Clarks Fork Clean Up begins

Nemont

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
4,396
Location
Glasgow, Montana
IT, EG, and all of the other leftist President Bush haters.

I thought the EPA wasn't going to anything to clean up any superfund sites? You may need to contact both the EPA and the Chicago Tribune that they are spreading lies about this.


Montana river cleanup a tricky prospect

By Maurice Possley Tribune staff reporter

About 200 years ago, when Meriwether Lewis and William Clark passed near here on their historic journey of discovery, the Clark Fork and Blackfoot Rivers came together in a confluence of pristine waters.


A century later, another William Clark, this man a U.S. senator and copper baron, constructed a dam in what was then known as Riverside--now Milltown--just below this confluence to harvest electricity from these rivers.


Five months after it went into operation, the dam was in ruins. A great flood, estimated to be flowing at 48,000 cubic feet per second, scoured the Clark Fork for more than 100 miles upstream. That torrent, along with later, lesser floods, brought with them 6 million cubic yards of sediment containing thousands of tons of hazardous metals--arsenic, copper and cadmium, to name a few--and dumped it right behind the dam.


Now, if all goes as expected and the weather cooperates, workers this fall will begin taking the first physical steps toward removing the dam and restoring the Blackfoot--the river so romantically described by Norman Maclean in his book "A River Runs Through It"--and the Clark Fork to their original free-flowing state.


The monumental project, expected to last several years, is complicated because all the sediment is part of the largest Superfund site in the U.S., stretching from the headwaters of the Clark Fork in Butte to the Milltown dam.


It is also expensive. The current projected price tag for removing the dam and sediment is about $106 million. And it is an ambitious--some would say tricky--project calling for removing 2.6 million cubic yards of the sediment, leaving the rest in place above the water line, and removing a 500-foot-wide dam without sending a torrent of the fish-killing contamination downstream.


Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) officials who oversee the Superfund program have estimated the cleanup and restoration of the Blackfoot from Butte to the dam will reach nearly $1 billion. The bill is being paid primarily by Atlantic Richfield Co., which purchased Anaconda Mining Co. in 1977--just before arsenic was discovered in Milltown's drinking water, triggering more than 20 years of debate over how to clean it up.


While the project will be executed with the muscle and grit of workers and giant machines, it involves a synchronized plan that relies largely on keeping to a schedule that as a computer printout covers nearly all of Matthew Fein's desk in nearby Missoula.


Intricate project


Fein is a senior project director at Envirocon Inc., the environmental remediation company contracted to remove the dam and the contaminated sediment. As he leaned over his desk on a recent morning, studying the schedule, he said, "This is going to be a symphony that we have to conduct here."


One might compare this project to a giant game of pick-up sticks, where removing the wrong stick at the wrong time could render the game pointless. A wrong move could loosen large amounts of sediment downstream on the Clark Fork with disastrous consequences for one of the more popular fisheries in western Montana.


It already has happened once, not that long ago.


In 1996 a giant ice dam broke free on the Blackfoot and came rushing toward the dam. Fearing the dam would be damaged if the ice struck it, officials used torches to cut open gates to lower the reservoir, but the rapid release and scour by the ice sucked up tons of copper-laden sediment and sent it downstream in a fish-killing plume.


The following year, fish surveys showed drops of more than 50 percent in the number of catchable rainbow and brown trout and a decrease of more than 70 percent in the numbers of juvenile trout of both species.


Water to be lowered


For that reason, the first step in the project--lowering the water level in the reservoir by 10 feet--will be gradual and monitored carefully to ensure a minimum amount of contaminated sediment is washed out.


Most of the contamination is in a V-shaped area of nearly 90 acres, in depths of 15 to 25 feet, directly behind the dam. Fein said lowering the water level would allow a significant amount of the sediment to dry out--so that it can be removed quickly and safely.


The next step in Fein's symphony would begin next spring, when Envirocon is to begin building roads into the contaminated site and driving supports for a bridge that will be built over a channel that is to be dug to redirect the Clark Fork.

Digging the 100-foot-wide, 3,500-foot-long bypass channel will require removing 750,000 cubic yards--each cubic yard weighs 1.3 tons, according to Fein--of sediment and piling it nearby for later removal. The channel will be 17 feet deep in the center and berms will be installed to keep the river in place as it is directed around the contaminated area, Fein said.

Because the entrance to the canal will be much higher than the end of the canal, a "drop structure" will be constructed that will slow down the redirected Clark Fork--thus preventing it from coming too quickly toward the dam and scouring out the new channel. At the same time, the bridge over the bypass canal will be constructed.

The bridge is for a rail line, Fein said. "We have to get that sediment out of there somehow, so we are going to take it out in rail cars."

He explained that an abandoned rail spur will be rebuilt and lead directly to the V-shaped area. "It will have to accommodate 60 rail cars at a time," he said. "We are going to lay a mile of track."

River to be redirected

The next step involves redirecting the Clark Fork into the bypass channel--a feat to be accomplished by dumping clean fill and rocks into the river and opening the channel so that the water ultimately turns into it, leaving the old river channel high and dry.

Fein explained that the reservoir would then be drawn down another 10 feet, bringing the reunited Blackfoot and Clark Fork that much closer to the level--just 10 feet of difference--on the opposite side of the dam.

He said some contaminated sediment may wash out during these operations, but said it would be minimal and the work is to be done during the time of year when it will be least harmful to aquatic life.

"It's like surgery," he said. "You're going to have a little blood on the table, but in the end, you're going to be better off."

A temporary dam then will be constructed perpendicular to and directly behind the dam that will split the reservoir in half and direct all of the flowing water through the dam's powerhouse intake tunnels. This will allow Envirocon to remove contaminated sediment behind the temporary dam while the water continues to flow.

When that sediment is removed--Fein said engineers are still studying the best method for that removal--the left side of the dam can be knocked down, which, when completed, will allow for removal of the temporary dam so the water can be redirected from the powerhouse to a fully opened gap.

At that point, the powerhouse and what's left of the dam can be removed. Meanwhile, back on the main site, the digging up and removal of the V-shaped area will have begun, Fein said.

"The hard part of this project is setting it up, "Fein said. "Then it's just an earth-moving job."

Still, it will be a significant one.

"We will be filling 60 rail cars a day and hauling them 90 miles north where it will be unloaded at Opportunity Ponds," he said. "We will be hauling loads out of there seven days a week for two years."

Already a huge site of mine wastes, the ponds in the town of Opportunity will be capped with the contaminated sediment. "There is organic material in this," Fein said. "It will grow things and it will be used to cap over the . . . ponds."

When the last of the sediment has been removed and the powerhouse knocked down, the tracks will be pulled out, the bridge over the bypass channel taken out, and yet a new channel for the Clark Fork will be dug in a wavy pattern directly through the excavated area.

Once more, the river will be redirected into a new channel. Then, the bypass channel will be covered and leveled off.

The dam will be gone and the two rivers will flow freely. And if all goes on schedule, sometime in the next five years, Montanans and tourists alike will be able to fish, swim and enjoy the Blackfoot and Clark Fork much as the rivers were when Lewis and Clark passed through.

"The EPA has estimated that this plan will allow the aquifer to become drinkable in 4 to 10 years," Fein said. "Without it, the estimates range from 200 to 2,000 years. This is going to make a real difference."
 
This looks like a good deal, I posted on it over in the Fire side section, it looks like they will be dumping about a billion into the project before all is said and done...
Of course this couldn't possibly happen under this regime, not with all of the money's being transferred to the war effort from the environmental effort....
That would prove some here liyers (spelled this way for gunner) and every thing they preach and push for as mistaken and wrong... :eek:
 
Elkcheese,

Once again you dont have a clue.

The Clarkfork superfund cleanup has been going on for years, many years.

If you think the Bush Administration made the cleanup happen, you've got rocks in your head.

You not only dont understand this issue, you dont really understand much of anything.

Try finding that CLUE someday...
 
Buzz,
I put this up because of the my request for proof not just propaganda that president Bush is destroying the environment. I never said he was the best environmental president but I have searched high and low for proof that he is out to completely roll "all" environmental laws. Many, Many of the issues that are being brought up, such as CBM production, were reviewed and permitted during Pres. Clinton's administration. Also things that Pres. Clinton created by executive order such as the Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument are still going through. I would like to see real, objective hard facts rather then opinion, theory, politics and hatred regarding the current administration and it's environmental policy.

Many people in the middle of the political spectrum think the enviromentalist are too extreme and a little roll back is a reasonable thing.

As an aside I personally know very little about the Clarks Fork clean up. I think it would be a good thing for the river system.

Nemont
 
Nemont,

I know you're a smart guy, but did you read this piece of shit article you posted?

I did.

What part of this is project is Bush responsible for?

For starters I immediately call BS on this article for this:

officials who oversee the Superfund program have estimated the cleanup and restoration of the Blackfoot from Butte to the dam

When an author is so sloppy in their journalism and research that they claim the BLACKFOOT RIVER runs from BUTTE to MILLTOWN dam, I find the whole article suspect. As anyone with a freaking highway map of Montana and a single firing brain cell knows its the CLARKFORK river.

Further:

The bill is being paid primarily by Atlantic Richfield Co., which purchased Anaconda Mining Co. in 1977

I sure hope to hell Bush and his administration wouldnt run static on a project they ARENT paying for.

I see no reason why Bush should get a single shred of credit for this proposal. He had nothing to do with it.
 
I actually didn't read the entire piece. Mostly the headline. So that is my fault, I will read the articles completely in the future.. Also I never said Pres. Bush was responsible for this particular project.
My sole reason for posting it is that if anyone listened IT, EG et. al. you would be led to believe that all environmental laws have been suspended, including all superfund projects. Any thinking person with eyes should be able to figure that out for themselves.
So if this article is B.S. it would match the same stuff in the other pile that the leftist are heaping up.

Nemont
 
Nemont, why would Bush suspend cleaning up superfund sights that are being paid for by private companies?

Even he isnt that ignorant.

The problem is, you post an article to say, "look Bush didnt stop a clean-up of a superfund sight".

True, but what exactly has he done to expand environmental protections?

Nadda.
 
True, but what exactly has he done to expand environmental protections?
Far as I know he hasn't done much of anything to expand environmental protections. That isn't the argument. What I am saying that his administration is not raping the planet. I have asked repeatedly for hard, on the ground, evidence that the Bush administration is raping and pillaging the entire country. I have yet to be provided that.

I have never said that president Bush expanded anything, other then the budget deficit. Anyway I know that most of the leftist have made up their minds but I find it interesting that whenever I asked them for evidence I get opinion, propaganda and hatred not facts and evidence. This holds true for all my democratic friends. Reminds me of the right wings hatred of the Clintons. Hatred blinds people equally on both extremes of the political spectrum.

Nemont
 
Nemont,

Try to remember that Bush is the good guy, doing the right thing for wildlife, when you hunt the Powder River country next time, or the Red Desert in Wyoming, or NE Colorado, or Northern New Mexico....

We all know that wildlife thrives with increased human access, depleting water tables, depleting ground water, and elimation of critical winter-range.

What was I thinking, Bush is a real champion of wildlife... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I hope all this proper management continues, it will make for great opportunities for future generations.
 
Buzz,
Look I am not trying to argue with you here. I actually hunt down in the Powder River country every year. My very best friend is from Broadus and I am down there at least 8 times a year. I don't want CBM development running wild either. Go back and look at which administration permitted wells just like the Bush administration.

I have never said that President Bush was a champion of the environment. All I asked for is proof from others. I believe you and don't wish to argue with you. My single and sole frustration is that when I sit around and have a beer with my democrat buddies and they rip on the president they never give me anything other then opinions.

I have seen the CBM fields and hate them. I think it is not going to easily repaired. I also have to drive by the Zortman Landusky mine everytime I go to Billings and that area is still a disaster. All I asked the other guys is for proof.

It would be easier if I could vote for one single issue unfortunately I have prioritize what I think is important.

Nemont
 
The Bush Record: Industry Runs Roughshod Over Environment
Corporate polluters used to pay to clean their own messes. Now Bush is shifting the costs to you. The Superfund program was created to ensure that corporate polluters bore the brunt of the costs of cleaning up the worst environmental disasters. But under President Bush, funding cuts and a failure to collect penalties from polluters is creating a shift in costs right to the taxpayer. Superfund assets have declined to nearly zero. Now your tax dollars will pay for 80 percent of the program in 2004, and all Superfund cleanups in 2005.2

Public Lands to the Highest Bidder
Bush opened 9 million acres of public land to logging. In December 2003, the Bush Administration removed prohibitions on logging and mining in the forest largest national forest in the U.S., the Tongass National Forest in southeastern Alaska. The decision could "allow roads to be built through 9 million acres" of Tongass. Bush has fought to allow the oil industry to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as protected national parks, monuments, and public lands in the Rocky Mountains.3

http://www.democrats.org/environment/bushrecord.html

Here's more. As organizations realize what a bonanza of an issue Bush's poor environmental record is, they'll be documenting it more and more.

http://www.lcv.org/Features/Features.cfm?ID=2745&c=46
 
Another "Why is it" question....
Buzz, how does ranting and raving help your cause?
How does calling names change the ideologies of others?
How doe's trying to walk all over others get you or your causes any thing but bad publicity and negatives towards any thing you have accomplished in life?
I would guess that by carring on as you do, you would turn those that might even help you with your cause away, just from being so caustic.
If you truely cared for the environment as you perport, you would be trying to win converts to your side, instead of chasing them away.
If you were as smart as you would like every one to believe, you would work to change people to your way of thinking. This isn't a grade school and bulies just don't alway's win here as they did when you were growning up.... (sp done on purpose)... ;)
Or were you raised in such a negative atmospher when you were growning up that this is all you know?
I would say to you, break the cycle! :eek: The first step is admitting there is a problem... ;)
 
Nemont, Just in case you missed this link, here's some info on Bush's anti environmental actions:

Unambiguous Facts: The Bush Record on Florida Offshore Drilling

On a recent trip to Florida, purportedly to celebrate Earth Day Week, President George W. Bush stated "there is no ambiguity in my position in drilling off the coast of Florida." He went on to tout his "pro-environment" credentials.

On May 18, 2004, LCV unveiled a hard-hitting TV ad (RealPlayer QuickTime) that sets the environmental record straight. There is no ambiguity to the fact that President Bush has proposed and advocated drilling off Florida's western coast, which could significantly threaten both the local economy and public health of the Sunshine State.

The following are the facts, point-by-point, about President Bush's record on offshore drilling and the current status of drilling off the western coast of Florida:

1. FACT: President George W. Bush opened the Florida coast to offshore oil drilling. In 2001, the Bush administration announced the proposed sale of 5.9 million acres in the eastern Gulf of Mexico (which by any common sense definition means off the coast of Florida) for oil and gas exploration and development. This original proposal would have allowed drilling within 30 miles of the Florida Coast. This section of the Gulf is called Area 181. Under intense pressure from Senator Bob Graham and others in Florida, the original Bush proposal was scaled back to 1.47 million acres. Nonetheless, this sale went forward -- on George W. Bush's watch. 256 blocks were up for sale and 95 leases were sold. We have the document announcing the sale from the Minerals Management Service at the Department of Interior (external link). These facts are beyond dispute.

2. FACT: Area 181 is off the Florida coast. The same document mentioned above, announcing the sale from the Minerals Management Service at the Department of Interior, says SPECIFICALLY AND CLEARLY that Area 181 is "100 miles offshore from the Alabama-Florida state line." This is not our interpretation -- this is the Department of Interior stating the facts (external link). A Department of Interior maps (PDF) (external link) shows that Area 181 is equidistant from the Alabama and Florida coasts -- exactly 100 miles from both. Area 181 is just over 100 miles from Pensacola, Florida. Now, the Bush campaign has attempted to say that because the scaled back area 181 is on the Alabama/Florida state line, there is no drilling off the Florida coast. This is simply disingenuous.

3. FACT: There are RIGS off the coast of Florida -- and these rigs are drilling. Anadarko Petroleum, along with Shell Oil was the major purchaser of leases in Area 181. Anadarko Petroleum's annual report from 2003 (external link, PDF) clearly states on page 13 that they are currently drilling in Area 181. Indeed, Anadarko has drilled at least four wells called Spiderman, Jublilee, Atlas and Atlas Northwest. It is indisputable that the company currently has rigs and wells drilling in Area 181 off the coast of Florida.

4. FACT: The leases in Area 181 are for both OIL and natural gas. The document from the Minerals Management Service at the Department of Interior (external link) announcing the of sale in area 181 states specifically that "estimates of undiscovered conventionally recoverable hydrocarbons in the sale area are 1.25 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 185 millionn barrels of oil" and it is obvious that these leases are for natural gas and oil. The Bush Campaign has tried to say that this area is only for natural gas exploration and development. When Anadarko drills for natural gas, they drill for oil. It is the same process to drill for natural gas and oil because they are usually found in the same pockets.

5. FACT: An oil spill in Area 181 would in all likelihood hit Florida beaches. The environmental impact study done by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) for Area 181 has scientific testimony, which documents that an oil spill in Area 181 would likely hit Florida beaches. Gulf currents are not absolutely predictable, but the experts believe a spill would hit Florida’s beaches -- it would only be a matter of time. Robert Weisberg, a University of Southern Florida oceanography professor told the St. Petersburg Times (external link) that anything that falls into the Eastern Gulf flows eastward to and around the Florida coast, through the Keys and then out into the Atlantic Ocean. Indeed, MMS estimates that over the next 40 years there could be up to 870 spills in Area 181. Since 1995, oil companies have spilled 210,000 gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. All of the scientific evidence indicates that Florida beaches -- from the Panhandle to the Keys -- could be at risk for oil drilling in Area 181. (See this article from the St. Petersburg Times (external link))

6. FACT: Offshore oil drilling is a dirty business. A single production platform, which can drill 50-100 wells, discharges over 90,000 metric tons of drilling fluid and metal cuttings into the ocean. As and example, between 1956 and 1990, Chevron’s rigs in the Gulf have experienced 40 "major accidents" as defined by the federal government, resulting in 19 fatalities, experienced 14 gas or oil and gas blowouts, and experienced 65 fires and explosions. In fact, Chevron experienced one blowout that took over 40 days to bring under control and which released 30,000 barrels of oil into the Gulf. Attached is a link to Florida PIRG’s Web site (external link) which highlights the dangers and environmental impacts of off shore drilling.

7. FACT: The Energy Bill would have opened up even more drilling in Florida. To quote from Congresswoman Lois Capps of California and Congressman Jim Davis of Florida, along with 43 other members of Congress from coastal states in a recent news release and letter to President Bush (external link) taking him to task for supporting H.R. 6, which we show in our ad, "Section 321 of the energy conference report grants broad, unprecedented permitting authority to the Secretary of the Interior over a wide range of oil and gas activities on the Outer Continental Shelf, including areas currently protected by moratoria against new drilling activities. This centralization of authority undermines coastal states by failing to require consultation with states and the Department of Commerce, which has jurisdiction over living marine resources."


The Capps letter goes on to say, "Sections 325 and 330 weaken the Coastal Zone Management Act, the federal law that states use to manage development and preservation of coastal resources…"

The Bush Campaign has tried to say that the drilling provisions were taken out of the final energy bill. However, Sections 321, 325 and 330 were not taken out of the final version of H.R. 6, which is the bill we show in the ad (RealPlayer QuickTime). Bush supported an energy bill that would have undermined the moratoria against new drilling. That is an unarguable fact.

8. FACT: On February 8, 2001, Vice President Cheney met with two top executives of Shell Oil and Anadarko Petroleum where the men pressed the Bush Administration to stick to a long-standing plan to open up a huge tract in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas exploration. Mr. Cheney had a shocking conflict of interest in meeting with Anadarko because his wife, Lynn Cheney, had benefited from hundreds of thousands of dollars in Anadarko stock options as a result of sitting on the board of a company that was acquired by Anadarko. The Shell/Anadarko meetings with Vice President Cheney and the Lynn Cheney financial conflict of interest were documented in an article in the Washington Post in 2002. Furthermore Florida Congressman John Mica told the Orlando Sentinel that the Bush Administration supported drilling in Florida after a meeting with Cheney. While another Florida Congressman who was at the meeting, Republican Ric Keller, told the same paper that the Administration planned to go forward with the sale of the leases.

The Bush Administration came into office supporting drilling off the Florida coast, met with the specific oil companies (and campaign donors) who wanted to drill, used the Interior Department to open Area 181 and wrote energy legislation that could lead to more drilling. Those are the facts.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The link is in my 7/18 post
 
IT,
How does off shore drilling equal clear cut forests? You don't suppose the LVC and Democrat.org have any bias in them do you?

There is already offshore development in the same area. I don't know that that qualifies as raping the planet but I will give you a plus for posting facts.

Nemont
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,365
Messages
1,956,323
Members
35,148
Latest member
Sept7872
Back
Top