Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA3275-. J 1}[1~00~&. 0 g@&®©@ Susitna Joint Venture Document Number 3'2-15 Please Return To DOCUMENT CONTROL ~--~-r ./\ ~----·-- CONFIDENTIAL; PRIVILEGED \VORK PRODUCT PREPARED IN ANTICIPATJON OF LITIGATION; RESTRICTED DISTRIBUTION I L. L L J, J. L L (, IJ . '• I' ! ··' -I, jl / I. CONFIDENTIAL; PRIVILEGED WORK PRODUCT PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION; RESTRICTED DISTRIBUTION GENERAL INVEST I GAT ION MEMORANDUM Susitna Hydroelectric Project Aqua tic Program Fiscal Year 1984 ---FINAL DRAFT Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture November 1983 • I ' I •. < L r 1. 1.' l. t. [. IL TA3LE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND 1. 2 GENERAL OBJECTIVES 2. 0 STUDY OBJECTIVES 3;0 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES 3.1 IMMEDIATE PRIORITY ISSUES 3.2 HIGH PRIORITY ISSUES 3.3 LOW PRIORITY ISSUES 4.0 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND DATA AVAILABILITY 5. 0 DELINEATION OF STUDY AREA 6.0 GENERAL METHODOLOGY 6.1 REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF ENGINEERING DESIGN CHANGES 6. 2 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTEGRATION 6. 3 IMPACT ASSESSMEN1' AND QU.ANTIF I CATION 6.3.1 Introduction 6.3.2 Task 4: Aquatic Habitat and Fisheries 6. 4 MITIGATION DEVELOPMENT 6, 5 REPORT PREPARATION 6.5.1 Review Reports 6.5.2 Discuss~on Memoranda and Environmental Evaluation Memoranda 6.5.3 General Investigation Memoranda 6.5.4 Planning Memoranda 6.5.5 Project Reports 6. 6 QUALITY ASSURANCE 7.0 STUDY COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT 7.1 HARZA-EBASCO 7. 2 IN'mRACTION WITH OTHER STUDY TEAMS ""' PAGE -- 1-1 1-1 1-1 2-1 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-5 4-1 5-1 6-1 6-3 6-5 J 6-5 ~ 6-5 6-8 I 6-15 6-16 f.~ 6-16 ~~ l' f 6-20 t 6-20 L 6-20 r- r· 6-21 .. 6-21 l 1. j I ! 7-1 I ' 7-1 t 7-2 I i f " L l i l l L ~ \,• l ! li) ! ' J ! [:, l .. 1 •o ( I ! ' l I f l I ' I ' ' ..• ~ .. '. l : ! I ' I I ... I I •• I I I I ' . ',1' ' t J.l·. \ • I I TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) SECTION 7. 3 SUBCONTRACTORS 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 7.3.4 Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC) R & M Consultants, Inc. E. Woody Trihey and Associates Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Inc. 7. 4 COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT OF SUBCONTRACTORS 8.0 SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES 9.0 BUDGET 10. 0 ATTACHMENTS APPENDIX A -AGENCY RAISED ISSUES APPENDIX B -LIST OF PREVIOUS STUDIES " PAGE 7-2 7-3 7-3 7-4 7-4 7-4 d-1 9-1 10-1 r· I I I I I I I I I I 1 .. I. 1. 0 !1:tTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND 'lhis General Investigation Memorandum sets forth the objectives, methodology, organization and personnel, schedule, deliverab les and budget fc.r accomplishing the fisherie~ and aquatic habitat studies needed to support the Federal Energy Regula tory Commission ( FERC) licensing of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. The activities and budget described in this memorandum are for Fiscal Year (FY) 1984 (July 1983 through June 1984). The understanding for developing the activiti~s described in this memorandum for the Aquatic Program was gained through: review of previous study reports on the Susitna Project; review of the FERC License Application, particularly Exhibit E; and meetings with the Power Authority, Resource Agencies, and aquatic studies subcontrac- tors. 1.2 GENERAL OBJECTIVES Task 4 of the H·E contract for the Susitna Project contains the En- vironmental Program for the Licensing and Design of the Project. The program is designed to meet the following general objectives~ 1. To evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed Pro- ject in order to recommend modifications and othe-r measures necessary to assure compatability of the Project with the environment; 1-1 1087B .. I I. l i f I I J I ! 1 l ' j· l l ! l L I l l I I I I I I I I ;I·· r I I I I I I I I I I I 2. 3. 4. To ensure that the technical aspects of the environme<ntal st:udy program enable compliance with statutory and regula- tory requirements governing proj~ct development; To develop coordinated, effective data collection and an- alysis programs which facilitates evalUJtion of project effects and mitigation of adverse effects of the proposed Project ; and To aasist and support engineering act:ivities to ensure pro- per and efficient implementation of design features to com- pLy with environmental constraints and objectives. Th~ specific study objectives for the Aquatic Program are presented in Section 2.0 of this memorandum. 1·-2 1087B • I I [ f I I ! t I ,. L ! i t. f' ( j t l I. I . I I I I I I ~ . . I I I ' ' I . ! . I I ' ' . I I I I I I I ~~----------·~"'"'""•"""_""" _ _,::i!alllii•iWiliiiiii&· m;•=· ~.=;';'li:SSIIIC!!IIl"'Fiilil!WB¥1!111•4;:r;::&~=::illlill--1511!l!ll!!llllllliiii9111F-I!'IIII!!J!IIIIIIII!Il!IIIIIIBitl!l¥11l!J&II.!I!C~-44!1Uii!II!IIWIII.I 2. 0 STIIDY OBJECTIVES Several specific study objectives have b1~en defined for the Aquatic Study Team. These study c ~jectives are based primarily on the Task 4 scope of work presented in the Susi tna Project Contract. A list of aquatic study activities for FY 1984 are presented on Table 2--1. The specific ~bjectives for the Aquatic Program are as follows: . 1 . 2. 3. 5. l087B Review, refine, and continue on-going aquatic programs that quantify Susitna resources potentially affected by the Pro- ject in order to establish existing conditions; Identify issues and concerns expressed by the FERC, re- source agencies, and the public about fisheries/ aqua tic habitat impacts associated with the Susitna Project in need of resol~tion for successful licensing of the Project. Coupled with this objective will be the development of ap- propriate data collection and analysis programs to resolve these issues and concerns; Develop and refine, as necessary, appropria.te mitigation plans for the impacts identified; Interact with other Tasks and Project participants to as- sure common goals and a coordinated effort; and Coordinate with Power Authority personnel to plan and man- age the Aquatic Program as necessary to complete licensing and permitting activities. 2-1 • I l I f l L r ! ! ' t l t 1 I I. I i I .~.'. j i I I I I I I ·I ;··· i I I I I I I I I 411Xibii &JII TABLE 2-1 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS STUDY ACTIVITIES 1. Prepare general investigation memorandum 2. Prepare detailed plan of study 3. Review and evalu~t~ previous fish and aquatic habitat studies 4. Review project plans and proposed operation 5. Review and evaluate impacts of design modifications 6. Prepare sections for revisions to the FERC License Application 7. Design~ implement, and monitor field data collection programs: o Slough fish habitat studies o sidechannel fish and habitat studies o tributary mouth fish habitat studies 8. Provide liaison among Aquatic Program participants to assure communication of data and results to appropriaFe parties 9. Provide liaison between Aqua tic Program and che Hydrology Task efforts 10. Provide liaison between .Aqua tic Program and regula tory agencies through FERC Licensing and Permitting Coordinator 11. Prepare responses to FERC requests for information and agency comments on License Application 12. Review and prepare comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 13. Review and prepa4e responses to agency comments on he DEIS 14. Evaluate significance of quantified effects of altered flow and temperature. on aquatic hab.itats 15. Participate in negotiation of project flow and temperature cri- teria with agencies 16. Participate in Settlement Process 2-2 1087B I ! I L I I' t'l r ! : l t I ) fc }'j I I .I I , •. --, I ' I •.. : ' I -1 --- , ' I il I I I I I I I 3. 0 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES The first stap in preparing the Investigation Memorandum and the Detailed Plan of Study for the Aquatic Program is the identification of specific issues which must be addressed during the licensing pro- cess. A preliminary list of issues has been developed from the! ·f<:>l- low-ing sources: 1. The FERC and State and Federal Resource Agency comments on the draft Exhibit E of the Susitna License Application '*hich was circulated in November 1982; 2. Review of the impact issues presented i~ the Exhibit E as filed with the FERC in February 1983 and comparison with the i3sues identified from comments on the Draft Exhibit E; 3. Discussions wit!l the Susitna Project aquatic studies sub- contractors. These discuss ions are held to develop an ap- proach to the continuing data collec:tion program to fill data gaps and complete data sets perceived as nec~ssary by the study participants. Based on these sources, the following list of licens:f.ng issues was developed as a core program for the Aquatic Study Team. The issues are presented in order of priori.ty to satisfy immediate and future needs in the FERC licensing process. The list is as comprehensive as possible at this time and encompasses studies that may continue afte.r FY84. However, modifications to this list and changes in pri- orities may be indicated during the licensing process. A detailed summary of this listing is incl'.lded in Section 10.0 as Appendix A. 3-1 1087B • ~I!!!!!! I I I '- I I .. I . I I I •• I liili :1 I I I I .J I I -, ; kll.i\1 )J&L .P?£~ ' 3.1 IMMEDIATZ PRIORITY ISSUES ---·-...-.---- Issues and concerns identified by the FERC and the resource agencies which require immediate attention center on the proposed flow re- gimes and potantial temperature changes resulting from rE!gual tion of the Susitna. River by the proposed Project. T},~ principal concern is that the magnitude and timing o-f. thE"! proposed changes in flow regime and the potential alteration of temperatures, particularly in the Devil Canyon to Talkeetna reach, will affect anadromous and resident fish populations and their habitats, Specific pote~tial impacts and are attributable to regulation of flow and alteration of temperature include: 1. Inhibition of access to slough spawning an;:i rearing habi·· tats for resident and anadr0mous fish; 2. Changes in access to tributary rearing and spawo ing areas oy resident and anadromous fish populations; 3. Alteration of juvenile rearing habitats in the main channel and side channels; 4. Alteration of winter habitats for resident and rearing ana- dromous fish populations; and 5. Effects on outmigration of anadromous fish; Quantification of aquatic habitats for resident and anadromous fish between Devil Canyon and Talkeetna over a range of flow conditions in the river during appropriate portions of the year will enable resolution of these specific issues. To provide this quantifica- tion, d;!ta describing the habitat require!'.:lents of the fish species and their habitat relationships coupled with a detailE:.d quantifica- tion of the physical hahitat will be provided. 3··2 1087B .. i r f' L: r I I l j 1 I I I :1 I I I I I .I I I I I Also, fish habitat data availability under various flow regimes is necessary.· M1.1ch of this information is available, el ther as raw data or in preliminary analysis. Completion of the collection of required data and analysis of the data to quantify fish habitats in the Devil Canyon to Talkeetna reach of the Susitna River constitutes the highest priority for the Aquatic Program. Another study that will be given high priority is an examination of the physical changes in aquatic habitat between Talke~tna and Cook Inlet. Information concerning this reach is not currently suffi- cient to make adequate impact predictions. Therefore, a stepwise approach to studying this reach will be undertaken. During FY84, studies will be primarily focused on a. physical description of po- tential changes attributable to the Project. Some biological stud- ies will be included (see Appendix B) that will describe habitat utilization by fish. In addition, a summary of informat.i.on pertain- ing to fish and their habitats in the Lower River will be prepared. By the end of FY84, an analysis will be COlli~·lete on the signficance of potential impacts to the lower river, and recommendations will be made on whether additional studies are needed and the extent of such study, if necessary. 3.2 HIGH PRIORITY ISSUES -...... ----------- In addition to the quantification of impacts to the fisheries/ aquatic habitats between Devils Canyon and Talkeetna, several issues have been identified which are of a less urgent nature yet require attention in the near future. These issues include: 1. The potential success of plans for mitigating effects of flow regulation on the fisheries and aquatic habitat be- 1087B tween Devils Canyon and Tal kef~ t~~a. This issue raised q ues- tions regarding the effects of modifying the flow 3-3 •. I I l ! ~ !: I J: l I f I ! t I ! I I I .I 1_ ... __ "-·· ' ;I I ~I I I I I I .I I I I 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1087:8 regimes to accommodate resident and anadromous fish popula- tions, particularly during critical seasonr.; of the year. Based on the results of this analysis, potential mitigation measures .include modification of spawning and rearing areas in the Susitna River, which must be demonstrated to be ef- fective: The potantial loss of fish populations, particularly resi- dent arcttc grayling, in the impoundments of the Watana and Devils Canyon dams; Potential impacts to resident and anadromous fish popula- tions and aquatic habitats in the Cook Inlet to Talkeetna reach of the Susitna River; Development of a longterm construction and operation period monitoring program to document Project ~ffects on resident and anadromous fish populations and habitat; Potential effe.cts of the construction camp and ancillary faciities on fisheries and aquatic habitats in the imme- diate area of the camp. This issue includes potential ef- fects to the lakes to be inundated by the proposed reser- voir and affected by the permanent village and to the near- by stream; and The potential increases and subsequent loss of salmon spawning hab.i tat in the area of the Devils Canyon impound·- ment. 3--4 .. .... l ! I I l I 1 L, f I ! ! l I I l j I I I ····-·-. ' I ·1··.:- , I I I I I I I .I I £5• ,, k 3. 3 LOW PRIORITY ISSUES Issues that will require attention in the future but are not of im- mediate concern will focus on the final resolutions to existing is- sues. Studies to resolve these lower priority issues will be con- ducted, but not necessarily in the immediate future. These issues include: 1. Determination of specific plans for mitigating effects of flow regulation and alteration of temperature on fisheries and aquatic habitats. This will include determination of ') .... which sloughs will be modified and to what extent and spe-- cification. Design of the modification of a particular slough will require relatively iatense evaluation of the hydrologic processes and characteristics of the slough and specification of the desired characteristics to be achieved; Specifica tlon of the methods for enhancing resident fish populations in the impoundment zones and determination of the level of effort necessary to replace lost fisheries resources in areas outside the impoundment zone. 3-5 " Tililll ~- 1 J I ! l ~ ' ' i: I I •• • • ,. I I I I I I I I I I I • 1 £0$ MiLL 4. 0 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND DATA AVAILABILITY The Susi.tna Environmental Progratn is an ongoing process which relies and builds on the data, results, and conclusions of previously con- dutMed studies. A list of representative studies c~nducted or initiated prior to the Licensing Period which help to provide baseline data fo~ the Aquatic Studies Program is presented in Section 10.0. Appendix B. Additional reports, studies and relevant data will be ~eviewed and utilized in our Cissessment of the aqua~ic impacts c1f the Susi tna Hydroe1ectric Project. 4-1 • f I !. l f I I l I • 'It • I ,. I ••••• ' ! I I ! •.. \ I I I I I I 5.0 DELINEATION OF STUDY AREA The primary focus of the current Aquatic Studies .Program will be the fisheries and aquatic habitats that occur along the Susitna River and floodplain between Devils Canyon and Talkeetna. Within this reach of the river, six habitat types (mainstem, side sloughs, side channels, upland sloughs, tributary mouths and tributaries) have been identified. The study area also encompasses the reach of the Sus itna River be- tween Talkeetna and Cook Inlet. Detailed delineations of specific study sites are presented in the Detailed Plan of Study for the Aqua tic Program. 5-1 • 1087B ! I j I t 1 I I t I ! l t.:. r l. ) I I { l f\ I ! I I I· I .I I I I I :1''' .. il I I I ·I 6. 0 GENERAL METIDDOLOGY The basic methodology for completion of activities for the Aquatic Program will involve, as a first step, iden~ificatton of the licen- sing issue or concern to be addr~ssed. This will also include a reexamina ti.on of issues raised that prompted the development of on-going programs (e.g., those designed to establish existing condi- tions). Once issues are identified, a de tailed Plan of Study will be developed for each activity. The Plan of Study r.vill prese11t a statement of the issue and its justification, the hypothesis to be tested t methodology for data collection and analysis necessary, a description of the proposed output, and a schedule for deliverables. Fo~ the FY84 program and thereafter, all subcontractors will be re- quired to provide the above information for their continuing TJ~ork tasks as a part of their scopes of work in their contracts. The following activities will be use1 to identify and utilize exist- ing data bases for addressing licensing issues. 1. ') .... 3. 4. 1087B Item Identification of the License Issue Evaluate Existing Uata Bases, Proposed Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plans as ~ppropriate to Address Issue Decision on Use of Existing Data Base Retrieval of Applicable Data Base 6·1 Res~~ibi;!;!~l Harza-Ebasco, APA Harza-Ebasco, Appropriate Subcontractor Harza-Ebasco Appropriate Subcontractor ' i j l l I l l I I l I f i ! I t ,, I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Item Selection of Analy- tical Procedure for Data Reduction and Evaluation. Data Analysis Review and Evaluate Impacts on Desi~! Criteria Data Interrr~tation Report Preparation Review and Comment on Draft Report 10. Finalization and Sub mi ttal of Report 11. Submittal of Report Harza-Ebasco, Appropriate Subcontractor Harza-Ebasco, Appropriate Subcontractor Harza·-Ebasco Harza-·Ebasco Power Authority and Sub- contractors as Appropriate Harza-Ebasco Power Authority In addition to Harza Ebasco' s need for access to and support in analysis of the existing dat:1 base for the Susitna Project, the Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center habitat modeling studies will have a similar need for acc€ss to all baseline dat:t. The timely transfer of data among study participant~ will be facili- tated through biweekly coorC.ittation meetings of the Aquatic Study Team which includes aJl aquatic subcontractors., The Aquatic Study Team ~"ill have the responsibility for.-as."uring identification uf, access to and transfer of data with in the program. 6-2 .. I I I I I I I I I ·It f I 11 IJ I ll ·ll I] The specific environmental program activities. to be accomplished by the Aqua tic Study Team are given in the Table 2-1. The work tasks proposed to accomplish these activities are presented below. 6.1 REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF ENGL~EERING uESIGN CHANGES ~--------------~---- As a part of the work scope for the Susitna Project, a review of the project engineering and operations will be performed. to optimize the overall project concept. A major aspect of this process is to con- sider the environmental implications of proposed engineering design modifications. Ultimately this will lead to the preparation of en- vironmental r-eports on project design modifications which may be incorporated into.an interim report or the FERC License Application. The following process has been identif~ed for the development of the required Environmental Reports. After initial disc\~ssions concerning the nature of a potential de- sign modification between engineering and environmental personnel, a "Discussion Memorandum" will be prepared by the appropriate environ-- mental scientist. The objectives of this memora.1dum will be to pro·- mot·~ communicati.on between engineering and environmental personnel. Specifically, the memorandum will: 1. Verify understanding of proposed design modifications; 2. J,.087B Alert environmental task leaders to the potential design modi fica tiou and associated environmental implications; 6-3 • I I I I / I l ! J. I I l ! ! I ! ! l I I I I I I I I I I I ·I ·I I I ,1]! •! IJ IJ 3. Provide initial environmental inputs to the engineering planning process regarding potential environmental conse- quences of the proposed modification; and 4. Serve as a mechanism to identify additim.~ •l environmental consequences or data requirements regarding the modifica- tion and its impacts. When the engineering evaluation process is complete 1 a draft report will be prepared to accompany the engineering study report. The depth and detail of the environmental review and the expertise re- quired will depend on the nature of the design modification and the anticipated Project impacts. The Environmental Evaluation Memorandum will be specific in its dis- cussion of potential impacts of the recommended engineering ap- proach. It will include, whenever feasible, quantification of im- pacts, recommended mitigation options, engineering· alternatives, and costs of implementation. Differences in the nature and magnitude of impacts of al ternati"re engineering plans will be pointed out. If quap.tification of impacts cannot be provided on the basis of availa- ble information, method's to obtain the information will be recom- mended including field studies, if necessary. Finally j and most importantly, the nature and extent of changes to the rest of the Exhibit E will be identified and transmitted to the Power Authority for transmittal to the FERC, if ap.propriate. The environmental report on design changes will essentially be a compilati.otn of the individual evaluation memoranda supplemented by any additional detail that can be developed regarding the design modifications contained in the engineering report. In order to assure needed inputs to this evaluation process, copies of the Di.scussion Memoranda and Environmental Evaluation Memoranda will be circulated to appropriate individuals for their informa- tion. Spl!cific requests for information or assistance will be made 6-4 1087B I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' .... J I 11 ll I 11.~ IJ I ll on a direct basis. Comments or questions on the memoranda will be discussed with its au thor, as soon as possible to assure adequate flow of up-to-date information. 6. 2 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTEGRATION Reviews performed on field data from past studies conducted for the Susitna Project feasibility study and license preparation phase of the Project have shown that there is an extremely large data base available. Much of these data concerning Project impac.t issue has been only partly analyzed. Efficient utilization of this data base to answer existing or new Project licensing issues as they develop over the coming mc>nths will be of critical importance 9 Since the majority of these data were collected and maintained by the ADF&G Su Hydro Studies Team, it is necessary that the appropriate members of this team be made a"lailable to work in close coordination with the Harza-Ebasco Aquatic Study Team. Consequently, the Aquatic Program has requested that three task leaders of the ADF&G S..,.. Hydro Study Team be made available to work directly with Harza-Ebasco for about 20% of their time ov·er the first six month of FY84. Likewise, ap- propriate personnel from R&M Consultants, Inc. will be asked for approximately lOi. of their time over the same period. 6.3 IMPACT ASSE~NT AND g~ANTIFICATION 6.3.1 Introduction The Impact Assessment and Quantification Program is designed to pre- dict the potential physical and biological ~hanges in aquatic habi- tat that could result from Project construction, filling and opera- tion. The studies are generally divided into 1) hydrology and hy- draulic modeling and, 2) aquatic habitat and fisheries investiga- tions. The modeling efforts are primarily being performed under Task 42 Hydrology whereas the aqua tic habitat and fisheries studies are under Task 4 Environmental. As such, intensive coordination of 6-5 1087B I I I f r !· I l f j, I I l I } I I I I I " l l I ! 1. I I I I I I I I I I l l •' I I ! ' i ' I il . I I . I; :t I] the two Tasks will occur to assure that the goals of each are compat- tibl~ and interactive. Figure 6-1 presents a general diagram of how information and models from both tasks will be used to evaluate impacts. It also shows the input from Harza-Ebasco and the various subconsultants. The following list provides the key elements of the Hydrology stud-· ies as they relate to Environmental obje.ctives: 1. 3. 4. 5. Rev!~_!XisJ~ng da~~~~~~~~ -existing data and stud- ies will be reviewed to evalute their adequacy for describ- ing baseline conditions and for input to mathematical models: Reser!oir o~!~ns ~~l -the reservoir operations model is key to both the power generation studies and the envi- ronmental studies as it simulates timing and quantity of power generated and water released from the reservior. The model will be developed and used to si.mulate operation for four to eight electric load demand condttions; Rese;;.;:y~ir te:~_Eera~yre/_~c~~!~die~ -the Dynarrdc Reee~ tfior Simulation Model (DYRESM) will be calibrated to simulate vertical temperature profiles and reservoir ice thickens under unsteady flow conditions; Instream hydLaulic modeJ -the HEC-2 backwater program cal- ibrated and operated by R&rf Consultants will be used to determine instream hydraulic conditions during ice free periods required by the habitat model; Instream temperature model -the AEIDC is calibrating a ------- dynamic temperature steady flow heat transport model called SNTEMP whicl'\ locates tributary and groundwater in- flows by re~ch between points ef measured stream flow; 6-6 • j I I I I I l I I l l I ' I I I I . . I II I I I I 1· . . . I IJ I I I I ; ' 1:. ;\ ' I FIGURE 6-1 -OVERVIEW OF AQUATIC PROGRAM EFFORT Hydr aul.J..c Data Clima.tic Data R&l'f Consultants/ ADF &G /Trihey R&M Consultants I Hydrologic/ Hydraulic Models Reservoir Operations Reservoir Temp & Ice Instream Hydraulics Instream Temperature Basin Water Balance Instream Ice Groundwater Bedload/Sediment Transport Harza-Ebasco Comparison of Pre·-and Post- Habitat Hydraulic Biological Data R&M Consultants ADF&G/Trihey ADF&G Available Habitat ADF&G Habitat Utilization ADF&G Habitat _. Preference ~ ADF&G ', tiab1tat :Quality Indices AD<'&G Flow/Temperature vs. Habitat Relationships .. Project Flow and l--._ __ _,,..,Temperature llfii~~------' 1087B Conditions AEIDC Intpact Assessment AEIDC , Significance of Impact Harza-Ebasco P·ower Authority I 6-7 Mitigation Planning Harza-Ehasco/WCC, Power Authority .. ) I I I ! I I I l I I ~ l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' -' 6. 7. 8. Instream ice model -the instream ice model will be coupled with the instream temperature model to study the influence of ice on water surface profiles and on heat transfer and the formation and progression of ice cover; River-reservoir sediment studies -the principal concerns ----~---------------- of this analysis will be to determine effects of Project generation on fish access to tributaries and sloughs and the need for the design of mitigation measures; and certain sloughs between Talkeetna and Devil Canyon have been iden- tified as salmon spawning habitat. A major feature of these sloughs is that they are fed by groundwater which is much lower in turbidity than river water. In winter, the in£ lowing groundwater is above freezing and open water is maintained in the sloughs. Higher post--project winter flows could adversely affect slough water temperaturs and hence, fish habitat by increasing the proportion of cold groundwater inflow from the river. The studies proposed at this tine are based on existing field dat3. and evaluation of modeling studies performed by Acres. The Aquatic Program is prepared to: 1) address the specific impact issues and goals summarized in Appendix A and, 2) improve input to the AEIDC modeling efforts (see Figure 6-1). The primary study areas in FY84 will be Talkeetna to Devil Canyon and Talkeetna to Cqok Inlet, respectively. The baseline data collection and impact evaluations designed for these study areas are presented in Tables 6-1 and 6-2. Harza··Ebasco will coordinate this program with speci·- flc tasks assigned to the following Harza-Ebasco or Power Authority subcontractors. 6-8 1087B I l I I J I I ! r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . ' I I Fish: DATA COLLECTION Abundance, Distribution, Migration Rates Fish Numbers Habit:at Available: Prefe.~rred, Utili.zed Hydraulic Data: Veloc:i,ty, Depth, Substrate, Dishcharge, Thal'i¥eg and WSEL, Temperature Relationships to Mainstem Discharge Groundwater Ice Processes: Front Locations, Thickness~ Break-up, Jams 1087B TABLE 6-1 TALKEETNA TO DEVIL CANYON - BASELINE DATA COLLECTION &~ IMPACT EVALUATIONS DATA A..~ALYSIS IMPACT EVALUATION Fish Abundance Simulation Modeling Estimates Reservoir Operation Fish Distribution Reservoir Temp. Juvenile Salmonid Survival Summary Juvenile Salmonid Ou tmigra tion Timing IFG Type Incre- mental Analysis Correlation of Habitat and Distribution of Fish Distributions of Habitat Types Ice Processes Analyses Instream Hydraulics Temp. and Ic. ~ Gt-oundwater Bedload/Suspended Sediment Transport Fish Habitat Model Quantitative Impact Assessment -Fish & Aquatic Habitat 6-9 • END RESULTS Incremental Analysis Reports: Open Water Season Ice covered Season Verfication of Model Elements Habitat Map Ice Observations Report Position Paper on Water Quality Position Paper on Gas Super- saturation l ! l r ! J l. [ I II I I I I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 6-2 LOWER RIVER STUDIES (COOK INLET TO TALKEETNA) - BASELINE DATA COLLECTION AND IMPACT EVALUATIONS DATA COLLECTION Aerial Photography Groundtruthing (cross sections) Fish Habitat Description Fish Distribution Bedload/ Suspended Sediments Ice Observations 1087B DATA Ai~ALYS IS Preliminary Flow Evaluations Temperature Modeling Water Balanca Modeling Ice Processes Syn thes i.s. Review Available Data Fish Populations Fish Habitats Fish Habitat Ground Truthing 6-10 IMPACT EVALUATION Magnitude of Change for Each Aspect END RESULTS Position Paper on Hydrologic Relationships Position Paper on Ice Processess Pbsition Paper on Bedload Sediment Transport Evaluation of Effects on Fish Habitat Assess Effects to Navigation Determine Need for Future Studies ;!:B. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. Alaska Department of Fish and Game -the ADF&G will be pri- marily responsible for developing and conducting field studies that provide information and data on existing re- sources and information geared to the identification or updating of the impact assessment. Also, the informat.ton developed will be used during construction and operation as a bas is for monitori'1g impacts. The ADF&G has a team of biologists led by Mr. Tom Trent assigned to study the aqua- t1 c fisheries resources of the Su:: ltna Bas in. The team has been organized into distinct nni ts to a.ddrr~ss v. "':'ious as- pects of the fisheries resource questions. These units and their assignments are: o Residen~.~~_enile __ ~r_omous fi!!,he~~ -this unit will examine the s~~sonal distribution, rel-- 0 0 ative abundance, and habltat requirements of re- siden_t and juvenile fish on the Susi tna River between Cook Inlet and Devil Canyon; Anadromous adult fisheries -this unit will de- termine timing, distribution and relative abun- dance of adult anadromous fish within the Susitna Basin that could be affected by the Susitna Project; Aquatic habitat and instream flow studies -this _________ .._. _ _,....,...._.__.---·--·------..... unit is primarily responsible for characterizing the seasonal habitat requirements of selected anadromous and resident fish \vi thin the Susi tna Basin. Although other subcontractors may also collect information on habitat requir<!mants, it is the main purpose of this group to use that data and the data collected under studies by this unit, to synthesize the relationships among phys- ical parameters such as discharge, velocity, depth, temperature and water quality tu fish habitat; 6-11 I l j l l I i ! l I ! ! ! r ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. 3. 4. o Data processin_s -this unit supports the efforts of the. other units by providing data analyses, compila- tion and sampling design; and 0 Administration and support -this unit provides for ------ the overall administration and operation of the Su Hydro Aquatic Studies Team. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center -the pri- mary tasK. of the AEIDC is to take information from other study groups (primarj.._ly the ADF&G, Harza-Ebasco, and E. Woody Trihey and Associates) and develop a model of the relationships am:>ng discharge, temperature, and fish habi- tat as related to Project construction and operation. From this model, various flow regimes will be assessed as to their impact on fisheries resources. To achieve this goal, AEIDC will link various models (reservoir operations, tem- perature, etc.) to provide discharge versus habitat rela- tionships. The principal investigator for AEIDC is Mr. William Wilson. E. Woody Trihey and Associates -Mr. Trihey of this organi- zation is a hydraulic engineer who has worked on the Susit- na system for several years. Mr. Trihey i-till be directly responsiblE for providing technical advice and expertise to the ADF&G for their field studies and analyses. Mr. Trihey will also help coordinate exchange of information from the ADF&G to the .AEIDC as input for their modeling efforts. R&M Consultants -this firm will provide information on the physical aspects of the Susitna Basin which can help deter- mine physical impacts due to the. Project and be used by other subcontractors to support impact assessment efforts. 6-12 r !: I l' I I I I· ! l l I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I 5. .~. : Examples of efforts to be conducted are: development of instream cross-sectional data, observing and recording in- formation concerning ice break-up, and performing water quality measurements. The R&M studies will be directed by Mr. Steve Bredthauer. Woodward Clyde Consul·tants -this firm will primarily be responsible for developing a detailed mitigation plan that will be submitted to th.e FERC as a supplemental informa t ton report. Woodward Clyde will also assist in the overall planning .of the aqua.tic program and in the instream flow negotiation process. This work will be dir.ected by Dr. Larry Moulton of Woodward Clyde. Considerable amounts of data h.ave been collected and/ or analyzed by the above groups during the lg:Bl and 1982 field seasons. Addi tiona! studies will be performed during the 1983 field season. This infor- mation will be used. to support licensing acti-vities, mitigation planning and development of long-term monitoring plans. The Harza-Ebasco Aqua tic Stuc:y Team will also perform the following tasks: 1. · Provide input to FERC licensing efforts -this will include the development of responses to the FERC comments and re.- 2. quests for information, responses to agency comments, and interaction with other groups that require aquatic informa- tion (e.g., information on the effects of Project impacts on subsistence fishing are required as part of socio- economic studies). Input from other groups will be pro- vided as cieeded. A major effort will be answering the FERC supplemental questions and development of any licensing amendments, if required; Provide input to other tasks. -includes transmission line routing and access corridor seJ.ection; 6-13 I l I j I I j j l j I l ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3. 4. 5. Work interactively with the Project engineers -assist on design questions (e.g., how to minimize gas supersatura- tion) and operation questions (e.g., flows needed to mai:l- tain aquatic habitat); Interface with the Public Parti ci pa tion and Need for Power Alternatives Study Groups; and Work with the Power Authority to develop information for negotiation of instream flow requirements. The major emphasis of FY84 studies will be on the river reaches be- tween Tal~eetna and Devil Canyon and between Talkeetna and Cook In- let. The studies will be concentrated on the following: 1. Sloughs -including studies on access, incubation, emer- gence, habitat availability and utilization for rearing and spawnlng, groundwater (upwelling, temperature and water surfacL elevation), physical habitat (e.g., velocity, depth, and substrat .. r), outmigrant timing and abundance; 2. Side channels -including studies on habita c. availability and utilization for rearing and spawning physical habi.tat, 3. 4. 5. 1087B fish abundance and distribution; Mainstem -physical habitat studies primarily aimed at as- sessing incremental flow versus habitat relationships st~d~ ies on oucmigrant timing and abundance; Tributary mouth -fish abundance and distribution and phy- sical habitat studies aimed at assessing available habltat for spawning; and Tributaries --studies will concentrate on dev~loping spe- cies preference curves foJ:' spawning and rearing. 6·-14· ~ ! l: t r l I I l ! !· I { I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In all of these habitats except the mainstem, spawning ground sur- veys of adult anadromous salmonids will be made to assess escape~ !Dent. These surveys will be performed in conjunction with counts made at fish wheels located at Yentna, Talkeetna, Sunshine, and Curry stations. In the river below the confluence of the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers (l'Jwer river), physical impacts of the Project should be somewhat reduced because the flow from the Susitna River upstream of Talkeetna contributes less than half of the total mean annual flow. Therefore, only reconnaissance level studies were planned in 1983 to gather data on wetted surface areas of the lower river and specific habitat types such as sloughs and tributary mouths over a range of river flows. This will be accomplished by means of aerial photo- graphy. A range of 12, 000 to 60,000 cfs mains tem flows at s~~tshirte Station were targeted. Groundtruthing to support th' ·photography will bP conducted at selected sites. Ground data will include cross sections, water sur- face r-rofiles and discharge measurements. No attempt to tie slough elevations into a regional datum will be made at this time. Slough flow conditions on the observation dates will be related t:l a tam- porary bench mark set at each slough and staff gage readings on the main river. In addition, bedload and suspended sediment studies and ice observations will be made. Integrated with these physical s~udies will be studies on fish distribution and habitat. The details for accomplishing this major work task will be provided in a detailed Plan of Study. 6. 4 MITIGATION DEVELOPMENT - An initial mi. tigation plan was described in the FERC License Appli- cation submitted February 28, 1983. Through discussions with the Power Authority, Woodward Clyde a.1d Ha:cza.-Ebasco, a more detailed plan will be developed and refined. Following this, a draft plan 6-15 I I I I I I I I I I I· I I I I I I I I will be pres~nted to key state and federal resource agencies for review and comment. Official written comments will be solicited on the plan with a follow-up meeting to resolve a.reas of disagreement. The goal of this process will be to achieve a final mitigation plan that can be submitted to the FERC. This planning process will be on-going and the plan will be modified through time in response to design changes and results of on-going and future studies such as the slough modification and grayling enhancement studies. The gen- eral approach to these latter studies is presented in Tables 6-3 and 6-4. As part of the mitigation planning efforts, there will also be the development of a monitoring program (Table 6-5) to evaluate the mitigation planning effort. 6.5 REPORT PREPARATION - The reports to be produced by the Aqua tic Study Team are described in this section and are listed in Table 8-I (Section 8.0). 6.5.1 Review Reoorts ---.. Harza-Ebasco will review subcontractors' reports for technical con- tent, completeness, responsiveness to the agreed scope, and analysis of subcontractors' conclusions and recommendations as to their ap- propriateness for use in licensing activities. Based on this re- view, Harza-Ebasco will judge the acceptability of subcontractor reports as to the completeness of the subcontractor's technical scope. Reviews will be presented to the subcontractor and the Power Authority in letter format with attached memorandum detailing the technical review. 6-16 • 1087B I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I ' ' ,. ;I APPROACHl/ Feasibility Level Planning for Facility .c\.nal ys is of Magnitude of Lost Populations Document Experience in Arctic Grayling Culture Facility Siting Study Arctic Grayling Culture Information TABLE 6-3 MITIGATION PLANNING GUYI:ma HATCt!mtr Literature Review of Fish Culture and Technology Demonstration Project + Determi~e Number of Fish for c Alternative Options Mitigation RESULTS OF ASSESSMENT Feasibility Level Determination of Hatchery Implementation Plan Baseline Data on Grayling Population ------------------- 1/Principal subcontractors will be Wovdward Clyde Consultants. 6-17 I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 6-4 MITIGATION PLANNING: STRUCTURAL HABITAT-MODIFICA+ION APPRO A ail/ Feasibility Level Study Slough Modification > and Biologic Data Modification ---~· 0 Modification Plan n~FORMATION REQUIR&~ENTS --· .-..- Slough Hydrologic and Biologic Data: 0 Productive Slough 0 Unproductive Slough Results of Incremental Flow Analysis: 0 IFG Studies 0 Susitna Simulation (SUSIM) Modeling -------------·------------- 0 Monitoring RESULTS OF ASSESSMF~T --~-- Recommended Mitigation Plan Negotiated Mitigation Plan 1/ -Principa,.l subcontractors will be Woodward Clyde Consultants with assistance from AEIDC, ADF&G, R&M AND EWT&A. 6-18 "' 1087B I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPROACHl/ Baseline Conditions INFO~TION REQ~IR~ENTS Data Collection: °Fish Distribution and Abundance 0 Habitat Data TABLE 6-5 MITIGATION PLANNING: MONITORING PROGRAMS Time-Series Summarization Statistical Evaluation RESULTS OF ASSESSMENT Evaluation of Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan eMigration and Movements 0 Representative Species 6-19 1087B r ' ' I~ , I J ' ,.,., ·J I ( J i . j I ~; . ' I : ., .J 1 ~ ... ·· l. :1 , i ~ 6.5.2 Discussion Memoranda and Environmental Evaluation Memoranda -------------------------~------~~-~~---~ These two documents are intended to be Harza-Ebasco internal working documents to promote int~rnal communications among the engineering design team, the Aquatic Study Team, members of ether environmental programs and the Task 6 permitting group. These are general memo- randa that identify specific issues or items that have been identi- fied for potential analysis or additional work, They are generally less than two pages, present the issue (e.g., a design change) and identify potential means to examine the issue and resolve it. 6.5.3 General Investigati~n Memoranda A General Investigation Me1JlQrandum will be prepa.rt:d for all major technical work task undertakings (i.e., modeling studies, impact assessment studies, data analysis) planned by the Harza-Ebasco Aqua- tic Study Team. These Investigation Memoranda will generally ad- dress the following topics: background, need for the study, ob- jectives, methodology, description of out puts and/ 01: deliverables, schedule, personnel and costs. 6.5.4. P!~~ing Memoranda Planning Memoranda are detailed documents to provide all required information to the engineering design teams to allow them to incor- porate required environmental protection features into the Project design and/or to provide the basis for design of mitigation and en- hancement features of the Project. Environmental Planning Memoranda typically provide the physical criteria such as permissible ranges, maximum and/or miniL~m standards whlch must be met by the engineer- ing design group (i.e., velocity, rate of change in flow, etc.) and may include preliminary layouts of the feature under design. 5-20 1087B .. IJ I l I .1···~ q 1 ~ IJ 11 J 11 1 I.~.! 1 ! \ " .l ~~ I'! I I l l i ! Ill.·. l 'l i I j l'l I 1 l i .1 J:! l & I . 'J 11. ' ct 1'··.·.' j ., '. ";:! 6.5.5 Project Re~o~~ Project reports are "stand alone" documents of a wide variety of types which cover a major topic. A .Fisheries Mitigation Report is an example o£ a stand alone document and would contain introductory and backgrou1'J.d material taken from the li tera.ture, results of var- ious project field and office investigation, input from reviewing agencies, an.d planning memoranda prepared for specific features of the Mitigation Plan. 6.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE - All subcontractors will be required to apply a Quality Assurance Program to their studiesc This will include quality assurance pro- cedures for data collection, checking, and storage, analytical pro- cedures, analyses performed on data, and processes for incorporating data into final reports. Harza-Ebasco will develop a QA Manual to encompass any studies in which it directly participates and to in- clude an overview of QA prQcedures by all Task 4 subconsultants. Other items included in the QA Program will be ·~rganiza tion charts, lines of authority and identification of the person(s) responsible for QA, methods for assuring competency and safety of files, audit programs and the identification of persons responsible for technical quality of the reports. 6-21 1087B I l~.l ,, .; li . ' ,, 1,, l i~ ' ·. ! . , 1'' . ••• til! a- 7.0 STUDY OOORDINATION A.I.'ID MANAGEMENT As a result of the large area potentially affected upstream and downstream of the PrG.ject, the amunt of information available con- cerning the Susi tna River prior to Project licensing~ and the com- plexity of the aquatic ecosystem, an extensive effort has been made to study this syatem and the potential impacts of the proposed Pro- ject on it. The organizational structure developed to assure that the objectives of the Task 4 efforts are accomplished involves over- all management and coordination of the efforts b¥ Harza-Ebasco with. support from subcontractors and .other Tasks. Tnis section provides a general description of the ~~ganizational structure. 7.1 HARZA-EBASCO The Aqua tic Program will be performed by a Study Team under the overall guidance of Dr. Gary Lawley, the Harza-E:basco ~nviro.nmental and Regulatory Operations Manager. the Aquatic Study Team, under Dr. G. Lawley include: Group Leader Fisheries Biology Aquatic Ecology Hydrologist Biologist 1087B The personnel participating in the direct supervi~ion of Dr. J. Bizer Dr. D. Beyer !1r. K. Fresh Dr. T. Stuart Mr. w. Dyok Ms. A. Rivkin I~ r I' 1: 11 11 i L I~, 7 ,. 2 IN'lERACTION WITH OTHER STUDY TEM1S The Aquatic Study Team will work close:y wtth members of the FERC Licensing and Permitting Group (Task 6) to provide necessary support for compliance with the FERC, agency and public requests. The evaluation and assessment of potential impacts on the ecological interface between the aqua tic a.nd terrestrial habitats will be coor- dinated with the Harza ·Ebasco (Task 4) Terrestrial Study Team. This team is supervised by Mr. R. Fairbanks. The Aquatic Study Study Team will also work w.ith Dr. E. F. Dudley, who is presently charged with coordination of environmental evalu- ation and review of engineering operation and design modifications studies being undertaken by members of the Engineering Design (Task 3) and Need for Power Study (Task 40) Teams. 7. 3 SUBCONTRACTORS For FY84 the Aquatic Study Team will be supported by four subcontractors. These subcontractors and their areas of responsibility for the Susitna Project include: 1. 2. 1087B Arctic Environmental Information Impact Assessment through and Data Center (AEIDC) Fisheries Habitat R&M Consultants 7-2 Modeling Study Hydrological, Climato- logical and Water Quality Data Collection and Monitoring I r r r r ,. [. r ··' IJ [ u . ' I 3. 4. E. Woody Trihey and Associates Woodward Clyde Consultants Hydrology, Aquatic Habitat Studies Assistance in the Aquatic Mitigation Program and General Licensing Support Activities Continued fisheries and aquatic habitat baseline studies will be conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's (ADF&G) Susitna Hydroelectric ( "Su Hydro .. ) Aquatic Studies Team under a Reimbursable Services Agreement (RSA) with the Power Authority. 7.3.1 Arctic Environmental Information and Data Genter (AEIDG) ------...,. ___ ........._ ___ ~_,_ The AE IDG' s 1984 scope of work will be directed to completion of modeling efforts previously initiated. The Harza-Ebasco Aquatic Study Team will provide significant support ln the physical modeling effort required (operation model) hydraulic model, ice model, sedi- ment model). For this effort the AE I.OG will concentrate on the habitat modeling designed to quantify fisheries impacts that will result from alternative flow regimes. The results of the AEIDG modeling studies will be used for negotiations with the resource agencies. 7.3.2 R&M Consultants In9or22!!£~~ The R&M Scope of work provides for collection and pr~liminary reduc- tion of hydrologic, hydraulic, temperatLtre and climate data neces- sary for calibration of the mathematical models developede In addition, R&M is responsible for that are be5.ng the preliminary hydrologic and hydraulic. evaluation of the Talkeet~a to Cook Inlet 7-3 1087~ r I. I 1 .. I I I I I, I Reach of the Susitna River. This later info~·.ilation will be used. to determine what detailed studies will be required to fully evaluate the effects of the Sttsitna Project on the Lower River and will provide the basis for selecting appropriate study sit~s. 7.3.3 E. Woodv Trihey and Associates -----~"-.. ....,.. -_......_ . ..:..... ___ ~ The efforts of Mr. Woody Trihey will be directed to supporting the ADF&G Su Hydro field data collection program. In addition, he will ass i.; t in co or Jina ting data and inform::1 tion transfer from the ADF &G to the AEIDC to meet the AEIDC data. needs and will assist Harza- Ebasco aquatic program staff on an as-needed basis. 7.3.4 Woodward-C~yde Consultants, Inc. ~~ ~-~~~-~------~----- Woodward Clyde Consultants will provide assistan~e in the develop- ment of a detailed fisheries mitigation. report based on existing infor......a tion. Harza-·Ebasco will take the lead role in the mitigation planning aspects of the Aqua tic Program and will rely on Woodward Clyde Consultants on an a§-neEded basis. 7. 4 COORD!NATION AND MANAG"'\MENT OF SUBCONTRACTORS One of the major roles of the Harza .. Ebasco Aquatic Study 1'eam is to coordinate and manage th3 overall activities of the subcontractors. This will be accomplished through review of.~ proposed scope of work; program schedules and deadlines; deliverables; progress reports; and burlget expenditure& by the subcontractor. In addition to review, Harza-Ebasco will conduct coordination meetings with the subcontractors to de te~mine progress, details of information transfer, project planning, and data gaps. T.111po-rtant issues or concerns that arise during these meeti~gs will be directly relayed to the Power Authority. 7-4 1087B I I I I I I I I. I I I I_ .• _, -I .. I" !.-.. "" ~·-> 8.0 SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES The overall SClledule will conform to the major milestones identified for the FERC licens.ing process. The major deliverables and the tar- get dates for completion are presented in Table 8-1. All reports will be reviewed by the Aqua tlc Study Team as appro- priate, before subm.i ttal to the Power Authority for their final re- view and acceptance. As a minimum, the r.eview will include group leaders, the Environmental Program Manager and the Project Manager. 8-I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I I 'I I I 'I ;I TABLE 8-1 AQUATIC STUDIES MAJOR DELIVERABLES AND DUE DATES Deli\'erable HARZA-EBASCO ONLY 1. Review Memoranda of Technical Reports 2. FERC License Revis ion 3. Response to FERC non-Conforming Items 4. Responses to FERC Supplemental and Other Requests 5. Responses tc Agency Comments on License Application 6. Review Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 7. Responses to Agency Comments on DEIS 8. Progress Reports 9. Agency Workshops 10. Finalj.li:e FY' 85 Work Scopes 8-2 1087B "' Due Date As necessary 2/15/84 7/11/83 7/11/83 2/9/83 1/15/84 5/30/84 9/7/84 Monthly As necessary 3/31/84 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 8-1 (Cont) 11. Posit~on Paper on Turbidity 12. Position Paper on Gas Saturation 13. General Investigation Memorandum 14. Plan of Study (FYr84) 15. Settlement Process 16. Transmission Line Report Ea WOODY TRIHEY & ASSOC ------ 1. Habitat Maps, Draft 2. Devil Canyon to Talkeetna Habitat Map Report 3. Technical Documentation of 1FG-4 Methodology 4. IFG-4 Calibration of Sloughs 5. IFG-4 Calibration of Side Channels R & M 1. Lower Susitna River Morphological Assessment 8-3 1087B !.2/1/83 4/31/84 11/18/83 12/15/83 11/4/84 11/15/83 8/30/83 12/1/83 10/30/83 11/1/83 12/1/83 12/1/83 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I ,- 1 'I I ·~. TABLE 8-1 ( Cont) 2. Develop L,:ver River Plan of Study 3. 1983-.::!t Ice Observations Report: Freeze-up Br~kup 4. Slough Hy~raulic Process Report 5. Stream Gagi f Report 6. Climate Station Data Report 7. Field Data Index 8. Glacier Lake Data Report 9. Glacier Studies (Tall Portion) Report AEIDC 1. Document Stream Temperature and Water Balance Hodels 2. Preliminary Analysis of Stream Temperature and Water Balance Conditions 3. Preliminary Assessment of Eff eci: s of Susitna Project on Aquatic Habitats 4. Stratification of Lower River Habitat Types for Further Studies 5. Updated Aquatic Impact Assessment 8-4 1087B . ..,.,_ • 3/31/83 1/31/84 7/1/84 1/31/84 12/31/84 12/31/84 1/31/84 1/31/84 1/31/84 8/30/83 9/30/83 10/30/83 3/1/84 11/2/84 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ·I I I TABLE 8-1 ( Cont) WOODARD CLYDE CONSULTANTS 1. Draft Detailed Plan of Study 2. Responses to Agency Comments on License Application 3. Impoundment Mitigation Plan 4. Habitat Modification Mitigation Plan ADF&G 1. FY'84 Procedures Manual 2. Winter Data Report (1982-83) 3. 1983 Anadromous Adult Report: Draft Final 4. 1983 Resident and Juvenile Anadromous Reports: Draft Final 5. 1983 Aquatic Habit~t Report: Draft Final 8-5 11/30/83 1/19/83 6/30/84 6/30/84 6/30/83 8/30/83 12/15/83 2/1/84 1/15/83 3/1/84 3/1/84 4/15/84 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I &. ~""' L7~ ..• ·}+!!5t:' ~~-1 4?4.~:;: . ~ . .f<-.. I 9.0 BUDGET Table 9-1 below presents the .FY' 84 budget s: .;r the Aquatic Program. TABLE 9·-1 FY' 84 AQUATIC PROGRAM BUDGET Position Workhot:rs _____ . _ _, Group Leader 2,160 Sr. Fisheries Biologist 2,160 Fisheries Biologist 1,100 Hydrologist 1,040 Aquatic Ecologist 2,160 Staff Biologist TOTAL 9,720 9-1 • r • I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I I ., I 10.0 ATTACHMENTS APPENDIX A -AGENCY RAISED ISSUES APPENDIX B ·-LIST OF REPORTS OF PREVIOUS STUDIES • 10-1 f ·-L·~ f .~ . I l , . r ':'' ·-. ·--------·---.. - w l Subtask: Aqu&tic Resources iSSUE A·l. A-2. A-l. A-4. Ei;~cts of construction wastes on turbidity. Effects of construction wastes on suspended solids. Capability of the Susitna ~o assi•ilate treated discharges fro• increased population growth in ~he area during operation. Water quality changes associated with different operational flow cegi•es. -·-~-·~~-~-_,.,~--~-.-~--="'·&--~-.~ .... ·--~ ........ ~\, ............. ""~-.......,.,_.~-·--·-----~_..,.._ .. _,.,... ___ ~------·~· -~~.-~·- PR£LlHINARY AI: .DIX A .SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT.: AGEHC'r-RAISED ISSUES AGE NCr ADEC ADEC ADEC ADEC 10-2 SOURCE 1. Dwight &. 'I·rihey 81 survey 2. Dwight ' Tcihey 8.1 Survey 3. Dwight " Tcihey 81 survey 4. Letter to APA June 6, 1983 --· .. STATUS 1. Addressed in Exhibit E. 2. 3. 4. Addressed in Exhibit £s will continue to be studied. -.. -4 '-·-O~io!C 198) Pal)e _j_ of --".. C'OtlfLETJON DATE June 1984 '"~.'f :"'.·.--.. *1.) -, ~~~. '(.;..; L-.. j ! i j -... Subtask: ISSUE A-5. A-6. A-7. A-8. A-9. A-10. A-ll. A-12. A-13. • A-14. ' A-15. A-16. .. ---.. Aquatic Resources Water quality effects of waste materials discharged into the river by coa.unities and industrial operations downstrea~ of the dam during construction •nd operation. Temperature contlitions in all r~aches of the river affected by construction and operation. Sediment levels and turbidity affected by construction and operation. Effects of construction an~ operation of project on aquatic animal organisas. Effects of construction activities on fishery resources in the access road corridor. Effects of construction activities on fishery resources in transmission line corridors. Effects of construction and operation on ice conditions upstream of the dams. Effects of construction and operation on ic~ conditions downstream of the dams. What is the ltfe of the reservoir? What effect ~ill release of sediment and glacial flour to prolong the life of the reservotr (if this is done) have downstreaa? Eff~cts of operatton of reservoir(s) on dissolved nitrogen concentrations downstream of daa(s). Effect of alteced flows on winter ic1ng in cook Inlet. --- --~ I PRELIMINARY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT: AGENC~-RAISED ISSUES AGENCY ADPG ADPG ADPG ADPG ADf'G ADFG ADFG ADFG ADPG ADFG ADPG ADPG 10-3 SOURCE 5. Dwight ' Trihey 81 survey 6. Dwight ' Trihey 81 survey 7. Dwight ' Trihey 81 survey 8. Dwight ' Trihey 81 Survey 9. Dwight ' Trihey 81 survey 10. Dwight ' Tcihey 81 survey 1!. DWight ' Trihey 81 survey 12. Dwight ' Trihey 81 Survey 13. Dwight ' Trihey 81 survey 1•. Dwight ' Trihey 81 survey 15. Dwight ' Trihey 81 survey 16. Dwlght ' Trthey 81 survey ·-··,-·~, "-------:i--;-"(5--;--;-_~~~=----:__~::--:-·----~---'---~-~~------·"·~·==y~=:::·~~===-====-~~~· ------------ .. -- STATUS 5. Addressfld in Exhibit E. Quantification and refinement ace continuing on some. 6. Addressed in Exhibit E. .. .. 4 Jber l98l hge 'Z.-of~ COMPLETION DATE 7. Addressed in Exhibit E. June 1984 Quantification and ref.ine- m€nt are continuing. S. Addtessed in Cxhibit E. Additional studies continuing. 9. Addresse~ in Exhibit E. 10. Additional stud1es continuing. 11. Addressed in Exhibit £. 12. Additional studies continuing. 13. Addressed in Exh1b1t £. 14. No release of sediments anticipate:d. 15. Addressed in Exhib.it E. 16. Addressed in Exh1~it E. June 1984 June 198'4 June 1984 June 1984 - -~~ ~ <,'!-f :,". ' Gi L.} .· i l ~ . - • l .. ----------PRELIMINARY --.. .. --4 Jber 1983 SUSI.TNA HYDROELE(i'RIC PROJECT: AGENCY-RArSED ISSUES Subtask: Aquatic Resources ISSUE A-17. A-18. A-19. A-20. A~2l. A-22. A-23. A-24. A-25. A-26. Estuary impacts need evaluation. Overwintering of resident and juvenile anadromous fish in the •atnste~ needs to be evaluated. Impacts on access of juve~.ile salmon to ~~st side tributaries below Talkeetna for u~aring. Water quality impacts downutreaa from Talkeetna. Water quantity impacts downstr~aa from Talkeetna. Sediment transport conditiaps at the confluence of the Susitna, Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers. Adequate m1tigat1on •tudias. Impacts on rearing, fish pas.sage, and egg incubat1on in the ma~~stea river from its aouth upstream. A cost/benefit analysis of potential mitigatlon alternatives must be made. Access of the publ~c and commercial interests to fisheo~s provided by aitigation program. AGENCY ADFG ADFG ADFG ADFG ADFG ADPG ADFG ADFG ADFG ADFG 10-4 Page _3 of /' SOURCE STATUS COHPLETIOH DATE ----------------------.~-----------------------------17. Dwight 'Trihey 81 Survey 18. Dwight ' Trihey 81 survey 19. Dwight ' ~rihey 81 Survey 20. Dwight ' Trihey 81 Survey 21. Dwight & Trihey 81 survey 22. Dwight ' Trihey 81 survey 23. Dwight -Tr.ihey 81 S•trvcy 24. ~etter Trent to Carson Oct 13, 1980 25. Letter Teed. to Car!lon Oct 13, 1960 26. Letter Trent to Carson Oct 13, 1990 17. Addressed in Exhibit E. 18. Addressed in Exhibit E; Oct. !983 additional wi~oter studie:s by ADFG are cont~nuing. 19. Rearing access is b~ing A~ril 1984 studied. 20. This ~s currently part ot June 1984 an ongo1ng study that will quant!tatively assess impdcts to aquatic habit~t downstream from the proj~ct. 21. 22. Aggradation/degradatiun June 1984 questions are being addressed in ongo1ng studies. 23. Hit1gation plans ar~ a continuing process and will be modifled ba1sed on addit1onal informat1on. 24. Host effort to date in Jun~ 1964 Devil Canyon to Talkeetna Reach; more 1:ffort being directed to Cook Inlet Reac,;h. 25. P~rt of Phase 11 effoct. Costlbcneflt ~naly~es will be refii'Jed ano:l modified as additional studies ,are completed. 26. Addressed in Exhiblt E. -------- - l I cl 1 ! ,. I l I E j l ""'-" '. ~ -~ r ,_:) fl L,,l' l ·, i 1 ~, ; { ef' ' .. • A ----~ --- Subtask: Aquatic R~::.sources ISSUE A-27. A-28. A-29. A-30. A-31. A-32. ,A-ll. A-34. Access road i~pacta on fisherie& including aceesa 'foe fishing. The entire length of the river &hould be evaluated tgr proj~ct iapacta. Effects of T-Lin~ corridor to aaintain watershed lnt;ec:J.dty. Effects o'f the alignment of T-Line cou:idors Ull\ aquat~c resources. Change ih the bed c!\)aracteristics of areas utiH~ed by chum salmon for mainstem s~iiJW6ling. Influence of changes to s<2d1ment transport patt~rns on p~aductivity ·of the aquatic community. Post-project effects ~n downstream turbidity. The costs of aq~lat::.i':: l'illiti91~t19n specified. --- - --PRELIKINAR:t SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJEC't: AGENCY-RAISED ISSUES AGENCY ADFG ADFG ADPG ADFG ADFG ADFG ADFG ADt'G 10-5 SOURCE 27. Letter Trent to carson Oct. 13, 1980 21!.1. Lett.er Trent tu carson Oct. 13, 1980 29. Memo from Yanagawa to Trent August 6, 1981 30. Meao Lrom Yanagawa to Trent August 6, 1981 31. Letter Trent to Weltzin Jan. 19, 1982 and April 16, ]982 Board testimony 32. Letter Trent to Weltzin .Jan. 19, 1982 and April 16, 1982 Board testi•or;y 33. Letter Trent to Weltzin Jan. 191 1982 and April 16, 1982 "l,oard te.sti~aony 34. Test1mony before APA Board April 16, Htl2 "'' ·--------~~~----~~,==~~~~~~~------------------ --.. --4 .lber 1983 Pa«Je .!t_ ot A \ STATUS COMPLETION. DATE 21. Addressed in Exhibit £. 28. Most effort to date in Devil canyon to Talkeetna Reach; more effort being directed at Talkeetna to Cook Inlet reach. 29. Adc(essed in Exhioit E. 30. Addressed in Exhibit E. June 1984 ---------- 31. Par~ of continuing study. June 1964 and annual A.IJFG reports 32. Part of continu1ng study. April 1984 33. Preliminary studies on turbidity have been 9erformed; additional studies are planned. 34. first est1mates were included in Exhibit E. Additional cost estimates wiJ.l be made as the mi~~gation planning pro·~e:ss cont inue:s. April 1964 - ~;-~.. ' -,..t~. ! ~~~~ ! ~: l :J. ..~ . ..:·< "I ..., I ,P. •• l l I I l I "l· I ~:, I ' ~ 1 ' . ,, l -.- -1111 ... ~.---.. --PRELIHHIARl .. --- SUSI'l'NA HYDROELECTRJ;C PROJECT: AGENC'i-RIIISED I~.~;~~S • A subtask: Aquatic ReSQUCC~S ISSU£ A-35. A-36. .A-37. A-38. A-39. A-.0. A-H. A-C2. A-H. A-CC. 1nstrea111 flows re.quired to aaintain present populati~ns t)f .fish below the two daas. The· areas iJRaediately below the da111 sites as well aa areas further downstreaa should be included. 'l'C~ferature re~iaes should be ~valuated concurrently ,., . .Jo.th streaa flo~~Cs. Compare options foe Dnsite aitigation of fisheries i111pacts with .. possibilities for hatcheries. Impacts from construction and maintenance of th~ tcansmia.sion coccidoc should be evaluated. Impacts from const~uction and aainten<.lnce of oi!•<::cess road cor c j.fior should be evalu~t~d. Grayling hatchery for impou.1ndment lo::,ses. Slough ~edification pl~ns. 1nstream flow analysis ·,m .s.l,..~Jglls t~,, look at the mitigation optkG;ns .• Instream analysis on side: chdnnels to• look at the mitigal~On options • !nstream analysis on mouths of tributac.ies to loo.Jt. at t~~ initli.g~tt.~on opt~ons. AGEN':r ~DPG ADPG ADPG lt.DPG ADPG ADJ!G ADPG ADPG ADPG .:~l>fG --~ _ _,__. . ...._.....,"",-"~---';"> .. ,..._....,., ... ....._._~--. ___ .... _,__~--......,..,-..._.. __ .. ~ ____ ...,_. • .,.._._ ...... -.........,*"' ... -.~-'"'·-.-, ........ ,....__.. __ ~.-. --------~--· • ._._ ~-· _..r\ n "'" · ,-:. -- 10-6 SOURCE 35. L•~ttec to AP.A Board Jul~r 27, 1982 36. Letter to APA Board July 27, 1982 37. Lette.r to APA aoara July 27, 19&'l 38. Le'.Lter to APA Board July 27, 1982 39. Letter to APA Board July 27. 1982 40. CoiUIIents at December 2, 1982 Workshop Cl. Coaments at December 2, workshop ·l.. Letter to APA June 3, 1983 43. L~ttcr to APA June 3, 1983 U. Letter to APA June 3, 1983 1962 -.. . .. .. -4 oec 1983 Page .5"_ of .Jk S'ZA'l'US COMPLETION DATE 35. These evaluations ace in progress. 36. These evaluations ace in progress. 37. KCH r.eport available on possible hatchery sites. Mitigation planning is a continuing process that will be refined as audi- tional information becomes available. 38. Addressed in Exhibit E. 39. 40. Evaluation of this alternative is continuing. 4!. Mitigation plans for sloughs continue to be evaluated. 42. Studies on instre~m flow analysis ace on-going and will ~ddrcss many of these issues. 43. 44. June 1964 June 1984 Sept. 1984 Sept. 1984 June 1984 / - - " • ':::. I ·;l:r I .~ l :: 1 ', } ' ~:~! ----.. Subtask: Aquatic Resources !SSlJE A-45,, A-46. A-47. A-48. i.-49. A-50. o\-51. A-52. Existin9 water rights aJffected by th.:.- proposed project. All aspects of water use. ralkeetna to cook Inlet •not being studied in adequate detail. The instrea11 flows studies should dt.~tiue the i•pacts of var i 'lus flow rt>:,let:'!les and related reservoir water s~rface elevations .• Plow rates studied should intl~dc an evaluation of pee-project flows in comparison to one resulting 1n no impacts, one resulti·ng in sig,nif icant impacts and flow cates b~tween th~ two. Morphological changes t ... o the aquatic systea ~esult.\ng from {).) d~ccease in spring flood frequencies~ and (2) alterations of s•~i•ent transport. Will thetre be enough water to stt,pport present species of £ish? Effect of winter flo~ on fey that lligratP into the Susitna from tributaries. --... PRELIMINARY . ---· - SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT: AGENCY-RAISED lSSU~S AGENCY ADNR ADNP.l ADNR ADI-IJI AD!IIR AONR BLH But 10-7 SOURCE 45. Dwight ' Tcihey 61 Survey 46. Dwight ' Tcihey 81 Survey 47. Dw~ght ' Tcihey 81 Survey 48. Letter to APA Hay 13, 1992 and Testimony or. April 16, 1982 4i. Letter to APA Hay 13, 1982 and Testimony on April 16, 1982 50. Letter to APA May 13, 1982 and Testimony on Afo\r il 16, 1982 Sl. Dwigh~ ' Trihey 81 survey 52. Dwight ' Trihey 81 Survey ....... ~~--~--.. -.............. ~ ... -~---.-~-.. ~~ --.. -~ --oec 1:983 Page ~ ofk STATUS COHPLETIOH DATE 45. Addressed in Exhibit E. JUr.O# 1984 Additional instrea• flow studies ace currently directed at fish habitat analyst~. However, aany of the studies may be useful in assessing potential impacts on ~atec rights. 46. This is part of a continuing study. 47. ~ower river is receiving increased study effort. 48. lnstream flow studies are continuing. Much of this was addressed in Exhibit E. 49. This is pact of contin- Ulng stud1es. June 1984 June 1984 June 1984 June 1984 SO. Studies on morphological June 1984 changes and habitat transfor~ation ace presently being conducted. Aggradation/degradation questions ace being analy7.ed to the extent possible. 51. Continuing instct:~r:a flow studies will address this question. 52. h<ldressed 1n Exhibit E; conti~uing impact assessment. June 1984 June 1984 {-::( ! l . ') ! I l l ! 1 ~~ •• < ~ i q:-. ·~ ! ~.I ·c~ } i ·~j l t l ,j ·:.... . ! ! ' ! . ' 4---.. ... --... •• .. ---.. 181 -... -- • i PRELI~!NARY 4 Oc~uoec 1983 SUSITNA UYDROELECTRIC PiWJEC'l:: AGEUCY-R,'\ISI:!:D ISGUES Subtask: Aq!Jatic Re.sourcea Pa9e J_ of J.fL --------------------~----------------~~·---------------------------------------------------------------~----' -·-~ ISS liE AGENCY SOURCE STATUS COHPLt.TION ,DATE --------------------------------------------------------~; -~·-------------------------------------------------------------------- A-53. A-S.C. A-55. A-56. A-57. A-58. A-53. A-60 • A-61. What will the river stage be at dirfface;nt tiaes of the year? IGi.:'\t is th·~ effect of t~azyt"'rc.'l:ure change on ~~a~nlng, moveaent, outaigration, and egg develppment1 Tbe importance of side channels and sloughs bet\leen Talkeetna and Dti:Vil Canyon for spawning and rearing salaon. The i•pacts of various flow regi•es on tt~ habitat, bala~cing of fish habitat losses against power generatidn, and Qther Aitig~tion possibil~ties that cou1d be evaluated. Temperature changes ~ithin the Su~itna River resultin~ froa construcLion; and operation of the daas. As sese sailllon within the sus:, tna 1Ri vee have life cycles of five or aot.l'! y(it.;us, it would seea reasonable to allow at le~st this long for fishery studies. Adequate instrea~ ~low regimes for spawnin5, rearing and migration of 5ndigenous fish species. Maintenance of \-la.tec quality f!Ot· fish. construction should proceed at times of Jeast ~iological activity and should eaploy best ~anagement practices to :thee reduce these impacLs. -{]_.<..' ---~- BLM BUt NMPS NMPS NHPS NMPS NMPS NHPS NMPS Sl. Dwight ~ Trihey 81 Survey ~4. Dwight ' ~rihey 81 Survey 55. APA Bvard Te!Jtimon}( April 16, 1982 56. AP.~ &oara Testimony A,.r i 1 16, 1982 57. APA Board T~stimony ApcH H, 1982 58. APA Boar:rd T\'!SI:tlllony .1\pr il i6, 198~ 59. Letl~r to APA Oct. 15, 1982 60. Letter to APA Oct. 15, 1982 il. Letter to APA Oct • 15 1 }98 2 10-8 53. Addcesseu in ex~1~~t E; June 1984 will be r~fined. 54. Addressed in Exhibit ~l June 198• additional s~udi~• will further refine the impact assessment of tempe(ature chan9e. 55~ Sloughs have cec~ived Jufie 1984 ~ubstantial study eftcrt; 1983 field studies have investigat~d side channels. 56. Instceam flow and flow June 1984 selection studies ~ce continuing. 57. Addressed in Exhibit .E, June 1984 temperature modeling is on-going so as to refine existing information. 58. Three field seaaons have June 1986 been complet .. ei"J • ~9. ~low selection studies June 1984 ace continuing. 60. Addressed in EXhibit E. June 1964 A~ditlona1 studies are continuing. 61. Addressed in E~hibit E. - "' ar ~-' ,. ~ ! /f , ....... l .... ' j ··iJ,' ,, ~,·' 0 ~:; r"'\ i " \..__) i l .. ! ··. · .. ; ----.. -- • j Subtask: Aquatic Resources lSSDE A-62. A-63. A-tH. A-65. A-66. A-67. A~6a. A-69. A-70. A-71. A-72. Discuss temperature changes related to project operation, the i•pact such changes would prese~tt to fish, and proposed •itligation •eaaurea which will avoid or lessen such i•pacta. Potential. for !fas supersaturation during project operation. Turbidity changes due to reservc1ir construction and operation. River morphology changes due to pr~ject operation. Effective flow releases and water quality conditions to avoid lc·sses; to existing and potential anadromi)U!. fish resources. Co•pensation in the form of fish habitat iaproveaents, artificial production or si•ilar methods is required to fully replace unavoidable losses. Development of a release schedule which would •itigate impacts to fisheries. Maximum winter flow limits in light of potential staging should ice cov~r develop beA~ Devil canyon. Minimi~e tmpacts and/or enhance conditions for salmon spawning jn the Susitna River. Minimize iapacts and/or eoh~nce conditions foe JUvenile salmon fe~~ing. Minimize impacts and/or enl.ance conditions for salmon passage in the Susitna River. ------.. -.. ---PRELlHINARlC 4 Oc~ .~er 19£<3 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT: AGENCY-RAISED ISSUES AGENCY NHPS NMPS NMFS NMFS NMFS NKPS .NMPS NMPS NHFS NM!:'S HMPS SOUR(l~ 62. Letter to APA Oct. 15, 1982 63. Letter to APA Oct. 15, 1982 64. Letter to APA Oct. 15, 1982 65. Letter to APA Oct. 15, 1982 66. Letter to APA Oct. 15, 1982 67. Letter to APA Oct. 15, 1982 68. Letter to APA Reviet~ of Draft EX. E 69. Letter to APA Review of Draft Ex. E 70. Letter to APA Review of Draft Ex. E 71. Letter to APA Review of Draft Ex. E 12. Letter to APA Review of Draft Ex. E 10-9 STATUS 62. Addressed in Exhibit E, being refined w/modeling effort. 63. Addressed in exhibit E. 64. Addressed in Exhibit E. ~5. Addressed in Exhibit E. 66. This is recognized, and is part of APA mitigation policy. 67. Mitigation planning is a continuing process that will be refined based on additional information. 68. flow selection studies are continuing. 69. Instream flow studies to consider winter flow limits are on-going. 70. rnstr~am flow studies are on-going. 71. 72. Page _L o,f ..1k COMPLETION DATE .June 1984 June 1984 June 1984 ~·~· ·---~,""-~~"J,..._,~-'-""'""'..,_,_ __ ... -, _ _.__, __ , ____ .., ____ ~,...-·--·-~t?""'-" ..... ..,..~~-, .. ------~---~·---. ---:-'-"""'"'--............ ~--. ---,-~· ,..,) . . . :r.s .r~ -!!·-'··'4 " .........,..... -..............·. .. w •? /) I ! ... 0 , I j Q. " I /} 1 J I L·l. ' -I ! . . .. .. • " ------ Subtask: Aquatic Resources ISSUE A-73. A-74. A-75. A-76. A-77. A-78. A-79. A-80. A-81. Kiniaize impacts an~/or enhance conditions for out-aigr~tion of juvenile salaon • Kiniaize impacts and/or enhance conditions for overwintering of juvenile aalaon in susitna River. Ret.aining the habitat val~e of side sloughs through physical alteration: a slough aitigation plan which identifies the sloughs to be modified, the design criteria, and the operation plan and target fish species specific to each slough. To what extent will other tributaries be available for power development? Commerci~l use of the river by interests. Effect on icing at mouth of Chulitna because of i~creased flows in winter. Hore aquatic habitat will be lost below Talkeetna than above. Effects of altered flow regimes on side channels that are used for spawning and rearing by salmon. Effects of changes in water temperatures on seasonal use of ma1nstem and side ch.utnel habitats by resident and anadtomous fish. ------PRELIKlNARY SUSITNA IIYDROELECTRIC PROJECT: AGENCY-RAISED ISSUES AGENCY NKFS NHPS HKPS PWS FWS FWS FWS FWS FH.!i 10-10 SOURCE 73. Letter to APA Review of Draft Ex. E H. Letter to APA Review of Draft EX. E 75. Letter to APA Review of Draft EX. E 16. Dwight ' Trihey 81 Survey 71. DWight io Trit.ey 81 Survey 78. Dwight io Trihey 81 Survey 79. Dwight io Trihey 'll survey 80. Dwight io Trihey 81 survey 81. Dwight ' Trihey 81 survey . . ._ .... _,__,_,,_ .. ~,""':.r..,...~~--~ .. --..... .......... ..,____.,..__., __ ,__--:;-----"'"''~·.--...----.-.-----~~-... -'"""'.~•~~-~.._,."'"-...... --:~...._,--.-.-.• --:r:--.r"'\~-· .. --."""-'~. ~ --- - STATUS 73. 74. 75. 1his is being done as the miti9ation pla~ i~ further developed. 76. Other tributaries are not be1ng actively considered for power production at .. .ober 1983 Page_:]__ of /~ COitPLfTION DATE June 1984 this tlme. • 77. Additional studies on June 198~ flow below Talkeetna ace being conducted. 78. Ice processes We(e addressed in the Exhib1t E; auditional analyses are on-going to refine previous analyses. 79. Analyses on impacts to habitat below Talkeetna are on-going; corollary studies on recreation can use information from the habitat studies for analysis. 80. Addressed in Exhibit E; June 1984 June 1984 June 1984 continue3 to rece1ve study. 81. Addressed in Exh1bit E; June 1984 continues to receive study. - - • l ----- Subtask: AqL!a tic Resources ISSUE A-82. IHIJ. A-8«. A-85. A-86. S•all boat access into and out of clearwater tributaries, i.e., Willow, Little Willow, DeahkA, etc. Eff~cts of the project on waste load assi•ilation capacity of the susitna River. Requirements for all a~jor species of fish, including salmon (5 species), rainbow ~rout, grayling. All stages - spawning, aigration, overwintering, rearing, feeding. Mitigation for transmi~sion line construction and R3intenance i•pacts. Effects of construction of the transmission line on wetlands durin~ winter months. --- -.. -.. PRELIMINARY SUSITNA UYOROELEC'l'RIC PROJECT: AGENCY-RAISED ISSUeS AGENCY PWS PWS PWS PWS FWS 10-11 SOURCE 82. Dwight ' Trihey 81 survey 63. Dwight ' Trihey 81 Survey 84. Dwight ' Trihey 81 survey 85. Letter t 1J APA Jan. 5, 1982 36. Letter to APA Jan. 5, 1982 .. ----.. bet' 1983 Page jQ_ of __jk_ STATUS COMPLETION DATE 82. Access for navigation was June 1984 discussed in the Exhibit E; additional lower river studies will potentially help to answer additional questions. 83. Described in Exhibit E. 64. Addressed in E~hibit E; also part of continuing .'-DPG and AEIDC study. 85. Mitigation through avoidance of impact has been incorporated into the design where possibl~. Impacts are minimized where avoidance was not possible (addressed in EXhibit E). 86. To the extent possible, construct1on will be such that impacts will be minimized. The comment is noted tor future reference for planning of constcuctian • June 1984 - ' ;:~· ~~ ~ " ;~ ~.~ l-j .l .. 1 ! ' . - • 4 --.. ------ --- Subtask: Aquatic Resources ISSUE A-87. A-88. A-89. A-90. A-91. A-92. A-93. A-9t. A-95. A-96. A-97. ~o more than one route between aajor stream crossings or other geographic barriers of the trans•iasion line. 100-foot-wide vegetation buffers remain along all streams and rivera crossed by the transmission linea. Enhancement opportunities as well as potential negative i•p~cts to fish of the transmission line. Timing of project construction to mini•ize i•pacts. The assessment of fishery resources must be extended to downstreaa areas, transmission and access corridors, and areas of secondary or indirect impacts. There are inadequate data to describe the relationship between various stream flows and the productivity of fisheries and aquatic habitat downstream from the proposed Devil canyon Dam. Anticipated water temperatures in the reservoirs. Anticipated turbidity levels in the reservoirs. Anticipated temperatures downstream fro• Devil canyon. Anticipated turbidity levels downstream from Devil canyon. we believe that alternatives to sus1tna must also cont1nue to be studied. PRELHUNARY SUSITNA tiYDROELECTRIC II.~OJECT: AGENCY-.RAISED ISSUES AGENCY FWS PWS PWS PWS PWS PWS FWS FWS FWS FHS f'WS 10-12 SOURCE 87. Letter to APA Jan. 5, 1982 88. Lette~r to AP.A Jan. 5, 1982 89. Letter to APA Jan. 5, 1982 90. Letter to APA Jan. 5, 1982 91. Testimony at APA Board Meeting April 16, 1982 92. Testimony at APA Board Meeting Apa:il 16, 1982 93. Testimony at APA Board Meeting April 16, 1982 94. Testimony at APA Board Meeting April 16, 1982 95. Testimony at APA Board Meeting Ape il 16, 1982 96. Testimony at APA Board Heeling Apci1 16, 1982 97. Testimony at APA Board Meeting Apr U ]6, 1982 .. -- STATUS 87. This will generally be the case, to the extent possible. 88. This will be done where possible. 89. Enhancement opportunities are not overlooked and are considered where appropriate. 90. Construction liming w~s considered in Exhibit E. ~1. These were addressed in EXhibit E. 92. Instream flow studies by ADFG and AEJDC are continuing. -ru-··· - 4 1ber .a ~Bl Pa9e ~ of ~ !.XlMPLETION DATE June .1984 93. Temperature models are June 1984 being refined. Studies on turbidity are continuing as part of the impact assessment evaluation. 94. 95. 96. 97. AlternattVes to the Susitna Pro)ect are ce-e~amined on a conttnutng basis. '-,, •. ~ :. I l l l ,L·c -~-f I ' f ' - ~ -.. -- - Subtask: Aquatic Resources ISSUE A-98. A-99. The effects of the project on benthic productivity. Effects of the project on cheaical coaposition of the River to •aintain existing fishery. A-100. Mitigation ortions must be exa.tned on the basis of a defensible, quantified i•pact analysis. A-101. Quantify the relationship between •ainstceaa discharge and the availability of fish habitat by life stage. A-102. Assess the intercelations~ip of the susitna River to its tributaries in regard to tishecy habitat requireaents vs. life stage. A-103. Flow regimes versus fish habitat downutrea• of Talkeetna throughout thP. year. - A-104. Identify the source, flow, chemical and te111perature characteristics of upwelling water in the sloughs and their relationship to mainstream conditions througho~t the year. A-105. Influence of ice cover on the relationship between the aainstream and the sloughs. A-106. Baseline surface and intergravel tempe:ature data suff~cient to d~scrib~ the annual thermal regimes of the mainstream river, side channels, and sloughs above Talkeetna. ------PRELIMINARY SUSITNA U~DROELECTRIC PROJECT: AGENCY-RAISED ISSUES AGENCY PWS PWS PWS FWS l'WS f1WS PWS l'WS FWS SOURCE 98. Letter to APA Oct. 5, 1982 99. Letter to APA Oct. 5, 1982 100. Letter to APA oct. 5, 1982 101. Letter to APA Oct. 5, .1.982 102. Letter to APA Oct. 5, 1982 103. Letter to APA Oct. 5, 1962 10•. Letter to APA Oct. 5, 1982 105. Letter to APA oct. s, 1981 106. Letter to APA OCt. 5, 1982 10-13 ~".··--~ .. ~-.. "'-~..._........_._.,. __ ,__._~----.. -4 ______ ~ ... -,.,_, ___ ~ .... _.._ ____ ._~"""";'---.....~··...,....._,,...,.. .. ,.. --~~------· -- ---4 oer 198l Page J3:: of 1ft,__ STATUS COMPLETION DATE 98. Many of these concetns June 1984 are addressed in Exhibit E. Inst.eam flow and temperature s~ud1es ace cont~nuing. 99. 100. Mitigation planning is a June 1984 continuing process that will be refined as addi- tional information becomes available. Quantification of impacts is currently being analyzed by ~EIDC. 101. AEIDC and Uacza-Ebasco are currently analyzing these relationships. 102. This infon;~ation was provided in the Exhibit E. June 1984 103. Studies ace in pro-:~ress. June 19tl.4 104. tnitial studies have been Ju~e 1984 completed, but additional studies are continuing. 105. stu~ies are in progress. June 1984 1C6. Initial studies t~ve been Sept. 1984 completed with on-going studies continuing to add refinement to the existtng knowledge. - ,_. b~· i ! ; . ' J I - - '>' • " ..... .. ... IIIII Subtask: Aquatic Resourcea ISSUE A-107. The relationship between aabient and potential project-caused teapecatuce conditions and salaon eabcyo survival and rate of developaent. - A-108. The viability of slou~h .oditications to increase fishery habitat needs to be demnnstrated. A-109. The long range implications of proposed project flows vs. n~tucal flo~s and potential h~bitat aaintenance flows in teras of possible slow loss of sl~Ughs, and loss of ~lushing flows. A-1HI. sal1110n enhancement potentit:-.1 above Devil canyon without. thie susit!"• :-•oject, with the susitna proj·ect and the i11pacts of any pcograa to establish salaon in the upper river on existing fisheries, particularly g~ayling. A-11!. The potential to establish/expand the salmon fi2hery betwe~n the Devil Canyon and ~atana dam sites •·n the absence of a Dft~il Canyon development. A-.112. Wit.hin and out-of-basin opportunities to offset losses to fisheries such as stream stocking, la~e i~rtilization, extension of existing fisheries, and increasing public fishing ~.ccess and opportunities. A-1ll. extent of dewatering between the Devil Canyon and its powechO'use and associated fishery impacts, and alligation options. A-114. Pre-and post-proJect nitrogen levels in Devil Canyon and impacts. -,' ' ____ ..:, · .. ,'_ :~ ,, ------PAELIHINAAY SUSITNA H'JDROELEC'l'RIC PROJf.CT: AGENCY-RAISED ISSUES AGENCY PWS FWS rws PWS PHS PHS PHS PWS SOURCt: 107. Letter to APA Oct. 5, 1982 108. L~~ter to APA Oct. 5, 1962 109. Letter to APA Oct. 5, 1982 110. Letter to APA Oct. 5, 1982 111. Letter to APA oct. 5, 1-982 112. Letter to APA oct. 5, 1982 113. Letter to AP~ Oct. 5, 1982 114 .. J,.etter to APA Oct. 5, 1902 10-14 -; ----4 Jber U8l Page (~ of ~ STATUS COKPL£'l'ION DATE 107. USfWS egg incubation study June 1984 and baseline field studies will resolvo this question. 108. APA will be tryin~ to June 1984 maintaiq_hQbitat, not incre~ it. The feasi- bility of these modifi- cations is being eaamined. Mitigation planning is an on-going process. 109. Discussed in Exhibit E. Additional st~dies are on-going to refine this infonnat ion. 110. This was pact of an ADFG study funded by the Alaska legislature. lll. Addressed in Exhibit E. 112. Discussed in Exhibit E. 113. Discussed in Exhibit E. 114. Discussed in Exhib1t E. June 1984 Draft completed June 1983 - ,, l t l j l ' 1 ~! l ",LJ·",.I ,· j l ' ' ) : ''l ' < { l ' -= &+W' C:T""'S!V ~Nt''1Wi '· --... 11!1 .. -.. .. -----PI!ELIMINI.RY SUSITNA HJDROELECTRIC PROJECT: AGENCY-RAISED ISSPES ll " Subtaak: Aqu~tic Resouccea J.SSUE A-115. A-116. A-117. A,-iit. A-119. A-.~20. A-Ill. Cbangev l~ flova, teaperature, and ch~ical ca.posltiog ot the sualtna · River due to the propoae~ prolect fer d~y, average and vet yeara. The iapact of chang~a in w:ini:er flovai, turbidtty, cheaical ca.poaltion, •~llnity levels, •nd ti•lng and eateat of ice foc .. tion and break-up on tne eatu.ary. The viability o( a reservoir fiahery needa to be evaluated through ~· aaaessaent of: predicated reaervoir teapecatucea, turbidity, cheaical coaposition an~ anticipMted priaary productivity, available spawning habitat, potential for establishing spawning habitat, and the relAtionship of a naervoir fishery to eatabUsh tributary fisheries. Hydraulic turbi~e configurations with both a one ~nd two daa configucation related to aaxl•izing flow cele~ee optiona va. aore flexible turbine ayatea alternatives. Changea in the existing ice pa~tecns ~nd reliable prediction• of vh~t these pattecns would be with th~ pcoject. The tialng of foraation, ••tent, thickness, and tiaft cf breakup of ice va. a r~;~e of water releases and winter condtttons. What would be the iapact on beavec, aooae, aalaon utJliz~tion of the aa1natr!!aa, gra}'llng .:and' other resident f iah eC}" uae of the ••! nat c eaa. AGENCY rws PWS rws ''i'Ws i'WS NS ·!'WS • "---:-~-~--..... ----.-----....-...::---~.-..~"----.:::~--::-~..., ~ k ,.....;--:, SOURCC US. Lettec to ~PA oct. s~ 1982 116. Lettec to APA Oct. 5, 1982 117. Lette·r to APA Oct. 5 1 Ui2 118. ~tter to APA oct. s, 1902 119. Letter to APA Oct. 5, 1982 120. Letter to AFA OCt. 5, 1912 111. Letter to APA oct. s, 1982 10-15 :1.-i"f~~aSiiio1G:bi5~~~~-~--. -LL_J ---t October Ull Page Jj_ of JiL S'tA'fUS -CUMI'LEl'lOel D~:..:~ US. NUl be cont!i"ered by June Ul4 continuing atudiea. !Hi. Wi 11 continue to receive June 1984 atudy. 117. Addressed in ~xhibit B. Additional studies ace on-going. 118. Addressed in Exhibit £. 119. Pact of contAnuin~ atudies. 120. This is discussed in Exhibit B. iiow·ever, addition~! studies ~nd •~•lyses ace continuing ao ~~-to refine the existing knowledge on ice-process*•· l~!. Addcessed in Exhibit !. This is the subject of on-going atudiea. June 1984 !le 1984 .Junta 1984 June 1984 •• '"'~·~;:' ·~~ ;· ~{L~-·~ ~;.~ .:' ··.: . ' . I i .• ''1 :...:::: - .. ,\ ··-----.. II!! PR£LIHINARY ---- Subtask: A~Uatic Resources ISSUE A-122. 11.-123. A-124. A-125. A-126. A-127. A-128. A-129. A-lJO. The extent t~ which ice fun~tions ,n channel foraation and aodificatioo and predicted changes in this role. Adjustaents to ~he Watana reservoir filling schedule to ainiaize l2pacts to f. ish. Quantification of aquatic habitat to be inundated. Hagnitude, duration, and frequency of occurrence of ~aily fluctuations and their iapacts on fish resources with both a one and two dam systea. Disposal of 11aterial excavated froa tailracd and pow~r tunnels, saddledaa and general daa construction and potential uses. lapacts of the construction village, peraanent village, and alternatives to the proposed systea to ainimize adverse effects on fish resources. Tiaing restri~tions to minimize adverse iapacts due to access road, transmission lin-c:s, ~nd dam cons q·uct ion • The impacts due to construction and aaintenance of the trans~ission lines need to be fully evaluated. Impacts of construction and maintena~ce ot acceaa road need to be fully evaluated. SUSI=HA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT: AGENCY-RAISED ISSUES AG~HCY FWS ,PWS FWS f'WS f'WS YWS FHS FWS l'WS SOURCE 122. Letter to APA Oct. 5, 1982 123. Letter to APA Oct. 5, 1982 124. ~ett~r to A~A Oct. 5, ·~~32 125. L~tter to ~PA Oct. 5, 1982 126. Letter to APA Oct. 5, 1982 121. Letter to APA Oct. 5, 1982 128. Letter to AP~ Oct. 5, 1982 129. Letter to APA Oct. 5, H82 130. Letter to APA Oct. 5, 1982 10-16 -.• ~~-4• ,ber au -~··-· ·- Page J5 of ,_j_k_ STATUS COHP!.ETION D~T£ 122. Discussed in Exhibit E1 June 1984 subject of on-going studies. 123. Ajjustments to the June 1984 schPdule create benefi- cia_ and adverse iapacta. Flo~ schedules are discussed in the Exhibit £. However; additional instrea• flow studies are on-going. 124. Discussed in Exhibit E. 125. Discussed in Exhibit E. 126. Discussed in Exhibit E. 127. Discussed ~n Exhibit E. 128. Discussed in Exhibit ~. 129. Discussed in Exhibit E. 130. _, __ _ ···---..,-..-~~--~--~~:--·--.-,"*'""~--·--·~~~-~--:--~---~;-:~·· ~~--:::::;::~~;:,~;(d;~~Qift'iW• f\\Wi!a ... *' -D = ------ (: ' L ; ~ • ,4 Subtask: Aquatic Resources ISSUE ________ ,,.,., ------------· A-131. Pish~ry iMpact asses•~nt of bor~ow ~reaa and access to theaa aiteco., A-132. Miniaizing fish and wildlife iapacts through proper tiaing of woody aaterial removal in the iapounO.ent •r•••· A-133. Handlin~ of ha~acdous aateriala to and at the construction aitea •nd safety precautions. A-13•. Public access to the UPOec suaitna basin should be evaluated ~ithin the context of the pcoject•e need to ainiaize, to tt>e extent possible, adverse iapacta to fish and their habitats. A-135. Kitigation aeasuces ~hich ~re proposed should have proven ~uccess in Alaska, oc in a siailar e~vironaent. A-136. Should fully consider impact of l~~ec oil pricea and revised electrical de•and forecast on overall project feasibility. A-1)7. Should fully consider impact of lower oil prices and revised elect~ical demand forecast on tp~ need foe Watana to be operational by 19~3. A-138. Should tuUy consider illpac.t of lower oil prices ~nd revised electrical demand forecast on the econ011ics associated with provi1ling sufficient downstream fisheries flows • --;.·--;-~ 0 """'"""""" "'"·'•""" i""'H·A ,.,....... ~ ..... PRELIHINARY ~ SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT: AGENCY-RhiSED ISSUES AGENCY FWS f'WS l!WS PWS FWS NHFS NHPS NHFS -·, SC.URCE 131. Letter to APA Oct. S, 1982 132. Letter to APA Oct. 5~ 1982 133. Letter to APA Oct. 5, 1982 134. L~tter to ~PA Aug. 17, 1982 135. Jan. 1•, 1983 Coaments on Draft Ex. E to APA (letter) 136. Letter to APA Revie• of Draft Ex. E 137. Letter to APA Review of Draft Ex. E 138. Letter to APA Review of Draft Ex. E 10-17 --... ___ j - 4 .let 1983 PAgGt J'-of _jtz_ STATUS COMPLETION DATE 131. 132. Discussed in Exhibit £. 133. Discussed in e~hibit E. 134. Access associated impacts June 1984 were addressed in the E~hibit EJ studies ace continuing on potential access-related impacts. 13S. Mitigation planning is on-going. 136. 137. 138. .. -1! i ) 1: I' I' I: I· I; 1: I I I I I I 1!. I i I ll I IJ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. APPENDlX B LIST OF PREVIOUS STUDIES Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1974. anadromous fish populations in the Watershed between Devils Canyon and Anchorage, Alaska. An assessment of the Upper Susitna River the Chulitna River. . 1976. Fish and Wildlife studies r.elated to the Corps of --- Engineers Devils Canyon, Watana Reservoir Hydroelectric Project. ADF&G. Anchorage, Alaska. • 1977. Preauthorization assessment of th~ proposed -- Susitna Hydroelectric Projects: preliminary investigations of water quality and aquatic species composition. ADF&G. Anchorage, Alaska. ---. 1978. Preliminary environmental assessment of hydroelectric development on the Susitna River. Anchorage, Alaska. ___ . 1979. Preliminar;:: final plg.n of study. wildlife studies proposed by \':he ADF&G. Alaska. Fish and ADF&G. Anchorage, -----· 1981. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Phase I. Prepared f-or Acres American, Inc. by the ADF&G/Su Hydro. Anchorage, Alaska~ 10-18 .. 1087:8 I I I I I I '• I I I I I I 'I 1: I I; I 1: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Alaska 'Jepto of Fish & Game. 1982. Susitna Hydro Aquatic ftudies. Phase II. Prepared for Acres American, Inc. by tbe ADF&G/Su Hydro. Anchorage, Alaska. Acres American, Inc. (Acres). 1983. Susitna Hydroelectric Project FERC License Application, Exhibit E. Anchorage, Alaska. R & M Consultants, Inc. 1980, 1981 and 1982. Water Quality Annual Report. Prepared for Acres American, Inc. by R & M Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. . 1982. American, Alaska. Hydraulic & Ice Studies. Prepared with Acres Inc. by R & M Consultants, -Lnc. Anchorage, ---. 1982. Reservoir Sedimentation. Prepared for Acres American, Inc. by R & M Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. 1982. Glacial Lake Studies. Prepared for Acres American, Inc. by R & M Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. ---. 1982. Water Quality Ef~ects Resulting from Imp~t.tndment of the Susitna River. Prepared for Acres American, Inc. by R & M Consultants~ Anchorage, Alaska. 14. Peratrovich, Nottingham & Drage, Inc. 1982. Susitna Reservoir Se.dimentation and Water Clarity Study. Prepared for Acres American, Inc. by Peratrovich, Nottingham & Drage, Inc. and Ian. P. Hutchinson, Anchorage, Alaska. 15. ~. Woody Trihey, P.E. 1982. tvinter Temperature Study. Prepared for Acres American, Inc. by E. Woody Trihey with contribu- tions from the ADF&G and AEIDC, Anchorage, Alaska. 10-19 • 1087B