Coal mining raises concerns for world-class river

The concerns came to light this week after a study commissioned by the National Park Service compared the Elk River to the Flathead River in Canada (known in the U.S. as the North Fork of the Flathead River).

The study, completed by Ric Hauer and Erin Sexton, was designed to show the differences between the two drainages in terms of water quality. The Elk River has coal mines in its drainage, the Flathead doesn’t. But when the study commenced, plans existed for coal mines and coal bed methane extraction in the Flathead.

Since then, British Columbia has banned coal mining and coal exploration in the Flathead. But the Elk is a different matter. Not only are there five open-pit mines operating in the drainage and causing toxic pollution, more are planned.

Four coal mine expansion proposals are in the project review stage — a proposal for one new coal mine and three exploration projects already underway, according to John Bergenske, a spokesman for Wildsight, a Canadian environmental group.

Hauer and Sexton’s study found that concentrations of nitrates and total nitrate downstream of the mines was 1,000 times greater compared to waters either in the Flathead River Basin or the Elk River drainage above the mines.

Another pollutant of concern was selenium. Hauer and Sexton found selenium levels below the mines to be seven to 10 times higher than in the Flathead or in the Elk above the mines.

Selenium is a necessary salt nutrient at low levels, but at high levels it becomes toxic. Hauer and Sexton found selenium levels in the Elk were above acceptable limits set by both British Columbia and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“Of extreme concern is the bioaccumulation affects of selenium, in which organisms of the food web increasingly concentrate selenium in various tissues, such as muscles, liver and ovaries,” their report said.

Over time, the toxicity not only could impact the fish in the river but creatures that eat them, including humans.

While the study paints a grim picture for the future of the Elk, it does show one bright point — the Flathead is virtually pollution free.

“There should be a moratorium on new coal mining in the Elk until the far-reaching impacts of existing mines are addressed,” said Sarah Cox, interim executive director for Sierra Club British Columbia. “Projects like the Line Creek coal mine expansion and proposed Bingay coal mine would only increase toxic pollution in the Elk. We need to take a big step back and look at how this area is managed as a whole.”

Bingay Coal Co. has proposed a new mine near Elkford. Mining companies say they’re working on ways to reduce selenium output. Teck Mining Co., which owns most of the coal mines in region, has been investing in water treatment facilities over the past few years, according to its Web site.

A host of environmental groups in Canada have raised concerns about pollution from coal mines in the Elk River drainage. The Elk River is a coveted westslope cutthroat and bull trout fishery that joins the Kootenay River, forming Lake Koocanusa above the Libby Dam.

The concerns came to light this week after a study commissioned by the National Park Service compared the Elk River to the Flathead River in Canada (known in the U.S. as the North Fork of the Flathead River).

The study, completed by Ric Hauer and Erin Sexton, was designed to show the differences between the two drainages in terms of water quality. The Elk River has coal mines in its drainage, the Flathead doesn’t. But when the study commenced, plans existed for coal mines and coal bed methane extraction in the Flathead.

Since then, British Columbia has banned coal mining and coal exploration in the Flathead. But the Elk is a different matter. Not only are there five open-pit mines operating in the drainage and causing toxic pollution, more are planned.

Four coal mine expansion proposals are in the project review stage — a proposal for one new coal mine and three exploration projects already underway, according to John Bergenske, a spokesman for Wildsight, a Canadian environmental group.

Hauer and Sexton’s study found that concentrations of nitrates and total nitrate downstream of the mines was 1,000 times greater compared to waters either in the Flathead River Basin or the Elk River drainage above the mines.

Another pollutant of concern was selenium. Hauer and Sexton found selenium levels below the mines to be seven to 10 times higher than in the Flathead or in the Elk above the mines.

Selenium is a necessary salt nutrient at low levels, but at high levels it becomes toxic. Hauer and Sexton found selenium levels in the Elk were above acceptable limits set by both British Columbia and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“Of extreme concern is the bioaccumulation affects of selenium, in which organisms of the food web increasingly concentrate selenium in various tissues, such as muscles, liver and ovaries,” their report said.

Over time, the toxicity not only could impact the fish in the river but creatures that eat them, including humans.

While the study paints a grim picture for the future of the Elk, it does show one bright point — the Flathead is virtually pollution free.

“There should be a moratorium on new coal mining in the Elk until the far-reaching impacts of existing mines are addressed,” said Sarah Cox, interim executive director for Sierra Club British Columbia. “Projects like the Line Creek coal mine expansion and proposed Bingay coal mine would only increase toxic pollution in the Elk. We need to take a big step back and look at how this area is managed as a whole.”

Bingay Coal Co. has proposed a new mine near Elkford. Mining companies say they’re working on ways to reduce selenium output. Teck Mining Co., which owns most of the coal mines in region, has been investing in water treatment facilities over the past few years, according to its Web site.