to the Blackfoot River, and 3) downstream benefits to other species resulting fi-om WSCT 

 recovery efforts. Streams receiving fluvial WSCT status (20 points) were those identified 

 through 1) direct telemetry studies, 2) direct observations of fluvial-sized fish by a 

 committee member, or 3) direct tributaries to the Blackfoot River and biologically 

 connected during high flows periods. 



Streams received an additional zero, 10 or 20 points based on sport fishery value 

 to the Blackfoot River. Streams with no sport fishery value (disjunct fi-om the Blackfoot 

 River) received zero points; single species sport fishery value (non-disjunct usually with 

 WSCT) received 10 points (low rank), while non-disjunct streams that provide 

 recruitment of multiple species (bull trout, WSCT, rainbow and brown trout) to the 

 Blackfoot River received 20 points (high rank). We assumed streams supporting rainbow 

 and brown trout and bull trout (if connected) provided sport fishery value to the 

 Blackfoot River. We assumed small non-direct and non-fluvial headwater tributaries to 

 support primarily resident WSCT and as such were not considered as providing sport 

 fishery value to the Blackfoot River. We did not consider brook trout in this ranking due 

 to their limited use of the Blackfoot River and adverse biological impacts to native 

 species. 



Stream restoration technical feasibility was also considered with zero points for 

 not feasible and 20 points for streams considered technically feasible to restore. Streams 

 with acid mine drainage or heavy metals (upper Blackfoot River and tributaries-not 

 considered in this report), large instream reservoirs (upper Nevada Creek, Frazier Creek, 

 and Wales Creek), over-appropriated water rights (lower Nevada Creek), major highway 

 problems (Chimney Creek), and fully restored (Grentier Spring Creek) were considered 

 not technically feasible to restore for the purposes of this report. 



In addition to direct fisheries and feasibility criteria, streams with potential to 

 increase flows (e.g. irrigation salvage potential) to the Blackfoot River were allotted 20 

 points. Finally, under the biological ranking section, streams with potential to improve 

 downstream water quality by reducing 1) instream sediment (10 points), 2) water 

 temperature (10 points), and 3) nutrient loading (10 points) could earn up to an additional 

 30 points. 



For social and financial consideration, we used three criteria: 1) landowner and land 

 manager cooperation (5, 10, 15 or 20 points) - a measure of perceived landowner 

 cooperation; 2) restoration feasibility (5, 10 or 20 points) - an estimate of project 

 cost/mile; and 3) demonstration/educational value of potential projects (5 or 10 points) - a 

 measure of project uniqueness, landowner interest and project access. 



We transferred scorecard values to an EXCEL spreadsheet (Appendix B). We 

 sorted all 83 streams by total score and then prioritized streams by total rank (Table 1). 

 High scores are high priorities and are represented as low ranking values. For instance 

 Monture Creek received the highest total score (175 points) for all streams and thus 

 ranked 1^' in total priority. We used this scoring and ranking method for all categories 

 that rely on several numerical fields. 



We also stratified all 83 streams by restoration (project streams) or non- 

 restoration (non-project streams) status. We scored and ranked project and non-project 

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

 fields), 4) sport fishery value, 5) potential to increase instream flow to the Blackfoot 

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



12 



