Section 10. Narrative

Project ID: 200201100

Title: Kootenai River Floodplain Ecosystem Operational Loss Assessment, Protection, Mitigation, and Rehabilitation project

A. ABSTRACT:

Damming of rivers represents a cataclysmic event for large river-floodplain ecosystems. By altering water, sediment, and nutrient flow dynamics, dams interrupt and alter a river's important habitat conditions and ecological processes in aquatic, riparian, floodplain and surrounding terrestrial environments. These environments, their life-supporting ecological functions, and the persistence of their floral and faunal communities are inexorably linked. Therefore, alteration of any component of such highly integrated natural systems tends to produce cascading trophic effects through the ecosystem. The importance of nutrient and energy dynamics during natural pulses of water discharge in rivers has been extensively described in terms of river ecology (e.g. flood pulse, river continuum, nutrient spiraling, and serial discontinuity concepts). It is also the conditions under which native biological communities in large river floodplain ecosystems successfully adapted to prior to river alteration and defines the range of adaptive plasticity of communities and organisms currently affected by altered (post-hydro) conditions.

Incorporating this knowledge, the Kootenai River Floodplain Ecosystem Operational Loss Assessment, Protection, Mitigation, and Rehabilitation project (BPA 200201100) applies a structured series of biological and ecological evaluations to a post-impoundment large river-floodplain ecosystem, the Kootenai River system, as part of a multidisciplinary, adaptive management approach to determine and quantify floodplain ecosystem function losses due to operation of Libby Dam, in the context of other ecological perturbations such as levee construction and floodplain loss. This project has a series of sequential phases, including: 1) operational loss assessment, 2) habitat and population protection, 3) mitigation, and 4) restoration.

The project is currently in Phase 1, which involves: 1) characterizing past and present hydrological, biological, and ecological conditions involving a large number of abiotic and biotic metrics, analyses and models, 2) constructing a series of abiotic and biotic Indices of Alteration or Integrity (IBIs); and 3) addressing the need to establish a regionally accepted, transferable framework for operational loss assessments based on standardized quantitative ecological functions and conditions, which provides the opportunity for the fish and wildlife managers in the Columbia River Basin to agree on operational loss methodologies as an alternative to unresolved crediting and ledger discussions that hampered regional consensus.

1

B. PROBLEM STATEMENT:

“I have created you Kootenai People to look after this beautiful land, to honor and guard and celebrate my Creation here, in this place. As long as you do that, this land will meet all your needs…”

- Chapter One in Century of Survival

Fish and wildlife resources in the Kootenai drainage were historically abundant and used by the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (KTOI) for cultural and subsistence purposes. KTOI traditionally relied upon roots, waterfowl, and fish as their main sources of food. However, terrestrial game and other vegetative resources were also very important to the KTOI for food, spiritual, and ceremonial purposes. Principal wild game sought were deer and elk, moose, woodland caribou, and occasionally mountain goat during the late summer when the fur and hide were best (Turney-High 1941). Vegetative resources were also extremely important to the KTOI and were often added to stews or dried for winter. Perennial and ephemeral wetland plants were once abundant and key to the KTOI and Upper Kootenai Tribes (Michael Keefer, Ktunaxa, pers comm., 1999).

The Kootenai River produced approximately ten different species of fish utilized as food by the Kootenai Indians (Scholz 1985). For the KTOI, the Kootenai white sturgeon held a cultural and religious significance. Even their canoes took the shape and name (sturgeon nosed canoes) of this large native fish. In the early 1900’s, burbot were found in large numbers in backwater sloughs and low elevation tributaries, where local residents (B. Krause, pers.comm., 2000) recall annual gatherings of Kootenai (15 - 23 tepees and associated smoking racks) at known fishing camps along the Kootenai River. In addition to fish, ducks were taken in great numbers and were a staple for the Kootenai people (Turney-High 1941). Duck netting was a communal activity with the supervision of a Duck Chief. Other waterfowl were cherished, such as geese, but these were taken by means of bow and arrow (Turney-High 1941). The Lower Kootenai River and associated floodplains were home to the main fishery and waterfowl production areas for the KTOI. The Lower Kootenai watershed was a highly productive system, where “The deep alluvial soils of the floodplain, it’s low relief surface, the meandering course of the river within it’s natural levees’, lateral inflow streams and periodic flooding…resulted in a mosaic of channels, oxbows, permanent and ephemeral lakes and sloughs, bordered by grassy meadows and cottonwood forest on the natural stream levees” (Redwing 1996).

Damming of rivers represents a cataclysmic event for large river-floodplain ecosystems. By altering water, sediment, and nutrient flow dynamics, dams interrupt and alter a river's important habitat conditions and ecological processes in aquatic, riparian, floodplain and surrounding terrestrial environments. These environments, their life-supporting ecological functions, and the persistence of their floral, faunal, and human communities are inexorably linked. Therefore, alteration of any component of such highly integrated natural systems tends to produce cascading trophic effects through the ecosystem. The importance of nutrient and energy dynamics during natural pulses of water discharge in rivers has been extensively described in terms of river ecology (e.g. flood pulse, river continuum, nutrient spiraling, and serial discontinuity concepts). It is also the paradigm under which native biological communities in large river floodplain ecosystems successfully adapted prior to river alteration and defines the

2

range of adaptive plasticity of communities and organisms currently affected by altered (post-hydro) conditions.

The construction of Libby Dam on the Kootenai River near Libby, Montana, began in 1966 and was operational on March 21, 1972. The primary operations of the dam were to create a reservoir that would provide flood storage (for the local communities as well as the communities on the Lower Columbia), and secondarily, produce hydroelectric power and create recreation benefits. Prior to the construction of Libby Dam, diking alone could not contain frequent high spring flows, which repeatedly breached dikes and flooded agricultural grounds (Figure B-1). Those overland flows supplied a natural source of river nutrient inputs, created low velocity, backwater, and side-channel habitats. The sedimentation and disturbance produced by overland flow provided sites for pioneering riparian species to establish (Johnson et al. 1976, Miller et al. 1995). The overland flows ended when Libby Dam was built. This loss of overland flows, as well as reductions of seasonal high water in the regulated post Libby Dam hydrograph contradicts the flood pulse concept of healthy river floodplain ecology. (Bayley 1995; Junk et al. 1989).

Reductions in fish, wildlife and vegetative resources resulted in significant impacts to cultural, religious and traditional subsistence way of life for the KTOI. The loss of wildlife habitat and associated resources due to the construction and inundation of Libby Dam have been lost for the long-term. In 1988, the State of Montana signed a settlement agreement with BPA to mitigate for the construction and inundation losses for Libby Dam. The KTOI was not mentioned in the agreement, they were not signatories, and they were not included in the negotiations or mitigation actions. As a result, the KTOI has not been mitigated for construction and inundation wildlife resource losses.

Figure B-1. Breached dike in 1948.

The operations of hydroelectric facilities in the Columbia Basin, particularly Libby Dam (Montana), resulted in the abiotic and biotic functional loss of the floodplain ecosystem in the Kootenai River Watershed and associated tributaries, wetlands, backwater sloughs and pocket water.

3

It is well understood that the hydrological regime is the driving force behind floodplain ecosystem processes (Petts 1996; Poff et al. 1997; Poff & Ward 1989; Richter et al. 1996; Richter et al. 1997). Alteration of any component of such highly integrated natural systems generally results in cascading trophic effects throughout the ecosystem (Carpenter et al 1985, 1987; Carpenter and Kitchell 1988; Power 1990; Hunter and Price 1992; Strong et al. 1996, Strong 1997). Thus, major system perturbations, such as impounding large rivers, create a myriad of ecological dysfunction, reflected at all trophic levels on an ecosystem scale, as documented in the Kootenai (spelled Kootenay in Canada) ecosystem (Ashley et al. 1997; Anders et al. 2002).

Although major habitat alterations such as levee construction and the regulation of the natural flood regime by Libby Dam gave life to new local agriculture markets, they also signaled the end or limitation of KTOI access to tradition resources previously relied upon for long term subsistence. With levee construction and flood regulation by Libby Dam, native fish stocks such as kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka), redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss garideini), westslope cutthroat trout (O. clarki lewisii) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) as well as local wildlife populations began to decline. As more floodplains were drained, tribal lands were converted to agricultural production.

This KTOI proposal will provide the Tribe the opportunity to rehabilitate significant ecological functions within their ceded lands and return lost cultural, religious and historic use and interests in the Kootenai River Valley for the community, Tribal members and the generations unborn. Incorporating this knowledge, The Kootenai River Operational Loss Assessment, Protection, Mitigation, and Rehabilitation (OLA) project (BPA Project 200201100) applies a structured series of biological and ecological evaluations to a post-impoundment large river-floodplain ecosystem, the Kootenai River system, as part of a multidisciplinary, adaptive management approach to determine and quantify floodplain ecosystem function losses due to operation of Libby Dam, in the context of other ecological perturbations such as levee construction and floodplain loss. This project has a series of sequential phases:

1) Operational loss assessment2) Habitat and population protection 3) Mitigation and restoration4) Monitoring and adaptive management

The project is currently in Phase 1, which involves: 1) characterizing past and present hydrological, ecological, and biological conditions involving a large number of biotic and abiotic metrics, analyses, and models within plant, invertebrate, and avian communities , 2) construction of a series of biotic and abiotic Indices of Integrity (IBIs); 3) combine multiple IBI’s into a single Index of Ecological Integrity (IEI), and 4) synthesizing the methodologies and analysis methods into an operational loss guide to establish a regionally accepted, transferable framework for operational loss assessments based on standardized quantitative ecological functions and conditions. The Operational Loss Framework offers an opportunity for the fish and wildlife managers in the Columbia River Basin to agree on operational loss methodologies as an alternative to unresolved crediting and ledger discussions that have hampered regional consensus on these important issues.

I. Project Area

4

The Kootenai/y River Basin (Kootenai –US, Kootenay – Canada) is an international watershed located primarily in the province of British Columbia, Canada (BC), with smaller portions of the basin in the states of Montana and Idaho. The Kootenai River is the second largest Columbia River tributary in terms of runoff volume (average annual discharge 454 cubic meters per second (m3/s) (16,032 cfs) (USGS 1979), and the third largest in terms of watershed area, 35,490 km2, (Knudson 1994). Historic pre-impoundment peak river discharges exceeded 2,832 m3/s (100,011 cfs) (Paragamian et al. 1996). From headwaters in southeastern BC, the Kootenay River flows southward into northwestern Montana where Libby Dam, forming Lake Koocanusa, impounds it. Downstream from Libby Dam, the river flows into Idaho, and then turns north, entering BC and Kootenay Lake. The river exits the West Arm of Kootenay Lake and flows westward to its confluence with the Columbia River at Castlegar, BC (Anders et al 2002).

The river downstream from Libby Dam can be generally described as having three distinct reaches based on gross geomorphologic characteristics, they are: the canyon reach, the braided reach, and meandering reach (Snyder and Minshall 1996). These three distinct reaches (Figure B-1) make for an exceptional study area for assessing operational losses in a regional perspective, where each reach represents different issues, aquatic and terrestrial communities, geomorphology, hydrology and impacts. The canyon reach is 93.8 river kilometers (RKM), which has a wider floodplain component just downstream from Libby Dam, but the remainder is a geologically restricted channel with a narrow floodplain, linear riparian strips, and many steep canyon walls. The canyon reach stretches from Libby, Montana past the Idaho/Montana border to the Moyie River. Due to the length and variations within the canyon reach, the Operational Loss Assessment (OLA) project divided the reach into more similar geomorphic segments referred to as the tailwaters, open canyon, upper canyon, and the lower canyon. The next divergent section is the braided reach (12.7 RKM), which starts at the Moyie River and ends at the Highway 95 bridge in Bonners Ferry, Idaho. This reach has several distinct channels, islands, with numerous gravel bars, and is the only area in the Kootenai River that has had documented post-impoundment cottonwood recruitment (Jamieson and Braatne, 2001). The last reach is the meander section (75.9 RKM) of the Kootenai River where a once diverse floodplain spread over areas up to 2-3 miles across. The meander reach, the lowest gradient portion, is influenced by numerous mountain tributaries, cottonwood galleries, perennial and ephemeral wetlands, sloughs and pocket water, which are now fragmented, declining, decadent or lost (Figure B-1). This reach also includes the Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge. Since the Refuge offers wetlands that are disassociated with the River, we separated out the Refuge as a distinct reach for analysis purposes.

Prior to European settlement, the Lower Kootenai watershed experienced frequent springtime flooding which formed numerous marshes, lowland wetland habitats and sloughs. Flood waters laden with sediment first tended to be deposited along the river and tributaries forming natural levees (Redwing 1996) that were noted to upwards of 15 feet high. Typical landforms of flood plains in the Lower Kootenai River Watershed include natural levees, ridge-swale formations, terraces and large depressions (USDA 1974) where seasonal flood waters filled low relief areas. During the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, river diking began to drain fertile floodplain land for agricultural purposes (IDFG 2000, Redwing 1996, Turney-High 1941). By the 1950’s, the entire flood plain was drained for farming (IDFG 2000) and approximately 5,000 acres of perennial wetlands and an unknown amount of ephemeral wetlands were drained (Figure B-2).

5

While the physical course followed by the Kootenai River today is similar, the function, composition, and dynamics of the lower Kootenai River riparian and wetland habitats are vastly different.

Figure B-1. Geomorphic reaches and sample site locations in the U.S. portion of the Kootenai River Subbasin.

II. List Target and/or Focal Species and Habitat Type to Manage and Protect

This project focuses on ecological aspects of the Kootenai River fauna and flora. As such, avian and invertebrate species were selected to define and monitor ecological processes in the 500-year floodplain. The floodplain consists of a mixed landscape comprised on grassland, shrub, and treed environments dissected by anthropogenic influences such as levees, agricultural fields, transportation surfaces, and human developments. In addition, aquatic fauna and flora data collected under BPA Project #199404900 will provide a basis for quantifying of aquatic integrity within the Kootenai River.

6

Figure B-2. Estimated wetland acreage in 1890, 1928, and 1990.

III. Describe how the project considers landscape structures and ecosystem dynamics

The OLA project focuses directly on various aspects of landscape structure and ecosystem dynamics aimed at goals of increasing and maintaining system functionality and biodiversity. Landscape structure can be defined in different ways. With et al. (2002) defined landscape structure as “the spatial distribution of habitats and resources”. Clearly, landscape structure has profound effects on the abundance, richness, and diversity of vertebrate and invertebrate populations and their dynamics. In a review paper on the effects of landscape structure on insects (Hunter et al. 2002), authors identified a number of landscape features that influenced insect population dynamics, including: ratio of habitat edge to interior, isolation of habitat fragments, patch area, patch quality, patch diversity and microclimate conditions.  These authors also identified temporal changes in landscape structure, genetic changes in populations, and predator prey dynamics in response to changes in the landscape as

7

influential variables. Similar and additional mechanisms can operate in vertebrate wildlife populations.

Data collection and analysis in the OLA project is now to the point where project proponents can begin constructing hypotheses and analyzing the effects of landscape structure on vertebrate and invertebrate biota in the study area. Project habitat classification will figure prominently in this effort by providing the kind of data necessary for a landscape level analysis, especially data on vegetation composition, cover type, KECs (Key Ecological Correlates), and diversity. With these data, project personnel will be able to calculate landscape and habitat metrics concerning patch dimensions, spatial relationships, and composition. Then the project researchers will progress to testing hypotheses regarding relationships between landscape and habitat metrics and invertebrate and vertebrate population status or condition in the project study area. 

The OLA project researchers already began performing some landscape-type analyses by examining the influence of vegetation diversity and richness on invertebrate composition. Many additional analyses are being developed. The project researchers are currently developing the floodplain-wide cover type or habitat classification that will soon be expanded to a full blown landscape analysis.

Unlike separate terrestrial or aquatic scientific or management programs, ecological functions and processes are not segregated along programmatic lines. Thus, numerous Kootenai/y projects are designed and implemented as a package to bridge programmatic gaps between disciplines by ensuring that aquatic, riparian and terrestrial issues are collectively and adequately addressed (refer to Table D-1 in Section D. Relationships to other projects) despite their being funded as separate projects.

It is the interaction between biotic and abiotic ecosystem components and these ecosystem processes that are responsible for creating and maintaining diversity. These interactions and process are what constitute biological integrity, or an "(eco) system’s wholeness" (Angermeier & Karr 1994). Multimetric indices integrate multiple biological attributes (called metrics) to describe and evaluate the condition of a place. Metrics are chosen on the basis of whether they reflect specific and predictable responses of organisms to habitat alteration and human activities. The first successful application of the multimetric concept to biological systems (index of biological integrity, or IBI) occurred in freshwater systems (Karr 1981; Karr et al. 1986), and the concept has since been adapted for use in upland environments (e.g., Bradford et al. 1998, Karr and Chu 1997). This method measures biotic integrity using a variety of metrics – trophic level, species richness and abundance of taxa. The index of biotic integrity assesses how closely a local community (e.g. fish) matches that of a reference community with minimal anthropogenic influence – indicating the amount of change that can be attributed to anthropogenic influence. This approach can also be useful in indicating the ecological integrity of an ecosystem.

Determining the extent to which ecological systems are experiencing anthropogenic disturbance and change in structure and function is critical for long term conservation of biotic diversity in the face of changing landscapes and land use. The ability to assess status and trends in the condition of ecosystems over broad geographic regions can allow identification of existing or developing problems prior to a crisis. Yet the complex and diverse nature of ecosystems necessitates the use and appropriate validation of some restricted set of indicators of biological condition (i.e., IBI) to allow efficient monitoring of a broad range of systems.

8

Ecological Integrity (or Index for Ecological Integrity– IEI) refers to the capability of supporting and maintaining “a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that of natural habitat of the region” (Karr and Dudley 1981). The ecological integrity concept provides a system-specific framework in which species assemblage data can be ranked on a qualitative scale. This method of estimating condition can be more ecologically relevant than traditional analyses such as species richness and Shannon diversity (Blair 1996, Brooks et al. 1998). The schematic of impacts being considered in the Kootenai River Floodplain IEI are displayed in Figure B-3 (Jorde et al. 2005).

Figure B-3. Order of impact schematization (From Jorde et al. 2005)

C. RATIONALE AND SIGNIFICANCE TO REGIONAL PROGRAMS

Northwest Power and Conservation Council – Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (2000) The overall vision in the NWPCC’s 2000 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (NPCC 2000) is “a Columbia River ecosystem that sustains an abundant, productive, and diverse community of fish and wildlife, mitigating across the basin for the adverse effects to fish and wildlife caused by the development and operation of the hydrosystem and providing the benefits from fish and wildlife valued by the people of the region. This ecosystem provides abundant opportunities for tribal trust and treaty right harvest and non-tribal harvest and the conditions that allow for the recovery of the fish and wildlife affected by the operation of the hydrosystem and listed under the Endangered Species Act……. ”

This project addresses the overarching principles (1-8) and objectives (page 16) to “protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife of the Columbia River and its tributaries”. In a discussion of Resident Fish Losses it states that “the development and operation of the hydrosystem has also resulted in losses of numbers and diversity of native resident fish, such as bull trout, cutthroat trout, kokanee, white sturgeon and other species.” This project also addresses the following Basin Level Resident Fish Objectives in the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program (Page 17):

9

“Maintain and restore healthy ecosystems and watersheds, which preserve functional links among ecosystem elements to ensure the continued persistence, health and diversity of all species including game fish species, non-game fish species, and other organisms.

Protect and expand habitat and ecosystem functions as the means to significantly increase the abundance, productivity, and life history diversity of resident fish at least to the extent that they have been affected by the development and operation of the hydrosystem.”

It was proposed by the KTOI Wildlife Division to start the process for operational loss assessments, as stated in the 2000 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (NPCC 2000) “An assessment should be conducted of direct operational impacts on wildlife habitat.” In addition, the NWPCC has committed itself to protecting, mitigating and enhancing “all fish and wildlife affected by the operation of the hydrosystem” and understands that “operational and secondary losses have not been estimated or addressed” (NPCC 2000). Wildlife benefits derived from this process will also help address habitat losses attributed to the construction and operation of Albeni Falls Dam, as well as regional system-wide impacts.  Kootenai River Subbasin Plan prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (2004). This project provides the transferable template for achieving the vision for the Kootenai River Subbasin: “the establishment and maintenance of a healthy ecosystem characterized by healthy, harvestable fish and wildlife populations, normative and/or natural physical and biological conditions, and sustainable human communities”. Achievement of the vision is consistent with the scientific principles adopted in the NWPCC 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program, and the guiding principles adopted for the Kootenai River Subbasin Plan. This project directly addresses the Urgent and High Priority Terrestrial biological objectives for Mainstem (M), Wetlands (WB), Riparian (RP), and in relation to other projects (i.e., #199404900) through the use of ecological indices produced and incorporated into this project, directly address the Aquatic Urgent and High Priority biological objectives.

This project also addresses the following Administrative/Programmatic Objectives (AP2 – page 90, AP3 – page 91, and AP5-page 92): Develop and maintain adequate regional and international coordination, pursue independent peer-review and qualified scientific council, and improve distribution of information required to successfully implement the Subbasin Plan.

The project biological objectives address the restoration of habitats and focal species, in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Moreover, this project meets the prioritization strategies in all Tier I and is the consistent with all Tier II criteria (and fully meets 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) found in Section 10.5 (page 125-128) of the Kootenai Subbasin Plan. Additionally, it is stated in the Subbasin Plan that “after applying and meeting Tier I criteria, ongoing projects that address urgent objectives will be afforded the highest priority of funding” (Page 126). This project falls in the above mentioned categories.

NWPCC Fish & Wildlife Program - Loss Assessments and CreditingThe primary strategy of this project is to determine the extent of ecological dysfunction on

the Kootenai River floodplain (below the 500-year flood extent) and to establish to what degree these dysfunctions can be directly attributed to the operation of Libby Dam and to what degree these dysfunctions can be attributed to other human or natural modifications (i.e., diking). Moreover, this proposal emphasizes the need to establish a regionally accepted and transferable methodology for operational loss assessments as the basis or foundation for subsequent

10

protection, mitigation, and restoration aspects of this and other future projects. Presently, the broad arena of hydro project assessment and evaluation practices (i.e., HSI, HEP; USFWS 1980) are often littered with potential observational biases (i.e., Bald Eagle HSI: V1= proximity to prey base, quality of prey base) and target specific species (i.e., beaver, yellow warbler, etc.) that may or may not be present in the landscape. Thus, the species criteria used to evaluate the landscape may not be the best fit for the current situation and/or may not determine the full extent of the ecological dysfunction within the floodplain community.

BPA has stated “For over a decade the NPCC has tried to facilitate Regional agreement for how to quantify the impacts of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) to wildlife and the means of crediting the BPA’s efforts to mitigate those impacts” (BPA 2002). Since the first loss assessment of Libby Dam in 1984 (BPA 1984) there has been a range of hydrofacility assessment variables, from numbers of animals lost, to a habitat unit (HU) approach, to recent GAP Analysis Program (GAP) parameters. An independent review of several assessments noted inconsistencies such as: study area defined differently, habitat model issues, differences in interpreting structural habitat diversity, no criteria for species selection, and issues related to the coordination between projects (Beak Consultants 1993).

During 2002, the NWPCC Wildlife Crediting Subcommittee was formed to work with Basin fish and wildlife managers and BPA to develop a schedule for resolving these loss assessments and crediting issues. It is easy to understand why the crediting dilemma continues to this day, when one adds up the number of parties involved, the complexity of crediting issues (i.e., crediting ratios, assessment methodologies, annualization, credit accounting, and placement of credits) and differences of opinions. Even though BPA has stated “BPA does not believe an attempt to annualize losses would be fair or accurate enough to warrant the effort and expense it would require to complete the process” (BPA 2002), the annualization issue still polarizes discussions. Some of the toughest questions lie with crediting impacts “outside the basin”, where mitigation credits assessed for a particular basin are potentially placed in another distinctly different part of the region. Crediting issues continue to rise to the top in statements such as: “What wildlife crediting ratio will be used and what project will this proposal credit against” (NWPCC 2004).

A standardized, ecologically quantitative method is critically needed to address hydro operational losses throughout the Columbia River Basin. This need is addressed by the initial phase of this proposal: the creation of a quantitative, transferable operational loss assessment template or tool. This project is creating an Index of Ecological Integrity (IEI), similar to Karr’s Aquatic Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI). The IBI compares an impacted community with a regional reference community by examining varied ecological attributes, including: diversity, biomass, trophic complexity, indicator species, “organism health or condition", and others. The ideal requirements of the index of ecological integrity are that it be comprehensive and multi-scale, grounded in natural history, relevant and helpful, able to integrate concerns from aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial ecology, and that it be flexible and measurable. Multiple biological indexes calculated from ambient biological data can provide an integrated approach for diagnosing ecosystem health or integrity.

Numerous assessments have examined the Habitat Suitability for a particular species (e.g. HSI), but did not take into account that there are a number of interactions, ecological processes and stressors that impact ecosystem integrity. For example, impacting the population of one species may have effects on its predator or prey species. Changes in environmental conditions (such as temperature, moisture, and light) may exceed the tolerance range of species in the

11

ecosystem thereby favoring one population or community over another. The disturbance of preserves or corridors between preserves could change the habitat available to a population and could eliminate the intermingling of reproductive individuals necessary for species to survive. An index of ecological integrity (IEI) gives decision makers a valuable tool to help make better management decisions.

Other Regional and NWPCC Fish and Wildlife Program specific comments

This project is also coordinated through an independent peer-review and qualified scientific counsel, the Research Design and Review Team (RDRT), and is affiliated with the International Kootenai River Ecosystem Recovery Team (IKERT). Implementation is guided by the Kootenai River Adaptive Management Framework Program that is outlined on Page 94 of the Kootenai Subbasin Management Plan.

Project 200201100 is tied strongly to the NPCC Fish and Wildlife program scientific principles, where ecosystem function and ecological management are key to the directed project objectives. Moreover, this project framework provides the ability for managers to assess, characterize and address the primary and secondary limiting factors listed in the Subbasin Plan, and associated scientific literature.

Additionally, this project is consistent with the ESA recovery goals for the Kootenai White Surgeon outlined in the 1999 USFWS Recovery Plan and the 2000 and 2006 Biological Opinions for White Sturgeon. The project is consistent with, and compliments the TMDL Implementation Plan that has been developed for the Idaho portion of the Kootenai River basin.

Ultimately, the project objectives meet intent of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 by involving the public that paid for the construction and operation of the hydroelectric facilities. Without the involvement of the local community and private citizens (ratepayers), long-term management sustainability could not be achieved. With public involvement, the implementation of short-term and long-term sustainability objectives are possible, along with incorporation of diverse ideas, partnership building, and a level of education and ownership to the community.

D. RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER PROJECTS

All KTOI and Kootenai River Subbasin projects are interrelated to varying degrees. They are complementary by design and are integrated at multiple levels. First, all KTOI and other Kootenai River Subbasin projects share and collectively address the vision of the Subbasin Plan, to: “establish and maintain a healthy ecosystem characterized by healthy, harvestable fish and wildlife populations, normative and/or natural physical and biological conditions, and sustainable human communities” (KRSBP 2004; http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/kootenai/plan/).

Secondly, all KTOI and other Kootenai Subbasin projects are related by their complementary inclusion as valuable components into the Kootenai/y Ecosystem Adaptive Management Plan (Tables 1 and 2) (Korman et al. 2005). Within this international multidisciplinary Plan, all component projects address certain aspects of the Kootenai/y ecosystem (e.g. aquatic, riparian or terrestrial management, research, and restoration) (Table 1). Thus, the integration of all Kootenai Subbasin projects collectively address the Subbasin vision, biological objectives, and strategies within specific project proposals.

12

Thirdly, all KTOI and other Kootenai River Subbasin projects are also interrelated to varying degrees by design in order to address the inherent interrelatedness of ecology and ecological restoration activities. Unlike funding opportunities within separate scientific or management disciplines, ecological functions and processes are not segregated along programmatic lines. The Kootenai/y projects are designed and implemented as a package to bridge these programmatic gaps between disciplines by ensuring that aquatic, riparian and terrestrial issues are collectively addressed by aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial projects (Tables 10.D.1 and 10.D.2), despite their being funded as separate projects.

For, example, activities from the Kootenai River nutrient restoration program (BPA 199404900) include a baseline biomonitoring program, experimental nutrient addition, and continued biomonitoring to quantify treatment (nutrient addition) effects among water quality parameters and a series of trophic status indicators. Nutrient addition in the Kootenai River was implemented to mitigate for cultural denutrificiation (Libby Dam and floodplain isolation) by increasing nutrient availability aquatic and biological productivity. Knowledge of energetic (trophic) linkage in aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial ecosystems is reflected in the design of the Kootenai projects, reflected by their interrelatedness. Several additional projects (BPA 200201100, 200200800, 199806400) also involve monitoring biological and ecological effects resulting from experimental treatments from the experimental nutrient addition project (BPA 1994-4900), confirming the ecological and programmatic relationships among Kootenai River habitat and population restoration efforts.

Likewise, the ongoing KTOI project to “Determine the Feasibility of Reconnecting Floodplain Slough Habitat to the Kootenai River” (BPA Project 200200800), is designed to provide on-the-ground benefits to aquatic and riparian community, productivity, and other important ecological functions. Results of this project are/will be concurrently monitored and evaluated by several other Kootenai projects due to known habitat and ecological linkage (BPA Projects 199404900, 198806400, 198806500, 200200200, 200200800).

This project (200201100) is an important component of the Kootenai Ecosystem Adaptive Management Program, where scientific review and community involvement through a watershed council inform a watershed-ecosystem approach. Both fish and wildlife resources are and will continue to be given equal billing, as critical integrated components of the Kootenai River ecosystem. All the KTOI Fish and Wildlife Department proposals are based on this collaborative, comprehensive watershed-ecosystem approach.

Another important aspect to the implementation of the OLA project is the relationship the Tribe has cultivated, with the local community. At the forefront is the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI), which was formed under a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (KTOI), the City of Bonners Ferry, and Boundary County, dated October 2001. Under the JPA, the KVRI is empowered to foster community involvement to restore and enhance the resources of the Kootenai Valley. The mission of KVRI is to act as a locally based partnership to improve coordination, integration, and implementation of existing local, state, and federal programs that can effectively maintain, enhance, and restore the social, cultural, and natural resource bases in the community. The KVRI membership and its partners include the KTOI, who initiated the process, federal, state, and provincial fisheries and water regulatory agencies, regional city and county governments, and private citizens from the various community interest areas, such as landowners, environmental advocacy groups, regional representatives of business and industry. The KVRI is also used as a forum for local input and

13

stakeholder involvement for ongoing Subbasin Plan implementation and evaluation in the Lower Kootenai Subbasin.

This type of community-based approach to resource management strengthens cooperation between public and private, tribal, and local entities to achieve the greatest progress with the finite resource availability. This emphasis gives people who manage and depend on natural resources for their health, recreation, and livelihoods a meaningful role in local and regional resource management while informing the process from a wide range of perspectives typically unavailable from a small number of agencies with relatively narrow management jurisdictions. Through such broad involvement, this watershed approach builds a sense of community and tends to reduce conflicts and increase commitment to the actions necessary to meet societal and natural resource goals. Ultimately, this inclusive approach typically increases the likelihood of developing, implementing, and sustaining successful long-term environmental improvements.

The following BPA projects are ongoing in the Kootenai River Subbasin:

Project Number 198806400: Kootenai River White Sturgeon Studies and Conservation Aquaculture (KTOI)

Project Number 198806500: Kootenai River Fisheries Recovery Investigations (IDFG).

Project Number 199404900: Kootenai River Ecosystem Improvements (KTOI)

Project Number 199500400: Mitigation for the Construction and Operation Of Libby Dam (MFWP)

Project Number 200200200: Restore Recruitment of White Sturgeon in the Kootenai River (KTOI).

Project Number 200200800: Determine the Feasibility of Reconnecting Floodplain Slough Habitat to the Kootenai River (KTOI).

Project Number 200201100: Implement Floodplain Operational Loss Assessment, Protection, Mitigation and Rehabilitation on the Kootenai River Watershed Ecosystem (KTOI).

Project Number 200715200: Evaluation of the Biological Effects of the NWPCC Mainstem Amendment on the Fisheries Upstream and Downstream of Hungry Horse and Libby Dams (MFWP)

14

Table D-1. Relationship among projects funded by BPA in the Kootenai Subbasin and the ecosystem adaptive management program component that they address.

BPA Project(s): 199404900198806500

199404900199500400198806400

198806400198806500

200200200198806500198806400

198806500199500400200715200

200200800200201100

Ecosystem Component:

Kootenai River nutrient

restoration

Transboundarynutrient restoration,

kokanee introductions,

tributary restoration and enhancement

White sturgeon and

burbot conservation aquaculture

Habitat modification to

improve sturgeon spawning and

recruitment

Ecosystem restoration flows - winter low, spring runoff peaking, summer

stable

Flood plain reconnection and Operational Loss

Assessments

Target Benefit

Aquatic, riparian communities,

increased growth, survival, and

biological. condition

Kokanee, burbot, sturgeon, trout;Aquatic, riparian

communities

Addresses stock limitation,

genetic conservation, demographic

safety net

Increase survival of eggs, larvae.

Increase in habitat complexity and

resiliency

Sturgeon and burbot recruitment, salmonid

recruitment, cottonwood recruitment, natural

processes

Lentic, lotic, riparian and terrestrial

communities, all trophic levels

Potential Negative Effects

Stimulation of non-target species.

Stimulation of non-target species.

Overstocking could limit wild

production

Possible unintended hydraulic

consequences

Seepage at higher flows, cooler water temperatures inhibit sturgeon spawning,

reduced productivity in reservoir (not refilled)

Possible unintended hydrologic

consequences

Required Time to See Effect

Periphyton -weeks Inverts-months, Fish = 2-3 yrs,

Kokanee, 1-3 years

Variable depending on life stage and

objective

In-season detection of larvae, 2+ yrs to fully recruit to gill

nets; 30+ years for population effect for

sturgeon

In-season detection of larvae, 2+ yrs to fully recruit to gill

nets, 30+years for population effect for sturgeon

Lower trophic levels-In-seasons, higher

across years

Monitoring Requirements

All taxa responses in Kootenay Lake

and lower Kootenai River

All taxa responses in tributaries and Kootenay Lake

Stream and riparian habitat health and

condition estimators and metrics

Survival, growth and condition

Recruitment magnitude and

frequency. Evaluation of

ecological and physical parameters

in newly created habitat

Recruitment magnitude and frequency. Ecological

condition and biological productivity of post-treatment communities and functions

Nutrient availability and habitat

heterogeneity contributions.

Ecological condition and biological

productivity of post-treatment communities

and functions

15

Table 10.D.2. Draft 20-Year Multi-agency Adaptive Management Program Framework-Project Implementation

Aquatic Riparian/Terrestrial/Avian Ye

ar

Koo

tena

i R

iver

Sou

th A

rm N

utrie

nt R

estor

atio

n (B

PA 1

9940

4900

)

Kok

anee

Int

rodu

ctio

ns

Trib

utar

y En

hanc

emen

t (B

PA 1

9940

4900

)

Con

serv

atio

n A

quac

ultu

re St

urge

on( B

PA19

8806

400)

Con

serv

atio

n A

quac

ultu

re B

urbo

t (B

PA 19

8806

400)

Aqu

atic

sys

tem

B

iom

onito

ring (B

PA

1994

0490

0)

Hab

itat c

reat

ion,

re

stor

atio

n (B

PA

2002

0020

0)

Ecos

yste

m fu

nctio

n re

stor

atio

n flo

ws

(win

ter

low

, spr

ing

runo

ff pe

akin

g,

(BPA

198

8064

00,

1988

0650

0, 1

9940

4900

)

Floo

d pl

ain

reco

nnec

tion,

w

etla

nds

and

trib

utar

y ha

bita

t re

stor

atio

n (B

PA

2002

0110

0, 2

0020

0800)

Terr

estr

ial

Inve

rteb

rate

surv

eys

(BPA

200

2011

00)

Bird

sur

veys

(BPA

20

0201

100)

2004 Design 1 1 Evaluate 1 Assess Hydrograph design Local, small scale tests Assess 1

2005 1 1 1 Evaluate 1 Evaluate 1 as opportunities 1 1

2006 1 1 1 Evaluate 1 Design 1 arise 1 1

2007 1 1 1 C 1 Design 1 Including: 1 1 2008 1/Review Review 1 C 1 Design 1 restoration, C 1 2009 C C 1 C 1 Review 1 side and main channel C C 2010 C C 1 C 1 C 1 C C 2011 C C 1 C 1 C Review channel construction C C 2012 C C 1 C 1 C C C C C 2013 C C Evaluate C 1 C C C C C 2014 C C Review C 1 C C C C C

. C C C C C C C C C C

. C C C C C C C C C C 2024 C C C C C C C C C C

1=Annual implementation and evaluation, 0=No annual implementation but evaluation, “C”=contingent on previous year(s)’ outcomes.

16

Finally, activities in KTOI and other Kootenai River Subbasin projects continue to be integrated and prioritized in accordance with the additional ongoing projects, plans, and legislation:

1. U. S. Endangered Species Act (White Sturgeon Recovery Plan. Responsible entity: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan. Responsible entity: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

2. Stream Restoration Project (lower Subbasin). Responsible entities: Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Bonneville Environmental Foundation, and Bonneville Power Administration.

3. International Kootenai River Ecosystem Restoration Team (IKERT)/IKERT/RDRT/Adaptive Management. Responsible entities: Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (lead) in a collaborative project with a number of other agencies.

4. Reconnection Feasibility Project. Responsible entity: Kootenai Tribe of Idaho.

5. Wetland and Riparian Conservation Strategy. KTOI 2005. Responsible entities: Kootenai Tribe of Idaho in a collaborative process with Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI) Wetland Committee.

6. SARA (Canadian Federal legislation, Species at Risk Act).

7. Kootenai River White Sturgeon Adaptive Multidisciplinary Conservation Aquaculture Program (KTOI 2004).

8. 5-Year White Sturgeon Recovery Implementation Plan and Schedule (2005-2010) (KTOI and Kootenai River White Sturgeon Recovery Team 2005).

9. Kootenai River/Kootenay Lake Burbot Conservation Strategy. KVRI Burbot Subcommittee. 2005. Prepared by the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho with assistance from S. P. Cramer and Associates. 77 pp. plus appendices.

10. Draft Kootenai River Adaptive Management Plan. Walters, C., J. Korman, P. Anders, C. Holderman, and S. Ireland. 2005. Report prepared for the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho. 11 pp.

11. Project Action Plan: Implement operation loss assessment, protection, mitigation and rehabilitation on the Kootenai River watershed: Ecosystem functional assessment and restoration using historical topographic reconstruction and ecohydraulic modeling. BPA Project 200201100. Report prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration. Portland OR. 30 pp. Soults, S., P. Anders, and K. Ashley, editors. 2003.

EPA Funded Projects

In 2001, the KTOI Wildlife Division applied for and received EPA funding to develop a Kootenai River Wetland and Riparian Conservation Strategy (WRCS) (KTOI, 2005). The WRCS dovetailed with several KTOI Projects (BPA Projects 200201100, 200200800,

17

199404900, 198806400, 198806500, 200200200). Under the guidance of EPA, the Wildlife Program facilitated local participation in the Technical Committee, which developed wetland and riparian goals, and addressed community issues and concerns with private citizen involvement. It is KTOI’s belief that the WRCS framework has increased the efficiency of this Project and reduced duplication of efforts in the basin.

EPA is currently funding the Tribal Environmental Program’s Kootenai River Watershed Water Quality Plan and Tribal Air Quality Monitoring. The Tribe is writing recommendations for water quality monitoring, surveys for surface water quality of streams, conducting watershed assessments, and provides the future frame work for TMDL development in the Watershed (Section 106, Clean Water Act).

USDA Funded Projects

The USDA “Farm Bill” will be utilized in the watershed to assist conservation activities. Numerous programs associated with the Farm Bill are anticipated to be re-authorized. Programs that will increase the opportunities for ecological restoration on the local level include: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) Continuous Conservation Reserve Program (CCRP) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Wetland Reserve Program (WRP)

Idaho Fish and Game Funded Projects

Programs supported and funded by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game will be utilized with the anticipation of re-authorization. Programs that will increase the opportunities for ecological restoration on the local level include: Habitat Improvement Program (HIP)

Boundary Soil Conservation District Projects

Kootenai River Dike Stabilization Assessment: This study has been a repeat of stabilization assessments since 1985. In 1995, a dike stability report was finished, with assistance of the US Army Corp of Engineers. Agricultural Crop Signage Program was proposed, but funding was not acquired. Monthly meeting are attended and local community input, natural resource information and projects are invited.

Idaho Partners in Flight & Montana Partners in Flight

Both groups have recently produced separate “Bird Conservation Plans” as of January 2000. These plans identify priority breeding bird habitats that are in decline or are a priority to enhance or protect. These plans and associated personnel will be invited and incorporated into the Watershed Council process and this proposal review process.

The Nature Conservancy

Plans, personnel and assistance will be essential to improving conditions in the Kootenai River Watershed. The Nature Conservancy owns several parcels in the watershed and is a

18

participating member of the KVRI process. Additional, BPA Project #200200800 is working in cooperation to restore floodplain/river connectivity treatments to Ball Creek Ranch.

Ducks Unlimited

Plans, engineers, cost share opportunities, and personnel will be essential to improving conditions in the Kootenai River Watershed.

E. PROJECT HISTORY

Previous Funding

Fiscal Year Annual Funding2003 $293,8642004 $325,9912005 $465,5482006 $465,5482007 $700,0232008 $700,0232009 $700,023

Summary of Results Achieved

FY Accomplishment

2002Assisted in the development of citizen driven natural resource technical committee (KVRI) for the collaborative approach in focusing on resource issues; developed and assembled 17 member Research Design and Review Team and started avian point-count surveys

2003Assessed historical (pre-1900’s) and current condition, status and literature of floodplain wetlands, slough, pocket water within the Kootenai River Watershed and compiled related functional operational impact assessment techniques and bibliography

2004Expansion of one-dimensional hydrodynamic model and implement two-dimensional model from Libby Dam and Kootenay Lake; Analyze hydrologic data before and after the construction of Libby Dam and set up reference scenarios

2005Continued to monitor terrestrial bird & invertebrate survey points within the Kootenai River Watershed; Evaluated habitats & riparian life stages; Coordinated with 199404900 and 200200800 sampling, relational database & multi-trophic level biomonitoring

2006Expanded monitoring terrestrial bird & invertebrate survey points within the Kootenai River Watershed; Evaluated habitats & riparian life stages; Coordinated with 199404900 and 200200800 sampling, relational database & multi-trophic level biomonitoring.

2007Continued monitoring and hydro model develop. Initiated remote sensing land classification based on NAIP imagery. Id-ed all invert specimens to family from 2005-2007. Validated avian data from 2002-2007. Assessed sampling design and intensity.

19

2008Completed draft 1-D, 2-D, and dynamic vegetation hydrologic model. Collected KEC information at sampling locations. Continued to progress on the land classification mapping. Assessed the sample size and power of the invert and avian sampling 2002-2008.

List of Project Reports and Technical Papers

Benjankar, R. (in prep.). Quantification of reservoir operation-based losses to floodplain physical processes and impact on the floodplain vegetation at the Kootenai River, USA. Ph.D. University of Idaho, Boise, ID.

Benjankar, R., Egger, G., Jorde, K., (2009): Development of a Dynamic Floodplain Vegetation Model for the Kootenai River, USA: Concept and Methodology. 7th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics 12-16 January 2009 Concepcion (Chile).

Benjankar, R., Egger, G., Xie, Y. & Jorde, K. (2007): Reservoir Operations and Ecosystem Losses: Concept and Application of a Dynamic Floodplain Vegetation Model at the Kootenai River, USA. Proceeding: 6th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics 18-23 February 2007 Christchurch Convention Centre (New Zealand)

Burke, M & Jorde, K. 2007. Reservoir Operations and Ecosystem Losses: Modified Fluvial Processes Downstream of Libby Dam, Kootenai River, U.S.A. and Canada. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics. IAHR, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Burke, M. 2006. (in prep.). Linking hydropower operation to modified fluvial processes downstream of Libby Dam, Kootenai River, U.S.A. and Canada. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Burke, M. P. 2006. Linking hydropower operation to modified fluvial processes downstream of Libby Dam, Kootenai River, USA and Canada. unpublished Masters thesis. University of Idaho, Mosow, ID.

Burke, M., and K. Jorde. 2004. Conceptual framework for assessment of ecosystem losses due to reservoir operations. in Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics. D Garcia de Jalon & P Vizcaino Martinez, editors. IAHR, Madrid, Spain.

Burke, M., Jorde, K., & Buffington, J., 2008. Application of a hierarchical framework for assessing environmental impacts of dam operation: changes in streamflow, bed mobility and recruitment of riparian trees in a western North American river. Journal of Environmental Management (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.07.022.

Burke, M., Jorde, K., Buffington, J., Braatne, J., & Benjankar, R., 2006. Spatial Distribution of Impacts to Channel Bed Mobility Due to Flow Regulation, Kootenai River, USA. Proceedings of the 8th Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, NV.

Dibrani, B. 2003. Simulation of Flood Induced Removal of Alluvial Fans from Tributaries of the Kootenai River. unpublished Masters thesis. University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart.

Egger, G., Exner, A., Jorde, K., Benjankar, R. (2009): Impacts of Reservoir Operations on Succession and Habitat Dynamics: Calibration af a Dynamic Floodplain Vegetation Model for the Kootenai River, USA. 7th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics 12-16 January 2009 Concepcion (Chile).

Jamieson B. and J. B. Braatne. 2001. Riparian cottonwood ecosystems and regulated flows in Kootenai and Yakima sub-basins: Volume I Kootenai River. Report to Bonneville Power Administration. Project No. 200006800. 118 pp.

Jorde, K., and C. Bratrich, (1998), Influence of river bed morphology and flow regulations in diverted streams: effects on bottom shear stress patterns and hydraulic habitat, in G.

20

Bretschko, and J. Helesic, editors, Advances in River Bottom Ecology IV. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Jorde, K., Burke, M., Scheidt, N., Welcker, C., King, S. & Borden, C., 2008. Reservoir operations, physical processes, and ecosystem losses. In: Habersack, H., Piégay, H., Rinaldi, M. (Eds.), Gravel-Bed Rivers VI: From Process Understanding to River Restoration. Elsevier, pp. 607-636.

Merz, NM, SS Soults, PA Anders, R Benjankar, D Bergeron, G Egger, T Hatten, K. Jorde, B. Shafii, P. Tanimoto, Y. Xie, A. Wood. 2008. Annual Report (2007) – BPA Project 2002-011-00. Document ID #P106377, BPA Contract 30578.

Project Update

The overarching goals of the “Kootenai River Floodplain Ecosystem Operational Loss Assessment, Protection, Mitigation and Rehabilitation” Project (BPA Project # 2002-011-00) are to: 1) assess abiotic and biotic factors (i.e., geomorphologic, hydrological, aquatic and riparian/floodplain communities) in determining a definitive composition of ecological integrity, 2) develop strategies to assess and mitigate losses of ecosystem functions, and 3) produce a regional operational loss assessment framework. To produce a scientifically defensible, repeatable, and complete assessment tool, KTOI assembled a team of top scientists in the fields of hydrology, hydraulics, ornithology, entomology, statistics, and river ecology, among other expertise. This advisory team is known as the Research Design and Review Team (RDRT). The RDRT scientists drive the review, selection, and adaptive management of the research designs to evaluate the ecologic functions lost due to the operation of federal hydropower facilities. The unique nature of this project (scientific team, newest/best science, adaptive management, assessment of ecological functions, etc.) has been to work in a dynamic RDRT process. In addition to being multidisciplinary, this model KTOI project provides a stark contrast to the sometimes inflexible process (review, re-review, budgets, etc.) of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.

The project RDRT is assembled annually, with subgroups meeting as needed throughout the year to address project issues, analyses, review, and interpretation. Activities of RDRT coordinated and directed the selection of research and assessment methodologies appropriate for the Kootenai River Watershed and potential for regional application in the Columbia River Basin. The entire RDRT continues to meet annually to update and discuss project progress. RDRT Subcontractors work in smaller groups throughout the year to meet project objectives.

Determining the extent to which ecological systems are experiencing anthropogenic disturbance and change in structure and function is critical for long term conservation of biotic diversity in the face of changing landscapes and land use. KTOI and the RDRT propose a concept based on incorporating hydrologic, aquatic, and terrestrial components into an operations-based assessment framework to assess ecological losses as shown in Figure E-1.

21

Figure E-1. Diagram of proposed Index of Ecological Integrity (IEI) framework for the assessment of operations based ecological losses.

As outlined in Figure E-1, the OLA project personnel and subcontractors accomplished or are progressing on the tasks outlined in the 2007-2009 proposal. Considerable progress has been made towards the development of these IEI components, with work to refine and finalize these components between FY2009 though FY2011. Major progress has occurred on the following tasks proposed within the 2007-2009 timeline:

Development and refinement of an index of hydrologic (IHA) and fluvial alteration (IFA),

Completed calibrations of hydraulic models to assess wetland and floodplain alteration timeframes,

Development of a dynamic vegetation model based on hydraulic parameters, Documented changes in riparian woody vegetation establishment and survival, Development of a high-resolution remote sensed land cover classification, Completed a draft of 1 meter NDVI values to approximate net primary

production, Sampling of avian and invertebrate communities basin-wide, Assessed sample size and power of avian and invertebrate sampling protocol, Assessed indicator values of avian and invertebrate species by land cover

classification, Initiated development of indices of Biotic Integrity (IBI) Continued to update and enhance Web-based relational database, and

KTOI Operational Loss Assessment Project IEI Components

Index for Hydrologic (IHA) and Fluvial (IFA) Alteration

Scores flow loss & potential for restoration

Scores flow loss & potential for restoration

Net Primary Productivity(NDVI values)

Scores habitat productivityScores habitat productivity

Terrestrial Invertebrate Index of Biological Integrity (TI -IBI)

Scores habitat productivity & trophic levels

Terrestrial Invertebrate Index of Biological Integrity (TI -IBI)

Scores habitat productivity & trophic levels

Avian Index of Biological Integrity (A -IBI)

Scores habitat productivity & trophic levels

Avian Index of Biological Integrity (A -IBI)

Scores habitat productivity & trophic levels

Index of Ecological IntegrityRanking Score

Used to determine extent of loss & potential for restoration

Index of Ecological IntegrityRanking Score

Used to determine extent of

In-River Trophic Levels/ Productivity

(refer to Ecosystem project #199404900)

In-River Trophic Levels/ Productivity

(refer to Ecosystem project #199404900)

Reconnectivity Potential (includes BPA project #200200800)

Reconnectivity Potential (includes BPA project #200200800)

22

Initiated regional review for operational loss assessment framework

Development and refinement of an index of hydrologic and fluvial alteration

IHA: First-order impacts – Index of Hydrologic Alteration

The IHA measures the hydrologic changes in the Kootenai River by comparing parameters collected at stream gages before and after the operation of Libby Dam. For this study, a 15 parameter subset of the IHA output was selected to simplify the analysis. The selected parameters represent the 5 core parameter groups reported by the IHA method and eliminate redundant parameters while representing the primary characteristics of the pre- and post-Libby Dam hydrology. The winter mean daily flow (increased minimum flows during the winter low-flow period) and the high pulse count (number of flows exceeding the 75th percentile of the pre-disturbance flow distribution) showed the largest change, indicating increased irregularity of the annual hydrograph. Each parameter was compared and the ensemble score was termed ‘Index of Hydrologic Alteration’. For more information please refer to IHA and IFA.doc.

IFA: Second-order impacts – Index of Hydraulic/Fluvial Alteration

This index was originally named the index of hydraulic alteration. To avoid confusion with the ‘Index of Hydrologic’ (IHA), the RDRT supported changing the name of this index to the ‘Index of Fluvial Alteration’ (IFA). This index aggregated second-order impacts using pie charts that respectively describe the total alteration of the study reach (Figure E-2a; historic vs. post-Libby Dam periods) that relate solely to Libby Dam (Figure E-2b; pre- vs.. post-Libby Dam periods). The results are nearly identical for the two cases, suggesting that the effects of Libby Dam dominate this section of the river (91% of the total change can be attributed to Libby Dam). For both cases, changes in the spatial and temporal patterns of stage fluctuation and stream power were the two greatest changes (Figure E-2, alterations in excess of 100%). Distributions of depth and wetted width have been altered the least of the seven parameters evaluated. These alterations are consistent with the dual facility objectives of flood control and hydropower generation. The ensemble score was termed ‘Index of Hydraulic Alteration’ in Burke 2006.

Burke (2006) developed a preliminary method for compositing first- and second-order impacts for integration into the IEI process using indices, as described above. At the time that these concepts were developed, use of the IEI concepts for the operational loss assessment was a relatively young concept. The major tasks for FY2009 period are to refine and confirm the approach for preparation of the indices, and to prepare/calculate the final indices of hydrologic and fluvial alteration. For more information please refer to IHA and IFA.doc.

23

Figure E-2. Pie charts of second-order impacts (altered channel hydraulics and bed mobility) resulting from a) all historic water management activities since 1938 (historic vs. post-Libby Dam periods) and b) operation of Libby Dam (pre- vs. post-Libby Dam periods), determined from the mean percent alteration values. Distance from the gray line indicates alteration, while the ratio of the largest piece to the smallest piece (deviation from circularity) gives an indication of uniformity of alteration.

Completed calibrations of hydraulic models to assess wetland and floodplain alteration timeframes

In an effort to assess ecologically significant floodplain processes, determine floodplain losses attributable to operations of dams and areas available for potential future restoration and river-floodplain reconnection potentials, we developed an abiotic hydrologic modeling process. The modeling process allows partitioning of anthropogenic alterations and predictive capabilities based on variation of input parameters.

Using the model, we can partition changes that are caused by hydrology (dam operation) and topography (levee construction, floodplain leveling). A differential evaluation of the physical processes and the ecological functions linked to them via habitat models allows quantification of losses and to attribute certain portions of the losses to either floodplain alterations, channel alterations, changes of the hydrological regime, levee construction, Kootenay Lake water levels or any other of the variables that influence the system.

In addition, the model allows us to predict the outcomes of various restoration events. In a case like the operational loss assessment in the Kootenai Floodplain, the one-dimensional (1-D) and two-dimensional (2-D) modeling are extremely relevant, since neither high flows over the entire floodplain, nor a situation where the dam operation is dramatically changed can be observed. Only physical process-based models integrated into this effort can provide this needed information. These models allow us to simulate what a combination of efforts and actions could do to water movement and location across the floodplain and subsequent habitat availability.

We calibrated and tested two hydrodynamic models (MIKE 11, MIKEFLOOD) to predict the flow conditions in the lower Kootenai River and floodplain. MIKEFLOOD is a professional hydrodynamic model that uses a finite-difference scheme to calculate 1-D flow in the Kootenai River and 2-D flow on the floodplain. We chose a 2-D model because they provide accurate simulations of floodplain flow processes in complex terrain (Horritt, 2000; Horritt & Bates, 2002; MacWilliams et al., 2004), unlike 1-D or quasi 2-D models (Gillam et al., 2005). The flow

24

properties are calculated in a rectangular grid based on measured topography, bed resistance, and hydraulic boundary conditions. We have three time periods of interest: 1) historic (pre-1938) when the study area was minimally disturbed, 2) pre-dam (1939-1967) when levees, drainage, and land leveling occurred, and 3) contemporary (1974-present) which includes all previous human modification and Libby Dam operation.

The mean daily discharge at the Leonia gage station and mean water levels at the WSC (08NH07) Kootenay Lake gage were used as the upstream and downstream boundary conditions, respectively, for all time periods. These locations were chosen to minimize the impacts of the boundaries on the modeled results. Calibration of Manning’s roughness coefficient (calculates the frictional losses caused by bed, bank, and vegetation resistance) was necessary to properly predict the flow in all modeled scenarios. We did not calibrate the Manning roughness coefficient on the floodplain because no quantitative data (e.g. flood extent map, measured velocities, and water depths) were available. We divided the floodplain into eight different Manning coefficient values based on the observed vegetation (recent and historic air photos, and wetland maps) the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) calculated using 30m Landsat imagery, and reported literature values (e.g. Acrement and Schneider, 1989; Alkema and Middelkoop, 2005; Ayres Associates, 2002; Chow, 1959; Hesselink et al., 2003). We conducted detailed sensitivity analyses to understand the impact of Manning’s roughness, grid size, and simulation duration on model results.

We assessed the operational losses from levee construction and Libby Dam operation by predicting the flow hydraulics (spatial variation in water depth, velocity and shear stress) and flood inundation extent during the three time periods (see above). To simplify calculations, the annual hydrographs for all three time periods were divided into eight different hydrologic classes (e.g. high, average and low discharge). Typical wet (W_1, W_2, W_3), average (A_1, A_2, A_3) and dry (D_1, D_2) years are identified based on similar annual peak discharges, average discharges and hydrograph shapes. During a 100-year flow event, much of the floodplain was historically inundated and this inundated area was significantly limited after levee construction (Figure E-3). A summary of the floodplain inundation calculations for each time period and flow event is given in Table E-1. All these simulations assume that the levee system is completely effective. Prior to Libby Dam construction, levee failures were report approximately 1 in every 4 years.

Table E-1. Summary of inundation extent.

C P H RatioMax Av ha ha ha ha % ha % ha % R*

D_1 1 1 103 82 97 -5 -5 16 16 -21 -26 -1D_2 1.25 1.3 63 413 996 932 94 583 59 349 85 2A_1 2 2 68 1244 8847 8779 99 7603 86 1176 95 6A_2 3.5 5 133 2279 15334 15202 99 13055 85 2146 94 6A_3 2 25 103 1244 3035 2932 97 1791 59 1141 92 2W_1 5 3.5 149 2893 15858 15709 99 12964 82 2745 95 5W_2 10 3.5 239 7313 13427 13188 98 6113 46 7075 97 1W_3 100 25 278 11655 16955 16677 98 5301 31 11376 98 0

R*= Ratio of losses due to River modification and Dam operation C= Contemporary D= Dry year ~RI= Approximate Recuernce Interval P= Pre-dam A= Average year Max= RI based on maximum peak flood in historic condition H= Historic W= Wet year Av= RI based on yearly average flood in historic condition

Climatic condition

~RI (year)

Total flooded area Operational losses in term of flooded areaTotal loss (H-C) River modification (H-P) Dam operation (P-C)

25

Figure E-3. Spatial distribution of inundation area (colors are flow depths, blue is low) for contemporary, pre-dam and historic scenarios during a 100-year flood event. Areas with no color were not inundated.

Figure E-4. Inundated flow depths in a former wetland during the historic time period for relatively average (1917) and large discharges (1916), see Table 2 for values.

26

Large amounts of wetlands were converted to agricultural cropland over the past 100 years (KTOI 2006). We therefore calculated the amount of wetland habitat (important for many aquatic and waterfowl species) that could have existed in the Kootenai basin under historic conditions using our hydrologic model to determine the inundation area, flow depth, flood duration (number of days an area is flooded), and water volume (product of area and depth) in wetlands for a range of flow conditions (Figure E-4). An area known to contain historic wetlands was divided into eleven distinct regions (regions 3, 5, 7, and 11 are shown in Figure E-4) to determine the primary historic wetland locations. For all modeled flow events, region 7 had the greatest flood duration (43 days in 1934) compared to other wetlands. Some locations (regions 3 and 5) were only flooded for a minimum of 1 day (in 1921 and 1913) and a maximum of five days (in 1916). Currently none of these wetlands exist except region 7, which is managed by artificial flooding (pumping water from the river and feeding water from tributaries). Such results could be used to quantify wetland losses and identify primary areas (highest inundation frequency etc.) for wetland restoration in the future. For more information please refer to Hydrologic Modeling.doc.

Development of a dynamic vegetation model based on hydraulic parameters

A riparian habitat and vegetation model was developed for this project by Rohan Benjankar under the guidance of Dr. Klaus Jorde and the University of Idaho’s Center for Ecohydraulics Team in Boise, Idaho (Benjankar 2009; Benjankar in prep.). Riparian vegetation is one of the main indicators of long-term environmental change due to anthropogenic disturbances altering river and floodplain systems. Age structure of vegetation communities can also be used to reconstruct historic river and hydrological conditions. Therefore, a dynamic vegetation model was developed for estimating and simulating the change in vegetation habitats and communities due to river regulation by Libby Dam.

The main objectives were:

simulate vegetation dynamics based on the physical processes of the floodplain for current, pre-dam and historic scenarios,

simulate loss in vegetation habitats and communities due to dam operation and river regulation,

perform an analysis of the age structure of vegetation communities, simulate vegetation structure and type for terrestrial ecosystems (bank and floodplain

zones) for use in an index of biotic integrity (IBI) for estimating different anthropogenic disturbance types, and

analyze spatial distribution of suitable habitats of indicator vegetation and animal species.

We considered physical processes to be the main driving forces of vegetation dynamics. Thus, these processes are simulated by a combined one-dimensional (1D, river) and two-dimensional (2D, floodplain) hydrodynamic model using river hydrology, cross sections and a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the floodplain as inputs. A dynamic link between the hydraulic and vegetation models has not yet been installed, but will be developed in the future.

27

A dynamic rule-based vegetation model was developed based on the simulation of physical parameters, observed data, and expert knowledge. The vegetation model is created in an ArcGIS environment using the Model Builder module (Politti 2008). It is a grid-based (raster) type of approach and simulates the vegetation succession or retrogression in annual time steps within 10x10 m grid cells. The model outputs the Potential Natural Vegetation (PNV) communities at the end of each computed year.

The model area is classified into three zones, i.e. aquatic zone (AZ), bank zone (BZ) and floodplain zone (FZ). Zone definition underlies the concept that magnitude and frequency of flooding governs the presence, absence and structure of riparian vegetation communities. AZ is part of the river, BZ is approximately the area being flooded by bankful discharges. FZ corresponds to the floodplain defined as the area being flooded by a 100-year flood event.

Model outputs include temporal and spatial community Potential Natural Vegetation types (PNV) distributions in the study area. Output communities are defined regardless of land use changes. An example of a vegetation map for 2006 that was calculated by the model is shown in Figure E-5. Currently, the model is in the verification and calibration phase.

The final goal of the vegetation model is to use different community types as calculated by the model for the development of indices of biotic integrity (IBI) and to estimate the impact of different anthropogenic disturbances within the floodplain, including hydrologic modifications, on riparian vegetation and habitats in the Kootenai River floodplain. For more information please refer to Vegetation Model.doc.

Figure E-5: A model of Potential Natural Vegetation types at the Kootenai River in 2006.

Changes in Riparian Woody Vegetation Establishment and Survival

In addition to using model approaches, we are assessing woody riparian vegetation, mainly black cottonwood and sandbar willow, establishment post “sturgeon flows”. Like all

28

populations, healthy cottonwood populations are self-sustaining with periodic recruitment of new individuals into the population. However, as with many rivers that have been dammed or hydrologically altered, cottonwood recruitment along the Kootenai River has been disrupted (Polzin and Rood 2000; Jamieson and Braatne 2001). Many locations along the river support mature trees that established prior to damming, but are lacking juvenile trees (Polzin and Rood 2000). Many other studies have also shown a lack of recruitment associated with change in the timing and magnitude of stream flows on which cottonwood life history processes depend (Braatne et al. 1998; Johnson 1992; Rood et al. 1995; Cooper et al. 1999; Scott et al. 1996).

To assess riparian woody vegetation establishment and recruitment, previous sampled and new belt transects were relocated or established from the waters edge to the back of the floodplain. In each quadrat (2m x 4m) along the transect, the leaf area cover of each woody species was noted. On occasional, herbaceous plants cover within the quadrat was noted, also. The percent cover of bare ground was also noted. Heights of the tallest and the shortest saplings were noted to provide the range of sizes. The sizes of individual saplings were not measured, because the range estimate provided sufficient detail for characterizing overall size structure diversity and individuals of the same age can often vary in height. Two to three saplings near the transect were selected and cut at ground level for aging, and a few of the larger trees were aged by taking a core with an increment borer. Some of the smaller cottonwoods were excavated to determine if they are of seedling or clonal origin. We anticipate that there was an initial expansion of the riparian woodlands in the lower elevation riparian zones that would have been periodically scoured and more dynamic prior to the flood attenuation imposed by Libby Dam.

In the coming year, data from the prior studies (Polzin and Rood 2000; Jamieson and Braatne 2001) and new field data from the summer of 2008 will be analyzed. The transects established in the prior studies in the braided and meandering reaches will be re-surveyed. Field data from sites along free-flowing river reaches such as the upper Kootenay, the Elk and Fisher Rivers will be retrieved from prior studies and used to provide information on reference sites, which are needed for the IBI approach. Indicators will be further developed and the data collected will be applied to them. Preliminary field visits in the braided reach indicate continued recruitment and patches of healthy-looking riparian woodlands. For more information please refer to Riparian Woodlands.doc

Continued development of a fine-scaled land classification cover

An accurate, high-resolution land cover map of the project area is the foundation for several of the OLA Project initiatives. Only high-resolution imagery is suitable for mapping the complex habitat mosaic of land cover types occurring along riparian corridors such as the Kootenai River Valley. To accomplish these goals, we acquired 1-meter resolution multispectral imagery from the USDA National Aerial Imagery Program (NAIP). True color NAIP imagery is available nationwide at no cost, while color infrared imagery coverage and cost is variable. NAIP imagery carries with it the primary benefits of high resolution, excellent positional accuracy, and low or no cost.

Although the high resolution imagery captures the complexities of the landscape, it also captures shadows of trees. Shadows cannot be considered a cover type and so must be associated with a cover type to classify them appropriately. Spectral similarities with water exacerbate this problem. Accordingly, a variety of methods were used to classify the imagery

29

into land cover classes. These include supervised and unsupervised image classification routines, masking, stratification by elevation or topographic position, and direct image interpretation combined with heads-up vector digitizing using ArcGIS.

We adopted the hierarchical cover classification scheme developed for the Gap Analysis Program (Scott et al. 1993) for Montana and Northern Idaho. Because the scheme was developed in the context of Landsat satellite image classification at 30-meters, some changes were made to the scheme to accommodate the high resolution and the ecological cover classes occurring in the project area. Classification accuracy will be determined by using 1117 polygons that were digitized around avian survey points. A portion of the land cover classification, located in the Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge, near Bonners Ferry, Idaho is show in Figure E-6. For more information please refer to Land Cover Classification.doc

Figure E-6. (A). A portion of the 1-meter NAIP color infrared image composite from the Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge, and (B), a corresponding, classified image.

Assessing primary production using NDVI

The normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) is an image processing product derived as a ratio of red to infrared pixel values. NDVI is particularly sensitive to chlorophyll concentration and therefore bright NDVI pixels indicate areas where photosynthesis is occurring

30

at a higher rate then duller pixels. Photosynthesis varies naturally across vegetation cover types and age classes. We used bands 2 and 3 from the color infrared NAIP composites to create an NDVI theme for the study area with the intent of deriving NDVI values for various cover types, preferred avian habitats, and insect transect areas. These correlates will permit us to enhance our characterization of riparian wildlife habitat and to contrast different portions of the riparian zone.

A preliminary NDVI product has been produced and its values were stretched to take advantage of 8-bit integer image depth. However, because separate NDVI scenes were merged, these subsets need to be readjusted separately to ensure the continuity of NDVI values across the entire study area. A portion of the NDVI image is shown in Figure E-7. For more information please refer to Land Cover Classification.doc

Figure E-7. A portion of the NDVI image derived from 1 meter NAIP imagery. The image area corresponds to that shown in Figure E-6.

Assess sample size and power of avian and invertebrate sampling protocol

This analysis encompasses a critical evaluation of the current sampling scheme employed by the OLA project. The statistical analyses include determination of required sample sizes for various taxonomic assemblages at different precision levels, along with statistical power analyses accounting for potential spatial and/or temporal variability and monitoring.

Sample Size Estimation

31

The formulation for calculating sample size can be derived from a confidence interval constructed for the population mean and is given by (Cochran, 1977):

n = (z*s/d)2 (1)

where n is the estimated sample size, s is the sample standard deviation, d is the desired precision, and z is a tabulated critical value related to the level of confidence and is specified as a quantile of the standard Normal distribution.

The resulting sample size values are preliminary, as the calculations are based on available data.

Avian Richness

The OLA Project avian data encompasses 27,488 observations collected between 2002 and 2008 at 153 sites. All observations were identified to species. In the sample size calculations below, results are shown for avian species richness at the 95% level of confidence within predefined river reaches. The desired precision level in equation (1), d, was set to the absolute level of 1, 2, 3, or 4 species (i.e. the mean richness of the avian data is estimated to within one to four species). Estimates of variability, s, were obtained from the available data. Sample size, in this case, refers to the number of sites necessary to obtain the desired level of precision within a given river reach.

Figures E-8a and E-8b show the sample size estimates relative to the actual sampling densities for the years 2003 through 2008. Annual estimates (colored dots) falling below the actual sampling densities (red squares) indicate an adequate sampling density for achieving the desired precision and confidence levels. While the estimates computed for the highest precision level of one species appear inadequate, those at precisions of 2 or more species meet or exceed the desired expectations. Given these results, the current level of site sampling is adequate to estimate the mean richness of each reach to within at least 2 species. Other scenarios estimating the combined number of sites and dates or, alternatively, the number of dates within a specified site at the same precision level, are provided in supporting information (see Sample Size and Power Analyses.doc) and further indicate that the avian sampling protocol is adequate.

32

Figure E-8a. Estimated avian sample sizes (number of sites) for seven river reaches in the years 2003 to 2008. Separate plots are provided for each of the four precision levels ranging from delta = 1 species to 2 species. Dots represent individual year estimates, while red squares represent the actual sampling densities.

Figure E-8b. Estimated avian sample sizes (number of sites) for seven river reaches in the years 2003 to 2008. Separate plots are provided for each of the four precision levels ranging from delta = 3 species to 4 species. Dots represent individual year estimates, while red squares represent the actual sampling densities.

Species accumulation curves: In addition to the sample size determination, species accumulation curves were calculated to determine whether the sampling effort was sufficient to record the majority of avian species occurring in the floodplain region of the watershed. This analysis was performed by bootstrapping species richness data for samples with sequentially larger sample sizes (Southwood & Henderson, 2000). For the purposes of this specific analysis we defined a “sample” as the number of species occurring at a bird sampling plot (site) on a single day (“site/day”). The idea behind species accumulation curves is that fewer and fewer new species are recorded with each sequential sampling event; hence when plotted, accumulation curves are asymptotic reaching an asymptote when sufficient sampling effort has been expended to record all species in the environment. The shape of the species accumulation curves for each year indicates that during each sampling season we recorded most bird species occurring in the floodplain region of the watershed. Figure E-9 shows a combined species accumulation curve combined across years. For more information please refer to Avian Species Accumulation.doc.

33

Avian species accumulation curve 2003-2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1 37 73 109

145

181

217

253

289

325

361

397

433

469

505

541

577

613

649

685

721

757

793

No. of site/days sampled

No.

of s

pecie

s

Figure E-9. Aggregated avian species accumulation curve for 2003-2008

Invertebrate Richness

The OLA Project invertebrate data encompasses 8,315 observations collected in 2005 and 2007 at 81 sites. All observations were identified to the family level of taxonomic classification. Figures E-10a and E-10b show estimated sample sizes for 2005 and 2007 invertebrate family richness. In this case, adequate sampling levels were not achieved until a precision level of d = 4 families. Therefore, it cannot be expected that invertebrate richness means will estimate the true richness values to within less than four families.

Invertebrate sample size estimates for the number of date-site combinations and the number of days per site can be found in see Sample Size and Power Analyses.doc.

Figure E-10a. Estimated invertebrate sample sizes (number of sites) for seven river reaches in the years 2005 and 2007. Separate plots are provided for each of the four precision levels ranging from 1 family to 2 families. Dots represent individual year estimates, while red squares represent the actual sampling densities.

34

Figure E-10b. Estimated invertebrate sample sizes (number of sites) for seven river reaches in the years 2005 and 2007. Separate plots are provided for each of the four precision levels ranging from 3 families to 4 families. Dots represent individual year estimates, while red squares represent the actual sampling densities.

Family accumulation curves: Family accumulation curves were also calculated to determine whether the sampling effort was sufficient to collect the majority of invertebrate families occurring in each geomorphic reach or in the watershed. This analysis was performed by bootstrapping Family richness data for samples with sequentially larger sample sizes (Southwood & Henderson 2000). The Family accumulation curves shown in Figure E-11 indicate that during the 2007 season we did not capture all invertebrate families within each sampled geomorphic reach, and that a larger sample size would be required to accomplish this. These results are complementary to those reported above that indicated sampling precision of invertebrates was lower than avian species due to the lower sample size of invertebrates. For more information please refer to Invertebrates.doc.

35

Figure E-11. Family accumulation curves for the invertebrate fauna found by hydro-geomorphic reaches within the watershed.

Power Analysis

Avian Richness

Power analyses for the avian data are based on a one-way classification Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) comparing mean species richness across river reaches. For the purpose of demonstration, the ANOVA results for the most recent year (2008) were used. The effect of reach was highly significant, i.e. at least one reach mean richness differed from the others. To fully assess the effect of reach on species richness, mean contrasts were also tested. All contrasts indicated significant results, with the exception of the Refuge versus Meander contrast. The Canyons versus Meander contrast was marginally significant with a p-value of 0.09.

Power curves for these contrasts are provided in Figure E-12. As is expected from the results above, the Canyon vs. Meander and Refuge vs. Meander contrasts have the lowest power, never reaching above 60% while the Refuge vs. Canyon contrast has very high power, rapidly rising to more than 80% power at moderate sample sizes. Hence, it is easier to detect differences in richness for these reaches than differences between other sets of reaches. Estimated power curves pertaining to similar contrasts for the years 2003-2007 are given in supporting documents (see Sample Size and Power Analyses.doc).

Figure E-12. Power curves for the 2008 avian river reach contrasts.

Invertebrate Richness

36

As with avian data, power analyses for the invertebrate data are based on a one-way analysis of variance, however the response in this case is family richness. The ANOVA results for the most recent year available (2007) were computed. The effect of reach was highly significant. Mean contrasts for each comparison were also tested. Only the Canyon vs. Braided contrast was highly significant, although the Refuge vs. Meander and Canyon vs. Meander contrasts were marginally significant.

The corresponding power curves are shown in Figure E-13. The Canyon vs. Braided contrast shows the highest power (steepest power curve) while the Refuge vs. Canyon contrast has the lowest. The power curves pertaining to the same contrasts for the year 2005 are given in supporting documents (see Sample Size and Power Analyses.doc).

Sampling intensity for the avian and invertebrate data of the OLA Project, based on the geomorphic designation of reaches, appears to be sufficient with adequate power in testing the majority of specified hypotheses. In 2008, increased invertebrate sampling occurred in the tailwater and open canyon reach to increase precision levels within these reaches. The river reach definitions are somewhat arbitrary, however, more accurate and biologically meaningful analyses will involve reassessing the analyses presented here using additional information on habitats (GapCode designations), site relevant information (KEC Data), or biological guild specific information. Such analyses will be carried out for the Operational Loss project as these data become available.

.

Figure E-13. Power curves for the 2007 invertebrate river reach contrasts.

Continued Sampling of Biotic Communities Basin-Wide

37

We plan to continue collecting avian and invertebrate community data from 153 sampling sites distributed throughout the 500-year floodplain, annually. In 2008, we added 2 sampling locations in agricultural fields and 1 sampling location near the Canadian border to provide better sampling distribution and representation in the meander reach. We plan to sample these same sites in 2009, but may reduce the total number of sites to allow for sampling outside the basin.

To standardize habitat classification across years, distance and direction data collected during avian point counts were plotted spatially using ArcMap. For invertebrate collections, we marked each invertebrate pit trap using Garmin E-trex GPS units. These coordinates were downloaded into ArcMap and corrected using NAIP true color aerial photography. We used these locations, habitat description recorded by the observer, and land classification maps to assign standardized habitat assignments for each avian detection and invertebrate pitfall trap location across years. These efforts standardized habitat descriptions of numerous observers over several years with the high resolution land cover classification to facilitate analysis and comparison among and between land cover classes.

Avian

The avian community was sampled at each of the selected points using a ten-minute point count (Hutto, Pletschet, and Hendricks, 1986, Ralph 1992). All birds heard or seen were recorded. The distance to each bird was estimated as well as the direction from the point to each observation. Abundance was also recorded for those instances when multiple birds were detected in one location. Each observation was assigned a habitat designation. In addition, a framework for the guild analysis has been created. We chose to look at functional guilds as well as additional categories. Eleven categories were created (see Appendix C). The initial guild assignments have been completed. Modifications to the proposed guild structure are being examined. For more information please refer to Avian.doc

Invertebrate

The invertebrate fauna was sampled by pitfall trapping within a subset of avian sampling sites. Pitfall trapping is a common method of sampling invertebrates in epigeal and terrestrial habitats. The method is economically efficient and yields high rates of capture (Luff 1975; Spence & Niemela, 1994; Sunderland et al. 1995). Invertebrate specimens were identified at different levels of taxonomic resolution depending on the fauna under investigation. Insects and spiders were identified to the Family level, while all other invertebrates were identified to the Class or Order level. In addition, we identified the following four families of insects to the species level: Carabidae (ground beetles), Curculionidae (weevils), Scarabaeidae (scarab beetles) and Silphidae (carrion and burying beetles). All taxonomic groups were classified into guilds for future analysis. In 2007, we adjusted the invertebrate sampling design to optimize sampling effort and allow for analyses by habitat. In 2008, we increased sample size by adding samples primarily in the tailwater reach in response to the sample size analysis. By the end of 2008, all specimens collected were identified and the data were entered into databases for validation prior to incorporation into the Web-based relational database. For more information please refer to Invertebrates.docx.

38

Assess indicator values of avian and invertebrate species by land cover classification

The indicator value analyses given here are based on the work outlined in Dufrene and Legendre (1997). Similar analyses may also be found in subsequent work such as McGeoch et al. (2002). Specifically, a statistic known as the indicator value is computed for individual taxonomic groups within specified site classifications, such as habitat. This index combines the relative abundance of the taxonomic groups with their relative frequency of occurrence in various habitats. It is argued that the indicator value, a measure of ecological bioindication, can help in explaining the hierarchical structure of taxa distributions and that it is stable over temporal changes. It has also been suggested that the indicator value, denoted by “I”, of a certain taxonomic group for a typology of sites is the maximum value observed over all groups of that typology. While maximum values of I represent indicator "characteristic" species for a particular habitat, it has been suggested that moderate values imply indicator "detector" species for that habitat. Although other cutoffs are suggested in the literature, it is noted that they are subjective benchmarks, and thus, indicator values should only be interpreted in a relative manner based on the data at hand and the research objectives.

Individual value analysis provides a linkage between habitat and biological indicators. The analyses identify potential taxonomic groups, which may be useful for discerning environmental changes. The analyses below have been shown to be temporally stable across multiple years, thereby providing a useful environmental measure for the OLA project. The initial analyses (below) began the process of identifying appropriate taxonomic groups for assessing avian and invertebrate organisms. Continued monitoring of the indicator and detector species or families in conjunction with other environmental correlates will aid the assessment of the project goals and targeting monitoring plans toward appropriate species, guilds, trophic levels, or functional groups. For more information please refer to Indicator Value Analysis.doc.

In addition to the indicator value analyses, we have used ordination analysis to look for compositional gradients in the invertebrate community due to habitat type and composition. Results of the ordination agree quite well with the individual values analysis, largely identifying the same taxa as indicators or detectors of the five habitats of interest (refer to Invertebrates.docx).

The indicator value for the ith taxonomic group in the jth habitat, Iij, is calculated as:

(1)

where, aij and bij are referred to as the specificity and fidelity, respectively. Specificity is a measure of abundance given by:

(2)

The Nij represents the average number of individuals of taxonomic group i in the jth habitat while Ni . is a sum of all mean abundances for taxonomic group i. The average number of individuals is used here as a method for mitigating the effect of different numbers of sites within each of the j habitats.

39

Specificity will be maximized at 1.0 when the ith taxonomic group is only present in habitat j, that is, the taxa group is specific to a particular habitat.

Fidelity, bij, is defined as:

(3)

where Nsij is the number of sites in habitat j containing taxa group i and Ns.j is the total number of sites in habitat j. In other words, fidelity is the proportion of sites in habitat j containing the ith taxonomic group. Fidelity is maximized at 1.0 when a taxonomic group, i, is observed at all sites in habitat j.

Avian Data

The OLA Project avian data encompasses 25,431 observations collected over the years 2003 to 2008 in 153 sites. Due to anomalies in the dataset, 2002 avian data were not used in these analyses. All observations are identified to the species level of taxonomic classification. Sites were initially classified into 25 Gap Code habitat classifications. Because in some cases the number of sites available in each year - habitat combination were sparse, the habitat classifications were condensed into 11 habitat types.

The following discussion only highlights a couple of examples for the reader. For more information please refer to Indicator Value Analysis.doc. Morning doves (MODO) showed the largest indicator value for Transportation Surfaces (habitat 1200). The value, however, is moderate in magnitude, 0.19, suggesting that this species may be a good detector species for that habitat. In addition, the next three species, Brewer’s blackbird (BRBL), American crow (AMCR), and rock dove (RODO) show indicator values lower than MODO. That is, any of these species would be poor choices for indicator detector species in habitat 1200. In contrast, the next habitat, Disturbed Grassland (habitat 3102), shows the species vesper sparrow (VESP), chipping sparrow (CHSP), tree swallow (TRSW), eastern kingbird (EAKI), and violet-green swallow (VGSW) with a relatively higher indicator values. These may be good indicator characteristic species for habitat 3102. In fact, sparrow and swallow species make up 4 of the top 5 indicator values for this habitat, suggesting a commonality between them may exist. A few species, such as spotted sandpiper (SPSA) in the habitat 5100 (River and Stream), show high indicator values (.43) as well as the component values for specificity and fidelity, and may be considered indicator species for those habitats.

The literature suggests that species with low specificity values, e.g. AMCR in the habitat 1200 are generalists. That is, they occur in multiple habitats other than 1200. On the other hand, higher specificity values, such as species VESP in habitat 3102, indicate that these species are fairly specialized and are found almost exclusively in that habitat type.

Fidelity is a measure of a species distribution within a habitat. Low fidelity, such as American kestrel (AMKE) in habitat 1200, suggests that this species is only found in a few sites related to habitat 1200 and is, therefore, sparsely dispersed, while the species CHSP in habitat 3102, with a high fidelity, was observed in the majority of the 3102 sites and, hence, is more uniformly dispersed across that habitat. Finally, species showing both moderate specificity and

40

fidelity (the detector species) can be important in evaluating changes in habitat conditions and integrity as they will more easily shift across habitats when necessary. An example here might be species BRBL in habitat 1200. This species is found in the 1200 habitat, but is not exclusive to that habitat. Likewise, within this habitat, it does not occupy all sites and could potentially move from site to site within the habitat. Monitoring such species may prove valuable for assessing the impacts of past or future environmental changes. For more information please refer to Indicator Value Analysis.doc.

Invertebrate Data

The OLA Project invertebrate data encompasses 8,315 observations collected over the years 2005 and 2007 in 81 sites. The sampling protocol for 2005 differed from that of 2007 and Gap Code designations for 2005 data were not yet verified and available. Hence, the invertebrate individual value analyses below will concentrate on the 2007 data. There are 42 sites recorded for the year 2007, with 6955 observations. All observations were identified to the family level of taxonomic classification. Twenty-six Gap Code habitat classifications were initially used to classify sites. To avoid situations where the numbers of sites within each habitat were sparse, the habitat classifications were condensed into 9 habitat types

The following discussion only highlights a couple of examples for the reader. For more information please refer to Indicator Value Analysis.doc. The family Slender-Springtail shows the largest indicator value for all families detected in habitat 3101 (upland grassland) at 0.35. This high indicator values was due largely to a high Fidelity value of 0.84, but only a moderate Specificity of 0.42. The indicator value, however, is moderate in magnitude, 0.35, suggesting that this species may be a good detector species for that habitat. Two other springtail families (Isotomidae and Sminthuridae) also appear in the top indicator rankings for this habitat, indicating that springtail families may be good detector families, in general, for habitat 3101. For habitat 6202 (shrub-dominated riparian), two true bug families (Leafhopper and Big-eyed bugs) show relatively high indicator values of 0.41 and 0.33, respectively. These may be good indicator families for habitat 6202, while other families, such as Miridae (Plant-bugs) are not.

The literature suggests that families with low specificity values are generalists and correspondingly, families with higher values may be considered as specialists. Additionally, families showing both moderate specificity and fidelity can be important in evaluating changes in habitat conditions as they will more easily shift across habitats when necessary.

Initial development of an index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)

To develop an IBI, data collected on biotic communities need to span the range of the anthropogenic disturbance of concern. Several methods are being considered to define “biological integrity”. First, we are investigating the use of only sites in the Kootenai River Basin. These sites cover a range of varying conditions found in the Kootenai River Floodplain. In addition, reference sites in free flowing rivers or analogue sites might need to be selected to cover the range of variation and/or to test the IBI metrics developed using the current sampling location. Second, we intend to use the dynamic rules-based vegetation model to simulate the response of biotic communities to vegetation alteration caused by hydrologic alterations.

41

The OLA project is presently developing a terrestrial IBI using avian and terrestrial invertebrate data collected within the Kootenai River floodplain between 2003 and 2008. It is still undetermined if these will be separate IBI’s or combined into one terrestrial IBI. Data collected in 2009 and beyond could be used to improve IBI calibration and/or evaluate the IBI. These IBI’s will be an integral component of the overall Index of Ecological Integrity (IEI) assessing operational losses at the reach or basin level, and will be used at a finer scale (site, project, parcel, etc.) as a monitoring and evaluation tool. Site specific vegetation components (Key Ecological Correlates - KEC) will be used to scale the effects of human impact at each site.

The first step in developing an Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) is to rate sampling sites based on their integrity (Karr 1981). Since the sampling sites for the operational loss assessment contain numerous land cover types, a method that could rate and aggregate all land cover components of the site needed to be developed. To accomplish this task, a rating system based on land classification cover and site-specific KEC (The Northwest Habitat Institute 2006) was developed. The mapped land cover classes (P. Tanimoto, Conservation Imaging Inc., Moscow ID; 12/04/07) were aggregated into generalized land cover classes (GLCC) (Table E-2). For each GLCC, a habitat rating was derived using information from KEC data. Each GLCC was given a score of 1 to 5 based on its natural ability to sustain itself over time. A score of 5 indicated the highest ability for the cover type to be retained over time or in other words, the highest integrity. The criteria and justification for each GLCC rating is displayed in table E-2. Each rating was then weighted by the proportion of area of the GLCC in question within the 50 m radius of the plot center. All weighted ratings found in the polygon were summed to obtain an overall site rating and rounded to the nearest integer.

Since development of this rating system in December 2008, field visits resulted in additional criteria for consideration and incorporation into the rating system (the influence of natural succession, river migration, and landscape context). We will investigate these and other issues by analyzing free-flowing rivers and sites within the Kootenai floodplain that have minimal anthropogenic impacts, along with interpretation of historical aerial photographs. In addition, the vegetation model may provide information to assess these and other variables related to site rating. These tasks are planned for FY2009, but likely will continue into FY2010. Validation and calibration of the IBI will need to be completed in FY2010 and FY2011 using sites held back from the initial analysis, current data not currently used in development of the model, and/or sites from other river floodplains.

Once the site rating system is finalized, metrics for terrestrial communities will be regressed against site rating to identify significant metrics to use in IBI development. The metrics chosen should be sensitive to hydrological changes and related to ecological functions. These metrics will be placed in a pie chart similar to the IHA for easy identification of the contribution of each metric to the overall IBI and IEI.

As part of the OLA project, a series of variables and metrics were developed for Indices of Biological Integrity (IBIs) from project meetings, RDRT discussions and assignments, and various sources in the literature. IBI variables refer to independent or predictive variables, such as site rankings, GAP code, habitat composition, or distance to habitat edge (Table E-3), whereas IBI metrics can be thought of as biotic response variables or dependent variables, such as abundance, growth rate, or taxa richness (Table E-4). Because functional large river floodplain ecology involves interaction of species assemblages and energy pathways among adjacent aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial habitats, we chose to include and portray IBI variables and metrics in the following tables across assemblages among these habitats (Tables E-3 and E-4).

42

These tables outline some independent variables and metrics that are currently being considered, however, these tables are not all inclusive and are subject to change as analyses continue. These metrics could be measured at varying spatial scales (site, parcel, subbasin) and would provide metrics for monitoring plans. Another monitoring metric could be associated

Table E-2. Criteria and justification for rating each GLCC.

GLCC Rankings JustificationUrban 1 Urban and transportation surfaces are not natural habitats and represent areas with heavy

anthropogenic effects. Without continued anthropogenic actions, these areas would convert to a natural GLCC.

Agriculture 1 Agriculture represents areas with heavy anthropogenic effects. Without continued anthropogenic actions, these areas would convert to a natural GLCC.

Grass/Forb 1-5 The rating of this GLCC is heavily influenced by the presence and dominance of invasive species. The more invasive species present, the more likely that this native GLCC will convert to a non-native GLCC.

5 - no invasive species present4 - 0-10% canopy coverage of invasive species3 – 11-35% canopy coverage of invasive species2 – 36-65% canopy coverage of invasive species1 – more than 65% canopy coverage of invasive species

Shrub 1-5 The rating of this GLCC is based on the number of canopy layers and the presence of invasive species. It is assumed that the more canopy layers, the more likely the GLCC will be retained over time, however, a high canopy cover of invasive species will reduce the likelihood of retaining the natural GLCC. The number of canopy layers provided the initial scoring (1 layer = 1, 2 layers = 3, 3 layers = 5) with the presence of heavy infestation of invasive species (>36% canopy cover) reducing the initial rating by 1.

Tree 1-5 The rating of this GLCC is based on size class distribution of trees. It is assumed that the more size classes of trees present, the longer the GLCC will be retained on the landscape. Therefore, the scoring is based on the presence of trees in each of 5 size classes; seedling, saplings, pole, mature, and large and giant.

Rock ??? Initially rated as a 1, but actually, this GLCC is likely to be unaffected by anthropogenic influences. We need to develop an adequate rating system for this GLCC.

Gravel ??? Initially rated as a 1. This GLCC might be positively affected by hydrologic changes by stabilization of substrates and allowing primary succession to start. We need to develop an adequate rating system for this GLCC.

Water 3 Initially, used a 3, but we need to give this some serious thought. Many sites have a water component. Do we just ignore the water component (subtract from the numerator and denominator), since this is a terrestrial IBI? Or is there a good way to score water? Should we score River/streams differently from ponds/wetlands? If so, how?

with determining adequate detector species using the indicator value analyses (discussed above) across the range of site ratings. These tasks are planned for FY2009, but likely will spill over to FY2010. Validation and calibration of the IBI will need to be completed in FY2010 and FY2011 using sites held back from the initial analysis, current data collected, and/or sites from other river systems (North Fork Flathead, Fisher, Upper Kootenai Rivers are being considered).

We are exploring another method to develop an IBI based on the vegetation model (Benjankar et al., in progress). In this method, the vegetation model will be used to approximate landscape context and stand conditions throughout the basin. Multiple runs of the vegetation model given historic hydrologic parameters could be used to define a “”natural range of variation” of the landscape or site conditions. Metrics and associations developed using the current dataset will be used to populate the vegetation model outputs to estimate historic and pre-

43

dam community conditions. This IBI would measure the difference between expected and observed communities at the reach or basin level, but would likely be inappropriate to use on a site basis or as a monitoring metric.

Continued update and enhanced Web-based relational database

In December 2003, SCS was commissioned to create, customize, maintain, and operate a Web-based relational database for the KTOI. This included incorporation and operation related to all trophic level data and associated information for BPA Ecosystem, Operational Loss, and later for Kootenay Lake projects. Exploratory summary and graphical routines were subsequently implemented for each project component, as specified by database users. More sophisticated options, such as data censoring, multi-year-trophic level plotting displays, dynamic maps, etc, were then incorporated on needs/available funding basis. User profiles were also created, and security was implemented at a level requested and specified by the KTOI project leaders. The KTOI fish and wildlife database has been operational since March 2004.

The Ecosystem database is designed around separate trophic level data components including algae, macroinvertebrates, fish, and water quality parameters, currently encompassing years 2001 to 2007. The current Kootenay Lake database includes components for water chemistry, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and mysid shrimp data covering years 2003 to 2007. The Operational Loss Relational database currently includes avian, terrestrial invertebrate, and site components, encompassing years 2002-2007. This database is extensive and materials may be obtained by a formal request (database site: http://www.scsnetw.com ). Website data updates and enhancements will continue to occur as data becomes available and enhancements are needed. For more information please refer to Relational Database.doc.

Initiated regional review for operational loss assessment framework

In 2009 and 2010, we plan to initiate peer-review of project activities and results with the local and regional fish and wildlife managers. Peer review will be accomplished through open forum meetings (i.e., CBFWA assistance with facilitation), informational meetings, presentations of IBI’s, IHA, the framework behind IEI assessment tool through presentation and publication of annual reports, methodologies, relational database data exchange. The exchange of project information as well as consultation with other fish, wildlife, and land managers will help to ensure that project implementation activities are efficient and maximizing resource benefits in the cost effective manner. The sharing of data, implementation techniques and assessment strategies with other managers will also promote a more consistent, cost effective, and coordinated strategy for watershed restoration efforts throughout other Subbasins, Provinces, internationally and Columbia River Basin as a whole.

We will emphasize a two-way flow of information (between the region and RDRT), where RDRT will incorporate ideas, comments, and recommendations into assessment framework and redistribute for a continuing feedback loop. We plan on utilizing our relational database, CBFWA website, and additional online opportunities similar to StreamNet in our dissemination of information and feedback loops wherever possible.

The Tribe has provided interaction with CBFWA, NWPCC, Tribes, states and agencies for project consistency with regional activities and operational loss assessment frameworks. In

44

this way, we have assisted the region in understanding the potential in adopting an ecosystem-based operational loss framework, make protocols/methodologies consistent, and help to enable the transfer of critical information that project managers need to develop similar operations-based ecological assessment tool.

45

Table E-3. Predictor variables under considered for IBI development.

Potential IBI Variables (Ind., predictive variables)

Aquatic Assemblages Riparian and Terrestrial Assemblages

Algae/ Periphyton

Benthic Invertebrates Fish Invertebrates Avian

Community

Distance to Dam X X X X X

Distance to floodplain terminus X X

Distance to habitat edge X X X X

Distance to nutrient addition site X X X X X

Distance to water X X

Elevation X X

GAP code X X

Geomorphic reach X X X X X

Gradient (slope) X X X    

Habitata composition X X X X X

Habitata diversity (Hי, J, D) X X X X X

Habitata evenness (E) X X X X X

Habitata richness (S) X X

KECs (Key Environmental Correlates) X X

Landscape context (e.g. surrounding habitat condition, % agr. lands, sampling plots at various distances)

X X

Landscape structureb (e.g. patch size, quality, and diversity, perimeter-area ratio, distance between patches)

X X

Litter depth X X

NDVI X

RKM X X X X

Soil types X X

Stream order X X X

Stream substrate type X X X X X

Varial zone influence X X X X

Water quality variables (e.g. temp., D.O., nutrient availability, pollutants, minerals, metals, clarity, etc.)

X X X

a: Use of the term “habitat” is synonymous with vegetation community or cover typeb: Landscape structure data will be recorded and analyzed at various spatial scales (e.g. within plots, among plots, by reach)Table E-4. Response variables under considered for IBI development.

46

Potential IBI Metrics (Biotic response variables)

Aquatic Assemblages Riparian and Terrestrial Assemblages

Algae/ Periphyton

Benthic Invertebrates

Fish Invertebrate Community Avian Community

Abundance X X X X X

Age/year class structure X X

Biomass X X X

Density X X

Diversity measures (H′, J, D) X X X X X

Dominant Seral stage

Endemism X X X

EPT richness, diversity, evenness X

Fecundity X

Fidelity X X X

Fulton’s K X X X

Functional guilds X X X

Functional redundancy X X X

Growth rate X X

Litter depth X X

Mean length at age X

Number eggs/clutch X

Number of clutches/season X

Percent exotic (non-native ) taxa X X X X

Percent generalist taxa X X X X

Percent intolerant taxa X X X X

Percent specialist taxa X X X

Percent tolerant taxa X X X X

Resilience X X X X

Taxa richness X X X X X

Specificity X X X

Taxonomic classification X X X X X

Taxonomic redundancy X X X X

47

F. PROPOSAL BIOLOGICAL/PHYSICAL OBJECTIVES, WORK ELEMENTS, METHODS, AND METRICS

Objective 1. Develop, refine, and finalize abiotic and biotic indices needed for incorporation into an Index of Ecological Integrity.

Priority Objective code Prioritized Objective DescriptionUrgent M1, RP2, WB1 Restore normative river conditionsUrgent WB1, RP2 Restore productivity & nutrients to pre-dam levelsUrgent WB2, RP1, RP5, M5 Restore habitat conditions req d for recruitmentUrgent WB3, RP1, RP5 Suppress and remove non-native speciesHigh RP1, RP4 Protect and revegetate riparian areasHigh WB2, RP1, RP3 Improve habitat connectivity

Kootenai SBP Strategies

M1 - Develop and pursue opportunities to restore normative river functions in the Kootenai River. Continue to negotiate and implement annual in-season flow measures to create more normative hydrographic conditions and support biological and ecological functioning. (Pages 21-22)

M5 - Design and implement creative solutions for increasing habitat diversity, including creation and reconnection of side channel, slough, backwater habitats, in-river habitat mod and seasonal and permanent wetlands in US waters. (Page 27)

RP1 - Cooperate and coordinate efforts to restore natural stream flows, associated river connections, research, and design and implement tributary reconnectivity and restoration. (Pages 77-78)

RP2 - Survey priority zones and species for neo-tropical migrant birds, native birds, amphibian and reptile habitat protection, rehabilitation and enhancement activities. Identify, protect, maintain and enhance migrant/native bird, amphibian and reptile critical habitat. (Pages 78-79)

RP3 - Coordinate sub-basin activities with appropriate agencies such as adjacent sub-basins, soil and water conservation districts, USDA and Canadian agencies. (Page 79)

RP4- Cooperate and coordinate efforts to restore natural disturbance regimes. (Pages 80-81) RP5- Cooperate and coordinate efforts to restore natural disturbance regimes in riparian habitats. (Page 81)WB1 - Cooperate and coordinate efforts to protect, enhance and rehabilitate riparian habitats with an emphasis in

low elevation and intact riparian habitats. (Pages 73-74) WB2 - Enhance each specific zone for identified priority neo-tropical migrant birds, native birds, and reptile and

amphibian species annually through habitat manipulation, adaptive management techniques and forest management practices. (Page 75)

WB3 – Conduct watershed problem assessments. Research, Design and implement floodplain/river connectivity. Coordinate protection, restoration and enhancement efforts.

Work Element 157 – Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data - Collect and refine avian and invertebrate field data and surveys based on statistical and/or IBI monitoring needs

Methods: OLA project avian and invertebrate field data will continue to be collected during the length of this proposal. However, future sampling intensities may vary. Starting in FY 2010, we will scale back to a monitoring level sampling protocol for avian and invertebrate communities in the study area. Sampling intensity and reoccurrence will be determined as the IBI model is developed. Likely, all existing sample sites (n=153) will be sampled at alternating 3-5 year periods. Approximately 20% of the annual sample will be long-term monitoring sites that will continue to be monitored annually to enlarge the current baseline ecological dataset and to assess temporal variation. At the same time, we will target sampling to aid in the validation of

48

the IBI models, assess mitigation/restoration potential, and/or monitor project activities. These sampling areas could include analogue, unregulated river, and/or highly impacted sites along with the existing sampling sites, proposed mitigation property parcels, and/or restoration project areas. The sites will be chosen based on statistical and IBI monitoring needs. In addition to avian and invertebrate data collection, additional habitat and/or landscape data will be collected, as needed, to inform or validate the IBI models.

Work Element 156 – Develop RM&E Methods and Design – Develop, refine, and finalize individual indices needed for incorporation into the IEI

Overview: The Index of Ecological Integrity (IEI) is a geomorphic reach or basin-wide assessment that incorporates abiotic and biotic measures. The IEI will incorporate an index of hydrologic alteration (IHA), an index of fluvial alteration (IFA), index of vegetation alteration or integrity (IVA), terrestrial index of biological integrity (T-IBI), aquatic index of biological integrity (A-IBI), and potentially an index of wetland alteration (IWA) to assess the overall ecological impact to the geomorphic reach or the basin. During the development of each index, the appropriate spatial scale will be defined.

These parameters will likely be displayed in the IHA pie chart format. In this way, the ecological operational effects can be apportioned to each component, with the scale of the impact clearly displayed. By accounting and displaying the metrics in such a way, mitigation and restoration opportunities will be determined. For instance, assuming that dam operations will continue unaltered, the IHA and IFA will not change and therefore reflect a permanent loss. However, through a mitigation and restoration actions, we can track changes in T-IBI score and how that affects the IEI. With this method, we should be able to apportion effects to the long-term operational loss due to flow regime (irretrievable loss) and the capability for mitigation and restoration improvements (mitigated effects).

A. Index of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA).

Overview: To assess operational loss, an index of hydrologic alternation was previously developed to quantify changes in the hydrologic regime and provide the basis for cascading abiotic and biotic effects.

Methods: Currently, we are revisiting and reviewing the analyses used in the development of this initial IHA. The analysis, as currently summarized, is highly sensitive to two parameters: low and high pulse count (Burke, pers. Comm. 2008). The IHA model will be revisited to test the sensitivity of the parameters and consideration of spatial scope. Once we determine the appropriate parameters for incorporation, we will recalculate the IHA for each general geomorphic reach (canyon, braided, meander) and test for difference between reaches. Once the IHA parameters and appropriate spatial scale is finalized, we will assess data availability within the post-dam era by pre and post “sturgeon flow” periods. If adequate data exist for each time period, we will calculate separate IHAs to quantify and compare period-specific operational changes.

B. Index of Fluvial (Hydraulic) Alteration (IFA).

49

Overview: The IFA measures changes in the second order resulting from river regulation. These changes include, but are not limited to, depth, stage fluctuation, velocity, shear stress, and stream power, which can have profound effects on habitat conditions, ecosystem processes and biological communities. This index was previously developed for the stream channel using a 1-D model.

Methods: A sensitivity analysis of the IFA parameters will be conducted. Based on this analysis, the parameters included in the stream channel model will be finalized. The IFA will be recalculated at the general geomorphic reach scale (canyon, braided, meander) spatial scale and differences between reaches will be tested. In addition, there is a need to expand this index to include the floodplain. A floodplain IFA will be developed using the outputs of this project’s 2-D model. Similar to the IHA, data availability will be assessed for the pre and post “sturgeon flow” eras. If adequate data exist, an IFA will be calculated for each period.

C. Index of Vegetation Alteration (IVA)/Integrity

Overview: Post-dam changes in hydrologic and hydraulics affect development and recruitment of vegetative communities within the floodplain. Impacts on woody riparian vegetation (e.g. the riparian cottonwood community) are evident throughout the Kootenai River Basin.

Methods: An index of vegetation alteration is being considered independently or in concert with biotic IBI development. This component of the IEI will need more research to develop an adequate index. To compare pre-dam and post-dam vegetation communities and structure, several methods will be explored. The methods currently under consideration are: 1) decadal aerial photographic interpretation, 2) dynamic vegetation simulation model outputs, 3) comparisons with analogue river sites using remote sensing techniques, and 4) development of a vegetation IBI.

Currently, we have digital copies of 1934 aerial photographs of the Idaho portion of the study area. We are assembling and scanning aerial photographs of the complete study area on a decadal basis. The aerial photographs will be converted to digital images at an approximate 600 dot per inch resolution. Once these photographs are captured digitally, they will be georectified and stretched to spatially orient the photograph to the landscape and reduce distortion. We will photographically interpret the images to produce a consistent, continuous land cover classification. This land cover classification will be compared to the current high-resolution land cover classification at an appropriate scale to assess changes in the vegetation communities and landscape metrics such as fragmentation, patch size, etc. over time. This method may be combined with the results of the dynamic vegetation model (discussed below) to estimate vegetation structure within land cover classes. If this method proves ineffective, the georectified photography will nonetheless provide a validation tool for other methods and provide future educational and project benefits, such as displaying changes over time to the public and other interested parties.

The dynamic vegetation model will be used to generate landscape level statistics to compare across time periods. These outputs will also yield vegetation structure attributes in addition to vegetation classes (refer to D. Terrestrial IBI development). Comparison across time periods

50

will be used to assess and quantify vegetative impacts. The aerial photography coverage discussed above will aid in validation of the model results.

Another method under consideration is the comparison of ecological conditions at existing project sites with those at analogue sites in other river systems using remote sensing techniques. A selected site, reach, or the complete basin within the analogue river(s) will be selected for comparison. Currently, the North Fork of the Flathead and the Fisher Rivers, both in Western Montana, are being evaluated as analogue systems due to similarities to the Kootenai River and the availability of color infrared imagery. Using NAIP imagery and NDVI values calculated from the imagery, vegetation characteristics will be compared.

Lastly, we are considering developing an IBI for riparian vegetation. Vegetation-based IBIs are less common in the literature than aquatic and fish IBIs, but have been developed in several studies. Those studies have focused primarily on wetlands (Gernes and Helgen 1999; U.S. EPA 2002; Mack 2004; Miller et al. 2006; Mack 2007), although studies from Australia and Spain have assessed streamside zones (Jansen et al. 2004; Ferreira et al. 2005). These studies reported good correlations between many of their selected indicators and the degree of human alteration, confirming that vegetation characteristics are sensitive to human disturbance. Metrics developed by this project will be primarily related to size class and age structure of the vegetation communities, which will provide a chronology to elucidate the characteristics and timing of operational impacts. In addition, Karr (1991) noted that the age structure of a dominant species may improve the resolution of an IBI. This method is expected to aid with the T-IBI site ranking and evaluate previously discussed project models.

D. Develop a Terrestrial IBI (T-IBI)

Overview: An Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) is a tool used to detect and monitor anthropogenic impacts upon biological systems (Karr 1999). Unlike purely habitat-driven measures, IBI’s are multi-metric measures of the biotic communities supported by the habitat. The metrics used for IBI development vary, but are generally community, assemblage, trophic level, and ecological function-driven. The multimetric IBI is a more robust measure of the ecological impacts on a site or an area than habitat-driven approaches that assume present habitat is functioning properly and populated by native assemblages. Unlike purely habitat-driven approaches, the multimetric IBI approach evaluates such habitat-based assumptions by rating similar habitats along a gradient of anthropogenic effects or disturbance, based on the extent of biota and ecological functions present.

Multimetric IBIs incorporate the responses of birds, fish, and benthic or terrestrial invertebrates to measure biological condition and continue to be successfully used by most states and several federal agencies (Karr and Chu 1999). For example, the advent of multimetric biological evaluations stimulated a fundamental change in the way water resources are evaluated under the Clean Water Act.

Birds and invertebrates are closely tied to specific habitats. These close associations contribute to the value of these biotic assemblages as good indicators of ecological health. In addition, biotic components provide numerous ecological services or functions to the system. These functions vary from ecologically-based services (i.e. nutrient recycling, seed dispersal, pest control, etc.) to anthropogenic values (i.e. bird watching, fly fishing, etc.). The presence, availability, distribution, and other aspects of these taxa can indicate the relative biological integrity of the area in question.

51

Methods: Currently, two distinct methods for IBI construction are being considered. The first method focuses on rating site conditions within the Kootenai River Basin, while the other method uses the dynamic vegetation model.

The first method takes a traditional approach to IBI development. We are currently developing methodologies to objectively and consistently rate the anthropogenic impacts to the sampling locations. Once these ratings are completed, we will use appropriate statistical testing (generally, but not limited to, regression analyses) to select pertinent avian and terrestrial invertebrate population/community/guild metrics for inclusion in the T-IBI As analyses continue, there may be a need to separate the T-IBI into separate avian and invertebrate IBIs. Once the IBI is completed, data withheld from the initial analysis and/or data collected from analogue site in other river basins will be used to evaluate the T-IBI model. Since this methodology can be conducted at the site or parcel scale, this model could provide a monitoring and evaluation metric for mitigation and restoration projects.

The second method under consideration is based on the dynamic vegetation model outputs (Benjankar, in progress). In this method, the vegetation model will be used to approximate landscape context and stand conditions throughout the basin. Multiple runs of the vegetation model given historic hydrologic parameters will be used to define a “natural range of variation” of the landscape or site conditions. Metrics and associations developed using the current dataset, currently available datasets (e.g. IBIS), and previous research and literature will be used to populate the vegetation model outputs to estimate historic and pre-dam community conditions. This IBI will measure the difference between expected and observed communities at the reach and basin levels, but will likely be inappropriate to use on a site basis or as a monitoring metric.

E. Aquatic IBI (A-IBI)

Methods: An aquatic IBI will be developed using data collected under BPA Project #199404900. We will develop a geomorphic reach rating system to regress individual aquatic metrics against. We will assess data availability required to test, prioritize, select, and evaluate potential A-IBI metrics, as commonly done with all other potential IBI metrics and variables (refer to tables E-5 and E-6). Ecologically relevant and statistically significant metrics will be included in the aquatic IBI.

F. Index of Wetland Alteration (IWA)

Overview: Construction and operation of Libby Dam, by design, limits downstream flooding episodes. Under a natural regime, these flooding events produced and recharged wetlands in the floodplain. Using a one-dimensional (MIKE 11) and a two-dimensional (MIKE21) hydrodynamic model, losses of wetland areas and volume were estimated in dry, average, and wet hydrologic years.

Methods: We will assess the need to develop an index to wetland alternation. Many of the metrics might be incorporated into the floodplain IFA. However, since wetlands provide numerous terrestrial and aquatic functions, we need to ensure that these impacts are incorporated in the IEI. Tentative methods include using the MIKEFLOOD model to assess the inundation,

52

volume, flow depth, flood duration, and water volume under varying hydrologic scenarios to calculate an index of wetland alteration. These parameters are currently calculated for historic, pre-dam, and contemporary time periods. By separating out the historic and pre-dam time periods, the model compensates for the development of dikes and levees along the Kootenai River. In addition, we are assembling waterfowl data from the Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge, Idaho Fish and Game, and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to assess avian data availability for wetland-associated species. The methods for combining and displaying these parameters will follow the methodology outlined for the IHA and IFA and interfacing wetland assessment methodologies (i.e., USACE/Hauger HGM, Ecology Publication # 00-06-47, etc) where we will work towards summarizing and incorporating into the IEI component structure.

Work Element 160 – Create/Manage/Maintain Database – Incorporate new data and functionality to the web-based relational database

Overview: Data are the central focus of any research project. Therefore, data quality issues are of utmost concern for the OLA project researchers. Without the use of a standardized protocol, for example, independent data collection carried out by separate research efforts can lead to inconsistencies, confusion and errors throughout the larger project. A database management system can be utilized to help avoid all of the aforementioned problems. The centralization of data shifts the responsibility for data quality and maintenance from multiple individuals to a single database manager. The database system also provides an easy mechanism for standardizing data components, such as variable names and values uniformly across all segments of a project.

The quality of all data collected is uniformly maintained, and compatibility between research efforts is ensured. Advanced database interfaces are created to operate over the internet, as a Web-based relational database, allowing project members to access their data from virtually anywhere, while providing adequate security.

Methods: Construction and maintenance of a centralized database management system continuously monitored and updated by a designated database manager addresses data quality assurance and increases efficiency in dissemination of information. The project’s relational database has provided a useful tool for the project managers. Continued efforts in upgrading and enhancing this system will ensure availability of quality data in real time, and validity of statistical analyses and interpretations for which such data are to be utilized. Additionally, housing all databases for basin projects in one central, accessible, protected location allows for consistency and use of data between projects.

We intend to continue incorporating avian and invertebrate data into the relational database as they are collected and become available. Information on key ecological correlates will also be incorporated in the near future. We are currently preparing this information for subsequent incorporation into the relational database. Future system enhancements will include full text data descriptions for all incorporated components, implementation of a data availability matrix for every component of the project, implementation of various mapping formats including topographic, GIS, etc., addition of data censoring option for all trophic level data, restructuring and enhancement of graphic capabilities (line plots, bar plots, pie charts), incorporation of multi-trophic/multi-year plotting routines, and implementation of more advanced security features. In

53

addition, the OLA database will interface with other KTOI project databases to facilitate information exchange and integration.

Objective 2. Assemble individual indices into a consistent format for incorporation into IEI.

Priority Objective code Prioritized Objective DescriptionUrgent M1, RP2, WB1 Restore normative river conditionsUrgent WB1, RP2 Restore productivity & nutrients to pre-dam levelsUrgent WB2, RP1, RP5, M5 Restore habitat conditions req d for recruitmentUrgent WB3, RP1, RP5 Suppress and remove non-native speciesHigh WB2, RP1, RP3 Improve habitat connectivity

Kootenai SBP Strategies

M1 - Develop and pursue opportunities to restore normative river functions in the Kootenai River. Continue to negotiate and implement annual in-season flow measures to create more normative hydrographic conditions and support biological and ecological functioning. (Pages 21-22)

M5 - Design and implement creative solutions for increasing habitat diversity, including creation and reconnection of side channel, slough, backwater habitats, in-river habitat mod and seasonal and permanent wetlands in US waters. (Page 27)

RP1 - Cooperate and coordinate efforts to restore natural stream flows, associated river connections, research, and design and implement tributary reconnectivity and restoration. (Pages 77-78)

RP2 - Survey priority zones and species for neo-tropical migrant birds, native birds, amphibian and reptile habitat protection, rehabilitation and enhancement activities. Identify, protect, maintain and enhance migrant/native bird, amphibian and reptile critical habitat. (Pages 78-79)

RP3 - Coordinate sub-basin activities with appropriate agencies such as adjacent sub-basins, soil and water conservation districts, USDA and Canadian agencies. (Page 79)

RP5- Cooperate and coordinate efforts to restore natural disturbance regimes in riparian habitats. (Page 81)WB1 - Cooperate and coordinate efforts to protect, enhance and rehabilitate riparian habitats with an emphasis in

low elevation and intact riparian habitats. (Pages 73-74) WB2 - Enhance each specific zone for identified priority neo-tropical migrant birds, native birds, and reptile and

amphibian species annually through habitat manipulation, adaptive management techniques and forest management practices. (Page 75)

WB3 – Conduct watershed problem assessments. Research, Design and implement floodplain/river connectivity. Coordinate protection, restoration and enhancement efforts.

Work Element 156 – Develop RM&E Methods and Design – Develop, refine, and finalize individual indices needed for incorporation into the IEI

Overview: Ecological Integrity (or Index of Ecological Integrity– IEI) refers to the capability of supporting and maintaining “a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that of natural habitat of the region” (Karr and Dudley 1981). The ecological integrity concept provides a system-specific framework in which abiotic and biotic data can be ranked on a qualitative scale. This method of estimating condition can be more ecologically relevant than traditional analyses such as species richness and Shannon diversity (Blair 1996; Brooks et al. 1998).

The overall goal of Phase 1 of the OLA project is to develop a regionally acceptable method to assess ecological losses related to the operation of dams. In Objective 1 (above), we

54

developed, refined, validated, and finalized each individual component of the IEI. Under this objective, we plan to standardize and incorporate the above indices into an IEI at the appropriate scale.

Methods: The IEI will be developed based on the smallest common spatial scale (likely geomorphic reach or basin-wide). Each index will be converted into a pie chart similar to the IHA and IFA method showing the contribution of each metric to the overall index. Each chart will be summarized in some manner and incorporated into an IEI. The relationship and weighting of each index will need to be investigation further as incorporation into the IEI occurs.

The task of completing the IEI reach or basin-wide assessment is planned for FY2010 and FY2011 to allow adequate time for analysis, peer-review and development of the individual IBI metrics needed to populate the model. Refinement and adaptive management strategies will be implemented as the model is validated and tested for exportability to other areas within the Columbia River Basin.

Work Element 141 – Produce Publication – Document methodologies and analyses in an Operation Loss Assessment Framework Manual (OLAFM).

Methods: This OLA tool will provide a framework for characterizing future operational loss assessments. Upon finalization of data collection methods, analyses processes, and development of IBI’s and the IEI, the methods and processes will be documented in an Operational Loss Assessment Framework manual. In addition, formatted and programmed spreadsheets will be included, as appropriate.

Objective 3: Interface with Northwest Habitat Institute for support in species-specific databases and GIS-related support, as needed.

Kootenai SBP Objectives Priority Objective code Prioritized Objective Description

High WB3, RP3, RP4 Coordinate activities w/appropriate organizationsHigh AP5 AP4 Develop partnerships to share information

Kootenai SBP Strategies

WB3 – Coordinate subbasin activities with appropriate agencies and organizations (Page 76).RP3 - Coordinate sub-basin activities with appropriate agencies such as adjacent sub-basins, soil and water

conservation districts, USDA and Canadian agencies. (Page 79) RP4- Initiate and develop cooperative adaptive management strategies (Page 80). AP4 – Develop partnerships to share information. Provide for information sharing and exchange (Page 91).AP5 – Provide and support outreach opportunities (Page 92).

Overview: A systematic method for habitat assessment, combined with IBIs, can help frame operational loss assessment tools. Specifically, NHI will work with the project sponsors and collaborators on an as needed basis to complete the following work elements:

Work Element 160 - Create/Manage/Maintain Database - Develop an integration or links with the Habitat and Biodiversity Information System (IBIS) and GIS datasets

55

Overview: The Northwest Habitat Institute has assembled an intensive database of habitat component and biotic species associations and functions. This database, corresponding spatial data, and the expertise provide by NHI staff and collaborators will aid several components of the OLA project.

Methods: We will work with NHI personnel to determine adequate links and uses of their data and expertise. We will access habitat associations and species functions information contained in the IBIS database. Additionally, spatial data housed at NHI may be needed to facilitate our understanding of potential distribution of species and habitat components. Upon request, NHI will aid OLA project personnel and collaborators in obtaining and using NWI tabular and spatial information and will provide adequate documentation for the data sources.

Objective 4: Bring Operational Loss Assessment Framework to the Region for review and exportability to other areas within the Columbia River Basin.

Kootenai SBP Objectives Priority Objective code Prioritized Objective Description

Urgent M1, RP2, WB1 Restore normative river conditionsUrgent WB1, RP2 Restore productivity & nutrients to pre-dam levelsUrgent WB2, RP1, RP5, M5 Restore habitat conditions req-ed for recruitmentUrgent RP1, RP4, RP5 Restore riparian habitat to reference conditionHigh WB1, RP1, Increase habitat diversity to reference conditionHigh WB2, RP1, RP3 Improve habitat connectivityHigh AP4 Adequate regional and international coordinationHigh AP5 Distribution of information

Kootenai SBP Strategies

M1 - Develop and pursue opportunities to restore normative river functions in the Kootenai River. Continue to negotiate and implement annual in-season flow measures to create more normative hydrographic conditions and support biological and ecological functioning. (Pages 21-22)

M5 -    Design and implement creative solutions for increasing habitat diversity, including creation and reconnection of side channel, slough, backwater habitats, in-river habitat mod and seasonal and permanent wetlands in US waters. (Page 27)

RP1 -   Seek opportunities to restore normative river functions. (Pages 77)RP2 -   Survey priority zones and species for neo-tropical migrant birds, native birds, amphibian and reptile habitat

protection, rehabilitation and enhancement activities. Identify, protect, maintain and enhance migrant/native bird, amphibian and reptile critical habitat. (Pages 78-79)

RP3 -   Identify and address human impacts in the Kootenai River mainstem utilizing adaptive management techniques. (Page 79)

RP4 – Cooperate and coordinate efforts to restore natural disturbance regimes in the Kootenai River mainstem (Page 80).

RP5 -   Cooperate and coordinate efforts to restore natural disturbance regimes in riparian habitats. (Page 81)WB1 - Develop a hydrological model based on historic flow, hydrologic connectivity and velocity data and use to

evaluate effects of operational alternatives on conditions required by aquatic and terrestrial plant communities and fish and wildlife species. (Pages 73-74)

WB2 - Identify, protect, enhance and maintain neo-tropical migrant birds, native birds, and amphibian and reptile critical habitats. (Page 75)

AP4 – Develop collaborative approaches to provide recommendations to address and resolve important resource issues (Page 91)

56

AP5 – Provide and support education and outreach opportunities (Page 92)

Overview: Currently, no suitable mechanism exists to accurately and comprehensively assess hydro operational losses to wildlife, habitat, and ecological functions in the Columbia River Basin. A standardized programmatic mechanism is needed to define, mitigate, and credit these losses.

Numerous assessments have examined the “Habitat Suitability” for a particular species (i.e., HSI), but did not take into account that there are a number of interactions, ecological processes, and stressors that impact ecosystem integrity. For example, impacts to the population of one species may have effects on its predator or prey species. Changes in environmental conditions (such as temperature, moisture, and light) may exceed the tolerance range of species in the ecosystem thereby favoring one population or community over another. The disturbance of preserves or corridors between preserves could change the habitat available to a population and could eliminate the intermingling of reproductive individuals necessary for species to survive. Therefore, a quantitative, standardized OLA tool, incorporating empirical data and the scientific approach embodied in the index of ecological integrity (IEI) gives decision makers a valuable tool to help with management decisions, ecological diagnosis and restoration, and ultimately, wildlife mitigation crediting.

One of the ways we will attempt to alleviate many of these problems is to create an Index of Ecological Integrity (IEI), similar to Karr’s Aquatic Index of Biotic Integrity (Karr and Dudley 1981). The IBI compares an impacted community with a regional reference community by examining varied ecological attributes: diversity, biomass, trophic complexity, indicator species, and "organism health or condition". The ideal requirements of the index of ecological integrity are that it be comprehensive, multi-metric and multi-scale, grounded in natural history, relevant and helpful, able to integrate concerns from aquatic and terrestrial ecology and from relevant agencies, and that it be flexible and measurable. Multiple biological indices calculated from ambient, empirical biological data can provide an integrated approach for diagnosing ecosystem health or integrity in the form of the OLA tool based on indices of biological and ecological integrity. To address this problem, the KTOI will continue to develop and implement an operational loss assessment template and analytical approaches with and for the region.

Work Element 189 – Regional Coordination – Provide exportability and training related to the OLA Tools.

Overview: Three things are critically needed for successful development of an Operational Loss Assessment template that is transferable across the region. They are: 1) the retention of original expertise used to design the initial tools, 2) a sustained multi-directional communication among KTOI project personnel, the RDRT, and the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife biologists and managers, and 3) to ensure scientifically sound use of an OLA tool and associated analytical approaches.

Methods: 1) The OLA project will continue to work with an on-retainer panel of experts from many

disciplines to ensure that the initial in-house OLA template is scientifically sound. This panel has been functional since the beginning of the project (2003), and is referred to as the project’s Research, Review, and Design Team (RDRT). The RDRT is a working group of academic, agency, and private sector scientists, biologists, and managers in the wildlife sciences,

57

hydrology, biology, ecology, statistics, invertebrate, river and avian ecology, botany, spatial analysis, and other disciplines.

2) The second requirement for successful development of a transferable OLA template is sustained multi-directional communication Without this ongoing forum, proposed as a series of professionally facilitated OLA development, implementation, and review workshops, the region could not be expected to adopt, support or implement a standardized OLA template. Furthermore, the quality of the OLA template, if developed in a vacuum, would be jeopardized. Different areas of the Columbia River Basin have different operational loss issues, and without this needed regional coordination, production of a successful OLA tool should not be expected. In this informational forum, we will present the IBIs and the framework behind the IEI assessment tool. The project proponents will also present progress to the region and will submit and distribute annual reports, methodologies, relational database data exchange, and will document and provide peer review comments and recommendations.

3) Finally, this project must involve updating and informing project personnel and the region’s cooperating resource managers regarding the newest developments in critical aspects of the scientific and restorative ecology practices as they relate to developing the OLA tool. To ensure this, OLA project managers and collaborators (including RDRT members and others) will develop and participate in a series of periodic scientific symposia in the Columbia River Basin. Three such project symposia are currently proposed from 2010 through 2014 (Table F-1). The first one in 2010 is intended to provide the initial scientific basis and required networking with key scientists and managers to regionally launch the OLA template. The second, proposed for 2012 will provide rigorous scientific review and input of the interim OLA template, and the third, in 2014 will serve to scientifically evaluate the newly implemented OLA tool. Regional resource managers will be strongly encouraged to participate in this series of scientific symposia. All these forums (RDRT meetings, OLA development, implementation, and review workshops, and project-sponsored scientific symposia) will be guided by the KTOI’s OLA project personnel and collaborators, and facilitated by an independent professional wildlife and natural resources facilitator.Table F-1. Timeline for development of Operational Loss Assessment tool and project sponsored

meetings, workshops and symposia.

Year RDRT OLA Development and Implementation workshops

OLA Scientific Symposia

2010 X X X2011 X X2012 X X X2013 X2014 X X

58

Objective 5. Collaboratively work with local community groups to participate in the development of long-term management processes, assess natural resource opportunities, and encourage/participate in local dialogue related to operational loss mitigation measures.

Kootenai SBP Objectives Priority Objective code Prioritized Objective Description

Urgent M1, RP2, WB1 Restore normative river conditionsUrgent WB1, RP2 Restore productivity & nutrients to pre-dam levelsUrgent WB2, RP1, RP5, M5 Restore habitat conditions req d for recruitmentUrgent WB3, RP1, RP5 Suppress and remove non-native speciesHigh RP1, RP4 Protect and revegetate riparian areasHigh WB2, RP1, RP3 Improve habitat connectivity

Admin AP4 Locally recognized stakeholder groupsAdmin AP5 Distribution of information

Kootenai SBP StrategiesM1 - Develop and pursue opportunities to restore normative river functions in the Kootenai

River. Continue to negotiate and implement annual in-season flow measures to create more normative hydrographic conditions and support biological and ecological functioning. (Pages 21-22)

M5 - Design and implement creative solutions for increasing habitat diversity, including creation and reconnection of side channel, slough, backwater habitats, in-river habitat mod and seasonal and permanent wetlands in US waters. (Page 27)

RP1 - Cooperate and coordinate efforts to restore natural stream flows, associated river connections, research, and design and implement tributary reconnectivity and restoration. (Pages 77-78)

RP2 - Survey priority zones and species for neo-tropical migrant birds, native birds, amphibian and reptile habitat protection, rehabilitation and enhancement activities. Identify, protect, maintain and enhance migrant/native bird, amphibian and reptile critical habitat. (Pages 78-79)

RP3 - Coordinate sub-basin activities with appropriate agencies such as adjacent sub-basins, soil and water conservation districts, USDA and Canadian agencies. (Page 79)

RP4- Cooperate and coordinate efforts to restore natural disturbance regimes. (Pages 80-81) RP5- Cooperate and coordinate efforts to restore natural disturbance regimes in riparian

habitats. (Page 81)WB1 - Cooperate and coordinate efforts to protect, enhance and rehabilitate riparian habitats

with an emphasis in low elevation and intact riparian habitats. (Pages 73-74) WB2 - Enhance each specific zone for identified priority neo-tropical migrant birds, native birds,

and reptile and amphibian species annually through habitat manipulation, adaptive management techniques, and forest management practices. (Page 75)

59

AP4 - Develop work groups and subcommittees to accommodate active and substantive community participation and stakeholder involvement in planning, implementation and coordination of the Subbasin Plan. (Page 91)

AP5 - Provide and support educational and outreach opportunities. (Page 92)

Work Element 161 - RM&E and Data Management: Disseminate Raw/Summary data and results

A: Coordinate and collaborate with local community, State and Federal entities by disseminating project information, participating in work groups/meetings, assisting in educational opportunities, and support local and regional endeavors associated with project.

Methods: Public and local community participation will ensure the success or failure of any long-term land management activity. This strategy involves the public early in the process and provides a proven successful means of continued public involvement throughout the duration of this protection, restoration, and enhancement effort. This effort will include close coordination of implementation efforts with the County Conservation District as well as other management agencies, international agencies and watershed councils, and industry groups implementing restoration.

In Boundary County, Idaho, we are fortunate to have the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI) to allow us to collaboratively work with our local community on natural resource issues. We will work toward the dissemination of project information and involve community groups in restoration planning.

Work Element 99 - Outreach and Education

A: Collaboratively work with local landowners, ranchers, agricultural groups to ensure long-term management opportunities, assess and monitor local issues, and encourage local dialogue.

Methods: This effort will include close coordination and collaboration of implementation efforts with local landowners, ranchers, agricultural groups to ensure long-term management opportunities, assess and monitor local issues, and encourage local dialogue. Primary contacts with the above groups is coordinated by KVRI and subcommittees, where soil conservation groups, USDA programs and local input help provide needed comments and concerns that often derail on-the-ground restoration projects (note coordination with Project 200200800).

B: Facilitate information and education efforts to promote the benefits of fish and wildlife and encourage public involvement. The Tribe will assist in facilitation and coordination of outreach, publications, and related information and education efforts. Adaptive management techniques will be utilized whenever possible.

60

Methods: The Tribe will facilitate information and education efforts to promote the benefits of fish and wildlife restoration and encourage public involvement. Moreover, the Tribe will assist in facilitation and coordination of outreach, committee and sub-committee publications and related information and education efforts. We will pursue adaptive management techniques on restoration activities whenever possible and investigate opportunities that will ensure the achievement of long-term management objectives.

Objective 6: Refine dynamic vegetation hydrologic model to enhance local predictive capabilities.

Kootenai SBP Objectives Priority Objective code Prioritized Objective Description

Urgent M1, M3, M5, M6 Update existing hydrological modelsUrgent WB1, WB3 Assess habitat cond. and restore natural process.Urgent RP1, RP4, RP5 Dev. hydrologic models restore disturbance regime

Kootenai SBP Strategies

M1 - Update existing hydrological models based on historic data and include recent data to evaluate effects of operational alternatives required by important species. (Pages 22)

M3 – Design and implement riparian revegetation/rehabilitation projects.M5 – Periodically alter Kootenai River hydrograph to restore hydraulic energy needed to increase habitat diversity

required for increased biological diversity (Page 27)M6 - Identify associated losses in biological functions and performance of riparian vegetation communities.

(Page 28)WB1 – Develop hydrological model to evaluate effects of operational alternatives on conditions required by aquatic

and terrestrial communities. Cooperate and coordinate efforts to restore natural disturbance regimes in the Kootenai River.

WB3 – Cooperate and coordinate efforts to restore natural disturbance regimes in the Kootenai River.RP1 - Develop a hydrological model to evaluate effects of operational alternatives on conditions required by

associated communities. Cooperate to restore natural disturbance regimes (Pages 77-78)RP4- Cooperate and coordinate efforts to restore natural disturbance regimes. (Pages 80) RP5- Cooperate and coordinate efforts to restore natural disturbance regimes in riparian habitats. (Page 81)

Work Element 156 – Develop RM&E Methods and Designs – Refinement of hydrologic models to accurately predict the optimal locations for floodplain restoration

Overview: A dynamic model that allows feedback between morphology, hydraulics and vegetation is necessary to accurately predict the optimal locations for floodplain restoration (Figure 4) and could allow other uses related to predicting changes in flow, grain size movement (spawning gravel), and vegetation effects related to hydrologic changes. The current hydrodynamic and vegetation models may contain large errors in their site-specific predictions without these feedbacks.

Methods:

a. Feedback between vegetation and hydraulics

The hydrodynamic model must assume a roughness coefficient, which depends on the bed grain size and the vegetation species, age, and frequency (e.g. Nepf, 1999; Carney et al., 2006).

61

The current hydrodynamic model uses an initial spatial distribution of grain sizes and vegetation types to calculate the roughness coefficient. This roughness coefficient is assumed to be constant at each location throughout the entire calculation period (to reduce computation time) although vegetation will significantly vary between simulated years. Such an assumption will cause significant errors in predicted shear stresses and vegetation coverage (see detailed report). We propose to update the roughness coefficient in the hydrodynamic model (MIKE21c, see below) using the resulting vegetation and grain size (see below) coverage from a previous time step.

b. Feedback between morphology and hydraulics

The current hydrodynamic model does not include sediment transport and temporal variations in grain size and channel/floodplain morphology. Sediment deposition and erosion may occur on the channel bed, floodplain (depending on location), and channel banks (through bank failure) during many discharges. Any changes to the original topography will feedback to alter the grain sizes, roughness coefficients, predicted shear stresses, inundated areas, and base flow elevations.

These parameters impact vegetation recruitment, survival, and succession. For example, large amounts of sediment deposition and erosion occurred on the floodplain between 1938 and 1973. If the 2-D model uses the original 1938 topography, the predicted shear stresses are often significantly greater than those predicted using constantly evolving topography (Figure F-2). Lower shear stresses allow for increased survival of cottonwood (from vegetation model) that better match the observed vegetation distributions.

62

We propose to use a new model (MIKE 21c), similar to the current model (MIKEFLOOD), that includes sediment transport predictions and morphology changes. Relatively little time will be needed to transfer model parameters (e.g. topography, roughness values) to MIKE21c. We Figure F-1. Schematic of the parameter feedbacks between the vegetation, hydrodynamic and sediment transport models. Solid lines illustrate the current information shared by models and dashed lines are the proposed dynamic feedbacks. Grain size and roughness coefficients are currently supplied to the vegetation

and hydrodynamic models, respectively, but these are static parameters.

will also modify the code of MIKE21c to include dynamic roughness coefficients based on the predicted grain sizes and vegetation. We already have established collaborations with DHI

63

Shear stress distribution

Shear stress, base flow, bank

zone, flood duration

Bank stability (root strength) Roughness

coefficient (amount, age, and type of

vegetation)

Sediment deposition/erosion,

grain size

Vegetation model

Morphology change, roughness coefficient (grain

size)

Sediment transport,

morphology model

Hydrodynamic model

(developers of MIKE21c) and have included funding for a graduate student to work with them to ensure proper code modifications. We will need to measure additional cross-sections and grain sizes in the channel (supplementing existing USGS data; e.g. Berenbrock and Bennett, 2005; Barton, McDonald, Nelson and Dinehart, 2005) and floodplain to use this new model.

c. Feedback between morphology and vegetation

Sediment transport will also directly influence vegetation recruitment and retention by killing new and established vegetation growth through deposition and erosion. The current vegetation model assumes that no vegetation survives in a longitudinal strip of the channel bank because of sedimentation. In addition, all unvegetated areas are assumed to be composed of sand and gravel but the grain-size (sand, silt, gravel) at any location depends on the upstream sediment supply and local flow conditions. The succession of vegetation is highly dependent on grain size; assumed gravel areas in the model may actually be silt, which is not suitable for certain vegetation species. Vegetation can also influence the channel morphology and local hydrology by causing local sedimentation or erosion. Thus, sediment transport and morphology calculations are needed to determine the patterns of deposition and erosion in the channel, grain sizes in each location, and the influence of vegetation on sedimentation.

We will modify the code of MIKE21c to include a dynamic feedback between the vegetation and sediment transport rates. We will use MIKE21c to predict sediment deposition and erosion and grain

sizes within the channel and on the floodplain throughout the modeling period. Sedimentation rates (could kill vegetation) and grain sizes (important for vegetation succession and recruitment) will be input into the vegetation model.

Objective 7. Develop long-term protection, mitigation, restoration, and monitoring strategy.

Kootenai SBP Objectives

64

Figure F-2. Predicted shear stress distributions using the original 1938 topography (top) and a constantly evolving topography between 1938 and 1973 (bottom).

Priority Objective code Prioritized Objective DescriptionUrgent M2, RP2, WB1 Improve riparian function and complexityUrgent WB2, RP1, RP5, M5 Improve habitat diversityUrgent WB3, RP1, RP5 Suppress and remove non-native speciesUrgent WB3, RP1, RP5 Reduce and prevent non-native introductionsHigh RP1, RP4 Protect and revegetate riparian areasHigh WB2, RP1, RP3 Improve habitat connectivity

Kootenai SBP Strategies

M2 - Coordinate efforts with natural resource managers to develop comprehensive riparian and wetland habitat protection, rehabilitation, and enhancement plan for the Kootenai River mainstem. (Page 22)

M5 -  Design and implement creative solutions for increasing habitat diversity, including creation and reconnection of side channel, slough, backwater habitats, in-river habitat mod and seasonal and permanent wetlands in US waters. (Page 27)

RP1 -  Investigate and analyze historic losses of riparian and wetland habitats in the regulated mainstem of the Kootenai River. Identify associated losses in biological functions and performance. (Page 78)

RP2 -  Survey priority zones and species for neo-tropical migrant birds, native birds, amphibian and reptile habitat protection, rehabilitation and enhancement activities. Identify, protect, maintain and enhance migrant/native bird, amphibian and reptile critical habitat. (Pages 78-79)

RP3- Coordinate efforts with all natural resource managers to develop a comprehensive floodplain habitat protection, rehabilitation and enhancement plan for the Kootenai River mainstem. Identify and address human impacts in the Kootenai River mainstem utilizing adaptive management techniques. (Page 79)RP4 - Coordinate subbasin activities with appropriate agencies and organizations such as adjacent subbasins (i.e., Priest River, Pend Oreille, Flathead), soil and water conservation districts, United States Department of Agriculture, and Canadian agencies. (Page 80).

RP5- Cooperate and coordinate efforts to restore natural disturbance regimes in riparian habitats. (Page 81)WB1- Develop a hydrological model based on historic flow, hydrologic connectivity and velocity data and use to

evaluate effects of operational alternatives on conditions required by aquatic and terrestrial plant communities and fish and wildlife species. (Pages 73-74)

WB2 - Identify, protect, enhance and maintain neo-tropical migrant birds, native birds, and amphibian and reptile critical habitats. (Page 75)

WB3 - Identify priority zones for big game, upland birds and waterfowl habitat protection and rehabilitation and enhancement activities. (Page 76)

Work Element 99 - Outreach and Education

A: Collaboratively work with local landowners, ranchers, agricultural groups to ensure long-term management opportunities, assess and monitor local issues, and encourage local dialogue.

Methods: This effort will include close coordination and collaboration of implementation efforts with local landowners, ranchers, agricultural groups to ensure long-term management opportunities, assess and monitor local issues, and encourage local dialogue. Primary contacts with the above groups is coordinated by KVRI and subcommittees, where soil conservation groups, USDA programs and local input help provide needed comments and concerns that often derail on-the-ground restoration projects (note coordination with Project 200200800).

65

B: Facilitate information and education efforts to promote the benefits of fish and wildlife restoration and encourage public involvement. The Tribe will assist in facilitation and coordination of outreach, publications and related information and education efforts. Adaptive management techniques will be utilized whenever possible.

Methods: The Tribe will facilitate information and education efforts to promote the benefits of fish and wildlife restoration and encourage public involvement. Moreover, the Tribe will assist in facilitation and coordination of outreach, committee and sub-committee publications and related information and education efforts. We will pursue adaptive management techniques on restoration activities whenever possible and investigate opportunities that will ensure the achievement of long-term management objectives.

Work Element 174 – Apply the Index of Ecological Integrity to development of a long-term protection, mitigation, restoration, and monitoring strategy.

Overview:   One of the primary goals of this project is to quantify the ecological impacts of Libby Dam operations on terrestrial riparian communities along the Kootenai River. A written plan will provide a tool for directing specific measures to protect, mitigate and restore wildlife habitats and ecological functions impacted by operation of Libby Dam. It will also provide a strategy for monitoring ecological condition and benefits of individual projects. A written plan will also provide a mechanism for NPCC, ISRP and public interest groups to review and comment on the proposed strategies.

Methods: Our Index of Ecological Integrity (Objective 2, Work Element 156) will provide a mechanism for not only documenting overall ecological impacts of dam operations, but also for documenting and reporting individual project accomplishments. Once we have apportioned operational effects to distinguish between irreplaceable and mitigation impacts (work element 156), we will be able to plan specific measures to restore ecological processes and riparian communities along the river while also balancing energy production, flood control, and other beneficial functions of Libby Dam. The remaining irreplaceable impacts must also be addressed to fully mitigate dam operations. This mitigation/restoration/monitoring plan would be written in collaboration with utility interests, agencies and local community groups for review and approval by NPCC. The plan will also include an accounting ledger for tracking mitigation progress and a monitoring protocol for documenting sustained biological benefits of individual projects.

Work Element 114 – Develop scientifically sound criteria for evaluating potential projects to ensure that available funding will be prioritized toward the most ecologically beneficial projects that are the most cost-effective use of ratepayer dollars.

Overview:   Many conservation and restoration actions are ongoing in the Kootenai River Basin. The purpose of this work element is to guide potential projects with willing landowners to protect and restore priority riparian habitats in the Kootenai subbasin as identified in the Kootenai River Subbasin Plan. The IEI and its components will provide the baseline conditions

66

needed to identify the value of the area and the potential for enhancement. Using this information, KTOI will be able to assess and rank site-specific projects, as well as determine how the cumulative effects of multiple projects will affect the geomorphic reach and/or the Kootenai River Subbasin. The program will be guided using biological and project-based criteria that reflect not only the priority needs established in the Kootenai subbasin plan, but also such factors as cost, credits, threats, and partners.

Methods: A variety of conservation and restoration programs have established project ranking and selection criteria for use in directing funding decisions on individual proposed projects. We would propose to utilize criteria developed in subbasin plans, state comprehensive conservation strategies, or other local conservation programs to draft criteria specific for our project.

Objective 8. Initiate implementation of the mitigation, restoration, and monitoring strategy to promote long-term benefits to fish and wildlife habitats and populations.

Kootenai SBP Objectives Priority Objective code Prioritized Objective Description

Urgent WB2, RP1, RP5, M5 Restore habitat conditionsUrgent WB3, RP1, RP5 Suppress and remove non-native speciesUrgent WB3, RP1, RP5 Reduce and prevent non-native introductionsHigh RP1, RP4 Protect and revegetate riparian areasHigh WB2, RP1, RP3 Improve habitat connectivity

Kootenai SBP Strategies

M5 – Design and implement creative solutions for increasing habitat diversity, including creation and reconnection of side channel, slough, backwater habitats, in-river habitat mod and seasonal and permanent wetlands in US waters. (Page 27)

RP1 – Identify associated losses in biological functions and performance. (Pages 77-78)RP3 – Provide long-term habitat protection through purchase, conservation easement, landowner incentives,

management plans and other means. (Page 79)RP4 – Identify and address human impacts in the Kootenai River mainstem utilizing adaptive management techniques. (Page 80).RP5 – Cooperate and coordinate efforts to restore natural disturbance regimes in riparian habitats. (Page 81)WB2 – Identify, protect, enhance and maintain neo-tropical migrant birds, native birds, and amphibian and

reptile critical habitats. (Page 75)WB3 – Protect wetland habitats. When possible (i.e. with willing landowners) provide long-term habitat

protection through purchase, conservation easements, landowner incentives, management plans, and other means. (Page 76)

Work Element 191 – Identify and Select Projects. Coordinate with other entities to develop long-term benefits for fish & wildlife habitat enhancements.

Overview:   Healthy streams, floodplain habitats, and intact riparian zones will transition into upland habitats providing a natural link between aquatic and terrestrial systems. In addition to the benefits to the aquatic community, wetland/slough habitat in the transition zones will provide benefits to the terrestrial community. These benefits will be realized with flourishing

67

populations of native botanical resources, invertebrates, shore birds, waterfowl, aquatic mammals, and terrestrial predators that depend on these resources. Further, the intact riparian zones will provide functional travel corridors for migratory species, with food, cover, and water. Once the long-term protection, mitigation, restoration, and monitoring strategy is written, this project will shift focus to implementing these various strategies in cooperation with appropriate agencies, conservation districts, and willing landowners. The Kootenai Subbasin plan identified a variety of strategies needed to restore habitats and ecological functions altered by operations of Libby Dam as outlined above. The restoration/mitigation/monitoring plan developed under Objective 4 will direct these activities utilizing an adaptive management approach.

Methods: Detailed methods for implementing restoration, mitigation and monitoring strategies will be developed under objective 4. However, the Kootenai River Subbasin Plan outlined a variety of measures needed to restore normative river conditions, productivity, habitat connectivity, and ecological functions such as:

Secure management rights and implement management agreements to conserve, maintain and restore riparian and floodplain areas.

Coordinate sub-basin activities with appropriate agencies such as adjacent sub-basins, soil and water conservation districts, USDA and Canadian agencies; develop adaptive management restoration experiments (in association with project 200200800, and 199206100) and

Develop and implement easement opportunities (e.g. seasonal agricultural flooding easements)

Work with USDA, IDFG, ACOE and others to create riparian projects, set-aside areas, and river/floodplain reconnections.

Work Element 165 – Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation

Methods: Coordinate completion of needed environmental analysis and documentation needed to implement restoration and/or mitigation projects. For analysis purposes, the use of models developed for the assessment phase of this project will prove very useful.

Work Element 5, 92, 172, 175 – Acquire and or restore habitat in the Kootenai Subbasin.

Overview:   Impoundment and dam operations were identified as primary limiting factors within the Kootenai Subbasin. Objectives to address these limiting factors are focused on 1) dam operations that approximate normative flows and 2) Improving riparian function and complexity of mainstem riparian habitat to levels that support or contribute to sustainable population levels of focal species that function naturally and may be capable of supporting appropriate forms of human use. The primary opportunities to address point #2 above are through projects that conserve, protect and restore riparian habitats and ecological functions along the Kootenai River. Such projects can only be implemented through cooperative agreements, conservation easements, or fee acquisition that provides the opportunity for focused management to meet these objectives.

68

Methods: A variety of tools will be utilized to improve riparian function and complexity. Selection of specific approaches on individual projects will be guided by criteria developed under work element 4b.

Work Element 156 – Monitor ecological trends and project effectiveness.

Overview:   To measure improvements and implement an adaptive management feedback loop into the mitigation and restoration phase of the OLA project requires the development of a monitoring and evaluation plan.

Methods: Annual basin-wide monitoring will continue to provide a temporal control for project level monitoring. Project monitoring and evaluation methods will be statistically precise, tailored to the objectives of each specific project, and be readily incorporated into the IEI assessment. The specific monitoring strategies will depend on the metrics of the IEI targeted for improvement. For instance, if we plan to conduct restoration to improve cottonwood recruitment, our monitoring strategy would need to target vegetative and biotic community metrics that are incorporated in the T-IBI and/or the IVA. These results should readily feed back into the IEI to measure cumulative overall improvements to the IEI at the reach or basin level. It is perceived that the success of most individual projects will be documented at the project level and likely contribute minimally to changes in the IEI. However, the cumulative effects of projects would be expected to show improvements in the IEI at the reach or basin level.

Objective 9: Promote long-term benefits to fish and wildlife habitats and populations

Kootenai SBP Objectives Priority Objective code Prioritized Objective DescriptionAdmin M2 M6 WB1 WB3 RP2 RP3 RP4 AP2 AP4 AP5 Coordinate activities w/appropriate organizationsUrgent M1, M2, RP2, WB1 Improve riparian function and complexityUrgent WB2, RP1, RP5, M5 Improve habitat diversityUrgent WB3, RP1, RP5 Suppress and remove non-native speciesUrgent WB3, RP1, RP5 Reduce and prevent non-native introductionsHigh RP1, RP4 Protect and revegetate riparian areasHigh WB2, RP1, RP3 Improve habitat connectivity

Kootenai SBP StrategiesM1 – Develop and pursue opportunities to restore normative river functions (Page 21)

M2 – Initiate and develop cooperative adaptive management strategies with local and regional agencies and agencies and entities in the U.S. and B.C. Coordinate with natural resource managers to develop a comprehensive riparian and wetland habitat protection, rehabilitation and enhancement plan for the Kootenai River (Page 22)

M5 – Design and implement creative solutions for increasing habitat diversity. Support and coordinate with similar measures in British Columbia waters of the Kootenai Subbasin (Page 27)

M6 – Develop cooperative strategies to achieve comprehensive habitat protection, rehabilitation and enhancement of river, tributary and associated riparian and wetland habitats (Page 28)

69

WB1 – Secure management rights and implement management agreements to conserve, maintain and restore wetland and floodplain areas. Cooperate and coordinate efforts to protect, enhance and rehabilitate low elevation wetland habitats including restoration of natural disturbance regimes, (Page 73-74)

WB2 - Identify, protect, enhance and maintain neo-tropical migrant birds, native birds, and amphibian and reptile critical habitats. (Page 75)

WB3 –Coordinate with natural resource managers to develop a comprehensive riparian and wetland habitat protection, rehabilitation and enhancement plan for the Kootenai River (Page 76)

RP1 – Continue to vigorously seek opportunities to restore normative river functions in the lower Kootenai River (Page 77)

RP2 – Identify, protect, enhance and maintain critical habitats for native birds, reptiles and amphibians. Cooperate and coordinate efforts focused on low elevation habitats (Page 78-79)

RP3 – Coordinate subbasin activities with local, state, federal and international entities to protect, enhance and rehabilitate floodplain habitats to restore biological functions and performance (Page 79)

RP4 – Coordinate subbasin activities with local, state, federal and international entities to protect, enhance and rehabilitate forest habitats to restore biological functions and performance (Page 80)

RP5- Cooperate and coordinate efforts to restore natural disturbance regimes in riparian habitats. (Page 81)

AP2 – Support and enhance communication to coordinate implementation of the Kootenai Subbasin Plan (Page 90)

AP4 – Support locally recognized stakeholder groups that improve coordination and implementation of existing local, state, and federal programs in the Kootenai Subbasin (Page 91)

AP5 – Improve distribution of information required to successfully implement the Subbasin Plan (Page 92)

Work Element 119 - Manage and Administer Projects – Coordinate, review and discuss with USFWS, USACE, USGS, and others regarding river-floodplain reconnection opportunities and related technical reviews to enhance reconnection ecosystem components.

Methods: Adaptive management techniques can be used to promote the long term benefits of restoration activities evaluating a corrective use or condition that may result in more biological integrity and increase overall ecological quality. With the utilization of experimental, adaptive management on landforms with representative agencies (i.e., USACE, USFWS, USGS), we hope to assist restoration work along Kootenai River dikes (i.e., stabilization with riparian enhancements), assist in prioritizing restoration in modeled areas, and augment/enhance existing areas by understanding landform restoration potentials that guide local managers in the identification and selection of habitat improvement sites.

Work Element 114 - Identify and Select Project - Coordinate with other entities to develop long term benefits for fish & wildlife habitat enhancements.

Overview: Healthy streams, floodplain habitats, and intact riparian zones will transition into upland habitats providing a natural link between aquatic and terrestrial systems. In addition to the benefits to the aquatic community, wetland/slough habitat in the transition zones will provide benefits to the terrestrial community. These benefits will be realized with flourishing populations of native botanical resources, invertebrates, shore birds, waterfowl, aquatic mammals, and terrestrial predators that depend on these resources. Further, the intact

70

riparian zones will provide functional travel corridors for migratory species, with food, cover, and water.

Work Element 99 - Outreach and Education - Cultivate Tribal department professional development through in-house/field work sessions, interdepartmental work, and outside seminars and workshops to increase performance of current and future work elements.

Methods: Staff will attend seminars, meetings, and conferences for in-house replication and training purposes. We will provide in-house training for sampling methodologies, survey techniques, time management, and related trainings to develop skills useful in operational loss assessment protocols. We hope to enable more in-house work, enhance efficiency, reduce costs and rely less on subcontracting for future tasks.

G. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Following development of the operation loss assessment tools and calculation of the IEI, this project will enter a mitigation and restoration phase. The first step in the process is to develop a mitigation and restoration plan. Within this plan, a monitoring strategy will be developed. The monitoring strategy will focus on the metrics used in individual index of alterations or integrity. Monitoring will continue to occur in the Kootenai River Basin and at the project level. Basin-wide monitoring will provide a long-term baseline, while project level monitoring will be developed to evaluate project activities, plus feed back into the overall IEI to capture the contributions of each project and the cumulative effects of multiple projects to the IEI. Both lines of data will be used in an adaptive feedback loop to continually improve overall project effectiveness (Figure G-1).

Define problem

Assess problem

Adjust treatment

Design treatment (solution)

NoExperimentally

Implement treatment

Treatment successful?

Evaluate treatment

Monitor treatment

Yes

Implement treatment as management

action

Figure G-1. A schematic diagram of the Kootenai River Adaptive Management Program framework used for integrating population, community, habitat, and ecosystem protection and restoration projects (Korman et al 2008).

71

H. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

The personnel needed to accomplish the tasks laid out in this proposal will be housed in the current KTOI Tribal Fish and Wildlife Department offices. Subcontractors may stay in onsite trailer or office. Materials and supplies are included in budget. Capital equipment purchased will be used for fieldwork and will be available to subcontractors. Fish and Wildlife Program personnel utilize each other’s program equipment when possible to eliminate excess equipment purchases.

To accomplish project tasks, KTOI personnel use five computers (3 laptops, 2 desktop), a four-wheel drive pickup and a jet boat. Three laptops computers have been updated within the passed two years due to hardware failure, while the two desktop computers are 4, and 7 years old. One desktop will need to be upgraded in 2010 and the other in 2011. These computer upgrades will be needed to allow compatibility with the KTOI networks and to provide GIS capabilities. The pickup is leased monthly and the jet boat was purchased in October of 2007. Both vehicles are in good condition. In 2012, a survey grade GPS will be needed to document wetland/vegetation edges and property boundaries for monitoring and management of mitigation properties.

I. REFERENCES

Acrement, G.J. and V. R. Schneider. 1989. Guide for selecting Manning's roughness coefficients for natural channels and floodplains. USGS Water- Supply Paper 2339: 1-44.

Alkema, D. and H. Middelkoop. 2005. The influence of floodplain compartmentalization on flood risk within the Rhine–Meuse Delta. Natural Hazards 36:125–145.

Angermeier, P .L. and J. R. Karr. 1994. Biological integrity versus biological diversity as policy directives. - BioScience 44: 690-697.

Ashley, K., et al. 1997. Restoration of an interior lake ecosystem: Kootenay Lake fertilization experiment. Wat. Qual. Res. J. Can. 32:192-212.

Ayres Associates. 2002. Two-dimensional hydraulic modeling of the upper Sacramento River, RM 194.0 To RM 202.0 including riparian restoration, setback levee, and east levee removal, Glenn and Butee Counties, California. The Nature Conservancy. Chico. California.

Bayley, P. B. 1995. Understanding Large River-Floodplain Ecosystems. Bioscience 45 (3):153-158.

Beak Consultants Limited (Beak). 1993. Audit of Wildlife Loss Assessments for Federal Dams on the Columbia River and its Tributaries 1 (Feb., 1993). 51pp.

Benjankar, R. (in prep.). Quantification of reservoir operation-based losses to floodplain physical processes and impact on the floodplain vegetation at the Kootenai River, USA. Ph.D. University of Idaho, Boise, ID.

Benjankar, R. 2009. Development of a dynamic floodplain vegetation model for the Kootenai River, USA: concept and methodology. In: Science and Information Technologies for Sustainable Management of Aquatic Ecosystems. Concepcion, Chile.

Blair, R. B. 1996. Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecological Applications 6(2):506-519.

72

Braatne, J.H., Rood, S.B., and Heilman, P.E. 1996. Life history, ecology, and conservation of riparian cottonwoods in North America. In Biology of Populus and its implications for management and conservation. Part I, Chapter 3. Edited by R.R. Stettler, H.D. Bradshaw, Jr., P.E. Heilman, and T.M. Hinckley. NRC Research Press, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Pp. 57-85.

Bradford, D.F., S.E. Franson, A.C. Neale, D.T. Heggman, G.R. Miller, and G.E. Canterbury. 1998. Bird species assemblages as indicators of biological integrity in Great Basin rangeland. Environ. Manage. Assess.

Brooks, R. P., K. R. Tamminga, C. J. Lipton, R. F. Carline, D. Genito, and R. L. Day. 1998. Protection and Management Plan for the Millbrook Marsh Nature Center. Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center, Pennsylvania State University.

Burke, M. 2006. (in prep.). Linking hydropower operation to modified fluvial processes downstream of Libby Dam, Kootenai River, U.S.A. and Canada. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Carpenter, S.R. and J.F. Kitchell. 1988. Consumer control of lake productivity. BioScience 38:764-769.

Carpenter, S.R., J.F. Kitchell, and J.R. Hodgson. 1985. Cascading trophic interactions and lake productivity. BioScience 35:634-639.

Carpenter, S.R., J.F. Kitchell, J.R. Hodgson, P.A. Cochran, J.J. Elser, M.M. Elser, D.M. Lodge, D. Kretchmer, X. He, and C.N. von Ende. 1987. Regulation of lake primary productivity by food web structure.

Chow, V.T. 1959. Open channel hydraulics. McGraw Hill, New York.Cobb, T.P., D. W. Langor and J. R. Spence. 2007. Biodiversity and multiple disturbances: boreal

forest ground beetle (Coleoptera : Carabidae) responses to wildfire, harvesting, and herbicide. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere. 37:1310-1323.

Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling Techniques. Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY.Cooper, D. J., D. M. Merritt, D. C. Andersen and R. A. Chimner.1999. Factors controlling the

establishment of Fremont cottonwood seedlings on the upper Green River, USA. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 15: 419-440.

Dufrene, M. and P. Legendre. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67(3): 345-366.

Egger report. 2008 (cited in Kootenai River Restoration Project – Draft Management Plan). Gillam, P., M. Jempson, and G. Rogencamp. 2005. The importance of combined 2D/1D

modelling of complex floodplains–Tatura Case Study. In: Fourth Victorian Flood Management Conference. Shepparton, Victoria, Australia.

Hesselink, A., G. S. Stelling, J. C. Kwadijk and H. Middelkoop. 2003. Inundation of a Dutch river polder, sensitivity analysis of a physically based inundation model using historic data. Water Resources Research 39:3–14.

Horritt, M. S. 2000. Calibration and validation of a 2-dimensional finite element flood flow model using satellite radar imagery. Water Resources Research 36:3279-3291.

Horritt, M. S. and P. D. Bates. 2002. Evaluation of 1D and 2D numerical models for predicting river flood inundation. Journal of Hydrology 268:87–99.

Hunter, M.D. and P.W. Price. 1992. Playing chutes and ladders: Heterogeneity and the relative roles of bottom-up and top-down forces in natural communities. Ecology 73:724-732.

73

Hutto, R. L., S. M. Pletschet and P. Hendricks. 1986. A fixed-radius point count method for nonbreeding and breeding season use. Auk103: 593-602.

Jamieson B. and J. B. Braatne. 2001. Riparian cottonwood ecosystems and regulated flows in Kootenai and Yakima sub-basins: Volume I Kootenai River. Report to Bonneville Power Administration. Project No. 200006800. 118 pp.

Johnson, C.W., R.L. Burgess and W.R. Keammerer. 1976. Forest overstory vegetation and environment on the Missouri river floodplain in North Dakota. Ecol. Monogr. 46: 59-84.

Jorde, K., M. Burke, N. Scheidt, C. Welcker, C. Borden, S. King, R. Benjankar, J. McFall, and D. Caamano. 2005. Reservoir Operations and Ecosystem losses. 6th Gravel Bed River Conference, St. Jakob, Austria.

Karr JR. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological Applications 1: 66-84.

Karr JR. 1999. Defining and measuring river health. Freshwater Biology 41: 221-234.Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21–27.Karr, J. R. and D. R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals.

Environmental Management 5: 55-68.Karr, J. R. and E. W. Chu. 1997. Biological monitoring and assessment: Using multimetric

indexes effectively. EPA 235-R97-001. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.Karr, J. R. and E. W. Chu. 1997. Biological monitoring and assessment: Using multimetric

indexes effectively. EPA 235-R97-001. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.Karr, J. R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing

biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5, Urbana Illinois.

Karr, J.R. and D. R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspectives on water quality goals. Environmental Management 5(1): 55-68.

Knudson, K. 1994. Water quality status report. Kootenay (Kootenai) River basin. British Columbia, Montana, and Idaho. Prepared for the Kootenai River Network. Ecological Resources Consulting. Helena, MT.

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (KTOI). 2005. Kootenai River Valley Wetlands and Riparian Conservation Strategy – Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Fish & Wildlife Department Bonners Ferry ID

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (KTOI). 2006. Kootenai River floodplain ecosystem operational loss assessment, protection, mitigation and rehabilitation.

Korman, J., C. Walters, P. Anders, C. Holderman, and S. Ireland. 2008. Draft Kootenai River Adaptive Management Plan. Report prepared for the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho. 13 pp.

Luff, M.L.1975. Some features influencing the efficiency of pitfall traps. Oecologia 19: 345-357.MacWilliams, M.L., R. L. Street and P. K. Kitanidis. 2004. Modeling floodplain flow on lower

Deer Creek, CA. In: River Flow 2004, Second International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics. Naples, Italy.

McGeoch, M. A., V. J. Van Rensburg and A. Botes. 2002. The Verification and Application of Miller, J.R., T.T. Schulz, N.T. Hobbs, K.R. Wilson, D.L. Schrupp, and W.L. Baker. 1995.

Changes in the landscape structure of a southeastern Wyoming riparian zone following shifts in stream dynamics. Biol. Conserv. 72:371-379.

Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC). 2000. Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife program: A multi-species approach for decision-making. Council Document 2000-14, Portland, OR.

74

Paragamian, V., G. Kruse, and V. D. Wakkinen. 1996. Kootenai River fisheries investigations: stock status of burbot and rainbow trout and fisheries inventory. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Annual Progress Report FY94, Project No. 88-65, Boise, ID.

Petts, G. E. 1996. Water allocation to protect the river ecosystems. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, Vol. 12:353-365.

Poff, N. L., and J. V. Ward. 1989. Implications of streamflow variability and predictability for lotic community structure: A regional analysis of streamflow patterns. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., Vol. 46:1805-1817.

Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, E. S. Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg. 1997. The Natural Flow Regime - A paradigme for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47:769-784.

Politti, E. 2008. Riparian ecosystems dynamic model. Masters Thesis. Villach (Applied University, Carinthia. 102 pp.

Polzin, M. L. and S. B. Rood. 2000. Effects of damming and flow stabilization on riparian processes and black cottonwoods along the Kootenay River. Rivers 7(3): 221-232.

Power, M.E. 1990. Effects of fish in river food webs. Science 250:811-814.Ralph, C. J., G. R. Geupel, P. Pyle, T. E. Martin and D. E. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of field

methods for monitoring landbirds. United States Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-144.

Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, R. Wigington, and D. P. Braun. 1997. How much water does a river need. Freshwater Biology 37:231-249.

Rood, S. B, J. M. Mahoney, D. E. Reid and L. Zilm. 1995. Instream flows and the decline of riparian cottonwoods along the St. Mary River, Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany 73: 1250-1260

Rood, S. B., C. R. Gourley, E. M. Ammon, and 7 other authors. 2003. Flows for floodplain forests: a successful riparian restoration. BioScience 53(7): 647-656.

Scholz, Allen et al. 1985. Compilation of information on salmon and steelhead total run size, catch and hydropower related to losses on the Upper Columbia River Basin, above Coulee Dam. Fisheries Tech. Report No. 2. UCUT fish. Centre. Eastern Washington Univ., Cheney, WA.

Scott, J. M., F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, B. Butterfield, C. Groves, H. Anderson, S. Caicco, F. D’Erchia, T. C. Edwards Jr., J. Ulliman and R.G. Wright. 1993. Gap analysis: A geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs 123:1-41.

Scott, M. L., J. M. Friedman and G. T. Auble.1996. Fluvial process and the establishment of bottomland trees. Geomorphology 14: 327-339.

Snyder, E.B. and G.W. Minshall. 1996. Ecosystem metabolism and nutrient dynamics in the Kootenai River in relation to impoundment and flow enhancement for fisheries management. Final Report. Stream Ecology Center, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID.

Southwood, T. R. E. and P. A. Henderson. 2000. Ecological Methods: Third Edition. Blackwell Science. London.

Spence, J. R., and J. K. Niemela. 1994. Sampling carabid assemblages with pitfall traps - the madness and the method. Canadian Entomologist 126:881-894.

Strong, D.R. 1997. Quick indirect interactions in intertidal food webs. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12:173-174

75

Strong, D.R., J.L. Maron, and P.G. Connors. 1996. Top down from underground? The underappreciated influence of subterranean food webs on above-ground ecology. In Food webs: Integration of patterns and dynamics, eds G.A. Polis and K.O. Winemiller, pp 170-175. Chapman and Hall, New York.

Sunderland, K.D., G. R. DeSnoo, A. Dinter, T. J. Hance, P. Jepson, B. Kromp, F. Samu, N. W. Sotherton, S. Toft and B. Ulber. 1995. Density estimation for invertebrate predators in agroecosystems. In: Arthropod Natural Enemies in Arable Land (eds S. Toft & W. Riedel). pp. 133-164. Aarhus University Press, Denmark.

Turney-High, Harry Holbert. 1941. Ethnography of the Kutenai. YeGalleon Press, Fairfield, Washington. 201pp.

J. KEY PERSONNEL

Name Title Organization Job Description FTE/year

Norm MerzProject

Lead/Wildlife Biologist

KTOIOversee and direct project activities and day to day

administration1.0

Scott Soults Division Manager KTOI

Oversee Project Lead and Programmatic issues related to

this project0.3

Dwight Bergeron Wildlife Biologist Montana FWP

Coordinate project activities with FWP. Conduct and oversee

collection of field data1.0

Dr. Alan Wood Wildlife Biologist Montana FWP Coordinate programmatic

activities between KTOI and FWP In-Kind

Dr. Elowyn Yager Assistant Professor

Center for Ecohydraulic

Research

Provide oversight and direction for graduate students 0.1

Dr. Philip Tanimoto Spatial Ecologist

Conservation Imaging, Inc.

Responsible for spatial imagery interpretation and analysis 0.3

Dr. Paul Anders Fisheries Scientist

Cramer Fish Science

Facilitate coordination of projects and provide fishery expertise to

OLA project0.2

Dr. Klaus Jorde Consultant Entec AG Provide oversight on hydrologic parameters 0.1

Michael BurkeWater

Resources Engineer

Inter-Fluv, Inc Conduct IHA and IFA analyses and refinements 0.1

Dr. Timothy Hatten Entomologist Invertebrate Ecology, Inc.

Provide oversight on invertebrate collection, identification, analysis,

and interpretation0.2

Thomas O’Neil Wildlife Ecologist

Northwest Habitat Institute

Provide coordination between OLA project and NHI databases

and activities0.2

Dr. Bahman Shafii StatisticianStatistical Consulting

Service

Provide statistical oversight and manage Web-based database 0.2

Dr. Stewart Rood Professor University of Lethbridge

Provide data collection and analyses regarding riparian woodland regeneration and

survival

0.3

Dr. Gregory Egger Landscape Ecology

Umweltbüro Klagenfurt

Aid in the development and use of the dynamic vegetation model 0.3

76

NORMAN M. MERZ, Jr.Wildlife Biologist/Ecologist

Kootenai tribe of Idaho, 242 Hatchery Road, Bonners Ferry, IDMerz@kootenai.org

Education: Master's of Science Degree (5/94): Wildlife Science; minors: Range Science and Experimental Statistics; New

Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88001. Bachelor's of Science Degree (3/91): Wildlife Biology; minors: Botany and Zoology; University of Montana,

Missoula, Montana 59812.

Current Employer: Wildlife Biologist/Ecologist – Project Manager. Kootenai Tribe of Idaho. Responsible for planning, oversight,

direction, coordinating employees and subcontractors to accomplish project tasks, and managing budgets to develop an Index of Ecological Integrity to quantify ecological impacts related to the operation of Libby Dam, Montana.

Previous Employment (past 15 years): Wildlife Biologist (1998-2007). Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. Responsible

for coordinating projects among Biologist Staff and quantifying and describing impacts to wildlife species and their habitats due to project activities, mainly timber harvests.

Wildlife Biologist (1993-1998). Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Designed and implemented habitat evaluation and monitoring methodology. Worked closely with federal land managers, permittees, and private landowners to develop, implement, manage, and monitor habitat improvement projects. Surveyed for disease prevalence (Brucellosis, CWD, TB) by trapping, immobilizing, and/or necropsying big game animals. Coordinated vaccination program. Conducted aerial surveys.

Expertise: My professional experience is diverse. I worked in many different western states, with a host of wildlife species, diverse habitat types, varying publics, and for most of the major entities involved in wildlife conservation (private, state, federal, tribal). I participated on interdisciplinary teams to develop, analyze, document, and implement range, forestry, recreational, and real estate projects. I managed elk and elk habitat (primarily rangeland) to reduce intraspecific disease transmission by reducing feedground use, while mitigating elk damage on private lands and preventing disease transmission to livestock. In all positions, I successfully coordinated between agencies to enhance wildlife popoulations and/or their habitat.

Technical Publications and Presentations:

Merz, NM, SS Soults, PA Anders, R Benjankar, D Bergeron, G Egger, T Hatten, K. Jorde, B. Shafii, P. Tanimoto, Y. Xie, A. Wood. 2008. Annual Report (2007) – BPA Project 2002-011-00. Document ID #P106377, BPA Contract 30578.

Merz, NM. 1998. Pinedale Brucellosis-Feedground-Habitat Project Interim Report. Wyoming Game and Fish Project Completion Report, Region 1. Pinedale, WY.

Merz, NM. 1997. Aspen response to habitat manipulation and elk browsing. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Region 1. Monitoring Report. Pinedale, WY.

Merz, NM. 1997. Big game response to the Fayette Fire. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Region 1. Monitoring Report. Pinedale, WY.

Stroud et al. 1995. Building with Fire. Wyoming Wildlife Magazine. Cheyenne, WY.Merz, NM. 1994. Deer and Elk Response to Modified Pinyon-Juniper Habitats on the Gila National Forest.

Master’s Thesis. New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces, NM. Numerous EA and EIS documents that conform to NEPA and MEPA requirements. 1993-2007.

77

SCOTT M. SOULTSKootenai Tribe of Idaho

PO Box 1269, Bonners Ferry ID 83805Education:

A.A.; Scott Community College; Business Administration; 1985B.S.; University of Montana; Wildlife Biology/Zoology; 1991Graduate course work; Boise State University; Raptor Biology; 1995 -1997

Current Employer and Responsibilities: Kootenai Tribe of Idaho; Wildlife Manager; 1999 to Present

Responsible for all activities associated with the development, coordination and implementation of wildlife management activities including planning, prioritization of management activities, drafting of policy recommendations, wildlife mitigation activities, budget development and the drafting of annual reports and management plans.

Previous Employment: USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); Gallatin, Missouri;

Wildlife Conservationist; 1997-1999 Administer and implement open lands initiative programs and MDC and NRCS cost-share and incentive programs. Develop and implement resource conservation management plans by researching, analyzing and making recommendations to improve habitat management strategies.

Talon Environmental Consultants; Boise, Idaho; Biological Consultant and Owner; 1996-1997 Private consultant offering professional services in biological and environmental assessments, wetland delineations, threatened and endangered species consultation and biological evaluations for private and public land and water development projects. Researched historical data, cultural resources, current literature and field data to evaluate conflict determination.

Engineering and Inspection Services, Inc.; Boise, Idaho; Environmental Scientist; 1993-1996 Completed Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments (ESA’s) for private and public entities. Researched, analyzed and interpreted biological, environmental, hydrological and geotechnical information.

USDA, Mt. Hood National Forest; Portland, OR; Wildlife Biologist; 1989-1993 Planned, organized and implemented Regional spotted owl surveying and monitoring program on 150,000 acres of wilderness, and supervised 16 biologists at the Mt. Hood National Forest Supervisor’s Office. Surveyed and monitored Spotted Owl Habitat Areas (SOHA’s). Delineated survey routes and guaranteed quality control, interpreted data, documented results and compiled District and Forest reports on observed owl locations and associated habitat management.

Technical Publications and Presentations:Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 2005. Kootenai River Valley Wetlands and Riparian Conservation Strategy – Kootenai

Tribe of Idaho Fish & Wildlife Department Bonners Ferry ID

Soults, S; Chase, E and P Anders. 2005 Operational Loss Assessment, Protection, Mitigation and Rehabilitation on the Kootenai River Floodplain Ecosystem: Libby Dam. presented at the Fluvial Geomorphology Fish Habitat Symposium Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Fish & Wildlife Dept

Soults, S and E Chase 2005 Channelization and Alteration of the Kootenai River and Floodplain: History and Reclamation. presented at the Fluvial Geomorphology Fish Habitat Symposium Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Fish & Wildlife Dept

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho. 2000. GIS layers, maps and perennial wetland analysis on the Kootenai Subbasin. Kootenai Tribe of Idaho – Fish and Wildlife Department, Bonners Ferry, ID. September 2000.

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho. 1999. Fish and Wildlife Management Plan. Kootenai Tribe of Idaho – Fish and Wildlife Department, Bonners Ferry, ID. April 1999.

78

DWIGHT JAMES BERGERON

ACADEMIC QUALIFICATONSDegree Year University Major Field(s) Minor Field(s)

B.S. 1973 University of North Dakota Fish & Wildlife Mgmt

M.S. 1977 University of North Dakota Zoology Related fieldsTeacher certification 1986 Montana State University Secondary

Education

Teacher Certification: Broad field Sciences

EMPLOYER: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks DepartmentWORK ADDRESS: 490 North Meridian Road CITY/TOWN: Kalispell, MT, 59901; PH: 406-751-4587

EXPERIENCE (List most recent experience first)Place of Work Year Work Description

MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Kalispell, MT 2000-present

Wildlife Biologist- Primary biologist on the Firefighter study- effects of forest management practices on Neotropical birds - Implement avian studies

MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Kalispell, MT 1993-2000

Wildlife Biologist- team leader for the South fork of the Flathead study- Forest management and associated impacts to songbirds- implement field work and present results

MT Dept. of State Lands, Helena, MT 1980-1983

Wildlife Biologist- completed data analysis and wrote EIS on proposed mine areas. Identified data needs; public scoping; study design; permit reviews; supervised 3rd party EIS.

Westech/Self-employed Wildlife biologist

1976-1980 1988-1993

Conducted wildlife surveys on songbirds, small mammals, big game, game birds, raptors and herps on potential mine areas. Wrote tech reports summarizing data. Conducted range surveys.

Extensive experience with wildlife survey and inventory methodologies; conducting population surveys; assessing anthropomorphic impacts and designing conservation plans.

PUBLICATONS/ACCOMPLISHMENTSAuthored numerous technical reports and Environmental Impact Statements. Presented at numerous talks.

Bergeron, D. J. et al. Montana bird distribution. Montana Natural Heritage Program Special Publication No. 2. 118 p.

Bergeron, D. J. and D. Casey. 2002. Forest management practices: effects on songbirds. MT Chapter - TWS Conference. Fairmont Hot Springs, MT. February 2002.

Bergeron, D. J. and R. W. Seabloom. 1981. Habitat partitioning by eastern and desert cottontails in Southwestern North Dakota. Prairie Naturalist 13:105-110.

Messer, A., A. Wood and D. Bergeron. 2006. Examining the landscape with GIS: Searching for potential Columbian Sharp-tailed grouse habitat. Abstract only. Proc. MT Chap. The Wildl. Soc., Helena, MT.

79

ALAN K. WOOD

ACADEMIC QUALIFICATONSDegree Year University Major Field(s) Minor Field(s)

Ph.D. 1987 Montana State University Wildlife Range

M.S. 1980 Brigham Young University Wildlife RangeB.S. 1978 Utah State University Biology Chemistry

CERTIFIED WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST since 1989 – by The Wildlife Society.Member since 1982, served on various committees.

EMPLOYER: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks DepartmentWORK ADDRESS: 490 North Meridian Road CITY/TOWN: Kalispell, MT, 59901 PH: 406-751-4595

EXPERIENCE (List most recent experience first)Place of Work Year Work Description

MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Kalispell, MT 1994-present

Manage a program and budget to mitigate for previous losses of wildlife and wildlife habitats attributed to construction of Hungry Horse and Libby Dams.

MT Dept. of State Lands, Missoula, MT 1989-1994

Work as a fish and wildlife specialist to help develop and implement a statewide management plan for 600,000 acres of state forestlands.

WY Game & Fish Dept. Casper, WY 1988-1989

Design and implement a study to evaluate responses of pronghorn antelope and mule deer to petroleum developments on winter ranges.

Montana State University, Bozeman 1982-1988

Studied ecology of mule and white-tailed deer populations. Taught undergraduate ecology and graduate-level computer programming labs.

Extensive experience with scientific research and resource management in the public sector, developing and implementing strategic priorities to accomplish conservation outcomes. Experience building, leading and managing teams to implement conservation projects and to monitor the outcome of those efforts. Plan and implement program priorities by building partnerships that leverage human resources and financial capital to accomplish program priorities.

PUBLICATONS/ACCOMPLISHMENTSAuthored or coauthored 11 peer reviewed articles, 4 books or book chapters, numerous scientific and public presentations and technical reports.Completed 10 habitat acquisitions over the last 4 years, conserving 11,400 acres of priority fish and wildlife habitat.Conant, K., A. Wood and K. DeCoster. 2007. USDA Forest Legacy Program. Land Trust Alliance Rally, Denver, CO. (Discussing conservation partnership opportunities)Vore, J. M., T. L. Hartman, and A. K. Wood. 2007. Elk habitat selection and winter range vegetation management in northwest Montana. Intermountain J. Sci. 13:86-97. (Evaluating past mitigation projects)Messer, A., A. Wood, and D. Bergeron. 2006. Examining the landscape with GIS: Searching for potential Columbian sharp-tailed grouse habitat. Abstract only. Proc. MT Chap. The Wildl. Soc., Helena, MT.

80

ELOWYN M. YAGERCenter for Ecohydraulics Research, University of Idaho, 322 E. Front St. Suite 340, Boise, ID

eyager@uidaho.edu

Education: Ph.D. (5/2006): Geology; University of California, Berkeley, California. B.A. (5/98): Geology; minor in Physical Geography; State University of New York, Buffalo, New York.

Current Employer: Assistant Professor. Center for Ecohydraulics Research and Department of Civil Engineering. Research and

supervision of student projects in fluvial geomorphology, sediment transport, turbulence and river restoration. Teach graduate level courses in Fluvial Geomorphology and River Restoration.

Previous Employment (past 15 years): Postdoctoral Researchers (2006-2007). Department of Geography, Arizona State University.

Conduct research project on the influence of riparian vegetation on flow and sediment transport on rivers and floodplains.

Graduate Student Researcher and Instructor (1998-2006). Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley. Graduate instructor for three classes: Water Planet, Geomorphology and Fluvial Geomorphology. Developed sediment transport equation for steep, mountain streams and tested the equation in laboratory and field experiments. Extensive field measurements (topographic measurements, sediment transport, tracer particles, discharge, flow velocity and turbulence) and modeling (Matlab) experience.

Undergraduate Research Assistant (1996 – 1998). Department of Geology, SUNY at Buffalo.Fieldwork measuring erosion rates of cinder cones in Arizona and surveys of sedimentary units in New York. Undergraduate thesis used tree-ring analysis to date fluctuations of the Sheridan Glacier, Alaska.

Technical Publications and Presentations:Yager, E.M., 2009, The mobility of sediment patches, Proceedings of the 7th ISE Conference, Concepcion,

Chile, 9 pages.Yager, E.M. and M.W. Schmeeckle 2007. The influence of emergent vegetation on turbulence and sediment

transport in rivers. in D. Boyer and O. Alexandrova (eds.). Proceedings of the 5th IAHR International Symposium on Environmental Hydraulics. 69-74.

Yager, E.M., J.W. Kirchner, and W.E. Dietrich 2007. Calculating bedload transport in steep, boulder-bed channels. Water Resources Research. 43. W07418, doi:10.1029/2006WR005432.

Perron, J. T., M. P. Lamb, C. D. Koven, I. Y. Fung, E. Yager, and M. Ádámkovics 2006. Valley formation and methane precipitation rates on Titan. J. Geophys. Res.. 111. E11001. doi:10.1029/2005JE002602.

Dietrich, W.E., P.A. Nelson, E.Yager, J.G. Venditti, M.P. Lamb, and L. Collins 2005. Sediment patches, sediment supply, and channel morphology. in G. Parker and M.H. Garcia (eds.). Proceedings of the 4th IAHR Symposium on River, Coastal and Estuarine Morphodynamics. 79-90.

ExpertiseI am trained as a fluvial geomorphologist. I have worked on research projects that include understanding the impacts of vegetation on flow and sediment transport, the influence of near-bed turbulence on bedload transport, and 2-D hydrodynamic modeling of flow around roughness elements. I have extensive field (measuring turbulence, sediment flux, grain size, topography, average flow parameters), laboratory (built and designed a small flume, experiments to measure sediment flux and turbulence) and modeling (Matlab, Fortran, user of 2D flow models) experience. I also have worked on incorporating topography changes into a 2-D flow model (needed for this proposal).

81

PHILIP D. TANIMOTO

EDUCATIONPh.D., Environmental Dynamics. 2006. Dept. Biological Sciences, Univ. of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR. Dissertation: Advances in Biogeographic Modeling of Montane-obligate Avifauna in Mesoamerica.

M.S., Wildlife Resources. 1991. Dept. Fish and Wildlife Resources, Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, ID. Thesis: Applications of Geographic Information Systems to the Management of Lake Chelan National Recreation Area.

B.A., Zoology, with High Honors. Minor, Botany. 1984. Univ. of Montana, Missoula, MT 59801

Primary employerTexas A&M University, Department of Ecosystem Science & Management, College Station, Texas.Position: Research Scientist, Afghanistan PEACE ProjectDuties: Responsible for spatial modeling of Afghanistan rangelands and forage model implementation.

Other employersConservation Imaging, Inc., Moscow, Idaho – since 1996Position: Executive Director and Consulting Spatial Ecologist

Provide expertise data development and spatial modeling of ecological systems Maintain Conservation Imaging as a 501c3 organization

USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Moscow, Idaho, 2004Position: Consulting Spatial Scientist

Served as a team member to develop a fungal risk model for post-wildfire forests incorporating land cover, soil type and temperature, climate data, and risk factors

University of Idaho Spatial Dynamics Laboratory, 1997-1999Position: Sr. GIS Analyst

Managed laboratory hardware, software, and user accounts Developed data sets for the Idaho Gap Analysis Project

USDA Forest Service Kootenai National Forest, Libby, Montana, 1992-1996Position: Wildlife Biologist/Remote Sensing Specialist

Modeled land cover, forest structure, and crown closure across the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear recover zone. Modeled wildlife habitat for sensitive forest vertebrates

Professional NarrativeI have applied quantitative spatial modeling to conservation issues since 1986, carrying some two dozen diverse projects from start to completion and contributing to several others. In addition to extensive experience with spatial data development and modeling, I have special areas of expertise that include avian ecology, ecology of the Inland Northwest, and tropical ecology and biogeography. My life is dedicated toward the pursuit of conservation and ecologically-sound management of natural resources and natural areas through the application of spatial data development and spatial modeling.

Sample publications

Tanimoto, P.D. 2006. Advances in biogeographic modeling of montane-obligate avifauna in Mesoamerica. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. of Arkansas, Fayetteville. 134 pp

McDonald, G.I.; Tanimoto, P.D., Rice, T.M.; Hall, D.E.; Stewart, J.E.; Tonn, J.R.; Zambino, P.J.; Klopfenstein, N.B.; Kim, M.-S. 2005. Fuels planning: science synthesis and integration; environmental consequences fact sheet 13: Root Disease Analyzer-Armillaria Response Tool (ART) RMRS-RN-23-13WWW. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 2 pp.

Wright, R.G. and P.D. Tanimoto. 1998. Using GIS to prioritize land conservation actions: integrating factors of habitat diversity, land ownership, and development risk. Natural Areas Journal 18:38-44.

82

PAUL J. ANDERS, Ph.D. Senior Fisheries Scientist, Associate Consultant Cramer Fish SciencesAffiliate Faculty, Department of Fish and Wildlife, University of Idaho

121 Sweet Ave., Suite 118. Moscow, ID. 83843anders@fishsciences.net

Education- Ph.D. Natural Resources (Conservation Biology of White Sturgeon), Univ. of Idaho, 2002.- M.S. Biology (Fisheries), Eastern Washington University, 1991- B.S. Natural Science (Limnology), Saint Norbert College, 1983.

Current Employers and ResponsibilitiesPaul is a Fisheries Scientist and an Associate Consultant with Cramer Fish Sciences, and serves as Affiliate Faculty in the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources at the University of Idaho. Responsibilities include designing, securing, implementing, and evaluating a wide range of biological, ecological, and habitat restoration projects, interpreting experimental data, and performing a variety of services for multidisciplinary research projects for agencies, tribes, and academic institutions, including scientific advisement, project management, graduate committee participation, and writing scientific reports and papers.

Previous Employers and Responsibilities Associate Consultant, Fishery Scientist, Cramer Fish Sciences (Formerly S. P. Cramer and Associates)

Moscow, ID. (10/05-Present) Affiliate Faculty, U of I, College of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Department (9/03-present) Senior Fisheries Consultant, S. P. Cramer and Associates, Moscow, ID. (10/02-10/05) Fisheries Scientist (0.5FTE) Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Steelhead kelt reconditioning

project (Fall 01 – Fall 02) Research Support Scientist II, University of Idaho, Center for Salmonid and Freshwater Species at Risk

Aquaculture Research Institute, Fish Genetics Lab, Moscow, ID. (1/00-10/02) Research Associate, University of Idaho, Center for Salmonid and Freshwater Species at Risk Aquaculture

Research Institute, Fish Genetics Lab, Moscow, ID. (1/99-1/00) Independent Fisheries Consultant (1/99-10/02) Doctoral Research Assistant, University of Idaho, Aquaculture Research Institute, Fish Genetics Lab,

Moscow, ID. (7/96-12/98) Fisheries Biologist/Administrator, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, PO. Box 1269, Bonners Ferry, ID. (5/94-7/96) Fisheries Biologist, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, PO. Box 1269, Bonners Ferry, ID. (2/93-5/94) Fisheries Biologist (GS-9-482), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia River Field Station, Cook WA.

(8/90 - 2/93) Relevant Recent Publications

Anders, P. J. and K. I. Ashley. 2007. The clear-water paradox of aquatic ecosystem restoration. Fisheries 32(3):125-128.

Soults, S., B. Chase, and P. Anders. 2005. Operational loss assessment, protection, mitigation and rehabilitation on the Kootenai River floodplain ecosystem: Libby Dam. In: Proceedings of the 135th Annual AFS Meeting, Anchorage AK. September 15-21, 2005.

Soults, S., B. Chase, K. Jorde, M. Burke, R. Benjankar, P. Anders, B. Shafii, and P. Sieracki. 2005. Kootenai River Floodplain Ecosystem Operational Loss Assessment, Protection, Mitigation and Rehabilitation. Annual Report to the Bonneville Power Administration, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho. Sept 1, 2004 to Aug 30, 2005. BPA Project No. 2002-011-00, Contract No. 00012098.

Tetratech, Inc. 2004. Fullerton, B., S. Perkins, and P. Anders (eds.). Kootenai River Habitat and Ecosystem Restoration Strategies. Final Report provided to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA. District. 84 pp. Report prepared by Tetra Tech Inc, Seattle WA. 77 pages + appendices.

Anders, P. and K. Ashley (editors). 2003. An Assessment of Operational Losses and Restoration of the Kootenai River Ecosystem using Historical Topographic Reconstruction and Ecohydraulic Modeling. Draft Report prepared for the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho. Since 1995, Paul authored and co-authored over 100 papers, reports, and articles addressing a wide range of fisheries and aquatic ecology topics.

Since 1995 Paul has authored over 100 technical papers and reports on a wide range of aquatic science topics. For a detailed list of papers and further experience see: http://www.spcramer.com/content/docs/anders_paul.doc

83

Dr. Klaus Jorde

Name of Firm: Entec AG, SwitzerlandName of Staff: JORDE KlausProfession: Civil Engineer, Dr.-Ing., Dipl.-Ing. (M.Sc.), P.E.Date of Birth: 25th September 1959Years with Firm/Entity: Since January 2008Nationality: GermanMembership in Professional Societies: International Association of Hydraulic Engineering and

Research IAHRDeutscher Verband für Wasser, Abwasser und Gewässerschutz DWA

e-mail address: jorde@entec.ch

Dr. Klaus Jorde is a senior civil engineer with more than 20 years experience in hydraulic engineering, hydropower development and ecohydraulics. Dr. Jorde joined Entec Consulting & Engineering AG (www.entec.ch) as Vice President in 2008 after a seven-year period as a professor for ecohydraulics, hydraulic structures and hydropower development at the University of Idaho, USA. His affiliation with Entec is based on a much longer previous collaboration in Asia. His experience with hydropower development reaches from general assessment of regional and local hydropower potentials, pre-feasibility and feasibility studies for low and medium head hydropower plants, including rehabilitation and refurbishment of existing schemes, technical design and analysis, economic evaluation, to environmental and social impact studies. He is among the co-authors of several textbooks on hydropower and other renewable energies and operates his own small hydropower plant in southern Germany.

Since he started the Hydroecological Research Group at the University of Stuttgart, Germany, in the early nineties, his research work has for many year focused on physical processes and ecological functions in river reaches and floodplains affected by hydropower operation, changes of the hydrological regime, river engineering works etc. His group developed field and laboratory measurement techniques and integrated those with newly developed modelling tools, especially the simulation tool CASIMIR (Computer Aided Simulation Model for Instream flow Regulations, see http://www.casimir-software.de/index.html) to asses and quantify effects of hydropower plants or reservoir operations. Klaus Jorde has worked on research projects in this field in Europe, USA, South America and Asia. He is the author or co-author of numerous scientific publications and one of the key organizers of the International Ecohydraulics Conference series. Dr. Jorde still holds an affiliation with the University of Idaho.

Selection of Refereed Journal Papers:

Burke, M., Jorde, K., Buffington, J. (2008): Application of a hierarchical framework for assessing environmental impacts of dam operation: Changes in streamflow, bed mobility and recruitment of riparian trees in a western North American river, J. Environm. Managm. 2008 in press.

Goodwin, P., K. Jorde, C. Meier, and O. Parra. 2006. Minimizing environmental impacts of hydropower development: transfering lessons from past projects to a proposed strategy for Chile. Journal of Hydroinformatics 4, 253-270.

Bratrich, C., Jorde, K., Truffer, B., Markard, J., Meier, W., Peter, A., Schneider, M., and Wehrli, B. (2004). "Green Hydropower: A New Assessment Procedure for River Management." River Research and Applications, 20, 865-882.

Jorde, K. (1997a). "Bottom shear stress pattern and its ecological impact." Int. J. Sediment Transport, 12(3), 369-378.

84

MICHAEL P. BURKE, P.E. Water Resources Engineer

Inter-Fluve, Inc., 1020 Wasco Street, Suite I, Hood River, ORmburke@interfluve.com

Education: Master's of Science Degree (12/06 ): Civil Engineering, Center for Ecohydraulics Research, University of

Idaho, Boise, Idaho 83702. Thesis topic: Linking hydropower operation to modified fluvial processes downstream of Libby Dam, Kootenai River, USA and Canada. Committee: Dr. Klaus Jorde, Dr. John Buffington & Dr. Jeff Braatne.

Bachelor’s of Science (05/93) : Civil Engineering, Water Resources Track, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 (1993).

Professional Affiliations and Registrations Licensed Professional Engineer : ID, OR, WA, CA, CO MN, WI, MA. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) River Restoration Northwest

Current Employer: Inter-Fluve, Inc., Water Resources Engineer (2005-present). Responsible for project management and

engineering with expertise in: Resources Data Acquisition; Hydrologic, Hydraulic and Fluvial Process Analyses; Dam-Related Impacts Analysis; Dam Removal Planning; Applied Aquatic Restoration Planning; Stream Channel Design; Project Management; and Construction Oversight.

Previous Employment (past 15 years): University of Idaho, Research Assistant (2003-2005). Center for Ecohydraulics Research, - Boise, ID. Philip Williams and Associates, Ltd., Associate (1999-2004). – San Francisco, CA & Boise, ID. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Civil Engineer (1997-1998). Oregon District, Salem and

Portland field offices. Department of Water Supply and Sanitation, Kingdom of Nepal, Water Supply and Sanitation Engineer (1994-

1996) – Sagarmatha Zone (Peace Corps position). Student Trainee-Hydrology (1991-1992) USGS – Water Resources Division, Wyoming District.

Description of Expertise:Mike Burke is a professional engineer with fourteen years of experience in the water resources field. Throughout his career, he has been dedicated to aquatic restoration and ecosystem health across spatial scales, from the watershed level down to individual streambanks. His experience includes every step in the project process, including data aquisition, hydrologic, hydraulic and fluvial process analyses, applied restoration planning and design, and construction oversight. Mike’s interests include addressing the ecologic impacts of water resources development, and habitat restoration based on understanding of large scale physical influences and ecologic response.

Technical Publications and Presentations:Burke, M., Jorde, K., & Buffington, in press. Application of a hierarchical framework for assessing environmental

impacts of dam operation: changes in streamflow, bed mobility and recruitment of riparian trees in a western North American river. Journal of Environmental Management.

Jorde, K., Burke, M., Scheidt, N., Welcker, C., King, S. & Borden, C., 2007. Reservoir operations, physical processes, and ecosystem losses. In: Habersack, H., Piégay, H., Rinaldi, M. (Eds.), Gravel-Bed Rivers VI: From Process Understanding to River Restoration. Elsevier, pp. 607-636.

Burke, M & Jorde, K, 2007. Linking hydropower operation to modified ecosystem processes downstream of Libby Dam, Kootenai River, U.S.A and Canada. Presented at Oregon State University Symposium on Modeling of Dam Effects. Stevenson, WA. April 11-13.

Burke, M & Jorde, K, 2007. Reservoir Operations and Ecosystem Losses: Modified Fluvial Processes Downstream of Libby Dam, Kootenai River, U.S.A. and Canada. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics. IAHR, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Burke, M., Jorde, K., Buffington, J., Braatne, J., & Benjankar, R., 2006. Spatial Distribution of Impacts to Channel Bed Mobility Due to Flow Regulation, Kootenai River, USA. Proceedings of the 8th Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, NV.

Burke, M & Jorde, K, 2004. Conceptual framework for assessment of ecosystem losses due to reservoir operations. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics. IAHR, Madrid, Spain.

85

TIMOTHY D. HATTEN

DEGREES

Ph.D. Entomology, University of Idaho, Moscow, 2006 M.S. Entomology, Washington State University2, Pullman, 2002 B.S. Renewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, 1984

CURRENT EMPLOYER-WORK EXPERIENCE

President, Invertebrate Ecology (IE) Inc. (Oct 2006 – present). I am the president and CEO of Invertebrate Ecology Inc., a small consulting business that provides assistance to clientele regarding all aspects of applied and theoretical entomology. Services include sampling design, sampling, sample processing, identifying and classifying specimens, data analysis (parametric and nonparametric methods, community and landscape statistics, etc.) and report writing.

Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Idaho (Feb 2007 – present). I am working with an interdisciplinary team of researchers to understand how crop production systems affect pests, natural enemies and detritivores in agroecosystems of N. Idaho.

Vegetation Technician, University of Idaho (May 2006 - September 2006). Fellow, National Science Foundation Integrated Graduate Education and Research

Traineeship Program (IGERT), University of Idaho (January 2005 – June 2005. Graduate Student Research Assistantship, University of Idaho (May 2001 – Dec 2004. Graduate Student Research Assistantship, Washington State University (August 1999 – May

2001). Environmental Protection Specialist, EPA, 1994 to 1999 Soil Conservationist, USDA, NRCS 1988 to June 1999. Peach Corps volunteer, 1886 to 1988

EXPERTISE Landscape and community ecology with emphasis on invertebrate fauna All aspects of sampling, collecting, processing and identifying invertebrates, terrestrial and

aquatic Analysis of parametric, nonparametric, fine- and coarse scale data Report and manuscript preparation

PUBLICATIONSLooney, C., T. Caldwell, T. Hatten, C. Lorion, and S.D. Eigenbrode. 2006. Potential habitat factors influencing carrion beetle

communities of Palouse Prairie remnants. Pp. 117-121 in Egan, D. and J. Harrington [eds.], Proceedings of the Nineteenth North American Prairie Conference. August 8-12, 2004, Madison: University Communications, Madison, WI.

Hatten, T.D., S.D. Eigenbrode, N.A. Bosque-Pérez, S. Gebbie, F. Merickel, and C. Looney. 2006. Influence of matrix elements on prairie-inhabiting Curculionidae, Tenebrionidae and Scarabaeidae in the Palouse. Pp. 101-108 in Egan, D. and J. Harrington [eds.], Proceedings of the Nineteenth North American Prairie Conference. August 8-12, 2004, Madison: University Communications, Madison, WI.

Hatten, T.D., N.A. Bosque-Pérez, J.R. LaBonte, S.O. Guy and S. D. Eigenbrode. 2007. Effects of tillage on the activity-density and diversity of carabid beetles in spring and winter crops. Environmental Entomology 36 (2): 356-368.

Hatten, T.D., N.A. Bosque-Pérez, J. Johnson-Maynard, and S. D. Eigenbrode. 2007. Tillage differentially affects the capture rate of pitfall traps for three species of carabid beetles. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 124: 177-187.

Hatten, T.D., S. D. Eigenbrode, J. Johnson-Maynard, K. Umiker, J.R. LaBonte and N.A. Bosque-Pérez. 2009. Effect of crops, tillage and soil organic carbon on carabid beetles in commercial agricultural fields of the Inland Pacific Northwest, USA. Agricultural and Forest Entomology (In review).

86

THOMAS A. O’NEILNorthwest Habitat Institute

P.O. Box 333, Corvallis, Oregon 97339-0333 1-541-231-2527 (Cell) 1-541-753-2199 (W)

e-mail: habitat@nwhi.orgEducation: M.S. Wildlife Biology, University of Montana, 1981 B.S. Wildlife Biology, University of Montana, 1978 B.A. Political Science, University of Toledo, 1974

Associate Professor – University of Chicago 1985-1989Adjunct Faculty – Oregon State University 1997-1999

Certification: Wildlife Biologist by The Wildlife Society – September 1982

Employers:1999-Present Northwest Habitat Institute, Corvallis, OR.

Director/Wildlife Ecologist and Co-founder1989-1999 Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife - Ecological Analysis Center

Corvallis, OR. Wildlife Research Ecologist/Program Leader(1995-1997) Wildlife Investigation Laboratory, Program Leader1985-1989 Argonne National Laboratory, University of Chicago,

Portland, OR. Wildlife Ecologist/Associate Professor1982-1985 Montana Power Company, Butte, MT.

Senior Wildlife BiologistResponsibilities:I have been actively involved in wildlife ecology issues for the past 30 years. Current and past responsibilities have included the supervision of a staff of professionals actively involved in the analysis of biotic resources; the design and implementation of vegetation/wildlife ecology field studies; design, development, and maintenance of a computer information system; utilizing geographic information and mapping with remote sensing systems; multidisciplinary impact assessment and siting analysis for planned and existing hydroelectric facilities, transmission projects, major coal-fired generating stations, oil and gas developments, and logging sales; post-operational monitoring studies for various energy related industry projects; technical reviewer of the study plans for siting the high level nuclear waste repository; project budgeting; technical and fiscal control and review of extensive contract services involving hydrology, geology, range analysis, terrestrial and waterfowl ecology; familiar with forestry practices; participant in ecological systems modeling and cumulative impact analysis.

Selective Publications:Scheerer, P. D. and T.A. O’Neil. In Press A Recovery Crediting System that Supports Conservation

Banking for an Endangered Floodplain Minnow in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Submitted to: American Fisheries Society.

D.H. Johnson, B.M. Shrier, J.S. O’Neal, J.A. Knutzen, X. Augerot, T.A. O’Neil, T.N. Pearsons, I.G. Cowx . 2007. The Salmonid Field Protocol Handbook - Data collection methods for status and trends in salmon and trout populations.. American Fisheries Society. 478 pp.

Johnson, D.H., T.A. O'Neil. 2001. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR. 736 pp.

O’Neil, T.A., P. Bettinger, B. Marcot, W. Luscombe, G. Koeln, H. Bruner, C. Barrett, J. Pollock, and S. Bernatas. 2005. Application of Spatial Technologies in Wildlife Biology. Editor C. Braun, Chapter 15 In Wildlife Techniques Manual 6th Edition. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD.

O’Neil, T.A., and D.H. Johnson. 2001. Oregon’s and Washington’s wildlife species and their habitats. in: Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Johnson, D.H. and T. A. O’Neil (managing directors). Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR. 1-23 pp.

O’Neil, T.A., K.A. Bettinger, M. Vander Heyden, B.G. Marcot, T.K. Mellen, W. M. Vander Haegen, D.H. Johnson, P.J. Doran, L. Wunder, and C. Barrett. 2001. Structural conditions and habitat elements of

87

Oregon and Washington. in: Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Johnson, D.H. and T. A. O’Neil (managing directors). Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR. 115-139 pp.

88

BAHMAN SHAFII, PH.D.Professor of Plant Science and Director of Statistical ProgramsCollege of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Idaho

bshafii@uidaho.edu

Education B.S. Agronomy/Agricultural Engineering, Rezaeyeh University, 1977. M.S. Agricultural Economics, University of Idaho, 1980. M.S. Statistics, University of Idaho, 1982. Ph.D. Forest Biometrics, University of Idaho, 1988.

Experience in Educational Institutions Lecturer, Department of Management and Systems, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, 1984-1988.Professor, Plant Science, Department of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, July 2004-present. Director, Statistical Programs, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, January 1988-present.

Academic Affiliations Adjunct Full Professor, Department of Statistics, College of Science, University of Idaho.Adjunct Full Professor, Department of Business, College of Business and Economics, University of Idaho.

Courses TaughtQmeth. 215 - Introductory Business Statistics; Math. 111 - Finite Mathematics; Qmeth. 412 - Advanced Business Statistics; Stat. 150 - Introduction to Statistics; Stat. 251 - Principles of Statistics; Stat. 262 - Decision Analysis; Stat. 271 - Statistical Inference and Decision Analysis; Stat. 300 - Intermediate Social Statistics; Stat. 301 - Probability and Statistics; Stat. 401 - Statistical Methods; ED 585 - Computer System for Educational Research, PlSci 502 - Applied Regression Analysis

Selected Honors and AwardsTeaching Excellence Award: Department of Management and Systems, Washington State University, 1986; Outstanding Employee Award: University of Idaho, 1992; Award of Excellence: For outstanding paper published in Weed Technology, Weed Science Society of America, 2003; Subject of record in Marquis Who’s Who in America, 57th Ed. 2002, and Who’s Who in the World 21st Ed. 2004; President, Snake River Chapter of the American Statistical Association, 2004-2005; Chapter Recognition Award: American Statistical Association, 2005; Distinguished Alumni Award: University of Idaho, 2008.

Membership in Professional Organizations

Member of the American Statistical Association; Member of the International Biometric Society; Member of the American Agricultural Economics Association; Member of Sigma XI, the Scientific Research Society; WNAR/ENAR representative to the American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Areas of Expertise

Design and analyses of experiments, Biometrics, Ecological modeling, Nonlinear Regression, Statistical computing.

Refereed Publications/Professional Presentations

Too numerous to list, please see complete list at: http://www.uidaho.edu/ag/statprog

89

STEWART B. ROODDept. Biological Sci., Univ. Lethbridge, 4401 University Dr. W., Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

rood@uleth.ca

Education: Ph.D. (1981): Plant Physiology, University of Calgary. 1981. Thesis: Genetic, Environmental and

Hormonal Control of Maize Development. B.Sc. (With Distinction) (1976): Physiological Psychology-Biology, Univ. Alberta. 1976.

Current Employment: Killam Research Fellow (2009-present), Board of Governors Research Chair in Environmental Science

(2002-present) and Professor (1993-present). University of Lethbridge. Current research program involves studying the effects of river damming on floodplain forests and the ecohydrology and physiology of riparian vegetation.

Expertise

Expertise lies in the science and management of rivers and river valley floodplains. My research program has focused on the consequences of river damming and flow regulation on river channels and floodplain forests that are generally dominated by cottonwood trees, with an emphasis on conservation and restoration. This program thus integrates knowledge and techniques from the disciplines of ecology, plant physiology, hydrology and fluvial geomorphology. I have served as an environmental consultant to agencies across western North America that build and operate dams, and was a Co-Director of the Alberta Ingenuity Centre for Water Research, a pan-Alberta initiative to scale-up water research in Alberta.

Selected relevant publications:

Braatne, J.H., S.B. Rood, L. A. Goater and C. L. Blair. 2008. Analyzing the Impacts of Dams on Riparian Ecosystems: A Review of Research Strategies and their Relevance to the Snake River through Hells Canyon. Environmental Management. 41: 267-281.

Rood, S.B., G.M. Samuelson, J.H. Braatne, C.R. Gourley, F.M.R. Hughes, and J.M. Mahoney. 2005. Managing river flows to restore floodplain forests. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 3: 193-201.

Rood, S.B., J.H. Braatne, and F.M.R. Hughes. 2003. Ecophysiology of riparian cottonwoods: streamflow dependence, water relations, and restoration. Tree Physiology 23: 1113-1124.

Rood, S.B., et al. 2003. Flows for floodplain forests: a successful riparian restoration. BioScience 53: 647-656.Polzin, M.L. and S.B. Rood. 2000 The impacts of damming and flow stabilization on riparian processes and

cottonwoods along the Kootenay River. Rivers 7: 221-232.

90

GREGORY GEORGE EGGER

Degrees:

Federal Secondary College for Agriculture in Alpine Regions Ursprung; Salzburg/Austria; 1981 University of Salzburg and Karl-Franzens Universtiy Graz: studies in Biology/Botany; 1988 University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU): study in Landscape ecology

and Landscape architecture; 1992 Postdoctoral lecture qualification at the University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences Vienna;

2009

Certification Status: Master of Science, Doctor of Natural Science, External lecturer (assistant professor)

Current Employer and responsibilities:

Executive director of Umweltbuero Klagenfurt GmbH (Environmental Office Klagenfurt Ltd.); Business

management and project management (since 1992))

List of previous employers:University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences Vienna (1990-1992)University of Idaho, Center for Ecohydraulics Research (Visiting professor, 2006)

Expertise:Landscape management, main focus on rivers and floodplains; development of ecological concepts and models of riparian vegetation; lecturer at the University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Vienna, Alpen-Adria University Klagenfurt (Austria), Carinthia University of Applied Sciences (Austria) and University of Idaho (USA).

Selected international publications:

Egger, G., Exner, A., Jorde, K., Benjankar, R. (2009): Impacts of Reservoir Operations on Succession and Habitat Dynamics: Calibration af a Dynamic Floodplain Vegetation Model for the Kootenai River, USA. 7th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics 12-16 January 2009 Concepcion (Chile).

Benjankar, R., Egger, G., Jorde, K., (2009): Development of a Dynamic Floodplain Vegetation Model for the Kootenai River, USA: Concept and Methodology. 7th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics 12-16 January 2009 Concepcion (Chile).

Benjankar, R., Egger, G., Xie, Y. & Jorde, K. (2007): Reservoir Operations and Ecosystem Losses: Concept and Application of a Dynamic Floodplain Vegetation Model at the Kootenai River, USA. Proceeding: 6th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics 18-23 February 2007 Christchurch Convention Centre (New Zealand)

Egger, G., Benjankar, R., Davis, L. & Jorde, K. (2007): Simulated effects of dam operation and water diversion on riparian vegetation of the Lower Boise River, Idaho, USA. In: Harmonizing the Demands of Art and Nature in Hydraulics, 32nd Congress of IAHR, Juli 1-6, 2007 - Venice, Italy, Proceeding: 1-14

Egger, G., Angermann, K., Mader, H., Niederbichler, I., Dox, J., Häupler, B., Gabriel, C., Kerle, F., Schneider, M., Schmutz, S. & Muhar, S. (2005): RiverSmart - a decision support system for ecological assessment of impacts and measures on rivers. Hydro 2005, Villach, Austria 17-20 October 2005, Session paper (CD), The International Journal on Hydropower & Dams (Aqua-Media International), 7 pp.

91