DOCSLIB.ORG

Ch1 Overview

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS A number of governments and agencies participated in the development of this Kootenai Subbasin Plan, Part I (Assessment Volume), Part II (Inventory Volume), and Part III (Management Plan Volume), its appendices, and electronically linked references and information (hereafter Plan). The primary purpose of the Plan is to help direct Northwest Power and Conservation Council funding of projects that respond to impacts from the development and operation of the Columbia River hydropower system. Nothing in this Plan, or the participation in its development, is intended to, and shall not be interpreted to, compromise, influence, or preclude any government or agency from carrying out any past, present, or future duty or responsibility which it bears or may bear under any authority. Nothing in this Plan or the participation in its development constitutes a waiver or release of any rights, including the right to election of other remedies, or is intended to compromise, influence, or preclude any government or agency from developing and prosecuting any damage claim for those natural resource impacts identified in the Plan which are not directly and exclusively resulting from, or related to, the development and operation of the Columbia River hydropower system. Nothing in this Plan or the participation in its development is intended to, and shall not be interpreted to, waive any rights of enforcement of regulatory, adjudicatory, or police powers against potentially responsible parties for compliance with applicable laws and regulations pertaining to natural resource damages throughout the Kootenai Subbasin whether or not specifically identified in this Plan. © 2004 Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (KTOI) and Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MFWP) Citation: Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 2004. Kootenai Subbasin Plan. Part I: Kootenai River Subbasin Assessment. A report prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Portland, OR. Lead Agencies: MFWP and KTOI Subbasin Coordinator: Sue Ireland, KTOI and Brian Marotz, MFWP Contributors Paul Anders S.P. Cramer and Associates, Inc. Genny Hoyle Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Harvey Andrusak Redfish Consulting Jeff Hutten Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Scott Bacon Idaho Dept. of Lands Sue Ireland Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Gary Barton U.S. Geological Survey Bob Jamieson BioQuest International Consulting Ltd. Pat Berhens US Forest Service Steve Johnson USFS, Forest Hydrologist Dwight Bergeron Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Gretchen Kruse Free Run Aquatic Research Lee Brundin USFS Kootenai National Forest Brett Lyndaker USFS Roland Capilo Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Seth Makepeace Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes John Carlson USFS, Forest Fisheries Biologist Bruce Marcot USFS—IBIS Beth Chase Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Brian Marotz Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Albert Chirico B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management Chip McConnaha Mobrand Biometrics, Inc. Chip Corsi Idaho Dept. Fish and Game Dave Mosier Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Tom Dayley Northwest Power and Conservation Council Matt Neufeld BC Fisheries Shanda Dekome Idaho Panhandle Nat, Forests Tom O’Neil Northwest Habitat Institute—IBIS Dan Downing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Patty Perry Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Jim Dunnigan Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Mike Panain BC Ministry of Sustainable Resources Jason Flory U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Vaughn Paragamian Idaho Department of Fish & Game Wade Fredenberg US Fish and Wildlfie Service Rick Patten Idaho Panhandle Nat Forests Jerry Garten Idaho Department of Lands Bob Ralphs Idaho Panhandle Nat Forests Mike Gondek Natural Resources Cons. Service Jack Sjostrom MNR Remote Sensing Bob Hallock U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Scott Soults Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Jay Hammond Golden Associates Herb Tepper B.C. Ministry of Water, Land & Air Protection Paul Hanna U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service K.J. Torgerson The Nature Conservancy Ryan Hardy Idaho Dept. Fish and Game Betsy Torell Mobrand Biometrics, Inc. Mike Hensler Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Virginia Tribe Facilitator Brian Hemlick Idaho Dept. Fish and Game Jody Walters Idaho Fish and Game Department Mike Herrin Idaho Panhandle National Forest Bill Westover B.C. Ministry of Water, Land & Air Protection Greg Hoffman US Army Corps of Engineers Alan Wood Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Charlie Holderman Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Dean Yashan Department of Environmental Quality Document Prepared by David Rockwell GIS work by Susan Ball and Volker Mell, CSKT For information on this document, contact: Sue Ireland, Subbasin Coordinator (ID portion) Brian Marotz, Subbasin Coordinator (MT portion) Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks PO Box 1269 490 North Meridian Rd Bonners Ferry, ID 85805 Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (208) 267-3620 Phone: (406) 751-4546 email: [email protected] [email protected] 84 INTRODUCTION This assessment constitutes the technical evaluation of the biological and physical characteristics of the Kootenai River Subbasin, the first step in the development of a subbasin plan, which once completed will be reviewed and adopted as part of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. The primary purpose of the plan is to help direct Bonneville Power Administration funding of projects that protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife that have been adversely impacted by the development and operation of the Columbia River hydropower system. This is an international basin, and while our analysis is focused on the U.S. portion of the subbasin, Canadian management agencies have contributed significant amounts of data, which we have included where appropriate. The primary purpose of the assessment is to bring together and synthesize technical information so that it can be used to develop the biological objectives that will form the foundation of the management plan. Chapter 1 is an overview of the subbasin environment. Chapter 2 examines in some detail the major biomes For the PowerPoint found in the subbasin—aquatic, riparian/wetland, grassland, coniferous forest. introduction to the Kootenai Each of these biomes is evaluated in terms of ecological function and process and and Flathead Subbasin Plans how human activities have affected those functions and processes. For each biome that the Subbasin Coordinators gave the we also describe the current condition and several reference conditions. Chapter Independent Scientific Review 3 assesses fish and wildlife communities in the subbasin, Chapter 4 examines the Panel, go to Appendix 114. status of individual focal and target species. In Chapter 5, we present the results of a detailed aquatic evaluation of each 6th-field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)1 in the subbasin and a terrestrial assessment of various units within each of our targeted biomes. This resulted in a ranking of the restoration potential and protection value of each. Finally, in the last chapter we interpret and synthesize our results, setting the stage for the development of specific objectives, which are part of the management plan. It is our hope that this approach, moving from the broad (biomes and communities) to the more specific (individual species and 6th field HUCs), is a logical framework for developing objectives and strategies to protect, mitigate, and enhance the fish and wildlife of the Kootenai Subbasin. The assessment and the other parts of the Kootenai Subbasin Plan have been designed as electronic documents with numerous web-based and internal links. Our intention has been to create a multilayered, electronic plan with user- friendly access to the enormous amount of information that went into the planning process. While we have made every attempt to ensure that the web links are 1 HUC stands for Hydrologic Unit Code. The US is divided and sub-divided into successively smaller HUCs. HUC 5, HUC 6, and HUC 7 refer to different sizes of hydrologic units or watersheds. A HUC 6 watershed ranges from 10,000 to 40,000 acres in size, and is the typical size of watershed at which a landscape analysis is conducted. 1 INTRODUCTION accurate and while we intend to update the links on a periodic basis, websites can be somewhat fluid, and so some links may become inaccessible before they can be updated. Also, planners are not responsible for the content of websites that belong to other agencies and organizations. This assessment, much of which is a compilation of existing information, draws heavily on the previous work of many agencies, groups, educational institutions, consulting firms, and individuals. Throughout we have used excerpts or condensed or adapted sections from other reports, studies, and plans. In each case we have acknowledged such use. The Kootenai River Subbasin Plan Technical Team expresses its gratitude for the use of these materials. The Technical Team also thanks Chip McConnaha, Drew Parkin, and Betsy Torell for their assistance with QHA (the principle aquatic assessment tool that we used for streams), Paul Anders for his work on LQHA (a lake version of QHA), Mike Panian for developing the terrestrial assessment tool (called TBA), Bob Jamieson for his revisions of the assessment outline and early organizational work on TBA, and Susan Ball and Volker Mell for their GIS work. We are also grateful to Albert Chirico and our other colleagues in the British Columbia ministries for their help and cooperation with this effort. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Columbia River Treaty: Recommendations December 2013

    Columbia River Treaty: Recommendations December 2013

    L O CA L GOVERNMEN TS’ COMMI TTEE Columbia River Treaty: Recommendations December 2013 The BC Columbia River Treaty Local Governments’ Committee (the Committee) has prepared these Recommendations in response to the Columbia River Treaty-related interests and issues raised by Columbia River Basin residents in Canada. These Recommendations are based on currently-available information. They have been submitted to the provincial and federal governments for incorporation into current decisions regarding the future of the Columbia River Treaty (CRT). The Committee plans to monitor the BC, Canadian and U.S. CRT-related processes and be directly involved when appropriate. As new information becomes available, the Committee will review this information, seek input from Basin residents, and submit further recommendations to the provincial and federal governments, if needed. The CRT Local Governments’ Committee will post its recommendations and other documents at www.akblg.ca/content/columbia-river-treaty. For more information contact the Committee Chair, Deb Kozak ([email protected] 250 352-9383) or the Executive Director, Cindy Pearce ([email protected] 250 837-3966). Background Beginning in 2024, either the U.S. or Canada can The Columbia River Treaty (Treaty) was ratified terminate substantial portions of the Treaty, by Canada and the United States (the U.S.) in with at least 10 years’ prior notice. Canada—via 1964, resulting in the construction of three the BC Provincial Government—and the U.S. are dams in Canada—Mica Dam north of both conducting reviews to consider whether to Revelstoke; Hugh Keenleyside Dam near continue, amend or terminate the Treaty. Castlegar; and Duncan Dam north of Kaslo—and Local governments within the Basin have Libby Dam near Libby, Montana.
  • Kootenai River Resident Fish Mitigation: White Sturgeon, Burbot, Native Salmonid Monitoring and Evaluation

    Kootenai River Resident Fish Mitigation: White Sturgeon, Burbot, Native Salmonid Monitoring and Evaluation

    KOOTENAI RIVER RESIDENT FISH MITIGATION: WHITE STURGEON, BURBOT, NATIVE SALMONID MONITORING AND EVALUATION Annual Progress Report May 1, 2016 — April 31, 2017 BPA Project # 1988-065-00 Report covers work performed under BPA contract # 68393 IDFG Report Number 08-09 April 2018 This report was funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), U.S. Department of Energy, as part of BPA's program to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation of hydroelectric facilities on the Columbia River and its tributaries. The views in this report are the author's and do not necessarily represent the views of BPA. This report should be cited as follows: Ross et al. 2018. Report for 05/01/2016 – 04/30/2017. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1: KOOTENAI STURGEON MONITORING AND EVALUATION ............................... 1 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................2 OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................................3 STUDY SITE ...............................................................................................................................3 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................3 Water
  • Ethnohistory of the Kootenai Indians

    Ethnohistory of the Kootenai Indians

    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1983 Ethnohistory of the Kootenai Indians Cynthia J. Manning The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Manning, Cynthia J., "Ethnohistory of the Kootenai Indians" (1983). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 5855. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/5855 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976 Th is is an unpublished m a n u s c r ip t in w h ic h c o p y r ig h t su b ­ s i s t s . Any further r e p r in t in g of it s c o n ten ts must be a ppro ved BY THE AUTHOR. MANSFIELD L ib r a r y Un iv e r s it y of Montana D a te : 1 9 8 3 AN ETHNOHISTORY OF THE KOOTENAI INDIANS By Cynthia J. Manning B.A., University of Pittsburgh, 1978 Presented in partial fu lfillm en t of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA 1983 Approved by: Chair, Board of Examiners Fan, Graduate Sch __________^ ^ c Z 3 ^ ^ 3 Date UMI Number: EP36656 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
  • Res-Marcuson1993 Kootenai River

    Res-Marcuson1993 Kootenai River

    This report was funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), U.S. Department of Energy, as part of BPA's program to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation of hydroelectric facilities on the Columbia River and its tributaries. The views in this report are the author's and do not necessarily represent the views of BPA. F o r additional c o p i e s of this report, write to: Bonneville Power Administration Public Information Office - ALP-22 P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208 Please include title, author, and DOE/BP number from back cover in the request. KOOTENAI RIVER WHITE STURGEON INVESTIGATIONS ANNUAL REPORT 1993 Prepared by: Patrick Marcuson Senior Fishery Research Biologist' Idaho Department of Fish and Game Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration Division of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97283-3621 Project Number 88-65 Contract Number DE-BI79-88BP96497 MAY 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ............................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 2 STUDY SITE ............................................................. 2 OBJECTIVE .............................................................. 2 METHODS ................................................................ 4 Adult Sturgeon Sampling ...........................................4 White Sturgeon Egg and Larvae Sampling ............................ 4 RESULTS ...............................................................
  • White Paper on COLUMBIA RIVER POST-2024 FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE

    White Paper on COLUMBIA RIVER POST-2024 FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE

    White Paper on COLUMBIA RIVER POST-2024 FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division September 2011 This page intentionally left blank PREFACE The Columbia River, the fourth largest river on the continent as measured by average annual flow, provides more hydropower than any other river in North America. While its headwaters originate in British Columbia, only about 15 percent of the 259,500 square miles of the river’s basin is located in Canada. Yet the Canadian water accounts for about 38 percent of the average annual flow volume, and up to 50 percent of the peak flood waters, that flow on the lower Columbia River between Oregon and Washington. In the 1940s, officials from the United States and Canada began a long process to seek a collaborative solution to reduce the risks of flooding caused by the Columbia River and to meet the postwar demand for energy. That effort resulted in the implementation of the Columbia River Treaty in 1964. This agreement between Canada and the United States called for the cooperative development of water resource regulation in the upper Columbia River Basin. The Columbia River Treaty has provided significant flood control (also termed flood risk management) and hydropower generation benefiting both countries. The Treaty, and subsequent Protocol, include provisions that both expire on September 16, 2024, 60 years after the Treaty’s ratification, and continue throughout the life of the associated facilities whether the Treaty continues or is terminated by either country. This white paper focuses on the flood risk management changes that will occur on that milestone date and satisfies the following purposes: 1.
  • Download the Full Report 2007 5.Pdf PDF 1.8 MB

    Download the Full Report 2007 5.Pdf PDF 1.8 MB

    The Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Directory of Columbia River Basin Tribes Council Document Number: 2007-05 Table of Contents I. Introduction 1 II. Tribes and Tribal Confederations 5 The Burns Paiute Tribe 7 The Coeur d’Alene Tribe 9 The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation 12 The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation 15 The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 18 The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon 21 The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 23 The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon 25 The Kalispel Tribe of Indians 28 The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 31 The Nez Perce Tribe 34 The Shoshone Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation 37 The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation 40 The Spokane Tribe of Indians 42 III. Canadian First Nations 45 Canadian Columbia River Tribes (First Nations) 46 IV. Tribal Associations 51 Canadian Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Commission 52 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 53 Upper Columbia United Tribes 55 Upper Snake River Tribes 56 The Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Tribal Directory i ii The Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Tribal Directory Introduction The Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Tribal Directory 1 2 The Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Tribal Directory Introduction The Council assembled this directory to enhance our understanding and appreciation of the Columbia River Basin tribes, including the First Nations in the Canadian portion of the basin. The directory provides brief descriptions and histories of the tribes and tribal confedera- tions, contact information, and information about tribal fi sh and wildlife projects funded through the Council’s program.
  • Wildlife Impacts Associated with the Proposed Upgrades to the Trans-Canada Highway (Park Bridge to Brake Check): Preliminary Design Considerations

    Wildlife Impacts Associated with the Proposed Upgrades to the Trans-Canada Highway (Park Bridge to Brake Check): Preliminary Design Considerations

    OSIRIS WILDLIFE CONSULTING STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS Wildlife Impacts Associated with the Proposed Upgrades to the Trans-Canada Highway (Park Bridge to Brake Check): Preliminary Design Considerations Prepared for: Darcy Grykuliak, P.Eng. Lead Engineer, Kicking Horse Canyon Project Focus Corporation Ltd. Prepared by: W.L. Harper, M.Sc., RPBio Osiris Wildlife Consulting Victoria, BC December 15, 2004 Trans-Canada Highway Wildlife Impacts – Park Bridge to Brake Check Executive Summary This highway design project consists of upgrading, redesigning and relocating 5.5 km of the Trans-Canada Highway adjacent to the Kicking Horse River 12 to 17 km east of Golden, British Columbia. The environmental analysis in this report addresses potential wildlife impacts and their mitigation at a level appropriate to the preliminary design stage of the highway project. With appropriate mitigation measures in place, it is unlikely there will be measurable negative impacts on wildlife populations associated with direct mortality from animal- vehicle collisions, habitat fragmentation from barriers to animal movement, direct loss of habitats to the project footprint, or cumulative effects associated with other wildlife impacts in the area. Although the exact nature of the appropriate mitigation measures required cannot be determined until the detailed design stage, there are a number of reasonable and tested mitigation techniques available. Minor modifications to drainage culverts and concrete roadside barriers should address small animal concerns, and the bridge and tunnel system, if properly designed, should address large animal concerns. Although the faster design speed and straightening of curves in the project area means vehicle traffic speed will increase with completion of the project, a combination of mitigation measures, possibly including wildlife exclusion fencing, can mitigate these impacts of direct mortality.
  • Mount Robson Provincial Park, Draft Background Report

    Mount Robson Provincial Park, Draft Background Report

    Mount Robson Provincial Park Including Mount Terry Fox & Rearguard Falls Provincial Parks DRAFT BACKGROUND REPORT September, 2006 Ministry of Environment Ministry of Environment BC Parks Omineca Region This page left blank intentionally Acknowledgements This Draft Background Report for Mount Robson Provincial Park was prepared to support the 2006/07 Management Plan review. The report was prepared by consultant Juri Peepre for Gail Ross, Regional Planner, BC Parks, Omineca Region. Additional revisions and edits were performed by consultant Leaf Thunderstorm and Keith J. Baric, A/Regional Planner, Omineca Region. The report incorporates material from several previous studies and plans including the Mount Robson Ecosystem Management Plan, Berg Lake Corridor Plan, Forest Health Strategy for Mount Robson Provincial Park, Rare and the Endangered Plant Assessment of Mount Robson Provincial Park with Management Interpretations, the Robson Valley Land and Resource Management Plan, and the BC Parks website. Park use statistics were provided by Stuart Walsh, Rick Rockwell and Robin Draper. Cover Photo: Berg Lake and the Berg Glacier (BC Parks). Mount Robson Provincial Park, Including Mount Terry Fox & Rearguard Falls Provincial Parks: DRAFT Background Report 2006 Table of Contents Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................1 Park Overview.................................................................................................................................................1
  • Columbia Lake Quick Fact Sheet

    Columbia Lake Quick Fact Sheet

    COLUMBIA LAKE QUICK REFERENCE SHEET JUST A FEW AMAZING THINGS ABOUT OUR AMAZING LAKE! . Maximum length – 13.5 km (8.4 mi) . Maximum width – 2 km (1.2 mi) . Typical depth – 15 ft . Average July water temperature – 18 C – making it the largest warm water lake in East Kootenay . Surface Elevation – 808m (2,650 ft) .Area – 6,815 acres (2,758 hectares) . Freezing – last year, it was observed the lake froze on December 7, 2016 and thawed on March 29, 2017. Columbia Lake is fed by several small tributaries. East side tributaries include Warspite and Lansdown Creeks. West Side tributiaries include Dutch, Hardie, Marion and Sun Creeks. Columbia Lake also gets a considerable amount of water at the south end where water from the Kootenay river enters the lake as groundwater. The water balance of Columbia Lake is still not fully understood. The Columbia Lake Stewardship Society continues to do research in this area. Columbia Lake got its name from the Columbia River. The river was so named by American sea captain Robert Gray who navigated his privately owned ship The Columbia Rediviva through its waters in May 1792 trading fur pelts. Columbia Lake is the source of the mighty Columbia River, the largest river in the Pacific Northwest of North America. The Columbia River flows north from the lake while the neighbouring Kootenay flows south. For approximately 100 km (60 mi) the Columbia River and the Kootenay River run parallel and when they reach Canal Flats, the two rivers are less than 2 km (1.2 mi) apart. Historically the Baillie- Grohman Canal connected the two bodies of water to facilitate the navigation of steamboats (although only three trips were ever made through it).
  • Spatial Distribution of Impacts to Channel Bed Mobility Due to Flow Regulation, Kootenai River, Usa

    Spatial Distribution of Impacts to Channel Bed Mobility Due to Flow Regulation, Kootenai River, Usa

    SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF IMPACTS TO CHANNEL BED MOBILITY DUE TO FLOW REGULATION, KOOTENAI RIVER, USA Michael Burke1, Research Associate, University of Idaho ([email protected]); Klaus Jorde1, Professor, University of Idaho; John M. Buffington1,2, Research Geomorphologist, USDA Forest Service; Jeffrey H. Braatne3, Assistant Professor, University of Idaho; Rohan Benjankar1, Research Associate, University of Idaho. 1Center for Ecohydraulics Research, Boise, ID 2Rocky Mountain Research Station, Boise, ID 3College of Natural Resources, Moscow, ID Abstract The regulated hydrograph of the Kootenai River between Libby Dam and Kootenay Lake has altered the natural flow regime, resulting in a significant decrease in maximum flows (60% net reduction in median 1-day annual maximum, and 77%-84% net reductions in median monthly flows for the historic peak flow months of May and June, respectively). Other key hydrologic characteristics have also been affected, such as the timing of annual extremes, and the frequency and duration of flow pulses. Moreover, Libby Dam has impeded downstream delivery of sediment from the upper 23,300 km2 of a 50,000 km2 watershed. Since completion of the facility in 1974, observed impacts to downstream channel bed and bars in semi-confined and confined reaches of the Kootenai River have included coarsening of the active channel bed, homogenization of the channel bed, disappearance of relatively fine-grained beach bars, and invasion of bar surfaces by perennial vegetative species. These impacts have led to reduced aquatic habitat heterogeneity and reduced abundance of candidate recruitment sites for riparian tree species such as black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) and native willows (Salix spp.). Limited quantitative documentation of the pre-regulation substrate composition exists.
  • MFWP 2010 Section 10 Report Kootenai River White Sturgeon

    MFWP 2010 Section 10 Report Kootenai River White Sturgeon

    Kootenai River White Sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus : 2009-2010 Investigations in Montana by Brian Stephens and Ryan Sylvester Montana, Fish, Wildlife and Parks Libby Area Office Section 10(a)(1)(A) Permit TE-210255-0 January 2011 1 Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................................... 3 List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 4 List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 8 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 12 Total Catch .................................................................................................................................. 12 White Sturgeon ..........................................................................................................................
  • Impacts of Human Developments and Land Use on Caribou: a Literature Review Volume I: a Worldwide Perspective

    Impacts of Human Developments and Land Use on Caribou: a Literature Review Volume I: a Worldwide Perspective

    IMPACTS OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENTS AND LAND USE ON CARIBOU: A LITERATURE REVIEW VOLUME I: A WORLDWIDE PERSPECTIVE R.T. Shideler, M.H. Robus, J.F. Winters, and M. Kuwada Technical Report 86-2 Alaska Department of Fish & Game Habitat and Restoration Division The Alaslia Department of Fish and Game administers all programs and activities free from discrimination on the basis of sex, color, race, religion, national origin, age, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, or disability. For information on alternative formats available for this and other department publications contact the department ADA Coordinator (voice) 9071465-4120: (TTD) 9071478-3648. Any person who believes slhe has been discriminated against should write to: ADF&G, PO Box 25526, Juneau, AK 99802-5526 or O.E.O. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. 20240. IMPACTS OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENTS AJYD LAND USE ON CARIBOU: A LITERATURE REVIEW Volume I: A Worldwide Perspective by R.T. Shideler, 1vI.H. Robus, J.F. Winters, and M. Kuwada Technical Report 86-2 Norman A. Cohen Director Division of Habitat Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 3-2000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 June 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ....................................................... vi ACKNmmS..................................................... vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................... ix 1.0 GENERAL INTRODUCTION ............................................ 1 1.1 Scope & Organization