Glacier Park should fund studies nearby, not Elk River

Fascinating story in a recent newspaper where I read that Glacier National Park commissioned a study (which means they paid for it) to determine whether coal mines in Canada were polluting the Elk River drainage in southeastern British Columbia. Not surprisingly, they found out that, yes, the coal mines were polluting the river.

The article further reported that the data gathered was “part of a broader study comparing the watershed to the nearby Flathead River, which flows into Montana and Glacier.”

Implication is pollution from coal mines near the Elk River in Canada is affecting GNP.

True environmentalists in the North Fork have recently formed an organization called MAWP (Monitor Air and Water Pollution) whose goal is to force GNP officials to be vigilant about threats to the Park by aggressively monitoring air and water pollution levels. I am their spokesman.

So-called traditional environmental groups who use scare tactics to raise money for themselves have been silent, not wanting to criticize this failure to monitor pollution threats to GNP. So hypocritical.

Our organization recently discovered that GNP officials have been scandalously absent in there charge to protect the “Crown of the Continent.” They recently admitted that they currently have only one air quality monitoring station (Park officials can’t even agree where it’s at), saying that they would like to have more than one but can’t afford it.

When I contacted the person (a real scientist who uses actual data) who co-authored the last definitive study about pollution in the North Fork of the Flathead River (a study done a few years ago) whose report stated in part that “nearly all of the major western tributaries of the North Fork have been previously listed on Montana’s 303 (d) list as impaired for cold-water fisheries owing to sediment loading associated with erosion of unpaved roads,” my question was simple: “Would allowing spring snow melt to wash across an unpaved road that has been treated with chemicals in recent years, specifically magnesium chloride, cause harm to the river and the bull trout in the North Fork River, and did they have any scientific data to back up their conclusions?”

Here’s what he wrote me back. “To be honest, I’m not sure if any of our data we are collecting now or that are in the report linked to above will properly address dust or other contaminants from the North Fork Road. That issue would likely require a fairly detailed effort with specific methods and parameters designed to look at the source and eventual fate of anything that might be coming off the road (relative to natural sediments, etc.). It would get complicated really quickly (but would be interesting for sure).”

So the Park can’t or won’t monitor air and water pollution and engages in scare tactics about how the sequestration will affect the Park’s ability to provide tourists to fully enjoy and experience the beauty of GNP this summer, telling us we will have less time to enjoy because of sequester budget cutbacks — but they can pay for a study of water pollution in a river that does not flow into GNP or the western boundary of the Park, the North fork of the Flathead River.

They apparently want to use studies done tens of miles away so as to use comparisons to the “watershed to the nearby Flathead River” to justify their failure to monitor pollution threats in and around the actual Park and to push their agenda to turn the North Fork and the western part of GNP into an official wilderness area.

Joe Novak lives in Polebridge.