water., allovn'ng fishermen access to the shoreline and allowing tree and shrub 

 roots to reach the water table. The new shoreline should be wide enough to M 

 allow tree and shrub establishment between the railroad grade and the river. " 

 Shoreline length should be maximized by the creation of peninsulas and sheltered 

 downstream coves (Stoecker 1978). A few large boulders left protruding above 

 the pool some distance fron shore would provide roosting and loafing areas 

 for waterfowl and other bird species. In no case should a steep riprap or 

 fill slope extend from the railroad bed to the river bottom. 



It is likely that a well-planned and executed habitat restoration pi'ogram 

 •/ill e\/entually be effective in restoring a portion of the riparian habitats 

 lost as a result of thf project. However, assuming only 4.5 ha (11 acres) is 

 restored (as proposed by NLI 1978), there will be an unmitigated net loss of 

 at least 1.3 ha (5.8 acres) of riparian tree and shrub habitat. While it would 

 be possible to restore an area greater than the 4.5 ha (11 acres) proposed by 

 NLI, it is unlikely that sufficient fill is available to restore the entire 

 area inundated, or that costs of such extensive restoration would be justified 

 in light of the benefits. Reducing the volume of the pool while maintaining 

 constant forebay elevation would not affect the power generating capability_ 

 of ohe project, since the head would remain unchanged, so there is the possi- 

 bility that somewhat more than 4.5 ha (11 acres) could be restored. 



Construction of the project is scheduled to take, place over 4.5 yr 

 (NLI 1978), and it is likely that 15 to 20 yr might be required to restore 

 riparian habitats and the railroad right-of-way to a condition similar to 

 that found today. The wildlife losses -- including not only population losses 

 but lost viewing or hunting opportunities -- which would accrue during this ^ 

 period are both significant and irretrievable. W 



Changes i n Upstream Aquatic Habitat 



Impoundment of Kootenai River by the proposed dam would create a relatively 

 deep, slow-moving pool extending roughly 4.8-8.0 km (3-5 mi) upstream from the Falls, 

 This could affect a number of aquatic species, especially waterfowl and 

 furbearers (effects'dn littoral habitats and associated wildlife species have 

 been discussed previously). Furbearers, such as beaver and muskrat, would 

 probably benefit from the project, as pool elevations would be relatively stable 

 and favorable vegetation would probably thrive along the more stable shoreline. 

 Use of the pool area by waterfowl for feeding would probably decrease with im- 

 poundment. Harlequins, common goldeneyes, and common mergansers prefer rapidly 

 moving shallow water areas in which to feed, areas which would be inundated by 

 impoundment. The proximity of very swift, turbulent water to such feeding areas 

 is essential to harlequins (Bengtson 1966). Both mallards and Canada 

 geese prefer rocky sheltered areas and streamside areas for loafing and resting; 

 submergence of rocks and gravel bars would eliminate these areas. Mallards 

 were seen consistently on shore in winter on both sides of the river. All of 

 these shores would be lost in the pool area after impoundment. Suitability 

 of the area as brood-rearing habitat might also be affected by the project. 

 Broods of most species of waterfowl using the area survive almost exclusively 

 on macroinvertebrates during the first two weeks of life, and -- depending 

 on shoreline configuration of the restored habitats -- impoundment of the river 

 and altered flow regimes would likely affect availability of this food source. ^ 

 Eventual siltation of rock interstices on the pool bottom would change produc- ^T 

 tion of invertebrates used by waterfowl. Migrating, wintering, and other non- 

 breeding waterfowl would probably continue to use the pool as a loafing area 

 (provided the pool effect does not cause the river to ice over in winter). 



96 



