USFWS Fisheries Program Evaluation

Role: Principal Investigator/Report Author

Time Frame: 2008-2010

Deliverable: Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council. 2010. Programmatic Evaluation, Activities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries Program. FY 2005–2009. 209 pages.

In March 2009, the Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) requested the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council (SFBPC) undertake a “follow up evaluation” to assess the Fisheries Program’s progress in meeting its core aquatic resource conservation obligations. The FWS asked the SFBPC for assistance because of the Council’s long involvement with the FWS’s Fisheries Program as an advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.  

To conduct this evaluation, the SFBPC empaneled an eight-person Evaluation Team, chaired by Ken Haddad, representing a cross section of those organizations interested and experienced in aquatic resource conservation and in the conduct and impact of the Fisheries Program. To staff the Evaluation Team, SFBPC contracted with D.J. Case and Associates as project consultants and Whitney Tilt, Conservation BenchMarks, as the principal investigator. Evaluation design and data collection was initiated in July 2009 with a report delivered to the SFBPC in May 2010.  

The 2009 Evaluation examined the Fisheries Program’s performance for the period October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2009. The Team organized its examination according to eight areas of strategic emphasis common to both the FWS FY 2004 – 2008 Strategic Plan and the SFBPC Partnership Agenda report:

1. Accountability

2. Habitat Conservation and Management

3. Species Conservation and Management

·         Native Species

·         Interjurisdictional Fisheries

·         Aquatic Invasive Species

4. Cooperation with Native American Tribes

5. Recreational Fishing and Other Public Uses

• Recreational Fishing

• Mitigation Fisheries

• Outreach and Education

6. Aquatic Science and Technology

7. Asset Maintenance

8. Workforce Management

 One chapter of this report is devoted to each of the eight areas of emphasis. Each of the eight chapters is organized by: context, basis for evaluation, results, findings and observations, and recommendations to increase effectiveness.  

Report available on request.

Upper Yellowstone Recreation Study

Photo by W. Tilt

ROLE: Study Leader

TIMEFRAME: 2020-2024

DELIVERABLES: Final Report and Recommendations

As recreational demands on the Upper Yellowstone River have increased it becomes more and more important to take proactive steps to protect both the natural resources of the river and the quality of the recreation experiences. Many river users and riparian landowners have noted the increased potential for conflict and impacts to natural resources, but such anecdotal observations have historically lacked any foundation of empirical data that in turn can provide a basis for informed discussions on river management.

In 2018, at a meeting of the Upper Yellowstone Watershed Group (UYWG), Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) staff discussed river recreation planning in the State of Montana and the potential need for such an effort on the Yellowstone River. FWP made it clear that the first step in any such planning was the presence of baseline data on recreational use—and in the case of the Upper Yellowstone—no such data existed.

In response the UYWG launched the Recreational Use of the Upper Yellowstone River Study in 2020. The project was developed cooperatively by the UYWG with the active involvement of river users and the community including professional fishing guides, raft companies, local businesses, riparian property owners, universities, and state, and federal land management agencies.

For four years the project has assessed the level and type of recreational use, capacity of existing access facilities, and gauged public attitudes, including river recreationalists and riparian landowners. In 2024, with the data collection completed, the study is focused on developing a discussion draft and recommendations intended to spark discussion, revision, and additions from river users, management agencies, and the public.

This study has been made possible through the support of individuals, businesses and foundations, including donors through the Hoot and Park County Community Foundation.

sample of recreational use data analysis

For Tomorrow's Fish Campaign

ROLE: Project Co-Leader

TIMEFRAME: 2022-2024

DELIVERABLES: “For Tomorrow’s Fish” Website, Report, and Campaign Launch

CONCEPT & WEBSITE. Developed “Tomorrow’s Fish” as a campaign of the AFFTA Fisheries Fund and its partners to raise knowledge and awareness and inspire anglers to engage in actions that build climate-ready fisheries.

REPORT & CAMPAIGN. The “For Tomorrow’s Fish” campaign aims to align anglers, communities, fly fishing brands, and conservation organizations to use their clout to fight for “tomorrow’s fish” and help mitigate climate impacts.

The campaign is anchored by the For Tomorrow’s Fish report, written for anglers, by anglers, to document their changing experiences on the water and highlight the need for resilient fisheries in the face of climate change. The release of the report in May 2024 kicked off a powerful, sustained, multi-channel campaign, led by the American Fly Fishing Trade Association, to inspire and empower anglers and the recreational fishing industry to demand progress toward climate-ready fisheries. The campaign will recruit anglers to take the helm as guardians of Tomorrow’s Fish and connect them with resources they can use to share their stories and call for action.

Fishes of Montana

ROLE: Editor and Co-designer

TIMEFRAME: 2019, 2024

DELIVERABLES: Mobile device app for iOS and Android

In 1971, long before Montana State University became known as “Trout U”, the university published “Fishes of Montana” by C.J.D. Brown, and the field guide has since remained a vital resource for identifying species in the field. It included 80 varieties of fish in the state, with histories, distribution maps and characteristics, but in nearly half a century, the book has never been updated.

For years, Professor Tom McMahon and ecology department colleagues Alexander Zale and Christopher Guy, leader and assistant leader of the U.S. Geological Survey Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, had bandied the idea of a new edition of the book. However, a different opportunity presented itself when Guy met Whitney Tilt, a Bozeman conservationist whose previous collaborations with Matt Lavin, a professor in the Department of Plant Sciences and Plant Pathology in MSU’s College of Agriculture, led to two field identification smartphone apps, Montana Grasses and Flora of the Yellowstone Region.

Rather than revise and reprint “Fishes of Montana,” the book has been given a 21st century update with the release of its namesake Fishes of Montana app. The app, available for Android and iOS devices, includes information on 91 native and introduced species. The app is free to download, funded by a $10,000 grant from retailer Patagonia that was awarded to the Department of Ecology to promote the restoration of native fish populations as part of the Trout and Cold Water Fisheries Initiative.

The app was fully updated and revised in 2024.

Elk in Paradise

ROLE: Researcher and Author

TIMEFRAME: 2019-2020

DELIVERABLE: ELK IN PARADISE - Conserving Migratory Wildlife and Working Lands in Montana’s Paradise Valley

The project examined the impacts to landowners of coexisting with growing numbers of elk and other wildlife in the Paradise Valley of Montana. Project goals were threefold: 1) assess landowner attitudes and behaviors toward wildlife, and specifically elk, on their land, 2) gather landowner insights into tools needed to promote the continued economic viability of private working lands; and 3) develop a needs assessment and specific set of recommendations that benefit working lands and wildlife through increased or improved cooperation, research, policy, innovation, and incentives.

Data were gathered through a survey of landowners engaged in ranching and agriculture, in-person discussions with many of the targeted landowners and, once preliminary survey data were tabulated, discussions with participating landowners and the larger Paradise Valley community at meetings and a landowner forum.

With a goal of developing a toolkit of potential solutions to better address these issues in the future, the report presents a set of 13 recommendations developed around the three central themes of 1) landowner coordination and outreach, 2) financial incentives, and 3) research and technical assistance. The findings and recommendations have strong correlations with similar work in other regions of the western United States where wildlife and ranching coexist.

© Wes Overvold Implement Productions

Guiding for the Future

ROLE: Co-Founder and Program Development

Timeframe: 2018-2019

Deliverable": Guiding for the Future Program

THE NEED. Montana’s rivers are undergoing increased demands for water, recreation, and environmental services. These demands in the face of increased periods of drought and other stressors impact the rivers’ resilience and fisheries, while also translating into the increased potential for conflict among users.

The August 2016 closure of 183 miles of the upper Yellowstone River and its tributaries to all water-based recreation was a wake-up call to the fishing industry and other river users that: 1) business as usual will not suffice and 2) there is the need to step up as advocates for – and stewards of – the river.

 THE PROGRAM. Guiding for the Future (G4F) aims to inspire dedicated stewardship of aquatic ecosystems while increasing knowledge, professionalism, and ethics of fishing guides, outfitters, and the fly-fishing industry. This has a direct link into angler recruitment, retention and reactivation. G4F will build a cadre of thoughtful, action-oriented guides who can get more people fishing and engaged in aquatic resources; communicate more effectively with clients, landowners and state agencies, and build support for angling as conservation in Montana.  

G4F is a voluntary course of study and testing. Participating outfitters and guides will undergo a curriculum that strengthens competence, increases knowledge and skills, and establishes their commitment to helping steward the rivers on which their livelihoods depend. Participants will be evaluated and tested on their knowledge and performance. Successful completion of this course will provide participating guides, outfitters, and fly shops with a set of credentials that distinguish them to outfitters, clients, other river users, and agencies.

Led by the Fishing Outfitters Association of Montana (FOAM), and directed by a Steering Committee of guides, outfitters, conservation and agency leaders, this program serves as a new opportunity for fishing guides to become champions of the sport of angling and the aquatic resource now and into the future. 

CORE VALUES & OBJECTIVES

Knowledge – Develop a rigorous, informative, hands-on, and replicable curriculum that engages fly fishing guides and is viewed as an important and valuable credential for their job and business.

Professionalism – Ensure program produces adept and skillful guides while also providing net positive benefits for participating guides, and tie industry into establishing these benefits (e.g., additional pro-deal percentage, better rates on liability insurance, etc.)

Ethics – Improve communications among fishing guides, fly fishing industry, management agencies, landowners, the angling public and other recreational user groups to increase cooperation, reduce conflict, and improve fisheries.

Stewardship – Create a corps of involved fishing guides who can routinely undertake basic water quality, flow measurements, and fisheries monitoring efforts under the direction of state agency personnel. Provide guides with tools to engage their clients to become advocates and stewards of rivers and aquatic systems.

 OUTCOMES & EVALUATION. During this first pilot year, we expect to graduate 25-30 guides through the G4F program, which will culminate in a 3-day practicum held May 6-8th at the B Bar Ranch in Emigrant, Montana. The focus of instruction will be on the upper Missouri and Yellowstone River watersheds.

The inaugural session will be evaluated and strengthened based on in-depth interviews with students, instructors, and fisheries and angling professionals that will be asked to audit the program. Based on learnings from the evaluation process, the program will expand to other watersheds in year two (2020) and beyond.

It is fully anticipated that the G4F program will be of interest to other states. In 2023, Maine intiated a G4F-based program for its marine fishereis. G4F will continue to make all of its program elements fully available to states interested in replicating the program in their state.

"You Should Do an App"

Gallatin Valley Flora (W. Tilt)

In 2011, I published the Flora of Montana’s Gallatin Range. My initiation as a plant watcher in the Northern Rockies began "moving pipe in the Teton Valley of Idaho in the 1970s. Anyone who has experienced the joys of moving 40-foot-long irrigation pipe twice daily across acres of hay field knows that it provides plenty of time for your mind to wander. Directing my gaze downward from the ramparts of the Grand Tetons, wildflowers scattered across the field gave punctuation to the green expanse of grass. At night I would reach for one or more wildflower guides to identify a new flower or remind myself of a plant's name from past outings. Over the years and rambles across the Greater Yellowstone Region, my interest grew.

Arriving in Bozeman in 2001, my family and I began enjoying the vast network of trails—the results of the hard work of many organizations. Whether walking the dog, hiking, riding or cross-country skiing, these trails are the lifelines of the Gallatin Region, stitching people together with landscapes in a way that brings mental and physical health, an appreciation for nature, and a reminder that we are the land's stewards.

It was my goal to deliver Flora of Montana’s Gallatin Range to the Gallatin Valley Land Trust, Big Sky Community Corporation, Big Sky Institute, Jack Creek Preserve Foundation and Montana Outdoor Science School at no cost to their already tight budgets. To realize this wonderful idea, I was fortunate to be able turn to a small cadre of funders for help. To my great appreciation, and an indication of their commitment to the Gallatin Region they all call home, they responded graciously and generously.

On the release of Flora of Montana’s Gallatin Region a colleague called to congratulate me on the book’s release. He then asked, “So when are you going to do the app?” Looking like a true luddite, I asked, “What’s an app?”

Having patiently described how mobile device applications would revolutionize field guides, he then introduced me to Katie Gibson, which in turn led to a fun and productive partnership, the creation of High County Apps, and collaborations with plant experts in California, Colorado, Montana, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and elsewhere to create interactive applications to their region’s flora. Our very first app was the “ Flora of Yellowstone.”

Programmatic Assessment of the Recreational Boating & Fishing Foundation

Role: Principal Investigator and Author

Time Frame: 2008-2010

Deliverable: Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council. 2010. Programmatic Assessment of the Activities of the Recreational Boating & Fishing Foundation, FY 2007–2009. 187 pages.

Background

In response to declines in recreational boating and fishing participation, Congress passed the 1998 Sportfishing and Boating Safety Act. The Act required the Department of the Interior Secretary to implement a National Outreach and Communication Program to address recreational boating and fishing participation and promote conservation and responsible use of the nation’s aquatic resources. In response, the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council (SFBPC) developed a strategic plan for the Program and the Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation (RBFF) was established in October 1998 expressly to carry out that plan.  

RBFF is funded by a Sport Fish Restoration Program (SFR) discretionary grant. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for administering the discretionary grant and provides a detailed accounting of the RBFF program and its activities to the Secretary of the Interior. For the period 2000 – 2010, RBFF has received $106,134,314 in SFR funding.

The Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct periodic reviews of the Program. Responsibility for the assessment was delegated to SFBPC, on behalf of the Secretary, through a 1999 memorandum of understanding which states the SFBPC “will monitor the implementation of the program, will evaluate effectiveness of the program by communicating regularly with its stakeholders, and will regularly report findings to the Secretary and the signatories of this agreement. 

The SFBPC undertook reviews of RBFF in 2002 and 2006. This assessment constitutes the third review of the RBFF and its implementation of the Program.

Conduct of the FY 2007– 2009 Assessment

In August 2009, SFBPC empaneled an eight-person Assessment Team to undertake a programmatic assessment of RBFF for the period FY 2007– 2009. Collectively, the team comprises experience and expertise in recreational boating, fishing, aquatic resource conservation, program analysis and familiarity with the conduct and impact of RBFF’s programs. In carrying out its review responsibilities, the SFBPC charged its Assessment Team to conduct its assessment in an independent, impartial and constructive manner.

The 2009 Assessment utilizes the evaluation framework developed for the 2006 Programmatic Assessment of RBFF, FY 2003 – 2006, conducted by the SFBPC. The assessment evaluates the efforts of RBFF relative to five questions directly derived from the Program’s legislative mandate:

1. Have RBFF activities had a positive impact on recruitment and retention of boaters and anglers?

2. Have Stakeholders found added value in the adoption of RBFF products?

3. Has RBFF increased the public’s knowledge of boating and fishing techniques, and its awareness of boating and fishing opportunities?

4. How has RBFF enhanced the public’s understanding of aquatic resources?

5. Have RBFF products and activities increased conservation and responsible use of aquatic resources by boaters and anglers?

2009 Assessment Findings and Recommendations

The assessment documented a great deal of work by RBFF centered on increasing boating and fishing, providing how- and where-to information on boating and fishing, as well as education and conservation efforts. In the three-year period examined, RBFF continued its Take Me Fishing and Anglers’ Legacy campaigns, expanded its marketing programs with state fish and wildlife agencies, and continued to expand its educational grants for aquatic education. RBFF’s programs and resulting outcomes are examined in detail in this report. The Assessment Team’s findings were presented alongside of the 17 recommendations presented in the 2006 Assessment.

Report available on request.

.

.

Evaluation of the National Wildlife Refuge System

Role: Senior Evaluator

Time Frame: 2006-2008

Deliverable: Management Systems International. 2008. An Independent Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System.

Background

The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) contains 96 million acres of many of the nation’s most important conservation landscapes and is characterized by its proponents as “the most biologically diverse lands in America.” The system contains representative landscapes of virtually all of the country’s natural ecosystems and is critical to the health and survival of many migratory birds, endangered species, fish and resident wildlife. In addition, the Refuge System annually hosts over 34 million visitors, who engage in hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing, which makes the Refuge System one of the country’s premier assets for supporting wildlife-dependent recreation. The system also serves as an important educational resource, as it annually provides over 800,000 environmental education opportunities to school children.

Evaluation

This evaluation was conducted between October 2006 and September 2007 and used a multimethod and multi-source data collection methodology. The evaluation team conducted more than 250 FWS and partner interviews, visited all eight regional offices and at least two refuges in each region, administered an on-line survey of 312 refuge managers, surveyed partners and state fish and wildlife agencies, and reviewed existing data and documents. 

The report presented an overview of the performance of each of the 12 Strategic Outcome Goals (SOGs) the refuge program had established in its budget justification to the Office of Management and Budget. This report then presented a set of specific recommendations for improving the effectiveness of the Refuge System for each SOG. A sample of recommendations included:

• Increase monitoring and inventory work

• Develop a water strategy

• Increased funding for Law Enforcement

• Need for policy and program consistency across regions and between refuges

• Reduce administrative and reporting requirements

 An Overview documents provided a summary of the complete evaluation and included an overall performance rating, conclusions and recommendations for each of the Refuge System’s 12 SOGs. A complete set of evaluation findings was provided in the full report along with response data from three surveys (refuge managers, state fish and game agencies, and Friends Groups/partners), a list of all persons interviewed (approximately 250), references, and a bibliography.

 Report available on request.

National Fish Habitat Action Plan

Role: Member of Core Work Group, Writing Team, and Contributing Author

Time Frame: 2005-2006

Deliverable: National Fish Habitat Action Plan

The original National Fish Habitat Action Plan was born in 2001 when an ad hoc group supported by the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council explored the notion of developing a partnership effort for fish on the scale of what was done for waterfowl in the 1980s through the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). NAWMP efforts had been successful in significantly boosting waterfowl populations by forming strong local and regional partnerships to protect key habitats.

The National Fish Habitat Plan was presented in April 2006. The plan’s ambitious goals is presented in its preamble, signed by the leadership of the Departments of Interior and Commerce and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Galvanized into action by the threat of aquatic habitat losses, an unprecedented coalition of anglers, conservation groups, scientists, and state and federal agencies forged the National Fish Habitat Plan. The plan’s principal aim is to better protect, restore, and enhance fish habitat through partnerships that foster conservation and improve the quality of life for the American people.

Similar to the NAWMP, The NFHP approach was intentionally non-regulatory, partnership focused, and science and data based. The plan’s overall aim was to make strategic investment in habitat to protect intact systems, rehabilitate degraded systems, and improve engineered systems. Decision support was driven by improved habitat assessment tools at the national, regional, and watershed levels.

Since 2006 the National Fish Habitat Partnership (NFHP) has grown and matured. The Plan was codified by Title II of PL 116-188 America’s Conservation Enhancement Act: National Fish Habitat Conservation Through Partnerships on October 30, 2020.

Today NFHP works through a network of 20 regional Fish Habitat Partnerships to restore the health of our nation’s aquatic ecosystems for fish and people to rely on. These regional partnerships leverage federal, state, tribal, and private resources to achieve the greatest impacts on conservation. Impacts of the National Fish Habitat Partnership include:

Since 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and partners have provided over $320 million in funding support for fish habitat conservation projects that improve angling and recreational opportunities from Hawaii to Maine.

• The 20 Fish Habitat Partnerships bring together federal and state agencies, non-governmental organizations, and private sector interests to assess regional fish habitat conditions and identify and prioritize their respective regions' habitat conservation needs.

• In 2024, FWS and partners provided more than $27.4 million to support 91 fish habitat conservation projects in 29 states.

https://www.fishhabitat.org/files/uploads/National_Fish_Habitat_Action_Plan_2006.pdf

Save the Tiger Project

H. Zell, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

ROLE: Program Lead for National Fish & Wildlife Foundation

Time Frame: 1995-2002

Deliverables: More than $7.8 million invested in 11 tiger range countries

In 1995, Asia’s wild tigers were in alarming and widespread decline throughout their range.  At the beginning of the 20th century, when William Blake immortalized the tiger in poetry and Rudyard Kipling introduced Shere Khan to the literary world, some 100,000 tigers roamed the Asian continent.  But the ensuing decades treated the tiger no more kindly than so many other species of large predators.  Human population growth and the resulting loss of habitat drove tigers from their former homes, while the over-harvest of prey species starved the cat and trophy hunting, followed by rampant poaching, took its toll.

In 1995, the Save The Tiger Fund was created by Exxon Corporation, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The two organizations had first joined to support research on the Amur tiger in the Russian Far East in 1991. But the tiger crisis of the early 1990s made it clear that something more substantial was needed. Exxon agreed to commit a minimum of $5 million over five years and bring to bear its world-wide network of companies, shareholders, and customers to support the Fund. Exxon’s commitment marked one of the largest corporate financial commitments to saving a species ever made. In turn, the Foundation anted up its conservation credibility and grantsmanship expertise. Recognizing the need for direct tiger expertise, the Foundation formed the Save the Tiger Fund Council, a panel of volunteer experts, to assist the Foundation in guiding the overall direction of the Fund and its project investments.

Proclaiming an intent to “save” the tiger was a bold and far-reaching goal amidst the tiger crisis of the mid 1990s. Until the Fund began increasing investments in basic monitoring and research, no one could make more than an educated guess as to how many tigers might remain in corners of Asia. Until the Fund used its influence to encourage cooperation among tiger biologists, there was little collaborative work underway and no overall assessment of tiger conservation priorities existed. The Fund’s six year history has marked its growth from a bold concept to a cornerstone of tiger conservation initiatives. Calling the Save The Tiger Fund “catalytic” in the conservation world, Kathryn Fuller, President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Fund partner observed:

“The Fund has encouraged non-governmental organizations to cooperate, pool resources, and share the limelight; tiger experts are now talking to one another and joining forces more often, giving rise to larger landscape-level programs that are increasing the tiger’s chance for long-term survival in the wild.”

In eight years, the Save The Tiger Fund has invested more than $10.3 million in 196 projects throughout 13 of the 14 tiger-range countries. Grants were provided to 56 organizations in support of their tiger conservation efforts. The STF took a multi-layered approach to tiger conservation, providing flexible grants to tackle the diverse problems of multiple cultures and ecoregions throughout the tiger's range. These grants varied from support to create health clinics in rural Indian villages and educational programs for schoolchildren in China to forming anti­poaching teams in Thailand and acquiring habitat in Russia.

Against the odds and all predictions, wild tigers survive today.  They still prowl the western Terai of India and Nepal, the mangrove swamps of Bangladesh, the untamed borderlands of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and the vast boreal forests of the Russian Far East. It is neither bold nor boastful to say that the Fund has played a pivotal role in helping to secure this stability.

Partnership Agenda for Fisheries Conervation

ROLE: Steering Committee Member

TIME FRAME: 2000-2002

DELIVERABLE: Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council. 2002. A Partnership Agenda for Fisheries Conservation, A Special Report. 34 pages.

Executive Summary

For more than 100 years, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and its predecessors have played a vital role in the conservation and management of this nation's fisheries and aquatic resources. The FWS Fisheries Program is uniquely positioned to reach across state and international boundaries to coordinate major fisheries management and conservation initiatives.

Unfortunately, a lack of clarity in its fisheries-related responsibilities, coupled with a shortage of funds and Hering expectations from its diverse stakeholders, erode support for the Fisheries Program. The program must be strategically redefined to meet the fisheries conservation needs of a new century in a manner that can be supported by the Office of Management and Budget, Congress and other relevant stakeholders. To that end, the FWS asked the Sport Fishing Boating Partnership Council (SFBPC) to gather input from a broad array of stakeholders, including the states, tribes and other organizations.

 This report provides the consensus recommendations from that group. The report offers 22 recommendations that together provide a new sense of direction for the Fisheries Program. The recommendations are organized around six major topic areas:

• Aquatic Species Conservation and Management

• Public Use

• Cooperation with Native American Tribal Nations

• Leadership in Aquatic Science and Technology

• Aquatic Habitat Conservation and Management

• National Aquatic Habitat Plan

These recommendations build on an earlier SFBPC report, "Saving a System in Peril: A Special Report on the National Fish Hatchery System." Only through the thoughtful implementation of these joint recommendations in partnership with the full community of stakeholders will the Fisheries Program return to its position of leadership, Such leadership is essential to the health of our nation's fisheries resources.

 Copy of report available on request

Saving a System in Peril

ROLE: Steering Committee Member

TIME FRAME: 1998-2000

DELIVERABLE: Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council. 2002. Saving a System in Peril, A special Report on the National Hatchery System. 56 pages.

Report Introduction

For more than a century, the National Fish Hatchery System (NFHS) has played a valuable role in providing cultured fish to benefit Americans. The Department of the Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages the system, consisting of 66 national fish hatcheries, seven fish technology centers, and nine fish health centers.

Unfortunately, the NFHS has serious problems that have developed over several decades. Funding for hatchery operations and maintenance has declined by about 15 percent since 1992. NFHS facilities are old and outmoded. As a whole, the system suffers from a maintenance backlog of approximately $300 million. Twenty-five percent of hatchery personnel positions are vacant. To a troubling degree, these problems reflect an erosion of congressional and public support.

In March 1999, U.S. Representative George Miller, of the House Committee on Resources, asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a review to evaluate the NFHS and to gauge the need for changes to refine and clarify the system’s legal mandates. In May 1999, 10 members of Congress requested that the FWS begin a process to determine the role and mission of the NFHS.

In August 1999, the FWS asked the federally chartered Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council (SFBPC) to undertake that review. Following the FWS request, the SFBPC convened a special National Fish Hatchery Project Steering Committee to review the NFHS and develop recommendations regarding the system’s roles, responsibilities and strategic funding policies.

Overall, the steering committee believes the NFHS is uniquely positioned to influence and benefit state and tribal fishery programs, fulfill tribal trust responsibilities, and provide technical assistance to private aquaculture.

Although the intent of the steering committee’s report is to provide recommendations for future management of the NFHS, the steering committee concluded that without a national vision to define regional goals and objectives designed to fulfill overall FWS Fisheries Program strategies, the national hatchery system will continue to drift and will be in peril. It is essential that the FWS move aggressively to ensure that the NFHS and the products it produces fit within a publicly reviewed national strategy developed with state and tribal partners and stakeholders. The FWS must commit to implementing the plan it produces, and the FWS, the administration and Congress must be prepared to fund adequately the activities outlined by this plan.

“Hatcheries are an important tool for natural resource managers when properly selected and used in support of habitat protection and fisheries management. We need to keep this tool sharp, focused and effective.”

Whitney Tilt, Director of Conservation, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

Report available on request.

Conservation After the Gavel

Red Cockaded Woodpecker (Dominic Sherony, CC Wikimedia Commons)

Role: Program Lead

Time Frame: 1987-1999

Deliverables: More than 75 special law enforcement accounts totaling in excess of $67 million in settlement, restitution, and mitigation dollars.

In 1987, a court in Tallahassee, Florida found a construction company guilty of willfully knocking down a nesting tree inhabited by red-cockaded woodpeckers while clearing land for development. The court directed the defendant to make a $300,000 payment of restitution to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation) as trustee for the endangered woodpeckers. The Foundation established a special account for the funds and provided a series of grants to Big Cypress National Preserve, St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge and the Apalachicola and Osceola National Forests for work directed at the conservation and recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker in Florida.

 Since 1987, the Foundation has worked with Federal and State Agencies on restitution funds and court-ordered settlements dedicated to on-the-ground conservation of fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. In the time frame of 1987-1999, the Foundation established more than 75 special law enforcement accounts totaling in excess of $67 million in settlement, restitution, and mitigation dollars. These funds came from wildlife-related violations of the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Lacey Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Oil Pollution Act, among others. Payments were the result of settlements from both civil and criminal cases and paid in addition to any fines levied on the defendants payable to the U.S. Government, states, and courts.

 In all these cases, restitution funds and settlement monies are directed back to conservation projects in the areas where the violations occurred, or to directly assist conservation of the species of fish/wildlife impacted by the violation. In many cases, the Foundation utilized settlement dollars to raise additional funds through a challenge grant program. For example, in the Iroquois Gas

Pipeline settlement, the Foundation leveraged the $2.25 million delivered to The Foundation into $7.27 million for 36 on-the-ground conservation projects.

 “Where else can we convert settlement funds into on-the-ground wetlands work while leveraging our money? I know of no better vehicle for continuing conservation.”

James C. Woods, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Northern District of New York