4 



s^YTic m? mciHEreMflsak 



# 





,/w 



AUG 13 1370 



IV. ,.'. 



FT.:... 





Ei>iEiP./\ni~rr:iiE;rrTr >id:f 



Region One 

 A+90 N. Meridian 

 Kali spell, MT 59901 

 August 6, 1979 



Wilbur Raymond 



Dept. Natural Resources 



and Conservation 



Dept. of Energy Planning 



Helena, MT 59^01 



Dear Mr. Raymond: 



. writing in regards to the recent Interagency meeting held in Libby on 

 July 30>31 2nd August 1. There were some questions as to the need for 

 additional data on several issues dealing with the fisheries resource in the 

 Kootenai Falls area. Purpose of the first year of study by the Montana 

 rtment of Fish, Wildlife and Parks was to collect baseline data and 

 identify potential problem areas. Several problem areas were identified in 

 the Kootenai Falls Environmental Aauatic Study, 1) Impact Assessment, 

 Patrick J. Graham, 1979> Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 2) Four specific 

 concerns include minimum flow over the Falls, recreational value and potential 

 losses in the area, effect of minimum flow and intake structure on downstream 

 migrating fish population, distribution of white sturgeon in the study area 

 and potential effects of the project on sturgeon. 



The Interagency meeting produced some questions as to the seriousness of the 

 issues. These resulted from a lack of familiarity with the available data. 

 However, I wanted to make available additional data collected this summer to 

 substantiate some of our concerns and present them in a way that may be easier 

 to interpret. All data can be found in existing files or reports of the 

 Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 



A case has been made about the potential problems with the intake structure 

 and proposed operating flow. It was agreed that there is a serious problem 

 for downstream migrating aquatic animals due, to the volume of water that 

 would be diverted. 



Rainbow trout were tagged with individually numbered tags between Kootenai 

 Falls and China Rapids during September of 1978. Tag returns through July 

 of 1979 resulted in 18 recaptures of which 5 had moved downstream over 

 Kootenai Falls representing 28 percent of the recaptures. Since more fi-hing 

 pressure "occurs upstream from the? Falls, I believe the number of recaptures 

 below the Falls represents a minimum estimate of movement. Electro fishing 

 samples in the Falls area indicated there were 228 rainbow over 9 inches total 

 length per 1000 feet of stream, but this was a low estimate as the extensive 



