Mitigation for the Construction and Operation of Libby Dam

More documents

Recommendations

Info

conditions (Table 5). Other significant results of project construction occurred in the mean bankfull depth, maximum depth, and bankfull width, respectively, with trends toward a narrower and deeper stream channel. Cross-sectional area did not differ significantly between years (p = 0.166; Table 5). None of the 6 channel dimension parameters differed significantly (p < 0.05) between 2002 and 2003. However, width to depth ratio and mean bankfull depth were close to being significant (Table 5), with trends toward a slightly deeper channel. The 41 stream restoration structures described above, increased channel diversity within the project area along the longitudinal profile (Figure 7). The existing stream channel prior to the implementation of this project contained long riffle sections and relatively low sinuosity (Table 4). This project constructed a stream pattern within this reach of Grave Creek that decreased the overall stream gradient by increasing stream length (increased sinuosity; Table 4). The Grave Creek Phase I Restoration Project also increased the quality and quantity of rearing habitat for native salmonids by increasing the total number and depth of pools compared to conditions that existed prior to restoration (Dunnigan et al. 2003). Due to the importance of pool habitat to rearing native salmonids within lower Grave Creek, we devoted a substantial effort to monitor pool habitat after project construction to evaluate whether the pools maintained depth, width and length through time. After project construction in the fall of 2002, we measured mean width, length and maximum bankfull depth of the 27 pools constructed in the project area. We repeated these measurements in the summer of 2003 after the project had experienced the first spring freshet (Table 6). We did not perform a statistical comparison for these data because the pool measurements represented all pools within the project area (i.e. complete census), making statistical comparisons not necessary. Pool length had the highest relative change between years. Both total length and mean pool length increased by 16.2% from 2002 to 2003 (Table 6). Mean maximum bankfull depth decreased by 14.8% from 2002 to 2003, and although we did not measure mean bankfull depth of the 27 pools, it is likely that it also decreased between years. Total pool surface area within the project area increased by 26.2% from 3,206 ft 2 in 2002 to 4,046 ft 2 in 2003. Therefore, even if mean bankfull pool depth decreased from 2002 to 2003, it is likely that total pool volume remained similar between years since pool area increased. In addition to a complete census of all pools within the project area, we also surveyed 7 riffles within the project area in order to evaluate changes in riffle slope through time. The post-construction mean riffle slope in 2002 was 1.46% (variance = 6.55*10 -5 ), which decreased by 39.2% in 2003 to a mean riffle slope of 0.89% (variance = 1.79*10 -5 ). This trend was similar to the one we observed for riffles within the Libby Creek Upper Cleveland Project (see above). Furthermore, we attribute the overall flattening of the riffles within this project to the same 2 factors that caused the Libby Creek project riffles to flatten. The top end of the Grave Creek riffles also incised within the channel (degraded) due in part to the scour achieved below many of the gradient control cobble structures installed at the tailouts of many of the pool structures, and the lower portion of many of these same riffles aggraded with bed materials, which had the overall result of reducing the overall riffle slope. 135
Table 4. Design specifications for the Grave Creek Phase I Restoration Project. Channel Design Range Mean Existing (Mean) Design Channel Type (C3) Drainage Area = 74.2 sq. miles Total Length of Project = 4,300 feet. Bankfull Width (ft) 50-54 52 45-240 Bankfull Area (ft 2 ) 108-132 120 143 Width/Depth Ratio 18-22 20 93.5 Sinuosity N/A 1.4 1.15 Band Width (ft) 270-495 392 330 Radius of Curvature (Rc) (ft) 180-234 208 105-180 Rc/Wbf Ratio 3.5-4.5 4.0 1.3-2.3 Mean Bankfull Depth (ft) 2.2-2.4 2.3 1.24 Max Bankfull Depth (ft) 2.8-3.4 3.0 2.56 Max Scour (Pool) Depth (ft) 7.0-8.0 7.0 4.2-4.4 Meaner Length (ft) 720-1000 860 625 Pool Spacing (ft) 360-500 430 670 Riffle Slope ft/ft (Base Flow) 0.013-0.018 0.015 0.013-0.016 (0.0145) Pool Slope ft/ft (Base Flow) 0.0018-0.0027 0.0025 0.004-0.005 136
Page 1 and 2:
Mitigation for the Construction and
Page 3 and 4:
MITIGATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND
Page 5 and 6:
depth of burbot that were relocated
Page 7 and 8:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are thankful to
Page 9 and 10:
Juvenile Salmonid Population Estima
Page 11 and 12:
deviation from reference conditions
Page 13 and 14:
Figure 46. Minimal detectible diffe
Page 15 and 16:
Chapter 2 Tables Table 1. Design sp
Page 17 and 18:
INTRODUCTION Libby Reservoir was cr
Page 19 and 20:
PROJECT HISTORY Montana Fish, Wildl
Page 21 and 22:
2002 - Montana FWP collaborated wit
Page 23 and 24:
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA Subbasin
Page 25 and 26:
Table 1. Current relative abundance
Page 27 and 28:
Similar impacts have been observed
Page 29 and 30:
2460 2440 2420 2400 2380 2360 2340
Page 31 and 32:
construction and operation of Libby
Page 33 and 34:
Chapter 1 Physical and Biological M
Page 35 and 36:
Biological monitoring data was prov
Page 37 and 38:
Figure 1. An aerial photograph of L
Page 39 and 40:
antenna located approximately 5 cm
Page 41 and 42:
We compared samples collected in Se
Page 43 and 44:
extends downstream 131 m. This sect
Page 45 and 46:
and reduced again to 28 ganged floa
Page 47 and 48:
Results Bull Trout Redd Counts Grav
Page 49 and 50:
Table 1. Bull trout redd survey sum
Page 51 and 52:
Quartz Creek Bull trout redd counts
Page 53 and 54:
Bull Trout Redds 40 35 30 25 20 15
Page 55 and 56:
Keeler Creek Bull trout that spawn
Page 57 and 58:
Burbot Monitoring Below Libby Dam T
Page 59 and 60:
Table 2. Summary information for th
Page 61 and 62:
7000 6000 5000 Y = 45.246e 0.0055x
Page 63 and 64:
The Libby FWP Mitigation Staff surg
Page 65 and 66:
Table 2. (Continued) Capture locati
Page 67 and 68:
Figure 18. Capture locations for a
Page 69 and 70:
Table 4. T-test results. This table
Page 71 and 72:
Figure 19. Montana Mountain Metrics
Page 73 and 74:
Table 5. T-test results. This table
Page 75 and 76:
Juvenile Salmonid Population Estima
Page 77 and 78:
Grave Creek Juvenile salmonid monit
Page 79 and 80: Number Fish per 1000 Feet 100 80 60
Page 81 and 82: Libby Creek Section 1 of Libby Cree
Page 83 and 84: Figure 28. Rainbow trout, brook tro
Page 85 and 86: Pipe Creek Juvenile rainbow trout w
Page 87 and 88: Table 6. Average length and weight
Page 89 and 90: Catch per Net A. Mountain Whitefish
Page 91 and 92: Table 8. Kamloops rainbow trout cap
Page 93 and 94: 25000.0 20000.0 15000.0 10000.0 500
Page 95 and 96: Burbot per Trap Day 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0
Page 97 and 98: Table 9. Average catch per net for
Page 99 and 100: Table 11. Percent composition of ma
Page 101 and 102: deviation = 0.052; Figure 43), with
Page 103 and 104: Table 12. Individual probability va
Page 105 and 106: Discussion Long-term monitoring of
Page 107 and 108: We believe that Libby Reservoir dur
Page 109 and 110: Figure 47. Minimal detectible diffe
Page 111 and 112: References Bahls, L., R. Bukantis,
Page 113 and 114: trout status report (below Kootenai
Page 115 and 116: Chapter 2 Stream Restoration and Mi
Page 117 and 118: food sources, as evidenced by the l
Page 119 and 120: Methods and Results Eureka Pond The
Page 121 and 122: spacing was 172.8 feet, which repre
Page 123 and 124: Figure 2. Vicinity Map for Upper Li
Page 125 and 126: Table 1. Design specifications for
Page 127 and 128: 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 500 1000 150
Page 129: Grave Creek Phase I Restoration Pro
Page 133 and 134: 190.0 185.0 180.0 175.0 170.0 165.0
Page 135 and 136: educed the mean width and width to
Page 137 and 138: Table 7. Mean cross sectional area,
Page 139 and 140: Discussion The Grave Creek Phase I
Page 141 and 142: References Chisholm, I.M., M.E. Hen
Page 143 and 144: Appendix 148
Page 145 and 146: Table A2. Lower Grave Creek Demonst
Page 147 and 148: Table A4. Libby Creek depletion pop
Page 149 and 150: Table A7. Mean zooplankton densitie
Page 151 and 152: Table A9. Mean zooplankton densitie
Page 153: Table A13. Yearly mean total zoopla
show all

Mitigation for the Construction and Operation of Libby Dam

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?