Mitigation for the Construction and Operation of Libby Dam

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Diptera and the contribution of collector-gatherers were both significantly greater after the restoration. Grave Creek Phase I Restoration Project None of the metrics tested showed a statistically significant difference between the 2002 samples and the 2003 samples (Table 5). This was true for both the a priori and the posthoc metrics. Most of the metric means suggested that the differences between the years were small. A notable exception was an increase in the percent shredders in 2003 (P=0.054); which increased ~4x (from 1.9% in 2002, to 7.7% in 2003) but the variance increased in the 2003 sampling (2002 SD= 0.3; 2003 SD= 2.4). The increased variance in observed in 2003 reduced the statistical power of the test. Sample sizes of 3 (both years) achieved 60% power to detect the difference in the % shredders metric (estimated group standard deviations of 0.3 and 2.5 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05` using a two-sided two-sample t-test). Thus, there is a high (40%) probability of type-2 statistical error. This is important because shedders represent an important link between riparian and aquatic food webs. In addition, many shredders are large and excellent forage for fish. Resource managers may want to quantify the retention of course particulate organic matter in future assessments to document the success of this aspect of the restoration. For comparison with regional streams, we ran the metrics through the Montana Mountains metric battery proposed by Marshall and Kerans (2003). The evaluation compares 6 metrics to two regional deviation thresholds (1 moderate, 1 extreme). If the metric is beyond the extreme deviation threshold, there is a 1% chance of type-1 and type-2 error and the metric scores 2 deviation points. If a metric is between the two thresholds it is moderately deviant from the reference condition, there is a 15% chance of error, and the metric scores 1 deviation point. If the metric is not beyond the moderate deviation threshold it not different from the values attained from the State’s reference sites and scores zero deviation points. The deviation points for all 6 metrics are summed and the stream is classified according to the total sum. 77
Table 5. T-test results. This table shows the result of t-tests for the Grave Creek Phase I Restoration Project evaluation. Hypothesized response assumes describes if the metric should increase or decrease if conditions in the stream improve. For example, Taxa Richness should increase if the restoration improved the quality of the stream for macroinvertebrates. Similarly, as more taxa inhabit a healthy stream we expect the dominance of sediment tolerant groups (such as Collectors, Sprawlers, or burrowers) should decrease. A priori / post hoc ANALYSIS METRICS HYPOTHESIZED RESPONSE TO RESTORATION RESTORATION MEAN - 2002 RESTORATION MEAN - 2003 a priori Taxa Richness Increase 32.7 31 0.842 a priori EPT Richness Increase 21 18 0.584 a priori % EPT Increase 8.67 10.33 0.446 a priori Baetidae: Ephemeroptera Decrease 0.360 0.118 0.0850 a priori % Diptera Decrease 38.1 29.3 0.719 a priori a priori post hoc % Burrowers & Sprawlers % Collector Gatherers Decrease 18.5 22.3 0.849 Decrease 49.2 50.5 0.877 % Collector Decrease 1.55 0.41 0.207 Filterers 8 post hoc % Collectors 9 Decrease 50.7 50.7 > 0.999 post hoc % Predators 10 8.70 7.16 0.496 post hoc % Shredders 11 Increase 1.91 7.77 0.054 post hoc % Ephemeroptera 12 Increase 63.8 53.2 0.433 post hoc % Plecoptera 13 Increase 8.46 10.1 0.594 post hoc % Trichoptera 14 Increase 5.37 4.08 0.658 post hoc % Dominant taxa (3) Decrease 54.25 48.32 0.390 P 8 % Collector-filterers was tested post hoc to explain the examine changes in community function. 9 % Collectors total was tested post hoc to explain the examine changes in community function. 10 % Predators was tested post hoc to explain the examine changes in community function. 11 % Shredders was tested post hoc to explain the examine changes in community function. 12 % Ephemeroptera was tested post hoc to explain the cause of differences in the % EPT metric. 13 % Plecoptera was tested post hoc to explain the cause of differences in the % EPT metric. 14 % Plecoptera was tested post hoc to explain the cause of differences in the % EPT metric. 78
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: Figure 19. Montana Mountain Metrics
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?