Validity of the wetted-perimeter method for recommending instream flows for rainbow trout in a small
stream
by Christopher L Randolph
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Fish
and Wildlife Management
Montana State University
© Copyright by Christopher L Randolph (1984)
Abstract:
Validation of a method estimating minimum instream flow needs for fish is a prerequisite to its
application. The validity of the average-riffle-wetted-perimeter method was investigated through study
of the relationship between artificially supplemented rainbow trout populations and flow-related
decreases in habitat in three sections of Ruby Creek, Madison County, Montana. Low summer flow
had a regulating influence on trout numbers and biomass in the study sections. Factors other than
short-term summer low flow may also have limited the trout, populations.
Numerical abundance and biomass of trout decreased as flow decreased in all study sections.
Emigration from two study sections influenced by irrigation diversions correlated better with average
daily flow than did emigration from a section with natural flow. Following flow reduction, trout
emigration lagged 11 to 15 days in two of the three stream sections. Emigration from all study sections
was primarily in an up stream direction. Average riffle wetted perimeter was not a consistent index of
summer habitat suitability for trout. In a pool-riffle section, average-wetted' perimeter of riffles was
highly correlated with trout numbers and biomass, and the inflection point on the wetted perimeter
curve corresponded closely with the flow at which the rate of trout emigration increased substantially.
Correlation between average wetted perimeter of riffles and trout numbers in two run-riffle sections
was poor. Most habitat variables were highly correlated with flow and with each other. Variables
estimating riffle surface width associated with depth greater than 15 cm changed in a pattern similar to
percentage change in trout numbers and biomass. VALI DI TY OF . THE
WETTED- PERI METER METHOD FOR
RECOMMENDING I NSTREAM FLOWS FOR RAINBOW
TROUT I N A SMALL STREAM
by
Christopher
L
Randolph
A th esis submitted in p a r t i a l fu lfillm e n t,
of the r e q u i r e m e n t s fo r the d egree
of
Master, of
Fish
and
Science
i n
W ildlife
Management
MONTANA STATE UNI VERS I TY
Bozeman,Montana
September
1984
ii
APPROVAL
of
a
thesis
Christopher
submitted
Lee
by
Randolph
T h i s t h e s i s h a s b e e n r e a d by e a c h me mb e r o f t h e t h e s i s
c o m m i t t e e a n d h a s b e e n f o u n d t o be s a t i s f a c t o r y r e g a r d i n g
c o n te n t, English usage, format, c ita tio n s , bibliographic
s t y l e , and c o n s i s t e n c y , and i s r e a d y f o r s u b m is s io n to the
College of Graduate S t u d i e s .
Da t e
Approved
for
<5~
Date
Approved
Da t e
for
the
the
Major
Department
Head,
Major
College
of
Department
Graduate
Graduate
Studies
Dean
iii
STATEMENT OF P E R MI S S I ON TO USE
In
presenting
requirements
University,
hie
to
this
for
I
from
permission,
source
is
agree
this
fessor,
or
in
the
be
the
is
allowed
for
at
Library
rules
of
are
that
the
Montana
shall
accurate
to
the
State
make
Library.
allowable
it
availa- ■
Brief
without
quo­
special
acknowledgement
in
9~5
quotation
ma y
be
granted
absence ,
by
the
opinion
of
either,
scholarly
this
without
Signa ture
extensive
thesis
his
for
m aterial
Date
degree
fulfillm ent
of
made.
of
m aterial
partial
the
thesis
provided
duction
in
that
under
this
Permission
when,
in
a master’ s
borrowers
tations
thesis
the
for
of
proposed
An y
financial
my p e r m i s s i o n .
or
repro­
b y my m a j o r
Director
purposes.
thesis
from
pro­
Libraries
use
of
the
copying
or
use
gain
shall
not
of
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I
would
like
conscientious
criticizing
this
Hunt
thesis.
Dr.
Georgia
and
to
computer
Cooperative
Fish,
The
United
Montana
Montana
of
also
Dr.
in
and
States
go
Fish
and
F ish , W ildlife
Trout
supported
Cooperative
of
the
this
Fisheries
Fish
of
during
Parks
analysis
Department
and
this
of
Wildlife
project.
Debbie,
who h a s
my c o l l e g e
career.
Service,
and
project
Research
and
cooperating
W ildlife
and
this
Dolloff
Montana
and
and
Montana
t o my w i f e ,
confidence
Irby,
statistical
completion
thanks
Lynn
States
University,
my
completing
Unit,
United
and
express
( Andy)
in
his
my g r a d u a t e
in
Employees
"’
the
to
of
Charles
guidance
for
directing
Ray W h i t e ,
research
State
White
wish
members
Parks,
sincere
support,
Department
for
and
assisted
My m o s t
provided
provided
Montana
landowners
Lee,
Fisheries
Robert
assistance
operation.
W ildlife
Service,
I
Kaya,
their
Henry
Dr.
designing,
other
Calvin
for
Ziemba
in
study.
the
D rs.
William
thank
efforts
appreciation
committee,
to
The
Foundation
through
Unit.
Montana
the
'
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
............................................................................................
Page
iv
TABLE OF C O N T E N T S ......................................................................................
v
LIST
OF T A B L E S ..................................................................... ■ .........................
vii
LIST
OF F I G U R E S ...................................... .....................................................
v
A B S T R A C T .............................................. ' .................................................................
I NTRODUCTI ON
xiv
.......................................................................................................
DE S CRI P T I ON OF STUDY AREA
I
.................................................................
8
METHODS............................................................................................ ..
11
Fish Population Manipulation
........................................
H a b i t a t E v a l u a t i o n • . ................................................................
Computer Modeling of Wetted P e r i m e t e r . . . .
R E S U L T S ................................................................................................................
A b u n d a n c e R e g u l a t i o n by Low Su mme r F l o w . . .
A c c l i m a t i o n Flow and
Trout Emigration . .
Flow R e l a t e d Changes
in T ro u tAbundance .
S i z e R e l a t e d R e s p o n s e . . . ...................................
Changes in C o n d itio n
F a c t o r .................................
P o s t - S t u d y D e n s i t i e s ..............................................
F i s h N o t A c c o u n t e d F o r ...........................................
Flow R e l a te d D e c rea se s in H a b i t a t A v a i l a ­
b i l i t y ......................................................................................
H a b i t a t D i f f e r e n c e s Between S e c t i o n s . .
.
D e c r e a s e s i n H a b i t a t .............................................. ..... .
H a b i t a t C o r r e l a t i o n s ....................... ..................................
T e m p e r a t u r e ....................... ..... ...................................................
Wetted P e rim e te r as a H a b ita t Index . . . . . .
W ett ed P e r i m e t e r and H a b i t a t C o r r e ­
l a t i o n s ......................................................................................
Trout Abundance and Wetted P e r i m e t e r . .
.
V a r i a b l e s V e r s u s T r o u t N u m b e r s .............................
D I S C U S S I O N ............................................................................................................
A b u n d a n c e R e g u l a t i o n b y l o w S u mme r F l o w
.
Flow R e l a t e d D e c r e a s e s i n H a b i t a t A v a i l a ­
b i l i t y . . . .
...........................................................................
11
14
16
23
23
23
28
33
43
47
48
49
49
54
54
59
65
65
65
< 70
74
74
81
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
Wetted
REFERENCES
AP PENDI X
Perimeter
as
a Habitat
Index
...
.
C I T E D ...................................................................................... ...
82
gg
........................................................................... .....
93
\
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.
2.
3.
>.
.
•
•
Page
C o m p a r i s o n o f t h e mini mum i n s t r e a m f l o w,
recom m endations d e r i v e d from the s i n g l e and
m u l t i p l e - w e t t e d p e r i m e t e r methods and t r o u t
s t a n d i n g crop and flow d a ta fo r f i v e
re a c h e s of the M adison, B e a v e rh e a d ,
G a l l a t i n a n d Bi g Ho l e r i v e r s ( f r o m N e l s o n
1 9 8 0 ) .............................................. .........................................................
3
G eneral d e s c r i p t i o n of stu d y s e c t i o n s .
R u b y G r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 ..............................................
10
C a l i b r a t i o n d a t a ( S = s t a g e i n m e t e r s , Q=
d i s c h a r g e i n l i t e r s / s e c , and r= c o r r e l a t i o n
c o e f f i c i e n t s ) used in the w etted p e rim e te r
m o d e l ( WETP) f o r t h r e e s t u d y s e c t i o n s on
R u b y C r e e k , M o t i t a n a , 1 9 8 2 ..............................................
21
Number a n d d e n s i t y ( f i s h / m e t e r ) of t r o u t
in each s e c t i o n b e f o r e and a f t e r the s tu d y
o n R u b y C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 ........................................
24
B i om as s ( g) a nd d e n s i t y ( g/m) of t r o u t i n
e a c h s e c t i o n b e f o r e a n d a f t e r t h e s t u d y on
R u b y C r e e k , Mont a na , , , 1 9 8 2 ..............................................
25
Size
r a n g e ( mm) o f t r o u t f o u n d i n s t u d y
s e c t i o n s I, 2 and 3 b e f o r e , d u r in g and
a f t e r t h e e x p e r i m e n t on R u b y C r e e k ,
M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 ......................................................................................
26
E m ig r a ti o n of rain b o w t r o u t c a p t u r e d d u ring
the a c c l im a ti o n p e rio d in s e c t i o n s I, 2 and
3 , R u b y C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 .........................................
27
C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s ( r) between f i s h
a b u n d a n c e l a g g e d by t i m e a n d d i s c h a r g e i n
s e c t i o n s I , 2 a n d 3, Ruby C r e e k ,
M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 . . . .....................................................................
32
C o m p a r i s o n o f e m i g r a t i o n o f r e s i d e n t ( R)
a n d s t o c k e d ( NR) r a i n b o w t r o u t f r o m
s e c t i o n s I , 2 a n d 3, Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a ,
1 9 8 2 ................................................................................
37
viii
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Ta b l e
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Page
Com pa ris on of mean l e n g t h and w e i g h t of
rainbow tro u t in each study se ctio n
b e f o r e a n d a f t e r t h e e x p e r i m e n t , Ruby
C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 ...............................................................
39
Comparison of c o n d i t i o n f a c t o r s of rainbow
t r o u t s to c k e d , those e m i g r a t i n g , and those
r e m a in in g a t the end of r ed u c e d flow
e x p e r i m e n t s i n s t u d y s e c t i o n I , Ruby C r e e k ,
M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 .................................................................................
44
Comparison of c o n d itio n f a c t o r s of rainbow
t r o u t s t o c k e d , t h o s e e m i g r a t i n g , and t h o s e
r e m a in in g a t the end of r e d u c e d flow
e x p e r i m e n t s i n s t u d y s e c t i o n 2 , Ruby C r e e k ,
M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 ....................................................
45
Comparison of c o n d i t i o n f a c t o r s of rainbow
t r o u t s t o c k e d , th o se e m i g r a t i n g , and th o se
r e m a in in g a t the end of r ed u c e d flow
e x p e r i m e n t s i n s t u d y s e c t i o n 3, Ruby C r e e k ,
M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 ......................................................................................
46
Fish numbers
and biomass not a c c o u n te d for
by e m i g r a t i o n f r o m s e c t i o n s I , 2 a n d 3 ,
R u b y C r e e k , M o n t a n a ’, 1 9 8 2 ....................................................
48
Me a n d e p t h ( m ) , d e p t h s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n
an d mean v e l o c t i y ( c m / s e c ) i n s t u d y
s e c t i o n s I , 2 a n d 3 , Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a ,
1 9 8 2 ...................................................................................................................
53
C a l c u l a t e d s u r f a c e a r e a and p e r c e n t change
o f f i v e h a b i t a t v a r i a b l e s ( p e r 100 m s t r e a m
l e n g t h ) . Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1982.
55
C o r r e l a t i o n s between h a b i t a t v a r i a b l e s ,
mean r i f f l e t r a n s e c t v a r i a b l e s a n d t r o u t
n u m b e r s r e m a i n i n g i n s e c t i o n I , Ru b y
C reek, M o n ta n a , 1982.
Habitat variables
w e r e m e a s u r e d a t f l o w s r a n g i n g f ro m 232 t o
6 l i t e r s / s e c ( 8 . 2 t o 0 . 3 c f s ) ........................................
60
ix
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Table
18.
19.
20.
Page
C o r r e l a t i o n s between h a b i t a t v ariables-,
mean r i f f l e v a r i a b l e s a n d t r o u t n u m b e r s
r e m a i n i n g i n s e c t i d n 2 , Ruby C r e e k ,
Montana, 1982.
H a b i t a t v a r i a b l e s were
m e a s u r e d a t f l o w s r a n g i n g f r o m 524 to 28
l i t e r s / s e c ( 1 8 . 5 t o 1 . 0 c f s ) ...................................
61
C o r r e l a t i o n s between h a b i t a t v a r i a b l e s ,
mean r i f f l e t r a n s e c t v a r i a b l e s a n d t r o u t
n u m b e r s r e m a i n i n g i n s e c t i o n 3 , Ruby
C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 19 8 2 .
Habitat variables
we r e m e a s u r e d a t f l o w s r a n g i n g from 615 t o
35 1 l i t e r s / s e c ( 2 1 . 7 t o 1 2 . 4 c f s ) . . . .
62
L i s t of r a n g e s and means of d a i l y w a t e r
t e m p e r a t u r e s i n s e c t i o n s I a n d 3 , Ruby
C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 ..........................................................
94
X
LIST OF FIGURES
riE ure
I-
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Page
Diagrammatic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of w etted
p e rim e te r in a t y p i c a l stream cross'
s e c t i o n .............................................................................................
4
D i a g r a m m a t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f how s t r e a m
channel c r o s s s e c t i o n can i n f l u e n c e the
n u m b e r o f i n f l e c t i o n p o i n t s on c o r r e ­
sponding w etted p e r i m e t e r - d is c h a r g e p l o t s .
.
7 .
L o c a ti o n of stu d y s e c t i o n s and i r r i g a t i o n
d i v e r s i o n s on R u b y C r e e k ( T 9 S , R l W , S e c .
1 0 - 1 2 ) M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 . . I ....................... - .
. .
.
9
D ia g ra m m a t ic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of an upstream,
f i s h w e i r a n d t r a p u s e d on R u b y C r e e k ,
M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 ........................................................................
12
Stage-discharge relationship section
I,
Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a ,
1 9 8 2 ............................................................
Stage-discharge relationship section
Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 . .
17
2,
18
Stage-discharge relationship section
3,
Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a ,
1 9 8 2 ............................................................
r
Resp onse of r a i n b o w t r o u t (n u m b e r s and
b i o m a s s ) to d e c r e a s e s i n d i s c h a r g e i n
s e c t i o n I , Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1982 . . . . .
29
Response of rainbow t r o u t ( numbers and
b i o m a s s ) to d e c r e a s e s i n d i s c h a r g e i n
s e c t i o n 2, Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 . . . .
30
Respon se of r a i n b o w t r o u t ( n u m b e r s and
biom ass) to d e c r e a s e s i n d i s c h a r g e in
s e c t i o n 3 , Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1982 . . . .
31
The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p e r c e n t i n t i a l
t r o u t numbers and p e r c e n t i n i t i a l d i s c h a r g e
i n s e c t i o n I , Ruby. C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 . . .
34
I
19
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
(continued)
Fig ur e
12.
13.
14 .
15 .
16.
17.
18.
19.
20 .
Pag e
The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w ee n p e r c e n t i n i t i a l
t r o u t numbers and p e r c e n t i n i t i a l d i s c h a r g e
i n s e c t i o n 2, Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1 9 82. . .
35
Th e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p e r c e n t i n i t i a l
t r o u t numbers and p e rc e n t i n i t i a l d isc h a rg e
i n s e c t i o n 3, Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 . . .
36
Number o f r a i n b o w t r o u t t r a p p e d i n e a c h
s tu d y s e c t i o n a c c o r d i n g to d i r e c t i o n of
e m i g r a t i o n f o l l o w i n g f l o w r e d u c t i o n i n Ruby
C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 ....................... ...................................
38
Comparison of the l e n g t h d i s t r i b u t i o n s of
t r o u t ( b y 10 mm g r o u p s ) i n s e c t i o n I a t t h e
s t a r t a n d e n d o f t h e s t u d y on Ruby C r e e k ,
M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 ......................................................................................
38
Comparison of the l e n g t h d i s t r i b u t i o n s of
t r o u t ( b y 10 mm g r o u p s ) i n s e c t i o n 2 a t t h e
s t a r t a n d e n d o f t h e s t u d y on R u b y C r e e k ,
M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 ........................................ ............................................
40
Comparison of the l e n g t h d i s t r i b u t i o n s of
t r o u t ( b y 10 mm g r o u p s ) i n s e c t i o n 3 a t t h e
s t a r t a n d e n d o f t h e s t u d y on Ruby C r e e k ,
M o n t a n a , 19 8 2 ......................................................................................
42
A v e r a g e t r a n s e c t d e p t h o f s e c t i o n I a t 280
I i t e r s / s e c ( 1 0 c f s ) , Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a ,
1 9 8 2 ..................................., ......................................................................
50
A v e r a g e t r a n s e c t d e p t h o f s e c t i o n 2 a t 167
l i t e r s / s e c ( 5 . 9 c f s ) , Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a ,
1 9 8 2 .............................................................................................................
51
A v e r a g e t r a n s e c t d e p t h o f s e c t i o n 3 a t 351 .
l i t e r s / s e c ( 1 2 . 4 c f s ) , Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a ,
I 982 .............................................................................................................
52
xii
LIST
OF FIGURES
(continued)
Figure
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Page
S u r fa c e a r e a and thalweg of h i g h e s t and
l o w e s t f lo w s m e a s u r e d and l o c a t i o n of
w e t t e d p e r i m e t e r _and h a b i t a t t r a n s e c t s i n
s e c t i o n I , Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1982 . , .
,
56
S u r f a c e a r e a and thalw eg of h i g h e s t and
l o w e s t f l o w s , m e a s u r e d and l o c a t i o n of
w e t t e d p e r i m e t e r and h a b i t a t t r a n s e c t s in
s e c t i o n 2, Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1982 . . .
.
57
S u r f a c e a r e a and thalweg of h i g h e s t and
l o w e s t flow s m ea s u r ed and l o c a t i o n of
w e t te d p e r i m e t e r and h a b i t a t t r a n s e c t s in
s e c t i o n 3, Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1982 . . .
.
58
Average
section
d a i l y w a t e r t e m p e r a t u r e s ( C)
I , Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1982
of
. .
.
.
63
Average
section
d a i l y w a t e r t e m p e r a t u r e s (C)
3 , Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1982
of
. .
.
.
64
The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n w e t t e d p e r i m e t e r
and t r o u t numbers r e m a in i n g i n s e c t i o n I,
R u b y C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 ............................. ..... . .
.
66
The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n w e t t e d p e r i m e t e r
and t r o u t numbers re m a in in g in s e c t i o n 2 ,
R u b y C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 ....................................................
67
The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n w e t t e d p e r i m e t e r
and t r o u t numb ers r e m a i n i n g i n s e c t i o n 3 ,
R u b y C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 ....................................................
69
The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p e r c e n t i n i t i a l
d i s c h a r g e and t r o u t numbers r e m a i n i n g ,
t o t a l top w idth w ith depth g r e a t e r than
15 cm ( WTOT) a n d l o n g e s t c o n t i n u o u s t o p
w i d t h w i t h d e p t h g r e a t e r t h a n 15 cm (WMAX)
f o r s t u d y s e c t i o n I , Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a ,
1 9 8 2 .............................................................................................................
71
x iii
LIST OF F I G U R E S .(continued)
Page
Figure
30.
31.
The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p e r c e n t i n i t i a l
d i s c h a r g e and t r o u t numbers r e m a i n i n g ,
t o t a l t o p w i d t h w i t h d e p t h g r e a t e r t h a n 15
cm ( WTOT) a n d l o n g e s t c o n t i n u o u s t o p w i d t h
w i t h d e p t h g r e a t e r t h a n 15 cm (WMAX) f o r
s t u d y s e c t i o n 2 , Ru b y C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2
.
72
The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p e r c e n t i n i t i a l
d i s c h a r g e and t r o u t numbers r e m a in i n g ,
t o t a l top w idth w ith depth g r e a t e r than
15 cm ( WTOT) a n d l o n g e s t c o n t i n u o u s t o p .
w i d t h w i t h d e p t h g r e a t e r t h a n 15 cm (WMAX)
f o r s t u d y s e c t i o n 3, Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a ,
1982
.................................................................................
73
i
x iv
ABSTRACT
V a l i d a t i o n o f a m e t h o d e s t i m a t i n g mi ni mum i n s t r e a m
flow n e e d s f o r f i s h i s a p r e r e q u i s i t e to i t s a p p l i c a t i o n .
T h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e a v e r a g e —r i f f l e —w e t t e d —p e r i m e t e r m e t h o d
was i n v e s t i g a t e d t h r o u g h s t u d y o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n
a r t i f i c i a l l y s u p p l e m e n t e d r a i n b o w t r o u t p o p u l a t i o n s and
f l o w - r e l a t e d d e c r e a s e s in h a b i t a t in t h r e e s e c t i o n s of
Ruby C r e e k , M a d i s o n C o u n t y , M o n t a n a .
Low s u m m e r f l o w h a d
a r e g u l a t i n g i n f l u e n c e on t r o u t n u m b e r s a n d b i o m a s s i n t h e
study s e c tio n s .
F a c t o r s o t h e r t h a n s h o r t - t e r m s umme r l o w
f l o w ma y a l s o h a v e l i m i t e d t h e t r o u t , p o p u l a t i o n s .
Numerical abundance and biomass of t r o u t d e c r e a s e d as flow
decreased in a l l study se ctio n s.
E m i g r a t i o n f r o m t wo
s t u d y s e c t i o n s i n f l u e n c e d by i r r i g a t i o n d i v e r s i o n s c o r r e ­
l a t e d b e t t e r with average d a il y flow than did e m ig ratio n
from a s e c t i o n w i t h n a t u r a l f l o w .
Following flow
r e d u c t i o n , t r o u t e m i g r a t i o n l a g g e d 11 t o 15 d a y s i n t wo o f
the three stream s e c t i o n s .
E m i g r a t i o n from a l l s t u d y
s e c t i o n s was p r i m a r i l y i n a n u p s t r e a m d i r e c t i o n .
Average
r i f f l e w e t t e d p e r i m e t e r was n o t a c o n s i s t e n t i n d e x of
s umme r h a b i t a t s u i t a b i l i t y f o r t r o u t .
In a p o o l - r i f f l e
s e c t i o n , a v e r a g e - w e t t e d ' p e r i m e t e r o f r i f f l e s was h i g h l y
c o r r e l a t e d w ith t r o u t numbers and b i o m a s s , and the
i n f l e c t i o n p o i n t on t h e w e t t e d p e r i m e t e r c u r v e c o r r e ­
sponded c l o s e l y with the flow a t which the r a t e of t r o u t
emigration increased su b stan tially .
C o r r e l a t i o n between
a v erag e w e tte d p e r i m e t e r of r i f f l e s and t r o u t numbers in
t wo r u n - r i f f l e s e c t i o n s w a s p o o r .
Most h a b i t a t v a r i a b l e s
were h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h f lo w and w i t h each o t h e r .
V ariables e stim atin g r i f f l e surface width a s so c ia te d with
d e p t h g r e a t e r t h a n 15 cm c h a n g e d i n a p a t t e r n s i m i l a r t o
p e r c e n t a g e change i n t r o u t numbers and biom ass.
I
I NTRODUCTI ON
Water
domestic
of
demand
use
many
for
has
trout
resulted
streams
To p r o t e c t
and
be
reliably
able
needed
to
for
mending
from
that
requirements
assumption
of
implicit
to
physical
in
habitat
the
numerous
were
in
(1977),
fish
streams.
assumed
to
and
(1 9 7 4 ) ,
developed
variation
and
life
or
of
must
is
recom
range
no
field
interpolation
species
have
parameters
Wesche
(1979)
flow
estimating
little
and
States.
biologists
aquatic
on
dewatering
concern.
of
the
crop
relationship
The
!
is
found
correlations
between
methodologies.
Reisenbichler
Binns
the
investigators
streams.
and
based
and
United
stream
of
for
a habitat-standing
all
Several
how mu c h
flows
of
total
fisheries,
quantification
ecological
or
western
Methods
inference,
detailed
the
estimate
instream
industrial,
partial
stream
resource.
adequate
to
in
within
restore
subjective
data,
agricultural,
and
fish
Nickelson
N i c k e l son
numbers
and
due
to
and
( 1 976 ) ,
and
implemented
Inconsistencies
be
numbers
Nickelson
Hafele
models
biomass
(1978),
explaining
biomass
found
in
within
these
models
unmeasured
physical
and
habitat
parameters.
Nelson
( single
(1980)
transect
pe r i m e t e r
evaluated
the
wet t e d - p e r im e t e r
transect
method,
adequacy
method,
non-field
of
four
methods
multiple
method,
and
wetted-
instream
2
flow
group
instream
incremental
flow
pe rime t e r
on
large
methods
recommendations
crop
-
study,
the
( MDFWP)
for
Montana
Hill
is
upon
sites
and
this
by
The
between
is
the
to
Fish,
that
a
to
Collings
and
to
its
rearing.
ma y
the
The
trout
production
used
an
including
and
methods
quantity
provide
populations
method
Collings
(1975)
the
Parks
riffle-w etted
MDFWP ( 1 9 8 1 )
also
and
streams.
food
(1972 ) ,
predict
Nelson's
stream’ s
to
Cochnauer
on
standing
preferred
Montana
wetted-
mi n i mu m
Wildlife
the
for
the
long-term
Based
proportional
perimeter
derive
distance
in
flow
along
rate.
increasing
method
and
uses
the
discharge
for
recommendations.
the
contact
increases,
a constant
with
fish
to
as
that
of
'
water
states
index
of
that
other
spawning
cover.
cross-section
at
for
of
recommending
absolute
I).
proportional
perimeter
wetted
discharge
(Table
flows
wet t e d - p e r i m e t e r
sections
compared
assumes
concept
fish
acceptable
perimeter
turn
White
limiting
and
is
in
riffle-w etted
factors
whe n
( MDFWP 1 9 8 1 ) .
(1973)
preferred
found
method
capacity
which
based
He
mini mum
wet t e d - p e r i m e t e r
perimeter
rivers.
Department
wetted
recommending
area,
for
relationships
chose
carrying
IFG)
provided
flow
flow
method,
bottom
with
and
the
riffle
Wetted
sides
water
relationship
of
a
(Figure
wetted
perimeter
increases,
Wetted
perimeter
increases
discharge
up
to
the
point
where
crossperimeter
channel
I).
but
As
not
rapidly
the
Table
I.
C o m p a r i s o n o f t h e mi ni mum i n s t r e a m f l o w r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
d e r i v e d from the s i n g l e and m u l t i p l e - w e t t e d p e r i m e t e r metho ds
and t r o u t s t a n d i n g c ro p and f lo w d a t a f o r f i v e r e a c h e s of the
M a d i s o n , B e a v e r h e a d , G a l l a t i n a n d Big Hol e r i v e r s ( f r o m
NeI s on 1 9 8 0 ) .
a
I n s t r e a m f lo w re c o m m e n d a tio n s ( l i t e r s / s e c x 100)
S in g le t r a n s e c t
m eth o d .
Reach( site)
M adison ( # 1 )
M adison (#3)
B e a v e rh e a d ( # 2 )
G a l l a t i n (//2)
Big H ole ( # 1 )
Minimum f lo w
312
170
64
113
127
a : c f s = l i t e r s / s e c x 0 .0 3 5 1
M u ltip le tr a n s e c t
m ethod
Minimum f lo w
255 and 396
142
28
——
113 an d 198
T rout s ta n d in g -c ro p
flo w d a ta
A b s o l u te
m in . f lo w
255-312
184
42
71
113
Most d e s i r a b l e
m i n . f lo w
3 4 0 -390
326
85
148
WETTED PERIMETER
Figure
I.
Diagrammatic
stream cross
representation
section.
of
wetted
perimeter
in
a
typical
5
water
covers
point,
the
wetted
entire
stream
perimeter
increases
discharge
increases
due
channel.
Points
wetted
where
there
small
changes
on
are
abrupt
in
channel.
to
the
less
more
Beyond
rapidly
vertical
as
sides
p e r i m e t e r —d i s c h a r g e
changes
discharge,
in
are
wetted
this
of
curves
perimeter
referred
to
the
as
with
inflection
points.
There
depending
are
on
the
An i n s t r e a m
made
by
only
one
selected
t wo
flow
and
as
low
the
lower
a
instream
perimeter-discharge
derived
using
developed
2 to
10
sets
different
surface
by
known
water
curve,
fit
the
can
be
from
3 to
surface
at
each
log-stage
a
10
riffle
a
each
flow
is
of
from
model
The
versus
surveyed
used
flows
which
wetted
WETP m o d e l
surveyed
to
is
( WETP)
uses
at
cross-section.
then
are
cross-section
computer
elevations
there
range
The
is
Whe n
there
points)
riffle
1980) .
are
stream
Whe n
provides
2).
of
discharge.
recommended.
for
(Figure
section
inflection
perimeter
with
a
points,
corresponding
method
(stages)
coupled
shape
recommendation.
discharges
of
for
the
MDFWP ( N e l s o n
elevations
least-square
rating
of
point,
curve
a wetted
the
section
against
and 'upper
flow
inflection
perimeters
them
flow
points,
( between
single
t wo
cross
wetted
inflection
inflection
or
recommendation
plotting
the
one
channel
averaging
transects
is
generally
Water
establish
log-discharge.
cross-sectional
a
This
6
INFLECTION POINT
DISCHARGE
INFLECTION POINTS
DISCHARGE
STREAM CHANNEL
CROSS-SECTION
Figure
2.
WETTED PERIMETER
CURVE
D i a g r a m m a t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f how s t r e a m
c h a n n e l c r o s s s e c t i o n can i n f l u e n c e the number
o f i n f l e c t i o n p o i n t s on c o r r e s p o n d i n g w e t t e d
perimeter-discharge plots.
7
profile
of
predict
the
The
wetted
this
cfs)
for
were
salmonid
summer
to
small
reductions
in
in
perimeter
based
general
small
index
streams.
the
in
of
on
is
though
needed
flow
of
interest.
presently
its
being
validity
annual
to
has
above
per
second,
cfs).
examine
the
validity
of
recommending
of
less
discharge.
following
small
the
instream
1,400
liters/sec
Objectives
is
of
the
I.
regulated
by
flow
and
flow-related
availability
are
accompanied
riffle
and
cross
salmonid
3.
average
sections
habitat
The
mi ni mum
hypotheses:
streams
in
than
only
discharge
feet
abundance,
adult
is
each
average
of
decreases
trout
that
method
streams
habitat
decreases
to
annual
test
2.
was
all
for
cubic
method
abundance
flow,
with
(424
study
average
is
streams,
rivers
perimeter
discharge
study
on
liters/sec
of
bed,
perimeter
Montana
s hown
goal
(50
wetted
to
12,000
stream
wet t e d - p e r i m e t e r
applied
been
the
can
low
by
wetted
be
used
suitability
as
in
a
8
DE S CR I P T I ON OF STUDY AREA
Field
Madison
studies
County,
Ruby C r e e k
were
conducted
Montana
flows
down
(T9S,
the
The
Ruby
Creek
drainage
precipitation
Ruby
Creek
reasons .
study
The
ranging
Average
less
of
efficient
from
was
822
to
discharge
of
fish
rainbow
trout
of
study
Rainbow
preferred
to
species
in
to
light
have
anglers
Finally,
the
experimental
sensitivity
flow
the
as
trout
fishing
fish
presence
area
during
to
12
flows
had
the
cfs).
to
be
allowed
of
adequate
experimental
present
gairdneri)
because
of
compared
to
Creek
This
successive
several
construction
Creek
( Salmo
study
m.
by MDFWP ( 1 9 8 1 )
populations
the
for
(29
These
Ruby
Ruby
2682
discharge
permitted
pressure .
of
with
c fs ).
Montana•
to
MDFWP 1 9 8 1 ) .
reported
species
3).
kilometer
( m)
study
in
Figure
average
(cm,
use
in
Gravelly
square
liters/sec
trout
from
the
meters
Also
for
85
the
(50
and
10-12,
of
annual
reductions
southwest
removing
a
was
weirs.
supplementation
section.
1682
351
liters/sec
Sec.
the
small,
electrofishing
semipermanent
numbers
chosen
stream
1,400
of
has
Ruby C r e e k ,
slope
centimeters
was
annual
than
53
Rl W,
east
Mountain Range.
Elevation
2
(km ) d r a i n a g e r a n g e s f r o m
on
its
in
was
reduced
sections
irrigation
the
greater
other
also
each
trout
was
the
reported
chance
of
( MDFG 1 9 7 6 ) .
9
DIVERSIONS
SECTION
SECTION 3
I
SECTION 2
0. 5 km
Figure
3.
L o c a t i o n of s t u d y s e c t i o n s and
d i v e r s i o n s on Ru b y C r e e k ( T 9 S ,
Montana, 1982.
irrigation
Rl W, S e c . 1 0 - 1 2 )
10
diversions
provided
discharges
in
Three
upstream
t wo
study
different
sections
sections,
direction,
Ruby
Creek
above
the
at
0.64
mouth.
were
the
Sections
while
and
artificial
flow
(km),
2 and
reduced
stream.
numbered
kilometer
diversions
no
of
of
consecutively
established
irrigation
had
levels
I
section
along
the
2.54
km a n d
were
below
3 was
control.
in
an
course
3.34
of
km
successive
above
Section
diversions
I wa s
/
characterized
sections
Study
by
2 and
sections
sinuosity,
and
a pool-riffle
3 had
a
predominance
differed
in
predominant
length,
(Table
Table
General d e s c r i p t i o n of
Creek, M ontana, 1982.
Section
Thalweg
distance
( m)
of
structure
while
riffle-run. habitat.
gradient,
particle
material
2.
channel
size
of
average
width,
streambed
2).
Gradient
( %)
study
Average
wi d t h
( m)
sections,
Sinuosity
Ruby
Predominant
par t i d e
size of
s t r earn b e d
material
I
123.7
2.2
2.48
1.2 9
8-20
cm
2
106 . 7
1. 6
3 . 14
1 .22
8-20
cm
3
13 3 . 1
1.3
4.12
1.41
4-15
cm
11
METHODS
Fish
Emigration
Ruby
Creek
(Figure
at
section
unit.
of
by
For
rainbow
the
each
trout
added
study
and
with
sections.
in
To
supplemented
into
the
s a me
experimental
resident
fish
had
been
taken.
length,
the
measured
nearest
gram
supplemental
Th e
from
fish
were
handling
sections.
to
(g).,
fish
held
and
the
were
in
were
given
live
then
released
by
and
they
the
wa s
from
pelvic
fish
above
fish
Resident
in
study
resident
resident
of
until
before
removed
millimeter,
buckets
steel
place,
the
stocking,
different
square
direct-current
section
recorded.
by
each
Ruby C r e e k
Before
nearest
were
the
group
returned
1.3
in
section,
from
each
of
from
110- v o l t
tubs.
of
section
removed
(mm), were
e l e c t r o f i shed
The
were
study
stream
millimeter
and h e l d
a
trap
supported
traps
each
were
experimental
trout
and
of
box
ends
constructed
cloth,
in
sections
and
downstream
weirs
present
study
a weir
were
experiment)
>100
from
placing
h a r d wa r e
electrofishing
electrofishing
were
by
weirs
After, the
(fish
Manipulation
trout
upstream
( cm ^ ) m e s h
fish
start
rainbow
V-shaped
posts.'
resident
the
the
The
centimeter
fence
of
was m e a s u r e d
4)
section.
Population
then
the
then
which
fish
the
total
weight,
to
and
fin
clips.
recovered
middle
of
study
Figure
4.
Dia gra m m a tic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of an
w e i r a n d t r a p u s e d on R u b y C r e e k ,
upstream
Montana,
fish
1982.
13
Fish
were
days,
during
study
sections.
acclimation
before
of
study.
September
removed
days.
trap
the
17),
fish
on
of
t wo
fish
determine
if
and
there
of
statistically
Condition
flow
was
fish
in
the
sections
(K)
from
and
passes
at
the
28
on
when
study
start
(July
no
and
or
were
I
cfs)
a mo n g
factors,
after
experiment
Mann-Whitney
5
the
3
/length
.
were
condition
sections
response
using
1.7-
were
fish
Condition
computed
of
2 consecutive
liters/sec
the
and
sections
Length
the
the
x 10
the
study
flow.
K= w e i g h t
study
in
differential
was
above
experiment
passes.
using
and
63-day
the
the
number
to
size
weights
were
test.
equation:
6
the
marks
the
initial
discontinued
before
compared
factor
the
(nearest
a
2,
to
for
between
and
the
after
in
difference
electrofishing
decreases
lengths
of
I and
remaining
into
emigrating
against
to
checked
consecutive
regressed
classes
and
sections
for
returned
measured
the
was
were
traps
remaining
repeated
sections
the
counts
end
test
in
fish
as
Electrofishing
captured
factors
of
to
emigrants
below
stocked
At
by
all
were
defined
fish
acclimate
captured
Abundance
cumulative
biomass
the
Fish
released
was
to
time
period,
3.
sections
total
which
being
section
allowed
14
Habitat
Physical
(depth,
section
characteristics
velocity,
discharges
in
3.
Habitat
wooden
contanined
cross
to
compass
the
54
was
edge
wa s
recorded
each
cross
hanging
this
the
each
having
plant
material
at
four
discharges
and
marked
sections
I and
respectively;
section
3.
the
A mapping
distance
headstakes
2
32
and
headstakes.
flows
in
established
Study
section
different
velocity
section,
the
also
cross
of
transects
to
The
the
(nearest
used
10
plant
well
the
section
water's
0.01
all
as
the
water
m)
at
as
or
o v er­
distance
its
undercut
were
and
points.
bank
and
bank.
used
for
depth
predominant
measurements
subsequent
from
and
overhanging
velocity
spaced
the
surface
Submerged
material
equally
along
material
transects
Depth,
during
distance
recorded
streambed
at
to
stream.
mapping.
size
the
overhanging
was
Alternate
were
were
in
section
material
overhanging
points
t wo
sections,
cross
mapped
m intervals
bank.
m easured, as
overhanging
along
at
by r e c o r d i n g
cross
cross
b a n k was
particle
were
sections
section.
width
and
2-4
established
at
study
width)
2 and
at
cross
between
from
the
sections
each
established
bearing
streambank
44
were
distance
In
I and
flow
on
and
of
channel
cross
stakes
sections
baseline
and
sections
perpendicular
with
Evaluation
were
These
measurements.
m a d e ’,
s a me
Depth
15
and
velocities
Marsh
Mc B u r n e y
recorded
water's
per
were
to
second
was
with
determined
0.1
per
feet
size
for
each
Surface
of
of
rod
Depth
was
nearest
second,
the
at
0.6
0.3
the
centimeter
ft/sec).
wa s
stick.
habitat
section
variables
at
each
(SA)-total
area
of
( DA) - s u r f a c e
area
associated
area
and
of
s t ream bed m a t e r i a l
a meter
study
setting
velocity
the
following
top
meter.
cm a n d
to
the
a
current
I
the. a i d
of
with
recorded
particle
Quantity
1.
nearest
(cm/s,
Predominant
estimated
electronic
the
depth
measured
.
was
flow:
water
surface.
2.
3.
Depth
area
water
depths
Velocity
water
of
area
15
cm o r
more.
(VA)-surface
velocity
of
0.3
with
cm/s
area
with
mea n,
(0.1
ft/sec)
or
less.
4.
Overhanging
vegetation
area
study
of
within
depth
the
30
of
overhang
5.
cm o f
15
width
Overhanging
associated
cm o f
the
of
bank
with
section
the
cm o r
area
at
having
w ater's
more
least
10
it
water
and
c m.
( 0 H B ) —s u r f a c e
surface,
vegetation
surface,
beneath
overhanging
w ater's
(OHV)-sur face
area
bank w i t h i n
having
depth
30
of
16
Habitat
at
least
of
10
1970,
Areal
maps
by
and
used
major
to
changes
data
and
in
predict
6,
and
thermometers
with
in
Wetted
9 in
were
section
four
and
Modeling
3)
water
flows,
surface
Stewart
and
gauges
in
each
flows.
start
elevation
end
following
placed
in
developing
stage-
which
section
were
used
(Figures
5,
temperatures
mercury
sections.
Perimeter
each
established
and
These
study
Wetted
to
variables
registering
lower
Tektronic
daily.
mi ni mum w a t e r
(8
a
were
twice
habitat
Linear
the
section,
in
of
according
at
section
used
transects
were
using
habitat
made
each
from
measured
recorded
flows
upper
perimeter
transect
to
between
were
for
of
m a x i m u m —m i n i m u m
the
197 4,
program.
Staff
was
daily
studies
( We s c he
transects,
study
discharges
Computer
three
each
stage
of
measured
known v a l u e s
D a i l y maxi mum a n d
measured
results
computer
discharge.
average
7).
were
between
relationships
to
width
1982).
estimates
in
and
known
discharge
Each
trout
measurements
experiment
section,
2 and
by
Geoscan
obtain
each
were
utilized
between
Discharge
the
the
variables
and
interpolation
of
on
extrapolating
pad
overhang
based
Strange
habitat
digitizer
was
were
habitat
Kennedy
cm a n d m i n i m u m
c m.
criteria
evaluating
15
in
in
was
Nelson
sections
typical
surveyed
(1980).
I and
riffles.
at
Water
17
STAGE, m e t e r s
I nY= In 4 . 2 3 4- 3 . 4 1 InX
0.5
0.2
0.1
5
25
50
100
300
900
2000
FLOW, l i t e r s / s e c
Figure
5.
Stage-discharge relationship
Creek, Montana , 1982 .
section
I,
Ru b y
18
9.0
4.5
STAGE, meters
InY = I n 5 . 1 9 + 1 1 . 4 6 I nX
1.5
0.5
0.2
0.1
900
2000
FLOW, l i t e r s / s e c
Figure
6.
Stage-discharge relationship
Creek, Montana , 1982.
section
2,
Ru b y
19
I n Y = I n I S . 5 9 + 1 . 4 1 E - 1 6 I nX
r 2=. 9 8
9.0
n =6
STAGE, m e t e r s
4.5
2.5'
1.5'
1 .0 '
0.5
0. 2
0
.
1'
50
I 00
2 00
500
1700
4000 8000
FLOW, l i t e r s / s e c
Figure
7.
Stage-discharge relationship
Cr eek, Montana , 1 982 .
section
3,
Ru b y
20
surface
elevation
perimeter
output
data
used
to
calibrate
program
(Table
3,
Nelson
perimeter
( WETP)
computer
were
1.
Wetted
2.
Average
water
depth
3.
Average
water
velocity
4.
Top w i d t h
5.
Cross
6.
Ma x i mu m w a t e r
7.
Total
top
least
15
8.
1983).
Mode l
Within
of
in
the
transect
( VBAR)
transect
area
depth
width
( WDTH)
of
transect
( DMAX)
associated
with
continuous
depth
section,
of
associated
at
least
15
physical
were
computed
wetted
perimeter
model
then
averaged.
examined
by
variables
wetted
perimeters.
habitat
and
perimeter
habitat
relating
to
variables
was
fish
be
used
abundance
changes
done
versus
can
suitability
flow-related
This
at
and
in
in
The
as
all
to
the
hypothesis
a general
small
cross
streams
abundance
wa s
habitat
sectional
comparison
fish
of
according
and v a r i o u s
by v i s u a l
flow
cm ( WMAX) .
characteristics
transects
salmonid
of
width
perimeter
of
depth
top
wetted
riffle
( AREA)
cm ( WTOT)
water
each
( DEAR)
area
sectional
Longest
with
index
wetted
included:
cross-section
that
the
of
wetted
plots
of
versus
flow.
All
(Level
statistical
66/DPS
8)
anaylses
computer
with
were
the
done
on
a Honeywell
Biomedical
Computer
CP6
Table
3.
C a l i b r a t i o n d a t a ( S = s t a g e i n m e t e r s , Q= d i s c h a r g e i n
l i t e r s / s e c , a nd r= c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s ) u s e d i n t h e
w e t t e d p e r i m e t e r m o d e l ( WETP) f o r t h r e e s t u d y s e c t i o n s on
Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 .
R i f f l e C ross S e c tio n
I
S e c tio n
2
Q
2319
105
23
8
s
28.74
28.54
28.47
28.43
0.995
360
54
28
r
3
r
28.33
28.2 0
28.18
0.983
813
360
309
29.85
29.79
29.77
0.998
Q
2319
105
23
8
3
S
29.06
28.87
28.78
28.75
Q
28.63
28.5 0
28.46
30.09
30.03
30.03
0.989
29.16
28.93
28.83
28.80
360
54
28
28.75
28.61
28.58
30.32
30.25
30.24
0.994
s
2319
105
23
8
29.62
29.41
29.32
29.31
Q
360
54
28
28.99
28.89
28.86
30.12
30.37
30.37
0.977
S
Q
S
30.59
30.34
30.2 6
30.24
0.972
360
54
28
I . 000
813
360
309
6
2319
105
23
8
0.980
0.989
813
360
309
5
Q
0.990
0.998
813
360
309
S
2319
105
23
8
0.991
360
54
28
4
29.15
29.06
29.01
0.992
813
360
309
0.977
30.60
30.52
30.52
813
360
309
30.68
30.62
30.60
0.997
22
Programs
Social
(Dixon
Sciences
et
a l.
(Nie
statistical
analysis
statistical
tests
Whitney
test
et
1983),
al.
1975)
packages.
were
(Snedecor
made
and
Statistical
and
Package
MSUSTAT
for
(Lund
the
1983)
P a i r e d —c o m p a r i s o n
using
Cochran
the
nonparametrie
1980).
Ma nn—
23
RESULTS
Abundance
Population
Regulation
sections
increased
to
0.07
sections
I,
to
2,
the
trout
the
density
1.30,
and
3,
were
Length
of
experimental
(Table
6)
and
Flow
increased
length
of
0.22
by a
fish
rainbow
to
1.05
ranged
the
study
trout
from
fish/meter
(Table
similar
frequency
in
4).
104
to
distribution
in
Biomass
magnitude
from
0.05
(Table
315
was
5).
mm
similar
sections.
Acclimation
During
sections
creased
Flow and
a 6 - day
generally
(Table
Trout
increased
7).
In
diversion)
l i t e r s / se c
(2.5
18.5
to
Emigration
acclimation
irrigation
to
and
populations
respectively
densities
between
Low S u mme r
Manipulation
Supplementing
1.43,
by
and
sections
flow
9.7
section
cfs)
(section
liters/sec
(16.3
During
acclimation
the
emigrating
Although
each
density
to
23.8
was
I
and
and
140
to
Discharge
3)
increased
cfs)
during
period,
day v a r i e d
trout
fluctuated
cfs) , resp e c tiv e ly .
control
period,
but
highest
the
flow
de­
2 ( each
below
from
to
524
in
the
was
71
an
274
liters/sec
the
from
number
flow
all
emigration
generally
and
in
natural
462
s a me
of
to
674
period.
fish
decreased.
lowest
in
(4.9
flow
Table
4.
Number a n d d e n s i t y ( f i s h / m e t e r ) o f t r o u t
s t u d y on Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 .
in
each
section
before
and
after
the
N u m e ric a l a b u n d an ce
P re -s tu d y
S e c ti o n
T ro u t
s p e c ie s
Number
I
R ainbow
6
0 .0 5
2
Rainbow
8
3
R ainbow
29
D e n s ity
(fis h /m e te r)
T est
Number
P o s t-s tu d y
% D e n s ity
in c re a s e
P r e - to P o s t—s tu d y
D en sity "
(fis h /m e te r)
Number
177
1 .4 3
42
0 .3 4
180
0 .0 7
141
1 .3 2
37
.0 .3 5
400
0 .2 2
140
1 .0 5
67
0 .5 0
127
D e n s ity
(fis h /m e te r)
Table
5.
Biomass (g) and
a f t e r the study
density
on Ruby
( g/m) of t r o u t i n e a c h
C r e e k , Montana, 1982.
section
before
and
B iom ass ( g )
S e c tio n
T ro u t
s p e c ie s
P re -s tu d y
•
W eig h t D e n s ity
( g / m e te r)
T est
-------------------------W eight D e n s ity
( g /m e te r )
P o s t-s tu d y
--------------------------W eight D e n s ity
( g /m e te r )
% D e n s ity
in c re a s e
p r e - to p o s t - s t u d y
I .
Rainbow
826
6 .6 8
14755
1 1 9 .2 8
2389
1 9 .3 1
8
2
Rainbow
584
5 .4 7
11829
1 1 0 .8 6
2195
2 0 .5 7
276
3
R ainbow
2857
2 1 .4 7
16066
1 2 0 .7
6857
5 1 .5 2
140
26
Table
6.
S i z e r a n g e ( mm) o f t r o u t f o u n d i n s t u d y s e c t i o n s
I, 2 and 3 b e f o r e , d u r in g and a f t e r the
e x p e r i m e n t on Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 .
S e c tio n
T ro u t
s p e c ie s
I
P r e - s tu d y
(mm)
S ta rt
(mm)
Rainbow
102-182
1 04-315
1 13-248
2
Rainbow
141-2 73
118-295
1 28-290
3
Rainbow
117-302
1 17-310
1 3 1 -2 9 5
P o s t-s tu d y
(mm)
Table
7.
E m ig r a ti o n of rainbow
acclim ation period in
t r o u t c a p tu r e d d u rin g the
s e c t i o n s I , 2 a n d 3 , Ruby C r e e k ,
S e c tio n
D ate
Number c a p tu r e d
u p s tre a m
I
7/20
7 /2 1
7/22
7/23
7/ 24
7 /2 5
4
8
6
3
9
6
0
10
5
2
2
2
.
Number c a p tu r e d
dow nstream
2
7 /1 9
7 /2 0
7 /2 1
7 /2 2
7 /2 3
7 /2 4
19
19
6
16
14
8
0
6
0
5
0
I
3
7 /1 9
7 /2 0
7 /2 1
7/ 22
7 /2 3
7 /2 4
31
26
11
8
6
3
5
6
3
3
0
0
a : c fs = lite rs /s e c
x 0 .0351
■
T o ta l
num ber
a
Flow
( lite rs /s e c )
4
18
11
5
11
8
144
71
77
109
274
232
19
25
6
21
14
9
249
277
167
140
308
524
36
32
14
11
6
3
___
462
674
614
28
section
I,
section
during
numbers
attempted
larger
fewer
number
Flow-Related
fish
the
of
acclimation
to
emigrate
emigrants
Changes
Rainbow
attempted
trout
in
emigrating
from
experimental
Emigration
from
the
irrigation
diversions
flow
than
Visual
did
remaining,
the
trout
and
in
to
flow
response
increased
lag
flow
in
was
section
I and
the
control
section.
of
These
flow
was
data
one
lags
in
data
were
section
considered
were
not
in
be
lagged
A
influenced
with
and
I
2 and
and
3
0.85
to
to
0.99
0.72
the
day
8,
lagged
in
trout
biomass
observations
change
in
numbers
10).
flow,
an
(Table
11-day
by
lag
in
the
8).
analyses.
In
which
15^-day
Lagging
only
unimportant.
evaluation.
change
a
that
respond
resulted
correlation
biologically
biomass
not
with
data
section.
9 and
with
daily
indicated
by l a g g i n g
subsequent
the
did
(Figures
for
3,
by
average
numbers
I,
by
Creek.
of
flow-associated
of
Ruby
flow
each
before
of
better
Lagging
all
3.
direction.
reductions
natural
0.09
2 increased
to
flow
section
for
Similar
2 and
the
plots
from
pair
used
from
from
this
7).
upstream
sections
accounted
correlations
an
sections
reductions
in
loss
to
sections
in
(Table
sections
in
correlated
the
population
immediately
Delayed
of
from
Abundance
study
emigration
evaluation
period
moved
responded
emigrate
from
Trout
t wo
to
I % and
Therefore,
all
sections,
paralleled
(Figures
8,
9 and
10).
SECTION 1
2 2 0-1
220
200
200
NUMBERS
BIOMASS
140
TROUT BIOMASS, g r e m
510-
120
o
100
80
FLOW
FLOW
60
JL
X
40
-&
20
2
O
O
JULY
SEPTEMBER
AUGUST
TIME
Figure
8
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
TIME
Response of rainbow trout (numbers and
biomass) to decreases
discharge in section I, Ruby Creek, Montana, 1982.
in
SC
SECTION 2
200
570
TROUT BIOMASS, g r a m s t X 1 0 0 )
5 IO
V)
160
CO
140
Z
120
3
100
F LOW
FLOW
NUMBERS
BIOMASS
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
TIME
JULY
AUGU
TIME
Figure 9. Response of rainbow trout (numbers and
biomass) to decreases
discharge in section 2, Ruby Creek, Montana, 1982.
in
SECTION 3
630
5 10
TROUT NUMBERS
TROUT BIOMASS, g r a m » ( X 1 0
FLOW
450
120
NUMBERS^
BIOMASS
6
JULY
12
5
AUGUST
TIME
Figure 10.
II
SEPTEMBER
6
JULY
12
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
TIME
Response of rainbow trout (numbers and
biomass) to decreases
discharge in section 3, Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1982.
in
Table
8.
Correlation
1982
and
coefficients
discharge
in
( r)
between
sections
I,
fish
2 and
a
3,
abundance
Ruby
lagged
Creek,
b
S e c ti o n I
C
S e c ti o n 2
F low
d a y s la g g e d
r
0
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
0 .8 5
0 .8 6
0 .8 8
0 .8 9
0 .9 1
0 .9 2
0 .9 3
0 .9 5
0 .9 6
0 .9 7
0 .9 8
0 .9 9
0 .9 8
0 .9 6
0 .9 4
0 .9 2
Flow
d a y s la g g e d
a : Number o f d a ta p o i n t s = 40
b : Number o f d a t a p o i n t s = 39
c : Number o f d a ta p o i n t s = 37
0
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
r
0 .9 6
0 .9 6
0 .9 7
0 .9 6
0 .9 5
0 .9 4
0 .9 4
0 .9 2
0 .9 1
0 .8 8
0 .8 6
0 .8 4
0 .8 4
0 .8 3
0 .8 2
0 .8 2
by
Montana,
S e c tio n 3
Flow
d a y s la g g e d
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
r
0 .0 9
0 .0 9
0 .1 3
0.20
0 .2 9
0 .4 0
0 .4 0
0 .4 3
0 .4 7
0 .5 0
0 .5 2
0 .5 7
0 .6 1
0.6 6
0 .7 1
0 .7 2
0 .6 7
33
Trout
discharge
emigration
was
decreased
(Figures
11,
sections
2 and
section
in
I.
12 a n d
2,
in
were
section,
trout
76
the
and
total
a
numerical
decreased
section
(Table. 5).
Emigration
than
section
to
9).
percentage
of
centage
the
the
(Figure
Size
Related
Me a n
sections
an
in
trout
the
in.trout
Total
upstream
trout
Trout
direction
in
numerical
and
and
in
was
each
93
biomass
less
study
(12.5-
study
test,
their
emigrated
a 52%
each
between
and
between
I
43% w a s
statistical
emigrating
sections
numbers
difference
in
natural-flow
of
in
in
95% r e s u l t e d
biomass
(44.4-59.4%)
fish
the
decreased
resident
observed
and
58% i n
discharge
A chi-square
discharge
decreases
In
flow
discharge
96
and
4).
as
acclimation
the
of
48
numbers
of
p o p u l a t i o n .,
in
time
trout
resident
sections
of
sections
initial
double
density.
response
support
in
as
stocked
(Table
(Table
31% d e c r e a s e
density
failed
numbers
all
below
discharge
decrease
decrease
in
though
than
in
73%
by
17.2%)
even
40%
Corresponding
accompanied
in
to
3 was mor e
respectively.
density
increased
30
13),
Reductions
decreases
and
rate
however,
the
per­
from
the
and
study
99% o f
14).
Response
body
length
having
large
of
trout
flow
decreased
reductions
in
(Table
the
t wo
10).
study
SECTION 1
PERCENT INITIAL TROUT NUMBERS
100 . 0 -
87.575.0
*
*
62.5
*
50.0
37.5
25.0
12.50.0 -
O
Figure
11.
15
30
45
60
75
PERCENT INITIAL DISCHARGE
90
105
The relationship between percent intial
trout numbers and
percent initial discharge in section I, Ruby C r e e k , Montana
1982 .
SEC TIO N 2
PERCENT INITIAL TROUT NUMBERS
100.0
87.5
75.0
62.5
50. 0
#»
r
*******
37.5
25.0
12.5
0.0
O
Figure
12.
15
30
45
60
75
PERCENT INITIAL DISCHARGE
90
105
The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p e r c e n t i n i t i a l
t r o u t nu mbers and
percent i n i t i a l discharge in se ctio n 2
Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a ,
1982.
'
SECTION 3
PERCENT INITIAL TROUT NUMBERS
100.0
87.5
75.0
62.5
50.0
37.5
25.0
12.5
0.0
0
Figure
13-
15
30
45
60
PERCENT INITIAL DISCHARGE
75
90
105
The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p e r c e n t i n i t i a l t r o u t n u m b e r s a n d
p e r c e n t i n i t i a l d i s c h a r g e i n s e c t i o n 3 , Ru b y C r e e k , M o n t a n a
1982 .
Table
9.
Comparison of
rainbow trout
1982 .
e m ig ra tio n of
from s e c t i o n s
resident
I, 2 and
(R) and
3 , Ru b y
s t o c k e d ( NR)
Creek, Montana,
% of s ta rtin g
p o p u l a t io n
e m ig r a tin g
Sec t i o n
Or ig in
Number i n
p o p u l a t io n
I
R
NR
6
171
3 .4
9 6 .6
I
95
1 6 .0
5 5 .5
0 .3 2 1
2
R
NR
8
133
5 .7
9 4 .3
I
79
1 2 .5
5 9 .4
0 .1 4 0
3
R
NR
29
111
2 0 .7
79. 3
5
49
1 7 .2
4 4 .4
0 .0 5 6
% in
p o p u l a t io n
Number
e m ig r a tin g
P- v a l u e
38
3
93
D O WN S T R E A M
UPSTREAM
Ui 5 0
S 40
SECTION:
Figure
1 4.
Number o f r a i n b o w t r o u t t r a p p e d i n e a c h s t u d y
s e c t i o n a c c o r d i n g to d i r e c t i o n of e m i g r a t i o n
f o l l o w i n g f l o w r e d u c t i o n i n Ruby C r e e k ,
Montana, 1982.
39
Table
10.
C o m p a r i s o n o f mean l e n g t h and w e i g h t o f r a i n b o w
t r o u t i n each s tu d y s e c t i o n b e f o r e and a f t e r the
e x p e r i m e n t on Ruby C r e e k M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 .
Sec t i o n
Body s i z e
variable
I
T i me
Number
of f i s h
L e n g t h(mm)
Be f o r e
After
17 7
42
182
171
Weight(g)
Before
After
177
42
83
55
L e n g t h( mm)
Before
After
140
37
190
174
0 . 103
W e i g h t ( g)
Before
Af t e r
• 140
37
84
59
0.064
Le ng t h( mm)
Before
After
140
67
190
194
0.529
W e i g h t ( g)
Before
After
140
67
91
86
Me a n
P-value
0.174
-
.
2
3
* Significantly
Although
rainbow
no
significant
trout
length
th e ,experiment
a l.
1983),
fish
were
smaller
length
different
distributions
inspection
more
fish
of
influenced
(Figures
distribution
15
were
at
found
the
nonparame t r i e
end
of
test,
Dixon,
et
that
larger
data
indicates
by
flow
reductions
and
16).
In
the
relatively
between
start
the
remained
0.73 8
P < 0.01
differences
( Mann-Whitney
0.000*
■
and
than
control
unchanged
were
section,
(Figure
17).
Me a n
creased
body w e i g h t
during
the
of
study
fish
in
period.
all
study
Me a n
sections
weight
of
de­
fish
in
PERCENT OF SAMPLE
40
END — •
IOO
Figure
N = I 77
START
15.
130 1 6 0 1 9 0 2 2 0 2 5 0
FISH TOTAL LENGTH,mm
N= 4 2
280
310
Comparison of the length distributions of trout
(by 10 mm groups) in section I at the start and
end of the study on Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1982.
PERCENT OF SAMPLE
Al
START
N= I 4 0
— N= 3 7
FISH TOTAL LENGTH, mm
Figure
16.
Comparison of the length distributions of trout
(by 10 mm groups) in section 2 at the start and
end of the study on Ruby C r e e k , Montana, 1982.
PERCENT OF SAMPLE
42
START
END —■■•
V
V
100
N= 1 40
•“ N—67
\ /
V
130
FISH TOTAL LENGTH, mm
Figure
17.
Comparison of the length distributions of trout
(by 10 mm groups) in section 3 at the start and
end of the study on Ruby C r e e k , Montana, 1982.
43
section
while
I
there
between
and
I,
was
3
was
the
Changes
34,
intervals,
all
section
20
I
were
mm l e n g t h
m m) .
section
In
discharge
the
in
and
section
3,
conditions,
size
219
mm g r o u p .
0.609
3.
to
In
between
in
the
or
the
t wo
in
I
in
sections
in
2
sections
in
the
120
no
for
from
2,
size
end
< 0.05)
but
not
length
any
to
to
for
for
group
factor
size
the
between
Trout
flow
condition
factors
for
mm e x c e p t
for
200-
to
study,
1.598
the
mean
in
section
to
1.168
decreases
in
condition
groups
all
large
1.008
of
in
(240-259
group.
natural
the
1.017
and
in
statistically
239
of
20 mm
Decreases
subjected
lower
and
largest
and
mm,
by
experiment
(P
condition
beginning
section
beginning
13).
subjected
ranged
the
12 a n d
was
study
were
the
also
mean
grouped
during
largest
was
there
the
smallest
study.,
weight
decrease
trout,
120-239
the
which
between
At
study
different
significantly
factors
section
11,
between
of
which
groups
1.096
rainbow
decreased
mm)
2,
end
had
all
condition
of
difference
start
the
in
the
Factors
reductions,
significant
of
5%,
(Tables
groups
(1 0 0 -1 1 9
difference
respectively.
and
statistically
smallest
end . of
30
factors
sections
end
the
weight
generally
study
and
at
Percentage
Condition
Condition
less
significant
10).
3 was
in
no
beginning
(Table
2 and
signif icantly
the
tests
(100-119
were
mm;
in
42
I,
section
a n d 41%
1 2 0 - 1 3 9mm) .
44
Table
11.
Comparison of condition factors of rainbow trout
stocked, those emigrating, and those remaining
at the end of reduced flow experiments in study
section I, Ruby Creek, M o n t a n a , 1982.
K -v.lue
S ection
S iz e ra n g e
of f i sh(mm)
Mean K
start-end
experim ent
fish
100-119
Min.
Mean
Max.
6
1.246
1.598
1.803
0.83 2
0 .9 3 3
1.035
No .(X)Otlssing
2
4(66)
S tart
E m i g ra t i n g
End
No. ( X )m i e s i n g
31
10
10
1 1 (3 5 )
0.95 4
0.652
0. 5 65
1. 3 90
0.902
0.8 22
1.637
1.451
0. 9 22
0 . 000 **
0 .0 0 0 **
0.880
S ta rt
E m i g ra t i n g
End
No .(X )ml s s l n g
33
16
9
8(24)
0. 9 43
0 .7 5 4
0.811
1.221
0.909
1.013
1.482
1. 0 90
2.204
0 . 001 **
0 .0 0 0 **
0. 4 12
S tart
Em l g ra t In g
14
7
3
4(29)
1.076
0.653
0. 8 23
1.218
0.881
0.897
1.482
1 .001
0. 9 74
0.008 **
0 .0 0 0 **
0.909
28
14
6
8(29)
0.88 4
0.742
0.830
1.24 0
0.929
0.9 44
2.93 2
1 . 181
1 .061
0.001 **
0 .0 0 0 **
0. 7 42
22
17
6
1 (4 )
0. 8 99
0 .7 5 0
0.82 5
1.126
0.950
0.931
1. 3 58
I . 184
1.025
0 . 002 **
0 .0 0 0 **
0.624
20
15
3
2 (1 0 )
1.022
0.751
0.857
1.155
0. 9 64
0.94 4
1.36 7
1.157
1.023
0.008 **
0 .0 0 0 **
0. 767
17
13
3
1 (1 6 )
0 . 744
0. 8 67
0.911
1. 0 70
0. 9 32
I .008
1.43 2
1. 1 00
1.12 9
0 . 368
0 .0 0 1 **
0.253
1. 0 18
0.918
1. 0 70
0 .9 5 3
I . 127
1. 0 18
—
—
—
0. 7 44
0. 6 52
0. 565
1.23 3
0.930
0 .9 2 9
2. 9 32
1.451
2.20 4
0 .0 2 4 *
0 .0 0 0 **
0. 2 33
E m i g ra t i n g
120-139
140-159
160-179
No.( X ! m is s i n g
180-199
era Ig r a r i n g - e n d
S tart
E m i g ra t i n g
No.( X )m ls s l n g
200-219
Em l g ra t In g
No.( X )m ls s l n g
220-239
E m i g ra t i n g
No . ( X) mi s a l ng
240-259
E m i g ra t i n g
N o .( X ) m l s s l n g
0 .0 5 6
260-2 79
5
E m i g ra t i n g
N o . ( Z ) m la s i n g
1 (2 0 )
Emlgra t i n g
End
No. (X ) m i s s l n g
0(0)
S tart
Em igrating
Q
No.( X ) m l s s l n g
0
1 (1 0 0 )
280-2 99
300-319
Overall
sizes
E m i g ra t i n g
No. ( Z ) m i s s l n g
177
96
42
3 9 (2 2 )
S i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t P < 0.05
S i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t P < 0. 0 1
1.01 7
45
Table
Section
2
12.
Comparison of condition factors of rainbow trout
stocked, those emigrating, and those remaining
at the end of reduced flow experiments in study
section 2, Ruby C r e e k , Montana, 1982.
S iz e r a n g e
o f fish(mm)
100-119
120-139
e x p e ri m e n t
Number of
fish
S ta rt
E m i g ra t i n g
End
No. ( t ) m l s s ln g
I
I
0
0(0)
S tart
Em igrating
240 -2 59
0. 101
0 .6 9 8
0 .3 3 8
24
10
10
4(17)
0 .7 3 9
0. 6 84
0.871
0. 9 70
0.871
0.94 6
1.172
1. 0 39
1.014
0.496
0.073
0. 1 99
0.88 4
0.880
0.86 8
1.019
0. 9 67
0.951
1. 1 60
1.082
1.088
0 .0 7 0
0.09 1
0.418
N o. ( X )m l es l n g
17
8
7
2 (1 2 )
S tart
Em igrating
End
No .(% )ml s s l n g
13
6
5
2 (1 5 )
0. 8 76
0 .8 5 0
0. 8 69
0 .9 9 9
0.942
0.9 74
1.092
1.00 5
1.044
0.460
0 .0 3 5 *
0.201
S tart
E m i g ra t i n g
End
No. ( Z)ml s s l n g
20
15
2
3 (1 5 )
0.911
0 .8 2 5
0 .9 7 8
1.0 60
0. 9 62
0. 9 83
1.313
1.084
0. 9 88
0 .1 7 0
0 .0 0 9 * *
S tart
E m i g ra t i n g
End
No. ( X ) m is s l n g
16
16
2
+2 (+ 13 )
0. 6 94
0.898
0.871
1.096
0.964
0.971
1.787
I . 130
1.071
0. 3 25
0 .0 0 5 * *
0. 8 88
S tart
Em i g ra t In g
14
10
2
2 (1 4 )
0 .9 6 0
0.812
0.993
1.0 56
0.986
1.022
1. 2 49
1.10 8
1.051
0.751
0.084
0.480
7
4
I
2 (2 9 )
0 .9 8 3
1.006
1.0 90
1 .0 7 0
1. 0 26
1.232
1.13 0
0 .8 5 0
3
2
I
0(0)
0.95 1
0. 9 12
1.011
0.989
0 .9 4 2
1.05 4
1.06 5
I . 000
0 .2 2 1
0.001**
0.815
S tart
Em igrating
N o . ( X )m l s e l n g
26 0-2 79
S tar t
Emigrating
No . ( Z ) m i s s i n g
280-299
S tart
Em igrating
No .( X ) m is s l n g
300-3 19
0. 6 09
0.890
1.379
1.20 5
1 .097
No.(%) m l s s l n g
220-239
Mean K
em lgratlng-end
P-value
0. 9 2 7
0. 9 34
0.9 85
Em igrating
200-219
Mean K
start-em igrating
P-value
0.650
0. 6 67
0. 8 90
140-159
180-199
start-end
Mean
25
7
7
1 1( 4 4)
No. ( X)m l s s l n g
160-179
Min.
S tart
E m i g ra t i n g
I
I
0
0(0)
No. ( Z ) m l s s ln g
Overall s iz e s
Em igrating
No.(Z)m lsslng
141
80
37
24(17)
* S i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t P < 0. 0 5
** S i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t P < 0 . 0 1
-----
0 .9 6 0
0.935
0 .6 0 9
0.667
0. 8 68
I . Oil
0.948
0.965
1.787
1.2 05
1.09 7
0 .3 0 2
0. 7 66
46
Table
S e c 1 1 on
3
13.
Comparison of condition factors of rainbow trout
s t o c k e d , those emigrating, and those remaining
at the end of reduced flow experiments in study
section 3, Ruby Creek, Montana, 1982.
S iz e ra n g e
o f flsh(mm)
Time o f
e x p e ri m e n t
100-119
S tart
Eml gra t Ing
End
No. ( Z ) B l s s i n g
120-139
140-159
160-179
180-199
200-219
2 20 -23 9
240-2 59
260-279
280-2 99
Number o f
fish
7
0
0
7 (1 0 0 )
Mean
Max.
1.061
—————
1.167
1.317
start-em igrating
emIg r a t I n g - end
—
S tart
Em igrating
End
No.( Z ) = I s e l n g
16
2
5
9(56)
1.000
1.057
0.9 31
1.114
1.1 96
1.0 10
1.205
1.335
1.172
0 .0 2 1 *
0 .7 7 9
0. 1 21
S tart
Em igrating
End
N o . ( Z ) m is s l n g
21
3
15
3 (1 4 )
0 .8 3 8
0.919
0.8 64
1.1 68
0.963
0.96 2
2. 1 98
0.998
1.019
0. 000**
0 .0 3 6 *
0.953
S tart
Em igrating
End
N o - ( Z ) B i s s in g
25
5
12
8(32)
0. 9 63
0.830
0.880
1.093
0 .9 5 0
0.966
1.432
1.031
1.200
0.008 **
0 .0 0 7 * *
0 .9 1 6
S tart
E m i g ra t i n g
End
No .(Z ) a l s s l n g
12
7
8
+3(+2 5)
1.003
0 .9 0 3
0.781
1.13 8
1.00 2
0.7 97
1.281
1.077
0. 8 23
0 .0 0 2 * *
0.8 62
S tart
E m i g ra t i n g
0.8 47
0.943
0.925
1.112
1 .0 2 8
1 .0 3 0
1.21 9
1.097
1.15 5
0. 0 73
0.037
0.935
N o . (% )m ls s l n g
14
5
7
2 (1 4 )
S tart
F.mlg r a t i n g
20
17
0.949
0. 7 41
0.843
1.088
0.94 9
0. 9 92
1. 2 60
1.071
1. 0 80
0 .0 2 7 *
0 .0 0 0 * *
0.216
No. ( Z ) m i s s l n g
♦4 (+20)
S tart
E m i g ra t i n g
0.947
0 .8 5 3
0. 9 32
1.092
0.976
1. 0 28
1.202
1. 1 59
1.092
0. 157
0 . 012*
0.221
No . ( Z )m l s s l n g
Il
9
5
+3 (+27)
S tart
E m i g ra t i n g
End
No-(Z)B isslng
8
4
4
0(0)
0.96 1
0.558
0.935
1.069
0. 8 99
1.026
1. 2 18
1.104
1. 1 37
0.497
0 .2 3 5
0. 3 87
S tart
E m i g ra t i n g
End
No. ( Z ) B i s s l n g
4
0
0.979
1.0 86
1.14 7
0. 8 89
0.989
1.091
2
2
0
0(0)
0.897
0.835
1.0 08
0.926
1. 1 18
1.01 7
140
54
67
19 (1 4 )
0.838
0. 558
0.843
1.11 2
0.988
0.992
2.198
1.33 5
1. 2 00
0(0)
300-3 19
Em igrating
No .( Z ) m l e 6 ln g
O verall s iz e s
start-end
Min.
S tart
Em igrating
N o .( Z ) m ls s l n g
* S i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t P < 0. 05
** S i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t P < 0 . 01
0.439
0. 0 99
0.000**
0 .4 7 5
47
In
sections
any
size
2 and
group
emigrating
slightly
end
of
3 the
was
trout
the
not
I,
reduced
3 were
to
study
had
decreased
the
0.12,
These
was
than
experiment
increased
to
we
at
observed
276
large
were
These
4 ) .,
and
r e s p e c t i v e l y . (Table
similar
In
of
general,
sections
remaining
were
in
until
the
13).
flow
had
similar
rainbow
the
study.
The
study
and
the
0.22
to
of
in
study
study
140% i n
5).
reductions
trout
were
(96
densities
section,
t r o u t / me t e r ,
study.
1,2
2,
9 5 %,
and
400
When
I,. 2 and
and
before
127%
the
densities
and
1.05
densities
sections
during
with
sections
the
biomass
and
in
1.30
180,
I and
4 and
1.43,
sections
sections
Sections
(Table
numerical
in
sections
reduction
rainbow
0.50
densities
flow
(fish/m eter)
i n. S e p t e m b e r ,
and
study
period
beginning
0.35
the
by
increased
Post
control
in
levels
densities
0.07,
0.34,
(Table
8,
63-day
completed
respectively.
larger
those
12 a n d
pre-study
trout/me ter
the
3,
and
populations
numerical
respectively.
rainbow
trout
during
Original
2 and
11,
condition
respectively.
groups
than
in
Densities
experienced
5).
size
(Tables
Supplemented
were
all
decrease
3 0 %,
condition
study
Post-Study
11% a n d
in
poorer
largest
had
3,
subjected
to
respectively),
all
natural
phases
flow
of
48
r e d u c t i o n ' of
and
after
57.2%,
the
study
flow
reductions.
Fish
Not
accounted
for
14.
the
I
2
3
end
of
escaped
weir
four
failed.
attempt
was made
largest
percentage
length
the
section
study
a
were
(Tables
large
to
(Table
before
to
large
22
17
14
section
I
marked
rainbow
trout.
recover
lost
missing
length
groups
11,
12 a n d
13).
Biomass(g)
32
I 7
16
a natural
These
when
immediately
no mar k ed
fish
fish
from
to
started,
produced
by
%Lo s s
4692
2009
2110
study
be
not accounted for
I , 2 , a n d 3 , Ru b y
Number s
the
not
14).
Biomass(g)
pool
of
could
for
Electrofishing
2 in
both
subjected
from
before
section
sections
study
unaccounted
up s t r e a m
produced
may h a v e
sections
each
39
24
19
Electrofishing
fish
in
Numbers
barrier
the
densities
Fish numbers a n d . biomass
e m i g r a t i o n from s e c t i o n s
C r e e k , M ontana, 1982.
Trout
Section
in
trout
For
fish
at
higher
than
Accounted
A portion.of
Table
had
in
less
above
all
than
the
fish
fish
upper
above
fish.
No
section
3.
three
study
140
mm t o t a l
The
49
Flow R e l a t e d
Habitat
Decreases
in
Habitat
Availability
Differences
Section
structure
I was
while
riffle-run
sections,
characterized
sections
habitat.
habitat
discharges.
differences
Because
data
This
2 and
were
makes
between
by a p o o l - r i f f l e
3 had
of
a
flow
comparison
sections
predominance
differences
collected
at
of
channel
between
different
channel
difficult
of
structure
(Figures
18,
19
and
20) .
Me a n
depth
sections,
although
and
2.9
times
the
initiation
thalweg
was
depths
11% d e e p e r
in
discharge
larger,
of
were
mean
about
50%
shallower
beginning
cm/sec)
mean
I.
thalweg
of
At
in
study
(64
cm/sec);
velocity
(73
cm/sec).
in
the
end
section
Du e
percent
differed
of
to
the
I,
sam e
sections
71% i n
in
in
15).
end
section
Me a n
section
the
3.
3,
2
2.6
I at
mean
but
study,
I and
wa s
mean
but
were
Me a n v e l o c i t y
in
3 had
velocity
2 and
3 was
section
2 and
of
similar
three
Initial
sections
section
all
2 and
than
sections
the
was
in
a
at
sections
I
slightly
higher
had
19% i n
been
(61
reduced
section
3 by
study.
flow
change
in
depth
than
the
in
(Table
similar
2
80%
and
study
section
and
the
respectively,
the
depth
the
essentially
in
between
and
the
channel
five
sections.
differences,
habitat
AlI
the
variables
variables
order
of
measured
except
velocity
AVERAGE T RA NS E C T D E P T H , m e t e r s
SECTION I
0.00
280 liters/sec
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30.
0.35
0.4S
DISTANCE UPSTREAM,meters
Figure
18.
t r a „ e e c ^ d e p eh o f
section
I ,t
280
liters/sec
(10
cfs),
Ru b y
AVERAGE TRANSECT DEPTH,
E
SECTION 2
167 l i t e r s / s e c
0.00
0.05
0 . 10 0.15
0 . 20 .
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0 . 4 5 - - --------------------- ----------- .-------- ------------- ----------- ----------- ,—
O
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
________
80
90
100
1 10
120
130
DISTANCE UPSTREAM ,m eters
Figure
19.
Average t r a n s e c t depth
C r e e k , Montana, 1982.
of
section
2 at
167
liters/sec
(5.9
cfs)
Ru b y
AVERAGE T R A N S E C T DEPTH, m e te r s
S ECTION 3
351 l i t e r s / s e c
0.05
DISTANCE UPSTREAM, meters
Figure
20. Average transect depth
Creek, Montana, 1982.
of section 3 at
351
liters/sec
(12.4 cfs)
Rubv
*
Table
15.
Me a n d e p t h ( m) , d e p t h s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n a n d m e a n
v e l o c i t y ( cm/sec) in s tu d y s e c t i o n s I, 2 and 3
Rubv
Creek, Montana, 1982.
y
Flow
S e c tio n ( l i t e r s / s e c , c f s )
I
Number o f
o b se rv a tio n s
Mean
d e p th
(m e ters)
Depth
s ta n d a rd d e v ia tio n
Mean v e l o c i t y
283
113
23
.8
(1 0 .0 )
(4.0)
(0 .8 )
(0 .3 )
285
239
191
163
0 .2 3
0 .1 7
0 .1 1
0 .0 9
0 .1 4
0 .1 2 '
0 .1 0
0 .0 9
61
40
21
12
2
669
167
54
28
(2 3 .7 )
(5.9)
(1 .9 )
(1 .0 )
225
194
186
171
0 .2 2
0 .1 6
0 .0 9
0 .0 7
0 .1 0
0 .0 8
0 .0 6
0 .0 5
73
49
30
21
3
821 ( 2 9 . 0 )
351 ( 1 2 . 4 )
149
144
0 .21
0 .1 6
0 .1 2
0 .1 0
64
52
Ui
Co
<
54
area
( surface
ft/sec)
area
decreased
Decreases
with
as
in
Habitat
In
both
reduced
hanging
bank
cover
overhanging
depth
In
of
section
area
area
was
and
of
total
where
sections,
100%. o f
a
15
in
total
cm a n d
flow
in
30
flow
overhang
( S A)
section
25.8%
In
the
natural
by a
in
(Figure
23).
There
Habitat
Correlations
\
AlI
five
with
the
exception
correlation
was
habitat
with
of
other
no
VA i n
in
lost.
depth
cm o r
surface
by
21).
accompanied
discharge
OHV w a s
an
8.2%
OHB c o v e r
were
section
habitat
15
a
(OHV-surface
(Figure
in
variables
of
with
by a
DA o f
with
a
73.3%
T h e 96%
100%
9 8 %,
VA
22).
section,
DA a n d
was
I 0 c m)
reduction
with
97%,
water
of 2
45.2%
2 was
was
depth
cm o f
over­
surface
vegetation
width
(Figure
flow
decrease
30
usable
10' cm)
reduction
by
Accompanying, d e c r e a s e
28.1%
width 2
(0.1
16).
waters
associated
within
cm/sec
associated
the
overhead
OHV f o l l o w e d
SA o f
cm o f
with
area
in
area
overhang
vegetation
and
a
flow
91.8%;
9 7 %,
57.2%.
(Table
area
surface
reduction
by
I,
reduced
2
decrease
of
cm a n d
having
depth
decreased
(OHB-surface
15
0.3
flow
bank w i t h i n
(DA-surface
more)
mean v e l o c i t y
decreased
38.3%
decrease
in
section
highly
I which
variables.
only
followed
in
SA
3.
intercorrelated
had
lower
Similarly
each
Table
16.
C a l c u l a t e d s u r f a c e a r e a and
v a r i a b l e s ( p e r 100 m s t r e a m
I 982 .
p e r c e n t change of f i v e h a b i t a t
l e n g t h ) . Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a
a
S ectio n
Date
SA
Flow
( l i t e r s / s e c ) ZChange
(m2 ) ZChange
DA
(m2 ) ZChange
VA
0HV
(m2 ) ZChange
0HB
(m2 )
ZChange
(m2)
ZChange
I
7 /24
7/20
9/1
9/8
283
113
23
9
0 .0
-6 0 .0
-9 2 .0
-9 7 .0
251.6
2 1 3 .3
1 7 1 .0
1 37.9
0 .0
-1 5 .2
-3 2 .0
-4 5 .2
85.0
6 9 .8
14.6
7 .0
0 .0
-1 7 .9
-8 2 .8
-9 1 .8
135.1
148.8
1 6 6 .9
137.8
0 .0
-1 0 .1
-2 3 .5
2 .0
7.5
6.5
2.6
2 .0
0.0
- 1 3 .1
-6 5 .3
-7 3 .3
0.6
0 .6
0 .0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
-1 0 0 .0
-1 0 0 .0
2
7/24
7/2 1
9/2
9/9
671
167
54
28
0 .0
-7 5 .1
-9 2 .0
-95-8
3 0 2 .3
2 7 5.1
255.0
2 2 4 .2
0 .0
-9 .0
-1 5 .6
-2 5 .8
1 9 2 .9
1 0 5.3
62.9
3.2
0 .0
-4 5 .4
-6 7 .4
-9 8 .3
1 0 6 .9
112.6
1 9 3.3
2 1 9.4
0 .0
5.3
80.0
1 0 5 .2
9.2
2 .6
0 .0
0.0
0.0
-7 1 .7
-1 0 0 .0
-1 0 0 .0
0 .1
0.1
0 .0
0.0
0 .0
0 .0
-1 0 0 .0
-1 0 0 .0
3
7 /22
8 /1 1
822
351
0 .0
-5 7 .2
448.2
411.3
0 .0
-8 .2
2 3 1 .3
1 6 6.3
0 .0
- 2 8 .1
2 2 8 .1
2 3 3 .8
0 .0
2.5
6 .0
3.7
0 .0
-3 8 .3
0 .0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
S u r f a c e A re a-(S A )
V e l o c i t y Area-(V A)
O v e r h a n g in g V e g a t a t i o n Area-(OHV)
a: cf s -
l i t e r s / sec x 0 . 0 3 5 3 1
Depth Area-(DA)
O v e r h a n g in g Bank-(OHB)
D IS CH A RG E - 2 8 3 I I I * , # / * * ,
S U R F AC E AREA - 3 1 1 . 2 m '
FLOW |>,
D IS CH A RG E - 0 I U * r # / * * c
T OTAL S U R F A C E AREA - 2 3 9 . 2 m '
RUBY CREEK SECTION I
LEGEND
--------------WETP TRANSECT
------------- HABITAT CROSS SECTION
----------— THALWEG
\
9^
Figure
21.
■
.
15m
SCALE
S u r f a c e a r e a and t h a l w e g of h i g h e s t and l o w e s t f l o w s m e a s u r e d
l o c a t i o n of w e t t e d p e r i m e t e r and h a b i t a t t r a n s e c t s in s e c t i o n
C r e e k , M ont ana , 1982.
and
I
Ru b v
DISCHARGE -
671
IlU ra
tcc
TOTAL S U R F A C E AREA -
D IS CH A RG E - 2 6 l l l e r e / e e c
T OTAL S U R F A C E AREA - 2 2 $ 2 m>
RUBY CREEK SECTION 2
LEGEND
— ........... WETP TRANSECT
------------- HABITAT CROSS SECTION
-------- — THALWEG
SCALE
Figure
22.
S u r f a c e a r e a and th alw e g of h i g h e s t and l o w e s t f lo w s m ea sured
l o c a t i o n of w e t t e d p e r i m e t e r and h a b i t a t t r a n s e c t s i n s e c t i o n
Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1982 .
and
2
Vi
00
RUBY CREEK SECTION 3
-
Wt IP TRANSFC'
HABITAT CROSS SECTION
I
Figure
23.
Thai w e c
'
S u r f a c e a r e a and th a l w e g of h i g h e s t and l o w e s t
flow s measured and l o c a t i o n of w e t t e d p e r i m e t e r
a n d h a b i t a t t r a n s e c t s i n s e c t i o n 3 , Ru b y C r e e k
Montana, 1982.
’
59
habitat
variable
except
for
sections
(Tables
highly
Other
0.75
to
positive
correlation
correlated
in
all
poorly
correlated
( r=
in
section
3,
19).
all
Wi t h
other
the
-0.60)
exception
correlations
numbers
and
correlated
with
habitat
variables
were
section
above
0.83.
highly
where
numbers.
above
were
as
with
not
was
as
flow.
In
was
numbers
0.93.
The
corre­
velocity.
numbers
I
SA i n
habitat-flow
OHV a n d
3,
of
were
biomass
for
correlations
section
with
all
except
between
had
In
I
0.95,
correlation
to
flow
negatively
trout
was
with
was
and
variables
lated
high
general,
lations
the
18
2 and
exception
2,
was
17,
In
a
VA w h i c h
and
sections
had
section
6.90.
ranging
no h a b i t a t
variable
Correlations
ranged
from
corre­
from
0.65
0.68.
Temperature
Me a n
and
3,
daily
water
generally
decreased
decrease
in
fish
emigrated
had
ranged
from
water
I
respectively
to
temperature,
temperature
17
from
(Figures
24
over
the
section
10.8
C in
I
and
study
the
18
25).
C,
3
mean
11.1
20).
of
I
The
the
temperature
sections
were
(Table
most
Water
Average
period,
section
in
sections
period.
after
sections.
to
in
study
occurred
study
C and
temperatures-,
I and
during
measured
I and
daily
C in
3,
Table
17.
C o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n h a b i t a t v a r i a b l e s , mean r i f f l e
t r a n s e c t v a r i a b l e s and t r o u t numbers r e m a i n i n g i n s e c t i o n
I , Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1982 .
H a b i t a t v a r i a b l e s were
m e a s u r e d a t f l o w s r a n g i n g from 232 t o 6 l i t e r s / s e c ( 8 . 2 to
0.3 cfs) .
Flow
Numbers
SA
DA
VA
Flow
1.000
Num h e r s 0 .9 7 8
1.000
SA
1. 000
0 .9 6 3 0 .947
DA
0 .9 6 3 0 .9 6 5 0.971
1 .0 0 0
VA
-0 .5 9 8 -0 .6 1 0 -0 .3 9 4 -0 .5 6 7
1 .000
OHV
0 . 9 6 5 0 . 9 6 6 0 .9 7 3 0. 999 - 0 . 5 6 6
OHB
0 .958 0 .9 6 3 0 .9 5 2 0 .995 - 0 . 6 2 2
WETP
0 .8 4 3 0 .8 9 2
0 .9 5 5 0 .9 7 9 - 0 . 1 2 2
DBAR
0.952 0.941
0 .996 0 .974 - 0 . 3 9 8
VBAR
0 .6 8 4 0 .6 8 3 0 .4 8 2 0 . 6 2 6 - 0 . 9 6 5
WDTH
0 .8 3 0 0 .816 0 .9 4 8 0 .865 - 0 . 0 9 8
AREA
0 .9 6 3 0 .9 5 2 0 .9 9 7 0 . 9 8 0 - 0 . 4 3 2
DMAX
0 .949
0 .939 0 .997 0 .9 7 2 - 0 . 3 8 8
WTOT
0 .9 8 0 0 . 9 8 5 0 .9 4 9 0 .9 8 3 - 0 . 6 5 2
WMAX
0 .9 9 0 0 .986 0. 940 0 .962 - 0 . 6 5 3
S u r f a c e Area (SA)
Depth Area (DA)
V e l o c t t y Area (VA)
O v e r h a n g in g V e g l t a t l o n Area (OHV)
O v e rh an g in g Rank Area (OHB)
W etted P e r i m e t e r (WETP)
Average Depth (DBAR)
OHV
OMB
1 .0 0 0
0 .997
0.881
0 .9 7 5
0.620
0 .869
0 .982
0 .9 7 4
0.985
0 .9 6 5
1 .0 0 0
0.843
0 .9 5 6
0 .6 6 5
0.830
0 .9 6 5
0 .9 5 4
0.987
0 .964
WF.TP
1.000
0 .9 5 6
0.203
1.000
0 .9 4 5
0.959
0 .8 2 3
0 .8 0 8
DBAR
1 .000
0.476
0 .948
0 .9 9 9
1.000
0 .9 4 3
0 .933
VBAR
1 .000
0 .179
0. 510
0.467
0 .7 0 8
0.724
WDTH
1.000
0 .9 3 6
0 .952
0 .8 0 9
0.794
AREA
WMAX
WTOT
WMAX
O'
O
1 .0 0 0
0 .9 9 9
0 .9 5 6
0.946
1 .0 0 0
0 .9 4 1
0 .9 3 0
1.000
0.991
Average V e l o c i t y (VBAR)
Top W idth o f T r a n s e c t (WDTH)
T r a n s e c t Area (AREA)
Maximum Depth (DMAX)
T o t a l Top Width w ith Depth o f 15 cm or more (WTOT)
L o n g e s t C o n t in u o u s Top Width A s s o c i a t e d w i t h a Depth of
15 cm or more (WMAX)
1.0 00
Table
18.
Flow
Flow
1.000
Numbe r s 0 . 9 1 8
SA
0 .8 9 6
DA
0 .9 3 4
VA
-0 .9 0 0
OHV
0 .9 9 7
OHB
0 .964
WETP
0 .8 9 9
DBAR
0 .962
VBAR
0 .9 9 5
WDTH
0 .879
AREA
0 .967
DMAX
0 .958
WTOT
0 .9 8 0
UMAX
0 .992
C o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n h a b i t a t v a r i a b l e s , mean r i f f l e
v a r i a b l e s a n d t r o u t n u m b e r s r e m a i n i n g i n s e c t i o n 2, Ruby
C re ek, M o n ta n a , 1982.
Habitat variables
were m ea sur ed a t
f l o w s r a n g i n g f r o m 5 2 4 t o 28 l i t e r s / s e c ( 1 8 . 5 t o 1 . 0 c f s ) .
Numbers
SA
DA
VA
OHV
OHB
UETP
1 .000
0 .766
1 .000
0.815 0.995
1 .0 0 0
-0.751 -0 .9 8 3 -0 .9 7 9
1.000
0 . 9 0 4 0 . 8 9 5 0 .9 3 1 - 0 . 9 1 1
0 .833 0 . 9 7 0 0 .984 - 0 . 9 7 9
0 .7 6 6 0 . 9 9 6 0.991 - 0 . 9 8 2
0 .834
0.977 0 . 9 9 0 - 0 . 9 8 2
0 .914 0 . 8 5 6 0 . 9 0 0 - 0 .8 7 2
0 .7 4 6 0 .9 9 5 0 .9 8 6 - 0 .9 7 7
0 .8 4 2 0 .9 7 4 0 .9 8 8 - 0 . 9 7 9
0 .832 0 .982 0 .9 9 3 - 0 .9 8 3
0 . 8 5 0 0 . 9 1 0 0 .9 3 7 - 0 . 9 3 4
0 .892 0 .8 9 6 0.931 - 0 . 9 0 7
1 .0 0 0
0 .9 6 9
0 .8 9 7
0 .9 6 5
0.996
0 .8 7 7
0 .9 7 0
0.961
0.988
0 .993
1 .000
0.969
0 .9 9 8
0 .9 4 6
0 .957
0 .9 9 8
0.967
0 .9 7 9
0 .967
I .0 0 0
0 .9 7 8
0 .8 5 8
0 .9 9 9
0.975
0 .9 8 3
0.91 5
0.901
S u r f a c e Area (SA)
Depth Area (DA)
V e l o c i t y Area (VA)
O v e r h a n g in g V e g i t a t i o n Area (AREA)
O v e rh an g in g Bank Area (OHB)
W etted P e r i m e t e r (WETP)
Average Depth (DBAR)
DIlAR
1.000
0.940
0 .9 6 8
1 .0 0 0
1.0 00
0 .9 7 6
0 .9 6 5
VBAR
1 .0 0 0
0.835
0 .9 4 7
0 .9 3 4
0 .9 7 8
0 .9 9 0
WDTH
1.000
0 .9 6 4
0 .9 7 3
0 .8 9 6
0.8 81
AREA
DMAX
WTOT
UMAX
1.000
0 .9 9 9
0 .9 7 9
0.970
1.000
0.971
0.961
Average V e l o c i t y (VBAR)
Top W idth o f T r a n s e c t (WDTH)
T r a n s e c t Area (AREA)
Maximum Depth (DMAX)
T o t a l Top Width w ith Depth o f 15 cm or more (WTOT)
L o n g e s t C o n t in u o u s Top Width A s s o c i a t e d w i t h a Depth of
15 cm or more (WMAX)
1.000
0 .9 9 0
1.000
Table
19.
Flow
Flow 1.000
Numbers 0 .647
SA
0 .785
DA
0 .9 9 7
VA
- 0 .9 9 7
OHV
0.997
WETP
0.987
DBAR
0.990
VBAR
0 .999
WDTH
0.986
AREA
0 .9 9 8
DMAX
0 .992
WTOT
0.964
WMAX
0.986
C o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n h a b i t a t v a r i a b l e s , mean r i f f l e
t r a n s e c t v a r i a b l e s and t r o u t numbers r e m a i n i n g in
s e c t i o n 3, Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 .
Habitat variables
w e r e m e a s u r e d a t f l o w s r a n g i n g f r o m 6 1 5 t o 351
l i t e r s / s e c ( 2 1 . 7 to 1 2 . 4 c f s ) .
Numbers
1 .000
0 .6 5 0
0 .6 8 3
0 .684
0 .682
0 .717
0 .6 5 0
0 .6 4 8
0.720
0 .6 7 7
0 .6 9 5
0 .7 2 4
0 .6 6 6
SA
1 .000
0 .8 0 4
0 .8 0 4
0.803
0 .814
0 .811
0 .788
0.815
0.800
0 .7 9 3
0 .8 4 5
0 .8 1 2
PA
VA
OHV
WETP
DBAR
VBAR
WDTH
1 .000
0 .9 9 7
0 .992
0 .9 9 7
0.996
1 .000
0 .9 9 7
0 .9 8 0
0 .9 9 2
1.000
0.987
0 .9 8 9
1.000
0 .9 9 5
0 .9 9 4
0.991
0.990
1 .000
0 .9 9 0
0 .9 8 7
0.992
0 .9 9 2
0 .972
0 .9 8 5
1 .000
0.988
0 .9 9 8
0 .9 9 2
0.966
0 .9 8 7
1 .0 0 0
0 .995
0 .9 9 4
0.991
0 .9 9 0
AREA
DMAX
WTOT
WMAX
1.000
-
1 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
0 .9 9 7
0 .9 9 2
0 .997
0.996
1 .0 0 0
0 .9 9 7
0.981
0 .9 9 2
-
1.000
1 .000
-0 .9 9 7
-0 .9 9 2
-0 .9 9 7
-0 .9 9 6
- 1.000
-0 .9 9 7
- 0 .9 8 1
-0 .9 9 2
S u r f a c e Area (SA)
Depth Area (DA)
V e l o c i t y Area (VA)
O v e r h a n g in g Vegi t a t ion Area (AREA)
W etted P e r i m e t e r (WETP)
Average Depth (DBAR)
O'
NJ
1 .000
0.996
0 .978
0 .992
1.000
0 .9 7 8
0 .9 8 7
1.000
0 .984
A ve rage V e l o c i t y (VBAR)
Top Width of T r a n s e c t (WDTH)
T r a n s e c t Area (AREA)
Maximum Depth (UMAX)
T o t a l Top Width w i t h Depth o f 15 cm o r more (WTOT)
L o n g est C o n t in u o u s Top Width A s s o c i a t e d w ith a Depth o f
15 cm o r more (WMAX)
1.000
63
SECTION 1
MISSING DATA
JULY
AUGUST
23
252 7
2 9 31
4
6 , 8
10
12
SEPTEMBER
Figure
24.
Average
I , Ru b y
daily water temperatures
Creek, Montana, 1982.
(C)
of
section
64
SECTION 3
14 -
TEMPERATURE,degrees c e n t i g r a d e
13 ■
I2-
II■
10
9 •
8
7
MISSING DATA
6■
5 •
4 ■
3
2
24
26 28
JULY
30
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19 21 2 3 2 5 2 7
AUGUST
2931
2
4
6
8
10
12 14
16
SEPTEMBER
TIM E
Figure
25.
Average
3, R u b y
daily water temperatures
Creek, Montana, 1982.
(C)
of
section
65
Wetted
Wetted
Perimeter
Wetted
and
variables
area
section
in
habitat
Table
lation
0.996
I.
variables
velocity
( DA,
in
17).
with
for
variables
In
section
to
I
a high
18).
area
of
wetted
(DA),
the
wetted
perimeter
of
from
0.979
ranged
with
low o f
for
-0.122
depth
area
perimeter
corre­
from 0 .8 9 7
OHV t o
section
3,
perimeter
velocity
a
velocity
the
and
area
correlation
habitat
(VA),
and
overhanging
vegetation
( OHV)
were
0.997.
The
correlation
in
3 was
with
SA ( r =
0.814,
section
five
for
2 wetted
In
with
except
ranged
variables
between
highly
sections,
section,
SA ( T a b l e
depth
all
Index
Correlations
correlated
( VA)
habitat
coefficients
a Habitat
Correlation
in
area
as
Habitat
perimeter
habitat
for
Perimeter
lowest
Table
1 9 ).
Trout
Abundance
Changes
changes
in
in
of
trout
numbers
below
140
decreases
number
and
Wetted
wetted
trout
correlation
Trout
and
numbers
17).
rapidly
(4.9
were
section
I
paralleled
( Figure
' Wetted
as
flow
by
26)
with
perimeter
slowly
a
and
decreased
cfs).
decreased
wetted
wetted
in
(Table
decreased
liters/sec
in
perimeter
numbers
0.892
Perimeter
in
perimeter
perimeter
section
occurred
had
a
2
before
(Figure
correlation
large
27).
of
Trout
0.766.
SECTION I
120
----------- WE T T E D P E R I ME T E R
* * * « T R O U T NUMBERS REMAI NI NG
100-
FLOW,liters/see
Figure
26. The relationship between wetted perimeter and trout numbers
remaining in section I, Ruby C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1982.
WE T T E D P E R I M E T E R , m e t e r s
T R O U T NUMBERS REMAI NI NG
200
SECTION 2
200"
■3.0
TROUT NUMBERS REMAINING
2.5
160WETTED PERIMETER
* « * «
140-
TROUT NUMBERS REMAINING
*
*
■
2.0
I 20"
*
100-
1.5
80-
*
*
*
*
#
-
*
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
SO^TFo"
600
1.0
650
FLOW, l i t e r s / s e c
Figure
27.
The relationship between wetted perimeter and trout numbers
remaining in section 2 , Ruby Creek, Montana, 1982.
WETTED PERIMETER,meters
1804
68
Trout
number
decreases
Wetted
in
in
section
discharge
perimeter
reduced
below
In
the
lation
did
130
With
flow
emigration
response ,
stabilized
at
Calculated
wetted
discharge
Figure
was
28).
corresponded
the
wetted
The
lag
390
4.6
and
below
Increased
rate
reasonably
well
associated
wetted
flow
3)
change
and
stabilized
as
decreased
most
rapidly
liters/sec
(16.4
trout
emigration
this
inflection
to
computer
parameters:
model
average
cross
cross
section
velocity
water
area
maxi mum
cross
section
depth
( DMAX) ,
total
top
a
of
cm o r
variables,
not
consistent
variables
numbers
of
more
width
( WTOT) ,
with
importance
based
upon
trout
depth
of
and
of
wetted
correlation
between
except
cfs,
point
in
study
VBAR a n d
larger
than
15
with
0.93,
section
( AREA) ,
width
having
longest
cm o r
more
perimeter
sections.
WDTH h a d
the
the
(VBAR), c r o s s
section
of
as
predicted
cross
Order
flow
cfs.
(WDTH) ,
top
trout
13.8
of
wa s
was
or
460
'
corre­
perimeter
width
continuous
flow
the
section
15
cfs).
curve.
( DB A R ) , a v e r a g e
depth
small
(12.7
until
(section
liters/sec
reduced
with
cfs.
numbers
perimeter
perimeter
rapidly
between
trout
rapidly
liters/sec
section
wet t e d - p e r i m e t e r
following
depth
about
or
numbers
15-day
360
decrease
liters/sec
trout
a
decreased
below
not
natural
between
0.717.
2
trout
In
( WMAX) .
habitat
numbers,
section
correlations
indicating
I
was
all
with
that
they
SECTION 3
200
5.0
WETTED PERIMETER
O
4.5
| l 60
<
|l40
w
4.0
El 2
Z
3
Z
^I OO
3
O
WETTED PE RI ME T E R, me t e r s
TROUT NUMBERS REMAINING
1 80
3. 5
OC
I- 803. 0
60 ■
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
FLOW, l i t e r s / s e c
Figure 28.
The relationship between wetted perimeter and trout numbers
remaining in section 3, Ruby Creek, Montana, 1982.
70
are
all
highly
variable
with
correlation
bles
had
a
of
was
Versus
Because
standard
of
components.
Trout
emigration
30-40%
of
change
i n . the
in
inital
perimeter
that
habitat
measure
Eish
of
tests
to
of
habitat
were
order
of
variables
while
3.
other
0.64-0.70.
plotted
the
with
of
decreased
WMAX,
however,
was
population.
most
Each
habitat
closely
of
30
deeper
was
and
percent
in
indicated
with
trout
perimeter
to
explained
the
the
Variables
15
reduced
change
similar
than
increase
wetted
plots
wetted
habitat
31),
eight
parallel
these
of
observed
percent
in
of
for
flow
these
decrease
and
variables,
and
of
riffle
varia­
No
importance
explain
evaluation
variable
pattern
a
section
of
unsuitable
29,
numbers
the
correlations
were
the
attempt
Visual
in
0.72,
(Figures
WTOT a n d
the
had
of
discharge
variables
of
correlation
five
0.89.
numbers
when
The
in
with
to
sections
numbers.
decrease
0.83
study
variables
flow.
from
only
WDTH h a d
remaining
intercorrelation
all
five
initial
the
0.90.
the
Numbers
evaluating
an
of
ranging
a
2 VBAR' w a s
exceeding
each
variables
high
In
section
correlated
m ultivariate
statistically
no
and
WTOT h a d
perimeter
Variables
in
0.75
highly
B o t h WDTH a n d
In
correlation
correlations
variable
wetted
important.
c m.
is
response
a
71
100.0
87.5
62.5
50.a
37.5
25.0
12.5
LU
100.0
87.5
62.5
50.0.
37.5
25.0
12 5
1 0 0 .0
87.5
62.5
37.5
12.5
PERCENT INITIAL DISCHARGE
Figure
29.
The
relationship
and
longest
between
continuous
percent
top
width
initial
with
depth
72
100.0
87 5
75.0
50.0.
37.5
25.0
PERCENT INITIAL VARIABLE
12.5
100.0
87.5
62.5
50.0
37.5
12.5
100.0
87.5
50.0
37.5
12.5-
PERCENT INITIAL DISCHARGE
Figure
30.
The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p e r c e n t i n i t i a l
d i s c h a r g e and t r o u t numb ers r e m a i n i n g , t o t a l
t o p w i d t h w i t h d e p t h g r e a t e r t h a n 15 cm ( WTOT)
and l o n g e s t c o n t i n u o u s top width w i t h depth
g r e a t e r t h a n 15 cm (WMAX) f o r s t u d y s e c t i o n 2
Ru b y C r e e k , M o n t a n a , 1 9 8 2 .
73
100.0
87.5
£
...
.
S5 5
50.0-1
3
37.5- 1
25.0
PERCENT INITIAL VARIABLE
12.5-
0 .0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
1 0 0 .0
8 7.5
I-
75.0
O
6 2.5
I-
50.0.
37.5
25.0
12.5
0.0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
100.0
87.5
X
<
S
2
75.0
62 5
50 &
37.5
25.0
12.5
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
PERCENT INITIAL DISCHARGE
Figure
31
The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p e r c e n t i n i t i a l
i s c h a r g e and t r o u t n u m ber s r e m a i n i n g , t o t a l
t o p w i d t h w i t h d e p t h g r e a t e r t h a n 15 cm ( WTOT)
and l o n g e s t c o n t i n u o u s top width w i t h depth
st^
74
DI SCUSSION
Abundance' R e g u l a t i o n
Density
Ruby
Creek
63-day
3 was
of
was
trout
not
180,
400
study
increases
biomass,
of
biomass
and
to
larger
stream
pre-study
density
levels
in
all
fish
to
loss
I,
at
the
2 and.
the
end
corresponding
smaller
numbers,
of
during
in. sectio n s
had
The
and
sections
respectively,
density
1 4 0 %.
Flow
increase
sections
in
was
weight
in
due
of
to
experi­
trout.
The
reason
densities
of
period
for
the
rainbow
in
all
is
not
alteration
in
social
increases,
the
lim iting
long
is
not
literature..
Montana
State
clear.
at
on
Ruby
of
However,
to
compared
to
initial
University)
s umme r
or
G.
has
observed
under
habitat
and
initial
flow
the
study
density
is
initial
was
artificial
the
not
in
stocking
the
(unpublished
in
not
response.
reported
White
in
flow
an
by
low
include
low
total
tolerance
r e d u c e d - flow, e x p e r i m e n t s
identical
that
a
been
sum m er
explanations
by f o r c e d
elicit
Robert
numerical
the
that
have
and
of
Creek,
to
biomass
end
Possible
social
known
in
the
tolerance
duration
Alteration
density
trout
possibility
factor
enough
increase
sections,
densities,
a
to
127% l a r g e r ,
276
compared
emigration
mental
and
8,
supplemented
Numerical
while
of
in
reduced
experiment.
the
flow
of
b y Low S u mme r
data,
previous
channel
conditions,
the
that
larger
of
75
the
initial
trout,
flow)
flow
stocking
the
larger
and
the
the
Another
Creek.
show n
regulate
Abnormally
to
have
1983).
evidence
that
m ortality
is
of
lation
been
also
Creek
drainage,
is
scouring
to
Because
and
harsh
winter
the
habitat
trout
on
a
the
winter
final
density.
than
in
is
been
no
event.
Winter
streams
relatively
could
low
Ruby
have
there
many
into
populations
conditions
conditions
natural
other
trout
in
severe
introduced
flows
c o mmo n
large
of
to
abundance
however,
is
be
apply
scouring
influence
constant
following
factors
trout
spring
(at
influenced
that
Ruby C r e e k ,
known
(Hunt
small
in
size
the
influence
popu­
abundance .
Lastly,
tests
of
enough
long
This,
in
sections
all
have
1984).
seen.
the
In
density
rainbow
rainbow
high
spring
Vincent
Ruby
of
could
a negative
(Nehring
1969,
number
r a i n b o w - s t e e I head
number
observations
consideration
flows
juvenile
ending
these
sections
of
stabilization
the
If
large
experimental
s umme r
the
larger
reduction.
streams,
density
end
of
The
comparing
had
seems
present
for
a
total
unlikely
stabilized
12
study
may n o t
response
since
o r more
flow
days
have
to
and
be
number
prior
to
study.
effects
in
the
duration
however,
the
populations
during
of
long
riffle-run
initial
rainbow
term
summer
habitat
trout
dewatering
maybe
on
illustrated
densities
from
trout
by
sections
2
76
and
3.
Section
August
not
to
been
Although
in itial
by a r t i f i c i a l
habitat
the
in
flow
section
by
irrigation
times
experimental
negatively
changes
of
sections
also
are
influenced
more
trout.
in itial
From
sum m er
these
a
decreased
trout
in
all
related
for
hypothesize
increased
Other
numbers
as
15
days
this
it
trout
to
due
in
the
section
the
trout
populations
discharge.
it
the
larger
than
appears
are
trout
smaller
clear
that
on r a i n b o w
such
as
low
trout
winter
further.
biomass
In
rainbow
major
larger
between
that
factors
and
The
respond
sections
trout
flow
response
social
decreased
was
I and
not
not
known,
interactions
flow
3,
observed
reductions.
is
as
The
but
I
caused
densities.
researchers
well
to
that
the
support
sections.
after
in
comparisons
population
of
sim ilar,
density
influence
other
delayed
be
times
reductions
abundance
study
trout
finding
comparisons
the
very
difference
the
flow
emigration
11 a n d
mechanism
by
though
reduce
Rainbow
biomass
3 has
biomass
stream
regulating
p o p u l a t i o n s , even
ma y
in
section
while
that
illustrates
flow has
habitat
These
from
reductions.
is
diversion,
observations
to
flow
rainbow
three
dewatered
while
sections
of
was
larger.
magnitude
until
t wo
num erical.density
four
been
( MDFWP 1 9 8 1 )
influenced
influenced
flow
historically
mid-September
unaltered
was
2 has
as
lags
have
in
reported
response
reduction
to
flow
in
trout
changes.
by
77
Kraft
(1968
and
brook
trout
in
changes
in
reduction
section
20% i n
1972)
Blacktail
habitat.
in
flow,
decreased
trout
an
peaked
1972).
Trout
10
numbers
generally, increased,
control
section
suitable
shifted
with
from
mechanisms
in
resulted
in
in
the
flow
of
more
habitat
flow.
Trout
and
then
emigration
of
the
pools
of
Kraft’ s
becomes
portion
a
(1972)
less
distribution
a
stream
(Kraft
first
density-related
of
to
sections
in
14%.
flow
compared
out
test
runs
90%
reduced
runs,
numbers
in
with
reduction
the
than
between
flow-related
study
62% i n
trout
pools
and
and movement
pools
while
to
3-month
following
decreasing
runs
Montana
of
runs,
trout
relationship
abundance
decreased
suggest, that
a
average
days
the
Creek,
During
control-section
section
data
examined
of
social
the
population .
Bachman
mechanism
He
found
foraging
energy
of
an
that
high
that
expenditure
by
sites
not
and
response
described
undisturbed
at
sites
indicated
the
( I 98 4 )
with
of
density-related
population
population
allowed
were
agonistic
a
a
refuge
density,
drift
feeding
limiting
encounters
sites.
of
wild
with
associated
salmon
discharge
i n .a s t r a i g h t ,
narrow,
riffle-run
channel.
Whe n
was
reduced
a mi ni mum o f
to
was
with
(1979)
chinook
trout.
saving
This
juvenile
discharge
brown
energy
factor.
Krueger
social
foraging
examined
decreased
artificial
94% o v e r
a
4 8 - hour
78
period,
wild
fish
and
Krueger
found
17
from
hatchery-reared
captured
from
emigrated
in
to
Flow
upstream
that
traps
3
fish
day
channel
until
remained,
substantial
the
numbers
following
from
of
emigrants
discharge
rainbow
the
study
trout
emigration
sections.
Movement
been
found
by K r a f t
Easterbrooks
(1981).
Clothier
(1953
and
trout
trout
emigrated
He
speculated
an
instinct
the
of
water
that
which
of
upstream
to
decline
in
with
in
similar
f Ipws.
White
flow
et
upstream
movement
cutthroat
emigration
ma y
be
or
t o move
springs,
periods
downstream,
m a i n s tem
would
habitat
be
upstream
low
above
trout.
flow
trout
fish
by
in
increasing
stream
that
in
triggered
thereby
of
a l.
reductions.
and
trout
that
moved
rainbow
during
preferred
reported
to
explanation
seek
1954)
response
stimulated
survival
(1 972). and
consistently
in
when
rainbow-stee!head
wild
upstream
primarily
juvenile
observed
tributaries
possible
canals
most
upstream
temperature
Another
that
tests
cool
chance
gradual
(1981)
reduction
search
irrigation
found
Easterbrooks
flow
in
following
also
were
upstream
has
(1981)
46% o f
reduction
was
reduced
upstream
and
respectively.
is
rainbow
53
l i t e r s / sec.
related
discharge
the
and h ig h
reaches.
mo v e
with
social
dominance.
Me a n
having
trout
large
significant,
length
flow
the
decreased
reductions.
data
in
the
t wo
study
Although
not
statistically
may i n d i c a t e
that
larger
sections
fish
were
79
more
influenced
(Figures
15
emigrated
in
one
and
from
habitat
dominant
by
16).
the
would
numbers
of
similar
response
reduced
flow
also
small
to
abundance
was
t r o u t ..
study
trout
flow
reduced.
my
lim iting,
mean w e i g h t
decreased
during
of
all
nearly
emigrating
those
and
sections
large
mean
size
trout
remaining
13).
the
was,
fish
in
emigrating
condition,
emigra t i o n .
no
reduction
to
lim ited,
smaller
(1981)
artificial
aquatic
larger
fish,
and
decrease
in
reported
trout
in
channels.
experimental
They
channels
in
invertebrate
availability
fish
was.not
in
all
trout
slightly
end
overall
due
from
rainbow
that
study
Likewise,
of
the
however,
of
indication
only
part,
a l .
response
study.
in
due
study.
of
until
Decrease
left
Food
groups
had
in
before
emigration
provided
fish
percentage
et
fish
larger
were
over
smaller
s t e e l h e a d-rainbow
conducted
that
that
food
relative
White
were
sections
If
juvenile
during
Although
flow
advantage
a larger
of
than
suggests
food.
have
reduced
investigated
present
than
tests
documented
response
This
would
expect
reductions
reduced
rather
fish
flow
to
of
mean
a
test
was
not
food
study
weight
a
result
factors
In
general,
condition
(Tables
in
11.,
size
12
flow
number
Decrease
of
than
reduced
disproportionate
sections.
the
was
condition
poorer
in
sections
decreased.
the
trout
of
in
related
80
The
observation
decreased
food
even
lim itation
tation
fish
area
than
be
section
cally
had
It
during
food
the
should
present
enough
with
fish.
fish
during
of
the
less
supply
of
fish
of
study,
leaving
the
A similar
conclusion
groups
each
size
the
lower
the
were
Although
in
not
sta tisti­
groups-in
summer
the
numbers
social
than
to
all
study
s ame
period,
or
remaining
tolerance
study.
increased
elicit
in
for
it
study
rainbow
Although
optimum,
trout
quantity
apparently
further
et
the
unaccounted
to
designs.
chinook
White
centage
end
and
h a v e . remained
the
comparable
similar
juvenile
the
size
these
during
h a d much
of
was n o t
density
.
number
was
to
lim ited
short-term
been
ad j u s t men t s .
study
in
that
within
ma y h a v e
The
interpre­
condition.
fish
thought
were
short
makes
fish
related
1969).
is
sections
expected,
largest
condition
condition
flow
interaction.
the
lost
significant,
( Carlander
in
not
lost
food
condition
where
remaining
been
if
be
and
section,
emigrating
social
reached
sections
w hen
of
not
If
those
mean w e i g h t
control
would
ma y h a v e
because
could
the
difficult.
condition
the
in
that
losses
a l .
1978
biomass,
and
(1979)
between
(1981)
5 and
reported
1979
compared
during
reported
Krueger
salmon
for
flow
with
11
the
during
reported
21% o f
to
present
studies
loss
the
of
stocked
27% u n a c c o u n t e d
tests.
A higher
numbers,
remained
per­
81
unaccounted
This
my
is
The
due
to
streamflow
predation
of
trout
2 and
3 were
Study
habitat
between
of
the
section,
thalweg
I
mean
was m o r e
depth
was
was
was
This
the
chance
and
otter.
run-riffle
characterized
transect
and
than
in
is
thalweg
at
50% l e s s
essentially
by a
difference
streamflow
11% g r e a t e r
is
of
river
by a
habitat
than
study
Availability
characterized
section
this
during
decreased
heron
Habitat
Although
study
depth
blue
comparing, mean
sections.
with
2.
weight
during
increased
in
I and
fish.losing
cover
sturcture.
by
sections
numbers
in
Decreases
in
the
hypothesize
structure.
initiation
mean
I
illustrated
riffle
of
study
reduction
Related
riffle-pool
depth
result
loss
the
the
by k i n g f i s h e r , g r e a t
Sections
habitat
a
which
Flow
best
during
probably
study.
likely
for
the
in
the
pool-
the
sam e
and
the
run-riffle
channels.
In
section
stabilized
or
12
cfs
to
decline
tation
is
response
3 is
2 the
as
3
(natural
discharge
(Figure
as
flow
based
of
on
the
correct.
mixture
10),
trout
Since
of
lagged
stabilized
while
declined
the
flow)
at
numbers
(Figure
assumption
trout
about
in
This
the
population
to
flow
essentially
no
lag
habitat
350
section
9).
that
number
characteristics
2
continued
interpre­
15-day
change
was
liters/sec
seen
within
lag
in
in
in
section
section
sections
82
must
be
substantially
difference
in
trout
habitats
were
response
regarding
reduction
the
and
tolerance
to
range
increase
sections
and
lower
that
section
I.
Most
lated
3 during
ground
trout
and
negatively
water
water
another
which
of
statistics
combination
of
these
percentage
change
in
each
percentage
The
related
observed
to
as
were
of
to
be
rate
observed
of
in
percent
and
I,
in
for
best
of
dis­
explained
or
the
order
statistical
were
in
corre­
Because
wetted
change
flow
highly
inappropriate,
flow
in
temperatures
Although
in
expected
section
unsuitable
and
be
the
growth
populations
habitat
change
expected.
flow.
variables
fish
flow
Index.
were
with
variables.
determined
water
a Habitat
well
between
not
in
the
similar
within
differences
influenced
If
temperatures
temperatures
experimental
was
with
as
3 a
influence
evaluated
one
well
observed
flow.
been
would
similar
extreme
in
elapsed
were
variables
importance
then
study
the
2 and
have
habitat
evaluation
was
would
as
response
evaluated.
of
time
Perimeter
with
variable
or
sections
Wetted
tinguishing
of
the
of
decreases
of
Relatively
th is , m ult!variant
the
amount
rainbow
variation
suggest
to
emigration
m ortality
1969).
the
the
of
because
between
during
( Carlander
I
response
s a me
fish
Temperatures
different
plots
perimeter
visually
these
decrease
of
in
variables
rainbow
83
trout
abundance
variables
examined,
associated
with
continuous
top
more
( WMAX) ,
with
flow
percent
change
depth
width
closely
(Figures
variables
are
with
were
a measure
of
in
at
only
15
30
and
by
quantity
of
a
to
31).
the
flow.
total
depth
wetted
longest
15
cm o r
numbers
these
perimeter
depth
13
width
and
in
of
the
top
of
change
Both
riffle
Of
cm ( WTOT)
with
corresponded
29,
in
two,
least
associated
generated
of
decrease
model
greater
than
and
15
cm .
Other
important
(1970)
the
researchers
in
wild
was
Everest
trout
that
most
brook
depth
explaining
found
single
have
and
an
of
fish
significant
index
of
abundance
deep
chinook
salmon
with
velocity,
surface
velocity,
species.
He
depth,
significant
correlation
with
salmon.
one
depth
largest
In
stream,
variation
White
(1976)
in
I
on
rainbow
Idaho.
predicted
trout
that
was
the
density
also
to
of
in
age
the
of
cover.
bottom
of
other
with
0-chinook
for
the
density.
effects
in
wa s
section
variable
accounted
populations
depth
steelhead
size,
trout
Stewart
fright
density
predict
cover,
mean
for
only
is
abundance
juvenile
and
steelhead
attempted
reductions
He
age
of
substrate
depth
mean
affecting
suitable
depth
streams.
speculated
density
and
that
He
water
in
that
evaluated,
factor
trout.
correlated
found
reported
15 v a r i a b l e s
rainbow
(1969)
also
the
form
of
of
flow
Teton
River,
sufficient
84
depth,
would
riffle
channels.
rainbow
and
be
with
conducted
in
depth
rainbow
ductivity
equal
fish
at
not
rainbow
trout
similar
to
in
riffle
sections
are
of
illustrated
the
population
increased.
If
( about
for
150
section
by
was
the
inflection
2 were
liters/sec
or
used
5
cfs),
of
pro­
Given
experimental
stream
of
in
the
3),
the
stabilized
habitat
perimeter
small
ma y
for
streams
wetted-perimeter
between
and
the
3,
the
t wo
13,
27
change
on
the
this
f l o w was
sim ilarity
between
response
and 2 8 ).
below
run-
lowest
flow-related
point
as
wild
suitability
section
of
other
differently.
wetted
habitat
reduced
rate
that
of
in
channels.
riffle
12,
wild
was
levels
abundance
similar
(Figures
cfs),
the
different
habitats
in
run-
variables
found
productive
2 and
2 than
discharge
(14
also
different
(sections
is
curve
that
study
which
reductions
Although
sections
This
in
He
with
riffle-run
section
liters/sec
depth.
representative
considerably
as
decrease
s ummer
in
sections,
a linear
laboratory
92% l e s s
fish
exhibited
depth
Ruby C r e e k .
were
that
channels
appears
index
curves
reported
biologically
it
a good
(1981)
conditions,
results
studied
be
to
density.in
the
in
in
streams
depth
a more
a higher
types
from
and
declined
constant.
responded
from
If
reductions
remained
flow
discharge
trout
laboratory
trout
as
Easterbrooks
cutthroat
abundance
than
lim iting
In
both
approximately
in
trout
the
wetted
recommended
of
400
abundance
perimeter
flow
recommendation
would
85
substantially
(13.2
c f s)
underestimate
which
appeared
population
(Figure
inflection
points
(17
cfs)
first
the
and
would
second
In
(Figure
would
curve
26)
section
habitat
to
in
amount
less
the
at
well
which
there
were
at
about
475
(11
cfs).
than
point
with
fate
Since
(section
3
of
pool-riffle
I),
of
water
the
on
trout
only
one
small
t wo
liters/sec
The
needed
the
while
wetted
in
flow
of
is
fish
optimum.
habitat
it
liters/sec
my e x p e r i m e n t a l
liter/sec
inflection
characteristic
and
Conder
inflection
curves
Model
findings
II,
of
(1983)
points
on
to
Binns
the
section
I
(150
emigration
pool-riffle
not
known
stream
if
these
pool-riffle
1979).
present
or
mined
from
emigration
The
mi ni mum
These
study
inflection
accurately
that
subjectively
average-riffle-wetted
a validated
needs
trout
found
overestimated
compared
perimeter
sections.
one
375
general .
whe n
wetted
for
studied
are
perimeter
(HQI
the
substantially.
Annear
time,
300
slightly
the
for
section
28);
about
be
5 cfs)
was
findings
(Figure
corresponded
liters/sec ,
increased
In
overestimate
approximate
optimum
27).
at
contrast,
perimeter
chosen
one
the
underestimated
inconsistency
quality
results
are
flow
in
results
in
average
either
response
in
77% o f
habitat
where
points
flow
the
index
contrast
riffle
predicted
needs
as
three
study
between
flow
deter­
studies
,
86
may
be
explained
the
HQI m e t h o d
estimating
study
of
habitat
the
were
poorly
parameter
explain
in
standing
the
crops
in
stream
studied
crops
of
inflection
the
present
the
conclusion,
this
reasonable
Since
small
should
be
minimum
to
be
a
worked
approach
necessary
one
the
be
a l.
(1983)
the
with
found
HQI m e t h o d
actual
standing
Subjective
the
HQI m o d e l
predicted
subjectiveness
may
also
Annear
and
Conder
habitat
ma y
and
of
points
to
may
wetted-perimeter
stream
discharge
consistent
suitability.
method
et
actual
choosing
be
responsible
(1983)
and
study.
determining
habitat
between
a
physical
between
The
during
the
by
in
of
on
reaches.
required
trout.
inconsistencies
appear
0.228)
correlation
for
not
predicted
of
HQI m e t h o d
evaluated
White
( r=
poor
was
streams.
correlated
perimeter
In
crop
Th e
urbanization
measurements
standing
wetted
of
appropriateness
streams.
standing
trout
found
questionable
Montana
effects
for
trout
the
for
trout
that
crops
by
In
well.
index
of
pool-riffle
In
rainbow
the
trout
of
small
streams
rainbow
trout
habitat
run-riffle
underestimate
maintain
on
method
of
habitats,
amount
of
does
Ru b y
Creek
however,
water
populations
at. a
level.
my s t u d y
stream
and
applied
initiated
to
was
conducted
for
with
only
one
caution.
validate
findings
on
habitat
s u mme r
Long
and
season,
term
to
types
a
only
results
research
gain
in
should
better
87
understanding
particularly
with
depths
examine
the
influence
base.
of
of
effects
of
flow
istic
should
for
be
quantity
15
c m.
stocking
reductions
habitat
should
riffle
of
abundance-habitat
the
than
inflection
continuous
quantity
to
greater
Additional
the
trout
related
intercorrelated
using
the
riffle
top
top
riffle
Re s e a r c h e r s
densities
the
habitat
should
and
the
invertebrate
food
variables
which
are
not
examined.
Also
the
validity
point
recommending
examined.
be
on
of
relationship
on
width
width
the
with
depths 2
with
instream
curves
this
flows
of
of
longest
1 5 cm a n d
depth
in
highly
total
character­
small
streams
88
REFERENCES
CI TED
89
REFERENCES
CI TED
A n n e a r , T . C . a n d A. L . C o n d e r . 1 9 8 3 . E v a l u a t i o n o f
i n s t r e a m f l o w m e t h o d s f o r u s e i n Wyomi ng.
Contract
N u m b e r T A - 5 1 2 - C T 9 - 2 2 6 . Wy o mi n g Game a n d F i s h
Department.
B a c h m a n , R . A. 1 9 8 4 . F o r a g i n g b e h a v i o r o f f r e e - r a n g i n g .
w i l d a nd h a t c h e r y brown t r o u t i n a s t r e a m .
T r a n s a c t i o n s of the American F is h e r y S o c ie ty 113:132.
B i n n s , N . A. 1 9 7 9 . A h a b i t a t q u a l i t y
t r o u t s t r e a m s . Wy o mi n g Game a n d
M o n o g r a p h S e r i e s 2.
C a r l a n d e r , K.
biology .
USA.
i n d e x f o r Wyoming,
Fish Department.
D. 1 9 6 9 . H a n d b o o k o f f r e s h w a t e r f i s h e r y
Iowa S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , Am e s , I o w a ,
C l o t h i e r , W. D. 1 9 5 3 .
F is h l o s s and movements in
i r r i g a t i o n d i v e r s i o n s f rom West G a l l a t i n R i v e r ,
M ontana. Jo u rn a l of W i l d l i f e Management. 17:144-158.
C l o t h i e r , W. D . 1 9 5 4 .
E f fe c ts of water
movement i n i r r i g a t i o n d i v e r s i o n s .
W i l d l i f e Ma na ge me nt . 18: 1 5 0 - 1 6 0 .
r e d u c t i o n on f i s h
Journal of
Co 1 1 i n g s , M. R . 1 9 7 2 . A m e t h o d o l o g y f o r d e t e r m i n i n g
in stre a m flow re q u ire m e n ts for f i s h . Proceedings
I n s t r e a m Flow W o rk sh o p . W ashington D ep artm en t of
E c o lo g y , Olympia W ashington. 72-86.
of
Co 1 1 i n g s , M. R . , a n d G. W. H i l l . 1 9 7 3 . T h e h y d r o l o g y o f
ten s t r e a m s i n w e s t e r n W ashington as r e l a t e d to
s e v e r a l p a c i f i c salmon s p e c i e s .
United S tates
G e o l o g i c a l S u r v e y , W a t e r - R e s o u r c e s I n v e s t i g a t i o n s 11
73.
D i x o n , W. J . , M. B . B r o w n , L. E n g e l m a n , J . W. F r a r i e , M.
H i l l , R . I . H i l l , R. I . J e n n r i c h , J . D . T o p o r e k .
1 9 8 3 . B i o m e d i c a l c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m s ( BMDP) I 983
p r i n t i n g with a d d i t i o n s . U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a
P r e s s , B e r k e l y , Los A n g e l e s .
E a s t e r b r o o k s , J . A. 1 9 8 1 .
Response of rainbow and
c u t t h r o a t to d e p th r e d u c t i o n s i n s i m u l a t e d
s tre a m c h a n n e l s . M a s t e r ' s t h e s i s . U n i v e r s i t y of
I d a h o , Moscow, I d a h o .
A
90
E v e r e s t , F . H. 1 9 6 9 .
H a b i t a t s e l e c t i o n and s p a t i a l
i n t e r a c t i o n of j u v e n i l e c h in o o k salmon and s t e e l h e a d
t r o u t i n t wo I d a h o s t r e a m s . D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
U n i v e r s i t y o f I d a h o , Moscow, I d a h o .
Hunt,
R . L.
1969. O verwinter s u r v i v a l of wild f i n g e r l i n g
brook t r o u t i n Lawrence Creek, W i s c o n s in . J o u r n a l of
F i s h e r i e s R e s e a rc h Board of Canada. 2 6 ( 6 ) : 1 4 7 3 : 1 4 8 3 .
K e n n e d y , G. J . A . , a n d C . D. S t r a n g e . 1 9 8 2 .
The
d i s t r i b u t i o n of salm onids in u pland stream s in
r e l a t i o n to depth and g r a d i e n t . Jo u rn a l of Fish
Biology. 20:579-591.
K r a f t , M. E .
1968.
The e f f e c t s o f c o n t r o l l e d d e w a t e r i n g
on a t r o u t s t r e a m . M a s t e r ' s T h e s i s . Mo n t a n a S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y . Bozeman, Montana.
K r a f t , M. E . 1 9 7 2 . E f f e c t s o f c o n t r o l l e d f l o w
a t r o u t stream . Jo u rn a l of the F i s h e r i e s
Board of Canada. 2 9 : 1 4 0 5 -1 4 1 1 .
reduction
Research
on
K r u e g e r , S . W. 1 9 7 9 . E f f e c t s o f d i s c h a r g e a l t e r a t i o n s on
c h i n o o k s a l m o n , O n c o r h y n c h u s t s whawy t s c h a . M a s t e r s
T h e s i s . U n i v e r s i t y of Idaho.
Lund,
R . E . 1 9 8 3 . MSUSTAT An i n t e r a c t i v e s t a t i s t i c a l
a n a l y s i s p a c k a g e . 1983 m i c r o c o m p u t e r v e r s i o n - c p . / m .
The S t a t i s t i c a l C e n t e r D e p a r t m e n t o f M a t h e m a t i c a l
S c i e n c e s T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t, Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,
Bozeman, Montana.
Montana D e p a r t m e n t of F i s h , W i l d l i f e , and P a r k s . 1981.
Instream flow e v a lu a ti o n fo r s e l e c t e d waterways in
w e s te rn Montana. United S t a t e s F o r e s t Service
c o n t r a c t number 5 3 - 0 3 4 3 -0 - 3 0 5 .
M o n t a n a D e p a r t m e n t o f F i s h a n d Game. 1 9 7 6 . E s t i m a t e d mand a y s o f f i s h i n g p r e s s u r e by r e g i o n f o r t h e s umme r a n d
w i n t e r s e a s o n , Ma y 1 9 7 5 - A p r i l 1 9 7 6 . M o n t a n a
D epartm ent of F i s h , W i l d l i f e and P a r k s , H elena.
N e h r i n g , B. 1983. T a y l o r
F e d e r a l Aid P r o j e c t
W ildlife.
R iv e r Flow I n v e s t i g a t i o n s .
F -51-R . Colorado D i v i s i o n of
N e l s o n , F . A. 1 9 8 0 . E v a l u a t i o n o f f o u r i n s t r e a m f l o w
methods a p p li e d to four t r o u t r i v e r s in southw est
Montana. United S t a t e s Department of the I n t e r i o r ,
F i s h a n d W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e . D e n v e r , CO 1 4 - 1 6 - 0 0 0 6 - 7 8 046.
91
N e l s o n , F . A. 1 9 8 3 . G u i d e l i n e s f o r u s i n g t h e w e t t e d
p e r i m e t e r ( WE TP ) c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m o f t h e M o n t a n a
D e p a r t m e n t of F i s h , W i l d l i f e and P a r k s . Montana
D e partm ent of F i s h , W i l d l i f e and P a r k s .
N i c k e l s o n , T. E. 1976. Stream flow r e q u i r e m e n t s of
s a l m o n i d s . P r o j e c t n u m b e r A F S - 6 2 , J o b Number 5,
C o n t r a c t Number 1 4 - 1 6 - 0 0 0 1 - 4 2 0 9 , O r e g o n D e p a r t m e n t
F i s h and W i l d l i f e .
N i c k e l s o n , T . E . a n d R. R. R e i s e n b i c h l e r 1 9 7 7 .
r e q u i r e m e n t s of s a l m o n i d s . P r o j e c t number
number 1 4 - 1 6 - 0 0 0 1 - 4 2 4 7 . Oregon Departm ent
W ildlife.
of
Streamflow
AFS-62, Job
of F i s h and
N i c k e l s o n , T . E . a n d R. E . H a f e l e . 1 9 7 8 . S t r e a m f l o w
r e q u i r e m e n t s of s a l m o n i d s . P r o j e c t number AFS-62, Job
number 7, C o n t r a c t number 1 4 - 1 6 - 0 0 0 1 - 7 7 - 5 3 8 . Oregon
D e p a r tm e n t of F i s h and W i l d l i f e .
Nie,
N. H . , C . H . H u l l , J . G. J e n k i n s , K. S t e i n b r e n n e r a n d
D. H. B e n t . 1 9 7 5 . S t a t i s t i c a l P a c k a g e f o r s o c i a l
s c i e n c e s ( S P S S ) , s e c o n d e d i t i o n . Mc Gr a w H i l l B o o k
C o m p a n y , New Y o r k
S n e d e c o r , G. W . , a n d W. G. C o c h r a n , 1 9 8 0 . S t a t i s t i c a l
^
m e t h o d s , s e v e n t h e d i t i o n . The I o wa S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
P r e s s A m e s , I o w a , USA.
S t e w a r t , P . A. 1 9 7 0 . P h y s i c a l f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g t r o u t
density in a small stream. Ph. D d i s s e r ta t io n .
Colorado S tate U n iv e rs ity , F ort C o llin s , Colorado.
V i n c e n t , R . 1 9 8 4 . E f f e c t s on w i l d t r o u t o f s t o c k i n g
c a t c h a b l e - s i z e d h a t c h e r y t r o u t . M a n u s c r i p t to
North American Jo u rn a l of F i s h e r i e s Management.
W e s c h e , T . A. 1 9 7 4 . R e l a t i o n s h i p o f d i s c h a r g e r e d u c t i o n s
to a v a i l a b l e t r o u t h a b i t a t fo r recommending s u i t a b l e
stream flow s. Water Resources Research I n s t i t u t e ,
U n i v e r s i t y o f Wy o m i n g W a t e r R e s o u r c e S e r i e s n o . 5 3 .
W h i t e , R . G. 1 9 7 6 . P r e d i c t e d e f f e c t s o f w a t e r w i t h d r a w a l
o n t h e f i s h p o p u l a t i o n s o f t h e Te t o n R i v e r , I d a h o .
F o r e s t r y , W i l d l i f e , and Range E x p e r im e n t S t a t i o n .
U n i v e r s i t y o f I d a h o , Mos c ow, I d a h o «
92
W h i t e , R . G . , J . G. M i l l i g a n , A. E . B i n g h a m , R . A.
R u e d i g e r , T. S . V o g e l , a n d D. H. B e n n e t t . 1 9 8 1 .
E f f e c t s o f r e d u c e d s t r e a m d i s c h a r g e on f i s h a n d
a q u a t i c m a c r o i n v e r t e b r a t e p o p u l a t i o n s . I da ho Water
and Energy R e s o u rce s R e s e a rc h I n s t i t u t e , U n i v e r s i t y
o f I d a h o , Moscow, I d a h o . R e s e a r c h t e c h n i c a l
com pletion r e p o r t p r o j e c t B-045-IDA.
W h i t e , R . G. a n d T . C o c h n a u e r . 1 9 7 5 . S t r e a m r e s o u r c e
m a i n t e n a n c e flow s t u d i e s . Idaho Departm ent of F ish
a n d Ga me a n d I d a h o C o o p e r a t i v e F i s h e r y R e s e a r c h U n i t
R e p o r t . 136 p p .
W h i t e , R . J . , J . D. W e l l s , M. E . P e t e r s o n . 1 9 8 3 . E f f e c t s
o f u r b a n i z a t i o n on p h y s i c a l h a b i t a t f o r t r o u t i n
s t r e a m s . Montana Water R e so u rce s R esearch C e n te r,
Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Bozeman, Mo ntana, R e s e a r c h
p r o j e c t t e c h n i c a l c o m p l e t i o n r e p o r t A - 1 3 4 - MO N T .
AP P ENDI X
94
Table
20. L i s t of r a n g e s and means of d a i l y w ater
t e m p e r a t u r e s i n s e c t i o n I and 3 Ruby C r e e k
Montana 1982.
Section
Date
7 -24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
8 -I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
9 -I
.2
Range
I
(C)
Se c t i o n
Me a n
Range
13.0-16.0
12.0-16. 5
14.5
14.3
9.0-14.0
11.0-15.0
11.0-12.0
11.0-14.0
11.0-15.0
11.0-14.0
11.5
13.0
11.5
12.5
13.0
12.5
9.0-14.0
11.0-13.0
11.0-14.0
9.0-17.0
8.0-16.0
8.0-16.0
9.0-17.0
9.0-15.0
9.0-15. 5
9.0-16.0
8.0-16.0
8.0-15.5
8.0-15.0
8.0-14.0
8.0-15. 5
9.5-14.0
8.0-14.5
10.0-13.0
8. 5 - 1 3 . 5
7.0-14.0
8.0-14.0
11.5
12.0
12.5 .
13.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
12.0
12.3
12.5
12.0
11.8
11. 5
11.0
11.8
11.8
11.3
11.5
11.0
10.5
11.0
.
3 (C)
Me a n
8.0-10.0
9.0
8.5-11.0
8.5-17.5
9.0-16.0
9.8
13.0
12.5
7.0-18.0
7.0-17.0
7.0-16.0
7.0-15. 0
12.5
12.0
11.5
11.0
7.0-12.0
7.0-17.0
8.0-16.0
8.0-15.0
8.0-17.0
7.0-17.0
7.0-15.0
6.0-16.0
8.0-16.0
8.0-17.0
9.0-17.0
8.0-16.0
8 . 0 —1 6 . 0
8.0-17.0
8.0-15.0
8.0-16.0
7.5-16.0
6.5-16.0
6.5-15.5
6.0-15.0
6.5-14.5
6.5-16.0
7.5-15.5
7.5-14.5
10.0-14.0
6.5-14.5
6.0-14.0
7.0-15.0
9. 5
12.0
12.0
11.5
12.5
12.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
12. 5
13.0
12.0
12.0
12.5
11.5
12.0
11.8
11.3
11.0
10.5
10. 5
11.3
11.5
11.0
12.0
10.5
10.0
11.0
95
20
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Bi
Ii
CO
4>
Table
(continued)
10.5-15.5
6.5-14.5
6.5-13.5
7.0-14.5
8.0-16.0
7.5-15.0
13.0
10.5
10.0
10.8
12.0
11.3
5.0-12.5
7.0-11.5
3.0-7.5
2.0-8.0
I . 0-8.0
3 . 0 —7 . 0
8.8
9.3
5.3
5.0
4.5
5.0
Overall mean=lI . I
S tandard d e v i a t i o n = 3 . 8(C)
8.0-15.3
5.5-14.0
5.0-14.0
5.0-14.5
5.5-14.5
6.0-14.5
5.0-10.0
5.0-12.5
6.0-11.0
4.5-13.5
1.0-8.5
1.0-7.0
5.0-8.0
11.5
9.8
9.8
9.8
10.0
10.3
7. 5
8. 8
8. 5
9.0
4.8
4.0
6.5
.
N=I OO
O v e r a l l m e a n = 10
Standard d e v i a t i o n = 4 . 5 ( C)
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
762 1001 5337 6
1397%
R 1595
C O ?.9
slSi:
Ir a STRRll stream.
ISSUED
TO
OSElNTETtLlB RARXj 1
H3T8
R 1595
co p . 2
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
762 1001 5337 6
937%
c o ? .^
SlET
I n s s r a l l s tr e a m .
9378
R 1595
co p . 2