.k

r>%.... :S./;.^:ii*^^->"

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

S 333.95 E29ktv< C.I

Kootenai Falls wildllle inventory and im

3 0864 00047777 1

PLEASE RETURN

1/

KOOTENAI FALLS WILDLIFE INVENTORY -'
AND IMPACT ANALYSIS

— Final Report
For the period
January 1, 1978 - September 1, 1979

ITATt DOCUMENTS COLLECTION

NOV 2 81984

MONTANA C7A^£ UoSARV

1515P. 6fhAVG.

^^^^>^\ MONTANA 50^20

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Energy Division

32 South Ewing

Helena, Montana 59601

October 1979

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST or FlfaURES iii

LIST OF TABLES v

INTRODUCTION 1

Background 1

The Kootenai Falls Project 1

Overall Study Scope and Object! \)(es 1

The Study Area 5

HABITATS OF THE STUDY AREA 7

The Kootenai River and Kootenai Falls 7

Preliminary Cover and Terrian Classification 7

Habitat Categories n

INVENTORY 13

Methods 13

General . 13

Large Mammal Survey 13

Riparian Habitat Transects 19

Water Bird Survey and Census 19

Bald Eagle Survey 20

Bird Census 20

Small Mammal Trapping 20

Reptile and Amphibian Survey 22

Results 22

Sunmary of Fauna Observed 22

Water Bird Survey and Census 30

Riparian Habitat Transects | 33

Winter Bird Survey and Breeding Bird Census 38

Sniall Mammal Trapping 38

Furbearer Harvest Data 38

Species Accounts -- Birds 42

Species Accounts -- Mannials 51

Summary of Habitat Relations '.'.'.'.'. 70

I ^

ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES

Habitat Alteration 80

Changes in Riparian Habitat Due to Impoundment t

and Railroad Relocation 8o'

Changes in Upstream Aquatic Habitat 96

Changes in Microclimate 97

Downstream Dewatering 97

Discharge Impacts at the Outlet Structure 99

Displacement 99

Changes in Mortality and Natality Rates 100

Physiological Stress 101

COMPENSATION OF UNMITIGATED IMPACTS 103

Compensation by Enhancement 103

Compensation by Protection of Threatened Habitat 105

Recommendations 106

OVERALL SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS TO MONTANA'S WILDLIFE RESOURCE 107

Adverse Effects Which Cannot be Avoided 107

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 107

Short-Term vs. Long-Term Impacts 107

Summary 108

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MONITORING '. 10^

Rationale 109

Plan of Study 109

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 113

LITERATURE CITED 115

APPENDICES 123

A. Schedule of 1977-1979 Field Work,

Kootenai Falls Wildlife Study 124

B. Wildlife Observation Data Sheet and Instructions 127

C. Waterfowl Observation Data Sheet and Instructions 132

D. Breeding Bird Census Results 136

E. Small Mammal Data Sheet 139

F. Riparian Census Instructions 140

G. Conceptual Basis for Compensation of Unmitigated Impacts 144

n

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of principal study area, proposed danisite,

and transect route 2

Figure 2. Location of proposed dam, powerhouse, and diversion

tunnels 4

Figure 3. Map of terrain types 8

Figure 4. Codes used for recording wildlife observations 14

Figure 5. Location of breeding bird census area and small mammal

trapping sites 21

Figure 6. Locations of fall and winter 1978-1979 bald eagle

observations, Kootenai Falls area 48

Figure 7. Location of elk, moose, mule deer, and white-tailed

deer sign and observations, November 1977-August 1979 .... 53

Figure 8. Location of bighorn sheep observations, November 1977-

July 1978 61

Figure 9. Generalized distribution of selected vertebrate species
among habitats of three cross-sections of the Kootenai
River Valley 71

Figure 10. Location of river cross-section profiles and proposed

pool area 31

Figure 11. Monthly averages of mean daily discharge downstream
from the Libby Dam site prior to impoundment (1970)
and following impoundment (1977) 83

Figure 12. Typical seasonal patterns of discharge of the Kootenai
River at Libby, based on July 1976-June 1979 hourly
discharge data 85

Figure 13. Typical seasonal variation in surface elevation of the
Kootenai River at three river cross sections, with and
without the proposed dam (assuming a forebay elevation
of 610 m (2000 ft)) 86

Figure 14. Typical seasonal variation in wetted perimeter and width
of the littoral zone (area between daily high and low
water marks) of the Kootenai River at three river cross-
sections, with and without the proposed dam (assuming a
forebay elevation of 610 m (2000 ft)) R7

m

Figure 15. Possible method of creating permanent diked shallow M

wetlands along the pool perimeter M

Figure 16. Percent of time that different flows would be allowed

to pass over the Kootenai Falls Dam 98

Figure 17. Schedule of field work for monitoring program. 110

Figure 18. Three possible strategies for mi tigating or compensating

for a short term impact 145

TV

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of habitat categories used in the wildlife

study 17

Table 2. Summary of data collected on bird species observed
on the Kootenai Falls study area, January 1978 -
July 1979 23

Table 3. Summary of data collected on general habitat use and
local distribution of mammals observed on the Kootenai
Falls study area, 197a 28

Table 4. Number of waterfowl observations recorded each month
on the Kootenai Falls study area, January 1978 -
July 1978 31

Table 5. Census results for waterfowl and other water birds,

sections G-N, P-S, and Z of the Kootenai River. 32

Table 6. Number of registrations and numbers of territories
recorded for each bird species on the Kootenai Falls
study area during sixteen transect runs and general
reconnaissance, January 20 - July 8, 1978 34

Table 7. Number of registrations recorded for bird and mammal
species during fourteen transect runs, January 20 -
June 30, 1979 35

Table 8. Census data for breeding birds of the Kootenai Falls

study area, 1978 39

Table 9. Summary of Kootenai Falls small mammal trapping pro-
gram, September 3-5, 1978 41

Table 10. Harlequin Duck observations in the Kootenai Falls

area, 1978 - 1979 44

Table 11. Minimum numbers of bald eagles seen along the Kootenai

River, October 1978 - February 1979 47

Table 12. Mule daer and white-tailed deer observations and sign
recorded on the Kootenai Falls study area, January -
July 1978 d6

Table 13. Deer observations and sign recorded on the Kootenai
Falls study area according to habitat type and ele-
vation, January - July 1978 55

Table 14. Number of groups and number of bighorn sheep obser- ^

vations made each month on the Kootenai Falls study V

area, June 1977 - July 1978 57

Table 15. Monthly activity of bighorn sheep on the Kootenai

Falls study area, June 1977 - July 1978 59

Table 16. Monthly distribution of bighorn sheep on each area
of the Kootena"' Falls study area, June 1977 - July
1978 5C

Table 17. Monthly observations of bighorn sheep according to
terrain type on the Kootenai Falls study area, June
1977 - July 1978 64

Table 18. Monthly distribution of bighorn sheep according to
aspect on the Kootenai Falls study area, June 1977 -
July 1978 66

Table 19. Monthly distribution of bighorn sheep according to
slope on the Kootenai Falls study area, June 1977 -
July 1978 67

Table 20. Monthly distribution of bighorn sheep according to

elevation on the Kootenai Falls study area, June 1977 -

July 1978 6?

Table 21. Acreages of habitat which would be inundated by the ^

proposed Kootenai Falls Dam at a discharge of 1400 cms
(50,000 cfs) or disturbed by railroad relocatioia 8S

Table 22. Cavity-nesting species known to occur in the Kootenai

Falls area 91

VI

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

Northern Lights, Inc. (NLI), a rural electric cooperative based in
Sandpoint, Idaho, agreed on February 3, 1978, to fund a study of the
fish and wildlife resources of the Kootenai Falls area, in Lincoln
County, Montana. This study, coordinated by the Montana Department of
Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), was designed to provide
information relevant to the analysis of impacts of the proposed Kootenai
Falls hydroelectric project on fish and wildlife resources, information
which could be used by NLI in its application to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) and by DNRC in its ultimate evaluation of
the facility required under the Major Facility Siting Act.

THE KOOTENAI FALLS PROJECT

The proposed Kootenai Falls hydroelectric project has been described
in detail by NLI (197C) and will only be briefly described here. Figure 1
shows the location and Figure 2 illustrates the design of the proposed
dam. The dam structure would be approximately 9.1 m (30 ft) high,
impounding the river and inundating associated riparian habitat at
least to the 509.6 m (2,000 ft) contour for approximately 4.8 km (3 mi).
It would be utilized for peak power periods commensurate with flows
released from dams upriver. Water would be diverted from above the dam
into an underground powerhouse, which would have the capacity to utilize
672 cms (24,000 cfs) or the entire flow of the river. The water would
return to the river through two 11.9 m (39 ft) tunnels approximately
1.6 km (1.0 mi) below the Falls. The bypassed portion of the canyon
would be nearly dewatered, passing as little as 21 cms (750 cfs) of
water.

OVERALL STUDY SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

The DNRC's approach in designing and carrying out this study was
one which emphasized impacts analysis and identification of possible
means whereby impacts may be mitigated or compensated. Since the budget
for the study was small, an effort was made to limit the collection of
inventory data to that directly useful in impact assessment and miti-
gation. Emphasis was placed on habitats and species most likely to be
affected by hydroelectric development, particularly tr.ose dependent upon
riparian and 'falls environments.

The wildlife inventory was largely carried out by the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP) under contract with DNRC,
entered into on February 15, 1978. Some limited field work was carried

00

en

o
00

c:
3

c
o

•r—
(/I

S-
OJ

>

c

03

a;
o

o

E

TJ
t3

<u
to
o

CL

o

S-
Q.

o

o
o

C3

out by the DNRC and MDFWP prior to this date. Field work after July, 1978
was conducted by DNRC personnel and a private contractor. Much of the
material presented herein was previously published by MDFWP (Joslin, 1978).

Realizing the need for continuous monitoring of the wildlife resource
and updating of the baseline data, NLI agreed, on January 19, 1979, to
fund a long-term wildlife monitoring study. The monitoring study was
designed to concentrate on certain key species and habitats which would
most likely be affected by the proposed developments and to supplement
the original wildlife study.

At the time this study was made. Northern Lights, Inc. had not
applied to DNRC for a certificate under the Major Facility Siting Act
(MFSA), and the only other studies under way were the vegetation and
fisheries studies. Therefore, the impact analysis presented here was
not prepared in conjunction with the DNRC's analysis of engineering
visual, recreation, and other concerns, as is the usual procedure with
evaluation of major facilities. In the event that Northern Lights, Inc.
submits an application under the MFSA, the results of this study and of
the monitoring studies will be integrated into the complete evaluation
required by the MFSA, the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), and
other applicable statutes. The impact analysis and recommendations for
mitigation and compensation presented in this report are thus tentative
and subject to refinement as the DNRC's evaluation of the overall impact
of the facility proceeds. Final conclusions and recommendations will be
developed only after public and professional comment has been received,
and will be presented in the DNRC's final environmental impact statement
on the project.

THE STUDY AREA

The study area for this project extends along the Kootenai River,
roughly from the proposed outlet structure to the head of the proposed
pool, and includes a strip of upland habitats of variable width adja-
cent to the river (Figure 1). The Falls area received the greatest
intensity of study throughout the report period. At the beginning of
this study, the project design differed considerably from that described
in NL^'s application to FERC (NLI 1978). This early design called for
extensive vegetation clearing of the bench between the damsite and the
footbridge (Figure 2); therefore, the study initially focused on this
area until the latest design was received in late 1978. Information on
proposed pool levels did not become available to DNRC until July 9, 1979,
and consequently a detailed vegetation map was not available until
September 19, 1979. The emphasis of study within the overall study area
thus shifted as new information about the project was received.

HABITATS OF THE STUDY AREA

THE KOOTENAI RIVER AND KOOTENAI FALLS

The Kootenai River originates in southeast British Columbia, flows
south into Montana, then west into Idaho and turns north to enter Canada
once again. Kootenai Falls is located in Lincoln County between the
northwest Montana communities of Libby and Troy, 48 km (30 mi) down
river from Libby Dam. Libby Dam impounds 80.5 km (50 mi) or approximately
half of the Kootenai River in the state and backs water into Canada for
another 80.5 km (50 mi). Currently, Libby Dam is a baseload facility,
but a proposal has been made to convert the dam to a peak load facility
by employment of four additional generators. Conversion to a power-
peaking dam would require construction of a reregulating dam to avoid
flooding of downstream settlements. The Libby Additional Units and
Reregulating Dam (LAURD) would impound another twenty percent of the
free-flowing Kootenai River in Montana. The Kootenai Falls Dam would be
located approximately 32 km (20 mi) below the proposed reregulating dam.

Kootenai Falls is the last major falls on a Montana river not yet
dammed or impounded. The Falls is composed of a complex series of
cascades falling over shelf rock which occur between and on either side
of three islands located in mid-river. The Falls mark the entry to the
rugged 1.9 km (1.2 mi) Kootenai Canyon. Water depths in the canyon are
as much as 30 m (99 ft), providing habitat for tne only white sturgeon
fishery within the state (Graham 1979a). Even though the Falls cannot
be seen from Highway 2, the area receives up to 55,000 visitor days of
use per year (NLI 1978), making it a popular natural scenic attraction.

The all-time low flow recorded on the Kootenai was 28 cms (1000 cfs).
Historic flows usually ranged from 112 to 1288 cms (4000 to 45,000 cfs),
depending upon the season with highest flows during spring runoff. With
installation of Libby Dam, seasonal flow regimes were reversed and flows
now range from 56 to 560 cms (2,000 to 20,000 cfs). Northern Lights,
Inc. (1978) proposes to divert all but 21 cms (750 cfs) for power generation.

PRELIMINARY COVER AND TERRAIN CLASSIFICATION

A map (scale = 1:24,000) of forest habitat types (Pfister et aJL 1977)
for the area, provided by the Kootenai National Forest (Olson-ElTiott I
Associates 1976), served as the basis for more detailed field mapping of
cover and terrain types within the study area (Figure 3). Four natural
cover types were recognized: timber, shrub, grass, and rock (or bare).
Eight terrain types were mapped on 7.5- minute topographic maps, using
ocular estimates and infrared color photographs. The following four
terms describe rocky terrain types: bluffs, benches with rocky drop-
offs, often in step-like series; cl iffs, rock faces one or more meters
in height; talus, masses of shale or boulders, generally not capable of
supporting vegetation to climax stage due to instability or poor edaphic
features; broken, those areas which are not bluffs, cliffs, or talus.

c
o

but which were obviously difficult to traverse because of rocky substrate.
If an area could not be defined as one of the rocky terrains, then it
was classified as one of the four remaining terrain types, including:
ridge, the line of land separating two drainages; floodplain, the low-
lying, flat or gently sloping land adjacent to a water course; par^i' a
nontimbered flat or sloping area; sidehill , a catchall term used to
categorize any nonrocky area which would not fit any of the other
terrain types. The cliff, talus and park types by definition are not
timbered, but the five remaining terrain types could support any cover
type. A map of terrain types is shown in Figure 3.

The area south of the river in the vicinity of Kootenai Falls is
heavily timbered and falls within the relatively moist western red
cedar/ queencup beadlily and western hemlock/queencup beadlily habitat
types, while the area to the north falls primarily within the much drier
Douglas fir/ninebark, Douglas f ir/bluebunch wheatgrass and Douglas
fir/snowberry habitat types. Rocky outcrops, grassy meadows, and scree
slopes are much more prevalent north of the river.

HABITAT CATEGORIES

Habitat categories were defined based on the above classification
and on the 1:1200 vegetation map prepared as part of the vegetation
study (Olson-Elliott & Associates 1979). Table 1 lists the habitat
categories used in this study, their abbreviations, their component
vegetation community types, and dominant vegetation. More detailed
descriptions of the vegetation types and a map showing their distri-
bution in the study area has been presented in the vegetation report
(Olson-Elliott & Associates 1979).

11

INVENTORY

METHODS

General

Field work was intermittent throughout the study period; Appendix A
summarizes the schedule of field work. Observations were aided by the
use of a 7 X 35 power binocular and a 15 to 60 variable power spotting
scope. Field data were recorded on standard data sheets (Appendix B and C)
which are on file with the DNRC. For purposes of this study, winter was
defined as the period January 1 to March 15, spring as March 16 to May
30, summer as June 1 to August 31, and fall as September 1 to December 31.
Systematic inventories were made as described below; observations of
species which were made during reconnaissance and incidental to the
systematic surveys were recorded and were used in compiling the species
list. Locations of animals observed in terrestrial habitats were plotted
on field maps and also recorded on data sheets using the number codes
shown in Figure 4. Locations of waterfowl and other aquatic animals
were recorded using the letter code shown in Figure 4. Habitat preferences
were recorded on standard data sheets using forest habitat types (Pfister
et aj. 1977) and the cover types and terrain types described earlier.
Since the vegetation study did not begin until July of 1979, more precise
habitat information was not available for most of the field work, and
habitat categories (Table 1) were assigned to wildlife species a^ posteriori .

Large Mammal Survey

Data were recorded on standard data sheets for each observation of
a carnivore or ungulate, and included the following information: date,
time of day, observer, mode of transportation, cloud cover, precipitation,
percent snow cover, temperature, wind speed, number of animals, group
composition, activity, slope, aspect, elevation, forest habitat type,
general cover type, terrain type (see Appendix B). Eight aerial surveys
were made over the study area in 1978, including three helicopter and
five fixed-wing flights. Locations of each animal or group observed
were plotted on field maps and were also recorded on data sheets using
the location codes shown in Figure 4. As shown in this figure, the land
area was coded using numerals from Surprise Gulch (1) to east of Pipe
Creek (15) on the north side of the river, and from west of Cedar Creek
(16) to the junction of Highway 2 and Highway 202 (26) souch of the
river.

Monthly bighorn sheep surveys were conducted from Lynx Flats to
Quartz Creek from January through July, 1978, and incidental observations
were collected during the remainder of the study period. The surveys
were conducted from Highway 2 during early morning or late afternoon and
evening.

13

>

.,_

LO

s_

s-

CD

<u

-a

l/l

X)

o

JD

c

(_)

O

ro

UJ

Qi

14

15

16

> at

3 r-

^^

o o
o c

— 3

a; ,.

u c: -—

UJl

<— c
5 —

J I— o >

^1

Ol

E

(D

fO

■o

TJ

•o

>+-

3

OJ

3

^

2

u

4->

U

o

c

t/l

c

1- fO r-

1/1 .— O"

5;

fO

V

■4->

4^

-M

o

W

^

>

cr

a

ns

G

w)

i~

C71

"3]

<:

rg

<fe

t:

fO

OJ

i-

XI

o

13

M-

u

i/l

nz

s

OJ

Q.

■>-' >>

C t—

E >,

O -u
Q.-<-
E C
O 3
■-J S

r-. l/l ^

■o

Ol

•— T3

iS.

o

o

3
cn

I—

LlJ
C3

ce •—

•— -3:]

a:

f
a.

s

17

I— :d

I

ei

in

Ul

^

3

I/)

13

3

n

Q

C

c

O

o

D-

G.

D-

■ ^

■r-

■r-

t/l

m

un

<U

Qi

<U

M

M

N

C

CZ

c

OJ

OJ

QJ

E

c

ET

T)

<-^

13

Ol

c

en

3

3

3

i/l

l/l

l/l

■♦-J

-M

■M

O

o

O

"C-

-c

TJ

3

OJ

QJ

QJ

l/l

(/:

1/1

Cl_

o.

D.

I/,

^1

s_

at

Ul

JD

3

!-

S-

-U

>i

ca

a

.— . CT-

CM --H .— "

•— < CM

•^.1. -;;-

^L

OJ ,— I— >—

r~

fZ,

■o

■ r-

O

L-

<a:

•^

!-

ro

QJ

.£1

c

3

■r-

U

(U

O

03

u

CL

r-l cnjI n| .o-l

le

Riparian Habitat Transects

In order to determine the extent of use of riparian habitats by
vertebrates, transects were established along the railroad right-of-way
which parallels Highway 2 in the study area. All transects began at the
retaining wall along Highway 2, but the length of the transects was
increased as further information on pool extent was obtained (Figure 1).
The first eight transect runs were made between January 20, 1978, and
March 2, 1978, and extended to the mouth of China Creek. Seven additional
runs of this same route were made between April 24, 1978 and May 9, 1978.
The route was later extended upstream to a point 2 km (1.6 mi) upstream
from the head of the Falls (Figure 1) and was run nine times between
May 11, 1978 and July 8, 1978. In 1979, the route was extended to a
point approximately 4 km (3 mi) above the Falls and was run an additional
fourteen times between January 20 and June 30, 1979. Methods were
modified from those of Emlen (1977). Transects were generally run starting
0.25 hr before local sunrise except during winter, when runs began
somewhat later. Only birds were recorded during 1978 transect runs, but
both birds and mammals were recorded in 1979. During transect runs, the
southern- facing slope of mountains across the river were scanned with
the aid of binoculars or power spotting scope. Approximately 2.5 hours
were required for each transect run. Information obtained during transect
runs was used to compare the relative use by vertebrates of upland
coniferous forest habitats and the riparian deciduous forest/shrub
habitats.

Hater Bird Survey and Census

Use of the Kootenai River in the study area by waterfowl and other
water birds was investigated during riparian habitat transects and
general reconnaissance. Because much of the river from Libby to near
the junction of U.S. Highway 2 and State Highway 202 is not navigable,
observations along the river, other than in those areas already mentioned,
were made incidental to other activities, usually while en route between
Libby and Troy on Highway 2. Locations of waterfowl observed on the
river were recorded on standard data sheets (Appendix C) using letter
codes from the mouth of O'Brien Creek (A) to Pipe Creek (W, Figure 4).

Waterfowl censuses of the Kootenai River in the study area were
made on fourteen different days in 1979 (Appendix A). These censuses
attempted to determine the minimum numbers of each species present in
the project area each day. Censuses were conducted along the river from
the proposed outlet to the upper end of the pool (area codes G-N, P-S,
and Z in Figure 4). During winter, parts of the river canyon below the
Falls (areas G-K in Figure 4) were inaccessible because of ice and snow
and censuses were not taken here (Appendix A). Censuses of the river
section above the Falls were made during transect runs; at the conclusion
of a transect run, the section below the Falls was censused.

19

Bald Eagle Survey

Locations of eagles observed were recorded on maps, and habitat
preferences were recorded on standard data sheets. Observations made
during fall, 1978, were made incidental to the fisheries study. Winter
observations were made during transect runs along the railroad tracks
and incidental to travel through the area. The Kootenai river was
censused for bald eagles as part of the National Wildlife Federation's
nationwide Bald Eagle survey during the report period. Information
gathered by Meyer (1979) during regular ground and aerial surveys of the
Kootenai River and by Craighead and Craighead's (1979) LAURD study
provided additional information on Bald Eagle use of the study area.

Bird Censuses

Bird populations of a portion of the study area (Figure 5) were
censused in winter (January 20 - March 2, 1978) and during the breeding
season (May 7 - June 30, 1978) using standard methods (Hall 1964;
Van Velzen 1972; Kolb 1965). The schedule of the breeding bird census
is given in Appendix D. Monthly occurrence, location, and habitat type
were noted for each bird species. The upland portions of the census
area were defined on the basis of NLI's original plan for construction
of the powerhouse between the damsite and the footbridge; since this
area would not be affected by NLI's revised proposal, no censuses were
made in 1979.

Small Mammal Trapping

Small mammal populations were sampled in September of 1978, using a
combination of snap and pitfall traps. September was chosen as the
trapping period in an effort to sample populations near the peak of
their annual cycle. The locations of all trapping sites and their code
numbers are shown in Figure 5. Four snap trap lines, each consisting of
twenty-five stations (2 traps/station, for a total of fifty traps per
line) located at fifteen m (45 ft) intervals, were operated for three
consecutive nights (September 3-5, 1978). Two of these trap lines
(Nos. 1 and 2) were set in typical riparian grassland habitats in an
area likely to be inundated should the project be implemented. The two
remaining lines (Nos. 3 and 4) were set in typical nonriparian Douglas
fir-western red cedar coniferous forest habitats or forest edge habitats
adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. Total trapping effort for these
lines was 600 trap-nights (200 traps x 3 nights). In addition to snap
trap lines, four additional lines, each consisting of four sunken-can
("pitfall") traps at 15 m (45 ft) intervals, were run during the same
period. These lines sampled typical forest-edge shrub (No. 5), stream-
side within Douglas fir-western red cedar forest (No. 6), shrubby Douglas
fir-dominated forest (No. 7), and scree habitats (No. 8). All traps were
removed at the end of the trapping period. Animals captured were weighed,
measured, sexed, and identified to species. Standard study skins and

20

I/)

OJ

+->

CD
£Z

ex.

s_

E
E

E
ui

■o

cz

to

QJ

S-

i/i

I/)

c

OJ

<_)

S-

cn
■o

QJ
OJ

s_

O

(a
o
O

a:
to

»— *

21

skulls were prepared of all species except the deer mouse. (See Appendix
E for sample data sheet.)

Reptile and Amphibian Survey

No systematic surveys of reptiles or amphibians were conducted
during this survey, although all observations made incidental to other
field work were recorded and occasional searches of likely habitat were
made during both summers.

RESULTS

Summary of Fauna Observed

The information presented below is based on work conducted by MDFWP
as reported by Joslin (1978) for the period January, 1978 to July, 1978,
and on work conducted by DNRC through August 1, 1979. Lists of vertebrates
which occur or probably occur in northwestern Montana near the project area
may be obtained from the reports of: Hall and Kelson (1979), Hoffmann and
Pattie (1968), and Hoffmann ei_aL (1969a and b) for mammals; Davis (1961)
and Skaar (1975) for birds; Black (1970a) for amphibians; and Black (1970b)
and Davis (1963) for reptiles (see also Flath 1979). These data are
readily available and need not be repeated in this document; only in-
formation on vertebrates actually encountered during the study is included
in this report. Inventory data for 72 species of birds and 28 of mammals
encountered during this study are summarized in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.

The only reptiles observed were a group of nine western garter
snakes (Thamnophis elegans vagrans) found beneath discarded sheet metal
in riparian grassland near the head of Kootenai Falls, and an unidentified
snake (possibly a racer) observed in the understory of Douglas fir forest
near the head of the Falls in June of 1979. No amphibians were found
during the present study, despite a search of likely habitat. However,
a Couer d'Alene Salamander (Plethodon vandykei) was reportedly collected
on the south side of Highway 2 above the retaining wall at the western
border of the project area (Elliott 1979). This species is considered a
non-game species of "special interest" by the MDFWP (Flath 1979). It is
likely that the wide fluctuations in discharge and shoreline of the
Kootenai River presently limit amphibian populations in the area by
rendering the entire river unsuitable as breeding habitat.

According to Skaar (1975), over 211 species of birds occur in the
Kootenai Basin, 84% of which breed there. Over 50 of these species are
directly dependent upon water, and many others are directly dependent
upon riparian habitat.

Of the 72 bird species observed during this study, 15 (21%) were
classified as permanent residents in the Falls area, 49 (63%) as summer

22

Q iij (-> I
-^ O =»

< J O <T

' D J rr ^

: nr >- I n:

'- aj.

-=: -a
3 o

o-

>

r^ c\j

■■ CNJ

^

CTf -

IC r-

Q_ OO

- OJ

U. '

TT O

•■ m

■■ CXI

LU .—

E "

^CTi

Q a^

UJ 1 —

CQ CO

Q f^

s

(II

■— , C-' (O

fC

3

CT

Q)

:*.

^

<u

, 1

c

U

^ a/| -t:--

^ !- r- -.

^^■1

Si a:'
•a:

o

E

E I
O

Lrt -C -i-

^

iA\

u

^\

3

u\

Q

C

C

o

3

•^

CT

+J

(U

l/l

J-

n:

s-

OJ

S-

Ul

(V

c

i/i

13

c

cn

13

t.

g!

l/»

o^

c

Jx:

<u

2

u

to

X

■o

rO

OJ

•f->

■O CJ

^ OJ

CO

do, '

lij

•r

3

t-

Jo

4->

>

Oi 0)

«/t

u

ui xa

<u

fD

D E

;,^

Q.

O 3

c

e5

TJ

1- -D

tJ o

U1

cu *o

u o

-c

*o

O) !^

(U

c

-O 03

C 'ic

"4-

o

^ £1

O) Li-

3

CO

^- (_>

<

q:

^

■— 3
Q. U\

tn

in

3

-o

4-)

(IJ

■M

•M

■i->

o <cl

■^ O >•

I I

O O !-

--3 "^

^1

^

ra en

^

-D -D

C^J I—

O

-a .—

dJ OJ

m

■o

c

m

c

c

OJ

3

r^

t-

I- QJ

un

c

<u

.- O

-O 3

o

Cr

jO O

V- U-

1- >,

Dl-r-

■r- 3

QJ U

c:

K

C <—

-O 1^

-C r—

^

Cn

1/1 t)

;-

^/^

*«

L TO

C U1

QJ

<D

+ ' >

E u

■>- 3

M- QJ

jx:

+-> -o

U-

:3

E I^

CP.—

u

u_ .,-

•r- fD

IT TO

r o

C >.

■<- o

5 U

3 x:

•r- S-

2 <—

c^ =J

QJ 3

ZZ CL

^ QJ

Li_

U~) <D

■M

D.r—

m

O

(jO

LO 0)

O r—

iA iT3

"O rt)

c

^ a

- <TJ

■^ QJ

3 1 —

QJ cn

•J >i

X ^

.— 4->

O OJ

■M QJ

na o^

3 o

.— CyO

M- on

r- ^

E

o^

t>

"\

01

-i-i

-«:

oi

i_>

QJ

0)

n

"O

cxI

o

{O

t:

D

n,

■u

o

QJ

u

+->

o

rtl

>,

0)

^

o

o u
o o
3 I-

TO

C

i/l

<

U1

o

TO

,^

TO

TO

c:

i

+-»

" '

TO

£-

■M

OJ

QJ

OJ

C

^~

a-

LJ

>i

4-J

QJ

U

TO

O

h-

r-- °

TO

X

I

>.

tn

OJ

T)

♦->

OJ

n,

W

o

c

X)

I

cr

01

cn-Ml

13

i>n|

>>

TO TO

«

24

.3 >^ Oj

■3 O >

O CJ I—

■^ ■—}

•=C =i

-^ < — ,

1/1 TDi

■r- 3'

at u^;
r: o,

-CM CM

r— m o

* CVJ OJ

"CNj cr^

1 — rj

3 <

£ o
O

3

cn

C

3

4-)

t»

</t

m

<U

0-

J- E
Q.M-1

3 O

*- .— ca

&.

■13

JD

r—

■4-1

QJ

TS

+J

tJ)

OJ

E

>

3

tJ

Q

TO

I

in

3

4J

J=

fO

t/1

ra

3

i-

■«->

-C

l/l

»—

3

1/1

tn

3

C

t.

0

rt3

iA

x:

C

■M

TO

moi

S-

t/i

u

3

1

c

3

OJ

CT

T3

(V

a:

<u

'ol

en

3

C

•0

c

^

d;

-0

TO

(U

u

3

tn

3

L.

0

3

CT

>. <UI

^

Oil

25

I Q UJ -^

-n a ^
o o H-

I- a.
to r^

m "O

■r- 13

in

:i

OJ

o

u

(D

'O

i^

>

>

o

0)

(T3

Q

TJ

w.

c

Ta

o

'<

i-

o

-o

u

rl

5

TO

O

I-

1-

O

u

>

OJ

E

en

1-

c

OJ

13

>

X3

TO

1-

O

TO

:?:

O

i~

3

•o

o

c

(U

1 —

Q

I I

o^ ■—

1— c:

o

•r-

i-

OJ

TO

-/=

F

to

*©

+->

. — ^

TO

4-'

tJ

i-.

TO

4J

+->

3

i/i

L-

O O)

(U

TO

q:

Cn

TO

c

^

TO

Cl

O

O

4-J

s-

(U

<U t/ll

TO

C

TO

t.J

V.

>

0)

O

CB-Ul

TO

^1

X" tn, . — ■

5 O
O 1-

h-

TO

CI

c

c

V-

TO

OJ

1-

■l-J

I/)

Q.

TO 3

e
•a:

■■- <— > X

13 O-

O ■<-

4- CL

C TOl

26

1- OS

J

•— C7>

o u

.— 1- +->

: — cj t:

. — jO TS

-- OJ Q)

■^ C71

I — l/l

3 a;

cJ

-■^•d

5 ^

o

*o

L.

rsl

L.

fa

Q.

o.

i/i

oo

O

cr

0)

c

»— I f\j| rol

27

C\J t— i

O C r-

c . —

3 TO —

ro Ln I —

(/) S- d i —

"D r- n-

■-- C I —

■4->

■.- -1- OJ -o

ru TH Ci.'i-

CH CC O </)

in

,-^

ZJ

t/l

(IJ

c

\-

1J

0)

t.

c

cr

m

u

>

X

X

<i>

OJ

1-

s.

o

o

uo

tn

f

Q.
Oil

r- (TJ

m

in

}-■

>!

E

i/i

o

r3

c

u

o

I/)

>,

S-

1-

-C

n

■(-»

s-

QJ

0)

Q.

o

lA

ly)

s-

-J

3

fO

Oh

TO|

+-)

C)

O

u^

O

u

U

TO

3

■*->

( )

-o

^

o

c

1?

OJ

2^

s:

o

r-J

7Z

t/l

t/l

c

tjO

ai

c

■o

TO

TO

c

■!->

TO

TO

U

■—

u

--1

t/^

i~

•M

C

=

la

_J

<->

o ^ -

28

CM r—

^1

c

U-

rj

o

1/1

^

QJ

^J

Q.

1-

>, o

4-' +- C

"C JD C ":;

— CJ -^

■M x: "DC

o o u OJ c

i- >-, i/i o i/i ' —

.— ^ C 1-

U~ C ^ C

1- t—

>, O) LO

'il C C3

fC Of Q,

E ^

-.- o »

D_ X) q:

2

TO

t/ll

^\

c

c

c

•2t

I-

e

01

>

x:l

ol

, .

l/l

(/I

c

tn

(U

<U

■o

u

n3

c

ra

o

o

■^ l/l

4-> Qj

— I rsJl

29

residents only, 3 (4%) as winter residents only, and 5 (7%) as visitors
or transients. A total of 46 species were designated breeding species,
14 of which were confirmed breeders (active nests or dependent young ob-
served). Evidence for overwintering was encountered for 11 species (if
a species was encountered during botn January and February, it was considered
an overwintering bird).

Skaar's (1975) data indicate that 5C of the 72 species encountered
in this study are confirmed breeders in this area of the state and
another 17 are circumstantial breeders; also, 35 of these species are
known to winter in this region o^ the state.

Winter transients were defined as those species which were observed
on one occasion sometime during the period from January to March 15.
Although seven species were classified as winter transients, Skaar
(1975) indicates that all but the snow bunting actually spend the winter
in northwest Montana.

It should be noted that very little field work was conducted during
the late summer and fall months (August through November); the observations
listed in Table 2 for these months were casual observations made incidental
to other work. Therefore, the low numbers of species reported in Table 2
for these months are likely due to a lack of intensive field work rather
than to a low diversity of birds. No field work was conducted in December.

Water Bird Survey and Census

Table 4 lists the number of waterfowl observations recorded each
month in the study area, January through July, 1978. Since individual
birds were often seen and recorded more than once during a given month,
the figures given by no means represent a census of the number of birds
present; they do, however, give an indication of relative abundances in
the study area.

Table 5 presents the results of the 1979 census of waterfowl popula-
tions of sections G-N, P-S, and Z, Figure 4. In this table, the minimum
number of birds known to be present below the Falls, above the Falls, and
along the entire stretch are presented.

During the March through May, 1978 spring migration period, seven

species of waterfowl were observed in the Kootenai Falls study area.

Common goldeneye was the most prevalent species followed by mallard,

common merganser, Canada goose, harlequin duck, Barrow's goldeneye, and
American wigeon.

Of the seven species observed in 1978 during spring migration,
three species were known to breed in the study area, including common
merganser, mallard, and Canada goose. Territorial pairs of harlequin
ducks and common goldeneye were observed on the study area, which indicate
that breeding probably occurred (Dzubin 1969).

30

■— ro r-

■— iO CM

' — m , — ^J
CO m csj ^

^

31

-^1

o ^

o ^

o ^

o
o
o

O .-1 ^

cr ^^ ,-1

o
o

CO

o
o
o

o
o
o

o
o
o

o-

«:■

CO

ojI

o

kO

OD

w-<

o

o

o

^

o

CM

t-H

o

•"*

o

o o o

o o o^

O .-4 »-l

S '^ °

O O rt

o

o
o

to > -r-

--ICNJI

32

Wintering waterfowl included the mallard, common goldeneye, and
common merganser. The highest number of mallards observed in 1978 was 42
on February 24, and a high of 47 common goldeneye was observed on February 15.

Riparian Habitat Transects

Results of the 1978 riparian habitat transect runs are presented in
Table 6, along with data on the number of bird registrations made at
times other than transect runs. Fifty-nine species of birds were registered
a total of 1277 times according to sight or song. Forty-five species
were observed during transect runs. Sixty percent of the total number
of registrations were recorded in the riparian type paralleling the
river. This riparian floodplain area is the site of the proposed reservoir
and construction area. The remaining registrations were noted in the
coniferous forest sloping upward from the floodplain. The riparian type
was used by 76 percent of the species observed while the conifer type
was used by 51 percent of the species observed. Mapping of the territories
of 26 bird species revealed that 85 percent of the species used the
riparian type exclusively or in combination with the coniferous type.
Only 15 percent of the species utilized the coniferous type exclusively.
A total of 122 territories were identified on the transect for the 26
species. Eighty-seven percent of the territories occurred in the
riparian type or ecotone; 77 percent of these occurred exclusively in
the riparian type.

In 1979, 40 species of birds and 6 species of mammals were recorded
during the 14 transect runs (Table 7). Of the total number of registrations,
6 percent were in conifers, 77 percent in riparian, and 17 percent in
ecotone areas; if waterfowl are excluded, the percentages are 17, 30,
and 53, respectively. These percentages indicate the importance of
ecotonal areas in terms of numbers of birds (other than waterfowl).
However, the relative number of species is greater in riparian habitat
where 28 species or 68 percent (23 species or 64 percent, excluding
waterfowl) were observed. This is due to the fact that larger numbers
of fewer species were recorded in ecotones, while smaller numbers of
more species were recorded in riparian habitats. The lowest number of
species, 14, was recorded in the coniferous areas of the tra-.sect; this
may be due in part to reduced detectability of birds using this dense
forest habitat. Of the 28 species utilizing riparian habitat, nine also
used coniferous and nine used ecotonal habitat. Seventeen species were
found in riparian habitat exclusively, while only four species were
found exclusively in coniferous areas.

The yellow-pine chipmunk was very abundant on the railroad embankment,
and was the most commonly observed mammal on the transect runs. The
highest densities were in areas where coniferous forest graded into tall
shrubs on the south of the tracks and shrubs bordered the north side of
the tracks. In more open areas, the ch'-'pmunks were not as common.
Columbian ground .squirrels were the nexc most commonly seen mammal, and
a concentration of burrows was found along the south side of the railroad

33

Table C. Number of registrations and number of territories recorded for each bird species on the Kootenai Falls study
area during sixteen transect runs and genera'' reconnaissance, January 20 - July 8, 1978.

Canada goose

Mallard

American wigeon

Common goldeneye

Barrow's goldeneye

Harlequin duck

ConiTion merganser

Red-tailed hawk

Bald eagle

O.prey

American kestrel

Ruffed grouse

Kill deer

Spotted sandpiper

California gull

Ring-billed gull

Band-tailed pigeon5/

Mourning dove

Vaux's swift

Calliope hummingbird

Rufous hummingbird

Belted kingfisher

Common flicker

Pi'eated woodpecker

Hairy woodpecker

Wi 1 low flycatcher

Flycatcher (Lmpidonax sp. )

Violet-green swal low

Tree swallow

Rough-winged swallow

Steller's jay

Common raven

Coiiiiion crow

Black-capped chickadee

Mountain Lhickadce

Chestnut-backed chickadee

Red-ureasted nuthatch

Brown creeper

Dipper

Winter wren

Gray catbird

American robin

Varied thrush

Swainson's thrush

Townsend's soli tare

Golden-crowned kinglet

Ruby-crowned kinglet

Cedar waxwing

Red -eyed vireo

Warbling vireo

Orange-crowned warbler

Hasnvi 1 le warbler

Yel low warbler

Yel low-rumped warbler

Townsend's warbler

MacGl 1 1 ivray 's warbler

American redstart

Brown-headed cowbird

Western tanayer

Lazuli bunting

Pine siskin

Dark-eyed junco

Chipping sparrow

Lincoln's sparrow

Song sparrow

Snow bunting

Number of Resistrationsl/

During Transect Runs During Other Times
Conifersj/ Riparian!/ Conifers Riparian Total

9

77
27

28

239

2

313

13

75

105

38
9
4

12

85
23

10

1
21
35
32

1

2

17

25

16
21

1

11

1

2

28

72

12

25

43

2

243

2

13

45

45
1
2
6

m

8

1
1

21
3

8

15

lb

1
59

54
282

4

556

15

80

150

2

8

49

4

4

6

31

0

1

1

6

3

1

4

3

4

3

1

3

2

59

12

12

1

42

212

9(i

1

8

1

1

69

2

3

42

17

32

3

100

1
1

9

6
12

1

17
13

41

13

55

2

2

2

16

1

1

19

1

2

22

24

2

2
2

2

G
2

8

6

14

21

2

1

24

11

1

4
184

5

1
1
8

20

2

135

8

Number of Indicated
Breeding Territories ^

Conifers

parian Ecotone

20

5
13

4

10
1

1/

U
4/

5/

A minimum of three registrations recor

■^W 0

Registrations = observations or song (call).

Territories determined from breeding season transect information only.

different days were used in defining a territory. ,. . ko fi,,nHoH

Conifer = the western red cedar, douglas-fir, western larch, lodge pole pine forest. This area would not be flooded

by the proposed project and little area would be disturbed. f,„„^„H .e ;. ^oc.it

Riparian - deciduous forest and floodplain grassland, an area which is likely to be disturbed or flooded as a result

34

of the proposed project
Unconfirmed.

TABLE 7. Number of registrations recorded for bird and mammal
species during 14 transect runs, January 20 - June 30, 1979.

Species

BIRDS

Canada Goose

Mallard

Common Goldeneye

Harlequin Duck

Common Merganser

Red-tailed Hawk

Bald Eagle

Golden Eagle

Osprey

American Kestrel

Merl in

Ruffed Grouse

Great Blue Heron

Spotted Sandpiper

Mourning Dove

Common Flicker

Willow Flycatcher

Flycatcher (Empidonax sp.)

Violet-Green Swallow

Conrion Raven
' Common Crow

Conifers

2/

1
1
1
1

2
9

Number of registrations-

Riparian--' Ecotone

4/

3

147

364

3

38

4
2

2

1

5
1
2

2

6

1
57

3
10

Total

3
147
364
3
38
1
8
1
5
2
1
1
2
1
5
5
1
3
57
7
25

35

Table 7: Continued

Black-Capped Chickadee
Cipper
Gray Catbird
Anierican Robin
Swainson's Thrush
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Cedar Waxwing
Red-eyed Vireo
Warbling Vireo
Yellow Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler
MacGil 1 iVray's Warbler
Brown-headed Cowbird
American Goldfinch
Pine Siskin
Red Crossbill
Dark-eyed Junco
Chipping Sparrow
Rufous -sided Towhee
Song Sparrow

TOTAL SPECIES

TOTAL INDIVIDUALS

(Excluding Waterfowl)

10

2

3

11

5

1

12

3
1
4

4
1

-

1

-

2

-

5

14

28(23)

46

634(79)

6/

3
2

2
6
2

1
1
4

20

19

19

142

11
8
3
9
4

25
6
6
1
4
3
2
4
4

20
1
4
2

24

822(267)

36

Table 7: Continued

MAMMALS

Columbian Ground Squirrel
Yellow-pine Chipmunk
Red Squirrel
Mountain Cottontail
Snowshoe Hare
Bighorn Sheep

,0^'

80^/

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

TOTAL SPECIES

TOTAL INDIVIDUALS

91

92

-'Reyistrations = Observations or song (call)

21,

Conifer = Forests dominated by western red cedar, Douglas fir, or western larch.

3A

Riparian = Deciduous forest, shrub, and floodplain grassland.

— 'Ecotone = Railroad right-of-way, an area of disturbed vegetation, mixed conifers, and
riparian shrubs.

— Estimated abundance.

r I

— Percent of total .

37

tracks east of the switching station below the power line crossing.
These squirrels appeared to prefer the more open habitat next to the
railroad tracks.

Winter Bird Survey and Breeding Bird Census

Fourteen species were encountered during the 1978 winter bird
survey on 8 counts averaging 107 minutes each, as follows (numbers in
parentheses indicate average number seen per trip (+ = less than 0.5) ,
indicated density per 100 ha, and indicated density per 100 acres):
Mallard (2, 5, 2), Common Goldeneye (10, 22, 9), Common Merganser (+, +,
+), Mourning Dove (+, +, +), Belted Kingfisher (+, +, +) Pileated
Woodpecker (+, +, +), Hairy Woodpecker (+, +, +), Common Raven (+, +,
+), Common Crow (1,1, +), Black-capped Chickadee (4, 9, 4), Brown
Creeper (+, +, +), Dipper (6, 13, 6), Golden- crowned Kinglet (5, 12, 5),
and Song Sparrow (1 , 1 , 1).

Results of th:^ 1978 breeding bird census are (."resented in Appendix D
and summarized in Table 8. A total of 33 breeding species were encountered
on the plot, with a total of 91 territorial males or females. The
overall density of birds for the plot, including the water area, was
found to be 410 individuals/km2 (166/100 acres); for the land are alone,
density was 684/km2 (278/100 acres) (each territory was assumed to represent
two individuals). These latter figures are within the range reported by
Beidleman (1978) for cottonwood-willow communities in Colorado, but are
somewhat lower than typical densities of eastern deciduous woodland. Rocky
Mountain coniferous forest, and floodplain forests (Beidleman 1978,
Fitzgerald 1978).

Small Mammal Trapping

A summary of small mammal trapping data is presented in Table 9.
Eight species of mammals were captured during the trapping program; a
song sparrow was also taken in a snap trap. Snap trap data indicated
that the tota> number of captures, total number of species, and total
biomass of captures were lower in the riparian grassland than in adja-
cent coniferous forest. A large percentage of all captures and biomass
in the coniferous forest were of deer mice, which were not taken in
riparian grassland. Voles of the genus Microtus and meadow jumping mice
were taken only in riparian grassland, while the masked shrew, red-
tailed chipmunk, and red-backed vole were taken only in conifers during
the snap trapping program.

Furbearer Harvest Data

Trapping of furbearers is a locally important type of recreation
and also contributes to the local economy. MDFWP estimates of fur
harvest by licensed trappers in Hunting District lOO, which includes the

38

TAGLE 3 . Census data for breeding birds of the Kootenai Falls study area, I'^/.i.

SPECIES

Preferred habitat
in census area

No. of Breeding No. of 2/ Overallj/ Adjusted;,,
Pairs Nests Located Density- Density '

Mallard

Corifnon Goldeneye
Harlequin Duck

Coranon Merganser
Osprey

American Kestrel

Spotted Sandpiper
ComnxDn Flicker
Empidonax Flycatcher

Violet-green Swal low
Tree Swallow

Rough-winged Swallow
Cotimon Raven

Conrnon Crow

Black-capped Chickadee
Dipper

American Robin
Varied Thrush
Swainson's Thrush
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Red-eyed Vireo

Open water, shores

Open water

Fast water, rocky
peninsulas

Open water

Open water, adjacent
forest

Open conferous forest
with snags

1/

Shores

1.5

Riparian cottonwoody

-1

Douglas fir - western

1

larch

River canyon

12

Open water and adjacent

1

forest

River canyon 4

Coniferous forest, rocky +
cliffs

Coniferous forest, RR 1

right-of-way

Coniferous forest 3.5

Shores 4

Coniferous forest 4.5

Dense conifers +

Coniferous forest 5.5

Dense conifers 6

Mixed forest 4

nest near
plot

27,11 27,11

9,4

9,4

8,3

13,5

9,4

23,10

10,4

17,7

12,5

20,8

13,5

22,8

9,4

15,7

39

Warbling Vireo
Nashville Warbler
Yellow Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Townsend's Warbler
MacGillivray' s Warbler
American Redstart
Brown-headed cowbird
Western Tanager
Pine Siskin
Dark-eyed Junco
Song Sparrow

Mixed forest
Deciduous groves
Open shrubbery
Mixed for;st
Coniferous forest
Low shrubbery
Moist mixed forest
Mixed forest
Coniferous forest
Coniferous forest
Coniferous forest
Open shrubbery

2
2

4.5

7

5.5

2

2

2

1

2

4.5

3.5

10,4

17,7

16,6

27,10

12,5

20.8

10,4 17,7
8,3 13,5

J- Species with partial territories (less than 0.5) are indicated by a +.

^' Active nests only.

- First figure is breeding pairs/km^; second figure is breeding pairs/100 acres. Density over the
entire plot, including both terrestrial and aquatic habitats, is shown here. Density estimates
are given only for species having more than two breeding pairs per plot.

^/ These figures represent densities in terrestrial or aquatic habitats only for terrestrial and
aquatic species, respectively.

40

CO tsj

CO I • '^

m I

2: CO

_J CTi

*X. uj
Li_ :n

CM CTl

— ' CM

I in

I CM CO CM

CO f^J

3 •"

,_ ._ ^ (U (U

, i?l

'TJ til

41

study area, indicate that the iiarten (Marties americana) was the most
important furbearer during the 1977-1978 season, both in terms of number
of pelts and value of pelts. In terms of total value of pelts, coyote
and bobcat ranked second and third, while the key aquatic furbearers --
beaver, muskrat, and mink -- ranked fourth, fifth, and seventh, respec-
tively (Weckwerth and Cross 1979).

Species Accounts -- Birds

A summary of inventory data for bird species for which additiona'
data were obtained (primarily riparian species) is presented below.
Location codes, as defined in Figure 4, are used to describe locations
where appropriate.

Canada Goose. In 1978, Canada geese were first observed March 7.
They were seen on or flying over the river from Williams Creek (N) to
near Throops Lake (C). Geese were most often observed while in flight
although loafing geese were observed on several occasions just up frrm
Kootenai Falls at the boundary of section M and N. Broods of three and
eight were reported on April 26 and May 15, respectively, upstream from
Throops Lake (D). In 1979, geese were first encountered April 18, the
first day of spring observations, when a pair of geese was seen on the
south river bank at the Falls. A pair was also seen on the river near
Throops Lake. No nests or broods were discovered in 1979.

Mallard. Mallards are year-long residents of the Kootenai River in
the Falls area. They were seen along the river from Bobtail Creek (U)
to below the Falls south of Kootenai Mountain (F). Mallards were seen
in the same sections of river as common goldeneye (M and N); however, on
several occasions they were noted standing and feeding in the white
water and on a fallen log just above the crest of the Falls (L). During
winter, sheltered areas on the shore on the south side of the river were
preferred, while beaches on either side of the river were preferred in
spring. The Mallards were associated with shallow water and shoreline
more often than any other duck observed on the study area. A favorite
loafing site of Mallards was the point of land east of the boundary
between section M and N. A class I-a (Gollop and Marshall 1954) mallard
brood of 6 was observed on May 18, 1978, directly across from China
Creek (N); a brood of 4 was seen on June 29, 1979, swimming among rocks
in the cattail marsh just above the Falls on the south side of the river
(M).

American Wigeon. American wigeon were observed on April 30, 1978,
and once more on May 25, 1978, in the bay area immediately above the
Falls (M). They were apparently using the area as a stopover during
migration.

Common Goldeneye. Common goldeneye were observed at all seasons
and should be considered year-long residents. In 1978, they were seen
along the river from near the city limits of Libby to the vicinity of

42

the only island in the river below the Falls (E), but they were most
often seen in the section of river (M and N) from Williams Creek to the
head of the Falls. Common goldeneye usually nest in cavities in deci-
duous trees (Bell rose 1976). Along the Kootenai River this type of
habitat occurs in the riparian zone. An unverified brood was reportedly
seen June 12, 1978, by fisheries biologist Brad Shepard. In 1979,
Common Goldeneye were often seen in fast water and, in winter, in large
pools sheltered by rocks. They were observed courting in winter and
spring when their numbers were highest. By June, observations of Common
Goldeneyes ranked behind those of Mallards (Table 5). It appears that the
project area is more heavily utilized by the common goldeneyes as a
wintering area than a breeding area. This could be due to the avail-
ability of fast-flowing ice- free water and resultant available food in
winter. During spring and summer, numbers decreased but the common
goldeneye remained on the study area during the nesting season.

Barrow's Goldeneye. In 1978, Barrow's goldeneye were first observed
April 30 and were last observed June 5. No more than two birds were ob-
served on any one occasion although at least two males and one female
were present and used the bay area immediately above the Falls (M).
These birds were apparently transients. Nesting habits of the Barrow's
goldeneye are similar to those of the Common goldeneye. None were seen
in 1979.

Herlequin Duck. One of the most unusual species encountered in
this study was the harlequin duck. Rare and local in its distribution
throughout Montana (Skaar 1975), this species is a highly stenotopic
"K-selected" species, and is restricted to turbulent, fast-flowing
mountain stream habicat. According to Kuchel (1976), the harlequin
duck's "precise ecological requirements and extreme sensitivity to human
intrusion limit breeding activities to remote, pristine areas." While
not formally recognized as a threatened or endangered species, the
harlequin duck is rare throughout its range, and became extinct in
Colorado in the early ISOC's (Kuchel 1976), although a breeding popu-
lation has recently become re-established there (Nelson and Parkes
1976). A small population, consisting of at least 7 individuals in
1978 and 3 in 1979, was found to be closely associated with the Falls
(Table 10). In 1978, the population consisted of one pair, a lone
female, and four bachelor males; while observations were made in river
sections G, H, I, J, L, M, and N, most birds were seen feeding in swift
water at the head of the Falls (L) or loafing on exposed rocks at or
just above the head of the Falls (M). All 7 birds were seen loafing
together, forming a "club" of both paired and unpaired birds as described
by Bengtson (1966:84). The rushing water at the head of the Falls,
where the river first begins to break over the rocky benches, was a
preferred feeding site. Harlequins feed almost exclusively on aquatic
insect larvae (Bengt:.on and Ulfstrand 1971, Bengtson 1972, Kuchel 1976).
Simuliidae (Diptei^a) were the major food source in Iceland, and while
Orthocladiinae were found to be much more abundant dipterans in bottom
samples taken in the Kootenai Falls area, Simuliidae were dominant in
substrate basket samples (Graham 1979) and are probably abundant in the

43

TABLE 10. Harlequin duck observations in the Kootenai Falls area, 1978-1979.

Minimum number known present

Location
Date Males Females Pairs Total (River Section)

1978

April 18 1 - - 1 L

April 21 1 - - 1 H,L

June 13 1 1 - 2 G,H

July 31 - 2 - 2 L

August 1 - 2 - 2 L

April 29

1

May i

1

May 2

2

May 7

1

May 8

2

May 9

3

May 11

1

May 21

1

May 22

1

May 29

1

June 2

1

June 5

4

June 6

5

June 7

5

June 8

5

June 9

5

June 16

-

1979

-

1

L

1

2

L

1

3

M

1

2

J,L

-

3

L

2

5

L

1

2

L,M,N

1

2

F,I,L,M,N

1

2

H

-

1

M

-

1

M

1

6

J,L,M

1

7

L,M

1

7

L,M

1

7

L,M

1

7

M

-

1

L

44

preferred feeding sites which are characterized by laminar rather than
turbulent flow (Hynes 1970). Harlequin ducks nest in tree cavities,
fissures in rocks, or on the ground near turbulent water (Peterson 1961,
Bellrose 1976, Bengtson 1966); the majority of broods hatch during the
first week of July and do not feed in fast water for two weeks. A
search of the Falls area on June 29-30, 1978 failed to reveal either
adult birds or young.

Fewer harlequin ducks were present at the Falls in 1979 than in
1978; only 8 or 9 observations were made during the report period. The
first individual encountered in 1979, a lone male, was seen at the head
of the Falls on April 18. On April 21, 1979, a male was seen below the
footbridge and another (possibly the same individual) on rocks just
above the Falls. According to Kuchel (1976), non-breeding males arrive
in Montana in mid-April, two or three weeks before the rest of the
population; it is therefore likely that these April observations represent
non-breeding individuals. Harlequins were next seen on June 13, 1979,
when a female was seen swimming along the shoreline near the bend in the
river between sections G and H. It was only observed for a few minutes
before it disappeared among the rocks. A male was also seen flying back
and forth in this same area, but there was no indication that the two
were paired (Smith 1979). An intensive search was made of the Falls
area for harlequins on June 13-14 and 27-30, but no birds were seen.
Two females were seen together at the head of the Falls on July 31 and
again on August 1, 1979; a careful search of river section G-L for
broods on August 1 failed to yield additional observations. Kuchel
(1976) reports that, in Glacier Park, pairs dissolve and all males
usually leave the breeding grounds in mid-June. Non-breeding females
may depart as the final males leave the area, while females with broods
remain until August. While it is therefore possible that the June 13,

1979 observations represent a nesting pair, and the females seen in
August were breeding individuals which had lost either nests or broods,
it is also likely that the 1979 Falls area population is simply a non-
breeding aggregation, as described by Bengtson (1972). Breeding popu-
lations may occur in larger tributaries of the Kootenai River (such as
China Creek), although none have yet been reported. The nearest known
breeding population is at Grave Creek, a tributary of Fortine Creek
(Weydemeyer 1979).

Common Merganser. Common mergansers were observed during all
seasons, and were observed more universally along the river than any
other duck species. They were seen on the river from near the city
limits of Libby to near Throops Lake (D). Second only to harlequin
ducks, common mergansers used the fast water of the Falls for feeding
and security (I, J, L). Common mergansers nest in cavities of deciduous
trees, usually near water. At least two broods (probably creches)
having an average brood size of 11.5 were seen in 1978 between Williams
Creek and China Creek (N and Z). A brood of 7 was seen on June 27 and 28,
1979, in river section M and P.

45

Bald Eagle. The bald eagle was classified as an endangered species
in Montana in March of 1978. During this study, bald eagles were observed
on 8 occasions during the winter of 1977-1978, at the following locations:
directly over the Falls (J); immediately below Kootenai Falls over the
footbridge (H); downriver from this location approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi)
(F); on two occasions at the lower entrance of the river gorge (D); near
the junction of Highways 2 and 202 (two perched in conifers along the
river); and one perched in a conifer near the town of Libby. Observations
made during the winter of 1978-1979 are summarized in Table 11, and
locations of birds seen are shown in Figure 6. Most use of the area by
bald eagles occured from October through March. No active nests have
been found in the area (Kichura and Ruediger 1978; Meyer 1979), although
observations made in the Falls area in June and July of 1978 indicate
possible breeding. The nearest known active nest on the Kootenai River
in Montana is located along Lake Koocanusa, near the Canadian border
(Craighead and Craighead 1979). Wintering bald eagle populations of the
Kootenai River have been the subject of recent study in connection with
the proposed Libby reregulating dam (LAURD) (Craighead and Craighead 1979)
and the proposed BPA 230-kV Libby Integration and Northwest Montana/North
Idaho Support Project (Meyer 1979). Kichura and Ruediger (1978) also
collected nesting data in the area as part of an osprey survey.

According to Craighead and Craighead (1979), fall migration through
the LAURD area occurs from early September to early December, overwintering
from early December through late February, and spring migration from
late February to mid-April. The LAURD area was found to be more important
as a stopover for migrating eagles (an estimated 350 eagles pass through -
the southward migration) than as a wintering area (only 12 or fewer were
known to overwinter). Craighead and Craighead (1979) estimate the
overwintering population on the Kootenai River from Porthill to Libby
Dam to be about 40. Meyer (1979) obtained a high count of 14 for the
Yaak River - Libby section of the Kootenai River in early December,
1978, but only about 7-10 eagles winter on this section (Meyer 1979,
Craighead and Craighead 1979). The area of heaviest concentration was
between Kootenai Falls and Quartz Creek, which contained 40 percent of
the eagles observed in this river section. Overall, the Kootenai River
near Kootenai Falls appears to be less important as a wintering area for
bald eagles than other major rivers of northwestern Montana; estimates
of eagle density obtained by the National Wildlife Federation's national
midwinter bald eagle survey (conducted January 13-27, 1979) for the
lower Flathead, Clark Fork, and Kootenai rivers were 1.80, 6.73, and
8.56 river kilometers/eagle (1.12, 4.18, and 5.32 river miles/eagle),
respectively. Use of the Kootenai River as a wintering area appears to
be limited by food availability; fish are apparently the major winter
food source in the Kootenai Falls area, and there is no concentrated
food source (such as a fish spawning run) available (Meyer 1979). Meyer
(1979) found that tall cottonwoods and Douglas fir received the greatest
use as perch trees, and that most perch trees were located 15.2 m (50 ft)
or less from the river. Similar findings were obtained by Craighead and
Craighead (1979) and this study.

on

46

TABLE 11. Minimum numbers of bald eagles seen along the
Kootenai River, October 1978-February 1979.

Location

Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

Nov.

Jan.

Feb.

Feb.

Feb.

16

18

20

23

21

20

10

11

12

Above Falls
Below Falls

47

C

o

•f—

+J

S-

m

OJ

>

4-J

s-

c

QJ

• f—

l/l

^

^

-^ — ^

-o

O

>>

c

QJ

•

S- ra

<o

I—

rt;

a> =3

cn

0)

JD i-

, —

ro

!-

E -Q

1—

OJ

ro

(L> QJ

in

> Li_

4-

-o

l/l

O 1

f—

I —

Z >,

4-

fO

1 —

1 i-

o

jO

03

s- ro

Ll_

OJ 3

CO

cn

-Q C

c

r~-

•f—

O fO

o

cn

fa

•l-J ^^3

• r-

r—i

c

u ~— -

-!->

1

OJ

o

13

CO

+-)

-— cn

( )

r^

o

r^

O

cn

o

00 cn

_J

. — 1

:^

cn

^O

r— +->
1— C

liJ

fT3 •>-

oc

u- 2:

^

CD

II II

Ll.

X o

49

Pff

V I

' ' vA

a ^"-^H

r'A-'Y '

r^-O

'Mi

gj

Osprey. Osprey were frequently observed in the Falls area in the
summer and fall and were usually seen fishing in the stretch of river
between the Falls and the transmission line crossing (section M, Figure 4).
This area is fairly shallow, offering easy fishing. On two occasions,
successful fishing bouts were witnessed in which the Ospreys caught
fairly large mountain whitefish, then flew off upstream and out of sight
into drainages on the south side of the river. The Osprey appear to use
the river and Falls area as a preferred feeding area. The Kootenai
River supports a healthy, and apparently stable or growing, breeding
osprey population (Craighead and Craighead 1979). The nearest known nest
site is located near Throops Lake, area code 25 (Kichura and Ruediger 1978-,
Meyer 1979), Although no nests were located in the Falls area, it is
believed that one pair nested up Williams Creek (area code 21-22), and
another pair might have nested on or near Lynx Flats (1). A pair was
reportedly observed going through the motions of building a nest above
the highway retaining wall midway down the gorge (22), but since the
activity occurred in mid-June and was not completed, it is likely this
pair was either immature or was engaging in an unsuccessful renesting
attempt.

American Kestrel . The nest of an American kestrel was located in
an abandoned woodpecker hole in a cottonwood snag immediately upriver
from the Falls (21). The nesting kestrel and a nesting common flicker
in an adjacent snag were observed harassing each other on several occa-
sions. Success of the kestrel nest was not determined.

Dipper. Dippers were present in the Falls area throughout the
study period. They were observed feeding in fast water on the Falls in
the winter, when tributary streams are frozen or snowbound. They were
also observed feeding in rapids on rocks upstream from the Falls.
Kootenai Falls provides suitable habitat for nesting (Bakus 1959),
although fluctuating water levels probably make nesting hazardous. No
nests were located during this study. Many small streams feed into the
river on the north and south shore, providing additional habitat for
Dippers. Table 5 presents census data for Dippers; the greatest number
seen on a single day in 1979 was nine on August 1, when newly fledged
young were abundant. Dippers appeared to be concentrated near the Falls
during all seasons, probably because of increased food density. Worthy
of special note is the Dipper population which winters at the Falls. On
one occasion 11 Dippers were observed feeding in the rushing water. The.
average number of Dippers observed during 11 winter trips to the Falls
(sections J, K, L, and the downstream third of M) was 6.25. Dippers
move to lower elevations to find fast water during winter; they do not
undertake long-distance migrations. Because of this, the few available
stretches of free-flowing white water become critical wintering areas.
Kootenai Falls constitutes such an area.

Species Accounts -- Mammals

A summary of inventory data for mammal species for which additional
data were obtained is presented below.

51

Beaver. An active beaver lodge was discovered on the river's south
shore, upriver from the Falls, below the powerline crossing, on the
boundary of river sections M and N (Figure 4). Den openings were in an
undercut bank protected by a flexible barricade of cut branches and
shrubs which allowed secure access to and from the den regardless of
river fluctuation.

River Otter. Only one verified sighting of a river otter was made
during this study. On June 29, 1979, one individual, probably a transient,
was observed swimming, fishing, and cliiiibing on rocks just above the
Falls (section M). An unverified sighting by a fisherman was reportedly
made in this same area in 1978.

White-tailed Deer. White-tailed deer were infrequently seen during
this study and are apparently uncommon in the Falls area, probably due
to limited security and railroad and highway related disturbance. Only 11
observations were recorded in 1978 and 1 (a male seen near the Falls
Septemoer 2) in 1979. Locations of sightings and sign are shown in
Figure 7. Monthly distribution of sightings for the period January -
July, 1978, is shown in Table 12, and the distribution ot all deer
observations (mule and white-tailed, including sign) among habitat types
and elevation categories is shown in Table 13. MDFWP harvest estimates
indicate a 1978 harvest of 945 deer, of which 66 percent were white-tailed
deer, in hunting district 100, which includes the study area (Weckwerth
et al. 1979).

Mule Deer. Mule deer also appear to be uncommon in the study area;
18 observations were made in 1978 and none in 1979 (Figure 7; Tables 12
and 13).

Elk. A single set of elk tracks was observed in the study area in
1978 (Figure 7); no additional evidence of elk use of the area was
obtained.

Moose. Two sets of moose tracks were observed in the study area in
1978 (Figure 7). A cow and calf were reportedly seen near the Lion's
Club turnout in early June, 1979 (McGrady 1979).

Bighorn Sheep. Bighorn sheep were the most frequently observed
ungulate in the Kootenai Falls study area. Twenty-one bighorns were
transplanted along the Kootenai River between Libby and Troy in 1954,
1955, and 1963. Sporadic observations have been made by MDFWP personnel
(K. Knoche and B. Campbell) since 1974. Only the information collected
since June 1977 was utilized in the following analysis.

From June 1977 through July 1978, 109 groups totaling 522 sheep
observations were recorded (Table 14). These consisted of 91 rams, 247
ewes, 102 lambs, and 82 unclassified sheep. Monthly censuses were
conducted from February through June, 1978, and the number observed
during any one census represented a minimum number of sheep present on
the visible portion of the study area. During the February census, 40

52

53

cr:
C3

54

55

9^.

CM —

Cl 0)
E M

n ■•-

CO ■— r—

CM I— r—

13

O

>

S-

U

JZ

<D

•*->

t/l

JD

>i

O

V.

fo

l_

3

<U

c

QJ

13

Q

■-^

^

.13 -1-

<J1 LO

CM I O CO

(U o

U 1—

1-

r-- o o r^

CM r- LO

ro CO CO UD
U3 .— r-

.— CO m m

u -rc ex <y>

CJ^ (X) O CM

o o
o o

CM CO
CM CM

*J r-t .-H +J
^ O O M-

O CM
O CM CM O

CM E E CM

- — o m ----
r^ in

e uD CO E

cr> I I CO
o o •-< in
^£3 •— ' r^ 00

:^

Rfi

0)

o
o

+->

c

o

E

^

u

la

(U

0)

■o

E

i/>

c

o

•r—

■!->

fO

>

S-

0)

1/1

-Q

O

Q.

0)

V

J=

10

c

S-

o

^

O)

•

00

-Q

r^

CTl

H-

^—

O

>^

5-

1 —

OJ

3

ja

rs

E

3

1

c

r~^

-o

r-~

c:

CTi

(O

f—

</i

dj

Q.

c

3

3

O

'^

s_

en

#«

to

4-

OJ

O

s-

TJ

s_

0)

>1

.a

-o

E

3

^

+->

(/)

<u

CO

Q.

XI

QQ

in

Q.

o

C3

O)
-Q

OJ

>

s_
(/I

XI

o

00

en

OJ

00

(NJ

CM
CD

00

UD

00

Ln

o

<X)

r-^

r-~

«=)•

"^

r^

CO

CM

^1-

OJ

Ln

o

, —

CM

CO

CO

, —

C\J

"^J-

CNJ

C3-I

,

IT)

LD

CM
LD

■— ^ r—

C.I

CO
CNJ

CO

C3-1
O

C3

s-

s_

>i

r>.

QJ

a>

00

>>

S-

r-^

^

XI

r~

s-

rO

Tl

E

E

en

fO

Z3

1 —

OJ

cu

CU

^—

3

S_

c:

>

u

C

J3

3

o

cu

n3

<U

'O

Q

•D

U.

•a:

n3

13

>>

57

sheep were o^^served, followed by 76 in March, 74 in April, 46 in May,
and 35 in June. These figures represent the maximum number of sheep
observed during any one census. Observability of sheep was hampered by
dense timber, rugged terrain, and ground censusing from one elevation
along the highway. Aerial surveys vere limited due to dangerous flying
conditions in the narrow canyon. A capture and mark program would be
necessary to obtain population estimates or year}y trends.

Bighorn ewes do not normally breed until 2.5 years of age (Smith
1954). It was difficult to separate the yearling ewe component and the
1/2 to 3/4 year old rams from adult ewes depending upon the date of
observation. The unclassified portion of the herd consisted of this
faction and possibly some adult ewes. Sheep classified as lambs in
April were considered yearlings in May, since two newborn lambs were
observed May 7. The lamb/ewe ratio (primary age ratio) based on classified
animals for the February through April period was 50.5/100. This figure
may be high if adult ewes were inadvertently unclassified. The ratio is
39.4/100 when the unclassified segment is incorporated. The true primary
age ratio falls within this range (11 percent). Stelfox (1976) indicates
that the average primary age ratio of four Canadian bighorn herds during
the winter period was 45.6 lambs/100 ewes, which compares closely with
these findings; however Brown (1974) found an 82 percent ratio for the
February through April period in the nearby Thompson Falls herd. Age
ratios cannot be used to interpret herd vigor (Caughley 1974) because
the population may be exploding or crashing while the age ratio is doing
the opposite, depending upon other demographic factors. The 1978 ram/ewe
ratio for all months combined was 36.8/100. During a May 3, 1979,
helicopter survey of the Kootenai Falls area, MDFWP personnel observed
80 sheep and obtained ratios of 33 lambs: 100 ewes and 58 rams: 100 ewes
(Weckwerth et al. 1979).

The activity or behavior of all observed bighorns was recorded
according to one of five activity patterns (Table 15). Seasonal changes
did not seem to influence activities, although walking and running were
observed more often during the summer months. The sheep observed showed
no apparent reaction to the presence of train work crews or other human
presence on the south side of the river. Trains pass through the area
fairly regularly and the sheep are probably habituated to the noise
created. Highway 2 is clearly visible from the north bluffs, but auto
traffic had no apparent effect on the sheep.

Habitat use on the Kootenai Falls bighorn sheep range is summarized
in Tables 16 through 20. As previously mentioned, an observability bias
was present which likely influenced the data. A radio-tracking program
would be necessary to alleviate this type of bias. Table 16 and Figure 8
reveal where bighorns were observed, by season. From November through
March, most bighorns were observed from just below the Falls (area 3),
across Kootenai Mountain (areas 1 and 2). During spring and summer
(except for June) the majority of sheep were found on other portions of
the study area, upriver from the Falls. During November through March
the majority of sheep were observed using the broken terrain type (Table 17)

58

I

o

CO

>i

3

CD

O

S-

CTi

■o

>.

'J

cn

3

cn

c:

CO
C5

CD

LD

O
ID

LD
CO

^
^

CO CO

C\J r—

Ol

+->

O

o

.C

o
o.

OJ

i.
o

cn

•r-

-Q

4-
O

U

re

C

o

Ol

OJ

03

cn

c

-a

Ol

o

«* r—

OD

CNJ

OO

CM

LD

r^

CvJ

uo

oo

o

CO

O
CM

IT)

CO

o

ir5

CM

CM

CM

CM
C\J

cri

CM

CM

^

CM
CO

00

LD

00

O
CO

r^
^

CO

CO
CM

O
CO

o
r-~.

CO
CM

CO

CO

_

C7^
C^

^

c:
o

!=

c

•I —

!_

rs
-o

to

c
o
•I—

>

s_

<D
l/l
JD
O

Q.
O)
CD

OJ
cn
(O

c

0)

o

t.

(U

ca.

(U

Q

CO

1 —

CT>

00

C

r>.

>o

CT>

1

CO

co

CO

<^

r->.

r-.

r-^

r-~

CO

t —

>>

CT^

CTi

CO

r--

r>.

<Tl

s_

1 —

1 —

1^

T-l

cr>

^—

fO

cri

3

^

^—

r—

•

S_

(J

• r—

CU

>,

>

^

S-

i-

>,

c

O

QJ

IT3

Q.

(C

Zi

3

Z

U-

s:

<;

z:

o

T

>
S-
(U

(/)
o
o.

0)

+->

(O

c

+i

o

o

£

+-»

<U

»»-

-C

o

■(->

(U

cn

CD

c

(O

•r-

•

+->

i-

"O

c

3

OJ

OJ

TD

c

o

•r—

s_

■o

J3

CU

<U

E

CL

>

o

^^^

S_

(J

to

0)

Q.

to

t!

3

-O

+->

o

o

fO

i-

-o

CJ>

01

.

Q.

CX)

>,

r^

3

r^

(O

O

a^

C

+J

s-

^—

o

o

cn

+J

■o

-0

>+-

c

+J

4-

O

<vs

n3

■a

o

QJ

r^

CU

CD

r-^

■CO

CD

fO

<n

r^

n3

+->

r—

en

-U

c

1 —

CZ

OJ

••

QJ

U

CD

>>

O

S-

c

S-

QJ

3

3

QJ

a.

•-3

-D

D.

r--l cmI ro| .^

59

-^

c^

CO •—

UD r*-. <—

CNJ -—

CM I—

f— CO rsj .— r—

-^ ---. -^ ----- "--^

ro *:?■ CM ^ ro

.— CM

.— CO CM

I — CM

o O ro

CM '— »—

O O CO

CsJ .— CvJ

^

.^

^

f— to

a\ •— <—

.— .— c

r~ 1-

r^ cmI rnl ^ LOl

60

<0

>.

o

o

01

a.
>.

o
u
u

Ol
lU

^

<— IT)

CD

^

<ct

^

■ — 1X3

C^J^ r^ ■?!

64

but from April through July sheep were most commonly observed on the
bluff terrain type. Although bighorns have occasionally been observed
south of the highway, for purposes of this survey, the sheep range was
considered the north side of the canyon. Because of this survey,
sheep were predominantly observed on south aspects during all months
(Table 18). During November through March the majority of sheep were
observed using slopes between 10 and 35 degrees (Table 19), while
during April through July sheep were observed on all slopes. Through
April, the majority of sheep observed were at elevations between 670 m
(3300 ft) and 835 m (2800 ft). After April, sheep appeared to be dis-
persed at all observable elevations (Table 20). Habitat use in 1979
was generally similar to that observed in 1978, although no quantitative
analyses were made.

A partially paralyzed bighorn lamb captured on June 8, 1978, was
suffering from a large infestation of ticks and secondary afflictions
including wounds, pneumonia, and dehydration. Efforts to improve his
condition were unsuccessful so he was dispatched on June 18. The carcass
was sent to the veterinary clinic in Bozeman for autopsy.

During 1979 winter transects, no sheep were seen. The weather
during that time made visibility extremely poor with fog limiting the
view considerably. A major blizzard and ice storm came through the area
on January 21, 1979, and rain and snow prevailed on other transect days
in winter. Any sheep present on visible portions of the study area
during that time were probably in sheltered areas.

In 1979, the largest number of sheep were observed in April when
the sheep were at or near the lowest portions of their range. A total
of 41 observations were made during the four days spent in the field
that month. The largest single group totaled 14 and was observed feeding
in a fairly open area on the forested southeast slope of Kootenai Mountain.
The largest group sizes (2-14) were seen during April. Most of the
sheep observed were on exposed rock and in open areas in the forest on
the north side cf the river. The majority of observations were made
west of the Falls, between the retaining wall and the Falls. The talus
slopes directly north of the Falls seemed to act as a barrier to move-
ment of large groups upstream. Sheep were observed upstream in grassy
areas near the water's edge, but in much lower numbers. Such riparian
grassland is normally an important component of bighorn sheep spring
range, but most use during the study period prcbably occurred at night.

During spring and sumner of 1979, sheep were observed feeding along
the north shore near the water's edge in the area where the powerline
crosses the river (area code N). This area is considered important for
spring forage and MDFWP is trying to purchase some of the grassy benches
in this area for sheep habitat (Christensen 1979). Bluffs across from
the retaining wall were utilized fairly regularly in spring and summer,
1979. This area is accessible by a footbridge, but does not appear to
be heavily utilized by people.

65

s-
o

4J >,

in I —

■I- 3

■o O

.— .— in CO ■— r— r-

CMC\jr^>X>i — ■ — I — r—

I— KO

n I—
o o

csi .— f—

^

^

CO

<^

■ — rtj

^1

. — .— c

j1 rol ^

66

-'d- r—

TJ- ^

O

IT) ,— _

o

^ <— O LO

f^ fO ,— ,—

;^

^

•U CO

•— en
JC ID
J-> o

00

^

c: . — , —

s:
67

•— I tsjl (^ ^

Of

c:

7 o
- o

NJ O

J^ O

-t O

& o
o

-^^

.— CO ^

UD .-1
O

4-) CO

CTi O
CD O

CO

S 5

^

.^

^

C r- A^

.—1 OvTl rol t^ LfTl

68

In 1978, 5 ram permits and 10 ewe permits were issued for Hunting
District 100, which includes the Kootenai Falls herd. Hunter success
was 100 percent for rams and 75 percent for ewes (Weckwerth and Cross
1979, Weckwerth et al. 1979).

69

SUMMARY OF HABITAT RELATIONS

The Kootenai FaPs area is a complex mosaic of many different
habitats, each harboring its own assemblag'^ of animals. Figure 9
shows the pattern of distribution of selected vertebrates among habitats
of three generalized cross-sections of the Kootenai River Valley (at the
Falls, at the gorge below the Falls, and upstream from the Falls).
Typical vertebrate species associated with each of the habitat categories
listed in Table 1 are discussed below.

Water Habitats

Rapids. The only species which was observed to use rapids extensively
was the dipper. Aquatic insects associated with rapids provided an
important food source for the dipper, and wintering dippers concentrated
at major rapids.

Fall s. Kootenai Falls is the only remaining unimpounded falls of a
major river in Montana, and as such provides a unique habitat. The
Falls of the Yaak River, located north of Troy, is smaller and of lower
gradient than Kootenai Falls and does not provide a comparable habitat.
Kootenai Falls actually consists of several very different habitats,
which receive different levels of use by different wildlife species.
The thalweg (deepest part) of the river channel is located near the
north bank of the river at the Falls, and -- at all flows -- most of the
water volume descends the Falls through this channel. Water velocity is
high in this constricted channel, and flow is very turbulent. A large
island separates the main flow into north and south channels just below
the head of the Falls. The only species observed to use the crashing,
turbeulent water and spray of the main channels was the dipper. The
head of the Falls and the minor channels below are a highly variable
environment, depending on the pattern of discharge from Libby Dam. A
series of relatively flat rock benches occur at the head of the Falls,
south of the main channel and form a stairstep pattern leading to the
sheer rock dropoffs of the Falls itself. These rock benches are densely
covered with periphyton the river's southern bank. At low flows of 112
to 168 cms (4,000 - 6,000 cfs), most of this rock is dry and exposed or
supports a gentle trickle of water from the relatively calm pool upstream;
relatively little water descends over the Falls here, and the minor
channels downstream are essentially calm pools. At high flows of 168 cms
(6,000 cfs) and higher, a much larger volume of water cascades in a
turbulent manner over the rock benches and the edge of the Falls, and
the minor channels are turbulent as well, producing considerable spray
and white water. At nearly all discharges, water flow across the benches
between "stairsteps" is laminar rather than turbulent somewhere near the
center of the Falls, and provides preferred feeding habitat for the
harlequin ducks, the most distinctive and characteristic species of the
Falls habitat. Harlequins are presumably feeding on diptera larvae
(probably Simuliidae) in this swift water. Dippers feed in the same
general area, but competition with the harlequins for food resources is
avoided, as dippers feed in shallower water, closer to the rocks, and

70

o.i.i 1/, ;.ui ^':.i' ,

jatqjPM ottiAqsi'N -r,'-dv "S
■•■.■■■TMilJ ('■■■'•■'' :;-|:n'ia't^'' i
ja^qji'M s,/eJAiill03«W '-*? 5 I

MOjjpds 6uos

jBtqjPM M0LL3A

>(uniudiqo auid «oil.3A

MOjjpd^ 6uo$
Js^qjeM M0t[3A

jaAPSg

jaduipue^ panodj 'jaapi[i>
U0J3H ania jeajo 'jaddiQ

/COjdSQ

MOnB«s uaajQ-iaioiA

aAauaptog s.MOJjeg

a/'auap[O0 uouimoo

"jasup5jai.| uoiuuoj

J83;0 JS/^ia

jasus5jaH uomuioj 'jadidpup; pai;od5
3/(aaapi09 uoiuiiioo 'asoog eppueQ

uo-iaH an^a ;esJ9

utqoy upDueinv
-laLjdo'j ;a-pod u.taqijoij

_^J

o

>

uiqoy UPDijaujv

ja6euti uj.nsa'i

aape)(Diq3 poddeD-pPia

ODunp pa/Ca-^jtQ '[[iqssojj pay

uiqoy upDuauiv/ 'moj3 uouiujoo

lajjiribs punojo pa^iupw-uapioo

>m^>?,v-

jaoG ainw

oaaqS ujoqSia

MO J 3 iioi:i.uo3

utqoy ueiuaiui/

71

lliqssoj] pay j3BBuPi ujoqsaKsZ>.iS;^
I3jjinb5 pax yunuidi^Q P3|.ej.-p3y "^VriJ?

3S00W )||3 03unc p3Aa-)(jea

'I

03Ji/\ Cut[q.i?f.| oajtA po/:a-p3yC'4-^i'!C^'A;^

q5n-4i paueA uiqoa LiPDiJ3iuv^'"'r?\>,--«i^^
jadaajo umo.iu MSjeqviN pa;seaja-p3jp;S,<- Si'A
3?pe>DmO uie^unoH a3pe>|3iq3 f>')':i'Jeo-^dv\<f-'i,t'h.'Sy'1.\
MOJO L.01UU103 UBAPa uouiiiej /Cep sjamic '-^J;''' tiiVi

uaM3}e3,fH xeuopidiua j3)(Diij uouiiloo -^^'r<M^

)|uniudtL|3 au.Ld-MOnoA

, . MO [lews IJ03J.J-;3I0LA

MOJjeds 6uos Jaiqje;^ mo^sa laj-iinbs puno^o ueiqiiinioo

jaqdOQ 5apod u aq;.(OK ai OA'MOpeai-i

aiOA paLie;-buoT asno^ tSuidunp wopeaw Mujjcds buos

M3J4S ;upjbeA 3A3u3pL09 unuiuoo JaiqJPM moi i3a

35003 epeueO ua^ea 'J0^^;;i03 jiqoa euiiu-'g iinzn

6ui,v xp;.; JepaD Ja)t33dpooM Ajibh usaph uouiuiCj .. ,
MOJO iJoi'J.iioo ■'a-^Oiii uomiioo iaj:,sa;j updusujw /V^^^.v

^|;;^^0il__;^'3jdso ai5K3 pi=g MoueMs'aoJi "-^i'H S

'""' " '^" " " H 1

pjiqwoo papeaq-uM0j3 ■'ai^J^M padmnj-MOt la/ \^

P'iftiei-.5;.''j

uojflH an[g ;eaj9" pjPiH-'H JOApag', "^-'--^ H

jadidpuor pa-j^ods priQ ULnba[jt'H ., £

Jsnp^'i;) JaddiQ ?_ oj

MOKPMc uaojfj-;,<[O.A

a/Cauapto'j uoaiiuoo

joddiQ

jadidpues pa;5ods pjiqwoo papBa|.;-u,v,oj'j

uoy; paiUO-Bina

,1 I

-' - ■ V '--a :. ' » I'V

'^'■:d

II I nK-i . ir... iM ^

uojan a

)tDnQ uLnboijpH

jaGuebia^ij uou.-iioo

-^ajdsQ

\

jaddiQ
uaA!?a uouiuoj jai|sij6iii> paiisg

P-"?Ui'W I ^ <

/

jaBeupj^ ujBTsaM iy \ •-'

3epe)|DH|0 paddea-^sp^g ^w""'!.'^* "
ODunp pdAa-),jL'Q iLia ssojo pay .'wV''

uiqo;j MOJO iioiiiiioo uoApy iiuiiiijoo

J'
T' !S daaqs Luoqoig asnoiii jaar] .;^

^ £ [ajjinb'-; punoj'j pa[-)ijpi^-uop|0'j .'/^

Mu.rj uoiiiuo) .-!^ .'■•'•/'. ^s'-^

uaAPa uoii:;iioj ..■|bnpii"j , ), ''kir .v'''^

L/1

O -

'- fO

O f—

■O Di

o o

s

MO.upd^ 5uos '^^'■
j3[q.a'M MO[[aA

aa3Q 3[n
9snow jeaQ

:iejpoo,'.i p9|_ Lei-/Ci|sng
auLPli [OS s.puasuMOi

M0[L9MS u3au9-io[oiA
uiqo^

pjPLieW

J3SUL'6^3|^ UOUJUiOQ

pnQ ULnb9[jPH

aA'rtUop[05 uouiiiioo

>|uniiiLluo oii; cl-MO[ [3A
daaL|5 ujOLiBig

oounp paAa-^jup
joiquPM pocluiriy-MO[ [aA vjaGyuei uaa-}se,'{
oaji/\ pa/.'a-pny acpp>t3m:) paddpo-)jari f

[^iqssojn pay

uiqoy Moj'j U0U1U103 jaLpieoA'[j. xeuopidiuj
uaAey uouhuoq ja>j3i[j uouiujoo

[O-tJi.nh'; punoa9 p3[;ufi.j-uap [09
cjaai|5 uJoq5ia

^

S_

(O

<v

c

'■"^

c

4-

0

c

• f—

■

0

*->

OJ

(-J

<-)

CJl

-.

QJ

"O

uo

■f—

iji

X3

0

in

•(->

0

0

UJ

u

0

(j;

CJ

14-

=D

C3

~ Y\

O) -ii

OS

s- 0

QJ r-

(D 0

3 C/l

CO Cd

(J U1

i/l ra

(U '-

U- CJ

U- <_)

select different prey (primarily Ephe.meroptera, Trichoptera, and
Oiptera, with very few Simuliidae) (F^itchell 1963). Mallards, common
goldeneye, spotted sandpipers, a river otter were observed i; the
relatively slow water between rock benches at the head of the Falls. A
beaver was seen along a minor channel on the south bank of ttie river at
a time when discharge war relatively low. Common ravens and common
crows were occasionally seen on exposed rocks at the head of the Falls,
presumably drinking or scavpnging on carrion trapped on the exposed
recks or logjams. Harlequin ducks were also observed in fairly quiet
side channels just below the Falls or perched on rocks adjacent to the
main channel .

Slow Water. Relatively slow, deep water occurs both above and
below the Falls; its distribution and extent are controlled largely by
the pattern of discharge from Libby Dam. Large flocks of mallards,
common goldeneye, and common mergansers were frequently seen swimming in
this habitat; harlequin ducks, Canada geese, Barrow's goldeneye, American
wigeon, belted kingfishers, and ring-billed and California gulls were
seen less frequently. Spotted sandpioers, great blue herons, ana dippers
used shoreline areas for feeding. Csprey and (presumably) bald eagles
use these relatively slow and deep stretches of the river for feeding.
Otter, muskrat, and beaver were also observed in slow water.

Fast Water. Constricted areas, especially the main river channel
in the gorge below the Falls, are characterized by fast, turbulent flows
and are used by a few species, including mallards, common goldeneye,
harlequin ducks, common mergansers, and dippers.

Aquatic Vegetation (Rooted). The mallard, common merganser, and
river otter were the only species seen using this very limited habitat,
which occurs only in a relatively quiet backwater-like area at the head
of the Falls on the south bank of the river. A mallard brood used this
area extensively, and it apparently provides the only suitable brood-
rearing habitat for puddle ducks in the Falls area.

Sparsely Vegetated Habitats

Exposed Rock or Logjams (in River). A peninsula of boulders and
rocky rubble extends into the river from the south bank just upstream
from the head of the Falls; when cut off from shore by high discharges,
these rocks were preferred loafing habitat for "clubs" of harlequin
ducks, and were used also by spotted sandpipers, dippers, ring-billed
gulls, mallards, and Barrow's and common goldeneye. Small islands of
exposed rock and the log and debris jams at the head of the Falls were
extensively used as loafing habitat (or as perching areas between feeding
bouts) by great blue herons, mallards, harlequin ducks, common mergansers,
ring-billed gulls, dippers, common crows, and brown- headed cowbirds.
Dippers were the most characteristic species on exposed rock surrounded
by water below the Falls.

74

Bare Rock (Upland). The nearly vertical rock cliffs forming the
river gorge between the footbridge and the concrete retaining wall were
used as nesting sites by rough-winged swallows, robins, and possibly
violet-green swallows.

Gravel Bars. Spotted sandpiper breeding territories were typically
associated with gravel bars along the river; great blue herons, Canada
geese, mallards, American wigeon, common goldeneye, common mergansers,
and killdeer also used this habitat.

Scree and Talus. Rockslides and talus slopes were most common on
the steep hillside to the north of the Falls; they were used occasionally
by bighorn sheep, and provided cover for golden-mantled ground squirrels
and yellow pine chipmunks. A single deer mouse was the only mammal
taken in pitfall traps set in loose rock, but both masked and vagrant
shrews probably occur there as well. Pikas have been reported to use
this habitat at unusually low elevations along the Fisher River near the
study area (Hoffman et al. 1979a), but none were observed during this
study.

Rocky Outcrops (Upland). A raven nest was located on a steep rock
outcrop above Highway 2. On the north side of the river, sparsely vege-
tated cliffs and rocky bluffs were used extensively by bighorn sheep,
and also by merlin, Townsend's solitaire, and bushy- tailed woodrat.

Grassland and Marsh Habitats

Riparian Grasslands and Hayfields. While these habitats were used
occasionally for feeding or loafing by a variety of birds from adjacent
tree and shrub habitats (e.g., American robins, common ravens, song
sparrows) and by Canada geese and common goldeneye, they supported no
typical grassland species (such as savannah sparrow or western meadowlarks) ,
probably because of their limited extent. Nevertheless, such
habitats are characterized by relatively high primary productivity, and
are a prime food source for grazing herbivores , particularly voles (Microtus
spp.) and bighorn sheep. Figure 8 shows where relatively flat, grassy
slopes of this habitat occur adjacent to rocky areas used heavily by
bighorn sheep on the north side of the river. In tliese areas, bighorn
sheep occupy the lowest elevations in late March and early April ; these
highly productive grasslands provide a key food source. Small mammals
taken during the trapping effort in this habitat include the vagrant
shrew, meadow vole, long-tailed vole, and meadow jumping mouse. Burrows
of northern pocket gophers and Columbian ground squirrels were observed
in this habitat, and western garter snakes were found only in this habitat.

Fescue Grassland. This grassland type is also an important source
of forage for bighorn sheep. It Is occupied oy yellow-pine chipmunks
and probably deer mice and vagrant shrews, as well as various birds
using adjacent timber and shrub habitats.

75

Cattail Marsh. Mallards were the only vertebrates observed using
the small patch of cattails located on the south bank of the river
adjacent to the head of the Falls, but it is likely used by vole? and
deer mice. The area is too snrll and isolated to provide suitable
oreeding habitat for such characteristic species as the red-winged
blackbird, long-billed marsh wren, and sora.

Shrub Habitats

Willow. Riparian willows at the head of the Falls provided food
for beaver and breeding habitat for the willow flycatcher. Yellow
warbler and ?ong sparrows also used this habitat occasionally.

Bi rch-Al der-Dogwood. Conmon birds in this habitat include: willow
flycatcher, black-capped chickadee, gray catbird, American robin, cedar
waxwing, red-eyed vireo, warbling vireo, oranqe-crowned warbler, Nashville
warbler, yel low warbler , McGil 1 ivrey' s warbler, American redstart,
rufous-sided towhee, and song sparrow.

Alder-Dogwood. This type was quite limited in extent and was not
investigated regularly. Species composition is probably similar to the
birch-alder-dogwood type.

Forest Habitats

Riparian Cottonwoods. The shrub layer of this habitat supports a
group of species similar to that of the birch-alder-dogwood type.
Additional species using the tall cottonwoods are the bald eagle, osprey,
American kestrel, common flicker, hairy woodpecker, common raven, common
crow, American robin, yellow-rumped warbler, and brown-headed cowbird.

Snags (Deciduous). Snags of cottonwood and (to a lesser degree)
birch and aspen provide perch sites for bald eagles, American kestrels,
and osprey; cavities within snags provide nesting habitat for American
kestrel, common flicker, hairy woodpecker, tree swallow, and black-
capped chickadee; cavity-nesting ducks (common goldeneye, harlequin
duck, common merganser) may also use deciduous snags for nesting (see
discussion on p. 7.

Cottonwood - Conifers. This habitat is apparently a mid-succession
type in which riparian cottonwoods are being successfully invaded by
conifers. Characteristic bird species of this habitat are: bald eagle,
osprey, American kestrel, common flicker, hairy woodpecker, common
raven, common crow, black-capped chickadee, American robin, Swainson's
thrush, golden-crowned kinglet, ruby-crowned kinglet, cedar waxwing,
warbling vireo, orange-crowned warbler, Nashville warbler, yellow warbler,
yellow-rumped warbler, MacGi 11 ivray' s warbler, American redstart, brown-
headed cowbird, western tanager, lazuli bunting, pine siskin, American
goldfinch, red crossbill, dark-eyed junco, and chipping sparrow.

76

Ponderosa Pine-Douglas Fir. This type occurs on the dry, steep
south-facino slopes on the north side of the river, and was not investigated
with the same level of intensity as the riparian types. Birds seen in
this habitat were the American kestrel, golden eagle, bald eagle, common
raven, common crow, American robin, Townsend's solitaire, cedar waxwing,
pine siskin, and dark-eyed junco; mammals using this type include the
yellow-pine chipmunk, golden-mantled ground squirrel, white-tailed deer,
mule deer, and bighorn sheep.

Douglas Fir-Shrub. Bird species using this mid-succession habitat
are similar to those of the cottonwood- conifer habitat. Those observed
include the bald eagle, merlin, American kestrel, ruffed grouse, mourning
dove, rufous hummingbird, calliope hummingbird, Empidonax flycatcher,
common raven, common crow, black-capped chickadee, chestnut-backed chickadee,
red-breasted nuthatch, American robin, Swainson's thrush, cedar waxwing,
red-eyed vireo, orange-crowned warbler, Nashville warbler, yellow warbler,
yellow-rumped warbler, brown-headed cowbird, western tanager, lazuli
bunting, American goldfinch, red crossbill, dark-eyed junco, chipping
sparrow, Lincoln's sparrow, and song sparrow. Mammals observed in this
type include the red squirrel, deer mouse, white-tailed deer, and bighorn
sheep.

Douglas Fir-Ninebark. Characteristic species of this late-successional
type are common flicker, Empidonax flycatcher, common raven, common
crow, black-capped chickadee, American robin, varied thrush, Swainson's
thrush, red-eyed vireo, yellow-rumped warbler, western tanager, pine
siskin, red crossbill, dark-eyed Junco and chipping sparrow. The vagrant
shrew and deer mouse were taken during limited trapping in this type;
also seen were Columbian ground sqiiirrel, red squirrel, mule deer, and
bighorn sheep.

Douglas '^ir-Western Red Cedar. Bird species using this type include
ruffed grouse, common flicker, pileated woodpecker, hairy woodpecker,
Empidonax flycatcher, Steller's jay, common raven, common crow, black-
capped chickadee, mountain chickadee, red-breasted nuthatch, brown
creeper, winter wren, American rooin, varied thrush, Swainson's thrush,
golden-crowned kinglet, ruby-crowned kinglet, red-eyed vireo, warbling
vireo, yellow-rumped warbler, Townsend's warbler, MacGill iv>^ay' s warbler,
American redstart, western tanager, lazuli bunting, pine s'skin, red
crossbill, dark-eyed junco, chipping sparrow, and Lincoln's sparrow.
Mammals observed, trapped, or leaving signs in this habicat &re the
masked shrew, vagrant shrew, red-tailed chipmunk, red squirrel, northern
flying squirrel, deer mouse, red-backed vole, coyote, white-tailed deer,
elk, and mjose.

Snags (Coniferous). Cavities in coniferous snags provide important
nest sites for cavity-nesting birds as well as the red squirrel and
northern flying squirrel. Large western red cedar snags between the
head of the Falls and Highway 2 showed evidence of extensive feeding use
by pileated woodpeckers. Such snags were f.^equently used as perches by
bald eagles and American kestrels.

77

other

Power! ine Riqht-of-Way. This habitat is extremely variable, and is
typically used by species of adjacent habitats, as well as shrub and
edge-loving species such as the yellow warbler, MacGill ivray' s warbler,
and song sparrow. Wires on the distribution line were often used as
perches by viol?t-green swallows and brown-headed cowbirds.

Railroad Right-of-Way. Like the powerline right-of-way, the railroad
right-of-way is used by species of adjacent habitats for travel and
feeding. In the vicinity of the head of the Falls, shrubs along the
right-of-way produce oerries abund^intiy which are used extensively by
birds and small mammals. Columbian ground squirrel burrows are comr.on
on the right-of-way at the head of the Falls, and vellow pine chipmunks
are abundant on the right-of-way in summer and fall.

Orchard. The scattered apple orchards along the Kootenai River
were used by species of adjacent habitats and did not support a char-
acteristic group of species. Black bears from adjacent coniferous
habitats are likely to feed on fallen apples in the fall, although none
were observed in this study.

Open Air. The open air above the river is of course traversed by
many bird species (especially raptors and waterfowl) which are crossing
the river or moving-up or down river. A number of species, however, use this
habitat for feeding on the flying insects which are abundant in summer
above the river; these include the black swift, Vaux's swift, violet-
green swallow, tree swallow, and rough-winged swallow. Violet-green
swallows were especially abundant in the Falls area.

78

ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES

In the following section, potential impacts of the proposed Kootenai
falls project on the wildlife resource are discussed, along with possible
means of mitigating these impacts and the overall potential effectiveness
of mitigation.

Potential impacts are described in terms of their ultimate effect on
population size and/or the carrying capacity of the environment (that is,
the optimum number of animals which the environment can support over a long
period of time). In this sense, an adverse or negative impact may be de-
fined as an environmental change which (1) temporarily reduces population
size below carrying capacity, (2) increases population size above carrying
capacity, or (3) reduces an area's carrying capacity. Similarly, a bene-
ficial or positive impact is a change which (1) restores a depleted or
oversize population to carrying capacity, or (2) increases an area's carry-
ing capacity. For the purposes of this report, potential impacts were
grouped according to the four primary mechanisms by which populations or
carrying capacity may be affected: (1) habitat alteration, (2) displacement,
(3) changes in mortality or natality rates, and (4) physiological stress.
The relationships among these mechanisms of impact are complex, but this
categorization is nevertheless useful for purposes of impact analysis.

The overall significance of an impact may be viewed from either a social
or a biological perspective (Sharma et al . 1975). Social significance is
dependent upon the degree to which a given impact affects the public's
sensibilities or system of values; thus, while destruction of a brood of
ducklings may not be biologically significant, it may outrage people and
assume a social significance that cannot be ignored. Biological significance
is best thought of in terms of measurable, long-term changes in carrying
capacity. Thus, if 100 tree squirrels should be destroyed, the impact to
the totsl population would be short-term (lasting a few years at most) and
hence not significant (s'nsu Sharma et al . 1975) -- the population would
recover relatively Cuickly, and carrying capacity would not be affected.
If ten osprey or fi\e bighorn sheep were destroyed, the impact would be
more long-lasting and hence more significant, since these species are rela-
tively scarce and have lower recovery rates, but carrying capacity would
still not be affected. If nesting habitat for five pair of osprey or winter-
spring habitat for five bighorn sheep were destroyed, however, the impact to
the population would be long-term (lasting mora than a few years) and carrying
capacity would be reduced -- a significant impact.

Possible mitigating measures are discussed in this section; compensation
and enhancement manager^nt are dealt with in a later chapter. It should
be emphasized that the mitigating measures discussed below are not necess-
arily those which will ultimately be recommended by DNRC; selection of
appropriate mitigating measures in many cases requires tradeoffs with other
concerns as well as consideration of cost-effectiveness. For example, loss
of riparian habitat can be very effectively reduced by lowering forebay
elevation from 510 to 606 m (2000 to 1990 feet), but this would affect' many
other features of the project and such a recommendation is beyond the scope

79

of this report. A final set of mitigating measures, construction guidelines,
and stipulations can be arrived at only after DNRC has completed its multi- |
disciplinary review of the project, and after public conment has been received "
as I'equired by the Major Facility Siting Act.

HABITAT ALTERATION

The habitat of an animal species iiiay be defined as a type of area where
the species can generally be found, and which provides for all life require-
ments of the species. Although carrying capacity "'s determined by a great
many environmental features, such as colonization rates, competitive milieu,
etc., habitat quality is often considered the principal detenninant of carry-
ing capacity: if habitat is altered in such a way that it no longer meets
the life requirements of a population, carrying a capacity is ''e'duced. Species
differ considerably in their ability to adapt to different habitats. Some
species are very stenotopic, that is, restricted to a narrowly-defined range
of environmental conditions. "K-selected" species (MacArthur and Wilson 1967),
such as the harlequin duck, pilea"i,ed woodpecker, and wolverine, are usually
very stenotopic and are especially vulnerable to habitat alteration. Such
species are often restricted to late-successional habitats. Eurytopic species
are those which can tolerate wide extremes in environmental conditions. These
are often "R-selected" species, such as most rodents and m^^.ny songbirds, which
have high reproductive rates and the ability to quickly colonize vacant habitats.
Eurytopic species are generally characteristic of early successional stages and
occupy a wide range of habitats.

The proposed Kootenai Falls project would affect a variety of species ^
through changes in aquatic and riparian habitats. These habitat changes
would result primarily from impoundment of the Kootenai River and relocation
of the railroad, and are discussed in detail below.

Changes in Riparian Habitats Due to Impoundment and Railroad Relocation

The construction of Libby Dam has had a profound effect on the downstream
riparian environment of the Kootenai River. Prior to impoundment in 1972, the
pattern of discharge of the Kootenai River was typical of that of large montane
rivers: high flows occurred with spring runoff, and low flows occurred in win-
ter. Libby dam reversed that pattern, and now peak flows generally occur in
winter (Figure 11). Furthermore, the frequency of extremely high (flood) run-
off has been reduced and the daily variation in flows is extreme. Flows often vary
by 424 cm,s (15,000 cfs) or more from morning until evening each day in winter.
This alteration in flow regimes has undoutedly influenced the pattern of succes-
sion in riparian plant comnuni ties, both by eliminating the "flood disclimax"
successional pattern and by allowing relatively high flows to scour a portion
of the riverbanks almost any day of the year. The proposed Kootenai Falls
project would superimpose further changes on those brought about by Libby
Dani, as discussed below.

Littoral Habitats. The term "littoral" is used here as in marine ecology
i.e., to refer to the zone between high and low water marks. In order to ade- ^^
quately assess potential effects of the proposed dam on littoral habitats (which^
are largely limited in the project area to gravel bars and bare rock), it is

80

c

00

o

<v

• f—

^—

■(-'

•r-

ra

l+-

o

O

o

i-

— 1

Q-

LlJ

o
o

o

X

I/)
o

CP

o

x:
o
tn

35-1

30

25-

20-

15-

10

Jan Feb Mar

Apr

T : 1 1 1 r

May Jun July Aug Sept

r-in

O

o

E
o

<0

en

\_
a

JZ

o
w

Q

Oct Nov Dec

FIGURE 11. Monthly averages of mean daily dischai^ge downstream
from the Libby Dani site prior to impoundment (1970)
and following impoundment (1977) (SOURCE: Graham 1979a)

83

necessary to examint- certain features of the current discharge regime from
Libby Dam.

-igure 1? shows the typical seasonal pattern of discharge of the Kootenai
River at Kootenai Falls, as controlled by Libby Dam. It is evident from this
figure that, during a "typical" yesr, lowest flows occur April through June,
with relatively little daily variation, while highest flow^ occu*" in November
through January with considerable daily variation. NLIs proposal would not
affect this discharge regime, but would moderate its effects in the pool area.
Figure 13 shows the 'mpact of the project on the pattern of seasonal variation
in surface elevations of the Kootenai River, and Figure 14 shows the -i-npact
on the pattern of seasonal variation in width of the wetted perimeter (and
hence of the littoral zone) at three river cross sections. Pool elevations
would remair, fairly constant at 609. 6m (2000 feet), regardless of discharge ,
for a distance of roughly 2.4 km (1.5 mi) upstream from the dam (NLI 1978; HA-25),
in contrast to the present regime of drastic year-long fluctuations in elevation
shown in Figure 13. Correspondingly, width of the littoral zone would be
drastically reduced should the project be constructed (Figure 14). At the
upper end of the pool (cross section 9, Figure 10), pool elevations
^anqe from 509.7m (2000.2 ft) at a discnarge of 56 cms (2000 cfs) to 614. Im
(2014.5 ft) at 1400 cms (50,000 cfs) (NLI 1978:HA-17). Natural river eleva-
tions at these same discharges would be 608.1 m (1995.2 ft) and 614 m (2014.3 ft),
respectively. While all terrestrial vegetation would be lost dje to permanent
inundation below the 509.6 m (2000 ft) contour, some flood-tolerant riparian
vegetation may be able to persist below the 1400 cms (50,000 cfs) pool level
along the upper end of the pool, where it v.'ould only be inundated part of the
time (during very high flows). Actually, flows can be expected to be below
672 cms (24,000 cfs) 93 percent or more of the time (NLI 1978:H-2). Plant
species which can tolerate this much inundation, for example cottonwood and
willow (Teskey and Hinckley 1978), can thus be expected to survive along a
portion of the pool. If clearing is not carried out in this portion of the
littoral zone, as proposed by NLI, both living and dead vegetation which
persists will provide useful wildlife cover; construction costs will be re-
duced as well (Nelson et al. 1978).

These changes in the characteristics of the littoral zone would have
important consequences for wildlife. It is likely that all gravel bar,
logjam, exposed rock, and bare rock habitats would be eliminated from along
the proposed pool; woody vegetation or grasses would probably colonize any
bare surfaces that remained along the new, stable shoreline. Scouring by
wery high discharges would occur very infrequently, as the 100-year flood
from Libby Dam is only 1456 cms (52,000 cfs) (NLI 1978-H-2). This would
eliminate much feeding habitat for dippers and spotted sandpipers, and would
also eliminate gravel bars which are important loafing habitat for waterfowl
(Taber and Raedeke 1976), and which would otherwise lead to serai willow commumties
important to beaver (Martin 1977). Willows presently established in the upper-
most littoral zone would probably be replaced by cottonwoods as sediments
are deposited (Martin 1977), and no new gravel bars or willow stands would
be produced since high discharges would occur so rarely.

Stabilization of pool elevation, and consequent reduction in the littoral
zone, could have beneficial effects on a number of wildlife species. Violent ^^
fluctuations in shoreline elevation and the resultant wide littoral zone create ^P

84

FIGURE 12. Typical seasonal pattern of discharge of the Kootenai River at

Libby, based on July 1976-June 1979 hourly discharge data (SOURCE:
Sewell and Associates 1979).

-10

o
o

£

en

o

j::
o
1/1

T I 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 r

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov D'^c

85

FIGURE 13. T.'vical seasonal variation in surface elevation of the Kootenai River
at three river cross sections, with and without the proposed dam
assuming a forebay elevation of 610m (2,000 ft) and the pattern of
discharge shown in Figure 12 (SOURCE: Sewell and Associates 1979).

2000H-

!990-

I&80-

1970

River cross-section no. I

r-6IG

With Project-

00% of timej Y/////A \^^°f= 0^ ^'^rie

605

^-1-601

i2 2000-

a>

With Project-

River cross-section no. 4

-610

tf)

E

c
o

o

605

CO

2000 -

1990-

1980

With Project

-610

-605

-I 1 \ 1 1 1 1 1 I I r

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

86

FIGURE 14. Typical seasonal variation in wetted perimeter and width of littoral
zone (area between daily high and low water marks) of the Kootenai
River at three river cross sections, with and without the proposed
dam, assuminq a forebay elevation of 610 m (?0()0 ft) and tho jiattorn
of discharge shown in I iqiiro 12 (SOURCE: Sewol I and Associates ][}7'))

1000
900-
800-

River cross-section no. I

With project-

Without project-

700

600-

500-

400-

„ 300 -•

600

a>

E

a>

"S 500 -f

100% of time<

1

>807o of time

5

400-
300-

200-

With project-

River cross-section no. 4

Without project-

-300

-200

-loo";;;

<u

E

200^

0)

a.

01

5

600-1 River cross-section no. 7

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 >> 1 1 1 }> 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 II I

300-1-

^

With project

Without project —

~^ \ \ I I \ \ \ 1 \ 1

lar Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Seo Oct Nov Dec

r200

-100

87

an ir./'ospitaole environn.ent for benthic macroinvertebrates , since few local orga- ^
nisms are adepted for a "freshwater intertidal" life (Hanson and Eberhardt 1971:3- f
9, Payne, et al . 1976). Stranding of benthic insects on a wide littoral zone can
be lethal during exposure periods of 24-28 hours; Ephemeroptara, a key food source
of the dipper (Mithcell 1968), are especially intolerant to short-term exposure
(&>^usven et al . 1974). A stabilized river shoreline would probaoly be more pro-
ductive of aquatic insects than the present fluctuating' shoreline, although species
composition would change drastically; net effects on availability of suitable food
for waterfowl broods are uncertain. Shoreline stabilization could also result in
increased production of rooted aquatic vegetation, which is important to divin^^
ducks, once siltation establishes suitable substrate (McKern 197G). Shore-

line stabilization and eventual siltation cou^d increase breeding and estivation
habitat for riparian amphibians such as the leopa-^d frog (Rana pipiens) and spotted
frog (Rana pretiosa) , both of which were consipicuously absent from both the Kootenai
Falls study area and from the widely fluctuating Columbia River (McKern 1976).
Creation of a muddy-bottomed r^verbank via sedimentation could create habitat for
mud-probing shorebirds, which were also conspicuously rare in tlie Kootenai and
Columbia River study areas (Payne et al . , 1976). Stabilization of shoreline eleva-
tions could also benefit furbearers by preventing the exposure of dens with young
to drowning (due to sudden high discharges) or predation (due to exposure of den
entrances at low water), and possibly increasing food supply (faber and Raedeke
1976; Martin 1977).

Terrestrial (Supra! ittoral ) Habitats. At a river discharge of KOO cms (50,000
cfs), the project as proposed (forebay at 610 m (2,000 ft) would inundate roughly
24.5 ha (60.6 acres) of riparian habitats which would otherwise be exposed. An ad-
ditional 4.6 ha (11.4 acres) of land would be disturbed for railroad relocation, ^k
bringing the total amount of riparian habitat which would be altered at the project^^
site to roughly 29.1 ha (72 acres) (table 21). An unknown amount of additional habi-
tat would be disturbed off-site to provide housing for construction workers and to
produce the fuel and materials necessary for construction of the project. This loss
of habitat represents a reduction in carrying capacity for all species presently de-
pendent upon the affected terrestrial habitats (see pages for a list of spe-
cies for the individual habitats listed in table 21).

Of the 29.1 ha (72 acres) of habitat affected, 9.8 ha (24.3 acres) (34%) are
dominated by trees and/or shurbs (including the willow, birch-alder-dogwood, ripar-
ian Cottonwood, cottonwood-conifer, and conifer-dominated types). Trees and/or
shrubs dominate 6.8 ha (16.8 acres) (28%) of the 24.5 ha (60.6 acres) which would
be inudated at a forebay elevation of 610 m (2,000 ft), and 3.0 ha (75 acres) (66%)
of the 4.6 ha (11.4 acres) which would be disturbed by railroad relocation. Most
of this latter area would represent a permanent, long-term loss since the new rail-
road right-of-way would be kept clear of trees and tall shrubs. Loss of riparian
trees and shrubs is especially significant, since these riparian habitats are not
only highly diverse and productive, but also increasingly rare.

Due to various human developments, riparian vegetation has been reduced in
the United States to 70 - 90 percent of its original extent, and remaining riparian
habitat continues to be destroyed at approximately 5 percent per year (McCormick
1968). Realizing the value of this diminishing resource, the U.S. Forest Service
recently conducted two national symposia dealing witli the importance, protection.

88

TABLE 21. Amounts of habitat which would be inundated by the proposed
Kootenai Falls dam at a discharge of 1400 cms (50,000 cfs) or disturbed by railroad relocation.

~~ Area Flooded at a Discharge
of 1400 cms (50,000 cfs)!./

Forebay at Forebay at Area Total Area
^ . .^ , 605.5 m 609.6 m Disturbed by Disturbed with

^^^'^^^ (1,990ft) (2,000ft) Railroad Forebay at 609. 6m

Aquatic Vegetation (Rcoted)

Gravel Bar ( incl. exposed rock)

Scree and Talus

Rocky Outcrpp-. (Upland)

Riparian Grasslands and Hayfiel

Fescue Grassland

Cattail Marsh

Willow

Bi rch-Al der-Dogwood

Alder- CDgwood

Ripar'an Cottonwoods

Cottonwood-Coni fers

PoTderosa Pine-Douglas Fir
Douglas Fir-Shruo
Douglas Fir-dinebark
Douglas Fir-Western Red Ceda'-

Pjwerline Right-of-way

Railroad Right-of-way

Orcn.rd

TOTAL

Relocation (2,000 ft)

.06(.16)i''

.06(.16)

0

.06(.16)

6.37(15.73)

14.6(36.06)

0

14.6(36.06)

.06(.16)

.11(.25)

0

.11(.26)

0

0

0

0

ds 1.17(2.RR)

1.17(2.88)

0

1.17(2.83)

0

0

0

0

.01(.02)

.01( 02)

0

.OK. 02)

.50(1.23)

.50.: 1.23)

0

.50(1.23)

.12(.29)

.41(1.02)

0

.41(1.01)

0

0

0

0 ■

•.03(.08)

1.78(4.40)

0

1.7°(4.40;

.53(1.31)

2.69(6.64)

.72(1

.77)

3.40(8.41)

.31(.77)
0
0
0

• .53(1.30)
0
0
.89;2.19)

.34(

.22'

1.75(^

0

85)
55)
.32

.53(1.30)

.34(.85)

.22(.55)

2.64(6.51)

.Oi( 02)

.21 (.52)

.36(.

89)

.57(1.41)

.44(1.08)

1.60(3.96)

1.21(2.98)

2.8.(6 94)

0
9.61(23.73)

0
24.54(60.63;

0
4.60(11.36)

0
29.14(71.99)

1/ ha (acres).

2/ Land area present" exposed at a flow of 396.2 ± 34.9 cms':i4.000 i 3.000 c<^s),
SOURCE: Olson-Elliott anu Associates 1979. 89

and management of riparian ecosystems (Johnson and Jones 1977, Johnson and McCormick^
1978), and a similar symposium was recently held in Colorado (Graul and Bissell 1978^^
While the cottonwood-wil low riparian ecosystem is "unquestionably the most produc-
tive and highly diversified ecosystem in the west" (Beidleman 1978), it is also our
most endangered nabitat (Mustard 1978).

Many stjdias have documented that the high structural diversity and horizontal
patchiness of multi-layered riparian forests contributes not only to greater numbers
of birds, but also to a greater diversity (both of species and guilds) than most
other temperate habitats (Wal check 1969, 1970, Carothers et al". 1974, Thompson 1978,
Meslow 1973, Anderson, et al . 1977). In the present study, both the breeding bird
census and riparian habitat transects showed that riparian trees and shrubs support
both more individual birds and a greater variety of birds than any other habitat
studied.

Riparian forests and shrubbery are highly productive, and those in the study
area probably have a ne: primary productivity on the order of 5-10 tons/acre (Golden
et al . 1979). Much of the production is in the form of browse available to white-
tailed deer, and loss of this habitat would probably reduce w.ii te-tailed deer carry-
ing capacity. Deer security within the riparian habitats which would be flooded
along the south bank of the river is presently limited by existing disturbances in
the area, notably traffic on the twin railroad tracks, the unimproved road parallel-
ing the tracks. Highway 2, and fishermen and sight-seer traffic. In fact, few deer
were seen in this area during the study.

Both the riparian deciduous forests and the coniferous forests provide perch
sites and potential nest support structures for osprey and bald eagles. The trees
that would be removed do not appear to be preferred or specially selected by these
birds. Available data indicate that wintering bald eagles use whatever tall trees
are available close to the river's edge (especially within 15.2 m (50 ft)), and that
after impoundment the availability of suitable roosting or nesting trees would not
be reduced.

The forest types which would be inundated or cleared are a source of snags and
dead or decaying trees, which are important as nest sites or feeding sites for a
variety of species. Many recent studies have shown the importance of snags and old
growth to cavity-nesting birds and mammals (Meslow 1978, Bull 1978, McClelland 1977,
Jackman 1974); cavity-nesting species found in or near the study area
are listed in table 22. Loss of existing snags, and of a source for future snags,
would represent a significant, long-term loss for these species.

A total of 1.2 ha (2.9 acres) of riparian grasslands and hayfields would be in-
undated assuming a forebay of 610 m (2,000 ft). These habitats are relatively scarce
in the area, and support relatively high densities of rodents. Of the 1.2 ha (2.9
acres) affected, almost none occur on the north bank of the river adjacent to big-
horn sheep concentration areas (Figure 8). However, the rise in water table brought
about by the pool is likely to encourage establishment and growth of hydrophilic
shrubs over a much larger grassland area, thus reducing further the amount of for-
age available to bighorn sheep. Bighorns use these low-elevation grasslands most
heavily in spring, preferring such grass species as Festuca scabrella, Festuca
idahoensis, A^ro^yron spicatum, Koeleria cristata, and Stipa comata in the nearby

90

TABLE 22. Cavity-nesting species known to occur in the
Kootenai Fal Is Area

Common Goldeneye

Barrow's Goldeneye

Coiimon Merganser

Merlin

American Kestrel

Comnon Flicker-

Pileated Woodpecker_/

Hairy Woodpecker—
Violet-green Swallow

Tree Swallow

Black-capped Chickadee
Mountain Chickadee
Chestnut-backed Chickadee

White-breasted Nuthatch-^
Red-breasted Nuthatch-
Brown Creeper
Winter Wren
Red Squirrel
Northern Flying Squirrel

-Primary cavity nesters (excavate own cavity)
SOURCE: Bull 1978, Scot+, et al . , McClelland 1977.

91

Lake Koocanusa area (3rown 1979). j

The cattail marsh and rooted aquatic vegetation stands which would be inun-
dated by the project are the only representatives of these types found in the
study area (Olson-Elliott and Associates 1979). Although small in extent, these
types are at least seasonally important to dabbling ducks.

All tree, shrub, end grassland-dominated types, as well as the existing rail-
road and powerline ri gnts-of-way , support considerable small mammal populations.
Thisp.rey base is used by a number of predators in the area, notably the raven, coy-
ote, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel and possibly one or more species of owl.
Except for the raven, these predators do not appear to heavily use these habitats
at present, and effects of loss of a portion of the p'^ey base would likely be small.

Mitigating Measures and Their Effectiveness. One of the most effective mea-
sures for reducing the amount of riparian habitat lost would be lowering of the
forebay elevation. Since the banks of the river are gently sloping, a small change
in forebay elevation cculd lead to a substantial decrease in area inundated (Table
21). For example, lowering the forebay from 610 m (2,000 ft) to 606.5 m (1990 ft)
would reduce the amount o^ habitat flooded from 24.5 ha (60.6 acres) to 9.6 ha
(23.7 acres); this would reduce the amount of riparian forests flooded even more
dramatically, from 5.9 ha (14.5 acres) to 0.9 ha (2.2 acres). Also, since the
railroad wouM not have to be relocated as high upslope, the amount of new right-
of-way clearing and the lateral extent of fill slopes would be reduced as well.
Such a lowering of pool level would have important effects on other aspects of the
project (especially economics, visual impact, and power generation capability), and
optimum pool elevation can only be determined by careful consideration of costs and^
benefits of the tradeoffs involved. These tradeoffs are beyond the scope of this
analysis, and can only be made after DNRC's full evaluation of the facility under
the MFSA and analysis of public comment.

Prior to the commencement of any clearing operations, NLI should submit for
FERC and state review and approval a clearing plan, specifying the timing and ex-
tent of vegetation removal along the shoreline. Specific trees to be removed, and
those allowed to remain, should be identified in this plan. NLI plans to allow
some of the larger conifers which would be inundated to remain as snags in the pool;
this would provide attractive perching and possibly nesting sites for eagle and os-
prey. The amount of vegetation cleared should be the minimum necessary to allow
construction to proceed, and clearing should be postponed as long as possible dur-
ing construction (Regan 1979, Fielder 1977). Clearing should be done in stages
rather than all at once; the earliest construction stages would require the earli-
est clearing. Riparian trees surrounding the construction area at the head of the
Falls should be allowed to remain until just prior to final inundation. As mentioned
earlier, flood-tolerant shrubs and/or trees should not be cleared from the littoral
zone at the upper end of the pool if the extent of inundation does not exceed their
tolerances.

Assuming a forebay elevation of 610 m (2,000 ft), it is possible to partially
mitigate some habitat loss by restoration of riparian habitats along the shoreline
and relocated railroad right-of-way. _ NLI (1978) proposes to use a portion of the
approximately 650,250 m^ (850,000 yd"^) of the material excavated

92

during project construction as fill for railroad relocation, access roads, and
a construction plant area to be placed on the south bank of the river near the
intake structure at the head of the Falls. Once construction is completed,
approximately 4.5 ha (11 acres) would be restored and revegetated as wildlife
habitat. NLI's proposed habitat restoration plan is as follows:

Appropriate fill materials will be used to raise the level of the
construction plant and spoil disposal areas above the project pool
level, and to provide a gradual slope extending from the relocated
railroad embankment into the reservoir. The area thus treated and
revegetated with appropriate species will provide terrestrial ri-
parian habitat and shallow water habitat along the new shoreline.
Creation of small coves along this shoreline will restore water-
fowl and shorebird areas. If deemed appropriate, the gradual slope
could be extended into the reservoir with underwater placement of
rubble and boulders in order to provide suitable substrate for ben-
thic insects.

The area for the proposed habitat restoration will extend along
the left embankment from the dam to approximately 1,219 m (4,000 ft)
upstream. The average width will be about 19.8 m (65 ft) and the total
surface area will be 4.5 ha (11 acres) (Figure W-32). Prior to place-
ment of spoil material in the construction plant and spoil disposal
areas, the sandy topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled. After dam
construction is completed, sufficient spoil material will be placed to
form a gradual slope from near the top of the left embankment to the
water surface. The new shoreline essentially will follow the original
shoreline contour but at a nigher elevation. An effort will be made to
create as many small sheltered bay areas as possible. The stockpiled
topsoil will then be placed over the spoil, graded, and stabilized
against erosion.

Once the topsoil is in place, the area initially will be seeded in
native grasses. Dec-duous trees and shrubs will be planted in strips,
shelterbelt fashion, at the highe"^ elevatic^s. The overall objective
is to restore a habitat similar to the riparian grasslands and thickets
lost through construction and impoundment. In order to maximize the
area's usefulness ard attractiveness to ''ocal wildlife and to enhance
habitat diversity in the conifer-dominated general Project Area, re-
commendations concerning suitable plant species, planting, and manage-
n;ent requirements will be solicited from appropriate state and federal
agencies such as MDNRC, USFWS, and USFS. Potentail candidate tree and
shrub species are black cottonwood, willows, alders, birches, elder-
berry, and wild rose. To enhance wate'fowl and furbearer habitat, semi-
aquatic plants, such as cattails and reeds could be established in the
small bays along the new undulating shoreline.

After the initial plants have become established, natural secondary
successional processes will result in the introduction of additional
species. Sufficient riparian habitat exists both upstream and down-
steam to insure the transportation by wind, water, and animals of S':!eds
and oiher plant propagation material into the area. Depending on the
vegetation established and recommended habitat management techniques,

93

poriodic cutting and thinning may be required to maintain the proper
balance between trees, snrubs, grasses, and herbs for providing max-
imum wildlife food and cover.

In addition, several of the larger-sized conifers such as ponderosa
pine will not be "^emoved from along ■^he 510 m (2,000 ft) contour level.
Inundation will Kill these trees and their dead snags could be attractive
to osprey and eagles for nesting and perching, (NLI 19^8: W4-2,3)

Prior to certification, NLI should submit to FERC and DNRC for review,
and to FERC and the Montana Boa>^d of Natural Resources and Conservation for
approval, a detailed reclamation and restoration plan spelling out the precise
goals, location, and methods of habitat restoration. A map (scale - 1:400)
should accompany the plan, showing the new shoreline, surface contours, loca-
tions of :ransplanted trees and shrubs, and the type of treatment (fertiliza-
tion, mulching, etc.) to be employed in different areas. A series of cross-
section profiles, showing depth of water table, depth of fill, depth of top-
soil, etc. should also accompany the plan. The plan should specify the time-
table of restoration, as well as species of plants to be used, sources of
seeds, sod, and nursery stock, types of mulch and/or fertilizer to be used,
time sequence of topsoil removal and replacement, sources of additional top-
soil, and methods and season of planting (Olson-Elliott and Associates 1979).
It should also include ''ong-term management and monitoring speci ."ications,
possibly including plans for maintaining a disci imax cottonwood-dominated
community by control of invading conifers.

Before such a habitat restoration plan is prepared, it is necessary to
identify the "target species" for which the area is to be managed; this can
only be done after analysis of public comment on the proposal. Creation of
shallow ponds and sheltered coves in the reclaimed area which would support
rooted aquatic vegetation and cattail marshes would benefit dabbling ducks.
The more stable river elevations along the pool (Figure 13) would probably
allow cattails and emergent vegetation to eventually become established
along the shore-line. Permanent ponds could also be created near the upper
end of the pool, where river level "fluctuations are relatively great, by
construction of sandbagged dikes to retain water during low flows (Figure 15)
or to trap water from the many springs and small streams which enter the river
in the Falls area. Establishment of dense grass cover would benefit small
mammals (especially voles) and, if accomplished in certain areas along the
north river shore, possibly bighorn sheep as well. Aquatic furbearers
(especially beaver, muskrat, and mink) would benefit from establishment of
willows, Cottonwood saplings, and cattail marshes along the shoreline. Bird
diversity and abundance would likely be increased by creating a three-layered
habitat with grasses and forbs, mixed shrubs, and tall deciduous and coniferous
trees. Taller trees and snags would benefit cavity-nesting birds and provide
perch sites for bald eagles and other large birds. Abundant browse could
benefit white-tailed deer.

The best habitat restoration strategy would probably be aimed at creating
a complex mosaic of many habitats with high vertical layering and horizontal
patchiness, similar to that which exists in the area today. Management of the
south bank of the river for big game is not advisable, since the railroad and
Highway 2 would create the risk of mortality for animals attracted to the re-
claimed habitats, and since heavy big game use could impede reclamation. The
restored land should slope gently from the railroad fill slopes into shallow

94

A. HIGH DISCHARGE

.^'

/'■

7-

DIKE 'C

■-77~<

^^

B. LOW DISCHARGE

yf

FIGURE 15. Possible nethod of creating permanent diked shallow wetlands
along the pool pernieter.

95

water., allovn'ng fishermen access to the shoreline and allowing tree and shrub
roots to reach the water table. The new shoreline should be wide enough to M
allow tree and shrub establishment between the railroad grade and the river. "
Shoreline length should be maximized by the creation of peninsulas and sheltered
downstream coves (Stoecker 1978). A few large boulders left protruding above
the pool some distance fron shore would provide roosting and loafing areas
for waterfowl and other bird species. In no case should a steep riprap or
fill slope extend from the railroad bed to the river bottom.

It is likely that a well-planned and executed habitat restoration pi'ogram
•/ill e\/entually be effective in restoring a portion of the riparian habitats
lost as a result of thf project. However, assuming only 4.5 ha (11 acres) is
restored (as proposed by NLI 1978), there will be an unmitigated net loss of
at least 1.3 ha (5.8 acres) of riparian tree and shrub habitat. While it would
be possible to restore an area greater than the 4.5 ha (11 acres) proposed by
NLI, it is unlikely that sufficient fill is available to restore the entire
area inundated, or that costs of such extensive restoration would be justified
in light of the benefits. Reducing the volume of the pool while maintaining
constant forebay elevation would not affect the power generating capability_
of ohe project, since the head would remain unchanged, so there is the possi-
bility that somewhat more than 4.5 ha (11 acres) could be restored.

Construction of the project is scheduled to take, place over 4.5 yr
(NLI 1978), and it is likely that 15 to 20 yr might be required to restore
riparian habitats and the railroad right-of-way to a condition similar to
that found today. The wildlife losses -- including not only population losses
but lost viewing or hunting opportunities -- which would accrue during this ^
period are both significant and irretrievable. W

Changes in Upstream Aquatic Habitat

Impoundment of Kootenai River by the proposed dam would create a relatively
deep, slow-moving pool extending roughly 4.8-8.0 km (3-5 mi) upstream from the Falls,
This could affect a number of aquatic species, especially waterfowl and
furbearers (effects'dn littoral habitats and associated wildlife species have
been discussed previously). Furbearers, such as beaver and muskrat, would
probably benefit from the project, as pool elevations would be relatively stable
and favorable vegetation would probably thrive along the more stable shoreline.
Use of the pool area by waterfowl for feeding would probably decrease with im-
poundment. Harlequins, common goldeneyes, and common mergansers prefer rapidly
moving shallow water areas in which to feed, areas which would be inundated by
impoundment. The proximity of very swift, turbulent water to such feeding areas
is essential to harlequins (Bengtson 1966). Both mallards and Canada
geese prefer rocky sheltered areas and streamside areas for loafing and resting;
submergence of rocks and gravel bars would eliminate these areas. Mallards
were seen consistently on shore in winter on both sides of the river. All of
these shores would be lost in the pool area after impoundment. Suitability
of the area as brood-rearing habitat might also be affected by the project.
Broods of most species of waterfowl using the area survive almost exclusively
on macroinvertebrates during the first two weeks of life, and -- depending
on shoreline configuration of the restored habitats -- impoundment of the river
and altered flow regimes would likely affect availability of this food source. ^
Eventual siltation of rock interstices on the pool bottom would change produc- ^T
tion of invertebrates used by waterfowl. Migrating, wintering, and other non-
breeding waterfowl would probably continue to use the pool as a loafing area
(provided the pool effect does not cause the river to ice over in winter).

96

Bald eagles and osprey would probably continue to use the pool area for
feeding, although it is probable that impoundment will reduce fish density
(Graham 1978b). Inundation of China Rapids would reduce the winter carrying
capacity of the river for dippers, which use the rapids for feeding in winter.

Mitigation of possible waterfowl production losses could be accomplished
by providing suitable brood-rearing habitat along the restored shoreline.
Present levels of waterfowl production are relatively low in the pool area,
and it is unlikely the project would have a significant effect on production
(with the exception of the harlequin duck, as discussed elsewhere).

Changes in Microclimate

It is possible that the presence of the reservoir would alter the micro-
climate of the Kootenai River canyon. In a study in western Washington,
Taber and Raedeke (1976) found that the presence of reservoirs created
a "warm bowl" effect, raising the temperature in the vicinity of the reservoir
and increasing the rate of snowmelt adjacent to the reservoir. This effect,
if it does occur in the project area, is not likely to significantly affect
wildlife populations. Impoundment of the river could result in ice formation,
but the extent o-f ice-over is not known.

Downstream Dewatering

NLI's proposal calls for reduction of flows over Kootenai Falls to 21 cms
(750 cifs) roughly 98-100 percent of the time (NLI 197&:H-1; Figure 16). Most
of this flow would be diverted to trickle over the Falls, essentially dewatering
the north channel of the river. Much of the area below "che Falls which is now
under water at lowest discharges would be exposed, and high discharges would
flush the area very infrequently. The almost constant flow of 21 cms (750 cfs)
over the Falls and through the canyon would contrast dramatically with the present
flow regime, which is much higher and which is characterized by wide daily and
seasonal variation (Figure 12).

The most significant impact of this dewatering would be elimination of
feeding areas for harlequin ducks. Harlequins presently use the fast water
at the head of the Falls as a preferred feeding site, presumably feeding on
dipteran larvae. Ti^is area is presently characterized by sw'ft, laminar flow,
and the change to a meager, turbulent flow would alter the suitability of the
area for feeding. The harlequin duckis a "K-selected" species, having highly
specialized habitat requirements, a high suseptibility to changes in flow
regimes, and a strong dependence on aquatic insects of fast-flowing waters as
a food source (Kuchel 1976). A change in flow regime of the Falls and the
gorge downstream, coupled with a change in insect production, would be highly
detrimental to this population.

Feeding habitat -- and winter carrying capacity -- for dippers would be
reduced as well, although dippers would probably continue to use the Falls
to some extent. Harlequins, goldeneyes and dippers were seen between the
rails and future outlet area, both feeding and loafing. The canyon offers
protection from disturbance and evidently a good food resource. This will be
changed by the drastic reduction in water coming over the Falls. Dewatering
could also affect the bighorn sheep wh-"ch can reach the river easily below

97

100

99-

e 98

V

o

^ 97

I—

a.

96

95

79.2-240.6 cms-
(2800-8500 cfs)

21.2-79.2 cms-
(750-2800 cfs)

"Y

/ \

21. 2-515. 1 cms-
(750-18200 cfs)

1 1 1 1 ., 1 1 1 1 1 1

Jon Feb Mar Apr Moy Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

FIGURE 16. Percent of time that difforent flows would be allowed toRassover the
Kootenai Falls Dam. (SOURCE: Sewell and Associates 1979).

the Falls. The area north of the canyon is used by bighorn sheep in spring;
access to free-flowing water could be restricted somewhat by dewatering of the
gorge.

Considerable daily fluctuations in flow, and occasional great daily
summer discharges, presently limit the suitability of the gorge area as
nesting habitat for birds which nest on rock ledges or cavities (e.g., har-
lequin duck, dipper, Canada goose, conmon goldeneye). Nests which are
constructed during periods of low, relatively constant spring or sunnier
flows are destroyed during the occasional high discharges from Libby Dam
(Figure 12). The change to a constant flow regime brought about by the proposed
Kootenai Falls Dam may thus allow increased nest success for species not other-
wise affected by the project, although some high flows may occur over the dam
briefly during the breeding season (Figure 16).

Low, constant flows through the channels below the Falls would encourage
the growth of algae (probably Spirogyra or Ulothrix (May and Huston 1975),
which is presently abundant at the head of the Falls) and possibly vascular
plants along the shoreline. These changes would probably not significantly
affect wildlife populations, other than possibly increasing suitability as
amphibian breeding habitat and increasing production of certain invertebrates.

Effects of low flows on the harlequin duck could be mitigated only by
relocating the damsite upstream from the rocky area used as a loafing area
and by providing minimum discharges ofU? cms (4,000 cfs) or more over the dam.
Since this would orobably not be entirely effective and would also greatly
affect overall design of the project, its feasibility as a mitigating measure
cannot be evaluated at this time. Such an evaluation can only be made after DNRC's
full evaluation of the facility under the MFSA and analysis of public comment.

Discharge Impacts at the Outlet Structure

NLI (1978) proposes to divert the entire river flow (except for 21 cr.is
(750 cfs) allowed to pass over the dam) up to discharges of 67;^ cms (24,000
cfs), and to return these flows to the river gorge roughlyO'tiei mile below the
Falls. It is likely that, at high flows, discharge at the outlet structure
would cause backflows of water upstream into the canyon, perhaps forming a pool
of relatively still water. This pool would probab'y be used by waterfowl,
especially during migration. If detritus (such as dead fish which were killed
by passage through the powerhouse) accumulate at this pool and near the outlet
structure, bald eagles and ravens are like.y to be attracted to the area, althou
few suitable perch sites for bald eagles exist in the steep canyon area. Sin-"
the amount of fish mortality caused by passage through the powerhouse depends
largely on the effort toward mitigation of entrainment impact (Graham 1978b),
it is impossible to predict at this time wheth3r or not bald ragles will -^ind
a concentrated food source near the outlet.

DISPLACEMENT

Displacement, or population redistribution resulting from disturbances or
other environmental change, is a special case of habitat alteration that causes
animals to avoid an otherwise suitable area. Extended displacement is equivalent
to a reduction in carrying capacity, since the amount of habitat availaible to
the population is reduced.

99

gh
ince
pends

The project-t^elated features which would most likely cause displ,. cement
of animals are: (1) the presence of up to 500 construction workers in the
project area; (2) construction activity in the dam area, outlet area, and the
work area at the head of the Falls; (3) blasting noise during excavation;
(4) noise created by transport and unloading of excavated material; (5) noise
created by clearing machinery, earth-moving machinery, concrete plants, and
other on-site machinery. Construction would extend over a 4.5 yr period,
with most of the excavation and railroad relocation taking place during the
first 18 months (NLI 1978), Estimates of noise levels to be created oy this
project are not available from NLI, but similar types of activities can be
expected to produce noise levels of 78 - 88 dB with occasional peaks of llOdB
at a distance of 15.2 m (50 ft) (Golden et al . 1979).

The wildlife species of the project area which would be i.^'ost sensitive
to construction noise and human activity are waterfowl, large raptors (espe-
cially the ba"'d eagle), and ungulates. Waterfowl would probably avoid the
entire pool area during construction and dumping of fill along the south
shoreline. Harlequin ducks are particularly sensitive to human disturbance
(Kuchel 1976), and would be displaced fromthe Falls during dam construction.
Wintering bald eagles are also wery sensitive to hunan activity (Craighead
and Craighead 1979, Meyer 1979), and would probably avoid the stretch of river
from the outlet to near the pool head during construction. At present, the
Falls area is the portion of the Libby-Troy section of the river most heavily
used by bald eagles (Meyer 1979). Bighorn sheep would initially avoid the
Falls area during construction, probably moving into less suitable habitat
farther upslope, but would probably eventually become habituated to some
extent and return at least partway. Bighorns are apparently able to habituate
readily to constant or regular disturbances, and presently occupy the area in
spite of noise from the Falls, the railroad, and from traffic on Highway 2.
The few white-tailed and mule deer present in the project area would be dis-
placed during construction.

With the exception of the harlequin duck, all species displaced by con-
struction disturbances would probably return following completion of the pro-
ject (to the extent that suitable habitat remains), and are unlikely to suffer
long-term population-level effects as a result of displacement. Little
opportunity exists for mitigation of noise and construction related displace-
ment, other than seasonal curtailment of construction, as mentioned below.

CHANGES IN MORTALITY AND NATALITY RATES

Minor variations in the natural mortality rate of a population are normally
balanced by over-production of young or, in many cases, by an increase in the
natality rate, with the result that most animal populations are maintained at
or near carrying capacity. Thus, increased mortality rates or decreased natality
rates have a serious significant impact on populations only when they exceed the
potential of the population to recover. If mortality rates increase or natality
rates decrease for long periods of time, a population can become locally extinct.
Small mammals and other r-selected species have high reproductive potentials
and high natural mortality rates; very high mortality in populations of these
species can often be compensated for in a few months or years. Species most
likely to exhibit population-level effects of increased mortality are those with
a low reproductive potential, those which are already rare or in danger of ex-
tinction, and those living in small, isolated habitats. Of the species in-

100

habiting the study area, the bald eagle, osprey, and harlequin duck are most
vulnerable to mortality-induced population declines.

The work force would peak at about 500 construction workers for a period
of about 20 months during this project (NLI 1978). Of these 500 workers, 200
would be hired locally and 300 would move into the area. Many of the latter
would bring their families to the area. The presence of this many people in
the project area increases the likelihood of illegal off-hours shooting of
wildlife, both on-site and off-site. The magnitude of this man-caused mortal-
ity is impossible to predict, but such shooting could nonetheless result in a
significant impact, especially in the case of the bald eagle. Local harvest
of game animals, both legal and illegal, would probably increase during cons-
truction. In recent years, five bighorn sheep ram permits have been issued
annually for the Kootenai River herd located near the project area; poaching
by construction workers could limit the number of permits which could be issued
in future years, thereby limiting hunter opportunities. The impacts of illegal
shooting can be mitigated somewhat by strict enforcement of regulations in the
project area, by posting notices near construction areas, or by closing the
area to hunting of bighorns.

The possibil ity exists for entrainment of waterfowl and other water birds
in the intake structure; should this occur, it is unlikely that populations
will be significantly affected by the resultant mortality.

Project construction could decrease natality rates by (1) destroying
nests during clearing, thus inhibiting or halting reproductive activities; (2)
displacing bighorn sheep during lambing (in late May or early June); or (3)
producing physiological stress as described elsewhere in this report. As
discussed earlier, the project could increase nest success of birds nesting
along the dewatered section. (^Such changes in natality are not expected to
significantly affect populations of species found in the project area.)

PHYSIOLOGICAL STRESS

The effects of stress are sublethal, difficult to identify, and may not
result in immediate observable population changes. Stress on a population
may increase as a result of displacement, which can indirectly affect mortality
and natality rates. For example, repeated displacement of bighorn sheep from
winter-spring range into areas of deep snow or other suboptimal habitat would
not kill animals directly, but it could cause abortion of fetuses or predispose
animals to mortality through other causes, such as predation, disease, starva-
tion, or hypothermia. Even slight increases in stress and the expenditure of
stored energy (such as would result from displacement and harassment) are im-
portant during winter, when most animals are already under severe stress.

Creation of dust during construction could create slight increases in
stress by coating forage, irritating eyes, or impairing visibility, but rain-
fall is generally high in this area and dust is expected to have little or no
effect on wildlife.

Mitigation of displacement-related stress to bighorn sheep or bald eagles
could be accomplished by restricting noise-producing construction activities
during late winter and spring.

101

COMPENSATION OF UNMITIGATED IMPACT

Even with the most successful habitat restoration and other mitigation,
a certain amount of adverse wildlife impact would be unavoidable should the
project be built (see discussion on adverse impacts which cannot be avoided,
p. 107). In the words of Pengelly (1973), mitigation implies an admission
that "some loss will occur and that you will try to do as little harm as
possible. Unfortunately for wildlife, this is a decision that is being
increasingly made with inevitable long-term results -- a one-way attrition."
However, unmitigated wildlife losses need not -- and should not -- be written
off as an unavoidable cost of development. Loss or degredation of wildlife or
habitats, which are public resources, may be considered to be part of the cost
of development, and there is no reason the public should be required to bear
this cost any more than the public should bear more direct costs such as cost
of materials and labor. Compensation of development-related losses of private
property is standard practice, and compensation of losses of public resources --
such as wildlife -- is no less valid. The legal framework for compensation of
unavoidable impact is provided at the national level by NEPA, which requires
federal agencies to consider the following means by which developer would
ultimately bear all project-related costs (including losses of public resources):

a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action
or parts of an action.

b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the
action and its implementation.

c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring
the affected environment.

d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of th-? action.

e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substi-
tute resources or environments.

It will be noted that (a), (b), and (c) above deal with mitigation of impact as
defined earlier, while (d) and (e) deal with compensation o-*" Impact. Cost-
effectiveness should be an important consider6':ion in determining tiie optimal
strategy for dealing with project-related losses; in some cases, compensation
or related strategies may yield greater and more cost-effective benefits than
mitigation alone (Thompson 1979). Two possible strategies for compensating
unmitigated impact are described below; the conceptual basis for these strategies
is presented in Appendix 6.

Compensation by Enhancement

Unmitigated short-term losses could be compensated by enhancement management,
either on-site or off-site. Compensation by enhancement involves management to

103

produce gains in carrj, ing capacity in one area to make up for impact-related
losses in carrying capacity in another area. Thus, unmitigated losses are
accepted, and an attempt i: made to recoup these losses through intensive en-
hancement elsewhere. Compensation may be in-kind (e.g., lost harlequin duck
habitat is compensated by increased harlequin duck management) or out-of-kind
(e.g., lost harlequin duck habitat is compensated by increased bighorn sheep
management). The latter approach creates considerable problems, as it necessi-
tates quantification of the relative value or importance of the different species.

Intensive habitat improvement is often the most feasible means of increas-
ing wildlife numbers (Oliver and Barnett 1966, Remington 1971). Compensation
of riparian habitat losses by off-site enhancement has recently been applied
to several nydroelectric projects in the northwest. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers was required to partly compensate for inundation of bighorn sheep
winter habitat by Libby Dam through purchase of sheep habitat along the
Kootenai River near Kootenai Falls. This settlement would result in only
partial compensat"ior, , however, sir.ce 3500 acres were inundated and only 107
were purchased. Loss of whooping crane migration habitat due to construction
of the Grayrocks Dam in Wyoming was compensated by establishment of a $7 million
Whooping Crane Trust Fund, the annual interest of which (c. $500,000) will be
used to manage habitat elsewhere (Bowen 1979). In perhaps the classic compen-
sation settlement to date, riparian habitat lost due to inundation by the Wells
Project in Washington is to compensated by a $1.25 million program, which
includes not only long-range relief from damage (restoration and off-site
enhancement), but immediate interim relief as well (including release of
pen-reared game birds to offset decreased availability to hunters). Overall,
nearly 2996 ha (7,400 acres) of off-site lands were made available for
intensive enhancement management, as compared to losses of about 1903 ha i
(4,700 acres) due to inundation (Oliver 1974). Utilities often enter into '
voluntary wildlife compensation agreements, recognizing the considerable public
relations value provided by such programs (Burgess and Huber 1979).

Some possible means of compensating unmitigated losses of the Kootenai
Falls project via enhancement are discussed below.

Riparian Habitat Enhancement. Riparian habitat along the Kootenai River
upstream or downstream from the project area could be intensively managed to
partly offset project-related losses. Possible techniques would involve con-
trol of conifer invasion, artificial propagation of cottonwoods, enhancement
of browse species important to white-tailed deer, management to ensure long-
term production of old growth cottonwood and snags (perhaps by girdling of
live trees), and management to ensure a high structural diversity of tree and
shrub habitats. Another possibility is restoration of cleared riparian forest
habitats in the Libby-Troy area. Such management would probably be costly
and of limited effectiveness in substantially increasing carrying capacity
of target species.

Bighorn Sheep Habitat Enhancement. Bighorn sheep production could be
enhanced in the Libby-Troy area by acquisition and management of key habitat
(especially winter-spring range). Possible habitat improvements include
vegetation manipulation, controlled burning, nitrogen fertilization, and seeding
and planting of preferred forage plants (Bailey 1978). However, much grassland
habitat along the Kootenai River has already been acquired by MDFWP as part of ^

104

the Libby Dam compensation effort, and a greater opportunity for enhancement
through habitat acquisition might exist outside the Libby-Troy area. Enhance-
ment management of existing MDFWP lands would probably be more cost-effective.
(NOTE: Control of shrub invasion of riparian grasslands used by biah^rn sheep
has been discussed previously as a mitigating measure).

Harlequin Duck Habitat Enhancement. Little opportunity exists for com-
pensation of harlequin duck habitat losses. It is reasonable to assume that
all suitable habitat in the vicinity is occupied, and that any habitat changes
of such areas would only be detrimental to populations. Investigation of the
Yaak Falls as possible compensation habitat is recommended as part of the
monitoring program presented below.

Enhancement of Habitat of Other Waterfowl. Nesting habitat of Canada
geese and cavity-nesting ducks could possibly be enhanced along the Kootenai
River by installation and maintenance of nest boxes, nesting platfonns and/or
nesting islands. However, as discussed by Nelson et aj^. (1978), such increases
in nest site availability are effective only where nest sites are limiting and
where habitat is otherwise suitable to support a larger population. There is
some evidence that breeding populations in the Kootenai Falls ared are limited
by the availability of brood-rearing habitat and food for young ducks (espe-
cially aquatic macroinvertebrates) rather than by nest site availability, and
new nesting structures would probably provide but minor increases in an already
minor production, unless impoundment were to substantially increase availability
of food along the shoreline. Use of the area by migrating field-feeding water-
fowl could possibly be enhanced by creation of grainfields adjacent to the river
but suitable areas are lacking and cost-effectiveness would probably not be
great enough to justify such land use change. Creation of shallow permanent
pools along the shoreline using sandbags or dikes has been discussed previously.

Installation of Raptor Nest Structures. As was the case with waterfowl,
breeding populations of osprey, bald eagle, and red-tailed hawks in the area
appear to be limited by factors other than nest-site availability (probably
food availability and relative security). An abundance of potential nest
sites presently exist in the area, and creation of new sites would pro-
bably do little to increase nesting populations or production of young.

Compensation by Protection of Threatened Habitat

Another strategy for compensating unmitigated losses is to prevent future
impact, which would otherwise occur, by protecting threatened habitat off-site.

The rate of loss of quality wildlife habitat due to development is in-
creasing nationwide, and the loss of riparian habitat is especially acute, with
annual losses approaching 6 percent (McCormick 1968). Nearly all habitat
presently available can be considered threatened or endangered ove.- the long-
term, as man's exploitation of other resources continues (Mustard 1978). Long-
term protection of habitat, then, can provide substantial future benefits,
benefits which may actually increase in unit value over time.

Protection of habitat can be afforded via fee simple purchase, which is
often prohibitively expensive, or via long-term dedication or easement. The
legal framework for the latter is provided at the state level by the Montana
Open Space Land and Conservation Act of 1975, which provides for maintenance

105

of lands in perpetuity of their natural condition (MDFWP and USDI no date).
Specifically, loss of riparian habitat, harlequin duck habitat or other losses
could be partly compensated by the establishment of easements which would
assure maintenance of similar habitats in perpetuity elsewhere in the area.
For example, easements obtained on riparian habitat between Libby and Troy
would contain provisions allowing present uses, but prohibiting future
timbe>' clearing, subdivision, inundation, or other activities detrimental to
wildlife. Federal easements would be more desirable than rtate easements,
since the former could not be overturned by state action, and since much
riprian habitat between Libby and Troy is presently owned by the U.S. Forest
Service, Such easements are an especially attractive form of compensation,
since the cost (Cp, page 144) may be yery low compared to outright purchase, _
and protection is afforded regardless of future ownership status. The benefits
of this form of compensation may not be felt for years or decades, and therefore
some environmental costs (i.e., unmitigated impact) would continue to accrue.
However, as protected habitat becomes increasingly scarce, the benefits of
long-term protection would not only accrue but increase over time, and total
benefits ever the long-term could eventually be far creater -- even if discounted
than those to be obtained by mitigation. Also, since initial costs ^re small
and costs do not accrue (as do costs of long-term enhancement), the cost-
effectiveness of this strategy would probably be much higher over the long-
term than that of either mitigation or enhancement compensation.

Recormiendations

Prior to certification, NLI should submit to DNRC and FERC for review,
and to FERC and the Board of Natural Resources and Conservation for approval
a detailed plan for mitigation and for compensation of unmitigated losses.
Such a plan should accompany the reclamation and restoration plan mentioned i
earlier, and should employ the most cost-effective mix of strategies --
mitigation, enhancement, and long-term protection of off-si,te habitats.
Means should be provided to provide immediate interim relief as well as long-
term relief from damage. It appears likely that the best strategy for long-
term relief would involve protective easements on habitats similar tothose
affected by the project; a reasonable plan would probably afford in-kind
protection in perpetuity for an area 20-25 times that of each affected habitat.
A map (scale = 1:24,000) should accompany the plan, and show the location and
dominant vegetation of enhancement lands as well as land ownership and proposed
easements. NLI shoudl be required to negotiate purchase of land or acquisition
of easements before final certification of the project. The plan should specify
methods of cost-benefit analysis and of estimating the requirements for
habitat losses; the habitat evaluation procedures of Schamberger and Farmer
(1978) or Fielder (1977) merit consideration for the latter. A procedure
for long-term monitoring of the success of mitigation, compensation, and en-
hancement should beout lined, and should be capable of ensuring that all
mitigating measures are enforced and of discerning unmitigated losses.

106

OVERALL SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS TO MONTANA'S WILDLIFE RESOURCE

Overall, the impact to the wildlife resource which would result from the
proposed Kootenai Falls project is not exceptional, in comparison with many
other energy facilities which have been sited in Montana. NLI is to be com-
mended for a sincere effort toward making the proposal as environmentally
compatible as possible, as evidenced by the drastic changes in project design
which were made during evolution of the final proposal. However, project-
related losses should certainly not be considered unimportant, as they involve
a number of significant long-term effects which cannot be avoided. Piecemeal
erosion of habitat is proceeding statewide at an ever-increasing rate, and irre-
versibly affects the future abundance and distribution of animals. Mustard
(1978) has termed this attrition "incremental extinction." Losses which appear
relatively small at the present time will thus assume a greater importance
in the future, when supply is scarcer and demand is higher.

Adverse Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided

As discussed previously, there are certain impacts associated with the
project which could not be completely mitigated should the project be carried
out; these include loss of riparian and "rapids" habitat and associated wildlife
species due to inundation; loss of the harlequin duck feeding and loafing habitat;
restriction of flows between the damsite and the discharge tunnel; possible reduction
of bald eagle prey availability; displacement and associated stress due to con-
struction noise and human activity; and increased mortality of various species
due to legal or illegal shooting. It appears that little opportunity exists
for compensation of these losses through enhancement, and long-term protection
of off-site habitats -- although an attractive strategy -- would not be entirely
effective in preventing net losses over time.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

All long-term impacts which would result from construction of the project
would be irreversible, assuming the dam would remain in place and in operation
indefinitely. The unmitigated net losses which would accrue over time repre-
sent an irretrievable loss of viewing and/or hunting opportunities in this
scenic area; such losses assume special importance in light of projected growth
in the area and the probable future demand for recreational use the area will
consequently receive, and of the probable future decline in supply of quality
wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities. No extinctions of species or
gene pools are expected to result from the facility,

Short-Term v. Long-Term Impacts

Displacement, stress, and increased mortality rates due to construction
noise and the presence of construction crews would in most cases be a short-
term impact; most species affected would probably re-establish in the area
(insofar as habitat alteration allows) following completion of the project.
Habitat alteration, however, would be a long-term impact, and would continue
to affect populations as long as the project exists.

107

Summary of Major Impacts

The most significaatimpacts which are likely to result from the proposed
facility are summarized below. k k ^

, .. Loss of the Harlequin Duck Population. The destruction of feeding and
loating habitat, as well as two or more years of construction-related dis-
turbance, IS expected to eliminate the present harlequin duck population from
the area. No effective methods of mitigation or in-kind compensation of this
impact have been identified. The harlequin duck is very rare in Montana, and
the study area represents the only readily accessible viewing area outside a
national park. Observing a harlequin duck in Montana is an uncommon experience,
and the importance of the viewing opportunity provided by the Falls is likelv
to increase with time.

Loss of Riparian Habitat and Associated WilHlifp Pnni^i^tinns Even with
the most successful restoration and reclamation, a net loss of riparian shore
tree, and shrub habitats would result from the proposed facility. These habi-
tats are unusually diverse and productive, and their continuing attrition has
recently become a matter of national concern. Approximately half of the Kootenai
Kiver in Montana has been impounded by Libby Dam, and another 20 percent would
be impounded by the proposed LARUD project; the little riparian habitat remaining
thus assumes key importance.

Bighorn Sheep Losses. The bighorn sheep population located near the pro-
ject area could be affected by (1) shrub invasion of grasslands on winter-
spring range due to raised water table; (2) increased stress due to construction-
related displacement; and (3) increased mortality due to illegal shooting by
construction workers. These effects taken together could be expected to at
least temporarily reduce the harvestable surplus - and hence the number of
permits issued for the herd. Bighorn sheep are one of the most highly
prized game animals in Montana, and the number of permits applied for greatly
exceeds the number issued. Any losses in hunting or viewing opportunities for
this species are thus of relatively great concern.

108

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MONITORING

RATIONALE

The inventory reported in this document was designed to provide a description
of the wildlife resource of the project area as it exists before construction of
the proposed Kootenai Falls project. Another objective of this inventory was
to allow a priori predicition of potential impacts which may result from the
proposed facility. A long-term monitoring program of the project area is
necessary to document the nature and magnitude of actual impacts (including
unexpected impacts), as well as to determine the success of habitat restoration,
compensation programs, and mitigation in general. Also, long-term monitoring
provides an essential continuation and refinement of the original inventory in
light of year-to-year changes in wildlife communities and unforseen human develop-
ments of activities in the area. The long-term monitoring program presented
below was designed to meet these objectives (NOTE: This program will be expanded
to include off-site mitigation and compensation lands once they have been identi-
fied).

PLAN OF STUDY

General

Each year, until the second year following project completion, field work
will take place for five consecutive days during each of five months. Specifically,
field work will take place within the following time period each year: January 1-15,
April 1-10, June 1-15, August 1-10, and October 1-15.

Following the second year after construction, this schedule will be followed
every third year, while field work will take place June 1-15 only during other
years. All observations of mammals (exclusive of sciurid rodents), upland game
birds, waterfowl, and raptors made in the project area and elsewhere between
Libby and Troy will be recorded on 1:24,000 field maps and on standard data
sheets (see Appendir B and C). All bird nests located will be described on
standard nest record cards and locations plotted on a separate set of maps. A
journal shall be kept by all field investigators throughout the study, and will
include itinerary, species lists, detailed species accounts (including field
marks for rare or unusual species, habitat preferences, food habitats, etc.),
and other appropriate information. Figure 17 shows the schedule of field work
and the timing of special studies as described below.

Riparian Wildlife Census

This census is designed to produce data allowing comparisons of wildlife
use of the project area between months and between years. The general methodology
is patterned after standard winter bird study (Kolb 1965) and breeding bird census
(Hall 1964, Van Velzen 1972) techniques used ir the original inventory, but has
been extended to include all vertebrate species. The census area includes: the
entire Kootenai River and its shorelines from 50 m (164 ft) below the proposed
outlet to the upper end of the proposed pool; the land area which would be in-
undated at a forebay elevation of 610 (2,000 ft); the land area would be affected
by the railroad relocation; and a "control" area, including all remaining land
between Highway 2 and the Kootenai River. The entire area is to be censused on
three consecutive days during each month in the field following the instructions

109

1^

>
o

o

I

S-
Dl
O

S-
Q-

C

s-
o

o

B

i~
o

s-
o

o

■a

o
I/)

c

OO

>1

-0

0)

o.

Ol
Li-

UJ

to

Da

3

r3

(/I

</i

C3

C

QJ

t—i

Ol

•r-

LL

o

•r-

-o

3
OO

CD

O

S-

Ol

ro

fO

c

OO

CD

CL

•1—

I/)

c

CO

t — t

•r—

u

-^

A->

c

•r—

1 —

c

q:

0)

u

c

03

CL

( —

o

>>

CL

ro

3

CL

ro

o3

QJ

OO

S-

O

X3

ro

Ll_

4->

>

h-

CJ

•r—

S-

Q.

>,

S_

-^

-C

h-

-^

• f—

a?

3

o

Q-

Q-

CL

m

s_

>

OO

3

OJ

<D

£^

( —

ro

o

S-

Q

o;

CD

<5

fO

>-

I/)

3

OJ

xz

j::

g

<u

OO

en

C

OO

OO

C.3

n3

o

o

, —

13

3

c

c

QJ

S

-LJ

It)

UJ

cr

s_

S-

1 —

to

ro

s-

OJ

o

o

■r—

1 —

3

4->

cu

-D

1 —

jr

-C

-LJ

1 —

LO

•r—

c:

s_

en

en

CL

ro

c

J2I

Ol

(TJ

ro

• r—

■f—

d)

E

OJ

to

cs

en

ZIZ

CO

CQ

cc:

OO

(_)

n:

o
</)

O)

>>

o

5

no

outlined in Appendix F. Results will be analyzed separately for the project
ared and the control area.

Bald Eagle Survey

The Kootenai River between Libby and Troy will be surveyed from Highway
2 for bald eagles three times in Janaury, following the methods of Meyer
(1979). These data will be treated separately from bald eagle information
obtained during general surveys and riparian habitat censuses.

Harlequin Duck Special Studies

In addition to surveys made during riparian habitat censuses, special
searches of the Falls area for harlequin ducks will be carried out each day
in the field in June and August. In June, emphasis will be placed on deter-
mination of total population size and the number of pairs present; in August,
emphasis will be placed on search of likely brood-rearing habitat for broods.

Bighorn Sheep Counts

One day each month, a special search of the cliffs north of the River
between Libby and Troy will be made from strategic viewpoints along Highway
2 using a spotting scope. An estimate of the minimum number of sheep known
to be present will be recorded. All oberservations will be recorded on field
maps and data sheets.

Bighorn Sheep Tracking

On two different days each April, the north shore of the Kootenai River
adjacent to known bighorn sheep range will be walked and searched for tracks
or other evidence of bighorn sheep use. These data will be recorded on
standard field maps and data sheets.

Amphibian and Reptile Search

At least four hours will be spent each month during April, June, and
August in a search of likely habitat for amphibians and reptiles.

Small Mammal Trapping

Two snap-trap lines (each consisting of 25 stations of two traps each)
will be run for three consecutive nights in August (beginning in 1980), one
in riparian cottonwoods at the head of the Falls and one in adjacent riparian
grassland. Capture data will be recorded on standard data sheets (Appendix E)

111

Census of Yaak Falls

Water and shoreline habitats of Yaak Falls and c. 100 m (328 ft) of M
river upstream and downstream will be censused for vertebrates in January, "
April, June, and August (one visit each month) in an effort to determine
its suitability as a possible future control study area or as a compensation
area.

Species List Updated

The species lists presented in this report as Table 2 and 3 will be up-
dated each year; emphasis will be placed on refining data on habitat preferences,
distribution, and breeding status, and upon recording new species (particularly
migrants) .

Habitat Description

Six vegetation plots 0.04 ha (0.1 acre) in size will be permanently staked
and sampled in May or June of 1980 and again the year prior to project construction
using the methods of James and Shugart (1970) in each of the following three
riparian habitats: riparian cottonwood, cottonwood-conifers, and birch-alder.
Foliage height diversity measurements will be made at each plot.

112

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was funded by Northern Lights, Inc., of Sandpoint, Idaho. Most
of the inventory data was gathered by Gayle Joslin of the Montana Department of
Fish, Wildlife & Parks; other biologists involved in the inventory were Larry
Thompson and Pat Nichols of the Department of Natural Resources & Conservation
and Pat Graham of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks. This report
was prepared by Larry Thompson and Pat Nichols of the Department of Natural Re-
sources & Conservation. Wilbur Rehmann (Kootenai Falls Project Manager, Depart-
ment of Natural Resources & Conservation), Frank Culver (Department of Natural
Resources & Conservation), Gayle Joslin (Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife S
Parks), and Bob Martinka (Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks) provided
technical review of our earlier draft of this report. Graphics were prepared by
June Virag and Gordon Taylor of the Department of Natural Resources & Conserva-
tion, and typing was done by Marci Curtis, Patty Hallberg, and Cheye Ann Butler.

113

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, B.S., and R.D. Ohmart. 1977. Vegetation structure and bird use in the
lower Colorado Valley. In Importance, preservation management of riparian
habitat: a symposium, pp. 23-34. R.R. Johnson and D.A. Jones (tech. coord.)
U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-43.

Bailey, J. A. 1978. Trickle Mountain bighorn sheep study. Colorado State Univer-
sity, Fort Collins.

Bakus, G.J. 1959. Territoriality, movements and population density of the dipper
in Montana. Condor 61:410-425.

Beidleman, R.G. 1973. The cottonwood-wi 1 low riparian ecosystem as a vertebrate
habitat, with particular reference to birds. In Lowland river and stream
habitat in Colorado: a symposium, pp. 192-195. Graul , W.D., and S.J.
Bissell (tech. coord.) Colorado Chapter Wildl. Soc. and Colorado Audubon
Counci 1 .

Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Wildlife Manage-
ment Institute and Illinois National Historical Surveillance. Stackpole
Books. 544pp.

Bengtson, S.A. 1956. Field studies on the harlequin duck in Iceland. Wildfowl
Trust Ann Rep. 17:79-94.

Bengtson, S.A. 1972. Breeding ecology of the Harlequin duck (Histrionicus his-
trionicus) in Iceland. Ornis Scand. 3:1-19.

Bengtson, S.A. and S. Ulfstrand. 1971. Food resources and breeding frequency of
the harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) in Iceland. Oikos 22:235-239.

Black, J.H. 1970a. Amphibians of Montana. Number 1 of Animals of Montana Series.
Montana Wildlife, January 1970: 1-32.

Black, J.H. 1970b. Turtles of Montana. Number 2 of Animals of Montana Series.
Montana Wildlife, November 1970: 26-32.

Bowen, CM. 1979. Grayrocks -- a new approach to mitigation. In The mitigation
symposium: a n ational workshop on mitigating losses of fish and wildlife
habitats., pp. 434-438 . G.A. Swanson (tech. coord.) U.S.D.A. Forest Service
"General Technical Report RM-65.

Brown, G.W. 1974. Distribution and population characteristics of bighorn sheep
near T lompson Falls in Northwestern Montana. M.S. Thesis. University of
Montana, Missoula. 134pp.

115

Brown, G.W, 1979. Ural-Tweed bighorn sheep investigation. Montana Department of
Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena.

Brusven, M.A., C. MacPhee, and R. Biggam. 1974. Effects of water fluctuations on
benthic insects. In Anatomy of a river, pp. 67-79. Pacific Northwest River
Basins Commission. Vancouver, Washington.

Bull, E.L. 1978. Specialized habitat requirements of birds: snag management,
old growth, and riparian habitat. In Proceedings of the workshop on non-
game bird habitat management in the coniferous forests of the western United
States, pp. "79-32. R.M. DeGraaf (tech. coord.) U.S.D.A. Forest Service
General Technical Report PNW-64.

Burgess, R. , and E. Huber. 1979. Biological monitoring on rights-of-way. Pre-
sented at the Second Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way
Management. Ann Arbor, Michigan, October 16-18, 1979.

Burt, W.H., and R.P. Grossenheider. 1964. A field guide to the mammals. Houghton-
Mifflin Co. Boston. 284pp.

Carothers, W.W., R.R. Johnson, and S.W. Aitchison. 1974. Population structure
and social organization of southwestern riparian birds. Amer. Zool. 14:97-
108.

Caughley, G. 1974. Interpretation of age ratios. J. Wildl. Manage. 38(3): 557-
562.

Christensen, A. 1979. Telephone conversation with Pat Nichols, Department of Nat-
ural Resources & Conservation, July 1979.

Craighead, J.J., and L. Craighead. 1979. An assessment of the ecological impacts
of the Libby additional units and reregulating dam (LAURD) project and Libby
Dam on the American bald eagle. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Contract #
DACW67-78-C-0109. Final Report.

Davis, C.V. 1961. A distributional study of the birds of Montana. Ph.D. Thesis
Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Davis, C.V. 1963. Montana snakes. Montana Department of Fish & Game. Helena.
10pp.

Elliott, J. 1979. Personal communication. Olson-Elliott and Associates, Helena,
Montana.

Dzubin, A. 1969. Assessing breeding populations of ducks by ground counts. In
Saskatchewan wetland Seminar, pp. 178-230. Canadian Wild . Service Printing
Serial Number 6. Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Division. Ottowa.

Emlen, J.T. 1977. Estimating breeding season bird densities from transect counts.
Auk 94:455-468.

116

Fielder, P.C. 1977. An assessment of Chief Joseph Dam-units to 27 project impacts
and their mitigation and compensation by means of the habitat unit evaluation
procedure. Washington Department of Game, Applied Research Cull. No. 14.

Fitzgerald, J. P. 1978. Vertebrate associations in plant communities along the
South Platte River in northeastern Colorado. In Lowland river and stream
habitat in Colorado: a symposium, pp. 73-88. Graul , W.D., and S.J. Bissell
(tech. coords.) Colo. Chap. Wildl. Soc. and Colo. Audubon Council.

Flath, D. 1979. Nonganie species of special interest or concern. Montana Depart-
ment of Fish, Wildlife & Parks.

Golden, J., R.R. Quellette, S. Saair, and P.N. Cheremisoff. 1979 Environmental
impact data book. Ann Arbor Science Publ . , Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Gollop, J.B., and W.H. Marshall. 1954. A guide for aging broods in the field.
Mississippi Flyway County Technical Section.

Graham, P.J. 1979a. Kootenai Falls aquatic environment study. Final Report.
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena.

Graham, P.J. 1979b. Kootenai Falls aquatic environment study-impact assessment.
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena.

Graul, W.D., and S.J. Bissell (tech. coord.) 1978. Lowland river and stream hab-
itat in Colorado: a symposium. Colo. Chap. Wildl. Soc. and Colo. Audubon
Counci 1 , 195pp.

Hall, G.A. 1964. Breeding bird censuses -- why and how. Audubon Field Notes.
18:413-416.

Hall, E.R., and K.R. Kelson. 1979. The mammals of North America (2nd Edition).
Ronald Press, New York.

Hanson, W.C, and L.L. Eberhardt. 1971. A Columbia River Canada goose population
1950-1970. Wildl. Monogr. No. 28:1-61.

Hoffmann, R.S., and D.L. Pattie. 1968. A guide to Montana mammals. University of
Montana, Missoula. 133pp.

Hoffmann, R.S., D.L. Pattie, and J.F. Bell. 1969. The distribution of some mammals
in Montana. II. Bats. J. Mamm. 28:737-741.

Hoffman, R.S., P.L. Wright, and F.E. Newby. 1969. The distribution of some mammals
in Montana. I. Mammals other than bats. J. Mamm. 50:579-504.

Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The ecology of running waters. University of Toronto Press,
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 555pp.

117

■Jackman, S. 1974. Cavity nesting birds - can we ever leave enough snags? Techni-
cal Paper 3873, Oregon Ag. Expt. Sta.

James, F.C., and H. Shugart, Jr. 1970. A quantitative method of habitat descrip-
tion. Audubon Field Notes. 24:727-736.

Johnson, R.R., and D.A. Jones. 1977. Importance, preservation and management of
riparian habitat: a symposium. U.S. D.A. Forest Service General Technical
Report RM-^3.

Johnson, R., and J. McCormick. 1973. Strategies for protection and management of
floodplain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems. U.S. D.A. Forest Service,
General Technical Report WO-12.

Joslin, G. 1978. Kootenai Falls wildlife inventory. Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife, & Parks. Helena.

Kichura, T., and B. Ruediger. 1978. 1973 osprey/eagle nesting inventory. U.S. D.A.
Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest.

Kolb, H. 1965. The Audubon winter bird population study. Audubon Field Notes.
19:432-434.

Kuchel , C.R. 1976. Aspects of breeding ecology of the harlequin duck (Histrion-
icus histrionicus) in Glacier National Park. M.S. Thesis, University of
Montana, Missoula.

MacArthur, R.H., and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The theory of island biogeography.
Princeton Univ. Press. Princeton, N.J.

McClelland, B.R. 1977. A study of forest snags and hole-nesting birds. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula.

McCormick, J.R. 1963. An initiative for preservation and management of a wet-
land habitat. A position paper in support of a proposal for a national pro-
gram for the protection and management of riparian ecosystems. U.S. D.I.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. 27pp.

McGrady, D. 1979. Personal communication to Pat Nichols, Department of Natural
Resources S Conservation. June, 1979.

McKern, J.L. 1976. Inventory of riparian habitats and associated wildlife along
Columbia and Snake Rivers. Vol. I: Summary. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
North Pacific Division.

Martin, P.R. 1977. The effect of altered stream flow on furbearing mammals of
the Yellowstone River Basin, Montana. Yellowstone Impact Study Technical
Report No. 6. Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation, Helena.

118

May, B. , and J.E. Huston, 1975. Status of fish populations in the Kootenai River
below Libby Dam following regulation of the river. Montana Department of
Fish & Game, Job final report. Contract No. DACW 67-73-C-003.

May, B., and J.E. Huston. 1979. Status of fish populations in the Kootenai River
below Libby Dam following regulation of the river. Montana Department of
Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena. Contract No. DACW 67-73-C-0055.

Meslow, E.C. 1978. The relationship of birds to habitat structure - plant commu-
nities and successional stages. In Proceedings of the workshop on nongame
bird habitat management in the coniferous forests of the western United States.
De Graaf, R.M. (tech. coord.) U.S.D.A. Forest Service Technical Report PNW-64.

Meyer, J.R. 1979. Northwest Montana/North Idaho transmission corridor - bald eagle
study. Bonneville Power Administration. Portland, Oregon.

Mitchell, P. A. 1968. The food of the dipper (Cinclus mexicanus Swainson) on two
western Montana streams. M.S. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula.

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks and the U.S. Department of the Interior.
No date. Conservation easements in Montana. Helena, Montana.

Mustard, E.W. 1978. Lowland river and stream habitat in Colarado -- a pictorial
review. In Lowland river and stream habiatat in Colarado: a symposium. W.D.
Graul and S.J. Bissell (tech. coords.) Colo. Chap. Wild!. Soc. and Colo. Audu-
bon Council .

Nelson, C.H., and K. C. Parkes. 1975. A definite Colarado breeding record for the
harlequin duck. Auk 93:846-847.

Nelson, R.W., and 6.C. Horak and J.E. Olson. 1978. Western reservoir and stream
habitat improvements handbook. U.S. D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-
-78/56.

Northern Lights, Inc. 1978. Kootenai River hydroelectric project No. 2752. Ap-
plication for license. Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Sandpoint, Idaho.

Oliver, W.H. 1974. Wildlife problems associated with reservoirs used for electri-
cal power generation (with special emphasis on Wells Hydroelectric Project
Wildlife Study). Washington Department of Game, Bulletin No. 3.

Oliver, W.H. and Barnett, D.C. 1966. Wildlife studies in the Wells hydroelectric
project area. FPC license No. 2149. Columbia River, Washington. Wash. Dept.
Game, Olympia.

Olson-Elliott and Associates. 1976. Unpublished forest habitat type maps prepared
for Bonneville Power Administration Libby Integration Project. Helena, Montana.

Olson-Elliott and Associates. 1979. Kootenai Falls project - vegetation impacts

assessment and inventory. Prepared for Montana Department of Natural Resources
& Conservation, Helena.

119

Payne, N.F., G.P. Munger, J.W. Matthews, and R.D. Taber. 1976. Inventory of ri- ^
Parian habitats and associated wildlife along Columbia and Snake Rivers. ^
Vol. IV: Mid-Colurnbia River. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific
Division.

Pengelly, W.L 1973. Letter to Richard Strong, U.S.F.S., Hamilton, Montana,
January 5.

Peterson, R.T. 1961. A field guide to Western birds. Houghton Mifflin Co.,
Boston. The Riverside Press, Cambridge. 366pp.

Pfister, R. , B. Kovalchik, and S. Arno. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana.

Intermountain Forest and Range Experimental Station. U.S.D.A. Forest Service,
General Technical Report INT-34.

Regan, D.M. 1979. Letter to J. A. Poteat. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. June
11, 1979.

Remington, J.D. 1971. An analysis of the report - wildlife studies in the hydro-
electric project area - with recommendations. J.D. Remington, Wildlife Con-
sultant, Portland, Oregon.

Robbins, C.S. 1970. Recommendations for an international standard for a mapping
method in bird census work. Audubon Field Notes 24:723-726.

Schamberger, M. , and A. Farmer. 1978. The habitat evaluation procedures, their

application in project planning and impact evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife^^
Service, Division of Ecological Services, Project Impact Evaluation, Fort ^^
Collins, Colorado.

Sewell, J. A., and Associates. 1979. Letter to Larry S. Thompson, Department of
Natural Resources & Conservation, of October 12.

Sharma, R.K., J.D. Buffington, and J.T. McFadden (eds.) 1976. Proceeding of the
workshop on the biological significance of environmental impacts. NR-Conf-002
U.S. Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 327pp.

Skaar, P.D. 1975. Montana bird distribution. P.D. Skaar, 501 South Third, Bozeman,
Montana. 56pp.

Smith, D.R. 1954. The bighorn sheep in Idaho -- its status, life history and man-
agement. Wildlife Bull. No. 1. Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act, Idaho
Project 99-R. 154pp.

Smith, J. 1979. Telephone conversation with Pat Nichols, Department of Natural Re-
sources & Conservation, August 1979.

Stelfox, J.G. 1976. Range ecology of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in Canadian
National Parks. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. Ser. 39:1-50.

120

Stoecker, R.E. 1978. The importance of shoreline length to improving wildlife
habitat at gravel ponds. In Lowland river and stream habitat in Colorado:
a symposium, pp. 172-176. W.D. Graul and S.J. Bissell (tech. coordsT)
Colo. Chap. Wildl. Soc. and Colo. Audubon Council.

Sullivan, J.O. 1973. Ecology and behavior of the dipper: adaptations of a pass-
erine to an aquatic environment. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula.
212pp.

Taber, R.D., and K.Ra edeke. 1975. Biotic survey of Ross Lake Basin report for
July 1, 1975 - June 30, 1976. College of Forest Resources. Institute of
Forest Products, University of Washington, Seattle.

Thompson, L.S. 1978. Species abundance and habitat relations of an insular montane
avifauna. Condor 80:1-14.

Thompson, L.S. 1979. Mitigation as management: strategy and some alternatives.
In The mitigation symposium: a national workshop on mitigating losses of
fish and wildlife habitats, pp. 222-228. G.A. Swanson (tech. coord.) U.S.D.A.
Forest Service General Technical Report RM-65.

Teskey, R.O., and T.M. Hinckley. 1978. Impact of water level changes on woody ri-
parian and wetland communities. Vol. VI: Plains grassland region. U.S. D.I.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program FWS/OLiS-78/89.

121

APPENDIXES

123

Appendix A. Schedule of 1977-1979 field work. Kootenai Fall Wildli

fe Study

1/ T ^ r- , waterfowl Census

Date Observer!/ Type of Field Work ..o.^TmP-^^, ,u s

1977

Oct. 13 LT Reconnaissance

, Nov. 30 GJ Reconnaissance

" Dec. 20 GJ Reconnaissance

1978

Jan. 11 GJ

General Inventory

Feb. 9 GJ General

l^^- 1° GJ General Inventory

reb. 11 GJ General Invpntnru

General Inventory

Riparian Habitat
Transects

Jan- 18 GJ General Inventory

'i^"- ^° GJ General Inventory . :

'i^"- 21 GJ General Inventory - " J

'^^"- 30 GJ General Inventory - ''

ril' ,r. beneral Inventory - ^

"^eo- 10 GJ General Inventory ^

General Inventory

^^^- 13 GJ General Inventory - . ^

CK Ir '^'^ General inventory ... :

l^°- 16 GJ General Inventory - J

l^^- f GJ General Inventory - . ^

Feb. 28 GJ General Inventory - . Z

j^^'"- 1 GJ General Inventory

Mar. 2 GJ.LT General Inventory

Mar. 3 GJ . - . •'

^^'"- 6 GJ General Inventory

™''- ^ GJ General Inventory

"a""- 10 GJ General Inventory - _ "

™'"- 11 GJ General Inventory - . ~

Mar. 12 GJ General Inventory - . '

Apr. 13 GJ General Inventory

Apr. 17 GJ General Inventory - . ~

Apr. 24 GJ General Inventory - . "

Apr. 25 GJ General Inventory - . '

Apr. 26 GJ General Inventory - - "

Apr. 27 GJ General Inventory - . "

Apr. 29 GJ General Inventory - . Z

'^P''- 30 GJ General Inventory - . jj

l^^y 1 GJ General Inventory - . „

"^y ] GJ General Inventory - . J

"^y '' GJ General Inventory - . J

™y ^ 11 General Inventory - - '^

May 7 GJ.LT General Inventory - . '

May 8 GJ.LT General Inventory - . Z

'^^y 9 GJ.LT General Inventory - . J

124

Appendix A. (Co(it)

May

10

GJ

May

11

GJ

May

12

GJ

May

13

GJ

May

15

PG

May

18

GJ

May

19

GJ

May

21

GJ

May

22

GJ

May

25

GJ

June

2

GJ

June

5

GJ,LT

June

6

PG.LT

June

7

LT

June

8

GJ.LT

June

9

LT

June

11

GJ

June

12

PG

June

13

GJ

June

15

GJ

June

16

GJ

June

18

GJ

June

20

GJ

June

21

GJ

June

29

LT

June

30

LT

July

5

GJ

July

8

GJ

July

9

BM

July

11

GJ

July

13

GJ

July

14

GJ

July

15

GJ

July

16

GJ

July

17

GJ

July

31

PG

Sept

2

PN

Sept

3

PN

Sept

4

PN

Oct.

11

LT

Oct.

16

PG

Oct.

18

PG

Oct.

20

PG

General Inventory

General Inventory

General Inventory

General Inventory
Incidental Observations

General Inventory

General Inventory

General Inventory

General Inventory

General Inventory

General Inventory

General Inventory

General Inventory

General Inventory

General Inventory

General Inventory

General Inventory
Incidental Observations

General Inventory

General Inventory

General Inventory

General Inventory

General Inventory

General Inventory

General Inventory

General Inventory

General Inventory
General Inventory
Incidental Observations
General Inventory
General Inventory
General Inventory
General Inventory
General Inventory
General Inventory
Incidental Observations

Small Marmial Trapping
Small Mammal Trapping
Small Mammal Trapping

Reconnaissance
Incidental Observations
of Bald Eagles
Incidental Observations
of Bald Eagles
Incidental Observations
of Bald Eagles

125

Oct. 23 PG Insldental Observations

of Bald Eagles

Reconnaissance
Incidental Observations
of Bald Eagles

Nov. 2

LT

Nov. 21

PG

1979

Jan. 20

PN

Feb. 10

PN

Feb. 11

PN

Feb. 12

PN

April 18

PN

April 19

PN

April 20

PN

April 21

PN

June 13

PN

June 14

PN

June 27

PN

June 28

PN

June 29

PN

June 30

PN

July 31

LT

Aug 1

LT

Waterfowl and Riparian Surveys X - x— ''

Waterfowl and Riparian Surveys X - x

Waterfowl and Riparian Surveys X - x

Waterfowl and Riparian Surveys X - x

Waterfowl and Riparian Surveys X XX

Waterfowl and Riparian Surveys X XX

Waterfowl and Riparian Surveys X XX

Waterfcwl and Riparian Surveys X XX

Waterfowl and Riparian Surveys X X X,,

Waterfcwl and Riparian Surveys X X X-

Waterfowl and Riparian'Surveys X XX

Waterfowl and Riparian Surveys X XX

Waterfcwl and Riparian Surveys X XX

Waterfowl and Riparian Surveys X XX

Reconnaissance - . .

Reconnaissance - v -

-GJ=Gayle Joslin, PG=Pat Graham, PN=Pat Nichols, BM-Bill iMartin, LT=Larry Thompson.
- Bad weather may have affected results on these dates.

126

APPENDIX B

KOOTENAI FALLS WILDLIFE STUDY WILDLIFE OBSERVATION DATA SHEET:

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE

1. Level. Leave Blank

2. Date.* List only for first observation, or for observations listed

at top of data sheet.

3. Observers.* Indicate two initials of two principal observers; e.g.,

RP = Richard Prodgers alone; RPLR = Richard Prodgers, Lamar Rose, and
Joe Elliott.

4. Vehicle.*

SC - Stationary car
MC - Moving car
FT - Foot
AP - Airplane
BT - Boat
SK - Skiis

5. Cloud Cover.** Estimate percent cloud cover.

6. Precipitation.** Indicate type (R - rain, H - hail or sleet, S - snow,

N - none) and rate (N - none, L - light, M - moderate, H - heavy).

127

7. Temperature.** Use Fahrenheit scale; indicate whether estimated (e.c.,

E 50) or measured (M50). For below zero temperatures, indicate with B
or X (e.g., lOB = ten below, estimated; lOX = ten below, measured).

8. Wind Speed.** Use Beaufort Numbers:

Wind Speed
Number MPH Indicators

0 Less than 1 Smoke rises vertically

1 1 to 3 Wind direction felt by smoke drift

2 3 to 7 Wind felt on face; leaves rustle

3 8 to 12 Leaves, small twigs in constant motion

4 13 to 18 Raises dust and loose paper

5 19 to 24 Small trees in leaf sway; crested wavelets

6 25 to 31 Large branches in motion ^

7 32 to 38 Whole trees in motion, inconvenience in walking

against wind

8 39 to 46 Breaks twigs off trees, impedes progress

9 above 47 Structural damage

9. Observation Number. Begin with one for each day.

10. Time. Military (e.g., 0535, 1721)

11. Species. Use common names as listed in Skaar (1975) and Burt & Grossenheider

(1964). If common name consists of one word, list first four letters (e.g.,

Beaver - BEAV). if two words, list first two letters

of each word (e.g.. Bighorn Sheep = BISH). If three or more words, list

128

first letter of first two words, first two letters of last word (e.g..
White-tailed Oeer = WIDE). For unusual species or ambiguous names, it
is best to list full name under "Remarks".

12. Number of Animals. Make sure the sum of adult males, adult females, young,
and unclassified equals the total. Each distinct group of animals should be
given a separate observation number,

13. Activity. List first two letters of word; for example:
BE = Bedded SO = Soaring

ST = Standing DR = Drinking

FE = Feeding CO = Courtship

WA = Walking MA = Mating

RU = Running SB = Standing and bedded (in same group)

FL = Flying BF = Bedded and feeding (in same group)

SW = Swimming RK = Roadkill

PE = Perched SC = Scat

NE = Nesting TR = Tracks

14. Slope. Estimate degrees from horizontal.

15. Aspect. N. NE. E. SE , S, SW, W, NW

16. Percent of Snow. Estimate overall snow cover for area.

129

17. Vegetation. Indicate two-letter wildl ife habitat category code
(See Table 1 of Final Report) in appropriate column. Dominant plant
species (e.g. , Pseudotsuga menziesii and Symphoricarpos alba = PSMESYAL)
may also be listed under "dominants."

If additional dominants need be listed, list under "Remarks."

18. Topography. Classify according to terrain type categories described on
Page of the Final Report.

19. Elevation. Record first two digits of elevation in feet (e.g., 2317 =
23).

20. Remarks. Indicate such observations as associated species, food items,
catalogue numbers of specimens taken, etc.

*

List only for observation number one for each day, for observations list

at top of data sheet, or when changing observers, vehicles, or level.

**

May be listed only at beginning and end of trip.

130

H
<

t/» Z.

i o

i 1;^

uj

: X

CO

o 1

jsj — ; —

■•"■"

. '

T~~ —

1 : : 1

1 — < —

T— 1

CE
<

" 1

1

1

1

q:

1

1

t

1

I .

1

^

1

1

;

1

«i> NOIiVAJia

1 "1 —

1

I

.«

I

I

z
o

<
>

]■

z

<i r

3
O

o

>

1 '■

1

m

d
O

- — U-

■"■"'■'

O

la!

5- a

•o^sNr^l 1

1

—

lOJrtt*— ) 1 1

1

CO «
> <J

1

1

1

, idOis'— ; 1

1

1 ■

[

—^

n =

1

1

a

AllAllDTf— ( 1 1

C5r?

i;i 1

1

2

z
<l

u.
o

a:

ED

3
z.

«nno»t 1 1

"-~

ii «

1

i

23

Ovno*i-

j

~~"

s-

-

— 1

nnoBJ;

^^~

'

~"^

1

iwoxF

__

«

\

©

_

1—

u

«3iDJdt -

43

C

j

1

1

— _

o

ami -

.1

., i

ON Sflo[;

i '

1

^^~"

CJJdS ONIM^^

■""*

—

—

—

3«'^1

_

1

»a3dn3i

'

\'

tl.

!

3d*i,iri

: 1

■

"~~"

m3a5"3| ;

— \

—

-^_

1 !

jtdihjaU \ L

1

—

1

(•

"*"■

~" '

——

]•

u»

(....

1

., 1

-■l.l^J i — 4. i , 1

1

v~^

H

..--l-l 1

.J 1 ' '

1 ' 1

3(

APPENDIX C

KOOTENAI FALLS WILDLIFE STUDY WATERFOWL OBSERVATION DATA SHEET:

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE

OBJECTIVES OF STUDY:

(1) For AH Species. To detennine dates of earliest arrival, peak of
movement, and end of movement for spring and fall migrations.

(2) For Breeding Species. To determine the importance of waters in
the study area as nesting habitat; size of breeding populations in the study
area; nesting habitat requirements; dates of nesting; clutch and brood sizes;
productivity.

(3) For Migrants. To determine the importance of waters in the study
area as resting or feeding habitat.

CATEGORIES OF DATA:

(1) Level.

Leave Blank.

(2) Date. List only for the first observation of the day, or at the
top of a new data sheet.

(3) Observers. Abbreviate as on Wildlife Observation Data Sheet.

(4) Time. Military (e.g., 0535, 1721)

132

(5) Area Code. Locations of waterfowl observations will be coded in
the "Area Code" column. This will eliminate the need for plotting waterfowl

observations on base maps. Use letter codes as shown in Figure of the

Final Report; use column 54 only (the right-hand column).

(6) Species. Use four-letter abbreviations of common names as listed

by Skaar (1975). If common names consists of one word, list first four letters
(e.g.. Pintail = PINT). If two words, list first two letters of each word
(e.g., Canada Goose = CAGO). If three or more words, list first letter of
first two words and first two letters of last word (e.g.. Ring-necked Duck =
RNDU; Blue-winged Teal = BUTE, Great Blue Heron = GBHE), etc.) Identify
birds to species if possible; if this cannot be done, indicate UNDU (=Unident.
Ducks); UNGE (="Unident. Geese"); UNKN (="Unknown") ; etc. Where several spe-
cies occupy a given water area, it may be necessary to use several rows to
record the data, or even several rows for one species.

(7) Census. An X in this column indicates that all water birds occupying
the water area in question were recorded; this includes waterfowl, shorebird,
kingfishers, herons, etc.

(8) Activity: List first two letters of word; for example:
FL - Flying CO = Courtship

SW = Swimming MA = Mating
FE = Feeding NE = Nesting
ST = Standing PE = Perched

133

(9) Number of Birds. Indicate number of individuals of each sex and
age class observed. If sex and age cannot be determined, leave these columns
blank.

(10) Number of Pairs. Of the birds listed under "number of birds", how
many obvious pairs were seen?

(n) Brood Size. Up to two broods per species can be listed under "A"
and "B", if more than two broods per species are seen in the same water area,
another row must be used.

(12) Notes. An X under "Search?" indicates an active search for nests
was made. Indicate the number of nests located whether or not a search was
made. For each nest recorded, additional data (location, construction, number
of eggs, vegetation, exposure, evidence of predation, etc.) should be recorded
in the field journal.

GENERAL. Several days' data may be recorded on the same page, but one page
should not have data from different months.

134

<

Q

2 E

*2

—J V)

— I ja

_ Ic

E-

W

w
X
00

\n

-..-.'-::! j 1 1 ''■.'■! '

1

'2.

'" '"' - 1 i 1 ' ' ' * '

f

1-^^ — 1

.1

IS

u^ ; ^ ■ '11

--

-f--, 4

1

! 1

:' ! 1 ■ . 1 ■ ' 1

-- _

:;."

- rrH -4-' f 1 t 1-

i f

• -i -1 t

i

-

^•"-' '^ 1 1 ! i 1 i 1 ' 1 i

' 1

ill

*"

«i-»^- !rt" t t i t

i I

1 1

t 1 1 !

1

o

V

-4--

-T -
1

- -+-

(....1 I i !

1 i

1 '
— 1 — 1 —

1

Z O

T '"

-i

—

«.

D ■> i;!

(T

ii

1

1

i

i

1

Z

< t:^ :i '

1 1

i

1 1

J UJ

1 1

Is

1

; 1

V' '

Al'A.iD»

\ ■ 1

1 1

'

\ 1

Li"?S30 'S j 1

1

I ' ■

1

1

u_

o

s

1

1

«

"

2S

cr o

— —

i

~—~

1

—

"'

1

O

ii 1 1

'

r— ! 1

t" —

-13

1 —

— rl

o^

m ».

" o

> u

o,^

a

r- ^

'-^cr.

^

<

1

2"^

a:

1

2 ;

i

<'s

uJ

^2

o

z

UJ It

o

1

UJ "

a

X

«

0.

m

bj

u

o

z

c

1

13

z

o

o

2

o

o

a

~~~

—

■■^

—

CM

1

"^~

jAHlCflok

V,

—

-A

I

i ! 1

1

.'. i

: . . r

1

.,.c,:» 1 ! ' 1

J i

~f

1

T r

— ^

O .

; 1

1 1

H»3»-

^ — 1 — 1-

1 i- i i

—

1

1

1 1

1

.,.,„., ^ ; 1 ■ 1 r- -^

z:

1 1

' i 1

i^5

APPENDIX D
CENSUS OF RIVER FALLS AND ADJACENT WESTERN RED CEDAR-DOUGLAS FIR FOREST

Location: Montana; Lincoln County; located bctv/cen the Kootenai River and U. S.
Highway #2, about 19 km (12 miles) WNW of Libby; 48° 27' fi , 115° 47' W, Kootenii
Falls Quadrangle, U.S.G.S. Continuity: Mew. Size: 44. S ha ^ 110 acres (oblong,
paced). Description of Plot: Approximately 40." of the plot is water, incl 'idi nq
a 1500 m (= 4921 ft) stretch of the Kootenai River. Kootenai Falls, the major falls
of the Kootenai River, is located in this stretch, and river elevation drops 17 rr.
(= 55 ft) between the eastern and western edges of the plot. Flows of the Kootenai
River are controlled by the pattern of discharge froiii Libby Dam (located approxiridtely
40 km = 25 mi,les upstream), and varied from in in^/sec (= 4,000 ff-^/sec) to 566 rrr'/sec
(= 20,000 ft"^/sec) during the study. Width of the river within the plot was approx-
imately 250 m (820 ft) at its widest point and 45 n; (= 111 ft) at its narrowest,
where it flows through a steep, rocky canyon. A nur.ber of islands, the larr;nst of
which is less than 2 ha (= 5 acres) in size, are found in the 400 m (= 1,112 ft)
stretch of the river iimiediately below the falls; th(.'Se islands, as well as all
water areas to the north of them, were excluded from the plot. A footbridge spans
the river at its narrowest point, approximately 500 m (^ 1,640 ft) from the weste-n
boundary of the plot. The land area included in this [ilot is that between the
southern bank of the Kootenai River and U.S. Highway ^2 to the south. This strip of
land is 300 m (= 984 ft) wide at its widest point and 70 m wide (= 230 ft) at its
narrowest point. A two-track Burlington Northern railroad roughly bisects this
land area lengthwise; these tracks were used by approximately one train/hour during
census runs. A telephone line and a 34.5 kilovolt powerline parallel this railroad,
resulting in a cleared corridor roughly 40 m (=131 ft) in width. Most of the
remainder of the plot is forested. A Lion's Club picnic area with a spring, wooden
tables, garbage receptacles, and outhouses is located along Highway 2 near the
center of the plot, and a 150 m (= 492 ft) loop road enters into the plot from
Highway 2 300 m (= 984 ft) from the eastern edge of the plot. Both areas wer-e
heavily used by picnickers, fishermen, and sightseers throughout the sumrier. An
abandoned forest road connects U.S. tt2 and the railroad right-of-way near the eastern
edge of the plot. At the western edge of the plot, the highway, railroad, and
telephone lines come togetner at the base of a steep, rocky cliff, and pass over a
nearly vertical concrete embankment which extends to the riverbank. Rocky outcrops
are common within the plot north of the railroad right-of-way. A number of wcry
small streams bisect the plot. Elevations range from 58H m (= 1,930 ft) to 640 m
(= 2,100 ft). A fairly steep bank rises between the railroad right-of-way and the
relatively flat bench to the south in the eastern 2/3 of the plot. Forests to the
north of this bank are fairly open and shrubby, with few large trees; forests to
the south are much more dense, with many tall trees and little understory vegetation.
The study area falls primarily within the western red cedar/gueencup beadlily
{Thuja plijata/Clintonia imiflora' habitat type (Pfister et al . 1977, Forest Habitat
Types of Montana, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Ogden, Utah), although a gradation to the Douglas fir/ninebark ( P.- •> ;a. •'.,.:';.': u.ja
menziesii/PhysocarpuR r;)alva.;euu) habitat type is indicated along drier, exposed
ridges near the water's edge. The dominant canopy trees &re. Douglas fir, western
larch {iarix ocaidi-ntaiir.) , and western red cedar, and th(? most prominent shrubs are
Canadian buffaloberry {L'.lirj'her.iin. ccrr.adc^-.r.ir-) , chokcchor'ry {:'r'o:u:^ virnini'.cir. i) ,

136

common snowberry {r:^m>hcri.-ar;>.- r. al}:ii.-), crodinbush octv.nspray [rirl'uHscu.- ,:—,'oU>r) ,
elderberry {;:,CT/-ucui; spp. ) . mountain alder [ALnur. //;-.•,;';. J , ninebark, quaking aspen

iiPc'puI.u.': ii\ -ml Older. ) , red-osier dogwood {Cor>'ur. rt ^ro>:^ f. v.:! , redstem ceanothus^
{Ccanuthic: r.,innuincuc) , Rocky Mountain maple [Acer ijlairic-) , syringia {rhil:Jclpli:in^
Icui-i:^, thimbleberry {h-i!ur. i^arv! fLTur,) , western servicoberry [Ari,^Jar'h:.i'aln:j\^l:a),
and willow (r^^ilix spp.). Mur.f-, of the more densely forested portion of the plot south
of the railroad tracks has little or no ground cover, and ttie soil in these areas is
covered with a mat of needles and with scattered logs and branches. A t|u,inl i t .1 1 1 ve
survey of the vegetation gave the following results: trees, 3 in. (= 7.6 cm)
diameter and over, based on five n.l acre (-0.04 hal circular samples, 2421/ha
{■= 9R0/acre); total basal area 37 mVha (- 160.1 ff^/acre). Species of trees (figures
after each give number of trees/ha, number of trees/acre, relative density (',"),
relative dominance, and frequency, in that sequence): Douglas fir 760, 338, 34, 48,
100; western larch 716, 318, 32, 27, 100; western red cedar 414, 184, 19, 13, 80;
lodgepole pine [Pinus contorta) 86, 38, 4, 5, 40; water birch [Hctula occi(h:>it.ilic)
158, 70, 7, 3, 80; Rocky Mountain maple [Acer glahrwi) 9, 4, tr (= trace, or less
than 0.57o), tr, 20; ponderosa pine (.^'znus pondcror.a) 5, 2, tr, tr, 20; Rocky Mountain
juniper {Junivcrus r.copuJcDcn) 5, 2, tr, tV, 20. A few small Engelmann spruce [Picaa
cngclmannti), western hemlock {'T.-^uga hi^terophulla) and grand fir {Abies jrayidiir,)
were also found in the plot. Trees by diameter size class (figures after each class
given number of trees/ha, nuntier of trees/acre, relative density (%), basal area in
m^/ha, basal area in ft^/acre, relative dominance): A(8-15 cm = 3-6 in) 1278, 568,
58, 13.0, 56.8, 18; 8(15-23 cm = 6-9 in) 540, 240, 24, 16.5, 72.0, 22; C(23-78 cm =
9-15 in) 315, 140,14, 65.7, lll'.O, 35; 0(38-53 cm = 15-27 in) 41, 18, 2, 7.4, 32.4,
10; E(53-69 cm - 21-27 in) 27. 12, 1, 8.5, 37.2, 12; F(69-a4 cm = 27-33 iF} 5, 2, tr,
2.3, 9.8, 3. Shrub stems/ha, 5265; shrub stems/acre, 2340; ground cover 26".; canopy
cover 66%; average canopy height 22 m = 72 feet (range 18-30 m = 60-100 feet). Plant

"kames fol low Hi tchcock and Cronquist's (1973) Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Edge:
bordered on the north by the steep north bank of the Kootenai River and the slopes
of the Purccll Mountains, characterized near the plot by Douglas fir/ninebark
forests and relatively dry rocky outcrops; bordered to the south by U.S. Highway 2
south of which rise the lower slopes of the Cabinet Mountains, characterized near
the plot by the relatively moist western red ccdar/queencup beadlily and western
hemlock/queencup beadlily habitat types. A steep, rocky cliff rises above the high-
way just south of the western thi'-d of the plot. Weather: the spring of 1978 was
relatively moist and followed a severe winter; plant phenology was thus several days
behind the normal. Rain was occasionilly experienced during census runs, but
weather for the most part was clear to cloudy and dry. Coverage: May 7, 8, 9, 22,
25; June 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 29, 30. All trips between 0515 and 2130 hours. Total
person-hours: 34.6. Census: violet-green swallow, 12(27, 11); yel 1 ow-rumped
warbler, 7 (16, 6); golden-crowned kinglet, 6(13, 5); Swainson's thrush, 5.5 (12, 5);
Townsend's warbler, 5.5 (12, 5); American robin, 4.5 (10, 4); yellow warbler, 4.5
(10, 4); dark-eyed junco, 4.5 (10, 4); rough-winged swallow, 4 (9, 4); dipper, 4
. (9, 4); red-eyed vireo, 4(9,4); black-capped chickadee, 3.5 (8, 3); song sparrow,
3.5 (8, 3); mallard, 2; warbling vireo, 2; Nashville warbler, 2; MacGi 11 i vray ' s
warbler, 2; American redstart, 2; brown-headed cowbird, 2; pine siskin, 2; spotted
sandpiper, 1.5; harlequin duck, 1; American kestrel, 1; conmon flicker, 1; Enipidonax
flycatcher (Hantnond's or Dusky), 1; tree swallow, 1; common crow, 1; western tanager,
1; common goldeneye, +; common merganser, +; osprey, +; common raven, +• varied
thrush, +. Total: 33 species, 91 territorial males or females (205/kmS 83 per
100 acres). Visitors: Canada goose, American wigeon, Barrow's goldeneye, mourning
dove, rufous hummingbird, calliope hummingbird, belted kingfisher, hairy woodpecker,

^^llow flycatcher, Townsend's solitaire, cedar waxwing , orange-crowned warbler,

^^zuli bunting, Lincoln's sparrow. Remarks: Five nests were located: common

137

flicker, 1; tree swallow, 1; black-capped chickadee, 1; robin, 2. Rough-winged
swallows nested in crevices in the steep concrete retaining wail at the extreme
westei-n edge of the plot, and a raven nest was located on a steep rock cliff
facing Highway 2 just outside the plot. An active osprey nest was found several
km downstream from the plot. Although pi leafed woodpeckers were not observed
during the census, one was seen on the plot February 9, 1978, by G. Joslin, and
feeding excavations were fairly coinmon in old-growth western red cedar. A brood
of 12 common mergansers was seen on June 2 by G. Joslin near the eastern boundary
of the plot, and a possible but unverified brood of 7 harlequin ducks was seen June
12 by B. Shepard just downstream from the plot. At least seven harlequin ducks
were present on the plot; these appeared to represent one pair, one lone female,
and four bachelor males. All preferred the head of the falls as a feeding area
and the rocky promontory just upstream from the falls as a nesting area, although
the entire stretch of river within the plot was used at some time. The first
harlequin {a male) was seen in the plot April 29, and the last (a female) was seen
June 16. Of the 33 breeding species encountered during the census, the following
were restricted to the Kootenai River and/or its shores: mallard, common goldeneye,
harlequin duck, common mergdnser, spotted sandpiper, and dipper. The remaining
species, with the exception of the swallows, were primarily restricted to terrestrial
habitats, whicfi comprised only 60/.' of the plot. More meaningful density estimates
for these species in terrestrial habitats may thus be obtained by multiplying the
density figures reported above by 1.57. The varied thrush, golden-crowned kinglet,
Townsend's warbler, yellow-rumped warbler, and western tanagor occupied priinarily
tall, dense, western red cedar and Douglas fir forests south of the railroad right-
of-way; the warbling vireo, yellow warbler, MacGil 1 i vray 's warbler, and song
sparrow occupied open, shrub-dominated habitats along the right-of-way. Other
vertebrates seen on the plot: wandering garter snake, Clliajmxophia elegans) , beaver
(Castor aanadenais), chipmunk {Eui-amias spp.), tree squirrel [Tamiasciu^'us
hiuisonici-ic), Columbian ground squirrel {Spei'mopkilua ccluipbianus) , northern
flying squirrel {Glauaom>js sdbrinuc), mule deer [Odocoileus hcmionus) . This study
was part of a wildlife inventory related to a proposed hydroelectric facility, and
was funded by Northern Lights, Inc.

138

Appendix K

FIELD DATA SHEET - VERTEBRATE TRAPPING

i

z
O

-1
<
t-
z

5

o

I
O

z

5
^

»-
z

UJ

UJ

Z
bj

o

UJ

O

I

z
o

b

Q

§

O

<

2

z

UJ

—J

<

S

UJ
-J
<

UJ

u.

o

i

2^

z
£

3
o
o

UJ

S
47

2

3

4

5 6 7

8

9

JO^II

"i?

13

14

16

19

20

21 22

24

25

26 27

28

29

30

33

34

35

37

38

39I

40

DATA TYPE TIME

1-Trap Grid 1-Morning
2-Live Trapline 2-Afternoon
3-Snap Trapline

TP£ATMENT ^

1-Control l^-\j L'^^'

f

2-Experiinent
CONDITION

.

xo

O-Norwal ^N ) jt; \_-.^400

1-Escaped "^ 7^^Y~^^^

2-Torpid J- V o
3-Dead »■ | V
4-In]ured \

MARX TRAP NUMBER

O-Normal 00 to 100

1-Unmarked

2-Ear Tag

3-Toe Clip

4-2 S 3

5-Nat. Amp.

MALE FEMALE

0-Ad. Non-Breed 0-Ad. Non-Breed
1-SAd. Non-Breed 1-SAd. Non-Breed
2-J. Non-Breed 2-J. Non-Breed
3-Ad. Breed? 3-Ad. Breed?
4-SAd. Breed? 4-SAd. Breed?
5- J. Breed? 5- J. Breed?
6- Ad. Breed 6- Ad. Breed
7-SAd. Breed 7-SAd. Breed
8- J. Breed 8- J. Breed
9-Undeterm. 9-Undeterm.

•

?

139

APPENDIX F
KOOTENAI FALLS
RIPARIAN WILDLIFE CENSUS
INSTRUCTIONS

Objectives

The objective of this census is to document the seasonal pattern of use
of the Kootenai Falls project area by wildlife before, during, and after
construction. All vertebrate species using the area are to be investigated--
reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals.

Materials Needed

Binoculars, spotting scope, clipboard, field maps, field data sheets,
summary sheets, nest record cards, colored pencils, rain gear, field guides.

Methods

This census is designed to produce data allowing comparisons of wild-
life use between months and between years. The general nrethodology is pat-
terned after the standard winter bird study (Kolb 1965) and breeding bird
census (Hall 1964, Van Velzen 1972) techniques, but is extended to include
all vertebrate species. The study area is to be censused on three consecu-
tive days each month during January, April, June, August, and October along
a standardized route. Censuses will begin precisely at local sunrise except
in April, June, and August, when they will begin one-half hour before local
sunrise each day. The same route will be followed each time (although
starting point and direction will be changed randomly from day to day), and

140

will be such that all points of the studyarea come under direct observation,
including the interior of forests and the north shore of the river. The
species, location, sex hf known), age (adult or immature, if known), and
movements of each animal seen will be recorded precisely in relation to
habitat categories on field maps using colored pencil or ball point pen;
special notation shall be used to denote simultaneous observations and evi-
dence of territoriality (singing males, chasing, etc.). All vertebrates
seen, even those not identified, will be recorded; if not identified to spe-
cies, animals will be identified as precisely as possible: "unknown gull",
"unknown frog or toad," "unknown chipmunk," "unknown passerine," etc.
Starting points and direction of runs will be varied randomly to ensure that
all portions of the project area receive at least one day's early-morning
observation. The exact route taken, starting and ending points, and direction
of travel will be recorded directly on the field maps. Pertinent data re-
garding starting time, weather conditions, etc. will be recorded at the start
and end of each route on the field data sheets (a different set of maps and one
or more field data sheets will be used each day). Record time as military time
(e.g., 0820, 1916); use Beaufort wind speed code numbers.

At the end of each day's run, the minimum estimate of the number of
animals of each species known to be present for each of two areas (the pro-
jectarea and the control area) and^ the total census area will be recorded on
field data sheets for each of the four sections of the map. (NOTE: If an animal
is seen in both areas (control and project), its will be assigned to the area
where first observed.) It is important that this analysis be performed immediately
after conclusion of each day's census run. Species will be listed in phylogenetic

141

order; unkowns will be listed at the end of the appropriate taxonomic group
(e.g., "unknown hawk" will follow those hawks identified to species ;( "unknown
bird" will fall between the last identified bird and the first identified
mammal.) Under the column entitled "entire plot," the minimum
number of each species present within the entire plot will be estimated. Note
that the numbers in this column will not necessarily be the totals of the four
map sections. For example, a bald eagle may have been seen on section 1 and
also on section 3, but unless there is firm evidence that two individuals were
actually seen (e.g., simultaneous observations or separate observations of
one adult and one irmature), only one will be entered under the "entire plot"
column. Also, if four mallards (one male, three females) were seen on section 1,
five mallards (three males, two females) on section 2, seven unidentified ducks
on section 3, and six unidentified ducks in section 4, and if it was uncertain
that these groups did not mix during the census, the entries would be as follows:

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Entire Plot
Mallard 4 5 _ _ 6

Unidentified Duck '-76 1

This represents the minimum estimate of the total population present. If, on
the other hand, there was a reasonable certainty that the sightings represented
all different ducks (perhaps two groups were seen simultaneously, or perhaps
the river was in view the full time of the census and no ducks were seen flying
between sections), 9 mallards and 13 unidentified ducks would be recorded in the
"entire plot" column. Once this is done for all species, the number of birds
seen in the entire plot divided by the total number of hours of observation
(minus any breaks) will be entered in the last column (to the nearest hundredth ^^

142

At the end of the week data from all plots will be transferred to the
summary sheets, also in phylogenetic order, and the average minimum number
present and number seen per hour will be calculated. Each month, then,
three field data sheets and three summary sheets will be preapred.

April, June, and August data will be used to determine breeding bird
territories according to the criteria listed by Robbins (1970) . '

Species seen or heard outside the census boundary will be listed on the
field sheet, but not included in the census results. All observations of
waterfowl, raptors, and large mammals made during census runs will be re-
corded on standard waterfowl or wildlife data sheets as well. Details of
any nests located will be recorded on nest record cards, and locations of
nests will be marked on a separate set of maps each year.

143

APPENDIX G
Conceptual Basis for Compensation of Unmitigated Impact

Strategies of mitigation and compensation may be considered conceptually
by examination of Figure 18. In this figure, carrying capacity (K) is shown
as a function of time (with seasonal, successional , and other variations smoothed
out) under various management strategies. Carrying capacity with management is
shown by dashed lines; that which would be the case if the management technique
were not applied is shown by solid lines. Carrying capacity may be considered
proportional to the "habitat units" of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Hab-
itat Evaluation Procedures (Schamberger and Farmer 1978); thus, similar figures
may be constructed based on actual field data.

In Figure 18-1, a solid curve is shown which represents, as a function
of time f(t), the change in K resulting form an unmitigated, short-term impact.
The dashed curve in this same figure shows how mitigation might serve to lessen
the reduction in K over time according to a different function of time, m(t).
The benefits B,^ to the population which could be obtained by mitigation, repre-
sented as the shaded area in Figure 18-1, would thus be

t

m(t) - f(t) dt.

If the costs of mitigation are Cm, the benefit per unit cost (expressed as
habitat unit days or a similar measure) is simply Bm/Cm = E^, which is a
measure of the cost-effectiveness of mitigation. Note that, in this figure,
some losses accrue over time even with mitigation.

Two strategies for compensating this unmitigated impact are described
below. If justified on the basis of cost-effectiveness, such strategies may
even be considered as substitutes for mitigation in certain cases. Figures
18-11 and 18-III show these two alternatives. In both cases, the impact curve
f(t) is the same as in figure 18-1, but the impacts are not mitigated and
simply accepted as they are. The impact-related losses L to the resource are
thus equal to the difference between the situation if the impact did not occur
(represented by a dotted line) and the function h'(t) and f(t), or

L =

rm(t) - f(t)1 dt.

Compensation by Enhancement

In figure 18-11, the carrying capacity of enhancement land is represented
by the solid line r(t). Long-term enhancement of this area may increase the

144

i-
o

as

c

a.
E
o
o

s-
o

o

«)
(U

a>

■(->

n3

S- •

+J +J

l/> u
a:

O) Q-

.— E

JD -1-

i/i E

in i-

o cu

Q- -U

dJ S-

s- o

t— 1/1

00

.-«

LU

a:

C3
»— t

<
O

'■"'■m^

l:i>-:'::::::>:

a

£

'(

Ui

^ \

CO

r

<

<►-

145

incremental value of K only slightly each year (as shown by curve e(t)), but
over many years the total gains of such enhancement

^■■l

C. = I re(t) - r(t) ] dt

properly discounted, may very well exceed the unmitigated losses L. It is
clear that the longer enhancement can be applied, even if enhancement is very
slight, the more substantial the long-term benefits that accrue over time.
(NOTE: Unless discounted, any long-term compensation, however slight, would
turn out to be the best strategy for dealing with a short-term impact.) In
this case, the overall net benefits of compensation Be are equal to Ge - L.
Assuming costs of enhancement equal Ce, the benefit per unit cost of compen-
sation is B(;/Ce = Ec- This value can be contrasted to that of mitigation, E^,
to determine which strategy would be most cost-effective.

Compensation by Protection of Threatened Habitat.

In figure 18-1, the solid line described by the function q(t) shows that
change in K which would occur if nothing is done about the impending impact, and
p(t) describes the situation if this impact is prevented. The total gains

I p(t) - q(t) j dt

discounted over time, may in fact exceed long-term unmitigated losses L, in
which case the overall net benefits are Bp = Gp - L. Assuming costs of pre-
vention are Cp, the benefit per unit cost is Bp/Cp = Ep, which again may be
compared to corresponding values for mitigation and enhancement compensation.

146