HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA522<0
v
I'
LO
M
I'
0
0
0
LO
LO
I'
M
M
"U. ~'s/
~ f r; Y" l:J,.sfv-,);~ p DJ1
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
(DRAFT)
by
Lowell Barrick, Bernard Kepshire
· and
George Cunningham
Number 4
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Division of Fisheries Rehabilitation
Enhancement and Development
Don W. Collinsworth
Commissioner
Stanley A. Moberly
Director
Box 3-2000
Juneau, Alaska 99802
February, 1983
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library & Information Services
Auachorage,AJaska
11
TARLF OF CONTENTS
TITLE
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF PLATES
1. FOREWORD
2. INTRODUCTION
3. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
4. STUDY METHODS
4.1 Biological Studies
4.1.1 Sockeye Salmon
4.1.2 Chinook Salmon
4.1.3 Coho Salmon
4.1.4 Chum Salmon
4.1.5 Field Surveys
4.1.5.1 Fixed-wing Aircraft Overview
4.1.5.2 Helicopter Survey
4.1.5.3 Road Vehicle Survey
4.1.5.4 Tyone River System Surveys
4.1.6 Determination of Stream and Lake Surface Areas
4.1.7 Biological Impact of Introduced Salmon on Resident
4.2 Engineering Studies
4.2.1 Feasibility Studies
4.2.2 Design Studies
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.1 Salmon Enhancement Potential (S.E.P.)
5.1.1 S.E.P. Without Hydroelectric Dams
5.1.1.1 Sockeye Salmon
5.1.1.2 Chinook Salmon
5.1.1.3 Coho 3almon
5.1.1.4 Chum Salmon
5.1.1.5 Potential Barriers to Juvenile Salmon
Emigration and Adult Immigration
5.1.1.6 Rapids
5.1.1.7 Total Dissolved Gas Supersaturation
5.1.2 S.E.P. With Hydroelectric Dams
5.1.3 Conclusion
5.2 Enhancement Techniques (E.T.)
5.2.1 Low Head Dams
5.2.2 Mechanical/Helicopter Brail Systems
5 • 2 • 3 F i s hw ay s
Paqe No.
iii
iv
vi
1
4
7
8
8
8
13
15
18
20
20
20
22
22
24
fish 25
26
26
31
34
34
34
34
40
48
52
57
57
58
61
65
68
69
69
73
11 ?.3.1 GAn~=>ri'll Informntion and DisctJSsion 73
5.2.3.2 ADF&G Criteria for Fishways Under TwP.ntv
Feet in Height 73
5.2.3.3 Weir and Orifice Fishway 75
5.2.3.4 Denil and Alaskan Steeppass Designs 77
5.2.3.5 Vertical Slot Baffle 78
5.2.3.6 Fishv1ay Construction Costs 85
5.2.4 Hatcheries 101
5.2.4.1 General Information and Discussion 101
5.2.4.2 Brood Stocks 102
5.2.4.3 Juvenile Salmon Stocking
5.2.4.4 Eyed Egg Planting
5.2.4.5 Smolt 3tocking
5.2.4.6 Fry/fingerling Stocking
5. 2.4. 7 Hatchery Construct ion Costs
5.3 Biological Impact on Kesident Fish
107
107
109
110
111
119
6. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 124
6.1 Vertical Slot Fishway Enhancement Program 124
6.1.1 Benefit/Cost Ratio 124
6.1.2 Economic Factors, Assumptions, and Calculations 125
6.1.3 Sensitivity Analysis 131
6.2 Hatchery Enhancement Program 134
6.2.1 Benefit/Cost Ratio 135
6.2.2 Economic Factors, Assumptions, and Calculations 135
6.2.3 Sensitivity Analysis 140
7. RECOMMENDATIONS 143
7.1 Salmon Enhancement Without Hydroelectric Da~s 143
7.2 Salmon Enhance~ent With Hydroelectric Dams 144
8. REFERENCES 145
9. CONTRIBUTORS 157
10. APPEND ICES 158
i i
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number Title Page Number
Figure 2-1 Susitna River 5
Figure 4-1 Upper Susitna River drainage basin 27
Figure 4-2 Highways in Susitna River area 32
Figure 5-1 Life cycle of sockeye salmon 35
Figure 5-2 Life cycle of chinook salmon 41
Figure 5-3 Life cycle of coho salmon 49
Figure 5-4 Life cycle of chu~ salmon 53
Figure 5-5 Dam obstacles to salmon migration 62
Figure 5-6 Salmon ~igration through a dam turbine 66
Figure 5-7 Low head dams 70
Figure 5-8 Weir and orifice fishway 76
Figure 5-9 Alaskan steeppass 79
Figure 5-10 Vertical slot baffle 80
Figure 5-11 Swimming speeds of fish relative to horizontal
distance between resting pools 83
Figure 5-12 Devil Canyon fishway alignment 86
Figure 5-13 Devil Creek fishway alignment 87
Figure 5-14 Typical tunnel/baffle section 89
Figure 5-15 A salmon egg planting device (SEPD) 108
Figure 5-16 Talkeetna hatchery site 112
Figure 5-17 Talkeetna hatchery site plan 113
Figure 5-18 Talkeetna hatchery layout 114
Figure 6-1 Fishway enhancement (B/C) cash flow 133
Figure 6-2 Hatchery enhancement (B/C) cash fl ov1 141
i i i
Table Number
Table 4-1
Table 4-2
Table 4-3
Table 4-4
Table 5-1
Table 5-2
Table 5-3
Table 5-4
Table 5-5
Table 5-6
Table 5-7
Table 5-8
LIST OF TABLES
Title Page Number
Climatology of the upper Susitna River basin
and Summit La~e area 10
Sockeye salmon smolt production and mean weights
for lakes in Alaska, British Columbia and the
eastern USSR 11
Coho salmon smolt production for streams in Alaska,
British Columbia, Oregon and Washington 17
Devil Canyon velocity measurements 30
The potential production of sockeye salmon in upper
Susitna River lakes 36
Biocriteria for determining the harvestable surplus
of sockeye salmon adults with the fishway enhancement
and the hatchery enhancement programs at Devil Canyon
and Devil Creek areas. 39
The potential production of chinook salmon in upper
Susitna River tributaries 42
Biocriteria for determining the harvestable surplus
of chinook salmon adults with the fishway enhancement
and the hatchery enhancement programs at Devil Canyon
and Devi 1 Creek areas 47
The potential production of coho salmon in upper
Susitna River tributaries 50
Biocriteria for determining the harvestable surplus
of coho salmon adults with the fishway enhancement
and the hatchery enhancement programs at Devil
Devil Canyon and Devil Creek areas 51
The potential production of chum salmon in upper
Susitna River tributaries 54
Biocriteria for determining the harvestable surplus
of chum salmon adults with the fishway enhancement
and the hatchery enhancement programs at Devil Canyon
and Devil Creek areas 55
i v
Table 5-9
Table 5-10
Table 5-11
Table 5-12
Table 5-13
Table 5-14
Table 5-15
Table 6-1
Table 6-2
Table 6-3
Table 6-4
Comparison of fishway designs
Devil Canyon fishway C.I.P. costs
Devil Creek fishway C.I.P. costs
Indian River and Portage Creek weirs C.I.P costs
Fry/fingerling transport and stocking operational
costs
Talkeetna hatchery C.I.P. costs
Resident fishes·of the upper Susitna River
drainage
Fishway enhancement benefit calculations for all
salmon species
Fishway enhancement combined cost calculations
Hatchery enhancement benefit calculations for all
salmon species
Hatchery enhancement cor.~bined cost calculations
v
82
91
95
99
100
117
119
129
130
138
139
Plate Number
Plate 1-1
Plate 4-1
Plate 4-2
Plate 4-3
Plate 5-l
Plate 5-2
Plate 5-3
Plate 5-4
Plate 5-5
Plate 5-6
Plate 5-7
Plate 5-8
Plate 5-9
Plate 5-10
Plate 5-11
Plate 5-12
LIST OF PLATES
Title
Devil Canyon oblique aerial view
Helicopter at Butte Lake
State vehicle at Clearwater Creek
Devil Canyon looking downstream from proposed
dam site
Page Number
2
21
21
29
The Tyone River system lakes 37
The Tyone River just upstream from its confluence
with the Susitna River 43
The Oshetna· River at its confluence with the
Susitna ~iver 43
Kosina Creek at its confluence with the
Susitna River 44
Clearwat2r Creek just upstream from its
confluence with the Susitna River 44
Watana Creek at its confluence with the
Susitna River 45
Butte Creek at the outlet of Butte Lake 45
Fog Creek at the outlet of Fog Lake 46
Coal Creek 46
Proposed Susitna River dams 63
Brailling salmon at Anan Creek 71
Anan Creek fishway-vertical slot baffle
in tunnel 84
vi
1. FOREWORD
This study is the result of a $200,000 appropriation by the Alaska State
Legislature. The study v1as ir.1plernented because of the ir.1pact that the
proposed Susitna hydroelectric project could have on any future salr.1on
enhancement projects in the upper reaches of the Susitna River; i.e., the
river area upstream of Devil Canyon.
The details of this study are described in the work plan which is contained
in the appendices. In general the study was to determine (1) if Devil
Canyon (Plate 1-1) is a barrier to the upstream migration of salmon and if
it is feasible to bypass salmon around this potential barrier, (2) the poten-
tial benefits of salmon production in the streams and lakes upstream of Devil
Canyon, (3) the impact on resident fish from the introduction of salmon
into their habitat and (4) what affect the construction of the Susitna
hydroelectric da1.1s may have on any future salr:1on enhancement projects.
The data for this report was collected by a team from the FRED Division
of the Alaska Departrnent of Fish and Game. Most of the field information
was collected during the four month period fran July 1982 through October
1982. Considerable material was researched from literature, especially
the literature prepared for the Susitna hydroelectric project by Acres
American Incorporated and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Aquatic
Habitat and Instrearn Flow Study Sect ion. Independent field work was
conducted in July, August, and September to verify questionable or missing
data.
-1-
Plate 1-1. Devil Canyon oblique aerial view (from North Pacific Aerial
Surveys, Inc.).
-2-
The draft of this report will be submitted to the state legislature in
1983 with follow up work, if any, to be performed during the 1983 legis-
lative session.
-3-
2. INTRODUCTION
The Susitna River (Figure 2-1) is nearly 300 ~iles long from its
sources in the Alaska Mountain Range to its point of discharge into
Cook Inlet. The total river drainage area encompasses about 19,400
square miles of which the up~er basin above Gold Creek comprises
approximately 6,160 square miles. The 150 mile stretch of the main-
stem Susitna River, flowing fr6m its mountain source through Devil
Canyon to Portage Creek, contains about 30% of the entire drainage
basin. The main stem and the major tributaries of the Susitna River
originate in glaciers and carry a heavy load of glacial flour during
the ice-free months. There are, however, many smaller tributaries and
lakes which are perennially silt-free.
The proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project has precipitated many studies
on the Susitna River and its drainage basin. The studies completed
through mid-1982 indicate that the two hydro dams will have various
impacts on the aquatic environments of the Susitna River downstream of
the dams; i.e. below Devil Canyon. However, as the general belief is
that the Devil Canyon area c0nstitutes a partial or total barrier to
the upstream migration of adult salmon, very little of the fisheries
data collected is pertinent to the spawning and rearing of salmon
upstream of Devil Canyon.
-4-
I
I
\
\
\
/
/
\
\
\
AREA LOCATION
-----
\
\
\
\
\
\
/
/
/
/
/
coOK JNL£T d)
... ··
I
I
I
I
/
/
/
/ ... ,
..........
.........
TYON£
LAKE
" "' \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
LOUIS£ I
LAKE/
'-......_____ /
'~---
I
/
• NORTH 10 0 10
IIIIIIIIIIIIJ
20miles
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF Fl SH 8 GAME
Figure 2-1.
Susitna River .
To eliminate the question of a possible 11 Devil Canyon salmon block 11
the Alaska State Legislature appropriated $200,000 to the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to study the feasibility of passing
salmon through Devil Canyon and to determine the potential for salmon
enhancement in the river drainage basin above Devil Canyon. The work
plan, contained in Appendix
by the Legislature.
1 ("\ ...,
.lU • .J, descr·ibes the full study commissioned
-6-
3. l STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The reasons for conducting this study are outlined in the foreword
(Section 1) and are further detailed in the project work plan (Appendix
10.3).
The objective of this study is to find answers to the questions posed
in the foreword and to prepare a report of the findings, including
recommendations, for submittal to the Alaska State Legislature in
1983.
-7-
4. STUDY METHODS
4.1 Biological Studies
The salmon production potential of upper Susitna River lakes and streams
was determined for sockeye, chinook, coho and chum salmon after an
exhaustive review of pertinent literature, three field trips, and
conversations with ADF&G staff.
Any consideration of salmon production in the upper Susitna River watershed
must address potential barriers to salmon migration in the main stem of the
Susitna River. The rapids at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek areas constitute
potential barriers to both juveniles migrating downstream and returning
adults. This barrier question was addressed via literature review and
conversations with ADF&G staff. The results are in section 5.1.1 and
form the basis for assumptions 1 and 2 used for determining the production
potential for each salmon species in this methods section.
Methods for determining the production potential for juvenile and adult
salmon are now discussed relative to each species.
4.1.1 Sockeye Salmon
The watershed v.Jith the potential for the greatest sockeye salmon production
is the Tyone River drainage. Two attempts, unsuccessful due to bad
weather, were made by ADF&G biologists in September and October 1982, to
obtain lir.mological data from the three major lakes, viz. Lake Louise,
Susitna Lake, and Tyone Lake. These data were intended for use in a
limnological model, developed by ADF&G limnology staff, that would
predict the numbers and individual sizes of sockeye smolts produced by
-8-
each lake. Without these data, the juvenile sockeye salmon production paten-
tials at these and other Susitna River lakes ~·1ere assessed by literature
review, field trips, and conversations with knowledgeable ADF&G staff.
Conversations with Mr. Ken Roberson~/ (August 30, 1982), and Dr. Jeff
. -• I') . , ---Koenings~/ (August JU and November 11, 1982), indicate that the production
of Lake Louise is perhaps similar to that of Summit Lake and should exceed
that of the very turbid, glacial Tustumena Lake (Kenai Peninsula, Alaska).
Summit Lake, near Paxson, Alaska, is a high altitude (3,210 ft), clear
lake which is typical of the majority of the lake water in the upper
Susitna River basin. Upper Susitna River lakes useable by salmon range
in elevation from 2,110 ft (Fog Lake) to 3,595 ft (Roosevelt Lake).
Summit Lake is only 60 miles northeast of the Tyone River lakes and 60 miles
east of the Susitna River main stem at Denali. This location puts Summit
Lake in a climatic zone similar to that of the upper Susitna River basin
(Table 4-1 ). The biological productivity of lakes within a similar
geographic and climatic zone should be similar if limnological factors
are similar for each lake.
Prior to using the production of Summit Lake as a model for productivity
of all lakes in the upper Susitna River basin, the production of the former was
compared to that of other lakes in Alaska, British Columbia and the
eastern USSR. Summit Lake has produced 0.8 lb of sockeye smolts/acre/yr or
47 smolts/acre/yr based on analysis of data in Roberson and Holder (1982)
and a conversation with Mr. Ken Roberson (September 2, 1982). All smolts
were age I and had a mean weight of .017 lb. Tenmile Lake, much smaller
~/ ADF&G Fishery Biologist III, Glennallen.
],/ ADF.&G Principal Lirnnologist, Soldotna.
-9-
than Summit Lake and located near Summit Lake has an average production
of 0.4 lb of sockeye smoltsjacre/yr or 36 smolts/acre/yr based on analysis of
data in Roberson et al. (1980).
Production and smolt weight data for other lakes (Table 4-2) when compared
with Summit Lake show that Summit Lake•s production is low and that the
mean weight of age I smolts is in the mid-range of weights for other
lakes. Note that the known annual production of Summit Lake may actually
be less than the potential sustainable smolt production (Dr. Jeff Koenings,
pers. comm., August 30, 1982).
Table 4-1. Climatology of the upper Susitna River basin and Summit Lake area.
Climate parameter
Summit Lake2;
General climate arctic
conti nenta 121
Mean maximal air 37.3
temperature ( 0 F)
Mean minimal air 16.6
temperature (°F)
Mean air temp-27.2
erature (°F)
Mean annual 11.7
precipitation (in.)
Ice present (months) October-June
Frequent monthly NE,E,SW
wind direction
Geographical area: upper Susitna
River basin 1;
Tyone River
arctic
continental
50.3
-12.6
25.2
11.5
October-June
NE,E,SW
Denali
arctic
continental
51.3
-5.5
25.1
7.79
October-June
N,S,SH
~/Calculated from 1980-81-82 data of R&M Consultants Inc., P.O. Box 6087,
Anchorage, Alaska 99502. (Carol Larson, pers. comm., December 3, 1982).
~/ From VanWhye and Peck (1968).
~/ Cold, dry winters and warm, moderately moist summers.
-10-
As mentioned previously, the production of Lake Louise, ~vhich is typical
of the majority of lake v~ater in the upper Susitna River basin, should
exceed that of Tustumena Lake. The production of Summit Lake would also
be expected to and in fact does exceed that of Tustumena Lake. The
latter's mean production is 0.24 lb of srnoltsjacre/yr or 40 smolts/acre/yr
based on analysis of data provided by Dr. Jeff Koenings (pers. comm.,
Nove mb e r 1 2 , 1 9 82 ) •
Table 4-2. Sockeye salmon smolt production and mean \veights for lakes in
Alaska, British Columbia and the eastern USSR.~
Range of annual values
Pounds of
smolts/acre/yr
.08-79.00
Range of means of annual 0.24-44.48
values
Number of
smo lts /acre jy r
13-2,024
36-893
Mean weight of Age
I smolts(lb/smolt)
.004-.034
1; From data listed in or based on analysis of data in Crone (1981),
Foerster (1968), Goodlad et al. (1974), Dr. Jeff Koenings (pers. comm.,
November 12, 1982), Meacham (1981 ), Nelson (1981 ), Nr. Ken Roberson (pers.
comrn., August 30, 1982), Roberson and Holder (1982), and Roberson et al.
(1977, 1978, 1980, 1981 and 1982).
With the production capability of Summit Lake already examined, assumptions
used for determining the sockeye salmon production potentials of upper
Susitna River lakes are now discussed.
Assumption 1.
-Upper Susitna River lakes that could produce salmon have no bar-
riers to smolt emigration, including the Susitna River main stern
rapids at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek.
-11-
Assumption 2.
-Upper Susitna River lakes that could produce salmon are accessible
to adult salmon if they can pass through the Susitna River
rapids at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek; and if they can negotiate
streams, located between the Susitna River and the lakes, that
have a maximal slope of .03 over a 0.5 mile distance, and have
typical adult resting areas, e.g., pools, undercut stream banks,
and sloughs.
Assumption 3.
Each sockeye sa 1 rnon spavmi ng pair requires 72 ft2 of area
(Bell 1973).
-Most sockeye sa 1 rnon will spawn in the 1 akes. The required
spawning area is the lake bottom under 0.4% of the lake surface
area. These spawning areas must consist of correct-sized gravel
and upwelling intragravel water flow during the spawning and
incubation period.
-Sockeye redds are not superimposed by other salmon species.
Assumption 4.
-The smolt production of upper Susitna River lakes is equal to
that of Summit Lake, which is currently 0.8 lb/acre/yr or 47
smolts/acre/yr.
Assumption 5.
-The adult sockeye salmon production of upper Susitna River lakes
is 31 lb of adults/acre/yr or 5 adults/acre/yr.
-12-
The average size of a commmercially-harvested Susitna River
sockeye salmon is 6.5 lb (~1r. Jim Browning~/, pers. comm.,
November 1~, 1982).
A sockeye smolt to adult marine survival of 10% (Alaska Department
of Fish and Game 1982b; Foerster 1968) is assumed.
4.1.2 Chinook Salmon
The chinook salmon production potential of upper Susitna River tributaries
was determined using the following assumptions.
Assumption 1.
-Upper Susitna River tributaries that could produce salmon have no
barriers to smolt emigration, including the Susitna River main
stem rapids at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek.
Assumption 2.
Upper Susitna River tributaries that could produce salmon are accessi-
ble to adult salmon if they can pass through the Susitna River
rapids at Devi 1 Canyon and De vi 1 Creek; and if they can negotiate
streams or stream sections that have a maximal slope of .03
over a 0.5 rnile distance, and have typical adult resting areas,
e.g., pools, undercut strearn banks, and sloughs.
Assumption 3.
-Each chinook salmon spawning pair requires 216 ft2 of area
(Bell 1973).
~/ ADF&G Fishery Biologist II, Soldotna.
-13-
One percent of the surface area of Susitna River tributary main
stems has acceptable pools and riffles, gravel, and water for
successful adult spavmi ng and incubation. The number 11 0ne
percent (1%) 11 was se 1 ected because of severely restricted water
flows during the winter and early spring incubation period.
Williams (1957) noted that many small tributaries of the upper
Susitna River are dry during this period. Comparisions between
monthly winter and summer water discharges for the upper Susitna
River at Gold Creek station (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1982a)
indicate that winter water flows of tributaries may periodically be only
1% to 5% of summer flows.
~1ost tributaries of Susitna River tributary main stems are unaccept-
able for incubation since most dry up during the winter as was
noted for many small tributaries of the upper Susitna River by
Williams (1975).
-Chinook redds are not superimposed by other salmon species.
Assumption 4.
The smolt production of upper Susitna River tributary main stems is
0.18 lb of smoltsjacre/yr or 81 smoltsjacre/yr. This production was
derived by averaging production values for four Alaskan streams
which were obtained by estimating the number of smolts/stream/yr
produced based on known adult escapements/3% marine smolt
su rvi va 1 (A 1 ask a Department of Fish and Game 1982b) and by
estimating an approximate surface area for each tributary main stem,
plus the Middle and West Forks of the Gulkana River. These
production values are based on analysis of data for Crooked
Creek, Kenai Peninsula (Haite 1979; Mr. Dave Haite ~/, pers.
comm., October 11, 1982); Gulkana River, Gulkana (Albin 1977;
-14-
Williams and Potterville 1981 ); Indian River and Portage Creek,
Susitna River (Alaska Departr.tent of Fish and Game 198la, 1981b
and 1982).
Most tributaries of Susitna River tributary main stems are considered
unproductive because most dry up during the \vi nter. The
surface areas of most tributaries are unknown.
-For determining the number of smoltsjacre/yr, an individual smolt
size of .01 lb was used which is a reasonable size for Alaskan
chinook smolts according to data in Engel (1968), Francisco and
Dinneford (1977), Mr. Paul Kissner~/ (pers. comm., October 26,
1982), Meehan and Siniff (1962), and Trasky (1974).
Assumption 5.
-The adult chinook salmon production of upper Susitna River trib-
utaries is 40.6 lb of adults/acre/yr or 2 adults/acre/yr.
-The average size of a commercially-harvested Susitna River
chinook salmon is 16.7 lb (Mr. Jim Browning, pers. comm., November
23, 1982b).
A chinook smolt to adult marine survival of 3% (Alaska Department
of Fish and Game 1982b) is assumed.
4.1.3 Coho Salmon
The coho salmon production potential of upper Susitna River tributaries
was determined using the follmving assumptions.
Assumption 1.
-Upper Susitna River tributaries that could produce salmon have no
barriers to smolt emigration, including the Susitna River main
stem rapids at De vi 1 Canyon and Oevi 1 Creek.
~/ ADF&G F1shery Bi~ofogist II, Soldotna.
2f ADF&G Fishery Biologist III, ,Juneau.
1 ~
Assumption 2.
-Upper Susitna river tributaries that could produce salmon are accessible
to adult salmon if they can pass through the Susitna River rapids
at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek; and if they can negotiate
streams or stream sections that have a maximal slope of .03 over
a 0.5 mile distance, and have typical adult resting areas, e.g.,
pools, undercut stream banks, and sloughs.
Assumption 3.
-Each coho salmon spaw~ing pair requires 126 ft2 of area (Bell
1973).
One percent of the surface area of Susitna River tributary main
sterns has acceptab 1 e poo 1 s and riffles, grave 1, and water for
successful adult spavming and incubation. The number "one
percent (1%)" was selected because of severely restricted water
flows during the winter and early spring incubation period.
Williams (1975) noted that many small tributaries of the upper
Susitna River are dry during this period. Comparisons between
monthly winter and summer water discharges for the upper Susitna
River at Gold Creek station (Alaska Department of Fish and Game
1982a) indicate that vlinter water flows of tributaries may periodically
be only 1% to 5% of summer flows.
Most tributaries of Susitna River tributary main stems are unacceptable
for incubation si nee most dry up during the \vi nter as was noted
for many small tr·ibutaries of the upper Susitna River by Hilliams
(1975).
-Coho redds are not superimposed by other salmon species.
-16-
Assumption 4.
The smolt production of Upper Susitna River tributary main stems is
0.18 lb of smoltsjacre/yr or 40 smoltsjacre/yr. This production in
weight of smolts was selected since it is conservative relative
to coho smolt production in other r11ore productive Pacific North-
western streams (Table 4-3).
Most tributaries of Susitna River tributary main stems are consider-ed
unproductive because most dry up during the Hinter. The surface
areas of most tributaries are unknown.
-For determining the number of smolts/acre/yr, an individual smolt
size of .02 lb was used, which is a reasonable size for stream
produced Alaskan coho smolts according to data of Armstrong (1970),
Crone and Bond (1976), Meehan and Siniff (1962), and Thedinga and
Koski (1982).
Table 4-3. Coho salmon smolt production for streams in Alaska, British
Columbia, Oregon and Hashington • .!:_!
Range of annua 1 va 1 ues
Pounds of
smolts/acre/yr
5-50
Nur:~ber of
smo ltsjacre/y r
221-2,699
1/From data listed in or based on analysis of data in Chapman (1965),
~rone (1981), Crone and Bond (1976), Hunter (1959, Mason (1976), Salo and
Bayliff (1958), Thedinga and Koski (1982).
Assurrtption 5.
-The adult coho salmon production of upper Susitna River tributaries
is 24.7 lb of adults/acre/yr or 4 adults/acre/yr.
-The average size of a commercially-harvested Susitna River coho
salmon is 6.1 lb (Mr. Jim Browning, pers. comm., November 19, 1982).
-A coho smolt to adult marine survival of 10% (Alaska Department
of Fish and Game 1982b) is assumed.
-17-
4.1.4 Chum Salmon
The chum salmon production potential of upper Susitna River tributaries
was determined using the following assumptions.
Assumption 1.
-Upper Susitna River tributaries that could produce salmon have no
barriers to fry emigration, including the Susitna River main
stem rapids at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek.
Assumption 2.
-Upper Susitna River tributaries that could produce salmon are accessible
to adult salmon if they can pass through the Susitna River rapids
at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek; and if they can negotiate
streams or stream sections that have a maximal slope of .03 over
a 0.5 mile distance, and have typical adult resting areas, e.g.,
pools, undercut strea~ banks, and sloughs.
Assumption 3.
Each chum salmon spawning pair requires 99 ft2 of area (Bell 1973).
-One percent of the surface area of Susitna River tributary main
stems has acceptable pools and riffles, gravel, and water for
successful adult spavming and incubation. The number "one
percent (a)" was selected because of severely restricted water
flows during the winter and early spring incubation period.
Willi arns (1975) noted that many small tributaries of the upper
Susitna River are dry during this period. Comparisons betv1een
monthly winter and summer water discharges for the upper Susitna
River at Gold Creek station (Alaska Department of Fish and Game
1982a) indicate that winter water flows of tributaries may
periodically be only 1% to 5% of summer flows.
-18-
Most tributaries of Susitna River tributary main stems are un-
acceptable for incuba~ion since most dry up during the winter
as \vas noted for many small tributaries of the upper Susitna
River by Williams (1975).
Chum redds are not superimposed by other salmon species.
Assumption 4.
The emigrant fry product.ion of upper Susitna River tribuary main stems
is 62 lb of fry/acre/yr or 121,000 fry/acre/yr. This production
in weight of fry is based on an average fry weight of .0008 lb
from data at the ADF&G Beaver Falls hatchery (Mr. Dan Rosenberg~/,
pers. comm., July 9, 1980). This weight is reasonable for an
emigrant fry ~vith an average length of 1.46 inch which was derived
from data for Talkeetna River (Friese 1975) and lower Susitna
River chum fry (Kent Roth!_;, pers. cor.~m., November 30, 1982).
The number of fryjacr2/yr is based on a female adult chum spawning
area of 99 ft2 (Bell 1973), an average fecundity of 2,200
eggs/female chum (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1982b), 100%
egg deposition/female, and a deposited egg to emigrant fry
survival of 12.5% which is based on data in Crone and Bond
(1976), Foerster (1968), and Hunter (1959).
Assumption 5.
-The adult churn salmon production of upper Susitna River tributaries
is 9,329 lb of adults/acre/yr or 1,210 adults/acre/yr.
£}__; ADF&G Fish Culturi st IV, Klawock hatchery.
!_; ADF&G Fishery Biologist II, Anchorage.
-19-
The average size of a commercially-harvested Susitna River chum
salmon is 7.7 lb (Mr. Jim Browning, pers. comm., November 19,
1982).
An er~igrant fry to adult marine survival of 1% (Alaska Department
of Fish and Game 1982b) is assumed.
4.1.5 Field Surveys
Surveys of upper Susitna River tributaries and lakes were.necessary for
obtaining otherwise unavailable information for assessing salmon enhance-
ment potential and enhancement techniques.
4.1.5.1 Fixed-wing aircraft overview
The purpose of this survey ~vas to study the terrain and future survey
sites within the entire upper Susitna River watershed.
The upper Susitna River main stem v1as overflown from lower Devil Canyon
upstrear;J to Susitna Lodge on July 13, 1982. All tributary streams ~vere
seen, and all named and some unnamed streams were photographed.
4.1.5.2 Helicopter survey
The purpose of this two-day survey (August 4 and 5, 1982) was on-the-ground
assessment of the salmon enhancement potential of most streams and lakes
(Plate 4-1) in the upper Susitna River area that are inaccessible to
road vehicles.
~~ore than 25 named and unnarned streams and lakes \vere surveyed. We made
the following observations concerning conditions at stream confluences
(and various distances upstream) with the Susitna River and at lake outlets:
-20-
Plate 4-1. Helicopter at Butte Lake.
Plate 4-2. State vehicle at Clearwater Creek.
_01_
1) Water quality for adult and juvenile salmon. Water tei;Jperature,
dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and pH \vere measured.
2) Watervelocity.
3) Strea1:1 width, depth, pool-riffle ratio, and gravel availability
at various distances ~pstream of stream confluences with the
Susitna River and at lake outlets.
4) Any barriers to migration of adult and juveniie saimon.
5) Presence and 1 ocation of any fish species that may prey on, and
compete for food and space with salmon (or vice versa).
4.1.5.3 Road vehicle survey
This survey ~vas undertaken during September 15,16, and 17, 1982. The
periphery of the Susitna River drainage area was examined via truck
(Plate 4-2) on the Glenn, Richardson, Oenali and Parks Highways.
The survey ~~as intended to:
1) Evaluate the adult spawning and juvenile rearing potentials in
streams and lakes adjacent to the road system. This included
assessement of lake and stream depth, width, water temperature,
turbidity, gravel, pool-riffle areas, stream velocity, accessi-
bility to salmon, and presence of fish and manmals.
2) Identify sites for stocking of juvenile salmon into streans and
lakes.
3) Examine potential hatchery sites for producing juvenile salmon
to stock into streams and lakes.
4.1.5.4 Tyone River system surveys
The large lakes witl1in the Tyone River system, a tributary of the upper
Susitna River, have the potential for producing a large number of sockeye
-22-
salmon. To assist with the estimation of juvenile sockeye production in
these lakes, a lirnnological survey \'/as planned in late September, 1982.
This and another attempted survey in October, 1982 were cancelled because
of very hazardous weather.
-23-
4.1.6 Determination of Stream and Lake Surface Areas
Knowledge of stream and lake s~rface areas are essential for determining
salmon production since production is definitely related to surface area
(Burns 1971; Hayes and Anthony 1964; Youngs and Heimbuch 1982). Streams
and lakes were selected for potential salmon production based on:
1) Knowledge of stream main stem lengths (Orth 1971), and stream
widths in different sections of each stream from Alaska Depart-
ment of Fish and Game (1981c), and 1982 helicopter and road ve-
hicle surveys.
2) Aquatic habitat surveys ~1hich included ~vater quality and quantity,
pool-riffle relationships, accessibility to salmon, gravel avail-
ability, and presence of fish which prey on or compete vlith salmon
(Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1981c, 1982; Allin 1957;
Andrews 1961; r~r. Christopher Estes ~/, Mr. Kent Roth, ~~r. Joe
Sautner~/, i'-1r. Dana S:hmidt ~/, pers. comm., August 2, 1982;
Mr. Fred Willi arns~/ pers. cor.1m., October 7, 1982, August 10,
1982; Williar.1s 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1969, 1972; Williams and
Potterville 1978). Additional aquatic habitat surveys were con-
ducted during the 1982 fixed-wing aircraft , helicopter, and road
vehicle surveys.
Stream areas were calculated from stream length and width data or
by planimeter using maps. Strearn area v1as assumed equal to a rec-
§j AIJF&G Fishery Biologist III, Anchorage.
2/ ADF&G Fishery Biologist II, Anchorage.
lQI ADF,% Fishery Biologist III, Anchorage.
Q! ADF&G Fishery Biologist III, Glennallen.
""
tangle for a short stream length when average widths were known and the
widths were similar throughout the specific length of stream. Stream
area was assumed equal to a trapezoid when stream widths were dissimilar
throughout the stream length, e.g., when the area of an entire stream
main stem was determined.
All lake areas were obtained via planimeter on maps, except for Lake
Louise, which was obtai ned from Mr. Stan Jones~.~/ (pers. comm., September
7' 1982).
4.1.7 Biological Impact of Introduced Salmon on Resident Fish
Predator-prey relationships and competition between salmon and resident
fish were examined via literature research. Results of this research are
found in Section 5.3.
1'); ~ United States Geological Survey, Anchorage.
-25-
4.2 Engineering Studies
4.2.1 Feasibility Studies
The primary engineering concern of this study \vas to determine if it
was feasible to bypass salmon through the velocity barriers in the
confines of Devil Canyon and the general consensus \vas that "bypass
methods" primarily meant fishways. In a feasibility study, preliminary
sketch plans and preliminary cost estimates vlith conclusions and recom-
mendations can usually be produced without incurring the expense of
extended field work and the detailed investigations needed for the
preparation of construction documents. In reviewing the abundant data
available on the Susitna River and its drainage basin, the study team
concluded that it could indeed determine the feasibility of bypassing
salmon through the Devil Canyon area, by means of a fishv1ay or fishways,
without having to undertake time consuming and costly field investiga-
tions.
The study team did feel, hovJever, that literature research alone
was inappropriate because the "Susitna River data" did not contain
river velocity information in the Devil Canyon area during the times
of the salmon miyrations. Then too, the biological information on the
lakes and tributaries upstream of Devil Canyon was sketchy or missing
entirely. For these reasons some field vtork was deer1ed necessary.
Following is a brief description of the engineering studies performed
by the study team.
July 13: Overflew the entire upper Susitna River drainage basin with
a biologist and engineering personnel (Figure 4-1). The purpose of the
-26-
CREEK
SUS/TNA :
~ 5 0 5 10 15miles
NORTH ~!!•Jiiii1!!•5iii!M!tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil!' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!Iii' iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill
IIliiiiiiiiil
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
LAKE'
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH a GAME
figure 4-1.
Upper Susitna River drainage basin.
overflight was to acquaint the study team with the terrain, the size
of the study area and to identify any features in the area that may
require onsite inspection.
Aug. 4 & Aug. 5: These two days were spent in on-site investigations
by the study tear'ls. By means of helicopter transportation, the engineers
inspected the canyon vJalls and strear:-~ banks in Devil Canyon (Plate 4-3)
and in the vicinity of De vi 1 Creek. Observations were made frol'l as
low as 20ft, and where conditions permitted, landings were made
to permit on ground inspection. The engineers were successful in
rneasuri ng the surface velocities through Devil Canyon by dropping
marker buoys fror.1 the helicopter and timing their transit through
predetermined distances (Table 4-4). The measuring of these velocities
was fortunate as it was on August 5 that the Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies Group made their first sighting of adult chinook salmon upstreal'l
of Devil Canyon. The passage of upstream migrant salmon through Devil
Canyon during the period of 1:1easured velocities and a known river
level greatly assisted in establishing fishway parameters. Hhile the
engineers \!Jere observing the hydraulic conditions in Devil Canyon, a
second helicopter transported the study team's biologists to selected
lakes and streal'ls in the upper drainage basin. Details of the biologists'
investigations are found in Section 4.1.
Aug. 31: This vtas a similar site investigation trip as that described
for August 4 & 5 except that on this trip Mr. Milo C. Bell, a noted
fisheries engineer, accompanied the study team. Again, close attention
was rna de of the hydraulic conditions vJi thin Devil Canyon and the canyon
area irnmedi ately downstream of Devil Creek. A report on r~r. Bell's
observations and recommendations is contained in the appendix 10.4.
-28-
I
N
\.0
I
Plate 4-3. Devil Canyon looking downstream from proposed dam site (from Alaska Power Authority).
Table 4-4. Devil Canyon velocity measurements.
Station
number
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l l
12
13
R & M Consultants
4/13/81 & 4/14/81
Distance between
stations
( ft)
1400
200
140
180
200
200
155
325
200
200
400
Vel Ocl ty Station
(ft/sec) number
2
3
3.0
6
6.0
8.6
10
1.5
6.4
13
-30-
ADF&G
8/5/82
Distance between
stations
( ft)
1400
520
880
800
Velocity
(ft/sec)
14. l
13.6
13.3
13.3
Sept. 15 -Sept. 17: This ground inspection trip was to evaluate the
potential rearing areas in the upper Susitna River drainage basin and
to locate hatchery sites for use in conjunction with a juvenile stocking
program. The study team drove the periphery of the drainage area via
the Glenn, Richardson, Denali and Parks highways (Figure 4-2). The
emphasis of this investigation was the evaluation of adult spawning
and juvenile rearing streams that are accessible to the road system.
Stream crossings of the Denali highway made it possible to take water
ter:Jperatures and observe stream bed conditions in many locations.
This information was not only useful in projecting probable production
capacities but identified several initial stocking points for juvenile salr.1on
should a salmon enhancement program in the upper Susitna River drainage
basin be imple~ented.
4.2.2 Design Studies
Although the feasibility studies described in Section 4.2.1 are sufficient
to support the findings and recommendations in this report, it should
be pointed out that further detailed studies would be needed to design
any of the facilities recommended. In particular the following studies/
investigations would have to be completed before commencing with the
design of a fishway(s) in Devil Canyon. The following studies are
both biological and engineering in nature:
1) A thorough topographic survey of the blockage area(s). This survey
should include, if possible, the contours of the river bottom.
2) A hydrological study of the blockage area(s) during the months of
the upstream salmon migrations. This study should determine the
-31-
\f PROPOSED DAM SITE
DENALI
NATIONAL
·. PARK
AREA LOCATION
~
NORTH
III1liiliiil
20 0 20 40mllea
~I ~-!!!!!t--1!!!' !!!!!!!!I
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH a GAME
Figure 4-2.
Highways in Susitna River area.
river levels during all periods of migration and should determine the
stream velocities at both banks and the location of points of turbulence
and upwelling.
3) A geotechnical investigation to include both surface examinations
and sub-surface exploratory drilling.
4) Additional studies regarding construction requirements and site
access.
5) Sonic tagging studies of upstream migrants to determine, if possible,
their migration route(s) \~ithin the blockage area(s).
6) Hydraulic model studies. This is a desireable but not a mandatory
study. Due to the certain high cost of any fi shway (s) constructed
in Devil Canyon the cost of a model study could certainly be justified.
7) Refined cost esti~ate. Based on the detailed information obtained
in studies (1) through (6) a refined cost estimate could influence
a decision on whether or not a proposed project should proceed.
-33-
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Salmon Enhancement Potential (S.E.P.)
5.1.1 S.E.P. Without Hydroelectric Dams
The upper Susitna River watershed is suitable for the rearing of salmon.
The problem is that the watershed is not accessible to salmon. However,
adult salmon could be introduced 'into the watershed via fishways or
juvenile salmon could be introduced into the watershed by means of hatchery
stocking. A fishway enhancement program and a hatchery enhancement
program are described in sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4.
Juvenile salmon production in the upper Susitna River watershed with
resultant adult production is now considered for each salmon species.
5.1.1.1 Sockeye Salmon
The life cycle of sockeye salmon is depicted in Figure 5-1.
Selected lakes in the upper Susitna River basin will produce approximately
1,600,000 sockeye smolts (Table 5-1). These smolts will produce approximately
160,000 adults (Table 5-1). Of the 31 lakes considered for producing
sockeye salmon, the three largest lakes, viz. Lake Louise, Susitna Lake,
and Tyone Lake (Plate 5-1), pr0duce 120,000 adults or 75% of the total.
-34-
(McNeil and Bailey 1975)
. -35-
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH 8 GAME
Figure 5-l.
Life cycle of sockeye salmon .
Table 5-l. The potential production of sockeye salmon in upper Susitna
River 1 akes.
Lake surface Sr.1olts Adults
Lake area {acres} {number) {number}
Lake Louise 14,720 699,200 69,920
Sus itna Lake 9,000 427,880 42,788
Tyone Lake 1,600 76,000 7,600
Little Lake Louise 1,020 48,639 4,864
Lake 2505~/, Tyone
River system 919 43,168 4,317
Beaver Lake 896 42,560 4,256
Dog Lake . 750 35,690 3,569
Butte Lake 704 33,440 3,344
r~oore Lake 640 30,400 3,040
Sandy Lake 403 19,152 l '915
Clarence Lake 378 17,940 1,794
Lake Creek lakes 346 16,416 1,642
Mud Lake 326 15,504 1 ,550
Fog Lake, nearest
Fog Creek 314 14,900 1,490
Lily Lake 256 12' 160 1 '216
Snodgrass Lake 250 11,856 l '186
Osar Creek lakes 230 10,944 1,094
Gray 1 i ng Lake 205 9, 729 973
Black Lake 204 9,728 973
Lake 32851;, Kosina
Creek system 128 6,080 608
Lake 7l;, Tyone River
system 128 6,080 608
Tabert Lake 122 5, 776 578
Roosevelt Lake 57 2,736 274
Glaser Lake 32 l '520 152
Total: 33,628 1,597,498 159,751
l/ Elevation in feet.
-36-
Plate 5-l. The Tyone River system lakes. -37-
The number of adult sockeye salmon available to the fisheries depends on
whether a fishway enhancement program or a hatchery enhancement program
is used. With a hatchery (no fishways), more salmon can be harvested
than with fishways since a hatchery produces a much greater egg-to-smolt
survival than does the fishway enhancement program which depends
solely on natural production th;oughout the pioject life.
This is apparent in Table 5-2. With the fishways, the harvest-
able sockeye surplus is approximately 53,300 fish or 33% of the entire
run. With a hatchery, the harvestable sockeye surplus is approximately
152,000 fish or 95% of the run, which is approximately 98,700 more harvest-
able fish than with the fishway enhancement program.
Considering the annual economic value of the harvestable sockeye salmon,
the fishway-produced sockeye salmon are worth $390,000 as shown in Section
6.1.2, while the hatchery-produced sockeye salmon are worth $1,110,000
as shown in Section 6.2.2.
-38-
Table 5-2. Biocriteria 1; for determining the harvestable surplus of sockeye
salmon adults ~·lith the fi shway enhancement and the hatchery
enhancement programs at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek areas.
~/
Smolt to adult survival
Egg to smolt survival
Fecundity (no. eggs/female)
Egg retention
t~ale: female
Recrui trnent: spa~,mer
Brood survival in fresh water
Fi shway
enhancement
10%
1%
3,000
0%
1 : 1
3
> 90%
Hatchery
enhancement
10%
15%
3,000
Ool
/0
1 : l
3
>90%
From data listed in Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1982b), Crone
and Bond (1976), Drucker (1972), Foerster (1968) and Hunter (1959).
-39-
5.2.1.2 Chinook Salmon
The life cycle of chinook salmon is depicted in Figure 5-2.
Selected streams in the upper Susitna River basin will produce approximately
100,000 chinook smolts (Table 5-3). These smolts will produce approximately
3,000 adults (Table 5-3). Of the 21 streams considered for producing
chinook salmon, the following eight streams produce 2,880 adults or 95%
of the total: Tyone River, Oshetna River, Kosina Creek, Clearwater Creek,
Watana Creek, Butte Creek, Fog Creek, and Coal Creek (Plates 5-2 through
5-9). Two streams, Tyone River and Oshetna River, together produce
1,618 adults or 53% of the total.
The number of harvestable chinook salmon depends on whether the fishvJay
enl1ancen1ent or the hatchery enhancement program is used. The greater
egg-to-srnolt survival, and subsequently greater number of harvestable
salmon with the hatchery program, is apparent in Table 5-4. Hith the
fishways, the harvestable surplus is approximately 800 fish or 27% of
the entire run. Hith hatchery enhancement, the harvestable surplus is
approximately 2,800 fish or 93% of the run, which is approximately 2,000
more ha rvestab 1 e fish than \vith the fi s hway program.
Considering the annual economic value of the harvestable chinook salmon,
the fish\vay-produced chinook salmon are worth $94,000 as shovm in section
6.1.2, while the hatchery-produced chinook salmon are vwrth $329,000 as
shown in section 6.2.2.
-40-
FISH SPAWNING IN HOME STREAM
JULY-SEPT. .
(From McN~il and Bailey 1975)
-41-
SMOLT MIGRATION TO OCEAN
JUNE-JULY (LARGE FINGERLING)
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH 8 GAME
Figure 5-2. Life cycle of chinook salmon.
Table 5-3. The potential production of chi nook sa 1 mon in upper Susitna
River tributaries.
Tributary surface Smolts Adults
Tributary area (acres) (number) (number)
Tyone River 382.50 30,972 929
Oshetna River 283.37 22,945 688
Kosina Creek 179.30 14,518 436
Clearwater Creek 17 i. 27 13,868 416
Watana Creek 74.20 6,009 180
Butte Creek 38.74 3' 137 94
Fog Creek 35.46 2,871 86
Coal Creek 22.73 1,840 55
Valdez Creek 16.17 1 '31 0 39
\~indy Creek 15.76 1 '275 38
Tsusena Creek 6.94 562 17
Jay Creek 5.19 501 15
Goose Creek 2.73 221 7
Waterfall Creek 2.56 207 6
Sandy Creek 2.46 199 6
Raft Creek 2.30 186 6
Lake Creek 2.00 162 5
Snodgrass Lake creek 1. 70 138 4
De ad rna n Creek 1.60 129 4
Boulder Creek 1.08 187 3
Devil Creek .26 21 2
1,249.32 101,158 3,036
-42-
Plate 5-2. The Tyone River just upstream from its confluence with the
Susitna River.
Plate 5-3. The Oshetna River at its confluence with the Susitna River.
Plate 5-4. Kosina Creek at its confluence with the Susitna River.
Plate 5-5. Clearwater Creek just upstream from its confluence with the
Susitna River.
-44-
Plnte 5-6. Watana Creek at its confluence with the Susitna River.
Plate 5-7. Butte Creek at the outlet of Butte Lake.
-45-
Plate 5-8. Fog Creek at the outlet of Fog Lake.
Plate 5-9. Coal Creek.
-46-
Table 5-4. Biocriteria 1; for determining the harvestable surplus of chinook.
salmon adults with the fishway enhancement and the hatchery
enhancement progra11s at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek areas.
Smolt to adult survival
Egg to smo lt survi va 1
Fecundity (no. eggs/female)
Egg retention
t~ale: female
Recruitment: spawner
Brood survival in freshwater
Fishway
enhancement
30/
/0
1.4%
6,500
0%
1 : 1
2.73
> 90%
Hatchery
enhancement
3%
15%
6,500
0%
1 : 1
2.73
> 90%
2J Based on or from data listed in Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1982b),
Crone and Bond (1976), Drucker (1972), Foerster (1968) and Hunter (1959).
-47-
5.1.1.3 Coho Salmon
The life cycle of coho salmon is depicted in Figure 5-3.
In addition to chinook salmon, selected streams in the upper Susitna
River basin will produce approximately 51,000 coho smolts (Table 5-5).
These smolts will produce approximately 5,100 adults
21 streams considered for producing coho salmon, the same eight streams
listed for chinook salmon produce 4,800 coho adults or 94% of the total.
The Tyone and Oshetna Rivers together produce 2,700 coho adults or 53% of
the total.
The number of harvestable coho salmon depends on whether the fishway en-
hancement or the hatchery enhancement program is used. The greater
egg-to-smolt survival, and subsequently greater number of harvestable
salmon with the hatchery program, is apparent in Table 5-6. With the
fi shways, the harvestab le surp 1 us is approxi rnately 660 fish or
13% of the entire run. With hatchery enhancement, the harvestable surplus
is approximately 4,740 fish or 93% of the run, which is approximately
4,080 more harvestable fish than with the fishway program.
Considering the annual economic value for the harvestable coho salmon, the
fishway-produced coho salmon are worth $13,000 as shown in section 6.1.2,
while the hatchery-produced coho salmon are worth $94,000 as shown in
sect i on 6. 2. 2.
-48-
(From McNeil and Bailey 1975)
-49-
ALEVIN IN STREAM GRAVEL
JAN.-APRIL
JUVENILE FISH IN FRESH WATER
1 TO 2 YEARS
SMOL T ,\IIGRA TION TO OCEAN
JUNE-JULY
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH a GAME
Figure 5-3.
Life cycle of coho salmon.
Table 5-5. The potential production of coho salmon in upper Susitna River
tributaries.
Tributary surface Smo lts Adults
area (acres) (number) (number)
Tyone River 382.50 15,486 1,549
Oshetna River 283.37 11 ,473 1 '14 7
Kosi na Creek 179.30 7,259 726
Clearv·!ater Creek 1 71 ?7 l I J e t.. I 6' 934 693
Watana Creek 74.20 3,004 300
Butte Creek 38.74 1 ,568 157
Fog Creek 35.45 1,435 144
Coal Creek 22.73 920 92
Valdez Creek 16.17 655 66
Windy Creek 15.76 638 64
Tsusena Creek 6.94 281 28
Jay Creek 6.19 250 25
Goose Creek 2.73 111 11
Waterfall Creek 2.56 104 10
Sandy Creek 2.46 100 10
Raft Creek 2.30 93 9
Lake Creek 2.00 81 8
Snodgrass Lake creek 1. 70 69 7
Deadman Creek 1.60 64 6
Boulder Creek 1.08 44 4
Devil Creek .27 11 2
Tot a 1: 1,249.34 50,580 5,058
-50-
Table 5-6. Biocriteria 1; for determining the harvestable surplus of coho
salmon adults with the fi shv1ay enhancement and the hatchery
enhancement programs at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek areas.
Smolt to adult survival
Egg to smolt survival
Fecundity (no. eggs/female)
Egg retention
t~ale: female
Recruitment: spawner
Brood survival in freshwater
Fi shway
enhancement
10%
1%
2,300
0%
l : l
2.3
> 90%
Hatchery
enhancement
10%
15%
2,300
0%
1 : l
2.3
> 90%
~/Based on or from data listed in Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1982b),
Crone and Bond (1976), Drucker (1972), Foerster (1968) and Hunter (1959).
-51-
5.1.1.4 Chum Salmon
The life cycle of chum salmon is depicted in Figure 5-4.
In addition to chinook and coho salmon, selected streams in the upper
Susi tna River basin will produce approxi rnately 970,000 emergent churn fry
{Table 5-7). These fry will produce approximately 9,700 adults (Table 5-7).
Of the 18 streams considered for ,producing chum salmon, the same eight
streams listed for chinook salmon produce 9,105 chum adults or 95% of the
total. The Tyone and Oshetna Rivers together produce 5,440 churn adults
or 57% of the total.
The number of harvestable churn sa 1 rno n depends on whether the fishway en-
hancement or the hatchery enha1cement program is used. The greater
egg-to-fry survival, and subsequently greater number of harvestable
sa 1 mon Hith the hatchery program, is apparent in Table 5-8. With the
fi shways, the harvestable su rp 1 us is approximately 2,600 fish
or zn~ of the entire run. Hith hatchery enhancement, the harvestable
surplus is approximately 9,260 fish or 96% of the run, which is ap-
proximately 6,660 more harvestable fish than with the fishway program.
Considering the annual economic value of the harvestable chum salmon,
the fishway-produced chum salr:~on are worth $13,000 as shown in section
6.1.2., while the hatchery-produced chum salmon are worth $45,000 as
shown in section 6.2.2.
-52-
FISH SPAWNING IN HOME STREAM
3 TO 5 YEARS OLD
FISH MATURING IN OCEAN
2 TO 4 YEARS
FRY IN ESTUARY
MAY-JUNE
JUVENILE FISH IN COASTAL WATERS
JULY-SEPT.
(From McNeil and Bailey 1975)
-53-
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH a GAME
Figure 5-4.
Life cycle of chum salmon.
Table 5-7. The potential production of chum salmon in upper Susitna River
tributaries.
Tributary surface Fry Adults
area (acres) (number) (number)
Tyone River 3. 04 368,300 3,683
Oshetna River 1.45 175,700 1 '757
Clearwater Creek 1.38 166,800 1,668
Watana Creek .59 71 ,500 715
Kosi na Creek .43 52,250 !:;')? vLv
Butte Creek • 31 37,400 374
Fog Creek .27 33,000 330
Coal Creek • 18 22,000 220
Windy Creek • 13 15,400 154
Valdez Creek .07 8,000 80
Tsusena Creek .05 6,623 66
Jay Creek .05 6,050 61
Waterfall Creek .02 2,475 25
Goose Creek .02 2,475 25
Raft Creek .02 1,925 19
Snodgrass Lake creek • 01 1,650 17
Deadman Creek .01 1 ,449 15
Boulder Creek • 01 825 8
Total: 8.04 973,822 9,740
-54-
Table 5-8. Biocriteria 1; for determining the harvestable surplus of chum
salmon adults ~vith the fi shway enhancement and the hatchery
enhancement programs at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek areas.
Fi shv1ay Hatchery
enhancement enhancement
Fry to adult survival 1 0/ ,o 0.7%
Egg to fry survival 12.5% 85.5%
Fecundity (no. eggs/female) 2,200 2,200
Egg retention ool /o on/ /o
t~1ale: female 1 : 1 1 : 1
Rec ru i trne nt: spawner 2.75 2. 75
Brood survival in freshwater > 90% > 90%
~/ Based on or from data listed in Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1982b),
Crone and Bond (1976), Drucker (1972), Foerster (1968) and Hunter (1959).
-55-
In summation, the upper Susitna River watershed can produce sockeye,
chinook, coho and chum salmon if immigration/emigration of adults/juveniles
is provided. The potential for sockeye salmon in both numbers and economic
value far outweighs that for tne other salmon species due primarily to
the large lakes in the Tyone River system.
The salmon production potentials are conservative since the biological
and limnological data base for streams and lakes is too inadequate to
accurately predict the carrying capacity for juvenile salmon. However,
certain assumptions may actually be too liberal, e.g., a high percentage
of salmon smolts may not survive the rapids in Devil Canyon and Devil
Creek areas though 100% survival was assumed.
-56-
5.1.1.5 Potential Barriers to Juvenile Salmon Emigration and Adult Immigration
Potential barriers to salmon migration in the Susitna River are located in
the upper river at the Devil Canyon and Devil Creek areas. These barriers are
rapids and supersaturated gases.
1) Rapids can dash emigrant juveniles against rocks and may delay juvenile
emigration by temporarily tt'apping them in eddies. The rapids are
undoubtedly velocity barriers to adult salmon immigration during the
high water velocities periodically occurring throughout the summer
migration season.
2) Total dissolved gases are supersaturated at times in this section of
the upper Susitna River. High gas concentrations can cause mortality
of juvenile and adult salmon.
5.1.1.6 Rapids
Juvenile salmon are known to survive movement through rough water including
waterfalls. Coho salmon smolt3 survived numerous high falls at Seldovia
River, Kenai Peninsula (Dudiak et al. 1979). This stream drops 265ft
in elevation in a 2 mile-long section and is totally impassable to adult
salmon. Pink salmon fry survived the Paint River falls, Alaska Peninsula,
which plunge into salt water and can drop more than 40ft depending on
the tide stage. Chinook salmon adults and eggs were found in the upper
Susitna River between the Devil Canyon rapids and the Devil Creek rapids
for the first tirne ever in 1982 by ADF&G staff. It is the professional
judgement of the ADF&G Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Team that juvenile
chinook salmon are produced in this area of the upper Susitna River (Mr.
Torn Trent~/, pers. comm., December 3, 1982).
~/ ADF~G Aquatic Studies Coordinator, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Team, Anchorage.
-57-
Therefore, some juvenile chinook salmon do survive their emigration through the
Devil Canyon rapids.
Undoubtedly some juvenile salmJn suffer delayed emigration or mortalities
in their passage through the rapids. However, experiences noted in
the previous paragraph indicate that the mortalities should be negligible.
Adult salmon immigration is definitely partially or even totally blocked
by the rapids during high water periods during the summer. Water flow
rates may exceed 50,000 cfs through the rapids; 29-year annual mean
flows are 28,040, 23,680 and 21,514 cfs for June, July and August, res-
pectively (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1982a). If fishways are
installed, these rapids would no longer be a barrier. The adult chinook
salmon observed upstream of the Devil Canyon rapids probably migrated
through these rapids during July 1982, during which daily water flows
were as lov1 as 14,500 cfs (Mr. George Cunningham~/, pers. comm.,
November 12, 1982).
5.1.1.7 Total Dissolved Gas Supersaturation
Total dissolved gas concentrations exceeding 110% have been measured in
the rapids though levels fluctuate throughout the area (Schmidt 1981 ).
Gas concentrations exceeding 110% can cause mortality of juvenile and
adult salmon (Bouck et al. 1976; Dawley and Ebel 1975; Eble 1969; Eble
et al. 1971; Nebeker et al. 1976, 1979; Rucker 1975; Rucker and Kangas
1974; U.S. Envirommental Protection Agency 1976; Westgard 1964).
~/ ADF&G Civil Engineer I, Anchorage
-58-
Juvenile salmon emigrating through the rapids during t~ay and June could
encounter total dissolved gas concentrations exceeding 101% over a 40
mile distance with concentrations exceeding 110% over an 18 mile distance.
Water velocity measurements taken in Devil Canyon during the summer of
1982 (Table 4-4) along \vith extrapolations on velocity vs. width of the
Susitna River at the low flow rate of 17,400 cfs (Gold Creek station)
indicate a range of 2 to 9 mph over the 18 mile distance. Assuming a
conservative 2 mph water floH rate and further that juvenile salmon v-lill
travel downstrear:~ at this rate, the 18 mile distance v1ould be covered in
9 hours. Juvenile salmon are therefore totally safe over this distance
since at even 115-116% saturation the onset of mortality takes more than
240 hours at 8-10° C for fry (Rucker and Kangas 1974) and more than 268
hours for smolts to reach 20% mortality (Bouck et al. 1976). Even if
juvenile salmon took twice as long to travel the 18 mile distance, i.e.,
18 hours, due to delays, they vwuld probably not be affected by dissolved
gases.
Adult salmon are be present at the rapids during the months of June
through September (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 198la; Barrett
1974; Friese 1975). Adult salmon could encounter the same dissolved gas
concentrations as the juveniles. Average swimming speeds of sockeye,
chinook, coho and chum salmon adults fror:1 the mouth of the Susitna River
to the Devil Canyon dam site (152 miles) range from 0.16 to 0.23 mph or
3.8 to 5.6 miles/day based on data in Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(198la). Gas concentrations may exceed 110% over an 18 mile distance,
and may exceed 115% over a 4 mile distance. These 4 and 18 mile sections
of the Susitna River would include the two fishways proposed for passing
-59-
if they are constructed, should take fro~ 8 to 12 hours depending on the
species (Mr. Lowell Barrick~/ pers. comm., November 11, 1982).
Using the lowest average swimming speed of 0.16 mph (chinook salmon), a
salmon could negotiate the 4 and 18 mile distances in 29 and 91 hours,
respectively. Adults should be safe for the 29 hours at 115%, and 117
hours at 110% saturation since the exposure times necessary for 20%
mortality at these saturations exceed 122 and 268 hours, respectively
(Bouck et al. 1976).
In summation, the rapids at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek may delay or
inflict some mortality on emigrating juvenile salmon, and will prevent
migration of adult salmon during high water velocities. Total dissolved
gas supersaturation will probably not adversely affect juvenile or adult
salmon.
~/ ADF&G, Department Engineer, Juneau.
-60-
5. 1.2 S.E.P. With Hydroelectric Dams
Fifty years of observing salmon migrating past the numerous dams that
have been built on the Columbia and the Snake Rivers have proven con-
clusively that all large dams create serious obstacles to the migration
of salmon. The obstacles are ~any and varied and affect both the
upstream migrants and the downstream migrants (Figure 5-5). Attempts
to overcome the obstacles created by the dams have met \~ith limited
success. Although it has been shown that special features at a dam,
e.g. fishways, fish locks, bypass by trucking, etc. can be built to
pass fish around the barrier, these features are very costly to construct
and maintain, and their successfulness is questionable. The proposed
645 ft high concrete arch dam at Devil Canyon and the 885 ft high
earth fill dam at Watana Creek (Plate 5-10) are much greater in height
than are any of the Columbia River or Snake River dams, for which
salmon bypass features have been constructed, and therefore they undoubt-
edly present similiar problems, as do the Columbia/Snake River dams,
but at a greatly magnified scale. Following is a partial list of the
known problems that the Columbia/Snake River dams cause to migrating
salmon in those systems. (It should be remembered that the Colurnbi a/Snake
River dams are in the 50 foot to 150 foot height range with reservoirs
of comparable depths).
1) Changed vwter temperatures above and bel ow the dams.
2) Change in the seasonal flow pattern of the river.
3) Change in water quality; i.e. low oxygen content below the da1.1,
-61-
... · .... ' .. ,~··:..:..::..:..····-~·-···.:...::.:.:·.·.··~···· '""'-'--'-"' ·:....:.:.:.;····..::..:...:.:.·· ~
.. ~·--DAM .
I' 'I . • --f .... t Ill( flow
. . . ..
'· . . . .. .
. .... ··. .·.·· · .. · .. · ...
PLAN VIEW OF INTERRUPTED RIVER FLOW
Celay, disorientation, residualism (juveniles),
predator concentration, chemical-temperature changes,
higher incidence of disease, etc. . . . .
ELEVATION VIEW OF RESERVOIR EFFECT
Delay
Disorientation
Gas disease
-Death
-Morbidity
LJ ~!;,~~~., Heavy 'P"' rrr=[:~~:·
Gas ~~~ . ·
supersaturation .-.. :
Killed
~-::;ti
~*9
\
Fallback
-Injured
ELEVATION VIEW OF SPILLING EFFECT
Killed injured, stunned, trapped in roll, easy prey
l
. . .
I
I'
---TURBINES
~~
ELEVATION VIEW OF TURBINE EFFECT
. ..... _..:.'
. . . . . . .
flow
flow
LEGEND UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
AOUL T JUVENILES· BIROS
(SALMONIO)
PREDATORY
FISH
-62-
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH a GAME
Figure !)-5 .
Dam obstacles to salmon migration
Watana Creek dam
Devi 1 Creek dam
Plate 5-10. Proposed Susitna River dams (from Alaska Power Authority).
-h~-
high nitrogen content and gas supersaturation.
4) Change in food supply and disruption of the ecological balance.
5) Siltation of the reservoir.
6) Fishway problems
a) Fi shways rising to heights of nearly 900 feet have never been
constructed before. Although fishway construction is theoreti-
cally possible the cost would certainly be exceedingly high.
b) Fish\tays built on acceptable slopes of 10:1 could require up to
2 miles of fishv.Jays for darr1s 900 feet high.
c) Devil Canyon -very difficult to construct a fishway on the
face of a concrete arch dam. Construction in the canyon walls
would be very expensive.
d) Watana-similiar construction problems as at Devil Canyon.
It is doubtful that a fishway would be permitted on an earthen
structure. Construction in canyon walls v1ould be very expensive.
e) Fluctuating reservoir level will make the design of the fishway 1 s
water intake complex and costly.
f) Fish passage delays due to confusion in locating the fishway
entrance in the tailrace discharge.
7) Reservoirs
1'~ost of the studied reference material indicated that reservoirs
create an unnatural condition that is neither lake nor stream. The
slack water of the deep reservoirs cause confusion in both the adult
and juvenile migrants (Bell 1973). Studies shm>~ that the confusion
causes lengtlw delays vvhich are deterirnental to the physiology of
the adult spavmers (may cause adults to die before spavming) and which
-64-
apparently cause some juveniles to beco~e lost and stops their
migration to the sea. The 74 miles of resevoir, with depths in
excess of 800 feet, created by the Devil Canyon and Hatana darns is
certain to create serious migration problems for both adults and
juveniles.
8) Downstream migration of juveniles
a) In reiterating the pro~lems in item 7, the reservoir obstacle
appears to be more detrimental to the juvenile salmon than to
the adults. The juveniles are not strong swimmers and without
a downstrea~ current to guide them they often become lost and fail
to continue their seaward migration.
b) ~1ortalities of juveniles over darn spillways or through
turbine blades are very high (Figure 5-6).
c) Trapping facilities to capture juveniles at dams
are only marginally successful and their maintenance and
operating costs are high.
d) Migration delays in reservoirs contribute to extensive
predation by fish populations in the reservoirs.
9) Reservoir flooding of the productive spawning areas in the lower
reaches of the tributary streams reduces spavming potential.
5.1.3 Conclusion
It is the study team's conclusion that the problems and the costs
associated with conducting a salmon enhancement program in the upper
Susitna River, with the two proposed dams in place, far outweigh the
benefits to be received from such a program. For this reason the team
recommends against implementing any salmon enhancement program above
-65-
TAILRACE
·. -~, . ' . .
.
';
·,. : .: .. :-·.-~. :.-: ;,-s-,· ... :' :~: ·<. :·:\': .:·. · ... :.·
·· ... · ... ·.~ · .. ·. .... . . . ··.:: ... . ~· . . ,: :·
.. ..
FOREBAY
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH 8 GAME
Figure 5-6.
Salmon migration through a dam turbine.
Devil Canyon if the proposed Susitna da1;,s are constructed. A salmon
enhancement program is feasible, however, if the Susitna River dams are
not constructed.
An idea to divert the water from Lake Louise into the Copper River
v1atershed has been discussed for several years. The theory behind
this idea is that Copper River salmon would then make use of the Lake
Louise watershed for spawning and the subsequent rearing of juveniles.
While this water diversion project may have merit, it opens up a whole
new series of questions concerning biological impact, socio-economic
factors, cost, benefits and etc. The study team felt that the "Lake
Louise diversion proposal" was outside the scope of this study so no
investigations were conducted.
A trout or grayling enhancement project could possibly succeed in
the upper Susitna basin even if the dams were constructed. The
trout/grayling enhancement would be a "put-take" operation wherein
hatchery produced trout/grayling juveniles would be released into
suitable rearing waters in the upper Susitna River drainage area for
natural rearing and subsequent sport fish harvest. The cost of such a
"put-take" operation would vary according to the facilities used. If
existing hatchery operations could be adjusted to support this operation,
capital costs would be minimized and the project might be economically
feasible. If a new hatchery had to be constructed specifically for
this project, then the project may not prove to be feasible. Like the
"Lake Louise diversion proposal" mentioned in the preceeding paragraph,
the study tean felt that a "trout/grayling enhancement proposal" was
outside the scope of this study and investigations of this type were
not conducted.
-67-
5.2 Enhancement Techniques (E.T.)
This section discusses various salmon enhancement techniques that may be
feasible for use in the upper reaches of the Susitna River if the proposed
hydropower dans are not constructed. The alternatives discussed consider the
more familiar methods of passing adult salmon through fishways of the pool
and weir type, the vertical slot baffle, submerged orifice weirs and the
Denil design. In addition to fishways, other solutions such as low head
dams and bra il systems are considered. Put and take methods such as eyed
egg and juvenile plants, which require the support of hatcheries, are also
discussed.
Because of the limited access (primarily river boat and helicopter) into
Devil Canyon, many different construction materials and construction tech-
niques were considered. Even so, it was quickly determined that any con-
struction conducted at Devil Canyon could only be done at considerable
cost. An aerial reconnaissance of the terrain between Gold Creek (adjacent
to the Alaska Railroad) and Devil Canyon revealed the presence of a pioneer
("cat") trail that has apparently been "constructed" by miners or hunters.
This study did not determine the condition nor the ownership of the trail.
However, some reduction in construction costs might be realized through the
reduction in helicopter support, if use of the trail was made available to
a contractor.
-68-
5.2.1 Low Head Dar:Js
An alternative to the installation of conventional fishways could be the
construction of several low head dams, 5 to 15 feet high, at the down
stream (chute) end of identified velocity barriers (Figure 5-7). The
purpose of the dams would be to drown out the velocity barriers and create
quiet water resting pools upstream of the dams. The dams would eliminate
the long (500 -1500 foot) stretches of fast water (velocity barriers) but
would create their own 5 foot to 15 foot high vertical barriers. To over-
come the vertical barriers conventional fishways would be installed over
both ends of each dam. Because of the extreme difficulty of working in
the confines of the canyon and because of the high cost of constructing
dams capable of withstanding the flood water forces of the Susitna River,
this alternative was rejected.
5.2.2 Mechanical/Helicopter Brail Systems
ADF&G experimented with brail systems at two sites in Alaska during the
1970's (Plate 5-11). At Anan Creek in southeastern Alaska where a 10 foot
drop over a 100 foot reach often created a velocity barrier to large numbers
of pink salmon a mechanical brail systen consisting of a cable trarl\'lay,
engine driven hoists and dip nets was used to lift pink salmon over the
barrier. Although the system used did v1ork the fish r.1ortality rates were
high, and its operation required the use of large numbers of personnel.
At Russian River, on the Kenai Peninsula, where a 30 foot drop over a
300 foot reach often created a velocity barrier to large numbers of
sockeye salmon, a hybrid type of the Anan Creek brail system was tried.
In this syster;J the sockeye were bra i 11 ed at the base of the obstruction
-69-
... ·.··············· ·...... ............... ··········
sus;riV4
...............
Construct low head dams to flood out the rapids areas
and allow the salmon to ascend via pool and weir lifts.
Each dam should contain at least one fishway and
preferably two (both banks).
DEVIL CANYON
: -'([vv-vvv~ · ·,------.
--
dam
--
~--
0 -~ -_ ·:
--.
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH a GAME
F1gure !:>-•
Low head dams.
I
~
--"
I
Plate 5-11. Brailling salmon at Anan Creek.
and then airlifted over the obstruction in fire buckets slung beneath a
helicopter. The Russian River system was more successful than the Anan
Creek system in terms of reduced fish mortality and a reduction in the
nUinbers of people involved. Hm-Jever, because of the large numbers of
sockeye to be transported, the expense of the helicopters and the dangers
of flying in the confines of a narrow canyon, this transportation experiment
was quickly discarded.
Although both brail systems were marginally successful, the experience
gained showed that neither system was practical for the long term solution
of moving large numbers of salmon past a barrier, especially if that
barrier is in the confines of a canyon such as Devil Canyon. A brail
system is not recommended for use in Devil Canyon.
-72-
5 • 2 • 3 • F i s hw ay s
5.2.3. 1. General Information and Discussion
Fishway, fish ladder, and fishpass are all terms used to describe
methods of passing fish upstream at dams and natural obstructions. In
tfli s study the term fi shway is used. There is a difference in concept
between designing a fishv1ay at a natural obstruction and in designing
a fish~~ay at a dam. Briefly, the difference is that the natural obstruction
to migration is in most cases a part of the natural environment of the
fish affected by it. The population of migrating fish has presumably
become adjusted to some extent to this environment. However, if the
obstruction each year takes its toll by reason of direct mortality, or
physical impairment as a result of delay or damage, any facilities
installed which will reduce this mortality or impairment will be beneficial.
The design criterion then becomes one of constructing the most efficient
fishway at the lowest cost to provide the greatest benefit. With a
fishway at a dam, hov1ever, the primary aim is usually the ultimate one
of providing for no delay and no physical impairment of the fish,
since any such delay or impairment is not part of the natural environment.
As the Devil Canyon velocity barrier is a natural obstruction, the
evaluation of fishways in this chapter will be made with the goal of
selecting a design that will provide the greatest benefit for the
least cost.
5.2.3.2 ADF&G Criteria for Fishways Under Twenty Feet in Height
In designing fishways in Alaska, the Department of Fish and Game
considers the following three items to be essential features of a
fi shway:
-73-
1) The entrance must be located such that it is easily found and
readily entered by the fish.
2) The fish must be able to swim through the fishway without undue
effort.
3) The fishway design must be such that entrance and passage through
the facility are accomplished with a minimum of delay and injury
to the fish.
The following guidelines should be used as a check to ensure that the
three essential elements of a fishway are incorporated into each design:
1) Velocities in salmon fishways should not exceed 8 fps.
2) The fishway must discharge enough water to attract fish to the
entrance. Discharge velocity will vary in relation to the stream
flow, but discharge velocities should be in the 3 to 8 fps range.
3) Fishv1ay designs should not permit rapid changes in flow patterns.
Energy derived from increases in head must be dissipated quickly
and without changing the general flow pattern features.
4) The fishway should provide ample physical and visual clearance
for the fish. The smallest submerged opening must not be less
than ten inches wide and water depths must allow complete coverage
of any fish traversing the fishvtay. In some fishv1ays, it may be
advantageous to have openings in the bottom of weir baffles to
allow passage of fish through rather than over the weir.
-74-
5) The fishway should provide adequate resting areas if it is long.
Locations of resting pools will vary \'lith the species of fish and
the type of fi shway used.
6) Location of the entrance is extremely important. It should be at
the furthest upstream point of the fish migration. If this is
physically impossible, then some type of fish guidance fence into
the entrance may be required. Entrance discharge should be nearly
parallel with the stream flow and should discharge into a non-turb-
ulent pool if possible.
7) The fishway exit should be into a protected area away from the
barrier overflow to prevent fish from being swept back over the
barrier.
8) Designs must consider fluctuations in water levels and should
minimize the use of mechanical controls in regulating flow through
the structure. This is es~ecially important at a site such as
Devil Canyon where access, for maintenance and operations purposes,
i s very 1 i mited.
9) Consideration must be given to the intended location of the fishway
so that adequate maintenance can be provided.
10) The maintenance effort wil 1 be minimized if due design consideration
is given to problems of debris at the exit, ice accumulations,
destructive forces caused by flood water, and sediment in and
through the fishway.
5.2.3.3 Heir and Orifice Fishway
See Figure 5-8 for an example of a weir/orifice type fishway. This type
of fishway is one of the oldest and probably most co~mon designs in
-75-
water surface~
~----~----------------~~
.... c. ...... ' . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. · ... ' ......
. . .. . . ( . .. .
. ' . '
. '
orifice
END VIEW
STREAMING OR SHOOTING FLOW (below critical flow)
PLUNGING FLOW (above critical flow)
(Adapted from Bell 1973)
-76-
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH a GAME
Figure 5-8.
Weir and orifice fishway.
use. Initially, just a series of weirs was installed, but later
refinements led to the installation of orifices within the weir.
under certain conditions, a weir/orifice type fishway will provide a
cost efficient method of transporting fish over a barrier. However,
this type of design has some serious operating deficiencies that preclude
its use at a remote site like Devil Canyon.
The two most serious deficiencies' concern variable stream flows and
transportation of sediment. A weir operates efficiently only within a
very narrow range of flows. The flow in the fishway is controlled by
the upstream weir and it can operate efficiently only when river levels
are within the range producing the desired flows over the upper weir.
If the stream flow is not within the narrow operating range of the
weir, the fishway will be either starved or drowned. In some cases
(mostly at inhabited sites such as man-made dams), it is practical to
provide for regulation of the fishway flow over a wider range of stream
levels by means of adjustable weir crests or gates, but due to the
remoteness of Devil Canyon, this solution is not feasible. Also, the
weir/orifice type design is readily clogged by stream debris and
sediment. During high flow conditions, the Susitna River carries a
considerable load of sand/silt which would lodge in the weir pools and
destroy the velocity-reducing characteristics of the design. Mainten-
ance considerations alone preclude the selection of this design for
use at Devil Canyon.
5.2.3.4 Denil and Alaskan Steeppass Designs
The Denil design was developed about the turn of the century and was
-77-
probably designed to overcome the problems that were inherent in the
weir/orifice design. The Denil design does operate through a wider
range of stream levels than the v1eir type without serious impairment of
its efficiency; however, sedimant transportation still poses a problem
in the Denil design. In the case of the Denil design, sediment clogging
is not the problem as much as is sediment abrasion. The movement of
silt, sand, gravel, and large stones through the thin baffle members of
the fishway causes serious maintenance problems in fishways of this
design.
The Alaskan steeppass is an aluminum section modification of the Denil
design. The Alaskan Steeppass was adapted from the Denil design for
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game by Chief Engineer G. L. Ziemer,
P.E. The initial adaptation and testing was done in the late l950 1 s
and early l96o•s. The major innovation of the Alaskan Steeppass is in
the use of aluminum panels in the construction of fishways. The
relatively light aluminum sections (complete with energy-dissipating
baffles) are prefabricated in ten foot lengths and then transported
(by boat, air, or hand-carried) to the obstruction site where they are
bolted together and installed. Several Alaskan Steeppass fishways are
in use throughout the state. The Alaskan Steeppass works well in
streams where there is little fluctuation in the level of flow. However,
practical applications have shown that the Alaskan Steeppass would not
be suitable in Devil Canyon where there are extreme fluctuations in the
water level. See Figure 5-~ for details of the Alaskan Steeppass.
5.2.3.5 Vertical Slot Baffle
Figure 5-10 depicts a typical vertical slot baffle which was developed to
-78-
L-----------·-·-----·----
.s
1'-
C\J
DATA
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS:
(Basic Models: A and C)
Model A:
slopes: 20% to 35%
velocities: 2.5 to 3.5 Ips
flows (0): 3.5 to 4.0 cfs
Model C:
slopes: 20% to 35%
velocities: 4.1 to 4.5 Ips
flows (0): 4.5 to 5.7 cis
.s
C\J
C\J
@ flow depth of one foot @ flow depth of one foot
General Use:
For fish obstructions (falls) up to twenty feet in height
~---14 __ 1n_. __ · __ ~>~i
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH 8 GAME
Figure 5-9 .
Alaskan steeppass.
wall baffle ,.....
\ :;:::-
·. ~
r-.• -.. -. -.. -~--~~
. · .... , ·~ ~
h--------,...i • ....... :';. ~
.: ~ ... :; .· ~
" wall baffle
PLAN VIEW
center baffle
i:\1--------.
ELEVATION
.·. . \\ ~ ~ ~ \~
~~
~
~
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH a GM1E
Figure ~
Vertical slot baffle.
overcome the deficiency of the l'leir/orifice and Denil-type designs in
operating under a wide range of stream flows without the use of attendants
or automatic controls to adjust for the fluctuations in 'dater levels.
It wasn't determined just when or where the first vertical slot fishway
was used. However, there is cJnsiderable information dating back to
the 1940's that describes the use of vertical slot baffles used in
fi sh~1ays at Hell's Gate and at Farev1ell Canyon in British Columbia as v-Jell
as sites in the lower 48 states.· From all of the information read, the
vertical slot design works well at sites with highly variable stream
flmvs. Clay's Design of Fishways and Other Fish Facilities states that
the vertical slot fishways at Hell's Gate have operated successfully
over periods during which the range in water levels has been as ~uch as
45ft. Furthermore, the vertical slot is probably the most efficient
design in transporting sediment through the fishway. Both of these
later characteristics of the vertical slot make it a pronising design
for use at Devil Canyon.
In reviewing all of the enhancement techniques discussed in sections 5.2.1
through 5.2.3, the study team cane to the conclusion that only the vertical
slot fishway would be efficient in passing salmon through the Devil
Canyon area (Table 5-9 and Figure 5-11). In the case of the barriers
at Anan Creek (Plate 5-12) and at Russian River, the permanent solution
used was the installation of vertical slot baffles in 8 foot diameter
tunnels circumventing the velocity barriers. The Anan Creek fishway
(110 lineal ft of tunnel plus 35 lineal ft of open trench) was con-
structed in 1977 at a cost (contractor payment only-not total project
costs) of $212,000. The Russian River fishway (280 lineal ft of tunnel
plus 50 lineal ft of open trench) was constructed in 1978/79 at a
-81-
Table 5-9. Comparison of fishway designs.
Type of Guidelines for essential elements of fishway design (pg 74 and 75)
fi shway
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Remarks
Unacceptable due to the highly
Heir/Orifice G,C F F E,C E,C E,C E,C u F F,C fluctuating stream flow conditions
fi shv~ay and high maintenance operational
charactE!ri st i cs
Unacceptable for the same reasons
Alaskan steep pass E,C F E F G,C E,C E,C u F F,C given for the weir/orifice design
Lleni 1
Acceptable: This design meets
Vert i ca 1 s 1 ot E,C E E E E,C E,C E,C E E G,C all the requirements needed to pass
baffle salmon.
Unacceptable because of construction
Lo1v head dams F,C F F F N/A F,C F F,C u F,C difficulties and anticipated high
maintenance costs.
Unacceptable: The mechanical brai 1
Mechanical or N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A is unacceptable due to high opera-
helicopter brail tional costs and excessive fish
mortalities. The helicopter system
is unacceptable for moving 1 a rge
numbers of salmon due to the high
operating costs.
Legend: u -Unsatisfactory, F -Fair, G -Good, E-Excellent. c -Can be designed in, N/A -Not Applicable
<
CD
0
()
-'·
c+
'<
0
-!)
:1£
OJ
rt
CD
-s
I -'· co ::::s w
I ()
c
--'
<
CD -s
c+
--+> ·o
(/)
15
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3 --
2.5
2
1.5
I
10 15
Fish passage velocity-2.0 fps in --.............. relation to channel
.............
............ ~Curve for steelhead, coho, sockeye chinook
....... '-( ---.............. .......... I'-...
............ ..........
....... ~ l.----Estimated curve for pink, chum
I'.. // ............
['... i'-
" ...........
' ......... "'...........
' ........ ~"-.. ~
,;---~Estimated curve. for grayling, "' ""' northern p1ke ' -----............ ' ---~ "' !"---... .........
".......... ~ -----............ .... ______
............ .........
' ........__, ............... .............
... ______
............ . , ......... ...........
............... .... , ' ............. ............
·---...., ............ -.... .. ~ ' ' .............. ·-.... .. , ..............
20 25 30 40 50 60 80 100 150 200 250 300 '100 500 600 800 1000
Horizontal distance between restinn nools in feet (culvert lennth)
Figure 5-11. Swimming speeds of fish relative to horizontal distance between resting pools.
I co
~
I
Plate 5-12. Anan Creek fishway-vertical slot baffle in tunnel.
cost (contractor payment only-not total project cost) of $727,000.
Both fishways are functioning well and it is believed that fishways of
similar design would be suitable for use at Devil Canyon.
5.2.3.6 Fishway Construction Costs
From field observations made in July and August, 1982 and from a review
of Susitna River hydraulic data, the study team concluded that there are a
series of 4 to 6 ve 1 ocity barriers in the Oevi l Canyon area. These
velocity barriers essentially prevents the upstream migration of salmon
when the river discharge exceeds 15,000 cfs. The 4 to 6 velocity
barriers identified are basically located in two stretches of the river.
The first series of barriers occurs in the river from near the site
of the proposed Devil Canyon dam (about river mile 152) and extends
downstream about 4000 feet. The second series of barriers starts at a
point which is about 1000 feet below the mouth of Devil Creek (about river
mile 162) and extends downstream nearly 4000 feet. A series of short
tunnel fishways could theoretically be constructed around each individual
velocity barrier, this would entail the construction of 4 to 6 relatively
short tunnel fishways. Because of construction considerations and
factors concerning the potential for migration delay with the salmon
searching for entrances to several tunnels, the study team recommends
that two major tunnel fishways be constructed instead of several shorter
fishways. Figure 5-12 shows the alignment and profile for a 4200 foot
long tunnel fishway at Devil Canyon (lower fishway) and Figure 5-13
shows the alignment and profile for a 3900 foot long tunnel fishway at
Devil Creek (upper fishv1ay).
-85-
--~ss _Ro~o
A11trtt.
NORTH
11111111111
RIVER
---~
\
880
___::::: 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 feet -
·-MiJ-;J I J; ; J I
~---+----+----+----+---~~-.~~----+----+----+----4----~--~~--~--~r----r----r----+----r----T----~--~--~----+2)+--+----4---~~ I
L •~· :es
,/ J r ~~.... .+ c-o"o :g nr.c: i hlo f . h· "'=~' ,rr\f 1 qs ~,..t II r.rof.i ~HH ~en+ +..., he--+----+----+------l----+-----l----l---t-
I-----1-----+----+----Jil-tr-f· '+-·y--1------11-----+----=1--__!.!.!.1 P.~ <;~"'..IS<..l.P. '~:.uL..!ofl~ P. r, P.~ rnnrn~~J~ eT a""-'11..!J 1e,.~ CLJ:lJ'_!; [_QlQO 1 1ve s· g_OllQ'4 ri,...__ s._-t--"----1--t
;
1
"..1 ~ .xuqT emru n~:;et e. 101 1 •~ ue ~ e-cte· • u1 udittcmrt-o:~TH-1{*-w=----t
860+----4----4---~~,~'~~--~----+---4---~~--~c·tu~"o~·c~~-----~--~----+---~----+----+----+----1----~ Figure 5-12
Devil Canyon
fishway alignment
840
830
, , ....
1----+---
l----+p~Y,c~~~~~~+---+-----l-----l-----+-----+----+----+----l----1----lr---r----tr----r----r----r----+----+---l---+---4---+--~+--~-----+r,,
4Ct00
42+00
-86-
30+00 20+00 ~0-tOO 0+00
PROFILE SCALE: HORIZ. I"= 400' VERT. Jl' = 20
200 400 ' :
40+00 30+00
Q7_
20+00 1o+oo
figure 5-13
Devil Creek
fishway alignment
0+00
QDI"\C"'II L C'-1'1\..1 t:". lll""\f""ll"'7 ... _ Al"'\1""\, , • ..--.... , .. _ '"""'
Fishway installation assumptions:
1) Assumptions for LovJer Fishway (Devil Canyon)
a) Locate 22-man camp on nortr1 side of river near mid point of tunnel.
b) Paths constructed from top of bluff to portals.
c) Compressor and alternator located at each portal.
d) Raft constructed to transport heavy equipment and tools to downstream
portal. Raft used as temporary work platform.
e) Rock wasted in river.
f) Landing strip used as a marshalling area and for cement batch plant.
g) Work from both portals towards the center (work 2 faces simultaneously):
Two 10 hr. shifts per face on 15ft diameter tunnel (Figure 5-14).
Assume 5 ft advance per shift = 20 ft per day.
h) Contract period: Mobilization through construction through
demobilization = 12 months. Tunnel excavation, October through April = 7
months.
2) Assumptions for upper fishway (Devil Creek)
The upper fishway will be constructed under a scenario similar to that
for the lower fishv1ay. The major difference being that the construction
camp for the upper fishway would be located on the river bank near
the center of the tunnel alignment. It is expected that the contractor
would construct an adit into the tunnel, near its center, and excavate
from the center both ways. By tunneling fro1.1 the center both vJays some
consolidation of equipment, with corresponding cost savings, can be
achieved.
1) Adult capture facilities
Because of the velocity barriers, few salmon migrate upstrean of Devil
Canyon to spawn. With the construction of the fishways, the salmon will
be physically able to proceed upstream but because of the limited
-88-
4'-I" 1d' 1'-4" 9" 1'-4· 1o"l 4'-1"
6':..3'
PLAN VIEW
J/4"= 1'-o"
ROOF SUPPORT AS
REQUIRED
/
QO_
ELEVATION VIEW
1/4"=1'-o"
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH 8 GAME
Figure 5-14.
Typical tunnel/baffle section.
(virtually nonexistent) brood stock upstream of Devil Canyon the study
team feels that the upper Susitna River drainage basin r.tust be "stocked"
vii th the desired sal rnon species. The recommended "stocking program"
would consist of taking sockeye eggs at the Gulkana River and chinook,
coho and chum eggs from the Susitna River. The eggs would be incubated
to fry/fingerling size in existing facilities near Paxson and in
Anchorage. The fry/fingerling would then be transported to select
release sites in the upper Susitna River drainage basin. This operation
would continue for 5 or 6 years until the adults returned in numbers
sufficient to propagate the species naturally, at which time the stocking
prograrn would be discontinued.
By adjustments in its existing hatchery program, the FRED Division could
basically accommodate a stocking program for the upper Susitna River
for the 5 to 6 year period specified. The only significant addition
required to the existing facilities would be the construction of a
summer weir camp at Gold Creek and adult capture v/ei rs at Indian
River and at Portage Creek. These facilities would be needed to obtain
the Susitna River chinook, coho and chum eggs necessary for the juvenile
stocking program. Cost estimates for the construction of the Devil Canyon
fishv1ay, the Devil Creek fishway, the Indian River and Portage Creek 1'/eirs
and the fry/fingerling stocking operations are shovm in Tables 5-10, 5-
11, 5-12 and 5-13, respectively.
-90-
..
CLASS OF WORK OR MATERIAL QUANTITY UNIT
UNIT . EXTENSION
Table 5-10.
Devil Canyon fishway C.I.P costs.
A. Mobilization
1 • Equip. Rental
LHD: 3 @ $10,800/mo = $32,400/mo 10 Mo $32,400 $324,000
Compressors: 3 @ 2800 = 8,400/mo 10 Mo 8,400 84,000
Generators: 4@ 1100 = 4,400/mo 12 Mo 4,400 52,800
Air Leg+ 3 11 Drill: 6 @ 425 = 2,550/~ 0 10 Mo 2,550 25,500
vent. Blower: 2 @ 250 = 500/Mo 10 ~10 500 5,000
3 11 Diameter Pump: 2 @ 850 = 1700/mo 10 ~10 1 > 700 17,000
3 11 Sub. Pump: 2 @ 425 = 850/mo 12 Mo 850 10,200
4 11 Cent. Pump: 2 @ 1050 = 2100/mo 12 Mo 2' 100 25,200
Suc./Pres. Hose: Misc. Lengths 12 Mo 1 ,000 12 > 000
3 Drum Diesel Pov1ered Hoist 12 Mo 2,600 31,200
Loader with 4-way Bucket 12 Mo 3,000 36,000
Hoist Bucket 12 ~10 800 9,600
Portab 1 e Grave 1 Plant 6 Mo 12,000 72 '000
16 C.F. Cement Mixer 6 Mo 1 ,350 8,100
Sub-Total Item Al -------------------------------------712,600
2. Misc. Equip. Rent: 1 LS 150 '000 150,000
Sub-Total Item A2 ------------------------------------150' 000
3. 22 Man Construction Camp
a. Purchase 9 ~ 8 1 x 20• Units
6 sleepers/ 1 office/ 1 kitchen/
1 laundry-wet unit 1 L< 11 0 > 000 110,000
b. Setup & Outfit 1 L~ 55,000 55,000
Sub-Total Item A3 -------------------------------------165,000 '
,, .. o.lf L
CLASS OF WORK OR MATERIAL QUANTITY UNIT
UNIT . EXTENSION
Table 5-10 cont.
r~obi l i zat ion (cont. )
4. Transportation
Fin: RR Transport/Demurrage l LS 188,000 188,000
Bell 212 (trans): r~atls & Equip. 450 HR l ,500 675,000
Bell 212 (Stdby): 20-4 hr days 80 HR 1,500 120,000
Bell 206B: 1:3i-Wkly Supply 104 HRS 500 52,000
Sub-Total Item .\4 ----"----------------------1,035,000
5. Camp Setup
a. Labor: 7 rnen ( l 0 hr /day) 60 days 4200 M-HR 30 126,000
b. Camp Cost: $70/man/day 420 M-DV 70 29,400
Sub-Total Item A5 ----------------------------155,400
Total Mobilization: Item A -----------------------2,218,000 = $2,218,000
Demobilization
Bell 212 (trans): f·1at' l & Equip. 200 HR 1,500 300,000
Be 11 212 (stdby): 10-4 hr days 40 HR 1,500 60,000
13 e 1 l 2U5B: Pers 8 Supply 25 HR 500 12,500
Labor: 6 men ( l 0 h r I day) 30 days 1800 HR 20 36,000
Camp Cost: $70/man/day 180 DY 70 12,600
FRT: RR Transport/Deriurrage 1 LS 40,000 40,000
Total Demobilization: Item B ------------------------461,100 = $461 '100
CLASS OF WORK OR MATERIAL QUANTITY UNIT
UNIT . E.XTENSION
Table 5-10 cont.
r~ate rials
l. Blasting Material
a. Powder 2,800 Cases 100 280,000
b. Caps 220 Boxes 75 16,500
c. Detonation Cord 75 Rolls 75 5,625
2. Tunnel Liner 288,000 Lbs 0.65 187,200
3. Cement 2,400 Bags 5.50 13,200
4. Rebar 36,000 Lbs 0.50 18,000
5. Misc. Weir ~1aterials l LS 32,000 132,000
6. Rock Bolts & Fasteners 1 LS 10,000 10,000
7. Misc. Tit!lbers/Steel/Concrete l LS 66,000 166,000
)
) 8. Diesel Fuel/Gas 73,000 Gal 1.50 109,500
Total Materials: It ern c ---------------------------938,025 = $938,025
. r~at I 1 Installation cost (labor)
l. Tunnel: l5 1 H X l4 1 H X 4200 1 L 4200 LF 375 1,575,000
2. Vertical Slot Heirs 80 EA 7,100 568,000
3. Tunnel Liner 1,200 LF 250 300,000
4. C:oncrete lJivision 1-J a 11 800 LF 1,000. 800,000
5. Entrance & Exit Structures 2 EA 72,000 ' 144,000
6. Repair Suspension Bridge 1 LS 30,000 30,000
7. Camp: Board & Room at $70/man/day 6,600 1·1-DY 70 462,000
Tot a 1 Labor: Item D -------------------------------------3,879,000 = $3,879,000.
CLASS OF WORK OR MATERIAL
E. Construction Overhead & Profit
Construction Cant: 10% (A-D)
Contractor Overhead: 25% (A-D)
Contractor Profit: 15% (A-D)
Tot a 1 0 & P: Item E -
QUANTITY UNIT
SAY--------
SAY--------
SAY--------
------------
UNIT . EXTENSION
-----------750,000
-----------i,874,000
-----------1,124,000
-----------3,784,000
F. Total construction Costs: Items A-E -----------------------------11,244,125
G. Consultant Design Services
a. Engr. surveys: Topo & Hydraulic 1 LS 200,000
b. Geotechn i ca 1 Investigations 1 LS 500,000
(In conjunction vJith upper fishway)
c. Construction Documents
(5% of F when designed in )
(conjunction 1vith upper fishway)
Total CDS: Item G
H. DOTPF Administrative Costs
a. Design/construction control: 15% F
b. Contingency: 5%'F
1 LS 562,000
--------------------------
SAY
SAY
200,000
500,000
562,000
1,262,000
1,687,000
562,000
.Total DOTPF: Item H -------------------------2,249,000
I. Total Project Cost: Items F+G+H
Table 5-10 cont.
= $3,784,000
= $11,244,125
= $1 ,262,000
= $2,249,000
= $14,755,125 SAY =$14,750,000
I
CLASS OF WORK OR MATERIAL QUANTITY UNIT
UNIT . E?<TENSION
1able 5-11.
A. f1obi 1 i zat ion Devil Creek fishway C.I.P costs.
1. Equipment Rent a 1
LHD: 2 @ $10,800/mo = 21,600/mo 14 Mo $21 ,600 $302,400
Compressors: 2@ 2800 = 5600/mo 14 t·1o 5,600 78,400
Air Leg + 3" D ril 1 : 4 @ 425 = 1700/r iO 14 Mo 1 '700 23,800
Ventilation ~lower: 14 t·1o 350' 4,900
3" di arneter Pump: 12 r~o 850 10,200
3" sub. Put:Jp: 12 No 425 5,100
4" cent. Pump: 12 t~o 1 ,050 12,600
Sue. /pres. hose: Misc. Lengths 12 ~10 1,000 12,000
Loader with 4 way Bucket 14 t~o 3,00( 42,000
P o rt a b 1 e G r a v e 1 Plant 6 Mo 12 '00( 72,000
16 C.F. Cement Mixer 6 t·1o 1 '3 5( 8,100
Generators: 4 @ 1100 = 4400/mo 14 ~10 4,40C 61,600
Sub-Total Item A 1 --------------1-------------------633,100
2. t1 i s c. Equip. Rent: 1 LS 150,00( 150,000
Sub-Total Item A2 --------------------------------150,000
3. 22 Man Construction Camp
a. Purchase 9-8 1 x 20 1 Units
6 sleepers/ 1 office/ 1 kitchen/
1 laundry-viet unit 1 LS 110' 00 110,000
b. Setup and Outfit 1 LS 55,00 55,000
Sub-Total Item A3 ------------------------------165,000
'
I' :~ f I:. I~,
CLASS OF WORK OR MATERIAL QUANTITY UNIT
UNIT . EXTENSION
Table 5-11 cont.
t~obi l i zat ion (cont.)
4. Transportation
FRT: RR Transport/Demurrage 1 LS 188,000 188,000
l3e11 212 (Trans): ~1a t 1 1 & Equip. 600 HR 1 '500 900,000
Be 11 212 (Stdby): 15-4HR Days 80 HR 1 ,500 120,000
l3 e 11 2068: l3i-weekly Supply 200 HR 500· 100,000
Sub-Total Item A4 ------------------------------1 ,308,000
5. Ca1np Setup
a. Labor: 7 men ( 1 Ohr /day) 60 days 4200 M-H 3( 126,000
b. Camp Cost: $70/rnan/day 420 f"l-D 7C 29,400
Sub-Total Item A5 -------------------------------155,400
) Tot a 1 Mobilization Item A -------------------------2,411,500 = $2,411,500
"
B. Demobilization
Be 11 212 (trans): Mat 1 l & Equip. 250 HR 1 '50( 375,000
Be 11 212 (stdby): 15-4 hr Days 60 HR 1 '50( 90,000
Be 11 20613: Per & Supply 40 HR 50( 20,000
Labor: 6 r:-~en (10 hr/day) 30 days 1800 HR 2C 36,000
Camp cost: $70/rnan/day 180 DY 7 12,600
FRT: RR Transport/Demurrage 1 LS 40,001 40,000
Total Der;10bi1ization Item B ---------------------------573,600 $573,600
CLASS OF WORK OR MATERIAL QUANTITY UNIT
UNIT . EXTENSION
Table 5-11 cont.
f~ate rials
l. Blasting Material
a. Powder 2,800 Cases 100 280,000
b. Caps 220 Boxes 75 16,500
c. Detonation Cord 140 Rolls 75 10,500
2. Tunnel Liner 288,000 Lbs 0.65 187,200
3. Cement 2,400 Bags 5.50 l3' 200
4. Rebar 36,000 Lbs 0.50 18,000
,-
:). Misc. 1-Jei r ~1ateri al s l LS 132,000 132,000
6. Rock Bolts & Fasteners l LS 10,000 10,000
7. Misc. Timbers/Steel/Concret~ l LS 166,000 166,000
) s. Diesel Fuel/Gas 60,000 Gal 1.50 90,000
.j
Total ~1aterials: Item c ---------------------------923,400 = $923,400
. t~a t 1 l Installation cost (labor)
l. Tunnel : 15 I H X l4 1 W X 3900 1 L 3,900 LF 438 1,708,200
2. Vertical Slot Weirs 60 EA 8,300 498,000
3. Tunnel Liner 1,200 LF 292 350,400
4. Concrete Division Wall 600 LF l,l7Q 702,000
5. Entrance & Exit Structures 2 EA 84 '200 ' 168~400
6. Camp: Board & Room at $70/manjday 7,700 M-DY 70 539,000
Total Labor: Ite1:1 D -----------------------------------3,966,000 = $3,966,000
CLASS OF WORK OR MATERIAL
Construction Overhead & Profit
Construction Cont: 10% (A-D)
Contractor Overhead: 25% (A-D)
Contractor Profit: 15% (A-D)
Tot a 1 0 & P: Item E --
QUANTITY UNIT
SAY---------
SAY---------
SAY---------
-----------~
UNIT . E?<TENSION
----------787,000
----------1 ~969,000
----------1,181,000
----------3,937,000
Total construction Costs: Items A-E -------------------11,811,500
1. Consultant Design Services
a. Engr. surveys: Topo & Hydraulic
b. Geotechnical Investigations
c.
( I n con j u n c t i on \vi t h 1 ov-J e r f i s hw ay )
Construction Documents
(5% of F when designed in conjunction
(with lower fishway)
Total CDS: It ern· G ----
H. DOTPF Administrative Costs
a. Design/Construction Control: 15% F
b. Contingency: 5% F
LS 200,000
LS 500,000
1 LS 590,000
----------------------
200,000
500,000
590,000
1,290,000
SAY ---~---------------1,772,000
SAY ---------591,000
Total DOTPF: Item H ---------------r---------2,363,000
I. Total Project Cost: Items F+G+H --------~-------------
= $3,937,000
= $11,811,500
= $1 ,290,000
= $2,363,000
= $15,464,500
Table 5-11 cont.
SAY=$15,465,000
CLASS OF WORK OR MATERIAL
A. Contract Items (ADF &G Design)
l. Mobilization/Demobilization
2. Indian River Weir
3. Portage Creek Weir
4. ADF &G Car:1p: Setup/Water/Sewer
5. Profit/Overhead/Ins @ 25% (1-4)
Total Item A -------
!). DOTPF PJT Admin: 15% (A)------------------
c. ADF&G Equip. Purchase
l. 12' X 20 1 Hansen Weatherports
I
0 2. 16' \3 Redwood Tanks 0
I
3. 12' ~ Redwood Tanks
4. 4 11 Diesel Pumps
5. 10 K\~ Deisel Generator
6. Misc. Piping & Fittings
7. Jet Boats & Fittings
Tot a 1 Item C------
Total Project Cost: Items A+B+C --------
QUANTITY UNIT
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
l LS
-------------
-------------
5 EA
4 EA
4 EA
2 EA
1 EA
1 LS
2 EA
-------------
--------------
J'' r.l,,
UNIT
$40,000
150,000
225,000
15,000
105,000
---------
---------
3,600
3,500
3,00C
5,000
15,00(
6,00(
20 'ooc
--------
--------.
• ;;;:>{ L
. EXTENSION
$ 40,000
150,000
225,000
15,000
105,000
-535,000
---------------
18,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
15,000
6,000
40,000
----115,000
__ .. ____ ...,.. _______
-
-
Table 5-12
Indian River and Portage Creek
weirs C.I.P. costs
= $535,000
= $ 80,000
= $115,000
----$730,000"; SAY = $700,000
Table 5-13. Fry/fingerling transport and stocking operational costs.
A) Sockeye (Initially from Gulkana River at Paxson):
1) Truck operations
a) Juveniles trucked from Paxson to Lake Louise.
b) 4 trips.
c) Rental truck fror.1 Anchorage for 5 days.
Cost: Truck @ 5 day x 8 hr/day x $70/hr
Truck mileage 1100 mile x $2.10/mile
Driver P.O. = 5 day ·x $70/day
2) Helicopter charter
a) Dead Head = 4 hrs x $650/hr
b) Planting = 14 hr x $650/hr
c) Pilot P.O. = 2 day x $70/day
B) Chinook, coho, chum (initially from Anchorage)
1) Truck operations
= $2,800
= 2,310
= 350
$5,460
= $2,600
9' 100
140
$11 '840
a) Juveniles trucked frOI;J Anchorage to Lake Louise and the Denali Highway.
b) 4 trips.
c) Rental truck from Anchorage for 5 days.
Cost: Truck @ 5 days x 8 hr/day x $70/hr
Truck mileage = 2,300 r.1ile x $2.10/mile
Driver P.O. = 5 day x $70/day
2) Helicopter charter
Included with lb.
3. Total planting cost/season
A1 + A2 + B1 = $5,460 + $11,840 + $7,980
-100-
= $2,800
= 4,830
= 350
7,980
= $25,280; SAY=25,000/season
5.2.4 Hatcheries
This section describes a hatchery operation for a salmon enhancement program
in the upper drainage basin of the Susitna River. The cost estimates developed
wil 1 be combined, in section 6, with the value of the expected salmon returns
to develop a benefit vs. cost (B/C) ratio for both a fish\'lay and a hatchery
salmon enhancement program.
5.2.4.1 General Information and Discussion
Fish hatcheries are a useful tool in man's attempt to artificially propagate
fish. Fish hatcheries have been in use in the United States for more than
one hundred years since the first hatchery \'las built in Orland, Maine in
1871. The FRED Division of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has
constructed many hatcheries in Alaska since 1975 and considerable inform-
ation on the cost and operations of hatcheries is available.
Because it is assumed that most Alaskans, and especially the readers of
this report, are familiar with the purpose and operations of a hatchery,
no detailed description of a hatchery operation will be provided here.
Suffice it to say that hatcheries have several functions, some of which
are:
1) Mitigation of fish losses caused by the construction of barriers
(dams) to natural spawning areas.
2) Maintaining and/or increasing fish stocks overexploited by fishing.
3) Mitigation of fish losses due to pollution and/or alteration of the
natural environment.
-101-
4) Stocking of rehabilitated habitat areas where fish populations have
been depleted by unfavorable conditions, both natur~l and man caused.
5) Introduction of species more suitable to an altered environment;
i.e. introducing warm water fish into warm water reservoirs.
6) Enhancement in areas where natural production is not realized.
It is function number ( 6) that is of concern to this study s i nee salmon
production in the upper Susitna River area could be achieved by the
introduction of adult spavmers to the area via fishways or by the alternate
method of introducing fry/fingerlings into the area by means of hatchery
operations. In the latter case, the study team envisions a simplified hatchery
program in \<Jhich maximal empt1asis is placed on the natural rearing of
fry/fingerlings, thus reducing h~tchery costs associated with the rearing
and feeding of juveniles.
For a hatchery program, eggs are collected from appropriate brood stocks
and incubated. Depending on the type of program desired, eyed eggs,
fry/fingerlings, or smolts are stocked. A recommended program for a 16
million egg incubation facility follm'ls.
5.2.4.2 Brood Stocks
Indian River and Portage Creek are appropriate sources for chinook, coho
and chum salmon eggs. The rationale for choosing these stocks is as follows.
-102-
1) The homing response of returning adults is enhanced if stocks are
used from the natal watershed. Indian River and Portage Creek are
tributary streams of the Susitna River and are located at Susitna
River miles 138.6 and 148.9, respectively.
2) Salmon for the upper Susitna River watershed should originate from
broodstocks which are accustomed to migrating long distances in
rivers. Indian River and Portage Creek salmon stocks migrate
approximately 140 and 150 miles upstream in the Susitna River and
are essentially the nearest stocks to the Devil Canyon rapids.
Devil Canyon, the first impassable rapids to adult migration, is
only a couple of miles upstream of the mouth of Portage Creek.
3) Stock sources must contain an adequate number of brood fish. The
number of adult salmon annually required to provide eggs for the
hatchery program each year is:
Chinook Salmon
Coho Salmon
Chum Salmon
2,164
189
1,499
Based on aerial and foot surveys, Indian River and Portage Creek
should provide these fish.
4) The stock sources must be accessible. Adult capture and holding
facilities can be installed at Indian River and Portage Creek,
which are accessible by boat, helicopter, and fixed-v~ing aircraft.
Talkeetna is located approximately 44 and 54 Susitna River miles
downstream of Indian River and Portage Creek, respectively. Also,
Ta 1 keetna is the recommend~d site for a new hatchery if a hatchery-
-103-
supported salmon enhancement program is implemented in the upper Susitna
River drainage basin.
The Gulkana River, a tributary of the Copper River, is an appropriate
source for sockeye salmon eggs. Rationale is as follm;~s.
1) Sockeye salmon for the upper Susitna River watershed should originate
from stocks which are accustomed to migrating long distances in
rivers. Upper Gulkana River sockeye adults migrate more then 270
river miles from the mouth of Copper River to their spawning grounds.
By co~parison, the Susitna River salmon are blocked at river mile
152 (Devil Canyon).
2) Adequate numbers of sockeye brood are essential. The number of
sockeye adults needed to provide eggs for hatchery propagation
each year is 7,667. The upper Gulkana River, upstream of its
confluence with Mud Creek near Paxson, supports annual escapements
probably exceeding 15,000 sockeye adults(Mr. Ken Roberson, pers.
comm., December 28, 1982). The Gulkana hatchery, located near
Paxson at a spring flowing into the upper Gulkana River, is expanding
its sockeye adult production and in 1982 had a record escapement
of 8,000 sockeyes.
3) Sockeye stock sources must be accessible. An adult capture and
holding area is already installed at the Gulkana hatchery. In-
creased adult production at this hatchery should provide adequate
brood stock for the upper Susitna River in the future. Adequate
water and space now exist for incubating many more eggs than are
presently being incubated 1nd the Gulkana hatchery is readily
accessible by road.
-104-
Additional sockeye adults are available in the upper Gulkana River
adjacent to the hatchery. This river section like the Gulkana hatchery
is adjacent to the Richardson Highway.
There is one potential problem with the Gulkana River sockeye stock.
This stock, like other sockeye stocks, has the viral disease, infectious
hematopoietic necrosis (IHN), i.Yhich causes severe mortality of juvenile
salmon. Sockeye juveniles at the Gulkana hatchery have not been affected
by IHN to date. IHN has, hmvever, caused severe mortality at other state
hatcheries in the past. The strain of IHN virus found in the Gulkana
River stock has caused mort3lity of Cook Inlet sockeye fry in tests
conducted by ADF&G's fish pathology laboratory (Dr. Roger Grischkowsky ~/
pers. comm., December 29, 1982). The potential implication of a
transplant of Gulkana River so~keye salmon into the Susitna River is
clear--a virulent strain of IHN virus could adversely affect Cook Inlet
sockeyes. There is perhaps some good nevJs. Water hardening of sockeye
salmon eggs in an iodophor solution may kill IHN viruses inside as vJell
as outside of the eggs. If this procedure proves viable, IHN virus-
free ju ven i 1 e sockeye sa 1 1non caul d be produced at hatcheries, such as
Gulkana hatchery, which have an IHN virus-free water source. Further
research may prove or disprove the vi abi 1 i ty of this procedure.
There is one other potential sockeye salmon stock, the Stephan Lake
stock, that has advantages and disadvantages relative to the Gulkana
River stock. Stephan Lake is located 3 miles south of the upper Susitna
River between its confluence with Devil Creek and Fog Creek. This lake
drains into the Talkeetna River. Advantages of this stock are:
~/ ADF&G Principal Pathologist, Anchorage.
-105-
1) The homing response of ret~rning adults will exceed that of the
Gulkana River stock since the former now migrate up the Susitna
River approximately 97 miles.
2) The Stephan Lake stock does migrate a considerable distance, approx-
imately 154 river miles, which, however, is a much shorter migration
than the 270 miles the Gulkana River salmon travel.
Disadvantages of this stock are:
1) Inadequate nur.1ber of brood fish. Cursory surveys indicate an
annual run of 115 to 1,142 adults. These numbers are perhaps
only 10% of the actual run, so 1,150 to 11,420 adults may annually
spawn in the lake. (~1r. Ken Tarbox!}_; pers. comm., December
28, 1982). Approximately 7,667 sockeye adults are required annually
for tlatchery propagation, so the Stephan Lake stock would have to
be increased, if this is possible, through hatchery propagation
before enough adults would be available as brood for the upper
Susitna River watershed. If the Stephan Lake stock is not increased,
less juvenile sockeyes than planned would be planted in the upper
Susitna River and the run would take many more years to reach a
maxi rnurn.
2) Stephan Lake is not as easily accessible as the Gulkana River.
The only easy access to the lake is by fixed-1ving aircraft or
helicopter. Access via boat fror1 Talkeetna is unknown and the
distance is approximately 57 river miles.
3) The IHN disease history for the Stephan Lake stock is unknown.
This stock may or may not be a viable candidate for transplanting
into the upper Susitna Riv-;r ~vatershed.
~/ ADF&G Fishery Biologist III, Soldotna.
-106-
5.2.4.3. Juvenile Salmon Stoc~ing
Juvenile salmon could be introduced into the upper Susitna River watershed
as eyed eggs, fry /fingerlings or smo lts. The advantages and disadvantages
of each life stage are now discussed, with a resultant recommendation.
5.2.4.4 Eyed Egg Planting
With the eyed egg program, eggs are taken from brood fish at egg take
facilities. Eggs are taken to an incubation facility and incubated until
eyed. These eyed eggs are then transported to and planted in selected
gravel in streams where incubation is naturally completed. A modern
salmon egg planting device is shown in Figure 5-15. In the spring,
the fry emerge fror.1 the gravel, spread throughout the streams, and after
one or more years migrate to sea as smolts if chinook, coho or sockeye
salmon. Chum fry migrate to s.:;a within several months after emerging
from the gravel.
Advantages of planting eyed eggs:
1) Hatchery capital and operational expenses v10ul d be minimized when
compared to a hatcl1ery fry/fingerling or srnolt program.
2) The homing response of adults resulting from eyed eggs should
exceed the homing response of adults resulting from fry or smolt
releases as the eyed egg progeny will spend additional months incu-
bating in the Susitna River watershed.
Disadvantages of planting eyed eggs:
1) Survival to adulthood will be less for eyed eggs than for older life
stages.
-107-
EGG BUNKERS
---MAIN WATER
CONTROL VALVE
A salmon egg plantina device (SEPD)
(From Jones et a l 1977).
-lOR-
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH 8 GAME
Figure 5-15.
SEPO.
2) The upper Susitna watershed freezes up early in the fall due to the
high latitude and elevation. Some eggs will not be eyed before ice
covers the streams. This factor combined with hazardous flying
conditions during the fall, precludes successful planting of a certain
percentage of the eggs.
3) Costs of transporting and planting eyed eggs may not be less than
the costs of planting fry/fingerlings or smolts. Many more eggs
than later life stages must be planted to attain the same number of
adults. Also, more manpower is required to plant eyed eggs than to
release fry/fingerlings and srnolts.
5.2.4.5 Smolt Stocking
Production of smolts for stocking involves egg incubation and long term
rearing. Smolts can be transported in the sar;Je manner as fry/fingerlings
with releases into streams or lake outlets in the upper Susitna River
basin. Smolts would immediately migrate to sea.
Advantages of stocking smolts:
1) Survival to adulthoood will exceed that for eyed eggs and for fry I
fingerlings.
2) Unlike eyed eggs, smolts can be stocked after the ice has left the
streams and lakes in May and June.
Disadvantages of stocking smolts:
1) The homing response of adults resulting from smolts may be less than
for fry/fingerlings.
2) The hatchery for srnolts v1ill be more expensive than for eggs and
fry/fingerlings due to the long term rearing needed for the smolts.
-109-
Unlike fry/fingerlings, smolts >'lill require one or more years of
rearing depending on the t~mperature of the rearing water.
3) Sockeye salmon may not attain smolthood under hatchery conditions
due to IHN disease.
5.2.4.6 Fry/Fingerling Stocking
Production of fry/fingerlings for stocking involves egg incubation and
some rearing of resultant fry to the fed fry stage (25% weight gain from
emergent fry weight) or the fingerling stage (100% weight gain from
emergent fry weight). After rearing at the hatchery, juvenile salmon
vJould then be transported via truck/trailer, fixed-\ving aircraft or
helicopter and stocked in streams and lakes in the upper Susitna River
basin. After one or more years, the chinook, coho and sockeye juveniles
would migrate to sea as smolts. Chum fry/fingerlings would migrate to
sea within a few months after stocking.
Advantages of stocking fry/fingerlings:
1) The homing response of adults resulting from stocking fry/fingerlings
should exceed that for smolts since the former remain in fresh water
much longer than smolts.
2) Survival to adulthood \vill exceed that for eyed eggs.
3) Unlike eyed eggs, fry/fingerlings can be stocked after the ice has
left tt1e streams and lakes in May and June.
4) The hatchery capital and operational costs are cheaper for fry/finger-
lings than for sr:~olts.
Disadvantages of stocking fry/fingerlings:
1) Survival to adulthood 1vill be less than for srnolts.
-110-
2) The artificial rearing requires a more expensive hatchery than for
eyed eggs.
All things considered, a fry/fingerling stocking operation is recommended
over that of eyed egg plants or smolt plants if a hatchery enhancement
program is implemented. Fry/fingerling survival will exceed that for
eyed eggs and the homing response should exceed that for smolts.
Fry/fingerlings, unlike smolts, tAfill have the ability to spread throughout
a lake or stream, or perhaps move fro~ strean to stream, adapting to the
natural environment, and thereby guaranteeing a good homing response.
5. 2. 4. 7 Hatchery Construction Costs
To implement a fry/fingerling stocking program, such as discussed in
section 5.2.4.6, a hatchery would have to be built to support that program.
The study team identified a potential site for the hatchery on state-
owned property at the airport ~n Talkeetna (Figure 5-16). A hatchery site
plan is depicted in Figure 5-17. The site selected was chosen for the
following reasons.
1) Availability of land, water, electricity and other utilities.
2) Ease of access by air, vehicle and railroad.
3) Central location relative to brood sources and juvenile stocking sites.
4) Relatively easy construction conditions to moderate cost.
5) Seasonal hatchery support from 1 ocal labor source.
6) Rural environment with support of hospital, schools, commercial
facilities etc.
A suitable hatchery layout is shovm in Figure 5-18 and would consist of the
following major features:
-111-
-11?-
AREA LOCATION
.a1l1llfu.
NORTH 0 ~miles
IIIIIIlliil1
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH a GAME
Figure 5-16.
Talkeetna hatchery site
...............
..................... .............. .............. ....... ....... ..............
/-"\(
_...... _......_:-..,... \\ (ROAD LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE)
.......... ....... \
/ ....... \\
....... ~....... \\ ,.~--;,........ 0\\
HATCHERY '-:-e ,_
-111-
NOT TO SCALE
RUNWAY
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH a GAME
Figure 5-17.
Talkeetna hatchery site plan.
0 0 0
ELEVATION
NTS
~
/
10 x 40 RACEWAYS
-------------
LAV.
LAY.
UTI UTI~ a
F*NTRY
KITCHEN
--
DINING 8 LIVING ROOM
IIII-I II
SECOND FLOOR
112"= 1'-o"
->-MECHANICAL <!
3: GARAGE ~ a ...J -SHOP <!. PUMP ROOM 3:
a:: w
0 z
:.:::>
::I:
(.!) LAB :.:::>
0 a::
1-
0 STORAGE <! w
::I: OFFICE -
Fl RST FLOOR
1/2"=1'-o"
-llLl-
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH a GAME
Figure 5-18 .
Talkeetna hatchery layout.
1) Sixteen (16) million egg incubation capacity. This facility would
be staffed by 2 full time employees vJith summer supplemental help of
fror:-~ 4 to 6 season a 1 he 1 pe rs. The faci 1 ity wou 1 d i ncu bate 1 mi 11 ion
chinook, 1 million coho, 1 million chum and 13 million sockeye salmon
eggs to the fry/fingerling stage for transplanting to the upper
Susitna River drainage basin for release and natural rearing.
2) Two adult capture weirs, c1e at Indian River and one at Portage
Creek. These two sites would be manned during the summer months
by a 12-14 person crew operating from a common camp at Gold
Creek. The chinook, coho, and chum eggs used for the hatchery
operation \vould be collected at these weirs, while the sockeye
eggs would initially come from the Gulkana River facility at
Paxson. Once a strong sockeye run vJas established upstream
of Go 1 d Creek, the sockeye eggs vwul d then be co 11 ected at the
Indian River and Portage Creek weirs along with the chinook,
coho and chum eggs.
3) Fry/fingerling planting operation. Initial stocking of the enhancement
area would be from fry /fingerlings taken fror:1 the Anchorage and the
Gulkana River facilities. As the Talkeetna hatchery becomes operational,
the incubation and plantinj operations would be transferred to
Talkeetna until the entire enhancement program was carried out from
Talkeetna. The planting operation would consist of truck transport
to Lake Louise and helicopter transport from Lake Louise to pre-selected
release points in that area. These operations would be conducted by
rented truck, chartered helicopter and support of the hatchery 1 s
season a 1 crev1.
-ll5-
Cost estimates for the hatchery features just described, viz. (1) hatchery
C.I.P costs, (2) weir C.I.P costs and (3) operational costs for the fry/
fingerlings planting operation are listed in Tables 5-14, 5-12, and 5-13,
respectively.
-116-
l.
2.
.... ....
.J
3.
4.
5.
6.
l.
CLASS OF WORK OR MATERIAL
Mobilization/Demobilization
Site l~ork
Survey/layout -clearing/grubbing
Fill
Spreading,· Grading, Compaction
Water Supply: 100' vJells
30' screens
testing
sub-pumps
Manifold Building & Piping
Sanitary Sewer
I ncb. Bldg. Water Drain Ditch
Sub-Total: It ern 2 ---
Hatchery Building
Living Quarters and Support B 1 dg.
Hatchery Bldg. Process Piping
Incubation Supply & Drain
Inc. Support System & Grating
Sub-Total: Item 5 ---
Electrical
Equipment
I ncuba tors
150 KW E1ne ruency Generator
4 W.O. 3/4T Pickup
Fish Transport Tanks
Office Equip., Tools, misc. iterns
Sub-Total: Itern 7 --
QUANTITY
l
2
1200
2000
10
10
600
10
l
l
2,500
--------
4800
2400
1
1
1
--------
l
100
l
l
4
l
-------
t'' &t;
UNIT
UNIT
LS 110,000
AC 4,000
CY ll
SY 6
EA l 0' 000
EA 4,200
HR 150
EA 7,000
LS 60,500
LS 15,000
LF 100
--------------
SF 75
SF 85
LS 60,000
LS 36,000
LS 35,000
-------------
LS 150,000
TRAY 20Q
LS 75,000
' LS 20,000
EA .2' 500
LS 25,000
---------------
t ... 'f '-·J
' EXTENSION
.110,000
8,000
13,200
12,000
100,000
42,000
90,000
70,000
60,500
15,000
250,000
--660,700
360,000
204,000
60,000
36,000
35,000
--131,000
150,000
20,000
75,000
20,000
10,000
25,000
---150,000
Table 5-14.
Talkeetna Hatchery·c.I.P costs.
$110,000
= $660,700
= $360,000
= $204,000
= $131 ,000
= $150,000
= $150,000
CLASS OF WORK OR MATERIAL
8. Hatchery Manager Residence
9. Construct ion Cont: 1 0% (Items 1-8)
o. Contractors Overhead & Profit
a. Overhead (d 20% (Iter:1s 1-9)
b. Profit @ 10% (I ter:1s 1-9)
Sub-Total Iter:1 10 ----
1. Consultant Design
80/ /0 of Iter:1s 1-9
2. OOTPF Administration
Design/Const. Control: 15% (Item 1-9)
Contingency: 10% (I ter.1s l-9)
Total DOTPF: Item 12 ----
3. Total Project Cost: Items l-12 --·-------
QUANTITY UNIT
1 LS
SAY --------
SAY --------
SAY --------
-------------
SAY --------
SAY --------
SAY --------
-------------
-------------
Itt;, 'I L(
UNIT . EXTENSION
120,000 120,000
---------]88,000
----------415,000
---------207,000
------------622,000
----------166,000
----------311,000
-----------207,000
-----------518,000
------------------------
Table 5-14 cont.
= $120,000
= $188,000
= $622,000
$166,000
= $518,000
=$3,379,700 SAY = $3,400,000
5.3 Biological Impact of Introduced Salmon on Resident Fish
Resident fishes of the upper Susitna River drainage are listed in Table
5-15.
Table 5-15. Resident fishes of the upper Susitna River drainage.~/
Arctic gray 1 i ng
Lake trout
Dolly Varden char
Humpback whitefish
Round whitefish
Burbot
Longnose sucker
Slimy sculpin
Arctic lamprey
}:_; From Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1981g and 1982a).
Adult and juvenile salmon will affect and be affected by resident fish.
Adult sockeye salmon that spaw1 in lakes may affect the eggs of lake
trout. The spawning dates of potential sockeye stocks for the upper
Susitna River, namely lower Susitna River (Barrett 1974) or Gulkana River
fish do overlap with those of Alaskan lake trout, namely late August
and Septe1~ber (t~orrow 1980; VanHhye and Peck 1968).
The spawning depths of sockeye sa 1 mon and 1 ake trout overlap v-1i th the
lake trout having the greater range of 1 to more than 300 ft deep
(Carlander 1969; Scott and Crossman 1973).
-119-
Unlike sockeye salmon, lake trout do not dig redds and generally spa\'ln in
areas that lack upwelling water flow. For example, lake trout frequently
spawn on boulders and rubble and also on gravel, silt, mud, clay and marl
lake bottom ( Carlander 1969; Scott and Crossman 1973). Though little
interaction between sockeyes a~d lake trout adults is expected, sockeye
adults could dig up the eggs of lake trout that spawn on lake gravel with
upwelling water flow. In very rare instances, lake trout spavm in streams
(Scott and Crossman 1973) in which case sockeye and other salmon species
could dig up trout eggs. Uncovered trout eggs could then be eaten by the
resident burbot, longnose sucker, round whitefish, and even lake trout
(Scott and Crossman 1973; Morrow 1980).
Adult salmon may affect the eggs of Dolly Varden char. The spawning dates
of potential chum, coho, and sockeye stocks for the upper Susitna River
do overlap with those of Alaskan Dolly Varden, namely late August and
September (Morrow 1980). These salmon species could spawn on previously-
constructed Dolly Varden redds. Since these salmon generally dig deeper
redds than those of Dolly Varden (Blackett 1968; Morrow 1980), Dolly
Varden eggs would be dislodged and could be eaten by resident burbot,
longnose sucker, and round whitefish (Morrow 1980; Scott and Crossman
1973). The opposite situation could occur when late spawning Dolly
Varden might dislodge salmon eggs during their own redd digging activities.
Juvenile salmon will, depending on individual size, compete for the same
food items as resident fish and also prey upon resident fish. Sockeye
fry and fingerlings compete for food (zooplankton) most frequently \'lith
threespine stickleback and even whitefish and char (Foerster 1968).
Sockeye competition \'lith other resident fish is unknovm.
-120-
Chinook and coho salmon will probably compete with resident fish for food
and space. Of all the resident fish species, arctic grayling will be
primarily affected by these salmon. Chinook and coho salmon frequently
reside in the slower-moving areas of streams, i.e., sloughs, undercut
streambanks, back eddies, and pools (Morrow 1980; Albin 1977; Scott and
Crossman 1973). Grayling also reside in pools and defend territories as
do coho salmon (Morrow 1980; Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1982;
~~arren 1971). Unlike coho and chinook salmon, grayling will sometimes
inhabit riffle areas of streams (Albin 1977). Salmon and grayling eat
primarily insects. Coho salmon, probably the major salmon competitor for
space, will probably be the major competitor for food with grayling since
both of these fish feed on insects primarily at the surface of the water
or at mid-depth (t~orrow 1980; Scott and Crossman 1973 ). Chinook salmon
will also compete for food and will eat insects at any depth in the
stream. Competition between salmon and other resident fish species ~vill
probably be for food more than for space. Unlike coho and chinook salmon,
burbot and Dolly Varden inhabit the stream bottom and whitefish reside in
riffles (Albin 1977; Morrow l9BO). Some competition for food will occur,
since most juvenile resident fish species eat insects.
Chum salmon compete less for food and space than the other salmon.
Shortly after emerging from the gravel, the chum fry begin swimming
downstrear;l to salt water. The fry do feed on zooplankton and small insects
while in freshwater but are so small in size and reside for such a short
time in freshv1ater that they are not serious competitors for food with
the resident fish. Chum fry will also inhabit the main stem of the
Susitna River during spring and early summer and therefore will not
compete for space with resident fish, which will at this time of year
-121-
reside in tributaries (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1981f; Riis and
Friese 1978).
The salmon that will prey on resident fish are coho and chinook salmon.
Sockeye and chum sal~on primarily eat zooplankton and some insects.
Fingerling coho and chinook salmon primarily eat insects, hut, if
given the opportunity will consume resident fish eggs that drift downstream
during or after spawning. Juvenile chinook salmon do not appear to consume
fish but coho smolts definitely do (Morrow 1980). Coho smolts are significant
predators of juvenile sockeye salmon (Morrow 1980) and do prey on stickleback
(Parr 1972). Evidence for predation by coho smolts on other resident
fish was not found, but surely coho s~olts will consume the fry of resident
fish if given the opportunity.
Predator-prey relationships are a "two-\vay street" and introduced salmon
will be eaten by resident fish. Grayling v1ill on occasion consume sockeye
salmon eggs and fry (Williams 1969). The lake whitefish, closely related
to the humpback whitefish, consume sockeye fry (VanV/hye and Peck 1968)
and the round whitefish, which consumes lake trout and whitefish eggs
(Morrow 1980; Scott and Crossman 1973), will probably consume salmon eggs if
given the opportunity. Other known predators of sockeye fry are 1 ake
trout (VanvJhye and Peck 1968), burbot (Roberson, Bird and Fridgen 1978),
and Dolly Varden (Hartman and Burgner 1972). Dolly Varden consume sockeye
from egg through smolt life stages (Meacham and Clark 1979; Foerster
1968) and are known predators of coho salmon (Crone 1981 and Parr 1972),
and churn fry (Hunter 1959). Longnose suckers are known to eat salmonid
eggs, given the opportunity (r·1orrow 1980).
-122-
In summation, salmon will impact the resident fish. Competition for food
and space, and predator-prey relationships will be complex with salmon
affecting other salmon species as well as resident fish, and resident
fish affecting other resident fish as well as salmon.
Introduced salmon may actually benefit certain resident fish species by
acting as "buffer prey'', a term mentioned in Hartman and Burgner (1972).
For example, salmon are preyed on by Dolly Varden and lake trout which
frequently prey on stickleback and whitefish, respectively. The extent
of predation on these latter two prey species would therefore be reduced,
which could allow their numbers to increase. By salmon acting as "buffer
prey", any reduction in resident fish due to competition or predation by
salmon may be balanced.
-123-
6. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
6.1 Vertical Slot Fishway Enhancement Program
The purpose of constructing a fishway at a velocity barrier such as
occurs in Devil Canyon is to m~ke available additional spawning and
rearing areas in the stream above the barrier. Earlier sections gave
consideration to such physical factors as:
1) Accessiblity of the barrier: The method of accessibility (plane,
boat, road) of personnel to the site for construction, maintenance,
and operating purposes.
2) Stream hydrology: Maximum, mean, and minimum discharges.
3) Terrain topography: Stream gradient.
4) Foundation material: Geotechnical investigations for
determining the type of construction needed.
5) Characteristics of barrier: Height and length of the barrier.
Vertical barrier, velocity barrier, or cor.1bination of both.
6) Spawning area: The area available for the spawning and rearing of
chinook, coho, chum and sockeye salmon.
This section will consider the fiscal factors that determine if the
tunnel-vertical slot fish1vay described in Section 5.2.3.5 is economically
practical.
6.1.1 ~enefit/Cost Ratio
There are several financial methods for determining the acceptable cost
of a project. This study vii 11 use the benefit/cost (B/C) method because
it is a procedure that is faniliar to tnost people.
-124-
The reader should be aware that B/C ratio analysis is not an exact
science and that limitations exist in this method of fiscal
evaluation. In this study the v>~riters have used estimated figures for
project costs~ maintenance costs~ project life~ fish yields~ and the
interest rate of financing.
The variable factors listed in the previous paragraph were estimated
vdth the best information available~ but still they are only estimates.
If actual costs are less than estimated costs, the B/C ratio will be
increased, and, of course, if the benefits are less than estimated the
B/C ratio will be reduced. Variables that are not included in this
cost evaluation are the unknowns of nature such as unusually cold
weather~ extreme flow conditions during floods and drought~ and the
influence of future fishing regulations~ all of which can affect the
anticipated salmon harvest.
6.1.2 Economic Factors, Assumptions, and Calculations
*
A)
~I
.!2.1
See Section 5. 1.1 for detailed biocriteria
Susitna River salmon
l) Average weight of salmon in Cook Inlet
a) Chinook -sport ~/ = 20.5 1 b
commercial ~I = 16.7 1 b
b) Coho sport and commercial ~I = 6.1 lb
c) Sockeye commercial ~ 6.5 lb
d) Chum commercial ~I = 7.7 1 b
From Mr. Kevin Delaney, pers, comm., November 22, 1982, ADF&G Fishery
Biologist III, Anchorage.
From Mr. Jim Browning, pers. cor.1m., November 1S~ 1982 •
-125-
B)
C)
D)
.£9_/
Q!
2) 1982 average value to fishermen in Cook Inlet
a) Chinook -sport 201 = $120.00/fish
commercial ~I = $25.00/fish
b) Coho sport 20; = $38.00/fish
commercial ~I = $5.50/fish
c) Sockeye commercial 20; $7.30/fish
d) Chum commercial ~/ = $4.90/fish
Potential return to syster.-:
1) Chinook -3,000 fish
2) Coho 5,100 fish
3) Sockeye -160,000 fish
4) Chum 9,700 fish
Total = 177,800 fish
Potential harvest in the upper Susitna River due to fishway installation
1) Cl1i nook = 800 fish
2) Coho = 660 fish
3) Sockeye = 53,300 fish
4) Chum = 2,600 fish
Total = 57,360 fish
Value of harvest
1) 1982 value of salmon
a) Chinook 780 sport + 20 conmerci al = $94,000
b) Coho 290 .;port + 370 commercial= $13,000
c) Sockeye 53,300 comrnerci al = $390,000
d) Chum 2,600 commercial= $13,000
Total = $510,000
From r~r. Jeff Hartman, pers. comm., November 18, 1982, ADF&G Fish
Culturist IV, Anchorage.
Fror.J Developernent Planning and Research Associates, Inc. (1982).
-126-
2) Assume the salmon harvest (all species) will occur as follows:
lst -4th year-------0% = 0 fish
5th year------------50% = 28,700 fish
6th year------------60% = 34,400 fish
7th year------------70% = 40,200 fish
8th year------------80% = 45,900 fish
9th year------------90% = 51,600 fish
10th-40th year-----100% = 57,400 fish
3) Future annual va 1 ue of harvest
1st-4th-year 1982 -1986 = $0
5th year -----------1987 = $ 255,000
6th year -----------1988 = $ 306,000
7th year -----------1989 = $ 357,000
8th year -----------1990 $ 408,000
9th year -----------1991 = $ 459,000
1Oth-40th year 1992-2022 $ 510,000
E) Assumptions concerning fishvJay costs
1) Fi shways (Devi 1 Canyon and Devi 1 Creek)
a) Tunnel life of 40 years -initial tunnels cost $30,215,000
b) Replace vertical slot baffles at year 20 -$2,000,000
c) Yearly opening/clc~ing costs of fishway-$5,000
d) Significant maintenance: Year 10 -$25,000 year 30 -$25,000
2) Two weirs/camp facility
a) Ca~p/weirs used for 5 years -initial weir cost $700,000
b. Weir operations for 5 years at $25,000/year
3) Stocking operational costs -$25,000/year
-127-
4) Cost of capital: i*
*Assumptions/explanation
a) Nominal rate = 13%.
b) Real rate 3%.
c) Future benefits & costs have been adjusted to 1982 (base
economic year) ivith a real (discount) rate of 3%.
d) The real interest rate is equivalent to the real interest
paid on current AA corporate bonds of the same maturity
as the minimum life of the permanent fishway structures.
e) Real interest rate: the interest (i) used in calculating
present value. In the case of a single future amount
coming in n years the present worth factor (PWF) is:
(l+i )-n.
f) Present worth value: the amount which a person would be
willing to pay today to obtain the right to a certain
amount or series of amounts in the future as estimated
through use of a discount rate.
The benefit of the fishway enhancement program is calculated in Table
6-1 and the cost is calculated in Table 6-2.
-128-
Table 6-1. ·Fishway enhancement benefit calculations for all salmon species.
Year Benefit X PWF = PW Benefit
3% 1982
0-1982 $0 1.000 $0
1 0 • 971 0
2 0 .943 0
3 0 .915 0
4 0 .888 0
5-1987 255,000 .863 220,100
6 306,000 .837 256,100
7 357,600 .813 290,200
8 408,400 .789 321 , 900
9 459,200 .766 351,600
1 0-1992 510,000 .744 379,400
11 51 0, 000 .722 368,200
1 2 510,000 • 701 357,500
13 510,000 .681 347,303
14 510,000 • 661 337,100
1 5-1997 510,000 .642 327,400
1 6 510,000 .623 317,700
1 7 51 0,000 .605 308,600
18 510,000 .587 299,400
19 510,000 .570 290,700
20-2002 510,000 .554 282,500
21 510,000 .538 274,400
22 510,000 .522 266,600
23 510,000 .507 258,600
24 510,000 .492 250,900
25-2007 510,000 .478 243,800
26 510,000 .464 236,600
27 510,000 .450 229,500
28 510,000 .437 222,900
29 510,000 .424 216,200
30-2012 510,000 .412 210,100
31 510,000 .400 204,000
32 510,000 .388 197,900
33 510,000 .377 192,300
34 510,000 .366 186,700
35-201 7 510,000 .355 181 ,000
36 510,000 .345 176,200
37 510,000 .335 170,900
38 510,000 .325 165,800
39 510,000 .317 161,700
40-2022 510,000 .307 156,600
Total benefit at 1982 value= $9,257,800
-129-
Table 6-2. Fishway enhancement combined cost calculations.
Year Cost X PWF = PW Cost
3% 1982
0-1982 $30,915,000 1.000 $30,915,000
1 55,000 • 971 53,405
2 55,000 • 943 51,865
3 55,000 .915 50,325
4 55,000 .888 48,840
5-1987 55,000 .863 47,465
6 5,000 .837 4,185
7 5,000 • 813 4,065
8 5,000 • 789 3,945
9 5,000 .766 3,830
10-1992 25,000 .744 18,600
11 5,000 .722 3,610
12 5,000 • 701 3,505
13 5,000 • 681 3,405
14 5,000 • 661 3,305
15-1997 5,000 .642 3,210
16 5,000 .623 3, 115
17 5,000 .605 3,025
18 5,000 .587 2,935
19 5,000 .570 2,850
20-2002 2,000,000 .554 1,108,000
21 5,000 .538 2,690
22 5,000 .522 2,610
23 5,000 .507 2,535
24 5,000 .492 2,460
25-2007 5,000 .478 2,390
26 5,000 .464 2,320
27 5,000 .450 2,250
28 5,000 .437 2, 185
29 5,000 .424 2,120
30-2012 25,000 .412 10,300
31 5,000 .400 2,000
32 5,000 .388 1,940
33 5,000 • 377 1,885
34 5,000 .366 1 ,830
35-2017 5,000 .355 1, 775
36 5,000 .345 1, 725
37 5,000 .335 l, 675
38 5,000 .325 1, 625
39 5,000 .317 l , 585
40-2022 5,000 .307 -~1,535-
Total costs at 1982 value = $32,387,920
-130-
Benefit/Cost ratio:
B $ 9,257,800 B Total benefit from Table 6-1
= 0.29:1 --------
c $ 32,287' 920 C = Total cost fro~ Table 6-2
6.1.3 Sensitivity Analysis
The sensitivity of the benefit/cost calculations shown depends on the
uncertainty of:
1) Estimated construction costs
2) Esti~ated maintenance costs
3) Salmon survival rates (egg to fry to adult)
4) Estimated future salmon catches
5) Estimated value of salmon catches
6) The cost of capita 1 ( i )
The following explanation of figures used (both expenses & benefits) is
numbered to correspond with the six indeterminates listed above.
1) The estimated construction costs are based on ADF&G 1 s experience in
constructing similar type fishways at Anan Creek and at Russian River
and therefore the estimates are thought to be reliable.
2) The maintenance and operations costs are based on ADF&G experience
gained from similar fishways at Anan Creek and at Russian River.
However, the reader can readily observe from Table 6-2 that the
~aintenance and operations costs are insignificant when compared
to the initial C.I.P. costs. The maintenance and operations
costs could be trebled or deleted altogether and not significantly
-131-
alter the B/C ratio. Figure 6-1 shows a cash flow comparison of
benefits vs. costs.
3) The survival rates are based on standards accepted by and used by
the Fisheries Rehabilitation and Enhancement Oivision of the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. These values are the standards used
in the State of Alaska.
4) The estimated future salmon ~atches are based upon the survival
rates described in sensitivity analysis number 3. The survival
rates and catch estimates are available from Dr. Bernard Kepshire22;.
5) The 1982 Cook Inlet salmon catch and prices are as recorded by the
Commercial Fisheries and Sport Fish Divisions. To avoid the uncer-
tainties of future inflativn all benefits and costs have been
computed based on 1982 prices.
6) The three percent cost of capital was obtained from Mr. Jeff Hartman 20;.
In the way of a comparison, the fishway B/C ratio was computed on
the basis of a real interest rate of 10%. In the i=10% calculations,
the B/C ratio computed to be 0.1:1. The 0.1:1 B/C ratio indicates
an even more economically unsatisfactory project.
22/ ADF~G Principal Fish Culturist, Juneau.
-132-
I _.
4
$X 106 2
( +)
~X 106
(-)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1982
(BENEFITS)
----r~~:U~ -S~~~~ ~E~~~~~ ------n 510,000/YR. SALMON BENEFITS
INSIGNIFICANT M 8 0 COSTS.
INITIAL
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
1987 1992 1997
(COSTS)
2002 2007 2012 2017
Figure 6-1. Fishway enhancement (B/C) cash flow.
0
2022
6.2 Hatchery Enhancement Program
This section develops the economic analysis for constructing and
operating a hatchery enhancement program such as discussed in section
5.2.4. In the case of the upper Susitna River drainage basin where
miles of spawning streams and acres of lake rearing go barren because
there are no spawners, a hatchery induced enhancement program may be
desirable. With the existing natural rearing areas available, the
"hatchery facility" would be limited to an "incubation facility" wherein
hatchery fry would receive limited rearing, just enough to start them
feeding and to await optimum release conditions. The fry would then be
transported to the upper Susitna River drainage basin for release and
natural rearing.
The hatchery/incubation facility needed for the enhancement program
described would consist of the following major features.
1) An incubation facility constructed in the Talkeetna area. 1982
C.I.P. cost of $3,400,000 with annual operating costs of $250,000
per year.
2) An egg take camp at Gold Creek with adult capture weirs at Indian
River and Portage Creek. C.I.P. cost of $700,000 plus $25,000 per
year operational costs.
3) Fry/fingerling planting operations. Initially the planting operations
will be from Paxson/Anchorage to the upper Susitna River but will
eventually operate between Talkeetna and the upper Susitna River
drainage (Lake Louise area). The fry/fingerling planting operational
costs are expected to be approximately $25,000 per year.
-134-
6.2.1 Benefit/Cost Ratio
The same type of B/C analysis as used for the vertical slot fishway
tunnel (Section 6.1) is used for the hatchery enhancement analysis.
6.2.2 Economic Factors, Assumptions, and Calculations
*See Section 5. l. l for detailed bi ocriteri a
A) Susitna River salmon
1) Average weight of salmon in Cook Inlet
a) Chinook -sport ~/ = 20.5 l b
commercial ~I = 16.7 l b
b) Coho sport and commercial ~I = 6. l l b
c) Sockeye commercial 2V = 6. 5 l b
d) Chum commercial ~I = 7.7 l b
2) 1982 average price paid to fishermen in Cook Inlet
a) Chinook -sport ~/ = $120.00/fish
cor:1merci al 20; = $25.00/fish
b) Coho sport 20; $38.00/fish
commercial 201 = $5.50/fish
c) Sockeye commercial 20; = $7.30/fish
d) Chum commercial ~/ = $4.90/fish
B) Potential return to system
1) Chinook = 3,000 fisn
2) Coho = 5' l 00 fish
3) Sockeye = 160,000 fish
4) Chum = 9,700 fish
Total 177,800 fish
-135-
C) Potential l1arvest in the upper Susitna River.
1) Chinook = 2,800 fish
2) Coho = 4,740 fish
3) Sockeye = 152,000 fish
4) Chum = 9,260 fish
Total = 168,800 fish
U) Value of harvest
1) 1982 value of salmon
a) Chinook 2,730 sport + 70 commercial = $329,000
b) Coho 2,100 sport + 2,640 commercial = $94,000
c) Sockeye 152,000 commercial = $1 '11 0' 000
d) Chum 9,260 commercial = $45,000
Total = $1 ,578,000
2) Assume the salrilon harvest (all species) will occur as follm<Js:
3)
1st -4th year-----------0% = 0 fish
5th year----------------50% = 84,400 fish
6th year----------------60% = 101,280 fish
7th year----------------70% = 118,160 fish
8th year----------------80% = 135,040 fish
9th year----------------90% = 151,920 fish
lOth -40th year-------100% = 168,800 fish
Future annual value of harvest
1st-4th year-----1982 -1986 $ 0
5th year---------------1987 = $ 789,000
6th year---------------1988 = $ 946,800
7th year---------------1989 = $ 1 '104,600
8th year---------------1990 = $ 1,262,400
9th year---------------1991 = $ 1,420,200
lOth -40th year-1992 -2002 = $ 1,578,000
E) Assumptions concerning hatchery costs
1) Hatchery life of 40 years -initial hatchery cost $3,400,000.
2) Hatchery reconstruction at year 20 -$2,000,000.
3) Hatchery operation costs -$250,000/year.
4) 2 weirs/camp -initial weir cost $700,000.
5) Replace weirs/camp at 20 years-$700,000.
6) Weir operating costs -$25,000/year.
7) Planting operating costs -$25,000/year.
8) Cost of capital: i*
*Assumptions/explantion
a) Nominal rate= 13%.
b) Real rate = 3%.
c) Future benefits & costs have been adjusted to 1982 (base
economic year) with a real (discount) rate of 3%.
d) The real interest rate is equivalent to the real interest
paid on current AA corporate bonds of the same maturity
as the minimum life of the permanent hatchery structures.
e) Real interest rate: the interest (i) used in calculating
present value. In the case of a single future amount
coming in n years the present worth factor (PWF) is:
(l+i)-n.
f) Present worth value: the amount which a person v1ould be
willing to pay today to obtain the right to a certain
amount or series of amounts in the future as estimated
through use of a discount rate.
The benefit of the hatchery enhancement program is calculated in
Table 6-3 and the cost is calculated in Table 6-4.
-137-
Table 6-3. Hatchery enhancement benefit calculations for all salmon species.
Year Benefit X PWF = PW Benefit
3% 1982
0-1982 $0 l. 000 $0
l 0 • 971 0
2 0 .943 0
3 0 .915 0
4 0 .888 0
5-1987 789,000 .863 680,900
6 946,000 .837 791 '800
7 l 'l 04' 600 .813 898,000
8 1,262,400 .789 996,000
9 1,420,200 .766 1,087,900
l 0-l 992 1,578,000 .744 1,174,000
ll 1,578,000 .722 l '139,300
12 1,578,000 • 701 1,106,200
13 1,578,000 .681 1,074,700
14 l ,578,000 .661 1 ,043, l 00
15-1997 1,578,000 .642 1,013,100
16 1,578,000 .623 983 'l 00
l 7 1,578,000 .605 954,700
18 1 '578,000 .587 926,300
19 1,578,000 .570 899,500
20-2002 1,578,000 .554 874,200
21 1,578,000 .538 849,000
22 1,578,000 .522 823,700
23 1,578,000 .507 800,100
24 1 ,578,000 .492 776,400
25-2007 1,578,000 .478 754,300
26 l ,578,000 .464 732,200
27 1,578,000 .450 710,100
28 1,578,000 .437 689,600
29 1,578,000 .424 669,100
30-2012 1,578,000 .412 650,100
31 1 '5 78' 000 .400 631,200
32 1,578,000 .388 612,300
33 1,578,000 .377 594,900
34 1,578,000 .366 577,500
35-2017 1,578,000 .355 560,200
36 1,578,000 .345 544,400
37 1,578,000 .335 528,600
38 1,578,000 .325 512,900
39 1,578,000 .317 500,200
40-2022 1,578,000 .307 484,400
Total benefits at 1982 value = $28,644,000
-138-
Table 6-4. Hatchery enhancement combined cost calculations.
Year Cost X PWF = PW Cost
3% 1982
0-1982 $4,100,000 1. 000 $4,100,000
1 300,000 • 971 291,300
2 300,000 .943 282,900
3 300,000 .915 274,500
4 300,000 .888 266,400
5-1987 300,000 .863 258,900
6 300,000 .837 251 '1 00
7 300,000 .813 243,900
8 300,000 .789 236,700
9 300,000 .766 229,800
1 0-1992 300,000 .744 223,200
11 300,000 .722 216,600
12 300,000 • 701 21 0, 300
13 300,000 .681 204,300
14 300,000 .661 198,300
15-1997 300,000 .642 192,600
16 300,000 .623 186,900
17 300,000 .605 181 '500
18 300,000 .587 176,100
19 300,000 .570 171 ,000
20-2002 3,000,000 .554 1,662,000
21 300,000 .538 161 ,400
22 300,000 .522 156,600
23 300,000 .507 152,100
24 300,000 .492 147,600
25-2007 300,000 .478 143,400
26 300,000 .464 139,200
27 300,000 .450 135,000
28 300,000 .437 131,100
29 300,000 .424 127,200
30-201 2 300,000 • 41 2 123,600
31 300,000 .400 120,000
32 300,000 .388 116,400
33 300,000 .377 113,100
34 300,000 .366 109,800
35-2017 300,000 .355 106,500
36 300,000 .345 103,500
37 300,000 .335 100,500
38 300,000 .325 97,500
39 300,000 .317 95' 100
40-2022 300,000 .307 92,100
Total costs at 1982 value= $12,530,000
-139-
Benefit/Cost ratio:
B $28,644,000 B = Total benefits from Table 6-3
= ----------------2. 29: l
c $12,530,000 C = Total cost from Table 6-4
6.2.3 Sensitivity Analysis
The sensitivity of the benefit/cost calculations shown depends on the
uncertainty of:
l) Estimated construction costs
2) Estimated operations costs
3) Salmon survival rates (egg to fry to adult)
4) Estimated future salmon catches
5) Estimated value of salmon catches
6) The cost of capital (i)
The following explanation of figures used (both expenses & benefits) is numbered
to correspond with the six indeterminates listed above.
1) The estimated construction costs are based on ADF~G's PxrPrience
in constructing numerous hatcheries and hatchery support facilities
over the past several years. These estimates are considered to be
reliable.
2) The maintenance and operations costs are based on FRED's experience
gained from operating numerous hatcheries during the past several
years. These estimates are considered to be reliable. Figure 6-2
shows a cash flow co~parison of benefits vs. costs.
3) The survival rates are based on standards accepted by and used by
the Fisheries Rehabilitation and Enhancement Division of the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game. These values are the standards
-140-
I _..
• x 106 I
(+)
0
3
4
\.._$ 300, 000/ YR.
INITIAL
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
'-.___./
1982 1987 1992
-I-
1997
figure 6-2. Hatchery enhancement (B/C) cash flow.
(BENEFITS) rt 1,578,000 SALMON BENEFITS/YR.
-I-•I-•!-
Mao cosTs....J
' RE ... BUILD HATCHERY '----'"' a WEIRS
{COSTS)
2002 2007 2012
..
END OF PROGRAM
YEAR 2022)
2017 2022
used in the State of Alaska.
4) The estimated future salmon catches are based on the survival
rates described in sensitivity analysis number 3. The survival
rates and catch estimates ~re available from Dr. Bernard Kepshire22;.
5) The 1982 Cook Inlet salmon catch and prices are as recorded by the
Commercial Fisheries and the Sport Fish Divisions. To avoid the
uncertainties of future inflation all benefits and costs have been
computed based on 1982 prices.
6) The three percent cost of capital was obtained from Jeff Hartman20;.
In the way of comparison the hatchery B/C ratio was computed
on the basis of a real interest rate of 10%. In the i=10%
calculations the B/C ratio computed to be 1.23:1. Even at the
higher interest rate, with the reduced B/C ratio, the hatchery
salmon enhancement project appears to be viable.
-142-
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Salmon Enhancement Without Hydroelectric Dams
The findings in section 5.2.3 indicate that salmon enhancement of the upper
Susitna River is technically feasible via the use of vertical slot fishv1ays
to pass adult salmon to unused spawning grounds. However, the economic
analysis of the vertical slot fishway program, as discussed in section
6. 1, indicates that such a project ·is not economically sound. The exceed-
ingly high construction costs, when compared to the relatively low benefits,
produce a B/C ratio of only 0.29 to 1. Because of the low B/C ratio, the
study team cannot recommend the construction of fishways as a method for
salmon enhancement.
The findings in section 5.2.4 indicate that salmon enhancement of the
upper Susitna River is technically feasible via a fry/fingerling stocking
program conducted from a hatchery located in the Talkeetna area. The
economic analysis of the hatchery program, as discussed in section 6. 2,
indicates that such a project is also economically sound. The resultant
B/C ratio of 2.29 to 1 compares -Favorably \vith many of the hatchery
operations now being conducted in Alaska. The study team recommends
that if a salmon enhancement project is to be conducted in the upper
Susitna River drainage basin, then the project should be a hatchery
stocking program of the nature described in section 5.2.4. This recommen-
dation is valid based on the information available at this time. However,
it would be prudent to field verify some of the assumptions made prior
to entering into a 40 year multi-million dollar enhancement project.
-143-
7.2 Salmon Enhancement With Hydroelectric Dams
Fifty years of monitoring salmon migrations in the Columbia and the Snake
Rivers of Washington, Oregon and Idaho have shown that adult salmon will
ascend fishways bypassing hydroelectric dams. In bypassing dams such as
Bonneville (65ft high), The Dalles (88ft), John Day (132ft), tkNary
(100 ft), Ice Harbor (100 ft), Lower Monumental (93 ft), Little Goose
(100ft), Lower Granite (82 ft) and others, some salmon ascend over 800
feet in a river stretch of about 500 miles. The same observations show,
however, that the mortalities to the migrating salmon, both the adult and
the juvenile downstream migrants, is significant as dicussed in section 5.1.2.
The numerous stati sties quoted for the mortality of the migrants are
quite varied but the bottom line consensus is that the present Columbia
River salmon run is significantly less than it was in the "pre-dam"
days and the data indicates that the dams have been a major factor in
the decline of the salmon runs.
Although the proposed Susitna dams may not be directly comparable to the
dams on the Columbia River, it is the study team's belief that the
construction of the Devi 1 Canyon and the ~~atana dams will essentially
eliminate any salmon enhancement potential in the Upper Susitna River
drainage basin. The problems, and associated costs, of passing
salmon, both upstream and downstream, over a height of 1,500 ft in a
run of only 26 miles will far outweigh the limited benefits that could be
achieved from any salmon enhancement program. As mentioned in section
5.1.2 the study team feels that if the Susitna dams are constructed then
thought should be given to a trout/grayling enhancement project in lieu
of a salmon enhancement project.
-144-
8. References
Acres American, Inc. 1980. Susitna hydroelectric project plan of study.
Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage, Alaska.
Acres American, Inc. 1982. Susitna hydroelectric project feasibility
report. Volume 4. Appendix A. Hydrological status. Prepared for
the Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage, Alaska.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1976. Fish and wildlife studies
related to the Corps of Engineers Devil Canyon, Watana reservoir
hydroelectric project. Anchorage, Alaska.
1977a. Preauthorization assessment of the proposed Susitna
hydroelectric projects: preliminary investigations of water quality
and aquatic species composition. Anchorage, Alaska.
1977b. Summary report of Cook Inlet salmon stocks and their
utilization. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish &
Commercial Fisheries Division. 47pp.
1978. Preliminary environmental assessment of hydroelectric
development on the Susitna River. Anchorage, Alaska.
1979. Preliminary final plan of study fish and studies proposed
by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Anchorage, Alaska.
l98la. Adult anadromous phase 1 final draft report. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game Su Hydro Aquatic Studies Program. Anchorage,
Alaska.
198lb. Adult anadromous phase 1 final draft stock separation
feasibility report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Su Hydro
Aquatic Studies Program. Anchorage, Alaska.
198lc. Aquatic habitat and instream flow phase 1 final draft
report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Su Hydro Aquatic Studies
Program. Anchorage, Alaska.
198ld. Juvenile anadromous fish study phase 1 final draft report.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game Su Hydro Aquatic Studies Program
Anchorage, Alaska.
• 198le. Procedures manual. ---Hydro Aquatic Studies Program.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game Su
Anchorage, Alaska. Draft.
l98lf. Resident fish investigation on the lower Susitna River phase
1 final draft report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Su Hydro
Aquatic Studies Program. Anchorage, Alaska.
198lg. Resident fish investigation on the upper Susitna River
phase 1 final draft report.
-145-
1982a. Aquatic studies program phase 1 final draft report.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game Su Hydro Aquatic Studies Program.
Anchorage, Alaksa.
_____ • 1982b. Standard assumptions on salmonid survivals (unmarked
fish) and fecundities. Directive 3, Chapter 4 in organization
management manual for the Division of Fisheries Rehabilitation,
Enhancement and Development (FRED), 1978.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1977. Susitna River Basin
bibliography. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Anchorage,
Alaska.
1979. Susitna River Basin bibliography. Supplement. Alaska
Department of Natural Resources. Anchorage, Alaska.
Albin, D.P. 1977. The fisheries and fish habitat of the Gulkana River,
Alaska. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education
(W.I.C.H.E.) Report. Boulder, Colorado. 57pp.
Allen, R.L., K. Bauersfeld, L.R. Cowan and D.A. Wilson. 1980. Salmon
natural production enhancement program, 1976 to 1978. Washington
Department of Fisheries Progress Report No. 105. 62pp.
Allin, R.W. 1957. Preliminary lake survey of Lake Louise and Little Lake
Louise. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Quarterly Report of
Progress, 1957. Project F-1-R-6. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game. 6(4): 1-39.
Alt, K.T. 1973. A life history of sheefish and whitefish in Alaska.
Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual Report of Progress, 1972-
1973. Project F-9-5, Job R-II-B and R-II-C. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game. 14: 1-31.
1980. Life history of sheefish in Alaska. Federal Aid in
Fish Restoration. Annual Report of Progress, 1979-1980. Project
R-II, Job R-II-A and R-II-B. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
21: 1-31.
American Society of Civil Engineers. 1978. Environr1ental effects of
1 a rge dams.
1982. Design of water intake structures for fish protection.
Andrews, R.E. 1961. Creel census of the sport fishes in Lake Louise,
Cook Inlet drainage. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual
Report of Progress, 1961. Project F-5-R-3, Job 10-D-1. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game 3: 201-206.
Armstrong, R.H. 1970. Age, food, and migration of Dolly Varden srnolts in
southeastern Alaska. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
Canada 27(6): 991-1004.
-146-
Barrett, B.M. 1974. An assessment study of the anadromous fish populations
in the upper Susitna River watershed between Devil Canyon and the
Chulitna River. Cook Inlet Data Report. 74-2. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. 56pp.
Baxter, R.M., and P. Glaude. 1980. Environmental effects of darns and
impoundments in Canada: experience and prospects. Canadian Bulletin
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Bulletin 205.
Bell, Milo C. 1967. A compendium on success of passage of small fish
through turbines. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
1973. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological
c ri teri a. Fi sheri es engineering research program. lJ .S. Army
Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division. Portland, Oregon.
Bishop, D.~1. 1975. A hydrologic reconnaissance
below Devils Canyon. A report prepared for
Service, NOAA, Contract No. 03-4-208-302.
Alaska.
of the Susitna River
National Marine Fisheries
Environaid, Juneau,
Blackett, R.F. 1968. Spavming behavior, fecundity and early life history
of anadromous Dolly Varden in southeastern Alaska. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game Research Report 6. 85 pp.
Bouck, G.R., A.V. Nebeker and D.li. Stevens. 1976. Mortality, saltwater
adaptation and reproduction of fish during gas supersaturation. EPA
600/3-76-050. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis,
Oregon. 54pp.
Bovee, K.D. 1978.
Fort Colli n s,
U • S • F i s h and
No. 4. 80pp.
Probability-of-use criteria for the family salmonidae.
Colorado, Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group,
Wildlife Service. Instream Flow Information Paper
Bovee, K.D. and T. Cochnauer. 1977. Development and evaluation of
weighted criteria, probability-of-use curves for instrearn flovt
assessments: fisheries. Fort Collins, Colorado, Cooperative Instream
Flow Service Group, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Instrearn Flow
Information Paper No. 3. 39pp.
Briggs, J.C. 1953. The behavior and reproduction of salmonid fishes in
a small coastal stream. California Department of Fish and Game
Fish Bulletin 94. 62pp.
Burgner, R.L. 1962. Studies of red salmon smolts fror:J the Hood River
Lakes, Alaska. KOO, T.S.Y. ed. Studies of Alaska red salmon.
Seattle, HA: University of Washington Press: 248-315.
• 1964. Factors influencing production of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus ---nerka) in lakes of southwestern Alaska. Verhandlungen International
Vereinigung Limnology 15: 504-513.
-147-
Burns, J.W. 1971. The carrying capacity for juvenile salmonids in some
northern California streams. California Department of Fish and Game
57(1): 44-57.
Carlander, K.D. 1969. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology. Volume l.
The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. 752 pp.
Chapman, D.W. 1965.
Oregon streams.
94 (1): 40-52.
Net production of juvenile coho salmon in three
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
1966. Food and space as regulators of salmonid populations
instreams. The American Naturalist 100(913): 345-357.
Clay, C.H. 1961. Design of fishways and other fish facilities. Department
of Fisheries of Canada, Ottawa~ 30lpp.
Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team. 1981. Cook Inlet regional salmon
enhancement plan 1981-2000. Cook Inlet, Alaska. 72pp. and ap-
pendices.
Crone, R.A. 1981. Potential for production of coho salmon Oncorhynchus
kisutch in lakes with outlet barrier falls, southeastern Alaska.
Dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of f1ichigan. 388pp.
Crone, R.A. and C.E. Bond. 1976. Life history of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus
kisutch in Sashin Creek southeastern Alaska. Fishery Bulletin
74(4): 897-923.
Dav~ley, E.M. and W.J. Ebel. 1975. Effects of various concentrations of
dissolved atmospheric gas on juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead
trout. Fishery Bulleting 73(4) 787-796.
Delaney, K., K. Hepler and K. Roth. 1981. Deshka River chinook and coho
salmon study. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual Report of
Progress, 1980-1981. Project AFS-49, Segment AFS-49-l & 2. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. 22: l-39.
Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc. 1982. Alaska salmon projected
1982 market conditions. Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Dev-
elopment, Office of Commercial Fisheries Development.
Dinneford, l~.B. 1978. Final report of the commercial fish-technical
evaluation study: Salcha River. Joint State/Federal Fish and Wildlife
Advisory Team Special Report 21. 93pp.
Drucker, B. 1972. Some life history characteristics of coho salmon of
the Karluk River system, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Fishery Bulletin
70(1): 79-94.
Dudiak, N.C., D.C. Whitmore and J.W. Testa. 1979. Coho enhancement on
the Kenai Peninsula. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Completion
Report, 1976-1978. Project AFS-45-l. Alaska Departr:~ent of Fish
and Game. 20: l-51.
Ebel, W.J. 1969. Supersaturation of nitrogen in the Columbia River and
its effect on salmon and steelhead trout. Fishery Bulletin 68(1 ):
1-11.
-148-
Ebel, W.J. E.M. Dawley and B.H. r4onk. 1971. Thermal tolerance of juvenile
Pacific salQon and steelhead trout in relation to supersaturation of
nitrogen gas. Fishery Bulletin 69(4): 833-843.
Enge 1, L .J. 1968. Inventory and cat a 1 ogi ng of the sport fish and waters in
the Kenai, Cook Inlet-Prince William Sound areas. Annual Report of
Progress, 1967-1968. Project F-5-R-9, Job 7-A. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game. 9: 95-116.
Foerster, R.E. 1968. The sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka. Fisheries
Research Board of Canada Bulletin 162. 422 pp.
Franscisco, K. and W.B. Dinneford. 1977. Third interim report of the
commerical fish-technical evaluation study: Salcha River. Joint
State/Federal Fish and Wildlife Advisory Team Special Report 17.
88pp.
Friese, N.V. 1975. Preauthorization assessement of 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. 121 pp.
Goodlad, J.C., T.i~. Gjernes and E.L. Brannon. 1974. Factors affecting
sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) growth in four lakes of the
Fraser River system. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
31 (5): 871-892.
Hallberg, J. 1981. Population structure, migration and habitat of Artie
grayling. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual Report of
Progress, 1980-1981. Project F-9-13, Job R-I-A. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game. 22: l-25.
Hartman, W.L. and R.L. BurgnPr. lg7?. I imnnln9y nnrl fic;;h Prnln9Y of
sockeye salmon nursery lakes of the world. Journal of the Fisheries
Research Board of Canada 29(6): 699-715.
Hayes, F.R. and E.H. Anthony. 1964. Productive capacity of North
American lakes as related to the quantity and the trophic level of
fish, the lake dimensions, and the ~~ater chemistry. Transactions
of the American Fisheries Society 93(1): 53-57.
Heard, W.R. 1975. A critique of some coho salmon studies at Little Port
~~alter involving estuarine fry-to-smolt husbandry and fry plants
in underutilized lakes. Report. National Marine Fisheries Service,
Auke Bay Laboratory, Auke Bay, Alaska 99821. 17pp.
Heckart, L.
waters
Annual
Alaska
1964. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish
in the interior of Alaska. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration.
Report of Progress, 1963-1964. Project F-5-R-5, Job 13-A.
Department of Fish and Game. 5: 339-352.
Hocutt, C.H., J.R. Stauffer, J.E. Edinger, L.W. Hall and R.P. Morgan. 1980.
-149-
Powerplants-effects on fish and shellfish behavior. Academic
Press, New York.
Hunter, J.G. 1959.
coastal stream.
16(6): 835-886.
Survival and production of pink and chum salmon in a
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
Jones, T.A., W.V. Wakefield, E.M. Eastaugh and C.A. Larson. 1977.
Initial report on testing of the salmon egg planting device (SEPD).
Alaska Aquaculture Foundation. Unpublished Report. 7 pp.
Kissner, P.O. and M.R. Bethers. 1981. A study of chinook salmon in
southeastern Alaska. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual
Report of Progress, 1980-1981. Project AFS-41, Segment AFS-41-9.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 22: 1-36
Lind, O.T. 1974. Handbook of common methods of limnology. The C.V.
Mosby Company, Saint Louis. 154pp.
Lister, D.B. and H.S. Genae. 1970. Stream habitat utilization by
cohabiting underyearlings of chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and
coho (0. kisutch) salmon in the Big Qualicum River, British Columbia.
Journa-l-of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 27(7): 1215-1224.
McHenery, E.T. 1981. Coho salmon studies in the Resurrection Bay area.
Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual Report of Progress, 1980-
1981. Project F-9-13, Job G-Il-A. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game. 22: 1-38.
McKee, H.W. and H.W. ~Jolf, eds. 1963. Water quality criteria. California
548pp. State Water Resources Control Board. Publication No. 3-A.
11cNeil, H.J. and J.E. Bailey. 1975. Salmon rancher's manual. Northwest
Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. Processed
Report. 95 pp.
Mason, J.C. and D.W. Chapman. 1965.
environmental rearing capacity,
coho salmon in stream channels.
Board of Canada 22(1 ): 173-190.
Significance of early emergence,
and behaviorial ecology of juvenile
Journal of the Fisheries Research
Mason, J.C. 1974a. Aspects of the ecology of juvenile coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Great Central Lake, B.C. Fisheries
Research Board of Canada. Technical Report No. 438. 37pp •
• 1974b. A first appraisal of the response of juvenile coho salmon
--(0. kisutch) to supplemental feeding in an experimental rearing
stream environment. Canada Research and Development. Technical
Report No. 469. 2lpp •
• 1974c. A further appraisal of the response to supplemental feeding
--of juvenile coho (ih_ kisutch) in an experimental stream. Environment
-150-
Canada Fisheries and Marine Service Research and Development Technical
Report No. 470. 26pp •
• 1976. Response of underyearling coho salmon to supplemental feeding
in a natural stream. Journal of Wildlife Management 40(4): 775-788.
t1eacharn, C.P. 1981. 1980 Bristol Bay sockeye salmon smolt studies.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game Technical Data Report 63. 43pp.
Meacha~, C.P. and J.H. Clark. 1~79. Management to increase anadromous
salmon production. R.H. Stroud and H. Clepper, eds. Predator-prey
systems in fisheries management; 1978 July 24-27; Atlanta, Georgia.
Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, D.C.: 377-386.
t1eechan, W.R. 1966. Growth and survival of sockeye salmon introduced
into Ruth Lake after removal of resident fish populations. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report-Fisheries 532.
18pp.
Meechan, W.R. and D.B. Siniff. 1962. A study of the downstream migrations
of anadromous fishes in the Taku River, Alaska. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society 91(4): 399-407.
Morrow, J.E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest
Publishing Company. Anchorage, Alaska. 248 pp.
~1urphy, t1.L., J.F. Thedinga, K.V. Koski and G. Grette. 1982. Seasonal
changes in habitat utilization by juvenile salmonids in Porcupine
Creek, southeastern Alaska. National Marine Fisheries Service,
Auke Bay Laboratory, Auke Bay, Alaska 99821. Draft Report. 36pp.
Namtvedt, T.B. 1974. Cook Inlet sockeye forecast and optinum escapement
studies. National Marine Fisheries Service Anadromous Fish
~nnservation Act. Completion Report, 1971-1974. Project AFC-41.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 57pp.
Nebeker, A.V., K. Hauck and F.D. Baker. 1979. Ter:-~perature and oxygen-
nitrogen gas ratios affect fish survival in air-supersaturated
water. Water Research 13: 299-303.
Nebeker, A.V., D.G. Stevens and R.K. Stroud. 1976. Effects of air-
supersaturated water on adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka).
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33(11): 2629-2633.
Nelson, D.C. 1980. Russian River sockeye salmon study. Federal Aid in
Fish Restoration. Annual Report of Progress, 1979-1980. Project
F-9-12, Job AFS-44-6. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 21: 1-47 •
• 1981. Russian River sockeye salmon study. Federal Aid
Fish Restoration. Annual Report of Progress, 1980-1981.
F-9-13, Segment AFS-44-7. Alaska Department of Fish and
22: 1-47.
in
Project
Game.
Urth, D.J. 1971. Dictionary of Alaska place na~es. U.S. Geological
Survey, Professional Paper 567. 1084pp.
-151-
Parr, W.H., Jr. 1972. Interactions between sockeye salmon and lake
resident fish in the Chignik Lakes, Alaska. Thesis. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington. 103pp.
Platts, W.S., M.A. Shirazi and D.H. Lewis. 1979. Sediment particle
sizes used by salmon for spawning ~vith methods for evaluation.
EPA 600/3-79-048. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis,
Oregon. 32pp.
R&r~ Consultants. 1982. Susitna hydroelectric project. Appendix B.
River morphology. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority. R&M
Consultants. Anchorage, Alaska.
Redick, R.R. 1967. A review of li'terature on lake trout life history
with notes on Alaskan management. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game Informational Leaflet 111. 19pp.
Regnart, R. and t•1. Geiger. 1982. Status of salmon stocks, fisheries
and management programs in the Yukon River. Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Artie-Yukon-Kuskokwim Region, Stock Status Report
35. 54pp.
Reimers, P.E. 1968. Social behavior among juvenile fall chinook salmon.
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 25(9): 2005-2008 •
• 1973. The length of residence of juvenile fall chinook
salmon in Sixes River, Oregon. Oregon Fish Commission Research
Report 4(2): 1-43.
Reimers, P.E. and G.L. Concannon. 1977. Extended residence of hatchery-
released juvenile fall chinook salmon in Elk River, Oregon. Oregon
Department of Fish and ~~ildlife, Research Section, Information
Report Series, Fisheries. 77-2. 17pp.
Reiser, D.W. and T.C.
salmonids. U.S.
Northvvest Forest
Report. PN\:J-96.
Bjornn. 1979. Habitat requirements of anadromous
Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Pacific
and Range ~xperiment Station. General Technical
Portland, Oregon.
Riis, J.C. and N.V. Friese. 1978. Fisheries and habitat investigations of
the Susitna River --a preliminary study of potential impacts of the
Devils Canyon and Watana hydroelectric projects. Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish and Commercial Fisheries. 116 pp.
Roberson, K., F.H. Bird and P.J. Fridgen. 1978. Copper River-Prince
William Sound sockeye salmon catalog and inventory. Technical
Report. AFC-61-1. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 70pp.
Roberson, K., F.H. Bird, P.J. Fridgen and R.G. Zorich. 1978. Copper
River-Prince Hilliarn Sound sockeye salmon inventory and assessment.
Completion Report. AFC-52. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
84pp.
-152-
Roberson, K., F.H. Bird, K.A. Webster and P.J. Fridgen. 1980. Copper
River-Prince William Sound sockeye salmon catalog and inventory.
Technical Report. AFC-61-2. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
55pp.
Roberson, K. and R. Holder. 1982. Gulkana River sockeye enhancement.
Progress Report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Commercial Fisheries. Draft.
Roberson, K., M.F. Merritt and P.J. Fridgen. 1982. Copper River-Prince
William Sound sockeye salmon catalog and inventory. Completion
Report. AFC-61. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 39pp.
Roberson, K., K.A. Webster, P.J. Fridgen and P. Merritt. 1981. Copper
River-Prince \~illiam Sound sockeye salmon catalog and inventory.
Technical Report. AFC-61-3. Alaska Department of Fish and Ga~e.
47pp.
Roberson, K., R.G. Zorich and P.J. Fridgen. 1976. Copper River-Prince
William Sound sockeye salmon inventory and assessment. Technical
Report. AFC-52-1. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 70pp.
Roberson, K., R.G. Zorich, P.J. Fridgen and F.H. Bird. 1977. Copper
River-Prince Hilliam Sound sockeye salmon inventory and assessment.
Technical Report. AFC-52-2. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
69pp.
Rucker, R.R. 1972. Gas bubble disease in salmonids: a critical review.
U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Technical Paper. 11pp •
• 1975. Gas-bubble disease: mortalities of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus --, kisutch, in water with constant total gas pressure and different
oxygen-nitrogen ratios. Fishery Bulletin 73(4): 915-918.
__ .and P .W. Kangas. 1974. Effect of nitrogen supersaturated water
on coho and chinook salmon. Progressive Fish Culturist 36(3):
152-156.
Salo, E.O. and \rJ.H. Bayliff. 19:58. Artifical and natural production of
silver salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, at Minter Creek, Washington.
Washington Department of Fisheries Research Bulletin 4. 82pp.
Schluchter, M.D. and J.A. Lichatowich. 1977. Juvenile life histories of
Rogue River spring chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum),
as determined by scale analysis. Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Research Section, Information Report Series, Fisheries.
77-5. 24pp.
Schmidt, D. 1981. Natural supersaturation of dissolved gas in the Devil Canyon
rapids of the Susitna River and its implication in prediting impacts
of a hydroelectric project. Paper presented at the 1982 annual
meeting of the American Fisheries Society, Alaska Chapter; November
16-18, 1982; Sitka, Alaska.
-153-
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries
Research Board of Canada Bulletin 184. 966 pp.
Shapovalov, L. and A.C. Taft. 1954. The life histories of the steelhead
rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri gairdneri) and silver salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) with special reference to Waddell Creek,
California, and recommendations regarding their management.
California Department of Fish and Game Fish Bulletin 98. 375pp.
Shirazi, M.A. and W.K. Seim. 1979. A stream systems evaluation--an
emphasis on spawning habitat for salmonids. EPA 600/3-79-109. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon. 37pp.
Stein, R.A., P.E. Reimers and J.D. Hall. 1972. Social interaction
between juvenile coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and fall chinook
salmon (0. tshawytscha) in Sixes River, Oregon. Journal of the
Fisheries-Research Board of Canada 29(12): 1737-1748.
Thedinga, J.F. and K.V. Koski. 1982. The production of coho salmon,
Oncorhynchus kisutch, smolts and adults from Porcupine Creek,
southeastern Alaska. National Marine Fisheries Service, Auke Bay
Laboratory, Auke Bay, Alaska 99821. Draft.
Trasky, L.L.
Report.
1974. Yukon River anadromous fish investigations. Completion
AFC-47. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 111 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of engineers. 1981. Annual fish passage report-1981,
Columbia and Snake Rivers for salmon, steelhead and shad.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Government Printing Office:
D.C. 256pp.
1976. Qua 1 ity criteria for water.
1978, 258-389/6057, Washington,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Western reservoir and stream habitat
improvements handbook.
U.S. Forest Service. 1969. Wildlife habitat improvement handbook.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1977. Hater resources data for Alaska water
year 1976. Report number U.::>GS/~~RD/HD-77 /043. Anchorage, Alaska.
Van \tJhye, G. L. and J. W. Peck. 1968. A limnological survey of Paxson and
Alaska Department of Fish and
40pp.
Summit Lakes in Interior Alaska.
Game I nforr:1at ion a l Leaflet 124.
Waite, D.C.
Report.
1979. Chinook enhancement on the Kenai Peninsula. Completion
AFS-46-1. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 52pp.
• 1982. Crooked Creek chinook salmon data report, 1979-1981. Alaska
--Department of Fish and Game Technical Report. 40pp.
Ward, J.V. and J.A. Stanford. 1979. The ecology of regulated streams. Plenum
Press, New York.
-154-
Harren, C.E. 1971. Biology and water pollution control. W.B. Saunders
Company, Philadelphia. 434 pp.
Westgard, R.L. 1964. Physical and biological aspects of gas-bubble
disease in impounded adult chinook salmon at McNary spawning channel.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 93(3): 306-309.
Wheaton, F.W. 1977. Aquacultural engineering. John Wiley and Sons, New
York. 708 pp.
White, L.E. 1980. Evaluation of a new planting device for salmon eggs.
Progressive Fish -Culturist 42 (3): 177-180.
Williams, F.T. 1964. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport
fish waters of the Copper Rivir and Prince William Sound drainage.
Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual Report of Progress,
1963-1964. Project F-5-R-5, Job 11-A. Alaska Department of Fish
and Game. 5: 321-336 •
• 1965. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish waters
of the Copper River and Prince William Sound drainage, and upper
Susitna River drainage. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual
Report of Progress, 1964-1965. Project F-5-R-6, Job 14-A. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. 6: 273-290 •
• 1966. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish waters
of the Copper River and Prince Williams Sound drainage, and upper
Susitna River. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual Report of
Progress, 1965-1966. Project F-5-R-7, Job 14-A. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game. 7: 185-213 •
• 1967. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish waters of the Copper
River and Prince William Sound drainage, and the upper Susitna
River. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual Report of Progress,
1966-1967. Project F-5-R-8, Job 14-A. Alaska Department of Fish
and Game. 8: 217-230 •
• 1969. Inventory and cataloging of the sport fish and sport fish
waters of the Copper River, Prince William Sound, and the upper
Susitna River drainages. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual
Report of Progress, 1968-1969. Project F-9-1, Job 14-A. Alaska
Uepartrnent of Fish and Game. 10: 275-289 •
• 1972. Inventory and cataloging of the sport fish and sport fish
waters of the Copper River, Prince William Sound, and the upper
Susitna River drainages. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual
Report of Progress, 1971-1972. Project F-9-4, Job G-I-F. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. 13: 85-110 •
• 1974. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and
--of the Copper River, Prince vJilliam Sound, and the
River drainages. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration.
of Progress, 1973-1974. Project F-9-6, Job G-I-F.
of Fish and Game. 15: 121-145.
-155-
sport fish waters
upper Susitna
Annual Report
Alaska Department
• 1975. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and
of the Copper River, Prince William Sound, and the
River drainages. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration.
of Progress, 1974-1975. Project F-9-7, Job G-I-F.
of Fish and Game. 16: 121-144 •
• 1976. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and
of the Copper River, Prince William Sound, and the
River drainages. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration.
of Progress, 1975-1976. Project F-9-8, Job G-I-F.
of Fish and Game. 17: 107-129.
sport fish waters
upper Susitna
Annual Report
Alaska Department
sport fish waters
upper Susitna
Annua 1 Report
Alaska Department
1977. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish
waters of the Copper River, Prince William Sound, and the upper
Susitna River drainages. Fed~ral Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual
Report of Progress, 1976-1977. Project F-9-9, Job G-I-F. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. 18: 1-25 •
• 1978. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish waters
of the Copper River, Prince William Sound, and the upper Susitna
River drainages. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual Report
of Progress, 1Y77-1978. Project F-9-10, Job G-I-F. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game. 19: 25-46.
1979. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish
waters of the Copper River, Prince William Sound, and the upper
Susitna River drainages. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual
Report of Progress, 1978-1979. Project F-9-11, Job G-I-F. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. 20: 25-53 •
• 1980. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish vtaters
of the Copper River, Prince William Sound, and upper Susitna River
drainages. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual Report of
Progress, 1979-1980. Project F-9-12, Job G-I-F. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game. 21: 21-55.
Williams, F.T. and H.D. Potterville. 1981. Inventory and cataloging of
sport fish and sport fish waters of the Copper River, Prince
William Sound, and the upper Susitna River drainages. Federal Aid
in Restoration. Annual Report of Progress, 1980-1981. Project
F-9-13, Job G-I-F. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 22: 33-67.
Wright, A.T. 1964. A study of the carrying capacity of pink and chum
salmon spawning areas in Alaska. Contract No. 14-17-0007-22 with
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 11pp.
-156-
9. Contributors/Acknowledgement:
A. Contributors
Project Leader/ Economics/ Editor-----------Lowell S. Barrick
Biology Criteria----------------------------Bernard Kepshire
Fisheries Engineering-----------------------George Cunningham
Drafting------------------------------------Carol Downing
Typing--------------------------------------Tanya Zahn
B. Acknowledgement:
In addition to the staff contributors, many individuals representing
state, federal and private organizations contributed valuable
information in the \vriting of this report. In particular the authors
wish to thank Tom Trent and the staff of the Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies Group, Milo Bell and John Hutchins of ABK&J, Jeff Weltzin and
Eric Meyers of the Northern Alaska En vi ronmenta l Center, Acres American
Incorporated and R&M consulting Engineers. Bob Burkett, Chief of
Technology and Development for FRED Division, appointed the study
team, outlined the work plan, and set the schedule for this study.
-157-
10. APPENDICES
-158-
10. 1
Letter from Commissioner Ronald 0. Skoog to the Honorable Vic Fisher
March 31, 1982
The Honorable Vic Fischer
State Senate
Pouch V, State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Dc~r Senator:
465-4100
The followi~g information is prcvidcd by th~ department in responce
to your inquiry concerning that portion of CS SSSB 603(Res) providin~
$200,000 for the assessnent of the fisheries' potential of the Susicnn
River. This initial funding would provide for the rlevnlopm~nt of a
baseline feasjbility analysis only for the area above Devils C~nynn tn
ans.,..er in a pn~J lninary n.qnner, the fo].Jowi:Jg qut~~-;tlons:
1. Is it techn1c~lly feasible tc pass adult an~drornous
fish upstream ~nd the rcsu.l tant fry/ smol ts safely
do~stream throush Devils C;myon if no hydro
electric development occurs on the Susitna River?
And if feasible, -:.;hnt vould be the prelinin;;ry cost
estinates for various fish passage designs to
accomplish this?
2. \-lhat is the potenti.:tl
(above Devils C<1n~ron)
for the U?-rivcr llabit.:1t
to support anc:dronon!> fish
populations? If fi.sh passe1r;e becomes possibl2 0n a
regular b2.sis, ~<1h<1t vould be the biological i.:'lpncts
to the up-river rcsider:t f:isl: P?ec-!..cs and h<::bitat by
such access to an:1d:-o::-.cus :.nccies ."lbove Devil<.'
C0nyon?
10.1 cont.
3. What specific areas of study should n comprehensive
plan address should it be detcrnined that auch a
project be implemented by the Legislature?
If you have any questions regarding this mntter plennc do not hesitate
to contact this office.
Sincerely.,
Ronald 0. Skoog
Comidssioner
ROS/l.SB/as
cc: Ron Lehr
Keith Specking
bee: Too. Trent
Christopher Estes
Mary Jablonski
10.2
from Mr. Jeff Weltzin to Commissioner Ronald 0. Skoog
Northern Alaska Environmental Center
June 4, 1982
Co~missioner Ronald 0. Skoog
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
"P.O. Box 3-2000
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Dear Commissioner Skoog,
218 DRIVEWAY
FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701
(907) 452.-5021
As you know, my organization has worked with others to support a $200 ,.000
.appropriation.through the Legislature to study the potential of upper
Susitna River salmon e~~ncement. I wish to thank you and your staff·
for the helpful bac~ground information describing how ADF&G would
approach this study.
We based our decision to pursue this funding for the ADF&G on your
letter of March 20, 1981 which stated that the present arrangement
bett;.;een your agency and the APA would not include any assessment of
upper Susitna River salmon enhancement potential. More specifically,
our·motivations in supporting this funding are outlined in·the following
questions that hopefully this study will answer: ·
.1. Can the Devils Canyon hydraulic barriers .to the migration of the
five species of salmon (chinook, coho, chun, sockeye and pi~~) be altered
or bypassed to permit the passage of these species ~0 both tributaries
· and connecting lakes above Devils Canyon in absence of the proposed
Susitna hydro project?
2. If flsll passage through Devils Canyon is feasible, what would the
potential benefit of salmon production from the tributaries and lakes
upstream of Devils Canyon be to the sport, corr~ercial'ahd subsistence
fishermen? ·
3. What would the biological 'impacts be to other species presently
residing in the upper Susitna?
4. If t~e Susitna dams are built, ho~ would this effect the potential
of upper Susitna River salmon enhancement?
It is our hope that this baseline study can be integrated into the
ADF&G's Susitna hydro investigations to obtain the maximum understariding
of the feasibility of providing access to and from the habitat of the
upper Susitna. He believe that this knowledge is absolutely essential
to determining whether the·instream flows of the upper Susitna are best
suited for fishery enhancement or hydro development or both.
In conclusion, the results of the first phase of the Susitna studies.
sho~ that if the proposed Susitna dams have benefits, they are over
a f~fty year or longer period. ±t is our belief that the benefits of
the potential salmon enh~ncement of the upper Susitna should also be
examined in th~ same context. Just as the Railbelt will experience
10.2 cont.
Comxnission-er Skoog page 2
increased demand for electricity over the long term, the Railbelt could
equally experience increased demand for Susitna salmon. Both potential
developments of the Susitna must be understood to allow Alaskans the
·ability to make an informed decision on what are the best uses of the
Susitna River.
In anticipation that the Governor will not veto this appropriation,
I would be pleased to meet with you to discuss this appropriation in
more detail if you so desire. I would also appreciate being informed
on how you intend to implement this study and its progress as it evolves.
Sincerely,
Appendix 10.3. Upper Susitna River salmon enhancement study work plan (1982-1983)
I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
In the upper reaches of the Susitna River, in the vicinity of Devil
Canyon, it is reported that a series of rapids and/or waterfalls create
a barrier or series of barriers that prevent or seriously limit the
passage of migatory fish (anadromous salmon) to spawning areas upstream
of the barrier(s). As of mid-1982 the exact nature of the reported
barrier(s) was not known by the Department of Fish and Game. The
problems to be identified are described in a letter of March 31,
1982 from Fish and Game Commissioner Ron Skoog to Senator Vic Fischer
and are listed as follows:
1) Determine the nature, location and the extent of any fish barrier(s)
located on the Susitna River upstream of Devil Canyon.
2) Determine the nature and extent of salmon spawning habitat located
upstream of Devil Canyon.
3) Determine methods of introducing salmon upstream of Devil Canyon.
Methods could include fishpass facilities, stocking of hatchery
produced fish, eyed egg plants and other methods.
4) Develop cost figures, suitable for budgetary purposes, for i~ple
menting any of the methods, of item 3, that are determined to be
practical.
5) Determine the biological impact on resident fish species inhabiting
the area upstream of Devil Canyon that could be expected from the
introduction of salmon into this area.
6) Determine any specfic areas of study that need to be conducted
if Salmon are to be artificially introduced into the Susitna
River above Devil Canyon.
In addition to the questions posed by Commissioner Skoog the Northern
Alaska Environmental Center, in its letter of June 4, 1982 asked the
following additional question. "If the Susitna daT'lS are built, hov1
would this effect the potential of the upper Susitna River Salmon
Enhancement?"
This study will try to answer the questions posed by Commissioner
Skoog and by the Northern Alaska Environmental Center.
II. HOW BARRIER STUDY WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED
Two individuals have been assigned to this study full time during
fiscal year 1983 and two additional individuals will be assigned to
Appendix 10.3 cont.
the study part time during the five month period 7/1/82 through
12/l/82. During this five month period a draft report of the study,
suitable for submission to the legislature, will be prepared.
Following the legislature's review the study report will be refined as
needed. Because the draft report is needed by December 1 there will
not be time to make detailed field investigations of the site during
all seasons of the year. Therefore, heavy emphasis will be placed on
literature research of data that has been collected by others.
Following is a list of sources known to posses information that should
be relevant to this study:
l) Alaska Department of Fish and Game
a. The Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Group -Tom Trent
b. Habitat Division-Carl Yanagawa
c. Sport Fish Division
d. Commercial Fish Division
e. FRED Division
2) The Alaska Power Authority
3) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4) The U.S. Geological Survey
5) Acres American -Susitna Hydro Feasibility Study
6) U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers
7) R & M Consultants
8) North Pacific Aerial Surveys Inc.
In addition to the lite~ature research site investigation work will
be necessary but because of the short time frame available in which
to prepare the draft report detailed site investigations will not be
made. Instead, the site investigation will be limited to site/terrain
familiarization, verification of questionable data found in literature,
observing the extent of salmon migration in Devil Canyon (if any
occurs) and obtaining site specific measurement such as stream
velocity. The following site investigation trips are planned:
1) July 12-16: Fixed wing aircraft over flight. The purpose
of this trip will be to familiarize the investigators with
the extent of the study area, terrain conditions, watershed,
areas of potential blockage and etc.
2) August 2-6: Rotor-wing aircraft inspection. This flight
will permit on ground site investigation of questionable
features and allow observation of the pink salmon migration
Appendix 10.3 cont.
which reached its peak, near Devil Canyon, on August 8 in
1981 •
3) August 30-September 3: Rotor-wing aircraft inspection.
This flight will permit additional ground observations and
will permit observation of the coho migration which extends
into September in the vicinity of Devil Canyon.
4) It is expected that three site investigation trips will be
adequate. However, additional flights or ground trips (if
possible) will be conducted if necessary.
III. PROJECT SCOPE
This study will attempt to find answers to the questions posed in
section I. The study will be conducted by means of personnel
interviews, literature search and on-site investigations as described
in section II. The draft report will be completed by December 1,
1982 with follow up research and report elaboration performed after
comments to the draft report have been received.
IV. MILESTONES (Critical Dates)
1) July 1982
Initiate literature search and conduct over flight of the
Upper Susitna River study area.
2) August -September 1982
Complete field investigations, literature search and initiate
the draft report.
3) October -November 1982
Collect additional data found missing in first draft and
modify draft as.appropriate.
4) December 1, 1982
Barrier study report published.
5) December 1982 -January 1983
Barrier study report reviewed by legislature.
6) February -June 1983
Barrier study report completed per comments submitted by the
legislature. Recommendations made.
Appendix 10.3 cont.
v. STUDY BUDGET
1 ) Salaries (#100) 2 full time/2 part time = 159,800
2) TVL & PO (#200) = 20,000
3) Publication Costs (#300) = 1 0 '400
4) Administrative/Office Supp 1 i es = 500
Subtotal = 190,700
5% Cont. (additional charter flts/
drafting) = 9,300
Total Study Cost = 200,000
Registered
Professional
Engineer
Lowell S. Barrick, P.E.
10.4
MILD C. BELL
Consulting Engineer
BOX 23
MUKILTEO, WASHINGTON 98275
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
FRED Division
P.O. Box 3-2000
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Dear Lowell:
December 30, 1982
Drawings coveringJPf proposed fishways for the Susitna canyons
are being sent under ~~Le cover. They show possible configurations
for fishways to pass fish through the canyons.
Those of us who have been in the Susitna area recognize the pauc-
ity of information available to us to aid in making a decision on struc-
tures, and we should remind ourselves that the winter survey by R & M,
and the chopper surveys made by you and George Cunningham, which
included velocity measurements by flow, form the basis at this tine for
judgement as to whether fish can be passed through the canyons.
The river flows for the year 1982 apparently were at record low,
arounds 14,000 cfs, during the fish passage time. The normal range
during the period is from 24,000 to 28,000, or approximately double the
flow the fish faced in their successful movement through this canyon in
1982.
Obviously, before a final decision could be reached it would be
necessary to conduct at lQast ona year's examination of river levels in
the canyon areas. Measurement of major drops which are known to exist
in the canyon areas must be made before a final figure can be placed on
the cost of providing fishways around such obstructions. It must be
assumed that the barriers in these canyons are velocity barriers crea-
ted by river energy, or the destruction of such energy associated with
bank and bed roughness, which becomes more apparent at the lower flm·7s.
It is also reported that there was a standing wave of great height
created below the lower canyon at higher flows which was not shown
either by the winter surveys of R & M or by the pictures taken by you
and George Cunningham during your helicopter survey, or at the time
when I surveyed the canyon.
This is the first time (in 1982) that it has been reported that
any numbers of anadromous fish have been found above the lower canyon.
With this assumption, it must also be assumed that flows probably above
16,000 cfs may create sufficient drops at various control points in the
canyon as to prevent successful passage bacause of the increased
velocities.
10.4 cont.
There may be two approaches to the development of a fishway system
for these canyons: 1. passage from the lowest barrier to and above the
canyon by a single fishway, or 2. passage around obstruction points by
properly located fishways. There are problems associated with both
approaches. If a single fishway system is to be created it must be
assumed that fish nmv approach the canyon on one bank and that the
entrance to this fishway would be at the farthest point of upstream
migration on that bank. If this is not true, then an obstruction must
be built on the bank on which there is no entrance to create a head
drop, which would not allow fish passage and would require the fish to
move to the bank where the fishway entrance is. If the entrance
position is not properly located and the fish could bypass any point of
potential obstruction, the length of time that the fish have before
they must spawn would not allow them to search too long for an entrance
downstream from the point in which they were collecting. This means,
of course, that a very careful field examination would be necessary to
insure that an entrance would be placed at the most precise location
possible for the farthest point of upstream travel on that bank chosen
for a single fishway passage.
If a multifishway development were to be proposed, that is, a fish-
way at each point at which fish have difficulty passing because of in-
creased velocities, it would mean that the fish would be free to enter
the river above such a short fishway, perhaps diverting to either bank
in order to pass. A longer passage time would be required, for exam-
ple, for fish to move from the left to right bank and back again if the
fishways were on two banks. Again, time might not permit such delays
in the canyon.
If a single fish passage facility were to be provided, it probably
would be best then to provide entrances into this facility at those
points that were shown to be barriers to fish, provided that the fioh
were able to pass the next lower obstruction. Thus there would be
insurance that if the fish did pass the next lower obstruction they
would find an entrance and would continue through the fishway system
into the canyon area above the fishways.
The costs for these two approac~es ar~ pro~ided as an appendix or
separate document.~~~~
Previous tests have indicated that supersaturated nitrogen is now
occurring in the canyon area. The effect of this has not been measured
and it may affect passageway or the life span of the fish. It must be
borne in mind that for each foot that the fish remain below the
surface, the supersaturation level in reduced by approximately 3%.
Sincerely yours,
•"7 . 7 l~. t ./ I ..
10.4 cont.
LOWER CANYON
TUNNEL FISHWAY--l-J
--__fY.~
Go!2..-Creek--{
z
<t
0
a:: w
;!
0 a::
~ w
(/)
SUSITNA RIVER TUNNEL FlSHWAYS
LOCATION MAP
3 2 0 6 Miles SCALE
ANDERSEN
B..JOI=INSTAO
KANE
.JACOBS, INC.
CONSUL T!NGi ENGiiNEEt=
Milo C. Bell, Inc.
Box 23 , .. __ .. : .... __ '"~'.. .... ........ _ ..
10.4 cont.
LOWER SUSITNA RIVER·CANYON FISHWAY
Cost Estimate Assumptions
1. Construction equipment would be brought to Gold Creek by rail car and off
loaded.
2. An existing unimproved dirt road would be used to transport construction
equipment, materials, and construction camp to the foot bridge midway in
Devils Canyon.
3. Drilling machines, mining machines, tools, supplies, and mining equipment
will be swung across the river using a skyline and a several drum donkey.
4. A trail would be constructed along the north ridge and down to the lower
portal. Machinery and supplies could be lowered down the step slopes.
5. Mine tailing would be wasted into the river.
6. The existing landing strip would be used for air lifting materials and
supplies.
7. The tunneling operation would anticipate working two tunnel faces
concurrently and two shifts each day.
8. We assume a minimum construction camp size of 45 people during
production.
Superintendant 1
Assistant 1
Foreman 4
Miners 16
Riggers 3
Iron Workers 2
Carpenters 5
Laborers 5
Camp 4
Helicopter 2
Equipment operators -2
TOTAL 45
9. Equipment and supplies are as listed in the quantity estimate.
10.4 cont.
•.r-... , ·,.,._ ~----------------.:-_ __../ '\
-.. .,,/
f I
I
I
I
I.
I
--·-
10.4 cont.
ANDERSEN • BJORNSTAD •.KANE • JACOBS, INC. PROJECT Lower Susitna Canyon DATE
22 Dec. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Fishway Feasibility ;]Y SEATTLE, WA. ANCHORAGE, AK. JOB NO. C:+-nil'\l. C':o..s± F!.c;t-~i_lllBt-_p .1 R .H
82
COST ESTIMATE SHT. NO.
1
MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL COST
CLASS OF WORK AND MATERIAL QUANTITY UNIT
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
C:hPPt-? F. i Rro11aht: Forwarc -i
Sheet 2 1,675 ,00( l
Sheet 3 "'2, 083, OOl !4, /':::iU ,UUL ~
I
Labor Tax 20%
j':J!:l(),UUU I
Subtotal 9,506,00
C"on.tractors Overhead & Pro lit 10
95t,QOO
Snht-ot-r:1l 0,457,00
-
Pro-iect Continaencv 10%
1,046,00
Subtotal p, 5CJ3 ,00 D
Sit-P Investiaations
500,00~
Site Survev 200,000
DPsian 700,00~
Construction Supervision 1,200,000
'T'O'T'AT PROJEC"'T' C"OST 14,103,00 o,
10.4 cont.
ANDERSEN • BJORNSTAD •_.KANE • JACOBS, INC.
PROJEC r Lower ::>us 1 tna t..anyon DATE
Fishway Feasibility 22 Dec. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Cost Estimate 8 J. R.H. SEATTLE, WA. ANCHORAGE, AK. JOB NO.
82
COST ESTIMATE SHT. NO.
2
MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL COST
CLASS OF WORK AND MATERIAL pUANTITY UNIT
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
1. Mobilization & Demobilization
Access Trail 50 STA 500 25,000
Ship Equipment from Seattle
3 Compressors
5 Drillers
3 Muckers
2 Mixers
Tractors, Trucks, Generators
Skyline Rigging & Equipment
Concrete
Concrete Reinforcement
Lumber
'
700,00 LB 0.1 84,000
Helicopter, 5000 lb. 1 ifts 100 ea 2500 250,000
2500 lb. 1 ifts 800 ea 1000 800 000
Construction Camp
<:nt-lin :>V)rl ()",-."'"~+; r.n 36n IOav 11000 l%0 .OOQ
Camp Rental 12 Mo. 3000 36,000
2. Staging
Site Cl earinq 10 AC 1000 10 000
Sky Lines & Rigging (PurchasE ) LS 1n,ooo
-
Safety; nets, equip. , etc. LS 100.000
-
1,675,00(
10.4 cont.
ANDERSEN • BJORNSTAD •KANE • JACOBS, INC. PROJECT Lower Sus1tna Canyon DATE
Fishway Feasibility Study-? L1 ~Jn ~? CONSULTING ENGINEERS BY
SEATTLE. WA. ANCHORAGE, AK. JOB NO. Cost Estimate
COST ESTIMATE SHT. NO.
1
MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL COST
CLASS OF WORK AND MATERIAL QUANTITY UNIT
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
3. Equipment Rental:
3 Compressors 12 mo 600 7,200
5 Dri 11 s II jj 400 4,800
2 Muckers II II 6000 72,000
2 Mixers II II 1000 12 000
1 Skyline II II PQOOO 240,000
2 Tractors II II 6000 72 .000
2 Trucks II II .000 Q4,000 ,
4 Generators II II 00 ?.tl oon
2 Camp Generators II II 000 24,000
Sma 11 Too 1 s 1000 12 000
4. Materia 1 s
I--·
Rock Bolts 4200 EA 40 168 000
.. 3000 40 1201>000
Cast-In-Place Concrete
4 Portals @ 100 c.y. EA 400 CY 000 400,000
Special Care & Handlin 400 CY 000 400 000
Timber 2 MBF 500 3,000
Structural Steel 50,000 LBS ~000 200,000
v!ire Mesh 10,000 SF 2 20,000
Grates 1,600 SF 50 80,000
Other LS 200,000
5. Labor
Supervision b ~ 12 1·10 6000 432,000
Tradesman 31m. @ 6 mo. 44,640 HRS 60 ~,678,000 --
Camp Labor 4m @ 12 mo 14,!)0:' HRS 50 700,000
Operators 4m @ 12 mo 14,00C HRS 70 980,000
2,083,00( ~,790,000
10.4 cont.
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER CANYON FISHWAY
Cost Estimate Assumptions
1. Construction equipment would be brought to Chulitna by
Rail car and off loaded.
2. An existing sled road would be used to cabins at Portage
Creek. From their A sled road would be constructed to
near Devil Creek.
3. Drilling r.1achines, 1111n1ng machines, tools, supplies, and
mining equipment would be transported by cat train to
Devil Creek which is near the fishway's up-stream
portal.
4. Helecopter & Snow Cat would be used to supply the camp
through the construction year.
5. The fishway would be constructed in the north bank and
would utilize additional shafts for fish entrances and
tunnel tailings.
6. Tunneling operations would anticipate working two faces
concurrently and two shifts each day.
7. An Access Trail will be constructed along the north bank
so as to hoist equipment to the portals.
8. We assume a minimum construction camp size of 45 people
during construction.
Superintendant 1
Assistant 1
Foremen 4
Miners 16
R i g ge r s 3
Iron Workers 2
Carpenters 5
Laborers 5
Camp 4
Helicopter 2
Equipment Operators 2
45
9. Equipment and supplies are as 1 isted in the quantity
estimate.
---· \'?>oo
-----\AOO
3750' LONG .
TUNNEL FISHWAYS
UPPER SUSITNA
SCHEMATIC p F Is HW AY
~~gEI=ISEN KAN~NSTAD
.JACOBS, INC.
CONSUL TINCJ ENCJINEEF'l9
I
LAN
. = 600' ~CAl F. I" Milo C. Bell I n .... .,, ' nc.
10.4 cont.
--~--~,:::;--~---------
\.
SU:SITNA RIVER
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER FlSHWAY PERSPECTIVE
NO SCAU:. ANDERSEN
BJORNSTAD
KANE
.JACOBS; INC.
Milo C. lldl. Ia<.
llo•13
MUJ!tto, WA 9UIS
10.4 cont.
ANDERSEN • BJORNSTAD • KANE • JACOBS, INC. PROJECT upper .)USlina t.,anyon ~~TDec Fishway Feasibility 8 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Study Cost Estimate ~~R.H. SEATTLE, WA. ANCHORAGE, AK. JOB NO.
2
COST ESTIMATE SHT. NO.
I
MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL COST
CLASS OF WORK AND MATERIAL jQUANTITY UNIT
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
Sheet 2 & 3 Brought Forv1ard
SHT 2 2,424,0( 0
SHT 3 2 '03 7 '0( 0 4,824,00(
Labor Tax 20% 965, oar
Subtotal 10,250,0 0
Co~tractors Overhead & Profit 10 1.025 0 0
Subtotal 11,275,0 0
Pro.iect Continqency 10% 1,128,0 0
Subtotal 12,403,0 0
Site Investigations 450,0 0
Site Survey 350 ,or 0
Desiqn 750 ,0( 0
Construction Supervision 1, 300 '0( 0
TOTAL PROJECT COST 15,253,0 0
10.4 cont.
PROJECT upper Sus 1 tna Canyon DATE ANDERSEN • BJORNSTAD • KANE • JACOBS, INC. Fishway Feasibility I?? no,-. Q')
CONSULTING ENGINEERS ;11v
SEATTLE, WA. ANCHORAGE, AK. JOB NO. Study Cost Estimate J.R.H.
COST ESTIMATE SHT. NO.
2
MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL COST
CLASS OF WORK AND MATERIAL PUANTITY UNIT
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
1. Mobilization & Demobilization
15 Miles Cat Train Road 50,000
3 Comoressors
5 Drillers
3 Muckers
2 Mixers
Tractors Generators
Hoisting Equipment
Concrete
Concrete Reinforcement
Lumber
Construction Camp
Aoorox IRnn. nn1 LB' 0 3( 24.n nnn
HP l i cooter Lifts
2500 lb Lifts 1 ,201 EA 1000 1,200,000
Construction Camp
Set uo & Ooeration :inr nA 1 nnr 'inn nnr
Camo Rental 1 MO 100( 4? .oor
2. Staaina
Site Clearing 1( AC 100( 10,00(
Hoistina Eauioment PurchasP I S 1o.nor
Explosives 4 '20( LB 8( 336,00(
Rock Bolts 1. Rnr FA ?n 7F, nnr
Safety: Nets, Equip, Etc. L. S. 100,00(
2,422,00(
10.4 cont.
ANDERSEN· BJORNSTAD • KANE • JACOBS, INC. PROJECT Upper ~us 1 tna Lanyon DATE
Fishway Feasibili~y ?? nor R CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SEATTLE. WA. ANCHORAGE. AK. JOB NO. Study Cost Estimate J:R.H.
2
COST ESTIMATE SHT. NO.
3
MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL COST
CLASS OF WORK AND MATERIAL pUANTITY UNIT
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
3. Equipment Rental
3 Compressors 14 MO 600 8,000
5 Dri 11 s 400 6,000
2 Muckers 6000 84,000
2 Mixers 1000 14,000
..
Hoistino Eouio 5000 70 000
2 Tractors 6000 84,000
2 Snow Cats 4000 56 .000
4 Generators 2000 28,000
,
2 Camo Generators ?000 ?R .non
Small Tools 1000 14,000
4. Materials
Rock Bolts 4000 EA 40 160 .000
Explosives 4000 LBc 40 160,000
Cast-In-Place-Concrete
4 Portals 400 CY 1000 400,000
. Soecial Care & Handlina 400 CY 11000 1400 .000
Timber 3 MBF 1500 5,000
Structural Steel b5 .000 l.B 4 220 .000
Hire Mesh 0,000 SF 2 20,000
Gates 1 600 SF 50 80 000
Other LS 200,000
5. Labor
Suoervisi_on 6 @ 15 i~O 6000 540 .00~
Tradesmen 31 @ 65 t~O ~8,360 HRS 60 2~902,00D
f:ilmn I ilhnr 4 M (a 1? MO 11 !)'1( 4RS !)0 '17fi no~
Opera tors 4 M @ 12 MO 11, 52( HRS 70 806,00)
2.037 .nnn 4 R?ll nn
I>
ADF&G Internal Reviews of this document:
* By Ken Florey and Al Kingsbury, dated June 1, 1983. -- 4 pages.
* By Thomas Trent and Bruce Barrett, dated March 23, 1983. -- 12
pages.
~MEMORANDUM State of Alaska
TO:
FROM:
Bob Burkett
Chief/Tech. Developnent
FRED
Juneau
Kenneth Florey
Regional Mgmt. o dinator
Commercial Fisheries
Anchorage
DATE:
FILE NO:
TELEPHONE NO:
SUBJECT:
June 1, 1983
344-0541
Review of Upr:er
Susitna River Salmon
Enhancement Study
I must appologize for being late with. the review of the draft report.
Al Kingsbury had the document and gave it a partial review, Chuck
Meacham was unable to look at it due to other more pressing priorities
and I have had herring fisheries and FY85 budgets occupying my time
for the rast month. could
Anyway, here is a brief review of the r~port from Al Kingsbury and
myself. Many of our sr:ecific coments have already been covered by Tom
Trent.
I believe the main point we want to get across is the bias toward
hatcheries which characterizes the entire report. No realistic
harvest rates, consideration for the types or location of existing
fisheries, or potential for new fisheries are discussed or even
acknowledged in the report. Supportinq reference material in some
areas is either missing or very marginal. Potential negative impacts
from the introduction of hatchery stocks on existing wild stocks (as
they relate to a mixed stock fishery) are not discussed. The economic
analysis section would require much more time than is available but
these analyses do.not reflect any variability or uncertainty in basic
production da.ta (i.e. a confidence interval).
Attached are a few sr:ecifics. The review was not forwarded to Senator
Fischer's office. Our Juneau HQ will do so if deemed appropriate.
Attachment
cc: Trent
Kingsbury
Clark
\~ \\ ';
l
L~ Ala~k~ ~~so\lrcees
Library &.'information Services
Anchur4g~.~a~ka
1 ,.k"',"'h'"
Su-Hydro Enhancement Review
1. Page 1, 1. Forward -Only objectives (2) & (4) are addressed in any
thorough manner in this report. .
2. Page 8-13, 4.1.1 Sockeye Salmon-Question the assumption of Upper
Susitna Lakes equal in sockeye salmon production to Surru.nit Lake. There
are little or no comparative limnological data. The most serious
omission is any treatment of variability between years and between
systems in smolt production and adult return per acre. Example of
Surru.nit Lake production would exceed Tustumena Lake (Page 11) uses only
data from one year of smolt production from Tustumena Lake. It does not
consider the fact that hatchery fry are stocked in Tustumena or give any
physical or limnological parameters for the reader to draw his or her
CMn conclusions. This type of "trust me" approach to pertinent data
carries through the species discussions and the rest of the report.
3. Page 33, #5-Not sure if sonic tagging or radio tagging is meant;
Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies investigations have shown there is limited
movement of upstream migrants (chinook salmon) but numbers are small and
conditions must be ideal to tag and track adult salmon.
4. Page 38, -The scenario discussing differential harvest rates for
. hatchery versus wild (fishway) salmon has already been discussed. The
stocks would contribute to the Cook Inlet commercial fishery which is a
complex mixed stock fishery. Under no conditions could these stocks be
harvested at the 95% exploitation rate due to the potential overharvest
of other wild stocks. Terminal sport harvest fisheries are probably not
feasible.
The entire argument assumes that greater production will occur to smolt
stage from a hatchery program. carrying cap3.city (rearing potential) is
not discussed from the point that given enough natural spawners, the
maximum numbers of smolt could be produced from wild stocks utilizing a
fishway.
The specifics of these species sections discussed in Tom Trent's review
are adequate.
5. page 40, -5.2.1.2 should be 5.1.1.2.
6. Page 40, The entire chinook enhancement program assumes smolt production
from hatchery fingerling plants which are untried or unproven. The
biocriteria references for Table 5-4 pertain mostly to other species not
chinook. The only related reference is the FRED Directive #3 from the
draft of the FRED Division Reorganization rvanual.
7. Page 57, 5.1.1.5 (2) Needs reference cited. Also, needs discussion of
successful salmon runs naturally occurring in high gas concentrations.
8. Page 81 & 85 -Contractor costs represent only a portion of project
costs including annual maintenance costs; operating costs should be
included.
9. Page 90 -Suitable donor stocks must be cleared by genetics and
pathology. Transporting one major drainage stock to another major
drainage is not currently considered a good practice even though the
actual locations may be geographically close. In addition, Gulkana
River stocks pass through the Copper River commercial fishery during May
and early June. The commercial salmon season does not open in Cook
Inlet until the first Monday or Friday following June 25. If run timing
remained the same as the donor stock (other transports suggest this is
the case i.e. Halibut Cove chinook has similar run timing as Crooked
Creek donar stock) then the Gulkana River sockeye stock would pass
through Cook Inlet at least two weeks prior to any commercial opening.
There doesn • t appear to be much benefit in this.
10. Page 10 2. Broodstocks -As per Trent • s comments, these stocks are are
not appropriate broodstock sources.
11. Page 104. Sockeye broodstocks from the Gulkana River are not
appropriate for the reasons stated in number 9.
12. Page 105. The statement· that sockeye juveniles at the Gulkana hatchery
have not been affected by IHN virus to date is incorrect. The Gulkana
facility experienced an epizootic in one incubator this spring.
13. · Page 109. Disadvantages of stocking smolt. What are the references
that support statement #1 on homing response?
14. Page 118. I have to assume the cost construction estimates are
accurate, but FRED Division has a history of building partially
completed or scaled down hatcheries due to increased costs, so I
question if 3.4 million dollars is sufficient to build a hatchery.
15. Page 124-142. Economic Analysis -Not being an economist I can't speak
with any expertise on the benefit/cost calculation but on Page 136, (C).
Potential harvest in the Upper Susitna River -There is no commercial
fishery in the Upper Susitna River so the calculations using commercial
catch are not valid. Also, if Cook Inlet commercial catch percentages
are used, 60% for sockeye, chum and coho and 5% for Northern Cook Inlet
chinook are more appropriate.
Page 138 -It is my understanding a FWF at 3% is extremely optimistic
and that 4 to 5% is just as valid. Page 139-142, the cost analysis
seems rather simplistic, so I asked for and received a COP.f of the draft
of Jeff Hartman's Fishery and Ecomomic Assumptious for 1982 FRED
Enhancement and Rehabilitation Simulations which discussed benefit cost
calculations. The analysis of costs includes such things as capital
costs of salmon fishing and variable costs of fishing among others.
These are not including the B/C equations used for the proposed
Talkeetna hatchery.
Part of the permit requirement for the PNP Eklutna hatcher¥ was to
include the cost of a mark and recovery program to determ1ne the
hatchery contribution to the mixed stock fishery. This was a
requirement because of the concern a large hatchery return the same
year as a poor wild stock return could promote overfishing of the wild
stocks in a mixed stock fishery. This at least should be included as
p::trt of the costs of the hatchery.
Using the simple equation listed but with a 60% exploitation the B/C
would be 1.36:1 instead of 2.29:1. This may or may not be accurate, but
I believe a realistic B/C ratio cannot be calculated with the limited
data available.
Alaska Resources
Library & Information Services
llnchorage,Alaska
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Robert D. Burkett
Chief, Tech. & Development
FRED Division
Juneau
~~ Thomas W. Trent
Aquatic Studies Coordinator
Su Hydro Aquatic Studies
Anchorage
State of Alaska
DATE:
FILE NO:
TELEPHONE NO:
SUBJECT:
~1a rch 22, 1983
02-83-7.10
274-7583
Review of FRED Upper
Susitna River Salmon
Enhancement Study
(Draft)
Attached is the A 1 ask a Department of Fish and Game -Su Hydro review,
primarily done by Bruce Barrett and myself, of the subject report by FRED.
This review was requested by Senator Vic Fischer's office and he asked we
send the review to Commissioner Collinsworth with a carbon copy to his
office.
Unfortunately, the letter from Senator Fischer was lost during the internal
routing here. But we believe as a matter of protocol the letter should go to
Senator Fischer directly from ADF&G headquarters rather than from ADF&G/Su
Hydro.
The review is tardy and was due March 21. After discussions with Richard
Logan, John McMullen, and Dennis Kelso at the Board meeting here in Anchorage
on the 23rd, it was decided that I should send the review to you. Kelso
indicated he would call Senator Fischer's office and make arrangements
regarding the consideration of our review and a response to Senator Fischer.
cc: Su Hydro Project Leaders
L. Heckart
A. Kingsbury
P. Krasnowski
Alaska Resources
Library & Information Services
Anchorage, Alaska
1. 5.1.1 S.E.P. Without Hydroelectric Dams
page 34/para. 2
It specifically states in Section 5.1.1 that report sections 5.1.1.1 -
4 will provide an evaluation of the upper Susitna River watershed
production potential for sockeye, chum, coho and chinook salmon.
Sections 5.1.1.1-4 presented a reasonably clear definition of the
streams or lakes system from which production could be expected but
beyond this, the eva_luation is biased, in our opinion, and based on
·inaccurate data presentation and interpretation. On page 38 both
paragraphs are based on data presented in Tab 1 e 5-2 which is a con-
glomerate of mismatched information. For example, the recruitment
numbers presented in Tab 1 e 5-2 for the two alternatives cannot be
identical to one another if the egg to smolt survival in fact is
fifteen times greater under hatchery conditions than natural
production! Additionally, if the survival rates on natural production
presented in Table 5-2 are accurate and there is a 1:1 male female sex
ratio and fecundity is 3000 eggs, recruitment cannot be computed as
three fish per spawner but rather 1.5 fish per spawner. Also, the
reference to "brood survival" in Table 5-2 is unclear. What life
phases are specifically covered by the term "brood", and why is this
presented when egg to smolt survival has already been quantified?
-1-
In report section 5.1.1.1 -4, we question the accuracy of the recruit-
ment data presented in Tables 5-2, 5-4. 5-6 and 5-8. Sockeye,
chinook, coho, and chum salmon produce returns at higher rates than
reported, at least in Cook Inlet. For example, sockeye salmon produc-
tion in the Susitna River ranges between 2.9 and 5.3 fish per spawner
(Tarbox, et. al, 1982). In the Kenai and Kasilof rivers, recruitment
ranges between 12.1 and 1.2 fish per spa\'mer. In Table 5-2, the
recruitment number presented is for a spawning pair (male/female). If
adjusted for individual spawners, the number would be 1.5
fish/spawner. This is markedly below the 2.9-5.3 fish/spawner
reported for the Susitna River (Tarbox, et.al., 1982). Therefore, the
non-hatchery recruitment (natura 1 production) estimates are unrea 1-
istically low, in our opinion. Table 5-8 referenced a 2.75 fish per
spawning chum salmon pair or 1.4 recruitment/spawner. A more
realistic estimate would be 2.4 recruitment/spawner (Bakkala, 1970).
The 1982 preliminary Upper Cook Inlet commercial chum salmon harvest
was 1.4 million fish. The Susitna River produces conservatively, 75
percent of the Upper Cook Inlet chum salmon catch. The 1982 Susitna
River chum salmon escapement was approximately 0.5 million fish and
the apportioned catch at 1.1 million fish. On this basis, it can be
assumed the recruitment per parent year spawner was in the range of
3.2 fish, provided also, it is assumed the 1982 return was managed on
a MSY basis. Whether the recruitment figure is 2.4 or 3.2 fish per
spawner or the mean of these two numbers, the estimate of 1.4 fish per
spawner used in the this draft report is too low in our opinion. We
believe the economic analysis on chum salmon was based on
-2-
the 1.4 fish recruitment number, and that the analysis should be
recalculated for expected returns using the 2.4 fish recruitment
number per spawner.
2. 5.1.1.1 Sockeye Salmon
page 38/para. 1
The report states that "the number of adult sockeye salmon available
to the fisheries depends on whether a fishway enhancement program or a
hatchery enhancement program is used." The report goes on to state
that "with a hatchery (no fishways) more salmon can be harvested ... "
These statements tend to exemp 1 i fy the tone of the report. The two
enhancement methods should be evaluated individually in separate
sections and then compared in a single section in an evaluation of
alternatives. The impression is given in the report from the onset
that a hatchery is the enhancement answer. The facts should speak for
themselves as to which alternative is the most favorable.
3. 5.1.1.5 PDtential Barrier to Juvenile Salmon Emigration
and Adult Salmon Immigration
This entire section is presented without a reference source. What
information is there available that supersaturated gases in Devil
Canyon exist at levels which can cause mortality?
-3-
4 . 5 . 1 . 1 . 6 Rapids
page 58/para. 2
There is no evidence that the chinook salmon fry produced from the two
streams which enter Devil Canyon suffer any delayed emigration or
mortalities in their downstream passage through the lower section of
Devil Canyon.
5. 5.1.1.7 Total Dissolved Gas Supersaturation
page 59/para. 2
There is no mention in the second or third reference cited (Barrett,
1974; Friese, 1975) pertaining to the presence of adult salmon at the
Devil Canyon rapids.
6. 5.1.3 Conclusion
page 67/para. 3
A grayling enhancement project does not necessarily equate with a
hatchery program. Habitat enhancement is on alternative which could
be considered. Grayling hatcheries have no record of proven feasi-
bility or success. It is our recommendation that the report
references to trout and grayling enhancement be de 1 eted as i nappro-
priate. It is clearly outside the scope of the study.
-4-
Please note a 1 so comments made on pages B-34 and B-35 of ADF&G' s
January 15, 1983 revies of the APA's Draft Exhibit E for Susitna
Hydroelectric project (attached) regarding grayling culture. Then
comments were provided by FRED staff in the course of their review of
the Exhibit E.
7. Enhancement Techniques (E.T.)
page _68/para. 2
The trail referenced was not constructed by miners or hunters but by
the Bureau of Reclamation in the late 1950's in association with Devil
Canyon dam investigations.
8. 5.2.3.5 Vertical Slot Baffle
page 81/para. 2
If the intent is to equate construction costs of the Russian River and
An an Creek fi shways with the Devil Canyon fi shway costs, then it is
essential to define total project costs not just contractor payments.
9. 5.2.3.6 Fishway Construction Costs
page 90/para. 1
It is appropriate to define stock selection processes and alternatives
before defining a recommended 11 Stocking program.11
-4.1-
page 90/para. 2
What evaluation processes were followed to ascertain whether it was
feasible to establish weir facilities at Indian River and Portage
Creek? What experience does FRED have in designing functional weirs
on creeks with simi 1 i ar watershed characteristics as found in the
Indian River and Portage Creek drainages? Both streams commonly flood
in season. Indian River commonly undergoes channel changes. Portage
Creek experiences flood flows in season and significant bed material
(boulder and cobble) movement occurs. The point is whether a weir is
feasible or needed for either stream. On an average escapement year
there are not enough chinook salmon utilizing Indian River and Portage
Creek combined to provide anywhere near the 2100 fish needed for a
hatchery. The highest recommended escapement in these streams
combined was 2306 fish. The situation is nearly the same for coho
salmon. There are on the average probably more than 200 adult coho
salmon spawning in these streams annually, but probably not more than
400. It would be unreasonable to r-emove 200 coho salmon and not
expect a rather severe impact on natural stock production. Chum
salmon are available from the Indian River in the numbers needed for a
hatchery egg take. However, there are several other systems in the
Susitna River drainage where chum salmon donor stocks could be
obtained including the Talkeetna and Indian rivers by simply seining a
few spawning areas. In our opinion, we do consider it reasonable to
construct a weir on either stream.
-5-
10. 5.2.4.2 Brood Stocks
page 102/para. 3
The Indian River and Portage Creek are not appropriate sources for
chinook and coho salmon eggs because based on aerial and foot surveys,
there are not enough fish to provide the numbers required for an
annual egg take.
page 103/para. 5
It is questionable whether adult capture and holding facilities could
successfully be operated at Indian River and Portage Creek due to to
flooding problems. Further, the only area available at Portage Creek
suitable for a holding area is extensively used by sport fishermen.
There is no other camping or fishing area at the Portage Creek con-
fluence which would serve as a substitute site.
page 104/para. 2
The statement that "the Gul kana River, a tributary of the Copper
River, is an appropriate source for salmon eggs" is a conclusionary
statement preceding a presentation of fact. Standard research evalu-
ation procedures dictate an analysis or presentation of fact before
stating a conclusion.
-6-
page 105/para. 3
The fact that the IHN virus is present in Gulkana River stocks, and
that the the specific strain has caused mortality of Cook Inlet
sockeye salmon fry in tests, makes the Gulkana River hatchery stock
source inappropriate in our opinion. We would suggest that the author
have the FRED pathology section evaluate alternative stocks from
locations such as Larson Lake, Stephen Lake, and Talachulitna River.
page 106/para. 4
Stephen Lake is not accessible by boat from Talkeetna nor by boat from
any other location.
11. 5.2.4.7 Hatchery Costs
page 115/para. 2
As indicated earlier, there are inadequate populations of coho and
chinook salmon at Indian River and Portage Creek to annually provide
the number of fish needed for a hatchery operation. Additionally, it
is questionable whether weirs could be successfully opera~ed in either
stream primarily due to flooding.
If weirs were constructed at Indian River and Portage Creek, we would
like it explained how sockeye salmon would be intercepted at these
weirs inasmuch as there will be no sockeye salmon returning to these
-7-
streams. The presence of sockeye salmon in the Susitna River mainstem
does not mean these fish will enter Indian River or Portage Creek and
therefore be available for a hatchery egg take.
It would be enlightening to learn how the authors of the report
propose to operate Indian River and Portage Creek weirs, and have
their base camp for a twelve to fourteen man crew seventeen miles
downstream at Gold Creek at an annual cost of only $25,000.
12. 5.3 Biological Impact of Introduced Salmon on Resident Fish
page 12D/para. 2
The greatest length Dolly Varden char intercepted by Su Hydro biolo-
gists above Devil Canyon was 205 mm. A total of sixteen were inter-
cepted. It is doubtful that the existing Dolly Varden char population
would have any recognizable impact on salmon production above Devil
Canyon.
13. 6.1.2 Economic Factors, Assumptions, and Calculations.
page 126/items A, C & D
There is no value presented for sport caught sockeye or chum salmon.
Both species are sport caught in the Susitna River drainage.
The numbers presented for the potential return of chinook, coho,
sockeye, and chum salmon are too low as previously defined. In line
with this a recalculation of potential harvest levels is required.
-8-
Value of the harvest as presented is inconclusive due to the
inaccurate calculation of recruitment. Additionally, there is no
recognition of sport caught sockeye or chum salmon.
page 128/para. 2
There is no value established for natural production losses associated
with the taking of chinook, coho, chum, and sockeye salmon from donar
systems during egg take years. The assumption that the fish used for
hatchery brood stock would have produced nothing in the natural
environment is inaccurate.
page 131/para. 3
The Anan Creek and Russian River projects had combined cost in the
range of 1.0 million dollars. The Devil Canyon project is forecasted
to cost 32.0 million dollars. It is presumptuous, in our opinion, to
assume that the experiences gained by the Russian River and Anan Creek
projects can be closely correlated with cost estimates of the proposed
Susitna River fishway project.
14. 6.2.1 Benefit/Cost Ratio
The cost/benefit figures presented should be recalculated in line with
standard recruitment numbers and va 1 ue of natura 1 production 1 asses
from fish used from egg takes.
-9-
15. 7.1 Salmon Enhancement Without Hydroelectric Dams
page 143/para. 2
We believe it would be beneficial to present a discussion on how the
enhancement study team estab 1 i shed that more than 90 percent of the
hatchery created run can or will be harvested. It is our contention
that it is not rea 1 i sti c to assume that any higher percentage of
hatchery produced fish than that produced by the fi shway proposa 1
could be taken without overharvesting natural populations considering
the nature of the existing commercial and recreational fisheries.
-10-