s

551.483

F2ifek

19S2

INSTREAM FLOW EVALUATION FOR SELECTED
STREAMS IN THE KOOTENAI NATIONAL FOREST
OF MONTANA

.)\-^^

STATE DOCUMENTS CCLLECTiO?

rF3 9 i388

JiiONT/r'.

o^>-E I.!P^./-7V.

by

Bruce May
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Route 1, Box 1270
Libby, Montana 59923
June, 1982

151G E. 6th AVE*
HELEt'A, MONTANA 5SS2C.

^'iAf

jNmm s^^Q

Prepared for

U.S. Forest Service

P.O. Box 7669

Missoula, Montana 59807

Contract No. 53-0343-0-305

Inventory of Instream Flow Needs

for Fish and Wildlife Resources

LEASE RETUR

i\

uc;

DATE DUE

^

,m 7

w.

DEMCQ 38-301

^fc

a .<«>„, •:■ ;. .,,^ -v )!^,,,.«!'

^

^

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

INSTREAM FLOW METHODOLOGIES 2

FISH POPULATIONS 14

FISH POPULATION ESTIMATES 15

WATER AVAILABILITY 17

STREAMS

Bobtail Creek 20

East Fork Bull River 23

Fortine Creek 28

Libby Creek 32

O'Brien Creek 37

Pinkham Creek 41

Pipe Creek 46

Rock Creek 51

Ross Creek 56

Tobacco Ri ver 60

Yaak River 66

Young Creek 72

LITERATURE CITED 78

APPENDIX 81

^

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to provide the Kootenai National Forest
with instream flow related information for 12 trout streams in northwest
Montana. These streams are generally of mutual interest to both the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP) and the Kootenai National
Forest due to their high fishery, recreational and other resource values.

Two types of basic instream flow information are provided. They consist
of fish population data and a quantification, in terms of cubic feet per
second, of the instream flows needed for maintaining the existing fishery
resource. Other pertinent background and descriptive information for the
streams of interest is also provided.

The 12 contract streams are listed in alphabetical order below:

Bobtail Creek ■;

East Fork Bull River

Fortine Creek

Libby Creek .

O'Brien Creek

Pinkham Creek

Pipe Creek /

Rock Creek , ■ '

Ross Creek

Tobacco River

Yaak River

Young Creek

The methodologies used in quantifying the instream flow needs, fish
sampling techniques and other related information are thoroughly discussed
in the following sections.

INSTREAM FLOW METHODOLOGIES

The best and most accurate method for determining the instream flow
needs for fish and wildlife purposes is to derive the actual flow and
biological relationships from long-term data collected in drought,
normal and above normal water years. While this approach has been tried
on a few selected waterways in Montana, it is not a practical means of
deriving future recommendations due to the excessive time, cost and man-
power required to collect field data. Consequently, flow recommendations
for most waterways are derived from instream flow methods that are more
compatible with existing budget and time constraints, yet provide
acceptable and defendable recommendations.

The method of the MDFWP divides the annual flow cycle for the head-
water streams and rivers into two separate periods. They consist of a
relatively brief snow runoff or high flow period, when a large percentage
of the annual water yield is passed through the system, and a nonrunoff
orlow flow period which is characterized by relatively stable base flows
maintained primarily by groundwater outflow. For headwater rivers and
streams, the high flow period generally includes the months of May, June
and July while the remaining months (approximately August through April)
encompass the low flow period.

Separate instream flow methodologies are applied to each period.
Further, it is necessary to classify a waterway as a stream or river and
to use a somewhat different approach when deriving low flow recommendations \

for each. A waterway is considered a stream if the mean annual flow is "^

less than approximately 200 cfs. The vast majority of waterways dis-
cussed in later sections have mean annual flows less than 100 cfs.

Methodology for Low Flow Period - Streams

The methodology chosen for deriving low flow recommendations for
headwater trout streams is primarily based on the assumption that the
food supply is a major factor influencing a stream's carrying capacity
(the numbers and pounds of trout that can be maintained indefinitely by
the aquatic habitat). The principal food of both the juvenile and adult
trout inhabiting the headwater streams of Montana is aquatic invertebrates
which are primarily produced in the riffle areas of most streams. The
methodology assumes that the trout carrying capacity is proportional to
food production which in turn is proportional to the wetted perimeter
in riffle areas. This method is a slightly modified version of the
Washington Method (Collings, 1972 and 1974) which is based on the premise
that the rearing of juvenile salmon is proportional to food production which
in turn is proportional to the wetted perimeter in riffle areas. The
Idaho Method (White and Cochnauer, 1975 and White, 1976) is also based on
a similar premise.

Wetted perimeter is the distance along the bottom and sides of a
channel cross-section in contact with water (Figure 1 ) . As the flow
in the stream channel decreases, the wetted perimeter also decreases,
but the rate of loss of wetted perimeter is not constant throughout the
entire range of flows. An example of a relationship between wetted
perimeter and flow for a riffle cross-section is illustrated in Figure 2 .

i i

OJ

WETTED-
PERIMETER

Figure 1. The wetted perimeter in a channel cross-sectior

There are generally two points, called inflection points, on the plot
of wetted perimeter versus flow at which the rate of loss of wetted
perimeter is significantly changed. In the example (Figure 2 ), these
inflection points occur at approximate flows of 8 and, 12 cfs. Beyond
the upper inflection point, large changes in flow cause only wery small
changes in wetted perimeter. The area available for food production is
considered near optimal beyond this inflection point. Below the upper
inflection point, the stream begins to pull away from the riffle bottom.
At the_ lower inflection point, the rate of loss of wetted perimeter begins
torapidly accelerate. Once flows are reduced below the lower inflection
point, the riffle bottom is being exposed at an accelerated rate and the
area available for food production greatly diminishes.

The wetted perimeter- flow relationship may also provide an index
of other limiting factors that influence a stream's carrying capacity.
One such factor is cover. Cover, or shelter, has long been recognized
as one of the basic and essential components of fish habitat. Cover
serves as a means for avoiding predators and provides areas of moderate
current speed used as resting and holding areas by fish. It is fairly
well documented that cover improvements will normally increase the carry-
ing capacity of streams, especially for larger size fish. Cover can be
significantly influenced by streamflow.

In the headwater streams of Montana, overhanging and submerged bank
vegetation is an important component of trout cover. The wetted perimeter-
flow relationship for a stream channel may bear some similarity to the
relationship between bank cover and flow. At the upper inflection point,
the water begins to pull away from the banks, bank cover is lost and the
stream's carrying capacity declines. Flows exceeding the upper inflection
point are considered to provide near optimal bank cover. At flows below the
lower inflection point, the water is sufficiently removed from the bank
cover to severely reduce its value as fish shelter. It is reasonable
to assume that this premise would be more acceptable if the wetted perimeter-
flow relationships were also derived for pools and runs, areas normally
inhabited by adult trout. However, cross-sections through pools and runs
may not be necessary. When the wetted perimeter-flow relationship for
riffles and the composite of all habitat types (pools, runs and riffles)
comprising a study section are compared, as illustrated in Figure 3 , the
shape of the curves and, consequently, the flows at which the inflection
points occur, are very similar. This similarity is probably explained
by the fact that most headwater streams, due to their high gradients,
tend to be mainly comprised of riffle areas. Pools are generally few
in number and poorly developed. A riffle area, therefore, describes the
typical habitat type that normally occurs throughout most headwater
streams.

It has been demonstrated that riffles are also critical areas for
spawning sites of brown trout and shallow inshore areas are required
for the rearing of brown and rainbow trout fry (Sando, 1981). It is, '
therefore, assumed that, in addition to maximizing bank cover and food
production, the flows exceeding the upper inflection point would also -.
provide favorable spawning and rearing conditions. . ^^

<^^

Figure 2. An example of a relationship between wetted perimeter and fl
for a riffle cross-section.

ow

■

36-

34-

32-

RIFFLE (CS I AND CS2)

HJ 30-

a

a

id

COMPOSITE CCS I THRU CSS)

28-

26-

24-

^fc"

10 20 30 40 50

FLOW (CFS)

60

70

80

90

Figure 3. Comparison of the relationships between wetted perimeter and

flow for a composite of five cross-sections encompassing various
habitat types and a composite of two riffle cross-sections in
a subreach of Cherry Creek, Madison River drainage.

c

Riffles are the area of a stream most affected by flow reductions
(Bovee, 1974 and Nelson, 1977). Consequently, the flows that maintain
suitable riffle conditions will also maintain suitable conditions in
pools and runs, areas normally inhabited by adult trout. Because
riffles are the habitat most affected by flow reductions and are essential
for the well-being of both resident and migratory trout populations,
they should receive the highest priority for instream protection.

The wetted perimeter/inflection point method provides a range of
flows (between the lower and upper inflection points) from which a
single instream flow recommendation can be selected. Flows below the
lower inflection point are judged undesirable based on their probable
impacts on food production, bank cover a-nd spawning and rearing habitat,
while flows exceeding the upper inflection point are considered to
provide a near optimal habitat for trout. The flows at the lower and
upper inflection points are believed to bracket those flows needed to
maintain the low and high levels of aquatic habitat potential . These
flow levels are defined as follows:

1. High Level of Aquatic Habitat Potential - That flow regime
which will consistently produce abundant, healthy and thriving
aquatic populations. In the case of game fish species, these
flows would produce abundant game fish populations capable of sus-
taining a good to excellent sport fishery for the size of stream
involved. For rare, threatened or endangered species, flows to
accomplish the high level of aquatic habitat maintenance would:

1) provide the high population levels needed to ensure the continued
existence of that species, or 2) provide for flow levels above those
which would adversely affect the species.

2. Low Level of Aquatic Habitat Potential - Flows to accomolish a low
level of aquatic habitat maintenance would provide for only a low
population abundance of the species present. In the case of

game fish species, a poor sport fishery could still be provided.
For rare, threatened or endangered species, their populations would
exist at low or marginal levels. In some cases, this flow level
would not be sufficient to maintain certain species.

The final flow recommendation is selected from this range of flows
by the fishery biologist who collected, summarized and analyzed all
relevant field data for the streams of interest. The biologist's
rating of the stream resource forms the basis of the flow selection
process. Factors considered in the biologist's evaluation include
recreational usage, the existing level of environmental degradation,
water availability and the magnitude and composition of existing fish
populations. The fish population information, which is essential for
all streams, is a major consideration. A nonexistent or poor fishery
would likely justify a flow recommendation at or near the lower inflection
point unless other considerations, such as the presence of species of
special concern (arctic grayling and cutthroat trout), warrant a higher
flow. In general, only streams with exceptional resident fish populations
or those providing crucial spawning and/or rearing habitat for migratory
populations would be considered for a recommendation at or near the upper

inflection point. An exception are those tributary streams that are

an essential source of the water that is needed for maintaining down- ^

stream aquatic habitat. In this particular situation, water supply is

the overriding consideration. Streams in this category include Cabin

and Beaver Creeks of the Madison drainage and the West Fork of the

Madison River. These and other exceptions are thoroughly discussed in

later sections.

The process of deriving the flow recommendation for the low flow
period, thusly, combines a field methodology (wetted perimeter/inflection
point method) with a thorough evaluation by a field biologist of the
existing stream resource.

The wetted peri meter- flow relationships are derived using a wetted
perimeter predictive (WETP) computer program developed in 1980 by the
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (Nelson, 1980). This
program was designed to eliminate the relatively complex data collecting
procedures associated with the hydraulic simulation computer models
in current use while providing more accurate wetted perimeter predictions.

Description of the WETP Program' and Data Collecting Procedures

The WETP program uses at least two sets of stage (water surface
elevation) measurements taken at different know discharges (flows) to
establish a least-squares fit of log-stage versus log-discharge. Once
the stage-discharge rating curve for each cross-section is determined,
the stage at a flow of interest can be predicted. This rating curve, ^

when coupled with the cross-sectional profile, is all that is needed
to predict the wetted perimeter at most flows of interest.

The program should be run using three sets of stage-discharge data
collected at a high, intermediate and low flow. Additional data sets
are desirable, but not necessary. The three measurements are made when
runoff is receding (high flow), near the end of runoff (intermediate
flow) and during late summer-early fall (low flow). The high flow
should be considerably less than the bankful flow while the low flow
should approximate the lowest flow that normally occurs during the
summer- fall field season. Sufficient spread between the highest and
lowest calibration flows is needed in order to compute a linear, sloping
rating curve (Figure 4 ).

The WETP program can be run using only two sets of stage-discharge
data. This practice is not recommended since substantial "two-point"
error can result. However, when only two data sets are obtainable, the
higher discharge should be at least twice as high as the lower discharge.

The WETP model is invalidated if channel changes occur in the study
area during the data collecting process. For this reason, the collection
of the field data needed for calibrating the program should be completed
during the period beginning when runoff is receding and ending with the
onset of runoff the following year. The stream channel is expected to
be stable during this period.

8

1.986 ^

1.985

Cr 1.984-

UJ
O

< 1.983-

o

.982-

1.981

.980 ii
2.1

log stage = 1.96389 + .007504 (log Discharge)

2.'2 2.3 2.4 2:5 2.6 2.7 2.8

log DISCHARGE (cfs)

Figure 4. An example of a "three point" stage-discharge rating curve for
a riffle cross-section.

2.9

W

Cross-sections were placed in an area that typified the stream reach
for which instream flow recommendations were to be derived. For the ''

headwater streams, this would mean a sequence from the head of a riffle
to the head of the next riffle. This sequence was described using from
5 to 10 cross-sections. The cross-sections were placed to describe the
typical habitat types in the proportion that they occurred within each
sequence. The cross-sections were classified as riffles, runs or pools
and recorded. The cross-sections through pools and runs were subsequently
eliminated from the analyses since, as previously explained, there
appears to be little justification or advantage for their use in the
flow recommendation process.

The recommendations were selected solely from the wetted perimeter-
flow relationships for riffle areas. If two or more riffle cross-
sections were available, the computed wetted perimeters for all riffle
cross-sections at each flow of interest were averaged and the recommendation
selected from the wetted perimeter-flow relationship for the composite
of all riffle cross-sections.

The limitations and advantages of the WETP program, as well as field
data requirements and surveying techniques, are discussed by Nelson
(1980).

Methodology for Low Flow Period - Rivers

The wetted perimeter/inflection point method will, if used correctly,
provide defendable flow recommendations for the headwater trout streams. ^

While the underlying assumptions of this method appear valid, it cannot
yet be said that the method enables the biologist to accurately predict
the effects of flow reductions on the trout standing crops and the
carrying capacity of the aquatic habitat. The validation of this method
can only be accomplished by comparing the range of possible flow recommendations
generated by the method to those recommendations derived from the actual
relationships between trout standing crops and flow.

The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks completed a study
in 1980 that validated the wetted perimeter method as applied to the
trout rivers of southwest Montana (Nelson, 1980a, 1980b and 1980c). In
this study, the actual trout standing crop and flow relationship were
derived from long-term data collected for five reaches of the Madison,
Gallatin, Big Hole and Beaverhead Rivers, all nationally acclaimed
wild trout fisheries. These relationships provided a range of flow
recommendations for each reach. Flows less than the lower limit were .
judged undesirable since they led to substantial reductions of the
standing crops of adult trout or the standing crops of a particular
group of adults, such as trophy-size trout. Flows greater than the
upper limit supported the highest adult standing crops during the study
period. Flows between the lower and upper limits are broadly defined
as those flows supporting intermediate standing crops or those standing
crops that normally occur within each reach. The final recommendation
was selected from this range of flows.

The range of flows derived from the trout-flow relationships for
the five river reaches were compared to those derived from the wetted

m

^

IL|^^

perimeter method as applied to riffle areas. The study results showed
that the inflection point flows had a somewhat different impact on the
trout standing crops of rivers than previously assumed for streams.
For rivers, the flow at the upper inflection point is a fairly reliable
estimate of the lower limit of the range of flows derived from the trout-
flow relationships or, in other terms, flows less than the upper
inflection point are undesirable as recommendations since they lead to
substantial reductions of the standing crops of adult trout.

The flow at the upper inflection point is not necessarily the pre-
ferred recommendation for all trout rivers. The "Blue Ribbon" rivers
would generally require a higher flow in order to maintain the sport ,.
fishery resource at the existing level. -For those rivers having a
lower resource rating, the flow at the upper inflection point may be
a satisfactory recommendation. In general, flows less than the upper
inflection point are undesirable as flow recommendations regardless
of the existing state of the river resource.

For those rivers that support resident salmonid populations and pro-
vide crucial spawning and/or rearing habitat for migratory populations as
well, the flow recommendations derived from the wetted perimeter/
inflection point method would, in addition to maintaining the resident
population at the existing level, also serve to:

1) maintain favorable spawning and incubation habitat,

2) maintain favorable habitat for the rearing of fry and juveniles
and '

3) facilitate the movement of juveniles to downstream adult resi-
dencies.

Methodologies for High Flow Period - Streams and Rivers

A. Dominant Di scharge/Ciiannel Morphology Concept

Several major components of aquatic habitat in river systems are re-
lated to the physical features and form of the river channel itself. Over
time, aquatic populations have adapted and thrived within the physical
contraints of channel configuration and flow. Basic to the maintenance
of the existing aquatic populations is the maintenance of the existing
habitat that has historically sustained them.

It is generally accepted that the major force in the establishment
and maintenance of a particular channel form in view of its bed and
bank material is the annual high flow characteristics of the river. It is
the high spring flows that determine the shape of the channel rather
than the average or low flows.

Most unregulated headwater streams and rivers in Montana are
characterized by an annual spring high water period which normally
occurs during May, June and July and results from snowmelt in the

11

mountainous headwaters. Annual spring flow conditions on unregulated
streams are heavily dependent upon snowpack and its rate of thawing.
On regulated streams, the occurrence and magnitude of the high water
period may vary depending upon reservoir operation and storage capacity.

The major functions of the high spring flows in the maintenance of
channel form are bedload movement and sediment transport. It is the
movement of the bed and bank material and subsequent deposition which
forms the mid-channel bars and, subsequently, the islands. High flows
are capable of covering already established bars with finer material
which leads successively to vegetated islands. Increased discharge
associated with spring runoff also results in a flushing action which
removes deposited sediments and maintains suitable gravel conditions
for aquatic insect production, fish spawning and egg incubation.

Reducing the high spring flows beyond the point where the major
amount of bedload and sediment is transported would interrupt the
ongoing channel processes and change the existing channel form and
bottom substrates. A significantly altered channel configuration would
affect both the abundance and species composition of the present
aquatic populations by altering the existing habitat types.

Several workers (Lieopold, Wolman and Miller 1964, US Bureau of
Reclamation 1973, and Emmett 1975) adhere to the concept that the form
and configuration of river channels are shaped by and designed to
accommodate a dominant discharge. The discharge which is most commonly
referred to as a dominant discharge is the bankful discharge (Leopold,
Wolman and Miller 1964, Emmett 1975). Bankful discharge is defined
as that flow when water just begins to overflow onto the active flood-
plain.

Bankful discharge tends to have a constant frequency of occurrence
among rivers (Eimiett 1975). The recurrence interval for bankful dis-
charge was determined by Emmett (1975) to be 1.5 years and is in close
agreement with the frequency of bankful discharge reported by other
studies (Leopold, Wolman and Miller 1964, Emmett 1972).

The bankful discharge for streams and rivers was estimated by using
the l^year frequency peak flow. The 1% year frequency peak flow was
determined by interpolation between the 1.25 and 2 year frequency peak
flows as supplied by the USGS for the streams and rivers in question.

It is not presently known how long the bankful flow must be main-
tained to accomplish the necessary channel formation processes. Until
studies further clarify the necessary duration of the bankful discharge
a duration period of 24 hours is chosen.

A gradual rising and receding of flows should be associated with
the dominant discharge and the shape of the spring hydrograph should
resemble that which occurs naturally. USGS flow records were used to
determine the time when the high flow period and peak flow normally
occur on a given stream. The dominant discharge is requested for
that period when it normally occurs. Flows are increased from a base
flow level to the dominant discharge in 2-week intervals at the 80th

12

percentile flow level, corresponding to the natural timing of the high
flow period.

The 80th percentile is the flow that is exceeded in 8 of 10 years
^ or, in other terms, in 8 years out of 10 there is more water than the
80th percentile flowing in the stream. The 80th percentile was chosen
in part because of its compatability with irrigation development. To
economically develop efficient, full-service irrigation systems, a good
water supply is considered necessary in about 8 years out of 10, on the
average (MDNRC, 1976). It is also our belief that the high flow months
can withstand substantial withdrawals and not alter the basic functions
of channel maintenance. The 80th percentile flows allow for substantial
water depletions.

The above instream flow method, which is termed the dominant discharge/
channel morphology concept, can only be applied to those streams and
nvers having at least 9 years of continuous USGS gauge records. While
10 years is the minimum period of record the USGS considers adequate
for deriving reliable estimates of the 80th percentile flows, a minimum
period of 9 years is used for this report.

High flow recommendations cannot be derived for the vast majority of
streams and rivers considered in this report because most lack long-term
flow records.

B. Passage of Migrating Trout '- -.

The high flow period generally coincides with the period when rainbow and
cutthroat trout ascend the tributaries to the Kootenai River and Lake Kooca-
's^ nusa to spawn. Of the twelve streams covered in this report, ten provide

important spawning and nursery habitat for migratory salmonids. Consequently,
high flow recommendations for many of the streams are based on those flows
that are needed to facilitate the upstream passage of adult salmonids to
■ their spawning areas and their return to downstream residencies.

Researchers generally agree that flows are the primary factor control-
ling trout migrations. Sufficient flows are needed to stimulate spawning
movement into the streams and to enable the migrants to successfully tra-
verse shallow riffle areas and other natural barriers while moving to their
spawning areas.

Passage criteria developed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife for
streams 20 ft and wider indicate that the minimum depth needed to pass
trout through riffles is 0.5-0.6 ft (Wesche and Rechard 1980). Passage
criteria developed in Oregon are also similar (Thompson 1972). The pas-
sage recommendations for this report are derived from the Colorado criteria
and the data generated by the WETP program for the riffle cross-sections.

In addition to the wetted perimeter, the WETP program also predicts the

average depth for each cross-section at each flow of interest. An example

of the information generated for a series of five riffle cross-sections is
as follows;

13

Average Depth (ft)

now (cfs) Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle

cs #1 cs #2 cs #3 cs #4 cs #5

^^P

100

.44

.65

.79

.68

.47

no

.49

.69

.85

.72

.52

120

.54

.73

.91

.75

.57

In this example, the average depth for all five riffle cross-sections exceeds
0.5 ft, the approximate minimum depth required for successful passage, at a
flow of approximately 120 cfs. A flow of at least 120 cfs is, therefore, need-
ed during the spring spawning period to facilitate the passage of adult trout
to upstream spawning areas.

FISH POPULATIONS

Kootenai River Drainage

The salmonid populations within the contract streams, except for Ross
Creek, consist of year-round residents and the progeny of migratory game
fish which ascend the streams to spawn. Rainbow and cutthroat trout are the
most important game fish using these streams for spawning and nursery areas.
Resident salmonid populations include rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, brook
trout, bull trout and mountain whitefish.

The major cutthroat runs occur in streams tributary to Lake Koocanusa.
Westslope cutthroat trout spawners generally begin their spawning runs into
the tributaries the first part of May and the run continues into the end of
June (May and Huston 1980). Spent spawners begin moving downstream in June
and most fish have left the spawning streams by mid- July. The fry emerge
from the gravel in August and September. Nearly all juvenile fish live from
one to three years in the natal stream before emigrating to Lake Koocanusa.
They grow and mature for one to three years in the reservoir before return-
ing to spawn. The majority of cutthroat live two years in the natal stream
and two years in the reservoir before maturing and returning to spawn.

Important rainbow trout runs occur in tributary streams to Lake Koocanusa
and the Kootenai River downstream from Libby Dam. Rainbow spawning runs usu-
ally begin the first part of April and are completed by the end of May (May
and Huston 1980). Spent spawners have normally left the tributaries by the
end of June. The fry emerge from the gravel from mid- June to mid-August.
Most juveniles emigrate from the natal stream in the fall of their first
year or the following spring at age one. Most males mature at age two, while
the majority of the females spawn for the first time at age three.

The East Fork of the Bull River supports a spawning run of brown trout
from Cabinet Gorge Reservoir. Rainbow and cutthroat trout probably use the

14

East Fork for spawning also, but the magnitude of these runs has not been
L .. documented. The brov;n trout begin ascending the Bull River in mid-October
and spawn from the first part of November into the end of December.

FISH POPULATION ESTIMATES

As previously discussed, an evaluation of existing fish populations
is an essential component of the flow recommendation process. In addition
to providing a means for partially justifying the selection of a particular
flow recommendation, the fish data also serve to document the state of the
existing fishery resource. Personnel of the MDFWP expended considerable
time and effort in collecting this information and summarizing it for use
in the recommendation process and for comparison with the populations of
other streams and rivers. ,

Two techniques, electrofishing and snorkeling, were used in surveying
fish populations and estimating standing crops. Information about spawning
runs was collected by the use of fish traps. These techniques are discussed
as follows.

Electrofishing

'■ Fish populations in the streams were sampled using a bank electrofishing
unit basically consisting of a 110 volt gas generator, a Cofelt shocker box,
a 500 ft cord, and hand-held, mobile negative and positive electrodes. For the
L^ larger waterways, a boat mounted electrofishing unit was sometimes required

^^ to effectively sample the population. A mild electric shock temporarily im-
mobilizes the fish located in the immediate vicinity of the positive electrode,
allowing them to be dip netted. The fish capturing efficiency of the units
is highly variable since efficiency rates are influenced by stream size, the
magnitude of the flow, water clarity, specific conductance, water temperature,
cover types and the species and size of fish.

The fish population is enumerated using a mark-recapture method which
allows for the estimation of the total numbers and pounds (the standing
crops) of fish within a stream section. For most streams, standing
crop estimates were obtained for 1,000 ft study sections. The larger
waterways sometimes required longer sections in order to obtain reliable
estimates. . - , ,

The standing crop estimates require at least two electrofishing runs
through each study section. During the first or marking run, all captured
fish are anesthetized, marked with a partial caudal fin clip so they can be
later identified, then released after individual lengths and weights are
recorded. It is desirable to make' the second or recapture run at least
two weeks after the marking run. This two week period allows the marked
fish to randomly redistribute themselves throughout the population. During
the recapture run, all captured fish are again anesthetized and released
after the lengths and weights of all new (unmarked) fish and the length
. only of all marked fish are recorded. The population estimate is basically
W obtained using the formula P = ^'-^^; where P is the estimated number of fish.

15

M is the number initially marked, C is the number of marked and unmarked
fish collected during the recapture run, and R is the number of marked fish
collected during the recapture run. This formula, although somewhat modi-
fied in its final form for statistical reasons, is the basis of the mark-
recapture technique.

The numbers of fish are actually estimated by length groups. Those %
inch length intervals having similar or equal recapture efficiencies comprise
a length group. This grouping is necessary because recapture efficiencies
are dependent on fish size. Generally, electrofishing is more effective
for capturing larger fish due to their greater surface area and their higher
visibility when in the electric field. Because recapture efficiencies are
length related, the numbers of fish must be estimated by length groups, then
added to obtain the total estimate. Generally, at least seven recaptures are
needed per length group in order to obtain a statistically valid estimate.

Pounds of fish are obtained by multiplying the average weight of the fish
within each length group by the estimated number, then adding to obtain the
total pounds. Estimates can also be obtained for different age-groups of
fish. This mark- recapture technique, which is thoroughly discussed by Vincent
(1971 and 1974), has been adapted for computer analyses by the MDFWP.

Only electrofishing survey data, consisting of the species, numbers and
length ranges of captured fish, are provided for those streams in which fish
populations could not be sampled efficiently due to low conductivities.
Streams in which much of the water is deeper than six feet are also diffi-
cult to sample effectively.

Snorkel inq

Snorkel ing is preferable to electrofishing as a technique for obtaining
population densities in streams which have good clarity, low conductivity
and are inaccessible by vehicle travel. Snorkeling also is less expensive
because it requires a one or two man crew rather than than a three or four
man crew and the equipment cost is considerably less than that required for
electrofishing. Snorkeling has been used with success in other drainages
of high water clarity as reported in Graham et al . (1980).

Underwater observations of fish have often been used for studying the
behavior and density of fish (particularly salmonids) in streams. Many
researchers have taken underwater counts of fish populations using a single
observer (Kennleyside 1962, Reed 1967, Pollard and Bjornn 1973, Everest and
Chapman 1972).

Good concentration and peripheral vision are essential when fish numbers
are large or when the observer's view is obstructed. If the site is deep on
one side, the observer positions himself on the shallow side and looks into
the deeper water. Slight modifications of these procedures are necessary
when fish are hidden by water turbulence, boulders, log jams, algae mats
or undercut banks.

Graham and Sekulich (in preparation) report that snorkeling estimates of
cutthroat numbers are comparable to estimates made by various methods of \^

■^«ii^>^

16

w

^^^

removal. Northcote and Wilkie (1963) found snorkel ing to be an effective
method of estimating numbers of several species of fish.

Salmonid density estimates were made in three - five pools in each
of seven streams during the summer of 1981. The Kootenai National Forest
system for rating pools was used to classify the pools snorkeled (see
appendix A). In general, only class one pools were selected to be snor-
keled. Surface areas for each pool snorkeled were calculated and average
densities per 100 sq ft were estimated for each species by age class.

Trapping Spawning Runs

Spawning runs into tributary streams were sampled using box traps with
poultry netting leads and fyke nets. These traps were used successfully
to sample runs in the Kootenai drainage (May and Huston 1980).

Mark and recapture data were used to make estimates of the total run
ascending the Tobacco River in 1979 and Big Creek in 1980. Fish were caught
near the mouth with electrofishing gear and fyke nets, then tagged and re-
leased upstream. Box traps and fyke nets were utilized to catch spav^^ners
in upstream areas. Spent spawners were collected on their downstream migra-
tion usingbpx traps with leads. Population estimates were made using the
formula P=^^; where P is the estimated number. of fish, M is the number

initially marked from traps and electrofishing gear fished near the mouth,
C is the number of marked and unmarked collected in the upstream traps or
in the box trap used to capture emigrating spent spawners, and R is the
number of marked fish collected in upstream traps or traps which caught
emigrating spent spawners. This formula, although somewhat modified in its
final form for statistical purposes, is the basis for mark-recapture technique,

The emigration of fry and juvenile rainbow trout was monitored in Bob-
tail Creek using a fry trap designed by Northcote (1969). The leads were
1/4 inch square mesh hardware cloth.

A modified Wolf Trap was used to sample the emigration of cutthroat
trout smolts and spent spawners from Young Creek (Huston and May 1970).

- . WATER AVAILABILITY '

The instream flow recommendations presented in later sections will,
if enacted, limit the availability of water for future consumptive users
and^water development projects, For future planning, it is desirable to
define the period in which water in excess of the recommendations is
available and to quantify this excess. This information is presented
where available in later sections. However, the discussion of water
availability is limited for the vast majority of streams since a
thorough evaluation requires long-term flow records which are presently
lacking for all but a few contract streams.

17

The discussions of water availability basically consist of comparisons ^
of the monthly flow recomrnendations to the monthly median and mean flows
of record. These statistics provide a measure of the normal or typical
flow condition. The median is the flow that is exceeded in 5 of 10 years
or in 5 years out of 10 there is more water than the median flowing in
the stream. The median is preferred over the mean because it is less
readily influenced by unusually high flows which tend to cause the mean
to over estimate the norm. The mean rather than the median, however,
is more commonly used as an indicator of normal flows because it is an
easier statistic to derive.

Although biased by high flows, the monthly means still compare
favorably to the medians if derived from long-term gauge records. The
similarity of these two values is illustrated in Table 1 which compares
the mean and median flows of record on a monthly and annual basis for
a typical unregulated stream (Bridger Creek) and river (Big Hole River)
of the Upper Missouri drainage of southwest Montana. While monthly
means and medians are similar, as indicated in Table 1 , the annual
means greatly exceed the annual medians. This is characteristic of
unregulated headwater streams and rivers in which a large percentage
of the annual water yield is passed during a relatively brief snow runoff
period. For these waterways, the median annual flow is vastly superior
to the mean annual flow as an indicator of the normal condition. For
regulated streams, the annual mean and median values are generally
more similar.

Median monthly flows are only available for comparing to the flow "^
recommendations for those streams having at least 9 years of continuous
USGS gauge records. While ten years is the minimum period the USGS
considers adequate for deriving reliable estimates of monthly medians,
a minimum period of 9 years is used for this report. For those streams
having one to nine years of continuous flow records or more than 9 years
of discontinuous records, the mean monthly flows are substituted. The
relatively short period of time for which most of the monthly means
were derived detracts somewhat from their reliability as indicators
of the norm. These monthly means, while varying in reliability,
still provide some insight into water availability and, consequently,
are a meaningful addition to the report. For the vast majority of
contract streams which are ungauged by the USGS, water availability infor-
mation is generally limited to a relatively few sporadic flow measure-
ments collected by various state and federal agencies.

18

Table l . Comparison of mean and median flows of record (cfs) de-
rived from USGS gauge records for Bridger Creek and the Big
Hole River.

Bridqer
Meanb/

Cr

eeki/

Median£/

Big Hole Riverl/

Meani/

Medianl/

Jan

7.2

5.6

349

344

Feb

8.9

6.7

363

328

Mar

15.5

10.5

445

400

Apr

64.7

52.0

- 1,526

1,290

May

158.0

141.0

3,449

3,150

Jun

104.0

75.5

4,121

3,970

Jul

31.9

28.3

1,347

1,330

Aug

13.5

12.2

482

445

Sep

10.9

9.2

377

305

Oct

10.8

8.9

507

447

Nov

10.3

9.0

508

475

Dec

8.7

6.2

398

348

Annual

36.6

■■' 12.0

1,157

480

a/

Br

idger Creek

near Bozeman, f

^om

tana.

b/

De

rived for a

24-

-year period

of

record (1946-69).

c/

Ue

rived for a

19-

-year period of

record (1950-68).

d/

Bi

3 Hole River near Melrose,

Montana,

e/

Derived for a

54-

-year period

of

record (1924-77).

t/

Dei

"ived for a

49-

-year period

of

record (1925-73).

The final monthly flow recommendations selected for the streams
discussed in later sections of this report generally exceed the normal
water availability, as measured by the monthly mean and median flows
of record, for the months of November through March. This is the winter
period when the natural flows are lowest for the year. These naturally
occurring low flows, when coupled with the adverse effects of surface
and anchor ice formation and the resulting scouring of the river channel
at ice-out, can impact the fishery. Consequently, water depletions
during this crucial low flow period have the potential to be extremely
harmful to the already stressed trout populations. If trout populations
are to be maintained at existing levels, little or no water should be
removed during the crucial winter period.

19

1. STREAM ^

Bobtail Creek from its confluence with the Kootenai River about three
miles downstream from Libby, Montana (T31N, R31W, Sec. 30) to the junction
of Bull Creek (T31N, R31W, Sec. 5).

2. DESCRIPTION

Stream Length

Mouth of Bobtail Creek to Bull Creek: 5.1 miles
Perennial stream in drainage: 13.0 miles

Drainage Area

Total Bobtail Creek: 22.1 square miles
Gradient

Mouth to Bull Creek: 98.0 feet per mile
Origin and Land Use

Bobtail Creek has its origin on the southwest slopes of the Purcell
Mountains and flows south for approximately ten miles to the Kootenai River.
Most of the drainage is in the Kootenai National Forest. About seven sections
of land within the drainage are privately owned. Timber production is the ~)
primary land use in the drainage. ^^

Flows

Little flow data have been collected on Bobtail Creek except for sporadic
measurements taken by personnel of the Kootenai National Forest.

Water Quality

Bobtail Creek has a B-Dj^ classification under the State Water Quality
Standards. Waters classified B-Dj are suitable for drinking, culinary and
food processing purposes after adequate treatment equal to coagulation,
sedimentation, filtration, disinfection and any additional treatment nec-
essary to remove naturally present impurities; bathing, swimming and rec-
reation; growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and associated life,
waterfowl and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water supply.

Recreational Usage

Angler use of Bobtail Creek is comparatively low due to poor access and
the small size of the fish in the resident population. Hunting is a major
activity in the drainage with elk, whitetail deer and mountain grouse the
primary species harvested.

Potential Environmental Problems

The irrigation of pasture land, gardens and lawns has already caused de-

20

watering problems in Bobtail Creek. Increased land development will probably
result in more water diversions in the future. Timber harvesting could in-
crease sediment loads and peak flows, causing channel stability probiems and
damage to the fish habitat.

3- FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Stream surveys conducted from 1976-1978 indicated that about 9.1 miles
of spawning habitat is present in Bobtail Creek. The spawning habitat is
classified; into three categories; good (5.9 miles), fair (1.6 miles) and
poor (1.6 miles). Several potential barriers to migrating fish were re-
moved from Bobtail Creek and its major tributary, Bull Creek.

The protection of water quality and fish habitat has been a management
priority in the Bobtail drainage. Logging, road construction and stream
crossings have been reviewed with the Kootenai National Forest and private
landowners, to minimize the effects of these activities upon water quality
and fish habitat.

4. FISH POPULATIONS

The spawning run of rainbow trout ascending Bobtail Creek from the Kootenai
River was sampled with box traps from 1978-1980 (Table 2). The number of
fish caught in the trap varied from 155 spawners in 1978 to 379 spawners in
1979.' These numbers represent a minimum estimate of the run of rainbow
trout,;; because the trap operation was not 100 percent efficient.

The av^erage length of the spawners has decreased from 1978-1980. Females
averaged 16.3 inches in total length in 1978 as compared to 13.6 inches in
1980. The decline in average size is primarily due to reduced growth rates
of rainbow trout in the Kootenai River from 1978-1980 (May and Huston 1981).

The erpigration of rainbow trout fry and smolts was monitored in 1978 and
1979. The total number of smolts annually emigrating from Bobtail Creek was
estimated to be approximately 5,000-7,000 fish (May and Huston 1979).

The data concerning the rainbow trout spawning runs and the production of
smolts indicate that Bobtail Creek is an extremely important spawning and nur-
sery stream for rainbow trout from the Kootenai River.

5. FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS ...

Cross-sectional measurements were made in a series of five riffle areas
of Bobtail Creek, approximately one mile upstream from its confluence with
the Kootenai River (T31N, R31W, Sec. 20). The WETP program was calibrated
to field data collected at flows of 3.8, 5.7 and 22.0 cfs. The lower and
upper inflection points on the wetted perimeter discharge relationship
occur at flows of about 5 and 9 cfs, respectively (see Figure 5). Based on
an evaluation of existing fishery, recreational use, water availability and
other resource information, a flow of 5 cfs is recommended for the low flow
period from July 1 through March 31.

The flow required to insure fish passage for the spring spawning run of
rainbow trout is 16 cfs (Table 3). The average depth for all five riffles

21

■g

CM

P
CM

(0

•to
«

o

IL

^

tn

22 S ^ CM o

T" V" T~ T" ^m

nil uaiavuiuad aaiiaM

igure 5. The relationship between wetted perimeter and flow for a composite
of five riffle cross-sections in Bobtail Creek.

^

22

Table 2. Summary of rainbow trout spawning runs into Bobtail Creek
from the Kootenai River, 1978-1980.

YEAR

Parameter

1978

1979

1980

Period Trap Operated
Peak of Run
Days Leads Up
Number Males
Number Females

inches)
(inches

3/21-5/8
4/8-5/2

33
•117 .

38

3/22-6/4

4/21-5/25

77

188

190

3/26-6/1
4/14-5/22

54
143

62

Total Run

Average Length Males (
Average Length Females

155

11.7 '
) 16.3

378

. . 11.3 . '
14.0

305

10.3
■ 13.6

Table 3. The average depth for five riffle cross-sections in Bobtail Creek
at selected flows of interest.

'

Average Depth (ft)

Flows (cfs)

Riffle #1

Riffle #2 Riffle #3 Riffle #4

Riffle #5

5

10
16

.42

, .53

' .59

.67 .40 ' >■ .53
. 64 : .42 ' . 64
.76. -• .51 • ■ .72

.42
.59
.69

at this flow exceeds 0.5 ft, the approximate minimum depth required for suc-
cessful passage. A passage flow of at least 16 cfs should be maintained
from April 1 through June 30. ■

Due to the lack of long term flow data, recommendations based on the
dominant discharge/channel morphology concept cannot be derived for Bobtail
Creek.

1. STREAM ■ . . • . .

East Fork of the Bull River from its confluence with the Bull River
(T27N, R33W, Sec. 12) upstream to the junction of the East and North Forks
(T27N, R32W, Sec. 4).

23

2. DESCRIPTION
Stream Length

Mouth of East Fork to confluence with the North Fork: 4.5 miles
Drainage Area

Total East Fork: 28.0 square miles
Gradient

Mouth to North Fork: 124.4 feet per mile
Origin and Land Use

Flows

Little flow data have been collected on the East Fnrt nf tho c.n d-
except for sporadic ™easure«„ts taken b/Sertn^l^of °il;e°Ltna?"a?;^^:,' ^

Water Quality

Zul^-^llTZ nlT'V- P-^f"' '-purities; bathing! swJ^g': 5*::"-

Unity has ranged from 40-83 mg/l and the pH has ave,^aged'7.7
Recreational Usage

^rt'|3S?r -F-- -"-^"- - " -stanJilr
part of this took place in the East Fork of the Bull River ^"^^rantiai

■.:■..; i : 'i w;y Jii ., :■ ; :
The East Fork drainage has good populations of big game animals and moun.

24

u

tain grouse. A considerable amount of big game hunting occurs in the drainage.
Species harvested include white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, black bear, moun-
tain goats and bighorn sheep. ..•• ■ ■ • . '

The upper part of the drainage in the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area
provides high quality back country recreation for people who enjoy hiking,
mountain climbing and the solitude of a wilderness environment.

Potential Environmental Problems

The greatest threat to the aquatic environment of the East Fork is the
potential for the development of mines in the upper drainage. Mining activi-
ties could increase sediment loads and lead to metals pollution.

Increased sediment loads resulting from timber harvesting in the drainage
could reduce the productivity of the East Fork and cause channel stability
problems.

3. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

The fisheries management program for the drainage has pertained to the
coordination of timber sales with the Kootenai National Forest to minimize
the effects of logging and associated road building on water quality and
fish habitat.

4. FISH POPULATIONS ,, , ■

The East Fork of the Bull River supports populations of resident trout and
provides spawning and nursery habitat for cutthroat trout, bull trout and
brown trout from Cabinet Gorge Reservoir. Little is known about the runs
of cutthroat and bull trout.

Brown trout begin ascending the Bull River in mid-October and spawning
occurs in the East Fork from the first or second week of November until the
end of December. Twenty-four brown trout redds were observed in 1980 in the
East Fork and the count increased to forty-one in 1981.

The results of an underwater fish survey conducted on three class one
pools havinga total surface area of 5,820 sq ft are shown in Table 4. Game
fish species observed were brook trout (41), cutthroat trout (35), mountain
whitefish (16) and bull trout (6). The failure to observe brown trout during
the survey suggests that nearly all the brown trout must emigrate to the reser-
voir during their first summer of life. The number of trout (1.72) observed
per 100 sq ft of pool surface area indicates that the East Fork supports a
fairly dense population of trout for a soft water stream.

25

Table 4, The number of cutthroat trout, brook trout, bull trout and moun-
tain whitefish observed in August, 1981 during an underwater fish
census in three class one pools in the East Fork of the Bull River
(T27N, R32W, Sec. 7).

Length Group
in Inches

Assigned
Age

Total Number
Counted

Number Per
100 Sq Ft of
Pool Surface Area

Cutthroat Trout

3.0 - 6.9
7.0 - 14.0

1 & 2

2 - 5

12
23

35

Brook Trout

0.25
0.48
0.73

3.0 - 6.9
7.0 - 14.0

1 & 2
2-5

33
8

41

Bull Trout

0.69
0.17
0.86

3.0 - 6.9

1 - 3

0.13

Mountain Whitefish

7.0 - 16.0

2 - 7

16

0.33

Total Trout

77

1.72

FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS

Cross-sectional measurements were made In a series of four riffle areas
of the East Fork of the Bull River approximately one mile upstream from its
mouth (T27N, R32W, Sec. 7). The WETP program was calibrated to field data
collected at flows of 18.2, 34.7 and 386.4 cfs. The lower and upper inflec-
tion points on the wetted perimeter-discharge relationship occur at flows of
about 20 and 40 cfs, respectively (see Figure 6). Based on an evaluation of
existing fishery, recreational use, water availability and other resource in-
formation, a flow of 30 cfs is recommended for the low flow period from July
1 through March 31.

The average depth of the four riffle cross-sections exceeds 0.5 ft, the
approximate minimum depth required for trout passage, at a flow of approximate-
ly 20 cfs (see Table 5). Since the 30 cfs recommendation for the low flow

26

u

nil U31.3IAim3d a3JL13M

Figure 5. The relationship between wetted perimeter and flow for a composite
of four riffle cross-sections in the East Fork of the Bull River.

27

period exceeds the 20 cfs passage recommendation, a flow of at least 30 cfs ^
is being recommended year-round for the East Fork of the Bull River. ^^

Table 5. The average depth (ft) for four riffle cross-sections in the East
Fork of the Bull River at selected flows of interest.

Flow (cfs)

A vera

9e

Depth (ft)

Riffle #1

Riffle

#2

Riffle

#3

Riffle #4

10
20
30

.37
.61
.78

.47
.61
.72

.65

.91

1.01

.54
.72
.84

1. STREAM

Fortine Creek from its confluence with Graves Creek, about 10 miles east
of Eureka, Montana (T35N, R26W, Sec. 15), upstream to the junction of Edna
Creek (T33N, R26W, Sec. 2).

2. DESCRIPTION ^

Stream Length

Mouth Fortine Creek to confluence of Edna Creek: 12.8 miles
Perennial stream in drainage: 150 miles

Drainage Area

Total Fortine Creek: 180 square miles

Gradient

Mouth upstream 12.5 miles to Swamp Creek: 49.0 feet per mile
Origin and Land Use

Fortine Creek originates on the east slopes of the Salish Mountains in
Lincoln County and flows approximately 27 miles north and west to its con-
fluence with Graves Creek. Approximately 70 percent of the drainage is in
the Kootenai National Forest with the remainder in private and state owner-
ship. Timber production is the primary land use in the drainage, but there
are also a considerable number of small farms and ranches in the lower part
of the drainage.

28

w

Flows •

Little flow data have been collected on Fortine Creek, except for sporadic
measurements taken by personnel of the Kootenai National Forest.

Mater Quality

Fortine Creek has a B-Dj classification under the State Water Quality
Standards. Waters classified B-Di are suitable for drinking, culinary and
food processing purposes after adequate treatment equal to coagulation,
sedimentation, filtration, disinfection and any additional treatment neces-
sary to remove naturally present impurities; bathing, swimming and recreation;
growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and associated life, waterfowl and
furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water supply.

Fortine Creek is one of the more productive streams in Lincoln County
with a total alkalinity of about 188 mg/1 in the summer and a pH of 8.00.

Recreational Usage ■ '

A fishing pressure survey conducted in 1975 showed an estimated 161 man-
days of angling on Fortine Creek (MDFG 1975). Hunting is also a popular
recreational activity within the drainage with elk, mule deer, white-tailed
deer, moose, black bear and mountain grouse harvested.

Potential Environmental Problems ' ,, "\ , ' , ,, , ..^ „

Potential problems include stream dewatering due, to diversions for ag-
ricultural and housing developments and increased sediment loads relating to
logging activities and cattle grazing.

3. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT "' ' '■ '."'.

The fisheries management program for Fortine Creek has been concerned
with habitat and water quality protection and the enhancement of cutthroat
and rainbow trout spawning runs from Lake Koocanusa. Potential barriers to
the upstream movement of cutthroat and rainbow trout have been removed and
imprint plants of approximately 254,670 sub-fingerling westslope cutthroat
trout were made in the drainage from 1973 to 1980,.

4. FISH POPULATIONS ^^ ' , . ■ ' :.; . ' ' '' . ' ..."

The spawning run of rainbow and cutthroat trout ascending Fortine Creek
in 1979 was sampled (Table 6). A fyke trap fished near the mouth of Fortine
Creek caught 14 rainbow trout and only one cutthroat trout. The efficiency
of the fyke net was low and only a small part of the run was sampled.

A total of 14 rainbow trout was captured in a box trap fished in Meadow
Creek, a small tributary of Fortine Creek, from May 8 to 23. The trap ef-
ficiency was almost 100 percent due to the low flows, but the early part of
the rainbow run was missed.

29

Table 6. Summary of fish trap catches in the Fortine Creek Drainage during
the rainbow and cutthroat trout spawning runs in Spring, 1979.
Abbreviations for capture method are: B=box trap and F=fyke net.

Location and Capture Method

Number Caught

Period Trap

Cutthroat Rainbow

Operated

Fortine Creek (F) 1 14 5/5 - 6/4

Meadow Creek (B) - 14 5/7-6/3

Deep Creek (B) 5 3 4/12 - 6/3

A box trap was fished in Deep Creek, another tributary, from April 12
to June 3, but only five cutthroat and three rainbow trout were caught.
High water forced the trap leads down on 15 days during the peak of the run,
resulting in a low trap efficiency. The run of spawners into this stream
was much higher than indicated by the trap catch.

The actual run of cutthroat and rainbow trout into the Fortine drainage
could not be determined in 1979 due to low trap efficiencies. The total run
in most years may be as high as 1,000-2,000 fish. Fortine Creek is one of
the two major tributaries of the Tobacco River, which had an estimated spawn-
ing run of 7,000 rainbow and cutthroat trout in 1979 (May and Huston 1980).

An attempt was made in August, 1981 to determine fish densities iri Fortine
Creek using the snorkeling technique, but visibility was poor and accurate
counts could not be made. '■

5. FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS i

1

Cross-sectional measurements were made in a series of five riffle areas
of Fortine Creek, approximately three miles upstream from its confluence
with Graves Creek (T35N, R26W, Sec. 25). The WETP program was calibrgted
to field data collected at flows of 32.4, 47.5 and 205.3 cfs. The lower
and upper inflection points on the wetted perimeter discharge-relatioriship
occur at flows of about 22 and 38 cfs, respectively (see Figure 7). Based
on an evaluation of existing fishery, recreational use, water availability "
and other resource information, a flow of 25 cfs is recommended for the
low flow period from July 1 through March 31.

The flow required to insure fish passage during the spring spawning
run is approximately 30 cfs (Table 7). The average depth for all five
riffle cross-sections at this flow exceeds 0.5 ft, the approximate minimum
depth required for successful passage. A passage flow of at least 30 cfs
should be maintained from April 1 through June 30.

30

o

CM

:

o
in

w

o5
.J

o
If)

p

in

o

in

CO

'%ii yiii^

li

Figure 7. The relationship between wetted oerimeter and flow
of five riffle cross-sections in Fortine Creek.

31

-or a comDOsite

Due to the lack of long term flow data, recommendations based on the
dominant discharge/channel morphology concept cannot be derived for Fortine ^
Creek.

Table 7. The average depth for five riffle cross -sections in Fortine Creek
at selected flows of interest.

Average Depth (ft)

Flow (cfs) Riffle #1 Riffle #2 Riffle #3 Riffle #4 Riffle #5

20

.41

.38

.54

.47

.60

24

.47

.43

.63

.49

.67

30

.56

.50

.73

.55

.75

1. STREAM

Libby Creek from its confluence with the Kootenai River at Libby, Montana
(T30N, R31W, Sec. 3) upstream to the junction of Bear Creek (T28N, R30W, Sec. 18)

2. DESCRIPTION .. v^

Stream Length

Mouth Libby Creek to confluence of Bear Creek: 18.0 miles
Perennial stream in drainage: 148.0 miles

Drainage Area

Total Libby Creek: 227.5 square miles
Gradient

Mouth to Howard Creek: 74.1 feet per mile

Origin and Land Use

Libby Creek arises on the east slopes of the Cabinet Mountains and flows
in a northeasterly direction for about 27 miles to
Kootenai River. The upper part of the drainage is
Wilderness Area. About 85 percent of the drainage
al Forest, with the remainder in private and state
tion is the primary land use in the drainage. Much

its confluence with the
in the Cabinet Mountains
is in the Kootenai Nation-
ownership. Timber produc-
of the bottom land in the

lower 10-15 miles has been subdivided into 1-10 acre plots. The lower mile
of stream runs adjacent to a St. Regis Paper Company lumber mill.

'„^^/l

32

Flows

Little flow data have been collected on Libby Creek except for sporadic
measurements taken by personnel of the Kootenai National Forest.

Water Quality

Libby Creek has a B-Di classification under the State Water Quality
Standards, Waters classified B-Di are suitable for drinking, culinary and
food processing purposes after adequate treatment equal to coagulation,
sedimentation, filtration, disinfection and any additional treatment nec-
essary to remove naturally present impurities; bathing, swimming, and rec-
reation; growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and associated life,
waterfowl and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water supply.

Libby Creek is a relatively infertile stream with alkalinity ranging
between 25 and 87 ppm and a pH of 7.7.

Recreational Usage

A fishing pressure survey conducted in 1975 showed an estimated 1,072
man-days of angling on Libby Creek (MDFG 1976). Hiking, berry picking and
hunting are other recreational activities in the drainage. Game species
harvested include moose, elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, mountain goats,
black bear and ruffed blue and Franklin grouse. .' *

Potential Environmental Problems

Libby Creek is a high water yield drainage. Man's activities in the
drainage have increased peak flows and sediment loads, resulting in channel
stability problems. Timber production and associated road building, and re-
moval of vegetation from the flood plain for pasture and housing developments
have been major factors contributing to the channel stability problem.

Heavy metals pollution from an abandoned mine and mill on Snowshoe Creek
is limiting aquatic productivity in Snowshoe and Big Cherry creeks, tribu-
taries to Libby Creek.

Water withdrawals for mining subdivisions and agricultural developments
could cause severe dewatering problems in the future.

3. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

The protection of water quality and fish habitat and the improvement of
channel stability have been the management priorities in the drainage.
Close cooperation has been maintained with the Kootenai National Forest to
try and minimize the effects of logging on water quality and fish habitat.
Numerous channel stability projects on private land have been reviewed with,
the Lincoln County Conservation District.

The Kootenai National Forest has an active program to remove log and deb-
ris jams which might block the upstream movement of spawning runs of salmonids,

33

4. FISH POPULATIONS

Data collected from the rainbow trout spawning run ascending Libby
Creek from the Kootenai River are presented in Table 8. Only a small part
of the run was sampled each year due to high flows which prevented operation
of the fish trap during much of the spawning run. Based on the number of
fish caught per day of trap operation, it appears that the run was lapger in
1981 than in 1976 and 1977. This is in agreement with electrofishing data
which indicate that the rainbow trout population in the mainstem Kootenai
River has increased by 300 percent from 1977 to 1981 (May and et al . 1981),
Libby Creek probably supports a run of 400-1,000 rainbow trout and is the
most important spawning and nursery tributary downstream from Libby Dam.

Table 8. Summary of data for rainbow trout spawning runs form the Kootenai
River into Libby Creek in 1976, 1977 and 1981.

Time Interval
Trap in Operation

Days Trap in
Operation

Number of
Spawners

Number of Spawners
Caught per Day of

Average
Length (in)

Trap Operation

Males

Females

Mar 24-Apr 5, 1976

13

49

3.8

16.1

18.6

Mar 14-Apr 27, 1977

23

49

2.1

16.2

19.1

Apr 16-Apr 24, 1981

8

67

8.4

14.5

15.5

.J

The average size of males and females declined markedly from 1976 to
1981. Females averaged 19.1 inches in total length in 1977, as compared
to only 15.5 inches in 1981. The decline in average size is due primarily
to a reduction in the growth rates of trout in the Kootenai River (May and
et al. 1981).

A population estimate using mark and recapture data was made on a two
mile section of Libby Creek in 1977. The estimate of 259 yearling and older
rainbow trout per thousand feet of stream (Table 9) indicates that Libby
Creek supports a dense fish population. Age one fish dominated the popu-
lation, comprising 85.7 percent of the estimated numbers.

34

Tabid;: 9. Rainbow trout population estimates for Libby Creek (T30N, R31W,

•';! Sec. 36) in 1977. Estimates are given as number and weight of

I fish per thousand feet of stream. The 80 percent confidence

f limits are given in parenthesis.

Age * Average Average Age Compo- Number per Pounds per
Length (in) Weight (lb) sition Thousand Thousand

(%) Feet Feet

1 - V'

4.7

.04

85.7

222

9.0

2 "'^'.^

7.0

.13

13.9

36

4.7

3 & older

13.0

1.07

0.4

1

1.1

259 (+18.9°^) 14.8

.',^5,. iflOW RECOMMENDATIONS

.,;' i " 1; ■;

':.* " '■'

Cross-sectional measurements were made in four riffle areas of Libby Creek
■;a;pproximately 13 miles upstream from its confluence with the Kootenai River
,:(T28N, R30W, Sec. 5). The WETP program was calibrated to field data collect-
,ed''-atj flows of 8.4, 41.7 and 370.1 cfs. The lower and upper inflection points
on ihe wetted perimeter-discharge relationship occur at flows of about 9
andl45 cfs, respectively (see Figure 8). Based on an evaluation of existing
fishe'ry, recreational use, water availability and other resource information,
a flow of 15 cfs is recommended for the low flow period from July 1 through
March 31.

,The flow required to insure fish passage for the spring spawning run of
rainbow trout is approximately 30 cfs (Table 10). The average depth for all
four riffle cross-sections at this flow exceeds 0.5 ft, the approximate mini-
mum depth required for successful passage. The passage flow of at least
30 cfs should be maintained from April 1 through June 30.

Dije to the lack of long term flow data, recommendations based on the
dominant discharge/channel morphology concept cannot be derived for Libby
Creek.

Table 10, The average depth for four riffle cross-sections in Libby Creek
I .' at selected flows of interest.

Average Depth (ft)

■%;■:■

Flow (cfs) „: , Riffle, #1:' Riffle #2' ' ";'" RWfle"'#3 Riffle #4

10 . 61 '= Hih... A. V ■: \ 30 ■'. ' " ■"■ ? 'M I : ''. f:^ is . '" . 34

20 1.03 . .50 ' ■ .40 .56

-30 ■.,,, . ' 1.20 • ,p , , v, .57 . , .53 .70

35

o

ro

csi

o

10

o
to

lO

o

U)

(0
o

so

Ik

■•^^

p
If)

9

ID
(0

O
CM

nil uaiavwiyad aaiiaM

Figure 8. The relationship between wetted perimeter and flow for a eomposite
of four riffle cross-sections in Libbv Creek.

36

^'

1. STREAM . ,,,^,,, ,. „ .,:

O'Brien Creek from its confluence with the Kootenai River (T31N, R33 W,
Sec. 18) near Troy, Montana upstream to the junction of the North Fork
(T32N, R33W, Sec. 7).

2. ^DESCRIPTION ■■ . ,. .- ..., „ ■ , ,

Stream Length >. -J ,. ., . -

Mouth O'Brien Creek to the North Fork: 12 miles
Perennial stream in drainage: 32 miles

Drainage Area ■ - ,;.■ . '.., ..,:..

Total O'Brien Creek: 49.5 square miles, ,, ...•• ,,,
Gradient ■ ■ ' ' ',■

Mouth to North Fork: 80.8 feet per mile :, ,

Origin and Land Use : . ■ - ,■, , . • "> ; ■ , .

O'Brien Creek arises on the west slopes of the Rurcell Mountains and flows
west then south for approxima,tely 16 miles to its confluence with the Kootenai
River. Approximately 82 percent of the drainage is in the Kootenai National
Forest with the remainder in private ownership. Timber production is the pri-
mary land use in the drainage. . - , ; ■ ..

Flows ■ ■ ■ ;/■„ .:, . t, :..-,..,

Little flow data have been collected on O'Brien Creek, except for sporadic
measurements taken by personnel of the Kootenai National Forest.

Water Quality ■ , > . ■ .. , ;• : .-i^

p'BrieniCreek has a B-D^ classification under the State Water Quality
Standards*' Waters classified B-D^ are suitable for drinking, culinary, and
food processing purposes after adequate treatment equal to coagulation,
sedimentation, filtration, disinfection and any additional treatment nec-
essary to remove naturally present impurities; bathing, swimming and rec-
reation; growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and associated life,
waterfowl and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water supply.

O'Brien Creek is a fairly productive stream having a pH of 8.0 and a
total alkalinity of 105 mg/1 during the late summer and fall.

Recreational Usage ■ , ■• • • .-.;; •■ ". •■

The primary recreational uses in the O'Brien Creek drainage are fishing
and hunting. Cutthroat and brook trout are the species creeled by anglers.
Game species hunted include white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, black bear and
mountain grouse. ;

37.

Potential Environmental Problems , - . jj|^

A proposed micro-hydro project on O'Brien Creek could dewater the lower
part of O'Brien Creek and also hinder the downstream movement of rainbow
trout smolts.

Timber harvesting and new logging roads in the drainage have the poten-
tial to markedly increase sediment loads, unless sound erosion control
practices are enforced.

3. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

A survey of streams tributary to the Kootenai River from Kootenai Falls
to the Idaho border showed that spawning and rearing habitat appeared to be
limiting rainbow trout populations (May & Huston 1979). Natural falls and
man-made barriers limited access into all major streams. O'Brien Creek was
determined to have about 16 miles of good spawning and nursery habitat for
rainbow trout, but access was blocked by an old mill pond dam. This dam
was removed in October, 1978 and imprint plants of wild rainbow trout eggs
were made in the drainage in 1979 and 1980. O'Brien Creek could develop
into the most important spawning and nursery tributary for rainbow trout
in the Kootenai River downstream from Kootenai Falls.

Other management activities in the drainage have centered around water
quality and habitat protection in cooperation with the Kootenai National
Forest.

4. FISH POPULATIONS

The fish densities in O'Brien Creek were determined in 1979 using electro-
fishing gear (Table 11) and again in 1981 using the snorkeling technique
(Table 12). The westslope cutthroat trout was the only game fish collected
or observed in large numbers. Other species Included bull trout, brook trout,
rainbow X cutthroat hybrids, rainbow trout and slimy sculpins. The density
of cutthroat trout was higher in class one pools (2.27 fish/100 sq ft of pool)
than in the electrofishing estimate (1.08 fish /lOO sq ft of surface area),
which included all habitat types. These densities indicate that the produc-
tion of westslope cutthroat trout in O'Brien Creek is higher than most streams
in the area.

Table 11. Population estimates by length groups and approximate age classes
for cutthroat trout in a 1,000 ft long section of O'Brien' Creek
(T32N, R33W, Sec. 32), in August, 1979. The 80 percent confi-
dence limits are given in parentheses. '

1

Length
Group

Assigned
Age

Percent Age
Composition

Average

Length

(in)

Average

Weight

(lb)

Per 100 sq
face Area
Number

ft of Sur-
Weight

3.0-4.9
5.0-6.9
7.0-10.8
TOTAL

1

2

3 & 4

■7218 ,iWUi
12.3 ,
14.9

14.3 M 1. 1
5.6
8.1

M

.79
.13

.16
1.08(+24.0%)0.07

38

Table 12. The number of cutthroat trout observed in August, 1981 during an
underwater fish census in three class one pools in O'Brien Creek
■■ . (T32N, R33W, Sec. 32).

Length Group
in Inches

Approximate
Age

Total Number
Counted

Number Per
100 sq ft of
Pool Surface Area

3.0-6.9
7.0-9.0

1 & 2
3 - 5

33
5

38

1.97
.30

Total ,

2.27

5. FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS

Cfoss-sectional measurements were made in a series of five riffle areas
of O'Brien Creek, approximately four miles upstream from its confluence
with the Kootenai River (T32N, R33W, Sec. 32). The WETP program was cali-
brated to field data collected at flows of 14.3, 26.6 and 141.7 cfs. The
lower and upper inflection points on the wetted perimeter-discharge relation-
ship occur at flows of about 14 and 30 cfs, respectively (see Figure 9).
Based on an evaluation of existing fishery, recreational use, water availa-
bility and other resource information, a flow of 20 cfs is recommended for
the low flow period from July 1 through March 31.

- "*The flow required to insure fish passage for spring spawning runs of
rainbow trout is 30 cfs (Table 13). The average depth for all five riffles
at this flow exceeds 0.5 ft, the approximate minimum depth required for suc-
cessful trout passage. A passage flow of at least 30 cfs should be maintain-
ed from April 1 through June 30.

Dtie to the lack of long term flow data, recommendations based on the domi-
nant discharge/channel morphology concept cannot be derived for O'Brien Creek,

TableU3. The average depth
at selected flows

for five riffle
of interest.

cross-sections in O'Brien Creek

V '''■

Average Depth (ft)

Flow (cfs)

-J

Riffle #1

Riffle #2 Riffle #3 Riffle #4

Riffle #5

10 -^:..:--..:-^':

20

30

■■.44 ■•"■-^'>f''-'^
.67 ^ '
.74

.58 .47 .75
.67 .56 .78

.40
.60 ■
.70

39

O

■r

^1
O

m

O
O

■g

00

,o

(0 (0

°?5

IL

,o

p

CO

CM

'^^B.

I'll) ii3i3iMiu3d aaiiaM

Figure 9. The relationship between wetted perimeter and flow for
ite of five riffle cross-sections in O'Brien Creek.

a compos -

40

1. STREAM' ■•,■•;, ■ ■ • , ":'■'■

Pinkham Creek from its confluence with Lake Koocanusa south of Rexford,
Montana (T35N, R28W, Sec. 5) upstream to the junction of the East and West
Forks of Pinkham Creek (T34N, R27W, Sec. 32)

2. DESCRIPTION' ■ ' ' "' ' ' v ■ ' . ' ,.

Stream Length

Mouth Pinkham Creek to East & West Forks: 20 miles
Perennial stream in drainage: 37 miles

Drainage Area

Total Pinkham Creek: 75.7 sq. mi. '''
Gradient ' " ■ ■ ' ' . '

Mouth to East and West Forks; 108.0 ft. per mi.

Origin arid Land Use ■' "' '■ " '-'' ■ ■

Pinkham Creek arises on the west slopes of the Salish Mountains in Lincoln
County and flows approximately 20 miles north and west to its confluence with
Lake Koocanusa. Approximately 85% of the drainage is in the Kootenai National
Forest, with the remainder in private (13%) and state (2%) ownership. Timber
production is the primary land use in the drainage. Several small ranches and
farms in the drainage produce hay and cattle. , ,;. ' .

Flows '■ ■ ■ ' ' ■ '■■■■-^ ■ '■■ -•' '-■ / ■'■'''':;;' "''^ ■' " ' ' :

The USGS has operated a gage near the mouth of Pinkham Creek since October
1972. During this period, flbws have ranged from no flow to a high of 689 cfs
on May 11, 1976. The average discharge is 24.7 cfs. Pinkham Creek has a
severe dewatering problem in the lower 2-3 miles due to the stream going under-
ground. The period of no flow usually occurs from September-November. Although
surface flow may cease, sufficient groundwater is usually available to keep fish
alive in pool areas.

Water Quality ... ; * '

Pinkham Creek has a B-D, classification under the State Water Quality
Standards. Waters classified B-D-, are suitable for drinking, culinary, and
food processing purposes after adequate treatment equal to coagulation, sedi-
mentation, filtration, disinfection and any additional treatment necessary to
remove naturally present impurities, bathing, swimming and recreation, growth
and propagation of salmonid fishes and associated life, waterfowl and furbearers;
and agricultural and industrial water supply.

41

Pinkham Creek is a fertile stream, with a total alkalinity of about 150 ppm
in the late summer and a pH of 8.2. / ■■ ^

Recreational Use

A fishing pressure survey conducted in 1975 showed an estimated 223 mandays
of angling on Pinkham Creek (MDFG 1976). Rainbow and brook trout are the main
species harvested.

Hunting is a popular activity in the drainage. The Pinkham Creek drainage
supports one of the larger moose populations in northwestern Montana, along with
elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, black bear and mountain grouse.

Potential Environmental Problems

The lower 2-3 miles of Pinkham Creek have a dewatering problem due to the
stream going underground in the late summer and fall. Water diversions for
irrigation or subdivisions would compound this problem.

Timber harvesting in the drainage has the potential to increase sediment
loads and peak flows which would adversely affect stream stability and fish
habitat. Cattle grazing has caused some erosion and bank stability problems.

3. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Pinkham Creek has a falls approximately 6 miles upstream from its mouth.
The stream downstream from the falls has been managed primarily as a spawning ^j
and nursery area for cutthroat and rainbow trout from Lake Koocanusa. The ^^
initial developmental work took place in 1973 and involved the removal of
barriers to upstream fish movement, the elimination of resident stocks of fish,
and imprint plants of subfingerling westslope cutthroat trout. A total of
95,700 cutthroat were planted from 1973 to 1980.

The protection of fish habitat and water quality have also been a management
priority for the drainage. The program has involved working with the Kootenai
National Forest to minimize the effects of logging and road building upon the
aquatic resource.

4. FISH POPULATIONS

The program to enhance cutthroat "trout spawning runs in Pinkham Creek was
successful. The number of redds (spawijjng beds) located in 1977 and 1978 was
231 and 135, respectively (May and Huston 1979). Most females make only one
redd and the sex ratio of cutthroat spawners in Lake Koocanusa tributaries has
ranged from 1.0 male:1.6 females to 1.0 male:4.8 females. Based on this infor-
mation, the cutthroat run into Pinkham Creek is probably in the range of 400-600
fish in most years.

Five class one pools having a total area of 2,590 sq. ft. were snorkeled
to determine resident fish densttiesHnNnkham Creek above the fall^
rainbow trout was the most numerous salmonid observed, comprising 92 percent
of the trout in the pools with the remainder consisting of brook trout. The
density of 6.41 trout per 100 sq,;, ft., ofi RQOl isurface area (Table 14) was w^
the highest recorded in any stream in Lincoln County. Pinkham Creek supports
an excellent population of resident rainbow trout above the falls.

42

Table 14. Number of rainbow and brook trout observed in August 1981 during
an underwater fish census in five class one pools in Pinkham
Creek (T36N, R27W, Sec. 31).

Length Group
in Inches

3.0 - 6.9
7.0 -11.0

Approx
Age

1 & 2

, -3 & 4

imate Total Number

Counted
Rainbow Trout
138
14

Number/100 sq. ft. of
Pool Surface Area

5.37

0.54

153

5.91

3.0 - 6.9
7.0 - 9.0

1 &
3 &

2
4

Brook Trout
11
2

, 13

0.42
0.08

0.50

Total

166

6.41

5. FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS

Cross-sectional measurements were made in a series of five riffle areas of
Pinkham Creek, approximately 7 miles upstream from its confluence with Lake
Koocanusa (T36N, R27W, Sec. 31). The WETP program was calibrated to field data
collected at flows of 4.6, 8.3 and 165.5 cfs. The lower and upper inflection
points on the wetted perimeter-discharge relationship occur at flows of about
5 and 14 cfs, respectively (Figure 10). Based on an evaluation of existing
fishery, recreational use, water availability and other resource information,
a flow of 5 cfs is recommended for the low flow period from July 1 through
March 31.

The dominant discharge/channel morphology concept was used to determine the
flows during the high flow period from April 1 through June 30, rather than the
fish passage criteria. The high flows that are needed to maintain existing
stream morphology and provide a flushing action are higher than the flow required
for fish passage.

Monthly flow recommendations for the low and high flow periods are compared
in Table 15 to the median monthly flows of record, as derived from USGS flow
records for the gage near the mouth of Pinkham Creek. The flow recommendations
would require that all the water during a normal water year be maintained in-
stream from approximately August through March.

The instream flow recommendations, when adjusted to fall within the con-
straints of water availability for a median or normal water year, equal 7,548
acre-feet of water per year, which is almost 52^ of the annual volume of water
that is normally available at the USGS gaging site near the mouth of Pinkham
Creek.

43

Table 15. Comparison of the instream flow recommendations for Pinkham Creek
to the approximate median flows of record.

January

February

March

April 1-15

April 16-30

May 1-15

May 16-31

June 1-15

June 16-30

July

August

September

October

November

December

Instream Flow ,
Recommendations-'

Approximate,
of Record -

Median Flows

m

CFS

AF

5.0

1.75

108

5.0

1.24

69

5.0

4.93

303

5.3

20.6

613

36.3^/
73.5^^ .

76.3

2,270

128.3

3,816

50.2

116.9

3.709

31.0

54.4

1,618

11.0

31.3

931

5.0

9.97

613

5.0

1.38

85

5.0

0.79

47

5.0

0.66

41

5.0

3.01

179

5.0

2.32

14^
14,54^/

a - Derived using the wetted perimeter/inflection point method and the dominant
discharge/channel morphology concept.

b - Derived from flow records for a 9-year period of record (between 1973 and
1981 water years) for the US6S gage on Pinkham Creek, 0.9 miles upstr^eam
from Lake Koocanusa.

i
c - The bankful discharge, which is presently undefined, should be maintained
for 24 hours during this period. j

I
d - Approximate volume of water normally available on an annual basis.

^M

44

o

CO

Figure 10. The relationship between wetted perimeter and flow for a
composite of five riffle cross-sections in Pinkham Creek.

45

1. STREAM ^

Pipe Creek from its confluence with the Kootenai River about 3 miles down-
stream from Libby, Montana {T31N, R31W, Sec. 30) upstream to the junction of
the East Fork (T33N, R31W, Sec. 16).

2. DESCRIPTION

Stream Length

Mouth Pipe Creek to junction of East Fork: 19 miles
Perennial stream in drainage: 54 miles

Drainage Area

Total Pipe Creek: 105.5 sq. mi.
Gradient

Mouth to East Fork: 58.4 ft per mile

Origin and Land Use

Pipe Creek arises on the southwest slopes of the Purcell Mountains and flows
south for approximately 22 miles to its confluence with the Kootenai River.
About 81% of the drainage is within the Kootenai National Forest. Timber produc-
tion is the primary land use in the drainage. \

Flows

Little flow data have been collected on Pipe Creek, except for sporadic
measurements taken by personnel of the Kootenai National Forest.

Mater Quality

Pipe Creek has a B-D, classification under the State Water Quality Standards.
Waters classified B-D, are suitable for drinking, culinary, and food processing
purposes after adequate treatment equal to coagulation, sedimentation, filtration,
disinfection and any additional treatment necessary to remove naturally present
impurities, bathing, swimming and recreation, growth and propagation of salmonid
fishes and associated life, waterfowl and furbearers; and agricultural and in-
dustrial water supply.

Pipe Creek is a fairly productive stream having a total alkalinity of 124
mg/1 in the summer and a pH of 8.00.

Recreational Use

The fishing pressure on Pipe Creek during the 1975-76 season was estimated
at 2,044 angler days (MDFG 1976). Pipe Creek produces a good rainbow trout
fishery, is close to Libby and has good access via a paved road. Hunting is

46

another popular sport in the drainage. The Pipe Creek drainage supports one
of the better moose populations in the area. Other species harvested include
elk, white-tailed deer, black bear, mule deer and ruffed, blue and Franklin
grouse.

Potential Environmental Problems

Housing developments and the proposed water diversions for these develop-
ments are potentially the most serious environmental problems affecting the
drainage. Timber harvesting in the drainage could increase sediment loads and
peak flows, which would adversely affect channel stability and fish habitat.

3. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Pipe Creek has been managed primarily as a spawning and nursery tributary
for rainbow trout spawners from the Kootenai River. A survey conducted in 1977
showed that the mainstem Pipe Creek had 12.0 miles of good spawning habitat
and 7.1 miles of fair spawning habitat.

The protection of water quality and fish habitat and the maintenance of
fish passage have been the management priorities in the Pipe Creek drainage.
Several barriers to the upstream movement of spawning rainbow trout have been
removed. Timber sales have been reviewed with the Kootenai National Forest
to minimize the effects of logging and road building upon the aquatic environ-
ment,

4. FISH POPULATIONS

The spawning runs of rainbow trout ascending Pipe Creek from the Kootenai
River were sampled in 1976, 1977 and 1981. Only a part of the run was captured
each year, due to high flows which limited the trapping operation to only a
portion of the spawning period. The number of rainbow trout spawners migrating
into Pipe Creek appears to have increased from 1976-1981 (Table 16). The
average catch per day of trap operation was 3.9 fish in 1981 as compared to
1.7 in 1977 and 3.0 in 1976. The total run of rainbow trout into Pipe Creek
is probably in the range of 300-500 fish, which makes Pipe Creek one of the
most important spawning and nursery tributaries for rainbow trout from the
Kootenai River. .; .

The average size of the males and females in the run has declined markedly
from 1976-81. This decline is due to the reduced growth rates of rainbow
trout in the Kootenai River (May et al. 1981).

The fish densities in Pipe Creek were determined in 1981 using the under-
water census technique. A total of four class one pools having an area of 5,627
square feet were snorkeled during the survey. A total of 184 rainbow trout
ranging in size from 3.0-11.0 inches in total length were observed (Table 17).
Numerous young-of-the-year rainbow trout, sculpins and one brook trout were
also noted. The density of 3.27 rainbow trout per 100 sq. ft. of pool surface
area indicates that the trout population in Pipe Creek is well above average
when compared to other streams in the area.

47

Table 16. Summary of data for rainbow trout spawning runs into Pipe Creek from ^
the Kootenai River in 1876, 1977 and 1981. "^

Time Interval

Trap

in Operation

3/18-4/5/76
3/3-5/20/77
3/17-4/20/81

Days
Trap in
Operation

18

46
22

No. of
Spawners

54
78
85

Average
Catch per
Day of Trap
Operation

3.0
1.7
3.9

Average Length

in Inches

Male Female

14.2
14.1
11.3

18.3
17.4
13.2

Table 17. Number of rainbow trout observed in August 1981 during an under-
water fish census in four class one pools in Pipe Creek (T31N,
R31W, Sec. 20).

Length Group
in Inches

Approximate
Age

Total Number
Counted

No./lOO Sq. Ft. of
Pool Surface

3.0 - 6.9
7.0 -11.0

1 & 2

3 & 4

159
25

2.82
0.44

Total

184

3.26

48

5. FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS

Cross-sectional measurements were made in a series of five riffle areas of
Pipe Creek, approximately 1 mile upstream from its confluence with the Kootenai
River (T31N, R31W, Sec. 20). The WETP program was calibrated to field data
collected at flows of 14.4, 26.8 and 392.2 cfs. The lower and upper inflection
points on the wetted perimeter-discharge relationship occur at flows of about
12 and 25 cfs, respectively (Figure 11). Based on an evaluation of existing
fishery, recreational use, water availability and other resource information,
a flow of 15 cfs is recommended for the low flow period from July 1 through
March 31.

The flow required to ensure fish passage for the spring spawning run of
rainbow trout is approximately 25 cfs (Table 18). The average depth for all
five riffle cross sections at this flow exceeds 0.5 ft, the approximate minimum
depth required for successful trout passage. A passage flow of 25 cfs should
be maintained from April 1 through June 30.

Table 18. The average depth for five riffle cross-sections in Pipe Creek at
■*; H selected flows of interest.

C

v,»v-

f ':

Average

; Depth (ft)

Flow;

'' Riffle

Riffle

Riffle

Riffle

Riffle

(cfs) ,

^ #1

r-;.., r^ .

#2

#3

#4

#5

16

:/;.67

.43

.46

.67

.40

20

■-r.?.66

.54

.52

.70

.47

25

i ' .65

.65

.57

.78

.55

Due': to the lack of long-term flow data, recommendations based on the dominant
discharge/channel morphology concept cannot be derived for Pipe Creek.

>f|?;r'';-s;.- .itiW;,.;*.;- ;.-«.* ^v • ?#

P^

^'''''M

49

o

|0
CM

.A.

o

U)

■oO

r J-

.o

o

o

u>

i

Figure 11

i-«ii uaiawiuad aaiiaM

Relationship between wetted perimeter and flow for a composite
of five riffle cross sections in Pipe Creek.

50

1- STREAM ■ :...... , ,^, VYv-i> ■•"■/, ;:' ' . • ''-,''.

Rock Creek from its mouth near Noxon, Montana (T26N, R32W, Sec. 32)
upstream to Rock Creek Meadows (T26N, R31W, Sec. 6).

2. DESCRIPTION

Stream Length .... , ' ■ , . . ;. ''

Mouth of Rock Creek to Rock Creek Meadows: TO miles ' ' •

Drainage Area , . . . . . , ...... •

Total Rock Creek: 31.9 square miles
Gradient ..'/■ . , ,. ' V ' '^'^ • ' ' ' '"'-■'■■' ',..' V

Mouth to Rock Creek Meadows: 128 ft per mile

Origin and Land Use

Rock Creek arises on the west slopes of the Cabinet Mountains and flows in
a southwesterly direction to its confluence with the Clark Fork River about 2
miles upstream from Noxon. The upper part of the drainage is located in the
Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area. Approximately 94% of the drainage is in
the Kootenai National Forest, with the remainder in private ownership. Timber
production is the primary land use in the drainage.

Flows •■■• ., ,. „ . :''■■.. . '• ■ ■' ""''•' -•

Little flow data have been collected on Rock Creek, except for sporadic
measurements taken by personnel of the Kootenai National Forest. Flows in the
lower 1-2 miles of Rock Creek go underground during the late summer and fall in
most years.

Recreational Usage

A fishing pressure survey conducted in 1975 showed an estimated 438 mandays
of angling on Rock Creek (MDFG 1976). The westslope cutthroat trout is the
primary species creeled.

Hunting is a popular recreational activity in the drainage. Game species
harvested include white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, ruffed and blue grouse,
black bear and mountain goat. , •• !

Hiking and mountain climbing are popular activities in the portion of the
drainage in the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area. ■■ •

Potential Environmental Problems .

Nearly all of the drainage is in the Kootenai National Forest. Exploratory
work conducted by mining companies has indicated that deposits of copper and
silver may be of sufficient size to mine profitably. Development of mines could

51

increase sediment loads, and pollute the water with heavy metals. In addition,
water will probably be diverted from Rock Creek for use in milling and con- ^
centrating operations.

Water Quality •

Rock Creek has a B-D, classification under the State Water Quality Standards.
Waters classified B-D, are suitable for drinking, culinary and food processing
purposes after adequate treatment necessary to remove naturally present impurities;
bathing, swinmiing and recreation; growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and
associated aquatic life, waterfowl and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial
water supply.

The limited water quality information that has been collected indicates that
Rock Creek is a softwater stream with low buffering capacity. The total alkalinity
has ranged between 10-51 mg/1, and averages 37 mg/1 during the low flow period in
the summer. The pH varies between 6.6-7.8 and averages 7.3

3. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

The fisheries management program in the drainage has been concerned primarily
with habitat and water quality protection. Timber sales have been reviewed with
the Kootenai National Forest and recommendations submitted to minimize the effects
of logging and associated road building on the aquatic environment.

4. FISH POPULATIONS

Fish populations were sampled in Rock Creek in September 1979 using electro-
fishing gear and again in August 1981 using the snorkel ing technique. The
electrofishing (Table 19) and snorkel ing (Table 20) estimates indicate that
Rock Creek supports a good population of cutthroat and brook trout. The electro-
fishing estimate for all water types was 2.16 trout per 100 square feet of
surface area as compared to 2.90 trout per 100 square feet of pool surface area
for the snorkel count. The data indicate that Rock Creek supports a dense trout
population for an infertile stream. !

The cutthroat trout was the dominant species, composing 77 percent and 67
percent of the electrofishing and snorkel ing estimates, respectively. The cut-
throat appears to be a pure native strain of westslope cutthroat. The growth
of these fish was good, and several fish over 12.0 inches were noted during the
underwater survey.

The westslope cutthroat, a species of special concern in Montana, is found
in the more pristiWe drainages, which have been relatively undisturbed by man's
activities. The success of the westslope cutthroat trout is related to main-
tenance of environmental quality. Any habitat disruption resulting in increased
siltation, warmer water temperatures, and dewatering makes the native cutthroat
trout vulnerable to replacement by nonnative fishes (Behnke 1974). The native
cutthroat trout has been eliminated from much of its original range in the
interior waters Of 'Nt^i^^^WiW^'^'^^^W^ existing stocks is important
if the genetic; diversity of 'this species is to be maintained. . '

■ 4 1 y :i 1 3 w { a ii «j o :i ,i 1. J M

52

©

Table 19. Population estimates by length groups and approximate age classes for trout in Rock Creek,
(T26N, R32W, Sec. 27), September 1979. The 80% confidence limits are given in parentheses
as a percent of the point estimate.

en

GO

Length
Group

3.0 - 4.9
5.0 - 6.9
7.0 -11.4

4.3
7.0

6.9
8.5

Total

Assigned
A^e

1
2

3 & 4

1 & 2

2 & 3

% Age
Composition

37.3
29.1
33.6

85.3
14.7

Ave.

Length

(Inches)

4.0
6.2
8.9

Ave.

Weight

(Pounds)

5.4
7.5

Cutthroat Trout

.03
,10
,27

,06
,17

Brook Trout

Per 100 Square Feet of
Surface Area

Number

Weight

.53
.42
.49

11 1

1.44 (+3 0.5%)

.61

.11

.19

.72(+34.8%)

.05

2.16

,24

Table 20.

r^umber of cutthroat trout and brook
during an underwater fish census in
Rock Creek (T26N, R32W, Sec. 27).

tro

fou

ut observed
r class one

in August 1981
pools in

Length

Group

(Inches)

Assigned
Age

1 & 2
3 - 5

Total No.
Counted

Cutthroat Trout
101
50

No./lOO sq. ft.
of Pool Surface
Area

1

3.0 - 6.9
7.0 -15.0

1.60
.80

151

2.40

3.1 - 6.9
7.0 -12.0

1 & 2
3 & 4

Brook Trout
25
6

31

.40
.10

.50

Total

132

2.90

4. FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS

Cross-sectional measurements were made in a series of five riffle areas of
Rock Creek, approximately 2 miles upstream from its confluence with the Clark
Fork Rwer (T26N, R32W. Sec. 27). The WETP program was calibrated to field data
collected at flows of 4.9, 22.2 and 264.3 cfs. The lower and upper inflection
points on the wetted perimeter-discharge relationship occur at flows of about 9
and 30 cfs, respectively (Figure 12). Based on an evaluation of existing
fishery, recreational use, water availability and other resource information,
a flow of 10 cfs is recommended for the low flow period from July 1 throuqh
March 31 . -/ »

^

Due to the lack of long-term flow data, recommendations based on the dominant
discharge/channel morphology concept cannot be derived for Rock Creek.

54

c

Figure 12, Relationship between wetted perimeter and flow for a composite
bf five riffle cross-sections in Rock Creek.

55

1. STREAM ^

Ross Creek from its confluence with Bull Lake {T28N, R33W, Sec. 4) upstream
to the junction of the South Fork of Ross Creek (T28N, R34W, Sec. 15)

2. DESCRIPTION

Stream Length

Mouth of Ross Creek to South Fork: 8 miles
Perennial stream in drainage: 14 miles

Drainage Area

Total Ross Creek - 25.0 square miles ,

Gradient

Mouth to South Fork: 59.5 ft per mile

Origin and Land Use

Ross Creek arises on the east slopes of the West Cabinet Mountains and flows
east about 10 miles to its confluence with Bull Lake. The entire drainage,
except for approximately one section of land, is within the Kootenai National
Forest. The upper part of the drainage is in the proposed Scotchman Peak
Wilderness Area. The drainage is roadless except for about 4 miles of road
between the stream's mouth and the Ross Creek Cedars Recreation Area. Recrea-
tion is the primary land use within the drainage.

Flows

Little flow data have been collected for Ross Creek, except for sporadic
measurements taken by personnel of the Kootenai National Forest.

Water Quality

Ross Creek has a B-D, classification under the State Water Quality Standards.
Waters classified B-D^ are suitable for drinking, culinary and food processing
purposes after adequate treatment equal to coagulation, sedimentation, filtra-
tion, disinfection and any additional treatment necessary to remove naturally
present impurities; bathing, swimming and recreation, growth and propagation
of salmonid fishes and associated life, waterfowl and furbearers; and agri-
cultural and industrial water supply.

Ross Creek is an infertile coldwater stream with low buffering capabilities.
The total alkalinity ranges from 19-32 mg/1 and the pH averages about 7.3.
The maximum water temperature during the summer is approximately 50° F.

Recreational Usage

An estimate of 174 mandays of angling use on Ross Creek was generated by a
fishing pressure survey in 1975 (MDFG 1976). Ross Creek offers a unique fishery
for westslope cutthroat trout in an unspoiled environment.

56

The Ross Creek drainage supports an excellent elk herd and elk hunting
is a major activity during the fall in the upper drainage. Other species
hunted include mule deer, white-tailed deer, black bear and mountain grouse.

The Ross Creek Cedars Natural. Area is a designated, recreational site in
the Kootenai National Forest featuring cedar trees up to 400 years old. The
"Cedars" is a popular recreational area having approximately 14,000 visitors
annually.

Potential Environmental Problems :' ,'' •(''■,. • :.

Exploratory work by the American Smelting and Refining Company has indicated
that a large ore body of copper and silver exists near Ross Point. The proba-
bility that the deposit will be developed in the near future is quite good.
Development of the ore body could degrade the water quality of Ross Creek
and require water withdrawals for the mining and concentrating operations.

3. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT • i ' \' „'. '

Fisheries management activities in the Ross Creek drainage have been limited
due to the remoteness and pristine condition of the drainage.

4. FISH POPULATIONS , .: i . ^ ■■

Comparatively little fish data have been collected on Ross Creek due to
its remote location and poor access. The results of an underwater fish survey
conducted in class one pools in August 1981 are shown in Table 21. Cutthroat
trout was the only species of fish observed. Approximately 0.99 cutthroat
per 100 sq. ft. of pool surface area were counted in the five pools. The
density of trout is low when compared to the more productive streams, but is
about average for an infertile headwaters stream. The fish observed represent
a minimum estimate of the number of fish in the pools.

Table 21. The number of cutthroat trout
an underwater fish census in
Creek (T28N, R34W, Sec. 7).

observed in August,
five class one pools

1981 during
in Ross

Length Group
In Inches

Approximate
Age

Total Number
Counted

Number Per 100
sq ft of Pool
Surface Area

3.0-6.9
7.0-9.0

1 & 2
3 & 4

53

10
63

0.83
0.16
0.99

w-

57

The cutthroat trout in Ross Creek appear to be a pure native strain of
westslope cutthroat. The westslope cutthroat trout, a species of special con-
cern in Montana, is found in the more pristine drainages which have been rela-
tively undisturbed by man's activities. The success of the westslope cutthroat
is related to maintenance of environmental quality. Any habitat disruption
resulting in increased siltation, warmer temperatures and dewatering makes the
native cutthroat trout vulnerable to replacement by nonnative fishes (Behnke
1974). The native cutthroat trout has been eliminated from much of its original
range in the interior waters of North America. The protection of existing
stock is essential if the genetic diversity of this vanishing species is to be
maintained.

4. FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS

Cross-sectional measurements were made in a series of five riffle areas of
Ross Creek, approximately 3 miles upstream from its confluence with Bull Lake
(T28N, R34W, Sec. 7). The WETP program was calibrated to field data collected
at flows of 10.0, 21.1 and 270.7 cfs. The lower and upper inflection points
on the wetted perimeter-discharge relationship occur at flows of about 10 and
16 cfs, respectively (Figure 13). Based on an evaluation of existing fishery,

recreational use, water availability and other resource information, a flow of
16 cfs is recommended for the low flow period from July 1 through March 31.

Due to the lack of long-term flow data, recommendations based on the
dominant discharge/channel morphology concept cannot be derived for Ross Creek.

58

c

o

,o

CM

O
10

(A

O

rso

■g

o

in

to

o

lO

o

10
CM

^ (')ll U313IAIIU3d a31J.3M

Figure 13. The relationship between wetted perimeter and flow for a
composite of five riffle cross-sections in Ross Creek.

59

1. RIVER

Tobacco River from its mouth near Rexford, Montana (T36N. R27W, Sec. 8)
upstream to the confluence of Fortine and Graves creeks (T35N, R26W, Sec. 15).

2. DESCRIPTION

Stream Length

Length of mainstem Tobacco: 10 miles

Length of perennial streams in drainage: 266 miles

Drainage Area

Total Tobacco River: 440 square miles

Gradient

Mouth to confluence of Fortine and Graves creeks: 32.7 ft/mile
Origin and Land Use

The Tobacco River has its origin at the confluence of its two major tribu-
taries. Graves and Fortine creeks. Graves Creek arises on the west side of the
Whitefish Range and flows south for about 16 miles. Fortine Creek arises on
the east slopes of the Salish Mountains and flows north for approximately 27
miles to its confluence with Graves Creek. Approximately 70 percent of the
drainage is in the Kootenai National Forest, with the remainder in private
ownership. Timber production is the primary land use in the drainage, but
there is also a considerable amount of land in pasture and forage production.

Flows

Since 1958, the USGS has operated a flow gage 2.8 miles upstream from the
mouth of the Tobacco River. During this period, the discharge averaged 270
cfs and ranged from 20 to 2,470 cfs.

Recreational Usage

A fishing pressure survey conducted in 1975 showed an estimated 1,276 man-
days of angling on the Tobacco River (MDFG 1976). The pressure has increased
considerably since 1975 as a result of increased spawning runs of rainbow and
cutthroat trout from Lake Koocanusa. A popular fishery for resident rainbow,
cutthroat and brook trout exists during summer and fall.

The drainage provides good hunting for moose, elk. White-tailed deer, mule
deer, black bear, grizzly bear and mountain grouse. The Ten Lakes Scenic Area
provides high quality backcountry recreation.

Potential Environmental Problems

A major threat to the aquatic resources of the Tobacco River drainage is
from dewatering due to agricultural practices and subdivision developments.

^

60

The Kootenai National Forest has received applications for micro hydro
projects on Deep Creek, Blue Sky Creek, Williams Creek, Clarence Creek and Stahl
Creek. These projects would dewater appriximately 21.6 miles of stream in the
Tobacco River drainage. .' ' .•

Sediment pollution from logging and associated road building and agricultural
practices will continue to be a problem in the future. The sediment problem
is most severe in Fortine Creek. ,

Water Quality ;

The Tobacco River drainage, except for Deep Creek, has a B-D, classification
under the State Water Quality Standards. Waters classified B-D, are suitable
for drinking, culinary and food processing purposes after adequate treatment
equal to coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, disinfection and any additional
treatment necessary to remove naturally present impurities; bathing, swimming
and recreation; growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic
life, waterfowl and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water supply.
Deep Creek, the water supply for Fortine, is classified A-Open-D-, .

The Tobacco River is a moderately productive stream with an average pH of
8.3 and total alkalinity of 128 mg/1 in the late summer. Water temperatures
during the summer of 1980 averaged 13.7C and ranged from 5.G-22.0C.

3. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

The Tobacco River drainage has been managed to mitigate fishery losses
caused by the construction of Libby Dam. The program began in 1973
and was concerned primarily with the enhancement of spawning runs of cutthroat
trout from Lake Koocanusa. Rainbow trout, bull trout, and mountain whitefish
spawning runs also benefited from the development program.

The development work involved the removal of natural barriers to migratory
trout in Clarence, Stahl, Blue Sky, Graves, Fortine, Deep and Therriault creeks.
Resident fish populations were chemically suppressed in Clarence Creek. Imprint
plants of sub-fingerling westslope cutthroat trout were made in Blue Sky,
Clarence, Deep, Fortine, Graves and Sinclair creeks. A total of 586,800 sub-
fingerlings was planted from 1972 through 1980.

Considerable time and effort were spent in providing fish passage at an
irrigation diversion dam on Graves Creek and a water supply dam on Sinclair
Creek. These projects provided access into about 25 miles of quality spawning
habitat.

The cost of the Tobacco River fishery development was approximately $50,930.
The cost has been shared by five government agencies and one sportsmen's group.
These were the MDFWP, Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation Service, Kootenai
National Forest, Lincoln County Conservation District and the Tobacco Valley
Rod and Gun Club.

61

4. FISH POPULATIONS

The results of a trout spawning survey conducted in the Tobacco River
drainage in 1979 are summarized in Table 22 (from May and Huston 1980).
Mark and recapture data were used to estimate the magnitude of the runs.
The point estimates for the rainbow and cutthroat runs were 5,937 and 516
fish, respectively. The confidence limits for the estimates were large,
indicating that the actual number of fish could vary considerably from the
point estimates. The rainbow estimates appear to be high, while the cutthroat
estimate is probably low. The data indicate that the Tobacco River drainage
supports substantial spawning runs of cutthroat and rainbow trout.

The fish in the run were good sized, with rainbow females averaging 16.3
inches in total length as compared to 15.2 inches for female cutthroat. The
total fecundity (egg potential) of the runs was estimated at 281,000 and
3,233,000 cutthroat and rainbow trout eggs, respectively.

Table 22. Summary of data from rainbow and cutthroat trout runs ascending
the Tobacco River drainage, April -July 1979. The 80% confidence
limit for the point estimate is given in parentheses.

Parameter

Species

Point estimate

Sex ratio male:female

Average length male in inches

Average weight male in pounds

Average length female in inches

Average weight female in pounds

Fecundity

Cutthroat

Rainbow

516 (+35%)

5,937 (+40%)

1.00:1.20

1.00:1.20

14.5

16.0

1.21

15.4

15.2

16.3

1.24

1.58

000

3,233,000

In addition to the cutthroat and rainbow runs, the Tobacco River supports
fall spawning runs of mountain whitefish and bull trout. These runs have not
been quantified, but surveys have indicated the whitefish run is probably in
the 10,000-30,000 range, whereas the bull trout run consists of several hundred
fish. Overall, the Tobacco River is the most important spawning and rearing
drainage in the Montana portion of the Lake Koocanusa system.

5. FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS

Cross sectional measurements were made in a series of five riffle areas
of the Tobacco River approximately 1 mile upstream from the mouth of Therriault
Creek (T35N, R26W, Sec. 4). The WETP program was calibrated to field data
collected at flows of 106, 146 and 746 cfs. The inflection point on the
wetted perimeter-discharge relationship occurs at a flow of about 100 cfs
(Figure 14). A flow of 100 cfs is being recommended for the low flow period
from July i6-April 15.

62

o

0)

T
o

00

g

o

(0

o
in

T

o

CO

O

hO «

L ^

o

-J

IL

O
■O

c-)i) u3i3iAiiU3d aaiia/wv

Figure 14. The relationship between wetted perimeter and flow for a composite
of five riffle cross sections in the Tobacco River.

C

63

The flow required to insure fish passage for spawning trout is 120 cfs ,,,^1^
(Table 23). The average depth for all five riffles at this flow exceeds ^|P
0.5 ft, the approximate minimum depth required for successful trout passage.

During the high flow period of April 16-July 15, a flow of at least
120 cfs is needed to successfully pass migrating trout to their upstream
spawning areas. However, the high flows that are needed to maintain the
existing stream morphology and provide a flushing action, as derived from
the dominant discharge/channel morphology concept, exceed 120 cfs. Consequently,
the dominant discharge/channel morphology concept is used in deriving the
high flow recommendations.

Table 23. The average depth (ft) for five riffle cross sections in the
Tobacco River at selected flows of interest.

Average Depth (ft.)

Flow
(cfs)

Riffle

#1

Riffle

#2

Riffle

#3

Riffle

#4

Riffle

#5

100
110
120

.44
.49
.54

.65
.69
.73

.79
.85
.91

.68
.72
.75

.47
.52
.57

Monthly flow recommendations for the low and high flow periods are compared
to the median monthly flows of record, as derived from USGS flow records for
the gage near the mouth of the Tobacco River, in Table 24. The flow recommenda-
tions would require that all of the flow during a normal water year be maintained
instream for fishery purposes from approximately September through March.

The recommendations, when adjusted to fall within the constraints of water
availability for a median or normal water year, equal 136,241 acre-feet of
water per year, which is about 73% of the annual volume of water that is normally
available at the USGS gaging site near the mouth of the Tobacco River.

64

Table 24. Comparison of the instream flow recommendations for the Tobacco
^\ River to the approximate median flows of record.

Flow Recommendations- " ''^ Median Flows-
Time Period cfs cfs Acre-ft

January 100

February 100

March 100

April 1-15 100

April 16-30 171

May 1-15 409

May 16-31 592 ,

June 1-15 703-

June 16-30 433

July 1-15 282

July 16-31 100

August 100

September 100

October 100

November 100

December 1 00

Total

95

: 5,840

96

' 5,330

,115 ••

7,069

22$

6,782

355

10,559

.696

20,703

916 •

29,063

908

27,008

666

19,810

450

13,385

131

7,329

128

7,869

104

6,187

102

6,270

104

. . 6,187

99

6,086

185,477

a - Derived from the dominant discharge/channel morphology concept, the

wetted perimeter/inflection point method and the trout passage requirement.

b - Derived for a 9-year period of record (between 1965 and 1973 water years)
for the USGS gage near Eureka (2.8 miles upstream from mouth). ,

c - A flow of 1,263 cfs (the approximate bankful discharge) should be main-
tained for 24 hours during this period.

55

1. RIVER • _^

Yaak River from its mouth 8 miles west of Troy, Montana (T32N, R34W,
Sec. 5) upstream to the Yaak Falls (T33N, R33W, Sec. 4).

2. DESCRIPTION

Stream Length

Mouth of Yaak to Yaak Falls: 9 miles

Yaak Falls to confluence of North &

East Forks: 41 miles

Length of perennial streams in

drainage in Montana: 393 miles

Drainage Area

Total Yaak River: 766 square miles

Gradient

Mouth to Yaak Falls: 71.1 ft/mile

Falls to confluence North & East Forks: 15.0 ft/mile

Origin and Land Use

The North Fork of the Yaak River arises on the west slopes of the Purcell 1
Mountains in British Columbia, approximately 5 miles north of the BC-Montana
border. The East and West Forks of the Yaak originate in Montana. The main-
stem Yaak flows in a westerly direction to its confluence with the Kootenai
River. Approximately 97 percent of the drainage is in the Kootenai National
Forest, with the remainder in private ownership. Timber production is the
primary land use in the drainage.

Flows

The USGS has continuously operated a flow gage 0.2 miles upstream from the
mouth of the Yaak River since March 1956. During the 24 years of gage opera-
tions, the discharge averaged 889 cfs, whereas the minimum and maximum dis-
charges have been 50 and 12,100 cfs, respectively.

Recreational Use

A fishing pressure survey conducted in 1975 showed an estimated 3,842
mandays of fishing pressure on the mainstem Yaak (MDFG 1976). The Yaak has a
reputation of being one of the best fishing streams in Lincoln County. Little
development has occurred along the mainstem and much of the river is in a
pristine condition with high aesthetic and fishery values. The Yaak River from
the falls to the Kootenai flows through a scenic canyon which is essentially a
wild river with no development or road access.

66

«

Angler log data compiled by the MDFWP showed the catch consisted of
rainbow trout (90.5%), cutthroat trout (6.5%) and brook trout (3.0%). The
catch rate for all trout combined was 2.6 fish per hour of effort,
indicating that the Yaak provides an excellent fishery. The rainbow and
cutthroat averaged 7.9 inches in total length, as compared to 6.9 inches
for brook trout.

Potential Environmental Problems ■ , , ■ ■

Four potential dam sites are located on the Yaak River. These sites
have been withdrawn by the Kootenai National Forest for power development.
At the present time, there is no agency actively trying to develop these
sites. The two dam sites most likely to be developed are located at the
Yaak Falls (river mile 9.2) and near Long Meadows (river mile 30.8).

The subdivision of old homesteads along the river could lower water
quality and reduce aesthetic values. Considerable subdivision has already
occurred in the Vinal Lake area.

An increased rate of logging is planned for the Yaak drainage to remove
lodgepole pine damaged by the mountain pine beetle. Logging activities and
associated road building will increase sediment loads significantly, unless
strict erosion control guidelines are enforced during the salvage operation.

Water Quality •, ■ .

The Yaak River drainage has a B-D-, classification under the State Water
Quality Standards. Waters classified B-D, are suitable for drinking,
culinary and food processing after adequate treatment equal to coagulation,
sedimentation, filtration, disinfection and any additional treatment necessary
to remove naturally present impurities; bathing, swimming, and recreation;
growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl
and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water supply.

The Yaak is a low-to-moderately productive river having an average total
alkalinity of 67 mg/1 and an average pH of 8.0.

3. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

The fisheries program in the Yaak has been primarily concerned with water
quality and habitat protection. The vast majority of the Yaak is in the
Kootenai National Forest and the DFWP has worked closely with the Yaak Ranger
District to minimize the effects of logging and associated road building
upon the aquatic resource.

The DFWP and the Kootenai National Forest have discussed the possibility
of constructing a spawning channel for rainbow trout downstream from the Yaak
Falls.

4. FISH POPULATIONS

Comparatively little fisheries data have been collected on the Yaak River
due to its remote location. Electrofishing has been attempted, but with

67

little success. Much of the Yaak is deeper than four to six feet, which limits
the effectiveness of the electrofishing gear. In addition, the standard con-
ductivities of about 119 micromhos/cm are too low for sampling efficiently
with electrofishing gear.

A fish trap was operated near the mouth of the Yaak from September 29
to November 4, 1971 (May and Huston 1973). A total of 53 mountain whitefish,
which ranged in total length from 8.1 to 15.4 inches, were collected. In
addition, eleven kokanee salmon were taken and these fish ranged in total
length from 9.1-16.2 inches. The kokanee are thought to originate from the
Kootenay Lakes in British Columbia about 102 miles downstream from the mouth
of the Yaak.

The Yaak, below the falls, also supports a spring spawning run of rainbow
trout in the 5-10 pound class, which is thought to originate from the Kootenay
Lakes. This run, however, has not been sampled other than by anglers.

The results of an underwater fish survey conducted in the Yaak River about
six miles downstream from the falls is shown in Table 25. A total of 23 rain-
bow trout ranging from 3.0-16.0 inches in total length and 6 mountain white-
fish in the 14.0-18.0 length range were counted during the underwater fish
census. The two pools censured had a total area of 11,193 sq ft. The number
of fish counted represents a minimum estimate of the total fish in the pool.
The number of rainbow observed amounted to only .20 fish per 100 sq ft of pool.
Three of the rainbow were larger than 14.0 in total length.

Table 25. The number of rainbow trout and mountain whitefish observed in
August, 1981 during an underwater fish census in two class one
pools in the lower Yaak River (T33N, R33W, Sec. 30).

^^.

Length Group
in Inches

As

signed Age Total Number

Counted

Number Per 100 sq ft
of Pool Surface Area

Rainbow Trout

3.0 - 6.9
7.0 - 16.0

1 & 2 16
3-5 7

23

Mountain Whitefish

0.14
0.06
0.20

-^

14.0 - 18.0

4 - 7 6

.05

Other species observed included mountain whitefish, largescale suckers, northern
squawfish and torrent sculpins.

68

4. FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS

Cross-sectional measurements were made in a series of five riffle areas in
the Yaak River approximately five miles upstream from its mouth (T33N, R33W,
Sec. '30). The WETP program was calibrated to field data collected at flows
of 225,235 and 970 cfs. The inflection point on the wetted perimeter-discharge
relationship occurs at a flow of about 200 cfs (see Figure 15). A flow of 200
cfs is, therefore, being recommended for the low flow period from July 16 to
March 31.

During the high flow period of April 1 - July 15, a flow of at least 200
cfs is needed to successfully pass migrating trout to their upstream spawning
areas. However, the high flows that are needed to maintain the existing stream
morphology and provide a flushing action, as derived from the dominant dis-
charge/channel morphology concept, exceed 200 cfs. Consequently, the dominant
discharge/channel morphology concept was used in deriving the high flow recom-
mendations.

Monthly flow recommendations for low and high flow periods are compared to
the median monthly flows of record, as derived from USGS flow records for the
gage near the mouth of the Yaak River, in Table 26. The flow recomme(:idations
would require that all the water during a normal water year be maintained
instream for fishery purposes from approximately August 1 through October 30.

■ -■ '.The flow recommendations, when adjusted to fall within the constraints of
water availability for a median or normal water year, equal 420,495 acre feet
of water per year. This equals approximately 72 percent of the annual volume
of water that is normally available at the USGS gaging station near the mouth
of the Yaak River.

.%,-' ■ ■;■-' ■•»•

69

o

o

(O

o

ID

T
o

o

CO

o

■r

o

o
o

o

■U)

(0

■so

O

m

CM

8

c')i) u3i3iNiu3d aaiiaM

Figure 15. The relationship between wetted perimeter and flow for a composite of five
riffle cross-sections in the lower Yaak River.

70

€ Table 26. Comparison of the instream flow recommendations for the Yaak River

to the approximate median flows of record.

Flow Recommendations — '

Time Period

cfs

Median Flows ^Z

cfs

Acre-Feet

January
February
March

April 1-15
April 16-30
May 1-15
May 16-31
June 1-15
June 16-30
July 1-15
July 16-31
August
September
October
November
December

200
200
200
726
902
2,063
3,221
2,152
894
414
200
200
200
200
200
200

c/

233

319

404

1,006

1,375

3,372

4,302

2,914

1,410

707

343

196

164

183

231

219

14,323

17,712

24,835

29,923

40,899

100,300

136,494

86,677

41,940

21,030

10,883

12,049

9,756

11,250

13,742

13,463

585,276

a/ Derived from the dominant discharge/channel morphology concept, the wetted
perimeter/inflection point method and the trout passage requirement.

b/ Derived for a nine-year period of record (between 1965 and 1973 water years)
for the USGS gage located 0.2 miles upstream from the mouth of the Yaak
River.

c/ A flow of 6,400 cfs (the approximate bankful discharge) should be maintain-
ed for 24 hours during this period.

71

1. STREAM

Young Creek from its mouth near Rexford, Montana {T37N, R28W, Sec. 24)
upstream to the confluence of the South Fork (T37N, R29W, Sec. 14).

2. DESCRIPTION

Stream Length .

Length of Young Creek: 11 miles

Length of perennial stream in drainage: 14 miles

Drainage Area

Total Young Creek; 46.6 square miles
Gradient

Mouth to confluence with South Fork: 125 ft per mile
Origin and Land Use

Young Creek originates on the east slopes of the Purcell Mountains of
northwestern Montana and flows in a westerly direction to its confluence with
Lake Koocanusa three miles south of the Montana-British Columbia border.
Approximately 87 percent of the drainage is in the Kootenai National Forest
with the remainder in private (11 percent) and state (2 percent) ownership.
Timber production is the primary land use, but there is also intensive agri-
cultural,use of the meadow areas along the lower two miles of Young Creek.

Flows

The USGS operated a gage near the mouth of Young Creek from March, 1973
through November, 1975. During this period, flows ranged from a low of 3.0
cfs in January, 1974 to a high of 150 cfs in June, 1974. The mean annual
flow for the 1974 water year, the only complete year of record, was 25.9 cfs.
The gage was located below an irrigation diversion of about one cfs.

Recreational Usage

Approximately 150 man-days of angling were estimated for Young Creek dur-
ing a fishing pressure survey conducted in 1975 (MDFG 1976). The pressure
has increased considerably since then due to a large population increase in
the Young Creek area.

Hunting is an important recreational pursuit in the drainage. Species
harvested include moose, elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, black bear and

,: Potential Envirorimental Problems

The major threat toitHeiaquatic: resources of Young Creek is from inten-
sified agricultural development and associated irrigation withdrawals. An

J

72

JQ

c

Amish community settled along Young Creek in 1978 and now numbers over 100
people. The demand for irrigation water now exceeds the low flow of Young
Creek in the late summer and fall.

The Kootenai National Forest is planning to construct new roads in the
Young Creek drainage. Additional road building and logging could increase
sediment loads, unless strict erosion control guidelines are written into
the contracts.

Water Quality

Young Creek has a B-Di classification under the State Water Quality
Standards. Waters classified B-Di are suitable for drinking, culinary and
food processing purposes after adequate treatment equal to coagulation,
sedimentation, filtration, disinfection, and any additional treatment nec-
essary to remove naturally present impurities; bathing, swimming and rec-
reation, growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic
life, waterfowl and furbearers.

Young Creek is a moderately productive stream with a total alkalinity
of 130 mg/1 in the summer and a standard conductivity of 200 micromhos per
cm. Water temperatures ranged from 32° to 65° F in 1970-1976. Like most
good westslope cutthroat trout streams, maximum temperatures seldom exceed
60° F.

3." FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ' ' ; ' ; "; ' " ^ '_ ; " ' ■

Young Creek has been developed as a spawning and nursery tributary for
westslope cutthroat trout from Lake Koocanusa to partially mitigate fishery
losses caused by the construction of Libby Dam. The development of Young
Creek began in 1969 when the Corps of Engineers constructed an upstream-
downstream trap/barrier dam. Personnel of the MDFWP, working under contract
to the Corps of Engineers, installed needed fish traps, fish holding facili-
ties and fish screens in early spring, 1970.

Additional development work occurred in 1970, when barriers to upstream
fish migration were removed or altered, resident fish stocks were chemically
reduced, and imprint plants of sub-fingerling westslope cutthroat trout began.
A total of 291,768 sub-fingerlings were planted from 1970-1975. The strain
of westslope cutthroat trout living in Hungry Horse Reservoir was used for the
imprint plants.

The development work on Young Creek and fish evaluation studies cost
approximately $233,436. Nearly all the funds were provided by the Corps of
Engineers. , . .

4. FISH POPULATIONS ' ■ •

The upstream trap was operated annually from 1970 to 1980, with the ex-
ception of 1978. The downstream trap was fished from 1970-1975, then again
in 1980. The upstream trap was used to determine the magnitude of the spawn-
ing run, whereas data on smolt production was collected from the downstream
trap. The catch of cutthroat trout entering Young Creek to spawn and annual
smolt production are listed by year in Table 27 (May & Huston 1975, 1979 & 1980).

73

Table 27. Number of cutthroat trout spawners and smoUs caught in Young
Creek traps.

Year

Number of Smolts

Estimated Total
Smolts

Number of Spawners

1970

1971

1972

352

1973

1,408

1974

1,558

1975

1,341

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1,849

500-1,000
2,000-3,000
3,000-4,000
2,000-3,000

3,500-4,500

21

54

78
102
306
303
692
679
Trap not operated
315
367

The first imprint plants of wests lope cutthroat trout were made in Young
Creek in 1970 and the Kootenai River was impounded in March, 1972. The fish
caught from 1970-1972 were native cutthroat trout from the Kootenai River,
while the fish caught from 1973-1980 were both native and hatchery fish.
Fish from the imprint plants comprised most of the run from 1974-1980.

Trap catches increased markedly from 102 spawners in 1973 to 692 fish in

1976, then declined to 367 fish in 1980. The catch in 1980 was over 7 times

greater than the average of the run from 1970-1972, indicating that the

management program had greatly increased the spawning run in Young Creek.

The catch of smolts increased from 352 in 1972 to 1849 in 1980. The
estimated number of smolts actually emigrating from Young Creek was much
higher than the catch due to the efficiency of the trap being only about 40-
50 percent. The estimated total number of smolts in 1972 was only 500-1,000
fish as compared to 3,500-4,500 fish in 1980. Most of the smolts in 1980
were from the 1977 and 1978 year classes.

5. FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS

Cross-sectional measurements were made in a series of five riffle areas
of Young Creek approximately one mile upstream from the mouth (T37N, R28W,
Sec. 23). The WETP program was calibrated to field data collected at flows
of 6.4, 10.8 and 70.3 cfs. The lower and upper inflection points on the
wetted-perimeter discharge relationship for the composite of five cross-
sections occur at flows of 3 and 7 cfs, respectively (Figure 16).
Based on an evaluation of existing fishery, recreational use, water availa-
bility and other resource information, a flow of 7 cfs is recommended for the
low flow period from July 1-April 30. However, since 1973 the MDFWP has
been objecting to new water permit applications on Young Creek and requesting
that the provisional permit, if issued, be conditioned with the following
statement:

74

c

Q

.o

.0

CO

^

(A

<«•

0

^^

^

0

u

IL

0

o

10

CM

O
CM

T
10

in

(')l) tJ313IAIIU3d QBliaM

Figure 16.

The relationship between wetted perimeter and flow for a composite
of five riffle cross-sections in Younq Creek.

75

"The waters appropriated pursuant to this permit shall only be
appropriated when the flow of Young Creek is greater than 5
cubic feet per second."

At present, two provisional permits have been issued with this condition.
This 5 cfs minimum was based on professional judgement and not derived from
the field methodologies now in use. For consistency with MDFWP policy, a
flow of 5 cfs is being recommended during the low flow period from July 1
through April 30.

The flow required to insure fish passage for spawning cutthroat trout
is 25 cfs (Table 28). The average depth for all five riffles at this flow
exceeds 0.5 ft, the approximate minimum depth required for successful pas-
sage .

Table 28. The average depth for five riffle cross-sections
at selected flows of interest.

in Young Creek

Average Depth (

ft)

Flow (cfs) Riffle #1 Riffle #2 Riffle #3

Riffle #4
.54

.95

1.02

Riffle #5

10 .60 .31 .55
20 .76 .51 .73
25 .82 .57 .79

30 .87 .62 .84

.31
.46
.51
.54

The monthly flow recommendations for the low and high flow periods are
compared to the mean monthly flows of record, as derived from USGS flow re-
cords for the gage near the mouth of Young Creek, in Table 29. The mean
flows provide a measure of water availability during a normal or typical
water year. Table 29 shows that the recommendations are less than the mean
flows for all months.

The instream flow recommendations amount to 6,035 acre-feet of water per
year, which is approximately 47 percent of the annual volume of water that is
normally available at the USGS gaging site near the mouth of Young Creek.

Due to the lack of long term flow data, recommendations based on the domi-
nant discharge/channel morphology concept cannot be derived for Young Creek.

76

€i

€

Table 29. Comparison of the instream flow recommendations for Young Creek
to the mean monthly flows of record.

1/

Flow

Recommendations

Mean Flows of Record -

Time Period

cfs

Acre-ft

cfs Acre-ft

January

5.0

307

11.2 688

February

5.0

278

8.4 466 .. • . ,.■"..,

March

5.0

307

8.3 510

April

• . 5.0

297 ; .

16.7 ■• .■ 993

May

25.0

1,537

52.6 3,233

June

25.0

1,487

56.0 3,331

July

5.0

307 -. •

18.4 1,131

August

5.0

307 .

10.5 - 645 :■ ■:• ■/

September

5.0

297

7.8 464

October

■ 5.0

307 . ■

7.7 ■'•■, 473

November

5.0

297 \. ■

8.0 476 ■ -■ : •

December

5.0

307
• 6,035 , ■■

8.6 ■■ 529 < -'

, .

. 12,9392/: .-;/

1/ Based on three years of partial record (March 1973-November 1975) for
the USGS gage near the mouth of Young Creek (near Rexford, MT).?

2/ Approximate volume of water normally available on an annual basis.

77

LITERATURE CITED

Behnke, Robert J. 1579. Monograph of the native trouts of the genus Sal mo
of western North America.

Behnke, Robert J. 1974. Summary and supplement to thesis: Systematics of
the Westslope Cutthroat Trout. Colorado State Univ. Mimeo. 8 pp.

Bovee, K.D. 1974. The determination, assessment and design of "instream
value" studies for the Northern Great Plains region. Univ. of Montana.
Final Report, Contract No. 68-01-2413, Envir. Protection agency. 204 pp.

Collings, Mike. 1972. A methodology for determining instream flow
requirements for fish. Xn Proceedings of Instream Flow Methodology
Workshop. Washington Dept. of Ecology, Olympia, Wash. pp. 72-86.

. 1974. Generalization of spawning and rearing discharges

for several Pacific salmon species in western Washington. US6S, Open
File Report. 39 pp.

Emmett, W.W. 1972. The hydraulic geometry of some Alaskan streams south
of the Yukon River. US Geol . Survey open-file rept. 102 pp.

. 1975. The channels and waters of the upper Salmon River

area, Idaho. Geol. Survey professional paper 870-A, US Gov't. Printing
Off., Washington. 96 pp.

Everest, F.H. and D.W. Chapman. 1972. Habitat selection and spatial inter-
action by juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead trout in two Idaho streams.
J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 29:91-100.

Graham, P.J., D. Read, S. Lea the. J. Miller and K. Pratt. 1980. Flathead
River Basin fishery study. Mont. Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
166 pp.

Kennleyside, M.H.A. 1962. Skin diving observations of Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in the Miramichi
River, New Brunswick. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can": 19(4): 625-634.

Leopold, L.B., G.M. Wolman and J. P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial processes in
geomorphology. W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, Gal. 522 pp.

May, Bruce and Joe E. Huston. 1970. Habitat development of Young Creek
tributary to Lake Koocanusa. Annual Prog. Rept., Contract No.
DACW 67-73-C-0002. Mont. Dept. of Fish and Game. 5 pp.

1973. Status of fish populations in the Kootenai River

below Libby Dam following initial regulation of the river. Job Prog.
Rept., Contract No. DACW 67t73-C-0003. Mont. Dept. of Fish and Game.
28 pp.

78

^ . 1975. Habitat development of Young Creek, tributary to Lake

i|^ Koocanusa. Final Job Report. Contract No. 67-73-C0002. Mt. Dept. of
Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 12 pp.

. 1979. Kootenai River investigations. Final Job Rept.

c

Contract No. PACW 67-76-C-0055. Mt. Dept. of Fish and Game. 57 pp.

and Steve McMullin. 1979. Lake Koocanusa post-impoundment

fisheries study. Completion rept. Contract No. DACW 67-75-C-0004. Mt.
Dept. of Fish and Game. 53 pp.

1980. Lake Koocanusa post-impoundment fishery study,

Annual Progress Report. Contract No. DACW 67-79-C-0077. Mt. Dept. of
Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 26 pp.

May, Bruce, Sue Perry, Joe Huston and Joe Dos Santos. 1981. Kootenai River
. Investigations. Annual Prog. Rept. Mt. Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
51 pp.

Montana Dept. of Fish and Game. 1976. Estimated man-days of fishing pressure
by region for the summer and winter season. May 1975-April 1976. Mt. Dept.
of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena.

Nelson, F.A. 1977. Beaverhead River and Clark Canyon Reservoir fishery study.
Montana Dept. of Fish and Game. 118 pp.

1980. Guidelines for using the wetted perimeter (WETP)

computer program of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 8695 Huffine Lane, Bozeman, ,
Mt. 23 pp.

. 1980a. Evaluation of four instream flow methods applied to

four trout rivers in southwest Montana. Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks, 8695 Huffine Lane, Bozeman, Mt. 105 pp.

Nelson, F.A. 1980b. Supplement to evaluation of four instream flow methods
applied to four trout rivers in southwest Montana. Montana Dept. of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks, 8695 Huffine Lane, Bozeman, Mt. 55 pp. .

. 1980c. Evaluation of selected instream flow methods in

Montana. \r}_ Western Proceedings 60th Annual Conference of the Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Western Division, American
Fisheries Society, pp. 412-432.

Northcote, T.G. and W.W. Wilkie. 1963. Underwater census of stream fish
populations. Trans. Amer. Fish, Soc. 92(2):146-151.

Northcote, T.G. 1969. Lakeward migration of young rainbow trout (Sajmo
gairdneri) in the upper Lardeau River, British Columbia. J. Fish. Res.
Bd. Canada. 26(l):33-45.

Pollard, H.A. and T.C. Bjornn. 1973. The effects of angling and hatchery
trout on the abundance of juvenile steelhead trout. Trans. Amer. Fish.
Soc. 102(4):745-752.

79

Reed, R.J. 1967. Observations of fishes associated with spawning salmon.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 96(l):62-67.

Sando. S.K. 1981. The spawning and rearing habitats of rainbow trout and
brown trout in two rivers in Montana. M.S. Thesis. Montana State Univ.
Bozeman, Montana. 67 pp.

Swank, Gerald W. and Robert W. Phillips. 1976. Instream flow methodology
for the Forest Service in the Pacific Northwest region, Jn^ Proc. Symp.
and Spec. Conf. on Instream Flow Needs, ed. J.F. Orsborn and C.H. All man.
Vol. II, pp. 334-343. Amer. Fish. Soc, Bethesda, MD.

Tennant, D.L. 1975. Instream flow regimens for fish, wildlife, recreation
and related environmental resources. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Federal Building, Billings, MT. 30 pp.

Thompson, K.E. 1972, Determining streamflows for fish life. Iri Proc, In-
stream Flow Requirement Workshop, Pacific NW River Basins Comm., Portland,
OR. pp. 31-50.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1973. Appendix H-sedimentation. Pages 789-795
In Design of small dams. U.S. Gov't. Printing Office, Washington.

Vincent, E.R. 1971. River electrofishing and fish population estimates.
Prog. Fish Cult., 33(3): 163-169.

1974. Addendum to river electrofishing and fish population

estimates. Prog. Fish Cult., 36(3):182.

Wesche, T.A. 1974. Relationship of discharge reductions to available trout
habitat for recommending suitable streamflows. Water Resources Series No,
53. Water Resources Research Institute, Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyo.
71 pp.

Wesche, T.A. and P. A. Rechard. 1980, A summary of instream flow methods for
fisheries and related research needs. Eisenhower Consortium Bulletin 9.
Water Res. Res. Inst., Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyo. 122 pp.

White, Robert G. 1976. A methodology for recommending stream resource main-
tenance flows for large rivers. ln_ Proceedings of the Symp. and Spec.
Conf. on Instream Flow needs, ed. J.F. Orsborn and C.H. Allman. Vol. 11,
pp. 367-386. Amer. Fish. Soc, Bethesda, MD.

White Robert and Tim Cochnauer. 1975, Stream resource maintenance flow
studies. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game and Idaho Coop. Fishery Research
Unit Report. 136 pp.

80

APPENDIX A

STREAM HABITAT SURVEYS REFERENCE FORM

MEASUREMENT OF STREAM WIDTH AND DEPTH

1 Measure stream width to nearest foot. When a transect bisects separated
■ channels, list each channel separately from left to right looking down-
stream, in alphabetical order, i.e., Tla, Tib, Tic, etc.

2. Measure depth at 1/4. 1/2, and 3/4 width to nearest inch,
measurements + 4 = average depth.

Sum of

POOL QUALITY .

Size (Measurements refer to the longest axis of the intersected pool,

T"^Pool larger or wider than average width of stream.

2 - Pool as wide or long as average stream width.

1 - Pool much shorter and narrower than average stream width,

Depth Ratings
3 - Over 3 feet
2-2-3 feet
1 - Under 2 feet

Cover Ratings
3 - Abundant cover
2 - Partial cover
1 - Exposed

Total Ratings

8-9

7

*5-6

4-5

3

Pool Class
1
2
3
4
5

Overall Aquatic Food Rating

3 - Greater than 25 organisms/sq.

2-5-25 organisms/sq. ft,

1 - Less than 5 organisms/sq, ft.

ft.

♦Sum of 5 must include 2 for depth and 2 for cover.

^.

BANK COVER MEASUREMENTS (50 feet above and below transect)

2.0 - Medium to heavy cover of trees and/or tall shrubs ,.„-+hin

1.5 - Scattered trees and/or tall shrubs ^Vl'K''^ ZJltll^T

1.0 - Medium to heavy grass forbs and/or low shrubs 1/2 its height of water s
0 5 - Scattered grass, forbs and/or small shrubs edge to qualify as stream-
bank cover.)

AQUATIC VEGETATION

A - Abundant
C - Common
L - Little
N - None

MEASUREMENT OF WATER TURBIDITY

3 - Clear )

2 - Milky ) Account for source

1 - Muddy )

FISHERMAN ACCESS

Remote - No trail
Low-Standard trail - Game or

nonmaintained trail .
Improved trail - maintained
Low-standard roads - without drainage
Improved roads - with drainage

TICKLER LIST FOR REMARKS

1.
2.

3.
4.
5,
6.

9,
10.
11.
12,
13.
14.

Dams and barriers
Pollution information
Channel changes (manmade)
Erosion potential
Fish (number--size--species)
Creel information and fishing

pressure
Number fish planting access sites
Spring sources
Water diversions
Beaver activity
Spawning gravel availability
Camera point information
Channel debris
Loss of streamflow

81

^^^w