Thoughts on river plan
At long last, the USFS is finally starting its comprehensive review of the Flathead River as a Wild and Scenic River. The Flathead was included in 1976, although Congress passed the act in 1968. Requirements are that the river be free flowing with high quality water, certain defined access, and defined outstanding recreational values.
Only the South Fork above the Hungry Horse Reservoir and the Middle Fork above Bear Creek is wild. The Upper North Fork is scenic, and that is the portion I am interested in as a North Forker.
The mandate of management agencies is to protect and enhance those qualities listed above and provide for public enjoyment without degradation.
The new study will try to evaluate if that has been done adequately and to set the direction for future management. The goal is not to take management action.
The study is funded for three years and the goal is to finish the report, do the public process and have a finished project within that time. After that, it would be adopted as an amendment to the Forest Plan, which would then have an expected life span of 10-15 years.
The Forest Service expects to hold multiple public meetings during the project and their hope is that, through collaboration, they will come up with a plan that can be supported by a majority of the general public.
I hope they are right, but I have serious doubts.
Some groups see the act as a way to limit people on the river. Some want floaters to either be commercial or have a permit. How much boat traffic will be allowed is bound to be controversial. If you evaluate the number of boats you see when floating, you may forget that a fisherman on the bank may have a different impression.
How to include and compromise on all of the different recreational wants is one thing that will be mostly political. The science will be something else.
How will they determine if the water quality is as good now as it was in 1976? There has been some monitoring, but it has been incomplete and haphazard, at best. Moreover, British Columbia controls the headwaters. Their logging practices are defined by them, not us.
More difficult to assess than water quality is the air quality. Glacier Park says they will have a mobile air quality monitor on the North Fork this year. It may monitor current air quality, but there is no base data to determine if that is better or worse than the air quality in 1976.
There are positives to the project. Cameras will be set on the river to determine the number of boats and there will be the mobile air quality station.
Remember, the project will identify future management direction. That mean current policy will be in place for three years before any changes are started. If the past is an indicator, current managers will basically sit on their hands until moved by a new “management direction.”
What do you think?
Larry Wilson’s North Fork Views appear weekly in the Hungry Horse News.