Project streams 

 Non-project streams 

 Non-Impaired 

 streams 



RESULTS/DISCUSSION 



In addition to total stream score and rank for 83 stream as outlined in the 

 executive summary, we also stratified streams by "project" and "non-project" status in 

 Results Part I and II. For project and non-project streams, we fiirther stratified streams 

 by 1) total rank, 2) biological rank, 3) native species rank (bull trout and WSCT), 4) sport 

 fishery value to the Blackfoot River, 5) potential to increase instream flow to the 

 Blackfoot River, 6) potential for downstream water quality improvements, and 7) social 

 and financial considerations. We used a series of histograms, cumulative fi-equency 

 curves, and classified maps to summarized results for these six categories. In order to 

 simplify the various priority results, we converted absolute scores (e.g. total score values 

 of 175, 170, 165, etc.) to ranked values (e.g. priorities 1, 2, 3, etc.). 



Results Part II 

 contains: 1) impaired 

 project streams (33 

 streams), 2) impaired 

 non-project stream (50 

 streams), plus 3) a 

 section describing five 

 non-impaired streams. 

 Project streams are 

 those currently in the 

 restoration project 



stage or have received 

 restoration project 



work in the past. Non- 

 project streams have 

 not yet received 

 restoration (Figure 4). 



In Results Part II, stream priorities were summarized by six categories. For all sbc 

 categories, low class values represent high priorities. These class values relate directly to 

 histograms cumulative fi-equency curves and classified maps located in Results Part I. As 

 an example, Alice Creek with a biological rank of 7/14 falls in the 7* of 14 total classes 

 based on the biological rank histogram in Results Part I. Based on the cumulative 

 frequency curve of biological rank, Alice Creek then falls in the lower 30"' percentile for 

 biological priorities for non-project streams. For summary purposes, we described 

 streams within the lower -50 percentile (of cumulative frequency curve) as high 

 restoration priority; streams in the upper SO"' percentile were considered low priority. 

 Classes within the 50*^ percentile were ranked moderate unless heavily weighed to the 

 upper or lower end of a priority scale, as in class 6 (non-project streams) under the native 

 species prioritization. 



Figure 4. Map of project, non-project and non- 

 impaired streams. 



15 



