s 639.21 F2MRDW 2005 Madison River Drainage Fisheries and Madison River Drainage Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation and Restoration Program 2005 Annual Report to PPL Montana Environmental Division Butte WWW. pplmontana. com and Turner Enterprises, Inc. Bozeman by Pat Clancey Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks Ennis June 2006 U.S. DOCUMEN rs COLLFf TiON MONTANA STATE IBPARy 1515 East 6th Avenue SWTTBocwments collection state lisrary 1515 E. 5th AVE MONTANA , 59^20 WWW fwp . mt . gov Montana State Library 3 0864 003 7483 7 INTERNET WEB PAGES CITED IN TfflS REPORT (in alphabetical order) Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force www.anstaskforce.gov Blue Ribbon Flies www.blueribbonflies.com Lower Madison River Monitoring page. . . . WWW. madisondss.com/ppl-river. cfg/ppl-madi son. php Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks www.fwp.mt.gov New Zealand Mudsnail in the Western USA WWW, esg. montana. edu/aim/mollusca/nzms Northwest Marine Technologies wvm.nmt.us PPL Montana www.pplmontana.com Protect Your Waters www.protectyourwaters.net Whirling Disease Foundation www.whirling-disease.org MFWP personnel took all photos in this report unless otherwise credited. FERC Articles addressed in this report page number FERC Article item report topic Methods Results 403 - Madison Development (4) Madison Bypass 7 28 408 (2) Hebgen Tributary Spawning Sestrich& Lohrenzin prep Sestrich& Lohrenzin prep (3) Hebgen Tributary Spawning Sestrich& Lohrenzin prep Sestrich& Lohrenzin prep (5) Population Estimates 5 24 (7) Enhance tributary spawning Appendix F Appendix F (8) Westslope Cutthroat Trout C&R 15 A{^)endices H&I 34 Appendices H&I 409 (1) Aquatic Nuisance Species - Whirling Disease 12 30 (3) Habitat enhancement Appendices F,H&I; Sestrich& Lohrenzin pep Appendices F,H&L S^trich& Lohrenzin prep (6) Fish Entrainment 20 35 (9) Riparian Habitat Restoration Appendices Sestrich& Lohrenzin pep Appendices F,H&L Sesthch& Lohrenzin prep 412 (1) Population Estimates 5 24 (5) Madison Grayling 4 22 Westslope Cutthroat Trout C&R 15 34 (6) Madison Bypass 7 28 (7) Madison Bypass 7 28 (8) Madison Bypass 7 28 (10) Westslope Cutthroat Trout C&R 15 34 (11) Population Estimates 5 24 413 (1) Temperature Monitoring 9 30 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY No young-of-the-year Arctic grayling and 1 1 young-of-the-year mountain whitefish were captured during seining in Ennis Reservoir in 2005. Gillnetting was completed in Ennis Reservoir in 2005 with more rainbow trout sampled than in any year since gillnetting began in 1995. The population of six-inch and larger rainbow trout in the Pine Butte section of the upper river increased markedly in 2005, attaining its highest level since 2000. Brown trout numbers increased in all three long term monitoring sections sampled in 2005. Forty-two fish in the Bypass Reach were implanted with radio transmitters to monitor their movements seasonally and in response to flow changes. Three years of radio telemetry monitoring of Bypass fish are summarized. Sentinel young-of-the-year rainbow trout continue to develop severe whirling disease infection in the Madison River, but in a laboratory setting, progeny of 2004 Madison River rainbow trout exhibit lower severity of whirling disease infection than those of 1998 Madison River rainbow trout. Water temperature was monitored at 14 sites throughout the Madison River, and air temperature at 7 sites. Sun Ranch Pond westslope cutthroat trout were spawned in 2005, producing over 13,000 eggs fi'om seven viable females. The Sun Ranch Hatchery was used to incubate westslope cutthroat trout eggs from three streams and the Sun Pond brood in 2005. The Cherry Creek Native Fish Introduction Project continued in 2005 with the first round of scheduled treatments in Phase 2. Ten gillnets left in Cherry Lake from September 2004 to early July 2005 captured six Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Approximately fifteen concerned anglers conducted a fish salvage in the West Madison Canal after the headgate was closed for the season, returning over 2,000 game & non-game fish to the Madison River. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . • • • • * • 1 Methods Madison Grayling - - - - - 4 Gillnetting • • . . • . 4 Population Estimates - - - - - 5 Madison Bypass . • • . • . 7 Temperature Monitoring - - - - - - 9 Aquatic Nuisance Species Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation • • • 12 and Restoration - - - - - - 15 Fish Entrainment . • • • • 20 Results and Discussion Madison Grayling- - - - - - 22 Gillnetting • • . • • . 24 Population Estimates - - - - - 24 Madison Bypass . • • . • 28 Temperature Monitoring - - - - - - 30 Aquatic Nuisance Species Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation • • • • 30 and Restoration - - - - - - 34 Fish Entrainment . • • • • • 35 Conclusions and Future Plans - - - - - - 37 Literature Cited • • • 39 Appendix A: Ennis Reservoir beach seining sites Appendix B: Madison River population monitoring Appendix C: Statistics and movement information of fish implanted with radio transmitters Appendix D: Madison River temperature recordings Appendix E: Montana Aquatic Nuisance Species Plan summary Appendix F: O’Dell Creek stream channel restoration Appendix G: MacConnell-Baldwin whirling disease ratings Appendix H; South Fork Madison River Westslope Cutthroat Trout Habitat Restoration Project (Gallatin National Forest) Appendix I; Tepee and WigWam creeks Westslope Cutthroat Trout Habitat Restoration Monitoring (Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest) iii INTRODUCTION Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks (MFWP) has conducted fisheries studies in the Madison River Drainage since 1990 to assess the status of the Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus population of Ennis Reservoir, and to address effects of hydropower operations at Hebgen and Ennis dams on fisheries (Byorth and Shepard 1990, MFWP 1995, MFWP 1996, MFWP 1997, MFWP 1998a, MFWP 1999a, MFWP 2000, MFWP 2001, MFWP 2002, MFWP 2003, MFWP 2004a, MFWP 2005). This work has been funded through an agreement with the ovraer and operator of the dams, initially Montana Power Company (MPC), now PPL Montana. The original agreement between MFWP and MPC was designed to anticipate relicensing requirements for MPC's hydropower system on the Madison and Missouri rivers, which includes Hebgen and Ennis dams, as well as seven dams on the Missouri River (Figure 1). PPL Montana has maintained the direction set by MPC, and convened several committees to address fisheries, wildlife, water quality, and recreation issues related to the operation of the hydropower facilities on the Madison and Missouri rivers. These committees are composed of representatives of PPL Montana and several agencies. Each committee has an annual budget and authority to spend money that is provided to them by PPL Montana to address the requirements of PPL Montana’s FERC license for operating the Madison & Missouri dams. The Madison Fisheries Technical Advisory Committee (MadTAC) is composed of personnel of PPL Montana, MFWP, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BLM). Each entity has equal authority in decision making within the TAC. Collectively, the nine dams on the Madison and Missouri rivers are called the 2188 Project, which refers to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license number that authorizes their operation. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued PPL Montana a license to operate the 2188 Project for 40 years (Federal Energy Regulatory Conunission 2000). The license details the terms and conditions PPL Montana must meet during the license term, including fish, wildlife, and recreation protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures. During the late 1990’s, numerous entities developed the Memorandum of Understanding and Conservation Agreement for Westslope Cutthroat Trout in Montana (MUCAWCTM). The MUCAWCTM, which was formalized in 1999 (MFWP 1999b), identifies Conservation & Restoration Goals and Objectives for westslope cutthroat trout (WCT) Oncorhynchus clar/d lewisi in Montana. The Plan states “The management goal for westslope cutthroat trout in Montana is to ensure the long-term, self-sustaining persistence of the subspecies Avithin each of the five major river drainages they historically inhabited in Montana (Clark Fork, Kootenai, Flathead, upper Missouri, and Saskatchewan), and to maintain the genetic diversity and life history strategies represented by the remaining populations. 1. 2. 3. 4. Objectives are; Protect all genetically pure WCT populations Protect introgressed (less than 10% introgressed) populations Ensure the long-term persistence of WCT within their native range Providing technical information, administrative assistance, and financial resources to assure compliance with listed objectives and encourage conservation of WCT 1 Figure 1 . Locations of PPL Montana dams on the Madison and Missouri rivers. 2 5. Design and implement an effective monitoring program by the year 2002 to document persistence and demonstrate progress towards goal Objective 3 further states “The long-term persistence of westslope cutthroat trout within their native range will be ensured by maintaining at least ten population aggregates throughout the five major river drainages in which they occur, each occupying at least 50 miles of connected habitat. . Within the Missouri River Drainage, four geographic areas are identified, including the upper Missouri, which consists of the Big Hole, Gallatin, and Madison subdrainages. Entities participating in the development of the MUCAWCTM were American Wildlands, Montana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (MDNRC), Montana Farm Bureau, MFWP, Montana Stockgrowers Association, Montana Trout Unlimited, Montana Wildlife Federation, Natural Resource Conservation Service, BUM, USFS, USFWS, and private landowners. Late in 1996, MFWP initiated a program entitled “The Madison River Drainage Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation and Restoration Program”. The goal of this effort is to conserve and restore the native westslope cutthroat trout in the Madison River drainage Fieldwork for this effort began in 1997 in tributaries of the Madison River. The agreement between MFWP and PPL Montana includes provisions to address issues regarding species of special concern. In recognition of the severity of the situation faced by the westslope cutthroat trout, and in keeping with the philosophy of promoting native species on their properties. Turner Enterprises, Incorporated (TEI) offered access to the Cherry Creek drainage on the Flying D Ranch to assess its suitability for introducing westslope cutthroat. Cherry Creek, a tributary to the Madison River, was identified as an opportune location to introduce genetically pure WCT, and it will provide an opportunity to meet or fulfill MUCAWCTM objectives 3, 4, & 5. MFWP determined in 1997 that introducing westslope cutthroat to Cherry Creek is feasible, but would require the removal of all non-native trout presently in that portion of the drainage (Bramblett 1998, MFWP 1998b). MFWP, TEI, and the Gallatin National Forest (GNF) subsequently entered into an agreement to pursue this effort. The agreement outlines the roles and responsibilities of each party, including the GNF, which manages the public land at the upper end of the Cheny Creek drainage. Administrative and legal challenges of the Cherry Creek Project delayed its implementation fi-om 1999 - 2002. The project was successfully implemented in 2003. In 2001, the Sun Ranch entered into an agreement to assist MFWP with westslope cutthroat trout conservation and recovery. The ranch built a small hatchery facility and a rearing pond to facilitate development of a westslope cutthroat trout broodstock for the Madison and Missouri river drainages, and provided personnel to assist with fieldwork and conduct hatchery operations. MFWPs’ management objective for Hebgen Reservoir is the establishment of a self-sustaining rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss fishery. In 1979, MFWP abandoned stocking domesticated strains of rainbows and initiated stocking wild Eagle Lake and 3 DeSmet strains of rainbow trout (Hetrick 1993). The expectation was that the wild strains would augment existing spawning runs and wild production would exceed hatchery contribution to the Hebgen rainbow trout population (Hetrick 1993). Byorth (2004) stated; Rainbow trout origin was difficult to assess. We used dorsal fin erosion, presence of a “stocking-check" on scales, and tetracycline marks to indicate whether or not rainbow trout were of hatchery origin. Each method had biases and results ranged from 30% by dorsal fin erosion to 3% by tetracycline marks. Scale analysis was the most subjective, estimating that 47% of rainbow trout were of hatchery origin. As a consequence of this disparity, MFWP continues to stock 100,000 fingerling Eagle Lake rainbows annually to supplement the Hebgen rainbow fishery. Efforts to identify bottlenecks affecting rainbow trout recruitment in Hebgen continued in 2005, including capturing and tagging rainbow fiy emigrating fi’om the South Fork Madison River into Hebgen Reservoir to determine if predation on age 0 rainbow trout by Utah Chubs Gila atraria is occurring in the reservoir (Sestrich and Lohrenz in prep). Tributary surveys were completed by the Hebgen Lake Ranger District to assess stream condition, identify habitat needs, and conduct redd counts (Sestrich and Lohrenz in prep). Additionally, the Montana State University Master of Science degree investigating rainbow trout spawning was completed (Watschke 2006). METHODS Madison Grayling A beach seine (Figure 2) is used to monitor index sites in Ennis Reservoir (Figure 3) for young-of-the-year grayling and other fish species. A 125’x 5’x Vi” mesh seine with a 5’x 5’x 5’ bag is fed off a moving boat in water up to five feet deep, with a worker in the water at each end of the seine. The seine is pulled through shallow water near the shoreline for some distance, then onto the shoreline where captured fish are enumerated by species. If beds of macrophytes (aquatic plants) where juvenile fish are likely to rear are present and accessible, the seine is pulled through them. Surveys of spawning grayling were conducted in April between Valley Garden Fishing Access Site and Eimis Reservoir using mobile anode electrofishing. A review of Montana’s grayling populations by the USFWS for consideration of listing as a Threatened species prompted the effort. Gillnetting Gillnets were used to sample adult fish in Ennis Reservoir in late September. Experimental nets, composed of five 25-foot panels of progressively larger mesh 1”, 1 Vi”, 1 Va” 2”) were set at four locations and left to fish overnight (Figure 3). Floating nets were used at the shallow south end of the reservoir, and one floating and one sinking net were used at the deeper north end. Because the south end of the reservoir is so 4 Figure 2. Beach seining in Ennis Reservoir. shallow, floating nets are capable of sampling nearly the entire water column. At the deeper north end, a floating net and a sinking net were required to sample pelagic and benthic areas, respectively. Captured fish were removed from the nets, separated by species, measured, weighed, enumerated, and released Population Estimates Electrofishing from a driftboat mounted mobile anode system (Figure 4) is the principle method used to capture Madison River trout for population estimates in several sections of the Madison River (Figure 5). Fish captured for population estimates are weighed and measured, marked with a fin clip, and released. A log-likelihood statistical analysis (MFWP 2004b) is used to estimate trout populations. Over the past two years, estimates for all sections and all years have been converted from age-based estimates to length-based estimates due partially to the major time requirement necessary to age fish, and to maximize the statistical probability that the estimates are accurate. 5 Figure 3. Locations of Ennis Reservoir seining (numbers) and gillnetting (letters) sites. 6 I Figure 4 Electrofishing (shocking) in the Norris section of the Madison River. Madison Bypass In 2002 a remote radio telemetry monitoring system was installed in the Bypass Reach of the Madison River between Ennis Dam (Figure 6) and Madison Powerhouse to assess fish movement seasonally and in response to changes in river discharge in the Bypass. Radio telemetry receivers are located at two sites to allow monitoring at the upstream and downstream ends of the Bypass. Two antennae are wired into each receiver, with one antenna set to detect transmitters at the base of the dam, one antenna set to detect transmitters at the powerhouse 1.4 miles downstream fi-om the dam (MDNRC 1979), and two antennae set at points between the dam and powerhouse. Each of these antenna detect the transmitter signal only if the fish moves into a narrow section of the river the antenna is set to monitor, though there are some instances of a transmitter being detected on two antennae simultaneously, probably due to signal bounce off the bedrock walls of the canyon. Coded radio transmitters were implanted in 42 fish in the Bypass reach of the Madison River in 2005 (Table 1). All transmittered fish swam away vigorously after recovery from the implant procedure. A rule-of-thumb states that the transmitter should weigh no more than 2 percent of the fish’s weight, so this means that the smallest fish to receive a transmitter should weigh no less than 385 grams (0.85 lbs). To implant the transmitter, fish are anesthetized to facilitate handling during the implant procedure. After the fish is anesthetized, it is placed ventral side up on foam 7 estimate sections. 8 Figure 6. Ennis Dam on the Madison River. The gray metal pipeline (penstock) on the left transports water from Ennis Reservoir to the Madison Powerplant, approximately 1 .4 miles downstream from the dam. padding in a tray containing river water and it’s head is submersed. A small incision is made on the ventral side of the fish anterior to the pelvic girdle, and the skin posterior to the pelvic girdle is broken with the scalpel. A grooved director is inserted into the body cavity through the anterior incision and fed postaiorly past the pelvic girdle. It is used to capture the tip of a catheter needle that is inserted behind the pelvic girdle and directed anteriorly (Figure 7). This method prevents the sharp tip of the catheter needle from injuring the internal organs of the fish. The transmitter antenna is inserted into the catheter tip and fed posteriorly until the transmitter is inserted into the body cavity (Figure 8). The grooved director and catheter needle are removed from the fish and the incision is closed with surgical staples or sutures (Figure 9). The actual implant procedure, from placement of the fish into the surgical tray to release into the recovery cage, lasts 1- 2 minutes. Fish are held in a live cage until fully recovered. Prior to being released, the incision is examined to insure the closure is secure. Four flights were conducted in 2005 to relocate fish departing the Bypass - January 3, May 24, June 16, and October 14. Temperature Monitoring Water temperature was recorded at 14 sites and air temperature at seven sites throughout the course of the Madison River from above Hebgen Reservoir to the mouth of the Madison River at Headwaters State Park (Figure 10). Optic Stow Away temperature loggers recorded temperature in Fahrenheit every 30 minutes. Air temperature recorders were placed in areas that were shaded 24 hours per day. Intensive monitoring is conducted to corroborate previous modeling, to continue building the data 9 Table 1. Statistics of fish implanted with coded radio transmitters in the Bypass Reach of the Madison River, 2005. Rb = rainbow trout; LL = brown trout; MWF = mountain whitefish. Transmitter weight as a percent Species Implant date Length (inches) Weight (lbs) of fish weight Rb 2/4/05 18.9 2.53 0.67 3/4/05 14.0 0.89 1.91 15.0 1.00 1.70 3/17.05 14.5 1.22 1.39 15.7 1.49 1.14 14.8 1.18 1.27 16.5 1.60 1.06 15.7 1.34 1.27 16.9 1.69 1.00 17.0 1.85 0.92 14.8 1.24 1.37 14.0 1.02 1.66 13.9 1.08 1.57 14.8 1.15 1.47 15.1 1.38 1.23 16.5 1.71 0.99 17.7 1.99 0.85 16.2 1.69 1.00 14.8 1.29 1.31 18.7 2.30 0.73 16.1 1.49 1.14 14.5 1.13 1.50 15.6 1.38 1.23 16.1 1.34 1.27 LL 3/17/05 18.0 2.35 0.72 17.6 1.96 0.87 16.9 1.38 1.23 15.3 1.19 1.43 16.6 1.75 0.97 16.2 1.28 1.33 17.2 1.61 1.05 17.0 1.53 1.11 18.1 1.63 1.04 15.1 1.18 1.44 16.6 1.40 1.21 16.5 1.30 1.30 17.8 1.56 1.09 16.4 1.40 1.21 14.5 14.5 1.62 10 Table 1 continued MWF 3/17/05 17.0 1.66 1.02 17.2 1.59 1.07 16.0 1.32 1.28 Figure 7. Catheter needle and grooved director being set in place to implant a radio transmitter in a rainbow trout in the Bypass Reach of the Madison River. Figure 8. Radio transmitter being placed in a rainbow trout. Note the transmitter antenna exiting the body cavity and trailing behind the pelvic fins. 11 / Figure 9. Stapled incision on a rainbow trout after implantation of a radio transmitter in the Bypass Reach of the Madison River. set for the model, and to monitor the effectiveness of measures designed to reduce high temperature impacts to aquatic life. PPL Montana has implemented a ‘pulse flow’ system in the Madison River below Ennis Reservoir to address high water temperature that could potentially cause fish kills. Real-time or near real-time meteorological and temperature monitoring is conducted at numerous sites. Data from these sites is used to predict water temperature the following day, which determines the volume of discharge that will occur. The increase in water volume in the lowo" river reduces the peak water temperature that would occur at the 1 100 cfs base flow. Wato" is released from Ennis Reservoir in the early morning so that it is in the lower river during the warmest part of the day. Up to an additional 1300 cfs may be passed over the dam so that the lower river flows increase from 1 100 cfs to 2400 cfs during the heat of the day, reducing the peak temperature. Discharge from Hebgen Dam typically does not fluctuate on a daily basis during pulse flows, but is occasionally adjusted to increase or decrease the volume of water going into Ennis Reservoir, where daily fluctuations in the lower river are controlled. The meteorological and temperature data monitored in the lower river may be viewed in real-time or near-real time at http://www.madisondss.com/ppl-river.cfg/ppl- madison.php. Aquatic Nuisance Species Highway signs announce FWP’s West Yellowstone Traveler Information System (TIS) (Figure 1 1). The TIS notifies anglers and water recreationists of the presence of New 12 Figure 10. Locations of Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks 2005 temperature monitoring sites. Air temperature sites are blue, water temperature sites are in red. 13 ANGLERS * BOATERS TUNE RADIO TO 1600 AM STOP AQUATIC HITCHHIKERS Figure 1 1 . Roadside sign announcing the Traveler Information System at West Yellowstone. Zealand mudsnails in the Madison River and Hebgen Reservoir, and instructs them on methods of reducing the likelihood of transporting New Zealand mudsnails and other ANS to other waters. Additional messages broadcast by the system include messages on whirling disease, zebra mussels, weed control, and TIPMont, the FWP hotline to report hunting & fishing violations. The system broadcasts at the AM frequency of 1600 KHz. Funding for the purchase installation, and signage of the system was provided by a $9,800 grant from the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission as part of an effort to prevent the westward spread of zebra mussels. The State of Montana hired an Aquatic Nuisance Species Coordinator in 2004. The position is responsible for developing and coordinating ANS control & management activities among state agencies as well as between state and non-state entities. The ANS Coordinator is responsible for developing and coordinating Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Training to State employees and other groups. The HACCP Program is a method to proactively plan and implement measures to prevent the inadvertent spread of ANS during work activities. The ANS Coordinator is an employee of FWP. New Zealand Mudsnails New Zealand Mudsnails have spread throughout the Madison River since first detected in 1994. PPL Montana and FWP each maintain monitoring sites at various locations within the Madison Drainage. Whirling Disease Whirling disease monitoring in the Madison River is conducted by using sentinel cage techniques. Each cage holds 50 young-of-the-year rainbow trout for 10 days. At the end of the 10 day period, fish are transferred to whirling disease free water in a laboratory where they are held until they are 90 days old, at which time they are euthanized and sent to the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Lab (WADDL) for analyses. 14 In 2004, spawning Madison River rainbow trout were captured in the Slide area below Quake Lake. Gametes were collected from fish ranging from 3 to 10 years old, and the resulting fiy used in laboratory studies to compare the effect of whirling disease on progeny of young, intermediate, and old spawners. In the lab, fiy from each parental age group were exposed to concentrations of 1000, 2000, and 4000 TAMS. Additionally, progeny of three year old x four year old fish were compared to progeny of 1998 spawners for resistance to whirling disease. Dave Kumlien, Executive Director of the Whirling Disease Foundation, presents two articles regarding whirling disease on the Blue Ribbon Flies webpage. These articles summarize some of the advances that have been made by whirling disease researchers and additional information that is needed. To view these and other articles, go to www.blueribbonflies.com. click on Journal, then on Articles and Essays. Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation and Restoration Efforts to conserve and restore genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout in the Madison Drainage center on maintaining genetically pure populations, high quality stream habitat, adequate instream flow, and, where necessary, removal of competing or hybridizing non-native trout. Stream habitat surveys were conducted throughout much of the Madison Drainage from 1997 - 1999 (MFWP 1998a, Sloat et al. 2000). Backpack electrofishing was used to survey fish species. Removal of non-native species will require use of the EPA registered fish-pesticides (piscicides) rotenone or antimycin. Two habitat projects to benefit westslope cutthroat were conducted by the U.S. Forest Service. Sun Ranch Westslope Cutthroat Trout Brood Gametes for the Sun Ranch Westslope Cutthroat Trout program were collected from two streams and from the Sun Ranch Pond in 2005. All fertilized eggs were transported to the Sun Ranch Hatchery for incubation and hatching (Figure 12), and resulting fiy were transferred to the Sun Ranch Reanng Pond (Figure 13). These fish will be used to produce fertilized eggs that will be placed in streamside incubators to seed new populations of westslope cutthroat trout or to propagate the brood population of the Sun Ranch Pond. Occasionally, when project personnel are unavailable to do so, USFWS personnel from the Emus National Fish Hatchery caretake the eggs or fiy at the Sun Ranch Hatchery. Generally, this requires few days each year, but is an important contribution to the program. Cherry Creek Native Fish Introduction Project The Cherry Creek Native Fish Introduction Project was initiated in 2003. The project area is comprised of over 60 miles of stream habitat and the 7-acre, 105 acre-foot Cherry Lake, and includes all of the Cherry Creek Drainage upstream of a 25-foot 15 Figure 13 Sun Ranch westslope cutthroat trout rearing pond. 16 waterfall approximately 8 miles upstream of the Madison River confluence. Species present in the project area are brook trout, rainbow trout, and Yellowstone cutthroat trout (YCT) (Figure 14). The large size of the project area requires that the project be completed in phases. Each phase will be treated for at least two consecutive years. The areas treated in 2003 & 2004, called Phase 1, were Cherry Lake and its outlet stream and tributaries downstream to a natural barrier that prevents brook trout from moving upstream into the area occupied solely by YCT, and main Cherry Creek above a natural barrier that prevents brook trout from moving upstream into the area occupied solely by rainbow trout. Both treatment areas are primarily on the GNF (Figure 14). The first treatment of Phase 2 was initiated in 2005. This includes mainstem Cherry Creek and its tributaries from the end of Phase 1 to a point about 4.2 miles downstream where an in- stream concrete irrigation weir was modified into a barrier to prevent re-invasion of Phase 2 by fish from downstream. Approximately eight stream miles were treated in Phase 2. Preparatory fieldwork consisted of determining stream flow time, placing application station markers, posting sentinel fish, setting up the detoxification station, and some electrofishing to assess thoroughness of 2003/04 treatments. Phase 2 water chemistry parameters were similar to those of Phase 1, so pre-treatment bioassays were not conducted in 2005. Bioassay results from 2003 are available (MFWP 2004a). Fintrol was applied to streams in 2005 at 10 ppb, the same concentration used in Phase 1 in 2003 and 2004. Treatments were initiated on August 1. Stream discharge for stream treatments was measured following standard USGS protocols, and a staff gauge was temporarily put in place to determine if discharge changed appreciably during or prior to treating a given section of stream. Discharge was measured in a stream section the evening prior to treatment of that section, which allowed calculation and preparation of the piscicide that night or the next morning. An inflatable raft and outboard motor were used to distribute Fintrol throughout Cherry Lake (Figure 15). Two people occupied the raft, one steering the raft, the other periodically filling a 14-gallon container with a mixture of Fintrol and lake water. A battery powered pump was used to apply the Fintrol mixture to various depths of the lake through a nozzle system composed of an array of plastic tubing designed to disperse the Fintrol over a broad area (Figure 16). The array is composed of four small diameter tubes dangling from a horizontal tube that is connected to a hose leading to the 14-gallon container. The horizontal tube is secured to a metal pipe and each of the four dangling tubes are secured to chains to weight them down and keep them as vertical in the water as they are towed behind the raft. Four small holes were drilled in each of the four vertical tubes to disperse the Fintrol. The entire nozzle system is about 6’x 6’. It dispersed the Fintrol/water mixture from the tank at a rate of approximately 1 .3 gallons/minute. Two formulations of rotenone were also used in specific areas of the lake in 2005. One gallon of liquid rotenone was applied from a backpack sprayer to inundated grassy margins of the lake, and approximately Vi pound of powdered rotenone was mixed with a similar quantity of sand and a few ounces of gelatin and applied to a small lake-bottom 17 Cherry Creek Tributary to Madison River, Montana Fish Distribution Legend Brook Trout - x-i? Rainbow Trout , • , . Brown Trout Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Fishless (FY)le Creek not part of study) ♦ Barrier: W=Waterfall, B=Beaver Dam Jcftrcy Hutum Montana Fish, Wihflife & Parks InformaiicMi Services Unit ^90 N. Meridian Rd. Kaltspeii. MT 59901 406-75M57I Fish distrdMUoo and bairtefs data obtained by Ctoba] Posiiiofiing Sy^m (CP^ and difTerentialiy carected. Hydrography from StieamNet and digitized at 1:100.000. Pnbtic liBidowncrahip data from the Natural Rcsduicc Infonnadon System (NRIS) at the Momana State Library. /fwp/spot/jcfl^anhydro/dicny.ciDp Febcuaiy 20. 1998 Vlaii. intUII/mCBlVtmta Figure 14. Cherry Creek Drainage. Landownership patterns have changed since this map was produced. 18 Figure 15. Inflatable raft set-up used to apply Fintrol to Cherry Lake Figure 16. Nozzle system used to disperse Fintrol into Cherry Lake in 2005 19 spring in a shallow area in the southwest comer of the lake. The lake was then monitored both visually and with gillnets. The lake was treated to a Fintrol concentration of 8 ppb on August 1, with no subsequent applications in 2005. Permission to use the gas motor in the Wilderness Area was received from the USFS during the EA process in 1998. Simultaneous with the lake treatment, drip stations and backpack sprayers were used to treat the inlet streams, the lake perimeter areas too shallow for the raft to access, and a section of the outlet stream. Stream treatments were made using trickle application systems (Figure 17). The system consists of a 314 gallon plastic bucket & lid, garden hose, a gate valve, and a commercially available automatic dog watering bowl. A plastic elbow is fixed to a hole drilled in the bottom of the bucket, a short section of garden hose and the gate valve is clamped to the elbow (Figure 18), and a longer section of garden hose attached the assembly to the dog waterer. The bucket is partially filled with filtered stream water, the Fintrol is added, then the bucket is topped off with filtered stream water and stirred with a wooden dowel. At a predetermined time, the gate valve is opened, allowing the mixture to flow into the bowl, where it then trickles into the stream through a small hole drilled in the bottom of the bowl (Figure 19). Typically, one bucket empties in 3 to 314 hours. Applications are designed using a 7-hour application period, so the bucket must be refilled and the process repeated once at each application point each day. Stations were placed at selected points along the stream and started at predetermined times to coordinate application of the mixture with the other stations along the stream. Backpack sprayers were used each day to treat off-channel water and larger pools. The 5 gallon sprayers were filled with water and Fintrol mixture in the same manner as the stationary trickle systems, with 10 ml Fintrol per 5 gallons (18,927 ml) water, so the Fintrol concentration in the spray tank was 528,346 ppb, necessitating only small amounts of spray from the backpack sprayer to treat standing water areas. On August 3, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on an appeal of the Montana Federal District Court’s March 2004 ruling that the Cherry Creek Project does not violate the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), and that the CWA and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) are not in conflict. FIFRA is the legislation that authorizes and regulates use of pesticides. Fish Entrainment Efforts have been initiated to evaluate fish entrainment into irrigation ditches along the Madison River. Ditches are observed from public roads or where they traverse across public land, or with pamission of the water right holders. Surveys are conducted in the fall to determine if significant numbers of fish enter into ditches and become stranded after the headgate is closed, and thus lost to the river population. Surveys are conducted annually for at least several years, and will also be conducted as drought diminishes and normal and high water years occur. 20 Figure 17, Trickle system and sentinel fish bag on Cherry Lake Creek. The sentinel fish bag is upstream of the Fintrol application point to monitor the effectiveness of the station above the one shown here. Pit Ctineiy photo Figure 18 Elbow & gate valve assembly. 21 Figure 19. Close-up view of the dog waterer trickling Fintrol mixture into the stream during the Cherry Creek Project. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Madison Grayling Beach seining in Ennis Reservoir for young-of-the-year Arctic grayling was conducted in late September. No young-of-the-year grayling were captured at the seven sites seined, but 1 1 young-of-the-year mountain whitefish were captured mostly in Meadow Creek Bay. Site descriptions, catch, and additional information are in Appendix A. In post- spawning surveys, Jeanes (1996) found young-of-the-year Arctic grayling and mountain whitefish are sympatric in both the river and reservoir. Arctic grayling require loose, recently scoured gravels and cobbles to broadcast their eggs over during spawning each spring (Byorth and Shepard 1990). It is possible that winter and spring ice scour on stream banks makes such gravels available. The duration and severity of the Madison River ice gorge (Figure 20) may affect the spawning success of the Ennis Reservoir grayling. The Madison River has not significantly gorged for several years. Formal records of the ice gorge are not kept, so correlating past icing conditions to corresponding year-class strength of Ennis Reservoir grayling is not possible. The USFWS is re-evaluating the petition to list fluvial Arctic grayling as a Threatened species in light of a lawsuit filed in 2003 by the Center for Biological Diversity (CDB). The USFWS has proposed to CBD that they will complete a listing review by April 2007. A listing would likely include all grayling populations construed 22 Figure 20. The Nfadison River ice gorge at the U.S. Highway 287 Bridge at Ennis, November 2002. to be fluvial, either through behavioral traits or genetic similarity to Big Hole River fluvial (river-dwelling) grayling. Madison grayling are genetically very similar to Big Hole fish, but exhibit adfluvial behavior. They reside in Ennis Reservoir all year except when they enter the Channels area of the Madison River in April to spawn. Genetic differences between organisms are measured on a scale ranging from 0 (alleles at all loci are identical) to infinity (alleles at all loci are different). An allele is a variable form of a gene, Arctic grayling populations across Montana and Wyoming exhibit very little genetic variation from one another (Leary 1990). The maximum distance between all grayling populations examined (fluvial and adfluvial) is 0.0132. MFWP is developing a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurance (C CAA) for fluvial Arctic grayling in the Big Hole Drainage. Landowners who sign onto the CCAA must develop and implement pro-active site-specific land management conservation measures in cooperation with agencies that will reduce or eliminate detrimental habitat conditions for the grayling. If the grayling subsequently becomes listed as a Threatened or Endangered species, participating landowners will not be required to take additional measures on their property beyond those identified in their plan 23 Gillnetting Table 2 summarizes the 2005 gillnet data for Ennis Reservoir. As in previous years, Utah chub are the most abundant species captured. More rainbow trout were captured in 2005 than in any year since gillnetting began in 1995. Table 2. Summary of August September 2005 gillnet catch in Ennis Reservoir. Length is in inches, weight is in pounds. UC WSu LnSu Rb LL Avg. length 9.9 14.5 9.6 14.3 15.3 Avg.weight 0.55 1.59 0.36 1.37 1.58 Number sampled 221 78 4 17 32 ' UC = Utah Chub; WSu = White Sucker; LnSu = Longnose sucker; Rb = rainbow trout; LL = brown trout Population Estimates Population estimates were conducted in the Norris section in March and in the Pine Butte and Varney sections in September (Figure 5). Figures 21-23 illustrate population levels of she inch and larger rainbow trout per mile from 1995 - 2005 for the three estimate sections completed in 2005, and Figures 24-26 illustrate numbers six inch and larger of brown trout during the same time period. The population of six-inch and larger rainbow trout in the Pine Butte section of the upper river increased markedly in 2005, attaining its highest level since 2000. Brown trout numbers increased in all three long term monitoring sections sampled in 2005. In 2005, FWP Regional Management personnel began reporting population numbers greater than six inches rather than using fish length to assign fish as yearling or two year old & older. Appendix B1 contains charts illustrating fish numbers as yearling and two year old & older fish pre mile as reported in previous years of this report (MFWP 1995 - 2005). Appendix B2 contains historic total population levels of two year old & older rainbow and brown trout (+ 80% C.I.) for each section. 24 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Figure 21. Rainbow trout (> 6”) estimates in the Pine Butte section of the Madison River, 1995-2005, fall estimates. 2000 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Figure 22. Rainbow trout ^ 6”) estimates in the Varney section of the Madison River, 1995-2005, fall estimates. 25 2500 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Figure 23. Rainbow trout ^ 6”) estimates in the Norris section of the Madison River, 1995-2005, spring estimates. 3000 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Figure 24. Brown trout (> 6”) estimates in the Pine Butte section of the Madison River, 1995-2005, fall estimates. 26 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Figure 25. Brown trout (> 6”) estimates in the Varney section of the Madison River, 1995- 2005, fall estimates. 2500 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Figure 26. Brown trout (> 6”) estimates in the Norris section of the Madison River, 1995- 2005, spring estimates. 27 Madison Bypass From July 2002 through March 2005, 141 fish were captured in the Bypass section and implanted with radio transmitters. During the 314 years the remote telemetry system has been in the Bypass, the only obvious reason that transmittered fish departed the Bypass has been related to seasonal movements, probably related to spawning. There is no relationship between a fish’s departure from the Bypass and river discharge, water temperature, or being implanted with a transmitter. None of the implanted fish attempted to move upstream past Ennis Dam, though some rainbow trout were observed futilely jumping at the base of the dam in April 2003 and 2004. It is unknown if these fish moved upstream from below the Bypass. Most fish implanted with a transmitter remained in the Bypass during the life of their transmitter, but 37 of 75 rainbow trout, 15 of 53 brown trout, and 6 of 13 whitefish were documented to have departed the Bypass, including 19 (13 rainbow, 6 brown) of the 42 fish implanted with transmitters in March 2005. Table 2 summarizes the implant and departure seasons of implanted fish that departed the Bypass section since 2002, as well as the number of implanted fish that departed for each implant period, and Appendix Table C provides specific information on each implanted fish, including the fish’s length and weight, gender, implant and departure dates, and the extent of it’s downstream movement. Since 2002, nine rainbow and 3 brown trout departed and later returned to the Bypass, and three of those nine rainbows departed again. Of the 56 transmittered fish that departed the Bypass in 2002 - 2005, only 1 1 departed in summer or winter. Thirty-one of the 35 rainbow trout that departed did so in later winter or spring. Rainbow trout are a spring spawning fish, so these movements out of the Bypass likely indicate spawning movements. Brown trout did not exhibit a clear emigration pattern, such as rainbow trout exhibited during their spawning season. Six of the 15 departing brown trout, a fall spawner, departed in spring, and eight departed in summer or fall. All six whitefish that departed the Bypass did so in the fall. Whitefish are a fall spawner, and 3 of the 6 emigrants moved about 34 river miles downstream of the Bypass while the other 3 remained within about 8 miles of the Bypass. For rainbow trout, the number of days between the implant date and departure date ranged from 5 - 255, and for brown trout ranged from 5 - 279 days. All six of the whitefish that departed the Bypass did so within 1 1 days of being implanted, the soonest departure was 4 days post implant. The greatest movement detected was by an 18.9-inch rainbow trout captured and implanted on February 4***, 2005 at the base of Ennis Dam. It departed the Bypass on May 21^ and was relocated 114 - 2 miles above the mouth of the Madison River on June 16* a distance of approximately 38 river miles below the capture site. Another interesting movement was by a 15. 1 inch female rainbow trout implanted on March 17* 2005, that departed the Bypass on April 4* and was relocated in Cherry Creek about 150 feet upstream of the Montana Highway 84 bridge on May 24*. It was subsequently relocated back in the river near the Warm Springs FAS, about 3 miles upstream of Cherry Creek, on June 16* 28 Table 2. Chronology of radio transmitter implanted fish that departed the Bypass section of the Madison River, 2002-2005. Implant Date # of departures/ # of implants # per Departure Date®^ Rainbow Trout (spring spawner) Nov 2002 4/6 2 Winter 02-03, 2 Spring 03 Apr 2003 1/8 1 Spring 03 Oct 2003 5/8 1 Fall 03, 4 Spring 04 Mar 2004 9/16 6 Spring 04, 3 Summer 04, Oct 2004 4/13 1 Fall 04, 2 Spring 05, 1 Summer 05 Feb 2005 1/1 1 Spring 05 Mar 2005 13/23 13 Spring 05 Brown Trout (fall spawner) July 2002 0/2 Nov 2002 0/3 Apr 2003 3/6 3 Spring 03 Oct 2003 1/4 1 Fall 03 Mar 2004 0/8 Nov 2004 5/15 3 Fall 04, 1 Winter 04-05, 1 Summer 05 Mar 2005 6/15 3 Spring 05, 1 Summer 05, 2 Fall 05 Whitefish (fall spawner) Nov 2002 0/1 Oct 2003 2/2 2 Fall 03 Mar 2004 0/2 Oct 2004 4/5 4 Fall 04 Mar 2005 0/3 “^Spring = Mar - June; Summer = July -Sept; Fall = Oct - Nov; Winter = Dec- Feb 29 Figure 27. Population estimates (number/mile) of rainbow and brown trout in the Bypass section of the Madison River, spring estimates. Discharge (cfs) in the Bypass during estimates were: 1992, 1118-1685; 1994, 90; 1995, 355-560; 1996, 82- 200; 2004, 100. 1992 estimate by PPL Montana personnel. The Montana Aquatic Species Coordinator has developed a plan to address New Zealand mudsnails. Specifically, these actions include: 1) Listing New Zealand mudsnails as a Prohibited species in Montana. 2) Assisting in development of a regional management plan for New Zealand mudsnails, an important portion of which will describe actions to be undertaken when New Zealand mudsnails are found in or near a hatchery. 3) Establishing statewide monitoring efforts. 4) Conducting boat inspections at popular FAS, many of which are on the Madison River. This effort assists with public education/outreach and also ensures boats are not spreading New Zealand mudsnails or other ANS. 5) Purchasing portable power washing systems for cleaning boats and trailers at fishing access sites. The MFWP Fisheries office in Ennis uses a power washer to clean project equipment to reduce the chance of spreading ANS through work activities. NZMS have been detected in one private hatchery, but have not been found in any state or federal hatcheries. Strategies have been implemented to prevent the spread of NZMS from the private hatchery. The spread of New Zealand mudsnails has slowed and appears to be confined to east of the divide. Additional information on Aquatic Nuisance Species is on the web at www.anstaskforce.gov and www.protectyourwaters.net, and for New Zealand mudsnails specifically, is available at www.esg.montana.edu/aim/mollusca/nzms. 31 July 12'*’, and October 14*. The greatest downstream movement by implanted brown trout was into the section of river between Warm Springs and Blacks Ford fishing access sites. Five transmitters were returned by anglers who harvested the fish or found the transmitter on the riverbank. Four of the transmitters were fi’om brown trout, three of which were harvested in the Bypass. The harvest location of the fourth brown trout is unknown, but the telemetry data indicates that it did not departed the Bypass. One transmitter, found by a fishing guide on the riverbank in Bear Trap Canyon, is from a rainbow trout that was implanted March 15, 2004, and departed the Bypass July 15, 2004. The transmitter was implanted in another rainbow trout in October 2004, but that particular fish did not depart the Bypass. Rainbow and brown trout populations in the Bypass (Figure 27) compare favorably with population levels in other sections of the Madison River (Figures 23-28). The preponderance of holding sites among the boulder and cobble substrate allows for a greater density of fish than other river sections. Whirling disease did not have a severe population impact on trout in the Bypass and Norris sections downstream of Ennis Roservoir, presumably due to the different temperature regime than that which exists in the upper river. Based on the strong population of both rainbow and brown trout in the Bypass and the accessibility Bypass fish have to spawning habitat throughout the lower river as shown by radio tracking, placement of spawning gravel in the Bypass is not necessary. Temperature Monitoring Optic Stow Away temperature recorders were deployed throughout the Madison River to document air and water temperatures (Figure 10). Table 3 summarizes the data collected at each location in 2005, and Appendk D1 contains thermographs for each location. Appendix D2 contains thermographs at selected locations showing the 24-hour diurnal temperature fluctuation of each site around the warmest date of the year. Aquatic Nuisance Species The annual economic cost of invasive species in the United States is estimated to be nearly $120 billion (Pimentel et al in press). In 1994, two invasive species were detected in the Madison Drainage - New Zealand mudsnails {Potcanopyrgus cmtipodarum) and whirling disease {Myxobolus cerebralis). Montana has an active multi- agency ANS program coordinated through FWP (Appendix E). New Zealand Mudsnails Montana’s ANS Coordinator sampled for NZMS at nine sites on the Madison River between Varney and GreycliffFASs. All sites were positive, but densities were extremely low, less than Mvc? at all sites. MFWP Fisheries personnel found NZMS to be abundant in O’Dell Creek in April. A quantitative sample was not made as the observation occurred during fish sampling related to a habitat improvement project (Appendix F). 30 Whirling Disease Caged young-of-the-year rainbow trout in the Madison River continue to exhibit high infection rates & severity, with average spring and early summer histology scores exceeding 4.0 according to the MacConnell- Baldwin Scale (Appendix G). However, in 1998, and again in 2004, eggs were collected from spawning rainbow trout near the Slide Inn below Quake Lake and the resulting fry exposed to a controlled number of T AMs in the Wild Trout Laboratory in Bozeman. Fry from the 2004 spawners exhibited a lower proportion of fish in the highly infective categories compared to those from 1998 (Figure 28). For rainbow trout, average histology scores above 2.5 are associated with high mortality of young-of-the-year and significant decreases in population. In Figure 28, the average histology score of the test fish in 1998 is 4. 13, while in 2004 it is 2.42. Information on whirling disease, including numerous links, is available online at www.whirling-disease.org. MacConnell-Baldwin Histology score Figure 28. Percentage of young-of-the-year rainbow trout within MacConnell-Baldwin histology ratings in 1998 and 2004. See Appendix G for MacConnell- Baldwin definitions. 33 Table 3. Maximum and minimum temperatures (‘T’) at selected locations in the Madison River Drainage, 2005. Air and water temperature data were recorded every 30 minutes from April 23 -October 5 (7944 readings). Thermographs for each location are in Appendix D1 . Site Max Min Water Hebgen inlet 79.15 44.21 Hebgen discharge 64.82 37.78 Quake Lake inlet 64.57 36.46 Quake Lake outlet 63.49 37.68 Kirby Bridge 70.19 35.06 McAtee Bridge 69.76 32.41 Ennis Bridge 72.81 32.42 Ennis Reservoir Inlet 75.05 31.98 Ennis Dam 72.51 42.11 Bear Trap Mouth 76.58 40.75 Norris 77.46 40.45 Blacks Ford 78.41 38.99 Cobblestone 79.68 39.02 Headwaters S.P. (Madison mouth) 78.58 39.48 Air Kirkwood Store 95.62 23.43 Slide 100.72 23.52 Wall Creek HQ 91.02 23.51 Ennis 98.11 23.40*^ Ennis Dam 92.80 23.46 Norris 100.79 25.38 Cobblestone 93.89 23.52 The minimum temperature detectible by the recorders is approximately 23.4°F. 32 Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation and Restoration Sun Ranch Westslope Cutthroat Trout Program Westslope cutthroat trout gametes were collected from the Sun Ranch Pond and from two streams in 2005. Each spawned female was crossed with at least two males. Fertilized eggs were transferred to the Sun Ranch Hatchery for incubation and hatching, with most of the resulting fry stocked into the Sun Ranch Rearing Pond or used for disease testing. In one stream 5 females produced 772 eggs. In the other stream, 6 females produced 2,849 eggs, however, 1,710 of those were from one female, and only 9 of those eggs were viable. The two streams together produced nearly 1,300 fry for addition to the pond. Sixteen 3-year old females and 37 males from the Sun Pond were spawned in 2005, producing approximately 14,000 eggs. However, the viability of the fertilized pond eggs was poor, probably due to high pond water temperature. Optimal water temperature for WCT spawning is mid to high 40’s F, but the pond water temperature was generally 10° higher than that. Nine of the 15 egg lots produced no viable eggs. However, the 6 remaining females produced 2,545 fry. Of these, 900 were stocked into the pond, 190 were used for disease testing, 5 were used to calibrate coded-wire tagging equipment, 700 were stocked in a second pond as a temporary back-up to the Sun Pond, and 750 were euthanized to reduce crowding in the hatchery. In 2005, the Sun Ranch WCT Committee elevated the portion of the program that focuses on replicating existing WCT populations, as well as continuing development of the broodstock. This will allow for replication of existing populations, one of the original and primary goals of the program, as well as development of the Sun Ranch broodstock. Some fry from each donor population will be introduced into the pond to continue developing a genetically broad-based brood. Several streams in the Madison and Gallatin drainages have been identified as potential recipient streams for Sun Ranch WCT and any that are selected will be evaluated through the Environmental Assessment process, including public review. An in-line water heater was added to the hatchery in 2005 which allowed raising the incubation water temperature from the natural mid to hi^ 40’ s F to the desired 54°F. This resulted in quicker embryo development and faster growth once the eggs hatched. In 2005, fry planted in the Sun Pond were approximately 2 - 214 inches rather than 1- E/2. Habitat projects conducted by the Gallatin and Beaverhead-Deerlodge national forests are summarized in Appendices H and I, respectively. Cherry Creek Native Fish Introduction Program Ten gillnets were placed in Cherry Lake in August 2004, and have fished continuously since, including overwinter 2004-05. Fifty-seven fish were captured in the gillnets prior to ice-up of the lake in 2004. Six fish in an advanced state of decay were found in the nets upon ice-off in July 2005. Four additional gillnets were placed in the lake 34 in July 2005, but no additional fish were captured in the nets throughout the summer and fall. Despite that. Cherry Lake was treated on August 1"^ to 8 ppb Fintrol and, as described in the Methods section, minor quantities of rotenone were used to treat inundated grassy margins of the lake and a shallow lakebed spring. Electrofishing of Phase 1 stream areas yielded no fish in 2005. Eyed WCT eggs collected through the Sun Ranch Westslope Cutthroat Trout Program will be used to seed at least a portion of Phase 1 streams in 2006. If no fish are found in the Cherry Lake gillnets at ice-off 2006, catchable WCT will be stocked into the lake. It is unlikely another Fintrol treatment of the lake will occur, even if fish are found in the gillnets in 2006. In such an event, gillnets would be used to complete the removal offish fi-om the lake prior to planting catchable fish and seeding the streams in that fork of the drainage with eyed eggs. Personnel from MFWP, Montana State University, Gallatin National Forest, and Turner Enterprises spent approximately 220 worker-days completing the project in 2005, including all preparatory and support activities and treatments. A total of 7.02 gallons of Fintrol were required to complete the treatments in 2005 - 2.5 gallons for Cherry Lake and 4.52 gallons for the 8 miles of stream. A significant overnight rain event on August 2-3 more than doubled streamflows and caused a significant increase in organic materials in a section of that days treatment area, requiring another treatment of the segment where organics increased. On September 8, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 in favor of FWP in the appeal of the Montana Federal District Court ruling that the use of Fintrol at Cherry Creek is not a violation of the federal Clean Water Act. Fish Entrainment Several large irrigation ditches on the Madison River were observed in 2005 for fish entrainment (the Granger (Storey) Ditch & West Madison Canal (WMC) on the upper river, the Hutchison & Sloan on the lower river). Generally, few fish were found stranded after the headgates were closed, except in the WMC. The WMC, which draws water from the river on the west bank of the western river channel approximately one mile upstream of the Eight-mile Fishing Access Site, has been surveyed since 2001. Surveys were limited in 2002 & 2003 as ice-up occurred prior to the ditch being shut down for the year, so ice cover hid stranded fish. In years when the WMC headgate was closed prior to ice-up, several hundred or more fish, primarily trout, were observed stranded in the ditch and were lost to the population. It is unlikely that preventing those trout from becoming entrained in the ditch would increase the river population by that same number of fish due to competition, predation, and angling harvest that would occur in the river. The trout population below Varney is dominated by brown trout, and most fish observed in the ditch are brown trout. In 2005, local anglers and interested citizens organized and were granted permission by the WMC water users & FWP to conduct a fish salvage effort. On November 10 after the headgate was closed and the ditch water receded, an estimated 2,000 fish were captured in hand held nets or other devices and 35 returned to the river Species captured included brown and rainbow trout (Figure 29), mottled sculpin, long-nose dace, and juvenile whitefish and white suckers Screening methods similar to that shown in Figure 30 are available to reduce or eliminate entrainment Flowing water turns a paddlewheel that powers brushes back & forth across the screen washing debris into a pipe that returns it to the river The same pipe also allows the fish to return to the river If water velocity is not fast enough to turn the paddlewheel, the system ceases to operate properly, and the screen can become plugged preventing the passage of water Permission to construct such a screen in the WMC was denied due to uncertainty that the system would operate properly without frequent maintenance to prevent interruption of irrigation water to water right holders In 2002, the estimated cost of screen purchase and installation for this location was approximately $200,000 The cost has undoubtedly increased in recent years. The PPL Montana’s Madison River Fisheries Technical Advisory Committee and the MFWP Future Fisheries Program would be logical sources to apply for funding to install a screening system for this ditch Another method that reduces stranding is to incrementally close the headgate over several days, which slowly reduces the volume of water in the ditch, prompting many fish to move upstream, exiting the ditch and returning to the river prior to complete closure of the headgate This method has been used successfully on the Granger (Storey) Ditch for several years (Mel McKittrick, 2004, pers.comm ) Figure 29. Fish salvaged from the West Madison Canal, November 2005, and released into the Madison River 36 Figure 30. Self-cleaning fish screen. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PLANS The Madison (Ennis) Reservoir grayling population continues to persist at low levels. While the Madison population is very similar genetically to the Big Hole population, the different life history characteristics (fluvial vs. adfluvial) will also be considered when the USFWS reviews population status for its April 2007 determination if listing as a Threatened sptecies is warranted. FWP crews from Ennis, Bozeman, and Dillon will coordinated to increase sampling effort on this population in 2006. Gillnetting of Ennis Reservoir in 2005 resulted in more rainbow trout being captured than in any year since surveys began in 1995. Anecdotal reports from anglers indicate an increasing number of rainbow trout being caught by hook-and-line in the river just above the reservoir as well. Population estimates will continue to be conducted annually in the Madison River. These data are necessary for setting angling regulations, and to monitor environmental and biological impacts on the populations. Based on movements of radio tagged fish in the Bypass from 2002 - 2005, and population estimates, there is no evidence that trout and whitefish in the Madison Bypass require habitat supplementation to sustain their populations. The radio telemetry system in 37 the Bypass section will be removed in 2006 and relocated to assist with population analysis in the Hebgen area. New Zealand Mudsnail populations will continue to be monitored through the 2188 Biological and Biocontaminant monitoring program, by Montana State University researchers, and through the FWP Aquatic Nuisance Species Program. Sentinel cage rainbow trout deployed in the Madison River have continued to show high infection rates and severity, and since 2002 sites previously known to have low infection severity have shown increasing severity. In laboratory studies, progeny of Madison River rainbow trout are exhibiting resistance to whirling disease. Additionally, genetic analyses of Madison rainbows is planned to ascertain any changes between the pre- whirling disease population and the present population. FWP has implemented a program and provided equipment to clean sampling gear to reduce the chance of moving ANS between waters. In 2006, adult WCT from the Sun Pond will be spawned and resulting fry stocked back into the pond or used for disease testing. Wild donor populations will continue to be tapped for the next several years as well for replicating existing wild, genetically pure WCT populations into fishless streams to expand the range and numbers of WCT, thereby diminishing their extinction risk. The Cherry Creek Native Fish Introduction Project will continue in 2006 with the second scheduled treatment of Phase 2 of the project. Project managers will also determine whether it is feasible to conduct the first treatment of Phase 3 in 2006. Gillnets in Cherry Lake will be checked upon ice-out to determine if fish are still residing in the lake. Tentatively, introductions of WCT will be initiated in Phase 1 of the project area where treatments were conducted in 2003 and 2004. Surveys of fish entrainment in irrigation ditches will continue in 2006. If significant numbers of fish are seen after closure of the ditches, water-right holders will be contacted to determine if measures can be implemented to reduce or eliminate the problem. 38 LITERATURE CITED Bramblett, R.G. 1998. Environmental Assessment. Madison River Drainage Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation and Restoration Program: Cherry Creek Native Fish Introduction. Prepared for Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks, April 15, 1998. 70 pages. Byorth, P. 2004. Hebgen Reservoir Creel Survey and Contribution of Stocked Rainbow Trout to the Recreational Fishery; June 2000 to June 2001. 25 pages. } Byorth, P. and B. Shepard. 1990. Enms Reservoir/Madison River Fisheries Investigations. Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks Final Report to Montana Power Company. 90 pages. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2000. Order Issuing New License, Project No. 2188-030. Issued September 27, 2000. Hetrick, N. J. 1993. Cooperative Study on Fish Migration and Spawning in the Upper Madison River Drainage April 1993. 20 pages. Jeanes, E. D. 1996. Behavioral Responses to Water Current of Age 0 Arctic Grayling from the Madison River, and Their Use of Stream Habitat. MS Thesis, Montana State University-Bozeman, August 1996. 60 pages. Leary, R. 1990. Letter to MFWP Biologist Pat Byorth. University of Montana Wild Trout & Salmon Genetics Laboratory, Division of Biological Sciences, Missoula, MT. September 1990. McKittrick, M. 2004. Personal communication. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 1979. River Mile Index of the Missouri River. WatCT Resources Division. Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks. 1995. Madison River/Ennis Reservoir Fisheries. 1994 Annual Report to Montana Power Company, Environmental Division, Butte, from Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks, Pat Clancey, Ennis. May 1995. Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks. 1996. Madison River/Ennis Reservoir Fisheries. 1995 Annual Report to Montana Power Company, Environmental Division, Butte, from Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks, Pat Clancey, Ennis. February 1996. Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks. 1997. Madison River/Ennis Reservoir Fisheries. 1996 Annual Report to Montana Power Company, Environmental Division, Butte, from Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks, Pat Clancey, Ennis. March 1997. 39 Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks. 1998a. Madison River/Ennis Reservoir Fisheries. 1997 Annual Report to Montana Power Company, Environmental Division, Butte, from Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks, Pat Clancey, Ennis. June 1998. Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks. 1998b. Decision Notice: Cherry Creek Native Fish Introduction Project. Region 3, July 6, 1998. Pat Clancey. 30 pages. Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks. 1999a. Madison River/Ennis Reservoir Fisheries and Madison River Drainage Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation and Restoration Program. 1998 Annual Report to Montana Power Company, Environmental Division, Butte, and Turner Enterprises, Inc., Gallatin Gateway, from Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks, Pat Clancey, Ennis. April 1999. Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks. 1999b. Memorandum of Understanding and Conservation Agreement for Westslope Cutthroat Trout in Montana. May 1999. Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks. 2000. Madison River/Ennis Reservoir Fisheries and Madison River Drainage Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation and Restoration Program. 1999 Annual Report to PPL Montana (formerly Montana Power Company), Environmental Division, Butte, and Turner Enterprises, Inc., Gallatin Gateway, from Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks, Pat Clancey, Ennis. April 2000. Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks. 2001. Madison River/Ennis Reservoir Fisheries and Madison River Drainage Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation and Restoration Program. 2000 Annual Report to PPL Montana, Environmental Division, Butte, and Turner Enterprises, Inc., Gallatin Gateway, from Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks, Pat Clancey and Dan Downing, Ennis. April 2001. Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks. 2002. Madison River/Ennis Reservoir Fisheries and Madison River Drainage Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation and Restoration Program. 2001 Annual Report to PPL Montana, Environmental Division, Butte, and Turner Enterprises, Inc., Gallatin Gateway, from Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks, Pat Clancey, Ennis. June 2002. Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks. 2003. Madison River/Ennis Reservoir Fisheries and Madison River Drainage Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation and Restoration Program. 2002 Annual Report to PPL Montana, Environmental Division, Butte, and Turner Enterprises, Inc., Gallatin Gateway, from Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks, Pat Clancey, Ennis. March 2003. Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks. 2004a. Madison River/Ennis Reservoir Fisheries and Madison River Drainage Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation and Restoration Program. 2003 Annual Report to PPL Montana, Environmental Division, Butte, and Turner Enterprises, Inc., Gallatin Gateway, from Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks, Pat Clancey, Ennis. May 2004. 40 Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks. 2004b. FA+. Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Paries, Information Services Unit, Bozeman. Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks. 2005. Madison River/Ennis Reservoir Fisheries and Madison River Drainage Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation and Restoration Program. 2004 Annual Report to PPL Montana, Environmental Division, Butte, and Turner Enterprises, Inc., Gallatin Gateway, from Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks, Pat Clancey & Travis Lohrenz, Ennis. April 2005. Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. In press. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-species in the United States. U.S. Congress, OTA. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D C Sestrich, C, and T. Lohrenz. In prep. Hebgen Basin Interagency Fisheries Working Group, 2005 Accomplishment Report to PPL Montana. Sloat, M.R., B.B. Shepard, and P. Clancey. 2000. Survey of tributaries to the Madison River from Hebgen Dam to Ennis, Montana with an emphasis on distribution and status of westslope cutthroat trout. Report to Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks, Helena, Montana. 165 pages. Watschke, Darin. 2006. Assessment of Tributary Potential for Wild Rainbow Trout Recruitment in Hebgen Reservoir, Montana. Master of Science Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 139 pages. 41 Appendix A Description of young-of-the-year Arctic grayling beach seining locations in Ennis Reservoir, and catch at each site. See Figure 3 for site locations. Species abbreviations: AG Arctic grayling MWF mountain whitefish WSu white sucker UC Utah chub LL brown trout LND longnose dace September 27, 2005 Site and time seined AG MWF Note Meadow Ck mouth west to peninsula tip 0920 hrs Fig 3 site 1 0 2 (123, 120 mm) Few macrophytes; a few juvenile UC, 3 Rb (69-95mm), 18 LL (68-1 8 1mm) 31 juv WSu Meadow Ck mouth north to willows 1020 hrs Fig 3 site 1 0 2 (115, 122 mm) Few macrophytes 1 Rb 510 mm 110 juv WSu 91 juv UC Moores Ck mouth east to point 1100 hrs Fig 3 site 2 0 0 Few macrophytes 21 juvUC 77 juv WSu 6 juv END Fletcher Channel mouth east to point 1145 hrs Fig 3 site 2 0 0 Very sparse macrophytes, 8 juv WSu, 1 juv UC East of main river mouth 1230 hrs Fig 3 site 3 0 1 (128 mm) Few macrophytes 70 juv WSu 8 juv LND 3juvUC Meadow Ck - willows north of Meadow Ck mouth to 2"“* willows 1335 hrs Fig 3 site 1 0 6 (117, 116, 97, 113, 105, 111 mm) Macrophytes moderate 1 Rb (44mm) 8juvUC 6 juv WSu 2 juv LND Meadow Ck - 2“* willows north of Meadow Ck mouth to 3"^ willows (at Petersen rental) 1355 hrs Fig 3 site I 0 0 Few macrophytes 1 LL (96mm) 16 juv WSu 7juvUC 4 juv LND Appendix B1 Historic population estimates of aged rainbow and brown trout per mile in the Pine Butte, Varney, and Norris sections of the Madison River 6,000 Figure B1 Figure B1 □Yearlings Year - 1 . Rainbow trout populations in the Pine Butte section of the Madison River, 1977-2005, fall estimates. Data for 2004 & 2005 are provisional pending completion of age samples. 2 Rainbow trout populations in the Varney section of the Madison River, 1967- 2005, fall estimates. Data for 2000 - 2005 are provisional pending completion of age samples. 2,500 2,000 ^ 1,500 E Z 1 ,000 500 0 X X' X X X X- X X X X. X X X X. X X X X 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 Year Figure B 1 - 3. Rainbow trout populations in the Norris section of the Madison River, 1986- 2005, spring estimates. Data for 2001 - 2005 are provisional pending completion of age samples. 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 Year Figure B1 - 4. Brown trout populations in the Pine Butte section of the Madison River, 1977-2005, fall estimates. Data for 2005 are provisional pending completion of age samples. Figure B1 - 5. Brown trout populations in the Varney section of the Madison River, 1967-2005, fall estimates. Data for 2000 - 2005 are provisional pending completion of age samples. Year Figure B1 - 6. Brown trout populations in the Norris section of the Madison River, 1986- 2005 spring estimates. Data for 2001 - 2005 are provisional pending completion of age samples. Appendix B2 Population estimates (total number in section+ 80 percent Confidence Intervals) of age 2 & older rainbow and brown trout in the Madison River See Figure 5 for section locations section lengths Pine Butte - 3 miles Varney - 4 miles Norris - 4 miles Total in 4 mile section Pine Butte Rainbow Trout Age 2 & older Varney Rainbow Trout Age 2 & Older Total in 4 mile section Norris Rainbow Trout Age 2 & Older Pine Butte Brown Trout Age 2 & older Total in 4 mile section Varney Brown Trout Age 2 & Older Norris Brown T rout Age 2 & Older Appendix C Statistics and movement information of fish implanted with radio transmitters in the Bypass section of the Madison River, 2002 - 2005 Appendix Table C. Statistics offish implanted with radio transmitters in the Bypass Reach of the Madison River, 2002 - 2005. Relocation sections are described at end of Table. Relocations in the Bypass section are omitted. LL = brown trout; MWF = mounatan whitefish; Rb = rainbow trout SPECIES L W GENDER IMPLANT DATE DEPARTURE DATE # DAYS IMPLANT - LL 14.4 1.18 7/25/2002 NONE LL 14,7 1.15 7/25/2002 NONE LL 14.3 1.08 11/6/2002 NONE LL 13.4 1.05 11/6/2002 NONE LL 13.8 1.00 11/6/2002 NONE LL 20.2 2.64 4/16/2003 NONE LL 20.3 2.76 4/16/2003 5/19/2003 33 (returned to By LL 17.1 1,64 4/16/2003 5/23/2003 37 LL 15.5 1.21 4/16/2003 5/28/2003 42 LL 14.0 1.07 4/28/2003 NONE LL 12.5 0.83 F 4/28/2003 NONE LL 16.9 1.86 10/10/2003 NONE LL 14.0 1.04 10/10/2003 10/20/2003 10 LL 15.9 1.48 10/10/2003 NONE LL 14.2 1.11 10/10/2003 NONE LL 17.3 1.49 M 3/25/2004 NONE LL 16.0 1.24 M 3/25/2004 NONE LL 17.2 1.80 M 3/25/2004 NONE LL 16.1 1.39 M 3/25/2004 NONE LL 16.6 1.50 M 3/25/2004 NONE LL 15.6 1.31 M 3/25/2004 NONE LL 16.9 1.56 M 3/25/2004 NONE LL 16.2 1.28 • 3/25/2004 NONE LL 16.2 1.60 10/5/2004 NONE LL 13.9 1.02 10/5/2004 NONE LL 16.9 1.92 F 10/5/2004 NONE LL 18.7 2.01 M 10/5/2004 NONE LL 15.7 1.59 10/5/2004 NONE LL 17.5 1.92 10/5/2004 10/10/2004 5 LL 21.0 3.28 M 10/5/2004 11/5/2004 31 LL 16.9 1.73 10/5/2004 NONE LL 17.2 1.79 10/5/2004 2/2/2005 120 LL 17.2 1.70 F 10/5/2004 NONE NA 3 4 SPECIES L W GENDER IMPLANT DATF LL 14.3 1.01 10/5/2004 LL 16.9 1.63 F 10/5/2004 LL 14.0 0.92 10/5/2004 LL 21.5 4.00 10/5/2004 LL 20.2 2.97 10/5/2004 LL 18.0 2.35 3/17/2005 LL 17.6 1.96 3/17/2005 LL 16.9 1.38 3/17/2005 LL 15.3 1.19 3/17/2005 LL 16.6 1.75 3/17/2005 LL 16.2 1.28 3/17/2005 LL 17.2 1.61 3/17/2005 LL 17.0 1.53 3/17/2005 LL 18.1 1.63 3/17/2005 LL 15.1 1.18 3/17/2005 LL 16.6 1.40 3/17/2005 LL 16.5 1.30 3/17/2005 LL 17.8 1.56 3/17/2005 LL 16.4 1.40 3/17/2005 LL 14.5 1.05 3/17/2005 MWF 16.3 1.65 1 1/6/2002 MWF 13.7 1.16 F 10/10/2003 MWF 15.9 1.79 F 10/10/2003 MWF 15.2 1.24 U 3/25/2004 MWF 16.3 1.58 M 3/25/2004 MWF 16.7 1.90 10/5/2004 MWF 15.3 1.21 10/5/2004 MWF 16.9 1.87 10/5/2004 MWF 13.4 1.18 10/5/2004 MWF 16.4 0.88 10/5/2004 MWF 17.0 1.66 3/17/2005 MWF 17.2 1.59 3/17/2005 MWF 16.0 1.32 3/17/2005 DEPARTURE DATE # DAYS IMPLANT - DEPARTURE RELOCATION SFCTIOM NONE 07/08/05 279 NA NONE NONE 11/9/2004 35 4 NONE NONE 4/2/2005 16 (returned to Bypass 4/9/05) NONE 11/1/2005 229 NA NONE 10/24/2005 221 3 5/23/2005 66 2 NONE NONE 9/28/2005 195 3 5/18/2005 61 (returned to Bypass 7/3/05) NONE NONE NONE NONE 10/16/2003 6 2 10/17/2003 7 6 NONE NONE NONE 10/9/2004 4 2 10/9/2004 4 6 10/16/2004 11 2 10/10/2004 5 6 NONE NONE NONE SPECIES L W GENDER IMPLANT DATE DEPARTURE DATE # DAYS IMPLANT - DEPARTURE RELOCATION SECTION Rb 16.2 1.18 F 3/25/2004 5/1/2004 37 (returned to Bypass 5/7/04) Rb 15.2 1.10 F 3/25/2004 NONE Rb 14.2 1.19 10/5/2004 NONE Rb 13.7 0.86 10/5/2004 NONE Rb 14.2 1.02 10/5/2004 NONE Rb 13.9 0.89 M 10/5/2004 NONE Rb 12.7 0.78 F 10/5/2004 NONE Rb 13.4 0.82 10/5/2004 NONE Rb 14.9 1.05 10/5/2004 NONE Rb 15.5 1.39 10/5/2004 NONE Rb 14.7 1.25 10/5/2004 NONE Rb 16.0 1.49 10/5/2004 7/13/2005 250 2 Rb 14.8 1.11 10/5/2004 5/7/2005 183 4 Rb 13.7 1.02 10/5/2004 3/31/2005 146 4 Rb 15.0 1.04 10/6/2004 11/28/2004 53 5 Rb 18.9 2.53 2/4/2005 5/21/2005 106 8 Rb 14.0 0.89 F 3/4/2005 NONE Rb 15.0 1.00 M 3/5/2005 4/7/2005 33 4 Rb 14.5 1.22 F 3/17/2005 NONE Rb 15.7 1.49 M 3/17/2005 4/11/2005 25 2 Rb 14.8 1.18 F 3/17/2005 NONE Rb 16.5 1.60 M 3/17/2005 4/6/2005 20 6 Rb 15.7 1.34 F 3/17/2005 4/11/2005 25 2 (5/24/05 flight), 1 6/23rt>5 Rb 16.9 1.69 F 3/17/2005 4/5/2005 19 NA Rb 17.0 1.85 M 3/17/2005 NONE Rb 14.8 1.24 F 3/17/2005 NONE Rb 13.9 1.08 F 3/17/2005 NONE Rb 14.8 1.15 F 3/17/2005 NONE Rb 14.0 1.02 F 3/17/2005 NONE Rb 15.1 1.38 F 3/17/2005 4/5/2005 19 9 (Cherry C above highway bridge). 4 Rb 16.5 1.71 M 3/17/2005 4/7/2005 21 4 Rb 17.7 1.99 M 3/17/2005 NONE Rb 16.2 1.69 M 3/17/2005 3/31/2005 14 NA Rb 14.8 1.29 F 3/17/2005 4/25/2005 40 NA Rb 18.7 2.30 F 3/17/2005 NONE SPECIES L w GENDER IMPLANT DATE DEPARTURE DATE # DAYS IMPLANT - DEPARTURE RELOCATION SECTION Rb 12.5 0.85 11/6/2002 NONE Rb 13.7 0.95 11/6/2002 1/2/2003 57 2 Rb 15.2 1.36 11/6/2002 NONE Rb 15.0 1.28 11/6/2002 4/24/2003 1 69 (dapwlad Bypu ^‘24/03. rMumad 0/74)3, dapartod again 7/24/0 - Rb 13.5 1.14 11/6/2002 2/17/2003 103 2 Rb 13.9 1.15 11/6/2002 5/15/2003 190 3 Rb 13.7 1.10 4/16/2003 NONE Rb 14.7 1.22 4/16/2003 4/26/2003 10 5 Rb 15.2 1.32 F 4/28/2003 NONE Rb 12.8 0.85 4/28/2003 NONE Rb 15.2 1.40 4/28/2003 NONE Rb 13.2 0.92 4/28/2003 NONE Rb 12.9 0.98 4/28/2003 NONE Rb 12.3 0.84 4/28/2003 NONE Rb 15.6 1.65 10/10/2003 6/22/2004 255 2 Rb 13.6 1.20 10/10/2003 NONE Rb 14.3 1.32 10/10/2003 NONE Rb 13.5 0.98 10/10/2003 NONE Rb 15.9 1.54 10/10/2003 3/10/2004 120 (returned to Bypass 3/16/04) Rb 13.5 0.82 10/10/2003 10/15/2003 5 6 Rb 13.0 0.88 10/10/2003 NONE Rb 13.8 1.10 10/10/2003 3/26/2004 167 ' returned to Bypass 4/20/04) Rb 15.7 1.38 F 3/15/2004 several < ! & ou< c4 Bypaaa aavaral bmaa Apr-Aug 04, laat datao/ad a( PH foon>rtdga Rb 17.0 1.81 F 3/15/2004 NONE Rb 15.2 1.47 F 3/15/2004 7/15/2004 122 NA Rb 16.0 1.47 3/15/2004 NONE Rb 15.2 1.37 F 3/15/2004 9/19/2004 188 NA Rb 16.2 1.48 M 3/15/2004 4/25/2004 41 5 Rb 16.8 1.74 M 3/15/2004 7/19/2004 126 4 Rb 15.9 1.32 M 3/15/2004 NONE Rb 16.8 1.63 3/15/2004 NONE Rb 17.0 2.08 M 3/15/2004 NONE Rb 14.7 1.12 M 3/15/2004 4/30/2004 46 2 Rb 18.2 2.40 M 3/15/2004 4/10/2004 26 3 Rb 15.0 1.14 F 3/25/2004 NONE Rb 15.1 1.13 F 3/25/2004 NONE IMPLANT DATE DEPARTURE DATE # DAYS IMPLANT - DEPARTURE RELOCATION SECTION SPECIES L W Rb 16.1 1.49 M 3/17/2005 5/3/2005 47 Rb 14.5 1.13 F 3/17/2005 4/7/2005 21 Rb 15.6 1.38 F 3/17/2005 5/28/2005 73 Rb 16.1 1.34 F 3/17/2005 4/11/2005 25 Relocation section designations 1 - Bypass (between Madison (Ennis) Dam & Powerhouse) (implant location) 2 - Powerhouse to mouth of Bear Trap Creek 3 - Mouth of Bear Trap Creek to Warm Springs FAS 4 - Warm Springs FAS to Blacks Ford FA 5 - Blacks Ford to downstream end of Greycliff FAS 6 - downstream end of Greycliff FAS to Cobblestone FAS parking lot 7 - Cobblestone FAS parking lot to Interstate 90 8 - Interstate 90 to Jefferson R confluence 9 - OTHER (describe location) Estimated miles downstream of Madison Powerhouse 0 0-4.2 4.2 -8,3 8.3-14.8 14.8-20.4 20.4-27.3 27.3 - 34.1 34.1 -38.9 NA Appendix D1 Temperature recordings from monitoring sites on the Madison River See Figure 10 for locations 110- 100- 90 80- 70- 60 50 40 30 Hebgen inlet (Highway 191) 05/01/05 07/01/05 00/01/05 iiroi/05 11/01/05 00:00:00 23:00:00 Hebgen discharge 100- 90- 80: 30- 20-( 03/31/05 23:00:00 1 05/01/05 07/01/05 09/01/05 11/01/05 11/01/05 00:00:00 110- 100- 90- 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Quake Inlet 05/01/05 07/01/05 09/01/05 11/01/05 11/01/05 00:00:00 23:00:00 20 05/01/06 07/01/05 09/01/05 11/01/05 11/01/05 00:00:00 03/31/05 23:00:00 t 110 100- 90 80 70 60 SO 40 30 20 Kirby 23:00:00 03/31/05 23:00:00 09/01/05 11/01/05 11/01/05 00:00:00 110- 100- 00 80 70 Ennis Bridge — I 1 1 1 1 ■ I 06/01/05 07/01/05 09/01/05 11/01/05 11/01/05 00:00:00 23:00:00 204 03/31/05 23:00:00 1 05/01/05 07/01/05 09/01/05 11/01/05 11/01/05 00:00:00 110n Ennis Dam 100- 90- 03/31/05 23:00:00 30n 20- 03/31/05 23:00:00 1 05/01/05 1 07/01/05 09/01/05 11/01/05 11/01/05 00:00:00 110n 100- 80- I E |2 70- 60- 50- 40- 30- 20-^ 03/31/05 23:00:00 1 05/01/05 07/01/05 Norris 09/01/05 1M/01/05 11/01/05 00:00:00 e 3 2 & E 100- 80: 70- 60: 50- 40- 30- 204 05/01/05 07/01/05 Black's Ford 03/31/05 23:00:00 09/01/05 11/01/05 11/01/05 00:00:00 Cobblestone 110-1 100- 90- 80: 2> i & E 50- 40- 30- 204 03/31/05 23:00:00 05/01/05 07/01/05 09/01/05 ri/01/05 11/01/05 00:00:00 110-1 100- 90^ 80: 3 IB & E 70- 60- 50: 40- 30- 204 Headwaters State Park 05/01/05 1 07/01/05 03/31/05 23:00:00 09/01/05 11/01/05 11/01/05 00:00:00 110- 100- 90- 80 70 60 Kirkwood air 23:00:00 05/01/05 07/01/05 09/01/05 tirai/05 11/01/05 00:00:00 110 Slide air 100; 90- 80; t 70; 2 I I 60- 50- 40- 30- 20-V 05/01/05 07/01/05 03/31/05 23:00:00 09/01/05 11/01/05 11/01/05 00:00:00 110-1 Wall Creek HQ 100- 90- 80- t, 70^ £ I i 60- 50^ 40- 30- 204 1 05/01/05 07/01/05 09/01/05 11/01/05 11/01/05 00:00:00 03/31/05 23:00:00 03/31/05 23:00:00 09/01/05 11/01/05 11/01/05 00:00:00 110- 100- 90- 80 70 60- 50 40 30 20 M/oe Ennis Dam air 23:00:00 05/01/05 07/01/05 : 09/01/05 11/01/05 11/01/05 00:00:00 Temperature (*F) 110 Norris air 100- 90; 80; 70- 60- 40; 30; 20-( 03/31/06 23:00:00 1 r 05/01/05 07/01/05 09/01/05 11/01/05 11/01/05 00:00:00 110-1 Cobblestone air 100- 90- 80- £ I E 70- 60- 60- 40- 30- 20-V 06/01/05 07/01/05 09/01/05 iiroi/05 11/01/05 00:00:00 03/31/05 23:00:00 Appendix D2 Diel water temperature fluctuations during the warmest 24 hours at selected sites Date Maximum temperature Hebgen inlet July 14 79.15 Hebgen discharge August 17 64.82 Quake inlet August 17 & 29 64.57 Quake outlet August 5 63.49 Kirby July 13 & 15 70.19 McAtee July 13 & 15 69.76 Ennis Bridge July 23 72.81 Ennis Reservoir Inlet July 21 75.05 Ennis Dam July 21, 22, & 24 72.51 Beartrap mouth July 21 & August 7 76.58 Norris August 7 77.46 Black’s Ford July 23 & August 5 78.61 Cobblestone July 15 79.68 Headwaters State Park July 15 78.58 ' J. M'y.- f: L **^v(**^5- ■; i ly'Mi V • - ,, - ■ .-*\-fi. tV" • , . • .,t* •‘•-t. V * •-■^' .; -'t ' « -4 -; ■ -i' ' • f. ’[ • ' . -—-r- ;. -■• a^rrr^j- L^'o> .* . _ . I 4?' :,i^ r'^-t - a ■ * •'^ I'W V . ^■' -V ^ .^-v .. • ... ■ .4vs».^aiA^i£» . _ »_v. . _. 3X 'If •' S??s • i* ■ ■ , - •'' i. .‘’’ ' .«■ *.■ — ■V ' \r '» . 4Je.rK . ■ ... '» ^ *''f..,-1'^.-v:-r^ir.^= 4t^ ■:.- .?■ '^W'V: 1 . . ?'f . :-V5? ■•a.'M Sll^' .’rs3<»-' r*- '■■ V' :■ •■: :^- '* •-. ’ ^- V.^ ._, ‘i! ^ • ■ \4--^r- .-^rV-4 -t-vr* •< i .<;-! •• Hebgen inlet (Highway 191) Temperature (*F) Hebgen discharge 08/17/05 06:27:02 1 12:00:00 18:00:00 1 00:00:00 08/18/05 04:12:23 Quake Inlet 08/17A)5 05:07:10 08/18/05 06:39:09 Quake Inlet 64- 63- £ a c E |2 61- 60- 59- { • I ■ ■ I I I I I I r I ■ “1 1 I I 12:00:00 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' — -> 1 ' ^ 10:00 12:00:00 08/30/05 14:30:58 08/29/05 02:03:17 Temperature (*F) Quake outlet 08/07/05 05:15:00 Kirby 3 S S. E .4) 07/14 07/13/05 00:55:06 T McAtee 07/13/05 07:27:55 07/16/05 11:13:21 Ennis Bridge — I — 00:00:00 1 06:00:00 07I2AI0S 09:54:51 Ennis Reservoir iniet 07/22/05 09:41:12 Temperature (*F) 72.6 Ennis Dam 07/21/05 04:42:27 07/22 07/23 07/24 07/24/05 15:21:25 BearTrap Mouth BearTrap Mouth u. IL. 3 & K E 76 74 70- 68 \ / ■’ r 06:00:00 08/07/05 04:08:58 ’ 1 r 18:00:00 00:00:00 06:00:00 12:00:00 08/08/05 12:00:23 1 12:00:00 Norris Black's Ford t 1 1 1 1 ^ . 1 r 12:00:00 18:00:00 07/23/05 00:13:35 ' 1 ' 06:00:00 ~i 1 1 1' I 1 I 00:00:00 06:00:00 07/24/05 10:45:35 Black's Ford Cobblestone Headwaters State Park Appendix E The Montana Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan was finalized in October of 2002 and a full time Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Program Coordinator was hired by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks in February of 2004. The emphasis of the Montana ANS Program is on coordination, education, control and prevention of spread, monitoring and detection, and rapid response. The species of emphasis are New Zealand mudsnails, whirling disease (both of which are established in Montana), zebra mussels and Eurasian milfoil (both of which are yet to be documented in the state). Strategies to prevent the further spread and introduction of these species are outlined below. 1 . Statewide distribution survey for New Zealand Mudsnails has been completed. All state, federal and private hatcheries have been inspected for New Zealand Mudsnails. One private hatchery contains New Zealand mudsnails, strategies have been implemented to prevent the spread of this invasive through hatchery operations. The spread of New Zealand mudsnails has slowed and appears to be confined to east of the divide. 2. Zebra Mussel veliger sampling has been completed for all major reservoirs on the Missouri River, and on other high priority lakes and reservoirs. To date no zebra mussels have been found within the state. 3. Legislation and Rule making; In 2005 a rule making system was developed to classify exotic wildlife (terrestrial and aquatic) as either non controlled, controlled or prohibited. The following ANS have been since added to the prohibited list; snakehead fish (29 species), grass carp, silver carp, black carp, bighead carp, zebra mussels, rusty crayfish, nutria, African clawed frogs. North American bullfrogs, and New Zealand mudsnails. Legislation was also passed during the 2005 session to provide exceptions for the possession of prohibited species, primarily for the purposes of research, in addition to providing for tougher enforcement authority including the ability to confiscate illegally possessed exotic wildlife. 4. Montana continues to actively participate in the 100*** Meridian angler survey program and during 2005 submitted more than 1,700 entries to the angler survey database. The angler surveys are conducted as part of the Montana boat inspection program, which was greatly expanded in 2005. Boat inspections have occurred on all major lakes, reservoirs and popular cold-water trout rivers. The first boat with zebra mussels was found in Montana in March 2005. 5. Training; a one day workshop was provided during the Annual Meeting of the Montana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society on ANS identification, 2 day HACCP workshops have been provided for Montana hatchery personnel and field workers, a half day training was provided for Montana Firefighters on the prevention of spread of ANS, and a half day training was provided on ANS identification and prevention of spread as part of fish health training for fisheries and hatchery personnel within FWS Region 6. 6. Public outreach, presentations on ANS have been made to several special interest groups including Walleyes Unlimited, Fishing Outfitters Association of Montana and Lake Associations. ANS informational booths were present at five Montana outdoor shows; Billings, Bozeman, Great Falls, Missoula and Kalispell. Informational packets have been developed and are being distributed for private pond owners to encourage responsible pond ownership. 7. Illegal introductions, to date over 500 illegal fish introductions have been recorded in Mont^a. Illegal introductions have been identified as a major source of ANS introductions into Montana waters. An aggressive public outreach campaign was launched during summer of 2005 with an increase in law enforcement to discourage the activity of “bucket biology”. Appendix F Upper O’Dell Creek Restoration Project Fish Population Monitoring By Travis Lohrenz Fisheries Technician Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks June 28, 2006 Upper O’Dell Creek Restoration Project Fish Population Monitoring Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 2188 Articles Addressed Article 408 7) Evaluate the potential to enhance tributary spawning to increase the contribution of natural reproduction to the Upper Madison River fishery. Article 409 3) Fish habitat enhancement both in main stem and tributary streams, including enhancement for all life stages. Introduction O’Dell Creek is a tributary to the Madison River originating approximately 12 miles south of Ennis Montana. In 1955 a portion of O’Dell Creek located on the Grainger Ranch, Sec 4, T7S, RIW, was ditched for livestock and irrigation purposes. Dewatering of several small channels and associated riparian wetland occurred as a result. In addition, past livestock graring practices have caused destabilization of the main channel stream banks resulting in loss of fish habitat, associated with channel widening, and reduced ability of the stream to transport sediment. In 2005, PPL Montana, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (MFWP), DIP Consulting, and the Grainger Ranch, along with other agencies, entered into a cooperative effort to restore the natural form and function to the upper reaches of O’Dell Creek and its associated wetlands. The restoration of upper O’Dell Creek will be accomplished through a phased approach. In the summer of 2005 phase 1 of the project was implemented. Phase 1 included excavation and restoration of the Old Middle Channel and closure of O’Dell Ditch. Restoration of the Old Middle Channel was done prior to filling the O’Dell Ditch to accommodate an increase in water volume. Methods In May 2005, a field survey was conducted by Don Peters (DIP Consulting) and MFWP personnel to identify reaches with in the project area for the purpose of monitoring fish assemblages and densities prior too and after project implementation. Six reference reaches were established; O’Dell Ditch; Old Middle Channel; O’Dell West; O’Dell Above Falls; O’Dell Below falls; and O’Dell Spring Creek (Figure 1). ’OOellAxxe Ralls pdWdde .ODeiiVVtet OCfelIQBek Monitoring Stes for Rsh PopJation^ C aDGli Belov Rais ODell S^ngOoek ODeUDtch Figure 1 . Upper O’Dell Creek Restoration Project Fish Population Monitoring Sections. A catch-per-unit-efFort (CPUE) was conducted in a 500 ft. section in the O’Dell ditch; O’Dell Spring Creek; Old Middle Channel; and O’Dell West sections with a Smith Root ® backpack electro-fisher. Shocking time was recorded for each section. All fish collected were identified to species, enumerated, measured, and released. CPUE was calculated by dividing the total number of fish captured in each section by the total shocking time for each section (fish/min). CPUE were conducted April 5*** 2005 and April 6^^ 2006. A mark-recapture population estimate was conducted through a 1,000 ft section in the Above Falls and Below Falls sampling sites. These sections were sampled with a mobile-trode electro-fishing set up. All fish captured during the marking runs were identified to species, marked with a fin clip, weighed, measured, and released to redistribute through out the sections for approximately 10 days before the recapture run was conducted. Fish captured during the recapture run were identified to species, observed for the presence of a fin clip, measured if fin clip was present, or measured and weighed if a fin clip was absent. In 2005 marking runs occurred on April 7^ on the Above Falls section and April 14^ on the Below Falls section and recapture runs were conducted April 22“*^. In 2006 marking runs were conducted on April 6**' and recapture runs were conducted and on April 18* . Shocking time was recorded for each marking run. Results O’Dell Ditch Sampling of the O’Dell Ditch in 2005 yielded a total of 161 trout (24 rainbow, 137 brown), and 33 mottled sculpin in 29.65 min of shocking (CPUE 5.4fish/min). Several rainbow trout redds were observed with in the 500 ft. reach. A total of 7 out of 24 rainbow trout captured were sexually mature males. Rainbow trout in this section ranged from 2.9 to 11.7 inches, brown trout from 2.0 to 10.0 inches, and mottled sculpin 1.8 to 4.3 inches. Sampling of the ditch did not occur in 2006 as phase one of the project was completed in the summer of 2005. Old Middle Channel The Old Middle Channel sampling section produced 5 mottled sculpin, and 2 juvenile brown trout in 1 1.40 minutes of shocking (CPUE 0.6 fish/min). Brown trout ranged from 3.5 to 5. 1 inches and mottled sculpin from 1.9 to 5.8 inches. The Old Channel was intermittent and provided little fish habitat in 2005. After completion of phase one the Old Middle Channel was re-watered. The re- watered channel averaged 3ft in width and contained pools in the reference reach up to 3.5 ft deep. Sampling of this section in 2006 yielded 156 trout (40 rainbows, 1 16 brown) and 36 mottled sculpin in 35.8 minutes of shocking (CPUE 5.36 fish/min). One 18.4 inch spent female rainbow trout and one 19.0-inch sexually mature male rainbow trout were sampled. In addition one rainbow trout redd was observed with in the reach. Brown trout ranged from 3.3 to 18. 1 inches and rainbow trout ranged from 3.6 to 19.0 inches. Lengths were not taken on mottled sculpin in 2006. O’Dell Spring Creek In 2005, sampling in the O’Dell Spring Creek yielded 169 trout (30 rainbow, 139 brown)and 43 mottled sculpin in 27.75 minutes of shocking (CPUE 8.0 fish/min). Brown trout ranged from 2.8 to 1 1.2 inches, rainbows 2.8 to 6.7 inches, and mottled sculpin 1.5 to 4. 1 inches. Sampling in 2006, yielded 253 trout (68 rainbow, 185 brown)and 25 mottled sculpin in 27.86 minutes of shocking (CPUE 9.9 fish/min). Lengths for brown trout ranged from 3.0 to 10.5 inches, rainbows 2.9 to 6.0 inches. Lengths were not taken on mottled sculpin in 2006. O’Dell West A total of 255 trout (17 rainbow, 238 brown) and 44 mottled sculpins were sampled in 30.10 minutes of shocking (CPUE 9.9fish/min) in the O’Dell West section. Brown trout ranged from 2.0 to 9.5 inches, but those in the 4.0 to 5.0 inch size class were the most abundant in the section. Rainbow trout ranged from 4.2 to 20.9 inches, and mottled sculpin 1 .6 to 5.0 inches. The O’Dell West reach was not sampled in 2006. O’Dell Above Falls Mark recapture efforts in 2005 produced no population estimate because too few marked fish were recovered during the recapture run. Shocking time was recorded for the initial marking run and was used to calculate a CPUE for the section. A total of 356 trout (23 rainbow, 333 brown) were sampled. Total shocking time for the section was 120 minutes (CPUE 2.96 fish/min). A mark recapture was undertaken again in 2006. Shocking time on the marking run was recorded so data could be compared to that of 2005. A total of 492 trout (34 rainbow, 458 brown) were sampled in 2006 in 1 10 minutes (CPUE 4.16 fish/min),. It is likely that the catch rate increased from 2005 to 2006 as a result of the ditch being filled and fish in the ditch redistributing downstream. To meet mark recapture criteria, size classes were pooled for brown trout. There was an estimated 1,400 broAvn trout from 5.00 - 9.00 inches, 350 brown trout from 10.00-14.99 inches in the 1000ft reach. Estimates on rainbow trout and brown trout less than 5 inches were unobtainable because to few fish were captured. Brown trout from 5.0 to 8.0 inches were the most abundant through out the sampling section in 2005 and 2006 (Figure 2). Rainbow trout captured in the section ranged from 3.5 to 19.3 inches . Cranial deformities characteristic of whirling disease was observed in several of the rainbows sampled. O’Dell Below Falls In 2005, 158 trout (6 rainbow, 152 brown) were captured during mark recapture efforts. Fish greater than 12.0 inches were more prevalent throughout the section than in the Above Falls section. Length groups for brown trout were pooled to meet mark recapture criteria for a population estimate. There was an estimated 150, 8.0-1 1 .99 inch; 38, 12-15.99 inch; and 20, 16.00 inch and greater brown trout per 1000ft. Population estimates could not be produced for brown trout less than 8.0 inches or for rainbow trout, these length groups failed to meet mark-recapture criteria as too few fish were sampled. Rainbow trout captured in the section ranged from 3.0 to 12.0 inches. Brown trout in the 6 to 7 inch size classes were the most abundant throughout the section. O’Dell Above Falls Length Groups Figure 2. Brown Trout Length Frequency Distribution 2005 Vs. 2006 A total of 1 86 trout (20 rainbow, 1 66 brown) were sampled during mark-recapture efforts n 2006. As in 2005 estimates on rainbow trout and brown trout under 8.0 inches could not be made because too few fish in these length groups were sampled. Rainbows captured in 2006 ranged from 3.0 to 10.0 inches. Similar to 2005, the Below Falls section yielded more brown trout greater than 12.0 inches than the Above Falls section. However, the number of brown trout from 8.0 to 12.0 inches doubled in the reach, likely a result of fish redistribution from upstream restoration activities conducted in 2005 (Figure 3). In 2006, there was an estimated 290 brown trout from 8.0-1 1 .99 inches, 45 brown trout from 12.00-15.99 inches, and 20 brown trout 16.0 inches and greater per 1,000ft in the Below Falls section. ^2006 □2005 O’Dell Bellow Falls Length Groups Figure 3. Brown Trout Length Frequency Distribution 2005 Vs. 2006 All reaches in the project site will continue to be monitored after the completion of each phase and prior to the implementation of the next phase. As in previous years fish will be monitored to document any change in species assemblage, number, and size Monitoring will continue for three years after project completion and periodically there after. 'i' i'. •f ■’ 7 -7|- • V. ■y- Is A % -V r? :*V • •;■-:? . .. - Appendix G The MacConnell-Baldwin whirling disease grade-of-severity scale and definitions. Grade 0; No abnormalities noted. Afyxobolus cerebralis is not seen. Grade 1 : Small, discrete focus or foci of cartilage degeneration. No or few associated leukocytes. Grade 2: Single, locally extensive focus or several smaller foci of cartilage degeneration and necrosis. Inflammation is localized, few to moderate numbers of leukocytes infiltrate or border lytic cartilage. Grade 3; Multiple foci (usually 3 -4'^) of cartilage degeneration and necrosis. Moderate number of leukocytes are associated with lytic cartilage. Inflammatory cells extend minimally into surrounding tissue. Grade 4; Multifocal (usually 4 or more sites^^) to coalescing areas of cartilage necrosis. Moderate to large numbers of leukocytes border and/or infiltrate lytic cartilage. Locally extensive leukocyte infiltrates extend into surrounding tissue. Grade 5: Multifocal (usually 6 or more^^) to coalescing areas of cartilage necrosis. Moderate to large numbers of leukocytes border and/or infiltrate necrotic cartilage. The inflammatory response is extensive and leukocytes infiltrate deeply into surrounding tissue. This classification is characterized by loss of normal architecture and is reserved for the most severely infected fish. lesion numbers typical for head, not whole body sections. <■ i-\.,iK'^ ’iK'v!'-“ - V,v, _ .. ■' ;■■ :• ' ' "’fc ■ • .’.fc. V-.' 'ri.5 wi- •- K-' ■ v^a-sV..b!h»;!,c?-rtS- ■±.^^■3: ,-,il.. ^4^^3b5p;r‘^-‘' _ • - ■' " ■ ,1 •-;;■■ ,;4s = ' ffj Appendix H SOUTH FORK MADISON RIVER WESTSLOPE CUTTHROAT TROUT HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECT 2005 Monitoring Project Objectives: The objective of this project was to improve fish habitat conditions for an isolated population of westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) in the extreme headwaters of the South Fork of the Madison River. This project directly supports PM&E measure(s) FEIS Table 5-6 FERC Recommendation #99. Identify important riparian areas around Hebgen Reservoir and develop a plan to restore and protect these areas and 4.3. 1 & 4.3.2 Fisheries TAC PM&E duties #7 evaluate the potential to enhance tributary spawning to increase the contribution of natural reproduction to the Madison River fishery. Project Description: An old logging road had effectively captured 100 percent of the stream flow of a short section of the upper South Fork Madison River, thus drying up about 200 yards of the original channel. During July 2001, Montana Conservation Corp (MCC) and Forest Service crews constructed a vegetative revetment to divert stream flow back into the original stream channel and stabilized the outside meander bend. This action restored stream form and function, increased habitat availability, and reduced sediment delivery. Diverting stream flow back to the original stream channel also increased the amount of available habitat during late-summer and winter low flow periods. The vegetative revetment was constructed of a soil encapsulated coir wrap with log and rock structural reinforcements. The revetments were planted with willow and other native plant species in spring 2002 to insure long-term stability of the structure. Partners: PPL Montana, $3,000 cash donation; Montana Conservation Corp, $500 in- kind service and labor; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, $1,500 in-kind service and labor; Gallatin National Forest, $5,000. Monitoring: West Zone fisheries crew returned to this project site on July 12, 2005. The crew took the attached photos fi'om established photo points and made the following comments regarding success of the project. It was difficult to determine where the initial westslope cutthroat trout population data were collected in 2001 so no attempt to collect follow-up population data was made. It was found that the structures constructed by the crews in 2001 were functioning as they were originally designed. These structures have sufficiently diverted stream flow back into the original stream channel. There were no observable signs that water had every flowed down the old road bed since the completion of the project. Riparian species that were planted appeared to be very vigorous and dense. Erosion and subsequent sediment delivery have decreased significantly as a result of flow being placed back into the original stream channel and increased riparian vegetation. The stream flow is now flowing down a narrower, deeper stream channel with dense riparian vegetation. The project objective appears to have been achieved. Pre and Post Pictures Old Roadbed before Treatment - 2001 Old Roadbed after Treatment - 2001 Old Roadbed - July 12, 2005 Vegetative Revetment after Treatment - 2001 Vegetative Revetment - July 12, 2005 * i-: * ■ -'• ^ -J? < l\% i Appendix 1 Westsiope Cutthroat Trout Habitat Restoration Monitoring Tepee Creek, Madison Ranger District Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest August 2005 Background Tepee Creek originates on the east flank of the Gravelly Mountains as a tributary to Horse Creek and flows into the Madison River near Cameron, Montana. The removal of beaver fi'om this drainage, combined with historic overgrazing by livestock, resulted in considerable downcutting and overwidening of the stream channel, reducing the quality of habitat important to sustaining westsiope cutthroat trout (WCT). Currently, Tepee Creek has not been grazed by livestock for about 25 years, although light to moderate trampling continues from heavy elk and moose densities associated with the nearby Wall Creek Wildlife Management Area. The treatment segment of Tepee Creek is fishless and upstream of a natural barrier, and molecular samples from downstream in Horse Creek indicate that WCT in its upper reaches are genetically pure. Once habitat has been restored to acceptable levels in Tepee Creek, it is a management goal to introduce pure WCT to this headwater tributary. To sustain WCT in Tepee Creek, the development of numerous and deep pools is an important objective to providing over-wintering habitat for this species. The means to accomplishing this objective is to influence natural processes such as sinuosity, stream bank formation, and floodplain connectivity to accelerate the rate of recovery of pool habitat in each channel. Secondary objectives include improved watershed function with reduced fine sediment load being exported downstream into the Madison River system, an impaired water body on the Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s 303d list. Conceptually, the goal is to install low-head riffles and baffles using native rock and wooden stakes to influence deposition of fine sediments on these structures during springtime high flows. Tepee Creek has a relatively high bedload of fine sediments, which will be important to rebuilding point bars and stream banks. Wooden stakes - anywhere from 50-100 cm long - are pounded into the streambed in a dot-grid matrix, leaving roughly 10-50 cm of the stake protruding above the streambed surface in tributary-scale channels. The interstices formed by the spaces between stakes are then filled with native cobbles and smaller materials to form the riffle or baffle. The stakes provide the integrity to the structure to persist high flows and also influence the deposition of excess sediment. Riffles are constructed as channel-spanning features, generally installed to influence upstream sediment deposition. Baffles are not intended to span the channel, instead acting to form point bars and increasing sinuosity in the channel. Riffles and baffles typically exhibit an elevation gradient across the channel, influencing flow against one bank, and deposition against the other bank, particularly in the downstream backwater area. Riffle and baffles were initially installed in September 2004, with work continuing during the summer of 2005. It is expected that this work will continue annually through the summer of 2008. Channel Cross-section Transects Four transects, each describing a cross-sectional profile of the channel, were surveyed in Tepee Creek in July 2005 as a means to monitor changes in streambed elevation. The spatial orientation of these transects within the project area are displayed in Figure 1 . Transect #3 is a repeat of the only transect surveyed pre- installation, and is located directly over a riffle installed in September 2004. Transects #1, #2, and #4 are each located immediately upstream of a riffle installed in September 2004. Where individual elevation points of these three transects were over fi^eshly deposited sediment, a second elevation at such points was recorded by pressing the rod as far down into the sediment as possible to describe the streambed elevation from 2004. Comparative graphic representations for each transect are displayed in Figures 2, 4, 6 and 8 Figure 1 Aerial view of the monitoring reach and numbered transects. Tepee Creek Figure 2. Transect #1, depicting change in stream channel cross-sectional profile from September 2004 to July 2005. View is oriented looking upstream. Note the deposition of sediment occurring within the streambed Figure 3. Photo of Transect #1, view looking downstream. Arrow points to fine sediments trapped at right. Figure 4. Transect #2, depicting change in stream channel cross-sectional profile from September 2004 to July 2005 View is oriented looking upstream Note the deposition of sediment occurring within the streambed Figure 5. Photo of Transect #2, view looking downstream. Arrow points to fine sediments trapped at right Figure 6. Transect #3, depicting change in stream channel cross-sectional profile from September 2004 to July 2005. View is oriented looking upstream. Note the deposition of sediment occurring within the streambed. Figure 7. Photo of Transects #3 and #4, view looking upstream. Arrow points to fine sediment deposits. 96.5 Figure 8, Transect #4, depicting change in stream channel cross-sectional profile from September 2004 to July 2005 View is oriented looking upstream Note the deposition of sediment occurring within the streambed. All four transects (and photos) describe deposition of fine sediments upstream of their respective riffle structure. This is important as we now are seeing channel aggradation occurring throughout the larger reach. The orientation of these riffles is such that flows are directed laterally within the larger, degraded channel, increasing sinuosity. Sedges are expanding their distribution within these deposits, initiating bank formation and stabilization, and leading to channel narrowing. Baffle structures (Figure 9) installed during the summer of 2005 (Figure 6) are designed to fiirther increase channel sinuosity and length, resulting in reduced channel gradient that further influences sediment aggradation - a.cascade effecting essence. The photo of the riffle associated with Transects #3 and #4 (Figure 7) also shows a lateral scour pool immediately downstream of this structure. Lateral scour pools are not uncommon with these structures, and in fact are a component of the design, particularly as reflected in the desire for restoring sinuosity in the degraded channel. Monitoring Objectives for 2006 During the summer of 2006, monitoring of each of these four transects will continue. Additional information with the treated reach will be collected to measure changes in channel length, mean bankftill width, and also the frequency, spacing and mean residual depths of pools Figure 9. Baffles constructed in a downcut & over-widened reach of Tepee Creek, July 2005 Westslope Cutthroat Trout Habitat Restoration Monitoring Wigwam Creek, Madison Ranger District Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest August 2005 Background Wigwam Creek originates on the east flank of the Gravelly Mountains and flows into the Madison River near Cameron, Montana. The removal of beaver from this drainage, combined with historic overgrazing by livestock, has resulted in downcutting and overwidening of the stream channel, reducing the quality of habitat important to sustaining westslope cutthroat trout (WCT). Currently, Wigwam Creek is grazed by livestock under the Forest’s riparian grazing standards, designed to reduce impacts and allow for stable stream banks and proper functioning condition (PFC). Light trampling continues from moderate elk and moose densities. The treatment segment of Wigwam Creek supports westslope cutthroat trout (<90% pure) upstream of a landslide functioning as a barrier. Molecular samples collected from nearby tributaries Arasta Creek and Buffalo Creek, indicate that WCT in their upper reaches are genetically pure. To sustain WCT in Wigwam Creek, the development of numerous and deep pools is primary objective to providing over-wintering habitat for this species. The means to accomplishing this objective is to influence natural processes such as sinuosity (Figures 1 and 2), stream bank formation, and floodplain connectivity to accelerate the rate of recovery of channel morphology to allow for high quality pool habitat in Wigwam Creek. Secondary objectives include improved watershed fiinction with reduced fine sediment load being exported downstream into the Madison River system, identified as an impaired waterbody on the Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) 303d list, with siltation as one of the probable causes Z r “^‘"8 wooden stakes to influence deposition of fine sediments on these structures during springtime high flows. Wigwam Creek as a relatively high bedload of fine sediments, important to rebuilding point bars and stream banks ooden stakes an^here from 50-100 cm long - are pounded into the streambed in a dot-grid matrix leaving roughly JO-50 cm of the stake protruding above the streambed surface in tributary-scafe channels’ The interstices formed by the spaces between stakes are then filled with native cobbles and smaller materials to form the nffle or baffle. The stakes provide the integrity to the structure to persist high flows and also influence the deposition of excess sediment. Riffles are constructed as channel-spanning futures, generally installed to influence upstream sediment deposition Baffles are not intended to span the channel, instead arting to form point bars and increasing sinuosity in the channel Both structures can act to scour pools when onent^ properly. Riffles and baffles typically exhibit an elevation gradient across the channel, influencing flow against one bank, and deposition against the other bank particularly in the downstream backwater area. ^ a A riffle was initially installed in the treatment reach of Wigwam Creek in September 2004 with work wntinuing during the summer of 2005, including volunteer labor and donations from the Madison River Foundation and the Madison-Gallatin Chapter of Trout Unlimited. The Madison-Beaverhead Counties ^C provided funds toward the purchase of supplies in 2005. This project also received considerable u PPL-Montana in 2005, under the authority of Article 409 of their FERC license on the Madison River, specifically part (3) “fish habitat enhancement both in the main stem and tributary streams, including enhancement for all life stages of fishes” and part (9) “riparian habitat restoration”. It IS expected that restoration efforts will continue on this project annually through the summer of 2008 Figure I Wigwam Creek immediately downstream of the FS Road 290 bridge; previous to baffle installation (July 2005) on the left, and after baffle installation (October 2005) on the right Figure 2 Comparison of pre-and post-installation of baffles - note increased channel sinuosity RESULTS HABIT A T CHARA CTERISTICS Comparison of stream habitat data are presented in Table 1 below. Reach 1 was not treated in 2005, but is slated for restoration efforts in 2006. Reach 2 and 3 relate positive changes in that each exhibited: - increased channel length - decreased streambed gradient - decreased bankfull width - increased or stable mean residual depth of pools increased pool frequency - decreased pool spacing Post-runoff monitoring in 2006 should relate further improvements as the channel continues to adjust to work done by the stream. Additional improvements are also scheduled in 2006, primarily in Reaches 1 and 3. Table 1. Habitat characteristics as compared by reach and year in Wigwam Creek, 2004-2005. Characteristic Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 Channel length (m) - 141.6 87.7 93.1 159.0 163.2 Streambed gradient (%) - 3.64 3.33 3.14 1.21 1.18 Mean bankfull width (m) - 2.53 2.78 2.31 2.69 2.61 Mean residual pool depth (m) - 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.22 0.26 Pool frequency (pools / km) - 18.8 33.3 70.0 23.2 26.2 Pool spacing (bank&ll widths) - 21.8 10.8 6.2 15.7 13.8 FISH POPULA TIONS Fish population data were collected in 2005 as a baseline for fiiture comparisons. These data were compiled and are delineated by reach and channel gradient in Figure 3. The only species captured were hybridized WCT, at generally low densities. The southern tributary (unnamed) appears to harbor a relative high density of juvenile WCT, including the only fiy captured (2) during this survey. Genetic molecular analysis (DNA; PINE technique) of 7 samples collected from Wigwam Creek in the vicinity of the project in 1999 indicate an average WCT component of 82% (17% YCT and 1% RBT). Potential exists to augment this genome with genetically pure gametes from the Sun Ranch brood stock, and should be evaluated in the near future. ) “■ 1 1 1 1 I'll 1 ^ ^ T — 1— ^ ^ ^ ■ • • ^ r— • • ■ ■ ' ' - • • ■ ■ ■ • • 8 fish( End Reach 3 »ught = 49.( (1.18%) ■ ) fish / km - • • • t • ■ 0 0 m • End R 15fis each 2 (3.14%) 1 caught = 161 fish / km ■ - 0 • • • • En 9£ i Reach 1 (3 ish caught = 64%) 63.6 fish / k m - 0 . • - • -L, , , , 1 • • Sout =2: 1 tributary (S .2.7 fish/kn -g ,j 1 gj >.2%); 10 fi - appears 1 .1 1 1 1 sh caught (ai to function ^ 1-1.. j i_l 1 under 120mm) includin IS a rearing channel. — i-g gg i ' . ' . 1 g two fry ^'11 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Distance (m) Figure 3 Graphic representation of pre-treatment streambed gradient, with fish abundance bv reach. ADDITIONAL BENEFITS Baffles also operate to protect and stabilize bare streambanks, particularly at heavily trampled areas such as cattle ramps (Figure 4). Large rip-rap originally protecting the bridge had migrated into the middle of the channel, resulting in widening and erosion, were replaced next to the abutments (Figure 5). Figure 4. Wood stake-rock baffle functions at a cattle ramp to narrow the channel, provide bank stability, and reduce sediment introduction. Figure 5. Translocating these large rocks shifts erosive forces away from the bridge abutments. '- ■^‘'P -ri^y •H, V .( ■■' >< •• .'4W *'•.?•»- »t Si J ' < ' i"; i ‘V 'iV^4/Jr?J b r'4''' Si ■• • '«'..-.4; <}’5v.' ''S ■■:■■: ; -•■/ ■ ■•V" r'-* h . !: • cS>{ ^ . ' j t ^ >*{♦ .- Si’ ' ;.,,i- • , .«■ V--, - • ► • • + ■ ..■i .- 'Tr.' '■ •'• ■ S: . . .--h r- ' ■* r , u - ''r •k #;c .} . f 'p ti f ■ tS 'P - " ' V.- >^'. ■■::• ' A>, ■-' % ( 4 ' :.^.- lx . . S:*:^-'-'v • !iS^- ■ ^ V ■ • ^ ^ ' *■ '■■■ -t ■ '•! M-' ‘ % '0>>5’ ■^*:r ♦. ■■ ■ '■■ ;, «?»>-' '■ . >% • •/ *‘.*V’-‘* hVC^i* T, , S *', . 3 '^- ■./*•*« H-M' ■• - '*,1 '■^5.-.» ’^V --I .- « - •;: r,mumL. • ■ vti'. iSA^.'s^asiil- • ^■ ’ •Ji'.-A '»w£v:n>&V-TU ■' '"SMM *$ K, . tvi*»V.v y' ■' ■■' '■ M- , . ■ * ^-- I i. * I I ‘H