MONTANA
STATE

This "cover" page added by the Internet Archive for formatting purposes

s

6jy. ji3

M2o/> i r
13bl

BASELINE AQUATIC REPORT FOR
ALTERNATIVE DAM SITES ON THE KOOTENAI RIVER -
KOOTENAI RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT NO. 2752

by

Fred Robinson

Fisheries Biologist

Facility Siting Division

Department of Natural Resources

and Conservation

February, 1981

for
NORTHERN LICHTS TNC.
SANDPOINT, IDAHO

MONTANA STATE UBRARY

1515 E. 6th AVE. 4

MP) j:n,a^ MONTANA 59620

19

p"

TURN

5 -2006

ri?jz&«**Y

°°*<0^

7130

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Physical -Chemical Parameters

Water Qual ity

Characteristics of the Kootenai River Channel

Stock Water

Fish Populations and Movements,
Fish Populations
Fish Movements

Conclusion 15

i

J

INTRODUCTION

Northern Lights' application to the Montana Department of Natural Resources
and Conservation (DNRC) was determined to be inadequate partially because it
lacked ecological information on the alternative dam sites specified by the
applicant. Without such information, environmental concerns could not be
weighed against the economic concerns of the utility company. In order to
overcome this limitation, DNRC investigated the fishery aspects of the
alternative sites.

Four dam sites below Kootenai Falls (Katka, Rocky Creek, Ruby Creek, and
O'Brien Creek), and one above the falls (the applicants preferred) were
considered for this report (see Figure 1). Some of the alternatives would
involve the construction of more than one dam. The reservoir elevations of the
various alternative dams are shown in Table 1.

Although several parameters were considered in the comparison, the primary
concerns are fish population and movement and the amount of slack water that
would be created.

PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
WATER QUALITY

For site-comparison purposes, the water quality information in Northern
Lights' application (Northern Lights Inc. 1980) was considered adequate. It is
not necessary to repeat that information here. The water quality at all sites
is suitable for supporting a cold-water trout fishery.

-I-

'

^^f J"~ Vi 'MOUNT**

'Jul. X^ |

•FORESt'; l n*an1

Plf

s Snjn, iififlr--. ~ > S — ,ft vim - M t> . "~7.

»

m

>'W ^^:M ~ NAT|ONAL

lONALFofeflr

.>

"V\<

<q.%\( X^KOOTENAI NATIONAl'fJ
[sTsl >lSCoo*"'X < FOREST *jpi« ( I

n

\\r^fkAX

ife-m

m

^S;a

^H

J *0f*0^tt!^ 'D tap

It?

Y«dur.r,

IBS

•uw

mm

:*: -■ e/>

O *

</) T3 rr O *

OVOO

3" *

C

-13"3

O 00 ez

03

TO 15

ffC3)

3

-*

-0 <<

CD O

<o -t

> Z

3 -1 "1

CO 3"

O

->o

03 CD ••

CO CD

CD < O r»

— TJ

vi

ID

en CO -i

O

< CD

3

T CT

3n s:

rr

0) rr Q)

-rtO)

rr -">

3 3 3" en

< rr

3" —

-4

Q. — CD CD

CD rr CD

eQ

O

— a.

-> O 1

-•> C

->

en CD "D

C -l o

a; z a>

O CD

o

cr o o 3

3 O 3

< »

o

rr ->5TJ

a. ~> a.

3

-5 OCT

rr

DO

D

oj rr en CD

T1 JT

0)

n jito

— CD —

> CD

rrtoar

>Q -l <

IS

C

C 3 CD

CD 3

en

3 3 en eu

T T

— O

OiflO -rr

CD f~

3 rr

3

-> rr CD

— T3

rr 3 CD -i

arm ->

T3

t)

3" 03 •

I 3- o

rr ->

C

CD — O

>Or> T

3" CD

-i

(/) -•

CD O

c

itH-i

o —

<< —

o

— CD 3" <

-•> o cd

en

< en CD CD

3 en

03 CD

CO

CD CD en en

z

"I

in

-) -J CD

o > -

CD 03

1 < 0)

-> — 3

en

3 O —> en

rr rr

CD

ju n

Q.rr

HDrt

CD -l X

CD 3"

CD C J

S 3 3-

n cd

CD T —

3 03 —

c

O — CD en

rr CT

a s;

-s CD en

1-

Ct 03

<

— < rr

CD rr

rr CD H 3

l£) CD

CD

3-rr CD -•>

3" >

-n -l

CD lO

rf -o 1

O

O CD s

</) O f\)

-) en

O. 3 3

<

c

03 O 03

> CD o

O -s

3 O CTi-r

■DTI

O -1

3 rr —

13

3 03

en 03 o

— C/l X

■o o

— rr — 3

Q)

03 CD

rr 3" 3

O rr -)

-I

CD CD CD —

B 15 N

_.IQ

O. en

ft C/l u

en -i

CD

O 03

X CT 03

O O en

3 Q.

H— «< <

3 3

3- en eu

O

CD

— rr -Tj —

cl- CD

3

3"0

rr

3 3 eu

CD •

— eO a O"

vo vo e» oc3 e»
\o -• a> o\ <Jl

P

-3-

t: — CO

O *

WO rt O *

O vo O

3" *

C

-J 3" 3

O CO t=

CU

-*> O CD

rr O 33

3

-*

-> <<

ro o

lO -1

1 Z

3 -> rn

CD 3-

o

1 o

CD tD ••

cn CD

CD < O rr

— T5

to

CD

in CD -j

o

*: cd

3

-i o-

J-lt

cu rr CU

— rr cu

<t -t

3 3 3" en

< rr

3" —

-<l Q. — I

CD rr CD

CO

O

— a.

T O "5

-> c

"5

cn CD T3

i

C -> O

1IZ9

O CD

o

CT O O 3

3 O 3

C en

0

rr ->TJ

Q. -> Q.

3

-) O CT

rr

■D

cu rr en cu

-n ZT -j

-l

CU

nj»o

— CD —

> CD

"5

rr CD Q 7T

lO -) <

CO

c

C 3 fD

a> 3

en

3 3 en cu

T ~i

— O

OlOO -rt

CD I-

3 rt

3

T rr CD

— TJ

rr 3 CD ->

£tO -j

•o

a

3-tU •

1 3"0

rt -i

c

tD — O

vO rr -i

3- cd

-5

C

cn -•

to o

■D

T -J H"J

O —

<< —

O

— CD 3- <

-1 O CD

en

en

< cn CD CD

3 in

CD CD

CD

CD CD tn en

Z

-j

00

-> -j tD

o > —

CD 0>

1 < CU

-) — 3

en

30-i»i

rr t-f

cu

jco n

o. ti-

> lO rr

CD -J X

ro 3-

tD C J

-5 3 3-

O tD

CD -! —

3 0) —

C

O — CD en

ft CT

0) <

-^ CD tn

r-

rr CU

<

— < rr

CD rr

rr tu i 3

to CD

CD

3" rr CD -1

IT >

CD 1 O

rf -0 1

O

O tD -5

n o ru

-j en

Q.3 3

«

cu o cu

> CD O

O -J

3 O CTrr

"D -! — )

o ->>

3 rr —

"O

3 a>

cn cu o

— C/5 IE

■o o

— rr -■ 3

— — cu

a> CD

rr 3- 3

O rr -j

-)

CD CD ro —

Q> CD N

— CO

a. cn

rr cn CU

en -i

CD

O t»

X cr cu

O O VI

3 Q.

-H— << <

3 3

3" cn cu

O

tD

— Ct -«! —

rr CD

3

3"0

rt

3 3 CU

CD ■

— iQ a. cr

-co

CO CO 00 00

o — —

-3-

FLOWS

Flow regime data for the Kootenai River below Libby Dam also are contained
in the application. From a fisheries point of view, these data are adequate for
site comparison purposes at all the dam sites, inasmuch as all the dams
considered would be operated at a constant reservoir elevation (the low Katka
dam could be an exception under flood conditions). The Rocky Creek and Katka
sites would be subject to more unregulated flows than the other sites because of
the Yaak River's flow contribution to the Kootenai.

More flow information is contained in the geology-hydrology report (Dalby
1981) .

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE KOOTENAI RIVER CHANNEL

There are basic channel differences between the areas that would be
inundated by the Kootenai Falls project and those that would be affected by any
of the downstream dams. This is because the channel morphology immediately
upstream from Kootenai Falls is primarily controlled by bedrock, whereas below
the falls it is much more dependent on alluvial processes. As a result, the
downstream channel has a more regular and predictable distribution of pools and
riffles. Both areas have riffles with a substrate primarily of rubble and
cobble, but the river above the falls also has areas with a substrate of large
blocks which help form rapids. There is much more bedrock substrate above the
falls than below. Further, there generally is more fine sediment (gravel and
sand) in channel reaches downstream from the falls than immediately above
because of a generally lower gradient (see Table 1) and the cumulative
contribution of sediments from tributaries entering the river below Libby Dam.

For evaluation purposes, the section of river between the Katka Dam site and
the Rocky Creek site was considered to be representative of the channel at all
the dam sites below the falls. Although this stretch of channel is bedrock
influenced, the channel bed materials are primarily alluvial. This stretch is
about eight miles long and has approximately 12 pools and 11 riffles (as
determined by aerial photos). The average pool length is approximately 2400
feet and average riffle length is approximately 1000 feet. These figures can be
used to roughly approximate the extent of riffles and pools that would be
affected by a dam at any of the sites below the falls. The area above the falls
jas rn red separately because of the channel differences mentioned earlier.
The. e measurements are shown in Table 1.

SLACK WATER

Table 1 gives the approximate slack water areas of all the alternative dams,
for comparison purposes. The figures in the table are only approximations,
because the backwater curves of the alternative sites have not been determined.

FISH POPULATIONS AND MOVEMENTS

INTRODUCTION

Many more fishery data are available for the applicant's proposal than for
the alternatives. The gathering of comparable data for the alternatives would
require considerable study beyond the scope of this report. Some of the
information given in the following sections is based on a consensus of points
mentioned in conversation with the persons listed in Appendix A. The fishermen
listed are Libby-area residents who use the river extensively.

-5-

»

*

FISH POPULATIONS

Information from the Aquatic Environment Study (DNRC 1979) on fish
populations in the Kootenai River project area and downstream areas (Throop's
Lake section) need not be repeated here. In essence, the data indicate that the
section of river just above the falls is the most productive and heavily-used
trout fishery on the river between Libby Dam and Troy. Trout were much less
abundant in the Throop's Lakes section than in the Kootenai Falls section.
Whitefish were abundant in both areas but most abundant above the falls. The
Throop's Lake section would be within the area to be inundated by the O'Brien
Creek site, but for this report the conditions there were considered to
represent the river below the falls as a whole. The validity of this assumption
is reinforced by the results of fish-shocking done by the Idaho Department of
Fish and Game in April of 1980. The Idaho team shocked the Kootenai River
upstream of Bonner's Ferry near Hemlock Bar and obtained results similar to
those found in the Throop's Lake section (see Table 2).

A limited amount of gill-netting just below the falls indicates that trout
are more abundant immediately below the falls than indicated by downstream
electrof ishing (see Appendix B) . The consensus of local biologists, wardens,
and fishermen (see Appendix A and C) is that although the trout fishery from the
falls to Idaho is not as good as above the falls, it is still good enough to be
quite valuable. The confluence of the Yaak and Kootenai rivers was singled out
as being particularly good for trout fishing.

White sturgeon, a Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and and Parks (DFWP)
Class A species of special concern, are found in the Kootenai River between the
falls and Idaho (see Appendix D and DNRC ' s Aquatic Environment Study). This is
the only place in Montana where they are known to occur. There have been no

-6-

n -j — ■

£ _,. _..

oo

g

4*

O

o

o
o

cr 3

-«■ c+

O
3 O

-7-

intensive studies of white sturgeon in the Kootenai River. Studies in Montana
have been limited to setting nets in 1975 and 1976 (May and Huston 1979) and
angling, netting and SCUBA diving from 1978 to 1980 (see Appendix D and E and
DNRC's Aquatic Environment Study). Applegate (1971) recorded data from sturgeon
caught from 1968 to 1971 in the "sturgeon hole" 2.2 miles downstream from
Kootenai Falls. All these studies indicate that the sturgeon population in
Montana has declined since the completion of Libby Dam. The present population
in Montana is estimated to be no more than a very few fish (Graham 1981). DFWP
hopes to develop a recovery plan for white sturgeon in Montana, but it is not
certain when this might be accomplished.

The Idaho Department of Fish & Game began a study on white sturgeon in 1979.
This study has the following objectives: (1) to determine white sturgeon
movement patterns in the Kootenai River, (2) to determine major holding areas
for white sturgeon in the Kootenai River, and (3) to assess the present
condition of the white sturgeon population in the Kootenai River (Partridge
1980b).

Based on information from holders of sturgeon permits, the 1979 legal
harvest of white sturgeon in Idaho was 52, and an additional 341 sturgeon were
caught and released (Partridge 1980b). British Columbia biologists began
tagging Kootenai River sturgeon in 1977, but population and life history data
are still limited. The population of sturgeon in the Kootenai River in British
Columbia is roughly estimated at several thousand (Graham 1981). Possible
movement of some of these fish into Montana is discussed in a later section.

j There is no scientific documentation of white sturgeon occurrence in the

river between Kootenai Falls and Libby Dam either recently or in the past,
although there are a few reports of people observing sturgeon upstream from the

falls. As recently as 1980 a boater reported seeing a small sturgeon in shallow
water on a gravel bar near Libby (Graham 1981). This could have been one of the
five sturgeon captured below the falls in 1975 by biologists from the Montana
DFWP and released in Lake Koocanusa. However, if its estimated size was
correct, it was too small to be one of the transplanted fish (Graham 1981). If
this fish was a sturgeon, it is impossible to say where it came from. An angler
may have caught it below the falls and moved it upstream.

To date, three of the five sturgeon DFWP transplanted into Lake Koocanusa
known to have moved upstream into British Columbia where they were captured
,rn flowing water habitat (Graham 1981). The other two sturgeon have not been
recovered. This supports the contention of Coon et al. (1977) that landlocked
wl e sturgeon prefer running-water habitat. In the radio-tracking study by
Coon et al., nine out of nine white sturgeon located in the area to be inundated
by Lower Granite Dam on the mid-Snake River moved out of the area when the
reservoir was filled. This evidence is supported by data from angler catches in
the Columbia and Snake rivers where most sturgeon are caught in the free- flowing
sections between dams (Coon et al. 1977).

Graham (1981) speculates that sturgeon moved out of these reservoirs because
of poor food supply rather than a preference for running water as such.
Graham's reasoning stems from the use of the highly productive Kootenay Lake and
estuaries by white sturgeon. Whatever the reason, the evidence is strong that
landlocked white sturgeon will not remain in reservoirs.

FISH MOVEMENTS

Movement of sturgeon populations seems to vary among river systems but all
studies have documented some movement (Haynes et al. 1978, Coon et al. 1977,

-9-

Partridge 1980b). Almost all of the tagged sturgeon captured by Idaho Fish and
™ Game personnel have shown movement (see Table 3). Sturgeon move in the river
between Kootenai Falls and Bonner's Ferry, Idaho, and from Kootenay Lake
upstream into Idaho (Partridge 1980b) (appendix D) . The purpose of this
movement is not known. However, sturgeon probably spawn over rocky or bedrock
substrates in swift current near rapids when water temperatures are between 8.9
and 16.7 degrees C. (48-62 degrees F) (Scott and Crossman 1973). It is
suspected that sturgeon from Idaho and British Columbia spawn or once did spawn
just below Kootenai Falls (Graham 1981). The river channel immediately below
the falls is bedrock with some gravel. Currents are swift even at depth because
the canyon is narrow and the gradient relatively steep.

Spawning migrations of stream fish usually are triggered by one or a
combination of stimuli, including volume and temperature of the water, and the
length of the daylight period. Libby Dam has greatly altered flow regimes in
the Kootenai. Before the dam was built, high discharges during May and June
averaged 33,000 cfs. Now the flow during these months is 3,000 to 5,000 cfs.
This alteration of flow could have caused the decline of white sturgeon numbers
in Montana by greatly curtailing the spring spawning migration into Montana from
Idaho and British Columbia. At present, there are no dams to impede the
movement of white sturgeon between Kootenay Lake and Kootenai Falls. Sturgeon
do not use fish ladders on the Columbia or Snake River dams (Coon et al. 1977).

In order to determine when and where sturgeon spawn in Idaho, the Idaho

sturgeon study used a cone-shaped drift net to sample sturgeon larvae using

techniques similar to those described by Kolhorst (1976). Sample time varied

^ from 30 min. to one hour with one overnight set of 14 hours. Samples were

taken once a week at the U.S. 95 bridge, Crossport, and Hemlock Bar from 25

-10-

Table 3. Location, dates and movement of recaptured white sturgeon in the
Kootenai River, Idaho. River kilometers increase in an upstream
direction.

Marked

Reca

pture

. ■ ,.

Tattoo
number

Location
(rkm)

Date

Total length
(cm)

Location
(rkm)

Date

Movement3
(km)

0007

215.6

3/23/78

134.6

204.7

6/17/78b

d-10.9

0011

207.9

3/30/78

99.0

213.4

6/14/80

u- 5.5

0016

207.9

4/25/78

105.4

225.1

6/19/79

u-17.2

1003

207.9

6/20/78

52.1

203.6

7/11/78

d- 4.3

1011

207.9

8/16/78

63.5

225.1

9/15/78

u-17.2

1012

207.1

8/16/78

55.8

207.1

4/27/80

—

1C^2

207.1

8/16/78

55.8

193.1

6/10/80

d-14.0

225.1

9/15/78

110.5

215.6

5/3/79b

d- 9.5

1019

225.1

6/19/79

116.8

215.6

7/7/79b

d- 9.5

009

207.1

2/28/80

152.0

"... 225.1

...5/31/80b

u-18.0

011

. 207.1

3/14/80

111.0

. 207.1

3/26/80

c

063

190.0

6/11/80

. 100.0

• 193.1

6/21/80

u- 3.1

076

•182.0

6/18/80

115.5

176.2

6/19/80 '

d- 5.8

007 19d ^

I 120

2/8/77

149. 9e

215.6

4/8/79b

u-95.6

06020d

>

120

7/13/77

156. 2e

219.5

5/5/80b

u-99.5

i) d-downriver, u-upriver.
0 Anc

a

b) Angler returned tag,

c) Fish released at river kilometer 199.5 .

d) British Columbia tag.

e) Fork length.

returned u-7.6.

SOURCE: Partridge, 1980a

11-

%

April through 30 June 1980. The results are shown in Table 4. No sturgeon eggs
or larvae were found.

It is important to note that no trout eggs or fry were captured in the
larval nets. Trout are not thought to spawn in the mainstem Kootenai in Idaho
(Appendix F) . The same is suspected in Montana (May & Huston 1975), and a 1980
survey by the DFWP found no spawning areas in the Kootenai River between Libby
Dam and Pipe Creek (May et al . 1980). The success of any spawning that did
occur would be limited by the daily river level fluctuations caused by Libby Dam
power peaking. Therefore, access to suitable spawning tributaries is highly
important to the survival of Kootenai River trout populations. Table 5 shows
the spawning habitat available to trout between the Reregulating Dam site and
the Idaho state line. It is likely that trout from Idaho use the tributaries in
Montana below Kootenai Falls for spawning (Appendix F.).

The Yaak River, Callahan Creek, and Lake Creek support fall spawning runs of
kokanee and mountain whitefish, and large rainbow trout (4 to 10 pounds) spawn
in Callahan Creek and the Yaak River in March and April (May and Huston 1975).
Fishermen report catching rainbow trout up to 15 pounds in the spring at the
mouth of the Yaak. May and Huston (1975) suspect that the large rainbow and the
kokanee originate from Kootenay Lake in British Columbia, because they rarely
are found in the river during nonspawning periods.

12-

* n
O tQ

ro

— i

UD

-e»

cri

oo

00

oo

o

o -•■
fD

O DJ

S. ~i
oo rD

ro

00 73

U3

.O ft)

U3

C 0J

00

a> s

■s. o

-h c

-"• c-t-

oo 3-

3"

•O -h

"5

<<

Q.

■ C

OO

—

-J

DJ

— »

Dj

5

-3

n- T3

o

ro

ZJ

T|

n

00

Dj

zr

J3

Qo

r-t-

ro

LQ

UD

00

3 "5
_i. O)

3 rfU

3 -5
-.. B) 3

=J (-► "O

-13-

Table 5. Summary of trout soawning habitat survey in tributary streams
of the Kootenai River downstream from the reregulation dam site
1976-^8. Only stream lengths accessible to river fish are
included.

Drainage

Miles of stream spawning habitat classified as
Good Fair Poor

"Rereg." to Kootenai Falls

Libby Creek
Bobtail Creek
Pi^e Creek
Quartz Creek
Cedar Creek
Parmenter Creek
Flower Creek

Total

9.5

38.1

37.1

5.9

1.6

1.6

12.0

".1

—

8.6

1.5

1.8

—

—

3-3

—

1.7

1.2

—

2.0

2.5

36.0 52.0

Kootenai Falls to Idaho State Line

47.5

Star Creek
Ruby Creek
Yaak River
Callahan Creek
0 Brien Creek

Total

8-5
8.5

0 2
8.8

4.1
7A

20.5

0.3

0.3

SOURCE: May & Huston, 1979

-14-

CONCLUSION

The actual comparison of the dam sites will be in the draft EIS. It will be
based on the information given in this report, the Aquatic Environment Study
(DNRC 1979), and on the engineering information given in HARZA's Alternative
Power Sites report. It also may be possible to use data resulting from studies
DFWP plans to do below the falls this summer as part of their contracts with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game also is
doing Kootenai River Studies that may provide useful information.

REFERENCES CITED

Applegate, V. 1971. The white sturgeon - a

case for regulation. Mimeo report on file
at Montana Fish and Game field station,
Libby. Mt . 8 pp.

Coon, John C, Rudy R. Ringe, and T.C. Bjornn.
1977. Abundance, Growth, Distribution,
and Movements of White Sturgeon in the
Mid-Snake River. Research Technical
Completion Report. Project B-026-IDA,
Idaho Water Resources Research Institute,
University of Idaho, Moscow. 63 pp.

Dalby, C. 1981. DNRC Geologist, Helena.

Baseline Geology and Hydrology Report
for Alternative Dam Sites on the lower
Kootenai River -- Kootenai River
hydroelectric project.

DNRC. 1979. Kootenai Falls Aquatic
| Environment Study - Inventory and Impact

Analysis. 115 pp.

Graham, Patrick. 1981. Status of white

sturgeon in the Kootenai River. Draft
DFWP report in preparation for the
Legislature of Montana for consideration
under the state "Nongame and Endangered
Species Conservation Act."

HARZA Engineering Co. 1980. Kootenai River

hydroelectric project. Alternative Power
Sites on the Kootenai River. Prepared
for Northern Lights, Inc.

Haynes , James M., Robert H. Gray, and Jerry C.
Montgomery. 1978. Seasonal movements of
white sturgeon (Acipenser tranmontanus)
in the mid-Columbia River. Trans. Am.
Fish Soc. 107(2):275-280.

Kohlhorst, David W. 1976. Sturgeon spawning
in the Sacramento River in 1973, as
determined by distribution of larvae.
Calif. Fish and Game. 62(l):32-40.

16-

May, B. and J.E. Huston. 1975. Status of
fish populations in the Kootenai River
below Libby Dam following regulation of
the river. Final job report contract no.
DACW 67-73-C-003. Mont. Dept . Fish,
Wildlife and Parks, 28 pp.

May, B. and J.E. Huston. 1979. Status of
fish populations in the Kootenai Riover
below Libby Dam following regulation of
the river. Final job report contract no.
DACW 67-76-C-0055. 57 pp.

May, B., Sue Appert, and Joe Huston. 1980.
Kootenai River Fisheries Investigations
Annual Progress Report. Contract No.
DACW 67-79-C-0112. Mont. Dept. Fish,
Wildlife and Parks. 26 pp.

Northern Lights, Inc. 1980. Kootenai River
Hydroelectric Project - Application for
Certificate of Environmental
Compatibility and Public Need under the
Montana Major Facility Siting Act to the
Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation and Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences.

Partridge, Fred. 1980a. Kootenai River

Fishery Investigations - annual report.
Contract no. DACW 67-79-C-0133 . Prepared
by Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 25
pp.

1980b. Kootenai River Fisheries

Investigations - River and Stream
Investigations . Federal aid to fish and
wildlife restoration. Job performance
report. Project No. f-73-R-2. 25 pp.

Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973.

Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Bulletin
184 of the Fisheries Research Board of

Canada. 966 pp.

APPENDICES

I

*

I

APPENDIX A

BIOLOGISTS AND GAME WARDENS INTERVIEWED

Bruce May, DFWP biologist
Pat Graham, DFWP biologist
Joe Huston, DFWP biologist

Fred Partridge, Idaho Fish and Game biologist
Harold Burrel, DFWP game warden
FISHERMEN INTERVIEWED

Greg Roberts
Mike Newberry
Bill Armstrong, Jr.
Dave Kreitler
John Petrolich
Dennis Yeager
Gene Van Arsdale
SPORTING GOODS SHOPS CONTACTED

Libby Sport Center

Vimy Ridge Recreational Sports

Grizzly Sports Center

APPENDIX B

1 <

MEMORANDUM

TC: Wilbur Rchmann, Project Manager, Kootenai Falls, FSD, DNRC

FROM: Fred Robinson, Aquatic Ecologist, FSD, DNRC AfjR

DATE: September 11, 1980

RE: Field Work on the Kootenai River below the Falls.

Data from electrofishing done by DFWP in the Throops Lake section
of the Kootenai River has been taken by some to mean that the quality of
the trout fishing below Kootenai Falls is poor. Relatively few trout
were captured in the section and they comprised only about 3% by number
of all fish caught. However, conversations with local fishermen indicate
that the trout fishing in these areas is actually quite good, although
not as good as above the falls. Also, trout fishermen in the falls and
footbridge area have been observed to be quite successful. There are a
number of possible reasons for these discrepancies between electrofish-
ing data and fishermen success. First of all, most of the electrofish-
ing was done from 1971-74 when the shocking equipment was not as efficient
as now. Secondly, the shocking in 1978 was done in a canyon area where
deep water and steep canyon walls make sampling with electricity diffi-
cult. Lastly, fish populations in the Throops Lake area may not be
directly comparable to the immediate falls area because of habitat diff-
erences and because of the further distance from upstream recruitment
areas.

Because the dewatered stretch and outlet area of the proposed
Kootenai Falls facility had not been sampled and because of the dis-
cussion in the preceeding paragraph, I attempted to gather some data by
gill netting in these areas during the first week of August, 1980. DFWP
standard gill nets were used (these nets are 125 feet long and comprised
of equal sections of 3/4-inch, 1-inch, l'4-inch, l'^-inch, and 2-inch
meshes). Two nets (one bottom and one surface set) were set overnight
in each of two different locations. Specifically, these locations were
the cove areas at the Koot Creek gravel bar above the foot bridge and
adjacent to the Antler Lodge a couple of hundred yards below the pro-
posed outlet site. The results were interesting. The Koot Creek nets
yielded 16 fish, 12 of which were trout averaging 10.7-inches in length
with a maximum of 16-inches. The Antler Lodge nets yielded 19 fish, 9
of which were trout having an average length of 12-inches and a maximum
of 14'j-inches. The numbers of fish caught in these sets are greater
than is usually expected for river sets in northwest Montana. This data
is useful in that it indicates that trout are apparently more abundant
and make up a larger proportion of the fish population in the area than
previously indicated by shocking in downstream areas. This conclusion
was further comfirmed from observations by divers in the outlet area who
were looking for white sturgeon at this time (this will be written up by
Pat Graham, DFWP).

■<>

Wilbur Rehmann
September 11, 1980
Page Two

We were reluctant to do further gill netting here because it kills the
fish.

In light of this new information, I would suggest that it might be
useful to sample some of the lower canyon area (which was shocked in
1978) with gill nets. I could do this over a couple of days next spring.
It would probably also be useful co shock the Throops Lake section
(which was shocked from 1971-74). This shocking should not be done
until late next summer when there would be a greater possibility of
picking up marked trout from this summer's shocking above the falls.

However, shocking is expensive; this study would require additional
funds in the existing monitoring contract with Northern Lights.

FWR/ram

cc: Larry Thompson, DNRC
Kathy Hadley, DNRC
Pat Graham, DFWP
Larry Pederman, DFWP
Bruce May, DFWP

APPENDIX C

V January 9, 1981

RECE|yE0

Fred Robinson

Department of Natural Resources JAN I 2 jqci

32 South Erving 0/

Helena, lit. 59601

MONT, ofpt « .

rj.*:.o* Mr. Robinson:

This leLi.jr is in resnonL-e to your request concern;ng inform-
ation on fishing pressure and fish populations in the Kootenai River
downstream from. Kootenai Falls. The creel census conducted by Pat
Graham upstream fror, Kootenai Falls in 1978 indicated that this section
was the most intensively used part of the river. Unfortunately,
little quantitative data is available on the fishing pressure down-
stream fro:: Kootenai Falls. However, personal observations and
conversations with anglers have indicated that the stretch of river
from Kootenai Falls downstream to the "Sturgeon Hole" (approximately
1.4 miles) is a popular area for anglers. The catch consists prLmarely
of rainbow trout with numerous mountain whitefish being caught in
the winter months.

Data collected in electrof.ishing surveys conducted near Troy
from 1971-197U and in 1978 indicated that the rainbow trout populations
in this area of the river were markedly less than those found upstream
from the falls. Additional sampling is scheduled in 1931 for the Troy
area, and this data w 11 provi ,e information on the current status
of trout populations in the vicinity of Troy.

I have also enclosed the reports that you requested.

Sincerely,

Bruce itay
Rll, Eox 1270
Libby, Lit. 59923

enc
Bll/pd

APPENDIX D

gm&nriE! off moLMTim^r^k

>*

Eesihe ^sssim €?:^2?a3E:

Region One
490 N. Meridian
Kalispell, MT . 59901
November 13, 1980

Fred Robinson

DNRC

32 South Ewing

Helena, MT 59620

Dear Fred,

I prepared this letter to document the results of our monitoring
of white sturgeon distribution in the Kootenai River downstream from Kootenai
Fails.

Four Department employees (Scott Rumsey, Steve Leathe, Paul Leonard,
and myself) completed six dives totaling 2 hours, 5 minutes and 36 seconds in
dive time. These dives occurred on August 2 and 3, 1980. The first dive was
initiated in the hole just upstream from the proposed outlet structure for the
Kootenai Falls Hydroelectric Project. Dives were made in a general downstream
direction. The final dive was made in the straight section of Canyon downstream
from the cobble bar near the Antlers Cafe. The dive ended just downstream from
the "S" curve in the canyon. Less than a mile of the canyon was censused.
Visibility was approximately 10 to 20 feet. Because of the nature of the escarp-
ments in the canyon, the entire canyon bottom area on any one transect line could
not be censused while moving downstream.

Only one sturgeon was observed at approximately 150 feet downstream from
the location of the proposed outlet structure. It was in 30 to 35 feet of water.
The sturgeon was observed several times by both divers. This is the furthest upstream
we have observed sturgeon. It is also the first time we have looked this far
upstream. It would be very difficult to net in this part of the river because it is
narrow, deep and has relatively fast currents.

I also wanted to inform you that we have evidence of interstate movement
of white sturgeon. Two of the sturgeon which I tagged in the fall of 197S, below
Kootenai Falls, were captured bv a fisherman near Bonners Ferry, Idaho in the spring
of 1980. Also of interest, the fish were both captured in our nets on the same day
in October, 1978. Thev were also caught by the same fisherman in the same location
near 2onners Ferry, Idaho.

If you need further clarification of any information please let me know.

Since re lv „

Project Leader
Flathead Basin Studv

PJC:ns

APPENDIX E

r

4

s^YTic m? mciHEreMflsak

#

,/w

AUG 13 1370

IV. ,.'.

FT.:...

Ei>iEiP./\ni~rr:iiE;rrTr >id:f

Region One
A+90 N. Meridian
Kali spell, MT 59901
August 6, 1979

Wilbur Raymond

Dept. Natural Resources

and Conservation

Dept. of Energy Planning

Helena, MT 59^01

Dear Mr. Raymond:

. writing in regards to the recent Interagency meeting held in Libby on
July 30>31 2nd August 1. There were some questions as to the need for
additional data on several issues dealing with the fisheries resource in the
Kootenai Falls area. Purpose of the first year of study by the Montana
rtment of Fish, Wildlife and Parks was to collect baseline data and
identify potential problem areas. Several problem areas were identified in
the Kootenai Falls Environmental Aauatic Study, 1) Impact Assessment,
Patrick J. Graham, 1979> Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 2) Four specific
concerns include minimum flow over the Falls, recreational value and potential
losses in the area, effect of minimum flow and intake structure on downstream
migrating fish population, distribution of white sturgeon in the study area
and potential effects of the project on sturgeon.

The Interagency meeting produced some questions as to the seriousness of the
issues. These resulted from a lack of familiarity with the available data.
However, I wanted to make available additional data collected this summer to
substantiate some of our concerns and present them in a way that may be easier
to interpret. All data can be found in existing files or reports of the
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

A case has been made about the potential problems with the intake structure
and proposed operating flow. It was agreed that there is a serious problem
for downstream migrating aquatic animals due, to the volume of water that
would be diverted.

Rainbow trout were tagged with individually numbered tags between Kootenai
Falls and China Rapids during September of 1978. Tag returns through July
of 1979 resulted in 18 recaptures of which 5 had moved downstream over
Kootenai Falls representing 28 percent of the recaptures. Since more fi-hing
pressure "occurs upstream from the? Falls, I believe the number of recaptures
below the Falls represents a minimum estimate of movement. Electro fishing
samples in the Falls area indicated there were 228 rainbow over 9 inches total
length per 1000 feet of stream, but this was a low estimate as the extensive

.« Two Ausust 6' 1979

trh of M,5 rainbow trout per 1000 feet of

>!?., cen„un ' — 1Sd LpWlr« tSTcreol census estimate tc . popula-

<rea» in «*.£"»,.«££. ^ the Falls, a -^» '^S-IJifL.
»*£ SSS Sa? -r nine inches in en, h grated over^ ^

downstream from the Falls is sign ^ ^

Unite sturgeon numbers see. to be declining la to =t ^^port),
stream from Kootenai Falls in ™e area h habitat below the

Stulfof these fish has *en totticM £>&** e ^ other divers,

ISfs and the nature of the fisn OnJ ^UJfthe Kootenai River Canyon
who volunteered to aid in- bruo a^;™^ ,,0 „or2 trying to determine
in two areas to search ior *nit, s«W ft. - ^^ ^d approximate size.
the exun of ^f ^ffSst was made approximately 2.5 mil" ^wnstream
Two dives were made. ine ^^ mi d-canvon ranged from 75 to over
from the Falls Depths encountered a ^^ of*divers descended in
100 feet. In this part of the ^^' J two smaii sturgeon (12 to
the same general area One ^"^f^? on the bottom of the canyon
18 inches in length) at appr ^^J* £ the canyon in mid-afternoon. One
Upstream about oj^mile all divers dove in . ^ ^^ They

larger sturgeon was ?**™?^e*^B ^ welfover three feet long,
estimated it as weighing ^ to 20 P°^a n sturgeon measuring 12

Another team of divers reported seeing anotne indicate that

to 18 inches long although they were nature; J ^ ^
the number of sturgeon (particularly ^ than we had
believed and their dxstnbutxon fu rthe r p ^ ^ eff±ci t
previously found using nets, .^f^,^^/^ the upper canyon will be
and further investigations using SCTIBA gear in
necessary to study the sturgeon.

to contact me,
Sincerely,

Patrick J. Graham
Flathead Basin Study
Project Leader

PJG:ns

CC: Jim Posewitz

APPENDIX F

STATE OF IDAHO

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME

REGION I

2320 GOVERNMENT WAY

COEUR d'ALENE, IDAHO 83814

S" r* -:*»

tti.i» %al> r.„

I *f

February 2, 1981

fi£

m. i ,7

■J.iTUKAL
S£n/ATI0H

Mr. Fred Robinson

Department of Natural Resources

32 South Ewinq

Helena, MT 59601

Dear Mr. Robinson:

Currently there is a fair trout and a good whitefish fishery in the 20 miles
of the Kootenai River between Bonners Ferry and the Montana-Idaho state line.
Whitefish, which are better adapted than trout to spawning in a large river,
are the most numerous fish in the river. Trout numbers are lower and are
most, likely restricted by available spawning tributaries and down river drift
of small fish from above Kootenai Falls.

Since good spawning tributaries below Kootenai Falls are limited to the Yaak
River and a few other small streams in Montana, it is felt that drift from
above the falls makes a significant contribution to these trout populations.
Kootenai River tributaries in Idaho above Bonners Ferry are few in number and
are restricted by fish barriers at their mouths or by high sediment
concentrations in their substrate (Boulder Creek).

Although whitefish numbers are higher and they supply the bulk of the catch,
most of the anglers are seeking trout. If trout numbers decrease in this
area due to a decrease in recruitment, there will most likely be a decrease
in fishing effort in this section of the river for both trout and whitefish.

W. HT Goodnigh
Region 1

ishery Manager

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER