Biological Rank s Mf^n ^f J 



We obtained the biological rank by adding 10 scores together, including 1) three bull 

 trout fields, 2) WSCT life-history, 2) sport fishery value to the Blackfoot, 4) technical ability to 

 address the entire stream system, 5) ability to increase instream flow to the Blackfoot River, and 

 6) three water quality scores related to potential downstream water quality improvements 

 (Appendix A). Ranking of Biological scores generated 14 classes for non-project streams, and 10 

 for project streams (Figure 6). The distribution among ranked classes shows project streams 

 weighted more toward higher biological priorities than non-project streams. 



Number atreama ranked 



Cummulatlve Percent 



1 23466789 1011121314 

 High Priority Low Priority 



Biological Rank 



12 3 4 

 High Priority 



6 8 7 8 9 



Biological Rank 



10 11 12 13 14 

 Low Priority 



Figure 6. Histogram and cumulative frequency curve for streams ranked by biological priority. 

 Table 3. Project and non-project streams prioritized by biological rank. 



Score* is stratified (project, non-project) score. 



Numbers within ( ) are non-stratified total biological rankings 1-83. 



17 



