HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUS702.
f"
LJ
INTRODUCTION
[
L
The State of Alaska is proposing to construct a two dam,1620 megawatt
hydroelectric project (U.S.Federal Energy Regulatory Commission No.7114)on [
the Susitna River approximately 190 km NNE of Anchorage.A study is underway
to determine the effects this project may have on the indigenous aquatic
[
resources of the Susitna drainage,and in this paper we report on studies of [
the expected alteration of the instream temperature regime of the Susitna
r-,
River (Meyer et ale 1984).Twenty species of fish are known to inhabit the U
The Susitna River flows 520 km from its source at the glaciers on the
southern slopes of the Alaska range to its mouth at Cook Inlet near Anchorage
This study focusesSusitnabasin(table 1).
economically valuable Pacific salmon species,
which annually enter this river to spawn.
on the most numerous and
approximately two million of
rlLJ
c
f~
l'--:
summer turbidities of 74 to 730 NTU,and winter turbidities <1 NTU (R&M
(figure 1).It is seasonally turbid from the glacier melt contribution with
Consultants,Inc.and Larry A.Peterson and Associates 1981).The river
r-.l]lJ
o
[and summer rains,and low during the winter.With the project in place,high
drains a basin of approximately 50,800 sq km,the sixth largest river basin in
the state.Like all northern rivers,the Susitna exhibits strong seasonal D
variation in flow,high during the spring and summer due to breakup,snowmelt
summer flows would be captured for winter release when the demand for power
generation is greatest.
The project would be constructed in two stages.The first stage,Watana
f:
L
[
dam and reservoir,would be located at river kilometer (RK)296 (296 km
upriver from the mouth)and is scheduled for completion in 1996.The last [
year Watana dam would be operated alone is 2001.The second stage,Devil [
33RB-OIOa - 3 -[
-"
Table 1.Common and scientific names of fish species recorded in the Susitna
River basin.
Lampetra japonica (Martens)
Thaleichthys pacificus (Richardson)
Thymallus arcticus (Pallas)
Coregonus laurettae Bean
Prosopium cylindraceum (Pallas)
Coregonus pidschian (Gmelin)
Salmo gairdneri Richardson
Salvelinus namaycush (Walbaum)
Salvelinus malma (Walbaum)
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha (Walbaum)
Oncorhynchus nerka (Walbaum)
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum)
Oncorhynchus kisutch (Walbaum)
Oncorhynchus keta (Walbaum)
Esox lucius Linnaeus
Catostomus catostomus (Forster)
Lota Iota (Linnaeus)
Gasterosteus aculeatus Linnaeus
Pungitius pungitius (Linnaeus)
Cottus cognatus Richardson
- 4 -
:-j
-.....•.
J
']
-~-
Canyon dam,would be located downstream at RIC 243 and is scheduled to be
operational in 2002.The development scenarios discussed in this paper are
Watana in the year 2001 and Devil Canyon plus Watana in 2002.
The Susitna River has a mean annual flow of 275 cubic meters per second
(ems)measured at an index station in the study reach.Mean monthly flows for
the summer months (June through August)range from 590-740 ems,with peak
flows normally occurring during June.
reaching winter lows of 25-30 cms.
Flows begin receding in September,
Under the regulation of the project,flow variation would be dampened
considerably.With a Watana-only configuration,mean monthly flows would
-dr
--'
-~
range from 210-340 cms,with peak flows released in August to facilitate
access for salmon spawning and during winter high-demand periods.With the
addition of the second dam,mean monthly flows would range from 200-320 cms,
~
d
with higher flows more uniform throughout the winter
summer flows.
Reservoirs store heat as well as storing water.
and slightly lower
The temperature of
d
~
~
.,ji
....ii
~
reservoir releases is expected to be cooler than natural during the summer,
and warmer than natural during the winter.Since both reservoirs are expected
to thermally stratify,multilevel intake structures have been incorporated
into the dam design which would allow some degree of control on the release
temperature.
Warmer-than-natural releases during the winter would alter the normal ice
processes below the dams,delaying the formation of an ice·cover and
relocating the upstream end of the ice front.Cooler releases in the summer
likewise would alter river temperature for a considerable distance downstream.
To quantify this temperature change,an instream temperature model was used.
33RB-Ol0a - 6 -
[J
The model simulated effects of the hydroelectric development in an 80 km f '
_0
reach below the Devil Canyon dam.This is the only habitat available to
salmon in the upper part of the Susitna River,as the Devil Canyon dam site
blocks salmon passage further up river.Two large tributaries converge with
the Susitna downstream from this study reach,the resultant flow more than
double the flow upstream from this point.The dampening effect of these
tributaries,both with respect to flow and temperature,creates a distinct
escapement of 26,060 chum,2,325 sockeye,29,300 pink,2,900 coho,and
lower boundary to the study reach.In 1984,the study reach received an
[
was run for a variety of power demands and hydrologic and meteorologic
examined with respect to effects on salmon.This paper discusses the process
13,800 chinook salmon (Barrett,Thompson and Wick 1985).The modeling system
of instream temperature modeling and our subjective assessment of effects of
rlLJ
D
uDownstreamtemperatureresultsfromthesesimulationswereconditions.
predicted with-project temperature regimes on salmon.c
[J
[J
[
[]
L
l
L
33RB-010a - 7 -L
.....,
-:l
~
=:
.....,
-.
::J
9
.J
'1
...
-'
-.J
""
-:!
..1
;;:::
METHODS
Assessment of temperature impacts on salmon involved a three stage
process.First,natural and with-project temperature regimes were predicted
through use of a stream temperature simulation model for a study reach of
mainstem river which extends approximately 80 km (RK 240 to RK 160)below the
proposed dams.Next,fish temperature tolerance criteria were developed based
on literature,laboratory,and field studies.Finally,these criteria were
compared with the temperature model output and an assessment of the effects
was made •
THE STREAM TEMPERATURE MODEL
The Stream Network Temperature Simulation Model,SNTEMP,was originally
developed by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service's Instream Flow and Aquatic
Systems Group in Fort Collins,.Colorado (Theurer,Voos and }liller 1983).The
model requires hydrology,meteorology and stream geometry data as input and
computes heat flux relationships and transports heat through the system.The
model is one-dimensional,producing cross-section averaged mean weekly
temperatures at any mainstem location in the study reach •
A number of modifications were made to the model to better simulate
northern conditions.
1.A monthly variable shade factor was incorporated to account for the
stream shading from topographical features,a serious concern in northern
latitudes where solar angles are very small.
33RB-010a - 8 -
[
2.The model was modified to accept non-constant lapse rates for air
[
temperature and humidity.This is of special value during the winter
when temperature inversions often occur.Ii
l_.J
3.An influent groundwater temperature submodel was developed and
incorporated into SNTEMP.This routine considers the effects of the
depth to groundwater and the cyclical temperature pattern resulting from
1-1
l~
variations in elevation and time.
4.Regression models were developed to fill discontinuous temperature
records,a common problem in Alaska.o
o
Four summers and five winters were selected from the meteorological
record as representative periods of normal and extreme hydrology and D
identified.
meteorology.Simulations were run under these conditions for natural (i.e.,
without dams),single-dam (Watana)and two-dam (Watanaplus Devil Canyon)
found naturally and predicted to occur with the project in place was
D
o
lJ
In this way,the range of downstream temperaturesprojectconfigurations.
DEVELOPMENT OF TEMPERATURE CRITERIA FOR FISH lJ
first reviewed available information on the response of the five salmon
To assess the effects of with-project instream temperatures on salmon,we
species to different thermal conditions.Ideally,information used in an
L
[J
effects analysis should be specific to the water body in question and to its
particular community of organisms.Little specific information exists on the [
effects of temperature changes on Susitna River fish stocks,necessitating the [....~
-~
33RB-OIOa - 9 -L
,
-,
use of information from other areas and latitudes.Professional judgement was
used to ascertain the applicability of each piece of information to the
-,Susitna Basin.Generally,information proximal to the Susitna River was
~
-"
.."
--'
~
-.J
~
"3
judged to be more pertinent than data from other areas of Alaska,which in
turn was usually more useful than information from more southerly latitudes.
Once the information was assembled,it was synthesized to produce thermal
tolerance ranges.These criteria were the temperature ranges believed to be
capable of supporting adult spawning migrations,spawning,incubation,
rearing,and smolt migrations.
ASSESSMENT OF TE}~ERATURE EFFECTS
Graphic techniques were used to demonstrate the relationships between
simulated natural or with-project t~mperature regim~s and the salmon thermal
tolerance criteria.Illustrations were prepared showing the thermal tolerance
"envelope"over a one-year time period for each salmon species.Overlays of
--l xc:natural and with-project temperatures were superimposed on the
-,
J species-specific temperature tolerance graphics;separate illustrations were
~
~
prepared for each of two representative mainstem river locations.
procedure was followed for each of the meteorological simulations.
This
J
~
-,
J
.:;....iii
~
We assumed that only in cases where the simulated temperature regimes
fall outside the temperature tolerance ranges is an obvious adverse impact
established.However,in cases where with-project temperatures do not exceed
tolerances but yet appear to be substantially different from natural,a
further subjective analysis and prediction of effects was conducted.
33RB-OIOa -10 -
[
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
r~,
1--:-__,
EFFECT OF THE PROJECT ON MAINSTEM TE}~ERATURES
Operation of either a single-or two-dam project would reduce mean summer L,
river temperatures below the dam by as much as 2 C.The two-dam project would
result in a greater change,primarily because the second dam would be located
53 km further downstream,reducing the length of river in which release waters
would warm towards ambient air temperature.
c
Warmer winter release temperatures would delay the formation of an ice
cover in the study reach 2 to 6 weeks with one dam and 4 to 7 weeks with both
dams in place.The ice front would be located 16 to 47 km further downstream
than under normal conditions (R&M Consultants,Inc.,et al.1985).A synopsis.[J
of natural and with-project mean seasonal temperatures for four summers and
five winters is shown in table 2.
no
One of the most notable effects of project operation on temperature would
be the change in the timing of seasonal warming and cooling.River ~
temperatures would warm later in the summer than they do naturally and cool [J
later in the fall than normal (figures 2 and 3).Figure 4 compares natural
and two-dam project temperatures at RK 209 for 1981 and illustrates this delay [
T~ERATURE CRITERIA FOR SALMON
in the normal temperature pattern.
Thermal tolerance ranges were established during the course of this study
for the five Pacific salmon species found in the Susitna drainage.These
[
C
r-'
l_:J
ranges were based on literature reports of fish distribution,laboratory
studies,and field studies (table 3).Observed Susitna drainage temperature
data were utilized in conjunction with the literature reports to establish
[
c
33RB-010a -11 -L
.."
-,
d
~
.-J
..jl
:;;i
Table 2.Simulated mean seasonal temperatures at RK 209 for four summer and
five winter scenarios.
~
33M-OI0a -12 -
lJ
NATURAL [
WATER-WEEKS I planed 01 mid-week)
32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 '6 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
I I I " ' ,I ',I I I I I I I ,\I , ,,,,, I I I I , I " ' I I I,', I I " ' , I \ ' I I ',', ,I
u
[
c
D
I J I
£11
\Iii
FE8JANDEC
h
i
OCT NOVSEP
,;,
AUG
I iH till
JULJUNMAY
I )(1'~J II
~MAR APR
140 .~
.L.I.-....l--130
230
WATANA 300-\i290
280 -/
270
260 .
DEVIL 250
'"CANYON---Z-l5 240
0-....
~g
;;:
a::....
.~
a::
o
c
o
CdEJ
o
[
.il
.~WATANA 2001
WATER.WEEKS (plotted aI mid-week)
32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 2S 30
300J
I 11111 I I I
I I ,I I I I I'I I I I I I I I'I I
I I
,,I,,,].,r,..I I .I
WATANA-'
2
280
270
260
DEV'L~
CANYON 240
ij'J I r 111
2
I))/1 I
1/{V \{V I f\o-JU I
N.
\~lGOLD220..
CREEK 210 I
f
\..I)-I ...-.J )I .-!/I /\I f~II III \}I':'I
CHULITNA
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
[
Figure 2.Isotherm plots of simulated instream temperature for
natural and one-dam (Watana)conditions t May 1981 -
April 1982.
[)
c
-13 -[
NATURAL
WATER.WEEKS (ploned 01 mid·week)
APRMARFEBJANDECNOVOCTSEPAUGJULJUNMAY
32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 2 4 6 B '0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
I ""·"'1 I I,·,,·,·,I
~1i III I ((11 i 11
I 2 •G ..\~
:H A 2 •~
I G .\
-
I 0
I -)G
)-~~(2 i~~lu (
)-11 0 ,;,n G ii If lj G
:-11 j r E\I i \Ii I 11 r
WATANA
CHULITN
0::...
~
0::
DEVIL
u>CANYO
0::...
~...
::E
o GOLO~CREE
='ll
~
"'
--J DEVIL CANYON 2002
=;
WATER.WEEKS (plotted at mid-week)
32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 2 4 6 8 I)12 14 16 IB 20 22 24 26 28 30
=
.,
280
-'
J
~
d
--:j
--1
270
260
DEVIL 250
~CANYON~...
~~230
9
"0::...
~
0::
MAY JUN JUL AUG
I
SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
---.,
J
-'
Figure 3.Isotherm plots of simulated instream temperature for
natural and two-dam (Devil Canyon)conditions,Hay 19.81.,..
April 1982.
-14 -
~
OCTSEP
-----',
"",,
'............,
',,-
",
---Natural
-----Devil Canyon
AUGJULYJUNEMAY
/',/'/"I --I -,I 'r---J '/-
//,I,/\I
/\I
,/\/
/\/,/\//
//
///
14
13
12
11
10
6 9-w 8a:
::::>
to-7~a:
.....w
lJl c..6
~
W
to-5
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 4.Natural and two-dam with-project stream temperatures at RK 209.
r:-J c=J CJJ c--:J .c=J LJ c=J o:::=J [iIT[][~:.~]c=J c=J ~,---,:----'_____~,~__J ~c---_J L~.~_J .[~_J.
...,
Table 3.Observed temperature ranges for various life stages of Pacific Salmon from literature review and laborato~
investigations.
[
[
Table 3.(Cont'd)Observed temperature ranges for various life stages of Pacific Salmon from literature review ani
laboratory investigations.
TEMPERATURE RANGE C CSPECIES
OF LIFE LITERATURE
SALMON STAGE SOURCE LOCATION .MIGRATION SPAWNING INCUBATION REARIi
Coho Juvenile Cederholm &Scarlett 1982 Washington St.6 r1Bustard&Narver 1975 Vancouver Is.,BC 7
Bell 1973 General 7.0-16.5 H.8-l4';-6
McNeil &Bailey 1975 Southeast,AI<4.4-l5.73
4-21,7fJMcMahon1983General4-l6 6-U, 4
Wallis 1983 Anchor R,AI<2-l5,7-l4
Whitmore 1979 Caribou L,AI<n-l5.5
Seldovia L,AI<3.0-5.7 0ADF&G 1984 Susitna R,AI<4.2-l4.5
Egg/Alevin Bell 1980 General 4.4-B.3 n.3McMahon1983General4-l4,4-l0 3 UDong1981WashingtonSt.1.3-U.4,4-6.5
Pink Adult Bell 1980 General 7.2-15.6 7.2-U.8 fJBell1983USSR5
McNeil &Bailey 1975 Southeast,AI<7.0-B
Sheridan 1962 Southeast,AI<7.2-l8.4 8McNeiletal.1964 Southeast,AI<W.O-B.O -1
ADF&G 1984 Susitna R,AI<7.8-15.5 8.0-H.0
Juvenile Bell 1980 General 5.6-l4.Q
McNeil &Bailey 1975 Southeast,AI<4.4-15.:=J
Wilson 1979 Kodiak Island,AI<5.0-7.0
Wickett 1958 British Columbia 4,0-5.0 0ADF&G 1984 Susitna R,AI<4.2-14.5
Egg/Alevin Bell 1980 General 4.4-B.3 C.Bailey &Evans 1971 Southeast,AI<4.5
Combs &Burrows 1957 Laboratory 0.5-5.5
McNeil et al.1964 Southeast,AI<1.0-8.0
Godin 1980 Laboratory 3.4-15.0 C
Sockeye Adult Bell 1980 General 7.2-15.6 lO.6-U.2
Bell 1983 General 2.5 CMcNeil&Bailey 1975 Southeast,AI<7.0"B.0
Nelson 1983 Southeast,AI<8.3-14,3
ADF&G 1984 Susitna R,AI<5.8-15.5 4.9-10.5 [
-
E
33RB-010a -17 -[
-,
Table 3.(Cont'd)Observed temperature ranges for various life stages of Pacific Salmon from literature review an
laboratory investigations.
SPECIES
OF
SALMON
LIFE
STAGE
LITERATURE
SOURCE LOCATION·REARING
-C1
-,
J
-,
-J
~
~
,
::]
~
~
""
...
J
-...i
Sockeye Juvenile
Egg/
Alevin
Chinook Adult
Juvenile
Egg/
Alevin
McCart 1967
Raleigh 1971
Bell 1980
McNeil &Bailey 1975
Fried &Laner 1981
Bucher 1981
Hartman et al.1967
Flagg 1983
ADF&G 1984
Bell 1980
Combs 1965
ADF&G 1983
Wangaard &Burger 1983
ADF&G1984
Bell 1980
Bell 1983
McNeil &Bailey 1975
Wallis 1983
ADF&G 1984
Raymond 1979
Bell 1980
McNeil &Bailey 1975
AEIDC 1982
Wallis 1983
ADF&G 1984
Bell 1980
Combs 1965
Alderdice &Velsen 1978
British Columbia
Laboratory
General
Southeast,fJ{
Bristol Bay,fJ{
Biistol Bay,fJ{
Alaskawide
Kasilof R,fJ{
Susitna R,fJ{
General
Laboratory
Susitna R,fJ{
Laboratory
Susitna R,AK
General
General
Southeast,fJ{
Anchor R,fJ{
Susitna R,fJ{
Columbia R,OR
General
Southeast,fJ{
Southcentral,fJ{
Anchor R,fJ{
Susitna R,fJ{
General
Laboratory
General
n.2-14.6
4.4-15.7
7.3-14.6
4.4-15.7
~
-i
c
...J
1 Single temperature values are lower observed thresholds
2After eggs had developed to the 128-cell or early blastula stage at 5.5 0 C
30p .tunum range
4 p k'.5 ea m~grat~on range
Mean temperature
33RB-010a -18 -
[
tolerance criteria for each life phase (table 4).In cases where life phases
[
overlap,that life phase most sensitive to temperature was chosen when
preparing the tolerance criteria graphic overlays.The criteria,then,
establish the narrowest temperature tolerance window for evaluation.Within
these ranges Susitna salmon stocks were assumed to live and function free from
the lethal effects of temperature.
r'
l_~
Embryo incubation rates rise with increasing intragravel water [
temperature.Accumulated temperature units,or degree-days to hatching and
emergence,were obtained from literature reports (ADF&G 1981b,1983;Raymond
r1
U
1981;Wangaard and Burger 1983)and used as criteria for incubation.Data
from laboratory studies of salmon embryo development under different
temperature regimes using Susitna chum salmon stocks (lvangaard and Burger.D
1983)were compared with other chum salmon embryo incubation time data.A
regression analysis of these data illustrated a linear relationship between n
mean incubation temperature and development rate (the inverse of the time to
emergence)for chum salmon (figure 5).A nomograph was then prepared from ~
these data which could predict the date of emergence based upon the date of D
cOtherspeciesspawnintributariesorsidesloughschangesarepredicted.
chum salmon spawning and'the average temperature over the incubation period
(figure 6).A nomograph was prepared only for chum salmon since this is the 0
principal species spawning in the mainstem where project-related temperature
expected to be unaffected by the temperature change.[
EFFECTS OF ALTERED TEMPERATURES ON FISH [
Using the graphic techniques for illustrating relationships between the
natural and with-project temperature regimes and the salmon life stage L
u
33RB-010a -19 -L
..,
--,
Table 4.Salmon temperature tolerance criteria for Susitna River drainage.
TEMPERATURE RANGE (C)
.ii
-.
,
-'
.,
-'
j
=:ij
-'
!
.J
,
.,,;
SPECIES
Chum
Sockeye
Pink
Chinook
Coho
LIFE PHASE
Adult Migration
Spawning 1
Incubation
Rearing
Smolt Migration
Adult Nigration
Spawning 1
Incubation
Rearing
Smolt Nigration
Adult Higration
Spawning 1
Incubation
Smolt Migration
Adult Nigration
Spawning 1
Incubation
Rearing
Smolt Higration
Adult Migration
Spawning 1
Incubation
Rearing
Smolt Migration
TOLERANCE
1.5-18.0
1.0-14.0
0-i2.0
1.5-16.0
3.0-13.0
2.5-16.0
4.0-14.0
0-14.0
2.0-16.0
4.0-18.0
5.0-18.0
7.0-18.0
0-13.0
4.0-13.0
2.0-16.0
5.0-14.0
0-16.0
2.0-16.0
4.0-16.0
2.0-18.0
2.0-17.0
0-14.0
2.0-18.0
2.0-16.0
PREFERRED
6.0-13.0
6.0-13.0
2.0-8.0
5.0-15.0
5.0-12.0
6.0-12.0
6.0-12.0
4.5-8.0
7.0-14.0
5.0-12.0
7.0-13.0
8.0-13.0
4.0-10.0
5.0-12.0
7.0-13.0
7.0-12.0
4.0-12.0
7.0-14.0
7.0-14.0
6.0-11.0
6.0-13.0
4.0-10.0
7.0-15.0
6.0-12.0
.J
--,
-'
....i
-ii
...
1Embryo incubation or development rate increases as temperature rises •
Accumulated temperature units or days to emergence was determined for each
species for the incubation phase.
---'33RB-010a -20 -
0.020 ri----------------------------------.'
0.018
r =0.97
slope =0.57
T ADF&G (1981b)
X ADF&G (1983)
•Raymond (1981)
o Wangaard and Burger (1983)
0.016
-en>-«
0-T""-I-
Z
0.010ill
~a-
0N....JI-'
ill>ill
0
0.002
121110987654321
0.000 I !I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
a
MEAN INCUBATION TEMPERATURE (C)
Figure 5,Relationship between mean water temperature and Alaskan chum salmon embryo develop-
ment.,..to..,.emergence times.
r-J L ..JJ r---1 c=J r-----.J L __J L_.::J CJ QI[]l-J_!J CJ c=J '--1 L_J L __J ·~_nJ L_J i _J
l ."J L_.._,
..,.
-"
-"
"'
Spawnin9
Date
I
July 20
Augl
Aug 10
T(C)
1.0
L5
"2.0
2.5
3.0
Emergence
Date
June 10
June I
May20
MaylO
Mayl
April 20
d
""1
--.J
~
:::::;;
,
cJ
~
j
""1
"-.
J
-"
---"
---"
Aug 20
Sept I
Sept 10
Sept20
Octl
Oct 10
.'........
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
April 10
April I
March 20
March 10
March I
Feb 20
FabiO
Febl
Jan 20
Jan 10
Janl
-:J
---"
......J
Figure 6.Nomograph for predicting Susitna River chum salmon fry emergence from
spawning date and mean water temperature during the embryo incubation
period.Line illustrates predicted fry emergence date from a Septem-
ber 1 spawning date and a mean incubation temperature of 2.0 C.
-22 -
rl
n
temperature tolerance criteria,we evaluated over 100 one-and two-dam
development scenarios,each under different combinations of
representative river sites (RK209 and 242)in figures 7-16.Two steps were
meteorologic/hydrologic conditions.These results are summarized for two
[;
[First,an examination oftakenintheinterpretationofthesefigures.
departures of with-project temperatures from the "tolerance window"was made.
In most cases,each with-project temperature simulation fell within the lJ
temperature tolerance criteria for all life phases.For example,while
Ii
with-project temperatures are different from natural,they are within the LJ
obvious adverse impacts would result from predicted with-project temperatures
tolerance range for chum salmon (figure 7).Therefore,we assumed that no o
for this species at this location under these meteorological and hydrological [
conditions.
In general,this first step in the assessment demonstrated that the t!
Susitna Hydroelectric Project would have few adverse effects from temperature
on the five salmon species.One potential impact was under the two-dam
QE
[jpotentialthermalblockwouldprecludeaccesstomorehabitat,would occur
scenario where adult pink and chinook salmon inmigration may be delayed 0
upstream of RK 209 in late June to mid-July as temperatures fall below the
lower tolerance level for this life phase (figures 15 and 16).The effects on [J
pink salmon inmigration timing are greater than those on chinook because the.
nearer the time of peak pink salmon inmigration,and the period of exposure to
temperatures below tolerance levels would be of longer duration.While adult
chinook or pink salmon migration into this river reach could be delayed,we
[J
c
believe inmigration would ultimately occur 5 to 15 days later as temperatures
rise.This may result in a shorter period between the time pink salmon occupy
spawning grounds and the occurrence of actual spawning.
L
c
33RB-010a -23 -[
-"
CHUM SALMON RIVER KILOMETER 242
Adulllnmicr~lion
Sp~lI'ning
Ineub~lion
Juvenile Heorinc
OulmiJ:falion
••
••
••
••n~nce..-
Pe~k
-+---to
APRJANFEBMAR
Tolerance Zone
NOV DECJULAUGSEPOCT
---Natural
----Watana 2001
MAY JUN
18 -
17 -
16
15
14 -
13
12
11 -
10 -...i \,:::""/~~~\..'\\9 I _"~'
8-J \
7 -r \
',,6 -I "",~,",5-I \./\I
/"'--','-,I4 -,__'-.J \I 'J
...........'·~..I:"'-_'<:::::"""~I
3
2 -Il--'==t~::....__~==:,-"""
o ..
-1 -1_.........,...T1TT"1-2
~
~
~
(I)
Co
E
~
§:
j
-'
~
-"l
-'
,
:J
H~nce..-
rc~k
-t-+-
"
RIVER KILOMETER 206
Tolerance Zone
•
CHUM SALMON
•
••
••
---Natural
~--Watana 2001
-•I••
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
Natural and·one-dam (Uatana)with-project water temperature
regimes in relation to thermal tolerance criteria for chum
salmon at two locations on the Susitna River.
-24 -
18 -
17 ..
16 ..
15 ..
14 -
13
12 -
11 -
10 -\J ~
9 .."I 'L,j ~'I \..",
I \8 ..I \
7 -/'''\
6 ../'"/,5 ..,'/\
4 -'~,
'/'\"\/\I3 -,_,V ,"~,,\/~
2 -,
1 -
o 1~=::::~.,..,~~:;;r~;-T'O~;~~~:;~~~;~~::-1 -
-2
§:
lI?
~
~
(I)
Co
E
(I)
I-
Adult Inmicr~lion
Sp:awning
Incllb~lioll
Juvenile He~rillC
Oull1liJ::r.:Ilion
Figure 7.
,
-'
-,
d
-,
~,
~
d
co::;
-'
-,
-'
J
1
..
[
['
[
o
D
l~
c
[
[
,"l~
COHO SALMON RIVER KILOMETER 242
Adufllnmigralion -I I •Range
Spawning -I I •--Incubalion r-
Juvenile nearing Peak
OUlmigralion •I I -.-+-t-
18 -
17 ----Natural
16 -I I I ----Watana 2001
15 -
14 -
13 -
12 -I (\Tolerance Zone
11 -
~10 -
~9:::l ..........J \y \."\-8 -~\
Q)7 -
\a.\E 6 -
\
Q)\I-5
,,,
4 ,,
3 -
\,,,....."2
1 -
0
-1-
-2 ...
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
L
c
[
c
c
[
[
6
r ..k
-+-t-
nange--
APR
Tolerance Zone
RIVER KILOMETER 206
JAN fEB MARNOVDEC
•
---Natural
----Watana 2001
COHO SAL1I.fON
[\
\.,"\
\
\
\
\
'-",,
\
\
t---
• I I-
'I
-
JUL AUG SEP OCT
•
MAY JUN
18
17
16 ..
15 ..
14 ..
13 -
12 -
11 -
10 -
9 -
8 -
7
6
5 -
4 -
3_p IS>fV \.".v,/I I
-2 I I .~LJ
I iii iii I i I I i j I i j iii iii iii iIi iii j iii i I Iii IiiiiiiiiiiI
~
~.a
~
Q)a.
E
~
Adull Inmigration
Spawning
Incubation
Juvenile nearing I I I j
OUlmi~r2(ion
Figure 8.Natural and one-dam (Watana)with-project water temperature
regimes in relation to thermal tolerance criteria for coho
salmon at two locations on the Susitna River.
~25 -
[;
Ptak
-+--+-
Range--RIVER KILOMETER 242
•
SOCKEYE SALMON
---Natural
----Watana 2001
• I I •
• I I.
•
18
17
16
15
14 -
13 -
Adult Inmigralion
Spawning
~~~I
Juvenile nearing I I I
OUlmigralion
~.'lIl
~,
-,
"
Tolerance·Zone
-"\/....
'\
\."\
\
\
\.
'\,
I --------------\"Ii '\
r \.,
12
11
10
9
8 -
7 -
6 -
5
4-
3 _,,\,I!:/\6,v-·\f'J~I
-1 -iii iii iii i •IIiIIiijiiiiIiiIiI I-2 'i Iii I Iii ill I I Iii I I I I
§:
e
:::J-;
Q;
a.
E
Q)
t-
~
~
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
:3
nange--
Ptak
-+-+-
RIVER KILOMETER 206
•
SOCKEYE SALMON
I I •
• I I.•
t•
-.
Adultlnmigralion
Sp~wniJ1g
Incubation I
Juvenile Hearing I I I
Outmigralion
::l
.J
1
Tolerance Zone
'I
---Natural
----Watana 2001
[\'..,,\
\
\
\
'-","'------\'I'\,-\
18
17 -
16 -
15 -
14 -
13 -
12 -
1 1 -
10 -
9 -
8 -
7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
3 -
~:1 ~'J\/\_I \<'"<')Io -
-1 -i I I Iii iii i i'Iii i i j I j i I I j j I I i j I j I i I-2 -,iii j iii j j iiI j iii j I
e.a
~
Q)a.
E
~
§:
~
.-J
~
.-J
!
:'l.....
....
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
-'
Figure 9.Natural and one-dam (Watana)with-project water temperature
regimes in relation to thermal tolerance criteria for sockeye
salmon at two locations on the Susitna River._?k _
r-l
.J
[
r1
l.~
Range.-
Peak
-+--t-
RIVER KILOMETER 242
•
CHINOOK SALMON
• I I •
• I I •
•
Adull Inmigralio',
Spawning
Incnbation I
Juvenile Ilearing I I I
Onlmi/:ralion
o
B
fl
U
·0
APR
A
Tolerance Zone
JAN FEB MAR
'....,"-'-../'
NOV DEC
\I
....,...\v/~
\
\,0"\
\,,,,,
"...
\
\
"-.....A
JUL AUG SEP OCT
---Natural
---Watana 2001
MAY JUN
3
2 -
1 -oj-1 -"~2 :"":I~i~i~i'i~i~i~i"Tiii-.~i~i~iii~i3;~~;I~~:'T::~~~-rnn"TTnn"TT"~~===I iii iii iii iIi i ;iIi i i j j j i j i i j iIi iii
18
17 I ...16 -i
15
14
13
12 -
11
10
9 -
8 -
7 -
6
5 -
£
~.a
~
(I)
Co
E
(I)
I-
D
c
C'
L
nU
c
c
o
RRange.-
Peak
-+--t-
Tolerance Zone
RIVER KILOMETER 206
JAN FEB MAR APRNOVDEC
•
CHINOOK SALMON
'I \\.",
\
\
\
""'\
\
JUL AUG SEP OCT
• I I •• I I •
---Natural
----Watana 2001
•
MAY JUN
18
17 -I ...
16 --
15 -
14 -
13 -
12 -
11 -
10 -
9 -
8
7-
L ~'~/V\_'~'::,I~=~n-rrn~""TTTT~iiij .,0'r'~".n ,:,,::,,~,i ii
1
-Ii iii-lili-2 iii iii I I I
£
!!?
:::J
iii
Qi
Co
E
(I)
I-
Adult Inmigration
S(Jawning
Incubation I
,Juvenile Ile,ring I I I
OUlmi~r:lljon
Figure 10.Natural and one-dam (Watana)with-project water temperature
regimes in relation to thermal tolerance criteria for chinook
salmon at two locations on the Susitna River.
_~7
[
~
...,Adult Inmigralion
SJlawning
Illcubalion
Juvenile Rearing
Ou!mi~ralion I ~
•
•
••
Ie
PINK SALMON RIVER KILOMETER 242
Range--Peak
~
Tolerance Zone
---Natural
----Watana 2001
18 -
17 I
16 _==~==~~==~=__15
~~J
12 -
11
10 '\/'\'"9 -I .........1 ~'v \
I \8 -~\
r \7 - /"
6 -,""~,,,
5-/\/'\I
/"-'~-'\',_I4-__'J"V \/"
3 --=-_~
2 " ,I
1 """'"
O
iii I i j I I
,iii iii jiii-1 iii Iii iI'j iii-2 f iii i j I
§:
~
Z
~
Q)
Co
E
~
:..:s
-'
~
~"
---..J
-,MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
-"
Range--
Peak
-+-t-
Tolerance ZOlle
---Natural
----Watana 2001
• I I •
18
17 I
16 -
15 -
14
13 J
12 -
11 -
10 -'I::"/\\~:\\..-;
9-'-.I \;4'\
\
8 -\
7 -\.
6 -",
,5 -\
\
4 -"_/'V',3-,2
i i \
1-.",,,
, i I Iii i I I I
0-11\11111\
til l Iii-1 [I I [ I I [i [I-2 ,IiI 1 i l (
§:
l!!
::l
~
Q)
Co
E
Q)
I-
PINK SALMON RIVER KILOMETER 206
"i ·1 Adull Inmigral~on I •I::I
Sp.wnmg •J Ie
Incllbalion
Juvenile Rearing
OUhnigralion
-.,
-'
4
.J
.J
~
,
..]
;:i3i
J
..l
-,
"
-:MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
=i
~
Figure 11.Natural and one-dam (Watana)with-project water temperature
regimes in relation to thermal tolerance criteria for pink
salmon at two locations on the Susitna River.
-28 -
[l
Adullinmic,alion
Sp.awninc
Incubalion
Juvenile nearing
Outmi~r:lfion
••
••
••
CHUM SALMON
••
RIVER KILOMETER 242
nange----.
Peak
-+--t-
[
[::
__J
c
c
o
APRJANFEBMAR
Tolerance Zone
NOV DEC
~........(--""",
",,,
\
\
\
\
\\r---------LJ ------~/
JUL AUG SEP OCT
---Natural
'----Devil Canyon 2002
MAY JUN
A,
I "/ \I
/ \I
/\/
....J V
/
/
//....'------I'
18
17 -
16 -
15 -
14 -
13
12 -
11
10 -
9 -
8 -
7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
3 -
2
=!:1 ,I,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,:,:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,:,:,I
§:
~.a
~
Q)
Co
E
f:!.
•
CHUM SALMON
Adullinmigralion
Spawning
Incubalion
Juvenile !learing
OUCmigralion
••
.-.
• I I •
••
RIVER KILOMETER 206
nange----.
Peak
-+--t-
D
o
---Natural
---Devil Canyon 2002 o
Tolerance Zone
-"
'\
\,
",
\
\
"\
\
\
\......"",
\-/.....---.....-./V"
c
c.
6
[
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR [
Figure 12.Natural and two-dam (Devil Canyon)with-project water
temperature regimes in relation to thermal tolerance
criteria for chum salmon at two locations on the Susitna
River.-29 -
L
-,
nanee.-
Peak
-+--t-
RIVER KILOMETER 242
•
••
COHO SALMON
I
--1•
•
Adull Inmieralion
Spawnine
Incubalion 1
Juvenile Ilearine I I I
OUll1Iignlion
Tolerance Zone
----Natural
----Devil Canyon 2002
A
I '........
/ \I/ \I
/\/
j 'v/"
/
I.11
18
17 -
16 -IJ15-
14 -
13 -
12 -
11 -
10-
9 -
8 -
7 -
6 -
5
4 -
~~:\r -----1 I
=!=:,,,,,,," " ,,,,,,,,,:::,,::",,,,,.,,.,,,,:,::
Q:
f!!
:::J-e
Q)
Co
E
{!!.
-"
-.J
='!!
-,
.,MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
-'
Peak
-+--t-
nanee--RIVER KILOMETER 206
•
•
COHO SALMON
I
·1 I·
f
•
•
Adull Inmieralion
Spawning
Incubalion I I
Juvenile Ilearine I I
OUlmigralion
.~:-.
-.
-'
--,
Tolerance Zone
---Natural
----Devil Canyon 2002
--...,
\
\
................\
\
",
\
\
/\
/\..,
I "/ \I/\
/V
I
II
I3_I'
18
17
16 -
15 -
14 -
13 -
12 -
1 1 -
10 -
9 -
8
7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
Ji .~:r/"-J::"/::~I
, I , { , , i j i I I I-I I I I i I J I I I I i I I I I i I j.I J J i
§:
~
.;!e
Q)
Co
E
Q)
I-
-"
,
~
d
~
->
;.;;;J
d
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
;;i
d
Figure 13.Natural and two-dam (Devil Canyon)with-project water
temperature regimes in relation to thermal tolerance
criteria for coho salmon at two locations on the Susitna
River.-30 -
lJ
SOCKEYE SALMON RIVER KILOMETER 242
[
[JR,nge----..
Pe,k
-t-t-•
• I I •
• I I.
•
ALlulllnmigralion
Sp,wning
Incub,lion I I
Juvenile flo,ring I I
Olllmi~rolion
c
c
c
['
r--1L__J
APR
Tolerance Zone
JAN FEB MAR
r----------------..,./
NOV DEC
---Natural
----Devil Canyon 2002
"....,-,,",'.........,,
",,
\
\
\
\
\
\
JUL AUG SEP OCT
A,
I "/ \I
I \ /
/\I
j V./
/
MAY JUN
18 -
17 -
16 -
15 -
14
13 -
12 -
1 1 -
10
9 -
8
7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
3 -1/
2
1 -
=!t """"",",","~,~", ::It ,,ii',, , , , I I ,'I I i
l!!
:J
~
Q)
Co
E
Q)r-
§:
u
D
Peak
-t-T-
R,nge..-
RIVER KILOMETER 206
•
•J--
SOCKEYE SALMON
I••
•
ALlulllnmigralion
Sp,wning
Incub,lion I -
Juvenile flc,ring I I I
OUlmigralion
---Natural
---Devil Canyon 2002,u
Tolerance Zone
6
o
L
[
[J
APRJANFEBMAR
\_.....~,/V,;....._..._-...J
NOV DEC
-,"""
\
\""'\
\
",
\
\
\
JUL AUG SEP OCTMAYJUN
E
:J
(;j
Qi
Co
E
Q)r-
§:
Figure 14.Natural and two-dam (Devil Canyon)with-project water
temperature regimes in relation to thermal tolerance
criteria for sockeye salmon at two locations on the
Susitna River.-31 -
L
R.nge
~
Pe.k
--t--t-
RIVER KILOMETER 242
•
CHINOOK SALMON
•H
• I I •
•
•
Adulllnmi~ralion
Sp.wning
Incub:ition I
Juvenile /le,ring I I I
OUlllliJ:ralion
Tolerance Zone
r----------------,,,,,-
--_.Natural
----Devil Canyon 2002
----",I
18 -
17 -
10-
15 -
14 _.
13
12 -
11 -
10
9
8
7 -
6
5 -
4 -
3 -I /
2 -
1 -
=r =1,I , , I I I , , , i ,iii iii iii iii :,,Ii,I Iii,I , i ,i ,I , ,:,, : I I
~.a
~
Q)a.
E
I!!-
§:
~
'"""'1
....J
,.....,
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
-"
R.nge.-
Pe.k
--t--t-
,/
\...../
Tolerance Zone .
RIVER KILOMETER 206
\.../.....~"-/
\t/"....----./
•
--..
\'....
....,\
\
\.
"-\
\
\
CHINOOK SALMON
--+1 •
• I I •
---Natural
---Devil Canyon 2002
----"i I
•
18
17 -
16 -
15 -
14
13 -
12
1 1
10 -
9 -
~=r;fA\..,
6 - / \/\
5 - /\I/V4_/,r----"---
3 I i I
2
1 -
o -I
-1 -'>
-2 _I r I I iIe"C• , j -I
• , i , ,I', , ,i ,iii,iii Iii I I j i i j iii iii I Iii iii It
e
::;]
iii
Q;a.
E
I!!-
§:
Adulllnmigralion
Sp.wning
II1C'uualion I
Juvenile /learing I I I
OUlllli~ralion
~
~
-~
~
;::j
..J
;,;j
~
~
,.....,
Figure 15.Natural and two-dam (Devil Canyon)with-project water
temperature regimes in relation to thermal tolerance
criteria for chinook salmon at two locations on the
Susitna River.-32 -
~
='"
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
[
n
[
[
c
[
[
r~
L
Range--
I'rak
-t-+-
APR
Tolerance Zone
RIVER KILOMETER 242
JAN FEB MARNOVDEC
rINK SALMON
•
Ie
................"
,<-_/'"...........,....
",
\
\
\
\/\r---------------~
\.../
•
JUL AUG SEP OCT
•
•
--.-Natural
----Devil Canyon 2002
e-+--t
MAY JUN
18 -
17 -
16 -
15
14 -
13
12
11 -
~10
~9 -::::l
~8 -
Q)
7 -
a.
E 6 -Q)
l-S -
4 J /
3 /
2 -
1 -
o -
-1 -
-2 -
Adult IlImiCfaliun
Spawlling
Incubalion
Juvrnilr IIrafill~
Outmigra'ion
Adult Inmicralion
Spawning
Incubalion
Juvrnile lIearing
OUlmi~falion e-+--t
•
•
••
Ie
PINK SALMON RIVER KILOMETER 206
Hange--
Prak
-t-+-
D
o
c
Figure 16.Natural and two-dam (Devil Canyon)with-project water
temperature regimes in relation to thermal tolerance
criteria for pink salmon at two locations on the Susitna
River.-33 -L
c
L
l
l
[J
APR
Tolerance Zone
JAN FEB MARNOVDEC
--....
'\........
....\
\
\"'\
\
\
\.-'...........'.....~--.....Jyr
JUL AUG SEP OCTMAYJUN
~
::::l
<U
Q;a.
E
~
~
.-"
-."
~
~
d
-,
--"
Another situation was found .where temperatures upstream of RK 209 in July
also fall outside pink and chinook salmon spawning tolerance zones (figures 15
and 16).Since this only ·occurs for about one week,we believe that this
would temporarily delay this species'spawning migration but would pose no
long--term impediment to the spawning act.Neither pink nor chinook salmon are
presently known to use this habitat for spawning,and thus this is not a
present concern.Mitigation studies are currently focusing on the potential
increased suitability of mainstem habitats for chinook spawning after the
proj ect is operating due to improved hydraulic,turbidity,and winter ice
conditions.
The second step in our analysis was a more in-depth examination of
effects of temperature change on juvenile fish growth and on embryonic
development.Even though the With-project temperature scenarios are largely
within the established thermal tolerance ranges for -salmon (figures 7-16),
some reduction in juvenile salmon growth could occur due to cooler summer
believe effects on rearing chinook salmon could be the most severe as
juveniles of this species are the most numerous in habitats directly under
mainstem temperature influence.In spring through fall,juvenile chinook move
from overwintering clearwater tributaries and side sloughs into turbid water
side channels and mainstem habitats (Schmidt et al.1984),presumably to
forage on drift and benthic invertebrates and to utilize cover provided by the
turbid conditions in these areas.
We made estimates of juvenile chinook salmon g-rowth under natural and
with-proj ect temperature regimes using a growth table presented in Brett
(1974).,Our growth assessment indicates that,depending on climate and the
temperature of reservoir-released waters,growth (measured by weight gain)of
..J
~
d
~
d
-,
a
~
~
temperatures under with-project scenarios.Although unquantifiable,we
""
33RB-OI0a -34 -
n
l_J
juveniles rearing in affected mainstem areas (above RK 209)could be
substantially reduced (figure 17).These estimates of growth reduction are [
based on the sum of increased growth during the warmer fall temperatures and
decreased growth during cooler spring and summer temperature.They are also [
based in part on the assumption that affected juvenile fish would feed to
satiation.Since we believe this may not occur in the wild,these estimates
1-
1 _
should be viewed as worst case scenarios.l'
Embryonic development time also is affected by changes in stream
temperature,and was used as an estimator of project effect instead of [
otolerancecriteria.With-project water temperatures are expected to be warmer
during the salmon embryo incubation period of September through April.
Simulated natural mainstem average water temperatures near RK 209 for the D
September to April period range from 0.8 to 1.2 Cdepending on meteorological
conditions.Watana-only operational average water temperatures would be about [J
Our assessment of these elevated winter incubation temperatures was based
0.8 to 2.0 C warmer than natural (table 5).
on the chum salmon nomograph previously described.Under natural conditions,
0.7 to 1.2 Cwarmer and Devil Canyon operational temperatures would be about
o
o
[J
In 1984onlychumsalmonhavebeenfoundtospawninmainstemhabitats.
approximately 3,800 chum salmon used the mainstem for spawning;14,600 spawned
in side sloughs (Barrett et al.1985)at a nearly constant 3 to 4 C where c
groundwater upwelling maintained elevated temperatures throughout the winter
(ADF&G 1983).In the mainstem spawning areas,upwelling groundwater also
[J
[
maintains warm temperatures in the intragravel environment (ADF&G 1983).[J
However,to illustrate effects of natural winter temperature regimes
(approximately 1 C)on chum salmon incubation if warm groundwater is absent,
our nomograph (figure 6)shows chum fry emergence well into the summer from a L
33RB-010a -35 -t
L.~.i ..L.L...,j Lee..,.J L..."J IL,,.i..J ~,....J L,J L"L.i iJ L".i.J j J
10 •,
9 1982
NOV
1971
1982
---/'
/'1971
..,.,-.-..""".-.------
OCT
1982
,...---.............,,'",,/
,,//
//,-,-,-,-
"""
SEP
1971
/",--
//
//
//
//
---Natural
-----Watana
--Devil Canyon
7
8
6-C)-l-
I 5
CJ
w
~4w
0\
I
3
2
1
0
MAY JUNE JULY AUG
Figure 17.Estimates of juvenile salmon growth in the Susitna River near RK 209 under natural
and with-project water temperature regimes comparing 1971 (cold)and 1982 (average)
meteorological conditions.
Natural and with-project Susitna River temperature ranges (C)under
four meteorological scenarios for the period -September through
April.
Natural
Table 5.
RK Range
1971 -1972 Meteorology (Cold,Wet)
Watana 2001 Devil Canyon 2002
Mean Range Mean Range Mean
Ll
[J
[
n
242
209
161
0-6.8
0-6.9
0-7.1
0.7-
0.8
0.8
0-8.4
0-8.3
0-8.5
1.7
1.5
1.3
0.7-8.4
0-8.4
0-8.5
2.3
1.6
1.4 ~
1974 -1975 Meteorology (Average,Dry)
Natural Watana 2001 Devil Canyon 2002
RK Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
242 0-8.5 0.9 0-9.8 2.2 1.2-9.4 3.0
209 0-8.6 1.0 0-9.6 1.8 0-9.4 1.9
161 0-9.1 1.1 0-10.0 1.6 0-9.9 1.9
D
U
C
D
1981 -1982 Meteorology (Average,Wet)
Natural Watana 2001 Devil Canyon 2002
RK Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
242 0-7.7 1.1 0.4-9.0 3.0 1.8-8.3 4.0
209 0-7.9 1.1 0-9.0 2.5 0.7-8.2 3.2
161 0-8.4 1.3 0-9.4 2.1 0-8.6 2.4
1982 - 1983 Meteorology (Average,Average)
Natural Watana 2001 Devil Canyon 2002
RK Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
242 '0-7.9 1.1 0-9.0 2.9 0.9-8.6 3.5
209 0-8.0 1.2 0-8.8 2.4 0-8.6 2.8
161 0-8.4 1.3 0-9.1 2.1 0-8.9 2.2
33RB-010a -37 -
o
f]
D
[J
C
[
W
[
-,"
--,
spawning date of September 1,the period of peak spawning in Susitna River
habitats.Under natural conditions,chum fry emerge in early May (ADF&G
.,.......,
-.
"'1
d
::!
d
-.
-
~
d
~
d
......,
..l
,
c.j
-.
""
::J
..3
~
1983).This illustrates that temperature may be a factor limiting successful
production of chum salmon in mainstem habitats.
With either one or two dams in place,however,eggs deposited on
September 1 at an average incubation temperature greater than 2.0 or 3.0 C
should emerge in time to produce viable fry (table 5 and figure 6).Average
mainstem temperatures under the Watana-only scenario are above 2.0 C in two of
the four different meteorological scenarios and for three of the four Devil
Canyon scenarios (table 5).Mainstem temperatures near RK 209 in all but the
coldest years average above 2.0 C for the incubation period and any eggs
deposited under these warmer temperatures should produce viable fry.It
appears,therefore,that better mainstem incubating habitat could exist under
with-project scenarios due to the warmer temperatures.
="
33RB-OI0a -38 -
[1
u
CONCLUS IONS.
[
Our analysis of expected effects on salmon from altered water
temperatures due to operation of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project is based on
a comparison of available predictions from the SNTEMP model with fish thermal
tolerance criteria.While the SNTEMP model served this analysis well,there
are limitations in the available water temperature data and in the modeling
system that affect the reliability of the absolute temperatures predicted.
The temperature data to which the model was calibrated was available for only
a few years and numerous discontinuities in these data exist.Additionally,
from a reservoir temperature model for upstream boundary conditions which also
[
l}
[
I'L_.J
o
[
possibility of a variety of combined errors.
has inherent error.Consequently,simulated temperatures include the c
While the ability of SNTEMP to predict absolute temperatures is D
uncertain,much greater reliance may be placed on the relative temperature
differences resulting between different simulation scenarios.Thus,the D
ability to assess the temperature changes resulting from operation of the
project remains good.We conclude that our analytical procedure,albeit o
largely nonquantitative,permitted a reasonable analysis of effects on salmon
from temperature changes predicted to occur from operation of the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project.
The available fish thermal tolerance information,while of sufficient
scope for use in·gauging effects on salmon generally,is biased to lower
latitudes of North America,necessitating professional interpretation for use
[J
rlU
L
L
33RB-OIOa -39 -[
-.,
.,
-.,
..
j
.,
j
in Alaska.Also,salmon are poikilotherms,and thus their body functions are
very influenced by environmental temperature.Yet salmon exhibit a degree of
thermal plasticity,and are often able to maintain some degree of independence
of environmental temperature through homeostatic mechanisms (Warren 1971).We
believe the Susitna stocks are adapted to a temperature range of 0 to 18 C.
Certainly,narrower tolerance ranges apply to each life phase,and ranges
differ slightly among species.Due to the wide temperature range in which
salmon can live and function,any project-induced change that remains within
their tolerance range requires a subjective analysis •
Based on the SNTEMP model results,salmon thermal tolerance criteria,
Susitna stock life history information,and professional judgement,we
conclude that no direct mortality is anticipated to occur from with-project
temperatures.Although unquantifiable,indirect mortality to some species may
occur.
Foremost among these effects is our concern with rearing chinook salmon
(in an 80 km mainstem reach downstream from the Devil Canyon dam).Regardless
of operating scenario,we believe juvenile chinook salmon growth would be
retarded;effects would be more acute under the two-dam configuration than
with one.This may result in smaller than normal smolts and/or a delay in
outmigration,both of which are known to result in reduced survival (Groot
1982,Wedemeyer et al.1982).The extent of this effect is unquantifiable
without more specific information on Susitna salmon stock temperature versus
growth relationships.
With-project water temperatures (for the two-dam scenario only)could
also delay adult pink and chinook salmon inmigration (and hence,spawning)
above RK 209.This could offset the normal timing of embryonic incubation,
emergence,and outmigration of the progeny of these species.Of lesser
33RB-Ol0a -40 -
l"
L
[
[
r"
roo'
iL_
f"'
L~
r~
I
l
[
[
33RB-010a -41 -
L
L
f
[
[
l
l
l
I
-,
-,
-"'I
""1
~
d
-,
~
-,
-'
.,
::.j
:;j
-,
=.i
d
=1
;;:i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial support for this work was provided by the Alaska Power
Authority through its subcontractor Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture.
Support also was provided for the authors'participation in this symposium by
the Andrew W.Mellon Foundation and by the Arctic Environmental Information
and Data Center,University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
~
33RB-010a -42 -
.[1
[
REFERENCES
[
AEIDC (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 Dept.of Fish &Game.1981a.Annual Salmon Management Report,1980,[~
Kuskokwim area.Commercial Fisheries Division,Anchorage,AK.56 pp.--
1981b.Freshwater habitat relationships.Unpublished report by
Habitat Division for U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Anchorage,AK.
1 vol.
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.
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.
Barrett,B.M.,F .M.Thompson,and S.N.Wick.1985.Adult adadromous fish
investigations (May -October 1984).Alaska Dept.of Fish &Game,
Anchorage.Report for Alaska Power Authority.1 vol.
1984.Observed water temperatures for salmon species life stages
in the Susitna River drainage.Personal communication with Arctic
Environmental Information and Data Center,University of Alaska,
Anchorage,AK.April 18,1984.
n
D
[
lJ
c
c
nThelow-temperature threshold for pink
proposed hydroelectric installation.
hydro aquatic studies,phase 2 data report.
(October 1982 -May 1983).Final report for
137 pp.
1983.Susitna
Winter aquatic studies
Alaska Power Authority.
Bailey,J.E.,and D.R.Evans.1971.
salmon eggs in relation to a
Fishery Bulletin 69(3):587-593.
1983.Lower temperatures at which species of salmon move within
river systems.Personal communication with Woodward-Clyde Consultants,
Inc.,Anchorage,AK.January 8,1983.c
Bucher,W.1981.1980 Wood River sockeye salmon smolt 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 winter ecology of juvenile
coho'salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri).
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32(5):667-680.
L
L
33RB-OI0a -43 -[
Cederholm,C.J.,and W.J.Scarlett.1982.Seasonal immigrations of juvenile
salmonids into four small tributaries of the Cleanvater 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.
Combs,B.D.1965.Effects of temperature on the development of salmon eggs.
Progressive Fish-Culturist 27:134-137.
Combs,B.D.,and R.E.Burrows.
development of chinook
19 (1):3-6.
1957.
salmon
Threshold temperatures for the normal
eggs.Progressive Fish-Culturist
~
-'
~
---l
--'
~
--l
~
d
-.
::::i
~
'""
-"
Dong,J.N.1981.Thermal tolerance and rate of development of coho salmon
embryos.M.S.Thesis.University of Washington,Seattle,WA.51 pp.
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.
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 34-45 in C.P.Meacham,ed.1980 Bristol Bay sockeye
studies.Div.of Commercial Fisheries,Alaska Dept.of Fish &Game,
Anchorage,AK.
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.
Groot,C.1981.Modification on a theme--a perspective 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 smolt.Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
Canada 24(10):2069-2099.
Kogl,D.R.1965.Springs and groundwater as factors affecting survival of
chum salmon spawn in a subarctic stream.M.S.Thesis.Univ.of Alaska,
Fairbanks,AK.59 pp.
~
McCart,P.
River.
1967.Behavior and ecology of sockeye salmon fry in the Babine
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 24:375-428.
-'
g
McMahon,T.E~1983.Habitat suitability index models:coho salmon.U.S.
Fish-&Wildlife Service.FWS/OBS-82/10.49.29 pp.
d
33RB-010a -44 -
[
[
McNeil,W.J.1969.Survival of pink and chum salmon eggs and alevins.
Pages 101-117 in T.G.Northcote,ed.sy.mpoSi.um 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 [-1.
Marine Fisheries Service,Auke Bay,AK.95 pp._J
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.
Merritt,M.F.,and J.A.Raymond.1983.Early life history of chum salmon in
the Noatak River and Kotzebue Sound.FRED Div.,Alaska Dept.of Fish &
Game,Juneau,AK.Technical Bulletin 1.56 pp.
McNeil,H.J.,R.A.Wells,and D.C.Brickell.1964.Disappearance of
pink salmon eggs and larvae from Sashin Creek,Baranof Island;AK.
Fish &Hildlife Service.Special Scientific Report--Fisheries
13 pp.
dead
U.S.
485.l
[~
[
c
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.
Meyer,P.R.,M.D.Kelly,K.A.Voos,and W.J.Wilson.1984.Assessment of the
effects of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project on instream
temperature and fishery resources in the Watana to Talkeetna reach.
Vol.1.Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center,University of
Alaska,Anchorage.Report for Alaska Power Authority.130 pp.
R&M Consultants,Inc.,Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture,Arctic
Environmental Information and Data Center,University of Alaska,LGL
Alaska Research Associates,Inc.,and Agriculture and Forestry Experiment
Station,University of Alaska.1985.Susitna River ice processes:
natural conditions and projected effects of hydroelectric development.
Unpublished report.Vol.1.Alaska Power Authority,Anchorage,AK.
305 pp.
1983.Russian River sockeye salmon.Sport Fish Div.,Alaska
Fish &Game,Juneau,AK.Federal Aid in Fish Restoration.
Project AFS-44.Annual Report.50 pp.
[='
~
[
[
o
c
[
c
L
Review of
for Acres
1981.
Report
R&M Consultants,Inc.and Larry A.Peterson &Associates.
existing Susitna River basin water quality data.
American,Inc.1 vol.
Nelson;D.C.
Dept.of
Vol.24.
Raleigh,R.F.1971.Innate control of migration of salmon and trout fry from
natal gravels to rearing areas.Ecology 52:291-297.[
L
33RB-OIOa -45 -L
-,'
-'
l
-.i
..,
'"
"'
..
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,AK.FRED Div.,Alaska Dept.of Fish""'"'&Game,
Juneau,AK.25 pp.
Rukhlov,FeN.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.
Schmidt,D.C.,S.S.Hale,D.L.Crawford,and P.M.Suchanek.1984.Resident
and juvenile anadromous fish investigations (May-October 1983).Alaska
Dept.of Fish &Game,Anchorage,AK.Susitna hydro aquatic studies.
Report 2 for the Alaska Power Authority.Document 1784.1 vol.
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.D.,1960.H.R.MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries.
Theurer,F.,K.Voos,and W.Miller.1983.Instream water temperature model •
Draft report.Instream Flmv 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.
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.
Warren,C.E.1971.Biology and water pollution control.
Company,Philadelphia.434 pp.
W.B.Saunders
Wedemeyer,G.A.,R.L.Saunders,and W.C.Clarke.1982.Environmental factors
affecting smoltification and early marine survival of anadromous
salmonids.Marine Fisheries Review June:1-14.
33RB-OIOa -46 -