Compromise considered for non-motorized river proposal

Whitefish City Council decided at their Sept. 3 meeting to postpone a decision that could lead to a six-mile stretch of the Whitefish River being designated as a non-motorized waterway.

Councilor Richard Hildner brought the resolution forward asking the council’s approval for banning motorized use from the railroad trestle near the Whitefish Lake outlet to the Highway 40 bridge. Since 1989, a no wake zone has been in place to the JP Road bridge, but Hildner said the restriction is not enough.

“We need to be proactive now,” he said. “The No. 1 goal is public safety and the sight distance along this section averages under 300 feet, which is shorter than it takes to stop personal watercraft at full speed. The second issue is resource protection from wave action exacerbating soil erosion along the river.”

Some councilors suggested that small electric motors or low horsepower gas motors should continue to be allowed.

Councilor Phil Mitchell asked if limiting speeds to 5 mph on the river might be a solution.

“I struggle with having no motorized at all,” he said. “Is there a happy medium here?”

The council is expected to reconsider the resolution Nov. 4. Ultimately, the city will have to petition the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission to obtain the designation.

Hildner says that increased activity on the river with kayaks, canoes and paddleboards has made safety an issue. He notes that the upper reach of the river is narrow and has an average sight distance less than the length of a football field, a distance that is greater than the stopping distance of a Kawasaki jet ski at full throttle.

Residents are split on how the future usage of the river should look. Some say protecting the river is an important issue and should result in the non-motorized designation. Others say closing the river would eliminate usage for some folks, like those with disabilities.

Sonny Schierl, owner of Paddlefish Sports, said he would like to see the riverbank protected from erosion so that the river can remain an asset to the city.

“If we keep allowing boats to use this narrow waterway under power it will expedite the erosion problem,” he said.

Michael Park urged the council to continue allowing motorized use on the river. He said establishing a non-motorized waterway would prevent those with disabilities from enjoying the river.

Park said he has limited use of his arms, which makes it impossible for him to paddle a boat, but the aid of a small motor makes its possible for him to navigate the river.

“My little putt, putt motor is not causing any problems,” he said. “Let me use the river.”

Councilor Chris Hyatt said he shares Park’s concerns.

“We have to protect the river, but I do worry about people with disabilities,” he said. “A 10 horsepower and under policy is something we should look at.”

Mike Fitzgerald reminded the council that the river is a special place and protection of that resource is important.

“Having paddled the river for more than 25 years, I’ve seen everything,” he said. “We lost 25 feet of shoreline at Riverside Park. If we allow motor traffic to have their way, it’s going to get ruined again.”

FWP Warden Capt. Lee Anderson told the council its petition to the commission would have to meet certain criteria to be considered for the non-motorized designation. He said the city would have to show that public use is damaging the riverbank, adversely effecting fish or wildlife, or causing degradation of the water body.

The petition would kick off a review process by FWP and the commission, he noted.

In 2007, the council voted unanimously to prohibit the use of internal combustion motors on the river within the city limits. However, a month later the council rescinded the action when property owners between the river outlet to Whitefish Lake and the railroad trestle objected.

Hildner said it’s time for the city to consider the issue again, now that the upper reach of the river has been reopened following five years of cleanup. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency required BNSF Railway to remove historic petroleum-contaminated soils from the river, which caused the river to be closed for safety concerns while crews worked.