Draft
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ELKHORN MOUNTAINS
WESTSLOPE CUTTHROAT TROUT
RESTORATION PROGRAM
Mountain Range Programmatic Assessment
April 28, 1999
STATE DOCUMENTS COLLECTIOM
MONTANA STATE LIBRARY
1515 E. 6th AVE.
HELENA, MONTANA 59520
Prepared by: Ron Spoon and Jodie Canfield
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Region 3
1400 South 19th
Bozeman,MT 59718
DRAFT
MONTANA FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS
FISHERIES DIVISION
Environmental Assessment
WESTSLOPE CUTTHROAT TROUT
RESTORATION PROGR.\M IN THE ELKHORN MOUNTAINS
Executive Summary
April 28, 1999
The Montana Fish, Wildhfe & Parks (FWP), U.S. Forest Service (FS), and Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) are proposing a mountain-range wide strategy for increasing the distribution and abundance of
westslope cutthroat trout (WCT) populations in the Elkhom Mountains, hnplementation of the program
would include construction and installation of fish baniers; removal of non-native fishes by
electrofishing and through the application of a fish toxicant. The program would also include im'entory,
data collection, and monitoring.
The decision that will be made from the analysis (which is documented in an Environmental Assessment
or EA) is programmatic in nature, and it will define the scope and intensity of work and establish a
priority listing and time table for implementation of projects. Individual projects on specific streams
will be analyzed at a more site-specific level and will follow standard Montana Environmental Policy
Act (MEPA) and/or National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures.
The management goal for Montana's Statewide Plan for WCT restoration is to ensure the long-tenn self-
sustaining persistence of the subspecies within each of the five major river drainages they historically
inhabited in Montana (Clark Fork, Kootenai, Flathead, upper Missouri, and Saskatchewan). The
statewide plan also seeks to maintain the genetic diversity and life histoiy strategies represented by the
remaining WCT populations, and avoid listing of the species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The Elkhom Mountain restoration program is consistent with statewide efforts to conser\'e westslope
cutthi-oat trout.
This program focuses on a geographic area (the Elkliora Mountains) with distinct genetic resources,
rather than on individual watersheds. Two action alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3) are presented in the
EA, and both would result in reducing the relative risks of extinction of WCT in the Elkhom Mountains.
However, the risk that WCT populafions would go exfinct in the Elkhom Mountains is largely dependant
on the amount of project work accomplished during the 10-year program. The more comprehensive
alternative (Alternative 3) would result in a more secure genetic resen'e of WCT in the Elkhom
Mountains by the end of this 10 year program.
Implementation of Altemative 2 would stabilize existing WCT populafions and replicate one exisfing
genefic pool into a suitable stream, but would not result in establishing a connected populafion in the
Elkhom Mountains. In addifion to securing existing populafions and introducing WCT to five
additional streams, Altemative 3 proposes to establish connected WCT populations in the McClellan and
upper Crow Creek watersheds. Successful establishment of WCT populafions in inter-connected
drainages is the best known tool for reducing risk of extinction and this strategy also helps meet
statewide objectives for WCT in the upper Missouri basin.
i
The environmental review demonstrates that the impacts of the ahematives analyzed in this program are
not significant. Although there are no project costs, the predicted consequence of the "No Action"
alternative is a high probability that many Qf the westslope cutthroat trout populations in the Elkliom
Mountains will go extinct. The program feamred in Altemati\'e 2 is based on existing (FWP, BLM, and
Forest Service) staff and budgets. However, the predicted consequence of Alternative 2 is a moderate
probability that the WCT populations in the Elkliom Mountains will go extinct. In the short-tenn,
however. Alternative 2 would likely preserve the locally adapted genetic makeup for WCT in the
Elkhom Mountains.
If successful, the restoration progi'am featured in Altemati\'e 3 would secure existing WCT populations
in the Elkliom Mountains and expand the number of occupied streams and the distribution of WCT
populations within occupied streams. In addition, this altemative would include the necessary data
collection and work for expanded introductions and work on larger watersheds to restore connected
populations in the upper Crow Creek and McClellan Creek watersheds. The predicted consequences of
Altemative 3 include a low probability that WCT in the Elkhoms would go extinct. Although
Altemative 3 requires additional staffing and costs, it will help achieve statewide WCT restoration and
ser\'e as a prototype for efforts in other areas of the state.
Implementation of Altemative 3 will change the relati\'e mix of recreational fishing oppoitunities in
Crow Creek. Most of the fishing in this watershed occurs in Tizer Lakes and in Crow Creek below the
falls. Altemative 3 would replace the brook/rainbow trout fishery above Crow Creek falls with a WCT
fishery. Anglers would be required to release fish caught in upper Crow Creek, but could keep WCT
from the mountain lakes. Cuirent state regulations for cutthroat include a catch and release policy for
WCT in streams.
Habitat improvements are not included under either action altemative. Habitat conditions on federal
lands in the Elkhom Mountains are managed to provide healthy soil, water, and vegetation regardless of
the presence of fish. In general, the habitats where WCT cuixently exist or would be introduced are in
good condition. Where changes in local land use (on private lands) are needed to improve habitat
conditions for WCT, these are negotiated and documented in a conservation agreement between FWP,
the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the local landowner, whether WCT are listed under the
Endangered Species Act or remain a candidate species.
Additional meetings to accept comments and answer questions about the EA will be held in Townsend
(Community Library), Helena (Forest Supen'isor's Office), and Boulder (Ammen Building) from 7-9
pm on May 18, 19, and 20, respectively. A copy of the EA is available from Ron Spoon, Montana Fish,
Wildlife & Parks, PO Box II 37, Townsend, Mt, 59644 (266-4237), or from Jodie Canfield, US Forest
Sen-ice, 415 Front Street, Townsend, Mt, 59644 (266-3425).
ii
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
DRAFT
MONTANA FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS
FISHERIES DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WESTSLOPE CUTTHROAT TROUT
RESTORATION PROGRAM IN THE ELKHORN MOUNTAINS
AprU28, 1999
PART 1. PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION
A. Type Of Proposed Action: This program focuses on securing existing westslope cutthroat trout
populations in the Elkhom Mountains (Figure 1) by expanding their distribution in currently occupied
stream systems and increasing their isolation from non-native fishes. In addition, implementation of the
program would result in the introduction of westslope cutthroat trout into reaches of one to six suitable
streams. Implementation of the program would include construction and installation offish barriers;
removal of non-native fishes by electrofishing and/or the use of fish toxicants; and inventory, data
collection, monitoring, and education.
B. Authority: The Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) "...is hereby authorized to perform such acts as
may be necessary to the establishment and conduct of fish restoration and management projects...." under
MCA 87-1-702.
C. Name and Location of the Project: Elkhom Mountains Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration
Program. This island mountain range is in southwest Montana near the capital of Helena. It includes
160,000 acres of lands managed by the Helena and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests and
approximately 70,000 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
D. Estimated Commencement Date: Summer 1999
Estimated Completion Date: 201 1
E. Project Size (acres affected)
1 . Developed/residential - 0 acres
2. Industrial - 0 acres
3. Open SpaceAVoodlands/Recreation - 0 acres
4. Wetlands/Riparian - 15-63 miles of streams in the Elkhom Mountains
5. Floodplain - < 5 acres (barrier installation)
6. Irrigated Cropland - 0 acres
7. Dry Cropland - 0 acres
8. Forestry - 0 acres
9. Rangeland - 0 acres
10. Other -0 acres
1
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
F. Narrative Summary of the Proposed Action, including the Benefits and Purpose of the Proposed
Action:
1. Narrative Summary
Two alternatives are presented relative to the WCT restoration program in the Elkhom Mountains. Both
reduce the relative risks of extinction in the Elkhom Mountains. However, Alternative 3 is more
comprehensive and would result in establishing the Elkhom Mountains as a stronghold for WCT.
The decision that will be made from this analysis is programmatic in nature. That is, we are deciding on a
program of restoration. Individual projects on specific streams will be analyzed at a more site-specific level
and will follow standard MEPA and/or NEPA procedures.
This restoration effort tiers to and is supported by other statewide efforts to conserve westslope cutthroat
trout, including the DRAFT WCT Conservation Agreement of June 1, 1998 and January 1999. A
memorandum of understanding (MOU) outlining the roles and responsibilities between FWP, the Forest
Service, and the BLM, relative to the management of WCT in the Elkhom Mountains was first signed in
1996 and is being updated to reflect this analysis. The updated MOU will be included in the Decision
Notice for this project.
The restoration program includes the use of three primary tools, in addition to monitoring: 1) isolation of
WCT from other salmonid species; 2) removal of non-native fishes; and 3) increasing the distribution of
WCT in the Elkhoms. These tools are further described below.
a) Isolation
To isolate WCT from other salmonid species, this program will include the construction and placement of
barriers such as drop structures, the placement of perched culverts, or the fortification of natural barriers (eg.
debris dams). All barriers will be designed and placed to keep non-native fish from upstream migrations
after removals. Barriers are not expected to prevent downstream losses of WCT.
b) Non-native Removals
The conservation agreement and management plan for westslope cutthroat trout in Montana (FWP, June
1998 draft), states " the introduction of non-native species that compete with, prey on, and hybridize with
WCT into historical WCT waters is probably the greatest threat to WCT in Montana." Hybridization with
introduced species (rainbow and Yellowstone cutthroat trout) has resulted in the loss of genetic integrity
which is cmcial to the long-term survival of WCT populations. WCT are uniquely adapted to the specific
drainages where they occur (Leary et al. 1998). Of the streams tested in Montana, only 19% have been
found to be occupied by 100% pure WCT (FWP 1998).
Competition with brook trout, appears to impact WCT more than any other factor, including land use
practices (Shepard et al. in prep.). Brook trout compete with WCT in headwater streams for prey and spatial
resources due to their life history traits and greater habitat tolerances. Brook trout spawn in the fall and their
young of the year emerge prior to WCT (spring spawners), therefore having a competitive advantage over
WCT young. Due to a limited number of streams or lakes with rainbow or Yellowstone cutthroat trout,
competition with brook trout, and not hybridization, is the biggest threat to WCT in the Elkhom Mountains. ^
Preliminary results from projects in Muskrat Creek in the Elkhom Mountains, and White's Gulch in the Big
Belt Mountains, showed WCT populations are capable of responding within one year following a decrease
2
Elkhorn Fish Distribution
Existing Condition
5 0 5 10 Miles
~^ Figure 1
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
in the population of brook trout. Removals of brook trout will be accomplished with a combination of
electrofishing, and a fish toxicant. The number of years in which electrofishing would be employed would
depend on the density of WCT in each individual stream in the Elkhoms. For streams with very low
density electrofishing may be used for more than one year to boost WCT population numbers and add a
measure of insurance (that is, a greater level of genetic material). In other higher density populations of
WCT it will be more efficient to use a fish toxicant to remove brook trout after only one year of
electrofishing removal. The disadvantage of both removal methods is the required "handling" of both WCT
and brook trout. Although it is recommended that handling of WCT be minimized, the risk of mortality is
small if the fish are handled carefully.
Electrofishing - The restoration program includes the use of electrofishing as an interim tool
to remove brook trout from WCT streams. Electrofishing is more successfiil in simple habitats (capturing
90%+ offish residing in the stream). In streams with complex habitat, or in larger streams, electrofishing is
less effective, but can be used to reduce non-native abundance. Electrofishing demands a high degree of
manpower, and its effectiveness can be variable.
Due to the complexity of many of the sti-eams with WCT in the Elkhoms, it is very unlikely that permanent
and complete removal of non-natives can be accomplished with this technique.
Toxicants - The use offish toxicants is needed to ensure the long-term removal of non-
native salmonids from WCT-occupied streams in the Elkhom Mountains. Based on monitoring and a
determination that the WCT population has enough genetic material to survive minor losses, a fish toxicant
will be used for 2 years. This long-term removal method requires as many WCT as possible be removed to
a holding area upsti-eam using electrofishing. Once WCT are removed, the toxicant is applied to the target
sfream reach killing the brook ti-out outright, but with little effect on other species (see environmental
impacts section). A second year of applying toxicants is needed to ensure that eggs that may have been m
the gravel or large fish that may have survived the first application, are then killed (Shepard, pers.
conunun.). Additional information about the use and effects of toxicants is found m Appendix A and m the
environmental review section of this EA.
c) WCT Introductions
To increase the distiibution of WCT in the Elkhom Mountains, this restoration program includes expanding
genetic material from existing WCT populations into other suitable streams. Some of these sti-eams are
currentiy barren offish, and others will require removal of nonnative fish prior to infroducmg WCT. This
technique is referred to as "nearest neighbor" approach. In keeping with the statewide goals and objectives
(discussed later in this EA), and the emphasis on preserving unique genetic matenal, this program proposes
to use the nearest neighbor approach and not the generalist approach (i.e. infroducmg fish from a hatchery
source such as the Anaconda hatchery). An advantage of this approach is that an existing genetically umque
population is replicated in the wild. The risk of this strategy is that the donor source may be narrowly
adapted to a specific environment and might not survive well in another environment (Bramblett 1998).
The healthiest WCT populations in the Elkhom Mountains reside in Dutchman, Hall, and Prickly Pear
Creeks In these sti-eams, sfreamside incubators, distiibuted at sites at a frequency of about one every 0.25
mile will be used to incubate tiie fertilized eggs on-site. Sti-eams targeted for mti-oductions will be stocked
with'about 5 westslope cutthroat frout fiy per square meter which is within the recommended range for fiilly
stocking habitats (Everest 1969; Mabbott 1981; Shepard 1983).
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
To offset potential impacts to the donor population, only about half the eggs from each wild donor female
will be taken to the introduction site, while the other half will be incubated and released m streamside
incubators located on the donor stream. Also, eggs will be taken from only about half of the females from
the donor population to ensure that enough females from the donor population remam to spawn naturally.
To provide sufficient numbers of eggs for both infroduction sfreams, and to allow natural spawmng in the
donor stream, will require the donor population to consist of at least 1,000 adults. An mtegral part of this
strategy includes assessment of the impact of egg collections on donor sources.
d) Monitoring
Monitoring is critical to the success of this restoration program. Although we can estimate the number of
years for using each technique in this document, on-site monitoring will ultimately determine the schedule
for each sfream. Two primary monitoring tools are proposed in this program. They are electrofishmg and
snorkelling Snorkelling has fewer demands on manpower and/or specialized equipment, and hence is less
expensive. Snorkelling is also less intrusive than electrofishing; however, snorkelling does not produce
accurate sample data on size, number etc., which is possible using electrofishing.
2. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
a) Priorities
The primary purpose for developing a WCT restoration program is to establish priorities for work, and to
develop an implementation schedule to direct efforts to conserve WCT in the Elkhom Mountains over the
next 10 years.
The following criteria are used to prioritize actions and to select projects that will maximize the benefits of
our restoration efforts:
• Genetically pure populations with the highest extinction risk will be addressed first;
• The feasibility of achieving long-term benefits for WCT based on quantity and quality of habitat;
• Streams where public acceptance of removals of non-natives is acceptable;
• Sustainability of populations given quantity and quality of habitat;
• The social and biological benefits of the project outweigh the costs
The following criteria were used to help evaluate and prioritize potential introduction streams:
• Existance of beaver ponds (influences removal of brook trout);
• Isolation (is there a natural barrier present, or the potential for installing an artificial barrier?);
• Miles of suitable habitat;
• Spawning habitat - distribution and quantity;
• Frequency and quality of pool habitat ("class" and depth relative to size);
• Current public recreational use and acceptance;
• Accessibility and risk of disease or non-native fish introductions
Based on these criteria, a 10 year program of work was developed for 2 different levels of restoration
(Alternatives 2 and 3) (seeAppendix B). Implementation of Alternative 2 would stabiUze existing WCT
populations and rephcate one existing genetic pool into a suitable stream, but would not result in
4
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
establishing a connected population in the Elkhom Mountains. Alternative 3 proposes to establish
connected WCT populations in the McClellan and upper Crow Creek watersheds, in addition to securing
existing populations.
b) Statewide Distribution, Status, Trends
Native fish represent iinportant intrinsic values that cannot be recovered when lost (USD A 1996). The
historic range of westslope cutthroat trout (WCT) in Montana includes the upper Missouri River drainage
and the headwaters of the Marias, Judith, and Milk Rivers east of the Continental Divide (USDA 1996).
Cutthroat trout were first recorded in 1805 by the Lewis and Clark expedition near Great Falls (Behnke
1992). Based on western explorer's journals, cutthroat trout were extremely abundant where they occurred.
It is now estimated that this subspecies of cutthroat trout occupies less than 1 0% of its historic range
(Montana Rivers Infonnation System: January 1996 update). Resident cutthroat trout have been pushed into
fragmented headwater habitats (Rieman et al. 1993). Their distribution and abundance within the upper
Missouri River continues to decline and a recent assessment indicates most of the remaining populations are
at a relatively high risk of extinction (Shepard et al. 1 997).
Past and current causes of decline include habitat degradation resulting from a variety of land management
practices, construction of dams and other barriers, changes in water quality and/or quantity, angling
overharvest, and introduction of nonnative fishes that compete with, prey on, and hybridize with WCT
(MDFWP 1998). In response to the declines of WCT, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
(FWP) implemented a "catch and release" fishing regulation for westslope cutthroat trout in most streams
and rivers within the upper Missouri River basin in beginning in 1996.
c) Elkhom Mountain Distribution, Status, Trends
The Elkhom Mountains provide an excellent opportunity to help recover westslope cutthroat trout. Located
in southwest Montana, they include over 230,000 acres of lands managed by the Helena and peaverhead-
Deerlodge National Forests and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Forest system lands are known as
the "Elkhom Wildlife Management Unit".
Hadley (1981) initially surveyed fish populafions in the waters of the Elkhom Mountains. Although Hadley
categorized WCT trout distribution in 1981 as "remnant", he felt that reintroducfions of specimens fi-om
pure populations in the Elkhoms to suitable unoccupied habitats was the best way to secure the fiature
survival of the species. Hadley wrote that the "Elkhoms could very well become the most diverse and
secure upper Missouri cutthroat habitat within the entire original range".
Since 1981, biologists have documented that the WCT populafion in the South Fork Warm Springs Creek
has gone extinct. All of the 6 remaining populations in the Elkhom Mountains are at high risk for
extinction.
Currently, WCT occupy 7.6 miles of the 131 miles of occupied fish habitat in the Elkhom Mountains. They
co-exist with eastern brook trout (EBT) in an addifional 6.5 miles of stream. At present, only one project
has been undertaken, in Muskrat Creek, to secure the WCT populafion deemed most at risk.
5
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cuttliroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
Fish
Information about westslope cutthroat trout populations on the Helena National Forest (HNF) portion of the
Elkhom Mountains (exclusive of private inholdings) is presented below in Table 1. A two-part questionaire
developed by Forest Service - BLM interdisciplinary teains within the basin has been applied to known
WCT populations in the Elkhoms classified as 90-100% pure. The purpose was to assess extinction risks
for known Elkhom WCT populations, utilizing a Bayesian belief model (Lee and Rieinan 1994), and to
assess if ongoing land and water management activities had any adverse effects on their habitat. All WCT
populations in the Elkhoms were assigned either a "high" or "very high" extinction risk rating. In terms of
probability, a population categorized as "high" risk has a >50-80% probability of persistence (or a 20-50%
chance of going extinct) over the next 1 00 years. Under the "very high" risk category, a population has a 0-
50% probability of persisting (or >50-100% chance of going extinct) over the same timeframe.
Table 1. WCT Population Characteristics in the Elkhom Mountains
Stream
Fish Species*
Abundance
Occupied
WCT Genetic
WCT
Rating
Length (mi)
Status
Exmction Risk
Dutchman
Wet
Abundant
2.1
100%
High
Creek
Prickly Pear
EBT
Common
1.2
Creek
Wet
Common
1.1
100%
High
McClellan
EBT
Abundant
3.3
1980-100%**
Creek
Wet
Uncommon
1.8
1990 -<1 00%
Highest
EFk
EBT
Uncommon
1.2
McClellan
Wet
Uncommon
1.2
<90% pure
Highest
Crystal Creek
EBT
Common
2.1
Wet
Uncommon
1.7
95%
Highest
Tepee Creek
Wet
Common
0.7
98%
Highest
Willard Creek
EBT
Uncommon
0.3
Wet
Uncommon
0.3
Unknown
Highest
Staubach
EBT
Common
1.4
Creek
Wet
Common
.75
100%
Highest
Beaver Creek
EBT
Abundant
1.5
Wet X Rb
Common
Hybrid
NA
S Fk Beaver
EBT
Common
0.2
Creek
Wet X Rb
Uncommon
0.2
Hybrid
NA
Hall Creek
Wet
Common
1.1
100%
High
EBT
Common
0.3
Rb
Rare
0.3
Muskrat
EBT
Common
1.3
Creek***
Wet
Uncommon
1.3 +
100%
Highest
* Wet = Westslope cutthroat trout Abundant = >99 fish per 1000 feet for streams 20 ft wide
EBT = Eastern brook trout Common = 20-99 fish
Rb = Rainbow trout Uncommon = >3-19 fish
Rare = 1 -3 fish
** Genetic testing of fish in McClellan Creek has been undertaken twice with different results; additional testing is needed to
determine the degree of genetic purity. 1990 test results showed some a slight presence of Yellowstone CT genes.
*** Work on Muskrat Creek took place in 1997-1998 to remove brook trout from a 1.3 mile section of stream and to expand
cutthroat trout into a formerly barren stretch of 3.9 miles.
6
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
Habitat
Habitat conditions on federal lands in the Elkhom Mountains are managed to provide healthy soil water,
anf^getation regardless of the presence offish. In general, the habitats where WCT ^--^lfy^;^^or
would be introduced are in good condition. Prickly Pear Creek has relatively high levels of fine (<0.2 inch)
Tediment in stream gravels, in part due to sediment delivery fi-om the adjacent road. Specific information on
: hahita: r^onditions of Elkhom streams is available in many Forest Service documents.
I ' iishliarriers arc ^- -omponent of the habitat which are important to the management of WCTin the Elkhom
■ Mountains Barriers: fancti^iiu, folate existing, expanded, or introduced WCT populations fi-om being
■^hM hJSfe .onnauve fish irid/br disease. J^le 2 displa:^tt|,k^^^^
; >iM>:;'teral lands." ^'^ i t^H^ ' ' f ^! : '
^ I f fable 2. Fish MiWtlon Bamerb in the Elkhon MountAi4 ' , >' L-^ — ^_
I T>utc'ffiia' <"reek
c
Stream
Barrier Type
Fxten'-'ve Poulder
Cascade !
Prickly Pear
Creek
Springs Creek
Bedrpck/Efeulcieti
Ca«c^|gi»i ■ 1 ...
bedrock/^utcrof }
- , ntynif ■ ,
Location* ^^j^?^
7N,3W, S3a
7N,3iW.5?lDd'' .
Comments
Very low
Low
provides long term isolation of WCT
i
Pfovides long ter^> { afion i Jr Vv C F
-If
8^,''W.S36a
Tepee Creek
EFk McClellan
Creek
Beaver Creek
S Fk Beaver
Creek
Whitehorse
Creek
Eureka
Hair
Crow Creek
Little Tizer
East Fork Dry
Muskrat Creek
log/sediment wedge
unsurveyed; likely
cascade
extensive series of
boulder and debris
cascades
Bedrock waterfall
Bedrock
cascades/shoots
Bedrock waterfall
Culvert/Velocity
barrier
Bedrock waterfall
Bedrock waterfall
Outcrop barrier
Stream goes
subsurface
Constructed barrier at
Forest Boundary
Natural Cascades
8N.3W,S21c
8N,2W,S15a
8N,lW,S29b
8N,lW,S28b
7N,lW,Sla
7N,lW,S29d
7N,lW,S31a
7N,2W,S24b
7N,2W,S22d
Variable
6N, 3W, S6c
7N, 3W, S32c
Vei V Ic/w I pro->'ides oppo^nitj- for reintroductior
it
High
unknown
unknown;
likely
low
Very low
Very low
Very low
Low
Very low
Very low
Very low
Low-Mod
Very
Low
Has served to isolate Wci from EBT
provides opportunity for possible WCT
expansion; E Fk needs additional genetic
sampling
provides opportunity for Wet introduction;
may limit suitable habitat
provides opportunity for WCT introduction
Barrier would partition an introduced
lopulation
provides opportunity to introduce WCT into
Eureka, Longfellow, Tincup, Teakettle
Provides isolation to existing WCT
provides opportunity to isolate upper Crow
watershed from brook and rainbow trout
downstream
provides opportunity for WCT introduction;
2nd barrier may partition introduced
)opulation
provides opportunity for EBT removal and
WCT introduction
keeps EBT from migrating upstream
keeps WCT that were moved isolated from
other WCT and EBT
* Sections were div ded into quadrants with"a" representing the northeast quarter, and "b", "c". and "d" following counter-
clockwise.
7
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
Table 3 outlines the known issues and concerns specific to each existing population and priority introduction
stream relative to access considerations, water quality, and land jurisdiction. Access affects angling
pressure and the potential for future non-native "introductions". Habitat quality, as affected by water quality
and other habitat variables determine the suitability of specific streams or reaches to support WCT. Land
ownership patterns affect land uses, access, and other management options.
Although livestock grazing and other land use activities (ie. recreation, mining, prescribed burning and
timber harvest, and road management) occur within watersheds occupied by WCT, these activities are
governed by the Land Management Plans for the Elkhoms, which include protective standards, objectives,
and guidelines for the management of soil, vegetation, and water.
8
Elkhom Mountain Wests>ne Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
;t^
Table 3. Issues and concerns specific to each population and or potential introduction stream
Stream
Dutchman Creek
Prickly Pear
Creek
S Fk. Warm
Springs Creek
McClellan Creek
andtribs
Staubach Creek
Beaver Creek
Whitehorse Creek
N. Fk. Indian
Creek
Eureka Creek and
tribs
fable 3 cont.
Access
No public access; private road
below project area
Forest recreation road parellels
and crosses stream in several
places; high public activity along
this road
Forest trail access only; very low
public activity
Forest Road access in lower
reaches; trail access in
headwaters; moderate public
activity in this area
Pole Creek Road crosses upper
reach; other access is private
only; very little public activity in
)roiect reach
Forest trail access on public
portion; low public activity on
forest; moderate below
Forest road access spring at
source; otherwise no public
access and very little public
activity
Forest Road access follows creek
Forest trail access only; moderate
public activity
Habitat Qualit
Excellent habitat
No water quality issues
Excellent habitat
Limited by granitic substrate and
sediment from road
Excellent habitat; some question about
sufficiency of flows and overwintering
habitat
Excellent habitat
Granitic substrate
No water quality issues
Variable, but generally good; limited
quality pools; no water quality issues
Excellent habitat - some question about
steep gradients; Vosburg Mine
(reclaimed) in headwaters of South Fork
- water quality marginal in that tributai
Good habitat - some question about
sufficiency of pools for overwintering
fish; has a partitioning Barrier;
Kleinschmidt Mine near headwaters, but
water quality is good
Good habitat; several miles of the creek
is excluded from livestock grazing by a
wire fence. Recently reclaimed mine
tailings in headwaters and along creek;
Good habitat - some question about
sufficiency of pools for overwintering
fish; some historical placer mining
Laiid Ownership Pattern
Helena Nat. Forest in project
area; BLM and private land
downstream
Helena Nat. Forest in project
area; one private inholding;
private land below project area
Helena Nat. Forest in project
area; private for short section
before joining main Warm
Springs Creek
Helena Nat. Forest in
headwaters; project potentially
includes private land
Helena Nat. Forest in
headwaters; project area includes
3 private ranches
Helena Nat. Forest in project
area; private downstream
Helena Nat. Forest in
headwaters; private downstream
BLM and Helena Nat. Forest for
most of length; some private at
head (Park Mines)
Helena National Forest the entire
length
Comments
Good potential for use as
WCT "donor" source
Good potential for use as
WCT "donor"source
Lower portion had WCT
population that is now
exclusively brook trout
High priority to establish
connected system for WCT;
classified as municipal
watershed; mixed genetic
lurities
High priority WCT project
Opportunity for connected
system for WCT; hybrid
WCT/rainbow below
iroject area
Potential introduction site
Replacement opportunity;
currently supports EBT;
Potential introduction site;
invertebrate and amphibian
survevs are complete
9
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment .,,,4
Hall Creek
Forest Road 424 crosses once;
otherwise no access and low
public activity
Fair to good habitat
No water quality issues
Helena Nat. Forest for entire
length
Good potential for use as
WCT "donor" source
upper Crow
Creek
Accessible only by trail into
Tizer Basin and then by jeep
road to Tizer Lakes; moderate to
high public activity
Excellent habitat
Helena Nat. Forest; Tizer lakes
are owned by FWP
Opportunity for connected
system of WCT; currently
occupied by brook and
rainbow trout; beaver
complex in Wilson Creek
could make removal of EBT
difficult; Requires
convcniiiK *
Little Tizer
Old road to Tizer Mine;
otherwise trail access only; low
public activity
Excellent habitat; Little Tizer Wildcat
Mine in headwaters- sampling indicates
good water quality above and below the
mine
Helena Nat. Forest entire length
Tributary of Crow Creek;
isolated by 50' waterfall
East Fork Dry
Seasonally restricted 2-track road
which lacks legal public access;
moderate public activity
Good habitat; livestock exclosure in
place on one reach; limestone substrate
Beaverhead-Deerlodge Nat.
Forest in headwaters; BLM and
private downstream
Replacement opportunity;
currently supports EBT;
stream goes subsurface
Kofr»i-#» r#»arViinCF Roulder
River
Muskrat
Accessible from road and trail;
high public use in lower project
stream reaches
Excellent habitat
Limited by granitic substrate
Beaverhead-Deerlodge Nat.
Forest, BLM in WCT section;
below barrier is private
Two years of
implementation completed;
on-goinp project
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
3. Benefits of the Project
a) Statewide Goals and Objectives
The Statewide "Conservation Restoration Plan" was introduced in 1997 at the Govenor's Conference on
Westiope Cutthroat Trout. The Westslope Cutthroat Trout Steering ^onnntttee develo^^^^^^
eoal and obiectives for WCT in Montana. The basic premise of the management goal for WCT presented
belo^s t? prolrexisting populations, and ensure the long-term persistence of WCT throughout Aetr
hi toric range in Montana thus avoiding listing of the species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
m ttoSTF^, January 1999) of the Conservation Agreement for WCT m Montana lists the
following goal and objectives:
Statewide Goal: The management goal for WCT in Montana is to ensure the long-t^in self-sustaining
nSnce of the subspecies within each of five major river drainages thaey historically inhabited m
Montra (Qarr^ Kootenai, Flathead, upper Missouri, and Saskatchewan), and to mamtam the genetic
diversity and life history strategies represented by the remaming populations.
Statewide Objectives:
1 . Protect all existing pure WC T populations (known as of 1/1/99)
2. Protect introgressed (greater than or equal to 90%) pure populations
3. Ensure the long-term persistence of the WCT within their native range
4. Provide technical information, administrative assistance, and financial resources to assure compliance
with the listed objectives and encourage conservation of WCT
5. Design and implement an effective monitoring program by the year 2002 to document persistence and
demonsti-ate progress towards goal
Within the Missouri River drainage, the objective is to estabUsh four interconnected populations which
occupy at least 50 miles of connected habitat.
b) Elkhom Mountain Program Goals And Objectives
_ rogram Goal: The overaU goal of the Elkhorn Program is to maintain and expand existing I
WCT populations as a genetic reserve U
The cooperating agencies are proposing to maintain and enhance genetically-pure ^estslop^
cutttooaf trout populations in an attempt to secure long-term viability of the species m the Elkhom
fvlountains and decrease the risk of exinction (ratings) in the existmg populations.
Program Objectives:
1) Increase the exclusively WCT cutthroat-occupied stream miles fi-om 7 miles to at least 20 miles.
2) Increase the number of WCT streams/populations fi-om 6 to at least 9. I
11
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would help achieve the goals and objectives both for the Elkhom Mountains and
the state relative to management of WCT. Both alternatives would result in reducing the relative risks of
extinction of WCT in the Elkhom Mountains, and potentially help keep the species from being listed under
ES A The risk that WCT populations would go extinct in the Elkhom Mountains is largely dependent on
the amount of project work accomplished during the 10-year program. The more comprehensive alternative
(Altemative 3) would result in a more secure genetic reserve of WCT in the Elkhom Mountains by the end
of this 10 year program. Altemative 3 would also help meet statewide objectives for connected populations
of WCT in the upper Missouri basin.
G. Other Local, State, or Federal agencies with overlapping jurisdiction
U S D A. Forest Service - The Beaverhead-Deeriodge and Helena National Forests, as well as the U.S. D. I.
Bureau of Land Management ( BLM), manages the land base over most of the reaches targeted for WCT.
The Forest Service does not have regulatory authority to approve or disapprove the removal of existmg fish
species FWP has statutory authority for management of fish populations in the state of Montana. Montana
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) - DEQ has permitting authority for water quality in the State
of Montana.
H. Agencies Consulted During the Preparation of the EA
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
U.S. D. I. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Montana State University
Montana State Historic Preservation Office
Montana Department of Environmental Quality
12
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
PART II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
AIR
Will the proposed action result in:
. Emission of air pollutants or deterioration of
ambient air quality? (also see 13 (c))
b. Creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moismre, or
temperature patterns or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
d. Adverse effects on vegetation, including crops
due to increased emissions of pollutants?
Pr.rP-R/n-Jnroiects, will the project result in
^y discharge which will conflict with federal or
state air quality regs? (Also see 2a)
f Other
IMPACT
Unknown
None
X
X
Minor
Potentially
Significant
Can Impact
Be Mitigated
Com-
ment
Index
IMPACT
Unknown
None
X
X
2b
T ATMn WTTSOURCES
Will the proposed action result in:
. Soil instability or changes m geologic
substructure?
b. Disruption, displacement, erosion, compaction,
moismre loss, or over-covering of soil which
would reduce productivity or fertility?
Destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
d. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
patterns that may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed or shore of a lake?
^ Exposure of people or property to earthquakes,
landslides, ground failure, or other natural hazard?
i. Other .
Comment 2b- Some areas will be disturbed through barrier placement. However disturbed areas will be
femmTto pre^ously existing conditions by standard reclamation techniques such as placmg biodegradable
erosion-control fabrics and revegetation of disturbed soils.
Minor
Potentially
Significant
Can Impact
Be
Mitigated
Com-
ment
Index
13
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
5. WATER
Will the proposed action result in:
IMPACT
Unknown
None
Minor
Potentially
S^nificant
Can Impact
Je Mitigated
[Comment
Index
a. Discharge into surface water or any aheration of
surface water quaHty including but not limited to
f<»rMr\*»r5itiirp f1i«<inlvpf1 nxvffcn or turbiditv?
X
NO
3a
b. Changes in drainage patterns or the rate and
X
c. Alteration of the course or magnitude of flood
waier or uuici iiuwa.
X
A r^UoT-«rr^»c in f\\f> ammint of surface water in anv
water body or creation of a new water body?
X
e. Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
X
f. Changes in the quaUty of groundwater?
X
3f
g. Changes in the quantity of groundwater?
X
u Tnj-«*ooc<^ in riclf of mntaiTiination ot surtace or
groundwater?
X
; T~-pPa/->fc r»n QTi\/ pYistino watf*r ripht or reservation?
X
j. Effects on other water users as a resuh of any
alteration m suriauc giuuuuwaw^i i^iAaiii/ .
X
3j
k. Effects on other users as a result of any alteration
in surface or groundwater quantity?
X
1 For P-R/D-J. will the project affect a designated
floodplain? (Also see 3c)
X
YES
31
m. For P-R/D-J. will the project resuh in any
discharge that will affect federal or state water
quality regulations? (Also see 3a)
X
NO
3a
n Other:
X
Comment 3a: Surface water quality: A principal element of the proposed program is the use of fish
toxicants, including antimycin at a concentration of 8 to 12 parts per billion, possibly rotenone at a
concentration of 0.25 to 1.0 parts per million, as well as potassium permanganate (KMn04) at a
concentration of 1 to 4 parts per million as a means to deactivate the fish toxicants. However, this will be
only a minor impact on the water quality for several reasons. Concentrations of antimycin, rotenone and
potassium permanganate will be very low, rotenone and potassium permanganate in the parts per million,
and antimycin in the parts per billion. These chemicals will be introduced into the water for short periods of
time. Apart fi-om their intended toxic effect on fish, the chemicals are relatively benign in the environment. ^
Antimycin breaks down rapidly in the environment (Walker et al. 1 964; Lee et al. 1 97 1 ; Marking and ^
Dawson 1972; Schnick 1974a). The label for Fintrol, the commercial formulation of antimycin, states that
once diluted in water, Fintrol must be used within eight hours to ensure its potency, and that treated waters
14
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
may usually be restocked within one week following treatment. However, in high-gradient and tobulent
rJarantunycin loses its toxicity over stream reaches with about 200 feet of vertical rehef (Tiffan and
Bergersen 1996; Bramblett 1998).
In many of the streams in the Elkhoms, antimycin will lose its toxicity so rapidly that it will have to be
echoed a drip stations along the streams. Moreover, its breakdown products are non-toxic (Hen- et al.
r967T. If rotenone is used, it will be detoxified with potassium permanganate as described m the Narrative
Summary.
To reduce the potential risks associated with the use of antimycin, rotenone, or potassium permanganate, the
following mitigation measures will be employed:
1.
2.
Chemicals will be diluted in water and dripped into the stream at a constant rate using a device that
maintains a constant head pressure.
A detoxification station will be set up downstream of the target reach. Potassium permanganate will be
used to neutralize fish toxicants at this point.
3 Project persomiel will be trained in the use of these chemicals including the actions necessary to deal
with spills; personnel will wear rubber gloves and safety goggles.
4. No more chemical than needed for immediate use will be held near the stream
Through coordination with livestock permittees and local landowners, livestock will be excluded fi-om
streams during the time period (1-2 days) when a toxicant is used.
5
Comment 3f Changes in groundwater quality: If surface waters within the Elkhoms infiltrate into
^XnXat^ the ioundwaler would be affected. However, as with surface water quality, these effects will
be minimal (see comment 3a).
Comment Si- Effects on other water users: Bioassays on mammals indicate that, at the proposed
conTentiations mitimycin and rotenone will have no effect on mammals, including humans, that dnnk tiie
Tated wa er^ S^^ 1974a; Schnick 1974b). However, the product label for the commercial form of
XycTn Hnti^^^^^ that treated water not be used for drinking. Mitigation: Public users of
^Ssei;dce ro^^ and tiails will be notified of stieam treatinents during apphcation of antimycm and
dySt posting^^^ Signs will describe the chemicals being used and warn against dnnkmg stream water.
15
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
.VEGEIAIIQN
Will the proposed action result in:
a. Changes in the diversity, productivity or
abundance of plant species (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
b. Alteration of a plant community?
Adverse effects on any unique, rare, threatened,
or endangered species?
d. Reduction in acreage or productivity of any
agricultural land?
. Establishment or spread of noxious weeds?
IMPACT
Unknown
None
X
Minor
X
Potentially
Significant
Can Impact
Be
Mitigated
Comment
Index
f For P-R/D-J. will the project affect wetlands, or
prime and unique farmland?
g. Other: .
X
Comment 4c- Any disturbances associated with fish barrier construction are anticipated to be minor and
S^ed Howler, because specific fish barrier locations have not been identified and site-specific fish
bSi^plans and rare plant surveys have not been done, potential impacts associated with bamer
construction on rare plants are unknown.
Comment 4e: During the installation of barriers, there will some ground distobing activities To reduce
fheTk of noxiourweed invasion or spread, all equipment will be cleaned before arrival on site; all bare soil
wUl be seeded with native vegetation; and the sites will be monitored for weeds for 2 years foUowmg
disturbance.
16
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
IMPACT 1
TTnlmnwn 1
Minor 1
Potentially U
;:an Impact 1
Com- 1
k FlSHAVlLDLIFE
None 1
Significant 1
Be 1
ment |
Index 1
Will the proposed action result in:
a. Deterioration of critical fish or wildhfe habitat?
""x 1
b. Changes in the diversity or abundance of game
animals or bird species?
5b 1
c. Changes in the diversity or abundance of nongame
species?
d. Introduction of new species into an area?
5c 1
X
1
e. Creation of a barrier to the migration or movement
of animals?
X
5e 1
f Adverse effects on any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species?
X
rr Tnrrpasp in conditions that stress wildlife
populations or limit abundance (including harassment,
legal or illegal harvest or other human activity)?
h For P-R/D-J. will the project be performed in any
area in which T&E species are present, and will die
oroiect affect any T&E species or their habitat? (Also
see 5f)
i For P-R/D-J, will the project introduce or export
any species not presently or histoncally occumng m
the receiving location? (Also see 5d)
1 ^
j. Other:
1 ^
* ^h- The ar^nlication of a fish toxicant in some streams in the Elkhom Mountains will result in the
distribution are predicted under each alternative:
Miles Mixed WCT/EBT
Alternative
Existing
Alt 2
Alt 3
Miles WCT alone
7.6
21.5
69
_6^5
0
Miles Non-Native Trout
112
78
Comment 5c- Aquatic Invertebrates: Most studies have found that r^^'^^^^^'^r^^'SJi et al
n,„st Vuc — tes feund m ^^^^^^ Z';lTor J-
l^:i^^^.:^^S:lVl"sZSJ::i^^ iT^s^^sT-^^^^y, a tnayA, and a scud (Jacohi and
17
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
Degan 1977). However, concentrations of antimycin in this stream reached as high as 44 parts per bilhon,
about 4 times higher than the proposed concentration for this project.
Certain invertebrates will probably be affected at the proposed levels of antimycin, including Cladocera and
Copepoda (zooplankton), Amphipoda (scuds), and certain mayflies and caddisflies alAo^^^ popu ations of
these taxa are only diminished temporarily (Schnick 1974a). Bruce Rosenlund, USFWS Biologist with
extensive experience with antimycin treatments in Colorado, has observed that the effect of antimycin on
aquatic invertebrates is more severe in waters with a pH at or below 7.0. Hoever, he has also observed that
these invertebrate populations recover rapidly.
In eeneral most studies report that aquatic invertebreates, except zooplankton are much less sensitive to
rotenone treatment than fish (Schnick 1974a). Engstrom-Heg et al. (1978), reported that the long-term
impacts of rotenone are mitigated because those insects that were most sensitive to rotenone a so tended to
have the highest rate of recolonization. The authors of this study also suggest that it is probable that m most
streams only mild and temporary damage to aquatic invertebrates would occur in treatments using rotenone
at levels ten times higher than the levels proposed for this project. Because of their short hfe cycles
(Anderson and Wallace 1984), good dispersal ability (Pemiack 1989), and generally high reproductive
Utential (Anderson and Wallace 1984), aquatic invertebrates are capable of rapid re^^^^
disturbance (Jacobi and Deegan 1977; Boulton et al. 1992; Johnson and Vaughn 1995; Matthaei et al. 1996,
Nelson and Roline 1996).
Amphibians- the status and distribution of amphibians over much of the Elkhom Mountains is not known.
However at a site-specific level for each project, amphibian surveys will be done before and after
treatments with fish toxicants. Reports in the literature indicate that antimycin has no effect on amphibians
at the proposed concentrations of 8 to 12 ppb (Walker 1964; Schnick 1974a). For example, tiger
salamanders survived exposure at 80 ppb for 96 hours, while bullfi-og tadpoles survived 20 ppb, but perished
when exposed to 40 ppb for 24 hours (Walker 1964). The LC50 (lethal concentration at which 50/o of
tested organisms die) for leopard frogs was from 48 to 59 ppb in water of varying hardness (Lesser 1972,
cited in Schnick 1974a). No information on antimycin toxicity to spotted frogs, chorus frogs or western
toads could be located, but toxicity is probably similar to other frog species. Rotenone is toxic to most giU-
breathing larval amphibians, but is not harmful to adults (Schnick 1974b), except tiger salamanders
(Hamilton 1941 cited in Schnick 1974b). However, because the toxicant freatments will generally take
place in August or September, is it likely that the majority, if not all amphibians will have metamorphosed
into adults by this time.
Reptiles- The literature on antimycin toxicity reports no effect for reptiles, but is limited to unspecified
turtles snapping turtles and a water snake, at concentrations of antimycin up to 10 ppb (Schnick 1974a).
Reptilis are apparently not affected by rotenesting of antimycin, none of the tests showed any effect of
antimycin on birds or mammals. This review included studies that examined direct exposure to water and
eating fish killed by antimycin. In addition, she reported on toxicology studies that calculated the LD50
(dose at which 50% of tested individuals die) with direct feeding of antimycin to birds and mammals.
LD50duced, will likely expand into a large area of previously unoccupied habitat.
Comment 5d: This program includes the infroduction of WCT into several waters currently barren of trout
species It is unknown if WCT never occupied these areas due to a significant barrier, or if they were
historically present at one time. Some streams currently barren of fish will stay that way and will fiuiction
as refugia for species that may be adversely affected by fish.
Comment 5e: The proposed action will create 2 barriers to prevent upsfream migration of brook front and
rainbow front into waters occupied by WCT.
18
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
rnmment 5f- This proposed action is expected to result in an increase in native westslope cutthroat front in
SZm MoStXs 4ere are no effects on any other threatened, endangered, or sensitive wildlife or
fish s^ciS We^ iTe cutto^ trout are a unique and potentially endangered environmental resource wi^
fi^ited "s— The change in abundance and distribution will help insure long-term viability m the
Elkhom Mountains.
W BTTMAN FNVTWONMENT
a NmSF/FXErTPTr AT, EFFECTS
Will the proposed action result in:
. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to serve or nuisance noise
levels?
Creation of electrostatic or electromagnetic
effects that could be detrimental to human health
or property?
d. Interference with radio or television reception
and operation?
e. Other: .
7. T AND USE
Will the proposed action result in:
„ Alteration ofor interference with the
productivity or profitability of the existing land
use of an area?
b. Conflicted with a designated natural area or
area of unusual scientific or educational
importance?
Conflict with any existing land use whose
presence would constrain or potentially prohibit
the proposed action?
d. Adverse effects on or relocation of residences?
e. Other: .
IMPACT
Unknown
None
X
"x"
IMPACT
Unknown
"x"
X
None
Minor
Potentially
Significant
Can Impact
Be
Mitigated
Comment
Index
X
"x"
Minor
Potentially
Significant
Can Impact
Be
Mitigated
Comment
Index
7a
r^WCT S tlsfc^t : b SucSnSy in good condition. Changes in l^d use or
tadol™ whi wCT are lis,ed^,der the Endangered Species Ac. or remam a candidate speaes.
19
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
k WTSK/HEALTHHAZA^ "~
Wai the proposed action result in:
IMPACT
Unknown
None
Minor
Potentially
Significant
Can Impact
Be
Mitigated
Comment
Index
a. Risk of an explosion or release of hazardous
ciihstanres Cincludine. but not limited to oil,
pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) in the event of
an accident or other forms of disruption?
X
b. Affect an existing emergency response or
emergency evacuation plan or create a need for a
new plan
X
c. Creation of any human health hazard or
potential hazard?
X
YES
8a
d For P-R/D-J, will any chemical toxicants be
used? (Also see 8a)
X
YES
2a
r. ntVipr-
X
Comment 8a: Chemical toxicants will be used in during this program under either action alternative.
Please refer to Comment 3a for mitigation measures that will be employed to reduce the potential hazards ot
handling these chemicals.
orOMMUNTTY IMPACT
Will the proposed action result in:
IMPACT
Unknown
None
Minor
Potentially
Significant
Can Impact
Be
Mitigated
Comment
Index
a. Alteration of the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of an area?
X
b. Alteration of the social structure of a
community?
X
c. Alteration of the level or distribution of
employment or community or personal income?
X
d. Changes in industrial or commercial activity?
X
e. Increased traffic hazards or effects on existing
transportation facilities or patterns of movement of
people and goods?
f Other-
X
20
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental
m PTTBl IC SEWVTrES/TAXESAJTILmES
Will the proposed action result in:
a. Will the proposed action have an effect upon or
resuh in a need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas: fire or
pohce protection, schools, parks/recreational
facilities, roads or other public maintenance, water
supply, sewer or septic systems, solid waste
disposal, health, or other governmental services?
If any, specify:
b. Will the proposed action have an effect upon
the local or state tax base and revenues?
c. Will the proposed action resuh in a need for
Qew facilities or substantial alterations of any of
the following utilities: electric power, namral gas,
other fuel supply or distribution systems, or
communications?
d. Will the proposed action resuh in increased
used of any energy source?
Define projected revenue sources
f Define projected maintenance costs
g. Other:.
IMPACT
Unknown
None
X
Minor
X
"x"
Potentially
Significant
Can Impact
Be
Mitigated
Comment
Index
lOe
Comment lOe: This proposed projects would be fiinded cooperatively, with funds contributed by tiie the
SrTs^. ce BLM, an^^ money through the Future Fisheries Improvement Program^ Program
mlaL^^^^ inc ude applying for grants and seeking partnerships with pnvate groups and individuals.
ZlSa i^n om^ pro^^ outlined in Alternative 2 will require about 1 50 person days frorn agency
l^SoSste and volLSrs. Alternative 3 will require 150 person days from agency staff biologists and
vol^tet^^^^^^ to hire 2 seasonal biologists to work for 4 months each year, as well a 2-year graduate
i^t pr^^ct to help with monitoring. The cost of the fish toxicant will vary Wepen^^^f
sSr^d flow ofthe streams to be treated. The cost to treat 1.5 miles of a stre^ with a flow of 3-5 cfs(eg.
sS^rach ae^^^ would be approximately $4,000 for one year. Total estimated costs for fish toxicant m
Alternative 2 is $60,000. The costs to implement Alternative 3 are estimated as follows:
2 seasonals for 10 seasons - $100,000
graduate student for 2 years - $40,000
fish toxicant - $250,000
Comment lOf Maintenance would include both periodic checking and cleaning of bamers and momtonng
ofTe fish This^U be accomphshed by agency staff biologists as part of their regular duties, as well as
volunteers in Alternative 2, and by seasonal fisheries staff under Alternative 3.
21
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental
11. aesthett<"s/rf.c:reation
Will the proposed action result in:
Alteration of any scenic vista or creation of an
aesthetically offensive site or effect that is open
to public view?
IMPACT
Unknown
None
Minor
Potentially
Significant
Can Impact
Be
Mitigated
Comment
Index
b. Alteration of the aesthetic character of a
community or neighborhood?
Alteration of the quality or quantity of
recreational/tourism opportunities and settmgs?
(Attach Tourism Report)
X
"x"
ALT 3
He
d. For P-R/D-J, will any designated or proposed
wild or scenic rivers, trails or wilderness areas be
impacted? (Also see 11a, 11c)
e. Other: .
X
X
Comment 11c: Implementation of Alternative 3 will change the relative mix of recreational fishing
opportunities in Crow Creek. Most of the fishing in this watershed occurs m Tizer Lakes and m
Crow Creek below the falls. Alternative 3 would replace the brook/rainbow trout fishery above Crow
Creek falls with a WCT fishery. Current state regulations for cutthroat include a catch and release
policv for WCT in streams. This regulation is restiictive enough to support this restoration program.
The eventiial goal is to restore WCT populations to levels that will accomodate anglmg. Anglers may
catch and keep WCT fi-om mountain lakes.
h7 nTT TTTWAl /mSTORICAL
RESOURCES
IMPACT
Unknown
None
Minor
Potentially
Significant
Can Impact
Be
Mitigated
Comment
Index
Will the proposed action result in:
a. Destruction or alteration of any site, structure
or object of prehistoric historic, or
paleontological importance?
X
b. Physical change that would affect unique
cultural values?
X
c. Effects on existing religious or sacred uses of a
site or area?
X
A. For P-R/D-J, will the project affect historic or
cultural resources? Attach SHPO letter of
clearance. (Also see 12.a)
X
12d
p. Other:
X
Comment 12d: Consultation with SHPO will be completed prior to implementation of individual projects.
22
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
13. SUMMARY EVALUATION OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Will the proposed action, considered as a
whole:
IMPACT
Unknown
None
Minor
Potentially
Significant
Can Impact
Be
Mitigated
Comment
Index
a. Have impacts that are individually Imiitea, out
cumulatively considerable? (A project or
program may result in impacts on two or more
separate resources which create a significant
effect when considered together or in total.)
.A.
13a
b. Involve potential risks or adverse effects which
are uncertam but extremely hazardous if they
were to occur?
X
c. Potentially conflict with the substantive
requirements of any local, state, or federal law,
regulation, standard or formal plan?
X
d. Estabhsh a precedent or likelihood that future
actions with significant environmental impacts
will be proposed?
X
e. Generate substantial debate or controversy
r,u^iit fVio natiirp nf the imoacts that would be
created?
X
ALT 3
13e
f For P-R/D-J, is the project expected to have
organized opposition or generate substantial
public controversy? (Also see 13e)
X
^. For P-R/D-J, Ust any federal or state permits
required.
13g
Comment 13a: All of the anticipated impacts of the program are minor. However, the impact of WCT
introductions into currently barren habitats are unknown, but inherent to the overall goal of the proposed
program. The proposed program, considered as a whole, is not anticipated to result m mipacts that are
cumulatively considerable.
Comment 13e- There has not been controversy generated by any of the WCT projects in the Elkhoms thus
far However to date fish toxicants have not been used in the Elkhom Mountains. The recently proposed
Cherrv Creek project near Bozeman generated controversy about the use of toxicants. That project
involved a large watershed within designated wilderness where existing game fish were to be removed and
replaced with native species. The program proposed under Alternative 2 for the Elkhoms does not target any
popular "sport-fisheries". However, Altemative 3 may generate controversy relative to replacing brook
trout with WCT in Tizer Lakes and in Crow Creek above the falls. Since anglers can keep WCT from
mountain lakes, this should be a relatively minor impact.
23
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
Comment 13g: The following list of permits will be required:
FG 124 - FWP (Stream Protection Act Permit)
3B - Department of Environmental Quality (authorization for use of a fish toxicant)
404 - Army Coip of Engineers (discharge of fill into wetland areas required for installation offish barriers.
PART III. Discussion and Evaluation of Reason able Alternatives
Three alternatives were considered during preparation of the Environmental Assessment.
Alternative 1 - No Action (see Figure 1).
The predicted consequences of the "No Action" alternative are:
a. A high probability that many of the westslope cutthroat trout populations in the Elkhom
Mountains will become extinct.
b. No costs associated with implementation efforts.
Alternative 2 - Maintenance of Genetic Reserves (see Figure 2)
The program featured in this alternative (see Table 5) is based on existing (FWP, BLM, and Forest
Serviced staff and budgets. This alternative focuses attention on the highest nsk existing WCT
populations to increase their isolation from non native fishes. It includes replication of the existing
genetic reserves by moving WCT from existing streams into Eureka Creek. The predicted
consequences of Alternative 2 are:
a. A moderate probability that westslope cutthroat trout populations in the Elkhom Mountains
will become extinct.
b. No costs associated with hiring additional staff
c. Preservation of the locally adapted genetic makeup for westslope cutthroat trout in the
Elkhom Mountains in the short-term.
Alternative 3 - Comprehensive Restoration Program (see Figure 3)
Altemative 3 (Table 6) would require hiring additional staff to fiiUy implement a restoration
program that includes securing existing WCT populations in the Elkhom Mountams, expanding the
disfribution to increase WCT-occupied streams from 7.6 to 69.2 miles, and increasing the number of
WCT streams/populations from 6 to 12 watersheds. This altemative would include additional data
collection and identification, and work on additional opportunities for WCT infroducUons. Under
Altemative 3, work would occur in larger watersheds to restore connected populations m upper
Crow and McClellan Creeks. The predicted consequences of Altemative 3 are:
a Greater liklihood of a successfiil program, including a low probability that WCT in the Elkhoms
would go extinct. Through increased stafPwork and presence, monitoring, and data collection, this
altemative will result in establishing a level of credibility with the public, and serve as a prototype
for other WCT restoration efforts.
b. Cost to hire staff to work specifically on Elkhoms seasonally each year
24
Elkhorn Fish Distribution
Alternative 2
10 Miles
Figure 2
Elkhorn Fish Distribution
Alternative 3
Figure 3
Elkhorn Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
c. Greater level of controversy in working with larger streams and/or lakes that may be popular
recreational fisheries.
d In addition to preservation of the genetic resources in the Elkhorn Mountains, this alternative
would help achieve a statewide objective for the upper Missouri River by providmg for one or more
interconnected populations in larger watersheds.
PARXrV. Environmental Assessment Conclusion Section
Is an EIS required? No
This environmental review demonstrates that the impacts of a restoration program for WCT in the
Elkhorn Mountains are not significant.
2) Describe the level of Public Involvement.
PubUc involvement regarding westslope cutthroat trout projects in the Elkhorn Mountains included an
informational mailing and three pubUc scoping meetings located in Townsend, Helena and Boulder to
assess public concern. Written comments were received fi-om 46 individuals and organizations.
Additional meetings to accept comments and answer questions about this EA will be held in Townsend
f Community LibrSy), Helena (Forest Supervisor's Office), and Boulder (Ammen Building) on May 18,
19 and 20 respectively from 7-9 pm. News releases will appear in local papers around the mountam
ranee Legal notices soliciting comments will be published in the Helena Independent Record, on
the State Bulletin Board. This EA will be mailed to MFWP's MEPA mailing list and to approximately
70 citizens and groups who have interest in WCT and the Elkhorn Mountains. The public issues
previously expressed included the following:
extinction risks of a native sensitive species;
impact on existing recreational fisheries;
cost of restoration versus putting money into recreational fisheries;
effect of cutthroat introduction on invertebrate and/or amphibian species;
effects to livestock permittees or other Elkhorn users;
sources of pure genetic cutthroat stock;
effectiveness and impacts of various methods of removing brook ti-out
effects of barriers on other native fish (sculpins);
effects on angling*
*NOTE- Current state regulations for cutthroat include a catch and release policy for WCT in sti-eams.
This regulation is restrictive enough to support this restoration program. The eventiial goal is to
restore WCT populations to levels that will accomodate angling. Anglers may catch and keep WCT
from mountain lakes.
3 ) Duration of the comment period?
This EA is subject to a 30 day public comment period starting with publication of the legal notice.
Comments should be sent to one of the addresses listed below by June 1, 1999
25
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
4) Name, title, address and telephone number of the Person Responsible for Preparing the EA
Document.
Jodie Canfield, Elkhom Coordinator
Townsend Ranger District
Helena National Forest
415 South Fron
Townsend, MT 59644
(406) 266-3425
Ron Spoon
Fisheries Biologist
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
P.O. Box 1137
Townsend, MT 59644
(406) 266-4237
Other groups or agencies contacted or which may have overlapping jurisdiction: U.S.D.A. Forest Service -
Helena National Forest, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, U.S.D.I., Bureau
of Land Management, US Fish and WildUfe Service
Individuals or groups contributing to this EA: Archie Harper, Brad Shepard, Mike Kom, Bruce Rich, Steve
Lewis, George Weldon, Len Walch
References
Anderson N H andJ B.Wallace. 1984. Habitat, life history, and behavioral adaptations of aquatic insects. In R. W. Merritt
and K. w! Cummins, editors, Aquatic insects of North America. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company. Dubuque, lA.
Behnke,R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6. Bethesda, MD.
Boulton, A. J., C. G. Peterson, N. B. Grimm, and S. G. Fisher. 1992. Stability of an aquatic macroinvertebrate community in a
multiyear hydrologic disturbance regime. Ecology. 73:2192-2207.
BramblettRG 1998 Madison River Drainage westslope cutthroat trout conservation and restoration program: Cherry Creek
Native Fish Introduction Environmental Assessment. Prepared for Montana Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Region 3, Bozeman, Mt. 58
pp.
Engstrom-Heg, R., R. T. Colesante, and E. Silco. 1978. Rotenone tolerances of stream-bottom insects. New York Fish and
Game Journal. 25(1):31-41.
Everest, F.H. 1969. Habitat selection and spatial interaction of juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead trout in two Idaho
streams'. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
Gilderhus, P. A. 1972. Exposure times necessary for antimycin and rotenone to eliminate certain freshwater fishes. Journal of
the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 29:199-202.
Gresswell, R. E. 1991. Use of antimycin for removal of brook trout from a tributary of Yellowstone lake. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management. 1 1 : 83-90.
Griffith, J.S. 1988. Review ofcompetition between cutthroat trout and other sahnonids. American Fisheries Society Symposium
4:53-60'.
Hadley, W.F. 1981. The disttibution of fishes and fish habitat in the Elkhom Mountains portion of the Helena National Forest.
Prepared for Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, Montana.
Hanzel, D.A. 1959. The disttibution of the cutthroat trout (Salmo clarU) in Montana. Proceedings of the Montana Academy of
Sciences 19: 32-71.
Herr, F., E. Greselin and C, Chappel. 1967. Toxicology sttidies of antimycin, a fish eradicant. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 96:320-326.
Houf, L. J. and R. S. Campbell. 1977. Effects of antimycin A and rotenone on macrobenthos in ponds. Investigations in Fish
Control, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C.
Hunter, C. 1997. Fishes of special concern: An update. Montana Outdoors. November/December 1997.
26
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Envnonmental Assessment
Illinois Natural History Survey. 1975. Chemicals used to control fish and aquatic plants in Illinois. HEQ Document 75-13.
Urbana.
Tarohi GZ andD J Degan. 1977. Aquatic macroinvertebiBtes in a small Wisconsin trout stream before, during, and two years
afS ieame^wii the fish toxicant anlimycin. Investigations in Fish Control, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Washmgton
D.C.
Johnson S. L. and C. C. Vaughn. 1995. A hierarchical study of macroinvertebrate recolonization of distuited patches along a
longitudinal gradient m a prairie river. Freshwater Biology. 34:53 1-540.
KayaC.M. 1990. Status report on fluvial Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) in Montana. Report prepared for Montana Fish
Wildlife & Parks, Helena.
I awrence J M 1956 Preluninary results on the use of potassium permanganate to counteract the effects of rotenone on fish.
-SeProgressive Fish-Culturist 18:15-21.Lay, B. A. 1971. Applications for potassium peimanganate m fish culmre. Transactions
of the American Fisheries Society 100:813-816.
Lee, T. H., P. H. Derse, and S. D. Morton. 1971. Effects of physical and chemical conditions on the detoxification of antimycin.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 100:13-17.
Lesser, B. R. 1972. The acute toxicities of antunycin A and juglone to selected aquatic organisms. MS Thesis, University of
Wisconsin-La Crosse.
Liknes,G.A.andP.J.Graham. 1988. Westslope cutthroat trout in Montana: Life history, status, and management. American
Fisheries Society Symposium 4:53-60.
Mabbot, L.B. 1981. Density and habitat of wild and introduced juvenile steelhead trout in the Lochsa River drainage, Idaho.
M.S. thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
Marking L L 1969 Toxicity of rhodamine B and fluorescein sodium and their compatibility wit antimycin A. The Progressive
Fish-Culmrist.' 31:139- 142. Marking, L. L. and T. D. Bills. 1975. Toxicity of potassium Pemianganate to fish and its
effectiveness for detoxifying antimycin. Transactions of the Amencan Fisheries Society 104:579-583.
Marking, L. L. and V. K. Dawson. 1972. The half-life of biological activity of antimycin determined by fish bioassay.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 101:100-105.
Matthaei, C. D., U. Uehlinger, E. Meyer, and A. Frutiger. 1996. Recolonization by benthic invertebrates after experimental
disturbance in a Swiss prealpine river. Freshwater Biology. 35:233-248.
Meronek,T.G. and eight others. 1996. A review of fish control projects. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
16:63-74!
Nelson, S. M. and R. A. Roline. 1996. Recovery of a stream macroinvertebrate community from mine drainage discharge.
Hydrob'iologia 339:73-84.
Pennack, R. W. 1989. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York.
Rieman B D Lee, J. Mclntyre, K.Overton, and R. Thurow. 1993. Consideration of extinction risl^ for satoonids^ Technical
BulS^er 14, Fish Habitat Relationships, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountam Research Station, Boise, Idaho.
ShenardB B M Taper, R. G. White, and S. C. Ireland. In Preparation. Influence of physical habitat characteristics land
«ment iikpac^ non-native brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis on the density of sti-eam-resident westslope cutthroat trout
^Tcorh^chus clarki lewisi) in Montana streams. Final Report. U. S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountam Expenment Station,
Boise, Idaho.
Stefferud J A D L. Prost, and G. L. Burton. 1992. Use of antimycin to remove rainbow trout White Creek, New Mexico.
S D A Hend^ickson (ed) Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council Volume 22-23 Bishop, CA..Stebbms, R. C. 1966. A field
guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Tiffan, K. F. and E. P. Bergerson. 1996. Performance of antimycin in high-gradient sti-eams. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 16:465-468.
Walker C R R E Lemion, and B. L. Berger. 1964. Preliminary obseirations on the toxicity of antimycin A to fish and other
aquatic'anima'ls. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Circular 1986. Washington D. C.
27
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
Appendix A: - Use of fish toxicants
The Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project includes using fish toxicants to
eradicate non-native fish populations in streams occupied by WCT. This project will employ the widely
used fish toxicant, antimycin (Gresswell 1991; Stefferud et al. 1992; Meronek et al. 1996; Tiffan and
Bergersen 1996).
Antimycin, an antibiotic that is EPA registered for removal of fish, is produced in cultures of bacteria of the
genus Streptomyces (Lee et al. 1971). Antimycin kills fish by irreversibly blocking respiration at the
cellular level. The commercially available formulation of antimycin, Fintrol (product information enclosed)
will be applied at concentrations of 8 to 12 parts per billion (ppb).
At the present time, we lack definitive data on pH of the project streams. If (it is unlikely) any of the target
streams have pH levels above 8.5, it may be necessary to do a second treatment using the fish toxicant
rotenone. Rotenone is a chemical registered by the EPA for removal of fish, that is derived fi-om the roots
of certain South American plants and is widely used in fish removal projects (Meronek et al. 1996). A
commercial formulation of rotenone will be used at a concentration of 0.25 to 1.0 part per million.
The exact concentrations of antimycin and rotenone to be used will be determined by doing bioassays under
field conditions in the project area. Project personnel will collect all the fish that they can find that have
been killed by the fish toxicants and bury them on site.While extremely toxic to fish at the proposed
concentrations, antimycin is not harmful to plants, most invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, or
mammals, including humans, either from exposure to treated water, drinking of treated water, or
ingestion of poisoned fish (Walker et al. 1964; Schnick 1974a).
Certain invertebrates are sensitive to the proposed treatment levels of antimycin, including Cladocera and
Copepoda (zooplankton), Amphipoda (scuds), and some species of mayflies and caddisflies. However,
populations of these taxa have been found to be only temporarily diminished following treatment (Schnick
1974a; Jacobi and Deegan 1977). Rotenone is also highly toxic to fish, with little or no toxic effects on
non-target organisms at the proposed range of concentrations (Cook and Moore 1969; Schnick 1974b;
Houf and Campbell 1977; Engstom-Heg et al. 1978).
Antimycin breaks down rapidly in the environment by hydrolysis, exposure to sxmlight, due to stream
turbulence (Tiffan and Bergersen 1996), and in waters with high pH. After being added to a stream, a dose
of antimycin loses much of its toxicity over a drop in stream elevation of about 200 feet (Tiffan and
Bergersen 1996). Because of its rapid breakdown, it will be necessary to add antimycin to streams at drip
stations located approximately every 100-120 feet of vertical drop along target streams or at locations
separated by the distance that water in the stream flows in one half-hour. To measure the distance that
stream water flows in one half-hour, a fluorescent dye, fluorescein sodium, will be used to produce a bright
green color that can be followed along the stream channel. Fluorescein sodium is not toxic to fish at
concentrations used in field applications; levels would have to be increased more than 1,000 times to be
toxic to rainbow trout (Marking 1969).
Additionally, particularly if rotenone is used, the fish toxicants may be detoxified by adding potassium
permanganate (KMn04) at a concentration of one to four parts per million at detoxification stations.
Potassium permanganate has long been used for various applications in fish culture including as a control
for external parasites (Lay 1971), and for detoxification of antimycin (Marking and Bills 1975) and rotenone
(Lawrence 1956). However, potassium permanganate itself is toxic to fish if concentrations are too high.
The toxicity of potassium permanganate to fish is dependent on the particular chemistry of the water in
28
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
question. Surface waters have a potassium permanganate demand based on the amount of organic materials
in the water. Successful use of potassium permanganate to detoxify antimycin and rotenone is based on
balancing the amount of potassium permanganate with the natural chemical demand of the water and the
chemical demand caused by antimycin or rotenone. To determine the optimal concentration (from one to
four parts per million) of potassium permanganate, bioassays will be performed with trout and water from
the target streams. These bioassays will be used to determine the amount of potassium permanganate
needed to overcome the water's KMn04 demand, nuetralize the fish toxicants, and not kill fish. When the
optimal concenfration has been determined, a detoxification station will be set up to dispense this
concentration of potassium permanganate at the downstream end of the treatment sections, there is a
potential for impacts on fish and invertegrates for a length of sfream up to one mile below the detox station.
These impacts may take polace because some time is required for potassium permanganate to mix in the
water, as well as for the chemical oxidation of antimycin and rotenone to occur (Bramblett 1998)
29
FINTROL®
Fish toxicant
For pirtlal or complete endlutlon of undedrable
Ireshweter (lih
IMPORTANT: USE PROTECTIVE GOGGLES AND PRO-
TECTIVE GLOVES AT ALL TIMES WHEN MIXING, HANDLING,
OR APPLYING FINTROL. Any coniact of FINTROL with the eyes
can cause intense pain end irritBtion immediately or within
several hours following coruact. Avoid contact of FINTROL
with skin. If any contact occurs with eyes or skin, flush
repeatedly with water i.-nmediaiely. Consult physician if
discomfort occurs.
FINTROL-CONCENTRATE contains acetone. If swallowed,
give 2 to 4 glasses of water to dilute acetone, induce
vomiting, and consult pnysician. FINTROL-CONCENTRATE is
tIammaDle: keep away from heat and flame.
FINTROL-CONCENTRATE Is designed for use In running waters,
streams, and shallow waters. This liquid form of FINTROL may be ap-
plied to lakes and ponds by boat bailer method or spray equipment.
Spray methods are useful at depths to 1 foot. Boat bailer and drip
tubes, applied at the propeller wash, are used at other depths. Appli-
cation from an airplane Is not recommended.
Each can of FINTROL-CONCENTRATE [containing 240 cc. FINTROL-
CONCENTRATE (solution 20=/c) and 240 cc. Diluent] will, after mix-
ing, treat approximately 3S acre-feet of water at 1 p.p.b.
AQUABIOTICS CORP.
P.O. Box 10576
10750 Arrow R. DR NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
EPA Reg. No. 39096-2
Licensed by:
Wisconsin Alumni Research
Foundation
Trademark licensed by
Ayerst Laboratories, Inc.
Before applying FINTROL to either public or private waters, write to
the Director of the State Fish and Game Department or Conservation
Depaamenl for Stale and Federal regulations governing the use of
fish toxicants in your area.
29a
DESCRIPTION
The active ingredient of FINTROL is antimycin A. When absorbed
through the gilis of fish, antimycin A kills by inlertering with the
respiration of body cells. Antimycin A does not repel fish. This is an
imporiant advantage, particularly when running waters, bog lakes,
and the epilimnion, or upper layer, of large lakes are treated. Fish
make no anempt to escape contact with the toxicant by seeking to
move into wafers that are clear of it. FINTROL'S action is rapid and
irreversible.
Sensitivity to FINTROL varies widely among fish species. Hence it
(Tjy be employed to selectively destroy certain species, without affec-
ting other species concurrently inhabiting the same body of water.
Senilthr*
Gizzard, shad, trouts, pikes, carp, minnows, suckers,
brook stickleback, white bass, sunfishes, perches,
freshwater drum, sculpins.
LMtt Seniftivt
Shortnose gar. bowtin, goldfish, catfish.
FINTROL also may be used to selectively destroy certain age groups
of species; younger fish are more sensitive to FINTROL.
Providing the concentration is correctly estim.ated. FINTROL can be
used effectively at any time of year in either cold, warm, soft, hard,
acid, alkaline, clear or turbid (muddy) waters. (See TABLE 1 and in-
struction for bioassay.)
FINTROL does not impart detectable taste or odor to treated waters.
In the usual, recommended concentrations it causes no apparent
harm to aquatic plants, insects, or bottom fauna. Since FINTROL'S
active ingredient degrades rapidly, the reclaimed waters may be
restocked soon after treatment. (See HOW TO DETERMINE WHEN
TREATED WATER MAY BE RESTOCKED.) There is very linie interrup-
tion in availability of the waters lor recreational, agricultural, in-
dustrial, or other purpose.
USES
FINTROL is used to cull undesirable species of fish from freshwater
lakes, ponds, and streams. It can be used to eliminate all fish from a
body of water (complete kill). Or, it can be used to remove only cer-
tain fish species or size groups from mixed populations (selenive
kill).
A complete kill m.ay be achieved with a concentration of anywhere
from 5 10 25 p p.b. of active ingredient. (See HOW TO DETERMINE
THE MOST EFFECTIVE CONCENTRATION.) FINTROL is particularly
advantageous for complete kills because it detoxifies so rapidly the
pond can usually be restocked in about a week, or as soon as caged
fish survive 48 hours' exposure to the treated waters.
Under optimal circumstances, in ponds managed for sports fishing,
jetart'ive killj may be achieved at concentrations as low as 0.5 to 1.0
p p b However, because these concentrations are extremely low.
there is no rule of thumb that can be relied upon to determine them
accurately. A BIOASSAY IS ALWAYS REQUIRED T& PINPOINT THE
OPTIMAL CONCENTRATION FOR SELECTIVE KILLS. (Literature
describing this procedure is available upon request.)
A jelBCttve kill has these advantages: it can be made without inter-
rupting sport fishing for more than a week or so, and Tishing may be
gradually improved without restocking. In Ihe past, when bluegill,
minnows, or green sunfish dominated a pond m.anaged lor bass, the
usual solution to the problem was the total removal of ail the fish with
a fish toxicant. This meant restocking and little or no lishing for one
or two years. Now - with FINTROL - this is no longer necessary.
Low concentrations ol FINTROL will affect small bluegill, green sun-
fish and minnows primarily. Only a few of the very small bass will
succumb. The bulk of the adult bluegill and green sunfish will not be
affected. Thus FINTROL helps to bring about a balanced relationship
between the bass and bluegill populations. This improves fishing
without interrupting it for any appreciable length of time.
In CJtfish farming FINTROL can be used to selectively elimmte the
trash fish (scale fish) that commonly reduce the yields and increase
Ihe costs of the commercial catfish farmer. It is possible to do this
with FINTROL because concentrations that will eliminate scale fish
generally will not harm adult catfish. The scale fish most often en-
countered by the catfish farmer will succumb lo ani'where from 5 to
top p b ol active ingredient (See TABLE 1) whereas, under ordinary
circumstances, it takes in excess of 20 p. p.b. lo kill catfish. [Caution
should be exercised during "stress conditions" of unusually high
water temperature and reduced oxygen content when the sensitivity
of fishes lo chemicals may increase.)
HOW TO SELECT THE APPROPRIATE FORMUUTION
The nature of the water to be treated (its depth and rate of flow) and
the character of the surrounding land are factors to be taken into con-
sideration when determining Ihe formulation of FINTROL to employ in
a givfn situation.
HOW TO DETERMINE THE MOST EFFECTIVE CONCENTRATION
For complete kills and also,
lor removal of stale fish from catfish ponds.
The concentration of antimycin A required to kill one or more species
of fish in any given body of water depends upon: 1) the sensitivity of
the species to be eradicated, and 2) the chemical and physical pro-
perties of the water al the time of application of the toxicant; the pH
and the temperature ol the water being the most imponant of these
chemical and physical factors under ordinary circumstances.
Therefore, to determine what concentration of antimycin A will be re-
quired 10 kill the undesirable fish in your pond or lake;
1) identity the species to be eradicated,
2) determine the pH and average water temperature by measur-
ing at various sites and depths,
3) refer to TABLE 1 for approximate concentrations,
4) conduct a bioassay to pinpoint the optimal concentration.
TABLE 1 provides a rough estimate of the concentrations required for
a complete kill under various environmental conditions. However,
since water chemistry is subject to sudden alteration by many
variable, and often unpredictable factors (pollution, heavy bloom,
weather, drawdown, etc.) it should be realized that Such changes
may affect the perlormance of the toxicant. For this reason,
measurements of pH and water temperature should always be taken
as close to the time of treatment as is feasible.
29b
TABLE I - FOR ROUGH ESTIMATIOK OF CONCENTRATIONS' OF FINTROL {ANTIMYCtN A) NEEDED FOR COMPLETEt
... t.in.Aiit^ nAi>fs...aftftLi Ar urarril rru&CDATIIDC lUO U/ATCD nl
TARGET SPECIES"
SENSITIVITY OF TARGET
SPECIES TO FINTROL
(in p.p.b. of active
innrpdtpntl
col. 2
When pH is
EFFECTIVE CONCENTRATION OF FINTROL*
(in p.p.b. ot active Ingredient)
8 5 or less When oH is 8.5 or more
col. 1
water
temperature
above 60°F.
col. 3
water
temperature
below 50°F.
col. 4
water
temperature
above 60°F.
col. 5
water
temperature
below 60*F.
col. 6
trouts
pikes
carp
minnows
suckers
brt>ok stickleback
white bass
sunfishes
perches
freshwater drum
sculpins
5-10
5
7.5
7.5
10
shorinose gar
bowtin
goldfish
cattish
15-25
15
20
20
25
• Thi concimrjtion Itvd tuggiiKd by thU Obi* jhould b« Mnfirtrnd by in oi>-»iH bknitty.
t Thii Ubli li applicable only whan i eemplttt Wit li dijirai. Do not uti R lof i Jiltctivi UD. (Sii tha l»*e«ing aadion.)
••Fish rwiwnclalure accofOirtg to Amencan Frsherwj Scofiy. ciuToni h.
Note (columns 1 »n( 2] that iMt serisnw, ol Iht larjei si«c« oetetmirtts ir« conceniralen ranjt. To e-JCcata sensitivt 5p«o«. it is rKom™ni)« mat tlx appmpraie ''^''"f" °' f"™; "
pi,ee so trat the PoO, ot .ate. «.n have a conceniraiioh ol Irw 5 to 10 p.p.b. ol animyan A. Oepmdins upon vanaien ,n pH a,-* «aier temperature, for more toie-am ^^■^^^^'^^'^
are recomme-Klefl, Lato-atory slutiies mfl.cate that less senstltv. I*h .ill luccumP at eonctniratlons ol Irom IS to 2S p.p.P. ol antimycin A. (JepenO.ng upon »arat»ns m pH k< wai« lempOTIurt.
Columns 3 to 6 Show ho. to adjust lor pH ana .ater temperature. Note-iral. in general, the lo.r the pH. the less FIN7B0L reduirK. The h,hr the .aler iKTtperature. the IBS FINTROl rw,uir«). Th.
■oeai situation tor a complete kill wouK combine: a highly sensitive specias. tow pH an« high .aier temperature.
For telecttve kills In ponds managed lor sporti Tishlng
•The only way to determine the concentration o) FINTROL needed for a
selective kill is to perform a bioassay. This involves subjecting both
the target and nontarget fish to several concentrations of FINTROL 10
determine the minimum lethal dose. (A description of the bioassay
procedure is available upon request.)
HOW TO CALCULATE THE AMOUNT OF FINTROL
TO BE ADDED TO A BODY OF WATER
TO OBTAIN A GIVEN CONCENTRATION
To calculate the amount of FINTROL to be added lo a body ot water for
eradication of undesired species, the following steps should be
taken;
Determine the volume of water to be treated in acre-feet. This can
be arrived at by multiplying the surlace area in acres by the
average depth in feet.
Determine the concentration to be used.
Multiply the number of acre-feet to be treated by the value given
opposite the desired concentration in the table tor the formulation
to be used. (See Tables.)
TABLE FOR RAPID ESTIMATION OF
FINTROL-CONCENTRATE REQUIREMENTS
Desired
Concentntion Amount of
(p.p.b. »ctty« FINTROL-CONCENTRATE
InBrbdIbtrt) per icre-loott
cc' oz. (approx.)
1 p.p.b 12.3 'A
2 p.p.b 24.6 %
3ppb 36.9 IVi
4 p.p.b '19.2 VA
5 p.p.b 61-5 2
6ppb 73.8 2'A
7ppb 86.1 2%
Spp.b 98.4 3'/.
gp.p.b nO.7 3Vi
10 p.p.b 123.0 4
"Ociainec &y mumprymg 12.3 C£. iJy the p. p. 6.
Note: 1 measuring teaspoon = 5 cc . ; 1 measuring tablespoon = 1 5 cc;
V. standard measuring cup = 60 cc: "A standard measuring
cup = l20 cc; 1 standard measuring cup = 2^0 cc.
Sample ulcuhtion:
To treat 75 acre-teet at 3 p.p.b., use:
36.9 cc X 75 = 2,767 cc. 6f FINTROL-CONCENTRATE
11. 02. X 75 = 93* II. 02. of FINTROL-CONCENTRATE.
29c
METHOOS OF APPLICATION
IMPORTANT: DURING APPLICATION OF FINTROL, ALL PERSONS IN
THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY SHOULD WEAR PROTECTIVE GOGGLES
AND PROTECTIVE GLOVES.
Liquid formulation: Dirsciions (or mixing: Add the Diluent [blue'labell
to the FINTROL-CONCENTRATE (solution 20V.) [green label] in the
oversize mixing container. Cap tightly and inven 2 to 3 limes to mix
thoroughly. Funher dilute with AT LEAST five (5) gallons of water lo
msure that the acetone contained in FiNTROL-CONCENTRATE will not
affect rubber parts on any equipment that might be used to apply It
After water has been added, apply within eight (8) hours. [Note- The
solution obtained by mixing the Diluent with FINTROL-CONCENTRATE
(solution 20'/.) retains potency for up to seven (7) days But once
waier has been added to this solution, it must be used within eight
(8) hours 10 ensure potency.]
After appropriate dilution with water, the liquid formulation of FIN-
1 ROL can be applied to lakes and ponds by the boat bailer method
or spray equipment. Spray methods are useful at depths to one
foot. Boat bailer and drip tubes when applied at the propeller wash
are useful at greater depths. Pinpoint applications to shoal areas
and small, isolated ponds can readily be made with back-pack
fficTIVE^GLOVEsT °' GOGGLES AND
In streams. FINTROL-CONCENTRATE is most often applied through
drip stations established to meter the toxicant at a precalculated rate
lnforrr.ation on the use of such equipment may be obtained from state
and/or federal agencies, experienced in stream treatment.
It is recommended that all applications of FINTROL be made at day-
break or as soon as there is enough light to work by.
PRECAUTIONS
USE PROTECTIVE GOGGLES AND PROTECTIVE GLOVES at all times
when mixing, handling, or applying FINTROL. Any contact of FIN-
TROL with the eyes can cause intense pain and irristion immediately
or within several hours loilowing contact. Avoid contact of FINTROL
with skin. If any contact occurs with eyes or skin, flush repeatedly
with water immediately. Consult physician if discomfort occurs
FINTROL-CONCENTRATE contains acelone. If swallowed, give 2 to 4
glasses o( water to dilute acelone, induce vorr-iiiing. and consult
physician. Should inhalation of the vapors of FINTROL-
CONCENTRATE cause nausea, fresh air will dispel it.
FINTROL m,ay be latal or harmlul if swallowed.
Keep FINTROL out of reach of children, pets, livestock, and wildiile
Thoroughly rinse all containers prior to disposal. Pending the conclu-
sion of studies now in progress, fish killed with antimycin A should
not be consumed by man or animals. Treated waters must not be us-
ed tor drinking by man or animals, or for crop irrigation, until finger-
ling rainbow trout or fingerling bluegills survive AS hours' exposure
in livecars in the treated waters.
Leftover ponions of diluted liquid formulation retain potency for up to
seven (7) days. But once water has been added lo FiNTROL-
CONCENTRATE, it must be used within eight (8) hours lo ensure
potency.
Due to its acetone component, FINTROL-CONCENTRATE is flam-
mable: keep away from heat and flame.
HOW TO DETERMINE WHEN TREATED WATER
MAY BE RESTOCKED
Since antimycin A degrades rapidly following application, waters can
usually be restocked about one week following treatment with FIN-
TROL. Place livecars coniaining a sensitive species of fish In the
treated water. It is recommended that these fish be fingerling rainbow
iroul or fingerling bluegills if the water temperature is between 35°
and es^F. When the water temperature exceeds 58°F, only fingerling
bluegills should be used. If the fish survive lor 48 hours the water
may be restocked.
HOW TO DETOXIFY FINTROL WITH
POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE (KMnO.)
II it should be necessary to detoxify FINTROL in the outflow of a pond
10 prevent killing lish downstream, apply potassium permanganate
(KMnO.) at 1 part per million (1 p. p.m.) lo the outflow. Drip systems
of hcse-and-damp or carburetor types can be employed lo con-
tinuously dispense a solution of potassium permanganate into the
water at the discharge outlet.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the detoxification process, place
livecars containing lingerling rainbow iroul or fingerling bluegills ap-
proximately 100 yards downstream from the site of KMnO. Introduc-
tion. The water is considered detoxified if the fish survive (or at least
48 hours in the liveca;.
To detoxify FlNTROL-lrealed streams, apply KMnO, at 1 p. p.m. at
deloxilcaiion stations. Continue the application o( KMnO. until all
FlNTROL-lrealed water has passed the station. The water may be
considered deicxitied when fingerling rainbow trout or fingerling
bluegills survive (or at least 48 hours in livecars placed 100 yards
downstream from the sile of potassium permanganate (KMnO.)
introduction.
SpicUl lnitruction»: Prior to the use of a fish toxicant in either oublic
or private waters, the Director o( the S'iie Fish and Game Dep-'lment
or Conservation Department must be r;ntacted lo determine . ether
a permit is required. Such products nust be used by or uncer the
technical supervision of personnel o( itate and federal fish and game
agencies, trained in ds'eries man; --ment, who will provide any
special instructions ap: cable lo 'he .articular geographical area
29d
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
Appendix B: Program of Work 1997-2010
The program of work varies significantly between Alternatives 2 and 3. However, in either alternative,
there are similar types of activities that will be implemented on a given stream. An example of the steps
necessary to complete typical projects are outlined in Tables 4, 5, and 6. Tables 7 , 8, and 9 outline the
actual programs, for Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively.
Table 4. Example of the program for an individual stream with existing WCT and EBT.
Year
Activity
1
Barrier installation
1*
removal of EBT by electrofishing
2 and 3
Electrofish to salvage EBT and remove WCT to a suitable refiige; treat stream
with toxicant
4
Monitor WCT population
5
No activity
6
No activity
7
Final Assessment
* May be used for more than one year to reduce brook trout populations and allow for WCT population to
attain a greater density prior to using a fish toxicant
Table 5. Example of the program for an individual barren stream introduction project
Year
Activity
1
Stream, amphibian, and invertebrate surveys
2,3,4
egg collection fi"om donor stream and incubation in recipient stream
5
Monitor WCT population
6-7
No activity
8
Final Assessment
Table 6. Example of an introduction program for an individual stream with existing EBT.
Year
Activity
1
Surveys and barrier installation if needed
2-3
removal of EBT with fish toxicant
4,5,6
egg collection fi-om donor stream and incubation in recipient stream
7
Monitor WCT population
8,9
No activity
10
Final Assessment
30
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
Table 7. Activities and locations of project work associated with Alternatives 2 and 3
Management Activity
Alternative 2
1 Alternative 3
Barrier Construction
Staubach
Staubach
Upper McClellan*
Mid-McClellan**
South Fk. Warm Springs
North Fork Indian Creek
Non-native Removal
M^iislcraf
Staubach
Staubach
Upper McClellan
Mid-McClellan & associated tribs
South Fk. Warm Springs
Upper Crow complex***
North Fork Indian Creek
East Fork Dry Creek
Introduction of WCT
Eureka Creek (from Hall source)
Eureka Creek (Barren)
Whitehorse Creek (Barren)
South Fk. Warm Springs
North Fork Indian Creek
East Fork Dry Creek
Upper Crow Complex
Monitoring and
Assessment
Muskrat (post project)
Staubach (post project)
Eureka (pre and post)
Muskrat (post project)
Staubach (post project)
iviiu- ivici^ieiian vpre anu post )
Eureka (pre and post)
Whitehorse Creek (Barren)
South Fk W^arm Snrinps
North Fork Indian Creek
East Fork Dry Creek
Upper Crow Complex
Monitoring of barriers
Prickly Pear (natural barrier)
Dutchman (natural barrier)
In conj\anction with other monitoring,
barriers will be checked in all
existing WCT streams
Monitoring of genetic
donor populations
(evaluate impact of using
these fish to donate eggs)
Hall
Prickly Pear
Dutchman
Hall
* At the point of the confluence with Teepee and McClellan
** Forest Boundary near Crystal Creek confluence with McClellan
*** Above Crow Creek Falls
31
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
Stream
name
Year
— .
Muskrat
ataubacn
upper ivicivieuaii
Hall Creek
(genetic donor)
1999
electrofish removal EBT
barrier installation;
electrofish removal EBT
NA
NA
NA
2000
remove WCT; apply fish
toxicant
remove WCT; apply fish
toxicant
Surveys
NA
NA
2001
remove WCT; apply fish
toxicant
remove WCT; apply fish
toxicant
barrier installation;
electrofish removal EBT
Survey streams
monitor WCT
Monitor WCT population
Monitor WCT population
remove WCT; apply fish
toxicant
Egg collection fi-om Hall
Creek; incubation in Eureka
monitor WCT
NA
NA
remove WCT; apply fish
toxicant
Egg collection from Hall
Creek; incubation in Eureka
monitor WCT
2004
NA
NA
Monitor WCT population
Egg collection fi^om Hall
Creek; incubation in Eureka
monitor WCT
2005
Final Assessment
Final Assessment
NA
Monitor WCT populatino
monitor WCT
2006 '
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2007
NA
NA
Final Assessment
NA
NA
2008
NA
NA
Final Assessment
monitor WCT
Barrier inspections done every other year on existing WCT populations
32
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
Table 9. Program of Work for Alternative 3
Muskrat
Staubach
McClellan
Eureka Creek
South Fork
Warm Springs
Creek
East Fork Dry
Creek
NorthFork
Indian Creeli
Whitehorse Creek
Upper Crow
Complex
Prickly Pear,
Dutchman, Hall and
other genetic donors
1999
electrofish
removal EBT
installation;
electrofish
removal EBT
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
monitor WCT
2000
apply fish
toxicant
remove WCT;
apply fish
toxicant
Surveys/EA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
monitor WCT
2001
apply fish
toxicant
remove WCT;
apply fish
toxicant
barrier
installation;
electrofish
removal EBT
Survey/EA
Survey/EA
NA
NA
NA
NA
monitor WCT
2002
Monitor WCT
population
Monitor WCT
population
remove WCT;
apply fish
toxicant
Egg collection
from Hall Creek;
incubation in
Eureka
barrier
installation;
NA
NA
Survey/EA
NA
monitor WCT
2003
NA
NA
remove WCT;
apply fish
toxicant
eggs
apply fish
toxicant
apply fish
toxicant
NA
Egg collection from
nearest neighbor &
incubation
Survey
^monitor WCT
2004
NA
NA
Monitor WCT
population
eggs
apply fish
toxicant
apply fish
toxicant
apply fish
toxicant
eggs
Survey/EA
monitor WCT
2005
NA
NA
NA
Monitor WCT
population
Monitor
Monitor
apply fish
toxicant
eggs
Survey/EA
monitor WCT
2006
Final
Assessment
Final
Assessment
NA
NA
Egg collection
from nearest
neighbor &
incubation
Egg collection
from nearest
neighbor &
incubation
Monitor
Monitor WCT
population
apply fish toxicant
monitor WCT
2007
NA
NA
NA
NA
eggs
eggs
Eggs from
nearest neighbor
NA
apply fish toxicant
monitor WCT
2008
NA
NA
Final
Assessment
Final
Assessment
eggs
eggs
Eggs from
nearest neighbor
NA
apply fish toxicant
monitor WCT
2009
NA
NA
NA
NA
Monitor/ Final
assessment in
2012
Monitor/ Final
assessment in
2012
Eggs; monitor
in 2010 and final
assessment in
2013
Final Assessment
Monitor/ introduce
WCT in 2010-2012,
monitor and final
assessment in 2016
monitor WCT
#
Elkhom Mountain Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Program Environmental Assessment
MONITORING: ^
The Elkhom work is somewhat unique in Montana because it takes a geographic approach to the
management and recovery of WCT, and attempts to use a variety of tools to secure a valuable genetic
reserve. These techniques are relatively new to Montana citizens and anglers, and we believe it is very
important that monitoring of this work is a very high priority. Monitoring will assess success and determine
fiiture management options. After 10 years of implementation and monitoring, we hope to answer the
following issues/questions relative to managing WCT in the Elkhom Mountains and elsewhere.
• did the program have an effect on existing land management activities?
• will the recovery strategy be adequate if the WCT is listed under ESA?
• can we get 100% removal of eastern brook trout?
• can we build barriers with a low risk of failure?
• can we expand populations of WCT by introduction into barren waters?
• will this program increase or decrease fishing opportunities
• can we define a viable population?
• is it socially feasible to replace brook trout with WCT?
• what is the status of our original populations at the end of the recovery program?
• what additional data or research is needed?
34
m
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11