Mitigation for the Construction and Operation of Libby Dam

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A cooperative mitigation and implementation plan developed by Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes documents the hydropower related losses and mitigation actions attributable to the construction and operation of Libby Dam, as called for by the Northwest Power Planning Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program (MFWP, CSKT and KTOI. 1998). A mix of mitigation techniques is necessary to offset losses caused by dam construction and operation. During the past two years, Montana FWP has implemented several project to mitigate for a portion of the losses attributable to the construction and operation of Libby Dam. The following points summarize these projects. • Montana FWP worked cooperatively with the Lincoln County Fair Board to construct community-fishing pond at the Lincoln County Fairgrounds. This recently completed project will enhance fishing and educational opportunities for young anglers, and help partially mitigate for losses attributable to the construction and operation of Libby Dam. • After identifying Young Creek as a high priority stream for restoration activities based on habitat quality, fish community composition, and native fish abundance, Montana FWP planned, designed and implemented the Young Creek State Lands Restoration Project effectively changed the stream channel pattern profile and dimension of approximately 1,200 feet of stream channel. These changes resulted in a narrower, deeper channel designed to improve the long-term quantity and quality of rearing habitat for native salmonids. A site-specific monitoring program will assess the success of project accomplishments through time. • Montana FWP continued monitoring the Libby Creek Cleveland Project and the Grave Creek Phase I stream restoration projects that were completed during the fall of 2002. These projects effectively changed the stream channel pattern profile and dimension. Post-treatment monitoring results presented in this document demonstrated that physical changes were minimal after the first spring freshet. 4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are thankful to the many people that substantially contributed to this project. Neil Benson, Monty Benner, and Cameron Sinclair helped with field data collection, data entry and proofing, and lab processing. We would like to thank EcoAnalysts, Inc. (Moscow, Idaho), and especially Bret Marshall for their assistance with the taxonomy and analysis of the aquatic macroinvertebrates data associated with the Libby Creek and Grave Creek Restoration monitoring. Many of the aquatic habitat restoration projects that were accomplishments and summarized in this report were cooperative efforts between Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks and other agencies and organizations. Lincoln County assisted with the design and construction of the Eureka Community Fishing pond. This work was funded by the Bonneville Power Administration, and the contract was administered by Ron Morinaka. 5
Page 1 and 2: Mitigation for the Construction and
Page 3 and 4: MITIGATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND
Page 5: depth of burbot that were relocated
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 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?