PROCEDURES 



Designating flsheries-impaired streams 



From 88 streams assessed by FWP between 1988 and 2001, we developed a list of 

 83 "fisheries-impaired" streams. We identified impairment using many methods 

 including 1) interpretation of fish population survey data (population size, population 

 structure and species composition) at many sites along a stream profile during stream 

 inventories, 2) measurements of habitat, stream flow, irrigation fish loss, channel 

 instability, riparian health, and water temperature, and 3) direct observations of adverse 

 land management activities during assessments. Inventory results and impairments are 

 summarized in a series of nine FWP reports (Peters and Spoon 1989, Peters 1990, Pierce 

 and Peters 1990, Pierce 1991, Pierce, Peters and Swanberg 1997, Pierce and 

 Schmetterling 1999, Pierce and Podner 2000, Pierce, Podner and McFee 2001, Pierce, 

 Podner and McFee 2002.) In addition to FWP evaluations, many agency reports, 

 graduate studies, and independent assessments helped designate streams as fisheries- 

 impaired. These sources are also cited in the nine FWP reports. For this prioritization 

 report, we also relied on a summary list of fisheries-impaired streams taken fi"om the 

 most recent FWP report (Pierce et al. 2002), located in Appendbc C of this report. 



Prioritization Scorecard 



In consuhation with the Big Blackfoot Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Blackfoot 

 Challenge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service along with fimding fi-om the Chutney 

 Foundation, we developed a restoration prioritization scorecard (Appendbc A). This 

 scorecard, along with assigned points and ranking therein, form the foundation of this 

 stream prioritization (Appendbc B). We based stream scores on a hierarchical point 

 system with emphasis on biological benefits (150 total possible points) along with social 

 and financial considerations (50 total possible points). 



Due to their personal knowledge and expertise regarding fish populations, habitat 

 problems and restoration in the Blackfoot drainage, a committee of three FWP fisheries 

 biologists (Don Peters, Ron Pierce, and Craig Podner) was given the job of assessing 

 tributary data and assigning values to the scorecard. Scoring of some criteria (primarily 

 social and financial considerations) necessarily relied on past landowner interviews, 

 direct knowledge of tributaries, along with professional expertise and committee 

 judgment for inventoried non-project streams. 



For the biological benefits section of the scorecard, streams with documented bull 

 trout use received scores of 10, 20, 30 or 40 points, depending on whether the stream 

 supported spawning (20 points), rearing (10 points) or is a designated buU trout "core 

 area" stream (10 points). Compared to other criteria, bull trout streams received 

 potentially more points due to their: 1) "threatened" status under the Endangered Species 

 Act along with state and federal priorities for the recovery of this species; 2) high 

 potential for improvement in the Blackfoot watershed; and 3) downstream benefits to 

 other species resulting fi-om bull trout recovery efforts. 



For WSCT streams, an additional zero to 20 points were possible, depending on 

 whether a stream supported no WSCT (zero points), resident WSCT (10 points) or fluvial 

 WSCT use (20 points). Fluvial WSCT streams received a higher score than resident fish 

 streams due to 1) the precarious status of the fluvial life-history, 2) high sport fish value 



11 



