HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA308---------·--
:..
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
TASK 7: ENVIRONMENTAL
FISH ECOLOGY -19 ao·
MAY i981
. r .
I ,
I .
i
I
I
I
I
I :
I
l
I
I .
I I .
?repar:!d for: Frepaeod b y .; I I
TK
1425
.S8 I ES8 l no.308 ~ALA~VA P0'""1ER r~ ~· r \. 1"'"'\ V v 1
T~U~ICti~i I l ·'
& nv4tonm~n~ol · . .' 1· i ·
.ii}eG!GUJ't.r ,; me .. i\UT~-iORfTr~· ·-~:·---·j l
r------..--------'------------,f ,, '
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
TASK 7: ENVIRONMENTAL
,..--
,..--Prepared for:
~. ARLIS g Alaska Resources
LD Library & tnfonnatJOn Servtces
~ Anchorage. Alaska
M
FISH ECOLOGY -1980
MAY 1981
Prepared by :
Terte1hial
E nvironmeRlal
Speciali1tt, Inc.
M --ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY __ ___.
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library & Informat1on Servtces
Anchorage, Alaska
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES ANNUAL REPORT 1980
SUBTASK 7.10 FISH ECOLOGY
JUNE 1981
by
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS, Inc.
Phoenix, New York 13135
for
ACRES AMERICAN, INCORPORATED
Liberty Bank Building, Main at Court
Buffalo, New York 14202
TJ<
J1;;s
r SB
£)6
na/&9
SUMMARY
The following are the specific objectives of Terrestrial Environmental
Specialists, Inc. (TES) with respect to fish ecology (Subtask 7 .10) in the
first year of the program: (1) identify areas of potential impact, (2)
identify the information necessary to assess these impacts, (3) locate
available information applicable to the Susitna River and the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project, (4) identify information deficiencies, and (5) aid
in the selection of a project development scheme. In addition, assistance
has been given (under Subtask 7 .04) in the development of hydrology and
water quality sampling programs that will be beneficial in ascertaining
pass i b 1 e impacts upon the fishery resource and aid in mitigating these
impacts.
Alaska Department. of Fish and Game (ADF&G} baseline fisheries studies
commenced in late 1980. Data from the field studies is being included in
ADF&G 1 s first 1981 Quarterly Report, and thus were not available for this
1980 Annual Report.
TES is collecting pertinent literature on impact assessment and mitigation
measures applicable to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. The compilation
of fundamental 1 ife hi story and ecology information on selected anadromous
and resident fishes has also been assumed by TES to supplement the fishery
field program resu1ts. This information is being obtained by contacting
individuals with expertise in specific facets of fish ecology, searching
personal libraries and files, gathering information from university and
federal agency libraries, reviewing indexes of appropriate foreign
publications, examining 11 in-housen programs for research and progress
reports of appropriate federal and state agencies, as well as universities,
and reviewing reports from the management agents of the AOF&G for the
Susitna-Cook Inlet area and adjacent waters.
As a guide to compliance with the FERC cr·iteria for license application,
potential impact issues and the kinds of engineering, hydrological and
biological information required have been compiled. This information is
to be supplied toTES from Acres, R&M Consultants and ADF&G.
Acres has been provided with, by request and for use in their design
considerations, information and reconmendations concerning downstream
flow, total dissolved gas pressure, and temperature of the discharge
water. Reregulation of downstream f1ow from daily peaking operations has
been reconmended as ·an essential part of any development plan.
Potential program modifications and the concerns of federal, state, and
local agencies in regard to the fish ecology studies have been addressed
byTES. Recommendations have been submitted to Acres American.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
1 -INTRODUCTION -----------------------------------------------1
2 -METHODS --------------------------------------------,--------2
2.1 -General ----------------------,------------------------2
2.2 -Definition of the Study Area -------------------------4
3 -RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF BASELINE DATA --------------------7
4 -IMPACT ASSESSMENT --------------...,---------------------------13
5 -MITIGATION PLANNING ----------------------------------------29
6 -REFERENCES --------------------·----------------------------32
7 -AUTHORITIES CONTACTED ----------------------:----------------34
7.1 -Federal Agencies -------------------------------------34
7.2-State Agencies---------------------------------------35
7.3-Other Organizations and Individuals------------------36
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 -Comparison of incubation times (to hatching) that
have been reported by U.S. and Soviet sources for
the five species of salmon ----------------------------11
TABLE 2 -Status of information required for assessment of
potential impact issues concerning fish ecology -------14
TABLE 3 -Checklist for study of the possib1e impacts upon the
fishery resource in the study area as a result of
construction and operation of the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project -----------------------------------------------23
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 -Comparison of particle size distribution of
sediment samples from the egg strata of spawning
redds of chum and chinook salmon ---------------------12
1 -INTRODUCTION
This Annual Report describes the information acquired by Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists, Inc. (TES) and its consultants during Phase
I (preceding license application) of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project
with respect to Fish Ecology (Subtask 7.10). It also includes Subtask
7.04, coordination with the water quality program performed under Task
3.
The primary objectives of the fish ecology studies for the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project are to (1) describe the fisheries resources of the
Susitna River, (2) assess the impacts of development and operation of
the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on this fishery, and (3) propose
mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. Meeting the first
objective is the responsibility of the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G). The second and third objectives are the responsibility
of Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. (TES). To accomplish
these two objectives, TES and its consultants, Robert W. Williams,
Clinton E. Atkinson, and Milo C. Bell, will rely heavily upon
information gathered by Acres American, ADF&G, R&M, and the U.S.
Geological Survey for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, as well as
upon available material from other sources.
The specific objectives of TES in the first year of the project were
the following: (1) identify the areas of potential impact, (2)
identify the information necessary to assess those potential impacts,
(3) locate available data applicable to the Susitna River and the
Sus i tn a Hydroe 1 ectri c Project, ( 4) identify information deficiencies,
(5) aid in the selection of a project development scheme, and (6)
assist in the development of hydrology and water qua1ity sampling
programs that -will be beneficial in ascertaining possible impacts upon
the fishery resource and aid in mitigating these impacts.
2 -METHODS
2.1 -General
The methodology section presents only those methods used during 1980.
The procedures outlined in the TES Procedures Manual for Subtask 7.10
cover the literature review, impact assessment, mitigation planning,
and data and program review. During 1980, much was done in 1 iterature
review. A systematic search of all sources of pertinent published and
unpublished information was initiated. The following procedure was
used in the collection of needed material:
(a} search personal libraries and files;
(b) contact individuals that have worked in the specific field, and
who may possess or have knowledge of bibliograph.ies in those
fields;
(c) examine published bibliographic lists and indexes for federal,
state and other publications;
(d) search the file catalogues of the libraries of the University of
Washington, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Juneau), and
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Seattle, Auke Bay);
(e) obtain bibliographic computer print-outs for key words (i.e.,
subjects} through the inter-library and other literature search
an<! retrieval services, and arrange for copies of the most
pertinent articles;
(f) review the indexes of appropriate foreign publications, especially
the literature and reports of work being done in Canada, Japan,
the USSR, and the northern European countries;
2
(g) examine 11 in-house 11 programs for research, progress reports, and
budget requests for the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the Universities of
Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska for information on
on-going and unpublished studies; and
{h) review reports from the management agents of the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game for the Susitna-Cook Inlet area and adjacent
waters.
Pertinent reports and other materials are being examined. The findings
relating to potential impacts and their mitigation are being
catalogued. In general, this information relates the biological,
physical, and chemical factors of the environment to the movement,
reproduction, growth, and survival of anadromous and resident fishes
found in the Susitna drainage. A bibliography is being prepared in a
form suitable for ready reference of team members involved in the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
The primary effort in the areas of impact assessment and mitigation
planning was in providing Acres American with expert advice, upon
request, in evaluating and planning alternative plans for project
development. This input was concentrated in the last three months of
1980 and was directed towards reviewing four alternatives that included
a dam at Watana and power tunnels extending downstream, and various
staging alternatives to two dam schemes (Olson, High Devil Canyon and
Vee vs. Devil Canyon and Watana).
The task of data and program review in which TES wi 11 review the scopes
of work for water quality and fish ecology investigations being
performed by other groups was delayed by the late start of some of the
programs. TES was able to review the water quality program being done
by R&M Consultants, as well as offer recommendations on installation of
a continuous monitoring station for water quality measurements to be
located at the Watana site.
3
Review of the ADF&G fish ecology programs was not possib1e because
ADF&G did not produce their detailed procedures manual in 1980. TES
does, however, agree with the objectives in the RSA agreement between
the Alaska Power Authority and ADF&G.
2.2 -Definition of the Study Area
The study area encompassed by Subtask 7 .10, Fish Ecology, includes the
entire Susitna River from the Tyone River downstream to Cook Inlet.
This includes areas that are likely to be affected by post-project
flows (i.e., subreaches of the Susitna River mainstem, sloughs and side
channels, tributary confluences, and lakes and ponds.
resident fish populations will be studied by ADF&G in
habitat requirements. Studies of fish populations in
Anadromous and
relation to their
the proposed
impoundment area will be included. There are no rare or endangered
fish species listed for Alaska by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (Richard Wilmot, pers. comm.). Additionally, data concerning
migrational usage of the Susitna River by salmon species as well as
mainstem spawning observations and rearing information will be
collected.
For the purpose of Phase I work, the Susitna River has been divided
into three segments: Cook Inlet to Talkeetna, Talkeetna to Devil
Canyon, and Devil Canyon to the Tyone River. Within these defined
reaches, the following objectives and related tasks will be addressed,
according to the proposed ADF&G work plan for 1981 (ADF&G, pers. conm.
February-March 1981).
(a) Determine the seasonal timing, distribution and relative abundance
of adult anadromous fish populations within those portions of the
basin directly affected by the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric
Project.
4
(i) Identify spawning locations which are likely to be
affected by post-project flows {i.e.~ subreaches of the
mainstem, sloughs and side channels, tributary
confluences, lakes and ponds, etc.) and estimate their
comparative importance.
{ii) Determine the timing and nature of migration, milling and
spawning activities.
(iii) Enumerate and characterize the runs of the adult
anadromous fish.
(iv) Collect field data to define the range (or limits) of
streamflow dependent physical and chemical
characteristics which appear to be influencing the
suitability of the various habitat types for spawning.
{b) Determine the seasonal timing, distribution and relative abundance
of selected resident fish and juvenile anadromous fish populations
within those portions of the basin directly affected by the
proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
(i) Identify spawning and rearing locations for resident
species as well as chinook, coho~ and other anadromous
juveniles, which are likely to be affected by the
impoundment and post-project flows (i.e., subreaches of
the mainstem, sloughs and side channels, tributary
confluences, lakes and ponds, etc.) and estimate their
comparative importance.
(ii) Obtain descriptive information on captured fish (species,
site, a.ge class) and discuss seasonal migration patterns
of selected adult resident species.
5
(iii) Collect field data to define the range (or limits) of
streamflow dependent physical and chemical
characteristics which appear to be influencing the
suitability of occupied and non-occupied habitat types.
(c) Characterize the seasonal habitat requirements of selected
anadromous and resident species within those portions of the basin
expected to be directly influenced by the proposed Susitna
Hydroelectric Project.
(i) Through direct field observations and measurements,
define the range of streamflow dependent physical and
chemical characteri sties which appear to be influencing
the suitability of various habitat types for species and
life history stages of interest.
(ii) Prepare a narrative description of the various habitat
types found in the study area that are presently being
utilized by anadromous and resident species.
(iii) Analyze the field measurements and provide a series of
drawings which display the frequency at which the
species/life history phases were observed in association
with the streamflow dependent physical and chemical
characteristics.
6
3 -RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF BASELINE DATA
During the first year of the project, 1980, much time and effort has
been spent in the development of the biological (fisheries) and the
engineering/hydrological programs necessary to properly evaluate the
effect of the proposed hydroelectric project on the fisheries of the
Susitna River. To do this, it was first necessary to acquire a
familiarity with the lower Susitna River and sites of the proposed dams
and impoundments by overflights and by examination of the aerial
photographs of the river channel area. Review and assistance has been
given in the location and sampling schedules for the collection and
analyses of water samples and the location of gaging stations, and in
providing general engineering and fisheries information, although
preliminary in scope, that would assist in the development of
alternative locations, construction, and operation of the hydroelectric
facility. Water quality reports containing data collected during this
study were only recently available; therefore, assessment of the
progress of this facet was not possible.
Of particular concern has been the delay in the initiation of the
fishery program that wi 11 be conducted by the A 1 ask a Department of Fish
and Game (ADF&G). As stated during a meeting in Washington, D.C., the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will insist upon at least
two years, or the equivalent of two years, of comprehensive field
studies on the fisheries of the Susitna River before considering any
application for license. However, ADF&G fisheries baseline study began
on November 17, 1980 and will continue through the license application
review period. Data from the winter 1980-1981 studies should be
presented in the first quarterly report for 1981. This will allow
evaluation, prior to license application, of two winters of data on
juvenile anadromous fish and winter resident fish distribution. The
remaining seasonal data wi 11 be augmented by previous studies conducted
by ADF&G and supplemented with data collected during 1982 and the
fallowing call ect i ng peri ads.
7
Attention has been given by TES to a comprehensive search of the
available 1 iterature for information that would complement the results
expected from the proposed fishery field program. This has required a
great deal of effort. For more than 100 years, the Pacific salmon,
because of their importance to the people living along the Pacific
coasts of the United States, Canada, Japan, and th~ U.S.S.R., have been
the subject of studies by scientists and agencies within these four
countries. One would judge that more studies have been made and
reports written on the Pacific salmon per~ than any other fishery in
the world. Yet there are sti 11 gaps in our knowledge as to the effect
of certain environmental factors on the survival and growth of fish in
the streams of northern regions.
While there is an abundance of information on the Pacific salmon, there
is a paucity of information on the resident species found in the
Susitna drainage and other similar streams. Much of the information
that is available is found in the Canadian or Russian literature. The
first step in the study, accordingly, has been to develop a
bibliography of northern salmon and resident fish studies.
Approximately 1,000 references have been compiled at the present time
(about half of which are from the Russian literature). Most of the
references have been obtained from the private library of Mr. Atkinson
and from the publications and other materials available in the
libraries at the Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center (NMFS, Seattle)
and at the University of Washington.
Although not used extensively to date, the references and other
material available at the Auke Bay Laboratory (NMFS Auke Bay/Juneau,
Alaska) have been examined. Perhaps most valuable in this collection
is the series of reports prepared by the various Management Agents for
the regulatory districts before Alaska statehood. Fortunately, the
information contained in these reports has been summarized and is
available for our reference and use in the following unpublished
report:
8
United States Fish and Wild1 ife Service and the University of
Washington Fisheries Research Institute. 1954. Cook Inlet Lake
and Stream Records, 1927-1952, with accompanying descriptive
material. Seattle, Washington.
We have a 1 so received a series of unpub 1 i shed ADF&G reports re 1 at i ng to
the fisheries of the Susitna River and Cook Inlet. Several of these
reports will augment the existing field program {Barrett 1974; Friese
1975; Riis 1975 and 1977; ADF&G 1978).
There are three existing compilations of literature on biological
criteria for salmon: "Pacific Salmon Compendium" {Maxfield 1964),
'
1 F i sheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and B i o 1 ogi ca 1
Criteria11 {Bell 1973), and "Design of Fishways and Other Fish
Faci1ities 11 (Clay 1961). The Pacific salmon work by Maxfield, however,
i.s confined to the United States and Canadian 1 iterature on salmon
th.rough the early 1960 1 5. The information given in the two handbooks
is generally based on the salmon, environmental studies, and
experiences in the rivers and streams of British Columbia, Washington,
Oregon, and northern California. These reports exclude the results of
many studies on the Pacific salmon made in Japan and the U.S.S.R.,
which are especially important in our studies because of the
similarities {due to climate) between the Susitna and streams of the
Soviet Far East.
Based on available literature, summary reports are being prepared by
TES on the life history and ecology of anadromous and selected resident
fish found in the Susitna River system. It is anticipated that
separate reports will be prepared for each of the following species:
Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon, Pink Salmon, Chum Salmon, Sockeye Salmon,
Eulachon, Arctic Grayling, Dolly Varden, Burbot, Rainbow Trout, and
Lake Trout. Several of these summary·reports are nearing completion
and the remaining summaries should be available in at least draft form
later in 1981. It is intended that these summaries will be available
to the various participants in the Susitna Hydroelectric Project at the
time of the preparation of the final reports and application for the
FERC license.
9
Examples of the kind of information that will be available when these
summaries are completed are shown in Table 1 and Figure 1. Tab1e 1 is
a comparison of the number of degree-days required to incubate (to time
of hatching) eggs from five species of salmon from the United States
and Soviet rivers. In Figure 1, a graphic comparison is made of the
sediment size of the sand or gravel taken (by almost identical methods)
from the area of the redds where the eggs are actually deposited.
There is similar information avail able for compos it ion of bottom
sediment for the entire nest and the spawning area as a whole.
Finally, two tables have been prepared concerning the status and kinds
of information required in the assessment of potential impact issues
~l'l.d mHig.;tion llf th~ ~fffltts. of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
These tables are presented in the impact section of this report.
10
TABLE 1
Comparison of incubation times(a) (to hatching) that have been
reported by U.S. and Soviet sources for the five species of Pacific salmon
Species of Salmon United States(b) Soviet(C)
Average Degree-Average Degree-
Temp. (°C) Days . Temp. ( oC) Days
Pink salmon 10 583 8.4-10.7 645-708
Chum salmon 8.5-10 517 3.2 408-420
9.9 521-530
Sockeye salmon 3.3 523 3.2 450-463
Coho salmon 3.3-7.7 455 2.2 300-346
2.9 397
4.1 371
8.8-9.0 445-486
Chinook salmon lO 482 12.9 537-563
14.0 476
a. Incubation time is expressed in degree-days. Water temperature
affects incubation time. Additional residence time is required for
fry to develop to swim-up stage. This table shows the need for
measuring normal river temperatures.
b. Bell (1978).
c. Smirnov (1975).
"+-0
a.1 >
a.1 .,....
Vl
O'!CU
!: N •r-.,....
U1 Vl
U1 tti"' Q..Q)
-1-)
+-'ttl t:s:::
CUO'l c:..-
..... U'l
"'CU cue
Vl
+-' t:
(I)
u s..
(I)
Q..
100
80
60
40
20
Chum reddJal_j
/
I
I
I
/
,.
/
I
I
I
I
I
~Chinook redds (b)
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Sieve (mi11imeters)
a. Chum data from Levanidov (1968).
b. Chinook data from Platts, Shirazi and Lewis (1979).
Figure 1. Comparison of partic1e size distribution of sediment
samp1e from the egg strata of spawning redds of chum
and chinook salmon.
4 -IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The 1980 impact assessment has been limited to using historical
information concerning hydroelectric projects elsewhere and providing
Acres American with the information that will aid them in designing the
hydroelectric project and in avoiding impacts that have occurred
elsewhere as a result of design or operational procedures. Areas that
have been discussed include downstream flow, timing and temperature of
water releases, reservoir drawdown, and excessive dissolved gases as a
result of spillway design. Any hydroelectric facility that releases
water for peaking (whether it is daily, weekly, or any other power
demand schedule) will deviate more severely from the impounded stream 1 s
natural flow regime than would a baseload operation. Therefore,
operational procedures may impact the downstream habitat. Fluctuations
in downstream flow that change the depth of the stream sufficiently to
flood the dry areas of the stream bed on a daily basis would adversely
affect fish at all life stages, through stranding. However, it is
possible, with reregulation of downstream flow, to eliminate the
problem of stranding. It may be possible to improve upon the natural
conditions in some reaches of the stream by maintaining downstream
flows that would increase the amount of usable habitat available to the
fish.
Table 2 is a list of the various potential impact issues that has been
prepared for the TES Fish Ecology Procedures Manual (Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists, Inc. 1980a), and an evaluation has been made
of the present availability of information required to address those
impact issues. It must be noted, however, that in almost all items,
reference is made to the necessity of having results from the present
and/or pending studies available before the status of information
required can be established with any certainty. Comments that
biological criteria are adequate or probably adequate mean that there
is some available information upon which to base the FERC license
application. Of course, data from current field studies would be
preferable, in areas where such data are being collected.
13
TABLE 2
Status of information required for assessment of potential impact issues{a) concerning fish ecology.
Potential Impact Issue
1. Change in water quality.
2. Alteration of the temperature
structure of the stream.
Engineering lnformation(b)
Dependent upon results from data
collection and from available
analyses.
Dependent upon results from
present data collection and
analyses.
Biological Information(c)
Environmental criteria from
available literature and ADF&G
studies will be required for
fishes specifically utilizing the
mainstem Susitna.
See number 1.
a. From Table 2, Environmental Studies Procedures Manual, Subtask 7.10, Fish Ecology Impact Assessment and
Mitigation Planning. Terrestrial Environmental Speiialists, Inc., August 1980.
b. No definitive study and/or evaluation of the various potential impact issues can be made until the
results of the present engineering and hydrologica-l surveys are available and the location{s) and
general design of the dam(s) are established.
c. In addition to the need for information noted in footnote b above, detailed information from the
biological studies to be conducted by ADF&G will be required before any meaningful assessment of the
potential impact issues can be made.
TABLE 2 (Cont.)
Potential Impact Issue
3. Excessive dissolved gas
concentrations caused by
plunging flows.
4. Changes in the chemical and
physical conditions in the
spawning areas of anadromous
fish
5. Impact of temperature structure
on reservoir management and
downstream conditions.
Engineering Information
Experience and remedial measures
from dams on the Snake, Columbia
and Kootenay rivers documented
and available.
Impoundment water quality,
including temperaturet changes
in downstream flows by storages
and releasest and changes in
impoundment levels
Balance of the input flows to
reservoir volumest thermocline
and volumes of water at various
temperatures.
Biological Information
Available biological infor-
mation is adequate.
Environmental criteria
generally established for
Pacific salmon and being
confirmed and expanded by
literature search; additional
information on smelt and the
euryhaline species (i.e.,
whitefish, char, etc.)
and the effect of physical/
chemical change on food
organisms in northern waters
win be obtai ned from the
literature or Phase II studies.
Some literature available;
additional study may be required
in Phase I I.
TABLE 2 (Cont.)
Potential Impact Issue
6. Reduction of turbidity during
the summer resulting in in-
creased predation.
7. Winter turbidity changes in the
reservoir and downstream.
8. Increase in nutrients in the
reservoir and downstream from
leaching.
9. Changing water quality conditions
under the ice as a result of
operation.
10. Development of new ice-free areas
with increased predation and density
of small fishes in these areas.
Engineering Information
Particle size, settling rates
and stratification in the
reservoir.
Same as number 6.
Change in water quality brought
about by flooded lands, entrapment
in the reservoir, and upwelling.
Water temperature at various
times and various levels in
the impoundment related to
multi-level water releases;
volume of release.
New temperature regimes below the
dam in the winter; new water
levels in relation to sloughs
and natural backwater areas.
B1ological Information
Cant i nui ng 1 iterature search, but
apparently little information
available; additional study
may be required in Phase II.
Same as number 6.
Some baseline information
available; Phase II studies
may be required.
Environmental criteria required
from the 1 i terature and AOF&G
studies specifically for fishes
utilizing the mainstem Susitna
and expected in the reservoirs.
Continuing literature search
and some information available:
additional study, if required,
will be in Phase 11.
TABLE 2 (Cont.)
Potentia 1 Impact Issue
11. Development of frazil ice
downstream
12. Changed ice thickness down-
stream affecting temperature
and downstream movement of
fish.
13. Summer and winter flow changes
and the impact on fish repro-
duction, growth and predation.
14. Effect on present type of fish
collection devices used in the
Susitna River and Upper Cook
Inlet estuary fishery.
Engineering Information
Relationship to open surface
areas and new temperature
regimes.
Same as number 11.
Expected flow releases for
power generation including
peaking and minimum base loads;
water clarity and quality, in-
cluding temperature.
Changes in river flow and water
Biological Information
Probably adequate.
Very little information avail-
able on the winter movements of
fish in northern streams; ADF&G
winter studies especially
important.
Relation of summer environmental
conditions to reproduction and
growth of anadromous fish
generally adequate, but only
limited information for resident
species and predation in
northern waters; Phase I and II
studies required.
The oceanography of upper Cook
quality; how these changes will Inlet has been studied by
effect the oceanographic conditions University of Alaska (IMS) and
in the upper estuary region. data are available on mvement
TABLE 2 (Cont. )
Potential Impact Issue
15. Extension of upstream
anadromous fishery.
16. Bank scour due to piping
effect of increased flows
under the ice or flows over
the ice.
17. Bed scour as affected by
changing flows and ice.
Engtneering Information
Accessibility of new areas to
fish; expected water supplies
to such area throughout the year.
Winter operational flows in
relation to the area below the
the ice or over the existing
ice layer; projected thickness
of ice cover.
Same as number 16.
Biological Information
of juvenile and adult salmon
through estuaries, but no
recognizable pattern between
areas. Additional study, if
required, will be in Phase II.
If engineering studies show
access of anadromous fish
above Devil Canyon feasible,
then comprehensive survey re-
quired of accessible potential
spawning/nursery areas;
environmental criteria adequate.
Continuing literature search
and some information avai 1 able;
additional studies, if required,
can be done in Phase II.
Same as number 16.
TABLE 2 (Cont.}
Potential Impact Issue
18. Potential for increased pro-
duction by the addition of new
spawning areas and new rearing
·areas.
19. Potential loss of many present
productive areas.
20. Formation (and management} of
new lakes (impoundments).
Engineering Information
Physical details of the new
area, including bed shapes, water
depths, flows, velocities and
total area accessibility.
Cross sections of the river as
related to flow, levels of side
channels, water cover over known
spawning areas, and changed flow
regimes.
Details on the expected
limnological conditions of the
impoundments, methods and type of
water discharge, and expected
fluctuations in water levels.
Biological Information
Dependent upon the completion
of present engineering and
hydrological surveys and designs
and operation plans for hydro-
electric development; environ-
mental criteria adequate.
Dependent upon completion of
present studies noted in 18
above; environmental criteria
probably adequate.
These must be considered as
impoundments and their environ-
mental regime quite different
than a natural lake; apparently
very little information
available on conditions in
northern impoundments but
continuing literature search;
may require additional Phase
II study.
TABLE 2 (Cont.)
Potential Impact Issue
21. Changes in tributary
access for fish.
22. Changes in the personal use
fishery.
23. Potential stranding and
exposure of redds due to
diel variation.
24. Changes in the habitats of
resident fish populations.
Engineering Information
Details on the lower part of
the streams to be inundated by
the impoundment and effect on
tributaries downstream of the
impoundment.
Flow levels, velocities and
water clarity.
Same as number 19.
Same as numbers 20 and 21.
Biological Information
Probably adequate.
Major factor will be effect
of change in turbidity (i.e.,
nets vs. hook-and-line);
dependent upon present studies
noted in 18 above; may require
additional rhase II studies.
Pink, chum and coho salmon and
to some extent other anadromous
and resident fish will seek
shallower channels to spawn;
Phase I studies required for
less known species.
Dependent upon present studies
noted in 18 above; additional
studies required in Phase I and
II.
TABLE 2 (Cont.)
Potential Impact Issue
25. Changes in the stream channel
in terms of creation, alteration,
or elimination of habitat.
26. Loss of existing fishery in
impoundment area.
Engineering Information
Same as Numbers 18 and 19.
Determination of stream areas
lost by inundation.
Biological Information
Generally engineering in scope,
but will require definition
and evaluation of productive
fish habitat in northern waters:
Phase I studies will be
required.
Engineering information noted
in 20 above and Phase I bio-
logical studies by ADF&G;
additional Phase II studies
on environmental criteria for
resident fish may be required.
In Table 3~ a matrix has been developed by which the type of biological
(fisheries) information for the various stages of freshwater life is
paired with conditions that will most likely arise during construction
and operation of the hydroelectric project. As the design and
operational plans for the project develop and the results of the
associated biological studies become available~ the availability and/or
need for additional information wi 11 become more and more apparent by
simple inspection of the chart. Examination of any particular item
indicates the need for the inteQration of the best available
engineering information with biological information. In most cases,
the biological information will be obtained by the field studies to be
undertaken in 1981 and later years.
Impacts associated with the building of access roads and transmission
lines can be expected. The greatest amount of impact would most likely
occur during the actual construction period. Bank erosion~ bottom
disturbance~ and siltation in the vicinity of the stream crossing sites
could be harmful to spawning and nursery areas of both resident and
anadromous fish. Newly constructed roads would also make previously
inaccessible regions subject to increased fishing pressure by the
public. This could affect the fishery resource considerably.
22
TJl&.E 3
Checklfst(a} for study of the JX)Ssible inpacts l4JOil the fishery resource in the study area as a result of construction an:l
operatim of the Susitna H.}droelectric Project.
Dan & reservoir Ch<n;Jes
Baseline Cofferdan construction -Normal fr011
study installation including fillirg First )ear maxinun baseline
period & raroval tine of operation operations conditions Recanrerldat i oos
FU.l.J CHP.rG:S
First filling tine
Normal dri»\dCM
Maxinun dra\\dowl
Annual operational
filling tines
Discharge fran
\'Alee l S, spillWi\YS
& sluices
Low, normal & high
flow _)ears & their
occurrence
Maxirrun discharge
& tirre
Minimum discharge
& tine
Oiel discharge
Rarge
Maxinun
Nonnal
MiniiTllll
a. This dleckHst wi11 &! used to irrticate that sufficient information is (flailable to a:ldress ()"' ans\'Er an i!lllact qteStion
at a particular project developrent tirre.
TJlJ3LE 3 (Cont.)
Dan & reservoir Charges
Baseline Cofferdcm construction -Nonnal fran
study installation including filling First }ear maxiRUil baseline
period & reroval tiRE of operation ~ations conditions Rec<JJJTBldations
FLCW Qil\fffS (Cont.}
Changes on spawn-
ing g-ounds
Depth
Width
Stranding
AbarrlJITil:?nt of
nests by e.xpos-
ure of a:lu lts &
fry to a:lverse
conditions
General stress
Change in J):!rsona l
use areas
Terperature
Upstrecm rrovBTEnt
of adults
Effect an fishing
nets
Ptb l ic safety
TJlBLE 3 (Cont.)
Dan & reservoir Ch~es
Baseline Cofferdan constroction -Nonnal fran
study installation including filling First ,>ear maxinun baseline
period & reroval time of operation operations conditions RecO'Ill'Sldations
RIVER BED CHANGES
Jlljgr ocl i ng
Degrading
Bank scour
Bed load
Silt load
Changes in
spaWling areas
Changes in food-
prodocing areas
Changes in tribu·
tary strean
entrance slopes
Loss of wintering
areas
Gain of wintering
areas
TABLE 3 (Cont.)
Oan & reservoir Charges
Baseline Cofferdan construction -Normal fran
study installation including filling First }ear maxitlU11. baseline
period & remval time of operation operations conditions Recanrendat ions
WI\TER QJOJ..ITY OW«S
RIVER ~ RESERVOIRS
0\anical
Silt
Color
Gas balaoce
(release points)
Tarperature of
reservoir storage
(release point)
T arperature of
river
RESERVOIR CHANGES
Destruction of
river envirorm211t
Creation of
lake environment
Creation of silt
& sediment basins
Changing light
penetration
Chang=s in food
organisms
TJIBLE 3 (Cont. )
Dan & reservoir Charges
Baseline Cofferdan construction -rtmnal fran
study installation including filling first }ear maxiffUll baseline
period & raroval tirre of operation operations conditions Recmmendations
RESERVOIR CI-WG:S (Cont. )
Changes in species
composition & their
relationships
Level of thenm-
cline (changes}
Effect of mixing at
face of po.o.er dcm
Access areas to
fishenren
Species .contribution
by tributary streans
Initial r:roductivity
versus long-tenn
productivity
Reestablishment of
beach line
Land slides
Ice cover
Effect of Lpt.elling
on ice cover
Gas balance
TABLE 3 (Cont.)
Dan & reservoir Charges
Baseline Cofferdan construction -rt>rmal fran
study installation includirg filling First )ear maxitlUll baseline
period & remval tin~:! of operation operations conditions RecOllTBldations
SPJlWNING ffiOJND OUTERIA,
HID PRm.JCTIOO CRITERIA,
TEWERAllRE
Effect oo tine for
hatching, 811::!rgence &
swim-up
Migration related to
food bloons
Change of winter
growth rates
5 -MITIGATION PLANNING
Early involvement of environmental personnel in the planning and design
of the facility has occurred and wi 11 resu 1 t in a project designed with
fewer initial impacts. Such input is planned to continue throughout
the project. In addition, we have provided Acres with requested
information to aid them in the selection of a power development scheme
for the Susitna River. Although protection of the fishery resource is
but one aspect of the development of a hydroelectric project, we have
continued to stress the importance of regulated downstream flows,
control of total dissolved gas pressure, and regulation of the
temperature of the discharge waters. These issues are essential to the
fish ecology and, thus, an integral part of any development plan.
Many adverse impacts of hydroelectric development can be avoided or
minimized through mitigation planning in the determination of the
design and operational mode of the hydroelectric facility. Unavoidable
impacts may be offset by improving the resource elsewhere, if deemed
necessary. Options for such resource enhancement are discussed in the
TES Procedures Manual for Subtask 7.10.
Mitigation of adverse impact on resident fish must be addressed in two
areas: (1) above Devil Canyon and (2) below Devil Canyon. These two
areas are separated by the natural barrier to fish passage reported to
exist in the Devil Canyon area. The area above Devil Canyon will be
materially altered by the creation of the·impoundments. The downstream
area may be treated with the salmon impact mitigation approach, to be
applied if required to the area of the Susitna River below Devil
Canyon.
Based upon information from ADF&G concerning existing resident fishes
ar.d the sport fishing in the area and upon Acres' projections
concerning limnological conditions of the reservoir, an assessment will
be made in regard to those species most adaptable to the reservoir
conditions and that could provide sport fishing opportunities. This
information is not yet available.
29
The stream areas lost by inundation may not be readily replaceab1e;
howevers this loss cannot be measured until the ultimate reservoir
elevations are equated to the existing contours of the streams.
Assuming they cannot be replaced, reservoir stocking may be
recommended. Assuming that the reservoir(s) will provide better access
to the now almost inaccessible areas for sport fishermen, an improved
sport fishery could be provided in those areas to at least partially
compensate for the areas lost to impoundment. These assumptions and
corresponding mitigation options will be addressed as ·information
becomes available to assess potential impacts.
If significant losses to anadromous fish populations are predicted in
the impact analysis, design and operational plans should be developed
for ameliorating them. Likely mitigation methods include multi-level
discharge for release of water at a desired temperature and release of
predetermined flows, to maintain downstream fi~h habitat. Timing the
water release to match the needs of migrating salmon would be another
possib1e operating procedure that may be considered. Without the
necessary data to evaluate the impact(s), mitigation methods and the
need for mitigation of fish losses is nothing more than conjecture.
The necessary information to evaluate the impacts on anadromous fish
and, thus, plan for the mitigation of their losses has not been
gathered as of this report.
Mitigation planning during 1980 has been confined to the project
development plans. Initially, downstream maximum flow and minimum
releases were suggested to allow the planning activity to continue
within the guidelines. However, the flow constraints were very
preliminary because of the lack of information available for making
firm recommendations. The range was sufficiently broad to allow the
design work to continue. In late 1980, the environmental aspects of
four schemes that involved a dam at Watana and power tunnels extending
downstream to locations near Devil Canyon were reviewed (Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists, Inc. 1980b). The tunnel scheme that
provided for constant flow downstream of Devil Canyon was recommended
as the best of the group. Constant flows would reduce or eliminate the
possibility of fish being stranded during any life stage. Daily
30
peaking, on the other hand, could raise and lower the river
sufficiently to strand fish. Also, in late 1980, staging options for
two alternative darn development schemes were reviewed: Watana/Devil
Canyon and Vee/High Oevi 1 Canyon/Olson (Terrestrial Environmental
Specialists, Inc. 1981). This draft report recommended, as a
mitigation procedure in the design, that constant downstream flows be
considered essential. However, a dam at Olson was considered
unacceptable because of the anadromous fishery at Portage Creek,
upstream of the Olson site. None of the preliminary plans evaluated
called for constant flow downstream as a part of the Stage 1
development, although, reregulation was identified as a possibility.
Some of the plans included constant downstream flows in later
development stages, but the time period, 10 or more years, was
considered too great and adverse impacts from daily peaking would
already have occurred. It is our understanding that plans have since
been changed to provide reregulation from coiJIT\encement of operation.
31
6 -REFERENCES
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1978. Preliminary Assessment of
Hydroelectric Development on the Susitna River. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game. (Unpublished report). Anchorage, Alaska.
Barrett, B. M. 1974. Assessment Study of the Anadromous Fish
Populations in the Upper Sus itna River Watershed Between De vi 1
Canyon and the Chulitna River. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game. (Unpublished report). Anchorage, Alaska.
Bell, M. C. 1973. Fisheries Handbook on Engineering Requirements and
Biological Criteria. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Portland,
Oregon.
Bell, M. C. 1978. Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and
Biological Criteria. Second Edition. U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Portland, Oregon.
Clay, C. H. 1961. Design of Fishways and Other Fish Facilities.
Department of Fisheries. Ottawa, Canada.
Friese, N. V. 1975. ?reauthorization Assessment of the Anadromous
Fish Populations of the Upper Susitna River Watershed in the
Vicinity of the Proposed Devil Canyon Hydroelectric Project.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial
Fisheries. (Unpublished report). Anchorage, Alaska.
Levanidov, V. Ya. 1968. 0 Gidrologicheskom Rezhimyr Nerestil ishch
Kety i Gorbushi (about the hydrological regime of chum and pink
salmon spawning grounds). Ti khookeanskovo
Nauchno-Isseldovatel•skii Institut Ribnovo Khozyaistva i
Okeanografi i (TINRO). Vol 64.
Maxfield, G. 1964. Pacific Salmon Compendium. United States Fish and
Wildlife Service. (Unpublished report). Seattle, Washington.
Platts, W. M., M. A. Shirazi and 0. H. Lewis. 1979. Sediment Particle
Sizes Used by Salmon for Spawning with Methods for Evaluation.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/3-79-043 (Apr.
1979). (Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis).
Riis, J. C. 1975. Pre-authorization Assessment of the Susitna River
Hydroelectric Project: Preliminary Investigations of Water
Quality and Aquatic Species Composition. Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division. (Unpublished report).
Anchorage, Alaska.
Riis, J. C. 1977. Pre-authorization Assessment of the Proposed
Susitna River Hydroelectric Projects: Preliminary Investigation
of Water Quality and Aquatic Species Composition. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division. (Unpublished
report). Anchorage, Alaska.
32
Smirnov, A. I. 1975. The Biology, Reproduction and Development of the
Pacific Salmon (in Russian). University of Moscow. Moscow,
U.S.S.R.
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. 1980a. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies, Procedures Manual
Subtask 7.10, Fish Ecology Impact Assessment and Mitigation
Planning. Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc., Phoenix,
New York.
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. 1980b. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies, Preliminary
Environmental Assessment of Tunnel Alternatives. Terrestrial
Environmental Specialists, Inc., Phoenix, New York.
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. 1981. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies, Environmental
Considerations of Alternative Hydroelectric Development Schemes
for the Upper Susitna Basin (draft). Terrestrial Environmental
Specialists, Inc., Phoenix, New York.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the University of
Washington Fisheries Research Institute. 1954. Cook Inlet Lake
and Stream Records, 1927-1952, with accompanying descriptive
material. United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the
University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
33
7 -AUTHORITIES CONTACTED
7.1-Federal Agencies
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C.
Quinton Edson, J. Mark Robinson, Dean Shumway, Paul Carrier, and
Donald Clarke
-Meeting in Washtngton, D.C.; May 30, 1980; explained the
sampling schedule and discussed the adequacy of historical
data.
J. Mark Robinson and Dean Shumway
-Tour of Susitna River study area; July 16, 1980; viewed upper
and lower river and had informal discussions about study
program.
-Informal meeting in Anchorage, Alaska; July 17, 1980; discussion
of instream flow needs.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Anchorage, Alaska
Dona 1 d McKay
-Tour of Susitna study area; July 16, 1980; viewed upper and
lower river and had informal discussions about the study
program.
Richard Wilmot
-Discussion with Dana Schmidt; March 16, 1981; request for most
recent information on endangered fish species in Alaska.
34
National Marine Fisheries Service
Auke Bay Biological Laboratory
Auke Bay, Alaska
Or. William Smoker, Director
-Contacted by C. Atkinson to obtain fisheries literature; old
documents, management reports, etc., will be supplied if
needed.
7.2-State Agencies
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Anchorage, Alaska
Thomas Trent, Susitna Coordinator (after Oct. 1980); Regiona1
Supervisor-Habitat Protection Section (prior to Oct. 1980).
-Meeting in Anchorage, Alaska; May 23, 1980; discussion of
hydro1ogy program and fishery data needs.
-Telephone call from R. Williams; May 27, 1980.
-C. Atkinson called on June 20, 1980; inquiry as to status and
operational aspects of the fisheries study as well as to thank
him for his assistance in assembling various reports.
-Meeting in Anchorage, Alaska; September 8 and 10, 1980;
discussion of hydrology and fishery studies locate; river cross
sections.
-Meeting in Anchorage, Alaska; September 22, 1980; discussed
ADF&G fisheries program, established need for fall field work
(1980), and identified winter 1980-81 study area.
-Meeting in Anchorage, Alaska; October 13, 1980; discussed
coordination and administration concerns.
35
-Telephone call from R. Williams; October 27, 1980; inquiry of
status of ADF&G program.
-Meeting in Anchorage, Alaska; November 14, 1980; discussed
overall program and extended an invitation to a meeting that
afternoon with the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association.
-Meeting in Anchorage, Alaska; November 17, 1980; informed
T. Trent of results of meeting with Cook Inlet Aquaculture
Association Board of Directors.
-Meetings in Anchorage, Alaska with D. Schmidt; February -
March 1981; continuous discussions of field programs and
Procedures Manual.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Juneau, Alaska
Dr. Gary Finger, Chief of Research
-Informal discussions with C. Atkinson; offered to supply
informal information and unpublished reports.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
Mary Lou Harle
-Meeting in Anchorage, Alaska; May 23, 1980; discussed hydrology
program and fishery data needs.
7.3-Other Organizations and Individuals
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
P.O. Box 50
Soldotna, Alaska
36
Floyd Heimbach, Director; Thomas Mears, Biologist; and Thomas
Walker, Economist.
-Meeting in Anchorage, Alaska; November 14, 1980; explain the
fishery program to CIAA.
Board of Directors
-Meeting in Soldotna, Alaska; November 15, 1980; E. Yould (APA)
and R. Williams presented a description of the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project and answered questions.
Susitna Hydro Steering Committee
A. Carson, Chairman; T. Trent, Vice Chairman.
-TES representatives presented the various aspects of the Susitna
program, including the TES fish ecology program; July 17-18,
1980. Other agency attendees were: D. Shumway (FERC), D. Foote
(FERC), J .M. Robinson (FERC), D. Sturdevant (ADEC), W. We1 er
(HCRS), B. Smith (NMFS), J. Rego (BLM), L. Baxter (COE),
H. Noonan (DEPD), and M. Harle (ADNR).
-Reply to comments on Procedures Manual; December 1980..
Arctic Environmental Information Center
Anchorage, Alaska
David Hickock, Director
-Librarian provided C. Atkinson with all of their references on
the Susitna River region.
British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Vancouver, British Columbia
Dr. Robert Furgeson
-C. Atkinson visited Dr. Furgeson and made arrangements for an
exchange of environmental literature. A copy of an intensive
survey of several deep lakes, tncluding Williston Lake, on the
Peace River was obtained.
37