CRMP Comments: Many folks want more river protections, not less

The proposed action for the Comprehensive River Management plan for the three forks of the Flathead River drew 1,241 comments. Some common themes have emerged, as many  people urged the Forest Service and Park Service to consider the health of the rivers, fish and wildlife more, not less, particularly in wilderness areas like the South Fork of the Flathead in the Bob Marshall Wilderness and the Middle Fork in the Great Bear Wilderness.

The Comprehensive River Management Plan would encompass the portions of the river system identified in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, some 219 miles of rivers including the North, South and Middle Forks of the Flathead. 

It does not cover the mainstem Flathead River or the Hungry Horse Reservoir. 

Most people supported a ban on motorized camping or parking on gravel bars as called for in the proposed action. The plan does allow driving across a gravel bar to launch boats, however. Commentors also were pleased with attempts in the plan to reduce noise along the rivers. 

In addition, folks also supported the idea of a free, unlimited permit system to monitor river usage, but many people thought it should expanded to include more river sections,  as  the initial priority segments would be on the South Fork from Youngs and Danaher Creeks to the swinging bridge at Spotted Bear and on the Middle Fork from Bear Creek to Cascadilla. 

Several people said it should also be expanded to the North Fork and the Middle Fork of the Flathead in the Great Bear Wilderness. 

Others raised concerns about the impacts on the fishery. 

The Flathead Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited was concerned that while the population of bull trout in the South Fork of the Flathead is showing declines, the plan allows for increased use by recreationists. 

“The South Fork hosts a highly unusual recreational bull trout fishery that, until recently, bucked the downward trend. Last year due to declining bull trout redd counts in the South Fork, Montana FWP further restricted the seasonal fishery. So, if Montana FWP determined that too much angling pressure is contributing to the decline, why would the CRMP allow more fishing pressure? Clearly, allowing increased user capacity on the South Fork could negatively and significantly affect bull trout. 

“First we urge no increase of user capacity whatsoever until the situation improves. Second, we strongly recommend that both Montana FWP redd count data and a creel survey are needed. These combined data studies would adequately shape a trigger point to protect this limiting outstanding resource value. The redd counts are a reasonable index of spawner abundance and has a long history for trends. The creel survey would allow managers to understand the linkage of user capacity with fishing pressure,” the organization claimed. 

Concern about wilderness impacts was a common theme.

“There is no Wilderness character or solitude on the South Fork at this time,” noted the Backcountry Horsemen of the Flathead in its comments. “Many members of BCHF have observed the following: There are many days when there are 40-60 people a day getting on the South Fork at the confluence. There are many days where there are 100 people using the South Fork between Salmon Fork and the Mid Creek Takeout. There are many nights when there are 60-70 people camping within a quarter mile of the Salmon Forks Bridge. The resource cannot stand this much abuse.” 

The organization, which has more than 100 members and volunteers extensively in the wilderness clearing trails and other work in the Bob Marshall, called for a limited lottery permit system for the Middle and South forks in the wilderness areas. 

It also suggested river users be required to haul out human waste.  

The Back Country Horsemen also called for curtailing outfitter use, particularly livery services that haul equipment, like rafts, into the wilderness so people, in turn, can float out. 

“We feel that all commercial livery outfitting permits need to be halted, as they are putting a significant burden of users on both the South Fork (wilderness) and Middle Fork (Wild), as well as on the grazing available along the river corridor, specifically at the confluence and lower Youngs Creek. We also feel that commercial outfitted river parties need to be significantly limited by the group size, number of trips and number of boats. Outfitters also need to secure their outfit on their rafts and not be allowed to have pack strings to support the party along the river. The range conditions do not meet the standards in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex Recreation Management direction due to the large number of stock outfitters utilized to host rafting parties. 

“It is very common to pass 90 to 120 head of pack stock for three or four outfitted rafting groups on the South Fork,” they claimed. 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, which worked on the proposed action with the Forest Service and Park Service, expressed concerns.  

“FWP considers more consideration for wildlife species from a recreation and river management standpoint. The plan acknowledges that riparian habitat is important to numerous wildlife species, but the desired conditions presented are not clear,” FWP said. 

The agency recommended the Forest Service wildlife staff work closely with FWP to “explore potential (wildlife) impacts as we move forward with this plan.” 

In addition, it urged to the Forest Service to gauge river use through stationary cameras, which have been used in the past, rather than floating rivers, noting that timing may dictate how many floaters a river ranger detects, while a camera will take a picture of every boat that passes by. 

Outfitters also weighed in.

Mike Cooney, the general manager for Glacier Raft Co. had issues with the way the proposed action was presented to the public and said more data should have been released initially. 

“The agencies have been collecting data for numerous years to produce recommendations and develop this proposed plan and are now hoping for public input and buy-in based on what the agencies are recommending. The public deserves to see the validation in the data to make an informed decision before being asked to comment,” he said. 

He raised concerns about limiting use in the Middle Fork of the Flathead River as it flows through Glacier National Park and past mineral licks used by mountain goats. 

“In 1986, the outfitters agreed to limited use on the upper sections of both rivers in exchange for the unlimited use pools on the lower recreational and scenic use sections. The outfitters on the Middle Fork at that time recognized the outstanding resource values of the Goat Lick, and the current outfitters still honor that ORV and train and inform people of the rules that protect that special resource,” he said. “The wildlife biologist at the recent public information meeting said that the proposed 100 people per day for the new Management Unit 1 Bear Creek to Cascadilla section, approximately 22 miles long, was so they could study the impacts of floaters on the goats at the three mineral licks.  

“Both commercial and private users have been floating by the goats for over 50 years, and personally, I have not seen or heard if there has been a reduction of or any impacts on the goat population. There is a boardwalk built into the mineral lick safety zone, tunnels for them to cross the highway, and a railroad thundering past with upwards of 38 trains a day, indicating the goats coexist with human presence. The proposed method to restrict use on more than 22 miles of river with three access points to ‘be able to establish a baseline of floater impact on the goats and other wildlife’ is unreasonable. The second mineral lick, also referred to as Redlick, is occasionally frequented by a few deer and elk, but in 35 years of floating commercially, I cannot say I have ever seen goats there,” he said. 

He did, however, support the new thresholds outlined in the plan for the lower Middle Fork, from Moccasin Creek to West Glacier and from West Glacier to the House of Mystery, where most raft companies do the bulk of their tours. 

“I agree with the determination of capacities for outfitters on these two sections of 86,000 and 50,000 (user days) respectively. The current outfitters can responsibly meet the demand of growth and visitation in a controlled setting focusing on education, stewardship, and safety. The allocation of priority use should continue to follow the current determination practices based upon the highest use of two years out of the last five,” he said. 

Outfitter and owner Denny Gignoux of Glacier Guides-Montana Raft also had several suggestions and called for a more flexible approach in management.  

“Visitor thresholds should be measured by group, not individual boats, to ensure accurate and fair use assessments,” he suggested. “The system should allow for flexibility in use to account for fluctuating river flows (both high and low) and unforeseen events such as wildfires, rockslides, logjams, road closures, and public health emergencies.” 

If usage thresholds are met, he suggested the possibility of a timed entry system. 

“Implement commercial use limits for a specific time frame, such as 11 a.m. - 3 p.m. Friday - Sunday, from July 15 to Aug. 10 to mitigate overcrowding during peak season. Caps of use, if required should be on a hourly level or daily level. Limit commercial put-in time to 45 minutes at Moccasin and West Glacier to reduce congestion,” he suggested. 

Or, perhaps, set put-in days for commercial use on scenic sections of the rivers. 

“Designate specific commercial put-in days for scenic portions of the river. For example: Bear Creek and the Border on the North Fork: Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays,” he wrote. 

A more complete draft of the river plan, with more data, is expected to be released later this summer and the hope, the Forest Service has said previously, is to have a final plan completed by early 2026.

The proposed action was just the first step in the process.