Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA2518FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMjSSION CT No.7114 AQUATIC PLAN OF STUDY FISCAL YEAR 1985 ';::,.,'",:..';c:c,_'''-":; Q~ALASKA POwER AUTHORITY =-~...:---..I FINAL REPORT DECEMBER r984 DOCUMENT No"2518 oo.··..tJi...foo. o.•..••.~....~..=[g~&@©@ SUSITNAJOINT VENTURE [Jut 2 4 1995 Document No.2518 Susitna File No.4.3.1.1 SOSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AQUATIC PLAN OF STUDY FISCAL YEAR 1985 Report by Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture Prepared for Alaska Power Authority Final Report December 1984 ARLIS ..,Alaska Resources LlO r arv &In f Onnat S..•....10n.ervtees l\.nchorage,Alaska - - .- ,....40998 841221 NOTICE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS CONCERNING THIS REPORT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY A4RLIS ,.,Alaska Resources Llhrary &Jnf0TI11atlOn ServiCes Anchorage,Alaska TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.INTRODUCTION...........................1 ..... 2. -3. 4. LONG TE HM GOALS OF THE POWER AUTHORI TY • AQUATIC STUDY TEAM PARTICIPANTS DEVELOPMENT OF THE FY85 AQUATIC PLAN OF STUDY 4 7 8 5.INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG STUDY TASKS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •12 6.FY85 AQUATIC PLAN OF STUDY TASK DESCRIPTIONS • • • • • • • • • • •18 APPEND IX A -DRAFT LOWER RI VER STUDY PLAN • • • • • • • • • • • •••128 APPENDIX B -DRAFT NAVIGATION STUDY PLAN APPENDIX C -LETTERS OF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM RESOURCE AGEI'iCIES • • • • • • •.-. List of Tables: 180 187 .- 1. 2 • 3. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Federal Energy Regulatory Com~ission Schedule for Licensing Process Su~~itna Hydroelectric Project Listing of All Aquatic FY85 Tasks Susitna Hydroelectric Project Tasks Associated with Miscellaneous Categories List of Figures: 1. 2. 3. 40998 841221 Interrelationship of Middle River Study Tasks Interrelationship of Lower River Study Tasks Relationship between FY85 Study Tasks and Issues i .- - ..... r- I ! .,.,. SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISCAL YEAR 1985 AQUATIC PLAN OF STUDY 1.INTRODUCTION The Alaska Power Authority (Power Authority)submitted a license application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project (Project)on February 18,1983 (Table 1).Following initial submission of supplemental information and responses to FERC comments,the application was accepted for review by the FERC on July 19, 1983.The 81pplication was then sent (by the FERC)to resource agencies for reV1ew and comment.This review is now complete.The Power Authority has responded to the agencies I comments and the FERC has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS).The Power Authority has filed comments on the DEIS with FERC on August 23,1984.The final environmental impact statement (FEIS)is due for release in February,1985.The license is tentatively scheduled to be issued by the FERC on March 18,1987.This date is bai3ed on the FERC Susitna Project Status Report (revised on August 1,1984)which assumes that there will be no substantial delays 1n the licensing process prior to that date. Even though the license application has been accepted by the FERC for reV1ew,various aquatic or aquatic -related studies 81re still needed to assure that the licensing process proceeds on schedule.This document outlines the plans for the studies that are to be conducted during fiscal year 1985 (FY85). A draft of this document was provided to resource agencies for their review in March 1984.A workshop was held on March 30,1984 for the purpose of discussing the draft plan of study.Following the workshop,written comments and recommendations for the plan of study were received from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game,the Alaska Department of Natural Resources,the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Servic~.To the extent possible these recommendations and comments are integrated into The Final Plan of Study.The recommendations and comments are included in Appendix C of this document along with specific responses to these comments. 40998 841221 1 - ..... TABLE 1 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION SCHEDULE FOR LICENSING PROCESS* -- ..... License Application Submitted to the FERC Submission by the Power Authority of responses to FERC comments and requests for supplemental information License application accepted by the FERC for formal review Agency Review of License Application document complete ,Responses to agency comments submitted by the Power Authority Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comments on DEIS filed Final Environmental Impact Statement License Issued by FERC (tentative) February 18,1983 July 11,1983 July 29,1983 December 12,1983 January 19,1984 May 5,1984 August 23,1984 February,1985 March 18,1987 -~*Based on the FERC Susitna Project Status Report -August I,1984. 40998 841221 2 A comprehensive plan of study,specifically designed for the lower Susitna River (Talkeetna to Cook Inlet),is appended to this document (Appendix A). The plan is designed to provide additional information which will enable the Power Authority to assess the potential effects of the project to aquatic habitats located in the lower reach of the Susitna River.The plan provides for a step-wise evaluation of potential effects and an expansion of specific studies if necessary. A plan of study to assess potential Project-related impacts on navigation is appended (Appendix B).This plan is designed to provide the necessary information to evaluate possible effects of streamflow regulation on the uses of the river for transportation.The study will address both potential restrictions to navigation in general and impacts on customary routes of travel. - - - - - 40998 841221 3 -- - - 2.LONG-TERM GOALS or THE POWER AUTHORITY The Power Authority has defined specific long-term goals for aquatic studies that must be accomplished for the Susitna Project.These goals are: 1.Completion of the DElS review process 2.Completion of the FElS process 3.Completion of the Settlement Process 4.Completion of (potential)hearings 5.Receipt of an acceptable FERC license for the Project 6.Acquisition of local,state and federal permits for the Project 7.Continuation of studies that provide integrity to maintenance of the aquatic program. Following is a brief description of the Power Authority's role for each of these goals: - -- 1. 2. Completion of the DElS reV1ew process. The P01iVer Authority will review the FERC's DElS and provide any necessary comments on it.The Power Authority also plans to submit reports during this process that provide additional refinement to existing analyses.These reports will include those developed as part of the aquatic habitat relationships series described 1n the workshop on February 15,1984.The Power Authority may also be requested to provide other information to the FERC for completion or clarification of the DElS.The comment period for the DElS was completed on August 23,1984.Additional information pertinent to the preparation of the FElS was filed with FERC in November,1984. Completion of the FElS process The Power Authority plans to review and comment on the FElS and submit any additional information that may be needed. 40998 841221 4 3. 4. 5. 6. Completion of the Settlement Process. The Power Authority plans to finish the aquatic impact evaluations, negotiate flow regimes,and develop detailed mitigation and long-term monitoring plans to complete the sett lement process.This wi 11 be accomplished through workshops,distribution of information and direct negotiations with the resource agencies.Additional information or analyses resulting from on-going studies will be provided to the agencies during this period. Completion of (potential)hearings. If there are certain 1ssues that cannot be resolved during the settlement process,resolution of the issues will require hearings before an administrative law judge.The Power Authority will directly participate in any necessary hearings.This participation will include responding to·Discovery Requests,preparation of direct and rebuttal testimony and cross-examination of opposition witnesses.If hearings are necessary,the hearings process wi 11 begin during the spring of 1985. License ordered by the FERC. Following the settlement process (and potential hearings),the FERC will establish articles for the license that stipulate any additional needs for information and study prior to Project initiation.The Power Authority will review these articles -and respond to them with any additional information that may have been developed in the interim. The final order granting license should come from the FERC in March, 1987. Acquisition of permits. Numerous permits will be needed for Project construction and operation. The Power Authority will develop information that is required for these permits. - - - - ~I 40998 841221 5 ..... .!l$R .... ..... 7.Program Integrity. Certain studies will be continued during FY8S and beyond.These will provide a long-term data base for comparison with results of the monitoring program which will be implemented once the Project becomes operational.These study elements include both biological (e.g., salmon escapement counts)and physical (e.g.,stream discharge)data collection.The information collected during FY8S will a1s0 be used to refine existing analyses • 40998 841221 6 - 3.AQUATIC STUDY TEAM PARTICIPANTS The Power Authority is assisted by van.ous groups and contractors (referred to as the Aquatic Study Team)in assessing potential impacts to the aquatic environmental and in the licensing process.These organizations and their respective primary Project responsibilities are: - A.Harza-Ebasco coordination engineering assessments. (H-E)this firm provides general support and for the settlement and licensing processes and support for simulation models used 1n impact ..... B.Alaska Department of Fish and Game/SuHydro Study Team (ADF&G/ SuHydro)-conducts field studies,analyzes baseline fishery data, conducts studies and analyses to support instream flow relationships studies and describes pre-project habitat relationships. C.E.Woody Trihey and Associates (EWf &A)-responsible for the instream flow relationships studies,habitat specific hydraul ic evaluation support to ADF&G SuHydro and assistance in study design,field data collection,and analysis. D.Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center develops necessary simulation modelling systems existing and with-project conditions and will quantitative impact assessment. (AEIDC) to analyze conduct the - E.Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC)responsible for mitigation planning and study design.Provides support for interpretation and compilation of fisheries resource data. F. 40998 841221 Rand M Consultants (R&M)-assists all study team members with the collection and analysis of hydrologic and meteorologic data and provides field engineering support. 7 -'--------------_._--------------------------,,;,....-------------- """ - .... - - - - 4.DEVELOPMENT OF THE FY85 AQUATIC PLAN OF STUDY In order to meet the long-term goals of the Power Authority specific study tasks were developed.Certain of these tasks were determined to be more critical to meeting the goals than other tasks.In the Draft Plan of Study, proposed study tasks were presented in a priority sequence in order to facilitate .determining which studies could be performed with a given level of funding available to the Power Authority.The priority list was further stratified into four levels.The levels were selected to reflect levels of risk for delay of the licensing schedule. Level I studies included those studies deemed necessary to provide some probability of maintaining the licensing schedule but with a substantial degree of risk for schedule delay.Level 2 studies included those tasks which would reduce the level of risk to some extent.Level 3 studies included all studies which if prepared in addition to the Levelland Level 2 studies,would maintain licensing schedule with an acceptable degree of risk for delay.Level 4 studies,if performed 1n addi tion to level 3 studies,would result in a high degree of certainty for maintaining licensing schedule. As a result of further planning efforts by study participants and determination of the level of funding available,the study .tasks,through approximately level 3,are included in the final plan of study for FY85. Some study elements are integrated into other study elements as a result of further plan definition.The final study taks which will be conducted during FY85 are presented in this document.Task number designations used in the Draft Plan of Study are retained here as a matter of convenience and for reference to the Draft Plan of Study.A list of all tasks to be performed during FY85 is presented in Table 2. 40998 841221 8 TABLE 2 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LISTING OF ALL AQUATIC FY85 TASKS Task Identification Preparation of responses to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Participation in workshops and other aspects of the settlement process. General coordination of aquatic program activities. Instream flow relationships studies. Economic and environmental comparisons process. Recommended flow regimes report. Impact assessment. Flow negotiations. Preparation of materials for FERC hearings. Mitigation and enhancement planning. Comprehensive fisheries resources report. Middle river mainstem habitat analysis. Adult salmon-middle river spawning surveys. Adult salmon-lower river spawning surveys. Lower river resident and juvenile anadromous fish studies. Lower river-main channel salmon escapement 40998 841221 monitoring. Middle river-main channel salmon escapement monitoring. Outmigrant studies of the middle river. Outmigrant studies of the lower river. Streamflow and flood frequency studies. Suspended sediment-turbidity studies. 9 40998 841221 19. 20. 2l. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Table 2 Continued Hydro-meteorological physical data collection. Load following alternative. Lower river morphological assessment. Mapping and digitizing of middle river habitat surface areas. Lower river ~ce study. Lower r~ver aggradation. Assessment of the available food source in turbid Susitna River habitats for rearing juvenile chinook salmon. Preparation of a written report for the FY84 incubation study. Middle river -ma1n channel escapement moni toring at Talkeetna Station (RM 103) Lower river tributary access analysis. Evaluation of middle river mainstem and tributary spawning habitat relationships. Slough groundwater and water balance studies. Development of long-term monitoring plan. Lower Susitna stream temperature analysis. Adult salmon stream life study-middle reach sloughs. Winter studies of resident and juvenile anadromous fishes. Refinement of access criteria. Lower river rearing habitat investigations -'IFG hydraulic modeling. preliminary mitigation studies for the Devil Canyon to Talkeetna reach. Impact asessment of construction-related activities transmission line and access road. 10 "'"" ..... - """ - - .- 40998 841221 39. 40. 41. 42. Table 2 Continued Mitigation planning for construction activities. Impoundment resident fish mitigation planning. Baseline water quality monitoring at Tsusena and Deadman Creeks. Glacier studies. 11 - .... .... - ..... 5.INTERRELATIONSHIP AMONG STUDY TASKS Each element of the FY85 aquatic study effort is described in detail under each Task.It ~s evident from these descriptions,that a high degree of interrelationships exist among the various tasks.It is,therefore, valuable to describe the overall framework of the study plan in order to understand how the tasks are interrelated. The majority of the study tasks can be grouped into two major study c omponen t s : 1.Completion of the analyses of the aquatic habitats of the Susitna River between Devil Devil Canyon and, 2.Data collection and analyses of the aquatic habitats of the Susitna River between Talkeetna and Cook Inlet. These two distinct subject areas are linked primarily through the development of a final mitigation plan for the aquatic habitats adversely affected by the proposed project.The two components are distinguished principally on the basis that an option for minimizing adverse effects to the aquatic habitats ~n the Devil Canyon to Talkeetna reach is flow regulation.Once a flow regime is negotiated for this reach,anticipated effects to the lower river reach may be identified and quantified followed by development of an acceptable mitigation plan.Options for minimizing adverse effects to the lower river do not include flow alternatives. The framework into which FY85 study tasks necessary to complete the middle river (Devil Canyon to Talkeetna)component is depicted in Figure 1.Study tasks which address each of the elements in the framework are identified ~n the figure.Similarly,the basic framework for the lower river study is presented as Figure 2. 40998 841221 12 Tasks not identified on the two figures generally fall into one of three categories: 1.Studies to refine existing analyses of middle r1ver habitats; ~, 2.Studies to assess impacts and develop mitigation plans for aquatic habitats associated with the impoundment,access road, transmission line and construction activitites,and 3.General program coordination among study team participants and with FERC licensing activities. Specific tasks associated with each of these categories are listed 1n Table 3. In addition to the basic study framework for the aquatic program,each task 1S designed to provide information necessary to resolve issues raised by the resource agencies pertaining to the effects of the proposed project on the aquatic resources.In March,1984,twelve specific issues pertaining to fisheries resources were deliniated by the Power Authority in consultation with the resource agenC1es.The relationships between study tasks and specific issues are presented in Figure 3. - - - ,.... 40998 841221 13 i i N a: (Cto ~ § :I ~ Ii 1h~I I..a-.j i;t~ lI;:j!!! U!! - Ha /-! ) 1 j 01 I~h1 III~t~ !-..----j ii~.1 Ii ~ 11 ~ !'t ~~ (:J l <:>:J V I ;) I ~ "" J H~ ~~i I h-Ig s~~il:~h I~! •1 °h 15;-11 j fie J~J~US J~ii~ 0 <> Ii!!,!~o~s .-Eo!! ) ~~J~~0: d -I ,:.< ~~ i f ! 0 .... ·"I•~..-]••if I.....'! J JI·i JliIl!lliiII'i ~ ,- - ..... - a~:2 II - ~ ~: I ! § j :2 ... -I •i -.:rl•I•~f;:..•!~~ i:•i -•J0.. 'I•i'~•8 i•I:S•i I I -t N I '0; III i ;~~ II:L=I ~~I<:II !Ii: I it L f :~!i Zl <I ii"J f ~ j = '"I !E i =~~:III ~o _i J ~<l • 15 1 H !•1 i~j!I Ie.r "c..3l!i -!! t "'i I I ~~§I '"""i ~~4.."II 1 "~~i I ~ !I i .s I ~J I s ~f j ~i A ~ !j ~.:i!~h !<Zl f'l j J !';J;!II'f -1 ~t PiIcitO ~to I!J 1 ~!:: :t - ..., TABLE 3 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TASKS ASSOCIATED WITH MISCELLANEOUS CATEGORIES ..... r Category Refinement of Existing Middle River Analyses And Continuation Studies Impact Assessment and Mitigation Planning for Impoundment,Access Road, Transmission Line,and Construction Activities Program and FERC Coordination Activities 40998 841221 16 Tasks l3A,l5B,l6A,25,26, 27,3D,33,43, 38, 39,40,41 1,2,3,9,11 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FY 85 AQUATIC PROGRAM WORK PLAN AND ISSUES •##~j;!§i~}'I'#~'1~'//1./'J'~'I.oI/..1~1 tf'tl~"'I/"€:~"l t:'/1'1 ~.;)~.§~Cb "f'0fJ"""r~~.ft;j i!T r!~"f'~.T~ TASKS ~~~1~Qtlt~:1~1Q:~....Y,~~,/I/jl tI 7'"I{"~"Ii;""t("4c:t( 1.cOMMeNTS OM DEIS AMI)FEIS 2.WORKSHOPS I ••••••••.....J;,"sW •••••.8.FLO ELATIOHIHPS I-•HG .L •-••58.POWER "NAt.YS"••e.RECOMMENDED Fl.OW ••••••REGlM£S REPORT 7.AQUAm ,..ACT •••••••-.-•--AsseSSMENT ..'f..OW NEQOTtATION8 -•t.FEFIC HEAAIIl38 •••••••••••E10."-••...Re:&..cel •••••12.llf,~HAarrAT ••-13A.WClOLE RIVER •••SPAWNING SURVEYS 138.L.OWER "rvER ••SPAWtfIrtQ SURVEYS ,..~.eR •-••!'!~--- lSA.L.OWER RIVER -•,.••1SA.••••"'0" le8.1'1IO..••• • ,.y •••'e.NDEO SEOIMEHT:•••STUDIES le.•••• • i 2a • ••me 21.IV R •22.ICOLI!llIVeR HABtnA -SUftIIACE AREAS 23.LOweR IlIYBl •ICI!STUDY 24.LOWER AlVUI ••AGGRADATION as.FtlSH FOOD ••AVALA8IJN'STUDIES ~••••2 •••A' ~•CESa 28.-••-•3D.~~~"• eii;'H •3 •ATURE ••:J3,SAlJolClIlSTRe",,-•-13~ifY -••38."-01'••ACCEM CRrrEAIAse.LO__RIEAlIlOIG •••HAsn'AT FG aTUOE8 3t.~-MlnGATJON 8'NOES IL CONI1'AIJC'TI:It ..ACT ••••--31.CONSTRUCTION •••••II§..••-. •a.-•43.aUCIER STUDIES •••~-1f.~~;'!HTrY ••TE PERATUII 41.:::~~A~~~Ae"IT'•• I"";:i::::RN.•POTENTIA sa.•I ~\ - 6.FY85 AQUATIC PLAN OF STUDY TASK DESCRIPTIONS Detailed description of each study task is provided below.Each task ..... description includes the ratinale,objectives,description of methods, deliverables and schedule for the tasks.The task descriptions result from previous analyses and other existing sources of information • 40998 841221 18 .... TASK 1 - - - PREPARATION OF RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Rationale The Power Authority must review and comment on both the DEIS and FEIS to assure that all analyses and conclusions are based on correct information.This review is a critical part of the licensing process. Objectives -1.To provide review comments on the DEIS prepared by FERC for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. .... .... - .... 2.To provide rev~ew comments on the FEIS. Description Activities that will lead to completion of the first objective will involve three elements.The first element consisted of preparing addi tional information which will strengthen some conclusions reached in the DEIS.The second element consisted of preparing information and substantiation for analyses which differ from those reached in the DEIS.The third element consisted of information,analyses and conel us ions for topics not discussed in the DEIS which would alter other conclusions of the DEIS.The Power Authority Comments on the DEIS will include a compilation of these three elements. The activities leading to accomplishment of the second objective will include preparation of a list of conclusions reached by the FERC in the FEIS with which the Power Authority does not agree.Additionally, 40998 841221 19 -------_.~_.__._---------------.;...,,---------------------------- comments prepared by other commenting agencies will be reviewed to identify those conclusions with which a substantial difference of specific conclusions which may need resolution through the settlement and hearings processes. . ..op1.n1.on rema1.ns.This review will provide a basis for identifying - '"'" - Deliverables To meet the first objective the deliverables are: 1.Memoranda identifying conclusions reached 1.n the DEIS. 2.Memoranda containing necessary additional information for each conclusion. 3.Memorandum of Power Authority comments on the DEIS. Deliverables to accomplish the second objective include: 1.Memoranda identifying conclusions reached 1.n the FEIS. 2.Memoranda describing conclusions for which there is substantial disagreement among licensing participants. Schedule 1. 2. 3. 40998 841221 Item Memoranda identifying conclusions of DEIS Memoranda containing additional information for DEIS Memorandum of comments on DEIS 20 Due Date May 30,1984 July 3,1984 August 23,1984 'iil-_ ..... - ,.... - - 4. 5. 40998 841221 Memorandum identifying conclusions of FEIS Memoranda identifying conclusions 1n FEIS with substantial disagreement 21 March 15,1985 March 25,1985 ...... - - - ..... ..... - TASK 2 PARTICIPATION IN WORKSHOPS AND OTHER ASPECTS OF THE SETTLEMENT PROCESS Rationale This task is necessary to assure that the settlement process progresses with input from participants who can provide the most complete information for resolving specific issues. Objective To provide the Power Authority with information and support to resolve issues raised by natural resources agencies and negotiate an acceptable project flow regime and mitigation plans. Descrietion An important aspect of the settlement process is dissemination of information to familiarize resource agency personnel with project study methodologies,analyses and results directed toward resolution of primary impact 1ssues.The pr1mary method for providing this information wi 11 be a series of agency workshops 1n which specific topics will be discussed.The workshops will be theme-oriented as 1n previous workshops.Appropriate documents perta1n1ng to the topic areas would be disseminated prior to the workshops in sufficient time for agency familiarization • Appropriate members of the Aquatic Study Team will participate in preparation for or actually take part in specific workshops depending on particular topics to be covered. The Power Authority will meet with resource agencies to attempt to reach settlement on various issues and negotiate a project flow regime. 40998 841221 22 Aquatic Team members will provide var~ous information,analyses, documents and.other support as requested by the Power Authority. Deliverables Deliverables will consist of prepared materials and/or presentations as requested to support the settlement process. Schedule Three specific aquatic workshops are scheduled to occur during FY8S. The schedule for these workshops is: .... - Workshop Workshop 5:Forecast of Project Induced Water Quality Changes and Their Effects on Fish. Workshop 6:Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow Workshop 7:Project Mitigation Opportunities Date August 9,1984 October 29,1984 December 4,1984 - - Nine additional workshops may be held.Specific topics for each workshop have not been selected at this time.However,these workshops could occur on a monthly basis from January,1985 through June,1985. possible topics for these workshops include: Development of Alternative Flow Requirements for Analysis of Environmental and Economic Effects - -, 40998 841221 23 ..- - - - .- 40998 841221 Discussion of Results of Comparison of Alternative Flow Regimes Development of the Mitigation Plan Results of Lower River Studies Development of the Long Term Monitoring Program Aquatic Program Study Plan for FY86 • 24 - ..... TASK 3 GENERAL COORDINATION OF AQUATIC PROGRAM ACTIVITIES Rationale Coordination among aquatic study groups is vital to assure satisfactory integration of all components.The importance of this task 1ncreases as the project proceeds through the settlement process to FERC hearings. Objective Attain a level of coordination among Aquatic Study Team members necessary to assure effective and efficient progress in the stury program. Description This task requires effort from all members of the Aquatic Study Team. H-E is responsible for the overall coordination of program activities. This includes monitoring all activities 1n the aquatic studies to insure that team members are able to accomplish their tasks and that sufficient progress is being made toward study goals.Each team member is responsible for maintaining an appropriate level of communication and coordination with other team members who share common,integrated or related tasks. Program coordination will be achieved by various means including: 1.Joint preparation of study plans • 2. 40998 841221 Weekly team meetings. 25 3.Team-wide dissemination of technical reports,correspondence and memos. 4.Frequent meetings and data exchange among team members with related tasks. Deliverables Study plan development for FY86 will begin in February,1985.This planning process will produce a Detailed Plan of Study for FY86 as well as specific workscopes for each team member. There are no other specific deliverables for this task.However, memoranda describing the results of or need for coordination will be prepared when appropriate to affect necessary changes in planned activities,schedules,etc. Schedule Aquatic Study Team Meetings Begin FY86 Planning Process Draft Detailed Plan of Study (FY86) Weekly February,1985 May 1,1985 - - 40998 841221 26 TASK 4 INSTREAM FLOW RELATIONSHIPS STUDIES Rationale This work is necessary to complete analyses of existing data and communicate the results to individuals responsible for the settlement process and the FERC licensing schedule.The Instream Flow Relationships Report and its supporting technical reports will provide the basis for negotiating a flow regime. Objectives 1.Complete the analysis of pertinent physical and biological data on the Talkeetna to Devil Canyon river segment. -2.Prepare final drafts of the technical report series currently 1n progress. 3.Complete the Instream Flow Relationships Report. Description The Instream Flow Relationships Report wi 11 describe the"relationships between mainstem flow and fish habitat.It wi 11 be derived primarily from information contained 1n a series of technical reports.These technical reports are: 1. 40998 841221 Fish Resources and Habitat of the Susitna Basin -this report will be a consolidation of the information on the aquatic resources of the Susitna Basin that is currently dispersed throughout numerous reports,memoranda and workshop minutes.It wi 11 be based on 27 2. 3. 4. 5. 40998 841221 data available through June 1984.This report may be updated as additional information becomes available. Physical Processes Report -this report will describe the physical processes that occur within the Basin.It will be focused primarily on preproject to with-project changes ~n streamflow, channel stability,bedload transport and groundwater upwelling. Water Quality/Limnology Report -this report will consolidate much of the existing information on water quality ~n the Basin and focus on preproject versus with-project changes.Some additional modelling and field studies (primarily concerning turbidi ty and suspended sediments)wi 11 be incorporated into this report to refine information from previous studies.The Report will include discussions of standard water quality practices with special emphasis on turbidity and suspended sediments,gas supersaturation,downstream nutrients and mercury bioaccumu1ation. Reservoir and Instream Temperature this report will present instream temperature forecasts for a range of operational and climatological conditions and a preliminary commentary of their effects on fish habitats.The report will be based on the results of field studies and the results of reservo~r temperature and downstream temperature and ice models. Reservoir and Instream Ice -this report will present insteram and reservo~r ~ce processes forecasts for a range of operational and climatological conditions and a preliminary commentary of their effects on fish habitats.The report will rely on results of the DYRESM reservoir temperature model ice subroutine,SNTEMP instream temperature model and the ICECAL instream ice processes model. The report will also incorporate field observaitons and data collected to evaluate fish habitats under winter conditions. 28 ~' - - - - ...... ..- - .- - 6. 40998 841221 Instream Flow Relationships Report -this report will provide a quantitative discussion of the influence of changes in streamflow, stream temperature,suspended sediments and water quality of the Susitna River on riverine fish habitats between Devil Canyon and Talkeetna.The influence of streamflow on fish habitats will be presented as a set of habitat suitability indices which describe how the habitats change with mainstem discharge changes.In order to accomplish this,a framework for extrapolating information obtained from specific study sites to the remainder of the river reach will be developed and implemented.This analysis will take results obtained from modelled sites which quantify the relationships between discharge and Weighted Usable Areas (WUA) and extrapolate those results to non-modelled sites.Some field studies wi 11 be necessary to provide substance to the framework for extrapolation. The set of relationships will include separate habitat suitability indices for each life stage of each salmon species inhabiting the rlver.These indices and the timing of utilization of the habitats by the various life stages will be used to develop annual hydrographs for each species.Those hydrographs,or flow regimes, will be developed to represent the ranges of mainstem discharges which span the discharges which provide optimum habitat suitability for each life stage in a given time period. Compilation of a single annual hydrograph which will optimize the aquatic habitat for all species will be developed from the spl:!cies-specific hydrographs.It is anticipated that conflicts between optimum flows for two species wi 11 arise.Resolut ion of these conflicts will require prioritization of the species.This prioritization will be accomplished through consultations and recommendations of the Resource Agencies. 29 The process of compiling the annual hydrographs for each species will involve use of the life stage weighting factors in order to resolve any conflicts in optimum flows for different life stages of a given species which may be present during a common time period.The development of species-specific weighting factors for each habitat type described 1n the surface area report will provide a major basis for the analysis.The weighting factors will be developed on the basis of known di stribut ions and abundances of the speC1es life stages presented 1n the ADF&G -SuHydro Anadromous Adult and Resident and Juvenile Anadromous data reports of FY82 ,FY83 and FY84.The weighting factors will provide an index of the relative importance of seasonal changes in mainstem discharge on each habitat type with respect to their utilization by the fish.These indices will provide a biological basis for prioritization.of habitats based on existing utilization patterns. The annual hydrographs will serve as a basis for the compar1son of alternative flow regimes as discussed in Task 5. Deliverables/Schedule Technical Report Series REPORT DRAFT 1.Fish Resources and Habitat 11/30/84 2.Physical Processes 01/31/84 3.Water Quality 01/31/85 4.Reservoir and Instream Temp 10/31/84 5.Reservoir and Instream Ice 12/15/84 6.Relationships Report 12/30/84 FINAL 11/30/84 03/31/85 03/31/85 ""'" 40998 841221 30 To provide Authority to negotiations comparisons regimes. ..... ,.,... - TASK 5 ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISONS PROCESS Rationale Environmental and econom~c consequences of detailed alternative flow regimes must be compared and documented for development of a recommended flow regime.This process will be used in the settlement process • Objective information and documentation necessary for the Power select a recommended flow regime and initiate flow with resource agencies.This information will include of environmental and economic effects of several flow Description Several alternative weekly flow reg~mes will be defined and compared. The flow regimes will range from the optimum environmental (aquatic habitat)to the optimum economic regimes and will include the natural flow rE~g~me and flow regimes presented ~n the License Application. Other alternative reg~mes will be selected based on the needs of navigation,recreation,riparian habitats and water quality. Development of flow regimes for evaluation will be discussed with Agency personnel and,when appropriate,their recommendations will be incorporated into the alternative regimes to be evaluated. A project optimization procedure will be used to evaluate the alternative regimes.The computer based,iterative process will reduce the number of alternative regimes to be considered further. 40998 841221 31 These regimes will provide for the needs of both energy generation and the var~ous downstream uses of the river.During the Project optimization process,emphasis will be placed on comparisons of Project econom~cs and fish habitat.At several steps ~n the procedure the effects of the flow reg~mes on physical parameters such as water temperature,water quality and ice processes,as well as,impacts of these physical changes on other instream uses will be evaluated.These in-process evaluations are necessary to establish boundaries for the next iterations. Minimum and max~mum environmental flows will be established and input to the weekly reservoir operations model to produce a time series of expected flows and energies (based on a 33 year record of historic flows)for four energy demand levels.The use of four demand levels will be required to examine the influence of increasing energy demand that will occur during the life of the project.Composited habitat relationships will be used to forecast relative fish habitat for the 33 years of record.The resulting time series will be presented as habitat duration curves. The resultant flow regimes will be analyzed to determine effects (both positive and negative)on each instream flow use.Mitigation opportunities and associated costs will be examined for those instream flow uses that are adversely affected.The effect of each flow regime on project benefits and costs will be determined for comparison with the corresponding environmental effects. Del1verables The Economic and Environmental Comparisons Report Schedule - - - - Draft Final 40998 841221 May 1,1985 Fall,1985 32 -!, .... - - TASK 6 RECOMMENDED FLOW REGIMES REPORT Rationale The ECl)nomic and Environmental Comparisons Report wi 11 set the basis for defining a detailed flow regime schedule.The next step will be to dra'l1 together comparisons developed in that report into a single proposed regime.The resulting flow regime will affect the position of the Pm.,er Authority for entering flow negotiations and completing the licensing process. Objective Develop a detailed flow regime schedule,including allowable van.ance for wet,normal,and dry years,that is based on information presented 1.n the Economic and Environmental Comparisons Report (Task 5)and discussions with resource agencies and utilities. Description The Economic and Environmental Comparisons Report will document economic and environmental consequences of var1.OUS detailed flow regimes.It wi 11 be necessary to combine these comparisons into a proposed flow regime that balances environmental concerns with economic benefits. The report developed under this task will be the primary document for.- the flow negotiation process.It will be presented in draft form to the var1.OUS utilities and resource agencies.Depending on the outcome of this review,the report will be either:1)finalized if no significant comments are received,or 2)revised based on comments recieved in anticipation of additional instream flow negotiations. 40998 841221 33 Deliverables A working report that will be developed in draft form.The final form will depend on results of the review process. Schedule Draft 40998 841221 June I,1985 34 - r .... TASK 7 AQUATIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT Rationale Impact assessment 1S integral to the settlement process and final licensing and permitting.An acceptable quantitative assessment of impacts of the Project configuration and operation is critical to finalizing and implementing a mitigation plan • Objective To prepare a report describing,quantitatively, effects of the recommended flow regime on resources. Description the discharge-related downs tream fishery .... .... The Susitna aquatic investigations program includes the following steps:1)field data collection and analysis,2)development of habitat relationships,and 3)development of composite flow relationships hydrographs and flow optimization.After the tradeoffs between habitat/fish populations and power generation have been examined,a recommended operating regime will be developed.It 1S expected that this regime will affect fishery resources.These effects must be quantified and described to develop specific mitigation measures.This task will quantify the impacts of the recommended operat ing regime.The impact analyses of al ternative flow regimes presented in the Economic and Environmental Comparisons Report and the Recommended Flow Regimes Report wi 11 form the basis for the detailed final impact assessment presented in the Aquatic Impact Assessment ~eport. ....40998 841221 35 Information on potential impacts of the Project will be derived from ADF&G SuHydro,Power Authority,ETW&A,R&M,AEIDC and H-E reports and other documents.Integration of this information with habitat relationships and flow relationships hydrographs will provide the basis for impact assessment. Deliverable A report detailing expected impacts of the recommended flow regime on aquatic habitats. - Schedule Draft Final 40998 841221 May 1,1985 Fall,1985 36 - - - -, - .... TASK 8 FLOW NEGOTIATIONS Rationale An instream flow reg~me will be proposed pr~or to hearings or licensing of the Project.Therefore,negotiation of this reg~me with resource agencies is an integral part of the settlement process. Objective To support negotiation with resource agencies of operation flow regime schedule that balances considerations with project econom~cs. Description a filling and environmental - - - ~- ..... The POllrer Authority will negotiate with var~ous resource agencies to finalize a Project flow schedule.Participation and assistance will be needed from aquatic study team members (and members from other disciplines)during these negotiations to provide technical assistance to the Power Authority.The coordinator for assuring that this assistance is provided will be H-E. Deliverables Immediate deliverables will include memoranda,analyses and other documents as requested by the Power Authority.The overall deliverable is a nE~gotiated flow schedule for Project construction and operation. The ne:gotiated flow reg~me will be described ~n memoranda of understanding or other appropriate documents between the Power Authority and each of the various resource agencies. 40998 841221 37 Schedule The flow negotiations are scheduled to begin with initiation of the Instream Flow Relationships Report and continue with results contained in a draft of the Recommended Flow Regimes Report. - ~, - - ,~ - 40998 841221 38 - TASK 9 PREPARATION OF MATERIALS FOR FERC HEARINGS Rationale A major element of the environmental hearings process will focus on effects:of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on aquat ic resources and the potential effectiveness of planned mitigation.Large volumes of data must be summarized into formats appropriate to support the hearings process scheduled to begin December,1984. Objectives Prepare materials necessary to support successful completion of the FERC environmental hearings process. Description Steps in the hearing process that will require participation by members of the Aquatic Study Team include the discovery process,filing of direct testimony)filing of rebuttal testimony,possible filing of surrebut tal test imony and cross examinat ion of witnesses.Al though most of these steps will not occur in FY85,it is necessary to begin preparation for accomplishing these steps.This is due to the large volume of data and analyses concerning aquatic resources which must be summarized and developed into an appropriate form for hearings. The pr1mary activities which will occur during FY85 include the selection of persons who will testify on behalf of the Power Authority, consultation with Power Authority Licensing Counsel,responses to discovery requests from FERC and intervenors and preparation of written direct testimony. -40998 841221 39 Deli verables Specific deliverables to result from the activities of this task include: 1.Designation of expert witnesses to testify on aquatic resources on behalf of the Power Authority. 2.position papers by expert witnesses defining areas to be discussed and input required from other participants. 3.Responses to discovery requests. 4.Draft outline of direct testimony from each expert witness. In addition,the designated expert witnesses will participate ~n activities leading to deliverables of other aquatic study tasks. Schedule - coupled with theThescheduleforaccomplishingthistaskwillbe schedule set by FERC for the environmental hearing present time,the hearing schedule is as follows: process.At the Item Date 1.FERC orders hearings 03/18/85 2.Prehearing conference 05/17/85 3.Discovery request responses 08/08/85 4.Additional discovery request responses 09/06/85 5.Filing of direct testimony by Applicant 09/25/85 6.Fi ling of rebuttal testimony 10/09/85 7.Cross examination of witnesses 02/11/86 In support of the hearing schedule,activities conducted by the Aquatic Study Team are scheduled as follows: - 40998 841221 40 - Item Date -l.Designation of expert witnesses 11/01/84 2.Posit ion papers 03/31/85 3.Conferences with legal counsel Periodically 4.Re:sponses to discovery requests 06/24/85 r-5.Draft outline of direct testimony 04/30/85 6.Draft direct testimony text 06/30/85 ..... .... - 40998 841221 41 - - TASK 10 MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT PLANNING Rationale Development of an acceptable mitigation plan is needed to support the hearing and settlement processes and establish license articles. Enhancement of salmon stocks in the Devil Canyon to Talkeetna reach may be needed to offset losses elsewhere in the system. Objective ..... - 1.Develop a mitigation report,including a mitigation plan,for habitat modification in the Devil Canyon .to Ta lkeetna reach. - - ..... 2.Identify enhancement opportunities under anticipated project conditions. Description A mitigation report is being developed that will identify mitigation opportunities associated with anticipated Project conditions.The report will further develop the mitigation plan identified in the FERC license application and explore additional mitigation alternatives compatible with Project mitigation policy. A draft report will be produced by the end of the first quarter of FY85.This draft will include input from H-E,ADF&G SuHydro,AEIDC and EWT&A.The report will identify potential areas and methods for habitat modification based on existing information through FY 1984 field efforts. It is anticipated that Project conditions may downstn~am from Devil Canyon.If habitat improves, improve habitat there may be an --40998 841221 42 opportunity to enhance salmon runs into the Devil Canyon to Talkeetna reach.The anticipated habitat conditions under Project operation, based on existing information,will be evaluated for their potential to support enhancement.Specific locations and methods will be identified where possible.An enhancement evaluation will be included as a section of the mitigation report. Mitigation planning is an iterative process leading eventually to a final mutually acceptable mitigation plan.A part of this iterative plan 1.S to identify mitigation options which could be implemented. Many of these options are described 1.n the License Application. However,there remain some questions regarding the feasibility of these options and the completeness of the range of options available.The first interim report explores in greater detail options proposed in the License Application as well as alternative options suggested by recent studies.Results of feasibility type studies such as those performed under Tasks 37 and 48 will be incorporated 1.D the second interim report.Likewise,the necessity for implementation of specific mitigation options will be determined based on the results of the compar1.son and impact assessment procedures (Tasks 5 and 6). Deli verab les A mitigation report series will be prepared for the Devil Canyon to Talkeetna reach.The report series will consist of interim reports 1.U 1984 and 1985,with updating based on new information and agency policy decisions. Schedule ..... ..... - First Interim Mitigation Report Second Interim Mitigation Report Draft 10/30/84 08/31/85 Final 12/30/84 10/31/85 "i 40998 841221 43 - - - TASK 11 COMPREHENSIVE FISHERIES RESOURCES REPORT Rationale Extensive studies have been performed on the resources of the Susitna River by numerous groups (the Alaska Power Authority,ADF&G SuHydro, U.S.Corps of Engineers,present contractors and subcontractors to the Power Authority and others).These studies have not been tied together into a single document that is relatively conC1se and comprehensive. Further results of the various studies have not been examined in total. Therefore,there is a strong need to develop such a reference document for use during the settlement and hearings process. Objective The main objective is to produce a comprehensive report on the aquatic resources of the Susitna River Basin. Description The license application consolidated existing knowledge on the aquatic resourCI~S of the Susitna River Basin that was available at that time. Since the application was submitted numerous other studies have been comp1etl:!d or are ongoing.Many of these studies were not interrelated upon completion.Much of the existing information is found in dozens of volumes of text,reports,workshop minutes and memoranda.This task is directed at examining this information,identifying key information and prE!senting a condensation of this material into one document. Information from areas outside the Susitna Basin will also be examined to assist in interpretation of Susitna-specific data.This report is intended to supplement the Fish Resources and Habitat Report (Task 4) --40998 841221 44 through incorporation of the 1984 data collected during the field season by ADF&G Su-Hydro. De1iverab1es The main deliverable will be the final comprehensive report. Schedule - Draft 40998 841221 Apri 1 30,1985 45 - - - - TASK 12 MIDDLE RIVER MAINSTEM HABITAT ANALYSIS Rationale The successful completion of this task will provide a quantitative assessment of potential effects which may accrue to existing side- channel and mainstem habitats due to flow and temperature regulation of the Su.s:itna River.This task will support the settlement process and ..... - ..- other .activities leading to a negotiated flow regime and eventual Project licensing • Objective To quantify the potential effects which may accrue to existing side channel and mainstem habitats due to flow and temperature regulation of the Susitna River • Descri ption Site Se~lection:Aerial photographs taken during FY84 (12,000 c fs at Gold Creek)will be systematically reviewed by EWT&A and ADF&G-SuHydro staff •This will result in the selection of eight to ten candidate study sites that appear to have channel structure and hydraulic conditions which may provide spawning and rear1ng habitats when mainstem flows are between 8,000 and 14,000 cfs.A brief narrative will b,e prepared by July 31,1984 describing the rationale for supporting the selection of each candidate study site.Four or five study sites will be selected prior to the third week of July and site specific field work will commence in early August. Field Data Collection:Field data will be collected by ADF&G-SuHydro, EWT&A a.nd R&M under the general direction of EWT&A.Cross sect ions 40998 841221 46 will be established and site specific flow,depth and velocity data collected as recommended by Trihey and Wegner,1984.Site-specific information on substrate type,cover availability and presence or absence of upwelling will be recorded consistent with the field methods developed by the ADF&G-SuHdro (1983 and 1984 Procedure Manuals). The study sites will be sampled periodically by ADF&G-SuHydro to determine the extent of utilization by juvenile and adult salmon. Observations will be made of salmon spawning that may occur in side- channel habitats during 1984 for the purpose of collecting physical habitat data to verify literature-based criteria curves. Analysis:IFG-2 hydraulic models will be calibrated by EWT&A at four sites to forecast site-specific hydraulic conditions when the mainstem discharge at Gold Creek is between 8,000 and 14,000 cfs.These models will be adjusted to simulate site specific hydraulic condi tions for mainstem flows in the range of 14,000 to 25,000 cfs by modifying the Manning's " n"values ~n the IFG-2 models to reproduce water surface profiles observed at the study site in the 14,000 to 25,000 cfs flow range.The relationship between the mainstem flow at Gold Creek and that at the study site will be determined from correlation analyses between the average daily flow at Gold Creek and corresponding streamflow measurements at the respective study sites. Although emphasis will be placed on evaluating with-project rearing potential,habitat suitability curves for chinook,chum and pink salmon spawning (available in Alaskan literature and Project reports)will be used with the calibrated IFG-2 hydraulic models to forecast weighted usable area indices of potential salmon spawning habitat at the modelled sites.Evaluations will also be made of streambed scour, dewatering and freezing for natural and with-project stream flow conditions at each site.The results of these comparative evaluations will be used in a structured,limited-factor approach to interpret the - """' - -, - .... 40998 841221 47 .... - -r weighted usable area indices and discuss the relative difference between existing and with-project mainstem spawning potential. Habitat criteria developed during 1983 by ADF&G-SuHydro for juvenile chinook and chum salmon will also be used to augment the 1983 juvenile studies.The habitat criteria used for input to the weighted useab Ie area calculations will include juvenile cover criteria. Necessary data for quantifying light extinction properties will be collected to assess the physical-chemical processes that govern primary production in side channel and side slough habitats. The proposed additional field activities will include: 1.Measurement of total light extinction coefficients at var10US le'lTe1s of turbidity using two LI-COR quantum sensors and an integrating radiometer/photometer. 2.Simultaneous monitoring of dissolved oxygen concentrations US1ng thl~diurnal oxygen curve method to provide estimates of primary productivity under breached and non-breached conditions for one or more slough and side channel locations during the period August 1 to October 15,1984.This will requ1re two dissolved oxygen moni tors and the chemicals and glassware needed to keep them properly calibrated. .... 3.Continuous monitoring of incident photosynthetically ac tive radiation (PAR)using an automated LI-CORR 1776 solar monitor. Analysis of light extinction and dissolved oxygen data will resu1 tin: (1)a regression equation for light extinction coefficient vs. turbidity,(2)photosynthetic efficiency response curves for at least one side channel pair,and (3)a quantitative analysis of turbidity 40998 841221 48 effects on prl.mary productivity.A discussion will also be prepared describing the implications of with-project flow and turbidity levels on mainstem rearing potential Deliverables A draft technical report will be prepared which describes the effects of various levels of Susitna River discharge on mainstem habitat potential.A draft report documenting the model calibration procedures will also be prepared.Final reports will be completed in FY86. Although these reports will not be prepared prior to completion of the Instream Flow Relationships Report,much of the informtion will be available and will be incorporated into that report. Schedule - - 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 40998 841221 Technical Memorandum:Selection of Candidate Study Area Technical Memorandum:Data Collection Plan and Site Selection Technical Memorandum:Light Extinction Coefficients Draft mainstem habitat analysis report Technical Memorandum:Hydraulic Model Calibration Final mainstem habitat analysis report 49 July 31,1984 July 31,1984 November 30,1984 April 30,1985 May 31,1985 July 31,1985 - ~, - TASK l3A ADULT SALMON -MIDDLE RIVER SPAWNING SURVEYS Rationale A description of the distribution,abundance and timing of adult spawning salmon is necessary to characterize pre-project conditions and ....assess potential with-project impacts.This task will support the .- settlement and hearings processes and serve to maintain program monitoring integrity. Objective Define 'where,when and to what level salmon spawn in the middle Susitna River reach. Description Routine escapement surveys of streams,sloughs,side channels and the main channel Susitna River will be performed 1n 1984 to meet the study objective.The surveys will be performed on the ground except for selected tributaries and the main channel which will be surveyed by helicopter.Surveys will be performed by the following schedule: ~ Sloughs Weekly,August 15 -October 7,1984 Tributaries Weekly,July 21 -October 7,1984 Mainstem and Side Channel Weekly,September 1 -October 7,1984 The surveys will provide information regarding species composition at specific locations,relative abundance,timing and distribution of spawner activities • .... 40998 841221 50 ------------------,-------------------------------------- Deliverab1es A report will be prepared that specifically answers the study objectives. Schedule Draft Final 40998 841221 December 21,1984 February 21,1985 51 .... - ..... TASK 13B ADULT SALMON -LOWER RIVER SPAWNING SURVEYS Rationale The pr1oposed project may impact lower river salmon spawning areas, including side channel,slough,tributary and mainstem areas,due to flow,'~ater quality and temperature changes.Information on the magnitude and timing of salmon spawning in these habitats is necessary to assess potential impacts.This task will support the hearing and settlement processes and mitigation planning. Objective Determine where,when and to what extent salmon spawn in sloughs,side channels,tributaries and the mainstem of the lower river reach. Description In 1981 and 1982 lower river main channel and side channel habitats were surveyed for salmon spawning using drift gill nets and electroshocking equipment.Few spawning locations were identified. Sloughs in the lower Susitna River reach have not been surveyed. Between August 15 and October 7,slough,side channel,tributary and mainstem habitats associated with the lower Susitna River ~ill be surveyed weekly from the air.Suspected spawning areas where adult fish an!observed will be inspected from the ground to determine if the area is an actual spawning location and the extent of its use. Deliverables A report wi 11 be produced that specifically answers the study objectiv·e • 40998 841221 52 Schedule Draft Final 40998 841221 December 21,1984 February 21,1985 53 - - - - - .... ..... - TASK 14 LO~~R RIVER RESIDENT AND JUVENILE ANADROMOUS FISH STUDIES Rationale Successful completion of the settlement process for negotiations of instream flow requires assessment of operation of the proposed hydroelectric project on fisheries habitat.This task will quantify the re!~ponse of habitat in areas that support rearing resident and juvenile species to flow changes 1n the mainstem Susitna River downstream of the Chulitna River confluence. Objective 1.Determine the distribution and abundance of rearing salmon juveniles and selected resident species in the reach of river between Cook Inlet and the Chulitna River confluence. 2.Estimate the response of habitat for rearing salmon juveniles and resident species,as appropriate,as a function of changes 1n mainstem discharge at the Sunshine gage station. Description Approximately 40%of the annual discharge of the Susitna River,at the Park's Highway bridge,originates from the mainstem Susitna River above the Chulitna River confluence.Operation of the proposed hydro- electric project may alter the natural flow regime of this reach.The flow regime during the winter may be beyond natural fluctuations of the system with several times the amount of water flowing through this reach of river.Studies of resident and juvenile anadromous abundance and distribution during ~inter months are described under Task 34. .... 40998 841221 54 To assess the effects of these changes in flow regime on the habitat of resident and juvenile anadromous fish it is necessary to determine distribution of the species over different seasons and to develop the predictive capability to estimate changes in available rearing habitat as a function of mainstem discharge to assess the effects of changes in flow regime on the habitats of resident and juvenile anadromous fish. This study will address only the open water season because ice compounds a quantitative assessment of the rearing habitat. Studies conducted by ADF&G SuHydro (1981-82)1n this reach of river have provided limited insight into distribution of the species and responses of habitat in the backwater zones near slough and tributary mouths to mainstem stage changes.The di stribut ion informat ion has provided some insight into the year round distribution of coho and chinook salmon but has provided limited information on pink,chum,and sockeye salmon juveniles.Analysis of the response of habitat to mainstem discharge of the Susitna River provided a general insight as to how the different species present would respond to changing stages of the mainstem Susitna.However,during this analysis,we observed that the cover value of the habitat in these backwater areas and 1n free flowing areas often changed disproportionately to changes 1n measured surface area.This observation suggested that monitoring cover response to mainstem discharge would be of importance.Studies conducted in the middle river used habitat models based on cover in addition to hydraulic analysis of areas of use.This methodology will also be used in the lower river studies. The studies will examine the habitat availability in different reaches and morphological components of the lower Susitna River for juveni Ie salmon as well as selected resident species.This habitat availability study will utilize both the Sunshine USGS gaging station at the Park's Highway bridge and site specific discharge to provide incremental assessment of habitat availability as a function of discharge at each study site. - - - - 40998 841221 55 - Selected areas,based on the fish distributional information and on the morphological and reach mapping performed by R&M during 1983,will be studied for seasonal distribution of fish and the response of physical habitat parameters to mainstem discharge.Approximately 15 different sites will be selected for study using the approach mentioned above for sites where water quality and/or cover are the dominant variables influencing habitat quality.Other sites where the dominant hydraulic variablles of the habitat are influenced by water depth and velocity are discussled 10 Task 36.Habitat criteria developed for the upper reach will be supplemented with additional information for this lower reach to simulate the habitat response of fish to mainstem discharge changes. Distributional data over the seasons will be used to estimate the relative seasonal importance of rearing habitat for the different species.This information wi 11 be supplemented by the outmigrant trap studies (Tasks 16A and 16B). Deliverable Draft Rl:lport on resident and juvenile anadromous habitat studies of the lower r:Lver. Schedule ....Data analysis Weighted usable area calculations Draft rl:lport Final report January 15,1985 April IS,1985 June IS,1985 .- 40998 841221 56 - "... - TASK l5A LOWER RIVER -MAIN CHANNEL SALMON ESCAPEMENT MONITORING Rationale Agenci~s have indicated there is insufficient information to support a conclusion that lower river salmon resources will not be adversely impacted by Project operation.An intensive lower rl.ver escapement monitoring Program will provide some of the information needed to assess potential impacts.This task will support the settlement and hearings process,mitigation planning and provide baseline data for long-term monitoring. Objective Determine the 1984 seasonal timing,abundance,distribution and migrational behavior of sockeye,pink,ch.um and coho salmon escapements at Flathorn (RM 20)and Sunshine (RM 80)stations and into the Yentna River (RM 28).Mointor chinook salmon escapement at RM 80. Description Escapement s in the lower reach have been moni tored from 1981 through 1983 into the Yentna River at RM 28 and in the Susitna River main channel at RM 80.The results document annual escapement numbers. timing distribution and migrational behavior of sockeye,pink.chum and coho sa.lmon at these locations.Similar information on the chinook salmon ,escapements to RM 80 are available for 1982 and 1983. This task will quantify the numbers of sockeye,pink,chum and coho salmon that reach RM 20.enter the Yentna River (RM 28)and reach RM 80.This task will also.determine their migrational timing and behavior.The same basic data wi 11 be collected for chinook salmon escapem,ent in the Susitna River main channel at RM 80. 40998 841221 57 This information will be obtained by implementing a tagging operation at RM 20,uS1ng sonar counters and fishwheels in the Yentna River and operating a tagging site at RM 80. Deli verables A report will be produced that specifically answers the study objective. Schedule Draft Final 40998 841221 December 21,1984 February 21,1985 58 - - .... - - TASK 15B MIDDLE RIVER -MAIN CHANNEL SALMON ESCAPEMENT MONITORING Rationale This t.ask wi 11 provide additional information on the di stribut ion, abundance and timing of adult spawning salmon in the middle Susitna River.The additional information will allow refinement of previous results and provide escapement information through one complete spawning cycle.This task will support the sett 1ement and hearings processes and assist 1n developing baseline data for mitigation planning and 10ng...,term monitoring. Objective Determine the seasonal abundance,timing and migrational behavior of the 1984 chinook,sockeye.pink.chum and coho salmon escapements 1n the Susitna River middle reach. Description Salmon escapements for the three most recent years (1981-83)have been monitored for the middle reach of the Susitna River at Curry Station (RM 120).The results documented escapement numbers.timing • distribution and migrational behavior of sockeye,pink,chum and coho salmon for 1981 through 1983 and of chinook salmon for 1982 and 1983. This task will quantify the number of fish by species that reach RM 120 and also determine their migration timing and behavior.This will be accomplished by an intensive tagging operation and monitoring 6f daily fishwhe,~l catch rates at RM 120. 40998 841221 59 Deliverables A report will be produced that specifically answers the study objective. Schedule Draft Final 40998 841221 December 21.1984 February 21.1985 60 - - !IIQ!. - - - - - TASK 16A OUTMIGRANT STUDIES OF THE MIDDLE RIVER Rationale Quantifying the survival of outmigrant juveniles and the seasonal responses of outmigrants to discharge changes and estimating the significance of middle river rearing will be necessary to successfully complete instream flow negotiations.This task will support aspects of the settlement and hearings processes. Objectives 1.Estimate the timing and relative abundance of outmigrating juvenile salmon of·all five species. -2. 3. Estimate the population of emergent chum and sockeye salmon fry and their survival from egg to emergence. Estimate the relative size of outmigrants. 4.Estimate the relative timing and abundance of juveni Ie resident 5.Estimate the timing and size of outmigrant chum salmon from the Talkeetna river. .....6•Estimate the effect of changes in mainstem Susitna discharge and other environmental variables on outmigration rates of salmon sp.~cies • 7.Estimate the production of emergent juveniles from selected sloughs. 40998 841221 61 8.Estimate the timing and rate of movement of juvenile chinook and coho salmon out of Portage Creek. Description A measure of the current production of juvenile salmon can be used to assess potential impacts of Project operation on downstream fishes. This measurement can be used to estimate the relative importance of populations in a particular reach or basin or ultimately to assess the current importance of habitat in the area.These data can also be used as a benchmark to measure future Project effects against and can be used as the basis for determining the extent of mitigation required. Studies by ADF&G SuHydro of outmigrants from the middle rl.ver were begun in 1982 and were expanded in 1983.This data set has provided valuable information as to the success of the previous summers spawning runs,the effects of discharge on redistribution of rearing juveniles and has provided population and survival estimates (when coupled with adult escapement data).Extrapolation of this data set over a longer period of time and at several key sites wi 11 provide a comparative index of the production of individual sloughs. A mark and recapture study of outmigrant juveniles will be conducted to repeat a 1983 study.The juveniles are marked with coded wire tags at selected sites and recaptured at a downstream smolt trap at Talkeetna Station.E'mphasis will be placed on increased tagging of chum salmon juveni les.Other data collected during operation of the outmigrant traps will include catch per unit effort and data on daily river stage,turbidity,temperature and other habitat parameters. The relative production of sockeye and chum salmon in four side sloughs will be estimated by weir counts and recovery of marked fish.Sites near the mouths of sloughs 8A,9,11 &21 will be wei red with small mesh seines for three consecutive days.Fish collected on each day - '""" 1lO'!"" - 40998 841221 62 - - - will be marked with a unique dye mark and released.Recaptures on all days will be recorded.This information will be analyzed to estimate emergence and outmigration rates from the sites.These results will be compared with habitat information and results of the egg incubation studies at each site.These comparisons should help determine the applicability of the results of Vibert incubation box studies to explaining overall production limits in sloughs. Personnel operating the outmigrant trap at Talkeetna Station will also operate an intermittent outmigrant trap on the Talkeetna River during late May,June and early July.These data will be used in conjunction with T~llkeetna and Flathorn Stations outmigrant data to estimate the use of the lower river by rearing chum during their fresh water resid- ence period. Outmigrant traps will be established near the mouth of Portage Creek during the summer of 1984.The length of Chinook and coho juveni les collected at these sites will be measured.The fish will then be fin clipped and released approximately four miles upstream.The length of recaptured outmigrants will be measured to estimate outmigration rates and growth rates of the juveniles. Deli verables A report documenting activities and results of this task. Schedule - Analyzed data from trapping efforts Draft Report Final Report January 15,1985 April 15,1985 June 15,1985 -40998 841221 63 TASK l6B OUTMIGRANT STUDIES OF THE LOWER RIVER Rationale The importance of the lower r~ver reach as a rearing area needs to be determined.Monitoring of migrant fish into and out of the system will help establish the importance of these habitats.This task will support the settlement and hearings processes and provide data for impact assesment. Objective - - 1. 2. Estimate the timing and rate of outmigration of rearing chinook juveniles from the Deshka river into the mainstem Susitna. Estimate the rate of outmigration of juvenile salmon from the Susitna River. 3.Estimate the rate of growth of juveni Ie chum and chinook salmon from the time they enter the lower river unti 1 they enter the estuarine environment. Description The timing of presence and extent of rearing of juvenile salmon spec~es have not been described for the lower river.In addi tion,the importance of rearing habitat associated with the mainstem Susitna between Cook Inlet and the Chulitna River has not been determined. Inference of the importance of this reach of the Susitna to rearing of juvenile salmon will be determined from data collected near the confluence of the Talkeetna and Chulitna Rivers and data collected near the mouth of the Susitna River at Cook Inlet. 40998 841221 64 Monitoring of outmigrant timing and condition will be conducted below the confluence of the Susitna and Yentna Rivers using outmigrant traps. Sizes and relative numbers of juvenile salmon that are leaving the fresh water system will be determined from captures of juveniles ~n the traps.Chinook movement into the mainstem environments will be estimated at temporary outmigrant traps placed near the mouth of the Deshka River.The movement of chum,sockeye and chinook juveniles into the lower river will be evaluated by use of the data obtained from the Talkeetna station trap and periodic sampling of the Talkeetna River. Deliverab 1es A technical report documenting activities and results of Task 20 studies. Schedule - Analyzed data Draft Report Final Report 40998 841221 January 15,1985 April 15,1985 June 15,1985 65 - TASK 17 STREAMFLOW AND FLOOD FREQUENCY STUDIES Rationale The most basic physical change 1n the Lower River resulting from Susitna Project operation wi 11 be in streamflow.Al tered streamflow and reduced peak flood discharges may result in: 1.Changes to the Lower River morphology as a resul t of decrease sediment transport capacity,and changes in the frequency of flow thl~ough habitat areas,particularly side channels and near the mouths of tributaries, 2.impacts to riparian vegetation resulting from changes 1n the frl~quency and magni tude of flooding of vegetated areas, -3.impacts to inmigrating adult salmon resulting from reduced peak floods which serve as a stimulus to migration,and P- I. I - .... 4.impacts to navigability of the stream. Therefore,1n order to make assessments of potential impacts in this reach it is necessary to develop information on natural and with- project streamflows. This information will be utilized by aquatic study team members to assess the significance of potential flow-related impacts in the Lower River and to evaluate whether further studies are required in FY86. 40998 841221 66 Objective The objective of this study is to define natural and with-project flow duration and flood frequency curves for key locations in the Lower River. The discharges for a given duration or frequency derived from these curves will be used in other studies to evaluate project impacts due to changes in flow regimes. Description - - ""'" Daily streamflow stations 1n the di scharges wi 11 Harza-Ebasco. measurements are available for nine USGS gaging Susitna River Basin.Average weekly with-project be estimated using the reservoir operation model by - ..... Monthly and weekly streamflow data and flow duration and flood frequency curves wi 11 be developed both for natural and with-project conditions for the Susitna River near Sunshine and at Susitna Station stream gaging stations.The natural flows of these stations will be modified based on reservoir releases to develop data for with-project conditions. Deliverables A report will be prepared which documents the results of the study. Schedule Flow Duration Curves Report Streamflow/Flood Frequency Report Draft 03/01/85 03/01/85 Final 04/30/85 04/30/85 - 40998 841221 67 ..... TASK 18 SUSPENDED SEDIMENT -TURBIDITY STUDIES Rationale Further analysis of with-project suspended sediment concentrations, chemical and physical characteristics and the with-project turbidity are important for: 1.responding to the DEIS; 2.supplying supplemental information to FERC and completion of the FEIS; 3.support of the hearing process; 4. Objective completion of the settlement process. - The prJ.mary objective 1.S to relate predicted with-project suspended sediment concentrations and characteristics to their potential turbidity related biological effects downstream from the Project reservoirs. Description Studies and data existing prior to May 1984 will be used to produce a draft report of expected biological impacts to the Middle Susitna River reach to be included in the IFRS report on Water Quality/Limnology. Future studies,including DYRESM model predictions,will be used to refine the knowledge presented in the IFRS reports. 40998 841221 68 Analyses and assessments of pre-and with-project suspended sediments and turbidity and predictions of potential water quality changes during winter periods will include the lower river reach.Predictions of with-project turbidity will provide information for other studies related to potential impacts on the biological food web (Tasks 25,45 and 14). Data needed for predicting biological effects include: 1.Temporal quantification (at least monthly means and ranges for data)of suspended sediment concentrations.and their cumulative size distribution analysis for Project reservoir discharges (these data will come from reservoir operations simulations); 2.computation of a relationship between with-project turbidity in nephelometric turbidity units (NTU)and suspended sediment quantities and characteristics; 3.Computation of the area of selected habitats which may populations. substrate per support viable unit discharge Ln benthic periphyton Analyses and discussions will summarLZe the most probable effects of with-project suspended sediment and turbidity conditions on the mainstem Susitna River in terms of benthic productivity and salmonid incubation and rearing. Deliverables position paper(s)on the with-project suspended sediment Lssues. Schedule Draft report(s) Final report(s) 40998 841221 February,1985 May 31,1985 69 - - .... TASK 19 HYDRO-METEOROLOGICAL PHYSICAL DATA COLLECTION Rationale This task is designed to meet requirements for collection of baseline meteorological and hydrological field data for engineering and environmental studies within the Susitna River Basin.As such,it will continue to define pre-project conditions of damsite river flow and regional climate,two necessary elements under FERC provisions for monitoring and water-supply forecasting during project operation. Objective Provide basic quantitative descriptions of specific physical parameters necessary for development of other components supporting the licensing process. Description Physical data collection will encompass measurement,reduction,and reporting of physical field parameters.Efficient reservoir and powerplant operation will require knowledge of seasonal snowpack, rainfall,temperature,and winds and their re lationships to runoff timing and volumes.Forecasts of energy availability will depend on water supply forecasts based on past years'correlations,making collection of simultaneous streamflow and meteorologic data very important. Recording instrumentation ~s already ~n place for measurement of climatic and snow parameters and discharge at the Watana gaging site so ....no new installations are foreseen for this year • collection will be of three primary types: The physical da ta 40998 841221 70 o Climatic data o Snow surveys o River discharge at the Watana damsite Climatic Data:Operation and maintenance of six Susitna Basin recording weather stations (Glacier,Denali,Kosina,Watana,Devil Canyon and Sherman)will continue through the year.The seventh existing station at Eklutna Lake,will be decommissioned in May 1984 and kept as a spare unit which should greatly enhance system reliability. Snow Surveys:The cooperat ive snow surveys with SCS will continue January through June 1985.They will include aerial and on-the-ground surveys conducted primarily in the upper basin to provide seasonal snowpack data for water supply studies and to support the special glacier studies (Task 43). Watana Discharge:The streamgage at Watana will be maintained through the open-water season and through 1984 freeze-up.Monthly discharge measurements wi 11 be made by boat during July through September to verify the stage-discharge rating.curve.One winter discharge measurement will be made through the ice. Deliverab les Climatic Data:Data will be summarized on a water year basis (October -September). Snow Surveys:Data will be published monthly (February -June)by SCS in Snow Survey~and Water Supply Outlook for Alaska. Watana Discharge:Report on July average discharge data for the water year through September 1984. - - - - - - 40998 841221 71 .... - ..... .... ,.... Schedule Climatic data summary report Snow Surveys Watana discharge report 40998 841221 72 December 31,1984 Monthly December 31,1984 :rASK 20 LOAD FOLLOWING ALTERNATIVE Rationale Power studies are currently assessing load following at Watana powerhouse as an alternative to baseload generation dur~ng the years that Watana will operate alone.If this alternative has economl.C benefits relative to base loading t the downstream environmental impacts caused by load following wi 11 need to be assessed.Environmentally acceptable maximum daily flow changes and maximum hourly flow changes (ramping rates)will need to be established for various periods of the year. Objectives 1. 2. 3. To examine the environmental implications of load following alternatives. To provide environmental operating rules for power studies. To examine natural·rates of flow change with project flow conditions used as a basis. Description 1.Examine naturally occurring rates of flow and stage change at Gold Creek in the range of with-project flow (i.e.5,000 to 20 t OOO cfs) for the available USGS gage traces from the Gold Creek gage. 2.Observe rates of change of stage during 1984 storm events at several locations in the mainstem. 40998 841221 73 3.Perform a literature review and an evaluation of the downstream effects on aquatic resources from water surface fluctuations caused by hydroelectric generation.Results from the literature review will provide the biological perspective necessary to evaluate effects of varying stage changes and to recommend interim operating criteria for load-following operation at Watana dam. - 4.Perform dynamic routings of various load-following alternatives using the model DMBRK.Using recommendations for interim operating criteria obtained in Task 4 and other alternatives, dynamically route Watana discharges downstream.Evaluate the environmental effects of these load following alternatives. Data required for successful completion of this task include: 1.Several continuous stage recorders will be required for the successful completion of Item 2. 2.Hourly discharge data will be required from the hourly load program for item 4. De1iverab1es Items 1 &2 Technical memorandum on natural stage discharge fluctuation and on 1984 stage changes. Item 3 -Report on findings of literature review and interim operations criteria. Schedule - Items 1 &2 Item 3 Draft 40998 841221 June,1985 June,1985 74 - TASK 21 LOWER RIVER MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Rationale Completion of this task ~s necessary to visually identify changes in lower lriver conditions with vary~ng flow and will support impact assessm,ents and the settlement process. Objective Document and assess the effects of different flow rates on the morphology of the Susitna River between Talkeetna and Cook Inlet.The study l<irill provide the information necessary to forecast changes in wetted surface areas in the mainstem and side-channels'due to Project operation. Description Photogr,aphy (scale:I"=2000')of the lower Susitna River was obtained in 1983 for flow rates at Sunshine of 56,500,37,500,22,000 and 13,600 cfs.Additional sets of photography at flow rates of about 75,000 cfs (with-project 5-year flood)and 95,000 cfs (pre-project 2-year flood) are needed.This photography will define wetted areas at flood levels which control channel morphology.Wetted areas will be digitized and summed to characterize flow related changes in the lower river. A preliminary determination of important aquatic habitat sites 1n the lower river will be made by EWT&A and R&M based upon discussions with ADF&G SuHydro.The location of these areas will be identified on blue line prints of the lower r~ver and a brief narrative prepared describing the rationale for their selection.The blue line prints and rationale will be discussed with other members of the aquatic study 40998 841221 75 team and a concensus sought regarding the number of priority of areas to be analyzed.Photo enlargements of these areas will be obtained through R&M for the 1983 lower river photography.Helicopter over- flights will be made by R&M and EWT&A personnel at approximately the same mainstem discharges (Sunshine)that the 1983 photography was obtained.During the helicopter overflights habitat types will be identified using the same (or a slightly modified)definition of habitat types used in the middle river and their locations delineated on blue line prints.The wetted surface areas of these locations will be digitized for entry into the computerized data base developed by EWT&A during 1983.Analysis of the response of habitat surface areas to changes in mainstem flow at Sunshine will be completed by EWT&A. Deliverables A technical report will be prepared by EWT&A and R&M to present the findings of their analysis of streamflow effects on habitat surface areas in the l~wer river.The report will be integrated with findings from lower river sediment studies to estimate effects of aggradat ion below the Chulitna River Confluence. Schedule Draft report prior to January 31,1985. 40998 841221 76 ..... ""'" -I TASK 22 MAPPING AND DIGITIZING OF MIDDLE RIVER HABITAT SURFACE AREAS Rationale This work will provide a photographic assessment of incremental flow effects on the availability of aquatic habitat between Devil Canyon and the confluence of the Talkeetna and Susitna Rivers.The successful completion of this work will support preparation of the Instream Flow Relationships Report as well as the settlement and over-all licensing process. Objective Expand the 1983 evaluation of mainstem flow effects on aquatic habitat surface areas in the middle river to include with-project flood and filling flows. Description EWT&A liri 11 obtain air photography of the middle r1ver through R&M at streamflows (USGS Station Gold Creek)of approximately 45,000,30,000 and 6,000 cfs.Helicopter overflights will be made of the r1ver coincident with aerial photography flights so that aquatic habitat types can be identified and their locations delineated on blue line prints of aerial photography obtained at mainstem flows of 18,000 cfs and 12,500 cfs.The wetted surface areas of the habitat types will be digitized by EWT&A using the same equipment and methodology as in their 1983 evaluation of photography of the middle river. Deliverables A technical memorandum will be prepared to update EWT&A's 1983 report on strE!amflow effects on habitat surface areas in the middle river. 40998 841221 77 Results of the 1983 and 1984 habitat mapping work on the middle r1ver will be incorporated into the Final draft of the Instream Flow Relationships Report (Task 4). Schedule - Technical memorandum Draft Report Final Report 40998 841221 78 February,~985 April 30,1985 August 31,1985 - - - - - i - - TASK 23 LOWER RIVER ICE STUDY Rationale Ice-rel.ated processes affect the Susitna River environment during approximately 8 months of the year <October -May).These processes annually affect water levels and temperatures in the river and adjacent aquatic and terrestrial habitats.Ice processes are also responsible for maj10r river habitats induced by scour resulting from ice movement. The significant ice-related impacts to the aquatic habitat are expected in the middle reach of the Susitna River between the Project site and Talkeetll1a.An important consideration in the Middle River ice analysis lS the determination of when the ice cover begins to progress upstream of the confluence of the Chulitna and Susitna Rivers.It is currently thought that this will occur after the Lower River is completely filled with ice generated downstream of the Project and 10 the Chulitna, Yentna and Talkeetna Rivers.In order to estimate how long this process will take it is necessary to: 1. 2. Estimate when the ice bridge will occur near the mouth of the Susitna River at Cook Inlet. Estimate the volume of ice required to fill the Lower River under with-project conditions. There may also be significant impacts in the Lower River if lce processl~s are significantly altered.These would result from: 1.Water levels associated wi th with-project flows which would be significantly greater than natural, 2.Delays ln ice cover formation, -. 40998 841221 79 3.Potentially thicker ice where it occurs,and 4.Altered break-up processes.- Due to the complexity of the lower r1ver it is not considered feasible, at this time,to extend the mathematical model of middle river ice processes to the lower river.Instead,in order to make reasonable estimates of the required parameters,a limited analysis at s~lected locations will be performed. Objective The objectives of this study will be to obtain a better understanding of lower river ice processes.Specific study objectives will be to: 1.Refine the estimate of when ice cover progression at the Susitna-Chulitna confluence begins.- 2.Estimate the magnitude of staging with-project on the lower river. 3.Document the impact of mainstem freeze-up on existing and potential side channel and slough habitats. """ 4.Make field observations of significant hydraul ic parameters related to ice cover progression on the lower river. Description Ice process observations were carried out on the lower river during this past winter.Observations of ice generation in the Chul itna and Talkeetna Rivers have been carried out for ~everal years.Estimates of 1ce production 1n the middle reach of the Susitna River will be available from the ice process modeling studies carried out in FY84 and ongoing in FY8S. - 40998 841221 80 This study will be conducted using field observations and hydraulic computations. Data to be collected in the field include: - - """ 1. 2. 3. 4. River channel cross sections at six locations in the Lower River chosen to be representative of their respective reaches, Observations of staging and 1ce thicknesses at these cross sections during open water season,freeze-up and 1ce cover periods on the Lower River, Obseryations of staging at selected habitat locations 1n the Lower River during the freeze-up and ice cover period, Observations of ice bridge formation at the mouth of the Susitna River at Cook Inlet, ,..., 5.Observations of the progression of the ice cover upstream to the Talkeetna and Chulitna rivers confluence, 6. 7. Observations of frazil 1ce generation 1n the Yentna,Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers,and Observations of break-up 1n the Lower River including maximum water levels resulting from ice jams. ..- ..... Analyses of the data will include: 1.Analysis of factors leading of formation of an 1ce bridge at the mOl:lth of the Susitna River at Cook Inlet, 2.Analysis of the natural volume of ice 1n the Lower River, ""'" 40998 841221 81 3.Estimation of the volume of 1ce required to cover the Lower River with-project, 4.Estimation of the with-project staging at the six cross sections,and - 5.Estimation of the time required to form an 1ce cover on the Lower River,with-project. observations.The second will document the analytical results. Deliverables Two reports will be prepared.The first will document field - - Schedule Field observations will be carried out during the winter of 1984-85.A report documenting these will be available in spring,1985.Hydraulic studies will be carried out after receipt of field observations and a report will be prepared by July,1985. - - 40998 841221 82 - - ...... - .- I - - TASK 24 LOWER RIVER AGGRADATION Rationale Approximately 80 percent of the total sediment load in the lower reach of the Susitna River originates in the Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers. After project implementation,regulation of flood and high flows by the project will reduce the sediment discharge capacity of the Lower River to 55 percent of its present capacity.However,the total sediment load will not be reduced proportionately and aggradation of sediments in the Lower River is expected to occur.The potential impacts result- ing from this aggradation would in~lude increased water levels near the town of Talkeetna,at tributary mouths,and at the upstream ends of side channel complexes. The results of the sediment study (FY84)presented in "Susitna Hydro- electric Project -Reservoir and River Sedimentation"identified the potenti.al for aggradation in the confluence area and downstream of the Susitna and Chulitna Rivers.These analyses were not sufficient to define the temporal and spatial distribution of the aggradation.Fur- ther studies of lower river aggradation are necessary to determine if the expected aggradation in the lower reach will be significant. Objective The obj,ectives of these studies are to evaluate sedimentation processes in various sections of the lower river and to identify the potential impacts.The study area will include the reach of the river between Susitna Station and the Chulitna -dusitna confluence. ..... 40998 841221 83 Description Two years of data are currently available from the USGS at four locations near the confluence area.Suspended sediment data are also available from the USGS at the Gold Creek and Susitna Station gaging sta"tions. The stations where the data are being collected for the evaluation of project impacts in the Lower reach,include: 1.Susitna River near Talkeetna, 2.Chulitna River near Talkeetna, 3.Susitna River below the confluence of the Susitna and Chulitna Rivers (new station established in 1983),and 4.Susitna River at Sunshine. The sediment data collected at these stations include suspended sediment and bedload discharges.To evaluate project impacts downstream from Sunshine,suspended sediment and bedload discharge measurements also will be required on the Susitna River at Susitna Station and Yentna River near Susitna Station.USGS is currently collecting suspended sediment data on the Susitna River at Susitna Station. The current sediment sampling program of the USGS will be continued for FY85 and expanded to collect suspended sediment and bedload discharge measurements on the Susitna River at Susitna Station and on the Yentna River. Bed material samples will be collected at selected locations in the lower reach in the mainstem.The sampling will be done twice,once - - - - 40998 841221 84 - ..... ..... ..... ...... during high flow season and second time prior to freeze-up of the river. The lower reach will be sub-divided into 8 to 10 sub-reaches depending .upon locations of sloughs and major tributaries to estimate potential aggradation/degradation.Computations of total sediment load transport (bedload plus suspended)will be made at the stream gaging locations • Aggradation/degradation in each sub-reach will be computed using book empirici:!l relationships and a mathematical model "IALLUVIAL"developed by the Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research.The streamflow and flood peaks data required for these computations will be obtained from "Streamflow and Flood Frequency Studies"discussed in Task 17. As part:of the evaluation of sediment processes,relationships of discharge to stream velocities and depths are necessary.This information will be derived from staff gage readings obtained by ADF&G as part of their lower river Resident and Anadromous Fish Program, cross sl~ctions of the lower river surveyed by R&M Consul tants,Inc.and a mathE!matical model of the sedimentation processes in the reach between the Chulitna-Susitna confluence and the Sunshine Bridge • This study will have two components;field observations and data collection,and office analysis.The field work will include: ..... 1.Survey of river cross sections at locations most significant for ice and sedimentation studies; 2.Installation of staff gages at the selected r1ver cross sections and also at other locations where stage-di scharge relationships are required;and 40998 841221 3.Measurement of water surface elevations and measures of mainstem and side channels water velocities wi thin a range of discharges at the Sunshine gage. 85 The office analyses will include: Calibration of HEC-2 for the reach between the confluence of the Chulitna and Susitna Rivers·and Sunshine gage using surveyed river cross sections and river stages observed for a range of discharges; 2.Computations of water surface profiles for 8 to 10 selected discharges for the above reach which can be used to support sediment,ice and temperture studies; -- 3. 4. Preparation of relationships betweens discharge,stage,depth and velocity and water surface profiles at significant locations,in the reach upstream of the Sunshine Bridge; Computations of relationships between discharge,stage,depth and velocity for the reach downstream of Sunshine Bridge using steady,uniform flow assumptions. -. 5.Computations of aggradation!degradation processes resul ting from altered discharge characteristics described above. Deliverables Two reports will be prepared.The first will summarize the results of water surface profile and stage-discharge relationship work.The second will summarize the results of the aggradation studies. Schedule Cross sectional surveys and field observations of stage and discharge will be collected in during the period May -September,1984. Hydraulic analysis,reduction of data and calibration and production of results using the sediment transport model will take place in the winter of 84-85.A report will be available by July,1985. - 40998 841221 86 .... ..... The USGS will collect sediment data on the Yentna and Susitna Rivers throughout the open-water season of 1984.These data should be avail- able for analyses by March,1985.The analyses will be carried out upon receipt of these data and the report will be available by July 1, 1985 • 40998 841221 87 - - .- .... TASK 25 ASSESSMENT OF THE AVAILABLE FOOD SOURCE IN TURBID SUSITNA RIVER HABITATS FOR REARING JUVENILE CHINOOK SALMON Rationale Project related changes in the habitat conditions associated with the development of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project may have impacts on the density and timing of emergence of the invertebrate communities presently utilized as a food source by rearing juvenile chinook salmon. With-project changes in these invertebrate communities could have secondary impacts on the condition and survival of juvenile chinook salmon.Examination of these invertebrate communities would serve as a basis for predicting the rearing capabilities of potentially affected habitats under with-project conditions. Objective Provide the data and analyses needed to predict the potential rearing capabilities of certain turbid water habitats for juvenile chinook salmon. Description Previous investigations by the ADF&G SuHydro have shown that juvenile chinook salmon are most often found in turbid water habitats in or near the mainstem (ADF&G,1983).In habitats where the turbid mainstem flow comes together with the flow from clearwater tributaries and/or sloughs,chinook salmon juveniles are most often found in the turbid water environment (RJ 1984 report).Other ADF&G SuHydro (1982)studies examined the food habits of rearing juvenile salmon,including chinook, ~n regcsLrd to percent stomach composition,species electivity,etc. However,it is unclear whether juvenile chinook salmon that utilize 40998 841221 88 turbid water mainstem affected macrohabitats are dependent on invertebrate organisms which are present in these areas for their food source or which are produced elsewhere. The invertebrate food sources presently available to juvenile chinook salmon in these areas may be affected by physical and chemical changes associated with Project operation.There 1S a need to provide quantification of the response of the invertebrate community and the food habitats of juvenile chinook salmon to potential changes in the habitats they presently utilize.This information will serve to relate changes 1n the condition and survival of these fish to changes in physical and chemical habitat parmeters. Previous investigations by ADF&G SuHydro have provided a good data base on the abundance and distribution of chinook salmon juveniles within the middle r1ver reach and a preliminary evaluation of their food habits.In addition,IFG-4 modeling of selected side channels within this reach has provided velocity,depth,cover and substrate data along specified transects within these sites.Locations of study sites will be selected to utilize established transects of IFG-4 modeling sites within this reach.Other sites may be established in other areas that have been found to contain large numbers of chinook juveniles. Habitat data to be collected along transects at each study site will include:point specific water depths,velocities,substrates,and general water quality.Drift invertebrate samples will be collected and analyzed along transects to quantify the availability of food sources with changes 1n discharge.Stomach analysis will also be performed on a limited number of chinook salmon to correlate the available food source with that being utilized by fish.Comparisons will be made of the available invertebrate drift between the various habitats to determine the dominant available food source at each site. An indication of the effects of possible with-project changes 1n -- - ..... 40998 841221 89 ..... ..... -- - habitat conditions on the available food source will be made utilizing flow,temperature and fish data. Deliverables A technical report of the findings of this study • Schedule A final report will be available April 30,1985 • 40998 841221 90 TASK 26 PREPARATION OF A WRITTEN REPORT FOR THE FY84 INCUBATION STUDY Rationale Completion subsequl~nt processl~s• Objective of this task will provide data and information for impact assessment to support the settlement and hearings - To complete the analysis of incubation-related data Cintragrave1 water quality,embryo survival and substrate composition)collected from August,1983 to May,1984 and prepare a report synthesizing this information and previous data with information available in published Ii tera ture. Description Four types of data will be analyzed:intragrave1 and surface water quality data,surface and intragravel temperature data,development and survival of embryos and substrate composition.The report will include a discussion of the analyzed data and a section comparing the results of this study to results of similar studies. There are three primary sources of data that will be used for report preparation:1)data collected during the FY82 -FY84 field studies, 2)a r,eport by Wangaard and Burger (983)and 3)other published Ii terature. Deliverables Final RE!port:Incubation Study for the period August 1983 -May 1984. 40998 841221 91 Schedule A draft report will be circulated for review December 28.1984.The final report will be completed by February 15,1985. ..... - ..... ..... 40998 841221 92 - TASK 27 MIDDLE RIVER -MAIN CHANNEL ESCAPEMENT MONITORING AT TALKEETNA STATION (RM 103) Rationale Based on results of field studies during 1981)1982 and 1983 it has been determined that the RM 103 area of the middle river 1S a site of significant milling by chinook)sockeye)pink)chum and coho salmon. Continwad escapement monitoring,through a complete escapement cycle, would provide refined estimates of natural variability in salmon use of the middle river reach and milling at RM 103.This task will directly aid resource managers 1n establishing baseline data for potential project monitoring and will support the settlement and hearing proces Sla s. Objectives Determine the seasonal abundance)timing and migrational behavior of the 1984 chinook,sockeye)pink,chum and coho salmon escapements in the Susitna River at Talkeetna. Description Four fishwheels will be operated at RM 103 from June 7 to September 9, to record daily catches and tag and release all intercepted adult salmon.The catch data will define species timing distribution and migrat ional behavior.The tagging operation wi 11 provide escapement estimatE!s for each species. Deliverables A report will be produced that presents results of the FY85 sampling. 40998 841221 93 Schedule 40998 841221 Field Operation Report Draft Report Final June 7 to September 9,1984 December 21,1984 February 21,1985 94 - - TASK 28 LOWER RIVER TRIBUTARY ACCESS ANALYSIS Rationale This study will evaluate the potential effects on access conditions to tributaries 1n the lower Susitna River.Additionally,potential changes to tributary mouth habitats will be evaluated to assess potential effects to adult salmon which utilize these areas as resting areas during upstream migrations.Results of this evaluation will enable assessment of possible project-induced changes to the sport fishery in the Lower River •..... Obje~tive - ,..... ,..... This study is to determine whether or not alteration of discharge by the proposed Project will result in reductions of mainstem water surface elevations of sufficient magnitude in the lower river that access by adult salmon into tributary streams would become unacceptably restricted without mitigative actions. Description Tributary mouths that might warrant investigation will be identified during July through discussions with ADF&G SuHydro,R&M and other Aquatic Team members.Photographic enlargements of each tributary mouth <lrea will be obtained by R&M from the available lower river photography.Streamflow records wi 11 be reviewed by R&M to identify mainstem and tributary flows. A visual interpretation of the photography will be completed by EWT&A, R&M and ADF&G SuHydro.If exposed streambed gravels or shallow riffles are not visible,it will be assumed that depth of flow at the tributary -- 40998 841221 95 ----,~,-------~._----------------...;..------------------......--- mouth for the flow condition photographed 1.S not shallow enough to impair access.The tributary mouths .will be visited by ADF&G SuHydro and R&M at a low flow period (probably September)and representative depth measurements obtained.The location of these depth measurements will be noted on a copy of the tributary mouth photograph.At the time of this site visit,a visual assessment of channel stability will also be made.Sufficient photographic evidence (channel structure and steambed particle size)will be obtained for documentation. Additionally,changes in the tributary mouth habitats with respect to their extent and position in relationship to mainstem discharge will be conducted to evaluate the possible effects to holding or migrating anadromous fish. A first level of analysis would be undertaken if exposed streambed gravels or shallow riffles appear to be present.A study site would be established on the lower 0.25 miles of the tributary and cross sections and thalweg profiles surveyed.Staff gage readings would be obtained in the mainstem or side channel above and below the tributary mouth and at three cross sections along the thalweg profile.An analysis of these data would demonstrate the effects of mainstem discharge on depth of flow in the tributary. A higher level of analysis would be applied by EWT&A and R&M if it were thought,after viewing the available photography and making a site visit,that the tributary mouth area might be unstable due to sand/gravel deposition or the side channel into which the tributary discharged might dewater upstream of the tributary due to with-project reductions 1.n mainstem flow.These analyses are not described 1n detail because of the unlikelihood they will be required.Field data collection beyond that necessary for the first level of analysis would principally consist of streamflow and bedload material measurements. .... - - - - 40998 841221 96 - .... ,.... .... .... - Deliverables A technical report detailing results of this task and an assessment of tributary access will be produced. Schedule A draft report will be prepared prior to January 31,1985 if only the visual interpretation of photography is required;and a final report will be available April 15,1985. .- 40998 841221 97 .... .- .... TASK 29 EVALUATION OF MIDDLE RIVER MAIN STEM AND TRIBUTARY SPAWNING HABITAT RELATIONSHIPS Rationale This study will provide data for an overview of the dynamics of mainstem,side channel and tributary spawning habitats.These data will be used to assess possible effects of with-project water temperature regimes and to plan potential mitigation measures. Objective Evaluate mainstem,side channel and tributary salmon spawn1ng habitat temperature and substrate relationships. Description During the open water field season,survey crews will locate mainstem, side channel and tributary salmon spawning areas 1n the middle river reach.These spawning areas will be stratified by sub-reach. Representative areas will be selected and temperature recording devices situated to monitor intragravel and surface water temperatures.In addition,porosity samples will be collected at each of the selected sites.During the ice covered period,open leads in the middle reach of the Susitna River will be identified and categorized as velocity or warm walter upwelling leads.The middle reach will again be stratified by sub-reach and accessibility for purposes of selecting representative warm w.ater upwe lling leads,which may be potential salmon spawning areas,to measure intragravel and surface water temperatures and substrate composition. Results of this study will be used in the process of extrapolation of side slough and nver channel model results to the river system as a 40998 841221 98 whole (Task 4).Results of this Task and Task 12 will also be used ~n Task 10 to evaluate potential mitigation options. Deli verabl es The deliverable product will be in the form of a final report and will include: 1.Analysis of the intragravel and surface water temperature relationships between mainstem,side channel and tributary salmon spawning areas. 2.Substrate composition analysis of mainstem,side channel and tributary salmon spawning areas. 3.An index of the warm water upwelling leads with intragravel and surface water temperatures and porosity samples collected at representative sites. 4.Provide a summary of the pre-FY8S temperature information collected in mainstem,side channel and tributary salmon spawning areas. Schedule - .... .... First Draft Final Draft 40998 841221 June 15,1985 August IS,1985 99 - - ro" - TASK 30 SLOUGH GROUNDWATER AND WATER BALANCE STUDIES Rationale Slough studies conducted to date have.been inconclusive in quantifying the changes 110.groundwater upwelling slough hydrology caused by Project operation.Refinement of the relationship of groundwater flow and mainstem discharge and a water balance study are necessary to assess the effect of project operation on aquatic habitat. Objectives -1.Obtain data on aqui fer properties, conductivity and storage coefficient. particularly hydraulic 2.Conduct a complete water balance of selected sloughs to determine thlE!contribution of slough discharge from groundwater upwelling and tributary inflow. 3.Refine relationships between seepage, mainstem discharge. slough discharge 'and - Description Aquifer testing at existing wells in the vicinity of Slough 9 wi 11 be conducted to obtain data on hydraulic conductivity and storage coefficient. Potential tests include constant-head tests,constant-rate pumping tests and constant rate injection tests. Water levels 110.existing deep wells and in selected shallow wells will be monitored at Slough 9,along with open-water stages on the mahnstem,side- channels and sloughs.Using the results from the aquifer testing and water 40998 841221 100 level monitoring,estimates will be made of the theoretical temporal variations of groundwater flow into Slough 9.The estimates will be verified by conducting a water balance study of Slough 9.Precipitation will'be measured at the Sherman Station,with accumulating precipitation cans located at other portions of the basin in order to determine the spat ial di stribut ion of precipitation,inc!uding orographic effects. Evaporation will be estimated from data gathered at Watana Camp.Streamflow will be continuously monitored in the slough and in the tributary which enters Slough 9 approximately halfway upstream from the mouth.Frequent discharge measurements will be made to establish reliable rating curves. Up to 10 seepage meters will be installed in both Slough 9 and Slough 11 to determine the relationship between seepage rate and mainstem discharge at Gold Creek.Approximately 20 readings will be made at each seepage meter. All visible upwelling locations will be mapped. Deliverab les Results of the data collection and analyses will be presented on a report on slough groundwater relationships. Schedule Field studies will be conducted in July,August and September.Data analysis will be performed through January 1985.A draft report is planned for March 1 and a final report by April 1,1985.Results of this may also be incorporated into one or more of the Task 4 reports. - - - - - 40998 841221 101 - - ~, ,~ - TASK 31 DEVELOPMENT OF LONG-TERM MONITORING PLAN Rationale Preproject studies have beenodesigned to predict potential impacts due to Project construction and operation and to describe means with which to avoid or minimize these impacts.To assure the mitigation plans incorporated into the license are achieving their intended goals,a long-term moni toring program must be developed and initiated.The detailed plans of this program will be incorporated into the license. Objective To develop plans for a Project construction and operation monitoring program that will assess the effectiveness of mitigation procedures. Description A long-'term monitoring program must be sufficiently rigorous to detect potential adverse impacts that occur due to the Project.However,it must also be a reasonable program that can be conducted within project economJ.c constraints.Furthermore,the program plan must stipulate measures to be taken if adverse impacts are detected. Efforts under this 'task will concentrate on developing a detailed planning document that can be presented to the various resource agencies.This document will describe the potential impacts to be monitored,the methods and parameters to be monitored,the methods for monitoring the parameters,the limits of concern,potential measures to rectify the impact and a schedule for completion of certain elements of the monitoring program if no impacts are detected. 40998 841221 102 _____________________•0 _ Authority. Fish and The Power Authority,with the assistance of Harza-Ebasco,organizations in the aquatic study team and individuals from other disciplines,will develop a working document that will be presented to the varlOUS resource agencies for review and comment.If needed,a meeting will be held to resolve any areas of disagreement.The document will then be finalized and submitted for incorporation into the license. Although this Task will develop an aquatic monitoring plan only,the plan will eventually be incorporated into the environmental monitoring plan for the overall project,which will utilize the terrestrial and social sciences monitoring plans. Harza-Ebasco will coordinate the planning efforts for the Power Assistance will be provided by the Alaska Department of Game's SuHydro Aquatic Study Team and Harza-Ebasco subcontractors. Deliverables - - -I -I i A draft monitoring program document will developed.Responses to agency comments second deliverable. be the first deliverable on the draft will be the - The third deliverable will be the finalized document that will be incorporated into the license. Schedule The draft document will be completed in winter 1985.Agencies will be allowed approximately 60 days for review.Following this period, another 30 days will be needed to finalize the draft by submittal of responses to agency comments and/or a meeting between the reviewing agencies and the Power Authority.The final document will be completed in the spring of 1985. - 40998 841221 103 ...... - .... -- TASK 32 LOWER SUSITNA STREAM TEMPERATURE ANALYSIS Rationale This tCllsk is intended to provide estimates of with-project instream temperatures and their effects on Susitna fishe~y resources in order to provide a tool useful ~n optimizing reservoir operations,mitigation planning and to aid the settlement process and provide data and analyses for potential hearings. Objective Prediction of weekly aver~ge mainstem water temperatures from Sunshine Station to the downstream-most location not influenced by tidal effects • Description If biologically significant instream temperature differences between pre-and with-project conditions are predicted for the Susitna River below the Chulitna and Talkeetna confluences,a lower river instream temperature analysis will be required.This analysis will involve setting up a data base to use the instream temperature model (SNTEMP) for prE!diction of weekly average water temperatures.AEIDC will be responsible for the data collection coordination,model implementation and fishery resource impact analysis.The instream temperature estimates produced by"this task wi 11 be integrated with estimates of flow effects and slough habitat changes to quantify fisheries impacts by species and life stage.The predicted stream temperature and heat transfer relationships will also be useful for improving estimates of the lower river ice processes. 40998 841221 104 The data requirements of the stream temperature model are of three types:structural,hydrologic and meteorologic.Most of the structural data can be developed from topographic maps and reconnaissance field work.The exception is stream width data. Representative stream transects will be surveyed for a range of flow events. Required hydrologic data include mainstem flows and temperatures, tributary flows and temperatures,and estimates of di stributed flows and temperatures.Mainstem flow data are necessary for simulating mainstem temperatures and estimating distributed flows.Mainstem temperatures are required to validate the stream temperature predictions.Tributary flows and temperatures are necessary for validation studies and to provide estimates of tributary influences on the mainstem for with-project simulations. ADF&G SuHydro has collected some water temperature data on the lower rlver between 1980 and 1983.Further data collection is necessary to construct a base adequate for simulation and prediction.Mainstem temperature recorders will be installed above the confluences of large tributaries and at the end-of-simulation point.Mainstem flows can be estimated from historical data and flows observed during the stream width data collection. Tributary temperatures should be collected for all major tributaries. A major tributary can be defined as one which contributes at least 5% of the mainstem flow under any condition,pre-or with-project. Tributary flow data will be collected on these major tributaries. Distributed flows and temperatures will be estimated using the techniques developed from the upper river SNTEMP study and from the mainstem and tributary data collection. - ""'" - - - Necessary humidity, 40998 841221 meteorologic data include air temperature,wind and solar radiation.As with the upper river 105 speed, SNTEMP - simulations,the data collected at the NWS station at Talkeetna will be adjusted to represent local condi t ions.A meteorological collect ion station located 1n a representative lower r1ver location might be recommended to verify the appropriateness of using adjusted Talkeetna data to represent lower river conditions. Much of the data required for lower river temperature analysis will be available through the work necessary to complete other tasks (for example,the lower river morphological data compiled by R&M will be useful in defining stream width relationships or in identifying new data collection requirements). Deliverables -1.Tel::hnical Memorandum:Evaluation of Need for Modeling of Lower River Temperature 2.Model validation report. 3. Schedule Report documenting with-project fisheries resource analysis. simulations and associated - Technic.!!l Memorandum Model validation report Final R1aport 40998 841221 October,1984 May,1985 FY86 106 -- TASK 33 ADULT SALMON STREAM LIFE STUDY -MIDDLE REACH SLOUGHS Rationale The results of this task will refine existing stream life estimates and provide more accurate estimates of the numbers of slough spawning salmon for the purpose of identifying the level of mitigation measures that may be required.This task will suppport the settlement process and mitigation planning., Objecti ve Quantify sockeye and chum salmon escapements into sloughs of the middle Susitna River reach above RM 98.6. Description Total sockeye and chum salmon escapements into sloughs above RM 98.6 have been quantified for 1983.The numbers are based on stream life observations and periodic escapement survey counts for each species. An index of slough salmon escapements is available for 1981 and 1982. These are based on peak survey counts and do not quantify total escapements. Individual chum and sockeye salmon will be tagged and monitored every three days for stream life in representative spawning sloughs above RM 98.6.Concurrent slough survey counts of live fish will be conducted weekly from August 1 to October 15.1984.Chum and sockeye salmon escapements wi 11 be quantified for each spawning slough using the mean average stream life of the respective species and the total correspond- ing live fish days as determined from the escapement surveys. 40998 841221 107 De Iiver ab 1e A report will be produced that specifically answers the study objective. - Schedule Draft Final 40998 841221 December 21,1984 February 21,1985 108 - - - ,.... TASK 34 WINTER STUDIES OF RESIDENT AND JUVENILE ANADROMOUS FISHES Rationale Assessment of the importance of overwintering habitat for rearing resident and juvenile anadromous fishes and the response of winter habitats to mainstem discharge will support the development of instream flow requirements and the settlement and hearings processes. Objectives 1.Describe the distribution of rearing chinook and coho salmon by macro-habitat types in areas associated with the mainstem Susitna River. ..,., 2.Describe the distribution and habitats associated with overwinter- in.g rainbow trout in the mainstem lower Susitna River • - 3.Estimate the response of overwintering habitat for rainbow trout an.d chinook salmon at selected sites to hydraulic changes during the winter period (assuming habitat response parallels open channel hydraulics). .... .... ..... Description Data on the distribution of overwintering juvenile salmon and resident species are small when compared to data available for the open water season.Many of the problems in understanding overwintering habitat are caused by very difficult sampling conditions that prevail during the winter months.Sampling techniques are often limi ted to baited gear because of the ice cover and the prevalence of slush ice under the cover.The decreased activity of fish associated with colder ....40998 841221 109 temperatures often lower the effectiveness of this type of samp1 ing eq ui pment.A1 though catch data over a wide variety of habitat s has been accumulated during previous winter periods,the lack of trends and small numbers of fish collected do not provide strong conclusions as to the importance of different types of mainstem habitat.Relatively low catch rates of chinook and coho salmon have occurred at many sites associated with the mainstem that have some thermal influence from ground water sources.The distribution of fish appears to be rather broad but not associated with mainstem flows.This suggests that the near zero degree (centigrade)water does not provide suitable conditions for overwintering,probably because of continual formation of anchor ice and unstable flows as ice processes continue to develop throughout the winter.Groundwater sources in the side sloughs and tributary mouth areas appear to be of major importance but there is limited data to support this statement. Radio telemetry data for burbot and primarily for rainbow tagged in the upper river suggest these species will often be found 1.n areas of higher conductivity and warmer temperatures.This suggests they may seek groundwater sources in the winter.These areas are usually in deeper and faster water than the areas where chinook and coho juveniles are thought to overwinter.Fall movements suggest that essentially all of these species that rear in clear water tributaries enter the mainstem Susitna to overwinter.currently,we have a very small number of data points to support these conclusions. Further studies on distribution of rearing salmon and resident species will be conducted to evaluate the effects of with-project discharges on overwintering habitat.This study will obtain more information on winter utilization of sloughs using temporary beach seine wiers across the mouths of sloughs that do not have mainstem water breaching their upper heads.This data collection effort will be associated with the coded wire tagging program planned for spring,1984. - - - _c """ ,... 40998 841221 110 - - - - \~ Outmigrant trapping proposed for Portage Creek will provide the needed information to assess the outmigration ,of chinook and coho into the mainstem Susitna.From this information and the outmigration observed from the sloughs,the overwintering habitat importance will be inferred. The microhabitat utilized within sloughs and the response of juveniles to habitat discharge changes will be estimated by intensive winter studies on one slough/side channel complex.Juvenile chinook and coho salmon collected in the slough 9 complex of the upper river will be marked with a series of fin clip combinations.These fish will be collected by beach seines,minnow traps and electrofishing equipment. A wier will be installed under the ice near the mouth of the slough to capture fish moving in or out.These fish will also be marked and checked for marks. Discharge wi 11 be monitored throughout the slough during the entire winter period and habitat conditions,including temperature,dissolved oxygen,conductivity,cover,substrate,depth,and water velocity,will be recorded at all collection sites. These data will be used to describe the responses of juvenile salmon to discharge changes and the utilization of micro-habitat within the slough complex. Further information will be obtained on rainbow trout overwintering habitat by use of radio telemetry.Habitat requirements and winter distribution will be established by relocation of radio tagged fish and measure:ment of habitat conditions at the relocation sites. Results of these studies can be used'together with ice modeling ~nvestigations to forecast with-project conditions and assess potential changes in habitat suitability. 40998 841221 _._-----~--~,--'--_. 111 Deliverables A report presenting the results of these studies Schedule Analyzed data Draft Report Final Report 40998 841221 June 30.1985 September 1,1985 November 1,1985 112 ..... - .... - ..- ..... ..... TASK 35 REFINEMENT OF ACCESS CRITERIA Rationale The access and passage criteria are important parameters for accurate derivation of habitat/discharge relationships which will be used for development of composite hydrographs,project optimization and mitigation planning.Further studies to verify or refine the present criteria will strengthen subsequent analytic steps and support the settlement and hearing process. Objective To verify and refine interim criteria developed for the FY84 analysis of aCCE!SS and passage conditions for chum salmon in slough and side c"hannels of the middle river • Description The access and passage criteria developed during FY83 and FY84 were evolutionary steps in the understanding and quantification of conditions needed for access and passage of salmon into slough and side channel spawning areas.This process has produced the present product of an access/passage criteria curve which will be presented in the FY84 report.This curve was produced as a resul t of review of field data and observations collected over the past two field seasons and professional judgement of fishery biologists and the project hydraulic eng~neer.Field data are necessary to refine these access and passage criteria. Side channel and slough sites in the middle river where access and passage problems have been documented will be selected as study sites. 40998 841221 113 Observations of fish passage activity will be made at each site noting whether successful passage,successful passage with difficulty and exposure,or unsuccessful passage occurs.Measurements of length and depth of the access/passage reach at each site will be collected. These data will be used to refine the access/passage criteria curve developed during FY84. Deliverables Refined access/passage criteria curves for chum salmon.Refined estimates of mainstem discharge required for access and passage for all sites where passage and access have been evaluated previously in the middle river. Schedule Refinement of access/passage criteria curves will be available by November 30,1984.Refinement of slough and side channel acce'ss and passage evaluations will be completed by January 31,1985. - - - ~, - 40998 841221 114 ,..., ..... - - ,~, - ..... TASK 36 LOWER RIVER REARING HABITAT INVESTIGATIONS -IFG HYDRAULIC MODELING Rationale Forecasting with-project changes in habitat availability is a major objective of the aquatic studies.Results of this task will support impact assessment,mitigat ion planning ~Lnd the sett lement and hearings processes. Objective To provide calibrated IFG hydraulic models at lower r~ver rearing study sites at which the dominant variables influencing habitat are water depth and velocity.These models wi 11 be used by RJ personnel to quantify changes in rearing habitat as a function of change in discharge. Description Two approaches have been used to quantify the responses of rearing habitat to changes in discharge.The two approaches differ in their applications.The first approach ~s applied to sites where the dominant hydraulic variables of the halbitat are influenced by water quality and/or cover (Task 17).The other is applied to sites where water depth and velocity are the dominant hydraulic variables of the habitat.This task emphasizes the second approach. IFG hydraulic models of water velocity,water depth,substrate and cover will be developed for a maximum of six selected sites at which the dominant hydraulic variables of the habitat are influenced by water depth and velocity.The study sites will be selected on the basis of previous studies on the distribution of juveniles in the Lower River, 40998 841221 115 characteristics of habitats similar to those in the middle river in which juveniles were observed and the representativeness of the study sites of other areas in the Lower River,and results of the FY84 and FY8S Lower River Morphological Assessment,Task 2A.These hydraulic models,which will be developed by ADF&G SuHydro staff with the assistance of a hydraulic engineer,will be meshed with rearing habitat utilization data to relate changes in rearing habitat with changes in discharge (WUA or equivalent). Water depth and velocity,substrate,and cover data will be obtained along selected representative transects under a variety of di scharge conditions.These data will be input to IFG hydraulic models and used to calibrate the model to predict changes in hydraulic conditions as a function of change in discharge.Study site selection will be based on degree of habitat utilization and extent of habitat dewatering expected with project flows based on lower river morphological assessments (R&M, 1984). Deliverables Final products will include calibrated IFG hydraulic models.for use in juvenile anadromous fish studies to estimate the response of rearing habitat to changes in mainstem discharge (Task 14). Schedule Calibrated hydraulic models will be ready for use no later than December 30,1984. - .... - ...... 40998 841221 116 TASK 37 PRELIMINARY MITIGATION STUDIES FOR THE DEVIL CANYON TO TALKEETNA REACH Rationale Identification of sites for and methods of habitat modification to maintain existing salmon runs will be needed to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed mitigations..The successful resolution of the hearings and settlement processes will requ1re that proposed mitigations be shown to have a high probability of success. Objective -1.To identify potential sites for habitat modification in the Devil Canyon to Talkeetna Reach. ...... 2.To evaluate the feasibility of various habitat enhancement techniques. Description The task will consist of f1eld surveys and studies to identify potential mainstem,side channel,and slough areas for habitat modification.Habitat characteristics demonstrated to be important components of presently utilized habitats such as depth,temperature, substrate and presence of upwelling,will be used to develop evaluation criteria. After candidate locations are identified,an analysis will be performed to evaluate the conditions likely to exist under Project operation and identify methods to promote use of these areas by spawning or rearing salmon.Side and upland slough sites exist within the Devil Caynon to -40998 841221 117 ----_._---------.,---.---,---------------------- Talkeetna reach that exhibit some characteristics expected under Project operation.These slough sites will be used as models of Project conditions and examined to evaluate modifications that would promote their use as habitat.Efforts in FY85 will be restricted to physical and/or biological moni toring of habitat condi t ions.Project conditions to be evaluated include wetted areas with improper sub- strate,areas of suitable substrate with insufficient flow and suitable spawning habitat that is inaccessible because of low mainstem water levels. Candidate areas 1n the mainstem and side channels will be surveyed in fall as flows drop to levels that approximate anticipated Project flows.A physical assessment of habitat will be performed to evaluate their potential suitability as habitat under Project conditions.Key parameters include temperature,substrate,depth,velocity and presence or absence of upwelling. wec,H-E and EWT&A will provide input to study design and methodologies.Field data collection and habitat evaluation will be performed by ADF&G SuHydro.The mitigation analysis will be conducted by WCC,in consultation with ADF&G SuHydro. Deliverab1es The results of the FY85 field investigations and habitat analysis will be presented in the ADF&G SuHydro 1984 field season report ser1es. This analysis will be used by wee to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed habitat modifications as effective mitigations and will be included in the Second Interim Mitigation Report described in Task 10. Schedule - - ADF&G-SH FY85 Report.Series Second Interim Mitigation Report Draft 05/15/85 08/31/85 Final 06/30/85 10/31/85 40998 841221 118 - TASK 38 IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES; TRANSMISSION LINE AND ACCESS ROAD Rationale The assessment of impacts associated with construction activities is needed to complete the Project impact assessment.This assessment 1S needed for the hearings and settlement processes and will provide the basis for developing final details of the Project mitigation plan. Objective Refine and quantify the impacts associated with construction of the dams. Description An impact assessment report will be prepared by WCC to address impacts associated with construction activities.Specific areas to be covered include construction of the dams,floodplain gravel mining, construction of the camps and permanent vi llage,diversion tunnel, access roads and transmission lines.The report will refine and quantify the assessment provided in the FERC license application based on current construction planning,to be provided by H-E,and available Project information.Input will be needed from ADF&G-SuHydro and R&M. De Iiverables A construction impact assessment report will be produced. Schedule Construction Impact Assessment Report Draft 02/28/85 Final 04/30/85 40998 841221 119 - - - TASK 39 MITIGATION PLANNING FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Rationale An acceptable mitigation plan is needed to complete the hearings and settlement processes.Elements of the plan will be incorporated as articles of the license.The information will also be used when applying for specific state and federal permits. Objective Develop acceptable mitigations construction activities. Description for aquatic impacts related to Task 37 wi 11 identify aquatic impacts associated with construction related activities.Activities anticipated to produce aquatic impacts include construction of the access roads,transmission 1 ines, floodplain gravel pits,camps,permanent village and other project facilities.The mitigation planning effort will identify appropriate mitigation,such as siting,scheduling and designs,that will avoid or minimize impacts for the construction activities and faci li ties.The mitigation plan will be included in the construction impact assessment report described in Task 38.H-E and ADF&G SuHydro will provide input into and review of the planning effort. Deliverables A detailed construction mitigation plan will be developed. will be organized by activity or facility. The plan ..- 40998 841221 120 Schedule Construction Mitigation Plan 40998 841221 121 Draft 02/28/85 Final 04/30/85 - ..... ..... - ..... - TASK 40 IMPOUNDMENT RESIDENT FISH MITIGATION PLANNING Rationale A mitigation element that compensates :Eor lost resident fish habitat (primarily Arctic grayling habitat)1n the reserviors needs to be developed to support the hearings and settlement processes.The resident fish mitigation plans will be incorporated into the license. Objective To develop an acceptable mitigation that compensates for lost resident fish habitat in the reservoirs. Description Available information on resident fishes 10 the impoundment area will be summarized to'update the assessment in the FERC license application. Mitigation options will be refined to further assess their applicability as compensatory measures.The options considered will be submitted for agency review and policy decision.Emphasis will be placed on those options that appear to have the highest probability of succesS.The evaluation of options will include input and review from H-E and ADF&G-SuHydro. Deliverables A report will be prepared describing the impoundment area resident fish populations,the anticipated loss of habitats and expected consequences to fish populations,and the options considered as compensation.A preferred project mitigation alternative will be presented . 40998 841221 122 Schedule Resident Fish Mitigation Plan 40998 841221 123 Draft 02/28/85 Final 04/30/85 - TASK 41 BASELINE WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY MONITORING AT TSUSENA AND DEADMAN CREEKS Rationale Acquisition of state and federal permits for operation of water supply and wastewater treatment operations are necessary prior to project construction. Objective Develop a plan to obtain baseline water quantity and quality information on Tsusena (water supply)and Deadman Creeks (wastewater treatment effluent)to allow for permit application and coordination with various resource agencies. Description A water monitoring plan will be developed to produce the information necessary to document water quality and quantity parameters in sufficient detail to assist 1n facilities designs and to acquire appropriate permits.The plan wi 11 be based on a thorough review of permit and design information requirements and produce data sufficient to: 1.determine whether the adequate to produce treatment). proposed Tsusena Creek water source is sufficient potable water supply (with 2.produce design criteria for a potable water supply treatment facility using Tsusena Creek water. 40998 841221 124 3.provide estimates of the quantity and quality of waste effluents discharged from the potable water treatment facility. - 4.estimate the waste assimilative capacity of Deadman Creek and the with-project effects on water quality.- 5.produce design criteria for a wastewater treatment facility discharging effluent to Deadman Creek. Deliverable A report summarizing necessary monitoring programs for Tsusena and Deadman Creeks which will outline: 1.monitoring schedules. 2.sampling locations. 3.type of samples collected. 4.quantity of samples collected. 5.cost estimates of monitoring program. Schedule - Draft report Final report 40998 841221 May 1,1985 June 30,1985 125 .... .... ..... .... - TASK 43 GLACIER STUDIES Rationale The glaciated portions of the Susitna River Basin upstream of Gold Creek play a significant role in the hydrology of the area.The drainage area upstream of the Denali and MacLaren gages comprises 19.9 percent of the basin above Gold Creek,yet contributes 39 percent of the average annual flow (License Application p.E-2-l2). Glaciers act as reserV01rs collec.ting snow and ice in the winter and releasing melt water to the stream in the summer.The rate at which glaciers store water,melt and contribute to streamflow depends on the climate.Periodic changes in climate may have significant effects on glacier wasting and,thus,on inflow to the project. Although there is no reliable mechanism for predicting glacier wasting during project life,due to the importance of the glaciated regions to Susitna River streamflow it may be beneficial to conduct a monitoring program.This program would be to determine the current physical glacier charaterist ics and periodi c changes in relation to cl imate • The purpose of developing records of this type is to provide insights into glacier performance and data which would be useful for developing a predictive model for project operation • Objective The objective of this task would be the preparation of a plan for glacial monitoring which would specify how such a program would benefit project operation.A base line monitoring program would be initiated if review of the monitoring program plan was favorable. 40998 841221 126 Description Work would consist of three items: 1.Preparation of a plan for glacier monitoring including an assessment of its usefulness for project operation, 2.Review of the plan,and 3.Confirmation of the base line monitoring program already in place. Deliverables There would be two deliverables: 1.A report on the proposed glacial monitoring program. 2.A report of the data collected during FY85. Schedule A draft monitoring program would be coordinated with the streamflow forecast model feasibility study.A draft glacier monitoring plan will be prepared as part of the model feasibility report due May 1,1985. This plan would be reviewed and finalized by June 30,1985.Glacier moni toring would continue upon favorable review of the plan and data would be reported by July,1985. ""'I - '"'" - 40998 841221 127 -- - ~--------- APPENDIX A - ..... Appendix A DRAFT LOWER RIVER STUDY PLAN ~-..._~~.~----~_._._------------------------- - - - - 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Alaska Power Authority (Power Authority)has proposed construction of a two dam hydroelectric project on the Susitna River.The Susitna Hydroelectric Project is a large and complex undertaking that must comply with several state and federal regulations and processess designed,for the most part,to protect the public interest and safety and insure a proper handling of environmental protection.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)is the primary regulatory agency whose rules and procedures govern the present pre-construction phase of the project.FERC regulations (in part)require that the Power Authority provide detailed descriptions of existing water quality and flows as well as description of biotic components of the riverine aquatic and associated riparian habitats, expected impacts on particular fish resources and measures and/or facilities planned for mitigation of project-induced losses to these resources.On February 28,1983,the Power Authority appl ied for a FERC license to construct and operate the project.The Exhibit E of the license application described expected project-induced changes of water quantity and quality as well as potential effects on fish and their habitats (Alaska Power Authority,1983:Exhibit E,Chapters 2 &3). Changes of water quantity and quality and,therefore,potential impacts are expected to be greatest near the proposed project site with gradual amelioration of the effects further down river.Environmental studies to date have focused primarily on the Middle Susitna River reach (Devil Canyon to Talkeetna)with lesser efforts on the upper rl.ver (headwater to Devil Canyon)and lower river (Talkeetna to Cook Inlet)reaches.Since the acceptance of the license application,resource management agencies have questioned the lack of focus on the lower river.The agencies are concerned that,even though with-project physical changes may be relatively small, there is little quantitative support to justify the conclusions that project-related impacts to the lower river fisheries resources would not be significant.Project-related impacts could be~greater than projected either because the fish and/or their habitats in the lower river are more sensitive 40998 841221 128 to expected physical changes or the fish are much more abundant so relatively small environmental changes could have a larger net effect on fish populations. During the summer months,project-related effects to the lower river could result from reduced discharge from the middle Susitna River,lower water temperatures,reduced turbidity and reduced sediment transport rates. During winter months,somewhat opposite effects would result from increases - in discharge,possibly greater volumes increased rates of sediment transport of ~ce,increased turbidity and over existing conditions.The principal purpose of this pIn ~s to out line necessary studies to evaluate the significance of these effects. The Power Authority developed this study plan to emphasize evaluation and quantification of potential project impacts in the lower river.The plan received considerab Ie input from various resource management agencies and Power Authority contractors and subcontractors.!/ Project operation has less ability to regulate flow and affect water quality in the lower river so it cannot be expected that flow-related impacts can be mitigated through project operation to the same degree as for the middle r~ver.For this reason,studies in the lower river may not require as high a level of resolution as studies conducted in the middle river.However, the level of effort required will depend upon the existing data base and evaluation of potential impacts as they are identified.This study plan provides a step-wise process to provide the Power Authority with data and information necessary to develop reliable descriptions and,to the extent 1/Alaska Department of Fish and Game's SuHydro Study Team,Harza-Ebasco Joint Venture,Arctic Environmental Information and Data Collection Center (AEIDC),R&M Consultants,E.Woody Trihey and Associates (EWT&A) and Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC).This group is generally identified as·the Aquatic Study Team. - - - 40998 841221 129 "I possible,quantification of project-related effects on fish resources of the lower river and formulate appropriate mitigative measures.The remainder of this study plan is separated into the following sections: - 2.0 General Plan Scope and Approach Description of the scope of the study plan and an description of the objectives,scopes and approach studies. overall for the - ...... - ..- 3.0 Lower River Habitat Stratification and Classification Description of habitat stratification and classification of the lower river with a rationale for each. 4.0 Physical Study Components Presentation of information needs and proposed study plans for description of projected physical changes. 5.0 Fish Impact Issues Presentation of information needs and proposed study plans necessary for adequate resolution of impact issues. 6.0 Summary Summarization of the initial physical and biological studies for the lower river that need to be done.The results of these studies will be integrated and evaluated to determine if their results will resolve·impact issues and questions.If so,no further studies may be warranted.If not,more detailed or alternative studies may be warranted. 40998 841221 130 - .- - - 2.0 GENERAL PLAN SCOPE AND APPROACH 2.1 SCOPE This study plan is intended to provide guidance and a general framework to plan and coordinate studies 1.n the lower river.Details of study design, site selection,and methodology are not included.Parties actually performing the studies are responsible for details of study design and methodology.However,review and coordination will be necessary to insure results of various study components are compatible and meet standards necessary for subsequent applications and analyses. 2.2 APPROACH The lower river studies will provide basic data and information necessary to evaluate potential project-related impacts and to plan'appropriate mitigation measures.The general approach will follow the rationale used for middle river studies.The basic rationale utilizes a sequential process to determine potential significant impacts,to estimate the actual magnitude and significance of potential impacts and to plan measures to mitigate for significant adverse impacts.The sequence of steps underlying the basic approach are as follows: -1.Predict the physical changes to aquatic habitat which are attributable to project construction and operation (qualitative and quantitative). 2.Evaluate the anticipated physical changes effects (qualitative and quantitative)these utilization of the aquatic habitat by fish to predi ct potential changes could have on species of interest. 3.Plan and implement studies and analyses to evaluate,quantify and adequately assess the magnitude of each impact. --40998 841221 131 4.Plan a set of measures to mitigate for those impacts anticipated to have significant adverse effects on production of the fish species of interest. - Results from prior studies of the Susitna River System and some time- constraints will alter the sequential nature of this process to some degree. However,the essence and intent will be preserved.The sequence can be followed presently at a qualitative level but efforts to better quantify steps 1 through 3 wi 11 occur in parallel during most of Fiscal Year 1985 (FY85)• Meaningful evaluation of impact issues requires integration of predicted with-project physical characteristics (see Section 4.0)with measures of fish abundance and utilization of the potentially impacted habitats. Existing quantification and descriptions of the distribution and abundance of and habitat utilization by the species of interest are limited for the lower river.Studies will be implemented (see Section 5.0)in FY85 to gather additional information and data on distribution and abundance of fish species and the habitat utilization by the species.Toward the end of FY85 the physical and biological data will be analyzed and integrated for assessing the adequacy of results to resolve impact issues and determine if further resolution and studies are warranted. The length (nearly 100 miles)and morphologic complexity of the lower river, together with the expected amelioration of with-project changes passing downstream,complicate the selection of representative sites and an analytical expansion.A stratified approach will be used to minimize this problem.A lower river morphological assessment is being performed (see Section 3.0)by R &M Consultants (R&M)to provide the basic (macro-habitat) measurements that will be used for extrapolating anticipated effects at specific sites to impacts on the lower r1ver as a whole.R&M,with assistance from AEIDC,has stratified the river into segments and habitat classifications based on river morphology and hydrology.These strata will provide the basis from which study designs and site selections are - - ~, 40998 841221 132 ..- ! r- i i ·f developed.The basic stratification is described 1n detail in Section 3.0. Also described in that section are continuing studies to refine the basic data and to provide support for interpretation of the physical and biological study components described in Sections 4.0 and 5.0 respectively. Several anticipated project-induced physical changes have been identified. These are changes in water discharge,water temperature,ice processes, suspended sediment (turbidity)and bedload transport processes.The expected changes in each physical factor are only qualitative at this time. The major plan objective for physical component studies in FY8S 1S to quantify the expected magnitude of with-project changes for specified river segments (see Section 3.0).The ability to quantify physical factors in the lower river may be limited by a lack of baseline or historic data and the relatively dynamic and unstable nature of instream flow processes.In those cases,the qualitative projections will be re:fined and documented as a part of the activities described in this section • -40998 841221 133 ,-3.0 LOWER RIVER STRATIFICATION AND HABITAT DEFINITION 3.1 Background ..... R & M has conducted a lower river morphological assistance from AEIDC,has stratified the lower segments with common morphological characteristics. are (from R&M,1984): Segment I:RM 98.5 to RM 78 assessment and,with river into contiguous The defined segments -i -' This segment extends from the Chulitna River confluence with the Susitna River downstream to the head of the side-channel complex (see below for differentiation)just upstream of the mouth of Montana Creek. In this Segment,the river is braided,with the main channel meandering through a wide gravel floodplain.Large expanses of gravel bars are exposed at low flows.The channel is constricted to a single channel at the Parks Highway Bridge (RM 83.8).Significant tributaries in this segment include Talkeetna River,Birch Creek,Trapper Creek,Sunshine Creek,Rabideaux Creek,and Whitefish Slough.A total of six.side- channel complexes were identified. Segment II:RM 78 to RM 51 This segment extends from the side-channel complex upstream from Montana Creek to the head of the Delta Islands where the river splits into two main channels.The morphology in this reach is complex,with a total of nine side-channel complexes along the edge of the river,and two side-channel complexes in large island groups in mid-channel. Significant tributaries in this segment include Montana Creek,Caswell Creek,Goose Creek,Sheep Creek,and the Kashwitna River. 40998 841221 134 Segment III:RM 51 to RM 42.5 This segment encompasses the Delta Islands reach where two main channels exist,one on the east and one on the west.A total of five side-channel complexes exist in this segment,with a major complex between the two main channels.The segment ends where the two main channels rejoin.Significant tributaries in this segment include Little Willow Creek and Willow Creek. Segment IV:RM 42.5 to RM 28.5 This segment extends from the lower end of the Delta Island to the confluence with the Yentna River.The reach is characterized by a braided pattern,with seven side-channel complexes.The Deshka River enters the upper end of this reach.Kroto Slough branches off from this segment,and extends to the Yentna River. Segment V:RM 28.5 to RM 0 This segment extends from the Yentna River confluence to the mouth of the Susitna River in Cook Inlet.The segment is primarily a split- channel configuration down to RM 19,the head of Alexander Slough.The Susitna River has 2 channels from RM 19 to Cook Inlet,with the east side channels conveying the largest proportion of the river water.The west channel is primarily an overflow channel and the upper section dewaters at low flow.The lower portion of the west channel is fed by Alexander Creek.Other tributaries entering this segment include Anderson Creek and Fish Creek. These river segments will provide the basic stratification for both physical and biological components of the study plans. Within the r1ver segements,four major habitat categories were defined based on morphological characteristics (from R&M,1984): ~- ....", - - - 40998 841221 135 - - - 1.Mainstem Channel The mainstem channel is that port ion of the river floodplain between the vegetated boundaries,including wide gravel floodplains and isolated vegetated islands in mid-channel.Two subcategories exist: a)Mainstem river,consisting of the thalweg channel and major subchannels. b)Alluvial island complexes,which are areas of broad gravel islands with numerous subchannels which dewater as flow decreases. 2.Side-Channel Complex The side-channel complexes are groups of side-channels flowing through vegetated islands.These are normally along the edge of the mainstem river,but may also include areas in the middle of the river,such as the Delta Islands.Two subcategories exist: a)Lateral side-channel,which is the outside channel of the-floodplain.This channelcomplex,closest to the edge of the collects any groundwater seepage or tributary flow from the -~river banks,so usually wi 11 not completely dewater,even when its upstream berm is not breached. b)Medial side-channels are the overflow side-channels between -the mainstem and the lateral side-channel.These side- .... ....40998 841221 channels generally dewater as mainstem flow decreases.Flow may be maintained in some of these medial side-channels from groundwater sourceS • 136 3.Sloughs Sloughs are simple,regular channels which are generally overtopped only at high flows.They are differentiated from side-channel complexes by the fact that sloughs are isolated channels,not fed by a series of medial side-channels. 4.Tributary Mouths Tributary mouths include the area between the downstream extent of a tributary plume and the upstream effect of backwater.The area is variable,and depends both on the tributary discharge and the mainstem discharge.The length of the tributary plume may sharply increase when the tributary flows into a side-channel in which the upper end is no longer breached. The combination of river segment stratification and habitat categorization wi 11 be used by'all study participants to insure·that the van.ous study designs and eventual results are both complimentary and compatible.Also, study participants will coordinate in a joint process to establish a common set of priority study sites. 3.2 Information and Study Needs With the completion of the stratification and habitat classification into the respective categories,the next step will be to provide more detailed information on the responses of specific habitat surface areas to mainstem di scharge.In order to define these responses,information describing the extent of each habitat type through a range of mainstem discharges is needed.The system-wide responses will be based on wetted-surface areas of the various habitat types and extrapolation of specific relationships at representative site~.This information will be used as an important component of predictions of potential physical and biological impacts for the lower river as well as in the extrapolation to the river as a whole. - - -. - - 40998 841221 137 - - -- - 3.3 Study Plans The morphological assessment will quantify the relationships between mainstem,side-channel complex,and tributary mouth habitat categories and how they respond to mainstem discharges.These relationships will be used to estimate the magnitude and location of changes in habitat area resulting from with-project flows.The results of this analysis can be combined with information on habitat utilization and a more detailed and expanded habitat mapping to assess project-related impacts on the species of interest and their habitats for the entire lower river reach.Variations in mainstem and side-channel complex habitats will be expressed as charges in wetted surface areas of each habitat type.Variations in tributary mouth habitats will be expressed as changes in the linear length of each tributary mouth habitat. Measurements will be taken from four sets of aerial photographs representing mainstem flows (measured at Sunshine Station)of 13,600 cubic feet per second (cfs),22,000 cfs,37,500 cfs,and 56,500 cfs which were obtained 1n 1983 and from two sets of aerial photographs which will be obtained at mainstem discharges'of 75,000 cfs and 90,000 (:fs during 1984. Resu1 ts of the morphological assessment wi 11 provide an index of habi tat sensitivity to discharge,by river segment,that can be used to establish and prioritize study sites.Typical study sites will be chosen which will represent each habitat classification in each river segment.This will be a general guideline for initial site selection which can then be altered or reinforced based on well described .judgements and priorities.However, prioritization should not sacrifice the basic guideline of choosing sites representative of each habitat in each river segment. The above studies are expected to be completed during early FY85. 3.4 Tables Related to this Component The following 1985 Aquatic Program Tasks,described previously,are related to completing this component of the study: 40998 841221 138 a)Task 14 :Lower River resident and juvenile anadromous fish studies.-b)Task 17:Streamflow and flood frequency studies. c)Task 21:Lower River morphological assessment. d)Task 23:Lower River ~ce studies. e)Task 28 :Lower River tributary access analysis. £)Task 36:Lower River rearing habitat investigaitons IFG hydraulic modeling. - - 40998 841221 139 4.0 PHYSICAL STUDY COMPONENTS Identification and assessment of impacts on fish resources 1n the lower river require that project-related changes in the physical conditions of the lower river be established.This requires an assessment of current conditions and a prediction of conditions during initial reservoir filling and project operation.Several anticipated project-induced physical changes have been identified.These are changes in water discharge,water temperature,ice processes,suspended sediment (turbidi ty)and bedload transport processes.The expected changes in each physical factor are only qualitative at this time.The major plan objective for physical component studies in FY85 is to quantify the expected magnitude of with-project changes for specified river segments (see Section 3.0).The ability to quantify physical factors in the lower river may be limited by a lack of baseline or historic data and the relatively dynamic and unstable nature of instream flow processes.In those cases,the qualitative projections will be refined and documented as a part of the activities described in this section. 4.1 DISCHARGE 4.1.1 Background Proposed operation of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project will be based on a power production scenar10 that provides beneficial economics while maintaining sufficient discharge to provide for downstream aquatic resources (Alaska Power Authority 1983).Project reservoirs will be drawn down during the peak energy-demand months of winter and filled during the summer months. The overall effects of this operation is that downstream flows will be greater than natural conditions in the wi.nter and less than natural conditions in the summer (Table 4.1). The magnitudes of change from natural downstream from the Project (Table 4.1). flows clearly decrease further This is due to the influence of .- 40998 841221 140 tributaries and reduced influence of the Project in regulating r1ver di scharges.However,efforts to statistically define river reaches where with-project flows do not differ significantly from natural conditions have been unsuccessful.Consequent ly,the area where predicted project impacts occur cannot be limited based on analysis of existing streamflow data and it will be necessary to include the entire lower river for assessing discharge- related impacts (AEIDC 1983). 4.1.2 Information and Study Needs Expected with-project flow changes at USGS gage stations in the lower r1ver have been adequately forecast on a monthly basis for the case C flow scenario presented 1n the license application.Shorter term (weekly and and possibly daily)forecasts are needed as well as representative forecasts for other project operation scenarios.These will enable comparison of effects of other regimes on aquatic resources.In order to evaluate the effects of alternative flow regimes on aquatic resources,comparison of streamflow duration plots with rating curves developed for various locations along the lower r1ver reach and responses of surface areas 1n various habitat types 1S a necessary step in evaluating potential effects in the lower river. There is a need to provide information on flood duration,flood flows,and flow frequency for USe in evaluating potential project impacts on aquatic habitat.Such information is also needed to better understand how changes in flow affects sediment transport capability in the lower river and its interactions with aggradation,degradation and potential changes to aquatic habitat. In addition,the magnitude and duration of short term high flow events (floods)can influence timing and relative success of adul t migration, spawning habitat access and juvenile distribution.Hence,flood frequency curves,given alternative operations regimes will be developed for the lower river. "'""' 40998 841221 141 -- Table 4.1 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PREDICTED AVERAGE MONTHLY DOWNSTREAM FLOWS AND PERCENT CHANGE AT SUNSHINE (RM 87)AND SUSITNA STATION (RM 26)FOR THE TWO DAM SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SCENARIO (FROM AEIDC 1983a) Sunshine Susitna Station-With-With- Natural Project Percent Natural Project Percent Month (cfs)(cfs)Change (cfs)(cfs)Change October 14 t 287 16 t 271 +14 31,427 33,411 +6 November 6,139 13,196 +115 13,500 20,558 +52 December 4,318 13,7731 +219 8,517 17 ,973 +111 January 3,614 12,722 +252 8,030 17,137 +113- February 3,045 11,969 +293 7,148 16,072 +125 March 2,706 10,856 +301 6,408 14,558 +127 ,~April 3,271 9,993 +206 7,231 13,953 +93 May 28,021 23,381 -17 61,646 57,006 -8 June 64,597 46,581 -28 124,614 106,597 -15 July 64,953 48,834 -25 134,549 118,431 -12 r -8IAugust57,262 47,630 -17 113,935 104,314 September 32,104 29,258 -9 67,652 64 t 806 -4 ~ ", 40998 142-841221 4.1.3 Tasks Related to this Component The following FY85 Aquatic Program tasks,described previously in detail, are related to completing this component of the study: a)Task 5:Economic and environmental comparisons process. b)Task 6:Recommended flow regimes report. c)Task 17:Streamflow and flood frequency studies. d)Task 19 :Hydro-meteorological physical data collection e)Task 21:Lower River morphological assessment. 4.2 WATER TEMPERATURE 4.2.1 Background The temperature reg1me of the Susitna River downstream of the proposed project is expected to change during both filling and operation.Predicting downstream temperature regimes and relating these predictions to temperature preferences and tolerances of aquatic resources is an important component in evaluating impacts 1n the lower r1ver (further discussion of biological effects of temperature changes are provided in Section 5.0) In the FERC license application,predictions of downstream temperatures were made using the HEATSIM instream temperature model.Input data to this model includes simulated reserV01r temperatures (using the DYRESM model), reservoir operations,water balance data,and historical temperature data. Results of these simulations are discussed in Chapter 2 of the FERC license application.The AEIDC has further evaluated downsteam temperatures using the SNTEMP instream temperature model. Based upon review of simulations of both AEIDC (1983 b)and Acres American, Inc.(Alaska Power Authority,1983)the following statements can be made regarding with-project temperatures in the lower river: - - - - 40998 841221 143 """ 1.During the second year of filling,the temperature regime during June to August in the reach downstream of Talkeetna is predicted to be 1°C (or less)lower than the~natural regime,regardless of hydrologic and meteorologic conditions in whatever year the filling occurs. 2.During operations,there wi 11 be observable temperature changes downstream of Talkeetna.The extent and magnitude of these changes cannot be predicted at present.Expected changes include: a.Lower summer temperatures because of the reduced mainstem flow and a resultant proportional increase in contribution by the colder Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers. ""'"! b.During early fall,downstream temperatures would remain above DoC for some length of the river downstream of Talkeetna and for an undetermined perioq of time (depending on meteorologic and hydrologic conditions). .... I c.In late fall and winter,the river water temperature 1S anticipated to be DoC by the time it reaches Talkeetna. d.Between Talkeetna and the Sunshine gaging station,June through August water tempertures will be reduced and those in September increased as compared to natural conditions (two dam scenario)(Table 4.2). 4.2.2 Information and Study Needs There is a need to complete the assessment of potential temperature changes that may occur 1n the lower r1ver as a result of the project.This information will be coupled with biologic:al studies to determine if potential effects on aquatic organisms are significant in the lower river • 40998 841221 144 In order to evaluate potential temperature effects downstream of Talkeetna, completion of the analysis of temperature effects from the dam(s)to Talkeetna is needed.Application of the SNTEMP model to date has extended to the Sunshine Station.Depending upon the results of the temperature simulations currently being completed,a determination will be made of the necessity to extend the model simulation further downstream.In anticipation of possible extrusion of the modelled reach,temperature calibration data including stream width measurements will be collected within the representative segments 1n the lower r1ver downstream from Sunshine. 4.2.3 Tasks Related to this Component The following FY85 Aquatic Program tasks,described in detail previously, are related to completion of this study component: Instream Temperatura)Task 4: b)Task 14: c)Task l6B: d)Task 19: e)Task 23: f)Task 32: Instream Flow Relationships Study: and Ice report. Lower River resident and juvenile anadromous fish studies. Outmigrant studies of the lower river. Hydro-meteorological physical data collection. Lower r1ver ice studies. Lower river stream temperature analysis. 4.3 SUSPENDED SEDIMENT (TURBIDITY) 4.3.1 Background Sediment particles that are transported in a stream while being held in suspension by the turbulent components of the water are classified as suspended sediments.Within the Susitna,glacial outwash contributes mostly fine sediment «5 microns in diameter).Analyses of suspended sediment and turbidity in the Susitna River has been conducted by R&M (l982c,see page 40998 841221 145 .- I I E-2-200 of the license application)and the USGS (unpubl.),while periodic measurements of turbidity at specific habitat locations in the lower river have been obtained by ADF&G as part of their Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow Study program (e.g.,Figures E.5.7 to E.5.34,ADF&G [AH]1981,Chapter 2 of the FERC License Application [po E-2-28 to E-2-30],and Table 4-D-45 ADF&G [AH]1983).These measurements indicate that under natural conditions,summer turbidities are high (up to 1,056 NTU or 1,620 mg/l.as measured at Sunshine by t~e USGS);and winter turbidities are low (e.g.,0-2 mg/l in March as measured at Sunshine). Most suspended sediment in the lower r1ver 1S derived from the three major tributaries,especially the Chul itna River.Downstream of the confluence, the Yentna River,also a glacial river,is the major additional source of sediment.Although the glacier-fed rivers are the major sediment source, some bank erosion and resuspension of deposited sediment occurs.Because of the di lution of water by tributaries and sedimentation of some suspended sediments due to the low gradient of the streambed,turbidities and suspended sediment concentrations may decrease between Sunshine and Susitna stations (Figures E-2-78 and E-2-81 in the license application). During filling and operation of the project,the reservoirs will act as sediment traps that will decrease the overall amount of suspended sediment moving downstream.On the other hand,it is possible that,during filling some sl umping of the reservoir margins may occur which could cause some increase in suspended sediment and turbidity transported downstream.A significant decrease in turbidity may enhance light penetration (thus increasing biological production)but eliminate the use of turbid water as cover by salmonid juveniles rearing in the river.A modeling study (on Watana Reservoir)was conducted by Peratrovich,Nottingham,and Drage (1982) to predict downstream turbidities in the middle river.The study predicted that with-project turbidities in the middle river would range from 20-50 NTU in the summer and 10-20 NTU in the winter,and that the reservoir would retain about 80 percent of the natural sediment load (see Figure E.2.80 in .....40998 841221 146 Table 4.2 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT MONTHLY TEMPERTURES (QC)AT THE CONFLUENCE WITH CHULITNA RIVER (RM 98) AND SUNSHINE (RM 84)IN JUNE-SEPTEMBER FOR SEVERAL PROJECT STAGES* - - 40998 841221 147 - - the license application).The relative change in suspended sediment/ turbidity lE!vels downstream from the confluence of the Chulitna,Talkeetna, and Susitna rivers has been estimated using a mass balance relationship. The license application (Chapter 2)predicted that at a flow of 12,000 cfs, the suspend€~d sediment downstream from the confluence would be decreased by 3 percent in summer,whereas at a filling flow of 6,000 cfs.the suspended sediment concentration could increase by approximately 8 percent.Decreases in the suspended sediment concentrations and turbidity of this level 1n summer will not likely be of significance to the aquatic resources in the lower r1ver.For turbidity decreases to be significant to benthic production or to decrease cover aViailable for rearing fish.turbidity must be in the lower end of the 20-50 NTU range (AEIDC 1983b).As a resul t of the high suspended sediment load of the Chulitna River (twice the Susitna above the confluence).decreases below 50 NTU will not occur. During winter,suspended sediment concentrations have not yet been predicted quantitatively.Because the suspended sediment concentration of water released from the reservoir will be increased over natural conditions, concentrations in the lower r1ver will also be elevated.Although the inflow of tributaries below the confluence will dilute the suspended sediments,concentrations will still be higher than under natural conditions.Juvenile and resident salmonids utilize r1ver1ne habitats during the winter.Therefore,unnaturally high suspended sediment levels at this time may affect fish behavior and adversely affect fish populations. 4.3.2 Information and Study Needs A consolidation of existing information and analysis on turbidity 1S necessary to determine if any potential impacts might occur in the lower r1ver.Results of additional studies to refine suspended sediment and .turbidi ty r€~lationships in the reservoir and middle reach of the Susitna River are also necessary to predict effects to the lower river.This refinement will be afforded through additional characterization of suspended seidiment and turbidity 1n the natural system and incorporation of a suspended sediment/turbidity subroutine to the DYRESM temperature model. ,..,. 40998 841221 148 4.3.3 Tasks Related to this Component The following FY85 Aquatic Program tasks,described 1.n detail previously, are related to the completion of this study component: a)Task 4: Report. b)Task 12 : c)Task 17 : d)Task 18 : Instream Flow Relationships Studies: Middle River mainstem habitat analysis. Streamflow and flood frequency studies. Suspended sediment and turbidity studies. Water Quality 4.4 BEDLOAD SEDIMENT 4.4.1 Background In addition to the sediment that is suspended in the r1.ver,there is also considerable bedload sediment discharge.Bedload is coarse sediment (usually gravel,but in some cases sand)that is transported on or near the Chulitna River 1.S characterized by a considerable bed material movement It has been estimated that the Chulitna River contributes approximately 15 times the bedload volume of the Susitna River near the confluence (page E-2- streambed.Because the Chulitna River basin is heavi ly gl aciated,the - 26,Chapter 2,license application).Measurements of natural bedload sediment discharge for the Susitna River basin are available from the USGS (unpubl.)and R&M (1982c),(page E-2-200 1.n the license application), although data are only available for the summer months (June-September)in 1981 and 1982.At Sunshine in 1982,bedload discharge in the summer ranged from approximately 1,000 ton/day to 13,600 ton/day (USGS unpubl).However, the sum of the natural bedloads measured in the Susitna,Chulitna,and Talkeetna rivers is two to five times larger than the total measured at Sunshine.This indicates that under natural conditions excess material is deposited somewhere between the measuring stations on the Chulitna,Susitna and Talkeetna Rivers and the Sunshine Station. 40998 841221 149 - Project-related changes 1n the flow reg1me (i .e.,decreased flow 1n the summer and increased flow in the winter compared to natural conditions)and the reduced amount of sediment transported from upstream of the project will affect the amount of bedload material movement.Sediments wi 11 be deposited if the supply exceeds the transport capacity of the stream (a function of sediment load and discharge)and picked up if the reverse situation develops.Deposition of sediment (i.e.,oversupply of sediment) will cause the channel to r1se and widen (aggradation),whereas an under supply resul ts in the removal of sediment which leads to a channel shape that 1S narrower and deeper (degradation).This process 1S complicated by affects to bedload transport capacity resulting in changes to discharge rl~glmes ,particularly amelioration of peak flow events.The deposition 1.e.transport of bedload in conjunction with changes 1n i"""stramflow will probably alter the shape/discharge rela tionshi psn~glmes within the river channel.Since the surface area of backwater areas are influenced by stage,available fish habitat and tributary access in the vicinity of the three river confluence could be changed.At this time only a qualitative evaluation of bedload sediment is possible. ....During summer,decreases in flow and the trapping effect of the reserV01rs wi 11 resul t in less bedload material movement in the Susinta upstream of Talkeetna;thus,below the confluence of the Talkeetna,Chulitna,and Susitna,the total amount of bed material being moved will be less than at present.It is possible that the decrease in flow will cause the Chulitna and Talkeenta to deposit some of their bed material at the three rivers confluence and could result 1n increased aggradation of the channel in this area even though the total amount of sediments·transported into this reach will be reduced.Below the three rivers confluence,less bed material will move beCaUSE!of the decreased di scharges.The combination of decreased - .... flow,lower suspended sediment di scharge,and lower bedload di scharge may resul t in lE!sS streambed scour downstream which might cause some areas to become more favorable areas for fish spawning. 40998 841221 150 In the winter,flows will be increased.This may result in an increase in the amount of bedload discharge over natural winter levels.As the glaciers do not discharge sediment during this period,material moved by the rivers will be existing bed material (such as from the three rivers confluence area).Channel degradation during winter in the three rivers conflunce area may conteract the increased aggradation that may occur during the summer. 4.4.2 Information and Study Needs There is a need to refine existing information on sediment transport and how it affects aquatic habitats,particularly in the aggradation/degradation - """ process.This refinement is very important in the mainstem near mouths of major tributaries and sloughs.In order to resolve these questions,a two- dimensional sediment transport model will be developed for the confluence reach.Results of this model will be used to evaluate potential effects of the project on fish habitats in the confluence area. 4.4.3 Tasks Related to this Component The following FY85 Aquatic Program tasks,described in detail previously, are related to the completion of this study component: - - a)Task 17: b)Task 18 : c)Task 19: d)Task 24: e)Task 28: 4.5 ICE PROCESSES 4.5.1 Background Streamflow and flood frequency studies. Suspended sediment-turbidity studies. Hydro-meteorological physical data collection. Lower river aggradation studies. Lower r~ver tributary access studies. - Ice processes dominate the Susitna River and its hydraulic features for a major part (7-8 months)of the year.The presence of river ice and the - 40998 841221 151 - .... .... - dynamics of its formation and breakup significantly influence r1ver stage, water temperature,and channel morphology.Many features of flow in the river are affected by the ice and are variables that affect fish habitat. (e.g.,depth and velocity). Natural 1ce processes in the Susitna River have been qualitatively evaluated (Le.,observation)by R&M (1981,1982a,1982b,1982c,1983,Steve Bredthauer Personal Communication)and Schoch (1983).These studies and studies in progress have led to a partial understanding of natural ice processes (i .e.,formation,ice cover,breakup),a description of which 1S provided in Chapter 2 of the License Application (p.E-2-22 to E-2-25).In the lower river,ice cover is initiated when an ice bridge forms in a constricted bend of the river near RM 10.Heavy slush or frasil ice from the upper Susitna,Chulitna and Talkeetna basins,where subfreezing temperatures first occur in the fall,is transported downstream and backs up behind the ice bridge.This results in ice cover progression downstream • Depending upon the volume of ice contributed and the ice temperatures in the area,the rate of ice cover progression upstream will vary. Ice processes result primarily from an interaction of temperature,discharge and r1ver c:hannel morphology.Hence,project-related changes in water temperature and discharge will cause changes in the natural ice process. Changes in the ice processes may in turn affect fish habitats.For the middle river,a quantiative model of with-project 1ce processes was developed by the Power Authority (p.E-2-l24 to E-2-l27 of the License Application)to predi ct possible alterations induced by the Proj ect.The instream ice model,ICESIM,was used in conjunction with the reservoir and instream temperature models (DYRESM and HEATSIM)to make these predictions. Due to a hick of sufficient data to calibrate the model accurately,the modelling effect yielded only qualitative results.The basis conclusions of the ICESIM model are that,with the project,frazil ice from the upper Susitna b<:tsin will be blocked by the dams,with the result that a smaller volume of frazil ice will be available to form the ice cover on the Lower Susitna.Frazil ice formation will occur below the dams.However,the .- i 40998 841221 152 reduced volume of frazil ice will result in 1ce cover progression rates to be reduced and ice cover wi 11 progress up the middle Susitna Basin at a later time than under natural conditions. Under natural conditions,1ce formation causes increases in r1ver stage immediately upstream of the ice front.A result is that side channels and sloughs may e overtopped at mainstem discharges considerably less than those required for overtopping under open-water conditions.Overtopping of sloughs wi 11 cause cold,mainstem water to be conveyed through spawning (incubation)areas and overwintering habitats.Also,large expanses of gloodplain may be inundated with river water and masses of ice.This does occur under existing conditions but may b.e exacerbated under with-project conditions due to the higher discharge regime and associated higher water surface elevations. High r1ver stages due to the formation of the ice cover are temporary and will recede after the ice front progresses upstream of a given location. The higher than natural discharges 1n the winter resulting from project operation may increase staging and could affect the availability of winter fish habitat. 4.5.2 Information and Study Need There is a need to refine the current understanding of ice-processes in the lower river and assess how they affect aquatic habitat.This includes further observation and measurements of 1ce processes under natural condi tions.Additionally,completion of the quantification of 1ce cover formation processes in the middle river 1S needed such that some extrapolation to the lowe r1ver reach can be achieved. 4.5.3 Tasks Related to this Component The following FY85 Aquatic Program tasks are related to the completion of this component: - - - - - 40998 841221 153 - a)Task 4:Instream Flow Relationships Studies -Instream Temperature and Ice Report b)Task 17 :Streamflow and Flood Frequency Studies c)Task 19:Hydro-meteorological physical data collection d)Task 23:Lower r1ver ice study e)Task 24:Lower r1ver aggradation f''''f)Task 32:Lower Susitna stream temperature analy~is .... .... ..- - - .... I .... 40998 841221 154 ..... ..... 5.0 AQUATIC STUDY COMPONENTS The primary focus of the initial aquatic studies conducted in the lower river will be on salmon,primarily due to their commercial and recreational importance.This does not preclude the potential need to study other species in the future if warranted by results of the initial studies • Through discussions with the Aquatic Study Team (see footnote on page 2)and review of agency comments on the license application,the following were identified 1.n as potentially significant impact 1.ssues concerning these species: ....1.Change in access conditions for adult salmon to spawning habitat 2.Changes in availability of adult spawning habitat .....3 •Changes in availability of suitable rearing and overwintering habitat for juvenile salmon and resident fish. ..... 4.Altered juvenile outmigration patterns. 5.Changes 1.n the availability and configuration of salmon holding and milling areas at tributary mouths. The aquatic study plan will follow a step-wise approach to examining the impact issues.For example,one of the first steps will be to determine if any significant spawning occurs in the lower river.If not,no additional studies on egg incubation or emergence are warranted.However,if significant numbers are found,results from the physical studies (Section 4.0)would be used to determine if potential impacts may occur at spawning/incubation sites.If so,additional studies may be needed. 40998 841221 155 5.1 ACCESS TO SPAWNING GROUNDS 5.1.1 Background The ADF&G has examined potential mainstem and side-channel spawning sites iri the lower river using electroshockers and drift gill nets.Very little spawning was observed.In 1981,S1.X locations were found in the mainstem where chum salmon were spawning (ADF&G 1981a [AA]).In 1982,811 sites were surveyed between RM 7.0 and RM 98.5 and no spawning salmon were found (ADF&G 1983a Appendix 2-F [AA]).Turbid water in the lower river prevent s vi sual observation of spawning;thus,it is possible that more spawning may occur than was detectable with electrofishing gear. Between Talkeetna and Cook Inlet there are eight major and numerous smaller tributaries that are utilized by adult salmon to varY1.ng degrees. Escapement indices for chinook salmon have been conducted 1.n most of the tributaries for up to 10 years (see Table 5-1).As part of the earlier Susitna Project studies,some surveys for spawning by pink,chum,coho,and sockeye have been conducted in lower river tributaries between Sunshine and Talkeetna. In addition to receiving the bulk of the salmon spawn1.ng 1.n the lower river, tributaries in the lower river also provide spawn1.ng habitat for Arctic grayling and rainbow trout.Studies by the ADF&G (I 981,1983AA)suggest resident fish migrate into tributaries to spawn and feed after overwintering in mainstem,sloughs,or side-channel habitats.Dolly Varden apparently enter tributaries to spawn in the fall whereas most of the other species spawn in the spring. Other than tributaries,tributary mouth habitats and adjacent sloughs may receive the remainder of the escapement of anadromous and resident fish. Also,migrating salmon will mill or rest in tributary mouth habitats during their upstream migration.Sloughs without tributaries might provide spawning habitat,but there has been no intensive evaluation of the magnitude of slough spawning in the lower river. - - 40998 841221 156 Table 5-1 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CHINOOK SALMON ESCAPEMENT COUNTS IN THE LOWER SUSITNA RIVER BASIN STREAMS FROM 1975 TO 1982al Year Stream 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Alexander Cr,eek 5,412 9,246 5,854 6,215 bl bl 2,546 Deshka River 21,693 39,642 24,639 27,385 bl bl 16,000.y Willow Creek 1,660 1,065 1,661 1,086 bl 1,357 592el ~ Little willo'io1 Creek 833 598 436 324dl bl 459 216el Kashwitna River ~(North Fork)203 336 362 457 bl 557 156el Sheep Creek 455 630 1,209 778 bl 1,013 527el Goose Creek 160 133 283 cl bl 262 140el ~ Montana Creek 1,445 1,443 881 1,094~1 bl 814 887el Prairie Creek 6,513 5,790 5,154 bl bl 1,900 3,844 F""\Clear Creek 1,237 769 997 864d/bl bl 982 Chulitna Rivler (East Fork)112 168 59 bl bl bl 11gel.... Chulitna Riv,er (MF)1,870 1,782 900 bl bl bl 644el Chulitna Riv,er 124 229 62 bl bl bl 100el-Honolulu Cre,ek 24 36 13 37 bl bl 27el Beyers Creek 53 69 bl 28 bl bl 7el .....Troublesome Greek 92 95 bl bl bl bl 36el I Bunco Creek 112 136 bl 58 bl bl 198 ....Peters Creek 2,280 4,102 1,335 bl bl bl bl Lake Creek 3,735 7,391 8,931 4,196 bl bl 3,577 Ta1achulitna River 1,319 1,856 1,375 1,648 bl 2,129 3,101 I Canyon Creek 44 135 cl cl cl 84 c-I .Quartz Creek cl 8 cl cl cl 8 c-I Red Creek cl 1,511 385 cl cl 749 c al 1976-1980 C0unts (ADF&G/Kubik,S.W.),1981 and 1982 from ADF&G Susitna-Hydro (1981,1983). bl No total count due to high turbid water. cl None counted. dl Poor counting conditions. el Counts conducted after peak spawning. "II Estimated peak spawning count (ADF&G/Delaney,K). 40998 841221 157 Specific studies of access into lower river tributaries or sloughs have not been conducted.However,R&M (1982b -hydraulic studies)studied perching at the mouths of tributaries wi thin the middle river (Talkeetna to Devi 1 Canyon)and concluded that flows in most tributaries would be sufficient to downcut through the tributary deltas to establish channels at new gradients. using this information and other data collected by ADF&G and R&M,Trihey (1983)conducted an incremental analysis of access into two tributaries in the middle r1ver:Portage Creek and Indian River.He concluded that access into these tributaries would not be a problem at Gold Creek flows as low as 8,000 cfs because downcuttingby the tributaries will establish new entrance conditions that allow access to spawning areas. 5.1.2 Information and Study Needs Because of the large number of spawners that utilize the lower river tributaries,it 1S important that access be assessed in the lower river. Results of access studies conducted 1n the middle r1ver cannot be extrapolated to the lower river because of differences 1n channel morphology and differences in the response of stage to flow.Due to the lack of information on salmon utilization of all riverine habitat types (see Section 3.0 for description of habitat types)and limited data on access,the following studies are needed: - - "'"' 1.Survey of riverine habitat types and tributaries to determine utilization by salmon (i.e.,timing,abundance,and species composition). - 2.Evaluation of salmon access vs mainstem flow for selected tributaries,side-channels,and sloughs in the lower river. 5.1.3 Tasks Related to this Components The following FY85 Aquatic Program tasks are related to completion of this component: 40998 841221 158 a)Task l3B:Adult salmon-lower river spawnig surveys. b)Task l5A:Lower river,main channel salmon escapement monitoring. c)Task 17:Streamflow and flood frequency studies. d)Task 21:Lower river mosphological assessment. e)Task 28:Lower river tributary access analysis. 5.2 CHANGES IN AVAILABILITY OF SPAWNING HABITAT 5.2.1 Background The extent of spawning by adult salmon in side-channel and mainstem habitats .....were evaluated in 1981 and 1982 by the ADF&G (1981,1983-AA). salmon were found in only 6 side-channel or mainstem sites in 1981. Spawning :~ Some data 011 salmon spawning habitats 1.n the lower river are available in ADF&G Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow Reports.These data include depths, velocities,substrates,and temperatures at specific spawning sites (see Table 5-2 for the location of this data). 40998 841221 159 40998 841221 Table 5-2 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN ADF&G REPORTS ON HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS IN THE LOWER RIVER 160 .... .- .- 5.2.2 Information and Study Needs Although few spawning salmon have been observed in the lower river it 1S still necessary to examine a few habitats and time periods that were not previously l~xamined in detail,to determine definitively if significant spawning occurs in this reach.If spawner surveys demonstrate a significant number of spawners in riverine habitats,then it will be necessary to examine the results of the physical studies to determine if project flows will potentially affect these habitats.Study needs at this level of investigation include: .- Survey of riverine spawning salmon composition). habitat (i.e., types to determine timing,abundance, utili:z;ation by and spec1es 2.Evaluation of the effects of project flows on the availability of habitat suitable for spawning salmon. Additional,:more detailed studies might be implemented.depending on results of the first step.These may include studies on other life phases that could be affected such as egg incubation and emergence. 5.2.3 Tasks Related to this Component The following FY85 Aquatic Program tasks,described 10 detail previously, are related to the completion of this component: a) b) 40998 841221 Task l3B: Task l5A: Adult salmon-lower river spawning survey. Lower river-main channel salmon escapement monitoring. 161 5.3 CHANGES IN AVAILABILITY OF SUITABLE REARING AND OVERWINTERING HABITAT 5.3.1 Background Juvenile anadromous and resident fish rear 1.n Susitna riverine habitats throughout the year.Information on the distribution and abundance and S1.ze of these fish in lower river habitats has been collected by ADF&G in 1981 and 1982 (ADF&G 1981c,ADF&G 1983b -RJ).A variety of sampling gears were utilized (e.g.,electroshocking,seines,trot lines,gillnets,minnow traps) to capture fish.Samples were obtained in both summer and winter.In the lower river semi-monthly samples were taken in both years from the vicinity of five designated fish habitat (DFH)sites:Rabideux Creek,Whitefish Slough,Birch Creek and Slough,Sunshine Creek and Side-Channel and Goose Creek and Side-Channel (see Appendix A,ADF&G 1982 (RJ)and Appendix B ADF&G 1981c (RJ)for catch data).Summary tables are also available in each report (for example ADF&G 1981 -Table E.3.2.8 and E.3.2.9).A number of other sites (i.e.,selected fish habitat (SFH sites)were also intermittently sampled (see same appendices).Some information on water quality (e.g.,temperature,turbidity),discharge,and water surface elevations are available at some sites in addition to the five creeks listed above (Table 5-3). Results of fish surveys suggest the following major conclusion: - - ~. 1.Early during outmigration,juveni Ie coho and chinook were more abundant downstream of Talkeetna than upstream.Towards the end of August,chinook and coho catches increased in the mainstem.In the summer,some fish reared in tributary mouths and sloughs. Coho exhibited strong preference for non-turbid waters and both chinook and coho preferred warmer water conditions. 2. 40998 841221 Junvenile chum and pinks were only rarely caught in the lower r1.ver.Those that'were caught were primarily 1.n slough~;this is probably a function of collection gear. 162 - 3.Rainbow trout were present ~n small numbers in the lower r~ver and tended to be associated with the clearwater areas near tributary mouths.They overwintered in the mainstem near the mouths of tributaries.Extensive lower river migrations were not apparent from radio-tagging studies - 4.Burbot.whitefish.and .longnose sucker used some mainstem and side-channel areas for rearing.Catches tended to be very small. Burbot avoided clearwater areas and were mostly associated with the mainstem. ..... Project-related physical changes in the lower river may have several impacts on resident and juvenile anadromous fish rearing in this reach.A list of potential impacts in order of priority are: 1.Area of hydraulic habitat and cover availability may be increased in the winter and decreased in the summer. 2.Increased stage height and increased probability of side-channel and slough overtopping during ice staging may change availability of overwintering habitat. 3.Increased suspended sediment and turbidi ty in winter may change the suitability and availability of overwinter habitat ~n the mainstem.side-channels,and sloughs. 4.Warmer fall-winter temperatures and cooler summer temperatures may halve an impact on growth rates. The ADF&G has analyzed the relationship between mainstem discharge and the availability of hydraulic habitat for juvenile rearing at five lower river Designated Fish Habitat (DFH)sites between June and September (ADF&G 1983d Appendix F Synopsis).This was accomplished by classifying DFH sites into zones (based upon water source,water velocity,and backWater influence).A 40998 841221 163 habitat index (HI)that could be plotted against discharge was developed by, relating catch variations between zones to changes in water surface area of the zones.These results are presented graphically and 1n tables for juvenile chinook at Goose,Rabideux and Birch creeks (Appendix Table F-13; Figure F-3,F-4,F-5),coho at Sunshine and Birch creeks (Appendix table F- 14;Figure 4-7,F-8),sockeye at Birch Creek (Appendix Tale F-15;Figure F- lO)and chum at Birch Creek (Appendix Table F-16;Figure F-13).Variations in mainstem discharge changed the relative habitat utilization of each species and there were considerable differences between species (Appendix Figure F-17).Appendix G of the ADF&G 1983d Synopsis report also provided and analysis of major habitat use by species in the summer that incorporated lower river sites (upland slough -whitefish;side sloughs -Rabideux and Birch Creek;side channel -Goose and Sunshine Creeks). The effects of slough overtopping on winter habitat in the lower r1ver has not been studied.Effects of turbidity on fish behavior at low temperature have not been examined,but a review of literature concerning winter habitats and data on turbidity could be useful in evaluating this.To date, no analyses of growth rate relative to predicted temperature are available, but sufficient knowledge on the subject is available in the literature. The utilization of lower r1ver habitat for rearing during summer and winter has been documented by ADF&G studies (ADF&G 1981c,ADF&G 1983b -R.J.). But,the relative importance of riverine habitat compared to tributary habitat has not been quantified.Studies that provide the abundance of salmonids in the different habitat types would provide a perspective as to the importance of riverine versus tributary habitat to the fish population. 5.3.2 Information and Study Needs For initial studies in the step-wise approach,the following information is needed: -' .... - 40998 841221 164 - TABLE 5-3 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CATCH AND HABITAT DATA FOR RESIDENT AND JUVENILE ANADROMOUS FISH IN ADF&G REPORTS """ .... .... DFH Sites Catch Data Water Quality Water Velocity Discharge,WSEL 40998 841221 Years RJ,1981c,ADF&G RJ,1983b,ADF&G AH,1983c,ADF&G AH AH,1983c,ADF&G AH,1983c,ADF&G Data Table E.3.2.8,E.3.2.9,E.3.2.15, E.3.1.4, E.3.1.5,E.3.1.9,E.3.2.1 E.3.2.2, E.3.2.3,Appendix EB. 3-3-11,B-3-13,3-13-16,3-3-18, 3-3-21,3-3-23, 3-3-32,3-3-28 Appendix Table 3-A. Appendix 4-D,(pp.40-44 to 4-D-68), Appendix I (4-1-2 to 4-1-9),Appen. Appendix I (4-1-2 to 4-1-9),Appen. B (Rabideux -4-b-3). Appendix A (4-A-46 to 4-A-48) (4-A-173 to 4-A-178) 165 1.Determination of the speC1es composition,abundance,and timing of riverine habitat utilization by juvenile and resident salmonids during summer and winter. 2.Determination of the relationship between mainstem discharge and availability of suitable rearing habitat for summer and winter periods.Most of the lower river habitat sites that have been studied are located above RM 73.Therefore,information will be needed from habitat sites located further downstream. 3.Determination of the effects of side-channel or slough overtopping as a result of ice staging on habitat utilization and survival of rearing salmonids. 5.3.3 Study Location Habitat utilization study sites will be stratified to include sampling of the four major riverine habitat types (see Section 3.0)with effort proportioned by river segment according to level of flow related impact. The level of impact among river segments will be determined from results of the lower river morphological assessment study (Section 3.0). Selection of study sites for determination of the relationship between mainstem discharge and rearing habitat will be based on a stratified sample design.8i tes wi 11 be stratified on the basis of major habitat type and relative extent of utilization by rearing fish (or proximity to natal spawning area).The level of effort (Le.,number of study sites)will be proportioned within river segments by extent of fish utilization,and between river segments according to the level of flow-related impact. Habitats representative of the four habitat types that are utilized by rearing fish during winter,and have channel overtopping conditions based on observations during ice formation (R&M 1983,unpublished data)will be selected for studies of overtopping. 40998 841221 166 .... - "'"' 5.3.4 Tasks Related to tbis Component The following FY85 Aquatic Program tasks,described in detail previously, are related to the completion of this study component: a)Task 14:Lower r1ver resident and juvenile anadromous fish studies. b)Task l6B:Outmigrant studies of the lower river. c)Task 17:Streamflow and flood frequency studies. d)Task 21:Lower river morphological assessment. e)Task 24:Lower river 1ce studies. £)Task 25:Lower river aggradation g)Task 31:Lower Susitna stream temperature analysis h)Task 34:Winter studies of resident and juvenile anadromous fishes. i)Task 36:Lower r1ver rearing habitat investigations-IFG hydraulic modeling. 5.4 ALTERED JUVENILE OUTMIGRATION PATTERN 5.4.1 Background The outmigration of juvenile salmonids in the Susitna River has been studied in 1981 and 1982 by the ADF&G (ADF&G 1981c,ADF&G 1983b -R.J.).Limited data are available on the timing of migration,species composition,age structure,and size of outmigrating fish in the lower river.In this reach, 40998 841221 167 samples were collected with minnow traps,beach seines,and electrofishing gear throughout the spring open water period.Based on these samples plus information from a one smolt trap located above the confluence of the Chulitna River,the general migration timing is known for the middle river. Chinook salmon outmigrants peak during May and June with all age 1+fish leaving the stream by early August.The coho salmon outmigration also peaks during May and June,but continues throughout the summer to the onset of ice cover.Chum salmon fry rear for one to two months before they outmigrate, most of which occurs during June.The sockeye outmigration is similar to that of chinook with a peak in early July and ending by August.Limited captures of pink fry indicate most fish outmigrate before June. The relationship between juvenile outmigration and environmental variables (i.e.,discharge,water temperature,and day length)was examined for fish emigration from the river above the Chulitna confluence in 1982 (ADF&G 1983d Appendix H).In general most relationships were significant,but correlation coefficients were moderate to low. Several physical factors may potentially have a casual relationship with juvenile salmon outmigration.Discharge will effect the travel time of downstream migrants and river stage may influence access of juveniles migrating from sloughs to the mainstem.Spring freshets can displace juveniles resulting in pulses in timing and numbers of outmigrants.In some cases,rearing juveniles may be displaced downstream to the estuary or lower mainstem before reaching a preferred size for migration and smoltification. Survi val of the outmigrant population may be dependednt upon the mainstem f low regime.Conceivably,the projected reduction in stream flow 'during spring as a result of project operation would minimize fish displacements due to flushing flows.On the other hand,reduced flows may increase outmigration travel time. Turbidity is an important factor in providing cover for outmigrating juvenile salmon.This may be especially important in the Susitna River because periods of darkness (juvenile salmon migrate mostly at night in non- - ...... 40998 841221 168 - - turbid rivers)are short during spr1ng as a result of the reduction in r1ver di scharge (see section on suspended sediment).However the magnitude of change 1n turbidity in the lower river will be small relative to the naturally high levels.Thus,no changes in fish survival relative to this factor are expected. 5.4.2 Information and Study Needs Initial studies that are needed to address potential altered outmigration timing are: 1.Determination of the relationship between mainstem discharge and timing of habitat utilization,and types of r1ver1ne habitat utilized during the outmigration period. - - ..... 2.Determination of the relationship between sport term (Le.,daily) and longer term (seasonal)mainstem flow fluctuations,and migration timing and travel time of juvenile salmon outmigrants • Other factors such as photoperiod,temperature and size should also be examined. - ,.... I 5.4.3 Study Location Studies on the timing of habitat utilization and types of habitat utilized during the outmigration period will be conducted at the same sites selected for the juvenile salmon habitat utilization study (Section 5.4.3).Studies or outmigration timing and travel time for the lower river between Cook Inl et and T,alkeetna wi 11 be evaluated from outmigrant monitoring stations located at Talkeetna (RM 98)and near Flathorn Lake (RM 20). 5.4.4 Tasks Related to this Component The following FY85 Aquatic Program tasks are related to the completion of this component: -40998 841221 169 a)Task l6A:Outmigrant studies of the middle r1ver. b)Task 16B:Outmigrant studies of the lower r1ver. c)Task 17:Streamflow and flood frequency studies. - - - ..... ..... 40998 841221 170 - ...., - .... - 6.0 SUMMARY The intent of this study plan is to out line the study needs and general approach to these needs necessary to resolve questions and issues raised about the lower river.Table 6.1 (a and b)summarizes the physical and aquatic study components for the lower n.ver and briefly describes the initial studies needed to resolve the questions and issues.These studies will be based on the need for additional refinement or may be initiated as a result of pr,evious findings.An important part of all of these studies will be to integrate the'biological and physical results to determine if the questions or issues can reasonably be answered with the information available.If they can,no additional studies will be undertaken.If the information ~s not sufficient,further studies may be warranted if they can reasonably be justified and can achieve a better understanding for resolution of the ~ssue.If further information ~s needed and can be obtained,then additional (Table 6.1)studies may be implemented.If it ~s determined that a significant advserse impact potentially exists,mitigation plans will be developed.and presented to the resource agencies for discussion.Following these discussions,final mitigation plans will be incorporated into the overall mitigation plan for the project. .-, 40998 841221 171 Rtysical Study Canponents TABlE 6.18 -smtl\RY (F S'lUI1i ~roo.'l'8E :r..<:Am RlVER. Existing Information Proposed Initial Study(s)Use for other Canponents Fbtential Other Studies* B.Determine 1inear values for tributary IlllJth habitat for various flCM 1.Lower River Stratification A.Habitat stratification A. and classification complete (by use of R&M aerial photos) Detennine surface areas for mainstem and slough habitat for various flow A.Use for rhysical and aquatic studies site selection B.Coupled with biological studies to better understand flCM versus habitat for impact assessnent. A.Expansion of photo coverage to other fl~ B.Detai led exami.nat ioo of habitats via photo enlargenent 2.Discharge A.Extensive streamflCM data available fran USGS. B.Forecasts (throu~ m:xleling)of with- project flow changes have been made on a monthly basis. A.Provide fllY.l1 forecasts on a daily and weekly basis,primarily to look at flood and llY.l1 flow fr8:Iuency and duration A.Coupled with biological studies to determine changes in lCMer river habitat. A.None.-depends on outcome of step 1 study. 3.Temperature 40991il/TABLE 841221 A.Temperature s:iJmlations A. have been perfonned by use of HEATSIM and SNIEMP models. B.Predictions have concentrated on scme of the open~ter nnnths and on data fr(Jl1 selected years. Expansion of the A. sLmulations to encompass additional months and cover a broader range of years. 172 Temperatures will be A. coupled with information in the literature.fran Susitna studies and personal camunications to understand if temperature predictions will results in a signficant impact to existing resources. Nooe -depends on outcome of step 1 study. I .1 .1 I I J j I'J )I I •• §J I J j C-~J i 1 'j J I J 1 1 B J 1 ) TABlE 6.1a -smti\RY OF S11JDY <DIOONENTS FOR '1JIE I..<Hm RIVER (Cootinued) lbysical Study O:mponents 4.Suspended Sedinent (turbidity) Existing Information A.Periodic neasurerents of turbidity have been roode in conjooctioo with other studies B.Analysis of suspended sedirrent and turbidity relationships has been used to predict with- project turbidity. Proposed Initial Study(s) A.Consolidate literature and infonnation on effects of glacially orientated turbidity on aquatic resources. Use for other Ccmponents A.lbysical predictions will be used to detennine with- IX"oject aquatic relationShips and responses Potential Other Studies* A.Limited to existing data collection. Potential for examining other glacia1 systems if warranted by literature review. 5.Bedload Sed~nt 6.Ice Processes 4099B/TABLE 841221 A.Maasurerents of natural A.Existing suspended and A.lbysical predictions A.None -depends on bedload sedirrent and bedload discharge for with-IX"oject outcome of step 1 discharge made for the studies will be conditions will be used study. Susitna Basin by the cootinued to refine to describe potential U&;S for ~r IOOOths existing data with changes in aquatic only additional efforts habitat. concentrated on locations in the mainstem and near IIDlths of tributaries and sloughs A.,Natural ice processes A.The lower river is A.Infonnation fran the A.None -depends on have been docurrented considered too complex ice-IX"ocesses studies outcome of step 1 for several years to to extend middle river wi 11 be used to predict study. observe fonnation,ice m:xiels into this reach.potential impacts on cover and breakup Therefore,a limited lower river aquatic analysis at selected habitats. B.Attempts to use HEATSIM locations is suggested. m:xiel to predict ice processes was not successful.Therefore, only qualitative data is available. 173 TABIE 6.1 -SIHUY OF S'ltJDY o:Hn1ENl'S FOR mE I..<M:R RIVER Biological Study Canponents Existing Infonnation Proposed Initial Study(s)Use for other Canponents fbtentia1 Other Studies* l.Access of Adult Sabron A.fust spawning appears A.Field studies at A.The results of these A.None -however,if to SJXlWI1ing Grounds to be in lower river selected lower river studies will be used significant tributaries.tributaries will be to determdne if lower mainsten,side- undertaken to assess river mainsten channel,or side- B.Studies on middle relationships to spawning is slough spawning is river tributaries has HeM.significant and if foond,additional shown that downcutting access under with-studies may be under low flows will B.Extensive rroject conditions warranted -see still allow access of observaitons will be woold be a potential number 2 under spawners to tributary made during the late problem.biological· spawning sites.season to detennine components if mainstem,side- C.Little or no adult sloogb or side- salroon has been channel spawning observed in the lower exists and is river.significant. 2.Changes in A.Little or no adult A.Additional observations A.Infonnation will be A.If few adult salnon Availability of sa1m::>n has been will be made,used to determdne spawning sites are Spawning Habitat observed in the 1CMer particularly during significance of found,no additional river.late seasen.spawning habitat,if studies are such habitat exists.warranted. B.If spawning fish are found in significant numbers,additional studies on: 1.egg incubation success ii.habitat relation- ships to mainstem HeM iii.other physical studies iv.other biological studies may be warranted. J 40998/TAJLE 841221 I ,t J .1 .1 174 I I I I 1 1 I 1 I )1 1 i B )I •..~ TAmE 6.1b -SlHf!\RY OF SllJDf <XJtR:R:Nl'S FOR 'DIE Uli!:R RIVER (Cootinued) Potential Other Studies* 3.and 4.Changes in Availability of Suitable Rearing and Overwintering Habitat/ Habitat Utilization 4099B/TABLE 841221 A.Extensive sampling has occurred in the lower river in all seasons. SurrnEr work has provided SOOE infonnation on distribution and abundance.Winter sampling has been difficult and few fish have been located. A.Provide refinerrent of A. existing infonnation on distribution and abundance via increased sampling, particularly for the winter periro. B.Develop habitat relationships at selected sites (based on previous distribution and abundance studies, habitat stratifications and classification,and other physical studies).These woold relate mainstBii flow to rearing habitat. Nunerous sites woold be selected for study with linear regression mathros. C.Attempt roore extensive sampling for winter periro. D.Couple A through C with physical studies to deterrrdne potential with-IX"oject impacts. 175 Infonnation will be used to detennine impact and suggest possible ~tigation neasures if needed. A.Will depend on ootcorne of initial step 1 studies. Biological Study Components TAlI.E 6.lh -~OF SlUm'~FOR mE UR:R RIVER (Continued) R:tysical Study Canponents 5.Al tered Juvenile Out- nigration Pattern EXisting Infonnation A.Limi ted data are available on timing of migration,species canposition,age structure,and size of ootmigrating fish. This data was gathered during the 1981 and 1982 field seasons of ADF&G in the lbWer river. Proposed Level 1 Study(s) A.Extensive sampling for distribution and abundance will occur (see 3 and 4 of Aquatic Study Canponents)•As part of this,there woold be a mark recapture program at selected sites to detennine outmigration patterns survival and growth. Two primary collection sites woold be Talkeetna and Flathorn stations where outmigrant traps would be located. B.The infonnation collected woold be coupled with information fran the rhysical studies to detennine the relationship between mainstem f low and outmigrant timing and travel tine. Use for other Chnponents A.The analysis will be used to detennine if significant impact exists. Ibtential Other Studies* A.None -the need for additional studies will depend on the ootCOll'e of the step 1 studies. I 4099B/TABLE 841221 ,,I J l7S-A J .J 1 I I J I J - - - .- 7.0 REFERENCES CITED Alaska Dept.of Fish &Game.1983a.Susitna hydro aquatic studies,phase 2 basic data report.Vol.2.Adult anadromous fisheries studies,1982. First Draft Report.Anchorage,AK.Alaska Power Authority.Susitna Hydro ~quatic Studies.Report for Acres American,Inc.2 vols. Alaska Dept.of Fish &Game.1983b.Susitna Hydro aquatic studies,phase 2 basic dlata-report.Vol.3.Resident and juvenile anadromous fish studies on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon,1982.Final Report. Anchorage,AK.Alaska Power Authority.Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Report for Acres American,Inc.2 vols. Alaska Dept.of Fish &Game.1983c.Susitna hydro aquatic studies,phase 2 baseline data reports.Vol.4.Aquatic habitat and instream flow studies,1982.Final Report.Anchorage,AK.Alaska Power Authority. Susitna Hydro Studies.Report for Acres American,Inc.3 vols. Alaska Dept.of Fish &Game.1983d.Susitna hydro aquatic studies,phase 2.Synopsis of the 1982 aquatic studies and analysis of fish and habitat relationships.Final Report (Summary).Anchorage,AK.Alaska Power Authority.Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.152 pp. Alaska Dept.of Fish &Game.1983e.Susitna hydro aquatic studies,phase 2 data re!port.Winter aquatic studies (October 1982-May 1983).Final Report.Anchorage,AK.Alaska Power Authority.Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.Report to Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture for Alaska Power Authori ty.140 pp • Alaska Dept..of Fish &Game.1982.Adult anadromous fisheries project, stock separation feasibility report.Final Draft Report.Anchorage, AK.Ala.ska Power Authority.Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.Report for Acres American,Inc.1 vol. 40998 841221 176 Alaska Dept.of Fish &Game.1983a.Aquatic habitat and instream flow project.Final Draft Report.Anchorage,AK.Alaska Power Authority. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.Report for Acres American,Inc.2 vols.in 3. Alaska Dept.of Fish &Game.1983b.Adult anadromous fisheries project. Final Draft Report.Anchorage,AK.Alaska Power Authority.susitna Hydro Studies.Report for Acres American,Inc.1 vol. Alaska Dept.of Fish &Game •.1983c.Juvenile anadromous fish study on the lower Susitna River.Final Draft Report.Anchorage,AK.Alaska Power Authority.Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.Report for Acres American, Inc.1 Vol. Alaska Power Authority.1983.Application for license for major project, Susitna Hydroelectric Project,before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.Vol.SA.Exhibit E,Chaps.1 and 2.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.1 vol. Alaska,Univ..Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center.1983a. Examination of discharge and temperature changes due to the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Draft Report.Anchorage,AK.Alaska Power Authority.Report for Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture. Alaska,Univ.,Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center.1983b. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Aquatic Impact Assessment:Effects of project-related changes in temperature,turbidity,and stream discharge on upper Susitna salmon resources during June through September. Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture for Alaska Power Authority Report. Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture.1983.Detailed plan of study Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Aquatic Program,Fiscal Year 1984.Draft Report to Alaska Power Authority. - .. - - - 40998 841221 177 - - R &M Consultants,Inc.1981.Ice observations 1980-81.Anchorage,AK. Alaska Power Authority.Su-sitna Hydroelectric Project.Report for Acres ~nerican,Inc.1 vol. R &M Consultants,Inc.1982a.Ice observations 1981-82.Anchorage,AK. Alaska Power Authority.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Report for Acres ~nerican,Inc.1 vol. R &M Consultants,Inc.1982b.Hydraulic and ice studies.Anchorage,AK. Alaska Power Authority.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Report for Acres ~erican,Inc.1 vol. R &M Consultants,Inc.1982c.Reservoir sedimentation.Anchorage,AK. Alaska Power Authority.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Report for Acres ~merican,Inc.1 vol. R &M Consultants,Inc.1983.Field data index.Anchorage,AK.Alaska Power Authority.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Report for Acres American,Inc.1 vol. R &M Consultants,Inc.1984.Susitna River ice study,1982-1983.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Prepared for Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture. Schoch,G.C.1983.Environmental Susitna River ice study 1982-83. Preliminary Draft Report.R &M Consultants,Inc.Anchorage,AK. Alaska Power Authority.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Report for Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture.184 pp. Trihey,E.'W.1983.Preliminary assessment of access by spawning salmon into Portage Creek and Indian River.Anchorage,AK.Alaska Power Authority.Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.1 vol. Trihey,E.~r.1982.Preliminary assessment of access by spawning salmon to side slough habitat above Talkeetna.Draft Report.Anchorage,AK. 40998 841221 178 Alaska Power Authority.Sus i tna Hydro Aquatic Studi es.Report for Acres American,Inc.24 pp. Trihey,E.W.1982.Preliminary assessment of access by spawning salmon to side-slough habi tat above Talkeetna.Draft Report..Anchorage,AK. Alaska Power Authority.Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.Report for regimes on the indubation of Susitna River chum and sockeye salmon. National Fishery Research Center,U.S.Fish &Wildlife Acres American,Inc.24 pp. Wangaard,D.B.and C.V.Burger. Draft Report. Service,Anchorage,AK.40 pp. 40998 841221 1983. 179 Effects of various temperature - - - - APPENDIX B - - ..,.. - - Appendix B DRAFT NAVIGATION STUDY PLAN Navigation and Tra~sportation Plan of Study Susitna Hydroelectric Project Introduction A key elemlent of the settlement process is the establishment of an acceptable flow regime.An important consideration is the navigability of the river between Devil Canyon and Cook Inlet. Previous studies have addressed the navigationissues,but several concerns have not been resolved.Of particular concern to resource agencies 1S navigation in the lower river and access to land disposal areas.Studies of the effect of project operation on navigation in the lower river have been at a reconnaissance level using p~rsona1 interviews,aerial photographs, topographic maps and miscellaneous stage-discharge and cross section data at Kaswitna Landing,Willow Creek,Alexander Slough and near Talkeetna.More intensive studies have focused on the reach between-Devil Canyon and Talkeetna bE!cause the percent change 1n flow in the reach between Devil Canlyon and Talkeetna will be much greater during project operation than in the reach downstream from Talkeetna.Nonetheless,significant flow changes may occur in the Talkeetna to Cook Inlet reach.Since boaters use this reach more frequently than the middle river,the effect of project operation on lower river navigation should be more thoroughly addressed. Information on use of the river as a winter transportation route and use of the river for float plane access has not been compiled.Additionally,a thorough assessment of utilized areas of the river,boat draft requirements, winter use and float plane access have not been made. 40998 841221 180 Objectives Open water navigation 1.Determine the summer use of the r~ver,including who is using the river and why,when the boats are used,the type of boat used, whree the boat was used,the access point,how often the boat was used,and depth requirements for navigation. - 2. 3. Discuss navigation difficul ties,determine the navigation routes and access points potentially affected by reduced discharges and determine the discharge rage,if any,over which navigation is impacted and the percent of time navigation is affected.This determination is to include the effects of high flows. Discuss historical changes ~n river morphology.Qualitatively dtermine the project realted morphology changes in the lower river and at the mouths of navigable rivers. 4.If navigable areas are affected by with-project flows,identify users affected and determine mitigation opportunities for various flow scenarios where adverse impacts have been identified. Winter Transporation 1.Determine winter use of the river as a transporation corridor. 2.Determine the effects of the with-project ice regime on winter use and prepare mitigation plans as appropriate. Float Plane Usage - - - 1. 40998 841221 Determine usage of the r~ver by float planes,the level of with- project impacts and mitigation plans as necessary. 181 - Previous Studies Environmental Studies -Land Use Analysis,Navigational Use. Environmental Specialists,Inc.April,1982. Terrestrial ..... Water Resource Analysis,A Preliminary Analysis of Potential Navigational Problems Downstream Of The Proposed Hydroelectric Dams On The Susitna River. Alaska Dept.of Natural Resources,March 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Application for License for Major Project, Volume SA,Exhibit E,Chapter 2 pp E-2-44 to E-2-48, E-2-60,E-2-74,E-2-99, E-2-139,E-2-173,Alaska Power Authority,February 1983. Fish Ecology - A Survey of Questions and Concerns Pertaining to Instream Flow Aspects of The Proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project.L.P.Dwight and E.W.Trihey,May 1981. Fish Ecology Instream Flow Assessment For the Proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project -Issue Identification and Baseline Data Analysis - 1981 Summary Report,E.W.Trihey,March 1982. Study Area Portage Creek to Cook Inlet with emphasis on the reach between Talkeetna and Cook Inlet. Description of Methods Open Water Navigation 1. 40998 841221 Summer Use.ADF&G Sport fish wi 11 undertake a creel survey this summer.It is proposed that this survey be expanded to include a survey of navigatio use of hte river and be extended through September 30,1984.Surveys will be taken at the following main 182 2. 40998 841221 access points:Talkeetna (River Mile (RM)97),Sunshine Bridge at the Parks Highway (RM 84),Kashwitna Landing (RM 61),and willow Creek (RM 49)• The survey will collect data pertaining to the access point,date, names and addresses of those using the river,the purpose (recreational,commercial or subsistence fishing,hunting,other recreational uses,transportation to land disposal areas, trapping,movement of commercial supplies,guide boat operations, etc),destination,duration of trip,type of craft and type of engine (propeller,jet unit,airboat),frequency of use, navigational difficulties encountered and number of people in the party. A survey of lodge operators and land owners will be completed to determine their frequecy of navigation use.Periodic aerial overflights will be made to further document navigation use and to determine if additional boat access points are being employed. This will be done in connection with the survey of float plane use. Identification and Quantification of Navigation Impacts.During 1983,sets of aerial photographs were taken of the lower river when discharges at the Susitna River at Sunshine gage were 56,500 cfs,37,500 cfs,22,000 cfs and 13,600 cfs.These aerial photo- graphs will be used to help identify locations where potential navigation problems might exist during with-project flow condi- tions. Routes from the major access points to fishing and hunting areas, land disposal areas,lodges,navigable tributaries,trapping areas areas,scenic locations,etc.will be indentified on toe set of aerial photographs corresponding to the 13,600 cfs di scharge at the Sunshine gage.From this set of photographs,routes which 183 .... -. - ..... - 40998 841221 have dewatered reaches,flow control points and other eaches not dewatered byt where navigation could be restricted,will be identified.For those aras which are dewatered at 13,600 cfs,the flow at which the reach becomes watered (i.e.either from backwater or overtopping of a flow control point)will be determine from a compar~son of the aerial photographs at the mainstream discharges and the location of the flow control identified. When flow conditions permit,cross section surveys will be made at the flow control points.Thalweg profiles will be measured for some distance downstream from the cross section to determine the bed slope.At those si tes where stage-di scharge da ta are not available,staff gages will be installed and readings taken at flows spanning the range of natrual and with-project c,onditions. At least ~ive flow conditions will be observed.It is anticipated that flaws from 10,000 cfs to 70,000 cfs as measured at the Sushine gag~ng station will be monitored.At high flows, estimates wi 11 be made of the surface velocity to determine if high velocities possibly restrict navigation. The rating curves,cross section surveys,and thalweg profiles will be used,with navigation depth requirements obtained from the user survey,to determine the discharges over which navigation diffuculties would be encountered.This information will be integrated with the monthly open water rating curves to determine the percent of time navigation will be affected during natural and with-project flow scenarios.Emphasis will be on the lower river, but middle river locations will be investiagted where potential navigation difficulties have been identified. Since reduced river discharges could restrict travel upstream ~n to sloughs and side channels,the effects on the ability of boaters to reach their final destination will be assessed if such 184 3. areas are used extensively.The additional distance that boaters must travel by means other than boat to reach their destinations will be important to lodge operators and land owners. Navigational Effects of Morphological Changes.Based on the following references,morphological changes ~n the mainstem Susitna river and at major tributary mouths will be quantitatively assessed to determine the impact on navigation depths: Sus i tna Hydroe lectri c Projec t River Morphology.R&M Consultants,January 1982. - - Sediment Discharge Data For River Basin,Alaska,1981-82. file Report,1983. Selected Sites In the Susitna U.S.Geological Survey Open- Susitna Hydroelectric Project Sedimentation.Harza-Ebasco,1984. Reservoir and River 4.Mitigation of Summer Navigation.For specific alternative flow regimes where navigation difficulties are identified,mitigation opportunities will be identified.Options such as information centers,channel maps,channel marking and dredging will be investigated as possible mitigation measures. Winter Use Based on an aerial reconnaissance of the Susitna River,personal interviews and a survey of residents,a determination of winter use of the river will be made.The following information will be collected:crossing locations, use as a transportation to land disposal areas),and method of transportation (snow machine,all terraine cycle,skis,snow shoe,sled dog, vehicles,etc.). - 40998 841221 185 - F"'"" I - - The prediction of the with-project ice regime will be used to assess the impact on winter use of the Susitna River as a transportation corridor. Appropriate mitigation plans will be formulated as necessary. Float Plan Access Periodic overl£ights will be made of the Susitna River to document float plane use of the river.This will be supplemented with surveys of pilots to determine areas of use,frequency of use and purpose.Based on the sets of aerial photographs,with-project impacts on the areas of float plane use will be estimated and mitigation plans developed. Coordiantion Requirements Field data collection will be coordinated with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and R&M Consultants.The studes will be coordinated with the lower river sediment studies,tributary fish access studies,and the lower r1ver streamflow and flood frequency studies. Schedule A draft of the navigation and transportation report wi 11 be completed by November 30,1984 with the final report scheduled for completion on February 28,1985. 40998 841221 186 1 f' APPENDIX ·C - .- - - APPENDIX C Resource Agency Comments on Draft Plan of Study and Power Authority Responses 7501 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY -- 334 WEST 5th AVENUE·ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501 July 31,1984 Susitna File 1.8.1/6.18.5.2 Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O.Box 3-2000 Juneau,Alaska 99802 Attention:The Honorable Donald W.Collinsworth Phone:(907)277·7641 (907)276-0001 Subject:Susitna Hydroelectric Project Comments on Aquatic Workshop 2 - ,.,.. - Reference:Your letter of April 19,1984 Dear Commissioner: The Alaska Power Authority appreciates your staff attending Aquatic Workshop 2 and providing constructive comments and suggestions.We have reviewed your comments on the workshop and on the Aquatic Program Draft Plan of Study for FY85. Enclosed for your information is a summary of the workshop.We are currently finalizing the study plans for FY85 which will incorporate your suggestions for revising the study plan. Among your suggestions is a matrix which describes what studies will be used to support the various issues delineated in our letter of March 6.1984.This matrix will be distributed at Aquatic Workshop 5 (Water Quality)to be held August 6,1984. Also,you requested a flow chart which related the planned studies to each other and to previous studies.These flow charts are being developed and will be incorporated into the final plan of study. Since the majority of your comments refer to specific suggestions for revision of the plan of study,we are not responding to each of your comments at this time.However.the revised plan of study will reflect your comments as well as those received from other agencies and workshop participants. JU_ The Honorable Donald W.Collinsworth July 31,1984 Page 2 If you have questions regarding the Plan of Study,please contact Mr. Jon Ferguson (279-6611). Sincerely, ~£~ Executive Director Alaska Power Authority whs Ene:as noted cc:wI Enc: R.Fleming,Power Authority W.Larson,HE J.Thrall,HE L.Gilbertson,HE - - - ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ..... 334 WEST 5th AVENUE·ANCHORAGE.ALASKA 99501 July 31,1984 Susitna File 1.8.1/6.18.5.2 U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage,Alaska 99503 Attention:Dr.Robert Putz Subject:Susitna Hydroelectric Project Comments on Aquatic Workshop 2 ,) Reference:Your letter of April 28,1984 Dear Dr.Putz: Phone:(907)2n·7641 (907)276-0001 ..... The Alaska Power Authority appreciates your staff attending Aquatic Workshop 2 and providing constructive comments and suggestions.We have reviewed your comments on the workshop and on the Aquatic Program Draft Plan of Study for FY85. Enclosed for your information is a summary of the workshop.We are currently finalizing the study plans for FY85 which will incorporate your suggestions for revising the study plan. Among your suggestions is a matrix which describes what studies will be used to support the various issues delineated in our letter of March 6,1984.This matrix will be distributed at Aquatic Workshop 5 (Water Quality)to be held August 6,1984. Also,you requested a flow chart which related the planned studies to each other and to previous studies.These flow charts are being developed and will be incorporated into the final plan of study. Since the majority of your comments refer to specific suggestions for revision of the plan of study,we are not responding to each of your comments at ~his time.However,the revised plan of study will reflect your comments as well as those received from other agencies and workshop participants . Dr.Robert Putz July 31,1984 Page 2 If you have questions regarding the Plan of Study,please contact Mr. Jon Ferguson (279-6611). Sincerely. ~.i.~ Executive Director Alaska Power Authority whs Enc:as noted cc:wI Enc: R.Fleming,Power Authority W.Larson.HE J.Thrall,HE L.Gilbertson,HE """' - - ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ,..... 334 WEST 5th AVENUE·ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501 July 31,1984 Susitna File 1.8.1/6.18.5.2 National Marine Fisheries Service P.O.Box 1660 Juneau,Alaska 99801 Attention:Mr.Robert W.McVey Director,Alaska Region Phone:(907)277·7641 (907)27&0001 Reference:Your letter of April 17,1984 ..... Subjecl:Susitna Hydroelectric Project Comments on Aquatic Workshop 2 - Dear Mr.McVey: The Alaska Power Authority appreciates your staff attending Aquatic Workshop 2 and providing constructive comments and suggestions.We have reviewed your comments on the workshop and on the Aquatic Program Draft Plan of Study for FY85. Enclosed for your information is a·summary of the workshop.We are currently finaliZing the study plans for FY85 which will incorporate your suggestions for revising the study plan. Among your suggestions is a matrix which describes what studies will be used to support the various issues delineated in our letter of March 6,1984.This matrix will be distributed at Aquatic Workshop 5 (iVater Quality)to be held August 6,1984. Also,you requested a flow chart which related the planned studies to each other and to previous studies.These flow charts are being developed and will be incorporated into the final plan of study. Since the majority of your comments refer to specific suggestions for revision of the plan of study,we are not responding to each of your comments at this time.However,the revis~d plan of study will reflect your comments as well as those received from other agencies and workshop participants. Mr.Robert W.McVey July 31,1984 Page 2 If you have questions regarding the Plan of Study,please contact Mr. Jon Ferguson (279-6611). Sincerely, 6~~ Executive Director Alaska Power Authority whs Enc:as noted ce:wi Ene: R.Fleming,Power Authority W.Larson,HE J.Thrall,HE L.Gilbertson,HE ~, - - - ALASIiA.POWER AUTHORITY - 334 WEST 5th AVENUE·ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501 July 31,1984 Susitna File 1.8.1/6.18.5.2 Alaska Department of Natural Resources 3601 C Street Pouch 7-005 Anchorage,Alaska 99510 Attention:Ms.Margaret J.Hayes District Manager .;, Subject:Susitna Hydroelectric Project Comments on Aquatic Workshop 2 Reference:your letter of April 23,1984 Dear Ms.Hayes: Phone:(907)2n·7641 (907)276-0001 The Alaska Power Authority appreciates your staff attending Aquatic Workshop 2 and providing constructive comments and suggestions.We have reviewed your comments on the workshop and on the Aquatic Program Draft Plan of Study for FY85. Enclosed for your information is a currently finalizing the study plans your suggestions for revising the study summary of the workshop.We are for FY85 which will incorporate plan. Among your suggestions is a matrix which describes what studies will be used to support the various issues delineated in our letter of March 6,1984.This matrix will be distributed at Aquatic Workshop 5 (Water Quality)to be held August 6,1984. Also,you requested a flow chart which related the planned studies to each other and to previous studies.These flow charts are being developed and will be incorporated into the final plan of study. Since the majority of your comments refer to specific suggestions for revision of the plan of study,we are not responding to each of your comments at this time.However,the revised plan of study will reflect your comments as well as those received from other agencies and workshop participants. Ms.Margaret J.Hayes July 31,1984 Page 2 If you have questions regarding the Plan of Study I please contact Mr. Marchegiani (279-6611). Sincerely, ~t~gusonU~~:ject nager Susitna Hdroelectric Project whs Enc:as noted cc:wi Enc: R.Fleming,Power Authority W.Larson,HE J.Thrall,HE L.Gilbertson,HE - - - ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS Aquatic Workshop 2 March 30,1984 Held at Suite 201 711 H Street Anchorage,Alaska Aquat ic Workshop 2,was convened on March 30.1984 by the Alaska Power Authori;y to discuss the draft plans of study to be conducted by the Susitna Aquatic Study Team during Fiscal Year 1985.The draft plan of study (Doc 591)was distributed to the resource agencies prior to the workshop. Representatives from Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, National Marine Fisheries Service,U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey attended the Workshop.A complete list of Attendees is provided as Attachment 1. The workshop was opened by Mr.Marchegiani of the Alaska Power Authority who introduced the participants and presented a brief outline of the agenda for the workshop.Mr.Marchegiani then discussed the FERC licensing schedule, the settlement process and how these fit fnto the long-term goals of the Power Authority. Using the long-term goals as a guide.the approach for developing the FY85 study tasks for the aquatic study program was discussed.The framework for prioritization of the study tasks was presented. Mr.Marchegiani then opened the workshop to general comments from the agency representatives on the specific study tasks presented in the draft study plan.General comments pertaining to the study tasks were as follows: 49682 840731 1 a.Several agency representatives requested a "road map"be incorporated into the study plan which provided some logic to the interrelationship among study tasks.This road map should identify for each task what the technical goals are,what issues would be affected and at what point agencies would be involved in the study process. b.Some confusion was expressed by agency representatives as to how the settlement process would be accomplished.What information will agencies have,when will they get it,what is the sequence of ~topics and how detailed will the topics be for discussion? c.Where in the process will the "economics of fishery losses"be considered?Who will be responsible for determining the value of the fish?- d.Questioned idea of enhancement of habitats as part of the mitigation planning process. Mr.Marchegiani closed the workshop with a request for formal written comments on the Study Plan and Workshop from the resource agencies. e. f. g. 49682 840731 Generally favorable comments were made toward the lower river study plan.Requested more detailed study plan and made some suggestions as to some omissions in the plan which should have been included. Several representatives requested that the participants in each task be identified in the final study plan. Numerous specific comments were made pertaining to specific tasks. These included requests for clarification and suggestions for including some aspects which were omitted. 2 .. - - ATTACHMENT 1 Aquatic Workshop 2 ....Attendees L i Name Eric A.Marchegiani J.H.Thrall Steve Bredthauer Ken Florey David Watsjold Bob Camge Jim Knott Woody Trihey Erwin Van Nieuwenhuyse Gary Stackhouse John Bizer Jack Robinson Don Beyer Pam Bergmann Gary Prokesch Brad K.Smith Dale Herter Bill Steigers Dana Schmidt Don McKay Carl Yanagawa Lenny Corin Bill Wilson Ken Voos Mike Prewitt Allen Bingham Steve Zrake Larry Moulton Tom Stuart Robert Sener Tom Arminski Christopher Estes E.J.Gemperline Richard S.Fleming Tom Trent Larry Gihbertson 49682 840731 3 Organization Alaska Power Authority Harza-Ebasco R &M Fish &Game Fish &Game USGS USGS EWT&A EWT&A FWS Harza-Ebasco Harza-Ebasco Harza-Ebasco Harza-Ebasco ADNR-Water NMFS LGL LGL Fish &Game ADF&G Habitat ADF&G Habitat USFWS AEIDC AEIDS AEIDS ADF&G ADEC Woodward-Clyde Harza-Ebasco LGL Alaska Power Authority ADF&G/Su Hydro. Harza-Ebasco Alaska Power Authority ADF&G/Su Hydro Harza-Ebasco ,.,,~ -------------------------------------- - ,~ - ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS Aquatic Workshop 2 March 30,1984 Held at Suite 201 711 H Street Anchorage,Alaska Aquat ic Workshop 2,was convened on March 30,1984 by the Alaska Power Authori~y to discuss the draft plans of study to be conducted by the Susitna Aquatic Study Team during Fiscal Year 1985.The draft plan of study (Doc 591)was distributed to the resource agencies prior to the workshop. Representatives from Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, National Marine Fisheries Service,u.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey attended the Workshop.A complete list of Attendees is provided as Attachment 1. The workshop was opened by Mr.Marchegiani of the Alaska Power Authority who introduced the participants and presented a brief outline of the agenda for the workshop.Mr.Marchegiani then discussed the FERC licens ing schedule, the settlement process and how these fit into the long-term goals of the Power Authority. Using the long-term goals as a guide,the approach for developing the FY85 study tasks for the aquatic study program was discussed.The framework for prioritization of the study tasks was presented. Mr.Marchegiani then opened the workshop to general comments from the agency representatives on the specific study tasks presented in the draft study plan.General comments pertaining to the study tasks were as follows: 49682 840731 1 a.Several agency representatives requested a "road maptl be incorporated into the study plan which provided some logic to the interrelationship among study tasks.This road map should identify for each task what the technical goals are.what issues would be affected and at what point agencies would be involved in the study process. b.Some confusion was expressed by agency representatives as to how - the settlement process would be accomplished.What information will agencies have.when will they get it.what is the sequence of topics and how detailed will the topics be for discussion? c.Where in the process will the "economics of fishery losses"be considered?Who will be responsible for determining the value of the fish? d.Questioned idea of enhancement of habitats as part of the mitigation planning process.' e.Generally favorable comments were made toward the lower river study plan.Requested more detailed study plan and made some sugges tions as to some omissions in the plan which should have been included. Several representatives requested that the participants in each task be identified in the final study plan. """" g.Numerous specific comments were made pertaining to specific tasks. These included requests for clarification and suggestions for including some aspects which were omitted. Mr.Marchegiani closed the workshop with a request for formal written comments on the Study Pla~and Workshop from the resource agencies. - 49682 840731 2 - - .... .... Name Eric A.Marchegiani J.H.Thrall Steve Bredthauer Ken Florey David Watsjold Bob Cambe.,)Jl.m Knott Woody Trihey Erwin Van Nieuwenhuyse Gary Stackhouse John Bizer Jack Robinson Don Beyer Pam Bergmann Gary Prokesch Brad K.Smith Dale Herter Bill Steigers Dana Schmidt Don McKay Carl Yanagawa Lenny Corin Bill Wilson Ken Voos Mike Prewitt Allen Bingham Steve Zrake Larry Moulton Tom Stuart Robert Sener Tom Arminski Christopher Estes E.J.Gemperline Richard S.Fleming Tom Trent Larry Gilbertson 49682 840731 ATTACHMENT 1 Aquatic Workshop 2 Attendees Organization Alaska Power Authority Harza-Ebasco R &M Fish &Game Fish &Game USGS USGS EWT&A EWT&A FWS Harza-Ebasco Harza-Ebasco Harza-Ebasco Harza-Ebasco ADNR-Water NMFS LGL LGL Fish &Game ADF&G Habitat ADF&G Habitat USFWS AEIDC AEIDS AEIDS ADF&G ADEC Woodward-Clyde Harza-Ebasco LGL Alaska Power Authority ADF&G/Su Hydro. Harza-Ebasco Alaska Power Authority ADF&G/Su Hydro Harza-Ebasco 3 REoelVED UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NationaL Marine Fisheries Service P.O.Box 1668 Juneau,ALaska 99802- .... April 17,1984 '?R 231984 ALASKA POWER AtmfORny Mr.Jon S.Ferguson Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage,Alaska 99501 Dear Mr.Ferguson: - lMsON POl..IV~ VAN PATfeJ THl'A.LL Glt..'5SZ..1""SON G8>1pegulJi 'RDeII\lSON !='li.E:S '51z.E::<.. "DYO~ We attended Workshop No.2 of the Susitna Hydroelectric project and are providing our comment on this effort and the draft Aquatic Plan of Study FY 85 as requested in your March 9,1984,letter. Workshop Comments: The general format of the second workshop was less formal than the first which we felt better facilitated discussion and the open exchange of ideas and opinions.It was apparent that many of the participants were not thor- oughly famil iar with the documents at hand and were not prepared to present specific concerns or recommendations on the fifty-four FY 85 tasks nor Appendix A,the Lower River Plan of Study.This might be attributed to the workload of the participants,many of whom have several responsibil ities in addition to the Susitna Project,the volume of material presented,and the time available to have read this material.The Alaska Power Authority staff should take this into consideration for upcoming workshops and scale down the scope of discussions or make more time available for participants to review pertinent documents.When appropriate,specific agenda should be prepared and distributed prior to the workshops.This would give participants a list of topics to be discussed and allow for a more effective workshop.Some participants may be unable to devote a full day to each workshop and may wish to allocate their time according to the agenda.Because of this,the work- shop agenda should be followed as closely as possible • General Comments,Draft Aquatic Plan of Study FY 85: - .....We believe that the study tasks described in the Plan of Study would effec- tively support the overall study effort as it concerns project 1icensing and ~HARZA EBA~[~st-license impact assessment,mitigation,and monitoring.It is necessar- _..-11y dependent upon the successful completion of on-going studies to describe such processes as up-welling,reservoir,temperature structure,river ice,and 24 APR 84 4'pj:her technical reports described under the various tasks.Much of the FY 85 ~~task effort is intended to facil Hate project 1icensing by providing infor- -mation and support for the settlement process.Because the tasks and the ~~~~~~.I;.I"~~~'!.,=~.§ \...'.-;,l''~""""l';'. ~, ..... -. 2 workshops are intimately linked to this process,the draft Plan of Study should describe the overall process whereby these various tasks will congeal into a discreet analysis of project impacts,mitigation,and monitoring. We are concerned that many of the tasks described as levels 3 or 4 are unlikely to be funded,thereby hindering or delaying settlement.It would be valuable to show the linkage of these·studies to other tasks and the settle- ment process.Also,the investigators responsible for each task should be clearly identified in the Plan of Study. We feel that Appendix A,the Lower River Plan of Study,is a necessary step towards providing comprehensive knowledge of the Susitna River System and the impacts attributed to the two-dam project.As identified at Workshop 2,this effort should include an assessment of access to tributaries and an analysis of impact to sport fisheries located at the tributary mouths.We agree with the Plan of Study in classifying Lower River tasks as levels 1 and 2. Finally,it is evident that few of these tasks will be available prior to publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement,currently scheduled for December 1984.Certain critical documents,e.g.,the Recommended Flow Regimes Report.which would support the Environmental Hearings scheduled for· February 1985 will also not be available at that time.Thus,while we have stated our acceptance of a program which involves continuation of necessary studies during the license review and post-licensing periods,we believe that the results of many of these FY 85 tasks must be available to agencies in sufficient time to assist in settlement and the preparation of specific licensing conditions. Specific Comments -Draft Aquatic Plan of Study FY 85: Task 3 -An effort should be made to maintain a level of coordination with the concerned resource agencies,beyond that provided through the workshop process.Early coordination on the Plan of Study for FY 86 would be valu- able. Task 4A -The investigators responsible for the various technical reports should be identified.The watershed processes report,which will describe changes in upwelling,would seem to be dependent upon tasks 30 and 50;Tasks for which the described schedules do not mesh and which may not be funded (level 4).How does this task link or depend on others?What would be gained or lost if these supporting studies are not completed? Task 48-The evaluation species referred to should be described.The resource agencies have disagreed with those species earlier proposed for this purpose.Also,with whom must the analytic techniques be jointly developed? Task SA -The procedure described should allow for a strong foundation from which flow negotiations can occur.It is apparent that the process described involves various iterations and sub-routines which consider such factors as navi gation,ri pari an habitat,water quality.temperatures,and ice processes in addition to selection of "trade-offs"among various species or life history stages in selecting an optimal environmental flow regime.We are concerned that this process would not include agency input until the recom- mended flow regimes report (Task 6)has been formulated.Discussions at - - ..... .- 3 workshop 2 indicated that the agencies would be provided with the various habitat relationships from which a recommended flow regime would be jointly developed.The method described in Tasks 4,S,and 6 implies a minimum of agency i nvo 1vement and,in effect,a pre-se 1ect i on of those flows whi ch wi 11 be analyzed for power costs.We recognize the importance of developing an acceptable flow regime in avoiding or minimizing hearings and therefore suggest that the Plan of Study descr'lbe this process in detail.It would seem that a circular process would be most effective,wherein a flow regime is formulated using the output from tasks 4A and 4B and then input into the power analysis.Flows which prove to be economically unfeasible could then be re-formulated using the aquatic species criteria,and again analyzed against power costs. Task 7 - A draft report scheduled for May 1,1985,may not be realistic. This would be attainable only if a flow regime could be agreed upon immedi- ately after release of the recorrmended flow regime report (Task 6). Task 10 -This task seems to be dependent,in part,on Task 37.This linkage should be discussed and,as Task 37 is a level 3 effort,the consequences of it not being completed should be explained.Task 48 (level 4)would also appear to be linked closely to this task and should be discussed.In past correspondence we have stressed our concern for development of mitigative measures for fishery related impacts.The regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)are specific on the subject,requiring information which,as of this time, remains unavailable.If our review of the environmental statements shows that the level of detail concerning mitigation has not been significantly advanced frOm those discussions pre~ented within the FERC license applica- tion,we would anticipate finding the document to be inadequate.Thus,in addition to study efforts to identify mitigation opportunities,this task should specify preparation of detailed plans for mitigation features and associated costs for construction,operation,and maintenance.Without such details,the costs of mitigation could not be factored into the Economic and Environmental Comparisons Process as described under Task SA.These consid- erations,therefore,would appear to relate to Task SA,and the linkage between the two tasks should be discussed.. Task 12 -The schedule for this task is considerably behind that of Task 8, and would,therefore,not support the flow recommendation report.How does this task differ from Task 4A?Could it have been included under Task 4A? Task 14 -We feel this task will be one of the most important study efforts concerning the lower Susitna River.The use of the mainstem by overwintering resident and juvenile fish species is particularly important as the task description points out "The flow regime during winter may be beyond natural fluctuations of the system with several times the amount of water flowing through this reach of the river.1I Yet this study is presently designed to investigate only the open water season.What efforts,if any,will be made to define the use of this reach during the ice covered season?If empirical data cannot be provided,would this task include an analysis of wintertime post-project habitat changes based upon flow regimes,turbidity projections, anticipated temperature changes,and changes in ice formation and breakup? 4 Task 18 -The schedule of this task would not allow for rationale Nos.1 or 2 to be met. Task 20 -If load following is to be considered.we do not believe it is appropriate to minimize the.scope of this analysis by assuming a single demand structure or that such operations would occur only during summer months.A worst-case analysis should be done using maximum ramping rates during critical periods when flow fluctuations are normally minimal. Task 29 -How does this interact with Task 12? Task 30 -Is this task linked with Task 50?If so.both should be placed in the same category (level 2).No schedule is provided for this ~ask. Task 39 -We believe that completion of this task is essential to development of specific licensing conditions and.therefore.to project licensing itself. We question the designation of this task as level 3. Task 54 -How does this task interact with Tasks 30 and 50? Appendix A.Lower River Study Plan -It is not clear how the Lower River Study Plan interacts with those FY 85 tasks associated with the lower river. Page A-5 of the Study Plan says that the physical and biological data will be analyzed and integrated ,for assessing the adequacy of results to resolve impact issues and determine if further resolution and studies are warranted, yet we do not find a specific FY 8S task which would perform this analysis. rhe Lower River Study Plan often states that a particular study will be required or completed in FY 85 1 yet does not go on to reference the partic- ular FY 85 task which addresses that study effort.This makes it difficult to assess the Study Plan.What level of understanding would be achieved through the FY 85 studies?Would all of the FY 86 studies be dependent upon the initial analysis or would certain studies be continued for several seasons? We will continue to provide input to the study effort and the settlement process and appreciate this opportunity to comment on the draft Aquatic Plan of Study FY 85. w.McVey r.Alaska Regi n - - - - - - - - - - Comment: workshop. Responses to Comments of National Marine Fisheries Service Lack of thorough familiarity with documents discussed at -- """ - Response:The letter and documents were transmitted on March 19,1984.It is acknowledged that this was not the full two week lead time for providing materials in advance of the workshop.However,we feel that the 10 days advance should have been sufficient to enable scheduling of review of the documents prior to the workshop.In the future,an attempt will be made to provide the documents at least two weeks in advance of the workshop. Comment:Specific agenda should be transmitted 1n advance of workshop. Response:In general,this has been done.For a workshop in which there 1S an expectation for considerable input from agency personnel,it is not as possible to provide specific agenda items or to schedule discussions of specific topics. Comment:Need for discussion of how study tasks relate to one another to complete the analysis. Response:A flow chart depicting the interrelationships of various study tasks is provided in the final FY85.Aquatic Plan of Study. Comment:Funding of Levels 3 and 4 Tasks 1S unlikely and therefore could hinder settlement process. Response:Funding was received to cover study tasks through Level 3. Further discussion within the study team of the study tasks has led to combining of some similar tasks and elimination of others.The final FY85 Plan of Study reflects these decisions. 420902 840104 1 Comment:Assessment of access to tributaries and analysis of sport fisheries in lower river. Response:The assessment of salmon access to tributaries is covered 1n Task 28.Locations of tributary mouth areas and extent of clear water plumes, which are areas 1n which sport fishing pressure is highest,will be docu- mented in the Lower River Habitat delineation (Task 21). Comment:Availability of Reports 1n sufficient time for licensing and settlement processes. Response:Information to be included in the reports will be dissiminated as it becomes available.For the most part,the curre.ntly available data are sufticient to complete the licensing and settlement processes.Additional data and analyses are being performed to refine the existing data bases and provide more accurate assessments of anticipated effects. Comment on Task 3:Maintenance of coordination with agencies. Response:Coordination with agencies on progress of existing studies and development of further studies is a prime goal of Task 2 rather than Task 3. Comment on Task 4A:Investigators responsible for technical reports. Response:This 1S included in the Plan of Study. Comment on Task 4A:Dependence of reports on other tasks. Response:The instream flow relationships report series will initially rely on information obtained prior to June 1984.Results of 1984 summer studies will be used to revise the reports as the information becomes available. Comment on Task 4B:Specification of Evaluation Species and joint develop- ment of analytical techniques. - - - 420902 840104 2 Response:This task has been combined with Task 4A.The evaluation species are presented in the License Application with the exception that it now includes sockeye salmon • .- - - - - Comment on Task 5:Does not allow for input from agencies. Response:Alternative flow regimes will be developed by the aquatic program study team to begin the comparisons process.Agency participation in the comparisons process will be pursued and encouraged by the Power Authority. Flow preferences or refinements preferred by the agencies will be included in the process for evaluation.The comparison report will provide a detailed discussion of how the regime were selected for evaluationand present results. Comment on Task 7:Schedule unrealistic. Response:The impact assessment report will be drawn from the appropriate instream flow reports and the comparisons report.The assessment will consist of summarizing effects pulled from the other reports. Comment on Task 10:Dependence upon other study tasks. Response:Task 10 provides for a continuing planning effort.The first intensive report will provide additional detail based upon information obtained since the license application was submitted. The second interim report will rely upon information obtaied ~n other study tasks to be conducted during FY85. Comments on Task 12:Schedule does not allow inclusion in Task 4 reports. Response:Data obtained ~n this study will instream flow reports as they become available. to further refine the Task 4 reports. be incorporated into the These results will be used 420902 840104 3 '-----,------- Comments on Task 14:Inclusion of studies of lower river overwintering by - residents and juvenile anadromous. Response:This task is specifically designed for the open water season. Winter resident and juvenile studies are discussed 1n Task 34.The feasi-"""""'I bility of winter studies still remains a question.Your suggestons of methods for studying overwintering habitats would be welcomed by the Aquatic Study Team. Comment on Task 18:Schedule conflicts to allow for rationale No.1 and 2. Response:Data obtained during these studies will be available for use 1n preparing responses.The formal reports will not be available. Comment on Task 20:Minimization of the scope of this task. Response:This is designed to investigate only one scenario merely as representative of the effects of load following operation.Load following operation 1S not currently proposed as an operating scenario for the project. Comment on Task 29:Interaction with Task 12. Response:This will be used as a basis for extrapolation of the Task 12 results to the remainder of the r1ver.It will also serve to refine the analysis.Task 12 is based principally on the physical environment.Task 29 will address the biological component. Comment on Task 30:Linkage with Task 50. Response:Agreed.These studies are incorporated into Task 30. -. Comment on Task 39: designation. 420902 840104 Importance of this task does not warrant Level 3 4 - - Response:The study has been funded. Comment on Task 54:Interaction with Tasks 30 and 50. Response:This task was described as a more detailed component of Task 30. It was decided that this detail was not essential and sufficient funding for this task was not available.It has been dropped from the final plan. Comment on Appendix A: Plan. Intentions of the study tasks and the Lower River - - - - Response:A flow chart depicting the relatioships among lower river study tasks is provided in the final plan.Results of the lower river studies will be incorporated into an update or appendix of the Instream Flow Rela- tionship Report.In this form the results will be available for use in the aquatic impact assessment and mitigation plan reports.Since the option of flow regulation to avoid or minimize adverse effects to lower river habitats is not feasible,the results will be used directly in planning measures to rehabilitate or replace lost aquatic resources. 420902 840104 5 ,...,.. ,_.1~~I l ;\ BILL SHEFFIELD,GO VERNOR .... DEPARTMENTOFNATU~~LRESOURCES DIVISION OF LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT SOUTHCENTRAL DISTRICT / i j f / 3601 C STREET POUCH 7.OQ5 ANCHORAGE.ALASKA 99510·7005 PHONE:(907)276·2653 April 24,1984 Jon S.Ferguson Project Manager Susitna Hydroelectric Project 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage,Alaska 99501 Re:Review Aquatic Plan of Study ;;ijJ::,:':~,..':~;to ..,,2':;z.,Sw::llwtl~.'"1,1 RECEIVED APR 241984 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY .... Dear Mr.Ferguson: Thank you for the opportunity to conment on your FYS5 Aquatic Plan of Study for·the Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Our comments concerning this plan of study are as follows: "lARZA EBASel), ;r APR 84 ~48 ,~ L ..... 2. ""'" Bi:':'=;z... 't:'/~'J }(-r ~~::: The document for review should reach the reviewing party no later than two weeks prior to the scheduled workshop.This will allow adequate time for initial review and gathering of notes and questions • Each task outlined in the FY85 Aquatic Plan of Study should show how it relates to the other tasks and how all tasks are linked to the overall evaluation process.This point was also addressed during the March 30, 1984 workshop. 3.The study tasks outlined in the FY85 Aquatic Plan of Study appear to cover all the concern expressed by DL&WM in the past.The actual work within each of these tasks was described in more detail during the March 30th workshop.This workshop was very helpful in relating one task to another and the overall process used to link all task.We have no futher comments on tasks 1 -54.It would be helpful if the Final Aquatic Plan of Study was revised after the budgeting allocation process has been completed and you actually know which levels of work will be accomplished during FY85. I am pleased to see that considerable time and effort will be put into studies of the lower ,'.iver.The Lower River Study Plan (Appendix A of the Aquatic Plan)is intended to provide guidance and a general framework to plan and coordinate additional studies as needed.I assume the "as needed"will be definded in the initial studies process.It is understood that if the initial studies on the lower river answer the questions concerning operation of the Su-Hydro Project as expressed in our comments on the Exhibit E,of the FERC License Application,no additional studies will be needed.LA~~ Pa..NKA. VAJJ F'AT"t'EN; TH&':"'lI- G:l..~'75:".lJ ~Slt-JSOI...)_ __&=l},::e!-;.).....,f.J ~ 4. .... Jon S.Ferguson April 23,1984 Page 2 5.The only comments we have concerning the Navigation and Transportation Plan of Study (Appendix B of the Aquatic Plan)are as follows: a)Objective 11 should define the word "navigation"so that all agencies and interested parties agree that the definition used expressed their needs.The study should identify those flow rates required by the average Susitna boater to safely navigate the river iQ areas of traditional transportation and recreation activity. b)Throughout the Navigation Plan of Study,the phrase "with project flows"is used.We are assuming that these flows are a range of flows to·be studied in order to determine which would be the most economical,taking into account navigation and transportation needs. Please include these comments as part of the FERC EIS document. Sincerely, ...... ~i - """" 1IIIlJIII.'!I, - - -- ..... Responses to Comments of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Comment 1:Advance receipt of document. Response:Noted and agreed.In the future,every attempt will be made to assure your receipt of documents at least two weeks in advance of the workshop. Comment 2:Relationships among tasks. Response:Flow charts depicting the iterrelationships among tasks are included in the final Plan of Study. Comment 3:Adequacy of study plans and determintion of which tasks will be funded. Response: funded. The Final Plan of Study describes all work which has been -- - Comment 4:Adequacy of Lower River Studies Response:None needed. Comment 5a:Objective No.I should define navigation. Response:Comment noted.All levels of navigation and potential effects of the project flow reg~me will be addressed in the analyses pesented in the final report. 420902 840104 6 Comment 5b:Use of the phrase "with-project flows.t1 Response:We concur with your assumption.A range of flows will be inves- ""'" tigated.Specific effects of "the with-project flows"will be evaluated during the comparisons process. 420902 840104 7 .- - ..- - ..... Responses to Comments of Alaska Department of Fish and Game Comment:Provision of flow chart or matrix depicting interrelationships of study tasks. Response:A flow chart depicting the interrelationships of tasks has been added to the Plan of Study.Also a matrix of the relationship between study tasks and settlement issues has been incorporated into the Plan of Study. Comment:Level of effort for each study task and identification of contrac- tors responsible for completion. Response:The Contractors responsible for completing each of the tasks are identified in each task description.Level of effort and funding levels are available at the Power Authority. Comment:Provision of data collected during FY85 to agency personnel • Response:As data and analytical reports are developed,agency personnel will be provided copies of the reports.Discussion of these documents will be solicited through the Task 2,Workshop and Issue Settlement Process, activities. Comment:Identification of tasks to be conducted during FY85 under approved level of funding. Process:The tasks described ~n the Final Plan of Study will be conducted. Comment on Task 4B:Expansion of task description • Response:As a result of discussion at the workshop and subsequent aquatic study team discussion,the specific activities of this task have been integrated into the Task 4 description in the Final Plan of Study. 420902 840104 8 Comment on Task 12:Clarification of task objective. Response:The description of the Task 12 objective has been revised. Comment on Task 14:Inclusion of lower r1ver winter studies. Response:The Power Authority agrees.However,the feasibility of conduc- ting such studies and the possible methods to conduct the appropriate analyses is still questionable.Suggestions of methods for conducting winter studies would be welcomed. Comment on Task 16B:Need for outmigrant studies on East side tributaries. Response:Comment noted and we concur.The need for studies of outmigrants from east side tributaries will be determined after results obtained from FY85 studies have been reviewed. Comment on Task 21:Need for ground truthing of aerial photographs. Response:Groundtruthing of aerial photographs 1S part of the data collec- tion and analytical processes. Comment on Task 28:Consideration of tributary mouth habitats as holding areas for migrating salmon. Response:Response of tributary mouth habitat areas to mainstem discharge will be addressed as part of this task using results obtained from Task 21. Comment on Task 34:Expansion of winter studies to reach below Talkeetna. Response:The studies described in Task 34 are for the middle reach. Expansion of these studies to the lower river will be determined based upon the success of these studies.See our response to your comment on Task 14. - -- - - 420902 840104 9 Comment on Appendix A:Addition of Caswell Creek to list of tributaries to be studied. Response:Caswell Creek has been added to this list as well as to the study areas to be studied under Task 28. Comment on Appendix A: holding areas. Influence of with-project flows on tributary mouth Response:Refer to our response to your comment on Task 2B. Comment on Appendix B:Need to facilitate development of creel sensus study agreements with ADF&G. Response:The agreements have been formalized • .... .... ..... 420902 840104 10 -~-----_._------~--------------------------------------------- DEP-"RTMENT OF FISH AND G-"ME ;OFRCE OF THE COMMISSIONER April 19,1984 Bill SHEFFIEW,GOVERNOR P.D.BOX 3·2000 JUNEAU.ALASKA 99802 PHONE:(901)465-4100 RECEIVED liPR 231984 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ,... Mr.Jon S.Ferguson,Project Manager Susitna Hydroelectric Project Alaska Power Authority 334 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage,Alaska 99501 Susltna fjJQ #.,ie.18.s.:l / "~.~---".-_-c::::a LD,IS.Y.~ Dear Mr.Ferguson: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)has received your letter of March 19,1984,wherein we were invited to attend the Settlement Process,Aquatic Workshop Number 2 and to review the Draft Aquatic Plan of Study. .. We have reviewed the aquatic plan of-study for FY 85 and attended -the workshop held on March 30,1984.Enclosure 1 contains our comments on the FY 85 Aquatic Plan of Study. We appreciate your efforts in planning and conducting the workshop and for the opportunity to review the Draft Plan of Study.The workshop format was much improved over the first aquatic workshop.It was organized to encourage comment and discussion between participants,the Alaska Power Authority (APA)and its contractors.Materials regarding the subject of the workshop were received well in advance,and thus provided ample opportunity for review.We believe that the workshop was mutually beneficial.It resulted in a better understanding by department staff of APA is proposed FY 85 aquatic plan of study.Should you have questions regarding our comments please contact Mr.Norm Cohen in Juneau at (907)465-4100. l..A.RSor-J f'O'-'VI(A, VNJ ?~.l<:N Tl+£.Au.. G l:.-Be=rs.OD ROBI /IJ~~I..) ~1""a1.. DYOL. ..;..:r-rj P.=T..:.L\1-..E • Enclosure t.~?c4 I,·4·_._"'Don W.Collinsworth Commissioner Sincerely, iA.i'::'r1.EoA~';v 1 1·K 12LH Mr.Jon.S.Ferguson -2-April.19,198·4 - cc:L.Pamplin J.Clark r~ S.Moberly D.Logan S.Behnke K.Parker N.Cohen - ""'" - - - - Enclosure 1.Comments on the "Draft Aquatic Plan of Study Fiscal Year 1985." General Comments The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Aquatic Plan of Study for FY 85 prior to development of the final plan. Based on the studies defined in the workplan it appears that the Alaska Power Authority (APA)will gather in:fiormation important to aquatic impact assessment and mitigation planning.We expect this information to be useful in the issues settlement process as information from the studies becomes available.We are particularly pleased to see work proposed for the Susitna River and tributaries downstream from Talkeetna. We suggest that the plan of study would be improved by the addi tion of a flow chart or matrix indicating the relationships of the proposed studies to each other and to work accomplished previously.This would be useful in showing reviewers how some of the tasks,which appear similar,relate to each other.Obviously many of the tasks described in the workplan are necessary to provide information in support of other tasks.However,a brief display or description of their inter-relationships would be helpful. After reviewing the plan and even after the workshop it is still unclear as to the level of effort that will be- expended on each of the tasks outlined in the plan.Some tasks were much more detailed than others but it would be helpful if funding and manpower levels were included with each task.It would also be helpful if the appropriate contractors were identified with each task,to identify who has the lead responsibility for each of the tasks and who is providing support on each task. We understand that the issues settlement process is planned to occur concurrently with the data col1.ection tasks proposed in the plan of study.To enhance agency participation in this process we understand that information collected this summer will be made available by the APA in a timely manner.Perhaps the mechanism by which this information will be provided to agencies should be addressed in Task 2 of the plan of study.This is particularly -1- ENCLOSURE 1 important for the lower Susitna River because the data base for that reach is relatively small. Presently we are unaware of the level of funding that will be provided for the aquatic study program for FY 85.Once a firm budget has been established we request that the APA provide a copy of the final plan of study indicati~g those studies funded in FY 85 versus those rescheduled for a later time. Specific Comments Page 25 (Task 4B):The description of this task should be expanded to describe the process by which agency input will be factored into composite flow relationships for evaluation species.Resource management agencies should be provided the opportunity to be aware of the flexibility within the compositing process to contribute to any future decisions regarding species trade-offs. - Task 12 (Page 44): better objective section.At the objective. This objective was poorly written and a actually existed under the rationale workshop APA agreed to reword the Task 14 (Page 53):Although this task will provide information on lower river resident and juvenile anadromous fish it will be conducted only during the open water season. This task is a positive step toward defining impacts but it may not provide sufficient information on winter habitats that will change considerably under project flows.Based on the results of this summer's work it may be feasible to conduct more winter work in the next budget cycle. Task 16B (Page 64):We view this task as another positive step towards resolving issues in the lower river.While the Deshka River is a good location for outmigrant studies I results should not necessarily be viewed as representing what occurs in the east side Susi tna River tributaries. Future outmigrant studies may need to address the east side tributaries. Task 21 (Page 76):This task to document and assess the affects of different flow rates on the morphology of the -2- - - ENCLOSURE 1 Susitna River between Talkeetna and Cook Inlet appears to rely completely on aerial photography.Ground truthing should be utilized to complement the results of photography. Task 28 (Page 96):We discussed this task at the workshop at some length.Our past concerns at tributary mouths have been centered on the importance of these areas as.holding and milling areas for salmon.These areas are vital to the sport fisheries in the area.While access by fish into tributaries is of some concern,the holding areas are the primary concern.We suggested that this task focus more on the importance of tributary mouths as holding areas for salmon.It is our understanding that this task will be revised to address these concerns. Task 34 (Page 109):It is not clear whether this task will focus exclusively in the middle river from Talkeetna to Devil Canyon.We assume that the work will occur in the middle river area.Since the work·being accomplished on Portage Creek is a considerable distance up river from lower river tributaries,results will not necessarily be applicable to lower river tributaries.Upon completion of these studies,follow-up studies should be accomplished in the lower river eastside tributaries. Appendix A Draft Lower River Study Plan Page 7:We requested at the workshop that Caswell Creek be added to the list of tributaries under segment II. Page 25:Changes in tributary mouth configurations with project flows and how those changes may impact salmon holding and milling areas should be included as significant impact issues. Appendix B,Draft Navigation and Transportation Study Plan Page 4:It is stated that ADF&G Sport Fish Division will be undertaking a creel survey and it is proposed that the survey be expanded to include a survey of navigation use of the river.To date there has been no firm proposal,on any such study,presented to Sport Fish.If APA wants such a study completed by Sport Fish it will be necessary to firm up details -3- ENCLOSURE 1 immediately as we are now recruiting and hiring staff for our.existing field projects.If we do not plan now for any such additional work as APA may wish accomplished we will not be able to work it into this summer's field activities.We request that future inquiries or discussions concerning this topic be directed to David Watsjold,Regional ~esearch Supervisor of the Sport Fish Division in Anchorage at 267-2220. -4- ..... - ..".-... ..' .I' ..-5712 IN REPLY REFER TO: -WAES United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1011 E.TUDOR RD. ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99503 (907)276-3800 RECEIVED APR 2S1984 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY. .- Larry Crawford Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage,Alaska 99501 Dear Mr.Crawford: This responds to the Alaska Power Authority1s (APA)letter dated March 19,1984,requesting our review of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Draft Fiscal Year (FY)1985 Aquatic Plan of Study.In addition,our comments were requested on the Susitna Hydroelectric Project workshop held on r~arch 30,1984. -. - Aquatic Workshop 2 The format of the workshop was improved over .that of the first workshop held on February 15,1984.The informal setting,as well as the relatively set .agenda,allowed for a better exchange amongst participants.In the terrestrial workshop (which will be addressed in a separate letter)held on April 10.1984.we observed additional improvements in presentation which reflected responsiveness to agency recommendations.We commend APA and its consultants for their efforts in conducting these workshops. In our letter dated February 29.1984.on the first aquatic workshop and on the draft Aquatic Impact Assessment Report,we made numerous recommendations. These recommendations and comments from workshop participants should be recorded,distributed to workshop participants,responded to by the APA.and tracked through the settlement process.The responses should be prOVided to workshop participants with the agenda and other handouts at least two weeks prior to the next workshop. We recognize the difficult task the APA is facing in trying to effectively involve several agencies in the planning of Susitna Project studies.We believe maximum effort should be placed in facilitating participation by identifying the linkage of the numerous study components and tracking study component progress.In the Aquatic Plan of Study we are confronted with 59 separately identified tasks.All these tasks are linked and focused toward producing a defendable.mutually agreed upon,mitigation plan.~~ pcwV/<A 'V~~l leu Tl~ b'LaE:eTSO}..) 1<02>1 ~SO 10J FIL-eO I""'" I I ~b APR 84 2-i 08 -2- In the terrestial workshop several handouts were provided to facilitate our understanding of the linkages in the program.Of particular note are: Handout 1,Relationships Between FY85 Terrestrial Tasks and Issues;Handout 2, Major Linkages Among FY85 Terrestrial Tasks;and the Impact Assessment and Mitigation Planning Summary,which was circulated during the workshop.We recommend that similar products be provided for the Aquatic Program.It would also be useful to identify when reports are scheduled so that we are assured the tasks properly mesh. Draft Aquatic Plan of 'Study,Fiscal Year 1985 The plan appears to be rather comprehensive;however,it is very difficult to provide a satisfactory appraisal of what is intended to be conducted and how it all will come together.We recommend that the following be provided to assist us in understanding the intended FY85 Plan of Study: 1.Matrix displaying the relationship between the tasks and the issues identified in the APA letter dated March 6,1984. 2.Flow diagram illustrating the linkages of the aquatic tasks with dates when products are scheduled,allowing the next dependent task to proceed. 3.Identification of products which are intended to be circulated to agencies for review and comment,and those which we can request for agency use. 4.Identification of task principal investigator(s)and estimated'task bUdget. 5.Bookkeeping document which tracks issues,and issue settlement.This should be identified as a separate level 1 task.In the draft Terrestrial Plan of Study this is identified as Task 6.The LGL Alaska Research Associates tracking document,Impact Assessment and Mitigation Planning Summary,is a satisfactory format for this task,although it should be more closely linked to the identified issues. 6.Identification of tasks,if any,which would not be funded during FY85 given the proposed $32 million APA Susitna Hydroelectric budget. 7.Detailed Plans of Study,when they are formulated. Although the task descriptions are frequently vague,we do view the coverage as appropriate.Particularly encouraging is the priority given to the lower river studies.We consider these studies necessary to understanding the project's potential impacts to the Susitna River,and essential to formulating an acceptable n,itigation plan. Specific Comments on Tasks Task 48 -In Task 58 the following flow regulation alternates are discussed: constant discharge;baseload variable discharge;load following;and peaking operations.How each of these alternatives would effect Task 48 should be described. - - ..., -3- Task 5A -The process described would allow for the necessary give and take between the resource agencies and the APA leading to an acceptable in stream flow regime if agency participation is integral to this task,and the following tasks,58 and 6.It would be unfortunate if the APA were to refrain from involving the resource agencies until the draft recommended flow regimes report is completed.Please clarify when and how resource agency participation would be requested for the flow regimes tasks. Task 7 -If the flow regime is developed through close coordination with the resource agencies,we would anticipate the impacts assessment report would include documentation of the remaining aquatic impacts which 'would be mitigated by means other than flow regulation.If not,all of the impacts identified in the report would presumably be mitigated by flow regUlation and accordingly be the basis of the instream flow negotiations.If this is the case,the report should analyze the anticipated impacts of a wide range of possible flow regime alternatives.Also,the APA should not expect flow negotiations to proceed until the impacts report is circulated if minimal agency involvement occurred during the development of the recommended flow regime. Task 10 -The relationship to this task·of Tasks 5A,37,and 48 should be discussed.The schedules do not appear to be appropriately synchronized.The preparation of detailed plans for mitigation features and associated costs for construction,operation,and maintenance should be a component of this task. Task 12 -The objective of this task should be:To quantitatively assess potential effects that might accrue to existing side channel and mainstem habitats as a result of flow and temperature regulation of the Susitna River. Task 14 -The task description recognizes the importance of understanding the winter distribution of juvenile fish to assess the project's potential to adversely impact the Susitna River fisheries.However,the investigation is apparently being limited to the open water season.If practical,rearing habitat should be examined during the winter,perhaps by sampling open leads. Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers should be evaluated.If large numbers of juvenile fish from the Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers rear in the lower Susitna River,the project's potential to adversely impact the fishery would be substantially greater than if it does not. Task 20 -The analysis should not assume that because the river system periodically undergoes large,rapid changes in flow naturally on rare occasions,the Susitna fisheries would tolerate project flows simulating these "natural ll conditions on a much more frequent basis.The assessment should also provide a worst-case analysis using maximum ramping rates during critical periods when flow fluctuations are normally minimal. Task 21 -We would expect the two habitats in the lower river most prone to changes in wetted surface area to be the clearwater tributary mouths and the sloughs.These habitats are probably important to recreational fishing (tributary mouths)and for spawning and rearing-(sloughs).The study should be extended to these lower river habitats. -4- Task 23 -The impacts on ice formation,break-up,and timing of constant discharge,base load variable discharge,load following,and peaking operations should be examined.This study should then serve as input to Tasks 5B and 20. Task 28 -Identification of important spawning and/or rearing sloughs should be followed by an examination of possible access problems. Task 30 -How information on Slough 9 will be related to other sloughs in the middle river needs to be discussed.An inspection of upwelling in lower river sloughs should also be carried out. - / Task 35 -The basis for the selection of the six selected sites should be ~ provided.;/ Task 31 -We consider the development of the monitoring plan very important and prefer greater involvement than what is indicated,i.e.,review of the formal draft plan.We believe involving the resource agencies early would be more effective.In addition,the monitoring plan should be developed across the environmental program,not separate monitoring plans by the aquatic, terrestrial,and social sciences groups. Task 37 -This task should extend over a second year to include a demonstration that the techniques anticipated to be recommended in the mitigation report are effective. Specific Comments on Draft Lower River Study Plan Page l,paragra~:During the winter,project-related impacts on ice conditions,turbfG1ty,suspended sediment,bedload transport,and flows would be substantial.Quantifying how substantial these changes would be is the principal purpose of the proposed studies. Page 2,~aragraph 2:This resource agency,prior to this letter,had not been requeste to provide input to the plan.The plan is responsive to our comments on the license application. Page 2,para~rarh 3:The objective should be to document the extent of impacts to t eower river.If the project,through flow releases,cannot adequately mitigate for identified impacts,then other mitigative means \'1ould need to be investigated.. Page 8,paragraph 5:Emphasis should also be placed on the river's associated riparian zone. - - Page 17,paragraph 2:Suspended sediment and turbidity,although associated, are not tfie same thing.This is particularly evident in a glacial system like the Susitna River where very fine clay particles occur.-rhese two parameters warrant separate treatment. Page 19,paragraph 3:During filling and operation of the reservoirs, undercutting of the permafrost with subsequent slumping would probably occur. """' .... -5- These probable sources of suspended sediment and turbidity (and nutrients and heavy metals)should be considered. Page 22,paragraphs 1 and 2:Given the statement on page 21,paragraph 1 that the bedload in tne upper Susitna,Chulitna,and Talkeetna Rivers is two to five times greater than the load identified at the Sunshine Station,it could be hypothesized that,assuming the Susitna River system is in long-term equilibrium,high flow events are necessary to transport bedload that accumulates under more typical flows.Support for this view is also found in the fact that greater flows are needed to resuspend bedload material (due to inertia)than to carry it.The expectation that higher than normal winter flows (post-project),which are still less than typical summer flows,would lead to bedload movement when these flows during the summer do not,is not logical. Page 23,para~raph 3:The importance of the referenced temporary winter flooding of rlparian habitats,sloughs,and side channels should be evaluated. Page 25,paragra~:The timeframe and anticipated future study needs should be discussed.Tnrs-was done in FY1979 for the Talkeetna to Devil Canyon reach Aquatic Studies Program.Study emphasis should be placed on the five salmon ~species,arctic grayling,rainbow trout,burbot,and Dolly Varden. Page 25,paragrarh 2:As was discussed during the workshop,the clearwater plumes of severa of the tributaries are important to recreational use of the chinook fishery.How these areas would be affected should be examined. Page 37,paragraph 4:Winter turbidity changes also need to b~considered since post-project conditions would be substantially changed from the existing conditions. ....Thank you for providing the opportunity to review and comment on the draft FY1985 Aquatic Plan of Study and the workshop.We look forward to continuing our participation in your workshops. Sincerely, c;LC'~-" Regional Dir:~ cc:FWS-WAES FWS-WO/ES,Yvonne Weber Keith Goltz,RSO,Anchorage Kenneth Plumb,FERC,WDC Mark Robinson,FERC,WDe Brad Smith,NMFS,Anchorage Don McKay,ADF&G,Anchorage - ..... """ ,...., Responses to Comments of U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Comment:Description of linkages among study tasks and linkages to settle- ment process issues. Response:Flow charts depicting how the study tasks are interrelated are presented in the final study plan.Similarly the relationship between study tasks and the fishery issues is depicted in a matrix previously provided to the resource agencies and incorporated into the Final Plan of Study • Comment 1:Provision of matrix of tasks and issues. Response:See obove Comment 2:Flow diagram of task interrelationships Response:See above Comment 3:Identification of products to be distributed to agencies. Response:All final reports will be distributed to the agencies. for earlier data sets and preliminary drafts may be made to Authority. Requests the Power Comment 4: Budgets. Identification of Principal Investigators and Estimated ..... Response:Organizations responsible for each study task are identified, Principal Investigators have not been identified in as much as this is at the dicretion of the respective organizations.Estimated budgets for each task can be obtained from the Power Authority • 420902 840104 11 Comment 5:Need for bookkeeping/tracking document. Response:Such a document has not been developed for the aquatic program. Settlement of issues will correspond to completion of related tasks. Comment 6: approved. Identification of tasks not funded if $32 million budget 1.S IIIIll!1 I Response:The program prioritization was designed to allow funding through Level 3 given a budget of $32 million.Tasks to be performed are described in the Final Plan of Study. Comment 7:Detailed Plans of Study. descriptions of the tasks are provided in the subcontractor scopes of work. Response:This document contains the Final Plan of Study.Detailed - Response:The alternative flows investigated under Task 5 will use results of Task 4 and,therefore,should not affect Task 4.Task 5 will make use of results presented in Task 4 reports. Comment on Task 4B: activities. Comment on Task 5A: flows. Effect of alternative flow evaluations on Task 4B Involvement of agencies 1.n development of alterntive - - Response:The Power Authority is open to recommendations for alternative flow regimes to be evaluated.To the extent possible we have incorporated recommendations into the various flow regimes which have been evaluated. Ample opportunity exists for discussion of var1.OUS flow regimes under various tasks (both in the past and currently)•The Power Authority would ., welcome suggestions for developing the flow regimes. - 420902 840104 12 .- -i _. Comment on Task 7:Scope of the Impact Assessment Report Response:Impact assessments are being made as studies are progressing. These assessments refine the Impact Assessment presented ~n the License Application.Future impact assessments will be utilized to refine mitiga- tion plans and to come to negotiated settlements on fishery related issues. Comment on Task 10:Relationships between this task and others and schedules for completion. Response:The mitigation planning process described ~n Task 10 is an ongoing process.The first interim mitigation plan will be revised as further analyses proceed.Ultimately the Mitigation Plan will incorporate all aspects of mitigation of effects to aquatic resources. Comment on Task 12:Revision of Objective. Response:Objective has been revised Comment on Task 14:Incorporation of winter studies to lower river juvenile studies. Response:The Power Authority concurs.However,the need to conduct winter studies in the lower river will be determined from information obtained during the open water season.The feasibility of conducting winter studies and the methods to be employed are still questionable.Suggestions of methods for studying juvenile habitats under winter conditions would be welcomed by the Power Authority. Comment on Task 14:Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers rearing potential. Response:Outmigrants from the Talkeetna River will be investigated as part of Task 16B. 420902 840104 13 Comment on Task 20:Assumption of fish toleration of pre-project rapid flow changes. Response:Comment noted.Existing flow fluctuations can,however,be used as a starting point in the analysis. Comment on Task 21:Extension of Lower River habitat delineation to tribu- tary mouths and sloughs. Responses:All habitats will be delineated in the study and responses of surface area to mainstem discharge evaluated. Comment on Task 23:Results of study as input to Tasks 5B and 20. Response:All studies of the response of physical and biological character- istics to changes in flow will serve as input to Task 4 which in turn serves as input to Task 5 .. Comment on Task 28: access. Identification of spawning areas followed by study of Response:The Power Authority concurs. results of Task 13. Such studies must first have Comment on Task 30:Extrapolation of Slough 9 results to other sloughs. Response:The focus on Slough 9 as representative of groundwater processes throughout the middle reach is admit tedly rather tenuous.However,the complexity of the groundwater question and the cost associated with the studies necessary to describe groundwater processes necessitate the focusing of studies on one site.Inference of the processes at other sloughs can be made on the basis of intragravel temperatures,water quality and base flow estimates. 420902 840104 14 .... Comment on Task 31: agency personnel . Development of a monitoring plan using involvement of -Response:Agency input to"the monitoring program development will be solicited.However,the Power Authority will prepare a draft plan which will form the basis for discussion.The monitoring plan will be finalized only after the resource agencies have agreed to the plan.A cross-discipli- nary monitoring plan will be developed after separate terrestrial social sciences and aquatic monitoring plan drafts have been developed.The aquatic monitoring plan developed under this task will likely be a chapter of the Project Monitoring Program. Comment on Task 35:Basis for selection of the six study sites. Response:ADF&G SuHydro personnel will select the study sites based upon prior studies and their experience in the Middle River. Comment on Task 37:Extension of study through FY86. Response:The plan of study addresses FY85 study tasks.It ~s likely that further studies will be conducted during FY86. 420902 840104 15 Comments on Draft Lower River Study Comment Pg.1:Quantification of changes due to project during winter. Response:Concur.Studies of winter conditions are anticipated. Comment Pg.2 Para.2:Input from agencies on development of plan. Response:We attempted to utilize your comments on the license application in developing the lower river study plan as you state.Additional input was expeted at the workshop and as a part of your comments on the study plan. Comment on Pg.2 Paragraph 3: river. Documentation of extent of impacts to lower Response:The initial step of the lower river studies is to document the extent of use of the lower river habitats by anadromous salmon species. This information coupled with physical changes anticipated as a result of -project operation will provide a basis for determining whether or not significant effects are likely.If it is determined that effects are likely documentation of the extent of the impacts will be provided.The assumption that negative effects will occur which will require mitigative measures is as yet,not demonstrated. Comment on Page.....!..ZL Para.2: separately. Suspended sediment and turbidity treated Response:Suspended sediment and turbidity are closely associated. Turbidity is in part a function of the chracteristics of suspended sediments.Results of suspended sediment studies will provide input to che turbidity studies. 420902 840104 16 Comment on Page 19,Para.3: bank slumping. Sources of suspended sediment from reservoir .- .... Response:Suspended sediment sources include reservoir bank slumping due to thawing of permafrost layers.However,this 1.S likely to be a local, reservoir effect and is expected to be relatively minor compared with the impact of suspended sediments from the upper Susitna River.The influence of suspended sediments generated by slumping of the reservoir banks 1.S expected to have relatively minor influence on the turbidity and suspended sediment loads in water released through the turbines and will be completely overwhelmed by suspended sediment concentrations from the Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers during the summer months.Distinction between the amount of suspended sediments contributed by the Susitna River upstream of the Watana Impoundment and the amount contributed by bank slumping within the reservoir is extremely difficult and probably inconsequential. Comment on Page 22,Paragraphs 1 and 2:Bedload movement in the reach between the Chulitna River Confluence and the Sunshine gaging station. Response:This aspect 1.S being considered 1.n detail in hydraulic studies conducted under Task 24.A mathematical model (IILUVIAL)will be calibrated using data obtained by the U.S.Geological Survey.The purpose of the modelling effort 1.S to estimate the bedload transport processes expected under with-project conditions. Comment on Page~Para.3:Importance of temporary winter flooding of riparian habitats,sloughs and side channels. Response:The effects of ice-staging induced flooding will be investigated as part of the Task 23 study effort • .....420902 840104 17 Comment on Page 25,Para.1:Time frame and anticipated study needs. Response:The timeframe for completing the lower r1ver studies is dependent be accomplished after results of the present studies have been evaluated. upon the future study needs. Comment on Page 25,Para.2: water plumes. The determination of future study needs will Examination of effects to tributary,clear- ..... Response:The tributary mouth habitats will be investigated under Task 21 and Task 28. Comment on Page 37,Para.4:-Consideration of winter turbidity changes. Response:Suspended sediment and turbidity studies will consider the entire annual cycle and will not be limited to the open water season. ,/ - - - 420902 840104 18 -