HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA4013I I
I
I I
!
I
I
iK
lL/~5"
,$8
Ad-3
v\.o I '-t D\3
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SEDIMENT TRANSPORT
Prepared By:
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center
University of Alaska-Fairbanks
707 "A"Street
Anchorage,Alaska 99501
Submitted to:
Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture
711 "H"Street
Anchorage,Alaska 99501
1985
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
LihrMy &Information Services
lUlehorage.A1aska
.J
~
ex:>
Nr-...
~
~
ooo
LC)
LC)r-...
M
M
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION •
PURPOSE
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM •
OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES •
FISH RESOURCE.
IMPOUNDMENT ZONE •
MIDDLE RIVER •
LOWER RIVER
SEDIMENT EFFECTS ON AQUATIC ORGANISMS.
SEDIMENT TRANSPORT •
OVERVIEW •
SYNOPSIS OF RESULTS.
ANALYSIS.
ANTICIPATED NEGATIVE EFFECTS •
Impoundment.
Middle River •
Lower River.
POTENTIAL WITH-PROJECT BENEFICIAL EFFECTS
SUMMARY
REFERENCES •
1
1
3
5
10
12
13
19
29
32
35
35
44
46
46
46
49
55
57
59
63
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library &Information Services
lUlchorage,Alaska
INTRODUCTION
?
PURPOSE
This
transport
ftf~o7
document is a comprehensive assessment of f with-proj ect sediment
on fish associated with the proposed upper Susitna River basin
the Susitna Hydroelectric Proj ect.
hydroelectric development.Impoundment of the upper Susitna River would cause
a change in the natural pattern of stream discharge and,consequently,of
suspended sediments,bedload,sedimentation,and river bed aggradation and
degradation.Since suspended sediments and bedload are important variables
Gt,ffecting habitat for Susitna River drainage fish,studies were initiated in
the beginning phases of Susitna environmental investigations to identify
potential adverse or beneficial with-project effects of the expected
alteration.
This report is one in a series on aquatic impact issues associated with
These issues --instream temperature,
0€~r\vC«-,"",lP'r,v("'
water quality,turbidity,instream ice,and ~d --are examined separately
in five separate technical memoranda.Following review they will be
integrated into a single draft impact assessment report.The Alaska Power
Authority and Harza-Ebasco intends to utilize the final impact assessment
technical memorandum to discuss issues with agencies and intervenors in the
Susitna licensing process.
Impact issues addressed in this series of reports were defined in the
course of the Susitna licensing process.Following Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC)review of the original license application,the Alaska Power
Authority corrected noted deficiencies and provided supplemental information.
The license application was subsequently ruled acceptable.FERC then
proceeded with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
33RD4-005 - 1 -
This decision set in motion a chain of events in accordance with Council on
Environmental Quality mandates on EIS preparation (Vide 40 CFR 1500).
Significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the EIS were identified during
scoping meetings.Twelve fishery were identified to this process;of these,
Issues F-1, F-2, F-4,F-5,and F-6 identified the effects of with-proj ect
flows on salmon and resident fish habitats and populations as topics to be
addressed.
APA commissioned a series of environmental field investigations and
analyses of existing published and unpublished information to provide accurate
statements of expected impact of the Susitna project on sediment transport and
river morphology,and subsequently,on fish resources.Over the years the
data base and statements of anticipated effects have been scrutinized by
agency and intervenor representatives in a series of workshops and
discussions.
This process has refined the data base and impact statements based on it.
This document is intended to serve as a discussion document and as an aid to
decision-making.It contains a presentation of the sediment transport issue,
a brief synopsis of the relevant information base,the ramifications of
altered sediment regimes to aquatic habitats and fish,and the projected
effects on fish due to various modes of Susitna project operation.It does
not contain voluminous data and analyses of sediment and river morphology.
Statements of effect or of no effect and the confidence with which those
statements are made are provided.
33RD4-005 - 2 -
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The proposed project is sited in the upper Susitna River drainage basin
and consists of two dams to be constructed over a period of about 15 years.
The first dam,known as the Watana Dam,would be completed near RM 184 at a
site three miles upstream from Tsusena Creek.It would include an undergrou~d
powerhouse and an 885 ft high earthfill dam and a reservoir approximately 50
miles in length.This reservoir would have a surface area of 38,000 acres and
a usable storage capacity of 3.7 million acre-feet (ma£).The second dam,
named Devil Canyon,would be built near RM 152 at a site 33 miles downstream
of the Watana dam site.It would be 645 ft high and would impound a
26-mile-Iong reservoir,having a surface area of 7,800 acres and a usable
storage capacity of 0.36 maf (Acres American,1983).
Construction and subsequent operation of the two Susitna hydroelectric
dams is expected to alter the normal sediment transport regime of the river,
thereby influencing river bed morphology.With both dams on-line,the area
between Devil Canyon (RM 152)and the Oshentna River (RM 235)would be
converted from a lotic to a lentic system.After impoundment,these
reservoirs would resemble naturally occurring,deep,glacial lakes (Acres
1983).
Sediment trap efficiencies of the Watana Dam alone and of the Watana and
Devil Canyon dams together have been estimated by modeling and by fitting data
to two different reservoir sedimentation curves (Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint
Venture 1984a).Results indicate that the dams would trap between 78 to 100%
of all sediment entering the reservoirs (Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture
1984a).This,coupled with regulated with-project flows,would noticeably
affect instream environments downstream of the dams in several ways.
33RD4-005 - 3 -
i I
(
!
I
·l
I
I
r
1
j
I
I
i
--.---.----.-..-----.--..----.----..-.-..---..----.-.-------.--....--.--..-----..--..-...-.-..-.---.-.-..--.---..-.-..--..---..--.-.--..--.---..-------.--..-.'.,I
i
)
.1
,l
l
)
Suspended load and bedload would be markedly reduced from those seen
naturally.This situation would preyail to a point downstream of the
")VTalkeetnaandChulitnariversrespectiveconfluenceswiththeSusitna.
I'-
Because of their very large sediment loads relative to the mainstem,input
from the Talkeetna and Chulitna rivers with-project would dominate the
Susitna's sediment load in a manner analogous to present (R&M 1982a;
Harza-Ebasco ~Joint ve;t~~"~Partly as a consequence of reduced
sediment load and partly because of the with-project flow regime,the main
channel of the Susitna River above the confluence with the Talkeetna would
have a tendency to narrow and,in spots,degrade (R&M 1982a;Harza-Ebasco
Susitna Joint Venture 1985).Some sloughs and tributary streams would become
perched and some mainstem habitats could become dewatered as a result (R&M
1982a;Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture 1985;R&M and EWT&A 1985).In time,
the river bed would attain a new equilibrium with the with-project flows.The
reservoirs would also dampen the effects of freshets,reducing instances of
flood waters entering sloughs.These changes could fffect fish population I
numbers.
"
'\"'J
\j
r."!"'
~.,.
j
(J})
,oj
'J ";}I
tJ"~
~;J\
)~~I
l.../
I \
'.~
c..Lu-1~7 !
\
.,
.';,"
CJ -/1,
U
33RD4-005 - 4 -
:I
,/
'.I
l
,j
I \
I
'I
J
,I
:'!
:I
(
----------------------~------~----------------------------------------.---.-----------------------------------------.---".-.----------------------~--------------~~-~------------'.1
II
I I
j
:I
:\
I
OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES
Over the past 30 or so years,a variety of methods have been developed
for use in evaluating environmental impacts.The impetus behind this effort
was,and remains,federal resource management law.Prominent federal
environmental acts (table 1)were reviewed to identify fish and wildlife·
impact assessment requirements.Four broad areas of public interest form
common themes in environmental law:species-populations,biological
integrity,environmental values,and habitat.Common methods of addressing
these themes are reviewed below,as is the methodology used in this analysis.
The first class of environmental assessment techniques examined is that
of species-populations.Notable federal acts calling for this approach
include the Endangered Species Act,the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and
Development Act,the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act,and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (table 1).Many and diverse schemes exist
for estimating population numbers and density.The simplest technique,and
possibly the one in widest use by managers,is the index.Population
assessment indices are of two distinctly different types.The first is a
count of animals made in a manner which does not allow direct population
estimation by application of sampling theory.This technique employs a sample
survey in the absence of known sampling probabilities.Many ADF&G fish
escapement surveys are of this type.The second kind of index is one based on
complete counts of some known portion of a population,e.g.,salmon on redds
in a given reach of river.This approach allows one to conduct a relatively
intensive and statistically valid analysis by incoporating basic knowledge of
a species life history with the count data.Multiple regression analysis is
the most frequently used tool in this regard.
33RD4-005 - 5 -
i )
I
Table 1.Federal acts which independently and collectively establish minimum
standards for environment impact assessment.
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act,16 U.S.C.469,et seq.
Clean Air Act,as amended,42 U.S.C.7401,et seq.
Coastal Zone Management Act,16 U.S.C.1451-,-et seq.
Endangered Species Act,16 u.S.C 1531,et seq.---
Estuary Protection Act,16 U.S.C.1221,e~seq.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act,43 U.S.C.1701,et seq.
Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act,42 U.S.C.5901 et ~.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act,33 U.S.C.1251,~~.
Federal Water Project Recreation Act,16 U.S.C.460-1(12),et seq.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,16 U.S.C.661,et seq.-----
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act,-r6 U.S.C.1601,et seq.
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act,16 U.S.C.4601 -4601-11,et seq.-----
Marine Protection,Research and Sanctuary Act,33 U.S.C.1401,et seq.
National Environmental Policy Act,42 U.S.C.4321m et seq,
National Historic Preservation Act,16 U.S.C.470a,et seq.
National Forest Management Act,16 U.S.C.472,et seq.
Rivers and Harbors Act,33 U.S.C.403,et seq.
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act,-r6 U.S.C.2001,~~.
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act,30 U.S.C.1201,et ~.
Water Resources Planning Act,42 U.S.C.1962,et ~..
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act,16 U.S.C.1001,et ~.
33RD4-005 - 6 -
I j
I
More involved methods of population assessment include direct counts and
variants of the mark,release,and subsequent recapture technique.Direct
counts are best in terms of validity,but naturally turbid conditions in the
Susitna drainage hamper its use there.Over the last decade,the ADF&G and
the USFWS have expended much effort in improving electronic fish counters for
use in turbid conditions.This work has greatly influenced census work in
many glacially-moderated systems.
Mark-recapture techniques have a relatively long history of use in the
United States.While widely used and under continual evolution,none of them
produce overly satisfying results in a statistical sense.This is because all
mark-recapture techniques rely on a range of assumptions which are difficult
to meet in the wild (e.g.,one common assumption is that there exists a well
defined population of animals;another is that the average probability of
observing a marked animal is equal to the average probability of observing an
unmarked animal).
The chief pieces of legislation calling for its use are the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (table 1).If
fully applied,such an approach would document energy flow through the system
allowing one to precisely predict overall effects of change.In practice this
is never done because it is very labor intensive and,thus too costly.
Instead,it is common for a few representative species and/or relationships to
be singled out for study,thereby narrowing its scope.Field study is
typically undertaken to document seasonal numbers of target species in the
study (often without regard to their relationship to local or regional
populations),their habits (e.g.,special use areas),and food resources.
Biologically based on assessments have increasingly made use of models (some
33RD4-005 - 7 -
elaborate,some not)to predict with-project effects.Two factors limit the
veracity of conclusions reached by this approach.First,a given model's
ability to predict the future depends heavily on whether it is
multidimensional or not and the assumptions used.Most models used are one
dimensional limiting their utility.Second,conclusions reached in this
I I
\
approach are subjectively applied ad hoc to the system as a whole.
Consideration of economic and environmental values (the third of the four
areas of public interest addressed by federal law)is the essence of the
National Environmental Policy Act.This approach to impact assessment usually
entails estimating the monetary and nonmonetary values of the resources to be
affected.Implementation of a values approach to impact assessment is (and
will continue to be)limited by the difficulty (some would say the
impossibility)of setting values on often intangible environmental components
such as aesthetics.
The fourth approach to environmental impact assessment recognized by
federal law is habitat analysis.The principal laws legitimizing this
approach are the Federal Land Policy and Management Act,the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act,the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act,
the Endangered Species Act,and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
(table 1).Various techniques are available for characterizing habitat
quality.For example,species diversity is often used as an index of habitat
quality.This type of index accounts for both numbers of species and numbers
of individuals of each species in each habitat type.The approach has been
challenged on a number of grounds.For example Wiens (1978)points out that
it is insensitive to which species are present (Le.,it treats rare and
common species alike),while Inhaber (1976)notes the absence of a standard of
comparison (a problem of all biological indices).
33RD4-005 - 8 -
Another habitat based impact assessment approach is the U.S.Fish and
Wildlife Services Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP).HEP is a
species-habitat approach;habitat quality being denoted through use of an
index derived by evaluating the ability of key habitat components to supply
the life requisites of the subject species.Its chief limitation is that
predictions made are applicable only for the species being evaluated,i.e.,it
does not directly relate that species to other ecosystem components.
The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service's Instream Flow Incremental
Methodology (IFIM),another habitat based approach,is closely related to HEP
in logic.It too focuses on target species relationships with their habitat,
defined as Weighted Usable Area (WUA).Water depth,velocity,and substrate
data are coupled with habitat suitability curves to compute WUA.The chief
limitation of this approach is that it fails to take into account the effects
of with-project change on factors such as growth,competition,mortality,and
movement.These limitations are at the heart of a recent benchmark judicial
ruling (Energy Management 1984)against use of the IFIM and in favor of a less
rigorous,more qualitative,approach.
33RD4-005 -9 -
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The existing Susitna River Information base consists of a mix of
quantitative and qualitative data and model results:some is compatible,some
is not.It is strongly biased towards habitat descriptors.Natural and
qualitative
with-project environmental parameters are well known,as are the likely
responses of aquatic organisms to changes of the types predicted.Given this,
a habitat based impact assessment is the logical technique of choice for the
Susitna River study.
This analysis was accomplished by comparing predictions of the
with-project environment with information on fish distribution,abundance,and
habits and on known fish and invertebrate response to perturbations of the
types predicted.Professional judgement was used as necessary to interpret
the relationship between various data base components,Le.,the relative
comparability and utility of quantitative information vs.
information vs.model runs.
To assess effects of with-project changes in sediment transport on
instream biota,AEIDC first reviewed the information base on how suspended
sediments affect aquatic organisms.Ideally,information used in an effects
analysis is specific to the water body in question.Pertinent Susitna River
specific information (i.e.,data on sediment effects on the biota)is not
broad in scope,consisting only of preliminary primary production data and
ocular estimates of the appearance of in-slough spawning gravels following
floods.Where necessary,information from other areas and latitudes was used
to aid in the analysis.This factor imposed no constraint on conclusions
reached because organisms respond to sediments in similar ways worldwide.
Next,information on Susitna River fish stocks was assembled and synthesized.
33RD4-005 -10 -
Following this,estimates of with-project environmental changes (and the
information and procedures used in deriving them)were reviewed.Both the
information base on fish stocks and that on the with-project sediment
transport regime are adequate for use in an effects analysis.These three
steps (determining how various life forms are affected by sediments,compiling
information on the fish resource,and reviewing project sediment transport
studies)provided the basis for predicting effects of the with-project
sediment transport regime on aquatic organisms.
Available information is sufficient to address with-project sediment
transport effects on 13 of the 19 fish species present in the project area.
These are all five salmon species,eulachon,Bering cisco,burbot,round and
humpback whitefish,rainbow trout,Arctic grayling,and lake trout.
Tables 11,12,and 13 summarize predicted with-project negative sediment
transport-related effects on fish.Collectively,they provide an overview of
anticipated negative effects by species,location,and time of year for both
the Watana Dam and Watana and Devil Canyon dams together.A dimensionless
ordinal scale identifies the relative severity of anticipated effects.Its
values range from:
o -given predictions of the with-project sediment transport regime and
available knowledge of the fish species in question,no negative
effects are likely.
1 -the with-project sediment transport regime ·could negatively influ-
ence a species life stage,but the effects should be relatively
minor.
33RD4-005 -11 -
burbot,little is known of the life histories of resident fish at this season.
A synopsis of available fish resource information follows.
IMPOUNDMENT ZONE
The principal source of information on fish distribution,abundance,
habitat use,and life history in the impoundment zone is ADF&G 1981a and
1983d.Impoundment study area investigations were conducted in 1981 and 1982
by ADF&G Su-Hydro during the open water field season (May-October).These
studies concentrated on Arctic grayling,making data on this species the most
complete.Data on overwintering activities in this area is particularly
scarce for all species.The major objectives of this study were to:
1)determine the seasonal distribution and abundance of fish populations in
the proposed impoundment area;2)identify spawning and rearing areas;and
3)determine the physical and chemical characteristics of these habitats
(ADF&G 1981a,1983d).More specific tasks dealt with determining the
distribution,abundance,and migratory habits of Arctic grayling;determining
the distribution and relative abundance of selected resident fish species;
determining the abundance of lake trout and Arctic grayling in Sally Lake;
recording biological information on selected resident fish populations to
provide information on survival and growth;and identifying Arctic grayling
spawning and rearing locations within and adjacent to the with-project
impoundment areas (ADF&G 1983d).
Prior to initiation of the 1981 ADF&G Su-Hydro studies,fish resource
data for this area were collected by the U.S.Fish &Wildlife Service (1952,
1954,1957,1959a,1959b,1960,1965)and ADF&G (1978).These studies were
preliminary Susitna environmental assessments designed primarily to define
species composition.They also highlighted selected habitat locations of
33RD4-005 -13 -
2 -given available information,the with-project sediment transport
regime would negatively affect fish productivity.
3 -available information indicates that the with-project sediment
transport regime may negatively affect a species productivity,but
more data are needed to so state with certainty.
The veracity of conclusions reached varies by species and by river reach
in consequence of differences in available information quantity and type.
FISH RESOURCE
Judged against criteria for EIS preparation (40 CFR 1500),existing
information on Susitna River fish resources is generally adequate for an
assessment of with-project effects.(An EIS is simply an accounting tool
whose chief purpose is to ensure that all elements deemed significant by.the
scoping process are considered in decision making.)Available information on
open water season salmon-life stage activities (distribution,abundance,
spawning timing and location,rearing,and migration)is quite complete;the
overwinter salmon data base is much less so.Nonetheless,it is sufficient
for the purposes used.Tables 2 and 3 respectively provide an overview of
basinwide salmon escapements and the time of occurrence of their maj or life
phases.As with salmon,information on resident species is much more complete
for the open water season than it is for winter.Unlike salmon,however,it
is heavily weighted towards selected species.It,too,is sufficient for EIS
preparation purposes.Information on rainbow trout,burbot,and Arctic
grayling in the open water season is more complete than for other residents.
With the exception of limited winter radio-tagging data for rainbow trout and
33RD4-005 -12 -
I I
I
Table 2.Susitna River Salmon Escapement Estimates,1981-1984.
Year Chinook Sockeye 1 Pink Chum Coho 2Total
1981 272,500 85,600 282,700 36,800 677,600
1982 265,200 890,500 458,200 79,800 1,693,700
1983 176,200 101,300 276,800 24,100 578,400
1984 250,000 605,800 3,629,900 812,700 190,100 5,488,500
1 Second run sockeye only.
2 The 1984 drainage wide escapement estimates.Escapement counts for 1981
through 1983 do not include chinooks or any escapements into tributaries
downstream of RM 77,with the exception of those into the Yentna River.
Source:ADF&G 1983a;Barrett,Thompson,and Wick 1984,1985.
33RD4-005 -14 -
Table 3.Susitna River Salmon Phenology.
DATE
HABITAT RANGE PEAK
CHINOOK (KING)SALMON
Adult Inmigration Cook Inlet -Talkeetna May 25 -Aug 18 Jun 18 -Jun 30
Talkeetna -D.C.Jun 07 -Aug 20 Jun 24 -Jul 04
Middle River Tributaries Jul 01 -Aug 06
Juvenile Migration Middle River 1&3May18-Oct 03
Spa~ming Middle River Tributaries Jul 01 -Aug 26 Jul 20 -Jul 27
Lower River Tributaries Jul 07 -Aug 20 Jul 20 -Jul 27
COHO (SILVER)SALMON
I-'
lJ1
Adult Inmigration Cook Inlet -Talkeetna Jul 07 -Sep 28 Jul 27 -Aug 20
Talkeetna -D.C.Jul 18 -Sep 19 Aug 12 -Aug 26
Middle River Tributaries Aug 08 -Sep 27
Middle River 1&3 May 28 -Aug 21JuvenileMigrationHay18-Oct 12
Spawning Middle River Tributaries Sep 01 -Oct 08 Sep 05 -Sep 24
Lower River Tributaries Aug 08 -Oct 01
CHUM (DOG)SALMON
Adult Inmigration Cook Inlet -Talkeetna Jun 24 -Sep 28 Jul 27 -Aug 02
Talkeetna -D.C.JulIO -Sep 15 Aug 01 -Aug 17
Middle River Tributaries Jul 27 -Sep 06
Hiddle River Sloughs Aug 06 -Sep 05
3 May 28 -Jul 17JuvenileHigrationMiddleRiverHay18-Aug 20
33RCl/007h
Table 3.Susitna River Salmon Phenology.
(cont'd)
DATE
HABITAT RANGE PEAK
Spawning Middle River Tributaries Jul 27 -Oct 01 Aug 05 -Sep 10
Middle River Sloughs Aug 05 -Oct 11 Aug 20 -Sep 25
Middle River Mainstem Sep 02 -Sep 19
Lower River Tributaries Jul 27 -Sep 09 Aug 06 -Aug 14
SOCKEYE (RED)SALMON 2
Adult Inmigration Cook Inlet -Talkeetna Jul 04 -Aug 08 Jul 18 -Jul 27
Talkeetna -D.C.Jul 16 -Sep 18 Jul 31 -Aug 05
Juvenile Migration Niddle River 1&3 Jun 22 -Jul 17Nay18-Oct 11
......Spawning Middle River Sloughs Aug 05 -Oct 11 Aug 25 -Sep 25
0'
PINK (HU}WBACK)SALMON
Adult Inmigration Cook Inlet -Talkeetna Jun 28 -Sep 10 Jul 26 -Aug 03
Talkeetna -D.C.JulIO -Aug 30 Aug 01 -Aug 08
Middle River Tributaries Jul 27 -Aug 23
Middle River Sloughs Aug 04 -Aug 17
3 May 29 -Jun 08JuvenileMigrationMiddleRiverMay18-Jul 24
Spawning Niddle River Tributaries Jul 27 -Aug 30 Aug 10 -Aug 25
Middle River Sloughs Aug 04 -Aug 30 Aug 15 -Aug 30
Lower River Tributaries Jul 27 -Sep 09 Aug 06 -Aug 09
~All migration (includes migration to and between habitat,not just outmigration).
3 Second run sockeye only.
No data available for pre-breakup movement;earlier date of given range refers to initiation of outmigrant
trap operation.
Source:Barrett,Thompson and Wick 1984,1985;Schmidt et al.1984;ADF&G 1983a,c.
33RCl/007h/2
particular interest.Additional information on the fish resource in this area
is found in the transmission corridor studies of Schmidt et ale 1984c.
The natural environment between Devil Canyon and the upstream end of the
proposed Watana Reservoir provides habitats for nine fish species (ADF&G
1983d);eight are year-round residents and one (chinook salmon)is anadromous
(Figure 1).Within Devil Canyon,Fog Creek (RM 176.7)marks the upstream
limit of salmon migration in the mainstem Susitna River.Only three streams,
in the canyon had salmon observed in them during 1984.These streams,
(Cheechako,Chinook,and Fog creeks)had,in total,fewer than 100 chinook
salmon observed using them for spawning (Barrett,Thompson and Wick 1985).
Arctic grayling are the most widely distributed and abundant species
utilizing habitats above the canyon.The total 1982 Arctic grayling
population above 15 cm in length in eight of the impoundment zone streams was
estimated to be over 16,000 (ADF&G 1983b).Mainstem areas above the canyon
provide essential overwintering habitat for Arctic grayling,which move .into
tributaries to spawn following breakup in late Mayor early June (ADF&G
1983d).Arctic grayling migrate out of natal tributaries in September as
I
water levels and temperatures begin to drop.They overwinter in mainstem
environments which become less turbid following freeze-up (ADF&G 1983d).
Except for documentation of their presence,little is known of the
relative abundance of other species resident in the environments of the
proposed impoundment zone.Based on limited capture data,it seems that both
burbot and longnose sucker are relatively common there (ADF&G 1983d).
Elsewhere in the Susitna River,burbot spawn under the ice in tributaries
(such as the Deshka River)over gravel substrates from January to February,
and radio tagged fish data suggests they also spawn in the mainstem (ADF&G
1983b).During the rest of the year,they apparently distribute themselves
33RD4-005 -17 -
Figure 1.
l--
Fish uf the irnpound~ent zone.
I-'
00
SUSITNA RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN
Fish Species P,esent
lower Rivor:(20)Arctic grayling,Arctic lamprey,Boring cisco,bUlbol,chinook
sillmon,chum salmon,coho salmon,Dolly Varden,oulachon,
humpb;:Jck whilcflsh,lake Iroul,1000005c sucker,northern pike,
pHlk salmon,rainbow troul,round whllcfi!Jh,slimy sculpin,
sockeyo salmon.1I110espino sllckleback.and nlnosplno
sllckleback.
Mlddlo Rivor:(161 A,cUc grayling,Arctic lamprey.burbol,chinook salmon.chum
salmon,coho salmon.Dolly Varden,humpback whllellsh.lake
trout,100g0050 suckor,pink salmon,rainbow Iroul,round
while fish.slimy sculpin,sockoyo salmon,and Ihroosplno
slickleback.
Impoundmont Zone;(9)Arcllc grayling,burbol.Dolly Varden.humpback whllelish.lake
troul,longnose sucker.round whlle"sh,slimy SCUlpin,and
chinook salmon.
I I
I I, II ,
III I
II
I]
II
throughout the deeper portions of aquatic environments.Susitna River long-
nose sucker are spring spawners which move from overwinter habitats in the
mainstem to tributary natal areas from late May to early June (ADF&G 1983d).
Small numbers of round and humpback whitefish have been captured (at two loca-
tions)within the impoundment areas,but there are no estimates of their rela-
tive abundances (ADF&G 1983d).If they behave similarly to lower river and
middle river whitefish,they also overwinter in mainstem environments.AI-
though available information is scant,it appears that these two white fish
species spawn in early October in clearwater tributary streams.
Although not currently present in mainstem areas,some lake trout might
gain access to the reservoirs as a result of the project.Sally Lake,which
supports a lake trout population of undetermined number,would be inundated by
the Watana Reservoir (ADF&G 1983d).Lake trout generally spawn from August
through December and require stable lake shore gravel substrates for
reproduction.High lake (located immediately north of Devil Canyon)is a
tributary system to Devil Creek which has a resident population of rainbow
trout.Should the proj ect be completed,it is possible that some rainbows
might gain access to the Devil Canyon reservoir by outmigrating down Devil
Creek.Elsewhere in the basin,rainbow trout typically overwinter in lakes
and mainstem habitats,returning in the spring following breakup to spawn in
tributary streams.Most rainbow trout spawn in clearwater streams whose beds
are covered with relatively small cobbles and have relatively moderate
velocities (ADF&G 1983b).
MIDDLE RIVER
Fish and aquatic habitat investigations have been conducted on the
Susitna River since the 1950's to evaluate the proposed hydroelectric project
33RD4-005 -19 -
I I
II
u
(U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service 1952, 1954,1957,1959a,1959b,1960,1965;
Barrett 1974;ADF&G 1976, 1978,1981a,1983a,1983b,1983c,1985b;Barrett,
Thompson,and Wick 1984,1985;Riis 1977;Schmidt et al.1984a,1984b;and
Wangaard and Burger 1983).In 1980,the Susitna Hydroelectric Aquatic Studies
Program was initiated to collect data on the fish and aquatic habitat
resources of the basin.
Extant Susitna River basin data on fish distribution,abundance,and
habitat use focuses on salmon and are temporally and spatially limited.The
studies,and therefore the information available,is more complete for the
open water season and for the area upstream of the Chulitna River confluence.
A summary of ADF&G's Su-Hydro studies of the fish resources downstream of
Devil Canyon is available in a report by Woodward Clyde Consultants and Entrix
(1985).ADF&G's Su-Hydro studies have documented migration timing of salmon
runs in the Susitna River;estimated the population size and relative
abundance of salmon in various sub-basins of the Susitna River;estimated the
total salmon escapements into sloughs and tributaries upstream of RM 98.6;
quantified selected biological characteristics of Susitna River salmon stocks
(e.g.,sex ratio,fecundity,length at age);identified important spawning
areas for some resident species;documented timing and estimated the relative
utilization of macrohabitat types by juvenile and adult salmon and some
resident species;developed habitat suitability criteria for adult and
juvenile salmon,eulachon,Bering cisco,and some resident species;estimated
population size and survival for juvenile chum and sockeye;documented
outmigration timing of juvenile salmon;collected baseline physical and
chemical water quality data in identified macrohabitat types;developed
understanding of site-specific habitat responses to various mainstem
discharges;evaluated the capability of adult salmon to pass into selected
33RD4-005 -20 -
sloughs;and confirmed the importance of groundwater upwelling for salmon
spawning in sloughs.
Above the Chulitna River confluence (RM 98.5)salmon spawn in a variety
of tributaries,sloughs,and a few mainstem sites.In this river reach,coho
and chinook have only been found to spawn in tributary stream environments;
pink salmon primarily in tributary streams (with a small number utilizing
slough habitats);chum salmon in tributary,slough,and mainstem environ-
ments;and sockeye almost exclusively in sloughs (Barrett,Thompson and Wick
1985).Over 90%of salmon spawning in this reach occurs in tributaries
I :II
(Barrett,Thompson &Wick 1985).
At least eighteen tributary streams in the middle river provide salmon
spawning habitats (table 4).Over 96%of the total chinook escapement above
the Chulitna confluence spawn in tl-lO streams;Portage Creek (RM 148.9)and
Indian River (RM 138.6)(table 4).In 1984,these two streams had a combined
escapement of over 13,000 fish which represented a little over 5%of·the
basin's total chinook resource (Barrett,Thompson and Wick 1985).Only about
10%of Susitna River coho salmon spawn above the Chulitna confluence;they
apparently spawn only in tributaries in .this reach (Barrett,Thompson and Wick
1985).Indian River (RM 138.6)is the most important tributary for coho,
providing a little over 30%of the reproductive habitat available here
(table 5).Portage and 4th of July (RM 131.1)creeks and Indian River provide
reproductive habitats for over 80%of middle river pink salmon;this repre-
sents about 1%of the total Susitna escapement for pink salmon (Barrett,
Thompson &Wick 1985).The same three streams provide over 98%of tributary
spawning habitat for chum salmon in this reach (Barrett,Thompson and Wick
1985).In 1984,these tributaries accounted for about 1%of the total Susitna
chum salmon escapement.
33RD4-005 -21 -
-_._.----,~--.~~
Table 4.Peak Salmon Survey Counts Above Talkeetna for Susitna River Tributary Streams.
5D'ITVEY
STREAN ~Coho Chinook
1974 1976 1981 1982 1983 1984 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1981 1982 1983 1984
Whiskers 0.25 27 70 176 115 301 22 8 3 67
Creek (1m 101.4)
Chase 0.25 40 80 36 12 239 15 3
Creek (RN 106.9)
Slash 0.75 6 2 5
Creek (RI1 111.2)
Gash 1.0 141 74 19 234
Creek (RI1 111.6)
Lane 0.5 3 5 2 24 40 47 12 23
Creek (RN 113.6)
Lower 1.5 56 133 18 24
NcKenzie (RN 116.2)
McKenzie 0.25
Creek (RN 116.7)
Little 0.25 8
Portage (RI1 117.7)
Fifth 0.25 3 17
N of July (RI1 123.7)N
Skull 0.25
Creek (RI1 124.7)
Sherman 0.25 3
Creek (RN 130.8)
Fourth 0.25 26 17 1 4 3 8 1 14 56 6 92
of July (RN 131.0)..
Gold 0.25 1 21 23 23
Creek (RN 136.7)
Indian 15.0 64 30 85 101 53 465 10 537 393 114 285 422 1,053 1,193 1,456
River (RI1 138.6)
Jack 0.25 1 1
6 2 6 7
Long (RN 144.5)
Portage 15.0 150 100 22 88 15 128 29 702 374 140 140 659 1,253 3,140 5,446
Creek (RI1 148.9)
Cheechako 3.0 16 25 29
Creek (RN 152.5)
Chinook 2.0 4 8 15
Creek (RN 156.8)
---
TOTAL 307 147 458 633 240 1,434 62 1,261 767 254 425 1,121 2,473 4,416 7,178
33RCl/005a/l
-L-
Table 4.Peak Salmon Survey Counts Above Talkeetna for Susitna River Tributary Streams.
(cont'd)
SURVEY
STREAH ~Chum Sockeye
----1974 1975 1976 1977 1981 1982 1983 1984 1974 1975 1976 1977 1981 1982 1983 1984
Whiskers 0.25 1
Creek (RH 101.4)
Chase 0.25 1 1
Creek (R1'1 106.9)
Slasb 0.75
Creek (RH 111.2)
Gash 1.0
Creek (R1'1 111.6)
Lane 0.5 3 2 76 11 31
Creek (R1'1 113.6)
Lower 1.5 14 1 23 1
HcKenzie (RH 116.2)
HcKenzie 0.25 46
Creek (R1'1 116.7)
Little 0.25 31 18
Portage (RH 117.7)
Fifth 0.25 6 2
N of July (R1'1 123.7)w
Skull 0.25 10 1 4
Creek (R1'1 124.7)
Sherman 0.25 9 6
Creek (R1'1 130.8)
Fourth 0.25 594 78 11 90 191 148 193 1
of July (R1'1 131.0)
Gold 0.25
Creek (R1'1 136.7)
Indian 15.0 531 70 134 776 40 1,346 811 2,247 1 2 1 1 1
River (RH 138.6)
Jack 0.25 3 2 4
Long (RH 144.5)
Portage 15.0 276 300 153 526 1,285 12
Creek (RH 148.9)
Cheechako 3.0
Creek (RH 152.5)
Chinook 2.0
Creek (RH 156.8)
----
TOTAL 1,401 73 512 789 241 1,736 1,494 3,814 48 2 1 1 1 13
33RCl/005a/2
~~-~-~~---'---..~~
Table 4.Peak Salmon Survey Counts Above Talkeetna for Susitna River Tributary Streams.
(cont'd)
SURVEY
STREAH ~Pink
----1974 1975 1976 1977 1981 1982 1983 1984
Whiskers 0.25 75 1 138 293
Creek Om 101.4)
Chase Creek (RH 106.9)0.25 50 38 107 6 438
Slash Creek (RM 111.2)0.75 3
Gash Creek (RH 111.6)1.0 6
Lane Creek (RH 113.6)0.5 82 106 1,103 291 640 28 1,184
Haggot Creek (RH 115.6)0.25 107
Lower 1.5 23 17 585
HcKenzie (RH 116.2)
HcKenzie 0.25 17 11
Creek (RH 116.7)
Little 0.25 140 7 162
Portage (RH 117.7)
Deadhorse 0.25 337
'"Creek (RH 120.8)
.t:-
Fifth 0.25 2 113 9 411
of July (RH 123.7)
Skull Creek (RH 124.7)0.25 8 12 1 121.
Sherman Creek (RH 130.8)0.25 6 24 48
Fourth 0.25 159 148 4,000 612 29 702 78 1,842
of July (Rfl 131.0)
Gold Creek (Rfl 136.7)0.25 32 11 7 82
Indian River (Rfl 138.6)15.0 577 321 5,000 1,611 2 738 886 9,066
Jack Long (RH 144.5)0.25 1 5 14
Portage 15.0 218 3,000 169 285 2,707
Creek (RH 148.9)
Cheechako 3.0 21
Creek (RH 152.5)
Chinook 2.0
Creek (RH 156.8)
----
TOTAL 1,036 575 12,157 3,326 378 2,855 1,329 17 ,417
Source:Barrett 1974;Barrett,Thompson and Wick 1984,1985;Riis 1977;ADF&G 1976,1978,1981,1983a.
33RC1!005a!3
[1
u
[J
in the last four years,the majority (>88%)of chum salmon spawners counted
were in 10 of the 34 (tables 5 and 6).Three of these 10 (8A,II,21)have
added significance in that they also accommodated over 90%of all sockeye
spawning in the middle river (table 5).
Relatively few salmon spawn in mainstem nonslough habitats;of those
which do,chum salmon predominate.Generally,spawning habitats within the
mainstem proper are small areally and widely distributed.In 1984,ADF&G made
a concerted effort to identify mainstem middle river spawning habitats;they
identified 36 spawning sites.Numbers of fish counted at each of these sites
varied from one to 131 with an average of 35 (Barrett,Thompson,and Wick
1985).The estimated total mainstem escapement was approximately 3,000 chum
salmon (Barrett,Thompson and Wick 1985).This is less than 0.5%of the total
Susitna escapement.
Four of the five salmon species (all but pink)use middle river waters
for rearing purposes (Schmidt et al.1984b).At this time insufficient
information exists to characterize the relative importance of mainstem rearing
habitats relative to each other.From May to September juvenile chinook rear
in tributary and side channel environments,coho mostly rear in tributary and
upland sloughs,and sockeye move from noted side sloughs to upland sloughs for
rearing.From May to July rearing chum juveniles are distributed throughout
side slough and tributary stream environments (Dugan,Sterritt,and Stratton
1984).
Based on escapement counts for 1984,34 middle river sloughs collectively
provided habitat for approximately 5.5%of all salmon migrating above
Talkeetna station (Barrett,Thompson and Wick 1985).These sloughs are of
particular importance to middle river chum and sockeye salmon.About 50%of
the chum and almost all of the sockeye spawning above the Chulitna confluence
33RD4-005 -25 -
,
33RC1!007b
Table 6.Chum Salmon Escapement for the Ten Most Productive Sloughs Above
RM 98.6,1981-84.
Percent
River 4-Year of Total
Slough Mile 1981 1982 1983 1984 Average Escapement
8 113.7 695 0 0 217 228 3.4
8B 122.2 0 99 261 860 305 4.5
Moose 123.5 222 59 86 284 163 2.4
I
AI 124.6 200 0 155 217 143 2.1
8A 125.1 480 1,062 112 2,383 1,009 14.9
9 128.3 368 603 430 304 426 6.3
9A 133.8 140 86 231 528 246 3.6
I j 11 135.3 1,119 1,078 674 3,418 1,572 23.2
II 17 138.9 135 23 166 204 132 1.9
21 141.1 657 1,737 481 4,245 1,780 26.2
Source:Barrett,Thompson,and Wick,1984,1985.
33RD4-005 -27 -
II
I
i\..
occurs in sloughs.This represents about 2%of all chum and less than 0.5%of
all sockeye spawning in the Susitna drainage (Barrett,Thompson and Hick
1985).Spawning habitat quality apparently varies greatly between sloughs as,
Of the five salmon species present,only chinook and coho were captured
in the middle river during the 1981-82 winter field season (ADF&G 1983c).
Preliminary studies indicate that significant numbers (perhaps 25 to 50%)of
chinook and coho juveniles reared in this zone overwinter in side slough and
tributary stream environments (ADF&G 1985a).Provisional capture data for the
1984-85 winter field season show that a few sockeye are also overwintering in
this area of the river (Crawford 1985).Preliminary evidence indicates that
few juvenile salmon utilize the mainstem proper for overwintering purposes
(ADF&G 1985a).
Of the 11 resident middle river fish species (figure 1),capture data
indicate that rainbow trout,Arctic grayling,round whitefish,longnose
sucker,and slimy sculpin are common (ADF&G 1983c).Dolly Varden,burbot,
humpback whitefish,threespine stickleback,and Arctic lamprey also occur,but
all appear to be more abundant in the lower river (Sundet and Wenger 1984).
Lake trout are found only in surrounding area lakes,none of which would be
influenced by the project.
Less is known about most resident fish species in the middle river than
about salmon.Rough population estimates made in 1983 showed there to be
about 4,000 adult rainbow trout in the middle river.Catch data from 1981-84
in the middle river show round whitefish to be the most abundant species and
that Arctic grayling and longnose sucker are more abundant than rainbow trout
which are more common than burbot (Sundet and Wenger 1984).Lakes in the
Portage Creek and Fourth of July drainages where rainbow trout are abundant
probably contribute heavily to middle river rainbow populations (Crawford,
Hale,and Schmidt 1985).
33RD4-005 -28 -
Given the naturally reduced winter flow regimes of tributary streams,the
majority of resident fish (with the exception of lake trout)probably
overwinter somewhere in the mainstem.It is generally believed that most
11
II
resident fish which migrate to tributaries in the summer overwinter downstream
of their natal tributaries in the mainstem (Sundet and Wenger 1984).Of the
most common resident species,three (round whitefish,longnose sucker,and
slimy sculpin)can occur year-round in the mainstem.Rainbow trout and Arctic
grayling migrate out of tributaries by early October and most overwinter in
the mainstem slightly downstream of these tributaries (Crawford,Hale,and
Schmidt 1985).
LOIVER RIVER
At least 17 tributary streams and six sloughs provide salmon reproductive
habitats downstream of the Chulitna confluence.Tributary systems in this
reach support more than 99%of all spawning salmon.To date,no chinook,
sockeye,or pink salmon have been observed spawning in lower river mainstem
waters;all apparently use tributary streams exclusively for this purpose
(Barrett,Thompson and Wick 1985).Small numbers of chum and coho salmon have
been seen spawning in 13 separate mainstem sites and six side sloughs;most
members of these two species also spawn in tributary environments.ADF&G
estimates that,in aggregate,the number of chum salmon spawning within
mainstem environments in this reach represents roughly 0.3%of the 1984
basinwide escapement.The estimated number of spawning coho in the mainstem
represents roughly 0.2%of the 1984 escapement (Barrett,Thompson and WickI
.J
1985).Chum salmon were the principal users of side slough spa~vning
environments,being present in five of the six sloughs used.Their estimated
numbers represent roughly 0.1%of the total 1984 escapement.Only six coho
33RD4-005 -29 -
were seen spawning in sloughs in 1984;all were in one slough (Barrett,
Thompson and Wick 1985).Thus,lower river sloughs are less important than
middle river sloughs for spawning purposes.
Less is known of salmon rearing and overwintering habitats in lower river
mainstem environments than in the middle river.Coho,chinook,chum and
sockeye juveniles primarily rear in tributaries;chinook,chum,and sockeye
juveniles also make use of side channels.Sloughs are limited in occurrence
and are not used heavily by any salmon species (Crawford,Hale,and Schmidt
1985).A few coho and chinook have been captured during winter in mainstem
environments in this river reach (ADF&G 1983c).
Several million eulachon spawn in late May to early June in the lower 50
miles of the mainstem Susitna River.Most of these fish spawn below RM 29 in
main channel habitats near cut banks over loose sand and gravel substrates
(Barrett,Thompson and Wick 1984).Bering cisco return to the Susitna River
in late August and spawning takes place from September through October.In
1981 and 1982,spawning activity peaked in the second week of October.Bering
cisco are known to spawn only in main channel environments;the majority of
spawning apparently takes place between RM 75 and RM 85 (Barrett,Thompson and
Wick 1984).
Little is known about most resident fish life histories in the lower
river.The 13 resident fish species found in the lower river,with the
exception of lake trout,northern pike,and ninespine stickleback,are
generally believed to be common (Sundet and Wenger 1984).As elsewhere in the
drainage rainbow trout,Arctic grayling,and Dolly Varden spend most of the
open water season in tributaries,using the mainstem principally for migration
and overwintering (ADF&G 1983b).These species move into tributaries to spawn
in the spring after breakup.Rainbow trout and Arctic grayling outmigrate
33RD4-005 -30 -
from most eastside tributaries in September (Crawford,Hale,and Schmidt
1985).Burbot,whitefish,longnose sucker,sculpin,stickleback,and Arctic
lamprey are found in both the mainstem and tributaries during the open water
season.All of these species are believed to overwinter in the mainstem,but
only rainbow trout,burbot,and slimy sculpin were captured there during 1982
winter sampling (ADF&G 1983b).Round whitefish are believed to spawn in
October at either mainstem,tributary mouth,or tributary locations (Schmidt,
et al.1984b).Burbot spawning generally occurs between January and March
under the ice in areas influenced by the mainstem or in tributaries like the
Deshka.
Based on ongoing radio telemetry studies,it appears that favored
mainstem overwinter habitats for adult rainbow trout and burbot differ
principally by depth and location (Crawford 1985).Tagged rainbows are most
frequently relocated in mainstem side channels,near tributaries,in waters
generally less than five feet in depth.Tagged burbot are frequently located
in winter in mainstem pools greater than six feet deep along river bends.
However,most of the tagged burbot were found in the Deshka River.Both
species seem to favor low velocity environments.
33RD4-005 -31 -
SEDIMENT EFFECTS ON AQUATIC ORGANISMS
The literature was searched for information describing the ways in which
suspended sediment affects aquatic life to aid in evaluating the effects of
the with-project sediement regime on them.A negative correlation exists
between turbidity level and instream primary productivity (McCart and DeGraaf
1974).Turbid conditions reduce penetration of incident solar radiation and
can limit growth of aquatic plants that are important food for stream
invertebrates which in turn,are food for fish (Cordone and Kelly 1961).
Deposition of sediment can,overtime,reduce available habitat for stream
invertebrates (Giger 1973).As sediment accumulates,the character of the
substrate can change from being relatively diverse to one being relativelyI1
II homogeneous.Hany invertebrate species which are important salmonid food
II
11
items are adapted to life on relatively stable gravel and rubble bottoms;they
cannot inhabit relatively unstable areas of shifting sand and silt (McCart and
deGraaf 1974).
Benthic macroinvertebrate numbers in reservoirs may be limited by a range
of variables,of which siltation is one (Isom 1971).Accumulated silt can
clog intragravel interstices reducing water flow and,hence,oxygen
availability.This may negatively affect invertebrates also,(Ziebell 1960)
especially those which respire through gills,such as caddisfly,mayfly,and
stonefly larvae (McCart and deGraaf 1974),all of which are important fishufooditems.Silt may injure aquatic insect gills or membranes,thereby
interfering with respiration (Usinger 1956).In silty environments,epifauna
are often replaced by those more tolerant of low dissolved oxygen levels,such
as dipterans and aquatic worms (Eustis and Hillen 1954),some of of which
33RD4-005 -32 -
I !
I
burrow into bottom sediments and offer reduced availability to fish (Phillips .
1971)•
Given extremely high concentrations over a prolonged time,suspended silt
can accumulate in fish gill filaments,reducing oxygen exchange and eventually
causing death (Cordone and Kelly 1961).However,this seldom happens
I I
I I
II
I :
I I
II
[I
naturally.Highly turbid waters may reduce forging efficiency and hence,
survival rates in sight feeders,such as sa1monids (Phillips 1971).Because
suspended sediments eventually settle,major changes in bottom habitats might
result from increased sediment deposition.Fine material accumulates on the
stream bottom filling up spaces between stones and boulders.This decreases
the permeability of the substrate resulting in decreased intragravel flow.
Various authors have reported that increased sediment deposition can be
detrimental to the survival of salmonid eggs and alev{ns,the most sensitive
stages in the life cycle.Reduction in survival of salmon eggs and a1evins is
roughly in proportion to the reduction of water flow through the gravel,which
in turn varies with the concentration of sediment--the greater the sediment
concentration the greater the reduction in permeability.When permeability is
reduced,eggs and fry are likely to suffer from oxygen deprivation and
poisoning from waste metabolites which are not removed.Hall and Lantz (1969)
found that a five percent increase of material smaller than 0.03 in (0.8 mm)
in diameter in spawning substrate caused a decrease in survival of emergent
coho fry.Sediment can also form a barrier to fry emergence by blocking
interstitial gravel spaces through which fry move.Survival of fry after
emergence can also be reduced by loss of escape cover if cracks and spaces
fill with sediment.McCart and de Graaf (1974)noted that _,if sedimentation is
of short duration,streams can recover quickly without any long-term
consequences for the aquatic ecosystem.The rate of reinvasion of stream
33RD4-005 -33 -
I i
I !
habitats is usually most rapid when short sections of stream rather than
entire drainages are affected,adequate reservoirs of new organisms exist,and
the degree of sediment deposition is slight.
33RD4-005 -34 -
I I
i I
[I
I '
I I
1....J
SEDIMENT TRANSPORT
OVERVIEW
Sediment transport data pertaining to Sus'itna Basin waters have been
collected and analyzed by the U.S.Geological Survey (USGS),the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G),R&M Consultants,Inc.(R&M),Harza-Ebasco
Susitna Joint Venture (H-E),Peratovich,Nottingham,and Drage Inc.,and
E.Woody Trihey and Associates (EWT&A).USGS information useful in addressing
the sediment transport issue includes over 30 years of stream discharge data
and some site-specific,systematically gathered,sediment and hydraulic data
for the October 1981 to February 1984 period.The latter include suspended
sediment concentration,bedload discharge,particle size distribution,and
mainstem cross-sectional dimensions (Knott and Lipscomb 1983,1985).
USGS field stations for the 1981-84 study were located on the Talkeetna
and Chulitna rivers (near their respective confluences with the Susitna)and
on the Susitna River (one station was just upstream of the Talkeetna River
confluence,another was located near Sunshine,the last was near the mouth of
Gold Creek).This study found that from November through March,suspended
sediment concentrations at all stations were similar to each other,generally
less than 10 mg/L (Knott and Lipscomb 1983,1985).Suspended sediment
concentrations rose rapidly in May of 1982 in concert with breakup;recorded
concentrations were again somewhat similar in that all were in the low
hundreds of mg/L (Knott and Lipscomb 1983,1985).Great differences in
suspended sediment concentrations were noted between sampling stations in July
and August,the time of maximum glacial meltwater flow.Concentrations in
this time period ranged from 90 to 768 mg/L for the Talkeetna and Susitna
rivers (measured at the two stations located near the town of Talkeetna)and
from 766 to 1270 mg/L for the Chulitna.River (Knott and Lipscomb 1983,1985).
33RD4-005 -35 -
At Sunshine (below the confluences of the Talkeetna and Chulitna rivers)the
USGS found suspended sediment concentrations in the July -August timeframe to
be between 424 to 1430 mg/L (Knott and Lipscomb 1983,1985).
The USGS documented the fact that the Chulitna River was the major
contributor of both suspended sediment and bedload to the mainstem Susitna
below Talkeetna (Knott and Lipscomb 1983).For example,bedload discharges
from the Susitna River (near Talkeetna)ranged from 106 to 2840 tons per day
during the 1982 water year (October 1981 to September 1982);bedload at the
Chulitna River site ranged from 2560 to 18,300 tons per day during the same
interval (Knott and Lipscomb 1983).Between June and September 1982,the
total bedload discharge at the USGS sample site upstream of Sunshine was two
to five times greater than that at Sunshine (Knott and Lipscomb 1983),
providing indirect evidence of aggradation in the mainstem.The same data
also indicate that material deposited above Sunshine is transported under
natural conditions by periodic high flows.
The USGS graphed water discharge against both suspended sediment and
bedload concentrations and found a positive correlation to exist,i.e.,
sediment transport volumes increased with increasing water flow (Knott and
Lipscomb 1983,1985).However,the correlation was not directly proportional;
Susitna River sediment transport rates increase exponentially above a point
for each incremental change in water discharge (Knott and Lipscomb 1983,
1985).USGS sediment yield estimates for the 1982 water year are presented in
table 7.
R&M (1982a)combined existing USGS stream discharge and suspended
sediment data with aerial photographs of the Susitna River,information on bed
material size,and cross-sectional transects of stream morphology to calibrate
a water surface profile model (R&M 1982a).They concluded that the mainstem
33RD4-005 -36 -
Table 7.Estimated and recorded sediment yield.
Drainage Water
Station Name Area Discharge Total Sediment (tons)
and Number (mi 2 )Period (acre-ft)Silt-Clay Sand Gravel Totalb
Susitna River near 6,320 May 920,000a 170,000 100,000 1,100 270,000
Talkeetna (15292100)June 1,700,000a 430,000 330,000 5,300 770,000
July 1,500,000a 680,000 220,000 1,900 900,000
August 1,000,000a 310,000 52,000 100 360,000
September 1,100,000a 330,000 140,000 900 480,000
May -Sep 6,200,000a 1,900,000 840,000 9,300 2,800,000
I
Chulitna River near 2,570 May 386,700 88,000 73,000 48,000 210,000
Talkeetna (15292400)June 1,092,000 880,000 610,000 230,000 1,700,000
July 1,575,000 1,900,000 910,000 190,000 3,000,000
August 1,252,000 1,000,000 510,000 150,000 1,700,000
September 1,085,000 1,200,000 350,000 66,000 1,600,000
May -Sep 2,670,000 600,000 810,000 110,000 1,500,000
Susitna River at 11,100 May 1,633,000 280,000 260,000 15,000 550,000
Sunshine (15292780)June 3,738,000 1,500,000 1,200,000 130,000 2,900,000
July 3,876,000 2,800,000 1,400,000 75,000 4,300,000
August 2,083,000 1,800,000 660,000 14,000 2,500,000
September 2,906,000 1,900,000 880,000 46,000 2,800,000
May -Sep 14,236,000 8,300,000 4,400,000 280,000 13,000,000
Source:Knott and Lipscomb 1983
a -Estimated
b -Rounded
lJ
33RD4-005 -37
Susitna River channel between Devil Canyon and the Chulitna River confluence
would tend to narrow and become more defined under with-project conditions
(R&H 1982a).Downstream of the Susitna-Chulitna confluence the river would
stabilize with-project;there would be fewer subchannels and increased
vegetation cover (as plants colonized barren bars now subj ect to periodic
flooding).Specific with-project changes predicted in river morphology by R&M
(1982a)are summarized in table 8.
R&M (1982b)also calculated reservoir sedimentation rates using assumed
trap efficiencies (table 9).They note that the estimated deposit in Devil
Canyon reservoir (assuming 100%trap efficiency of Watana Reservoir)(table 8)
appears too low (R&M 1982b).Given knowledge of sediment size distribution
and flow volumes,R&M (1982b)believes that the reservoir(s)would noticeably
affect downstream environments;with-proj ect summer turbidity between Devil
Canyon and the Talkeetna River confluence would sharply decrease because of
reservoir sediment trapping (R&M 1982b).Winter with-project turbidities are
predicted to be near natural as in-reservoir near surface suspended sediments
are likely to settle rapidly,especially following free~e-up (R&M 1982b).
R&M (1982c)and R&M and EWT&A (1985)also collected and analyzed
streamflow and sediment transport mechanism data for 19 tributary stream
mouths.The outlets of Jack Long,Sherman,and Deadhorse creeks are predicted
to aggrade sufficiently to restrict fish access (R&M 1982c),while tributary
mouths at Ili'l 127.3 and RM 1l0.1,as well as Skull Creek,are predicted to
significantly degrade (thereby threatening the railroad bridges there).The
remaining 13 tributaries evaluated are predicted to either aggrade or degrade
with-project,but without effects on fish access or other resources.
33RD4-005 -38 -
Table 8.Predicted morphologic change with-project.
RM 149
to 144
RM 144
to 139
RH 139
to 129.5
RH 129.5
to 119
R.H 119
to 104
RM 104
to 95
RM 95
to 61
RM 61
to 42
RN 42
to 0
Mainstem
N/C
Less erosion of valley
walls;distributaries may
become inactive;channel
will be more uniformly
sinuous;less reworking of
streambed deposits.
Less erosion of valley
walls;channel will be more
univormly sinuous.
Less erosion of valley
walls;channel will be more
uniformly sinuous;river
will continue to hug west
bank.
N/C
Chulitna will extend
alluvial deposits across
mainstem Susitna;east bank
of the Susitna could erode;
Talkeetna River flow will
maintain channel along east
bank of the Susitna.
Hain channel of the Susitna
River will stabilize.
N/C
N/C
Slough
Some sloughs
could be
dewatered.
Side channels and
sloughs may
become perched.
N/C
Tributary
Portage Creek will degrade
with-project;it will not be
perched.
Tributary at RM 144 could
become perched.
Fourth of July Creek and
Indian River will grade
their beds to match
regulated flows;Gold Creek
will become perched.
N/C
N/C =No Change
Source:R&M 1982a
33RD4-005 39
Table 9.Reservoir sedimentation.
50-Year 100-Year
I III
Watana
100 percent trap efficiency 240,000 af 472,500 af
70 percent trap efficiency 170,000 af 334,000 af
Devil Canyon with 70 percent trap efficiency
of loJatana
100 percent trap efficiency 79,000 af 155,000 af
70 percent trap efficiency 55,000 af 109,000 af
Devil Canyon with 100 percent trap efficiency
of l-Jatana
100 percent trap efficiency 8,600 af 16,800 af
70 percent trap efficiency 6,100 af
Souce:R&M 1982b
33RD4-005 -40 -
The firm of Peratrovich,Nottingham &Drage,Inc.undertook an analysis
of turbidity levels in the Watana Reservoir.Using a model (DEPOSITS)to
compute turbidity at various depths,they concluded that particles less than
three to four microns (about 20%of summer sediment input)would remain
suspended (Peratrovich,Nottingham &Drage 1982).They predicted maximum
outlet turbidity levels to be around 50 NTUs (roughly 200 to 400 mg/L);
predicted minimum turbidity levels are around 10 NTUs (roughly 30 to 70 mg/L).
Peratrovich,Nottingham &Drage (1982)predict that wind mixing in the
ice-free season would keep sediments sized 12 microns or less in suspension,
at least in the upper 50 ft of the water column.Resuspension of nearshore
sediments are predicted to occur during storm intervals producing short-term
higher than ambient turbidity levels (Peratrovich,Nottingham &Drage 1982).
Trihey (1982)analyzed field data collected by others on the mouths of
Indian River and Portage Creek.His calculations (made for mainstem
discharges of 8,000,13,400,21,500,and 34,500 cfs)indicate that both stream
mouths would degrade with-project providing fish passage.He also analyzed
with-proj ect effects on salmon access to middle river sloughs.He focused
analysis on Slough 9 arguing that it'is a reasonable index of entrance
conditions in all middle river sloughs.Trihey (1982)reports that access to
Slough 9 would not appear to be restricted by flows at or above 18,000 cfs;
access becomes increasingly difficult as flows decrease.At 12,000 cfs,
Trihey (1982)reports that acute access problems would occur.
Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture used sediment discharge data for the
Susitna River taken near Cantwell to estimate sediment inflow to the proposed
reservoirs.Using the sediment rating-flow duration curve method and assuming
100%reservoir trap efficiency,they estimated that 6,730,000 tons of sediment
33RD4-005 -41 -
would be trapped per year in the Watana Reservoir;the 100-year sediment de-
posit would be about 7%of the dead storage volume (Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint
Venture 1984a).Without Watana Reservoir,Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture
(1984a)estimates sediment deposit in the Devil Canyon Reservoir would be
about 7,240,000 tons per year;the 100-year deposit would be about 60%of the
dead storage volume.With both dams on-line,sediment deposit in the Devil
Canyon Reservoir is estimated to be about 515,000 tons per year;the 100-year
deposit would be about 4%of dead storage capacity.Reduced sediment load
below the dams would result in some mainstem degradation downstream to the
vicinity of the Chulitna and Talkeetna confluences with the Susitna River
(Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture 1984a).
Estimates of with-project mainstem degradation are provided in table 10.
At certain mainstem sites,with-project bed degradation is predicted to vary
from 1-1~ft under a dominant discharge of about 30,000 cfs (Harza-Ebasco
Susitna Joint Venture 1985).Flows of this volume are expected in the early
years of Watana and Devil Canyon reservoirs (Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Ven-
ture 1984a).Predicted degradation of side channel and sloughs varies between
o to 0.3 ft (Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture 1985;R&M and mJT&A 1985).
Because of channel degradation,higher than natural flows would be
required to overtop slough berms.Using an assumed one-foot channel
degradation as a bench mark,with-project flows necessary to overtop slough
berms would need to be 4,000 to 12,000 cfs greater than natural (Harza-Ebasco
Susitna Joint Venture 1985).Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture (1985)
predict that if slough berms were overtopped,water velocity would be
sufficient to carry out fines ~.004 mm.However,coarser silt and fine sand
entrained by overtopping water would settle in their stead (Harza-Ebasco
Susitna Joint Venture 1985).
33RD4-005 -42 -
Table 10.Potential degradation at selected sloughs,side channels and mainstem sites.
Discharge at Gold Creek (cfs)
5000 7000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 iQ.QQQ ~55000----Location Estimated Degradation (ft)
*Main Channel near
Cross Section 4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.4
Main Channel between
Cross Sections 12 &13 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.8 2.4 3.7
Main Channel upstream
from Lane Creek 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.5
Mainstem 2 Side Channel
at Cross Section 18.2
Main Channel 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.2
Northeast Fork 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
Northwest Fork 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
Slough 8A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
Slough 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5
Main Channel upstream
from Fourth of July
II Creek 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7
2.0 2.5
I J 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 2.0SideChannel100 0 0 0
Lower Side Channel 11 0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 2.1
Slough 11 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1
Upper Side Channel 11 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.8
Main Channel between
Cross Sections 46 &48 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.7
1.9 2.1 2.4 2.8
Side Channel 21 0 0
0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3
IJ Slough 21 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.5
Source:Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture 1985
*Locations are defined on pages 7 to 11 in Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture 1985.
33RD4-005 -43
AEIDC (1985)analyzed natural geomorphic change in the Susitna River
between Devil Canyon and the Chulitna confluence by comparing aerial
photographs taken over the last 36 years.AEIDC (1985)concluded that the
reach in question is slowly degrading its bed under natural flows as it has
ice age.Sloughs were found to be transitory in nature,being continually
created and destroyed by natural sediment transport mechanisms (AEIDC 1985).
SYNOPSIS OF RESULTS
The Watana and Devil Canyon reservoirs are predicted to trap most
sediment reaching them.The consequences of this are varied.First,the
reservoir environments would be characterized as highly turbid (-50 NTUs)with
relatively high sedimentation rates.Second,reduction in sediment load
II, I\,
downstream of the Devil Canyon Dam would induce some channel degradation to
about the confluences of the Talkeetna and Chulitna rivers with the Susitna.
Channel degradation coupled with regulated with-project flows would reduce the
incidenceAof floods which overtopped slough berms.Floodwaters,while still
capable of resuspending intragravel fines,would deposit significant amounts
of sand and silt in their place.Some naturally occurring patterns of stream
aggradation near the Talkeetna and Chulitna confluences with the Susitna River
could be enhanced,but natural discharges from the Talkeetna River should be
sufficient to keep a channel open.
Predictions of the with-project environment (based on the studies
outlined above)are sufficiently detailed and verifiable to allow an
evaluation of the with-project sediment transport regime on fish.The chief
limiting factor confronting all investigators is the apparent hysteresis
between sediment load and water discharge,a problem common to glacial
meltwater streams (R&M 1982;Knott and Lipscomb 1983,1985).The net result
33RD4-005 -44 -
II,J
u
of this is to make long-term predictions relatively more accurate than those
for the short-term.This condition,while potentially troubling to engineers,
is of small importance to the effects analysis which,of necessity,has a
long-term focus.
33RD4-005 -45 -
,j
ANALYSIS
ANTICIPATED NEGATIVE EFFECTS
IMPOUNDMENT ZONE
The following discussion explains predictions summarized in table 11.
Predicted with-proj ect sedimentation and suspended sediment levels in the.
impoundments would negatively influence to varying degrees all fish species
present.Anticipated with-project suspended sediment loads in the reservoirs
vary seasonally from a summer high of between 200 to 400 mg/L (50 NTU's)to a
winter low of between 30 to 70 mg/L (10 NTU's)(Peratovich,Nottingham,and
Drage 1982).Summer levels could occasionally be higher than this,especially
nearshore,as storm runoff is expected to re-entrain sediment deposited during
winter dra'vdown (Peratovich,Nottingham and Drage 1982).Following extensive
review of sediment effects on North American benthic and planktonic
communities and on population,reproduction,and species composition of fish,
Newport and Moyer (1974)concluded that water bodies having suspended sediment
concentrations above 100 mg/L year round were unlikely to support a viable
sport fishery.The reasons for this are many but chiefly concern the effects
of sediment on aquatic organism respiration efficiency.Suspended inorganic
sediment can mechanically damage and interfere with oxygen transport across
membranes (McCart and DeGraaf 1974;Cordone and Kelley 1961).
33RD4-005 -46 -
Table 11.Anticipated relative negative with-project sediment
transport effects on impoundment zone fish.
Devil Canyon OperationWatanaOperation
Effects 1
Fish Species Scale Date
Chinook salmon
Arctic Grayling
adult migration 0
spawning 0
incubation 0
rearing 1 Oct-Apr
Lake Trout
adult migration 0
spawning 2 Aug-Dec
incubation 2
rearing 1 Oct-Apr
Whitefish 3
adult migration 0
spawning 0
incubation 0
rearing 1 Oct-Apr
Rainbow Trout
adult migration 0
spawning 0
incubation 0
rearing 1 Oct-Apr
Burbot
adult migration 0
spawning 1 Jan-Feb
Incubation 3
rearing 1
Longnose Sucker
adult migration 0
spawning 0
incubation 0
rearing 1 Oct-Apr
1 a -no concern
1 -low
2 -moderate to severe
3 -possible
Effects
Scale
o
a
a
1
o
2
2
1
o
o
o
1
o
o
a
1
a
1
3
1
o
o
o
1
Date
Oct-Apr
Aug-Dec
Oct-Apr
Oct-Apr
Oct-Apr
Jan-Feb
Oct-Apr
2 The Devil Canyon dam would block upstream passage of chinook salmon,a few
of which spawn in Cheechako Creek (RM 152.5)and Chinook Creek (RM 156.8);
with-project sediment transport would not negatively influence habitats there.
3 This table is applicable to both humpback and round whitefish.
33RD4-005 -47 -
The with-project sediment transport regime would most affect lake trout
and burbot,the only two impoundment zone species which naturally reproduce in
lake environments.Lake trout normally spawn in fall over the gravel
substrates of clearwater lakes.The combined effects of lake drawdown and
winter sedimentation would generally limit in-reservoir reproduction rates by
this species.Embryos which were not dehydrated by receding reservoir water
levels in winter (i.e.,those spawned below the lower low water level)would
face the consequences of sediment build-up on natal beds (i.e.,oxygen
deprivation).Burbot spawn in winter under the ice and over gravel in either
lakes or streams.This species population could be held in check by the
anticipated pattern of winter sedimentation also,but too little is known of
the precise pattern of sedimentation to allow an accurate assessment of the
degree,or magnitude,of its effects on burbot embyros.Burbot are broadcast
spawners and can spa\vn in a wide range of depths.It may be that some embryos
in some areas might find favorable conditions for reproduction and growth
(e.g.local hydraulic conditions might produce eddies where sedimentation
rates were relatively low).
Reservoir rearing habitat quality for all species would be low
(table 11).Given the predicted reservoir environment in winter,it is likely
that invertebrate populations there would become dominated by infauna capable
of living in low oxygenated environments (see p.32 of this report),rather
than by epifaunal fish foods such as caddis fly larvae.This would translate
into lowered food availability for fish.Sedimentation would also reduce
IJ
available cover afforded by cobbles and boulders making fry somewhat more
susceptible to predation.
33RD4-005 -48 -
I !
I
I i
MIDDLE RIVER ZONE
Tables 12 and 13 summarize anticipated with-project negative sediment
transport effects on middle river zone anadromous and resident fish.These
effects can be placed into one of two categories;those centered on the
mainstem proper and those centered on slough spawning habitats.Immediately
after project startup and regardless of whether one or two dams are on-line,
the mains tern between Devil Canyon and its confluence with both the Talkeetna
and Chulitna rivers would begin to degrade (R&M,Woodward-Clyde Consultants,
and Harza Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture 1985).Mainstem degradation would
continue until the bed adjusted to the new (regulated)flow volume.The
river's channel would narrow as it entrenched (R&M 1982;Harza-Ebasco Susitna
Joint Venture 1985).With-project mainstem degradation (coupled with
regulated flows)would accelerate the natural process of slough senescence
noted by AEIDC (1985).Sloughs in the natural (i.e.,unregulated)environment
are continually created and destroyed over time as a consequence of the slow
but continuous process of river bed degradation.In its essence,the process
of slough senescence begins with the perching of slough mouths by the
degrading river (AEIDC 1985).In time the slough is left behind by the river
and eventually it evolves into dry land (AEIDC 1985).Under natural
1
conditions new sloughs are constantly and coincidentally created as entrained
bed material is redeposited (AEIDC 1985).
Unlike natural,with-project sloughs would not complete their life cycle,
nor would new sloughs be created.With-project,the effect of freshets neces-
sary to entrain bed material for slough building would be greatly diminished.
Once the bed achieved equilibrium with with-project flows,the process of
slough perching would cease (Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture 1985).With-
project sloughs,following a period of environmental adjustment delimited by
33RD4-005 -49 -
I I
the period of mainstem degradation,would superficially appear to be in stasis
with the environment,i.e.,they would not gradually make the transition to
dry land.Change would be occurring,however.The dams would reduce the
I I
I I
III I
II
I I
I IIJ
I j
incidence of freshet-induced overtopping of slough berms (Harza-Ebasco Susitna
Joint Venture 1984a).This would lead to a build-up of fines and coarser bed
material (Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture 1984a;Blakely et al.,1985).
Immediately downstream of the Chulitna confluence with the mainstem,a
zone of with-project aggradation is predicted to occur (R&M 1982,Harza-Ebasco
Susi~na Joint Venture 1984a).Aggradation here is likely to be significant
and it may have consequence to the built as well as natural environment (R&M
1982).However,natural flow from the Talkeetna River is believed sufficient
to maintain a distinct channel through this zone (R&M 1982;Harza-Ebasco
Susitna Joint Venture 1984a).
The chief sediment transport problem concerns degradation of traditional
slough spawning habitats for chum,pink,and sockeye salmon (table 12).,As
indicated above,the with-project rate of flood-induced overtopping of slough
berms would be greatly diminished over natural conditions.This is predicted
to result in both a buildup of intragravel fines (floods are necessary to
re-entrain deposited fines thereby rehabilitating spawning beds)and a buildup
of larger,coarser material deposited during each flood event (Harza-Ebasco
Susitna Joint Venture 1984a,1985).Unless mitigated,this process would
eventually destroy all in-slough salmon spawning habitats by filling in gravel
interstices and by altering the character of spawning substrates.Since no
new sloughs would be created under the with-project sediment transport regime,
this means that unless mitigated,the annual average drainagewide escapements
would in time be reduced by as many as 20,000 adult chum (eight-year average
33RD4-005 -50 -
Table 12.Anticipated relative negative with-project sediment
transport effects on middle river zone anadromous fish.
Date
Devil Canyon Operation
i 1
Fish Species
Watana Operation
Effects 1
Scale Location
Effects
Scale Location Date
sloughs year-round
sloughs year-round
sloughs Aug-Sept
sloughs Sept-May
sloughs year-round
I I
I I
I I
II
IIIJ
Chinook salmon
adult inmigration
spawning
incubation
rearing/smolting
outmigration
Chum salmon
adult inmigration
spawning
incubation
rearing/smolting
outmigration
Pink salmon
adult inmigration
spawning
incubation
rearing/smolting
outmigration
Coho salmon
adult inmigration
spawning
incubation
rearing/smolting
outmigration
Sockeye salmon
adult inmigration
spawning
incubation
rearing/smolting
outmigration
o
o
o
1
o
o
1
2
1
o
o
1
2
o
o
o
o
o
1
o
o
1
2
1
o
sloughs
sloughs
sloughs
sloughs
sloughs
Aug-Sept
Sept-Nay
Nay-June
Aug
Sept-May
o
o
1
o
o
1
2
1
o
o
1
2
o
o
o
o
o
1
o
o
1
2
1
o
sloughs
sloughs
sloughs
sloughs
sloughs
sloughs
sloughs
sloughs
sloughs
sloughs
year-round
Aug-Sept
Sept-May
May-June
Sept-May
year-round
Aug-Sept
Sept-Nay
year-round
I I
I J 1 0
1
2
3
-no concern
-low
-moderate
-possible
11
See text for a complete description of the effects scale.
33RD4-005 -51 -
from table 5),500 adult sockeye (eight-year average from table 5),and 270
adult pink salmon (six-year average from table 5)unless mitigated.These
numbers represent 2.4%,.08%,and .007%respectively of all chum,sockeye,and
pink salmon spawning in the Susitna drainage basin in 1984.
Stream degradation at the mouths of all major middle river salmon
spawning sloughs is predicted to be slight (table 10).Taken by itself,this
can be interpreted to mean that there would be no with-project access problems
for salmon.However,comparison of existing information on minimum mainstem
flows necessary to allow passage of adult spawners into natal habitats
(Blakely et al.,1985;Sautner,Vining,and Rundquist 1984)and knowledge of
the ability of salmon to traverse stream reaches under given flows (Blakely et
al.,1985;Sautner,Vining,and Rundquist 1984;Trihey 1982)to predictions of
Case E-VI flows (Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture 1984b)and with-project
mainstem degradation patterns (Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture 1985)leads
to the conclusion that in some years some pink,chum,and sockeye salmon would
not be able to reach traditional natal slough environments (table 12).With
present information,it is impossible to accurately predict ~.,hich sloughs
would be most affected,and hence,the number of fish affected.Additional
study is not likely to improve this situation.Variables affecting flow
estimates (e.g.,climate and energy demand)and the lack of a clear
relationship between flow volume and sediment transport,make it unlikely that
materially greater predictive precision is achievable,regardless of whether
additional study effort is expended.
Predicted with-project aggradation at the mouths of Deadhorse (RM 120.8),
Sherman (RM 130.8),and Jack Long (RM 144.5)creeks would likely restrict
access to spawning habitats for some salmon (R&M 1982a,1985).Escapement
counts made to evolve indices of abundance indicate that relatively few salmon
33RD4-005 -52 -
spawn in these streams (table 4).Based on the 1984 count (the highest on
record),399 adult pink,10 chum,6 coho,and 7 chinook salmon could be
displaced from traditional natal grounds as a result of with-project
aggradation.This represents .01%,.001%, .003%,and .003%respectively of
all pink,chum,coho,and chinook salmon spawning in the Susitna River basin
in 1984.These counts are not direct censuses,so numbers reported
under-estimate salmon use to some extent.However,as table 4 shows,
relatively few salmon of any species have been tallied over the years in any
of the subject streams.
Unless mitigated,slough rearing habitat quality for chinook,chum,
sockeye,and coho salmon would diminish as a result of the with-proj ect
sediment transport regime (table 12).Reduction in the number of yearly
floods would result in a change in character of in-slough substrates.The
change would be away from heterogeneity,as irregularly sized gravel and
cobble material,was gradually covered by fines and sand.The net result
would be a diminishment in cover (EWT&A and Milner 1985)and,ultimately,food
availability (the invertebrate fauna would predictably shift towards one
dominated by infauna see p.32 of this report).Again,existing
I I
lJ
II
information does not permit an estimate of how many fish would be affected or
of their ultimate fates.
The with-project sediment transport regime would pose no problems to any
of the resident middle river fish species (table 13),because with-project
sediment loads would be lower than natural (cf.Knott and Lipscomb 1983 to the
predictions of Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture 1984a,1985).This would be
true even in the early years of project operation when scouring of the
mainstem is predicted to occur.Potential with-project beneficial effects are
discussed on pp.57 to 58 of this report.
33RD4-005 -53 -
Table 13.Anticipated relative negative with-project sediment transport
effects on middle river zone resident fish species.
Date Date
I iI,
Fish Species
Burbot
adult migration
spawning
incubation
rearing
Whitefish 2
adult migration
Rainbow trout
adult migration
spawning
incubation
rearing
Arctic grayling
adult migration
spawning
incubation
rearing
Watana Operation
Effects 1
Scale Location
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Devil Canyon Operation
Effects 1
Scale Location
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1 o -no concern
1 -low
2 -moderate
3 -possible
See text for a complete description of the effects scale
2 This table is applicable to both broad and humpback whitefish.
33RD4-005 -54 -
I i
(]
I)
(1
LOWER RIVER ZONE
With-project sediment transport effects in the lower river are more
difficult to predict than elsewhere in the study area.This is due to the
braided nature of the mainstem (braided streams are difficult to model)and to
the fact that relatively little study effort has been directed there.Project
team members believe that more data are required to define with-project
effects on the lower river (Bredthauer 1985).Prominent data gaps are listed
in table 14.
Based on USGS data (Knott and Lipscomb 1983,1985)the with-project
sediment transport regime would be moderated below RM 97 by tributary input,
especially those from the Talkeetna,Chulitna,and Yentna rivers (R&M and
EWT&A 1985).As indicated earlier (see p.44),a significant zone of
aggradation is predicted to occur near the Chulitna River's confluence with
the mainstem «Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture 1984a).Downstream of that
point,little else is known of with-project effects on sediment transport,and
hence,its effect on fish.
R&M and EWT&A (1985)believe that tributary mouths in this reach should
become more stable as a result of with-project regulated flows.R&M and EWT&A
(1985)estimate that with-project summer flows of around 25,000 to 30,000 cfs
would be sufficient to allow passage into all lower river tributaries.
However,they note that the mouths of Rolly (RM 39.0),Caswell (RM 64.0),
Goose (RM 72.0),Montana (ID1 77.0),Rabiduex (RM 83.1)and Trapper (RM 91.5)
creeks have possible inherent access problems which might become manifest
under some with-project flows (R&M and EWT&A 1985).They further note that
due to the braided nature of the mainstem in this reach,quantification of
change would be difficult (R&M and EWT&A 1985).Salmon index counts were made
by ADF&G in these streams in 1984;around 3,000 chinook,300 sockeye,900
33RD4-005 -55 -
Table 14.Prominent data gaps in the lower Susitna River information base.
Sediment aggradation/morphology
Backwater effects at tributary mouths
Turbidity regime (local,plumes)
Relationship of flow and fish access to streams,sloughs,side-channels
Survey of mainstream spawning sites found in 1984
Timing and magnitude of ice staging and relationship to upwelling
Timing of flows -'increased spawning area,later dewatering
Relate flows to rearing areas,spawning areas,access consideration
Fish abundance,rearing curves
Fisheries use of tributaries
Effect of with-project flows on salt-water intrusion
Source:Bredthauer 1985
33RD4-005 -56 -
pink,590 chum,and 700 coho were counted (Barrett,Thompson,and Wick 1985).
Although these counts do not indicate total escapement,they do provide some
measure of the relative importance of each stream to each species.From this
perspectiv~,Montana Creek is the most important of the six streams for chi-
nook (total count of 2,309)and pink (total count of 469)salmon,Trapper
Creek is the most important of the group for sockeye salmon (total count of
200),Goose Creek is the most important of the six for chum salmon (total
count of 383),and Rabideux Creek is the most important of the group for coho
(total count of 480)(Barrett,Thompson,and Wick 1985).
The with-project sediment transport regime probably would not negatively
affect any species spawning or overwintering in the mainstem lower river
proper.This conclusion is based on the fact that overall sediment loads
would be diminished with-project (although only slightly)from natural,
thereby somewhat enhancing the quality of the environment.A discussion of
the with-project beneficial effects is found in the next section.
POTENTIAL WITH-PROJECT BENEFICIAL EFFECTS
The with-project in-reservoir sediment transport process would not convey
or otherwise impart any beneficial effects to fish or their food organisms.
However,with-project sediment transport in the middle river might lead to an
increase in primary productivity.Once the bed restabilized,sediment load in
this reach would be less than natural (see pp.35 to 45 of this report).An
increase in aquatic primary production could lead 'to an increase in consumers
which,in turn,might equate with an incremental gain in fish habitat quality.
Existing information is insufficient to gauge or even to characterize the
magnitude of this effect.With-project turbidity in the middle river would
still be substantial due to suspended glacial flour (the reservoirs could not
33RD4-005 -57 -
trap all sizes of fines,some of which are present as colloids).(This topic
is addressed in length in the Turbidity Memorandum,another rpeort of this
series).Also unknown is whether natural invertebrate numbers and kinds limit
present fish numbers.This latter point is central to a determination of
whether there would be a gain in fish habitat quality.An ongoing AEIDC study
seeks to understand natural primary rates of production in this reach;its
results may shed light on the question of with-project primary productivity,
but not necessarily on its effect on fish.
The with-project reduction in sediment load could lead to an increase in
available mainstem salmon spawning habitats.The with-project sediment
transport regime is predicted to keep the bed downstream of Devil Canyon
relatively free of fines.This effect would diminish with distance downstream
as tributaries added their sediment loads to the mainstem.It would not be
noticeable below the Talkeetna and Chulitna confluence with the mainstem due
to their moderating influence.Present information does not allow estimation
of the magnitude of this.
No major (i.e.,demonstrable)beneficial gains in primary production are
likely to occur as a result of the with-project sediment regime in the lower
river.This is due to the moderating influence of sediment inputs from the
Talkeetna,Chulitna,and Yentna rivers (see pp.35 to 45 of this report).
Existing information is insufficient to assess whether any other sediment
transport associated beneficial effects could occur in the lower river.
However,the slight reduction in suspended load and bed load caused by the
dams might improve fish habitat quality somewhat.
33RD4-005 -58 -
SUMMARY
This report presents the results of an analysis of existing information
of the effects of the with-project sediment transport regime on fish.It is
based on a comparison of predictions of the with-project environment ''lith
information on fish instream flow needs and their response to sedimentation.
Based on existing data (sediment transport calculations and model runs
and life history information)and professional judgement,with-project
sediment transport phenomena (unless mitigated)would limit fish numbers in
the impoundment zone and in the middle river.Reservoir sedimentation
(coupled with winter drawdown)would limit reproduction by lake trout and
possibly burbot.In the middle river,with-proj ect reduction of the number
and intensity of floods would eventually diminish slough spawning habitats for
salmon.Un~ess action was periodically taken to clean slough spawning beds,
sedimentation attendant to periodic floods would eventually lead to a loss of
these habitats.Comparison of estimates of released water flow variability
and estimates of with-project mainstem degradation to salmon life history data
and information on minimum water depth necessary at slough mouths to provide
salmon access,leads to the conclusion that in some years some sloughs would
be blocked to salmon.However,given the relatively small amount of
with-project channel degradation predicted for the mouths of the principal
spawning sloughs,this should not be a major problem.Potential with-project
beneficial effects in the middle river are limited to a possible increase in
primary production and an increase in salmon spawning habitat.An ongoing
study may shed light on the primary production question.With-project
sediment loads below the Devil Canyon dam would be markedly reduced over those
occuring naturally.Following bed stabilization,it is possible that portions
33RD4-005 -59 -
of the mainstem could function as salmon spawning habitat (the bed should be
swept relatively clean of fines).Present information does not allow a
prediction of the degree of this type of change,so no estimate of effected
fish numbers is possible.Information is also too scant to allow an accurate
appraisal of the effects of the lower river with-project sediment regime on
fish.It is generally believed by APA's contractors that regulated
with-project flows should help stabilize stream mouths in this reach.
Although unquantifiable,the slight reduction over natural conditions of
with-project mainstem sediment loads should improve habitat quality for fish
somewhat;natural suspended sediment loads generally exceed the limits thought
minimally acceptable for maintenance of vigorous resident fish populations.
33RD4-005 -60 -
REFERENCES
Acres American,Inc.1983.Application for license for major project,
Susitna Hydroelectric Project,before the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.Vol.5A.Exhibit E,Chaps.1 and 2.Alaska Power
Authority.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.1 vol.
Alaska Dept.of Fish &Game.1976.Fish and wildlife studies related to the
Corps of Engineers Devil Canyon,Watana Reservoir Hydroelectric Project.
Anchorage,AK.Report for U.S.Fish &Wildlife Service.1 vol.
1978.Preliminary environmental assessment of hydroelectric
development on the Susitna River.Anchorage,AK.Report for U.S.Fish &
Wildlife Service.1 vol.
1981.Resident fish investigation on the upper Susitna River.
Final Draft Report.Anchorage,AK.Alaska Power Authority.Susitna
Hydro Aquatic Studies.Report for Acres American,Inc.1 vol.
1983a.Susitna hydro aquatic
report.Vol.2.Adult anadromous fish
Anchorage,AK.Alaska Power Authority.
Report for Acres American,Inc.2 vols.
studies,phase 2 final data
studies,1982.Final Report.
Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.
Alaska Dept.of Fish &Game.1983b.Susitna hydro aquatic studies,phase 2
basic data report.Vol.3.Resident and juvenile anadromous fish
studies on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon,1982.Final Report.
Anchorage,AK.Alaska Power Authority.Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.
Report for Acres American,Inc.2 vols.
report.
Report.
Studies.
report.
Report.
Studies.
1983c.Susitna hydro aquatic studies,phase 2 baseline data
Vol.4.Aquatic habitat and instream flow studies,1982.Final
Anchorage,AK.Alaska Power Authority.Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Report for Acres American,Inc.3 vols.
1983d.Susitna hydro aquatic studies,phase 2 basic data
Vol.5.Upper Susitna River impoundment studies,1982.Final
Anchorage,AK.Alaska Power Authority.Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Report for Acres American,Inc.150 pp.
1985a.Proposed Task Statement for FY86 Su-Hydro Scope of Work.
1985b.An evaluation of the incubation life phase of chum
salmon in the middle Susitna River.Draft.Anchorage,AK.Susitna
Hydro Aquatic Studies Winter Aquatic Investigations,September 1983 -May
1984.1985 Report 5.Vol.1.Report for Alaska Power Authority.
157 pp.
33RD4-005 -61 -
Alaska,University of,Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center.
1985.Geomorphic change in the middle Susitna River since 1949.Second
Draft.Report for Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture.Anchorage,AK.
1 vol.
Barrett,B.~I.1974.An assessment of the anadromous fish populations in the
upper Susitna River watershed between Devil Canyon and the Chulitna
River.Alaska Div.of Commercial Fisheries,Anchorage,AK.56 pp.
Barrett,B.M.,F .M.Thompson,and S.N.Wick.1984.Adult anadromous fish
investigations:May -October 1983.Alaska Dept.of Fish &Game,
Anchorage,AK.Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.Report 1.Report for
Alaska Power Authority.1 vol.
1985.Adult anadromous fish investigations (May -October 1984).
Draft report.Alaska Dept.of Fish &Game,Anchorage,AK.Susitna Hydro
Aquatic Studies.Report 1.Report for Alaska Power Authority.1 vol.
Blakely,J.S.et al.
October 1984).
Alaska Dept.of
Studies.Report
1 vol.
1985.Salmon passage validation studies (August -
Addendum to Report No.3,Chapter 6.Draft report.
Fish &Game,Anchorage,AK.Susitna Hydro Aquatic
3,Chapter 6.Report for the Alaska Power Authority.
I
I j
I )
\J
Bredthauer,S.1985.Minutes,Lower Susitna coordination meeting,April 4,
1985.R&M Consultants,Inc.,Anchorage,AK.3 pp.
Coker,R.E.1968.Streams,lakes,and ponds.Harper and Row,N.Y.327 pp.
Cordone,A.J.,and D.W.Kelley.1961.The influences of inorganic sediments
on the aquatic life of streams.California Fish and Game.
47(2):189-228.
Crawford,D.1985.Resident and juvenile anadromous studies bi-monthly
report (December 1984 and January 1985).Memorandum to Larry Bartlett,
Alaska Dept.of Fish &Game,Anchorage,AK.Susitna Aquatic Studies
Program.January 25,1985.
Crawford,D.L.,S.S.Hale,and D.C.Schmidt,eds.1985.Resident and
juvenile anadromous fish investigations (May -October 1983).Draft
report.Alaska Dept.of Fish &Game,Anchorage,AK.Susitna Aquatic
Studies Program.Report 7.Report for Alaska Power Authority.1 vol.
Dugan,L.,D.Sterritt,and M.Stratton.1984.The distribution and relative
abundance of juvenile salmon in the Susitna River drainage above the
Chulitna River confluence.Draft report.Part 2 of D.C.Schmidt,S.S.
Hale,and D.L.Crawford,eds.Resident and juvenile anadromous fish
investigations (May -October 1983).Alaska Dept.of Fish &Game,
Anchorage,AK.Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.Report 2.1 vol.
33RD4-005 -62 -
E.Woody Trihey &Associates and A.M.Milner.1985.A framework for the
assessment of chinook salmon rearing'in the middle Susitna River under
altered flow,temperature,and sediment regimes.Draft report.
Anchorage,AK.Alaska Power Authority.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Report for Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture.69 pp.
Energy Management.1984.(Commerce Clearing House)Paragraph #63111.(March
30)[Energy Mgmt.(CCH)Paragraph #63111 (March 30,1984)]
Eustis,A.B.,and R.H.Hillen.1954.Stream sediment removal by controlled
reservoir releases.Progressive Fish-Culturist.16(1):30-35.
Giger,R.D.1973.Streamflow requirements of salmonids.Oregon Wildlife
Commission,Portland,OR.Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Progress
Reports.Final Report.Anadromous Fish Project AFS 62-1.Portland,OR.
117 pp.
Hall,J.D.,and R.L.Lantz.1969.Effects of logging on the habitat of coho
salmon and cutthroat trout in coastal streams.Pages 355-375 in T.G.
Northcote,ed.Symposium on salmon and trout in streams.University of
British Columbia,Vancouver,B.C.,Canada.H.R.MacMillan Lectures in
Fisheries.
Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture.1984a.
reservoir and river sedimentation.
Authority.Anchorage,AK.1 vol.
Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Report for the Alaska Power
1985.Middle Susitna 'River Sedimentation Study -stream channel
stability analysis of selected sloughs,side channels,and main channel
locations.Report for Alaska Power Authority.Anchorage,AK.1 vol.
I III
Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture.
requirements.Final report.
Hydroelectric Project.55 pp.
1984b.Evaluation of alternative flow
Alaska Power Authority.Susitna
i
I
..1
I
1nhaber,H.1976.Environmental indices.John Wiley and Sons,New York,NY.
178 pp.
1som,B.J.1971.Effects of storage and mainstream reservoirs on benthic
macro invertebrates in the Tennessee Valley.Pages 179 to 191 in
Proceedings of the American Fisheries Society Symposium,Reservoir
Fisheries and Limnology.Washington,D.C.Special Publication No.8.
Knott,J.M.,and S.W.Lipscomb.1983.Sediment discharge data for selected
sites in the Susitna River basin,Alaska,1981-82.U.S.Geological
Survey.Open File Report No.83-870.Anchorage,AK.1 vol.
1985.Sediment discharge data for selected sites in the Susitna
River basin,Alaska,October 1982 to February 1984.U.S.Geological
Survey.Open File Report 85-157.Anchorage,AK.68 pp.
33RD4-005 -63 -
McCart,P.J.,and D.de Graff.1974.Effects of disturbance on the benthic
fauna of small streams in the vicinity of Norman Wells,N.W.T.Pages
1-27 in P.J.McCart,ed.Fisheries research associated with proposed gas
pipeline routes in Alaska,Yukon,and Northwest Territories.Canadian
Arctic Gas Study Ltd./Alaskan Arctic Gas Study Company.Biological
Report Series 15(4).
Newport,B.D.,and J.E.Moyer.1974.State-of-the-art:Sand and gravel
industry.U.S.Environmental Protection Agency.EPA 660/2 74-066.
Corvallis,OR.40 pp.
Peratrovich,Nottingham &Drage,Inc.,and LP.G.Hutchison.1982.Susitna
reservoir sedimentation and water clarity study.Report for Acres
American,Inc.Anchorage,AK.1 vol.
Phillips,R.W.1971.Effects of sediment on the gravel environment and fish
production.Pages 64-75 in Forest land uses and stream environment.
Proceedings of a symposium.Oregon State University,Corvallis,OR.
(Cited in Meehan 1974.)
R&M Consultants,Inc.1982a.Susitna Hydroelectric Project river morphology.
Report for Acres American,Inc.Anchorage,AK.1 vol.
1982b.Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Report for Acres American,Inc.Anchorage,AK.
reservoir sedimentation.
1 voL
R&M Consultants,Inc.
stability analysis.
1 voL
1982c.
Report
Susitna Hydroelectric Project,tributary
for Acres American,Inc.Anchorage,AK.
R&M Consultants,Inc.,and E.Woody Trihey &Associates.1985.Assessment of
access by spawning salmon into tributaries of the lower Susitna River.
Draft report.Alaska Power Authority.Susitna Hydroelectric Proj ect.
Report for Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture.1 vol.
R&M Consultants,Inc.,lvoodward-Clyde Consultants,and Harza-Ebasco Susitna
Joint Venture.1985.Instream flow relationships report.Technical
Report No.2.Physical Processes.Draft report.Anchorage,AK.Report
for Alaska Power Authority.1 vol.
Riis,J.C.1977.Pre-authorization assessment of the proposed Susitna River
Hydroelectric Projects:Preliminary investigations of water quality and
aquatic species composition.Alaska Div.of Sport Fish,Anchorage,AK.
91 pp.
Saunders,J.W.,and M.W.Smith.1962.Physical alteration of stream habitat
to improve brook trout production.Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society.91(2):185-188.
33RD4-005 -64 -
Sautner,J.,L.J.Vining,and L.A.Rundquist.1984.An evaluation of passage
conditions for adult salmon in sloughs and side channels of the middle
Susitna River.Chapter 6 in Report No.3:Aquatic habitat and instream
flow investigations (May -October 1983).Alaska Dept.of Fish &Game,
Anchorage,AK.Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.Report for the Alaska
Power Authority.1 vol.
Schmidt,D.C.,et al.,eds.1984a.Access and transmission corridor aquatic
investigations (July -October 1983).Parts 1 and 2.Alaska Dept.of
Fish &Game,Anchorage,AK.Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.Report 4.
Report for Alaska Power Authority.1 vol.
1984b.Resident and juvenile anadromous fish
(May -October 1983).July 1984.Alaska Dept.of
Anchorage,AK.Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.Report
Alaska Power Authority.Document 1784.1 vol.
investigations
Fish &Game,
2.Report for
1984c.Resident
-October 1983).Parts
Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Authority.1 vol.
and juvenile anadromous fish investigations (May
1-7.Alaska Dept.of Fish &Game,Anchorage,AK.
Studies.Report 2.Report for Alaska Power
Sundet,R.,and M.Wenger.1984.Resident fish distribution and population
dynamics in the Susitna River below Devil Canyon.Draft report.Part 5
of D.C.Schmidt,S.S.Hale,and D.L.Crawford,eds.Resident and
juvenile anadromous fish investigations (May ~October 1983).Alaska
Dept.of Fish &Game,Anchorage,AK.Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.
Report 2.1 vol.
Trihey,E.W.1982.Preliminary assessment of access by spawning salmon to
side slough habitat above Talkeetna.Report for Acres American,Inc.
Anchorage,AK.26 pp.
1983.Preliminary assessment of access by spawning salmon into
Portage Creek and Indian River.Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.Report
for the Alaska Power Authority.Anchorage,AK.63 pp.
u.S.Fish &Wildlife Service.1952.A preliminary statement of fish and
wildlife resources of the Susitna Basin in relation to water development
proj ects.
1954.
River Basin.
A progress report on the fishery resources of the Susitna
Juneau,AK.
1957.Progress report,1956 field investigations Devil Canyon
Damsite,Susitna River Basin.Juneau,AK.
u.S.Fish &Wildlife Service.1959a.
investigations Devil Canyon Damsite and
Basin.Juneau,AK.
Progress
reservoir
report,1957 field
area,Susitna River
33RD4-005 -65 -
i j
I i
1959b.1958 field investigations Denali and Vee Canyon Damsites
and reservoir areas,Susitna River Basin.Juneau,AK.
1960.A detailed report on fish and wildlife resources affected
by the Devil Canyon Project.Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,Juneau,AK.
1965.A detailed report on fish and wildlife resources affected
by Vee Project,Susitna River,Alaska.Juneau,AK.16 pp.
Usinger,B.G.1956.Aquatic insects of California.University of California
Press,Berkeley,CA.508 pp.
Wangaard,D.B.,and C.V.Burger.1983.Effects of various water temperature
regimes on the egg and alevin incubation of Susitna River chum and
sockeye salmon.Final report.National Fishery Research Center,U.S.
Fish &Wildlife Service,Anchorage,AK.43 pp.
Wiens,J.A.1978.Nongame bird communities in northwestern coniferous
forests.Pages 19 to 31 in R.M.DeGraaf,ed.Proceeding of the workshop
on nongame bird habitat management in the coniferous forests of the
western United States.U.S.Forest Service General Technical Report
PNW-64.Portland,OR.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants.1984.Fish mitigation plan.Alaska Power
Authority.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Report for Harza-Ebasco
Susitna Joint Venture.1 vol.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants,and Entrix,Inc.1985.Fish resources and
habitats in the middle Susitna River.Draft final report.Anchorage,
AK.Alaska Pml7er Authority.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Instream
Flow Relationships Report Series.Technical Report 1.Report for
Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture.159 pp.
I I
i I
II
Ziebell,C.D.
salmonids
Pollution
OR.
33RD4-005
1960.Problems associated with spawning and growth of
in northwest watersheds.Page in Seventh Symposium on Water
Res.U.S.Dept.of Health,Education,and Welfare.Portland,
-66 -