Stream rank by sport fishery value 



Sport fishery prioritization is a 

 measure of species recruitment (multiple or 

 single-species fields) to the Blackfoot River. 

 Tributaries providing multi-species 

 recruitment ranked high, whereas streams 

 providing single-species recruitment ranked 

 low. Of 83 total streams, 44 (53%) provide 

 recreational sport fishery value to the 

 Blackfoot River based on scoring criteria 

 (Figure 8). Thirteen of 83 (16%) provide 

 single species (primarily WSCT) sport 

 fishery value, compared to 31 (34%) with 

 multi-species sport fishery value. The 

 majority (79%) of project streams provide 

 sport fishery value, compared to minority of 

 (36%) of non-project streams. Of 33 project 

 streams, 21 (64%) support high (multi- 

 species) recreational sport fishery value, 

 while 5 streams (15%) support low (single- 

 species) sport fishery value. Seven project 

 streams have no sport fishery value. For 

 non-project streams, 10 of 50 (20%) support 

 high (multi-species) sport fishery value, 

 while 8 (16%) provide low (single species) 

 sport fishery value. The majority of non- 

 project streams, 32 of 50 (64%), provide no 

 sport fishery value to the Blackfoot River 

 based on scoring criteria. 



Potential to increase instream flows 



Scoring streams by potential to 

 increase flows to the Blackfoot River relied 

 on a single input field (Appendix B). 

 Scoring identified potential to increase 

 instream flows from tributaries to the 

 Blackfoot River in 29 of 83 (47%) streams 

 surveyed. For project streams, 19 of 33 

 (51%) have this potential, compared to 10 

 of 50 (20%) non-project streams. These 

 results reflect 1) the difference in elevation 

 of streams between headwater non-project 

 streams and lower elevation project streams, 

 2) more extensive water use through 

 irrigation fi-om tributaries in the Ovando and 

 Helmville areas compared to streams in the 

 Lincoln area (Figure 9), 3) difficulties 

 associated with enhancing instream flows, 

 and 4) need for continued water 

 conservation focus for current project 

 streams. 



Figure 8. Streams ranked with high (multi-species) 

 and low (single-species) sport fishery value to the 

 Blackfoot River. 



Figure 9. Generalized map of streams ranked with 

 potential to improve Blackfoot River flows. 



High 



Moderate 



Low 



Figure 10. Generalized map of streams ranked with 

 potential to improve downstream water quality. 



ir 



