Bull River
CRG is keenly aware of the importance of the Bull River as part of CRG’s area of interest. Many groups work assiduously and in a positive manner to protect and improve the Bull River valley ecosystem. They seek to provide habitat protection and recreational opportunities. Some of them work with landowners to protect the land, water and wildlife in the Bull River area.

Among these groups are Avista, Clark Fork – Pend Oreille Conservancy, The Conservation Fund, Green Mountain Conservation District, and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. CRG has representation on several of these organizations and CRG is supportive of their efforts in the geographical area with which CRG is involved.

Two major projects already achieved are Wood Duck 1 and Wood Duck 2. These encompass 153 acres of permanent conservation easement. It protects bull trout, west slope cutthroat trout, elk, moose, bears, waterfowl, and many other species. The lead organization in this was The Conservation Fund.

Green Mountain Conservation District’s review of all applications – Form 310 – relating to stream management in much of CRG’s geographical areas of concern is a vital role in maintaining the quality of streams.

 

Community Awareness Network
CRG is supportive of the ongoing efforts of Community Awareness Network – CAN - which opposes the creation of a coal fired power plant in very close proximity to numerous natural features and residents' homes in Thompson Falls. The facility would be injurious to the health and well being of residents, to fish and wildlife, and to air quality. CRG, from its own experience, realizes the formidable task CAN faces in trying to encourage the Montana Department of Environmental Quality to stand up for clean air and water for residents and wildlife. Contact CAN for more information by email CommunityAwarenessNetwork@gmail.com, by phone (406) 827-3062, or by mail P.O. 517, Thompson Falls, MT 59873.

BACK TO TOP

CLIMBING WALL IN TROY
The Kootenai Rocks is a loosely organized group in the Troy-Libby area of Montana. It has been raising funds to construct a climbing wall in the new Troy Gym.

While officially not open yet due to ongoing construction, there have been several open house events at the gym which the public could attend and also try out the wall. Thus far it has been immensely popular. The Kootenai Rocks are working on a summer schedule for membership use and also for the general public use. CRG was a contributor to the wall which closely relates to the varied outdoor activities the CRG encourages in its geographical area of concern.

HIGHWAY 200: SLIPPING AWAY
In the summer of 2006 the Montana Department of Transportation [DOT] drilled near mile marker 16 on Montana Highway 200, just a short distance east of the Noxon, Montana, turnoff.

This site was once pictured in an article in the Sanders County Ledger depicting how it had more than 16 feet of former road surface piled up alongside the slope, one layer on top of another.   Being in the vicinity of the proposed Rock Creek Mine, it piqued the curiosity of Cesar Hernandez who stopped one day and climbed down to look. 
 

He discovered that much collapsed pavement or more and also a broken drainage culvert at the bottom which was discharging water.  Serendipitously it was learned from a former worker on this part of the highway that this was where truckloads of rocks and boulders were poured in the spot and they just sunk from view.
 

Further investigation disclosed this was the site of a geologic strike-slip fault and several springs.  The latter compounded the problem.  The matter was brought to the attention of the Montana Department of Transportation.  That brought about the drilling which sought to determine the depth of the fault, its composition and structure and the most cost-effective way to stabilize the area.

 

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality [DEQ], the state agency handling the studies and granting some permits for the mine, never investigated this problem nor did it notify the DOT of the possible effects the mine could have on repair of the road.

 

The initial drilling disclosed a quarter mile segment of Highway 200 which could fail and slide into the Clark Fork River [Brian Collins, MDOT Project Engineer].   This could be catastrophic for residents of the area, those traveling Highway 200 at the time, transportation in the Clark Fork valley in Sanders County and repair of the road.

 

The project resulted in offering two solutions.  One was to remove water pressure from the area.  The other was to build extensive bulkheads along the river corridor to contain the slide area. The second solution would be extremely costly.  Unfortunately the DOT was not cognizant that the first solution would be severely compromised by the proposed Rock Creek Mine.  The DOT had not been informed of these complications by the mine owners, the US Forest Service or by the Montana DEQ.  The Cabinet Resource Group had included concerns about this area in its comments (1998-2000) on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the agencies conducted for the proposed copper-silver mine.
 

Rock Creek Mine was going to release 168 gallons of water per minute during its mining exploration drilling.  The mine was ¾ of a mile away and the drainage pattern would bring it to the endangered highway area.  Neither was the DOT informed nor aware that the mine would create a tailings impoundment with an additional pressure of one hundred million tons. Further complicating the situation was the fact that the mine, should it begin to operate, would release 3 million gallons per day into the drainage area.

 

Hasty consultation between DOT and DEQ began only after Cabinet Resource Group brought the issue to light.  They shunted the problem aside by recommending that several wells be drilled to determine groundwater pressure between the mine and the endangered highway area. If the dangerous groundwater pressure is discovered, the mine could be closed.  But if the dangerous groundwater pressure is discovered, it is not possible to turn off a tap to halt that unrelenting flow of water already in the ground as it continues toward the dangerous fault. 

BACK TO TOP
 

PROPOSED MONTANORE MINE RAISES GRAVE CONCERNS
About eighteen miles south of Libby, Montana, another underground mine is proposed which, like the Rock Creek Mine, would extend under the Cabinet Mountain Wilderness. The mine, Montanore, would mine copper/silver ore. The entrance would be in the Kootenai National Forest, but the ore would be mined beneath the Wilderness.

Montanore would discharge untreated wastewater, divert a perennial steam and enclose a mass of tailings behind a huge dam. Buildings would be built in the Kootenai National Forest for milling the ore along with various other types of structures.

The planned mine involves many problems relating to wildlife, clean air, clean water, and other environmental concerns. Among these are………

v Impact on three threatened species – grizzly bears, lynx, and bull trout.

v Lessening the water available to 3 lakes and one river.

v After closing of the mine, untreated from the mining cavity would flow, untreated, into the East Fork of the Bull River.

v A 310 foot dam would contain 120 million tons of mine tailings. [approx. 647 surface acres]

v Approximately 1.34 million gallons of water per day from the impoundment tailings would be sprinkled on some 400 acres of land surface with all the foreign substances it contains and allowed to percolate through the ground into the water table. This amount per day would decrease 10 years after the mine ceases operations.

v A stream providing habitat for inland redband trout, a forest sensitive species and species of special concern will be permanently diverted.

v Habitat for moose, lynx, grizzly bear, bull trout, westslope cutthroat, inland redband trout, wolverine and mountain goat will be adversely affected.

v The proximity to the Cabinet Mountain Wilderness raises concerns regarding, air quality, noise and visual impact on the Wilderness area.

 

BACK TO TOP
 

Public Supports Grizzly Bears

A recent survey of attitudes toward grizzly bears in Sanders and Lincoln Counties in Montana [Cabinet-Yaak area] discloses that the majority of residents support grizzly bear recovery in the Cabinet-Yaak area.

The survey was lead by Kim Annis, Master of Science, Wildlife Biologist, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Sarah Canepa, Masters degree in Science, Lands Specialist with Vital Ground Foundation, and Wayne Kasworm, Grizzly Research Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The survey began in 2006 and the study was published in 2007.

The survey was developed cooperatively by the Yaak Valley Forest Council, state and federal agencies, non-profit groups and members of the public. All were concerned with grizzly bear recovery in the Cabinet-Yaak area.

The methodology employed met standard requirements for a valid survey. Participants were randomly selected by telephone number from residents of Heron, Noxon, Thompson Falls, Trout Creek, Troy and Yaak. Of those telephoned 85% [502] agreed to participate.

Some of the major results were:

v 90% believe people can prevent most people-grizzly bear conflicts.

v 70% believe grizzly bears belong in the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem and should he preserved for future generations.

v 62% are willing to accept changes to garbage disposal methods if it will help prevent problems with grizzly bears.

v 57% support efforts for grizzly bear recovery in the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem.

v  The above 57% soared to a75% if it can be done without moving problem grizzly bears into the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem from outside that area.

v The above 57% declined to 44% when queried about the recovery plan goal of 100 grizzly bears in the ecosystem. [see U.S. Fish and Wildlife Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, 1993]

v 32% are not aware that the motorized access restrictions on certain U.S. National Forest lands are due, in part, to grizzly bear management.

A summary of the results in more detail and a copy of the report, can be downloaded free from the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) website.

BACK TO TOP

 

AMERICANS WANT CLEAN AIR, CLEAN WATER, WILDERNESS AND MORE ROADLESS AREAS
For years the majority of Americans have spoken out for clean air, clean, water, more wilderness areas, and more roadless areas. These results have shown up repeatedly in scientific surveys, polls, and studies with a high percent of validity.

In 1983, Jack Utter, University of Montana, polled 400 Montana citizens regarding wilderness. Montanans
Strongly approved of the idea of wilderness. They strongly opposed the use of natural resources located in wilderness areas. Certain resources, under special circumstances, lowered the percentages.

Eight years later, Gundars and Johansen, University of Idaho, polled 2670 U. S. residents of wilderness counties. 81% felt wilderness areas were important to their counties. 65% were against mineral or energy development in wilderness areas. 53% stated that the presence of wilderness was an important why they live in the area or moved to the area.

In 1998, a study by Cordell, Tarrant, McDonald and Bergstrom, 56% of those polled felt we did not have enough protected wilderness and about 29% thought the amount was just about right. 53.7 of those polled in western states felt there was not enough. Only 2.5% thought there was too much. Those favoring more wilderness valued the protection of water quality, wildlife habitat, air quality, passing such lands to future generations and protection of endangered species among other things.

From 1999 through 2001 the U S Forest Service held three comment periods for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Over 2.2 millions comments were received in support of the rule which is so vital to creation of wilderness areas. The most recent of the comment periods resulted in 13,891 comments from Montana residents in support of the rule. The support in Montana exceeded that of 24 other states.

A national survey in 2002 by Republican pollster Linda DiVall indicated that 76% of Americans supported President Clinton’s policy of permanently protecting roadless areas from development. It also revealed that 62% of Republicans thought likewise. 78% of the independents agreed. In this poll, a solid majority in each geographic region of the U.S. felt the nation did not have enough permanently protected land in the national forests.

A national poll by the Los Angeles Times, in 2001, disclosed that 9 out of 10 said it was personally important to them that wilderness and open spaces be preserved. 40% of those polled said they were environmentally active. With the exception of Alaska, the majority said they didn’t want the search of new sources of energy to impact the environment.

The following year, 2003, a poll conducted by Zogby International showed that the majority of Americans want more wilderness. Strong support was shown for wilderness and it crossed political party lines, regions of the U.S., age groups, religious and ethnic backgrounds. 71% of those polled indicated that 10 percent or more of all lands in the United States should be protected as wilderness. When told that 4.7 percent was permanently protected, close to two-thirds believed that “not enough.” 51% of the Republicans said it was “not enough.” 72% of the Democrats polled and 70% of the Independent concurred with the majority of Republicans. The margin of error for this study was +/- 3.2 percent

In 2004, the U.S. Forest Service released results of 600 public meetings and hearings held in all national forests. With 1.7 million comments being received, more than 95% supported the strongest possible protection for the nation’s remaining roadless areas

Two years later, hundreds of Montana businesses voiced strong support for backcountry in the national forests. In March they urged Gov. Schweitzer to keep the backcountry natural and free of roads. Over 350 businesses were involved.

In 2007, a survey was made in Colorado – a state much like Montana, but with more people – of residents of that state. 71% of those polled agreed that quality wilderness is more important for recreation, tourism and wildlife than for energy development and motorized recreation. That level of support was consistent in all areas of the state, including very rural counties with much federal land. The support never dipped below 59% in any area. Pro-wilderness support was strong in both political parties, 85% for democrats, 76% for Independents, and 52% for Republicans. Only 37% felt that wilderness unfairly restricts off-road vehicle users and mountain bikers.

Montana’s Attorney General filed an amicus brief in favor of the roadless rule in 2008 in a case brought by other states. This was done primarily because of the widespread support for the rule among Montanans.
The Governor cited many reasons why the roadless rule was important. Several counties in Montana had also expressed – in writing – support for protection of the rule. Included in these were several with substantial roadless areas.
 

BACK TO TOP
 

Citizens for Responsible Development.                     

In 2006, a group of concerned residents of Heron, Montana founded CRD.  A plan for a gated development of 74 sites clustered in the vicinity of a lodge to be built aroused them to action.

 

CRD raised serious questions about several issues connected with the proposed development……

Ø  the density of the development

Ø  the effects on air quality

Ø  the effect on the inadequate Heron bridge

Ø  the adverse effect on poorly maintained and repaired county roads

Ø  the inability of local emergency services to handle such a subdivision

Ø  the deficiencies of the developer to properly meet the requirements of environmental assessment, water

    quality and availability, septic proposals and storm water drainage

 

In spite of these shortcomings the County Commissioners approved the development.

 

CRD went to court and lost all the way up to the Supreme Court of Montana.  Not opposing responsible development, but knowing that this development did not meet those criteria, the CRD appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.    In May, 2009, the Montana Supreme court decided the case in favor of CRD.

 

Some of the interesting comments of the Montana Supreme Court in this decision were:

 

            § 76-3-604(2), MCA, required the Board to make an initial or “baseline” determination

            about whether the application contained sufficient information for review of the subdivision

            and to notify the Developer of this determination. This necessarily includes a determination

            of whether the EA contained sufficient information as well, because the EA, when one is

            required, must be submitted with the application   [17]

 

            ¶19 CRD’s next contention is that the EA was inadequate because it did not contain

            the contents required by law, even if all of the information submitted by the Developer

            throughout the process is considered. We first note that CRD uses expansive language

            to describe what it believes an EA must contain, arguing that an EA must be “comprehensive”

            and offer a variety of proposed solutions for all impacts a proposed subdivision may create.

 

            Although portions of this later-submitted material are pertinent to the EA, they are not

            organized to satisfy EA requirements, but rather address other specific concerns….. Thus,

             information which could be relevant to the EA is buried in documents created primarily for

             other purposes.  [20]

 

            Subsection 603 also requires that an EA contain “a community impact report containing

             a statement of anticipated needs of the proposed subdivision for local services, including. . .

            . roads and maintenance . . . and fire and police protection….. However, while the EA and

             accompanying materials explain that the fire and police services are insufficient for the

             current needs of the community, there is no summary of the probable impacts that the

             proposed subdivision, which could potentially double the population of Heron, would

            have upon these already strained services. Would the anticipated growth in the number

             of local residents fostered by the new subdivision be served by existing services, or

            by an anticipated growth in local services, or would the subdivision exacerbate existing

             problems and further erode the ability to provide local services to all residents? The EA

            failed to provide “a summary of the probable impacts” upon these services.

            Section 76-3-603(1)(b), MCA.  [22]

 

            The Board violated the procedural requirements of 604 by failing to determine that the

             application and EA satisfied the initial, baseline requirements necessary for review of

             the application. The EA was inadequate because it did not summarize the impacts required

             by the statutes, and because much of the relevant information was not provided in

            a cohesive format. Some of the blame for the EA’s shortcomings can be traced to

             inconsistency between the local subdivision regulations and state statute,  [25]

 

 [nota bene: In using the term “Board”, the Supreme Court of Montana is speaking of the Sanders County Board of Commissioners]

 

BACK TO TOP

CRG CHALLENGED WITH $7500 MATCHING GRANT
Cabinet Resource Group has been presented with a unique opportunity to raise operating money.

The Cinnabar Foundation of Missoula – created by Len and Sandy Sargent - is offering us a matching grant of up to $7500. These funds will go a long way in helping CRG undertake its many activities to “protect our natural resources through education and action.”

This is a grant which has a time limit, so we would appreciate prompt assistance from those so inclined.

If you haven’t paid your dues for this year, send the check as soon as possible to CRG and be certain to mark it [bottom left] “2009 Cinnabar Match.”

The Cinnabar Foundation has been one of our most reliable supporters for many years. Now we need to step forward and show them that we are willing to take this extra step – raising $7500 – to obtain these additional monies.

If you read our detailed history in this website, you will see the many past and on-going actions we have taken to fulfill our mission statement in our area of geographical concern. Our efforts have been long and, sometimes, trying but you can see that we have frequently been successful in courts or with governmental agencies on many issues.

We do not wish to ask you too often for donations, but here the opportunity is golden. Each $1 you contribute means $2 for Cabinet Resource Group to work on your behalf.

Donations should be made payable to Cabinet Resource Group and should be marked “2009 Cinnabar Match”. Mail checks to Cabinet Resource Group, P.O. Box 238, Heron, MT 59844.

BACK TO TOP

Troy Impoundment Pond
In March, 1996, an Individual Activity Report was filed with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality [DEQ] wherein an 11-year former employee of the ASARCO Troy Mine made assertions of wrongdoing. One of the things it included was the assertion that barrels of chemical wastes were disposed of by burying them within the Troy Mine Impoundment Pond. The majority of his 11 years were spent working at the Impoundment Pond.

After 5 years with no response from DEQ, the gentleman called CRG and asked CRG to look into his complaint. CRG undertook a file search of DEQ and failed to find any response or follow-up.

In 2002, CRG filed a lawsuit against ASARCO Troy Mine alleging the burial of barrels of hazardous waste within the tailings  impoundment. ASARCO immediately denied the burial of any barrels of waste within the facility and maintained that position for a year and a half.

CRG hired a Missoula firm to undertake geophysical and ground penetrating radar explorations of the impoundment site as part of the legal discovery process. The following year ASARCO, subpoenaed for an interrogatory, admits burying barrels of waste, but denies contents are hazardous. The judge then awarded CRG $28,000 for costs of the study and sanctioned joint ASARCO/CRG excavation.

No tracking and/or disposal documents for hazardous waste were ever provided for those materials in discovery.

The firm hired to do the ground penetrating radar study, which found evidence of the barrels, prepared a plan for submittal the Montana DEQ for excavating the barrels to determine the contents

To this date – DEQ refuses to look into the disposal of said materials at the Troy Mine.

 

BACK TO TOP

 

CRG SCHOLARSHIPS

The winner of the $600 scholarship for 2010 is Mitch Carpenter of Plains High School.  The Scholarship Committee is headed by Kari Homik and has done another fine job this year.
 

News
In 2008-2009, the Kootenai National Forest and Montana DEQ began an Environmental Analysis of the Proposed Rock Creek Mine Adit.  Issues arose regarding the groundwater disposal method and the possibility of major failure of a section of Montana Highway 200 which is close to the mine site.  CRG contracted to obtain expert analysis of the possible danger.  Kootenai National Forest and Montana DEQ issued a Record of Decision approving the Exploration Admit methodology.

 

ANNUAL CRG MEETING – The Annual Meeting of CRG was held March 27^th at the Big Horn Lodge in Noxon, Montana.  Two new Board of Directors were elected and another was re-elected.  An excellent presentation on the effects of climate warming in Glacier Nation Park was given by Erich Peitzsch. Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Glacier National Park.  The dinner, meeting and presentation were followed by an auction to help raise funds for CRG.