Late last August, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks biologist Jim Olsen stood before a standing-room-only audience at the Wise River Community Building and did his best to defend an agency plan to build a fish barrier on nearby French Creek, clear some 40 miles of streams, and restock the drainage with native species.
Olsen kept his cool as he responded to the sometimes heated concerns of local ranchers, anglers, and other stakeholders who wanted to know why they hadn't heard about the plan sooner, whether the fish barrier could be moved to a different location, whether the chemical to be used to poison unwanted species was safe, and — most importantly — if their concerns might be able to stop the plan altogether.
Looking back on that night some seven months later, Olsen acknowledges that "people felt like their voices weren't heard" and that FWP needed to do more work to respond to their issues with the plan.
"There were certainly a lot of questions that were asked that we had answers for — not that people wanted to hear them," Olsen says. "But there were some questions asked that we didn't have answers for."
FWP was granted additional time to consider the project in September, when the agency unsealed two bids to construct the barrier that both came in over budget, preventing construction from proceeding.
Olsen and others at FWP have spent the time since then collecting more information and performing additional analysis of the agency's existing plan to restore native species to the French Creek drainage. The result — a 30-page document entitled "Supplemental Analysis for the Restoration of Westslope Cutthroat Trout and Arctic grayling to French Creek" — was released March 30.
While it does not recommend many changes to the original plan for French Creek, the supplemental analysis does respond to a number of public comments on a range of issues, many of which were raised at the August meeting in Wise River. The new analysis also seeks to explain why the project is important, why French Creek is an appealing site for native fish restoration, why the naturally occurring substance rotenone will be used to poison non-native fish, and why the original proposed location for the fish barrier remains the best site for it, despite consideration of alternative barrier locations.
The most substantive change to FWP's original plan regards the road to be built to allow crews to access the barrier during and after construction.
While initial analysis conducted in 2016 called for the construction of a 6,100-foot road across the Mount Haggin Wildlife Management Area, the new supplemental analysis provides for access to be provided via an existing logging road on private ranchland that will then connect to a new road of only 1,900 feet. Once construction of the barrier is completed, the new road will be closed and reclaimed.
According to Olsen, the shorter road is "better all around than the previous one — less environmental impact, better access, and less cost."
In addition, the new FWP document includes two things that were missing from the original environmental analysis and that were asked for at August's meeting in Wise River: a flood analysis, which considers the effect of a 100-year flood event on nearby private property, and a breach analysis, which considers what might occur if the earthen portion of the dam were to fail.
According the supplemental analysis, the two houses closest to the barrier would be threatened only in a "worst-case scenario" of a 100-year flood that breached the barrier — and that threat would be small, with "no impacts from the fish barrier to the upstream residence and only minimal potential impact to the downstream structures if they were built according to existing and past regulations."
John Gordon owns that upstream residence, which he says is about 1,000 feet downstream of the proposed barrier site, but he says he isn't entirely reassured of the barrier's safety.
"It worries my wife," Gordon says, "because of the grandkids and everything. If somebody's out in the field and that breaks or breaches, you wouldn't have a chance."
But possible flooding isn't the only reason Gordon opposes the project. He objects to the entire premise of replacing the existing non-native fish in the drainage with native westslope cutthroat and Arctic grayling.
"My feeling is, the fish and game is supposed to be protecting the animals, not destroying them," Gordon says.
Olsen understands why residents are wary of FWP's plan, but he argues it's necessary.
"People don't like us killing fish," he says. "It's not why I got into this business either. But unfortunately, we don't have any other strategy to restore the native fish other than to get rid of the non-native ones."
And Olsen is adamant that restoring the native westslope cutthroat trout and Arctic grayling is vital.
While evidence suggests westslope cutthroat once occupied over 2,000 miles of habitat in the Big Hole drainage, Olsen says there's now only 20.5 secure miles of stream occupied by native, non-hybridized westslope cutthroat.
"So, I don't know about for you, but to me that's pretty crappy," Olsen says. "And if we don't do anything about it, then they're just going to disappear. Because having little tiny pieces of little tiny creeks at the top of headwaters is not a good conservation strategy. One good fire or landslide or whatever it is and they're gone.
"So trying to get larger populations restored to some of these watersheds is crucial to their long-term persistence," Olsen continues. "If that doesn't happen, they're gone. And once you lose 10,000 years of evolution, you don't get it back."
To expand native populations of westslope cutthroat, FWP has completed 11 restoration projects over about the last four years in the Big Hole, restoring about 57 miles of habitat. FWP has its sights set on the French Creek drainage because it offers a chance to add some 40 miles of stream to that number — and to add it on what is almost entirely public land.
Olsen and other supporters of the plan say the result will be a unique opportunity to fish for cutthroat and grayling once the native fish have established themselves in about three to five years.
"This is really a big deal," says Roy Morris, president of the Butte's George Grant Chapter of Trout Unlimited, "and this is a really good thing to do. And while this will potentially reduce the number of fish in the creeks, ultimately, what you'll have is a much better fishery."
And there is another important reason why many observers support the plan: they are concerned about what would happen if westslope cutthroat and Arctic grayling populations continue to decline and are placed on the Environmental Protection Agency's endangered species list.
"The reason this is important to every stakeholder on the Big Hole — particularly the agricultural community — is, right now, as long as they're not listed, the people here have a lot of control," Morris says. "But if they get listed, the feds will tell them what to do with the water. And what they'll tell them is to leave it in the river."
While he acknowledges that the listing of cutthroat and grayling would pose problems, Wise River rancher Justin Stanchfield says he doesn't find this line of argument "that compelling."
"It's probably a concern," Stanchfield says, "but how much of a concern? I don't think that much. I think there's other measures they could probably take. Poisoning streams and restocking them — it just seems like overkill to me."
Despite continued criticism from some, Olsen believes opposition will soften if and when the project is complete.
"Once we get native fish going in there and people see that this works, it'll be good," Olsen says. "I hope it will. That's my hope, is that people will be okay with it, just give us a little time and a chance to do it and see that it's gonna turn out pretty good."
In the meantime, a public comment period for the supplemental analysis is open through April. To encourage participation, Olsen says he has sent informational postcards to everyone who listed their address on sheets distributed at the August meeting in Wise River. He says he has also called those who listed a phone number instead. In addition, FWP will host a public meeting on the plan April 26 at the Copper King Hotel in Butte.
Once comments are in, the decision about whether and, if so, how to proceed with the project will be up to FWP Region 3 Regional Supervisor Mark Deleray. But if the project gets the green light, Olsen believes construction of the barrier will begin later this year, perhaps as early as this summer.
While Gordon and Stanchfield both plan to attend the meeting and make their opposition known, they are not optimistic about the odds of stopping the project.
"It's gonna go no matter what," Gordon says. "If they get the money, it's gonna go. There's no way you're gonna stop them."
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "French Creek fish kill plan analyzed again, reopened for comment"
Post a Comment