Summary and Response to Upper Missouri River Reservoir Fisheries Management Plan 2010-2019 Public Comments Canyon Ferry Walleye The Upper Missouri River Reservoirs Management Plan proposes to manage Canyon Ferry Reservoir as a multi-species fishery with an emphasis on walleye and rainbow trout while recognizing the importance of yellow perch as a sport and forage fish. The management strategy seeks to achieve and maintain a quality walleye fishery while maintaining a balance between walleye abundance and prey availability. If management of walleye population abundance and their predation on desirable sport and forage species is not maintained in a proper balance, all fish populations will suffer and provide diminished angler satisfaction. This balance is particularly difficult to maintain on waters such as Canyon Ferry Reservoir where natural reproduction can be virtually unlimited. Angler harvest regulations are the most cost-effective management tool available to maintain this balance and to increase numbers of desirable sized walleye; however, limits above standard regulations for the Central Fishing District for walleye (5 daily and 10 in possession) are essential to maintain a suitable forage base that will provide growth of walleye into large size groups. Three management alternatives for regulations were proposed by FWP and the Citizen Workgroup for Canyon Ferry to manage the walleye population to attain this goal: Alternative 1: Reduce bag limit to 10 fish daily, 20 in possession with only one fish greater than 28-inches. Maintain 10 fish limit for three years in order to evaluate any changes to walleye population structure. o This alternative will reduce overall angler exploitation of walleye, while continuing to actively manage walleye to reduce predation of other desirable sport fish species. FWP data show that high bag limits may limit the number of fish that recruit to larger size groups. Reducing the bag limit also reduces overall exploitation, which is designed to recruit more fish into more desirable size classes. By limiting harvest to only one fish greater than 28-inches maintains a trophy component to the fishery. Adaptive management strategies allow changes to the bag limit as walleye abundance changes. FWP strives to maintain fishing regulations that achieve management goals and are as clear and simple as possible. Public Comment Support – 8 (includes the Pat Barnes Chapter Trout Unlimited) Original Support in Initial Public Comment Period – 12 Alternative 2: Reduce bag limit to 10 fish daily, 20 in possession with only 4 fish greater than 16-inches and one fish greater than 28-inches. o This alternative further reduces angler exploitation with additional restrictions to angler harvest. Having only 4 fish greater than 16-inches will reduce harvest of larger sized fish while only one fish greater than 28-inches will maintain a trophy component. Additional protection of larger-sized fish offered by this alternative may conflict with management strategies for other sport fish species and increase the risk to the forage base. Creel data demonstrates that few anglers harvest more than 4 fish greater than 16-inches, which reduces that value of this alternative. This alternative proposes more complex regulations to achieve what might be attained by a simpler overall reduction in harvest (i.e., Alternative 1). Public Comment Support – 423 (includes Walleyes Forever and Walleyes Unlimited) Original Support in Initial Public Comment Period – 53 1 Alternative 3: Maintain current bag limit of 20 fish daily, 40 in possession. o This alternative will continue to maximize angler harvest to manage the walleye population. Maximizing angler harvest reduces walleye numbers, which in turn reduces predation of other species in the reservoir and offers the most conservative approach to maintain the predator/forage balance. Data suggests that high harvest also may limit recruitment to larger size groups, further limiting predation by reducing average size of fish. Numbers of other desirable species (i.e., yellow perch and rainbow trout) may be increased through decreased predation by walleye. Public Comment Support – 7 (includes Montana Wildlife Federation) Original Support in Initial Public Comment Period – 12 Miscellaneous Comments: Other comments include proposals for other modified bag limits, management of the Missouri River sections and Hauser and Holter Reservoirs, forage fish, management of other species in the system, and general comments on the Management Plan. Please see Summary Response to Substantive Public Comments below for FWP responses to substantive comments received. Total Miscellaneous Comments – 27 2 Summary Response to Substantive Public Comments Below is a summary response to comments received regarding the Upper Missouri River Reservoir Fisheries Management Plan 2010-2019. Although the FWP Commission requested public comment specifically on all three Canyon Ferry walleye management alternatives that were proposed in the draft management plan released for public comment in October, 2009, public comment was requested for all aspects of the plan. Canyon Ferry Walleye Alternatives Alternatives Alternative 1: Reduce bag limit to 10 fish daily, 20 in possession with only one fish greater than 28-inches. Maintain 10 fish limit for three years in order to evaluate any changes to walleye population structure. Alternative 2: Reduce bag limit to 10 fish daily, 20 in possession with only 4 fish greater than 16-inches and one fish greater than 28-inches. Alternative 3: Maintain current bag limit of 20 fish daily, 40 in possession. Comments a) Comment: Dropping the limit to 10 fish doesn’t go far enough. We need a 5 or 6 fish limit, 10 in possession and a protective slot. Response: Reducing daily limits to 5 or 6 fish daily with a protective slot would jeopardize the goal of maintaining a multi-species fishery. FWP data suggests that lowering the walleye limit to 6 fish with a protective slot could increase forage consumption by the walleye population by over 40%. Canyon Ferry is forage limited and such increases in consumption by walleye could collapse the forage base, which in turn would have negative effects to all sport fish in the reservoir, including walleye. Analysis of data also shows that a protective slot would not be an effective tool for improving size distribution of walleye in the reservoir. b) Comment: Alternative 2 is the only way the small fish can grow up. One fish over 28-inches doesn’t get it done. Response: Biological data suggests that allowing harvest of only 4 fish greater than 16 inches would have little effect on the walleye population size structure. FWP creel data from 2007-2009 show 23% of anglers harvest more than 4 fish per trip and 7.5% of walleye harvested are greater than 16-inches. Over the same period, 0.2% of harvest is of walleye greater than 30-inches. Implementing a regulation with 10 fish, only 4 greater than 16-inches and one greater than 28-inches would reduce overall walleye harvest by 1.7% beyond what a 10 fish daily bag limit would reduce harvest. c) Comment: (The FWP Biologist) informed us that alternative 1 and alternative 2 will have the same effect, so let’s go with science and have a slot. Response: Biological data suggest that alternative 2 would have little beneficial effect to walleye population structure (see Comment b above), therefore, it may be interpreted that the two alternatives would have the same effect. FWP strives to maintain regulations that achieve stated biological goals but are as simple and clear as possible, which would result in alternative 1 identified as the best science. Also, proposed alternative 2 is not technically considered to be a slot limit. d) Comment: I prefer (alternative) 2 because harvest of breeding sized fish needs to be limited. 3 Response: FWP data suggests that angler harvest of spawning sized fish is not a significant limiting factor to the Canyon Ferry walleye population (see Comment b above). Data also suggests that the reproductive potential of the population in Canyon Ferry Reservoir is not limited by angler harvest of spawning-sized adults. e) Comment: The problem I have with (alternative) 1 is if it doesn’t work to improve the overall age class of fish it will be close to 7 years before (alternative) 2 is fully implemented. Response: The three walleye alternatives for Canyon Ferry Reservoir identified in the plan were proposed as starting points. Regardless of which alternative is adopted at the onset of the management plan, the management plan is adaptive in that progressive management actions may be taken based upon management “triggers” in order to obtain balanced multi-species fisheries. If management triggers are met within the first three years of plan implementation, management action may be deferred to allow strategies outlined in the management plan to take effect, providing the risk to the fisheries resource are minimal. After that three year period, new management strategies will be implemented as soon as possible when population levels reach high or low trigger points. The strategies that would be developed would depend on the triggers reached and would include, but not be limited to those original alternatives. f) Comment: If chosen, alternative 2 will be reviewed, along with the entire plan, after 3 years and 6 years. Response: The management plan will be reviewed annually. Progressive management actions will be implemented if/when population triggers are reached. If triggers are exceeded within the first three-years following plan implementation, management action may be deferred to allow evaluation of new management strategies recommended in the plan. However, if conditions change dramatically, adaptive strategies may be considered for implementation. g) Comment: Leave the walleye limits as (is). The more walleyes you get out of there the better, so we can get our good trout and perch fishing back. Response: FWP data suggest that the 20 fish limit may be effective at limiting walleye population growth through high rates of harvest which limit recruitment to larger size groups.