Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Habitat topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
FWP asks legislature for $1M in projects, expands Habitat Montana leasing and grant programs
Summary
Fish, Wildlife & Parks told legislators it will rely on agency cash and dedicated license and marijuana‑tax revenue to fund a mix of building repairs, hatchery maintenance and expanded habitat conservation this session.
Fish, Wildlife & Parks told the joint Subcommittees C and F that it is seeking roughly $1 million in building and infrastructure authority as part of the agency’s House Bill 5 package and outlined larger program requests funded from department accounts and earmarked license revenues.
FWP Director Christie Clark told the committee the requests rely on agency cash and existing funding sources rather than new general fund appropriations. “FWP is proposing to use only its internal funding sources and do not look towards general funds for any long term projects or funds to complete the necessary work,” Clark said.
Why it matters: FWP’s package combines immediate repairs and maintenance at hatcheries, storage and administrative buildings, and state parks with longer‑term conservation programs that secure public access and protect habitat. Committee members pressed for more detail on specific projects, cost drivers, and the payback for land‑conservation choices.
Major building and maintenance requests presented by FWP included statewide hatchery maintenance, site upgrades and storage buildings at state parks and fishing access sites, and sewer/water system work at Lewis and Clark Caverns State Park. Adam Strainer, Fisheries Division administrator, described the statewide hatchery line as funding “scheduled and emergency infrastructure projects annually,” citing routine failures such as pump and intake problems.
On habitat and access, FWP described continued funding for Habitat Montana (the agency program that uses earmarked license dollars), a new stream of funding directed by House Bill 701 (marijuana sales tax) to the same account, and a new habitat‑conservation lease program designed to secure up to 500,000 acres through 30‑ and 40‑year leases. Ken McDonald, chief of the Wildlife Division, said, “Most of this funding comes through, portions of, nonresident hunting licenses,” and explained the program’s mix of easements, leases and public‑access requirements.
McDonald and other staff said Habitat Montana has recently been used to shore up WMAs, acquire inholdings and buy conservation easements, and noted that auction tag proceeds (for example, bighorn sheep tags) are sometimes used in tandem with Habitat Montana dollars for species‑specific needs.
On the new lease program funded in part by marijuana tax revenue (HB 701), FWP said initial solicitations returned dozens of proposals and that the department plans to prioritize intact prairie, sagebrush and riparian habitats where a long lease will preserve working lands. Committee members asked about enforcement and enforcement tools; McDonald said leases are recorded with the deed and that a contractual buyout provision exists for early termination.
FWP also sought continued and expanded grant funding for community fishing ponds, fish connectivity and future fisheries (habitat restoration and aquatic projects reviewed by a citizen panel), plus grants such as the Public Access Land Agreement (PALA) program, recreational trail grants and a range of small capital maintenance lines for parks and fishing access sites.
Committee follow‑up and department commitments: FWP agreed to provide the committee with more detailed project descriptions — a list of fish‑connectivity projects and the specific barriers they protect or remove, estimates for certain park water‑system upgrades, and breakdowns of recent Habitat Montana expenditures — and said it would deliver several of those items by close of business the same day.
The department repeatedly told the committee that many project cost increases were driven by construction market conditions, unique site civil costs, and differing below‑grade requirements. Members pressed both for benchmarking against private sector costs and for packaging smaller, similar projects to attract more competitive bids.
Ending: The committee recessed after completing FWP’s presentation and a public comment period in which conservation groups, sportsmen’s organizations and local partners expressed support for the agency’s funding mix and emphasized habitat, public access and trail investments.
