Montana. Dept, of Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks.

Upper Bighorn River
fisheries management
plan

HORNFtIVER

NAGEMENT PLAN

yUL12 1939

UPPER BIGHORN RIVER

FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT PLAN

AUGUST 1987

I

SUMMARY

The Bighorn River is one of the world's finest trout
streams. Since the river was reopened to fishing in 1981
(following a closure by the Crow Indian Tribe), use of the river
has been heavy and increasing. A rapid increase in fishing
pressure in 1986 generated much concern among managers and users
of the river. Concerns were centered around effects of increased
fishing pressure on the Bighorn's fish populations and the
quality of the fishing experience. This management plan is
designed to review the current situation, address public and
agency concerns, and suggest management strategies for the next
five years to ensure that the Bighorn River remains one of the
world's premier trout streams.

Brown trout and rainbow trout population trends in the
Bighorn River have varied markedly over the years. Optimum
management of the river requires different strategies for the two
species. Brown trout populations have closely mirrored flow
conditions since 1981. Population density has been high when
flows are high and lower when flows decrease. The September,
1986 brown trout population density was slightly lower than the
highest recorded levels. Rainbow trout populations have
traditionally reflected stocking levels. No rainbow trout have
been stocked in the river since 1983. Many wild rainbows
appeared in the population for the first time in 1985 and 1986.

Estimates of trophy (18+ in) brown trout population density
in September 1986 were the lowest on record. A substantial
decrease between 1984 and 1986 was caused by low flows during the
summer drought of 1985, and water temperatures in 1985 that were
much colder than average. Growth rates of trout were sub-
stantially reduced due to the colder water temperatures. Trophy
rainbow trout population density, which was relatively high in
September 1986, is expected to drop temporarily as fish planted
in 1983 disappear from the population.

Fishing pressure increased slowly between 1981 and 1985. A
dramatic increase occurred between 1985 and 1986, particularly
during the peak use season (June through September). Complaints
about crowded fishing conditions were common in 1986.

The goal of fisheries management on the upper Bighorn River
is to meet public demand for a high quality wild trout fishing
experience, with a management emphasis on maximizing the oppor-
tunity to catch large trout. Specific objectives designed to
meet that goal are as follows:

1. To maintain average population densities of 5,000 to
7,000 age one and older brown trout per mile and at
least 500 18-in and longer brown trout per mile in the
upper 12 miles of the Bighorn River.

2. To maintain average population densities of 1,500 to
2,500 age one and older brown trout per mile in the

Bighorn River between Bighorn Fishing Access and Two
Leggins Access.

3. To maintain average population densities of at least
1,000 age one and older rainbow trout per mile and at
least 150-18 in and longer rainbow trout per mile in the
upper 12 mi of the Bighorn River.

4. To maintain average population densities of at least 500
age one and older rainbow trout per mile in the Bighorn
River between Bighorn Fishing Access and Two Leggins
Fishing Access.

Brown trout population objectives are slightly higher than the
average fall population density during the 1981-86 period. Rain-
bow trout population objectives are sig nificantly higher than
average fall population density during the 1981-86 period.

Strategies to achieve the stated objectives are grouped into
three categories: fish habitat, fish populations and angler use.
Fish habitat strategies include:

1. To establish minimum flow targets in cooperation with
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) to provide optimum
habitat conditions, given water supply constraints,

2. To assist the USBR, other agencies and private entities
in solving the gas supersaturation problem at the After-
bay Dam, and

3. To determine the contribution of Soap Creek rainbow
spawners to the total Bighorn River rainbow trout
population, factors affecting rainbow trout production
in Soap Creek and strategies to improve production (if
necessary) .

Fish population strategies for brown trout include:

1. To continue to place management emphasis on providing
high quality habitat,

2. To continue with present regulations and annual evalua-
tion of effectiveness of regulations,

3. To increase monitoring of fishing pressure and angler
success,

4. To increase information and education efforts regarding
status of the fishery, proper methods of releasing fish,
use of barbless hooks and river etiquette, and

5. To artificially enhance the brown trout population of
the St. Xavier area by transplanting age one brown trout
from the upper river.

-2-

Fish population strategies for rainbow trout include:

1. To continue present emphasis on wild trout management.

2. To implement catch and release regulations on rainbow
trout in the river from the Afterbay Dam to Bighorn
Fishing Access beginning in 1988, and

3. To close key mainstem river rainbow trout spawning areas
to fishing from March 1 through June 30, beginning in
1988.

Angler use strategies include:

1. To purchase additional access Sxtes to increase angling
opportunities and more evenly distribute fishing pres-
sure,

2. To review regulations annually to ensure that angler use
and harvest do not prevent attainment of fish population
objectives,

3. To increase monitoring of the fishery and enforcement
efforts during the peak use season, June through
September,

4. To prepare a project proposal for the 1989 Montana
Legislature to fund a river ranger position, and

5. To conduct a comprehensive creel, recreation and angler
opinion survey in 1990.

-3-

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2017 with funding from
Montana State Library

https://archive.org/details/upperbighornrive1987mont

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Summary 1

Introduction 7

Background 7

The Bighorn River Fishery 1981-86 10

Fish Populations 10

Brown Trout 10

Rainbow Trout 14

Angler Use 20

Goals, Objective, and Strategies 24

Fisheries Management Goal 24

Objectives 24

Strategies 24

Fish Habitat 24

Flows 25

Gas Supersaturation 26

Rainbow Trout Spawning 27

Fish Populations 27

Brown Trout 27

Rainbow Trout 30

Angler Use 31

Review of Draft Plan 33

-A-

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Page

12

1 Estimated number per mile of age one and older

brown trout in a 7.2 mile section of the Big-
horn River between the Afterbay Dam and Bighorn
Fishing Access

2 Estimated number of brown trout of various size 13

groups per mile of the Bighorn River, and mini-
mum summer flows in the interval between estimates
from 1981 through 1986

3 Rainbow trout planted in the Bighorn River above 17

Two Leggins Diversion since 1966

4 Estimated number of rainbow trout of various size 18

groups per mile of the Bighorn River, 1981-86 . .

5 Estimated fishing pressure (man-days) on the upper 21

12 miles of the Bighorn River, 1983-86

Responses to the Upper Bighorn River Management
Questionnaire. (Percent recorded under each
opinion category is based on a total of 104
responses.)

6

34

Figure

1

2

3

4

5

6

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

The upper Bighorn River 8

Estimated length-frequency of the brown trout 11

population in the standard elect rofishing section
of the upper Bighorn River during July 1981.

Total population estimate = 3,918 fish per mile .

Estimated length-frequency of the brown trout 15
population in the standard electrofishing section
of the upper Bighorn River during September 1986.

Total population estimate = 7,031 fish per mile

Comparative estimated length-frequencies of brown 16
trout populations captured during September 1986
in the upper (RM 0-3.8), standard (RM 2. 4-9. 6),
and St. Xavier (RM 17.6-21.6) e 1 ec t r o f i s h i ng
sections of the upper Bighorn River

Comparative estimated length-frequencies of rain- 19
bow trout populations during September 1986 in the
upper (RM 0-3.8), standard (RM 2. 4-9. 6), and St.
Xavier (RM 17.6-21.6) electrofishing sections of
the upper Bighorn River

Comparative monthly fishing pressure on the upper 22
12 miles of the Bighorn River from October 1982
through December 1985 (average values), and during
calendar year 1986

-6-

'I.

'•y'.ji: A. *:

li .,. 't O .. '’ sTlfiS ;>■, 1 . ,1 jA

■« *4 'viei F iL, . . ■'■ i-irt ■’ 5,. £if ('":4 >. rt’.'iA ' 'ii'/'i'r ■■*>;£ " f«'^i';i.J' .

:>7 J>: 5'0';;f „. to

I.'.' - ‘’z ad;j< y ^r^<'

" ' ' ■ ' ‘ ^0".

T/ pfi ). Xi^b

’*\/ ; i ai-

Sr* 'r -\ ‘ vl tP- '■

.isf. - V ;n i

* ) $ VJ»v«7. A .. ,M V.

-■), VM» -V

- . ■ ' .

'’i ' ^>j} . ■

:■ i d.,

■ ' •' 7 r ': :.V'i ;.),/->7 '

■'3 . 1'ii .i 7.;!'^ (1 i'

■ nr«

■ iV'..

>lin™ai'

.. .'■ ; 6!v::^6a/ ,i

■■ /: 'i'. ,'i ■■"*'■'■ t‘z ■^•■^^^ ,J.‘aqqi)''^'a'd1v'"^

-i'-' T. M, n«).' f

, - f

!. ; i'i*.

■ > '■,, ' f :rZ) j^-tr A : - ii .i^Vi^.tSiaqiy^QO.

‘*'i) . ',.. j'.rfiz/B >

. . -• 7 i , I Af f ' »d n ;r ::3 -=^ .f;>d

\ '■ ■■■'-■■(.f! ,

■l .• T.z

7 i.-i::7'.'M: r:> 7 z'.;! OO

:. f \ •* ii, . i . ,,r •* . . .„i ^ ^

.'w 7 -j. Oi“ M,fcl 4i)d'i il

, ... , ., ■ lS;&.'‘?^.:l«»'

d.:'

shT

■'A- y,

. ' -A ;■'■ ,

.tr-

■■ i

•■■•I ^(ir- 5'f'^f

....

— ■ '!i ^ 'fl

iV,‘' .,it.;M •*'

INTRODDCTION

The Bighorn River has been called the world's finest trout
stream. While there are many streams that could lay claim to the
"best" title, there is no doubt the Bighorn is a trout stream of
national significance. Because of its abundant trout, dense
insect hatches, easy accessibility and much attention in regional
and national press, the Bighorn is one of those trout streams
that nearly every ardent trout angler dreams of fishing. In
1986, many anglers realized that dream, some of those went home
disappointed with crowded conditions and smaller fish than they
expected. Fisheries personnel in the Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP) received many inquiries from anglers
worried that the Bighorn River was in danger of becoming "just
another trout stream." This management plan is designed to
review the current situation, address public and agency concerns,
and suggest management strategies for the next five years to
ensure that the Bighorn River remains one of the world's premier
trout streams.

Background

Prior to 1965, the Bighorn River was a silty stream that
emerged from the spectacular Bighorn Canyon on a northward course
to meet the Yellowstone River in the eastern Montana prairie.
The majority of its sauger, catfish, burbot, goldeye, and many
Cyprinid species had never seen an angler's hook. A 1965 MDFWP
survey estimated less than 500 man-days of fishing were spent on
the entire river. With the completion of Yellowtail Dam, most of
the river's silt load was trapped in Bighorn Reservoir. A new,
dear-water river emerged from Bighorn Canyon. Released from
deep below the surface of Bighorn Lake, the river water was much
cooler in summer and warmer in winter than
tion. The river had been transformed from a
river into a cold, clear tailwater, much
creek - an ideal habitat for trout.

before dam construc-
warm, silty, prairie
giant spring

like a

Rainbow trout planted in the river grew rapidly, and the
Bighorn gained a reputation for producing trophy fish. By 1973,
fishing pressure on the 12 miles of river immediately below the
Afterbay Dam (Figure 1) had grown to 13,000 man-days, roughly the
same intensity of use seen on the Madison River. That came to an
end in 1975, when the Crow Tribe closed its entire reservation to
hunting, fishing and trapping to all but tribal m.embers. A
lengthy series of court battles ensued before the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled the Bighorn River was navigable. That decision meant
title to the streambed lay with the state of Montana from the
date of statehood (188.9).

With the court battles over, the river was reopened to
fishing in August 1981. In the midst of much fanfare, fishing
pressure picked up where it had left off in 1975. Angler success
was excellent on the previously lightly fished population of
trout. The MDFWP published a management plan for the Bighorn
River in 1982. Since then, fish populations and the fishery on

-7-

Two Leggins Access

Figure 1, The upper Bighorn River.

-8-

the Bighorn have changed dramatically. A rapid increase in
fishing pressure in 1986 generated much concern among managers
and users alike. Concerns were centered around effects of
increased fishing pressure on the Bighorn's fish populations and
the quality of the fishing experience.

In response to these
designed to accomplish the

concerns,

following:

this management plan was

1.

Summarize the findings of five years of fisheries
research and management.

2. Identify goals, objectives and suggested management
strategies for the period 1987-92, and

3. Serve as a vehicle for maximizing public participation
in the management process.

-q-

>

I y, ^ I

”V*

■«»«

<1 h(\\t iiSfit-^j,j' i ' ■■':[;

fV^w*' n*' ' dan:!‘? I .t5 .- '1Ul|j!l'i^l5-t? -lirtS'^
-fi,H£. -ir srtr ' M.p *.\

. 10C-V

‘ . r • U

: in

‘..i : ' • -'■>^5;^ • . i f • i eab a

‘- i

. ! • 1 1 I 1 ** hI i(

•- r I ;j'l£::^ i . v.

^ ‘< r:-iiT9b '. ,£

r • ■.

.' 1'*^ • ‘V'-J

•. . -• .• ,r ■• ■ i > I") 1

'*^.'

•4

•^''“•4K]|

^ .ii
■J'

I

*

'i

i - '"**

ii:4^.''>ilBi> it,'

THE BIGHORN RIVER FISHERY
1981-86

The Bighorn River fishery has two principal components -
fish populations and angling use. Each of these components will
be discussed in separate sections. Because the biology and
management of brown trout and rainbow trout are quite different,
they are discussed separately in the fish population section.

Fish Populations

Brown Trout

In July 1981, MDFWP biologists sampled the Bighorn River's
trout populations to determine their status prior to opening the
river to fishing. The first sampling yielded a population
estimate of 3,918 age one and older (six inches and longer) brown
trout per mile in a seven-mile long reach of the upper river. It
was a typical unfished population, containing a high proportion
of old, large fish (Figure 2). In spite of fairly restrictive
regulations (limit of three fish, all fish between 18 and 22
inches released), the brown trout population declined to 2,218
per mile by December 1981 (Table 1). A gradual increase resulted
in a peak of 9,660 browns per mile in May 1985. Summer mortality
was high, however, during the 1985 drought. By September 1986,
it was apparent the brown trout population had rebounded substan-
tially.

Five years of monitoring the Bighorn's brown trout have
demonstrated that environmental factors are more important than
fishing pressure in controlling population levels. Mortality of
age three and older brown trout during summer is closely related
to flows. Mortality is high when flows are low, and is low when
flows are high. Numbers of trophy sized brown trout (18 in and
larger) declined significantly during periods of low flow and
generally increased during periods of higher flow (Table 2). The
largest decrease in trophy trout occurred when fishing regula-
tions were most restrictive. Peak numbers of trophy trout
occurred following a period of progressive liberalization of
regulations .

Gas supersaturation, which causes gas bubble trauma in
trout, is another environmental factor affecting Bighorn River
trout populations. The problem originates at the Afterbay Dam,
and its effects are most severe in the uppermost two miles of the
river. Ongoing studies suggest that gas bubble trauma is a major
cause of mortality in some years. It appears that large fish are
more severely affected than small fish.

Fall 1986 population monitoring resulted in an estimate of
7,031 brown trout per mile, the second highest fall estimiate
since monitoring began in 1981 (Figure 3). Trophy trout numbers
were the lowest on record (Table 2), largely due to cold water
temperatures slowing trout growth during the 1985 drought. V7ater

-10-

300

CSSS-

cssss-

ISS^-

CxWW'

k\\\\\\\\\\VVVV\S\SS5

S\\\\\\\\\\SSS\\SS

KWWWWWWWWWS^

ixxvsmsvss'vsss -

+

OJ

w

0

w

00

ics\\v\\\\\s\ms-

IWWWWWWSS

CD

v\\\\\\v^>.

k\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\sv\^^^^^

k\\\\\\\\\Sv\SS\\\\\\V\V\\V^\\\‘\\S\\\\^^^^^^

l\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\V\\S\k\\k\\\\\\\\\\\\\^^^^

KVAk\\\\\VSSS\\\Vx\W

^sss^s-

csss-

ss-

imsss-

kSNSNm\\\\\SkN\\\\\\\\k\\\S\\\\\\\\\S\SS

K\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ss\s\\\\\\\m\\\\ss\\\\\\\\^^^^^ 00

^\\\x\\\\\S\\v\\\v\\\sm\\\sssssss\\N\v\\\vsvs^^^^^

k\\Sx\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\SSSS\\\\\\\WSS^^

K\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\m\\\\\\\\s\\\\ssssss\\\\s\\\\\\\\\s^^^^^ (0

a

d

£

c

z

c

c

(M ®

T- -J

o

10

CVJ

0

O

CM

0

10

o

o

o

10

d||^ jed qsjj

-11-

Figure 2. Estimated length-frequency of the brown trout population in the standard elec-
trofishing section of the upper Bighorn River during July 1981. Total popula-
tion estimate = 3,918 per mile.

Table 1. Estimated number per mile of age one and older brown
trout in a 7.2 mile section of the Bighorn River between the
Afterbay Dam and Bighorn Fishing Access.

Date

Brown Trout Per Mile

July 1981

3,918

December 1981

2, 218

May 1982

5, 107

December 1982

3,368

May 1983

5, 627

September

1983

4, 193

May 1984

5, 925

September

1984

7,645

May 1985

9, 660

September

1985

5, 246

March 1986

*

Septembe r

1986

7,031

*Estimate of age one fish is invalid.

-12-

Table 2. Estimated number of brown trout of various size groups
per mile of the Bighorn River, and minimum summer flows in the
interval between population estimates from 1981 through 1986.

Brown Trout

18"+ 18-20"

oer

20-22

Mile

" 22" +

Lowest 30-day
Average Flow (cfs)

July 1981

533

311

185

37

1,792

December 1981

322

163

123

36

1,953

December 1982

327

197

112

18

3,032

September 1983

331

258

66

7

3,610

September 1984

546

434

101

11

1, 461

September 1985

402

331

66

5

3, 005

September 1986

288

234

49

5

-13-

temperatures in the Bighorn River during summer 1985 were colder
than during any previous summer (except 1977) since construction
of Yellowtail Dam in 1965. As a result, trout of all ages were
one to two inches shorter than average. The smaller average size
of fish carried over into 1986 and should be noticeable in the
population for at least two more years. Estimates of the age
class composition of the fall 1986 brown trout population
indicate numbers of age three and older fish (the fish that
comprise the trophy trout population) are higher than ever.
However, age three fish in fall, 1986 averaged 15-17 in in length
instead of 17-18 in as they have in past years.

Population monitoring in three sections of the Bighorn River
has demonstrated that numbers of brown trout decrease rapidly
with distance from the Afterbay Dam. Food may be abundant nearer
the dam, or brown trout may concentrate in the spawning grounds
there, resulting in higher recruitment levels. Regardless, in
fall 1986, nearly twice as many brown trout were found in the
reach from the Afterbay Dam to 3.8 mi downstream compared to the
standard monitoring section (2.4 to 9.6 mi below the Afterbay
Dam). A section near St. Xavier (17.6 to 21.6 mi below the
Afterbay Dam) has consistently yielded estimates of one-third to
one-fourth the population found in the standard monitoring
section (Figure 4). The number of brown trout age three or
older, however, was approximately the same in both sections.
Additionally, growth rates tend to be slowest near the Afterbay
Dam where water temperatures are coldest.

Rainbow Trout

Unlike the naturally reproducing brown trout, rainbow trout
populations in the upper Bighorn River have been dominated by
hatchery fish. Over 263,000 rainbows have been planted in the
upper river since 1966 (Table 3). The most recent plant was in
October 1983. Large plants made in 1979, 1981, and 1983 have
accounted for the bulk of the rainbow population since the river
was reopened to fishing.

MDFWP personnel were unable to recapture enough fish to
obtain a quantitative estimate of the rainbow trout population in
the upper river in July 1981. According to angler reports, large
rainbows were plentiful when the river was reopened to fishing in
1981. It is likely that many were harvested during the first
season of fishing. In December 1981, only 39 rainbows per mile
greater than 18 in long were found. Since then, peak numbers of
trophy rainbows have occurred in 1983 and 1985 (Table 4). Each
of the peaks occurred four years following large plants.

Fall 1986 rainbow population estimates ranged from 740 per
mile in the uppermost section of river, to 689 per mile in the
stand aid monitoring section, to 432 per mile in the St. Xavier
area. Numbers of trophy rainbows were lower than in fall 1985,
but were still relatively high. Although total numbers were

-14-

600

+

Cvi

W

0

Csi

00

(0 ^

T- «

£

0

c

T“

£

■H

09

C

T- J

oo

0

mYi Jdd qs!:j

-15-

Figure 3. Estimated length-frequency of the brown trout population in the standard elec-
trofishing section of the upper Bighorn River during September 1986. Total
population estimate = 7,031 fish per mile.

LEGEND

® N
CO o I

ci I

1 N

O W T”

2 2 1

CC CC EC

16-

Figure 4. Comparative estimated length-frequencies of brown trout populations during
September 1986 in the upper (RM 0-3.8), standard (PM 2. 4-9. 6), and St. Xavier
(RM 17.6-21.6) electrofishing sections of the upper Bighorn River.

Table 3. Rainbow trout planted in the Bighorn River above Two
Leggins Diversion since 1966.

Date

Number

Length (inches)

5/5/66

8,010

4

5/5/66

1,580

10

4/7/67

10,080

3

5/8/68

10, 080

4

7/3/69

11, 300

6

9/29/69

2,250

10

7/16/70

18, 000

6

8/6/71

9,989

7

7/26/72

15,504

7

7/27/72

2, 240

7

7/26/73

13, 000

4

7/8/75

15,600

5

7/14/76

13,200

6

11/10/76

20, 125

3

5/14/79

24,700

5

8/24/81

17,993

6

8/27/81

11,750

6

8/28/81

10,771

6

5/5/82

1, 325

7

10/24/83

45, 591

5

TOTAL

263,088

-17-

LEGEND

(0

9 N

CD 0) I

/yi I (0

CO 1 .

1 1 N

O <N ^

2 11

a. a. X

d|!M jad i)S|j

18

Figure 5. Comparative estimated length-frequencies of rainbow trout during September 1986
in the upper (RM 0-3.8), standard (RM 2. 4-9. 6) and St. Xavier (RM 17.6-21.6)
electrofishing sections of the upper Bighorn River.

Table 4. Estimated number of rainbow trout of various size
groups per mile of the Bighorn River, 1981-86.

18" +

18-20"

20-22"

22" +

December 1981

39

18

13

8

December 1982

34

19

11

4

September 1983

147

108

35

4

September 1984

135

95

37

3

September 1985

197

126

49

22

September 1986

120

92

24

4

similar, the rainbow populations in the various sections were
distinctly different (Figure 5). The upperm.ost section (Afterbay
to 3.8 mi downstream) was composed almost entirely of hatchery
rainbows that escaped from the Afterbay reservoir. Few rainbows
in the 6-10 in range were found in the uppermost section in fall
1986. In the standard and St. Xavier monitoring sections,
numerous 6-10 in rainbows were found (Figure 5). These were
nearly all wild fish, hatched in 1985. Few fish in the 10-14
inch range were found in the lower two sections, while fish in
that size range were common in the uppermost section, having
escaped from the 1985 plant in Afterbay reservoir. Consequently,
it is expected that numbers of trophy rainbows will decline in
the lower sections over the next two years until the 1985 year
class of wild fish reaches trophy size.

Observations of age 0 fish collected in September indicated
rainbow spawning was again successful in 1986. The 1985 and 1986
rainbow year classes are the first to show significant numbers of
wild fish. A similar pattern of increased natural reproduction
after stocking of hatchery fish ceased has been noted in other
Montana Rivers.

More conservative fishing regulations v/ere implemented in
1984 to further protect rainbow trout. Prior to 1984, rainbow
and brown trout were included in the same limit. Rainbows tend
to be more susceptible to angling and are usually caught at a
disproportionate rate. For example, brown trout v/ere seven times
more abundant than rainbows in September 1983 but were caught
only 2.8 times as often. Since the regulations were changed to
allow harvest of only one rainbow per day in 1985, harvest rates
have been more proportional to population levels of the two
species .

-19-

Angler Use

A comprehensive creel census conducted from October, 1982
through September 1983 resulted in an estimated 11,840 man-days
of fishing pressure on the Bighorn River from the Afterbay to
Bighorn Fishing Access. A similar census from 1973 estimated
13,000 man-days on the same section. In the interim, however,
the Bighorn's reputation had grown, and the anglers fishing the
river changed from mostly Montana residents to over one-third
nonresidents .

Since 1983, fishing pressure on the upper 12 mi of the
Bighorn River has been continuously monitored through use of a
car counter at Bighorn Fishing Access. The counter was in place
during the comprehensive 1982-83 creel census. The car counter
yielded an estimate of 11,667 man-days of use in calendar year
1983 (Table 5). Fishing pressure dropped slightly in 1984,
probably due to adverse publicity regarding a fish kill that
occurred in July 1984. A marked increase to a total of 14,943
man-days occurred in 1985, but in 1986 fishing pressure leaped to
nearly 22,000 man-days. Pressure during the peak use period
(June through September) increased only 15 percent from 1983 to
1985 but jumped by 85 percent from 1985 to 1986 (Figure 6).

Prior to 1986, MDFWP received few complaints about crowded
fishing conditions on the Bighorn. In 1986, however, complaints
about too many fishermen were common. Heavy fishing pressure
also generated much concern among users regarding its effects on
fish populations. In October 1986, MDFWP fisheries personnel met
with concerned sportsmen at public meetings in Billings and Fort
Smith to discuss fisheries management of the river. At both
meetings, sportsmen were asked for their opinions concerning
goals, objectives, and management strategies for the upper Big-
horn River. Additional input was obtained from letters.

Public comments received to date indicate anglers are
interested in managing the Bighorn River to produce large trout
rather than large numbers of trout. In spite of evidence
suggesting habitat factors are more important in controlling fish
populations (particularly brown trout), most public concern has
centered around regulations. Suggested regulation strategies
have included:

1. Opening the entire river to bait fishing,

2. Eliminating use of bait in the reach from the Afterbay
Dam to the aerial cable 600 feet downstream,

3. Reducing the current five fish limit,

4. Changing the current size restriction of one fish over
18 inches to afford more protection for large fish,

5. Imposing more restrictive regulations such as a slot
limit or catch and release, and

6. Requiring the use of single and/or barbless hooks.

-20-

Table 5. Estimated fishing pressure (man-days) on the upper 12
miles of the Bighorn River, 1983-86.

1983

1984

1985

1986

January

474

174

349

795

February

586

489

643

378

March

577

661

728

1,349

April

549

804

1,150

1, 129

May

1,128

946

1,914

1,647

June

1,204

1,089

1,249

2,164

July

1,334

944

1,472

3,458

August

2,156

1,525

2,381

4,973

September

1,516

1,282

2,034

2,593

October

1,210

974

1,549

1,709

November

364

603

630

665

December

269

360

844

874

Total

11,667

9,851

14,943

21,724

-21-

Angler Days

LEGEND

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

— 82-85 Ave
1986

Figure 6. Comparative monthly fishing pressure on the upper 12
miles of the Bighorn River from October 1982 through
December 1985 (average values) and during calendar
year 1986.

-22-

other fish population management concerns raised, included:

1. A need for increased protection of rainbow trout
spawners and spawning sites,

2. The merits of wild trout management vs. stocking rainbow
trout,

3. The practice of "high grading," or releasing of smaller
fish in order to keep larger ones as they are caught,

4. The need for more enforcement,

5. The need for more fishing access sites, and

6. The need for increased information and education efforts
regarding various aspects of the fishery.

The strategies and concerns listed above are addressed in the
following sections.

-23"

GOALS, OBJECTIVES
AND STRATEGIES

Fisheries Management Goal

To meet public demand for a high quality, wild trout fishing
experience on the upper Bighorn River with a management emphasis
on maximizing the opportunity to catch large trout.

Objectives

1. To maintain average population densities of 5,000 to

7.000 age one and older brown trout per mile, and at least 500
18-in and larger brown trout per mile, in the upper 12 mi of the
Bighorn River.

2. To maintain average population densities of 1,500 to
2,500 age one and older brown trout per mile in the Bighorn River
between Bighorn Fishing Access and Two Leggins Access (Figure 1).

3. To maintain average population densities of at least

1.000 age one and older rainbow trout per mile and at least 150
18-in and larger rainbow trout per mile in the upper 12 mi of the
Bighorn River.

4. To maintain average population densities of at least 500
age one and older rainbow trout per mile in the Bighorn River
between Bighorn Fishing Access and Two Leggins Access (Figure 1).

5. To develop a framework for regulating and redistributing
fishing pressure on the upper Bighorn River to maintain use at
acceptable levels.

Brown trout population objectives are slightly higher than
the average fall population density during the 1981-86 period.
Rainbow trout population objectives are significantly higher than
the average fall population density during the 1981-86 period.

Strategies

Management strategies designed to attain the objectives
listed above can be grouped into the following three categories;
fish habitat, fish populations, and angler use.

Fish Habitat

Fish habitat strategies include;

1. To establish minimum flow targets in cooperation with
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USER) designed to main-
tain optimum trout habitat conditions, given water
supply constraints,

2, To assist the USER, other agencies and private entities

-‘24-

in solving the gas supersaturation problem at the
Afterbay Dam, and

3. To determine the contribution of Soap Creek rainbow
spawners to the total Bighorn River rainbow trout
population, factors affecting rainbow trout production
in Soap Creek, and strategies to improve production (if
necessary) .

Flows

The USER will strive to meet the following minimum flow
targets established by MDFWP:

Optimum flow - 2,500 cfs
Standard flow - 2,000 cfs
Minimum flow - 1,500 cfs

MDFWP studies indicate summer mortality of brown trout in the
upper Bighorn River is highly correlated with minimum flows.
Mortality decreases as flow increases. In general, the brown
trout population can be expected to increase over the long term
when flows remain above 2,500 cfs and decrease when flows drop
below 2,000 cfs. The population should remain stable at flows
between 2,000 cfs and 2,500 cfs.

The USER estimates a minimum flow of 2,000 cfs can be main-
tained year around approximately seven to eight out of 10 years
with no adverse effects on power generation or recreation oppor-
tunities in Bighorn Lake. The 2,500 cfs optimum flow could be
maintained in four to five years out of 10. The minimum flow of
1,500 cfs could be maintained nine out of 10 years. Flows below
1,500 cfs might occur if two or more consecutive years of drought
occur. The USBR's minimum operating criteria for Yellowtail Dam
include a minimum flow level of 1,000 cfs. An annual one-day
drawdown to 400 cfs is required during October by the USER to
measure flows from springs near the left abutment of Yellowtail
Dam.

The USER is most likely to encounter problems in meeting
minimum flow targets during April and May. Depending on snow-
pack and weather conditions, inflow to the reservoir may be lower
than minimum flow targets during the early spring period. The
USER attempts to hold Bighorn Lake water levels stable or rising
in the spring to benefit walleye spawning and recreational access
to the reservoir.

USER studies indicate the 1,500 cfs minimum flow could be
met during a single severe drought year without notable adverse
effect on summer and fall recreational use of the reservoir.
There would be a loss of powerplant capability, however, due to
loss of head in the reservoir. MDFWP and the USER will continue
to work together to identify economic costs and benefits of
providing minimum instream flows.

-25-

Up to 240,000 acre-feet of water in Yellowtail Reservoir is
available for purchase. It may be possible to purchase water to
augment instream flows during drought years. This purchase w'ould
require development of a funding source (most likely from private
rather than state sources) and negotiation of price and delivery
conditions with the USER. Any changes in operations may affect
several interests and should be coordinated between USER, MDFVJP,
National Park Service, and Wyoming Game and Fish Depaitment.

Gas Supersaturation

The gas supersaturation problemi originates at the Afterbay
Dam where water plunges over the sluiceway and spillway gates.
Air bubbles are trapped in the water and forced into solution by
increased pressure as the water plunges into the stilling basin.
Construction of a powerplant and bypass system would eliminate
the gas supersaturation problem by routing water through pen-
stocks rather than over the dam.

MDFWP will continue to assist and encourage USER, other
agencies, and private interests in their attempt to build a
powerplant and bypass system in the Afterbay Dam. MDFWP will
also continue to assist researchers from the Montana Cooperative
Fisheries Research Unit (MCFRU) in their study of the effects of
gas supersaturation on fish populations in the Bighorn.

Previous research suggests that gas bubble trauma is at
times a major cause of mortality in the fish population of the
uppermost reach of the Bighorn River. The ongoing study is
designed to determine physiological and behaviora] responses of
fish to gas supe r satu rat ion. Information collected by the
researchers will be valuable to MDFWP in refining management
strategies to deal with gas supersaturation until the problem* can
be eliminated.

MDFWP fully supports construction of a powerhouse in the
Afterbay Dam if the following conditions are met:

1. A bypass system with a capacity of at least 2, 500 cfs is
included in the project,

2. Penstocks and the bypass system are screened to prevent
entrainment of fish,

3. Sportsman access to the river is miaintained during the
construction process, and

4. Daily and seasonal flow patterns in the Bighorn River
are not altered from the present regime.

Elimination of the gas supe r satu rat ion problem would have
other benefits in addition to reducing trout mortality. More
fish should be available to anglers with fewer fish suffering
from sublethal effects of gas bubble trauma. Trophy trout

-26-

management options would also increase if gas supersaturation
were eliminated. Potential forage fish for large trout such as
mountain whitefish would become more abundant without super-
saturation. The introduction of sculpins for forage would likely
fail under the present conditions, but may be possible once the
gas problems were eliminated.

Rainbow Trout Spawning Habitat

Bighorn River rainbow trout spawn either in the mainstem
river or Soap Creek, a tributary that enters the river
approximately nine miles below the Afterbay Dam. Mainstem
spawners are affected by river flows and gas supe rsatu rat ion,
both of which have already been addressed. Effects of anglers on
mainstem spawners will be addressed later. Soap Creek spawners
are affected by water quality and a major irrigation diversion on
the creek.

Turbidity and sulfide discharge are the major v^ater quality
problems affecting Soap Creek. Turbidity is caused mainly by
naturally erosive soils. Sediment contributions from eroding
stream banks could be reduced if the banks were stabilized but
the cost would probably be prohibitive. Sulfide discharge from
the oil fields on upper Soap Creek has been reduced.

Adult rainbow trout ascending Soap Creek to spawn have
trouble negotiating the Soap Creek diversion dam.. Although some
fish get over the dam, it appears many do not. Some adults that
are successful in getting over the dam and many juvenile rainbows
may be lost in the irrigation canal on their downstream trip to
the river. Eliminating the barrier and screening the canal
should increase recruitment of wild rainbow trout to the Bighorn
River .

Fish Populations

Montana's trout streams are managed with the goal of
providing a high quality wild trout fishing experience. The key
elements of wild trout management are preservation of quality
trout habitat and regulating the fishery to prevent overharvest.
Montana has some of the most progressive habitat protection
legislation in the nation including laws granting instream flows,
stream bank and bed protection and water quality standards. On
some of the state's more popular streams, special restrictive
fishing regulations have been implemented to protect wild trout
populations. Keeping a few fish for the frying pan is a time
honored and legitimate use of the fishery resource. However, it
is the policy of MDFWP that recreation, not harvest, is the prime
benefit derived from the wild trout resource in Montana's
streams .

Brown Trout

The following strategies are recommended for management of
brown trout in the upper Bighorn River:

-27-

1. Continue to place manaoement emphasis on providing high
quality habitat,

2. Continue with present regulations structure and annual
evaluation of effectiveness of regulations,

3. Increase monitoring of fishing pressure and angler
success,

4. Increase information and education efforts regarding
status of the fishery, proper methods of releasing fish,
use of barbless hooks and river etiquette, and

5. Artificially enhance the brown trout population of the
St. Xavier area by transplanting age one brown trout
from the upper river.

Habitat factors appear more important than regulations in
controlling the Bighorn River brown trout population. Management
of flows is the most important of the habitat factors. The USER
is committed to incorporating the minimum flow targets estab-
lished by MDFWP in their operating goals for Yellowtail Dam. The
USBR's ability to meet the flows will, of course, be contingent
upon hydrologic conditions.

It is unlikely that imposition of more restrictive fishing
regulations would result in a significant increase in the brown
trout population, or the proportion of trophy fish in the popula-
tion at this time. Numbers of trophy brown trout have fluctuated
in response to flows and water temperatures. A rapid decline in
trophy brown trout numbers occurred when regulations were much
more restrictive than now. The underlying assumption for
restrictive regulations is that angler harvest is the major
factor controlling the fish population. This is apparently net
the case with brown trout in the Bighorn River.

A reduction of the overall limit or the size restriction now
imposed would likely result in increased "high grading,” i.e.,
replacing smaller fish on a stringer with larger as they are
caught. An education program is planned to encourage those
anglers wishing to keep fish to focus on keeping smaller fish.
The practice of "high grading," while not illegal, is neverthe-
less undesirable. Fish that are held on a stringer and then
released are less likely to survive than if they had been
released im.med lately.

The slot limit and catch-and-release are the most restric-
tive forms of regulations. These regulations have been very
successful in increasing trout populations in other Montana
streams where angler harvest was a major factor. A slot limit
was not effective while in effect on the Bighorn Fiver. Imposi-
tion of either of these regulations on the Bighorn would restrict
recreational opportunity for that segment of the angling public
wishing to harvest fish without providing additional benefits to
other anglers.

Use of bait is currently prohibited from the cable below the
Afterbay Dam to Bighorn Fishing Access. Regulations in effect

-28”

require the release of many brown trout over 18 in in lengthr as
as well as many rainbow trout. Several studies have shown that
mortality of fish caught and released on bait is significantly
higher than those caught on flies or lures. For that reason, a
change to allow bait fishing in this reach is not recommended.
The bait fishing section between the Afterbay Dam and the cable
60C feet downstream is extremely popular and receives heavier use
than any other reach of the river. While the same regulations
are in effect for the entire upper 12 mi of river, there are
fewer trophy brown trout in the upper 3 mi, and nearly all rain-
bows are hatchery fish that have escaped from the Afterbay reser-
voir. Bait fishing in this short reach has a negligible effect
on the Bighorn River trout population. Elimination of bait
fishing would restrict recreational opportunity for many anglers
without serving any useful purpose biologically.

Use of barbless hooks has been suggested as a method of
reducing mortality and the incidence of missing maxillaries (the
small bone on the upper jaw on either side of a fish's mouth).
Numerous studies have shown no difference in mortality of fish
caught and released on barbed or barbless hooks. However, remov-
ing a barbless hook from a fish's mouth is much easier than
removing a barbed hook. Less damage to the mouth, gills and
maxillary is likely to occur. Blindness caused by hook penetra-
tion of the eye may actually increase slightly with barbless
hooks, because they tend to penetrate deeper than barbed hooks.

Because the majority of anglers on the Bighorn release some
if not all the fish they catch, use of barbless hooks is desir-
able. An information and education program to encourage their
use will be initiated. The program will also focus on proper
methods of catching and releasing fish. A brochure summarizing
Bighorn River management objectives, describing how to properly
release fish, the desirability of using barbless hooks, and river
etiquette will be published.

Artificial enhancement of the St. Xavier area brown trout
population would be an experimental program carried out over a
period of several years. The program would not be implemented
until the MCFRU gas supersaturation study is completed. Popula-
tion monitoring in the upper electrof ishing section during 1985
and 1986 indicated mortality rates of age one brown trout were
significantly higher than in the standard or St. Xavier sections.
Excellent spawning conditions in the upper three miles of the
river may be creating an oversupply of young fish. The high
mortality rates
supply. On the
the St. Xavier
Sediment levels
the quality of

Xavier area appears to be capable of producing more fish.

may be nature's way of compensating for an over-
other hand, recruitment of young brown trout in
area may be limited by poor spawning habitat,
in the St. Xavier area are much higher, reducing
spawning gravels. In other respects, the St.

The proposed program would involve electrofishing and
removal of 4,000 to 6,000 age one brown trout from the upper
three mi of the Bighorn River. These fish would be transplanted

to the four-mile long St. Xavier electrofishing section. Justifi-
cation for the population manipulation is based on the theory
that natural mortality rates in the uppe r section would be
reduced so that no noticeable reduction in the fish population
would occur. The fish population in the St. Xavier area could be
significantly enhanced, thereby serving to attract more anglers
to the area below Bighorn Fishing Access. Total biomass in the
upper river may shift more towards adult fish, the goal of
fisheries management in the river. Populations in both sections
would be monitored twice annually to evaluate success or failure
of the experiment.

Rainbow Trout

The

rainbow

following strategies are
trout in the upper Bighorn

recommended
River :

for management of

1. Continue present emphasis on wild trout management.

2. Implement catch and release regulations on rainbow trout
in the river from the Afterbay Dam to Bighorn Fishing
Access beginning in 1988, and

3. Assess the feasibility of closing key mainstem. rainbow
trout spawning areas to fishing on an experimental
basis .

Fall 1986 fish population monitoring indicated natural
reproduction of rainbow trout has increased since stocking of
rainbow trout ceased in 1983. A notable exception is the upper
three miles of the river, where virtually the entire rainbow
population is made up of fish that escaped from the Afterbay
reservoir. Population studies in several other Montana rivers
have shown a similar trend of increased natural reproduction
after stocking ceased.

A commitment to managing the Bighorn River rainbow fishery
for wild fish will require more protection than is afforded under
the current regulation structure. The intense fishing pressure
occurring on the upper 12 mi of the river, combined with high
vulnerability to angling and low population densities could halt
or significantly impede wild rainbow population growth. The one
fish limit on rainbows encourages "high grading." Since a short
term decline in trophy rainbow trout is expected as older
hatchery fish die? therefore, additional protection through catch
and release regulations for the reproducing segment of the
population is warranted. If the wild rainbow trout population
continues to grow, a limited harvest may be possible in the
future .

Closure of key spawning areas would protect a large
proportion of the rainbow trout spawning population from the
stress of being caught and released during the spawning season.
Many rainbows are highly vulnerable to angling as they spawn in
shallow side -channel areas. Recent studies conducted cn Nelson

-30-

Sprinc Creek indicate ecc riiOrtaJity was significantly increased
in heavily fished spawning areas as a result of trampling by
wading anglers. Closure of key spawning areas would prevent
mortality due to trampling by anglers and should increase
production .

Identification of spa wring areas will lead to sone
enforcement problems ever, if the areas are closed. Crow tribal
members are not bound by Montana fishing regulations on the
reservation. Some anglers may find it difficult to resist the
temptation to fish in a closed area. Spawning area closures
should be m.ade on a limited trial basis. They should be closely
evaluated to determine if increased production occurs and whether
or not the increases outweigh any enforcement problems
encountered .

Each of the closed areas would be posted with temporary
signs and patrolled regularly. The closure period would include
the entire rainbow trout spawning season. Although eggs would
remain in the gravel for up to a month after the closure ends,
this generally occurs during the period of peak flows when wading
in these areas would be difficult and spawners would no longer be
p resent .

Angler Use

Recommended strategies for management of angler use on the
upper Bighorn River include;

1. Purchasing of additional access sites to increase
angling opportunities and more evenly distribute fishing
pressure,

2. Reviewing regulations annually to ensure that angler use
and harvest do not prevent attainment of fish populaticn
objectives, including development of a progressive,
multi-stage framework for regulating recreational use,

3. Increasing monitoring of the fish.ery and enforcer ent
efforts during the peak us^e season, June through;
Septemiber,

4. Preparing a project proposal for the 1989 Montana Legis-
lature to fund a river ranger position, and

5. Conducting a comprehensive creel, recreation and angler
opinion survey in 1990.

The reacli between Bighorn Fishing Access and Two Leggins
Fishing Access receives light fishing pressure primarily due to
the long float distance between access points (20 ni). MDFWP
efforts have been focused on purchasing another access area
between Bighorn and Two Leggins. The effort has culminated in
the acquisition of the Mallards Landing Access Site. Efforts
should be made to eventually accuire addiii'cnal access areas near

-31-

£t. Xavier and in the reach between Lind and Bighorn Access
Areas. Increasing the number of options available to anglers
should spread use more evenly. It is particularly important to
try to reduce pressure on the upper 12 miles of river.

Fishing pressure will likely continue to increase on the
Bighorn River. While redistribution of pressure may alleviate
some of the problems encountered in 1986, more restrictive
measures will probably be necessary in the long run. Restrictive
fishing regulations have been suggested as a means of reducing
pressure. Catch and release or other restrictive regulations
often serve to attract anglers, however, and pressure usually
increases on these sections in the long run.

Regulations on boat use, such as float closures, prohibiting
fishing from boats, reservation systems, and boat quotas have
also been suggested. Bank access is restricted along most of the
river. Consequently, floating is the only means of access for
most anglers. A float closure would be too restrictive. Fishing
from boats has been prohibited on sections of other Fontana
rivers, most notably the Madison. This would have little effect
on fishing pressure on the Bighorn, because most anglers use a
boat primarily for transportation and fish from shore.

Presently, MDFWP has no authority to limit recreational use
other than for public safety on navigable streams like the
Bighorn River. On smaller streams, MDFVJP can regulate recrea-
tional use where a clear threat to property or fish populations
exists. Unless the Montana Legislature grants MDFWP authority to
regulate the amount of recreational use on the Bighorn, a reser-
vation or quota system cannot be implemented. However, a
progressive, multi-stage framework for regulating recreational
use will be developed. It could include measures such as volun-
tary reservations, mandatory reservations or quotas and permits.
The program would be implemented only if present MDFWP authority
is expanded.

One concern is the possible effect of recreation on the
security of the upper Bighorn for resting waterfowl. Since 1981,
the number of waterfowl overwintering on the upper Bighorn has
declined noticeably and faster than the mallard population. The
disturbance of resting ducks and geese on favorite loafing sites
may be a major factor in these declines. Should these declines
continue or worsen as fishing pressure and other use of the upper
river increases, some restriction on boat travel may be consid-
ered. As additional access areas are acquired, the potential for
disturbance further increases, but so do the options for closing
short reaches of the river between two access points to establish
secure resting areas. Despite the decline in wintering w'ater-
fowl numibers, hunters are presently satisfied with the hunting.
Until hunters perceive a need for a use restriction, none will be
r econ'iriended .

Monitoring of fishing pressure and angler attitudes should
continue. The fishery may be self-regu] ating, i.e., angDers may

-32-

voluntarily redistribute fishing pressure due to crowded condi-
tions. A study should be initiated to assess angler attitudes
and opinions regarding manageirent of the Bighorn River fishery
and assist in developing the phased approach to implementing
control of recreational use discussed above.

The proposed river ranger position would serve several
functions. The person hired for the position would have a
biological background and be trained as an ex-officio game
warden. The river ranger would be on the river full time during
the peak use season and part time during the remainder of the
year. Duties of the position would include collection of creel
and angler attitude and opinion information, enforcement of
fishing regulations including frequent patrol of areas posted for
fishing closures, maintenance at MDFWF fishing access sites, and
assisting MDFWP biologists and wardens as necessary. Creation of
a new position and funding would require approval of the Montana
Legislature. If approved, the position would not be filled until
after July 1, 1989.

A comprehensive creel and angler opinion survey should be
conducted in 1990, prior to preparation of a management plan for
the 1992-97 period. The study should be designed to determine
maximum use levels acceptable to users. The last comprehensive
creel census was conducted in 1982-83. Increased fishing pres-
sure, redistribution of recreational use, and difficult choices
for alternative manage mi ent strategies dictate the need for a
comprehensive user survey. Conducting the survey in 1990 would
allow enough time for new recommended managemient strategies to
take effect, and allow time for analysis prior to writing the
1992-97 managemient plan.

REVIEW OF DRAFT PLAN

A total of 104 responses to a questionnaire concerning the
draft "Upper Bighorn River Fisheries Management Flan" were
received. In general, those who replied felt the draft plan
improved their understanding of the Bighorn and its fishery
(Table 6). The majority agreed with the fish habitat, fish
population, and angler use objectives and recommended strategies.

Additional com.mients received from respondents were incor-
porated into this final management plan for 1987-92.

-33-

Table 6. Responses to the Upper Bighorn River Management Ques-
tionnaire. (Percent recorded under each opinion category is based
on a total of 104 responses.)

0)

o

o

CP

0)

fO

u

w

CP

■H

c

c

Q

0

>1

■H

o

>1

c

(U

CP

■H

u

CP

c

o

a

CP

c

0

0)

o

fO

0

u

w

+J

CP

0

•H

-M

CO

<

s

Q

CO

The management plan improved my
understanding of the Bighorn River
and its fishery.

I agree with the fish habitat
objectives and recommended strat-
egies .

I agree with the fish population
objectives and recommended strat-
egies .

I agree with the angler use objec-
tives recommended strategies.

My opinion of how the Bighorn
River should be managed/changed as
a result of reading the plan.

39.4

53.8

4.8

2.0

0.0

37.5

45.2

5.8

7.7

3.8

27.9

47.1

6.7

12.5

5.8

24.0

45.2

7.7

16.3

6.8

8.7

41.3

23.0

23.1

2.9

-34-

’ « Tj^rji^' V I h ;:.

' : :."i^- i '’ :: ■■- . ' ■ . .. ■"' '

, q,

''.'srt"^''

) ;

s.

\