HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUS405ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ON INSTREAM
TEMPERATURE AND FISHERY RESOURCES IN THE WATANA
TO TALKEETNA REACH
DRAFT REPORT
MAIN TEXT
Prepared by:
Arctic Environmental Information
and Data Center
University of Alaska
707 A Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Submitted to:
Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture
711 H Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
For:
The Alaska Power Authority
324 W. 5th Avenue, Second Floor
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
AUGUST 1984
Alaska Resources
Library & Information ServtcE
Anchorage, Alaska
co
co
LO
N
"d"
"d"
0
0
0
LO
LO
1"'--
("1)
("')
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES •••••••• ..........................................
LIST OF TABLES •••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF .APPENDICES •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
S~Y .•••••.•••••.•.•••••••••••••...••...••••••••••.••..•••.••.
INTRODUCTION •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
PURPOSE AND SCOPE ••••••• ..................................
Purpose •••••..•••••
Scope ..........•••......•...........•..................
BACKGROUND ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
METHODS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
INSTREfu~ TEMPERATURE MODELING •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Description of Model,Assumptions and Limitations •••••••
Model Linkages to SNTEMP •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Application of SNTEMP to Susitna River •••••••.•••••••••
S(eam Structure Data •..•••..•....••••......•.•.•••
Hydrologic Data •••••••••••••••••
Meteorologic Data ••••••••••••
Model Validation ••••••••••••••••••
PAGE NO •
• I
iii
v
1
2.
z.
2.
g
II
II.{
I"''
I'"{
IS
IS
16
Zl
Z.'l
30
YEARS SELECTED FOR SIMULATION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 31
INSTREAH FISHERY RESOURCE ANALYSIS ••••••••••
Thermal Relations and Terminology.................. 3 'S'
Susitna River Fishery Resource ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 31
Salmon Resource •••••••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Resident Species............. • ••.•.•••••.•..•
Temperature Preference/Tolerance Criteria Development ••
Adult Inmigra tion .•••.•.••.•••••••...••••••••.••••
Spawning ..•••••••••
Embryo Incubation ••
............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Juvenile Rearing ...................................... .
Fry/Smolt Outmigration •••••
Effects Analysis •••••••••••
..................... .....................
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
'31
sz..
>3
S'-f
S&
5:i
(? I
"' G:>3
PROJECT EFFECTS ON INSTREAM TEMPERATURE •••••• .......... ~ 4
Natural Condition Simulation ••••••••••
Watana Only-1996 and 2001 Demands •••
Watana/Devil Canyon-2002 and 2020 Demands •••••••
Wa tana Filling ......................... .
TOLERANCE &~D PREFERENCE CRITERIA OF FISH •••
(,(,
(,1
1-L-• • • • • -:r-J
75"
. , · Alaska Resources
Library Infomlatwn
Anchorage, Alaska
EFFECTS OF PROJECT-RELATED TEMPERATURES
ON FISHERY RESOURCES •••••••••••••••••••
Salmon ....••••...••.......••.•....••.. ...............
Adult Inmigration .......................... .
Spawning •.............................................
Embryo Incubation •••••• ~·····
Juvenile Rearingao•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Fry/Smolt Outmigration ••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••.•
Other Species ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
REFERENCES •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
PAGE NO.
8~
I 13
II)
11)
II c.,
li ~
,,~
I'-~
APPENDICES....................................................... 5ep"'~t!.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Page No.
1. Components of the instream temperature study •••••••••••••• Y
2. Susitna environmental studies program and settlement
process.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -:;
3. Temperature simulations discussed in this report •••••••••• 10
4. Map of the Susitna basin study region ••••••••••••••••••••• 1~
5. Susitna stream temperature network •••••••••••••••••••••••• 1q
6. Tributary temperature regression function................. z.:)
7. Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers temperature regression
functions................................................. 2.,(,.
8. Watana dam site water temperature regression function ••••• l1
9. Watana dam site water temperature regression function
using adjusted Watana data................................ 32.
10. Diagram showing temperature relations of salmon ••••••••••• ~~
11. Susitna River map showing important habitats and geographic
features between RN 100 and 153........................... 'i'-1
12. Comparison of weekly river temperature ranges (C) at
river mile 150 for four summer simulations, natural and
Watana 1996 demand results •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ~~
13. Comparison of weekly river temperature ranges (C) at
river mile 150 for four summer silulations, natural and
Watana/Devil Canyon 2002 demand results ••••••••••••••••••• t~
14. Simulated weekly river temperatures (C) at river mile
150 for summer 1971, natural and Watana 1992 demand
f·illing results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7
15. Simulated weekly river temperatures (C) at river mile 150
for summer 1981, natural and Hatana 1992 demand filling
results ................................................... 7~
16. Simulated weekly river temperatures (C) at river mile 150
for summer 1982, natural and Watana 1991 demand filling
results ................................................... 'i/0
17. Development time to emergence versus mean incubation
temperature for chum salmon............................... 8 3
18. Development time to 50% hatch versus mean incubation
temperature for chum salmon ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8~
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
Figure No. Page No.
19. Development time to emergence versus mean
incubation temperature for sockeye salmon •••••••••••••.••• 8~
20. Development time to 50% hatch versus mean
incubation temperature for sockeye salmon ••••••••••••••••• 80
21. Chum salmon spawning time versus mean
incubation temperature nomagraph •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 91
It
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
1. Water weeks for year n .•......•.•..•..........•.........••
2. Weekly values of Susitna and Chulitna solar altitude
angles .................................................... .
3. Weekly values of meteorologic constants •••••••••••••••••••
4. Susitna stream temperature simulation statistics ••••••••••
5. Summer (May through September) air temperature and flow
rankings ............•.................•.•.................
6. Winter (September through April) air temperature and
flow rankings ...••........................................
7. Classification of seasons simulated •••••••••••••••••••••••
8. List of common and scientific names of fish found to
date in the Susitna River between Talkeetna and Devil
Page
17
zo
z~
3/
3~/
31.{
33
Canyon. . . . . • • . • . • . . • . • . • . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ~
9. Susitna River escapements by species and sampling
location, 1981-1983 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• "II
10. Susitna River salmon periodicity •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 42
11. Peak salmon survey counts above Talkeetna for Susitna
River tributary streams ••••.....••.••••..•...•....•....•.. ~S
12. Peak slough escapement counts above Talkeetna ••••••••••••• SJ
13. Observed temperature ranges for various life stages
of Pacific salmon......................................... ss-
14. Mean summer (water weeks 31-52) water temperatures (C)
under various load demands for these mainstem locations ••• wB
15. Simulated summer peak temperature ranges (C) at
selected locations •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ~t
16. Scenarios for \vat ana filling simulations. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 13
17. Mean summer temperatures (C) for Watana filling, 1992
demand, at selected locations ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7&
18. Mean summer temperatures (C) for \Vatana filling, 1991
demand, at selected locations. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11
'• I
Ill
No.
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Table No.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Preliminary salmon tolerance criteria for Susitna River
drainage ...............•................•.................
Weekly temperature ranges (C) for mainstem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine, for natural conditions and
project-related scenarios; Hay through October, 1971,
1974, 1981, 1902 ..•..•.•....•...•......••••.••............
Susitna River temperature ranges (C) under four
climatological scenarios for the period September
through April ........•....................................
Temperature and cummulative growth for juvenile salmon
under pre-and post-project conditions at Rm 130, 1982
simulations ............................................... .
Simulated monthly mean temperatures (C) for the mainstem
Susitna River, Devil Canyon to Talkeetna ••••••••••••••••••
iv
Page No.
I\ Z..
I 2.~-
APPENDICES
A. Simulated weekly water temperatures at selected middle Susitna River
Locations.
B. Isotherm plots of temperature simulation results.
C. Susitna, Chulitna and Talkeetna stream width functions.
D. Observed versus predicted air temperatures for water years 1981-1983.
E. Observed vertica I air temperature profiles.
F. Basin weekly wind speeds.
G. Residual errors as functions of air temperature, humidity, possible
sunshine and wind speed.
H. Temperature histories at selected locations in relation to the five Pacific
salmon life phase activities for all scenarios.
..
v
SUMMARY
This report presents the results of weekly Susitna River instream
temperature simulations comparing Watana-only and Watana/Devil Canyon
project configurations with natural condition temperature simulations. These
simulations were run using ~istoric hydrologic/meteorologic data covering a
' number of years to bracket the expected range of resultant downriver
temperatures. The effect of these temperatures on andromous fish species is
assessed by comparison with lifestage-specific temperature tolerance criteria
established from the literature.
Operation of either a single-or two-dam hydroelectric project dampens
the natural variation in river temperatures. Mean summer temperatures under
a Watana-only scheme are approximately 1.0 C cooler than natural at river
miles 150 and 130, and 0. 6 C cooler at river mile 100. Addition of the Devil
Canyon dam, 33 miles downstream from Watana, would increase this mean
seasonal temperature deviation to approximately 2. 0, 1. 7 and 1. 2 C cooler at
river miles 150, 130 and 100 respectively. Under either project configuration,
downstream temperatures would peak later in the summer than normally, and
the greatest deviation from natural temperature would occur in September -
October.
Winter reservoir releases will range from 0. 4 to 6. 4 C in waters normally
at 0 C from approximately October to Apri I. Consequently, ice formation wi II
be delayed and, in some cases, not reach as far upstream as under natural
conditions.
Based on temperature tolerance limits for salmon established from the
literature, the cooler simulated summer temperatures should not significantly
impact in migration or spawning. Main stem water temperatures, which under
natural conditions may be limiting for salmon incubation I would be improved
under project operation. Some retardation of juvenile growth may occur due
to cooler summer temperatures I even though these operational temperatures
are within the established range of tolerance temperatures.
Outmigrants from tributaries and sloughs above Sherman (river mile 131)
during late May and early June will confront mainstem temperatures
cutl~iuer duly cuuler lll<:ltl natural. Whether this change I among the vanety ot
influences triggering outmigration I is sufficient to alter the timing is
unknown.
Burbot and whitefish are the only resident species above the Chulitna
confluence expected to be adversely affected by project operation. The
expected warmer fall and winter river temperatures could alter both burbot
I
and whitefish spawning and incubation timing to such a degree as to preclud~
their successful reproduction in the upper river.
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
PURPOSE
This report summarizes efforts &y.~the Arctic Environmental Information
and Data Centef' (AEI DC) to describe the changes in downstream thermal
properties of the Susitna River mainstem resulting from various operational
scenarios for the proposed Susitna hydroelectric project. Also examined are
potential effects of these temperature changes on instream fishery resources.
AEIDC's approach to conducting an assessment of effects of the proposed
Susitna project on fishery resources of the Susitna basin was originally
described in Alaska I Univ. I AEI DC ( 1983a). Subsequently I a report
2
describing streamflow and temperature modeling conducted by AEl DC was
provided in Alaska, Univ., AEIDC (1983b). An initial description of expected
changes in downstream temperatures and consequences to instream fishery
resources were described in Alaska, Univ., AElDC (1984a, 1984b). This
report is a more refined analysis from that presented in the previous AElDC
reports. As additional reservoir operations and conseqent downstream
temperature regimes will be examined in L11e fulure, Lllis report should be
considered a preliminary draft.
AEl DC' s temperature assessment program provides information necessary
for describing the effects of the Susitna project on instream fishery re-
sources. Our investigations are part of a larger instream temperature and ice
assessment program (Figure 1). This program, which was presented to
various state and federal agency personnel and interested individuals during
a Susitna workshop on May 15, 1984, involves various elements of the
environmental study program sponsored by the Alaska Power Authority. A
reservoir operations model, operated by Harza-Ebasco, in conjunction with a
reservoir temperature simulation model, DY RESM, also operated by
Harza-Ebasco, are used to predict reservoir outflow discharge and
temperature conditions for various power load demands for both dam
configurations. These data are then transferred to AEI DC as input data to
an instream temperature simulation model, SNTEMP. The SNTEMP model
predicts either natural or with-project instream temperature conditions.
Currently, temperature simulations are run using average weekly time steps.
Various combinations of meteorological and flow conditions are imposed on the
reservoir operations, reservoir temperature, and in stream temperature models
in order to examine diverse climatic conditions and their effects on instream
temperature.
3
Figure 1. Components of the instream temperature study.
I NSTREAM TEMPERATURE SIMULATIONS
RESOPS • DYRESM ...
SNTEMP
Predicted Pre-and With-Project lnstream Temperature
under Cold-Avg.-Warm Meteorology
and Low-Avg.-High Flow Conditions .---------1
Natural
Ice
Dynamics
Flow and Temperature
Relationships
0°C • ICE CAL ...
Pre-and With-Project
Ice Conditions
Physical/Mechanical Overtopping
Anchor Ice (Thermal)
lnstream Ice Physical Effects
on Susitna Fishery Resources
SUSITNA INSTREAM TEMPERATURE
AND ICE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
Susitna Literature
Field Studies Review
Laboratory
Studies
lnstream Temperature Effects
on Susitna Fishery Resources
AEIDC May 1984
In order to evaluate effects of altered temperature conditions on fish,
AEI DC has combined the results of field studies conducted in the Susitna
basin with available literature and laboratory investigations to develop
temperature criteria. These criteria are used in combination with the
instream temperature predictions to prepare descriptions of project effects on
Susitna fishery resources.
Since a significant portion of the instream salmonid resource in the
Susitna basin utilizes side sloughs for spawning and egg incubation as well as
extensive rearing, the relationship between mainstem and side slough flow and
temperature conditions is being examined by Harza-Ebasco. While a
description of these relationships is not currently available, a future report
by AEIDC will examine the consequences of downstream thermal change on
side slough habitats and their fishery populations.
An additional element of the instream temperature and ice program is the
prediction of downstream ice conditions resulting from various project opera-
tions. AEIDC's SNTEMP model predicts the downstream location of the
instream 0 C isotherm. These predictions are transferred to Harza-Ebasco,
for use as input to the instream ice simulation model, I CECAL. I CECAL
predicts natural and with-project ice conditions under the same climatology
and hydrology utilized for the reservoir and in stream tcmperatu re simulations.
The calibration of !CECAL was accomplished from information developed by
R&M Consultants on the natural ice dynamics of the Susitna River
( Harza-Ebasco 1984). Again, in future reports, AEI DC will utilize the
predictions from the I CECAL model to generate descriptions of the effects of
various project operating scenarios on instream ice conditions and on fishery
resources.
5
A series of reports are scheduled for the Susitna instream temperature
and ice assessment program. This report wi II be augmented and refined, with
another draft submitted for review in November 1984. Included with the
November report will be a chapter discussing the implications of various
operating scenarios and resultant temperature regimes on instream ice
conditions. Additional thermal analyses wi II be conducted and a final
assessment of all reservoir operation scenarios will be compiled into a March
1985 final report. This report is intended to be an element of the I nstream
Flow Relationships Report Series.
I nstream temperature and ice assessments will be required during various
phases of the overall Susitna environmental studies program and settlement
process (Figure 2). Currently, these studies are part of the I nstream Flow
Relationships Report Series (I FRS). The temperature and ice assessment
results will be used in the Alaska Power Authority's comparison process to
examine the effects of selected flow regimes on power production and
downstream fishery resources. Various flow regimes will be examined based
upon their on discharge-related consequences, then later examined in terms of
effects on temperature and ice conditions. The Alaska Power Authority
intends to develop a recommended flow regime, the effects of which will be
described in a future report. This report would be used as a basis for a
negotiations phase with state and federal agencies in order to arrive at a
settlement on the operating regime for the Susitna project. During
negotiations, various additional alternative flow regimes may be discussed, the
temperature and ice consequences of which will be examined from AEI DC's
temperature and ice assessment reports. Finally, temperature and ice
assessments will be required to describe the environmental effects of the final
6
Figure 2. Susitna environmental studies program and settlement process.
INSTRF.AH FL0\1 'RELATIONSHIPS
REPORT SERIES
RESERVOIR AND
INSTRF.AH TEMPERATURE
INSTREAH ICE
\lATER QUALITY
AQUATIC IIABITAT
COMPOSITE
=!> FJ.0\1 RF.I.AT!ONSIIIPS
IIYDRDGRAPIIS
IIATERSHED PROCESSES
FISIIERY RESOURCES
OPTIMIZATION
r
TEHPf:RATURE
ICE
SEDIMENT
\lATER QUAI.ITY
COMPARISONS PROCESS
COMPARISONS RECOHHEtlDED
REPORT FJ.0\1
REGIMES
REPORT
:::>NEGOTIATIONS:::>
r
TEMPERATURE
ICE
SEDIMENT
\lATER QUALITY
FINL SETTLEMENT
SETTLE11ENT
ON -{>
OPERAT :NG
REGIHC
DOCUMENTATION OF
EFFECTS OF CONSENSUS
FJ.0\1 REGIME
FINAL
HITIGATION
PLAN
r
TEMPERATURE
ICE
SEDIMENT
\lATER QUALITY
consensus flow regime in order to quantify the effect in terms of needed
mitigation faci I ities.
SCOPE OF THE REPORT
This report describes the expected temperature changes and effects on
fishery resources for the Watana to Talkeetna mainstem reach of the Susitna
River. Although temperature predictions will be provided downstream to the
Parks Highway bridge crossing of the mainstem Susitna at Sunshine, fishery
assessments are only provided to Talkeetna due to the lack of Susitna-specific
habitat information below the confluence of the Talkeetna and Chulitna Rivers.
Statements of effect which are discussed herein, however, could be valid to
fishery populations in this confluence area. Until quantitative flow and
temperature relationships between mainstem and side slough habitats become
available, effects of the project in terms of temperature change in side slough
habitats cannot be provided.
Examined in this report are 50 cases, nine natural and 41 with-project.
For simulation purposes, the year has been divided into two segments, winter
and summer. The winter period extends from September through April, while
the summer period includes the months of May through September. Figure 3
presents the simulations discussed. AEI DC examined four summer and five
winter seasons comparing natural temperature conditions with single-and
two-dam scenarios. Three summer and three winter seasons under
Watana-filling conditions are a I so examined.
This report also describes the process of developing temperature assess-,.
ment criteria. Field investigations by the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (AD F&G) have been ongoing since the 1970s. Also, in 1982 the Alaska
Power Authority contracted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS)
8
to conduct laboratory investigations of the effects of different temperature
regimes on Susitna sockeye and chum salmon fertilized egg development. The
results of the USFWS laboratory and ADF&G field investigations have been
combined with literature references to prepare criteria used to judge the
nature of effect of each with-project simulation. This report presents the
results of these efforts conducted to date.
9
Figure 3. Temperature simulations discussed
in this report
Watana/Devil Watana/Devil
Natural Watana Only Watana Only Canyon Canyon Watana
Conditions 1996 Demand 2001 Demand 2082 Demand 2020 Demand Filling
Summer Season: X X X X X X
1971 X X X X X
1974 X X X X X X
1981 X X X X X X
1982 X X X X X X
1-'
0 Winter Season:
1971-72 X X X X X X
1974-75 X X X X X
1976-77 X X X X
1981-82 X X X X X X
1982-83 X X X X X X
X denotes that scheme has been simulated.
BACKGROUND
The Susitna River drains an area of 19,600 sq mi, the sixth largest
river basin in Alaska. The Susitna flows 320 mi from its origin at Susitna
Glacier to the Cook Inlet estuary. Its basin is bordered by the Alaska Range
to the north, the Chulitna and Talkeetna mountains to the west and south,
and the northern Talkeetna plateau and Gulkana uplands to the east. This
area is lnrgP.Iy within the coastal trough of Southcentrnl Alaska, a belt of
lowlands extending the length of the Pacific mountain system and interrupted
by the Talkeetna, Clearwater, and Wrangell mountains.
Major Susitna tributaries include the Talkeetna, Chulitna, and Yentna
Rivers {Figure 4) 0 The Yentna River enters the Susitna at river mile {R1v1)
28 {28 mi from the Susitna confluence with the Cook Inlet estuary). The
Chulitna River rises in the glaciers on the south slope of Mount McKinley and
flows south, entering the Susitna near Talkeetna ( RM 99). The Talkeetna
River rises in the Talkeetna Mountains, flows west, and joins the Susitna
near Talkeetna.
Tributaries in northern portions of the Susitna basin originate in the
glaciers of the eastern Alaska Range 0 The east and west forks of the Susitna
and the McClaren Rivers join the main stem Susitna River above RM 260.
Below the glaciers the braided channel traverses a high plateau and continues
south to the Oshetna River confluence near RM 233. There._ it takes a sharp
turn west and flows through a steeply cut canyon which contains the Watana
(RM 184.4) and Devil Canyon {RM 151.6) dam sites. In this predominantly
single channel reach the gradient is quite steep, approximately 10 ft/ mi
{Acres American, 1983). Below Gold Creek { RM 137) the river alternates
between single and multiple channels until the confluence with the Chulitna
11
......
N
COOK INLET
Figure 4 • Map of the Susitna basin study region.
+ 10 Rivermile Increments
Scale' 1", 16milea
and Talkeetna rivers (RM 97), below which the Susitna broadens into widely
braided channels for 97 miles to Cook Inlet.
The proposed project consists of two dams to be constructed over a
period of about 15 years. The Watana dam would be completed in 1994 at a
site 3 mi upstream from Tsusena Creek (RM 184.4}. This development would
include an underground powerhouse and 885 ft high earthfill dam, which
would impound a reservoir 48. mi long with a surface area of 38,000 acres and
a usable storage capacity of 3. 7 mill ion acre feet ( maf). The dam would
house multiple level intakes and cone valves. Installed generating capacity
would be 1020 megawatts (mw), with an estimated average annual energy
output of 3460 gigawatt hours (gwh).
The concrete arch Devil Canyon dam would be completed by 2002 at a
site 32 mi downstream of the Watana dam site. It would be 645 ft high and
would impound a 26 mile-long reservoir with 7,800 surface acres and a storage
capacity of • 36 maf (Acres American, 1983). Installed generating capacity
would be about 600 mw, with an average annual energy output of 3450 gwh.
Both reservoirs would be drawn down during the high energy demand winter
months and filled during the summer months when energy requirements are
lowest.
Seven anadromous and twelve resident fish species are known to inhabit
the Susitna drainage. From the Watana Dam site to the Parks Highway
Bridge, five anadromous (the five Pacific salmon species) and ten resident
species are found.
('Construction and subsequent operation of the Susitna dams are expected
to affect the aquatic resources in the basin by altering the normal thermal
regime of the river. Mainstem water temperatures downstream from the
project will be cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter than those
13
currently found. A change in the ice regime downstream from the project is
also expected due to altered temperatures and increased winter flows.
METHODS
INSTREAM TEMPERATURE MODELING
DESCRIPTION OF MODEL, ASSUMPTIONS, LIMITATIONS
A computer version of the I nstream Water Temperature model developed
by the lnstream Flow and Aquatic Systems Group (IFG), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Theurer et al. 1983) has been used to analyze the
downstream temperature changes associated with the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project. Estimates of the Watana dam release temperatures and flows were
used to initiate the stream temperature model.
The instream water temperature model (SNTEMP) predicts longitudinal,
cross-section averaged, mean daily temperatures throughout a stream
network. SNTEMP consists of several submodels:
1. A solar model which predicts solar radiation based on the latitude of the
stream basin, time of year, basin topographic characteristics, and
prevailing meteorologic conditions;
2. A meteorologic correction model accounting for changes in air
temperature, relative humidity, and atmospheric pressure with elevation;
3. A heat flux model accounting for all significant heat sources and sinks;
4. A heat transport model to move the water and its associated heat content
downstream;
5. A flow mixing model for merging tributary flows and heat content with
those of the mainstem.
14
A complete description of each of these components is provided in the
model description/documentation available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
service (Theurer et al. 1983}. Application of this model to the Susitna basin
has been previously discussed in Alaska, Univ., AEI DC ( 1984b, 1983b). A
brief description of the heat fransport model will be provided since it is this
component, more than any other, which determines the model's limitations.
The heat transport model used in SNTEMP is based on the following dynamic
temperature-steadyflow equation:
where:
1\
(A/Q) (3T/3t) + 3T/3x = (qd/Q) (Td-T) + (B~H)/(Qpcp)
!<--dynamic term-->1<------steady state equation---------->1
1<------dynamic temperature-steady flow equation-------->1
A= flow area, L 2
Q = flow, L 3 /t
T = temperature, T
t = time, t
x = distance, L
qd = distributed inflow, L 2 ; t
T d = distributed inflow temperature, T
B = stream top width, L
SH =net heat flux, (E/L2 )/t
P = density of water, M/1 3
c = specific heat of water, (E/M)/T p
and dimensions are:
M -mass
T -temperature
L -length
t -time
E -energy
The net heat flux is the sum of atmospheric, topographic, and vegetative
radiation; solar radiation; evaporation; free and forced convection; stream
friction; stream bed conduction; and water back radiation.
Three sets of data are required as input to the model: (1) meteorologic,
(2) hydrologic, and (3} stream geometry. Meteorologic data consists of solar
radiation coefficients (atmospheric dust and ground reflectivity), air
temperature, relative humidity, possible sunshine, and wind speed.
Hydrologic data consists of discharge data throughout the stream system I
initial temperatures of the mainstem and significant tributaries I and estimates
of the temperature of distributed inflows (groundwater or overland).
Stream geometry consists of a definition of the stream system network
(latitudes I elevations, and distances} I stream widths, and stream shading.
Simulated stream temperatures in this report represent 24-hour average
temperatures. These average daily temperatures were simulated with weekly
average hydrologic and meteorologic conditions. Temperature predictions
therefore represent the 24-hour average stream temperature which would be
expected to occur on the average day of the week.
Water weeks are used as the averaging time period. The first water
week begins on October 1. All water weeks are seven days long except the
fifty-second week which is eight days long; February 29 is not considered
when it occurs. Table 1 is useful for converting between water weeks and
calendar days.
Table 1. Water weeks for water year n.
WEEK WEEK
NUMBER FRCM TO NUMBER FRCM TO
day IIDnth year day IIDnth year day IIDnth year day IIDnth year
1 1 Oct. n-1 7 Oct. n-1 27 1 Apr. n 7 Apr. n
2 8 Oct. n-1 14 Oct. n-1 28 8 Apr. n 14 Apr. n
3 15 Oct. n-1 21 Oct. n-1 29 15 Apr. n 21 Apr. n
4 22 Oct. n-1 28 Oct. n-1 30 22 Apr. n 28 Apr. n
5 29 Oct. n-1 4 fuv. n-1 31 29 Apr. n 5 t-hy n
6 5 fuv. n-1 11 Nov. n-1 32 6 May n 12 Hay n
7 12 fuv. n-1 18 Nov. n-1 33 13 May n 19 May n
8 19 fuv. n-1 25 Nov. n-1 34 20 May n 26 May n
9 26 fuv. n-1 2 Dec. n-1 35 27 1-hy n 2 June n
10 3 Dec. n-1 9 Dec. n-1 36 3 Jtme n 9 Jtme n
11 10 Dec. n-1 16 Dec. n-1 37 10 June n 16 June n
12 17 Dec. n-1 23 D:c. n-1 38 17 Jtme n 23 June n
13 24 Dec. n-1 30 Dec. n-1 39 24 June n 30 June n
14 31 Dec. n-1 6 Jan. n 40 1 July n 7 July n
15 7 Jan. n 13 Jan. n 41 8 July n 14 July n
.16 14 Jan. n 20 Jan. n 42 15 July n 21 July n
17 21 Jan. n 27 Jan. n 43 22 July n 28 July n
18 28 Jan. n 3 Feb. n 44 29 July n 4 Aug. n
19 4 Feb. n 10 Feb. n 45 5 Aug. n 11 Aug. n
20 11 Feb. n 17 Feb. n 46 12 Aug. n 18 Aug. n
21 18 Feb. n 24 Feb. n 47 19 Aug. n 25 Aug. n
22 25 Feb. n 3 :Mar. n 48 26 Pllg. n 1 Sep. n
23 4 Mar. n 10 1-hr. n 49 2 Sep. n 8 Sep. n
24 11 ~. n 17 Mar. n so 9 Sep. n 15 Sep. n
25 18 Mar. n 24 ~. n 51 16 Sep. n 22 Sep. n
26 25 ~. n 31 Mar. n 52 23 Sep. n 30 Sep. n
17
Seasonal simulations are of tw9 types: 1} winter period (week 49, water
year n-1 to week 30, water year n}, and 2} summer period (week 31 to
week 52}.
MODEL LINKAGES TO SNTEMP
With-project stream temperature simulations require the flow and
temperature of reservoir releases as input. Harza Engineering Company
models the reservoir(s) operation to determine release flows and temperatures,
and transmit their results to AEIDC. These results include daily flows and
associated temperatures from powerhouse, cone valve and spillway releases.
The daily results are processed by AEIDC to obtain single mean weekly
flows and temperatures which incorporate releases from all three outflow
structures. These results are then used directly as input to the SNTEMP
model.
APPLICATION OF MODEL TO THE SUSITNA RIVER
Stream Structure Data
The stream network is defined for the mainstem Susitna from Watana dam
site (RM 184.4) to the Parks Highway bridge (RM 83.8). For simulation of
the Watana/Devil Canyon configuration, the upstream end of the study reach
is the Devil Canyon dam site ( RM 151.6}. Major tributaries between Watana
and Parks Highway Bridge were included in the Susitna stream network
(FigureS}.
The main stem network was segmented into 10 reaches to account for
differences in topographic shading resulting from stream orientation and local
topography. The monthly sunrise/ sunset altitude angles (Alaska, U niv.,
AEI DC, 1983b) were interpolated into weekly values (Table 2}.
Stream widths are simulated as a function of flow. These width
functions were determined from Susitna River cross-section plots prepared by
~ • USGS GoQc:/Nodo
lOCO liOn
(!) USGS GoQO Stollon
Node lOCOIJOn
Sub-Boun
Sub~ Bosln Boundory
Oom Slle
rtl:tj 0 ,_.
(/) c
0
~
::1 0"'
Ul Cll
::r'l-'
1-'• Cll
::1 ::1 ro n
(I)
{)Q
Cll Ul
{)Q c
(I) o'
• I
o'
Cll
Ul
1-'•
::1
Ul
CJ
§
rt
~
(I) ,_. ,_.
{)Q
Cll
{)Q
(I)
Table 2. Heekly values of Susitna and Chulitna Solar Altitude Angles
Mainstream Rivermile Ranse
184.5-179.5-175.5-166.0- 163.0-146.5-142.5-124.0-115.0-
HEEK 179.5 175.5 166.0 163.0 146.5 142.5 124.0 115.0 99.5 CHULITNA
1 0.31 0,118 0,265 0.269 0.405 0.077 0.080 0.143 0.00 0.078
2 0.49 0.112 0.265 o. 240 0.405 0.093 0.103 0.140 0.00 0.075
3 0.65 0.105 0,265 0,210 0.405 0.108 0.127 0.138 0.00 0.071
4 0.78 0.098 0.265 0.189 0.405 0.114 0.138 0.129 o.oo 0.065
5 0.78 0.082 0.265 0.161 0.405 0.114 0.138 0.113 0.00 0.057
6 0.78 0.069 0.265 0.135 0.405 0.114 0.138 0.099 0.00 0.050
7 0.78 0.055 0,265 0.110 0.405 0.114 0.138 0.083 0.00 0.042
8 0.78 0.043 0.265 0.086 0.405 0.114 0.138 0.068 0.00 0.035
9 0.78 0.046 0.265 0,071 0.405 0.114 0.138 0.068 o.oo 0.030
10 0.78 0.048 0.265 0.057 0.405 0.114 0.138 0.068 0.00 0.026
11 0.78 0.051 0.265 0.043 0.405 0.114 0.138 0.068 o.oo 0.021
12 0.78 0.053 0.265 0.029 0.405 0.114 0.138 0.068 0.00 0.018
13 0.78 0.052 0,265 0.036 0.405 0.114 0.138 0.068 0.00 0.020
14 0.78 0.050 0.265 0.050 0.405 0.114 0.138 0.068 o.oo 0.024
15 o. 78 0.048 0.265 0.063 0.405 0.114 0.138 0.068 o.oo 0.028
16 0.78 0,046 0.265 0.076 0.405 0.114 0.138 0.068 0.00 0.031
17 o. 78 0.048 0.265 0.094 0.405 0.114 0.138 0.068 0.00 0.037
18 0.78 0,060 0.265 0.120 0.405 0.114 0.138 0.090 o.oo 0.044
N 19 0.78 0.075 0.265 0.146 0.405 0.114 0.138 0.105 o.oo 0.052
0 20 0.78 0.088 0.265 0.173 0.405 0.114 0.138 0.121 0.00 0.060
21 0.78 0.102 0.265 0.200 0.405 0.114 0.138 0.138 o.oo 0.068
22 0.62 0.109 0.265 0.229 0.405 0.099 0.114 0.140 0.00 0.073
23 0.44 0.115 0.350 0.257 0.405 0.071 0.088 0.141 0.00 0.077
24 0.26 0.122 0.210 0.286 0.405 0.063 0.060 0.144 o.oo 0.081
25 0.069 0.130 0.068 0.315 0.405 0.045 0.035 0.148 o.oo 0.088
26 0.065 0.135 0.058 0.341 0.446 0.043 0.035 0.143 0.00 0,088
27 0.062 0.142 0.049 0.368 0.490 0. 041 0,035 0.138 o.oo 0.088
28 0.059 0.148 0.039 0.395 0.530 0.038 0,035 0.132 o.oo 0.088
29 0.055 0.154 0.030 0.422 0.575 0.036 0.035 0.128 0.00 0.088
30 0.050 0.150 0.032 o. 441 0.551 0.041 0.035 .0. 126 0.00 0.083
31 0.047 0.133 0.040 o. 453 0.465 0.053 0.035 0.127 o.oo 0.075
32 0.043 0.117 0.054 0.464 0.385 0.065 0.035 0.129 o.oo 0.068
33 0.039 0.100 0.080 0.476 0.300 0.076 0.035 0.130 0.00 0.060
34 0.035 0.086 0.095 0.488 0.226 0.087 0.035 0.131 o.oo 0.054
35 0.048 0,086 0.102 0.483 0,235 0.092 0.037 0.133 o.oo 0.051
36 0.060 0.086 0.109 0.477 o. 24'· 0.097 0.039 0.135 0.00 0.049
37 0.072 0.086 0.115 0.470 0.251 0.100 0.041 0.137 o.oo 0.046
38 0.088 0.086 0.121 0.465 0.259 0.103 0.042 0.139 0.00 0.044
39 0.079 0.086 0.118 0.467 0.257 0.103 0.041 0.138 o.oo 0.045
40 0.065 0.086 0.111 0.472 0. 2'•8 0.099 0.039 0.136 0.00 0.048
41 0.052 0.086 o. 105 0.478 0.238 0.093 0.037 0.134 o.oo 0.050
42 0,040 0.086 0.099 0.484 0.230 0.089 0.035 0.132 o.oo 0.051
43 0.037 0.095 0.088 0.480 0.275 O.ORO 0.035 0.131 0.00 0.058
44 0,041 0.110 0.073 0.469 0.354 0.070 0.035 0.129 o.oo 0.064
45 0.045 0.12() 0.057 0.458 o.t.3s 0.059 0.035 0.128 0.00 0.073
46 0.049 o. 141 0.041 0.447 0.515 o. 01.8 0.035 0.125 o.oo 0.079
47 0.053 0.156 0.025 0.435 0.595 0.035 0.035 0.123 o.oo 0.088
48 0.057 0.150 0.034 0.409 0.555 0.037 0.035 0.127 o.oo 0.088
49 0.060 0.144 0.044 0.371 0.510 0.040 0.035 0.133 o.oo 0.088
50 0.063 0.139 0.053 0.355 0.468 0.041 0.035 0.139 0.00 0.088
51 0.066 0.132 0.062 0.327 o. 424 0.044 0.035 0.145 0.00 0.088
52 0.15 0.125 o. 135 0.297 0.405 0.062 0.055 O.ll•S 0.00 0.083
R&M Consultants ( 1982a I 1982b) and I in the lower river, interpolated from
USGS maps (Gemperline 1984).
Stream width functions for the Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers were
developed from stream width data collected by the USGS ( 1980, 1981). The
stream width functions for the Susitna, Chulitna, and Talkeetna Rivers are
presented in Appendix C.
Hydrologic Data
Estimates of significant tributary flow contributions are necessary for
simulating mainstem temperatures. Since few tributaries in the basin have
gaged flow records, flow contributions from most of these sub-basins must be
estimated To assure consistency among the various project engineering
programs, flow to the mainstem from tributary sub-basins are estimated as
proportional to the sub-basin area.
The present modeling effort considers the basin between the Watana dam
site and the Parks Highway bridge at Sunshine. Chulitna and Talkeetna
River flows are incorporated into this system at the USGS gage station on
each river near the town of Talkeetna. This basin is further divided into
thirteen sub-basins. These sub-basins are defined by drainage divides and
are centered around the larger tributaries. Flow from each sub-basin is
added to the mainstem Susitna as point inflow at a model node location
generally near the major tributary mouth. Figure 5 (discussed previously)
provides a map of the basin under consideration, the sub-basins and the node
locations where sub-basin inflows are assigned.
A water balance program, H20BAL 1 (Alaska, Univ., AEIDC 1983b) is
used to provide SNTEMP with flows at each node for each simulated timestep.
H20BAL requires a time series of input flows at four locations: the Susitna
21
River at the Watana dam site, the Susitna at the Gold Creek USGS gage, and
the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers at the USGS gage stations on each. For
simulating the operation of the Devil Canyon dam, Devil Canyon release flows
are used in place of the Watana data.
Simulations discussed in this report consider seasons within water years
1971 through 1983. Continuous flow data for this period are available from
USGS records at Gold Creek and Talkeetna. Flows at Watana and Chulitna
are not available for all periods, and are determined as follows:
Watana. Although R&M Consultants have been collecting flow data at
this location during the open water season since July 1980, an equal area
contribution relationship is used for all periods. When flow data are
available at the Susitna River USGS gage near Cantwell (Station
#15291500), the following relationship is used:
where Q is the mean flow for a given period and subscripts W, CA and
GC refer to Watana, Cantwell and Gold Creek respectively. The factor
0. 515 is the drainage area ratio between the Cantwell to Watana and
Cantwell to Gold Creek Basins. When flow data are not available at the
Cantwell gage, the following relationship is used:
where 0.841 is the drainage area ratio of the entire basin at Watana to
that defined at Gold Creek.
Chulitna. Streamflow data at the Chulitna River USGS gage were not
collected from October 1972 until May 1980. Simulations of this period
used the weekly flow formula:
QWK,CH = 0 M,CH x Qwk,GC
QMJC:1(.
22
where subscripts WK and M denote weekly and monthly periods of flow,
and CH refers to the Chulitna gage location. This relationship is based
on the assumption that the Chulitna basin responds similarly within a
month to the Susitna basin defined at Gold Creek. The Chulitna monthly
flow data were synthesized using the Texas Water Development Board's
FILLIN program (Acres American 1983).
Flow data are also required at Sunshine, the downstream end of the
present region of temperature simulation. The USGS began collecting flow
data at that site in May 1981. However, on occasion, recorded flows at
Sunshine were less than the sum of recorded flows upbasin at the Gold
Creek, Chulitna and Talkeetna gages. While the reasons for this discrepancy
remain unclear, we decided to use a simple basin area relationship to estimate
flows at Sunshine, thus avoiding negative tributary contributions. This
relationship is:
where subscripts S and T refer to the Sunshine a.,nd Talkeetna gage sites,
and the factor 1. 070 is the ratio of the drainage area defined at Sunshine to
the combined area of the Gold Creek, Chulitna and Talkeetna drainage basins.
Estimates of tributary inflow temperatures are necessary for all natural
and with-project simulations. Additionally, pre-project stream temperatures
are required at the Watana dam site for natural stream temperature
simulations.
23
ADF&G tributary temperature observations at Tsusena Creek, Portage
Creek, and Indian River (ADF&G 1983; Quane 1984) were used to develop a
tributary temperature regression function (Figure 6). This function is used
to estimate weekly temperatures of all the middle river tributaries between the
Watana dam site and the Chulitna confluence for all pre-and with-project
simulations (observed Tsusena Creek, Portage Creek, and Indian River
temperatures were used when available for water year 1981, 1982 and 1983
simulations).
Observed temperatures on the Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers (ADF&G
1983; Quane 1984) were used to develop equilibrium temperature regression
models (Alaska, Univ., AEI DC 1983b). These regression models (Figure 7)
were used to synthesize Chulitna and Talkeetna stream temperatures for all
simulations for which observed data were not available.
Actual or estimated pre-project Watana dam site temperatures are
required for natural condition simulations. These natural condition
simulations are used for base line comparisons and for model validation
simulations. An equilibrium temperature regression model was developed for
the Watana site using data collected during water year 1981 ( R&M Consultants
1982c) (Figure 8). The regression analysis was limited to observed
temperatures greater than 0 C.
Meteorologic Data
The SNTEMP model is designed for climatic data input from only one
representative meteorologic data station per stream network. The only
long-term meteorologic data station within the middle river Susitna Basin is
the US National Weather Service Station located in Talkeetna. This station
has daily air temperature, wind speed, relative humidity, and percent cloud
24
Figure 6. Tributary temperature regression function.
MIDDLE SUSITNA RIVER TRIBUTARY TEMPERATURES
15 • INDIAN RIVER
• PORTAGE CREEK -0 ~ TSUSENA CREEK ----SIMULATED TEMPERATURE
w
0::
::;)
t-
<t
0::
N w
lJl a.
:E w
t-
10
5
~ • I I
• -1--~ -:-i -----...__ --1
-·-----• • • • .----t ~ . ~~-~/. • • l' .........
/-I ~
~ ~~
/ ~~
/ ~
/ ·~
.t. ~
~""" 0
35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 2 3 4
WATER WEEK
Figure 7. Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers temperature regression functions.
CHULITNA AND TALKEETNA STREAM TEMPERATURES
10 0 CHULITNA OBSERVED 0
0 TALKEETNA OBSERVED 0
9 CHULITNA PREDICTED 0 oo
-8
TALKEETNA PREDICTED 0 0 0 -0
~ 0 0 --7 0 --=> 0 --ti 0 ----0 lr 6 0 --D 00 -N w --0 c:J\ -a.. --~ _o-
w 5 -0
t-,.9.----a 4 w > -lr -w 3 --(J) --a---m -0 -0
2
0 ~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. .10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE (C)
Figure 8. Watana dam site water temperature regression function.
WATANA DAM SITE STREAM TEMPERATURES
15
• OBSERVED 1981
-PREDICTED
-0 -10
LLI • 0: • :::> ... •
N <t • --..! 0: • LLI
0... 5 ~
LLJ ...
0
LLI > •
0:
LLI •
C/) 0
m
0
-5 ~------------------------------------------------5 0 5 10 15 20
EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE (C)
I
cover data for the period covered. in this report, 1971 to 1982. This period
of record allows stream temperature simulations under extreme and normal
meteorologic conditions once these data are adjusted to represent conditions
throughout the Susitna basin41 conditions.
Previously defined monthly values of the dust and reflectivity
coefficients (Alaska, Univ., AEI DC, 1983b) were distributed on a weekly
basis (Table 3). Air temperature and moisture radiosonde data collected
above Anchorage and Fairbanks (U.S. National Weather Service 1968, 1969,
1970, 1980; · World Meteorological Organization 1981 , 1982) were used to
determine elevation lapse functions. These lapse functions are used to
convert Talkeetna air temperature and humidity data to locations within the
Susitna Basin. Weekly values of the lapse rate coefficients are also presented
in Table 3.
The air temperatures predicted with these lapse rate functions and
Talkeetna air temperatures were compared with observed air temperatures at
the Watana and Devil Canyon dam sites and at a meteorological station at
Sherman ( R&M 1980, 1982c, 1982d, 1982e, 1982f, 1982g). These plots
(Appendix D) indicate that the lapse rate functions are more reliable at
temperatures above 0 C (i.e., summer conditions); the temperature lapse rate
functions tend to overpredict air temperatures when the actual air
temperatures are less than 0 C.
Figures contained within Appendix E illustrate the departure from
Talkeetna of weekly temperatures measured at stations within the basin.
Inspection of these figures will indicate the difficulty of trying to fit a
predictive air temperature lapse rate to the measured lapse rate, particularly
in winter. During winter, inversions may or may not be present. The
inversions may occur aloft or may dissipate and recur from week to week,
28
Table 3. Weekly values of meteorological constants
WEEK DUST REFLECTIVITY Yo yl ZT eo Bl ZR
NUMBER COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT (C/m) (C/m) (m) (m -1) (m-1) (m)
1 0.3363 0.45 -6.56E-3 -6.40E-5
2 0.3363 0.45 -6.56E-3 -6.40E-5
3 0.3363 0.45 -6.56E-3 -6.40E-5
4 0.3363 0.45 -6.56E-3 -6.40E-5
5 0.1291 0.67 -6.56E-3 -4.96E-5
6 0.1291 0.67 -6.56E-3 -4.96E-5
7 0.1291 0.67 -6.56E-3 -4.96E-5
8 0.1291 0.67 -6.56E-3 -4.96E-5
9 0.1291 0.67 -6.56E-3 -4.96E-5
10 0.2343 0.65 -6.56E-3 -8. 79E-5
11 0.2343 0.65 -6.56E-3 -8.79E-5
12 0.2343 0.65 -6.56E-3 -8.79E-5
13 0.2343 0.65 -6.56E-3 -8.79E-5
14 0.0938 0.62 -6.56E-3 -7.77E-5
15 0.0938 0.62 -6.56E-3 -7. 77E-5
16 0.0938 0.62 -6.56E-3 -7. 77E-5
17 0.0938 0.62 -6.56E-3 -7. 77E-5
18 0.0938 0.62 -6.56E-3 -7.77E-5
19 0.2912 0.59 -6.56E-3 -6.21E-5
20 0.2912 0.59 -6.56E-3 -6.21E-5
21 0.2912 0.59 -6.56E-3 -6.21E-5
22 0.2912 0.59 -6.56E-3 -6.21E-5
23 0.2372 0.58 -6.56E-3 -2.12E-5
24 o. 2372 0.58 -6.56E-3 -2.12E-5
25 0.2372 O.!i8 -6.56E-3 -2.12E-5
26 0.2372 0.58 -6.56E-3 -2.12E-5
27 0.2760 0.48 -5.93E-3 -1.04E-4 1.13E-5 450
28 0.2760 0.48 -5.93E-3 -1.04E-4 1.13E-5 450
29 0.2760 0.48 -5.93E-3 -1.04E-4 1.13E-5 450
30 0.2760 0.48 -5.93E-3 -1.04E-4 1.13E-5 450
31 0.3085 0.30 -5.95E-3 -1.93E-4 3.18E-5 525
32 0.3085 0.30 -5.95E-3 -1. 93E-4 3.18E-5 525
33 0.3085 0.30 -5.95E-3 -1. 93E-4 3.18E-5 525
34 0.3085 0.30 -5.95E-3 -1. 93E-4 3.18E-5 525
35 0.3085 0.30 -5.95E-3 -1.93E-4 3.18E-5 525
36 0.3156 0.24 -6.09E-3 -1.42E-4 3.45E-3 550
37 0.3156 0.24 -6.09E-3 -1.42E-4 3.45E-3 550
38 0.3156 0.24 -6.09E-3 -1.42E-4 3.45E-3 550
39 0.3156 0.24 -6.09E-3 -1.42E-4 3.45E-3 550
40 0.3078 0.22 -5.64E-3 -1.87E-4 2.92E-5 550
41 0.3078 0.22 -5.64E-3 -1.87E-4 2.92E-5 550
42 0.3078 0.22 -5.64E-3 -1.87E-4 2.92E-5 550
43 0.3078 0.22 -5.64E-3 -1.87E-4 2.92E-5 550
44 0.3296 0.23 -5.63E-3 -3.29E-4 1.26E-5 500
45 0.3296 0.23 -5.63E-3 -3.29E-4 1.26E-5 500
46 0.3296 0.23 -5.63E-3 -3.29E-4 l.26E-5 500
47 0.3296 0.23 -5.63E-3 -3.29E-4 1. 26E-5 500
48 0.3296 0.23 -5.63E-e -3.29E-4 1.26E-5 500
49 0.2924 0.24 -5.27E-3 -3.12E-4 2.90E-6 500
50 0.2924 0.24 -5.27E-3 -3.12E-4 2.90E-6 500
51 0.2924 0.24 -5.27E-3 -3.12E-4 2.90E-6 500
52 0.2924 0.24 -5.27E-3 -3.12E-4 2.90E-6 500
Tair (elevation = Z) !Talkeetna + y*o (Z -2ralkeetna); z < z = T
TTalkeetna +Yo* (ZT-2Talkeetna) + yl* (Z-ZT); Z > ZT
29
following no set pattern in different years. Three periods have particularly
tth./
unstable jtmospheric con1tions: late October, November, and January -all
4
winter climate regimes. The remaining nine predictive profiles fall well within
the observed range of temperature change with elevation and generate
acceptable air temperature values for input to the stream temperature model.
Weekly averaged wind speed data collected at the R&M sites at Watana,
Devil Canyon, and Sherman were compared to the wind speeds observed at
Talkeetna (Appendix F). The Talkeetna data appears to represent the
average winds occurring in the middle Susitna basin.
MODEL VALIDATION
Mainstem Susitna River temperatures collected between the Watana dam
site and the Parks Highway Bridge (ADF&G 1983a) were used to validate the
stream temperature simulations. These data were only available for water
weeks 37 to 52 for water years 1981 and 1982, and weeks 1 to 4 and 34 to 52
for water year 1983.
The residual errors (predicted temperature minus observed temperature)
were plotted as a function of the meteorological variables (air temperature,
humidity, possible sunshine and wind speed), distance, and time period
(Appendix G). No systematic errors were observed although this analysis
helped identify observed stream temperatures which were not representative
of main stem conditions. Some of these data were removed from the validation
set after discussions with AD F&G (Quane 1984} suggested that the data could
be in error.
The stream temperature model was calibrated by adjusting the water year
1982 and 1983 Watana dam site temperatures to obtain a better fit to
downstream temperatures. These adjusted Watana dam site temperatures were
30
used with the water year 1981 observed temperatures to develop a new
regression model (Figure 9). This regression plot demonstrates that the
adjusted temperatures follow a similar relationship to the observed data
(compare with Figure 8). This new regression model provides more
representative Watana dam site temperatures useful for pre-project
simulations.
The post-calibration statistics are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Susitna Stream Temperature Simulation Statistics
Water year 1981 1982 1983 1981-1983
Number of data points 49 67 124 240
Average error (C) -0.2 0.0 o.o -0.1
Standard error (C) 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5
Maximum over prediction (C) 1.7 1 • 3 1.9 1.9
Maximum under prediction (C) 2.0 1.1 0.9 2.0
The 90% confidence interval (using the Z statistic) for the water year
1981 to 1983 data is -1.0 C to 0.8 C; 90% of all predicted stream temperatures
from the Watana dam site to Parks Highway Bridge will fall within -1.0 C to
0.8 C of the recorded data values.
YEARS SELECTED FOR SIMULATION
Water years 1968 through 1983 were examined for seasonal variations in
meteorologic and hydrologic conditions. Hydrologic rankings were determined
by the mean summer flow measured at the Gold Creek gage. Winter seasons•
31
-0 -
IJJ
0:
::::)
ti
0:
IJJ a. w :I: N IJJ
1-
a
IJJ > 0:
IJJ
(/) m
0
15
10
5
0
Figure 9. Watana dam site water temperature regression function
using adjusted Watana data.
WATANA DAM SITE STREAM TEMPERATURES
• OBSERVED
o ADJUSTED
• ADJUSTED
• ADJUSTED
PREDICTED
•
1981
1981
1982
1983
•
.... . ... ...
• . ... . ....
-\
•
•
...
-5 ~-------------------------------------------------
-5 0 5 10 15 20
EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE (C)
hydrologic ran kings are determined from the preceding summer flows, as the
summer season controls the amount of water available in the reservoir for
winter release. Meteorologic conditions, represented by mean monthly air
temperatures at Talkeetna, were ranked by seasonal means. The air
temperature and available water rankings for the summer and winter seasons
are presented in Tables 5 and 6.
From these sixteen years, four summers and five winters were selected
to represent normal and extreme conditions. In this way, the range of
available natural conditions could be examined under project operation using a
minimum number of simulations. The nine seasons selected for initial
simulations are classified with respect to available water and seasonal air
temperature in Table 7 below.
Summer
1971
1974
1981
1982
Winter
1971-1972
1974-1975
1976-1977
1981-1982
1982-1983
Table 7. Classification of Seasons Simulated
Air
Temperature
Cold
Warm
Average
Average
Air
Temperature
Cold
Average
Warm
Average
Average
Available
Runoff
Wet
Dry
Wet
Average
Available
Runoff
Wet
Dry
Dry
Wet
Average
Summer seasons are easy to categorize. The cold, wet summer of 1971
was expected to result in the coldest downstream temperature, while the
warm, dry summer of 1974 was expected to result in the warmest down river
temperatures.
33
Table 5. Summer (May through September) air
temperature and flow rankings
Air Temp. at Flow at Gold
Summer Talkeetna (C) Ranking Creek (cfs) Ranking
1968 11.2 7 20030 7
1969 11.1 8 11320 15
1970 9.9 15 16350 12
1971 10.0 14 21400 5
1972 10.4 12 22160 2
1973 10.1 13 16730 10
1974 11.7 3 16260 13
1975 10.7 10 21960 3
1976 11.2 5 16520 11
1977 11.7 2 21080 6
1978 11.4 4 15400 14
1979 12.0 1 19730 8
1980 10.8 9 21610 4
1981 11.2 6 2'1290 1
1982 10.6 11 19330 9
Table 6. Winter (September through April) air
temperature and flow rankings
Preceding Summer
Air Temperature Flow at
Winter at Talkeetna (c) Ranking Gold Creek (cfs) Ranking
1968-69 -6.2 6 20030 7
1969-70 -2.3 14 11320 15
1970-71 -8.1 2 16350 12
1971-72 -8.7 1 21400 5
1972-73 -6.6 5 22160 2
1973-74 -6.6 4 16730 10
1974-75 -6.0 7 16260 13
1975-76 -6.6 3 21960 3
1976-77 -2.2 15 16520 11
1977-78 -4.1 10 21080 6
1978-79 -3.9 11 15400 14
1979-80 -3.3 12 19730 8
1980-81 -2.8 13 21610 4
1981-82 -5.2 8 24290 1
1982-83 -4.2 9 19330 9
34
Winters are less straightforward. A cold winter with low reservoir
storage (due to a preceding dry summer) would be expected to result in
downstream temperatures most similar to natural conditions, presumably not a
problem. A warm, wet winter would be expected to give the warmest
downriver temperatures, delaying formation of an ice cover. Neither of these
two cases have been simulated thus far. Other concerns, such as the extent
of ice formation, were important in year selection thus far. A cold winter
with high reservoir storage (1971-72) would be expected to result in the
greatest ice impact.
INSTREAM FISHERY RESOURCE ANALYSIS
THERMAL RELATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY
An approach to the determination of water temperatures which harm or
enhance aquatic life involves the development of thermal criteria for the
species or communities involved. Criteria permit judgement of the nature of
effects by examining the amount of departure from either preferred or
tolerated environmental conditions. AEI DC conducted a review of the
literature dealing with the development and use of thermal criteria for fish.
Some basic thermal responses of aquatic organisms are defined and briefly
reviewed here.
The naturally occurring temperatures of surface waters of the earth's
temperate zone vary from 0 to over 40 C as a function of latitude, altitude,
season, time of day, flow, depth, and other variables ( Brungs and Jones
1977). The rate of metabolism in poikilotherms depends on environmental
temperature. Natural environmental variations create conditions that are
optimum at times, but can also be above or below optimum for particular
physiological and behavioral functions of the species present. Temperatures
35
which are preferentially selected by fish generally represent temperatures at
which they are physiologically most efficient. The actual temperatures
selected by fish vary widely.
Aquatic organisms have
optimum temperatures for
gradients, and temperature
upper and lower thermal tolerance limits,
growth, preferred temperatures in thermal
limitations for migration, spawning, and egg
incubation. The term "selected" or "preferred" temperature is defined as the
range of temperatures in which animals congregate or spend the most time in
a free choice situation and is sometimes considered synonymous with
"optimum" (Reynolds 1977; Alubuster and Lloyd 1982). Preferred
temperatures may change under certain conditions. During a lab experiment
with unlimited food supply, juvenile sockeye salmon sustained optimum growth
at 15 C, but when food was limited optimum growth occurred at progressively
lower temperatures (Brett 1971).
Each life stage of every fish species has a characteristic tolerance range
of temperature as a consequence of acclimation, a physical adaptation to
environmental conditions. The tolerance range can be adjusted upward by
acclimation to warmer water and downward to cooler water. Much of the
thermal acclimation process in fish occurs over a period of hours or days,
and involves a "biophysical and biochemical restructuring of many cellular and
tissue components for operation under the new thermal regime imposed on the
organism" (Fry and Hochachka 1970). Once a new rate of metabolism has
been established, the fish is considered acclimated.
Temperatures beyond the tolerance range are referred to as incipient
lethal temperatures, upper and lower thresholds where temperature begins to
have a lethal effect. At temperatures above or below the incipient lethal
temperatures, survival depends on the duration of exposure with mortality
36
occurring more rapidly with greater temperature deviation from the threshold.
The upper boundary of the resistance zone above which survival is virtually
zero is referred to as the critical thermal maximum ( CTM). No critical
thermal minimum has been established primarily because most research has
concentrated on the environmental effects on aquatic life from heated effluent
and most cold-adapted fish can tolerate temperatures approaching 0 C for
varying periods of time. It is also likely that fish are behaviorally more
flexible to temperature changes at colder temperatures (Cherry and Cairns
1982).
Jobling ( 1981) developed a diagram showing the relationship between
acclimation temperature and fish response based on a literature review. This
diagram has been modified to show temperature responses in salmon (Figure
1 O). Optimum temperatures are not necessary at all times to maintain
populations and moderate temperature fluctuations can generally be tolerated
as long as a the upper limit is not exceeded for long periods.
SUSITNA RIVER FISHERY RESOURCE
Any applied temperature criteria should be closely related to the water
body in question and to its particular community of organisms. At least
nineteen species of fish are known to inhabit the Susitna drainage, fifteen of
which have been captured in the Susitna River between Devil Canyon and
Talkeetna (Table 8). Five of these are anadromous and 10 are resident
species.
Salmon Resource
Anadromous species form the basis of commercial and sport fishing in
37
Q)
'-:= -ca
'-Q) c.
E
Q)
1-
Q) en c
0 c. en
Q) a:
-----25 --UILT --CTM ----
20. ........................ ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... .
• 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••••• ., •••••
15' .............. .
-· 0 ••••••••••••• ...............
10 :::::::::::::::
5
.................
5 10 15 20
Acclimation Temperature
f\:\:~:\:\\\\~::J Zone of Preference
Q Tolerance Zone
CTM -Critical Thermal Maximum
UIL T -Upper Incipient Lethal Temperature
LILT -Lower Incipient Lethal Temperature
LE -Line of Equality
Fig. 10. Diagram showing temperature relations of salmon.
(Adapted from Jobling 1981)
38
LE
25
Table 8. List of Common and scientific names of fish
found to date in the Susitna River Between
Talkeetna and Devil Canyon
Arctic lamprey Lampetra japonica (martens)
Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus (Pallas)
Round whitefish Prosopium cvlindraceum (Pallas)
Humpback whitefish Coregonus pidschian (Gmelin)
Rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri (Richardson)
Dolly varden Salvelinus malma (Walbaum)
Pink (humpback) salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha (Walbaum)
Sockeye (red) salmon Onchorhynchus nerka (Walbaum)
Chinook (king) salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum)
Coho (silver) salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch (Walbaum)
Chum (dog) salmon Oncorhynchus keta (Walbaum)
Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus (Forster)
Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus (Linnaeus)
Bur bot Lata lota (Linnaeus)
Slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus (Richardson)
Upper Cook Inlet. Five species of salmon (chinook, coho, chum, sockeye,
and pink) are harvested as they migrate to their. stream of origin. The
Susitna River drainage is the largest watershed in Upper Cook Inlet and is
considered to be the inlet's largest salmon-producing system.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has attempted to determine the
escapement of Pacific salmon into the Susitna River using side scan sonar and
tag/recapture population estimates (Table 9). These estimates should be
considered conservative as they do not account for escapements into systems
downstream of RM 80.
Fishwheel and stream survey data have been used to determine the
timing patterns of salmon into and through the mainstem as well as into the
various sloughs and tributaries. This timing varies among species, but in
general the peak inmigration and spawning time for salmon above Talkeetna is
between late June and September (Table 1 0). Peak juvenile outmigration
occurs between June and August.
Between the Chulitna River confluence ( RM 98.5) and Chinook Creek
( RM 156.8) in Devil Canyon are at least 18 tributaries and 34 sloughs that
provide potential spawning habitat (Figure 11). The largest number of
salmon use the tributaries for spawning. Next in importance are the sloughs
with only a small fraction using mainstem habitat for spawning.
/"--~
Escapement survey counts in the tributary streams do not reflect the
total number of spawning salmon, only the relative population density by
species within the surveyed index areas. These index areas range in length
from 0.25 to 15 miles. Of the Susitna tributaries between Talkeetna and Devil
Canyon, Indian River (RM 138.6), Portage Creek (RM 148.9), Whiskers Creek
(RM 101.4), Lane Creek (RM 113.6), and Fourth of July Creek (RM 131.0)
40
Table 9. Susitna River esC<Jpurmts by species and sampling location, 1981 -1983
St\HPLUlG RIVER Q[JN.X](2 SCU<EYE PINKS QIIJH alii() 'IDTAL
IJ:O\TIW NiLE
1981 1982 1983 1981 1982 1983 1981 1982 1983 1981 19B2 1983 1981 1Y82 1983 1981 1982 1983
Yt•lJll•l 0'! 139,4CXl ll3,800 104,4CQ 36,100 447,300 60,700 19,800 27,800 10,8CXJ 17,000 3-<,100 8,900 212,300 623,000 18!,,800
Station
Stmshil1e 80 52,9<0 91,2(() 133,500 151,500 71,700 49,500 443,200 40,600 262,900 430,400 266,000 19,800 45,7CXl 15,200 465,700 J ,123, 700 480,P/XJ
Stati•nt
TalkL>etna 103 10,900 14,500 4,800 3,100 4,200 2,300 73,000 9,500 20,800 4~,HXJ 50,400 3,300 5,100 2,400 31,2CXl 141,200 78,J(X)
Station
CUrry 120 11,300 10,000 2,800 1,300 1,900 1,000 58,800 5,500 13,100 2,,400 21,100 1,100 2,400 800 18,000 103,200 38,800
Station
Total4 272,500 265,200 176,200 85,600 890,500 101,300 282,700 45!l,200 276,800 36,800 7~,800 24,100 677,600 1,693, 700 578,4CXJ
.P.. 1. Escaprnent rumbers were derived frCill tag/recapture population est:lnntes with the exception of the Yentna Station escaperrcnts which are represented by sonar counts.
2. Stations were not operat:ll•g during entire chinook migration and total escaperrcnts are not available.
3. Total escaperrcnt minus chinook coonts.
4. Susitna River dra:llt.age escaperrcnt (Yentna Station and Sunshine Station) m:i.rrus chmook coonts and escaperrcnt into other tributaries dowr.stream of RH 77.
Source: ADF&G 19!!3
Table 10. Susitna River Salmon Periodicity
DATE
HABITAT RANGE PEAK
CHINOOK (KING) SALMON
Adult inmigration Cook Inlet-Talk. May 25-Jul 9 Jun 18-Jun 30
Talkeetna-D. C. Jun 9-Aug 20 Jun 24-Jul 24
Upper river tribs .Tnl l-A11g 6
Outmigration Upper river May 18-0ct 31 Jun 19-Aug 30
Spawning Upper river tribs Jul 1-Aug 10 Jul 20-Jul 27
COHO (SILVER) SALMON
Adult inmigration Cook Inlet-Talk. Jul 19-Aug 24 Jul 21-Aug 2
Talkeetna-D. C. Aug 1-Sep 19 Aug 12-Sep 5
Upper river tribs Aug 8-Sep 27
Outmigration Upper river May 18-0ct 12 1 May 28-Aug 21
Spawning Upper river tribs Sep 1-0ct 8 Sep 5-Sep 24
CHUM SALMON
Adult inmigration Cook Inlet-Talk. Jul 10-Aug 25 Jul 26-Aug 2
Talkeetna-D. C. Jul 22-Sep 15 Aug 3-Aug 27 ..;. '7 ... ---
Upper river tribs Jul 27-Sep 6
Upper river sloughs Aug 6-Sep 5
Outmigration Upper river May 18-Aug 20 May 28-Jul 17
Spawning Upper river tribs Jul 27-0ct 1 Aug 5-Sep 10
Upper river sloughs Aug 5-0ct 11 Aug 20-Sep 25
Upper river mains tern Sep 2-Sep 19
~·
SOCKEYE (RED) SALMON
Adult inmigration Cook Inlet-Talk. Jul 4-Aug 8 Jul 18-Jul 25
Talkeetna-D.C. Jul 16-Sep 18 Jul 20-Aug 14
Outmigration Upper river May 18-0ct 11 1 Jun 22-Jul 17
Spawning Upper river sloughs Aug 5-0ct 11 Aug 25-Sep 25
1 All migration includes migration to and between habitat, not just outmigration
SOURCE: ADF&G 1981q, _ _!_281b, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c
42
-·
Table 10. (Continued) Susitna River Salmon Periodicity
DATE
HABITAT RANGE PEAK
PINK SALMON
Adult inmigration Cook Inlet-Talk. Jul 20-Aug 24 Jul 28-Jul 30
Talkeetna-D. C. Jul 20-Aug 29 Aug 1-Aug 21
Upper river tribs Jul 27-Aug 23
Upper river sloughs Aug 4-Aug 17
Outmigration Upper river May 19-Jul 17 May 29-Jun 8
Spawning Upper river tribs Jul 27-Aug 30 Aug 10-Aug 25
Upper river sloughs Aug 4-Aug 30 Aug 15-Aug 30
1All migration includes migration to and between habitat, not just outmigration
SOURCE: ADF&G 198lq, 1-981b, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c
43
\j -ADFSG STATION
~ -RIVER MILEPOST
0 -SLOUGH
MAINSTREAM SPAWNING LOCATIONS
~olltd Boa lndicolts 1963 OburvOtiOOI
Olld Boa lndltOIUI9820burvations
Oo$hed Boa lndiCOIH 1981 Obnrvollons
IOO.I -:---River Milepost
RS P : _ _:. ~,cs,ss-, -RS-Sockeye Solman
--..J PS-Pink Salmon
CS-Chum Salman
S S-Coho Salmon
0
:ii5.ol
;cs : ....... :
Figure 11.
\J -ADFSG STATION
~ -RIVER MILEPOST
0 -SLOUGH
MAINSTREAM SPAWNING LOCATIONS
Oolltd Bo• lndico1n 1983 Obsrrvot1ons
Sohd Boa lndtcotul9820buryotion1.
Ooshl!'d Bo• lruhcat'" 1981 OburvQtiOflS
100.1 -: -River Milepost
RS,Ps,cs,ssi---RS-Sockeye Salmon
-----...J PS-Pink Salmon
CS -Chum Salmon
S S-Coho Solman
Susitna River map showing important habitat. and geographic features between
RM 100 and 153.
/
0
()
0
Figure 11. Susitna River map shOwing imp<rftant',nabita:'cand "'6 """'gra'r·'--"., ... ; h, .......... , ..... res
RM 100 and 153.
,V
j-~;/ I
~/~Q~
\J -ADFB.G STATION
~ -RIVER MILEPOST
0 -SLOUGH
MAINSTREAM SPAWNING LOCATIONS
Oolttd 6<:1• Indicates 1983 ObnrvoHont
Solid Bos lndicotu 1962 0 burw ol iont
Oos.htd Boa lnditotn t981 Oburvolions
; 100.1 -: -River Milepost
1 RS,Ps,cs,ssf---AS-Sockeye Salmon
'------J PS.-Pink Salmon
CS-Chum Salmon
S S-Coho Salmon
contain the bulk of the tributary escapement for chinook, coho I pink, and
chum salmon (Table 11).
Chum and sockeye salmon are the principal species utilizing slough
habitats for spawning I and over seventy-three percent of the peak slough
escapement counts for chum and sockeye during 1981-1983 occurred in just
four of these 34 sloughs: 8A, 9, 11, and 21 (Table 12). Ninety-two percent
of the sockeye and sixty-six percent of the slough-spawning chum salmon
were counted in these four sloughs (ADF&G 1981; 1983b; Barrett et al. 1984).
Almost all sockeye spawning above Talkeetna takes place in sloughs. A small
number of pink salmon use the sloughs for spawning (Table 12) 0 Coho and
chinook salmon spawn almost entirely in tributaries.
The ADF&G conducted mainstem spawning surveys in 1981 and 1982 using
portable and boat-mounted electroshockers, examining 317 and 1 ,211 sites,
respectively (ADF&G 1983b). In 1983 no inclusive mainstem spawning surveys
were conducted. However, six spawning areas were found during stream and
slough surveys (Barrett et al. 1983). In 1981, 12 main stem spawning sites
were observed between RM 68.3 and 135.2, of which six were above the
Chulitna River confluence. Fourteen chum salmon were observed at four sites
and seven coho at two sites. In 1982, 10 mainstem spawning sites were
observed between RM 114 and 148.2. Five hundred ~~fifty chum salmon
were observed at nine sites, one sockeye at one site, 20 pinks at one site,
and six coho at three sites. In 1983, six main stem spawning sites were
documented between RM 115 0 0 and 138.9. Two hundred )~eighty-six chum
salmon were observed at these sites, 11 sockeye at RM 138.6, and two coho
salmon at RM 131.1.
With the exception of pink salmon, substantial freshwater rearing occurs
in the reach of the Susitna River between the Chulitna confluence and Devil
47
Table 11. Peak salmon survey counts above Talkeetna for Susitna River tributary streams.
STReAM SURVEY Coho Chinook
DISTANCE
YEAR 74 76 81 82 83 75 76 77 78 79 81 82 83
Whiskers 0.25 27 70 176 115 22 8 3
Creek (RM 101.4)
Chase 0.25 40 80 36 12 15
Creek (RN 106.9)
Slash 0.75 6 2
Creek (RH 111. 2)
Gash 1.0 141 74 19
Creek (RM 111. 6)
Lane 0.5 3 5 2 40 47 12
Creek (RM 113.6)
Lower 1.5 56 133 18
McKenzie (RM 116.2)
McKenzie
Creek (RM 116.7)
0.25
Little 0.25 8
Portage (RM 117. 7)
Fifth 0.25 3 of July (RM 123.7)
+:--Skull 0.25
OJ Creek (RM 124,7)
Sherman
Creek (RM 130.8)
0.25 3
Fourth 0.25 26 17 4 3 14 56 6 of July (RH 131. 0)
Gold 0.25 1 21 23 Creek (RM 136. 7)
Indian 15.0 64 30 85 101 53 10 537 393 114 285 422 1053 1193 River (RM 138. 6)
Jack 0.25 1 2 6
Long (RM 144.5)
Porta~e 15.0 150 100 22 88 15 29 702 374 140 140 659 1253 3140
Cree (RM 148.9)
Cheechako 3.0 • 16 25
Creek (RM 152,5)
Chinook 2.0 4 8
Creek (RM 156.8)
TOTAL 307 147 458 633 260 62 1261 767 254 425 1121 2473 4416
Table 11 (continued), Peak salmon survey counts above Talkeetnc for Susitna River tributary streams.
STREAM SURVEY Chum Sockeye
DISTANCE
YEAR 74 75 76 77 81 82 83 74 75 76 77 81 82 83
1-Jhiskers 0.25
Creek (RM 101.4)
Chase 0.25 1
Creek (RM 106.9)
Slash 0.75
Creek (RM 111.2)
Gash 1.0
Creek (RM 111.6)
Lane 0.5 3 2 76 11
Creek (RN 113.6)
Lower 1.5 14 1
NcKenzie (RM 116.2)
McKenzie 0.25 46
Creek (RM 116.7)
Little 0.25 31
Portage (RM 117. 7)
Fifth 0.25 6
of July (RH 123. 7)
.p-Skull 0.25 10
1.0 Creek (RN 124. 7)
Sherman 0.25 9
Creek (RM 130.8)
Fourth o:25 594 78 11 90 191 148
of July (RM 131.0)
Gold 0.25
Creek (RM136. 7)
Indian 15.0 531 70 134 776 40 1346 811 1 2
River (RM 138.6)
Jack 0.25 3 2
Long (RM 144.5)
Porta~e 15.0 276 300 153 526
Cree (RM 148.9)
Cheechako 3.0
Creek (RM 152,5)
Chinook 2.0
Creek (RM 156.8)
TOTAL 1401 73 512 789 241 1736 1494 48 2
Table 11 (continued), Peak salmon survey counts above Talkeetna for
Susitna River tributary streams.
STREAM SURVEY Pink
DISTANCE
YEAR 74 75 76 77 81 82 83
Hhisker's 0.25 75 138
Creek (RH 101.4)
Chase 0.25 50 38 107 6
Creek (RH 106.9)
Slash 0.75
Creek (RH 111. 2)
Gash 1.0
Creek (RM 111.6)
Lane 0.5 82 106 1103 291 640 28
Creek (RH 113.6)
Lower 1.5 23 17
McKenzie (RH 116.2)
McKenzie 0.25 17
Creek (RH 116.7)
Little 0.25 140 7
Portage (RH 117. 7)
Fifth 0.25 2 113 9 of July (RH 123. 7)
VI Skull 0.25 8 12
0 Creek (RH 124.7)
Sherman 0.25 6 24
Creek (RH 130.8)
Fourth o. 25 159 148 4000 612 29 702 78
of July (RH 131.0)
Gold 0.25 32 11 7
Creek (RH 136. 7)
Indian 15.0 577 321 5000 1611 2 738 886
River (RH 138.6)
Jack 0.25 5
Long (RH 144.5)
Portafe 15.0 218 3000 169 285
Cree (RH 148.9)
Cheechako 3.0 21
Creek (RH 152.5)
Chinook 2.0
Creek (RH 156.8)
TOTAL 1036 575 12157 3326 378 2855 1329
Source: Barrett 1974 Riis 1977
ADF&G 1976, {978, 1981b, 1983b
Table 12. Peak slrugh esca{lle!lt counts above Talkeetna
ODJM Sl.XX!:YE PINK ffi!O
SU:U11 NO, RIVFR MilE 1974 1975 1976 1977 1981 1982 1983 1974 1975 1976 19P 1981 1982 1983 1976 1977 1981 1982 1983 1982 1983 ----
99.6 6
2 HX).4 27 49
3ll 101.4 50 3 15 7 5
3A 101.9 1
Ta.l.kct!tna St. 103.0
4 105.2
5 107.2 2
6 108.2
6A m;3 11 2 35 35
7 113.2
8 113.7 302 25
<ltrry St, 120.0
8D 121.8 73
8C 121.9 48 4 2
8B 122.2 80 104 ;: 5
}bose 123.5 167 23 68 8 22 8
Vl AI 124.6 140 77
I-' A 124.7 34 2 2 1
8A 125.1 51 620 336 37 70 177 68 66 28 4
B 126.3 58 7 8 2 32
9 128.3 511 181 36 260 300 169 8 t; 10 5 2 12
9B 129.2 90 5 81 1
9A 133.3 182 118 105 2 1 1
10 133.8 2 2 1 1
11 135.3 33 66 116 411 459 238 79 84 78 21L 893 456 248 131
12 135.4
13 135.7 4 4
14 135.9 2
15 137.2 l 1 132 14 14
16 137.3 2 12 4 3 13
17 138.9 24 38 21 90 6 6 5
18 139.1
19 139.7 4 3 3 3 32 E 23 5 1 1
20 140,0 107 2 28 14 30 63 20 2 64 7
21 141.1 668 250 30 304 274 736 319 13 75 23 38 53 197 64
21A 145.5
22 144.5 8 114
Total 1352 495 98 451 2596 2244 1458 103 194 134 30C 1241 607 555 13 28 507 10 53 19
Scurce: Barrett 1974, Riis, 1977. ADF & G 1976, 78, 81b, 81J, 83c, Sus 244.
51
Canyon. Juvenile salmon are unequally distributed among four macrohabitat
type.s: tributary, upland slough, side slough, and side channel.
Juvenile chinook salmon are distributed mostly in tributaries and side
channels throughout the entire May to October rearing season. Coho are
mostly rearing in tributaries and upland sloughs during this time. Sockeye
are found evenly distributed between upland and side sloughs from May
through early September. Chum are mainly distributed between side sloughs
and tributaries from May through July (Dugan et al. 1984).
Resident Species
Of the ten resident fish species found between Talkeetna and Devil
Canyon, only rainbow trout, Arctic grayling, burbot, round whitefish, and
slimy sculpins are abundant in the area. Long nose suckers, Dolly Varden,
humpback whitefish, threespine stickleback, and Arctic lamprey occur
throughout the river below Devil Canyon but appear to be more abundant
below the Chulitna River confluence (Sundet and Wenger 1984). Rainbow
trout and Arctic grayling provide significant sport fishing, especially near
tributary mouths.
Rainbow trout and Arctic grayling spend most of the open water season
in tributaries and sloughs, using the mainstem more as a migration and
overwintering area. Burbot generally occupy the turbid mainstem waters year
round while whitefish and longnose suckers can be found in both mainstem
and tributaries during the open water season.
Rainbow trout and Arctic grayling move into tributaries to spawn in the
spring after breakup. Whiskers, Lane, and Fourth of July Creeks are the
primary tributaries used for rainbow spawning (Sundet and Wenger 1984).
Round whitefish are believed to spawn in October at either mainstem or
52
tributary
generally
mouth locations (Sundet and Wenger 1984). Burbot
occurs between January and March under the
mainstem-influenced areas.
TEMPERATURE TOLERANCE/ PREFERENCE CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT
spawning
ice in
Significant changes in water temperature may affect the composition of
the aquatic community. Altered thermal characteristics of an ecosystem can
be either detrimental or beneficial. An assessment of the effects of water
temperature change on fish is enhanced by establishing temperature criteria.
Criteria are ranges of water temperature determined to be biologically accept-
able to fish for satisfactory physiological and behavioral activity. However,
application of temperature criteria in an environmental assessment of a specific
water body must be as closely related to the specific water body and to its
particular community of organisms as possible. This is accomplished by
modifying general regional criteria to make them applicable to that specific
water body.
Limits of temperature tolerance or allowable temperature variations
change throughout development, and, particularly at the most sensitive I ife
stages, differ among species. The sequence of events relating to gonad
maturation, spawning migration, release of gametes, development of the egg
and embryo, and commencement of feeding represents one of the more complex
phenomena in nature. These events are generally the most thermally sensi-
tive of all life stages (Brungs and Jones 1977).
Anadromous salmonids are highly mobile species that depend on tern-
perature synchrony among different environments for various phases of their
life cycle. There is the danger of dissynchrony if one area's temperature is
altered and not another's ( Brungs and Jones 1977). Successful early fry
53
production and emigration can be followed by unsuccessful I premature feeding
activity in a cold and still unproductive environment.
Examination of the literature shows that variations in spawning dates and
temperatures are common. These variations suggest that fish demonstrate a
biological plasticity and that their tolerance range can vary by species I
lifestagel and geographic setting. Overall tolerance and preference ranges
for Pacific salmon vary between 0 and 24 C and 7 and 14 C respectively.
Temperature tolerance data exist over a wide area and many years of natural
history observation. Since those published data (Table 13) are not all
specific to the Susitna drainage, they must be used only as an aid in
developing preliminary temperature tolerance ranges. Life phases potentially
affected by temperature changes are adult inmigration, spawning I embryo
incubation I juvenile rearing I and fry I smolt outmigration.
Adult lnmigration
Adult Pacific salmon have been reported to migrate into freshwater
systems in water temperatures which range from 1.5 to over 19 C. Adult fish
can usually tolerate a wider range of temperature than embryos (Alabaster
and Lloyd 1982). Upstream migration of salmon is closely related to the
temperature regime characteristic· of each spawning stream (Sheridan 1962).
The reported temperatures at which natural migration occurs vary between
species and location I but appear to be influenced by latitude. In general,
average annual freshwater temperatures are progressively cooler with in-
creasing latitude (Wetzel 1975). At latitudes above 55° N inmigrating
chinook I coho I sockeye, and chum salmon have been observed at temperatures
as low as 4 Cor colder (Bell 1983).
54
SPECIES
OF FISH
Chum
LIFE
STAGE
Adult
Juvenile
Egg/
Alevin
Table 13, Observted temperature ranges for various life stages of Pacific Salmon
TEHPERATURE RANGE C
SOURCE LOCATION HIGRATION SPAWNING INCUBATION
Bell 1973 8.3-21.0 7.2-12.8
Bell 1983 1.5
ADF&G 1980 Kuskokwim 5.0-12.8
Tributaries
Hattson & Hobart 1962 Southeast AK 4.4-19.4
1-!cNeil & Bailey 1975 Southeast AK 7.0-13.0
Wilson 1981 Kodiak Island 6.5-12.5
Neave 1966 B.C. 4.0-16.0
Rukhlov 1969 Sakhalin, USSR 1.8-8.2
Herritt & Raymond 1983 Noatak R, AK 2.5
ADF&G 1984 Susitna R, AK 5,6-15.5 4.5-12.3
Trasky 1974 Salcha R, AK 5.0-7.0
Sa no 1966 Bolshaia R, 6.0-10.0
USSR
Bell 1973 6.7-13.5
HcNeil & Bailey 1975 Southeast, AK
Wilson 1979 Kodiak Island 5.0-7.0
Raymond 1981 Delta R, AK 3.0-5.5
Merritt & Raymond 1983 Noatak R, AK 5.0-12.0
ADF&G 1984 Susitna R, AK 4.2-14.5
Bell 1973 4.4-13.3
HcNeil 1969 Southeast AK 0-15.0
Herritt & Raymond 1983 Noatak R, AK 0.2-9.0
Sano 1966 Japan 4
HcNeil & Bailey 1975 Southeast AK 4.4
Kogl 1965 Chena R, AK 0.5-4.5
Francisco 1977 Delta R, AK 0.4-6.7
Raymond 1981 Clear, AK 2.0-4.5
ADF&G 1983 Susitna R, AK 0-7.4
Waangard & Burger 1983 Lab. 0,5-8.05 ADF&G 1984 Susitna R, AK 2.0-4.3
55
REARING
11.2-15.7
4.4-15.7
1. 3-16.2
0)
('...
SPECIES
OF FISH
Coho
Pink
-· 1ble -··
LIFE
STAGE
Adult
Juvenile
Egg/
A levin
Adult
Juvenile
Egg/
A levin
:or ·
SOURCE LOCATION MIGRATION
Bell 1973 7.2-15.6
Bell 1983 4
HcNeil & Bailey 1975 Southeast AK 3 McMahon 1983 5-19 5-11 ' 4 Wallis 1983 Anchor R, AK 2-15,7-14
ADF&G 1984 Susitna R, AK 5.8-15.5
Cederholm & Scarlet 1982 Washington St. 6
Bustard & Narver 1975 Vancouver Is., BC 7
Bell 1973 7.0-16.5
HcNeil & Bailey 1975 Southeast AK 3 McMahon 1983 4-16 6-12
' 4 Wallis 1983 Anchor R, AK 2-15,7-14
V.'hitmore 1979 Caribou L, AK 11-15.5
Seldovia L, AK 3.0-5.7
ADF&G 1984 Susitna R, AK 4.2-14.5
Bell 1973
McMahon 1983
Dong 1981 Washington St.
Bell 1973 7.2-15.6
Bell 1983 USSR 5
NcNeil & Bailey 1975 Southeast AK
Sheridan 1962 Southeast AK
McNeil et al. 1964 Southeast AK
ADF&G 1984 Susitna R, AK 7.8-15.5
Bell 1973
HcNeil & Bailey 1975 Southeast AK
Wilson 1979 Kodiak Island 5.0-7.0
Wickett 1958 British Columbia 4.0-5.0
ADF&G 1984 Susitna R, AK 4.2-14.5
Bell 1973
Bailey & Evans 1971 Southeast AK
Combs & Burrows 1957 Lab.
}.6 --,.. _ _1, -..... -, 0..-...~t-h..-...-...-. .... AV
TEMPERATURE RANGE C
SPAWNING INCUBATION REARING
4.4-9.5
7.0-13.0 3
2-17,5-13
11.8-14.6
4.4-15.7 3
4-21,7-15
4 L-13 3 • • 3
4-14 4-10 ' 3 1.~-12.4,4-6.5
7.2-12.8
7.0-13
7.2-18.4
10.0-13.0
8.0-11.0
5.6-14.6
4.4-15.7
4.L-13.3
4.:
o.:-5.5
1 ,.,_Q (\
~
1-l
SPEX:IES
OF FISH
Sockeye
Qdnook
Table 13. (Continued) Chserved temperature ranges for various life stages of Pacific Salm:m
UFE
STAGE
Adult
Juvenile
Egg/
Alevin
Adult
Juvenile
Egg/
Alevin
SOORCE
Bell 1973
Bell 1983
~fcNeil & Bailey 1975
Nelson 1983
ADF&G 1984
McCart 1967
Raleigh 1971
Bell 1973
McNeil & Bailey 1975
Fried & laner 1981
Bucher 1981
Hartman et al. 1967
Flagg 1983
ADF&G 1984
Bell 1973
Coohs 1965
ADF & G 1983
Waangard & Burger 1983
ADF & G 1984
Bell 1973
Bell 1983
~t:Neil & Bailey 1975
Wallis 1983
ADF&G 1984
Raynond 1979
Bell 1973
M::Neil & Bailey 1975
AEIDC 1982
Wallis 1983
ADF&G 1984
Bell 1973
Corrbs 1965
p ·'---ti.ce: • TT:lser 107_8
TEMPERATURE RANGE C
ux:::ATION :::NClJBATION
7.2-15.6 10.6-12.2
2.5
Southeast PK 7.G-13.0
Sootheast PK 8.3-14.3
Susitna R, PK 5.8-15.5 4.9-10.5
British Coh.mhia 5.o-17.o
Lab. 4.5
11.2-14.6
Southeast PK 4.4-15.7
Bristol Bay, PK 4.G-7.0
Bristol Bay, PK 4.4-17.8
Alaska-wide 4.5-lO.Q
Kasilof R, PK 6.7-14.4
Susitna R, PK 4.2-14.0
Lab.
4.L-13.3 2 4.~-14.3, 1.5
Susitna R, PK 2.~7.4
Lab. 2.(-6.55
Susitna R, PK 2.(-4.3
3.3-13.9 5.6-13.9
4
Sootheast PK
2-14,5-104 7 .o-13.0
Anchor R, PK
Susitna R, PK 6.6-15.6 7.8-13.6
Colt.nnbia R 7
7.3-14.6
Southeast PK 4.4-15.7
Southcent. PK 4.5 4
Anchor R, PK 6-16,8-16
Susitna R, PK 4.2-14.5
5.~14.4
Lab. 1._
).5;;-16.Q
Reiser and Bjornn ( 1979) report that deviations from natural stream
temperatures can also lead to other factors, such as disease outbreaks in
migrating fish, which can alter migration timing. Disease infection rates in
anadromous salmonids increase markedly above 13 C (Fryer and Pilcher 197 4;
Groberg et al. 1978). Temperatures above the upper tolerance range have
been reported to stop fish migration (Bell 1980). Low temperatures have
been reported by ADF&G biologists to stop pink salmon inmigration and
increase milling activity near the Main Bay hatchery site in Prince William
Sound ( Krasnowski 1984). While the holding pond raceway water varied
between 6 and 6. 5 C, the pink salmon would not enter and continued to mi II
in the seawater which was at a temperature between 10 and 12 C. When the
raceway water temperature was raised to 8. 5 C the salmon then entered the
holding pond.
Adult salmon throughout the Talkeetna to Devil Canyon reach experience ·
natural water temperatures ranging from approximately 2. 5 to 16 C during the
chinook inmigration, 4 to 15 C during the coho inmigration, and 5 to 16 C
during the pink, chum, and sockeye inmigration.
Adult Spawning
Thermal requirements for eggs, larvae, and/ or juvenile emergence may
differ from those of adults. The genetic contributions to successive genera-
tions are of more importance than the longevity of the individual organism,
making the thermal preference of the adults subordinate during spawning to
that of the eggs and larvae (Reynolds 1977).
Spawning of adult Pacific salmon has been reported to occur in water
temperatures which range from approximately 4 to 18 C, although the pre-
ferred temperature range for all five species is reported by McNeil and Bailey
58
( 1975) as 7 to 13 C. Chum salmon have been observed spawning in .upper
Susitna mainstem habitats at temperatures as cold as 3. 3 C (ADF&G 1983b).
Burbot and round whitefish are the most numerous species using
mainstem habitats for spawning. Burbot is one of the few freshwater fish
that spawns in winter. The spawning activity usually takes place in water
0.5 to 1.5 C (Scott and Crossman 1973; Alabaster and Lloyd 1982).
Temperatures between 0 and 0. 7 C were observed in mainstem burbot
spawning areas in 1983 (ADF&G 1983c). Round whitefish spawning has been
observed at temperatures between 0 and 4. 5 C (Scott and Crossman 1973; and
Bryan and Kato 1975). They are believed to spawn in the Susitna during
October while water temperatures are dropping rapidly. An increase in water
temperatures in winter at the time of reproduction could severely affect
spawning of whitefish and burbot (Alabaster and Lloyd 1982).
Embryo Incubation
Compared with the other life phases, embryo development is perhaps
most directly influenced by water temperature. Temperature ranges that
cause no increased mortality of embryos are much narrower than those for
adults (Alabaster and Lloyd 1982). In the freshwater species for which data
on embryonic development are available, the preferred range of temperatures
is 3.5 to 11.1 C (Alabaster and Lloyd 1982).
Generally, the lower and upper temperature limits for successful initial
incubation of salmon eggs are 4.5 and 14.5 C, respectively (Reiser and
Bjornn 1979). In laboratory studies conducted in Washington (Combs 1965)
and from a literature review conducted by Barns ( 1967), salmon eggs are
reportedly vulnerable to temperature stress before closure of the blastopore,
which occurs at about 140 accumulated Celsius temperature units. A
59
temperature unit is one degree above freezing experienced by. developing fish
embryos per day. After the period of initial sensitivity to low temperatures
has passed (approximately 30 days), embryos and alevins can tolerate temper-
atures near 0 C (McNeil and Bailey.1975).
From his work on Sash in Creek in southeast Alaska, Merrell ( 1962)
suggested that pink salmon egg survival may be related to water temperatures
during spawning. McNeil (1969) further examined Sashin Creek data and
discussed the relationship between initial incubation temperature and survival.
They determined that eggs exposed to cooler spawning temperature experi-
t=mrArl orAntAr inn lhntion mortnl ity thnn A00<::i Whirh heo;m in111hntion nt
warmer temperatures. Abnormal embryonic development could occur if,
during initial stages of development, embryos are exposed to temperatures
below 6 C (Bailey 1983). Bailey and Evans ( 1971) reported an increase in
mortality for pink salmon when initial incubation water temperatures were held
below 2 C during this initial incubation period.
Mean intragravel water temperatures for the four primary spawning
Susitna sloughs range from 2. 0 to 4. 3 C (ADF&G 1983c sus 2 '13). Slough 8A
was overtopped by cold mainstem water from an ice jam occurring in late
November 1982. This cold mainstem water (near 0 C) depressed the intra-
gravel water temperature and delayed salmon development and emergence in
this slough. Large numbers of dead embryos at this site suggests that
increased mortality may have occurred (ADF&G 1983c). Slight increases in
embryo mortalities and alevin abnormalities were shown to occur when average
temperatures were maintained at a level less than 3. 4 C during experimental
lab tests of developing Susitna chum and sockeye salmon embryos (Wangaard
and Burger 1983). It appears that a complete loss of all incubating salmon
60
eggs will not occur if the reduced water temperatures occur after closure of
the embryonic blastopore.
The eggs to temperature are those of burbot with a
tolerance range of only 0 to 3 C and a preferred range of 0. 5 to 1. 0 C
(Alabaster and Lloyd 1982). The next most sensitive would be the coregonids
followed by the salmon ids, of which the most sensitive appear to be pink
salmon. -The most tolerant species would be those spawning in quite shallow
waters which are exposed to diurnal fluctuations of temperature (Alabaster
and Lloyd 1982).
Juvenile Rearing
Water temperature effects or;i immature fish metabolism, growth, food
capture, swimming performance, and disease resistance. Juvenile salmonids
can usually tolerate a wider range of water temperatures than embryos. They
can also survive short exposure to temperatures which would be ultimately
lethal, and can live for longer periods at temperatures at which they abstain
from feeding (Alabaster and Lloyd 1982).
According to literature reviewed to date, juvenile salmon activity slows
at water temperatures lower than 4 C. At these lower water temperatures,
fish tend to be less active and spend more time resting in secluded, covered
habitats (Chapman and Bjornn 1969). In Carnation Creek, British Columbia,
Bustard and Narver ( 1975) reported that at water temperatures above 7 C,
fish quit feeding and moved into deeper water or closer to objects providing
cover. In Grant Creek near Seward, Alaska, juvenile salmonids were inactive
and inhabiting the cover afforded by streambed cobble and large gravel
substrates at 1.0 to 4.5 C water temperatures (Alaska, Univ., AEIDC, 1982).
61
Generally, the tolerable temperature range for rearing is between 4 and
16 C. However, rearing juvenile salmonids have been observed in side
sloughs in the upper Susitna River where:> from June through September,
water temperatures were were between 2.4 and 15.5 C (ADF&G 1983d), a
slightly wider range. Juvenile coho and chinook salmon have also been
successfully reared in Alaska hatcheries at temperatures between 2 and 4 C
(Pratt 1984). In an experiment at Auke Bay lab, coho salmon grew at
temperatures of 0.2, 2 and 4 C. No mortality was seen in unfed fish held at
these temperatures except for those at 4 C (Koski 1984). This suggests that
at temperatures around 4 C and higher, the coho's metabolism is sufficiently
active to require food whereas below these temperatures the fish can remain
inactive enough to not require feeding.
Fry/Smolt Outmigration
Water temperature change may serve as a stimulus for smolt outmigration
(Sa no 1966). Juvenile chinook salmon outmigrations from the Salmon River,
Idaho have been shown to be related to sudden rises in water temperature
(Raymond 1979). The critica I temperature triggering this movement appeared
to be 7 C and outmigrations were slowed when water temperatures dropped
below 7 C. Low temperatures seemed to slow the rate of outmigrations for
coho salmon in the Clearwater River, Washington, and only minor movement
was noted below 6 C (Cederholm and Scarlet 1982). Juvenile chinook and
coho salmon have been observed to stop outmigrating when water temperature
falls below 7 C (Raymond 1979; Cederholm and Scarlet 1982; Bustard and
Narver 1975). Outmigration for sockeye salmon begins as temperature rises
during the spring to 4. 4 to 5. 0 C (Foerster 1968). To insure optimum condi-
tions for smoltification, timing of migration, and survival of salmon smolts,
62
Wedemeyer et a I. ( 1980) stated that water temperature should follow the
natural seasonal cycle as closely as possible.
In the Susitna River, salmon smolt outmigration generally occurs from
mid-May through August (Dugan et al. 1984). River ice breakup generally
precedes a large part of the initial chum and pink salmon fry outmigration
period. Outmigration of pink salmon occurs between mid-May and mid-July,
peaking ·in early June. Outmigrating chum fry occur in the river mainstem
from mid-May to mid-August, peaking in June. Coho, chinook, and sockeye
smelts outmigrate from mid-May to early October, with peaks occurring in
June, July, and August, respectively.
In addition to salmon smolt outmigration, there is also a migration be-
tween habitats as fish redistribute themselves into slough, side channel and
mainstem habitats for overwintering. These emigrations generally peak in
August for chinook and coho salmon (Dugan et al. 1984). Rainbow trout and
Arctic grayling generally move out of tributaries to overwintering areas in
(:)11 ¥\Jc.f ""...( WCI\:11!.,.. l't i&.J)
late August through September (ADF&G 198.!+).
During May, Susitna river temperatures generally range from just above
freezing to 7 C. June River temperatures normally range from 2.5 to 9.0 C.
July water temperatures range from 5. 0 to 16 C, while during August main-
stem water temperatures are warmest, ranging from 8 to 15 C. In September
4. 0 to 10.0 C is the normal range for main stem water temperatures from Devil
Canyon to Talkeetna.
EFFECTS ANALYSIS
Temperature regimes in the Devil Canyon to Talkeetna reach are evalu-
ated with respect to the various life stage temperature tolerances. In order
to facilitate this evaluation, temperature tolerances are graphically
63
/' represented over a one-year time frame by fish life stage for ~.~ five species
of Pacific salmon. These figures (Appendix H) are then overlayed with ·the
temperature profiles from river miles 100, 130, and 150 for the years 1971-72,
1974-75, 1981-82, and 1982-83. Three scenarios are examined: (1) natural
versus Watana dam operation; (2) natural versus combined operation of the
Watana and Devil Canyon dams; and (3) natural versus Watana reservoir
filling.
Only in cases where the simulated temperature regimes fall outside the
life phase temperature tolerances, is an obvious adverse impact established.
In cases where project conditions do not exceed tolerances but are
substantially different from natural, a discussion follows.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
PROJECT EFFECTS ON I NSTREAM TEMPERATURE
I nstream temperatures were simulated under two Watana-only and two
Watana/Devil Canyon load demands as well as under natural conditions for five
winter and four summer seasons. Resultant temperatures are available for
each week at over 80 mainstem locations from the Watana dam face downstream
to Sunshine. These results are condensed in this section, and discussed in
terms of change to the downstream temperature regime resulting from project
operation. These temperature changes are discussed more fully in a later
section with specific reference to the effect on fisheries.
The downstream temperatures predicted from simulations are presented in
three forms.
1. Weekly temperatures are presented in Appendix A for locations at river
miles 83.8, 98.6, 130.1 and 150.2 for all scenarios, and at river mile
64
184.4 (Watana dam face) for natural and Watana-only scenarios. These
tables provide comparisons between natural and with-project results for
specific weeks.
2. Isotherm plots for the river reach between the downstream-most dam face
and Sunshine are presented in Appendix B for each scenario. These
figures synopsize an entire simulation on one graph, showing lines of
equal temperatures plotted as functions of river location and time. A
horizontal line drawn across the plot at any river mile will show a tem-
perature time series at that location, while a vertical drawn at any week
provides a time-constant temperature profile.
3. Seasonal temperature history plots for three river locations (approxi-
mately river miles 100, 130 and 150) comparing natural and with-project
scenarios are provided with corresponding fish preference criteria in
Appendix H. These graphics are useful for comparing the seasonal
variations between the with-project and natural temperature regimes.
A number of points should be kept in mind when considering the
temperature simulation results.
1. Reduced to simplest terms, operation of the proposed reservoirs will
effect downstream temperature in two ways.
a. The temperature of dam release water will usually differ from
temperatures which would naturally occur at that time in that reach
of river. Reservoirs tend to dampen the variation that naturally
occurs in a river system, with cooler-than-normal water released
during the summer, and warmer-than-normal water released during
the winter.
65
b. By altering the amount of water normally in the mainstem, dam
operations alter the rate of cooling or warming of the downstream
river. Basically, larger flows take longer to approach ambient
temperature.
2. Tributaries entering the mainstem river below the dam will buffer the
effect of the project, larger tributaries having a greater effect. The
Chulitna and Talkeetna Rivers, which join the Susitna within two miles of
each other, add a combined flow that is approximately 130% of the
Susitna River flow (on an annual basis). Thus these two rivers have a
considerable buffering effect on the Susitna water temperature.
3. The stream temperature model assumes instantaneous flow mixing at
tributary confluences. In reality, tributary flows tend to hug the bank
on the side of the mainstem river after converging, maintaining a plume
distinct from the mainstem water for a considerable distance downstream.
4. The temperature model does not simulate an ice cover, but rather
assumes an open water surface throughout the year. Consequently,
simulated temperatures rise quickly in spring in response to increased
solar input and warmer air temperatures, whereas the actual presence of
either a full ice cover or residual channel ice serves to temper these
rises. Thus predicted temperatures during this period should be
regarded cautiously.
NATURAL CONDITION SIMULATIONS
The study reach of river normally cools from the upstream end down,
approaching 0 C sometime during October. The river remains at 0 C until
after breakup, which occurs in early-to-mid May. There is usually a January
66
thaw in the basin that would raise the water temperature if not for the insu-
lating ice and snow cover.
After breakup, temperatures rise rapidly, reaching 11 to 13 C. During
the four summers simulated, peak temperatures all occurred within water
weeks 30 through 41 (June 17 -July 14). These summer peaks ranged from
10.9 to 13.0 Cat river mile 150, 10.9 to 12.9 Cat river mile 130, and 11.8 to
13.1 Cat river mile 100.
Cooling begins sometime between mid-August and early September, once
again reaching 0 C sometime in October.
WATANA ONLY, 1 AND 2001 DEMANDS
Two power load demands were used in the single-dam simulations, that of
the first year of Watana operation, 1996, and that of the year before De vi I
Canyon becomes operational, 2001. There were strikingly slight differences
between downriver temperatures simulated under these two demands. Mean
summer temperatures (Table 14) show no differences greater than 0. 05 C at
any of the three locations examined ( RM 150, 130 and 100) for the summers
simulated. On a weekly basis, temperatures are generally within a few tenths
of a degree between the 1996 and 2001 simulations.
Mean summer temperatures are approximately 1.0 C cooler than natural at
both river miles 150 and 130 under both load demands. By river mile 100, 84
miles downstream of Watana dam, this difference in summer means is reduced
to less than 0.6 C.
Operation of the project has the effect of delaying summer temperature
rises as well as reducing temperatures. With-project temperatures are consis-
tently cooler than natural prior to water week 40 (August 26 -September 1).
After this period, with-project temperatures are warmer than natural.
67
Table 14. Mean summer (water weeks 31-52) water
temperatures (C) under various ioad
demands for three mainstem locations
River Mile 150
Demand
Year 1971 1974 1981 1982 Mean
Natural 7.27 8.64 8.88 8.74 8.38
1996 6.65 7.29 7.87 7.71 7.38
2001 6.65 7.34 7.92 7.66 7.39
2002 5.82 6.67 6.38 6.54 6.35
2020 5.81 6.90 6.97 fi.7R fi.fi'?
River Mile 130
Demand
Year 1971 1974 1981 1982 Mean
Natural 7. 77 8.70 8.56 8.75 8.45
1996 6. 77 7.51 7.88 7.76 7.48
2001 6.79 7.54 7. 92 7. 72 7.49
2002 6.20 7.17 6.82 6.95 6.79
2020 6.19 7.39 7.32 7.17 7.02
River Mile 100
Demand
Year 1971 1974 1981 1982 Mean
Natural 8.26 9.35 9.09 9.35 9.01
1996 7.58 8.65 8.81 8.74 8.46
2001 7.58 8.66 8.81 8. 71 8.44
2002 7.14 8.40 7.85 8.00 7.85
2020 7.19 8.65 8.41 8.39 8.16
68
Table 15. Simulated summer peak temperature
ranges (C) at selected locations
River mile 150
Demand Water weeks when
Year Temperature Range (C) peaks occurred
Natural 10.9 -13.0 38 -41
1996 9.4 -11.1 40 -46
2001 9.4 -11.1 38 -46
2002 8.3 -10.2 41 -51
2020 8.5 -11.2 44 -48
River mile 130
Demand Water weeks when
Year TemEerature Ran~e (C) Eeaks occurred ..
Natural 10.9 -12.9 38 -41
1996 9.7-10.7 40 -46
2001 9.7-10.7 41 -46
2002 8.6 -10.2 41 -48
2020 8.6 -10.8
River mile 100
Demand Water weeks when
Year TemEerature Range (C) Eeaks occurred
Natural 11.8 -13.1 38 -41
1996 11.2 -12.1 38 -46
2001 11.2 -12.3 38 -46
2002 10.6 -11.5 38 -41
2020 10.9-11.6 41 -44
69
Summer peak temperatures are also reduced up to 2 C; and generally occur
later in the summer than under natural conditions (Table 15).
Figure 12 provides a comparison of weekly summer temperature ranges at
river mile 150 for natural and 1996 demand simulations, graphically synop-
sizing the observations discussed above. The average variation within each
WP.P.k is notic:ably lower under with-project conditions, 2.1 C as compared with
2. 7 C under natural conditions. Graphically, these values correspond to the
average length of the vertical temperature range lineso This suggests that
the reservoir has a stabilizing effect on summer instream temperature
variation.
Simulated natural river temperatures are 0 C at the Watana dam site from
mid-to-late October at least through the end of March (weeks 4 through 26).
Simulated Watana reservoir releases during this period range from 0.6 to 4.7
C. Consequently, river temperatures immediately downstream from the dam
face will be warmer than under natural conditions.
The location of the 0 C point and consequent ice front location
downstream from the dam varies as a function of flow, reservoir release
temperature and meteorology. For the four winters simulated by Harza's
I CECAL model, ice front movement into the middle river was delayed from two
to seven weeks. In most cases, the ice front under with-project conditions
never reached the same upstream location as under natural conditions, but
remained 5 to 25 miles further downstream. However, in the coldest winter,
1971-72, the ice front reached the same location as under natural conditions
by February 1. The location of these ice fronts are shown on the isotherm
plots in Appendix B.
70
14
12
10
4
2
0
Figure 12. Comparison of weekly river temperature ranges (C) at river mile 150
for four summer simulations, natural and watana 1996 demand results.
I I I
1
32 34
I
36
1
38 40
o--o Natural Range
•• _ ... With-Project Range
42 44 46 48 50 52
Water Weeks
WATANA/ DEVIL CANYON 2002 and 2020 DEMANDS
The. two-dam configuration was simulated under two load demands, 2002,
the first year Devil Canyon comes on line, and 2020, a typical year at full
operational capacity. Addition of the second dam moves the release facility
further downstream, eliminating a 33-mile reach where, under a single-dam
scheme, water temperatures begin equilibration to r~mbiemt temperatures. The
thermal consequences of this second dam are more severe deviations from
natural conditions than under the single-dam case. Summer temperatures are
cooler and winter temperatures warmer than both natural and the Watana-only
scheme.
Just as in the case of the single dam, temperatures increase slowly
throughout the summer, remaining cooler than natural temperatures until early
September (water week 49, September 2-8), and then staying warmer than
natural through the fall and winter (natural winter temperatures being 0 C).
Summer peak temperatures are reduced by as much as 3. 0 C (Table 15),
which generally occur later in the season than under the natural regime.
Surprisingly, summer simulations under the 2002 demand result in colder
water temperatures than those simulated under the 2020 demand. Mean
seasonal temperatures, averaged for the four 2002 summers simulated, are
approximately 2.0, 1.7 and 1.2 C colder than natural at river miles 150, 130
and 100 respectively (see Table 14). By comparison, mean summer
temperature differences from natural conditions for river miles 150, 130 and
100 under the 2020 demand are 1.8, 1.4 and 0.9 C respectively. It should be
noted that these means are lower than natural, in part because of the season
definition, April 30 through September 30. With-project temperatures are
considerably warmer than natural through the fall; thus these differences in
summer means would decrease if the season were defined to run into October.
72
Figure 13 provides the weekly temperature ranges at river mile 150 for the
four summer simulations under natural and the 2002 load demand conditions.
WATANA FILLING
Filling the Watana reservoir is scheduled to begin in May, 1991. Filling
will continue through three summers, and will be completed sometime in late
summer,-1993 (Acres American 1983). Winter discharges will be released at
natural flow levels during these years.
Reservoir operations/temperature simulations and subsequent downriver
temperr~ture simlllrttionc; w~re rlnne rovering the winter 1991-92 through
summer 1993 period. The historic hydrology I meteorology used for these
simulations are I is ted in Table 16.
Season/ Winter Summer Winter Summer
Demand 1991-92 1992 1992-93 1-993
Historic 1982-83 1981 1981-82 1982
Hydrology I 1971 1971-72
Meteorology
Table 16. Historic hydrologic/meteorologic conditions used for Watana filling
simulations.
Summer release temperatures were slightly colder under 1992 demand
than under the 1991 demand. The two historic summer periods used for
simulating the 1992 conditions differed greatly, the 1971 summer being the
coldest of those years considered. For both summer 1992 demand simulations,
release: temperatures were no greater than 4.2 C through the first part of the
summer (week 44-July 29 to August 4 for 1981; week 46-August 12 to 18
for 1971), followed by warmer than natural releases. Even with the warm
releases late in the summer, mean seasonal temperatures at river mile 150
73
Figure 13. Comparison of weekly river temperature ranges (C) at river mile 150
for four summer simulations, natural and Watana/Devil Canyon 2002 demand results.
14
o---o Natural Range
• • With-Project Range
12
10 I I I
1 I I ~
I .... 8
I I = .... -~e:s--.... -e:s~u ~ 8-
~ 6 I E-4
4
2
[
0
32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Water Weeks
were J .3 and 2.5 C colder than natural for the 1971 and 1981 simulations
respectively. For the early-to-mid part of the summer (water weeks 31-46),
this difference is greater, 2.9 and 2.8 C for 1971 and 1981 simulations.
These results are synopsized for river miles 150, 130 and 100 in Table 17.
Figures 14 and 15 compare temperature time series at river mile 150 for these
two summer simulations with corresponding natural condition simulations.
The preceding year of filling, 1991, was simulated with historic
hydrology/meteorology from 1982. The mean temperature figures (Table 18)
are very similar to those of the 1992-demand/1981-condition simulation
discussed previously. The mojor rlifferenre is that releilsc temperatures in
the 1991 demand case warmed earlier in the summer, reaching 5 C by week 30
(June 17-23). Late summer release temperatures were not as high as in the
1992 simulations, keeping the season mean temperature low. Temperature time
series at river mile 150, comparing this case with natural 1982 summer
simulations, appear in Figure 16.
TOLERANCE AND PREFERENCE CRITERIA FOR FISH
Preliminary tolerance and preference ranges for thermal impact assess-
ment have been established for the five Pacific salmon species found in the
Susitna drainage. These limits are based on literature, lab studies, field
studies and observed Susitna drainage temperatures (Table 19). The
tolerance zones have been established for each life phase activity excluding
incubation. Within this range fish can expect to live and function free from
the lethal effects of temperature. Susitna river fish are acclimated to a
temperature range between 0 and approximately 18 C. Within this range, the
preferred temperature range for most salmonid life phases is between 6 and 12
C. The upper and lower incipient lethal temperatures for the salmon life
75
Table 17. Mean summer temperatures (C) for Watana
filling, 1992 demand, at selected locations.
River Mile 150
Demand
Year
Natural
1992
River Mile 130
Demand
Year
Natural
1992
River Mile 100
Demand
Year
Natural
1992
Water weeks 31-52
1971 1981
7.27 8.88
5.94 7.12
Water weeks 31-52
1971 1981
7. 77 8.56
6.22 7.39
Water weeks 31-52
1971 1981
8.26 9.09
7.11 8.41
76
Water weeks 31-46
1971 1981
8.12 9.13
5.26 6.34
Water weeks 31-46
1971 1981
8.14 9.14
5. 71 6.82
Water weeks 31-46
1971 1981
8.67 9.74
6.84 8.19
14
12
10
~
J ... 8 J = ... -~ ~--...
~ ~u ~ c.-s
Qj 6 ~
4
2
0
Figure 14. Simulated weekly river temperatures (C) at river mile 150 for summer 1971,
natural and Watana 1992 demand filling results.
o--o--o Natural Range
• • • With-Project Filling
32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Water Weeks
14
12
10
Q.j a.. 8 = a.. .....
Q.j ~-..... a..
~ Q.ju
~ c.-
8
Q.j 6 E-4
4
2
0
32
Figure 15. Simulated weekly river temperatures (C) at river mile 150 for
summer 1981, natural and Watana 1992 demand filling results.
o-o-o Naturai.Range
• • • With-Project Filling
34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Water Weeks
Table 18. Mean summer temperatures (C) for Watana
filling, 1991 demand, at selected locations.
River Mile 150
Demand Water weeks 31-52 Water weeks 31-46
Year 1982 1982
Natural 8.74 9.16
1991 6.95 6.49
River Mile 130
Demand Water weeks 31-52 Water weeks 31-46
Year 1982 1982
Natural 8.75 Y.l4
1991 7.17 6.84
River Mile 100
Demand Water weeks 31-52 Water weeks 31-46
Year 1982 1982
Natural 9.35 9.81
1991 8.10 7.99
79
14
12
10
4
2
0
32
Figure 16. Simulated weekly river temperatures (C) at river mile 150 for
summer 1982, natural and Watana 1991 demand filling results.
o---o-o Natural Range
• • • With-Project Filling
34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50. 52
Water Weeks
Table 19. Preliminary salmon tolerance criteria for Susitna River drainage.
TEMPERATURE RANGE o C
SPECIES LIFE PHASE TOLERANCE PREFERRED
Chum Adult Higration 1. 5-18.0 6.0-13.0
Spawning 1 1.0-14.0 6.0-13.0
Incubation 0-12.0 2.0-8.0
Rearing 1. 5-16.0 5.0-15.0
Smolt Migration 3.0-13.0 5.0-12.0
Sockeye Adult Migration 2.5-16.0 6.0-12.0
Spawning 1 4.0-14.0 6.0-12.0
Incubation 0-14.0 4.5-8.0
Rearing 2.0-16.0 7.0-14.0
Smolt Migration 4.0-18.0 5.0-12.0
Pink Adult Migration 5.0-18.0 7. 0-13.0
Spawning 1 7.0-18.0 8. 0-13.0
Incubation 0-13.0 4.0-10.0
Smolt Migration 4. 0-13.0 5.0-12.0
Chinook Adult Migration 2.0-16.0 7.0-13.0
Spawning 1 5.0-14.0 7.0-12.0
Incubation 0-16.0 4.0-12.0
Rearing 2.0-16.0 7.0-14.0
Smolt Migration 4.0-16.0 7.0-14.0
Coho Adult Higration 2.0-18.0 6. 0-11.0
Spawnig 1 2.0-17.0 6.0-13.0
Incubation 0-14.0 4.0-10.0
Rearing 2.0-18.0 7.0-15.0
Smelt Migration 2.0-16.0 6.0-12.0
1Embryo incubation rate increases as temperature rises. Accumulated temperature
units or days to emergence should be determined for each species for incubation.
81
phases excluding incubation would range between 13 and 18 C and 1 to 7 C I
respectively.
Embryo incubation rates increase with temperature. Accumulated temper-
ature units I or days to hatching. and emergence I should be determined as
criteria for incubation. Wangaard and Burger ( 1983) incubated Susitna chum
and sockeye eggs in a laboratory experiment under four separate temperature
regimes until complete yolk absorption. In a related study, ADF&G ( 1983c)
determined the timing to fifty percent emergence for chum and sockeye salmon
under natural conditions. Development times were computed and plotted for
uala rru111 llte5e 5luuie5 a11u rru111 uala availaule ill Lite lileralure. Tlte tesull-
ing regression gave a linear relationship between mean incubation temperature
and development rate (the inverse of the time to emergence) for chum and
sockeye between approximately 2 and 10 C (Figures 17-20). Variation in
incubation time of at least 10% of the mean can occur within a species and
further variation may be caused by fluctuating temperatures during incubation
(Crisp 1981). The calculated regression can give only an approximate
estimate of development time.
A simplified way of estimating emergence time is to develop a nomagraph
(Figure 21) from the incubation temperature versus development rate figures
By rearranging the regression equation I a formula can be developed to
predict the time to emergence given the average incubation temperature:
1000
0.574 T + 2.342
This formual is used to develop a nomagraph capable of predicting the
date of emergence given the date of spawning and the average temperature.
The left axis of the nomagraph becomes the known range of spawning dates
(July 20 -October 1 O) and the right axis are the emergence dates. By
82
co w
ADF&G
1983 )000(
VANGAARD
1983 0000
RAYMOND
1981 ....
ADF&G
1981 ++++
r=.ffl
alopo=4t 0057
B.B2a
!018
R.B16
!014
B.012
R.BlB
a.ooa
!006
!004
!002
aooa
a
Figure 17. Development time to emergence versus mean
incubation temperature for chum salmon.
CHUM SALMON
EMERGENCE
DEVEUFMENT ( 1/DA YS )
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
..
MEAN INUEATION TEMP ( C >
rt
lB 11 12
Figure 18. Development time to 50% hatch versus mean incubation
temperature for chum salmon.
CHUM SALMON
50% HATCH
DEVEL£PMENT < 1/DAYS >
8.020
ADF&G
1983 )000( 8.018
8.016
VANGMRD
1983 0000 8.014
8.012
RAYHfW
19Bl .... 8.010
aooa
8.006
0
R.W-4
rc.99 R.m2 alope=R. 0159
R.iW
a 2 3 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12
MEAN JNUEATIOO TEMP < C )
Figure 19. Development time to emergence versus mean incubation temperature for sockeye salmon.
SOCKEYE SALMON
EMERGENCE
DEVELOPMENT < 1/DAYS >
9.020
ADF&G
1983 XXX)( 9.018
9.016
VANGAARD
1983 0000 9.014
00 9.012
lJ1
DONG
1981 **** 0.010
0.008
ADF&G
1981 .......... 0.006
0.004
r=.93 9.002 alope=0. 0052
0.000
0 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12
MEAN INCUBATION TEMP < C ;
! ?
Figure 20. Development time to 50% hatch versus mean incubation
temperature for sockeye salmon.
SOCKEYE SALMON
50% HATrn
DEVEUfMENT < 1/DAYS >
0.929
ADF&G
1983 )000( R.818
8.016
VMlGAARD
1983 0000 R.814
00 R.012
0\
VElSOH
1900 .... 8.018
a.ooa
OLSEN 0
1968 ++++ a. rum
R.004
r=. 99
elope=R. 8146 R.002
R.{W
e 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12
HEAN INWJATIOO TEHP ( C )
Spawning
Date
July 20
Aug I
AugiO
Aug 20
Sept I
Sept 10
Sept20
Oct I
OctiO
Figure 21. Chum salmon spawning time versus mean
incubation temperature nomagraph.
T(C)
Emergence
Date
June 10
1.0
June I
L5 May20
MayiO
2.0
May I
2.5
April 20
3.0
3.5
ApriiiO
4.0 April I
4.5
5.0 March 20
5.5
6.0 March 10
6.5
7.0 March I
Feb 20
FeblO
Feb I
Jan 20
JaniO
Jan I
87
solving the equation for any temperature of interest, the number of Julian
days for that average incubating temperature to emergence can be
determined.
EFFECTS OF PROJECT-RELATED TEMPERATURES ON FISHERY RESOURCES
In this section, pre-and with-project temperature regimes in the Devil
Canyon to Talkeetna reach are evaluated with respect to the various life stage
temperature tolerances established for the five species of Pacific salmon.
Appendix H contains temperature history plots profiles for river miles 150,
130, and 100 in relation to the five Pacific salmon life phase activities for
three scenarios: ( 1) natural versus Watana dam operation; ( 2) natural versus
combined operation of the Watana and Devil Canyon dams; and (3) natural
versus Watana reservoir filling.
The life phase activities of migration, spawning, and rearing generally
take place in the open water season of May through October. Table 20 shows
the weekly temperature ranges for May through October at representative
locations between Devil Canyon and Sunshine for natural conditions and -
with-project related scenarios.
Embryo incubation generally takes place over the long winter time period
of September through April. The expected differences between natural and
with-project water temperatures are shown in Table 21.
The most apparent project-related change in Susitna River water temper-
ature above Talkeetna will occur in the mainstem and side channels since
these habitats will be directly affected by change in river discharge. These
habitats are primarily used by adult salmon and juveniles as migration corri-
dors; however, chinook salmon juvenile have been found to be extensively
using side channels for rearing. Resident species are also primarily using
88
LOCATION
(River Mile)
Portage Creek
(148.9)
Sherman
(130.8)
(Xj vlhiskers Creek '!"-(;)
(101.4)
Sunshine
(83.8)
1 Simulations using
temperature model
Table 20. Weekly temperature ranges for mainstem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine, for naturyl conditions and
project related scenarios; May 1982 •
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
NATURAL WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
Range Mean Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range He an Range Mean Range Mean Range
4.7-8.6 6.5 2.8-4.5 3.5 3.3-4.7 3.8 3.4-4.7 3.9 3.7-4.5 4.1 3.6-4.6
4.7-8.4 6.4 3.2-4.9 3.9 3.5-5.0 4.1 3.6-5.0 4.2 4.2-5.2 4.6 4.1-5.3
5.3-9.0 7.1 4.1-6.5 5.3 4.4-6.6 5.3 4.4-6.6 5.4 4.9-6.7 5.7 4.9-7.0
5.2-8.4 6.7 4.6-7.3 5.9 4.7-7.3 5.8 4.7-7.3 5.8 4.9-7.3 6.0 4.9-7.4
1982 hydrologic and meteorologic conditions and results of DYRESM reservoir
for some period.
. l
Mean
4. 1
4.6
5.8
6.0
(Cont'd) Table 20. Weekly temperature ranges for mainstem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine, for natural conditions and
project related scenarios; June 1982
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
LOCATION NATURAL WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
(River Mile) Range Mean Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range He an
Portage Creek 8.1-11.9 9.7 5.0-7.0 6.0 5.7-8.9 7.1 5.7-8.2 6.9 4.7-6.9 5.8 4.7-6.8 5.6
(148.9)
Sherman 8. 0-11.8 9.6 5.3-7.6 6.4 5.8-9.0 7.1 5.8-8.5 7.0 5.3-7.8 6.4 5.3-7.8 6.3
(130. 8)
......0 Whiskers Creek 8.5-12.5 10.1 6.5-9.0 7.5 7.1-10.8 8.5 7.1-10.4 8.4 6. 7-9.9 . 8.0 6. 8-10.1 8.1
() (101.4)
Sunshine 7.6-11.0 9.1 6.7-9.6 7.9 6.9-9.9 8.1 6.9-9.8 8. 1 6.8-9.7 8.0 6.7-9.7 8.0
(83.8)
(Cont'd) Table 20.
LOCATION NATURAL
(River Mile) Range Mean
Portage Creek 10.1-11.1 10.7
(148.9)
Sherman 1 0 • 0-11. 2 1 0 • 7
(130.8)
Whiskers Creek 10.6-12.0 11.4
~ 10 -(101. 4)
Sunshine 9.3-10.5 9.9
(83.8)
Weekly Temperature ranges for mainstem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natcral conditions and
project related scenarios; July 1982.
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
WATANA FILLING
Range Mean
WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
7.0-9.6 8.5 9.4-10.9 10.Z 9.3-10.7 10.1 5.1-10.2 7.3 7.3-8.9 8.2
7.3-.9.9 8.8 9.3-10.5 10.1 9.2-10.3 10.0 5.6-10.2 7.8 8.2-9.4 8.7
8.8-10.9 9.8 10.1-11.7 11.2 10.1-11.6 11.2 6.7-11.5 9.2 10.1-11.3 10.5
8.8-9.9 9.2 8.8-9.7 9.3 8.9-9.7 9.3 8.0-9.1 8.8 8.6-9.5 9.0
(Cont'd)
LOCATION
(River Mile)
Portage Creek
(148.9)
Sherman
(130.8)
Whiskers Creek
(101.4)
Sunshine
(83.8)
Table 20.
NATURAL
Range Mean
9. 4-11. 1 10.7
9. 5-11.2 10.7
10.1-12.0 11.4
8.5-10.2 9.7
Weekly Temperature ranges for mainstem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natural conditions and
project related scenarios; August 1982.
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
9.2-9.8 9.5 9.0-10.2 9.7 8.9-10.3 9.6 5.5-8.5 7.4 7.3-10.2 8.1
9.5-10.1 9.7 9.1-10.4 9.9 9.0-10.5 9.8 6.2-9.0 7.9 7.8-10.3 8.5
10.1-11.1 10.6 9. 8-11.3 10.8 9 • 8-11. 4 10. 8 7.4-10.0 9.0 8.7-11.1 9.7
8.4-9.8 9.4 8.3-9.7 9.3 8.3-9.7 9.3 8.2-9.3 8.8 7.9-9.4 9.0
(Cont'd) Table 20. Weekly Temperature ranges for mainstem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natural conditions and
project related scenarios; September 1982.
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
LOCATION NATURAL WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
(River Nile) Range Mean Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
Portage Creek 4.3-7.9 6.3 5.4-9.2 7.5 7.5-9.0 8.3 7.6-9.0 8.3 8.4-8.6 8.5 7.2-9.1 8.4
(148. 9)
Sherman 4.4-8.0 6.4 5.0-9.0 7.2 7.2-8.9 8.0 7.2-8.9 8.1 8.0-8.6 8.4 6.9-9.0 8.1
(130. 8)
~ Whiskers Creek 4.6-8.4 6.7 5.0-9.3 7.4 7.1-9.2 8.2 7.1-9.2 8.2 7.7-8.9 8.4 6.7-9.3 8.2
(101. 4)
Sunshine 4.5-7.6 6.1 4.5-7.9 6.2 5.5-7.8 6.6 5.5-7.8 6.6 5.6-7.8 6.7 5.1-7.8 6.4
(83.8)
(Cont'd) Table 20. Weekly Temperature ranges for mainstem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natural conditions and
project related scenarios; October 1982.
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
LOCATION NATURAL WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
(River Mile) Range Mean Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range He an Range Mean Range Mean
Portage Creek 0-2.2 0.6 0.2.2 0.8 2.2-6.5 4.6 2.3-6.7 4.8 6.3-8.3 7.5 4.6-7.7 6.4
(148.9)
Sherman 0-2.3 0.7 0-2.4 0.8 1.1-6. 0 3.9 1. 2-6.2 4.0 4.3-7.6 6.2 3.4-7.2 5.6
(130. 8)
~ Whiskers Creek 0-2.3 0.6 0-2.2 0.6 0-5.7 3.1 0-5.8 3.2 1.5-6.9 4.5 1. 4-6.6 4.4 -r:: (101.4)
Sunshine 0-2.6 0.9 o. 3-1.8 1. 1 0-4.1 2.1 0-3.6 2.1 0.8-3.8 2.6 0.7-3.7 2.6
(83.8)
(Cont'd) Table 20. Weekly Temperature ranges for mainstem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natLral conditions and
project related scenarios; May 1981.
Simulated \veekly Temperatures (C)
LOCATION NATURAL WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
(River Mile) Range Mean Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
Portage Creek 5.0-9.3 7.7 3.8-5.7 4.5 3.6-7.1 4.9 3.6-7.2 5.0 2.5-4.9 3.8 2.6-5.1 3.9
(148.9)
Sherman 5.1-9.4 7.7 4.2-6.3 5.0 3.9-7.2 5.3 3.9-7.3 5.3 3.0-6.0 4.6 3.1-6.2 4.8
(130. 8)
...i)
(f\ Whiskers Creek 5.7-10.1 8.3 5.0-8.4 6.6 4.7-9.2 6.8 4.7-9.2 6.8 4.0-8.1 6.2 4.0-8.5 6.5
(101. 4)
Sunshine 5.2-9.4 7.7 4.9-8.4 6.8 4.8-8.5 6.9 4.8-8.5 6.9 4.5-8.3 6.7 4.5-8.4 6.8
(83.8)
(Cont'd) Table 20. Weekly Temperature ranges for mainstem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natural conditions and
project related scenarios; June 1981.
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
LOCATION NATURAL WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
(River Mile) Range Mean Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
Portage Creek 8.9-12.4 10.5 5.4-7.0 6.5 7.1-10.6 8.8 7 • 4-11. 1 9 • 1 6.1-7.9 7.2 6.1-8.8 7.5
(148.9)
Sherman 8.8-12.3 10.4 5.8-7.9 7.1 6.9-10.3 8.7 7.1-10.7 8.9 6.5-8.7 7.8 6.5-9.4 8.0
(130.8)
~ Whiskers Creek 9. 3-13.1 11.1 7.2-10.1 8.9 8.1-12.1 10.2 8.3-12.3 10.3 7.7-10.8 9.4 7. 8-11.3 9.7
~ (101.4)
Sunshine 8.0-10.7 9.4 7.1-9.3 8.4 7.2-9.6 8.6 7.2-9.6 8.6 7.2-9.4 8.5 7.2-9.5 8.5
(83.8)
(Cont'd) Table 20. Weekly Temperature ranges for rna~nstem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natural conditions and
project related scenarios; July .:.981.
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
LOCATION NATURAL WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
(River Mile) Range Mean Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
Portage Creek 8.9-10.2 9.6 6.2-7.4 6.8 8. 0-11.1 9.4 8.2-11.0 9.5 4.5-7.0 5.8 6.4-10.7 8.2
(148.9)
Sherman 9.0-10.3 9.7 6.9-7.7 7.4 8.2-10.7 9.3 8.2-10.7 9.3 5.1-7.6 6.4 6.9-10.4 8.4
(130.8)
Whiskers Creek 9.7-10.9 10.2 7.9-9.0 8.6 9.1-11.5 10.2 9.1-11.4 10.2 6.1-9.0 7.5 8. 3-11.4 9.7
(101.4)
-......s-, Sunshine 9.1-9.9 9.4 8.4-8.9 8.6 8.5-9.5 9.0 8.5-9.5 9.0 7.8-8.6 8.3 8.3-9.3 8.8
"iJ (83.8)
(Cont'd) Table 20. Weekly Temperature ranges for mainstem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natural conditions and
project related scenarios; August 1981.
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
LOCATION NATURAL WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
(River Mile) Range Mean Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
Portage Creek 7.5-10.1 9.1 6.3-10.6 9.3 7.7-10.3 8.7 8.0-10.5 8.8 7.1-7.6 7.4 5.1-11.2 7.5
(148.9)
Sherman 7.6'-10.1 9.2 7.0-10.4 9.3 7.9-10.1 8.8 7.8-10.3 8.8 7.5-7.9 7.7 5.5-10.8 7.7
(130. 8)
Whiskers Creek 8.0-10.7 9.7 8.1-11.0 9.9 8.4-10.9 9.4 8. 3-11. 0 9. 4 8.0-8.6 8.3 6. 0-11.6 8.4
~ (101.4)
Q()
Sunshine 7.7-9.8 9.0 8.4-9.4 9.0 7.9-9.6 8.8 7.8-9.6 8.8 7.6-8.9 8.4 6.9 .... 9.5 8.3
(83.8)
(Cont'd) Table 20. Weekly Temperature ranges for mainstem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natural conditions and
project related scenarios; September 1981.
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
LOCATION NATURAL WATANA FILLING W~TANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
(River Mile) Range Mean Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
Portage Creek 2.0-7.7 5.8 6.2-10.4 8.6 6.5-9.1 8.0 6.4-9.0 7.9 8.0-8.5 8.2 8.4-8.6 8.5
(148.9)
Sherman 2.2-7.9 6.0 5.5-10.2 8.2 6.1-9.1 7.9 6.0-9.0 7.8 7.6-8.2 8.1 7.8-8.5 8.3
(130. 8)
'-Q
·~ Whiskers Creek 2.2-8.4 6.3 4.8-10.5 8.2 5.7-9.5 7.9 5.5-9.4 7.8 6.9-8.6 8.1 7.1-9.0 8.3
(101.4)
Sunshine 2.3-7.8 5.8 3.2-8.5 6.5 4.0-8.2 6.6 3.9-8.2 6.6 4.5-8.1 6.7 4.6-8.0 6.8
(83.8)
(Cont'd) Table 20. Weekly Temperature ranges for ma~nstem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natural conditions and
project related scenarios; October 1981.
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
LOCATION NATURAL WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
(River Hile) Range Mean Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
Portage Creek o. 5-1.3 0.8 0-1.6 0.8 3.9-5.6 4.8 3.8-5.6 4.7 6.3-7.6 7.0 6.3-7.6 7.0
(148. 9)
Sherman o. 5-1.4 1.0 0.1-1. 6 0.9 3.5-5.2 4.4 3.4-5.1 4.3 5.4-6.8 6.2 5.7-7.0 6.5
(130.8)
.......... Whiskers Creek o. 5-1.4 1.0 0-1.5 0.8 3.2-4.7 4.1 3.1-4.6 4.0 4.5-5.8 5.3 5.0-6.2 5.8
C) (101. 4)
c
Sunshine 1.1-1.9 1.6 1. 3-2.3 1.9 2.5-3.6 3.3 2.4-3.4 2.9 3.0-4.0 3.7 3.5-4.6 4.2
(83.8)
(Cont'd) Table 20. Weekly Temperature ranges for mainstem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natural conditions and
project related scenarios; May 1974.
·Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
LOCATION NATURAL WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
(River Mile) Range Mean Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
Portage Creek 5.2-9.6 7.2 2.7-4.6 3.2 2.5-4.7 3.1 1. 5-3.4 2.2 1.8-3.3 2.2
(148.9)
Sherman 5.6-9.4 7.2 3.2-5.2 3.8 3.1-5.2 3.7 2.4-4.6 3.2 2.7-4.6 3.3
(130. 8)
Whiskers Creek 6.1-9.9 7.6 4.0-6.5 4.7 4.3-7.1 5.2 3.8-6.7 4.8 4.0-6.9 5.0
(101.4)
.......
0 Sunshine 5.7-9.2 7.2 5-8.3 6.3 4.9-8.3 6.3 4.7-8.2 6.1 4.7-8.3 6.2 .........
(83.8)
(Cont'd) Table 20.
LOCATION NATURAL
(River Mile) Range Mean
Portage Creek 8 • 3-1 0. 9 . 9 • 7
(148.9)
Sherman 8.3-10.9 9.7
(130.8)
Whiskers Creek 8. 7-11.6 10.3 ......... (101.4) c
~
Sunshine 8.0-10.1 9.1
(83.8)
Weekly Temperature ranges for mainstem Susitna R:.ver,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natural conditions and
project related scenarios; June 1974.
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range
5.2-8.9 7 5.3-8.8 7.0 3.9-7.2 5.5 3.8-7.2
5.7-9.2 7.5 5.7-9.2 7.5 4.9-8.2 6.5 4.9-8.2
6.7-10.5 8.7 7. 2-11. 1 9. 2 6.5-10.3 8.4 6.7-10.5
7.3-9.3 8.4 7.3-9.3 8.4 7.2-9.1 8.2 7.3-9.1
Mean
5.4
6.5
8.6
8.2
(Cont'd)
LOCATION
(River Mile)
Portage Creek
(148.9)
Sherman
(130. 8)
Whiskers Creek
(101. 4)
Sunshine
(83.8)
/
Table 20.
NATURAL
Range Mean
10.3-10.8 10.6
10.3-10.8 10.6
10.7-11.4 11.1
9.4-9.8 9.6
Weekly Temperature ranges for mainstem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natLral conditions and
project related scenarios; July 1974.
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mear: Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
8.2-9.5 9.0 8.3-9.5 9.1 7.3-8.8 8.1 7.4-8.9 8.2
8.5-9.5 9.2 8.5-9.5 9.2 7.8-9.1 8.6 7.9-9.2 8.6
9.4-10.5 10.1 9.8-11.0 10.6 9.4-10.5 10.2 9.6-10.7 10.4
8.7-9.1 9.0 8.7-9.1 9.0 8.6-9.0 8.9 8.6-9.0 8.9
(Cont'd) Table 20.
LOCATION NATURAL
(River Mile) Range Mean
Portage Creek 7.7-10.6 9.7
(148.9)
Sherman 7.9-10.7 9.8
(130.8)
Whiskers Creek 8.2-11.2 10.2
......... (101.4)
CJ
-...t. Sunshine 7.4-9.8 9.0
(83.8)
Weekly Temperature ranges for mainstem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natural conditions and
project related scenarios; August 1974.
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range
8.8-10.4 9.6 9.0-10.5 9.7 8.2-9.6 9.0 9.5-10.2
8.8-10.4 9.7 9.0-10.4 9.7 8.6-9.9 9.2 9.5-10.3
Mean
9.9
10.0
9.1-11.0 10.2 9.4-11.2 10.5 9.5-11.1 10.1 10.2~11.2 10.7
7.6-9.4 8.9 7.6-9.4 8.9 7.6-9.2 8.7 7.9-9.3 8.9
(Cont'd) Table 20. Weekly Temperature ranges for mainstem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natu=al conditions and
project related scenarios; September 1974.
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
LOCATION NATURAL WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
(River Mile) Range Mean Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
Portage Creek 3.9-8.5 6.2 6.3-9.8 8.1 6.4-9.8 8.3 8.8-9.4 9.2 8.4-10.0 9.3
(148. 9)
Sherman 4.1-8.6 6.4 5.8-9.6 7.9 5.8-9.6 8.0 8.0-9.4 8.9 7.5-9.9 9.0
(130.8)
......... Whiskers Creek 4.2-8.9 6.7 5.7-9.9 8.0 5.8-10.0 8.2 7.5-9.9· 9.0 7.1-10.3 9.0
0 (101.4) l1)
Sunshine 4.4-8.1 6.3 4.7-8.2 6.7 4.7-8.2 6.7 5.3-8.1 7.0 5.0-8.3 6.9
(83.8)
(Cont'd) Table 20. lveekly Temperature ranges for mains:em Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natural conditions and
project related scenarios; October 1974.
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
LOCATION NATURAL WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
(River Hile) Range He an Range He an 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range He an Range Nean Range He an Range He an
Portage Creek 0-0.1 0 3.6-4.5 4.1 3.6-4.6 4.1 4.1-7.3 5.7 3.7-6.8 5.3
(148.9)
Sherman 0-0.2 0.1 3.1-3.7 3.4 3.1-3.7 3.4 3.7-6.1 5.0 3.2-5.4 4.4
(130. 8)
........ Whiskers Creek 0-0.1 0 2.2-2.<9 2.5 2.4-2.9 2.5 3.0-4.5 3.9 2.5-3.8 3.2
0 (101.4)
"' Sunshine o. 7-1.3 1.0 1.5-2.2 1.9 1. 5-2.2 1.9 2.2-2.9 2.5 1.8-2.5 2.1
(83.8)
(Cant' d) Table 20. Weekly Temperature ranges for mains~em Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natural conditions and
project related scenarios; May 1971.
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
LOCATION NATURAL WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
(River Mile) Range Mean Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
Portage Creek 0.6-4.5 3.3 1. 5-2.7 2.3 2.4-3.1 2.9 2.4-3.1 2.9 2 •. 2-2. 5 2.3 2.0-2.4 2.2
(148.9)
Sherman 0.9-4.6 3.5 1. 5-3.1 2.6 2.3-3.5 3.1 2.4-3.5 3.1 2.2-3.0 2.7 ·2.1-2. 9 2.6
(130. 8)
......... Whiskers Creek 1. 3-5.4 4.1 1. 7-4.2 3.3 2.4-4.1 3.5 2.4-4.4 3.7 2.2-4.0 3.3 2.1-3.6 3.3
C) (101.4) '}I
Sunshine 2.0-5.2 4.1 2.1-4.8 3.8 2.4-4.8 4.0 2.4-4.8 4.0 2.3-4.7 3.8 2.3-4.6 3.8
(83.8)
(Cont'd) Table 20. Weekly Temperature ranges for mainstem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natu~al conditions and
project related scenarios; June 1971.
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
LOCATION NATURAL WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
(River Mile) Range Mean Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
Portage Creek 7. 8-11.3 9.7 4.7-8.4 6.2 4.5-7.6 5.7 4.5-7.6 5.7 3.2-6.3 4.4 3.0-6.5 4.4
(148.9)
Sherman 7.7-11.2 9.6 5.1..:..8.1 6.3 4.9-7.8 6.1 4.9-7.8 6.1 4.2-7.0 5.3 4.2-7.2 5.4
(130.8)
......... Whiskers Creek 8. 0-11.7 10.0 6.0-9.9 7.9 5.4-8.9 7.1 5.7-9.5 7.6 5.4-9.0 6.9 5.4-9.3 7.1
Q) (101.4)
tl()
Sunshine 7.7-10.6 9.3 7.1-9.6 8.4 7.0-9.6 8.4 7.0-9.6 8.4 7.0-9.5 8.3 7.0-9.6 8.3
(83.8)
(Cont'd) Table 20. Weekly Temperature ranges for mainstem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for nattral conditions and
project related scenarios; July 1971.
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
LOCATION NATURAL WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL. CANYON OPERATION
(River Mile) Range Mean Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mear:. Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
Portage Creek 8. 7-13.0 10.6 6.3-8.1 7.1 7.9-9.4 8.7 7.9-9.5 8.6 6.5-8.1 7.6 6.6-8.1 7.6
(148.9)
Sherman 8.8-13.0 10.6 6.9-8.8 7.6 8.0-9.7 8.7 8.1-9.7 8.6 7.1-8.5 8.0 7.2-8.5 8.0
(130. 8)
Whiskers Creek 9.2-13.6 11. 1 7. 9-11. 1 9.1 8. 9-11.0 9.6 9.2-11.7 9.9 8.6-10.6 9.4 8.9-10.9 9.5
'" (101. 4)
\)
~ Sunshine 8.1-11.5 9.7 7.5-10.3 8.7 7.7-10.4 8.9 7.7-10.4 8.8 7.6-10.3 8.8 7.6-10.3 8.7
(83.8)
(Cont'd) Table 20. Heekly Temperature ranges for mainstem Susitna R:.ver,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natural conditions and
project related scenarios; August 1971.
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
LOCATION NATURAL WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
(River Mile) Range Mean Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
Portage Creek 9.0-10.9 10.1 6.0-9.3 7.1 8.7-8.9 8.8 8.7-9.2 8.9 6.3-8.4 7.4 6.4-8.5 7.4
(148.9)
Sherman 9.0-10.9 10.1 6.8-9.2 7.6 8.9 8.9 8.9-9.3 9.0 6.8-8.6 7.7 7.0-8.6 7.8
(130.8)
' Whiskers Creek 9. 5-11.3 10.6 8.1-9.7 8.6 9.2-9.5 9.3 9.4-10.6 9.7 7.9-9.1 8.6 8.0-9.6 8.8
' (101.4) ~
Sunshine 8.5-10.4 9.6 8.2-9.5 8.8 8.5-9.7 9.1 8.5-9.2 9.1 8.3-9.4 8.8 8.2-9.4 8.8
(83.8)
(Cont'd) Table 20. Weekly Temperature ranges for mai~stem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natural conditions and
project related scenarios; September 1971.
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
LOCATION NATURAL WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
(River Hile) Range Mean Range He an 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range He an Range Mean Range He an Range He an
Portage Creek 3.1-6.7 5.3 6.1-8.5 7.6 6.5-8.4 7.6 6.5-8.4 7.6 7.3-8.4 7.9 7.3-8.4 .7.9
(148.9)
Sherman 3.3-6.9 5.5 5.6-8.2 7.3 6.2-8.3 7.4 6.2-8.3 7.4 7.0-8.4 7.8 7.0-8.3 7.8
(130. 8)
'-... Whiskers Creek ~ 3.5-7.1 5.8 5.3-8.3 7.3 6.1-8.4 7.5 6.0-8.5 7.5 6.7-8.5 7.8 6.7-8.5 7.8
p (101.4)
Sunshine 3.6-6.6 5.5 4.3-6.8 5.9 4.8-7.2 6.2 4.8-7.2 6.2 5.2-7.2 6.4 5.2-7.2 6.4
(83.8)
(Cont'd) Table 20. Weekly Temperature ranges for mainstem Susitna River,
Devil Canyon to Sunshine for natural conditions and
project related scenarios; October 1971.
Simulated Weekly Temperatures (C)
LOCATION NATURAL WATANA FILLING WATANA OPERATION DEVIL CANYON OPERATION
(River Mile) Range Mean Range Mean 1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
Portage Creek 0-1.5 0.5 0-2.5 1.1 2.3-5.1 3.9 2.2-5.1 3.9 3.1-6.4 4.9 3.1-6.4 4.9
(148.9)
Sherman 0-1.7 0.6 0-2.4 1.0 1. 5-4.8 3.4 1. 4-4.8 3.4 2.0-5.9 4.2 2.4-6.0 4.4
(130.8)
Whiskers Creek 0-1.8 0.6 0-2.2 0.8 0-4.5 2.7 0-4.5 2.7 0.3-5.4 3.2 1.1-5.6 3.7
' (101.4) ........
.........
~
Sunshine 0-2.4 1.2 0-2.7 1.5 0-3.7 2.1 0-3.7 2.1 0-3.9 2.2 0.2-4.2 2.5
(83.8)
Natural
RM Range Mean
150 0-6.8 0.7
130 0-6.9 0.8
100 0-7.1 0.8
Natural
R.N Range Mean
150 0-8.5 0.9
130 0-8.6 1.0
100 0-9.1 1.1
Natural
RM Range Mean
150 0-7.7 1.1
130 0-7.9 1.1
100 0-8.4 1.3
Natural
RM Range Mean
150 0-7.9 1.1
130 0-8.0 1.2
100 0-8.4 1.3
Table 21: Susitna River temperature Ranges (C)
under four climatological scenarios
for the period September thr.ough April.
1971 -72
Watana Operational Devil Canyon Operational
·1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
0-8.4 1.9 0-8.4 1.7 0.7-8.4 2.3 0.6-8.4 2.6
0~8.3 1.5 0-0.J 1.5 0-8.4 1.6 0-8.3 2.0
0-8.5 1.4 0-8.5 1.3 0-8.5 1.4 0-8.5 1.6
1974 -75
Watana Operational Devil Canyon Operational
1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean'
0-9.8 2.0 0-9.8 2.2 1.2-9.4 3.0 0.5-10.0 3.0
0-9.6 1.7 0-9.6 1.8 0-9.4 2.3 0-9.9 2.3
0-10.0 1.5 0-10.0 1.6 0-9.9 1.9 0-10.3 1.9
1981 -82
~.Jatana Operational Devil Canyon Operational
1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
0-9.1 2.8 0.4-9.0 3.0 1. 8-8.3 4.0 0.8-8~6 3.9
0-9.1 2.4 0-9.0 2.5 0.7-8.2 3.2 0-8.5 3.4
0-9.5 2.1 0-9.4 2.1 0-8.6 2.4 0-9.0 2.7
1982 -83
vlatana Operational Devil Canyon Operational
1996 2001 2002 2020
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
0.1-9.0 2.7 0-9.0 2.9 0.9-8.6 3.5 0.6-9.1 3.2
0-8.9 2.3 0-8.8 2.4 0-8.6 2.8 0-9.0 2.7
0-9.2 2.0 0-9.1 2.1 0-8.9 2.2 0-9.3 2.1
112
the mainstem and side channel habitat for migration with the exception of
burbot which use the mainstem year-round.
SALMON
Adult Immigration
The Upper Susitna salmon peak immigration period is from late June
through early September (see Table 10). Natural June temperatures range
from approximately 8.0 to 13.1 C above the Chulitna confluence and 7.8 to
12.4 C near Portage Creek. During Watana filling, water temperatures would
be approximately 2. 2 C cooler above the confluence and 3. 7 C cooler at
Portage Creek. Watana-only operational water temperatures would range from
1.6 to 2.9 C cooler above the confluence and 0.9 to 4.0 C cooler at Portage
Creek. Devil Canyon operational temperatures would range from 1. 7 to 3.1 C
cooler above the confluence and 3. 3 to 5. 2 C cooler at Portage Creek. The
only salmon entering the Upper Susitna during June are chinook, the majority
of which pass Talkeetna during the last week in June and first three weeks
in July.
Natural July Susitna River temperatures range from approximately 9 to
13.5 C above the Chulitna confluence and 8. 5 to 13 C near Portage Creek.
During Watana filling, water temperatures would be approximately 1. 6 to 2. 0
C cooler above the confluence and 2.5 -3.5 C cooler near Portage Creek.
Watana-only operational water temperatures would range from 0 to 1 .5 C
cooler above the confluence and 0.2 to 2.0 C cooler at Portage Creek. Devil
Canyon operational temperatures would range from o. 9 to 2. 7 C cooler above
the confluence and 2. 0 to 3. 8 C cooler near Portage Creek.
Natural August Susitna River temperatures range from approximately 8 to
12 C just above the Chulitna confluence to 7. 5 to 11 C near Portage Creek.
113
During Watana filling, water temperatures would be approximately 0 to 2. 0 C
cooler above the confluence and 0 to 3,0 C cooler at Portage Creek.
Watana-only operational temperatures would range from 0 to 1 .3 cooler above
the confluence and 0 to 1. 3 C cooler near Portage Creek. Devi I Canyon
operational temperatures would range from 0.1 to 2.4 C cooler above the
confluence and 0. 7 to 3.3 C cooler at Portage Creek. Chinook Salmon will
have nearly completed their spawning immigration by August, but the other
four salmon species will be at their peak abundance in the mainstem while
moving toward spawning grounds.
Natural September Susitna River temperatures range from npproximr~tely
2.2 to 8.5 C near Portage Creek. During Watana filling, water temperatures
would be approximately 0. 7 to 1. 9 C warmer above the confluence and 1. 2 to
2·.8 C warmer at Portage Creek. Watana-only operational temperatures would
be approximately 1. 6 C warmer above the confluence and 2. 2 C warmer near
Portage Creek. Devil Canyon operational temperatures would range from 1. 7
to 2.3 C warmer above the confluence and 2.2 to 3.1 C warmer at Portage
Creek. Except for coho salmon, main stem adult migration is almost completed
by September.
The simulated temperature regimes from Devil Canyon to the Chulitna
confluence for filling and the one-and two-dam operational scenarios are
cooler than natural for June, July, and August and warmer than natural for
September. For the adult inmigrating salmon during June through September
comparing the four meteorological data sets for reservoir outlet temperature
simulations, there will then be reduced water temperatures from Devil Canyon
to the Chulitna confluence during June through August and increased water
temperatures in this reach during September for filling and both one-and two
dam scenarios.
114
These cooler conditions are the most extreme during the two-dam
scenario where water temperatures can be as much as 3 C cooler just above
the Chulitna confluence and 5 C cooler near Portage Creek during June.
July and August two-dam water temperatures could be as much as 2. 7 and 2. 4 ·
C cooler above the confluence and 3.8 and 3.3 C cooler near Portage Creek
respectively. Even though these temperatures are cooler than natural they
are still well within the established temperature tolerances for Susitna adult
salmon migrating to spawning habitats (Table 19 and Appendix H). These
cooler June through August with-project temperatures are also comparable to
the currently existing natural temperatures found in the Chulitna River where
salmon naturally migrate to spawning habitats (D. Schmidt 198z9. The warmer
with-project September temperatures are also well within the temperature
tolerances for migrating adult coho salmon (Table 19 and Appendix H). From
the temperature simulation runs to date, there is no evidence of any
with-project temperatures falling outside of the adult migration tolerance zones
for salmon entering the Upper Susitna River (Appendix H).
Adult Spawning
Salmon spawn in the Susitna drainage above the Chulitna confluence from
July through September (Table 10). In three years of observation, only 18
mainstem sites above the confluence have been identified as spawning loca-
tions. Chum salmon are the only species to have utilized mainstem spawning
habitat to any extent and this limited spawning is believed to take place only
in areas influenced by ground water upwelling.
The few chum salmon observed spawning in the mainstem do so during
the first two weeks of September (Table 10). Chum salmon spawning in the
mainstem during September would experience the same slightly warmer
115
temperatures identified for adult inmigration afld shown in Table 20. These
simulated with-project temperatures for September are well within the
spawning tolerances for chum salmon (Table 19). From the temperature
simulation runs to date, there is no evidence of any with-project temperatures
falling outside of the spawning tolerance zones for adult salmon (Appendix
H). There is a possibility of improved spawning habitat from a temperature
standpoint that is discussed under incubation.
Embryo Incubation
As described in the methods section and previously noted in the adult
spawning section only a small number of salmon spawn in areas influenced by
the mainstem Susitna River. The most fish observed in three years of obser-
vation by ADF&G has been 550 chum salmon at~ different mainstem sites.
These sites, however, were all believed to be influenced by temperatures from
groundwater inflow. Chum salmon spawn in mainstem areas in September and
the eggs incubate in the gravel through April.
With-project water temperatures are expected to be warmer during the
incubation period of September through April. Simulated natural mainstem
average water temperatures for the September to April period range from 0.8
to 1.3 C just above the Chulitna confluence and 0. 7 to 1 .1 C near Portage
Creek (Table 21). During Watana filling, winter water temperatures will
essentially mimic natural conditions (Appendix B). Watana-only operational
average water temperatures would range from 0.4 to 0.8 C warmer just above
the Chulitna confluence and 1.2 to 1.9 C warmer near Portage Creek. Devil
Canyon operational temperatures would range from 0.8 to 1.4 C warmer just
above the confluence and 1. 9 to 2. 9 C warmer at Portage Creek.
116
Referring to the chum salmon nomagraph (Figure 21) and using a
spawning date of September 1 with an incubation temperature of 1 C, (an
average incubation temperature for the mainstem), indicates fry emerging
after June 10. This is much later than what occurs naturally and indicates
additional influences on the incubation rate. As noted earlier, chum salmon
have been observed to be spawning in mainstem areas influenced by
groundwater. This groundwater upwelling is most likely emerces the
incubating embryo in warmer water which speeds up development rate,
enabling the fry to emerge at a time to ensure a viable population. The late
emergence dates that would occur under the natural· incubation temperature
range of 0. 7 to 1. 3 C also indicates that temperature could be one limiting
factor for successful reproduction in the mainstem in areas not influenced by
groundwater upwelling.
Average mainstem temperatures under the Watana-only scenario range
from 1.3 to 2.1 C just above the Chulitna confluence and 1.7 to 3.0 C near
Portage Creek (Table 21). These temperatures are approaching the range
which has been observed in successful slough incubation areas (2.9 to 7.4
with an average of 3.3 C; ADF&G 1983c). Fish spawned ir;'( September 1 at an
average incubation temperature greater than 2. 0 C should emerge in time to
produce viable fry (Figure 17).
Average mainstem temperatures below the Devil Canyon dam will range
from 1.4 to 2. 7 just above the confluence and 2.3 to 4.0 C near Portage
Creek (Table 21). Mainstem temperatures above RM 130 in all but the coldest
year average above 2. 0 C for the incubation period and any eggs deposited
under these temperatures should produce viable fry. A better mainstem
incubating habitat would exist under project scenarios due to the warmer
incubating water temperatures.
117
Juvenile Rearing
Rearing takes place during the open water period of May through
October. Rearing fish would experience the same thermal changes previously
described for adult inmigration, i.e., with-project water temperatures would
be cooler June through August and warmer in September for filling and
operational scenarios (Table 20). In addition to the June through September
scenarios, rearing fish will be subjected to cooler water temperatures in May
and warmer temperatures in October.
Natural May temperatures range from 1 .3 to 10.1 C just above the
Chulitna confluence and 0. 6 to 9.6 C near Portage Creek. For Watana filling I
May temperatures would be 0.8 to 1.8 C cooler just above the Chulitna
confluence and 1. 0 to 3. 2 C cooler at Portage Creek. Watana-only operational
temperatures would be 0.6 to 2.9 C cooler above the confluence and 0.4 to
4.1 C cooler near Portage Creek. Devil Canyon operational temperatures
would range from 0.8 to. 2.8 C cooler above the confluence and 1.1 to 5.0
cooler near Portage Creek.
Natural October temperatures range from 0 to 2. 3 C just above the
confluence and 0 to 2.2 C at Portage Creek. During Watana filiing, October
water water temperatures will be essentially the same as natural. Watana-only
operational temperatures would be 2.1 to 3.1 C warmer just above the
confluence and 3.4 to 4.2 C warmer near Portage Creek. Devil Canyon
operational temperatures would range from 3.1 to 4. 8 C warmer just above the
confluence and 4. 4 to 6. 9 C warmer near Portage Creek.
In the Susitna River I only a small proportion of juvenile salmon (chinook
22.6%1 coho 3.4%1 chum 4.1% and sockeye 8.6%) were found to rear in
mainstem or side channel habitats during this open water season (ADF&G
1983). The majority of the juvenile salmon rear in sloughs or tributary
118
habitats where the potential for temperature impacts on growth would be
small.
All of the May through October with-project water temperatures fall
within the temperature tolerances established for juvenile rearing Table 19
and Appendix H). According to this criteria, there would be no lethal ef-
fects from temperature on juvenile salmon rearing. However, since fish
growth is temperature dependent, the May through August cooler-than-natural
conditions may retard juvenile salmon growth rates.
Estimates of seasonal fish growth were determined with a function of
predicted water temperature and current body weight of the fish (Table 22).
This growth function was determined by Brett ( 1974) from observations on
sockeye salmon. In order to use this analysis, several assumptions haxe to
be made: (1) growth starts at a body weight of0.3g, (2) increase in weight
occurs at temperatures from 3 to 18 C, (3) all salmon species would exhibit a
similar growth pattern as that of sockeye salmon, and (4) fish feed to
satiation.
Simulated temperatures near river mile 130 were used in predicting
cumulative weight gains during the growing season (Table 22). River mile
130 was chosen as a representative site because it is near the center of the
Upper Susitna and is close to many salmon natal areas. Natural growth in
this area of the river would range between 5. 5 and 8. 5 g depending on which
temperature simulation is used. Growth would range between 5. 0 and 7.3 g
for the Watana-only scenario and 3. 9 to 6. 4 g during Devi I Canyon operation.
Estimated reduction in fish growth near RM 130 ranges from 8 to 19% for
Watana operatiOnjll and 24 to 29% for Devil Canyon operations. Potential
growth reductions would be more evident upstream of RM 130 where
temperature differences between with-project and natural conditions are
119
Table 22. Temperature and cumulative growth for
juvenile salmon under pre and post-prolect
conditions at RM 130, 1974 simulations
WATANA DEVIL CANYON
NATURAL 1996 Demand 2000 Demand
Cum. Cum. Cum.
Month Week Temp (C) . Wt. (g) Temp (C) Wt.(g) Temp (C) Wt. (g)
May 31 5.6 .35 3.4 • 33. 2.6 .30
32 5.7 .42 3.2 .36 2.4 .30
33 6.1 .48 3.2 .40 2.8 .30
34 9.1 .62 3.9 .44 3.5 .33
June 35 9.4 .78 5.2 .49 4.6 .37
36 8.3 .92 5.7 .56 4.9 .42
37 9.7 1.15 7. 1 .65 6.0 .49
38 9.8 1.44 7.8 .79 6.9 .58
39 10.9 1.82 9.2 • 96 8.2 .71
July 40 10.8 2.26 9.8 1.20 8.7 .87
l,l 10.3 2.72 8.1 1. 41 7.8 1.02
42 10.8 3.29 9.3 1.69 8.7 1.23
43 10.5 3.89 9.5 2.09 9.1 1.47
August 44 10.7 4.52 10.0 2.52 9.9 1.83
45 10.6 5.21 10.2 3.04 8.6 2.16
46 10.4 5.90 10.4 3.54 9.3 2.52
47 7.9 6.43 8.8 4.01 9.0 2.93
48 9.4 7.09 8.9 4.48 9.1 3.35
September 49 8.6 7.76 9.6 5.14 9.4 3.80
50 7.0 8.20 8.7 5.70 9.2 4.27
51 5.8 8.55 7.4 6.09 9.0 4. 77
52 4.1 8.76 5.8 6.39 8.0 5.24
October 1 0.1 8.76 3.6 6.57 6.1 5.52
2 o.o 8.76 3.7 6.75 5.6 5.83
3 0.2 8.76 3.1 6.93 4.5 6.05
4 0.1 8.76 3.1 7.12 3.7 6.22
Cumulative
weight gain 8.56 6.82 5.92
Reduction from
pre-project growth(%) 19 29
1Growth calculations based on specific growth rate data
from Brett (1974).
120
Table 22. (Cont'd) Temperature and cumulative growth for
juvenile salmon under pre and post-pro{ect
conditions at RM 130, 1981 simulations
WATANA DEVIL CANYON
NATURAL 1996 Demand 2002 Demand
Cum. Cum. Cum.
Month Week Temp (C) · Wt. (g) Temp (C) Wt. (g) Temp (C) Wt.(g)
May 31 5.1 .34 3.9 .33 3.0 .33
32 7.5 .44 4.4 .36 4.0 .36
33 8.2 .55 4.8 .41 4.7 .41
34 8.1 • 67 6.0 .48 5.4 .46
June 35 9.4 .84 7.2 .57 6.0 .53
36 8.8 1.02 6.9 .66 6.5 .62
37 ll. 5 1.32 8.9 .82 8.0 .75
38 12.3 1.72 10.3 1.04 8.7 .92
39 9.1 2.05 8.5 1.24 7.8 1. 08
July 40 9.0 2.39 8.3 1.46 7.6 1. 27
41 9.4 2.78 8.2 1.71 6.7 1. 43
42 9.9 3.29 9.8 2.ll 5.1 1.53
43 10.3 3.83 10.7 2.60 6.0 1.69
August 44 10.0 4.42 10.1 3.ll 7.6 1. 98
45 10.0 5.08 9.1 3.53 7.8 2.27
46 7.6 5.56 8.1 3.94 7.6 2.59
47 8.1 6.08 7.9 4.36 7.5 2.95
48 10.1 6.84 8.9 4.87 7.9 3.31
September 49 7.9 7.40 9.1 5.41 8.2 3.70
50 7.3 7.83 8.0 5.92 8.2 4.12
51 6.5 8.27 8.2 6.45 8.2 4.54
52 2.2 8.27 6.1 6.76 7.6 5.00
October 1 1.0 8.27 5.2 7.00 6.8 5.35
2 0.9 8.27 4.7 7.24 6.8 5. 72
3 1.4 8.27 4.2 7.43 6.1 6.03
4 0.5 8.27 3.5 7.63 5.4 6.25
Cumulative
weight gain 7.97 7.33 5.95
Reduction from
pre-project growth(%) 8 24
1Growth calculations based on specific growth rate data
from Brett (1974).
121
Table 22. (Cont'd) Temperature and cumulative growth for
juvenile salmon under pre and post-prolect
conditions at RM 130, 1982 simulations
WATANA DEVIL CANYON
NATURAL 1996 Demand 2000 Demand
Cum. Cum. Cum.
Month \\leek Temp (C) . Wt. (g) Temp (C) Wt.(g) Temp (C) Ht. (g)
May 31 5.5 .35 4.1 .33 4.6 .34
32 4.7 .40 3.5 .36 4.4 .37
33 6.7 .48 3.9 .40 5.0 .42
34 6.6 .57 4.0 • 44 5.2 .47
June 35 8.4 .70 5.0 .49 5.8 .54
36 8.9 .86 5.8 .56 5.8 .62
37 8.0 1.02 6.4 .63 6.1 .69
38 9.6 1.27 7.3 .74 7.4 .80
39 ll.8 1.65 9.0 .91 8.6 .98
July 40 10.6 2.07 10.5 1.15 9.1 1.17
41 11.1 2.55 10.2 1.43 10.6 1.48
42 11.2 3.12 10.2 1. 79 7.4 1.67
43 10.0 3.63 9.3 2.12 6.0 1.84
August 44 11.0 4.26 9.8 2.56 6.6 2.06
45 11.2 4.93 10.1 3.07 7.4 2.29
46 11.0 5.63 10.0 3.57 8.3 2.61
47 11.0 6.41 10.4 4.15 9.0 3.04
48 9.5 7.20 9. 1 4.64 8.7 3.44
September 49 8.0 7.77 8.9 5.18 8.6 3.90
50 6.7 8.21 8.5 5.75 8.5 4.38
51 6.6 8.67 7.5 6.27 8.3 4.83
52 4.4 8.88 7.2 6.67 8.0 5.30
October l 2.3 8.88 6.0 6.99 7.6 5.80
2 0.3 8.88 5.0 7.23 6.9 6.19
3 0.0 8.88 3.6 7.43 5.9 6.49
4 0.0 8.88 1.2 7.43 4.3 6.66
Cumulative
weight gain 8.58 7.13 6.36
Reduction from
pre-project growth(%) 16 25
1Growth calculations based on specific growth rate data
from Brett (1974).
123
Table 22. (Cont'd) Temperature and cumulative growth for
juvenile salmon under pre and post-pro1ect
conditions at RM 130, 1971 simulations
WATANA DEVIL CANYON
NATURAL 1996 Demand 2000 Demand
Cum. Cum. Cum.
Month Week Temp (C) Wt.(g) Temp (C) Wt.(g) Temp (C) Wt. (g)
May 31 0.9 .30 2.3 .30 2.2 .30
32 2.9 .30 3.0 .33 2.5 .30
33 4.5 .14 3.4 . 36 2.8 .30
34 4.6 .39 3.5 .40 2.9 .30
June 35 4.4 .42 3.3 .44 3.0 .33
36 9.2 .55 5.1 .49 4.2 .36
37 7.7 .67 4.9 .54 4.4 .40
38 10.3 .87 6.7 .64 5.4 .45
39 11.2 1.11 7.8 .77 7.0 .54
July 40 10.5 1. 40 8.0 .91 7. 1 • 63
41 12.5 1.40 9.7 1.14 8.3 .76
42 9.9 1. 74 8.3 1.34 8.0 .91
43 8.8 2.08 8.4 1.57 8.1 1. 07
August 44 11.1 2.56 9.3 1.88 8.5 1. 28
45 10.8 3.13 8.9 2.21 7.0 1.43
46 10.9 3.69 8.9 2.58 6.8 1.61
47 9.7 4.28 8.9 3.00 8.5 1. 93
48 9.0 4.78 8.9 3.41 8.6 2.27
September 49 6.9 5.14 8.3 3.81 8.4 2.59
50 6.4 5.42 7.9 4.24 8.1 2.95
51 5.4 5.64 7.2 4.57 7.6 3.31
52 3.3 5.80 6.2 4.84 7.0 3.60
October 1 1.7 5.80 4.8 5.04 5.9 3.84
2 0.5 5.80 4.2 5.19 4.9 4.03
3 0.0 5.80 3.2 5.35 4.0 4.16
4 0.0 5.80 1.5 5.35 2.0 4.16
Cumulative
weight gain 5.50 5.04 3.86
Reduction from
pre-project growth(%) 8 28
1Growth calculations based on specific growth rate data
from Brett (1974).
greater (Table 20 and 2~. Downstream from RM 130, potential growth
reductions would decrease with smaller temperature differences between
with-project and natural scenarios (Tables 20 and 23). Moving downstream,
more rearing occurs as more fish enter the system from adjacent slough and
tributary habitats.
Growth can be limited by food supply in addition to the controlling
effects of temperature. In nature, salmon and trout growth rates are
food-supply limited (Brett, et al. 1969). Changes in temperature result in
smaller changes in growth at reduced rations compared to satiation feeding •
. Small drops in temperature during July and August from 10 -11 °C to 8 -9°C
would result in smaller changes in growth rates for fish feeding at reduced
ration than those at maximum ration. Since the Susitna River fish are likely
feeding on a ration less than satiation level, the expected changes in growth
due to temperature reductions would likely be smaller than those predicted in
Table 22. Growth reductions, however, could be higher than predicted for
fish such as chum salmon that are only actively feeding in the area until
mid-July and not able to take advantage of the warmer fall temperatures.
Smolt Outmigration
Outmigrating smolts would experience the same thermal changes previ-
ously described for adult inmigration and rearing, i.e., with-project water
temperatures would be cooler May through August and warmer in September
for filling and operational scenarios (Table 20). Peak juvenile out-migration
occurs from June through September and varies by species (Table 1 O).
The majority of the with-project related temperatures during salmon
outmigrating periods fall near or within the established temperature tolerances
(Table 19 and Appendix H). According to this criteria, there would be no
124
Table 23. Simulated monthly mean temperatures (C)
for the mainstem Susitna River, Devil
Canyon to Talkeetna.
Watana DC Watana
Location Month Natural Opr. Dif. Oper. Dif. Filling Dif.
Portage Creek May 6.2 3.7 -2.5 3.1 -3.1 3.4 -2.8
(148.9) June 9.9 7.2 -2.7 5.7 -4.2 6.2 -3.7
July 10.4 9.3 -1.1 7.6 -2.8 7.5 -2.9
Aug 9.9 9.2 -0.7 8.0 -1.9 8.6 -1.3
Sept 5.9 8.0 +2.1 8.5 +2.6 7.9 +2.0
Oct 0.6 4.4 +3.8 6.1 +5.5 0.9 +0.3
Sherman May 6.2 4.1 -2.1 3.8 -2.4 3.8 -2.4
(130. 8) June 9.8 7.4 -2.4 6.5 -3.3 6.6 -3.2
July 10.4 9.3 -1.1 8.1 -2.3 7.9 -2.5
Aug 10.0 9.3 -0.7 8.3 -1.7 8.9 -1.1
Sept 6.2 7.8 +1.6 8.3 +2.1 7.6 +1.4
Oct 0.6 1.R +1,2 5.3 +It. 7 0.9 +0.3
Whiskers Creek May 6.8 5.2 -1.6 5.1 -1.7 5.1 -1.7
(101. 4) June 10.4 8.8 -1.6 8.3 -2.1 8.1 -2.3
July 11.0 10.4 -0.6 9.6 -1.4 9.2 -1.8
Aug 10.5 10.0 -0.5 9.2 -1.3 9.7 -0.8
Sept 6.4 7.9 +1.5 8.3 +1.9 7.6 +1.2
Oct 0.6 3.1 +2.5 4.3 +3.7 0.7 +0.1
125
lethal effects from temperature on juvenile outmigration. However, near
Portage Creek, early June temperatures for the Devil Canyon operational
scenario using 1971 meteorology, are predicted to fall slightly outside the
established tolerances (Table 19, Appendices B and H). Thus o~:~tmigrants
from tributaries or sloughs near Portage Creek subjected to cold Devil Canyon
operational scenario would confront mainstem temperatures cooler than the
lower tolerance level for sockeye, pink and chinook salmon (Table 19 and
Appendix H). These temperatures, which are below 4 C, are also consider-
ably cooler than the lower migration threshold for chinook and coho described
by Raymond (1979), Cederholm and Scarlett (1982), and Bustard and Narver
(1975). During cold scenarios, early June out migrating salmon could avoid
the mainstem and delay out-migration until temperatures warm in late June • •
As this delay would be two weeks or less in duration and occur only during
the coldest scenarios, it should not noticably affect out-migration timing.
Temperature is also not the only factor affecting migration timing.
Photoperiod, water current, magnetic fields, and lunar phases are all believed
to influence migration (Groot 1982 and Godin 1980).
1
Resident Species (!JAn; ,
The maj ~ of the resident species using habitats in the Talkeetna to
Devil Canyon reach of the Susitna River are found throughout most of their
life history in tributaries and sloughs. Utilization of the habitats influenced
by mainstem water is usually limited to migration or overwintering. No tern-
perature tolerances have been established for resident species; however,
since these resident fish spend most of their active feeding and reproduction
life phases in areas not directly influenced by mainstem water, they should
not experience any adverse temperature effects from project operation . The
126
warmer water temperatures above RM 130 during both the one-and two-dam
operational scenarios (Table 21 and Appendix B) should provide a good
overwintering environment for outmigrating resident species such as rainblow
trout and Arctic grayling from Portage Creek and Indian River.
Burbot and whitefish are the only resident species found in sufficient
numbers utilizing habitats influenced by mainstem water temperatures that
would be affected by project operation. Both burbot and whitefish spawning
and incubation could be altered due to warmer fall and winter temperatures.
Burbot spawn in winter under the ice at water temperatures usually less
than 3 C. In the Susitno drainage, this normally tal{es place in January and
February. Under the one-and two-dam project operational scenarios, these
conditions may not exist. The ice front will be located between RM 120 and
140 (Appendix B) depending on meteorology. In general, the ice front is
farther downstream under the two-dam scenario than for Watana-only. The
lack of an ice cover and the warmer winter water temperatures would preclude
burbot spawning in the area upstream of the ice front. The extent of this
preclusion would vary between RM 120 and 140 depending on meteorology and
dam operation.
Whitefish spawn in October under conditions of rapidly decreasing water
temperatures. Under the one-dam project scenario, October temperatures
would be 2.1 to 4.1 C warmer between Whiske~ and Portage creeks and 3.1 to
6.2 C warmer under the two-dam scenario (Table 20). These warmer
temperatures could result in a change in the incubation timing for whitefish in
this section of the river. The warmer water temperatures would accelerate
the development rates of the incubating embryos resulting in early emerging
fry. The fry would emerge before their normal time in May and would have
127
reduced survival due to their encounter with a colder more hostile environ-
ment with inadequate seasonal food development.
128
REFERENCES
Acres American, Inc. 1983. Application for license for major project,
Susitna Hydroelectric Project, before the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. Vol. SA. Exhibit E, Chaps. 1 and 2. Alaska Power
Authority. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. 1 vol.
Alabaster, J.S., and R. Lloyd. 1982. Water quality criteria for freshwater
fish. 2nd ed. Butterworth Scientific, Boston, MA. 361 pp.
Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game. 1981. Adult anadromous fisheries project.
Final Draft Report. Anchorage, AK. Alaska Power Authority. Susitna
Hydro Aquatic Studies. Report for Acres American, Inc. 1 vol.
Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game. 1983a. Susitna hydro aquatic studies, phase 2
basic data report. Vol. 4. Aquatic habitat and instream flow studies,
1982. Preliminary Draft Report. Anchorage, AK. Alaska Power Authority.
Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Report for Acres American, Inc. 7 vols.
Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game. 1983b. Susitna hydro aquatic studies, phase 2
final data report. Vol. 2. Adult anadromous fish studies, 1982. Final
Report. Anchorage, AK. Alaska Power Authority. Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies. Report for Acres American, Inc. 2 vols.
Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game. 1983c. Susitna hydro aquatic studies, phase 2
data report. Winter aquatic studies (October 1982-May 1983). Final
Report. Anchorage, AK. Alaska Power Authority. Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies. Report for Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture. 137 pp.
2 copies.
Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game. 1983d.
baseline data report. Vol. 4.
studies, 1982. Final Report.
Susitna Hydro Studies. Report
Susitna hydro aquatic studies, phase 2
Aquatic habitat and instream flow
Anchorage, AK. Alaska Power Authority.
for Acres American, Inc. 3 vols.
Alaska, Univ., Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. 1982.
Summary of environmental knowledge of the proposed Grant Lake
hydroelectric project area. Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK.
Report for Ebasco Services. 212 pp.
Alaska, Univ., Arctic Environmental Information & Data Center. 1983a.
Methodological approach to quantitative impact assessment for the
proposed Susitna hydroelectric project. Alaska Power Authority. Susitna
Hydro Aquatic Studies. Anchorage, AK. Report for Harza/Ebasco Susitna
Joint Venture. 71 pp.
Alaska, Univ., Arctic Environmental Information & Data Center. 1983b. Stream
flow and temperature modeling in the Susitna River, Alaska. .Final
Report. Alaska Power Authority. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Report
for Harza-Ebasco Joint Venture. APA Document 862. 60 pp. with
appendices.
References Page 2
Alasla, Univ., Arctic Environmental Information & Data Center. 1984a.
Susitna Hydroelectric Prqject aquatic impact assessment; effects of
project-related changes in temperature, turbidity, and stream discharge
on upper Susitna salmon resources during June through September.
Anchorage, AK. Alaska Power Authority. Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Report for Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture. 1 val.
Alaska, Univ., Arctic Environmental Information & Data Center. 1984b.
Examination of Susitna River discharge and temperature changes due to the
proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Final Report. Anchorage, AK.
Alaska Power Authority. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Report for
llarza-Ebasco Joint Venture. ArA Document 861. 31 pp.
Alderdice, D.F., and F.P.J. Velsen. 1978. Relation between temperature and
incubation time for eggs of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 35(1):69-75.
Bailey, J. 1983 Personnel communication in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Draft interim feasibility report and environmental impact statement.
Hydroelectric power tor Sitka, Petersburg/Wrangell, and Ketchikan,
Alaska. U.S. Army Engineer District, Anchorage, AK.
Bailey, J.E., and D.R. Evans. 1971. The low-temperature threshold for pink
salmon eggs in relation to a proposed hydroelectric installation.
Fisheries Bulletin. 69(3):587-593.
Bams, R.A. 1967. A review of the literature on the effects of changes in
temperature regime of developing sockeye salmon eggs and alevins.
Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Manuscript 949:14-22.
Barrett, B.M., F.M. Thompson, and S.N. Wick. 1983. Susitna River hydro
aquatic studies, phase 2 adult anadromous investigations. First Draft
Report. Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game, Anchorage, AK. Alaska Power
Authority. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Report for Harza-Ebasco
Susitna Joint Venture. 2 vols.
Barrett, B.M., F.M. Thompson, and S.N. Wick. 1984. Adult anadromous fish
investigations: May -October 1983. Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game,
Anchorage, AK. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Report 1. Report for
Alaska Power Authority. 1 val.
Bell, M.C. 1980. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and
biological criteria. Revised. Prepared for Fisheries Engineering
Research Program, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR.
Bell, M.C. 1983. Lower temperatures at which species of salmon move within
river systems. Memorandum to L. Moulton. January 8, 1983.
Brett, J.R. 1971. Energetic responses of salmon to temperature. A study of
some thermal relations in the physiology and freshwater ecology of
sockeye salmon (Onchorhynchus nerka). American Zoologist. 11:99-113.
References Page 3
Brett, J.R. 1974. Tank experiments on the culture of pan-size sockeye
(Onchorynchus nerka and pink salmon (0. gorbuscha) using environmental
control. Aquaculture. 4:341-352
Brett, J.R., J.E. Shelbourn, and C.T. Shoop. 1969. Growth rate and body
composition of fingerling sockeye salmon, Onchorhynchus nerka, in
relation to temperature and ration size. Journal of the Fisheries
Research Board of Canada. 26:2363-2394.
Brungs, W.A., and B.R. Jones. 1977. Temperature criteria for freshwater
fish: protocol and procedures. Environmental Research Laboratory,
Duluth, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN. 136 pp.
Bryan, J.E., and D.A. Kato. 1975. Spawning of lake whitefish, Coregonus
clupeaformis, and round whitefish, Prosopium cylindraceum, in Aishihik
Lake and East Aishihik River, Yukon Territory. Journal of the Fisheries
Research Board of Canada. 32(2):283-288.
Bucher, W. 1981. 1980 Wood River sockeye salmon smelt studies. Pages 28-34
in C.P. Meacham, ed. 1980 Bristol Bay sockeye studies. Div. of
Commercial Fisheries, Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game, Anchorage, AK.
Bustard, D.R., and D.W. Narver. 1975. Aspects of water ecology of juvenile
coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri).
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 32(5):667-680.
Cederholm, C.J., and W.J. Scarlett. 1982. Seasonal immigrations of juvenile
salmonids into four small tributaries of the Clearwater River, Washington
1977-1981. Pages 98-100 in E.L. Brannon and E.O. Salo, eds. Proceedings
of the Salmon and Trout Migratory Behavior Symposium. School of
Fisheries, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Chapman, D.W., and T.C. Bjornn. 1969. Distribution of salmonids in streams
with special reference to food and feeding. Pages 153-176 in T.G.
Northcote, ed. Symposium on Salmon and Trout in Streams. University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. H.R. MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries.
Cherry, D.S., and J. Cairns, Jr. 1982.
Preference and avoidance studies.
Biological monitoring. Part 5 -
Water Research. 16:263-301.
Combs, B.D. 1965. Effects of temperature on the development of salmon eggs.
Progressive Fish-Culturist. 27:134-37.
Combs, B.D., and R.E. Burrows. 1957. Threshold temperatures for the normal
development of chinook salmon eggs. Progressive Fish-Culturist.
19(1):3-6.
Crisp, D.T. 1981 A desk study of the relationship between temperature and
hatching time for eggs of five species of salmonid fishes. Freshwater
Biology. 11:361-368.
References Page 4
Dugan, L., D. Sterritt, and M. Stratton. 1984. The distribution and relative
abundance of juvenile salmon in the Susitna River drainage above the
Chulitna River confluence. Draft Report. Part 2 of D.C. Schmidt, S.S.
Hale, and D.L. Crawford, eds. Resident and juvenile anadromous fish
investigations (May-October 1983). Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game,
Anchorage, AK. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Report 2. 1 vol.
Flagg, L.B. 1983. Sockeye salmon smolt studies Kasilof River, Alaska 1981.
FRED Div., Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game, Juneau, AK. Technical Data
Report 11. 31 pp.
Foerster, R.E. 1968. The sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka. Bulletin of the
Fisheries Research Board of Canada 162. ·
Francisco, K. 1977. Second interim report of the Commercial Fish-Technical
Evaluation Study. Joint State/Federal Fish and Wildlife Advisory Team,
Anchorage, AK. Special Report 9. 46 pp.
Fried, S.M., and J.J. Laner. 1981. 1980 Snake River sockeye salmon smolt
studies. Pages 34-4~ in C.P. Meacham, ed. 1980 Bristol Bay sockeye
studies. Div. of Commercial Fisheries, Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game,
Anchorage, AK.
Fry, F.G., and P.W. Hochachka. 1970. Fish. Pages 79-134 in G.C. Whittow,
ed. Comparative physiology of thermoregulation. Vol. I. Invertebrates
and nonmammalian vertebrates. Academic Press, Inc., New York, NY.
Fryer, J.L., and K.S. Pilcher. 1974. Effects of temperature on diseases of
salmonid fishes. Ecological Research Services, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA-66013-73-020.
Godin, J.-G. 1980. Temporal aspects of juvenile pink salmon (Oncorhynchus
gorbuscha) emergence from a simulated gravel redd. Canadian Journal of
Zoology. 58(5):735-744.
Groberg, W.J., et al. 1978. Relation of water temperature to infections of
coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), chinook salmon (0. tskawytscha), and
steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) with Aeromonas salmonicida and A.
hydrophita. Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 35:1~7.
Groot, C. 1982. Modification on a theme - a prespective on migratory
behavior of Pacific salmon. Pages 1-21 in E.L. Brannon and E.O. Salo,
eds. Proceedings of the salmon and trout migratory behavior symposium,
1st, University of Washington, Seattle, June 3-5.
Hartman, W.L., W.R. Heard, and B. Drucker. 1967. Migratory behavior of
sockeye salmon fry and smolts. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board
of Canada. 24(10):2069-2099.
Harza-Ebasco SusitnaJointVenture. 1984. Instream ice calibration of
computer model. Final Report. Alaska Power Authority. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project. APA Document 1122. 1 vol.
References Page 5
Jobling, M. 1981. Temperature tolerance and the final perferendum--rapid
methods for the assessment of optimum growth temperatures. Journal of
Fisheries Biology. 19:439-455.
Kogel, D.R. 1965. Springs and groundwater as factors affecting survival of
chum salmon spawn in a sub-arctic stream. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Alaska,
Fairbanks, AK. 59 pp.
Koski, K. 1984. Interview, May 4, 1984. Auke Bay Laboratory, U.S. National
Marine Fisheries Service, Auke Bay, AK.
Krasnowski, P. 1984. Telephone conversation, April 10, 1984. Alaska Dept.
of Fish & Game, Anchorage, AK.
McCart, P. 1967. Behavior and ecology of sockeye salmon fry in the Babine
River. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 24:375-428.
McMahon, T.E. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: coho salmon. U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.49. 29 pp.
McNeil, W.J. 1969. Survival of pink and chum salmon eggs and alevins. Pages
101-117 in T.G. Northcote, ed. Symposium on Salmon and Trout in Streams.
Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. H.R. MacMillan Lectures in
Fisheries.
McNeil, W.J., and J.E. Bailey. 1975. Salmon rancher's manual. U.S. National
Marine Fisheries Service, Auke Bay, AK. 95 pp.
McNeil, W.J., R.A. Wells, and D.C. Brickell. 1964. Disappearance of dead
pink salmon eggs and larvae from Sashin Creek, Baranof Island, Alaska.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Special Scientific Report -Fisheries 485.
13 pp.
Mattson, C.R., and R.A. Hobart. 1962. Chum salmon studies in southeastern
Alaska, 1961. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, Auke Bay, AK. Manuscript Report 62-5. 32 pp.
Merrell, T.R. 1962. Freshwater survival of pink salmon at
Pages 59-72 in N.J. Wilimovsky, ed. Symposium on Pink
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., 1960.
Lectures in Fisheries.
Sashin Creek.
Salmon.
H.R. MacMillan
Merritt, M.F., and J.A. Raymond. 1983. Early life history of chum salmon in
the Noatak River and Kotzebue Sound. FRED Division, Alaska Dept. of Fish
& Game, Juneau, AK. Technical Bulletin 1. 56 pp.
Neave, F. 1966. Salmon of the North Pacific Ocean -Part III. A review of
the life history of North Pacific salmon. 6. Chum salmon in British
Columbia. International North Pacific Fisheries Commission Bulletin 18.
Vancouver, B.C.
Nelson, D.C. 1983. Russian River sockeye salmon. Sport Fish Div., Alaska
Dept. of Fish & Game, Juneau, AK. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Vol.
24. Project AFS-44. Annual Report. 50 pp.
References Page 6
Pratt, K. 1984. Telephone conversation, May 7, 1984. Alaska Dept. of Fish &
Game, Anchorage, AK.
Quane, T. 1984. Telephone conversation, March 1984. Alaska Dept. of Fish &
Game, Anchorage, AK.
R&M Consultants, Inc. 1980. Field data index. Alaska Power Authority.
Susitna Hydroelectric Project~ Report for Acres American, Inc. 49 pp.
R&M Consultants, Inc. 1982a. Hydraulic and ice studies. Anchorage, AK. Alaska
Power Authority. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Report for Acres
American, Inc. 1 vol.
R&M Consultants, Inc. 1982b. 1982 Hydrographic surveys. Anchorage, AK.
Alaska Power Authority, Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Report for Acres
American, Inc. 1 vol.
R&M Consultants, Inc. 1982c. Field data index.
Authority. Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Tnl", 1 vol.
Anchorage, AK. Alaska Power
Report for Acres American,
R&M Consultants, Inc. 1982d. Field data index.
Authority. Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Inc. 1 vol.
Anchorage, AK. Alaska Power
Report for Acres American,
R&M Consultants, Inc. 1982e. Field data collection and processing.
Supplement 1. 1982 Field data. Alaska Power Authority. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project. Buffalo, NY. Report for Acres American, Inc.
215 pp.
R&M Consultants, Inc. 1982f. Processed climatic data.
Station. Anchorage, AK. Alaska Power Authority.
Project. Report for Acres American, Inc. 1 vol.
R&M Consultants, Inc. 1982g. Processed climatic data.
Station. Anchorage, AK. Alaska Power Authority.
Project. Report for Acres American, Inc. 1 vol.
Vol. 6. Devil Canyon
Susitna Hydroelectric
Vol. 5. Watana
Susitna Hydroelectric
Raleigh, R.F. 1971. Innate control of migration of salmon and trout fry from
natal gravels to rearing areas. Ecology. 52:291-297
Raymond, H.L. 1979. Effects of dams and impoundments on migrations of
juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead from the Snake River, 1966 to 1975.
Transactions of the American Fish Society. 108(6):505-529.
Raymond, J .A. 1981. Incubation of fall chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) at
Clear Air Force Station, Alaska. FRED Div., Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game,
Juneau, AK. 25 PP•
Reiser, D.W., and T.C. Bjornn. 1979. Habitat requirements of anadromous
salmonids. No. 1 in Influence of forest and rangeland management on
anadromous fish habitat in the western United States and Canada. U.S.
Forest Service, Portland, OR. General Technical Report PNW-96. 54 pp.
References Page 7
Reynolds, W.W. 1977. Temperature as a proximate factor in orientation
behavior. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
34:734-739.
Ricker W.E. 1979. Growth rates and models. Pages 678-744 in W.S. Hoar, D.J.
Randall, and J.R. Brett, eds. Fish physiology. Vol. 8 Bioenergetics
and growth. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Rukhlov, F.N. 1969. The natural reproduction of the autumn chum salmon
(Oncorhynchus keta) on Sakahlin. Problems of Ichthyology. 9(2):217-223.
Sano, S. 1966. Salmon of the North Pacific Ocean -Part III. A review of
the life history of North Pacific salmon. Chum salmon in the Far East.
Pages 41-57 in International North Pacific Fisheries Commission Bulletin
18.
Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada.
Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Bulletin
184. 966 pp.
Sheridan, W.L. 1962. Relation of stream temperatures to timing of pink
salmon escapements in southeast Alaska. Pages 87-102 in N.J. Wilimovsky,
ed. Symposium on Pink Salmon. University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, B.C., 1960. H.R. MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries.
Sundet, R., and M. Wenger. 1984. Resident fish distribution and population
dynamics in the Susitna River below Devil Canyon. Draft Report. Part 5
of D.C. Schmidt, S.S. Hale, and D.L. Crawford, eds. Resident and
juvenile anadromous fish investigations (May-October 1983). Alaska Dept.
of Fish & Game, Anchorage, AK. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Report 2.
1 vol.
Theurer, F., K. Voos, and W. Miller. 1983. Instream water temperature model.
Draft report. Instream Flow and Aquatic Systems GRoup, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, CO. Instream Flow Information Paper
No. 16. 263 pp.
Trasky, L.L. 1974. Yukon River anadromous fish investigations, July
1973~June 1974. Div. of Commercial Fisheries, Alaska Dept. of Fish &
Game, Anchorage, AK.
U.S. National Weather Service. 1980. Climatological data national summary,
Vol. 30, No. 9. Washington, DC.
1970. Climatological data national summary, Vol. 20, No. 8.
Washington, DC.
1969. Climatological data national summary, Vol. 19, No. 7.
Washington, DC.
1969. Climatological data national summary, Vol. 18, No. 6.
Washington, DC.
References Page 8
Wallis, J., and D.T. Balland. 1983. Anchor River steelhead investigations.
Sport Fish Div., Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game, Juneau, AK. Federal Aid in
Fish Restoration. Vol. 24. Project AFS-48. Annual Report. 44 pp.
Wangaard, D.B., and C.V. Burger. 1983. Effects of various water temperature
regimes on the egg and alevin incubation of Susitna River chum and
sockeye salmon. Final Report. National Fishery Research Center, U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. 43 pp.
Wedemeyer, G.A., R.L. Sanders, and W.C. Clarke. 1980. Environmental factors
affecting smoltification and early marine survival of anadromous
salmonids. Marine Fisheries Review. 42:1-4.
Wetzel, R.G. 1975. Limnology. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA. 743 pp.
Whitmore, D.C., N.C. Dudiak, and J.W. Tester.
Kenai Peninsula. FRED Div., Alaska Dept.
Completion Report AFS-45-1. 54 pp.
1979. Coho enhancement on the
of Fish & Game, Juneau, AK.
WlekeLL, W.P. 1958. Revlew of ee1Laln euvllumuental factors affecting the
production of pink and chum salmon. Journal of the Fisheries Research
Board of Canada. 15:1103-1123.
Wilson, W.J., et al. 1979. An assessment of environmental effects of
construction and operation of the proposed Terror Lake Hydroelectric
Facility, Kodiak, AK. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center,
University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK. Report for Kodiak Electric
Association. 334 pp.
Wilson, W.J., et al. 1981. An assessment of environmental effects of
construction and operation of the proposed Terror Lake hydroelectric
facility, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Instream flow studies. Final Report.
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska,
Anchorage, AK. Prepared for Kodiak Electric Association. 419 pp.
World Meteorological Organization. 1982. Monthly climatic data for the
world, Vol. 35, No. 1. National Climatic Center, Asheville, NC.
1981. Monthly climatic data for the world, Vol. 34, No. 1., National
Climatic Center, Asheville, NC.