HomeMy WebLinkAboutFRED Reports Upper Susitna River Salmon Enhancement Study 1983
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
by
Lowell Barrick, Bernard Kepshire
and
George Cunningham
Number 4
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
by
Lowel 1 Barrick, Bernard Kepshi re
and
George Cunni ngham
Number 4
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Division of Fisheries Rehabilitation
Enhancement and Devel opment
Don W. Collinsworth
Commissioner
Stanley A. Moberly
Di rector
BOX 3-2000
Juneau, Alaska 99802
June, 1983
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF PLATES
1. FOREWORD
2. I NTRODUCT ION
3. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 5
4. STUDY METHODS 6
4.1 Biological Studies 6
4.1.1 Sockeye Sal mon 6
4.1.2 Chinook Salmon 9
4.1.3 Coho Salmon 11
4.1.4 Chum Salmon 13
4.1.5 Field Surveys 14
4.1.5.1 Fixed-wi ng Ai rcraft Overview 14
4.1.5.2 Helicopter Survey 15
4.1.5.3 Road Vehicle Survey 15
4.1.5.4 Tyone River System Surveys 17
4.1.6 Determination of Stream and Lake Surface Areas 18
4.1.7 Biological Impact of Introduced Salmon on Resident fish 18
4.2 Engineeri ng Studies 19
4.2.1 Feasi bi 1 i ty Studi es 19
4.2.2 Design Studies 23
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Salmon Enhancement Potenti a1 (S.E.P. )
5.1.1 S.E.P. Without Hydroelectric Dams
5.1.1.1 Sockeye Salmon
5.1.1.2 Chinook Salmon
5.1.1.3 Coho Salmon
5.1.1.4 Chum Salmon
5.1.1.5 Potential Barriers to Juvenile Salmon
Emigration and Adult Immigration
5.1.2 S.E.P. Mi th Hydroelectric Dams
5.1.3 Conclusion
5.2 Enhancement Techniques (E.T. )
5.2.1 Low Head Dams
5.2.2 Mechanical/Hel icopter Brail Systems
5.2.3 Fishways
5.2.3.1 General Information and Discussion
5.2.3.2 ADF&G Criteria for Fishways Under Twenty
Feet in Height
5.2.3.3 Wei r and Orifice Fishway
5.2.3.4 Denil and Alaskan Steeppass Designs
5.2.3.5 Vertical Slot Baffle
5.2.3.6 Fishway Construction Costs
5.2.4 Hatcheries
5.2.4.1 General Information and Di scussion
5.2.4.2 Brood Stocks
5.2.4.3 Juvenile Salmon Stocking
5.2.4.4 Eyed Egg Planting
5.2.4.5 Smolt Stocking
5.2.4.6 Fry/fi ngerli ng Stocki ng
5.2.4.7 Hatchery Construct ion Costs
5.3 Biological Impact of Introduced Salmon on Resident Fish
6. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 93
6.1 Vertical Slot Fishway Enhancement Program 93
6.1.1 Benefit/Cost Ratio "* 93
6.1.2 Economic Factors, Assumptions, and Calculations 94
6.1.3 Sensitivity Analysis 10 1
6.2 Hatchery Enhancement Program 104
6.2.1 Benefi t/Cost Ratio 104
6.2.2 Economic Factors, Assumptions, and Calculations 104
6.2.3 Sensitivity Analysis 111
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Salmon Enhancement Without Hydroelectric Dams
7.2 Salrnon Enhancement With Hydroelectric Dams
8. REFERENCES
9. CONTRIBUTORS
10. APPENDICES
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number
Table 4-1
Table 4-2
Table 4-3
Table 4-4
Table 5-1
Table 5-2
Table 5-3
Table 5-4
Table 5-5
Table 5-6
Table 5-7
Table 5-8
Table 5-9
Table 5-10
Table 5-11
Table 6-1
Title Page Number
Climatology of the upper Susitna River basin
and Summit Lake area 7
Sockeye salmon smolt production and mean weights
for lakes in Alaska, British Columbia and the
eastern USSR 8
Coho salmon smolt production for streams in Alaska,
British Columbi a, Oregon and Washington 12
Devi 1 Canyon velocity measurements 2 2
The potential production of sockeye salmon in upper
Susi tna River lakes 2 7
The potential production of chinook salmon in upper
Susi tna River tributaries 2 9
The potential production of coho salmon in upper
Susi tna River tributaries 35
The potential production of chum salmon in upper
Susitna River tributaries 3 7
Comparison of fishway designs 58
Devil Canyon fishway C.I.P. costs 6 6
Devil Creek fishway C.I.P. costs 7 0
Indian River and Portage Creek wei rs C.1.P costs 7 4
Fry/fi ngerli ng transport and stocki ng operational
costs 7 5
Tal keetna hatchery C. I .P. costs 8 8
Resident fishes of the upper Susitna River
drainage 90
Biocriteria for determi ni ng the harvestable surplus
of salmon adirlt s with the fi shway enhancement pro-
gram at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek areas 9 5
Table 6-2
Table 6-3
Table 6-4
Table 6-5
Table 6-6
Table 7-1
Fi shway enhancement benefit calculations for a1 1
salmon species 9 9
Fi shway enhancement combi ned cost cal culations 100
Biocriteria for determining the harvestable surplus
of salmon adults with the hatchery enhancement
program at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek areas 10 6
Hatchery enhancement benefit calculations for a1 1
salmon species 109
Hatchery enhancement combi ned cost cal cula tions 110
The annual harvestable salmon available with
hatchery and fi shway enhancement programs after
year 10. 11 5
LIST OF FIGURES
Fi gure Number
Figure 2-1
Fi yure 4-1
Figure 4-2
Figure 5-1
Figure 5-2
Figure 5-3
Figure 5-4
Figure 5-5
Figure 5-6
Figure 5-7
Figure 5-8
Figure 5-9
Figure 5-10
Figure 5-11
Figure 5-12
Figure 5-13
Fi yure 5-14
Figure 5-15
Figure 5-16
Figure 5-17
Figure 5-18
Figure 6-1
Figure 6-2
Title Page Number
Susi tna Ri ver
Upper Susi tna Ri ver drainage basin
Highways in Susitna River area
Life cycle of sockeye salmon
Life cycle of chinook salmon
Life cycle of coho salmon
Life cycle of chum salmon
Dam obstacles to salmon migration 4 2
Salmon migration through a dam turbine 4 5
Low head dams 49
Weir and orifice fishway 5 3
Alaskan steeppass 5 5
Vertical slot baffle 5 6
Swimming speeds of fish relative to horizontal
di stance between resting pools 59
Devi 1 Canyon f i shway a1 i gnment 6 1
Devi 1 Creek fi shway a1 i gnment
Typical tunnel/baffle section
A salmon egg planting device (SEPD)
Talkeetna hatchery site
Tal keetna hatchery site plan
Tal keetna hatchery 1 ayout
Fishway enhancement (B/C) cash flow
Hatchery enhancement (B/C) cash flow
LIST OF PLATES
Plate Number
Plate 1-1
Plate 4-1
Plate 4-2
Plate 4-3
Plate 5-1
Plate 5-2
Plate 5-3
Plate 5-4
Plate 5-5
Plate 5-6
Plate 5-7
Plate 5-8
Plate 5-9
Plate 5-10
Plate 5-11
Plate 5-12
Title Page Number
Devi 1 Canyon oblique aerial view
Helicopter at Butte Lake
State vehicle at Clearwater Creek 16
Devi 1 Canyon 1 ooki ng downst ream from proposed
dam site 23
The Tyone River system lakes 28
The Tyone River just upstream from its confluence
with the Susitna River 3 1
The Oshetna River at its confluence with the
Susi tna Ri ver 3 1
Kosina Creek at its confluence with the
Susi tna River
Clearwater Creek just upstream from its confluence
with the Susitna River 3 2
Watana Creek at its confluence with the
Susi tna Ri ver
Butte Creek at the outlet of Butte Lake 3 3
Fog Creek at the outlet of Fog Lake 3 4
Coal Creek 3 4
Proposed Susi tna Ri ver dams 4 3
Brail ling salmon at Anan Creek 50
Anan Creek fishway-verti cal slot baffle
in tunnel 60
1. FOREWORD
This study is the result of a $200,000 appropriation by the Alaska State
Legislature. The study was implemented because of the impact that the
proposed Susitna hydroelectric project could have on any future salmon
enhancement projects in the upper reaches of the Susitna River; i .e., the
river area upstream of Devil Canyon.
The details of this study are described in the work plan which is contained
in the appendices. In general the study was to determine (1) if Devil
Canyon (Plate 1-1) is a barrier to the upstream migration of salmon and if
it is feasible to bypass salmon around this potential barrier, (2) the poten-
tial benefits of salmon production in the streams and lakes upstream of Devil
Canyon, (3) the impact on resident fish from the introduction of salmon
into their habitat and (4) what affect the construction of the Susitna
hydroelectric dams may have on any future salmon enhancement projects.
The data for this report was collected by a team from the FRED Division
of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Most of the field information
was collected during the four month period from July 1982 through October
1982. Considerable materi a1 was researched from literature, especi a1 ly
the literature prepared for the Susitna hydroelectric project by Acres
American Incorporated and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Aquatic
Habitat and Instream Flow Study Section. Independent fie1 d work was
conducted in July, August, and September to verify questionable or missing
data.
!
Plate 1-1. Devil Canyon oblique aerial view (from North Pacific Aerial
Surveys, Inc. ).
I
2. I NTRODUCT I ON
The Susitna River (Figure 2-1) is nearly 300 miles long from its
sources in the Alaska Mountain Range to its point of discharge into
Cook Inlet. The total river drainage area encompasses about 19,400
square miles of which the upper basin above Gold Creek comprises
approxirnately 6,160 square miles. The 150 mile stretch of the main-
stem Susitna River, flowing from its mountain source through Devil
Canyon to Portage Creek, contains about 30% of the enti re drainage
basin. The main stem and the major tributaries of the Susitna River
originate in glaciers and carry a heavy load of glacial flour during
the i ce-f ree months. There are, however, many smal ler tributaries and
lakes which are perennial ly si lt-free.
The proposed Susi tna Hydroelectric Project has precipitated many studies
on the Susitna River and its drainage basin. The studies completed
through mid-1982 indicate that the two hydro dams will have various
impacts on the aquatic environments of the Susitna River downstream of
the dams; i .e. below Devi 1 Canyon. However, as the general belief is
that the Devil Canyon area constitutes a partial or total barrier to
the upstream migration of adult salmon, very little of the fisheries
data collected is pertinent to the spawning and rearing of salmon
upstream of Devil Canyon.
To eliminate the question of a possible "Devil Canyon salmon block"
the Alaska State Legislature appropriated $200,000 to the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to study the feasibi 1 i ty of passing
salmon through Devil Canyon and to determine the potential for salmon
enhancement in the river drainage b3sin above Devi 1 Canyon. The work
plan, contained in Appendix 10.3, describes the full study commissioned
by the Legislature.
3. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The reasons for conducting this study are outlined in the foreword
(Section 1) and are further detailed in the project work plan (Appendix
10.3).
The objective of this study is to find answers to the questions posed
in the foreword and to prepare a report of the findings, including
recommendations, for submittal to the Alaska State Legislature in
19 83.
4. STUDY METHODS
4.1 Biological Studies
The salmon production potential of upper Susitna River lakes and streams
was determined for sockeye, chinook, coho and chum salmon. Because of the
limited time allocated to this study, the study methods (both biological and
engineeri ng) were primarily literature reviews of pertinent i nformation. The
literature reviews were, however, supplemented by three fi el d trips plus
extensive conversations with appropriate ADF&G staff and consultants from the
pri vate sector.
Any consideration of salmon production in the upper Susitna River watershed
must address potential barriers to salmon migration in the main stem of the
Susi tna River. The rapids at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek areas constitute
potenti a1 barriers to both juveniles migrating downstream and returning
adults. This barrier question was addressed via literature review and
conversations with ADF&G staff. The results are in section 5.1.1 and
form the basis for assumptions 1 and 2 used for determining the production
potential for each salmon species in this methods section.
Methods for determining the production potential for juvenile and adult
saflmon are now discussed relative to each species.
4.1.1 Sockeye Salmon
The watershed with the potential for the greatest sockeye salmon production
is the Tyone River drainage. Two attempts, unsuccessful due to bad
weather, were made by ADF&G biologi sts in September and October 1982, to
obtain limnological data from the three major lakes, viz. Lake Louise,
Susi tna Lake, and Tyone Lake. These data were intended for use in a
1 imnol ogi cal model, developed by ADF&G 1 imnol ogy staff, that would
predict the numbers and individual sizes of sockeye smolts produced by
each lake. Without these data, the juvenile sockeye salmon production poten-
tials at these and other Susitna River lakes were assessed by literature
review, fie1 d trips, and conversations with knowledgeable ADF&G staff.
Conversations with Mr. Ken ~obersong (August 30, 1982), and Dr. Jeff
~oenings21 (August 30 and November 11, 1982), indicate that the production
of Lake ioui se is perhaps similar to that of Summit Lake and should exceed
that of the very turbid, glacial Tustumena Lake (Kenai Peninsula, Alaska).
Summit Lake, near Paxson, Alaska, is a high altitude (3,210 ft), clear
lake which is typical of the majority of the lake water in the upper
Susitna Ri ver basin. Upper Susitna River lakes useable by salmon range
in elevation from 2,110 ft (Fog Lake) to 3,595 ft (Roosevelt Lake).
Summit Lake is only 60 miles northeast of the Tyone River lakes and 60 miles
east of the Susitna River main stem at Denali. This location puts Summit
Lake in a climatic zone similar to that of the upper Susitna River basin
11 ADF&G Fishery Biologist 111, Glennal len. -
21 AUF&G Principal Limn01 ogist, Soldotna. -
-6 -
(Table 4-1). The biological productivity of lakes within a similar
geographic and climatic zone should be similar if limnological factors
are similar for each lake.
Prior to using the production of Summit Lake as a model for productivity
of all lakes in the upper Susitna River basin, the production of the former was
compared to that of other lakes in Alaska, British Columbia and the
eastern USSR. Summit Lake has produced 0.8 1b of sockeye smlts/acre/yr or
47 smolts/acre/yr based on analysis of data in Roberson and Holder (1982)
and a conversation with Mr. Ken Roberson (September 2, 1982). A1 1 smlts
were age I and had a mean weight of -017 1 b. Tenmile Lake, much smal ler
than Summit Lake and located near Summit Lake has an average production
of 0.4 lb of sockeye smolts/acre/yr or 36 smolts/acre/yr based on analysis of
data in Roberson et al. (1980).
Production and smolt weight data for other lakes (Table 4-2) when com ared
mean weight of age I smolts is in the mid-range of weights for other
g with Summit Lake show that Summit Lake's production is low and that t e
lakes. Note that the known annual production of Summit Lake may actually
be less than the potential sustainable smolt production (Dr. Jeff Koenings,
pers. comm., August 30, 1982).
Table 4-1. Climatology of the upper Susitna River basin and Summit Lake area.
Cl imate parameter
Geographical area: upper Susitna
River basin 1/
Summi t ~ake2/ Tyone River Denal i
General climate arctic
conti nental3/ -
Mean maximal air 37.3
temperature (OF)
Mean minimal air 16.6
temperature (OF)
Mean air temp- 27.2
erature (OF)
arctic
conti nental
arctic
conti nental
Mean annual 11.7 11.5 7.79
precipitation (in.)
Ice present (months) October-June October-June October-June
Frequent monthly NE,E,SW
wi nd di recti on
1/ Calculated from 1980-81-82 data of R&M Consultants Inc., P.O. Box 6087, -
Anchorage, A1 aska 99502. (Carol Larson, pers. comm., December 3, 1982).
2/ From VanWhye and Peck (1968). -
31 Cold, dry winters and warm, moderately moist summers.
AS mentioned previously, the production of Lake Louise, which is typical
of the majority of lake water in the upper Susitna River basin, should
exceed that of Tustumena Lake. The production of Summi t Lake would also
be expected to and in fact does exceed that of Tustumena Lake. The
latter's mean production is 0.24 lb of smolts/acre/yr or 40 smolts/acre/yr
based on analysis of data provided by Dr. Jeff Koenings (pers. comm.,
November 12, 1982).
Table 4-2. Sockeye salmon smolt production and mean weights for lakes in
Alaska, British Columbia and the eastern USSR. - 1/
Pounds of Number of Mean weight of Age
smolts/acre/yr smolts/acre/yr I smol ts (1 b/smol t )
Range of annual values .08-79.00 13-2,024 -
Range of means of annual 0.24-44.48 36-893 .004-.034
va 1 ues
1/ From data li sted in or based on analysis of data in Crone (1981), -
Foerster (1968), Goodlad et al. (1974), Dr. Jeff Koenings (pers. comm.,
November 12, 1982), Meacham (1981), Nelson (1981), Mr. Ken Roberson (pers.
comm., August 30, 1982), Koberson and Holder (1982), and Roberson et al.
(1977, 1978, 1980, 1981 and 1982).
With the production capability of Summit Lake a1 ready examined, assumptions
used for determi ning the sockeye salmon product ion potentials of upper
Susi tna River lakes are now discussed.
Assumption 1.
- Upper Susi tna River lakes that could produce salmon have no bar-
riers to smolt emigration, including the Susitna River main stem
rapids at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek.
Assumpti on 2.
- Upper Susi tna River lakes that could produce salmon are accessible
to adult salmon if they can pass through the Susitna River
rapids at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek; and if they can negotiate
streams, located between the Susitna River and the lakes, that
have a maximal slope of .03 over a 0.5 mile distance, and have
typical adult resti ng areas, e. g., pools, undercut stream banks,
and sloughs.
Assumption 3.
- Each sockeye salmon spawning pair requires 72 ft2 of area
(Bell 1973).
- Most sockeye salmon will spawn in the lakes. The required
spawning area is the lake bottom under 0.4% of the lake surface
area. These spawni ng areas must consist of correct-sized gravel
and upwel ling i ntragravel water flow during the spawning and
i ncu bation period.
- Sockeye redds are not superimposed by other salmon species.
Assumpti on 4.
- The srnolt production of upper Susitna River lakes is equal to
that of Summit Lake, which is currently 0.8 1 b/acre/yr or 47
srnolts/acre/yr.
Assumption 5.
- The adult sockeye salmon production of upper Susitna River lakes
is 31 lb of adults/acre/yr or 5 adults/acre/yr.
- The average size of a commmerci a1 ly-harvested Susi tna River
sockeye salmon is 6.5 lb (Mr. Jim ~rownin~3/, - pers. cornm.,
November 19, 1982).
- A sockeye srnolt to adult marine survival of 10% (Alaska Department
of Fish and Game 1982b; Foerster 1968) is assumed.
4.1.2 Chi nook Salmon
The chinook salmon production potential of upper Susitna River tributaries
was determined usi ng the fol 1 owi ng assumptions.
Assumption 1.
- Upper Susitna River tributaries that could produce salmon have no
barriers to smolt emigration, including the Susitna River main
stem rapids at Devi 1 Canyon and Devil Creek.
31 AUF&G Fishery Biologist 11, Soldotna. -
- 9-
Assumption 2.
- Upper Susitna River tributaries that could produce salmon are accessi-
ble to adult salmon if they can pass through the Susitna River
rapids at Devi 1 Canyon and Devi 1 Creek; and if they can negotiate
streams or stream sections that have a maximal slope of .03
over a 0.5 mile distance, and have typical adult resting areas,
e.g., pools, undercut stream banks, and sloughs.
- Each chinook salmon spawning pair requi res 216 ft2 of area
(Bell 1973).
- One percent of the surfdce area of Susitna River tributary main
stems has acceptable pools and riffles, gravel, and water for
successful adult spawni ng and i ncubation. The number "one
percent (1%) )" was selected because of severely restricted water
flows during the winter and early spring incubation period.
Williams (1975) noted that many small tributaries of the upper
Susi tna Ri ve r are dry duri ng t hi s pe ri od. Compa ri si ons between
monthly winter and summer water discharges for the upper Susitna
River at Gold Creek station (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1982a)
indicate that inter water flows of tributaries may periodically be only
1% to 5% of summer flows.
- Most tributaries of Susitna River tributary main stems are unaccept-
able for incubation since most dry up during the winter as was
noted for many small tributaries of the upper Susitna River by
Wil liarns (1975).
- Chinook redds are not superimposed by other salmon species.
Assumption 4.
The srnolt production of upper Susitna River tributary main stems is
0.18 lb of smolts/acre/yr or 81 smolts/acre/yr. This production was
derived by averaging production values for four Alaskan streams
which were obtained by estimating the number of smolts/stream/yr
produced based on known adult escapements/3% marine srnolt survival
(Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1982b) and by estimating an
approximate surface area for each tributary main stem, plus the
Middle and West Forks of the Gulkana River. These production
values are based on analysis of data for Crooked Creek, Kenai
Peni nsula (Wai te 1979; Mr. Dave Wai te 41, pers. comrn., October
11, 1982); Gulkana River, Gulkana (AlEin 1977; Williams and
Pottervil le 1981); Indian River and Portage Creek, Susitna
River (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1981a, 1981b and
1982a).
--
4/ ADF&G Fishery Biologist 11, Soldotna. -
-10-
- Most tributaries of Susitna River tributary main stems are considered
unproductive because most dry up during the winter. The surface
areas of most tributaries are unknown.
- For determining the number of smolts/acre/yr, an individual smolt
size of .01 lb was used which is a reasonable size for Alaskan
chinook smolts according to data in Engel (1968), Francisco and
Dinneford (1977), Mr. Paul Kissner 5/ (pers. comm., October 26,
1982), Meehan and Siniff (1962), an3 Trasky (1974).
- The adult chinook salmon production of upper Susitna River trib-
utaries is 40.6 lb of adults/acre/yr or 2 adultslacrelyr. - The average size of a commerci a1 ly-harvested Susi tna Ri ver
chinook salmon is 16.7 1 b (Mr. Jim Browning, pers. comm., November
23, 1982~).
- A chinook smolt to adult marine survival of 3% (Alaska Department
of Fish and Game 1982b) is assumed.
4.1.3 Coho Salmon
The coho salmon product ion potential of upper Susi tna River tributaries
was determined usi ng the foll owi ng assumptions.
Assumption 1.
- Upper Susitna River tributaries that could produce salmon have no
barriers to smolt emigration, including the Susitna River main
stem rapids at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek.
Assumpti on 2.
-Upper Susitna river tributaries that could produce salmon are
accessible to adult salmon if they can pass through the Susitna
River rapids at Devi 1 Canyon and Devil Creek; and if they can
negotiate streams or stream sections that have a maximal slope
of .03 over a 0.5 mile distance, and have typical adult resting
areas, e.g., pools, undercut stream banks, and sloughs.
5/ ADF&G Fishery Biologist 111, Juneau. -
Assumption 3.
- Each coho salmon spawning pai r requi res 126 ft2 of area (Be1 1
1973).
- One percent of the surface area of Susitna River tributary main
stems has acceptable pools and riffles, gravel, and water for
successful adult spawning and incubation. The number "one
percent (1%)" was selected because of severely restricted water
flows during the winter and early spring incubation period.
Wil liams (1975) noted that many small tributaries of the upper
Susi tna River are dry during this period. Comparisons between
monthly winter and summer water discharges for the upper Susitna
River at Gold Creek station (Alaska Department of Fish and Game
1982a) indicate that winter water flows of tributaries may periodically
be only 1% to 5% of summer flows.
- Most tributaries of Susitna River tributary main stems are unacceptable
for incubation since most dry up during the winter as was noted
for many small tributaries of the upper Susitna River by Williams
(1975).
- Coho redds are not superimposed by other salmon species.
Assurnpti on 4.
- The smolt production of Upper Susitna River tributary main stems is
0.18 lb of smolts/acre/yr or 40 srnolts/acre/yr. This production in
weight of smolts was selected since it is conservative relative
to coho smolt production i n other more producti ve Paci f i c North-
western streams (Table 4-3),
- Most tributaries of Susitna River tributary main stems are considered
unproductive because most dry up during the winter. The surface
areas of most tributaries are unknown.
- For determi ni ng the number of smolts/acre/yr, an individual smol t
size of .O2 I b was used, which is a reasonable size for stream
produced Alaskan coho smolts according to data of Armstrong (1970),
Crone and Bond (1976), Meehan and Siniff (1962), and Thedinga and
Koski (1982).
Table 4-3. Coho salmon smolt production for streams in Alaska, British
Columbia, Oregon and Washington.l/ -
Pounds of Number of
smol ts/acre/yr smol ts/acre/yr
Range of annual values 5-50 221-2,699
l/~rorn data listed in or based on analysis of data in Chapman (1965),
crone (1981), Crone and Bond (1976), Hunter 1959), Mason (1976), Sal o
and Bayliff (1958), Thedi nga and Koski (1982
Assumption 5.
- The adult coho salmon production of upper Susitna River tributaries
is 24.7 1 b of adults/acre/yr or 4 adults/acre/yr.
- The average size of a commercially-harvested Susitna River coho
salmon is 6.1 lb (Mr. Jim Browning, pers. comm., November 19, 1982).
- A coho s~nolt to adult marine survival of 10% (Alaska Department
of Fish and Game 1982b) is assumed.
I
4.1.4 Chum Salmon
The chum salmon production potential of upper Susitna River tributaries
was determined usi ng the fol lowi ng assumptions.
Assumption 1.
- Upper Susitna River tributaries that could produce salmon have no
barriers to fry emigration, including the Susitna River main
stem rapids at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek.
Assumpti on 2.
- Upper Susitna River tributaries that could produce salmon are accessible
to adult salmon if they can pass through the Susitna River rapids
at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek; and if they can negotiate
streams or stream sections that have a maximal slope of .03 over
a 0.5 mile distance, and have typical adult resting areas, e.g.,
pools, undercut stream banks, and sloughs.
Assumpti on 3.
- Each chum salmon spawning pair requi res 99 ft2 of area (Be1 1 1973).
- One percent of the surface area of Susitna River tributary main
stems has acceptable pools and riffles, gravel, and water for
successful adult spawning and incubation. The number "one
percent (1%)" was selected because of severely restricted water
flows during the winter and early spring incubation period.
Williams (1975) noted that many small tributaries of the upper
Susitna Kiver are dry during this period. Comparisons between
monthly winter and summer water discharges for the upper Susitna
River at Gold Creek station (Alaska Department of Fish and Game
1982a) indicate that winter water flows of tributaries may
periodically be only 1% to 5% of summer flows.
- Most tributaries of Susitna River tributary main stems are un-
acceptable for incubation since rnost dry up during the winter
as was noted for many small tributaries of the upper Susitna
River by Williams (1975).
- Chum redds are not superimposed by other salmon species.
Assumpti on 4.
- The emigrant fry production of upper Susitna River tribuary main stems
is 62 lb of fry/acre/yr or 121,000 fry/acre/yr. This production
in weight of fry is based on an average fry weight of .0008 1 b
from data at the ADF&G Beaver Falls hatchery (Mr. Dan ~osenbergG/, -
pers. comm., July 9, 1980). This weight is reasonable for an
emigrant fry with an average length of 1.46 inch which was derived
from data for Talkeetna River (Friese 1975) and lower Susitna
River chum fry (Kent Roth - 7/, pers. comm., November 30, 1982).
- The number of frylacrelyr is based on a female adult chum spawning
area of 99 ft2 (Bell 1973), an average fecundity of 2,200
eggs/female chum (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1982b), 100%
egg deposition/female, and a deposited egg to emigrant fry
survival of 12.5% which is based on data in Crone and Bond
(1976), Foerster (1968), and Hunter (1959).
- The adult chum salmon production of upper Susitna River tributaries
is 9,329 lb of adults/acre/yr or 1,210 adults/acre/yr.
- The average size of a commerci a1 ly-harvested Susi tna Ri ver chum
salmon is 7.7 lb (Mr. Jim Browning, pers. comm., November 19,
1982).
- An emigrant fry to adult marine survival of 1% (Alaska Department
of Fish and Game 1982b) is assumed.
4.1.5 Field Surveys
Surveys of upper Susitna River tributaries and lakes were necessary for
obtaining otherwise unavailable i nformation for assessing salmon enhance-
ment potential and enhancement techniques.
4.1.5.1 Fixed-wi ng ai rcraft overview
The purpose of this survey was to study the terrain and future survey
sites within the enti re upper Susitna River watershed.
The upper Susitna River main stem was overflown from lower Devil Canyon
6/ ADF&G Fish Culturist IV, Klawock hatchery. -
7/ ADF&G Fishery Biologist 11, Anchorage. -
upstream to Susitna Lodge on July 13, 1982. All tributary streams were
seen, and all named and some unnamed streams were photographed.
4.1.5.2 Helicopter survey
The purpose of this two-day survey (August 4 and 5, 1982) was on-the-ground
assessment of the salmon enhancement potential of most streams and lakes
(Plate 4-1) in the upper Susitna River area that are inaccessible to
road vehicles.
More than 25 named and unnamed streams and lakes were surveyed. We made
the foll owi ng observations concerni ng conditions at stream confluences
(and various distances upstream) with the Susitna River and at lake outlets:
1 ) Water quality for adult and juvenile salmon. Water temperature,
di ssol ved oxygen, conduct i vi ty , and pH were measured.
2) Water velocity.
3) Stream width, depth, pool-riffle ratio, and gravel availability
at various distances upstream of stream confluences with the
Susitna River and at lake outlets.
4) Any barriers to migration of adult and juvenile salmon.
5) Presence and location of any fish species that may prey on, and
compete for food and space with salmon (or vice versa).
4.1.5.3 Road vehicle survey
This survey was undertaken during September 15,16, and 17, 1982. The
periphery of the Susitna River drainage area was examined via truck
(Plate 4-2) on the Glenn, Richardson, Denali and Parks Highways.
The survey was intended to:
1 ) Evaluate the adult spawning and juvenile rearing potentials in
streams and lakes adjacent to the road system. This included
assesselnent of lake and stream depth, width, water temperature,
turbidity, gravel, pool-riffle areas, stream velocity, accessi-
bili ty to salmon, and presence of fish and mammals.
2) Identify sites for stocking of juvenile salmon into streams and
1 akes.
3) Examine potential hatchery sites for produci ng juvenile salmon
to stock into streams and lakes.
4.1.5.4 Tyone Ri ver system surveys
The large lakes within the Tyone River system, a tributary of the upper
Susitna River, have the potenti a1 for produci ng a large number of sockeye
salmon. To assist with the estimation of juvenile sockeye production in
these lakes, a lirnnological survey was planned in late September, 1982.
This and another attempted survey in October, 1982 were cancelled because
of very hazardous weather.
4.1.6 Determination of Stream and Lake Surface Areas
Knowledge of stream and lake surface areas are essenti a1 for determini ng
salmon production since production is definitely related to surface area
(Burns 1971; Hayes and Anthony 1964; Youngs and Heimbuch 1982). Streams
and lakes were selected for potential salmon production based on:
1) Knowledge of stream main stem lengths (Orth 1971), and stream
widths in different sections of each stream from Alaska Depart-
ment of Fish and Game (1981c), and 1982 helicopter and road ve-
hicle surveys.
2) Aquatic habitat surveys which included water quality and quantity,
pool-riffle relationships, accessibility to salmon, gravel avail-
ability, and presence of fish which prey on or compete with salmon
( Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1981c, 1982a; A1 lin 1957;
Andrews 1961; Mr. Christopher Estes 81, Mr. Kent Roth, Mr. Joe
~autnerg/, Mr. Dana Schmidt - 101, per?. comm., August 2, 1982;
Mr. Frea ~illiamslll pers. comm., October 7, 1982, August 10,
1982; Williams 19n, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1969, 1972; Williams and
Pottervi 1 le 1978). Additional aquatic habitat surveys were con-
ducted during the 1982 fixed-wing aircraft , helicopter, and road
vehicle surveys.
Stream areas were calculated from stream length and width data or
by planimeter using maps. Stream area was assumed equal to a rec-
tangle for a short stream length when average widths were known and the
widths were similar throughout the specific length of stream. Stream
area was assumed equal to a trapezoid when stream widths were di ssimilar
throughout the stream length, e.g., when the area of an entire stream
main stem was determined.
All lake areas were obtained via planimeter on maps, except for Lake
Louise, which was obtained from Mr. Stan ~onesl2/ - (pers. comm.,
September 7, 1982).
4.1.7 Biological Impact of Introduced Salmon on Resident Fish
Predator-prey relationships and competition between salmon and resident
fish were examined via literature research. Results of this research are
found in Section 5.3.
81 ADF&G Fishery Bi 01 ogi st I I I, Anchorage. -
9/ ADF&G Fishery Biologi st 11, Anchorage. -
10/ ADF&G Fishery Biologist 111, Anchorage. -
11/ ADF&G Fishery Biologist 111, Glennal len. -
12/ United States Geological Survey, Anchorage. -
4.2 Engi neeri ng Studi es
4.2.1 Feasibility Studies
The primary engineering concern of this study was to determine if it
was feasible to bypass salmon through the velocity barriers in the
confines of Devil Canyon and the general consensus was that "bypass
methods" primarily meant fishways. In a feasi bi li ty study, preliminary
sketch plans and preliminary cost estimates with conclusions and recom-
mendations can usual ly be produced without i ncurri ng the expense of
extended field work and the detailed investigations needed for the
preparation of construction documents. In revi ewi ng the abundant data
available on the Susitna River and its drainage basin, the study team
concluded that it could indeed determine the feasibility of bypassing
salmon through the Devil Canyon area, by means of a fishway or fishways,
without havi ny to undertake time consumi ng and costly fiel d i nvesti ga-
tions.
The study team did feel, however, that literature research alone was
inappropriate because the "Susitna River data" did not contain river
velocity information in the Devil Canyon area during the times of the
salmon migrations. Then too, the biological i nformation on the lakes
and tributaries upstream of Devil Canyon was sketchy or missing entirely.
For these reasons some fiel d work was deemed necessary.
Fol 1 owi ng i s a bri ef description of the engi neeri ng studi es performed
by the study team.
July 13: Overflew the entire upper Susitna River drainage basin with
a biol ogist and engineeri ng personnel (Figure 4-1). The purpose of the
overflight was to acquaint the study team with the terrain, the size
of the study area and to identify any features in the area that may
requi re on-si te inspection.
Aug. 4 & Auy. 5: These two days were spent in on-site investigations
by the study teams. By means of helicopter transportation, the engineers
inspected the canyon walls and stream banks in Devil Canyon (Plate 4-3)
and in the vicinity of Devil Creek. Observations were made from as low
as 20 ft, and where condi tions permi tted, landi ngs were made to perrni t
on ground inspection. The engineers were successful in measuring the
surface vel oci ties throu yh Devi 1 Canyon by droppi ng marker buoys from
the helicopter and timing their transit through predetermined distances
(Table 4-4). The measuring of these velocities was fortunate as it
was on August 5 that the Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Group made
their first sighting of adult chinook salmon upstream of Devil Canyon.
The passage of upstream migrant salmon through Devil Canyon during the
period of measured velocities and a known river level greatly assisted
in establishing fishway parameters. While the engineers were observing
the hydraul i c condi tions in Devi 1 Canyon, a second he1 icopter transported
the study team's biologists to selected lakes and streams in the upper
drainage basin. Details of the biologists' investigations are found
in Section 4.1.
- --
Table 4-4. Devi 1 Canyon velocity measurements.
R & M Consultants (1982)
4/13/81 & 4/14/81
Ui stance between
Station stations Vel oci ty
number (ft) (ft/sec)
Distance between
Station stations Vel oci ty
number (ft) (ft/sec)
Aug. 31: This was a similar site investigation trip as that described
for August 4 & 5 except that on this trip Mr. Mi lo C. Be1 1, a noted
fi sheries engi neer, accompanied the study team. Again, close attention
was made of the hydraulic conditions within Devil Canyon and the canyon
area i mmedi ately downstream of Devi 1 Creek. A report on Mr. Be1 1 's
observations and recommendations is contained in the appendix 10.4.
Sept. 15 - Sept. 17: This ground inspection trip was to evaluate the
potential rearing areas in the upper Susitna River drainage basin and
to locate hatchery sites for use in conjunction with a juvenile stocking
program. The study team drove the periphery of the drainage area via
the Glenn, Richardson, Denali and Parks highways (Figure 4-2). The
emphasis of this investigation was the evaluation of adult spawni ng
and juvenile rearing streams that are accessible to the road system.
Stream crossi ngs of the Denali highway made it possible to take water
temperatures and observe stream bed condi tions in many 1 ocations.
This information was not only useful in projecting probable production
capacities but identified several initial stocki ng poi nts for juvenile salmon
should a salmon enhancement program in the upper Susitna River drainage
basin be implemented.
4.2.2 Design Studies
Although the feasibility studies described in Section 4.2.1 are sufficient
to support the findings and recommendations in this report, it should
be pointed out that further detailed studies would be needed to design
any of the facilities recommended. In particular the following studies/
investigations would have to be completed before commencing with the
design of a fishway(s) in Devil Canyon. The following studies are
both biological and engi neering i n nature:
1) A thorough topographic survey of the blockage area(s). This survey
should include, if possible, the contours of the river bottom.
2) A hydrological study of the blockage area(s) during the months of
the upstream salmon mi grations. This study should deterni ne the
river levels during all periods of migration and should deter-
mine the stream velocities at both banks and the location of
points of turbulence and upwel li ng.
3) A geotechnical investigation to include both surface exami nations
and sub-surface exploratory dri 1 li ng.
4) Additional studies regarding construction requirements and site
access.
5) Sonic tagging studies of upstream migrants to determine, if possible,
thei r migration route(s) within the blockage area (s).
6) Hydraulic model studies. This is a desireable but not a mandatory
study. Due to the certain high cost of any fishway(s) constructed
in Devil Canyon the cost of a model study could certainly be justified.
7) Refined cost estimate. Based on the detailed information obtained
in studies (1) through (6) a refined cost estimate could influence
a decision on whether or not a proposed project should proceed.
AREA LOCATION
V PROPOSED DAM SITE
WATERSHED BOUNDARY
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Salmon Enhancement Potential (S.E.P. )
5.1.1 S.E.P. Without Hydroelectric Dams
The upper Susitna River watershed is suitable for the rearing of salmon.
The problem is that the watershed is not accessible to salmon, However,
adult salmon could be introduced into the watershed via fishways or
juvenile salmon could be introduced into the watershed by means of hatchery
stocking. A fishway enhancement program and a hatchery enhancement
program are described in sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4.
Juvenile salrnon production in the upper Susitna River watershed with
resultant adult product ion is now considered for each salmon species.
5.1.1.1 Sockeye Salmon
The life cycle of sockeye salmon is depicted in Figure 5-1,
Selected lakes in the upper Susitna River basin will produce approximately
1,600,000 sockeye smolts (Table 5-1 ). These smlts wi 1 1 produce approximately
160,000 adults (Table 5-1). Of the 31 lakes considered for producing
sockeye salmon, the three largest lakes, viz. Lake Louise, Susitna Lake,
and Tyone Lake (Plate 5-I), produce 120,000 adults or 75% of the total.
(kcNeil and. Bailey 1975)
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
I Fi ure 5-1.
-26- Life cycle o 9 sockeye salmon.
Table 5-1. The potential production of sockeye salmon in upper Susitna
Hi ver lakes.
Lake -
Lake Louise
Susitna Lake
Tyone Lake
Little Lake Louise
Lake 25051/, Tyone
R i ve r sys tem
Beaver Lake
Dog Lake
Butte Lake
Moore Lake
Sandy Lake
Clarence Lake
Lake Creek lakes
Mud Lake
Fog Lake, nearest
Fog Creek
Lily Lake
Snodgrass Lake
Osar Creek lakes
Gray1 i ng Lake
Black Lake
Lake 32851/, Kosina
Creek system
Lake 24601/, - Tyone River
sys tein
Tabert Lake
Roosevel t Lake
Glaser Lake
Lake surface
area (acres)
Tot a1 :
Adults
(number)
1/ Elevation in feet. -
5.1.1.2 Chinook Salmon
The life cycle of chinook salmon is depicted in Figure 5-2.
Selected streams in the upper Susi tna River basin wi 11 produce approximately
100,000 chi nook smolt s Table 5-2). These smolt s wi 1 1 produce approximately
3,000 adults (Table 5-2 1 . Of the 21 streams considered for producing
chinook salmon, the following eight streams produce 2,880 adults or 95%
of the total: Tyone River, Oshetna River, Kosina Creek, Clearwater Creek,
Watana Creek, Butte Creek, Fog Creek, and Coal Creek (Plates 5-2 through
5-9). Two streams, Tyone River and Oshetna River, together produce
1,618 adults or 53% of the total.
Table 5-2. The potential production of chinook salmon in upper Susitna
Ri ver tributaries.
Tributary surface Smolts Adults
Tri butary area (acres) (number) (number)
Tyone Ri ver
Oshetna River
Kosi na Creek
Clea rwater Creek
Watana Creek
Butte Creek
Fog Creek
Coal Creek
Val dez Creek
Wi ndy Creek
Tsusena Creek
Jay Creek
Goose Creek
Waterfall Creek
Sandy Creek
Raft Creek
Lake Creek
Snodgrass Lake creek
Deadman Creek
Boulder Creek
Devi 1 Creek
FISH SPAWNING IN HOME STREAM
JULY-SEPT. -
(From FlcMeil and Bailey 1975)
Plate 5-2. The Tyone River just upstream from its confluence with the
Susi tna Ri ver.
Plate 5-3. The Oshetna River at its confluence with the Susitna River.
Plate 5-6. Watana Creek at its confluence with the Susitna River.
Plate 5-7. Butte Creek at the outlet of Butte Lake.
Plate 5-8. Fog Creek at the outlet of Fog Lake.
Plate 5-9. Coal Creek.
5.1.1.3 Coho Salmon
The life cycle of coho salmon is depicted in Figure 5-3.
In addition to chinook salmon, selected streams in the upper Susitna
River basin will produce approximately 51,000 coho smolts (Table 5-3).
These smolts will produce approximately 5,100 adults (Table 5-3). Of the
21 streams considered for producing coho salmon, the same eight streams
listed for chinook salmon produce 4,800 coho adults or 94% of the total.
The Tyone and Oshetna Rivers together produce 2,700 coho adults or 53% of
the total.
Table 5-3. The potential production of coho salmon in upper Susitna River
tributaries.
Tyone River
Oshetna River
Kosina Creek
Clearwater Creek
Watana Creek
Butte Creek
Fog Creek
Coal Creek
Val dez Creek
Windy Creek
Tsusena Creek
Jay Creek
Goose Creek
Waterfall Creek
Sandy Creek
Raft Creek
Lake Creek
Snodgrass Lake creek
Deadma n Creek
Boulder Creek
Devil Creek
Tributary surface
area (acres)
382.50
283.37
179.30
171.27
74.20
38.74
35.45
22.73
16.17
15.76
6.94
6.19
2.73
2.56
2.46
2.30
2.00
1.70
1.60
1.08
.27
Smol t s
(number)
15,486
11,473
7,259
6,934
3,004
1,568
1,435
920
655
6 38
28 1
250
111
104
100
93
81
69
64
44
11
Total :
Adults
(number)
1,549
1,147
72 6
6 93
300
157
144
92
6 6
64
28
25
11
10
10
9
8
7
6
4
2
5,058
(From McNeil and Bailey 1975)
5.1.1.4 Chum Salmon
The life cycle of chum salmon is depicted in Figure 5-4.
In addition to chinook and coho salmon, selected streams in the upper
Susi tna Ri ver basin wi 11 produce approximately 970,000 emergent chum fry
(Table 5-4). These fry will produce approximately 9,700 adults (Table 5-4).
Of the 18 streams considered for producing chum salmon, the same eight
streams listed for chinook salmon produce 9,105 chum adults or 95% of the
total. The Tyone and Oshetna Rivers together produce 5,440 chum adults
or 57% of the total.
Table 5-4. The potential production of chum salmon in upper Susitna River
tributaries.
Tributary surface F r~ Adults
area (acres) (number) Jnumber)
Tyone River
Oshetna River
Clearwater Creek
Watana Creek
Kosina Creek
Butte Creek
Fog Creek
Coal Creek
Windy Creek
Valdez Creek
Tsusena Creek
Jay Creek
Waterfall Creek
Goose Creek
Raft Creek
Snodgrass Lake creek
Deadma n Creek
Boulder Creek
Tot a1 : 8.04 973,822 9,740
In summation, the upper Susitna River watershed can produce sockeye,
chi nook, coho and chum salmon if emi grati on/immi grati on of juveni les/adults
is provided. The potential for sockeye salmon far outweighs that for
the other salmon species due primarily to the large lakes in the Tyone
Ri ve r sys tem.
The salmon product ion potentials are conservative since the biological
and limn01 ogical data base for streams and lakes is too inadequate to
accurately predict the carrying capacity for juvenile salmon. However,
certain assumptions may actually be too 1 i beral , e. g., a high percentage
of salmon smolts may not survive the rapids in Devil Canyon and Devil
Creek areas though 100% survival was assumed.
(From McNeil and Bailey 1975)
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER I SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
I ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH 8 GAME 1
-38-
Figure 5-4.
Life cycle of chum salmon.
5.1.1.5 Potential Barriers to Juvenile Salmon Emigration and Adult Immigration
Potential barriers to salmon migration in the Susitna River are located in
the upper river at the Devil Canyon and Devil Creek areas. These barriers are
rapids and supersaturated gases. Rapids can dash emigrant juveni les against
rocks and may delay juvenile emigration by temporarily trapping them in
eddies. Juvenile salmon are known to survive movement through rough
water includi ng waterfalls. Coho salmon smolts survi ved numerous high
falls at Seldovia River, Kenai Peninsula (Dudiak et al. 1979). This
stream drops 265 ft in elevation in a 2 mile-long section and is totally
impassable to adult salmon. Pink salmon fry survived the Paint River
fa1 ls, Alaska Peninsula, which plunge into salt water and can drop more
than 40 ft dependi ng on the tide stage. Chinook salmon adults and eggs
were found in the upper Susitna River between the Devil Canyon rapids
and the Devil Creek rapids for the first time ever in 1982 by ADF&G
staff. It is the professional judgement of the ADFAG Susitna Hydro
Aquatic Studies Team that juvenile chinook salmon are produced in this
area of the uppei. Susitna River (Mr. Tom Trent 13/, pers. comm.,
December 3, 1982). Therefore, some juvenile chinook salmon do survive
their emi gration through the Devi 1 Canyon rapids.
Some juvenile salmon may suffer delayed emigration or mortality during
their passage through the rapids. However, experiences noted in
the previous paragraph indicate that the inortali ties should be negligible.
Adult salmon immigration is definitely partial ly or even total ly blocked
by the rapids during high water periods during the summer. Water flow
rates may exceed 50,000 cfs through the rapids; 29-year annual mean
flows are 28,040, 23,680 and 21,514 cfs for June, July and August, res-
pectively (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1982a). If fishways are
instal led, these rapids would no longer be a barrier. The adult chinook
salmon observed upstream of the Devi 1 Canyon rapids probably mi grated
through these rapids duri ng July 1982, during which daily water flows
were as low as 14,500 cfs (Mr. George Cunningham - 14/, pers. comm.,
November 12, 1982).
Total di ssol ved gas concentrations exceedi ng 110% have been measured in
the upper Susi tna River rapids though concentrations fluctuate throughout
the area (Schmidt 1981 ). Gas concentrations exceeding 110% can cause
rnortality of juvenile and adult salmon (Bouck et al. 1976; Dawley and
Ebel 1975; Ebel 1969; Ebel et al. 1971; Nebeker et a1. 1976, 1979;
Rucker 1975; Rucker and Kangas 1974; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1976; Westgard 1964). Juvenile salmon emigrating through the rapids
duri ng May and June could encounter total dissol ved gas concentrations
exceedi ng 101% over a 40 mile di stance with concentrations exceedi ng
110% over an 18 mile distance. Water velocity measurements taken in
Devil Canyon during the summer of 1982 (Table 4-4) along with extrapolations
13/ ADF&G Aquatic Studi es Coordi nator, Susi tna Hydro Aquatic Studi es Team, Anchorage. -
14/ ADF&G Ci vi 1 Engi neer I, Anchorage -
on velocity vs. width of the Susitna River at the low flow rate of 17,400
cfs (Gold Creek station) indicate a range of 2 to 9 mph over the 18 mile
distance. Assuming a conservative 2 mph water flow rate and further
that juvenile salmon will travel downstream at this rate, the 18 mile
distance would be covered in 9 hours. Juvenile salmon are therefore
totally safe over this distance since at even 11 5-1 16% saturation the
onset of rnortdlity takes more than 240 hours at 8-10" C for fry (Rucker
and Kangas 1974) and more than 268 hours for smolts to reach 20% mortality
(Bouck et al. 1976). Even if juvenile salmon took twice as long to
travel the 18 mile distance, i.e., 18 hours, due to delays, they should
not be affected by dissolved gases.
Adult salmon are present at the rapids during the summer season (Alaska
Department of Fish and Game 1981a). Adult salmon could encounter the
same di ssol ved gas concentrations as the juveniles. Average swi mmi ng
speeds of sockeye, chinook, coho and chum salmon adults from the mouth
of the Susitna River to the Devil Canyon dam site (152 miles) range from
0.16 to 0.23 mph or 3.8 to 5.6 mi les/day based on data in Alaska Department
of Fish and Game (1981a). Gas concentrations may exceed 110% over an
18 mile distance, and may exceed 115% over a 4 mile distance. These 4
and 18 mile sections of the Susitna River would include the two fishways
proposed for passing adult salmon through the rapids. Salmon passage
through the 1.5 miles of fishways, if they are constructed, should take
from 8 to 12 hours depending on the species (Mr. Lowell Barrick - 15/
pers. comm., November 11, 1982).
Using the lowest average swimming speed of 0.16 mph (chinook salmon), a
salmon could negotiate the 4 and 18 mile distances in 29 and 91 hours,
respectively. Adults should be safe for the 29 hours at 115%, and 117
hours at 110% saturation since the exposure times necessary for 20%
mortality at these saturations exceed 122 and 268 hours, respectively
(Bouck et al. 1976).
In summation, the rapids at Devil Canyon and Devil Creek may delay or
inflict some mortality on emigrating juvenile salmon, and will prevent
migration of adult salmon during high water velocities. Total dissolved
gas supersaturation will probably not adversely affect juvenile or adult
salmon.
15/ AUF&G, Uepartrnent Engineer, Juneau. -
5.1.2 S.E.P. With Hydroelectric Dams
Fifty years of observing salmon migrating past the numerous dams that
have been built on the Columbia and the Snake Rivers have proven con-
clusively that all large dams create serious obstacles to the migration
of salmon. The obstacles are many and varied and affect both the
upstream mi grants and the downstream mi grants (Figure 5-5). Attempts
to overcome the obstacles created by the dams have met with limited
success. Although it has been shown that special features at a dam,
e.g. fishways, fish locks, bypass by trucking, etc. can be built to
pass fish around the barrier, these features are very costly to construct
and maintain, and their successfulness is questionable. The proposed
645 ft high concrete arch dam at Devil Canyon and the 885 ft high
earth fill dam at Watana Creek (Plate 5-10) are much greater in height
than are any of the Columbia River or Snake River dams, for which
salmon bypass features have been constructed, and therefore they undoubt-
edly present simi liar problems, as do the Columbia/Snake River dams,
but at a greatly magnified scale. Following is a partial list of the
known problems that the Columbia River and Snake River dams cause to mig-
rating salmon in those systems. (Remember that the Columbia River and Snake
River dams are in the 50 ft to 150 ft height range with reservoirs
of comparable depths).
1 ) Changed water temperatures above and be1 ow the dams.
2) Change in the seasonal flow pattern of the river.
3) Change in water quality; i.e, low oxygen content below the dam,
high nitrogen content and gas supersaturation.
4) Change in food supply and disruption of the ecological balance.
5) Siltation of the reservoir.
6) Fishway problems
a) Fishways rising to heights of nearly 900 ft have never been
constructed before. Although fi shway construction is theoreti -
cal ly possible, the cost would certainly be exceedingly high.
b) Fishways built on acceptable slopes of 10:l could require up to
2 miles of fishways for dams 900 ft high.
c) Devil Canyon - very difficult to construct a fishway on the
face of a concrete arch dam. Construction in the canyon walls
would be very expensive.
d) Watana - similiar construction problems as at Devil Canyon.
It is doubtful that a fishway would be permitted on an earthen
structure. Construction in canyon walls would be very expensive.
.. ,.-.
PLAN VlEW OF INTERRUPTED RIVER FLOW
flow
Delay, disorientation, residualism ljuvenilesl.
ELEVATION VlEW OF RESERVOIR EFFECT
predator concentration, chemical-temperature changes,
higher incidence of disease, etc. - e 4-
Gas disease
. .
:
L.
LEGEND
*f or
Killed injured, stunned, trapped in roll, easy Prey
-
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER I - . . .^. .
" IHANCEMENT STUDY
ADULT JUVENILES '
(SALMONID)
..
. .
i ;
' '4 . . - :-
BIRDS PREDATORY I Figure 5-5.
FISH Dam obstacles to salmon migration. I
-
4
0( J
'# flow
1 -/ TURBINES
e* > . .
\- #- - .,.4 :
-,by/,fi- \ A/
~-l/l--'--
=Nr
ELEVATION VIEW OF TURBINE EFFECT I
Watana Creek dam
Devil Creek dam
Plate 5-10. Proposed Susitna River dans (fro11 Alaska Power Authority).
e) Fluctuating reservoir level will make the design of the fishways'
water intake complex and costly.
f) Fish passage delays due to confusion in locating the fishway
entrance in the tai 1 race di scharge.
7 ) Reservoi rs
Most of the studied reference material indicated that reservoi rs
create an unnatural condition that is neither lake or stream. The
slack water of the deep reservoirs cause confusion in both the adult
and juvenile mi grants (Bell 1973). Studies show that the confusion
causes lengthy delays which are deterimental to the physiology of
the adult spawners (may cause adults to die before spawni ng) and which
apparently cause some juveniles to become lost and stop their
migration to the sea. The 74 miles of resevoir, with depths in
excess of 800 ft, created by the Devi 1 Canyon and Watana dams is
certain to create serious migration problems for both adults and
juveniles.
8) Downstream migration of juveniles
a) In reiterating the problems in item 7, the reservoir obstacle
appears to be more detrimental to the juvenile salmon than to
the adults. The juveniles are not strong swimmers and without
a downstream current to guide them they often become lost and fail
to conti nue thei r seaward mi gration.
b) Mortalities of juveniles over dam spillways or through
turbine blades are very high (Figure 5-6).
c) Trapping facilities to capture juveniles at dams
are only marginally successful and their maintenance and
operating costs are high.
d) Migration delays in reservoi rs contribute to extensive
predation by fish populations in the reservoirs.
9) Reservoir flooding of the productive spawni ng areas in the lower
reaches of the tributary streams reduces spawning potential.
5.1.3 Conclusion
It is the study team's conclusion that the problems and the costs
associated with conducting a salmon enhancement program in the upper
Susitna River, with the two proposed dams in place, far outweigh the
benefits to be received from such a program. For this reason the team
recommends against implementi ng any salmon enhancement program above
Devi 1 Canyon if the proposed Susitna dams are constructed. A salmon
enhancement program is feasible, however, if the Susitna River dams are
not constructed.
An idea to divert the water from Lake Louise into the Copper River
watershed has been discussed for several years. The theory behind
this idea is that Copper River salmon would then make use of the Lake
Louise watershed for spawning and the subsequent rearing of juveniles.
While this water diversion project may have merit, it opens up a whole
new seri es of questi ons concerni ng bi 01 ogi cal impact , soci o-economi c
factors, cost, benefits and etc. The study team felt that the "Lake
Louise diversion proposal" was outside the scope of this study so no
investigations were conducted.
A trout or grayli ng enhancement project could possibly succeed in
the upper Susitna basin even if the dams were constructed. The
troutlgrayli ng enhancement would be a "put-take" operation wherein
hatchery produced troutlgrayli ng juveniles would be released into
sui table rearing waters in the upper Susi tna River drainage area for
natural rearing and subsequent sport fish harvest. The cost of such a
"put-take" operation would vary according to the facilities used. If
existiny hatchery operations could be adjusted to support this operation,
capital costs would be minimized and the project might be economical ly
feasible. If a new hatchery had to be constructed specifically for
this project, then the project may not prove to be feasible. Like the
"Lake Louise di version proposal " mentioned in the preceedi ng paragraph,
the study team felt that a "troutlgrayling enhancement proposal" was
outside the scope of this study and investigations of this type were
not conducted.
5.2 Enhancement Techniques (E.T. )
This section discusses various salmon enhancement techniques that may be
feasible for use in the upper reaches of the Susitna River if the proposed
hydropower dams are not constructed. The a1 ternati ves di scussed consider the
more fami liar methods of passing adult salmon through fishways of the pool
and weir type, the vertical slot baffle, submerged orifice weirs and the
Denil design. In addition to fishways, other solutions such as low head
dams and brail systems are considered. Put and take methods such as eyed
egg and juvenile plants, which require the support of hatcheries, are also
di scussed.
Because of the limited access (primarily river boat and helicopter) into
Devi 1 Canyon, many different construction materials and construction tech-
niques were considered. Even so, it was quickly determined that any con-
struction conducted at Devi 1 Canyon could only be done at considerable
cost. An aerial reconnaissance of the terrain between Gold Creek (adjacent
to the Alaska ail road) and Devil Canyon revealed the presence of a trail
that was constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation in the late 1950's in
associati on with Devi 1 Canyon dam i nvest i gations. Some reduction in con-
struction costs might be realized through the reduction in helicopter
support, if use of the trail is made available to a contractor.
5.2.1 Low Head Darns
An alternative to the instal lation of conventional fishways could be the
construction of several low head dams, 5 to 15 ft high, at the down
stream (chute) end of identified velocity barriers (Figure 5-7). The
purpose of the dams would be to drown out the velocity barriers and create
quiet water resting pools upstream of the dams. The dams would eliminate
the long (500 - 1500 ft) stretches of fast water (velocity barriers) but
would create their own 5 ft to 15 ft high vertical barriers. To over-
come the vertical barriers conventional fi shways would be instal led over
both ends of each dam. Because of the extreme difficulty of worki ng in
the confines of the canyon and because of the high cost of constructing
dams capable of withstanding the flood water forces of the Susitna River,
this alternati ve was rejected.
5.2.2 Mechanical /He1 i copter Brai 1 Systems
ADF&G experimented with brail systems at two sites in Alaska during the
1970's (Plate 5-11). At Anan Creek in southeastern Alaska where a 10 ft
drop over a 100 ft reach often created a velocity barrier to large numbers
of pink salmon, a mechanical brail system consisting of a cable tramway,
engine driven hoists and dip nets was used to lift pink salmon over the
barrier. Although the system used did work, the fish mortality rates were
high and its operation required the use of large numbers of personnel.
At Russian River, on the Kenai Peninsula, where a 30 ft drop over a
300 ft reach often created a velocity barrier to large numbers of
sockeye salmon, a hybrid type of the Anan Creek brail system was tried.
In this system the sockeye were brailled at the base of the obstruction
and then airlifted over the obstruction in fire buckets slung beneath a
helicopter. The Russian River system was more successful than the Anan
Creek system in terms of reduced fish mortality and a reduction in the
numbers of people involved. However, because of the large numbers of
sockeye to be transported, the expense of the helicopters and the dangers
of flying in the confines of a narrow canyon, this transportation experiment
was qui ck ly di scarded.
Although both brai 1 systems were margi nal ly successful, the experience
gained showed that neither system was practical for the long term solution
of movi ng large numbers of salmon past a barrier, especial ly if that
barrier is in the confines of a canyon such as Devil Canyon. A brail
system is not recommended for use in Devil Canyon.
and allow the salmon to ascend via pool and weir lifts.
Each dam should contain at least one fishway and
I
-4 9 -
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH 8 GAME
Fi ure 5-7.
Low ! ead dams.
J
5.2.3. Fi shways
5.2.3.1. General Information and Discussion
Fishway, fish ladder, and fishpass are all terms used to describe
methods of passing fish upstream at dams and natural obstructions. In
this study the term fishway is used. There is a difference in concept
between designing a fishway at a natural obstruction and in designing
a fishway at a dam. Briefly, the difference is that the natural obstruction
to migration is in most cases a part of the natural environment of the
fish affected by it. The population of migrating fish has presumably
become adjusted to some extent to this environment. However, if the
obstruction each year takes its toll by reason of direct mortality, or
physical impairment as a result of delay or damage, any facilities
instal led which will reduce this mortality or impai rment will be beneficial.
The design criterion then becomes one of constructing the most efficient
fishway at the lowest cost to provide the greatest benefit. With a
fishway at a dam, however, the primary aim is usually the ultimate one
of providing for no delay and no physical impairment of the fish,
since any such delay or impairment is not part of the natural environment.
As the Devil Canyon velocity barrier is a natural obstruction, the
evaluation of fi shways in this chapter wi 1 1 be made with the goal of
selecting a design that will provide the greatest benefit for the
least cost.
5.2.3.2 AUF&G Criteria for Fishways Under Twenty Feet in Height
In designing fishways in Alaska, the Department of Fish and Game
considers the following three items to be essential features of a
f ishway:
1) The entrance must be located such that it is easily found and
readily entered by the fish.
2) The fish must be able to swim through the fishway without undue
effort.
3) The fishway design must be such that entrance and passage through
the facility are ac,complished with a minimum of delay and injury
to the fish.
The following guidelines should be used as a check to ensure that the
three essential elements of a fishway are incorporated into each design:
1 ) Velocities in salmon fi shways should not exceed 8 fps.
2) The fishway must discharge enough water to attract fish to the
entrance. Discharge velocity will vary in relation to the stream
flow, but discharge velocities should be in the 3 to 8 fps range.
3) Fishway designs should not permit rapid changes in flow patterns.
Energy derived from increases in head must be dissipated quickly
and without changing the general flow pattern features.
4) The fishway should provide ample physical and visual clearance
for the fish. The smallest submerged opening must not be less
than ten inches wide and water depths must a1 low complete coverage
of any fish traversing the fishway. In some fishways, it may be
advantageous to have openings in the bottom of weir baffles to
allow passage of fish through rather than over the weir.
5) The fishway should provide adequate resting areas if it is long.
Locations of resting pools will vary with the species of fish and
the type of fishway used.
6) Location of the entrance is extremely important. It should be at
the furthest upstream point of the fish migration. If this is
physically impossible, then some type of fish guidance fence into
the entrance may be required. Entrance discharge should be nearly
pard1 lel with the stream flow and should discharge into a non-turb-
ulent pool if possible.
7) The fishway exit should be into a protected area away from the
barrier overflow to prevent fish from being swept back over the
barrier.
8) Designs must consider fluctuations in water levels and should
minimize the use of mechanical controls in regulating flow through
the structure. This is especi a1 ly important at a site such as
Devil Canyon where access, for maintenance and operations purposes,
is very limited.
9) Consideration must be given to the intended loca ,Ion of the fishway
so that adequate maintenance can be provided.
10) The maintenance effort will be minimized if due design consideration
is given to problems of debris at the exit, ice accumulations,
destructive forces caused by flood water, and sediment in and
through the fishway.
5.2.3.3 Weir and Orifice Fishway
See Figure 5-8 for an example of a weirlorifice type fishway. This type
of fishway is one of the oldest and probably most common designs in
use. Initial ly, just a series of weirs was instal led, but later
refinements led to the installation of orifices within the weir.
Under certain conditions, a weirlorifice type fishway will provide a
cost efficient method of transporting fish over a barrier. However,
this type of design has some serious operating deficiencies that preclude
its use at a remote site like Devil Canyon.
The two most serious deficiencies concern variable stream flows and
transportation of sediment. A weir operates efficiently only within a
(Adapted from Be1 1 1973)
.
. '8,' -
END VIEW
STREAMING OR SHOOTING FLOW (below critical flow)
PROFILE VIEW
PLUNGING FLOW (above critical flow)
- 53 -
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
I
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH 8 GAME
Figure 5-8.
Weir and orifice fishway.
very narrow range of flows. The flow in the fishway is controlled by
the upstream weir and it can operate efficiently only when river levels
are within the range producing the desired flows over the upper weir.
If the stream flow is not within the narrow operating range of the
weir, the fi shway wil 1 be either starved or drowned. In some, cases
(mostly at inhabited sites such as man-made dams), it is practical to
provide for regulation of the fishway flow over a wider range of stream
levels by means of adjustable weir crests or gates, but due to the
re~noteness of Devil Canyon, this solution is not feasible. Also, the
wei r/orifice type design is readily clogged by stream debris and
sediment. During high flow conditions, the Susitna River carries a
considerable load of sand/silt which would lodge in the weir pools and
destroy the vel oci ty-reduci ng characteristics of the design. Mai nten-
ance considerations alone preclude the selection of this design for
use at Devi 1 Canyon.
5.2.3.4 Denil and Alaskan Steeppass Designs
The Denil design was developed about the turn of the century and was
probably designed to overcome the problems that were inherent in the
wei rlorifice design. The Denil desi gn does operate through a wider
range of stream levels than the weir type without serious impairment of
its efficiency; however, sediment transportation sti 11 poses a problem
in the Denil design. In the case of the Denil design, sediment clogging
is not the problem as much as is sediment abrasion. The movement of
silt, sand, gravel, and large stones through the thin baffle members of
the fishway causes serious maintenance problems in fishways of this
desi gn.
The Alaskan steeppass is an aluminum section modification of the Denil
design. The Alaskan Steeppass was adapted from the Denil design for
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game by Chief Engineer G. L. Ziemer,
P.E. The initial adaptation and testing was done in the late 1950's
and early 1960's. The major innovation of the Alaskan Steeppass is in
the use of aluminum panels in the construction of fishways. The
relatively light aluminum sections (complete with energy-di ssipating
baffles) are prefabricated in ten foot lengths and then transported
(by boat, air, or hand-carried) to the obstruction site where they are
bolted together and installed. Several Alaskan Steeppass fishways are
in use throughout the state. The Alaskan Steeppass works well in
streams where there is little fluctuation in the level of flow. However,
practical applications have shown that the Alaskan Steeppass would not
be suitable in Devil Canyon where there are extreme fluctuations in the
water level. See Figure 5-9 for details of the Alaskan Steeppass.
5.2.3.5 Vertical Slot Baffle
Figure 5-10 depicts a typical vertical slot baffle which was developed to
overcome the deficiency of the weirlorifice and Denil-type designs in
operating under a wide range of stream flows without the use of attendants
or automatic controls to adjust for the fluctuations in water levels.
DATA
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS:
(Basic Models: A and C)
Model A: Model C:
slopes: 20% to 35% slopes: 20% to 35%
velocities: 2.5 to 3.5 fps velocities: 4.1 to 4.5 fps
flows (01: 3.5 to 4.0 cfs flows (Ql: 4.5 to 5.7 cfs
@ flow depth of one foot &? flow depth of one foot
General Use:
For fish obstructions (falls) up to twenty feet in height
1
i -
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER I i
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY I
L t
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH 8 GAME
b
Figure 5-9.
Alaskan steeppass.
>
PLAN VIEW
ELEVATION
It wasn't determined just when or where the first vertical slot fishway
was used. However, there is considerable information dating back to
the 194U's that describes the use of vertical slot baffles used in
fishways at Hell's Gate and at Farewell Canyon in British Columbia as well
as sites in the lower 48 states. From all of the information read. the
vertical slot design works well at sites with highly variable stream - -
flows. Clay's Design of Fishways and Other Fish Facilities states that
the vertical slot fishways at He1 1 's Gate have operated successful lv
over periods during which the range in water levels has been as much as
45 ft. Furthennore, the vertical slot is probably the most efficient
design in transporting sediment through the fishway. Both of these
later characteristics of the vertical slot make it a promising design
for use at Devil Canyon.
In reviewing all of the enhancement techniques discussed in sections 5.2.1
through 5.2.3, the study team came to the conclusion that only the vertical
slot fishway would be efficient in passing salmon through the Devil
Canyon area (Table 5-5 and Figure 5-11). In the case of the barriers
at Anan Creek (Plate 5-12) and at Russian River, the permanent solution
was the installation of vertical slot baffles in 8 ft diameter
tunnels ci rcumvent i ng the vel oci ty barriers. The Anan Creek fi shway
(1 10 lineal ft of tunnel plus 35 lineal ft of open trench) was con-
structed in 1977 at a cost (contractor payment only - not total project
costs) of $212,000. The Russian River fishway (280 lineal ft of tunnel
plus 50 lineal ft of open trench) was constructed in 1978/79 at a
cost (contractor payment only - not total project cost) of $727,000.
Both fi shways are functioning we1 1 and it is believed that fishways of
simi lar design would be suitable for use at Devi 1 Canyon.
5.2.3.6 Fishway Construction Costs
From field observations made in July and August, 1982 and from a review
of Susitna River hydraulic data, the study team concluded that there are a
series of 4 to 6 velocity barriers in the Devil Canyon area. These
velocity barriers essenti a1 ly prevent the upstream migration of salmon
when the river discharge exceeds 15,000 cfs. The 4 to 6 velocity
barriers identified are basically located in two stretches of the river.
The first series of barriers occurs in the river from near the site
of the proposed Devi 1 Canyon dam (approx. river mile 152) and extends
downstream about 4,000 ft. The second series of barriers starts at a
point which is about 1,000 ft below the mouth of Devil Creek (about river
mile 162) and extends downstream nearly 4,000 ft. A series of short
tunnel fi shways coul d theoreti cal ly be constrllcted around each i ndi vi dual
velocity barrier, which would entail the construction of 4 to 6 relatively
short tunnel fi shways. Because of construction considerations and
factors concerning the potential for migration delay with the salmon
searching for entrances to several tunnels, the study team recommends
that two major tunnel fishways be constructed instead of several shorter
fishways. Figure 5-12 shows the alignment and profile for a 4,200 ft
long tunnel fishway at Devil Canyon (lower fishway) and Figure 5-13
shows the alignment and profile for a 3,900 ft long tunnel fishway at
Devi 1 Creek (upper fi shway).
Table 5-5. Comparison of fi shway designs.
Type of
fi shway
Guidelines for essential elements of fishway design (pg 74 and 75)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Remarks
Wei r/Ori fi ce
fi shway
, Alaskan steeppass
Denil
i
Vertical slot
baffle
Low head dams
Mechani cal or
he1 i copter brai 1
Unacceptable due to the highly
G,C F F E,C E,C E,C E,C U F F,C fluctuatingstreamflowconditions
and high maintenance operational
characteristics
Unacceptable for the sane reasons
E,C F E F G,C E,C E,C U F F,C given for the weir/orifice design
Acceptable: This design meets
E,C E E E E,C E,C E,C E E G,C all the requirements needed topass
salmon.
Unacceptable because of construction
F,C F F F N/A F,C F F,C U F,C difficulties and anticipated high
maintenance costs.
Unacceptable: The mechani cal brai 1
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A is unacceptable due tohigh opera-
tional costs and excessive fish
mortalities. The helicopter system
is unacceptable for movi ng large
numbers of salmon due to the high
operating costs.
Legend: U - Unsatisfactory, F - Fair, G - Good, E - Excellent,
C - Can be designed in, N/A - Not Applicable
P 2 =#*I 'lki3A ,OOb =ul -ZItJO : :31V3S 3ll40kid 00+ 2 t oo+o 00+01 oo+oz oo+m OOtOt
... . . 7- --r - --- . - - -. -- -
Fishway instal lation assumptions:
1) Assumptions for Lower Fishway (Devil Canyon)
a) Locate 22-man camp on north side of river near mid ioint of tunnel.
b) Paths constructed from top of bluff to portals.
c) Compressor and alternator located at each portal.
d) Raft constructed to transport heavy equipment and tools to downstream
portal. Raft used as temporary work platform.
e) Rock wasted in river.
f) Landing strip used as a marshalling area and for cement batch plant.
g) Work from both portals towards the center (work 2 faces simultaneously):
Two 10 hr. shifts per face on 15 ft diameter tunnel (Figure 5-14).
Assume 5 ft advance per shift = 20 ft per day.
h) Contract period: Mobi 1 i zation through construct ion through
demobilization = 12 months. Tunnel excavation, October through April = 7
months.
2) Assumptions for upper fishway (Devil Creek)
The upper fishway will be constructed under a scenario similar to that
for the lower fi shway. The major difference being that the construction
camp for the upper fishway would be located on the river bank near
the center of the tunnel alignment. It is expected that the contractor
would construct an adi t into the tunnel, near its center, and excavate
from the center both ways. By tunneling from the center both ways some
consol idation of equipment, with corresponding cost savi ngs, can be
achieved.
3) Adult capture facilities
Because of the velocity barriers, few salmon migrate upstream of Devil
Canyon to spawn. With the construction of the fishways, the salmon will
be physical ly able to proceed upstream but because of the limited
(vi rtual ly nonexistent) brood stock upstream of Devi 1 Canyon the study
team feels that the upper Susitna River drainage basin must be "stocked"
with the desi red salmon species. The recommended "stocki ng program"
would consist of taking sockeye eggs at the Gulkana River and chinook,
coho and chum eggs from the Susitna River. The eggs would be incubated
to frylfingerling size in existing facilities near Paxson and in Anch-
orage. The fry/fi ngerli ng woul d then be transported to select release
sites in the upper Susitna River drainage basin. This operation would
continue for 5 or 6 years until the adults returned in numbers sufficient
to propagate the species naturally, at which tirne the stocking program
would be discontinued.
s
.
6
\\
4 4
\\
%
PLAN VlEW
1/4'#= 1'- 08'
ELEVATION VlEW
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
-64-
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH 8 GAME
Figure 5-14.
Typical tunnel/baffl e section.
By adjustments in its existing hatchery program, the FRED Division could
basically accommodate a stocking program for the upper Susitna River
for the 5 to 6 year period specified. The only significant addition
required to the existing facilities would be the construction of a
summer weir camp at Gold Creek and adult capture weirs at Indian River
and at Portage Creek. These facilities would be needed to obtain the
Susitna River chinook, coho and chum eggs necessary for the juvenile
stocking program. Cost estimates for the construction of the Devil Canyon
fishway, the Devil Creek fishway, the Indian River and Portage Creek weirs
and the frylfingerling stocking operations are shown in Tables 5-6, 5-7,
5-8 and 5-9, respectively,
I
>-
k
t-
Z u
3 u
J
5
CC w
t-
<
I
U
0
Y a
tL
0
m
V)
I I I
I
I I I
00NOOONNNNNNWa I 7 I -7 I
d+-?l?l+?---?- I
I I I
I I 1
0 I I I
E I I 1
I I I
0 0 I 1 -.
m E I I c I
mo I I aJ I
0 0 0 E I I c I
EEO~ o 1 1 I u I
\\E Oh 00m I I VI t' I
OO\II E- EO~ I I C, -r I
000 \ 1-t' I I -7 Y I
ddO10O I1 ON 07 1 I C I
m m*N3 Ln CC) I I 3 7 I
NCO m*moCO I1 a, V, m * m J :r 7 N - \ m
-11 ~II~IIO oc, 4 e a ow Q
I1 m .La, E NU
110 aoemou A E E 6 .F C, E
03 Y, N-mWU C, aJ OJ 0 XCe.? W
0030 CVN* 3 tL +-' C, % El: +
EN - .. er~m a, H u ~l: - OJ H
\ --e e a, y x . . o a C, 0e - .. N 3% - CJ - -r c, -7 -
o ~.,NQN -.om ~5CClc,IClJrC6
am L E Ua3 - +.a, C, u \3 0 C,
3 ..Ln I Q1C) 0 & 0 J QImI 3 0 - o .-a ..aO-e >C I- I- L r% o I- - -.. = L CLEI rU Ua I c, Ua,L I
c, ++m..mw~~= mra,LE A a a m ma= a n
C L m 3dl xa .Q,UY~ Q, 3 .r 2 c mw~ 3
a, eo~+~c,n m.r.r~ o v, v, 0 a, a v,
c & mo -a, -'Lloxsa, u u a 3
0 m m~ mm'~ *QL M- • W Lm- C,
.r . wma, aQraEL ~LL c 3 a~
4J 0 L L--J *a7 7 Q)> 3 a* 5 • . ra aa- v,
5 .r ..=a, ogmv U
v)
Z 5 N 3 oECLC
L' .I-- U IOQ).raJ= = = .r N - w ~o~~~srnrnev,m~r~~- z N a n
>-
k
I-
2 a
3
0
...I
5 a
W
t-
u.
X
(r
O
Y
I 11
1 I
I
I 00 I I I
I
-0oe ! OCV I1 00LO00l- I
LOCO0 Ndi l ObNOCO
-3-1 d I CU CO -
1 7
I -
I I1
I 1
I
I
I 4
V) I
m . 2 E E
d LO aJ aJ a Q w 4 t' t'
.r u H
3 V) E 3 E
t'
m aJ .
W a t' .. Q . .
='h - h u s .r V) t
VLL ? 0 =fA ? 0
Wb g .r m .En a C, w m t'
L- 3 U '-0 U m u m L-dm 0 LON oZI
=t' I I- CC.7
OaJN
L m m.7 EmOh I 1,z *J= % a -
~JTN- n ?A L .r
c3 23 -=~n
\
-*ah L n
aJ 'A .. .. aJ -om 0 t' I nmh3
?-AX c 64 h E ~-'A\u~J a0 3-0mE E
om-I .. 7
C QCa-r L\n 3 m .. .. oZIE C\
C, 0 mmam t'
C .r CLQ
t'
0 at' -
h In --.OEL m
0
U a LUU..
I- • 0 42 a .. u -3 n o
U- - ?+- m 3 L
NN- - C, 0 a c 2 h, +- o awn~++~ O c 0 e--0
V)
an€ .r LC) QI a o a czcurucu mmm urn E L
03 .r u7 v < -- .. .. I- < q: c ..--- a N m a I--,-- E mmc,
-I .- NNW In-
0 N L YaJa,aJ m - 7-0 oe
I- ~mmm
7
OfOB .r N N N v n L .F 7-- 0 a.. n. Z ---~EI-
0 b Ln E aJ aJaJwame n mmm~o~
'7 *
In 0
N 0
0 0
n n
CO m
m IZI m a3 e n
m -
II II
Q
3
2 .-
-I
Z
&?
2 L- : x.
CI
I
I I
I I
I
I In000000 1
OmInmOoooOo I hoIn000h l
OhhWmInOOOIn I m-~ I . n a* On On - -000 I I
OLD0 rnn-I F F N 0 1
NOW I h m I
mdw I I
7 C I I
mmm I I
aJ aJ- V) 1
V)X- V) m Y) - 1 2- I
moon m~mmmm 1 LLdlllL a 1
V~~A~AAAJ~ I AUAJs?l
I
0
= ;
I
OOI~OO~-CC~ I 0000N~3 I ON^ o o 1 oaoo 3 1
CON 9 ze 0- .) On 1 N cU CO W 1
d- n r, I
N a3NW 0 I 7 W I
N W h I I
I 1
I 1
I 1
I I
0 2 I -0 I
\ I
E -I c I
w C, h -
t' Y C 0
2 :
\ I
aJ 0 0 In 3 1
t . . n N w h I
U V) 5 rk c aJ*
C: - - 3 0-1 a
Y) o a - x .-~,-0c,
L U -7 U.r E
maJ\ C m3t w : 3 -z CI- 6, V) La
5aaJ t' Od L t' E, t:
7 0 .r C, Q1 5 U .r rmco
a o LV)Q r a~ o 0 a
.r a5CnV) CXX .r +J . .
L c t'lL\a- o v).,-v)~zI
ClJ 0 5 V) ?3 a .r I C, .r X C 0
t' .r C t' - OL>W
m a~ a-o am "c <
EL5C LmnaJi- mc(ZIV)5 ---I aJ C .r -rUE3 I- .r 30
m -0mo A w.t-LL 5 -AWQ)~~~I-
r zac, O!- t' .. m C, U 5
.r O5W .-- t' CO c m-UaJL t'
V) c) nvC3 w s L . aJ C Y .r aJ t m .r -. 0 - V) C MC42CU I-
5 5 c EZUAVV) mvmw C$E2
a- c 3 aJ W .r 0 .r at- aJ70rwm ~m4d;ocrcr3 ~I->+uwcco w -
C, c,
5 . . . 5 . .
z - (UmdLO-hCO ZcNmbInWb
'. n
=!
%
="
m
00InOOOOOOOIn
OONOOOOOOON
?Twn 0wmbm~0~0mma ? ?. Om ? 5 Om 5
%- ~~--~-worn - C. 7,-m
\ -I
-2 -
*A .-
00000000
00000000
InCOOOdOCUOI
%??,??%?
ZS%%Z rnWh
n
-
L
2
I 7
*
t z
3
>-
t
I-
Z <
3
0
-I
5 c w
t- z
C o
Y
C
0
2
U-
0
UJ
V)
5
U
"
3
2 .
-I
\
J-I ,
-I,
\ *
-> -
'd -
2
b
z
2
!2 z x.
- L
3
k
Z
3
>-
k
I- z c
Z)
(5
A
25 c w
I-
2
C o
Y
C
2
2-
LL
0
CO
V)
5
U
Ill I 1 I
Ill I I cn cn cn I Ill8
Ill I I -1 -I A I I I I I
I11 I I I I I I I
Ill I I I I I I I
I I I I Ill1
111 I I
I I I I I I I I 1 I
Ill I I I I I
>>> I 1 I >> 1 I
22s : t I I I
I - - 7 I
I I 1 I I
2% I I
I t I 1 I
1 I I I
I I I
W I I
I - I I
I I
E I >, LL
aJ U -- 0
C, W .r
% I
E z 4-l I
Y I 7 2 aJ
u I
4 3 In 7
5 .r . . L % E ," . . + I
E a W V) m - .- .. LL c!s
C, -D a >, CL o a +
.r a C, CQ- V, L + LL = OQ, .-
+- 0
u .r a a C, 0
0 e- =a ~,n L CJ c D
L - q In 3 wuaJ V) 0
a #- - .. a . C, &an C, u E -w
#Ln 5 rn u o .-r rrn 5 V) 5 C, ,=a ON# g C,
.r a C)C, aJCn3 C, 0 C C, H - LO V) > 0 V).r E.r 000 0 u - I- OLI- 3cnr t- g3 UaJC,
.r LL k
5 . . 0 aJ Q, C, . . aJ .. -0 m cc 0w.r SUM C,
C -5 .a C *' -0 D 3 .r 3 Ln V)
L C,aJC, OCIn .C C C, L 0
aJ =Cat- .r 57 5 C, .* U CaJC 3 2% 0x0 > OLQ- C, .r
0 0aJo U In > UC 'r3.r La>,
C, C v C, > L 3 aJ L .r3 C, C, a 0 C U
c coa L n 3 ~'3 ULLU .r U Q) aJ
0 0 C, V) YC 3 c C\D '3
-r 'r L L Cn C, UO LQ-3 .r C C 0
C, -00 C C • aJU U0.r) E .r L
U UGC, OmLC, V) C W -- C, Q
3 3UU 0 C, 3, oc cse,o <V)C
L LU5 - C aJu ornu Q, 0 7
C, QLL - 3 W -2s- 0-- LLno 5
In WQC, m V) a
C CCC
C,
C, C t- 0
0 000 00. . 0. I-
V U0V +05Cl U an
I
1
1
1
mmml
I
I
0 000
0 000
0, 000
N a COW*
000
000
000
am-
Odd
LOhN
0 LO 0 0 0
0 N 0 0 0
0 4
m Om Om
0
m a
d * 0 0 CU
CO d 0 0 LD
N LON I
m I ""Om", hm N N Ln- LO
.)
?,-I m 4 4 - N I - I
Ill I I I1 I
Ill I I I I I I I
Ill I I I I I I I
I I I I : I I
Ill I I I I I I1
I I Ill I 0 3 0 I I I I
Ill I I 0 0 0 I I I I I
111 1 I 0 0
I m m Oa
I 1 I I I
111 I I t I I I
I I Ill I 0 0 CU I I I I
111 t 1 0 0 a I 1111
Ill I I N V) LO I 1111
Ill t I t I I t I
Table 5-7.
Devil Creek fishway C.1.P costs.
UNIT
Mo
Mo
M o
Mo
Mo
Mo
Mo
M o
M o
Mo
Mo
M o
----
LS
LS
LS
CLASS OF Yl'ORK On LIATERIAL
. Mobilization
1. Equipment Rental
LHD: 2 @ $10,80O/mo = 21,60O/mo
Compressors: 2@ 2800 = 5600/mo
Air Leg + 3" brill: 4 @ 425 = 1700/mo
Ventilation Blower:
3" di aineter Pump:
3" sub. Pump:
4" cent. Pump:
Suc./pres. hose: Mi sc. Lengths
Loader with 4 way Bucket
Portable Gravel Plant
16 C.F. Cement Mixer
Generators: 4 @ 1100 = 4400/mo
Sub-Total Item A1 ---- ----
I
V
0
2. Misc. Equip. Kent:
Sub-Total Item A2
3. 22 Man Construction Camp
a. Purchase 9- 8'x 20' Units
6 sleepers/ 1 office/ 1 kitchen/
1 laundry-wet unit
b. Setup and Outfit
Sub-Total Item A3
rp+ 1 Clil/)l5/
UFllT
$21,600
5,600
1,700
350
850
425
1,050
1,000
3,000
12,000
1,350
4,400
--- -------..---
150,000
---------
110,000
55,000
QUANTITY
14
14
14
14
12
12
12
12
14
6
6
14
--- ---- ---
1
----------------
1
1
Lf\Lbl<
EXTEIJSION
$302,400
78,400
23,800
4,900
10,200
5,100
12,600
12,000
42,000
72,000
8,100
61,600
633,100
150,000
--- 150,000
110,000
55,000
--- 165,000
0 *a V) I1 a3 C, IWV) 2- me0 5 U 5 aJ . ?L
a aJa a> . n
I- .r u 0 0 0
CY 0 0 0
0 On On 0
C .)
m V) m 0 m
. .r L m co 4 u .r m ?
0
0
0
.)
0 m r-
C aJ 4.79 4.79 64 64
u 3
Z
0
I1 II II II I
I
I
I
I '
I I
I I
I t
I I
5
2
\
1
\
29
2
I -, - -
2
2 x.
Llk - - 3
1
1
1
I
1 1
d+ 1 - t
00000~
00000
?%Om%%"e: oommmm
e$~-om
(V
k
Z
3
>-
t
I-
Z <
1) u
A
I
C
W
h
c o
x c
0
2
U. o
V,
Lr)
5
U
I
I 00000000
00000000
1. %?%%?%%% COdNOlnWOm
t -77-7
7m I
64 I I
1 1 I
I I I
I 1 I
I I I
00000 11 0000000 I l
00000 11 0000030 11
1 I %?%?,% I I w*??='e%%% I :
oommm I I mmmmmwoa I +EN70 I I - NII
+9 (U -I! I
I I 1 I I
I I I1
I I I I
mmcnmm 4 m I I
AJJll I I $$zZLl-J$ 11
I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I t I I
I I I I
I I t I
-?-7- 1 I LOd+(UddN I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I
t I I1
I I I1
I I I I
I I I I
-1 I t f
I I 0 I
L I I I
aJ - V) E
3-Q I f w 0
c ac C, +
o mHE1 o urn - 'F \LO a) l e +
C C, LNG1 - Q
m 5 a, H I a, V) m
.r N C, e I r L m w
V) -r - I C, 0 t: O E
aJ - a C)-rV)aJ n .r a, V) V) 5c,m C, n Lato- LQC u
L.t-7ut- CU C c aJ .r .-
.ra,c,\ ~mr5a clr-Q
LW~,Z=~J~ mac(ma, C,
. .
nnx -ZV) 03 .r C,
4 \ Y aJ U" lr- V)
UCLaJ c ..LluOO17m 0
OaJaJ..L cIOOnaJc- 0
V) .r > .r Q 3 Z V) .r Ec,.r&g? E - -rPV) C, w5e m o u ~a,a)a-7~ u
C, N QI 0 \ 4NaV)CLa aJ
u.rCO) C, .r aJ 0 .r) - 5 5 '5 -7 7x=9..,-3 *m 0
C).r.r-+ u a u L 0 T nu- U - - ~YU V) w a
L
5OCOnL NCU= O.rW
LEH~Q~ LLVJ---~-ZT F
c, a rC]
c t- LL c, O . . 39 . . . 0
u-cum~m n~-~mbrn~~r- I-
Table 5-9. Frylfi ngerli ng transport and stocki ng operational costs.
A) Sockeye (Initially from Gul kana River at Paxson):
1) Truck operations
a) Juveniles trucked from Paxson to Lake Louise.
b) 4 trips.
c) Rental truck from Anchorage for 5 days.
Cost: Truck @ 5 day x 8 hr/day x $70/hr = $2,800
Truck mileage = 1100 mile x $2,10/mile = 2,310
Driver P.D. = 5 day x $70/day - - 3 50
$5,460
2) He1 i copter charter
a) Dead Head = 4 hrs x $650/hr
b) Planting = 14 hr x $650/hr
c) Pilot P.U. = 2 day x $70/day
B) Chinook, coho, chum (initially from ~nchorage)
1) Truck operations
a) Juveniles trucked from Anchorage to Lake Louise and the Denali Highway.
b) 4 trips.
c) Rental truck from Anchorage for 5 days.
Cost: Truck @ 5 days x 8 hr/day x $70/hr = $2,800
Truckmileage=2,300milex$2.l0/rnile = 4,830
Driver P.D. = 5 day k $70/day - - 350
2) Helicopter charter
Included with 1 b.
3. Total planting cost/season
5.2.4 Hatcheries
This section describes a hatchery operation for a salmon enhancement program
in the upper drainage basin of the Susitna River. The cost estimates developed
will be combined, in Section 6, with the value of the expected salmon returns
to develop a benefit vs. cost (B/C) ratio for both a fishway and a hatchery
salmon enhancement program.
5.2.4.1 General Informati on and Di scussion
Fish hatcheries are a useful tool in man's attempt to artificially propagate
fish. Fish hatcheries have been in use in the United Sta-tes for more than
one hundred years since the first hatchery was built in Orland, Maine in
1871. The FRED Division of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has
constructed many hatcheries in Alaska since 1975 and considerable inform-
ation on the cost and operations of hatcheries is available.
Because it is assumed that most Alaskans, and especial ly the readers of
this report, are familiar with the purpose and operations of a hatchery,
no detailed description of a hatchery operation will be provided here.
Suffice it to say that hatcheries have several functions, some of which
are:
1) Mitigation of fish losses caused by the construction of barriers
(dams) to natural spawning areas.
2) Maintaining and/or increasing fish stocks overexploited by fishing.
3) Mitigation of fish losses due to pollution and/or alteration of the
natural envi ron~nent.
4) Stocki ng of rehabi 1 i tated habi tat areas where fi sh populations have
been depleted by unfavorable conditions, both natural and man-caused.
5) Introduction of species more suitable to an altered envi ronment,
i.e. introducing warm water fish into warm water reservoirs.
6) Enhancement in areas where natural production is not realized.
It is function number (6) that is of concern to this study since salmon
production in the upper Susitna River area could be achieved by the
introduction of adult spawners to the area via fishways or by the alternate
method of introducing frylfingerlings into the area by means of hatchery
operations. In the latter case, the study team envisions a simplified hatchery
program in which maximal emphasis is placed on the natural rearing of
frylfingerli ngs, thus reducing hatchery costs associated with the rearing
and feedi ng of juveniles.
For a hatchery program, eggs are collected from appropriate brood stocks
and incubated. Depending on the type of program desired, eyed eggs,
fry/fingerlings, or smolts are stocked. A recommended program for a 16
mil lion egg incubation facility follows.
5.2.4.2 Brood Stocks
Indian River and Portage Creek are potential sources of chinook, coho
and chum salmon eggs. Reasons for considering these streams as donor
sources are:
1) The homing response of returning adults is enhanced if stocks are
used from the natal watershed. Indian River and Portage Creek are
tributary streams of the Susitna River and are located at Susitna
River miles 138.6 and 148.9, respectively.
2) Salmon for the upper Susitna River watershed should originate from
broodstocks which are accustomed to mi grati ng long distances in
rivers. Indian River and Portage Creek salmon stocks migrate
approximately 140 and 150 miles upstream in the Susi tna River and
are essential ly the nearest stocks to the Devi 1 Canyon rapids.
Devil Canyon, the fi rst impassable rapids to adult migration, is
only a couple of miles upstream of the mouth of Portage Creek.
3) Stock sources must contain an adequate number of brood fish. The
number of adult salmon annual ly requi red to provide eggs for the
hatchery program each year i s:
Chinook Salmon - 225
Coho Salmon - 320
Chum Salmon - 320
Based on aerial and foot surveys, Indian River and Portage Creek
should provide these fish.
4) The stock sources must be accessible. Adult capture and holding
facilities can be instal led at Indian River and Portage Creek,
which are accessible by boat, helicopter, and fixed-wi ng aircraft.
Talkeetna is located approximately 44 and 54 Susitna River miles
downstream of Indi an Ri ver and Portage Creek, respectively. Also,
Tal keetna is the recommended site for a new hatchery if a hatchery-
supported salmon enhancement program i s implemented in the upper Susi tna
River drainage basi n.
The Gulkana River, a tributary of the Copper River, is an potential
source of sockeye salmon eggs. Pros and cons are as fol lows:
1) Sockeye salmon for the upper Susitna River watershed should originate
from stocks which are accustomed to migrating long distances in
rivers. Upper Gulkana River sockeye adults migrate more then 270
river miles from the mouth of Copper River to thei r spa~ni ng grounds.
By comparison, the Susi tna River salmon are blocked at river mile
152 (Devil Canyon).
Adequate numbers of sockeye brood are essential. The number of
sockeye adults needed to provi de eggs for hatchery propagation
each year is 7,667. The upper Gulkana River, upstream of its
confluence with Mud Creek near Paxson, supports annual escapements
probably exceedi ng 15,000 sockeye adults(Mr. Ken Roberson, pers.
comm., December 28, 1982). The Gul kana hatchery, located near
Paxson at a spring flowing into the upper Gulkana River, is expanding
its sockeye adult production and in 1982 had a record escapement
of 8,000 sockeyes.
3) Sockeye stock sources must be accessible. An adult capture and
holding area is already installed at the Gulkana hatchery. In-
creased adult production at this hatchery should provide adequate
brood stock for the upper Susitna River in the future. Adequate
water and space now exist for incubating many more eggs than are
present1 bei ng i ncubated and the Gul kana hatchery i s readi ly
accessib r e by road.
Additional sockeye adults are available in the upper Gulkana River
adjacent to the hatchery. This river section like the Gulkana hatchery
is adjacent to the Richardson Highway.
There is one potential problem with the Gulkana River sockeye stock.
This stock, like other sockeye stocks, has the viral disease, infectious
hematopoietic necrosis (IHN), which causes severe mortality of juvenile
salmon. IHN has caused severe mortality at state hatcheries. The
strain of IHN virus found in the Gulkana River stock has caused mortality
of Cook Inlet sockeye fry in tests conducted by ADF&G1s fish pathology
laboratory (Dr. Roger Gri schkowsky 16/ pers. comm., December 29,
1982). The potential implication oTa transplant of Gul kana River
sockeye salmon into the Susitna River is clear--a virulent strain of
IHN virus could adversely affect Cook Inlet sockeyes. There is perhaps
some good news. Water hardening of sockeye salmon eggs in an iodophor
solution may kill IHN viruses inside as well as outside of the eggs.
If this procedure proves vi able, IHN vi rusfree juvenile sockeye salmon
could be produced at hatcheries, such as Gul kana hatchery, which have
an IHN vi rus-free water source. Further research may prove or di sprove
the viability of this procedure.
There is one other potential sockeye salmon stock, the Stephan Lake
stock, that has advantages and disadvantages relative to the Gulkana
River stock. Stephan Lake is located 3 miles south of the upper Susitna
River between its confluence with Devil Creek and Fog Creek. This lake
drains into the Talkeetna River. Advantages of this stock are:
1) The homi ng response of returni ng adults wi 11 exceed that of the
Gulkana River stock since the former now migrate up the Susitna
River approximately 97 mi les.
16/ AUF&G Principal Path01 ogi st, Anchorage. -
2) The Stephan Lake stock does migrate a considerable distance, approx-
imately 154 river miles, which, however, is a much shorter migration
than the 27U miles the Gulkana River salmon travel.
Disadvantages of this stock are:
Inadequate number of brood fish. Cursory surveys indicate an
annual run of 115 to 1,142 adults. These numbers are perhaps
only 10% of the actual run, so 1,150 to 11,420 adults may annual ly
spawn in the lake. (Mr. Ken Tarbox 17/ pers. comm., December
28, 1982). Approximately 7,667 sockeye adults are required annually
for hatchery propagation, so the Stephan Lake stock would have to
be increased, if this is possible, through hatchery propagation
before enough adults would be available as brood for the upper
Susitna River watershed. If the Stephan Lake stock is not increased,
less juvenile sockeyes than planned would be planted in the upper
Susitna River and the run would take many more years to reach a
maxi mum.
2) Stephan Lake is not as easily accessible as the Gulkana River.
The only access to the lake is by fixed-wing aircraft or
helicopter. Access from Talkeetna is not possible by boat.
3) The IHN disease history for the Stephan Lake stock is unknown.
This stock may or may not be a viable candidate for transplanting
into the upper Susitna River watershed.
17/ ADF&G Fishery Biologist 111, Soldotna. -
-79-
5.2.4.3. Juvenile Salmon Stocking
Juvenile salmon could be introduced into the upper Susitna River watershed
as eyed eggs, fry/fi ngerli ngs or smolts. The advantages and disadvantages
of each life stage are now discussed, with a resultant recommendation.
5.2.4.4 Eyed Egg Planting
With the eyed egg program, eggs are taken from brood fish at egg take
facilities. Eggs are taken to an incubation facility and incubated unti 1
eyed. These eyed eggs are then transported to and planted in selected
gravel in streams where incubation is naturally completed. A modern
salmon egg planting device is shown in Figure 5-15. In the spring,
the fry emerge from. the gravel, spread throu hout the streams, and after 9 one or more years migrate to sea as smolts i chinook, coho or sockeye
salmon. Churn fry migrate to sea within several months after emerging
from the gravel.
Advantages of planting eyed eggs:
1) Hatchery capital and operational expenses would be minimized when
compared to a hatchery f rylfi ngerli ng or smolt program.
2) The homing response of adults resulting from eyed eggs should
exceed the homing response of adults resulting from fry or smolt
releases as the eyed egg progeny wi 1 1 spend additional months i ncu-
bating in the Susitna River watershed.
Disadvantages of planting eyed eggs:
1) Survival to adulthood will be less for eyed eggs than for older life
stages.
2) The upper Susitna watershed freezes up early in the fall due to the
high latitude and elevation. Some eggs will not be eyed before ice
covers the streams. This factor combined with hazardous flying
conditions duri ng the fa1 1, precludes successful planting of a certain
percentage of the eggs.
3) Costs of transporting and planting eyed eggs may not be less than
the costs of planting fry/fi ngerlinys or smolts. Many more eggs
than later life stages must be planted to attain the same number of
adults. Also, more manpower is required to plant eyed eggs than to
release fry/fi ngerl i ngs and smolt s.
5.2.4.5 Slnolt Stocking
Production of srnolts for stocking involves egg incubation and long term
rearing. Smolts can be transported in the same manner as frylfingerlings
with releases into streams or lake outlets in the upper Susitna River
basin. Smolts would immediately mi grate to sea.
Advantdges of stocki ng smolt s:
1) Survival to adulthoood will exceed that for eyed eggs and for fry/
fi ngerli ngs.
2) Unlike eyed eggs, smolts can be stocked after the ice has left the
streams and lakes in May and June.
Di sadvantages of stocki ng smolt s:
1 ) The hatchery for srnolts wi 1 1 be more expensive than for eggs and
frylfingerlings due to the long term rearing needed for the smolts.
Unlike frylfingerlings, smolts wil 1 requi re one or more years of
reari ng depending on the temperature of the reari ng water.
2) Sockeye salmon may not attain smolthood under hatchery condi tions
due to IHN disease.
5.2.4.6 Fry/Fingerli ng Stocking
Production of fry/fi ngerli ngs for stocking involves egg incubation and
some rearing of resultant fry to the fed fry stage (25% weight gain from
emergent fry weight) or the fingerling stage (100% weight gain from
emergent fry weight). After rearing at the hatchery, juvenile salmon
would then be transported via truckltrailer, fixed-wing aircraft or
helicopter and stocked in streams and lakes in the upper Susitna River
basin. After one or more years, the chinook, coho and sockeye juveniles
would migrate to sea as smolts. Chum frylfi ngerli ngs would mi grate to
sea within a few months after stocking.
Advantages of stocki ng fry/fi ngerli ngs:
1) The homi ng response of adults resulting from stocki ng fry/fi ngerli ngs
should exceed that for smolts since the former remain in fresh water
much longer than smolts.
2) Survival to adulthood will exceed that for eyed eggs.
3) Unlike eyed eggs, fry/fingerlings can be stocked after the ice has
left the streams and lakes in May and June.
4) The hatchery capital and operational costs are cheaper for frylfinger-
li nys than for smolts.
Disadvantages of stocking frylfinyerlings:
1) Survival to adulthood wil 1 be less than for smolts.
2) The artificial rearing requires a more expensive hatchery than for
eyed eggs.
A1 1 things considered, a frylfi ngerl i ng stocki ng operation is recommended
over that of eyed egg plants or smolt plants if a hatchery enhancement
program i s implemented. Fry/fi ngerli ng survi val wi 11 exceed that for
eyed eggs and the homing response should exceed that for smolts.
Frylfi ngerli ngs, unlike smolts, will have the ability to spread throughout
a lake or stream, or perhaps move from stream to stream, adapting to the
natural envi ronment, and thereby guaranteeing a good homing response.
5.2.4.7 Hatchery Construction Costs
To implement a fry/fingerling stocking pro ram, such as discussed in \ section 5.2.4.6, a hatchery would have to e built to support that program.
The study team identified a potential site for the hatchery on state-
owned property at the ai rport in Talkeetna (Figure 5-16). A hatchery site
plan is depicted in Figure 5-17. The site selected was chosen for the
fol lowi ng reasons:
1) Availability of land, water, electricity and other utilities.
2) Ease of access by air, vehicle and railroad.
3) Central location relative to brood sources and juvenile stocking sites.
4) Relatively easy construction conditions to moderate cost.
5) Seasonal hatchery support from local labor source.
6) Rural envi ronment with support of hospital , schools, commerci a1
faci 1 i ties etc.
A suitable hatchery layout is shown in Figure 5-18 and would consist of the
foll owi ng major features:
1) Sixteen (16) mil lion egg incubation capacity. This facility would
be staffed by 2 full time employees with summer supplemental help of
from 4 to 6 seasonal helpers. The facility would incubate 1 mil lion
chinook, 1 mil lion coho, 1 mi 1 lion chum and 13 mi 1 lion sockeye salmon
eggs to the fry/fingerling stage for transplanting to the upper
Susitna River drainage basin for release and natural rearing.
2) Two adult capture weirs, one at Indian River and one at Portage
Creek. These two sites would be manned duri ng the summer months
by a 12-14 person crew operating from a common camp at Gold
Creek. The chinook, coho, and chum eggs used for the hatchery
operation would be co1 lected at these weirs, while the sockeye
eggs would ini ti a1 ly come from the Gul kana River facility at
Paxson. Once a strong sockeye run is established upstream
ARE3 LOCATION
NOT TO SCALE
,
0'0
0 /
0 0
/0
0 0
0 0
(ROAD LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE
I
i
I I
9
'3 -
4" .Q
%."" - \+ -- -
%k - -+-
h
-8s-
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH 8 GAME
Figure 5-17.
Talkeetna hatchery site plan.
ELEVATION
NTS
SECOND FLOOR
1/2#~= 1'- 0'I
FIRST FLOOR
1/2'#= 11-
.
-~;b-
t
10 x 40 RACEWAYS
L
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
SALMON ENHANCEMENT STUDY
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH 8 GAME
Figure 5-18.
Talkeetna hatchery layout.
I
LAV.
LAV.
UTILITIES
8
WTRY
KITCHEN
- -
b
G z
W -
DINING 8 LIVING ROOM
1111-111
2
GARAGE
-SHOP
LAB
OFFICE
C-
5
Y
J
a
W
0 z
2
I. w
3
8
I-
0 a
W x -
*
MECHANICAL
8
PUMP ROOM
STORAGE
of Go1 d Creek, sockeyes wi 1 1 be blocked by the Devi 1 Canyon vel oci ty
barrier and most will subsequently stray into the largest nearby
tributaries, viz. Indian River and Portage Creek. The sockeye
eggs would then be collected at the same weirs used for the
chinook, coho and chum eggs.
3) Frylfingerling planting operation. Initial stocking of the enhancement
area would be from fry/fi ngerlings taken from the Anchorage and the
Gul kana Hi ver faci 1 i ties. As the Talkeetna hatchery becomes operational,
the incubation and planting operations would be transferred to
Talkeetna until the entire enhancement program was carried out from
Talkeetna. The planti ng operati on would consist of truck transport
to Lake Louise and helicopter transport from Lake Louise to pre-selected
release points in that area. These operations would be conducted by
rented truck, chartered helicopter and support of the hatchery's
seasonal crew.
Cost estimates for the hatchery features just described, viz. (1) hatchery
C.1.P costs, (2) weir C.1.P costs and (3) operational costs for the fry/
fingerlings planting operation are listed in Tables 5-10, 5-8, and 5-9,
respecti vely.
0 0 0
0 0 0
h 0 0
nnn
0 0 *
WWO w m N www
nnnn
OrnooLo NbN-il
. I I I
1 I I
I I I
O~W0000000 1 In K7 000 1 0 00000 I
0- OOU70000 1 h W3 000 1 0 00000 I
?OmOd 1 %?,% ?, N 0-0 LO, 0- !
n
L- O mm n I
7 d Od hOLn I OWU) I 0 LDONU) I
7 7 W 7 I ~mm 1 ~n hN N I
I I I- I
L. C,
mum
\ 5V)C m a- aJ r E7W
.r OaJLcn
L osvr a V) .C w "- C, - mo- V)
U COOaJ
.r-mC,
1-0
5
C, L ..
=I a3 0
Ga L
m on
Ll- a*#-
V) Wd V) 3 L E\C r
owm raw
>- w
I- LL)
5.3 Biological Impact of Introduced Salmon on Resident Fish
Resident fishes of the upper Susitna River drainage are listed in Table
5-1 1.
Table 5-11. Resident fishes of the upper Susitna River drainage.l/ -
Arctic grayling
Lake trout
Dolly Varden char
Humpback whitefish
Round whitefish
Burbot
Longnose sucker
Slimy sculpin
Arctic lamprey
9 From Alaska Department of Fish and Game (19819 and 1982a).
Adult and juvenile salmon will affect and be affected by resident fish.
Adult sockeye salmon that spawn in lakes may affect the eggs of lake
trout, The spawning dates of potential sockeye stocks for the upper
Susitna River, namely lower Susitna River (Barrett 1974) or Gulkana River
fish do overlap with those of Alaskan lake trout, namely late August
and September (Morrow 1980; VanWhye and Peck 1968).
The spawning depths of sockeye salmon and lake trout overlap with the
lake trout having the greater range of 1 to more than 300 ft deep
(Carlander 1969; Scott and Crossman 1973).
Unlike sockeye salmon, lake trout do not dig redds and generally spawn in
areas that lack upwelling water flow. For example, lake trout frequently
spawn on boulders and rubble and also on gravel, silt, mud, clay and marl
lake bottom ( Carlander 1969; Scott and Crossman 1973). Though little
i nteract ion between sockeyes and lake trout adults is expected, sockeye
adults could dig up the eggs of lake trout that spawn on lake gravel with
upwelling water flow. In very rare instances, lake trout spawn in streams
(Scott and Crossman 1973) in which case sockeye and other salmon species
could dig up trout eggs. Uncovered trout eggs could then be eaten by the
resident burbot, longnose sucker, round whitefish, and even lake trout
(Scott and Crossrnan 1973; Morrow 1980).
Adult salmon may affect the eggs of Dolly Varden char. The spawning dates
of potential chum, coho, and sockeye stocks for the upper Susitna River
do overlap with those of Alaskan Dolly Varden, namely late August and
September (Morrow 1980). These salmon species could spawn on previously-
constructed Do1 ly Varden redds. Since these salmon general ly dig deeper
redds than those of Dolly Varden (Blackett 1968; Morrow 1980), Dolly
Varden eggs would be di sl odged and could be eaten by resident burbot,
1 ongnose sucker, and round whitefish (Morrow 1980; Scott and Crossrnan
1973). The opposite situation could occur when late spawning Dolly
Varden might dislodge salmon eggs during their own redd digging activities.
Juvenile salmon will, depending on individual size, compete for the same
food items as resident fish and also prey upon resident fish., Sockeye
fry and fingerlings compete for food (zooplankton) most frequen,tly with
threespine stickleback and even whitefish and char (Foerster 1968).
Sockeye competition with other resident fish is unknown.
Chinook and coho salmon will probably compete with resident fish for food
and space. Of all the resident fish species, arctic grayling will be
primarily affected by these salmon. Chinook and coho salmon frequently
reside in the slower-moving areas of streams, i.e., sloughs, undercut
streambanks, back eddies, and pools (Morrow 1980; A1 bin 1977; Scott and
Crossman 1973). Grayling also reside in pools and defend territories as
do coho salmon (Morrow 1980; Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1982a;
Warren 1971). Unlike coho and chinook salmon, grayling wil 1 sometimes
inhabit riffle areas of streams (A1 bin 1977). Salmon and grayling eat
primarily insects. Coho salmon, probably the major salmon competitor for
space, will probably be the major competitor for food with grayling since
both of these fish feed on insects prirnarily at the surface of the water
or at mid-depth (Morrow 1980; Scott and Crossman 1973). Chinook salmon
wi 11 also compete for food and wi 11 eat insects at any depth in the
stream. competition between salmon and other resident fish species will
probably be for food more than for space. Unlike coho and chinook salmon,
burbot and Dolly Varden inhabit the stream bottom and whitefish reside in
riffles (Albin 1977; Morrow 1980). Some competition for food will occur,
since most juvenile resident fish species eat insects.
Chum salmon compete less for food and space than the other salmon. Shortly
after emeryi ng from the gravel, the churn fry begin swimmi ng downstream
to salt water. The fry do feed on zooplankton and small insects while
in freshwater but are so small in size and reside for such a short time
in freshwater that they are not serious competitors for food with the
resident fish. Chuin fry will also inhabit the main stem of the Susitna
River during spring and early summer and therefore will not compete
for space with resident fish, which will at this time of year reside in
tributaries (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1981f; Riis and
Friese 1978).
The salmon that will prey on resident fish are coho and chinook salmon.
Sockeye and chum salmon primarily eat zooplankton and some insects.
Fingerling coho and chinook salmon prirnarily eat insects, but, if
given the opportunity will consume resident fish eggs that drift downstream
during or after spawning. Juvenile chinook salmon do not appear to consume
fish but coho smolts definitely do (Morrow 1980). Coho smolts are significant
predators of juvenile sockeye salmon (Morrow 1980) and do prey on stickleback
(Parr 1972). Evidence for predation by coho smolts on other resident
fish was not found, but surely coho smolts wil 1 consume the fry of resident
fish if given the opportunity.
Predator-prey relationships are a "two-way street" and introduced salmon
wi 11 be eaten by resident fish. Grayli ng wi 11 on occasion consume sockeye
salmon eggs and fry (Wil liams 1969). The lake whitefish, closely related
to the humpback whitefish, consume sockeye fry (VanWhye and Peck 1968)
and the round whitefish, which consumes lake trout and whitefish eggs
(Morrow 1980; Scott and Crossman 1973), will probably consume salmon eggs if
given the opportunity. Other known predators of sockeye fry are lake
trout (Van'rlhye and Peck 1968), burbot (Roberson, Bird and Fridgen 1978),
and Do1 ly Varden (Hartinan and Burgner 1972). Dolly Varden consume sockeye
from egg through smolt life stages (Meacham and Clark 1979; Foerster
1968) and are known predators of coho salmon (Crone 1981 and Parr 1972),
and chum fry (Hunter 1959). Longnose suckers are known to eat salmonid
eggs, gi ven the opportunity (Morrow 1980).
In summation, salmon will impact the resident fish. Competition for food
and space, and predator-prey relationships wi 11 be complex with salmon
affecting other salmon species as well as resident fish, and resident
fish affecting other resident fish as we1 1 as salmon.
Introduced salmon may actual ly benefit certain resident fish species by
acting as "buffer prey", a term mentioned in Hartman and Burgner (1972).
For example, salmon are preyed on by Dolly Varden and lake trout which
frequently prey on stickleback and whitefish, respectively. The extent
of predation on these latter two prey species would therefore be reduced,
which could a1 low their nuinbers to increase. By salmon acting as "buffer
prey", any reduction in resident fish due to competition or predation by
salmon may be balanced.
6. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
6.1 Vertical Sl ot Fi shway Enhancement Program
The purpose of constructing a fishway at a velocity barrier such as
occurs in Devil Canyon is to make available additional spawning. and
rearing areas in the stream above the barrier. Earlier sections gave
consideration to such physical factors as:
1) Accessiblity of the barrier: The method of accessibility (plane,
boat, road) of personnel to the site for construction, maintenance,
and operati ng purposes.
2) Stream hydrology: Maxi mum, mean, and mi nimum di scharges.
3) Terrain topography: Stream gradient.
4) Foundation material : Geotechnical investigations for
determi ni ng the type of construction needed.
5) Characteristics of barrier: Height and length of the barrier.
Vertical barrier, velocity barrier, or combination of both.
6) Spawning area: The area available for the spawning and rearing of
chinook, coho, chum and sockeye salmon.
This section will consider the fiscal factors that determine if the
tunnel-vertical slot fishway described in Section 5.2.3.5 is economically
practical .
6.1.1 Benefi t/Cost Ratio
There are several financi a1 methods for determining the acceptable cost
of a project. This study will use the benefit/cost (B/C) method because
it is a procedure that is familiar to most people.
The reader should be aware that B/C ratio analysis is not an exact
science and that limitations exist in this method of fiscal
evaluation. In this study the writers have used estimated figures for
project costs, maintenance costs, project li fey fish yields, and the
interest rate of financi ng.
The variable factors listed in the previous paragraph were estimated
~vith the best information available, but still they are only estimates.
If actual costs are less than estimated costs, the B/C ratio will be
increased, and, of course, if the benefits are less than estimated the
B/C ratio wil 1 be reduced. Variables that are not included in this
cost evaluation are the unknowns of nature such as unusually cold
weather, extreme flow conditions during floods and drought, and the
influence of future fishing regulations, all of which can affect the
anticipated salmon harvest.
6.1.2 Economic Factors, Assumptions, and Cal culations
A) Susitna River salmon
1) Average weight of salmon in Cook Inlet
a) Chinook - sport 181 = 20.5 lb
c omme rxa 1 - 191 = 16.7 lb
b) Coho - sport and commercial - 191 = 6.1 lb
c) Sockeye - commercial - 191 = 6.5 lb
d) Chum - commerci a1 - 191 = 7.7 lb
2) 1982 average value to fishermen i n Cook Inlet
a) Chinook - sport 201 = $120.00/fi sh
commer~al c/ = $25.00/fish
b) Coho - sport 201 = $38.00/fish
commer~al - 201 = $5.50/fish
c) Sockeye - commercial - 201 = $7.30/fish
d) Chum - commercial - 201 = $4.90/fish
B) Potential return to system
1) Chinook - 3,000 fish
2) Coho - 5,100 fish
3) Sockeye - 160,000 fish
4) Churn - 9,700 fish
Total = 177,800 fish
181 From Mr. Kevin Delaney, pers, comm., November 22, 1982, ADFAG Fishery -
Bi 01 oyi st I I I, Anchorage.
191 From Mr. Jim Browning, pers. comm., November 19, 1982. -
201 Frorn Mr. Jeff Hartman, pers. comm., November 18, 1982, ADFAG Fish - Culturist IV, Anchorage.
211 From Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc. (1982). -
C) Potential harvest in the up er Susitna River due to fishway instal lation
(See biocri teri a, Table 6-17
1) Chinook = 800 fish
2) Coho = 660 fish
3) Sockeye = 53,300 fish
4) Chum = 2,600 fish
Tot a1 = 57,360 fish
O) Value of harvest
1) 1982 value of salmon
a) Chinook - 780 sport + 20 commercial= $94,000
b) Coho - 290 sport + 370 commercial= $13,000
c) Sockeye - 53,300 comme rci a1 = $390,000
d) Chum - 2,600 cornmerci al= $1 3,000
Total = $510,000
Table 6-1. Biocriteria 1/ for determining the harvestable surplus of salmon
adults with The fi shway enhancement program at Devil Canyon
and Devil Creek areas.
Chinook Coho Sockeye Chum
sa 1 mon sal mon salmon salmon
Srnolt to adult survival 3% 10% 10% 1 %
Egg to smolt survival 1.4% 1 % 1% 12.5%
Fecundi ty (no. eggslfemal e) 6,500 2,300 3,000 2,200
Egg retenti on 0% 0% 0% 0%
Male: female 1:l 1: 1 1: 1 1: 1
Recrui tment : spawner 1.4 1.2 1.5 1.4
Brood survival in fresh water - > 90% - > 90% - > 90% > 90% -
11 From data listed in Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1982b), Crone -
and Bond (1976), Drucker (19721, Foerster (1968) and Hunter (1959).
2) Assume the salmon harvest (a1 1 species) will occur as follows:
1st - 4th year------- 0% = 0 fish
5th year------------ 50% = 28,700 fish
6th year------------ 60% = 34,400 fish
7th year------------ 70% = 40,200 fish
8th year------------ 80% = 45,900 fish
9th year------------ 90% = 51,600fish
10th-40th year----- 100% = 57,400 fish
3) Future annual value of harvest
1st-4th-year 1982 - 1986 = $0
5th year ----------- 1987 = $ 255,000
6th year ----------- 1988 = $ 306,000
7th year ----------- 1989 = $ 357,000
8th year -----------I990 = $ 408,000
9th year ----------- 1991 = $ 459,000
10th-40th year 1992-2022 = $ 510,000
E) Assumptions concerning fi shway costs
1) Fishways (Devil Canyon and Devil Creek)
a) Tunnel life of 40 years - initial tunnels cost $30,215,000
b) Replace vertical slot baffles at year 20 - $2,000,000
c) Yearly opening/closing costs of fishway - $5,000
d) Significant maintenance: Year 10 - $25,000 year 30 - $25,000
2) Two weirs/camp facility
a) Camp/weirs used for 5 years - initial weir cost $700,000
b. Wei r operations for 5 years at $25,00O/year
3) Stocki ng operational costs - $25,00O/year
4) Donor stock losses
The use of donor adult salmon for hatchery-production of finger-
lings for 5 years is a cost item. Once the adults are removed
from their native watersheds, no wild progeny are produced
from these adults for future harvests. Of course, the donor
adult salmon wi 1 1 produce more progeny via hatchery production
than if left in their native streams. These benefits are
shown on page 95.
In the calculation of donor stock losses, average values to fisher-
men in Cook Inlet are used as in A)2) on page 94. This assumes
that a1 1 donor stocks, even sockeyes, come from the Susitna
River drainage. This assumption gives a slightly higher value
for sockeyes si nce Copper Ri ve r (Gul kana Ri ver) sockeyes are
valued at less ($6.57/fish) 221 than the Cook Inlet sockeyes.
Donor stock costs are a follows:
a) Chinook - 81 sport t 2 commercial = $ 9,77O/year x 5 years = $ 48,850
b) Coho - 21 sport t 27 commercial = $ 947/year x 5 years = $ 4,735
c) Sockeye - 3,835 commerci a1 = $28,00O/year x 5 years = $140,000
d)Chum - 120 commercial = $ 558lyear x 5 years = $ 2,940
Totals = $39,305/year = $196,525/5 yea rs
5) Cost of capital: i*
a) Nominal rate = 13%.
b) Real rate = 3%.
c) Future benefits & costs have been adjusted to 1982 (base
economic year) with a real (di scount ) rate of 3%.
d) The real interest rate is equivalent to the real interest
paid on current AA corporate bonds of the same maturity
as the minimum life of the permanent fishway structures.
e) Real interest rate: the interest (i) used in calculating
present value. In the case of a single future amount
corning in n years the present worth factor (PWF) is:
(lti )-n.
22/ From Mr. Richard Randal 1, pers. comm. , June 2, 1983, ADF&G Fi shery -
Biologist 111.
f) Present worth value: the amount which a person would be
willing to pay today to obtain the right to a certain
arnount or series of amounts in the future as estimated
through use of a discount rate.
The benefit of the fishway enhancement program is calculated in Table
6-2 and the cost is calculated in Table 6-3.
Table 6-2 Fishway enhancement benefit calculations for a1 1 salmon species.
Year Benefit x PWF - - PW Benefit
3% 1982
Total benefit at 1982 value = $9,257,800
- 99-
Table 6-3. Fi shway enhancement combined cost calculations.
Year Cost x PW F - - PW Cost
3 % 1982
Total cost at 1982 value = $32,573,325
Benef i t/Cost ratio:
B = Total benefit from Table 6-2
C = Total cost from Table 6-3
6.1.3 Sensitivity Analysis
The sensitivity of the benefitlcost calculations shown depends on the
uncertai nty of:
1) Estimated construction costs
2) Estimated mai ntenance costs
3) Salmon survival rates (egg to fry to adult)
4) Estimated future salmon catches
5) Estimated value of salmon catches
6) The cost of capital (i )
The following explanation of figures used (both expenses & benefits) is
numbered to correspond with the six i ndetermi nates 1 i sted above.
1) The estimated construction costs are based on ADF&Gts experience in
constructing similar type fishways at Anan Creek and at Russian River
and therefore the estimates are thought to be reliable.
2) The maintenance and operations costs are based on ADF&G experience
gained from similar fishways at Anan Creek and at Russian River.
However, the reader can readily observe from Table 6-3 that the
maintenance and operations costs are insignificant when compared
to the initial C.I.P. costs. The maintenance and operations
costs could be trebled or deleted altogether and not significantly
alter the B/C ratio. Figure 6-1 shows a cash flow comparison of
benefits vs. costs.
3) The survival rates are based on standards accepted by and used by
the Fisheries Rehabi li tation and Enhancement Division of the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. These values are the standards used
in the State of Alaska.
4) The estimated future salmon catches are based upon the survival
rates descri bed in sensi t i vi ty analysi s number 3. The survival
rates and catch estimates are available from Dr. Bernard KepshireGl
231 AUF&G Pri nci pal Fish Culturi st, Juneau. -
5) The 1982 Cook Inlet salmon catch and prices are as recorded by the
Commercial Fisheries and Sport Fish Divisions. To avoid the uncer-
tainties of future inflation all benefits and costs have been
computed based on 1982 prices.
6) The three percent cost of capital was obtained from Mr. Jeff Hartman 201.
In the way of a comparison, the fishway B/C ratio was computed on
the basis of a real interest rate of 10%. In the i=10% calculations,
the B/C ratio computed to be 0.1:l. The 0.1:l B/C ratio indicates
an even more economically unsatisfactory project.
6.2 Hatchery Enhancement Program
This section develops the economic analysis for constructing and
operating a hatchery enhancement program such as di scussed in sect ion
5.2.4. In the case of the upper Susitna River drainage basin where
miles of spawning streams and acres of lake rearing go barren because
there are no spawners, a hatchery-induced enhancement program may be
desirable. With the existing natural rearing areas available, the
"hatchery facility" would be limited to an "incubation facility" wherein
hatchery fry would receive limited rearing, just enough to start them
feedi ng and to await optimum release conditions. The resultant frylfi nger-
li ngs would then be transported to the upper Susitna River drainage
basin for release and natural rearing.
The hatcheryli ncubation faci 1 i ty needed for the enhancement program
described would consist of the fol 1 owi ng major features.
1) An incubation facility constructed in the Talkeetna area. 1982
C.I.P. cost of $3,400,000 with annual operating costs of $250,000
per year.
2) An egg take camp at Gold Creek with adult capture weirs at Indian
River and Portage Creek. C.I.P. cost of $700,000 plus $25,000 per
year operational costs.
3) Fry/fi ngerli ng planting operations. Initial ly the planting operations
will be from PaxsonIAnchorage to the upper Susitna River but will
eventual ly ope rate between Tal keetna and the upper Susi tna Ri ve r
drainage (Lake Louise area). The fry/fi ngerli ng planting operational
costs are expected to be approximately $25,000 per year.
6.2.1 Benefit/Cost Ratio
The same type of B/C analysis as used for the vertical slot fi shway
tunnel (Section 6.1 ) is used for the hatchery enhancement analysis.
6.2.2 Economic Factors, Assumptions, and Calculations
A) Susitna River salmon
1) Average wei yht of salmon in Cook Inlet
a) Chinook - sport 181
commerTa1 - 191
b) Coho - sport and commercial - 191
c) Sockeye - commercial g/
d) Chum - commercial g/
2) 1982 average price paid to fishermen in Cook Inlet
a) Chinook - sport 20/ = $120.00/fish
commerTal 20/ = 825,00/fish -
b) Coho - sport 20/ = $38.00/f i s h
commerTa1 20/ = $5.50/fish -
c) Sockeye - commercial - 20/ = $7.30/fish
d) Chum -commercial - 20/= $4.90/fish
B) Potential return to system
1) Chinook = 3,000 fish
2) Coho = 5,100 fish
3) Sockeye = 160,000 fish
4) Chum = 9,700 fish
Total = 177,800fish
C) Potential harvest in the upper Susitna River.
(See bi ocri teri a, Table 6-4)
1) Chinook = 2,800 fish
2) Coho = 4,740 fish
3) Sockeye = 152,000 fish
4) Chum = 9,260 fish
Total = 168,800 fish
D) Value of harvest
1) 1982 value of salmon
a) Chinook - 2,730 sport + 70 commercial = $329,000
b) Coho - 2,100 sport + 2,640 commercial = $94,000
c) Sockeye -
d) Chum -
152,000 commercial = $1,110,000
9,260 commercial = $45,000
Total = $1,578,000
2) Assume the salmon harvest (a1 1 species) will occur as follows:
1st - 4th year----------- 0% = 0 fish
5th year---------------- 50% = 84,400 fish
6th year---------------- 60% = 101,280 fish
7th year---------------- 70% = 118,160 fish
8th year----------------80% = 135,040 fish
9th year---------------- 90% = 151,920 fish
10th - 40th year------- 100% = 168,800 fish
3) Future annual value of harvest
1st-4th year----- 1982 - 1986 = $0
5th year--------------- 1987 = $ 789,000
6th year--------------- 1988 = $946,800
7th year--------------- 1989 = $ 1,104,600
8th year--------------- 1990 = $ 1,262,400
9th year--------------- 1991 = $ 1,420,200
10th - 40th year-1992 - 2002 = $ 1,578,000
Table 6-4. Biocriteria I/ for determining the harvestable surplus of
salmon adults with the hatchery enhancement program at
Devil Canyon and Devil Creek areas.
Chinook Coho Sockeye Chum
Salmon Salmon Salmon Salmon
Smolt to adult survival 3% 10% 10% 0.7%
Egg to smolt survival 15% 15% 15% 85.5%
Fecundi ty (no. eggs/femal e) 6,500 2,300 3,000 2,200
Egg retenti on 0% 0% 0% 0%
Male: female 1:l 1: 1 1: 1 1: 1
Recruitment: spawner 20.5 17.3 22.5 20.6
Brood survival in freshwater - > 90% > - 90% > - 90% > - 90%
I/ Based on or from data listed in Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1982b), -
Crone and Bond (1976), Drucker (1972), Foerster (1968), and Hunter (1959).
E) Assumptions concerning hatchery costs
1) Hatchery life of 40 years - initial hatchery cost $3,400,000.
2) ~atcher~ reconstruction at year 20 - $2,000,000.
3) Hatchery operation costs - $250,00O/year.
4) Donor stock losses
The use of donor adult salmon for hatchery-production of fingerlings for
5 years is a cost item. Once the adults are removed from their native
watersheds, no wild progeny are produced from these adults for future
harvests. Of course, the donor adult salmon will produce more progeny
via hatchery production than if left in their native streams. These
benefits are shown on page 105.
In the calculation of donor stock losses, average values to fishermen
in Cook Inlet are used as in A)2) on page 105. This assumes that all
donor stocks, even sockeyes, come from the Susitna River drainage.
This assumption gives a slightly higher value for sockeyes since Copper
River ((iulkana River) sockeyes are valued at less ($6.57/fish) E/ than
the Cook Inlet sockeyes. Donor stock costs are as follows:
a) Chinook - 81 sport + 2 commercial = $ 9,77O/year x 5 years = $ 48,850
b) Coho - 21 sport + 27 commercial = $ 947lyear x 5 years = $ 4,735
c) Sockeye - 3,835 commercial = $28,00O/year x 5 years = $140,000
d) Chum - 120 com~nerical = $ 558lyear x 5 years = $ 2,940
Totals = $39,305/year = 196,525/5 years
5) 2 wei rs/camp - initial weir cost $700,000.
6) Replace weirs/camp at 20 years - $700,000.
7) Wei r operati ng costs - $25,000/year.
8) Planting operating costs - $25,00O/year.
9) Cost of capital: i*
a) Nominal rate = 13%.
b) Real rate = 3%.
C) Future benefits Pi costs have been adjusted to 1982 (base
economic year) with a real (discount) rate of 3%.
d) The real interest rate is equivalent to the real interest
paid on current AA corporate bonds of the same maturity
as the minimum life of the permanent hatchery structures.
e) Real interest rate: the interest (i) used in calculating
present value. In the case of a single future amount
coming in n years the present worth factor (PWF) is:
(l+i )-n.
f) Present worth value: the amount which a person would be
wi 1 li ng to pay today to obtain the right to a certain
amount or series of amounts in the future as estimated
through use of a discount rate.
The benefit of the hatchery enhancement program i s cal culated in
Table 6-5 and the cost is calculated in Table 6-6.
Table 6-5. Hatchery enhancement benefit calculations for a1 1 salmon species.
Year Benefit x PWF - - PW Benef i t
3% 1982
Total benefit at 1982 value = $28,644,000
Table 6-6. Hatchery enhancement combi ned cost cal culations.
Year Cost x PW F - PW Cost -
3% 1982
Total cost at 1982 value = $12,715,400
Benefit/Cost ratio:
B $28,644,000 B = Total benefit from Table 6-5
- - - = 2.25:l
C $12,715,400 C = Total cost from Table 6-6
6.2.3 Sensitivity Analysis
The sensitivity of the benefit/cost calculations shown depends on the
uncertainty of:
1 ) Estimated construction costs
2) Estimated operations costs
3) Salmon survival rates (egg to fry to adult)
4) Estimated future salmon catches
5) Estimated value of salmon catches
6) The cost of capital (i)
The following explanation of figures used (both expenses & benefits) is numbered
to correspond with the six i ndetermi nates listed above.
1) The estimated construction costs are based on ADF&G1s experience
in constructi ng numerous hatcheries and hatchery support facilities
over the past several years. These estimates are considered to be
re1 i able.
2) The maintenance and operations costs are based on FRED'S experience
gained from operating numerous hatcheries during the past several
years. These estimates are considered to be reliable. Figure 6-2
shows a cash flow comparison of benefits vs. costs.
3) The survival rates are based on standards accepted by and used by
the Fisheries Rehabi li tati on and Enhancement Division of the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game. These values are the standards
used in the State of Alaska.
4) The estimated future salmon catches are based on the survival
rates described in sensi t i vi ty analysis number 3. The survival
rates and catch estimates are available from Dr. Bernard Kepshi re23/. -
5) The 1982 Cook Inlet salmon catch and prices are as recorded by the
Commercial Fisheries and the Sport Fish Divisions. To avoid the
uncertainties of future i nflation a1 1 benefits and costs have been
computed based on 1982 prices.
6) The three percent cost of capital was obtained from Jeff ~artmanc/.
In the way of compari son the hatchery B/C ratio was computed
on the basis of a real interest rate of 10%. In the i=10%
calculations the B/C ratio computed to be 1.23:l. Even at the
higher interest rate, with the reduced B/C ratio, the hatchery
salmon enhancement project appears to be viable.
7.1 Salmon Enhancement Without Hydroel ect ric Dams
The findings in section 5.2.3 indicate that salmon enhancement of the upper
Susitna River is technically feasible via the use of vertical slot fishways
to pass adult salmon to unused spawning grounds. However, the economic
analysis of the vertical slot fishway program, as discussed in section
6.1, indicates that such a project is not economically sound. The exceed-
ingly high construction costs, when compared to the relatively low benefits,
produce a B/C ratio of only 0.28 to 1. Because of the low B/C ratio, the
study team cannot recommend the construction of fi shways as a method for
sal non enhancement.
The findings in section 5.2,4 indicate that salmon enhancement of the
upper Susi tna River is technically feasible via a frylfi ngerli ng stocking
progrdm conducted from a hatchery located in the Talkeetna area. The
economic analysis of the hatchery program, as discussed in section 6.2,
indicates that such a project is also economically sound. The resultant
B/C ratio of 2.25 to 1 compares favorably with many of the hatchery oper-
ations now being conducted in Alaska. The study team recommends that if
a salmon enhancement project is to be conducted in the upper Susitna
River drdinage basin, then the project should be a hatchery stocking
program of the nature described in section 5.2.4. This recommendation
is valid based on the information available at this time. However, it
would be prudent to field verify some of the assumptions made prior to
entering i nto a 40 year multi-mi 1 lion do1 lar enhancement project.
The hatchery program produces more harvestable salmon than the fishway
program (Table 7-1). This occurs because a hatchery allows for a much
greater egg-to-released-juveni le survi val and therefore a 1 ower brood-
stock requi rement than the fishway program, which depends solely on
natural production (compare Table 6-4 with Table 6-1). The hatchery
program produces a harvestable potential of 95% of the run compared to
the fishway program potential of 32%. The high harvest potential of the
hatchery program provides a chal lenge for fisheries managers in Cook
Inlet. This report does not intend to tell fisheries managers how to
manage for this high harvest or even for the low fishway program harvest.
A hypothetical harvest strategy that fisheries managers might consider is
a terminal harvest zone in the Susitna River between the rail road bridge
(near Gold Creek gauging station) and Devil Canyon for fishwheels and
perhaps gi 11 nets. Hatchery-produced salmon could perhaps be separated
from wild salmon on the basis of run timing or other stock separation
techniques, with subsequent harvest either in Cook In1 et or the Susi tna
River harvest zone or both, The main point in this discussion is that
prior to implementing any salmon enhancement program in the upper Susitna
Ki ver, fisheries managers must provide harvest strategy expertise. The
exploitation rate that can be realized without disrupting the balance
of the mixed stock fisheries in Cook Inlet must be more precisely known.
Table 7-1. The annual harvestable salmon available with hatchery and
fi shway enhancement programs after year 10.
Harvestabl e salmon
Sa 1 mon
Salmon enhancement Percent Value at
species program Number of run 1982 prices
Sockeye hatchery 152,000 95 $1,110,000
f i s hway 53,300 33 390,000
Chi nook hatchery 2,800 93 329,000
fishway 800 2 7 94,000
Coho hatchery 4,740 93 94,000
fishway 660 13 13,000
Chum hatchery 9,260 96
fishway 2,600 2 7
Total hatchery 168,800
combi ned fi shway 57,360
s pe ci es
The economic benefi t/cost ratios presented herein are based solely on
exploitation of single stocks and do not take into account what the
exploitation of these stocks should or must be in the context of mixed
stocks. For example, if after careful and imaginitive review by fisheries
managers, it turns out that the hatchery program produces a run that can
be exploited only at 60% rdther than 95%, then the benefit/cost for the
hatchery program would be 1.42:l. However, it is extremely unlikely that
a viable use couldn't De found for those fish in excess of the 60% harvest
in Cook Inlet and the 5% needed as hatchery brood stock.
7.2 Salmon Enhancement With Hydroelectric Dams
Fifty years of monitoring salmon migrations in the Columbia and the Snake
Rivers of Washington, Oregon and Idaho have shown that adult salmon will
ascend fishways bypassing hydroelectric dams. In bypassing dams such as
Bonnevil le (65 ft high), The Dal les (88 ft), John Day (132 ft), McNary
t 100 ft), Ice Harbor (100 ft), Lower Monumental (93 ft), Little Goose
100 ft), Lower Grdnite (82 ft) and others, some salmon ascend over 800
feet in a river stretch of about 500 miles. The same observations show,
however, that the mortdlities to the mi grating salmon, both the adult and
the juvenile downstream migrants, is significant as dicussed in section 5.1.2.
The numerous statistics quoted for the mortality of the migrants are
quite varied but the bottom line consensus is that the present Columbia
River salmon run is significantly less than it was in the "pre-dam"
days and the data indicates that the dams have been a major factor in
the decline of the salmon runs.
Although the proposed Susitna dams may not be di rectly comparable to the
dams on the Columbia River, it is the study team's belief that the
construction of the Devi 1 Canyon and the Watana dams will essential ly
eliminate any salmon enhancement potential in the Upper Susitna River
drainage basin. The problems, and associated costs, of passing
salmon, both upstream and downstream, over a height of 1,500 ft in a
run of only 26 miles will far outweigh the limited benefits that could be
achi eved frorn any sal ~non enhancement program. As menti oned i n section
5.1.2 the study team feels that if the Susitna dams are constructed then
thought should be given to a troutlgrayling enhancement project in lieu
of a salmon enhancement project.
8. References
Alaska Departrnent of Fish and Game. 1981a. Adult anadromous phase 1
final draft report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Su Hydro
Aquatic Studies Program. Anchorage, Alaska.
. 1981b. Adult anadromous phase 1 final draft stock separation
feasibility report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Su Hydro
Aquatic Studies Program. Anchorage, Alaska.
. 1981c. Aquatic habitat and instream flow phase 1 final draft
report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Su Hydro Aquatic Studies
Program. Anchorage, Alaska.
- . 1981d. Resident fish investigation on the lower Susitna River phase
1 final draft report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Su Hydro
Aquatic Studies Program. Anchorage, Alaska.
. 1981e. Resident fish investigation on the upper Susitna River
phase 1 final draft report.
. 1982a. Aquatic studies program phase 1 final draft report.
Alaska Departrnent of Fish and Game Su Hydro Aquatic Studies Program.
Anchorage, Alaska.
. 1982b. Standard assumptions on salmonid survi vals (unmarked
fish) and fecundities. Directive 3, Chapter 4 in organization
management manual for the Division of Fisheries Rehabilitation,
Enhancement and Devel opment (FRED), 1978.
Albin, D.P. 1977. The fisheries and fish habitat of the Gulkana River,
Alaska. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education
(W.I.C.H.E.) Report. Boulder, Colorado. 57 pp.
A1 lin, R.W. 1957. Preliminary lake survey of Lake Louise and Little Lake
Louise. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Quarterly Report of
Progress, 1957. Project F-1-R-6. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game. 6(4): 1-39.
Andrews, R.E. 1961. Creel census of the sport fishes in Lake Louise,
Cook Inlet drainage. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual
Report of Progress, 1961. Project F-5-R-3, Job 10-D-1. Alaska
Departrnent of Fish and Game 3: 201-206.
Armstrong, R.H. 1970. Age, food, and migration of Dolly Varden smolts in
southeastern Alaska. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
Canada 27 (6) : 991 -1 004.
Barrett, B.M. 1974. An assessment study of the anadromous fish populations
in the upper Susitna River watershed between Devil Canyon and the
Chul i tna Ri ver. Cook Inlet Data Report. 74-2. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. 56 pp.
Be1 1, Mi 1 o C. 1973. Fi sheri es handbook of engi neeri ng requi rements and
biological criteria. Fisheries engineering research program. U.S.
Army Corps of Engi neers, North Pacific Division. Portland, Oregon.
Blackett, R.F. 1968. Spawni ng behavior, fecundity and early 1 i fe hi story
of anadromous Do1 ly Varden in southeastern Alaska. Alaska Department
of Fish and Garne Research Report 6. 85 pp.
Bouck, G.R., A.V. Nebeker and DOG. Stevens. 1976. Mortality, saltwater
adaptation and reproduction of fish during gas supersaturation. EPA
600/3-76-050. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corval lis,
Oregon. 54 pp.
Burns, J.W. 1971. The carrying capacity for juvenile salmonids in some
northern Cali fornia streams. Cali fornia Department of Fish and Game
57 (1 ) : 44-5 7.
Carlander, K.D. 1969. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology. Volume 1.
The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. 752 pp.
Chapman, D.W. 1965. Net production of juvenile coho salmon in three
Oregon streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
94 (1) : 40-52.
Crone, R.A. 1981. Potential for production of coho salmon Oncorh nchus
kisutch in lakes with outlet barrier falls, southeastern -?- A aska.
Dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. 388 pp.
Crone, R.A. and C.E. Bond. 1976. Life history of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus
kisutch in Sashin Creek southeastern Alaska. Fishery Bulletin
74 (4): 897-923.
Uawley, E.M. and W.J. Ebel. 1975. Effects of various concentrations of
dissolved atmospheric gas on juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead
trout. Fishery Bul letin 73(4) 787-796.
Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc. 1982. Alaska salmon projected
1982 market condi tions. Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Dev-
el oprnent, Office of Commerci a1 Fisheries Devel opment.
Drucker, B, 1972. Some life history characteristics of coho salmon of
the Karluk River system, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Fishery Bulletin
70(1 ): 79-94.
Dudi ak, N.C., D.C. Whitrnore and J.W. Testa. 1979. Coho enhancement on
the Kenai Peninsula. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Completion
Report, 1976-1 978. Project AFS-45-1. A1 aska Department of Fi sh
and Game. 20: 1-51.
Ebel, W.J. 1969, Supersaturation of nitrogen in the Columbia River and
its effect on salmon and steelhead trout. Fishery Bulletin 68(1):
1-11.
Ebel, W.J. E.M. Dawley and B.H. Monk. 1971. Thermal tolerance of juvenile
Pacific salmon and steelhead trout in relation to supersaturation of
nitrogen gas. Fishery Bul letin 69(4): 833-843.
Engel, L.J. 1968. Inventory and cataloging of the sport fish and waters in
the Kenai, Cook Inlet-Prince William Sound areas. Annual Report of
Progress, 1967-1968. Project F-5-R-9, Job 7-A. Alaska ~epartment
of Fish and Game. 9: 95-116.
Foerster, R.E. 1968. The sockeye salmon, Oncorh nchus nerka. Fisheries
Research Board of Canada Bulletin 166 -
Franscisco, K. and W.B. Dinneford. 1977. Third interim report of the
commerical fish-technical evaluation study: Salcha River. Joint
State/Federal Fish and Wil dli fe Advisory Team Special Report 17.
88 PP*
Friese, N.V. 1975. Preauthorization assessement of anadromous fish
populations of the upper Susitna River watershed in the vicinity of
the proposed Devi 1 Canyon hydroelectric project. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. 121 pp.
Goodlad, J.C., T.W. Gjernes and E.L. Brannon. 1974. Factors affecting
sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) growth in four lakes of the
Fraser River system. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
31 (5): 871-892.
Hartman, W.L. and R.L. Burgner. 1972. Limnology and fish ecology of
sockeye salmon nursery lakes of the world. Journal of the Fisheries
Research Board of Canada 29(6): 699-715.
Hayes, F.R. and E.H. Anthony. 1964. Productive capacity of North
American lakes as related to the quantity and the trophic level of
fish, the lake dimensions, and the water chemistry. Transactions
of the American Fisheries Society 93(1): 53-57.
Hunter, J.G. 1959. Survival and production of pink and chum salmon in a
coastal stream. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
16 (6): 835-886.
McNeil, W.J. and J.E. Bailey. 1975. Salmon rancher's manual. Northwest
Fisheries Center, National 14ari ne Fisheries Service, NOAA. Processed
Report. 95 pp.
Mason, J.C. 1976. Response of underyearli ng coho salmon to supplemental feedi ng
in a natural stream. Journal of Wildlife Management 40(4): 775-788.
I'leacharn, C.P. 1981. 1980 Bristol Bay sockeye salmon srnolt studies.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game Technical Data Report 63. 43 pp.
Meacham, C.P. and J .H. Clark. 1979. Management to increase anadromous
salmon production. R.H. Stroud and H. Clepper, eds. Predator-prey
systems in fisheries management; 1978 July 24-27; Atlanta, Georgia.
Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, D.C.: 377-386.
Meehan, W.R. and D.B. Siniff. 1962. A study of the downstream migrations
of anadromous fishes in the Taku River, Alaska. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society 91 (4): 399-407.
Morrow, J.E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest
Publi shing Company. Anchorage, Alaska. 248 pp.
Nebeker, A.V., K. Hauck and F.D. Baker. 1979. Temperature and oxygen-
nitrogen gas ratios affect fi sh survi val in ai r-supersaturated
water. Water Research 13: 299-303.
Nebeker, A.V., D.G. Stevens and R.K. Stroud. 1976. Effects of air-
supersaturated water on adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka ).
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33(11): 2629-2633.
Nelson, D.C. 1981. Russian River sockeye salmon study. Federal Aid in
Fi sh Restoration. Annual Report of Progress, 1980-1981. Project
F-9-13, Segment AFS-44-7. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
22: 1-47.
Orth, D.J. 1971. Dictionary of Alaska place names. U.S. Geological
Survey, Professional Paper 567. 1084 pp.
Parr, W.H., Jr. 1972. Interactions between sockeye salmon and lake
resident fish in the Chignik Lakes, Alaska. Thesis. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington. 103 pp.
R861 Consultants. 1982. Susitna hydroelectric project. Appendix B.
River morphology. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority. R&M
Consultants. Anchorage, Alaska.
Riis, J.C. and N.V. Friese. 1978. Fisheries and habitat investigations of
the Susitna River -- a preliminary study of potential impacts of the
Devi 1s Canyon and Watana hydroelectric projects. Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish and Commercial Fisheries. 116 pp.
Koberson, K., F.H. Bird and P.J. Fridgen. 1978. Copper River-Prince
Wi 1 1 i am Sound sockeye salmon catal og and i nventory. Techni cal
Report. AFC-61-1. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 70 pp.
Roberson, K., F.H. Bird, P.J. Fridgen and R.G. Zori ch. 1978. Copper
Ri ver-Prince Wil li am Sound sockeye salmon inventory and assessment.
Completion Report. AFC-52. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
84 PP*
Roberson, K., F.H. Bird, K.A. Webster and P.J. Fridgen. 1980. Copper
Ri ver-Pri nce Wi 1 li am Sound sockeye salrnon catalog and i nventory.
Technical Report. AFC-61-2. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
55 PP*
Roberson, K. and R. Holder. 1982. Gulkana River sockeye enhancement.
Progress Report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Commerci a1 Fisheries. Draft.
Koberson, K., M.F. Merri tt and P.J. Fridgen. 1982. Copper Ri ver-Prince
Wi 1 li am Sound sockeye salmon catal og and i nventory. Completion
Report. AFC-61. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 39 pp.
Roberson, K., K.A. Webster, P.J. Fridgen and P. Merritt. 1981. Copper
Ri ver-Pri nce Nil li am Sound sockeye salmon catalog and inventory.
Technical Report. AFC-61-3. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
47 PP*
Roberson, K., R.G. Zorich, P.J. Fridgen and F.H. Bird. 1977. Copper
Ri ver-Pri nce Wi 1 li am Sound sockeye salmon inventory and assessment.
Technical Report. AFC-52-2. Alaska Department of Fi sh and Game.
69 PP*
Rucker, R.R. 1975. Gas-bubble di sease: mortalities of coho salmon,
Oncorhynchus kisutch, in water with constant total gas pressure and
di fferent oxygen-ni trogen ratios. Fishery Bul letin 73(4): 915-918.
Rucker, R.R. and P.M. Kangas. 1974. Effect of nitrogen supersaturated water
on coho and chinook salmon. Progressive Fish Culturist 36(3):
152-156.
Salo, E.O. and W.H. Bayliff. 1958. Artifical and natural production of
si 1 ver salmon, Oncorhynchus ki sutch, at Minter Creek, Washi ngton.
Washington Department of Fisheries Research Bul letin 4. 82 pp.
Schmidt, D. 1981. Natural supersaturation of dissolved gas in the Devil Canyon
rapids of the Susitna River and its implication in predicting impacts
of a hydroelectric project. Paper presented at the 1982 annual
meeti ng of the American Fi sheri es Society , A1 aska Chapter; November
16-18, 1982; Si tka, Alaska.
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries
Research Board of Canada Bulletin 184. 966 pp.
Thedinga, J.F. and K.V. Koski. 1982. The production of coho salmon,
Oncorhynchus kisutch, smolts and adults from Porcupine Creek,
southeastern Alaska. National Mari ne Fi sheri es Service, Auke Bay
Laboratory, Auke Bay, Alaska 99821. Draft.
Trasky, L.L. 1974. Yukon River anadrocnous fish investigations. Completion
Report. AFC-47. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 111 pp.
U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency. 1976. Qua1 i ty criteria for water.
U .S. Government Pri nti ng Offi ce: 1978, 258-389/6057, Washi ngton,
D.C. 256 pp.
Van Whye, G.L. and J.W. Peck. 1968. A limnological survey of Paxson and
Summit Lakes in Interior Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game Informational Leaflet 124. 40 pp.
Waite, D.C. 1979. Chinook enhancement on the Kenai Peninsula. Completion
Report. AFS-46-1. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 52 pp.
Warren, C.E. 1971. Biology and water pollution control. W.B. Saunders
Company, Phi ladelphia. 434 pp.
Westgard, R.L. 1964. Physical and biological aspects of gas-bubble
di sease in impounded adult chi nook salmon at McNary spawni ng channel.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 93 (3): 306-309.
Williams, F.T. 1964. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport
fish waters of the Copper River and Prince Wil liam Sound drainage.
Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual Report of Progress,
1963-1964. Project F-5-R-5, Job 11-A. Alaska Department of Fish
and Game. 5: 321-336.
- . 1965. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish waters
of the Copper River and Prince William Sound drainage, and upper
Susi tna Ri ver drai nage. Federal Aid in Fi sh Restoration. Annual
Report of Progress, 1964-1965. Project F-5-R-6, Job 14-A. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. 6: 273-290.
- . 1966. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish waters
of the Copper River and Prince Wil li ams Sound drainage, and upper
Susitna River. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual Report of
Progress, 1965-1966. Project F-5-R-7, Job 14-A. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game. 7: 185-213.
- . 1967. Inventory and catal ogi ng of sport fish waters of the Copper
River and Prince William Sound drainage, and the upper Susitna
River. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual Report of Progress,
1966-1967. Project F-5-R-8, Job 14-A. Alaska Department of Fish
and Game. 8: 217-230.
- . 1969. Inventory and cataloging of the sport fish and sport fish
waters of the Copper River, Prince Wil liam Sound, and the upper
Susi tna River drainages. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual
Report of Progress, 1968-1969. Project F-9-1, Job 14-A. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. 10: 275-289.
. 1972. Inventory and cataloging of the sport fish and sport fish
waters of the Copper River, Prince William Sound, and the upper
Susi tna River drainages. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual
Report of Progress, 1971-1972. Project F-9-4, Job G-I-F. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. 13: 85-110.
- . 1975. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish waters
of the Copper River, Prince William Sound, and the upper Susitna
River drainages. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual Report
of Progress, 1974-1975. Project F-9-7, Job G-I-F. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game. 16: 121-144.
- . 1976. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish waters
of the Copper River, Prince William Sound, and the upper Susitna
River drainages. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual Report
of Progress, 1975-1976. Project F-9-8, Job G-I-F. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game. 17: 107-129.
- . 1977. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fi'sh
waters of the Copper River, Prince Wil liam Sound, and the upper
Susitna River drainages. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual
Report of Progress, 1976-1977. Project F-9-9, Job G-I-F. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. 18: 1-25.
- . 1979. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish
waters of the Copper River, Prince Nil liam Sound, and the upper
Susi tna Ri ver drainages. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual
Report of Progress, 1978-1979. Project F-9-11, Job G-I-F. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. 20: 25-53.
Nil liams, F.T. and C. Morgan. 1974. Inventory and cataloging of
sport fish and sport fish waters of the Copper River, Prince William
Sound, and the upper Susitna River drainages. Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration. Annual Report of Progress, 1973-1974. Project F-9-6,
Job ti-I-F. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 15: 121-145.
Wi 1 li ams, F.T. and W.D. Pottervi 1 le. 1978. Inventory and cataloging
of sport fish and sport fish waters of the Copper River, Prince
Wil liam Sound, and the upper Susitna River drainages. Federal Aid
in Fish Restoration. Annual Report of Progress, 1977-1978. Project
F-9-10, Job G-I-F. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 19: 25-46.
- . 1980. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish waters
of the Copper River, Prince Wil liam Sound, and upper Susitna River
drainages. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Annual Report of
Progress, 1979-1980. Project F-9-12, Job G-I-F. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game. 21: 21-55.
- . 1981. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish waters
of the Copper River, Prince William Sound, and the upper Susitna
River drainages. Federal Aid in Restoration. Annual Report of
Progress, 1980-1981. Project F-9-13, Job G-I -F. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game. 22: 33-67.
Youngs, W.D. and D.G. Heimbuch. 1982. Another consideration of the
morphoedaphic index. Transact ions of the American Fi sheri es Society
111 (2): 151-153.
A. Contributors
Project Leader/ Economics/ Edi tor----------- Lowel 1 S. Barrick
Bi 01 ogy Criteria ------- ..................... Bernard Kepshi re
Fisheries Engi neeri ng----------------------- George Cunni nghan
Drafting------------------------------------ Car01 Downi ng
Typing-------------------------------------- Tanya Zah-n and Cindy Smith
In addition to the staff contributors, many i ndi viduals representing
state, federal and private organizations contributed valuable i nfor-
mation in the writing of this report. In particular the authors wish
to thank Tom Trent and the staff of the Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies
Group, Milo Be1 1 and John Hutchins of ABK&J, Jeff Weltzi n and Eric
Meyers of the Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Acres American
Incorporated and RM consulting Engi neers. Bob Burkett, Chief of
Techno1 ogy and Devel opment for FRED Di visi on, appoi nted the study
team, outlined the work plan, and set the schedule for this study.
10. APPENDICES
10.1
Letter from Commissioner Ronald 0. Skoog to the Honorable Vic Fisher
The Honorable Vic Fischer
State Senate
Pouch V, State Capitol.
Juneau, Alaska 99811
nczr Senator:
The followi3g infomation is prcvtdcd hv the department in response
to your inquir). concerning that portion of CS SSSS 698(P,es) providin~
$700,C00 for the assessr?ent of the fisheries' potential of the Susitnn
River. This initial funding would provide for the devnlopme~t of a
baseline feasibility analysis only for the area above Devi.14 Canyon to
answer in 3 pre1jninnr.1 mr?ner, thc fo!.lowing questions:
1. Is it technfc~llg fep-siblc tc pass adult encdromous
fish upstream 2nd the restiltant frylsnolts safely
down-stream throuch Devils Canyon if no hydro
electric devclopnert occurs on the Fusitna Rb~er?
And if fea~ible, vhnt would be the preliminary cost
estinates for varicus Fish passage dcsi~ns to
accomp1:sh this?
-,
\hat is thc potenti21 for the up-rlvcr i~abttat
(above Cevilfi Cnn:ra.;.,) ro fiupport an~dronc~~c fish
poptilatlonfi? 'If fLsi1 passnze becomes possib!? gn a
regular bnsis, vhnt would be the biol.ogica? F~paccs
to the up-river reside~t finb. ~?ecier, a!ld hebitat by
such access to nn=dro?.cu:; sneci-es nb~ve Devils
C:.nyon?
10.1 cont.
3. What specific areas of study should n cornprehensfvc
plan address should it be determined that ~uch a
project be implcmentcd by the Legislature?
If you have any questions regarding this mntter plennc do not heeitate
to contact this office.
Sincerely.,
Ronald 0. Skoog
Codasloner
cc: Ron Lehr
Keith Specking
bcc: Ton Trent
Christopher Estes
Mary Jablonski
10.2
etter from Mr. Jeff Weltzin to Commissioner Ronald 0. Skoog
Northern Alaska Environmental Center
218 DRIVEWAY
FAIRBANKS. ALASKA 99701
(907) 452.5021
June 4, 1982
Corilmissioner Ronald 0. Skoog
Alaska Departxent of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 3-2000
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Dear Comissioner Skoog ,
As you know, my organization has worked with others to support a $200.000
appropriationthmugh the Legislature to study the potential of upper
Susitna River salmon Pnhancernent. I wish to thanlc you and your staff-
for the helpful baclcground infornation describing how ADFM; would
approach this study.
We based our decision to pursue this funding for the ADFM; on your
let~er of March 20, 1981 which stated that the present arrangement
between your agency and the APA wculd not include any assessment of
upper Susitna River salmon enhancement potential. More specifically,
our~rnotivations in supporting this funding are outlined in the following
questions thac hopefully this study will answer:
1. Can the Devils Canyon hydraulic barriers-to the migration of fho
five species of salmon (chinook, coho, chum, sockeye and pi&) be altered
or bypassed to permit the passage of these species to both tributaries
and connecting lakes above Devils Canyon in absence'of the proposed
Susitna hydro project?
2. If fish passage through Devils Canyon is feasible, whar would the
potential benefit of salmon production from the tributaries and lakes --
upstream of Devils Canyon be to the sport, corn-ercial. and subsistence
f ishernen?
-b
3. What would the biological 'impacts be to other species presently
residing in the upper Susitna?
4. If the Susitna dams are built. how would this effect the potential
of upper Susitna River salmon enhancement?
It is our ho-pe thar: this baseline study can be integrated into the
ADF&GG's Susitna hydro investigations to obtain the maximum understanding
of the feasibility of providing access to and from the habitat of the
upper Susit~~. We believe that this knowledge is absolutely essential
to decemi.ning whether the instream flows of the upper Susitna are best
suited for fishery enhnncernenr: or hydro development or both.
In conclusion, the results of the first phase of the Susitna studies
show that if the proposed Susitna dams have benefits, they are over
a fifty year or longer period. Et is our belief thar the benefits of
the potential salmon enhancement of the upper Susirna should also be
exmined in rki. same contexc. Just as the Rzlilbelt will. experience
10.2 cont.
increased demand lor electricity over the long term, the Railbelt could
equally experience increased demand for Susitna salmon. Both potential
developments of the Susitna must be understood to allow Alaskans the
.ability to make an informed decision on what are the best uses of the
Susitna River.
In anticipation that the Governor will not veto this appropriation.
I would be pleased to meet with you to discuss this appropriation in
more detail if you so desire. I would also appreciate being informed
on how you intend to implement this study and its progress as it evolves.
Sincerely,
Hppendi x 10.3. Upper Susi tna River salmon enhancement study work pl an (1982-1983)
I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
In the upper reaches of the Susitna River, in the vicinity of Devi 1
Canyon, it is reported that a series of rapids and/or waterfalls create
a barrier or series of barriers that prevent or seriously limit the
passage of migatory fish (anadromous salmon) to spawning areas upstream
of the barrier(s). As of mid-1982 the exact nature of the reported
barrier(s) was not known by the Department of Fish and Game. The
problems to be identified are described in a letter of March 31,
1982 from Fish and Game Commissioner Ron Skoog to Senator Vic Fischer
and are listed as follows:
1) Determine the nature, location and the extent of any fish barrier(s)
located on the Susitna River upstream of Devil Canyon.
2) Determine the nature and extent of salmon spawning habitat located
upstream of Devil Canyon.
3) Determine methods of introducing salmon upstream of Devil Canyon.
Methods could include fishpass faci 1 i ties, stocking of hatchery
produced fish, eyed egg plants and other methods.
4) Develop cost figures, suitable for budgetary purposes, for imple-
menting any of the methods, of item 3, that are determined to be
practi cal .
5) Determine the biological impact on resident fish species inhabiting
the area upstream of Devil Canyon that could be expected from the
introduction of salmon into this area.
6) Determine any specfic areas of study that need to be conducted
if Salmon are to be artificially introduced into the Susitna
River above Devil Canyon.
In addition to the questions posed by Commissioner Skoog the Northern
Alaska Environmental Center, in its letter of June 4, 1982 asked the
following additional question. "If the Susitna dams are built, how
would this effect the potential of the upper Susitna River Salmon
Enhancement?"
This study wi 11 try to answer the questions posed by Commissioner
Skoog and by the Northern Alaska Environmental Center.
HOW BARRIER STUDY WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED
Two individuals have been assigned to this study full tine during
fiscal year 1983 and two additional individuals will be assigned to
Appendix 10.3 cont.
the study part time during the five month period 7/1/82 through
12/1/82. During this five month period a draft report of the study,
suitable for submission to the legislature, will be prepared.
Following the legislature's review the study report will be refined as
needed. Because the draft report is needed by December 1 there wi 11
not be time to make detailed field investigations of the site during
all seasons of the year. Therefore, heavy emphasis wi 11 be placed on
literature research of data that has been collected by others.
Following is a list of sources known to posses information that should
be relevant to this study:
1) Alaska Department of Fish and Game
a. The Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Group - Tom Trent
b. Habitat Division - Carl Yanagawa
c. Sport Fish Division
d. Commercial Fish Division
e. FRED Division
2) The Alaska Power Authority
3) The U.S. Fish and Wi ldli fe Service
4) The U.S. Geological Survey
5) Acres American - Susitna Hydro Feasibility Study
6) U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers
7) R & M Consultants
8) North Pacific Aerial Surveys Inc.
In addition to the literature research site investigation work will
be necessary but because of the short time frame available in which
to prepare the draft report detailed site investigations wi 11 not be
made. Instead, the site investigation wi 11 be 1 imi ted to si te/terrai n
familiarization, verification of questionable data found in literature,
observing the extent of salmon migration in Devil Canyon (if any
occurs) and obtaining site specific measurement such as stream
velocity. The following site investigation trips are planned:
1) July 12-16: Fixed wing aircraft over flight. The purpose
of this trip will be to familiarize the investigators with
the extent of the study area, terrain conditions, watershed,
areas of potential blockage and etc.
2) August 2-6: Rotor-wi ng aircraft inspecti on. This flight
wi 11 permi t on ground site investigation of questionable
features and allow observation of the pink salmon migration
Appendi x 10.3 cont.
which reached its peak, near Devi 1 Canyon, on August 8 in
1981.
3) August 30 - September 3: Rotor-wing aircraft inspection.
Thi s f 1 i ght wi 1 1 permit additional ground observations and
will permit observation of the coho migration which extends
into September in the vicinity of Devi 1 Canyon.
4) It is expected that three site investigation trips will be
adequate. However, additional flights or ground trips (i f
possible) wi 11 be conducted if necessary.
111. PROJECT SCOPE
This study will attempt to find answers to the questions posed in
section I. The study will be conducted by means of personnel
interviews, literature search and on-site investigations as described
in section 11. The draft report will be completed by December 1,
1982 with follow up research and report elaboration performed after
comments to the draft report have been received.
IV. MILESTONES (Critical Dates)
1) July 1982
Initiate literature search and conduct over flight of the
Upper Susitna River study area.
2) August - September 1982
Complete field investigations, 1 iterature search and initiate
the draft report.
3) October - November 1982
Collect additional data found missing in first draft and
modify draft as appropriate.
4) December 1, 1982
Barrier study report pub1 i shed.
5) December 1982 - January 1983
Barrier study report reviewed by legislature.
6) February - June 1983
Barrier study report completed per comments submitted by the
legi slature. Recommendati ons made.
Appendix 10.3 cont.
V. STUDY BUDGET
1) Salaries (#loo) 2 full time12 part time = 159,800
2) TVL 8 PD (#ZOO) = 20,000
3) Publication Costs (#300) = 10,400
4) Administrative/Office Supplies - - 500
Subtotal = 190,700
5% Cont. (additional charter fl ts/
drafting) = 9,300
Total Study Cost = 200,000
Registered
Professional
Engineer MILO C. BELL
Consulting Engineer
BOX 23
MUKILTEO, WASHINGTON 98275
December 30, 1982
Lowell S. Barrick, P.E.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
FRED Division
P.O. Box 3-2000
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Dear Lowell:
Drawings fishways for the Susitna canyons
are being sent under cover. They show possible configurations
for fishways to pass fish through the canyons.
Those of us who have been in the Susitna area recognize the pauc-
ity of information available to us to aid in making a decision on struc-
tures, and we should remind ourselves that the winter survey by R & M,
and the chopper surveys made by you and George Cunningham, which
included velocity measurements by flow, form the basis at this tine for
judgement as to whether fish can be passed through the canyons.
The river flows for the year 1982 apparently were at record low,
arounds 14,000 cfs, during the fish passage time. The normal range
during the period is from 24,000 to 28,000, or approximately double the
flow the fish faced in their successful movement through this canyon in
1982.
Obviously, before a final decision could be reached it would be
necessary to conduct at least one year's examination of river levels in
the canyon areas. Measurement of major drops which are known to exist
in the canyon areas must be made before a final figure can be placed on
the cost of providing fishways around such obstructions. It must be
assumed that the barriers in these canyons are velocity barriers crea-
ted by river energy, or the destruction of such energy associated with
bank and bed roughness, which becomes more apparent at the lower flows.
It is also reported that there was a standing wave of great height
created below the lower canyon at higher flows which was not shown
either by the winter surveys of R & M or by the pictures taken by you
and George Cunningham during your helicopter survey, or at the time
when I surveyed the canyon.
This is the first time (in 1982) that it has been reported that
any numbers of anadromous fish have been found above the lower canyon.
With this assumption, it must also be assumed that flows probably above
16,000 cfs may create sufficient drops at various control points in the
canyon as to prevent successful passage bacause of the increased
velocities.
10.4 cont.
There may be two approaches to the development of a fishway system
for these canyons: 1. passage from the lowest barrier to and above the
canyon by a single fishway, or 2. passage around obstruction points by
properly located fishways. There are problems associated with both
approaches. If a single fishway system is to be created it must be
assumed that fish now approach the canyon on one bank and that the
entrance to this fishway would be at the farthest point of upstream
migration on that bank. If this is not true, then an obstruction must
be built on the bank on which there is no entrance to create a head
drop, which would not allow fish passage and would require the fish to
move to the bank where the fishway entrance is. If the entrance
position is not properly located and the fish could bypass any point of
potential obstruction, the length of time that the fish have before
they must spawn would not allow them to search too long for an entrance
downstream from the point in which they were collecting. This means,
of course, that a very careful field examination would be necessary to
insure that an entrance would be placed at the most precise location
possible for the farthest point of upstream travel on that bank chosen
for a single fishway passage.
If a multifishway development were to be proposed, that is, a fish-
way at each point at which fish have difficulty passing because of in-
creased velocities, it would mean that the fish would be free to enter
the river above such a short fishway, perhaps diverting to either bank
in order to pass. A longer passage time would be required, for exam-
ple, for fish to move from the left to right bank and back again if the
fishways were on two banks. Again, time might not permit such delays
in the canyon.
If a single fish passage facility were to be provided, it probably
would be best then to provide entrances into this facility at those
points that were shown to be barriers to fish, provided that the fish
were able to pass the next lower obstruction. Thus there would be
insurance that if the fish did pass the next lower obstruction they
would find an entrance and would continue through the fishway system
into the canyon area above the fishways.
The costs for these two app~oach-es are provided as an appendix or
separate document. *- &,d'daL
Previous tests have indicated that supersaturated nitrogen is now
occurring in the canyon area. The effect of this has not been measured
and it may affect passageway or the life span of the fish. It must be
borne in mind that for each foot that the fish remain below the
surface, the supersaturation level in reduced by approximately 3%.
Sincerely yours,
10.4 cont.
LOWER CANYON
TUNNEL FISHWAY
SUSITNA RIVER TUNNEL FISHWAYS
LOCATION MAP
ANDERSEN
BJORNSTAD
KANE
32 I0 6 Miles JACOBS, INC.
Milo C. Bell, Inc.
Box 23
,Mukilteo, WA 98275
I-'
0
P
10.4 cont.
DATE
22 Dec. 82
J v
T.R.H.
SHT NO
1
ANDERSEN BJORNSTAD . KANE 9 JACOBS, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SEATTLE, WA ANCHORAGE. AK
Lower Susitna Canyon
Fishway Feasibility
JOB NO q+ t~ *
COST ESTIMATE
10.4 cont.
SEATTLE, WA ANCHORAGE, AK. I JOB NO Cost Estimate I "J.R.H.
ANDERSEN BJORNSTAD KANE JACOBS, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
PROJECT ~ower bus i tna anyo on DATE
Fishway Feasibility 22 Dec. 82 -. ,
COST ESTIMATE SHT NO
2 r
CLASS OF WORK AND MATERIAL
1. Mobilization & Demobilization
Access Trail
Ship Equipment from Seattle
-
UNi
STA
I
QUANTITY
50
3 Compressors
5 Drillers
3 Wuckers
2 Mixers
0.18 84,000
Helicopter, 5000 lb. lifts 100 1 ea 250@ 250,000
2500 ib. 1 ifts 1 800
Construction Camp
- 60
MATERIAL
UNIT
500
__
ea
TOTAL
25,000
I
LABOR
UNlT
TOTAL COST
1000
DaxJ000
Camp Rental
2. Staging
Site Cl eari nq
Sky Lines & Rigging (Purchas
TOTAL
I I
UNlT
-
1
80D,Oi)n
36[LD00
3000
1000
TOTAL
i
12
10
)
1,675,OOC
36,000
10,000
lr) ,000
100,000
Mo.
AC
L S
-
Safety; nets, equip., etc.
-
L S
-
10.4 cont.
-
ANDERSEN BJORNSTAD KANE JACOBS, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SEATTLE. WA. ANCHORAGE, AK.
PROJECT Lower Sus i tna Canyon DATE
Fishway Feasi bi 1 i ty Study-
JOB NO. COS t ES timate
COST ESTIMATE SHT NO.
3
CLASS OF WORK AND MATERIAL
3. Equipment Rental:
QUANTITY UNIT
TOTAL COST MATERIAL
UNlT UNIT
LABOR
TOTAL TOTAL UNlT TOTAL
10.4 cont.
UPPER SUSITNA RIVER CANYON FISHWAY
Cost Estimate Assumptions
1. Construction equipment would be brought to Chul i tna by
Rail car and off loaded.
2. An existing sled road would be used to cabins at Portage
Creek. From their A sled road would be constructed to
near Devil Creek.
3. Drilling machines, mining machines, tools, supplies, and
mining equipment would be transported by cat train to
Devil Creek which is near the fishway's up-stream
portal.
4. Helecopter & Snow Cat would be used to supply the camp
through the construction year.
5. The fishway would be constructed in the north bank and
would utilize additional shafts for fish entrances and
tunnel tail ings.
6. Tunnel ing operations would anticipate working two faces
concurrently and two shifts each day.
7. An Access Trail will be constructed along the north bank
so as to hoist equipment to the portals.
8. We assume a minimum construction camp size of 45 people
during construction.
Superintendant 1
Assistant 1
Foremen 4
Miners 16
Ri ggers 3
Iron Workers 2
Carpenters 5
Laborers 5
Camp 4
He1 icopter 2
2 Equipment Operators -
9. Equipment and supplies are as listed in the quantity
estimate.
I SCALE I"= 600'
ANOERSEN
BJORNSTAD
KANE
JACOBS, INC.
10.4 cont.
ANDERSEN BJORNSTAD KANE JACOBS, INC. PROJECT upper bus 1 tna ~anyon
I I
COST ESTIMATE
CONSULTING ENGINEERS Fishway Feasibi 1 ity
S€.A~ T~~. WJA ANCHORAGE, AK I JOB Study Cost Estimate
SHT NO
I
Y2'bec. 82
~':R.H.
10.4 cont.
10.4 cont.
SEATTLE. WA
CLASS OF WORK AND MATERIAL
I I I 1 1 1 I I
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game administers all programs and activities free from discrimination
based on race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, or disability.
The department administers all programs and activities in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility, or if you desire
further information please write to ADF&G, P.O. Box 25526, Juneau, AK 99802-5526; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 4040 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 300 Webb, Arlington, VA 22203 or O.E.O., U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington DC 20240.
For information on alternative formats for this and other department publications, please contact the
department ADA Coordinator at (voice) 907-465-6077, (TDD) 907-465-3646, or (FAX) 907-465-6078.