The Real Impact of Montana Coal

It’s mid-December here in Button Valley. We barely have a skiff of snow on the ground and temperatures are in the thirties. Did I mention it’s mid-December? While we are doing okay on precipitation, mainly due to a quite wet spring, we have received only about a third of our normal snowfall. There’s a reason for this, and a reason for why it seems to have become the new normal. That reason is related to changes to the Montana climate due to our unfortunate national addiction to fossil fuels.

This morning there was a news report about a U.M. study, funded by the Chamber of Commerce, on the economic impact of coal mining in the state. The study relates that “expanding the state’s coal mines would significantly impact Montana’s economy.”

Patrick Barkey, director of the UM Bureau of Business and Economic Research, said expanding Montana’s existing coal mines and developing new mines would boost jobs, household income and tax revenues across the state.

Now, I realize that these studies are funded by profit from coal mining in the state and the authors are somewhat anxious to produce a product that fits with what their backers want to hear, but it seems to me that they also claim to be economists and academicians and I am always a bit mystified when they fail to investigate the true cost of mining, transporting and burning carbon in their analyses.

It was only earlier this week when thousands of protesters, including many from Montana, traveled to western Washington to protest the building of five new coal terminals on our coast to ship western coal to Asia. These protests were ostensibly about the economic, health and social costs of transporting millions of tons of coal across the country, but of course protesters also were there to remind everyone that there are costs to sending our resources overseas that can’t be counted in jobs, income and tax revenue. There are currently 16 to 23 trains passing through the city of Billings every day. The new coal terminals would increase that number considerably, possibly by eight to ten more trains. The coal trains will add “snarled traffic, emergency response delays, toxic diesel and coal dust emissions, the risks of coal train derailment and toxic spills” all along their route to the coast.

Once the coal arrives at it’s final destination, most likely China, it will be burned in out-of-date, highly-polluting power plants in order to produce cheap products that will be shipped back to the U.S. To get those cheap doodads Montanans will suffer increased incidence of asthma in children and adults, and increase in emphysema and bronchitis, stunted lung development is children, an increase in poisonous mercury in the air we breath, more lung cancer, more heart attacks, more emergency room visits, more strokes as well as an increase in mental retardation and stunted development in our children.

Need we get into the environmental effects? We are already familiar with those here in Button Valley. We now get more of our precipitation as rain, less snow in the winter and lower summer and fall streamflows which means that we see earlier and faster runoff and trouble filling our reservoirs. Our spring freshet now comes, on average, two weeks earlier, our forests are dying due to both insect infestation that is no longer controlled by cold winters and more and larger wildfires. The country at large is seeing more and  larger storms. We see increases in hunger, malnutrition, starvation and famine around the world due to droughts, storms and flooding.

So, like I say, I’m a bit baffled when trained economists see only benefits to strip-mining our coal and fail to even mention the real costs to the people of Montana. Our Coal-Cowboy Governor has said that if we don’t strip and sell Montana coal, China will get it elsewhere.

China will find coal even if the United States won’t deliver it, said Herb Krohn from the United Transportation Union. “All we would do is force (China) to buy dirtier, more-polluting coal,”

These arguments, to me, seem akin to stating that the State of Montana should be selling meth, because if we don’t do it, addicts will just buy it elsewhere. Yes, there are short-term benefits to mining Montana coal, but when you include the longer-term and hidden cost of the toxic assault on our population just burning our rocks for profit doesn’t look nearly so smart. Think about it folks, while we may reap a small profit, our children will pay the ultimate price.

You Decide

The following news/opinion stories all showed up in my RSS reader this morning. Taken together I think they recognize a conundrum being played out in energy-producing states around the country. The first is an opinion piece by a policy analyst for a conservative think tank in Ohio, but similar opinions are showing up in newsprint and electronic media in most western and mid-western states.

Without coal, we lose
“When energy companies doing business in Ohio make profits, nearly everyone wins, and Ohio’s economy grows, which results in job creation and additional tax dollars for all levels of government.”

With Carbon Dioxide Emissions at Record High, Worries on How to Slow Warming
“Emissions continue to grow so rapidly that an international goal of limiting the ultimate warming of the planet to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, established three years ago, is on the verge of becoming unattainable, said researchers affiliated with the Global Carbon Project.”

Long-Term Research Reveals How Climate Change Is Playing out in Real Ecosystems
“Around the world, the effects of global climate change are increasingly evident and difficult to ignore.”

Off The Cliff And Into Deep Water? Cutting Clean Air And Clean Water Programs Could Incur Heavy Costs
“The health cost of power plant pollution is an estimated $100 billion each year, nationwide, when people get sick or die from breathing dirty air. When polluted water makes swimmers sick, the additional public health costs in just two southern California counties has been estimated at $21 to $51 million each year.”

Wyoming – A look into the effects of energy development on fish
“Most anglers are pretty even-keeled and realize the need for alternative energy development. I think most would agree, however, that if that development comes at the cost of our fisheries it’s not worth it. There are ways to mitigate the impact of energy development on our rivers; and studies like Carlin’s are helping to show how best to preserve fisheries while allowing energy development.”

This is but one day in an on-going argument that is playing out across the country. What does this mean for the Treasure State? Yes, Montana will continue to develop our natural resources. Our economy was built on the resource extraction, but we all need to remember that these resources are finite need to be developed for the benefit of all of the people in Montana and all of the people in our country. The need for alternative, less polluting, energy development must be given equal weight alongside the development of existing natural resources. Mining coal, or drilling for natural gas has consequences that can far outweigh their short-term effects on local economies. As we move forward, we need to keep in mind that we have no choice but to wean ourselves from technologies that kill our people and our environment. We will continue to mine our coal resources and remove our oil and gas from the earth for the near future, but as we do that we need to take into account all of the consequences, not just the monetary rewards or the short-term profit motive.

Please help with this important work

The good folks over at Conservation Hawks are up against a deadline. They need to raise $2,000 this week to match a grant from the Cinnabar Foundation to produce a couple of climate change videos for anglers and hunters. Check out their plea below and please help out if you are able.

Friends,

We need your help.  As Conservation Hawks supporters, you understand how important it is to educate other sportsmen about climate change, and how vital it is to create a groundswell of public support for strong climate & energy legislation.  It’s the only way we’re going to save our hunting and fishing for future generations, and it’s the best chance we have for passing on a healthy natural world to our kids & grandkids.
Unfortunately, we’re up against the wall.  We have to raise enough money to produce two educational climate videos, one for hunters and one for anglers, and we have to raise those funds this week.  Please visit the Conservation Hawks website and donate as much as you can afford to give, whether that’s $5, $25 or $250.  We’re all in this together and with your help, we can offer future generations of sportsmen a fighting chance.  Our world may be warming, but hard work and dedication can help change our political climate, slow our fossil fuel emissions and defend our sporting heritage.

Please visit the Conservation Hawks website and make your tax-deductible donation.
Todd Tanner
Chairman, Conservation Hawks

Denny believes in fairy tales

Dennis Rehberg believes that, “Clean coal is a perfect example of how Montana can lead the way into energy independence.” The only problem is that “clean coal” doesn’t exist and never will. Coal is the dirtiest form of energy on the planet. In a recent peer-reviewed study by Duke University, the researchers found that we have done a fairly good job of regulating coal-fired power plants to keep their pollutants out of the air. The problem is, those pollutants don’t just go away. They end up in the solid or slurry coal ash, produced and stored by the plants. Communities near coal mines and coal-burning power plants see much higher levels of pollution-caused health problems.

“Among the problems identified in children and infants in these communities are impaired growth and neurological development, high blood levels of heavy metals, higher prevalences of any birth defects and a greater chance of being of low birth weight, which is a risk factor for future obesity, diabetes and heart disease,”

The worst example in Montana, and in the interior west, is the coal-fired plant at Colstrip, Montana. In 2011, the EPA ranked the Colstrip plant as the worst mercury polluter in the nation. In 2009, Colstrip emitted 1,490 pounds of toxic mercury into the atmosphere out of total emissions of 1,726 pounds statewide. A 2004 study estimated that the Colstrip steam-generating plant is annually responsible for;

• 31 early deaths.
• 48 added heart attacks.
• 530 asthma attacks.
• 22 hospital admissions.
• 19 cases of chronic bronchitis.

Coal ash is stored in antiquated slurry ponds at the plant which have been leaking toxins into the ground water around Colstrip for decades. 57 Colstrip residents filed suit against PPL due to a plume of toxic chemicals that polluted their drinking-water sources and made folks mysteriously sick for years. The suit resulted in a $25 million settlement in 2008. In another part of the suit that was recently in the news, a 2010 settlement is being challenged in the Montana Supreme Court for pollution of groundwater on two local ranches. Extraction wells have been installed around the leaking ponds and the groundwater is captured and the contaminated water is evaporated off to form a thick paste. The paste is then put back in the same leaky ponds, but is considered less likely to seep out.

So, while Congressman Rehberg continues to believe that we will be able to “Advance our technology so we are able to produce more with less in a manner that doesn’t negatively impact our environment.” He’s just wrong. That toxic waste won’t magically go away,

…the contaminants don’t just disappear. They remain, trapped but largely untreated, in concentrated solid form as coal ash or in liquid form as scrubber wastewater and ash-transport slurries. And they’re accumulating in the lakes and rivers into which the plants directly discharge these wastes.

It’s not helpful when our elected congressman votes

• to bar EPA from enforcing greenhouse gas regulations.
• to not enforce limits on CO2 emissions.
• against tax credits for renewable sources of energy.
• against tax incentives for energy conservation.
• against raising CAFE standards and incentives for alternate fuels.
• to open more of our public lands to drilling for oil.

Coal is not clean and cannot be made clean. Coal will continue to kill people around the globe and change our environment until we make a serious commitment to changing the way we make our energy. We will continue to use coal for many decades, but we must do so responsibly and in recognition of the hazards that burning carbon inflicts on everybody. Rehberg talks a good game, but magical thinking and “clean coal” won’t get us out of this mess.

 

Are you scared yet?

If I were to take a poll and ask which Montana politician is most like our scary, black, socialist, Muslim President, which names would spring to mind? Well, if you are the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee, evidently you would instantly jump to a young, female, white, Montana native, mother of four, candidate for HD8 who has never held public office.

At least that’s the feeling I got from a recent campaign mailer calling Obama and MacLean “Two Peas in a Pod.” and repeatedly using the hated “Liberal” epithet. Two weeks before the election and the Republican Party feels the need to use racially-tinged, false rhetoric against a candidate who really doesn’t have much chance of winning. Why does the Republican Party feel the need to try to frighten voters and  tie our local politics to the President? Because it works. People who are scared tend to vote Republican and what better way to alarm voters than to claim a voting record that doesn’t exist and ties to that “black guy” from Chicago.

For me it’s a very simple choice. Her opponent, Steve Lavin voted with his Republican colleagues for House Bill 309 in the last legislative session. The failed HB309 would have decimated your fishing access to Montana streams and turned over thousands of miles of our streams to private control. It would declare many of your favorite fishing stretches private land with no public access and Steve Lavin thinks that’s a great idea.

MacLean has a very simple stance as outlined on her website;

I will stand up for Montanan’s constitutional right to access rivers, streams and public lands. I will also advocate for policies that keep our water clean, our open spaces protected, and our habitats improved for hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation.

MacLean is also not willing to jump on the conservative bandwagon to gut our management of fish and wildlife and turn it over to private interests;

I believe the legislature needs to support the important work of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks wildlife management activity. This department is made up of experienced professionals whose work and expertise should be counted on for the development of effective wildlife management policies.

You decide, will you be voting against the scary black guy in a race that has zero national significance, or will you be voting to actually improve the Treasure State and deny scare tactics?

Failed

 

The Sierra Club has released its Clean Water Report Card for the 112th Congress.

112^th Congress we have seen an unprecedented attack from U.S. House of Representatives Leadership on clean water. The House has voted for endangering the drinking water sources of 117 million Americans, allowing the direct discharge of pesticides into our waterways without permits and stopping strong safeguards on coal ash and mountaintop removal pollution — just to name a few.

Guess how our representative was graded? As if you didn’t know. In 14 of 14 votes rated, Denny received an unqualified “F”. Rehberg voted to:

• Stop federal protections for the American public from the environmental destruction and pollution of mountaintop removal mining, forcing communities across Appalachia to face severe environmental and health harms as a result of this devastating coal mining practice.
• Prevent the EPA from using the Clean Water Act to stop coal waste dumping that will cause unacceptable environmental harm.
• Prevent the EPA from protecting our waterways from toxic pesticide pollution by exempting pesticides applications from Clean Water Act permitting.
• Bar the use of funds made available to implement, administer or enforce a rule regarding water quality standards for lakes and flowing waters in Florida published by the EPA.

And on and on…. Rehberg got an over-all score of “0” on protecting our clean water, or a grade of “F“. You can see the individual vote tally here.

Montana suggests pipelines should be safe

Following the spill of more than 1,500 barrels of crude oil into the Yellowstone River from the rupture of the Exxon-Mobile Silvertip pipeline, Governor Schweitzer created the Montana Oil Pipeline Safety Review Council. Of the more than 1,500 barrels spilled, Exxon-Mobile reported that they cleaned up about 10 barrels or significantly less than 1% at a cost of $135 million. They also paid a fine to Montana of $1.6 million, which included $300,000 in cash and a promise of $1.3 million to be spent on “future environmental projects”.  The charge to the Council from the Governor was to,

advise the Governor on the status of all existing oil pipelines running underneath Montana’s rivers and stream beds. The Council will review all documentation necessary to analyze and critique the safety of each pipeline and the standards required at the time of the installation of each pipeline. The Council will assess the risk of ruptures and leaks in all sections of pipeline that cross rivers and streams.

In it’s report to the Governor, the Council relied on work done by the Federal Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA). Unfortunately, as the Council noted in it’s report,

The problem is that PHMSA is a relatively small, certainly understaffed federal agency. PHMSA devoted a lot of resources to Montana following the break of the Silvertip Pipeline in the Yellowstone River in July 2011. It inspected about 100 river crossings of 100 feet or more and some of the nearby smaller crossings. It discovered several “at risk” areas, and is overseeing the companies’ efforts to correct the problem crossings. Still, PHMSA could only inspect the major river crossings in Montana, and smaller creek crossings that are narrow or have intermittent flows, were not addressed.

Click for bigger

As noted on this graphic, the agencies identified 7,842 stream crossings of pipelines 8-inches to 42-inches in diameter in the state. In all, the Council identified more than 9,000 pipeline stream crossings in Montana. They cited 88 crossings of 21 navigable waters in the state such as the Yellowstone River. In all, PHMSA inspected only “about 100 river crossings” of 100 feet in width or greater.

In their report to the Governor, the Council pretty much followed the recommendations of the Montana Petroleum Association.

RECOMMENDATION: Support adequate funding for PHMSA and the PSC for their work to oversee pipeline safety.

RECOMMENDATION: Support all reasonable efforts to require pipeline companies to have state of the art leak detection systems in place.

RECOMMENDATION: Support all reasonable efforts to require emergency plans that allow the fastest possible valve shut off for stopping the flow of pipeline contents in case of a rupture.

RECOMMENDATION: Support local government and PSC efforts to obtain and operate notification systems for citizens to be informed as soon as possible when ruptures occur.

The Montana Petroleum Association believes that the PHMSA is “well positioned to regulate the pipeline industry”, just as they did before and after the Yellowstone spill regardless of being “a relatively small, certainly understaffed federal agency”.  As for public notification in the case of a spill, which was one of the major complaints during the Yellowstone spill, “MPA would support such notification only when necessary to protect the public’s safety and through the existing emergency alert system”.

Exposed pipeline reported by college student in Lewis & Clark County

Recommendations include a lot of “support”, such as, “Support all reasonable efforts”, but not a lot of action. As to how this aligns with the charge of the Council to “prevent future failures that could damage Montana’s pristine rivers and streams”, I’m not sure when we  looked at only about 1% of existing river crossings, and found “several at risk areas” and now work began this week on the new Keystone XL pipeline which will add several more critical river crossings in Montana and carry a much more hazardous cargo of toxic tar sands oil. It appears to me that Montana will continue to rely on insubstantial spill response rather than on spill prevention.

Hexa Eye in the sky

First of all, this is very cool technology. Following a couple of high profile helicopter crashes that killed Idaho Fish & Game employes, Idaho Power Company, who funds salmon redd counts in the Snake River basin, began experimenting with small, unmanned, remotely controlled copters to do counts of redds to eliminate putting people in danger.  Experimental flights proved highly successful and the drones are relatively inexpensive, but come to find out, the FAA requires that IPC obtain costly special certification to fly the small drones. Idaho Power says that tests will continue, but they are unsure at this point about how they will proceed. All the technical details aside, these are extremely cool vehicles. Lots of video footage shot from these small copters has already shown up on YouTube demonstrating the quality of available video. Of course, the videos also could be interpreted by some to demonstrate the use of such vehicles in unmanned surveillance of our crackpot multitudes. And therein lies the rub.

When the term “unmanned drones” pops up in the press, you have to wonder what the reaction will be from the less hinged among us who seem to  flock to our little part of God’s country. The scenario that keeps jumping into my head is the first hexacopter redd count flights over the Kootenai River basin near Bonner County Idaho, paranoid capitol of the Northwest. As you can clearly see, although small, the copter is plainly black. And of course we all know the perceived peril presented by black helicopters. I can already hear the stories about heavily armed U.N. midget troops swooping down out of their contrail camouflage in massive numbers near Bonners Ferry or Sandpoint to reclaim all personal private property in the name of  the Muslim-Socialist Obama Administration under the authority of Agenda 21. Not only that, the copter has six, or eight rotors. That’s at least three times as evil as the standard black helicopter.

Wolfing the numbers

I don’t pretend to be a wolf expert. I follow the news stories, but not a lot of the science, but when I see an expensive, glossy advertisement by a so-called conservation group that publishes bold numbers in a 2-inch font, it makes me more than a bit curious. That’s what I saw in the Kalispell Daily Inter Lake this morning from a group called Big Game Forever. The group is an offshoot of another pseudo-conservation organization called Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife that we’ve talked about before. Their goal is to wipe out every predator known to man and turn over our publicly-held fish and wildlife to private interests, at a healthy profit. Their founder has been quoted as saying that “it’s time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource”.

Anyway, they went to the trouble to list sources for the information printed in the ad so, I thought it might be worthwhile to look at a few of their sources. One claim was that there were 8,100 cattle killed by wolves in the U.S. during 2010. Their source is a USDA report. Looking at the report, it appears that the 8,100 number is correct although a bit of background is enlightening.

Cattle and calf losses from predators and non-predators in the United States totaled 3.99 million head during 2010. This represents 4.3 percent of the 93.9 million cattle and calves in the United States at the beginning of 2010.

That makes the 8,100 killed by wolves come in at less than 0.01 percent of total losses nationwide. But, let’s look at Montana losses. In 2010, we lost 23,000 cows and 57,000 calves to various causes, 1,000 cows and 4,200 calves were lost to predators. Of the predator loss, 44% of cows lost were attributed to wolves (440 head). Of the 4,200 calves lost to predators, 20.3% were taken by wolves (853 calves). So, the total loss to wolves was 1,293 cattle. Again, that’s wolf loss from a total of 80,000 due to all causes, or just less than 2% in Montana.

One other statistic that I thought was interesting were the elk harvest numbers. The ad stated that 28,000 elk were harvested in 1994 versus 15,813 in 2009. While not specifically stated and even though the ad makes it appear that these are Montana numbers, they are actually from Idaho. I guess it’s just happenstance that they picked 1994, which was the highest elk harvest in the history of Idaho record keeping. Had they picked another year, say 1984 (15,600), 1974 (8,712), or even 1964 (13,653) the comparison would not look nearly so striking ( I guess I just answered why they picked 1994). Those years were certainly not affected by wolf predation. In fact, the sixty year average between 1950 and 2009 was only 15,375, making the 2009 numbers look extraordinarily like an average elk harvest.

 

Be Afraid! Because we told you to.

FWP and the International Wolf Center put the number of wolves in Montana in 2010 at a minimum of 566. I’ve seen numbers of over 600 wolves currently. Even so, the loss due to wolves in 2010 of 1,293 cows and calves works out to just slightly over 2 animals taken for each wolf.

I in no way mean to belittle the cost to our livestock producers due to predation, but there are more than twice as many calves lost to coyotes each year than to wolves. I never see opinion pieces or news articles decrying coyote predation and I saw an article this morning about the hunt for a sow grizzly that has killed 70 sheep near Conrad over the last two weeks. So yes, predators kill livestock and it is a significant burden on producers. But, predators are a part of Montana, always have been and hopefully, always will be. My point is not that nothing should be done about wolves. My point is that when you see large, bold numbers jumping out at you from an advertisement, first consider the source, and then, if you can, track down the data used to create the glaring, bold numbers and see what it really says. These folks are pushing legislation to remove predators from ESA protections and hand over control of our wildlife to private parties along with a sizable chunk of your tax dollars. Don’t rely on someone promoting a specific agenda to tell you what to think.

Important Action Alert from Montana Trout Unlimited!!

TELL FWP YOU SUPPORT CONTINUED NETTING OF LAKE TROUT AT SWAN LAKE IN ORDER TO PROTECT BULL TROUT AND OTHER SPORTFISH!

Fish Wildlife and Parks has prepared an environmental analysis that recommends continuing a program to reduce non-native, predacious lake trout at Swan Lake in order to protect one of the nation’s most important bull trout populations as well as an important sport fishery for kokanee salmon.

TU members and other anglers from across Montana need to tell FWP they support netting efforts at Swan Lake because it has great promise for protecting bull trout in Swan Lake and the Swan River watershed. Success in this project will also provide valuable insight for similar efforts to reduce the harmful effects lake trout are having on native trout elsewhere, including in Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks.

Here’s what you can do:

Email Leo Rosenthal (Region 1 Fisheries Biologist) at lrosenthal@mt.gov TODAY, OR no later than June15, and simply tell him in your own words:

• You support continued suppression of lake trout in Swan Lake.
• You greatly appreciate the work done by FWP and its partners thus far and that too much good progress has been made to stop now.
• You support alternative B in the current Draft Environmental Assessment for the Extention of Lake Trout Removal in Swan Lake but that the recommended suppression efforts should cover a 10-year time period, subject to a review after five years.

If you have experience catching bull trout anywhere, especially in the Swan watershed, tell him.

Background

Non-native lake trout were first detected in Swan Lake in 1998. Since then, FWP has documented a significant reduction in bull trout spawning activity in the Swan watershed, indicating the decline in population of these native fish. Every water in the West where lake trout occur with native trout has resulted in serious declines in bull trout and cutthroat populations. In 2004 a collaborative group that includes FWP and Montana TU formed to address the growing problem at Swan Lake.

In 2007-08, a rigorous population survey was performed leading to a three-year experimental suppression effort from 2009-2012 that focused on gillnetting both juvenile and spawning lake trout. The results so far hold great promise. Between 5,000-10,000 lake trout were removed from Swan Lake annually – a level that scientists indicate if continued could result in significantly reduced predation on bull trout. At the same time, additional research continues on testing less costly alternative methods other than gillnetting.

Continued netting on Swan Lake will further reduce lake trout populations and allow researchers to measure how bull trout and kokanee respond. This is an extraordinarily critical effort that could benefit native trout in Northwest Montana as well as yield important information for similar projects throughout the West.

The full Environmental Assessment can be viewed here.

Don’t delay, contact Region 1 TODAY!

Again contact Leo Rosenthal at lrosenthal@mt.gov and tell him you support continuing experimental netting of lake trout at Swan Lake.

If you prefer snail mail, write:

Leo Rosenthal, Fisheries Biologist

FWP, Region 1

490 North Meridian Road

Kalispell, MT 59901

Or call:

406-751-4548

Thank you for taking the time to provide important comments to FWP

Montana Trout Unlimited
phone: 406-543-0054