Spotted Dog Land Acquisition

Described by FWP as the largest intact grassland under single ownership west of the continental divide, there’s no doubt that the Spotted Dog property is a gem.  Along with 10,000 acres of interspersed DNRC land, it provides almost 40,000 acres of elk winter range, as well as habitat for numerous grassland species and corridors for threatened species such as grizzly bears and lynx.  For the first time, this land would be open for public recreation and hunting, and it would remove the development threat on this unique property.  So what’s the down-side?

Mainly, we’re concerned about the way the project is being fast-tracked – too fast to leverage those dollars with federal land protection funds, or to consider other financing options.  As it stands now, all of the $15.2 million price tag would come from the state’s Natural Resource Damage program (NRD) – a lawsuit-derived fund intended to restore the land, water and groundwater damaged from historic mining in the upper Clark Fork.   The Spotted Dog expenditure would be unprecedented in the fund’s history.  To date, only the interest from the original $130 million fund has been spent, while the corpus remains in trust until the Governor's office puts into place a comprehensive long-range restoration plan, as required by law. 

NRD program monies belong to the citizens of Montana.  For a purchase of this magnitude – moved along in an abbreviated timeline, and without benefit of a restoration plan – Montanans want to see the highest level of fiscal responsibility from the NRD fund's trustees.  Spotted Dog looks like an exciting and unique opportunity, but the public needs to see the financial analysis of all possible funding options to better understand the opportunity cost.  It’s a huge and important purchase, and it deserves a careful and well-thought out plan.

To weigh in, ask the Governor to develop a comprehensive restoration plan for the upper Clark Fork basin, and ask for more funding options for the Spotted Dog property.

Visit www.doj.mt.gov for more information and to send comments.

A July 25 article in the Helena Independent Record raises concerns: "Plan to Buy Land for $15M Raises Eyebrows"

Say NO to a Permanent 'High & Wide' Corridor Alongside our Scenic Waterways

READ THE COALITION'S OFFICIAL COMMENTS TO MDT

READ THE COALITION'S PUBLIC COMMENTARY ON KUFM

We may have to say goodbye to quiet, pristine mornings on the river. Instead, imagine the noise, the wildlife fatalities, the threats to water quality, the traffic snarls, the obstructed views, and the inevitable hits to recretion-based, amenity-rich local economies if a proposal from ExxonMobil goes through.  So far, the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) has produced only a brief Environmental Assessment (EA) on the proposal for a 'High and Wide' Transportation Corridor in western Montana.  And unfortunately, the EA is an inadequate and short-sighted document on many fronts, starting with its portrayal of the project.

According to a July 2009 presentation by MDT Director Jim Lynch to the MT Legislature's Revenue and Transportation Oversight Committee, ExxonMobil's goal is to create "permanent "High/Wide corridors through Montana," which, he said, would have "considerable potential for impact."  So it's confusing that the EA portrays the project as relatively benign: one year, 200 rigs, no environmental impact.  There's no mention of the permanency of this industrial corridor once established, and how that computes in the coming decades, in terms of added haul traffic and its impacts on rural rhythms, blue-ribbon-trout streams, and the Montana way of life.

We're also concerned that-- with the public comment deadline fast approaching-- citizens haven't had much of an opportunity to weigh in on the project.  It's been on MDT's radar for a couple of years now, but the critically important work of vetting the project with the public began only recently, and lots of questions are surfacing, not least of which has to do with the final ugly destination of these rigs at Alberta's tar sands.

The quick and dirty:

The Route: The route begins in South Korea where the equipment will be pre-fabricated.  It is then shipped to Portland, Oregon, and then barged up the Columbia and Snake Rivers to the Port of Lewiston in Idaho.  This is where the big rigs come in.  From the port, the rigs will begin a 1,600 mile journey along mostly two-lane state roads paralleling the Lochsa Wild and Scenic River along Highway 12, up and over Lolo Pass to Lolo, upHighway 93 and Reserve Street through Missoula, I-90 to Highway 200, through Bonner, along the Blackfoot corridor through Lincoln, over Roger's Pass to Highway 287 through Augusta and Choteau, then up Highway 89 up to Valier and the Canadian border, then on up to the Kearl Oil Tar Sands in Alberta.

The Rigs: They're big-- otherworldly big, in fact, with massive wheels.  They'll carry loads 30' high, 24' wide, and 162' long and weigh in at 330,000 pounds.  Imagine a 2-story house, as long as a football field is wide, with as much mass as a blue whale winding along the Wild and Scenic Lochsa River, crawling up and over Lolo and Rogers Passes, and snaking along the Blackfoot River.

The Time: The EA only considers a 12-month time period where 2 loads per day will be moved for a year beginning this fall.  However, because the Kearl Oil Sands Project is expected to be active through 2060, we believe limiting the EA to a one-year time period with the proposed parameters doesn't take into account the real potential for decades of use and does nothing to guarantee that the shipments will be constrained to the "off-hours."  Other entities involved in the project are at least acknowledging that we're not talking about a one-time deal here.  The Port of Lewiston anticipates that "If one oil company is successful with this alternate transportation route, many other companies will follow their lead."  It is obvious that this route is planned to be a permanent industrial corridor to be in use for the forseeable future.

The Construction: The route and rigs are one component to this project.  The other piece is the construction activities that will be involved.  In Montana, these include:

• Utility line modifications at 572 locations
• Modification or installation of 33 traffic structures
• Permanent modification to 22 highway turnouts
• Construction of 53 new highway turnouts

The Risks: According to the EA, there are none.  But, we're not so sure.  In fact, we're very concerned about long-term environmental impacts on water quality and aquatic ecosystems, wildlife, air quality, and communities.  And what about impacts to our economy?  What about our outfitters, fishing guides, and rafting companies who rely on access to these rivers on an almost daily basis?  What type of financial hit will result from the delays caused by the construction and these enormous traffic-blocking trucks on the roads?  How do the financial benefits from constructing a 'High/Wide' Montana corridor for monster rigs stack up next to what we stand to lose in tourist receipts from amenity-based recreation?

And finally, do we really want to facilitate the development of Oil Tar Sands in Alberta?

We can't ignore the fact that these big rigs are destined for the Kearl Oil Sands Project in Alberta.  These oil sands produce the world's most harmful type of oil for the atmosphere, emitting high volumes of greenhouse gases during development, which contribute to global warming.  Tar sands oil production generates almost triple the global warming pollution as conventional oil production because of the massive amounts of energy needed to extract, upgrade, and refine the oil.  There has been significant national and international outcry over the development of these oil sands.

Montana still bears the scars from-- and pays the price for-- yesterday's mistakes and oversights in resource extraction.  Is it smart to facilitate more of the same in the field of energy development when other far less harmful options exist?

Next Steps:

We are urging MDT to take a much closer look at this project by requiring an Environmental Impact Statement on the creation of this industrial corridor in Montana.  We also want to see coordination with the federal permitting entities involved in this project through the NEPA process.  We are asking that the EIS:

• Conduct a programmatic review for the establishment of this permanent industrial corridor;
• Require real alternatives to be considered;
• Provide an economic analysis that accurately weighs the impacts to our recreation and tourism industry;
• Coordinate with DEQ and the federal permitting agencies to properly analyze the transportation project as a whole under both the Montana and National Policy Acts

Dwayne Kailey
Montana Department of Transportation
PO Box 201001
Helena, MT 59620-1001
Or, submit ONLINE by emailing:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

DOWNLOAD THIS POSTCARD TO PRINT AND MAIL IN TO MDT

SOME TALKING POINTS FOR COMMENTS:

Dear MT Dept. of Transportation:

I am concerned about the creation of a permanent 'high and wide' industrial corridor along some of Montana's most scenic river ways.  It is clear that the proposed industrial route will be used for decades to facilitate the development of the Alberta Oil Tar Sands.  Please:

• Conduct a programmatic review for the establishment of this permanent industrial corridor;
• Require real alternatives to be considered;
• Provide an economic analysis that accurately weighs the impacts to our recreation and tourism industry;
• Coordinate with DEQ and the federal permitting agencies to properly analyze the transportation project as a whole under both the Montana and National Policy Acts

Links:

Tar Sands Information

National Geographic Report on Tar Sands

Press:

Missoulian
Idaho Statesman