Mitigation for the Construction and Operation of Libby Dam

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Burbot Monitoring Libby Reservoir During the period from November 14 to April 26, 2004 we expended a total effort of 1887 trap-days, and caught a total of 127 burbot at 10 trapping locations throughout the reservoir (Table 1). We were unable to trap the Tobacco River, Dodge and Young creek sites from January 3 rd to March 25 th , 2004 due to surface ice formation. Burbot catch at all trapping locations averaged 0.064 fish per trap-day. Mean burbot catch was highest near the mouth of Cripple Horse Creek and lowest near the mouth of Dodge Creek (Table 2). Although catch rates differed between sites, the observed differences were not significant when compared using an analysis of variance procedure (p = 0.316). The mean total length of burbot captured in the hoop traps was 576.1 mm (range 350- 880 mm; Figure 13). Burbot mean length did not significantly differ between the nine trapping locations where we captured burbot (p = 0.439). The mean condition factor (K; Carlander 1969) for all burbot captured was 0.615. The length-weight relationship for burbot captured in Libby Reservoir is presented in Figure 14. We recaptured 3 burbot in the hoop traps that were previously captured and PIT tagged. One burbot was recaptured twice near Big Creek. This fish was originally captured and PIT tagged on 11/17/03, and subsequently recaptured on 11/20 and 12/5/03. Another burbot was originally PIT tagged near Cripple Horse Creek on 12/8/03 and recaptured near Barron Creek on 3/1/04. The third burbot recaptured was marked in the Tobacco Bay area on 11/25 and recaptured near the capture release site on 4/8/04. We used multiple linear regression to evaluate trends in burbot catch versus trapping date and hoop trap depth. We found no evidence to suggest that catch rates differed by trapping date (Figure 15; r 2 = 0.007; p = 0.794). We did however, find a significant relationship between trap depths and catch rates when we grouped trap depths into categories of 3 m intervals and averaged the proportion of those traps containing burbot for those depth categories (Figure 16; r 2 = 0.620; p = 0.012). This relationship suggested that catch rates increased up to approximately 11 m and then remained relatively constant up to the 33 m, which was the maximum depth we trapped. 63
Table 2. Summary information for the baited hoop trapping effort for burbot on Libby Reservoir. Montana FWP used 2 types of tags to investigate the life history of burbot for this study; acoustic (A) and combined radio/acoustic tags (C). Sample Site River Mile Dates Trapped Total Trap- Days Total Burbot Catch Catch per Catch per Tags Released Trap-Day 1 Trap-Day 2 Canyon Crk. 222.5 1/12 – 3/25 219 16 0.073 0.063 2-C Cripple Horse 226.8 11/14 – 1/12 177 17 0.096 0.102 11-A Crk. Barron Crk. 228.7 2/27 – 4/26 177 11 0.062 0.076 0 Bristow Crk. 231.5 1/12 - 2/27 138 7 0.051 0.054 1-A & 2-C Ten Mile Crk. 235.8 1/16 – 3/25 195 10 0.051 0.047 1-A & 2-C Big Crk. 248.7 11/14 – 1/16 193 12 0.062 0.076 7-A Sutton Crk. 250.3 1/16 – 4/26 291 24 0.082 0.084 2-C Dodge Crk. 264.1 11/14 – 12/16 96 0 0 0 0 254 20 0.079 0.067 4-A & 2-C Tobacco River 264.0 11/14 – 1/13 & 3/25/04 – 4/26/04 Young Crk. 268.4 12/16 – 1/2/04 & 3/25/04 – 4/26/04 147 10 0.068 0.072 4-A & 2-C Total / Mean 1887 127 0.062 0.064 28-A & 12-C 1 Average burbot catch per trap-day calculated as the average catch for each trap set at each sample site. 2 Average burbot catch per trap-day calculated by dividing the total burbot catch by total trap-days. 64
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: Burbot Monitoring Below Libby Dam T
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 and 130:
Grave Creek Phase I Restoration Pro
Page 131 and 132:
Table 4. Design specifications for
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?