Lessons of Jarbidge hard to learn

Inter Lake editorial

Do you remember Jarbidge?

You probably do if you lived here 10 years ago when Northwest Montana residents formed a convoy to support and celebrate the "Shovel Brigade" which was organized to rebuild a national forest road in Nevada in defiance of federal authorities.

Since then, the battle of Jarbidge Canyon has degenerated into a contest to prove whether Elko County or the federal government was the first to establish a road along the river. But waiting on the sidelines are environmental groups who consider that a side issue. For them, the Endangered Species Act is the law that trumps all.

As intervenors in the case, the groups argue that the Forest Service must maintain authority over the road for the sake of the southernmost population of bull trout, which are protected by the Endangered Species Act.

The Jarbidge fight has all the ingredients of most other ESA battles, including some here in Northwest Montana: environmental litigants acting as advocates for a species, traditional-use advocates fighting to maintain access and management to public resources, and a federal agency caught in the middle.

The most important, and unfortunate, common denominator among endangered-species cases is how lengthy and wasteful they can be.

We've consistently argued that the huge amounts of time and money poured into endangered species litigation would be put to better use if it were channeled directly to habitat improvements, law enforcement and other practical measures that actually help endangered species.

Take the Kootenai River white sturgeon, an ancient species that may be the most imperiled in the Northwest. Court battles have been waged for years to secure "critical habitat" designations for sturgeon, including a recent expansion of critical habitat upstream from Bonners Ferry, Idaho.

But what will that designation actually do for sturgeon? Nothing.

The Center for Biological Diversity says the designations, combined with a recently issued biological opinion, make it imperative that more water be released from Libby Dam to provide optimum spawning conditions in the newly designated critical habitat. But truthfully, there is only speculation that the additional water will produce results as advertised.

And it probably won't happen at all, because additional releases will require spilling water over the dam's spillways. And there is widespread agreement that the spill at Libby Dam would produce gas in the river that exceeds Montana water quality standards to the detriment of other species in the river, including the threatened bull trout.

It's possible to install additional turbines or modify the dam's penstocks, but that would involve such an expense that the Bonneville Power Administration has determined it to be economically infeasible.

That leaves the most likely alternatives being considered: developing engineered modifications in key stretches of river that produce the depths, velocities and temperatures for spawning.

What the Kootenai sturgeon need right now and for years to come is money. Lots of money. Not critical habitat designations. Not litigation.

The same might be said for Jarbidge River bull trout. What would have happened if 10 years of time, energy and money poured into the fight over the controversial road had been put to a different use?

Maybe the road could have been relocated in sections, improved with the most advanced erosion control technology, and the river itself modified with habitat improvements that actually serve the bull trout rather than endangered species litigants.

Surely it's naive to think such a thing. There are, after all, budget line items dedicated to planning, administration, environmental compliance and litigation, and that money would never make its way to the river. And that's just a damn shame.