Don't rush gill-netting plan

It appears the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes are dead set on gill netting lake trout from Flathead Lake, but the public should be demanding the highest degree of scrutiny before this endeavor ever begins.

Unfortunately, it seems that the tribes intend to pursue a different course.

At a recent meeting sponsored by Flathead Wildlife Inc., tribal representative Tom McDonald made repeated references to the tribes being committed to an “environmental assessment process.” Yet his statements and recent correspondence from tribal leaders make it clear that the tribes want an expeditious review so that gill netting can get underway this year.

The problem is that an “environmental assessment” can entail the lightest degree of information and analysis possible under the National Environmental Policy Act. Tellingly, EAs are approved with a decision called a “Finding of No Significant Impact.”

Well, in this case, hundreds of anglers and businesses that depend on Flathead Lake’s recreational fishing are not going to easily swallow a decision declaring the project will have “no significant impact.”

It surely will. The tribal plan calls for using angling and netting to remove 60,000 lake trout in 2010, followed by 80,000 in 2011 and 100,000 in 2012. It will involve the use of large gill nets that kill almost everything they catch, including native bull trout and cutthroat trout, species that the project is intended to benefit.

Tribal officials are confident that netting can be targeted to mostly avoid native species, and that may be correct, but there will still be some degree of “by-catch.”

The project certainly will impact the lake trout population, but there are many questions that need to be addressed. How badly will it impact the lucrative lake-trout fishing industry? How effective will it be in spurring bull trout recovery, and just what level of recovery will be regarded as successful?

The netting is being pitched as a “pilot project,” possibly implying that a more serious effort might get underway after three years. Montanans have a right to ask: Just how long is it going to carry on, how much is it going to cost and where is the money going to come from?

Tribal documents outlining the project refer to the Bonneville Power Administration’s fish and wildlife mitigation funding. If that’s the case, Montana state officials should be adamant that the project requires an environmental impact statement.

An EIS typically provides a far more rigorous review than an environmental assessment — a review that would likely involve a thorough economic analysis, along with a good look at how lake-trout netting projects have fared on other waters, including Yellowstone Lake and Idaho’s Lake Pend Oreille.

There is already saber rattling in some quarters about lawsuits being filed, if necessary, to block the use of federal funds for netting on Flathead Lake if there is not an adequate environmental review.

The National Environmental Policy Act was developed as a “look before leaping law,” and when it comes to aggressive netting on Flathead Lake, a very close look is in order.