FOAM Blog

Another good turnout including a wider variety of users met with FWP folks in Bozeman last night. One new topic discussed was the lower Madison’s famous ‘tuber hatch’ – the summertime inner tube/air mattress/raft non-angling, sun-loving college crowd enjoying lazy floats from the BLM Warm Springs put-in to FWP’s Black’s Ford take-out.

Both landowners and land management agencies have tried to keep up with this popular pastime: The BLM reworked the Warm Springs access site, paving, striping for parking, creating alternate launch ramps, and improving the latrines. At Black’s Ford, FWP has added dumpsters at peak times to provide ample waste management. There is only so much both agencies can do to absorb the increasing ‘splash-and-giggle’ recreational use level and attendant drinking, overflow parking, and occasional conflict with other uses on the water and at the access points.

Clearly, this is quite a different situation from the angling use popular on the upper Madison, but it shares at least one obvious common requirement: Improved specific data on who is doing what, where, and when.

One college student asked FWP representatives if they had conducted any surveys on the lower Madison keyed to non-commercial, non-angling recreation. Aside from one ‘on-site’ survey conducted in 2009 that included the stretch from Warm Springs to Black’s Ford, the department told her they had no firm numbers on how many folk, primarily residents, are using either access point and when they are floating.

Gaps in specific data on nonresident angling in the upper Madison mirror the lack of data on this non-angling user group on the lower Madison. When asked about this need for adequate information to help guide the upcoming management discussion process, FWP Region 3 Chief, Pat Flowers, noted he was satisfied with the current data available and had no plans for further surveys or data-gathering instruments.

To his credit, he noted that if the Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) requested further information on use and user levels in specific areas at specific times, the department would do its best to comply.

Another point common to this river management process was brought up by a resident angler. Noting the frequent questions and concerns from outfitters and business owners who may be impacted by social controls, he wondered aloud about the resident angler in all this, asking if the CAC selection would be ‘slanted against the resident walk-wading angler.’

Charlie Sperry briefly discussed the planning process rules, pointing out the variety of representatives who would be selected for the CAC. Pat Flowers went on to explain his intent to create an ‘interest-based consensus-driven’ discussion of concerns and possible solutions.

Interest-based means most particular interests will be represented; consensus-driven means all represented interests must be considered in all decisions. No ganging-up, no obvious voting blocs, no majority rule. These two principles are central to the success of this planning method.

FOAM has long promoted these core concepts, and welcomed Flower’s reiteration of his commitment to their implementation in the Madison management discussion. Flower’s experience with many other resource, wildlife, and social issues that were successfully resolved through interest-based consensus-driven proposal and resolution discussions underscores the importance of his promoting these key modes in the Madison process.

Now, if we had sufficient data to augment meaningful discussion in a cooperative atmosphere, we will be well on the way to another success.

About 60 folks turned out for the first scoping meeting hosted by FWP to collect comments and answer questions about the Madison River Recreation Management Planning Process, MRRMPP.

The Ennis Middle School meeting room was lousy for acoustics – tough to hear the questions and answers – but we all struggled through. Many outfitters questioned the genesis and justification for the MRRMPP. Several local business women, notably Chris Gentry, owner of the Ennis grocery store, worried about possible controls on outfitters and guides that would cut into tourism business.

“These guys buy my food, and they bring in clients who buy my food,” said Chris. She reminded FWP that Ennis ‘lives on the summer business’ provided by recreational tourism.

Charlie Sperry, FWP River Recreation Coordinator, Travis Horton, FWP Fisheries Manager for Region 3, and Sam Sheppard, Warden Captain for Reg. 3, all fielded questions and provided, for the most part, on-point, balanced answers and explanations grounded in statistics and administrative history.

A couple points established early in the meeting: 1) Social pressure is not having any direct effect on the fishery. 2) While data about commercial use is plentiful, site-specific, time-graduated data on other angling use is sparse.

Yes, FWP has annual and summertime (May – September) statistical counts of angler days on three stretches of the Madison – roughly, Y’stone National Park to Lyons Bridge, Lyons to Ennis Dam, and Ennis Dam to the Missouri – broken into resident and nonresident numbers, but the department has no breakdown of which sub-stretches folks fished, or how many anglers used them, or when they fished.

Without this data, the committee discussing Madison concerns will be hard pressed to clearly and accurately determine if there are ‘hot spots’ of use that may warrant intervention. FWP would do well to focus on landowner and land management agency concerns, such as trespass, trash, human waste, crowded parking lots, etc. for now, while working up statistically significant survey or census instruments to backfill the missing use and user data to spur useful future discussions.

On to Bozeman tonight, then West Yellowstone on Feb. 28 and Whitehall on March 1. More to come.

Drum roll, cymbal crash: FWP has officially announced the Madison River Recreation Planning process online.

Scoping meetings will be held in Ennis (2/15 – Ennis Middle School), Bozeman (2/16 – Comfort Inn), West Yellowstone (2/28 Holiday Inn), and Whitehall (3/1 Whitehall High School) from 6 to 8 p.m.

Applications for the Citizen’s Advisory Committee, the CAC charter, a brief explanation of the process, plus surveys and other statistics are all available at the FWP Madison webpage.

Interesting notes: The CAC will meet some 8 or 9 times, not the 18- to 24-month process used for the Blackfoot Management Planning process, so we can expect some decisions in early 2013. Also, FWP seems to be bringing as much transparency as they can muster to this review and planning – just check the number of opportunities for public comment throughout the process description online.

Lastly, the CAC charter clearly states “the plan will focus on recreation management rather than resource management, with the understanding that resource protection is of highest priority.” The interaction of resource conditions and recreation choices will be tough to separate: It’s entirely possible anglers congregate to the point of possible crowding in stretches of the Madison that hold cooler water and leave relatively quiet those lower stretches that slowly warm during the summer. This chicken-and-egg resource-and-recreation relationship should not be ignored during the planning discussion, even if recreation is the point of the exercise.

Like the cop Joe Friday said on the now-ancient TV series “Dragnet”, it’s useful to know “Just the facts.”

Since the Madison River Recreation Management Plan keys on social issues that typically include what may be considered crowding, it makes sense to know the use level statistics for a variety of user groups before the process begins dealing with perception and opinion.

Before we jump to the figures, an explanation of the source data is necessary.

I’ve used the Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Park (FWP) biennial angler surveys to gather total, resident, and nonresident angler days from May to September of 1997 through 2009 on the Madison river stretch from Hebgen Dam to Ennis. An angler day is one person fishing for any part of a day.

Similarly, I’ve used Montana Board of Outfitters outfitter tally sheets to yield outfitted client day totals. A client day mirrors an angler day: One client served for any part of a day.

I can only present the total annual client days outfitters served on the entire Madison river, not those numbers from May through September nor client days generated from Hebgen Dam to Ennis. I propose that a majority of clients come during roughly the same summer period and use the upper section of the Madison from Lyons Bridge to Ennis Lake, so the client day percentage of total may be overstated by a percent or so, but the comparison is valuable nonetheless.

Finally, since nonresidents make up about 98% of our clientele, outfitted client days should be considered part of the nonresident percentage.

I’ll update this spreadsheet with more specific location and time of year client day data when FWP or the BLM publishes the statistics generated from the mandatory Madison Special Recreation Permit reports produced by outfitters during 2008, 2009, and 2010.

On the other hand, there is little to no available data regarding non-commercial use specific to place and time other than the general FWP angling reports I’ve used here. FWP would be wise to gather accurate non-commercial use information from a series of surveys keyed to use numbers, where users go, and when they enjoy the river.

At the Wednesday, Dec. 7 FWP Region 3 (Bozeman) Citizen’s Advisory Committee meeting, Pat Flowers, Reg. 3 Supervisor, Travis Horton, Reg. 3 Fisheries Manager, and Charlie Sperry, Recreation Management Specialist out of Helena, discussed the initiation of the Madison river recreational management plan. Flowers noted several key staffing positions were newly filled and sufficient funding was available for scoping and planning meetings and a facilitator, key basics to begin the planning.

Sperry outlined the general process for the plan, using a page from the River Recreation Management Planning Manual developed as part of the 2004 River Recreation Planning rule-making session. The Analysis and Decision-making Checklist is the step-by-step list of the recreation planning method.

Note Step Two – Scoping the Issues. Flowers and Sperry announced a series of public scoping meetings intended to gather public feedback on the current social conditions on the Madison as well as any issues concerning use. These meetings will probably be scheduled during February at Ennis, West Yellowstone, and Bozeman.

From the opinions and concerns expressed at these scoping meetings, FWP will build categories of interested parties that should be represented by the Citizen’s Advisory Committee, CAC. Next comes solicitation for representatives for the major interest categories and receipt of applications for CAC membership. Sperry suggested a group of 8 to 12 may be the optimal membership that balances representation and manageability. A 12-member CAC would be the lower limit, in FOAM’s opinion; surely there are more interests and user groups that must be involved. Yes, the 24-member Blackfoot CAC was overlarge and tended to bog down in simple decision-making, but we would advise a 15- to 18-member CAC to ensure quality representation of major interests on this, one of the key recreation rivers in Montana and the U.S.

Take a look at the checklist and you’ll understand the level of detail and multiple planning increments that go into a river recreation management plan. This is intentional: It may seem overly bureaucratic, but each phase is necessary to develop consensus recommendations that satisfy, to a reasonable degree, all involved parties and deal with all involved issues. Quite a task, quite a process.

Well, the word’s out to the press.

The Madisonian newspaper in Ennis, MT, ran an article first, covering the process and points of view from two local outfitters.

Next, Ben Pierce of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle published an article on the upcoming Madison Management Planning process.

Both articles were balanced and took a local scope on the process.

You may expect a lot more ink on this topic in the months to come.

On Tuesday, November 8, Travis Horton, FWP Region 3 Fisheries Manager, sent an email announcing that the department has decided to proceed with the recreation management planning process for the Madison river.

Noting that “a planning process is warranted, and sufficient staff time and funding exists at the current time to complete the process,” Horton said the region will outline steps in the process and build a timeline, all to be sent out in press releases and other outreach avenues in December.

If you’ve read previous post on this topic, you’ve probably read the rules governing this planning process.  I expect FWP Region 3 to recruit volunteers for the planning committee from various interest and user groups, then submit these committee member recommendations to the FWP director for ratification.  Next, the department should publish a tentative timetable of meetings scheduled at a common locale in the region, probably Ennis.

The only planning process subject to these rules was the RRAFT (River Recreation Advisory For Tomorrow) group meeting to discuss the Blackfoot river in Missoula.  After two years of meetings, the committee settled on recommendations for that river.  You can download those recommendation documents from our site: Blackfoot Decision Notice or the Blackfoot Recreation Management Plan itself. Alternately, you can check out FWP’s records of the meetings at FWP Blackfoot Planning. (Be aware that the PDF’s there are best downloaded with IE9 or Safari – I had trouble using Firefox 7.)

The Big Hole / Beaverhead process came long before these current planning rules; in fact, the disorder, disagreement, contention, and difficulties of that management process lead directly to the development of the River Recreation Management Planning rules that were used in Missoula and will be applied to the Madison.

More on all this in future posts.