S Fisheries Program 354o57 Department of Fish L72fp Wildlife and Parks 1998 itive Audit Division State of Montana Report to the Legislature December 1998 Performance Audit s:.z- HBLLl.r\. . Fisheries Program Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks This performance audit provides information about Fisheries Program operations and expenditures. Reconunendations address: >' Additional controls over the private pond program. »■ PoUcies and procedures for fish stocking. *■ Procedures to ensure needed Environmental Assessments are written. »■ Incorporating the number of work days needed per task into the future work plan development process. 98P-02 Direct comments/inquiries to: Legislative Audit Division Room 135, State Capitol PO Box 201705 Helena MT 59620-1705 Help eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse in state government Call the Fraud Hotline at 1-800-222-4446 statewide or 444-4446 in Helena. MONTANA STATE LIBRARY 3 0864 0014 5522 2 PERFORMANCE AUDITS Performance audits conducted by the Legislative Audit Division are designed to assess state government operations. From the audit work, a determination is made as to whether agencies and programs are accomplishing their purposes, and whether they can do so with greater efficiency and economy. In performing the audit work, the audit staff uses audit standards set forth by the United States General Accounting Office. Members of the performance audit staff hold degrees in disciplines appropriate to the audit process. Areas of expertise include business and public administration, statistics, economics, computer science, and engineering. Performance audits are performed at the request of the Legislative Audit Committee which is a bicameral and bipartisan standing committee of the Montana Legislature. The committee consists of six members of the Senate and six members of the House of Representatives. MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE Senator Linda Nelson, Chair Representative Bruce Simon, Vice Chair Senator Sue Bartlett Representative Beverly Bamhart Senator Reiny Jabs Representative Ernest Bergsagel Senator Tom Keating Representative A. R. "Toni" Hagener Senator Ken Miller Representative Bob Keenan Senator Barry "Spook" Stang Representative Robert Pavlovich LEGISLATIVE AUDIT DIVISION Scott A. Seacat, Legislative Auditor John W. Northey, Legal Counsel Tori Hunthausen, IT & Operations Manager Deputy Legislative. Auditors: Jim Pellegrini, Performance Audit James Gillett, Financial-Compliance Audit December 1998 The Legislative Audit Committee of the Montana State Legislature This IS our performance audit of the Fisheries Program admmistrated by the Department of Fish. Wildlife and Parks. This report provides mformation about Fisheries Program operations and expenditures. Recommendations address additional controls over the pnvate pond program, policies and procedures for fish stockmg, and mcorporating the number of work days per task into the fiiture work plan development process. A written response from the department is included at the end of the report. We appreciate the cooperation and assistance of department staff dunng this audit. Respectfully submitted. scotf'A Seacat Legislative Auditor Room 135, State Capitol Building, PO Box 201705 Helena MT 59620-1705 Phone .(406) 444-3122 FAX (406) 444-9784 E-Mail lad@state.mt.us Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from Montana State Library http://www.archive.org/details/fisheriesprogram1998mont Legislative Audit Division Performance Audit Fisheries Program Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks The member of the audit staff involved in this audit was Mary Zednick. Table of Contents List of Figures and Tables Page viii Appointed and Administrative Officials Page xiii Report Summary Page S-1 Introduction Page 1 Audit Objectives Page I Audit Scope and Methodologies Page 2 Compliance Page 4 Data Limitations Page 4 Whirling Disease Page 4 Mysis Shrimp Page 5 Issues for Further Study Page 5 Management Memorandum Page 5 Report Organization Page 6 Introduction Page 7 Department Organization Page 7 Decentrahzed System Page 9 Fisheries Program Funding and Expenditures Page 1 0 Fisheries Program Staffmg . . . , Page 15 License Sales and Angler Days Page 19 Number of Licenses Sold Page 19 Number of Angler Days Page 19 Introduction Page 23 Fish Management Expenditures Page 23 Fish Population Estimate/Survey Data Used to Manage Waterbodies Page 24 Major Waterbodies Sampled Page 25 Most Species Monitored Page 26 Page i Chapter I - Introduction Chapter II - Background Chapter III - Fish Management Table of Contents Spawning and Survival Data Page 26 Harvest Data Also Used to Manage Waterbodies Page 27 Statewide Survey Page 28 Creel Census Page 28 Regulation Recommendations Based on Monitoring and Harvest Data Page 30 Input for Changes Sought from FWP Staff and Public Page 30 Fisheries Management Plans Help FWP Manage Waterbodies Page 30 Commission Directed Department to Write Fisheries Management Plans Page 3 1 Plans Now Written for Ten- Year Time Period Page 32 Plans Address Many Issues Page 32 Public Involved When Writmg Plans Page 32 Controls Over the Private Pond Program Could be Strengthened Page 32 Pond Owners Required to Permit Pond Page 33 Additional Controls Needed for Private Ponds Page 34 Initial Permittmg Page 35 Import Controls Limited to Initial Stocking . . . Page 36 Lack Authority for Monitoring Page 36 FWP Fish Introductions and Movement are Controlled Page 37 Introducing New Fish Species Page 38 Transfers to Other Waterbodies Page 38 Stocking Hatchery Fish Page 39 Plans Can be Changed During the Year Page 39 Numbers Planned and Stocked Vary Page 39 EAs Required for Some Stockings Page 42 Unauthorized Introductions of Fish Page 44 Unauthorized Introductions Occur Page 46 Fish Health Monitored Page 46 Fish Hatchery Inspections Page 46 Fish Import Permits Required Page 47 Summary Page 47 Page ii Table of Contents Chapter IV - Habitat Introduction Page 5 1 Protection and Improvement Programs Projects Reviewed to Ensure Fisheries Habitat Protected Page 5 1 124 Permit Issuance Page 52 Fisheries Managers Issue 1 24 Permits to Other Government Entities Page 52 3 10 Permit Issuance Process Page 53 Some 310 Work Contracted Page 54 Monitormg 310 Permits Page 54 Mandated Habitat Programs Page 54 River Restoration Program Page 55 Project Summary Page 56 Future Fishenes Improvement Program Page 57 Program Fundmg Page 57 Program Expenditures Page 58 Types of Projects Funded Page 59 Apphcation Review Process Page 60 EAs Wntten Page 60 Bills Submitted for Payment Page 61 FFIP Project Summary Page 61 Some Project Results are Evaluated to Determine Success Page 63 Procedures Needed to Ensure EAs Written . . . Page 65 Other Habitat Programs Page 66 Clark Fork River Habitat Projects Page 66 Blackfoot River Restoration Project Page 67 Habitat Projects Resulting from Mitigation Funding . . Page 69 Hungry Horse Dam Mitigation Page 69 Broadwater Power Project Mitigation Page 70 Miscellaneous Habitat Projects Page 70 Funds Dedicated to "On-The-Land" Habitat Improvement Programs Page 7 1 Summary Page 73 Chapter V - Water Introduction Page 75 Reservations and Leasing FWP Uses Water Reservations and Leasing to Ensure Water Quantity Page 75 Murphy Rights Page 75 Page iii Table of Contents Chapter VI - Special Projects Water Reservations Page 76 Monitoring Water Flows Page 77 Clark Fork Basin Water Management Plan Page 77 Water Reservation Expenditures Page 77 Water Leasing Page 78 Flow Monitoring Page 8 1 Biological Monitoring Page 8 1 Coordination With Other Programs Page 82 Expenditures for Water Leasmg Program Page 83 Expenditures for the Instream Flow Programs Page 83 Summary Page 84 Introduction Page 85 Current Major Projects Camed Out Under Wntten Plans Page 85 Arctic Grayling Recovery Program Page 86 Conclusion: Recovery Plan Followed Page 88 Westslope Cutthroat Recovery Project Page 88 Conclusion: FWP Working Toward Agreement to Preclude Listing of Westslope Cutthroat Page 89 PaUid Sturgeon Recovery Project Page 89 Conclusion: FWP Active in Palhd Sturgeon Recovery Page 90 Bull Trout Study Page 91 Conclusion: Bull Trout Recovery Efforts Coordinated Page 92 Paddlefish Study Page 93 Conclusion: Paddlefish Project Helps Ensure a Stable Population Page 93 Hungry Horse and Libby Dams Mitigation Page 93 Hungry Horse Dam Mitigation Page 94 Libby Dam Mitigation Page 94 Conclusion: Mitigation and Implementation Plan Components Being Completed Page 95 Page iv Table of Contents Benthic Fish Study Page 95 Conclusion: Data Will Help in Water Management Decisions Page 96 Mysis Shrimp Page 96 Conclusion: FWP Writing a Management Plan for Flathead Lake Page 97 Information Services Unit - Kalispell Page 98 Miscellaneous Projects Page 99 Summary Page 99 Chapter VII - Whirling Introduction Page 101 Disease Research Coordmated and Results Contributing to Understandmg of the Disease Page 1 0 1 Whirlmg Disease Life History Page 101 Governor's Whirling Disease Task Force Page 102 Second Task Force Created m 1997 Page 104 Research Conducted by FWP Page 104 A Statewide Fish and Oligiocheate Survey of Montana's Waters Page 105 Fish Surveys Page 106 Missouri/Little Prickly Pear Project Page 107 Rock Creek Project Page 107 Worm Surveys Page 108 Fish Susceptibility to Whirling Disease Page 108 Life History Research Page 108 Madison River Project Page 109 National Partnership on the Management of Wild and Native Coldwater Fisheries - Whirling Disease Initiative Page 109 Whirling Disease Foimdation Page 111 Fish Cooperative Unit Page 111 FWP Expenditures for Whirling Disease Page 1 12 Summary Page 1 12 Page V Table of Contents Chapter VIII - State Hatchery System Chapter IX - Workload Chapter X - Fishing Access Sites Introduction Page 1 15 Fish Hatchery Expenditures Page 115 Washoe Parle Trout Hatchery - Anaconda Page 1 16 Jocko River Trout Hatchery - Arlee Page 1 16 Yellowstone River Trout Hatchery - Big Timber Page 1 17 Bluewater Springs Trout Hatchery - Bridger Page 1 17 Giant Springs Trout Hatchery - Great Falls Page 1 18 Big Sprmgs Trout Hatchery - Lewistown Page 1 18 Flathead Lake Salmon Hatchery - Somers Page 118 Miles City Hatchery - Miles City Page 1 19 Murray Springs Hatchery - Eureka Page 1 19 hitroduction Page 121 FWP Goals Include Determining Work Priorities Page 121 Strategic Plans Being Developed Page 122 Biologists Believe Workload is Increasing Page 122 310 Permit Workload Page 122 3 1 0 Permit Workload Varies by Geographic Area Page 123 Additional Work Duties Page 124 Staff Unsure if They are Working on Priority Tasks Page 126 Strategic Planning Process is Supposed to Address Concerns Page 126 Conclusion: Fisheries Involving Enforcement in Strategic Planning Page 127 hitroduction Page 129 Site Acquisition Page 130 Page vi Table of Contents FAS Expenditures Page 131 Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Page 137 Fish Native to Montana Page A-1 Special Project Descriptions and Expenditures Page B- 1 Summary of Whirling Disease Research Supported by FWP, National Partnership, and Whirlmg Disease Foundation Page C-1 State Hatchery System Expenditures Page D-1 Fishing Access Site Expenditures Page E- 1 Department Response Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Page vii List of Figures & Tables Figure 1 Fish, Wildlife and Parks Organizational Chart (As of June 1998) Page 8 Figure 2 Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Regions Page 10 Figure 3 Fisheries Program Expenditures by Funding Source (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page 13 Figure 4 Fisheries Program FTE (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page 17 Figures Angler Days (License Years 1982 to 1995) Page 21 Figure 6 States With WlurUng Disease (As of December 1997) Page 102 Table 1 Fishmg Licenses Sold Page 19 Table 2 Fisheries Program General Operating Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1994-95 through 1996-97) Page 24 Table 3 Monitoring Activity (Fiscal Years 1994-95 through 1996-97) Page 26 Table 4 Spawning and Fry Recruitment Monitoring Activity (Fiscal Years 1994-95 through 1996-97) Page 27 Table 5 Creel Census Location and Year (Calendar Years 1991 through 1997) Page 29 Table 6 Fisheries Management Plans by Region (As of June 1998) Page 31 Table 7 New and Total Private Pond Permits (As of May 1998) Page 34 Table 8 Comparison of Number of Fish Planned to Fish Planted by Species (Calendar Years 1994 through 1997) Page 40 Table 9 Unauthorized Fish Introductions by Region (As of March 1998) Page 45 Page viii List of Figures & Tables Table 10 Miscellaneous 124 Pennits Issued (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page 53 Table 1 1 Status of RRP Applications (As of May 1998) Page 56 Table 12 Type and Number of RRP Projects Approved and Completed (As of May 1998) Page 57 Table 13 FFIP Project Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1995-96 and 1996-97) Page 58 Table 14 Status of FFIP Projects Approved as of December 1 996 (As of September 1998) Page 62 Table 15 Type and Number of FFIP Projects Approved and Completed (As of September 1998) Page 62 Table 16 Projects Evaluated by Region (Calendar Year 1998) Page 64 Table 17 Mitigation Fund Expenditures for Habitat Projects on the Clark Fork River (Fiscal Years 1992-93 through 1996-97) Page 66 Table 18 Streams m the Blackfoot Drauiage with Restoration Activities (As of June 1998) Page 68 Table 19 Blackfoot River Habitat Project Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1990-91 through 1996-97) Page 69 Table 20 Percentage of Fisheries-Related Expenditures Dedicated to On-The-Land Projects (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page 72 Table 2 1 Expenditures for Water Reservations (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1993-94) Page 78 Table 22 Water Lease Terms and Cost (As of November 1997) Page 80 Table 23 Water Leasing Program Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page 83 Page ix List of Figures & Tables Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 Table 29 Table 30 Table 31 Table 32 Table 33 Table 34 Table 35 Table 36 Table 37 Table B-1 Table B-2 Instream Flow Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page 84 Total Expenditures by Special Project (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page 86 Arctic Grayling Recovery Program Events Page 87 Westslope Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project Events Page 89 PaUid Sturgeon Recovery Program Events Page 90 Events Relating to Bull Trout Page 92 Hungry Horse Dam Mitigation Events Page 94 310 Permits Issued by Region (Fiscal Years 1994-95 through 1996-97) Page 124 Other Job Duties of Fisheries Biologists (Fiscal Years 1995-96 through 1996-97) Page 125 Fishing Access Sites by Region (As of May 1998) Page 129 Fishing Access Acquisition Expenditures and Number of Sites Acquired (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page 131 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Expenditures by Region for Fishing Access Sites (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page 132 Capital Expenditures by Region for Fishing Access Sites (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page 133 Miscellaneous Fishing Access Site Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1992-93 through 1996-97) Page 133 Arctic Grayling Recovery Program Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1991-92 through 1996-97) Page B-4 Expenditures for Westslope Cutthroat Projects (Fiscal Years 1990-91 through 1996-97) Page B-7 Page X List of Figures & Tables Tqlple B-3 Expenditures for the Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Project (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page B-8 Table B-4 Restoration/Conservation Areas for Bull Trout (June 1998) Page B-9 Table B-5 Expenditures for Bull Trout Projects (Fiscal Years 1992-93 through 1996-97) Page B-1 1 Table B-6 Paddlefish Project Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page B-1 2 Table B-7 Hungry Horse and Libby Dam Mitigation Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page B-15 Table B-8 Kahspell Information Unit Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page B-16 TablgC-1 Summary of Whirlmg Disease Research Supported by FWP, National Partnership, and Whirling Disease Foundation Page C-1 Table D- 1 Washoe Park Trout Hatchery Operatmg and Capital Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page D-1 Table D-2 Jocko River Trout Hatchery Operating Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Capital Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1990-91 dirough 1996-97) Page D-2 Tablg D-3 Yellowstone River Trout Hatchery Operatmg Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page D-2 Table D-4 Bluewater Springs Trout Hatchery Operating Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 dirough 1996-97) Capital Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1994-95 through 1996-97) Page D-3 Page xi List of Figures & Tables Table D-5 Giant Springs Trout Hatchery Operating Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Capital Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1994-95 through 1996-97) Page D-4 Table D-6 Big Springs Trout Hatchery Operating and Capital Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page D-5 Table D-7 Flathead Lake Sahnon Hatchery Operatuig Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Capital Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1994-95 through 1996-97) Page D-6 Table D-8 Miles Cit>' Hatchery Operating and Capital Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page D-7 Table D-9 Murray Springs Hatchery Operating Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page D-7 Table D- 10 Expenditures for Kokanee Production (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page D-8 Table D- 1 1 Additional Expenditures for Fish Food (Fiscal Years 1991-92 through 1996-97) Page D-9 Table E- 1 Fishing Access Site Operations and Mamtenance Expenditures by Region (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page E-2 Table E-2 Capital Expenditures for Fishing Access Sites by Region (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Page E-6 Page xii Appointed and Administrative Officials FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS COMMISSION Stan Meyer, Chairman (Great Falls) Dave Simpson, Vice Chairman (Hardin) Darlyne Dascher (Fort Peck) Charles Decker (Libby) Tim Mulligan (Whitehall) Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Pat Graham, Director Arnold Olsen, Chief of Operations Chris Smith, Chief of Staff Doug Monger, Administrator, Parks Division Larry Peterman, Administrator, Fishenes Division Tim Gallagher, Assistant Administrator, Fisheries Division Jim Satterfield , Chief, Fisheries Management Bureau Glenn Phillips, Chief, Habitat Bureau Gary Bertellotti, Chief, Hatcheries Bureau Chris Hunter, Chief, Special Projects Bureau Page xiii Report Summary Introduction The Legislative Audit Committee requested a performance audit of the Fisheries Program, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP). Major interest centered around expenditures for the activities conducted by Fisheries Program staff in the seven regions, the hatcheries, and Helena. We established audit objectives based on questions presented to the Committee and numerous legislative requests and letters from the pubhc on various aspects of the Fisheries Program. We also reviewed documentation and controls over aspects of specific programs, such as the Future Fisheries Improvement Program, fish stocking, and private ponds. We reviewed Fisheries Program expenditures for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. This time period provided us with an adequate history of studies/projects and implementation status of study recommendations. Fisheries Program Funding and Expenditures The Fisheries Program is funded with general hcense revenues, federal special revenue, contracts and grants from state agencies, private companies, private individuals, sportsmen groups, universities, and gifts and donations. General License (GL) funds are derived from the sale of fishing hcenses. The primary federal revenue source is the US Fish and Wildlife Service Dingle Johnson (DJ) grant. DJ money is generated from taxes on the sale of fishing equipment. Day-to-day operations of the program are funded from these two sources. Other special revenue sources fiind the special studies/projects conducted by the department. General operating expenditures for fiscal years 1994-95 through 1996- 97 averaged $4. 1 milhon, excluding state fish hatcheries. Expenditures are paid from the regions' fisheries budget and division general budget. Fish Management Fish management activities are centered around the objective of meeting public demand for fishing opportunities. Activities cover many aspects, from determining fish populations by elecfrofishing and gill netting to issuing permits for private ponds and ensuring healthy fish are stocked in Montana's waters. Page S-1 Report Summary Audit work showed: >■ Fisheries biologists use fish population and spawning data as a basis for management decisions concerning specific waterbodies. >- Harvest data is used extensively to manage fisheries. When combined with population data, harvest data provides the total picture of the fishery in specific waterbodies. >- Proposed regulations in each region are based on population surveys, harvest data, and management plans. Regional staff propose changes to regulations based on the biology of the waterbody and input from other staff and the public >■ Fisheries Management Plans provide a management direction to follow and require periodic checks to ensure the department is heading in the proper direction. >■ FWP introduces and moves fish from one waterbody to another under controlled circumstances. >■ Fish health in FWP's hatcheries is closely monitored We found there are hmited controls over the private pond program. The objectives of permitting private ponds are to monitor the fishery resource and ensure unwanted fish or diseases are not stocked into ponds where they can escape to state waters. Current controls do not ensure objectives are met. Biologists cannot inspect private ponds not open to public fishing to ensure the proper species offish are stocked, structural integrity is still good, etc., without landowner permission. We recommended the department implement additional controls over the program to ensure the objectives of the permitting process are met. During our review of the fish stocking program, we found there were few formal written policies and procedures for some administrative Junctions so we recommended the department formalize and communicate the policies and procedures. We also noted three procedural problems with Environmental Assessments so we recommended policies be documented. Page S-2 Report Summary Overall, we found regional and division staff are conducting fish management activities in a way that ensures there are fishing opportunities in Montana. Habitat Protection and Biologists participate in two habitat protection programs (the Stream Improvement Programs Protection Act and the Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act) and two legislatively-mandated habitat improvement/restoration programs (the River Restoration Program and the Future Fisheries Improvement Program). Biologists are also involved with a number of other habitat restoration/improvement programs that do not rely on fimding fi'om the two legislatively-created programs These range fi-om redirecting a stream channel on a tributary to the Blackfoot River to putting structures in a pond for perch habitat. Audit work showed: >■ Fisheries biologists are actively involved in protecting habitat by reviewing applications for Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act and Stream Protection A ct permit projects. >■ Fisheries biologists are involved in the River Restoration and Future Fisheries Improvement Programs. >■ Future Fisheries Improvement Program projects are constructed as they were described in the applications. >■ Future Fisheries Improvement Program expenditures are not made without submission of appropriate documentation from regional staff >■ Some project results are evaluated to determine if the project was successful and that by and large, department staff have consistently found projects have improved the fish populations in the project areas. >■ Fisheries biologists are also involved in habitat programs/projects which do not utilize Future Fisheries Improvement Program funds such as work on the Clark Fork River, the Blackfoot Restoration Project, dam mitigation projects, and projects with sportsmen and youth groups. Page S-3 Report Summary >- The percentage of funds for on-the-land projects increased from 0.07 percent in fiscal year 1989-90 (the first year of the River Restoration Program) to 5. 7 percent in fiscal year 1996-97 During our review of Future Fisheries Improvement Program project jiles, we found an Environmental Assessment was not written for one project because of a change in the project from what was originally proposed. The department indicated an Environmental Assessment (EA) should have been written and now require biologists to notijy the division of any changes in future projects to ensure required EAs are completed. Overall, we found regional and division staff are involved in protecting, restoring, and improving habitat. Water Reservations and Water quantity is necessary to maintain adequate living space for fish. Leasing to provide spawning areas and places where young fish can grow, to protect food-producing areas, to maintain water quality, to help provide streamside vegetation, and in some cases, to protect species of special concern. The legislature enacted three laws to address water quantity for fisheries - Murphy Rights, water reservations, and water leasing. The department filed for Murphy Rights on 1 2 blue ribbon trout streams in 1969. The water law change in 1973 allowed FWP to apply for instream flows on the rivers/creeks in the state not covered by Murphy Rights. The 1989 Legislature established the water leasing program. Under this program, FWP has entered into 10 leases. The leases range in price fi^om $ 1 each year to $ 1 2,750 per year for 1 0 years. Audit work showed: >■ FWP uses all three laws to ensure water is available for Montana 's fisheries. Page S-4 Report Summary Special Projects ^^ Fisheries Program includes a number of special studies/projects such as: > Recovery programs for species of concern and threatened or endangered species - Arctic grayling, westslope cutthroat, paUid sturgeon, bull trout, paddlefish. > Programs to mitigate the effects of federal and private dams on the fisheries in the area of the dams - Hungry Horse and Libby Dams. > Introductions of new species for a food source - Mysis shrimp. > Providing information to the Fisheries Program, and other FWP programs, concerning fisheries, recreation, and wildlife - Information Services Unit in Kalispell. The vast majority of the projects are funded with money FWP receives fi-om federal agencies, private companies, orgamzations and citizens, and other state agencies through grants, contracts, gifts, and donations. Expenditures for the various projects ranged from $5 million for dam mitigation for over 8 years to $ 1 5 1 ,000 for another project. If the department did not receive outside funding, the special projects would not be conducted. Audit work showed: >■ Current major projects are carried out under a plan usually written in cooperation with a number of agencies. >- Recommendations contained in plans and reports are implemented Not all the projects are successful (Mysis shrimp), and many of the projects are still ongoing so the final success is not know at the time of this report > FWP fisheries biologists are involved in technical working groups associated with the projects pertaining to species of concern and threatened or endangered species. Page S-5 Report Summary Whirling Disease FWP, along with many other organizations, including the Whirhng Disease Foundation and the National Partnership on the Management of Wild and Native Coldwater Fisheries, funds tests and research to determine ways to combat the disease and infection offish. FWP fimds some research on its own and also contributes to the research conducted by others. From fiscal year 1994-95 through 1996-97, FWP directed approximately $460,000 toward whirling disease. To date, research has provided information on whirling disease and tubifex worm distribution in Montana, shown a temperature relationship between the disease and rate of infection, and resistance of species. Tests show rainbow and cutthroat trout are highly susceptible with brook and brown trout less so. Bull trout and Arctic grayling can be infected by the parasite but show a high resistance to severe infections. FWP's research centers around four core questions developed b\' the Governor's Whirling Disease Task Force. A Whirling Disease Coordinator position was created in the department to oversee research efforts in Montana. Life history tests of the tubifex worm, the parasite, and wild trout will be taking place in 1999, with test results expected in the year 2000. If these tests are successful the department will investigate ways to modify the life histories of wild trout. Audit work showed: State Hatchery System >- The organizations, including FWP, which fund tests and research are cooperating with each other to ensure research is not duplicated by a number of different entities. The state of Montana owns eight fish hatcheries and operates a ninth ovraed by the Army Corps of Engineers. FWP's hatchery system stocks over 40 million fish a year in lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and some streams that cannot sustain wild populations of fish. General operating expenditures for hatcheries funded by GL and DJ funds averaged $1.3 million for the eight fiscal years reviewed (approximately $162,000 per hatchery). Average costs for the hatchery funded by the Army Corps of Engineers was $138,000 for the same time period. Hatchery costs are approximately 26 percent of the total GL and DJ funds expended by the Fisheries Program. Page S-6 Report Summary Capital expenditures for hatcheries for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97 totaled approximately $3.5 million. This included major repairs to some hatcheries and renovations to others. Rebuilding the Washoe Park Trout Hatchery accounted for $2.3 miUion of the total capital expenditures. Audit work showed: >• Overall, most biologists and fisheries managers were satisfied with the number, size, and species offish provided by the hatcheries. Workload ¥W? developed a vision plan to ". . . meet the challenges anticipated as it enters the 21st century." The plan outlines goals the department beheves reflect areas of emphasis, what the public expects of the department, and what the department expects of itself The goals include: "Creating a work environment where priorities are clear; the decision-making process is efficient and effective; and where employees feel a sense of accountabihty, value, and satisfaction in their achievements and their contributions to the agency mission." Each goal also includes guiding principles for achieving the goals. One of the principles is to complete strategic and six-year plans for Fisheries, Wildlife, and Parks Programs to clarify public expectations, allocate resources and defme a common direction for FWP and its partners. During the audit, the Fisheries Division submitted its strategic plan, "Fisheries Beyond 2000," for public review. After the document is fmalized, the department plans to develop six-year plans for the program. After completion of the six-year plan, yearly workplans are to be developed for each biologist expending GL and DJ money. One goal of the strategic planning process is to address concerns expressed by biologists relating to workload. Some staff voiced the opinion they are not working on what they think are the highest priority items because all things are considered a priority and there is not enough time to do every task adequately or completely. Many staff beheve their workload is largely driven by the pubUc and special interest groups. Page S-7 Report Summary The new process is intended to identify priorities, and workplans are to be used to ensure there is time and money needed to address those priorities. Workplans are to be budget-driven. Department management is hopeful this process will help determine staff priorities and thus reduce workload. Besides tieing the plans to dollars (budget), the plans should also be developed based upon the number of work days it takes to complete the tasks. We recommended department management incorporate the number of work days per task into the future workplan development process. Audit work showed: >• // appears FWP is moving to a more coordinated approach to managing the resources under its control As currently planned, and when fully implemented, the strategic planning process should help the biologists prioritize their activities and allow them time to accomplish those activities. Fishing Access Sites ^^ ^^^^^ of Montana has over 275 active developed and undeveloped fishing access sites in the seven regions. State and federal statute provide a number of fiinding sources for fishing access site acquisition, operation, and maintenance. These include general license fees. Dingle Johnson, and the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fimd. Acquisition fimds are derived fi-om fishing license sales. Acquisition costs averaged $181,000 for 38 sites fi^om fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. General operation and maintenance expenditures averaged $495,000 in the same time period. Capital expenditures through the Long Range Building Program for fishing access site development, improvements, and weed control averaged $401,000 in the eight fiscal years. Page S-8 Report Summary Summary ^® mission of the Fisheries Program is to preserve, maintain, and enhance all aquatic species and their ecosystems to meet the public's demand for recreational opportunities and stewardship of aquatic wildlife. FWP staff address this mission by implementing pohcies and programs emphasizing management of wild fish populations and protecting and restoring their habitats; operating an efficient hatchery program to stock lakes and reservoirs where natural reproduction is limited or lacking; monitoring and regulating angler harvests to maintain balanced ecosystems; and providing and maintaining adequate pubhc access to fisheries. Overall, we found the department has implemented programs to address its mission. Page S-9 Chapter I - Introduction Introduction The Legislative Audit Committee requested a performance audit of the Fisheries Program, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP). Major mterest centered around expenditures for activities conducted by Fisheries Program staff in the seven regions, the hatcheries, and Helena. We estabhshed audit objectives based on questions presented to the Committee and numerous legislative requests and letters from the public on various aspects of the Fisheries Program. The report addresses the requests for information and audit findings. Audit Objectives The objectives of the audit were to collect background information on program activities and answer the following questions: 1 . What are the components of the Fishenes Program and how much has been spent on operations and maintenance? 2. What are the components of habitat programs and how much has been spent on habitat, mcludmg Future Fishenes Improvement Program, River Restoration Program, and other habitat projects conducted by fishenes biologists? 3. What is the percentage of available dollars (state, federal, and private) dedicated to on-the-land improvement programs/projects versus studies, research, planning, capital improvements, and operations? 4. What are the components of the special projects/studies and how much has been spent on special projects/studies? What recommendations resulted from the studies and were those recommendations implemented? 5. What are the components of the program and how much has been spent on whirling disease? What is the projected cost/benefit analysis? 6. How much has been spent on fish hatchery improvements? 7. What steps has the department taken to implement joint resource priority planning to assure coordination of effort within the divisions of FWP? 8. How much has been spent on the operations, maintenance, and improvements of fishing access sites? Page 1 Chapter I - Introduction 9. What are the projected hcensing revenue and federal fund losses due to declines in fisheries resources from: a. Whirling disease, b. Mysis shrimp introduction, and c. Impacts on native species from non-native introductions (reductions in populations and concurrent expenses associated with studies and restoration efforts)? We also reviewed documentation and controls over aspects of specific programs, such as the Future Fisheries Improvement Program, fish stocking, and private ponds. Audit Scope and Methodologies The audit was conducted m accordance with government standards for performance audits. We reviewed applicable state laws and admmistrative rules. We reviewed Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission meetmg minutes for fiscal years 1994-95 through 1996-97 to determine what decisions were made concerning the Fisheries Program. We also reviewed regional fisheries manager meeting minutes for calendar year 1997 to detemune discussion topics and decisions resulting from those meetings. We reviewed Fisheries Program expenditures for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. This time period provided us with an adequate history of studies/projects and implementation status of resulting recommendations. Expenditure information was obtained from the Statewide Budgeting and Accounting System (SBAS). To obtain an understanding of the work conducted in the regions, we visited each region. At the region we interviewed the fisheries manager and the regional supervisor. We also interviewed management and special project biologists working in the region. We reviewed Future Fisheries Improvement Program files to determine if apphcations were completed, the project was approved by the Future Fisheries Review Panel and the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission, appropriate environmental assessments (EAs) were written, expenditures were documented, and the project was reviewed prior to making the final payment. We also compared project descriptions in the Page 2 Chapter I - Introduction application to the completed project to determine if the final project matched the application. We reviewed fish stocking update forms for 1996 and 1997 to determine if there was a new stocking and, if so, if an E A was written. For the 1993 through 1996 stockings, the number offish planned for stocking was compared to what was actually stocked, by species, to determine if there were differences between the planned and the actual stocking. We then examined stocking update records to determine if the stocking was consistent with the department's plan and cntena and discussed our fmdings with staff to detemune why there were differences. Many of the special studies/projects conducted by the division result m reports Mmutes were recorded of most meetmgs concerning a study/project. We reviewed any available reports and meetuig mmutes to determine why the study /project ongmated, the results of the study /project, and if the recommendations resulting fi-om the study/project were implemented. Hatchery capital upgrades are paid fi-om FWP's Capital Outlay Program and Department of Administration's (D of A), Architecture and Engineering Division. There are also expenditures for river restoration and fiiture fisheries projects, and whirling disease in the Capital Outlay Program. For this reason, we reviewed expenditures for any fisheries programs in the Capital Outlay Program and D of A's Architecture and Engineering Division. FWP's Capital Outlay Program also funds fishing access site (FAS) development. Site operations and maintenance are paid from FWP's Parks Division budget. Due to this overlap, we reviewed funding for FAS in the Capital Outlay Program and Parks Division for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. We obtained the number of fishing licenses sold for license years 1 990 through 1997. We compared the number of in-state and out-of-state hcenses sold to determine if there were any changes in sales. We also Page 3 Chapter I - Introduction reviewed angler day information for license years 1982 to 1995 to determine if there were any noticeable changes. The Fisheries Program also includes issuing permits for fishing contests, collector's permits, commercial permits, and pollution control staff work. We did not review these areas since they are some of the smaller program areas and were not specifically addressed in the questions presented us by the Committee. Compliance We reviewed compliance with state law and administrative rules during file reviews for specific activities. We found one mstance of non- compliance with the Montana Environmental Policy Act. This is discussed in Chapter FV. Data Limitations One of the questions we were requested to answer concerned projected revenue impacts due to declmes m fishenes resources from whirlmg disease and Mysis shnmp mtroduction. We could not determine the cause of any revenue losses because there is not enough data readily available. The following sections discuss the two areas of concern. Whirling Disease The Governor's Whirling Disease Task Force indicated it would be difficult if not impossible to determine projected fiind losses to the state as a whole due to declines in fishenes resources from whirlmg disease. The task force presented a paper at the October 9, 1997, meeting essentially statmg there is not enough data to determine anything in terms of economic declines. Since that meetmg a consultant received grant money to review the economic impacts on the Madison and Missouri Rivers. The consultant is obtaining angler pressure and catch rate information and plans to construct regional economic models for the Madison and Missouri Rivers. Information will also be gathered concerning the socio-economic effects of whirling disease in Colorado. The consultant's report will be published after November 1998. Page 4 Chapter I - Introduction Mysis Shrimp The department has done a number of studies on Mysis shrimp, but nothing related to projected revenue losses due to the mtroduction of Mysis shrimp. Although the kokanee fishery has declined in Flathead Lake, the lake trout fishery has increased. Examining only angler days on Flathead Lake would not take into consideration other components that could affect the economy such as overall tounsm m the area, weather, and type of angler Issues for Further Study While gathering information concerning fishing access sites we obtained schedules for maintenance; the type of maintenance to be conducted; and operation, maintenance, and capital unprovement expenditures. We also obtained information concerning facilities at each site. We did not determine if the mamtenance was actually conducted or the facilities existed. When reviewing expenditures, we noticed total expenditures fluctuated between years. We beheve an audit of the Fishing Access Site Program would provide information concerning the upkeep and inventory status at the access sites, and how fiinds are allocated and expended. We would also complete a more in-depth review of the Fisheries Program role in acquiring, developing, and mamtaining sites since some fishenes biologists mdicated they spend quite a bit of time dealing with access site concerns. During our review of FWP's Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act permit activities we obtained information concerning reviewing projects to ensure permit conditions are followed. FWP staff indicated they do not have time to visit a project to ensure there are no violations of permit conditions. We believe an audit of the permit process would determine the potential effect of not monitoring projects or identifying any violations. Management Memorandum During the course of the audit we sent a management memorandum to the division. The issue identified can improve program documentation. The memo discussed documenting initial and fmal visits to a Future Fisheries hnprovement Program project. Documentation of visits would indicate a contact person for the project and assure there was communication with the biologist indicating the project was finished prior to making fmal payment. Page 5 Chapter I - Introduction Report Organization This report is presented in ten chapters: • Chapter I - Introduction and scope of work. • Chapter II - General background information about the Fisheries Division and program. • Chapter III - Fish management including monitormg, setting regulations, fish stockuig, introductions of new species, fisheries management plans, and illegal mtroductions. • Chapter FV - 124 and 310 permit work, and habitat improvement projects including the River Restoration Program, Future Fishenes Improvement Program, Blackfoot River Restoration Project, and habitat projects resulting fi^om dam mitigation. • Chapter V - Water reservations and leasing. • Chapter VI - Special projects, such as Arctic grayling, westslope cutthroat, pallid sturgeon, bull trout, paddlefish, dam mitigation, and the benthic fish study. • Chapter VII - Whirling disease. • Chapter VHI - The state hatchery system. • Chapter IX -Regional staff workload. • Chapter X - Fishing access sites. Expenditures for the various program activities are included with each activity. Page 6 Chapter II - Background Introduction The mission of the Fisheries Program is to preserve, maintain, and enhance all aquatic species and their ecosystems to meet the public's demand for recreational opportunities and stewardship of aquatic wildlife. The Fisheries Program is administered by the Fisheries Division, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP). Seven FWP regions implement program policies. Department Organization A five-member Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission sets policy for resource management, length of huntmg/fishmg seasons, and use of lands owned or controlled by the department Commission members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate Department headquarters is located in Helena and staff have direct interaction with the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission Department management is responsible for settmg direction regardmg policy, planning, program development, guidelmes, and budgets. Figure 1 shows the department's organizational structure. Page 7 Chapter II - Background Figure 1 Fish. Wildlife and Parks Organizational Chart (As of June 1998) Director Administrative Support Policy Analysis Organizational Development Source: Department records. Commission Commission Secretary Chief of Staff — Wildlife Division Responsive Management Parks Division Enforcement Division Conservabon Education Division i— Legal Unit Ctiief of Operations Chief of Administration & Finance Field Services Divisxsn l— Seven Regions Pages Chapter II - Background Several divisions besides Fisheries contribute to the Fisheries Program. The angler education coordinator is located in the Conservation Education Division. The coordinator of the Fishing Access Site Program works in the Parks Division. Law enforcement is the responsibihty of the Enforcement Division. Significant fishing opportunities are provided on many state Wildlife Management Areas managed by the Wildlife Division and at many state parks managed by the Parks Division. Decentralized System The department's organizational structure consists of a decentralized system. The department divided the state mto seven geographic regions to provide for more direct management of the state's wildlife, fisheries and parks resources. Each region is staffed with a regional supervisor, a fisheries manager, a wildlife manager, and vaiymg numbers of biologists, techmcians, wardens and parks staff to unplement and monitor most pohcy and management activities at the regional level. Fishenes managers supervise day-to-day activities for Fisheries Program activities and report to the regional supervisor. The regional supervisor admimsters overall activities within the region. This mcludes providing recommendations on program development and department guidelines to FWP headquarters in Helena. Regional supervisors report to the department's chief of operations. An exception to decentralization is the hatchery system. The hatcheries are supervised by the Helena headquarters, not the regional supervisors. Figure 2 shows regional boundaries. Page 9 Chapter II - Background Figure 2 Department of Fish. Wildlife and Parks Regions Regional Headquarters Source: Department records. Fisheries Program Funding and Expenditures The Fisheries Program is funded with general hcense revenues, federal special revenue, contracts and grants from state agencies, private companies, private individuals, sportsmen groups, universities, and gifts and donations. General license (GL) funds are derived from the sale of fishing licenses. The prmiary federal revenue source is the US Fish and Wildlife Service Dingle Johnson (DJ) grant. DJ money is generated from taxes on the sale of fishing equipment. Day to day operations of the program are funded from GL and DJ monies. Other special revenue sources fund the special studies/projects conducted by the department. Projects include such things as studies of endangered species fimded by the Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation and sportsmen groups, mitigation for Hungry Horse and Libby Dams funded by Bonneville Power Administration, mitigation for dams owned by private companies, and joint programs with other state agencies. Mitigation projects address the impacts dams had on fish, such as reducing habitat, and creating barriers for fish passage. Figure 3 Page 10 Chapter II - Background shows expenditures by funding sources for the regions, hatcheries and division for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. Canyon Ferry, Hauser, and Holter Reservoirs' expenditures for fiscal years 1990-91 through 1993-94 are included in the division In fiscal year 1989-90 and after 1994, these expenditures are included with Regions 3 and 4. Page 11 Page 12 FIGURES Fisheries Program F^penditures Bv Funding Sonrry (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Region 1 - Kalispell B9-e0 BO-ei 91-02 92-03 93-04 94-05 BS-OB 96-07 FItcal y*ar U6F6 BPA ■ Oth*r n OLtDJ Region 2 - Missoula 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 F«cal Y»»r ■ Prtyat* Company ■ DNRC ■ USFS 1 Ottiar D OLtDJ (i.eoo $1.«0 tIJDO t1.0OO saoo seoo $400 $200 $0 Region 3 - Bozeman BOR BLM Othar »i-02 n-M sa-M »4-M 9e-«« g«-»7 Fl*eal Y«ar I Privata Company ■ USFS D OL » DJ $1,800 T $1,400 $1,200 I $1,000 I $«00 i $800 8400 Region 4 - Great Falls ZT^^t^ 88-90 90-91 9192 92-93 •3-94 9446 9648 9847 FiacalYaar I Private Company | Other D OL t DJ $1,tOO $1,400 $1,200 ^$1.00D § $000 ^ ° $000 $400 Region 5 - Billings St-tO »0-B1 91-02 »2-(3 03-84 •4-8S 9S-M 88-97 Flacal Year Other [J GL t DJ Region 6 - Glasgow si,eoo $1 ,400 .$1,200 C$1,000 3 $aoo o $600 •- $400 $200 $0 :OT^^WiK5 89-90 B0-S1 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 ^6-97 Fiscal Year COE ■ Unlveraity WAPA ■ BOR Other □ GL * DJ Region 7 - Miles City 81,600 81,400 $1,200 - •881,000 I 8800 £ 8600 $400 8200 80 ^J^_ BB-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-06 95-96 96-97 Flacal Year Ottier Q GL ft DJ 81,600 $1,400 $1,200 -8$1,000 I $800 £ $600 $400 $200 80 Hatcheries 69-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 96-86 96-97 Fiacal Year n GL ft DJ Division */^ «.^« $1,500 1 m ■ ■ n ■ 1 1 $1,000 - — -— — 1 $600 - - - - - - - *" 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 88-90 90-91 81-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 96-96 96-97 Fiacal Year ■ COE ■ DNRC ■ PRP ■ Other ■ BPA Q QL ft DJ Program Total 89-90 90-91 91-82 92-93 93-64 94-95 95-96 96-97 Fiaoal Year USFS COE BPA H Privata Company ■ Other n GL ft DJ LEGEND OF FUNDING SOURCES USFS United States Forest Service BPA Bonneville Power Association GL&DJ General License & Dingle Johnson PRP Paddlefish Roe Program BLM Bureau of Land Management COE Army Corps of Engineers WAPA Western Area Power Administration BOR Bureau of Reclamation DNRC Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. Page 13 Chapter II - Background Fisheries Prosram ^^ Fisheries Program is staffed by personnel in Helena and the seven Staffing regions. Total FTE for the regions, division and hatcheries averaged 133 for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. The majonty of the FTE are fiinded from GL and DJ monies. GL and DJ FTE consist of permanent staff, including fisheries managers and support staff, seasonal FTE, and personnel hired to conduct roving creel census and small seasonal projects. Figure 4 shows the number of FTE in each region, the division, and hatcheries for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. Page 15 FIGURE 4 Fisheries Program FTE (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Region 1 - Kalispell ^■i Region 2 - Missoula Region 3 - Bozeman Region 4 - Great Falls T — "T T ~r" 1 r r SS-SO 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 98-97 Fiacal Yaar -J-' — ^-^ — ^-^ — n- 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 Fiscal Year r — n"^ — -r — n-^ — n~^ — ^i 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 Fiacal Yaar n — n- 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 Fiacal Yaar Region 5 - Billings B9-90 90-91 91 -92 82-93 93-94 94-85 95-86 96-87 Fiacal Yaar Region 6 - Glasgow r — '~r — n 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 Fiacal Yaar Region 7 - Miles City 25 nnnnn r — n~ — n 1 r — n 89-80 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 Fiacal Yaar Hatcheries 30- 25- 20- 15- 10- 5- — — — — - Oil 1 1 1 1 1 1 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-98 96-97 Fiacal Yaar Division 20- 16- 10- 5 - — ■ ■ — ■ I - " 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 89-80 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-86 96-97 Fiacal Year 140 -1 120- Total FTE 1 I 11 1 ■ 100- 80- 60 - 40- 20- — — - 0 ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 89-90 80-91 91-92 92-83 93-94 94-85 85-86 86-87 Fiscal Year D GL&DJ Special Projects Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Page 17 Chapter II - Background License Sales and Angler Days Number of Licenses Sold We examined the number of Montana fishing hcenses sold and angler days. We found a decrease in both number of licenses sold and angler days. The nation as a whole has seen a decrease m fishing. The following sections summarize our findings. We obtained fishing hcense revenue and license numbers sold for hcense years 1990 through 1997. Revenues remamed about the same during the time penod due to license fee increases in 1992 and 1994 Table 1 shows the total licenses sold for hcense years 1990 through 1997. Table 1 Fishing Licenses Sold License Type License Year j 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 # Resident 150,698 148,703 150,507 154.379 160,662 156.896 149,497 147.892 # Non-Resident Season 23,184 25,042 29,343 33,237 29,933 28.501 26,839 26,895 # Non-Resident 2-day 146.486 155,507 141,141 154,132 180,172 174.187 171,360 173.051 Total 320,368 329,252 320,991 341,808 370,767 359,583 347,696 347,037 Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Number of Angler Days The Information Services Unit in Bozeman conducts a statewide mail survey about every two years. Residents and non-residents who purchased fishing licenses are sampled to detemune the number of angler days. Survey results are published in reports available to the general public. We obtained reports for fishing hcense years 1982 through 1985, 1989, 1991, 1993, and 1995. The 1997 results were not available at the conclusion of our audit work. We compared the number of licenses sold to residents and non-residents by region and statewide. Regions 1 (KaUspell) and 3 (Bozeman) had the largest decrease in angler days in the time period. Region 2 (Missoula) showed a slight mcrease. As seen m Figure 5, statewide there was a slight decrease m angler days fi-om 1982 to 1995. Page 19 Page 20 FIGURE 5 Angler Days (License Years 1982 to 1995) Region 1 - Kalispell 1000 I ■ ■ I I I I" 1982 19B3 1984 1985 1989 1991 1993 1995 License Year Region 2 - Missoula 1000 900 800 700 J 600 S 500 400 100 I ■ I '- • I ■ ■•]■■ -T r n 1962 1963 1984 1985 1989 1991 1993 1995 License Year Region 3 - Bozeman 1000 900 800 700 I 600 S 500 400 300 200 100 I I I I I I r 1982 1963 1984 1985 1969 1991 1993 1995 License Year Region 4 - Great Falls 1000 900 800 700 ■o 600 500 400 -H 300 200 100 m 1 1 — 1 1 r 1982 1963 1984 1985 1989 1991 1993 1995 License Year Region 5 - Billings 1000 900 BOO 700 600 : 500 ; 400 300 200 100 T I ■ ■ I ■ ■ I ■ 'I 1962 1963 1964 1985 1989 1991 1993 1995 License Year Region 6 - Glasgow 1000 900 800 700 I 600 • 500 i 400 300 200 100 hnirctcmii I I I r^^ r r 1982 1963 1984 1985 1969 1991 1993 1995 License Year Region 7 - Miles City 1000 800- 700- 1 600- 1 500- i 400- 300- 200- 100- nnnnnnnn 0 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1982 1963 1984 1965 1969 1991 1993 1995 License Year Statewide 3000 :: Ii-M^i4 c Sisoo-- — — — — — — — — o •-1000— — — — — — — — — 500 — — — — — — — — - 0 1 1 1 " 1 1 1 1 1 1982 1983 1984 1985 1989 1991 1993 1995 License Year I I Resident H Non-resident Source: Compiled by tiie LAD from department records. Page 21 Chapter III - Fish Management Introduction One of the objectives of this audit was to determine how much has been spent on operations and maintenance of the Fisheries Program and what activities are included m the operations. Fisheries Program general operations activities consist primanly of managing fish populations and protecting and restoring their habitats. Fish management activities are centered around the objective of meeting public demand for fishing opportumties. Activities cover many aspects, fi^om determining fish populations by electrofishing and gill netting to issuing permits for private ponds and ensunng healthy fish are stocked in Montana's waters. We reviewed activities related to: Gathering data to estimate fish populations and harvest rates; Establishmg regulations; Writmg and implementmg fish management plans; Licensmg pnvate ponds, hitroducmg new fish species to a waterbody; Developmg fish stockmg plans; and Determimng fish health. The followmg sections discuss fish management expenditures and the vanous aspects of fish management. Fish Management Expenditures Fish management expenditures are paid fi"om the regions' fishenes budgets and division general budget. General operations of the Fisheries Program are fimded by general license and Dmgle Johnson (federal grant) monies. Table 2 shows general operatmg expenditures (excludmg hatchenes) for fiscal years 1994-95 through 1996-97. Page 23 Chapter III - Fish Management Table 2 Fisheries Program General Operating Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1994-95 through 1996-97) mmmmmmmimmm: Ffewal Year 94-95 95-96 96-97 1 $ 334,398 $ 439,057 $ 415,064 2 $ 381,639 $ 406,246 $ 445,947 3 $ 585,416 $ 616,300 $ 575,056 4 $ 422,278 $ 409,241 $ 440,886 5 $ 248,447 $ 245,868 $ 251,493 6 $ 222,095 $ 235,310 $ 276,091 7 $ 143,244 $ 146,113 $ 154,296 Division $ 1,396,614 $ 1,730,704 $ 1,736,349 Total $ 3,734,131 $ 4,228,839 $ 4,295,182 Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. Fish Population Estimate/Survey Data Used to Manage Waterbodies Fisheries biologists collect fish population and spawiiing data for most of the major waterbodies in the state. Population and spawning data is crucial for managing fish in the waterbody and for pubhc information. Audit work showed the data is used in almost all areas of the Fisheries Program. Biologists use fish population and spawning data as a basis for management decisions concerning specific waterbodies. Management uses the information to establish fishing regulations and to set stocking levels in lakes and ponds, to identify- resources impacted by impending projects (habitat, mines, etc.), and to assess the population's health. The information is also used to help other agencies evaluate projects that might affect fish, such as mining operations, road construction, timber harvests, etc. Page 24 Chapter III - Fish Management Biologists document the objectives of the estimate/survey work, the degree of attainment, and results of the current work compared to findmgs in previous years. Recommendations for future work and management are included. The following sections describe estimate/survey work conducted by regional biologists. Major Waterbodies Fisheries biologists conduct population estimates and surveys by Sampled electrofishing, snorkeling, gill netting, trap netting, and seining (pulling a long net close to shore). Biologists sample most of Montana's major streams and lakes. Sampling may occur every year or every two or more years. Some waterbodies are sampled based on identified issues/concems/problems with the water. Major nvers monitored include: the Madison, Missouri, Sun, Smith, Yellowstone, Boulder, Stillwater, Blackfoot, Clark Fork, Ruby, and Bighorn Major lakes/reservoirs momtored mclude: Tiber, Flathead, Fort Peck, Hauser, Holter, and Canyon Ferry. Many tributary streams are also momtored for fish populations. Mountaui lake monitoring is sporadic. Some regions try to survey lakes on a rotating basis such as visitmg ever>' lake every four to ten years. Other regions have done little mountam lake monitoring because of other priorities on the major n vers/1 akes m the area. Regions 6 and 7 have many ponds open to the public for fishing. These ponds are monitored to determine the fish populations. Table 3 shows the number of nvers, small streams, and lakes/reservoirs/ponds surveyed by region for fiscal years 1994-95 through 1996-97. Page 25 Chapter III - Fish Management Table 3 Monitoring Activity (Fiscal Years 1994-95 through 1996-97) Area Monitored Fiscal Year Region M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rivers 94-95 9 3 12 8 7 3 2 95-96 7 3 11 6 8 3 2 96-97 8 7 15 8 11 3 2 Streams 94-95 53 15 73 13 29 4 0 95-96 28 25 35 8 5 6 0 96-97 14 43 45 19 10 5 0 Lakes/ Reservoirs/ Ponds 94-95 51 5 28 42 74 37 38 95-96 40 7 14 32 59 37 51 96-97 38 5 21 33 56 38 24 Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Most Species Monitored Population counts have historically concentrated on major game species such as trout, walleye, pike, and perch. Recently, emphasis has also been placed on native species so biologists are obtaining baseline data for trend information on such species as cutthroat trout and suckers. Biologists are also gathering genetic information of native species. (Appendix A contains a hst offish species native to Montana.) Spawning and Survival Data In addition to monitoring waterbodies for fish populations, biologists also momtor streams and lakes for spawning activity and fiy survival and recruitment into the existing population. Table 4 shows the monitoring activity for spawning and fi^' survival by region for fiscal years 1994-95 through 1996-97. Page 26 Chapter III - Fish Management Table 4 Spawning and Fry Recruitment Monitoring Activity (Fiscal Years 1994-95 through 1996-97) r Activitj Monitored Year i:::::::::::::::::::!:::!:::: SSSSKfi Region timfM •■•■■■■*■*■■•*■■■■ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Spawning 94-95 132 22 22 10 6 3 1 95-96 80 22 26 10 5 3 2 96-97 65 24 24 14 43 6 2 Fry Survival & Recruitment 94-95 24 3 22 2 0 0 1 95-96 30 8 20 3 1 2 1 96-97 27 11 29 4 2 3 1 Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Region 1 had high spawning monitoring activities in fiscal year 1994-95 due to the potential hsting of bull trout. Staff in the region surveyed the South Fork of the Flathead and its tributaries and other basins in the region for bull trout redds (fish nests). The survey work resulted in an agreement with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) stating bull trout in the South Fork were considered recovered. In fiscal year 1996-97, Region 5 monitored the mountain lakes in the area, thus increasing the amount of recruitment and spawning activity from the previous years. Harvest Data Also Used to Manage Waterbodies We found harvest data is used extensively to manage fisheries. Harvest data is included in the reports biologists write. When combined with the population data, harvest data provides the total picture of the fishery in specific waterbodies. Population and harvest data provide biologists the information needed to make their recommendations for particular management methods/techniques. Harvest data is obtained through a statewide mail survey conducted every two years and creel census (determining the number of fish caught Page 27 Chapter III - Fish Management by anglers at specific waterbodies by interviewing anglers). The Information Services Unit in Bozeman conducts the statewide survey every other year. Regional biologists oversee creel census. The following sections describe activities related to harvest data. Statewide Survey The statewide survey produces information concerning angling pressure on individual bodies of water. A sample of people with Montana fishing hcenses receive questionnaires to determine where they fished, when, and the results. Survey results are published m a report available to the public. Biologists use the report to determine harvest pressure on the waterbodies in their respective management areas. Expenditures for the survey are included in Region 3. Creel Census Creel census are conducted around the state. Division staff determine which waters need to be surveyed based on management plans, special circumstances such as whirlmg disease or a species of concern, and past locations of creel census. During a creel census a FWP employee or volunteer mterviews anglers and counts the number of fish caught. FWP obtams harvest information with the counts, and angling pressure through the interviews. Information is used to help determine demand on the particular waterbody. The following table shows the locations and year of creel census for calendar years 1991 through 1997. Page 28 Chapter III - Fish Management Table 5 Creel Census Location and Year (Calendar Years 1991 through 1997) mmmmmm^^ '■'Ifii^'ills^l^l; Swan Lake 1995, 1996 BitteiToot River 1992,1993 Rock Creek 1993, 1994, 1997 Blackfoot River 1994,1995,1996 Clark Fork River 1995 Willow Creek Reservoir 1993, 1994 Madison River 1996, 1997 Big Hole River 1996 Tiber Reservoir 1991,1992 Missouri River 1993, 1994, 1995 Tiber Summer Creel 1994 to 1997 Frances Summer Creel 1994 to 1997 Bighorn Lake 1992, 1993 Bear Paw Mountains 1992 Fort Peck Paddlefish 1994 to 1997 Fresno Reservoir 1996, 1997 Fort Peck Reservoir 1997 Tongue River Reservoir 1993 Canyon Ferry Reservoir Summer and Winter Creel 1991 to 1997 Hauser Reservoir Summer and Winter Creel 1991 to 1997 Holter Reservoir Summer and Winter Creel 1991 to 1997 Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Page 29 Chapter III - Fish Management Regulation Recommendations Based on Monitoring and Harvest Data Input for Changes Sought from FWP Staff and PubUc Fisheries Management Plans Help FWP Manage Waterbodies Fishing regulations are reviewed and modified every two years. Audit work verified that proposed regulations in each region are based on population surveys, harvest data, and management plans. Regional staff propose changes to regulations based on the biology of the waterhody and input from other staff and the public. Fishenes biologists and managers indicated many of their recommendations for changes in regulations are incorporated into tentative regulations submitted to the commission, and the commission makes few changes to proposed regulations. If the division makes changes, the majority of the changes and the reason for the changes are communicated to field staff. Overall, regional staff did not have concerns with the regulation setting process. For the 1998-1999 regulations, fisheries managers obtained input for changes from regional staff, mcludmg fisheries biologists, game wardens, and administrative staff. The public was invited to comment on regulation issues and develop alternatives. PubUc meetings were held in the regions to discuss the region and statewide changes. After the public hearings, division staff met with all the fisheries managers and discussed the regulations. Due to the impacts of whirUng disease, the 1998-1999 regulations were changed to reduce the number of fish an angler could keep, and allow only catch and release in some waters. Although Fishenes Management Plans are time consuming for regional staff to develop, most agreed the plans are useful tools to help them manage waterbodies. Plans provide a management direction to follow and require periodic checks to ensure the department is heading in the proper direction. The following sections describe how plans are developed. Page 30 Chapter III - Fish Management Commission Directed Department to Write Fisheries Management Plans In 1988 the Fish, WildUfe and Parks Commission directed the department to initiate five-year management plans on the top fisheries in Montana. The department reviewed the major fisheries to establish priorities for the management planning process. Table 6 shows by region the waterbodies with Fisheries Management Plans and the dates of the plans. Table 6 Fisheries Management Plans by Region (AsofJmiel998) iRi^ioa Waterbsdks Wif b Fisheries MaBagemeBt Plan* Plan Effective -Bates 1 South Fork Flathead River Drainage 1991-1996 Upper Flathead System (compiled with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes) 1989-1994 Thompson Chain of Lakes May 1997 2 Bitterroot River Sept 1991 through Sept 1996 Rock Creek Sept 1989 through Sept 1994 3 Canyon Ferry Reservoir/Missouri River Jan 1993 through Jan 1998 Big Hole River 1989-1994 4 Hauser Reservoir Sept 1989 through Sept 1994 Missoun River (Holter Dam to Great Falls) 1990 through 1994 5 Upper Bighorn River 1987 through 1992 Boulder River 1992 through 1996 Stillwater River 1990 through 1994 Fisheries of Mountain Lakes in the Crazy Mountains 1991 6 Fort Peck Reservoir Jan 1992 through Jan 1997 7 Montana-North Dakota Paddleiish 1995 through 2004 Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Page 31 Chapter III - Fish Management Plans Now Written for Ten- Year Time Period Plans Address Many Issues Public Involved When Writing Plans Controls Over the Private Pond Program Could be Strengthened There is also the Warmwater Fisheries Management Plan (1997-2006) which contains specific management recommendations for approximately 120 waterbodies distributed across the state. As indicated in the previous chart all but one of the plans are out-of- date. Staff found five years was not enough time to determine if some goals of the plans were being met. Also, it takes about two years to write a plan and a five-year plan meant biologists were spendmg a large portion of their time writing plans. Although many of the plans currently in place are expired, fisheries managers and our audit work indicated the plans are not out-of-date in terms of management. The department is now writing Fisheries Management Plans for a ten-year period Fisheries Management Plans address issues relating to regulations, access, instream flows, fish monitoring, habitat, and population data collection. Specific management concerns are presented along with alternatives and strategies to meet specific management goals. Plans usually establish goals and outcomes which require momtoring by regional biologists. Plans are created with public opinion and involvement. Scoping meetings are held at the beginning of the process to determine if there are any issues the public would like to address and to inform the public of how the waterbody was managed in the past. The latest plans developed included advisory committees. These groups provided FWP with an angler perspective throughout the process and assisted in distributing information to the public. The objectives of permitting private ponds are to monitor the fishery resource and ensure unwanted fish or diseases are not stocked into ponds where they can escape to state waterbodies. Current controls do not ensure objectives are met. Biologists cannot inspect private ponds not open to public fishing to ensure the proper species offish are stocked, structural integrity is still good. etc. without landowner permission. Without an inspection, the risk of unwanted fish or disease escaping to state waterbodies is higher. Although the department is aware controls are limited, FWP management does not plan to seek Page 32 Chapter III - Fish Management legislation in 1999 since legislation to give the department more control was tabled in 1997. The following sections describe the private pond program and specific Pond Owners Required to By statute, private pond permits cannot be issued for natural ponds or Permit Pond man-made ponds which include portions of natural streams or ponds (e.g. instream ponds). Section 87-4-603(2), MCA, states a private pond "...includes only bodies of water created by artificial means or diversion of water that do not exceed over 500 acres of surface area." There are over 4,500 permitted private ponds in Montana and an unknown number of ponds that do not require permits or require permits but the landowner did not obtam one In addition, in 1997 FWP had licensed 17 commercial fish ponds and commercial hatchenes Private pond permits mcrease each year smce once a permit is issued, there is no expu-ation date. Commercial pond numbers fluctuate each year because hcense holders do not always renew their annual licenses. Table 7 shows the number of private ponds permitted from 1990 through 1997 by region and the total issued since April 1953. Page 33 Chapter III - Fish Management Table 7 New and Total Private Pond Permits (As of May 1998) Hegion iPei^ Total Perntlte 1953- 1997 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 1 17 17 12 14 16 15 13 19 490 2 48 17 36 23 16 39 No info 46 •448 3 18 17 21 22 42 15 29 33 495 4 25 12 31 74 63 59 47 42 2,034 5 25 17 12 21 22 14 16 22 ••532 6 7 2 15 23 28 9 12 22 686 7 4 5 7 16 17 14 16 10 124 Total 144 87 134 193 204 165 133 194 4,809 * Does not include 1 996 information since that year was not available ** Does not include old pennits since they were destroyed. Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Once a permit is issued to an individual for a private pond, the permit holder may stock the pond with the authorized fish species fi"om any legal source. This usually means fish fi-om a commercial hatchery in Montana. Occasionally fish are obtained fi-om an out-of-state source. No fish are supposed to be imported into Montana unless authorized by an import permit issued by FWP. Additional Controls Needed for Private Ponds We examined the objectives of the private pond program and the controls in place to meet these objectives. We foimd there are few controls after initial permitting to help meet the objectives of the program. Under the current conditions, there is httle assurance unwanted fish are not stocked or diseased fish are not introduced into ponds. Once a private pond is permitted, there are virtually no controls to ensure the species actually placed in the water is the species hsted on the permit, screens are still in place, etc. There are no required periodic Page 34 Chapter III - Fish Management inspections of ponds not open to the public for fishing to determine what has been stocked, if there were any modifications to the pond or if the pond still exists. Staff indicated some of the permits are over 40 years old and they are not sure if the site still contains water or fish. Also, if a pond is not permitted for fish and should be, biologists have no control over what kind of fish are put in the pond For example, a landowner in the Flathead area had a pond that was not permitted. FWP staff heard the landowner was placing grass carp in the pond but could not enter onto the land to confirm this without the owner's permission. Biologists were finally able to mspect the pond without the landowner's permission when the owner forged a fish import applicaUon. Grass carp were found in the pond. According to biologists, if the carp had entered the Flathead dramage, which thev could have m a flood event or by someone moving the fish, the vegetation m over 1 ,000 miles of streams and lakes could have been impacted and the water quahty could have been affected. Initial Permitting Initial permitting steps provide some controls if the landowner follows state laws. After a pond is dug and filled with water, the pond owner is required to send a completed application to the appropnate regional office. Enforcement personnel or a fisheries biologist inspects the pond and examines the screens for the mlet and outlet. The fisheries manager receives the inspection report. The manager reviews the report, maps, and application, and discusses the pond with the biologist. This discussion typically centers around the species of fish the landowner can stock. The biologist or fishenes manager wntes an Environmental Assessment (EA) for a new pond. An EA assesses the impact of the pond on such factors as the biological, physical, and social environment in the vicinity of the pond. The EA process includes a period of time during which the public can comment on the impacts of the pond. The EA is sent to Helena for review. Helena staff consider the potential offsite impacts of the pond. They also ensure fish proposed for stocking are compatible with the drainage in case any fish escape by natural or human means. Normally, fish approved for stocking are limited to those Page 35 Chapter III - Fish Management species presently occurring in the drainage. In some cases there may be additional restrictions to protect native or sportfish species. The EA is released for pubUc comment after the Helena review. The application can be approved after the comment period. The permit is issued by the region. Import Controls Limited to Initial Stocking There is limited control over private ponds not open to the public through the import permit process. If the owner buys fish from an out- of-state source, the owner is supposed to obtain an import permit. Prior to issuing the permit the department's Fish Health SpeciaUst ensures the fish species to be imported is the species authorized for the pond. If the species is not authorized, a permit is not issued and the pond owner cannot import those fish. If the pond owner and the out-of-state source are not aware of the permit requirements, or choose not to follow them, any fish could be placed in the pond. Lack Authority for Monitoring Ponds open to pubhc fishing are visited by biologists to monitor populations and help landowners with any problems. Private ponds not open to the pubhc cannot be inspected unless the biologist has landowner pemfiission. In order to fiJly meet the objectives of the private pond program, and reduce the risk of unwanted fish or disease in the state's waters, the department needs to implement additional controls over the private pond program. Implementing an effective inspection process requires legislative changes and would result in increased staff or contract work. If an inspection process is implemented, the department will need to make staffmg and priority decisions for implementation. Recommendation #1 We recommend the Fisheries Division implement additional controls over the private pond program to ensure objectives of the permitting process are met. Page 36 Chapter III - Fish Management FWP Fish Introductions ^'^^ stocking is an integral part offish management to provide fishing and Movement are opportunities. FWP place fish in many ponds, reservoirs, and lakes. Controlled FWP stocks fish in few streams. Fish stocking consists of introducing a new species to a waterbody. transferring fish from one waterbody to another, or planting fish grown in a state hatchery. We found FWP introduces and moves fish from one waterbody to another under controlled circumstances. In the last seven years, the only introduction of a new fish species to a major waterbody was cisco to Tiber Reservoir. Most FWP fish transfers between ponds is controlled via an internal committee that reviews and approves the transfers The committee does not need to review transfers of non-salmomds from waters that do not contain sabnonids to waters that do contain salmonids within a region. Necessary documentation must be submitted to FWP's Fish Health Specialist for review and to document the transfer. Stocking hatchery fish is determined via a five-year planting plan. The plan IS reviewed by Helena and regional staff yearly to ensure the numbers planned for stocking can be sustained by the waterbody and are compatible species with other fish in the water. If there are any changes to the plans, updates are completed. Although we had concerns with the lack of formal policies and procedures for some admimstrative functions related to stocking hatchery fish, a process is in place and functioning. Stocking a new species to a waterbody, such as planting bass in a pond that did not have bass previously, is controlled via the EA process. An EA is written and submitted for public comment. Although we found some procedural problems with EAs, such as the division not receiving a copy of the fmal EA and fish stocked prior to the end of the comment period, the number of EAs with problems were few in comparison to the total number written. Based upon the information gathered, we found introductions of new species to waterbodies by FWP personnel are controlled. The next three sections discuss the various authorized methods of stocking fish. Page 37 Chapter III - Fish Management Introducing New Fish Species Transfers to Other Waterbodies In the last seven years there has been one introduction of a new fish species to a major public waterbody. FWP introduced cisco (lake herruig) to Tiber Reservoir in 1997. Cisco were introduced as a food source for walleye and northern pike in the reservoir. Yellow perch are an important prey item for walleye and northern pike and perch numbers were declinmg. hi 1992 FWP funded a stud\' to detemune the biological effects of the potential introduction. As a result of the report and other factors occurring m the lake at the time, such as spottail shmers appeanng to provide adequate forage for wallexe, the department decided to defer introduction of cisco until it was better justified. Population monitoring showed a declme m the Tiber fisher>' so m 1996 FWP wrote an EA for the introduction. The first Cisco were mtroduced in 1997. A second introduction occurred in 1998. Regional biologists can transfer fish from one waterbod\ to another waterbody already containing that fish species. Before the transfer can occur the biologist must provide required information about the collection site and the stockuig site. The documentation also notes if sahnonids are in the collection and/or stocking sites. The information is sent to the state Fish Health Specialist for review. He reviews the data fi-om a fish health perspective and determines if any disease testing needs to be conducted before the transfer can be completed. The request then goes to the department's Fish Health Committee, which includes the division admimstrator and Fisheries Management Bureau chief The committee approves or demes the request. If a transfer is within a region, there are no sahnonids involved, and the transfer has occurred in the past so an EA is not needed, the region can approve the transfer. The Fish Health Specialist receives notice of the transfer so he is aware, but he does not need to take the request to the Fish Health Committee. The formal process has been in place since April 1996. There have been 60 transfer requests fi-om April 1996 through October 1998. Eleven requests were denied. Fifteen transfers had regional approval. Most transfers involved warmwater fish (non-salmonids). Page 38 Chapter III - Fish Management Stocking Hatchery Fish Fisheries staff develop a five-year plan to determine what waterbodies hatcheries will stock and with what species offish. Not all waterbodies are stocked each year. For example, many mountain lakes are stocked every four years. All waterbodies are considered in the five-year stocking plan. The number of each species to stock in specific waterbodies is determined by fishenes managers and biologists each year. Regional staff review the plan and record any necessary changes based on fish momtormg, catch rates, regulation changes, etc. Helena staff review the plans to ensure there is not a species problem, such as plantmg northern pike in a trout water. If Helena staff know there will be a shortage of a fish species the>' will reallocate the numbers requested Major changes are to be discussed with the fisheries managers Plans Can be Changed During the Year During the year, regional staff can request a change to the current stockmg plan. Documentation is required when regional staff want more fish for a waterbody, want to stock a new pond open to the public for fishing, want to change species or strains of trout in a waterbody, etc. The biologist completes a request form and the fisheries manager is to sign it before the form is sent to Helena. At the division level, the hatchery and fisheries management bureau chiefs are to review and sign the form, along with the division admimstrator. A copy of the form is sent to the appropriate hatchery so staff can update their records. Numbers Planned and Stocked Vary The number offish allocated m the plan and actually stocked can vary greatly depending on the number of eggs available, the number that actually hatch, and fiy that survive until it is time to plant. Table 8 shows the number offish that were planned for planting and the number that were actually stocked for calendar years 1994 through 1997. Page 39 Chapter III - Fish Management Table 8 rnmparison of Number nf Fish Planned to Fish Planted bv Species (Calendar Years 1994 through 1997) Species 19?4 1 1995 j 1996 1997 Planned Planted Planned Planted Planned Planted Planned Planted Rainbow 4,468,749 4,842,213 3,644,670 3,558,652 3370,575 3,428,627 4,290,853 3,793,580 Lake 150,000 0 Brook 12,502 38,450 11,502 0 11,002 0 9,501 0 Brown 150,000 123,748 215,000 5,000 65,000 60,459 76,000 64,113 Kokanee 2395,000 1,767,431 2305,000 2,637,174 2,155,000 3,067,667 2,285,000 3,644,470 Arctic Gravling 129,504 188,048 145,004 131,262 128,004 3,700 147,004 243,511 Westslope Cutthroat 750,501 730.506 635,501 733^23 598,202 607,181 643,852 706,587 Yellowstone Cutthroat 345,780 272,248 600,110 477,022 336.415 274,129 572,783 209,856 Largemouth Bass 329,750 304,126 317,150 165,075 269,250 9,865 171,000 125,855 Pike 633,500 725 305,500 200,000 508,500 540,017 104,000 200 Smallmouth Bass 105,000 79.555 136,000 37,984 75,000 94,475 146,000 63,000 Walleye 37,639,000 35,141,824 37,189,000 29,792318 38,810,000 36,642,822 37,599,000 59,686,170 Chinook 250,000 109,000 250,000 17,500 250,000 40,647 250,000 118,200 Catfish 18,800 28,240 26,800 0 30,800 5,400 32200 0 Spottail Shiner 0 2,000 0 2,100 Perch 0 5.000 0 2300 0 4,900 PikeXMusky 500 710 1,700 0 1,400 0 11,000 8,500 White Crappie 30,000 45,216 70,000 0 RainbowX Cutthroat 20.000 0 20,000 0 20,000 0 20,000 0 Black BuUhead 0 20 Black Crappie 0 600 Cisco 0 6.440.000 Total 47,428,586 43,677,040 45,872,937 37,755,210 46,629,148 44,779,289 46358,193 75,111,662* The difference is due to the cisco planted in Tiber Reservoir and an excess of 22 million walleye planted in Fort Peck Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Page 40 Chapter III - Fish Management We reviewed updates submitted to the department for species showing more fish planted than planned for 1993 through 1996. We found there were no updates for a number of the plantings. Division staff provided a number of explanations for the differences. These included: 1. An uiformal policy allowing hatchery managers to modify the number of fish, within the same species, up or down fi-om the plan by 1 0 percent. 2. Phone calls to fisheries managers to determine if they want some unallocated fish to go into a waterbody where that fish was planted that year, e.g., 50,000 more walleye into Fort Peck, which gets 20 to 30 million a year. Calls are based upon where the species is normally planted. The decision to take the fish is based upon whether the waterbody can accommodate more fish. 3. Completed update forms were not submitted for all species changes, size changes, and strams of rambows if gomg fi-om a wild to domestic stram. Updates are also completed for any number of changes the bureau chief thinks the division administrator would be mterested m. 4. Miscoding hatcheries on the planting records. For example, usmg a hatchery code instead of showing the fish were taken fi-om one waterbody and planted mto another waterbody that already has that species m it. 5 . Stocking by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) These stockings are not on FWP's planmng document, since that document is just for fish grown by FWP hatcheries. The stockings are mcluded on the plantmg record so FWP personnel know what fish are planted m all Montana waterbodies. The hatchery code on the planting record designates it as a USFWS plant. 6. Accepting verbal okays for stocking fi-om either the hatchery bureau chief or the fisheries manager so all the necessary signatures are not on the form and in Helena Planting decisions are based upon forage availability, habitat, species already in the waterbody and in the surrounding waterbodies, etc. Formal pobcies communicated to personnel concerning fish stocking and the associated documentation allows the department to monitor the process to ensure plans are followed and effective. PoUcies and Page 41 Chapter III - Fish Management documenting decisions will help the department support their actions concerning fish stocking. The pohcies need to be communicated to regional staff so biologists and hatchery staff know what they are to do, when they are to do it, and why they are required to do it. We beheve the division needs formal pohcies concerning planting decisions such as: The tolerable variance allowed by hatchery managers to increase the number offish stocked in a waterbody. When a stocking update form is needed. Documenting decisions by regional and hatchery staff concerning stocking unallocated fish. We communicated our recommendation to the department. Management agreed with the recommendation and indicated they began developing pohcies concerning the issues. Recommendation #2 We recommend Fisheries Division establish and communicate written policies concerning: A. The tolerable variance allowed by hatchery managers to increase the fish stocked in a waterbody. B. When a stocking update form is needed. C. Documenting decisions by regional and hatchery staff concerning stocking unallocated fish. EAs Required for Some If a species of fish is going to be planted in a waterbody which has never Stockings had that species before, FWP staff need to complete an EA. TheEA requires the biologist to consider such things as whether the species is aheady in the drainage, if the species could be removed after it is introduced, prudent alternatives to the action, and impacts to other forms of aquatic life by the introduction. A comment period is provided for pubhc input on the introduction. A copy of the EA is to be sent to Helena, where the administrative assistant logs it in and assigns it a nimiber. The assistant then enters the basic EA information onto the State Electronic Bulletin Board. Page 42 Chapter III - Fish Management We reviewed planting update forms for 1996 and 1997 to determine if EAs were needed and submitted to Helena. We also compared the date of the end of the comment period to when the stocking took place. Twenty-five updates in the two years reviewed required EAs. hi some cases the EAs maintained in the division were drafts and a final copy was not present. No one in the division tracks EAs to ensure the division receives a fmal copy of each draft EA. When the administrative assistant logs the EAs a notation could be made if the EA is a draft. The log could then be periodically reviewed and compared to the EAs in the files to ensure a fmal copy was received. We also could not locate two EAs in the division's files but received copies of them fi-om the region, hi some cases the EAs did not go through the regional fishenes manager, but were submitted to the division directly from the field biologist. If all the EAs had to go through the fishenes manager, the manager could then be responsible for submitting copies to Helena. Of the twenty-five updates, 18 waterbodies were actually stocked. Of the 18, three stockings took place before the comment period was over. We contacted hatchery managers and found they were not aware of a comment period or when it ended for EAs. One suggested a box on the update form stating when the comment penod ended so the managers would be aware of the date they could plant the fish. Another option is for the mdividual completmg the update to write m the date of the end of the comment period in the comments section of the form. The department is supposed to review any submitted comments after the comment penod ends. By not waiting for the comment period to end before stocking the fish, the department may not consider all imphcations of the stocking. We also found the comment periods varied between EAs, some periods were 15 days, some 20 days, and others one month. There was no explanation on the EAs as to why a specific time length for the comment period was chosen. We are not aware of any specific department policies discussing comment periods for EAs. Such policy would help ensure consistency throughout the program. The pohcy would have to Page 43 Chapter III - Fish Management be somewhat flexible to take into account emergency stockings, such as when the fish need to be planted because the hatchery needs to free up the space or the fish are out-growing the hatchery. We commimicated our recommendation to the department. Management agreed with the recommendation and indicated they began developing pohcies concerning the issues. Recommendation #3 We recommend Fisheries Division: A. Track EAs to ensure final copies are received in Helena. B. Require aD EAs to go through the regional fisheries manager to ensure EAs are sent to the division. C Determine a consistent length of time for a comment period on the EAs. D. Do not plant fish untfl the end of the comment period so comments can be received and reviewed. Unauthorized Introductions One problem facing FWP in terms of managing fish is unauthorized of Fish introductions of fish into a waterbody. Section 87-5-70 1 , MCA, provides for the control of transplanting fish in the state. The law was enacted to protect wildlife (which includes fish, moUusks, and crustaceans) and plant species of Montana fi^om known and unknown threats to native species. All transplants must be approved by the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission and must be conducted in a maimer to assure the transplanted population can be controlled if harm arises fi"om imforeseen effects. Section 12.7.601(4), ARM, states "Introduction of fish not indigenous to a particular drainage may be made only after careful study to ensure these fish will be beneficial to that area." Unauthorized fish introductions can spread disease and parasites, cause genetic hybridization, impact or displace sportfish and native fish populations, and create water quahty problems. Entire fish communities, and threatened and endangered species in particular, can be irreparably damaged by unauthorized introductions offish. Page 44 Chapter III - Fish Management Unauthorized intrcxluctions can also increase fish management costs or cause lost fishing opportunities, many times permanently. Fish like carp, yellow perch, suckers, shiners, sunfish, and even certain game fish like northern pike can severely affect a sport fishery. For example yellow perch illegally introduced into Lake Mary Ronan reduced the kokanee fishery. Northern pike were illegally introduced into Sahnon Lake at the expense of the bull trout. Northern pike were illegally introduced in Lone Pine Reservoir in northwestern Montana in 1953. Since then, pike have spread or have been illegally transplanted into 54 additional bodies of water in the Flathead, Kootenai, Clark Fork, Bitterroot, and Clearwater drainages. FWP created a database to document the presence of unauthorized fish species in Montana waters. The database is based on reliable reports fi"om agency and university personnel and anglers. Unauthorized introductions may occur fi-om illegal movement offish, bait bucket transfers, and unwanted movement fi'om legal sources such as private ponds and other states. The database documents only those introductions that persisted long enough to be detected at least once but does not document the probable large niunber of introductions that failed quickly or have not yet been detected. Table 9 shows the number of unauthorized introductions and the number of waters affected, by region. The information includes unauthorized introductions dating back to the 1920s and 1930s. Table 9 Unauthorized Fish Introductions by Region (As of March 1998) Region Statewide 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 # Waters 115 19 10 12 9 25 14 204 # Unauthorized Introductions 204 27 15 19 14 34 22 335 Source: Department records. Page 45 Chapter III - Fish Management As part of the Hungry Horse Dam off-site mitigation. Region 1 staff have rehabihtated a number of lakes which suffered from imauthorized introductions. These include Lion Lake which was poisoned with rotenone (a fish toxicant) in 1992 and restocked with cutthroat trout. Bootjack and Rogers Lakes were also treated with rotenone to eliminate illegal introductions of pumpkinseed sunfish and perch. Native fish and rainbow trout were restocked in the lakes. Unauthorized Introductions Occur There is a state law in place addressing unauthorized introductions of fish m waterbodies. To enforce the law, the person or persons introducing the fish have to be identified and proven guilt>'. Usually there is no way to identify the person or persons committing the act. One way to help prevent unauthorized introductions from occurring is education. Some regions have published brochures, but there has been no department coordinated education effort In the Warmwater Management Plan the department committed to forming an angler task force trained to observe and report illegal introductions. The department also indicated it will increase education efforts to publicize the nsks of illegal mtroductions. Fishenes management stated they will be writing a plan in late 1998 to unplement an education program. Fish Health Monitored FWP's fish health inspection program includes testing private and state hatcheries for specific salmonid pathogens, issuing fish import permits, and testing other fish as needed. Fish health in FWP's hatcheries and eggs from the wild going into the hatcheries is closely monitored FWP staff try to control diseases from coming into the state through the import permit process. This process is effective as long as pond owners and out-of-state sources follow the law. FWP staff have no control over people who do not obtain a permit. Fish Hatchery Inspections Fish hatcheries are inspected annually for eight salmonid pathogens. The department tests for: Page 46 >■ Myxobolus cerebralis (sabnonids whirling disease) >• hifectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV) >- Infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV) >- Viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV) >■ Oncorhynchus masou vuiis (OMV) Chapter III - Fish Management >■ Renibacteruim salmoninarum (bacterial kidney disease) >- Aeromonas salmonicida (furunculosis) >■ Yersinia ruckeri (type I, common or Hagerman enteric redmouth disease) The samples are sent to the USFWS Bozeman Fish Health Center for testing. Fish Import Permits Required Legislation enacted in 1989 requires FWP to issue an import permit to anyone brmging fish or eggs into Montana As a result of the permit requirement, FWP staff obtain current health reports: 1) from any facilit\' which rears sabnonids, or 2) if staff know of a specific disease problem at the source facility or m the dramage fi^om which the fish originated Staff usually also call the sources state fish health inspector for current health status. Non-salmonid fish transfers are handled somewhat differently than sabnonid transfers because disease testmg protocols have not been established for many non-sahnonid pathogens However, if sabnonids are present at a hatchery from which non-salmonids are transferred, the sabnonids must be disease-tested prior to the transfer. FWP staff will call state health mspectors and the source hatchery to obtam any necessary information about a specific facility with non-sabnonids. Upon receiving eggs fi^om any hatchery or wild egg source, FWP hatcheries dismfect the eggs m an iodine solution. Prior to 1989 there was limited control over the fish or eggs commg into the state. If FWP staff knew of an import they would contact the source and obtam a health history. This occurred for state fish hatchery imports but was sporadic for federal, commercial and pnvate imports. Summary Management activities range fi-om obtauiing population information to ensuring healthy fish are planted in Montana's waters. Audit work showed: >- Fisheries biologists use fish population and spawning data as a basis for management decisions concerning specific waterbodies. Audit work showed the data is used in almost all Page 47 Chapter III - Fish Management areas of the Fisheries Program. Major waterbodies are sampled and most species offish are monitored. >■ Harvest data is used extensively to manage fisheries. When combined with population data, harvest data provides the total picture of the fishery in specific waterbodies. Harvest data is obtained through a statewide mail survey conducted every two years and creel census. Population and harvest data is mcluded in reports biologists wnte pertaming to their findings during survey work. >■ Proposed regulations in each region are based on population surveys, harvest data, and management plans. Regional staff propose changes to regulations based on the biology of the waterbody and input from other staff and the public For the 1998-1999 regulation changes, input was sought from all FWP employees and the pubhc. >■ Fish eries Man agement Plans provide a man agement direction to follow and require periodic checks to ensure the department is heading in the proper direction. Plans are now written for ten years and address issues relating to regulations, access, instream flows, fish monitonng, habitat, and population data collection. The public is involved when wnting the plans >- FWP introduces and moves fish from one waterbody to another under controlled circumstances. In the last seven years the only introduction of a new fish species to a major public waterbody was CISCO to Tiber Reservoir. Extensive studies were conducted pnor to the mtroduction. Most fish transfers between ponds conducted by the department are controlled via an internal committee that reviews and approves the transfers. Transfers of non-sahnonids within a region do not have to be reviewed by the committee. Stocking hatchery fish is determined by a five-year plan. >■ Fish health in FWP's hatcheries is closely monitored FWP's fish health inspection program mcludes testing private and state hatcheries for specific salmonid pathogens, issuing fish import permits, and testing other fish as needed. We found there are limited controls over the private pond program. The objectives of permitting private ponds are to monitor the fishery resource and ensure unwanted fish or diseases are not stocked into ponds where they can escape to state waterbodies. Current controls do Page 48 Chapter III - Fish Management not ensure objectives are met. Biologists cannot inspect private ponds not open to public fishing to ensure the proper species offish are stocked, structural uitegnt>' is still good, etc., without landowner permission. We recommended the department miplement additional controls over the program to ensure the objectives of the perrmttmg process works. Durmg our review of the fish stocking program, we found there were few formal written pohcies and procedures for some administrative functions, so we recommended the department formalize and communicate the policies and procedures. We also noted three procedural problems with EAs and recommended establishing policies in these areas. Overall, we found regional and division staff are conducting fish management activities in a way that ensures there are fishing opportumties m Montana. Page 49 Page 50 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and ^ Improvement Programs Introduction Projects Reviewed to Ensure Fisheries Habitat Protected The other major general operation activity of the Fisheries Program is protecting and restoring fish habitat. An objective of the audit was to determine how much has been spent on habitat and what activities are included in habitat improvement. This chapter addresses fish habitat programs. Audit work showed fisheries biologists are actively involved in protecting and restoring habitat. Biologists participate m two habitat protection programs and two legislatively mandated habitat improvement/restoration programs. Biologists are also mvolved with a number of other habitat restoration/improvement programs that do not rely on funding from one of the two legislative programs These range from redirecting a stream channel on a tributary of the Blackfoot River to placing structures in a pond for perch habitat The following sections discuss the habitat protection and restoration/improvement programs. The state of Montana has two laws protecting streams and streambeds. The Stream Protection Act (Title 87, chapter 5, part 5, MCA) requires an agency of state government, county, municipality, or other subdivision of the state to obtain a " 124 permit" prior to conductmg any work m a stream or along its banks. The Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act ( Title 75, chapter 7, part 1, MCA) requu-es any individual, corporation, firm partnership, association, or other legal entity not covered under section 87-5-502, MCA, to obtain a "3 10 permit" prior to work in a stream or along its banks. Regional fisheries personnel are involved in issuing both types of permits. Fishery biologists review applications and visit 124 and 310 permit projects to recommend permit requirements to ensure the fishery will not be adversely affected. Audit work showed biologist involvement with the permits vanes by regions due to the number of streams and rivers in each region. Many biologists indicated the permit process provides beneficial contacts with landowners and Conservation District Page 51 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs supervisors. An issue pertaining to permit workload was identified when interviewing biologists. This issue is discussed in Chapter IX. The following sections describe the two permits and biologists' involvement. 124 Permit Issuance FWP entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Department of Transportation (MDT) in 1994 pertaining to compliance with the Stream Protection Act, and issuing 124 permits related to MDT highway projects. Per the MOU, the MDT Project Manager is to monitor the project to ensure compliance with the MOU and the 124 permit, and is responsible for notifying FWP of an\- permit violations or correct any acts or omissions by the contractor. From fiscal year 1992-93 through 1996-97, ahnost 400 Stream Protection Act permits were issued to MDT. To lessen the workload on regional staff, FWP contracts with a firm to review the plans and applications submitted by MDT for the entire state. Contractor costs average $37,000 per year. Fisheries Managers Issue 124 Permits to Other Government Entities Fisheries managers issue 124 permits to applicants other than MDT. From fiscal year 1989-90 through 1996-97, the US Forest Service and Ranger Stations/Districts accounted for more than half of the over 1900 permits issued by fisheries managers. Except for an increase in Regions 1 and 2 in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, the number of 124 permits issued is relatively constant. Table 10 shows the 124 permits issued to agencies other than MDT for eight fiscal years. Page 52 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs Source: Table 10 Miscellaneous 124 Permits Issued (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Year wmm Rtf ji^j, ^^mmm^^mmmiimmm^ 1 -) 1 4 i $ 7 Division 89-90 91 44 19 42 6 0 3 3 12 220 90-91 84 42 33 18 23 1 3 4 2 210 91-92 110 49 36 45 3 3 5 6 2 259 92-93 85 47 29 26 6 3 1 1 3 201 93-94 94 39 38 27 9 5 3 0 5 220 94-95 72 44 25 21 7 7 7 1 2 186 95-96 127 62 35 39 9 5 0 2 4 283 96-97 129 99 4? 2? 12 5 5 1 1 V.Q Total 792 426 260 241 75 29 27 18 31 1899 *Region could not be determined. Compiled by the LAD from department records. A MOU with the US Forest Service indicates national forest staff in Montana are to submit their 124 permit apphcations for proposed projects to the respective region by March 15 of each year. The FWP fisheries manager is to review the forms and identify those projects in which FWP would like further involvement. If the FWP employee is not comfortable with a desk review of a project, a field visit is arranged. Work on 124 permits by fisheries managers and biologists is charged to the region's general fisheries budget. 310 Permit Issuance Process Before starting a physical alteration or modification of a stream, written notice must be sent to the supervisors of the Conservation District in which the project is located. This applies to projects on any natural pereimial-flowing stream or portion thereof, including its channels, unless the Conservation District designates the stream as not having significant aquatic or riparian attributes in need of protection or preservation. A district may consider a stream to flow perennially if it dries up periodically due to man-made causes, or extreme drought. FW|* has five working days after receipt of the notice to inform the Page 53 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs Some 310 Work Contracted Monitoring 310 Permits district supervisors whether the department wants an on-site inspection of the project. The department hires independent contractors to conduct some visits. Each region is responsible for obtaining a contractor. Contracts are for about $5,000 per region. Regional staff were asked if anyone monitors the 3 10 permit criteria against the work actually done at the site. Most indicated they do little or no monitoring due to time constraints. If staff are m the area they might review a project. If the>' identify a violation, staff will notify the Conservation District which is responsible for issuing and enforcing the permit. In some cases the Conservation District supervisors ask the biologist to conduct a fmal mspection with them FW? staff mdicated neighbors will report suspicious activit>' to the Conservation District supervisors who might then ask the biologist to make an mspection. Mandated Habitat Programs The legislature created two fisheries habitat improvement programs. The first was in 1989 when the River Restoration Program (RRP) was enacted. The second was m 1995 when the Future Fisheries Improvement Program (FFIP) was created. From the time of inception of the first legislatively mandated habitat improvement program in 1989 through June 1997, FWP staff have been mvolved m 135 projects. Involvement may only consist of gathermg pre-project fishery data and issuing 124 and 3 10 permits, but we found biologists are aware of the projects m theu management areas and look for new ones. A review of the files compared to constructed projects show projects are constructed as they were described in the application. The file review also showed FFIP expenditures are not made without submission of appropriate documentation from regional staff. Projects involving FFIP have cost-share partners so m many cases the amount of FFIP money expended compared to the total cost of the project IS minimal. Since many of the RRP projects were not monitored until FFEP was created, the results of those projects are not known. Biologists indicated m a few years it should be known if the projects provide the environmental factors necessary for long-term successful reproduction. Page 54 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs rearing of juveniles, cover, food, and growth of fish. To date, reports show there is improvement in some areas Project results are compiled in reports for the legislature and are available to the general pubhc. The following sections describe the River Restoration and Future Fisheries Improvement Programs. River Restoration Program The 1989 Legislature created the River Restoration Program funded by in and out-of-state anglers. Fifty cents of each resident fishing hcense, one dollar of each nonresident fishing license, and 50 cents of each combination sports license was used to fund the program. The 1993 Legislature authonzed FWP to budget $200,000 of federal aid dollars toward RRP projects. General license revenues for the program for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1994-95 totaled $692,058. Expenditures durmg the same time period were $33 1,858. hi 1995, $290,000 of RRP ftmds were transferred to the Future Fisheries Improvement Program. Objectives of the projects were to conserve and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. Potential projects included: Fish habitat improvement; Barrier removal or other improvements to provide fish passage; Stream channel rehabilitation and stabilization; Clean up of debris and trash in river corridors; Bank stabilization (vegetative, sloping, rip-rap); and Stabilization or modification of irrigation diversions presently in use, mcludmg innovative techmques not presently used m Montana. Participants eligible for program fimding included individuals, private organizations. Conservation Districts, cities, counties, state agencies, Indian nations, and federal agencies. Projects could be funded up to 100 percent of their cost. Installation of permanent irrigation diversions were limited to 50 percent of the total cost. The project applicant's share could consist of "in-kind" services, other funding sources, or both. Page 55 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs Project Summary Since 1989, 94 entities applied for RRP funding. Table 1 1 details the status of the 94 appUcants and the RRP dollar amounts involved. Approximately $1.7 miUion was provided to approved projects from other sources, such as federal agencies, private individuals, conservation districts, and public groups. Table 11 gtatus of RRP Applications (As of May 1998) mmmmm Status # Projects RRPDoUai^ Applied For Approved Expended Approved and completed by 7-97 56 $ 614,848 $ 598,713 $ 568.057 Not Approved 21 $ 413,716 NA NA Withdrawn 8 $ 116,079 NA NA Funded from another source 4 $ 71,442 NA NA Application not complete 1 NA NA NA Not complete by 7-97 4 $ 236,526 $ 236,526 $ 14,247 Total 94 $ 1,452,611 $ 835,239 $ 582,304 NA - Not applicable Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records All the fiinds expended were for on-the-land projects; none of the money was expended for FWP staff salaries. Table 12 lists the various types of restoration activities fiinded and the number of approved and completed RRP projects for each activity. Page 56 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs Table 12 Type and Number of RRP Projects Approved and Completed (As of May 1998) " "■ 'fipc ■cllh'ojkt ' '■' Nvmher Ripanan fences 19 Channel restoration 9 Improve fish habitat 8 Bank stabilization 8 Prevent irrigation ditch losses offish 6 Fish passage barrier removal 5 Improve stream flow 1 Total 56 Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. The 1995 Legislature replaced the River Restoration Program for ten years with the Future Fisheries Improvement Program. Future Fisheries Improvement Program The Future Fisheries Improvement Program was created in 1995 and terminates in 2005. The purpose of the program is to restore essential habitats for the growth and propagation of wild fish populations in lakes, rivers, and streams through voluntary means. Program Funding The FFIP projects were initially funded fi-om money redirected fi-om other programs: 1) $290,000 of RRP fimds; 2) $1.5 million appropriated for the Bluewater State Fish Hatchery Project; and 3) $51 0,000 initially appropriated for the Tongue River restoration project. The money from the Tongue River project must be used for habitat in the Tongue River Drainage. Pages? Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs The legislature also redirected fiinds from whirling disease appropriations. The program receives funding from general hcense fees - 50 cents from resident fishing Ucenses, one dollar from nonresident fishing Ucenses, and 50 cents from combination sports licenses. The general hcense revenue was added to the River Restoration Program's fimd balance from fiscal year 1994-95. Fund balance for the FFIP program was $193,502 at the end of fiscal year 1996-97. Program Expenditures Table 13 shows expenditures for FFIP projects for the two fiscal years and the fimding sources. Table 13 FFIP Project Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1995-96 and 1996-97) Type 95-96 96-97 GL $ 79,625 $ 396,327 RR $ 57,230 $ 1,500 Total $ 136,855 $ 397,827 GL - General License RR - River Restoration Account Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. In 1995, the legislature approved $ 1 00,000 of State Special Revenue each fiscal year to implement the FFIP legislation and hire two FTE. Three people comprise the two FTE allocated to the program. One fiill- time position is located in Helena. This person reviews apphcations and projects if biologists do not review the projects, writes EAs for some projects, and generally oversees the program. Half of the other FTE monitors completed projects, helps regions gather pre-project fishery data, and generally assists regional staff with FFIP projects in their area. The other half FTE develops habitat projects on the Clark Fork River. Money from a private company is used to pay for project costs. The State Special Revenue monies approved to implement the FFIP Page 58 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs legislation pays the person's salaty. This person was hired in late 1996. The bureau chiefs administrative time spent on FFIP is not charged to the FFIP operating budget. Program administration expenditures are funded by general license fees. Expenditures for program administration were $46,481 in fiscal 1995- 96, and $95,170 m fiscal 1996-97. Expenditures mclude a contract with college students to help the person monitormg completed projects. Regional biologists charge the time they spend on FFIP projects to their regular operating budgets; they do not charge their tune spent on habitat projects to FFIP. Types of Projects Funded In addition to restoring habitat, projects must eliminate or significantly reduce the original cause of habitat degradation. For example, if a stream is damaged by a specific land management practice, restoring the channel does little without changing the management practice. To be eligible for funding, potential projects must accomphsh one or more of the following: Improve or mamtain fish passage; Restore or protect naturally functioning stream channels or banks; Restore or protect naturally functiomng riparian areas; Prevent loss of fish into diversions; Restore or protect essential habitats for spawning; Enhance streamflow in a dewatered reach to improve fisheries; Restore or protect genetically pure native fish populations; Improve fishing in a lake or reservoir; and/or Other projects that restore or protect habitat for wild fish populations. Preference is given to projects that restore habitat for native fish. The landowner on whose property the project is completed must also agree to the project. Page 59 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs Application Review Process FWP staff, landowners, private organizations. Conservation Districts and other state or federal agencies can initiate projects. Habitat Protection Bureau staff make general recommendations to the Future Fisheries Review Panel concerning the value of the project to habitat. The review panel evaluates eligible projects based on the following cnteria; Public benefits to wild fisheries; Long-term effectiveness; Benefits to native fish species; Expected benefits relative to cost; In-kind services or cost-sharing; and Importance of the lake or stream. The review panel submits its recommendations for approval or disapproval and grant amounts to the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission. The commission approves or denies the projects and grant amounts at public hearings conducted as part of their regularly scheduled commission meetings. To date, there has been enough money to fiind all the projects. If projects exceed fimds, procedures for detemumng which projects will receive fundmg are outlmed m state law and Administrative Rules. EAs Written An EA must be completed depending on the type of project. Administrative Rules were approved in 1 994 allowing the department to construct specific projects without prepanng an EA Excluded projects include: Construction of nparian fences to protect stream banks; Mmor improvements in fish habitat by placement of habitat improvement structures; Clean up of trash or debris in the river corridor; Vegetative bank stabilization projects; Spawnmg channel development to provide additional habitat for reproduction; and Maintenance or repair of existing RRP and FFIP projects. In most cases. Habitat Protection Bureau staff will complete the EAs for the sponsors. In these cases, bureau staff have more expertise in the area of writing and soUciting comments for EAs. Bureau staff do not Page 60 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs complete EAs if the federal government is the applicant or the project is in the upper Blackfoot, in which case Region 2 (Missoula) staff is the applicant. Bills Submitted for Payment During and after project construction, the sponsor submits bills for either reimbursement or for the department to pay. Prior to paying the fmal bill department staff will review the project to determme if specifications were met. FFIP Project Summary As of December 1996, 48 FFIP projects were fimded. Cost of the projects was $2,592,754 with $830,176 coming from the program and $1,782,222 in matching fimds. Thirty-eight projects were complete, one was canceled when the landowners changed their nunds, two were scheduled for completion m the Fall 1998. and seven projects are scheduled for completion m 1999 Reasons for delays m project completion include: Change m leadership in a conservation orgamzation that is the project applicant; Delays m receivmg matching dollars or in-kmd contributions promised ui the project proposal; Delays caused by landowners having trouble fitting the project into their schedule; Unanticipated complications related to construction; and. Delays related to scheduling with contractors. Table 14 shows the status of the 48 projects and the FFIP dollar amount approved. Page 61 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs Table 14 Status of FFIP Projects Approved as of December 1996 (As of September 1998) Status Projects S Approved Matching Fodds Completed Projects 38 $ 698,128 $ 1,442,164 To be completed in 1998 2 $ 67,500 $ 282,116 To be completed in 1999 7 $ 34,548 $ 38,742 Canceled 1 $ 30,000 $ 19,200 Total 48 $ 830,176 $ 1,782,222 Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Table 15 lists the various types of restoration/improvement activities for the 38 approved and completed FFIP projects. Table 15 Type and Number of FFIP Projects Approved and Completed (As of September 1998) Type of Project Nomber Ripanan fences 11 Creek restoration 8 Bank stablization 5 Prevent irrigation ditch losses offish 3 Improve stream flow 3 Spawning enhancement 3 Channel restoration 3 Fish passage barrier removal 1 Fish habitat 1 Total 38 Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Page 62 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs Twenty-seven projects were submitted to the commission for approval in January 1997, with 18 more submitted in September 1997. Twenty- six of the 27 projects in Januarv' were approved, committing $432,537 of FFIP funds. Two projects in September were deferred until a later time. The remaining 16 projects, plus the project deferred m January, were approved at a cost of $141,077. Some Project Results are Evaluated to Determine Success A project evaluation program was established to determine if FFIP projects are improving fish populations. One half of the FTE allocated to the program evaluates completed RRP and FFIP projects to determine if the projects resulted in improved fish passage, protects spawmng habitat, etc. Program staff developed basic minimum monitoring requirements for specific types of projects such as stream flow enhancement, spawning enhancement, grade stabilization, etc Requirements followed on each project depend on the type of project constructed. Thirty-six of the 74 FFIP projects approved by the commission fi^om February 1996 through February 1997 are bemg evaluated in 1998. The results of 13 RRP projects are also bemg evaluated m 1998. Not all projects can be evaluated due to time constraints so specific ones of each type are targeted for evaluation, or minimal monitoring is conducted. Regional biologists and the project evaluator are the primary monitors. In some regions, staff fi^om the Indian reservation or the US Forest Service evaluate projects. All personnel are to follow the guidelines established for monitormg project results. Findings are submitted to the FWP project evaluator at the end of each two year period. Findings are included in the report submitted to the legislature prior to each session. Table 16 shows the total RRP and FFIP projects by region, and the number evaluated. Page 63 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs Table 16 Projects Evaluated by Region (Calendar Year 1998) Total Projects Projects Evaluated RRP FFIP RRP FFP 1 3 4 1 2 2 32 28 6 18 3 16 22 7 10 4 7 14 0 2 5 3 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 4 7 0 0 0 0 Total 61 74 14 36 Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Regional staff are evaluating 33 projects for results. The project evaluator monitors another 14 projects. Staff from other agencies are evaluating three projects. Department staff indicated that by and large they have consistently found the projects have improved the fish populations in the project areas. Projects with the most dramatic positive impact on fish populations have been in small streams with fish habitat that was in poor shape. Page 64 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs Procedures Needed to During our audit we visited three FFIP projects. When we compared the Ensure EAs W ritten three projects visited to project file information, we found the projects on the ground were as described ui the application. We also reviewed files for another 1 3 projects to determine if state law and rule, and FWP policies were followed. While reviewing the files we noted a project application for planting bald cjqjress along a lake shore for perch habitat did not have an EA wntten Bald cypress is not a plant native to Montana. FWP imported the plants fi'om Tennessee. The Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) requires consideration of environmental and human impacts of an agency's proposed action and assurance the public is informed of and participates in the decision- makmg process. The department did not meet MEPA requirements when it did not write an EA for plantmg bald cypress. In talking to division staff, when the project application was submitted for review by the Future Fishenes Review Panel the applicant was not sure what plants would be used. The need for an EA is determined when an application is submitted. The type of project and materials used determines the need for an EA. In this case, the project was deemed as not needing an EA when the application was submitted. The project was approved for funding and a study was completed to determine the best plants for the intended use. The applicant decided bald cypress would meet the requirements. Plants were purchased and planted without fiorther consideration of the need for an EA. There are no policies requiring division or regional staff to revisit an application to determine if an EA is needed when the project is changed or modified. We informed the department of our fmding and they agreed an EA should have been written. Helena staff now require all fisheries biologists who successfully obtain funding for Future Fisheries projects to notify program staff of any changes m the project fi-om what was origmally proposed so the need for an EA can be evaluated. Page 65 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs Recommendation #4 We recommend Fisheries Division implement procedures to identify the need for Environmental Assessments and ensure they are written when needed. Other Habitat Programs Fisheries biologists are also involved in habitat programs/projects which do not utilize FFEP funds. These programs include projects on the Clark Fork River, the Blackfoot River Restoration Project, dam mitigation projects, and projects with sportsmen and youth groups. The following sections describe the types of projects and funding sources of these habitat programs. Qark Fork River Habitat Projects FWP received approximately $250,000 for mitigation on the Clark Fork River. To utilize the funds to the fullest extent, the department funded one-half of the FFIP FTEs to develop habitat projects from Milltown Dam up the main stem of the Clark Fork, including the Rock Creek drainage, the Little Blackfoot drainage, and all the tributaries. Design and/or construction for ten projects was completed as of May 1998. Estimated project costs ranged from $1,700 for riparian vegetation to $223,000 for stream relocation and channel stabilization. Five more projects are under construction in 1998. Table 17 shows expenditures from the mitigation account for fiscal years 1992-93 through 1996-97. Table 17 Mitigation Fund Expenditures for Habitat Projects on the Park Fork River (Fiscal Years 1992-93 through 1996-97) 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 $2,042 $10,104 $54,328 $17,352 $33,994 Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. The mitigation money is used for cost-sharing and funding projects, not staff salaries. Expenditures include aerial photographs of stretches of Page 66 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs the river, the request for proposal process, reimbursing contractors, and purchasing materials. None of the projects utilized FFIP funds. Blackfoot River Restoration One of the major habitat projects funded from GL and DJ money is Project work conducted on the Blackfoot River. Declining stocks of rainbow and brown trout, which comprise the majority of the fishery m the Blackfoot River, along with very low numbers of bull and westslope cutthroat trout livmg in the river, prompted an assessment of fish populations and their habitats in 1988 and 1989. The assessments identified significant degradation in 17 of 19 prmciple tributaries. From 1990 to 1996, similar assessments were completed for 33 additional tributaries to the Blackfoot. Impaired fisheries existed m 26 of these streams, mainly from degradation of habitat on private lands. A cooperative efifort restoring fisheries and riparian zones m the Blackfoot drainage started in 1990. Cooperators include private landowners, non-profit groups, and federal and state agencies. FWP reprioritized the time of two fisheries biologists to develop restoration projects. Private organizations supported this effort by raising funds, administering projects, contacting landowners and resolving conflicts. Recruitment of other agencies and private cooperators resulted in 36 completed restoration projects on 29 streams, influencing over 200 sfream miles. Twenty of the 36 projects received FFIP fimding. Most of the restoration effort has occurred in tributaries to the middle reaches of the Blackfoot River. Restoration activities mcluded water leasing, riparian fencing, changing livestock management, developing sites for off-stream watering, reconstructing stream channels, adding woody debris to streams, modifying irrigation systems, removing barriers to fish migration, and planting riparian vegetation. Table 18 shows the number of streams affected by the vanous restoration activities. Page 67 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs Table 18 Streams in the Blackfoot Drainage with Restoration Activities (As of June 1998) # of Streattts Fish passage barrier removal 26 Prevent irrigation ditch losses offish 13 Critical spawning habitat protection 5 Channel restoration 16 Improve fish habitat 21 Improve riparian vegetation 18 Improve stream flow 11 Improve wetland 10 Improve range-ripanan habitat 21 Improve hvestock-imgation system 23 Remove streamside feedlot 11 Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Project monitoring reports indicate increased spawning opportunities and densities of juvenile trout. The abundances of native westslope cutthroat and bull trout are increasing in some restored streams. Monitoring of river populations also show increased numbers of adult trout in the middle reach of the Blackfoot River. The vast majority of the funding for the projects comes from sources other than FFEP. The sources include federal and state agencies. Conservation Districts, private landowners, corporations, and pubhc groups. FWP biologists' time spent on the projects is paid via GL and DJ fimds from the region's general fisheries budget. Table 19 shows FWP's expenditures for the Blackfoot River Restoration Project by funding source. Page 68 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs Sourc Table 19 Blackfoot River Habitat Project Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1990-91 through 1996-97) Fund Type Fiscal Years 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-% 96-97 GL $ 5,239 $ 3,783 $ 6,987 $ 9,076 $ 7,674 $ 4,478 DJ $ 15,716 $ 11,348 $ 20,961 $ 27,227 $ 12,971 $ 9,091 DNRC $ 10,115 $ 55,843 $ 39,852 $ 31,153 Other $ 7,161 $ 298 $ 1,000 $ 4,599 $ 2,874 $ 19,210 Total $ 7,161 $ 21,253 $ 16,131 $ 42,662 $ 95,020 $ 60,497 $ 63,932 DNRC - Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation e: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. Habitat Projects Resulting from Mitigation Funding Biologists in a number of regions are involved in habitat projects resulting from mitigation for dams built on Montana's rivers. The largest projects occur in Region 1 resulting from mitigation for Libby and Hungry Horse Dams. As a result of the availabihty of mitigation funds for habitat projects, there are few FFIP projects in the area. Hungry Horse Dam Mitigation The mitigation plan for Hungry Horse Dam includes a discussion of fisheries habitat enhancement and stabiUzation and fish passage improvements. In 1992 potential habitat and fish passage projects were identified. Projects benefitting native fishes are given the highest priority. The two primary native fish in the area are bull trout and westslope cutthroat. Four projects in the area involved improving habitat on four different creeks. Seven fish passage projects in the Hungry Horse Dam area have increased habitat available for spawning and rearing by 16 percent. The projects consisted of removing culvert barriers on seven creeks. Staff in Region 1 evaluate the success of the projects. Revegetation tests are also being conducted to identify native plants that can survive and become established in the Hungry Horse Reservoir drawdown zone. Grass seed plants were also estabhshed to revegetate Page 69 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs Broadwater Power Project Mitigation Miscellaneous Habitat Projects mud flats near the upper end of the reservoir. Both projects will be evaluated for success. A number of other projects are also under consideration for habitat and passage improvement. Projects include removmg culverts, repairing sediment sources, and riparian fencing. Regional FWP staff time is paid from Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) fimds. The exact amount dedicated specifically to habitat can not be readily calculated because funds are not accounted for by project. Three fisheries projects were implemented in 1991 to mitigate for expected brown trout losses due to the Broadwater Power Project. Mitigation for fish losses included; enhancement of spawmng habitat; installation of a siphon to elumnate a seasonal fish passage bamer and to establish spawrung runs; and four years of brown trout egg collection and hatchery rearing of brown trout fiy . Although brown trout were the targeted species, project momtormg has shown little, if any improvement after the projects. In contrast, the rainbow redd (fish nest or spawning ground) counts and number of rambow trout entering the treated areas have mcreased significantly. The FWP biologist's time spent on this project was charged to the general operating budget. Most field biologists are involved with miscellaneous habitat projects sponsored by local sportsmen groups, civic organizations, youth groups, etc. These projects consist of increasing spawmng habitat by putting structures in lakes, consolidating short channels of a stream to make it deeper for fish passage, etc. Activity in this area depends entirely on the activity of the various groups in the area. Staff time spent on these projects is charged to their general operating budgets. Page 70 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs Funds Dedicated to "On- The-Land" Habitat Improvement Programs One of the audit objectives was to determine the percentage of available dollars dedicated to "on-the-land" improvement programs versus studies, research, planning, hatchery improvements, and operations. There are three habitat programs which have funds dedicated to on-the- land improvements - the River Restoration Program, the Future Fisheries Improvement Program, and money for habitat on the Clark Fork River. The expenditures from those projects were compared to expenditures for operations, studies/research and capital improvements. The percentage of funds for on the land projects increased from 0.07 percent in fiscal year 1989-90 (the first year of the RRP) to 5. 7 percent in fiscal year 1996-97. Table 20 shows the dollar amounts and percentage of funds for the various areas. Page 71 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs Table 20 Percentage of Fisheries-Related Expenditures Dedicated to On-The-Land Proiects (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996 i-97) Fiscal Year Operations Research Improvements 0»J4fae-t«iad Projects m)Aymmmmxmm Total 89-90 Amount $4,666,227 $784,758 $291,370 $3,942 $5,746,297 Percent 81.20% 13.66% 5.07% 0.07% 90-91 Amount $4,796,463 $894,066 $361,411 $5,623 $6,057,563 Percent 79.18% 14.76% 5.97% 0.09% 91-92 Amount $5,315,095 $814,049 $1,498,907 $51,122 $7,679,173 Percent 69.21% 10.60% 19.52% 0.67% 92-93 Amount $5,204,813 $924,802 $277,666 $48,680 $6,455,961 Percent 80.62% • 14.32% 4.30% 0.76% 93-94 Amount $5,343,566 $1,026,752 $578,243 $97,736 $7,046,297 Percent 75.84% 14.57% 8.20% 1.39% 94-95 Amount $5,184,325 $1,439,518 $123,440 $191,229 $6,938,512 Percent 74.72% 20.74% 1.78% 2.76% 95-96 Amount $5,729,269 $1,362,469 $223,506 $346,175 $7,661,419 Percent 74.78% 17.78% 2.92% 4.52% 96-97 Amount $5,874,600 $1,704,462 $187,240 $469,689 $8,235,991 Percent 71.33% 20.70% 2.27% 5.70% Sour ce: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. The dollar amounts and percentages do not reflect money spent on habitat projects not specifically dedicated to on-the-land projects as described in the above sections. For example, BPA mitigation money has been expended for habitat projects, but there is not a specific amoiut dedicated to on-the-land projects. The BPA money spent for habitat is included in studies/research and not on-the-land projects. Page 72 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs Summarv Biologists participate in two habitat protection programs (the Stream Protection Act and the Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act) and two legislatively mandated habitat improvement/restoration programs (the River Restoration Program and the Future Fisheries Improvement Program). Biologists are also involved with a number of other habitat restoration/improvement programs that do not rely on fimding from the two legislative programs. These range from redirecting a stream chaimel on a tributary to the Blackfoot River to putting structures in a pond for perch habitat Audit work showed: >■ Fisheries biologists are actively involved in protecting habitat The biologists review applications for 3 1 0 and 1 24 permit projects to recommend permit requirements to ensure the fishery will not be adversely affected. >■ Fisheries biologists are involved in the River Restoration and Future Fisheries Improvement Programs. Biologists are aware of the River Restoration and Future Fishenes Improvement Programs projects in their areas and look for new ones when conducting work in the field. >■ FFIP projects are constructed as they were described in the application. >■ FFIP expenditures are not made without submission of appropriate documentation from regional staff. >■ Some project results are evaluated to determine if the project was successful Department staff indicated that by and large, they have consistently found the projects have improved the fish populations m the project areas. >■ Fisheries biologists are also involved in habitat programs/projects which do not utilize FFIP funds. These programs include projects on the Clark Fork River, the Blackfoot River Restoration Project, dam mitigation projects, and projects with sportsmen and youth groups. >■ The percentage of funds for on the land projects increased from 0.07 percent in fiscal year 1989-90 (the first year oftheRRP) to 5. 7 percent in fiscal year 1996-97. Page 73 Chapter IV - Habitat Protection and Improvement Programs During our review of FFIP project files, we found an EA was not written for one project. The department indicated an EA should have been written. Biologists are required to notify the division of any changes to projects from what was originally proposed so the need for EAs can be addressed. Overall, we found regional and division staff are involved in protecting and restoring/improving habitat. Page 74 Chapter V - Water Reservations and Leasing Introduction When addressing our audit objective to determine expenditures and activities related to habitat, we also examined water quantity. Stream fish habitat can be thought of in three components: 1) physical habitat; 2) quantity of water required to fill the physical habitat, and 3) quaUty of that water. The Department of Environmental Quality regulates the third component, histream flows provide the water quantity component of stream fish habitat, histream flows are necessary to mamtam adequate living space for fish, to provide spawmng areas and places where young fish can grow, to protect food-producing areas, to maintain water quality, to help provide streamside vegetation, and in some cases, to protect species of special concern. FWP Uses Murphy Rights, Water Reserva- tions, and Leasing to Ensure Water Quantity The legislature enacted three laws to address water quantity for fishenes - Murphy Rights, Water Reservations, and water leasmg FWP utilizes all three laws to ensure water is available for Montana 's fisheries. The water leasing program ends June 30, 1999. The legislature will have to determine whether the law should be extended. Preluninary findings show the leases benefitted the fisheries. The foUowmg sections describe department activities under the three laws and include a recommendation for inter-department commumcation Murphy Rights hi 1969 the legislature enacted a statute allowmg FWP to appropriate water on 12 blue ribbon trout streams. These are called Murphy Rights. The 12 streams include the Blackfoot River. Rock Creek by Missoula, the Missouri River below Holter Dam, the Madison, Gallatin, Yellowstone, Smith, Big Spring Creek by Lewistown, the North, South, and Middle Forks of the Flathead, and the main Flathead. The priority rights for the Murphy Rights is January 197 1 . The amount of water claimed by FWP depends on the time of year and largely follows the streamflow hydrograph. FWP filed their Murphy water rights to comply with the Montana Water Use Act created m 1973. The department is in the adjudication process for these nghts. Page 75 Chapter V - Water Reservations and Leasing Water Reservations Water reservations came into being with the water law change in 1973. Under this statute public entities can apply to the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) for fiiture or existing water rights for beneficial use. This law allowed FWP to apply for instream flows on the rivers/creeks in the state not covered under Murphy Rights. Prior to this law, Montana had no statute allowmg instream flows to be systematically secured for fish and wildlife. The 1973 act specifically defined fish and wildlife as a beneficial use of water and it authorized appropriation of water for in stream purposes under the concept of water reservations. Water reservations cannot affect the existing water rights of any water user. Only water users who obtain permits to appropriate water after the reservations are established can be afi'ected by those reservations. Reservations do not create any nev\ water; they only maintain the status quo of stream flow. If a stream has a low flow problem because of current water use, the reservation process does not improve the condition. However, it can keep dewatenng fi-om getting worse if new diversionary uses are granted. In the 1970s the department obtained reservations on the Yellowstone Basin. The 1985 Legislature allowed FWP to proceed with reservations on the Missouri Basin. FWP divided the area into the upper and lower Missoun Basins to make the project more manageable. In 1992 FWP was granted reservations on about 250 streams for instream flow in the upper Missouri Basin. The lower basin was completed by 1994 and FWP was granted reservations on 18 more streams. The department currently has about 350 mstream flow nghts. Regional biologists provided needed information and presented the department's case at the hearings. Water may be reallocated every five years if other qualified applicants can demonstrate a better use for the water. Water reservations must be reviewed at least every 1 0 years to determine if the objectives are being met. The Yellowstone Basin reservations were reviewed in 1988. Nothing changed as a result of the review. Based upon guidelines established by DNRC, the review due in 1998 will explain why FWP still needs the reserved water Page 76 Monitoring Water Flows Chapter V - Water Reservations and Leasing One stafT person monitors water flows under the reservations. He accesses the Internet to determine the readings from a number of United States Geological Survey (USGS) water gauges at various sites in the rivers. If the water level reaches a certain point, he can notify "junior" water users the department might ask them to stop using water. If the situation warrants, the junior users may have to actually stop using water. Qark Fork Basin Water Management Plan Legislation passed in 1991 created the Upper Clark Fork River Basin Steering Committee and directed the committee to wnte a comprehensive water management plan by the end of 1994. The legislature also closed a basin except for the Big Blackfoot and Rock Creek watersheds until June 30, 1995, to the issuance of most new water use permits. The period of closure was set to provide the Steenng Committee time to develop a basin water management plan and for the legislature to act on the plan's recommendations before the closure would end. Water Reservation Expenditures The 1995 Legislature implemented recommendations outlined in the Water Management Plan created by the Upper Clark Fork River Basm Steering Committee. Recommendations unplemented mcluded an instream flow pilot study on the Clark Fork Basm, maintain a steenng committee, continue the restnction of water use permits on the Clark Fork River Basin, and report the results of the instream flow pilot study by December 3 1,2004. Section 85-2-3 16(3), MCA, requires applicants for water reservations to pay for DNRC's cost of giving notice of hearings, holding the hearing, and conductmg investigations Applicants also have to pay a reasonable proportion of DNRC's cost of preparing an environmental unpact statement (EIS). Applicants do not have to pay for DNRC's personnel salaries. FWP expenses from fiscal year 1989-90 through 1993-94 for water reservations totaled over $370,000. Most of the expenses were for reservations on the lower Missouri River Basin. Expenditures included contracted services for an EIS and FWP staff time. Table 21 shows Page 77 Chapter V - Water Reservations and Leasing water reservation expenditures by funding source for the four years ending 1993-94. Table 21 Expenditures for Water Reservations (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1993-94) Type Fiscal YHtt DescriptioD 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 GL $ 8,047 $ 4,403 Missouri River Reservations DJ $ 24,140 $ 13,209 GL $ 15,000 $ 15,013 $ 20,657 $ 16,500 $ 9,063 Missouri River Reservation EIS DJ $ 65.000 $ 45.038 $ 61,970 $ 49,500 $ 27.188 Total $ 112,187 $ 77,663 $ 82,627 $ 66,000 $ 36,251 Sourc e: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. Water Leasing In 1989 the legislature established the water leasing program. The purpose of the leasing law is to study the feasibihty of leasing existing water rights to enhance instream flows for fisheries. Amendments to the original bill in both the 1991 and 1993 Legislative Sessions extended the study to June 30, 1999. Before a lease agreement is made, FWP must assess the impacts of potential leases on other water right holders on the stream and then seek approval for a lease fi-om DNRC through the existing water right change process. An EA is written for each lease and distributed for pubUc review and comment. FWP can only lease fi'om a willing party. Leases cannot result in the confiscation of water rights and a lease may not be approved until any objections to the lease are resolved through the change process. The maximum amount of water that may be leased is the amount historically diverted by the lessor at his point of diversion. However, only the amount historically consumed, or a lesser amount as determined by DNRC, may be protected below the point of diversion. Page 78 Chapter V - Water Reservations and Leasing A lease may be issued for a maximum period of 1 0 years but may be renewed one time for an additional 10 years. Leases resulting from a water conservation or storage project, such as converting from flood irrigation to sprinkler irrigation, can be issued the first time for not more than 20 years. There is no provision for renewing a 20-year lease. All leases entered mto prior to June 30, 1999, remain vahd until the expiration of the lease. Table 22 shows the leases FWP entered into as of November 1997. Page 79 Chapter V - Water Reservations and Leasing Table 22 Water Lease Terms and Cost (As of November 1997) Source liiili , Lessor Lease Tenn/Exp. C^st Mill Creek Water and Sewer Distnct 10 years August 1,2003 $12,750 per year* Mill Creek Individual 10 years April 1,2003 $7,500 per year Mill Creek Individual 10 years May 1,2006 $4,200 per year Blanchard Creek Individual 5 years June 20, 1999 Up to $2,000 per year Tin Cup Creek Six individuals 5 years November 4, 2000 $6,260 per year Cedar Creek US Forest Service 10 years September 20, 2005 $1.00 per year HeUs Canyon Creek Three individuals 20 years April 1,2016 $25,000 - one-time payment Chamberlain Creek Individual 10 years April 1,2007 $1.00 per year Pearson Creek Individual 10 years April 1,2007 $ 1 .00 per year Cottonwood Creek FWP 9 years June 30, 2005** None *Lessor pays for water commissioner and the installation of measuring devices on all on-farm turnouts from the pipeline. **FWP converted its own water rights to instream flow imder section 85-2-439, MCA. Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Page 80 Chapter V - Water Reservations and Leasing Over 100 potential leasing opportunities have been explored through the years which did not result in a lease. The primary reasons for not leasing the water include: The flow offered for leasing was too small to make a difference; The water nght had a poor priority date; The water right was in the wrong location on the stream; The validity of the water right was in question; The stream did not have a dewatering problem; and The fishery benefit did not justify a lease. Flow Monitoring Water commissioners administer water rights on two streams with four of the nine leases. Both of these streams have many other water users besides FWP. The remauung five leases are on streams with few or no other water users Monitoring is done by FWP and there have been no major problems with lease implementation. Biological Monitoring Biological monitoring is being done on all leases to determine their effectiveness in improving fisheries. Monitoring intensity varies and is currently done by FWP fisheries biologists and graduate students when available. Local biologists collect data when they can, charging their time to their general operating budget. Monitoring results are submitted to Helena where they are mcluded in an annual report submitted to the Montana Environmental Quahty Council, DNRC, and Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission. Monitoring results for most of the leases are not conclusive at this time as to the benefit for instream flows since five of the mne leases were entered into in 1996 or 1997. One of the earlier leases has shown an increase in the diversity of species in the stream, and an increase in the number of trout over four inches. The three other earlier leases showed an increase in cutthroat fiy migrating to the mainstream river fi'om 1 996 to 1997. Page 81 Chapter V - Water Reservations and Leasing Coordination With Other Four of the nine leasing projects involved converting flood irrigation Programs systems to gravity pipeline and sprinkler systems. The cost of conversion was borne by the landowner and/or the department. Some FFIP projects also involved conversion from flood to sprinkler irrigation. DNRC administers the Renewable Resource Grant and Loan Program (RRG&L) which also fimds irrigation systems. Private individuals are eligible for grants and loans for water-related projects through the program. Many of the pnvate loans are for converting from flood irrigation to pivot or sprinkler ungation. The purpose of FWP's leasing program is to increase the quantity of water m streams used by fish for spawmng, reanng, and developmg. The purpose of the FFIP is to improve fish habitat, which mcludes increasmg the amount of water retained in a stream. The purpose of the RRG&L Program is to conserve renewable resources, one of which is water. By conserving water through more efficient ungation, the quantity of water remaining in the sfream mcreases. We found most fisheries biologists were not aware of the RRB&L Program at DNRC. If biologists are aware of the program, landowners could be informed of a potential source of funding for the irrigation conversion. This could lead to a more effective use of three fimding sources. Also, if the landowner has another source of funding, possibly the amount requested for the water lease could be reduced. If a sfream with a potential fishery is dewatered by water conversions, the RRB&L Program could be another funding source for conversion projects. In response to our recommendation to communicate with the field biologists and DNRC, department management indicated the addresses of all the fisheries biologists were sent to DNRC with the request the biologists receive information about the program. We also believe FWP should inform DNRC of proposed water leasing projects and applicable habitat projects to determine if the RRB&L Program could be a fimding source. Page 82 Chapter V - Water Reservations and Leasing Recommendation U5 We recommend the Fisheries Division formally communicate with: A. The field biologists about the Renewable Resource Grant and Loan Program administered by the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; and, B. The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation concerning proposed water lease projects and applicable habitat projects to determine if the RRG&L Program could be a funding source. Expenditures for Water Leasing Program Expenditiires for water leasing include the amounts paid for the leases and staff costs to review potential leases. In fiscal year 1992-93 a private organization contributed to a water lease. Table 23 shows by funding source expenditures for the leasing program from fiscal year 1989-90 through 1996-97. Table 23 Water Leasing Program Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Fund 3^m Fiscal Year 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 10,000 $ 42,051 $ 566 $ 22,534 $ 13.956 $ 39,530 $ 42,221 DJ $ 15,303 $ 1,719 $ 5,625 $ 5,510 $ 2,860 $ 35,418 CG $ 7.277 Total $ 10,000 $ 57,354 $ 2,285 $ 35,436 $ 19,466 $ 42,390 $ 42,221 $ 35,418 Source CG - Conservation Group : Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. Expenditures for the Instream Flow Programs Besides the specific expenditures for water reservations and water leases, the department has incurred other expenses for instream flows. Instream flow coordination includes two staff. Water measuring devises were required by the legislature in 1991. DNRC was to install devices in chronically dewatered watercourses. FWP contributed some money. The USGS project is a 50/50 fund match to operate stream gauges and thermograph stations on important fishing streams. The objective is to project water rights and monitor long term effects of flows and Page 83 Chapter V - Water Reservations and Leasing temperatures on fish populations. The Painted Rocks Water Purchase expenditures purchases water fi-om the reservoir to maintain instream flows. Table 24 shows the miscellaneous instream flow expenditures. Table 24 Instream Flow Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Type Fiscal Year Desniptktti 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 83,646 $ 78,740 $ 82,937 $ 96,774 $ 87367 $ 95,247 $ 91,081 $ 91,473 Instream Eow Coordination GL $ 5,997 $ 1,000 Water Measuring Devices GL $ 43,075 $ 40,825 $ 39,875 $ 47,725 $ 72,275 $ 59,950 $ 60,415 $ 65,175 USGS Projects GL $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Pamted Rocks Water Purchase PC $ 5.000 $ 5.000 $ 5.000 Total $ 146,721 $ 139,565 $ 148,809 $ 165,499 $ 179,642 $ 175,197 $ 171,496 $ 171,648 PC - Private Company Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. Summary Water quantity is one of three components offish habitat. Since 1969, when the department filed for Murphy Rights on 12 blue ribbon trout streams, FAVP has utilized two more laws allowing it to increase the quantity of waters in streams. The water law change in 1973 allowed FWP to apply for instream flows on the rivers/creeks in the state not covered by Murphy Rights. The 1989 Legislature established the water leasing program. Under this program, FWP has entered into ten leases. The leases range in price fi'om $1 each year to $12,750 per year for 10 years. Page 84 Chapter VI - Special Projects Introduction An audit objective was to determine what special projects/studies have been conducted since fiscal year 1990, the results of the projects/studies, if any recommendations of the projects/studies were implemented, and how successful the projects/studies have been. The vast majority of special projects/studies (hereinafter referred to as projects) are fiinded with money the department receives from federal agencies (other than the DJ grant), private companies, organizations and citizens, other state agencies, grants, contracts, gifts, and/or donations. If the department did not receive this money the special projects would not be conducted. Many of the projects relating to species of concern or endangered species are also fiinded by general license (GL) and Dmgle Johnson (DJ) money. Current Major Projects Carried Out Under Written Plans All of the current major projects are earned out under a plan usually written in cooperation with a number of agencies In reviewing the plans and annual reports we found recommendations are implemented Not all the projects are successful (My sis shrimp), and many of the projects are still on-going so the final success is not known at the time of this report Expenditures for the various projects ranged from $5 million over 8 years to $ 1 5 1 ,000 over 7 years. The following table shows the total expenditures for the majority of special projects conducted by the Fisheries Program from fiscal year 1989-90 through 1996-97. Page 85 Chapter VI - Special Projects Table 25 Total Expenditures by Special Project (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Project Time Period Expenditures Grayling 91-92 through 96-97 $ 469,641 Westslope Cutthroat 90-91 through 96-97 $ 151,463 Pallid Sturgeon 89-90 through 96-97 $ 1,302,582 Bull Trout 92-93 through 96-97 $ 275,746 Paddlefish 89-90 through 96-97 $ 744,945 Hungry Horse & Libby Dam Mitigation 89-90 through 96-97 $ 5,046,590 Kalispell Information Services Unit 89-90 through 96-97 $ 983,443 Miscellaneous Projects 89-90 through 96-97 $ 893,063 Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. The following sections provide a brief discussion and time periods of events associated with special projects the Fisheries Program has been involved in since fiscal 1989-90. Since many projects last more than two years we gathered information fi^om 1990 to 1997 to develop a history of the projects. A more complete description of the projects and their expenditures are contained in Appendix B. Arctic Grayling Recovery Program FWP initiated the Arctic grayling recovery program due to a decline in the number of grayling in Montana and the potential for hsting as an endangered species. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by FWP and the USFWS stating grayling would not be hsted if Montana started a recovery program. Individuals fi"om a number of agencies, including FWP, developed an Arctic grayling recovery plan. To date, a stock watering project in the Wisdom area was completed, and the Ruby River was planted with grayling. Other plants were made prior to signing the recovery plan. Biologists indicated it appears these Page 86 Chapter VI - Special Projects stockings did not work. A person is on contract to monitor the plantings, specifically in the Ruby River. Regional staff reported as of October 1998, results of that planting appeared to be highly successfiJ, but the true success will not be known until after the upcoming winter and spring runoff. Data also suggests fish fi-om the 1997 plant have survived. Table 26 shows the events that have occurred in the Arctic grayhng recovery program. Table 26 Arctic Grayling Recovery Program Events 1982 Montana Arctic grayling designated as a category 2 candidate for bsting under the Endangered Species Act 1987 Montana Fluvial Arctic Grayling Workgroup established. 1989 Big Hole River ranchers adopted a policy under which flows are not fluctuated greatly during spawning. Jane 1991 MOU created between FWP, BLM, USFWS, USFS, sportsmen groups, and National Park Service concerning grayling restoration. (Renewed in June 1 996) 1991 FWP hired a biologist specifically for the grayling recovery program. 1992 & 93 Fish planted in Gallatin and East Gallatin Rivers. 1992 Big Hole River stocked with 2 1 4 yearhng from the Big Hole reserve stock. W93 & 94 Cougar Creek stocked. 1994 Cherry Creek stocked with Madison River grayhng. 1994 Stock water tanks installed for area ranchers to maintain adequate flows in Big Hole River. November 1995 Montana Fluvial Arctic Grayhng Restoration Plan approved by Workgroup. February 1996 USFWS and FWP entered into a Memorandum of Agreement for the Implementation of the Fluvial Arctic Grayling Restoration Plan. September 1997 Ruby River stocked with 30,000 fish reared that year. Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Pages? Chapter VI - Special Projects Work has also been conducted on Arctic grayling in the Madison River/Ennis Reservoir. The fish population was studied to determine if it was fluvial (hving in a stream or river). The Big Hole was thought to be the sole remaining location in the contiguous United States with a population of fluvial grayling. Biologists determined the Madison River/Ennis Reservoir population is not fluvial. Conclusion: Recovery Plan Followed The MOU and recovery plan require FWP to have a minimum of five Montana Arctic grayling reintroductions in progress by 2000, serve as lead agency for oversight on implementation of the restoration plan, and continue proactive efforts to maintain instream flows in the Big Hole River Basm. Grayling were stocked in 1997 and 1998 and appear to be survivmg, the department dedicated FTE to the restoration effort, and reports show stock water wells have helped instream flows. Westslope Cutthroat Recovery Project FWP considers westslope cutthroat a species of concern since the numbers and range uihabited are dwmdlmg. Regional biologists gather information on population locations and numbers when conducting their monitoring work. When possible they also gather samples for genetics testing. A number of relocation projects have been completed since fiscal year 1990-91. hi fiscal year 1994-95 FWP started funding personnel to inventory westslope cutthroat. A conservation agreement and management plan was drafted in June 1998. Table 27 shows the events that have taken place in the westslope cutthroat recovery project. Page 88 Chapter VI - Special Projects Table 27 Westslope Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project Events 1^94 FWP started funding operations for westslope cutthroat inventory in conjunction with the USPS. 1994 Interagency fisheries professionals met to review status and on-going work on westslope cutthroat. Marckl995 Upper Missouri River Westslope Cutthroat Technical Committee fonned. September Governor hosted a workshop and the Westslope Cutthroat Trout Steering Committee was formed to advise FWP concerning the future of the species. JuBC 1998 Draft of a Conservation Agreement and Management Plan for Westslope Cutthroat Trout in Montana distributed to members of the Steering Committee for review. Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Conclusion: FWP Working Toward Agreement to Preclude Listing of Westslope Cutthroat Westslope cutthroat trout are a species of concern in Montana. Data shows they are found in 20 percent of their original range and genetic purity has decreased substantially. We found FWP, in cooperation with other agencies, is following a planned approach to increase the number of genetically pure westslope cutthroat in their original range. FWP, and other agencies, are also cooperating in writing an agreement with the USFWS to hopefully preclude westslope cutthroat from being placed on the endangered species hst. Biologists gather more data every year to understand the distribution, habitat, and habits of the species. This information is intended to be used to determine ways to increase the number offish in their original range. Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Project In response to sightings of pallid sturgeon in the Fort Peck tailrace and potential listing of this candidate endangered species, the Army Corps of Engineers began fimding research downstream of Fort Peck Dam in April 1989. Pallid sturgeon were listed as endangered in 1990. In 1990 the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) started funding studies on the lower Yellowstone River in response to the proposed rehabihtation and increased elevation of the Tongue River Dam spillway. Page 89 Chapter VI - Special Projects Table 28 shows the events that have taken place in the pallid sturgeon recovery project. Table 28 Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Program Events AprU 1^89 Army Corps of Engineers begins funding pallid sturgeon research downstream of Fort Peck Dam. 1990 Pallid sturgeon listed as endangered. November 1990 Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Committee convened to discuss needed research. November 1993 Final Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Plan signed. September X993 Montana-North Dakota Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Workgroup met to discuss their role in the recovery of paUid sturgeon. December 1993 Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Workgroup identified 3 1 research needs. Febroary 1994 Pnoritized research needs hst developed. The list is used to determme funding fi-om the various federal sources. Yearly since 1993 Recovery team meets to discuss what was done the previous season and what is planned for the upcoming season. November I 1997 : The Upper Basin Workgroup Stocking Team developed a plan for stocking pallid sturgeon in recovery prionty management areas in Montana and North Dakota. Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Conclusion: FWP Active in Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Reports show Montana has been actively involved in the recovery of pallid sturgeon in the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers since the 1980s. In response to the hsting FWP has been a member of the Palhd Sturgeon Recovery Workgroups and conducted studies in accordance with agreed upon research priorities. Annual reports are produced describing what was accomplished during the year and includes recommendations for fiiture work in the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers. Page 90 Chapter VI - Special Projects Bull Trout Study ^"^' ^°"^ ^^ native to the upper Columbia River Basin in northwest Montana. Bull trout are considered a species of special concern by FWP and the Montana Chapter of the American Fishenes Society, and were Usted as threatened under the Endangered Species Act by the USFWS in June 1998. As a result of the listing, FWP had to modify their strategy for restoring bull trout. The department would like to use the restoration plan prepared by the Bull Trout Restoration Team as Montana's portion of the federal recovery plan. If it is accepted, the steps m the plan can be unplemented. The USFWS has up to 30 months from the tune of Usting to distribute a final bull trout restoration plan that encompasses bull trout populations in Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Table 29 shows the events conducted m relation to bull trout in Montana. Page 91 Chapter VI - Special Projects Table 29 Events Relatinf to Bull Trout Since the 19708 Region biologists gather data on bull trout population estimates and redd counts. I>eeembcr 1993 The governor convened a roundtable discussion concerning the need for creating and implementing a bull trout restoration plan in Montana. A Restoration Team was created at the meeting. 1994 The Restoration Team appointed a Scientific Group to provide the technical expertise necessary for the restoration planning effort. 1995 FWP hired bull trout coordinator to staff the Restoration Team. 1995, 1996 Scientific Group developed status reports for each of the restoration/conservation areas developed for bull trout populations. 1996 Scientific Group wrote reports: describing the role of stocking in bull trout recovery; concerning the assessment of methods for removal or suppression of introduced fish to aid in bull trout recovery. 1998 ScientiSc Group wrote a report describing the relationship between land management activities and habitat requirements of bull trout. Jam 1998 Bull trout hsted as threatened by USFWS. July 1998 Draft bull trout restoration plan distributed to Restoration Team for review. November 1998 Draft bull trout restoration plan distributed to the pubhc for review. Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Conclusion: Bull Trout Recovery Efforts Coordinated Regional staff indicated the department has been monitoring bull trout for over 30 years. In the 1990s a restoration team was established to coordinate recovery efforts. In 1998 bull trout were listed as threatened. The Restoration Team drafted a recovery plan which the department would like to use as Montana's recovery plan under the listing. Biologists' fmdings concerning bull trout are being used for recovery efforts, and the reports generated in the study of bull trout are used. None of the recommendations from the recovery plan have been used at the time of this audit so it is not known if they will work. Page 92 Chapter VI - Special Projects Paddlefish Study In response to dwindling stocks and deteriorating habitat nationwide, Montana and North Dakota developed a paddlefish management plan in 1995 to address the fish population living in the two states. The Montana - North Dakota Paddlefish Management Plan was written as a cooperative venture between the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Montana FWP, and the Umversity of Idaho. The goals of the paddlefish plan include providing for an orderly and sustainable recreational harvest, providing a basis for cooperative interstate management, facilitating data collection for stock assessments, conducting relevant research, protecting and improvmg habitat quality in the rivers and reservoirs, defining the role of artificial propagation, and increasing public awareness. The plan covers the Yellowstone- Sakakawea stock (inhabiting Lake Sakakawea, the Missouri River fi-om Lake Sakakawea to Fort Peck Dam, the "Dredge Cuts" below Fort Peck, and the Yellowstone River) and the Upper Fort Peck stock (spawning in the Missouri River above Fort Peck Dam and rearmg in Fort Peck reservoir). Conclusion: Paddlefish Project Helps Ensure a Stable Population The paddlefish stocks m Montana and North Dakota constitute some of the last, self-sustaining wild stocks which may provide a sizeable annual harvest. Montana and North Dakota biologists believe studying spawning success, harvest data, and habitat needs help ensure the contmued success and stability of these populations. Montana is conducting its paddlefish work under a plan developed in cooperation with North Dakota. Biologists meet yearly to discuss the progress of the research and the stability of the common population. Hungry Horse and Libby Dams Mitigation One of the biggest projects, in terms of expenditures and staff, is mitigation resulting fi-om construction of Hungry Horse and Libby Dams The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) bears the financial responsibility for program measures. Page 93 Chapter VI - Special Projects Hungry Horse Dam Mitigation Since the start of the Hungry Horse Dam Mitigation Program in 1987, a fisheries mitigation plan and mitigation implementation plan for Hungry Horse Dam have been written. As discussed in Chapter FV a number of habitat projects have also been completed. A multi-level outlet system was installed and staff indicated water temperatures in the rivers are closer to natural conditions now. Table 30 Usts the events FWP staff have been involved in for Himgry Horse Dam mitigation. Table 30 Hungry Horse Dam Mitigation Events March 1991 Fisheries mitigation plan written and approved for Hungry Horse Dam. i9n&n Studied slash piles installed to enhance benthic insect production. 1991 & 92 Estabhshed test plots of four native willow species to determine which species could be estabbshed in a fluctuating reservoir environment. t9n-n Four habitat enhancement projects completed. 1992-95 Three lakes rehabihtated. March 1993 Mitigation implementation plan approved. 11)94-97 Seven culvert improvements completed. 1995 Sediment source surveys completed in six dramages. Augast 1996 Multi-level outlet system installed. Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Libby Dam Mitigation In 1990, FWP initiated a study to quantify the fish passing through Libby Dam with the water (entrainment). Completion of this investigation in 1996 showed an estimated 1. 15 to 4.5 million kokanee salmon were entrained annually. Bull trout and burbot were also found to be entrained. FWP issued a Fisheries Mitigation and Implementation Plan for Losses Attributable to the Construction and Operation of Libby Dam in November 1997. Besides the entrainment study, FWP conducted studies of fish populations and habitats to provide the necessary data in the report. Page 94 Chapter VI - Special Projects Conclusion: Mitigation and Implementation Plan Components Being Completed As a result of the two Hungry Horse plans a number of changes have been made in the Flathead River system. A multi-level outlet system was installed and staff indicated water temperatures in the rivers are closer to natural conditions now. A number of fish passage barriers were removed which opened up 16 percent more of the habitat for fish Habitat improvement projects have addressed sediment control, limited spawning areas, and returned water to dewatered portions of streams. In late 1 997, a decision was made to stop kokanee planting after four years, thus reducing the planting period by one year. Fish population surveys showed the plants were not increasing the kokanee population in Flathead Lake. Population surveys and creel census also showed rehabilitation projects were successfiil in removmg illegally introduced fish species and creating popular fisheries. Regional staff indicated all the projects are being monitored and evaluated to determine their success. Benthic Fish Study The benthic (or bottom-dwellmg) fish study is a multi-year, basm wide research effort to help resource managers evaluate how potential changes in system operating procedures may affect Missoun River fishes. Benthic fish were targeted because they include most species hsted as "at risk" of extinction by resource agencies (e.g. pallid sturgeon, blue sucker, sicklefm chub). Project sponsors believe information on the status of benthic fish populations and their habitat along the entire Missouri River will be useflil for river managers because factors associated with healthy populations of fish in one area of the river may provide the best model for conservation in other areas. The overall goal of the study is to provide resource agencies with fimdamental biology and habitat use information for important bottom living fishes collected in a comparable manner for the entire Missouri and lower Yellowstone Rivers. The Army Corps of Engineers is funding the work in the Missouri and the BOR is funding the work in the lower Yellowstone. The study started in 1996 and is scheduled to end in 200 1 . A report is due in 200 1 . Page 95 Chapter VI - Special Projects In fiscal years 1995-96 and 1996-97, the Army Corps of Engineers funded $69,327. The amount expended by the BOR is unknown since the money is included in the pallid sturgeon recovery program. Conclusion: Data Will Help in Water Management Decisions Information gathered in this study is to be used by federal agencies in a computer model to aid the agencies in water management. According to staff, any information gathered on either river concerning pallid sturgeon will be included in the pallid sturgeon study FWP staff also indicated they will be able to use the information m their management of aquatic species and their habitats. Mysis Shrimp Mysis (Opossum) shrimp are small, 1 to 2 centimeter-long, cold-water crustaceans. The>' are native to a Imiited number of large, deep lakes in North America and coastal Sweden. In 1949, the shnmp were introduced experimentally into Kootenay Lake, British Columbia, with the intention of enhancing rainbow trout. However, data showed the> were largely responsible for a dramatic mcrease m the growth rate and size of kokanee sahnon. After this initial introduction, Mysis shnmp were stocked into more than 100 lakes in the northwestern United States and Canada, primarily to stimulate production of kokanee FWP introduced Mysis shrimp in 12 northwestern Montana lakes during 1968, 1975, and 1976 in an attempt to supplement food organisms for trout and salmon. Ashley, Bull, Crystal, Dickey, Holland, Little Bitterroot, McGregor, Middle Thompson, Spar, Swan, Tally, and Whitefish Lakes received the shrimp. Mysis populations in Flathead Lake resulted fi^om downstream drift from Swan, Whitefish, or Ashley Lakes. FWP initiated a monitoring program in June 1983 to provide information on Mysis populations m lakes where mtroductions were successfiil. Six lakes have been monitored - Ashley, Little Bitterroot, Flathead, McGregor, Swan and Whitefish Lakes. Biologists found the Mysis shrimp population increased while the kokanee population decreased. Further research in Montana and other states foimd that Mysis shrimp go to the lake bottom during daylight hours. Kokanee feed during the day near the top or middle of the water column. So while kokanee are feeding during the dayhght hours they do not have Page 96 Chapter VI - Special Projects access to the Mysis. During the night Mysis migrate to the top of the lake to eat zooplankton, the usual food for kokanee. Meanwhile, lake trout and lake whitefish mostly feed near the bottom of the lake and thus have access to the Mysis durmg daylight hours. The end result is an increased number of lake trout in Flathead Lake and a very limited kokanee fishery. Further research in Kootenay Lake showed the increase in kokanee growth shortly after introduction of Mysis was due to unusual hydrologic conditions. Up welling currents carried the shrimp fi^om the central region of the lake into a shallow bay, where they lacked a deep water daytime refuge. To compensate for the decline in the kokanee population in Flathead Lake, FWP, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, and the USFWS initiated a five-year stocking program. The USFWS hatchery at Creston produced the vast majority' of the kokanee planted in Flathead Lake. The program ended in 1 998 after only four years since the reintroductions were not successfiil, primarily due to heavy predation by lake trout. Three criteria were established to measure program success: 1) survival of 30 percent of stocked kokanee one year after stocking; 2) survival of 10 percent of the planted kokanee to adults; and 3) annual harvest of 5 percent of stocked kokanee by anglers. Population monitoring data showed the program fell short of meeting the criteria. For example, in 1994, it was estmiated lake trout ate about one-third of the 800,000 stocked kokanee within the fu^st eight weeks. Conclusion: FWP Writing a Management Plan for Flathead Lake The big question facing the department now is how to manage the lake Biologists believe lake trout may eventually eliminate the bull trout and perhaps the cutthroat trout from the lake. Bull trout are now listed as a threatened species. The department is in the process of writing a management plan for Flathead Lake in cooperation with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. The plan will eventually be the vehicle used for lake management. Page 97 Chapter VI - Special Projects Information Services Unit - Kalispell Six staff located in Kalispell maintain and summarize statewide fisheries, recreation, and wildlife data, chiefly in the Montana Rivers Information System (MRIS). This system was initiated by the Northwest Power Planning Council in 1985 to assess and rate the significance of river related natural resource values in Montana, Idaho, Washington and Oregon. Montana's portion included the assessment of resident fisheries and wildlife values and recreational, natural, and cultural features in and along Montana's rivers and streams. Bonneville Power Administration fimds the project to maintain a current database. GL and DJ funds also pay for some expenditures. The Kalispell Unit was in the process of updatmg the stream rating system in late 1997 since the rating was 10 years old and some of the reaches changed classes Questionnaire information submitted by regional biologists was input to MRIS The new rating system is planned for completion in late 1998. Every one or two years, two part-time temporan, employees gather fish distribution, population, and habitat information from state and federal biologists and input the information in MRIS. The information includes all rivers and streams sampled. Species of special concern information is entered into MRIS and, with the use of the Geographic Information System (GIS), maps showing population locations are generated. The information is sent to regional biologists to verify the information in the database. This is done on an annual basis for bull trout. Information fi-om MRIS is used by state agencies including FWP, Department of Transportation, and the Department of Environmental Quality. Federal officials used the information when designating what streams in Montana should be classified as Wild and Scenic. Page 98 Chapter VI - Special Projects Miscellaneous Projects Expenditures for the Fishenes Program also include projects that last a few weeks, months or a year. These projects are funded from a vanety of sources including GL, DJ, private companies, sportsmen groups, or other state and federal agencies. Project expenditures for fiscal years 1994-95 though 1996-97 averaged $1 18,500. Outside sources funded over half the expenditures during that time period. Projects mclude FWP monitoring fish populations in waterbodies on some state owned lands for the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. Private companies provided fiinds to collect fish and send them to a lab for genetics testuig. Federal agencies provided fiinds to buy fish traps. A pnvate company paid for a jomt recreation and creel survey on two rivers for three years as part of dam mitigation. Summary The Fishenes Program includes a number of special studies/projects. The projects include recoverv' programs for species of concern and endangered species, programs to mitigate the effects of federal and pnvate dams on the fishenes in the area of the dams, introductions of new species for a food source, and providmg information to the Fishenes Program, and other FWP programs, concerning fisheries, recreation, and wildlife. The vast majority of the projects are funded with money FWP receives from federal agencies, private companies, organizations and citizens, and other state agencies through grants, contracts, gifts, and/or donations. Expenditures for the various projects ranged from $5 million for one project in existence over eight years to $15 1,000 for another project that started seven years ago. If the department did not receive this money the special projects would not be conducted. When reviewing the special projects, we found current projects are carried out under a plan usually written in cooperation with a number of agencies. In reviewing the plans and annual reports, we found recommendations are implemented. Many of the projects are still ongoing so the fmal success is not known at the time of this report. We also found FWP fisheries biologists are involved in technical working groups associated with the projects pertaining to the species of concern or endangered species. Other members of the working groups usually Page 99 Chapter VI - Special Projects include biologists from federal agencies, private companies, imiversity units, and in some cases, other states. Page 100 Chapter VII ■ Whirling Disease Introduction Whirling disease was first discovered in Montana in the Madison River in December 1994. Since that time numerous rivers and streams tested positive for the disease. Research Coordinated and Results Contributing to Understanding of the Disease As a result of the spread of whirling disease, many organizations, including FWP, fund tests and research to determine ways to combat the spread of the disease and infection of fish. The organizations are cooperating with each other to ensure research is not duplicated by a number of different entities. FWP funds some research on its own, and also contributes to the research conducted by others. From fiscal year 1994-95 through 1996-97, FWP directed approximately $460,000 toward whirling disease. To date, research has shown a temperature relationship between the disease and rate of infection, resistance of species, and whirlmg disease and worm distribution. The table in Appendix C shows the research projects funded by Montana organizations from 1996 through 1998. This chapter provides a brief history of the disease and discusses the research conducted by vanous parties including FWP. Whirling Disease Life History Whirling disease is caused by a microscopic, water-borne, protozoan parasite that attacks the cartilage of young trout. The parasite has a complex, two-host life cycle involving trout and bottom-dwelling tubifex worms {Tubifex tubifex), which are found in streams, rivers, and lakes throughout Montana. Whirling disease spores (Myxobolus cerebralis) are released into the water when infected fish die and decompose, or are consumed and excreted by predators or scavengers. Spores may survive in the river bottom sediment, even dry mud, for up to 30 years. The tubifex worms ingest the M cerebralis spores. The worms convert the spores into Triactinomyxon (TAMs), the form of the disease that infects the trout. TAMs are released from the worm into the water. This form lives only four to seven days if it cannot find a host. Healthy fish are infected by contact with waterbome spores or by eating infected tubifex worms, hifected fish show "black tail" and develop whirling behavior at about 1 Page 101 Chapter VII - Whirling Disease to V/i months. In three to four months M cerebralis spores appear within the fish. Surviving adult fish may be deformed or simply act as carriers of the disease. While the parasite may not directly kill a trout, an infected fish's erratic tail chasing makes it extremely vulnerable to predation. The whirling also causes fish to be unable to feed normally, which can eventually result in starvation and death. Whirling disease was accidentally introduced to the United States in the mid-1950s when infected, processed, and fi-ozen trout fi-om Europe arrived in Pennsylvania for the fish-market trade. The disease has subsequently been detected in 22 states as shown in Figiire 6. Figure 6 States With Whirling Disease (As of December 1997) Source: Whirling Disease Foundation Newsletter. Governor's Whirling Disease Task Force hi May 1995, Montana's governor created the first Whirling Disease Task Force. The Governor's Executive Order asked the Task Force to develop an action plan to address the whirling disease problem. The Task Force first developed a guiding philosophy which stated "All actions to address whirling disease should be consistent with protecting, preserving, and restoring self-sustaining populations of wild, native and normative sahnonids." The Task Force agreed hatchery stocking of Page 102 Chapter VII - Whirling Disease streams is not an acceptable remedy for whirling disease-depleted rivers. FWP has followed this philosophy to date. The Task Force also agreed that immediate action is required to combat whirling disease. Montana's wild and native trout may over time develop mechanisms to combat whirling disease, but the Task Force decided the value of Montana's natural heritage was too great to adopt a "wait and see" attitude. The Task Force developed 22 recommendations organized around three focal points: 1 . Scientific research needs; 2. Fisheries management polic>'; and 3. Commumcation and education. The recommendations are discussed m the Task Force "s fmal report issued m June 1996. The Task Force developed four core research questions: ► What is the scope of the whirling disease problem in Montana? Determme where the disease is found in Montana's waters and at those sites determine the severity' of infection. ► Which Montana species are susceptible to the disease and how will populations be impacted? Determme the degree of susceptibility of native and nonnative species in the wild and laboratory setting. ► Are some strams natiirally resistant? Determine if some species/strauis are biologically resistant because of genetics or immunology. Determine if some species/strains are behaviorally resistant because of timing of spawning, typical age offish at time of exposure, etc. ► Are there solutions to whirling disease which focus on the intermediate host (Tubifex tubifex) rather than on trout? Determme the distribution of T. tubifex, its biologic requirements/habitat, and its life cycle. Page 103 Chapter VII - Whirling Disease The Task Force also recommended construction of a Wild Trout Research Facility. This facility was constructed at MSU-Bozeman. It is an aquatic research laboratory designed and operated to maintain and contain experimental fish exposed to M. cerebralis and other pathogens and parasites compatible with the containment system. The facihty is self-contained with its own water supply and a method for handling water and biological waste materials which contam the whirling disease parasite. The facility started operations in September 1997. The facility is operated and managed in partnership by MSU, USFWS, and FWP. Second Task Force Created in 1997 A second task force was created February 7, 1997. This task force is concentrating on promoting public education about whirling disease by helping to estabhsh educational and mformation programs, and evaluating and developing recommendations to address the socio- economic impacts of whirlmg disease. This task force expires Januar\ 1, 1999, by which time it is to issue a fmal report. Research Conducted by FWP FWP created a Whirling Disease Coordinator position to oversee research efforts in Montana. In 1 996 the department also entered into a two month $5,000 contract with a scientist at the University of California - Davis to review FWP's whirling disease related projects. The contractor provided advice on the adequacy of project designs and the relevance of the projects in meeting short and long-term needs. The contractor also provided advice on other whirling disease related issues, such as management priorities, interpretation of testing results and project fmdings, and evaluation of research efforts in other states and countries and how they may be apphed to address Montana's problem. In conjunction with the Governor's Task Force on Whirling Disease and information fi-om the contractor, the department developed four possible solutions on which to focus state funded whirling disease research. The four possible solutions are: 1 . Find highly resistant salmonid species. 2. Manipulation of alternative host densities - Tubifex worms. Page 104 Chapter VII - Whirling Disease 3. Mismatch life histories ofthe parasite and wild trout. This includes separation in time, separation in space, and separation in time and space. 4. Combination of 1 through 3. Based on these solutions, four major research projects were initiated. In conjunction with the research projects, the department established a field laboratory and station on Willow Creek and at Pony, Montana. Willow Creek has had a self-sustaining population of wild rainbows for over 20 years, with baseline population data for about the same number of years When research in Montana was started, the department obtamed a 30-year lease for the Willow Creek area for $30,446. A Pony resident provides FWP with facilities to raise the fish which were in live cages in the streams and lakes around the state. Water is from a well and drains onto nearby fields so as not to contaminate any waterbodies in the area. The following sections discuss the major research projects funded by FWP. A Statewide Fish and Oiigiocheate Survey of Montana's Waters FWP is conducting statewide surveys to determine the distribution of bothM cerebralis and T. tubifex in most ofthe prominent cold water streams and rivers. When completed, the initial surveys will provide information on: 1) the present distribution ofthe parasite in Montana's coldwater fisheries, 2) the degree or intensity of the M cerebralis infections, and 3) the present distribution ofthe alternate host T. tubifex. The information will serve as baseline data pomts for fiiture surveys to determine if the disease is spreading geographically and if the alternate host's geographic range is expanding, remaining static, or decreasing. The survey work was started in 1996. Page 105 Chapter VII - Whirling Disease Fish Surveys The fish survey information is gathered by regional staff and a crew under contract with the department. When doing routine monitoring of fish populations, FWP biologists collect (catch) specimens to be tested for whirling disease. If regional staff cannot sample a waterbody due to time constraints, the contract crew obtains the samples. Results are input to a department maintained whirling disease database. The statewide survey also consists of placing live cages in specific waterbodies to determine if the disease is present and the intensity of the infection. For these tests, 60 fish are placed in a live cage in the section of water to be tested. The fish are in the live cage for 1 0 days then transferred to the aquariums at Pony for another 90 days. The fish are then sent to a laboratory for testing. Live cages provide better information concerning the infection in an area than catching individual specimens. False positives can occur when catchmg fish dunng the momtormg effort. A fish could happen to come into the section/water being tested from somewhere else that is positive. The fish would show a positive for that section/water when in actuahty the water is not positive, just the fish was. If fish in a live cage are positive, the disease is in the water. Also, since it takes at least 80 days for a fish to test positive for the infection, a fish could be infected when it is caught but would test negative so the water would be labeled negative. These scenarios resulted in a number of the biologists asking for hve cages to be placed in specific streams in 1998. Thus, the 1998 survey was modified. The 1998 survey consists of approximately 25 percent statewide catches, 25 percent statewide placing hve cages in positive sites, and the remaining 50 percent consists of crews working on the Missouri River/Little Prickly Pear Project on the Missouri and assisting Region 2 staff with work on Rock Creek. Page 106 Chapter VII - Whirling Disease Missouri/Little Prickly Pear Project The Missouri River/Little Prickly Pear project is in the second year. The basic objective is to determine if there are rainbow trout Ufe histories in this system which would allow adequate recruitment of young rainbow trout into the Holter-Cascade reach of the Missouri River in the face of a significant infection of whirling disease. The study consists of four parts. • Part I - A study utilizing Region 4 fisheries personnel and a graduate student from the Cooperative Fishery Unit, MSU, to determine the number of spawners and timing of spawning in three major tributaries to the Missouri River. • Part n - Through the Biology Department, MSU, there will be an attempt to determine the relationship of whirlmg disease infections in wild trout and the density' of tubifex worms. • Part in - Using hve cages in Little Prickly Pear Creek, Sheep Creek, Missouri River, and Dearborn River, relative infection rates of young-of-the-year rambow trout will be determined. • Part rV - The region will continue to monitor two long-term fish population estimation sections in the area of the Missouri River between Holter Dam and Cascade. The information will be used to momtor any rainbow trout population changes that might occur with the increasing whirling disease infection rate in this system. The project is funded through the Whirling Disease Coordinator, Region 4, and the National Partnership on the Management of Wild and Native Coldwater Fisheries. Rock Creek Project The primary objective of the Rock Creek study is to obtain background data on infection rates and spatial distribution of the whirling disease infection to be used in a proposed study for 1999. The study will involve eight to ten live cages placed in five tributaries of Rock Creek plus five live cages beginning at the Hogback Population Study Section. Page 107 Chapter VII - Whirling Disease Worm Surveys The oligiochaete survey provided information concerning which streams may not be vuberable to whirling disease due to the low density of T. tubifex. The department contracted with the Department of Biology, MSU, for staff to analyze the distribution and relative abundance of T. tubifex. FWP staff determined the drainages to be studied. The work was completed between July 1995 and July 1996, and a report was given to FWP showing the relative abundance of the worms. Fish Susceptibility to Whirling Disease Fish susceptibility work is being done by FWP at the Willow Creek Field Station. The department also contracted with a professor at University of CaUfomia - Davis for one year to test susceptibility. Tests show bull trout and Arctic grayling can be infected by the parasite but show a high resistance to severe infections All the strains of rainbow tested (Eagle Lake, DeSmet, Deschutes, Steelhead) and Yellowstone and westslope cutthroat trout have been found to be highly susceptible to acute whirling disease infections during the first month of their life after hatching Brown trout were not susceptible at that time penod. Coho salmon and kokanee are very susceptible to the disease, with brook trout less so. Susceptibility of mountain whitefish is still fairly unknown. They do carry the spores but appear to be resistant. Life History Research This study will examine the life histories of the tubifex worm, the parasite (M cerebralis) and wild trout, and determine if any differences can be used to minimize the impacts on the wild trout population. The goal would be to allow wild trout to either spawn in tubifex free environments or at an early date so vulnerable young trout can avoid exposure to large doses of the infective TAM. One of the fu^st things studied was the emergence of the TAM stage. It was found that TAM emergence is related to water temperature. Studies also show fish can be imprinted at a temperature which triggers spawning. The department plans to imprint fish at different temperatures at a hatchery, raise them to one year of age, and plant them in Willow Creek in 1999. Results in the year 2000 will show if the project is successfiil. Page 108 Chapter VII - Whirling Disease Madison River Project Another project dealing with hfe histories will occur on the Madison River. This study will involve examining the spawning and early life history of fry to determine if it is feasible to sufficiently separate existing rambow and cutthroat trout strains in time and space to reduce whirling disease infections to a level where wild populations can return to their pre-whirling disease levels. Goals of the study are to identify existing wild rainbow and cutthroat life history charactenstics (tune and location of spawning, early rearing areas, and movement of young fish) to determine if they utiUze a tributary steam. National Partnership on the Management of Wild and Native Coldwater Fisheries - Whirling Disease Initiative The National Partnership on the Management of Wild and Native Coldwater Fishenes (NP) was created m October 1996. NP is a research/management consortium emphasizmg fish health, fishery productivity, fishenes ecology, and adaptive fishery management. Participants in the partnership have an mterest and expertise m wild and coldwater fishenes. NP functions through a board of representatives consistuig of members of the: American Fisheries Society National Trout Unlunited - US Fish and Wildlife Service US Forest Service International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Native American Fish and Wildlife Society National Park ServiceAfellowstone National Park Bureau of Land Management The purpose of NP is to coordinate, prioritize, and support research and management activities designed to maintain and enhance the nation's wild and native coldwater fisheries. Administration, management, and the operational infrastructure of NP is housed at MSU-Bozeman. The Water Center, a private entity located at MSU, serves as the prime contractor and custodian of funds, MSU-Bozeman and the USFWS entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to establish a Whirling Disease hiitiative for NP. The Whirling Disease hiitiative recognized past research and management efforts had been centered on effects and control in a hatchery or aquaculture setting. Potential for impacts on wild, self- Page 109 Chapter VII - Whirling Disease sustaining fisheries, especially rainbow and cutthroat trout fisheries, had not been studied, and management of wild, self-sustaining populations had not been explored. Adequate fiinding and coordination to study wild populations had not been possible until estabhshment of NP. The goal of the WhirUng Disease Initiative is to conduct research that develops rapid response management solutions which maintain viable, self-sustaining wild trout fisheries. The MOU provided the avenue for funding the research. The USFWS is appropriated money by the United States Congress which is awarded to NP based upon a federal grant apphcation. The MOU created a WhirUng Disease Steering Committee consisting of representatives fi^om: The National Whirling Disease Foundation; I The JVkmtaoa Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; - Two state fisheries representatives fi-om the east (New York) and west (Colorado) infected regions; Enviroimiental health; and The US Fish and Wildlife Service. The Whirling Disease Steering Committee estabUshes research priorities consistent with scientific consensus. Priorities for ftmding by NP reflects consideration of research ah-eady being conducted by other researchers nationally, to avoid unnecessary duplication. The Steering Committee issues requests for proposals based on identified priorities; selects and approves projects for ftmding based on scientific peer review; and summarizes and makes available research results, including raw data, to all partners and cooperators on a timely basis, while respecting appropriate publication priorities. Fiscal year 1997-98 was the first year of awards. Twelve grants totahng approximately $360,000 with a match from grantees of over $400,000 were awarded. Funding for the 1998-99 grant cycle totals over $574,000 with matching fimds of over $4 19,000 to 19 grantees. Page 110 Chapter VII - Whirling Disease Whirling Disease Foundation The Whirling Disease Foundation was founded in May 1995. Its mission is to raise fiinds to support, on a national scale, scientific research that aims to restore naturally-reproducmg trout populations in waters afflicted with the whirling disease parasite. The Foundation carries out its mission by generating private funds to support peer- reviewed laboratory and field research that could hasten the viability of self-sustaimng trout populations in whirling disease infected waters. In addition, the Foundation: Helps coordinate multi-institutional research plans; Organizes scientific meetings devoted to research progress and new initiatives; and Collaboratively develops educational materials about whu-ling disease for educators and the public at large The Foundation also maintauis an Internet website providing updates on research, hterature, and activities. Since its inception, the Foundation has conducted three whirling disease symposiums. In 1996, the symposium was held in Montana, resulting in the first national research plan. At the 1997 symposium, held in Utah, ahnost 120 scientists heard 35 informative papers and updated the national research plan. The 1998 symposium was held in Colorado with over 40 papers presented. The department's Fish Health Specialist and Whirling Disease Coordinator have attended all the symposiums to date. In addition to sponsormg research projects, the Foundation provided money to research related activities Fish Cooperative Unit Public Law 95-616 (92 Stat. 3110) allows the USFWS to enter into agreements with colleges and universities and state fish and wildlife departments relating to Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units. The purpose of the agreement is to develop adequate, coordinated, cooperative research and training programs for fish and wildlife resources. Montana's Cooperative Fishery Research Unit is located at MSU-Bozeman. FWP provides a base of $28,500 to the Unit. It also contracts with the Umt for research projects. The Unit has completed a number of projects related to whirling disease for FWP. One was the study of the Effects of Whirling Disease on Page 111 Chapter VII - Whirling Disease Recruitment of Brown Trout in the Ruby River and Poindexter Slough. The study was completed in 1996. Another includes conducting the statewide fish survey described above, hi conjunction with the statewide survey, Unit staff investigated young-of-the-year recruitment in the Gallatin River, Missouri River, and Little Prickly Pear Creek. Pre- whirling disease yoimg-of-the-year abundance data will provide a baseline for assessing post- whirling disease losses. Young-of-the-year data is lacking in many areas because regional biologists typically monitor adult fish. FWP Expenditures for Whirling Disease From fiscal year 1994-95 through 1996-97, FWP directed approximately $460,000 toward whirling disease. The money funded research, research facihties, and FTE. Fund sources include general Ucense fees, an emergency grant from the governor's office. Bureau of Land Management, and redirected capital appropriations. Summary Whirling disease was first discovered in Montana in December 1994. Since that time, numerous rivers and streams tested positive for the disease. FWP, along with many other organizations, including the Whirling Disease Foundation and the National Partnership on the Management of Wild and Native Coldwater Fisheries, funded tests and research to determine ways to combat the disease and infection of fish. FWP funds some research on its own and also contributes to the research conducted by others. From fiscal year 1994-95 through 1996-97, FWP directed approximately $460,000 toward whirling disease. To date, research has provided information on whirling disease and worm distribution in Montana, shown a temperature relationship between the disease and rate of infection, and resistance of species. Tests show rainbow and cutthroat trout are highly susceptible with brook and brown trout less so. Bull trout and Arctic grayling can be infected by the parasite but show a high resistance to severe infections. FWP's research centers around four core questions developed by the Governor's Whirling Disease Task Force. A Whirling Disease Coordinator position was created in the department to oversee research efforts in Montana. Life history tests of the tubifex worm, the parasite. Page 112 Chapter VII - Whirling Disease and wild trout are scheduled to take place in 1999, with results in the year 2000. If these tests are successful, the department will investigate ways to modify the life histories of wild trout. Page 113 Page 114 Chapter VIII - State Hatchery System Introduction The state of Montana owns eight hatcheries and operates a ninth owned by the Army Corp of Engineers (Murray Springs Hatchery, Eureka). This audit did not review the efficiency of the hatcheries' operations. FWP contracted with a firm in 1996 to review the hatchery system. The report evaluated the overall effectiveness of FWP's hatchery program, including facihty utilization, brood stock management and genetics programs, as well as the fish health program. It also identified additional needs for hatchery fish as requested by fisheries managers and potential sources and cost offish available fi-om pnvate industry. Durmg our review we talked to regional staff about the number, species, and size of fish stocked Overall we found most biologists and fish managers were satisfied with the number, size, and species provided by the hatcheries. Comments received concerning lack of numbers pnmaniy centered around the few largemouth bass available in 1996. The largemouth bass that year did not reproduce m the Miles City Hatchery as expected. Fish Hatchery Expenditures FWP's hatchery system stocks over 40 million fish a year in lakes, pond, reservoirs, and some streams that cannot sustain wild fish populations. General operation and mamtenance expenditures for the eight fish hatcheries funded by GL and DJ funds averaged $1.3 million for the eight fiscal years reviewed (approximately $162,000 per hatchery) Average FWP expenditures for the hatchery fiinded by the Army Corps of Engmeers was $138,000 for the same time period. These expenditures do not include utility expenses for pumping the water or other operation and maintenance expenses provided by the Corps. Hatchery costs are approximately 26 percent of the total GL and DJ funds expended by the Fisheries Program. Capital expenditures for hatcheries for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97 totaled approximately $3.5 million. This included major repau-s to some hatcheries and renovations to others. Rebuilding the Washoe Park Trout Hatchery accounted for $2.3 million of total capital expenditures. Page 115 Chapter VIII - State Hatchery System The following sections provide a brief explanation of the hatcheries and their production. Appendix D contains general operation and capital expenditures for each hatchery for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. Washoe Park Trout Hatchery - Anaconda Located within the city of Anaconda adjacent to Washoe Park, this hatchery began operations in 1908. Large numbers of eggs collected from Harrison Reservoir are processed through this hatchery. Eyed eggs are shipped to other hatcheries for hatching, rearing and stocking. The hatchery is dedicated as a brood stock station, and is responsible for the management of a wild-based, genetically diverse, westslope cutthroat trout brood stock. In addition, eggs taken from DeSmet strain rambow trout at Willow Creek, a tributary to Hamson Reservou", are incubated to the eyed stage and then shipped to production hatcheries for rearing and stocking. Operation expenditures for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97 averaged $ 133,600 per year. Capital expenditures during the same tune penod were over $2 million, with most of the money paymg for a new hatchery building and equipment. Jocko River Trout Hatchery - Arlee Jocko Hatchery is located 1/4 mile north of Arlee and has been a brood stock station for the Arlee strain of rambow trout smce the early 1950s. The hatchery is dedicated as a brood stock station, and no other species of trout are reared there. The hatchery produces over six miUion eggs annually. Eggs are shipped to most rainbow trout hatcheries throughout the state, where they are raised for stocking into lakes and reservoirs. In addition, the USFWS maintains the Arlee strain as brood stock, and ships eggs to theu- hatcheries throughout the coundy . When available, excess eggs are sold to private growers within the state of Montana. Additionally, fingerling and catchable trout have been raised and distributed each year. Retired brood stock are also planted each year. Page 116 Chapter VIII - State Hatchery System Operation expenses averaged $137,000 during fiscal years 1990-91 through 1996-97. Jocko River had capital expenditures of $267,662 in the same time period. Yellowstone River Trout Hatchery - Big Timber The Yellowstone River Hatchery is located adjacent to the town of Big Timber. It is responsible for the management of the McBride strain Yellowstone cutthroat trout brood stock Approximately 1.5 million eggs are produced annually. The hatchery is dedicated as a brood stock station, and no other species of trout are reared there. Production of cutthroat fmgerlings for planting in lakes is also an important part of the hatchery program. Fish are used successfully m a vanetv' of habitats from high mountain lakes to low lymg lakes and reservou-s. The brood stock is wild-based, with periodic crossing of sperm and eggs from wild fish in McBnde Lake, Yellowstone National Park. Each year tissues from 50 fish are analyzed by electrophoresis to msure that genetic punty and diversity is maintained. Operation expenses averaged $91,500 for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. The only capital expenditures for the Yellowstone River Hatchery were for razing an old building in fiscal year 1992-93. At that time the department expended $2,076. Bluewater Springs Trout Hatchery - Bridger Bluewater Springs Hatchery is located seven miles east of Bridger. Fish from this station are generally stocked in south, central, and eastern Montana. Up to 1.5 million fmgerlings and catchable trout have been raised and distributed per year. Currently, Arlee, Eagle Lake, and Erwin sfrains of rainbow trout are raised, along with Yellowstone cutthroat trout and grayling. Operation expenses averaged $152,000 for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. For fiscal years 1994-95 through 1996-97, the department spent $120,5 14 for hatchery improvements. Page 117 Chapter VIII - State Hatchery System Giant Springs Trout Hatchery - Great Falls Giant Springs Hatchery is located adjacent to Heritage Park near Great Falls. The water supply is from one of the large springs arising in the area. Up to 1 million fmgerlings and catchable trout have been raised and distributed per year. Currently, Erwin, Arlee, DeSmet, Eagle Lake, and Arlee x Eagle Lake strains of rainbow trout are raised, along with kokanee salmon. Operation expenses averaged $149,000 for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. Giant Springs Hatchery had capital expenditures of $5 1,278 for fiscal years 1994-95 through 1996-97. The majority of the expenditures were to protect the water source from whirling disease. Big Springs Trout Hatchery - Lewistown Big Springs Hatchery is located seven miles east of Lewistown and is the largest coldwater production hatchery m the state's inventory. It produces over 2.5 million fish of a variety of strams of rainbow, cutthroat, brown trout and kokanee salmon The hatchery is two separate umts. One is located at the head of Big Sprmg Creek (upper unit) and is the location of the hatchery building and eight outside raceways. The second (lower unit) is located 3/4 mile west and its water supply is the overflow from a covered sprmg which is Lewistown's water supply. A majority of production rearing of the Big Springs Hatchery occurs at the lower unit. Operation expenses averaged $275,800 for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. The Big Springs Hatchery had capital expenditures of$162,800 from fiscal year 1989-90 through 1991-92 to construct a hatchery addition and complete structural and roofmg repairs to the existing hatchery building. Flathead Lake Salmon Hatchery - Somers The hatchery is located on the northwest shore of Flathead Lake and was at the center of the kokanee recovery efforts for Flathead Lake. This hatchery collects eggs from wild spawning kokanee populations, incubates them to the eyed stage, and distributes some eggs to other stations for hatching and rearing. Flathead Lake hatchery has the capability to handle over eight million salmon eggs. Available egg Page 118 Chapter VIII - State Hatchery System supplies have supported the annual stocking of two to four million kokanee into Flathead Lake over four years. Over one milUon fingerling salmon and grayling have been raised and distributed per year, hi addition, about 2.4 rmllion eyed kokanee eggs are shipped to the Creston National Fish Hatchery and other FWP hatcheries for their salmon programs. Cost of operations from fiscal year 1989-90 to 1996-97 averaged $70,000. Flathead Lake Hatchery had capital expenditures for fiscal years 1994-95 through 1996-97 totalmg $109,106. Miles City Hatchery Miles City Miles City Hatchery is located between 1-94 and the city of Miles City and is the only warmwater hatchery m the state. Its production includes walleye, northern pike, largemouth and smallmouth bass, catfish, crappie, and tiger muskie. hi 1997, over 4 1 million fiy and fmgerlings were stocked from Miles Cit>' to support fishery management of warmwater species. Operation expenses averaged $257,000 for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. Capital expenditures for the same period were $400,339. Murray Springs Hatchery - Eureka Murray Springs Hatchery is located seven miles northwest of Eureka and is owned and fimded by the Army Corps of Engineers, and operated by FWP. It was built as a mitigation hatchery to offset the loss offish habitat when Lake Koocanusa was impounded. Up to 1.2 million fmgerlmg and catchable trout have been raised and distnbuted per year. The hatchery is primarily responsible for raising westslope cutthroat trout for Lake Koocanusa, but Arlee, Kamloops, and Eagle Lake strains of rainbow trout are also produced. Some westslope cutthroat are over- wintered in a two-year program to produce larger-sized fish for planting. Most fish production is utilized in and around Lake Koocanusa. Page 119 Chapter VIII - State Hatchery System Operation expenses paid to FWP by the Army Corps of Engineers averaged $138,000 for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. The Corps pays all of the station's utility expenses for pumping water and all capital improvements for the Murray Springs Hatchery. These are in addition to the above figures. Page 120 Chapter IX - Workload Introduction During this audit we reviewed the strategic planning process the department is implementing in terms of the fishery resource. Based upon our audit work, it appears FWP is moving to a more coordinated approach to managing the resources under its control The programmatic approach between Fisheries Division and the other divisions should provide a resource-based workload planning and priority-setting process. As currently planned and when fully implemented, the strategic planning process should help the biologists prioritize their activities and allow them time to accomplish those activities. The following sections discuss our fmdings. FWP Goals Include Determining Work Priorities The Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks developed a vision plan to "... meet the challenges anticipated as it enters the 2 1st century." The vision plan outlines four goals the department believes reflect areas of emphasis, what the pubUc expects of the department, and what the department expects of itself The goals include: 1. Creating a work environment where priorities are clear; the decision-making process is efficient and effective; and where employees feel a sense of accountability, value, and satisfaction in their achievements and their contributions to the agency mission. 2. Providing quality opportunities for public appreciation and enjoyment offish, wildlife, and parks resources. 3. Maintaining and enhancing the health of Montana's natural environment and the vitality of our fish, wildlife, culture, and historic resources through the 21st century. 4. Emphasizing education, communication, and responsible behavior to afford citizens the opportunity to better understand and participate in the decision-making processes that sustain our natural, recreational, and cultural resources for future generations. Page 121 Chapter IX - Workload Each goal also includes guiding principles for achieving the goals. One of the principles for the first objective is to complete strategic and six- year plans for fish, wildlife, and parks programs to clarify public expectations, allocate resources, and define a common direction for FWP and its partners. Strategic Plans Being Developed During this audit the Wildlife, Parks and Fisheries Divisions submitted strategic plans for public review. Wildlife Division created a programmatic Environmental hnpact Statement (EIS), Parks Division wrote "2020 Vision for Montana State Parks" and Fisheries Division developed "Fisheries Beyond 2000". The common purpose of the documents is to develop, review, and defme goals for managing the resources under the department's direction Biologists Believe Workload is Increasing After the documents are fmalized, the department plans to develop six-year plans for each program. It is anticipated the six-year plan can be used when applying for federal aid grant dollars. After completion of the six-year plan, yearly workplans are to be developed for each biologist expending GL and DJ money. Department management is hopeful this process will help determine staff priorities and thus reduce workload by no longer having staff work on low prionty duties. The issue raised most often by the biologists during the audit was that there is too much work to do in a year. They attributed part of the problem to additional workload associated with increased numbers of 310 permits, meetings with the general public and special interest groups, and letters which need to be written to answer questions the department director or the governor receives. The following sections discuss 310 permit workload and other duties performed by fisheries biologists not discussed in previous chapters. 310 Permit Workload When asked about the workload created by 3 10 permit reviews, many biologists indicated the number of 3 10 permits they need to deal with, including the field visit, is almost overwhebning. The visit might not take long, an hour or so, but the drive to and from the site could take the rest of the day. Because of the statutory time constraints and setting up the visit with other people, not all visits can be conducted during one trip. Biologists try to coordinate as many visits as possible so they are Page 122 Chapter IX - Workload not returning to the same area two or more times in the space of a couple of days. 310 Permit Workload When asked if more 310 permit work could be contracted out to reduce Varies by Geographic Area the biologist's workload, answers varied by the location in the state. There are not many perennial streams in eastern Montana, so there are not a lot of 3 10 permits issued compared to other areas of the state. Staff in that area indicated the workload was not necessarily excessive and 310 permits did not take a large amount of time. Central Montana has more perennial streams so there are a greater number of permits than in the eastern regions. Some staff in this area indicated 310 permits take quite a bit of tmie but the>' are hesitant to have a contractor conduct too many site mspections. The reasomng primarily centered around landowner and Conservation District supervisor relationships. By domg visits themselves, biologists are able to meet the landowners in their respective management areas and answer questions and educate landowners about the area's fishery and/or the department. Biologists also might have ideas for the project that will be cheaper for the landowner in the long run and still accomplish the purpose of the project. Another advantage is identifying potential habitat projects they can discuss with the landowner. Visits also allow biologists to interact with Conservation District supervisors on a regular basis. Staff in western Montana would like to contract out most 3 1 0 permit inspections so they can conduct their other work. Because of the number of perermial streams and the rapid development along the rivers and streams, there is a large workload associated with issuing 310 permits. Not all the projects permitted need to be reviewed so site visits do not have to be done, but a large number do require site visits. Staff also indicated projects are getting more complex because people are hiring private consultants to help with project design. The more complex a project is, the longer it takes to review. Table 3 1 shows the number of 3 1 0 permits in which fish biologists were involved from fiscal year 1 994-95 through 1 996-97. Page 123 Chapter IX - Workload Table 31 310 Permits Issued bv Region (Fiscal Years 1994-95 through 1996-97) Fiscal • ■> Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 94-95 300 314 380 161 119 40 8 95-96 274 314 420 215 169 20 12 96-97 266 393 462 214 220 20 16 Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Additional Work Duties Besides the work duties discussed above and in the previous chapters the biologists also review other agency projects, such as timber sales for fishery issues, provide environmental reviews under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), advise private parties and landowners on a number of issues, and provide aquatic education. This activity includes presentations and demonstrations for school children, presentations at club meetings, kids fishing days, releases for media, workshops/symposia, sampling with volunteers, and other unique educational opportunities. Table 32 shows the type and number of other work duties conducted in each region for fiscal years 1994-95 through 1996-97. Page 124 Chapter IX - Workload Table 32 Other Job Duties of Fisheries Biologists (Fiscal Years 1994-95 through 1996-97) VjjjaJjjjj^:!:';" ' Sutks Fiscal Year Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Review other agency projects (NEPA, MEPA, timber sales, etc.) 94-95 155 110 35 25 60 22 4 95-96 182 110 60 15 76 20 4 96-97 61 113 85 15 58 15 2 Provide MEPA reviews for FWP projects 94-95 27 11 40 55 31 5 9 95-96 17 11 58 54 20 19 5 96-97 24 20 15 43 24 26 14 Advice to private parties and landowners, habitat, aquaculture, private ponds 94-95 155 50 70 150 180 35 16 95-96 135 50 86 77 150 30 20 96-97 115 58 45 90 190 30 17 Aquatic education 94-95 134 66 144 51 41 36 1 95-96 118 40 107 66 42 25 3 96-97 71 162 150 102 35 51 7 Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Because of the many activities the biologists are currently required to work on, some stafif are not finding time to write their annual monitoring reports. Although the vast majority of biologists beUeve the reports are necessary they find they do not have the time in the winter when they used to write them because of additional meetings and increased workload in other areas. Biologists also believe the biological work is shpping because there are so many meetings with special interest groups. Page 125 Chapter IX - Workload Staff Unsure if They are Working on Priority Tasks Some staff voiced the opinion they are not working on what they think should be the highest priority items because all things are considered a priority and there is not the time to do every task adequately or completely. Many staff beheve their workload is largely driven by the pubUc and special interest groups. Some biologists indicated they shield themselves from the public for a limited time each year so they can complete their monitoring work - the work that dnves most of the management decisions concerning a waterbody. The department has historically written workplans for staff based upon the federal aid grant requiring annual workplans for projects receiving DJ money. The majority of the Fisheries Program work-plans reviewed were very general concerning work to be accomplished. Although most fisheries managers obtam mput from the biologist when wnting the plans, very few managers meet with the biologists dunng the year to review the workplan to determine what is being accomplished and what is not. The workplans are essentially only wntten to meet a federal requirement and are not used as a management tool to help biologists prioritize work. Strategic Planning Process is Supposed to Address Concerns One goal of the strategic planning process is to address concerns expressed by biologists relating to workload. The process is supposed to identify priorities, and workplans are to ensure there is time and money needed to address those priorities. Workplans are to be budget driven. If the specific task is not part of the strategic/six-year plan, there will not be any money for the task. To ensure the regions and Helena agree on priorities, Helena management staff indicated the new workplans will be written cooperatively with Helena and regional staff. Besides tieing the plans to dollars (budget), the plans should also be developed based upon the number of work days it takes to complete the tasks. This would help put limits on the work that can be actually accomplished and forces everyone to prioritize the tasks where they want time spent. For example, the budget might fiond 10 tasks but when work days are determined for each task, there might not be the time to complete everything without hiring or contracting additional staff or deleting something of lower priority. Determining the number of work days is a usefiil tool for defining/developing work expectations. Most Page 126 Chapter IX - Workload biologists in the field have been with the department a number of years so they have a good idea of how long it takes them to conduct their monitoring, write the report with the results, review an average number of projects for 3 10 and 124 permits each year, etc. There are currently no plans for ongoing monitoring of workplans by regional or Helena management staff. To ensure the workplans are prioritizing the workload in the maimer envisioned, the plans should be revisited during the year by Helena and the regions. A mid-year review would provide a formal method to ensure the necessary work is being accomplished and everyone is on track, and determine if modifications are needed. If any changes are needed to the workplan because tasks are taking longer (such as an increased number of 1 24 or 3 1 0 projects) Helena and the region should work through the changes together. Recommendation #6 We recommend department management: A. Incorporate the number of work days per task into the future workplan development process. B. Revisit the workplans during the year to ensure they are being followed. Conclusion: Fisheries Involving Enforcement in Strategic Planning In the game warden activities audit (95P-04), we recommended the department implement a resource-based enforcement workload planning and priority-setting process. The Fisheries Division involved enforcement staflf in development of its strategic plan. Enforcement is a component in each department program as part of the strategic planning process. During the fishing regulation setting process, game wardens and captains in each region and Law Enforcement Division personnel in Helena, were asked for input and were involved in meetings. Enforcement is going to a resource based management plan. As part of that they developed a draft workplan they intend to use in at least one warden district in each region. The plan is by warden district and program, so there will be individual workplans for fish, wildlife and parks. For each program, the draft plan lists the district resources (such as bull trout, westslope cutthroat, rainbow, etc), any enforcement issues Page 127 Chapter IX - Workload with each resource (for example, the fact bull trout are Usted as a threatened species), enforcement priorities for each resource, special activities influencing the district resources, recommendations to develop or protect resources or requests for special resources, and methods of protection. If priorities for resources from different programs overlap, such as during big game hunting season in areas where the fishing season is open and there are bull trout, regional supervisors and program managers will need to discuss the situation and reach a compromise. Page 128 Introduction Chapter X - Fishing Access Sites One of the Fisheries Program's activities includes providing and maintaining adequate pubUc access to fisheries. To address this activity and our audit objective, we reviewed operations, maintenance and capital improvement expenditures for fishing access sites. We also reviewed fisheries staff activities related to site acquisition. The state of Montana owns 275 active fishing access sites in the seven regions. Developed sites have facilities such as tables, latrines, fire grills, wells, interpretive signs, disabled access, and concrete or gravel boat ramps. Not all developed sites have every type of facihty. Undeveloped sites do not have tables, latrines, boat ramps, etc. Table 33 shows the number of active fishing access sites in each region. Table 33 Fishing Access Sites by Region (As of May 1998) Region Number of Active Sites 1 28 2 50 3 83 4 40 5 38 6 13 7 23 Total 275 Source: Compiled by the LAD from department records. Page 129 Chapter X - Fishing Access Sites The Parks Division is responsible for maintenance at the majority of the fishing access sites. Three of the 275 active sites are maintained by the city in which the site is located and one is maintained by a federal agency. Site Acquisition ^'** acquisition is initiated by regional staff. Fisheries managers and biologists identify the needs and/or opportunities for sites. They might contact the landowner(s) to determine if the person(s) is interested in selling or leasing the land. In some cases, landowners will contact the department offering to sell or lease their land for use as a fishing access site. The fisheries manager completes a fishing access acquisition evaluation form. The form asks for information regardmg justification of the proposed site, how the site fits mto the fishenes and recreational management plan and objectives for the specific waterbody, estimated cost, type and amount of development needed, type and amount of maintenance, and existing access. The fisheries manager, parks manager and supervisor sign the form before sending it to Helena. Helena staff, including the fishing access site coordinator, land section staff, and Fisheries Division staff, review the form. If they decide the site should be pursued, the fishing access coordinator and land section staff visit the site and talk to the landowner. If department staff agree to purchase or lease the site, land section staff survey and appraise the land. Negotiations are started with the landowner on a purchase/lease price. If a price is agreed upon, the area is developed and Parks Division assumes responsibihty for operation and maintenance of the site. Acquisition fimds are derived fi"om fishing hcense sales. Since the 1950s, the department has spent over $7.8 million for fishing access sites. The following table shows acquisition expenditures and the number of sites acquired for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. Page 130 Chapter X - Fishing Access Sites Table 34 Fishing Access Acquisition Expenditures and Number of Sites Acquired (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) fiseal Year 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 Expenditures $ 211,569 $ 20,165 $ 260,681 $ 341,265 $ 124,431 $ 239,944 $ 210,557 $ 40,785 # of Sites 7 1 5 3 4 4 6 8 Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS and department records. Regional fisheries personnel remain involved with the sites after development. They help settle landowner disputes, and also become involved in projects pertaining to the waterbody where the access site is located. For example, if a stream is eroding the bank, regional fisheries staff review the area with FWP's Design and Construction (D&C) staff fi-om Helena. Staff agree on what is needed to stop the erosion - root wads, rip rap, willow shoot, etc. D&C staff write the project scope and regional fish staff write the necessary EA. Helena D&C staff are then responsible for the project. They let the bids for the work, hire contractors, conduct site inspections during the project, and conduct a final inspection. If needed, Helena staff hires a consultant to design the project and oversee construction. FAS Expenditures State and federal statutes provide a number of sources for fishing access site acquisition, operation and maintenance fimds. These include GL fees, DJ, and the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. Table 35 shows total expenditures for general operations and maintenance for each region for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. Region 6 shows few operations and maintenance expenditures since there are no Parks Division staff assigned to that region. Parks staff in Regions 4 and 7 maintain and operate fishing access sites in Region 6. Appendix E shows expenditures by fimding source for each of the regions for the same time period. Page 131 Chapter X - Fishing Access Sites Table 35 Operations and Maintenance (O & M) Expenditures by Region for Fishing Access Sites (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) M' Region Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 O&M $ 446,778 $ 503,345 $895,818 $ 529,284 $ 749,137 $ 2,239 $ 502,499 $ 3,629,098 Weed Control $ 16,331 $ 51,515 $ 42,322 $ 43,046 $ 36,179 $ 4,673 $ 194,065 Vandalism $ 649 $ 652 Fishing Access EPP $ 22,469 $ 24,320 $ 11,628 $ 58,418 Miscellaneous $ 10,996 $ 66,163* $ 77,159 Total $ 463,109 $ 588,325 $963,109 $ 650,121 $ 785,316 $ 2,239 $507,172 $ 3,959,392 ♦Missouri River road expenditures. Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. Table 36 shows capital expenditure totals for each region for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. Appendix E contains capital expenditures through the Long Range Building Program for fishing access site development and improvements for each site by region. Page 132 Chapter X - Fishing Access Sites Table 36 Capital Expenditures by Region for Fishing Access Sites (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) liiiiiii ^mmmVmm^' Region 1 Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Expenditures $ 318,488 $ 421,413 $ 722,717 $ 399,981 $ 534,690 $ 219,227 $ 389,223 $ 3,005,739 Weed control $ 16,124 $ 44385 $ 55,972 $ 44,832 $ 27,215 $ 0 $ 16,197 $ 204,725 # of Sites 9 19 20 19 20 5 12 104 Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. There have also been capital expenditures designated for general items, such as bank stabilization, maintenance, weed control, and latrines. The money was expended at a number of sites in various regions. The following table shows the miscellaneous expenditures for fiscal years 1992-93 through 1996-97. Table 37 Miscellaneous Fishing Access Site Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1992-93 through 1996-97) Description Fi»' Improvement Program funded $17,347 to help drill wells and install power meters and electncal service to the wells. Other partners in the project include Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, USFWS Partners for Wildlife Program, Bring Back the Natives Program, the Beaverhead Conservation District, the MT Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), the Natural Resources and Conservation Service, and private landowners, hi 1998 FWP will mvestigate the efficiency of the stockwater wells at maintammg mstream flows. A group of area citizens and individuals fi-om private organizations also wrote a drought plan specifying what actions will be taken during cntical flows. The plan contains suggestions water users (ranchers, recreationahsts, Butte water users) should follow when flows and temperatures reach certam levels. The stockwater wells will be used in conjunction with the plan. Brood Stock Development In order to preserve the genetic integrity of Montana grayling, a Big Hole brood stock is being developed at the USFWS Technology Center, Bozeman Brood stock development is gmded by a plan developed by the University of Montana Wild Trout and Sabnon Genetics Lab. The plan ensures the genetic variation within the Big Hole River graylmg population is replicated in the brood stock. The plan calls for brood stock derived fi-om gametes taken from spawning Big Hole grayling. Reserve stocks are at the Fish Technology Center and the 1988 year class was planted in one of the Axolotl Lakes in the Gravelly Range. To prevent domestication of the brood, wild genes will be infused at least every ten years. The Fish Technology Center has not been able to produce an usable stock so the brood m Axolotl Lakes is used to collect eggs. The eggs are then hatched in FWP's hatcheries and planted as planned. Plantings have consisted of Gallatin and East Gallatin Rivers - Approximately 5,400 yearlings in the Gallatin in 1992, 10,000 yearlmgs in 1993, and 10,000 to 12,000 in the East Gallatm m 1993. Big Hole River - 214 yearlings from the Big Hole reserve stock in 1992. Cougar Creek - 800 m 1993 and agam in 1994. Page B-3 Cherry Creek - Madison River grayling planted in 1994. Ruby River - 30,028 young of the year in 1997. The waters have been monitored since the plantings. Biologists found stockings on the East Gallatin, Cougar Creek and Cherry Creek did not appear to work. FWP entered into a contract with MSU to monitor the fish planted in the Ruby River. The purpose of the contract is to provide FWP with: an evaluation of survival, growth, and dispersal rates of the grayling planted in the upper Ruby River; an assessment of habitat related factors affecting estabhshment of a sustaining population of fluvial grayling; and a characterization of interactions between grayling and resident fish species and identify effects of interactions. Madison River/Ennis Reservoir Grayling Study FWP and a private company entered into an agreement in 1990 to study the Madison River/Ennis Reservoir arctic grayling population. The parties wanted to determine if the population was fluvial, and address the potential affects hsting the species could have on reservoir operations, river flows, and other fisheries and recreation issues, while working to maintain and increase the grayling population. Grayling were spawning in the one and a half miles just above the reservoir thus raising the question as to whether the population was fluvial. The population was monitored fi-om 1990 through 1997 to determine the nature of the population. In 1997 it was determined the population is not fluvial and will not be subject to the Arctic Grayling Recovery Plan. Arctic Grayling Recovery Program Expenditures Table B-1 shows expenditures for the Arctic grayling recovery program fi-om fiscal year 1991-92 through 1996-97. The expenditures do not include the work on the Madison River/ Ennis Reservoir since those expenditures are included with other work conducted by the biologist. The Madison/Ennis project was fiinded by a private company. Table B-1 Arctic Grayling Recovery Program Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1991-92 through 1996-97) Type :::S:::S:::::::;:5;:::S«:^ ::«:x¥:w::*::::::::¥:::::^^ Descriptjoo 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 22,521 $ 24,499 $ 14,418 $ 17,173 $ 13,766 $ 14,554 Big Hole River Grayling Study DJ $ 27,612 $ 26,622 $ 26,658 $ 26,635 $ 27,948 $ 29,548 Sportsman Group $ 5,968 $ 9,583 $ 10,961 $ 26,359 $ 7,209 $ 23,980 BLM, USPS, FWS $ 19,669 $ 25,051 $ 36,823 $ 24,026 $ 915 GOG* $ 7,143 Big Hole River Water Tanks Total $ 56,101 $ 80,373 $ 77,088 $ 114,133 $ 72,949 $ 68,997 *GOG - Governor's Office Grant Source: Compiled by the LAD from SEAS records. Page B-4 WESTSLOPE CUTTHROAT RECOVERY PROJECT Westslope cutthroat trout are the most widely distributed native trout in the inland Pacific northwest, occurring ui Montana, Idaho, and Canada, hi Montana, native westslope cutthroat trout occur in the upper Missouri and Columbia River basins. The westslope subspecies is one of two cutthroat trout subspecies native to Montana - the other being the Yellowstone cutthroat trout. These two subspecies represent highly differentiated subspecies. Prior to the 1960's, Yellowstone and westslope cutthroat trout were considered by most fisheries personnel to be the same subspecies, with local adaptations and color patterns. Westslope were placed on the USFWS's Red Book of threatened and endangered species from 1966-72, but were dropped from that list with passage of the Endangered Species Act in 1973 due to uncertainty about their classification. They were considered a Category 2 Candidate species by the USFWS until the deletion of that category in February 1996. Westslope cutthroat have been listed as a Class A State Species of Special Concern by FWP and the Montana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society since 1972. Class A designation indicates limited numbers and/or lunited habitats both in Montana and elsewhere in North Amenca; elimination from Montana would be a significant loss to the gene pool of the species or subspecies. Recent surveys of Montana's sfreams show westslope cutthroats occur m only 14 percent of their historic range. Only 20 percent of the remaining populations m Montana are known to be genetically pure, and an additional 1 3 percent are suspected to be pure. Causes of declme include hybridization and competition with mtroduced species, degraded water quality-, degradation of habitat from road buildmg, grazmg, minmg, and urban development, and fragmentation of habitat due to bamers created by dams, culverts, and dewatering. Federal lands are estunated to support over 75 percent of the remauiing westslope cutthroat in Montana. Based on the declme of, and continued threats to westslope cutthroat throughout its entu-e range, the USFWS was petitioned to Ust westslope cutthroat trout as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in May 1997. Factors cited in the petition to support listing included detrimental land management activities and presence of introduced non-native species that compete with, prey on, or hybridize with westslope. The petitioners cited a lack of adequate protective and restorative programs, and a continued jeopardy to populations due to ongoing and proposed activities and programs as justification to list the subspecies. Missouri River Westslope Cutthroat Trout Technical Committee Formed In late 1 994 an mteragency group of fishenes professionals met to review the status and on-going work on the westslope cutthroat trout within the upper Missouri River basin. The group concluded a conservation/restoration strategy' needed to be adopted if this subspecies was to persist in the basin. FWP wanted techmcal and agency mput from biologists outside FWP. As a consequence, the Upper Missouri River Westslope Cutthroat Trout Technical Committee was formed in early 1995. The committee is made up of fishery scientists, managers, and geneticists from FWP, the US Forest Service, BLM, USFWS, and the University of Montana. The charge of the committee is to make recommendations, based on the best scientific information available, to FWP and land managers for conserving and restoring westslope cutthroat front within the upper Missouri River basin. The Technical Committee helped assemble and summarize known status and distribution data, developed a scientifically-based management goal, developed genetic conservation guidelines, developed sampling protocols, implemented a public information program, and developed angling recommendations. Page B-5 Westslope Cutthroat Trout Steering Committee Formed In 1996 the governor hosted a workshop to discuss the historic and current status of westslope cutthroat, as well as the future of the fish in Montana. A Westslope Cutthroat Trout Steering Committee was formed to advise FWP concerning the future of the species. Open to any interested parties, regular attendance at the meetings includes representatives from American Wildlands, the Blackfeet Tribe, the Montana DNRC, Montana Farm Bureau, a private company, a national association, a sportsmans group, Montana Wildlife Foimdation, Natural Resources and Conservation Service, private landowners, ELM, USFWS, and the US Forest Service. As of June 1998, the committee's major accomphshment was a draft of a Conservation Agreement and Management Plan for Westslope Cutthroat Trout in Montana. If signed by the USFWS, die agreement would preclude listing of Montana's westslope cutthroat trout as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Under the agreement, FWP has to meet the four management objectives described in the agreement and overall population indicators must show stable or positive trends. Restoration Efforts On-going Management, conservation and restoration efforts for westslope cutthroat have been undertaken in Montana in recent years. Efforts have focused on stopping declines in numbers and distribution, protectmg and expanding existuig populations, and gaming a better understandmg of the biolog\', habitat requirements, and behavior of the species. Actions undertaken by the department and regional biologists mclude: >■ Imposing restrictive fishmg regulations. >• Extensive survey and inventory efforts. >- Genetics testing of populations to determine uniqueness and purity. >- Development of brood stock and genetic conservation guidelines. >■ Protection of important populations. >■ Restoration and enhancement of habitat and populations. >■ Education efforts. Westslope Cutthroat Recovery Project Expenditures Funding for most of the regional biologists' work on cutthroats is from GL and DJ fiinds. Expendittires are charged to the region fisheries budget. Table B-2 shows expenditures for westslope cutthroat trout work, including specific inventory work, genetics testing, and relocation projects. Page B-6 Table B-2 Expenditures for Westslope Cutthroat Projects (Fiscal Years 1990-91 through 1996-97) Fwad Type Fisc*iy«ar Description 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 %-97 GL $ 5,137 $ 3,436 $ 2,345 $ 1,628 Cutthroat Trout Inventory DJ $ 5,290 $ 4,761 $ 3,305 USPS $ 67 $ 32,891 $ 37,100 $ 40,131 $ 11,831 Forest Service Cutthroat Streams USPS $ 1,741 Custer Cutthroat Genetics BLM $ 510 $ 2 $ 1.288 Muskrat Creek Relocation Total $ 577 $ 0 $ 0 $ 38,030 $ 47,567 $ 48,525 $ 16,764 Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. PALLID STURGEON RECOVERY PROJECT In response to sightings of palhd sturgeon in the Fort Peck tailrace and potential listing of this candidate as an endangered species, the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) began funding research downstream of Fort Peck in April 1989. Pallid sturgeon were Usted as endangered in 1990. In November 1990 a Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Committee was convened to discuss what research would be conducted on paUids. Members of the committee included staff from FWP, USFWS from Billings, North Dakota Fish and Game, and a private company. A final Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Plan was signed November 8, 1993. Workgroup Established In September 1993 the Montana - North Dakota PaUid Sturgeon Recovery Workgroup met to discuss their role in the recovery of pallid sturgeon. It was decided the group would serve as an advisory group to the Fish and Wildlife Service (including the Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Team) and other affected entities with management responsibility on research needs for pallid sturgeon recovery. Group responsibilities include oversight of management and implementation of pallid recovery in North Dakota and Montana. The ultimate goal is the recovery and de-hsting of pallid sturgeon in recovery areas in Montana and North Dakota. Members of the workgroup include staff from FWP, USFWS, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Western Area Power Administration, Montana DNRC, MT Coop Fish Resource Unit, a private company, the COE, and the North Dakota Game and Fish Department. Research Needs Developed and Prioritized The group met in December 1993 to develop priority research needs, determine feasibihty, and develop study plans. The group identified 3 1 research needs. The list was then sent to sturgeon researchers for the needs to be prioritized based on rated criteria. A prioritized research need Ust was developed February 1994. Since 1 993, the recovery team has met yearly to discuss what was done the previous season and what is plaimed for the upcoming season. Page B-7 Stocking Plan Eteveloped One recovery goal is to stock pallid sturgeon in the Missouri and lower Yellowstone Rivers. Pallids were taken from the wild in 1995 and transported to the Miles City State Hatchery for spawning. The fish absorbed their eggs so none were spawned. The fish were returned to the rivers. In November 1997, the Upper Basin Workgroup Stocking Team developed a plan for stocking paUid sturgeon in recovery priority management areas in Montana and North Dakota. Since pallids were successfully raised in Garrison National Fish Hatchery, there are plans to plant some in the upper Missouri and the lower Missouri and lower Yellowstone in 1998. They will have radio transmitters in them for tracking. Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Program Expenditures Funding sources for pallid sturgeon recovery are primarily the BOR and the COE. Table B-3 shows expenditures for the project from fiscal year 1989-90 through 1996-97. Table B-3 Expenditures for the Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Project (Fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Fund Type FiscftI Year 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 1 GL $ 19,745 $ 24,972 $ 29,091 $ 25,182 $ 26,705 $ 22,191 $ 21.970 DJ $ 34,838 $ 36,374 $ 52,895 $ 48,022 $ 59,560 $ 53,426 $ 53,138 Private Company $ 1,904 $ 6,164 $ 17,563 $ 5,631 $ 8,674 USFWS $ 545 $ 8,930 COE $ 52,968 $ 38,359 $ 48,022 $ 36,319 $ 17,897 BOR* $ 12,189 $ 20,543 $ 28,598 $ 63,806 $ 33,060 $ 86,646 $ 30,433 WAPA S_ 86 943 « 7^ 39q S_ 11 5 QSn TOTAL $ 52,968 $ 105,131 $ 130,456 $ 148,807 $ 170,001 $ 223,831 $ 241,223 $ 230,165 *Some expenditures from this source are expended for the Yellowstone River Benthic Fish Study. Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. BULL TROUT STUDY Bull trout are native to the upper Columbia River basin in northwest Montana. Due to numerous factors, including disruptive land management practices, expansion of introduced fish, non-sustainable harvest, and loss of connected habitat, bull frout have declined, and are now widely considered an imperiled species. Bull trout are considered a Species of Special Concern by FWP and the Montana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, and have been listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act by the USFWS. Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team Appointed In 1993 the governor convened a group of people to a facihtated round table discussion concerning the need for creating and implementing a bull trout restoration plan in Montana. An interdisciplinary Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team was appointed as a result of the discussion. The team was composed of individuals representing the USFWS, FWP, US Forest Service, Confederated Sahsh and Kootenai Tribes, a private Page B-8 company, Montana DNRC, Montana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Bonneville Power Administration, and the National Wildlife Federation. The team was chartered by the governor to develop a process to "recover" bull trout mdependent of (but possibly complementary to) the Endangered Species Act hstmg process, hi addition, the charter for this group deemed it essential that bull trout conservation efforts employ a public participation process that would work closely with various public segments unpacted by, and interested m, bull trout restoration. FWP agreed to provide staff for the team. A bull trout coordinator position was designated in fiscal year 1995-96. Scientific Group Established The Restoration Team appointed a scientific group to provide the technical expertise necessary for the restoration planning effort. Members of the group were fi-om umversities, natural resource management agencies and private industry. The members were not chosen to serve as representing any organization or particular constituency. Early in the planning process, the scientific group recommended bull trout ranges m Montana be divided mto 1 1 separate restoration/conservation areas in four major drainages. The areas were based on patterns of distnbution and fi-agmentation. The scientific group then wrote status reports for each of the area. The reports describe distribution, nsks and a restoration goal. Rock Creek was later classified as a separate area, but Its status IS described m the Upper Clark Fork area status report. The following table shows the restoration/conservation areas for bull trout Table B-4 Restoration/Conservation Areas for Bull Trout (June 1998) Clark Fork Basin Clark Fork River drainage Lower Clark Fork River (downstream fi-om Thompson Falls Dam) Middle Clark Fork River (Thompson Falls Dam to Milltown Dam) Upper Clark Fork River (upstream fi-om Milltown Dam) Rock Creek (tributary to upper Clark Fork River) Bitterroot River Blackfoot River Flathead River drainage upstream fi-om Kerr Dam Flathead River (North and Middle Fork Flathead River, Flathead Lake) South Fork Flathead River (upstream from Hungry Horse Dam) Swan River drainage Swan River (upstream from Big Fork Dam) Kootenai River Basin Kootenai River drainage Lower Kootenai River (downstream from Kootenai Falls) Middle Kootenai River (between Kootenai Falls and Libby Dam) Upper Kootenai River (upstream from Libby Dam) Source: Department records. Page B-9 In addition to providing the Restoration Team with status reports for bull trout restoration/conservation, the Scientific Group prepared three technical reports. The reports discuss the role of stocking in bull trout recovery, assessment of methods of removal or suppression of introduced fish to aid in bull trout recovery, and the relationship between land management activities and habitat requirements of bull trout. Local Watershed Groups Established The Restoration Team decided on a watershed group approach to implement restoration efforts and improve bull trout populations. Each group would address problems affecting bull trout specific to their watershed. Watershed or working groups are to develop local conservation strategies, as well as implement monitoring and other activities associated with restoring bull trout. Bull Trout Listed as Threatened Bull trout were listed as a threatened species in June 1998 by the USFWS. As a result of the listing, FWP staff had to modify their strategy for restonng bull trout. The department now hopes to use the plan prepared by the Restoration Team as Montana's portion of the federal recovery plan. If it is accepted, the steps m the plan can be implemented. The USFWS has up to 30 months from the time of listing to distribute a fmal bull trout restoration plan encompassmg bull trout populations m Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washmgton. Now that bull trout are listed as a threatened species. an\' agency (state, federal, county, city), private corporation, orgamzation, or citizen, must obtam authorization from the USFWS before the>- can conduct an activity' that might result in a "take' of a bull trout. A "take" essentially constitutes killmg a fish. Activities covered under the "take" requirement include: "destruction or alteration of bull trout habitat by dredging, channelization, diversion, in-stream vehicle operation, or rock removal, or other activities that result in the destruction or significant degradation of cover, channel stability, substrate composition, temperature, and migratory corridors used by the species for foraging cover, migration, and spawning; taking a bull trout without a permit, except in accordance with applicable state fish and wildlife conservation laws and regulations." As a result of the listing, to do any habitat projects in waters with bull trout, FWP needs prior authorization from the USFWS. The department also needs authorization to conduct the regular fish monitoring surveys via electrofishing, gill netting, radio telemetry, snorkeling, redd counts, etc. The department submitted a document to FWS hsting the normal monitoring activities with accompanying narrative which, if approved, will provide a "blanket" authorization for those activities. Department staff indicated it took about 30 man days to create the 100 page document. Area Biologists Gather Data Many regional biologists gather data on bull trout as part of their monitoring duties. The information is entered into MRIS and also sent to the bull trout coordinator in Helena. The coordinator is compiling the information to determine where biologists are monitoring redds and comparing that to the restoration plan's proposal for redd counts. The coordinator is identifying areas where the department is lacking data. In cooperation with a private company and private organization, FWP has conducted radio telemetry studies on bull trout in the Blackfoot River drainage. Page B-10 Bull Trout Project Expenditures Most regional staff expenditures for bull trout monitoring are charged to general work centers for the region. Most specific studies, such as a radio telemetry study on the Blackfoot River are funded by private or federal sources. The bull trout coordinator expenditures are fiinded from general license dollars. Table B-5 shows expenditures for the bull trout project from fiscal year 1992-93 to 1996-97. Table B-5 Expenditures for Bull Trout Projects (Fiscal Years 1992-93 through 1996-97) Source l^cal Year 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 Private Company $ 3,103 $ 18,191 $ 11,100 $ 11,405 $ 3,008 USPS $ 14,942 $ 11,906 $ 21,891 $ 16.130 $ 19,904 Sportsmen Group $ 14,116 GL $ 42,872 $ 52,103 DJ $ 23,124 $ 11,951 Total $ 18.045 $ 30,097 $ 32,991 $ 93,531 $ 101,082 Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. PADDLEFISH STUDY The paddlefish, native to the Mississippi, Missouri, and several Gulf coast drainages, is one of North America's largest and most distinctive freshwater fishes. The species is long-lived, highly migratory, and a source of commercial and trophy fishing, high-quahty food, and expensive caviar. In response to dwindling stocks and deteriorating habitat nationwide, Montana and North Dakota developed a paddlefish management plan in 1995 to address the fish population hving in both states. The Montana - North Dakota Paddlefish Management Plan was written as a cooperative venture between the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Montana FWP, and the University of Idaho. The goals of the paddlefish plan include providing for an orderly and sustainable recreational harvest, providing a basis for cooperative interstate management, facilitating data collection for stock assessments, conducting relevant research, protecting and improving habitat quality in the rivers and reservoirs, defming the role of artificial propagation, and increasing public awareness. The plan covers the Yellowstone- Sakakawea stock (inhabiting Lake Sakakawea, the Missouri River from Lake Sakakawea to Fort Peck Dam, the "Dredge Cuts" below Fort Peck, and the Yellowstone River) and the Upper Fort Peck stock (spawning in the Missouri River above Fort Peck Dam and rearing in Fort Peck reservoir). Staff from Montana and North Dakota meet yearly to determine what activities occurred in the past year and what each state plans to do in the upcoming year in terms of research, regulations, management, etc. Activities involved with paddlefish include: A creel census on the Fort Peck paddlefish population to gather baseline data on total harvest, harvest rates, recruitment, age, etc. PageB-11 Tagging fish in the population residing above Fort Peck to determine harvest rates, migration patterns, and frequency of spawning. A visual survey of young-of-the-year at the headwaters of the Fort Peck Reservoir to determine and verify minimum flows necessary for successful reproduction. Studies to locate paddlefish spawning sites and evaluate spawning success in the lower Yellowstone River. Studies by a University of Idaho professor to determine age and sex ratios of the paddlefish population near Glendive. Paddlefish Project Expenditures The project is fiinded primarily from GL and DJ funds. Proceeds of the sale of paddlefish egg caviar help fiind studies on the lower Yellowstone River. The paddlefish must be harvested on the Yellowstone River by Glendive. Table B-6 shows expenditures for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. Expenditures in Region 6 (Glasgow) for paddlefish work are not included since the work is charged to a general fisheries budget for wannwater ecosystems. Table B-6 Paddlefish Project Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Fund Type Fiscal Year 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 17,998 $ 22,589 $ 24,352 $ 31,108 $ 26,339 $ 27,289 $ 25,487 $ 46,578 DJ $ 25,402 $ 33,282 $ 35,776 $ 45,701 $ 51,367 $ 47,353 $ 48,283 $ 41,779 BLM $ 10,574 $ 6,371 PRP* $ 31,499 $ 36,500 $ 41,656 $ 39,663 $ 13,999 $ 14,000 Total $ 43,400 $ 66,445 $ 97,998 $ 113,309 $ 119,362 $ 114,305 $ 87,769 $ 102,357 *PRP - Paddlefish roe proceeds. Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. HUNGRY HORSE AND LIBBY DAM MITIGATION In 1980, Congress passed the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act (the Act) which was designed to balance power needs, hydropower development, and natural resources in the Columbia River Basin. The Act called for the formation of the Northwest Power Planning Council (the Council), which was mandated to develop the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. The program was aimed at balancing past and future hydropower development m Washington, Oregon, Idaho and western Montana through protection, mitigation and enhancement of fish returning from the sea for breeding (anadromous) and resident fish and wildlife. The Act also stated that the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) would bear the financial responsibility for the program measures. Montana received funding for mitigation for Hungry Horse Dam and Libby Dam. Page B-12 Hungry Horse Dam Mitigation Hungrv' Horse Dam was completed in 1952, and the reservoir reached full pool in July 1954. Hungry Horse is operated by the BOR. The primary benefits of the project are flood control and power production at downstream projects. Fisheries Mitigation Plan Written Under the direction of the Fish and Wildlife Program, FWP and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes presented the Council with a Fishenes Mitigation Plan for Losses Attributable to the Construction and Operation of Hungry Horse Dam in March 1991. The document presents fishenes losses, mitigation alternatives, and recommendations to protect, mitigate, and enhance resident fish and aquatic habitat affected by the construction and operation of Hungry Horse Dam. Mitigation measures were descnbed as non- operational, not requiring changes in dam operation, and operational, requiring dam operation changes. Non- operational mitigation measures included: Aquatic Habitat Improvement and Stabilization - Adding fish cover, removmg silt, fencmg stream banks, adding spawning gravel and other means to miprove stream, reservou", or lake habitat. Fish Passage Improvements - Replacmg unpassable culverts with new culverts, open-bottomed arch culverts or badges to restore fish passage. Remove or modify' natural bamers in streams to allow fish passage and make additional spawning and reanng areas available. Pnonty sites were identified. Hatchery Fish Production and Fish Planting - Hatchery kokanee plantmg m Flathead Lake to replace losses of kokanee due to operations of the dam. Bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout would be used for unpnnt plantmg to establish new runs m specific stream areas or direct plants in lake envu-onments to mcrease the fishery and pioneer general spawning runs. Offsite Mitigation - Mitigation techniques, including the above, conducted m areas outside the interconnected Flathead Lake and River system. Operational mitigation measures included: Downstream Temperature Improvement Using Selective Withdrawal - Replace the single outlet system with a multi-level system. The smgle outlet releases cold water year-long, influencing the thermal regime m the Flathead River and the aquatic environment. Installation of a multi-level outlet system allows dam managers to withdraw warmer water from different depths of the reservoir durmg May to October. Thus the temperature regime is returned to natural conditions. Drawdown Limits and Timing of Reservoir Refill - Limiting drawdown and adjusting timing of refill and drafting. Deep drawdowns, late refill, and early draftings reduce fish food production, fish growth, and mcrease predation offish. Examples of monitoring activities were also included in the plan. The Council approved the loss statements and mitigation actions for resident fish affected by Hungry Horse Dam m November 1991. The department and tribes were then directed to develop an implementation plan for fiscal year 1992. The plan was to be limited to actions that address baseline data collection, fish passage over man-caused barriers, initiation of kokanee supplementation, offsite mitigation, and onsite habitat Page B-13 improvements. FWP and the tribes were also directed to develop a long-term implementation plan limited to non-operational mitigation measures. Mitigation Implementation Plan Approved in 1993 The implementation plan provides a goal statement, methods of implementation, monitoring and evaluation methods, and decision points for each of the non-operational measures. The habitat improvement area also discusses imprint planting for bull trout and westslope cutthroat. The hatchery fish production and supplementation discusses the kokanee test and criteria for determimng success of kokanee reintroduction. The long-term implementation plan was approved by the Council m March 1993. The plan describes changes from the mitigation plan due to amendments in the 1987 Fish and Wildlife Program. Also, additional information showed some items in the mitigation plan could not be achieved. For example, a chronic shortage of kokanee eggs prevented attainment of the goal of releasing 10 milhon kokanee fry for a kokanee test. It was also found the recovery of native species would require additional work pnor to planting bull trout and westslope cutthroat. Biologists would need to develop recovery plans, assess population genetics, and mvestigate rearing techmques. The initial stages of habitat enhancement, fish passage, and offsite mitigation would have to proceed more slowly because agreements with public and pnvate landowners needed to be reached. Results of the Mitigation and Implementation Plans As a result of the two plans, a number of changes have been made m the Flathead River system. A multi- level outlet system was installed and biologists mdicated water temperatures m the nver are closer to natural conditions now. A number offish passage bamers were removed and opened up 16 percent more of the habitat for fish. Habitat improvement projects have addressed sediment control, limited spawmng areas, and returned water to dewatered portions of streams. In late 1997 a decision was made to stop kokanee planting after four years, thus reducmg the planting penod by one year. Fish population surveys showed the plants were not increasmg the kokanee population m Flathead Lake. Population surveys and creel census also showed offsite rehabilitation projects were successfiil in removing illegally introduced fish species and creating popular fisheries at those locations. Regional biologists indicated all the projects are being monitored and evaluated to determine their success. Libby Dam Mitigation Libby Dam was completed in 1972 and filled for the first time in 1974 on the Kootenai River, near Libby, Montana. The dam was built for hydroelectric power production, flood control, and recreation. Libby Reservoir inundated streams providing habitat for spawmng, juvemle reanng, and migratory passage for a number of native species. In 1982, FWP began to assess and model the biological and physical effects of dam operation. One goal was to develop an operational plan to benefit fish and wildhfe in the Kootenai System. The other goal was to assemble a set of "non-operation" mitigation actions. In 1990, a study was mitiated to quantify the fish passing through Libby Dam with the water (entrainment). The completion of this investigation in 1996 showed an estunated 1 . 15 to 4.5 milhon kokanee sahnon were entrained annually. Bull trout and burbot were also found to be entrained. Based on the information gathered in the prior studies, FWP issued a draft report of the Fisheries Mitigation and Implementation Plan for Losses Attributable to the Construction and Operation of Libby Dam in November 1997. hiformation gathered during the Hungry Horse mitigation planning was also used to Page B- 14 develop the draft plan for Libby Dam. A combination of non-operational mitigation, operational mitigation, and evaluation/monitoring was recommended. Non-operational actions include: 1) aquatic habitat improvement; 2) fish passage improvements; 3) ofTsite mitigation using the same techniques; and 4) conservation culture and hatchery products. Species benefitting from the mitigation include bull trout, burbot, westslope cutthroat, and interior redband rainbow. Mitigation Expenditures Montana receives funding from BPA for mitigation for Hungry Horse Dam and Libby Dam. Table B-7 shows expenditures for Hungry Horse and Libby Dams mitigation for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. Table B-7 Hungry Horse and Libbv Dam Mitigation Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) fiiSd Type Fiscal Year ... . mmmmmmm Deacdfrfion 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 BPA $ 4,684 Kerr-Hungry Horse Dams BPA $ 273,241 $ 208,670 $ 213,820 $ 276,363 $ 305,548 $ 351.355 $ 389,584 $ 645,499 Hungry Horse Mitigation BOR $ 5,306 $ 6,361 BPA $ 216,777 $ 279,697 $ 222,951 $ 222,504 $ 222,125 $ 354,547 $ 392,918 $ 454,640 Libby Dam Mitieation Total $ 494,702 $ 488,367 $ 436,771 $ 498,867 $ 527,673 $ 705,902 $ 787,808 $1,106,500 Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. INFORMATION SERVICES UNIT. KALISPELL Six staff located in Kahspell maintain and summarize statewide fisheries, recreation, and wildlife data, chiefly in the Montana Rivers Information System (MRIS). This system was initiated by the Northwest Power Planning Council in 1985 to assess and rate the significance of river related natural resource values in Montana, Idaho, Washington and Oregon. Montana's portion included the assessment of resident fisheries and wildlife values and recreational, natural and cultural features in and along Montana's rivers and streams. FWP coordinated the study and conducted the fish, wildlife and recreational assessments. DNRC led the natural resources assessment and the University of Montana's anthropology department headed up the cultural assessment. Following the assessment, each resource value was rated for each stream reach. Ratings ranged from Class I to V with Class I as unique or outstanding resources and Class V as unknown value. Maps Created for Big Game Distribution. State Parks and Fishing Access Site Location The Kalispell Umt generates overlay maps using the Geographic Information System (GIS) for big game distribution. The layers represent overall distribution and winter ranges for antelope, big horn sheep, elk, moose, mountain goat, mule deer, and white-tailed deer throughout the state. Base maps consist of a shaded rehef model with hydrography, highways, cities, and species hunting districts. All the layers used for creating the base maps were provided by the Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) at the Montana State Library in Helena. Each regional office receives a set of the maps. Page B-15 The State Parks Atlas consists of a set of maps and tabular information for each state park. There is a vicinity map, an individual site map, and a report containing facihties information and other pertinent information for each park. The vicinity maps center each state park within a five mile radius and include the township, range, section, pubhc land ownership, highways, cities, streams, and lakes. The site maps delineate the park's boimdaries by acquisition type and display the acreage. All the regional offices have these maps also. Maps of active fishing access sites are sent to every region. The maps are by region and show land ownership, hydrography, and location of every fishing access site and the name. Roads and towns are also included on the maps. Staff Submit Requests for Information FWP staff can request natural resource data by submitting a request form. Liformation requested is map size, number of copies, and what background features are wanted, such as highways, land ownership, raihoads, cities, land use/land cover, FWP regions or hunting districts. The geographic layers - towns, roads, streams, ownership, etc. - are obtained fi-om NRIS. The specific agency information is laid over the geographic layers. For example, a map showing location of noxious weeds in a state park has ownership, roads, towns, and hydrography layers fi-om NRIS and the location of the weeds was added from the FWP database. The cost of equipment use and materials is charged to the requestor's project number. Kalispell Unit Expenditures Expenditures in the Kahspell Unit are fimded by BPA and GL and DJ funds. Fisheries Division started fimding the umt in fiscal year 1991-92 when BPA fimding was decreasing and work for the Fisheries Division was increasing. The GL and DJ money is used for operations and the $15,000 contract with the Montana State Library for NRIS support. The following table shows expenditures for the Kahspell hiformation Unit for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97 by fimding source. Table B-8 Kalispell Information Unit Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Tund Fiscal Year 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 7,495 $ 19,943 $ 9,674 $ 9,054 $ 26,414 $ 12,556 DJ $ 11,010 $ 20,560 $ 17,913 $ 16,740 $ 22,958 $ 25,377 BPA $56,685 $83,087 $ 76,996 $ 96,034 $ 115.664 $ 109,656 $ 98,785 $ 130,648 ESRI $ 16,194 Total $56,685 $83,087 $ 95,501 $ 152,731 $ 143,251 $ 135,450 $ 148,157 $ 168,581 MRIS - Montana Resource Information System ESRI - Environmental Systems Research Institute, Washington State Energy Office Source: Compiled by the LAD from SEAS records. Page B-16 Appendix C O -N « > 5 6 -a >^ .- ^ D ■% S3 2 it, D Cu ^ S3 <^ < B « C/2 ci.2 ^ 8 2 -a U ^ D ■§-§■5 2 S sa _o ■© . ^ b -a o 1 2 •« .S '9 .o D K a •3 o § s Page C-1 fic > B en "S H ■b o 2 § tl ■^§ 4J M «. C •g| 8 I .3 I ^ — t. 0) . *n ^ ^ H C u U >-^ .ti ~ 1- ■S 9 5 ^ w S fe '^ fc 2 1 £ °1 ^g' ,1 ^!^--§ - O •2 D 5 ^ S2>S u J3 U .> y Q 2 ^ ^n O U O Si^ H -s a ^ 2 £ D 2 ■2 fe. § § 00 ? 2 -a O D in ^-^ o 8 g m H D o D Q c/n o ty^ O 4> 52 m H D 55 .^ o S 00 > a -a o D -1 ■■HQ S^;S c2q S 2i u S „ •- Oi H .S Di E 2 S (4-1 -a o J III D U C/3 •5 --a .2 8 <:.s ^ a u 00 R "" « S pj E-- ;? O 1 (5 o ^ 1 ■a .s •a 2 §5 Page C-2 &2 • S -a -s ^-' o « > ii O 3 ft ^ O 1) .2 D _ .> ^ 2 Q =3 ^ 2 ^„ i u c. S- S I-" s D U J X D Q 2 U D ^ < u b o > <-> •a il 5^ ^ u a; D o 3 < 2 ^5 pa H D > 5 C '■-; CO is o .22 ~ "u O Q O cc; c2 2 I .3 S f^ §2 Q c/2 W Om ^ H Page C-3 2 ^ I o So T3 |i o u «f a. •a > 00 S -g ^:S o ,i> u K ^ T3 ta ;- C ID U rn J3 (C •i= .S a ^ >^ ^ 9. o ^ o »o 00 „" On V — > cd u fc "§ 'a S E D ^ ^; H -s -a S tZ D > hJ CB ■COD O, CQ K ^ a s i >■ S "^ 66 ^ ^ M c § s "O M C Q CO ° D O 00 as 1^ ■ ■ -a x> o o c .2 ^ -o -Q o c pq § ^ -2 -» T3 « Page C-4 53 2 g g O ■3^ 8 § 1) M :2 2 -a __ . a g 2 2 'K o Tf Ig S O OLi U s^!:- H •s-p ^ •£ :d 2 ee Q 2 — o a. ha ^ S - o ^ -a O =« IZD (5 2 o C/2 m 2 S <2 ^ 03 O - c u .5 ■2 g .2 Qi 3 y "5 O « " ^ > Q O 5! c2 -2 5 lis ,(U 3 > ^ Qi H .S Di Page C-5 as £;^ J2 1-9 ^:i > « e-^.^ ^ 2 o § « a y-s o S m a, O E U a IS 55 2 CO 2 B 13 tfa e-s ^1 a h iJ ■3 ? ^ •2 s 2 i> .•2-5 o o 2 XI < .5 ^ fe. 8 > =1 I t & -g 1 Q - S3 fti ^«cS^ 1 6 ■1 ^ 1 ^- tu 2 fciH u ^ D D c)^ 2 a ^1 S D i o w . 2 ■§ o ^ £ § §-<§•§ -i H U W £ U Cu ■D ^ ~ to O < iJ coo 2 3 _o _^ II 2 u I g. M o 4^ K « J 0- Oi Cu Qi 1,1 CO — J o •S '^ I ^ o « ■■a Q b 5 - o "^ I oi 1 i > 5 ■ - 2 00 -e ■s — ■so (U f— . W C3 lit X -S 8 c ■« -S LI! 5 trt -a '^ w u -a o 5 " « '-C. Ofi VI = S .2 U ^ § r- N ^ 2 -S -s -S ■> 5 _^ -u a u c g g y - ■?:• o C^ 12 3 2 .S 2; e a: iJ i o 21 2 -c a § ^ o .S Page C-7 Appendix D State Hatchery System Expenditures The following tables show the general operating and capital expenditures associated with each hatchery for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. During fiscal years 1989-90 through 1992-93 personnel and all operations and maintenance costs were appropriated togetiier. Starting in fiscal year 1993-94 some operations and maintenance costs for residences and hatcheries were appropriated separately. The separate appropriation is to pay for such things as new stoves in the residences, repair a window in a hatchery, etc. Funding sources for all personnel and operations and maintenance expenditures were fi-om general license (GL) fees and federal Dingle Johnson (DJ) grant fiinds. Capital expenditures were fiinded through general obligation bonds (GOB), GL fees, and federal DJ grant funds. Table D-1 Washoe Park Trout Hatchery Operating Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Ftiad Type Fiscal Year Description 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 46,414 $ 47,018 $ 49,639 $ 56,150 $ 59,499 $ 54,199 $ 49,339 $ 42,649 Operations DJ $ 65,507 $ 69,276 $ 72,926 $ 82,467 $ 86,261 $ 78,551 $ 100,173 $ 86,590 GL $ 2,579 $ 1,305 $ 2,713 O&M DJ $ 7.738 $ 2.650 $ 5.507 Total $ 111,921 $ 116,294 $ 122,565 $ 138,617 $ 156,077 $ 132,750 $ 153,467 $ 137,459 Capital Expenditures Fond Type Fiscal Year I>escriptlon 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 85 GOB $ 2,500 $ 310 Hatchery Repairs 87 GOB $ 16,238 $ 83,765 $1,176,512 $ 725 Water Intake 87 GOB $ 30,951 $ 34,908 $ 235,850 $ 567,559 $ 3,300 Building/Site Work GL $ 3,248 Sod & Cover DJ $ 9,743 GL $21,544 Repair Water Main GL $ 4,673 Comfort Station DJ $ 14,020 GL $ 51 Site Improvement DJ $ 154 GL $ 2,545 $ 5,865 $ 18,725 $ 1,573 Hatchery DJ $ 7.5)5 $17,594 $ 56.176 $ 4.719 Total $18,738 $ 115,026 $1,211,420 $ 249,566 $ 577,619 $48,303 $ 74,901 $ 25,190 Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. Page D-1 Table D-2 Jocko River Trout Hatchery Operating Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Futid T5T»t fiscal Year Sesmptitm 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 52,234 $ 51,951 $ 51,084 $ 55,540 $ 54,886 $ 55,157 $ 48,518 $ 49,071 Operations DJ $ 73,722 $ 76,545 $ 75,048 $ 81,596 $ 79,573 $ 79,966 $ 98,505 $ 99,628 GL $ 1,602 $ 242 $ 1,630 $ 911 O&M DJ $ 4.807 $ 725 $ 3.310 $ 1,849 Total $ 125,956 $ 128,496 $ 126,132 $ 137,136 $ 140,868 $ 136,090 $ 151,963 $ 151,459 Capital Expenditures Fund Typfi Fiscal Year Description 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GOB $ 33,401 $ 192,005 $ 4,594 Water Supply GL $ 1,555 $ 5,358 $ 57 Repair Electrical DJ $ 4,666 $ 16,073 $ 172 GL $ 1,947 $ 433 $ 66 Renovate Hatchery DJ $ 5.841 $ 1,299 $ 197 Total $ 33,401 $ 198,226 $ 26,025 $ 229 $ 7,788 $ 1,732 $ 263 Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. Table D-3 Yellowstone River Trout Hatcherv Operating Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Fund Type Fiscal Year Descriptk^o 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 33,503 $ 34,817 $ 35,957 $ 37,510 $ 37,280 $ 37,319 $ 32,281 $ 30,897 Operations DJ $ 47,285 $ 51,300 $ 52,825 $ 55.108 $ 54,048 $ 54,104 $ 65,539 $ 62,730 GL $ 962 $ 73 $ 1,321 $ 699 O&M DJ $ 2.885 $ 218 $ 2.681 $ 1.420 Total $ 80,788 $ 86,117 $ 88,782 $ 92,618 $ 95,175 $ 91,714 $ 101,822 $ 95,746 St jurce: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. Page D-2 The only capital expenditures for the Yellowstone River Hatchery were for razing an old building in fiscal year 1992-93. At that time the department expended $2,076. Table D-4 Bluewater Springs Trout Hatchery Operating Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Fund Fiscal Y«ar Description 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-% 96-97 GL $ 59,355 $ 65,116 $ 62,834 $ 61,352 $ 58,667 $ 64,677 $ 47,444 $ 51,282 Operations DJ $ 78,371 $ 95,942 $ 92,311 $ 90,135 $ 85,054 $ 93,767 $ 96,326 $ 104,118 GL $ 1,248 $ 1,368 $ 824 O&M DJ $ 3.745 $ 2.778 $ 1 ,674 Total $ 137,726 $ 161,058 $155,145 $151,487 $148,714 $ 1 58,444 $ 147,916 $ 157,898 Capital Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1994-95 through 1996-97) $: Fund 1 Type Fiscal Year 'IP Description 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 1,000 $ 24,080 $ 5,049 Hatchery Improvements DJ $ 3.000 $ 72.23? $ 15.146 Total $ 4,000 $ 96,319 $ 20,195 Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. Page D-3 Table D-5 Giant Springs Trout Hatchery Operating Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Fund Type FisealYear pescriptiffitt 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-% 96-97 GL $ 55,139 $ 55,541 $ 59,384 $ 56,777 $ 60,343 $ 62,498 $ 47,103 $ 55,827 Operations DJ $ 77,822 $ 81,834 $ 87,243 $ 83,404 $ 87,484 $ 90,608 $ 95,632 $ 113,345 GL $ 2,290 $ 3,293 $ 1,642 O&M DJ $ 6,870 $ 6.686 $ 3.334 Total $ 132,961 $ 137,375 $ 146,627 $ 140,181 $ 156,987 $ 153,106 $ 152,714 $ 174,148 Capital Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1994-95 through 1996-97) Fund Type Fiscal Year Description O^ Q^ 96-97 GL $ 4 $ 3,212 Hatchery Improvements DJ $ 13 $ 9,635 GL $ 7,898 Residence Work GL $ 12,865 Water Supply DJ $ 17.650 Total $ 17 $ 12,847 $ 38,413 Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. Page D-4 Table D-6 Big Springs Trout Hatchery Operating Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Fund Type Fiscal ¥«ar '" : l>eserti>tloo 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 103,299 $ 105,753 $ 106,048 $ 116,662 $ 116,107 $ 117,093 $ 92,124 $ 96,140 Operations DJ $ 145,796 $ 155,818 $ 155,798 $ 171,119 $ 168,330 $ 165,228 $ 187,040 $ 193,163 GL $ 750 $ 1,980 $ 660 O&M p; $ 2.250 $ 4.020 $ 1.340 Total $ 249,095 $ 261,571 $ 261,846 $ 287,781 $ 287,437 $ 282,321 $ 285,164 $ 291,303 Capital Expenditures Fund type Fiscal Year Description 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GOB $ 1,086 Upgrade Hatchery GOB $ 3,528 $122,411 $36,861 Hatchery Addition GL $ 208 $ 65 $ 2,382 Drainiield Repairs DJ $ 625 $ 195 $ 7.145 Total $ 3,528 $ 123,497 $ 36,861 $ 0 $ 0 $ 833 $ 260 $ 9,527 Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. Page D-5 Table D-7 Flathead Lake Salmon Hatchery Operating Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Fun4 riscalYew Description 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 25,180 $ 28,055 $ 32,130 $ 33,425 $ 35,586 $ 34,136 $ 13,226 $ 28,023 Operations DJ $ 35,539 $ 41,337 $ 47,202 $ 49,106 $ 28,592 $ 49,490 $ 26,854 $ 56,894 GL $ 1,954 $ 150 $ 2,920 $ 1,168 O&M DJ $ 5.860 $ 449 $ 5.928 $ 2.371 Total $ 60,719 $ 69,392 $ 79,332 $ 82,531 $ 71,992 $ 84,225 $ 48,928 $ 88,456 Capital Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1994-95 through 1996-97) ifype,. fiscal Year DescriptioQ 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 6,648 $ 8,511 $ 26,959 Extend Drainpipe and Rip Rap GOB $ 11.310 $ 14.480 $ 41.200 Total $ 17,958 $ 22,991 $ 68,159 Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. Page D-6 Table D-8 Miles City Hatchery Operating Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Fund Type fiscal Year DescripfiDO 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 16,517 $ 111,111 $ 96,452 $ 113,597 $ 118,915 $ 106,671 $ 87,015 $ 89,348 Operations DJ $ 196,697 $ 104,090 $ 141,700 $ 166,774 $ 172,410 $ 154.648 $ 177,073 $ 181,403 GL $ 982 Fish Eggs GL $ 1,743 $ 3,300 $ 1,570 O&M PI $ 5.230 $ 6.700 $ 3.187 Total $213,214 $ 215,201 $238,152 $280,371 $ 298,298 $261,319 $ 274,088 $ 276,490 Capital Expenditures is:Faad Type Fiscal Year Destrijrtion 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GOB $ 19,104 $ 83,628 Gravel Surfacing GOB $ 62.500 Water System Repairs A&E ADVNC $ 187.500 GL $ 99 $ 8.315 Fence Repair DJ $ 296 $ 24,945 GL $ 36 Replace Boiler DJ $ 11.250 GL $ 95 $ 2.571 Hatcherv Pond Total $ 269.104 $ 83,628 $ 0 $ 0 $ 395 $ 33.260 $ 11,381 $ 2.571 Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. Table D-9 Murray Springs Hatchery Operating Expenditures (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Fund Type Fiscal Year 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 COE $118,404 $131,149 $132,604 $138,101 $140,261 $136,584 $153,996 $152,431 Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. Page D-7 ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES FOR HATCHERIES Additional expenditures not included above include kokanee production for the Hungry Horse Dam mitigation, trucks to transport fish, additional money for fish food, weed control, and radon detection. The following sections detail those expenditures. Kokanee Production Over $143,000 was expended to stock Flathead Lake with kokanee for the Hungry Horse Dam mitigation. The expenditures included enhancing the Creston National Fish Hatchery and augmenting the operations at the Flathead Lake and Giant Springs Hatcheries. FWP purchased galvanized tanks for the Creston Hatchery, and provided fish food. Creston staff took care of the fish. Table D-10 details the amount expended for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. Table D-10 Eipenditures for Kokanee Production (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Fund Type Fiscal Year 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 1,340 $ 3,215 $ 1,231 $ 1,673 $ 714 $ 1,117 $ 411 $ 10 Giant Springs DJ $ 4,019 $ 9,645 $ 3,694 $ 5,020 $ 2.142 $ 3,351 $ 834 $ 20 GL $ 1.889 $ 2,202 $ 1,406 $ 2,801 $ 3.062 $ 2,190 $ 2.218 $ 2,704 Flathead Lake DJ $ 5,668 $ 6,605 $ 4,216 $ 8,403 $ 9,184 $ 6.569 $ 4.605 $ 5.490 GL $ 4,715 $ 4,650 $ 22.861 $ 334 $ 168 Creston PJ $ 6.654 $ 6.851 $ 6.842 $ 491 $ 243 Total $ 24,285 $ 33,168 $ 40,250 $ 18,722 $ 15,513 $ 13,227 $ 8,068 $ 8,224 Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. Additional Expenditures In fiscal year 1991-92, FWP received additional funding for hatchery operations, primarily for fish food. The soybean crop was bad one year and the cost of fish food increased significantly. The funding was not included in the individual hatcheries' budgets and was not allocated to specific hatcheries. The following table shows the expenditures for the additional fish food costs. Page D-8 Table D-11 Additional Exoenditures for Fish Food (Fiscal Years 1991-92 through 1996-97) Fund Type Fiscal Year 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 %-97 GL $ 13,400 $ 11,803 $ 135 $ 104 $ 1,444 $ 1,167 nj $ 40.197 .S 35.408 $ 404 .S 312 $ 2.922 $ 2.370 Total $ 53,597 $ 47,211 $ 539 $ 416 $ 4,376 $ 3,537 Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. In fiscal years 1994 through 1997 the hatcheries underwent radon testing. A total of $7,690 of general license fees and $23,070 of Dmgle- Johnson funds were spent on the project. Expenditures for weed control were $13,592 for fiscal years 1995-96 and 1996-97. FWP purchased land in the late 1980s in the event they needed to construct another fish hatchery at some time. The department drilled a well at the cost of approximately $200,000. It is a continuously flowing well so in fiscal 1991-92 FWP spent an additional $58,000 to cap the well. Page D-9 Appendix E Fishing Access Site Expenditures State and federal statutes provide a number of sources for fishing access site acquisition, operation, and maintenance funds. These include general license fees. Dingle Johnson, and the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. The following describes the accounts into which money is deposited and expended: 1 . General License Account (GL) - Includes fishing license sales and fishing access site camping fees. 2. Fishmg Access Site Mamtenance and Acquisition (FASM and FASA) - Derived fi-om $ 1 of each resident fishing license, ten percent of the fees for a resident temporary fishmg license, $1 of each nonresident two-day hcense, and $5 of each nonresident season fishmg license. Fifty percent of the revenue is for acquisition of fishing access sites. The other fifty percent is used for operation, development and mamtenance of sites acquired. Operation and mamtenance money must be expended based on the foUowmg pnority: 1) weed management, 2) streambank restoration, and 3) general operation and mamtenance. (This fimding distnbution terminates July 1, 1999. After July 1999, revenue sources are the same but funds used for operation, development, and maintenance may not exceed 25 percent of the money collected.) 3. Real Property- Trust Earnings - O&M ("RPTEI - Source is the mterest earned on deposits in the Real Property Trust Account Used to support the operation, development and maintenance of the department "s real property. 4. State Parks Federal and Private Revenue (SPF/P) - Primarily fi-om the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund admmistered by the National Park Service. Used to acqmre, develop and maintain the state parks, recreation areas, and fishing access sites. 5. Dingle Johnson (DJ) - From U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grants. Monies are fi^om taxes on sale of fishmg equipment 6. Waterfowl Stamp Special Revenue fWSSR) - Sources are the sale of stamps and related artwork for waterfowl. Used for the protection, conservation and development of wetlands in Montana. Table E-1 shows, by region, expenditures for general operations and maintenance for fiscal years 1989-90 through 1996-97. Region 6 shows few operations and mamtenance expenditures since there are no Parks Division staff assigned to that region. Parks staff in Regions 4 and 7 maintam and operate fishing access sites in Region 6. Page E-1 Table E-1 Fishing Access Site Operations and Maintenance Expenditures by Region (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Region 1 Fund Fiscal Year Description 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 37,699 $ 22,240 $ 30,594 $ 37,180 $ 45,775 $ 74,899 $ 54,320 $ 57,350 O&M FASA/M $ 13,128 $ 7,745 $ 7,582 $ 7,221 $ 9,306 $ 14,346 $ 14,893 $ 12,500 GL $ 650 $ 566 $ 920 $ 104 $ 1,081 $ 6.433 $ 2,643 $ 822 Weed Control FASAM $ 226 $ 197 $ 248 $ 57 $ 1.341 $ 735 $ 308 TOTAL $ 51,703 $ 30,748 $ 39,344 $ 44,505 $ 56,219 $ 97,019 $ 72,591 $ 70.980 Region 2 Fund Type Fiscal Year DeseriptloB 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 34,085 $ 21,323 $ 49,458 $ 54,780 $ 64,662 $ 64,532 $ 46,713 $ 42.764 O&M FASA/M $ 11,870 $ 2,562 $ 17,224 $ 19,077 $ 16,288 $ 13,822 $ 22,884 $ 21.301 GL $ 3,520 $ 1,756 $ 5,510 $ 5,807 $ 2,384 $ 7,071 $ 5,297 $ 4,987 Weed Control FASA/M $ 1,226 $ 98 $ 1,919 $ 2,022 $ 586 $ 4,263 $ 2,595 $ 2,474 GL $ 2,891 $ 4,471 Miscellaneous FASM $ 1,416 $ 2,218 GF $ 1,700 Fishing Access EPP GL $ 5,960 $ 9.809 SPF/P $ 5,000 Total $ 50,701 $ 25,739 $ 86,771 $ 91.495 $ 83,920 $ 89,688 $ 81,796 $ 78,215 Page E-2 Region 3 Fk£al Year Description 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 69,772 $ 67,931 $ 127,477 $ 84,779 $ 97,111 $ 131,469 $ 90,094 $ 104,250 O&M FASA/M $ 14,457 $ 13,863 $ 16,727 $ 13,774 $ 16,611 $ 18,149 $ 14,157 $ 15,197 GL $ 5,510 $ 2,984 $ 4,817 $ 3,238 $ 5,385 $ 7,514 $ 3,632 $ 3,119 Weed Control FASA/M $ 1,144 $ 579 $ 922 $ 467 $ 882 $ 1,037 $ 571 $ 521 FASM $ 98 Vandalism Costs GL $ 551 GL $ 12,533 $ 11,787 Fishing Access EPP Total $ 90,883 $ 85,357 $ 162,476 $ 114,045 $119,989 $ 158,169 $ 108,454 $ 123,736 Region 4 JFund Type Fiscal y^Mir Descriptioa 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 35,567 $ 40,807 $ 43,392 $ 42,961 $ 60,537 $ 76,833 $ 56,023 $ 62,743 O&M FASA/M $ 12,382 $ 12,222 $ 13,355 $ 13,165 $ 12,752 $ 15,448 $ 14,669 $ 16,428 GL $ 4,400 $ 5,034 $ 5,128 $ 3,515 $ 4,902 $ 5,228 $ 1,826 $ 4,934 Weed Control FASA/M $ 1,449 $ 1,211 $ 999 $ 726 $ 873 $ 1,051 $ 478 $ 1,292 GL $ 11,844 $ 8,663 $ 12,172 $ 10,738 $ 22,746 Other GL $ 4,802 $ 6,826 Fishing Access EPP Total $ 65,642 $ 67,937 $ 79,848 $ 77,931 $101,810 $ 98,560 $ 72,996 $ 85,397 Page E-3 Region 5 issppsssssffl^^^^ Fiscal Yea^-'^^^'^^-^-'^^?^'^ ^^l^^^M jDeserfptioa 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 FASA/M $ 14,808 $ 15,039 $ 12,626 $ 16,390 $ 15,541 $ 13,185 $ 14,217 $ 15,422 O&M GL $ 68,424 $ 78,315 $ 64,710 $ 92,421 $ 86,946 $ 85,398 $ 74,576 $ 81,119 GL $ 2,897 $ 6,532 $ 10,534 $ 341 $ 5,783 $ 797 $ 324 $ 327 Weed Control FASA/M $ 627 $ 1,254 $ 2.083 $ 59 $ 1.017 $ 137 $ 1.726 $ 1,741 TOTAL $ 86,756 $ 101,140 $ 89,953 $ 109,211 $ 109,287 $ 99,517 $ 90,843 $ 98,609 Region 6 Fund Typ« Fiscal Year Descyiptloa 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 FASM $ 553 $ 566 O&M GL $ 553 $ 566 Total $ 1,106 $ 1,132 Region 7 Type Spiif isps^»«^§^^^ Fiscal Yeaf'-"-^'™*''^--^^--^^^^ mmmm DesQriptioa 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 42,625 $ 46,006 $ 50,582 $ 49,455 $ 47,493 $ 55,544 $ 53,779 $ 48,015 O&M FASA/M $ 14,724 $ 14,129 $ 15,572 $ 15,222 $ 12,255 $ 12,550 $ 12,969 $ 11,579 GL $ 613 $ 259 $ 86 $ 58 $ 24 $ 1,818 $ 835 Weed Control FASA $ 212 $ 79 $ 26 $ 18 $ 6 $ 438 $ 201 Total $ 58,174 $ 60,473 $ 66,266 $ 64,753 $ 59,748 $ 68,124 $ 69,004 $ 60,630 Page E-4 Operations and Maintenance (O & M) Expenditures by Region for Fishing Access Sites (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) 7mmmmm^mm*i:f Region Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 O&M $ 446,778 $ 503,345 $895,818 $ 529,284 $ 749,137 $ 2,239 $ 502,499 $ 3,629,098 Weed Control $ 16,331 $ 51,515 $ 42,322 $ 43,046 $ 36,179 $ 4,673 $ 194,065 Vandalism $ 649 $ 652 Fishing Access EPP $ 22,469 $ 24,320 $ 11,628 $ 58,418 Miscellaneous $ 10,996 $ 66,163* $ 77,159 Total $ 463,109 $ 588,325 $963,109 $ 650,121 $ 785,316 $ 2,239 $507,172 $ 3,959,392 ♦Missouri River road expenditures. Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. Page E-5 Table E-2 shows by region the capital expenditures by fishing access sites. Table E-2 Capital Expenditures for Fishing Access Sites by Region (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Region 1 Tund Fiscal Year FAS 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 %-97 GL $ 727 Big Fork DJ $ 3,834 DJ $ 16,086 $ 436 Kokanee Bend GL $ 5,362 $ 145 GL $ 8,617 $ 41 $ 7,082 $ 204 Old Steel Bridge SPF/P $ 8,617 DJ $ 122 $ 21,247 $ 611 RPTE $ 4,973 Somers Boat Dock DJ $ 14,919 GL $ 1,316 $ 4,331 Tea Kettle DJ $ 3,949 $ 12,994 GL $ 19,039 $ 8,222 Walstad DJ $ 57,117 $ 24,667 GL $ 10,000 Boot Jack Lake DJ $ 31,590 Flat Iron Ridge GL $ 5,987 GL $ 1,324 $ 4,419 $ 3,650 Smith Lake DJ $ 3,971 $ 13,257 $ 10,952 RPTE $ 32 Sophie Lake DJ $ 97 GL $ 8,551 Thompson Chain of Lakes FASM $ 11.416 $ 4.708 Weed Contingencv Total $ 17,234 $ 26,713 $ 17,906 $ 47,596 $ 26,227 $ 42,931 $ 118,279 $ 37,726 Page E-6 Region 2 ^ FtiB4 Type Fiscal Year FAS 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 6,618 $ 5 Beavertail Hill Pond DJ $ 19,855 GL $ 11,766 Chief Looking Glass DJ $ 1,694 $ 8,468 Corrick's Riverbend GL $ 565 $ 2,823 GL $ 376 $ 168 $ 443 Cyr Bridge SPF/P $ 376 $ 168 DJ $ 756 $ 6,860 $ 19,764 Erskine GL $ 252 $ 2,287 S 6,588 GL $ 377 $ 5,981 Florence Bndge DJ $ 1,132 $ 17,942 GL $ 135 $ 4,559 $ 1,677 $ 1,000 Hannon DJ $ 405 $ 13,677 $ 5,030 DJ $ 6,341 $ 12,538 Harpers Lake GL $ 2,114 $ 4,179 $ 4,244 GL $ 100 Kelly Island DJ $ 925 $ 13,477 $ 704 Natural Pier GL $ 308 $ 4,492 $ 235 DJ $ 504 $ 9,733 $ 206 Roundup Bar GL $ 168 $ 3,244 $ 69 GL $ 168 $ 3,354 $ 69 Russell Gates DJ $ 504 $ 10,061 $ 206 A&E $ 1,250 DJ $ 1,241 $ 22,289 $ 903 Swartz Creek GL $ 414 $ 7,430 $ 301 GL $ 14,577 $ 8,133 Tarkio DJ $ 43,732 $ 22,268 DJ $ 1,432 $ 11,018 $ 13,627 Tucker Crossing GL $ 477 $ 3,673 $ 4,542 $ 4,814 $ 1,288 GL $ 275 $ 168 $ 2,654 Upsata Lake DJ $ 825 $ 504 $ 7,961 DJ $ 336 $ 11,195 $ 131 Wally Crawford GL $ 112 $ 3,732 $ 44 GL $ 173 $ 6,225 Woodside Bridge SPF/P $ 173 $ 3,541 FASM $ 15,516 $ 28,869 Weed Contingency FASM $ 265 Kellv Island Total $ 1,098 $ 21,166 $ 44.305 $ 42,675 $ 132,331 $ 116,649 $ 53,990 $ 53,584 Page E-7 Region 3 FuihI Type FJseal Year FAS 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 DJ $ 109 $ 20,250 Black's Ford GL $ 36 $ 6,750 DJ $ 9,051 $ 6,155 Browne's Bridge GL $ 3,017 $ 2,052 DJ $ 3,189 $ 13,604 $ 3,431 Causeway GL $ 1,063 $ 4,535 $ 1,144 DJ $ 109 $ 969 $ 16,408 $ 5,589 Cobblestone GL $ 36 $ 323 $ 5,469 $ 1,863 GL $ 390 $ 307 $ 29,430 $ 12,886 Dailey Lake DJ $ 1,213 $ 1,618 $ 62,045 $ 27,071 GL $ 1300 $ 7,076 $ 252 Eteepdale DJ $ 3,900 $ 21,229 $ 757 DJ $ 109 $ 969 $ 108 $ 2324 $ 886 Eight Mile Ford GL $ 36 $ 323 $ 36 $ 775 $ 151 GL $ 36 $ 380 $ 4,417 $ 237 Ennis DJ $ 109 $ 1.141 $ 13,251 $ 712 DJ $ 109 $ 7,246 Grey Owl GL $ 36 $ 2,415 GL $ 26,510 $ 6,899 $ 5,511 $ 20,016 Harrison Lake DJ $ 79,530 $ 4,097 $ 2,671 $ 60,048 DJ $ 264 $ 724 $ 6,061 Henneberry (Pipe Organ) GL $ 88 $ 241 $ 2,021 GL $ 15,000 Lyons Bridge GL $ 4,013 Mayor's Landing DJ $ 12,039 GL $ 12350 $ 174 $ 36 $ 5 $ 582 $ 72 McAtee Bridge SPF/P $ 12,350 DJ $ 109 $ 16 $ 1,745 $ 216 SPF/P $ 2^31 Notch Bottom GL $ 2,231 GL $ 36 $ 323 $ 1,102 $ 6,988 Raynolds Pass DJ $ 109 $ 969 $ 3307 $ 20,964 GL S 2,528 FAS-US89 Bridge GL $ 36 $ 323 $ 1,191 $ 7,881 Valley Garden DJ $ 109 $ 969 $ 3,572 $ 23,642 GL $ 32 $ 2,909 Vamey Bridge DJ $ 95 $ 8,728 GL $ 12,066 $ 3,628 $ 2,495 York Bridge DJ $ 10,883 $ 7,484 SPF/P $ 12,066 FASM $ 30.790 $ 25.182 Weed Contingency Total $ 29,162 $ 133353 $ 57,996 $ 44355 $ 225,624 $ 124,845 $ 57,071 $ 106,283 Page E-8 Region 4 Fund Type Fiscal Year :siiiiiil»ii FAS 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 GL $ 815 $ 7,710 Bean Lake DJ $ 2,446 $ 23,129 GL $ 423 $ 1,639 $ 412 Big Bend DJ $ 1,269 $ 4,916 $ 1,237 GL $ 15,043 $ 600 Big Casino Creek GL $ 169 $ 349 $ 818 Brewery Flat DJ $ 506 $ 1,047 $ 2,454 GL $ 358 $ 241 $ 1,106 Burleigh Flats DJ $ 1.073 $ 724 $ 3,317 DJ $ 1,534 $ 1,248 $ 36,420 Bynum Reservoir GL $ 291 $ 591 $ 16,003 FASM $ 731 Camp Baker GL $ 334 $ 264 $ 672 $ 50 Craig DJ $ 1,003 $ 791 $ 2,017 $ 150 DJ $ 15,801 $ 1,807 Dunes GL $ 5,267 $ 1,562 GL $ 318 $ 299 $ 10,570 Eureka DJ $ 953 $ 896 $ 31,709 GL $ 403 $ 709 $ 12,225 Loma Bridge DJ $ 1,209 $ 2,127 $ 36,676 GL $ 10,000 Lowery Bridge GL $ 567 $ 48 Martinsdale Reservoir DJ $ 2,993 $ 102 $ 1,357 RPTE $ 452 DJ $ 1,212 Pishkun GL $ 404 GL $ 1,331 $ 5,936 $ 1,036 Smith River DJ $ 3,993 $ 17,809 $ 3,107 GL $ 309 $ 640 $ 793 Stickney Creek DJ $ 927 $ 1,920 $ 2,380 GL $ 6,262 Ulm Bridge DJ $ 18,787 GL $ 775 $ 11,408 Willow Creek DJ $ 2,324 $ 34,223 GL $ 3,114 Wolf Creek DJ $ 9,341 FASM $ 24,445 $ 20.387 Weed Contineencv Total $ 3,123 $ 25,049 $ 13,420 $ 48,886 $ 39,794 $ 171,923 $ 43,221 $ 99,397 Page E-9 Region 5 Ftmd Type Fiscal Year FAS 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 DJ $ 2,100 $ 95 $ 20,907 Big Horn River GL $ 700 $ 32 $ 6,969 DJ $ 1,139 $ 164 $ 20,093 Big Rock GL $ 380 $ 55 $ 6,698 DJ $ 5.693 $ 5.693 Boulder Forks GL $ 1,898 $ 1,898 GL $ 957 $ 3,645 $ 197 Buffalo Jump DJ $ 2,871 $ 10,936 $ 590 GL $ 197 $ 1,034 $ 4.851 $ 273 Captain Clark DJ $ 1,037 $ 2,254 $ 10,583 $ 596 DJ $ 740 $ 13.136 Castle Rock GL $ 247 $ 4.379 DJ $ 3,987 $ 19.539 $ 3,130 Cliflf Swallow GL $ 1,329 $ 6,513 $ 1.044 RPTE $ 1,100 Deadman's Basin DJ $ 3,300 GL $ 185 $ 3,517 $ 5,000 Fireman's Point DJ $ 555 $ 10.552 DJ $ 2,140 $ 5,477 $ 22.826 $ 1.192 Grant Marsh GL $ 713 $ 1,826 $ 7,609 $ 397 DJ $ 4.842 $ 286 $ 11.297 Grey Bear GL $ 1,614 $ 95 $ 3,766 GL $ 380 $ 16,522 $ 1.289 $ 3,565 $ 7,630 Grittystone DJ $ 1,140 $ 49.565 $ 3,866 $ 21,125 DJ $ 9,983 $ 1.065 $ 28.623 Indian Fort GL $ 3,328 $ 355 $ 9.541 GL $ 2.423 Mallard's Landing DJ $ 7,270 DJ $ 15,775 Manual Lisa GL $ 5,258 GL $ 660 $ 6 $ 3,450 $ 2,178 Otter Creek DJ $ 1,979 $ 19 $ 10,349 $ 6.535 GL $ 6,365 Rosebud Isle GL $ 1,152 $ 6.832 Swinging Bridge DJ $ 3,456 $ 30.495 DJ $ 5.214 Voyager's Rest GL $ 1.738 DJ $ 6,518 Water Birch GL $ 2,173 FASM $_ 18,058 $ 9.157 Weed Contineencv Total $ 4.159 $ 87,715 $ 40.114 $ 89.755 $ 146,926 $ 70.597 $ 29.269 $ 93,370 Page E-10 Region 6 Fund Type Fiscal Y«ar FAS 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 DJ $ 5,297 $ 689 $ 1,604 $ 1,221 Bear Paw Reservoir GL $ 1,766 $ 230 $ 535 $ 3,664 GL $ 162 $ 8,512 $ 3,013 $ 12,035 Dredge Cuts SPF/P $ 162 $ 8,491 DJ $ 63 $ 9,038 GL $ 10,046 $ 362 Duck Creek DJ $ 30,139 $ 1,086 GL $ 533 $ 612 $ 1,164 $ 3,939 Fresno Dam DJ $ 1,598 $ 1,836 $ 3,490 $ 11,816 WSSR $ 6,601 Whitetail DJ $ 26,249 GL $ 63.274 Total $ 40,509 $ 25,577 $ 14,182 $ 3.367 $ 6,793 $ 32,675 $ 0 $ 96,124 PageE-11 Region 7 Fund Type Fiscal Year FAS 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-96 96-97 GL $ 424 $ 623 $ 678 $ 13,552 $ 414 Bonfield DJ $ 1,271 $ 1,868 $ 2,034 $ 40,657 $ 1,242 $ 1,175 DJ $ 1,363 $ 5,180 $ 29,505 $ 1,244 Diamond Willow GL $ 454 $ 5,293 $ 9,835 $ 415 GL $ 21 $ 6,112 Fallon Bridge DJ $ 63 $ 18,335 GL $ 2,493 $ 213 $ 6,199 Far West DJ $ 7,480 $ 638 $ 18,598 GL $ 3,239 Gartside Dam GL $ 2,038 Johnson Reservoir GL $ 19 $ 2,535 $ 180 $ 1,920 $ 11.446 Intake DJ $ 58 $ 7,606 $ 541 $ 5,760 $ 34,337 DJ $ 22,183 $ 3,900 Roche Juane GL $ 7,394 $ 1,300 SPF/P $ 63 Rosebud East &West GL $ 63 $ 219 $ 7,363 $ 100 DJ $ 657 $ 22,087 $ 300 DJ $ 11,783 $ 1,885 Seven Sisters GL $ 3,928 $ 628 GL $ 286 $ 307 $ 9,062 $ 3,549 $ 1,419 Twelve Mile Dam DJ $ 857 $ 921 $ 27,187 $ 10,631 $ 4,093 FASM $ 4.259 $ 11,938 Weed Contineencv Total $ 2,027 $ 50,708 $ 53,689 $ 15,266 $ 5,667 $ 145,426 $ 59,790 $ 72,847 Page E-12 Captial Expenditures by Region for Fishing Access Sites (Fiscal Years 1989-90 through 1996-97) Region Totel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Expenditures $ 318,488 $ 421,413 $ 722,717 $ 399.981 $ 534,690 $ 219,227 $ 389,223 $ 3,005,739 Weed Control $ 16,124 $ 44385 $ 55,972 $ 44,832 $ 27,215 $ 0 $ 16,197 $ 204,725 # of Sites 9 19 20 19 20 5 12 104 Source: Compiled by the LAD from SBAS records. Page E-13