,
there is a fresh interest in antecedents, a fresh appreciation of the
environment, a fresh concern with the future." I would suggest that
this statement is still alive and well today. It is up to the basin
residents to renew a fresh concern with the future and then create a
clear vision for the Flathead valley.
Thank you.
|