Overall, the ISRP judges the project proposal and program to meet scientific criteria. The project’s actions and RME address losses due to construction and operation of Libby Dam. Libby Dam has no upstream or downstream passage, which contributes to population losses. While this project is analogous in many ways to the MFWP-sponsored project associated with Hungry Horse Dam mitigation (199101903), the ISRP judged this proposal to have a more cohesive approach and presentation. The sponsor’s in-person presentation provided additional clarity and an introductory level of progress and accomplishments touched on in the proposal. 

Similar to the HHD mitigation, the ISRP recommends to Council that following the retrospective report and review of HHD mitigation, project sponsors for Libby Dam mitigation undertake a comparable retrospective report of project history, results and accomplishments toward addressing the loss statement and mitigation plan as well as prioritizing future actions. The sponsors describe a three-phase timeline for mitigation, which will serve as a useful template for such a retrospective presentation. Currently, priority is described as “Priority for protection are those watershed which have relatively undisturbed habitats that contain strong populations of native species." The challenge for sponsors and others in the subbasin will be to categorize specific tributaries or reaches that fit this, and lesser, priorities. As part of the prioritization effort, the ISRP challenges the sponsors to consider the adequacy and effectiveness of moving toward incorporating and evaluating more passive restoration techniques where opportunities present, with Didymo suppression in the Kootenai and sediment removal in the Fisher River being exceptions.

While the ISRP requests no specific response at this time, a number of items emerged from the review for consideration by sponsors as they undertake activities and ultimately report on accomplishments.

Deliverables:

DELV-1. Mitigation effectiveness monitoring - The ISRP recommends that a retrospective analysis and report be undertaken in the future to detail protocols, accomplishments, and outcomes of the mitigation activities since project was begun (see comments above).

DELV-3. Remove non-native fish - The ISRP has previously identified the need for follow-up monitoring to examine effectiveness where non-native fish are to be suppressed/eradicated, such as in the Flathead subbasin and elsewhere. This is especially salient where a risk continues for hybridization between restored native and non-native species continues. Moreover, it appears that for WCT restoration in Boulder Creek the state’s MO12 origin trout will be used as a founder stock rather than a translocation from a more related source within the subbasin. The origin of the semi-domesticated MO12 trout is outside the Kootenai basin. The ISRP challenges the sponsors to consider the alternative approach(s).

DELV-4. Didymo research - This activity appears to be in its conceptual stage of modify nutrients and will benefit from a well-designed approach to ensure it is sensitive to response and overall utility to river managers.

DELV -7, -8, and -9 describe a variety of stream habitat activities in five streams. Evaluation of the effectiveness in terms of fish population responses for these and related projects is needed and should be part of a mitigation retrospective. Previous efforts have shown that there are significant challenges with implementation and effectiveness including major problems with voles and deer, weeds, the need to water seedings, high peak stream flows, presumably low inherent stream productivity, and erosive bed materials. There may be opportunities to consider more passive restoration.

Data Management: Detail on protocols for the data management approach are important to document. This project has collected considerable data and will continue to do so, making the adequacy of the data management approach vital to ongoing adaptive management.

Adaptive Management: There quite a few successful activities, so the restoration actions could be used for demonstrations to attract funds from other sources for the restoration of other sites. The public could be engaged or encouraged to be supportive of these activities through these demonstrations.

Publications: After all these years of research and restoration activities, the group needs to have more publications in the primary literature. Very few people or other similar projects are benefitting from what is being learned. Without peer-reviewed publications, the project is not achieving its full potential.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/13/2012 1:51:44 PM.

This is a reasonably thorough proposal for continued mitigation of Libby Dam environmental impacts via stream habitat enhancement. The current and previous ISRP reviewers were concerned that the stream restoration efforts seemed to be following too much of a "hard-engineering" path. That concern was heightened by the proposal's reporting of the lower Cleveland results. These results call into question the "hard" fixes/active restoration, but the proposal continues to emphasize heavy equipment, logs, and rocks. The cutthroat trout seem to be responding to the restoration activities as a disturbance and avoiding the area. The responses adequately clarified the ISRP's questions. The rationale for assisting natural, passive restoration with "hard" construction techniques as well as riparian plantings seems reasonable. Physical data and narrative results were presented that indicated the success of creating stream habitat desired by salmonids (according to literature cited). It is reasonable to expect some time to elapse before biological responses are evident. There is a commitment to monitoring biological features (proposal) that will test for the expected biological responses in the long run. Knowing how labile (apt to change) some other physical stream improvement projects have been and the vagaries of biological expansion, the ISRP strongly supports the continued M&E as well as further stream rehabilitation.

The proposal provides generally good background, from general Libby Dam effects to specific project streams. The work is largely related to the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program and Libby Mitigation Plan, although justification might have gone broader. There is a rather good narrative of interrelationships with other projects. The objectives for the proposed work include continued stream restoration, removal of non-native salmonids with toxicants, and burbot stock assessment. The proposal provides a good history that emphasizes actual results not just tasks undertaken. Results of the recent phase of the Libby Creek Lower Cleveland restoration are given in good detail for physical and biological attributes.

The soundness of the techniques depends on the results produced. Results of the enhancement actions presented in the proposal did not provide convincing evidence that the methods are generating fish benefits, but the response helped place these in perspective. The sponsors are confident that this project will provide significant and lasting fishery benefits. They completed a project in Upper Cleveland Creek in 2002 and they are accumulating fish productivity data beginning in 2003 to test their hypothesis concerning what was necessary to increase productivity for the fish populations. Given that it is a test, it would be best if it were completed before the assumption is made that it was successful and similar methods applied elsewhere. The ISRP suggests that the test include comparison of the recruitment to adult stages from production in the treated area and in a similar but untreated area.