teria. On the other hand, apparently no indication has been given by the Corps re- 

 garding the frequency with which the maximum fluctuation or minimum discnarge limits 

 will be attained by incorporating pov;er into the reregulating dam. The terms "infre- 

 quently" and "emergency situations" do not adequately define frequency limitations. 

 It is feared that emergency situations could arise in a peaking operation every week 

 and be a weekend in duration. The State of Montana should not endorse maximum fluc- 

 tuation criteria and minimum discharge limits that are, in fact, normal operating 

 criteria. 



Mitigation for Fish and Wildlife Losses 



Opposing viewsare held with regard to the mitigation of fish and wildlife losses 

 associated with Libby Dam and the proposed reregulating facility. 



The Corps of Engineers maintains the position that all fish and wildlife losses 

 resulting from the project should be treated as a single issue. That is, the exist- 

 ing dam and the proposed dam are to be considered as a single project in terms of 

 fish and wildlife mitigation measures. 



The Montana Department of Fish and Game, on the other hand, with the concurrence 

 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, maintains the position that fish and wildlife 

 losses associated with the existing dam and any future losses resulting from the con- 

 struction of a reregulating facility are separate issues. According to this position, 

 after measures have been taken to mitigate losses already realized (i.e. losses rea- 

 lized as a result of Libby Dam), additional compensation for losses that would re- 

 sult from the construction of the reregulating facility will be necessary. 



Fisheries 



Prior to impoundment, the Kootenai River was a good fishery along its entire 

 length in Montana, capable of sustaining harvests far in excess of present or antic- 

 ipated demands. The mainstem and nearly all of its tributaries of significant size 

 were self-sufficient in terms of reproduction. And, although the Kootenai River re- 

 ceived rather light fishing pressure, due largely to the area's low human populat- 

 tion, it was classified as a Class two stream. Class two stream are those considered 

 to possess qualities of statewide significance or value. 



Since Libby Dam's construction, fishing below the dam has improved, particularly 

 between Libby and the dam. Slightly warmer water temperatures, the el imination--or 

 at least reduction--of natural and man-induced pollution from upstream, and the dam 

 itself, acting as a barrier to the natural upstream movements of fishes, are a few 

 factors to which improved fishing may be attributed. How long the condition will last 

 is unknown. 



On the other hand, Libby Dam has adversely affected the Kootenai River fishery 

 upstream. A fluctuating reservoir with annual drawdowns ranging up to 175 feet and 

 the flooding of 90 miles of the mainstem and roughly 14 miles of important tributary 

 stream present conditions that favor rough fish. Past experiences with reservoirs 

 such as Hungry Horse and numerous others support this feeling of pessimism. 



Congressional authorization was given by the Omnibus Bill of 1974 for the miti- 

 gation of fishery losses associated with the Libby Dam project not to exceed :j4 mil- 

 lion. The major portion of that money will be used to construct and operate a fish 

 hatchery at Murray Springs. 



It is agreed that the Department of Fish and Game will operate the hatchery 

 under contract with the Corps of Engineers, but the length of time the Corps can 

 fund the operation of the hatchery under the $4 million appropriation is not knovm 

 at present. The acquisition of land for the water supply is under a condemnation 



