HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUS10040TK
1425
.S8
S9
no. 10040
SUS 10040 (also part 1 of SUS 347)
Comments on Draft Exhibit E of Susitna Hydroelectric Project
License Application. Letter to Eric Yould from Robert W. McVey,
January 25, 1983.
• To Eric Yould, Executive Director, Alaska Power Authority
• From Robert W. McVey, Director, National Marine Fisheries Services, Alaska
Region
• 13 p.
This document is one of four agency memorandums addressed sent in January
1983 to Eric Yould. These memorandums are assigned individual SUS numbers
10040, 10041, 10042, and 10043.
These memorandums appear also in a collected document: Agency Comments on
Draft Exhibit E of Susitna Hydroelectric Project License Application : Comments by
NMFS, DEC, DNR, USFWS. -- SUS 347.
These submitted comments are in reference to: Susitna Hydroelectric Project FERC
License Application. Exhibit E / prepared by Acres. Draft. -- APA Document nos.
157-161.
(This explanatory sheet is supplied by Alaska Resources Library and Information
Services. Titles of memorandums are supplied from Susitna Aquatic Impact
Assessment Project Bibliography with corrections made by the cataloger.)
;~..~',.
....-...,.•.
Th e Nation al Marin e Fi sheri es S ~r vice has revi ewed dr aft Exhibit E of
th e l icense a pplicat ion f or th e Su sftn a Hydroele ctric Proje ct.We are
submitting ccnme .rts on thi s docume nt which s ilti s(/,in part ,the agency
coord inat ion mechanism e stabli shed by th e Federal En ergy qeg ulatory
Co o,"i ssi on (FERC).Th e fo rm al position o f IUlFS i n r e gard s t o the
Su s t tn a Proj ect hes been r equested iuld prov tu ed t o th ~.'\1.1::k.c:.Pow er-
Authorit}(APA)in s ev ere 1 pr evi ous in s te nces ,Sp ec if i ce 11 y.we r ef ar
to th e f o11 CJ\'1 i n!J tlMFS c or res po nde nce whi c h shou ld be cons t de red, a l ong
wi th th e Exh ibit E conme nt s,as f orm al c oordi nat ion,
1.Let ter t o Eric Youl d f r om Ro ber t rlcVey .Directo r,Ala ska Regi on
fli1F S,Ncvemb er 29,1982.
2.Statement of Rob ert l~cV cy before th e Ala s-k a Pow er Au thority Boa rd of
utrectors ,April 16. 1982.
3. Letter to Eri c Yould from Robert McV ey,October 15,19 82.
Mr .Er ic You ld
Executive Director,Ala ska P ~~er Au th ority
334 W.5th Avenue
An chorage.Al aska 99501
De ar Nr.Youl d:
Th e Nati onal Narine Fisheries Service (ril'lF S)is e ntrusted with Federal
j uri sdict ion ov er marine ,es t u~r i ne ,a nd dn adromous f is h~ry r esources.
Und er Reor9 anizat ion Pl an No. 4 o f 1970.3 C.F.R.Secti on 203 (1970
compila ti on).r eprinted in 5 U.S.C.Appendi x II a t 64 (1970).tll'IF S was
established to e xercise those function s previously carried out by th e
Bureau o f tonmer-c te l Fisherie s.By vi rtu e o f thi s del ega tion of
autho rity,Nf.lF S is r esponsi ble f or overs ight a nd e valuation of a ctiv i-
ti es wh ich may a ffect mar ine,est uarine,and anad romo us fi shery
r esources.Unde r t he Fish and Wild l ife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C.Sect ion
661-666 (c)r equ ires th ot N:1F S be consulted "wh enever th e waters of any
s t ream or other bo dy of wa t e r ar e proposed or autho ri zed t o be im-
pounded ...fo r any purpose wh atever .••by any public or private agency
unde r Fed eral permit or 1 icen se."Nr·IFS inte res ts in t he pr otect i on of
marine,es tuarine,a nd anddromo us f i shery re sources als o de rive s from
th e An adr omous Fish Con servat i on Act,the Magnuson Fi shery Conservati on
and Manage ment Act,a nd the Nat i ona 1 En vi rorm ente 1 Po l i cy Act.Th e FE RC
r ules and r egul ation s r equ ire consultat ion with NMFS whencvet a pr oj ect
ma y affect a nadromous,es tua ri ne ,or mari ne f i s hery resourc es ,
5cJ5
/tJO,/O
J ~~\?Il \~
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
N.tIDn.1 Dc ••nlc end Atmospheric Admlnlstr.tlon
Nat i onal Marine Fisheries SSMJ w e
P.O .Boz 1668
Juneau.Alaska 99802
January 25. 1983
I
I
:•
•
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,,,,,
\,
·J.I __
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
Because of the nature and magnitude of this project,and certain
unresolved i ssues concerning resou rces for wh ich N ~FS bp.ars
responsibil ity,we do not feel the f onma l consultation process 1s
complete at th is stage.NMF S will cont inue to ass ist your agency
throughout the pl anning and l icensing process.
G~neral CO lTll'lents
Our revi ew f ound this l ic ense exhibit to be very i nfo rm ati ve and gen-
e ra l'ly well deve loped .I t represents a consi derable improv ement over
th e 1981 Feasibility Rep ort,particul arly in its consideration of
filling concerns and 1n discussing project effects from a Watana alon e
and Watan a/Oev il Cany on com bined perspective .
We have not comme nted extensi vely on chapters 5,So cioecon om ic impacts
or 10.Alt erna tives .Howe ver we beli eve it is i mp urtant to recognize
certai n re cent dev elo p ~n ts which wi ll i n f l ue n c~th e f easibility of this
project .Uo rld oil pr tces have f a il ed to esce lete as projected in
earlier economic stUd t 2S.~a t ur d l ga s alternat ives have been influenced
by r ecent pric ing a gr ee p ~n ts and a pr oposal t o construct a gas pipeline
capable of supplying mu ch of t he Southc entra l popul ation .We have
r ecently rev i.wed th e 8. tt clle Ra ilbelt Electric Powe r Authority Sludy
tl ew sletter #4,De cemb er.198 2.Thl S newsletter presents an upd ate
e l ect r-Ica l demand for ecas t which, for the year 2010 ,is 44 percent l ower
th an the 1980 ISER fo re cast.Load f orecasts wil l dictate f ac il ity
design and op erat ions which ,in t urn,will detemine th e amo unt of wa ter
r equ ired f or powe r produ ction and available for dm1n stream fish eries
flow. In an ACRES report of OCt obe r 198 2 ,E n ~r9 v Si mu lation·Studies to
SC lect Proje ct Dra wdow n and Mitigati on Flows ,e nergy s imu latlons were
made which as sumed a medium load f ore cast f or th e year 2010 of 779 1 GWH,
a f igure s ignifi cantly i n excess of t he re cent Batte lle f orecast of 3844
efld 4986 f or me di um and low 2010 dema nd .I t app edr s that many of the
basic economi c premises upon wh ich thi s project was planned pave now
changed.We believe th e license appli cation should fully -con sid er t he
tm a ct of th ese event s and dlSCUS S thclr effect or 1m act on overa ll
ro ect easl 1 lt t e nee or ~a ta n a to be 0 e r a tl 0na and
t e e conom1CS a ssoc ate W1t prov1 n9 s u Clent ownstream ows t o
minimize fi shery imp acts .
Th e data gathered from the enviro nmental fie ld studies ,begun in Jun e
1981.and pr e sented i r.t he Exhibit,s ho w the Susitna Riv er system to
support l arg e.valu able runs of pac ific salmon,other anadromous f ish,
dnd several f ne sh ~at er r e sident f i s h s pecies .Th e propo !ed proj ect
wo uld imp act th ese re so ~rc e s .particul arly .in that reach of t he Susitna
Rive r b etw ~e n De vil Canyon and Talke etna .Th e pri ma ry intere sts and
concerns of UHFS i n the Susitna fedS ib ility studi es have been t o a ssure
th at (1)th e f ishery r esources are i d~n ti fi ed dnd quantifi ed,(2 ,
s peci fic i mp acts a re identifi ed,(3)imp ~c t s are avoided wh enever
poss ible,and (4) specifi c and effr.ct ivc mitiga tive me asures a re
dcveloped for all un avoidable adverse i mp acts .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'.
•I
I
I
I
3
Th e r esult s of the se stud ies and othe r ma teria ls presented with in
l icense Exh ib it E l n d i ca~e that project construct ion and op erat ion wil l
signif icantly a f fect f is hery r esources through cha ng es 1n s t reamf l ow ,
wa ter qua li ty,t emp era tures,i ce conditions.veget ati on, and slou gh
habita t.Studies to id ent ify and as sess these changes a nd to d es ~rib e
t he f ishery resou rce s of the proj ect area were i nitia ted in 1981 .At
th is t i me two fi eld se asons of data hay e been ga t ~er ed.Howe ver,the
dr aft Exhib it Edoes no t includ e mst of th e 1982 da ta nor the result s
or analysis of th at data.Th e docu me nt cl earl y suffers by thi s
omiss ion.a nd we re comme nd that Exhibit E of th e licen se appl ication
in clude a pres entah on and anal ysIS of t he 198 2 data .
Through ou t Exh ib it E references a re ma de to ongoing or proposed s tudies
which wi ll add ress i ssues we c on sid ~r criti cal to th e f easib il ity of
t his pro ject.Yet it i s not cl ear wh at t hese s tudies will entatl ,who
will conduct th em or when th ey will occ ur.Ue re cor.rn e:n d t hat th e
license a ppli cation detail ongo ing and propo sed studi e s.
Th e info rma ti on pres ent ed in Exhibi t E r egarding r eservoir operat ions
does not suffi cient ly co nvey th e range of imp acts pr esent ed by t ~e
project .lie rec orrmen d th e l icense a pplic at io n be ex ~a nde d t n i nc1 \ide a
mo re r ecis2 descri t1 0" of 1macts and rese nt t h~o l 1ow 1n
~s 1 9 n operat n9 conce rns:
Fl ow re leases -base d upon weekly rd t he r t ha n mo nthl y a verages.
Quant if ica ti on of "no rme'l ''spill ages.bel ow t he 1 in 50 yea r event.
pas sed thro ugh th e out let/cone valv e facili ty .
Po tential peaking operations a t \:at ana wit hout the Devil canyo n Da m.
ACRE S has identi fi ed this as a poss ibil i ty.h~at c ircumstances would
dictate s uch operation?What daily and hourly f luctuations would
r esult?How wo uld s uch flu ctua t i on s be attenuated by t ri~u t ary input
and th e river dis tance be tw een Wata na and Dev il Cany on?;
Co mp ensat ion fl ow pu mp s at th e De vil Canyon f acil ity.What flows
will th ey provide?How were th ese fl ow s establ ished?Are the se
pumps s ti ll pl ann ed f or th is f acility?•
We cont inue to be con cerned about devel opm ent of a r elease schedul e
which would mit igate i mpa cts to fi shp.ri es.Th e dr aft Exh ib it Estates
th at r educed fl ow s could im pa ir f ish migration, de-water s pawn ing and
re a ri ng habitat .prevent access t o s lo ug h a nd s td e ch ann el habitats.and
l ow er or e li mi nate i nt ~ r -9 ra v e l fl ows t o s lough and s ide chann el
spawn i ng g~und s.Th e mi ni mum fl ow s pr oposed in Exhib i t E,how ever,
were not developed using a ny recognized i n-s treamf lowpr edi ct ive
meth odologies ,a nd may not c on s t it u t ~the preferred f l ow r egime fo r
mi ni mi zing s uch effect s.Th e li cense exhi bi ts de not e xplain how t he
12.000 cubic feet pe r sec on d (cfs)~i nimum oper at ional fl ows f or Au gust
and Sept e mb t ~were detenmi ned .~e note tha t t hese fl ow s have been
re duced from those recon r.~n ded minimum f lows pr ~s en t ed i n th e 1982 Final
Draft Fe asibil ity .Re po r t,Volu me 2.S i ~i la r l y ,no rat i on ale 1s pr ov ided
which s uppo r ts -mininu m-wi nter flows t e n times t hat of e xisting natural
winter f l ow s.We b el i e v ~th at ~x imum wi nter f l ow l im it s should be
r equired as well ,pa rt icula rly i n 11 ght of potential staging s hould i ce
cover develop bel ow De vil Canyon.I
least t wo seasons data .
Of th e vari ou s fish hab itats bel ow Devil Canyon Dam,th e s loughs betw een
Talkeetna and Porta ge Cr eek.a re th e most likel y to be adversely affected
by t he proposed work.A p p roxi ma t~l y t hirty -fi ve s loughs exi st in th is
r each.Adul t sa l mo n have been observed i n at l east tw enty-six of t hese .
Post proj ect flows and water t emp eratures will present several
s ignifi cant impac ts t o thes e habi tats.T h e~e are discuss ed in some
deta il i n Ex hibit E.Howe ve r,on only one o f t hese,sl ou gh 9 , has
detailed i nvestigation been conduc ted wh ich in cluded groundw ater fl uw,
upw elling. and t emperature stUd ies.Th ese s loug hs a re th e mo st imp or -
ta nt s pawning a reas tr.f luenced by th e ma in stem Sus itna Ri ve r:.They are
a lso i dentif ied as pot ent ial s ites f or mit igating fi shery r e sou rce
l osses t hrough phy s i ca1 nl'Jd1fi cat ion.\Ie f ee 1 i t i s i mp ortant t herefore,
t hat Ex hibit E pr esent a n i nformed opinio n based on site specific data
as t o t he effects of project operation on s loug h habita t .In a dra ft
4
Exhibit E suggests that it may be des irable to spi ke spring flows to
accommodate out-migrants and fac ilita te flush ing of sloughs and s ide
chann els.I t also states that the proj ect release schedule will need to
i ncor po r ate bo th volume and t emp erature conside ration s.Howev er.
nei ther of t hese con cerns 1s reflected 1n the prop osed f l ow re gime.Th e
r elease schedule presented i s not s upported by biological da ta.nor does
it reflect concerns f or f ish passage.We recommen d t hat t he l icense
appl i cat ion contain a s pecifi c. de tailed flow rel ease s chedule.
developed t hroulh a 9uantlfla61e Tn-stream f low anal YS TS and coord inated
wlth rl Mf S,Us F sh and '!lldld e Ser vlce a nd the Al aSKa De artment of
15 an an ~Wl C wou m n1m ze m acts an or en ance
con 1t Dns or spawnln 9!ee 10 9!passage,out -m lgratloo, an
overwl "te rl ng 1"the Sus l t na Rlver .
The Watan a and De vil Canyon dams wi ll cause chang es to th e exi sting
wa te r t empe rature re gi ~of t he Susitlla River ,generally re leasi ng
cooler wa ter during s umme r month s and wa rme r water i n winter.
Temp erature va ria ti ons affect th e abi li ty of f ish to migrate, s pawn,
fe ed,and develop i n t he Susit na sys tem.Ice f onnation will be delayed
or po s sibl y not occur. Exh ibit E discus ses th is mat ter a t length but
dces not prese nt an l ccur a t e descri ption of post·project t emperature
dlte ration s . A mo del was dev e loped t o project temp eratures,yet it has
been ope rated with only one year of data (1 981).Further , t his mod el
vas run on ly for t he mD '1 ths of June thro ug h October.Temp erature
n~deling is not pre sented for t he Devil Cany on Rese rvoir,yet Exhi bit E
states th at t he locat i on of i ce forma tion a bo ve Talkeetna will depend on
t he ou tfl ow t e mp ~ ra tur ~s f rom De vil Ca nyon Da m.
Rea liz i ng t he importanc e of an accurate un derstanding of the th e nnal
s tru cture withi n the r es ervoirs and o f out flow tem peratures,'we believe
addit ional information i s warrant ed.We re commP.nd t hat mode Jing be done
for both re servoirs through out the yea r,and the re sult a nt da ta be
lncorporated 1nto th e r lve rlne tem peratu re mode l cal ibrated wlth at
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5
In those areas wh ere i ce fo rma tion does not occur. water elevation s
would drop below natu ara ll y occu rring l evel s.l eadi ng to potent ial de-
watering of spawn ing gr av e ls and r edu ctions in u p w ~l l ing ar e as.Exhibit
E pr edi ct s th at the Ice f r ont should occur at son~l ocation betw een
T al ~e e tn l,RH 100 and She nman.~~130 and wi ll depend upon t he upstream
t emp e rature,i .e ,th e Devil Canyon outf low .As no mode l wa s coopleted
f or wi nter river ine or rese rvoi r te mp eratures .th e full scop~.and
me a sure of th ese effec ts cann ot be ass e ssed .
Exh ib it E di s cus ses t he i mpdc t of proj ect const ruction and op erat ions on
riv e r ic e f onnati on.App are ntl y . pos t-p roj ect ic e f onnati on will be
delayed du e t o hi gher re l ~a 5 e t em p ~r d tu rp.s fro m De vil Canyon."
Cu rrently.ic e ori gina t ing f r om t he upper Susi tna cc.t tr-ibut es'75 to 85
per cent of th e ice l oad to th e l ow er River .With t his i nput r edu ced or
delay ed by t he pr ojec t .ice f a nna tion 0 11 the l ow e r Ri ver will be
a ff ected.Thi s impa ct -is not adequ ately discussed i n th e Exhibit.
I ce fo rmation abov e Tal ke etna wi ll al so be delayed by t he proa e ct .The
l ocat ion of th e i ce f ront i n th i s reach has i mpor tant i mplica tions to
f isherie5 ha bitat withi n t he nein s t em,sf de chann els.and sl o\.lghs.In
areas with ice cove r.staging i s e xp e cted to occur whi ch wo uld i ncr ea se
water surface e leva t i ons. poss i bly inc reas ing upw el li ng.overtopp ing th e
up stream berm s of s loughs. and causing high veloc ities and scour to
occur .
report prepared for Acres American,Inc.1/,th e author note s th at
until the 1982 fiel d data are analyzed,any statements regard ing
streamflows necessary for chum s almon access t o the s ide sloughs are
provisional.Within Exhibit E,there are vague and seem ingly
contradicto ry stateme nts concerning slou gh i mpacts .Statements are made
within this Exhibit that data on the areal extent of upwelling with in
th e sloughs at low flows are not presently available,that ground water
upwell ing i s driven by mainstem r iver stage,that spawn ing areaS of the
sloughs may be affected by reduced upwelling, and that flows of 16,000
t o 18,000 c fs are required for easy access to the sloughs .The document
also conta ins statemen ts that 12.000 cfs wil l provi de access to mos t
sloughs.that a 12,000 cfs relea se will assist i n maintaining
groundwater fl ow and upw elling with in s loughs ,and th at chang es in
s treamflowdur ing the open water season pred icted und er ope ra ti on of
De vil Cany on are not expected t o affe ct slou gh ha bitats.Clearly,
post-projec t impa cts to th es e i mpor tant and s ~ n si t i ve hab itats are
poorly und erstood .NMFS rec omme nds that th e f inal l icense a pplicat i on
contain the r esults and anatysls of th e 1982 f ield dat a being gathered
by the Alaska D e~ar t men t of Fish and Ga me,e t a t ,and results of an
e xpanded study a s loughs t n the Devi l Canyon t o Talkeetna re ach wh i ch
wo uld provid e a larger a nd more r e pr ese ntat ive sam ple th an cur rently
ava l lalile._
r rce n, nc.ove e r ,
S awnf n So lma n t o Si de Slou hI.prel i mln ar Ass es sme nt of acces s b
Habi t a t a ave a ee tna.r aTt epo r-t ,
198 2.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6
Exh ib it E s ta tes th at i f a lte rnative mitig at ion sc hemes pro ve i nfe asi -
bl e ,a hatchery could be developed.Whi le we re gard s uch arti ficia l
me thods to be th e l east desirable form of addressing fi shery l osses,we
r ~al ize t hat s lough mod ifi cat i on is l argely untr ied in Al aska a nd that
th ese miti gative e ffo rts may i ndeed fa il .Th erefor e,we r ecommend th at
Exhibit E sh ould a dvance t his dis cus si on be*ond th e statement that "a
hatchery could be develoscd.il Informat10n s auld be l nclu d ed'\~,thln
lI cense Exh ibIt E whI ch c sc ri bes t he nw nb er of hatcheries needed.
locations . s izes ,what th e pr odu ction ta rget f or each speci es would be .
and cost est i mat es.
Finally,none of the mit igative measures pre s ented comply with FERC
rul es and r egulations under Section 4.41 (F)(3)(iii);t ,e ••cos ts f or
t hese f eatures a re not pr ~s e nt e dJ nor a r c desi gn pl ans for mit igation
f eatures in cluded .
Specific Comm ents
Exh ibit E
Ch apter On e -No comme nt.
Chapter Two
I
I
I
I
I
••n
n
-u------
u
n
I
I
I
I
a
~
I ·
7
page 15 ,para. 4.Bre akup
The section should describe when breakup no rmally occurs,specifically
the dates of the earl iest ,D~an .and latest recorded events.
page 38,para .3
This section should consider that at least eight sloughs exist above
Gold Cre ek.several of which support large numbers of spawning salmon,
e.g •• slough 21 .IIhfl e Gold Creek may be a logical po int at which to
gauge flow, 1t does not necessarily guarant ee that upstream flow will
be sufficient to maintain habitat value in th ese sloughs. Exhibit E
should discuss th is concern and r ecommend necessary me asures to
guarant ee adequate flow to these sloughs.
pag e 47 .Section (v)Ims acts on Sl oughs
Th e section notes thatat~to confl rm t he areal extent of upwelling
at low flows are unava ilable at this ti me .Currently only on e slough
has been invest igated suf f ici ently to predict project influenc es on
groundwat er and upwell ing.Thi s slough is 1I0t r epresentative of all
such sloughs in the Devil Cany on to Talke etna r each.
Under existing winter flows, ic e fonmati on causes s taging equivalent
to an open water flow e leva ti on exceeding 20,000 cf s.Filling flows
of 1,000 cfs,for whi ch ic e f orma ti on may be delayed or fail to occur,
could significantly ilnp act sloughs through de·w a tering gravel spdwning
are as and ov erwintering hab itat .
page 49,para 2
As the temp erature of groundwat er is con sidered a fun ction 'of the
avrraye annual temperature of t he ma ins tem Susit na ;wh at will be the
i mp acts of the second fillin g year release temperatures t o the
_groundw at er ?How long would an y chang e per si st?Uo data are
prese nted t o support th e stat e ~n t t hat ground water te m~eratur es will
not chan ge.
pa ge 51,para 3. ":On thly En CfiY Simulations ;
The referenc ed pr ogram utl1:zcd load forecasts developed by ISER.
Woodward-Clyde,and Battelle.Th ese for ecasts are now serfou sly
questioned i n light of recent developments (s ee General C~~nt s).We
recommend these simulation stud ies be updated a nd run with th e most
recent load forecasts available.
pag e 58. para.1. Reservoir and Outl et Water Tcm~eratur es
This sugg ests that wlnt er outfl ow temp eratures betwe en I D and 4DC can
be selectively withd rawn through a mul tiple i ntake st-ucture.This
control would be depend ent upon the th ermal profile of the reservoir
during winter,a set of conditions which has not been mod eled.
Therefore.we question th e validity of the statement which suggests
one degree water temperatures would be available on request.
Informat;on presented by ACRES duri ng th e Nov.29 -Dec.3 Workshop
showed winter t emp eratures in Eklutna lake to be between 0 and 3.6 0 in
the upper 2 meters.while isoth er mal conditions e xist below·this
l evel.
•
I
m
II
u
U
II
U
II
11
11
11
II
II
•
I
~
~
J
I
8
page 59.para.2.Ic e
I t is not cl ear what i mpa ct will occur to th e l ower River f rom
r edu ct ion of i ce flow f rom th e upper Su sftna.Ho w far down river would
f ee f orma ti on occur?When do es f reeze-up normally occur?
page 91.para.2.Mi tf ~a t io n of Watana Ingou nd me nt Imp ac ts
This section s tates t at a proposed 12.0 cfs flow at GOld Creek
would provide salmon access to mo st of th e sl oughs and would assi st in
maintaining adequate ground water l evels and upw ell ing rates .There
a re no s tudies wh ich would supp ort t hese conclusio ns,as on ly one of
approximately t hi rty-si x slou gh s has re ceive de tai led s tudy .
Sim il arly,current fn fo~tfon does not perm it the developme nt of
miti gation me asures wi thin t he s lo ug hs,as stated i n th e la st
pa ragraph on th is page.
page 93.para .2.Ni trogen Sup er saturation
While we s upport tne con cept of instaillng cone valves at th e ou tl et
wor ks of both dams, t he s ubject r equires furth er discussi on .Th es e
va lves wil l only operat e (and afford gas s upe rsa tura tion bene fit s)
during sp ill ages below t he 1 in 50 year hi gh f low event.Ac cording t o
the dis cussi on presented on pages 79 throu gh 8 1, such spi ll ages wo uld
be a r el atively un common e v~n t (for th e 32 year period s imu l ated,
th e re wer e 4 years durin g which spill ages occurred).Th e di scussion
on th e sp.valv e s shoul d present dat a on th eir frequency of us e and
expla i n t he c ri t er ia by which th ey a re p ~a n n ed and ins talled.Th is
shou ld includ e the f oll owin g:
1.Pote nt ia l te mp era ture i mpac t s res ulting from with drawa l f rom
th e ~e outl et stru ctures .
2.Potenti al impa ct s t o ri ver 'ice for mat ion attributed t o operatio n
of th e se valves du ring winte r.
p~ge 95, para. 1. Tempe r Jt ur e
The d is cussion of De vll Cany on post-pro ject t emp e rature mi ti gati on i s
in adequat e.Wha t adv antages a re gai ned by th e n~l ti p l e r e l ease
st ructure?Wil l Devil Canyon r eservo ir stratify during s u~er and
winter?
Chapter Three
page 8 . par ••2
"Si nce th e gre ates t changes in phys i cal habit ats a r e expec ted i n th e
r each between Talkeetn a a nd Devil Cany on,·f ishery re sources usin g that
por tion of th e r-tv er were con sidered to be the most sensitive to
pr oject e ffec ts ." Transforming t he mainstemSusit na Riv er into a
r eserv oir i s also a con sid erabl e chang e.Later i n this paragraph is
th e statement "The mit igati ons proposed to ma in t ~in chu m sal mon s hould
a llows ockeye and pi nk sal mo n t o be ma intained as we ll .-We are
unab'l e to loc ate specif ic mitig ati on plans f or chum sa l mo n :Thos e
c onceptual pl ans pr~sent ed for sl ough modification and ma instem
--------
I
II
R
U
II
II
U
II
II
II
II
II
II
~.
m
\I
I
I
9
spawning bed construction deal principally with one life history
stage .The statements made here th at improved mafnstem conditions
will replace loss of slough rearing habitat and that Juvenile
overw in tering area s ~re not expected to be adversely affected by the
project are not support p.d .In fact,preliminary data presented
elsewhere in the Exhibit indicate that overwintering habitat will be
impacted and that sloughs may provide important real'fng habft~
pag e 12.Species Biology and Habitat Utilizati on in th e Su sitna River
Drainage
Estimates of adult s a lmo n presented in th is section depict only
escapement.A n~re meaningful esti~lte should be made using catch to
escapement re t tos,as.done i n chapter five.For instance,in 1982
77.000 pink salmon migrated above Talkeetna.Howev~r only one f ish in
every 3.8 e scaped the comme rcia l f ishery.Us i ng th ~3.8 to 1 rat io,
this reach of th e Sus itna accounted for ov er 350,000 pi Ilk salmon of
which over 277,000 were available to th e commercial fishery .
Escapement est imates alone fail t o i ndicate th e high valu es associated
with anadromous f ishery resources.
page 76.Slough Habitat
Th is sectloR do es not describe i mp acts associated with lowered
wi nt er river stage during fillin g.Should u~·rell ing a nd backwater
effects during winter prov e criti cal to developing eggs or juv enile
se'lmontds ,any reduction in thes e areas could create significant
damag e .
We qu estion th e figure pr esented as th ~nu mb er of s loughs -in which
salmon spawn within the Chu l itna t o Devil Canyon reach.Using
in formation suppli ed by th ,ADFG and from Exhi bit E••dult salmon have
been obs ~rved i n 26 of these slou ghs.Exhibit E should clearly
present the total numb ers of sloughs in this reach and the 1981 and
198 2 data on spawning adul ts.;
page 77
The discussion presented on impacts to slough habitat i s not cl ear.
As Exhibit E states that groundwater upwelling in th e .loughs is
probably driven by the m ~instem stage,which would caUSe a decreas ed
flow in the sloughs (post-project),why does this section state that
under post-project cond itions only the backwater area s (of th e
sloughs'would be affected7
The second paragraph of this page states,·Uith mainstem flows above
14,000 crs , a backwater forms at th e eouth of the s Iouqh,"Ho",is
this known?Which slou gh is being df scusse d?Is this true for each
slough?The sa me paragraph explains t 'iat , during the 19 82 field
season,flows i n the 12,000 to 14,000 cfs range occurred and afforded
opportun ity to observ ~f ish passage a t flows below normal'Au gust
levels.These flows appeared to hJmp er or restric t fish passage ~J1 t o
sloughs.Backwater effects were not s een at flows of approximately
1l,OOO chi yet project low flow limits for August have been
establish~d at 12,000 cfs.This section underscores the problem s
•
II
II
II
II
II
""II
[1
II
11
~
"~
n
"
10
associated with such propos ed fl ow s.It is apparent that som e
significant chang es occur t o the sl ough habitat within a rel at ively
narrow r ange of flows ;changes which ma t have i mportant biological
implications.
pag e 87 ,para.5
Wh il e th e "de scribed floods ma y tran sport se dime nt and scour th e Riv er
bed, reduct ion or eli min ati on through flow r egulation may not
necess ar ily be benef icial .The Exhibi t p r e s ~n ts no data to su pport
the comment that hi gh main st em velociti es l imit fi sh usag"(page 87.
para.2). Further,s uch high f lowevents ma y be critical t o main tain-
ing si de channel a nd s lough habita t t hrough f lushing and re plenis hmen t
of gravel s and by remov ing y p.9~t atf on and b e ~y er da ms which may reduce
habitat valu e.This point 1s not discussed i n th e following sect ions
on slough o r side ch a n~,l habitats .
pag e 103,paragraph 3.Slough Ha bitat
Ue di sagree that chang es 1n s treamfl ow du ring th e op en-w~t er season
are not expected t o affe ct s lough habitat s.
page 116.Aqu atic Studies Program
We bel ieve th is dlScussion suffe rs from o ei s s t on o f t he ma jority of
th e 1982 f i eld stud y r esults .We s t ro<1 gly bel t evo t ha t two year s of
study are the mini mu m r equired a s a basis to di scuss the i mpact of
hydro electr ic deve ln pmen t on th e Su s itna River .
o page 130.tlea sures t o Minimize Imp act s
It is stated tha t "A f low r eleas e schedule will be used that mi nim izes
the lo s s of d own s t re a ~habitat a nd main tains norma l t iming of
flow-rel ated biolog ical s ti mu li ."Th e flow sc hedule presented in
Exhib it E,chapter 2 doe s not mini mi ze habi tat l oss ,nor do es it
oaintai n no rmal flow r e l ated biol og ical st i mu li.Thi s section s hould
also di scuss install at i o~of comp ensati on fl ow pu mps at Devil Canyon
which would provid e fl ow betw een the damand t ailrace ch an~el.
page 130,para.2.ne as ures t o Minimi ze Imp acts
The section states~Alnstream f low requlremen ts a re being
det ermined fo r each sp ~c i e s/l i fe s tage/time unit com bination."Who is
performing t hese stud i ~s?How wi ll th ey ~e d~term i n 2 d?Again, i t i s
i mp ossible to und ers t and what fl (JW regi me.i f any .is actually being
sugge sted within Exh ibi t E.I s th e r el ease s chedule pr e s e ~ted in
Table 2.17 j ust a "firs t cut?"This is apparently th e case.
Consid ~r in g that th e fi na l r elease s chedule i s t o be based on futur e
s tudies e s suggested here and may be mo dif ied to acconrnodat e out-
"i gration (page 3-13 2,pare,I)and wi ll need to consider tem perat ure
and volume (page J-l ~J.par a .1);why ;s a flow r egi me proposed in the
abse nce of such i nfo nna tio n?
page 131.pare ,1
This states,i n effec t.t hat slou gh habitat will e ither be e nhanced
or degraded by th e proj ect.s ud th at actual imp .'l cts to habita t are
t he s ubject of ongoing s tudi es .T he s ~ongoi ng s tudies should be
descr ibed.Wh .t "ill be invest ig ate I?Which sloughs will b e
studied?
11
II,
II,
II,
II
II•
11,
I
II,
n
11
11
n
11
n
II
11
pa ge 132.pa ra .4
Th is sta tes t hat fl ~,s of 12.000 c fs are suffici ent to und ertake
r ect ify i ng imp acts by n ~d jfy ing habita t .Ho w i s thi s known ?The
paragraph s hould discu ss the s tudies upon wn 1ch t his i s based or
qual ify any such conclusions as prel im inary and subject t o furt her
s tudy.
page 133,para.1.Wi nter Flows
Th e statement i s ma de that "Slncc minimal impa cts a re e xpect ed dur ing
both f illing and operational winter fl ow,r ectifying ~a s u re s are not
needed.-This i s not s upport ~d.On page 131 . pa r a.1 ,we learn
s lough habit a t mdY be degraded by win ter fl ows a nd tha t t he~e i mp acts
a re th e s ubject of ongoing studies.Pa ge 94 presen ts a l engthy
dis cus si on of i mp act s attr ibuted to altered win t e r fl ows.
page 133,para .5 .Redu c tion of Impacts Ov er Time .
·pos t-oper ationa l monltorlng wl11 be condu cted to e valu ate the
e ffec tive ness of mi tigation ~a s u r e s (see Secti on 2.6 ).-Th e li cense
application s hould deta il what mo nitori ng wil l occur a nd how th e
e ffec ti ve ness of miti gati on effo r ts will be evaluated .
~g eI 36,~N .3 _
The di scussion of hatch e ry de ve lo ~nt 1s i n4dequate .In t he event
t ha t other mitigat i on a l ter nati ve s f ~i l ,i t wi ll be i~po rta nt t o
pres ent a clear picture of \-,h at meas ures would be taken t o -conpe nsa te
for f isher i es lo sses.
page 131, pa r a.3
.~bel i e ve t hat t he wate r tempera tu r es of 5°t o 6°C during th e second
f 111ing year will present si gnificant advers e i mpact s t o s .lmo n.
Additi on of a low le vel portal could appa rently avoid muc hi,of thes e
e ffec ts .We re commen d s uch a d!vicc be inc orporated in to he fin al
design.
page 143 ,para.1
"Cont inui ng r eservoir t herrne I mod e l lng will allow an eva luation of
available w ~t er te mp era tures th r ou ghout th e year so th at a deta il ed
r el ease plan can be de v~l op ed .The re lease plan wi ll need t o consider
bo th water temperatures and volume in orde r t o minimi ze i ~pa c t s .·We
s trongly agre e with t his ,and rec~n d th at th e l ic ense appli cat i on
contain ju st s uch a r elease pl an wh ich would mos t ef f ect ively mini mi ze
i mpac t.
Ch apters 4-9 -No Comment .
Ch apt er 10
pa ge 28.pa ra. 6.Diver sion,l Eme rge ncy Re lease F ~c il i t 1 e s
Th e r el t Jse l evels re f e rr ~d to do not avoid adverse effects on the
sal mo n f ish ery down stream.
,.
U
II
II
II
II
I
II
II
I
11
II
II
II
I
I
I
I I
I I
II
12
page 30.para.3
Figure E.2.90 indIcates that three.rather than four portals would be
constructed at Watana.We question which is correct and how the
numbers and position of the portals were considered in minimizing
impact.Also we cannot concur that temperatures wilT be controlled
within acceptable limits.
page 30. para .4
We are not awa ,~of studies which have occurrad to mitigate project
Impacts through provIsion of streamflow at Gold Creek.These should
be described .
page 31.para.5
According to pres entation by ACRE S Am erican at an APA-sponsored
wor kshop in Anchorage during th ~week november 29 to Decemb~r 3,1982,
no temp erature mod el has been run f or Devil Canyon r eservoir •.How.
then.can th e utili ty of a mul ti-l evel draw-off at Devil tanyon be
known?This again underscores th e present lack of understanding of
project temp erature i mpacts..
Th e following s tateme nts of concern wer e pre sented by NMFS before the
APA Bo ard of Oirectors on Aprtl 16. 1982.
·On e area of l imited in formdtion i n t he Fea sibil ity Re po rt deals w;th
the effects of pos t project fl ~~s on th e fish cry res ources •.••·These
sloughs t her efore r epresent'an a ~"re quiring con sidt!rat io.n of
potential mitigation and/or enh ancement n~a s u res .To dat e,les s than
one eighth of the side channel s and s lough areas h3v c been surveyed.
Further,the impact s of various flow r egimes on th e habitat are
unknown because the hydrological and ecological relationships between
the mai nst em Susitna and these ar eas have not been adequat ely
studied •.•"·The results of a compr ehen sive In-Stream FlOW Stu1y
would all owa bal ancing of fi sh habi tat los ses again st poWer ·
g en~r a t i on ••••·Cu r~n t l y,we do not beli eve a high l ~vel of
conf idence exists i n th e projected post proj ect tempera tur~within the
t~o re servoirs,the Su sitna mainstern.and th e si de chann els and
sloughs ..••1
"•••specifi c studi es mrs t occur which will develop
mitfgatlon opt ions •••"I·It i s not rea sonable to assume that (one
fi eld season of f ish eri es data)is adequ ate f or proper
characteriz at i on of th e resources.II
·W e are concerned th at the (l icense)appl icat i on will reflect t he
serious defic iencies we have me ntioned.If our review shows th is t o
be the case.we feel our agency will hav~no a lternat ive but to
r equest th e ~ERC to r eject th e application or direct that the
deficiencies be corrected ."
Our review of the mat erial pres ented in draft license Exhibit E
I ndIcates that these deficienc Ies stIll e xist .It I s regrettable that
we have reached th e dr a ft license appli cat ion stage whil e th2se issues
rena in unresolv ed.We fe el that th ~s e is sues and data mu st be
i ncorpor ated i nto Exhibit E and that \Iithout thenl the lice nse
I
[I
13
applicat ion will be found deficient.We believe that Exh ibit E should
be suffic iently developed so as to form t he bas is for specific license
conditions wh ich would protect anadromo us fish and their habitat.As
written,Exhibit Eonly leads to further studtes.The FERC guidelines
specify that information within Exhibit Ebe developed to a level
commensurate with the scope of the project .Th e Susitna project will b~
the most 2~ostly and comple x hydroelectrIC fac ility eve r considered by
the FER~• and th is complexity and depth should be reflected i n
license Exhibit E.
We appr eci ate this oppor tunity to comment on the draft Exhibit E.
Robe t II .~IcV ey
Direc or,Ala ska
2} Susltna proJect s tatus Re port -pre l imi nary Dr aft .Federal Energ y
~cg u la tory Commissi on -Dat a for ~c1si o n s .De cemb er I.1982.