Sculpin (Cottus) distribution in the Kootenai National Forest and northwestern portions of the Flathead National Forest, Montana

MONTANA
STATE

This "cover" page added by the Internet Archive for formatting purposes

t>

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

3 0864 0009 8210 1

STATE DOCUMUNTS COLLKTIOPf

m\/ 10 1997

'^'^I^J'A STATE LIBRARY
urirlr,^^ E. 6th AVE
WELENA, MONTANA 59S20

SCULPIN (Cottus) DISTRIBUTION

IN THE

KOOTENAI NATIONAL FOREST

AND

NORTHWESTERN PORTIONS OF THE

FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST, MONTANA

submitted by
Scott A. Edson

I

Montana Natural Heritage Program

1515 East Sixth Avenue

Helena, MT 59620

for the

Kootenai National Forest

506 U. S. Highway 2 West

Libby, MT 59923

g ^■:

^ 3
^.-.i-'

>

October 1992

1992 Montana Natural Heritage Program

This document should be cited as follows:

Edson, S. 1992. Sculpin (Cottus) distribution in the Kootenai National Forest and northwestern
portions of the Flathead National Forest, Montana. I^ontana Natural Heritage Program. Helena MT
37 pp.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

1

List of Tables

ii

List of Figures

iii

List of Appendices

iv

Acknowledgments

V

Summary

1

Introduction

3

Study Area

4

Methods

4

Results

10

Discussion

22

Literature Cited

29

Appendices

30

List of Tables
Number
1 Reproduction at sculpin sample sites 20

11

List of Figures
Number
1 General map of study area

2 Sample sites in the Kootenai River watershed, and adjacent

portions of the Clark Fork and Stillwater

watersheds 6

3 Sample sites containing no sculpin in the Kootenai River

watershed and lower Clark Fork River watershed in the
Kootenai National Forest, and Stillwater drainage in the
Flathead National Forest 7

4 Stream character at sites containing slimy sculpin, and

torrent sculpin in the Kootenai National Forest 12

5 Dominant substrate composition at sample sites containing

slimy sculpin, and torrent sculpin at four levels of
abundance 14

6 Mean stream temperature at sample sites containing slimy,

and torrent sculpin 15

7 Stream gradient at respective sample sites containing slimy

and torrent sculpin 17

8 Stream order frequency for respective sample sites

containing slimy, and torrent sculpin 18

9 Zoobenthos density at respective sample sites containing

slimy, and torrent sculpin 19

111

Appendices

A Location of sculpin sites on the Kootenai National Forest 31

B-1 Stream characteristics at torrent sculpin sample sites 32

B-2 Stream characteristics at slimy sculpin sample sites 33

B-3 Stream characteristics at sample sites without sculpin

present 34

C Sculpin re-sample locations on the Kootenai National

Forest 3 6

D Sculpin sample sites in lakes on the Kootenai National

Forest 37

IV

Acknowledgments

This project was a cooperative effort of the Kootenai National
Forest and the Montana Natural Heritage Program. Field sampling
was conducted by the author, Geoff FitzGerald, Connie Jacobs,
Brad Higginson, Tim Linehan and Associates, and Doug Perkinson.
I am appreciative for the logistical support, planning and
editing of this report by Doug Perkinson and Dave Center. Also,
the Montana Natural Heritage Program staff were supportive and
provided follow-through in a timely manner.

Don Skaar and his staff at the Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Libby
field office, and Wayne Kasworm and his staff (same base) were
especially supportive with equipment and lodging. Lewis Young of
the Eureka Ranger District readily provided information and
suggestions pertinent to achieving the study objectives. Also,
my thanks to the rangers and staff at the Fortine Ranger District
for providing occasional lodging and facilities during the study.

Summary

A total of 39 sculpin (Cottus) samples were collected from waters
of the Kootenai National Forest in northwest Montana. Slimy
sculpin (Cottus coqnatus) were present in 16 of the collections.
Torrent sculpin (Cottus rhotheus) appeared in 23 of the samples
and sixty-seven sites sampled evidenced no sculpin.
Additionally, 3 of 31 re-sample sites contained sculpin while 17
sites within lakes revealed no sculpin. In all, 156 sites were
surveyed, principally in the Kootenai River, Tobacco River, and
Stillwater River drainages.

Torrent sculpin had a broad distribution geographically, while
slimy sculpin were more longitudinally dispersed in the tributary
streams of the major rivers in the study area. Based on the
limited sampling in this survey, torrent sculpin distribution
generally appeared to be restricted to tributary streams of the
Kootenai River in close proximity to the main river. However,
torrent sculpin were present at distances greater than 5 km from
the Kootenai on Tobacco River tributaries, Libby Creek, Fisher
River, and Big Creek.

Two sites exhibited potential for sympatry between torrent and
slimy sculpin. Hybridization potentially exists between these
two species but was not confirmed in this study. The extent of
niche partitioning by these species in areas of overlap was not
studied.

Sculpin habitat was characterized as riffle or a combination of
run/riffle/glide habitat with some degree of cobble substrate.
Sculpin were generally found at sites with gradients from 3-4%.
Substrate composition is likely an important physical factor
influencing sculpin density and distribution and warrants further
study.

Species-specific stream habitats were indistinguishable in this
study. Qualitative evaluations of stream habitat were used to
assess differences between sites. Individual species habitat
requirements were similar enough to require that quantitative
measures of a number of physical, chemical, and biological
conditions be made before distinctions could be determined for
individual species.

Electroshocking in conjunction with D-netting was the best method

for sampling sculpin. Alternate sampling methods may be valuable
for obtaining additional information.

Introduction

Five species of sculpin (genus Cottus) occur in Montana (Brown
1971, Holton 1990) . Sculpin are bottom dwelling fish typically
found in rocky substrates of cold water streams. They
characteristically have large flattened heads and fan-like
pectoral fins. The presence of palatine teeth as well as the
number of spiny-rays and soft-rays on the pectoral and pelvic
fins are used to distinguish some species. However, sculpin do
vary in color and structure, making field identification
difficult. Also, occasionally the taxonomy of some species may
be in doubt because of the similarity between species due to
morphological variation or hybridization (Wydowski and Whitney,
1979) . Sculpin are difficult to sample with conventional methods
typically used to monitor game fish species in the state. As a
result, the distribution and habitat use of each species within
the state is uncertain.

Two sculpin species (Cottus confusus and Cottus ricei) are listed
as Species of Special Concern in Montana (Center, 1992) . The
U.S. Forest Service Northern Region lists these same two sculpin
species as Sensitive Species. As such, these two species receive
special consideration for conservation lands administered by the
forest service.

This field effort of seven weeks and the results is a
continuation of six weeks of field work in 1991 to identify the
geographic distribution of Cottus in northwest Montana. This
study also sought to further define Cottus habitat use in
relation to varying degrees of land use and resultant watershed
condition. Objectives and methodologies are essentially the same
as in 1991 (Gangemi 1992).

In the Kootenai National Forest samples were taken from
tributaries of Koocanusa reservoir, the Clark Fork, Kootenai, and
Tobacco river systems. Tributaries of the Stillwater River in
the Flathead National Forest were also surveyed. This work
commenced in July and continued through September of 1992. A
number of basins within these watersheds were sampled intensively
to determine longitudinal distribution of species in a watershed.

Sculpin are classified as a non-game fish by the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Funding for research on
non-game species is minimal and most distributional information
to date has been collected incidentally while electroshocking for
game fishes. As a result, the distribution and abundance of
sculpin species has not been well documented. The primary
purpose of this study is to determine the geographic distribution
and relative abundance of sculpin species within the Kootenai
National Forest and adjacent portions of the Flathead National
Forest.

study Area

The study area included streams and rivers in northwest Montana
(Figures 1 and 2) primarily on lands in the Kootenai National
Forest. An additional 7 sites were sampled on streams in the
Flathead National Forest in an area adjacent to Kootenai National
Forest lands along the Stillwater River (Figures 2 and 3) . Study
sites were selected based on previous sampling of the watersheds
of the Kootenai and Flathead National Forests. Forest maps from
these National Forests were used to define watershed boundaries
within the study area. A broad spectrum of habitat types were
sampled. Most of the sample sites were recommended by Doug
Perkinson from the Kootenai National Forest, Don Skaar and Mike
Hensler from the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and Dave
Center from the Montana Natural Heritage Program. Others were
deduced from geomorphic features of candidate watersheds.

Methods

Various sampling techniques were experimented with in 1991
(Gangemi 1992) and repeated in 1992. Minnow traps and
electroshocking, in combination with the D-net, were the primary
techniques utilized in 1992. Minnow traps, measuring 40.6 cm in
length and 22.9 cm in height at the center, were used to sample
sculpin in lakes. Several holes were drilled in 35mm plastic
film canisters and then were filled with canned dog food. One
canister, with several large gravel particles (when possible,
with attached benthic macroinvertebrates) were placed inside each
trap. These baited traps were then used for a minimum 24 hour
set.

Most lotic study sites were selectively sampled using a Smithroot
model 12 electroshocker. Electroshocker output ranged from 4 0 to
900 volts direct current depending on the conductivity of the
sample stream. The frequency of DC output remained at 60 pulses
per second for all streams sampled. Each habitat type present at
a particular site (i.e. pool, run, riffle, backwater and various
substrate types) was sampled with the shocker to assess the
micro-habitat preferences of the sculpin species. D-nets were
used in conjunction with the electroshocker.

Sculpin were identified and temporarily labeled in the field.
Sample quantity ranged from 5 to 10 sculpin depending on sculpin
abundance and the opportunity for longitudinal sampling on the
same stream. At the field base, specimens were fixed in formalin
for 24 to 3 6 hours. Sculpin were then thoroughly rinsed and
preserved in 70% ETOH. All specimens were delivered to Dr.
William Could of Montana State University (and others) who will
verify the field identification. Sculpin for electrophoretic
analysis were forwarded to the University of Montana.

/^r

^

Canada
Montana

Helena

• Butte

r

'■^M

Figure 1: General map of study area in the Kootenai National Forest and northwest portions
of the Flathead National Forest.

rest

cognatus

A Torrent sites

( Cottus rhotheus )

\.^

Figure 2: Distribution of slimy sculpin and torrent sculpin in the Kootenai River watershed and
lower Clark Fork River watershed In the Kootenai National Forest, and Stillwater drainage In the
Flathead National Forest.

Canada

ores!

\-^

Figure 3: Sample sites containing no sculpin in the Kootenai River u/atershed and lower Clark Fork
River watershed in the Kootenai National Forest, and Stillwater drainage in the Flathead National Forest.

Habitat parameters were assessed qualitatively. The parameters
and methods of evaluation were as follows:

Sculpin Abundance = quantitatively assessed based on catch
efficiency using electroshocker: rare (5 sculpin difficult to
catch) , uncommon (5 to 10 sculpin caught with concerted effort) ,
common (10 to 15 sculpin caught with minimal effort) , abundant
(15 or more sculpin caught easily) .

Stream Character = dominant stream character where sculpin were
captured, i.e., pool, run, riffle or cascades. Pools were
identified as the slow, deep water sections; riffles as the
steeper gradient sections with high current velocities and white
water; runs as the sections with moderate current velocities but
with smooth surface water (typically found at the tail of pools
and between riffles) ; cascades as miniature water-falls typically
found as water passes over a boulder or some other large
structure within the stream channel.

Habitat Length = length of sample site (M = Meters) .

Gradient = estimate of percentage of elevation change over
distance traveled.

Substrate Composition = qualitative estimate of percentage of
area occupied by silt (less than 1/3 2 inch in diameter) , sand
(1/32 to 1/4 inch), gravel (1/4 to 3.0 inches), cobble (3.0 to
12.0 inches), boulder (greater than 12.0 inches), and bedrock in
the sample reach.

Rooted Acpaatic Plants = present (yes) or not present (no) .

Filamentous Algae = qualitative assessment of area and thickness
of algal mat; rare (difficult to discern algal mat on substrate) ,
uncommon (algal mats are patchy) , common (algal mats covering
much of substrate but underlying rocks remain discernible) ,
abundant (algal mat covers entire substrate, filaments long, mat
greater than 5 cm in thickness, substrate not discernible under
mat) .

Benthic Macroinvertebrates = quantitative estimate of zoobenthos
density on rocks (diameter ranging from 4 to 8 inches) pulled
from the water: low (less than 10 organisms) , moderate (20 to 40
organisms) , or high (50 or more organisms) .

Water temperature = temperature at sample site (°F).

Reproduction = evidence of sculpin reproduction based on presence
(yes) or absence (no) of young of the year (YOY) sculpin.

Discharge = an estimate of the flow at the sample site.

8

Overhanaing vegetation = percentage of vegetation, overhanging
bank, and woody debris (matter) directly over stream surface at a
height not greater than 6 feet.

Trout = present (yes) or not present (no) .

Land Use Present = visual assessment indicating presence (yes) or
absence (no) of land use categories in drainage, i.e.,
residential (urbanization) , agriculture (grazing) , forestry
(logging) , debris thin (roads, fire) , mining, channelization
(irrigation, roads) , dewatering, recreation, undisturbed.

Riparian = Excellent: trees and shrubs (coniferous & deciduous) ,
grass and forbs combined cover over 9 0 percent of the ground; a
variety of species and age classes are represented; growth is
vigorous and reproduction is such that continued ground cover and
soil stabilization is insured. Good: plants cover 70-90 percent
of the ground; shrub species are more prevalent than trees;
openings exist between the tree canopy and other plants. Fair:
plants cover ranges from 50% - 70 %; seedling reproduction is
nil; root mat continuity lacking. Poor: less than 50 percent of
the ground is covered; trees are essentially absent; shrubs are
in large clumps to non-existing; growth and reproduction is
generally poor; root mat discontinuous and shallow.

Results

Species Distribution

Sculpin distribution in the study area appeared to be limited to
two species; slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) , and torrent sculpin
(Cottus rhotheus) (Figure 2, and Appendix A). Qualitative
assessments of habitat characters for each site are included in
appendices B and C. Qualitative assessments of habitat
characteristics for sites containing no sculpin are in Appendix
D.

Torrent sculpin had the most widespread distribution of the two
sculpin species found in this study area although its
distribution was restricted to the Kootenai River watershed.
This species had the shortest longitudinal range within an
inhabited watershed, and were in close proximity to the mainstem
Kootenai.

Slimy sculpin were found at sites on tributary streams mainly
south, southwest and southeast of Libby. The exception to this
was Pipe Creek. Longitudinally, slimy sculpin were found within
1 km of the Kootenai River only on Parmenter Creek. Slimies
inhabiting reaches of other tributaries were over 1 km from
either the Clark Fork or the Kootenai Rivers. Slimy sculpin were
the only species present in the Bull River drainage.

On Kootenai River tributaries above Libby dam, only torrent
sculpin were found. All sampled torrents were within 1 km of the
main river except for one site on Big Creek, and two sites within
the Tobacco River, watershed. Downstream of the dam, other sites
with torrents more than 1 km from the Kootenai River included two
feeder creeks to Libby Creek and five tributaries to the Fisher
River (Figure 2) .

A total of 30 sites in 10 tributaries were resampled in 1992.
Only three of these tributaries contained sculpin (Appendix E) .
Five Mile Creek was the only sampled watershed with sculpin
within 1 km of the Kootenai River. Graves Creek and the Pleasant
Valley/Fisher River sites were further removed from the Kootenai
River drainage.

Slimy sculpin and torrent sculpin were found to be sympatric in
two tributary streams of the Kootenai River below Libby Dam but
for the most part were found isolated from each other
longitudinally. In tributaries where both slimy and torrent

10

sculpin are present, slimy sculpin were generally located in the
headwater reaches upstream of the torrent sculpin. Habitat
factors influencing this longitudinal segregation of slimy and
torrent sculpin were not identified.

Physical. Biological and Human Influences on Sculpin Distribution

Habitat Type

Habitat types were separated into four categories; pools, runs,
riffles and cascades. Distinguishing the point at which a run
becomes a riffle was somewhat subjective (see methods) but there
appeared to be a preferred location within these four categories
by the two sculpin species.

Sculpin, in general, were predominantly found in riffles, and to
a lesser degree, in the areas of overlap between runs and riffles
(Figure 4) . Slimy sculpin were found in riffles 80% of the time
compared to 13% in run/glide. Torrent sculpin were located 48%
of the time in riffle habitat compared to 39% in run/riffle/glide
habitat. Few sculpin species were found in pool habitat
although sampling intensity was more extensive in riffle and
run/riffle/glide habitat segments since this was where sculpin
were most abundant.

11

Figure 4: Stream character at sample sites containing torrent sculpin, and
slimy sculpin in the Kootenai National Forest.

14 T

12 -

10 -

t '

4 -■

2 -■

pool

riffle run/glide

Stream Habitat

H Torrent
D Slimy

cascade

12

Substrate

Cobble appeared to be the preferred substrate for the two sculpin
species, although there were variations in the percentage of
cobble versus other substrate sizes (Figure 5) . Sites with
abundant sculpin populations typically were dominated by cobble
substrate. There was a corresponding decline in sculpin
abundance at sites where substrate particle size shifted to the
gravel and sand size class. It appeared that torrent sculpin
were more tolerant of mixed substrate containing some degree of
gravel and sand. Sculpin were not present in reaches which did
not contain at least some degree of cobble substrate.

Temperature

Temperature was recorded at random times of the day while
electroshocking. As a result, comparisons of species specific
stream temperatures using statistical analysis were not
appropriate. However, temperature trends were distinguishable
for each species except at sites where species were rare in
occurrence (Figure 6) .

Torrent sculpin tended to be found at sites with warmer stream
temperatures than those occupied by slimy sculpin. The observed
mean temperature at sites containing torrent sculpin was 59. 8 "F.
This was 3.9°F degrees higher than the observed mean temperature
at sites containing slimy sculpin. The observed mean temperature
where torrent and slimy sculpin were abundant was 68.0°F and
54.8°F respectively.

The warmest temperatures recorded at a site with torrents was
7 0.0°F and with slimies was 67.0°F. However, torrents were
abundant, while slimies were rare at these sites.

13

Torrent Sculpin

6t

U5

a>

Vi

1-

o

.□

E
3
Z

4 --

2-

^r

i

,^m^

Abundant Common Uncommon Rare
Sculpin Abundance

Dominant Substrate
EDGravel ElCobble
E3Boulder

en

X]

3

3--

2-

fc

li

Slimy Sculpin

w^N

m

Dominant Substrate
^Gravel SCobble
EDBoulder

Abundant Common Uncommon Rare
Sculpin Abundance

Figure 5: Dominant substrate composition at sample sites containing torrent sculpin, and slimy sculpin at
four levels of abundance. Sculpin abundance was assessed quantitatively (see p. 8 for definition of sculpin
abundance and substrate composition).

14

1 1

1 — ■■■,■■■

1

1 r ■■

—

1
!

1

—

i

i

, ,

1 1

t 1

1 1

1 1

3

D*

Q}

(A

(-

ra

JD

(_

o

c

L.

V

UJ

o

c

?

0)

u

c

A

1 I

4J •

a,

e

U

(J) 3jnaej3diii3i

!
i

I
I

u

•

>

«

a>

t.

§

"g

H-

j{

4^

a

ra

c

r

Q.

a

-^

3

T

<>

U

CA

(A

^

O

r

m^

o

(A

4^

"S

"c

re

H-

4-1

u

C T3

41

1-

c

u

o

o

H-

4-*

GO

o;

c

n

c

SI

a

gi

**

M

r

vy

o

u

>.

Cfl

U

CI

>

i-l

3

4-* (Q
ID 3

S.S

a .a
V a

u

** c

M —

Q.
C —
a 3
«i o
z v>

«l 4^

t. a

■_ II

(J) 3jruej3du)3X

15

Gradient

Stream gradients appeared to be an important factor influencing
sculpin distribution within the study area. Sculpin were found
at sites with stream gradients from less than 1% to 7% (Figure
7). In general, both sculpin species were more likely to be
found at sites with approximately a 3% to 4% stream gradient.
Sculpin were not found at sites with gradients exceeding 7%.

Slimy sculpin were found in stream gradients ranging from 2% to
6%. 81% of the sites containing slimy sculpin had a 3% or >3%
stream gradient. Approximately 19% of the sites containing
slimy sculpin had stream gradients of 2%.

Torrent sculpin were found at sites with stream gradients ranging
from less than 1% to 7% (the widest range) . The majority of
sites containing torrent sculpin (73.9%) had a 3% or >3% stream
gradient. Roughly 22% of the sites containing torrent sculpin
had a 2% or <2% stream gradient.

Stream Order

The sampling frequency for each stream order was dictated by the
concentration of each stream order in the watershed network, as
well as by seasonal factors. The majority of the sample sites
occurred on 3rd and 4th order streams. Most 1st and 2nd order
streams were either too small to electroshock, exhibited too
steep a gradient, or were dry during this sampling season. In
addition, far fewer 5th and 6th order streams exist in the study
area. Therefore, the number of sample sites for these orders was
less than for smaller order streams.

Sculpin were more likely to be found on 4th, 5th, and 6th order
streams than at sites on 2nd and 3rd order streams (Figure 8) .
There was a greater chance of finding sculpin at a given site as
stream order increased. Slimy sculpin were most common across
the 3 stream orders sampled, being present on 3rd through 5th
order streams. Torrent sculpin were found at sites on 3rd, 4th,
5th, and 6th order streams.

16

Figure 7: Stream gradients at sample sites containing torrent, and slimy

sculpin.

H Slim/

LJ Torrent

17

Figure 8: Number of sample sites containing torrent, and slimy sculpin for

respective stream orders.

14 T

c
E
o

o

E

4 ■-

2nd

3rd

4i:h 5th

Stream Order

6th

7th

18

Torrent Sculpin

0)
CO

C
0)
XI

6x

5-

4 --

3 --

2 --

1 --

Abundant

Common Uncommon
Sculpin Abundance

Rare

Zoobenthos Density
EBHigh EHMedium
□ Low

Slimy Sculpin

5t

tn
a>
•H
■H
CO

S-
o

C-
01
XI

E

3

3--

2--

1 --

^

Abundant Common ' Uncommon
Sculpin Abundance

Zoobenthos Density
ElHigh EJMedium
EDLow

Rare

Figure 9: Benthic macroinvertebrate density at sites with four levels of abundance for slimy, and torrent
sculpin. Zoobenthos densities and sculpin abundance were assessed quantitatively (see p. 8 for definition
of sculpin abundance and zoobenthos density).

19

Benthic Macroinvertebrates

Benthic macroinvertebrate density ranged from moderate to low at
sites where torrent, and slimy sculpin were abundant (Figure 9) .
There was no dramatic decrease in benthic macroinvertebrate
density at sites where sculpin were less numerous or not present
at all. At sites where sculpin were not present, benthic
macroinvertebrate density ranged from low to high. There is no
clear trend or correlation between these variables.

Algal Density

Filamentous algae density ranged from rare to common at sites
where torrent, and slimy sculpin were abundant. As torrent and
slimy sculpin abundance decreased, algae density varied from
common to rare. Also, the reverse trend was noted. There is no
clear trend or correlation between these variables.

Reproduction

Reproduction was recorded at sample sites for the two sculpin
species present in the study area (Table 1) . Slimy sculpin had
the highest percentage of sites with young of the year present.
Young of the year sculpin tended to occupy backwater areas and
were often present in common numbers . Young of the year were
more easily stunned with the electroshocker than one or one-plus
year fish, but were too small to capture effectively due to their
small size relative to the mesh size of the D-nets.

Table 1: Percentage of sample sites with and without

reproduction for two sculpin species in the Kootenai
National Forest. Reproduction was determined based on
the presence or absence of young of the year (YOY)
sculpin at the total number of sites for a respective
sculpin species between July and September, 1992.

Species

YOY Present

YOY Not
Present

Unknown

Slimy

94%

6%

0%

Torrent

65%

30%

5%

20

Land Use

Both sculpin species field identified in this study, slimy and
torrent, were present at sites in which grazing, logging, roads,
and channel structures occurred in varying degrees of magnitude
within the watershed. Mining activity was the least frequently
encountered land use in the study area. Both species were found
at sites downstream of hardrock mines. Torrent sculpin were also
found at urbanized sites. Essentially there was no site found,
or surveyed, which hadn't been subjected to human induced
disturbances .

Age Classification

Age classifications were not attempted in this investigation.
However, age classifications were determined from a sample of
torrent sculpin electroshocked in Libby Creek on October 18, 1991
(see Gangemi, 1992) .

Sampling Methodology

The electroshocker, in combination with the D-net were placed
directly downstream of the electroshocker. Sculpin immobilized,
or partially stunned, or attempting to escape the electrical
field were often directed by water flow and subsequently netted.
Occasionally checking the D-net yielded a sculpin via the "blind
grab." Despite the fact that sculpin were typically capable of
eluding the electrical field, this technique proved to be the
most effective means of sampling.

Minnow traps were ineffective in catching sculpin. The traps
were placed at various lakes within the study area. No sculpin
were found within the traps during any sampling interval from 24
to 3 6 hours (Appendix D) .

21

Discussion

Based on the results of sampling and field identification methods
employed, two sculpin species are present in the study area. The
distribution of each species varies greatly. Slimy sculpin were
the most widespread longitudinally in the study area (similar to
1991 findings) . However, this species was mainly present south
of Libby. North of Libby it was found only in Pipe Creek. In
the Kootenai drainage, in close proximity to the main river,
slimy sculpin appear to be displaced longitudinally by torrent
sculpin.

Torrent sculpin were found to have a more restricted longitudinal
range within the study area. They were typically found in
tributary streams of the Kootenai River drainage, in close
proximity to the main river. Two exceptions to this were the
Fisher River watershed and as Gangemi (1992) found, on Tobacco
River tributaries. Here, torrent sculpin were found far from the
main river. Sites in the Tobacco watershed with typical low-
order stream characteristics did not contain sculpin. Those
sites in the Tobacco occupied by torrent sculpin had stream flows
affected by most land use disturbances.

Sculpin species in this survey were essentially allopatrically
dispersed, with sympatry restricted to a few larger-order
watersheds. Habitat of various tributaries in close proximity to
major waterways appear to be suitable for slimy sculpin, but
slimy sculpin were typically displaced upstream of the torrents
on tributaries where both species occurred. This was also noted
in the 1991 study (Gangemi 1992) .

Factors Influencing Sculpin Distribution

Stream Character

These two sculpin species appear to prefer riffles, and to a
lesser degree, the transition area between runs and riffles.
Generally, stream segments were not randomly sampled, for habitat
preferences. Therefore, concluding that the sculpin species
prefer riffle habitat could be a reflection of sampling
methodology bias rather than a valid conclusion.

22

Substrate

Substrate composition appeared to be an important habitat
parameter influencing the distribution, and possibly the
abundance, of sculpin species found at any one particular sampled
reach. However, there were no clear distinctions between
species.

Several explanations have been offered to explain the affinity of
sculpins for rubble substrates. Interstitial spaces which are
common in rubble substrates offer refuge from predatory fish and
birds. Sculpin typically attempted to escape the electroshocker
by burrowing into the substrate. In addition, rubble substrates
typically support higher concentrations of aquatic insects which
are thought to be the primary food source for sculpin. (Gangemi
1992, p36) Additionally, this survey found that sculpin
seemingly favor cover, shadows, low light intensity, and darker
colored substrate. When displaced from cover, sculpin would
typically dart away upstream to evade the disturbance. They
would then hold momentarily until disturbed again, and double-
back to their approximate point of origin. Also, sculpin deposit
their adhesive eggs in a mass on the underside of cobbles
suspended above the stream bottom, and do not typically have a
lengthy (longitudinal) range within a lotic habitat (Scott and
Grossman 1973) .

Torrent sculpin appeared more capable of tolerating habitat with
some degree of finer substrate material than the slimy sculpin.
This may, in fact, be an indirect measure of some other habitat
parameter influencing torrent distribution (i.e. torrent might
prefer warmer stream temperatures, slower velocities, or lower
gradients typical of larger-order reaches) .

Temperature

Temperatures appear to exhibit some influence on species
distribution although species specific tolerance ranges were not
determined in this study. Torrent sculpin were typically found
at sites with warmer stream temperatures. Slimy sculpin appeared
to prefer sites with slightly cooler temperature ranges than did
the torrent sculpin (i.e. torrent might prefer warmer stream
temperatures, slower velocities, or lower gradients typical of
larger-order reaches) .

23

Benthic Macroinvertebrates

Gangemi's 1992 study found no quantitative data linking sculpin
abundance with benthic macroinvertebrate density. It was
initially hypothesized that a direct relationship would exist
between sculpin density and benthic macroinvertebrate density,
since the literature states that invertebrates are a major
component of sculpin diets (Brown 1971) . This lack of a direct
link might be due more to sampling methodology rather than
results contrary to the hypothesis. Furthermore, zoobenthos have
various habitat preferences which may influence sculpin
distribution more (i.e. prey-item abundance) than benthic biomass
apparently does.

Algal Density

Findings in this study, and those of Gangemi (1992, p38) were
again similar; neither study found a direct relationship between
algal density and sculpin abundance. Gangemi indicates that as
sculpin abundance decreased at a number of sites, algal density
increased. Inversely, as algal density decreased, sculpin
abundance increased. A possible explanation is that sculpin were
cropping the algal community or feeding selectively on
macroinvertebrate predators of algal grazers. This would explain
lower algal densities at sites where sculpin densities were high.
Gangemi attributes the lack of an inverse relationship between
sculpin density and algal density at some sites to an algal
community dominated by a species not palatable to sculpin.
However, it was evident for the most part, that at sites where
sculpin were not present, filamentous algae was either rare in
abundance or not present.

The inverse relationship between algae and sculpin might better
be explained by inefficient sampling methods. High algal
densities offer additional concealment for sculpin making it more
difficult to net them. This could lead to interpretations that
sculpin abundance was low at these sites.

It is also plausible that sculpin prefer, or are relegated to
feeding on a particular algal species. Some algae may not be
digestible by sculpin or might possibly be too low in necessary
proteins for young sculpin to pass through a critical age class.
If this were the case then sculpin density and distribution might
be greatly influenced by the algal community. (Gangemi, 1992)

24

Land Use

Some type of human- induced land disturbance has occurred within
all watersheds surveyed. The most common form was water
pollution resulting from sedimentation. All of the sites were
impacted by the cumulative effects of at least two upstream land
use practices; most of the sites by more. It was beyond the
scope of this survey to judge the tolerance of each species to
various forms of disturbance. Alterations which increase
sedimentation and temperature and weaken the riparian integrity,
could adversely affect the suitability of sculpin habitat at some
unknown threshold level.

Sampling Methodology

The electroshocker, in combination with the D-net, was the most
effective method for sampling sculpin. Young of the year were
typically found in habitat of minimal current (within 2 cm of
bottom substrate) , good cover (interstitial cobble) , and closer
to channel edges than larger sculpin. Visually estimating total
fish abundance and total habitat in small streams may prove
beneficial and an efficient means of complimenting and conducting
these surveys (Hankin and Reeves 1986) .

Minnow traps proved to be an ineffective sampling device for
sculpin despite overnight sets. Sculpin are more active
(feeding, etc.) during hours of darkness. Also, it is reported
that they favor moving prey as food (Scott and Grossman 1979) .
Additionally, the lakes sampled were thermally stratified. The
minnow traps, for the most part, were set from the lake's shore
in warmer epilimnion shallows. Also, the traps were set in areas
of seemingly favorable substrate for sculpin. No sculpin were
captured using minnow traps.

Glacier and Fire

Other factors which may have had an effect on geographic
distribution of sculpin within this study area include glacial
action and fire. Glacial Lake Missoula could have effected the
distribution of shortheads (Gangemi 1992) . Alt and Hyndman
(1986) indicate that ice age glaciers approached their maximum
extent some 15,000 years ago. These filled the Purcell Valley
and advanced south into Idaho crossing the Clark Fork River
valley. This ice dam (20 miles wide and 6,000 feet thick)
impounded the Clark Fork River to form Glacial Lake Missoula. It
also impounded the Kootenai River and formed another glacial lake
that likely connected with Glacial Lake Missoula. Valleys such

25

as that of the Bull River are low enough for these water bodies
to have merged. Sediment (varves) records reveal at least 36
cycles of filling and draining of Glacial Lake Missoula. With
each flooding cycle, lake boundaries extended deeper into the
valley headwaters. At its maximum during the last ice age, the
lake Missoula level reached an elevation of about 4,350 feet.
These events alone likely influenced the distribution of sculpin,
and probably other fish as well.

Fire also may have had an influence on sculpin distribution.
Perhaps the recent fire through a portion of Pleasant
Valley/Fisher River may offer clues to habitat utilization by
sculpin. Some of the lakes in the Eureka area turned alkaline
supposedly as a result of fire. This may also be the case with
the Sunday Creek drainage, which is void of sculpin. Historical
fire information and some water chemistry may aid in explaining
species distributional phenomena.

26

Riparian

Riparian vegetation is of paramount importance in stabilizing
stream banks. These plants provide habitat for wildlife, and
protect floodplains by impeding flows, slowing water velocity,
filtering sediment, and transmitting enormous quantities of water
into the air through transpiration. Riparian vegetation assures
good water quality by raising the ground water level which, in
turn, allows for sustained and regulated flow as well as the
recharging of the aquifer. Most riparian zones include sedges,
grasses and forbs, shrubs and trees. These flora species provide
critical thermal protection: shade in the summer to cool the
water, and a thermal blanket in winter to maintain free-flowing
streams. From this vegetative zone come the nutrients and
organic matter that fuel the overall functioning of the aquatic
ecosystem. For these reasons and more it is critical that as
much vegetation as possible b e left along river banks and
adjacent areas (riparian influence zone) . In general the
riparian areas observed in this study are in need of restoration.
Once a healthy riparian area is again established, perhaps
sculpin will inhabit these ecologically preferred areas.

27

Future Considerations

Future investigations should include, but not be limited to:

- examination of the habitat conditions marking the transition

from slimy habitat to torrent habitat on tributary streams
where the two species appear to exist in allopatry
longitudinally;

- examination of current velocities at a more sensitive scale to

distinguish species- specific preferences;

- sampling of invertebrate densities quantitatively and

examination of sculpin stomach contents;

- examination of the algal community at specific sites;

- research on the use of AC verses DC power to see which (if

either) is more effective on sculpin;

- establishment of contours of past glaciation and glacial lakes;

- establishment of geological faults and plotting of these by

contours (elevations) ;

- analysis of the chemistry of selected waters;

- mapping fire boundaries together with placing fires in

chronological order;

- delineation and mapping of Riparian serai conditions;

- examination of lakes and small reservoirs (and other waters) by

snorkel and/or scuba census methodologies (similar to, or
Hanken and Reeves) .

An examination of the preceding information, in contrast to known
sculpin distribution, may result in a more refined understanding
of sculpin distribution and habitat preferences.

28

Literature Cited

Alt, D. D. and D. W. Hyndman. 1986. Roadside geology of

Montana. Mountain Press Publishing Co., Missoula, MT. 427
pp.

Brown, C. J. D. 1971. Fishes of Montana. Big Sky Books,
Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 207 pp.

Gangemi, J. T. 1992. Sculpin (Cottus) distribution in the

Kootenai National Forest and western portions of the Lolo
National Forest, Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program,
Helena, MT. 54 pp.

Center, D. L. 1992. Animal species of special concern in

Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena. 9 pp.

Hankin, D. G. 1986. Sampling designs for estimating the total
number of fish in small streams. Research Paper PNW-3 60.
Portland OR: USD of Agriculture, Forest Service; Pac. NW
Research Station. 3 3 pp.

Holton, G. D. 199 0. A field guide to Montana fishes. Montana
Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena. 104 pp.

Kootenai National Forest. 1991. Riparian area guidelines:

timber harvest guidelines within streamside management zones
(SMZ's). Kootenai National Forest Plan; Appendix 26. 26
pp.

Logan, B. and B. Clinch. 1991. Forestry BMP's: Forest

stewardship guidelines for water quality. MT. Ext. pub.;
MSU, Bozeman, MT. Pub. No. EB0096 (July '91). 34 pp.

Scott, W. B. and E. J. Grossman. 1973. Fresh water fishes of
Canada. Fish. Res. Board of Canada Bull. 184. 966 pp.

Wydowski, R. s. and R. R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of
Washington. University of Wash. Seattle, WA. 220 pp.

29

Appendices

30

Appendix A : Location of specimen collections on the Kootenai National Forest in northwest Montana.
Samples obtained using a Smithroot model 12 electroshocker. The samping period was from July through
September 1992.

Sample #

Date

Creek

Map Location 1/4 sec

# specimens

species

1

07/28

P. V. Fisher

T27NR28Wscl3nw

10

Torrent

2

07/29

N. Fk Bull

T28NR33Wscl4ne

10

?

3

07/30

Cedar

T31NR32Wsc24se

01

Torrent

4

07/30

Pipe

T32NR31Wsc35se

01

Slimy

5

08/01

BullR

T2SNR33Wscl4ne

10

Slimy

6

08/01

Mid Fk Bull

T28NR32Wscl4ne

10

Slimy

7

08/01

Mid Fk Bull

T2SNR33Wscl2sw

10

Slimy

8

08/01

NFkBuU

T28NR33Wscllse

10

Slimy

9

08/01

NFkBull

T28NR33Wscl2nw

11

Slimy

10

08/02

Parmenter

T30NR31Wsc08nw

05

Slimy

11

08/02

Flower

T30NR31Wsc09se

11

Torrent

12

08/02

Flower

T30NR31Wscl9se

10

Slimy

13

08/02

Parmenter

T30NR32Wscl2nw

10

Slimy

14

08/03

Snow

T29NR31Wsc03ne

10

Torrent

15

08/03

Deep

T29NR31Wsc21nw

10

Slimy

16

08/03

Deep

T29NR31Wsc22ne

10

Slimy

17

08/03

Snow

T29NR31Wsc07ne

06

Torrrent

18

08/04

Big Cherry

T28NR3IWsc09ne

10

Slimy

19

08/04

Pipe

T32NR31Wsc23nw

10

Slimy

20

08/04

Pipe

T33NR31Wsc34se

06

Slimy

21

08/05

Wolf

T30NR28Wsc22nw

09

Torrent

22

08/05

Wolf

T29N R28W sc 22 nw

08

Torrent

23

08/06

Elk

T26NR28Wsc04ne

10

Torrent

24

08/06

Elk/McGinnis

; T26NR29Wsc01ne

05

Toirent

25

08/06

Miller

T27N R30W sc 23 se

12

Slimy

26

08/06

Miller

T27NR30Wsc30ne

10

Torrent

27

08/07

P. V. Fisher

T28NR27Wsc30ne

09

Torrent

28

08/07

P. V. Fisher

T27NR28Wsc27nw

10

Torrent

29

08/07

P. V. Fisher

T26NR29Wsc09ne

08

Torrent

30

08/13

Big

T35NR29Wsc31ne

06

Torrent

31

08/13

Big

T34N R29W sc 03 nw

06

Torrent

32

08/12

Barron

T32NR29Wsc27nw

09

Torrent

33

08/17

Ten Mile

T33NR28Wsc27nw

04

Torrent

34

08/17

Five Mile

T32NR28Wscl7nw

05

Torrent

35

08/28

Therrault

T35NR26Wsc03nw

01

Torrent

36

09/03

Graves

T35NR26Wscl5se

05

Torrent

31

>

ci-H-n-Ha3030or)r)"OT)"D3:

mCC(/lt/)-nOOT>

-J

3-

_.

o

Q)

_,.

_.

-1

0)

,

.

,

_.

,—

^ O O 3

3

,—

n>

fD

.

D

(K

<

D

-»

(O

to

3

^—

TT

K- ^ '- O

O

o

at

Q)

<

-)

n

-1

T3

^

<

<

<

\

-K -K C

c

c

a

a

<

m

-1

3

o

■0

O

n>

3:

n)

(H

0)

(A

c"

n

3

m

re
-)

D

"n
V)

zr

-n

IT

-1

-n

W

3*

-I

-J

o

CD

D
(0

-»

-)

T

i

a

a. —

ceo

DUO

o o
3 3

<-) o » ;d

O O 0) Q>

n

■>

n

■>

<-

o

f-

n

rr

o

rr

1

o

-1

r

r

o

o

-1

1

(>

n.

(>

1)

o

J

3

J

cu

3

3

r-

:o

TO

r-

3

0)

m

3

n

-)

->

o

fO

n>

=i

d

>
tr

c

3
D.

3

-< 01

o i

-< 3= -C -< -< -<

•0 2:-<-<-<-<-<-<-c

-< z z -<

W3o;o3a3ow;«?on

C -. _.. — c — — — 0)
OO*— -— O-— *— •— Q)

'—•—mo »— rti (0 ro q.

73 TO ?o » ;o

— — c c —

3 -^ 3 3 -H

*^ -K ^N. ^,. -h -^ -^

O '^— o o »— o o

'- n — — Q *- r-

a. Q. Q. Q. Q.

-o » :^ » 50 w »

o — — — — — c

O -^ -K -t» -+^ -h 3

^ -^ -+. ^ -K -h -^

*— .— O •— *— O

f[> n> • — n> n> *—

Q. a

3:i-f-(-Xr-3C3TC33C3:i-r-r-r-3:3:(-:ri-i-r-
OOOOOOOOQQOOOOOOOgo — ooo

a. X. Z. X. Q.£Q.Q.Q.a.Q.Q.X:£ X: X Q. CL X. <n X X X

Df CU QJC1)DJ0}QIQ>

3-

1

tu

rr

o

-I

*-r

o

Dl

»-»

n

^^

re

-1

1

<

v>

n

> 5>

a- cr
c c

8.2.

Q) Q> (u D D 3
3 3 3 3 3

re n) re re re re

cr cr

c c

3 3

a. Q.

Lnwj^wj^^-r^wwv/i*^j^wj^wuij**^*^x^^x^o^

OJWCh-NiPJUIUlWV/l— *

rj-*wwww-f^-^rvjuiojf\j

;i S

i: o

re —

-1 o

re CO

o n

o Q)

3 '-

n

*— w

c >-»

a T

re re

Q. 0)

3

•a

= are
2 •-' -^

o n

-1 o

3 3

o -. ° °

ooJ-»Porvjo-»

v/- .-^ -

U1 04 Ul

^ t^ V/1 ->

ooasnooonaaocnonooo

o o o o

o 03 n o o o

trtDC era) ctrccro) crcrojo)

*— f&Q.' — QQ.'— Q.*— fD^*' — fDdl

_ _ _ o o o o
^ cro:crc cTCTCTcy

m •— r- a a.

to o

c o

O* 3

(ft — .

tl> 3

3i

T3

C

■5"
5'

\.nooooou^o

o
< <

re re

-u

■n -o

■n

T7

-n n

•0

T3

■o

■a

■D

o

a> o

o

O

0) o

o

O

o

a

o

o

— o

o

O

— o

o

O

o

o

o

-)

-1 1

-1

n

-1 a

-)

-1

-1

T

-1

z -< z -< -<

-»-»-• (^ OJ Ul UJ

ro ru rj -"^ -»4 -nJ -^
UJ j^ w
j^ \ji -Ni

-<-<-<-<-<-<-<

L*JL^*>JUI-<40JL>JUI04UI-s|UIUlUir>J

3

i

n

-^

re

-1

w

O

o

re

c

-)

T

«-t

(0

(ft

r

r-

w

01

re

?

32

.

.

_.

_.

r

Cl

fl

-n

-n

TT-

TT

-n

"n

TT

TT

x>

O]

ro

r

f

O)

03

c

c

•o

re

s.

M

OD)cjcrDa*i33D3G)crooo"

f-i-iCOcnooo-jc33c
nin)DODOooore333D
o CL3a3333 aooa

3 0)0) D 3 D Q)

>

4-

^

rr

-n

3

n

01

3

■

n

a

ni

i

-<-<-<-<-<

c — — — c — — — — — — — — — —

D -h-h-oD -h-»,-t,-<>-»,-K-^-K-h-h
»^->,-s-».--»-».-»,->.-.,-^-^->.-*-»v-^

Ci-a— •-CI — — — ■— — ^.-^.— ^
^"Orere*— rererererererererere
Q. o D.

ft*

T3

-)
O

v>

o
o

«-t

ZJ

=r

3

w

D*

n

|-22233r-|-33:3Cr-33

as.

8.8.

ff (D iT> (T) Q

-1 -) -) -1 -J

D O) Ql Cl> Q]

<-r *-r (-► <-r i-f

fl> (D rt> fD Q

8. a a

O rt> (D

o o
a a

a —

D <

— -]

r* )-♦ r* /-» r-r «><

o

3

3

o

r

m

re

-I

Dl

re

3 3

rjfNjJ*-uJUJUiwf^j^*^.p*j^j^*^v/i

■<

Q)

o

-)

a

00

"J

3

rjnj^w**j^oa-tNj^0^o^*^rjj*w

A _^

ooonnnooonnnnon

lOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Q) crcro*crcrcro-cra'a'cro-crcr
< crcro-crcro'crcrcrcrcrcrcrcr
n) ,— ,— ^,— ^^^^^^^^^,—

w r\j o ru

o o o "^

un t>4 f\j r\> rj •

o \^ O O Ui o

•3

D

^

n

*-»

N

B

^^

O

a

O

W

.ti

D

CO

3-

Q

J

CL

(/]

in

O

a

•"

c

Q>

^

-I
Q>

3

o

o

c

d

■D

3'

V/I

Ul

Ul

Ul

'^

(T)

^

no

o

o

<

o

<
re

rv)

ro

Ul

rj

U3

-1

o

Ul

o

CD

3-

» » » 4 4- 4-

^^-^-^M-*-*-)*-

-< Z -< -<

-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<

-sj ^ w -^j ^

re

c

3

C

t—

«

n)

re

T

D.

33

-, 3P— . — . -1-)-] Q o

<-)j:s:<<<i/ic

o

c

■^

tn

-n

—4

00

c

03

03

03

m

03 03

03 O

O

TJ

t

-c

m

■s

:r

OJ o

C O 03

r

n)

-)

-)

CU

o —

o

n

o

n

c o

o

»-»

<

D

IQ

-I

-)

C «3

lO D

?\

7\

TC

o

o

o t

-— •< ua

-1

u>

V)

c

rD

■n

W

W

-)

-)

<

TT

-»*

-Tl

1

V)

(/I

<)

?c-

rr

i-r

Q.

-)

-1

5

-1

3

2

O

O

D

D

0)

-1

-1

D-

(T

m

o

^

n>

X.

£

T

3*.

o

X)

O
■D

w

w

03

C

£

i"

*< *- -♦»-♦»

T3
13

:a;D»:cpo:c»:»3:^X)a3TO?o»^^^?5o;D-u30?o;D'U"o;D;o;o337003o*^;o3Dn;n;c;o

^, c tu -. o — — Ul — . — — .

'—'—'— OOOJ'— •" *— •'-^ TO 73 TO

a)n)Q'— "— Q.Q rt033ccc
Q. a a> — 3 D D

o o — —

j: x: iQ (o -1

> > o

??!

3 3 3

a a o
a> at D

3 3

3:»r)n3:3:2i—

o o o o

c

_.

—.

r

r

r

_.

o

—.

— .

r

3

J

)

1

(5

-♦*

-h

1

^

^

^N

^

^^

^

■V

a

:*3

o

o

CI

::d

(n

r

(T>

r

m

(T>

Q.

3

a

o.

Q.

D

Q.

3

1—

3

s

3

^

-E

t—

^

rc

r—

H

o

O

o

o

n

o

o

o

o

c

O

a

a

a

ex

I

a.

m

r

n

n)

o

a

rt>

rt>

<T>

3-

r-3:3:i— r-i—i— I— (— r— 3:r— r— r-r-23:

-O— OOOOOOOOOOOOQO

Dj Q) Qj Oi CU
<-t *-r «-r »-r *-f

n> n> ID fD (D

> >

f 8"

> >

S.S.

> o > > > > >

g- 9 g- a- g- g- g-

o n po ?o

CyDj{ij(l)Q)QjQj2£U0)(yQ(Q)

c >

Ti n zo n TO

O 0) O Of

3 3 3 D 3 D 3

3 3 3 3 3

*^«-n^OJJ^*^J^J>*^

X^ J^ 4N ^ W

j^j*>*^*^*^rjx^^r\jpowwwJ^

\J\ £- \J\ O^ O^

O^x^j^OJ^cn^Ln

c^ulx^o^(>alc^uJW-c^CDC^*-nw^J^^./JW4s**•wcoOJr^JrJW-«JW^w

^ — » w o m w

_, _, - o

Ul Ul Ul Ul

W ^ O^ 1.

' o o o o o
, . ui . . .

V/1 f\) l\) V/1

o o p -• o -» -»
\^ -* [j: ui -* v/i ro

r)rjor)ocjnr>03or)-or)03na3nor)03nr)r)otnooO'N>

----------- 00000-100000-) — -j-j-j

crc a"c CTtu o"c crcrcrQ> *— tu m eu
cr — cr'-CT< cr'-cro-CT< «< < <

— Q.'-Q.'— O"— Q.^'— ^O fDOni

o

o

-1

o

-1

1

o

n

o

-)

o

rr

rr

a

n-

a

Ql

rr

o-

c

<

rr

C7

rr

<

rr

<

<

o-

■^

"^

rr

re

n>

re

(7)

n

o

n>

re

*—

n

»—

*—

re

-1

re

o

re

wnntonoconno

3000)00000-1

Q.cra"3 crcrc o-crw

")re-i rererere- — '-
< < no.

v/)t-nuJr\JO<-»JOOX^

j^ Ov o *^ -»
o o o ui ui

cr o

— -i
-> o

Q. —

re 3

3 <

w re

r^ r^ 3

a >

re —

3 <0

(/> Q)

,_

Q

•<

3

R

o

o

Q>

a

(D

-1

->
o

0)

3

re

-I
re

-I

at
o

-I

a

o

-)

n

3
f-t

-1
a

3

3
O

I

a

rt

n

w

«-t

^^

O

O

O

-I

R

-♦»

(A

■n

O

^-'

3*

«

o

V)

w

O

Ot

—

r

o

CT

q

-*\

«

rt

n

3

0)

0)

J

to

3

t-t

N

o

a

-*

Q)

*-*

m

3

Q.

3

<

?

CL
QJ

(n

re

o

-1

r

O

•n

^«

1

to

3

3

-n -T3
CD O
— O

00000000)000)00000
— OO— OgOOOQQ— QO— OOOOQ
-1 Q.T -J Q.Q.Q.Q.Q-Q.Q.-I Q.Q.-J Q.-) T Q.CL

-n -11*0

-< -< Z -<

-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<

-<-<-<a:-<-c-<-e-<-<-«-<

re

3
rr

c

tvj

w w rj r\j

fNJ

w r\j

rvj -. w w w

C
w
re

r—

Q)

s.

-vl -^( w w

04 rj ^ -Nl o>

W -si

•N

W

34

o o

o

(r> t/1 CO

o o

-1

T =r 3r

o o

— fp (H

a a

— K

-» "O T3

-*•

-t. T) TJ

-n CO LO

I- y-^ ^ -. _._._. ^ Q f^ f^ —._..—,_. ^ ^

^^^^8.8.

*— "— toiouD o r> o-o-a"D"0 7^ TT ?r ?T -I

at at a> < < <
-} ~i oi at oj a>
Q. a a D 3 D

n> (DO *— ^— < —

3- =r 3- 3-

tO 00 CO

c c c

3 3 D

a a a

-1 Oi (U o>

0) Q) QttUO) cu^*^^
3333CC

0)

a

?0 » » » » "O PO

-K^^-*»-^-K^-n Q.

,—

d

,—

, —

,—

.

n>

a

n

fi>

(t

01

r—

(—

1

-I

T

t

n

o

o

o

o

o

n

I

a:

a

a

a

n

3

n)

a>

a

ro

rj

Q> 0) 01 tu :3

n> n) ^ Q

>>>>>>>

cr cr cr cr cr cr cT

c c c c c c c

2 D D 13 3 3 g

5. a a Q. a a 5.

Ll 01 01 01 Q> 01 Q>

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

O W -♦% (/»

■D 7Q
O — _
-- -* 3

O -^-»»-*\-»»-*.-».-*\3

73 ^3 ys yo TO TO n

O -h^.^— -♦.-♦^-♦t-t^-^-t,-^

B« — O

re —

» Q.

<X Q.

3 2 3 3 1-3

o o o o

a a a a a a a

o (^ CD (^ Q rti ru

Ql Ol Ol Ql Ql Ql 01
rr /-r r» »-t #-r r-r .-t
O <Q fO O fD O Q

>

cr

c

3

a

>

2.

o o o o
c t c a:

3- 3

Q(

(T o

— -1

" O

a —

m 3

3 <

(A O

— -1

a >

3 <Q

(A 01

— (h

1- IT

in ^

:l2.

a _

vjiui^fv^^X^ ■t~-f--t^-t^-t~-t^WWWWWWl/Jfv^t«^,^l^l^^^

t-wwwj~MW cococaoo^AlOJ^/J^J*^w*-UlcnulOJw^^\JLrJ-^|-^J

c^ vyi w -p- v/i 04 j^

03 r-i o

o o o

c cr o-

cr cr

— cl — a. ^ ^
fn fo TO o o n>

-* _. o

o o

— • rj nj w rj — •

— » i^ ^/i

03 CD CD o D D O

O

c cr
'- cr <
Q. <— (h

cr

cr <
— ni

omoiTO*— TO^-^TO'— Q(DrDo

ooDooconciCTcDncnonn

~10-10000~)~)-)-)TOOO

oitToicrcrccrQioioioioicrcrcr
<a-<o-cr---o-<<<<<ora-cr
f^^ni '^'^"CL'^ni Q rti n n >— ,— . —
— < — *— *— Q o Q

o
-I
a

»

-)

rt>

n>

-)

3

-1

3

K

^

T

q

-I

o

a

Q)

r

-J

a»

w

^.^

O

o

o

'^

O

o

W

n

o

c
a

ID

-»<

w

o

n

r

cr

3

•n

=!

w

-)

<-»

13

— .

' "

Ln \^ j^ x^ .fs. f^
-Nl O Oi -sj -Nj Co

-k rj OJ -k nj -k ^
*-n o o o o o o

■n"U-n'^-n-u*0 Ti-n

CU O CU O a> O O
-■ O — O -• O O

J^

v^

\J\

J^

t-n

\J\

Ul

J^

f^

^

— ■

O

CX)

J^

UnI

o

CD

t-n

Ouiuiov/iwio*-n

v/iuioouiviouiiyioo

— — o -

^-n-o-o-OTic>-DT)-n-nT3-OTi-n-n-o-Tt-n-n
OOIOOOOIOOOOIQIOOOIQJOIOQIOIQI

O — — — O — — —

-• O O O — Q O O — —

^ _, 01 "

-n

3

-+t

O

D

<-»

o

O

-)

<

<

r*

re

a

0)

3-

D

^!

3

(T)

-t

(O

V

o

•n

D

c

Q>

T

Q)

■u

Q>

-*^

3

-<-<-<-<

-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<

-<-<-<-<

-<-<-<-<-<•<

— » r\j ro rj — » — »

rj ru « L*J UJ ro po

• - w - - - •

L»i t^ - *^ r^ w w

. - ^ . . . .

*^ .r* * o^ -^ x^ j^

- - ^ - - -

Ul Ul ->J \J\ o^

■-J -nI

X- x^ <~ w w L-j w w 04 w r- *~ *« V V 04 OJ V- V Vn oj w
_!> yi _wi ui v^ >^ ->i v/i o (> -Ni -vl In 'iji o> o> In Vi

3-
IS
fil
Q.

Z
SI

o

3
III

35

Appendix C : Location of sculpin re-sample sites on the Kootenai National Forest in northwest Montana.
Samples obtained using a Smithroot model 12 electroshocker. The sampling period was from July through
September 1992. None found is N/F.

Sample # Date Creek

Map Location 1/4 sec # Specimens species

001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
029
030

07/28
08/07
08/07
08/07
08/07
08/08
08/08
08/11
08/11
08/17
08/17
08/18
08/18
09/01
09/01
09/01
08/25
08/25
08/25
08/26
08/26
09/03
08/27
08/27
08/27
08/31
08/31
08/31
08/31
10/04

P. V. Fisher

P. V. Fisher

P. V. Fisher

P. V. Fisher

P. V. Fisher

Cripple Horse

Cripple Horse

Bristow

Bristow

Five Mile

Five Mile

Sutton

Sutton

Sullivan

Sullivan

Sullivan

Graves

Graves

Graves

Graves

Graves

Graves

Sunday

Sunday

Sunday

Deep

Deep

Deep

Deep

Young

T27N
T28N
T28N
T27N
T26N
T31N
T31N
T32N
T32N
T32N
T32N
T35N
T35N
T36N
T36N
T36N
T37N
T36N
T35N
T36N
T36N
T35N
T33N
T33N
T33N
T35N
T35N
T35N
T35N
T37N

R28W
R25W
R27W
R28W
R29W
R29\V
R29W
R29W
R29W
R28W
R27W
R28W
R28W
R28W
R28W
R28W
R24W
R25W
R26W
R25W
R25W
R26W
R.?4W
R24W
R25W
R25W
R25W
R25W
R25W
R28VV

sc 13 nw
sc 23 se
sc 30 ne
sc 27 nw
sc 09 ne
sc 01 sw
sc 02 se
sc 10 sw
sc 1 5 ne
sc 1 7 nw
sc 14 sw
sc 29 se
sc 30 se
sc 24 ne
sc 20 nw
sc 20 ne
sc 32 nw
sc 12 nw
sc 1 4 sw
sc 33 sw
sc 1 4 nw
sc 15 se
sc 1 8 nw
sc 25 nw
sc 33 se
sc 14 se
sc 1 5 sw
sc 20 se
sc 30 se
sc24 nw

10
00
09
10
08
00
00
00
00
05
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
05
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00

Torrent

N/F

Torrent

Torrent

Torrent

N/F

N/F

N/F

N/F

Torrent

N/F

N/F

N/F

N/F

N/F

N/F

N/F

N/F

N/F

N/F

N/F

Torrent

N/F

N/F

N/F

N/F

N/F

N/F

N/F

N/F ■

36

Appendix D: Locations and dates for lakes sampling on the Kootenai National Forests in northwest
Montana. Minnow traps were set for 24 to 36 hours. No sculpin were captured. The sampling period was
from August through September 1992. Surface temperatures (ferinheit) were recorded. None found =
N/F.

Site#

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Date

08/24
08/24
08/24
08/24
08/24
08/25
08/25
08/26
08/26
08/26
08/26
09/15
09/15
09/15
09/16
09/16
09/16

Lake

Rock

Frank

Tetrault

Tetrault

Sophie

Dickey

Dickey

Glen

Glen

Murphy

Murphy

McGregor

McGregor

Mdl. Thmpsn

Mdl. Thmpsn

Upr. Thmpsn

Upr. Thmpsn

Map location (1/4 sec) # specimens species

64 T35N

65 T35N
67 T37N
67 T37N

66 T37N
65 T34N
65 T34N
59 T36N
59 T36N
59 T34N
59 T34N
63 T26N
63 T26N
61 T26N
61 T26N
61 T27N
61 T27N

R26W
R26W
R27W
R27W
R27W
R24W
R24W
R26W
R26W
R25W
R25W
R25W
R25W
R27W
R27W
R27W
R27W

sc06sw

sc07sw

sc28ne

sc28nw

sc21sw

sclSne

scl5sw

sc22nw

sc22nw

scOSnw

sc05sw

sc09se

sc05se

sc04n

sc04sw

sc30se

sc30svv

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F

37

MONTANA
STATE

This "cover" page added by the Internet Archive for formatting purposes