Cb3^-3 Ll^n 3"tV-» A THREE-YEAR F I SHERY INVEST I GAT I ON, FORT PECK REStRVOIR, MONTANA, I 948-!950 . si- - '; «* , or ■ . m- - ; .:,,**>■ m ^*■££ JraMHgytt - V* - . ^ n <__ fJ- / T v> 5 5&v;' -?y '•'*>• '/v-• • -' ’ 26 $^ • * : «ryV — ■ ’ W ' ' S ^IPflBwv ... • v -i'-siSt. * " ■ ? ■ ... .i'.. *, ' $ ..... C ,. ' A ' 1 " - . ■••X < v , ’^ : ■ "■» ; « 1 ':-- ■- 7 ,....^^v, • ,%ak ' * A. 9 ?.- t i 1 Hin^ eiKsiS ia 0 & 81 § -V ‘’LA.'.. ‘ " ; v v ■ •■ 5 ;f,!l5iWW 5 ‘- . UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service A THREE-YEAR FISHERY INVESTIGATION FORT PECK RESERVOIR MONTANA 19U8-1950 4 Report Prepared by Missouri River Basin Studies, Fish and Wildlife Service Billings, Montana April 17, 1952 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MISSOURI RIVER BASIN STUDIES Billings, Montana A THRSErYEAR FISHERY INVESTIGATION FORT PECK RESERVOIR MONTANA l9U8-19£0i/ Mareh 27, 19^2 Report prepared by the staff of the Office of Missouri River Basin Studies, Fish and Wildlife Service, Billings, Montana ^ ocb * . S MRBS 8l6 Six channel catfish and one drum taken at Snow Creek, Fort Peck Reservoir, July h, 19U8. (Photograph by Wayne Ashcraft). TABLE OF' CONTENTS Page Introduction . 1 Description ..... 1 History and Management of the Fishery. ... 7 Methods. 9 Results of Creel Census .. 19 Results of Fisherman Expenditure Study ... -33 Transportation Expenditure ...... 3h Trip Expenditure. .. 3h Annual Expenditure . 35 Investment. 3? Total Expenditure. 37 Evaluation of Fishery . 38 Sampling Error . *. • . . . )|0 Discussion. !|1 Summary. «... J;5 Literature Cited. 1;7 Appendix A / INTRODUCTION A creel census was conducted on Fort Peck Reservoir, Montana, in 19li.8, 1 9h9 and 195>0 by the Missouri River Basin Studies, Fish and Wildlife Service, as part of a general program designed to provide in¬ formation on the utilization and yield of representative bodies of water associated with water-use projects. Fort Peck Reservoir is an example of a large, on-stream reservoir with extensive drawdowns. Although primary consideration was given to determination of the utilization, yield, and fisherman expenditures at the reservoir and the reach of stream immediately below Fort Peck Dam, limited information was secured on various other factors influencing the fisheries f However, the present report is concerned primarily with creel census data and fisherman expenditures. Acknowledgment is made of services and assistance rendered during the course of the study by Montana State College, Montana Fish and Game Commission, Montana State Park Commission, U. S. Geological Survey and the U. S. Corps of Engineers# DESCRIPTION Fort Peck Reservoir is located on the Missouri River in Northeastern Montana in McCone, Valley, Garfield, Phillips, Petroleum, and Fergus Counties (see map). The dam is located at mile 1,868 on the \ Missouri River, 18 miles south of Glasgow, Montana. The reservoir was built by the U. S. Corps of Engineers to provide storage of water for navigation and flood control downstream on \ the Missouri River, and for irrigation and production of hydroelectric power. Construction of the dam was started in 193^-K The gates were closed and the reservoir started to fill in 1939. Although the maximum operational level (2,2^0 feet m.s.l.) was not reached during the course of the study, the reservoir will have a surface area of 21*5,000 acres at maximum level, Th reservoir extends upstream about 110 airline miles, has a maximum clear width of 16 miles, and a shoreline of about 1,600 miles. The greatest depth at maximum pool level is approximately 225 feet. The reservoir is irregular in shape. Except for one rather large arm extending about 1*0 miles up Big Dry Creek at the southeast end of the reservoir, it generally covers a narrow area along the old Missouri River channel. There are numerous small, intermittent tributaries which empty directly into the reservoir, but aside from the Missouri River itself, the Musselshell River is the only important stream flowing into the reservoir. Fort Peck Dam is an earth-filled structure about 250 feet high and 21,000 feet long, with a maximum width of 1*,900 feet at the base and 100 feet at the top. Field boulders and quarry stone, blanketed with an 18-inch layer of gravel, were superimposed on the upper upstream face of the dam to protect it from wave action; the gravel provides the only \ suitable spawning sites in the reservoir for salmonids. Water levels in the Fort Peck Reservoir fluctuated about 21 feet in 19U8, 18 feet in 191*9, and 20 feet in 1950. The maximum level attained in 191*8, about elevation 2,21*1* feet m.s.l., was reached in mid- July, from which time the water was gradually lowered until the minimum level, elevation 2,223 feet, was reached in December. In 191*9, the maximum and minimum elevations were 2,232 feet, reached in early July, 2 and 2,2lU feet in October, respectively. In 1950, the maximum and minimum levels were 2 9 23b feet in July and 2,21k feet in January. The maximum recorded inflow to Fort Peck Reservoir from the Missouri River is about 63,000 second-feet; the minimum recorded inflow about 1,200 second-feet# Subsurface outlets and a spillway are provided for outflow from the reservoir. Four tunnels, each with an inside diameter of 2k feet 8 inches, over a mile in length, and lined with reinforced concrete are located under the east abutment of the dam. Flow through \ the tunnel is regulated for the production of power. The spillway is designed to discharge a maximum of 250,000 second-feet and is located in a natural flowage-way in the rim of the reservoir three miles east of the dam. It consists of a partially lined approach channel, a reinforced concrete gate structure, and a mile-long, reinforced, concrete-lined, discharge channel# Analyses of water samples from Fort Peck Reservoir (Appendix A) indicate moderate hardness, with the sulfates and bicarbonates of sodium, calcium, and potassium predominating in the dissolved components# The pH factor indicates that the water is slightly alkaline and entirely suitable in this respect for the fishes found therein. The dissolved oxygen content of the water was found to be adequate at all times# Adverse conditions resulting from domestic or industrial pollution were • i not apparent# The deeper water of the reservoir is usually clear, although in the small, shallow bays and along the shore it is often quite murky 3 due to wave action on the erodable shore./(Fig* 1). Sedimentation surveys are being made in the reservoir by the Corps of Engineers, but results are not available at this time* Maximum surface-water temperatures recorded in the reservoir adjacent to the dam during the study were about 75>° F* Bottom-water temperatures taken in the same general area, during the period of maximum surface water temperatures, reached a minimum of about k5° F* Maximum and minimum water temperatures at the penstock, as recorded by the Corps of Engineers for the three-year period of study were $3° F*, ■ r ■ « • and 34° F,, in 1948} 59° F«, and 34° F. in 1949} and 37° F., and 33° f., in 1930. Fhenicie (195>0) stated that, "there evidently was no thermal stratification of thermocline magnitude over the reservoir as a whole, although on July 13, 19k9? thermoclines were noted at a few stations * A later study made by the Fish and Wildlife Service on September 13, 195>0, indicated that both thermal and gaseous stratification occurred in Fort Peck Reservoir at that time* It is apparent that in a reservoir of this type, complex and varied thermal patterns may be present, although additional studies would be required to determine their extent and character* Vascular aquatic vegetation has not yet become established in the reservoir, although at certain periods during the summer, plankton blooms were noted in some of the small isolated bays* Timber and brush 1/ Fort Peck Reservoir is almost completely surrounded by outcroppings of Bear Paw Shale, a soft, erodable, shale formation of the Cretaceous Period* Although this shale is covered with a thin layer of glacial till there is little soil development and the growth of native vegeta¬ tion is limited; consequently, erosion is severe* 4 left standing along the edge of the river and in the coulees at the time of construction have noiv died and stand as snags (Fig, 1), Since no extensive work has been done on determining the extent of the success of natural reproduction, no definite conclusions can be made at this time. It is believed that fluctuations in water level in the reservoir (about 20 feet annually) and the generally prevailing low water temperatures below the dam are not conducive to natural reproduction. It also appears that trout and salmon are handicapped due to the lack of extensive suitable spawning grounds* Fish predators are not of importance to the Fort Peck fishery* although large flocks of white pelicans are present both on the reservoir and below the dam during most of the summer* The climate in the vicinity of Fort Peck is typical of the Great Plains, having widely varying temperature extremes and generally scanty rainfall. At Glasgow, the average January temperature is 9.0° F.j > o the July average is 70*7 F. Extreme temperatures range from 113° F. to o minus 59 F. Precipitation averages about 13 inches per year, 69 percent of which falls between May and September. The average length of the growing season is 123 clays, but varies widely from year to year. High . i , * to moderately high winds prevail throughout most of the year* "Wheat farming and stock raising are the chief occupation in the rural areas near Fort Peck Reservoir. The tovrn of Fort Peck, with a population of 1,191 (Jan. 195>1)* was developed as the result of construction and maintenance activities connected with Fort Peck Dam. Wolf Point, with a population of 2,5^7* is the county seat of Roosevelt County and is located 50 miles east of Fort Peck. Glasgow, with a' 5 . ’ • ■ / - ' w A . - • . . . ■ ■ • -, . . . . ■ ' '■t ■ ’ ' ■-■Itsffli I population of 3*810 is the county seat of Valley County and is located about 20 miles northwest of the town of Fort Peck, Nashua* a town with a population of about 95>0, is located 12 miles north of Fort Peck, The three counties surrounding the lower end of the reservoir (Valley* McCone, and Garfield)* or that portion most heavily utilized, have a population of only about 1,3 persons per square mile of land area (195>0 census). Generally speaking, only the area immediately surrounding Fort Peck Dam is readily accessible to fishermen. Several outlying areas on the reservoir are accessible by automobile, but the approaches to these areas are over roads which are rough when dry and virtually impassable when wet. The main points of access on the north side of the reservoir are at the Dam and Dike. The Pines, Bear Creek, and Timber Creek, Rock Creek, Hell Creek, Snow Creek, Box Creek, Devil’s Creek, and the mouth of the Musselshell River are the main fishing sites that can be reached from the east and south sides of the reservoir (see map). The Corps of Engineers has developed recreational sites at The Pines, Hell Creek, Rock Creek, Devil’s Creek, Bear Creek, and in the vicinity of the dam. These recreational developments consist of shelter buildings, picnic tables, indoor cooking facilities, outdoor fireplaces* bath houses, and sanitary facilities. Development also includes im¬ provement of access roads. Tentative plans call for similar develop¬ ments at Box Creek, Snow Creek, and Wilder Crossing. A new state highway linking TJ. S. Highway 2 with State Highway 18 and extending south from Malta has been proposed, which would enable trafiic to cross 6 at the upper limit of the reservoir in the vicinity of Wilder Crossing and thus make this area readily available# A few cabins and docks have been built by private parties in the vicinity of the dam and at Rock Creek. A privately-owned fishing camp was maintained at Rock Creek where boats and motors could be hired, cabins rented, and live-bait purchased. Boats, motors, and live bait \ are available in the vicinity of the dam* A variety of fishes occur in both the reservoir and the Missouri River below Fort Peck Dam. It is possible that other species occur in -the reservoir in addition to those listed in Table 1. Although carp composed less than 1 percent of the fish in the creels checked and were rarely taken during gill netting operations, this species is known to bo quite abundant in the reservoir. During the summer months carp could be seen in large schools in the small shallow bays in the reservoir# History andManagement of the Fishery Prior to die creation of Fort Peck Reservoir there was relatively little fishing in that portion of the Missouri River later flooded by the reservoir. Since 1939 there has been a steady increase in fishing. Horn (19U?) stated that for a few years following closure of the gates in 1939* heavy concentrations of sauger, carp, and catfish furnished excellent fishing immediately below the dam. Extensive fishing began in the reservoir in 19^2, when yellor: perch were caught in large numbers. Black crappie and rainbow trout were caught in limited numbers beginning in 19'+2. Records kept by Mr. Horn indicate that about 1^0,000 fish were taken each year in 1 9h5 and 19^6 in the # area adjacent to Fort Peck Dam# 7 Table 1. Partial list of fishes recorded from Port Peck Reservoir and adjacent waters, Montana, 19U8-19^oi' 1 _ Location _ Species > Missouri River ’ Reservoir below dam Paddle fish ( Polyodon spathula ) Shovelnose sturgeon X~ Scaphirhynchus platorynchus ) Shortnose gar ( Lepisosteus platostomus ) Goldeye ( Amphiodon alosoides ) Brown trout fSalro trutta )" Rainbow trout f Salmo gairdnerii ) Carpsucker (Ca rpiodes carp io) Bigmouth buffalo ( Megastomatobus cyprinella ) Smallmouth buffalo ( Ictiobu s b ubalu s) Blue sucker ( Cycleptus elongatus ) Mountain sucker ( Pan t osteus jorda ni) Carp (Cyprinus carpio ) Flathead chub (Platygobio gracilis ) Lake chub (Couesius plu m beus ) Black bullhead (Ane iurus melas ) Channel catfish ^Iot^lurus lacustris ) Stonecat ( Noturus flavus ) Yellow perch ( Porca flavescens ) Sauger ( Stizostedion canadense ) Iowa darter ( Poecilich thys exilis ) Black crappie*XPomoxis nigra-m aculatus ) Freshwater drum~X XpIodinotas grunnien s) Burbot ( Lota lotaT ~ Lake trout ( Crlstivomer namaycush ) Largemouth black bass ( Micropterus salmoides ) Kokanee ( Oncorhynchus nerka kennerlyi ) Yellow pikeperch (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) X X X x / x£/ X X X X x / *2/ x 2/ xf/ x / x£/ X X X X X X x / *2/ X X X T&/ X X x / x!/ X X X X X X X X X X X X X l/ After Phenicie (19^0) in part* Many minnows taken during netting operations are not included here. 2/ Taken in nets only; all other species occurred in creels. To date, management of the Fort Peck Fishery has consisted of periodic stocking and enforcement of regulations. Unfortunately, the history of fish; planting in Fort Peck Reservoir is not complete. Many plantings for which there are no official records have been made HU. '• • t 8 by individuals* Horn (19U7) canvassed the community near Fort Peck, and learned that an indeterminate number of yellow perch were planted in 1938 and again in 19l|0• He also reports' a planting of 3*000 three— and four-inch crappie in 191+0. His records indicate that 155*000 kokanee (blueback salmon) were stocked between 1?I;0 and 1947. Fish planted i by the U* S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Montana Fish and Game Commission since establishment of the reservoir are recorded in Table 2* Sport fishing is permitted the year around in the Missouri / .1 River and Fort Peck Reservoir, except for areas near the powerhouse and spillway which are closed to fishing as a safety measure. In 1950* the area immediately adjacent to the emergency shaft houses was closed for security reasons. The daily limit of all species of trout and salmon was 15 fish, not to exceed 10 pounds and 1 fish. The daily limit for sauger and yellow pikeperch was 15 fish, not to exceed 15 pounds and 1 fish. In I 9 I 4 - 8 , a total of 50 perch, crappie, sunfish, bluegill, and bullheads could be taken in one day. In 19li9 and 1950, the daily bag. limit on the latter fishes was removed. There was no daily bag limit for all other species of fish. The possession limit for all fishes was one day’s legal catch. The hours of fishing were from 5*00 a.m. to - * 9:30 p.m. Set-line fishing for non-game species was allowed in the reservoir* METHODS Then Fort Peck Reservoir was constructed, a new and extensive fishery was created in waters immediately below Fort Peck Dam as well as in the reservoir itself. Equal consideration was given to the two fisheries thus created during all three years of study. 9 .. r— O OJ o o o • • • • • UN CM rv C\i NO ON UN IA H CO » On -d- NO O o • • • On GO' rH NO O' rH IA o o rH O- ON rH 0— -=r • • • ON CM co CO rH UN rH - vO pf CM O CM O IA O- c— -=r • • * • • • » On Pf A vO UN CO pf On rH | H UN UN Pt Pf rH CO U — CD NO rO O pJ~ IA UN • • • - a Pf o 'IA rH 53 On pt OJ iH ro a O -0 « • ON UN On rH O rH i — 1 - OJ o o ~=t • • On UN O rH1 CM H NO ** OJ rH . , O CO xt • • ON Pf pf r •» — H|C\J UN 0) ■b ** C3 1 h|oi • • • • • •r 4 >3 C >s OJ rH H r—1 rH rH r*S X CO ^H|03 $H t he W) JH CxOl fcUO — p & & Pf IX c X X X H X X ON X X - C\J CO • CO cd -O XJ CO O e* P CD cd IH 2 T P rH 0) CD O o 2 XI •H Pj d Q) O -P 0: CD P P a !H 2 X X X d co P O -P cd *rl o P JH 2 d P T) PH in cd £ -P a) o o cd p o O CD fi CD £ x* £ XJ c § CD bn X! X! O £ te cd (xO a> O rH CD i — 1 o p •H O X h d cd rH rH o p cd X. o cd rH rH d •H CD p d PQ XI PQ PQ PQ X >H m o X! CO *H > y v 2 2 3 H rH •H 6l8 1,665 9 19 1*1*1 1,11*1* 0) 0) p. 76 221 1,061 2,190 1* t/3 ft 1*31 1,193 27 53 c_> o o 2,31*5 17 33 5 0) a a £3 k/ V 37 1 1 6 k/ k/ 7 y Subtotal 610 1,665 1*1*0 1,212 1*68 1,197 76 221 2,389 1,081 2,226 1 V 2 1* The Pines y 2 -p F 16 31* 51 i 2 3 W 561 1,U93 k/ 373 973 26 76 37 166 1*19 1* •P c •H O Oh 1*61* 1,273 9 15 301 1* 10 5 25 63 1 2 1 2 6 3 8 “k^ 1* y Subtotal 561 1,1*93 1*92 1,31*1* 1*01 1,028 26 76 393 172 1*33 1 Dam & Dike F k/ Hell Creek 2 k/ i 2 1 3 1,035 1,575 2 2 51*3 779 5 12 7 1* 176 291 F 293 5 1* 1* k/ 6 1 1 k/ Subtotal 1,035 1,575 183 298 51*1* 781 5 12 301 1 Recreation Area k/ V Snow Creek 2 V k/ 3 71*1*2/ 1,875 k/ 535 1,379 1*8 11*1* 1950 Jan.12-19 Feb.17-23 Apr.l5-Sept.ll* t.ll* Oct.22-25 Nov.16-19 Dec. 8-11 only a combined in 191*8 only 7 1* 379 931* 9 25 5 1*6 89 k/ 6 1* 8 k/ Subtotal 71*1* 1,875 1*29 1,031 51*1* 1,1*01* 1*8 11*1* 1 Snob Hill k/ h/ Timber Creeklo^ .91*9 2 k/ y an. 18-21* 3 3/ l* 11 211* 551* 2 8 pr. 19-25 1* 251* 695 1* 9 ct. 22-30 5 11 21* y ec. 3-9 ng summer 6 V y ation Are Subtotal 269 730 218 563 2 8 ng summer 1 Duck Creek k/ k/ 7/ 0) Q> Pi O 13 0) nly nly 2 k/ y 191*9 onl 3 59 i5o 1*16 1,010 1* 552 1,1*92 16 35 5 18 36 k/ 6 2 6 ~y~ Subtotal 59 150 572 1,531* 1*32 1,01*5 Total 3,017 6,758 2,385 6,11*9 2,607 6,018 157 1*61 3,083 1,253 2,659 20 Table 3© Number parties and fishermen contacted by check period and area, Fort Peck Reservoir and area below Fort Peck Dam, Montana, 19U8, 19U9> and 19$0 tl M T3 P o m -h C 4 0) 0) 0(4 _ , Adjacent to Dam Outlying Areas£/ o cd $ ? 191*8- £/ 191*9 1950 ' * u cd 191*8 191*9 1950 Parties Contacted Fishermen Contacted Parties Contacted Fishermen Contacted 0 Parties Contacted Fishermen Contacted Parties Contacted Fishermen Contacted Parties Contacted Fishermen Contacted Parties Contacted Fishermen Contacted 1 y k/ 2 k/ k/ 3 rH rH •H 618 1,665 9 19 1 * 1*1 1,11*1* ^ - 0 0 u 76 221 90 261* 1* to 4 1*31 1,193 27 53 o o 156 1*26 5 CL, CL, o k/ k/ o cn 6 k/ k/ Subl ,otal 6l8 1,665 1*1*0 1,212 1*68 1,197 76 221 156 1*26 90 261* 1 V 2 1* The Pines 2 +> w cd W CO -p CS •H O (X, k/ 16 31* 3 561 1,1*93 k/ 373 973 26 76 27 71* 1* 1*61* 1,273 9 15 36 113 5 25 63 1 2 6 3 8 k/ Subtotal 561 1,1*93 1*92 1,31*1* 1*01 1,028 26 76 36 113 27 71* 1 0 *«! •rH Q « k/ y Hell Creek 2 k/ i 2 3 1,035 1,575 2 2 51*3 779 5 12 37 118 1* 176 291 y 38 117 5 1* 1* y 6 1 1 y Subtotal 1,035 1,575 183 298 51*1* 781 5 12 38 117 37 118 1 y y Snow Creek 2 cd 0 y y 3 4! C 71*1*2/ 1,875 y 535 1,379 1*8 11*1* 22 56 1* •H -P cd 379 931* 9 25 30 89 5 0 o 0 1*6 89 y 6 ccj 1* 8 y Sul (total 71*1* 1,875 1*29 1,031 51*1* 1,1*01* 1*8 11*1* 30 89 22 56 1 y y 6/ 0 0 Ch O 0 Eh 2 y y 3 rH rH •r| X 3/ i* 11 211* 551* 2 8 1* rQ o c 251* 695 1* 9 5 CO 11 21* y 6 y y Sut (total 26 9 730 218 563 2 8 1 k/ y 7/ 2 k/ y 3 J ^ 0 0 U 59 150 1*16 1,010 0 0 u o c3 0 PQ 38 102 1* o o 552 1,1*92 16 35 5 (3 18 36 y 6 2 6 y Subtotal 59 150 572 1,531* 1*32 1,01*5 38 102 Total 3,017 6,758 2,385 6,11*9 2,607 6,018 157 1*61 260 71*5 211* 611* O cd 0 0 co rH 0 2 Eh & 0 Cu 4 a) ? o ►4 V co -P £ o a PQ Area Below Dam 19U8^/ Parties Contacted 1,317 1,317 1,082 1,082 28 28 Fishermen Contacted 2,738 2,738 2,801 2,801 81 81 19h9 Parties Contacted h/ h/ k/ 1 , 121 * 21 1 , 11*8 1 T 20 15 268 30i* 1 V 116 w w 120 Fishermen Contacted 2,3U5 37 1950 Parties Contacted 1 */ 1,061 17 2,389 51 37 301 393 293 301 w Fishermen Contacted 2,190 33 1,081 TT 166 1 TT 172 2,226 1*19 10 1*33 Footnotes: 1/ Census Periods 191*8 1 2 3 May 1*-Sept.ll* 1* 5 6 1950 Jan.12-19 Feb.17-23 Apr.l5-Sept.ll* Oct.22-25 Nov.16-19 Dec. 8-11 191*9 Jan. 18-21* Mar. 3-10 Apr. 19-25 June 2-Sept. 11* Oct. 22-30 Dec. 3-9 2/ Creel checks during summer only 3/ Snob Hill & Recreation Area combined in 191*8 4/ No fishermen contacted 5/ Creel checks during summer only 6/ Checked in 191*8 only 1/ Checked in 1950 only 8/ Checked in 191*8 & 191*9 only 2,1*27 5,620 1,572 3,083 1,253 2,659 20 Table 1*. Recorded pole-hours, recorded fish, and rate of catch by / i w o „ Adjacent to Dam Area Below Dam s d H O fl U © n, to U,235o5 205.5 1*,078 220 0.95 1.07 1 , 981*.0 2,511 1.27 5 V y 6 y y To :al 5,607.5 1*,263.5 u, 563.0 3,778 1*, 11*0 3,971 1,092.5 1,981*.0 1, 1*71*. 0 1,61*5 2,511 95i* 1 Points East U/ 13.0 15 1.15 The Pines 2 i*/ 113.0 51 0 . 1*5 3 1*, 1*17.0 u/ 3 , 296.0 3,105 1,729 0.70 0.52 21*0.0 239.5 131 161 0.55 0.67 1* 1 *, 006.0 1*1.5 3,805 21 0.95 0.58 1*91.0 185 0.38 5 21*0.5 2.0 1 31*2 1 1.26 0.50 6 31*.0 y 1 0.03 Total 1*, 1*17.0 1 *, 280.5 3,1*65.5 3,105 1*, 11*8 1,820 21*0.0 1*91.0 239.5 131 185 161 1 Dam & Dike y y Hell Creek 2 y 6.0 0 0.00 3 2,780.5 1.5 1 , 292.0 802 0 81*1 0.21 0.00 0.65 77.5 1,218.5 75 1*57 0.97 0.38 1* 613.0 y 1*73 0.77 556.5 31*8 0.63 5 6.0 y 2 0.33 6 o.5 y 0 0.00 Total 2,780.5 621.0 1 , 298.0 802 1*75 81*1 77.5 556.5 1,218.5 75 31*8 1*57 1 Recreation Area V y Snow Creek 2 V y 3 5 , 231 *. 0 ^ u/ 1 *, 1 * 12.0 3,257 1,911* 0.62 0.1*3 718.0 311.5 526 195 0.23 0.63 1* 2 , 662.0 62.5 1,169 39 0.1*1* 0.62 1*82.5 187 0.39 5 31*5.0 y 392 1.11* 6 13.5 y 0.00 Total 5,231**0 3 , 020.5 l*, 1 * 71*.5 3,257 1,561 1,953 . ... - 718.0 1*82.5 311.5 526 187 195 ■ ■ . ■ - 1 Snob Hill y y Timber Creek| 0 ^ 2 y y 3 3/ 32.0 1,827.0 9 1,037 0.28 0.57 67.0 88 1.31 1* 2 , 035.0 31*.0 1,051* 61 0.52 1.79 % 5 68.0 4/ 102 1.50 6 y V Tc )tal 2 , 135.0 1 , 861.0 1,165 1,098 67.0 88 1 Duck Creek y V 1/ <0 0) u 0 13 03 CQ 2 y V 3 509.0 y 3 , 700.0 31*2 1,659 0.67 0.1*6 655.0 1*63 0.71 1* 5 , 316.0 88.5 3,21*6 31 0.61 0.35 5 116.5 V 125 1.08 6 12.0 y 1 0.08 Tc )tal 509.0 5 , 1 * 1 * 1 *. 5 3,788.5 31*2 3,372 1,690 655.0 1*63 j - ---- Grand Total 18,51*8.0 19,765.0 19,1*50.5 11,281* 11*, 861 11,373 2,195.0 3,5ll*.0 3,898.5 2,1*65 3,231 2,230 o n) 0) Q) d # u a) S o 8 / to +> •H a, * o b PQ Area Below Dam 19l*8=» Recorded Pole-hours V 191*9 h/ 7 , 688.0 7 , 688.0 11,965.0 11 , 965.0 198.5 1*/ b/ 1950 b/ 2.0 Recorded Fish 191*8 5,071.5 6 , 092.0 71*.0 28.5 6,191*. 5 1*/ 217.0 110.5 1,013.5 93.0 1.5 1 */ 5,168.0 1*/ l*.o 3,326 191*9 3,91*3 3,326 1,591*. 5 1 * 3.0 1*/ 22.0 1,363.0 1 */ 2.0 8.5 931* .0 1*/ 1*/ 198.5 91*1*.5 3.0 1*/ 1,61*1*. 5 11,31*9 30 3,973 1 * 21 * 18 1,050 11,3U9 132 132 1,1*92 1950 1,867 92 1,960 1,022 62 1,086 502 502 Rate of Catch 191*8 0.1*3 0.95 0.66 191*9 0.61* 0 . 1*1 0.00 1.95 0.16 1 . 01 * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 . 51 * 1950 0.00 0.37 0.97 0.67 0.50 0.61* 1 . 1 * 1 * 0.00 Footnotes: 1/ Census periods 191*8 1 2 3 May 1*-Sept. li* 1* 5 6 1950 Jan. 12-19 Feb. 17-23 Apr. 15-Sept, Oct. 22-28 Nov. 16-19 Dec. 8-11 191*9 Jan. 18-21* Mar. 3-10 Apr. 19-25 June-Sept. 11* Oct. 22-30 Dec. 3-9 2/ Creel check during summer only 3/ Snob Hill & Recreation Area combined in 191*8 —/ No fishermen contacted —/ Creel checit during summer only Checked in 191*8 only 7/ — Checked in 1950 only -/ Checked in 191*8 & 191*9 only ii* 19,851.5 8,502.0 6,812.5 li*,807 5,967 3,01*6 21 Tabljo Area Below Dam T7 191*9 1950 eason Summer Season Off-season Summer Season Off-season % No. % No. % No. % No. % Saug 31*. 63 2,253 UioOO 91 19.28 1,555 53.82 uu 28.03 Yell 0.81 3 0.05 0 11 0.39 0 Yell 31086 376 6.8U 329 69.70 llil U088 11 7.01 Gold 23.93 2,567 1*6.72 32 6.78 759 26.27 80 50.95 Trou 0.59 hh 0.80 0 37 1.28 h 2.55 Lake 0 0 3 0.10 0 Koka 0 0 0 0 Stur 0.51 11 Oc 20 1 0.21 2k 0.83 0 Burb 0.51 1 k 0.25 19 1*.03 30 1.01* 3 1.91 Blac 0.1*3 19 0.35 0 0 0 Carp 0.31* 37 0.67 0 * 27 0.93 2 1.27 Drum 0.33 30 0.51* 0 9 0.31 0 Padd 0.03 1 0.02 0 0 0 Suck 0.02 8 0.15 0 2 0.07 0 Flat OoOl 5 0.09 0 38 1.32 0 Blac 0.02 3 0.06 0 9 0.31 0 Chan 5.97 123 2.21* 0 2JUU 8.1*5 13 8.28 Largi 0.01 0 0 0 0 Gar 1 0.02 0 0 0 * 100.00 5,1*95 100000 1*72 100.00 2,889 100.00 157 100.00 22 Table 5. Number and percent of recorded fish by species, season, and check area. Fort Peck Reservoir and Area below Fort Peck Dam, Montana, 191*8, 191*9, and 1950 Reservoir Area Below Dam Adjacent to Dam Outlying Areas U Species 19U8 y 191*9 1950 191*8 191*9 1950 191*8 y 191*9 1950 Summer Season Summer Season Off-season Summer Season Off-season Summer Season Summer Season Summer Season Summer Season Summer Season Off-season Summer Season Off-s sason No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Sauger 569 5.oi* 571* It.17 51* 5.21 1,572 lit. 31* 39 8.82 78 3d6 153 l*o73 219 9.82 5,127 31*.63 2,253 1*1 c 00 91 19.28 1,555 53.82 1*1* 28.03 Yellow pike-perch 7 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.03 0 120 0.81 3 0.05 0 11 0.39 0 Yellow perch 8,280 73.38 11,026 80.17 778 75.12 5,936 Sit.17 267 6o. 1*1 2,196 89.09 2,61*9 81.99 1,296 58.13 it, 717 31086 376 6.81* 329 69.70 11*1 l*o88 11 7.01 Goldeye 1,513 13.1*0 1,577 11.U5 53 5.n 2,51*8 23.21* 1*5 10.17 81 3.29 196 6.06 362 16.23 3,51*3 23.93 2,567 1*6.72 32 6.78 759 26.27 80 50.95 Trout 329 2.92 115 0.83 9 0.86 197 1.79 6 1.36 8 0.33 6 0.19 3 0.13 87 0.59 1*1* 0.80 0 37 1.28 1* 2.55 Lake trout 0 0 1 0.10 2 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.10 0 Kokanee 3 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sturgeon 16 o.il* l 0.01 0 2 0.02 0 0 0 0 76 0.51 11 0 C\J 0 0 1 0.21 21* 0.83 0 Burbot 1 0.01 13 0.09 131 12.61* 356 3.25 83 18.78 1 0.01* 1 0.03 1*5 2.02 75 0.51 11* 0.25 19 1*.03 30 1.01* 3 1.91 Black crappie 21*6 2.18 203 1.1*7 9 0.86 102 0.93 0 12 0.1*9 32 0.99 35 1.57 61* 0.1*3 19 0.35 0 0 0 Carp 11*6 1.29 117 0.85 1 0.10 80 0.73 1 0.23 6 0.21* 10 0.31 36 1.61 51 0.31* 37 0.67 0 • 27 0.93 2 1.27 Drum 10 0.09 15 0.10 0 32 0.29 0 22 0.89 28 0.87 62 2.78 1*9 0.33 30 0.51* 0 9 0.31 0 Paddlefish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.03 1 0.02 0 0 0 Suckers 13 0.12 11 0.07 0 29 0.26 0 1 0.01* 0 2 0.09 3 0.02 8 0.15 0 2 0.07 0 Flathead chub 2 0.02 1 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 OoOl 5 0.09 0 38 1.32 0 Black bullhead 83 0.71* 1*1* 0.31 0 16 0.15 0 21 0.85 65 2.01 10 0.1*5 3 0.02 3 0.06 0 9 0.31 0 Channel catfish 66 o.58 65 0.1*7 0 89 0.81 1 0.23 39 1.58 90 2.79 160 7.17 881* 5.97 123 2.21* 0 21*1* 8.1*5 13 8.28 Largemouth black bass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.01 0 0 0 0 Gar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.02 0 0 0 * Total 11,281* 100.00 13,762 100o00 1,036 100.00 10,961 100 o 00 1*1*2 100.00 2,1*65 100 o 00 3,231 100.00 2,230 100.00 11*, 807 100.00 5,1*95 100.00 1*72 100.00 2,889 100.00 157 100.00 3/ Creel check during summer only. 22 Table 6 • Average weight of fish in a non-selective sample from fisherman’s creel, Fort Peck Reservoir and area belaw Fort Peck Dam, Montana 19U8, 191*9, and 19^0 V T£C5-’-T9H9- T -19517 Species ’ No, in sample ’ Average weight* * No. in sample ’ Average weight* ’ No. in sample ’ Average weight* Sauger 137 .. 1.1*0 91 1,26 U31* 1..26 Yellow pikeperch 2/ “TUTo 1 2.00 3 2.20 Yellow perch 332 '0.38. “21*0" 0.30 123 0.30 Goldeye 30 0.06 70 0.51 “09 0.59 Trout (rainbow & brown) 90 3.10 bh 2.77 11*7. 2*10 Lake trout .. * 2.00 5 “ 3 T 9 H Kokanee 2/ _ - <*- # 3.00 . - . - * M* Shovelnose sturgeon 2/ 3.00 n. 3.00 2 li*.7? Burbot 2/ 2.00 y 2.00 70 2 .1*6 Black crappie ""02* 0.70 ~ar -1.07 13 0.66 Carp 7 3.10 “ir 3.1*3 12 3.7l* Freshwater drum 5 2.Co . 1. 2.60 17 1.81 . Paddlefish 2/ 10.00 16.00 ' — Sucker (several sp.) 3,, 0757 d . 0.67 3. i7T3“ Flathead chub £/ 5773“ . d “5773 d ... o*£o Black bullhead 2 / “5735“ 1' 5735“ “ 5731 “ Channel catfish 3.00 1 2.U0 “SB 2 .,6l* Largemouth black bass 2/ 5773“ — ^hortnose*ar — y. T706" — * In pounds — There was some variation in the average weight of the various species from the area below the dam, the reservoir adjacent to dam, and out¬ lying areas, and where the samples from any area were sufficient to warrant use of the average weight as determined for that area, suoh average weights were used in calculating the total poundage taken. „ No specimens actually weighed* Weight estimated for purpose of computing weight of estimated total catch. No specimens actually weighed. Average weight as determined in the previous year used in computing weight of estimated total catch.. 23 Table ?• Estimated utilizati Area Number Week-da Checks Total Esti¬ mated Number Fisherman- days May 15 Thru Octo 31 Total Estima¬ ted Number Fish Caught May 15 Thru Oct. 31 Total Estimated Weight of Fish Caught May 15 Thru Oct. 31 191*8 Rock Creek 5 1,760 13,050 6,520 The Pines 2 690 1,170 580 Hell Creek 2 200 1,220 590 Snow Creek 2 IJTBo 6 , li20 3,210 Timber Creek 2/ 2 210 1 , 11*0 570 Bear Creek ZJ — 550 2,700 1,760 Total 13 5,190 25,700 • 13,230 191*9 Rock Creek — 2k 2,130 12 , 51*0 5,730 The Pines 2k 720 1,150 530 Hell Creek 2k 700 2,110 970 Snow Creek 2k i , o5o 2,200 1,010 Timber Creek i / 280 1,370 690 Bear Creek ZJ — 600 2,91*0 1,920 Total 96 5,1*80 22,310 10,850 1950 Rock Creek — 20 i , 8l*o 9,210 5,780 The Pines 19 550 1 , 1*30 1 , 11*0 Hell Creek 19 720 2,970 3,570 Snow Creek 19 260 1,210 2 , 1 * 1*0 Timber Creek 2 / 1 200 1,100 550 Bear Creek ZJ Hi 700 3,1*50 2,250 Total 91 1*,270 19,370 15,730 1/ Checked in 19U8 only 2/ Checked in 1950 only 24 Table 7. Estimated utilization and yield for outlying areas. Fort Peck Reservoir, Montana, 19U8, 19h9, 1950 Area Number Week-day Checks Average Number Fisherman-days Per Week Day Number Week-end Day & Holiday Checks Average Number Fisherman-days Per Week-end Day & Holiday Number Week Days May 15 Thru Oct. 31 Number Week-end Days & Holidays May 15 Thru Oct. 31 Average Number Fish Caught Per Fisher¬ man-day Total Esti¬ mated Number Fisherman- days May 15 Thru Oct. 31 Total Estima¬ ted Number Fish Caught May 15 Thru Oct. 31 Total Estimated Weight of Fish Caught May 15 Thru Oct. 31 19U8 Rock Creek 5 5c6 10 20.9 117 53 7.U 1,760 13,050 6,520 The Pines 2 1.3 7 10.1 117 53 1.7 690 1,170 ^80 Hell Creek 2 1.0 8 1.5 117 53 6.2 200 1,220 590 Snow Creek 2 8.0 8 16 . 0“ 117 53 315 1,780 6,1*20 3,210 Timber Creek 1/ 2 1.5 8 .6 117 53 5.5 210 1,11*0 570 Bear Creek ZJ — — — — — — — 550 2,700 1,760 Total 13 hi 5,190 25,700 • 13,230 19U9 Rock Creek 2U 10 o 2 7 17.6 117 53 5.9 2,130 12,51*0 5,730 The Pines 2h 2 e l 7 8.9 117 53 1.6 720 1,150 530 Hell Creek 2h 2.7 7 7.3 117 53 3.0 700 2,110 970 Snow Creek 2k 1.9 12 15.6 117 53 2.1 1,050 2,200 1,010 Timber Creek i/ — — — — — — 280 1,370 690 Bear Creek 2/ — — — — — — 600 2,91*0 1,920 Total 96 33 5,1*80 22,310 10,850 1950 Rock Creek 20 8.U 12 16.2 117 53 5.0 1,81*0 9,210 5,780 The Pines 19 2.3 12 5o3 117 53 2.6 550 1,1*30 1,11*0 Hell Creek 19 2.7 12 7.7 117 53 l*.l 720 2,970 3,570 Snow Creek 19 o.l* 11 a.i 117 53 U.6 260 1,210 2,1*1*0 Timber Creek i/ — — — — — — — Mi 200 1,100 550 Bear Creek U Hi 2.7 11 7o3 117 53 U.9 700 3,1*50 2,250 Total 91 58 U, 270 19,370 15,730 1/ Checked in 19U8 only 2/ Checked in 1950 only 24 Table 8 0 Estimated annual ut: Utilization & Yield # Ma: Cei Pe] r of Reservoir Entire Reservoir 191*9 1950 191*8 191*9 1950 Total Total Total Total Total Estimated utilization in fidierraan-days 7: 5,l*5o l*,37o 15,1*50 16,300 20,380 Estimated yield in number of fish 13, 22,310 19,370 U6,000 1*8,910 53,800 Estimated yield in pounds of fish 6 : 8,850 15,730 23,630 22,150 Uo ,700 ;o .nder Total ?00 5,790 i00 7,1*80 500 6,960 25 Table 8 C Estimated annual utilization and yield. Fort Peck Reservoir, Montana, 19U8, 19U9, and 1950 Utilization & Yield Adjacent To Dam Remainder of Reservoir En tire Reserv< jir 191*8 191*9 1950 191*8 191*9 1950 191*8 191*9 1950 Main Census Period Remainder of Year Total Main Census Period Remainder of Year Total Main Census Period Remainder of Year Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Estimated utilization in fidierman-days 7,860 2,1*00 10,260 8,1*30 2,1*20 10,850 lit, 300 1,710 16,010 5,190 5 , 1*50 1*,370 15 , 1*50 16,300 20,380 Estimated yield in number of fish 13,300 7,000 20,300 19,1*00 7,200 26,6oo 29,800 i *,630 31 *, 1*30 25,700 22,310 19,370 1 * 6,000 1 * 8,910 53,800 Estimated yield in pounds of fish 6,900 3,500 10,1*00 9,100 1*, 200 13,300 21,600 3,370 21 *, 970 13,230 8,850 15,730 23,630 22,150 1*0,700 Table 9. Estimated annual utilization and yield, Area below Fort Peck Dam, Montana, 19U8, 19U9, and 1950 Utilization & Yield 191*8 191*9 1950 Main Census Period Remainder of Year Total Main Census Period Remainder of Year Total Main Census Period Remainder of Year Total Estimated utilization in fisherman-days 6,600 3,000 9,600 l*,200 1,550 5,750 1 *, 890 900 5,790 Estimated yield in number of fish 17,100 5 ,000 22,100 8,920 3,600 12,520 6,080 1 , 1*00 7,1*80 Estimated yield in pounds of fish 17,600 5,000 22,600 8,530 3 , 1*10 11 , 91*0 5,660 1,300 6,960 25 •will be made of the reservoir. The above assumption is borne out in part by the increased use of Rock Creek and Hell Creek during the period of study (Table 7). Use of these areas generally increased each year as roads were improved and facilities of convenience were provided. At the same time, use at some of the other outlying areas, notably Snow Creek which was not developed, dropped off rather rapidly, further indicating that accessibility and development are important factors in utilization of an area. As will be shown later, the Fort Peck fishery is of major importance to only those people within about 90 miles of the fishery. Since the human population (about 0.7 people per square mile in 1950 ) within a 5 > 0 -mile radius of most outlying areas did not materially change in the 3 «year study } a decrease in utilization of the more I » inaccessible areas would be expected with an increased utilization of the more accessible areas* Increased utilization of Rock Creek and Hell Creek as 4 determined from the limited creel checks made during the course of the study were borne out by incomplete records^kept by Montana Park Commission employees stationed at these two areas during the summer of 1 9h9 and 1950 * There were minor variations in the rate of catch (Table I 4 .) and the weight of fish caught (not fully reflected in Table 6 ) at the various outlying areas under observation, but on the whole these apparently were not of sufficient magnitude to encourage many fishermen to travel the extra miles or take the necessary chances of becoming isolated for a few days to journey to the less accessible areas. 1 1 / Because of the layout of the areas it was not possible for Park Commission employees to check everyone utilizing the areas. 4 26 Almost 92 percent, 95 percent, and 90 percent of the catch for 191*8, 19l*9, and 1950, respectively was composed of yellow perch, goldeye, and sauger, the three most abundant fishes in the creels checked at the reservoir (Table 5)* Goldeye, a species usually dis¬ carded, made up about 12 percent, 10 percent, and 22 percent of the catch during the three years* As at the reservoir, sauger, goldeye, and yellow perch were the three most abundant fishes examined in the creels below the dam* These three fishes made up about 90 percent, 95 percent, and 85 percent of the catch belov/ the dam in 191*8, 19i*9, and 195p, respectively (Table 5)* Goldeye made up 2i* percent, 1*7 percent, and 28 percent of the catch during the three years* Analysis of data presented in Table 5 indicates a decline of yellow perch in the Fort Peck fishery over the three-year period* especially in the area below the dam* In 191*8, yellow perch composed about one-third of the catch below the dam, but dropped to about 5 per¬ cent of the catch in 19h9 and 1950. In the reservoir adjacent to the dam roughly three-quarters of the catch was composed of yellow perch in 191*8 and 19l*9, but this species comprised only about one-half of the catch in 1950* The same general trend was evident at the outlying areas, but since the samples from these areas were relatively small, the trend indicated might not have the same significance. As indicated by Eschmeyer and Smith (191*3) there may be a correlation between the prevailing low-water temperatures below the dam and the decline in the perch, as well as the general decline in the numbers of all warm water fish harvested each year (Table 9)* Since goldeye were usually discarded* 27 it was difficult to obtain an accurate count of this species; therefore* goldeye probably made up a higher percentage of the catch in all areas than indicated in Table 5* Minor seasonal changes in composition of catch y/ere noted throughout the period of study (Table 5)* Burbot were rarely taken during the summers, whereas catfish were rarely taken during the winters# i Marked variation in rate of catch occurred at various seasons and among the different fishing sites (Table U)* The higher rate of catch shown for the off-season periods is believed to be largely due to the unfavorable weather conditions -which probably discouraged all but the most skilled and ardent fishermen, whereas, both skilled and unskilled anglers fished during the more favorable summer monthfe* In order to arrive at a fair comparison of the utilization and yield over a 3-year period it is necessary to reduce the figures to a comparable time and area basis< Since periodic off-season checks were not made in 19U8, nor' over the same periods in 1 9h9 and 1950, no comparison can be made of the fishery during the v/inter period* It is possible, however, . to make a comparison on the basis of comparable summer periods* Since the 19!|9 summer census was conducted over a 105-day period, as compared to a 132-day period in 19^8, and a 159-day period in 1950, the comparison for the 3 years is confined to the corresponding 105-day period in each year. Also, since the borrow pits were not checked in 1950, Timber Creek was checked in 19^8 by airplane only, and Bear Creek y;as checked in 1950 only, these areas have not been included in the comparison* 28 1 ' ' * ‘M ) Analysis of the data obtained for comparable 105-day periods and comparable areas for the three-year period of study indicates the following (see Table 10 for a detailed breakdovm of the comparison): (1) The number of fisherman-days increased about 11 percent from 19U8 to 1 9k9> and about 27 percent from 19U9 to 1950• (2) The progressive increase in the number of fisherman-days was not accompanied by a corresponding increase in number of fish caught*- From 19U8 to 1 9h9, there was virtually no change in the number of fish caught, and from 19U9 to 195>0, there was an increase of only about 8 percent* The increase in the latter case was due to more effort (in terms of pole-hours) expended by the fishermen* (3) The average rate of catch per pole-hour declined . V ' ' v j 0*10 fish from 19^8 to 1 9h9 , and 0*23 fish from 1 9b9 to 1950. » . (h) 'The decrease in die average weight of the fish from 0*71 pounds in 19U8 to 0*3<8 pounds in 191-1-9, and the increase to 0*78 pounds in 19^0 are largely due to a change in the composition of the Catch, and to a lesser extent to a change in the average weights of the various species of fish caught. * * With the exception of casting for trout off the Dam and Dike, still-fishing with live minnows was the- principal means of taking fish in Fort Peck Reservoir. Set lines were used, primarily for catfish. 29 in a few of the outlying areas. Fishermen likewise favored still-fishing with live minnows below the dam, but casting and still-fishing with a variety of other baits was occasionally employed. Although boat fishing is gaining considerably in popularity, most of the fishing in Fort Peck Reservoir and below the dam is from the bank* / ^ Table 10. Comparison of creel data obtained from June 2 - Sept, 11+, 19l+9, with those obtained during the corresponding 105 -day periods' in 19)48 and 1950, Fort Peck Reservoir and Area Below the Dam, Montana Item 1 192+8 | 1 9h9 ! 1950 Total estimated number of fisherman-days 13,632 13,139 19,255 Total estimated number of fish taken 2 + 0,088 39,799 03,190 Total estimated weight of fish taken 28,052 22,562 33,691 Average rate of catch per pole houri/ 0.93 0.83 0.60 Average number of fish per fisherman-dayi/ 2.9U 2.63 2.21* Average pounds of fish per fisherman-dayl/ 2.09 1 .U 9 1,75 Average hours fished by anglersi/ 3.16 3.18 3.76 Average weight < of fishi/ 0.71 0.56 0.78 1 / Weighted according to number of anglers in the sample* The Fort Peck fishery serves principally local people. Over the three-year study period, about 82 percent of the people who fished in the reservoir and below the dam came from Glasgow, Fort Peck, Nashua, and Wolf Point, all within a 50-mile radius (Table 11). Generally speaking, fishermen using the outlying areas came from the towns nearest the fishing sites. Only about 3 percent of the fishermen interviewed 30 Table 11. N ;k Dam, Montana, 19U8, 19U9, and 1950 Point of Origin of Trip Grand Total 191*8 191*9 1950 3-Year Total i No. % No. % No. % No. % Fort Peck (immediate vicinity, pop. 1,191) 1 Nashua (12 mile distant, pop 0 950) 2 Glasgow (20 mile distant, pop. 3 , 810 ) — Wolf Point (50 mile distant, pop. 2,5h7) Sub-total- I 4 major towns within 50 mi. radius All other residents TOTAL y 3 5,386 100 3,71*3 100 i*, 071 * 100 13,203 100 1 / Totals no 31 Table 11. Number.and percent of fishing parties and point of origin of fishing trips, resident and non -resident, Fort Peck Reservoir and area below Fort Peck Dam, Montana, 19U8, 19h9, «nd 1950 — Resident Parties Non- resident Parties Granc l Total 1-Year Point of 19U8 19h9 1950 3-Year Point of 19 U 8 19149 1950 3-Year Total 19148 1914 s 195C ) Tot* Wn a % Origin of Trip No. % NOo % No. % No. % Origin of Trip No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % NOo % NOo A> © Fort Peck (immediate vicinity, pop. 1,191) 2*317 U3 1,1914 32 1,092 27 14,603 35 North Dakota 58 1 65 2 59 1 182 1 Nashua (12 mile distant, POP 6 950) 195 U 1U7 a 180 1* 522 a Other states and District of Columbia 87 2 69 2 68 2 22a 2 Glasgow (20 mile distant, pop. 3*810) 1,603 30 1,1*66 39 1,696 1*2 U,765 36 Canadian Provinces 2 — 5 — 2 — 9 — — * "Wolf Point (50 mile distant, pop. 2,5U7) 358 7 21*8 7 298 7 90 I 4 7 • Sub-total- k major towns within 50 mi. radius i*,U73 83 3,055 82 3,266 80 10,7914 82 All other residents 766 1U 5U9 15 679 17 1,9914 15 TOTAL 5,239 97 3,6014 96 3,9U5 97 12,788 97 ia7 3 139 a 129 3 1*15 3 5,386 100 3,7U3 100 a, 07 a 100 13,203 100 1/ Totals not necessarily same as totals shown in Table 3 because adequate information not obtained on all parties contacted 3 I were non-residents. About k5 percent of the non-resident fishermen came from North Dakota. With the exception of North Dakota fishermen, who usually came to the reservoir purposely to fish, most non-resident fisher¬ men came to Fort Peck or Glasgow on business or to visit relatives, and fishing at Fort Peck was incidental to such trips. Twenty-six different states, and two Canadian provinces were represented by the parties con¬ tacted during the 3-year study period# Of the total number of anglers contacted over the 3-year period, about 66 percent were men, 23 percent were women, and 11 percent were children. The relatively high percentage of women and children is largely due to the recreational facilities developed at various sites by the U. S. Corps 'of Engineers. Families from nearby towis utilized these facilities on week ends and holidays and on week-day evenings 0 Although few large catches were made, most fishermen were successful in catching one or more fish per trip. It must be borne in mind, however, that in many instances the one or more fish which qualified • the fisherman as being successful, was the unpopular, usually discarded goldeyc. Therefore, on the above basis, to say that a definite percentage of the fishermen were successful would be misleading. Each year a few fishermen made catches of over 100 yellow perch per trip , usually in the Upper Spillway Channel area# Most of the fishing at Fort Peck Reservoir occurs between the first of June and the end of September. Cold weather and high winds discourage early spring, late fall, and winter ice-fishing. Since there , » is little ice-fishing at Fort Peck Reservoir and most of the open-water _ \ fishing usually starts one month after the ice breaks up, it is of 32 interest to note the following dates in regard to ice formation and breakup* For the 3-year period, the ice formation and ice breakup dates were; January 16, and April 16, 19b8; December 2b, 19b8, and April 20, 19b9; and December 31, 19b9, and May 9, 19^0. The Tunnel Area was the most heavily utilized area below the dam (Fig. 3), except in 19b8 when the Lower Spillway Channel was the $ most heavily utilized area* Water continued to flow over the spillway for a, greater period of time in 19b8, thus creating better fishing con¬ ditions in the Lower Spillway area. The fact that yellow perch were readily caught in the Lower Spillway in 19b8 also contributed to the greater utilization. The Upper Spillway Channel was the most heavily utilized of the areas of the reservoir adjacent to the dam over the 3-year study period (Fig. b). This area also consistently yielded the best catches of yellow perch. During I9b9, fishing was restricted on the Dam and Pike because of construction activities; resulting in a decline in the number of trout caught that year# More trout were taken off the face of the dam than any other single area in the reservoir. Trout probably frequented this area because the gravel on the face of the dam would seem to offer spawning sites. Rock Creek was the most heavily fished and produced more fish, with a higher rate of catch, than did thq other outlying areas. RESULTS OF FISHERMAN EXPENDITURE STUDY Expenditure data were obtained during all three years of the study of the Fort Peck Fishery, on the thesis that expenditures made by the fishermen using a fishery are a reflection of its value. 33 As already indicated, slightly different procedures were \ used for obtaining basic information each of the three years. This in turn required a slightly different analysis for each year; and for a * - / complete understanding of the results, a separate discussion for each year. As will be shown, the results were quite uniform, in spite of the variation in coverage and methods used# Transportation Expenditure Mileage recorded for 108 parties (237 individuals) was used in 191+8 as a basis for determining the average number of miles traveled per person per day. An average of 21 miles (round trip) was obtained, which multiplied by 7 cents per mile, would amount to an expenditure of $1*1+7 per person per day* In 191*9* the average number of miles for 708 individuals ( 3 U 0 parties) was 23 per person per day, which, when converted to a cost basis, amounted to $1*61* The expenditure for transportation in 1950 averaged $1.1+0 per person per day, based on an average of 20 miles per person per day, as determined from interviews with i*,020 parties consisting of 9 * 13 & anglers* The average expenditure, weighted by the number of individuals in the sample, for transportation for the three years was {1,1+2 per person per day* T rip Expenditures In 191+8, the 108 individuals contacted spent an average of { 0 * 71 + por person per day for food,- lodging, and miscellaneous items* Of the $0.7l+, $0*1+2 was spent for miscellaneous, primarily bait and refreshments, $0*30 for food; and $0*02 for lodgings* The negligible expenditure for lodging indicates the predominantly local attraction of the fishery* 3k In 19li9* 708 individuals spent an average of $0#99 for immediate trip items# Of the total, $0#3l| was spent for food, $0,29 * • for miscellaneous, $0,17 each for bait and lodgings, $0,01 for boat and motor rentals, and the remaining cent was spent for fees and other rentals# Trip expenditures in 1990 totaled $0*35* $0.19 of which was spent for bait, $ 0#08 for food, $ 0 . 0)4 for miscellaneous, $0.03 for lodgings, and $0.01 for fees and boat and motor rentals. The above expenditures were derived from a total of 9*186 fishermen* ■ 1 HI• • 1 The average weighted trip expenditure for the three-year period was #0.1;0 per person per day# Annual expenditures I I I III I .——Ml I ■ I.I ,1 I IV | I ■ Annual expenditures in I 9 I 48 , which consisted of license fees and contributions (club memberships included) and were based on 108 ' - . s '• 1 . individual contacts, totaled $0#23 per person per day# In 19)-i9* annual expenditures were considerably less, being only $ 0#08 for the 708 individuals contacted, , As explained under methods* an annual usage of 29 was assumed for most of the 708 persons involved, which may account in part for the smaller annual expenditure# ’ i. . :'g/ • 1 Information on annual expenditures was not obtained from fisherman contacted during the creel census in 1990, but data obtained through a survey of license holders in Roosevelt and Valley Counties, Montanai/(Anonymous* 1991) were applied. The reported annual expenditure for the average warm-water fisherman from Valley and Roosevelt Counties ‘ ~ f 1/ These tw r o counties lie adjacent to Fort ;eck Reservoir. 39 « was $0.71 per person per day. The reader should recognise that data gathered in the Roosevelt and Valley Counties survey refer to the per- person, per-day expenditure of the average license holder, and not to the # expenditure of the average fisherman in the field with which this report is concerned* A difference exists between expenditures of the average license holder and the average fisherman in the field. The more avid fisherman, due to the frequency of his trips (and greater utilization of his equipment); has a lower per-day expenditure, and also a greater chance of being interviewed in the field than the occasional angler. Expenditure data for the average fisherman, then, is the expenditure for the average license holder, weighted according to the number of times lie went fishing* Consequently, a modification is necessary to convert the i county survey annual expenditure figure (for the average license holder) to the annual expenditure of the average fisherman in the field. By dividing the average season cost ($16.00) for annual and investment items in the Roosevelt and Valley Counties survey by the average number of days spent warm-water fishing (16), the cost per day ($1.00) for the average fisherman in the field is determined (Anonymous, 19,61)* This $1.00 re¬ presents about one-half of the annual and investment per day expenditure reported for the average license holder ($2.01). Assuming that the same relationship exists for annual expenditure as for the combined annual and investment expenditure, one-half of the $0.71 annual expenditure assigned to the average license holder should result in an approximation of the average expenditure of the fishermen who utilized Fort Peck Reservoir The weighted 3-year average for annual expenditures per person per day is 10*33» Investment Expenditures The 108 fishermen contacted, for expenditure information in I9I48 had an average investment expenditure of $0*69 per day, about tvo - thirds of which <($0*l|ii)was spent for fishing tackle/ and one-fourth ($0*17) was spent on boats and motors. The remaining $0*08 was spent on camping and other equipment, and trailers© The 19i;9 fisherman had a small investment expenditure per day—$0*38* Of this amount, $0*18 was spent for rods and reels, $0*11 ✓ for other tackle, and the remaining $0.09 for boats, motors, camp equipment, and similar items* As indicated above, information on investment expenditures was not collected in the field in 1950. However, using the same reasoning applied to annual expenditure data from the County Survey (op. cit), $0*65 (reduced from $1*30) per person per day should approximate the average investment expenditure for fishermen using the Fort Peck Fishery in 19^0# The weighted 3-year average for investment expenditures per person per day is $0*63* Total Expenditure Addition of the weighted averages in the above listed categories * provides a weighted average expenditure of 12*78 per person per day for the Fort Peck fisherman. The average total expenditure for 19i±8, 19$9, and 1950 was $3.13, $3*06, and $2*75, respectively. Because of much larger coverage, the 1950 data greatly influences the composite data for the three years© 37 ) In comparing the 3 years, it is noted that transportation expenditures are relatively uniform. On the other hand, trip expenditures for 1950 are appreciably lower than those obtained for the previous 2 years. L change in the eating habits of the fishermen, as reflected in the reduction of food and miscellaneous (primarily refreshments) expenditures, largely accounts for the small trip expenditure in 195>0• The combined total of annual and investment expenditures, based on the County Survey, are greater than those obtained for either 191+8 or 19U9 through sampling methods.' This difference in annual and investment expenditures may be due to the greater detail and coverage provided in the County Survey sample, Also, the 19U9 investment figure included some unidentified equipment• Non-sampling errors, which can bo minimized but not entirely removed, are probably responsible, in part, for the variation in the data for the 3 years. In spite of these and various other difficulties, the total expenditure figures for the three years have only minor 1 variability* The proportionate share of the average total expenditures for the various categories illustrate the importance of transportation ex¬ penditures when a predominantly local fishery is concerned. Transportation expenditures (@1«1|2) represent £l percent of the total (Chart 1) # Evaluation of Fishery Since much of the variation in total expenditure per person per day as determined for the various years of the study may have been due to differences in technique rather than to differences in actual expenditures, it may be assumed that the average expenditure (weighted) 38 for the three years when applied to estimates of utilization and yield would be indicative of total value. Therefore, the weighted average total expenditure per person per day, rounded to $2.30 (from $2.78), was used in deriving values set forth below. Transportation Expenditure (&L.U2) 5>15S \ Investment Expenditure (SO.63) 23% , \ Trip \ Exoenditure \ ($o.uo) \ lh% ! . \ I (SO.33) 12 i * v. Annual Expenditure Chart 1. Percentage distribution of component parts of 3-year weighted average daily expenditure for fishermen, Fort Peck Reservoir, Montana, 19li8-195>0 I * Applying the expenditure figure of .^2.30 to the 3-year average annual utilization in fisherman-days, the total annual value ■ (as reflected by fisherman expenditures) of the Fort Peck Fishery (for both the reservoir and the area below the dam) approximates ^68,000. Applying the 3-year average yield in pounds of fish to the total ex¬ penditures, it is reasoned that each pound of fish cost the fisherman ' \ about &1.60. Values for each of the three years are set forth in Table 12. 39 Table 12. Total annual value of the fishery and cost per pound of fish* by years. Fort Peck Fishery, Montana, 191*8, 19l+9, and 195>0« Item 19*8 19*9 1950 3 Year Average Estimated number of f i shermen-days^ 25>,05>0 22,0^0 26,170 2)4,1*23 Estimated total expenditure $70,lii0 $61,71*0 $73,276 $68,381* Estimated number of pounds of fish taken 1*6,230 3l*,090 ) 4 7 5 66o 1*2,660 Average cost per pound of fish taken $ l.*£2 $ 1*81 $l*£lj. $1*60 1/ It is recognized that there is some duplication in utilization figures derived for Table 12 by addition of totals for the reservoir and the area below the dam, but knowledge of the situation and the relatively short average fishing day of only about 3 hours indicates that exchange of fishermen between the two fisheries in any one fishing day was minimal, therefore consideration of any duplication was disregarded* • Sampling Error Sampling techniques v+ere employed in the first two years only, consequently, an analysis of sampling error was made for only the first two.years. Analysis was confined to the total expenditure per person per day* For a 19 out of 20 probability, the confidence limits of the total expenditure was $£*5>7 to $3*69, about a mean of $3*13 in 191*8; and in 19l*9 the limits extended from 02• 7U to $3*38, about a mean of $3«06, The average total expenditure in 195>0, computed from a complete census, was $2*75 and falls within the confidence limits of both 191*8 and 191*9• Hie difference among total expenditures for 3 years may be due to sampling error in 191*8 and 191+9* 1*0 DISCUSSION Although goldeye is not a commonly utilized fish at present, there is some indication that this fish is gaining in favor with the anglers who fish at Fort Peck Reservoir. In adjacent Manitoba and Saskatchewan smoked goldeye is held in high esteem. Moreover, goldeye provide excellent sport for the angler who chooses to use light tackle# Since goldeye is one of the most abundant fishes in Fort Peck Reservoir, perhaps here lies a valuable untapped fishery resource, A program designed to point out the attributes of the goldeye could make this fish as popular with Fort Peck anglers as it now is with, their northern neighbors# According to Rounscfell (1930), a reservoir the size of Fort Peck could be expected to produce a commercial yield of about 12 pounds offish per acre. Thus, the sports yield of 0.17 pounds of fish per acre attained in 1950, which was the greatest yield of the three years, indicates that only a fraction of the potential yield is being realized* Taking into consideration the abundance of carp and goldeye in the reservoir and the potential commercial yield indicated by Rounsefell (1930), it would appear that a properly managed commercial fishery might be feasible without infringing on the present sport fishery. The available stocking records indicate that approximately one-quarter of a million kokanee (blueback salmon) fry have been stocked in Fort Peck Reservoir since 191+1* During the 3-year creel census, however, only three kokanee were checked by the creel census crew, of \ which only one' was positively identified in the laboratory. It seems apparent from the foregoing that kokanee either are not well adapted to Fort Peck Reservoir, or they are unable to compete with the established species. hi With recreational development as planned by the Corps of Engineers which includes the construction of boat docks, it is believed that an increase would result in the utilization of the reservoir by boat fishermen. Carlander (19^0), in summarizing the rates of catch per pole- hour for 1*2 studies of warm water lakes, found that in only 10 of these studies was the rate of catch below 1,0 fish per pole-hour. Compared with the rates of catch for these waters, the rate of catch of 0.77 fish per hour for the 3-year study period at Fort Peck Reservoir is comparatively low. Furthermore, the high percentage of goldeye in the catch resulted in an even lower return to the creel, since this species was seldom retained. The decline in the number of fishing parties from the town of Fort Peck over the 3-year period was accompanied by a progressive decline in the population of Fort Peck over the same period. This observation aptly illustrates the direct effect that local population and its proximity to the fishery has upon ’the fishing pressure. It is also noteworthy that the number of visitor-days at Fort Peck Reservoir increased from ££, 35>0 in 19U8 to 101,0f>0 in 19!?0, an increase of 80 percent.1/ Over the same 3-year period, however, the fisherman-days on the reservoir increased by only UO percent. ✓ * ' Results of expenditure studies similar to those described for Fort Peck Reservoir have been analyzed for three other warm-water 1/ Visitor-days include the following* sightseers, fishermen, hunters, picknickers, campers, and persons engaged in related outdoor activities. Figures represent entire reservoir area. . / fisheries, namely: Ocean Lake in Wyoming (Anonymous 19^0a), Lake Maloney in Nebraska (Anonymous l9^0b), and the Republican River in Nebraska and Kansas (Anonymous 19^2). Some comparisons between results of studies on these waters and the Fort Peck study are shown in Table 13. It will be noted that there is considerable variation in the average , r expenditure per person per day, whereas the average cost per pound of fish is remarkably similar for the four fisheries. As has been shown in the cited references and preceding sections of this report, the average expenditure per person per day is dependent upon a number of factors. Of these factors, the radius of influence (miles traveled) is the most important, as it in turn affects trip expenditures (for lodging and meals) as shown in Table 12. The average cost per pound of fish is affected not only by. the total expenditure per person per day, but also by the rate of catch. The extreme low rate of catch on the Republican River of 0,09 fish per pole-hour (Anonymous 19^2) accounts almost wholly for the cited cost of $2.£0 per pound of fish on that stream. hi ' . . ' / q •H CO ch p O fX| x) P q cd p > O -H pH Pd p p Ph -p CO P P O CO CO O •H O ^ P P CP .P p & p P Ph p -p p p -P O Ph O P q -p p o Pi o co •H i3 0 w o -H o pi ca i —l p i—I rO cd eh j Average ! cost per j pound of i fish 1 — i 1 cd p cd o xi EH P —-■- • p 1 & ■P co co q p -p e o > q p CO q pp p 1—i a*r- p Pn <—1 p P CO p g a P, q p P J, «Jj ‘H 3 • •» --- -p to •H PH 0 X3 •H P P P o. £3 ____ p 1 P p o q W) P. o p CO -H p q -p p cd p > p -p < Eh p P CP 1 CP fij cd P s d Ph P p ? 3 *H i—1 > O P «H < p -P 0 p p co •H Ph CO On o o CM O m vO • • • • 1—1 i—1 CM rH HV CM CNJ o O CM _q CO CO * ♦ • • On CM rH CM q| CM \A DA fO i — 1 _q -q vQ • « • • i—1 o o O *&- ql - ~ rH On CM o- _q O q m • • 9 _q . —I rH H • P q o C3 oo o DA CM vO CM rH CM P Pd P q +-> o cd PCO| ITS On X) P h—, rH p cm| to h 1 q q da cd On. co •H o' ~q 1 P \A « H On • -P Os Td ^ rH O Ox rH O .-V » q On On p <*< W rH ~q S3 -P 1 o\ p < rH O- H pi Eh q _q N_/ CO S3 p o CO a, p O O o CM P i—I P p £3 Df\ 1A DA P v_/ Pi rO On On On 0 CO £ H rH rH CP q P P &-~4 S *\ *\ o p •H rO •N o co W (0 4-1 0 P P > q q q "d O S 3 p Pd O o o »\ S> •H W CO & & I p •H i>. Ph W q q q H ■ *\ P « o O O ‘ PH P P q q q q PH O p S 3 < <2 2• A One-Year Creel Census and Evaluation of the Republican River, Nebraska and Kansas, 19.31 • U.S.D.I., Fish and Wild* Serv,, Mo. Riv. Basin Studies, pp. 29. (Mimeo.) Carlander, Kenneth D* 1930r Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology. Wm. C. Brown Co., Dubuque, Iowa Eschmeyer, R. W. and C. G. Smith Fish Spawning Below Norris Dam, Tenn* Valley Authority, Norris, Tenn. Reprinted from the Jour, of the Term* Academy of Science, Vol. XVIII, No. 1, Jan. 19li3« , 2 pp* Horn, Thomas A* 19^6, Unpublished Notes 19^7* Unpublished Notes Fhenicie, Charles K# 19h9* The Fort Peck Reservoir Fishery, Montana Fish and Game Commission, 19 pp# Rounsefell, George A. 19 ) 46 * Fish Production in Lakes as a Guide for Estimating Production in Proposed Reservoirs. Reprinted from Copeia, 19U6, No. 1, April 30. 39 pp* 1*7 MRBS 93 Fig. 1. Fort Peck Reservoir at the mouth of the Musselshell River showing flooded timber (Cottonwood) and erodable banks of Bear Paw Shale. June, 19h7. (Photograph by L. A. Peterson) MRBS 997 Fig. 2. Member of creel census crew measuring a typical trout (rainbow) taken from Fort Peck Reservoir. August 29, 19l|B. (Photograph by L. E. Hiner) ii8 MRBS 25lU Fig. 3* A typical soring afternoon at the Tunnels Area below Fort Peck Dam. Fishermen shown are angling for trout. Note the town of Fort Peck in the background. April 16, 1950. (Photograph by A. J. Nicholson) MRBS 21U5 Fig. lu A typical summer afternoon at the Upper Spillway Area, Fort Peck Reservoir. Fish shown in fore¬ ground are perch. Note the spillway structure in the background. July 31> 19h9* (Photograph by H. 0. Hanson) h9 ' ■ APPENDIX A , Water Analysis, Water Samples Collected by Fish and Wildlife Service Fort Peck Reservoir, Montana Analysis by Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior (parts per million) rH o va CM « A- H CM CM 1 1 m co d • O ‘LA CM 1 NO NO i—1 rH 1 » ■LA d • On d 1 A- CO nO CM 1 1 a OO CA • On ~d 1 Co VA i 1 oo • CA oo d l i—1 On NO i—1 A- I CM CO • CO d l pH On nO pH A- 1 d CO • oo d i pH r- NO i c— CO -*d • co d NO i o pH NO CA • 1 VA • CO p o -P O CD CD rH d i—1 O P O s CD - o • • • • rl OOOCO CM 4 W OOO O O pH inrUAc^oOvO rH rH nO O I • 1 o o- • CM CO On O A- i—I i—I NO rH Pd CM NO CM o • NO O A- rH VA d CO pH inCMlAC^OO H O O l> Ox n • • • ♦ I CO OO O O O I O A- i—I ON oo On VA NO A* VA CM A- CA VA CM NO VA o va a- on • • • • f rHOA-OA-rHcAIAA-OO I pH VA "LA d CA CO VA rH rH CM d O VA A- A- OnOOHHCOHcOA-OO I NO CM d CM CO VA rH pH S 3 VA 0 O d • -p o CO CO CD PI ■LA CM I * I O VA O d On d VA VA CM A- CM NO OO CA CO CM O • c— co o NO o • 00 OO CM NO rH CA O O VA O • •••III OdH ANdOco O O 1 1 1 NO NO VA rH • O oo i— 1 NO CM VA CA OO ON OO -d On NO rH rH -d CM NO CM CA O • O o Pd Pd ♦ • • i i i CM CD Pj A GO NO vO O O 1 t 1 CM d nO CM • O CO pH VA H CA CM NO CM A- O NO CM rH rH CA CM VA o 0.02 rH On CM rH NO O o no d • •»iii On O O 1 1 1 CM VA On O • CM CO 1 — 1 lAHdfAOd On O NO VA rH rH CA CM VA rH VA O CO VA rH o • • • • 1 l • C^\ o NO H CM A- NO CM o o o o 1 I GO NO CM NO CO 1—1 VA CM A- CA A- On i—1 VA CM CO NO H H d CM NO - r-s • o 0 o o S3 VA - CA " «* CA 0 CM O ' co O -P O d O o •P d •H 0 0 p 0 />- N v _ / N H O -P d CM ^~N 3^ pdH p-v OA —- o 0 S3 CO o cti 0 O o &H O CA CO a CO S3 o o •H O -P CO o PU 0 o o d /•—\ N-/ p p cti v_^ m ^—•. d P-. d e CD p p £2 S3 CD CD > — / S3 0 CO Sh o o •H *H 3 O CD d Ad > i CO 0 •H S3 -P •H •H -P o N _ ' ■—I 0 o