Response of Major Forest Land Managers 



impactive sediment sampling technique in 

 smaller streams that have a limited supply of 

 spawning gravel. Continuous monitoring could 

 result in net loss of spawning habitat. 



The studies indicate that sediment levels 

 have a critical effect on developing trout. These 

 results provide a basis for assessing habitat 

 conditions and will undoubtedly influence man- 

 agement decisions regarding future road con- 

 struction and timber harvest. An inherent prob- 

 lem with the use of threshold sediment values is 

 the fact that there is a wide range of natural 

 variability in streams with respect to flows and 

 sediment. In cases where lakes or streams are 

 classified "threatened" or"impaired," increased 

 concern is justified. In these situations, we will 

 comply with the special recommendations to 

 control erosion, protect waterquality, and main- 

 tain fish habitat. 



Difficult questions remain regarding appli- 

 cability of the recommendations to westslope 

 cutthroat trout streams. Additional monitoring 

 of westslope cutthroat trout spawning areas 

 must be undertaken with caution to avoid habi- 

 tat degradation. Selecting spawning areas to 

 monitor may be arbitrary in many streams. 

 Random samples of potential spawning gravel 

 do not provide a definitive description of habi- 

 tat condition or population status for westslope 

 cutthroat trout. 



It must be recognized that watersheds are 

 complex and dynamic systems. Most of the 

 variation in aquatic habitat condition was not 

 correlated with upland management activities. 

 Consequently, it should not be assumed that 

 constraints on roading and logging will protect 



or improve native fisheries in all cases. More 

 effort to develop streamflow and sediment rout- 

 ing relationships is needed so that upland activi- 

 ties and changes in streambed materials can be 

 better understood. 



Although we realize that determination of 

 limiting factors for local trout populations was 

 beyond the scope of this study, the issue is an 

 important one. The study results show that 

 sediment alone does not regulate fish abun- 

 dance in the Flathead Basin. Nevertheless, we 

 accept our responsibility to ensure that forest 

 practices do not degrade fish habitat. 



Monitoring and Additional Study 

 Needs 



Water quality and fisheries monitoring rec- 

 ommendations have been developed and car- 

 ried out according to the Flathead Basin Com- 

 mission Monitoring Master Plan. Land manag- 

 ers agree in concept with the "monitoring and 

 additional study needs." Revisions to the Mas- 

 ter Plan should reflect the recommended 

 changes. Water quality and fisheries habitat 

 monitoring are high priority programs. How- 

 ever monitoring must be balanced within bud- 

 get constraints and within the framework of 

 other management objectives and priorities. 



These studies were valuable in providing a 

 focus on the relationships between forest prac- 

 tices, water quality, and fisheries. We appreci- 

 ate the time and effort that has gone into this 

 comprehensive evaluation and believe it will 

 contribute to the maintenance of high water 

 quality standards in the Flathead Basin. 



Flathead Basin Cooperative Program Final Report 



Page 167 



