HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa76pt1-5Alaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
Revised study plan : Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.
14241
SuWa 76
Author(s) – Personal:
Author(s) – Corporate:
Alaska Energy Authority
AEA-identified category, if specified:
Revised Study Plan
AEA-identified series, if specified:
Series (ARLIS-assigned report number):
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 76
Existing numbers on document:
Published by:
[Anchorage, Alaska : Alaska Energy Authority, 2012]
Date published:
December 2012
Published for:
Submitted to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Date or date range of report:
Volume and/or Part numbers:
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Document type:
Pagination:
1808 p. in various pagings
Related work(s):
Revision of : Alaska Energy Authority. Proposed study plan (SuWa
82)
Pages added/changed by ARLIS:
Has appendices:
Appendix 1, Comment response table of FERC-filed comments (SuWa 77)
Appendix 2, FERC-filed letters coded with comment identifiers (SuWa 78)
Appendix 3, Comment response table of informal consultation, July-November 2012 (SuWa 79)
Appendix 4, Consultation documentation for informal consultation, July-November 2012 (SuWa 80)
Appendix 5, Mapping references (SuWa 81)
Notes:
All reports in the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document series include an ARLIS-
produced cover page and an ARLIS-assigned number for uniformity and citability. All reports
are posted online at http://www.arlis.org/resources/susitna-watana/
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
FERC No. 14241
December 2012
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page i December 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction to RSP ....................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1. Background of RSP Development ................................................................. 1-1
1.1.2. FERC NEPA Scoping .................................................................. 1-3
1.1.3. Development of PSP .................................................................... 1-4
1.1.4. Development of RSP and Efforts to Resolve Differences over
Study Requests ............................................................................. 1-5
1.1.5. Summary of Study Plan Development Process ........................... 1-6
1.2. Process and Schedule Overview .................................................................... 1-7
1.3. Project Facilities and Operations ................................................................... 1-8
1.4. 2012 Early Study Efforts ............................................................................. 1-15
1.Tables ........................................................................................................... 1-17
1.. Figures.......................................................................................................... 1-22
1.. Attachments ................................................................................................. 1-25
2. Proposed 2013 and 2014 ILP Studies ........................................................................... 2-1
2.1. Tables ............................................................................................................. 2-4
2.2. Figures............................................................................................................ 2-9
2.3. Attachments ................................................................................................. 2-11
3. Studies Not Proposed ..................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1. Requested Study Not Adopted in the RSP ..................................................... 3-1
3.1.1. Information Regarding Study Request ......................................... 3-1
3.1.2. Requester’s Description of Study Goals and Objectives ............. 3-1
3.1.3. Relevant Resource Agency Management Goals .......................... 3-1
3.1.4. Sponsor’s Description of Existing Information and Need for
Additional Information ................................................................ 3-2
3.1.5. AEA’s Rationale for Not Adopting the Proposed Study in the PSP
...................................................................................................... 3-2
4. Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2. Nexus Between Project Construction / Existence / Operations and Effects on
Resources to be Studied ................................................................................. 4-1
4.3. Resource Management Goals and Objectives ................................................ 4-2
4.4. Summary of Consultation with Agencies, Alaska Native Entities, and Other
Licensing Participants .................................................................................... 4-3
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ii December 2012
4.5. Geology and Soils Characterization Study .................................................... 4-3
4.5.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ................................. 4-3
4.5.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information ........ 4-4
4.5.3. Study Area ................................................................................... 4-5
4.5.4. Study Methods ............................................................................. 4-5
4.5.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ........... 4-8
4.5.6. Schedule ....................................................................................... 4-8
4.5.7. Relationship with Other Studies .................................................. 4-9
4.5.8. Level of Effort and Cost .............................................................. 4-9
4.5.9. Literature Cited ............................................................................ 4-9
4.5.10. Figures........................................................................................ 4-11
5. Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 5-12
5.1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 5-12
5.2. Nexus Between Project Construction / Existence / Operations and Effects on
Resources to be Studied ............................................................................... 5-12
5.3. Resource Management Goals and Objectives .............................................. 5-12
5.4. Summary of Consultation with Agencies, Alaska Native Entities, and Other
Licensing Participants .................................................................................. 5-13
5.5. Baseline Water Quality Study ...................................................................... 5-14
5.5.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................... 5-14
5.5.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information ...... 5-14
5.5.3. Study Area ................................................................................. 5-16
5.5.4. Study Methods ........................................................................... 5-17
5.5.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ......... 5-32
5.5.6. Schedule ..................................................................................... 5-32
5.5.7. Relationship with Other Studies ................................................ 5-32
5.5.8. Level of Effort and Cost ............................................................ 5-33
5.5.9. Literature Cited .......................................................................... 5-33
5.5.10. Tables ......................................................................................... 5-34
5.5.11. Figures........................................................................................ 5-41
5.6. Water Quality Modeling Study .................................................................... 5-44
5.6.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................... 5-44
5.6.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information ...... 5-44
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iii December 2012
5.6.3. Study Area ................................................................................. 5-45
5.6.4. Study Methods ........................................................................... 5-45
5.6.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ......... 5-54
5.6.6. Schedule ..................................................................................... 5-54
5.6.7. Relationship with Other Studies ................................................ 5-54
5.6.8. Level of Effort and Cost ............................................................ 5-55
5.6.9. Literature Cited .......................................................................... 5-55
5.6.10. Tables ......................................................................................... 5-56
5.6.11. Figures........................................................................................ 5-60
5.7. Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study.................. 5-62
5.7.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................... 5-62
5.7.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information ...... 5-63
5.7.3. Study Area ................................................................................. 5-66
5.7.4. Study Methods ........................................................................... 5-66
5.7.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ......... 5-82
5.7.6. Schedule ..................................................................................... 5-83
5.7.7. Relationship with Other Studies ................................................ 5-83
5.7.8. Level of Effort and Cost ............................................................ 5-83
5.7.9. Literature Cited .......................................................................... 5-83
5.7.10. Tables ......................................................................................... 5-90
5.7.11. Figures........................................................................................ 5-93
5.8. Attachments ................................................................................................. 5-96
6. Geomorphology .............................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2. Nexus Between Project Construction / Existence / Operations and Effects on
Resources to be Studied ................................................................................. 6-4
6.3. Resource Management Goals and Objectives ................................................ 6-4
6.3.1. National Marine Fisheries Service ............................................... 6-5
6.3.2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................... 6-6
6.3.3. Alaska Department of Fish and Game ......................................... 6-6
6.3.4. Alaska Native Entities.................................................................. 6-7
6.4. Summary of Consultation with Agencies, Alaska Native Entities, and Other
Licensing Participants .................................................................................... 6-7
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iv December 2012
6.5. Geomorphology Study ................................................................................... 6-9
6.5.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ................................. 6-9
6.5.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information ...... 6-10
6.5.3. Study Area ................................................................................. 6-11
6.5.4. Study Methods ........................................................................... 6-11
6.5.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ......... 6-60
6.5.6. Schedule ..................................................................................... 6-60
6.5.7. Relationship with Other Studies ................................................ 6-62
6.5.8. 2012 Study Efforts ..................................................................... 6-64
6.5.9. Level of Effort and Cost ............................................................ 6-64
6.5.10. Literature Cited .......................................................................... 6-64
6.5.11. Tables ......................................................................................... 6-72
6.5.12. Figures........................................................................................ 6-81
6.6. Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling below Watana Dam Study ................... 6-90
6.6.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................... 6-90
6.6.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information ...... 6-90
6.6.3. Study Area ................................................................................. 6-92
6.6.4. Study Methods ........................................................................... 6-96
6.6.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 6-127
6.6.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 6-129
6.6.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 6-129
6.6.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 6-131
6.6.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 6-131
6.6.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 6-135
6.6.11. Figures...................................................................................... 6-148
6.7. Attachments ............................................................................................... 6-152
7. Hydrology-Related Resources ....................................................................................... 7-1
7.1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2. Nexus Between Project Construction / Existence / Operations and Effects on
Resources to be Studied ................................................................................. 7-1
7.3. Resource Management Goals and Objectives ................................................ 7-2
7.4. Summary of Consultation with Agencies, Alaska Native Entities, and Other
Licensing Participants .................................................................................... 7-2
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page v December 2012
7.5. Groundwater Study ........................................................................................ 7-3
7.5.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ................................. 7-3
7.5.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information ........ 7-4
7.5.3. Study Area ................................................................................... 7-5
7.5.4. Study Methods ............................................................................. 7-6
7.5.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ......... 7-17
7.5.6. Schedule ..................................................................................... 7-18
7.5.7. Relationship to Other Studies .................................................... 7-18
7.5.8. Level of Effort and Cost ............................................................ 7-20
7.5.9. Literature Cited .......................................................................... 7-22
7.5.10. Tables ......................................................................................... 7-24
7.5.11. Figures........................................................................................ 7-26
7.6. Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study ..................................................... 7-37
7.6.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................... 7-37
7.6.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information ...... 7-38
7.6.3. Study Area ................................................................................. 7-41
7.6.4. Study Methods ........................................................................... 7-41
7.6.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ......... 7-48
7.6.6. Schedule ..................................................................................... 7-48
7.6.7. Relationship with Other Studies ................................................ 7-49
7.6.8. Level of Effort and Cost ............................................................ 7-50
7.6.9. Literature Cited .......................................................................... 7-51
7.6.10. Tables ......................................................................................... 7-53
7.6.11. Figures........................................................................................ 7-54
7.7. Glacier and Runoff Changes Study .............................................................. 7-56
7.7.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................... 7-56
7.7.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information ...... 7-57
7.7.3. Study Area ................................................................................. 7-58
7.7.4. Study Methods ........................................................................... 7-58
7.7.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ......... 7-63
7.7.6. Schedule ..................................................................................... 7-63
7.7.7. Relationship with Other Studies ................................................ 7-63
7.7.8. Level of Effort and Cost ............................................................ 7-63
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page vi December 2012
7.7.9. Literature Cited .......................................................................... 7-63
7.7.10. Tables ......................................................................................... 7-68
7.7.11. Figures........................................................................................ 7-69
7.8. Attachments ................................................................................................. 7-73
8. Instream Flow Study: Fish, Aquatics, and Riparian .................................................. 8-1
8.1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2. Nexus Between Project Construction / Existence / Operations and Effects on
Resources to be Studied ................................................................................. 8-2
8.3. Resource Management Goals and Objectives ................................................ 8-2
8.3.1. National Marine Fisheries Service ............................................... 8-2
8.3.2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................... 8-3
8.3.3. Alaska Department of Fish and Game ......................................... 8-4
8.3.4. Alaska Native Entities.................................................................. 8-4
8.4. Summary of Consultation with Agencies, Alaska Native Entities, and Other
Licensing Participants .................................................................................... 8-4
8.5. Fish and Aquatics Instream Flow Study ........................................................ 8-6
8.5.1. General Description of the Study ................................................. 8-6
8.5.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information ........ 8-7
8.5.3. Study Area ................................................................................. 8-22
8.5.4. Study Methods ........................................................................... 8-24
8.5.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ......... 8-95
8.5.6. Schedule ..................................................................................... 8-95
8.5.7. Level of Effort and Cost ............................................................ 8-95
8.5.8. Literature Cited .......................................................................... 8-96
8.5.9. Tables ....................................................................................... 8-105
8.5.10. Figures...................................................................................... 8-135
8.6. Riparian Instream Flow Study ................................................................... 8-170
8.6.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 8-170
8.6.2. Study Area ............................................................................... 8-172
8.6.3. Study Methods ......................................................................... 8-174
8.6.4. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 8-192
8.6.5. Schedule ................................................................................... 8-193
8.6.6. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 8-193
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page vii December 2012
8.6.7. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 8-194
8.6.8. Tables ....................................................................................... 8-198
8.6.9. Figures...................................................................................... 8-207
8.7. Attachments ............................................................................................... 8-227
9. Fish and Aquatic Resources .......................................................................................... 9-1
9.1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 9-1
9.2. Nexus Between Project Construction / Existence / Operations and Effects on
Resources to be Studied ................................................................................. 9-2
9.3. Agency and Alaska Native Entities Resource Management Goals and
Objectives ...................................................................................................... 9-3
9.4. Summary of Consultation with Agencies, Alaska Native Entities and Other
Licensing Participants .................................................................................... 9-4
9.5. Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River ........ 9-6
9.5.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ................................. 9-6
9.5.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information ........ 9-7
9.5.3. Study Area ................................................................................... 9-9
9.5.4. Study Methods ............................................................................. 9-9
9.5.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practices ....... 9-24
9.5.6. Schedule ..................................................................................... 9-24
9.5.7. Relationship with Other Studies ................................................ 9-25
9.5.8. Level of Effort and Cost ............................................................ 9-26
9.5.9. Literature Cited .......................................................................... 9-26
9.5.10. Tables ......................................................................................... 9-29
9.5.11. Figures........................................................................................ 9-34
9.6. Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna
River ............................................................................................................. 9-38
9.6.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................... 9-38
9.6.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information ...... 9-39
9.6.3. Study Area ................................................................................. 9-41
9.6.4. Study Methods ........................................................................... 9-41
9.6.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practices ....... 9-62
9.6.6. Schedule ..................................................................................... 9-62
9.6.7. Relationship with Other Studies ................................................ 9-63
9.6.8. Level of Effort and Cost ............................................................ 9-64
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page viii December 2012
9.6.9. Literature Cited .......................................................................... 9-64
9.6.10. Tables ......................................................................................... 9-68
9.6.11. Figures........................................................................................ 9-74
9.7. Salmon Escapement Study ........................................................................... 9-83
9.7.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................... 9-83
9.7.2 Existing Information and Need for Additional Information ...... 9-84
9.7.3 Study Area ................................................................................. 9-85
9.7.4 Study Methods ........................................................................... 9-85
9.7.5 Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ......... 9-99
9.7.6 Schedule ................................................................................... 9-100
9.7.7 Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 9-100
9.7.8 Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 9-101
9.7.9 Literature Cited ........................................................................ 9-101
9.7.10 Tables ....................................................................................... 9-103
9.7.11 Figures...................................................................................... 9-104
9.8. River Productivity Study............................................................................ 9-107
9.8.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 9-107
9.8.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 9-108
9.8.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 9-109
9.8.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 9-110
9.8.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practices ..... 9-122
9.8.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 9-122
9.8.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 9-123
9.8.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 9-123
9.8.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 9-123
9.8.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 9-132
9.8.11. Figures...................................................................................... 9-133
9.9. Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats ................................... 9-136
9.9.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 9-136
9.9.2. Study Goals and Objectives ..................................................... 9-136
9.9.3. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 9-137
9.9.4. Study Area ............................................................................... 9-139
9.9.5. Study Methods ......................................................................... 9-140
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ix December 2012
9.9.6. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practices ..... 9-150
9.9.7. Schedule ................................................................................... 9-150
9.9.8. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 9-150
9.9.9. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 9-151
9.9.10. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 9-151
9.9.11. Tables ....................................................................................... 9-153
9.9.12. Figures...................................................................................... 9-160
9.10. The Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community and Risk of Entrainment Study9-171
9.10.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 9-171
9.10.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 9-172
9.10.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 9-172
9.10.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 9-173
9.10.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 9-178
9.10.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 9-178
9.10.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 9-179
9.10.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 9-179
9.10.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 9-180
9.10.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 9-181
9.10.11. Figures...................................................................................... 9-182
9.11. Study of Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam..................................... 9-184
9.11.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 9-184
9.11.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 9-184
9.11.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 9-186
9.11.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 9-186
9.11.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practices ..... 9-190
9.11.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 9-190
9.11.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 9-190
9.11.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 9-191
9.11.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 9-191
9.11.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 9-193
9.11.11. Figures...................................................................................... 9-194
9.12. Study of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and Upper Susitna River and
Susitna Tributaries ..................................................................................... 9-196
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page x December 2012
9.12.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 9-196
9.12.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Historic Information
.................................................................................................. 9-197
9.12.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 9-198
9.12.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 9-198
9.12.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 9-207
9.12.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 9-207
9.12.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 9-208
9.12.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 9-209
9.12.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 9-209
9.12.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 9-211
9.12.11. Figures...................................................................................... 9-216
9.13. Aquatic Resources Study within the Access Alignment, Transmission
Alignment, and Construction Area ............................................................ 9-224
9.13.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 9-224
9.13.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 9-224
9.13.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 9-228
9.13.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 9-228
9.13.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 9-233
9.13.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 9-233
9.13.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 9-234
9.13.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 9-234
9.13.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 9-235
9.13.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 9-238
9.13.11. Figures...................................................................................... 9-239
9.14. Genetic Baseline Study for Selected Fish Species ..................................... 9-241
9.14.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 9-241
9.14.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 9-242
9.14.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 9-244
9.14.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 9-244
9.14.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 9-248
9.14.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 9-248
9.14.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 9-249
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xi December 2012
9.14.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 9-249
9.14.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 9-249
9.14.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 9-251
9.14.11. Figures...................................................................................... 9-254
9.15. Analysis of Fish Harvest in and Downstream of the Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project Area ........................................................................ 9-255
9.15.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 9-255
9.15.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 9-255
9.15.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 9-258
9.15.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 9-258
9.15.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practices ..... 9-262
9.15.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 9-262
9.15.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 9-262
9.15.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 9-263
9.15.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 9-263
9.15.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 9-265
9.15.11. Figures...................................................................................... 9-266
9.16. Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River . 9-269
9.16.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 9-269
9.16.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 9-269
9.16.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 9-271
9.16.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 9-271
9.16.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 9-279
9.16.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 9-279
9.16.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 9-279
9.16.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 9-280
9.16.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 9-280
9.16.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 9-282
9.16.11. Figures...................................................................................... 9-283
9.17. Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study ................................................................ 9-286
9.17.1 General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 9-286
9.17.2 Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 9-286
9.17.3 Study Area and Timing ............................................................ 9-288
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xii December 2012
9.17.4 Study Methods ......................................................................... 9-289
9.17.5 Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practices ..... 9-294
9.17.6 Schedule ................................................................................... 9-295
9.17.7 Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 9-296
9.17.8 Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 9-296
9.17.9 Literature Cited ........................................................................ 9-296
9.17.10 Tables ....................................................................................... 9-299
9.17.11 Figures...................................................................................... 9-300
9.18. Attachments ............................................................................................... 9-302
10. Wildlife resources ......................................................................................................... 10-1
10.1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 10-1
10.2. Nexus Between Project Construction / Existence / Operations and Effects on
Resources to be Studied ............................................................................... 10-1
10.3. Resource Management Goals and Objectives .............................................. 10-2
10.4. Summary of Consultation with Agencies, Alaska Native Entities, and Other
Licensing Participants .................................................................................. 10-3
10.5. Moose Distribution, Abundance, Movements, Productivity, and Survival . 10-5
10.5.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................... 10-5
10.5.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information ...... 10-6
10.5.3. Study Area ................................................................................. 10-7
10.5.4. Study Methods ........................................................................... 10-7
10.5.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ......... 10-9
10.5.6. Schedule ..................................................................................... 10-9
10.5.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 10-10
10.5.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 10-11
10.5.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 10-11
10.5.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 10-13
10.5.11. Figures...................................................................................... 10-14
10.6. Caribou Distribution, Abundance, Movements, Productivity, and Survival10-16
10.6.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 10-16
10.6.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 10-16
10.6.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 10-17
10.6.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 10-18
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xiii December 2012
10.6.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practices ..... 10-19
10.6.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 10-19
10.6.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 10-20
10.6.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 10-21
10.6.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 10-21
10.6.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 10-22
10.6.11. Figures...................................................................................... 10-23
10.7. Dall’s Sheep Distribution and Abundance ................................................. 10-25
10.7.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 10-25
10.7.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 10-25
10.7.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 10-26
10.7.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 10-26
10.7.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 10-27
10.7.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 10-27
10.7.7. Relationships with Other Studies ............................................. 10-27
10.7.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 10-28
10.7.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 10-28
10.7.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 10-29
10.7.11. Figures...................................................................................... 10-30
10.8. Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Use by Large Carnivores .............. 10-32
10.8.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 10-32
10.8.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 10-32
10.8.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 10-35
10.8.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 10-35
10.8.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 10-37
10.8.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 10-37
10.8.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 10-38
10.8.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 10-39
10.8.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 10-39
10.8.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 10-42
10.8.11. Figures...................................................................................... 10-43
10.9. Wolverine Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Occupancy ................... 10-45
10.9.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 10-45
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xiv December 2012
10.9.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 10-45
10.9.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 10-46
10.9.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 10-46
10.9.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 10-47
10.9.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 10-47
10.9.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 10-48
10.9.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 10-49
10.9.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 10-49
10.9.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 10-51
10.9.11. Figures...................................................................................... 10-52
10.10. Terrestrial Furbearer Abundance and Habitat Use .................................... 10-54
10.10.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 10-54
10.10.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 10-55
10.10.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 10-56
10.10.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 10-56
10.10.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 10-60
10.10.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 10-60
10.10.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 10-60
10.10.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 10-61
10.10.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 10-62
10.10.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 10-65
10.10.11. Figures...................................................................................... 10-66
10.11. Aquatic Furbearer Abundance and Habitat Use ........................................ 10-68
10.11.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 10-68
10.11.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 10-68
10.11.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 10-70
10.11.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 10-70
10.11.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 10-72
10.11.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 10-72
10.11.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 10-73
10.11.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 10-74
10.11.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 10-75
10.11.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 10-77
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xv December 2012
10.11.11. Figures...................................................................................... 10-78
10.12. Small Mammal Species Composition and Habitat Use ............................. 10-80
10.12.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 10-80
10.12.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 10-80
10.12.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 10-81
10.12.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 10-81
10.12.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 10-82
10.12.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 10-82
10.12.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 10-82
10.12.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 10-83
10.12.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 10-83
10.12.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 10-85
10.12.11. Figures...................................................................................... 10-86
10.13. Bat Distribution and Habitat Use ............................................................... 10-88
10.13.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 10-88
10.13.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 10-88
10.13.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 10-88
10.13.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 10-89
10.13.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 10-90
10.13.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 10-90
10.13.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 10-91
10.13.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 10-92
10.13.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 10-92
10.13.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 10-94
10.13.11. Figures...................................................................................... 10-95
10.14. Surveys of Eagles and Other Raptors ........................................................ 10-97
10.14.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 10-97
10.14.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 10-98
10.14.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 10-99
10.14.4. Study Methods ....................................................................... 10-100
10.14.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ..... 10-104
10.14.6. Schedule ................................................................................. 10-104
10.14.7. Relationship with Other Studies ............................................ 10-105
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xvi December 2012
10.14.8. Level of Effort and Cost ........................................................ 10-107
10.14.9. Literature Cited ...................................................................... 10-107
10.14.10. Tables ..................................................................................... 10-109
10.14.11. Figures.................................................................................... 10-111
10.15. Waterbird Migration, Breeding, and Habitat Use Study.......................... 10-113
10.15.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ........................... 10-113
10.15.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .. 10-114
10.15.3. Study Area ............................................................................. 10-114
10.15.4. Study Methods ....................................................................... 10-115
10.15.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ..... 10-120
10.15.6. Schedule ................................................................................. 10-121
10.15.7. Relationship with Other Studies ............................................ 10-121
10.15.8. Level of Effort and Cost ........................................................ 10-123
10.15.9. Literature Cited ...................................................................... 10-123
10.15.10. Tables ..................................................................................... 10-126
10.15.11. Figures.................................................................................... 10-127
10.16. Landbird and Shorebird Migration, Breeding, and Habitat Use Study.... 10-129
10.16.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ........................... 10-129
10.16.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .. 10-130
10.16.3. Study Area ............................................................................. 10-131
10.16.4. Study Methods ....................................................................... 10-132
10.16.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ..... 10-137
10.16.6. Schedule ................................................................................. 10-137
10.16.7. Relationship with Other Studies ............................................ 10-138
10.16.8. Level of Effort and Cost ........................................................ 10-139
10.16.9. Literature Cited ...................................................................... 10-139
10.16.10. Tables ..................................................................................... 10-142
10.16.11. Figures.................................................................................... 10-143
10.17. Population Ecology of Willow Ptarmigan in Game Management Unit 1310-145
10.17.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ........................... 10-145
10.17.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .. 10-145
10.17.3. Study Area ............................................................................. 10-146
10.17.4. Study Methods ....................................................................... 10-146
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xvii December 2012
10.17.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ..... 10-149
10.17.6. Schedule ................................................................................. 10-149
10.17.7. Relationship with Other Studies ............................................ 10-149
10.17.8. Level of Effort and Cost ........................................................ 10-151
10.17.9. Literature Cited ...................................................................... 10-151
10.17.10. Tables ..................................................................................... 10-153
10.17.11. Figures.................................................................................... 10-154
10.18. Wood Frog Occupancy and Habitat Use ................................................. 10-157
10.18.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ........................... 10-157
10.18.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .. 10-157
10.18.3. Study Area ............................................................................. 10-158
10.18.4. Study Methods ....................................................................... 10-158
10.18.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ..... 10-161
10.18.6. Schedule ................................................................................. 10-161
10.18.7. Relationship with Other Studies ............................................ 10-161
10.18.8. Level of Effort and Cost ........................................................ 10-163
10.18.9. Literature Cited ...................................................................... 10-163
10.18.10. Tables ..................................................................................... 10-165
10.18.11. Figures.................................................................................... 10-166
10.19. Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use .......................................................... 10-168
10.19.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ........................... 10-168
10.19.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .. 10-168
10.19.3. Study Area ............................................................................. 10-169
10.19.4. Study Methods ....................................................................... 10-169
10.19.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ..... 10-171
10.19.6. Schedule ................................................................................. 10-171
10.19.7. Relationship with Other Studies ............................................ 10-171
10.19.8. Level of Effort and Cost ........................................................ 10-172
10.19.9. Literature Cited ...................................................................... 10-173
10.19.10. Tables ..................................................................................... 10-175
10.19.11. Figures.................................................................................... 10-180
10.20. Wildlife Harvest Analysis ........................................................................ 10-182
10.20.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ........................... 10-182
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xviii December 2012
10.20.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .. 10-183
10.20.3. Study Area ............................................................................. 10-183
10.20.4. Study Methods ....................................................................... 10-184
10.20.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practices ... 10-184
10.20.6. Schedule ................................................................................. 10-185
10.20.7. Relationship with Other Studies ............................................ 10-185
10.20.8. Level of Effort and Cost ........................................................ 10-186
10.20.9. Literature Cited ...................................................................... 10-186
10.20.10. Tables ..................................................................................... 10-187
10.20.11. Figures.................................................................................... 10-188
11. Botanical ....................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 11-1
11.2. Nexus Between Project Construction / Existence / Operations and Effects on
Resources to be Studied ............................................................................... 11-1
11.3. Resource Management Goals and Objectives .............................................. 11-2
11.4. Summary of Consultation with Agencies, Alaska Native Entities and Other
Licensing Participants .................................................................................. 11-3
11.5. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle
Susitna Basin ................................................................................................ 11-4
11.5.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................... 11-4
11.5.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information ...... 11-5
11.5.3. Study Area ................................................................................. 11-6
11.5.4. Study Methods ........................................................................... 11-6
11.5.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ......... 11-9
11.5.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 11-10
11.5.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 11-10
11.5.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 11-11
11.5.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 11-11
11.5.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 11-14
11.5.11. Figures...................................................................................... 11-15
11.6. Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Susitna-Watana Dam11-17
11.6.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 11-17
11.6.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 11-18
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xix December 2012
11.6.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 11-19
11.6.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 11-20
11.6.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 11-28
11.6.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 11-28
11.6.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 11-29
11.6.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 11-31
11.6.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 11-31
11.6.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 11-33
11.6.11. Figures...................................................................................... 11-34
11.7. Wetland Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin ............. 11-40
11.7.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 11-40
11.7.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 11-40
11.7.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 11-41
11.7.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 11-42
11.7.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 11-47
11.7.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 11-48
11.7.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 11-48
11.7.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 11-49
11.7.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 11-49
11.7.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 11-52
11.7.11. Figures...................................................................................... 11-53
11.8. Rare Plant Study ........................................................................................ 11-56
11.8.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 11-56
11.8.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 11-56
11.8.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 11-57
11.8.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 11-58
11.8.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 11-59
11.8.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 11-59
11.8.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 11-60
11.8.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 11-60
11.8.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 11-61
11.8.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 11-62
11.8.11. Figures...................................................................................... 11-64
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xx December 2012
11.9. Invasive Plant Study .................................................................................. 11-66
11.9.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 11-66
11.9.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 11-66
11.9.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 11-67
11.9.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 11-68
11.9.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 11-69
11.9.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 11-69
11.9.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 11-70
11.9.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 11-70
11.9.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 11-70
11.9.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 11-72
11.9.11. Figures...................................................................................... 11-74
12. Recreation and Aesthetic Resources .......................................................................... 12-1
12.1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 12-1
12.2. Nexus Between Project Construction / Existence / Operations and Effects on
Resources to be Studied ............................................................................... 12-1
12.3. Resource Management Goals and Objectives .............................................. 12-2
12.4. Summary of Consultation with Agencies, Alaska Native Entities and Other
Licensing Participants .................................................................................. 12-2
12.5. Recreation Resources Study ........................................................................ 12-4
12.5.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................... 12-4
12.5.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information ...... 12-4
12.5.3. Study Area ................................................................................. 12-5
12.5.4. Study Methods ........................................................................... 12-6
12.5.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 12-22
12.5.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 12-22
12.5.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 12-23
12.5.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 12-24
12.5.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 12-25
12.5.10. Figures...................................................................................... 12-27
12.6. Aesthetic Resources Study ......................................................................... 12-30
12.6.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 12-30
12.6.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 12-30
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xxi December 2012
12.6.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 12-31
12.6.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 12-32
12.6.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 12-37
12.6.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 12-37
12.6.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 12-38
12.6.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 12-39
12.6.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 12-39
12.6.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 12-40
12.6.11. Figures...................................................................................... 12-46
12.7. River Recreation Flow and Access Study .................................................. 12-48
12.7.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 12-48
12.7.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 12-48
12.7.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 12-49
12.7.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 12-50
12.7.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 12-53
12.7.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 12-53
12.7.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 12-54
12.7.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 12-54
12.7.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 12-55
12.7.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 12-55
12.7.11. Figures...................................................................................... 12-56
12.8. Attachments ............................................................................................... 12-58
13. Cultural and Paleontological Resources .................................................................... 13-1
13.1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 13-1
13.2. Nexus Between Project Construction / Existence / Operations and Effects on
Resources to be Studied ............................................................................... 13-2
13.2.1. Cultural Resources ..................................................................... 13-2
13.2.2. Paleontological Resources ......................................................... 13-3
13.3. Resource Management Goals and Objectives .............................................. 13-4
13.4. Summary of Consultation with Agencies, Alaska Native Entities and Other
Licensing Participants .................................................................................. 13-5
13.5. Cultural Resources Study ............................................................................. 13-6
13.5.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................... 13-6
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xxii December 2012
13.5.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information ...... 13-8
13.5.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 13-10
13.5.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 13-12
13.5.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 13-23
13.5.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 13-24
13.5.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 13-25
13.5.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 13-25
13.5.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 13-25
13.5.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 13-29
13.5.11. Figures...................................................................................... 13-32
13.6. Paleontological Resources Study ............................................................... 13-39
13.6.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 13-39
13.6.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 13-40
13.6.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 13-40
13.6.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 13-40
13.6.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 13-42
13.6.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 13-42
13.6.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 13-43
13.6.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 13-43
13.6.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 13-43
13.6.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 13-44
13.6.11. Figures...................................................................................... 13-45
13.7. Attachments ............................................................................................... 13-47
14. Subsistence Resources ................................................................................................. 14-1
14.1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 14-1
14.2. Nexus Between Project Construction/Existence/Operations and Effects on
Resources to be Studied ............................................................................... 14-1
14.3. Resource Management Goals and Objectives .............................................. 14-2
14.4. Summary of Consultation with Agencies, Alaska Native Entities and Other
Licensing Participants .................................................................................. 14-3
14.5. Subsistence Resources Study ....................................................................... 14-5
14.5.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................... 14-5
14.5.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information ...... 14-5
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xxiii December 2012
14.5.3. Study Area ................................................................................. 14-7
14.5.4. Study Methods ........................................................................... 14-8
14.5.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 14-13
14.5.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 14-14
14.5.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 14-14
14.5.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 14-15
14.5.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 14-15
14.5.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 14-16
14.5.11. Figures...................................................................................... 14-21
14.6. Attachments ............................................................................................... 14-25
15. Socioeconomic and Transportation Resources ......................................................... 15-1
15.1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 15-1
15.2. Nexus Between Project Construction / Existence / Operations and Effects on
Resources to be Studied ............................................................................... 15-1
15.3. Resource Management Goals and Objectives .............................................. 15-2
15.4. Summary of Consultation with Agencies, Alaska Native Entities and Other
Licensing Participants .................................................................................. 15-3
15.5. Regional Economic Evaluation Study ......................................................... 15-4
15.5.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................... 15-4
15.5.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information ...... 15-4
15.5.3. Study Area ................................................................................. 15-4
15.5.4. Study Methods ........................................................................... 15-5
15.5.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ......... 15-6
15.5.6. Schedule ..................................................................................... 15-7
15.5.7. Relationship with Other Studies ................................................ 15-7
15.5.8. Level of Effort and Cost ............................................................ 15-7
15.5.9. Literature Cited .......................................................................... 15-7
15.5.10. Tables ......................................................................................... 15-8
15.5.11. Figures........................................................................................ 15-9
15.6. Social Conditions and Public Goods and Services Study .......................... 15-10
15.6.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 15-10
15.6.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 15-10
15.6.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 15-11
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xxiv December 2012
15.6.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 15-12
15.6.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 15-17
15.6.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 15-17
15.6.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 15-18
15.6.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 15-18
15.6.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 15-18
15.6.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 15-20
15.6.11. Figures...................................................................................... 15-21
15.7. Transportation Resources Study ................................................................ 15-24
15.7.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 15-24
15.7.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 15-24
15.7.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 15-25
15.7.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 15-26
15.7.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 15-28
15.7.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 15-28
15.7.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 15-28
15.7.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 15-29
15.7.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 15-29
15.7.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 15-30
15.7.11. Figures...................................................................................... 15-33
15.8. Health Impact Assessment Study ............................................................... 15-34
15.8.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 15-34
15.8.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 15-35
15.8.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 15-36
15.8.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 15-36
15.8.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 15-39
15.8.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 15-40
15.8.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 15-40
15.8.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 15-40
15.8.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 15-41
15.8.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 15-41
15.8.11. Figures...................................................................................... 15-42
15.9. Air Quality Study ....................................................................................... 15-47
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xxv December 2012
15.9.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 15-47
15.9.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 15-47
15.9.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 15-48
15.9.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 15-48
15.9.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 15-50
15.9.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 15-50
15.9.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 15-50
15.9.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 15-51
15.9.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 15-51
15.9.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 15-51
15.9.11. Figures...................................................................................... 15-52
15.10. Attachments ............................................................................................... 15-53
16. Project Safety ............................................................................................................... 16-1
16.1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 16-1
16.2. Nexus Between Project Construction / Existence / Operations and Effects on
Resources to be Studied ............................................................................... 16-1
16.3. Resource Management Goals and Objectives .............................................. 16-1
16.4. Summary of Consultation with Agencies, Alaska Native Entities and Other
Licensing Participants .................................................................................. 16-1
16.5. Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) Study ..................................................... 16-2
16.5.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................... 16-2
16.5.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information ...... 16-2
16.5.3. Study Area ................................................................................. 16-3
16.5.4. Study Methods ........................................................................... 16-3
16.5.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ......... 16-8
16.5.6. Schedule ..................................................................................... 16-8
16.5.7. Relationship with Other Studies ................................................ 16-8
16.5.8. Level of Effort and Cost ............................................................ 16-9
16.5.9. Literature Cited .......................................................................... 16-9
16.5.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 16-10
16.5.11. Figures...................................................................................... 16-10
16.6. Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Study .......................................................... 16-11
16.6.1. General Description of the Proposed Study ............................. 16-11
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xxvi December 2012
16.6.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information .... 16-11
16.6.3. Study Area ............................................................................... 16-12
16.6.4. Study Methods ......................................................................... 16-13
16.6.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ....... 16-16
16.6.6. Schedule ................................................................................... 16-16
16.6.7. Relationship with Other Studies .............................................. 16-17
16.6.8. Level of Effort and Cost .......................................................... 16-17
16.6.9. Literature Cited ........................................................................ 16-17
16.6.10. Tables ....................................................................................... 16-18
16.6.11. Figures...................................................................................... 16-19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Technical Workgroup and Agency Consultation Meetings since development of the
PSP. .................................................................................................................................... 1-17
Table 1.1-1. Project Process Plan and Schedule (dispute process highlighted in yellow)........ 1-20
Table 2-1. Summary of formal study requests filed with FERC. ............................................... 2-4
Table 4.5-1. Schedule for implementation of the Geology and Soils Study............................... 4-9
Table 5.5-1. Proposed Susitna River Basin Temperature and Water Quality Monitoring Sites. . 5-
34
Table 5.5-2. Proposed Susitna-Watana Meteorological Stations. ............................................. 5-35
Table 5.5-3. Parameters for water quality monitoring and laboratory analysis (Baseline Water
Quality Monitoring and Focus Area monitoring). ............................................................. 5-35
Table 5.5-4. List of water quality parameters and frequency of collection. ............................. 5-37
Table 5.5-5. Schedule for Implementation of the Baseline Water Quality Study. ................... 5-40
Table 5.6-1. Proposed Susitna River Basin Water Quality and Temperature Monitoring Sites. . 5-
56
Table 5.6-2. Evaluation of models based on technical, regulatory, and management criteria. 5-57
Table 5.6-3. Schedule for Implementation of the Modeling Study. ......................................... 5-59
Table 5.7-1. Sediment Results from the Susitna River Drainage .............................................. 5-90
Table 5.7-2. Whole Body Slimy Sculpin Results from the Susitna River Drainage ................. 5-90
Table 5.7-3. Speciated Mercury Results from Susitna River Drainage (µg/g dry weight) ........ 5-90
Table 5.7-4. Summary of ADEC Data for Mercury in Fish Tissue, Susitna River Drainage.... 5-91
Table 5.7-5. Proposed Susitna River Basin Mercury Monitoring Sites ..................................... 5-91
Table 5.7-6. List of parameters and frequency of collection. ................................................... 5-92
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xxvii December 2012
Table 5.7-7. Schedule for Implementation of the Mercury Assessment and Potential for
Bioaccumulation Study. ..................................................................................................... 5-92
Table 6.5-1. Initial geomorphic reach classifications. ............................................................... 6-72
Table 6.5-2. Estimated Water Year 1985 annual sediment loads for the Susitna River and major
tributaries (based on USGS 1987). .................................................................................... 6-73
Table 6.5-3. Summary of 2012 aerial photo acquisition for the Upper, Middle, and Lower
Susitna River segments. ..................................................................................................... 6-74
Table 6.5-4. Middle Susitna River Segment aquatic habitat sites from 1980s to be digitized. . 6-75
Table 6.5-5. Schedule for implementation of the Geomorphology Study. ............................... 6-76
Table 6.5-6. Information and products required by the Geomorphology Study from other studies.
............................................................................................................................................ 6-77
Table 6.5-7. Information and products the Geomorphology Study will provide to other studies. 6-
78
Table 6.5-8. Summary of 2012 Geomorphology Study efforts to support preparation and
refinement of the Study Plan. ............................................................................................. 6-79
Table 6.5-9. Geomorphology Study costs.................................................................................. 6-80
Table 6.6-1. Schedule for the downstream study limit determination process for the Fluvial
Geomorphology Modeling Study. ................................................................................... 6-135
Table 6.6-2. Evaluation of potential 1-D bed evolution models. ............................................. 6-136
Table 6.6-3. Evaluation of potential 2-D bed evolution models. ............................................. 6-137
Table 6.6-4. Summary of model parameter precedencies for water resources models to be
applied in the Susitna-Watana licensing effort. ............................................................... 6-138
Table 6.6-5. Potential Focus Areas in the Middle and Lower Susitna River Segments. ......... 6-139
Table 6.6-6. Primary output variables for which values are taken directly from the 1-D and 2-D
mobile-boundary models and relevance to other studies. ................................................ 6-140
Table 6.6-7. Key variables needed for the impact assessments for which results are obtained
through additional analysis of predictions taken directly from the 1-D and 2-D mobile-
boundary models. ............................................................................................................. 6-141
Table 6.6-8. Schedule for implementation of the Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Study. 6-143
Table 6.6-9. Information and products required by the Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Study
from other studies. ........................................................................................................... 6-144
Table 6.6-10. Information and products the Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Study will provide
to other studies. ................................................................................................................ 6-146
Table 6.6-11. Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Study costs. ............................................... 6-147
Table 7.5-1. Data collection parameters and associated sensors that will be used for the
Groundwater Studyat selected Focus Areas. ..................................................................... 7-24
Table 7.5-2. Schedule for implementation of the Groundwater Study. ................................. 7-7-25
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xxviii December 2012
Table 7.6-1. Schedule for implementation of the Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study. .... 7-53
Table 7.7-1. Glacier and Runoff Changes Study schedule. ...................................................... 7-68
Table 8.5-1. Summary of HSC curves developed during 1980s Susitna Studies. ................... 8-105
Table 8.5-2. Periodicity of Pacific salmon habitat utilization in the Middle Segment (RM
184-98.5) of the Susitna River by species and life history stage. Shaded areas indicate
timing of utilization and dark gray areas represent peak use. .......................................... 8-106
Table 8.5-3. Instream flow sites and habitat modeling methods used during the 1980s in the
Middle and Lower Susitna River (Marshall et al. 1984; Sandone et al. 1984; Vincent-Lang
et al. 1984; Hilliard et al. 1985; Suchanek et al. 1985). ................................................... 8-108
Table 8.5-4. Geomorphic reach designations for the Upper River (UR) Segment, Middle River
(MR) Segment, and Lower River (LR) Segment of the Susitna River as described in Section
6.5.4.1.2.2. ........................................................................................................................ 8-110
Table 8.5-5. Nested and tiered habitat mapping units, categories, and definitions. ................ 8-111
Table 8.5-6. Locations, descriptions and selection rationale of proposed Focus Areas for detailed
study in the Middle River Segment of the Susitna River. Focus Area identification numbers
(e.g., Focus Area 184) represent the truncated Project River Mile (PRM) at the downstream
end of each Focus ............................................................................................................. 8-113
Table 8.5-7. Partial list of river cross-sections, and flow and water surface elevations measured
in 2012 on the Susitna River between River Miles 75 and 184. The list does not include
additional measurements in late September/October. Those measurements had not been
processed at the time this study plan was prepared. ........................................................ 8-114
Table 8.5-8. Summary of gaging stations established on Susitna River in 2012..................... 8-117
Table 8.5-9. Susitna Real-Time Reporting Network Stations. ................................................ 8-118
Table 8.5-10. Period of record of flows measured by the USGS on the Susitna River. .......... 8-119
Table 8.5-11. Period of record of flows measured by the USGS on tributaries of the Susitna
River. ................................................................................................................................ 8-120
Table 8.5-12. List of 33 Index of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) parameters (The Nature
Conservancy 2009). ......................................................................................................... 8-121
Table 8.5-13. List of 34 Environmental Flow Component (EFC) parameters (The Nature
Conservancy 2009). ......................................................................................................... 8-122
Table 8.5-14. Schedule for implementation of the Fish and Aquatics Instream Flow Study. . 8-123
Table 8.5-15. Common names, scientific names, life history strategies, and habitat use of fish
species within the Lower, Middle, and Upper Susitna River, based on sampling during the
1980s (from HDR 2011). ................................................................................................. 8-127
Table 8.5-16. Site-specific habitat suitability measurements recorded during 2012 at Middle and
Lower Susitna River sampling sites, by fish life stage. ................................................... 8-128
Table 8.5-17. Proposed substrate classification system for use in development of HSC/HSI
curves for the Susitna-Watana Project (adapted from Wentworth 1922). ....................... 8-130
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xxix December 2012
Table 8.5-18. Example of table that will be developed as part of the stranding and trapping
analyses to illustrate the frequency of potential stranding and trapping events by month for a
given Project operational scenario. .................................................................................. 8-131
Table 8.5-19. Assessment of physical and biological processes and potential habitat modeling
techniques. ....................................................................................................................... 8-132
Table 8.5-20. Seasonal daylight and night downramping guidelines (Hunter 1992). ............ 8-132
Table 8.5-21. Conceptual Comparison of Multiple Resource Indicators of the Effects of
Alternative Operational Scenarios for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project. Indicators
to be coordinated with resource-specific working groups. .............................................. 8-133
Table 8.6-1. Schedule for implementation of the Riparian Instream Flow Study. ................. 8-198
Table 8.6-2. 8.6.3.1 Floodplain Vegetation and Physical Process Regimes Critical Review,
Synthesis and Lessons Learned. ...................................................................................... 8-199
Table 8.6-3. 8.6.3.2 Focus Area Selection−Riparian Process Domain Delineation ............... 8-200
Table 8.6-4. 8.6.3.3.1 Synchrony of Seed Dispersal, Hydrology, and Local Susitna River Valley
Climate ............................................................................................................................. 8-201
Table 8.6-5. 8.6.3.3.2 Seedling Establishment and Recruitment Study .................................. 8-202
Table 8.6-6. 8.6.3.4 Characterize the role of river ice in the establishment and recruitment of
dominant floodplain vegetation. ...................................................................................... 8-203
Table 8.6-7. 8.6.3.5 Characterize the role of erosion and sediment deposition in the formation of
floodplain surfaces, soils, and vegetation. ....................................................................... 8-204
Table 8.6-8. 8.6.3.6 Characterize natural floodplain vegetation groundwater and surface water
maintenance hydroregime. ............................................................................................... 8-205
Table 8.6-9. 8.6.3.7 Floodplain Vegetation Study Synthesis, Focus Area to Riparian Process
Domain Model Scaling and Project Operations Effects Modeling .................................. 8-206
Table 9.5-1. Summary of life history, known Susitna River usage of fish species within the
Upper Susitna River Segment (compiled from Delaney et al. 1981)................................. 9-29
Table 9.5-2. Proposed methods by objective, task, species, and life stage. ................................. 30
Table 9.5-3. Length and weight of fish species to be radio-tagged and respective target radio-tag
weights. .............................................................................................................................. 9-32
Table 9.5–4. Schedule for implementation of the Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper
Susitna River. ..................................................................................................................... 9-33
Table 9.6-1. Summary of life history, known Susitna River usage, and known extent of
distribution of fish species within the Lower, Middle, and Upper Susitna River Segments
(from ADF&G 1981 a, b, c, etc.). ...................................................................................... 9-68
Table 9.6-2. Proposed methods by objective, task, species, and life stage. .............................. 9-69
Table 9.6-3. Length and weight of fish species to be radio-tagged and respective target radio-tag
weights. .............................................................................................................................. 9-72
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xxx December 2012
Table 9.6–4. Schedule for implementation of the Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle
and Lower Susitna River Study. ........................................................................................ 9-73
Table 9.7-1. Schedule for implementation of the Salmon Escapement Study. ....................... 9-103
Table 9.8-1. Preliminary macroinvertebrate and algae sampling sites, stratified by reach and
habitats. Refer to Figures 9.8-1 – 9.8-2 for locations of the preliminary sampling reaches
and stations. ...................................................................................................................... 9-132
Table 9.8-2. Preliminary schedule for River Productivity Study. ........................................... 9-132
Table 9.9-1. Primary sources of existing information supporting the aquatic habitat study. . 9-153
Table 9.9-2. Tributaries in the Upper River conducive to aerial video mapping and mapped in
2012 .................................................................................................................................. 9-153
Table 9.9-3. Upper River tributary mesohabitat types and descriptions. ................................ 9-154
Table 9.9-4. Nested and tiered habitat mapping units and categories. ................................... 9-156
Table 9.9-5. Example of raw data from mapping displayed in Figure 9.9-16. ........................ 9-158
Table 9.9-6. Example data summarizing percent composition of unique habitat types. ......... 9-158
Table 9.9-7. Example data summarizing length and percent composition of general habitat units
by main channel and off-channel habitat. ........................................................................ 9-158
Table 9.9-8. Schedule for implementation of the Habitat Characterization and Mapping Study. 9-
159
Table 9.10-1. Schedule for implementation of the Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community
and Risk of Entrainment Study. ....................................................................................... 9-181
Table 9.11-1. Schedule for implementation of the Study of Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana
Dam. ................................................................................................................................. 9-193
Table 9.12-1. Co-location of 1984 aquatic studies pertinent to fish passage at sloughs and side
channels. ........................................................................................................................... 9-211
Table 9.12-2. Location of proposed 2012-13 flow routing transect relative to locations of 1984
slough and side channel study sites. ................................................................................ 9-212
Table 9.12-3. Fish and potential fish species within the lower, middle, and upper Susitna River,
based on sampling during the 1980s. ............................................................................... 9-213
Table 9.12-4. Pacific salmon leaping height capabilities from three sources. ......................... 9-214
Table 9.12-5. Schedule for implementation of the Fish Passage Barrier Study. .................... 9-215
Table 9.13-1. Preliminary schedule for the Aquatic Resources Study within the access
alignment, transmission alignment, and construction area. ............................................. 9-238
Table 9.14-1. Area, location, and sublocation of desired baseline samples of adult Chinook
salmon spawning aggregates for genetic analysis. Samples (Total) and sample years for
collections in the Gene Conservation Laboratory archives, desired remaining nmber (Need),
and number slated for genetic analysis (To analyze) and indicated. Some systems listed
may not have spawning stocks in them, including some of those noted from above Devils
Canyon. ............................................................................................................................ 9-251
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xxxi December 2012
Table 9.14-2. Potential Susitna River fish species for targeted for genetic analysis sampling. .... 9-
252
Table 9.14-3. Preliminary schedule for the Genetic Baseline Study for Selected Fish Species. ... 9-
253
Table 9.15-1. Schedule for implementation of the Analysis of Fish Harvest Study. ............. 9-265
Table 9.16-1. Schedule for implementation of the eulachon study. ....................................... 9-282
Table 9.17-1. Schedule for implementation of the beluga study. ........................................... 9-299
Table 10.5-1. Schedule for implementation of the Moose Distribution, Abundance, Movements,
Productivity, and Survival study. ..................................................................................... 10-13
Table 10.6-1. Schedule for implementation of the caribou study. ........................................... 10-22
Table 10.7-1. Schedule for implementation of the Dall’s sheep study. ................................... 10-29
Table 10.8-1. Schedule for implementation of the Large Carnivore Study. ............................ 10-42
Table 10.9-1. Schedule for implementation of the Wolverine Study. ..................................... 10-51
Table 10.10-1. Schedule for implementation of the Terrestrial Furbearer Study. ................... 10-65
Table 10.11-1. Schedule for implementation of the Aquatic Furbearer Study. ....................... 10-77
Table 10.12-1. Schedule for implementation of the Small Mammal Study. ........................... 10-85
Table 10.13-1. Schedule for implementation of the Bat Study. ............................................... 10-94
Table 10.14-1. Raptors in the vicinity of the middle basin of the Susitna River (from Tables
4.6-2 and 4.8-2 in AEA 2011). ...................................................................................... 10-109
Table 10.14-2. Schedule for implementation of Surveys of Eagles and Other Raptors. ....... 10-110
Table 10.15-1. Schedule for implementation of the Waterbird Migration, Breeding, and Habitat
Use Study. ...................................................................................................................... 10-126
Table 10.16-1. Schedule for implementation of the landbird and shorebird study. ............... 10-142
Table 10.17-1. Schedule for implementation of the Willow Ptarmigan Study. ..................... 10-153
Table 10.18-1. Schedule for implementation of the Wood Frog Study. ................................ 10-165
Table 10.19-1. Bird species of conservation/management concern that are known or likely to
occur in the Susitna River basin, Alaska. ...................................................................... 10-175
Table 10.19-2. Schedule for implementation of the wildlife habitat-use evaluation. ........... 10-179
Table 10.20-1. Schedule for implementation of the Wildlife Harvest Analysis. ................... 10-187
Table 11.5-1. Schedule for implementation of the Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping
Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin. ................................................................ 11-14
Table 11.6-1. Schedule for implementation of the riparian vegetation study. ......................... 11-33
Table 11.7-1. Schedule for implementation of the Wetland Mapping Study in the Upper and
Middle Susitna Basin. ...................................................................................................... 11-52
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xxxii December 2012
Table 11.8-1. Rare vascular plant taxa that have been collected in a broad region surrounding the
Susitna River drainage (see AEA 2011).1 ....................................................................... 11-62
Table 11.8-2. Schedule for implementation of the Rare Plant Study. ..................................... 11-63
Table 11.9-1. Invasive vascular plant species recorded on road-system surveys in and near the
Susitna basin and in other plant surveys in the region of the proposed Project. .............. 11-72
Table 11.9-2. Schedule for implementation of the Invasive Plant Study. ............................... 11-73
Table 12.5-1. Schedule for implementation of the Recreation Study. ..................................... 12-23
Table 12.6-1. Preliminary Recommendations for Analysis Locations. ................................... 12-40
Table 12.6-2. Aesthetic Resources Study Schedule. ................................................................ 12-45
Table 12.7-1. Recreational Boating / River Access Study Schedule. ...................................... 12-55
Table 13.5-1. Datasets used in Project Model 1 ...................................................................... 13-29
Table 13.5-2. Classified variables examined in Project locational modeling. ......................... 13-30
Table 13.5-3. Schedule for implementation of the cultural resource study. ............................ 13-31
Table 13.6-1. Schedule for implementation of the Paleontological Resources Study. ............ 13-44
Table 14.5-1. Study Communities. .......................................................................................... 14-16
Table 14.5-2. Susitna Watershed Household Harvest Survey Added Study Communities. .... 14-17
Table 14.5-3. Traditional Knowledge Criteria and Selected Study Communities. ................. 14-18
Table 14.5-4. Schedule for implementation of the Subsistence Resources Study. .................. 14-19
Table 14.5-5. Study Communities Selected for Traditional Knowledge, Subsistence Mapping,
and Household Harvest Surveys. ..................................................................................... 14-20
Table 15.5-1. Schedule for implementation of the Regional Economic Evaluation Study. ..... 15-8
Table 15.6-1. Schedule for implementation of the Social Conditions and Public Goods and
Services Study. ................................................................................................................. 15-20
Table 15.7-1. General Resources for Transportation Resources Study. ................................. 15-30
Table 15.7-2. Road Resources for Transportation Resources Study. ..................................... 15-30
Table 15.7-3. Rail Resources for Transportation Resources Study. ....................................... 15-31
Table 15.7-4. Aviation Resources for Transportation Resources Study. ................................ 15-31
Table 15.7-5. Port Resources for Transportation Resources Study. ....................................... 15-31
Table 15.7-6. Schedule for implementation of the Transportation Resources Study. ............ 15-32
Table 15.8-1. Schedule for implementation of the HIA. ........................................................ 15-41
Table 15.9-1. Schedule for implementation of Air Quality Study. ......................................... 15-51
Table 16.5-1. Schedule for Implementation of the PMF Study. .............................................. 16-10
Table 16.6-1. Schedule for implementation of the Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Study. ...... 16-18
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xxxiii December 2012
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.2-1. Susitna-Watana Project Area .............................................................................. 1-22
Figure 1.2-2. Susitna River Stage near Watana Tailwater. ........................................................ 1-23
Figure 1.2-3. Susitna River Stage near Gold Creek. .................................................................. 1-23
Figure 1.2-4. Susitna River Stage near Sunshine. ...................................................................... 1-24
Figure 2-1. Interrelationships amongst Riverine-based Studies. ................................................ 2-9
Figure 2-2. Interrelationships amongst Upland-based Studies. ................................................ 2-10
Figure 4.5-1. Interdependencies for Geology and Soils Study. ................................................. 4-11
Figure 5.5-1. Proposed 2012 Stream Water Quality and Temperature Data Collection Sites for
the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project. ........................................................................ 5-41
Figure 5.5-2. Example of a 10-foot (3-meter) tripod MET station installed above the proposed
Watana Dam site. ............................................................................................................... 5-42
Figure 5.5-3. Interdependencies for water resources studies. .................................................... 5-43
Figure 5.6-1. Proposed 2012 Stream Water Quality and Temperature Data Collection Sites for
the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project. ........................................................................ 5-60
Figure 5.6-2. Interdependencies for water resources studies. .................................................... 5-61
Figure 5.7-1. Transfer of Methylmercury to Fish Shortly after Impoundment from Hydro-
Quebec (2003). ................................................................................................................... 5-93
Figure 5.7-2 Example of Predicted and Actual Mercury Concentrations in Fish (from Hydro-
Quebec 2003). .................................................................................................................... 5-94
Figure 5.7-3. Interdependencies for water resources studies. .................................................... 5-95
Figure 6.1-1. Conceptual framework for the Susitna-Watana Instream Flow Study depicting
integration of habitat specific models and riverine processes to support integrated resource
analyses; and integration of riverine processes to develop fish and aquatic habitat specific
models. ............................................................................................................................... 6-81
Figure 6.5-1. Susitna River Geomorphology study area and large-scale river segments. ......... 6-82
Figure 6.5-2. Upper Susitna River Segment geomorphic reaches. ............................................ 6-83
Figure 6.5-3. Middle Susitna River Segment geomorphic reaches. .......................................... 6-84
Figure 6.5-4. Lower Susitna River Segment geomorphic reaches............................................. 6-85
Figure 6.5-5. USGS Susitna River basin gaging stations and 2012 measurement locations. .... 6-86
Figure 6.5-6. Susitna-Watana Geomorphology Study reservoir geomorphology study area. ... 6-87
Figure 6.5-7. Susitna-Watana access corridors. ......................................................................... 6-88
Figure 6.5-8. Study interdependencies for the Geomorphology Study. .................................... 6-89
Figure 6.6-1. Example of coarse mesh applied to the Whiskers Slough potential Focus Area,
Middle Susitna River Segment, Geomorphic Reach MR-8 ............................................. 6-148
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xxxiv December 2012
Figure 6.6-2. Example of fine mesh applied to the Whiskers Slough proposed Focus Area,
Middle Susitna River Segment, Geomorphic Reach MR-8 ............................................. 6-149
Figure 6.6-3. Locations of proposed Middle Susitna River Segment Focus Areas. ................ 6-150
Figure 6.6-4. Study interdependencies for the Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Study. ...... 6-151
Figure 7.5-1. Sedimentary basins and geologic structure in the Susitna watershed (modified
from Kirschner 1994). ........................................................................................................ 7-26
Figure 7.5-2. Geologic units in the Susitna watershed (modified from Beikman 1994). ......... 7-27
Figure 7.5-3. Study interdependencies for the Groundwater Study. ......................................... 7-28
Figure 7.5-3. Study interdependencies for the Groundwater Study (continued). ..................... 7-29
Figure 7.5-3. Study interdependencies for the Groundwater Study (continued). ..................... 7-30
Figure 7.5-4. Discharge hydrograph and analysis examples for the Susitna River at Gold Creek.
............................................................................................................................................ 7-31
Figure 7.5-5. Illustration of groundwater and surface-water interactions with changing stage
levels. ................................................................................................................................. 7-32
Figure 7.5-6. Groundwater responses to stage changes in the Chena River (Nakanishi and Lilly
1998). ................................................................................................................................. 7-32
Figure 7.5-7. An example of applying surface water stage conditions and groundwater levels
from a well as input to boundary conditions to a two-dimensional groundwater model
(Nakanishi and Lilly 1998). ............................................................................................... 7-33
Figure 7.5-8. Example schematic of groundwater well and surface water station network in a
hypothetical Focus Area targeting riparian analysis. ......................................................... 7-33
Figure 7.5-9. Example schematic of groundwater well and surface water station network in a
hypothetical Focus Area targeting fish and aquatic habitat analysis. ................................ 7-34
Figure 7.5-10. Example schematic of a 3D groundwater model grid in a hypothetical Focus Area
targeting fish and aquatic analysis. 2D cross-section models would be developed in this
hypothetical case at sections XS1 and XS2. ...................................................................... 7-35
Figure 7.5-11. The upper graphic is an example schematic of a 2D cross-section across the
floodplain, main channel, and a side channel or slough. Groundwater and surface water
interactions and examples data collection stations are shown. The lower plots show the daily
mean gage height for the Susitna River at Gold Creek. ..................................................... 7-36
Figure 7.6-1. Relationship of ice observations to other studies. ................................................ 7-54
Figure 7.6-2. Relationship of ice modeling to other studies. ..................................................... 7-55
Figure 7.7-1. September 1999 oblique aerial photograph of the terminus of an unnamed glacier
that drains to the East Fork of the Susitna River, looking northeast. The western end of the
lake corresponds to the 1955 position of the terminus. The large trimline suggests that the
glacier has recently thinned significantly more than 50 meters (164 feet) and retreated more
than 2 kilometers (1.2 miles). From Molnia 2008. ............................................................ 7-69
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xxxv December 2012
Figure 7.7-2. Schematic representation of the long-term effects of negative glacier mass
balances on a) glacier volume and b) glacier runoff. Note that runoff is initially larger
during prolonged mass wasting until the glacier is small enough to reduce excess runoff
(Jansson et al. 2003). .......................................................................................................... 7-69
Figure 7.7-3. Susitna Glacier and other unnamed glaciers contributing to Upper Susitna River
drainage. ............................................................................................................................. 7-70
Figure 7.7-4. Fairbanks Frost-Free Season, 1904 to 2008. Over the past 100 years, the length of
the frost-free season in Fairbanks, Alaska, has increased by 50 percent. U.S. Global Change
Research Program (2009). ................................................................................................. 7-70
Figure 7.7-5. Mean annual temperature and total annual precipitation at Talkeetna, Alaska
1915–2010 showing the trend line. From Alaska Climate Research Center,
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Climate/Location/TimeSeries/Talkeetna.html. ...................... 7-71
Figure 7.7-6. Interdependencies for Glacier and Runoff Changes Study .................................. 7-72
Figure 8.5-1. Study interdependencies for Fish and Aquatics Instream Flow Study. ............. 8-135
Figure 8.5-2. Relative amounts of habitat types in different areas of the Susitna River at seven
mainstem discharges. Source: Klinger-Kingsley et al. (1985)......................................... 8-136
Figure 8.5-3. Habitat types identified in the middle reach of the Susitna River during the 1980s
studies (adapted from ADF&G 1983; Trihey 1982). ....................................................... 8-137
Figure 8.5-4. Example HSC curves for rearing juvenile Chinook salmon in the Middle Susitna
River developed during the 1980s instream flow studies.. .............................................. 8-137
Figure 8.5-5. Mean daily intergravel and surface water temperature data from a spawning site in
Skull Creek. Source: Trihey (1982). ............................................................................... 8-138
Figure 8.5-6. Locations of instream flow transects and model types applied during the 1980s Su-
Hydro studies in lower and upper Side Channel 11 and in Slough 11, located near Gold
Creek. Breaching flows based on those studies are also depicted for various side channel
and side slough habitats. .................................................................................................. 8-139
Figure 8.5-7. Locations of instream flow transects and model types applied during the 1980s Su-
Hydro studies in the Whiskers Slough complex. Breaching flows based on those studies are
also depicted for various side channel and side slough habitats. ..................................... 8-140
Figure 8.5-8. Transects and shoreline and mid-channel sampling cells associated with RJHAB
modeling (Marshall et al. 1984). ...................................................................................... 8-141
Figure 8.5-9. Map depicting the Upper, Middle and Lower Segments of the Susitna River
potentially influenced by the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project. ............................. 8-142
Figure 8.5-10. Conceptual framework for the Susitna-Watana Instream Flow Study depicting
integration of habitat specific models and riverine processes to support integrated resource
analyses; and integration of riverine processes to develop fish and aquatic habitat specific
models. ............................................................................................................................. 8-144
Figure 8.5-11. Map of the Middle Segment of the Susitna River depicting the eight Geomorphic
Reaches and locations of proposed Focus Areas. No Focus Areas are proposed for in MR-3
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xxxvi December 2012
and MR-4 due to safety issues related to sampling within or proximal to Devils Canyon. ... 8-
145
Figure 8.5-12. Map of the Lower Segment of the Susitna River depicting the six Geomorphic
Reaches. Focus Areas have not been identified in this segment but will be considered
pending results of open-water flow routing modeling. .................................................... 8-146
Figure 8.5-13. Map showing Focus Area 184 that begins at Project River Mile 184.7 and extends
upstream to PRM 185.7. The Focus Area is located about 1.4 miles downstream of the
proposed Watana Dam site near Tsusena Creek. ............................................................. 8-147
Figure 8.5-14. Map showing Focus Area 173 beginning at Project River Mile 173.6 and extends
upstream to PRM 175.4. This Focus Area is near Stephan Lake and consists of main
channel and a side channel complex. ............................................................................... 8-148
Figure 8.5-15. Map showing Focus Area 171 beginning at Project River Mile 171.6 and extends
upstream to PRM 173. This Focus Area is near Stephan Lake and consists of main channel
and a single side channel with vegetated island. .............................................................. 8-149
Figure 8.5-16. Map showing Focus Area 151 beginning at Project River Mile 151.8 and extends
upstream to PRM 152.3. This single main channel Focus Area is at the Portage Creek
confluence. ....................................................................................................................... 8-150
Figure 8.5-17. Map showing Focus Area 144 beginning at Project River Mile 144.4 and extends
upstream to PRM 145.7. This Focus Area is located about 2.3 miles upstream of Indian
River and includes Side Channel 21 and Slough 21. ....................................................... 8-151
Figure 8.5-18. Map showing Focus Area 141 beginning at Project River Mile 141.8 and extends
upstream to PRM 143.4. This Focus Area includes the Indian River confluence and a range
of main channel and off-channel habitats. ....................................................................... 8-152
Figure 8.5-19. Map showing Focus Area 138 beginning at Project River Mile 138.7 and extends
upstream to PRM 140. This Focus Area is near Gold Creek and consists of a complex of
side channel, side slough and upland slough habitats including Upper Side Channel 11 and
Slough 11. ........................................................................................................................ 8-153
Figure 8.5-20. Map showing Focus Area 128 beginning at Project River Mile 128.1 and extends
upstream to PRM 129.7. This Focus Area consists of side channel, side slough and tributary
confluence habitat features including Skull Creek. ......................................................... 8-154
Figure 8.5-21. Map showing Focus Area 115 beginning at Project River Mile 115.3 and extends
upstream to PRM 116.5. This Focus Area is located about 0.6 miles downstream of Lane
Creek and consists of side channel and upland slough habitats including Slough 6A. ... 8-155
Figure 8.5-22. Map showing Focus Area 104 beginning at Project River Mile 104.8 and extends
upstream to PRM 106. This Focus Area covers the diverse range of habitats in the Whiskers
Slough complex. .............................................................................................................. 8-156
Figure 8.5-23. Examples of cross-sections established on the Susitna River in 2012 at River
Miles 170 and 76. ............................................................................................................. 8-157
Figure 8.5-24. Output from ADCP from one pass across the Susitna River at River Mile 170 on
June 21, 2012. .................................................................................................................. 8-157
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xxxvii December 2012
Figure 8.5-25. Susitna Network Stations Diagnostics Screen. Data fields are color coded to
allow quick scans for evaluating station conditions. Email and text messaging are used to
communicate warning conditions and non-reporting stations. ........................................ 8-158
Figure 8.5-26. Typical AEA gaging station current conditions reporting page. ..................... 8-159
Figure 8.5-27. Geomorphic Reaches and winter habitat use sampling areas in the Middle Susitna
River Segment. ................................................................................................................. 8-160
Figure 8.5-28. Location of proposed winter fish habitat use sampling sites at Whiskers Slough in
the Middle Susitna River Segment. ................................................................................. 8-161
Figure 8.5-29. Location of proposed winter fish habitat use sampling sites at the Skull Creek
Complex in the Middle Susitna River Segment. .............................................................. 8-162
Figure 8.5-30. Cross-sectional conceptual diagram illustrating stranding and trapping areas. .... 8-
163
Figure 8.5-31. Conceptual layout of 2-D coarse and fine mesh modeling within the proposed
Whiskers Slough Focus Area. .......................................................................................... 8-164
Figure 8.5-32. Conceptual diagram depicting the Effective Spawning/Incubation Model. ... 8-165
Figure 8.5-33. Conceptual framework of the varial zone model. ........................................... 8-166
Figure 8.5-34. Illustration of 12-hour/12-hour, 12-hour/7-day, and 12-hour/30-day varial zones
modeling scenarios assuming single transect analyses. ................................................... 8-167
Figure 8.5-35. Example time series analysis. ......................................................................... 8-168
Figure 8.5-36. Conceptual figures illustrating procedure used for deriving non-modeled specific
area (sa) Habitat Availability Index curve using a modeled curve, as applied during the
1980s Su-Hydro Studies (see Steward et al. 1985; Aaserude et al. 1985). The procedure
included lateral shifts (upper figure) due to adjustments from differences in breaching flows
(Qms Qsa) as well as vertical shifts (middle figure) proportional to structural habitat indices
(SHIsa/SHIms) to account for differences in structural habitat quality. The lower figure
shows final hypothetical modeled and non-modeled specific area curves. ..................... 8-169
Figure 8.6-1. Study interdependencies for Riparian Instream Flow Study. ............................ 8-207
Figure 8.6-2. Helm and Collins (1997) Susitna River floodplain forest succession. Note: model
depicts typical floodplain forests found in the Susitna River Middle River and Three Rivers
Confluence segments. ...................................................................................................... 8-208
Figure 8.6-3. Riparian Process Domain Delineation 8.6.3.2. ................................................. 8-209
Figure 8.6-4. Riparian Focus Area Selection 8.6.3.2. ............................................................. 8-210
Figure 8.6-5. Cottonwood (Populus) life history stages: seed dispersal and germination, sapling
to tree establishment. Cottonwood typically germinates on newly created bare mineral soils
associate with lateral active channel margins and gravel bars. Note proximity of summer
baseflow and floodplain water table (Braatne et al. 1996). ............................................. 8-211
Figure 8.6-6. The riparian “Recruitment Box Model” describing seasonal flow pattern,
associated river stage (elevation), and flow ramping necessary for successful cottonwood
and willow seedling establishment (from Amlin and Rood 2002; Rood et al., 2005).
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xxxviii December 2012
Cottonwood species (Populus deltoides), willow species (Salix exigua). Stage hydrograph
and seed release timing will vary by region, watershed, and plant species. .................... 8-212
Figure 8.6-7. Seed Dispersal, Hydrology and Climate Synchrony Study8.6.3.3.1. ............... 8-213
Figure 8.6-8. Susitna Study Area meteorological station locations. ....................................... 8-214
Figure 8.6-9. Seedling Establishment & Recruitment Study 8.6.3.3.2. .................................. 8-215
Figure 8.6-10. Cottonwood tree ice-scar. Floodplain located immediately above Three Rivers
Confluence. ...................................................................................................................... 8-216
Figure 8.6-11. Cottonwood forest tree ice-scars. Floodplain located immediately above Three
Rivers Confluence. ........................................................................................................... 8-217
Figure 8.6-12. Floodplain ice deposited gravel piles. Floodplain in braided reach below Three
Rivers Confluence. ........................................................................................................... 8-218
Figure 8.6-13. River Ice-Floodplain Vegetation Establishment and Recruitment 8.6.3.4. ..... 8-219
Figure 8.6-14. Floodplain Erosion, Sediment Deposition & Floodplain Vegetation Study 8.6.3.5.
.......................................................................................................................................... 8-220
Figure 8.6-15. Riverine hydrologic landscape (Winter 2001). ............................................... 8-221
Figure 8.6-16. Whiskers Slough typical Focus Area groundwater / surface water study design
illustrating monitoring well and stage recorder transect locations. Typical floodplain plant
community types found in the middle segment of the Susitna River are shown. ............ 8-222
Figure 8.6-17. General schematic of a riparian Focus Area floodplain channel complex bounded
by the Susitna River, side slough, and side channel. ....................................................... 8-223
Figure 8.6-18. (A) Transect profile view of typical monitoring well and stage recorder locations
looking downriver. (B) Gold Creek Gauge Station, Susitna River April through September
2005-2009. ....................................................................................................................... 8-224
Figure 8.6-19. Floodplain Vegetation Groundwater & Surface Water Study 8.6.3.6. ........... 8-225
Figure 8.6-20. Floodplain Vegetation Study Synthesis, Focus Area to Riparian Process Domain
Scaling & Project Operations Effects Modeling 8.6.3.7. ................................................. 8-226
Figure 9.5-1. Fish distribution and abundance study area. ....................................................... 9-34
Figure 9.5-2. Schematic showing strata by habitat type for relative abundance sampling for the
Upper River. Note that level two stratification within geomorphic reach, is not depicted in
this figure because not all habitat types will be present within each geomorphic reach in the
Upper River. The selection of habitats to sample will be distributed across geomorphic
reaches as described in the Upper Susitna River Fish Distribution and Abundance
Implementation Plan and in Section 9.5.4.1. ..................................................................... 9-35
Figure 9.5–3. Existing or derived length–weight relationships for fish species to be radio-tagged.
............................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 9.5-4. Flow chart showing study interdependencies for the Fish Distribution and
Abundance Study in the Upper River. ............................................................................... 9-37
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xxxix December 2012
Figure 9.6-1. Map for Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River
Study Plan. Note that fish sampling in the Lower River is proposed in geomorphic reach
LR1 from RM 61 to 98. ..................................................................................................... 9-74
Figure 9.6-2. Schematic showing strata by habitat type for relative abundance sampling for the
Lower River. Note that level two stratification within geomorphic segment, is not depicted
in this figure because not all habitat types will be present within each geomorphic segment
in the Upper River. The selection of habitats to sample will be distributed across
geomorphic segments as described in the Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Lower and
Middle Susitna River Implementation Plan and in Section 9.6.4.1. .................................. 9-75
Figure 9.6-3. Schematic showing strata by habitat type for fish distribution sampling for the
Middle River. Note that level two stratification within geomorphic segment, is not depicted
in this figure because not all habitat types will be present within each geomorphic segment
in the Upper River. The selection of habitats to sample will be distributed across
geomorphic segments as described in the Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Lower and
Middle Susitna River Implementation Plan and in Section 9.6.4.1. .................................. 9-76
Figure 9.6-4. Schematic showing strata by habitat type for relative abundance sampling for the
Middle River. ..................................................................................................................... 9-77
Figure 9.6-5. Schematic showing strata by habitat type for relative abundance sampling in Focus
Areas. ................................................................................................................................. 9-78
Figure 9.6-6. Existing or derived length-weight relationships for fish species to be radio-tagged.
............................................................................................................................................ 9-79
Figure 9.6.-7. Distribution of winter sampling sites in Slough 8A, Susitna River. ............ 9-80
Figure 9.6-8. Distribution of winter sampling sites in Whiskers Slough, Susitna River. .. 9-81
Figure 9.6-9. Flow chart of study interdependencies for Fish Distribution and Abundance in the
Middle and Lower Susitna River Study Plan. .................................................................... 9-82
Figure 9.7-1. Susitna watershed showing fish capture sites (fishwheels) and the locations of
fixed-station telemetry receivers in the Susitna River. .................................................... 9-104
Figure 9.7-2. Fixed-station telemetry receivers in the Middle and Upper Susitna River, 2012–
2014. ................................................................................................................................. 9-105
Figure 9.7-3. Study interdependencies for Salmon Escapement Study. .................................. 9-106
Figure 9.8-1. Upper Susitna River Segment, preliminary sampling reaches for the River
Productivity Study. .......................................................................................................... 9-133
Figure 9.8-2. Middle Susitna River Segment, with the Instream Flow Focus Areas under
consideration for the four sampling locations proposed within Geomorphic Reach MR-6 for
the River Productivity Study. ........................................................................................... 9-134
Figure 9.8-3. Study interdependencies for River Productivity Study. .................................... 9-135
Figure 9.9-1. Video frame capture of a tributary mid-channel scour pool in a confined channel
with boulder and cobble substrate and no stream wood visible. (For a closer inspection the
image can be zoomed to 250 percent). ............................................................................. 9-160
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xl December 2012
Figure 9.9-2. Aerial video tributary habitat mapping type-index – Falls. ............................... 9-161
Figure 9.9-3. Aerial video tributary habitat mapping type-index – Cascade. .......................... 9-161
Figure 9.9-4. Aerial video tributary habitat mapping type-index – Chute. .............................. 9-162
Figure 9.9-5. Aerial video tributary habitat mapping type-index- Rapid. ............................... 9-162
Figure 9.9-6. Aerial video tributary habitat mapping type-index – Run. ................................ 9-163
Figure 9.9-7. Aerial video tributary habitat mapping type-index - Boulder Riffle. ................. 9-163
Figure 9.9-8. Aerial video tributary habitat mapping type-index - Cobble/Gravel Riffle - Split
Channel. ........................................................................................................................... 9-164
Figure 9.9-9. Aerial video tributary habitat mapping type-index – Glide. .............................. 9-164
Figure 9.9-10. Aerial video tributary habitat mapping type-index - Mid Channel Scour Pool. .... 9-
165
Figure 9.9-11. Aerial video tributary habitat mapping type-index - Lateral Scour Pool - Braided
Channel. ........................................................................................................................... 9-165
Figure 9.9-12. Aerial video tributary habitat mapping type-index – Alcove – Special Habitat
Feature. ............................................................................................................................. 9-166
Figure 9.9-13. Aerial video tributary habitat mapping type-index – Beaver Complex – Special
Habitat Feature. ................................................................................................................ 9-166
Figure 9.9-14. Aerial video tributary habitat mapping type-index - Unclassified - Boulder Riffle?
.......................................................................................................................................... 9-167
Figure 9.9-15. Aerial video tributary habitat mapping type-index - Unclassified – Braided
Channel? .......................................................................................................................... 9-167
Figure 9.9-16. Example of mapping using the tiered habitat classification system in GIS. ... 9-168
Figure 9.9-17. Aerial video capture of the Lower River mainstem. ....................................... 9-169
Figure 9.9.18. Interdependencies for Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats. .... 9-170
Figure 9.10-1. Map of study area for Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community and Risk of
Entrainment Study. .......................................................................................................... 9-182
Figure 9.10-2. Flow chart showing relationships between components of the Future Watana
Reservoir Fish Community and Risk of Entrainment Study (ovals), other study programs,
and related information. ................................................................................................... 9-183
Figure 9.11-1 Study area for Fish Passage Feasibility, from the confluence with Portage Creek
(RM 148) upstream to the Oshetna River (RM 233.4). ................................................... 9-194
Figure 9.11-2. Fish passage feasibility interdependencies with other AEA studies. ............... 9-195
Figure 9.12-1. Study interdependencies for the Fish Passage Barriers Study. ....................... 9-216
Figure 9.12-2. Depth/distance passage criteria for chum salmon in unobstructed uniform
channels with smaller substrates. Source ADF&G 1984d. .............................................. 9-217
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xli December 2012
Figure 9.12-3. Depth/distance passage criteria for chum salmon in obstructed non-uniform
channels with larger substrates. (ADF&G 1984b). .......................................................... 9-218
Figure 9.12-4. Barrier analysis decision tree (URS and HDR 2010). ...................................... 9-219
Figure 9.12-5. Example of barrier field drawing with measurement notation (URS and HDR
2010). ............................................................................................................................... 9-220
Figure 9.12-6. Draft physical barrier field form. ..................................................................... 9-221
Figure 9.12-7. ADF&G (1984b) flow chart for slough and side channel assessment methods. ... 9-
222
Figure 9.12-8. Study of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and Upper Susitna Basin. ........ 9-223
Figure 9.13-1. Study area for aquatic resources in the potential access and/or transmission
alignment corridors. ......................................................................................................... 9-239
Figure 9.13-2. Study interdependencies for Aquatic Resources Study within the access
alignment, transmission alignment, and construction area. ............................................. 9-240
Figure 9.14-1. Study interdependencies for the Genetic Baseline Study for Selected Fish Species.
.......................................................................................................................................... 9-254
Figure 9.15-1. Upper Cook Inlet Management Commercial Fishing Districts and Statistical
Reporting Areas (Shields and Dupuis 2012). .................................................................. 9-266
Figure 9.15-2. Northern Cook Inlet Management Area Sport Fishing Management Units (Oslund
and Ivey 2010). ................................................................................................................ 9-267
Figure 9.15-3. Study Interdependencies for Analysis of Fish Harvest Study. ........................ 9-268
Figure 9.16-1. Eulachon study area. ....................................................................................... 9-283
Figure 9.16-2. Historic eulachon spawning locations (ADF&G 1984). ................................. 9-284
Figure 9.16-3. Eulachon study interdependencies. ................................................................. 9-285
Figure 9.17-1. Study area for Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study. .............................................. 9-300
Figure 9.17-2. Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study interdependencies. ....................................... 9-301
Figure 10.5-1. Moose study area.............................................................................................. 10-14
Figure 10.5-2. Interdependencies for moose study. ................................................................. 10-15
Figure 10.6-1. Caribou study area. ........................................................................................... 10-23
Figure 10.6-2. Interdependencies for caribou study. ............................................................... 10-24
Figure 10.7-1. Dall’s sheep study area. .................................................................................... 10-30
Figure 10.7-2. Study interdependencies for Dall’s sheep study. ............................................. 10-31
Figure 10.8-1. Study area for large carnivores. ....................................................................... 10-43
Figure 10.8-2. Study interdependencies for the large carnivore study. ................................... 10-44
Figure 10.9-1. Wolverine study area. ....................................................................................... 10-52
Figure 10.9-2. Study interdependencies for Wolverine Study. ................................................ 10-53
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xlii December 2012
Figure 10.10-1. Terrestrial furbearer study area. ..................................................................... 10-66
Figure 10.10-2. Study interdependencies for Terrestrial Furbearer Study. ............................. 10-67
Figure 10.11-1. Aquatic furbearer study areas. ........................................................................ 10-78
Figure 10.11-2. Study interdependencies for the Aquatic Furbearer Study. ........................... 10-79
Figure 10.12-1. Study area for the small mammals study. ...................................................... 10-86
Figure 10.12-2. Study interdependencies for the small mammal study. ................................. 10-87
Figure 10.13-1. Bat study area. ................................................................................................ 10-95
Figure 10.13-2. Study interdependencies for the Bat Study. ................................................... 10-96
Figure 10.14-1. Study area for Surveys of Eagles and Other Raptors. .................................. 10-111
Figure 10.14-2. Study interdependencies for Surveys of Eagles and Other Raptors. ............ 10-112
Figure 10.15-1. Waterbird Migration, Breeding, and Habitat Use Study area. ..................... 10-127
Figure 10.15-2. Study interdependencies for the waterbird study. ........................................ 10-128
Figure 10.16-1. Landbird and shorebird study area. .............................................................. 10-143
Figure 10.16-2. Study interdependencies for the landbird and shorebird study. ................... 10-144
Figure 10.17-1. Willow Ptarmigan study area. ...................................................................... 10-154
Figure 10.17-2. A Sharp-tailed Grouse equipped with an ATS 3950 radio tag identical to the
model that will be used for Willow Ptarmigan. ............................................................. 10-155
Figure 10.17-3. Study interdependencies for the Willow Ptarmigan study. .......................... 10-156
Figure 10.18-1. Wood frog study area. .................................................................................. 10-166
Figure 10.18-2. Interdependencies for Wood Frog Study. .................................................... 10-167
Figure 10.19-1. Study area for evaluation of wildlife habitat use. The study area is a combination
of the wildlife habitat mapping areas from the Vegetation and Habitat Mapping Study
(Section 11.5) and the Riparian Vegetation Study (Section 11.6). ................................ 10-180
Figure 10.19-2. Study interdependencies for the wildlife habitat-use evaluation. ................ 10-181
Figure 10.20-1. Study area for the Wildlife Harvest Analysis. ............................................. 10-188
Figure 10.20-2. Study interdependencies for the Wildlife Harvest Analysis. ....................... 10-189
Figure 11.5-1. Study area for vegetation and wildlife habitat mapping for 2013 and 2014 in the
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project area. .................................................................... 11-15
Figure 11.5-2. Study interdependencies for the Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study
in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin. .......................................................................... 11-16
Figure 11.6-1. Preliminary riparian vegetation study area for 2013 and 2014 in the Susitna basin.
.......................................................................................................................................... 11-34
Figure 11.6-2. Diagram of Ecological Land Survey (ELS) plot for use in the riparian vegetation
study showing plot center (3-m radius), 6.5-m radius plot (trees < 5 cm DBH and tall
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xliii December 2012
shrubs), 11.5 m-radius plot (trees ≥ 5 cm), 16.25-m radius plot (snags), vegetation sampling
lines, and soil pit location. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, Alaska, 2013-2014. 11-35
Figure 11.6-3. Diagram of laser point sampler mounted on frost probe for use in the riparian
vegetation study, Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, Alaska, 2013-2014. ............... 11-36
Figure 11.6-4. Study interdependencies for the riparian vegetation study. ........................... 11-37
Figure 11.7-1. Study area for wetlands mapping in 2013 and 2014 in the Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project area. ............................................................................................... 11-53
Figure 11.7-2a. Study interdependencies for the Wetland Mapping Study in the Upper and
Middle Susitna Basin. ...................................................................................................... 11-54
Figure 11.7-2b. Study interdependencies for the Wetland Mapping Study in the Upper and
Middle Susitna Basin (continued). ................................................................................... 11-55
Figure 11.8-1. Study area for rare plant surveys in 2013 and 2014 in the Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project area. ............................................................................................... 11-64
Figure 11.8-2. Study interdependencies for the Rare Plant Study. .......................................... 11-65
Figure 11.9-1. Study interdependencies for the Invasive Plant Study. .................................... 11-74
Figure 12.5-1 Recreation Resources Study Area. .................................................................... 12-27
Figure 12.5-2 Survey Intercept Locations. .............................................................................. 12-28
Figure 12.5-3 Study interdependencies for recreation. ............................................................ 12-29
Figure 12.6-1 Aesthetic resources study area. ......................................................................... 12-46
Figure 12.6-2 Study interdependencies for aesthetics. ............................................................ 12-47
Figure 12.7-1 River Recreation - Reaches Study Area. ........................................................... 12-56
Figure 12.7-2 Recreation River Flow Study Interdependencies. ............................................. 12-57
Figure 13.1-1. Property ownership in the vicinity of the study area. ....................................... 13-32
Figure 13.5-1. Direct and indirect APEs for the cultural resource study. ................................ 13-33
Figure 13.5-2. Survey coverage accomplished in the late 1970s and early 1980s. ................. 13-34
Figure 13.5-3. Traditional Native language areas in the vicinity of the study area. ................ 13-35
Figure 13.5-4. Detail of testing accomplished in the late 1970s and early 1980s. .................. 13-36
Figure 13.5-5. Proposed survey methods in the direct and indirect APEs. ............................. 13-37
Figure 13.5-6. Study interdependencies for the cultural resources study. ............................... 13-38
Figure 13.6-1 Study Area for Paleontological Resources Study. ............................................ 13-45
Figure 13.6-2. Study interdependencies for the Paleontological Resources Study. ................ 13-46
Figure 14.5-1. Federally Designated Nonrural Areas. ............................................................. 14-21
Figure 14.5-2. State of Alaska Designated Nonsubsistence Areas. ......................................... 14-22
Figure 14.5-3. Overview of Subsistence Study Communities. ................................................ 14-23
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xliv December 2012
Figure 14.5-4. Study interdependencies for subsistence baseline documentation study. ........ 14-24
Figure 15.5-1. Study Interdependencies for the Regional Economic Evaluation Study. .......... 15-9
Figure 15.6-1. Fish and Wildlife Study Interdependencies for the Social Conditions and Public
Goods and Services Study ............................................................................................... 15-21
Figure 15.6-2.Recreation Study Interdependencies for the Social Conditions and Public Goods
and Services Study. .......................................................................................................... 15-21
Figure 15.6-3.Fish and Wildlife Harvest Study Interdependencies for the Social Conditions and
Public Goods and Services Study. ................................................................................... 15-22
Figure 15.6-4. Social Conditions and Public Goods and Services Study Interdependencies with
Transportation Study. ....................................................................................................... 15-23
Figure 15.7-1. Transportation Resources Study Interdependencies with Other Studies. ....... 15-33
Figure 15.8-1. HIA Interdependencies for Baseline Water Quality and Mercury Bioaccumulation
Studies. ............................................................................................................................. 15-42
Figure 15.8-2. HIA Interdependencies with Air Quality and associated Transportation Study
components. ..................................................................................................................... 15-43
Figure 15.8-3. HIA Interdependencies with the Transportation Study. ................................... 15-44
Figure 15.8-4. HIA Interdependencies with Social Conditions and Public Services Study. ... 15-45
Figure 15.8-5. HIA Interdependencies with Subsistence Study. ............................................. 15-46
Figure 15.9-1. Air Quality Study Interdependencies with Other Studies. .............................. 15-52
Figure 16.5-1. Interdependencies for Probable Maximum Flood Study. ................................ 16-10
Figure 16.6-1. Regional Faults (Csejtey et al, 1978; Plafker et al, 1994; Williams and Galloway,
1986). ............................................................................................................................... 16-19
Figure 16.6-2. Interdependencies for Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Study. ............................ 16-20
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1-1. 2012 Early Study Efforts
Attachment 2-1. Comprehensive Schedule
Attachment 5-1. Baseline Water Quality Monitoring - Sampling and Analysis Plan
(SAP)/Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).
Attachment 5-2. Water Quality Modeling Study - Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)/Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).
Attachment 5-3. Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study - Sampling and
Analysis Plan (SAP)/Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).
Attachment 5-4. Glossary of Terms and Acronyms - Water Quality.
Attachment 6-1. Glossary of Terms and Acronyms – Geomorphology.
Attachment 7-1. Glossary of Terms and Acronyms – Hydrology.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xlv December 2012
Attachment 8-1. Glossary of Terms and Acronyms - Instream Flow.
Attachment 8-2. Three-Year Seedling Cohort Longitudinal Establishment and Survival
Analysis.
Attachment 9-1. Glossary of Terms and Acronyms – Fisheries.
Attachment 12-1. Incidental Observation Form.
Attachment 12-2. Recreation Intercept Survey Instrument (Draft).
Attachment 12-3. Recreation Executive Interview Protocol (Draft).
Attachment 12-4. River Recreation and Access Survey Instrument (Draft).
Attachment 12-5. River Recreation and Access Executive Survey Interview Protocol (Draft).
Attachment 13-1. Plan for Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources and Human Remains.
Attachment 14-1.Review of Communities and Subsistence Use Areas in the Susitna River
Watershed.
Attachment 14-2. Household Harvest Survey Instrument (Draft).
Attachment 14-3. Household Harvest Survey Key Informant Interview Protocol (Draft).
Attachment 14-4. Active Harvester Subsistence Mapping Interview Protocol (Draft).
Attachment 14-5. Traditional Knowledge Workshop Protocol (Draft).
Attachment 15-1. Regional Economic Evaluation Interview Protocol.
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Comment Response Table of FERC-filed Comments.
Appendix 2 FERC-filed Letters Coded with Comment Identifiers.
Appendix 3 Comment Response Table of Informal Consultation, July - November 2012.
Appendix 4 Consultation Documentation for Informal Consultation, July - November 2012.
Appendix 5 Mapping References.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xlvi December 2012
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SCIENTIFIC LABELS
Abbreviation Definition
µg microgram
µg/L micrograms per liter
µg/m3 microgram per cubic meter
μL microliter(s)
14C Carbon 14
AAC Alaska Administrative Code
ac-ft acre-feet
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Active floodplain The flat valley floor constructed by a river during lateral channel migration and
deposition of sediment under current climate conditions.
ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Adfluvial Fish that spend a part of their life cycle in lakes and return to rivers and streams to
spawn.
ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources
ADOT&PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
ADOTPFCR ADOT Central Region Planning
ADOTPFNR ADOT Northern Region Planning
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
AEIDC Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center
AFB air force base
AFFI Alaska Freshwater Fish Inventory
Age-0 juvenile
The description of an organism that, in its natal year, has developed the anatomical
and physical traits characteristically similar to the mature life stage, but without the
capability to reproduce.
AHMG Alaska Habitat Management Guides
AHRS Alaska Heritage Resources Survey
Ahtna Ahtna, Inc.
AKNHP Alaska Natural Heritage Program
Algae Single-celled organisms (as individual or cells grouped together in colonies) that
contain chlorophyll-a and are capable of the photosynthesis.
Alluvial Relating to, composed of, or found in alluvium.
AMP Airport Master Plan
Anadromous Fishes that migrate as juveniles from freshwater to saltwater and then return as
adults to spawn in freshwater.
Anchor ice Submerged ice attached or anchored to the bottom, irrespective of the nature of its
formation. Often accumulates as frazil slush in open reaches.
ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980
ANOVA Analysis of variance, a collection of statistical models, and their associated
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xlvii December 2012
Abbreviation Definition
procedures, in which the observed variance in a particular variable is partitioned
into components attributable to different sources of variation.
APA Alaska Power Authority
APA Project APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project
APE area of potential effect
APLICs Alaska Public Lands Information Centers
Aquifer
A geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that contains
sufficient saturated permeable material to yield significant quantities of water to
springs and wells.
ARRC Alaska Railroad Corporation
AS Alaska Statutes
ASCP Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan
ASFDB Alaska Subsistence Fisheries Database
ASG Alaska Shorebird Group
Assay
Investigative (analytic) procedure in laboratory medicine, pharmacology,
environmental biology, and molecular biology for qualitatively assessing or
quantitatively measuring the presence or amount or the functional activity of a
target entity (the analyte).
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATV all-terrain vehicle
AVC Alaska Vegetation Classification
AWC
The Anadromous Waters Catalog, a catalog and atlas maintained by the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) of waters important for the spawning,
rearing or migration of anadromous fishes.
Backwater
Off-channel habitat characterization feature found along channel margins and
generally within the influence of the active main channel with no independent
source of inflow. Water is not clear.
Bank
The sloping land bordering a stream channel that forms the usual boundaries of a
channel. The bank has a steeper slope than the bottom of the channel and is
usually steeper than the land surrounding the channel.
Bankfull stage (flow) The discharge at which water completely fills a channel; the flow rate at which the
water surface is level with the floodplain.
Bankfull width The width of a river or stream channel between the highest banks on either side of
a stream.
Baseflow The portion of stream flow that comes from the sum of deep subsurface flow and
delayed shallow subsurface flow. It should not be confused with groundwater flow.
Baseline
Baseline (or Environmental Baseline): the environmental conditions that are the
starting point for analyzing the impacts of a proposed licensing action (such as
approval of a license application) and any alternative.
BCC birds of conservation concern
BDPs Best development practices
Beacon (tag) A beacon is an intentionally conspicuous device, in this case a telemetry tag,
designed to attract attention to a specific location.
Beaver complex Off-channel habitat characterization feature consisting of a ponded water body
created by beaver dams.
Benthos (benthic) Defining a habitat or organism found on the streambed or pertaining to the
streambed (or bottom) of a water body.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xlviii December 2012
Abbreviation Definition
BIA DOI, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Biotelemetry The remote detection and measurement of a human or animal function, activity, or
condition (as heart rate or body temperature)
BLM DOI, Bureau of Land Management
BLM-S BLM sensitive species
BLM-W BLM watch list species
BMC birds of management concern
BMPs best management practices
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
BOF Alaska Board of Fisheries
Bonferroni's method A statistical method used to counteract the problem of multiple comparisons.
Border ice Ice sheet in the form of a long border attached to the bank or shore; shore ice.
Boulder Substrate particles greater than 12 inches in diameter. Larger than cobble.
BP before present
BPIFWG Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group
Braided streams
Stream consisting of multiple small, shallow channels that divide and recombine
numerous times. Associated with glaciers, the braiding is caused by excess
sediment load.
Brash ice Accumulations of floating ice made up of fragments not more than about 2 meters
(6 feet) across; the wreckage of other forms of ice.
Break-up Disintegration of ice cover.
Break-up jam Ice jam that occurs as a result of the accumulation of broken ice pieces.
Break-up period Period of disintegration of an ice cover.
Calibration
In the context of hydrologic modeling, calibration is the process of adjusting input
variables to minimize the error between predicted and observed water surface
elevations or other hydrologic parameters.
Capillary fringe The subsurface layer in which groundwater seeps up from a water table by capillary
action to fill soil pores.
Carbon isotope ratio The identification of isotopic signature, the distribution of certain stable isotopes and
chemical elements within chemical compounds.
Cascade
The steepest of riffle habitats. Unlike rapids, which have an even gradient,
cascades consist of a series of small steps of alternating small waterfalls and
shallow pools.
CATC CIRI Alaska Tourism
Catch per unit effort The quantity of fish caught (in number or in weight) with one standard unit of fishing
effort.
Catchability coefficient (fishwheel) The relationship between the catch rate (CPUE) and the true population size, aka
effectiveness.
CCCMA Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis.
CDP census-designated place
CEII Critical Energy Infrastructure Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xlix December 2012
Abbreviation Definition
Channel A natural or artificial watercourse that continuously or intermittently contains water,
with definite bed and banks that confine all but overbank stream flows.
CIBW Cook Inlet Beluga Whales
CIRI Cook Inlet Region, Inc.
Cirques A bowl-shaped depression on the side of a mountain at the head of a glacier.
cm centimeter
CNIPM Alaska Committee for Noxious and Invasive Plants Management
Cobble Substrate particles between 3 and 12 inches in diameter. Larger than gravel and
smaller than boulder.
Commercial fishery
A term related to the whole process of catching and marketing fish and shellfish for
sale. It refers to and includes fisheries resources, fishermen, and related
businesses.
Conductivity In terms of water conductivity, the ability of water to conduct electricity, normally
through the presence of dissolved solids that carry electrical charges.
Confluence The junction of two or more rivers or streams.
Consecutive dry days Number of days in a row without precipitation.
Consecutive wet days Number of days in a row with precipitation.
COY cubs of the year
CPOM course particulate organic matter, particle size larger than 1 mm in size
Cross-section A plane across a river or stream channel perpendicular to the direction of water
flow.
CRREL U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New
Hampshire.
CSIS ADF&G Community Subsistence Information System
Datum A geometric plane of known or arbitrary elevation used as a point of reference to
determine the elevation, or change of elevation, of another plane (see gage datum).
DBSD Denali Borough School District
DCCED Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
Decision tree barrier analysis
A step-wise process for evaluating potential barriers in the field. Quantitative
metrics are used at each step in the decision tree to identify the impassability of the
potential barrier.
Degree-day Also termed freezing degree-day, a measure of the departure of the mean daily
temperature below a given standard, usually 0°C (32°F).
Delta A low, nearly flat accumulation of sediment deposited at the mouth of a river or
stream, commonly triangular or fan-shaped
DEM Digital elevation model.
Denaturation
Denaturation is a process in which proteins or nucleic acids lose the tertiary
structure and secondary structure which is present in their native state, by
application of some external stress or compound such as a strong acid or base, a
concentrated inorganic salt, an organic solvent, or heat.
Depth Water depth at the measuring point (station).
Devils Canyon
Located at approximately Susitna River Mile (RM) 150-161, Devils Canyon contains
four sets of turbulent rapids rated collectively as Class VI. This feature is a partial
fish barrier because of high water velocity.
DHSS Alaska Department of Health and Social Services
DIDSON Dual Frequency Identification Sonar. Sonar imaging instrumentation developed by
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page l December 2012
Abbreviation Definition
Sound Metrics Corp. with applications for fish enumeration, behavior and habitat
mapping.
Direct solar radiation Sunlight not blocked by clouds.
Discharge The rate of stream flow or the volume of water flowing at a location within a
specified time interval.
Discontinuous permafrost Permafrost that is laterally discontinuous, or isolated by thawed soils or bedrock.
Distribution (species) The manner in which a biological taxon is spatially arranged.
Diurnal Any pattern that reoccurs daily.
DNA A nucleic acid containing the genetic instructions used in the development and
functioning of all known living organisms.
DO dissolved oxygen. The amount of gaseous oxygen (O2) dissolved in the water
column.
DOI U.S. Department of the Interior
Downwelling The downward movement of water from rivers, streams, sloughs and other surface
water features into soils and bedrock.
Doyon Doyon, Ltd.
DPOR ADNR Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Drainage area The total land area draining to any point in a stream. Also called catchment area,
watershed, and basin.
DSM Demand Side Management
Duration of ice cover The time from freeze-up to break-up of an ice cover.
EARMP East Alaska Resource Management Plan
ECHAM5 A global climate model developed by the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.
Edge habitat The boundary between natural habitats, in this case between land and a stream.
Level five tier of the habitat classification system.
EE energy efficiency
Effectiveness (fishwheel) aka catachability coefficient, the relationship between the catch rate (CPUE) and
the true population size
EFH essential fish habitat
EIM Environmental Information Management
EIS environmental impact statement
El. elevation
Electrofishing A biological collection method that uses electric current to facilitate capturing fishes.
Emergence The process of becoming visible after being concealed, the escape of an organism
from an egg.
EMS emergency medical services
Entrainment The unintended diversion of fish into an unsafe passage route.
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EROS Earth Resources Observation System.
ESA Endangered Species Act
Escapement (spawning) The number or proportion of fish surviving (escaping from) a given fishery at the
end of the fishing season and reaching the spawning grounds.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page li December 2012
Abbreviation Definition
et al. “et alia”; and the rest
Evapotranspiration The sum of evaporation and plant transpiration to the atmosphere.
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FBOM fine benthic organic matter
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FHA USDOT Federal Highway Administration
Firn Granular, partially consolidated snow that has passed through one summer melt
season but is not yet glacial ice.
Fish barrier Barriers to fish migration
Fishers exact test A statistical significance test used in the analysis of contingency tables. Although in
practice it is employed when sample sizes are small, it is valid for all sample sizes.
Fishery Generally, a fishery is an activity leading to harvesting of fish. It may involve capture
of wild fish or raising of fish through aquaculture.
Fishing
Any activity, other than scientific research conducted by a scientific research
vessel, that involves the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish; or any attempt to do
so; or any activity that can reasonably be expected to result in the catching, taking,
or harvesting of fish, and any operations in support of it.
Fishing gear
The equipment used for fishing (e.g. gillnet, hand line, harpoon, haul seine, long
line, bottom and midwater trawls, purse seine, rod-and-reel, pots and traps). Each
of these gears can have multiple configurations.
Fishwheel
A device for catching fish which operates much as a water-powered mill wheel. A
wheel complete with baskets and paddles is attached to a floating dock. The wheel
rotates due to the current of the stream it is placed into. The baskets on the wheel
capture fish traveling upstream. The fish caught in the baskets fall into a holding
tank.
FLIR Forward looking infrared, an imaging technology that senses infrared radiation.
Can be used for watershed temperature monitoring.
Flood Any flow that exceeds the bankfull capacity of a stream or channel and flows out on
the floodplain.
Floodplain
1. The area along waterways that is subject to periodic inundation by out-of-bank
flows. 2. The area adjoining a water body that becomes inundated during periods of
over-bank flooding and that is given rigorous legal definition in regulatory programs.
3. Land beyond a stream channel that forms the perimeter for the maximum
probability flood. 4. A relatively flat strip of land bordering a stream that is formed by
sediment deposition. 5. A deposit of alluvium that covers a valley flat from lateral
erosion of meandering streams and rivers.
Floodplain vegetation − groundwater /
surface water regime functional groups
Assemblages of plants that have established and developed under similar
groundwater and surface water hydrologic regimes.
Fluvial Of or pertaining to the processes associated with rivers and streams and the
deposits and landforms created by them.
FMP Fishery Management Plan
Focus Area Areas selected for intensive investigation by multiple disciplines as part of the AEA
study program.
Fork length A measurement used frequently for fish length when the tail has a fork shape.
Projected straight distance between the tip of the snout and the fork of the tail.
FPOM fine benthic organic matter
fps feet per second
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page lii December 2012
Abbreviation Definition
FR Federal Register
Frazil Fine spicules, plates, or discoids of ice suspended in water. In rivers and lakes it is
formed in supercooled, turbulent waters.
Frazil pan A circular agglomerate of loosely packed frazil that floats.
Freeze-up jam Ice jam formed as frazil ice accumulates and thickens during the freeze-up period.
Freeze-up period Period of initial formation of an ice cover.
Fry A recently hatched fish. Sometimes defined as a young juvenile salmonid with
absorbed egg sac, less than 60 mm in length.
FS featured species
ft feet
ft MSL feet mean sea level
FY fiscal year
Fyke net Hoop nets are tubular shaped nets with a series of hoops or rings spaced along the
length of the net to keep it open.
g gram
Gaging station A specific site on a stream where systematic observations of stream flow or other
hydrologic data are obtained.
Genepop
A population genetics software package originally developed by Michel Raymond
and Francois Rousset, at the Laboratiore de Genetique et Environment,
Montpellier, France.
Genetic markers A gene or DNA sequence with a known location on a chromosome that can be used
to identify individuals or species.
Genetic tree A diagram showing the lineage or genealogy of an individual and all the direct
ancestors, usually to analyze or follow the inheritance of trait.
Genotype
The genetic makeup of a cell, an organism, or an individual (i.e. the specific allele
makeup of the individual) usually with reference to a specific character under
consideration.[
Geohydrologic unit An aquifer, a confining unit, or a combination of aquifers and confining units
comprising a framework for a reasonably distinct geohydrologic system.
Geohydrology The study of water in the Earth’s surface, commonly called groundwater.
Geomorphic mapping A map design technique that defines, delimits and locates landforms.
Geomorphic reach Level two tier of the habitat classification system. Separates major hydraulic
segments into unique reaches based on the channel’s geomorphic characteristic.
Geomorphology The scientific study of landforms and the processes that shape them.
Gillnet With this type of gear, the fish are gilled, entangled or enmeshed in the netting.
These nets may be used to fish on the surface, in midwater or on the bottom.
GIS
Geographic Information System. An integrated collection of computer software and
data used to view and manage information about geographic places, analyze
spatial relationships, and model spatial processes.
Glacial mass wasting When large amounts of glacial ice rapidly disintegrate and melt.
Glacial surge
Relatively rapid movement of a glacier down-gradient. Frequently accompanied by
increased flow of meltwater and additional sediment production. These events
typically have a sudden onset, extremely high (tens of meters/day) maximum flow
rate, and a sudden termination, often with a discharge of stored water.
Glacier geometry changes Changes in the size or shape of a glacier over time.
Glacier mass balance The difference between accumulation and ablation of a glacier.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page liii December 2012
Abbreviation Definition
Glacier outburst A sudden release of water from a glacier.
Glacier retreat The upslope migration of the terminus of a glacier.
Glide An area with generally uniform depth and flow with no surface turbulence. Low
gradient; 0-1 % slope.
GMP General Management Plan
GMU Game Management Unit
GPS global positioning system. A system of radio-emitting and -receiving satellites used
for determining positions on the earth.
Gradient The rate of change of any characteristic, expressed per unit of length (see Slope).
May also apply to longitudinal succession of biological communities.
Gravel Substrate particles between 0.1 and 3.0 inches in size, larger than sand and
smaller than cobble.
Grounded ice Ice that has run aground or is in contact with the ground underneath it.
Groundwater (GW) In the broadest sense, all subsurface water; more commonly that part of the
subsurface water in the saturated zone.
Growth rate Annual or seasonal. The increase in weight of a fish per year (or season), divided
by the initial weight.
Growth Rate Potential The amount of growth predicted for fish with known prey availability and
environmental conditions.
GU globally unrankable
GVEA Golden Valley Electric Association
GW/SW interactions The physical interactions between groundwater and surface water.
GWh gigawatt-hours
Habitat
The environment in which the fish live, including everything that surrounds and
affects its life, e.g. water quality, bottom, vegetation, associated species (including
food supplies). The locality, site and particular type of local environment occupied
by an organism.
Habitat Suitability Criteria
A graph/mathematical equation describing the suitability for use of areas within a
stream channel related to water depth, velocity and substrate by various species/life
stages of fish.
Habitat Suitability Index A suitability index providing a probability that the habitat is suitable for the species,
and hence a probability that the species will occur where that habitat occurs.
Habitat Suitability Modeling A tool for predicting the quality or suitability of habitat for a given species based on
known affinities with habitat characteristics, such as depth and substrate type.
Hanging dam A mass of ice composed mainly of frazil or broken ice deposited under an ice cover
in a region of low flow velocity.
Harvest The total number or weight of fish caught and kept from an area over a period of
time.
HEA Homer Electric Association
Heat transfer model A model for migration of heat from a warm body to cold.
Hierarchical log-likelihood ratio
analysis
A technique used in statistics to examine the relationship between more than two
categorical variables.
Histogram A graphical representation showing a visual impression of the distribution of data. It
is an estimate of the probability distribution of a continuous variable.
Homogeneity
Homogeneity is the state of being homogeneous. Pertaining to the sciences, it is a
substance where all the constituents are of the same nature; consisting of similar
parts, or of elements of the like nature.
Hook and line A type of fishing gear consisting of a hook tied to a line.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page liv December 2012
Abbreviation Definition
Hoop net Hoop nets are tubular shaped nets with a series of hoops or rings spaced along the
length of the net to keep it open.
HRM Historic River Mile
Hummocked ice Ice piled haphazardly, one piece over another, to form an uneven surface.
Hydraulic head A measure of energy or pressure, expressed in terms of the vertical height of a
column of water that has the same pressure difference.
Hydraulic model A computer model of a segment of river used to evaluate stream flow
characteristics over a range of flows.
Hydrograph A graph showing stage, flow, velocity, or other property of water with respect to
time.
Hyporheic
The hyporheic zone is the subsurface volume of sediment and porous space
beneath and lateral to a river or streambed, where there is mixing of shallow
groundwater and surface water.
Hyporheic flow Shallow subsurface (groundwater) flow through porous sediments adjacent to river
channels.
Ice bridge A continuous ice cover of limited size extending from shore to shore like a bridge.
Ice concentration
The ratio (in eighths or tenths) of the water surface actually covered by ice to the
total area of surface, both ice-covered and ice-free, at a specific location or over a
defined area.
Ice cover A significant expanse of ice of any form on the surface of a body of water.
Ice floe Free-floating piece of ice greater than about 1 meter (3 feet) in extent.
Ice jam A stationary accumulation of fragmented ice or frazil that restricts or blocks a
stream channel.
Ice run Flow of ice in a river. An ice run may be light or heavy, and may consist of frazil or
broken sheet ice.
Ice-free No floating ice present.
IFRR Instream Flow Relationships Report
ILP Integrated Licensing Process
in Inch
Inclined plane trap
This trap consists of a revolving screen suspended between two pontoons.
Downstream migrant fish reaching the back of the trap are dropped into a live box
where they can later be enumerated.
Index count An index is a statistic that is assumed to be correlated to the true parameter of
interest (population) in some way
Instream flow The rate of flow in a river or stream channel at any time of year.
IFIM
Instream Flow Incremental Methodology integrates concepts of water-supply
planning, analytical hydraulic engineering models, and empirically derived habitat-
versus-flow functions to address water-use and instream-flow issues and questions
concerning life-stage-specific effects on selected species and the general well-
being of aquatic biological populations.
Interannual stream flow variations Changes in stream flow on a year-to-year basis.
Interflow The lateral movement of water in the upper part of the unsaturated zone, or vadose
zone, which directly enters a stream channel or other body of water.
Intergravel Intergravel refers to the subsurface environment within the riverbed.
Invertebrate All animals without a vertebral column; for example, aquatic insects.
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page lv December 2012
Abbreviation Definition
ISER University of Alaska Anchorage Institute for Social and Economic Research
ISR Initial Study Report
Juvenile A young fish or animal that has not reached sexual maturity.
kcmil circular mils
kg kilogram
km kilometer
km2 kilometer(s) squared
kV kilovolt
L liter(s)
LAI
Leaf area index. LAI is the one-sided green leaf area per unit ground area in
broadleaf canopies, or as the projected needle leaf area per unit ground area in
needle canopies.
lb pound
Leading edge of ice cover The upstream extent of a continuous ice cover that is progressing upstream via
juxtaposition (accumulation) of frazil ice pans.
licensing participants; Participants Agencies, ANSCA corporations, Alaska Native entities and other licensing
participants
LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging. An optical remote sensing technology that can
measure the distance to a target; can be used to create a topographic map.
Life stage
An arbitrary age classification of an organism into categories relate to body
morphology and reproductive potential, such as spawning, egg incubation, larva or
fry, juvenile, and adult.
Loci The position of a gene (or other significant sequence) on a chromosome.
LOEL Lowest Observable Effect Level
LOKI
A software package developed by Simon C. Heath, which analyses a quantitative
trait observed on large pedigrees using Markov chain Monte Carlo multipoint
linkage and segregation analysis.
Lotic Refers to flowing water.
Lower segment Susitna The Susitna River from Cook Inlet (RM 0) to the confluence of the Chulitna River at
RM 98.
LP DAAC Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center.
LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan
LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund
LWD large woody debris
m meter(s)
M million
m2 square meter(s)
Macroinvertebrate An invertebrate animal without a backbone that can be seen without magnification.
Main channel For habitat classification system: a single dominant main channel. Also, the primary
downstream segment of a river, as contrasted to its tributaries.
Main channel habitat
Level four tier of the habitat classification system. Separates main channel habitat
types including: tributary mouth, main channel, split main channel, multiple split
main channel and side channel into mesohabitat types. Mesohabitat tyes include
pool, glide, run, riffle, and rapid.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page lvi December 2012
Abbreviation Definition
Mainstem
Mainstem refers to the primary river corridor, as contrasted to its tributaries.
Mainstem habitats include the main channel, split main channels, side channels,
tributary mouths, and off-channel habitats.
Mainstem habitat
Level three tier of the habitat classification systems. Separates mainstem habitat
into main channel, off-channel, and tributary habitat types. Main channel habitat
types include: tributary mouth, main channel, split main channel, multiple split main
channel and side channel. Off-channel habitat types include: side slough, upland
slough, backwater, and beaver complex. Tributary habitat is not further categorized.
Major hydraulic segment
Level one tier of the habitat classification system. Separates the River into three
segments: Lower River (RM 0-98), Middle River (RM 98-184), and Upper River (RM
184-233).
Manning’s equation
V = 1.486 R2/3S1/2/n in English units (V = R2/3S1/2/n in SI units) where V = mean
flow velocity, R = hydraulic radius, and S = hydraulic slope; n is a coefficient of
roughness.
MAPS Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship
Mat-Su Matanuska Susitna
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MEA Matanuska Electric Association
Mesh size The size of holes in a fishing net.
Mesohabitat
A discrete area of stream exhibiting relatively similar characteristics of depth,
velocity, slope, substrate, and cover, and variances thereof (e.g., pools with
maximum depth <5 ft, high gradient rimes, side channel backwaters).
MET Meteorological stations.
mg milligram
mg/L milligrams per liter
mi mile(s)
mi2; sq.mi. square mile(s)
Middle segment Susitna The Susitna River from the confluence of the Chulitna River at RM 98 to the
proposed Watana Dam Site at RM 184.
Migrant (life history type) Some species exhibit a migratory life history type and undergo a migration to from
rivers/lakes/ocean.
Migration Systematic (as opposed to random) movement of individuals of a stock from one
place to another, often related to season.
Minnow trap Normally composed of small steel mesh with 2-piece torpedo shape design, this
trap is disconnected in the middle for easy baiting and fish removal.
MIROC Model for Interdisciplinary Research on Climate.
Mixed stock (fishery) A fishery whose stock consists of fish that are of a variety of ages, sizes, species,
geographic or genetic origins or any combination of these variables.
Mixed stock analyses
Traditional mixed stock analyses use morphological, chemical, or genetic markers
measured in several source populations and in a single mixed population to
estimate the proportional contribution of each source to the mixed population.
ml milliliter(s)
ML&P Anchorage Municipal Light and Power
mm millimeter(s)
MODFLOW The name of a common USGS finite difference 3-D groundwater flow model.
MON Museum of the North
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page lvii December 2012
Abbreviation Definition
Monte Carlo
Monte Carlo simulation is a statistical approach whereby the inputs that are used
for a calculation are resampled many times assuming that the inputs follow known
statistical distributions.
MP mile post
mph miles per hour
MRLC Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics.
MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
MSB Matanuska-Susitna Borough
MSL mean sea level
Multidimensional scaling A set of related statistical techniques often used in information visualization for
exploring similarities or dissimilarities in data.
Multiple split main channel Main channel habitat characterization feature where more than three distributed
dominant channels are present.
MVA megavolt-Ampere
MW megawatts (one million watts)
MWh megawatt hour
n.d. no date
N/A not applicable or not available
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NARR North America Regional Reanalysis.
NAWCP North American Waterfowl Conservation Plan
NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan
NCI Northern Cook Inlet
NCIMA Northern Cook Inlet Management Area (sport fish harvest)
NCM Newton centimeter
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
Nested design
Nested design (sometimes referred to as a hierarchical design) is used for
experiments in which there is an interest in a set of treatments and the experimental
units are sub-sampled.
NGO non-governmental organization
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
Nitrogen isotope
Stable isotopes are method for understanding aquatic ecosystems because they
can help scientists in understanding source links and process information in marine
food webs. Certain isotopes can signify distinct primary producers forming the
bases of food webs and trophic level positioning. Nitrogen isotopes indicate the
trophic level position of various marine organisms.
NLCD National Land Cover Dataset
NLUR Northern Land Use Research
NMFS NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service
No. number
NO2; NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page lviii December 2012
Abbreviation Definition
Nodes (genetic tree) Nodes represent taxonomic units, such as an organism, a species, a population, a
common ancestor, or even an entire genus or other higher taxonomic group.
NOEL No Observed Effects Level
NOI Notice of Intent
Non-native Not indigenous to or naturally occurring in a given area.
NPS DOI, National Park Service
NRCS USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
NWR National Wildlife Refuge
O&M operations and maintenance
O3 ozone
ºC degrees Celsius
ºF degrees Fahrenheit
Off-channel Those bodies of water adjacent to the main channel that have surface water
connections to the main river at some discharge levels.
Off-channel habitat Habitat within those bodies of water adjacent to the main channel that have surface
water connections to the main river at some discharge levels.
OHV off-highway vehicle
Open lead Elongated opening in the ice cover caused by water current (velocity lead) or warm
water (thermal lead).
OPMP Office of Project Management and Permitting
ORV off-road vehicle
Otolith The ear bone of a fish. Otoliths have rings on them like the rings on a tree stump,
and are used to find the age of the fish and its growth rate.
Outmigrant trap Several types of trapping equipment that can be used to estimate the abundance of
downstream migrating anadromous salmonid smolts.
Overbank flow Flow that exceeds the level of a river’s banks and extends into the floodplain. Also
overflow.
Overwintering
Freshwater habitat used by salmonids during the winter for incubation of eggs and
alevin in the gravel and for rearing of juveniles overwintering in the stream system
before migrating to saltwater the following spring.
PAD Pre-Application Document
Partial barrier A feature that is impassable to some fish species, during part or all life stages at all
flows.
Pb lead
PCE primary constituent elements
PDD Preliminary Decision Document
Period of record The length of time for which data for an environmental variable has been collected
on a regular and continuous basis.
Permafrost Earth materials that remains continuously at or below 0oC for at least two
consecutive years.
Permanent barrier A feature that is impassable to all fish at all flows. Results in the exclusion of all
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page lix December 2012
Abbreviation Definition
species from portions of a watershed.
Permeability The capacity of a rock for transmitting a fluid; a measure of the relative ease with
which a porous medium can transmit a liquid.
Personal use fishery
In Alaska, "Personal use" is a legally defined regulatory category of fishery. It is
defined as "the taking, fishing for, or possession of finfish, shellfish, or other fishery
resources, by Alaska residents for personal use and not for sale or barter, with gill
or dip net, seine, fishwheel, long line, or other means defined by the Board of
Fisheries".
pH A measure of the acidity or basicity of a solution.
PHABSIM
Physical Habitat Simulation, aspecific model designed to calculate an index to the
amount of microhabitat available for different life stages at different flow levels.
PHABSIM has two major analytical components: stream hydraulics and life stage-
specific habitat requirements.
PhD Doctor of Philosophy
Piezometer A type of groundwater well installed to specifically measure water levels or pressure
levels.
PIT Passive Integrated Transponder tags used to individually identify animals and
monitor their movements.
PL Public Law
PLC programmable logic controller
PLP Preliminary Licensing Proposal
PM particulate matter
PM&E protection, mitigation and enhancement
PM10; PM10 particulate matter up to 10 microns in diameter
PM2.5; PM2.5 particulate matter up to 2.5 microns in diameter
PMF probable maximum flood
Pool Slow water habitat with minimal turbulence and deeper due to a strong hydraulic
control.
Porosity The ratio of the volume of voids in a rock or soil to the total volume.
Potentiometric surface
An imaginary surface representing the static head of ground water in tighty cased
wells that tap a water-bearing rock unit (aquifer); or, in the case of unconfined
aquifers, the water table.
POW palustrine open water (ponds under 20 ac)
ppb parts per billion
PRECPTOT Total precipitation for a year.
PRISM
Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model. PRISM uses
point measurements of precipitation, temperature, and other climatic factors to
produce continuous, digital grid estimates of monthly, yearly, and event-based
climatic parameters.
Process domains Define specific geographic areas in which various geomorphic processes govern
habitat attributes and dynamics (Montgomery 1999).
Project Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PSP Proposed Study Plan
Pump test A method of determining aquifer properties by pumping water from a well and
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page lx December 2012
Abbreviation Definition
measuring the water level drawdown or recovery in the well, and nearby
piezometers or wells.
Q Hydrological abbreviation for discharge, usually presented as cfs (cubic feet per
second) or cms (cubic meters per second). Flow (discharge at a cross-section).
R (program)
R is an open source programming language and software environment for statistical
computing and graphics. The R language is widely used among statisticians for
developing statistical software and data analysis.
Radiotelemetry Involves the capture and placement of radio-tags in adult fish that allow for the
remote tracking of movements of individual fish.
Ramping rates The rate at which (typically inches per hour) a flow is artificially altered to
accommodate diversion requirements.
Rapid
Swift, turbulent flow including small chutes and some hydraulic jumps swirling
around boulders. Exposed substrate composed of individual boulders, boulder
clusters, and partial bars. Lower gradient and less dense concentration of boulders
and white water than Cascade. Moderate gradient; usually 2.0-4.0% slope.
RASP Regional Aviation System Plan
RCC roller compacted concrete
Rd recreation-dispersed
Rearing Rearing is the term used by fish biologists that considers the period of time in which
juvenile fish feed and grow.
Recreational Fishery
Harvesting fish for personal use, sport, and challenge (e.g. as opposed to profit or
research). Recreational fishing does not include sale, barter, or trade of all or part of
the catch.
Redd The spawning ground or nest of various fishes
Refugia
An area protected from disturbance and exposure to adverse environmental
conditions where fish or other animals can find shelter from sudden flow surges,
adverse water quality, or other short-duration disturbances.
Regime The general pattern (magnitude and frequency) of flow or temperature events
through time at a particular location (such as snowmelt regime, rainfall regime).
Relative abundance Relative abundance is an estimate of actual or absolute abundance; usually stated
as some kind of index.
Reservoir A body of water, either natural or artificial, that is used to manipulate flow or store
water for future use.
Resident Resident fish as opposed to anadromous remain in the freshwater environment
year-round
Riffle
A fast water habitat with turbulent, shallow flow over submerged or partially
submerged gravel and cobble substrates. Generally broad, uniform cross-section.
Low gradient; usually 0.5-2.0% slope.
Riparian Pertaining to anything connected with or adjacent to the bank of a stream or other
body of water.
Riparian process domain Define specific geographic areas in which various geomorphic processes govern
floodplain habitat attributes and dynamics.
Riparian vegetation Vegetation that is dependent upon an excess of moisture during a portion of the
growing season on a site that is perceptively more moist than the surrounding area.
Riparian zone A stream and all the vegetation on its banks that is influenced by the presence of
the stream, including surface flow, hyporheic flow and microclimate.
RIRP Railbelt Integrated Resources Plan
River A large stream that serves as the natural drainage channel for a relatively large
catchment or drainage basin.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page lxi December 2012
Abbreviation Definition
River corridor
A perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral stream and adjacent vegetative fringe. The
corridor is the area occupied during high water and the land immediately adjacent,
including riparian vegetation that shades the stream, provides input of organic
debris, and protects banks from excessive erosion.
River mile The distance of a point on a river measured in miles from the river's mouth along
the low-water channel.
RM River Mile(s) (add clarification for origin of RM Project vs historic)
ROS recreational opportunity spectrum
Rosgen channel-type
The Rosgen stream classification system which categorizes streams based on
channel morphology so that consistent, reproducible, and quantitative descriptions
can be made.
RS revised statute
RSP Revised Study Plan
RTE rare, threatened and endangered
RTK Real time kinematic, in reference to a GPS survey method.
Run (habitat)
A habitat area with minimal surface turbulence over or around protruding boulders
with generally uniform depth that is generally greater than the maximum substrate
size. Velocities are on border of fast and slow water. Gradients are approximately
0.5 % to less than 2%. Generally deeper than riffles with few major flow
obstructions and low habitat complexity.
Run (migration)
Seasonal migration undertaken by fish, usually as part of their life history; for
example, spawning run of salmon, upstream migration of shad. Fishers may refer to
increased catches as a “run” of fish, a usage often independent of their migratory
behavior.
s second
Sand Substrate particles less than 0.1 inches in diameter, smaller than gravel.
SANPCC Southcentral Alaska Northern Pike Control Committee
SaSI Salmonid Stock Inventory
SB Senate bill
SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
Screw trap A floating trap that relies on an Archimedes screw built into a screen covered cone
that is suspended between two pontoons is used.
SCRO ADNR South Central Regional Office
SD1 Scoping Document 1
SD2 Scoping Document 2
SDVCSC South Denali Visitor Center Steering Committee
Seasonal barrier
A feature that is impassable to all fish at certain flow conditions (based on run
timing and flow conditions). Can result in a delay in movement beyond the barrier
for some period of time.
Sediment Solid material, both mineral and organic, that is in suspension in the current or
deposited on the streambed.
Sediment load The portion of the sediment that is carried by a fluid flow which settle slowly enough
such that it almost never touches the bed.
Sediment transport
The movement of solid particles (sediment), typically due to a combination of the
force of gravity acting on the sediment, and/or the movement of the fluid in which
the sediment is entrained.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page lxii December 2012
Abbreviation Definition
Seine (beach)
A fishing net that hangs vertically in the water with its bottom edge held down by
weights and its top edge buoyed by floats. Seine nets can be deployed from the
shore as a beach seine, or from a boat.
SES City of Seward Electric System
sf; ft2 Square foot (feet)
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
Side channel
Lateral channel with an axis of flow roughly parallel to the mainstem, which is fed by
water from the mainstem; a braid of a river with flow appreciably lower than the
main channel. Side channel habitat may exist either in well-defined secondary
(overflow) channels, or in poorly-defined watercourses flowing through partially
submerged gravel bars and islands along the margins of the mainstem.
Side slough Off-channel habitat characterization of an Overflow channel contained in the
floodplain, but disconnected from the main channel. Has clear water,
Side-scan sonar Side scan sonar uses transducers that emit fan-shaped acoustic pulses down
toward the riverbed or seafloor.
Simple daily intensity index Known also as SDII, it is the annual total precipitation divided by the number of wet
days in the year.
Slope The inclination or gradient from the horizontal of a line or surface.
Slough
A widely used term for wetland environment in a channel or series of shallow lakes
where water is stagnant or may flow slowly on a seasonal basis. Also known as a
stream distributary or anabranch.
Slush ice An agglomerate of loosely packed frazil floating on the water surface or adhered to
the bed or underside of the ice cover.
SMAP Susitna Matanuska Area Plan
Smolt An adolescent salmon which has metamorphosed and which is found on its way
downstream toward the sea.
Smoltification The physiological changes anadromous salmonids and trout undergo in freshwater
while migrating toward saltwater that allow them to live in the ocean.
SMP Shoreline Management Plan
SNAP Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning.
SNP markers
Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) is a change to a single nucleotide in a DNA
sequence. The relative mutation rate for an SNP is extremely low. This makes them
ideal for marking the history of genetic trees.
SO2; SO2 Sulfur dioxide
Soil heat transfer
Heat flow between the soil surface and the deeper layers. Heat transfer varies with
soil type, moisture, horizon, etc. The flow of heat is directed from warmer layers to
cooler layers. Heat transfer in soil is substantially influenced by the snow cover,
vegetation, and terrain.
Soil water storage variations Seasonal changes in where and how water is stored in a hydraulic system.
Solar geometry Angle of the sun’s rays to the surface.
Spaghetti tag
A long, thin external tag type used to mark individual fish. Sometimes referred to as
anchor or dart tags, they are usually made of vinyl tubing that can have study
information printed upon.
Spawning The depositing and fertilizing of eggs by fish and other aquatic life.
Split main channel Main channel habitat characterization where three of fewer distributed dominant
channels.
Sport fishery Also known a recreational fishery, a sport fishery consists of fish taken for pleasure
or competition. It can be contrasted with commercial fishing, which is fishing for
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page lxiii December 2012
Abbreviation Definition
profit, or subsistence fishing, which is fishing for survival.
Spring Area where there is a concentrated discharge of groundwater that flows at the
ground surface.
SpUD Special use district
SQL Standard query language
SRMAs Special Recreation Management Areas
Stable isotope analysis
Stable isotopes have become a popular method for understanding aquatic
ecosystems because they can help scientists in understanding source links and
process information in marine food webs. Certain isotopes can signify distinct
primary producers forming the bases of food webs and trophic level positioning.
Stage The distance of the water surface in a river above a known datum.
Stage-discharge relationship The relation between the water-surface elevation, termed stage (gage height), and
the volume of water flowing in a channel per unit time.
Staging Increase in water levels upstream of the leading edge of ice cover caused by the
partial blockage of the channel by ice.
STATSGO
U.S. General Soil Map Data, a digital general soil association map developed by
the National Cooperative Soil Survey and distributed by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
STB Surface Transportation Board
Stranding Fish stranding is any event in which fish are restricted to poor habitat as a
consequence of physical separation from a main body of water.
Stratified sampling
A method of sampling from a population. In statistical surveys, when
subpopulations within an overall population vary, it is advantageous to sample each
subpopulation (stratum) independently. Stratification is the process of dividing
members of the population into homogeneous subgroups before sampling.
Streambed The bottom of the stream channel; may be wet or dry.
Subsistence fishery A fishery that is typically small-scale and low-technology aimed at supporting
oneself at a minimum level.
Supercooled water Water with a temperature slightly below the freezing point (0°C or 32°F).
SVO Successor Village Organizations
SW Surface water. Water that has not infiltrated below ground surface, including rivers,
streams, sloughs, lakes, ponds, wetlands.
SWHS Statewide Harvest Survey
TCP traditional cultural property
TCW Talkeetna Mountains and Chulitna-Watana Hills
TDG total dissolved gas
TDS total dissolved solids
TEK Traditional Environmental Knowledge
Temporary barrier
A feature that that is impassable to all fish for a period of time and is not flow
dependent. Temporary instream barriers are widely used for construction and
maintenance purposes, as well as access and erosion control.
Terminus The down-gradient end of a glacier.
Thalweg A continuous line that defines the deepest channel of a watercourse.
Thermal break-up Melting in place. Also called in situ break-up.
Thermal cycling Consists of cycles of repeated heating and cooling of the reaction for DNA melting
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page lxiv December 2012
Abbreviation Definition
and enzymatic replication of the DNA.
Thermal ice Solid ice formed in place in low-velocity areas.
Three Rivers Confluence
The confluence of the Susitna, Chulitna, and Talkeetna rivers at Susitna River Mile
(RM) 98.5 represents the downstream end of the Middle River and the upstream
end of the Upper River.
TM Thematic Mapper. One of the Earth observing sensors introduced in the Landsat
program.
TOC total organic carbon
Tracer study
In terms of groundwater applications, the use chemical or physical (usually
temperature) properties to determine groundwater pathways and mass exchange
with surface water.
Trap and haul A fish passage facility designed to trap fish for upstream or downstream transport to
continue their migration.
Tributary A stream feeding, joining, or flowing into a larger stream (at any point along its
course or into a lake). Synonyms: feeder stream, side stream.
Tributary mouth Main channel habitat characterization of clear water areas that exist where
tributaries flow into Susitna River main channel or side channel habitats.
Trimline Soil stripped of vegetation by a glacier.
Trotline
A heavy fishing line with baited hooks attached at intervals by means of branch
lines called snoods. A snood is a short length of line which is attached to the main
line using a clip or swivel, with the hook at the other end.
TSP total suspended particulate
Turbidity The condition resulting from the presence of suspended particles in the water
column which attenuate or reduce light penetration.
TWG Technical Workgroup
U.S., US United States
U.S.C.; USC U.S. Code
UAAES University of Alaska Agriculture Experiment Station
UAFAFES University of Alaska Fairbanks Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station
UCG underground coal gasification
UCIMA Upper Cook Inlet Management Area (commercial fish harvest)
Unconfined aquifer Aquifer whose upper surface is a water table free to fluctuate.
Undercut bank A bank that rises vertically or overhangs the stream.
Underwater video
Underwater video imaging which can record images in real-time over short time
intervals and can provide information on fish species presence/absence in the
immediate vicinity. Although water clarity and lighting can limit the effectiveness of
video sampling, a distinct advantage of video over DIDSON is the ability to clearly
identify fish species.
Unsaturated zone A subsurface zone above the water table where the pore spaces may contain a
combination of air and water.
Upland slough
Off-channel habitat characterization feature that is similar to a side slough, but
contains a vegetated bar at the head that is rarely overtopped by mainstem
flow. Has clear water.
Upper segment Susitna The Susitna River upstream of the proposed Watana Dam Site at RM 184.
Upstream fish passage A fishway system designed to pass fish upstream of a passage impediment, either
by volitional passage or non-volitional passage.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page lxv December 2012
Abbreviation Definition
Upwelling
The movement of groundwater into rivers, stream, sloughs and other surface water
features. This is also called groundwater discharge and may be associated with a
gaining reach of a river or stream.
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USCB U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
USFS USDA, Forest Service
USFWS DOI, Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS DOI, Geological Survey
USR Updated Study Report
USSCP U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan
VFD Volunteer Fire Department
VHF very high frequency
VOC volatile organic compound
Volitional passage Fish passage made continuously available without trap and transport.
VRM Visual Resource Management system
WaSiM Water Balance Simulation Model.
Watana Dam
The dam proposed by the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric project. The approximately
750-foot-high Watana Dam (as measured from sound bedrock) would be located at
river mile (RM) 184 on the Susitna River. The dam would block the upstream
passage of Chinook salmon, possibly other salmon species, and resident fish that
migrate through and otherwise use the proposed Watana Dam site and upstream
habitat in the Susitna River and tributaries.
Water slope Change in water surface elevation per unit distance.
Water stage The water surface elevation above the bottom of the river channel or above some
arbitrary datum.
Water table The top water surface of an unconfined aquifer at atmospheric pressure.
Wetted channel width (wetted
Perimeter)
The length of the wetted contact between a stream of flowing water and the stream
bottom in a plane at right angles to the direction of flow.
WGEN
Weather generator model that can be used to generate daily values for
precipitation, maximum temperature, minimum temperature, and solar radiation.
The model accounts for the persistence of each variable, the dependence among
the variables, and the seasonal characteristics of each variable.
WSR Wild and Scenic River
yd Yard
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-1 December 2012
Revised Study Plan (RSP)
1. INTRODUCTION TO RSP
This document provides the Alaska Energy Authority’s (AEA) Revised Study Plan (RSP) for
original licensing of the proposed Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (Project), Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) Project No. 14241. This RSP is
required under FERC’s Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) regulations, 18 CFR § 5.13, and
includes a suite of 58 individual study plans to support the licensing of the Project. This RSP
builds upon the study plans in the Proposed Study Plan (PSP), and has been prepared through
extensive consultation with Federal and State resource agencies, Alaska Native entities, Non-
governmental Organizations (NGOs), members of the public, and other licensing participants
(collectively, licensing participants).
As described in detail below, although AEA is pursuing a license under FERC’s default ILP
regulations, AEA has gone beyond the ILP regulatory requirements in the study development
process to take a more collaborative approach. AEA recognizes the importance of working
closely with licensing participants in the development of licensing studies that will support
AEA’s License Application, inform protection, mitigation and enhancement (PM&E) measures,
serve as a foundation to environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), and support all needed state and federal permits including FERC’s licensing
determination under the Federal Power Act (FPA). AEA appreciates the extraordinary effort of
all licensing participants over the last several months to engage actively in this intensive process.
As a result of these efforts, this RSP incorporates significant changes from the PSP released in
July 2012. Based on recent comments filed with FERC by licensing participants, AEA believes
that this RSP resolves the majority of study-related issues raised in the ILP. While some issues
do remain for Commission resolution, AEA believes that this enhanced consultative effort—
which included a complete additional iteration of the study plans as an interim draft RSP
distributed for comment—was well worth the significant investment of time, resources and effort
by all to participate in this process.
1.1. Background of RSP Development
1.1.1. NOI, PAD, and Communication Protocol
On December 29, 2011 AEA filed with FERC its NOI and PAD to start formal licensing for the
proposed Project. As required by FERC’s regulations, 18 CFR § 5.6, the PAD provided licensing
participants with existing relevant and reasonably available information related to the Project, to
enable licensing participants to identify information needs, develop study requests and study
plans, and prepare documents analyzing issues related to any application filed by AEA.
Section 5 of the PAD identified issues and preliminary study concepts that AEA developed
during early consultation with licensing participants. Although FERC’s ILP regulations do not
require broad-based consultation prior to preparation and distribution of the PAD, AEA felt it
was important to set the tone for an open and enhanced public process. Consequently, starting in
early 2011, AEA implemented an outreach program and initiated baseline environmental
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-2 December 2012
information gathering activities. During this period, AEA conducted meetings and posted
extensive licensing information on its Project website, http://susitna-watanahydro.org. These
early meetings, summarized in Appendix 6-1 of the PAD, were instrumental in helping AEA
identify and scope issues, and develop initial study plans included in the PAD.
In addition, as part of its goals of facilitating communication and cooperation among AEA and
other licensing participants, AEA voluntarily developed a Communication Protocol that it
included in the PAD. The Communication Protocol was intended to be “a structured framework
for communications among all Participants and [to] provide AEA’s plans regarding access to
information regarding the consultation activities related to the licensing and planning of the
Project.” PAD § 2.3. At the same time, the Communication Protocol intentionally “provide[s] a
flexible framework for dissemination of information and for document consultation among all
participants involved in the Project licensing.” Id. (emphasis added).
For example, the Communication Protocol contemplates that “a variety of meetings” will be held
during the licensing effort, including “meetings required by the ILP as well as additional general
information/project update meetings and technical workgroup meetings.” PAD § 2.3.3.
Recognizing this, the Protocol does not mandate all meetings to be scheduled 30 days in
advance, or all agendas and meeting materials to be posted on the website two weeks prior to the
meeting.1 Not only would such an approach be impossible under the Commission’s ILP
regulations,2 it would stifle the very open, continual dialogue that the Communications Protocol
intends to promote.
Accordingly, the Communication Protocol provides that AEA “will strive to notify all
Participants of meetings scheduled by AEA at least 30 days prior to the meeting date to the
extent practicable.” Id. § 2.3.3 (emphasis added). The Protocol recognizes that circumstances
may not allow for advance notice, providing that “AEA may hold a meeting with less than 30
days notice.” Id. The Protocol provides similar flexibility with regard to the production of
meeting agendas, meeting summaries, technical documents, and posting documents on its
website.3 Id. §§ 2.3.3, 2.3.4.1, 2.3.4.2.
1 See Communication Protocol § 2.3.3 (providing that “AEA will strive to make available documents and other
information necessary to prepare for a consultation meeting at least two weeks prior to the scheduled meeting”)
(emphasis added). As discussed in Section 1.2 below, for example, for quarterly progress reporting during the 2013-
2014 study phase of the licensing effort, AEA does not anticipate that agendas and written materials will always be
ready for public distribution at least two weeks prior to a scheduled quarterly TWG meeting, as the purpose of these
meetings will be to provide a more contemporaneous and complete reporting of ongoing work. For this reason,
written materials associated with these quarterly TWG meetings may not be available until closer to the schedule
meeting or, in some instances, at the meeting itself.
2 In some instances, for example, the Commission’s ILP regulations establish a period of less than 30 days prior to a
comment deadline, or a 15-day period for a meeting prior to or following a mandated filing deadline. See, e.g., 18
CFR §§ 5.13, 5.14(d), 5.15(c)(2), 5.15(f). In those instances, it would not be possible to follow a rigid 30-day prior
notice period to schedule an informal or Technical Wrivorkgroup meeting.
3 With regard to documents posted to AEA’s website, AEA understands that there has been some misunderstanding
about the amount of information AEA intends to maintain on its Project website. While Section 2.3.1 of the
Communication Protocol provides generally that “[t]he consultation record will be updated regularly and available
to the public on the website,” AEA never intended for its website to be a complete repository for all licensing
materials, essentially duplicating FERC’s eLibrary system. Rather, Section 2.3.2 of the Communication Protocol
addresses the specific issue of website materials, which provides that AEA will maintain on the website “key
documents developed during the course of the licensing consultation, such as the PAD and NOI, meeting notes,
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-3 December 2012
AEA endorses the ideals expressed in the Communication Protocol and will continually assess
and improve its efforts,4 as necessary, to promote timely dissemination of information and
effective communication—as licensing parties continue to press forward together in this
licensing process. By the same token, AEA does not intend to allow adherence to the
Communication Protocol unintentionally to stifle the frequent dialogue, informal
communications, and exchange of ideas that AEA believes are essential to resolving disputes and
achieving consensus on the many complex issues related to this licensing effort.5
1.1.2. FERC NEPA Scoping
On February 24, 2012, FERC issued a public notice acknowledging the filing of AEA’s NOI and
PAD, officially commencing the licensing proceeding, and soliciting public comment on the
PAD and study requests from licensing participants. In addition, FERC issued Scoping
Document 1 to outline the subject areas to be addressed in its environmental analysis of the
Project pursuant to NEPA. FERC held six Scoping Meetings for the Project. The meetings were
held the week of March 26, 2012 in Anchorage, Wasilla, Glennallen, Sunshine, Cantwell, and
Fairbanks and focused on obtaining comments and input on resource issues related to Project
operations from resource agencies, Alaska Natives, local governments, NGOs, and members of
the general public. The purpose of the meetings was for FERC to scope the issues, review and
discuss existing Project information, identify information and study needs; and discuss the
process plan and schedule for licensing activities required under the ILP regulations.
Following these meetings, federal and state resource agencies and other licensing participants
filed 169 scoping comment letters with FERC. Following its review of the meeting transcripts
and written comments, FERC issued Scoping Document 2 on July 16, 2012.
meeting summaries, study plans and study reports, preliminary licensing proposal/draft license application and final
license application.” Based on this language and FERC’s ILP regulations, AEA intends for its website to contain:
(1) all documents that AEA is required to make publicly available under FERC’s ILP regulations, 18 CFR 5.2,
unless impractical or impossible due to copyright restrictions, public disclosure prohibitions, file size considerations,
or other limitations; (2) all key issuances by FERC in the licensing effort, such NEPA documents, notices and
orders; and (3) agendas and meeting summaries from more formal Technical Workgroup Meetings. For other filings
and issuances, FERC’s user-friendly eLibrary system is a more effective tool for accessing the numerous documents
associated with the licensing process. For efficiency, AEA’s website contains a link to FERC’s eLibrary system.
4 For example, AEA acknowledges that during the intensive fall 2012 period—when it was holding multiple agency
and stakeholder meetings, often on a weekly basis, in an effort to reach consensus on nearly 60 proposed studies, as
noted in Table 1-1 below—it did not always have the opportunity to circulate agendas in advance of meetings,
provide 30 days’ notice prior to a meeting, or readily post meeting summaries on the website. See, e.g., Letter from
James W. Balsiger, National Marine Fisheries Service, to Kimberly D. Bose, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, at 2-3, Project No. 14241-001 (filed Nov. 1, 2012).
5 For these reasons, AEA does not agree with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and other licensing
participants that Commission intervention is warranted to enforce the voluntary guidelines in the Communication
Protocol. See, e.g., Letter from James W. Balsiger, National Marine Fisheries Service, to Kimberly D. Bose, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, at 2-4, Project No. 14241-001 (filed Nov. 1, 2012). In this time-limited period of
the ILP study plan development, rigidly following the Protocol as advocated by NMFS would have significantly
impeded, or even precluded altogether, AEA’s ability to work closely with NMFS and other licensing participants in
an effort to reach resolution on issues related to this RSP. This exemplifies why AEA intentionally provided
flexibility when drafting the Communication Protocol.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-4 December 2012
1.1.3. Development of PSP
Following its filing of the PAD, AEA continued its approach of participant outreach to facilitate
meaningful involvement by resource agencies, NGOs, Alaska Native entities, and other licensing
participants in the licensing process. First, AEA organized resource-based Technical
Workgroups (TWG) with licensing participants and held a series of monthly meetings to present
and discuss AEA’s proposed study plans and study planning process. A listing of the meetings
and topics covered during these early TWG meetings is provided in Table 1-1 of the PSP, and
documentation of these early TWG meetings appears in Attachment 1-1 of the PSP. In addition
to 14 separate TWG meetings held by AEA between the PAD and PSP during this period, AEA
and its consultant team held many individual and small group meetings and follow-up
discussions with individual licensing participants to discuss study issues, existing information,
and information needs.
Second, in an effort to assist licensing participants in preparing what AEA expected to be a large
number of study requests, AEA took the initiative to prepare and distribute to licensing
participants a total of 46 preliminary model draft study requests, based on the early TWG
meetings and other consultation with licensing participants. On May 18, 2012, AEA filed these
study requests with FERC. Although FERC’s ILP regulations do not require prospective
applicants to prepare model study requests, or otherwise to assist licensing participants in
developing their requested studies, AEA voluntarily undertook this additional, significant effort
for purposes of gathering and synthesizing information developed during the early TWG
meetings and other consultation efforts, easing the burdens placed on licensing participants, and
assisting licensing participants’ preparation of their formal study requests.
Third, through an innovative agreement between AEA, Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Office of Project Management and Permitting, and federal agencies involved in the licensing
process, AEA agreed to provide funding to help support federal resource agencies’ participation
in the Project licensing. Pursuant to this agreement, federal agencies will be able to retain their
own expert consultants to enhance and augment their technical expertise in this licensing effort.6
As a result of these efforts, AEA developed a comprehensive PSP. Together, licensing
participants and FERC staff submitted a total of 52 individual formal study requests, many of
which were similar in purpose and scope to the study issues and concepts outlined in Chapter 5
of the PAD, as modified and updated in collaboration with licensing participants during TWG
and other meetings and set forth in AEA’s draft model study requests.
In response to the 52 formal study requests submitted, AEA’s PSP proposed to undertake all but
one of the requested resource studies, although the PSP did propose some alterations and
adjustments to the studies requested by licensing participants. In total, the PSP contained 58
individual study plans, organized by corresponding natural resource topical areas and contained
within each respective resource section of the PSP. As required by FERC’s ILP regulations, 18
CFR § 5.11(b)(4), AEA’s PSP included an explanation of all studies submitted by licensing
6 In this regard, AEA acknowledges that many individuals submitting comments have requested that all studies be
subject to peer review. See Appendix 1 (AEA responses to comments GEN-09 and GEN-10). While FERC’s ILP
regulations do not require formal peer review of licensing studies, all study reports developed in this process will be
subjected to scrutiny and expert review—with the involvement of AEA, AEA’s technical consultants, FERC,
FERC’s third-party contractor, federal and state resource agencies, and agencies’ technical consultants.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-5 December 2012
participants but not adopted in the PSP. In light of AEA’s extensive outreach effort, moreover,
the PSP included specific documentation of consultation relevant to the study plan development.
AEA filed the PSP with FERC on July 16, 2012.
1.1.4. Development of RSP and Efforts to Resolve Differences over Study
Requests
Following its filing and distribution of the PSP, AEA continued its enhanced collaborative
process for developing a study plan for the proposed Project. Although FERC’s ILP regulations
establish a minimal requirement of a single consultation meeting following submittal of the PSP,
18 CFR § 5.11(e), AEA consulted extensively with licensing participants following distribution
of the PSP. Shortly after its release of the PSP, AEA held a series of TWG meetings in
Anchorage to review each of the 58 proposed studies in the RSP. These meetings occurred over a
five-day period on August 8, 9, 15, 16, and 17, 2012. Following these initial meetings, AEA held
monthly TWG meetings with licensing participants to solicit comments on AEA’s PSP and
resolve concerns and differences of opinion related to study objectives, methodologies, scopes,
and levels of effort. In addition, over the past several months since issuing the PSP, AEA has
conducted numerous individual and focused outreach meetings and teleconferences with
licensing participants—all in an attempt to reach agreement on licensing studies. In total, in the
brief three-month period following its release of the PSP, AEA held 23 separate TWG meetings,
in addition to other, less formal consultation meetings and contacts with licensing participants.
TWG meetings held since the filing of the PSP are summarized in Table 1-1.
With regard to AEA’s responsibility under FERC’s ILP regulations to describe its efforts to
resolve differences related to study request, 18 CFR § 5.13(a), during this period AEA continued
hold meetings and individual consultation with licensing participants. During TWG meetings and
other consultations with AEA, licensing participants raised issues and concerns, which appear in
the meeting summaries in Appendix 4 of this RSP. As set forth in Appendix 3, AEA either
adopted changes to its proposed studies to accommodate participants’ concerns and comments,
or explained its basis for declining to make a recommended change. Throughout this highly
collaborative period, licensing participants worked closely in efforts to resolve differences and
craft a study plan intended to meet participants’ resource and information needs for assessing
effects of the construction and operation of the proposed Project.
In light of the progress to date in resolving concerns related to the proposed studies, on
September 14, 2012 AEA and other licensing participants requested FERC to grant a 30-day
extension to allow additional time for licensing participants to submit comments on the PSP, and
to continue to resolve differences related to the proposed studies.7 The Commission granted this
request on September 17.8
AEA and the other licensing participants made good use of this additional time granted by the
Commission. To memorialize the progress reached since the PSP was issued in July, AEA
agreed to prepare—based on comments received during the post-PSP collaborative process—an
7 Letter from Wayne Dyok, Alaska Energy Authority, to Kimberly D. Bose, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Project No. 14241-001 (filed Sept. 14, 2012).
8 Notice of Extension of Time to File Comments on the Proposed Study and Revised Study Plan, Project No. 14241-
000 (issued Sept. 17, 2012).
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-6 December 2012
interim draft RSP, which other licensing participants could use when preparing their written ILP
comments submitted to FERC. Although this effort intensified the consultation effort, AEA
successfully redrafted the study plans, releasing them for public comment by the end of October
2012. Just prior to completing these revisions, AEA held a series of TWG meetings over a five-
day period in mid-October, to once again individually review each study plan, summarize and
discuss the updates to AEA’s study plans since the PSP filing, and provide written response to all
comments received from licensing participants. AEA’s written response to comments received
through the completion of the interim draft RSP at the end of October appears in Appendix 3.
Although the extension of time and interim draft RSP certainly were well beyond the scope of
ILP regulatory requirements, AEA believes that these efforts were well worth the investment of
time and resources. This RSP, like its PSP predecessor, continues to propose a total of 58
individual study plans; as a result of the intensive and frequent consultation between AEA and
other licensing participants over the last three months, however, most of the proposed plans in
the RSP have undergone significant modification. The study plans continue to be organized by
corresponding natural resource topical areas and contained within each respective resource
section of the RSP. For each proposed study within a resource area, the RSP provides all
information specified under FERC’s ILP regulations, 18 CFR § 5.11, along with additional
information about the proposed study. As required by the ILP regulations, moreover, Appendices
1 and 2 of this RSP contain all written comments submitted by licensing participants following
AEA’s release of the interim draft RSP, together with AEA’s detailed response to each proposed
study and study component, 18 CFR § 5.13(a). In Section 3 of the RSP, AEA addresses a study
that again was requested by certain licensing participants, and which AEA has not adopted in this
RSP.
While several licensing participants did not have time to thoroughly review the interim draft RSP
when preparing their written comments to FERC,9 participants that were able to review the
interim draft RSP generally commented that most of their concerns and differences were
addressed. AEA’s response to all written comments filed with the Commission following the
interim draft RSP appear in Appendix 1.
1.1.5. Summary of Study Plan Development Process
Based on the above summary, AEA believes that the extraordinary effort of all licensing
participants have gone far to resolve most of the study concerns and differences raised in the
licensing proceeding. Of the 52 study requests originally submitted by licensing participants, the
58 individual study plans in this RSP substantially adopt the objectives and methodologies of all
but one of those requests. Most of the studies proposed by AEA in this RSP essentially
consolidate the various study requests by specific resource areas. In this fashion, nearly all of
licensing participants’ study requests have been incorporated into this RSP. If approved by
9 In this regard, AEA notes FERC staff’s request for the RSP to “clearly track all differences between [AEA’s] study
proposal and the requested studies.” Letter from Jennifer Hill, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to Wayne
Dyok, Alaska Energy Authority, at A-2, Project No. 14241-000 (issued Nov. 14, 2012). As the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NMFS have requested a similar “cross-walk” document from AEA, and focused
their submitted comments on AEA’s original PSP, AEA has prepared a separate “cross-walk” document for the
original study requests of NMFS and USFWS, which AEA is filing with FERC and distributing to licensing
participants concurrently with this RSP.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-7 December 2012
FERC as proposed, these studies will provide information needed to investigate potential effects
to environmental resources resulting from Project construction and operation.
1.2. Process and Schedule Overview
In accordance with FERC’s September 17 notice extending the comment period for the RSP,
licensing participants have until January 18, 2013 to file any comments on this RSP. Following
this deadline, FERC is scheduled to issue its study plan determination by February 1, 2013, also
in accordance with the September 17 notice.
Within 20 days after FERC’s study plan determination, any federal agency with authority to
provide mandatory conditions under Sections 4(e) or 18 of the FPA, 16 USC §§ 797(e), 811, or
any state agency or tribe with authority to issue water quality certification for the licensing of the
Project under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 USC § 1341, may initiate the
formal dispute resolution procedures under the ILP with respect to studies pertaining directly to
the exercise of their authorities under FPA Sections 4(e) and 18, or under CWA Section 401. 18
CFR § 5.14. Following the completion of any study plan dispute process, FERC will issue its
final determination, including any amendments to its study plan determination, no later than May
2, 2013. 18 CFR § 5.14(l).
As provided in each of the study plans in this RSP, and as required under FERC’s ILP
regulations, 18 CFR § 5.11(b)(3), AEA will provide periodic progress reports to licensing
participants. These reports will be provided through periodic TWG meetings scheduled quarterly
through 2013 and 2014. The purpose of these meetings will be to update licensing participants
with information on study progress and initial results, as available. While AEA will strive to
schedule these quarterly meetings at least 30 days in advance,10 the agendas and any other
written materials for these meetings may not be available until closer to the meeting date, or at
the meeting itself, to allow AEA to present a more complete and contemporaneous progress
report of ongoing work.11 In accordance with the Communication Protocol, “[t]o the extent
possible, a meeting summary will be posted to the Project Website within 15 days.”12 In
addition, any comments on the meeting summary “should be submitted within 15 days of
posting.”13
By February 3, 2014, AEA will issue its Initial Study Report (ISR), followed by a meeting to
discuss study results and any proposed new studies or study modifications, and a public
comment period. 18 CFR § 5.15(c). All first year studies other than the Study of Fish
Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River are expected to be completed by the end
of 2014, and AEA will present final results in its Updated Study Report (USR), which will be
issued by February 2, 2015, followed by another public meeting and comment period. 18 CFR
10 Communications Protocol § 2.3.3.
11 Cf. id. (providing that AEA “will strive to post a written meeting agenda on the Project website at least two weeks
prior to the scheduled meeting” and that AEA “will strive to make available documents and other information
necessary to prepare for a consultation meeting at least two weeks prior to the scheduled meeting”) (emphasis
added).
12 Id. § 2.3.4.1.
13 Id.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-8 December 2012
§ 5.15(f). The information in the ISR and USR, together with the results of the fish distribution
study, which is expected to be completed by the end of April 2015, will be updated as necessary
and analyzed as part of AEA’s License Application. The updated process, plan, and schedule for
the Project is provided in Table 1.1-1, which includes additional detail regarding specific study
dispute resolution steps and milestones. AEA has included timeframes for Formal Dispute
Resolution, highlighted in yellow [18 CFR 5.14], which only apply if AEA and the licensing
participants cannot resolve any study disputes informally.
1.3. Project Facilities and Operations
This section provides a brief overview of the Project location, facilities and proposed operational
characteristics. At this time there several updates from the descriptions in the PAD, including the
proposed dam height and normal maximum reservoir level, the study area boundaries for the
transmission and road corridors, along with updated information on project operations described
below. The proposed Project is located in the Southcentral region of Alaska, approximately 120
miles (mi) north-northeast of Anchorage and 110 mi south-southwest of Fairbanks. As proposed,
the Project would include construction of a dam, reservoir and power plant on the Susitna River
starting at river mile (RM) 184, approximately 32 mi upstream of Devils Canyon. Transmission
lines connecting into the existing Railbelt transmission system and an access road would also be
constructed. Because engineering and environmental studies are helping define the locations and
configurations of the Project components, the current study area for the Project is larger than that
which will be proposed within the Project Boundary and includes alternative transmission and
road corridors that are expected to eventually be narrowed down to one or two proposed
corridors (Figure 1.2-1).
Dam and Reservoir
As currently envisioned, the Project would include a large dam with a 23,546-acre reservoir at El
2050 ft mean sea level (msl). The height and type of dam construction are still being evaluated as
part of ongoing engineering feasibility studies, but analysis to date indicates that a roller-
compacted concrete structure is viable and economic. The dam has a nominal crest elevation
(El.) 2,075 ft (msl) corresponding with a maximum height of about 750 ft above the prepared
rock foundation and a crest length of approximately 3,100 ft. The maximum height of the
structure will depend both on the results of the ongoing geotechnical site investigations (which
will indicate the extent of excavation required below the river bed) and the results of the
PMP/PMF studies (which together with the spillway design analysis will determine the freeboard
above normal TWL). The Watana Reservoir normal top water level (TWL) has been reassessed
and is proposed as El. 2,050 ft msl, which will impound a reservoir approximately 42.5 mi long
(measured along the centerline of the reservoir at El. 2050) with an average width of
approximately 1 to 2 mi. The total water surface area at normal maximum operating level is
approximately 23,546 acres. The minimum reservoir level will be about 1,850 ft msl during
normal operation, resulting in a maximum drawdown of 200 ft. Based on recently updated GIS
data, the reservoir will have a total capacity of 5.2 million ac-ft, of which 3.4 million ac-ft will be
active storage.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-9 December 2012
The dam incorporates three facilities for discharge:
1. Penstocks which direct water through the power facilities;
2. Emergency Release facilities installed within the plugged diversion tunnels; and,
3. Outlet facilities discharging below the spillway.
The outlet facilities which will facilitate the discharge of up to 24,000 cfs (together with the
powerhouse flow representing up to a routed 50-year flood, or a flushing flow) will be located so
that they may be used even when the reservoir level is at its minimum level.
Construction materials for the dam and appurtenant structures will utilize, as far as possible, rock
from the structure excavations to minimize the quarry development. Stable excavations and rock
cuts will be designed with suitable rock reinforcement and berms.
The bulk of the rock excavated to provide aggregate for concrete etc. is projected to be derived
from a quarry to be located on the left abutment upstream of the dam. The planning of the quarry
will attempt to ensure that the floor of the quarry is below the lowest projected water level in the
reservoir, in order to minimize visual impact and leave the quarry always flooded during
operation. In a similar manner, the area upstream of the dam is being investigated to try to define
a spoil area upstream of the dam that will be permanently submerged.
Clearing of shrubs and trees within the projected reservoir is not contemplated throughout the
entire reservoir area. It is proposed that clearing of all substantive vegetation only be initiated for
a distance of some two to three miles upstream of the dam, although consideration will be given
during studies to clearing the area between the active storage top and bottom water level of trees
throughout the length of the reservoir.
The quarry will incorporate sloping roads to facilitate access from bench to bench, and during
operation it is expected that any floating debris will be captured by boat and brought to the ramps
in the flooded quarry for removal and disposal. The intakes themselves will incorporate
trashracks and rakes for removal of any debris not collected by boat operations.
Thick alluvial deposits will be removed from the river bed, and there will be excavation of
weathered or loose rock in order to found the dam on sound bedrock.
Hydroelectric Facilities
The powerhouse will be located immediately downstream of the dam, and will house three
generating units, each with a nominal capability of 200 MW unit output under average net head
for a total plant capacity of 600 MW under average head. However, based on discussions with
Railbelt utilities regarding electrical system reliability, AEA may propose up to four units with a
nominal capacity of 150 MW and a total capacity of 600 MW. The capacity of the Project
eventually proposed for licensing could extend up to 800 MW. The exact sizing and number of
units may change as a result of further transmission system studies.
The average annual energy of the Project will be about 2,800,000 megawatt hours. If only three
units are proposed, the powerhouse will be designed and constructed with an extra empty
generating unit bay for the potential installation of a fourth unit at a future time. There would be
two outlet works facility structures and four power intake structures (one corresponding to the
extra unused powerhouse bay if three units are proposed).
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-10 December 2012
Ancillary Facilities
Watana Dam site development will require various facilities to support the construction activities
throughout the entire construction period. Following construction, the operation of the Project
will require a small permanent staff and facilities to support the permanent operation and
maintenance (O&M) program.
The most significant item among the temporary site facilities will be a construction camp. The
construction camp will be a largely self-sufficient community normally housing approximately
800 persons, but with a peak capacity of up to 1,000 people. After construction, AEA plans to
remove most of the camp facility, leaving only those aspects that are to be used to support the
smaller permanent residential and operation and maintenance facilities.
Other site facilities include contractor work areas, site power, services, and communications. Site
power and fiber optic cabling for construction will be brought either on the transmission line
route, or along the side of the access road. Items such as power and communications will be
required for construction operations, independent of camp operations.
Permanent facilities will include community facilities for O&M staff members and any families.
Other permanent facilities will include maintenance buildings for use during operation of the
power plant.
The airstrip and helicopter/airplane hard standing will be left in place after construction.
Transportation Access
There would be both temporary and permanent site access facilities to provide a transportation
system to support construction activities, and to facilitate orderly development and maintenance
of the Project. The current planning assumes restricted public access during construction for
safety considerations. Another goal is to co-locate access roads and transmission facilities, to the
extent possible, in the same corridor to minimize environmental impacts.
Three possible alternatives for access roads and transmission lines have been identified for the
Project (Figure 1.2-1). Two of the alternatives would accommodate east-west running
transmission lines in combination with a new site access road connecting to the Alaska Intertie
and the Alaska Railroad. One of these corridors, designated as the Chulitna Corridor, would
contain a road approximately 42.7 miles-long running north of the Susitna River, and extending
to the Chulitna siding area. The other alternative, designated as the Gold Creek Corridor, would
contain a road approximately 49.2 miles-long running south of the Susitna River, and extend to
the Gold Creek area. Neither of these two access roads would connect to public roads, ending at
the railway tracks.
A third corridor, designated as the Denali Corridor, would run due north, connecting the Project
site to the Denali Highway by road over a distance of about 41.4 miles. If a transmission line is
constructed within this corridor, it would be extended westward along the existing Denali
Highway and connect to the Alaska Intertie near Cantwell.
If the Denali Corridor is selected the affected sections of the Denali Highway will be upgraded in
order to facilitate safe construction of the Project. The Denali Highway upgrades would not be a
part of the Project.
Regardless of which road is chosen, the majority of the new road will follow terrain and soil
types that allow construction using side borrow techniques, resulting in a minimum of
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-11 December 2012
disturbance to areas away from the alignment. A berm type cross-section will be formed, with
the crown of the road being approximately 2 to 3 ft above the elevation of adjacent ground. To
reduce the visual impact, the side slopes will be flattened and covered with excavated peat and
other naturally occurring materials. A 200-foot right-of-way is anticipated to be sufficient for this
type of construction.
Permanent access to the Watana Dam site will connect with the existing Alaska Railroad either
at Chulitna, Cantwell or Gold Creek, where—at the chosen location—a railhead and storage
facility occupying up to 40 ac will be constructed alongside the existing passing bays. New
sidings of a length up to 5,000 ft will be constructed so that off-loading and transfer of goods and
materials can take place without interrupting the daily operations of the Alaska Railroad
Corporation (ARRC). This facility will act as the transfer point from rail to road transport and as
a backup or interim storage area for materials and equipment, and as an inspection and
maintenance facility for trucks and their loads. Within the 40 acre site would be a small
residential camp for early use before the main camp at site is complete. It is intended that
elements of this camp will be removed to the main site camp, leaving sufficient facilities for
drivers trucking equipment to the construction site, for laborers and staff operating the transfer,
for emergency use, and for support staff such as cooks and maintenance workers.
If the Denali Corridor is chosen for road access, the pavement on the first section of the Denali
Highway in the community of Cantwell will be extended for a distance of approximately four
miles to help minimize problems with vehicle dust and kicked-up stones. In addition, the
following measures will be taken:
Speed restrictions will be imposed along appropriate segments;
Improvements will be made to the intersections including pavement markings and traffic
signals.
Electric Transmission Facilities
The transmission lines will begin at a new substation at Watana Dam and consist of three 230-
kV lines, in either single or double-circuit configuration. The same three corridors under
consideration for the access road are also those under consideration to route the Project primary
transmission lines to the Alaska Intertie. One or two transmission corridors may be chosen. The
transmission system will include a switching station at the points of tie-in (at Chulitna, Gold
Creek and/or Cantwell). Extending out from the Watana substation, the transmission corridors
are essentially co-located with the access road corridors except for three specific areas:
1) For the northern westward route (Chulitna Corridor), the first five miles (westward from
the power facilities) of the double circuit 230-kV transmission lines will not follow the
coincident road corridor. The two lines will cross the river from the substation (together
with any line destined for the northern route) in a northerly direction for two mi, after
which the two lines will turn northwesterly to cross Tsusena Creek and three mi later will
intersect the Chulitna road corridor. At the extreme westerly end of the corridor, it will
widen to facilitate the divergence of the road and the transmission line which will
continue to a switching station on the Alaska Intertie.
2) For the southern westward route (Gold Creek Corridor) the transmission lines would
generally follow the planned road corridor. Some 5 miles northeast of Gold Creek will be
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-12 December 2012
a switching station on the existing Alaska Intertie, beyond which, to the west, the road
will be the sole occupant of the corridor.
3) For the northern route, the only divergence between the road and transmission line
corridor will occur at Deadman Lake, at which location the road will be aligned west of
Deadman Hill, while the transmission will follow a lower elevation corridor on the east
of the hill. Both corridors will rejoin some 9 mi later on the north side of the Deadman
Hill.
At the Denali Highway, the northern transmission corridor will turn west and continue along the
Denali Highway to the Cantwell switching station.
The right-of-way for the transmission lines within the corridors will consist of a linear strip of
land. The width will depend on the number of lines. The transmission rights-of-way will be 200,
300, or 400 feet, depending on whether one, two, or three lines run in parallel and may run
coincident with a road right-of-way in many locations.
The switching stations and substation will occupy a total of approximately 16 acres.
Rights-of-way for permanent access to switching stations and substation will be required linking
back to the permanent site access road. These rights-of-way will be 100 ft wide.
Access to the transmission line corridors will be:
a) Via unpaved vehicle access track from the permanent access roads at intermittent points
along the corridor. The exact location of these tracks will be established in the final
design phase.
b) By helicopter, where there is no access road projected.
Within the transmission corridor itself an unpaved vehicle access track up to 25 ft wide will run
along the entire length of the corridor, except at areas such as major river crossings and deep
ravines where an access track would not be utilized for the movement of equipment and
materials.
Project Operations
Project operating flexibility is important to Railbelt utilities. AEA is performing “production
modeling” simulation, encompassing the entire Alaska Railbelt connected system in order to
maximize the benefit of the Watana generating station, and may propose to operate the Project in
a load-following mode such that firm energy is maximized during the critical winter months of
November through April each year to meet Railbelt utility load requirements. To accomplish
efficient dispatch, the reservoir would be drafted annually by an average of about 150 ft, but a
maximum drawdown of 200 feet (to 1850 ft) will be possible and could infrequently occur.
Instream flow releases would be made through the powerhouse or through low level outlet works
during the rare occasions when the power plant is off line during emergency outages. Flow
discharges through the powerhouse under this operating plan would range from the minimum
required instream flow release (yet to be determined) to a high of about 15,000 cfs (based on the
600 MW nominal installed capacity) during times of maximum power generation. Based on
preliminary studies, daily power generation during a peak winter month (January) would average
about 9,200 MWh and powerhouse discharges would average approximately 9,600 cfs during
that time.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-13 December 2012
For efficient operation of the whole system, powerhouse discharges are expected to vary over a
24-hour period during the peak winter months. It is difficult to characterize typical powerhouse
operations before production modeling simulation of the Railbelt is complete. To provide a
preliminary indication of powerhouse discharge variability under the relatively conservative
assumption of the Watana powerhouse providing the entire load variability of the Railbelt during
a typical January, daily powerhouse discharges could range from about an average of 5,600 cfs
to about 13,000 cfs. Powerhouse discharges could be as high as 15,000 cfs (at maximum plant
output based on a 600 MW project) for short periods of time during the day to meet load spikes
or emergency conditions. The daily flow variation may be constrained because of environmental
needs. For a Base Case preliminary test case operating plan, initial model runs have been made
using the Case E-VI minimum instream flow criteria developed during the 1980s project studies.
Those criteria specified a minimum wintertime flow of 2,000 cfs at Gold Creek, and a minimum
summertime flow release of varying amounts at or above about 9,000 cfs. At this time, for
planning purposes, AEA is considering a minimum winter flow of not less than 3,000 cfs at Gold
Creek. During the winter the average daily flow would be gradually increased to reflect colder
conditions in January and February. The average daily flows would be gradually reduced during
March and April.
During 2013, a detailed analysis of downstream water level variations will become available.
These results will be based on cross-sectional, water level, river flow, and other data gathered
during field studies performed in 2012. The results of the production operation modeling—i.e.,
the projected operation of the Project derived therefrom—will be used, together with HEC-RAS
modeling to project the variations in water levels at locations downstream of the Project.
In the interim, before final 2013 studies of water level variations are available, it is useful to have
an early preliminary indication of downstream water level variations. Cross-sectional data
collected in the 1980s are available at about 100 cross-sections between the Watana Dam site
(RM 184) and the vicinity of Sunshine (RM 84). Combined with other data and information
available from 1980s reports, including rating curves developed at the cross-sections with the
HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles program and roughness coefficients, it is possible to develop a
downstream flow routing model using the USACE program HEC-ResSim. While results from
this model eliminate the void of having no indication at all of downstream water level
fluctuations, it must be clearly noted that final results in 2013 will differ from the results
presented on the following figures for at least the following reasons: (1) input data will be
changed from 1980s data to 2012 data; (2) the analysis model will change from HEC-ResSim to
HEC-RAS, which is much more detailed and uses better hydraulic routing methods, and (3) the
hourly flow releases at Watana Dam will be updated based on production modeling results.
One calendar year of preliminary hourly flow routing results from HEC-ResSim are presented in
Figures 1.2-2, 1.2-3, and 1.2-4, respectively, for cross-sections in the tailwater area just below
the Watana Dam site, near Gold Creek, and near Sunshine. The unregulated stage (red) line
represents natural conditions without Watana Dam. The regulated stage (gold) line represents
simulated conditions with the proposed Watana Dam. The results presented on these figures
incorporate the following conditions and assumptions:
Ice free conditions must be included in the analysis throughout the year as flow
simulation under an ice cover is beyond the capabilities of HEC-ResSim.
The Watana powerhouse provides the entire load variability of the Railbelt. Although this
is not a realistic operation for an entire year, it was included for the entire year for
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-14 December 2012
illustration purposes. AEA anticipates that existing hydropower in the Railbelt system
(e.g., Bradley Lake) would typically provide the load variability and that the Project
would be used to provide remaining load variability subject to environmental constraints.
This would significantly reduce the need for powerhouse flow fluctuations.
Minimum release requirements are Case E-VI from the 1980s, modified to include
minimum flows of 3,000 cfs at Gold Creek.
All cross-sectional data and rating curves are from the 1980s.
Load data originates from the 2010 Railbelt Integrated Resources Plan.
The following figures indicate two primary changes in water level when comparing the
unregulated and regulated conditions. First, there is a seasonal shift of flow from the natural high
flow months into the cold season months of November through April. This results from the
primary function of the reservoir, which is to store water during the months of higher flow and
lower electricity demand (May through October) and release more flow for generation during the
period of lower flow and higher electricity demand (November through April).
The second primary change in water level variations would be the addition of water level
fluctuations on a diurnal basis as Watana generation responds to the hourly change in electricity
demand in the Railbelt. Results on the three stage figures generally indicate a reduction in water
level fluctuations as the flow moves downstream. It must be noted that water level fluctuations
will vary from one location to another along the river, depending on the shape of the cross-
section. Determining the unregulated flow record for long periods with an ice cover is an
inherently difficult task that can be expected to have lower accuracy compared to ice free
conditions. The unregulated recorded flows are frequently constant for an entire winter month,
with a step change on the first day of the following month.
Another notable aspect of the regulated flow operation with Watana Dam is exhibited on the
figures during late August of the example year when reservoir outflows rapidly increase so that
reservoir outflows are essentially the same as reservoir inflows. This is an indication that the
reservoir has filled and passing the inflows to maintain the maximum normal pool level. This is
also a preliminary operating mode that could be moderated by future detailed generation
scheduling and inflow forecasting.
Construction Schedule
The current Project schedule allows 13 years for Project development including: FERC
licensing, license implementation, design and contracting, construction, demobilization, and site
restoration. Several assumptions have been made regarding the times required for the various
activities.
The following are the time periods for major components of Project Development:
Total schedule – 13 years, 2012-2024
Pre-Application studies and related activities 3.5 years
FERC and Cooperating agencies post-filing activities – approximately 1.5 years.
Project Construction – 7.5 years
Reservoir filling – one to two years
Site Restoration – throughout construction.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-15 December 2012
Design work would be initiated prior to issuance of the license, so that construction critical to the
schedule (such as access roads and construction support facilities) will be ready to commence
shortly after issuance of the license and subsequent approvals.
Study Area
As show in Figure 1.2-1, the whole study area under evaluation for the siting of Project facilities
consists of 97,244 acres. The proposed reservoir normal maximum water surface elevation
includes all lands and waters up to elevation 2,050 feet that encompass approximately 23,546
acres. The area around the proposed dam site being evaluated for siting of construction and
operation camps, airstrip and quarries encompasses 9,578 acres. The transmission and road
corridor study areas encompass the following acreages (approximate):
Gold Creek Road and Transmission Corridor – 18,497 acres
Chulitna Road and Transmission Corridor – 19,687 acres
Denali Road and Transmission Corridor – 25,936 acres
1.4. 2012 Early Study Efforts
AEA is currently completing initial studies carried out during 2012. These early studies have in
many cases helped inform the study planning process and provided updated information that
supplements existing information. Much of the information that was gathered in 2012 has
informed the study planning process particularly with respect to planning the logistical aspects of
2013 and 2014 studies. In some cases, updating information consists of taking information
developed in the 1980s and converting it into modern digital datasets for use in comparative
analysis with the new information being obtained in the FERC formal studies. The following list
identifies the specific 2012 studies; please refer to Attachment 1-1 for a summary of each study
effort.
Water Resources
Review of Existing Water Temperature Model Results and Data Collection
Aquatic Habitat and Geomorphic Mapping of the Middle River Using Aerial
Photography
Reconnaissance-Level Geomorphic and Aquatic Habitat Assessment of Project Effects
on Lower River Channel
Documentation of Susitna River Ice Break-up and Formation
Instream Flow
Instream Flow Planning Study
River Flow Routing Model Data Collection
Fish and Aquatic Resources
Synthesis of Existing Fish Population Data
Adult Salmon Distribution Habitat Utilization Study
Upper Susitna River Fish Distribution and Habitat Study
Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Anadromous Prey Analysis
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-16 December 2012
Botanical Resources
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study
Wetland Mapping Study
Riparian Study
Wildlife Resources
Eagle and Raptor Nest Study
Past and Current Big Game Harvest Study
Wildlife Habitat Use and Movement Study
Recreation and Aesthetic Resources
Aesthetic and Recreation Resources Study
Cultural Resources
Cultural Resources Study
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-17 December 2012
1.5 Tables
Table 1-1. Technical Workgroup and Agency Consultation Meetings since development of the PSP.
Date Licensing participant Subject
08/08/2012
AEA, ADF&G, ADNR-OPMP,
AHTNA, BLM, Chickaloon Village,
DHSS, EPA, FERC, MSB, Natural
Heritage Institute/Hydropower
Reform Coalition, NPS, OHA/SHPO,
and other interested parties
Regional Economic Evaluation
Social Conditions and Public Goods and Services Study
Transportation
Air Quality
Health Impact Assessment
Project Safety (PMP and Seismic Hazards)
Recreation, River Flow, and Aesthetics
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Subsistence Study
08/09/2012
AEA, ADF&G Wildlife Conservation,
ARRI, BLM, Office of Project
Management and Permitting, Natural
Heritage Institute, USFWS, FERC,
and other interested parties
16 Wildlife Study Plans
5 Botanical Study Plans
08/15/2012
AEA, USFWS, ADNR, ADNR-OPMP,
NMFS, EPA, ADF&G, FERC, Natural
Heritage Institute/Hydropower
Reform Coalition, ARRI, Alaska
Ratepayers, and other interested
parties
Characterization of Aquatic Habitats
Fisheries Studies (in River, in Future Reservoir, Salmon
Escapement, Passage Barriers, Genetic Baseline,
Harvest, Passage at Dam, River Productivity)
Cook Inlet Beluga Whale
Aquatic Resources in Other Project Areas
08/16/2012
AEA, USFWS, ADNR, ADNR-OPMP,
NMFS, ADF&G, USGS, Tribal
Council, FERC, Natural Heritage
Institute/Hydropower Reform
Coalition, ARRI, Alaska Ratepayers,
and other interested parties
Instream Flow
Riparian Instream Flow
Groundwater-Related Aquatic Habitat
Glacial Runoff
Geology/Soils
08/17/2012
AEA, USFWS, ADNR, ADNR-OPMP,
NMFS, ADF&G, USGS, Tribal
Council, FERC, Natural Heritage
Institute/Hydropower Reform
Coalition, ARRI, Alaska Ratepayers,
and other interested parties
Geomorphology and Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling
Ice Processes
Baseline Water Quality
Mercury and Bioaccumulation
09/06/2012 ADF&G, USFWS, FERC, AEA, and
other interested parties Landbird and Shorebird Studies
09/07/2012
AEA, BLM, OHA, MatSu Borough,
NOAA, Chickaloon, AHTNA, CIRI,
FERC, and other interested parties
Cultural Resources
09/13/2012 AEA, ADF&G Wildlife Conservation,
FERC, and other interested parties
Terrestrial Mammal Studies (Bear, Dall’s Sheep,
Furbearers, Wolverines, Bats)
Wildlife Habitat Evaluation
Wood Frogs
Landbirds and Shorebirds
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-18 December 2012
Date Licensing participant Subject
09/13/2012 AEA, USFWS, FERC, Louis Berger
Group, ARRI
Fish Distribution and Abundance Studies (Sampling
strategies and techniques)
09/13/2012 AEA, USFWS, ADF&G Fish Distribution and Abundance Studies (Sampling
strategies and techniques)
09/14/2012
AEA, USFWS, ARRI, ADF&G, Village
of Eklutna,, FERC, Coalition for
Susitna Alternatives, and other
interested parties
Instream Flow Study Site Selection
Geomorphology and Ice Processes
09/18/2012 AEA, ADEC, EPA, USACE, USEPA,
USFWS, and other interested parties Wetland Delineation, Mapping, and Functions
09/19/2012 AEA, NMFS, ADF&G Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study
09/20/2012
AEA, ADF&G, ADNR, Alaska HIA,
BLM, FERC, Natural Heritage
Institute/Hydropower Reform
Coalition, NOAA, NPS, and other
interested parties
Recreation Survey
Socioeconomic Study
River Flow Study
Aesthetics Study
09/24/2012
AEA, BLM, CIRI, Coalition for Susitna
Dam Alternatives, AOHA, MatSu
Borough, and other interested parties
Cultural Resources Study Plan (APE map and other
maps)
9/25/2012 AEA, ADF&G Salmon Escapement Study Fish Genetic Baseline Study
9/27/2012 AEA, USFWS, NMFS, ADF&G, ARRI Fish Distribution and Abundance Studies (Sampling
strategies and techniques)
9/27/2012 AEA, USFWS, NMFS, FERC, Louis
Berger Group, ADF&G, UAF, ARRI
River Productivity Study
10/01/2012
AEA, USFWS, NMFS, Natural
Heritage Institute/Hydropower
Reform Coalition, ADNR, Coalition
for Susitna Dam Alternatives, FERC,
BLM, and other interested parties
Instream Flow Riparian Study Plan (Focus Areas, Study
Site Design, Groundwater-Surface Water Interaction,
Ice)
10/02/2012
AEA, BLM, NMFS, USFWS, ADF&G,
FERC, Natural Heritage
Institute/Hydropower Reform
Coalition, ARRI, Alaska Ratepayers,
and other interested parties
Instream Flow Study (Focus Areas, Fish and Aquatics,
Models, Method Selection, Pilot Winter Studies)
10/03/2012
AEA, ADNR (State Parks), ADF&G,
BLM, FERC, NPS, and other
interested parties
Aesthetic Resources (Key Observation Points, Analysis
Process)
River Flow Study
Survey Instruments
10/04/2012
AEA, NOAA, USFWS, ARRI,
ADF&G, NMFS, FERC, Natural
Heritage Institute/Hydropower
Reform Coalition, and other
interested parties
Instream Flow Field Reconnaissance Debrief
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-19 December 2012
Date Licensing participant Subject
10/04/2012 AEA, USFWS, ADF&G, FERC, and
other interested parties
Waterbirds Studies (Study Plan, Migration and Breeding,
Productivity, Harlequin Duck)
Bird Migration Surveys
10/16/2012
AEA, ADF&G, USFWS, FERC,
ADNR OPMP, Natural Heritage
Institute, Coalition for Susitna Dam
Alternatives, and other interested
parties
PSP and ILP Study Plan Process
Terrestrial Wildlife Studies (Birds, Wood Frog, Moose,
Caribou, Dall’s Sheep, Large Carnivores, Wolverine,
Terrestrial and Aquatic Furbearers, Habitat Evaluation,
Harvest, Little Brown Bat, Small Mammals)
Botanical Mapping Studies (Vegetation and Wildlife
Habitat, Riparian Vegetation, Wetland)
10/17/2012
AEA, ADF&G, ADNR, ADNR-DMLW,
AHTNA, CIRI, Coalition for Susitna
Dam Alternatives, FERC, Natural
Heritage Institute/Hydropower
Reform Coalition, NPS, SHPO, and
other interested parties
Transportation, Air Quality, and Health Impact
Assessment
Regional Economics and Socioeconomics
Subsistence
Recreation, River Flow, and Aesthetic
Cultural Resource
10/23/2012
AEA, ADNR, USGS, USFWS, DEC,
Natural Heritage
Institute/Hydropower Reform
Coalition, USDA, FERC, ADF&G,
NMFS, Coalition for Susitna Dam
Alternatives, and other interested
parties
PSP and ILP Study Plan Process
Geomorphology Study
Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling
Baseline Water Quality
Mercury
Project Hydrology
10/24/2012
AEA, USGS, USFWS, ADNR, AGO,
Hydropower Reform Coalition,
USDA, ARRI, DGGS, ADF&G, DEC,
Coalition for Susitna Alternatives,
FERC, NMFS, and other interested
parties
PSP and ILP Study Plan Process
Fish and Aquatic Instream Flow
Riparian Instream Flow
Groundwater-Related Aquatic Habitat
Glacial and Runoff Changes
Project Hydrology
10/25/2012
AEA, ADF&G, ARRI, AGO, ADF&G,
USFWS, USDA, BLM, ADNR, NMFS,
FERC, and other interested parties
PSP and ILP Study Plan Process
Habitat Characterization Study
Fish Distribution and Abundance
River Productivity
Cook Inlet Beluga Whale
Hydrology
11/02/2012 AEA, NMFS and ADF&G Cook Inlet Beluga Whale
Eulachon
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-20 December 2012
Table 1.1-1. Project Process Plan and Schedule (dispute process highlighted in yellow).
Responsible Party
Pre-Filing Milestone
Date FERC
Regulation
AEA Issue Public Notice for NOI/PAD 12/29/11 5.3(d)(2)
AEA File NOI/PAD with FERC 12/29/11 5.5, 5.6
FERC Alaska Native Entity Meetings 1/30/12 5.7
FERC Issue Notice of Commencement of Proceeding and
Scoping Document 1
2/27/12 5.8
FERC Scoping Meetings 3/26-29/12 5.8(b)(viii)
All licensing participants PAD/SD1 Comments and Study Requests Due
5/31/12 5.9
FERC Issue Scoping Document 2 7/16/12 5.1
AEA File Proposed Study Plan (PSP) 7/16/12 5.11(a)
All licensing participants Proposed Study Plan Meetings 8/15-16/12 5.11(e)
All licensing participants Proposed Study Plan Meetings 10/16-25/12 N/A
All licensing participants Proposed Study Plan Comments Due 11/14/12 5.12;
FERC Notice
AEA File Revised Study Plan 12/14/12 5.13(a);
FERC Notice
All licensing participants Revised Study Plan Comments Due 1/18/13 5.13(b);
FERC Notice
FERC Director's Study Plan Determination 2/1/13 5.13(c);
FERC Notice
Mandatory Conditioning
Agencies only Any Study Disputes Due 2/21/13 5.14(a)
Dispute Panel Third Dispute Panel Member Selected 3/8/13 5.14(d)
Dispute Panel Dispute Resolution Panel Convenes 3/13/13 5.14(d)(3)
AEA Applicant Comments on Study Disputes Due 3/18/13 5.14(j)
Dispute Panel Dispute Resolution Panel Technical Conference 3/2513 5.14(j)
Dispute Panel Dispute Resolution Panel Findings Issued 4/12/13 5.14(k)
FERC Director's Study Dispute Determination 5/2/13 5.14(l)
AEA First Study Season 2013 5.15(a)
AEA Initial Study Report 2/3/14 5.15(c)(1)
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-21 December 2012
Responsible Party
Pre-Filing Milestone
Date FERC
Regulation
All licensing participants Initial Study Report Meeting 2/18/14 5.15(c)(2)
AEA Initial Study Report Meeting Summary 3/5/14 5.15(c)(3)
All licensing participants Any Disputes/Requests to Amend Study Plan Due 4/4/14 5.15(c)(4)
All licensing participants Responses to Disputes/Amendment Requests Due 5/4/14 5.15(c)(5)
FERC Director's Determination on Disputes/Amendments 6/4/14 5.15(c)(6)
AEA Second Study Season 2014 5.15(a)
AEA Updated Study Report due 2/2/15 5.15(f)
All licensing participants Updated Study Report Meeting 2/17/15 5.15(f)
AEA Updated Study Report Meeting Summary 3/4/15 5.15(f)
All licensing participants Any Disputes/Requests to Amend Study Plan Due 4/3/15 5.15(f)
All licensing participants Responses to Disputes/Amendment Requests Due 5/4/15 5.15(f)
FERC Director's Determination on Disputes/Amendments 6/3/15 5.15(f)
AEA File Preliminary Licensing Proposal or Draft License
Application 4/14/15 5.16(a)
All licensing participants Preliminary Licensing Proposal/Draft License Application
Comments Due 7/13/15 5.16(e)
AEA File Final License Application 9/11/15 5.17
AEA Issue Public Notice of License Application Filing 9/11/15 5.17(d)(2)
REVISED STUDY PLAN Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-22 December 2012 1.6. Figures Figure 1.2-1. Susitna-Watana Project Area.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-23 December 2012
Figure 1.2-2. Susitna River Stage near Watana Tailwater.
Figure 1.2-3. Susitna River Stage near Gold Creek.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1/1/84 0:001/31/84 0:003/1/84 0:003/31/84 0:004/30/84 0:005/30/84 0:006/29/84 0:007/29/84 0:008/28/84 0:009/27/84 0:0010/27/84 0:0011/26/84 0:0012/26/84 0:00Stage (feet)Susitna River at XS107 (RM 184.2) - Regulated stage (feet)
Susitna River at XS107 (RM 184.2) - Unregulated stage (feet)
Preliminary - Subject to change.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1/1/84 0:001/31/84 0:003/1/84 0:003/31/84 0:004/30/84 0:005/30/84 0:006/29/84 0:007/29/84 0:008/28/84 0:009/27/84 0:0010/27/84 0:0011/26/84 0:0012/26/84 0:00Stage (feet)Susitna River at XS45 (RM 136.7) - Regulated stage (feet)
Susitna River at XS45 (RM 136.7) - Unregulated stage (feet)
Preliminary - Subject to change.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-24 December 2012
Figure 1.2-4. Susitna River Stage near Sunshine.
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
1/1/84 0:001/31/84 0:003/1/84 0:003/31/84 0:004/30/84 0:005/30/84 0:006/29/84 0:007/29/84 0:008/28/84 0:009/27/84 0:0010/27/84 0:0011/26/84 0:0012/26/84 0:00Stage (feet)Susitna River at XS0.001 (RM 83.9) - Regulated stage (feet)
Susitna River at XS0.001 (RM 83.9) - Unregulated stage (feet)
Preliminary - Subject to change.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1-25 December 2012
1.7. Attachments
ATTACHMENT 1-1. 2012 EARLY STUDY EFFORTS
ATTACHMENT 1-1
2012 EARLY STUDY EFFORTS
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 1-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1 December 2012
2012 Early Study Efforts
Water Resources
Review of Existing Water Temperature Model Results and Data Collection
The objective of the 2012 Review of Existing Water Temperature Model Results and Data
Collection Study was to provide a baseline for water temperature modeling of the Susitna River
and proposed reservoir to be conducted in 2013-2014. Specific objectives included: (1) evaluate
1980s water temperature modeling (i.e., SNTEMP and DYRESM) results; (2) determine
applicability of past modeling results; and (3) initiate collection of stream temperature and
meteorological data required for 2013-2014 modeling. The study area included the Susitna River
from river mile (RM) 10.1 to RM 233.4.
SNTEMP and DYRESM assumptions and predictive capabilities were evaluated to determine
applicability to current conditions. Model configurations, input parameters, and
calibration/validation were assessed, and flows and a range of release schedules were compared
with recent records to assess applicability to the currently proposed Project. If existing
temperature models are applicable, results will be synthesized to evaluate potential effects of the
proposed Project on water temperature and guide the design of 2013-2014 study plans.
The 2012 monitoring locations were selected from water temperature data and monitoring
locations from the 1980s. Locations were selected based on: (1) adequate representation
throughout the Susitna River and tributaries; (2) preliminary consultation with AEA and
licensing participants; and (3) understanding of other proposed studies and study sites (e.g.,
instream flow, ice processes). Water temperature data loggers were installed at 39 sites, and
meteorological (MET) data were collected at eight locations between RM 25.6 and RM 224.
Aquatic Habitat and Geomorphic Mapping of the Middle River Using Aerial Photography
Aquatic habitat and geomorphic features were quantified using aerial photography from the
1980s and evaluated for applicability to current conditions. Quantification of geomorphic
features and aquatic habitat types provided a basis for selecting study sites, understanding flow-
habitat relationships, and assessing geomorphic conditions. Objectives of the 2012 Aquatic
Habitat and Geomorphic Mapping of the Middle River Using Aerial Photography Study
included: (1) identify the surface area of riverine habitat types over a range of stream flows; (2)
compare current and 1980s geomorphic feature/units and associated aquatic habitat type data to
characterize the relative stability of the channel under unregulated flow conditions; and (3)
delineate large-scale geomorphic river segments to stratify the river into study segments for use
in 2013-2014 study design and implementation. The study area included the Middle Susitna
River from RM 98 to RM 184.
Aerial photography from 2012 was combined with historic information and digitized to create a
spatial representation (i.e., GIS database) of geomorphic features/units and macro- and meso-
scale riverine habitat types. The information was compared with aquatic habitat and
geomorphology under 1980s and current conditions. The Middle River was then delineated into
large-scale geomorphic river segments with relatively homogeneous characteristics including
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 1-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2 December 2012
channel width, entrenchment ratio, sinuosity, slope, geology/bed material, single/multiple
channel, braiding index, and inflow from major tributaries.
Reconnaissance-Level Geomorphic and Aquatic Habitat Assessment of Project Effects on
Lower River Channel
The 2012 Reconnaissance-Level Geomorphic and Aquatic Habitat Assessment of Project Effects
on Lower River Channel Study assessed the Project’s potential to affect aquatic habitat and
channel morphology in the Lower Susitna River. The study quantified the magnitude of change
associated with stream flow, riverine habitat features, and sediment transport under existing pre-
Project and anticipated post-Project conditions. Analyses performed included a stream flow
assessment, riverine habitat-flow relationship assessment, sediment transport assessment,
geomorphic assessment of channel change, and delineation of large-scale geomorphic river
segments with relatively homogeneous characteristics (e.g., channel width, lateral confinement
by terraces, entrenchment ratio, sinuosity, slope, bed material, single/multiple channel, and
hydrology). Specific objectives included: (1) evaluating the relative magnitude of changes to the
flow regime; (2) assessing potential changes to channel morphology and aquatic habitat; (3)
evaluating the relative magnitude of changes to the sediment regime, potential impacts on
sediment/substrate gradations, and the vertical and lateral stability of the channel; (4) delineating
large-scale geomorphic river segments with relatively homogeneous characteristics; (5)
conducting a geomorphic assessment of historic channel change and whether changes have
affected the frequency and distribution of mesohabitat units; and (6) providing information to
assist AEA and licensing participants in developing 2013-2014 study plans. The study area
included the Lower Susitna River from RM 0 to RM 98.
Documentation of Susitna River Ice Break-up and Formation
The overall objective of the 2012 Documentation of Susitna River Ice Break-up and Formation
Study was to document baseline ice conditions and assess potential effects on ice processes
downstream of the proposed Project. Specific objectives included: (1) document the timing and
progression of break-up and ice cover formation on the Susitna River between RM 0 and RM
234; (2) document open leads between RM 0 and RM 234 throughout the winter; (3) document
the interaction between river ice processes and channel morphology, vegetation, and aquatic
habitats; and (4) provide baseline data to help identify the river reaches most likely to experience
changes in river ice formation as a result of Project construction and operation.
Susitna River ice studies conducted in the 1980s were reviewed and synthesized, as appropriate,
for use in developing 2013-2014 study plans. Information was compiled into a geospatial format
for comparison with current observations. Recent studies of the effects of hydroelectric projects
on river ice in arctic and sub-arctic climates were also be reviewed.
Open leads in the Middle River, mapped in 2012, were compared with locations of open leads
documented in 1984-1985. Time-lapse cameras were installed in spring 2012 at 11 locations
between RM 9 and RM 184 for observing ice break-up and ice-cover formation. Ice break-up
progression was documented in spring 2012 between RM 0 and RM 234 via aerial observations.
Documentation of freeze-up progression was conducted in fall/winter 2012 and included
observations of the presence of frazil ice, ice bridges, ice cover, and snow cover. Meteorological
and stream temperature data compilation occurred in fall/winter 2012, and river stage data from
the National Weather Service observer at Sunshine Station and Gold Creek gage were obtained
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 1-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3 December 2012
daily. Telemetered stage and camera installations from the 2012 flow routing and transect study
were observed daily for signs of ice formation.
Physical ice processes models were considered to predict the effects of the proposed Project on
river ice processes. The model and/or modeling approach will be selected, as part of the formal
studies, in consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research Engineering
Laboratory (CRREL), AEA, other technical experts, and licensing participants during the 2012
study year so that the model can be approved for use in 2013-2014.
Ice-scarred floodplain trees were mapped in support of delineating Riparian Ice Process Domains
for selecting 2013 Riparian Instream Flow Focus Area Study sites. On-the-ground tree ice-scar
reconnaissance was performed from approximately RM 168.5 to RM 172.5. Helicopter photo-
reconnaissance was conducted along the middle Susitna River (RM 99 to RM 184). On-the-
ground 1980’s tree ice-scar reconnaissance was performed from approximately RM 124 to RM
126. When river ice conditions allow in the winter of 2012, additional tree scar surveys will be
conducted by snow machine.
On-the-ground conditions were observed for developing field protocols and costs for installing
Groundwater and Surface Water wells and stage recorders at potential Instream Flow Riparian
and Fish Focus Area study sites. On-the-ground groundwater/surface water reconnaissance was
performed from approximately RM 168.5 to RM 172.5. On-the-ground 1980’s groundwater well
search-and-find survey and groundwater / surface water reconnaissance was performed from
approximately RM 124 to RM 126.
Instream Flow
Instream Flow Planning Study
The 2012 Instream Flow Planning Study outlined the objectives and methods for characterizing
existing information to use as a foundation for future flow-habitat studies.
A comprehensive instream flow study plan was developed in 2012 as part of the Project
licensing process. The 2013-2014 instream flow study will assess aquatic habitat response to
Project-induced changes in river flow, water temperature, turbidity, and other river channel/water
quality parameters. The objective of the 2012 Instream Flow Planning Study was to obtain
information to be used as the foundation for, and assist in development of, the 2013-2014
Instream Flow Study. Specific 2012 study objectives included: (1) synthesize 1980s instream
flow study information and evaluate applicability to the currently proposed Project; (2) identify
appropriate fish species/life stages, study reaches, study sites, and instream flow modeling
methods for the 2013-2014 Instream Flow Study; (3) conduct a site reconnaissance survey with
agencies and stakeholders, and identify preliminary study sites, potential transect locations, and
analytical methods; (4) collect habitat suitability criteria (HSC) data at selected locations on the
Susitna River; (5) coordinate instream flow study data needs across resource disciplines and
studies; and (6) assist in the development of the 2013-2014 Instream Flow Study Plan. The
study area includes all aquatic habitats and riparian areas related to river flow in the Susitna
River downstream of the proposed Watana Dam (RM 184 to RM 0).
The 2012 study methods addressed the following tasks: (1) review 1980s instream flow study
documents; (2) preliminary identification of fish target species, life stages, and/or guilds; (3)
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 1-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4 December 2012
preliminary determination of species periodicity; (4) compilation and review of habitat
utilization data by life stage/guild; (5) identification of physical habitat processes; (6) river
stratification and study site selection; (7) review existing HSC data/initiate collection of new
data; (8) review and selection of habitat modeling methods/components; (9) assist in assessment
of temperature modeling; and (10) develop the 2013-2014 study plan.
The following field efforts were completed in 2012:
• Field teams conducted a reconnaissance-level, on-ground survey of lateral habitat
features and mainstem channel to evaluate potential instream flow study sites (sites in the
lower Middle Reach were toured in July 2012). A site visit with the agencies and AEA
was held in late September to discuss study site selection and modeling procedures.
• Field teams conducted aquatic habitat and HSC data collection during July, August, and
September in the lower, middle, and upper Susitna River and its tributaries. Sampling
methods consisted of seine capture and visual observation during snorkel and pedestrian
surveys. Coordination/training with field staff was performed on Montana Creek, a
tributary to the lower Susitna River, and near Curry in the Middle Susitna River Reach.
• Field personnel conducted reconnaissance visits to selected sloughs and side channels to
enable some ground truthing of the aerial videography.
River Flow Routing Model Data Collection
A hydraulic flow routing model of the Susitna River downstream of Watana Dam will be
required to support a variety of other models used to assess the Project’s impact on river
hydraulics, temperature, ice processes, sediment transport, aquatic resources, and terrestrial
resources. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ HEC-RAS model is being considered for this
purpose. The 2012 River Flow Routing Model Data Collection Study initiated data collection
required for developing a routing model.
The purpose of the 2012 field effort was to provide input, calibration, and verification data for a
river flow routing model that extends from the proposed dam site (RM 184) to RM 75. Specific
objectives included: (1) surveying cross-sections to define channel topography and hydraulic
controls between RM 75 and RM 184, excluding Devils Canyon; (2) measuring stage and
discharge at each cross-section during high, low, and intermediate flows; (3) measuring water
surface slope during discharge measurements and documenting substrate type, groundcover,
habitat type, and woody debris in the floodplain to develop roughness estimates; and (4)
installing and operating water-level recording stations in collaboration with other studies.
The primary study area included the Susitna River mainstem channel between RM 75 and RM
184. Additional measurements were made at inactive U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stations at
RM 26 (Susitna Station) and RM 223 (Susitna River near Cantwell), as well as in the Susitna
delta.
Cross-sections were surveyed in 2012, with over 100 cross-sections surveyed overall, and more
will be undertaken in 2013. Water level, surface slope, and discharge measurements were made
concurrently with bathymetric surveys at each location. A survey team recorded main channel
and overbank locations, substrate and vegetation descriptions, water temperature, estimated D84
substrate size, and field roughness following USGS guidance. Water-level monitoring was
conducted at several stations.
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 1-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5 December 2012
Fish and Aquatic Resources
Synthesis of Existing Fish Population Data
Objectives of the 2012 Synthesis of Existing Fish Population Data Study included: (1)
consolidate and synthesize contemporary and historical fisheries resource data from the study
area into a comprehensive reference document; and (2) develop a geospatial database of existing
fisheries resources for use in analyses and studies to be conducted in 2013-2014. The data
synthesis was intended to improve understanding of baseline conditions, refine the list of
potential fisheries data gaps, and assist in developing well-focused aquatic resource studies for
2013-2014.
The following information was compiled: (1) river mile locations for geographic landmarks
used in historical studies; (2) resident and anadromous fish species composition within the upper
Susitna River (upstream of RM 184), middle Susitna River (RM 184 to RM 99), and lower
Susitna River (RM 99 to RM 0); (3) distribution of resident and anadromous fish species among
riverine habitat types; (4) relative abundance of fish species in river segments and riverine
habitat types; (5) run timing, spawning, and incubation periods for resident and anadromous
species; (6) representative indicators of fish growth, condition factor, age structure, and genetic
information; (7) physical habitat attributes beneficial to or preferred by fish species and life
stages; (8) physical habitat attributes that appear to limit fish populations; and (9) fish
communities, benthic macroinvertebrate communities, and habitat conditions at stream crossings
associated with proposed transmission line and access corridors.
Adult Salmon Distribution Habitat Utilization Study
The 2012 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization Study was the initial component of
a multi-year data collection and interpretation effort. The goals of the 2012 study were to: (1)
characterize the distribution, migration behavior, and proportional abundance of adult salmon
and determine their use of mainstem, side channel, and slough habitats in the lower, middle, and
upper Susitna River; (2) determine whether historical study results and conclusions are consistent
with the current distribution and relative abundance of spawning adult salmon in the mainstem
Susitna River; (3) provide spawning habitat data to support the selection of sites for the instream
flow study, develop site-specific habitat suitability criteria, and develop habitat sampling
protocol for 2013-2014; and (4) develop information to refine the scope, methods, and study sites
for assessing habitat use by adult salmon during the 2013-2014 studies.
Study objectives included: (1) capturing, radio-tagging, and tracking adults of the five species of
Pacific salmon in the middle Susitna River in proportion to their abundance; (2) determining the
migration behavior and spawning locations of radio-tagged fish in the lower, middle, and upper
Susitna River; (3) assessing the feasibility of using sonar to determine spawning locations in
turbid water; (4) characterizing salmon migration behavior and run timing above Devils Canyon;
(5) comparing historical and current data on relative abundance, locations of spawning and
holding salmon, and use of mainstem, side-channel, slough, and tributary habitat types by adult
salmon; (6) locating individual holding and spawning salmon in clear and turbid water and
collecting habitat data from holding and spawning salmon in the middle and lower river
mainstem consistent with developing HSC for instream flow modeling; and (7) evaluating the
effectiveness of methods used in 2012 to address study goals and objectives, and assessing their
suitability for future studies.
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 1-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6 December 2012
The study area included the Susitna River from Cook Inlet (RM 0) upstream to the Oshetna
River (RM 234.4), with an emphasis on river reaches between its confluence with the Chulitna
River (RM 98) and Devils Canyon (RM 154). This study was coordinated with basin-wide radio
telemetry studies being conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). This
study differs from the ADF&G studies in that spatial data will be collected from radio-tagged
fish on a finer scale, with the objective being to obtain locations of spawning and holding salmon
at the macro- and microhabitat levels.
Upper Susitna River Fish Distribution and Habitat Study
The 2012 Upper Susitna River Fish Distribution and Habitat Study constitutes the first year of a
multi-year effort aimed at characterizing the existing distribution of Chinook salmon and other
fish species in the Susitna River and its tributaries above Devils Canyon. Specific objectives
included: (1) determining the distribution of adult and juvenile Chinook salmon and relative
abundance of juvenile Chinook salmon in the Susitna River and its tributaries above Devils
Canyon; (2) characterizing aquatic habitat in the Susitna River and its tributaries/lakes from
Devils Canyon upstream to, and including, the Oshetna River and determining the suitability of
that habitat for Chinook salmon; (3) determining fish species composition and relative
abundance in the proposed reservoir inundation zone; (4) characterizing the type and amount of
aquatic habitat within the proposed reservoir inundation zone; (5) identifying the locations of
potential fish barriers in tributaries between Devils Canyon and the Oshetna River; (6) collecting
genetic samples of Chinook salmon; and (7) providing information for the development of plans
for studies to be conducted in 2013-2014. The study area included the mainstem Susitna River,
tributaries, and several lake systems associated with the Susitna River between Devils Canyon
(RM 154) and the Oshetna River RM (234.4) (including the Oshetna River).
Habitat mapping was conducted in tributaries, the mainstem Susitna River, and in lakes. Adult
Chinook salmon spawning surveys were conducted in tributaries and the mainstem; timing of the
surveys was based on existing run-timing information and clear water habitat conditions.
Juvenile Chinook salmon and other fish species were sampled in tributaries, the mainstem
Susitna River, and in lakes; sampling was scheduled based on typical outmigration timing.
When appropriate, a simple geomorphic and biologic model was developed to identify the
distribution of juvenile Chinook habitat in the mainstem river and tributary streams.
A two-day habitat training session was conducted for the field crews for the 2012 Fish
Distribution, Radio Telemetry, and Fishwheel surveys. The habitat training was conducted in the
upper Susitna River and its tributaries. The field data audits were conducted at Stephan Lake
Lodge, at fish sampling sites on the unnamed tributary that enters the mainstem Susitna River at
historic river mile 192, Curry Camp , and at Fishwheel 2 in the mainstem Susitna River. Training
sites were selected to represent a variety of channel types.
Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Anadromous Prey Analysis
Project-induced changes to river stage and discharge may impact Cook Inlet beluga whale
(CIBW) access to the lower Susitna River and/or to available prey. An understanding of CIBW
distribution (both spatially and temporally) and their prey species is necessary to evaluate
potential Project impacts on CIBWs and their critical habitat.
The 2012 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Anadromous Prey Analysis consisted of literature and data
reviews of the use of the Susitna River by CIBW and by key prey species (eulachon and adult
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 1-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 7 December 2012
Chinook, sockeye, chum, and coho salmon). Study objectives included: (1) summarizing the
life history, run timing, abundance, distribution, and habitat of CIBW anadromous prey species
in the Susitna River and in other Cook Inlet tributaries used by CIBWs; (2) summarizing
temporal and spatial distribution of CIBWs in Cook Inlet, the Susitna River delta, and the
Susitna River relative to the availability of eulachon and adult Chinook, sockeye, chum, and
coho salmon; and (3) consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) permitting and
requirements for the Project study program.
Existing information on pink salmon (juveniles and adults) and all life stages of Chinook,
sockeye, chum, and coho salmon above RM 50 was compiled as part of the Synthesis of Existing
Fish Population Data Study, and additional data will be collected during fisheries studies
conducted in 2013-2014. The study program focused on compiling and synthesizing life history
and habitat use information of: eulachon, adult Chinook, sockeye, chum, and coho salmon, and
CIBWs. The study area included the Susitna River within the range of anadromous fish
distribution, with an emphasis on the lower river (RM 0-50), and the area of the Susitna River
delta that could be affected by Project operations. Fish escapement and run timing data were
also compiled for other Cook Inlet tributaries where significant salmon and/or eulachon
predation by CIBWs occurs. Results of the study will be used to begin identifying potential
Project-induced impacts to beluga whales and their critical habitat and identify data needs to be
addressed as part of the 2013-2014 beluga whale study.
AEA, in consultation with NMFS, will address MMPA and ESA permit requirements for the
Project studies program and begin preparation of appropriate permit applications. A “No
Impact” protocol will be developed for implementation in association with all studies that have
the potential to affect CIBWs.
Botanical Resources
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study
The 2012 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study characterized and quantified direct
loss of vegetation communities and wildlife habitat within the Project footprint, evaluated
baseline wildlife habitat in the Project vicinity, and evaluated potential direct and indirect effects
of Project maintenance and operations on vegetation communities and wildlife habitat. This
initiated a multi-year study for locations where aerial imagery was currently available. Upon a
complete assessment of the Project area, mitigation alternatives will be developed to address
adverse Project-induced impacts.
The overall, multi-year objectives of the Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study are to:
1) characterize the vegetation communities and wildlife habitat in the Project area; 2) quantify
the potential impacts due to Project construction; 3) evaluate potential changes to the vegetation
communities and wildlife habitat from Project maintenance and operations and related activities;
and 4) develop the 2013–2014 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study Plan. The
assessment of the Project area vegetation and wildlife habitat will be completed as aerial imagery
becomes available and the Project area is refined (e.g., preferred alternative access and
transmission corridors).
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 1-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 8 December 2012
The study objective for 2012 was to develop a vegetation map using existing habitat
delineations, current aerial imagery, and field verification. Vegetation and wildlife habitat
surveys were conducted June through August, following the protocols described in the 2012
Study Plan. A total of 357 field plots were sampled. The vegetation and wildlife habitat field
surveys focused on the proposed reservoir, the Gold Creek transmission and road corridors, and
near the Denali transmission line and road corridor, where imagery of sufficient quality to
identify habitat photosignatures was available. Enough field data should be available to support
the preliminary mapping of vegetation and wildlife habitats in fall and winter 2012.
Wetland Mapping Study
Project construction, facilities, and operation and maintenance may affect wetlands upstream and
downstream from the dam site, and along access and transmission line routes. A thorough
understanding of how Project activities will affect wetland resources in the study area is critical
for developing best management practices, rehabilitation options for promoting recovery of
wetlands exposed to short term impacts, and compensatory mitigation for permanent wetland
losses. Wildlife use is related to the impact of Project activities on wetlands; therefore, results
from this study are necessary to evaluate baseline and future wildlife use of the Project area. The
results of the Wetlands Mapping Study will also be used to supplement the Vegetation and
Wildlife Habitat, Riparian, Rare Plant, and Invasive Plant studies.
The overall, multi-year objectives of the Wetlands Mapping Study are to: 1) characterize
wetlands in the Project area; 2) quantify the potential impact to wetlands and wetland function
from Project construction; 3) evaluate potential changes to wetlands and wetland functions from
Project maintenance and operations and related activities; and 4) develop the 2013–2014
Wetlands Mapping Study Plan.
The 2012 study included the following study components: 1) determine appropriate scales and
areal extents for wetland delineations in consultation with USACE and compile available
wetland mapping at various scales for development of wetland delineations based on current
aerial photography; 2) incorporate data from the Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study
and available data on natural fire patterns along the reservoir reach of the Susitna River; 3)
identify wetland delineation field sites and data from the 1980s studies for potential resampling;
4) identify sample locations and conduct initial field surveys.
A complete assessment of the Project area wetlands and wetland functions will be completed as
aerial imagery becomes available and the Project area is refined (e.g. preferred alternative access
and transmission corridors).
The study objective for 2012 was to develop a wetland map using existing habitat delineations,
current aerial imagery, and field verification. Wetlands surveys were conducted June through
August, following the protocols described in the 2012 Study Plan. A total of 357 field plots were
sampled. The wetlands field surveys focused on the proposed reservoir and Gold Creek
transmission and road corridors, where imagery of sufficient quality to identify habitat
photosignatures was available. Enough field data should be available to support the preliminary
mapping of wetlands in fall and winter 2012.
Riparian Study
Construction and operation of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project will alter the natural
flow regime of the Susitna River. A thorough understanding of how Project activities will affect
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 1-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 9 December 2012
riparian communities and hydrologic processes in the study area is critical for developing best
management practices, developing predictive models of potential changes in riparian ecosystems
downstream of the proposed dam, and assessing potential impacts to wildlife.
This multi-year study will characterize and quantify riparian habitats and successional stages
downstream from the dam site and evaluated potential direct and indirect effects of Project
operations on riparian habitats. The study was initiated in 2012 at locations where aerial imagery
was currently available. Upon a complete assessment of the Project area, mitigation alternatives
will be developed from the data to address adverse Project-induced impacts.
This study addresses the following issues: 1) losses of vegetation and wetland communities and
productivity from reservoir inundation and the development of other Project facilities (direct
effects); 2) changes to vegetation and wetland communities along access roads, transmission
corridors, and reservoir edges due to alteration of solar radiation, temperature moderation,
erosion and dust deposition, reservoir fluctuation, pathogen dispersal and abundance; and 3)
potential changes in wetlands, wetland functions, riparian vegetation, and riparian succession
patterns related to altered hydrologic regimes below the dam.
Riparian botanical surveys were conducted June through July, following the protocols described
in the 2012 Study Plan. A total of 88 field plots were sampled. The riparian botanical survey
area focused on the active floodplain of the Susitna River between the proposed dam site to the
north and the town of Willow to the south. Due to time constraints, some transects will need to
be revisited during the 2013 surveys to collect additional plot data.
Wildlife Resources
Eagle and Raptor Nest Study
The Project may result in eagle nest site loss or alteration and disturbance due to increased
human activity. Information on eagle and other raptor nest site locations is necessary to develop
avoidance and mitigation measures in compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and associated Executive Orders.
The 2012 study identified and compiled existing nest site and habitat use information, developed
survey areas, and completed multiple inventory and monitoring surveys for Bald and Golden
eagles. Potential Project-related impacts to eagles and raptors, as well as critical data gaps, were
identified. The 2013–2014 study plans will be developed in consultation with AEA, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and other licensing participants.
The inventory and monitoring methodologies established aerial and ground-based protocols for
eagle nest surveys, using appropriately trained observers and suitable survey platforms
(helicopter, fixed-wing aircraft). Inventory and monitoring data reporting will comply with the
protocols and standards described in the Memorandum of Understanding between the FERC and
the USFWS regarding implementation of Executive Order 13186. Although the primary study
focus was to evaluate the potential for the Project to affect eagles and eagle nests, all nests of
raptors and Common Ravens were recorded during surveys. Recommendations for survey extent
and methods were developed in coordination with the USFWS before beginning surveys.
The data gathered in 2012 will form the basis of future studies to evaluate the potential impacts
of the Project on Bald Eagles, Golden Eagles, and other raptors. Delineation and survey results
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 1-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 10 December 2012
of all suitable habitats within the Project area will identify occupied habitats and may be used in
the future to evaluate occupied versus available habitats. Eagle nest sites and ground-based
observations may be compared to determine pair territory size. Data on territory size can be used
to determine whether raptors displaced from nest sites due to Project-related habitat loss,
alteration, or disturbance maintain alternative nest sites within their territory that would be
unaffected by the Project, or whether nesting pairs may be displaced into already occupied
territories. Historical and current data may also be compared to evaluate trends in raptor
populations and habitat use.
Occupancy surveys for nesting raptors were performed in May from a helicopter. Dozens of
raptor nests were observed. Occupied nest sites were located and mapped. The raptor study area
comprises the entire area within a 2-mile buffer surrounding the Project area (reservoir study
area, facilities/infrastructure area, and access route and transmission-line corridors). The next
fieldwork planned for raptors is nest productivity surveys, scheduled for July 8–13 and 23–27,
2013.
Past and Current Big Game Harvest Study
The Project would create an access road to the dam site, as well as a large water body that could
be used for floatplane access to the region. These Project features, along with transmission line
corridor(s), have the potential to facilitate human access to the Project area and change the
pattern of human harvest of big game, furbearers, small game mammals, and upland game birds.
The objective of this study is to identify, acquire, and analyze available big game and furbearer
harvest and population data from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) for
identification of past and current trends in hunter access modes, hunting locations, and harvest
locations. Existing data from harvest reports will be compiled and reviewed for its adequacy to
address Project-specific changes in human access. The analysis will also determine whether the
watershed tributary-scale Uniform Coding Unit (UCU) data are adequate for detecting and
predicting potential Project-related changes in total harvest and harvest locations due to potential
changes in human access.
This study addresses the following issues: 1) potential impact of changes in predator and prey
abundance and distribution related to increased human activities and habitat changes resulting
from Project development; and 2) potential impacts to wildlife from changes in hunting,
vehicular use, noise, and other disturbances due to increased human presence resulting from
Project development.
The wildlife data-gap analysis conducted for the Project identified the need for an updated
drainage-specific compilation of subsistence, sport hunter, and trapper harvest data for all game
animals and furbearers. Hunter access to this region has changed since the 1980s, but potential
changes in patterns of harvest at this scale have not been evaluated or compared to movements of
moose or caribou. Compilation of historic data could also be useful for identifying any potential
trends in human access and harvest locations over the past decades and will provide input to
ADF&G’s management goals for big game and furbearers in the Project area.
Initial efforts in 2012 focused on compilation and analysis of hunter harvest and effort within
harvest report units contained within the ADF&G harvest record database. Movement and
aggregation patterns of game resources were evaluated from available ADF&G telemetry
databases (moose and caribou) or other available data maintained by ADF&G. Spatial resolution,
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 1-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 11 December 2012
adequacy, and completeness of the harvest data record for detecting potential changes in use of
wildlife resources in the Project area were evaluated. Collection of additional harvest data may
be recommended if existing data are determined to be at an insufficient resolution to detect
potential changes in harvest due to changes in human access. Additional information gathering
may involve interviews with trappers, upon approval and in coordination with subsistence
interviews that will be conducted in the affected communities in 2013–2014.
Wildlife Habitat Use and Movement Study
Construction and operation of the Project will result in wildlife habitat loss and alteration,
blockage of movements of mammals, disturbance, and changes in human activity due to
construction and operation of the Project from the proposed dam site, and along access and
transmission line routes. The Project may result in loss of, or displacement from, seasonally used
sensitive habitats in the middle and upper Susitna River basin, such as caribou calving areas,
bear foraging habitats, and Dall sheep lambing areas and mineral licks. In order to evaluate
potential Project-related effects and inform subsequent studies, the 2012 study effort aimed to
characterize critical data gaps based on existing Project area wildlife abundance, distribution,
movements and sensitive habitat data. This study was the initiation of a multi-year effort that will
continue in 2013–2014.
This study was broken into tasks by resource (species), each with specific objectives, study
areas, methods, and analytical outputs. Information on the current use of the following areas was
compiled: critical moose and caribou calving areas, rutting areas, wintering areas, and migration
or movement corridors; bear foraging and den habitats; Dall sheep lambing areas and mineral
licks; and wolf den and rendezvous sites. Data were compiled from various sources and
evaluated to determine the need for additional aerial surveys, ground-based monitoring, and/or
the potential establishment of remote surveillance. This information will be used to develop
2013–2014 study plans.
Recreation and Aesthetic Resources
Aesthetic and Recreation Resources Study
Construction and operation of the Project may impact recreation resources by increasing activity,
altering portions of the Susitna River and adjacent land, and/or restricting or increasing access.
These impacts could result in changes in the nature of the recreation experience, changes in
hunting or fishing opportunities, and/or changes in other recreation opportunities. Temporary
recreation impacts could be generated by construction personnel, traffic, materials, staging areas,
the worker camp, and noise. The Project is likely to also have positive recreation impacts. The
proposed access roads and transmission line corridors, reservoir, and recreational facilities would
provide new recreational opportunities to the public.
Construction and operation of the Project also may alter the character of aesthetic resources as a
result of increased human activity, noise and development. Temporary visual and noise impacts
would be generated by construction personnel, traffic, materials, staging areas, and worker
camps. The dam and reservoir would become a new visual feature in the middle Susitna River
basin. These structures could be viewed by various categories of persons, including Project
personnel and support staff, recreationists, subsistence users, and individuals flying overhead.
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 1-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 12 December 2012
The Project could have positive visual impacts as a result of the access roads, reservoir, and
recreational facilities providing new recreational and viewing opportunities to the public.
The study objectives for the 2012 Recreation and Aesthetics Study focused on information
gathering activities to identify relevant recreation and aesthetic resource information that will
inform the formal study planning process and environmental and social effects analysis for
Project construction and operation. Information will also be used to guide Project design and
mitigation of construction, operation and maintenance activities to minimize impacts, and
identify opportunities for design and siting refinements that maximize opportunity and access to
recreation opportunities and/or important views. Coordination across social resources (i.e.,
cultural, subsistence, and socioeconomic) from the outset of information gathering is considered
an essential component of the Aesthetics Study. Interdisciplinary coordination focused on
identifying locations of sensitive aesthetic and/or recreational resources such as cultural
properties, cultural vistas, and areas used by local outfitters (i.e., rafting, fishing, and hunting).
The 2012 work effort concentrated on data collection, and an evaluation of the
comprehensiveness and applicability of existing data. An evaluation of further measures that
may be required to collect appropriate data will also be provided for use in 2013-2014.
Cultural Resources
Cultural Resources Study
Construction and operation of the Project may result in damage or loss of cultural resources from
construction or increased human activity in the upper Susitna River basin. Documentation of
currently known cultural resources sites will help to inform the 2013-2014 studies. This
information, as well as a plan for unanticipated cultural resource discoveries, will be useful to
prevent inadvertent disturbance from other field studies for the Project.
The cultural resources study objectives were designed primarily to provide the information
necessary to enable the applicant and lead federal agency to meet the requirements of National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its accompanying regulations (36 CFR 800). The major
objectives for 2012 work included: 1) create GIS database to help enable development of
predictive models and management of cultural resources information for 2013-2014 studies; 2)
develop a predictive model, identifying areas of high, medium, and low potential for the
occurrence of cultural resources; 3) continue to identify and document cultural resources within
the Project study area, building upon work done between 1978-1985; and 4) prepare plans and
procedures addressing unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources, human remains, and
paleontological resources.
Construction and operation of the Project may impact sites of cultural significance along
transportation and powerline alignments, as well as in the area to be inundated by the reservoir. It
is important that these resources be inventoried and evaluated, so that the Project can identify
protection, mitigation and enhancement measures as appropriate. It is expected that potential
impacts to many cultural resources in the Project area can be mitigated either via removal (data
recovery/ archaeological excavation), or minor changes to Project alignments (avoidance).
In July, 2012, the cultural resources subcontractor generated the first iteration of a cultural
resource site locational model for the Susitna area, used the modeled surface to help develop
survey strategies for the SUWA corridors/potential APE, closely examined spatial data from
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 1-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 13 December 2012
previous (legacy) cultural resource fieldwork, and designated and mapped potential test areas for
use by the field crew in August 2012. In addition, spreadsheets and shapefiles of cultural
resources requiring site visits within the APE, as well as of potential test areas, were created
using GPS devices. Work continued on reviewing and copying relevant files and maps from the
1979-1985 studies housed at the University of Alaska Museum of the North in Fairbanks.
The cultural resources survey of geotechnical borehole locations was completed in early July and
the main 2012 field program was performed between late July and mid-August.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-1 December 2012
2. PROPOSED 2013 AND 2014 ILP STUDIES
AEA is proposing to perform 58 individual studies in eleven resource sections listed below. Each
study description follows a standard study plan template to provide a consistent presentation
across disciplines. The study descriptions include: fundamental discussions of existing
information and why the study is necessary to augment existing information; a description of the
objectives and scope of the study; and how the information could be used to inform the
development of license conditions for the Project.
Implementation of the studies will commence soon after FERC’s study plan determination. Each
study description has information regarding the scheduling of the work efforts but in general
each study will include:
Preparatory Phase, January – March 2013 and 2014;
Field Phase or Deployment Phase, spanning April – October (typically September) 2013
and 2014;
Analysis Phase, June – November 2013 and 2014; and
Reporting Phase, December 2013-January 2014 and December 2014-January 2015.
Upon issuance of FERC’s study plan determination, AEA will finalize a comprehensive schedule
for all studies. AEA has prepared a preliminary comprehensive schedule based on the 58 study
plans described in this RSP (see Attachment 2-1). Due to the interrelationships among the
proposed studies (discussed below) and unforeseen circumstances that may arise during
implementation of the studies (e.g., weather delays), AEA notes that all dates in the attached
schedule (except mandated regulatory deadlines) are estimated at this time and will be
continually updated throughout the study plan implementation phase, to account for actual events
as they occur.
Attachment 2-1 also includes a table entitled “Table of Study Predecessor and Successor
Activities.” Because the studies in this RSP are interdisciplinary in nature, most have direct
input or output needs from other resource studies. While each study plan provides a description
and illustration of these interrelationships for specific information needs and requirements that
will be obtained via other study efforts, the table in Attachment 2-1 is a comprehensive master
listing of the flow of information among all studies in the RSP, prepared at the task level
(ranging from internal exchanges of information to publicly available deliverables). While AEA
believes that this table is essential in demonstrating how the interrelationships among all the
studies will unfold over the two-year study program, AEA emphasizes that, like the master
schedule, this table is preliminary at this time, and all dates (except mandated regulatory
deadlines) are estimates. Because the table is a working document, it is subject to change and
will be continually updated throughout AEA’s implementation of the study plan approved by
FERC.
In addition, the general relationships, key information flow patterns, and interdependencies
among studies are shown in Figure 2-1 (Riverine-based Studies) and 2-2 (Upland-based Studies).
Some general concepts that apply to each study plan implementation effort include:
The schedule for each proposed study is reasonably flexible to accommodate unforeseen
problems that may affect schedule.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-2 December 2012
Field crews may make reasonable modifications to a study in the field to accommodate
actual field conditions and unforeseen problems. AEA’s contractor field crews will
follow accepted protocols to the extent possible. When modifications are made, AEA will
work to advise licensing participants of the change, particularly for any substantial
modifications.
When a number of alternative modifications are available to the field crew and with all
other things being equal, the contractor field crew will chose the low-cost alternative.
Implementation of many studies will require access to private property. AEA is in the
process of obtaining permission from land owners for access. Specifically excluded from
study areas are locations where access is unsafe (very steep terrain or high water flows)
or private property for which AEA has not received specific approval from the landowner
to enter the property to perform the study.
The following studies are described in this RSP, as listed below.
Geology and Soils (Section 4)
1. Geology and Soils Characterization Study (Section 4.5)
Water Quality (Section 5)
1. Baseline Water Quality Study (Section 5.5)
2. Water Quality Modeling Study (Section 5.6)
3. Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study (Section 5.7)
Geomorphology (Section 6)
1. Geomorphology Study (Section 6.5)
2. Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling below Watana Dam Study (Section 6.6)
Hydrology-Related Resources (Section 7)
3. Groundwater Study (Section 7.5)
4. Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study (Section 7.6)
5. Glacier and Runoff Changes Study (Section 7.7)
Instream Flow (Section 8)
1. Fish and Aquatics Instream Flow Study (Section 8.5)
2. Riparian Instream Flow Study (Section 8.6)
Fish and Aquatic Resources (Section 9)
1. Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River (Section 9.5)
2. Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River
(Section 9.6)
3. Salmon Escapement Study (Section 9.7)
4. River Productivity Study (Section 9.8)
5. Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats (Section 9.9)
6. The Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community and Risk of Entrainment Study (Section
9.10)
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-3 December 2012
7. Study of Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam (Section 9.11)
8. Study of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and Upper Susitna River and Susitna
Tributaries (Section 9.12)
9. Aquatic Resources Study within the Access Alignment, Transmission Alignment, and
Construction Area (Section 9.13)
10. Genetic Baseline Study for Selected Fish Species (Section 9.14)
11. Analysis of Fish Harvest in and Downstream of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
Area (Section 9.15)
12. Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River (Section 9.16)
13. Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study (Section 9.17)
Wildlife Resources (Section 10)
1. Moose Distribution, Abundance, Movements, Productivity, and Survival (Section 10.5)
2. Caribou Distribution, Abundance, Movements, Productivity, and Survival (Section 10.6)
3. Dall’s Sheep Distribution and Abundance (Section 10.7)
4. Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Use by Large Carnivores (Section 10.8)
5. Wolverine Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Occupancy (Section 10.9)
6. Terrestrial Furbearer Abundance and Habitat Use (Section 10.10)
7. Aquatic Furbearer Abundance and Habitat Use (Section 10.11)
8. Small Mammal Species Composition and Habitat Use (Section 10.12)
9. Bat Distribution and Habitat Use (Section 10.13)
10. Surveys of Eagles and Other Raptors (Section 10.14)
11. Waterbird Migration, Breeding, and Habitat Use Study (Section 10.15)
12. Landbird and Shorebird Migration, Breeding, and Habitat Use Study (Section 10.16)
13. Population Ecology of Willow Ptarmigan in Game Management Unit 13 (Section 10.17)
14. Wood Frog Occupancy and Habitat Use (Section 10.18)
15. Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use (Section 10.19)
16. Wildlife Harvest Analysis (Section 10.20)
Botanical Resources (Section 11)
1. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin
(Section 11.5)
2. Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Sustina-Watana Dam (Section
11.6)
3. Wetland Mapping Study (Section 11.7)
4. Rare Plant Study (Section 11.8)
5. Invasive Plant Study (Section 11.9)
Recreation and Aesthetic Resources (Section 12)
1. Recreation Resources Study (Section 12.5)
2. Aesthetic Resources Study (Section 12.6)
3. River Recreation Flow and Access Study (Section 12.7)
Cultural and Paleontological Resources (Section 13)
1. Cultural Resources Study (Section 13.5)
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-4 December 2012
2. Paleontological Resources Study (Section 13.6)
Subsistence Resources (Section 14)
1. Subsistence Resources Study (Section 14.5)
Socioeconomic and Transportation Resources (Section 15)
1. Regional Economic Evaluation Study (Section 15.5)
2. Social Conditions and Public Goods and Services Study (Section 15.6)
3. Transportation Resources Study (Section 15.7)
4. Health Impact Assessment Study (Section 15.8)
5. Air Quality Study (Section 15.9)
Project Safety (Section 16)
1. Probable Maximum Flood Study (Section 16.5)
2. Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Study (Section 16.6)
As noted in Section 1, licensing participants submitted a total of 52 formal study requests, of
which AEA is proposing to undertake all but one of these requested resource studies, with some
alterations and adjustments as noted in study plan sections or comment response tables. For the
51 study requests that align with studies AEA is proposing, this RSP does not in every instance
adopt each element or aspect of the proposed study request. Rather, AEA has incorporated the
majority of the elements, with alterations or adjustments, or by providing similar approaches to
the requested studies. As described in detail in Section 1.1 above, following AEA’s release of the
PSP, AEA consulted regularly and extensively with licensing participants to discuss any
remaining differences between AEA’s proposed studies and participants’ formal study requests,
During this intensive consultative effort, any comments raised by licensing participants regarding
any differences were noted in TWG meeting notes, in other consultation documents, and in
written comments recently filed with the Commission. AEA has provided responses to these
concerns and others in the comment response tables in Appendix 1 and 3.
Since the filing of the PSP, AEA did not receive any new formal study requests. Therefore, the
previously filed 51 study requests outlined in the PSP are the study requests that been the subject
of continuous consultation between AEA and interested parties and are also those study requests
many interested parties refer to in their recent FERC-filed comments on the PSP. Table 2-1
presents a listing of the individual study requests, identifies the study requestor(s), and identifies
where in AEA’s study plan the study topic is addressed.
2.1. Tables
Table 2-1. Summary of formal study requests filed with FERC.
Study Request Title Requestor Date filed with FERC PSP Section Study Request Corresponds to
Probable Maximum Flood FERC 05-31-2012 Section 16 – Project Safety, 16.5
Geology and Soils
Assessment FERC 05-31-2012 Section 4 – Geology and Soils
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-5 December 2012
Study Request Title Requestor Date filed with FERC PSP Section Study Request Corresponds to
Site-Specific Seismic
Hazard Evaluation FERC 05-31-2012 Section 16 – Project Safety, 16.6
Noise Assessment FERC 05-31-2012 Section 12 – Recreation and Aesthetic
Resources, 12.7
Recreational Boating and
River Access Study FERC 05-31-2012 Section 12 – Recreation and Aesthetic
Resources, 12.5 and 12.6
Recreation Resources
Study FERC 05-31-2012 Section 12 – Recreation and Aesthetic
Resources, 12.5
Study of Eagles and Other
Raptors USFWS 05-31-2012 Section 10 – Wildlife Resources, 10.14
Study of Waterbird
Migration, Breeding, and
Habitat
USFWS 05-31-2012 Section 10 – Wildlife Resources, 10.15
Study of Landbirds and
Shorebirds USFWS 05-31-2012 Section 10 – Wildlife Resources, 10.16
Piscivorous Wildlife and
Mercury – Risk
Assessment Study
USFWS 05-31-2012 Section 5 – Water Quality, 5.7
Vegetation and Wildlife
Habitat Mapping Study USFWS 05-31-2012 Section 11 – Botanical Resources,11.5; Section
10 - Wildlife Resources, 10.19
Riparian Habitat Mapping
Study USFWS 05-31-2012 Section 11 – Botanical Resources, 11.6
Wetland Mapping and
Functional Assessment
Study
USFWS 05-31-2012 Section 11 – Botanical Resources, 11.7
Instream Flow for
Floodplain and Riparian
Vegetation Study
USFWS 05-31-2012 Section 8 – Instream Flow, 8.6
River Productivity Study USFWS 05-31-2012 Section 9 – Fish and Aquatic Resources, 9.8
Fish Passage Study USFWS 05-31-2012 Section 9 – Fish and Aquatic Resources, 9.11
Early Life History and
Juvenile Fish Distribution
and Abundance in the
Susitna River
USFWS 05-31-2012 Section 9 – Fish and Aquatic Resources, 9.5,
9.6 and 9.7
Adult and Juvenile Non-
Salmon Anadromous,
Resident and Invasive Fish
Studies in the Susitna
River basin (RM0-233)
USFWS 05-31-2012 Section 9 – Fish and Aquatic Resources, 9.5
and 9.6
Adult Salmon Distribution,
Abundance, Habitat USFWS 05-31-2012 Section 9 – Fish and Aquatic Resources, 9.5
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-6 December 2012
Study Request Title Requestor Date filed with FERC PSP Section Study Request Corresponds to
Utilization and Escapement
in the Susitna River
Susitna River Instream
Flow and Habitat Utilization
Study
USFWS 05-31-2012 Section 8 – Instream Flow, 8.5
Groundwater-Related
Aquatic and Floodplain
Habitat Study
USFWS 05-31-2012 Section 7 – Hydrology-Related Resources, 7.5
Water Quality Study USFWS 05-31-2012 Section 5 – Water Quality, 5.5
Geomorphology Study USFWS 05-31-2012 Section 6 – Geomorphology, 6.5
Flow Routing Study USFWS 05-31-2012
Section 5 – Water Quality, 5.6; Section 6 –
Geomorphology, 6.6; Section 7 – Hydrology-
Related Resources 7.6; and Section 8 Instream
Flow, 8.5 and 8.6
Ice Processes in the
Susitna River USFWS 05-31-2012 Section 7 – Hydrology-Related Resources, 7.6
Project Effects Under
Climate Change Condition
Study
USFWS 05-31-2012 Section 7 – Hydrology-Related Resources, 7.7
Fish Passage Study NOAA-NMFS 05-31-2012 Section 9 – Fish and Aquatic Resources, 9.11
Early Life History and
Juvenile Fish Distribution
and Abundance in the
Susitna River Study
NOAA-NMFS 05-31-2012 Section 7 – Hydrology-Related Resources, 7.5
and Section 8 – Instream Flow, 8.5
Adult Salmon Distribution
Abundance, Habitat
Utilization and Escapement
in the Susitna River
NOAA-NMFS 05-31-2012 Section 9 – Fish and Aquatic Resources, 9.5
and 9.6
Susitna River Instream
Flow Study Request NOAA-NMFS 05-31-2012 Section 8 – Instream Flow, 8.5
Susitna River Groundwater
Study NOAA-NMFS 05-31-2012 Section 7 – Hydrology-Related Resources, 7.5
Susitna River Water
Quality Study NOAA-NMFS 05-31-2012 Section 5 – Water Quality, 5.5
Susitna River
Geomorphology Study
Request
NOAA-NMFS 05-31-2012 Section 6 – Geomorphology, 6.5
Susitna River Flow Routing
Study Request NOAA-NMFS 05-31-2012
Section 5 – Water Quality, 5.6; Section 6 –
Geomorphology, 6.6; Section 7 – Hydrology-
Related Resources 7.6; and Section 8 Instream
Flow, 8.5 and 8.6
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-7 December 2012
Study Request Title Requestor Date filed with FERC PSP Section Study Request Corresponds to
Susitna River Ice
Processes Study Request NOAA-NMFS 05-31-2012 Section 7 – Hydrology-Related Resources, 7.6
Susitna River project
Effects Under Changing
Climate Conditions Study
Request
NOAA-NMFS 05-31-2012 Section 7 – Hydrology-Related Resources, 7.7
Susitna-Watana Marine
Mammal Study Request NOAA-NMFS 05-31-2012 Section 9 – Aquatic Resources, 9.16 and 9.17
Recreation Resources
Assessment USDOI – NPS 05-24-2012 Section 12 – Recreation and Aesthetic
Resources, 12.5
Aesthetic Resources,
Assessment of Visual and
Auditory Impacts
USDOI – NPS 05-24-2012 Section 12 – Recreation and Aesthetic
Resources, 12.6
Adult Chinook and Coho
Salmon Spawner
Distribution and
Abundance Studies
ADF&G 05-30-2012 Section 9 – Fish and Aquatic Resources, 9.5,
9.6, and 9.7
Fish Genetics ADF&G 05-30-2012 Section 9 – Fish and Aquatic Resources, 9.14
Moose Browse survey in
the Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project Area
ADF&G 05-30-2012 Section 10 – Wildlife Resources, 10.5
Instream Flow Study ADF&G 05-30-2012 Section 8 – Instream Flow, 8.5
Evaluation of Surface
Water and Ground Water
Exchange
ADF&G 05-30-2012 Section 7 – Hydrology-Related Resources, 7.5
Request for Information or
Study Effects of the Project
and Related Activates on
Hydrology for Anadromous
Fish
Center for Water Advocacy 05-31-2012 Section 8 – Instream Flow, 8.5
Recreational Flow Study American White Water 05-31-2012 Section 12 – Recreation and Aesthetic
Resources, 12.7
Mineral Resources
Assessment Cook Inlet Region INC 05-31-2012 Section 4 – Geology and Soils
Temperature Impact on
Aquatic Community
Natural Resources
Defense Council 05-30-2012 Section 5 – Water Quality, 5.6; Section 8-
Instream Flow, 8.5
Altered Flow, Turbidity and
Sediment Transport
Natural Resources
Defense Council 05-30-2012 Section 6 – Geomorphology, 6.5
Salmon Viability Criteria Natural Resources
Defense Council 05-30-2012 Section 9 – Fish and Aquatic Resources, 9.7
National-Level Economic Natural Heritage Institute, 05-31-2012 Section 3 – Studies Not Proposed
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-8 December 2012
Study Request Title Requestor Date filed with FERC PSP Section Study Request Corresponds to
Valuation et al.
National-Level Economic
Valuation American Whitewater 05-31-2012 Section 3 – Studies Not Proposed
National-Level Economic
Valuation
Alaska Hydro Project
Alaska Survival
Coalition for Susitna Dam
Alternatives
11-14-2014 Section 3 – Studies Not Proposed
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-9 December 2012
2.2. Figures
Figure 2-1. Interrelationships amongst Riverine-based Studies.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-10 December 2012
Figure 2-2. Interrelationships amongst Upland-based Studies.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2-11 December 2012
2.3. Attachments
ATTACHMENT 2-1. COMPREHENSIVE SCHEDULE
ATTACHMENT 2-1
COMPREHENSIVE SCHEDULE
Activity IDActivity NameRemDurationStartFinishSusitna-WatanSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Schedule664d04-Jan-1224-Feb-15Pre Filing ActivPre Filing Activities664d04-Jan-1224-Feb-15MilestonesMilestones664d04-Jan-1224-Feb-15First & Second SeaFirst & Second Season - Studies664d04-Jan-1224-Feb-15Geology & Soils CGeology & Soils Characterization Study (4.5)375d01-May-1302-Feb-15ST4630Comprehensive Investigations (Dam Site & Reservoir Area)83d01-May-13*30-Aug-13ST4660Comprehensive Investigations (Access Road & Transmission Line)83d01-May-14*29-Aug-14ST4661Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST4662Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Baseline Water QBaseline Water Quality Study (5.5)548d02-Jul-1202-Feb-15ST4680MET Station Installation & Data Collection458d15-Aug-12*30-Sep-14ST4690Thermal Imaging20d15-Nov-12*28-Dec-12ST4720Data Analysis & Management427d02-Oct-12*30-Sep-14ST4730Fish Tissue Sampling40d03-Sep-13*31-Oct-13ST4740Sediment Sampling40d03-Sep-13*31-Oct-13ST4750Water Quality Monitoring205d16-Apr-13*28-Mar-14ST4760Deployment of Temp Monitoring Apparatus458d15-Aug-12*30-Sep-14ST4770QAPP/SAP Preparation & Review62d02-Jul-12*28-Sep-12ST4771Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST4772Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Water Quality ModWater Quality Modeling Study (5.6)517d15-Aug-1202-Feb-15ST4800Generate Results for Operational Scenarios122d15-May-14*14-Nov-14ST4810Verification Runs63d01-Jul-14*30-Sep-14ST4820Re-Calibration Adjustments121d01-Apr-14*30-Sep-14ST4840Model Calibration (Water Quality)110d01-Jul-13*31-Dec-13ST4850Model Evaluation/Selection31d15-Aug-12*28-Sep-12ST4860Coordination w/ Water Quality Data Collection & Analysis306d02-Oct-12*28-Mar-14ST4861Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST4862Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Mercury AssessmMercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study (5.7)568d01-Jun-1202-Feb-15ST4870Soil Vegetation Sampling52d15-Aug-13*31-Oct-13ST4880Sediment Sampling52d15-Aug-13*31-Oct-13ST4900Avian Furbearer Studies62d01-Jul-13*30-Sep-13ST4910Fish Tissue Sampling295d01-Jun-12*30-Sep-13ST4920Data Analysis & Management93d01-Oct-13*28-Mar-14ST4940Follow Up Studies (as needed)166d02-Jan-14*30-Sep-14ST4960Water Quality Monitoring (Monthly)155d01-Jul-13*28-Mar-14ST4961Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST4962Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Geomorphology SGeomorphology Study (6.5)606d03-Apr-1202-Feb-15ST4970Initial Geomorphic Reach Deliniation/Finalize Deliniation275d02-Jul-12*30-Sep-13ST4980Identify and Map Paleo Geomorphic Features & Geology213d02-Oct-12*30-Sep-13ST4990Determine Morphometric Parameters275d02-Jul-12*30-Sep-13ST5010Identify Key Governing Geomorphic Process275d02-Jul-12*30-Sep-13ST5020Acquire Aerial Photo275d02-Jul-12*30-Sep-13ST5030Digitize 1980's Habitat and Geomorphic Features110d02-Jul-12*28-Dec-12ST5040Digitize 2012 Habitat and Geomorphic Features261d02-Oct-12*31-Dec-13Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q320122013201420152016Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project SchedulePre Filing ActivitiesMilestonesFirst & Second Season - StudiesGeology & Soils Characterization Study (4.5)Comprehensive Investigations (Dam Site & Reservoir Area)Comprehensive Investigations (Access Road & Transmission Line)Initial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportBaseline Water Quality Study (5.5)MET Station Installation & Data CollectionThermal ImagingData Analysis & ManagementFish Tissue SamplingSediment SamplingWater Quality MonitoringDeployment of Temp Monitoring ApparatusQAPP/SAP Preparation & ReviewInitial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportWater Quality Modeling Study (5.6)Generate Results for Operational ScenariosVerification RunsRe-Calibration AdjustmentsModel Calibration (Water Quality)Model Evaluation/SelectionCoordination w/ Water Quality Data Collection & AnalysisInitial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportMercury Assessment and Potential for BioaccumulatSoil Vegetation SamplingSediment SamplingAvian Furbearer StudiesFish Tissue SamplingData Analysis & ManagementFollow Up Studies (as needed)Water Quality Monitoring (Monthly)Initial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportGeomorphology Study (6.5)Initial Geomorphic Reach Deliniation/Finalize DeliniationIdentify and Map Paleo Geomorphic Features & GeologyDetermine Morphometric ParametersIdentify Key Governing Geomorphic ProcessAcquire Aerial PhotoDigitize 1980's Habitat and Geomorphic FeaturesDigitize 2012 Habitat and Geomorphic FeaturesSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Schedule Page 1 of 12 Note: Please refer to the individual study plans in Sections 4 through 16 for a discussion and figures explaining the relationship between studies. Revised Study PlanSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241Attachment 2-1 Page 1Alaska Energy Authority December 2012
Activity IDActivity NameRemDurationStartFinishST5050Assess Habitat Area Change 1980-2012257d15-Nov-12*20-Feb-14ST5060Assess Channel Change 1980-2012257d15-Nov-12*20-Feb-14ST5070Initial & Final Flow Assessment183d02-Oct-12*15-Aug-13ST5080Determine Effective Discharge & Characterization of Bed Mobilization51d04-Jun-13*15-Aug-13ST5090Initial/Detailed Sediment Balance213d02-Oct-12*30-Sep-13ST5100Recon. Level Assessment of Potential Lower River Channel Change45d15-Nov-12*21-Feb-13ST5120Large Woody Debris307d15-May-13*30-Sep-14ST5130Reservoir Geomorphology334d02-Apr-13*30-Sep-14ST5140Geomorphology of Stream X-ings along Access & Trans Corridor334d02-Apr-13*30-Sep-14ST5150Integration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. Geomorphology Modeling Results426d02-Jan-13*31-Dec-14ST5180Develop Geomorphic System / Finalize Classification System213d03-Apr-12*29-Mar-13ST5181Inital Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST5182Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Fluvial GeomorphFluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study (6.6)606d03-Apr-1202-Feb-15ST5200Selection of 1D and 2D Models213d03-Apr-12*29-Mar-13ST5210Selection of Focus Area115d16-Jul-12*31-Jan-13ST5230Coordination w/ Other Studies on Modeling Needs Including Focus Areas399d15-Nov-12*30-Sep-14ST52402013 Field Data Collection120d02-Apr-13*30-Sep-13ST5250Supplemental Field Data Collection 2014120d01-Apr-14*29-Sep-14ST5260Coordinate w/ Other Studies on Processes Modeled192d01-Nov-12*30-Sep-13ST52701D Model Development & Calibration168d02-Apr-13*31-Dec-13ST5280Perform 1D Modeling of Exis Conditions & Initial Proj Run70d01-Oct-13*18-Feb-14ST5290Reevaluate D/S Study Limits Based on 1D Results45d02-Jan-14*28-Mar-14ST53002D Model Development & Calibration213d01-Jul-13*30-Jun-14ST5310Perform 2D Modeling Existing Conditions63d01-Jul-14*30-Sep-14ST5320Perform 1D Modeling of Alternate Scenarios192d18-Feb-14*31-Dec-14ST5340Perform 2D Modeling of Alternate Scenarios110d01-Jul-14*31-Dec-14ST5350Post Process & Provide Model Results to Other Studies168d01-Apr-14*31-Dec-14ST5360Interpretation of Channel Change & Integration w/ Other Studies168d01-Apr-14*31-Dec-14ST5370Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST5372Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Groundwater StudGroundwater Study (7.5)486d02-Oct-1202-Feb-15ST5380Existing Data Synthesis213d02-Jan-13*31-Dec-13ST5390Geohydrologic Process-Domains and Terrain213d02-Jan-13*31-Dec-13ST5400Watana Dam/Reservoir323d04-Jun-13*14-Nov-14ST5410Upwelling/Springs Broadscale Mapping362d02-Apr-13*14-Nov-14ST5420Riparian Veg Dependency on Surface/Grdwater Interactions407d02-Jan-13*14-Nov-14ST5430Aquatic Habitat/Grdwater/Surface Water Interactions455d02-Oct-12*14-Nov-14ST5450Water Quality in Selected Habitats455d02-Oct-12*14-Nov-14ST5460Winter Ground/Surface Water Interactions364d02-Oct-12*30-Jun-14ST5470Shallow Groundwater Users426d02-Jan-13*31-Dec-14ST5480Initial Study Plan0d03-Feb-14*ST5490Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Ice Processes in tIce Processes in the Susitna River Study (7.6)652d04-Jan-1202-Feb-15ST2510Existing Condition 1D Model Development213d02-Jan-13*31-Dec-13ST2520Intensive Site Models89d01-Oct-14*02-Feb-15ST2530Proposed Condition 1D Model Development261d01-Oct-13*31-Dec-14ST2570Open Lead Surveys, Ice Thickness & Elevation (2012)46d04-Jan-12*30-Mar-12Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q320122013201420152016Assess Habitat Area Change 1980-2012Assess Channel Change 1980-2012Initial & Final Flow AssessmentDetermine Effective Discharge & Characterization of Bed MobilizationInitial/Detailed Sediment BalanceRecon. Level Assessment of Potential Lower River Channel ChangeLarge Woody DebrisReservoir GeomorphologyGeomorphology of Stream X-ings along Access & Trans CorridoIntegration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. GeomorpholoDevelop Geomorphic System / Finalize Classification SystemInital Study ReportUpdated Study ReportFluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana DaSelection of 1D and 2D ModelsSelection of Focus AreaCoordination w/ Other Studies on Modeling Needs Including Foc2013 Field Data CollectionSupplemental Field Data Collection 2014Coordinate w/ Other Studies on Processes Modeled1D Model Development & CalibrationPerform 1D Modeling of Exis Conditions & Initial Proj RunReevaluate D/S Study Limits Based on 1D Results2D Model Development & CalibrationPerform 2D Modeling Existing ConditionsPerform 1D Modeling of Alternate ScenariosPerform 2D Modeling of Alternate ScenariosPost Process & Provide Model Results to Other StudiesInterpretation of Channel Change & Integration w/ OtheInitial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportGroundwater Study (7.5)Existing Data SynthesisGeohydrologic Process-Domains and TerrainWatana Dam/ReservoirUpwelling/Springs Broadscale MappingRiparian Veg Dependency on Surface/Grdwater InteractionsAquatic Habitat/Grdwater/Surface Water InteractionsWater Quality in Selected HabitatsWinter Ground/Surface Water InteractionsShallow Groundwater UsersInitial Study PlanUpdated Study ReportIce Processes in the Susitna River Study (7.6)Existing Condition 1D Model DevelopmentIntensive Site ModelsProposed Condition 1D Model DevelopmentOpen Lead Surveys, Ice Thickness & Elevation (2012)Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Schedule Page 2 of 12 Note: Please refer to the individual study plans in Sections 4 through 16 for a discussion and figures explaining the relationship between studies. Revised Study PlanSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241Attachment 2-1 Page 2Alaska Energy Authority December 2012
Activity IDActivity NameRemDurationStartFinishST2580Break Up Reconnaissance58d03-Apr-1229-Jun-12ST2590Freezup Reconnaissance93d02-Oct-12*29-Mar-13ST2630Open Lead Surveys, Ice Thickness & Elevation (2013)45d02-Jan-13*29-Mar-13ST2640Break Up Reconnaissance58d02-Apr-1328-Jun-13ST2650Freezup Reconnaissance92d02-Oct-1328-Mar-14ST2710Initial Study Report Prep56d18-Nov-13*03-Feb-14ST2720Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST2730Open Lead Surveys, Ice Thickness & Elevation (2014)45d02-Jan-14*28-Mar-14ST2740Break Up Reconnaissance58d01-Apr-1430-Jun-14ST2770Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15Glacial & RunOff CGlacial & RunOff Changes Study (7.7)438d02-Jan-1302-Feb-15ST3840Review Existing Literature45d02-Jan-13*29-Mar-13ST3850Process Remote Sensing Imagery165d02-Jan-13*30-Sep-13ST3870Spring Fieldwork271d02-Apr-13*30-Jun-14ST3880Fall Fieldwork245d15-Aug-13*30-Sep-14ST3900Analyze Glacier Mass Balance & Meteorological Data292d15-Aug-13*31-Dec-14ST3910Glacial Extent Variation122d15-May-13*15-Nov-13ST3930Hydrological & Glacier Melt Model Developement103d02-Jan-13*28-Jun-13ST3940Hydrological & Glacier Melt Model Calibration/Validation323d01-Jul-13*31-Dec-14ST3960Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST3970Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Fish & Aquatics InFish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study (8.5)606d03-Apr-1202-Feb-15ST3000Study Area Selection594d03-Apr-12*31-Dec-14ST3110Review of 1980's Data & Information594d03-Apr-12*31-Dec-14ST3220Model Selection by Habitat Type93d02-Oct-12*29-Mar-13ST4500Hydraulic Flow Routing594d03-Apr-12*31-Dec-14ST4510Hydrology594d03-Apr-12*31-Dec-14ST4520Peiodicity594d03-Apr-12*31-Dec-14ST4530HSC/HCI Fish: Field Data Collection594d03-Apr-12*31-Dec-14ST4540Collect Physical & Hydraulic Data for Habitat Modeling323d01-Jul-13*31-Dec-14ST4550Coordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data Collection & Modeling536d02-Jul-12*31-Dec-14ST4570Hydraulic Model Integration & Calibration168d01-Apr-14*31-Dec-14ST4580Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST4590Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Riparian InstreamRiparian Instream Flow Study (8.6)438d02-Jan-1302-Feb-15ST1010Critical Review of 1980's Susitna River Data213d02-Jan-13*31-Dec-13ST1020Finalize Riparian Groundwater/Surface Water Field Design45d02-Jan-13*29-Mar-13ST1030Implement Riparian Groundwater/Surfacewater Installation & Sampling381d02-Apr-13*31-Dec-14ST1040Riparian Vegetation: Field Data Collection - 2013149d02-Apr-13*15-Nov-13ST1050Riparian Vegetation: Field Data Collection - 2014121d01-Apr-14*30-Sep-14ST1060Sediment Dating: Sampling & Analysis - 2013168d02-Apr-13*31-Dec-13ST1070Sediment Dating: Sampling & Analysis - 2014168d01-Apr-14*31-Dec-14ST1080Develop Groundwater/Surfacewater Modeling426d02-Jan-13*31-Dec-14ST1090Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST1100Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Study of Fish DistStudy of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River (9.5)438d02-Jan-1302-Feb-15ST2220Fish Sampling426d02-Jan-13*31-Dec-14ST2950Study Site Selection45d02-Jan-13*29-Mar-13Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q320122013201420152016Break Up ReconnaissanceFreezup ReconnaissanceOpen Lead Surveys, Ice Thickness & Elevation (2013)Break Up ReconnaissanceFreezup ReconnaissanceInitial Study Report PrepInitial Study ReportOpen Lead Surveys, Ice Thickness & Elevation (2014)Break Up ReconnaissanceUpdated Study ReportGlacial & RunOff Changes Study (7.7)Review Existing LiteratureProcess Remote Sensing ImagerySpring FieldworkFall FieldworkAnalyze Glacier Mass Balance & Meteorological DataGlacial Extent VariationHydrological & Glacier Melt Model DevelopementHydrological & Glacier Melt Model Calibration/ValidationInitial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportFish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study (8.5)Study Area SelectionReview of 1980's Data & InformationModel Selection by Habitat TypeHydraulic Flow RoutingHydrologyPeiodicityHSC/HCI Fish: Field Data CollectionCollect Physical & Hydraulic Data for Habitat ModelingCoordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data CollectioHydraulic Model Integration & CalibrationInitial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportRiparian Instream Flow Study (8.6)Critical Review of 1980's Susitna River DataFinalize Riparian Groundwater/Surface Water Field DesignImplement Riparian Groundwater/Surfacewater InstallaRiparian Vegetation: Field Data Collection - 2013Riparian Vegetation: Field Data Collection - 2014Sediment Dating: Sampling & Analysis - 2013Sediment Dating: Sampling & Analysis - 2014Develop Groundwater/Surfacewater ModelingInitial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportStudy of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the UppFish SamplingStudy Site SelectionSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Schedule Page 3 of 12 Note: Please refer to the individual study plans in Sections 4 through 16 for a discussion and figures explaining the relationship between studies. Revised Study PlanSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241Attachment 2-1 Page 3Alaska Energy Authority December 2012
Activity IDActivity NameRemDurationStartFinishST2951Data Entry323d01-Jul-13*31-Dec-14ST2952Preliminary Data Analysis110d01-Jul-13*31-Dec-13ST3050Initial Study Report Prep57d15-Nov-13*03-Feb-14ST3060Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14ST3120Final Datal Analysis110d01-Jul-14*31-Dec-14ST3140Updated Study Report Prep89d01-Oct-14*02-Feb-15ST3150Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15Study of Fish DistStudy of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River(9.6)438d02-Jan-1302-Feb-15ST3310Study Site Selection45d02-Jan-13*29-Mar-13ST3320Fish Sampling405d15-Feb-13*31-Dec-14ST3350Data Entry323d01-Jul-13*31-Dec-14ST3360Preliminary Data Analysis110d01-Jul-1331-Dec-13ST3370Initial Study Report Prep57d15-Nov-13*03-Feb-14ST3380Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14ST3381Final Data Analysis110d01-Jul-14*31-Dec-14ST3390Updated Study Report Prep89d01-Oct-14*02-Feb-15ST3400Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15Salmon EscapemSalmon Escapement Study (9.7)375d01-May-1302-Feb-15ST2380Operate Fishwheels in the Lower Susitna -201383d01-May-13*30-Aug-13ST2390Operate Fishwheels at Curry - 201371d04-Jun-13*16-Sep-13ST2400Conduct Aerial Surveys - 201381d17-Jun-13*15-Oct-13ST2410Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST2420Operate Fishwheels in the Lower Susitna -201483d01-May-14*29-Aug-14ST2430Operate Fishwheels at Curry - 201472d03-Jun-14*15-Sep-14ST2440Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*River ProductivityRiver Productivity Study (9.8)405d02-Apr-1324-Feb-15ST4020Literature Review on Hydropower Impacts168d02-Apr-13*31-Dec-13ST4060Sampling Benthic Macroinvertibrate & Algae Communities & Organic Matter334d02-Apr-1330-Sep-14ST4100Invertebrate Drift Sampling334d02-Apr-1330-Sep-14ST4120Sampling Talkeetna for Ref. Site & Feasibility Study120d02-Apr-13*30-Sep-13ST4140Trophic Analysis w/ Bioenergetics & Stable Isotope Analysis381d02-Apr-1331-Dec-14ST4150Generate Habitat Suitability Criteria213d02-Jan-14*31-Dec-14ST4160Conduct a Fish Gut Analysis334d02-Apr-1330-Sep-14ST4170Establish Baseline Colonization Rates334d02-Apr-1330-Sep-14ST4180Data Analysis & Reporting347d01-Jul-13*24-Feb-15ST4210Initial Study Report Prep90d01-Oct-13*03-Feb-14ST4230Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14ST4240Updated Study Report Prep90d22-Oct-1424-Feb-15*ST4250Updated Study Report0d24-Feb-15Characterization aCharacterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study (9.9)606d03-Apr-1202-Feb-15ST3460Data Collection - 2012-13333d03-Apr-12*30-Sep-13ST3520Initial Study Report Prep23d01-Jan-14*31-Jan-14ST3530Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST3600Data Collection - 2014121d01-Apr-14*30-Sep-14ST3610Updated Study Report Prep89d01-Oct-14*02-Feb-15ST3640Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Future Watana ReFuture Watana Reservoir Fish Community and Risk of Entrainment Study (9.10)335d01-Jul-1302-Feb-15ST1729Reservoir Habitat Scenarios110d01-Jul-13*31-Dec-13Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q320122013201420152016Data EntryPreliminary Data AnalysisInitial Study Report PrepInitial Study ReportFinal Datal AnalysisUpdated Study Report PrepUpdated Study ReportStudy of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the MidStudy Site SelectionFish SamplingData EntryPreliminary Data AnalysisInitial Study Report PrepInitial Study ReportFinal Data AnalysisUpdated Study Report PrepUpdated Study ReportSalmon Escapement Study (9.7)Operate Fishwheels in the Lower Susitna -2013Operate Fishwheels at Curry - 2013Conduct Aerial Surveys - 2013Initial Study ReportOperate Fishwheels in the Lower Susitna -2014Operate Fishwheels at Curry - 2014Updated Study ReportRiver Productivity Study (9.8)Literature Review on Hydropower ImpactsSampling Benthic Macroinvertibrate & Algae Communities & OrgInvertebrate Drift SamplingSampling Talkeetna for Ref. Site & Feasibility StudyTrophic Analysis w/ Bioenergetics & Stable Isotope AnaGenerate Habitat Suitability CriteriaConduct a Fish Gut AnalysisEstablish Baseline Colonization RatesData Analysis & ReportingInitial Study Report PrepInitial Study ReportUpdated Study Report PrepUpdated Study ReportCharacterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats SData Collection - 2012-13Initial Study Report PrepInitial Study ReportData Collection - 2014Updated Study Report PrepUpdated Study ReportFuture Watana Reservoir Fish Community and Risk Reservoir Habitat ScenariosSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Schedule Page 4 of 12 Note: Please refer to the individual study plans in Sections 4 through 16 for a discussion and figures explaining the relationship between studies. Revised Study PlanSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241Attachment 2-1 Page 4Alaska Energy Authority December 2012
Activity IDActivity NameRemDurationStartFinishST1730Reservoir Fish Community Scenarios93d01-Oct-13*28-Mar-14ST1731Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST2010Reservoir Fishery Management Options103d02-Jan-14*30-Jun-14ST2210Entrainment Analysis103d02-Jan-14*30-Jun-14ST2460Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Fish Passage FeaFish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam (9.11)438d02-Jan-1302-Feb-15ST1109Establish Team and Define Process45d02-Jan-13*29-Mar-13ST1110Prepare for Feasibility Study58d02-Apr-1328-Jun-13ST1111Site Reconnaissance30d16-May-1328-Jun-13ST1112Develop Concepts110d01-Jul-1331-Dec-13ST1113Initial Study Report Prep57d15-Nov-13*03-Feb-14ST1114Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14ST2670Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative103d02-Jan-14*30-Jun-14ST2671Develope Refined Passage Strategies110d01-Jul-14*31-Dec-14ST2790Updated Study Report Prep101d15-Sep-14*02-Feb-15ST2800Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15Study of Fish PasStudy of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and Upper Susitna River and Susitna Tributaries (9.12)393d02-Apr-1302-Feb-15ST4260Data Collection - 2013141d02-Apr-13*31-Oct-13ST4340Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST4410Data Collection - 2014142d01-Apr-14*31-Oct-14ST4490Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Aquatic ResourceAquatic Resources w/ Access Alignment, Transmission Alignment, and Const. Areas Study (9.13)335d01-Jul-1303-Feb-15ST2230Conduct Fish Surveys62d01-Jul-13*30-Sep-13ST2450Additional Surveys62d01-Jul-14*29-Sep-14ST3810Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST3820Updated Study Report0d03-Feb-15*Genetic Baseline Genetic Baseline Study for Selected Fish Species (9.14)354d04-Jun-1302-Feb-15ST1230Baseline Sample Collection 2013101d04-Jun-13*30-Oct-13ST1450Baseline Sample Collection 2014103d03-Jun-14*30-Oct-14ST1670Mixture Sample Collection 201362d04-Jun-13*30-Aug-13ST2000Mixture Sample Collection 201463d03-Jun-14*29-Aug-14ST3730Analysis of Salmon Tissue27d01-Nov-13*31-Dec-13ST3740Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST3750Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Analysis of Fish HAnalysis of Fish Harvest in and Downstream of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Area (9.15)424d01-Feb-1304-Feb-15ST3920Harvest & Effort Statistics132d01-Feb-13*30-Aug-13ST3950Analyses of Potential Project-Related Effects on Harvest Levels & Opportunity213d02-Jan-14*31-Dec-14ST3980Initial Study Report0d05-Feb-14*ST3981Updated Study Report0d04-Feb-15*Eulachon Run TimEulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study (9.16)423d01-Feb-1304-Feb-15ST3340ADF&G Permits 201314d01-Feb-13*28-Feb-13ST3450ADF&G Permits 201415d05-Feb-14*28-Feb-14ST3560Field Study 201340d01-May-13*28-Jun-13ST3670Field Study 201440d01-May-14*30-Jun-14ST3780Dtaa Analysis 201320d01-Oct-13*30-Oct-13ST3890Dtaa Analysis 201420d01-Oct-14*30-Oct-14ST4220Initial Study Report0d05-Feb-14*ST5440Updated Study Report0d04-Feb-15*Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q320122013201420152016Reservoir Fish Community ScenariosInitial Study ReportReservoir Fishery Management OptionsEntrainment AnalysisUpdated Study ReportFish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam (9.11)Establish Team and Define ProcessPrepare for Feasibility StudySite ReconnaissanceDevelop ConceptsInitial Study Report PrepInitial Study ReportEvaluate Feasibility/AlternativeDevelope Refined Passage StrategiesUpdated Study Report PrepUpdated Study ReportStudy of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and UpData Collection - 2013Initial Study ReportData Collection - 2014Updated Study ReportAquatic Resources w/ Access Alignment, TransmissConduct Fish SurveysAdditional SurveysInitial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportGenetic Baseline Study for Selected Fish Species (9Baseline Sample Collection 2013Baseline Sample Collection 2014Mixture Sample Collection 2013Mixture Sample Collection 2014Analysis of Salmon TissueInitial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportAnalysis of Fish Harvest in and Downstream of the SHarvest & Effort StatisticsAnalyses of Potential Project-Related Effects on HarvesInitial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportEulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning inADF&G Permits 2013ADF&G Permits 2014Field Study 2013Field Study 2014Dtaa Analysis 2013Dtaa Analysis 2014Initial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Schedule Page 5 of 12 Note: Please refer to the individual study plans in Sections 4 through 16 for a discussion and figures explaining the relationship between studies. Revised Study PlanSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241Attachment 2-1 Page 5Alaska Energy Authority December 2012
Activity IDActivity NameRemDurationStartFinishCook Inlet BelugaCook Inlet Beluga Whale Study (9.17)548d02-Jul-1202-Feb-15ST2040Permit Applications156d02-Jul-12*02-Apr-13ST20502013 Aerial Surveys167d03-Apr-1331-Dec-13ST20602013 Camera Surveys167d03-Apr-1331-Dec-13ST20702013 Initial Modeling Effort110d01-Jul-1331-Dec-13ST3620Initial Study Report Prep90d01-Oct-13*03-Feb-14ST3630Intial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST36492014 Aerial Surveys168d01-Apr-14*31-Dec-14ST36502014 Camera Surveys168d01-Apr-1431-Dec-14ST3652Revised Modeling Effort110d01-Jul-1431-Dec-14ST3653Updated Study Report Prep89d01-Oct-14*02-Feb-15ST3654Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15Moose DistributioMoose Distribution, Abundance, Movements, Productivity, and Survival Study (10.5)409d01-Mar-1302-Feb-15ST2089Deploy Remaining Radio & Satellite Collars & Monitor171d01-Mar-13*29-Nov-13ST2090Conduct Winter Browse Utilization Assessment16d04-Mar-14*28-Mar-14ST2100Monitor Radio Collars Weekly137d01-May-14*28-Nov-14ST5680Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST5681Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Caribou DistributiCaribou Distribution, Abundance, Movements, Productivity, and Survival Study (10.6)438d02-Jan-1302-Feb-15ST4670Monitor Collars - 2013213d02-Jan-13*31-Dec-13ST4780Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST4890Monitor Collars - 2014213d02-Jan-14*31-Dec-14ST5000Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Dall's Sheep DistrDall's Sheep Distribution and Abundance Study (10.7)375d01-May-1302-Feb-15ST5110Site Visits to Assess Lick Use - 201340d01-May-13*28-Jun-13ST5220Aerial Surveys - 20135d01-Jul-13*09-Jul-13ST5330Data Analysis - 201376d01-Aug-13*29-Nov-13ST5620Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST5630Site Visits to Assess Lick Use - 201440d01-May-14*30-Jun-14ST5640Aerial Surveys - 20145d01-Jul-14*08-Jul-14ST5650Data Analysis - 201475d01-Aug-14*28-Nov-14ST5660Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Distribution, AbunDistribution, Abundance, and Habitat Use by Large Carnivores Study (10.8)314d01-Aug-1302-Feb-15ST2550Field Surveys of Bear Use - 201322d01-Aug-13*30-Aug-13ST4330Data Analysis - 201348d01-Oct-13*31-Dec-13ST4450Initial Study Report0d05-Feb-14*ST4600Field Surveys of Bear Use - 201422d01-Aug-14*02-Sep-14ST5610Data Analysis - 201447d01-Oct-14*31-Dec-14ST5611Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Wolverine DistribuWolverine Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Occupancy Study (10.9)424d01-Feb-1302-Feb-15ST2120SUPE Survey 201331d01-Feb-13*29-Mar-13ST2130SUPE Survey 201431d05-Feb-14*28-Mar-14ST2140Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST2150Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Terrestrial FurbeaTerrestrial Furbearer Abundance and Habitat Use Study (10.10)438d02-Jan-1302-Feb-15ST5580Fieldwork to Collect Genetic Samples & Conduct Track Surveys - 201345d02-Jan-1329-Mar-13*ST5600Genetic Analysis - 2013101d02-Apr-13*30-Aug-13ST5690Snowshoe Hare Pellet Count - 201322d01-Aug-13*30-Aug-13Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q320122013201420152016Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study (9.17)Permit Applications2013 Aerial Surveys2013 Camera Surveys2013 Initial Modeling EffortInitial Study Report PrepIntial Study Report2014 Aerial Surveys2014 Camera SurveysRevised Modeling EffortUpdated Study Report PrepUpdated Study ReportMoose Distribution, Abundance, Movements, ProducDeploy Remaining Radio & Satellite Collars & MonitorConduct Winter Browse Utilization AssessmentMonitor Radio Collars WeeklyInitial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportCaribou Distribution, Abundance, Movements, ProduMonitor Collars - 2013Initial Study ReportMonitor Collars - 2014Updated Study ReportDall's Sheep Distribution and Abundance Study (10.Site Visits to Assess Lick Use - 2013Aerial Surveys - 2013Data Analysis - 2013Initial Study ReportSite Visits to Assess Lick Use - 2014Aerial Surveys - 2014Data Analysis - 2014Updated Study ReportDistribution, Abundance, and Habitat Use by Large CField Surveys of Bear Use - 2013Data Analysis - 2013Initial Study ReportField Surveys of Bear Use - 2014Data Analysis - 2014Updated Study ReportWolverine Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat OccSUPE Survey 2013SUPE Survey 2014Initial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportTerrestrial Furbearer Abundance and Habitat Use StFieldwork to Collect Genetic Samples & Conduct Track Surveys - 2013Genetic Analysis - 2013Snowshoe Hare Pellet Count - 2013Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Schedule Page 6 of 12 Note: Please refer to the individual study plans in Sections 4 through 16 for a discussion and figures explaining the relationship between studies. Revised Study PlanSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241Attachment 2-1 Page 6Alaska Energy Authority December 2012
Activity IDActivity NameRemDurationStartFinishST5700Initial Data19d03-Sep-13*30-Sep-13ST5710Fieldwork to Collect Genetic Samples & Conduct Track Surveys - 201445d02-Jan-14*28-Mar-14ST5840Genetic Analysis - 2014142d01-Apr-14*31-Oct-14ST5950Snowshoe Hare Pellet Count - 201421d01-Aug-14*29-Aug-14ST5951Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST5952Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Aquatic FurbearerAquatic Furbearer Abundance & Habitat Use Study (10.11)424d01-Feb-1302-Feb-15ST3470Aerial Surveys of River Otter & Mink Tracks31d01-Feb-13*29-Mar-13ST3480Aerial Survey of Muskrat Pushups18d02-Apr-13*30-Apr-13ST3490Aerial Survey of Beaver Colonies21d01-May-13*30-May-13ST3500Aerial Survey of Lodges21d01-Oct-13*31-Oct-13ST3510Aerial Track Survey of River Otter & Mink14d01-Nov-13*04-Dec-13ST3540Aerial Survey of River Otter & Mink Tracks49d05-Feb-14*30-Apr-14ST3550Aerial Survey of Muskrat Pushups18d01-Apr-14*30-Apr-14ST3570Aerial Survey of Beaver Colonies21d01-May-14*03-Jun-14ST3580Aerial Survey of Lodges21d01-Oct-14*31-Oct-14ST3590Aerial Track Survey of River Otter & Mink14d05-Nov-14*03-Dec-14ST5560Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST5570Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Small Mammal SpSmall Mammal Species Composition and Habitat Use Study (10.12)314d01-Aug-1302-Feb-15ST1260Small Mammal Trapping41d01-Aug-13*30-Sep-13ST1300Data Management21d01-Oct-13*31-Oct-13ST1310Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST1330Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Bat Distribution DBat Distribution Distribution & Habitat Use Study (10.13)366d15-May-1302-Feb-15ST3160Acoustic Monitoring - 2013100d15-May-13*10-Oct-13ST3170Data Analysis - 201335d01-Oct-13*29-Nov-13ST3180Intial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST3190Acoustic Monitoring - 2014100d15-May-14*09-Oct-14ST3200Data Analysis - 201434d01-Oct-14*28-Nov-14ST3210Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Surveys of EaglesSurveys of Eagles & Other Raptors Study (10.14)374d02-May-1302-Feb-15ST1350Field Surveys - 201360d02-May-13*31-Jul-13ST1580Update Regional Database - 201322d01-Aug-13*30-Aug-13ST1630Conduct Roosting & Staging Surveys - 201330d15-Oct-13*06-Dec-13ST1680Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST1690Field Surveys - 201462d01-May-14*31-Jul-14ST4090Update Regional Database - 201421d01-Aug-14*29-Aug-14ST4130Conduct Roosting & Staging Surveys - 201430d15-Oct-14*10-Dec-14ST4131Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Waterbird MigratioWaterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study (10.15)385d16-Apr-1302-Feb-15ST4270Spring Migration/Breeding-Pair Surveys - 201340d16-Apr-13*14-Jun-13ST4280Brood Surveys - 201321d01-Jul-13*31-Jul-13ST4290Harlequin Duck Brood-Rearing Survey - 201322d01-Aug-13*30-Aug-13ST4300Fall Migration Surveys - 201340d15-Aug-13*15-Oct-13ST4310Data Analysis - 201327d01-Nov-13*31-Dec-13ST4420Spring Migration/Breeding-Pair Surveys - 201440d15-Apr-14*16-Jun-14ST4430Brood Surveys - 201422d01-Jul-14*31-Jul-14Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q320122013201420152016Initial DataFieldwork to Collect Genetic Samples & Conduct Track Surveys - 2014Genetic Analysis - 2014Snowshoe Hare Pellet Count - 2014Initial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportAquatic Furbearer Abundance & Habitat Use Study Aerial Surveys of River Otter & Mink TracksAerial Survey of Muskrat PushupsAerial Survey of Beaver ColoniesAerial Survey of LodgesAerial Track Survey of River Otter & MinkAerial Survey of River Otter & Mink TracksAerial Survey of Muskrat PushupsAerial Survey of Beaver ColoniesAerial Survey of LodgesAerial Track Survey of River Otter & MinkInitial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportSmall Mammal Species Composition and Habitat UsSmall Mammal TrappingData ManagementInitial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportBat Distribution Distribution & Habitat Use Study (10Acoustic Monitoring - 2013Data Analysis - 2013Intial Study ReportAcoustic Monitoring - 2014Data Analysis - 2014Updated Study ReportSurveys of Eagles & Other Raptors Study (10.14)Field Surveys - 2013Update Regional Database - 2013Conduct Roosting & Staging Surveys - 2013Initial Study ReportField Surveys - 2014Update Regional Database - 2014Conduct Roosting & Staging Surveys - 2014Updated Study ReportWaterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study (10.1Spring Migration/Breeding-Pair Surveys - 2013Brood Surveys - 2013Harlequin Duck Brood-Rearing Survey - 2013Fall Migration Surveys - 2013Data Analysis - 2013Spring Migration/Breeding-Pair Surveys - 2014Brood Surveys - 2014Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Schedule Page 7 of 12 Note: Please refer to the individual study plans in Sections 4 through 16 for a discussion and figures explaining the relationship between studies. Revised Study PlanSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241Attachment 2-1 Page 7Alaska Energy Authority December 2012
Activity IDActivity NameRemDurationStartFinishST4460Harlequin Duck Brood-Rearing Survey - 201421d01-Aug-14*29-Aug-14ST4470Fall Migration Surveys - 201440d15-Aug-14*15-Oct-14ST4480Data Analysis - 201426d05-Nov-14*31-Dec-14ST4481Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST4482Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Landbird and ShoLandbird and Shorebird Migration, Breeding, and Habitat Use Study (10.16)409d01-Mar-1302-Feb-15ST1740Field Planning34d01-Mar-13*30-Apr-13ST1850Point-Count Survey - 201321d13-May-13*12-Jun-13ST1970Swallow Survey - 201313d20-Jun-13*10-Jul-13ST1990Data Analysis - 201362d01-Aug-13*31-Oct-13ST2020Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST2240Point-Count Survey - 201420d12-May-14*10-Jun-14ST2470Swallow Survey - 201414d20-Jun-14*10-Jul-14ST3330Data Analysis - 201462d01-Aug-14*31-Oct-14ST5500Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Population EcologPopulation Ecology of Willow Ptarmigan in Game Management Unit 13 Study (10.17)393d02-Apr-1302-Feb-15ST1119First Field Season101d02-Apr-13*30-Aug-13ST1120Conduct Aerial Surveys89d01-Aug-13*31-Dec-13ST1560Conduct Aerial Surveys83d02-Jan-14*29-May-14ST1780Second Field Season101d01-Apr-14*29-Aug-14ST1890Conduct Aerial Surveys88d01-Aug-14*31-Dec-14ST5831Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST5832Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Wood Frogs OccuWood Frogs Occupancy & Habitat Use Study (10.18)409d01-Mar-1302-Feb-15ST2340Selection of Waterbodies - 201334d01-Mar-13*30-Apr-13ST2540Selection of Waterbodies - 201434d04-Mar-14*30-Apr-14ST2560Field Survey - 20137d10-May-13*20-May-13ST2561Field Survey - 20146d12-May-14*19-May-14ST2890Data Analysis - 201340d03-Sep-13*31-Oct-13ST3130Data Analysis - 201440d02-Sep-14*30-Oct-14ST4000Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST4610Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Evaluation of WildEvaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study (10.19)423d06-Feb-1302-Feb-15ST3230Literature Review34d01-Mar-13*30-Apr-13ST3240Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST3250Initial Habitat-Value Ranking31d05-Feb-14*28-Mar-14ST3260Final Selection of Species20d02-Sep-14*30-Sep-14ST3270Data Analysis67d02-Sep-14*31-Dec-14ST3280Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*ST5510Initial Selection of Species15d06-Feb-13*01-Mar-13Wildlife Harvest AWildlife Harvest Analysis Study (10.20)335d01-Jul-1302-Feb-15ST5520Tranfer of 2012 Harvest/Subsistence Data62d01-Jul-13*30-Sep-13ST5530Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST5540Tranfer of 2013 Harvest/Subsistence Data62d01-Jul-14*29-Sep-14ST5550Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Vegetation and WVegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin (11.5)438d02-Jan-1302-Feb-15ST2160Vegatation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selections103d02-Jan-13*28-Jun-13ST2170Field Surveys120d02-Apr-13*30-Sep-13Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q320122013201420152016Harlequin Duck Brood-Rearing Survey - 2014Fall Migration Surveys - 2014Data Analysis - 2014Initial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportLandbird and Shorebird Migration, Breeding, and HaField PlanningPoint-Count Survey - 2013Swallow Survey - 2013Data Analysis - 2013Initial Study ReportPoint-Count Survey - 2014Swallow Survey - 2014Data Analysis - 2014Updated Study ReportPopulation Ecology of Willow Ptarmigan in Game MaFirst Field SeasonConduct Aerial SurveysConduct Aerial SurveysSecond Field SeasonConduct Aerial SurveysInitial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportWood Frogs Occupancy & Habitat Use Study (10.18Selection of Waterbodies - 2013Selection of Waterbodies - 2014Field Survey - 2013Field Survey - 2014Data Analysis - 2013Data Analysis - 2014Initial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportEvaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study (10.19)Literature ReviewInitial Study ReportInitial Habitat-Value RankingFinal Selection of SpeciesData AnalysisUpdated Study ReportInitial Selection of SpeciesWildlife Harvest Analysis Study (10.20)Tranfer of 2012 Harvest/Subsistence DataInitial Study ReportTranfer of 2013 Harvest/Subsistence DataUpdated Study ReportVegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in theVegatation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot SelectionsField SurveysSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Schedule Page 8 of 12 Note: Please refer to the individual study plans in Sections 4 through 16 for a discussion and figures explaining the relationship between studies. Revised Study PlanSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241Attachment 2-1 Page 8Alaska Energy Authority December 2012
Activity IDActivity NameRemDurationStartFinishST2180Vegetation/Habitat Map Revisions110d01-Jul-13*31-Dec-13ST2181Delivery of Field Data & Preliminary Vegatation & Habitat Maps48d01-Oct-13*31-Dec-13ST2190Initial Study Report Prep90d01-Oct-13*03-Feb-14ST2200Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST4350Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selection for Remaining Unmapped Areas103d02-Jan-1430-Jun-14ST4360Field Surveys120d01-Apr-14*29-Sep-14ST4370Final Vegetation/Habitat Map Revisions110d01-Jul-14*31-Dec-14ST4380Updated Study Report Prep89d01-Oct-14*02-Feb-15ST4390Delivery of Field Data & Final Vegatation & Habitat Maps47d01-Oct-14*31-Dec-14ST4400Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15Riparian VegetatioRiparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Watana Dam (11.5)486d02-Oct-1202-Feb-15ST2250Preparation of Riverine Physiography to Help Define Study Area48d02-Oct-12*28-Dec-12ST2270Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selection103d02-Jan-1328-Jun-13ST2271Field Surveys120d02-Apr-13*30-Sep-13ST2600Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Map Revisions110d01-Jul-13*31-Dec-13ST2601Delivery of Field Data & Preliminary Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Maps48d01-Oct-13*31-Dec-13ST2610Initial Study Report Prep48d28-Nov-1303-Feb-14*ST2620Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST5750Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selection for Remaining Unmapped Areas103d02-Jan-1430-Jun-14ST5760Field Surveys120d01-Apr-14*29-Sep-14ST5761Final Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Map Revisions110d01-Jul-14*31-Dec-14ST5763Delivery of Final Field Data & Final Reparian/Wetlant/Habitat Maps47d01-Oct-14*31-Dec-14ST5764Updated Study Report Prep48d27-Nov-1402-Feb-15*ST5765Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Wetland Mapping Wetland Mapping Study (11.7)438d02-Jan-1302-Feb-15ST2810Wetland Mapping & Field Plot Selection103d02-Jan-13*28-Jun-13ST2820Field Surveys120d02-Apr-13*30-Sep-13ST2830Wetland Map Revisions110d01-Jul-13*31-Dec-13ST2840Initial Study Report Prep49d27-Nov-1303-Feb-14*ST2850Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST2860Delivery of Field Data & Preliminary Wetland Map47d24-Oct-1305-Feb-14ST2870Wetland Mapping & Field Plot Selection for Remaining Unmapped Areas103d02-Jan-14*30-Jun-14ST2880Field Surveys120d01-Apr-14*29-Sep-14ST2900Final Wetland Map Revisions110d01-Jul-14*31-Dec-14ST2910Wetland Functional Analysis110d01-Jul-14*31-Dec-14ST2920Updated Study Report Prep49d26-Nov-1402-Feb-15*ST2930Delivery of Final Field Data & Final Wetland Map47d28-Nov-1402-Feb-15ST2940Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Rare Plant Study Rare Plant Study (11.8)393d02-Apr-1302-Feb-15ST5770Field Survey Site Selection39d02-Apr-13*30-May-13ST5780Field Survey40d04-Jun-13*31-Jul-13ST5790Data Analysis40d03-Sep-13*31-Oct-13ST5800Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST5810Field Survey Site Selection39d01-Apr-14*03-Jun-14ST5820Field Survey40d03-Jun-14*29-Jul-14ST5850Data Analysis40d02-Sep-14*30-Oct-14ST5860Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Invasive Plant StuInvasive Plant Study (11.9)393d02-Apr-1302-Feb-15Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q320122013201420152016Vegetation/Habitat Map RevisionsDelivery of Field Data & Preliminary Vegatation & Habitat MapsInitial Study Report PrepInitial Study ReportVegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selection for Remaining UnmapField SurveysFinal Vegetation/Habitat Map RevisionsUpdated Study Report PrepDelivery of Field Data & Final Vegatation & Habitat MapUpdated Study ReportRiparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the PropoPreparation of Riverine Physiography to Help Define Study AreaRiparian/Wetland/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot SelectionField SurveysRiparian/Wetland/Habitat Map RevisionsDelivery of Field Data & Preliminary Riparian/Wetland/Habitat MapsInitial Study Report PrepInitial Study ReportRiparian/Wetland/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selection for Remaining Field SurveysFinal Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Map RevisionsDelivery of Final Field Data & Final Reparian/Wetlant/HUpdated Study Report PrepUpdated Study ReportWetland Mapping Study (11.7)Wetland Mapping & Field Plot SelectionField SurveysWetland Map RevisionsInitial Study Report PrepInitial Study ReportDelivery of Field Data & Preliminary Wetland MapWetland Mapping & Field Plot Selection for Remaining Unmapped AreasField SurveysFinal Wetland Map RevisionsWetland Functional AnalysisUpdated Study Report PrepDelivery of Final Field Data & Final Wetland MapUpdated Study ReportRare Plant Study (11.8)Field Survey Site SelectionField SurveyData AnalysisInitial Study ReportField Survey Site SelectionField SurveyData AnalysisUpdated Study ReportInvasive Plant Study (11.9)Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Schedule Page 9 of 12 Note: Please refer to the individual study plans in Sections 4 through 16 for a discussion and figures explaining the relationship between studies. Revised Study PlanSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241Attachment 2-1 Page 9Alaska Energy Authority December 2012
Activity IDActivity NameRemDurationStartFinishST5870Field Survey Site Selection39d02-Apr-13*30-May-13ST5880Field Survey40d04-Jun-13*31-Jul-13ST5890Data Analysis40d03-Sep-13*31-Oct-13ST5900Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST5910Field Survey Site Selection39d01-Apr-14*03-Jun-14ST5920Field Survey40d03-Jun-14*29-Jul-14ST5930Data Analysis40d02-Sep-14*30-Oct-14ST5931Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Recreation ResouRecreation Resources Study (12.5)548d02-Jul-1202-Feb-15ST3410Initial Study Report Prep24d01-Jan-14*03-Feb-14ST3420Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14ST3430Updated Study Report Prep155d01-Jul-14*02-Feb-15ST3440Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15ST5960Data Collection & Baseline Inventory489d02-Jul-12*30-Sep-14ST5970Analysis334d02-Apr-13*30-Sep-14ST5980Coordination w/ Agencies, Licensing Participants and Other Studies316d02-Jan-13*30-Jun-14ST5990Intercept Survey Deployment358d15-Feb-13*30-Sep-14ST6000Mail Survey Development82d15-Feb-13*28-Jun-13ST6010Exec Interviewing & Web Survey Deployment278d15-Nov-12*28-Mar-14ST6020Survey Data Analysis155d01-Jul-13*28-Mar-14ST6030Impact Analysis261d01-Oct-13*31-Dec-14Aesthetic ResourcAesthetic Resources Study (12.6)438d02-Jan-1302-Feb-15ST1180Baseline Data Collection334d02-Apr-1330-Sep-14ST1190Coordination w/ Agencies, Stakeholders and Disciplines379d02-Jan-1330-Sep-14ST1200Simulation Development / Sound Modeling307d15-May-13*30-Sep-14ST1210Impact Analysis245d15-Aug-13*30-Sep-14ST3710Viewshed Modeling45d02-Jan-13*29-Mar-13ST3760Initial Study Report Prep90d01-Oct-13*03-Feb-14ST3770Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14ST3790Updated Study Report Prep220d01-Apr-14*02-Feb-15ST3800Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15River Recreation River Recreation Flow and Access Study (12.7)438d02-Jan-1302-Feb-15ST1130Field Studies168d02-Apr-13*31-Dec-13ST1150Analysis271d02-Apr-13*30-Jun-14ST1160Coordination w/ Agencies, Stakeholders & Disciplines426d02-Jan-13*31-Dec-14ST1170Impact Analysis214d01-Oct-13*30-Sep-14ST3660Initial Study Report Prep90d01-Oct-13*03-Feb-14ST3680Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14ST3690Updated Study Report Prep220d01-Apr-14*02-Feb-15ST3700Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15ST6040Baseline Data Collection213d02-Jan-13*31-Dec-13Cultural ResourceCultural Resources Study (13.5)548d02-Jul-1202-Feb-15ST1370Reconnaissance Level Field Study62d02-Jul-12*28-Sep-12ST1380Modeling & Sample Design Development from 2012 Field Reconnaissance93d02-Oct-1229-Mar-13ST1390Pre-Field Prep52d15-Feb-13*15-May-13ST1400Additional Modeling from 2013 Field Study Results93d01-Oct-13*28-Mar-14ST1410Pre-Field Preparation52d18-Feb-14*15-May-14ST3990Archeological Field Studies - Inventory92d16-May-1330-Sep-13Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q320122013201420152016Field Survey Site SelectionField SurveyData AnalysisInitial Study ReportField Survey Site SelectionField SurveyData AnalysisUpdated Study ReportRecreation Resources Study (12.5)Initial Study Report PrepInitial Study ReportUpdated Study Report PrepUpdated Study ReportData Collection & Baseline InventoryAnalysisCoordination w/ Agencies, Licensing Participants and Other StudiesIntercept Survey DeploymentMail Survey DevelopmentExec Interviewing & Web Survey DeploymentSurvey Data AnalysisImpact AnalysisAesthetic Resources Study (12.6)Baseline Data CollectionCoordination w/ Agencies, Stakeholders and DisciplinesSimulation Development / Sound ModelingImpact AnalysisViewshed ModelingInitial Study Report PrepInitial Study ReportUpdated Study Report PrepUpdated Study ReportRiver Recreation Flow and Access Study (12.7)Field StudiesAnalysisCoordination w/ Agencies, Stakeholders & DisciplinesImpact AnalysisInitial Study Report PrepInitial Study ReportUpdated Study Report PrepUpdated Study ReportBaseline Data CollectionCultural Resources Study (13.5)Reconnaissance Level Field StudyModeling & Sample Design Development from 2012 Field ReconnaissancePre-Field PrepAdditional Modeling from 2013 Field Study ResultsPre-Field PreparationArcheological Field Studies - InventorySusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Schedule Page 10 of 12 Note: Please refer to the individual study plans in Sections 4 through 16 for a discussion and figures explaining the relationship between studies. Revised Study PlanSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241Attachment 2-1 Page 10Alaska Energy Authority December 2012
Activity IDActivity NameRemDurationStartFinishST4010Archeological Field Studies - Initiation of Evaluation62d01-Jul-1330-Sep-13ST4030Ethnogeographic Study73d02-Jan-13*15-May-13ST4040Ethnogeographic Field Work121d16-May-1315-Nov-13*ST4050Draft Ethnogeographic Study Report48d01-Oct-13*31-Dec-13ST4070Initial Study Report Prep90d01-Oct-13*03-Feb-14ST4080Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14ST4190Field Studies - Inventory63d16-May-1415-Aug-14ST4200Field Studies - Evaluation63d16-May-1415-Aug-14ST4201Updated Study Report Prep220d01-Apr-14*02-Feb-15ST4202Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15Paleontological RPaleontological Resources Study (13.6)424d01-Feb-1302-Feb-15ST1441Applying GPS Based Classification31d01-Feb-13*29-Mar-13ST1460Systematic Testing in Areas of High Potential43d01-Jul-13*30-Aug-13ST1470Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST1480Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Subsistence ResoSubsistence Resources Study (14.5)603d03-Apr-1227-Jan-15ST1760Subsistence Study Plan168d03-Apr-12*28-Dec-12ST1770Task 1: Compilation of Exis. Data130d01-Jun-12*28-Dec-12ST1800Task 2: ADF&G Household Surveys - Year 246d02-Jan-14*01-Apr-14ST1810Task 2: ADF&G Reporting & Community Review - Year 2213d02-Jan-1431-Dec-14ST2960Task 2: ADF&G Household Surveys Pre-Field Planning - Year 1103d02-Jan-1328-Jun-13ST2970Task 2: ADF&G Household Surveys - Year 145d02-Jan-1329-Mar-13ST2980Task 2: ADF&G Reporting & Community Review - Year 1213d02-Jan-1331-Dec-13ST2990Task 2: ADF&G Household Surbeys Pre-Field Planning - Year 247d02-Oct-1331-Dec-13ST3010Task 3: Household Surveys in Nonsubsistence Areas45d02-Jan-1329-Mar-13ST3020Task 5:Traditional & Local Knowledge Interviews103d02-Jan-1328-Jun-13ST3030Task 1-3, 5: Prepare 2013 Study Report110d01-Jul-13*31-Dec-13ST3040Revise Study Plans41d15-Nov-13*14-Feb-14ST3070Task 4: Subsistence Mapping Inteviews73d02-Jan-1415-May-14ST3080Task 4-5: Additional 2014 Subsistence Data Collection (as needed)103d02-Jan-1430-Jun-14ST3090Task 2-5: Prepare 2015 Final Updated Study Report & Community Reviews110d01-Jul-1431-Dec-14ST3100Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST3101Updated Sudy Report5d27-Jan-15*Regional EconomRegional Economic Evaluation Study (15.5)438d02-Jan-1302-Feb-15ST1490Gather/Review Existing Information45d02-Jan-13*29-Mar-13ST1500Document Existing Conditions58d02-Apr-1328-Jun-13ST1510Develop Reasonable Foreseeable Future Action Assumptions62d01-Jul-1330-Sep-13ST1520Inital Regional Economic Evaluation Study Report48d01-Oct-1331-Dec-13ST1530Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST1540Incorporate Information from Other Studies135d02-Jan-14*14-Aug-14ST1550Updated Regional Econoimic Evaluation Study Report78d15-Aug-1431-Dec-14ST1570Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Social ConditionsSocial Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study (15.6)438d02-Jan-1304-Feb-15ST1590Gather/Review Existing Information45d02-Jan-13*29-Mar-13ST1600Document Existing Conditions58d02-Apr-1328-Jun-13ST1610Stakeholder Interviews110d01-Jul-1331-Dec-13ST1620Initial Social Conditions & Public Good & Services Study Report60d13-Sep-1331-Dec-13ST1640Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q320122013201420152016Archeological Field Studies - Initiation of EvaluationEthnogeographic StudyEthnogeographic Field WorkDraft Ethnogeographic Study ReportInitial Study Report PrepInitial Study ReportField Studies - InventoryField Studies - EvaluationUpdated Study Report PrepUpdated Study ReportPaleontological Resources Study (13.6)Applying GPS Based ClassificationSystematic Testing in Areas of High PotentialInitial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportSubsistence Resources Study (14.5)Subsistence Study PlanTask 1: Compilation of Exis. DataTask 2: ADF&G Household Surveys - Year 2Task 2: ADF&G Reporting & Community Review - YearTask 2: ADF&G Household Surveys Pre-Field Planning - Year 1Task 2: ADF&G Household Surveys - Year 1Task 2: ADF&G Reporting & Community Review - Year 1Task 2: ADF&G Household Surbeys Pre-Field Planning - Year 2Task 3: Household Surveys in Nonsubsistence AreasTask 5:Traditional & Local Knowledge InterviewsTask 1-3, 5: Prepare 2013 Study ReportRevise Study PlansTask 4: Subsistence Mapping InteviewsTask 4-5: Additional 2014 Subsistence Data Collection (as needed)Task 2-5: Prepare 2015 Final Updated Study Report & Initial Study ReportUpdated Sudy ReportRegional Economic Evaluation Study (15.5)Gather/Review Existing InformationDocument Existing ConditionsDevelop Reasonable Foreseeable Future Action AssumptionsInital Regional Economic Evaluation Study ReportInitial Study ReportIncorporate Information from Other StudiesUpdated Regional Econoimic Evaluation Study ReportUpdated Study ReportSocial Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study Gather/Review Existing InformationDocument Existing ConditionsStakeholder InterviewsInitial Social Conditions & Public Good & Services Study ReportInitial Study ReportSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Schedule Page 11 of 12 Note: Please refer to the individual study plans in Sections 4 through 16 for a discussion and figures explaining the relationship between studies. Revised Study PlanSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241Attachment 2-1 Page 11Alaska Energy Authority December 2012
Activity IDActivity NameRemDurationStartFinishST1650Incorporate Information & Other Studies135d02-Jan-14*14-Aug-14ST1660Updated Social Conditions & Public Good & Services Study Report78d15-Aug-1431-Dec-14ST1750Updated Study Report0d04-Feb-15*Transportation ReTransportation Resources Study (15.7)486d02-Oct-1202-Feb-15ST1820Data Collection & Review93d02-Oct-12*29-Mar-13ST1830Asses Inventory & Field Studies58d02-Apr-1328-Jun-13ST1840Document Existing Conditions62d01-Jul-1330-Sep-13ST1860Forecast Future Conditions110d01-Jul-1331-Dec-13ST1870Evaluate Impacts48d01-Oct-13*31-Dec-13ST1880Initial Study Report Prep48d01-Oct-1331-Dec-13ST1900Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST1910Updated Study Report Prep213d02-Jan-14*31-Dec-14ST3300Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Health Impact AssHealth Impact Assessment Study (15.8)438d02-Jan-1302-Feb-15ST1920Project Overview & Issues Summary103d02-Jan-13*28-Jun-13ST1930Baseline Data Collection213d02-Jan-13*31-Dec-13ST1940Initial Study Report Prep48d01-Oct-1331-Dec-13ST1950Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST1960Impact Assessment166d02-Jan-14*30-Sep-14ST1980Updated Study Report Prep46d01-Oct-1430-Dec-14ST2030Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Air Quality Study Air Quality Study (15.9)438d02-Jan-1302-Feb-15ST1220Review Existing Info/Identify Needs45d02-Jan-13*29-Mar-13ST1240Document Existing Conditions58d02-Apr-1328-Jun-13ST1250Summarize Baseline Fossil Fuel Emissions62d01-Jul-1330-Sep-13ST1270Initial Air Quality Study Report48d01-Oct-13*31-Dec-13ST1280Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST1290Estimate Future Emissions with/without Project103d02-Jan-14*30-Jun-14ST1360Updated Study Report Work91d01-Jul-1414-Nov-14ST3860Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Probable MaximuProbable Maximum Flood Study (16.5)438d02-Jan-1302-Feb-15ST2300Site-Specific PMF215d02-Jan-13*03-Jan-14ST2310Initial Study Report0d03-Feb-14*ST2320Updated Study Report0d02-Feb-15*Site Specific SeisSite Specific Seismic Hazard Study (16.6)354d04-Jun-1304-Feb-15ST2330Field Program40d04-Jun-13*31-Jul-13ST2350Deterministic & Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment41d02-Sep-14*31-Oct-14ST2360Initial Study Report0d05-Feb-14*ST2370Updated Study Report0d04-Feb-15*Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q320122013201420152016Incorporate Information & Other StudiesUpdated Social Conditions & Public Good & Services SUpdated Study ReportTransportation Resources Study (15.7)Data Collection & ReviewAsses Inventory & Field StudiesDocument Existing ConditionsForecast Future ConditionsEvaluate ImpactsInitial Study Report PrepInitial Study ReportUpdated Study Report PrepUpdated Study ReportHealth Impact Assessment Study (15.8)Project Overview & Issues SummaryBaseline Data CollectionInitial Study Report PrepInitial Study ReportImpact AssessmentUpdated Study Report PrepUpdated Study ReportAir Quality Study (15.9)Review Existing Info/Identify NeedsDocument Existing ConditionsSummarize Baseline Fossil Fuel EmissionsInitial Air Quality Study ReportInitial Study ReportEstimate Future Emissions with/without ProjectUpdated Study Report WorkUpdated Study ReportProbable Maximum Flood Study (16.5)Site-Specific PMFInitial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportSite Specific Seismic Hazard Study (16.6)Field ProgramDeterministic & Probabilistic Seismic Hazard AssessmentInitial Study ReportUpdated Study ReportSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Schedule Page 12 of 12 Note: Please refer to the individual study plans in Sections 4 through 16 for a discussion and figures explaining the relationship between studies. Revised Study PlanSusitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241Attachment 2-1 Page 12Alaska Energy Authority December 2012
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST4630Comprehensive Investigations (Dam Site & Reservoir Area)ST4630 Geology & Soils Characterization Study - Comprehensive Investigations (Dam Site & Reservoir Area) feeds into ST2360 Site Specific Seismic Hazard Study - Initial Study Report on September 30 , 2013. ST4630 Geology & Soils Characterization Study - Comprehensive Investigations (Dam Site & Reservoir Area) feeds into ST1460 Paleontological Resources Study - Systematic Testing in Areas of High Potential on May 31, 2013. ST4630 Geology & Soils Characterization Study - Comprehensive Investigations (Dam Site & Reservoir Area) feeds into ST3160 Bat Distribution & Habitat Use Study - Acoustic Monitoring - 2013 on May 31, 2013.ST4630 Geology & Soils - Comprehensive Investigations feeds into ST4050 Cultural Resources Study - Draft Ethnogeographic Study Report on October 1, 2013. ST4360 Geology & Soils Study Comprehensive Investigations feeds into Vegetation & Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study (Upper & Middle Susitna Basin) on October 1, 2013. ST4660Comprehensive Investigations (Access Road & Transmission Line)ST4660 Geology & Soils Characterization Study - Comprehensive Investigations (Access Road & Transmission Line) feeds into ST1480 Paleontological Resources Study - Updated Study Report on September 1, 2014. ST4661Initial Study Report ST4662Updated Study Report ST4680MET Station Installation & Data Collection ST4690Thermal Imaging ST4720Data Analysis & ManagementST4720 Baseline Water Quality Study - Data Analysis & Management feeds into ST1930 Health Impact Assessment Study - Baseline Data Collection on February 1, 2013. ST4730Fish Tissue Sampling ST4740Sediment Sampling ST4750Water Quality MonitoringST4860 Water Quality Modeling Study - Coordination w/ Water Quality Data Collection & Analysis is linked to the start of ST4750 Baseline Water Quality Study - Water Quality Monitoring. ST4840 Water Quality Modeling Study - Model Calibration (Water Quality) feeds into ST4750 Baseline Water Quality Study - Water Quality Monitoring at the end of December 2013. ST4960 Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study - Water Quality Monitoring (Monthly) is linked to the start of ST4750 Baseline Water Quality Study - Water Quality Monitoring. ST5450 Groundwater Study - Water Quality in Selected Habitats feeds into ST4750 Baseline Water Quality Study - Water Quality Monitoring. ST4750 Baseline Water Quality Study - Water Quality Monitoring feeds into ST3780 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Data Analysis 2013 on October 1, 2013. ST4750 Baseline Water Quality Study - Water Quality Monitoring feeds into ST2670 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative on December 31, 2013. ST4750 Baseline Water Quality Study - Water Quality Monitoring feeds into ST4150 River Productivity Study - General Habitat Suitability Criteria and ST1307 on December 31, 2013. ST4750 Baseline Water Quality Study - Water Quality Monitoring feeds into ST4840 Water Quality Monitoring Study - Model Calibration (Water Quality) at the end of September 2013 (1/2 way along the study). ST4750 Baseline Water Quality Study - Water Quality Monitoring feeds into ST5460 Groundwater Study - Aquatic Habitat/Surface Water Interactions on October 31, 2013. ST4760Deployment of Temp Monitoring Apparatus ST4770QAPP/SAP Preparation & Review ST4771Initial Study Report ST4772Updated Study Report ST4800Generate Results for Operational ScenariosST4180 River Productivity Study - Data Analysis & Reporting feeds into ST4800 Water Quality Modeling Study - Generate Results for Operational Scenarios on July 1, 2014. ST4810Verification Runs ST4820Re-Calibration AdjustmentsSUSITNA-WATANA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT NO. 14241Table of Study Predecessor and Successor ActivitiesGeology & Soils Characterization Study (4.5)Baseline Water Quality Study (5.5)Water Quality Modeling Study (5.6)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 1 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 13
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST4840Model Calibration (Water Quality)ST4750 Baseline Water Quality Study - Water Quality Monitoring feeds into ST4840 Water Quality Monitoring Study - Model Calibration (Water Quality) at the end of September 2013 (1/2 way along the study). ST4500 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Flow Routing feeds into ST4840 Water Quality Monitoring Study - Model Calibration (Water Quality) on July 1, 2013. ST4840 Water Quality Monitoring Study - Model Calibration (Water Quality) feeds into ST3620 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study - Initial Study Report Prep on December 31, 2013. ST4840 Water Quality Monitoring Study - Model Calibration (Water Quality) feeds into ST3780 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Data Analysis 2013 on October 1, 2013.ST4840 Water Quality Monitoring Study - Model Calibration (Water Quality) feeds into ST2670 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative on December 31, 2013. ST4840 Water Quality Modeling Study - Model Calibration (Water Quality) feeds into ST4570 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Model Integration & Calibration at the end of December 2013.ST4840 Water Quality Modeling Study - Model Calibration (Water Quality) feeds into ST4550 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Coordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data Collection & Modeling at the end of December 2013. ST4840 Water Quality Modeling Study - Model Calibration (Water Quality) feeds into ST2530 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Proposed Condition 1D Model Development at the end of December 2013. ST4840 Water Quality Modeling Study - Model Calibration (Water Quality) will feeds into ST5150 Geomorphology Study - Integration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. Geomorphology Modeling Results at the end of September 2013. ST4850Model Evaluation/SelectionST4850 Water Quality Modeling Study - Model Evaluation/Selection feeds into ST2010 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community & Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fishery Management Options on December 31, 2013. ST4860Coordination w/ Water Quality Data Collection & AnalysisST4860 Water Quality Modeling Study - Coordination w/ Water Quality Data Collection & Analysis is linked to the start of ST4750 Baseline Water Quality Study - Water Quality Monitoring. ST4861Initial Study Report ST4862Updated Study Report ST4870Soil Vegetation Sampling ST4880Sediment Sampling ST4900Avian Furbearer Studies ST4910Fish Tissue Sampling ST4920Data Analysis & ManagementST5560 Aquatic Furbearer Abundance & Habitat Use Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST4920 Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study - Data Analysis & Management on March 31, 2014. ST1680 Surveys of Eagles & Other Raptors Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST4920 Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study - Data Analysis & Management on April 1, 2014. ST4310 Waterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study - Data Analysis - 2013 feeds into ST4920 Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study - Data Analysis & Management on November 30, 2014. ST1990 Landbird and Shorebird Migration, Breeding, and Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis - 2013 feeds into ST4920 Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study - Data Analysis & Management on October 31, 2014. ST4920 Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study - Data Analysis & Management feeds into ST2910 Wetland Mapping Study - Wetland Functional Analysis at the end of March 2014 . ST4940Follow Up Studies (as needed) ST4960Water Quality Monitoring (Monthly)ST4960 Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study - Water Quality Monitoring (Monthly) is linked to the start of ST4750 Baseline Water Quality Study - Water Quality Monitoring. ST4961Initial Study Report ST4962Updated Study Report ST4970Initial Geomorphic Reach Delineation/ Finalize DelineationST4970 Geomorphology Study - Initial Geomorphic Reach Delineation/Finalize Delineation feeds into ST3460 Characterization & Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2012-13 on March 1, 2013. ST4970 Geomorphology Study - Initial Geomorphic Reach Delineation/Finalize Delineation feeds into ST3310 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance (Middle & Lower Susitna River) - Study Site Selection on January 1, 2013. ST4970 Geomorphology Study - Initial Geomorphic Reach Delineation/Finalize Delineation feeds into ST2950 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Study Site Selection on January 1, 2013. ST4970 Geomorphology Study - Initial Geomorphic Reach Delineation/Finalize Delineation feeds into ST3000 Glacial & Runoff Changes Study - Fish and Aquatics IFS study area selection on January 31, 2013. ST4980Identify and Map Paleo Geomorphic Features & GeologyST4980 Geomorphology Study - Identify and Map Paleo Geomorphic Features & Geology feeds into ST1460 Paleontological Resources Study - Systematic Testing in Areas of High Potential on June 1, 2013. ST4990Determine Morphometric ParametersMercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study (5.7)Geomorphology Study (6.5)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 2 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 14
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST5010 Identify Key Governing Geomorphic ProcessST5010 Geomorphology Study - Identify Key Governing Geomorphic Process feeds into ST4120 Cultural Resources Study - Field Studies - Evaluation on March 31, 2013. ST5020Acquire Aerial Photo ST5030 Digitize 1980s Habitat and Geomorphic Features ST5040 Digitize 2012 Habitat and Geomorphic Features ST5050Assess Habitat Area Change 1980-2012 ST5060Assess Channel Change 1980-2012ST5060 Geomorphology Study - Assess Channel Change 1980-2012 feeds into ST4550 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Coordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data Collection & Modeling on March 1, 2014. ST5070Initial & Final Flow Assessment ST5080Determine Effective Discharge & Characterization of Bed MobilizationST5080 Geomorphology Study - Determine Effective Discharge & Characterization of Bed Mobilization feeds into ST4410 Study of Fish Passage Barriers (Middle & Upper Susitna River) - Data Collection - 2014 on December 31, 2013. ST5080 Geomorphology Study - Determine Effective Discharge & Characterization of Bed Mobilization feeds into ST5270 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - 1D Model Development & Calibration on October 1, 2013. ST5090Initial/Detailed Sediment BalanceST4500 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Flow Routing feeds into ST5090 Geomorphology Study - Initial/Detailed Sediment Balance on June 1, 2013. ST5090 Geomorphology Study - Initial/Detailed Sediment Balance feeds into ST5270 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - 1D Model Development & Calibration on October 1, 2013. ST5100Recon. Level Assessment of Potential Lower River Channel Change ST5120Large Woody DebrisST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Groundwater/Surfacewater Modeling feeds into ST5120 Geomorphology Study - Large Woody Debris on July 1, 2014. ST5130Reservoir GeomorphologyST5400 Groundwater Study - Watana Dam/Reservoir feeds into ST5130 Geomorphology Study - Reservoir Geomorphology on Nov 1, 2013. ST3930 Glacial & RunOff Changes Study - Hydrological & Glacier Melt Model Development feeds into ST5130 Geomorphology Study - Reservoir Geomorphology at the end of March 2014. ST5130 Geomorphology Study - Reservoir Geomorphology feeds into ST1400 Cultural Resources Study - Additional Modeling from 2013 Field Study Results on December 31, 2013. ST5130 Geomorphology Study - Reservoir Geomorphology feeds into ST2670 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative on December 31, 2013. ST5140Geomorphology of Stream X-ings Along Access & Trans Corridor ST5150Integration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. Geomorphology Modeling ResultsST4840 Water Quality Modeling Study - Model Calibration (Water Quality) will feeds into ST5150 Geomorphology Study - Integration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. Geomorphology Modeling Results at the end of September 2013. ST2590 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Freeze Up Reconnaissance feeds into ST5150 Geomorphology Study - Integration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. Geomorphology Modeling Results on May 1 2013. ST2580 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Break Up Reconnaissance feeds into ST5150 Geomorphology Study - Integration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. Geomorphology Modeling Results on May 1 2013. ST2530 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Proposed Condition 1D Model Development feeds into ST5150 Geomorphology Study - Integration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. Geomorphology Modeling Results on March 31, 2014. ST5150 Geomorphology Study - Integration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. Geomorphology Modeling Results feeds into ST3600 Characterization & Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2014 on April 1, 2014. ST5150 Geomorphology Study - Integration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. Geomorphology Modeling Results feeds into ST6030 Recreation Resources Study - Impact Analysis on March 1, 2014. ST5150 Geomorphology Study - Integration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. Geomorphology Modeling Results feeds into ST2600 Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Watana Dam - Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Map Revisions on October 1, 2013. ST5150 Geomorphology Study - Integration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. Geomorphology Modeling Results feeds into ST5270 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - 1D Model Development & Calibration on October 1, 2013. ST5150 Geomorphology Study - Integration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. Geomorphology Modeling Results feeds into ST1170 River Recreation Flow and Access Study - Impact Analysis on August 1, 2014. ST5180Develop Geomorphic System/ Finalize Classification System ST5181Initial Study Report ST5182Updated Study Report ST5200Selection of 1D and 2D Models ST5210Selection of Focus Area ST5230Coordination w/ Other Studies on Modeling Needs Including Focus Areas ST52402013 Field Data Collection ST5250Supplemental Field Data Collection 2014 ST5260Coordinate w/ Other Studies on Processes ModeledST5260 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - Coordinate w/ Other Studies on Processes Modeled feeds into ST3780 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Data Analysis 2013 on October 1, 2013.Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study (6.6)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 3 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 15
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST52701D Model Development & CalibrationST5150 Geomorphology Study - Integration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. Geomorphology Modeling Results feeds into ST5270 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - 1D Model Development & Calibration on October 1, 2013. ST5080 Geomorphology Study - Determine Effective Discharge & Characterization of Bed Mobilization feeds into ST5270 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - 1D Model Development & Calibration on October 1, 2013. ST5090 Geomorphology Study - Initial/Detailed Sediment Balance feeds into ST5270 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - 1D Model Development & Calibration on October 1, 2013. ST5280Perform 1D Modeling of Exis Conditions & Initial Proj RunST5280 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - Perform 1D Modeling of Exis Conditions & Initial Proj Run feeds into ST3652 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study on March 31, 2014. ST5280 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - Perform 1D Modeling of Exis Conditions & Initial Proj Run feeds into ST4410 Study of Fish Passage Barriers (Middle & Upper Susitna River) - Data Collection - 2014 on January 31, 2013. ST5280 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - Perform 1D Modeling of Exis Conditions & Initial Proj Run feeds into ST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Groundwater/Surfacewater Modeling on December 31, 2013.ST5280 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - Perform 1D Modeling of Exis Conditions & Initial Proj Run feeds into ST4570 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Model Integration & Calibration on April 1, 2014. ST5290 Reevaluate D/S Study Limits Based on 1D Results ST53002D Model Development & Calibration ST5310Perform 2D Modeling Existing ConditionsST5310 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - Perform 2D Modeling Existing Conditions feeds into ST4570 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Model Integration & Calibration on October 1, 2014. ST5320 Perform 1D Modeling of Alternate Scenarios ST5340 Perform 2D Modeling of Alternate Scenarios ST5350Post Process & Provide Model Results to Other Studies ST5360Interpretation of Channel Change & Integration w/ Other Studies ST5370Initial Study Report ST5372Updated Study Report ST5380Existing Data Synthesis ST5390 Geohydrologic Process-Domains and Terrain ST5400Watana Dam/ReservoirST5400 Groundwater Study - Watana Dam/Reservoir feeds into ST5130 Geomorphology Study - Reservoir Geomorphology on Nov 1, 2013. ST5410Upwelling/Springs Broadscale MappingST5410 Groundwater Study - Upwelling/Springs Broadscale Mapping feeds into ST4540 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Collect Physical & Hydraulic Data for Habitat Modeling on October 1, 2013. ST5420Riparian Veg Dependency on Surface/Groundwater InteractionsST5420 Groundwater Study - Riparian Veg Dependency on Surface/Groundwater Interactions feeds into ST1030 Riparian Instream Study - Implement Riparian Groundwater/Surfacewater Installation & Sampling on October 1, 2013. ST5430Aquatic Habitat/Groundwater/Surface Water Interactions ST5450Water Quality in Selected HabitatsST5450 Groundwater Study - Water Quality in Selected Habitats feeds into ST4540 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Collect Physical & Hydraulic Data for Habitat Modeling on October 1, 2013. ST5450 Groundwater Study - Water Quality in Selected Habitats feeds into ST4750 Baseline Water Quality Study - Water Quality Monitoring. ST5460Winter Ground/Surface Water InteractionsST4750 Baseline Water Quality Study - Water Quality Monitoring feeds into ST5460 Groundwater Study - Aquatic Habitat/Surface Water Interactions on October 31, 2013. ST2630 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Open Lead Surveys, Ice Thickness & Elevation (2013) and ST2730 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Open Lead Surveys, Ice Thickness & Elevation (2014) feeds into ST5460 Groundwater Study - Aquatic Habitat/Surface Water Interactions on March 1, 2013 and March 1, 2014, respectively. ST5460 Groundwater Study - Winter Ground/Surface Water Interactions feeds into ST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Groundwater/Surfacewater Modeling on July 1, 2014. ST5470Shallow Groundwater UsersST5470 Groundwater Study - Shallow Groundwater Users feeds into ST1960 Health Impact Assessment Study - Impact Assessment on March 1, 2013. ST5480Initial Study Plan ST5490Updated Study ReportGroundwater Study (7.5)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 4 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 16
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST2510Existing Condition 1D Model DevelopmentST2510 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Existing Condition 1D Model Development feeds into ST1870 Transportation Resources Study - Evaluate Impacts on December 1, 2013. ST2510 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Existing Condition 1D Model Development feeds into ST3040 Subsistence Resources Study - Revise Study Plans on December 31, 2013. ST2510 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Existing Condition 1D Model Development feeds into ST1210 Aesthetic Resources Study - Impact Analysis on November 1, 2013. ST2510 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Existing Condition 1D Model Development feeds into ST6030 Recreation Resources Study - Impact Analysis on December 31, 2013. ST2510 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Existing Condition 1D Model Development feeds into ST3780 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Data Analysis 2013 on October 1, 2013. ST2510 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Existing Condition 1D Model Development feeds into ST2670 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative on December 31, 2013. ST2510 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Existing Condition 1D Model Development feeds into ST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Groundwater/Surfacewater Modeling on December 31, 2013. ST2510 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Existing Condition 1D Model Development feeds into ST4550 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Coordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data Collection & Modeling at the end of February 2013. ST2520Intensive Site Models ST2530 Proposed Condition 1D Model DevelopmentST4840 Water Quality Modeling Study - Model Calibration (Water Quality) feeds into ST2530 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Proposed Condition 1D Model Development at the end of December 2013. ST2530 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Proposed Condition 1D Model Development feeds into ST5150 Geomorphology Study - Integration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. Geomorphology Modeling Results on March 31, 2014. ST2570Open Lead Surveys, Ice Thickness & Elevation (2012) ST2580Break Up ReconnaissanceST2580 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Break Up Reconnaissance feeds into ST4270 Waterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study - Spring Migration/Breeding-Pair Surveys - 2013 on May 1, 2013. ST2580 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study -Break Up Reconnaissance feeds into ST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Groundwater/Surfacewater Modeling on March 1, 2013. ST2580 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - Perform 1D Modeling of Exis Conditions & Initial Proj Run feeds into ST5220 Dall's Sheep Distribution and Abundance Study - Aerial Surveys - 2013 on March 1, 2013. ST2580 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - Perform 1D Modeling of Exis Conditions & Initial Proj Run feeds into ST3000 Glacial & Runoff Changes Study - Fish and Aquatics IFS study area selection. ST2580 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Break Up Reconnaissance feeds into ST5150 Geomorphology Study - Integration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. Geomorphology Modeling Results on May 1, 2013. ST2590Freeze Up ReconnaissanceST3460 Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2012-13 feeds into ST2950 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Freeze Up Reconnaissance on January 1, 2013. ST4970 Geomorphology Study - Initial Geomorphic Reach Delineation/Finalize Delineation feeds into ST2950 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Freeze Up Reconnaissance on January 1, 2013.ST2590 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Freeze Up Reconnaissance feeds into ST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Groundwater/Surfacewater Modeling on March 1, 2013. ST2590 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - Reevaluate D/S Study Limits Based on 1D Results feeds into ST5220 Dall's Sheep Distribution and Abundance Study - Aerial Surveys - 2013 on March 1, 2013. ST2590 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - Reevaluate D/S Study Limits Based on 1D Results feeds into ST3000 Glacial & Runoff Changes Study - Fish and Aquatics IFS study area selection. ST2590 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Freeze Up Reconnaissance feeds into ST5150 Geomorphology Study - Integration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. Geomorphology Modeling Results on May 1, 2013. ST2630Open Lead Surveys, Ice Thickness & Elevation (2013)ST2630 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Open Lead Surveys, Ice Thickness & Elevation (2013) feeds into ST5460 Groundwater Study - Aquatic Habitat/Surface Water Interactions on March 1, 2013 and March 1, 2014, respectively. ST2640Break Up Reconnaissance ST2650Freeze Up Reconnaissance ST2710Initial Study Report PrepST2710 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Initial Study Report Prep feeds into ST3652 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study on February 2, 2014. ST2720Initial Study Report ST2730Open Lead Surveys, Ice Thickness & Elevation 2014 ST2740Break Up Reconnaissance ST2770Updated Study Report ST3840Review Existing LiteratureGlacial & RunOff Changes Study (7.7)Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study (7.6)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 5 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 17
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST3850Process Remote Sensing Imagery ST3870Spring Fieldwork ST3880Fall Fieldwork ST3900Analyze Glacier Mass Balance & Meteorological Data ST3910Glacial Extent Variation ST3930 Hydrological & Glacier Melt Model DevelopmentST3930 Glacial & RunOff Changes Study - Hydrological & Glacier Melt Model Development feeds into ST5130 Geomorphology Study - Reservoir Geomorphology at the end of March 2014. ST3940Hydrological & Glacier Melt Model Calibration/Validation ST3960Initial Study Report ST3970Updated Study Report ST3000Study Area SelectionST2580 fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - Perform 1D Modeling of Exis Conditions & Initial Proj Run and ST2590 fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - Reevaluate D/S Study Limits Based on 1D Results feeds into ST3000 Glacial & Runoff Changes Study - Fish and Aquatics IFS study area selection. ST4970 Geomorphology Study - Initial Geomorphic Reach Delineation/Finalize Delineation and ST3460 Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2012-13 feeds into ST3000 Glacial & Runoff Changes Study - Fish and Aquatics IFS study area selection on January 31, 2013. ST3110Review of 1980s Data & Information ST3220Model Selection by Habitat Type ST4500Hydraulic Flow Routing ST4500 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Flow Routing feeds into ST4410 Study of Fish Passage Barriers (Middle & Upper Susitna River) - Data Collection - 2014 on December 31, 2013. ST4500 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Flow Routing feeds into ST5090 Geomorphology Study - Initial/Detailed Sediment Balance on June 1, 2013. ST4500 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Flow Routing feeds into ST4840 Water Quality Monitoring Study - Model Calibration (Water Quality) on July 1, 2013. ST4510Hydrology ST4520PeriodicityST3460 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Field Surveys feeds into ST4520 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Periodicity on August 31, 2013.ST4520 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Periodicity feeds into ST3480 Aquatic Furbearer Abundance & Habitat Use Study - Aerial Survey of Muskrat Pushups on March 31, 2013. ST4530HSC/HCI Fish: Field Data CollectionST5410 Groundwater Study - Upwelling/Springs Broadscale Mapping feeds into ST4530 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - HSC/HCI Fish: Field Data Collection on October 1, 2013. ST4360 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Field Surveys feeds into ST4530 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - HSC/HCI Fish: Field Data Collection on December 31, 2013. ST2952 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST4530 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - HSC/HCI Fish: Field Data Collection on December 31, 2013. ST4530 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - HSC/HCI Fish: Field Data Collection feeds into ST4540 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Collect Physical & Hydraulic Data for Habitat Modeling on April 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. ST4540Collect Physical & Hydraulic Data for Habitat ModelingST5450 Groundwater Study - Water Quality in Selected Habitats feeds into ST4540 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Collect Physical & Hydraulic Data for Habitat Modeling on October 1, 2013. ST4530 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - HSC/HCI Fish: Field Data Collection feeds into ST4540 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Collect Physical & Hydraulic Data for Habitat Modeling on April 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. ST5410 Groundwater Study - Upwelling/Springs Broadscale Mapping feeds into ST4540 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Collect Physical & Hydraulic Data for Habitat Modeling on October 1, 2013.ST4410 Study of Fish Passage Barriers (Middle & Upper Susitna River) - Data Collection - 2014 feeds into ST4540 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Collect Physical & Hydraulic Data for Habitat Modeling on May 31, 2014. Instream Flow Study - Collect Physical & Hydraulic Data for Habitat Modeling feeds into ST4750 Baseline Water Quality Study - Water Quality Monitoring.Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study (8.5)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 6 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 18
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST4550Coordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data Collection & ModelingST4840 Water Quality Modeling Study - Model Calibration (Water Quality) feeds into ST4550 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Coordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data Collection & Modeling at the end of December 2013. ST5060 Geomorphology Study - Assess Channel Change 1980-2012 feeds into ST4550 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Coordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data Collection & Modeling on March 1, 2014. ST2510 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Existing Condition 1D Model Development feeds into ST4550 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Coordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data Collection & Modeling at the end of February 2013. ST4550 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Coordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data Collection & Modeling feeds into ST1870 Transportation Resources Study - Evaluate Impacts on December 1, 2013. ST4550 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Coordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data Collection & Modeling feeds into ST4330 Waterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study - Brood Surveys - 2014 on October 1, 2013. ST4550 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Coordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data Collection & Modeling feeds into ST3620 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study - Initial Study Report Prep on December 31, 2013. ST4550 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Coordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data Collection & Modeling feeds into ST3780 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Data Analysis 2013 on October 1, 2013. ST4550 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Coordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data Collection & Modeling feeds into ST3950 Analysis of Fish Harvest in (and) D/S of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project on December 31, 2013. ST4550 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Coordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data Collection & Modeling feeds into ST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Groundwater/Surfacewater Modeling on December 31, 2013. ST4570 Hydraulic Model Integration & CalibrationST5280 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - Perform 1D Modeling of Exis Conditions & Initial Proj Run feeds into ST4570 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Model Integration & Calibration on April 1, 2014. ST5310 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - Perform 2D Modeling Existing Conditions feeds into ST4570 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Model Integration & Calibration on October 1, 2014. ST3381 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River - Final Data Analysis feeds into ST4570 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Model Integration & Calibration on October 1, 2014. ST4840 Water Quality Modeling Study - Model Calibration (Water Quality) feeds into ST4570 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Model Integration & Calibration at the end of December 2013. ST4570 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Model Integration & Calibration feeds into ST6030 Recreation Resources Study - Impact Analysis on October 1, 2014. ST4570 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Model Integration & Calibration feeds into ST4180 River Productivity Study - Data Analysis & Reporting on October 1, 2014. ST4570 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Model Integration & Calibration feeds into ST4410 Study of Fish Passage Barriers (Middle & Upper Susitna River) - Data Collection - 2014 on October 1, 2014. ST4580 Initial Study Report ST4590 Updated Study Report ST1010 Critical Review of 1980s Susitna River Data ST1020Finalize Riparian Groundwater/Surfacewater Field Design ST1030Implement Riparian Groundwater/Surfacewater Installation & SamplingST5420 Groundwater Study - Riparian Veg Dependency on Surface/Groundwater Interactions feeds into ST1030 Riparian Instream Study - Implement Riparian Groundwater/Surfacewater Installation & Sampling on October 1, 2013. ST1040 Riparian Vegetation: Field Data Collection 2013 ST1050 Riparian Vegetation: Field Data Collection 2014ST5560 Aquatic Furbearer Abundance & Habitat Use Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST1050 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Riparian Vegetation: Field Data Collection - 2014 on March 31, 2014. ST1060 Sediment Dating: Sampling & Analysis 2013 ST1070 Sediment Dating: Sampling & Analysis 2014 ST1080 Develop Riparian ModelsST2580 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Break Up Reconnaissance and ST2590 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Freeze Up Reconnaissance feeds into ST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Riparian Models on March 1, 2013. ST2510 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Existing Condition 1D Model Development feeds into ST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Riparian Models on December 31, 2013. ST4550 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Coordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data Collection & Modeling feeds into ST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Riparian Models on December 31, 2013. ST2600 Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Watana Dam - Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Map Revisions feeds into ST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Riparian Models on December 31, 2013. ST5280 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - Perform 1D Modeling of Exis Conditions & Initial Proj Run feeds into ST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Riparian Models on December 31, 2013.ST5460 Groundwater Study - Winter Ground/Surface Water Interactions feeds into ST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Riparian Models on July 1, 2014.ST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Riparian Models feeds into ST3790 Aesthetic Resources Study - Updated Study Report Prep on October 1, 2014. ST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Riparian Models feeds into ST5120 Geomorphology Study - Large Woody Debris on July 1, 2014. ST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Riparian Models feeds into ST4180 River Productivity Study - Data Analysis & Reporting on October 1, 2014. ST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Riparian Models feeds into ST5570 Aquatic Furbearer Abundance & Habitat Use Study - Updated Study Report on October 1, 2014. ST1090 Initial Study Report ST1100 Updated Study ReportRiparian Instream Flow Study (8.6)Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River (9.5)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 7 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 19
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST2220Fish SamplingST2390 Salmon Escapement Study - Operate Fishwheels at Curry - 2013 feeds into ST2220 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Fish Sampling on October 1, 2013.ST2220 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Fish Sampling feeds into ST2560 Wood Frogs Occupancy & Habitat Use Study on May 1, 2013. ST2220 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Fish Sampling feeds into ST3150 Surveys of Eagles & Other Raptors Study - Field Surveys - 2013 on April 1, 2013. ST2220 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Fish Sampling feeds into ST3480 Aquatic Furbearer Abundance & Habitat Use Study - Aerial Survey of Muskrat Pushups on March 31, 2013. ST2220 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Fish Sampling feeds into ST1230 Genetic Baseline Study for Selected Fish Species - Baseline Sample Collection 2013 on June 1, 2013. ST2220 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Fish Sampling feeds into ST2390 Salmon Escapement Study - Operate Fishwheels at Curry - 2013 on June 1, 2013. ST2950Study Site SelectionST4970 Geomorphology Study - Initial Geomorphic Reach Delineation/Finalize Delineation feeds into ST2950 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Study Site Selection on January 1, 2013.ST3460 Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2012-13 feeds into ST2950 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Study Site Selection on January 1, 2013. ST2951Data Entry ST2952Preliminary Data AnalysisST3600 Characterization & Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2014 feeds into ST2952 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis on October 1, 2014.ST2952 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST3950 Analysis of Fish Harvest in (and) D/S of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project on December 31, 2013. ST2952 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST2450 Aquatic Resources w/ Access Alignment, Transmission Alignment, and Cost Areas Study - Additional Surveys on January 31, 2014.ST2952 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST4410 Study of Fish Passage Barriers (Middle & Upper Susitna River) - Data Collection - 2014 on December 31, 2013. ST2952 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST2010 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community & Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fishery Management Options on December 31, 2013. ST2952 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST4150 River Productivity Study - General Habitat Suitability Criteria and ST1307 on December 31, 2013. ST2952 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST1730 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community & Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fish Community Scenarios on December 31, 2013. ST2952 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST2670 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative on December 31, 2013. ST2952 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST4530 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - HSC/HCI Fish: Field Data Collection on December 31, 2013. ST2952 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST4330 Waterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study - Brood Surveys - 2014 on October 1, 2013. ST3050Initial Study Report Prep ST3060Initial Study Report ST3120Final Data Analysis ST3140Updated Study Report Prep ST3150Updated Study Report ST3310Study Site SelectionST3460 Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2012-13 feeds into ST3310 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance (Middle & Lower Susitna River) - Study Site Selection on January 1, 2013. ST4970 Geomorphology Study - Initial Geomorphic Reach Delineation/Finalize Delineation feeds into ST3310 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance (Middle & Lower Susitna River) - Study Site Selection on January 1, 2013. ST3320Fish SamplingST2390 Salmon Escapement Study - Operate Fishwheels at Curry - 2013 feeds into ST3320 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance (Middle & Lower Susitna River) - Fish Sampling on October 1, 2013.ST3320 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance (Middle & Lower Susitna River) - Fish Sampling feeds into ST2560 Wood Frogs Occupancy & Habitat Use Study on May 1, 2013. ST3320 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance (Middle & Lower Susitna River) - Fish Sampling feeds into ST3150 Surveys of Eagles & Other Raptors Study - Field Surveys - 2013 on April 1, 2013. ST3320 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance (Middle & Lower Susitna River) - Fish Sampling feeds into ST2390 Salmon Escapement Study - Operate Fishwheels at Curry - 2013 on June 1, 2013. ST3350Data EntryStudy of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River(9.6)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 8 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 20
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST3360Preliminary Data AnalysisST3360 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST4330 Waterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study - Brood Surveys - 2014 on October 1, 2013.ST3360 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST3620 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study - Initial Study Report Prep on December 31, 2013. ST3360 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST3950 Analysis of Fish Harvest in (and) D/S of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project on December 31, 2013. ST3360 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST1230 Genetic Baseline Study for Selected Fish Species - Baseline Sample Collection 2013 on June 1, 2013. ST3360 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST2670 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative on December 31, 2013. ST3360 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST4150 River Productivity Study - General Habitat Suitability Criteria and ST1307 on December 31, 2013. ST3360 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST2440 Salmon Escapement Study - Updated Study Report on October 1, 2014. ST3360 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST4410 Study of Fish Passage Barriers (Middle & Upper Susitna River) - Data Collection - 2014 on December 31, 2013. ST3370Initial Study Report Prep ST3380Initial Study Report ST3381Final Data AnalysisST3600 Characterization & Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2014 feeds into ST3381 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River on October 1, 2014. ST3381 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River - Final Data Analysis feeds into ST4570 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Model Integration & Calibration on October 1, 2014. ST3390Updated Study Report Prep ST3400Updated Study Report ST2380 Operate Fishwheels in the Lower Susitna 2013ST2380 Salmon Escapement Study - Operate Fishwheels in the Lower Susitna -2013 feeds into ST3780 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Data Analysis 2013 on October 1, 2013. ST2390Operate Fishwheels at Curry 2013ST3460 Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2012-13 feeds into ST2390 Salmon Escapement Study - Operate Fishwheels at Curry - 2013 on June 1, 2013. ST1230 Genetic Baseline Study for Selected Fish Species - Baseline Sample Collection 2013 feeds into ST2390 Salmon Escapement Study - Operate Fishwheels at Curry - 2013 on June 1, 2013. ST2220 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Fish Sampling feeds into ST2390 Salmon Escapement Study - Operate Fishwheels at Curry - 2013 on June 1, 2013. ST3320 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance (Middle & Lower Susitna River) - Fish Sampling feeds into ST2390 Salmon Escapement Study - Operate Fishwheels at Curry - 2013 on June 1, 2013. ST2390 Salmon Escapement Study - Operate Fishwheels at Curry - 2013 feeds into ST1230 Genetic Baseline Study for Selected Fish Species - Baseline Sample Collection 2013 on September 1, 2013. ST2390 Salmon Escapement Study - Operate Fishwheels at Curry - 2013 feeds into ST3320 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance (Middle & Lower Susitna River) - Fish Sampling on October 1, 2013. ST2390 Salmon Escapement Study - Operate Fishwheels at Curry - 2013 feeds into ST2220 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Fish Sampling on October 1, 2013. ST2390 Salmon Escapement Study - Operate Fishwheels at Curry - 2013 feeds into ST4330 Waterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study - Brood Surveys - 2014 on October 1, 2013. ST2400Conduct Aerial Surveys 2013 ST2410Initial Study ReportST3780 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Data Analysis 2013 feeds into ST2410 Salmon Escapement Study - Initial Study Report on October 31, 2013. ST3620 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study - Initial Study Report Prep feeds into ST2410 Salmon Escapement Study - Initial Study Report on December 31, 2013. ST2410 Salmon Escapement Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST1690 Surveys of Eagles & Other Raptors Study - Field Surveys - 2014 on April 1, 2014. ST2410 Salmon Escapement Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST3950 Analysis of Fish Harvest in (and) D/S of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project on February 1, 2014. ST2410 Salmon Escapement Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST2670 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative on February 1, 2014. ST2410 Salmon Escapement Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST2230 Aquatic Resources w/ Access Alignment, Transmission Alignment, and Const. Areas Study - Conduct Fish Surveys on February 1, 2014.ST2410 Salmon Escapement Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST4410 Study of Fish Passage Barriers (Middle & Upper Susitna River) - Data Collection - 2014 on February 1, 2014. ST2410 Salmon Escapement Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST1730 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community & Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fish Community Scenarios on February 1, 2014. ST2420 Operate Fishwheels in the Lower Susitna 2014 ST2430Operate Fishwheels at Curry 2014Salmon Escapement Study (9.7)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 9 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 21
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST2440Updated Study ReportST3360 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST2440 Salmon Escapement Study - Updated Study Report on October 1, 2014. ST3600 Characterization & Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2014 feeds into ST2440 Salmon Escapement Study - Updated Study Report on October 1, 2014. ST4020Literature Review on Hydropower Impacts ST4060Sampling Benthic Macroinvertebrate & Algae Communities & Organic MatterST3460 Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2012-13 feeds into ST4060 River Productivity Study - Sampling Benthic Macroinvertebrate & Algae Communities & Organic Matter on March 31, 2013. ST4100Invertebrate Drift Sampling ST4120Sampling Talkeetna for Ref. Site & Feasibility StudyST5010 Geomorphology Study - Identify Key Governing Geomorphic Process feeds into ST4120 Cultural Resources Study - Field Studies - Evaluation on March 31, 2013. ST4140Trophic Analysis w/ Bioenergetics & Stable Isotope Analysis ST4150Generate Habitat Suitability CriteriaST4750 Baseline Water Quality Study - Water Quality Monitoring feeds into ST4150 River Productivity Study - General Habitat Suitability Criteria and ST1307 on October 31, 2013. ST2952 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST4150 River Productivity Study - General Habitat Suitability Criteria and ST1307 on December 31, 2013. ST3360 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST4150 River Productivity Study - General Habitat Suitability Criteria and ST1307 on December 31, 2013. ST4750 Baseline Water Quality Study - Water Quality Monitoring feeds into ST4150 River Productivity Study - General Habitat Suitability Criteria and ST1307 on December 31, 2013. ST3600 Characterization & Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2014 feeds into ST4150 River Productivity Study - General Habitat Suitability Criteria and ST1307 on October 31, 2013. ST4160Conduct a Fish Gut Analysis ST4170Establish Baseline Colonization Rates ST4180Data Analysis & ReportingST4570 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Model Integration & Calibration feeds into ST4180 River Productivity Study - Data Analysis & Reporting on October 1, 2014. ST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Groundwater/Surfacewater Modeling feeds into ST4180 River Productivity Study - Data Analysis & Reporting on October 1, 2014. ST4180 River Productivity Study - Data Analysis & Reporting feeds into ST4800 Water Quality Modeling Study - Generate Results for Operational Scenarios on July 1, 2014. ST4210Initial Study Report Prep ST4230Initial Study Report ST4240Updated Study Report Prep ST4250Updated Study Report ST3460Data Collection - 2012-13ST4970 Geomorphology Study - Initial Geomorphic Reach Delineation/Finalize Delineation feeds into ST3460 Characterization & Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2012-13 on March 1, 2013. ST3460 Characterization & Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2012-13 feeds into ST2010 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community & Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fishery Management Options on March 1, 2014. ST3460 Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2012-13 feeds into ST4060 River Productivity Study - Sampling Benthic Macroinvertebrate & Algae Communities & Organic Matter on March 31, 2013.ST3460 Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2012-13 feeds into ST2390 Salmon Escapement Study - Operate Fishwheels at Curry - 2013 on June 1, 2013. ST3460 Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2012-13 feeds into ST3310 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance (Middle & Lower Susitna River) - Study Site Selection on January 1, 2013. ST3460 Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2012-13 feeds into ST2950 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Study Site Selection on January 1, 2013. ST3460 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Field Surveys feeds into ST4520 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Periodicity on August 31, 2013. ST3520Initial Study Report Prep ST3530Initial Study ReportRiver Productivity Study (9.8)Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study (9.9)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 10 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 22
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST3600Data Collection - 2014ST5150 Geomorphology Study - Integration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. Geomorphology Modeling Results feeds into ST3600 Characterization & Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2014 on April 1, 2014. ST3600 Characterization & Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2014 feeds into feeds into ST4150 River Productivity Study - General Habitat Suitability Criteria and ST1307 on October 31, 2013. ST3600 Characterization & Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2014 feeds into ST2440 Salmon Escapement Study - Updated Study Report on October 1, 2014. ST3600 Characterization & Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2014 feeds into ST3381 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River on October 1, 2014. ST3600 Characterization & Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2014 feeds into ST2952 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis on October 1, 2014 ST3610Updated Study Report Prep ST3640Updated Study ReportST3640 Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Updated Study Report feeds into ST2450 Aquatic Resources w/ Access Alignment, Transmission Alignment, and Cost Areas Study - Additional Surveys on January 31, 2013. ST1729Reservoir Habitat Scenarios ST1730Reservoir Fish Community ScenariosST2952 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST1730 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community & Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fish Community Scenarios on December 31, 2013. ST2410 Salmon Escapement Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST1730 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community & Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fish Community Scenarios on February 1, 2014. ST1730 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community and Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fish Community Scenarios feeds into ST1650 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Incorporate Information & Other Studies on December 31, 2013. ST1731Initial Study Report ST2010Reservoir Fishery Management OptionsST3460 Characterization & Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Data Collection - 2012-13 feeds into ST2010 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community & Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fishery Management Options on March 1, 2014. ST1112 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Develop Concepts feeds into ST2010 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community & Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fishery Management Options on December 31, 2013. ST2952 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST2010 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community & Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fishery Management Options on December 31, 2013. ST4850 Water Quality Modeling Study - Model Evaluation/Selection feeds into ST2010 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community & Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fishery Management Options on December 31, 2013. ST5970 Recreation Resources Study - Analysis feeds into ST2010 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community & Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fishery Management Options on December 31, 2013. ST2670 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative feeds into ST2010 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community & Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fishery Management Options on April 1, 2014 . ST2010 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community & Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fishery Management Options feeds into ST2670 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative on April 1, 2014. ST2010 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community & Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fishery Management Options feeds into ST5970 Recreation Resources Study - Analysis on April 1, 2014. ST2210Entrainment Analysis ST2460Updated Study Report ST1109Establish Team and Define Process ST1110Prepare for Feasibility Study ST1111Site Reconnaissance ST1112Develop ConceptsST1112 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Develop Concepts feeds into ST2010 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community & Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fishery Management Options on December 31, 2013. ST1113Initial Study Report Prep ST1114Initial Study ReportFuture Watana Reservoir Fish Community and Risk of Entrainment Study (9.10)Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam (9.11)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 11 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 23
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST2670Evaluate Feasibility/AlternativeST2952 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST2670 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative on December 31, 2013. ST3360 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST2670 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative on December 31, 2013. ST2410 Salmon Escapement Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST2670 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative on February 1, 2014. ST2010 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community & Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fishery Management Options feeds into ST2670 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative on April 1, 2014. ST5130 Geomorphology Study - Reservoir Geomorphology feeds into ST2670 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative on December 31, 2013. ST2510 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Existing Condition 1D Model Development feeds into ST2670 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative on December 31, 2013. ST4750 Baseline Water Quality Study - Water Quality Monitoring feeds into ST2670 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative on December 31, 2013. ST4840 Water Quality Monitoring Study - Model Calibration (Water Quality) feeds into ST2670 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative on December 31, 2013. ST2670 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative feeds into ST6030 Recreation Resources Study - Impact Analysis on June 30, 2014. ST2670 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative feeds into ST2010 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community & Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fishery Management Options on April 1, 2014 . ST2671Develop Refined Passage StrategiesST4410 Study of Fish Passage Barriers (Middle & Upper Susitna River) - Data Collection - 2014 feeds into ST2671 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Develop Refined Passage Strategies on June 30, 2014. ST2790Updated Study Report Prep ST2800Updated Study Report ST4260Data Collection - 2013ST4260 Study of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and Upper Susitna River and Susitna Tributaries - Data Collection - 2013 feeds into ST3950 Analysis of Fish Harvest in (and) D/S of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project on December 31, 2013. ST4260 Study of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and Upper Susitna River and Susitna Tributaries - Data Collection - 2013 feeds into ST2450 Aquatic Resources w/ Access Alignment, Transmission Alignment, and Cost Areas Study - Additional Surveys on December 31, 2013 ST4340Initial Study Report ST4410Data Collection - 2014ST4570 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Model Integration & Calibration feeds into ST4410 Study of Fish Passage Barriers (Middle & Upper Susitna River) - Data Collection - 2014 on October 1, 2014. ST2952 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST4410 Study of Fish Passage Barriers (Middle & Upper Susitna River) - Data Collection - 2014 on December 31, 2013. ST3360 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST4410 Study of Fish Passage Barriers (Middle & Upper Susitna River) - Data Collection - 2014 on December 31, 2013.ST2410 Salmon Escapement Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST4410 Study of Fish Passage Barriers (Middle & Upper Susitna River) - Data Collection - 2014 on February 1, 2014. ST5080 Geomorphology Study - Determine Effective Discharge & Characterization of Bed Mobilization feeds into ST4410 Study of Fish Passage Barriers (Middle & Upper Susitna River) - Data Collection - 2014 on December 31, 2013.ST4500 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Flow Routing feeds into ST4410 Study of Fish Passage Barriers (Middle & Upper Susitna River) - Data Collection - 2014 on December 31, 2013. ST4540 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Collect Physical & Hydraulic Data for Habitat Modeling feeds into ST4410 Study of Fish Passage Barriers (Middle & Upper Susitna River) - Data Collection - 2014 on December 31, 2013. ST5280 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - Perform 1D Modeling of Exis Conditions & Initial Proj Run feeds into ST4410 Study of Fish Passage Barriers (Middle & Upper Susitna River) - Data Collection - 2014 on January 31, 2013. ST4410 Study of Fish Passage Barriers (Middle & Upper Susitna River) - Data Collection - 2014 feeds into ST2671 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Develop Refined Passage Strategies on June 30, 2014.ST4410 Study of Fish Passage Barriers (Middle & Upper Susitna River) - Data Collection - 2014 feeds into ST4540 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Collect Physical & Hydraulic Data for Habitat Modeling on May 31, 2014. ST4490Updated Study Report ST2230Conduct Fish SurveysST2410 Salmon Escapement Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST2230 Aquatic Resources w/ Access Alignment, Transmission Alignment, and Const. Areas Study - Conduct Fish Surveys on February 1, 2014.Study of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and Upper Susitna River and Susitna Tributaries (9.12)Aquatic Resources w/ Access Alignment, Transmission Alignment, and Const. Areas Study (9.13)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 12 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 24
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST2450Additional SurveysST2952 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST2450 Aquatic Resources w/ Access Alignment, Transmission Alignment, and Cost Areas Study - Additional Surveys on January 31, 2014. ST3640 Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study - Updated Study Report feeds into ST2450 Aquatic Resources w/ Access Alignment, Transmission Alignment, and Cost Areas Study - Additional Surveys on January 31, 2013. ST4260 Study of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and Upper Susitna River and Susitna Tributaries - Data Collection - 2013 feeds into ST2450 Aquatic Resources w/ Access Alignment, Transmission Alignment, and Cost Areas Study - Additional Surveys on December 31, 2013. ST3810Initial Study Report ST3820Updated Study Report ST1230Baseline Sample Collection 2013ST2220 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Fish Sampling feeds into ST1230 Genetic Baseline Study for Selected Fish Species - Baseline Sample Collection 2013 on June 1, 2013. ST3360 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST1230 Genetic Baseline Study for Selected Fish Species - Baseline Sample Collection 2013 on June 1, 2013. ST2390 Salmon Escapement Study - Operate Fishwheels at Curry - 2013 feeds into ST1230 Genetic Baseline Study for Selected Fish Species - Baseline Sample Collection 2013 on September 1, 2013. ST3560 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Field Study 2013 feeds into ST1230 Genetic Baseline Study for Selected Fish Species - Baseline Sample Collection 2013 on October 31, 2013. ST1230 Genetic Baseline Study for Selected Fish Species - Baseline Sample Collection 2013 feeds into ST2390 Salmon Escapement Study - Operate Fishwheels at Curry - 2013 on June 1, 2013. ST1450Baseline Sample Collection 2014 ST1670Mixture Sample Collection 2013 ST2000Mixture Sample Collection 2014 ST3730Analysis of Salmon Tissue ST3740Initial Study Report ST3750Updated Study Report ST3920Harvest & Effort StatisticsST3920 Analysis of Fish Harvest in and Downstream of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Area - Harvest & Effort Statistics feeds into ST1650 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Incorporate Information & Other Studies on December 31, 2013. ST3920 Analysis of Fish Harvest in and Downstream of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Area - Harvest & Effort Statistics feeds into ST6030 Recreation Resources Study - Impact Analysis on December 31, 2013. ST3950Analyses of Potential Project-Related Effects on Harvest Levels & OpportunityST2952 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST3950 Analysis of Fish Harvest in (and) D/S of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project on December 31, 2013.ST3360 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST3950 Analysis of Fish Harvest in (and) D/S of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project on December 31, 2013. ST2410 Salmon Escapement Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST3950 Analysis of Fish Harvest in (and) D/S of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project on February 1, 2014. ST4260 Study of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and Upper Susitna River and Susitna Tributaries - Data Collection - 2013 feeds into ST3950 Analysis of Fish Harvest in (and) D/S of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project on December 31, 2013. ST4550 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Coordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data Collection & Modeling feeds into ST3950 Analysis of Fish Harvest in (and) D/S of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project on December 31, 2013. ST3030 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 1-3, 5: Prepare 2013 Study Report feeds into ST3950 Analysis of Fish Harvest in (and) D/S of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project on December 31, 2013. ST3950 Analysis of Fish Harvest in (and) D/S of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project feeds into ST6030 Recreation Resources Study - Impact Analysis on September 30, 2014. ST3980Initial Study Report ST3981Updated Study Report ST3340ADF&G Permits 2013 ST3450ADF&G Permits 2014Analysis of Fish Harvest in and Downstream of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Area (9.15)Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study (9.16)Genetic Baseline Study for Selected Fish Species (9.14)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 13 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 25
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST3560Field Study 2013ST3560 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Field Study 2013 feeds into ST1230 Genetic Baseline Study for Selected Fish Species - Baseline Sample Collection 2013 on October 31, 2013. ST3670Field Study 2014 ST3780Data Analysis 2013ST4550 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Coordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data Collection & Modeling feeds into ST3780 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Data Analysis 2013 on October 1, 2013. ST2510 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Existing Condition 1D Model Development feeds into ST3780 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Data Analysis 2013 on October 1, 2013. ST4750 Baseline Water Quality Study - Water Quality Monitoring feeds into ST3780 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Data Analysis 2013 on October 1, 2013. ST4840 Water Quality Monitoring Study - Model Calibration (Water Quality) feeds into ST3780 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Data Analysis 2013 on October 1, 2013. ST2380 Salmon Escapement Study - Operate Fishwheels in the Lower Susitna -2013 feeds into ST3780 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Data Analysis 2013 on October 1, 2013. ST5260 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - Coordinate w/ Other Studies on Processes Modeled feeds into ST3780 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Data Analysis 2013 on October 1, 2013. ST3780 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Data Analysis 2013 feeds into ST3620 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study - Initial Study Report Prep on November 1, 2013. ST3780 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Data Analysis 2013 feeds into ST3652 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study on December 31, 2013. ST3780 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Data Analysis 2013 feeds into ST2410 Salmon Escapement Study - Initial Study Report on October 31, 2013.ST3780 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Data Analysis 2013 feeds into ST3660 River Recreation Flow & Access Study - Initial Study Report Prep on October 31, 2013. ST3890Data Analysis 2014 ST4220Initial Study Report ST5440Updated Study Report ST2040Permit Applications ST20502013 Aerial Surveys ST20602013 Camera Surveys ST20702013 Initial Modeling Effort ST3620Initial Study Report PrepST3780 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Data Analysis 2013 feeds into ST3620 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study - Initial Study Report Prep on November 1, 2013. ST3360 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST3620 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study - Initial Study Report Prep on December 31, 2013.ST4550 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Coordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data Collection & Modeling feeds into ST3620 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study - Initial Study Report Prep on December 31, 2013. ST4840 Water Quality Monitoring Study - Model Calibration (Water Quality) feeds into ST3620 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study - Initial Study Report Prep on December 31, 2013. ST3620 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study - Initial Study Report Prep feeds into ST2410 Salmon Escapement Study - Initial Study Report on December 31, 2013. ST3630Initial Study Report ST36492014 Aerial Surveys ST36502014 Camera Surveys ST3652Revised Modeling EffortST3780 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Data Analysis 2013 feeds into ST3652 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study on December 31, 2013. ST5280 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - Perform 1D Modeling of Exis Conditions & Initial Proj Run feeds into ST3652 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study on March 31, 2014. ST2710 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Initial Study Report Prep feeds into ST3652 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Study on February 2, 2014. ST3653Updated Study Report Prep ST3654Updated Study Report ST2089Deploy Remaining Radio & Satellite Collars & MonitorST2160 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selections feeds into ST2089 Moose Distribution, Abundance, Movements, Productivity, and Survival Study - Deploy Remaining Radio & Satellite Collars & Monitor on February 1, 2013. ST2090 Conduct Winter Browse Utilization Assessment ST2100Monitor Radio Collars WeeklyCook Inlet Beluga Whale Study (9.17)Moose Distribution, Abundance, Movements, Productivity, and Survival Study (10.5)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 14 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 26
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST5680Initial Study ReportST5680 Moose Distribution, Abundance, Movements, Productivity, and Survival Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on February 2, 2014. ST5681Updated Study Report ST4670Monitor Collars - 2013 ST4780Initial Study ReportST4780 Caribou Distribution, Abundance, Movements, Productivity, and Survival Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on August 31, 2014. ST4890Monitor Collars - 2014 ST5000Updated Study Report ST5110Site Visits to Assess Lick Use - 2013 ST5220Aerial Surveys - 2013ST2580 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - Perform 1D Modeling of Exis Conditions & Initial Proj Run and ST2590 Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study - Reevaluate D/S Study Limits Based on 1D Results feeds into ST5220 Dall's Sheep Distribution and Abundance Study - Aerial Surveys - 2013 on March 1, 2013. ST5330Data Analysis - 2013 ST5620Initial Study Report ST5630Site Visits to Assess Lick Use - 2014 ST5640Aerial Surveys - 2014 ST5650Data Analysis - 2014ST5650 Dall's Sheep Distribution and Abundance Study - Data Analysis - 2014 feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST5660Updated Study Report ST2550Field Surveys of Bear Use - 2013 ST4330Data Analysis 2013ST3360 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST4330 Waterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study - Brood Surveys - 2014 on October 1, 2013. ST4550 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Coordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data Collection & Modeling feeds into ST4330 Waterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study - Brood Surveys - 2014 on October 1, 2013. ST2181 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Delivery of Field Data & Preliminary Vegetation & Habitat Maps feeds into ST4330 Waterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study - Brood Surveys - 2014 on October 1, 2013. ST2952 Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Preliminary Data Analysis feeds into ST4330 Waterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study - Brood Surveys - 2014 on October 1, 2013. ST2390 Salmon Escapement Study - Operate Fishwheels at Curry - 2013 feeds into ST4330 Waterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study - Brood Surveys - 2014 on October 1, 2013. ST4450Initial Study Report ST4600Field Surveys of Bear Use 2014 ST5610Data Analysis 2014ST5610 Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Use by Large Carnivores Study - Data Analysis - 2014 feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST5611Updated Study Report ST2120SUPE Survey 2013 ST2130SUPE Survey 2014ST2130 Wolverine Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Occupancy Study - SUPE Survey 2014 feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST2140Initial Study Report ST2150Updated Study ReportCaribou Distribution, Abundance, Movements, Productivity, and Survival Study (10.6)Dall's Sheep Distribution and Abundance Study (10.7)Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Use by Large Carnivores Study (10.8)Wolverine Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Occupancy Study (10.9)Terrestrial Furbearer Abundance and Habitat Use Study (10.10)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 15 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 27
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST5580Fieldwork to Collect Genetic Samples & Conduct Track Surveys - 2013ST2160 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selections feeds into ST5580 Terrestrial Furbearer Abundance and Habitat Use Study - Fieldwork to Collect Genetic Samples & Conduct Track Surveys - 2013 on February 1, 2013. ST5600Genetic Analysis - 2013 ST5690Snowshoe Hare Pellet Count - 2013 ST5700Initial DataST5700 Terrestrial Furbearer Abundance and Habitat Use Study - Initial Data feeds into ST1300 Small Mammal Species Composition and Habitat Use Study - Data Management on September 30, 2013. ST5710Fieldwork to Collect Genetic Samples & Conduct Track Surveys - 2014 ST5840Genetic Analysis - 2014ST5840 Terrestrial Furbearer Abundance and Habitat Use Study - Genetic Analysis - 2014 feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST5950Snowshoe Hare Pellet Count - 2014 ST5951Initial Study Report ST5952Updated Study Report ST3470Aerial Surveys of River Otter & Mink Tracks ST3480Aerial Survey of Muskrat PushupsST2270 Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Watana Dam - Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selection feeds into ST3480 Aquatic Furbearer Abundance & Habitat Use Study - Aerial Survey of Muskrat Pushups on March 31, 2013. ST2810 Wetland Mapping Study - Wetland Mapping & Field Plot Selection feeds into ST3480 Aquatic Furbearer Abundance & Habitat Use Study - Aerial Survey of Muskrat Pushups on March 31, 2013. ST2220 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Fish Sampling feeds into ST3480 Aquatic Furbearer Abundance & Habitat Use Study - Aerial Survey of Muskrat Pushups on March 31, 2013.ST4520 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Periodicity feeds into ST3480 Aquatic Furbearer Abundance & Habitat Use Study - Aerial Survey of Muskrat Pushups on March 31, 2013. ST3490Aerial Survey of Beaver Colonies ST3500Aerial Survey of Lodges ST3510Aerial Track Survey of River Otter & Mink ST3540Aerial Survey of River Otter & Mink Tracks ST3550Aerial Survey of Muskrat Pushups ST3570Aerial Survey of Beaver Colonies ST3580Aerial Survey of Lodges ST3590Aerial Track Survey of River Otter & MinkST3590 Aquatic Furbearer Abundance & Habitat Use Study - Aerial Track Survey of River Otter & Mink feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST5560Initial Study ReportST5560 Aquatic Furbearer Abundance & Habitat Use Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST4920 Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study - Data Analysis & Management on March 31, 2014. ST5560 Aquatic Furbearer Abundance & Habitat Use Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST1050 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Riparian Vegetation: Field Data Collection - 2014 on March 31, 2014. ST5570Updated Study ReportST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Groundwater/Surfacewater Modeling feeds into ST5570 Aquatic Furbearer Abundance & Habitat Use Study - Updated Study Report on October 1, 2014. ST1260Small Mammal TrappingST2160 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selections feeds into ST1260 Small Mammal Species Composition & Habitat Use Study - Small Mammal Trapping on June 30, 2013. ST1300Data ManagementST5700 Terrestrial Furbearer Abundance and Habitat Use Study - Initial Data feeds into ST1300 Small Mammal Species Composition and Habitat Use Study - Data Management on September 30, 2013. ST1310Initial Study ReportST1310 Small Mammal Species Composition and Habitat Use Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST1330Updated Study ReportAquatic Furbearer Abundance & Habitat Use Study (10.11)Small Mammal Species Composition and Habitat Use Study (10.12)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 16 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 28
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST3160Acoustic Monitoring - 2013ST4630 Geology & Soils Characterization Study - Comprehensive Investigations (Dam Site & Reservoir Area) feeds into ST3160 Bat Distribution & Habitat Use Study - Acoustic Monitoring - 2013 on May 31, 2013. ST1380 Cultural Resources Study - Modeling & Sample Design Development from 2012 Field Reconnaissance feeds into ST3160 Bat Distribution & Habitat Use Study - Acoustic Monitoring - 2013 on March 31, 2013.ST2160 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selections feeds into ST3160 Bat Distribution & Habitat Use Study - Acoustic Monitoring - 2013 on May 31, 2013. ST2810 Wetland Mapping Study - Wetland Mapping & Field Plot Selection feeds into ST3160 Bat Distribution & Habitat Use Study - Acoustic Monitoring - 2013 on May 31, 2013. ST3170Data Analysis - 2013 ST3180Initial Study Report ST3190Acoustic Monitoring - 2014 ST3200Data Analysis - 2014ST1680 Surveys of Eagles & Other Raptors Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST3200 Bat Distribution & Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis - 2014 on October 1, 2014.ST3200 Bat Distribution & Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis - 2014 feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST3210Updated Study Report ST1350Field Surveys - 2013ST2160 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selections feeds into ST3150 Surveys of Eagles & Other Raptors Study - Field Surveys - 2013 on April 1, 2013. ST2810 Wetland Mapping Study - Wetland Mapping & Field Plot Selection feeds into ST3150 Surveys of Eagles & Other Raptors Study - Field Surveys - 2013 on April 1, 2013. ST2220 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Fish Sampling feeds into ST3150 Surveys of Eagles & Other Raptors Study - Field Surveys - 2013 on April 1, 2013. ST3320 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance (Middle & Lower Susitna River) - Fish Sampling feeds into ST3150 Surveys of Eagles & Other Raptors Study - Field Surveys - 2013 on April 1, 2013. ST1580Update Regional Database - 2013 ST1630 Conduct Roosting & Staging Surveys - 2013 ST1680Initial Study ReportST1680 Surveys of Eagles & Other Raptors Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST3200 Bat Distribution & Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis - 2014 on October 1, 2014. ST1680 Surveys of Eagles & Other Raptors Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST4920 Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study - Data Analysis & Management on April 1, 2014. ST1690Field Surveys - 2014ST2410 Salmon Escapement Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST1690 Surveys of Eagles & Other Raptors Study - Field Surveys - 2014 on April 1, 2014. ST4090Update Regional Database - 2014 ST4130 Conduct Roosting & Staging Surveys - 2014ST4130 Surveys of Eagles & Other Raptors Study - Conduct Roosting & Staging Surveys - 2014 feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on November 1, 2014. ST4131Updated Study Report ST4270 Spring Migration/Breeding-Pair Surveys - 2013ST2580 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Break Up Reconnaissance feeds into ST4270 Waterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study - Spring Migration/Breeding-Pair Surveys - 2013 on May 1, 2013. ST4280Brood Surveys - 2013 ST4290 Harlequin Duck Brood-Rearing Survey - 2013 ST4300Fall Migration Surveys - 2013 ST4310Data Analysis - 2013ST4310 Waterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study - Data Analysis - 2013 feeds into ST2240 Landbird and Shorebird Migration, Breeding, and Habitat Use Study - Point-Count Survey - 2014 on December 31, 2013. ST4310 Waterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study - Data Analysis - 2013 feeds into ST4920 Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study - Data Analysis & Management on November 30, 2014.Surveys of Eagles & Other Raptors Study (10.14)Waterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study (10.15)Bat Distribution & Habitat Use Study (10.13)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 17 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 29
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST4420 Spring Migration/Breeding-Pair Surveys - 2014 ST4430 Brood Surveys - 2014 ST4460 Harlequin Duck Brood-Rearing Survey - 2014 ST4470 Fall Migration Surveys - 2014 ST4480 Data Analysis - 2014ST4480 Waterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study - Data Analysis - 2014 feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on November 30, 2014. ST4481 Initial Study Report ST4482 Updated Study Report ST1740 Field PlanningST2160 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selections feeds into ST1740 Landbird and Shorebird Migration, Breeding, and Habitat Use Study - Field Planning on April 1, 2013. ST1850 Point-Count Survey - 2013 ST1970 Swallow Survey - 2013 ST1990 Data Analysis - 2013ST1990 Landbird and Shorebird Migration, Breeding, and Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis - 2013 feeds into ST4920 Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study - Data Analysis & Management on October 31, 2014. ST2020 Initial Study Report ST2240 Point-Count Survey - 2014ST4310 Waterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study - Data Analysis - 2013 feeds into ST2240 Landbird and Shorebird Migration, Breeding, and Habitat Use Study - Point-Count Survey - 2014 on December 31, 2013. ST2470 Swallow Survey - 2014 ST3330 Data Analysis - 2014ST3330 Landbird and Shorebird Migration, Breeding, and Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis - 2014 feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST5500 Updated Study Report ST1119 First Field Season ST1120 Conduct Aerial Surveys ST1560 Conduct Aerial Surveys ST1780 Second Field Season ST1890 Conduct Aerial SurveysST1890 Population Ecology of Willow Ptarmigan in Game Management Unit 13 Study - Conduct Aerial Surveys feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST5831 Initial Study Report ST5832 Updated Study Report ST2340 Selection of Waterbodies - 2013ST2160 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selections feeds into ST2340 Wood Frogs Occupancy & Habitat Use Study on February 28, 2013. ST2810 Wetland Mapping Study - Wetland Mapping & Field Plot Selection feeds into ST2340 Wood Frogs Occupancy & Habitat Use Study on February 28, 2013. ST2540 Selection of Waterbodies - 2014 ST2560 Field Survey - 2013ST2220 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance in the Upper Susitna River - Fish Sampling feeds into ST2560 Wood Frogs Occupancy & Habitat Use Study on May 1, 2013. ST3320 Study of Fish Distribution & Abundance (Middle & Lower Susitna River) - Fish Sampling feeds into ST2560 Wood Frogs Occupancy & Habitat Use Study on May 1, 2013. ST2561 Field Survey - 2014 ST2890 Data Analysis - 2013Landbird and Shorebird Migration, Breeding, and Habitat Use Study (10.16)Population Ecology of Willow Ptarmigan in Game Management Unit 13 Study (10.17)Wood Frogs Occupancy & Habitat Use Study (10.18)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 18 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 30
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST3130Data Analysis - 2014ST3130 Wood Frogs Occupancy & Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis - 2014 feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST4000Initial Study Report ST4610Updated Study Report ST3230Literature Review ST3240Initial Study Report ST3250Initial Habitat-Value Ranking ST3260Final Selection of Species ST3280Updated Study Report ST5510Initial Selection of SpeciesEvaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study (10.19)Wildlife Harvest Analysis Study (10.20)Data Analysis ST3270ST5680 Moose Distribution, Abundance, Movements, Productivity, and Survival Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on February 2, 2014. ST4780 Caribou Distribution, Abundance, Movements, Productivity, and Survival Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on August 31, 2014. ST5650 Dall's Sheep Distribution and Abundance Study - Data Analysis - 2014 feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST5610 Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Use by Large Carnivores Study - Data Analysis - 2014 feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST2130 Wolverine Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Occupancy Study - SUPE Survey 2014 feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST5840 Terrestrial Furbearer Abundance and Habitat Use Study - Genetic Analysis - 2014 feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST3590 Aquatic Furbearer Abundance & Habitat Use Study - Aerial Track Survey of River Otter & Mink feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST1310 Small Mammal Species Composition and Habitat Use Study - Initial Study Report feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST4130 Surveys of Eagles & Other Raptors Study - Conduct Roosting & Staging Surveys - 2014 feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on November 1, 2014. ST4480 Waterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study - Data Analysis - 2014 feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on November 30, 2014. ST3330 Landbird and Shorebird Migration, Breeding, and Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis - 2014 feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST1890 Population Ecology of Willow Ptarmigan in Game Management Unit 13 Study - Conduct Aerial Surveys feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST3130 Wood Frogs Occupancy & Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis - 2014 feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST4370 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Final Vegetation/Habitat Map Revisions feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 1, 2014. ST5761 Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Watana Dam - Final Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Map Revisions feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 1, 2014.ST4390 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Delivery of Field Data & Final Vegetation & Habitat Maps feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST5763 Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Watana Dam - Delivery of Final Field Data & Final Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Maps feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST3200 Bat Distribution & Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis - 2014 feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. .Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 19 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 31
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST5520Transfer of 2012 Harvest/Subsistence DataST5520 Wildlife Harvest Analysis Study - Transfer of 2012 Harvest/Subsistence Data feeds into ST1650 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Incorporate Information & Other Studies on December 31, 2013. ST5520 Wildlife Harvest Analysis Study - Transfer of 2012 Harvest/Subsistence Data feeds into ST6030 Recreation Resources Study - Impact Analysis on September 30, 2013. ST5520 Wildlife Harvest Analysis Study - Transfer of 2012 Harvest/Subsistence Data feeds into ST5970 Recreation Resources Study - Analysis on October 1, 2013. ST5520 Wildlife Harvest Analysis Study - Transfer of 2012 Harvest/Subsistence Data feeds into ST3030 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 1-3, 5: Prepare 2013 Study Report on October 1, 2013. ST5530Initial Study ReportST3030 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 1-3, 5: Prepare 2013 Study Report feeds into ST5530 Wildlife Harvest Analysis Study - Initial Study Report on November 30, 2013. ST5540Transfer of 2013 Harvest/Subsistence Data ST5550Updated Study Report ST2160 Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot SelectionsST2160 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selections feeds into ST5870 Invasive Plant Study - Field Survey Site Selection on March 31, 2013. ST2160 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selections feeds into ST5770 Rare Plant Study - Field Survey Site Selection on March 31, 2013. ST2160 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selections feeds into ST2340 Wood Frogs Occupancy & Habitat Use Study on February 28, 2013. ST2160 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selections feeds into ST1740 Landbird and Shorebird Migration, Breeding, and Habitat Use Study - Field Planning on April 1, 2013. ST2160 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selections feeds into ST3150 Surveys of Eagles & Other Raptors Study - Field Surveys - 2013 on April 1, 2013. ST2160 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selections feeds into ST3160 Bat Distribution & Habitat Use Study - Acoustic Monitoring - 2013 on May 31, 2013. ST2160 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selections feeds into ST5580 Terrestrial Furbearer Abundance and Habitat Use Study - Fieldwork to Collect Genetic Samples & Conduct Track Surveys - 2013 on February 1, 2013. ST2160 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selections feeds into ST2089 Moose Distribution, Abundance, Movements, Productivity, and Survival Study - Deploy Remaining Radio & Satellite Collars & Monitor on February 1, 2013. ST2160 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selections feeds into ST1260 Small Mammal Species Composition & Habitat Use Study - Small Mammal Trapping on June 30, 2013. ST2170Field SurveysST4360 Geology & Soils Study Comprehensive Investigations feeds into Vegetation & Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study (Upper & Middle Susitna Basin) on October 1, 2013. ST2180Vegetation/Habitat Map Revisions ST2181Delivery of Field Data & Preliminary Vegetation & Habitat MapsST2181 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Delivery of Field Data & Preliminary Vegetation & Habitat Maps feeds into ST2600 Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Watana Dam - Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Map Revisions on October 1, 2013. ST2181 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Delivery of Field Data & Preliminary Vegetation & Habitat Maps feeds into ST4330 Waterbird Migration, Breeding & Habitat Study - Brood Surveys - 2014 on October 1, 2013. ST2190Initial Study Report Prep ST2200Initial Study Report ST4350Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selection for Remaining Unmapped AreasVegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin (11.5)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 20 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 32
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST4360Field SurveysST4360 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Field Surveys feeds into ST4530 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - HSC/HCI Fish: Field Data Collection on December 31, 2013. ST4370Final Vegetation/Habitat Map RevisionsST4370 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Final Vegetation/Habitat Map Revisions feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 1, 2014. ST4380Updated Study Report Prep ST4390Delivery of Field Data & Final Vegetation & Habitat MapsST4390 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Delivery of Field Data & Final Vegetation & Habitat Maps feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST4400Updated Study Report ST2250Preparation of Riverine Physiography to Help Define Study Area ST2270Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot SelectionST2270 Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Watana Dam - Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selection feeds into ST5870 Invasive Plant Study - Field Survey Site Selection on March 31, 2013. ST2270 Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Watana Dam - Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selection feeds into ST5770 Rare Plant Study - Field Survey Site Selection on March 31, 2013.ST2270 Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Watana Dam - Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selection feeds into ST3480 Aquatic Furbearer Abundance & Habitat Use Study - Aerial Survey of Muskrat Pushups on March 31, 2013. ST2271Field Surveys ST2600Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Map RevisionsST5150 Geomorphology Study - Integration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. Geomorphology Modeling Results feeds into ST2600 Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Watana Dam - Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Map Revisions on October 1, 2013. ST2181 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Delivery of Field Data & Preliminary Vegetation & Habitat Maps feeds into ST2600 Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Watana Dam - Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Map Revisions on October 1, 2013. ST2830 Wetland Mapping Study - Wetland Map Revisions feeds into ST2600 Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Watana Dam - Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Map Revisions on October 1, 2013. ST2600 Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Watana Dam - Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Map Revisions feeds into ST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Groundwater/Surfacewater Modeling on December 31, 2013. ST2601Delivery of Field Data & Preliminary Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Maps ST2610Initial Study Report Prep ST2620Initial Study Report ST5750Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selection for Remaining Unmapped Areas ST5760Field Surveys ST5761 Final Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Map RevisionsST5761 Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Watana Dam - Final Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Map Revisions feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 1, 2014. ST5763Delivery of Final Field Data & Final Riparian/Wetland/Habitat MapsST5763 Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Watana Dam - Delivery of Final Field Data & Final Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Maps feeds into ST3270 Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use Study - Data Analysis on October 31, 2014. ST5764Updated Study Report Prep ST5765Updated Study ReportRiparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Watana Dam (11.6)Wetland Mapping Study (11.7)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 21 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 33
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST2810Wetland Mapping & Field Plot SelectionST2810 Wetland Mapping Study - Wetland Mapping & Field Plot Selection feeds into ST5870 Invasive Plant Study - Field Survey Site Selection on March 31, 2013. ST2810 Wetland Mapping Study - Wetland Mapping & Field Plot Selection feeds into ST5770 Rare Plant Study - Field Survey Site Selection on March 31, 2013. ST2810 Wetland Mapping Study - Wetland Mapping & Field Plot Selection feeds into ST2340 Wood Frogs Occupancy & Habitat Use Study on February 28, 2013. ST2810 Wetland Mapping Study - Wetland Mapping & Field Plot Selection feeds into ST3150 Surveys of Eagles & Other Raptors Study - Field Surveys - 2013 on April 1, 2013. ST2810 Wetland Mapping Study - Wetland Mapping & Field Plot Selection feeds into ST3160 Bat Distribution & Habitat Use Study - Acoustic Monitoring - 2013 on May 31, 2013. ST2810 Wetland Mapping Study - Wetland Mapping & Field Plot Selection feeds into ST3480 Aquatic Furbearer Abundance & Habitat Use Study - Aerial Survey of Muskrat Pushups on March 31, 2013. ST2820Field Surveys ST2830Wetland Map RevisionsST2830 Wetland Mapping Study - Wetland Map Revisions feeds into ST2600 Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Watana Dam - Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Map Revisions on October 1, 2013. ST2840Initial Study Report Prep ST2850Initial Study Report ST2860 Delivery of Field Data & Preliminary Wetland MapST5970 Recreation Resources Study - Analysis feeds into ST2860 Wetland Mapping Study - Delivery of Field Data & Preliminary Wetland Map on December 31, 2013. ST2870Wetland Mapping & Field Plot Selection for Remaining Unmapped Areas ST2880Field Surveys ST2900Final Wetland Map Revisions ST2910Wetland Functional AnalysisST4920 Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study - Data Analysis & Management feeds into ST2910 Wetland Mapping Study - Wetland Functional Analysis at the end of March 2014 . ST3030 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 1-3, 5: Prepare 2013 Study Report feeds into ST2910 Wetland Mapping Study - Wetland Functional Analysis October 1, 2013. ST2920Updated Study Report Prep ST2930 Delivery of Final Field Data & Final Wetland Map ST2940Updated Study Report ST5770Field Survey Site SelectionST2160 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selections feeds into ST5770 Rare Plant Study - Field Survey Site Selection on March 31, 2013.ST2270 Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Watana Dam - Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selection feeds into ST5770 Rare Plant Study - Field Survey Site Selection on March 31, 2013. ST2810 Wetland Mapping Study - Wetland Mapping & Field Plot Selection feeds into ST5770 Rare Plant Study - Field Survey Site Selection on March 31, 2013. ST5780Field Survey ST5790Data Analysis ST5800Initial Study Report ST5810Field Survey Site Selection ST5820Field Survey ST5850Data Analysis ST5860Updated Study ReportInvasive Plant Study (11.9)Rare Plant Study (11.8)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 22 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 34
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST5870Field Survey Site SelectionST2160 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin - Vegetation/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selections feeds into ST5870 Invasive Plant Study - Field Survey Site Selection on March 31, 2013. ST2270 Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Watana Dam - Riparian/Wetland/Habitat Mapping & Field Plot Selection feeds into ST5870 Invasive Plant Study - Field Survey Site Selection on March 31, 2013. ST2810 Wetland Mapping Study - Wetland Mapping & Field Plot Selection feeds into ST5870 Invasive Plant Study - Field Survey Site Selection on March 31, 2013. ST5880Field Survey ST5890Data Analysis ST5900Initial Study Report ST5910Field Survey Site Selection ST5920Field Survey ST5930Data Analysis ST5931Updated Study Report ST3410Initial Study Report Prep ST3420Initial Study Report ST3430Updated Study Report Prep ST3440Updated Study Report ST5960Data Collection & Baseline Inventory ST5970AnalysisST5520 Wildlife Harvest Analysis Study - Transfer of 2012 Harvest/Subsistence Data feeds into ST5970 Recreation Resources Study - Analysis on October 1, 2013. ST2010 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community & Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fishery Management Options feeds into ST5970 Recreation Resources Study - Analysis on April 1, 2014. ST5970 Recreation Resources Study - Analysis feeds into ST1650 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Incorporate Information & Other Studies on December 31, 2013. ST5970 Recreation Resources Study - Analysis feeds into ST1400 Cultural Resources Study - Additional Modeling from 2013 Field Study Results on December 31, 2013. ST5970 Recreation Resources Study - Analysis feeds into ST1210 Aesthetic Resources Study - Impact Analysis on November 1, 2013. ST5970 Recreation Resources Study - Analysis feeds into ST2860 Wetland Mapping Study - Delivery of Field Data & Preliminary Wetland Map on December 31, 2013. ST5970 Recreation Resources Study - Analysis feeds into ST2010 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community & Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fishery Management Options on December 31, 2013. ST5980Coordination w/ Agencies, Licensing Participants and Other Studies ST5990Intercept Survey Deployment ST6000Mail Survey Development ST6010 Exec Interviewing & Web Survey Deployment ST6020Survey Data Analysis ST6030Impact AnalysisST5150 Geomorphology Study - Integration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. Geomorphology Modeling Results feeds into ST6030 Recreation Resources Study - Impact Analysis on March 1, 2014. ST4570 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Model Integration & Calibration feeds into ST6030 Recreation Resources Study - Impact Analysis on October 1, 2014. ST2670 Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam - Evaluate Feasibility/Alternative feeds into ST6030 Recreation Resources Study - Impact Analysis on June 30, 2014. ST3950 Analysis of Fish Harvest in (and) D/S of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project feeds into ST6030 Recreation Resources Study - Impact Analysis on September 30, 2014. ST3920 Analysis of Fish Harvest in and Downstream of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Area - Harvest & Effort Statistics feeds into ST6030 Recreation Resources Study - Impact Analysis on December 31, 2013. ST5520 Wildlife Harvest Analysis Study - Transfer of 2012 Harvest/Subsistence Data feeds into ST6030 Recreation Resources Study - Impact Analysis on September 30, 2013. ST1520 Regional Economic Evaluation Study - Initial Regional Economic Evaluation Study Report feeds into ST6030 Recreation Resources Study - Impact Analysis on December 31, 2013. ST2510 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Existing Condition 1D Model Development feeds into ST6030 Recreation Resources Study - Impact Analysis on December 31, 2013. Recreation Resources Study (12.5)Aesthetic Resources Study (12.6)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 23 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 35
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST1180Baseline Data Collection ST1190Coordination w/ Agencies, Stakeholders and Disciplines ST1200Simulation Development / Sound Modeling ST1210Impact AnalysisST5970 Recreation Resources Study - Analysis feeds into ST1210 Aesthetic Resources Study - Impact Analysis on November 1, 2013. ST1620 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Initial Social Conditions & Public Good & Services Study Report feeds into ST1210 Aesthetic Resources Study - Impact Analysis on November 1, 2013. ST4040 Cultural Resources Study - Ethnogeographic Field Work feeds into ST1210 Aesthetic Resources Study - Impact Analysis on November 1, 2013. ST3030 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 1-3, 5: Prepare 2013 Study Report feeds into ST1210 Aesthetic Resources Study - Impact Analysis on November 1, 2013. ST1860 Transportation Resources Study - Forecast Future Conditions feeds into ST1210 Aesthetic Resources Study - Impact Analysis on November 1, 2013. ST2510 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Existing Condition 1D Model Development feeds into ST1210 Aesthetic Resources Study - Impact Analysis on November 1, 2013. ST1270 Air Quality Study - Initial Air Quality Study Report feeds into ST1210 Aesthetic Resources Study - Impact Analysis on December 31, 2013. ST3710Viewshed Modeling ST3760Initial Study Report Prep ST3770Initial Study Report ST3790Updated Study Report PrepST1080 Riparian Instream Flow Study - Develop Groundwater/Surfacewater Modeling feeds into ST3790 Aesthetic Resources Study - Updated Study Report Prep on October 1, 2014. ST3800Updated Study Report ST1130Field Studies ST1150AnalysisST1150 River Recreation Flow and Access Study - Analysis feeds into ST1650 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Incorporate Information & Other Studies on December 31, 2013. ST1160Coordination w/ Agencies, Stakeholders & Disciplines ST1170Impact AnalysisST5150 Geomorphology Study - Integration & Support of Interpreting Fluv. Geomorphology Modeling Results feeds into ST1170 River Recreation Flow and Access Study - Impact Analysis on August 1, 2014. ST4500 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Hydraulic Flow Routing feeds into ST1170 River Recreation Flow and Access Study - Impact Analysis on August 1, 2014. ST1170 River Recreation Flow and Access Study - Impact Analysis feeds into ST1930 Health Impact Assessment Study - Baseline Data Collection on July 1, 2013. ST1170 River Recreation Flow and Access Study - Impact Analysis feeds into ST1870 Transportation Resources Study - Evaluate Impacts on December 1, 2013. ST3660Initial Study Report PrepST3780 Eulachon Run Timing, Distribution, and Spawning in the Susitna River Study - Data Analysis 2013 feeds into ST3660 River Recreation Flow & Access Study - Initial Study Report Prep on October 31, 2013. ST3680Initial Study Report ST3690Updated Study Report Prep ST3700Updated Study Report ST6040Baseline Data Collection ST1370Reconnaissance Level Field Study ST1380Modeling & Sample Design Development from 2012 Field ReconnaissanceST1380 Cultural Resources Study - Modeling & Sample Design Development from 2012 Field Reconnaissance feeds into ST3160 Bat Distribution & Habitat Use Study - Acoustic Monitoring - 2013 on March 31, 2013. ST1390Pre-Field Prep ST1400 Additional Modeling from 2013 Field Study ResultsST5130 Geomorphology Study - Reservoir Geomorphology feeds into ST1400 Cultural Resources Study - Additional Modeling from 2013 Field Study Results on December 31, 2013. ST5970 Recreation Resources Study - Analysis feeds into ST1400 Cultural Resources Study - Additional Modeling from 2013 Field Study Results on December 31, 2013. ST1410Pre-Field Preparation ST3990Archeological Field Studies - Inventory ST4010 Archeological Field Studies - Initiation of Evaluation ST4030Ethnogeographic StudyRiver Recreation Flow and Access Study (12.7)Cultural Resources Study (13.5)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 24 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 36
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST4040Ethnogeographic Field WorkST3020 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 5:Traditional & Local Knowledge Interviews feeds into ST4040 Cultural Resources Study - Ethnogeographic Field Work on July 1, 2013. ST4040 Cultural Resources Study - Ethnogeographic Field Work feeds into ST1210 Aesthetic Resources Study - Impact Analysis on November 1, 2013. ST4050Draft Ethnogeographic Study ReportST4630 Geology & Soils - Comprehensive Investigations feeds in to ST4050 Cultural Resources Study - Draft Ethnogeographic Study Report on October 1, 2013. ST3020 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 5:Traditional & Local Knowledge Interviews feeds intoST4050 Cultural Resources Study - Draft Ethnogeographic Study Report on September 30, 2013. ST4050 Cultural Resources Study - Draft Ethnogeographic Study Report feeds into ST3020 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 5:Traditional & Local Knowledge Interviews on December 31, 2013. ST4070Initial Study Report Prep ST4080Initial Study Report ST4190Field Studies - Inventory ST4200Field Studies - Evaluation ST4201Updated Study Report Prep ST4202Updated Study Report ST1441Applying GPS Based Classification ST1460 Systematic Testing in Areas of High PotentialST4630 Geology & Soils Characterization Study - Comprehensive Investigations (Dam Site & Reservoir Area) feeds into ST1460 Paleontological Resources Study - Systematic Testing in Areas of High Potential on May 31, 2013. ST4980 Geomorphology Study - Identify and Map Paleo Geomorphic Features & Geology feeds into ST1460 Paleontological Resources Study - Systematic Testing in Areas of High Potential on June 1, 2013. ST1470Initial Study Report ST1480Updated Study ReportST4660 Geology & Soils Characterization Study - Comprehensive Investigations (Access Road & Transmission Line) feeds into ST1480 Paleontological Resources Study - Updated Study Report on September 1, 2014. ST1760Subsistence Study Plan ST1770Task 1: Compilation of Exis. Data ST1800 Task 2: ADF&G Household Surveys - Year 2 ST1810Task 2: ADF&G Reporting & Community Review - Year 2 ST2960Task 2: ADF&G Household Surveys Pre-Field Planning - Year 1 ST2970 Task 2: ADF&G Household Surveys - Year 1 ST2980Task 2: ADF&G Reporting & Community Review - Year 1 ST2990Task 2: ADF&G Household Surveys Pre-Field Planning - Year 2 ST3010Task 3: Household Surveys in Nonsubsistence Areas ST3020 Task 5:Traditional & Local Knowledge InterviewsST4050 Cultural Resources Study - Draft Ethnogeographic Study Report feeds into ST3020 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 5:Traditional & Local Knowledge Interviews on December 31, 2013. ST3020 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 5:Traditional & Local Knowledge Interviews feeds into ST4040 Cultural Resources Study - Ethnogeographic Field Work on July 1, 2013. ST3020 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 5:Traditional & Local Knowledge Interviews feeds into ST4050 Cultural Resources Study - Draft Ethnogeographic Study Report on September 30, 2013.Paleontological Resources Study (13.6)Subsistence Resources Study (14.5)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 25 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 37
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST3030Task 1-3, 5: Prepare 2013 Study ReportST5520 Wildlife Harvest Analysis Study - Transfer of 2012 Harvest/Subsistence Data feeds into ST3030 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 1-3, 5: Prepare 2013 Study Report on October 1, 2013. ST3030 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 1-3, 5: Prepare 2013 Study Report feeds into ST1960 Health Impact Assessment Study - Impact Assessment on December 31, 2012. ST3030 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 1-3, 5: Prepare 2013 Study Report feeds into ST1650 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Incorporate Information & Other Studies on December 31, 2013. ST3030 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 1-3, 5: Prepare 2013 Study Report feeds into ST5530 Wildlife Harvest Analysis Study - Initial Study Report on November 30, 2013. ST3030 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 1-3, 5: Prepare 2013 Study Report feeds into ST3950 Analysis of Fish Harvest in (and) D/S of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project on December 31, 2013. ST3030 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 1-3, 5: Prepare 2013 Study Report feeds into ST1210 Aesthetic Resources Study - Impact Analysis on November 1, 2013. ST3030 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 1-3, 5: Prepare 2013 Study Report feeds into ST2910 Wetland Mapping Study - Wetland Functional Analysis October 1, 2013. ST3040Revise Study PlansST2510 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Existing Condition 1D Model Development feeds into ST3040 Subsistence Resources Study - Revise Study Plans on December 31, 2013. ST3070Task 4: Subsistence Mapping Interviews ST3080Task 4-5: Additional 2014 Subsistence Data Collection (as needed)ST1860 Transportation Resources Study - Forecast Future Conditions feeds into ST3080 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 4-5: Additional 2014 Subsistence Data Collection (as needed) on December 31, 2013. ST3090Task 2-5: Prepare 2015 Final Updated Study Report & Community Reviews ST3100Initial Study Report ST3101Updated Study Report ST6070Consultation ST1490Gather/Review Existing Information ST1500Document Existing Conditions ST1510Develop Reasonable Foreseeable Future Action Assumptions ST1520 Initial Regional Economic Evaluation Study ReportST1520 Regional Economic Evaluation Study - Initial Regional Economic Evaluation Study Report feeds into ST6030 Recreation Resources Study - Impact Analysis on December 31, 2013. ST1530Initial Study Report ST1540Incorporate Information from Other Studies ST1550Updated Regional Economic Evaluation Study ReportST1620 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Initial Social Conditions & Public Good & Services Study Report feeds into ST1550 Regional Economic Evaluation Study -Updated Regional Economic Evaluation Study Report . ST1570Updated Study Report ST1590Gather/Review Existing Information ST1600Document Existing Conditions ST1610Stakeholder InterviewsRegional Economic Evaluation Study (15.5)Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study (15.6)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 26 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 38
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST1620Initial Social Conditions & Public Good & Services Study ReportST1620 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Initial Social Conditions & Public Good & Services Study Report feeds into ST1870 Transportation Resources Study - Evaluate Impacts on December 1, 2013. ST1620 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Initial Social Conditions & Public Good & Services Study Report feeds into ST1910 Transportation Resource Study - Updated Study Report Prep on December 31, 2013. ST1620 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Initial Social Conditions & Public Good & Services Study Report feeds into ST1550 Regional Economic Evaluation Study -Updated Regional Economic Evaluation Study Report . ST1620 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Initial Social Conditions & Public Good & Services Study Report feeds into ST1210 Aesthetic Resources Study - Impact Analysis on November 1, 2013.ST1620 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Initial Social Conditions & Public Good & Services Study Report feeds into ST1960 Health Impact Assessment Study - Impact Assessment on December 31, 2013. ST1640Initial Study Report ST1650Incorporate Information & Other StudiesST3030 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 1-3, 5: Prepare 2013 Study Report feeds into ST1650 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Incorporate Information & Other Studies on December 31, 2013. ST3920 Analysis of Fish Harvest in and Downstream of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Area - Harvest & Effort Statistics feeds into ST1650 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Incorporate Information & Other Studies on December 31, 2013. ST5520 Wildlife Harvest Analysis Study - Transfer of 2012 Harvest/Subsistence Data feeds into ST1650 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Incorporate Information & Other Studies on December 31, 2013. ST1150 River Recreation Flow and Access Study - Analysis feeds into ST1650 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Incorporate Information & Other Studies on December 31, 2013. ST1730 Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community and Risk of Entrainment Study - Reservoir Fish Community Scenarios feeds into ST1650 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Incorporate Information & Other Studies on December 31, 2013. ST5970 Recreation Resources Study - Analysis feeds into ST1650 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Incorporate Information & Other Studies on December 31, 2013. ST1870 Transportation Resources Study - Evaluate Impacts feeds into ST1650 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Incorporate Information & Other Studies on December 31, 2013. ST1660Updated Social Conditions & Public Good & Services Study Report ST1750Updated Study Report ST1820Data Collection & Review ST1830Assess Inventory & Field Studies ST1840Document Existing ConditionsST1840 Transportation Resources Study - Document Existing Conditions feeds into ST1960 Health Impact Assessment Study - Impact Assessment on August 31, 2013. ST1860Forecast Future ConditionsST1860 Transportation Resources Study - Forecast Future Conditions feeds into ST3080 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 4-5: Additional 2014 Subsistence Data Collection (as needed) on December 31, 2013. ST1860 Transportation Resources Study - Forecast Future Conditions feeds into ST1210 Aesthetic Resources Study - Impact Analysis on November 1, 2013. ST1870Evaluate ImpactsST4550 Fish & Aquatics Instream Flow Study - Coordinate with Other Disciplines Quality Data Collection & Modeling feeds into ST1870 Transportation Resources Study - Evaluate Impacts on December 1, 2013. ST1170 River Recreation Flow and Access Study - Impact Analysis feeds into ST1870 Transportation Resources Study - Evaluate Impacts on December 1, 2013. ST2510 Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study - Existing Condition 1D Model Development feeds into ST1870 Transportation Resources Study - Evaluate Impacts on December 1, 2013. ST1620 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Initial Social Conditions & Public Good & Services Study Report feeds into ST1870 Transportation Resources Study - Evaluate Impacts on December 1, 2013. ST1870 Transportation Resources Study - Evaluate Impacts feeds into ST1270 Air Quality Study - Initial Air Quality Study Report on December 1, 2013. ST1870 Transportation Resources Study - Evaluate Impacts feeds into ST1960 Health Impact Assessment Study - Impact Assessment on December 31, 2013. ST1870 Transportation Resources Study - Evaluate Impacts feeds into ST1650 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Incorporate Information & Other Studies on December 31, 2013. ST1870 Transportation Resources Study - Evaluate Impacts feeds into ST1290 Air Quality Study - Estimate Future Emissions with/without Project on December 31, 2013. ST1880Initial Study Report PrepTransportation Resources Study (15.7)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 27 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 39
Preliminary DraftDecember 14, 2012Activity ID Activity NamePredecessorsSuccessors ST1900Initial Study Report ST1910Updated Study Report PrepST1620 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Initial Social Conditions & Public Good & Services Study Report feeds into ST1910 Transportation Resource Study - Updated Study Report Prep on December 31, 2013. ST3300Updated Study Report ST1920Project Overview & Issues Summary ST1930Baseline Data CollectionST4720 Baseline Water Quality Study - Data Analysis & Management feeds into ST1930 Health Impact Assessment Study - Baseline Data Collection on February 1, 2013. ST1170 River Recreation Flow and Access Study - Impact Analysis feeds into ST1930 Health Impact Assessment Study - Baseline Data Collection on July 1, 2013. ST1940Initial Study Report Prep ST1950Initial Study Report ST1960Impact AssessmentST3030 Subsistence Resources Study - Task 1-3, 5: Prepare 2013 Study Report feeds into ST1960 Health Impact Assessment Study - Impact Assessment on December 31, 2012. ST1870 Transportation Resources Study - Evaluate Impacts feeds into ST1960 Health Impact Assessment Study - Impact Assessment on December 31, 2013. ST1840 Transportation Resources Study - Document Existing Conditions feeds into ST1960 Health Impact Assessment Study - Impact Assessment on August 31, 2013. ST5470 Groundwater Study - Shallow Groundwater Users feeds into ST1960 Health Impact Assessment Study - Impact Assessment on March 1, 2013. ST1270 Air Quality Study - Initial Air Quality Study Report feeds into ST1960 Health Impact Assessment Study - Impact Assessment on December 31, 2013. ST1620 Social Conditions & Public Goods & Services Study - Initial Social Conditions & Public Good & Services Study Report feeds into ST1960 Health Impact Assessment Study - Impact Assessment on December 31, 2013. ST1980Updated Study Report Prep ST2030Updated Study Report ST1220Review Existing Info/Identify Needs ST1240Document Existing Conditions ST1250Summarize Baseline Fossil Fuel Emissions ST1270Initial Air Quality Study ReportST1870 Transportation Resources Study - Evaluate Impacts feeds into ST1270 Air Quality Study - Initial Air Quality Study Report on December 1, 2013. ST1270 Air Quality Study - Initial Air Quality Study Report feeds into ST1960 Health Impact Assessment Study - Impact Assessment on December 31, 2013. ST1270 Air Quality Study - Initial Air Quality Study Report feeds into ST1210 Aesthetic Resources Study - Impact Analysis on December 31, 2013. ST1280Initial Study Report ST1290 Estimate Future Emissions with/without ProjectST1870 Transportation Resources Study - Evaluate Impacts feeds into ST1290 Air Quality Study - Estimate Future Emissions with/without Project on December 31, 2013. ST1360Updated Study Report Work ST3860Updated Study Report ST2300Site-Specific PMF ST2310Initial Study Report ST2320Updated Study Report ST2330Field Program ST2350Deterministic & Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment ST2360Initial Study ReportST4630 Geology & Soils Characterization Study - Comprehensive Investigations (Dam Site & Reservoir Area) feeds into ST2360 Site Specific Seismic Hazard Study - Initial Study Report on September 30 , 2013. ST2370Updated Study ReportSite Specific Seismic Hazard Study (16.6)Health Impact Assessment Study (15.8)Air Quality Study (15.9)Probable Maximum Flood Study (16.5)Note: All dates in this table are estimates, subject to change. The dates and relationships, produced from Primavera Software, will be continually updated during study plan implementation.Page 28 of 28Revised Study PlanAttachment 2-1 Page 40
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-1 December 2012
3. STUDIES NOT PROPOSED
Under FERC’s ILP regulations, if a prospective applicant does not adopt a requested study, it
must provide an explanation of why the request was not adopted, with reference to the criteria set
forth in 18 CFR § 5.9(b). 18 CFR § 5.13(a). In total, licensing participants filed 52 formal study
requests with FERC that adhered to the study request format set forth in FERC’s regulations. As
outlined in Section 2, AEA intends to perform studies relating to each of the study topics
requested, except for one study request that is for a National-Level Economic Valuation Study.
This section describes that study request and AEA’s rationale for not adopting the study.
3.1. Requested Study Not Adopted in the RSP
3.1.1. Information Regarding Study Request
Several licensing participants, including Natural Heritage Institute et al., American Whitewater,
Alaska Hydro Project, Alaska Survival, and Coalition for Susitna Dam Alternatives (collectively,
Study Proponents),14 have submitted a proposed National-Level Economic Valuation Study
(Proposed Study). The following three subsections provide information directly from the study
requests and these extracts are taken directly from those study requests.
3.1.2. Requester’s Description of Study Goals and Objectives
The Proposed Study’s objectives are stated as follows:
“The study will identify and analyze the economic values associated with constructing and
operating project compared to alternatives, including the no-action alternative, at the national
scale. If it were to be licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the
proposed 700-foot-high Susitna River dam, with an installed capacity of 600 MW, will
significantly change the hydrograph of the Susitna watershed for 220 miles upstream from its
mouth at Cook Inlet and transform an unregulated river into a regulated one. The construction
of the project will preclude, limit, or otherwise change the existing uses of the river and other
extant attributes of the river and its watershed that people value. The study will obtain
information to ascertain the value of the change from the proposed project is more or less than
the value of an undammed watershed the no-action alternative and in the public interest.”
3.1.3. Relevant Resource Agency Management Goals
The Proposed Study’s relevant resource management goals are stated as follows:
“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service have stewardship
responsibilities for public-trust fish and wildlife resources in the basin.
14 See Letter from Jan Konisberg, Natural Heritage Institute, et al., to Kimberly D. Bose, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, at 4, Project No. 14241-000 (filed May 31, 2012); Letter from Thomas O’Keefe, American
Whitewater, to Kimberly D. Bose, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at 8, Project No. 14241-000 (filed May
31, 2012); Letter from Jan Konisberg, Alaska Hydro Project, et al., to Kimberly D. Bose, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, at 1, Project No. 14241-000 (filed Nov. 14, 2012).
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-2 December 2012
The resource management goal of the Fish and Wildlife Service is no net loss of fish and wildlife
resources, to conserve the nation’s existing fish and wildlife and their habitats in the Susitna
River Basin, and to prescribe fishways pertaining to this project pursuant to Section 18 of the
Federal Power Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service has jurisdiction over the nation’s marine, estuarine and
anadromous fishery resources, with the goal of maintaining native and natural aquatic
communities for their intrinsic and ecological value and their benefits to people, including the
authority to prescribe fishways pertaining to this project pursuant to Section 18 of the Federal
Power Act.
The applicant should confer with resources agencies, tribes, nongovernmental organizations to
develop this study.”
3.1.4. Sponsor’s Description of Existing Information and Need for
Additional Information
The Proposed Study’s description of existing information and need for additional information is
stated as follows:
“The PAD (Section 4.12 “Socioeconomic Resources) contains no information relating to value of
products and services that businesses, such as tourism and sport and commercial fisheries,
extract from the existing ecosystem, which would be useful for designing the research
instruments (e.g. surveys, focus groups) to ascertain the value that the broader American public
(a statistically significant sample of the national population) places on the extant watershed in
comparison to the changes to the watershed that would result from the proposed project.
This information is necessary for the Commission to give equal consideration to non-power and
power values.”
3.1.5. AEA’s Rationale for Not Adopting the Proposed Study in the PSP
Several organizations and individuals requested that the socioeconomic study plan address the
economic value of environmental goods and services provided by the Susitna River system,
including non-market benefits. In fact, the Social Conditions and Public Goods and Services
Study, as proposed by AEA in this RSP, includes analyses that will evaluate a number of the
potential changes in the environmental goods and services derived from the river system and
surrounding areas in dollar terms. That study will not, however, include a national level
economic valuation study.
As described below, AEA’s proposed analyses address both market (e.g. jobs, revenue) and non-
market (e.g. recreation, aesthetics) values. However, economic (i.e., monetary) valuations of
environmental goods and services are not required, nor may they be sufficient, in order for the
positive value of the environmental assets of the Susitna River system to be given full and equal
consideration in the licensing decision making process for the proposed Project.
As some commenters noted, there are significant challenges and obstacles to the quantification of
environmental values of river systems in dollar terms. Consequently, the environmental review
will incorporate a variety of qualitative and quantitative measures of impacts to the physical,
biological, and socioeconomic environment. These multiple measures will be obtained through
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-3 December 2012
an array of biological, physical, socioeconomic, transportation, recreational, aesthetics,
subsistence and cultural studies.
As demonstrated below, this approach does not preclude the monetization of some impacts to
environmental goods and services. Rather, a combination of monetized and non-monetized
measures offers the advantage of bringing a wide range of insights to the licensing decision. In
accordance with FERC guidelines and practice, the environmental review will focus on
reasonably foreseeable significant impacts on the human environment; remote and highly
speculative consequences will not be considered.
Data Collection and Analysis for Social Conditions and Public Goods and Services Study
The Social Conditions and Public Goods and Services Study proposed by AEA will use a variety
of methods to derive estimates of the value of affected environmental goods and services,
including goods and services that are not priced in conventional markets. Methods will be used
to monetize the value of some goods and service, while the value of others will be expressed in
qualitative terms.
The proposed Project would not start operations until 2023 under the current schedule. The
Project is anticipated to operate for more than 50 years, similar to other large hydroelectric
developments around the world. Given the long time frame for construction of the Project and its
operations, the Project’s socioeconomic effects will be estimated by comparing future
socioeconomic conditions with and without the Project.
The forecast of socioeconomic conditions with and without the Project will be based in part on
estimates derived from the REMI model described for the Regional Economic Analysis. While
the REMI model provides a wide range of output variables, the variables of interest in the
socioeconomic impact analysis for the proposed Project are population, employment, labor
income, output (sales), and housing. The REMI model extends economic and demographic
forecasts through 2060, which is consistent with the temporal scope of the socioeconomic impact
analysis. The REMI model can provide projections for all of the boroughs and census areas
within the Railbelt, including the MOA, FNSB, KPB, MSB, and Denali Borough. The current
REMI model also includes the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area and Valdez-Cordova Census Area.
The forecast analysis performed by the REMI model will be guided by assumptions about
reasonably foreseeable future actions that would have an important and measurable effect on
Alaska’s economy. As the Project design becomes more developed, specific requirements for the
types of construction specialties (e.g., firms with roller-compacted concrete experience) will be
identified and compared with current expertise of regional construction companies to see which
opportunities can be filled by Alaska firms. This evaluation would improve the model estimates
of future economic activity, and provide recommendations to increase the percentage of these
opportunities captured by Alaska businesses.
Here is a summary description of other AEA efforts pertinent to the planned socioeconomics
study that will evaluate a number of the potential changes in the environmental goods and
services derived from the river system and surrounding areas in dollar terms.
The effect of potential immigration during Project construction and operations on
municipal and state services, such as police, fire protection, medical facilities and
schools, will be assessed. If projected immigration would potentially burden existing
municipal and state services, proposed plans to alleviate this impact will be identified.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-4 December 2012
A fiscal impact analysis will be conducted to evaluate incremental local government
expenditures in relation to incremental local government revenues that would result from
construction and operation of the Project. Incremental expenditures include, but are not
limited to, school operating costs, road maintenance and repair, public safety, and public
utility costs. Incremental revenues include, but are not limited to, property taxes and
hotel/motel occupancy taxes.
Transportation of construction equipment and materials through communities on the
transportation routes to and from the Project could result in increased traffic volumes, and
associated noise and congestion effects. Such conditions might require additional police
and emergency response calls for traffic accidents and other incidents. These impacts will
be assessed based on the results of the Transportation Resources Study.
Utilizing the results of the Recreation and Aesthetics Study (Section 10), AEA will
analyze the economic impact of the Project on local tourism establishments (e.g., river
sport fishing, whitewater boating) and the regional economy. Calculations will be based
on information obtained from the recreation survey, including the estimated recreation-
related expenditures per recreational day or trip and changes in the number of days or
trips per year. Utilizing the results of the Subsistence Study (Section 12), the regional
economic impact of changes in subsistence-related expenditures due to the proposed
Project will be estimated. The approximate cash expenses to generate each pound of
subsistence harvest will be based on information in Goldsmith (1998). Changes in
spending for recreational or subsistence related goods and services will become inputs to
the REMI model to calculate regional economic impacts.
The Project, including access roads, could affect surrounding property uses and values.
These effects will be described identifying the properties that are on, or in close
proximity to the Project area, including the access road(s) that will be built; determining
the degree to which the use of the properties would change as a result of the Project; and
estimating the extent that properties’ values will change as a result of the change in use.
If Project features (i.e., reservoir and access roads) stimulate residential location,
spending by new residents in the local economy will generate new economic activity,
including additional jobs and labor income. Interviews will be conducted with regional
businesses to identify potential opportunities for residential development and estimate the
economic impacts should this development occur.
To the extent that Project construction and operations will change the level of production
of commercial farming, grazing, logging, mining, and fishing operations, these effects
will be approximated by the change in production multiplied by the market price of the
resource in question. Information on the quantity and value of market-based natural
resources is available through state and federal resource management agencies. Changes
that result in increases or decreases in commercial resource extraction will become inputs
to the REMI model to calculate regional economic impacts.
AEA will utilize random utility model combining existing data, recreation preference
functions from the published literature and new data collected to estimate changes in
recreational use values associated with sport fishing, sport hunting, boating, wildlife
viewing, hiking, and camping in the study area. The basis of the method is the
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-5 December 2012
assumption that the recreational experience is enhanced by high quality sites (e.g., clean
water, abundant recreational fisheries), hence the net willingness to pay for—and value
of—recreational trips depends on site quality. Different model specifications can be used
to value specific qualities of the resource and attributes of the recreational experience. To
value these types of amenities, economists typically rely on a variant of the basic travel
cost model referred to as a discrete choice or random utility model. In addition, the
benefits transfer approach will be used to supplement or compare unit values (e.g., value
per-day of sport fishing) for recreational goods and services obtained from primary
valuation methods. Benefits transfer involves the application of unit value estimates,
functions, data, and/or models from one or more previously conducted valuation studies
to estimate benefits associated with the resource under consideration (Black et al. 1998).
For example, an extensive number of previously conducted studies estimated the value of
sport fishing in various regions of Alaska. Similarly, several existing reports estimated
the value of Alaska wildlife.
The value of changes in subsistence activities in the study area will be estimated by
applying a wage compensating differential model that examines tradeoffs between time
spent on subsistence and cash employment (Duffield 1997). The advantage of latter
method is that it captures the cultural and social value of participating in subsistence
activities as well as the product value. It requires community-specific per capita income
levels and subsistence harvest per capita data, both of which will be obtained from the
subsistence survey conducted for the Subsistence study.
Following the methodology of Braund and Lonner (1982), information on the values,
attitudes, and lifestyle preferences of residents in the Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, and
Cantwell areas will be collected through informal interviews with community residents,
Matanuska-Susitna Borough officials, and other knowledgeable people. Interview
questions will be oriented toward identifying how the Susitna River corridor and upper
basin is used and valued by local residents to identify the importance of the various bio-
physical aspects important to area residents. Once the types of Project-induced changes in
riverine and basin resources are known, a further analysis will be undertaken to identify
how such changes might alter the resources used and valued by area residents. The results
of the Project effects on subsistence, recreation and transportation can be used to further
evaluate the overall effects on the residents of the region.
Proposed National-Level Economic Valuation
By contrast, the Study Proponents request that AEA conduct a “National-Level Economic
Valuation” study in order to “identify and analyze the economic values associated with
constructing and operating project compared to alternatives, including the no-action alternative,
at the national scale” [sic].15 AEA disagrees. AEA’s proposed Social Conditions and Public
Goods and Services Study is more than adequate and, as set out above, more closely tracks
FERC’s study request standards in 18 CFR § 5.9.
The Study Proponents reason that “[t]he requirement of the Federal Power Act (FPA) that FERC
give equal consideration to non-power values affirms the Commission’s duty to evaluate the
15 Comments of American Whitewater on the PAD, Scoping Document 1, and Study Requests, at 7 Docket No. P-
14241-000 (filed May 31, 2012) (hereinafter, AWA Comments).
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-6 December 2012
trade-offs that would be involved in authorizing” the Project.16 The Study Proponents further
argue that, “[t]o ensure a reliable comparison of all relevant values, the Commission should use
economic valuation as a means of evaluating the trade‐offs involved in the licensing action; an
assessment of benefits and costs should be part of the information‐set available to FERC in
deciding among alternatives.”17
The Commission should reject this request. FERC has consistently found that the monetization
of non-market goods and services is inadequate in the context of assessing non-power values
under Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA. As explained by the Commission in Great Northern
Paper, Inc.18 and City of Tacoma, Washington:19
The public-interest balancing of environmental and economic impacts cannot be
done with mathematical precision, nor do we think our statutory obligation to
weigh and balance all public interest considerations is served by trying to reduce
it to a mere mathematical exercise. Where the dollar cost of enhancement
measures, such as diminished power production, can be reasonably ascertained,
we will do so. However, for non-power resources such as aquatic habitat, fish and
wildlife, recreation, and cultural and aesthetic values, to name just a few, the
public interest cannot be evaluated adequately only by dollars and cents.20
. . .
In the context of public interest balancing for long-term authorizations, it is
inappropriate to rely too heavily on the accuracy of current dollar estimates of
nonpower resource values, calculated using any number of reasonably disputable
assumptions and methods.21
Specifically, the Study Proponents’ request fails to meet the Commission’s requirements for
requesting additional information gathering and study requests under FERC’s Integrated License
Application Process. 18 CFR § 5.9(b)(6) requires that any information gathering or study
requests be “consistent with generally accepted practice[s] in the scientific community . . . .”
Economic valuation of non-developmental values, however, while obviously having some
16 Id. at 8.
17 Id.
18 85 FERC ¶ 61,316 (1998), reconsideration denied, 86 FERC ¶ 61,184 (1999), aff'd, Conservation Law
Foundation v. FERC, 216 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (nothing in the FPA requires the Commission to place a dollar
value on nonpower benefits; nor does the fact that the Commission assigned dollar figures to the licensee's economic
costs require it to do the same for nonpower benefits.). See also, Namekegon Hydro Co., 12 FPC 203, 206 (1953),
aff'd, Namekegon Hydro Co. v. FPC, 216 F.2d 509 (7th Cir. 1954) (when unique recreational or other environmental
values are present such as here, the public interest cannot be evaluated adequately only by dollars and cents); and
Eugene Water & Electric Board, 81 FERC ¶ 61,270 (1997), aff'd, American Rivers v. FERC, 187 F.3d 1007 (9th
Cir. 1999) (rejecting request for economic valuation of environmental resources that were the subject of 10(j)
recommendations).
19 84 FERC ¶ 61,107 (1998), order on reh’g, 86 FERC ¶ 61,311 (1999), City of Tacoma v. FERC, 460 F.3d 53 (D.C.
Cir. 2006).
20 85 FERC at p. 62,244-245.
21 84 FERC at pp. 61,571-72.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3-7 December 2012
support, is not generally accepted within the scientific community.22 Further, the Study
Proponents have not demonstrated why a national economic valuation study is necessary under
18 CFR § 5.9(a) (7)23 to augment or supplant FERC’s NEPA evaluation of the Project’s impacts
on aesthetics, cultural, and socioeconomic resources, among others.24 The Study Proponents
argue that FERC’s proposal is inadequate because it will only assess the regional, as opposed to
the national impacts of the Project. On this point, AEA strongly disagrees. FERC’s inquiry
under the FPA focuses on the waterway as a starting point and extends to reasonably connected
interests in a manner consistent with the revised plan for the Social Conditions and Public Goods
and Services Study. There is simply no support for the Study Proponents’ assertion that public-
interest balancing of environmental and economic impacts requires a national perspective to
weigh and balance all public interest considerations consistent with FERC’s statutory obligations
under FPA.
Finally, the Proposed Study does not meet criteria (6) and (7) of 18 CFR § 5.9 by failing to
describe the methodology to implement the proposed study25 and by ignoring the requirement to
describe either the level of effort and cost, as applicable, of the Proposed Study26 and not
addressing how or why the proposed Social Conditions and Public Goods and Services Study
would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs.27 It is well settled that contingent
value surveys are expensive, subject to bias28 and even “[s]tudies conducted in controlled
experimental settings suggest that . . . contingent valuation . . . methods may overestimate
values29 producing “implausible” results30 that fail by trying to reduce FERC’s public interest
test to a mere mathematical exercise. The proposed National-Level Economic Valuation study
should not be adopted.
22 See, e.g., Steven Shavell, Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment at 372 (1993). “Contingent valuation
should not now be used to attempt to measure nonuse values of natural resources, either in public decision making
or in liability assessment. In these contexts, society is likely to be better off not seeking to estimate nonuse values
with contingent valuation because of the serious problems that this would engender.”
23 18 CFR 5.9(a)(7) provides that “[a]ny information or study request must . . . [d]escribe considerations of level of
effort and cost, as applicable, and why any proposed alternative studies would not be sufficient to meet the stated
information needs.”
24 See Scoping Document 1 for Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, Docket No P-14241-000 at §§ 4.2.7-9 (filed
Feb.2 2012).
25 AWA Comments at 9 “We describe the necessary elements of the study . . . but do not explain how the study
would be designed and implemented.”
26 AWA states only that “the level of effort is significant, as the study will likely require focus groups and survey
instruments.” AWA Comments at 11. American Whitewater ignores cost projections entirely.
27 AWA does not address the revised plan for the Social Conditions and Public Goods and Services Study, but only
generally states that a regional study is not appropriate for the project.
28 Peter A. Diamond, and Jerry A. Hausman, Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?,
Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 8, Number 4, Fall 1994, pp 45-64 at 45,46.
29 National Research Council, Committee on Assessing and Valuing Aquatic and Related Terrestrial Ecosystems,
Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision-Making, 2004, at 122.
30 Kenneth Arrow et alia, Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation, 1993 at 12, 13.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-1 December 2012
4. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This study plan will review the existing information on the Susitna-Watana Project (Project) area
regarding geology and soils and gather additional information in order to define the geologic,
geotechnical, seismic, and foundation conditions at the sites of Project works (e.g., dam,
reservoir, access road and T-Line corridors, construction camps, and materials borrow sites).
This information will be used to support development of the Project design, with an emphasis on
minimizing risks to dam safety. In general, the study tasks will include field investigations,
laboratory testing, instrumentation, review of existing studies, studies and assessments, use of
digital imagery, and engineering analyses to characterize the conditions, limitations, and
constraints for the Susitna-Watana Project in the Project area. The study will also identify
impacts of Project construction and operation, such as reservoir impoundment, thawing of frozen
soils and bedrock, soil erosion along the reservoir rim, slope stability, excavation, and spoil
disposal, on environmental resources.
4.1. Introduction
A Susitna Hydroelectric Project was proposed by the Alaska Power Authority (now the Alaska
Energy Authority [AEA]) in the early 1980s. That project was to be composed of two major
dams (the Watana Dam and Devils Canyon Dam) constructed in three stages. A draft
Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC), but the application was subsequently withdrawn. The current proposed Project dam is
located at river mile (RM) 184, the same location as that of the previously proposed Watana
Dam.
The Project is anticipated to include a high concrete arch dam constructed using roller-
compacted concrete (RCC) construction methods. The Project will also include a large reservoir,
a spillway, cofferdams, diversion tunnels, integrated penstocks and powerhouse, construction
and permanent housing, borrow and quarry areas, transmission lines, access roads, and staging
and stockpile areas. Each of these features will have an impact on, or will be impacted by,
geology and soils over the course of design, construction, and operation of the Project.
4.2. Nexus Between Project Construction / Existence / Operations
and Effects on Resources to be Studied
The soil and geological characteristics of the Project area will affect Project design, construction,
operation, and maintenance because the Project facility foundations are integral to the soil and
rock features of the area and also will serve as raw materials for some Project components. Also,
Project design, construction, and operation, including the dam and reservoir, access road,
transmission line, and construction camp/village, may affect geological resources by exposing
soils and rock to new surface erosional forces, could change the stability of soil and rock slopes,
change river sediment load, trigger seismic events earlier, and/or the reservoir could impound
potential mineral resources, if present.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-2 December 2012
Considerations of geology and soil conditions in planning for Project construction, operation,
and maintenance will include, but are not limited to the following:
Proper disposal of spoils from the excavations.
Geologic features in the foundation that may require additional excavation and
foundation treatment.
Identification of poor rock conditions or the presence of geologic features in the diversion
tunnel excavation that may require support and/or lining (e.g., type and thickness).
Design of rock cut-slopes on the right abutment, particularly in the downstream portal
area.
Identification of seismic sources and design of structures for seismic loading.
Ice-filled discontinuities in the rock foundation beneath and in the abutments of the dam.
Design of cut-off walls in the cobble and boulder alluvium beneath the cofferdams.
Road, transmission tower footing, or camp foundation design to address subsidence due
to poor soil conditions or thawing soil.
Triggering of seismic events in the reservoir proper due to load of the reservoir on the
landscape.
Reservoir sedimentation due to glacial melt and possible surging glacier event.
Changes to sediment load in the tailwater, downstream of the proposed dam.
Stability of reservoir slopes due to mass wasting potential, thawing permafrost, and
higher pore pressures.
Potential impact mechanisms for soils and geologic features are as follows:
Soil erosion from slope instability along the reservoir rim due to presence of fine-grained
soils and thawing permafrost (discontinuous).
Seismic activity due to the deep, large reservoir.
Changes to river channel geomorphology based on reservoir operation.
Seepage through abutments just upstream of the dam causing piping and soil erosion.
Soil erosion and slope instability along access road cuts and stream/creek crossings.
Impoundment of mineral resources.
4.3. Resource Management Goals and Objectives
No Alaskan Native resource management goals have been identified other than the provisions
identified under the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) dealing with provision of
access to mineral resources. FERC’s regulations require the Exhibit E environmental document
to include a detailed description of the project’s impacts on affected resources, including the
information included in the Pre-Application Document (PAD) and developed under the
applicant’s approved study plan (18 CFR 5.18(b)(5)(ii)(A)). The PAD must include a
description of the geology and soils “of the proposed project and surrounding area” and a
description of “mineral resources at the project site” (18 CFR 5.6(d)(3)(ii)(A)). The
environmental analysis must also include an evaluation of beneficial and adverse effects of the
proposed project on affected resources and mitigation measures if appropriate (18 CFR
5.18(b)(5)(ii)(B) and (C)). FERC’s Scoping Document 2 (SD2) states that its Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) will include evaluation of the “effects of project construction and
operation on access to proven or probable mineral deposits” (SD2, Section 4.2.1). FERC’s
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-3 December 2012
regulations also require the License Application to include Exhibit F, the supporting design
report to show that the project structures are safe and adequate to fulfill their stated functions (18
CFR 5,18(a)(5)(ii) and 4.41(g)(3)).
4.4. Summary of Consultation with Agencies, Alaska Native
Entities, and Other Licensing Participants
Specific consultation regarding geology and soils study planning has been limited to informal
discussion with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological and
Geophysical Surveys, during 2011 as part of planning the geotechnical and seismic
investigations for the Project and the Alaska Earthquake Information Center for monitoring and
detection of local earthquakes in the state seismograph network. Soil erosion and the potential
for reservoir sedimentation and other issues have been discussed in Technical Workgroup
(TWG) meetings, and the aquatic aspects of sediments are being addressed in the
Geomorphology Study (Section 6.5). In FERC’s May 31, 2012 filing of requests for studies and
comments on preliminary study plan, a geology and soils assessment study was requested. In
addition, Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) has submitted a study request (filed May 30, 2012) for a
minerals resource assessment that states that “CIRI owns or is entitled to receive conveyance of
significant subsurface interests with the area that would be affected by the proposed Project.”
Both the FERC and CIRI study requests correspond to AEA’s proposed geology and soils
characterization study, and through this study plan AEA is attempting to meet the expectations
and objectives of those study requests.
Summary tables of comments and responses from formal comment letters filed with FERC
through November 14, 2012 are provided in Appendix 1. Copies of the formal FERC-filed
comment letters are included in Appendix 2. In addition, a single comprehensive summary table
of comments and responses from consultation, dated from Proposed Study Plan (PSP filing)
(July 16, 2012) through release of Interim Draft RSPs, is provided in Appendix 3. Copies of
relevant informal consultation documentation are included in Appendix 4, grouped by resource
area.
4.5. Geology and Soils Characterization Study
4.5.1. General Description of the Proposed Study
The overall goals of this study are to conduct a geology and soils evaluation to define the
existing geological conditions at the dam site, reservoir, and access and T-line corridors, and to
develop design criteria to ensure that the proposed Project facilities and structures will be safe
and adequate to fulfill their stated functions. The general objectives of the study plan are as
follows:
Identify the existing soil and geology at the proposed construction site, reservoir area,
and access and T-line corridors.
Determine the potential effects of Project construction, operation, and maintenance
activities on the geology and soil resources (including mineral resources) in the Project
area including identification and potential applicability of protection, mitigation, and
enhancement (PM&E) measures.
Identify known mineral resources and mineral potential of the Project area.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-4 December 2012
Acquire soils and geologic information for the Project area for use in the preparation of a
supporting design report that demonstrates that the proposed structures are safe and
adequate to fulfill their stated functions.
The field investigation activities for each season will be coordinated with resource agencies and
ANCSA Corporation landowners. Geotechnical Exploration Program Work Plans (Work Plans)
will be developed that outline the field programs and information needed for submitting
applications and obtaining land access permits from applicable agencies and ANCSA
Corporation landowners. The Work Plans will identify known impacts to geology and soil
resources in the Project area, including the dam, reservoir, and access and T-line corridors.
FERC regulations require “evaluation of unconsolidated deposits, and mineral resources at the
project site” (18 CFR 5.6(d)(3)(ii)(A)). For the Exhibit E, AEA must provide a report on the
geological and soil resources in the proposed Project area and other lands that would be directly
or indirectly affected by the proposed action and the impacts of the proposed Project on those
resources. This study report will provide the basis of the information needed for the Exhibit E.
4.5.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information
Extensive field investigations and studies were undertaken during the 1970s and 1980s for the
Watana Dam Site to characterize the geologic, seismic, and foundation conditions for a different
type of dam (earthfill embankment) with a much larger footprint and a higher normal mean
reservoir operating level.
These studies included the following:
Regional mapping of surficial deposits (rock and soil) using aerial photography and
geologic reconnaissance (Acres 1982b).
Studies of reservoir slope stability (Acres 1982a, 1982b).
Subsurface explorations through geophysical surveys, borings, test pits, and trenches
(USACE 1975, 1979; Acres 1982b, 1982c; Harza-Ebasco 1983, 1984).
Preliminary evaluations of borrow and quarry sites (USACE 1979; Acres 1982b, 1982c).
In situ hydraulic testing and downhole geophysical surveys of rock and soil (Acres
1982b, 1982c; Harza-Ebasco 1983, 1984).
Instrumentation (groundwater and ground temperature observations and monitoring
[USACE 1979; Acres 1982b, 1982c; Harza-Ebasco 1983, 1984]).
Laboratory testing of physical properties of rock and soil (USACE 1979; Acres 1982b,
1982c; Harza-Ebasco 1983, 1984).
Site-specific seismic hazard evaluations, including lineament, fault and ground motion
evaluations; monitoring of local seismic events (WCC 1980, 1982).
Evaluation of reservoir induced seismicity (RIS) (WCC 1982).
Geology and soil resources (Harza-Ebasco 1985).
In summary, the following geotechnical investigations and testing were performed prior to 1986
and in 2011–2012:
Geologic interpretation (e.g., terrain unit mapping) and seismic source identification
using aerial photography and satellite imagery.
Geologic mapping of dam site and reservoir areas.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-5 December 2012
Drilling at the dam site, construction materials source areas, geologic features (i.e., relict
channel near dam site), proposed permanent camp/village, access road corridor, etc.
Instrumentation monitoring (groundwater and ground temperature).
Seismic refraction surveys, wih some electrical resistivity and ground-penetrating radar
(GPR) surveys.
Test trenches and pits (Borrow Areas D, E, I, J).
Site-specific seismic hazard investigations and evaluations.
Trenching of lineaments and faults.
For this study, the existing information, coupled with new field investigations and studies,
geologic mapping, and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and Interferometric Synthetic
Aperture Radar (InSAR) imagery data, will provide specific information on the properties of
Project-site-specific rock and soil units that would be affected by the newly proposed Project.
4.5.3. Study Area
The study area will include the dam site area, reservoir area, construction material sources,
tailwater downstream of the dam, access road and transmission line corridors, airport facilities,
and construction camp and permanent village sites (Figure 1.2-1).
4.5.4. Study Methods
The study of geology and soils resources for supporting licensing and detailed design will
include a number of components:
Develop an understanding of geologic and foundation conditions for the dam site area
and specifically for each of the surface and underground components of the Project.
Evaluate abutment stability.
Develop an understanding and characterize the geology and soil resources in the Project
area (dam and reservoir areas and access and T-line corridors.
Evaluate the mineral resource potential in the impoundement area, reservoir area up to
approximately elevation 2,075 feet, and dam and camp facilities area.
Evaluate major geologic features, rock structure, weathering/alteration zones, etc. in the
dam site and reservoir areas.
Delineate and characterize construction material sources for the dam and appurtenant
structures, access road, transmission line, and construction camp.
Evaluate the surficial geology, mass wasting features, and potential thawing of localized
permafrost on reservoir slope stability.
Seismic source characterization, site-specific ground motion evaluation, and probabilistic
seismic hazard assessment (see Section 16).
Evaluate reservoir leakage and piping.
Study methods are discussed below.
Review of Project Documentation
The existing documentation from the 1970s and 1980s will be brought into geo-referenced,
geotechnical databases to build new information on the earlier studies in digital formats.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-6 December 2012
Regional Geologic Analysis and Mineral Resources Assessment
Existing published information, air photo interpretation and reconnaissance mapping, and new
LiDAR survey data will be used to: (1) update information about the geology at the proposed
Project and in the surrounding area, including surficial and bedrock geology, geologic structure,
seismicity and tectonics, mass wasting, and mineral resources; (2) determine siting of Project
components or structures; (3) identify geologic features of significance; and (4) assess potential
impacts and potential mitigation measures to address impacts (e.g., erosion) on geology and soil
resources and Project construction. A survey of the mineral resources will be performed to
assess proven and probable mineral resources potential and mining activity in the impoundment
area using existing data. The impoundment area is the area where access to mineral resources
may be affected by the Project. In addition to the impoundment area, the road and transmission
corridors will be evaluated for potential quarry and aggregate sites and known mineral deposits
to identify if access to mineral resources may be adversely or beneficially affected by the Project.
The survey will entail mapping of known mineral deposits, identification of likely areas of
mineral resources, plus field reconnaissance of selected areas of high mineral potential, review of
area mining claims, and analysis of mineral potential from borings and other sampling work
done for the dam and other facilities ongoing geotechnical investigations. AEA will consult with
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on this study
plan to determine that appropriate methods and evaluation techniques are used for the mineral
resource investigation.
Recently-acquired LiDAR and InSAR data in the region will be used to identify lineaments of
faults for evaluation of activity and Project significance. Field reconnaissance, geologic
mapping, and subsurface investigations, if necessary, will be performed and the data will be used
to update the seismic source characterization, site-specific ground motion evaluations, and
probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) (see Section 16).
Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation and Testing Program Development
The development of a geologic and geotechnical exploration and testing program Work Plan for
completion of geologic field studies for final design and ultimately for construction will be
undertaken. Based on review of the existing data including previous geologic mapping,
subsurface investigations, and laboratory testing from the 1970s and 1980s, and recent studies
(2011–2012), additional investigations and testing will be conducted as described below:
Delineate and characterize geology and soil resources including geologic features, rock
structure, weathering/alteration zones.
Undertake physical and chemical testing, as well as petrographic analysis, to characterize
the geology and soils materials, as appropriate.
Evaluate lineaments and faults relative level of activity and significance to site-specific
ground motion evaluations for the Project.
Delineate and characterize construction material sources for the dam and appurtenant
structures, access road, and construction camp.
Determine the effects of discontinuous permafrost on the dam foundation and abutments
relative to foundation treatment, grouting, and drainage, as well as reservoir slope
stability and access road and T-line construction.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-7 December 2012
Evaluate the effect of Project features on permafrost and periglacial features (thawing of
permafrost), as well as the impact of these features on permanent structures, work camps,
temporary construction areas, road corridors, transmission lines, etc.
Evaluate the need for, and potential sources of, borrow for ancillary facilities including
upland structures, access roads, and transmission lines.
Evaluate potential waste stockpiles and storage sites including plans to help reduce the
impact of these facilities on adjacent areas.
Evaluate plans and methods for the reclamation of borrow area and quarry sites.
Evaluate the Project’s impact on access to geologic resources (mineral resources) by
reviewing existing state and federal databases, as well as readily available geologic maps
and surveys.
Conduct a preliminary evaluation of the effect of soils composition in the Project area on
construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Project.
Evaluate potential reservoir leakage on the right abutment just upstream of the dam site
(e.g., relict channel).
Establish seismic monitoring stations in the Project area to augment the stations in the
Alaska Earthquake Information Center network to monitor and detect any local
earthquakes.
Field Geologic and Geotechnical Investigations
Geologic and geotechnical field investigations will be carried out in phases (2011–2015) with
portions of that work contributing to the report on geology and soils in 2013 and updates in 2014.
The geotechnical investigations and testing undertaken as part of the Project feasibility and
design effort will include geologic mapping, drilling, sampling and in situ testing, test trenches,
pump tests, test adit, laboratory testing, instrumentation monitoring, etc. Initial and limited
geologic exploration and testing programs were undertaken in the 2011–2012 seasons to
investigate the dam foundation and a new quarry site for concrete aggregate material, installation
and monitoring of geotechnical instrumentation, and reconnaissance geologic mapping.
Reservoir-Triggered Seismicity
Seismic evaluations are being undertaken for the Project under a separate study (see Section 16)
and will include installation of a long-term earthquake monitoring system. The Geology and
Soils and Seismic Characterization Studies would contribute information to that study.
Reservoir Slope Stability Study
An assessment will be made of reservoir rim stability based on the geologic conditions in the
reservoir area, particularly in the reservoir drawdown zone. Geologic information from the
previous study on reservoir slope stability (Acres 1982a) as well as LiDAR imagery, geologic
mapping, field investigations, and instrumentation monitoring will be used to assess the stability
concerns of the reservoir rim area. Key factors in this study are the planned reservoir level and
anticipated range of drawdown, rock and soil type and conditions, presence of permafrost,
topography, and slope aspect and conditions.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-8 December 2012
Geologic and Engineering Analyses
The analysis will identify and evaluate construction material sources to provide adequate
quantities for construction, suitable alignments and foundation design for the access road,
construction, permanent camps, and transmission lines; and identify re-use of excavated
materials and/or disposal areas. The study will also assess the soil erosion potential along the
transmission and road corridors, along with other effects of design and construction on geology
and soils, and identify the suitability of measures to reduce and mitigate impacts.
Additionally, a number of geologic, seismic, and engineering analyses will be undertaken to
develop the geologic model and to assess foundation design, abutment stability, seepage and
piping potential, slope stability, ground motion evaluations, and site-specific probabilistic
seismic hazard assessment for the dam site area. The study will also identify impacts and
measures to mitigate impacts to geology and soil resources.
4.5.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice
Studies, field investigations, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, etc. will be performed in
accordance with general industry accepted scientific and engineering practices. The methods
and work efforts outlined in this study plan are the same or consistent with analyses used by
applicants and licensees and relied upon by FERC in other hydroelectric licensing proceedings.
4.5.6. Schedule
The proposed study includes a limited field investigation program in 2012 for interpretation of
digital imagery, reconnaissance geologic mapping, drilling, paleoseismic or lineament analysis,
installation of a long-term earthquake monitoring system, assessment of slope stability for the
reservoir rim, and reservoir triggered seismicity study. For 2013–2015, comprehensive
investigations will focus on the dam site, reservoir area, and access road and transmission line
corridors. Initial and Updated Study Reports explaining actions taken and information collected
to date will be issued within 1 and 2 years, respectively, of FERC’s Study Plan Determination
(i.e., February 1, 2013). Updates on the study progress will be provided during Technical
Workgroup meetings which will be held quarterly in 2013 and 2014.
The primary activities and planned schedule are shown in Table 4.5-1.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-9 December 2012
Table 4.5-1. Schedule for implementation of the Geology and Soils Study.
Activity
2012 2013 2014 2015
1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 1Q
Geo-Reference 1980s Investigations _____ _____ _____ _____
Regional Geologic and Mineral Assessment
Field Investigations
Geology and Soils Mapping ____
Reservoir Slope Stability Analysis
Initial Study Report Δ
Follow-on Investigations as Needed
Updated Study Report ▲
Legend:
Planned Activity
----- Follow-up activity (as needed)
Δ Initial Study Report
▲ Updated Study Report
4.5.7. Relationship with Other Studies
The Geology and Soils Study will provide information that will be used in several other studies,
as shown in Figure 4.5-1. The geology and soils mapping will be important to complete in 2013
to provide the baseline spatial data to the cultural and botanical resources studies. The reservoir
slope stability analysis will take place in 2013, which will then feed into the geomorphology
study using the initial reconnaissance-level information as input into the geomorphology
analysis.
4.5.8. Level of Effort and Cost
The study plan will involve a phased, multiple-year approach that will include field
investigations from 2012 through 2015 with associated studies and engineering analysis. The
estimated level of effort is estimated to be in excess of 4,500 hours plus expenses. The total cost
of the study will be between an estimated $1,000,000 and $1,500,000. This work is part of a
much larger geotechnical investigation program for the Project that will be undertaken through
the engineering design activities.
4.5.9. Literature Cited
Acres. 1982a. Reservoir Slope Stability and Erosion Studies, Closeout Report. Final Draft.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.
Acres. 1982b. Susitna Hydroelectric Project 1980–81 Geotechnical Report, Volumes 1 through
3. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.
Acres. 1982c. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, 1982 Supplement to the 1980–81 Geotechnical
Report. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-10 December 2012
Harza-Ebasco. 1983. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Watana Development, 1983 Geotechnical
Exploration Program. Volumes 1 and 2.
Harza-Ebasco. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, 1984 Geotechnical Exploration Program,
Watana Dam Site. Final Report, Document 1734, Volumes 1 through 3.
Harza-Ebasco. 1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Draft License Application. Volume 12
Exhibit E Chapter 6. Geologic and Soil Resources.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1975. Hydroelectric Power and Related Purposes,
Southcentral Railbelt Area, Alaska Upper Susitna River Basin. Department of the Army,
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers. December 12, 1975.
USACE. 1979. Hydroelectric Power and Related Purposes, Supplemental Feasibility Report,
Southcentral Railbelt Area, Alaska Upper Susitna River Basin. Department of the Army,
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers. February 1979.
WCC (Woodward-Clyde Consultants Inc.). 1980. Interim Report on Seismic Studies for Susitna
Hydroelectric Project. Prepared for Acres American, Inc.
WCC. 1982. Final Report on Seismic Studies for Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Prepared for
Acres American, Inc.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4-11 December 2012
4.5.10. Figures
Figure 4.5-1. Interdependencies for Geology and Soils Study.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-12 December 2012
5. WATER QUALITY
5.1. Introduction
Construction and operation of the Susitna-Watana Project (Project) will change the Susitna River
reach inundated by the Project reservoir, as well as portions of the drainage down-gradient.
Changes will include flow, water depth, surface water elevation, water chemistry, channel
characteristics, and sediment deposition. The potential effects of the Project need to be carefully
evaluated as part of the licensing process because changes to these parameters may adversely
affect aquatic and riparian habitat quality, which can in turn affect fish populations, riparian-
dependent species, and recreation opportunities along the river corridor.
This section of the RSP describes the water quality studies that will be conducted to characterize
and evaluate these effects. These studies will be subject to revision and refinements with input
from licensing participants as part of the continuing study program identified in the (Integrated
Licensing Process (ILP). The impact assessments will inform development of any protection,
mitigation, and enhancement measures to be presented in the draft and final License
Applications, as appropriate. A glossary of commoly used terms and acronyms is included in
Attachment 5-4.
Water quality studies each generate data that will be used to assess current conditions, calibrate a
predictive water quality model, and assess presence and potential impact of toxics (e.g., mercury)
on aquatic life. The three water quality studies are integrated by using products from each (e.g.,
water quality data, predicted water quality conditions under various operational scenarios, and
evaluation of potential toxics effects on aquatic life) and then combined to assess potential for
water quality impacts from an ecosystem perspective. Objectives described for Study Plan 5.5
(Baseline Water Quality Monitoring), Study Plan 5.6 (Water Quality Modeling), and Study Plan
5.7 (Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation) reflect the focus on establishing a
baseline description of pre-dam water quality and evaluation of water quality conditions and
impacts during a post-dam period.
5.2. Nexus Between Project Construction / Existence / Operations
and Effects on Resources to be Studied
As discussed above, the Project will change elements of the physical environment, which in turn
will affect other resources (riparian communities, biological resources, recreational
opportunities). Having a clear understanding of Project effects on water quality allow a better
analysis of impacts to the physical environment within the Susitna River corridor, which will be
critical to the environmental analysis of the Project.
5.3. Resource Management Goals and Objectives
Water quality in Alaska is regulated by a number of state and federal regulations. This includes
the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), and the State of Alaska Title 18, Chapter 70, of the Alaska
Administrative Code (18 AAC 70). Aquatic resources including fish and their habitats, and
wildlife resources, are generally protected by a variety of state and federal mandates. In addition,
various land management agencies, local jurisdictions, and non-governmental interest groups
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-13 December 2012
have specific goals related to their land management responsibilities or special interests. These
goals are expressed in various statutes, plans, and directives.
In addition to providing information needed to characterize the potential Project effects, these
water resources studies will inform the evaluation of possible conditions for inclusion in the
Project license. These studies are designed to meet Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) licensing requirements and also to be relevant to recent, ongoing, and/or planned
resource management activities by other agencies.
5.4. Summary of Consultation with Agencies, Alaska Native
Entities, and Other Licensing Participants
These study plans have been modified in response to comments from various agency reviewers,
including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS); the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC); and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Consultation on the study plan occurred during licensing
participant meetings on April 6, 2012, and during the June 14, 2012 Water Resources Technical
Workgroup (TWG) meeting. At the June 2012 TWG meeting, study requests and comments
from the various licensing participants were presented and discussed, and refinements were
determined to address agreed-upon modifications to the draft study plans. Additional comments
were received during the August 17 and October 23, 2012 TWG meetings.
Summary tables of comments and responses from formal comment letters filed with FERC
through November 14, 2012, are provided in RSP Appendix 1. Copies of the formal FERC-filed
comment letters are included in RSP Appendix 2. In addition, a single comprehensive summary
table of comments and responses from consultation, dated from Proposed Study Plan (PSP) filing
(July 16, 2012) through release of Interim Draft RSPs, is provided in RSP Appendix 3. Copies
of relevant informal consultation documentation are included in RSP Appendix 4, grouped by
resource area.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-14 December 2012
5.5. Baseline Water Quality Study
5.5.1. General Description of the Proposed Study
The collective goal of the water quality studies is to assess the effects of the proposed Project
and its operations on water quality in the Susitna River basin, which will inform development of
any appropriate conditions for inclusion in the Project license. The Project is expected to change
some of the water quality characteristics of the resulting riverine portion of the drainage once the
dam is in place as well as the inundated area that will become the reservoir.
The objectives of the Baseline Water Quality Study are as follows:
Document historical water quality data and combine with data generated from this study.
The combined data set will be used in the water quality modeling study to predict Project
impacts under various operations (Section 5.6).
Add three years of current stream temperature and meteorological data to the existing
data. An effort will be made to collect continuous water temperature data year-round,
with the understanding that records may be interrupted by equipment damage during river
floods, ice formation around the monitoring devices, ice break-up and physical damage to
the anchoring devices, or removal by unauthorized visitors to a site.
Develop a monitoring program to adequately characterize surface water physical,
chemical, and bacterial conditions in the Susitna River within and downstream of the
proposed Project area.
Measure baseline metals concentrations in sediment and fish tissue for comparison to
state criteria.
Perform a pilot thermal imaging assessment of a portion (between Talkeetna and Devils
Canyon) of the Susitna River. Discussion of thermal refugia data collection is located in
Section 5.5.4.9.
5.5.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information
Historical water quality data available for the study area includes water temperature data, some
general water quality data, and limited metals data primarily collected during the 1980s (URS
2011). Additional data has been recently collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) at
limited mainstem Susitna sites describing flow, in situ, general, and metals parameters. The
following is a summary of existing water quality data:
Lower Susitna from Cook Inlet to the Susitna – Chulitna –Talkeetna confluence (River Mile 0-
98)
Large amounts of data were collected in this reach during the 1980s. Very little data are
available that describe current water quality conditions.
Metals data are not available for the mouth of the Chulitna River. The influence of major
tributaries (Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers) on Susitna River water quality conditions is
unknown. There are no monitoring stations in receiving water at these mainstem
locations.
Metals data are not available for the Skwentna River or the Yentna River.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-15 December 2012
Continuous temperature data, general water quality data, and metals data are not available
for the Susitna River mainstem and sloughs potentially used for spawning and rearing
habitat.
Middle Susitna River and tributaries from the Susitna – Chulitna–Talkeetna confluence to the
mouth of Devils Canyon (River Mile 98-150)
The source(s) for metals detected at high concentrations in the mainstem Susitna River is
unknown.
Current data reflects large spatial data gaps between the upper river and the mid to lower
portions of the river.
Continuous temperature data are not available for the Susitna River mainstem, tributary,
and sloughs potentially used for spawning and rearing.
Middle Susitna River from Devils Canyon to the proposed Watana Dam site (River Mile 150-
184)
Temperature data are not available above and below most tributaries on the mainstem
Susitna River.
Overall, very limited surface water data are available for this reach.
Metals monitoring data do not exist or are limited.
Concentrations of metals in sediment immediately below the proposed Project are
unknown. Metals in these sediments may become mobile once the Project begins
operation.
Monitoring of Susitna River mainstem and sloughs (ambient conditions and metals) is
needed for determining the potential for metal bioaccumulation in fishes.
Upper Susitna River including headwaters and tributaries above the proposed Watana Dam site
(River Mile 184-313)
Surface water and sediment analysis for metals are not available for the Susitna River
mainstem, only for one tributary.
Information on concentrations of metals in media and current water quality conditions is
needed to predict if toxics can be released in a reservoir environment.
Continuous temperature data are not available for Susitna River mainstem, tributary, and
sloughs potentially used for spawning and rearing.
Overall
Limited fish tissue sampling has been performed in the Susitna River by ADEC and
USGS (ADEC 2012; Frenzel 2000).
A large-scale assessment of water quality conditions throughout the Susitna River drainage has
not been completed. The proposed overall assessment will be used to establish background water
quality parameters. This need was identified in the Data Gap Analysis for Water Quality (URS
2011).
Water temperature monitoring was primarily done in the middle river portion of the Project area
during the 1980s. The purpose for collection of this data was to model post-dam temperature
conditions and to predict the potential for impact on thermal refugia for fish downstream of the
proposed dam site. An expanded network of continuous temperature monitoring data and water
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-16 December 2012
quality data (including sediment, surface water, and potentially pore water) collection is required
for the Project because of the following:
More information is needed to define existing thermal refugia throughout the Susitna
drainage.
Limited information is available on natural, background conditions for water quality.
It is unknown if seasonal patterns exist for select water quality parameters.
Additional information is required for calibrating the water quality model to be used
(Section 5.6). More recent water quality data will be used for predicting reservoir
conditions and predicting riverine conditions downstream of the proposed dam.
The current proposal includes expansion of the temperature monitoring effort from river mile
(RM) 15.1 to 233.4, encompassing both the lower end of the riverine portion of the Project area
and above the proposed area of inundation by the reservoir. Monitoring sites are located at the
same sites characterized during the 1980s studies, as well as at additional sites. Monitoring of
areas of the mainstem Susitna River or tributaries with high metals concentrations or temperature
measurements (based on the Data Gap Analysis for Water Quality (URS 2011) will confirm
previous observations and will describe the persistence of any water quality exceedances that
might exist.
Locations in the mainstem Susitna River and tributaries where high metals concentrations were
historically identified in surface water lack sediment analysis data to determine potential sources
that can be mobilized. The linkage between sediment sources, mobilization into the water
column (dissolved form), and the potential for bioaccumulation in fish tissue presents a potential
human health concern with respect to mercury contamination. The consumption of mercury in
fish tissue will be addressed by co-locating a limited number of surface water, sediment, and fish
tissue monitoring sites (and sampling events) where there is the greatest likelihood for
bioaccumulation. The proposed Project may have the potential to exacerbate bioaccumulation of
toxics beyond that occurring under current conditions. The initial monitoring will identify select
monitoring locations and media (e.g., surface water, pore water, and sediment) for sampling and
suggest the need for more detailed, site-specific sampling if a potential risk from
bioaccumulation is found.
The available historical data are not continuous over time or over spatial areas of the Susitna
drainage. The discontinuities in the data record limit the opportunity for conducting a complete
assessment of current water quality conditions that define natural background, the spatial extent
of higher than expected concentrations of metals (and select parameters), and identification of
source and timing of pollutant entry into the Susitna drainage. The expanded data record beyond
existing information will be used to develop a model of the proposed reservoir and for evaluating
water quality changes in the existing riverine system resulting from reservoir operations.
5.5.3. Study Area
The study area for water quality monitoring includes the Susitna River from RM 15.1 to RM
233.4, and select tributaries within the proposed transmission lines and access corridors. Water
quality and water temperature data loggers were installed at 33 of 39 sites identified in Table 5.5-
1 and Figure 5.5-1 as part of the 2012 Baseline Water Quality Study.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-17 December 2012
5.5.4. Study Methods
The Baseline Water Quality Study has several components that address needs for water quality
modeling and for detecting the location and magnitude of water quality issues. The proposed
water quality monitoring locations and water quality parameter list fill in substantial data gaps
throughout the project area from historical data collected beginning 1975 through 2003 (URS
2011). Besides the utility of water quality data in calibrating the water quality model,
establishment of a comprehensive baseline of water quality descriptions will be useful for
comparison to historical water quality data and future scenarios based on model predictions and
with future data collection.
Data will be collected from multiple aquatic media including surface water, sediment, and fish
tissue. Continuous temperature monitoring will inform the predictive model on how the
mainstem river and tributaries will respond to Project operations and if changes in water quality
conditions could affect aquatic life use and survival in the Project area. In addition, several other
requirements of the 401 Water Quality Certification Process will be addressed with collection
and description of additional data, including the following:
Conducting a water quality baseline assessment
Describing how existing and designated uses are met
Using appropriate field methods and models
Using acceptable data quality assurance methods
Scheduling of technical work to meet deadlines
Deriving load calculations of potential pollutants (pre-Project conditions)
Two types of water quality monitoring activities will be implemented: (1) routine monitoring for
characterizing water quality baseline conditions, and (2) a single, comprehensive survey for a
larger array of parameters (Section 5.5.4.5). Frequency of sampling water quality parameters
varies by category and potential for mobilization and bioavailability. Most of the general water
quality parameters and select metals will be sampled on a monthly basis because each parameter
has been demonstrated to be present in one or both of surface water and sediment (URS 2011).
An initial screening survey has been proposed for several other toxics that might be detected in
sediment and tissue samples (Table 5.5-4). The single surveys for toxics in sediment, tissue, or
water will trigger additional study for extent of contamination and potential timing of exposure if
results exceed criteria or thresholds (e.g., LAETs, LC50s, etc.). The general list of water quality
parameters and metals will be used in calibrating the water quality model (Section 5.6) in both a
riverine and reservoir environment.
Twelve mainstem Susitna River monitoring sites are located below the proposed dam site and
two mainstem sites above this location. Six sloughs will be monitored that represent a
combination of physical settings in the drainage and that are known to support important fish-
rearing habitat. Tributaries to the Susitna River will be monitored and include those contributing
large portions of the lower river flow including the Talkeetna, Chulitna, Deshka, and Yentna
rivers. A partial list of the remaining tributaries that will be monitored represent important
spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous and resident fisheries and include Gold Creek,
Portage Creek, Tsusena Creek, Watana Creek, and Oshetna Creek. The operation of temperature
monitoring sites will continue as part of water quality monitoring activities in 2013/2014. These
sites were selected based on the following rationale:
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-18 December 2012
Adequate representation of locations throughout the Susitna River and tributaries above
and below the proposed dam site for the purpose of a baseline water quality
characterization.
Location on tributaries where proposed access road-crossing impacts might occur during
and after construction (upstream/downstream sampling points on each crossing).
Preliminary consultation with licensing participants including co-location with other
study sites (e.g., instream flow, ice processes).
Access and land ownership issues.
Eight of the sites are mainstem monitoring sites that were previously used for SNTEMP
modeling (see Section 5.6) in the 1980s. Thirty-one of the sites are Susitna River
mainstem, tributary, or slough locations, most of which were monitored in the 1980s.
Monitoring sites are spaced at approximately five-mile intervals so that the various factors that
influence water quality conditions are captured and support the development (and calibration) of
the water quality model. Frequency of sites along the length of the river is important for
capturing localized effects from tributaries and from past and current human activity. Additional
sampling to characterize variability in water quality conditions on six cross-sections of the river
will be completed. This objective for this sampling strategy will address potential influence of
channel complexity (multiple channels, braiding, etc.) on both the Susitna River and tributary
water quality. These data will also enable the water quality model (Section 5.6) to predict
conditions in 3-dimensions (longitudinally, vertically, and laterally).
5.5.4.1. Water Temperature Data Collection
Water temperatures are being recorded in 15-minute intervals using Onset TidbiT v2 water
temperature data loggers (or equivalent instrumentation). Data collection began in late June
2012 and will continue through the winter of 2012/2013. At this time it is unclear if the
equipment will survive physical damage or interruption of temperature logging from ice break-
up and sedimentation during the winter. Temperature data has been retrieved from 33 of 39 sites
representing a partial or whole record from third week in July 2012 through end of September
2012. Deployment and continuous temperature data logging will continue for each of the two
following years (2013 and 2014) using the same apparatus and deployment strategy at all 39
sites. The TidbiT v2 (or equivalent) has a precision sensor for plus or minus 0.4 degrees
Fahrenheit (°F) (0.2 degrees Celsius [°C]) accuracy over an operational range of -4°F to 158°F (-
20°C to 70°C). Data readout is available in less than 30 seconds via an Optic USB interface.
To reduce the possibility of data loss, a redundant set of data loggers will be used at each site
(where possible). In general, the two sets of sensors will be installed differently (depending on
site characteristics). One logger will be inserted into the bottom of an 8.2-foot (2.5-meter) length
of perforated steel pipe housing that is fastened to a large bank structure via clamps and rock
bolts. A shorter or longer perforated steel pipe may be used depending on location of suitable
anchoring places. The logger will be attached to a cable that allows it to be easily retrieved for
downloads. To prevent theft or vandalism, the top pipe cap will contain a locking mechanism
that can only be opened using the appropriate Allen key. The second set of temperature loggers
will be anchored to a 2-foot section of a steel rail and buoyed to record continuous bottom, mid,
and surface temperature conditions throughout the water column. The anchor rail will be placed
at a channel location that is accessible during routine site visits and will be attached with a steel
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-19 December 2012
cable to a post that is driven into the bank or to some other structure. The proposed installation
procedures may require some alteration based on site-specific conditions.
The sensors will be situated in the river to record water temperatures that are representative of
the mainstem or slough being monitored, avoiding areas of groundwater upwelling, unmixed
tributary flow, direct sun exposure, and isolated pools that may affect the quality of the data.
The 2012 Fish and Aquatics Instream Flow Study installed water-level loggers with temperature
recording capability at several study sites and are further described in Section 8.5.4.4 of the Fish
and Aquatic Instream Flow Study Plan.
Where these study sites overlap the water temperature monitoring study sites (Figure 5.5-1), the
water-level logger temperature sensors may be used. However, a redundant TidbiT v2 would be
deployed at these sites for backup temperature recording, especially for year-round temperature
monitoring.
5.5.4.2. Meteorological Data Collection
Meteorological (MET) data collection stations were installed in three new locations during 2012.
Table 5.5-2 lists those MET station locations as well as three additional MET stations to be
installed, if needed, by the Water Quality Modeling Study (Section 5.6).
The three MET stations installed in 2012 are located between RM 136.8 and RM 224.0. One
MET station near the Susitna-Watana Dam site was established above the projected height of the
pool elevation and proposed dam height. The upland MET station was established at about the
2,300-foot elevation on the north side of the river, in the area of the proposed field camp, and
will record snowfall data and precipitation. The near river site MET station was located on the
north abutment just above river level based on the suitability of location for establishing the
structure.
Existing MET stations were fitted with additional monitoring equipment to expand data
collection that meets project needs and to use historical information collected from each of these
sites (Table 5.5-2). Data records from other studies will be used, wherever available, to help
generate information for the required parameters needed for construction of the water quality
models (Section 5.6). The linkage between historical records and continuing data records may be
used in evaluating the utility of 1980s temperature data for modeling.
All six possible MET stations are spatially distributed on the Susitna River from RM 25.8 to RM
224.0 and represent a range of distinct physical settings throughout the Project area. MET
stations transfer data generated at 15 minute intervals by a telemetry system and stored on a
digital server in Talkeetna, AK. The three additional MET station sites may be necessary if
current site placement is inadequate to represent the needs of water quality model development.
This determination will be made in the spring of 2013. Parameters measured by each of the
MET stations will be compared with the nearest down-gradient site and evaluated for adequacy
of representation of weather conditions in that reach. If data recorded between successive sites
are distinctly different, then additional sites will be proposed so that weather descriptions for use
in the water quality model calibration phase (Section 5.6) will be improved with greater detail.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-20 December 2012
5.5.4.3. MET Station Parameters
MET stations will collect parameters that support the activities of the engineering design team
and the development of the water quality temperature model. Snow depth will be estimated from
the precipitation gage with the onset of the winter season. Evapotranspiration is measurable
within deciduous canopies; however, the MET station placement will not be under vegetation
canopies so that parameters (like wind speed, etc.) necessary for establishing conditions on the
reservoir can be measured. Precipitation will be an added parameter to each station beginning in
2013 and estimated as snow depth as the season progresses following October 2013. Solar
radiation will be measured using proposed meteorological instruments and solar degree days
derived from these measurements. The following is a comprehensive list of parameters required
for use in this Project and will be measured by each of the MET stations:
Temperature (maximum, minimum, mean)
Relative humidity
Barometric pressure
Precipitation
Wind speed (maximum, minimum, mean)
Wind direction
Wind gust (maximum)
Wind gust direction
Solar degree days (from solar radiation)
5.5.4.3.1 MET Station Installation and Monitoring Protocol
Each MET station will consist of, at a minimum, a 10-foot (3-meter) tripod with mounted
monitoring instrumentation to measure the parameters identified above (Figure 5.5-2). The
station loggers will have sufficient ports and programming capacity to allow for the installation
of instrumentation to collect additional MET parameters as required. Such installation and re-
programming can occur at any time without disruption of the data collection program.
MET station installation is intended to provide instrumentation that will work continuously with
little maintenance and produce high quality data through a telemetry system.
A Campbell Scientific CR1000 data logger will be used to record data. The archiving interval for
all MET parameters will be 15 minutes, with a 2-year storage capacity. The MET station will be
powered by a 12 Vdc 8 amp-hour battery and a 20-watt solar panel complete with charge
regulator.
To protect the stations from wildlife intrusion and to discourage any potential vandalism, the
stations may be protected by fencing as appropriate.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-21 December 2012
5.5.4.3.2 Satellite or Radio Telemetry Communications System
Real-time data will be downloaded from MET stations using satellite transmission or radio
telemetry hardware. This will enable study staff to download, inspect, and archive the data as
well as monitor station operational parameters for signs of problems without visiting the site.
The communication will ensure that problems, if they occur, are resolved promptly to minimize
data loss between service periods.
5.5.4.4. Baseline Water Quality Monitoring
The purpose of the Baseline Water Quality Study is to collect baseline water quality information
that will support an assessment of the effects of the proposed Project operations on water quality
in the Susitna River basin. Effects of the proposed Project operations will be determined by using
baseline water quality monitoring data in the EFDC (Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code)
model described in Section 5.6, Water Quality Modeling Study. There are two types of
monitoring programs proposed for characterizing surface water conditions that are distinguished
by the frequency of water sampling and the density of sampling effort in a localized area
(Baseline Water Quality Monitoring and Focus Area Monitoring). The large-scale monitoring
program (at sites from RM 15.1 to RM 233.4) will be used to calibrate the Susitna River water
quality model.
Baseline water quality collection can be broken into two components: in situ water quality
sampling and general water quality sampling. In situ water quality sampling consists of on-site
monthly measurements of physical parameters at fixed locations using field equipment. General
water quality sampling will consist of monthly grab samples that will be sent to an off-site
laboratory for analysis. The laboratory will have at a minimum, National Environmental
Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) certification in order to generate credible data for
use by state, federal, and tribal regulatory programs for evaluating current and future water
quality conditions. In general, these samples represent water quality components that cannot be
easily measured in situ, such as metals concentrations, nitrates, etc.
Water quality data collection will be at the locations in bold in Table 5.5-1. The initial sampling
will be expanded if general water quality, metals in surface water, or metals in fish tissue exceed
criteria or thresholds. Additional contiguous sample sites will be visited on this list beginning the
following sampling month wherever criteria or thresholds have been exceeded by individual
parameters. This proposed spacing follows accepted practice when segmenting large river
systems for development of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) water quality models.
Sampling during winter months will be focused on locations where flow data is currently
collected (or was historically collected by USGS) and will be used for water quality modeling
(Section 5.6).
5.5.4.4.1 Monitoring Parameters
Water quality samples will be analyzed for several parameters reported in Table 5.5-3. Metals
monitoring for total and dissolved fractions in surface water include the full set of parameters
used by ADEC in fish health consumption screening. The creation of a reservoir and potential
alteration of surface water downstream of the proposed dam site may change characteristics of
groundwater in the upper and middle Susitna basin. The water quality parameters identified in
Table 5.5-3 will address the influence surface water may have on adjoining groundwater supplies
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-22 December 2012
in the vicinity of each sampling site. Changes to groundwater quality may have an effect on
drinking water supplies, so several parameters included on the inorganic chemical contaminants
list have been included as part of this sampling program (ADEC 2003). The criteria that will be
used for comparison with sampling results are the drinking water primary maximum contaminant
levels.
Additional parameters will be measured from all sites in a single survey that occurs during low
water conditions (e.g., August/September) in the Susitna basin. The following is a list of
pollutants for which Alaska Water Quality Standards have established water quality criteria (18
ACC 70.020(b)) for protecting designated uses in fresh water:
Continuous temperature monitoring program
— Temperature, already included as part of the continuous temperature monitoring program.
In situ monitoring program
— pH, included as part of the monthly water quality sampling routine.
— Color, categorical observation.
— Residues, categorical assessment (floating solids, debris, sludge, deposits, foam, or
scum).
General water quality program
— Dissolved gas, included in the monitoring program (dissolved oxygen).
— Dissolved inorganic substances (total dissolved solids), included in monthly monitoring.
— Turbidity, already included as part of the monthly water quality sampling routine.
— Toxic and other deleterious organic and inorganic, already included in monitoring for
metals and mercury/methylmercury (organometals).
One-time survey
— Fecal coliform bacteria, included in monthly monitoring.
— Sediment, already included in assessing mercury and other metals from sediments.
— Petroleum hydrocarbons, oil, and grease, included in a one-time survey.
— Radioactivity; radionuclide concentrations to be generated from surface water samples.
— Toxic and other deleterious organic and inorganic, already included in monitoring for
metals and mercury/methylmercury (organometals).
Table 5.5-4 lists the water quality parameters to be collected and their frequency of collection.
5.5.4.4.2 Sampling Protocol
Water quality grab samples will be collected during each site visit in a representative portion of
the stream channel/water body, using methods consistent with ADEC and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) protocols and regulatory requirements for sampling ambient water and
trace metal water quality criteria.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-23 December 2012
Mainstem areas of the river not immediately influenced by a tributary will be characterized with
a single grab sample. Areas of the mainstem with an upstream tributary that may influence the
nearshore zone or are well-mixed with the mainstem will be characterized by collecting samples
at two locations: in the tributary and in the mainstem upstream of the tributary confluence. All
samples will be collected from a well-mixed portion of the river/tributary.
These samples will be collected on approximately a monthly basis (four samples from June to
September) and used for calibrating the same model framework used for predicting temperature.
The period for collecting surface water samples will begin at ice break-up and extend to
beginning of ice formation on the river. Limited winter sampling (once in December, and again
in March) will be conducted where existing or historic USGS sites are located. Review of
existing data (URS 2011) indicated that few criteria exceedances occur with metals
concentrations during the winter months. Existing data show that conventional water quality
parameters do not change during the winter months and appear to be mediated by constancy in
flow and by water temperature. Initial assessment of this existing data suggests that samples be
collected twice during the winter months for analysis of early and late season conditions when
the hydrograph declines (near the beginning of winter) and when the hydrograph begins to
increase (near the beginning of spring). If the 2013 data sets suggest that metals and other
general water quality parameters exceed criteria or thresholds, then an expanded 2014 water
quality monitoring program will be conducted to characterize conditions on a monthly basis
throughout the winter months.
Water quality indicators like conductivity (specific conductance) have been suggested as a
surrogate measure for transfer of metals from groundwater to surface water or in mobilization of
metals within the river channel. Should the one-time survey for metals at each of the sampling
sites show elevated concentrations of select parameters, then sampling of a full list of metals will
be conducted one time that analyzes groundwater concentrations in order to adequately
characterize current conditions. Available USGS data from select continuous gaging stations will
be reviewed for increases in specific conductance during monthly and seasonal intervals, and
these results will be used to determine if further metals sampling is warranted during additional
winter months.
Water quality grab samples will be collected during each site visit along a transect of the stream
channel/water body, using methods consistent with ADEC and EPA protocols and regulatory
requirements for sampling ambient water and trace metal water quality criteria.
Mainstem areas of the river not immediately influenced by a tributary will be characterized with
a single transect. Areas of the mainstem with an upstream tributary that may influence the
nearshore zone or that are well-mixed with the mainstem will be characterized by collecting
samples at two transect locations: in the tributary and in the mainstem upstream of the tributary
confluence. Samples will be collected at 3 equi-distant locations along each transect (i.e. 25%
from left bank, 50% from left bank, and 75% from left bank). Samples will be collected from a
depth of 0.5 meters below the surface as well as 0.5 meters above the bottom. This will ensure
that variations in concentrations, especially metals, are captured and adequately characterized
throughout the study area.
Variation of water quality in a river cross-section is often significant and is most likely to occur
because of incomplete mixing of upstream tributary inflows, point-source discharges, or
variations in velocity and channel geometry. Water quality profiles at each location on each site
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-24 December 2012
transect will be conducted for field water quality parameters (e.g., temperature, pH, dissolved
oxygen, and conductivity) to determine the extent of vertical and lateral mixing.
Additional details of the sampling methods will be provided in a combined Sampling and
Analysis Plan (SAP) and the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for this study. More detail
describing study design, field sampling procedures, and evaluation of data quality is provided in
the Baseline Water Quality Monitoring QAPP (Attachment 5-1).
In Situ Water Quality Sampling. During each site visit, in situ measurements of dissolved
oxygen, pH, specific conductance, redox potential, turbidity, and water temperature will be
made. A Hanna Instruments HI 98703 Portable Turbidity Meter will be used to measure
turbidity, while a Hydrolab® datasonde (MS5) will be used to measure the remaining field
parameters during each site visit. Continuous turbidity measurement may be conducted with the
Hydrolab datasonde at select locations (e.g., former/current USGS sites where turbidity data are
available from the 1980s) and operated during summer and winter conditions. The following list
of former and current USGS mainstem Susitna River monitoring sites will be considered for
continuous turbidity monitoring: Susitna Station, Sunshine, Gold Creek, Tsusena Creek, and near
Cantwell. These locations have historic and current flow data that will be used in water quality
modeling (Section 5.6) of effects on turbidity from Project operations. Continuous logging of
water quality parameters using a multi-parameter probe (e.g., temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen,
and conductivity) may be placed at Focus Area locations (identified in Section 5.5.4.5). The
period of deployment will be focused on summer months June through September (four months)
as water conditions permit deployment and routine download of data. Maintenance of a multi-
parameter probe and risk from damage is high during winter months. Also, freezing conditions
will damage sensor apparatus and the logging unit if enclosed by formation of ice.
Standard techniques for pre- and post-sampling calibration of in situ instrumentation will be used
to ensure quality of data generation and will follow accepted practice. If calibration failure is
observed during a site visit, field data will be corrected according to equipment manufacturer’s
instructions.
General Water Quality Sampling. Sampling will avoid eddies, pools, and deadwater. Sampling
will avoid unnecessary collection of sediments in water samples, and touching the inside or lip of
the sample container. Samples will be delivered to EPA-approved laboratories within the
holding time frame. Each batch of samples will have a separate completed chain of custody
sheet. A field duplicate will be collected for 10 percent of samples (i.e., 1 for every 10 water
grab samples). Laboratory quality control samples including duplicate, spiked, and blank
samples will be prepared and processed by the laboratory.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) samples will include field duplicates, matrix spikes,
duplicate matrix spikes, and rinsate blanks for non-dedicated field sampling equipment. The
results of the analyses will be used in data validation to determine the quality, bias, and usability
of the data generated.
Sample numbers will be recorded on field data sheets immediately after collection. Samples
intended for the laboratory will be stored in coolers and kept under the custody of the field team
at all times. Samples will be shipped to the laboratory in coolers with ice and cooled to
approximately 4°C. Chain of custody records and other sampling documentation will be kept in
sealed plastic bags (Ziploc®) and taped inside the lid of the coolers prior to shipment. A
temperature blank will accompany each cooler shipped. Packaging, marking, labeling, and
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-25 December 2012
shipping of samples will be in compliance with all regulations promulgated by the U. S.
Department of Transportation in the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR 171-177.
Water quality samples will be labeled with the date and time that the sample is collected and
preserved/filtered (as appropriate), then stored and delivered to a state-certified water quality
laboratory for analyses in accordance with maximum holding periods. A chain of custody record
will be maintained with the samples at all times.
The state-certified laboratory will report (electronically and in hard copy) each chemical
parameter analyzed with the laboratory method detection limit, reporting limit, and practical
quantification limit. The laboratory will attempt to attain reporting detection limits that are at or
below the applicable regulatory criteria and will provide all laboratory QA/QC documentation.
The procedures used for collection of water quality samples will follow protocols from ADEC
and EPA Region 10 (Pacific Northwest). Water samples will be analyzed by a laboratory
accredited by ADEC or recognized under NELAP. Water quality data will be summarized in a
report with appropriate graphics and tables with respect to Alaska State Water Quality Standards
(ADEC 2005) and any applicable federal standards.
Additional details of the sampling procedures and laboratory protocols is included in the SAP
and QAPP.
5.5.4.5. Water Quality Characterization in Focus Areas
The second type of water quality monitoring is distinguished from the large-scale program by a
higher density of sampling within a pre-defined reach length and a higher frequency of sample
collection (greater than once per month). The purpose for the intensive water quality monitoring
in select Focus Areas of the proposed Project area is to evaluate effects from dam operations on
resident and anadromous fisheries. Potential Focus Areas in the middle river portion of the
Susitna drainage have been selected in consultation with the water resources leads. The Focus
Area sites are fully discussed in the Instream Flow Study Plan in Section 8.5.4.2.
Changes in water quality conditions from Project operations may influence usable habitat by
individual species of fish and various life stages. Water quality conditions influence usability of
areas within the river and sloughs by supporting required physicochemical characteristics that
range from metabolic needs to predator avoidance. Adequate temperature and dissolved oxygen
concentrations are required to sustain basic metabolic needs and these can differ for life stages of
a species. Successful predator avoidance improves survivability of a population and this is
commonly achieved by using physical structures in the aquatic environment. In the case of water
quality, early life stages of a species may benefit from increased turbidity in the water column.
Changes to turbidity in the water column may result in increased predation on certain life stages
of fish and present a negative impact to a population.
The Focus Areas will have a higher density of sampling locations, in contrast to the mainstem
network, so that prediction of change in water quality conditions from Project operations can be
made with a higher degree of resolution. The resolution expected for predicting conditions will
be as short as 100-meter (m) longitudinal distances within the Focus Areas. Depending on the
length of the Focus Area, transects will be spaced every 100 m to 500 m and water quality
samples collected at three locations along each transect. The collection locations along a transect
will be in open water areas and have 3 to 5 collection points. These will be discrete samples
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-26 December 2012
taken at each collection point. The density of monitoring locations within the Focus Areas will
be used as a grid to detect and describe groundwater input. Plumes of groundwater input to a
Focus Area will be traceable using thermal data or conductivity. The area of groundwater input
will be described using the monitoring grid network represented by the transects and sampling
points along each transect. The location of open water transects and piezometers will be
coordinated with the Instream Flow Study (Section 8) and the Groundwater Study (Section 7.5)
to efficiently implement common elements in each of the studies. Piezometers will be installed
as part of the Water Quality Monitoring Study so that surface water and groundwater samples are
collected at the same time for determination of influence of groundwater on surface water.
Collection of groundwater and surface water during each site visit will be used to evaluate the
influence of groundwater on surface water quality. Frequency of sampling will be every 2 weeks
for a total duration of 6 weeks and coordinated with the Instream Flow and Groundwater studies.
Water quality parameters measured in Focus Areas will be used to calibrate the EFDC model,
but at a higher level of resolution than used for the main channel beginning from RM 15.1 and
ending at RM 233.4 in the Susitna River. The focus for EFDC model predictions will be on the
following parameters that could affect habitat used by anadromous and resident fish in this
drainage:
Field Parameters
Water temperature
Dissolved oxygen
Conductivity
pH
General Chemistry
Turbidity
Hardness
Total nitrogen
Nitrate+nitrite-nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Soluble reactive phosphorus
Metals
Mercury ( total)
Methylmercury (dissolved)
Aluminum (dissolved and total)
Iron (dissolved and total)
The water quality parameter list is divided further into two categories: (1) contaminants of
concern (e.g., metals), and (2) general water quality conditions that may adversely affect fish
species.
Inclusion of the nutrient parameters will be used to inform the productivity studies and
potentially be used to develop habitat suitability criteria (HSC) curves for select aquatic
communities. Response of biological communities like periphyton and benthic
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-27 December 2012
macroinvertebrates to nutrient concentrations will be predicted for alternative operational
scenarios.
5.5.4.6. Sediment Samples for Mercury/Metals in the Reservoir Area
This task is designed to gather specific information on the distribution of Susitna River sediment
contaminants of concern in potential source areas. In general, all sediment samples will be taken
from sheltered backwater areas, downstream of islands, and in similar riverine locations in which
water currents are slowed, favoring accumulation of finer sediment along the channel bottom.
Samples will be analyzed for total metals, including aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and zinc. In addition, sediment size and total
organic carbon (TOC) will be included to evaluate whether these parameters are predictors for
elevated metal concentrations. Samples will be collected just below and above the proposed dam
site. Additional samples will be collected near the mouths of tributaries near the proposed dam
site, including Fog, Deadman, Watana, Tsusena, Kosina, Jay, and Goose creeks, and the Oshetna
River. The purpose of this sampling will be to determine where metals, if found in the water or
sediment, originate in the drainage. Toxics modeling will be conducted to address potential for
bioavailability in resident aquatic life. Comparison of bioaccumulation of metals in tissue
analysis with results from sediment samples will inform on potential for transfer mechanisms
between source and fate.
Two types of modeling analysis will be completed: (1) pathway model analysis, and (2)
numerical modeling using EFDC (Section 5.6). First, pathway models will be constructed for
preliminary evaluation of potential for transfer between media (e.g., sediment–pore water, pore
water–surface water, surface water–fish tissue). Exposure concentrations will be estimated for
each toxic within the medium sampled (e.g., sediment, pore water, surface water) and companion
parameters (e.g., hardness and pH) will be collected that enable calculation of chronic and acute
toxics concentrations to aquatic life. Potential for transfer of toxics between media will be
facilitated by surrounding physicochemical conditions like low dissolved oxygen conditions, low
pH resulting from low dissolved oxygen concentrations, or low redox potential. These
companion field measurements will be made along with all media sampled at each site. Transfer
potential of toxics between media will be identified under two conditions: (1) when field
parameters listed above are at levels that result in mobilization of toxics between media, and (2)
when toxics mobilize along a concentration gradient and transfer from high concentration to
media with a lower concentration. Potential for bioaccumulation in aquatic life is determined
when chronic thresholds for toxics exposure in a medium are identified. Potential for mortality is
determined when acute criteria for toxics in a medium are exceeded.
Most of the contaminants of interest are typically associated with fine sediments, rather than with
coarse-grained sandy sediment or rocky substrates. Therefore, the goal of the sampling will be to
obtain sediments with at least 5 percent fines (i.e., particle size less than 0.0025 inches [63
micrometers], or passing through a #230 sieve). At some locations, however, larger-sized
sediments may be all that are available.
The sediment samples will be collected using an Ekman dredge or a modified Van Veen grab
sampler. Sampling devices will be deployed from a boat. Samples may also be collected by
wading into shallow nearshore areas. To the extent possible, samples will consist of the top 6
inches (15 centimeters) of sediment. Comparison of results from the Susitna drainage will be
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-28 December 2012
made with other studies for Blue Lake, Eklutna Lake, and Bradley Lake when similar data are
available and where physical settings are comparable.
5.5.4.7. Baseline Metals Levels in Fish Tissue
Two screening level tasks will be conducted. The first will be for methylmercury in sport fish.
Methylmercury bioaccumulates and the highest concentrations are typically in the muscle tissue
of adult predatory fish. Final determination of tissue type(s) for analysis will be coordinated
with ADEC’s Division of Environmental Health and guidance on fish tissue sampling. Results
can be shared by ADEC with the State Health Department to develop fish consumption advice, if
necessary. Target fish species in the vicinity of the Watana Reservoir will be Dolly Varden,
Arctic grayling, whitefish species, long nose sucker, lake trout, burbot, and resident rainbow
trout. If possible, filets will be sampled from seven adult individuals from each species. Adult
fish from each of the species will be collected in order to estimate the metals concentrations in
fish tissue (metals to be analyzed in fish tissue are listed in Table 5.5-3). Collection times for fish
samples will occur in late August and early September. Filet samples will be analyzed for methyl
and total mercury.
Liver samples will also be collected from burbot and analyzed for mercury, methylmercury,
arsenic, cadmium, and selenium.
Field procedures will be consistent with those outlined in applicable Alaska state and/or EPA
sampling protocols (USEPA 2000). Clean nylon nets and polyethylene gloves will be used
during fish tissue collection. The species, fork length, and weight of each fish will be recorded.
Fish will be placed in Teflon® sheets and into zipper-closure bags and placed immediately on ice.
Fish samples will be submitted to a state-certified analytical laboratory for individual fish muscle
tissue analysis. Results will be reported with respect to applicable Alaska and federal standards
as well as published scientific literature based on both field observations and controlled
laboratory experiments.
Results from fish tissue analysis will also be used as a description of bioaccumulative baseline
toxics prior to the proposed Project. Results from the toxics pathways model and from the
numeric model will be used to determine how the proposed Project may increase the potential of
current metals concentrations to become bioavailable. The projected water conditions in the
reservoir will be estimated and current results for metals concentrations re-evaluated for
determining potential toxicities to resident and anadromous fish species. Detection of mercury in
fish tissue and sediment will prompt further study of naturally occurring concentrations in soils
and plants and how parent geology contributes to concentrations of this toxic in both
compartments of the landscape. The focused study will estimate the extent and magnitude of
mercury contamination so that an estimate of increased bioavailability might be made once the
reservoir inundates areas where high concentrations of mercury are sequestered. Detectable
concentrations of mercury may prompt additional sampling and analysis of tissues in the benthic
macroinvertebrate community. The biomagnification of mercury contamination from sediments
and plants to the fish community may be facilitated through consumption of contaminated food
sources like the benthic macroinvertebrates. Contamination of this component of a trophic level
may also be a conduit for mercury biomagnification in waterfowl and other wildlife that
consume this food source.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-29 December 2012
5.5.4.8. Technical Report on Results
The technical report will include a description of the study goals and objectives, assumptions
made, sample methods, analytical results, models used, and other background information. Field
data, laboratory report, and quality assurance information will be attached.
A summary data report will be constructed that includes a description of patterns and an
explanation for field parameters and general chemistry conditions. The origin of patterns in water
quality data sets collected as part of this study may be due to seasonal influence (e.g., changes
mediated by climate patterns), influence of tributary water chemistry on mainstem conditions, or
in the case of sloughs may be moderated by groundwater influence.
The intensity of sampling effort is expected to be greater at Focus Areas and so resolution of
changes in field parameters, general chemistry, and metals chemistry is expected to be described
in finer detail. Spatial water quality conditions will be described in greater detail at these Focus
Areas (Section 5.5.4.5) and be sampled every two weeks. Select field parameters (water
temperature and dissolved oxygen concentration) will be collected on a continuous basis and
downloaded during each of the Focus Area visits and will be able to describe daily diurnal
patterns from these data.
Comparison of data will be made with existing and appropriate water quality criteria, sediment
thresholds, and fish tissue screening levels. Surface water results will be compared to Alaska
Water Quality Standards (18 ACC 70.020(b)) for protection of beneficial uses in fresh water.
Sediment and fish tissue results will be compared to the Screening Quick Reference Tables
(SQuiRTs) used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to determine
if thresholds for toxicity to aquatic life have been exceeded.
The focused effort in characterizing current mercury conditions through monitoring and
modeling in the vicinity of the proposed dam site is described further in Sections 5.6 and 5.7. A
general description of the approach and reporting of results for the mercury study is summarized
here.
Mercury will be modeled using two methods:
1. Water quality modeling of the reservoir will predict whether the conditions for the
formation of methylmercury will be present, and where in the reservoir this may occur.
2. The linear model of Harris and Hutchinson (2008) will provide an initial prediction of
peak mercury concentrations in fish.
The phosphorous release model may be used if there is a need to evaluate when peak
methylmercury production may occur.
The report will include a conceptual model showing mercury inputs to the reservoir, mercury
methylation, mercury circulation among different media (fish, air, water, sediment, etc.), and
bioabsorption and transfer. Strategies to manage mercury methylation, bioaccumulation, and
biomagnification will be reviewed (Mailman et al. 2006).
Sediment, water, and tissue results from toxics analysis will use NOAA Screening Quick
Reference Tables (SQuiRTs). These are thresholds used as screening values for evaluation of
toxics and potential effect to aquatic life in several media and will be implemented where ADEC
water quality, sediment, or tissue criteria are not available.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-30 December 2012
An example for SQuiRT values can be found at the following website:
http://mapping2.orr.noaa.gov/portal/sanfranciscobay/sfb_html/pdfs/otherreports/squirt.pdf
Specific thresholds and criteria for toxics in each of the media will be included in a QAPP. The
Water Resources Technical Workgroup will be consulted before final criteria and thresholds are
finalized and used to interpret toxics monitoring results from sediment, water, and fish tissue.
5.5.4.9. Pilot Thermal Imaging Assessment of a Portion of the Susitna River
Thermal imagery data using Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) technology of the entire middle
portion of the Susitna River was collected in October 2012. The data from the thermal imaging
will be ground-truthed and the applicability and resolution of the data will be determined in
terms of identifying water temperatures and thermal refugia/upwelling. Ground-truthing will
occur by using the existing continuous temperature monitoring data from buoy systems and bank
installation equipment for the 2012 Temperature Monitoring Study. In coordination with the
instream flow and fish studies, a determination will be made as to whether thermal imaging data
will be applicable and whether or not additional thermal imagery will be collected during the
2013 field season to characterize river temperature conditions. The results of the thermal
imaging pilot test will be available by January 2013.
If the pilot study is successful, then a description of thermal refugia throughout the Project area
can be mapped using aerial imagery calibrated with on-the-ground verification. The verification
data used will be collected at the same time as the aerial imagery (or nearly the same time) using
the established continuous temperature monitoring network and additional grab sample
temperature readings where there may be gaps, such as in select sloughs. The elements described
in the following sections are important considerations for data collection, specifications for data
quality, and strategy for relating digital imagery and actual river surface water temperatures.
If the thermal imaging is not successful, the study component will be reevaluated. Future actions
will depend on the causes of the failure. Potential causes for failure could include:
Poor timing for the data acquisition flight.
Insufficient differences in temperature between groundwater and surface water.
Complex missing or dilution of the groundwater signal.
Potential solutions would include:
Hand held FLIR meters that could be used during stream side studies, and a more focused
thermal mapping task within focus areas using hand-held temperature meters and probes
may prove useful.
Use of documentation of open water leads as a substitute.
Outfit the R44 helicopter to take advantage of regular field presence. Thermal imagery
could be shot all summer long and brief intervals of ideal conditions could be used.
The Focus Area results represent habitat identified as representative of the most
important for fisheries use as described by the rational for site selection in Section 8.5.4.2
of the RSP. These results can be extrapolated to similar reaches, side channels, and
sloughs in other areas of the Susitna drainage not directly monitored in this study to
determine thermal refugia for fish.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-31 December 2012
5.5.4.10. Re-fly the thermal imaging under better conditions (a greater contrast in
temperature between groundwater and surface water).Radiant Temperature
Remotely sensed thermal images allow for spatially distributed measurements of radiant
temperatures in the river. Radiant temperature measurements are made only on the surface layer
of the water (top 4 inches [10 centimeters]). Temperature readings can vary depending on the
amount of suspended sediment in the water and the turbidity of the water. Collection of data will
occur near the end of October when the freeze begins and the contrast between cold surface
water and warmer groundwater influence is accentuated. The suspended sediment and turbidity
will be diminished during this period of the year when the glacial flour content in the water
column from glacial meltwater is reduced.
Spatial Resolution
The key to good data quality is determining the pixel size of the thermal infra-red (TIR) sensor
and how that relates to the near-bank environment. Best practice is three pure-water pixels
(ensures that the digital image represented by any three contiguous pixels discriminates water
from land). Very fine resolution (0.7 to 3.3 feet [0.2 to 1 meter]) imagery is best used to
determine groundwater springs and cold water seeps. Larger pixels can be useful for determining
characteristic patterns of latitude and longitude thermal variation in riverine landscapes.
5.5.4.11. Calibrating Temperature
Water temperatures change during the day; therefore, measurements should occur near the same
time each day and when water temperature is most stable (early afternoon). Data used from the
continuous temperature probes throughout the middle reach will be the same time interval as
thermal imaging collected at each location. Site selection for validation sampling will be
determined by channel accessibility and where there is not known influences of tributaries or
seeps in the area. Hand-held ground imaging radiometers can provide validation as long as the
precision is at least as good as that expected from airborne TIR measurements. Availability of
historical satellite imagery for thermal analysis will be investigated. Historical thermal imagery
may enable exploration of potential trends in water temperature both spatially and temporally.
5.5.4.12. Groundwater Quality in Selected Habitats
The purpose of studying groundwater quality will be to characterize the water quality differences
between a set of key productive aquatic habitat types (three to five sites) and a set of non-
productive habitat types (three to five sites) that are related to the absence or presence of
groundwater upwelling to improve the understanding of the water quality differences and related
groundwater/surface water processes. Concern for sensitive fisheries habitat in floodplain
shallow alluvial aquifers and changes to this habitat from Project operations is the focus for
identifying environmental conditions that will affect food-chain elements (e.g., periphyton and
benthic macroinvertebrates). The groundwater/surface water exchange (Section 7.5) is expected
to influence the energy flow from primary producers (periphyton) to consumers at an
intermediate level in the trophic food web (Section 9.8, River Productivity Study). An estimate
of density and mass for each of these trophic food web components in target habitats will
represent production of the food base and be compared against production necessary to support
current fisheries populations. These sites will be co-located within the Focus Areas (Section
5.5.4.5) in order to measure groundwater input and influence on surface water chemistry.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-32 December 2012
Basic water chemistry information (temperature, dissolved oxygen [DO], conductivity, pH,
turbidity, redox potential) that defines habitat conditions will be collected at selected instream
flow, fish population, and riparian study sites. These data will be used to characterize
groundwater and surface water interactions.
5.5.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice
Studies, field investigations, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, etc. will be performed in
accordance with general industry accepted scientific and engineering practices. The methods
and work efforts outlined in this study plan are the same or consistent with analyses used by
applicants and licensees and relied upon by FERC in other hydroelectric licensing proceedings.
The process for developing and implementing a water quality monitoring program ensures that
high quality data is generated for use in regulatory decision-making and management of aquatic
resources. Products like the: Quality Assurance Project Plan, use of NELAP Certified laboratory
to analyze water samples, and sampling design for appropriate characterization of current water
quality will ensure that complete documentation improves performance in implementing the
Study Design.
5.5.6. Schedule
Baseline Water Quality Study elements will be completed in several stages and based on the
timeline shown in Table 5.5-5. The thermal imaging data was acquired in October 2012, and will
be processed and available for use in January 2013. Met stations were installed in August of
2012, and will collect data till the end of the project. The QAPP and SAP has been completed
and is attached to this RSP. It will continue to be refined as the project goes forward. The
temperature sensors were deployed in the river in August of 2012. They will continue recording
data till the third quarter of 2014. It is anticipated that the sensors will have to be periodically
replaced due to damage by ice, current, or battery replacement. Water quality monitoring will
start in March 2013, and continue periodically throughout the remainder of the year. Sediment
and fish tissue sampling will occur in July and August. Some fish tissue sampling has already
been completed, in August of 2012. Data management will occur throughout the data acquisition
phase of the project. The initial study repot will be completed by December 2014, with the final
due in the first quarter of 2015.
5.5.7. Relationship with Other Studies
A flow chart describing interdependencies (Figure 5.5-3) outlines origin of existing data and
related historical studies, specific output for each element of the Water Quality studies, and
where the output information generated in the Water Quality studies will be directed. This chart
provides detail describing flow of information related to the Water Quality studies, from
historical data collection to current data collection. Data were examined in a Water Quality Data
Gap Analysis (URS 2011), and this information was used, in part, to assist in making decisions
about the current design for the Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Study and for ensuring that
the current modeling effort would be able to compare the 1980s study results with results of
planned modeling efforts.
Integral portions of this interdependency chart are results from the Ice Processes Study and from
the Fish and Aquatic Instream Flow Study. The Ice Processes Study will support water quality
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-33 December 2012
model development (Section 5.6) with information about timing and conditions for ice formation
and ice break-up. The Fish and Aquatic Instream Flow Study represents the effort to develop a
hydraulic routing model that will be coupled with the EFDC water quality model. Water quality
monitoring efforts for field parameters, general chemistry, and metals (including mercury) will
be used as a calibration data set for developing the predictive EFDC model.
5.5.8. Level of Effort and Cost
The estimated cost for the Water Quality Baseline Monitoring Study in the Susitna basin in 2013
and 2014 is approximately $6,000,000, not including the cost of the thermal imaging.
5.5.9. Literature Cited
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2003. Alaska Water Quality
Criteria Manual for Toxic and Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances. Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation: Division of Water. Juneau, Alaska. 51p.
ADEC. 2005. Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring Program. Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation: Division of Water. Juneau, Alaska. 58p.
ADEC. 2012. Mercury concentration in fresh water fish Southcentral Susitna Watershed.
Personal communication with Bob Gerlach, VMD, State Veterinarian. June 2012.
Edwards, T.K., and D.G. Glysson. 1988. Field methods for measurement of fluvial sediment.
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-531, 118p.
Frenzel, S.A. 2000. Selected Organic Compounds and Trace Elements in Streambed Sediments
and Fish Tissues, Cook Inlet Basin, Alaska. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report
00-4004. Prepared as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program.
Harris, R., and Hutchinson, D. 2008. Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project Environmental
Baseline Report: Assessment of the Potential for Increased Mercury Concentrations. Prepared by
Tetra Tech Inc. March 4, 2008.
Mailman, M., Stepnuk L., Cicek N., Bodaly R.A. 2006. Strategies to lower methylmercury concentrations
in hydroelectric reservoirs and lakes: A review. Science of the Total Environment 368:224-235.
URS. 2011. AEA Susitna Water Quality and Sediment Transport Data Gap Analysis Report.
Prepared by Tetra Tech, URS, and Arctic Hydrologic Consultants. Anchorage, Alaska.
62p.+Appendixes.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000. Guidance for Assessing Chemical
Contaminant Data for use in Fish Advisories: Volume 1 Fish Sampling and Analysis, 3rd
Edition. EPA-823-B-00-007. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water. Washington, D.C. 485p.
Ward, J.C., and C.A. Harr (eds.). 1990. Methods for collection and processing of surface-water
and bed-material samples for physical and chemical analyses. U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 90-140, 71p.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-34 December 2012
5.5.10. Tables
Table 5.5-1. Proposed Susitna River Basin Temperature and Water Quality Monitoring Sites.
Susitna River
Mile
Description Susitna River Slough
ID
Latitude
(decimal degrees)
Longitude
(decimal degrees)
15.1 Susitna above Alexander Creek NA 61.4014 -150.519
25.83 Susitna Station NA 61.5454 -150.516
28.0 Yentna River NA 61.589 -150.468
29.5 Susitna above Yentna NA 61.5752 -150.248
40.63 Deshka River NA 61.7098 -150.324
55.01 Susitna NA 61.8589 -150.18
83.83 Susitna at Parks Highway East NA 62.175 -150.174
83.93 Susitna at Parks Highway West NA 62.1765 -150.177
97.0 LRX 1 NA 62.3223 -150.127
97.2 Talkeetna River NA 62.3418 -150.106
98.5 Chulitna River NA 62.5574 -150.236
103.02,3 Talkeetna NA 62.3943 -150.134
113.02 LRX 18 NA 62.5243 -150.112
120.72,3 Curry Fishwheel Camp NA 62.6178 -150.012
126.0 -- 8A 62.6707 -149.903
126.12 LRX 29 NA 62.6718 -149.902
129.23 -- 9 62.7022 -149.843
130.82 LRX 35 NA 62.714 -149.81
135.3 -- 11 62.7555 -149.7111
136.5 Susitna near Gold Creek NA 62.7672 -149.694
136.83 Gold Creek NA 62.7676 -149.691
138.01 -- 16B 62.7812 -149.674
138.63 Indian River NA 62.8009 -149.664
138.72 Susitna above Indian River NA 62.7857 -149.651
140.0 -- 19 62.7929 -149.615
140.12 LRX 53 NA 62.7948 -149.613
142.0 -- 21 62.8163 -149.576
148.0 Susitna below Portage Creek NA 62.8316 -149.406
148.82 Susitna above Portage Creek NA 62.8286 -149.379
148.8 Portage Creek NA 62.8317 -149.379
148.83 Susitna above Portage Creek NA 62.8279 -149.377
165.01 Susitna NA 62.7899 -148.997
180.31 Susitna below Tsusena Creek NA 62.8157 -148.652
181.33 Tsusena Creek NA 62.8224 -148.613
184.51 Susitna at Watana Dam site NA 62.8226 -148.533
194.1 Watana Creek NA 62.8296 -148.259
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-35 December 2012
Susitna River
Mile
Description Susitna River Slough
ID
Latitude
(decimal degrees)
Longitude
(decimal degrees)
206.8 Kosina Creek NA 62.7822 -147.94
223.73 Susitna near Cantwell NA 62.7052 147.538
233.4 Oshetna Creek NA 62.6402 -147.383
1 Site not sampled for water quality or temperature in the 1980s or location moved slightly from original location.
2 Proposed mainstem Susitna River temperature monitoring sites for purposes of 1980s SNTEMP model
evaluation.
3 Locations with overlap of water quality temperature monitoring sites with other studies.
Locations in bold font represent that both temperature and water quality samples are collected from a site.
Table 5.5-2. Proposed Susitna-Watana Meteorological Stations.
Susitna River
Mile Description Station Status
(New / Existing)
Latitude
(Decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(Decimal
degrees)
44.3 Willow Creek Existing (Talkeetna
RWIS) 61.765 -150.0503
80.0 Susitna River near Sunshine Gage Existing (Talkeetna
RWIS) 62.1381 -150.1155
95.9 Susitna River at Talkeetna Existing (Talkeetna
Airport) 62.32 -150.095
136.8 Susitna River at Indian River New 62.8009 -149.664
184.1 Susitna River at Watana Dam Camp
(upland on bench) New 62.8226
-148.5330
224.0 Susitna River above Cantwell New 62.7052
-147.53799
Note: Our ability to upgrade existing met stations is currently being evaluated. If existing met stations cannot be upgraded, new
met stations may be installed.
Table 5.5-3. Parameters for water quality monitoring and laboratory analysis (Baseline Water Quality Monitoring and
Focus Area monitoring).
Parameter Analysis Method Sample Holding Times
In Situ Water Quality Parameters
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Water Quality Meter Not Applicable
pH Water Quality Meter Not Applicable
Water Temperature Water Quality Meter Not Applicable
Specific Conductance Water Quality Meter Not Applicable
Turbidity Water Quality Meter Not Applicable
Redox Potential Water Quality Meter Not Applicable
Color Platinum-Cobalt Scale (SM) Not Applicable
Residues Defined in 18 ACC 70 Not Applicable
General Water Quality Parameters (grab samples for laboratory analysis)
Hardness EPA - 130.2 180 days
Nitrate/Nitrite EPA - 353.2 48 hours
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-36 December 2012
Parameter Analysis Method Sample Holding Times
Alkalinity EPA - 2320 14 days
Ammonia as N EPA - 350.1 28 days
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen EPA - 351.2 28 days
Total Phosphorus EPA - 365.3 28 days
Ortho-phosphate EPA - 365.3 48 hours
Chlorophyll-a SM 10300 28 days
Total Dissolved Solids EPA - 160.1 7 days
Total Suspended Solids EPA - 160.2 7 days
Turbidity EPA - 180.1 48 hours
TOC EPA - 415.1 28 days
DOC EPA – 415.1 28 days
Fecal Coliform EPA 1604 30 hours
Petroleum Hydrocarbons EPA 602/624 (TAqH)
EPA 610/625 (TAH) 14 days
Radionuclides1 EPA 900.0, 901.1, 903.1, 904.0,
905.0, Alpha Spectroscopy 5 days
Metals – (Water) Dissolved and Total
Aluminum EPA – 6010B/6020A 48 hours
Arsenic EPA – 6010B/6020A 48 hours
Barium EPA – 6010B/6020A 48 hours
Beryllium EPA – 6010B/6020A 48 hours
Cadmium EPA – 6010B/6020A 48 hours
Chromium (III & IV) EPA – 6010B/6020A 48 hours
Cobalt EPA – 6010B/6020A 48 hours
Copper EPA – 6010B/6020A 48 hours
Iron EPA – 6010B/6020A 48 hours
Lead EPA – 6010B/6020A 48 hours
Magnesium EPA – 6010B/6020A 48 hours
Manganese EPA – 6010B/6020A 48 hours
Mercury
(Total and methylmercury) EPA – 7470A 48 hours
Molybdenum EPA – 6010B/6020A 48 hours
Nickel EPA – 6010B/6020A 48 hours
Selenium EPA – 6010B/6020A 48 hours
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-37 December 2012
Parameter Analysis Method Sample Holding Times
Thallium EPA – 6010B/6020A 48 hours
Vanadium EPA – 6010B/6020A 48 hours
Zinc EPA – 6010B/6020A 48 hours
Metals –Sediment (Total)
Aluminum EPA - 200.7 180 days
Arsenic EPA - 200.7 180 days
Cadmium EPA - 200.7 180 days
Copper EPA - 200.7 180 days
Iron EPA - 200.7 180 days
Lead EPA - 200.7 180 days
Mercury EPA – 245.5 / 7470A 28 days
Zinc EPA - 200.7 180 days
Metals – Fish Tissue (Use EPA Sampling Method 1669) (Mercury Assessment Study Plan 5.7 only)
Total Mercury EPA – 1631 7 days
Methylmercury EPA – 1631 7 days
Arsenic EPA - 1632, Revision A 7 days
Cadmium EPA - 1632 7 days
Selenium EPA - 1632 7 days
Note: List of Radionuclides suggested for analysis includes the following: Americium-241; Cesium-137; Lead-210; Plutonium-
238, 239, 240; Potassium-40; Radium-226; Radium-228; Strontium-90; Thorium-230, 232; Uranium-234, 235, 238; Tritium
Gross Alpha, Gross Beta
Table 5.5-4. List of water quality parameters and frequency of collection.
Parameter Task Frequency of
Collection
In Situ Water Quality Parameters
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Baseline WQ and Sediment Each Sampling Event
pH Baseline WQ and Sediment Each Sampling Event
Water Temperature Baseline WQ and Sediment Each Sampling Event
Specific Conductance Baseline WQ and Sediment Each Sampling Event
Turbidity Baseline WQ and Sediment Each Sampling Event
Redox Potential Baseline WQ and Sediment Each Sampling Event
Color Baseline WQ (Visual) Monthly
Residues Baseline WQ (Visual) One Survey-summer
General Water Quality Parameters (grab samples for laboratory analysis)
Hardness Baseline WQ Monthly
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-38 December 2012
Parameter Task Frequency of
Collection
Alkalinity Baseline WQ Monthly
Nitrate/Nitrite Baseline WQ Monthly
Ammonia as N Baseline WQ Monthly
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Baseline WQ Monthly
Total Phosphorus Baseline WQ Monthly
Ortho-phosphate Baseline WQ Monthly
Chlorophyll-a Baseline WQ Monthly
Total Dissolved Solids Baseline WQ Monthly
Total Suspended Solids Baseline WQ Monthly
Turbidity Baseline WQ Monthly
TOC Baseline WQ One Survey-summer
DOC Baseline WQ Monthly
Fecal Coliform Baseline WQ One Survey-summer
Petroleum Hydrocarbons Baseline WQ One Survey-summer
Radioactivity Baseline WQ One Survey-summer
Metals – (Water) Dissolved and Total
Aluminum Baseline WQ (Total & Dissolved) One Survey-summer
Arsenic Baseline WQ (Total & Dissolved) Monthly
Barium Baseline WQ (Total & Dissolved) Monthly
Beryllium Baseline WQ (Total & Dissolved) Monthly
Cadmium Baseline WQ (Total & Dissolved) Monthly
Chromium (III & IV) Baseline WQ (Total & Dissolved) One Survey-summer
Cobalt Baseline WQ (Total & Dissolved) Monthly
Copper Baseline WQ (Total & Dissolved) Monthly
Iron Baseline WQ (Total & Dissolved) Monthly
Lead Baseline WQ (Total & Dissolved) Monthly
Manganese Baseline WQ (Total & Dissolved) Monthly
Magnesium Baseline WQ (Total & Dissolved) Monthly
Mercury Baseline WQ (Total & Dissolved) Monthly
Molybdenum Baseline WQ (Total & Dissolved) Monthly
Nickel Baseline WQ (Total & Dissolved) Monthly
Selenium Baseline WQ (Total & Dissolved) One Survey-summer
Thallium Baseline WQ (Total & Dissolved) Monthly
Vanadium Baseline WQ (Total & Dissolved) Monthly
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-39 December 2012
Parameter Task Frequency of
Collection
Zinc Baseline WQ (Total & Dissolved) Monthly
Metals –Sediment (Total)
Aluminum Sediment Samples One Survey-summer
Arsenic Sediment Samples One Survey-summer
Cadmium Sediment Samples One Survey-summer
Copper Sediment Samples One Survey-summer
Iron Sediment Samples One Survey-summer
Lead Sediment Samples One Survey-summer
Mercury Sediment Samples One Survey-summer
Zinc Sediment Samples One Survey-summer
Metals – Fish Tissue (Use EPA Sampling Method 1669)
Total Mercury Fish Tissue Screening One Survey-late summer
Methylmercury Fish Tissue Screening One Survey-late summer
Arsenic Fish Tissue Screening One Survey-late summer
Cadmium Fish Tissue Screening One Survey-late summer
Selenium Fish Tissue Screening One Survey-late summer
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-40 December 2012
Table 5.5-5. Schedule for Implementation of the Baseline Water Quality Study.
Activity
2012 2013 2014 2015
1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 1 Q
Thermal Imaging (one
survey)
MET Station Installation
and Data Collection
QAPP/SAP Preparation
and Review
Deployment of Temperature
Monitoring Apparatus
Water Quality Monitoring
(monthly)
Sediment Sampling
Fish Tissue Sampling
Data Analysis and
Management
Initial Study Report Δ
Updated Study Report ▲
Legend:
Planned Activity
Δ Initial Study Report
▲ Updated Study Report
REVISED STUDY PLAN Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-41 December 2012 5.5.11. Figures Figure 5.5-1. Proposed 2012 Stream Water Quality and Temperature Data Collection Sites for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-42 December 2012
Figure 5.5-2. Example of a 10-foot (3-meter) tripod MET station installed above the proposed Watana Dam site.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-43 December 2012
Figure 5.5-3. Interdependencies for water resources studies.
Ice Processes
in the Susitna
River
(7.6)
Fish and Aquatics
Instream Flow
(9)
Ice Dynamics
•Formation
•Breakup
•(4Q‐2013?)
Water Quality
Data
(1975‐2003)
ADEC
Mercury in
Fish Tissue
(2006)
Hydraulic
Routing
Model
(1Q‐2013)
INTERDEPENDENCIES FOR WATER RESOURCES STUDIES
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Mercury
Toxics Data
Baseline
Water Quality
Monitoring
Study
(5.5)
Water Quality
Modeling Study
(5.6)
Mercury Assessment and
Potential for
Bioaccumulation Study
(5.7)
River Productivity Study
(nutrient availability)
(9.08)
Fish Tissue Analysis
Sediment Toxics Analysis
Surface Water Analysis
(1Q‐2014)
Water Quality Model (EFDC)
•Ice Dynamics
•WQ Calibration Data
•Mercury (metals) Data
•Hydraulic Routing Model
•Reservoir Trap Efficiency
a) Focus Study Areas
b) Mainstem Conditions
•Riverine Model
•Reservoir Model
(2Q‐2014)
Water Quality
Characterization
(Monthly Monitoring)
a) Surface Water
b) Sediment
c) Groundwater
•In Situ parameters
•General parameters
•Metals (one‐time)
(1Q‐2014)
Water Quality
Model
Development
Groundwater‐
Related Aquatic
Habitat Study
(7.5)
Geomorphology
Study
(6)
Wetlands
Study
(11.7)
Wildlife Study
(10.1)
Riparian Study
(11.6)
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-44 December 2012
5.6. Water Quality Modeling Study
5.6.1. General Description of the Proposed Study
The collective goal of the water quality studies is to assess the impacts of the proposed Project
operations on water quality in the Susitna River basin with particular reference to state water
quality standards. Predicting the potential impacts of the dam and its proposed operations on
water quality will require the development of a water quality model. The goal of the Water
Quality Modeling Study will be to utilize the extensive information collected from the Baseline
Water Quality Study to develop a model(s) to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed
Project and operations on various physical parameters within the Susitna River watershed.
A large number of water quality models are available for use on the Susitna-Watana Project.
Selection of the appropriate model is based on a variety of factors, including cost, data inputs,
model availability, time, licensing participant familiarity, ease of use, and available
documentation. Under the current study, a multi-dimensional model capable of representing
reservoir flow circulation, temperature stratification, and dam operations among other parameters
is necessary. The proposed model must account for water quality conditions in the proposed
Susitna-Watana Reservoir, including temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), suspended sediment
and turbidity, chlorophyll-a, nutrients, and metals, as well as water quality conditions in the
Susitna River downstream of the proposed dam. The model must also simulate current Susitna
River baseline conditions (in the absence of the dam) for comparison to conditions in the
presence of the dam and reservoir.
The objectives of the Water Quality Modeling Study are as follows:
With input from licensing participants, implement an appropriate reservoir and river
water temperature model for use with past and current monitoring data.
Using the data developed in Sections 5.5 (Baseline Water Quality Study) model water
quality conditions in the proposed Susitna-Watana Reservoir, including (but not
necessarily limited to), temperature, DO, suspended sediment and turbidity, chlorophyll-
a, nutrients, ice, and metals.
Model water quality conditions in the Susitna River from the proposed site of the Susitna-
Watana Dam downstream, including (but not necessarily limited to) temperature,
suspended sediment and turbidity, and ice processes (in coordination with the Ice
Processes Study).
5.6.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information
In the 1980s, hydrologic and temperature modeling was conducted in the Susitna River basin to
predict the effects of one or more dams on downstream temperatures and flows. The modeling
suite used was called H2OBAL/SNTEMP/DYRESM. The modeling suite addressed temperature
and had some limited hydrodynamic representation, but it lacked the ability to predict vertical
stratification or local effects. In addition, the modeling suite lacked a water quality modeling
component.
Review of existing water quality and sediment transport data revealed several gaps that present
challenges for calibrating a water quality model (URS 2011). Analysis of existing data was used
to identify future studies needed to develop the riverine and reservoir water quality models and
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-45 December 2012
to eventually predict pre-Project water quality conditions throughout the drainage. Some
general observations based on existing data are as follows:
Large amounts of data were collected during the 1980s. A comprehensive data set for the
Susitna River and tributaries is not available.
The influence of major tributaries (Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers) on Susitna River water
quality conditions is unknown. There are no monitoring stations in receiving water at
these mainstem locations.
Continuous temperature data and seasonal water quality data are not available for the
Susitna River mainstem and sloughs potentially used for spawning and rearing habitat.
Concentrations of water quality parameters including metals in sediment immediately below the
proposed Project are unknown. Metals in these sediments may become mobile once the Project
begins operation. Monitoring information in the immediate vicinity of the reservoir and riverine
habitat will be important for developing two models (reservoir and riverine) and coupled for
predicting expected water quality conditions below the proposed dam.
5.6.3. Study Area
Water quality samples will be collected at the same locations where temperature data loggers
were installed (Table 5.6-1 and Figure 5.6-1) as part of the 2012 Baseline Water Quality Study.
The study area begins at RM 15.1 and extends past the proposed dam site to RM 233.4. The
lowermost boundary of the monitoring that will be used for developing and calibrating models is
above the area protected for beluga whale activity. Twelve mainstem Susitna River monitoring
sites are located below the proposed dam site and two mainstem sites above this location for
calibration of the models. Six sloughs will be included in the models and represent important
fish-rearing habitat. Tributaries to the Susitna River will be monitored and include those
contributing large portions of the lower river flow like the Talkeetna, Chulitna, Deshka, and
Yentna rivers. A partial list of the remaining tributaries that will be included in modeling and
that represent important spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous and resident fisheries
include Gold Creek, Portage Creek, Tsusena Creek, Watana Creek, and Oshetna Creek. These
sites were selected based on the following rationale:
Adequate representation of locations throughout the Susitna River and tributaries above
and below the proposed dam site.
Preliminary consultation with licensing participants including co-location with other
study sites (e.g., instream flow, ice processes).
Access and land ownership issues.
Eight of the sites are mainstem monitoring sites that were previously used for SNTEMP
modeling in the 1980s. Thirty-one of the sites are Susitna River mainstem, tributary, or slough
locations, most of which were also monitored in the 1980s.
5.6.4. Study Methods
This section provides the rationale for selection of the water quality model to be used for this
Project. For the current Project, the model needs to be capable of simulating both river and
reservoir environments. It also needs to be a multi-dimensional dynamic model that includes
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-46 December 2012
hydrodynamics, water temperature, water quality, and sediment transport modules and considers
ice formation and break-up.
Ice dynamics evaluated in the Ice Processes Study will be used to inform the water quality
model. Ice formation and break-up will have a profound impact on hydrodynamics and water
quality conditions in the reservoir and riverine sections of the basin. Ice cover affects transfer of
oxygen to and from the atmosphere and this directly affects the dissolved oxygen concentration
at points along the water column. The output from the Ice Processes Study (Section 7.6) will
provide boundary conditions for the water quality model.
The model will need to be configured for the reservoir and internally coupled with the
downstream river model. This will form a holistic modeling framework that can accurately
simulate changes in the hydrodynamic, temperature, and water quality regime within the
reservoir and downstream. The model for use in this study should feature an advanced turbulence
closure scheme to represent vertical mixing in reservoirs, and be able to predict future
conditions. Thus, it will be capable of representing the temperature regime within the reservoir
without resorting to arbitrary assumptions about vertical mixing coefficients.
The model will need to have the ability to simulate an entire suite of water quality parameters,
and the capacity for internal coupling with the hydrodynamic and temperature modeling
processes. The model will need to be configured to simulate the impact of the proposed Project
on temperature as well as DO, nutrients, algae, turbidity, total suspended solids (TSS), and other
key water quality features both within the reservoir and for the downstream river. This avoids the
added complexity associated with transferring information among multiple models and increases
the efficiency of model application.
Other important factors used for selecting the water quality model included the following:
The model and code are easily accessible and are part of the public domain.
The model is commonly used and accepted by EPA and other regulatory agencies.
The water quality model will be available for current and future use and remain available
for the life of the project and beyond (including upgraded versions).
Model output can be compared to relevant ADEC water quality criteria (18 ACC
70.020(b)).
The following sections summarize the capabilities of models considered for use on this project
and outline characteristics of those previously used with historical data from the Susitna River
drainage and others commonly used for water quality modeling for regulatory decision-making.
5.6.4.1. H2OBAL/SNTEMP/DYRESM Model Review
The existing H2OBAL/SNTEMP/DYRESM model of the Susitna River basin is perhaps the
most obvious candidate model to implement when assessing the effects of the originally
proposed Project. The existing model was expressly configured to represent the unique
conditions in the Susitna River basin. However, the modeling suite is limited to flow and
temperature predictions. Hydrodynamics are simplified, and water quality is not addressed.
The Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC) previously completed a study
that examined the temperature and discharge effects if the proposed Project was completed and
compared the effects to the natural stream conditions, without a dam and reservoir system
(AEIDC 1983a). The study also assessed the downstream point at which post-Project flows
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-47 December 2012
would be statistically the same as natural flows. Multiple models were used in the assessment:
SNTEMP, a riverine temperature model; H2OBAL, a water balance program; and DYRESM, a
reservoir hydrodynamic model.
The simulation period covered the years 1968 through 1982. Only the summer period was
simulated, using historical meteorological and hydrological data to represent normal, maximum,
and minimum stream temperature conditions, represented by the years 1980, 1977, and 1970,
respectively (AEIDC 1983a). Post-project modifications were applied to these summer periods to
compare natural conditions to post-Project stream temperatures. Due to a lack of data, a monthly
time-step was used in these summer condition simulations.
Mainstem discharges from the Susitna-Watana Dam site were estimated from statistically-filled
stream flow data and the H2OBAL program, which computes tributary inflow on a watershed
area-weighted basis. Post-Project flows were predicted for both a one-dam scenario and a two-
dam scenario using release discharge estimates from a reservoir operation schedule scenario in
the FERC License Application. Flows derived from H2OBAL were input into SNTEMP.
SNTEMP is a riverine temperature simulation model that can predict temperature on a daily
basis and for longer time periods. This allows for the analysis of both critical river reaches at a
fine scale and the full river system over a longer averaging period (AEIDC 1983b). SNTEMP
was selected because it contains a regression model that can fill in data gaps in temperature
records. This is useful because data records in the Susitna River watershed are sparse. SNTEMP
can also be calibrated to adjust for low-confidence input parameters. SNTEMP outputs include
average daily water temperatures and daily maximum and minimum temperatures.
SNTEMP contains several sub-models, including a solar radiation model that predicts solar
radiation based on stream latitude, time of year, topography, and meteorological conditions
(AEIDC 1983b). SNTEMP was modified to include the extreme shading conditions that occur in
the basin by developing a monthly topographic shading parameter. Modifications were also
made to represent the winter air temperature inversions that occur in the basin. Sub-models are
also included for heat flux, heat transport, and flow mixing.
SNTEMP validation indicated that upper tributary temperatures were under-predicted (AEIDC
1983b). Most of the data for the tributaries were assumed or estimated, leading to uncertainty.
Five key poorly defined variables were identified as possible contributors to the under-prediction
of temperatures: stream flow, initial stream temperature, stream length, stream width and
distributed flow temperatures. Distributed flow temperatures were highlighted as the most
important of the five variables. During calibration, groundwater temperature parameters were
adjusted to modify distributed flow and improve tributary temperature prediction.
Water temperatures are derived from USGS gages, but when data were lacking, SNTEMP
computed equilibrium temperatures and then estimated initial temperatures from a regression
model. AEIDC noted that the reliability of the regression models “restricts the accuracy of the
physical process temperature simulations” (1983a). The level of confidence in the regression
model varies by the amount of gage data available. Continuous data yielded higher confidence,
while years with only grab sample data notably decreased the confidence in the predicted
temperatures.
The DYRESM model is a one-dimensional, hydrodynamic model designed specifically for
medium size reservoirs (Patterson et al. 1977). The size limitation ensures that the assumptions
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-48 December 2012
of the model algorithm remain valid. DYRESM predicts daily temperature and salinity variations
with depth and the temperature and salinity of off-take supply. The reservoir is modeled as
horizontal layers with variable vertical location, volume, temperature and salinity. Mixing
between layers is through amalgamation. Inflow and withdrawal are modeled by changes in the
horizontal layer thickness and insertion or removal of layers, as appropriate. The model
incorporates up to two submerged off-takes and one overflow outlet. Model output is on a daily
time-step.
The DYRESM model was run to simulate the reservoir scenario for 1981 conditions (AEIDC
1983a). Other reservoir release temperature estimates were not available. The AEIDC report
cautions that the results from 1981 may not be representative of other years due to annual
variations in meteorology, hydrology, reservoir storage, and power requirements. The lack of
reservoir release temperature data limited the simulation of downstream temperatures under
operational conditions to one year. AEIDC noted that the “effort to delineate river reaches where
post-project flows differ significantly from natural flows has been unsuccessful” (AEIDC
1983a). This was attributed in large part to the lack of estimates for the reservoir release
temperatures. Additional data were needed to increase the predictive ability of SNTEMP.
Perhaps the biggest limitations of the existing H2OBAL/SNTEMP/DYRESM modeling suite are
the lack of suitable data, simplified hydrology, and the lack of a water quality component.
Modeling is limited to discharge and temperature. Other issues that limit the suitability of the
modeling suite for the Water Quality Modeling Study are the chronic under-prediction of upper
tributary temperatures, and the inability to predict vertical stratification within the reservoir.
5.6.4.2. Other Modeling Approaches
Two other modeling approaches may provide better results than the previously used
H2OBAL/SNTEMP/DYRESM model. These are discussed below.
5.6.4.3. Two-Dimensional Approach (CE-Qual-W2)
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ CE-QUAL-W2 model is a two-dimensional,
longitudinal/vertical (laterally averaged), hydrodynamic and water quality model (Cole et al.
2000). The model can be applied to streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries with variable
grid spacing, time-variable boundary conditions, and multiple inflows and outflows from
point/nonpoint sources and precipitation.
The two major components of the model include hydrodynamics and water quality kinetics. Both
of these components are coupled (i.e., the hydrodynamic output is used to drive the water quality
output at every time-step). The hydrodynamic portion of the model predicts water surface
elevations, velocities, and temperature. The water quality portion of the model can simulate 21
constituents including DO, suspended sediment, chlorophyll-a, nutrients, and metals. A dynamic
shading algorithm is incorporated to represent topographic and vegetative cover effects on solar
radiation.
5.6.4.4. Three-Dimensional Approach (EFDC)
The Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) model was originally developed at the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science and is considered public domain software (Hamrick 1992).
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-49 December 2012
This model is now being supported by EPA. EFDC is a dynamic, three-dimensional, coupled
water quality and hydrodynamic model. In addition to hydrodynamic, salinity, and temperature
transport simulation capabilities, EFDC is capable of simulating cohesive and non-cohesive
sediment transport, near field and far field discharge dilution from multiple sources,
eutrophication processes, the transport and fate of toxic contaminants in the water and sediment
phases, and the transport and fate of various life stages of finfish and shellfish. The EFDC model
has been extensively tested, documented, and applied to environmental studies world-wide by
universities, governmental agencies, and environmental consulting firms.
The structure of the EFDC model includes four major modules: (1) a hydrodynamic model, (2) a
water quality model, (3) a sediment transport model, and (4) a toxics model. The water quality
portion of the model simulates the spatial and temporal distributions of 22 water quality
parameters including DO, suspended algae (three groups), periphyton, various components of
carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and silica cycles, and fecal coliform bacteria. Salinity, water
temperature, and total suspended solids are needed for computation of the 22 state variables, and
they are provided by the hydrodynamic model. EFDC incorporates solar radiation using the
algorithms from the CE-QUAL-W2 model.
5.6.4.5. Qualitative Comparison of Models
Table 5.6-2 presents an evaluation of the models’ applicability to a range of important technical
needs that support baseline water quality monitoring study objectives along with regulatory, and
management considerations. Technical criteria refer to the ability to simulate the physical system
in question, including physical characteristics/processes and constituents of interest. Regulatory
criteria reflect the ability of a model to use and compare results to water quality standards or
procedural protocol. Management criteria outline another set of selection elements for a water
quality model and these comprise operational or economic constraints imposed by the end-user
and include factors such as financial and technical resources. The relative importance of each
group of criteria for model selection, as it pertains to the Project, are presented alongside the
models’ applicability ratings. Although the evaluation is qualitative, it is useful in selecting a
model based on the factors that are most critical to this Project.
5.6.4.6. Technical Considerations
The following discussion highlights some of the key technical considerations for modeling
associated with the Project and compares the ability of CE-QUAL- W2 and EFDC to address
these considerations. For informational purposes, the H2OBAL/SYNTEMP/DYRESM modeling
suite is also discussed in the technical considerations. Based on a review of the literature, some
key factors that will likely be important in the modeling effort include the following:
1. Prediction of vertical stratification in the reservoir when the dam is present
2. Nutrient and algae representation
3. Sediment transport
4. Ability to represent metals concentrations
5. Integration between temperature and ice dynamics models
6. Capability of representing local effects (i.e., Focus Areas)
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-50 December 2012
5.6.4.6.1. Predicting Vertical Stratification
Both EFDC and CE-QUAL-W2 are equipped with turbulence closure schemes that allow
prediction of temporally/spatially variable vertical mixing strength based on time, weather
condition, and reservoir operations. Therefore, both are capable of evaluating the impact of
dam/reservoir operations/climate change on reservoir stratification. In contrast, the existing
H2OBAL/SYNTEMP/DYRESM model does not have the necessary predictive capability
because vertical stratification is represented based on parameterization through calibration.
Therefore, it cannot represent the response of vertical mixing features to the changes in external
forces.
5.6.4.6.2. Nutrient and Algae Representation
Both EFDC and CE-QUAL-W2 are capable of simulating dynamic interactions between
nutrients and algae in reservoirs and interactions between nutrients and periphyton in riverine
sections. This is very important for addressing the potential impact of the proposed Project on
water quality and ecology in the river. EFDC has better nutrient predictive capabilities due to its
sediment diagenesis module, which simulates interactions between external nutrient loading and
bed-water fluxes. EFDC is thus capable of predicting long-term effects of the proposed Project.
CE-QUAL-W2 does not have such a predictive capability. The existing
H2OBAL/SNTEMP/DYRESM modeling suite is not capable of representing nutrient and algae
interactions.
5.6.4.6.3. Sediment Transport
EFDC is fully capable of predicting sediment erosion, transport, and settling/deposition
processes. CE-QUAL-W2 has limited sediment transport simulation capabilities. It handles water
column transport and settling; however, it is not capable of fully predicting sediment bed re-
suspension and deposition processes. H2OBAL/SNTEMP/DYRESM is not capable of simulating
sediment transport. Reservoir trap efficiency will be simulated using EFDC and will use
estimates for sediment inflow determined by the Geomorphology Study (Section 6.5).
5.6.4.6.4. Ability to Represent Metals Concentrations
EFDC is fully capable of simulating fate and transport of metals in association with sediments in
both rivers and reservoirs. CE-QUAL-W2 does not have a module to simulate metals; however, a
simplified representation can be implemented using the phosphorus slot in the model and simple
partitioning (to couple with its basic sediment transport representation). The
H2OBAL/SNTEMP/DYRESM is not capable of addressing metals issues.
5.6.4.6.5. Toxicity Modeling
The EFDC model will generate the water quality input for the Biotic Ligand Model (BLM). The
BLM will be utilized to predict potential toxicity of copper, silver, cadmium, zinc, nickel, and
lead to aquatic life. The BLM is focused on determining toxicity of individual metals to binding
sites on tissue like gill filaments of freshwater fish while considering other factors that compete
for the same binding sites.
The BLM will be restricted from use if the combination of water quality monitoring results for
metals concentrations in sediments and surface water show little or no detectable concentrations
and the water quality model shows that changes, if any, to water quality conditions that mobilize
metals does not occur. This is part of the pathways analysis for individual metals toxics and is
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-51 December 2012
where decisions for use of secondary models (like BLM) in addition to the EFDC primary model
will be made.
Borgmann et al. 2008 outline several assumptions under which toxicity of metals concentrations
at sites of bioaccumulation interactions are additive. The use of the BLM to estimate a toxic
effect from mixtures of metals must satisfy several unknowns and, as stated by the authors,
should be used with caution and other strategies for these toxicity estimates considered.
5.6.4.6.6. Integration between Temperature and Ice Dynamics Models
The CE-QUAL-W2 model has a coupled temperature-ice simulation module, which is of
moderate complexity and predictive capability. EFDC has a slightly simpler ice representation
that was previously applied to a number of Canadian rivers (e.g., Lower Athabasca River and the
North Saskatchewan River in Alberta, Canada). Both models, however, can be coupled to
external ice models with a properly designed interface to communicate temperature results. Fully
predictive simulation within either model would require code modification to handle the
interaction between temperature simulation, ice formation and transport, hydrodynamics
simulation, and water quality simulation.
5.6.4.6.7. Capability of Representing Local Effects
CE-QUAL-W2 is a longitudinal-vertical two-dimensional model; therefore, it is capable of
resolving spatial variability in the longitudinal and vertical directions. It is not capable of
representing high-resolution local effects such as lateral discharge, areas affected by secondary
circulation, or certain habitat characteristic changes. EFDC is a three-dimensional model that can
be configured at nearly any spatial resolution to represent local effects.
H2OBAL/SNTEMP/DYRESM is a one-dimensional modeling suite and therefore has limited
capability representing local effects.
5.6.4.7. Conclusion
Based on the evaluation of each model presented in Section 5.6.4.6, the EFDC model has been
selected for further use in this study. A Water Quality Modeling Study, Sampling and Analysis,
Quality Assurance Project Plan is included in Attachment 5-2.
5.6.4.8. Reservoir and River Downstream of Reservoir Modeling Approach
Reservoir modeling will focus on the length of the river from above the expected area of
reservoir inundation to the proposed dam location. It will involve first running the without
project scenario, or initial condition. This initial condition represents current baseline conditions
in the absence of the dam. Subsequently, the model will represent the proposed reservoir
condition when the dam is in place. The reservoir representation will be developed based on the
local bathymetry and dimensions of the proposed dam. A three-dimensional model will be
developed for the proposed reservoir to represent the spatial variability in hydrodynamics and
water quality in longitudinal, vertical, and lateral directions. The model will be able to simulate
flow circulation in the reservoir, turbulence mixing, temperature dynamics, nutrient fate and
transport, interaction between nutrients and algae, sediment transport, and metals transport. The
key feature that needs to be captured is water column stratification during the warm season and
the de-stratification when air temperatures cool down. The capability of predictively representing
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-52 December 2012
the stratification/de-stratification period is of critical importance for evaluating the impact of the
dam because this is the critical water quality process in the reservoir.
With the dam in place, the original river will be converted into a slow flowing reservoir;
therefore, any sediment previously mobilized will likely settle in the reservoir, disrupting the
natural sediment transport processes. Before the construction of the dam, primary production is
likely driven by periphyton. After construction of the dam, periphyton will be largely driven out
of existence due to deep water conditions typical of a reservoir environment. In lieu of
periphyton, phytoplankton will likely be the dominant source of primary production of the
ecological system with the dam in place. Nutrients from upstream will have longer retention in
the reservoir, providing nutrient sources to fuel phytoplankton growth. All processes would need
to be predictively simulated by both the reservoir model and the pre-reservoir river model for the
same river segment.
Because the dam is not in place when the model is constructed, proper calibration of the model
using actual reservoir data is not possible. To achieve reasonable predictions of water quality
conditions in the proposed reservoir, a literature survey will be conducted to acquire
parameterization schemes of the model. An uncertainty analysis approach will also be developed
to account for the lack of data for calibration, therefore enhancing the reliability of reservoir
model predictions.
Downstream of the proposed dam location, a river model will also be developed to evaluate the
effects of the proposed Project. The same model platform used for the reservoir model will be
implemented for the river model (at a minimum the two models will be tightly coupled). The
river model will be capable of representing conditions in both the absence and presence of the
dam. The downstream spatial extent of this model will be the lowermost monitoring site on the
Susitna River mainstem (RM 15.1) extending downstream of the Susitna-Talkeetna-Chulitna
confluence. Water quality modeling will extend into the lower river and will use channel
topography and flow data at select locations in order to develop a model for predicting water
quality conditions under various Project operational scenarios.
Flow, temperature, TSS, DO, nutrients, turbidity (continuous at USGS sites and bi-weekly at
additional locations required for calibrating the model), and chlorophyll-a output from the
reservoir model will be directly input into the downstream river model. This will enable
downstream evaluation of potential impacts of the proposed Project on hydrodynamic,
temperature, and water quality conditions.
The river model will be calibrated and validated using available data concurrently with the initial
reservoir condition model (representing absence of the dam). Output from the models will be
used directly in other studies (e.g., Ice Processes, Productivity, and Instream Flow studies).
The EFDC model will be calibrated in order to simulate water quality conditions for load-
following analysis. Organic carbon content from inflow sources will be correlated with mercury
concentrations determined from the Baseline Water Quality Study discussed in Section 5.5.
Predicted water quality conditions established by Project operations and that promote
methylation of mercury in the bioaccumulative form will be identified by location and intensity
in both riverine and reservoir habitats. Water temperature modeling and routing of fluctuating
flows immediately prior to and during ice cover development may be conducted with a separate
thermodynamics-based ice process model River 1-D ice-processes model; the Susitna Hydraulic
and Thermal Processes Model (Section 7.6.3.2).
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-53 December 2012
Modeling of mercury concentrations in dissolved and in methylated form will be done by
updating the EFDC model to simulate three sorptive toxic variables representing mercury (Hg)
states. Algorithms have been successfully used with EFDC in other studies and will be modified
to account for potential sources of Hg as the reservoir is filled (e.g., soils, vegetation, air
deposition). Other metals parameters will be modeled if significant concentrations are identified
from surface water and sediment. However, cumulative impacts of multiple metals on aquatic
life are difficult to predict using the proposed modeling strategy because there are associated
uncertainties. Measuring additivity or synergism of toxics effects is possible using laboratory
bioassays, but may not be adequately predicted by a model. The level of uncertainty in
extrapolating results from laboratory to field conditions is large and potentially unreliable. A
suggested approach for estimating toxicity mixtures would be to develop a weight of evidence
(WOE) algorithm that produces a weighting factor for re-calculating the potential chronic and
acute toxic effects of a mixture (Mumtaz et al. 1998).
5.6.4.8.1 Focus Areas
The EFDC model will be used to predict water quality conditions at a finer scale of resolution for
Focus Areas. The increased intensity of sampling at transects 100 m apart and at three locations
across each transect will improve resolution for predictions at approximately 100 m
longitudinally and a smaller distance laterally. This model will be embedded within the larger-
scale EFDC model used for the entire riverine component of the Project area. An embedded
model can also be used for predicting conditions in sloughs and selected braided areas of the
mainstem Susitna River.
Some of the water quality parameters listed in Section 5.5.4.4 will be used to predict conditions
within the Focus Areas to determine if suitability of habitat for life stages of select fish species is
maintained or changes under each of the operational scenarios. The EFDC model calibrated for
each of the Focus Areas will have a time-step component so that conditions and areal extent are
described for each of the water quality parameters and are associated with load-following.
5.6.4.8.2 Scales for Modeling and Resolution of the Output
The large-scale EFDC model calibrated using the mainstem water quality monitoring data will
have a longitudinal predictive resolution between 250 m and 1 kilometer (km) depending on
lateral variability of conditions and the run-time selected. Single channel areas of the mainstem
Susitna River and sloughs may not require higher resolution predictions if water quality
conditions are uniform. The uniformity of conditions will be evaluated by measuring across
transects at a few locations in the drainage to determine if lateral variability is low.
Grid size in the model determines spatial resolution of predicted water quality conditions. The
riverine (and reservoir) areas of the Project are divided into equal-sized grids and the center of
each represents the predicted water quality condition. The grid size is dependent on a number of
characteristics of the Project area. These characteristics include elevation changes throughout the
length of the drainage, length of the water body that will be modeled, surrounding terrain, and
length of time the model is run for predicting temporal changes. Each of the factors ultimately
determines the resolution of the predictive capability of the EFDC model.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-54 December 2012
5.6.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice
Models will be the primary method used for predicting potential impacts to water quality
conditions in both the proposed reservoir and the riverine portion of the Susitna basin. The
models will be developed for each of the reservoir and riverine sections of the Susitna River and
will be used to predict conditions resulting from Project operations under several operational
scenarios. In the absence of a dam and data describing actual water quality conditions in the
proposed reservoir, models are the only way to predict potential changes that may occur in the
Susitna River from the presence of a dam. The 401 Water Quality Certification process includes
the use of baseline assessment information and the use of models. The use of models is a
scientifically accepted practice for predicting impacts to water quality and generating operational
scenario outputs to inform the Project certification. The model selection process evaluated model
features required for use in a river setting with braided channels, glacial water source, and ability
to predict conditions in more than two-dimensions. The evaluation and proposed documentation
describing performance and use of the model are accepted scientific practice for generating
defensible and high quality data. The output from model calibration and predictions are
consistent with recommended steps in generating high quality data as guided by a Credible Data
Policy.
5.6.6. Schedule
The planned schedule for the study plan is presented in Table 5.6-3. Close coordination will be
maintained with the water quality studies to make sure the data generated is sufficient and
appropriate for the modeling effort. The model selection was made in July 2012, and the
selection process is provided here. The water quality model will begin to be calibrated starting
in the middle of 2013, as the data becomes available from the field. We anticipate producing an
initial study report in the first quarter of 2014. After that will be a period of re-calibrations,
verification runs, and generating operating scenarios for the proposed reservoir. The final
modeling report will be complete in the first quarter of 2015.
5.6.7. Relationship with Other Studies
Figure 5.6-2 shows the interdependencies between existing data and related historical studies,
specific output for each element of the Water Quality studies, and where the output information
generated in the Water Quality studies will be directed. This chart provides details describing the
flow of information related to the Water Quality studies, from historical data collection to current
data collection. Data were examined in a Water Quality Data Gap Analysis (URS 2011) and this
information was used, in part, to assist in making decisions about the current design for the
Baseline Water Quality Modeling Study and for ensuring that current modeling efforts would be
able to compare the 1980s study results with current modeling results.
Integral portions of this interdependency chart are results from the Ice Processes Study and from
the Fish and Aquatic Instream Flow Study. The Ice Processes Study will support water quality
model development (Section 5.6) with information about timing and conditions for ice formation
and ice break-up. The Fish and Aquatic Instream Flow Study represents the effort to develop a
hydraulic routing model that will be coupled with the EFDC water quality model. Water quality
monitoring efforts for field parameters, general chemistry, and metals (including mercury) will
be used as a calibration data set for developing the predictive EFDC model.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-55 December 2012
5.6.8. Level of Effort and Cost
The estimated cost for the proposed water quality modeling effort in 2013 and 2014, including
planning, model calibration and development, modeling various operational scenarios, and
reporting is approximately $1,750,000.
5.6.9. Literature Cited
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC), 1983a. Examination of Susitna
River Discharge and Temperature Changes Due to the Proposed Susitna Hydroelectric
Project – Final Report. Prepared by Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center
Anchorage, AK. Submitted to Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture Anchorage, AK.
Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK.
AEIDC. 1983b. Stream Flow and Temperature Modeling in the Susitna Basin, Alaska. Prepared
by Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center Anchorage, AK. Submitted to
Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture Anchorage, AK. Prepared for the Alaska Power
Authority, Anchorage, AK.
Cole, T.M. and S. A. Wells. 2000. CE-QUAL-W2: A two-dimensional, laterally averaged,
Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model, Version 3.0, Instruction Report EL-2000. US
Army Engineering and Research Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Hamrick, J.M. 1992. A Three-Dimensional Environmental Fluid Dynamics Computer Code:
Theoretical and Computational Aspects, Special Report 317. The College of William and
Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 63 pp.
Mumtaz, M.M., C.T. De Roza, J. Groten, V.J. Feron, H. Hansen, and P.R. Durkin. 1998.
Estimation of Toxicity of Chemical Mixtures through Modeling of Chemical Interactions.
Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 106: Supplement 6. 1353-1360.
Patterson, John, J. Imberger, B. Hebbert, and I. Loh. 1977. Users Guide to DYRESM – A
Simulation Model for Reservoirs of Medium Size. University of Western Australia,
Nedlands, Western Australia.
URS. 2011. AEA Susitna Water Quality and Sediment Transport Data Gap Analysis Report.
Prepared by Tetra Tech, URS, and Arctic Hydrologic Consultants. Anchorage, Alaska.
62p.+Appendixes.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-56 December 2012
5.6.10. Tables
Table 5.6-1. Proposed Susitna River Basin Water Quality and Temperature Monitoring Sites.
Susitna
River Mile
Description Susitna River
Slough ID
Latitude
(decimal degrees)
Longitude
(decimal degrees)
15.1 Susitna above Alexander Creek NA 61.4014 -150.519
25.83 Susitna Station NA 61.5454 -150.516
28.0 Yentna River NA 61.589 -150.468
29.5 Susitna above Yentna NA 61.5752 -150.248
40.63 Deshka River NA 61.7098 -150.324
55.01 Susitna NA 61.8589 -150.18
83.83 Susitna at Parks Highway East NA 62.175 -150.174
83.93 Susitna at Parks Highway West NA 62.1765 -150.177
97.0 LRX 1 NA 62.3223 -150.127
97.2 Talkeetna River NA 62.3418 -150.106
98.5 Chulitna River NA 62.5574 -150.236
103.02,3 Talkeetna NA 62.3943 -150.134
113.02 LRX 18 NA 62.5243 -150.112
120.72,3 Curry Fishwheel Camp NA 62.6178 -150.012
126.0 -- 8A 62.6707 -149.903
126.12 LRX 29 NA 62.6718 -149.902
129.23 -- 9 62.7022 -149.843
130.82 LRX 35 NA 62.714 -149.81
135.3 -- 11 62.7555 -149.7111
136.5 Susitna near Gold Creek NA 62.7672 -149.694
136.83 Gold Creek NA 62.7676 -149.691
138.01 -- 16B 62.7812 -149.674
138.63 Indian River NA 62.8009 -149.664
138.72 Susitna above Indian River NA 62.7857 -149.651
140.0 -- 19 62.7929 -149.615
140.12 LRX 53 NA 62.7948 -149.613
142.0 -- 21 62.8163 -149.576
148.0 Susitna below Portage Creek NA 62.8316 -149.406
148.82 Susitna above Portage Creek NA 62.8286 -149.379
148.8 Portage Creek NA 62.8317 -149.379
148.83 Susitna above Portage Creek NA 62.8279 -149.377
165.01 Susitna NA 62.7899 -148.997
180.31 Susitna below Tsusena Creek NA 62.8157 -148.652
181.33 Tsusena Creek NA 62.8224 -148.613
184.51 Susitna at Watana Dam site NA 62.8226 -148.533
194.1 Watana Creek NA 62.8296 -148.259
206.8 Kosina Creek NA 62.7822 -147.94
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-57 December 2012
Susitna
River Mile
Description Susitna River
Slough ID
Latitude
(decimal degrees)
Longitude
(decimal degrees)
223.73 Susitna near Cantwell NA 62.7052 147.538
233.4 Oshetna Creek NA 62.6402 -147.383
1 Site not sampled for water quality or temperature in the 1980s or location moved slightly from original location.
2 Proposed mainstem Susitna River temperature monitoring sites for purposes of 1980s SNTEMP model evaluation.
3 Locations with overlap of water quality temperature monitoring sites with other studies.
Locations in bold font represent that both temperature and water quality samples are collected from a site.
Table 5.6-2. Evaluation of models based on technical, regulatory, and management criteria.
High Suitability Medium Suitability Low Suitability
Considerations Relative
Importance
H2OBAL/SNTE
MP/DYRESM
CE QUAL
W2 EFDC
Technical Criteria
Physical Processes:
advection, dispersion High
momentum High
compatible with external ice
simulation models High
reservoir operations High
predictive temperature
simulation (high latitude
shading)
High
Water Quality:
total nutrient concentrations High
dissolved/particulate
partitioning Medium
predictive sediment
diagenesis Medium
sediment transport High
algae High
dissolved oxygen High
metals High
Temporal Scale and Representation:
long term trends and
averages Medium
continuous – ability to predict
small time-step variability High
Spatial Scale and Representation:
multi-dimensional
representation High
grid complexity - allows
predictions at numerous
locations throughout model
domain
High
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-58 December 2012
High Suitability Medium Suitability Low Suitability
Considerations Relative
Importance
H2OBAL/SNTE
MP/DYRESM
CE QUAL
W2 EFDC
suitability for local scale
analyses, including local
discharge evaluation
Medium
Regulatory Criteria
Enables comparison to AK criteria High
Flexibility for analysis of scenarios,
including climate change High
Technically defensible (previous
use/validation, thoroughly tested, results
in peer-reviewed literature, TMDL
studies)
High
Management Criteria
Existing model availability High
Data needs High
Public domain (non-proprietary) High
Cost Medium
Time needed for application Medium N/A
Licensing participant community
familiarity Low
Level of expertise required Low
User interface Low
Model documentation Medium
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-59 December 2012
Table 5.6-3. Schedule for Implementation of the Modeling Study.
Activity
2012 2013 2014 2015
1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 1 Q
Coordination with water
quality data collection
and analysis
Model
Evaluation/Selection
Model Calibration
(Water Quality)
Initial Study Report Δ
Re-calibration
adjustments
Verification runs
Generate Results for
Operational Scenarios
Updated Study Report ▲
Legend:
Planned Activity
Δ Initial Study Report
▲ Updated Study Report
REVISED STUDY PLAN Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-60 December 2012 5.6.11. Figures Figure 5.6-1. Proposed 2012 Stream Water Quality and Temperature Data Collection Sites for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-61 December 2012
Figure 5.6-2. Interdependencies for water resources studies.
Ice Processes
in the Susitna
River
(7.6)
Fish and Aquatics
Instream Flow
(9)
Ice Dynamics
•Formation
•Breakup
•(4Q‐2013?)
Water Quality
Data
(1975‐2003)
ADEC
Mercury in
Fish Tissue
(2006)
Hydraulic
Routing
Model
(1Q‐2013)
INTERDEPENDENCIES FOR WATER RESOURCES STUDIES
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Mercury
Toxics Data
Baseline
Water Quality
Monitoring
Study
(5.5)
Water Quality
Modeling Study
(5.6)
Mercury Assessment and
Potential for
Bioaccumulation Study
(5.7)
River Productivity Study
(nutrient availability)
(9.08)
Fish Tissue Analysis
Sediment Toxics Analysis
Surface Water Analysis
(1Q‐2014)
Water Quality Model (EFDC)
•Ice Dynamics
•WQ Calibration Data
•Mercury (metals) Data
•Hydraulic Routing Model
•Reservoir Trap Efficiency
a) Focus Study Areas
b) Mainstem Conditions
•Riverine Model
•Reservoir Model
(2Q‐2014)
Water Quality
Characterization
(Monthly Monitoring)
a) Surface Water
b) Sediment
c) Groundwater
•In Situ parameters
•General parameters
•Metals (one‐time)
(1Q‐2014)
Water Quality
Model
Development
Groundwater‐
Related Aquatic
Habitat Study
(7.5)
Geomorphology
Study
(6)
Wetlands
Study
(11.7)
Wildlife Study
(10.1)
Riparian Study
(11.6)
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-62 December 2012
5.7. Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study
5.7.1. General Description of the Proposed Study
Many studies have documented increased mercury concentrations in fish and wildlife following
the flooding of terrestrial areas to create hydroelectric reservoirs. The purpose of this study is to
assess the potential for such an occurrence in the proposed Project area.
Based on several studies, the mercury that is found in newly formed reservoirs originates
predominantly from inundation of organic soils. Receptors are and will be present in the
inundation area (macroinvertebrates, fish, birds, etc.). Mercury methylation in reservoirs is a
fairly well understood process, and numerous models exist to predict the occurrence and
magnitude of the phenomena.
Given these known factors, key questions that need to be answered by this study include the
following:
1) Whether conditions within the reservoir will cause mercury methylation from this source.
2) The concentrations of methylmercury that might occur.
3) Whether a mechanism exists (fish and small invertebrates living in the methylation zone)
to transfer that methylmercury to wildlife, resulting in detrimental impacts.
Based on these questions, specific objectives of this study are as follows:
Summarize available and historic water quality information for the Susitna River basin,
including data collection from the 1980s Alaska Power Authority (APA) Susitna
Hydroelectric Project.
Characterize the baseline mercury concentrations of the Susitna River and tributaries.
This will include collection and analyses of vegetation, soil, water, sediment pore water,
sediment, piscivorous birds and mammals, and fish tissue samples for mercury.
Utilize available geologic information to determine if a mineralogical source of mercury
exists within the inundation area.
Map mercury concentrations of soils and vegetation within the proposed inundation area.
This information will be used to develop maps of where mercury methylation may occur.
Use the water quality model to predict where in the reservoir conditions (pH, dissolved
oxygen, turnover) are likely to be conducive to methylmercury formation.
Use modeling to estimate methylmercury concentrations in fish.
Assess potential pathways for methylmercury to migrate to the surrounding environment.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-63 December 2012
Coordinate study results with other study areas, including fish, instream flow, and other
piscivorous bird and mammal studies.
5.7.2. Existing Information and Need for Additional Information
The process by which mercury enters ecosystems is fairly well understood. Inorganic mercury
from the atmosphere is deposited in lakes and rivers. Where conditions are right (anoxic,
available sulfur), inorganic mercury can be converted by bacteria to methylmercury. Transfer of
elemental mercury occurs from atmospheric deposition to surface water, and surface water to
sediments. Production of methylmercury, mediated by bacterial activity is promoted or
suppressed by one or combination of several factors in the aquatic environment.
Factors known to enhance methylation of mercury either in surface water or sediment are the
following:
Presence of aquatic vegetation and low oxygen concentrations
Increased nutrients, temperature, microbial respiration, and dissolved organic carbon
Neutral to low pH
Factors known to suppress methylation of mercury either in surface water or sediment are as
follows:
High oxygen concentrations
Presence of sulfides and acid-volatile sulfides
Presence of Selenium in sediments
Transfer of bioaccumulated mercury outside of the aquatic environment occurs between top of
food chain animals with consumption of aquatic organisms by terrestrial animals.
At each level in a food chain, from bacteria to plankton, small fish, larger fish, and ultimately
piscivorous terrestrial wildlife and humans, organisms take in more mercury than they excrete
thereby accumulating the excess. This results in elevated concentrations of methylmercury at
higher trophic levels. Fish-eating birds and mammals can suffer a wide range of impacts from
accumulated methylmercury, including behavioral, neurochemical, hormonal, and reproductive
effects.
While this process occurs all over the world in natural wetlands, it can be especially acute in
newly formed reservoirs. This is because organic-rich soils can absorb mercury from the
atmosphere over decades, and their degradation at the bottom of the reservoir will generate a
spike in methylmercury production (Stokes and Wren 1987; Bodaly et al, 1984; Bodaly el al.
2007; Rudd, 1995; Hydro-Quebec 2003).
Many studies have documented increased mercury levels in fish following the flooding of
terrestrial areas to create hydroelectric reservoirs (Bodaly et al. 1984; Bodaly et al 1997; Bodaly
et al 2004; Bodaly et al. 2007; Rylander et al. 2006; Lockhart et al 2005; Johnston et al. 1991;
Kelly et al. 1997; Morrison 1991b). Increased mercury concentrations have also been noted at
other trophic levels within aquatic food chains of reservoirs, such as aquatic invertebrates (Hall
et al. 1998). These problems have been particularly acute in hydropower projects from northern
climates including Canada and Finland (Rosenberg et al. 1997). When boreal forests with large
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-64 December 2012
surface-area-to-volume ratios are flooded, substantial quantities of organic carbon and mercury
stored in vegetation biomass and soils become inputs to the newly formed reservoir (Bodaly et
al. 1984; Grigal 2003; Kelly et al. 1997). This flooding accelerates microbial decomposition,
causing high rates of microbial methylation of mercury. Studies have shown this increase is
temporary, lasting between 10 and 35 years (Hydro-Quebec 2003; Bodaly et al. 2007),
whereupon methylmercury concentrations return to background levels. It should be noted that
background methylmercury concentrations are rarely zero, and many natural water bodies have
shown elevated concentrations of methylmercury.
Inorganic mercury deposition from the atmosphere is not a significant source of mercury
concentrations that are elevated above background; however, it can be a source of background
mercury concentrations. For example, Rudd (1995) has shown that just 0.3 and 3% of the
mercury in a reservoir is derived from precipitation, the remainder from inundated fine organic
soil particles. As explained in Section 5.7.1, the goal of this study is to quantify mercury
resulting from filling the reservoir, not necessarily background mercury.
Background mercury concentrations are better predicted from studying mercury levels in nearby
natural lakes, not quantifying atmospheric deposition. Background lake studies are included as
part of the fish tissue sampling (see Section 5.7.4.2.6).
Mercury in organic soils is common. Background concentrations in organic soils of the
Kuskokwim area of Alaska were found to be 0.10 to 1.2 parts per million (ppm) (Bailey and
Gray 1997; Gray et al 2000); however, this area is well known to have large ore bodies of
cinnabar, a mercury ore. Soils in Norway and Sweden were found to have mercury
concentrations only as high as 0.24 ppm (Lindqvist 1991). In the United States, the mean
concentrations reported from organic soils and loamy soils are 0.28 ppm and 0.13 ppm,
respectively (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 1992). Background concentrations for organic soils in
Canada as high as 0.40 ppm have been reported (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 1992). Shacklette
and Boerngen (1984) report an average value of 0.058 ppm in all soil types in the contiguous
United States.
In organic soils, mercury is mainly present in its inorganic form; the methylated form usually
represents less than 1 percent of the total. Mercury does not appear to be mobile in soils, where it
is firmly bound to the humus (Hydro-Quebec 2003).
Methylmercury can be detected in nearly every fish analyzed, from nearly any water body in the
world. This is because the primary source of mercury to most aquatic ecosystems is deposition
from the atmosphere. Mercury deposition worldwide has been steadily increasing due to the
widespread burning of coal. In 2007, an international panel of experts concluded, “remote sites
in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres demonstrate about a threefold increase in Hg
deposition since preindustrial times” (Lindberg et al. 2007). Lakes at Glacier Bay, Alaska, have
shown that current rates of atmospheric mercury deposition are about double what was observed
in pre-industrial times (Engstrom and Swain 1997).
Mercury of non-atmospheric origin has been occasionally found in water bodies. The source can
be industrial processes, mercury mining, or simply the presence of sulfate-rich mercury ores,
which occur in very limited areas. In the study area, no mining has occurred, and there are no
industrial sources. Point sources have been documented on the Kuskokwim River in Alaska, but
are relatively rare, and are associated with known sulfate-rich ore bodies (Saiki and Martin 2010;
Gray et al 2000). Based on the available geologic information, the inundation area consists
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-65 December 2012
largely of diorite and granodiorite, which are not typically associated with massive sulfide
mineral deposits. For this reason, such a point source appears to be unlikely in the inundation
area for the dam.
In areas that lack the necessary mercury mineralization, the mercury concentration in parent
geologic materials is typically very low, and cannot explain the mercury concentrations observed
in sediment in aquatic ecosystems (Fitzgerald et al. 1998; Swain et al. 1992; Wiener et al. 2006).
Historical mercury data from the study area are limited. Some samples were collected during
previous studies of the APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project in the 1980s (AEA, 2011). This
consisted of the collection of water samples at Gold Creek (RM 136) in 1982. Total mercury
was found to be 0.12 micrograms per liter (µg/L) in turbid, summer water, and 0.04 µg/L in the
clear, winter water (AEA, 2011). The same results were found downriver at Susitna Station (RM
26).
Frenzel (2000) collected sediment samples from the Deshka River and Talkeetna River, as well
as from Colorado Creek and Costello Creek, which are tributaries to the Chulitna River (Table
5.7-1). Based on these results, mercury concentrations in the drainage appear to be elevated over
the national median, and appear to vary significantly by drainage. The report indicated that both
Colorado and Costello Creeks appear to drain a portion of Denali National Park and Preserve
that is highly mineralized, which likely causes the higher than background mercury
concentrations. Previous studies (St. Louis et al. 1994) have shown that methylmercury
occurrence is positively correlated with wetland density, and the Deshka River has significantly
more wetlands in the drainage than other tributaries to the Susitna River.
Additional samples were collected by Frenzel (2000) of slimy sculpin from the Deshka River,
Talkeetna River, and Costello Creek (Table 5.7-2). Whole fish samples tend to underestimate the
presence of methylmercury, given that this compound concentrates in muscle tissue.
Samples of fish tissue and sediment from the Deshka River and Costello Creek were speciated
for metallic mercury and methylmercury (Table 5.7-3). As anticipated, the ratio of
methylmercury to inorganic mercury in the Deshka River is relatively high due to extensive
wetlands in the drainage area. Costello Creek was found to have a higher inorganic mercury
component due to possible mineralogical sources of mercury in the drainage area.
Overall mercury concentrations in water were also found to be positively correlated with the
turbidity of the water. Very little mercury was found in filtered water samples (Frenzel 2000).
This is consistent with methylmercury being strongly bound to organic particles.
These results are in agreement with the results from Krabbenhoft et al. (1999). In nationwide
mercury sampling, in a wide array of hydrological basins and environmental settings, wetland
density was found to be the most important factor controlling methylmercury production. It was
also found that methylmercury production appears proportional to total mercury concentrations
only at low total mercury levels. Once total mercury concentrations exceed 1,000 nanograms per
gram (ng/g), little additional methylmercury was observed to be produced. Atmospheric
deposition was found to be the predominant source for most mercury. Subbasins characterized
as mixed agriculture and forested had the highest methylation efficiency, whereas areas affected
by mining were found to be the lowest.
A more recent study has been done by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s
Department of Environmental Health (ADEC 2012). ADEC is currently analyzing salmon (all
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-66 December 2012
five species) as well as other freshwater species for total mercury in the Susitna River drainages
(Table 5.7-4). These results appear to be consistent with those in other areas of the state.
5.7.3. Study Area
Water quality and sediment samples will be collected at the sites identified in Table 5.7-5. The
study area begins at RM 15.1 and extends past the proposed dam site to RM 233.4. Tributaries
to the Susitna River will be sampled and include those contributing large portions of the lower
river flow such as the Talkeetna, Chulitna, Deshka, and Yentna rivers. Also included are smaller
tributaries such as Gold, Portage, Tsusena, and Watana creeks, and the Oshetna River. These
sites were selected based on the following rationale:
Adequate representation of locations throughout the Susitna River and tributaries above
and below the proposed dam site for the purpose of a baseline mercury characterization.
Location on tributaries where proposed access road crossing impacts might occur during
and after construction (upstream/downstream sampling points on each crossing).
Consultation with licensing participants including co-location with other study sites (e.g.,
instream flow, ice processes).
Sites that are in the Susitna River mainstem, tributary, or slough locations, most of which
were monitored in the 1980s.
The proposed study will describe impacts from road crossings on mercury concentrations.
Several access road corridors have been identified, one of which will be utilized to access the
proposed dam site. Road crossings are expected to impact streams at each of the crossings and
these locations will be surveyed for toxics concentrations above background in sediment and
surface water.
Soil and vegetation samples will be collected from the proposed inundation area. Piscivorous
birds and mammals, and fish samples, will be collected from a variety of drainages in the study
area; however, the focus will be on the proposed inundation area for the dam to establish
background concentrations of methylmercury in fish prior to site development.
5.7.4. Study Methods
This study responds to comments from NMFS and USFWS, among other licensing participants.
Originally the study components described here were spread into several other sections of the
overall study plan. They have been consolidated here to provide an overview of the proposed
mercury assessment and bioaccumulation plans.
This study consists of six study components:
Summarize available information for the Susitna River basin, including data collection
from the 1980s APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project, and existing geologic information to
determine if a mineralogical source of mercury exists within the inundation area.
Collect and analyze background vegetation, soil, water, sediment, sediment pore water,
piscivorous birds and mammals, and fish tissue samples for mercury. This will include
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-67 December 2012
mapping vegetation types and the lateral extent, thickness, and mercury concentrations of
soils within the proposed inundation area. These data will be used to provide background
concentrations for mercury, but will also help evaluate potential mitigation methods (soil
and vegetation removal) should that become necessary.
Use the water quality model to predict where in the reservoir conditions (pH, dissolved
oxygen, turnover) are likely to be conducive to methylmercury formation (see Section
5.6).
Utilize specialty models to predict potential fish methylmercury concentrations.
Assess potential pathways for mercury movement from different areas of methylmercury
formation to the surrounding environment.
Prepare a technical report on analytical results, modeling, and mercury pathway
assessment.
5.7.4.1. Summary of Available Information
Existing literature will be reviewed to summarize the current understanding of the occurrence of
mercury in the environment. Much of that work has already been performed as part of this work
plan and during previous studies (URS 2011) for this project. This review will include the
following:
A summary of 1980s APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project water quality studies, including
data.
Data collected in Alaska by both USGS and ADEC.
A summary of the findings during development of other cold region hydroelectric
projects.
5.7.4.2. Collection and Analyses of Soil, Vegetation, Water, Sediment, Sediment
Pore Water, Piscivorous Birds and Mammals, and Fish Tissue Samples for
Mercury
Data will be collected from soil, vegetation, surface water, sediment pore water, sediment,
piscivorous birds and mammals, and fish tissue. Each of these media has been carefully selected
on the following basis:
1. Applicability. Does measurement of background mercury contributions in the specified
media contribute to understanding and predicting methylmercury concentrations after
impoundment?
2. Measurability. Can we collect accurate data? Is the data representative of what is
occurring in the environment? Will we be able to collect the same data post-
impoundment?
3. Impact. Is the media likely to be impacted by the impoundment? Will the sampling
damage the resource?
At this time there are media not being sampled as part of this study plan because it violates one
of more of these decision points. The following is a summary of the most important media we
are not sampling, and the reasoning for their exclusion from the sampling program:
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-68 December 2012
Macroinvertebrates. Current mercury concentrations in macroinvertebrates are poor indicators
post impoundment methylmercury concentrations in fish and wildlife, and most methylmercury
models do not utilize this data for that reason (Harris and Hutchison, 2008; Hydro Quebec, 2003,
etc.).
There appears to be no predictive model that can utilize current macroinvertebrate
methylmercury concentration to predict future macroinvertebrate concentrations. Rennie et al
(2011) has developed a predictive model for benthic macroinvertebrates, but not for other
macroinvertebrates. Modeling of methylmercury in benthic invertebrates is of limited value,
given these organisms are primarily predated by fish, which are already being modeled
elsewhere in the study.
Methylmercury concentrations in macroinvertebrates can vary significantly by species, location,
life stage, feeding behavior, and fish predation (Henderson et al, 2011). Sample mass can also be
an issue. Even with the relatively low mass required for analyses, macroinvertebrates often
require mixing of several individuals specimens, or even species, sometimes from collection
locations far apart, into a single sample analytical result.
We are aware of only one study (Gerrard and St Louis, 2001) where terrestrial wildlife has been
directly impacted by methylmercury in macroinvertebrates post-impoundment, bypassing
migration via fish. However, while that study showed an approximate doubling of
methylmercury concentrations in the swallows, they found no overt toxicological affects. In fact
increased dipteran productivity (the primary food source of tree swallows) after reservoir
creation resulted in earlier nest initiation, larger eggs, and faster growth rates of wing and bill
length in nestlings.
Sampling of macroinvertebrates would need to be conducted based on pathway analysis to define
methylmercury generation and potential bioexposure routes. Current macroinvertebrates
communities may have little bearing on post impoundment communities.
Methylmercury in fish tissues is generally an order of magnitude higher than that of their food
sources (Rennie et al, 2011). Therefore methylmercury is typically not damaging to
macroinvertebrates, and may not be damaging to their predators due to the position at a lower
trophic level than piscivorous fish, birds, and mammals. Well-developed predictive models for
fish and piscivorous wildlife should be generally protective of wildlife that feed directly on
macroinvertebrates. Sampling for fish, piscivorous birds, and aquatic wildlife is planned in this
study.
In summary, macroinvertebrate sampling at this time would appear to have limited applicability,
in that it does not contribute significantly to predicting future methylmercury concentrations or
impacts. There are concerns regarding whether that data can be collected and interpreted
accurately, and other studies are focused on more sensitive and easily measured methylmercury
impacts.
Atmosphere. As illustrated in Figure 5.7-1, mercury cycles between the water soil, and
atmosphere. Net accumulation rates are low. Also, the rate and amount of atmospheric
deposition doesn’t depend on whether the water body is a natural lake or reservoir.
Previous studies have found that increases in methylmercury concentrations in a reservoir after
filling are not related to atmospheric deposition. As previously stated, Rudd (1995) has shown
that just 0.3 and 3% of the mercury in a reservoir is derived from precipitation, the remainder
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-69 December 2012
from inundated fine organic soil particles. While inorganic mercury deposition from the
atmosphere is not a significant source of mercury concentrations that are elevated above
background, it can be a source of background mercury concentrations. The goal of this study is
to quantify mercury resulting from filling the reservoir, not necessarily background mercury.
Background mercury concentrations are better predicted from studying mercury levels in nearby
natural lakes, not quantifying atmospheric deposition. Background lake studies are included as
part of the fish tissue sampling.
Mercury in reservoirs typically isn’t source limited, but is related to methylation rates in the
reservoir. The water quality model will predict methylation rates in the reservoir (Section
5.6.4.8).
In summary, mercury deposition from the atmosphere represents an impact not related to
creation of the reservoir. Measurements of atmospheric deposition are unlikely to advance our
understanding and prediction of methylmercury concentrations after impoundment. The media
(air) is unlikely to be impacted by filling of the reservoir.
Large Terrestrial Wildlife. Large terrestrial wildlife such as bears and foxes can consume fish
and even piscivorous birds, however it is not their primary food source in the area, therefore net
accumulation of methylmercury should be relatively low. Population density is anticipated to be
low, and food sources may include areas well outside the drainage. The proposed study includes
sampling of lower trophic levels (fish and birds), which should be protective of these apex
predators.
Salmon. Limited numbers of salmon (estimated at 30 to 50) are currently in the inundation
zone. Sampling a sufficient number of these fish to generate statistically usable data would be
harmful to the fish run. As a small run, it currently serves as a very limited food source to the
area. Salmon typically have higher mercury concentrations than resident fish, however, this
mercury is predominately oceanic in origin.
The following sections describe these planned study components. A Quality Assurance Project
Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan (QAPP/SAP) has been developed for the Mercury Assessment
and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study (Attachment 5-3). This QAPP/SAP includes specific
detail describing study design, sampling procedures, and determining quality of data collected
that satisfy objectives. This document is a required document when generating environmental
data intended for use in making regulatory decisions. The QAPP/SAP ensures that defensible and
high quality data is generated in this study by establishing performance goals and a process for
evaluation of each of the study elements.
5.7.4.2.1. Vegetation
The principal concern for the vegetation portion of this study is to determine the mass of
organics and mercury concentrations in the reservoir area. Plant species differ in their ability to
take up mercury. At the Red Devil and Cinnabar Creek mines, alders and willows concentrate
mercury at levels as much as 20 times higher than those in the other species collected in this
study (Baily and Gray 1997). The mechanism of mercury uptake and reason for variation in
mercury uptake by species is unclear. Siegal et al. (1985, 1987) have suggested that some species
are mercury accumulators, whereas other plant species release their absorbed mercury as
mercury vapor and thus lower their total concentration of mercury. Overall, leaves and needles
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-70 December 2012
have been found to hold the greatest accumulations of mercury in Alaska plants (Baily and Gray
1997).
The degradation rate for organic materials in water seems to be a primary source of the spike in
methylmercury concentrations after filling of a reservoir (Hydro-Quebec 2003). Only the green
part of the vegetation (leaves of trees and shrubs as well as forest ground cover) and the top
centimeters of humus decompose quickly. Tree branches, trunks and roots, as well as deeper
humus, remain almost intact decades after flooding (Morrison and Thérien 1991). Previous
studies by Hydro-Quebec have shown that woody debris, even if it contains mercury, is not a
problem for mercury methylation because the decay rate is slow in cold water (Hydro-Quebec
2003).
Based on these studies, up to 50 samples will be collected from various plants within the
proposed inundation area. Studies are currently being completed on the distribution of types of
species in the inundation zone, thus this information is currently unavailable. The sampling will
be biased toward total vegetative mass, that is to say species that are present in the inundation
area at low frequency and size may not be sampled, because even if these plants contain
mercury, their contributions to mercury methylation will be low. Multiple samples (five to
seven) will be collected at different locations for each species in the inundation area. Based on
the available preliminary data, it is anticipated that a majority of the samples will consist of alder
(Alnus crispa), willow (Salix sp.), white spruce (Picea glauca), cottonwood (Populus
balsamifera), black spruce (Picea mariana), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), and dwarf birch
(Betula nana). Leaves and needles will be collected.
Additional details of the sampling methods are provided in a combined Sampling and Analysis
Plan (SAP) and the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for this study.
5.7.4.2.2. Soil
Studies have found that the primary source of mercury to new reservoirs was the inundated soils
(Meister et al. 1979), especially the upper organic soil horizon, which often has higher mercury
levels than the lower inorganic soil layers (Bodaly et al. 1984). Measuring the thickness and
mercury content of these soils prior to inundation may allow predictions of possible mercury
methylation, and assist with evaluating potential mitigation methods, if necessary.
To the extent possible, soil samples are coincident with vegetative samples. The primary
concern is to document the thickness and extent of organic rich soils, because these soils will
have the highest concentrations of mercury and will provide most of the organic material
resulting in the generation of methylmercury.
Additional details of the sampling methods are provided in a combined SAP and the QAPP for
this study.
5.7.4.2.3. Water
The purpose of the water sampling is to collect baseline water quality information to support an
assessment of the effects of the proposed Project operations on water quality in the Susitna River
basin.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-71 December 2012
Mercury in water will be tested monthly during the summer along with two sampling events
during the winter. Mercury has been shown to vary in concentrations throughout the year
(Frenzel 2000).
Water samples will be collected at the locations shown on Table 5.7-5. The proposed spacing of
the sample locations follows accepted practice when segmenting large river systems for
development of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) water quality models. Water sampling
during winter months will be focused on locations where flow data are currently collected, or
were historically collected by USGS. Water samples will be analyzed for the parameters reported
in Table 5.7-6.
Grab samples will be collected along a transect of the stream channel/water body, using methods
consistent with ADEC and EPA protocols and regulatory requirements for sampling ambient
water and trace metal water quality criteria. Mainstem areas of the river not immediately
influenced by a tributary will be characterized with a single transect. Areas of the mainstem with
an upstream tributary that may influence the nearshore zone or that are well-mixed with the
mainstem will be characterized by collecting samples at two transect locations: in the tributary
and in the mainstem upstream of the tributary confluence. Samples will be collected at 3 equi-
distant locations along each transect (i.e. 25% from left bank, 50% from left bank, and 75% from
left bank). Samples will be collected from a depth of 0.5 meters below the surface as well as 0.5
meters above the bottom. This will ensure that variations in concentrations, especially metals,
are captured and adequately characterized throughout the study area.
These samples will be collected on approximately a monthly basis (four samples from June to
September). The period for collecting surface water samples will begin at ice break-up and
extend to beginning of ice formation on the river. Limited winter sampling (once in December,
and again in March) will be conducted where existing or historic USGS sites are located.
Review of existing data (URS 2011) indicates that few exceedances occur with metals
concentrations during the winter months. If the 2013 data sets suggest that mercury
concentrations exceed criteria or thresholds, then an expanded 2014 water quality monitoring
program will be conducted to characterize conditions on a monthly basis throughout the winter
months.
Variation of water quality in a river cross-section is often significant and is most likely to occur
because of incomplete mixing of upstream tributary inflows, point-source discharges, or
variations in velocity and channel geometry. Water quality profiles at each location on each
transect will be conducted for field water quality parameters (e.g., temperature, pH, dissolved
oxygen, and conductivity) to determine the extent of vertical and lateral mixing. Additional
details of the sampling methods are provided in a combined SAP and the QAPP for this study.
5.7.4.2.4. Sediment and Sediment Pore Water
In general, all sediment samples will be taken from sheltered backwater areas, downstream of
islands, and in similar riverine locations in which water currents are slowed, favoring
accumulation of finer sediment along the channel bottom. Samples will be analyzed for mercury
(Table 5.7-6). In addition, sediment size and total organic carbon (TOC) will be included to
evaluate whether these parameters are predictors for elevated mercury concentrations. Samples
will be collected just below and above the proposed dam site. Additional samples will be
collected near the mouth of tributaries near the proposed dam site, including Fog, Deadman,
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-72 December 2012
Watana, Tsusena, Kosina, Jay, and Goose creeks, and the Oshetna River. The purpose of this
sampling will be to determine where metals, if found in the water or sediment, originate in the
drainage.
Mercury occurrence is typically associated with fine sediments, rather than with coarse-grained
sandy sediment or rocky substrates. Therefore, the goal of the sampling will be to obtain
sediments with at least 5 percent fines (i.e., particle size <63 μm, or passing through a #230
sieve).
Surficial sediment sampling will be conducted with a Van Veen sampler lowered from a boat by
a power winch. This sampling device collects high-quality sediment samples from the top four
to six inches of sediment. Three sediment samples will be collected at each of the sites sampled.
These three samples will be collected and analyzed separately to characterize the presence of
mercury and generate statistical summaries for site characterization. A photographic record of
each sediment sample will be assembled from images of newly collected material.
Care will be taken to ensure the following:
The sampler will not be overfilled with sediment.
The overlying water is present when the sampler is retrieved.
At least two inches of sediment depth is collected.
There is no evidence of incomplete closure of the sampling device.
If a sediment sample does not meet all of the criteria listed above, it will be discarded and
another sample will be collected.
Sediment interstitial water, or pore water, is defined as the water occupying the space between
sediment particles. Interstitial waters will be collected from sites listed above and separated
from sediments in the field house laboratory using a pump apparatus to draw pore water from
each of the replicate samples. Filtering of samples will utilize a 0.45-µm pore size filter in both
the lab apparatus and field apparatus. In some cases, pore water may be drawn from sediment
samples in the field by using 100-milliliter (mL) syringes immersed in the dredge sample once a
sediment sample is collected in a sample jar. These would be cases where sediment samples
have slightly coarser particle sizes and pore water extraction in the field is possible. In other
instances, where sediment samples have finer particle sizes requiring more time to draw samples
for laboratory analysis, these samples will be transferred to the field laboratory for pore water
extraction.
Additional details of the sampling methods are provided in a combined SAP and QAPP for this
study.
5.7.4.2.5. Piscivorous Birds and Mammals
The potential impacts of methylmercury on upper trophic level species can by influenced by a
variety of factors including animal behavior and physiology (e.g., foraging behavior, diet
composition) and physical/chemical properties of the receiving environment (e.g., organic
carbon content, anaerobic conditions, sulfides, etc.). Fish, in particular, absorb methylmercury
efficiently from dietary sources and store this material in organs and tissues (U.S. EPA, 1997).
Because fish are the primary source of methylmercury migration into the terrestrial ecosystem,
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-73 December 2012
this evaluation focuses on the impact of methylmercury generated in the proposed reservoir on
fish-eating (piscivorous) upper trophic species.
5.7.4.3. Bird Species
Waterbirds such as loons, grebes, terns, and kingfishers consume varying amounts of small fish.
Small fish tend to have lower mercury concentrations than larger fish. Previous studies have
shown that mercury levels in waterbirds are highly variable (Braune et al. 1999; Langis et al.
1999). This variability results from the propensity of waterbirds to migrate between drainages,
and the variability of mercury concentrations between drainages and food sources. Because of
dietary preferences, the belted kingfisher and loon are likely to be a more conservative indicator
species than grebe and other aquatic bird species that could be exposed to mercury.
For raptors, ospreys typically consume a diet exclusively of fish, whereas bald eagles feed on
fish, birds and other animals including carrion (Watson and Pierce 1998). These birds have a
long life span (15 to 30 years in the wild), so they are likely to have the opportunity to
accumulate significant amounts of mercury throughout their lifespans. A study in northern
Quebec found that ospreys nesting near reservoirs had high burdens of methylmercury in their
muscle tissues (DesGranges et al. 1998). However, the ospreys there did not appear to suffer
reproductive problems that are typical of high methylmercury exposure, and it has been
suggested that the tolerance of fish-eating raptors to this compound may be higher than other
species (DesGranges et al. 1998).
Predicting site-specific mercury exposure in raptors from feather or tissue residue concentrations
is difficult because that they tend to feed over wide ranges (osprey are migratory), and that while
both species feed on salmon, eagles tend to favor this type of fish. Salmon mercury
concentrations are generally higher than other species of fish, but are typically only available
seasonally in freshwater environments. This means that mercury concentrations in raptors may
vary seasonally as well. In addition, salmon are not anticipated to be in the area after completion
of the reservoir.
5.7.4.4. Aquatic Mammal Species
Aquatic furbearers that eat fish are at the highest risk of accumulating mercury. River otter and
mink, both of which occur in the study area at low numbers, can accumulate the highest
concentrations of mercury in their body tissues (Yates et al, 2005). As with birds, predicting
how methylmercury in the aquatic food chain will affect mammal populations is difficult. The
concentration of methylmercury in mammal tissue depends on diet, range, and longevity of the
animal. Studies have documented mercury levels in river otter ranging from 0.89 to 36.0 µg/g
wet weight in muscle tissue, and from 0.02 to 96.0 µg/g wet weight in liver tissue (Wren et al.
1980). Mink have similar mercury levels, ranging from 0.71 to 15.2 µg/g wet weight in muscle
tissue and from 0.04 to 58.2 µg/g wet weight in liver tissue. Because mink and otter represent an
aquatic and terrestrial species, both species will be considered as part of this study.
5.7.4.5. Sampling Program
There are two significant challenges to the proposed sampling program. The first is that the
populations of most piscivorous birds and aquatic mammals are relatively small in the proposed
study area. For that reason, sampling efforts are likely to collect few samples, or may be entirely
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-74 December 2012
unsuccessful for some species. From a statistical standpoint, low sample returns (< 5 samples),
coupled with high variability in methylmercury concentrations, and may reduce the accuracy of
results and conclusions for this study. In addition, damaging relatively small populations of
these species as part of this study is undesirable, and therefore non-destructive sampling methods
are preferred.
The second challenge is that some species may be feeding in areas outside the area of project
effects. Species that feed in more than one area may be exposed to widely varying
methylmercury dietary loads that are not specific to the inundation zone.
To compensate for these problems, the proposed study will:
1) Utilize data obtained in other studies on background concentrations of methylmercury in
natural northern environments.
2) Utilize samples in the muscle and liver of various fish species and from feathers and fur,
where it does not degrade quickly (Thompson, 1996; Strom 2008). These types of
samples can be collected without harvesting or even harassing the species being sampled.
Feathers will be collected from nests of raptors (principally bald eagles, given that ospreys are
rare in the study area), loons, grebes, arctic terns, and kingfishers found during the wildlife
surveys planned for 2013 and 2014. Feathers from raptors and waterbirds will only be collected
after the nests have been vacated for the season. Kingfisher feathers will be collected from
borrows during the planned survey of colonially nesting swallows.
Fur samples from river otters and mink will be sought from animals harvested by trappers in the
study area; river otter furs must be presented to ADF&G for sealing, at which time fur samples
can be obtained from animals known to have been harvested in or near the study area. In view of
the low level of trapping expected to occur in the area, however, it is possible that this approach
will yield few samples. If this approach does not yield fur samples in 2013, fur will be collected
by placing hair-snag “traps” at or near the mouths of tributaries near the proposed dam site,
including Fog, Deadman, Watana, Tsusena, Kosina, Jay, and Goose creeks, and the Oshetna
River.
Studies have shown that a vast majority of the mercury found in fur and feathers will consist of
methylmercury, therefor the analyses will be for total mercury only (Evers et al 2005). Samples
will be analyzed using Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 7473. Additional
details on the sampling are included as part of the SAP/QAPP (Attachment 5-1).
5.7.4.6. Predictive Risk Analyses
A predictive risk analysis is likely to be a better indicator of potential mercury impacts on the
terrestrial environment than measured concentrations of mercury at the project site, since the
number of samples that may be collected will be low, and methylmercury concentrations in fur
and feathers can change seasonally (U.S. EPA, 1997). In addition, mercury sequestration in
feathers may not be a good indicator of current or relevant exposure levels. For example, a study
measuring feather mercury concentrations in seabirds during various growth and development
stages of the birds suggest that in seabirds molting may be an efficient means of eliminating
mercury (Becker et al., 1994; Burger et al., 1994).
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-75 December 2012
The potential impacts of the Project on mercury levels on piscivorous birds and aquatic
furbearers will be assessed using a risk characterization approach. This approach uses exposure
and toxicity assessments to link a chemical of potential concern, in this case methylmercury,
with adverse ecological effects (known as the toxicity reference value or TRV). The hazard
quotient (HQ) is the ratio of average anticipated concentration of mercury being ingested to the
known concentration where adverse effects may occur. It will be calculated for all species for
which significant samples are available.
The global assumptions and limitations of the mercury models are as follows:
• The reservoir is flooded and mercury baseline is measured as Day 1 of operation.
• Herbivores and omnivores accumulate less total mercury in tissue than piscivores,
therefore this type of assessment is protective of other terrestrial species.
• Mercury concentrations in fish are expected to peak in 3 to 7 years after filling of the
reservoir.
• Fish concentrations will be predicted using other modeling methods outlined in Section
5.7.4.2.6.
• Because total mercury levels in piscivores are highly correlated with the ingestion rates
of fish, total mercury bioaccumulation will approximate the rate of increase and decline
in fish.
In order for the predicted exposure to be compared against the TRV, the daily intake (D) will be
calculated. D is defined as the amount of chemical an organism is exposed to on a mg/kg body
weight/day basis and is normalized for body mass. Because the sediment and water intake of
mercury is likely to be minimal as compared to the food ingestion pathway, only dietary intake
will be quantified. The formula for calculating D is as follows:
D= Fsite x [(IF x EPC x PF) ]
BW
Where:
• IF is the Intake Factor (kg fish/kg body weight per day)
• EPC is the Exposure Point Concentration (mg methylmercury/kg fish)
• PF is portion of total food containing a particular chemical of concern.
• BW = body weight (kg)
• Fsite is the fraction of total ingestion from the site.
The IF is calculated using the ingestion rate (IR) of fish (kg/day) on a dry weight basis. The
model can be adjusted to account for the consumption of piscivorous and non-piscivorous fish
species.
TRV values for mercury incorporated a chronic lowest-observed adverse effects level threshold
for adverse effects to reproduction, growth, and/ or survival. As previously stated, the HQ
=D/TRV. Typically, a HQ >1 indicates that the exposure concentration has surpassed the
threshold and adverse effects are possible. A HQ < 1 means the exposure concentration has not
surpassed the threshold and consequently adverse effects are unlikely to occur. These values
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-76 December 2012
will be derived from the extant literature. For example, USEPA (1997) set reference doses for
methylmercury in avian and mammalian wildlife at 21 and 18 μg/kg body weight per day,
respectively. It also suggested the wildlife criterion as measured in water for several key species
as follows:
Species Methylmercury in water (pg/L)
Kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) 27
Mink (Mustela vison) 57
Loon (Gavia immer) 67
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) 67
River otter (Lutra canadensis) 42
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 82
pg/L= picograms per liter
5.7.4.6.1. Fish Tissue
Methylmercury is ubiquitous in the environment, and can be found in fish throughout Alaska.
The primary concern of this study is not to catalogue this source of mercury in the environment;
rather, it is to evaluate the potential for increasing mercury concentrations above background due
to filling of the reservoir.
Methylmercury bioaccumulates, and the highest concentrations are typically in the muscle tissue
of adult predatory fish. Targeting adult fish is a good way of monitoring methylmercury
migration to the larger environment. While it may be possible for methylmercury generated by
the reservoir to affect other species, there does not appear to be any pathway by which this could
happen without also affecting fish. Avian species have the potential to bypass fish by feeding on
small fish species and macroinvertebrates; however, bird species can move between drainages
and sources of mercury, and it is difficult to determine what contributions may be from the
reservoir or from outside sources.
Target fish species in the vicinity of the Susitna-Watana Reservoir will be Dolly Varden, arctic
grayling, stickleback, long nose sucker, whitefish species, lake trout, burbot, and resident
rainbow trout. If possible, filets will be sampled from seven adult individuals from each species.
The larger number of samples from existing fish species will allow for some statistical control
over the results.
For comparison purposes, Hydro-Quebec, in their extensive study of methylmercury impacts
from existing reservoirs, collected 131 lake trout from 7 lakes over a period of 22 years (Hydro
Quebec, 2003). This comes to less than 1 fish per water body per year. AEA is proposing
collecting many more fish over a shorter period of time.
Methylmercury concentrations in fish vary predominately by species, age, water body size, and
location. For example, ADEC has reported statewide concentrations of methylmercury in pike to
be 420 ppb (n =532), while in arctic grayling it is 84 ppb (n=44) (ADEC 2012), a 400%
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-77 December 2012
difference. Increases in methylmercury above background post impoundment are typically
measured in units of 100% (Harris and Hutchison, 2008).
There is a well-known positive correlation between fish size (length and weight) and mercury
concentration in muscle tissue (Bodaly et al. 1984; Somers and Jackson 1993). Larger, older fish
tend to have higher mercury concentrations. These fish will be the targets for sampling. Body
size targeted for collection will represent the adult phase of each species life cycle. For
stickleback, whole fish samples will need to be used.
Collection times for fish samples will occur in August and early September. Intensive studies of
methylmercury concentrations in the zooplankton of boreal lakes (Garcia et al. 2007) has shown
that average methylmercury concentrations increased by 48% between spring and mid-summer,
and decreased by just 12% between mid and late summer. This is very consistent with Bodaly et
al (1993) which showed that methylmercury concentrations in fish, when controlled for age and
reservoir size, were strongly related to shallow water temperatures. As water temperatures are
reduced, methylmercury concentrations in fish tissue also tend to decrease. Therefore the
proposed sampling period should represent the highest concentrations of methylmercury in fish
tissue, and also the most likely time when the fish may be harvested by terrestrial wildlife.
Samples will be analyzed for methyl and total mercury (Tables 5.7-6). It is anticipated that most
of the mercury found in the fish with be methylmercury. Liver samples will also be collected
from burbot and analyzed for mercury and methylmercury. Salmon will not be sampled.
Preliminary data suggests that approximately 30 Chinook (king) salmon spawn in the Watana
area. Collecting a sufficient number of samples from this resource would seriously deplete it.
Instead, sampling data from ADEC will be used to evaluate mercury concentrations in this
resource (ADEC 2012). It should be noted that most of the mercury in salmon is oceanic in
origin.
Field procedures will be consistent with those outlined in applicable ADEC and/or EPA
sampling protocols (USEPA 2000). Clean nylon nets and polyethylene gloves will be used
during fish tissue collection. Species identification, measurement of total length (mm), and
weight (g) will be recorded, along with sex and sexual maturity. If possible, efforts will be made
to determine the age of the fish, including an examination of otoliths and scales.
It is possible that adult fish of all species may not be present or available in the drainage. In this
case, younger fish may be sampled. To eliminate the bias associated with differences in fish
size, appropriate statistical procedures will be used to determine the mean mercury concentration
for a specific fish size (Hydro Quebec 2003).
Additional details of the sampling methods are provided in a combined SAP and the QAPP for
this study.
5.7.4.7. Modeling
Reservoir impoundments have been documented to cause significant increases in fish mercury
levels by factors that generally ranged from 3 to 7 (Hydro-Quebec 2003). The phenomenon is
temporary, and mercury concentrations generally returned to baseline values after 7 to 30 years.
Reservoir construction involves raising the water level and flooding a large quantity of terrestrial
organic matter (vegetation and the surface layers of soils). During the early years of a reservoir’s
existence, this organic matter is subject to accelerated bacterial decomposition, which increases
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-78 December 2012
methylation of the mercury accumulated in the soil from the atmosphere. The production of
methylmercury is governed by the amount and type of flooded organic matter and by biological
and physical factors such as bacterial activity, water temperature, oxygen content of the water,
etc.
Part of the methylmercury produced is released into the water column where it may be
transferred to fish via zooplankton. Insect larvae feeding in the top centimeters of flooded soils
can assimilate the methylmercury available and transfer it to fish (Figure 5.7-2).
There is evidence that mercury concentrations in fish correlate closely with environmental
parameters such as pH (Qian et al. 2001; Ikingura and Akagi 2003), organic carbon (Cope et al.
1990; Suns and Hitchin 1990; Driscoll et al. 1995), and wetland area (Greenfield et al. 2001).
However, because fish assimilate the vast majority of their mercury burden from their diet, such
correlations are indirect (Westcott and Kalff 1996; Lawson and Mason 1998). It is, however,
possible to predict the potential for mercury methylation based on the pH, dissolved oxygen
content, organic carbon, and wetland area of an individual drainage.
There are several ways to predict the occurrence of methylmercury in a newly formed reservoir.
One way is to model the physical conditions that create methylation of mercury. If the
conditions for methylation are present (low DO, low pH, organic content, etc.), then it is
presumed that methylation will occur, and the methylmercury will be transferred outside the
reservoir. This type of modeling will be done as part of the model for the reservoir (see Section
5.6 Water Quality Modeling Study). This type of modeling does not predict specific impacts to
the ecosystem, but merely suggests that such impacts could occur, and where in the reservoir
methylmercury may be forming. Such an approach has considerable value in evaluating
potential mitigation measures.
The other way of predicting the occurrence of methylmercury is to model concentrations in fish
tissue after filling of the reservoir. Schetagne et al. (2003) found a strong correlation between the
ratio of flooded area, the mean annual flow through of the reservoir, and maximum mercury
concentrations in fish tissue. This approach was further refined by Harris and Hutchinson (2008)
to provide a predictive tool for methylmercury concentrations in fish. Regression calculations
using historical data from multiple reservoirs have determined the coefficients that control these
equations. The drawback to these models is that they only predict peak methylmercury
concentrations, not when these concentrations will occur or subside.
Phosphorous release modeling is a semi-empirical way to derive the same result, but has the
added benefit of being able to predict when peak methylmercury concentrations will occur, and
when they are likely to subside (Hydro-Quebec 2003). Unfortunately, they require considerably
more input parameters, which can create additional uncertainty in the results.
5.7.4.7.1. Harris and Hutchison Model
The model assumes that the primary source of methylmercury in a new reservoir is the flooded
terrain, while the primary methylmercury removal mechanism is outflow/dilution. The highest
methylmercury concentrations in fish are therefore associated with reservoirs that flood large
areas, but have low flow-through.
The formula is as follows:
Peak Increase factor = 1 + K1 x Area Flooded
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-79 December 2012
Q + K2 x (Area Total)
Where
Peak increase factor = peak increase factor in fish methylmercury over background
Area flooded = flooded area (km2)
Q = mean annual flow (km3/yr.)
K1 = regression coefficients (km/yr.)
K2 = regression coefficients (1/yr.)
Area total = Total reservoir area (km2)
The values of K1 and K2 are adjusted for piscivorous and non-piscivorous species of fish. The
use of area in the denominator reflects an assumption that methylmercury removal mechanisms
other than outflow are primarily related to area (e.g., photodegradation, burial and sediment
demethylation) rather than volume. This approach has been calibrated and tested in the field,
with good results (Harris and Hutchinson 2008). This method will be used to estimate
methylmercury concentrations in fish at the proposed reservoir.
5.7.4.8. Phosphorous Release Model
The more complex method of estimating methylmercury impacts was pioneered by Messier et al.
(1985) based on the phosphorus release model of Grimard and Jones (1982), whole-ecosystem
reservoir experiments at the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) in Ontario, Canada (Bodaly et al.
2005), and confirmed by decades-long studies of reservoirs by Hydro-Quebec (2003). It predicts
peak fish mercury levels and the timing of the response to flooding. The model pays special
attention to flood zone characteristics, because decomposition after flooding is a key driver for
increases in methylmercury levels in new reservoirs.
Studies have shown that a simple model cannot explain all the differences observed between
reservoirs with regard to maximum fish mercury levels (Hydro-Quebec 2003). The filling time is
another important factor in determining the maximum levels in fish; several authors have
demonstrated that mercury is released into the water column very rapidly when organic matter
from soils and vegetation is flooded (Morrison and Thérien 1991; Kelly et al. 1997). Chartrand et
al. (1994) showed that the changes in reservoir water quality correspond to bacterial
decomposition of organic matter (as does mercury release) and peak two or three years after
impoundment in reservoirs filled in one year or less, but after six to ten years in impoundments
that took 35 months to fill. Thus, a longer filling time leads to lower peak values, but prolongs
the period of elevated mercury levels.
The percentage of flooded land area located in the drawdown zone is another important factor
because it is an indicator of the active transfer of methylmercury to fish by periphyton and
benthic organisms. In fact, this transfer can occur for over 14 years in shallow areas that are rich
in flooded organic matter and protected from wave action (Tremblay and Lucotte 1997). Where
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-80 December 2012
forest soil cover is thin, wave action along the exposed banks of the drawdown zone quickly
erodes the mercury-rich organic matter and deposits it in deeper, colder areas that are less
conducive to methylation. This erosion considerably reduces the area of flooded soil that still has
organic matter colonized by the benthic organisms responsible for much of the transfer of
methylmercury to fish. Therefore, the larger the percentage of flooded land area in a reservoir
drawdown zone, the smaller and shorter in duration the increase in fish mercury levels is likely
to be. Colder water and the vegetation and soil cover that contained less decomposable organic
matter (Association Poulin Thériault-Gauthier & Guillemette Consultants Inc. 1993) may also
help mitigate the increase in fish mercury levels.
The Hydro-Quebec model is semi-empirical, not mechanistic: decaying organic material
releases phosphorous at a set rate (the phosphorus release curve), which controls decomposition
of the organic material in the inundation zone. This turns out to be a fairly accurate measure of
the bioavailability of mercury for fish, and can be used to predict mercury concentrations in
muscle tissues.
The basic equation used by Hydro-Quebec is as follows:
V (Pr)t = Pi x (1-e-Øt) + rB x e-rt-e-Øt + e-Øt-e-αt) +V (Pr)0e-Øt
Ø α-r (Ø-r Ø-r )
Where:
V = Reservoir volume (m3)
Pr = Concentration of total phosphorous in the reservoir at time t (mg/m3)
t = time in years after reservoir filling
Pi = Total phosphorous from inflows (mg/yr.)
Ø = The sum of the sedimentation coefficient and the flushing coefficient (r)
r = The reservoir flushing coefficient (per year)
α = The phosphorous release coefficient = ½(365/X)
X = The half-life of the organic matter in days
B = α(It)Smax
Smax = Maximum surface area flooded (m3)
T = Time (year)
When solved for Pr, this allows for the calculation of the amount of decomposable organic
matter (mgC/m2) at a specific time (It), calculated by:
It = (Pr)0 + 4((Pr)t –(Pr)0)
Where It is the decomposition factor at the time t. This result can then be used to calculate
mercury concentrations in non-piscivorous (NP) species and piscivorous (P) species of fish:
(Hgnp)t = (Hgnp)t-1 x ( 1) + dIt
(2365/u)
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-81 December 2012
Where:
Hgnp = mercury concentration in non-piscivorous muscle tissue (mg/kg)
u = half-life of mercury in fish (days). This is typically set at 700 days in northern climates, but
can be adjusted.
d = a transfer factor
For the predatory species, the decomposition factor was replaced by a factor (f) for mercury
transfer from the prey to the predator:
(Hgp)t = (Hgp)t-1 x ( 1) + f(Hgnp)t
(2365/u)
Where Hgp = mercury concentration in piscivorous muscle tissue.
These formulas have been tested, and found to be very effective in predicting mercury
concentrations in fish tissue (Figure 5.7-2). Note that the predictions generally tend to
overestimate the changes actually recorded. This situation reflects a conscious choice on the part
of the developers of the formula to be conservative with their predictions.
The phosphorous release model will be used if the previous methods (the water quality model or
the Harris and Hutchison model) suggest there may be significant methylmercury production in
the reservoir.
5.7.4.9. Pathway Assessment
Assessment of the potential pathways for mercury in the environment will be based on readily
available literature (Hydro-Quebec 1993; Johnston et al. 1991; Therriault and Schneider 1998),
and additional mercury studies, to ensure the most applicable methods are used to meet Project
needs. The goal of the pathway assessment will be to evaluate the potential pathways for
methylmercury to move into the ecosystem, both from the reservoir and downstream of the
reservoir.
The pathway assessment will incorporate both existing conditions, and conditions with the
reservoir and dam in place. The reservoir representation will be developed based on the local
bathymetry and dimensions of the proposed dam. The Water Quality Modeling Study (Section
5.6) provides for a three-dimensional model to be developed for the proposed reservoir to
represent the spatial variability in hydrodynamics and water quality in longitudinal, vertical, and
lateral directions. The model will be able to simulate flow circulation in the reservoir, turbulence
mixing, temperature dynamics, nutrient fate and transport, interaction between nutrient and
algae, and potentially sediment and metal transport.
5.7.4.10. Technical Report on Analytical Results and Mercury Assessment
The technical report will include a description of the study goals and objectives, assumptions
made, sample methods, analytical results, models used, and other background information. Field
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-82 December 2012
data, laboratory report, and quality assurance information will be attached. Mercury will be
modeled using two methods:
1. Water quality modeling of the reservoir will predict whether the conditions for the
formation of methylmercury will be present, and where in the reservoir this may occur.
2. The linear model of Harris and Hutchinson (2008) to provide an initial prediction of peak
mercury concentrations in fish.
The phosphorous release model may be used if there is a need to evaluate when peak
methylmercury production may occur.
The report will include a conceptual model showing mercury inputs to the reservoir, mercury
methylation, mercury circulation among different media (fish, air, water, sediment, etc.), and
bioabsorption and transfer. Strategies to manage mercury methylation, bioaccumulation, and
biomagnification will be reviewed (Mailman et al. 2006).
Sediment, water, and tissue results from toxics analysis will use the federal NOAA Screening
Quick Reference Tables (SQuiRTs). These are thresholds used as screening values for evaluation
of toxics and potential effect to aquatic life in several media and will be implemented where
ADEC water quality, sediment, or tissue criteria are not available.
An example for SQuiRT values can be found at the following website:
http://mapping2.orr.noaa.gov/portal/sanfranciscobay/sfb_html/pdfs/otherreports/squirt.pdf
Specific thresholds and criteria for toxics in each of the media are included in a QAPP.
Coordination will occur with the instream flow, ice processes, productivity, and fish studies to
obtain information needed to reflect the results of this study in the context of the various Project
scenarios.
5.7.5. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice
Field sampling practices proposed in this study are consistent with ADEC (2003, 2005); USGS
(Ward and Harr 1990); Edwards and Glysson 1988); and EPA (USEPA 2000). Results will be
compared to established NOAA cleanup levels (NOAA 2012). Studies, field investigations,
laboratory testing, engineering analysis, etc. will be performed in accordance with general
industry-accepted scientific and engineering practices. The methods and work efforts outlined in
this study plan are the same or consistent with analyses used by applicants and licensees and
relied upon by FERC in other hydroelectric licensing proceedings.
The Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification process includes a baseline
assessment of mercury conditions and will determine if existing conditions will result in a
potential for bioaccumulation. The monitoring strategy used in this study follows scientifically
accepted practice for identifying impacts to water quality and will be used for Project
certification. ADEC and USGS are currently pursing similar sampling programs for fish tissue
in the state (ADEC 2012; Frenzel 2000; and Krabbenhoft et al. 1999).
FERC has a long history of performing similar studies during hydroelectric permitting, including
most recently at the Middle Fork American River Project (FERC Project No. 2079) in 2011; and
Yuba County Water Agency Yuba River Development Project (FERC Project No. 2246).
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-83 December 2012
5.7.6. Schedule
The study elements will be completed in several stages and based on the timeline shown in Table
5.7-7. Water quality monitoring will start in March 2013, and continue periodically throughout
the remainder of the year. Sediment and fish tissue sampling will occur in July and August.
Bird and aquatic furbearer samples will be collected in the third quarter of 2013. Some fish
tissue samples have already been collected in 2012, the remainder will be collected in the third
quarter of 2013. The initial study report will be completed by December 2014, with the final due
in the first quarter of 2015. Additional follow-up studies will be performed between these two
dates, as necessary.
5.7.7. Relationship with Other Studies
A flow chart (Figure 5.7-3) describing interdependencies outlines origin of existing data and
related historical studies, specific output for each element of the Water Quality studies, and
where the output information generated in the Water Quality studies will be directed. This chart
provides details describing the flow of information related to the Water Quality studies, from
historical data collection to current data collection. Data were examined in a Water Quality Data
Gap Analysis (URS 2011) and this information was used, in part, to assist in making decisions
about the current design for the Water Quality Monitoring studies and for ensuring that the
current modeling effort would be able to compare the 1980s study results with current modeling
results.
Integral portions of this interdependency chart are results from the Ice Processes Study and from
the Fish and Aquatic Instream Flow Study. The Ice Processes Study will support water quality
model development (Study Plan 5.6) with information about timing and conditions for ice
formation and ice break-up. The Fish and Aquatic Instream Flow Study represents the effort to
develop a hydraulic routing model that will be coupled with the EFDC water quality model.
Water quality monitoring efforts for field parameters, general chemistry, and metals (including
mercury) will be used as a calibration data set for developing the predictive EFDC model.
5.7.8. Level of Effort and Cost
The estimated cost for the proposed work in 2013 and 2014, including planning and reporting is
approximately $500,000. This presumes that the costs for sampling and analyses all non-
biological media are covered within the water quality costs.
5.7.9. Literature Cited
ADEC. 2005. Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring Program. Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation: Division of Water. Juneau, Alaska. 58p.
ADEC. 2012. Mercury concentration in fresh water fish Southcentral Susitna Watershed.
Personal communication with Bob Gerlach, VMD, State Veterinarian. June 2012.
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2011. Pre-Application Document: Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241. Volume I of II. Alaska Energy Authority,
Anchorage, AK. 395p.Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC), 1985.
Preliminary draft impact assessment technical memorandum, Volume 1. Main text.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-84 December 2012
Association Poulin Thériault - Gauthier & Guillemette Consultants Inc. 1993. Méthode de
caractérisation de la phytomasse appliquée aux complexes Grande-Baleine et La Grande.
Report by Association Poulin Thériault - Gauthier & Guillemette Consultants Inc. for
Hydro-Québec. 152 p. and appendices.
Bailey, E.A., and Gray, J.E. 1997. Mercury in the terrestrial environment, Kuskokwim
Mountains region, southwestern Alaska, in Dumoulin, J.A. and Gray J.E., ed., Geologic
studies in Alaska by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1995: U.S. Geological Survey,
Professional Paper 1574, p. 41-56.
Becker, P.H., Henning, D., and Furness, R.W. 1994. Differences in mercury contamination and
elimination during feather development in gull and tern broods. Arch. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol. 27:162-167.
Bodaly, R.A., Hecky, R.E., and Fudge, R.J.P. 1984. Increases in fish mercury levels in lakes
flooded by the Churchill River diversion, northern Manitoba. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 41:
682–691.
Bodaly, R.A., J.W.M. Wudd, R.J.P. Fudge, and C.A. Kelly. 1993. Mercury concentrations in fish
related to size. Can. Jounal of Fish. Aquat. Sci. SO: 980-987.
Bodaly, R.A., St. Louis, V.L., Paterson, M.J., Fudge, R.J.P., Hall, B.D., Rosenberg, D.M., and
Rudd, J.W.M., 1997, Bioaccumulation of mercury in the aquatic food chain in newly
flooded areas, in Sigel, A., and Sigel, H., eds., Metal ions in biological systems: Mercury
and its effects on environment and biology: New York, Marcel Decker, Inc., p. 259-287.
Bodaly R.A., Beaty K.G., Hendzel L.H., Majewski A.R., Paterson M.J., Rolfhus K.R., Penn
A.F., St. Louis V.L., Hall B.D., Matthews C.J.D., Cherewyk K.A., Mailman M., Hurley,
J.P., Schiff S.L., Venkiteswaran J.J., 2004. Experimenting with hydroelectric reservoirs,
Environmental Science & Technology, American Chemical Society. pp. 346A-352A.
Bodaly, R.A., Beaty, K.G., Hendzel, L.H., Majewski, A.R., Paterson, M.J., Rolfhus, K.R., Penn,
A.F., St.Louis, V.L., Hall, B.D., Matthews, C.J.D., Cherewyk, K.A., Mailman, M., Hurley,
J.P., Schiff, S.L., and Venkiteswaran, J.J.. 2005. Mercury and the FLUDEX project:
response. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39: 185A-186A.
Bodaly R.A., Jansen W.A., Majewski A.R., Fudge R.J.P., Strange N.E., Derksen A.J., Green D.J.
2007. Post impoundment time course of increased mercury concentrations in fish in
hydroelectric reservoirs of Northern Manitoba, Canada. Arch. Environ. Con tam. Toxicol.
53:379-389.
Braune, B.; Muir, D.; DeMarch, D.; Gamberg, M.; Poole, K.; Currie, R.; Dodd, M.; Duschenko,
W.; Eamer, J.; Elkin, B.; Evans, M.; Grundy, S.; Hebert, C.; Johnstone, R.; Kidd, K.;
Koenig, B.; Lockhart, L.; Marshall, H.; Reimer, K.; Sanderson, J.; Shutt L.; 1999. Spatial
and Temporal Trends of Contaminants in Canadian Arctic Freshwater and Terrestrial
Ecosystems: A Review. Science of the Total Environment, Volume 230, Issues 1–3, 1
June 1999, Pages 145-207.
Burger, J., I.C.T. Nisbet and M. Gochfeld (1994). Heavy metal and selenium levels in feathers of
known-aged common terns (Sterna hirundo). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 26:351-
355.Bodaly R.A., Hecky R.E., Fudge R.J.P. 1984. Increases in fish mercury levels in lakes
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-85 December 2012
flooded by the Churchill River Diversion, Northern Manitoba. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
41:682-691.Chartrand, N., Schetagne, R., Verdon, R. 1994. Enseignements tirés du suivi
environnemental au complexe La Grande. 18th Congress of the International Commission
on Large Dams, Durban (South Africa). Paris: International Commission on Large Dams.
p. 165-190.
Cope, W.G., Wiener, J.G., and Rada, R.G. 1990. Mercury accumulation in yellow perch in
Wisconsin seepage lakes — relation to lake characteristics. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9:
931–940.
DesGranges, J.L.; Rodrigue, J., Tardif, B.; and Laperle M., 1998. Mercury Accumulation and
Biomagnification in Ospreys ( Pandion haliaetus ) in the James Bay and Hudson Bay
Regions of Québec. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume
35, Number 2 (1998), 330-341, DOI: 10.1007/s002449900384.
Driscoll, C.T., Blette, V., Yan, C., Schofield, C.L., Munson, R., and Holsapple, J. 1995. The role
of dissolved organic carbon in the chemistry and bioavailability of mercury in remote
Adirondack lakes. Water Air Soil Pollut. 80: 499–508.
Edwards, T.K., and D.G. Glysson. 1988. Field methods for measurement of fluvial sediment.
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-531, 118 p.
Engstrom, D.R., and Swain, E.B. 1997, Recent declines in atmospheric mercury deposition in the
Upper Midwest: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 31, no. 4, p. 960-967.
Evers, D. Burgess, N. Champux, L. Hoskins, B. Major, A. Goodale, W., Taylor, R. Poppenga, R.
and Daigle, T., 2005. Patterns and interpretation of mercury exposure in freshwater avian
communities in northeastern North America. Exotoxicology 14: 193-221.
Fitzgerald, W.F., Engstrom, D.R., Mason, R.P., and Nater, E.A. 1998. The case for atmospheric
mercury contamination in remote areas: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 32, no.
1, p. 1-7.
Frenzel, S.A. 2000. Selected Organic Compounds and Trace Elements in Streambed Sediments
and Fish Tissues, Cook Inlet Basin, Alaska. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report
00-4004. Prepared as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program.
Garcia. E., Carignan, R. and Lean, D.R.S. 2007. Seasonal and inter-annual variations in methyl
mercury concentrations in zooplankton from boreal lakes impacted by deforestation or
natural forest fires. Environ Monit Assess 131:1–11.
Gray J.E., Theodorakos P.M., Bailey E.A., Turner R.R., 2000. Distribution, speciation, and
transport of mercury in stream-sediment, stream-water, and fish collected near abandoned
mercury mines in southwestern Alaska, USA. Science of the Total Environment 260:21-
33.
Greenfield, B.K, Hrabic T.R., Harvey C.J. Carpenteer S.R. 2001. Predicting mercury levels in
yellow perch. Use of water chemistry, tropi ecology and spatial traits. Can J. Fish Aquat.
Scie. Vol 58 : 1419 –1429.
Grigal D.F., 2003. Mercury sequestration in forests and peatlands: a review. Journal of
Environmental Quality 32:393-405.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-86 December 2012
Grimard, Y., Jones, H. G. 1982. Trophic upsurge in new reservoirs: a model for total
phosphorous concentration, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 39
(1982). p. 1473-1483.
Hall, B.D., Rosenberg D.M., Wiens A.P. 1998. Methylmercury in aquatic insects from an
experimental reservoir. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55:2036-2047.
Harris, R., and Hutchinson, D., 2008. Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project
Environmental Baseline Report: Assessment of the Potential for Increased Mercury
Concentrations. Prepared by Tetra Tech Inc. March 4, 2008.
Henderson, B.L., Chumchal, M.M., Drenner, R.W., Deng, Y., Diaz, P., and Nowlin, W.H. 2011.
Effects of Fish on mercury contamination of macroinvertebarte communities of grassland
ponds. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 870–876, 2012.
Hydro-Quebec. 1993. Grande-Baleine complex. Feasibility study. Part 2: Hydroelectric
complex. Book 6: Mercury, Hydro-Quebec, Montreal, Quebec.
Hydro-Quebec. 2003. Environmental Monitoring at the La Grande Complex Summary Report
1978–2000: Evolution of Fish Mercury Levels. Joint Report: Direction Barrages et
Environment Hydro-Quebec Production and Groupe Conseil, Genivar Inc. December
2003.
Ikingura, J.R., and Akagi, H. 2003. Total mercury and methylmercury levels in fish from
hydroelectric reservoirs in Tanzania. Sci. Total Environ. 304: 355–368.
Johnston, T.A., Bodaly R.A., Mathias J.A. 1991. Predicting fish mercury levels from physical
characteristics of boreal reservoirs. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48:1468-1475.
Kabata-Pendias, A., Pendias H., 1992. Trace elements in soils and plants. 2nd ed. CRC Press,
Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 365.
Kelly C.A., Rudd J.W.M., Bodaly R.A., Roulet N.P., St. Louis V.L., Heyes A., Moore T.R.,
Schiff S., Aravena R., Scott K.J., Dyck B., Harris R., Warner B., Edwards G. 1997.
Increases in fluxes of greenhouse gases and methylmercury following flooding of an
experimental reservoir. Environmental Science & Technology 31:1334-1344.
Krabbenhoft, D.P., Wiener, J.G., Brumbaugh, W.G., Olson, M.L., DeWild, J.F., and Sabin, T.J.
1999. A national pilot study of mercury contamination of aquatic ecosystems along
multiple gradients, in Morganwalp, D.W., and Buxton, H.T., eds., U.S. Geological Survey
Toxic Substances Hydrology Program—Proceedings of the Technical Meeting, Charleston,
South Carolina, March 8-12, 1999— Volume 2, Contamination of hydrologic systems and
related ecosystems: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-
4018B, p. 147-162.
Langis, R., Langlois, C. and Morneau, F., 1999. Mercury in birds and mammals. In M. Lucotte,
R. Schetagne, N. Therien, C. Langlois and A. Tremblay (eds). Mercury in the
Biogeochemical Cycle. pp. 131–144. Springer, Germany.
Lawson, N.M., and Mason R.P. 1998. Accumulation of mercury in estuarine food chains.
Biogeochemistry. 40:235–247.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-87 December 2012
Lindberg, S., Bullock, R., Ebinghaus, R., Engstrom, D., Feng, X., Fitzgerald, W., Pirrone, N.,
Prestbo, E., and Seigneur, C., 2007. A synthesis of progress and uncertainties in attributing
the sources of mercury in deposition: Ambio, v. 36, no. 1, p. 19-32.
Lindqvist, O., 1991. Mercury in the Swedish environment: 9. Mercury in terrestrial ecosystems
bioavailability and effects. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 55(1–2):101–108.
Lockhart, W.L., Stem G.A., Low G., Hendzel M., Boila G., Roach P., Evans M.S., Billeck B.N.,
DeLaronde J., Friesen S., Kidd K.A., Atkins S., Muir D.C.G., Stoddart M., Stephens G.,
Stephenson S., Harbicht S., Snowshoe N., Grey B., Thompson S., DeGraff N., 2005. A
history of total mercury in edible muscle of fish from lakes in northern Canada. Science of
the Total Environment 351-352:427-463.
Mailman, M., Stepnuk L., Cicek N., Bodaly R.A. 2006. Strategies to lower methylmercury
concentrations in hydroelectric reservoirs and lakes: A review. Science of the Total
Environment 368:224-235.
Meister, J.F., DiNunzio J., Cox J.A. 1979. Source and level of mercury in a new impoundment.
Journal of the American Water Works Association 71:574-576.
Messier, D., Roy, D. and Lemire R., 1985. Reseau de surveillance ecologique du complexe La
Grande 1978-1984. Evolution du mercure dans la chair des poissons. Societe d'energie de
la Baie James. 179 pages.
Morrison, K. and Thérien, N. 1991. Influence of Environmental Factors on Mercury Release in
Hydroelectric Reservoirs, Montréal, Quebec, Canadian Electrical Association, 122 p.
Morrison, K., Thérien, N. 1991b. Experimental evolution of mercury release from flooded
vegetation and soil. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, Vol. 56 (1991). p. 607-619.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2012. Screening Quick Reference
Tables (SQuiRTs), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Response
and Restoration, http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/SQuiRTs.pdf.
Qian, S.S., Warren-Hicks, W., Keating, J., Moore, D.R.J., and Teed, R.S. 2001. A predictive
model of mercury fish tissue concentrations for the southeastern United States. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 35: 941–947.
Rosenberg, D.M., Berkes F., Bodaly R.A., Hecky R.E., Kelly C.A., Rudd J.W.M. 1997. Large
scale impacts of hydroelectric development. Environ. Rev. 5:27-54.
Rudd, W.M., 1995. Sources of Methyl Mercury to Freshwater Ecosystems : A Review. Plenary
address to the International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant. Publication #10
of the Experimental Lakes Area Reservoir Project (ELARP).
Rylander, L.D., Grohn J., Tropp M., Vikstrom A., Wolpher H., De Castro e Silva E., Meili M.,
Oliveira L.J. 2006. Fish mercury increase in Lago Manso, a new hydroelectric reservoir in
tropical Brazil. Journal of Environmental Management 81:155-166.
Saiki, M.K., and Martin, B.A. 2010. Mercury concentrations in fish from a Sierra Nevada
foothill reservoir located downstream from historic gold-mining operations Environ.
Monit. Assess 163:313–326.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-88 December 2012
Schetagne, R., J. Therrien, J. and R. Lalumière. 2003. Environmental Monitoring at the La
Grande Complex. Evolution of Fish Mercury Levels. Summary Report 1978–2000.
Direction Barrages et Environment, Hydro-Québec Production and Groupe Conseil
GENIVAR inc. 185 p. and appendix.
Shacklette, H.T., and Boerngen, J.G. 1984. Element Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial
Materials of the Conterminous United States. USGS Professional Paper 1270.
Siegal, S.M., Siegal, B.Z., Lipp, C., Kruckeberg, A., Towers, G.H.N., and Warren, H. 1985.
Indicator plant-soil mercury patterns in a mercury-rich mining area of British Columbia:
Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, v. 25, p. 73-85.
Siegal, S.M., Siegal, B.Z., Barghigiani, C., Aratani, K.. Penny, P., and Penny, D., 1987. A
contribution to the environmental biology of mercury accumulation in plants: Water, Air,
and Soil Pollution, v. 33, p. 65-72.
Somers, K.M. and D.A. Jackson. 1993. Adjusting mercury concentration for fish-size
covariation: a multivariate alternative to bivariate regression. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50:
2388-2396.
St. Louis, V. L., Rudd, J.W.M, Kelly, C.A., Beaty, K.G., Bloom, N.S. and Flett, R.J. 1994. The
importance of wetlands as sources of methylmercury to boreal forest ecosystems. Can. J.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51: 1065–1076.
Stokes, P. M., and Wren, C. D. 1987. Bioaccumulation of mercury by aquatic biota in
hydroelectric reservoirs: A review and consideration of mechanisms. In Lead, Mercury,
and Arsenic in the Environment (T. C. Hutchinson and K. M. Meema, Eds.), pp. 255–278.
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Strom SM., 2008. Total mercury and methylmercury residues in river otters (Lutra canadensis)
from Wisconsin. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2008 Apr;54(3):546-54. Epub 2007 Oct
10.
Suns, K., and Hitchin, G. 1990. Interrelationships between mercury levels in yearling yellow
perch, fish condition and water-quality. Water Air Soil Pollut. 50: 255–265.
Swain, E.B., Engstrom, D.R., Brigham, M.E., Henning, T.A., and Brezonik, P.L. 1992.
Increasing rates of atmospheric mercury deposition in midcontinental North America:
Science, v. 257, p. 784-787.
Therriault, T.W. and Schneider, D.C. 1998. Predicting change in fish mercury concentrations
following reservoir impoundment. Environmental Pollution 101:33-42.
Thompson, D. R. 1996. Mercury in birds and terrestrial mammals. In Beyer, W.N., G.H. Heinz,
and A.W. Redman-Norwood (eds.). Environmental contaminants in wildlife: interpreting
tissue concentrations. Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL. 341-356.
Tremblay, A. and Lucotte, M. 1997. Accumulation of total mercury and methylmercury in insect
larvae of hydroelectric reservoirs. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54: 832-841.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-89 December 2012
URS 2011. AEA Susitna Water Quality and Sediment Transport Data Gap Analysis Report.
Prepared by Tetra Tech, URS, and Arctic Hydrologic Consultants. Anchorage, Alaska.
62p.+Appendixes.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1997a. Mercury Study Report to Congress
Volume I: Executive Summary. December 1997. EPA-452/R-97-003.
USEPA, 1997b. Volume VI: An Ecological Assessment for Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions
in the United States. Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards and Office of Research
and DevelopmentEPA-452/R-97-008, December.
USEPA. 2000. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for use in Fish Advisories:
Volume 1 Fish Sampling and Analysis, 3rd Edition. EPA-823-B-00-007. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, D.C. 485p.
Ward J.C., Harr, C.A. 1990. Methods for collection and processing of surface-water and bed
material samples for physical and chemical analyses. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 90-140. 71.
Watson, J.W., and Pierce, D.J, 1998. Ecology of bald eagles in western Washington with an
emphasis on the effects of human activity. Final Report, Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA.
Westcott, K. and Kalff, J. 1996. Environmental Factors Affecting Methyl Mercury Accumulation
in Zooplankton. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 2221–2228.
Wiener, J.G., Knights, B.C., Sandheinrich, M.B., Jeremiason, J.D., Brigham, M.E., Engstrom,
D.R., Woodruff, L.G., Cannon, W.F., and Balogh, S.J. 2006. Mercury in soils, lakes, and
fish in Voyageurs National Park (Minnesota)—Importance of atmospheric deposition and
ecosystem factors: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 40, p. 6261-6268.
Wren, C.D., MacCrimmon, H.R., Frank, R. and Suda, P., 1980. Total and methylmercury levels
in wild mammals from the Precambrian Shield area of south central Ontario. Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 25, 100–5.
Yates, D.E., Mayack, D.T., Munney, K., Evers, D.C., Major, A., Tranjit, K., and Taylor, R.L.,
2005. Mercury Levels in Mink (Mustela vison) and River Otter (Lontra canadensis) from
Northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology, 14, 263–274, 2005.
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-90 December 2012
5.7.10. Tables
Table 5.7-1. Sediment Results from the Susitna River Drainage
Location Mercury (µg/g dry weight)
Talkeetna River 0.04
Deshka River 0.46
Colorado Creek 0.18
Costello Creek 0.23
National median value 0.06
From Frenzel (2000)
Table 5.7-2. Whole Body Slimy Sculpin Results from the Susitna River Drainage
Location Mercury (µg/g dry weight)
Talkeetna River 0.08
Deshka River 0.11
Costello Creek 0.08
From Frenzel (2000)
Table 5.7-3. Speciated Mercury Results from Susitna River Drainage (µg/g dry weight)
Location
Sediment Fish Water
Inorganic
mercury
Methylmercury Inorganic
mercury
Inorganic
mercury
Methylmercury
Deshka River 0.021 0.00510 0.246 (SS) Not sampled Not sampled
Costello Creek 0.169 0.00004 0.101 (DV) 0.00497 0.00002
SS = whole slimy skulpin
DV = Dolly Varden fillet
From Frenzel (2000)
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-91 December 2012
Table 5.7-4. Summary of ADEC Data for Mercury in Fish Tissue, Susitna River Drainage
Species Number of Samples Mean Std. Deviation
Arctic Char 3 0.21000 0.052915
Burbot 1 0.09400 0
Grayling 18 0.10239 0.033477
Northern Pike 98 0.21071 0.206272
Salmon – Pink 16 0.25813 0.051279
Salmon – Red 14 0.02907 0.017398
Salmon – Silver 5 0.09520 0.053905
Stickleback – Nine Spine* 1 0.07600 0
Stickleback – Three Spine* 2 0.07350 0
Lake Trout 3 0.38000 0.319531
Rainbow Trout 27 0.11187 0.086007
Whitefish - Round 7 0.10929 0.048623
Concentrations in mg/kg. * indicates sample analyzed as whole body composite sample. All other fish samples analyzed as skinless fillets.
Samples that were below detection limits were listed as 1/2 of detection limit. NOTE: If Std. Dev. is listed as 0, all the samples were below
detection limits (ADEC, 2012).
Table 5.7-5. Proposed Susitna River Basin Mercury Monitoring Sites
Susitna River
Mile
Description Susitna River
Slough ID
Latitude
(decimal degrees)
Longitude
(decimal degrees)
25.8 Susitna Station NA 61.5454 -150.516
28.0 Yentna River NA 61.589 -150.468
29.5 Susitna above Yentna NA 61.5752 -150.248
40.6 Deshka River NA 61.7098 -150.324
55.0 Susitna NA 61.8589 -150.18
83.8 Susitna at Parks Highway East NA 62.175 -150.174
97.2 Talkeetna River NA 62.3418 -150.106
98.5 Chulitna River NA 62.5574 -150.236
103.0 Talkeetna NA 62.3943 -150.134
120.7 Curry Fishwheel Camp NA 62.6178 -150.012
136.8 Gold Creek NA 62.7676 -149.691
138.6 Indian River NA 62.8009 -149.664
138.7 Susitna above Indian River NA 62.7857 -149.651
148.8 Susitna above Portage Creek NA 62.8286 -149.379
148.8 Portage Creek NA 62.8317 -149.379
184.5 Susitna at Watana Dam site NA 62.8226 -148.533
223.7 Susitna near Cantwell NA 62.7052 147.538
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-92 December 2012
Table 5.7-6. List of parameters and frequency of collection.
Media Analyses Frequency of Collection Holding Time
Surface Water,
sediment pore water
Total and methylmercury
(EPA-7470A) Monthly 48 hours
Soil, Sediment Total mercury (EPA
245.2/7470A)
One Survey-summer 28 days
Avian, Terrestrial
Furbearers, and Fish
Tissue
Total and methylmercury
(EPA-1631) One Survey-late summer
7 days
Table 5.7-7. Schedule for Implementation of the Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study.
Activity
2012 2013 2014 2015
1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 1 Q
Water Quality Monitoring (monthly)
Soil and Vegetation Sampling
Sediment Sampling
Bird and Aquatic Furbearer Sampling
Fish Tissue Sampling
Data Analysis and Management
Initial Study Report Δ
Follow-up studies (as needed)
Updated Study Report ▲
Legend:
Planned Activity
Optional Activity
Δ Initial Study Report
▲ Updated Study Report
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-93 December 2012
5.7.11. Figures
Figure 5.7-1. Transfer of Methylmercury to Fish Shortly after Impoundment from Hydro-Quebec (2003).
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-94 December 2012
Figure 5.7-2 Example of Predicted and Actual Mercury Concentrations in Fish (from Hydro-Quebec 2003).
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-95 December 2012
Figure 5.7-3. Interdependencies for water resources studies.
Ice Processes
in the Susitna
River
(7.6)
Fish and Aquatics
Instream Flow
(9)
Ice Dynamics
•Formation
•Breakup
•(4Q‐2013?)
Water Quality
Data
(1975‐2003)
ADEC
Mercury in
Fish Tissue
(2006)
Hydraulic
Routing
Model
(1Q‐2013)
INTERDEPENDENCIES FOR WATER RESOURCES STUDIES
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Mercury
Toxics Data
Baseline
Water Quality
Monitoring
Study
(5.5)
Water Quality
Modeling Study
(5.6)
Mercury Assessment and
Potential for
Bioaccumulation Study
(5.7)
River Productivity Study
(nutrient availability)
(9.08)
Fish Tissue Analysis
Sediment Toxics Analysis
Surface Water Analysis
(1Q‐2014)
Water Quality Model (EFDC)
•Ice Dynamics
•WQ Calibration Data
•Mercury (metals) Data
•Hydraulic Routing Model
•Reservoir Trap Efficiency
a) Focus Study Areas
b) Mainstem Conditions
•Riverine Model
•Reservoir Model
(2Q‐2014)
Water Quality
Characterization
(Monthly Monitoring)
a) Surface Water
b) Sediment
c) Groundwater
•In Situ parameters
•General parameters
•Metals (one‐time)
(1Q‐2014)
Water Quality
Model
Development
Groundwater‐
Related Aquatic
Habitat Study
(7.5)
Geomorphology
Study
(6)
Wetlands
Study
(11.7)
Wildlife Study
(10.1)
Riparian Study
(11.6)
REVISED STUDY PLAN
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5-96 December 2012
5.8. Attachments
ATTACHMENT 5-1. BASELINE WATER QUALITY MONITORING -
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN (SAP)/QUALITY
ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (QAPP).
ATTACHMENT 5-2. WATER QUALITY MODELING STUDY - SAMPLING
AND ANALYSIS PLAN (SAP)/QUALITY
ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (QAPP).
ATTACHMENT 5-3. MERCURY ASSESSMENT AND POTENTIAL FOR
BIOACCUMULATION STUDY - SAMPLING AND
ANALYSIS PLAN (SAP)/QUALITY ASSURANCE
PROJECT PLAN (QAPP).
ATTACHMENT 5-4. GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS -
WATER QUALITY.
ATTACHMENT 5-1
BASELINE WATER QUALITY MONITORING
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN (SAP) / QUALITY ASSURANCE
PROJECT PLAN (QAPP)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Sampling and Analysis Plan/Quality Assurance
Project Plan
for the
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project
Water Quality Study
Susitna River, Southcentral Alaska
FERC Project No. 14241
Alaska Energy Authority
Contract No. AEA-11-025
Prepared for:
Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights
Anchorage, AK 99503
Prepared by:
URS/Tetra Tech, Inc.
700 G Street, Suite 500
Anchorage AK, 99501
November 7, 2012
QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
This quality assurance project plan (QAPP) has been prepared according to guidance provided in Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation and EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA QA/R-5, EPA/240/B-
01/003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Quality Assurance Division, Washington, DC, March 2001
[Reissued May 2006]) to ensure that environmental and related data collected, compiled, and/or generated for this project
are complete, accurate, and of the type, quantity, and quality required for their intended use. Tetra Tech will conduct
work in conformance with the quality assurance program described in the quality management plan for Tetra Tech’s
Fairfax Group and with the procedures detailed in this QAPP.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Approvals:
_______________________ _______ ________________________ _______
Betsy McGregor Date Paul Dworian Date
Assistant Director Principal Manager
Alaska Energy Authority URS Corporation
_______________________ _______ ________________________ _______
Robert Plotnikoff Date Mark Vania Date
Technical Lead Field Team Lead
Tetra Tech, Inc. URS Corporation
_______________________ _______ ________________________ _______
Harry Gibbons Date Shannon Brattebo Date
Project Manager Field Team Lead
Tetra Tech, Inc. Tetra Tech, Inc.
_______________________ _______ ________________________ _______
Gene Welch Date William Loskutoff Date
QA Officer QA Officer
Tetra Tech, Inc. URS Corporation
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Study SAP/QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page iv of vi
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................... v
DISTRIBUTION............................................................................................................................ vi
A 1.0 PROJECT/TASK ORGANIZATION .............................................................................. 1
A 2.0 PROBLEM DEFINITION/BACKGROUND .................................................................. 4
A 3.0 PROJECT/TASK DESCRIPTION .................................................................................. 6
A 4.0 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA ...................................................... 7
A 5.0 SPECIAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS/CERTIFICATION .................................... 11
A 6.0 DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS ........................................................................ 12
B 1.0 SAMPLING DESIGN .................................................................................................... 12
B 2.0 SAMPLING METHODS ............................................................................................... 36
B 3.0 SAMPLE DOCUMENTATION AND SHIPPING ....................................................... 40
B 4.0 SAMPLE HANDLING AND CUSTODY .................................................................... 41
B 5.0 ANALYTICAL METHODS .......................................................................................... 42
B 6.0 QUALITY CONTROL .................................................................................................. 43
B 7.0 INSTRUMENT/EQUIPMENT TESTING, INSPECTION, AND MAINTENANCE .. 45
B 8.0 INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION AND FREQUENCY ............................................... 45
B 9.0 INSPECTION/ACCEPTANCE OF SUPPLIES AND CONSUMABLES .................... 45
B 10.0 NONDIRECT MEASUREMENTS ............................................................................... 46
B 11.0 DATA MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 46
C 1.0 ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE ACTIONS ............................................................. 47
C 2.0 QA REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT ........................................................................... 48
D 1.0 DATA REVIEW, VERIFICATION, AND VALIDATION .......................................... 48
D 2.0 VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION METHODS .................................................... 48
D 3.0 RECONCILIATION WITH USER REQUIREMENTS................................................ 49
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 50
APPENDIX A: LOCATION MAPS
APPENDIX B: TEMPERATURE PROBE FIELD DATA FORMS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Study SAP/QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page v of vi
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AAC Alaska Administrative Code
ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
°C degrees Celsius
cm centimeters
DO Dissolved oxygen
DQI Data quality indicators
DQO Data Quality Objectives
EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
g grams
m meter(s)
µS/cm microSiemens per centimeter
mg/L milligrams per liter
NPS Nonpoint source
PDF Portable Document Format
PM Project Manager
QA Quality assurance
QAM Quality Assurance Manager
QAO Quality Assurance Officer
QAPP Quality assurance project plan
QC Quality control
QCO Quality Control Officer
RPD Relative percent difference
RSD Relative standard deviation
SNTEMP Stream Network Temperature
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
TIR Thermal infrared
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TL Technical Lead
Tt Tetra Tech, Inc.
TWG Technical Workgroup
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Study SAP/QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page vi of vi
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
DISTRIBUTION
This document will be distributed to the following, Alaska Energy Authority, URS, and Tetra Tech staff
members who are involved in this project, as well as to all responsible project participants.
Name
Title
Phone, Fax
E-mail
Mailing Address
Alaska Energy Authority
Betsy McGregor
Assistant Director
907-771-3957 (phone)
bmcgregor@aidea.org
Alaska Energy Authority
411 W. 4th Ave, Suite 1
Anchorage, AK 99501
URS Corporation
Paul Dworian
Principal Manager
907-261-6735 (phone)
907-562-1297 (fax)
paul.dworian@urs.com
URS Corporation
700 G Street, Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
Mark Vania
URS Field Team Lead
(907) 261-9755 (phone)
907-562-1297 (fax)
mark.vania@urs.com
URS Corporation
700 G Street, Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tt)
Harry Gibbons
Project Manager
206-728-9655 Ext. 107 (phone)
206-728-9670 (fax)
harry.gibbons@tetratech.com
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
Robert Plotnikoff
Technical Lead
206-728-9655 Ext. 124 (phone)
206-728-9670 (fax)
robert.plotnikoff@tetratech.com
Shannon Brattebo
Tt Field Team Lead
509-232-4312 (phone)
509-744-9281(fax)
shannon.brattebo@tetratech.com
Tetra Tech, Inc.
316 W. Boone Avenue, Suite 363
Spokane, WA 99203
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 1 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
A. PROJECT MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS
A 1.0 PROJECT/TASK ORGANIZATION
The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is preparing a License Application that will be submitted to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (Project).
The Project is located on the Susitna River, an approximately 300 mile long river in the South-central
region of Alaska. The Project’s dam site will be located at River Mile (RM) 184. The results of this study
and of other proposed studies will provide information needed to support the FERC’s National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis for the Project license.
Construction and operation of the Project as described in the Pre-Application Document (PAD, AEA
2011) is expected to change some of the water quality characteristics of the resulting riverine portion of
the drainage downstream of the dam site as well as the inundated area that will become the reservoir. This
study plan outlines the objectives and methods for developing a monitoring program that will adequately
characterize surface water quality, stream temperatures and meteorological data in the Susitna River
within and downstream of the proposed Project area.
This Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)/Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) is being prepared to
document the quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) measures that will be observed to ensure
the following objectives are met: data are consistent, correct, and complete, with no errors or omissions;
QC sample results have been reviewed and are included; established criteria for QC results are met;
measurement quality objectives have been met, or data qualifiers are properly assigned where necessary;
and data specified in the sampling process design are obtained. Data collection methods will follow
established state and federal (e.g., Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation; ADEC, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; EPA) guidelines.
The purpose of this document is to present the quality assurance project plan (QAPP) for conducting a
baseline water quality study of the Susitna River.
This QAPP provides general descriptions of the work to be performed to collect in-river data, the
objectives to be met, and the procedures that will be used to ensure that the data are scientifically valid
and defensible and that uncertainty has been reduced to a known and practical minimum. The QAPP
describes procedures used to prepare for the field effort, conduct field sampling using standard protocols,
and post-process field data.
The organizational aspects of a program provide the framework for conducting tasks. The organizational
structure can also facilitate project performance and adherence to quality control (QC) procedures and
quality assurance (QA) requirements. Key project roles are filled by those persons responsible for
ensuring the collection of valid data and the routine assessment of the data for precision and accuracy, as
well as the data users and the person(s) responsible for approving and accepting final products and
deliverables. The key personnel involved in the Baseline Water Quality Study of the Susitna River are
listed in Table A1-1.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 2 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Table A1-1. Project/Task Organization and Responsibility Summary
Personnel Responsibility Address/E-Mail Phone Number
Betsy McGregor,
Responsible for project
coordination with local,
county, state, and federal
government officials; and for
reviewing drafts of the study
plan, QAPP and summary
data reports
Alaska Energy Authority
411 W. 4th Ave, Suite 1
Anchorage, AK 99501
bmcgregor@aidea.org
907-771-3957
Paul Dworian Responsible for directing
daily project activities and
tracking product delivery.
Communicates with AEA
Environmental Manager on
project schedule and timing
for product delivery.
URS Corporation
700 G Street, Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
paul.dworian@urs.com
907-261-6735
Mark Vania Responsible for field
sampling assistance, quality
assurance and quality control
of field protocols.
URS Corporation
700 G Street, Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
mark.vania@urs.com
907-261-9755
Robert Plotnikoff Responsible for preparing the
project QAPP, coordinating
and completing sampling
activities, analyzing project
data, and preparing the draft
and final data reports. Serves
as the principal project team
contact for field staff for the
duration of the study
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 5th Ave. Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
robert.plotnikoff@tetratech.c
om
206-728-9655
Harry Gibbons Responsible for managing the
project, overseeing
preparation of the project
QAPP, reviewing analysis of
project data, and review of
the draft and final data
reports. Serves as the
principal project team contact
for the technical aspects of
the study
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 5th Ave. Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
harry.gibbons@tetratech.com
206-728-9655
Shannon Brattebo
Responsible for water quality
and toxics field sampling,
quality assurance and quality
control of field protocols.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
316 W. Boone Ave. Suite
#363
Spokane, WA 99203
shannon.brattebo@tetratech.c
om
509-232-4312
Gene Welch
Reviews QAPP and all
Ecology quality assurance
programs. Provides technical
assistance on QA/QC issues
during the implementation
and assessment of the project.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 5th Ave. Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
gene.welch@tetratech.com
206-728-9655
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 3 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Additional technical staff will be responsible for conducting specific tasks during the project (e.g.,
performing field sampling and collecting surface water quality data) at the direction and discretion of the
Project Manager (PM). The Project Manager will supervise the technical staff participating in the project,
including implementing the QC program, completing assigned work on schedule with strict adherence to
procedures established in the approved QAPP, and completing required documentation. The PM will
direct the work of the field sampling team including collection, preparation, and shipment of samples and
completion of field-sampling records. To perform the required work effectively and efficiently, the field-
sampling team will include scientific staff with specialization and technical competence in field-sampling
activities, as required to ensure the highest quality data are collected without incident, and experience
qualifications set forth by ADEC. They must perform all work in adherence with the project work plan
and QAPP, including maintenance of field sample documentation. Where applicable, custody procedures
are required to ensure the integrity of the samples with respect to preventing contamination and
maintaining proper sample identification during handling. Where field samples are collected the sampling
team is responsible for the following:
• Receiving, inspecting, and inventorying the sample containers
• Receiving, inspecting, calibrating, and maintaining field instrumentation
• Completing, reviewing, and signing appropriate field records
• Assigning tracking numbers to each sample (sample identification numbers)
• Controlling and monitoring access to samples while in their custody
• Verifying the completeness and accuracy of chain-of-custody documentation
• Initiating shipment and verifying receipt of samples at their appropriate destinations
• Verifying the results of sample measurements collected for compliance with the requirements
of the reference methods, data quality objectives (DQOs) and this QAPP
Additional oversight will be provided by the QC Officers (QCO), who are responsible for performing
evaluations to ensure that QC is maintained throughout the sampling process, that the data collected will
be of optimal validity and usability, and that limitations of the data set are minimized as much as is
possible given the challenges of the routine field investigation. The QCO is any senior technical staff
assigned the responsibility of providing a second-level review of all documentation and records
developed during the sample and data collection process. The QC evaluations will include double-
checking work as it is completed and providing written documentation of these reviews (minimally
initialing and dating documents as they are reviewed) to ensure that the standards set forth in the QAPP
are met or exceeded. QCOs may be assigned at the task or subtask level allowing teams to efficiently
divide work processes or tasks required and exchanging project documentation for review prior to
departure from a sampling station. In this regard, QCOs ensure that all required data and information are
recorded for each sampling station prior to physically leaving the collection site. Other QA/QC staff, such
as technical reviewers and technical editors selected as needed, will provide peer review oversight on the
content of work products and ensure that work products comply with the client’s specifications.
Technical staff involved with the program will be responsible for reading and understanding this QAPP
and complying with and adhering to its requirements in executing their assigned tasks relative to this
project.
Water quality samples will be collected and temperature data loggers installed at 39 sites as defined by
the 2012 Baseline Water Quality Study. The study area begins at RM 15.1 and extends past the proposed
dam site to RM 233.4. The lowermost boundary of the monitoring is above the area protected for Beluga
whale activity. Twelve mainstem Susitna River monitoring sites are located below the proposed dam site
and two mainstem sites above this location for calibration of the models. Six sloughs will be included in
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 4 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
the monitoring and represent important fish-rearing habitat. Tributaries to the Susitna River will be
monitored and include those contributing large portions of the lower river flow like the: Talkeetna,
Chulitna, Deshka, and Yentna rivers. A partial list of the remaining tributaries that will be included in
monitoring and represents important spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous and resident fisheries
include: Gold Creek, Portage Creek, Tsusena Creek, Watana Creek, and Oshetna Creek. These sites were
selected based on the following rationale:
• Adequate representation of locations throughout the Susitna River and tributaries above and
below the proposed dam site;
• Preliminary consultation with AEA and licensing participants including co-location with other
study sites (e.g., instream flow, ice processes);
• Access and land ownership issues; and
Eight of the sites are mainstem monitoring sites that were previously used for Stream Network
Temperature Modeling (SNTEMP) in the 1980s (refer to Table B1-2). Thirty-one of the sites are Susitna
River mainstem, tributary, or slough locations, most of which were also monitored in the 1980s by the
Alaska Energy Authority.
A 2.0 PROBLEM DEFINITION/BACKGROUND
Construction and operation of the Project as described in the Pre-Application Document (PAD, AEA
2011) is expected to change some of the water quality characteristics of the resulting riverine portion of
the drainage downstream of the dam site as well as the inundated area that will become the reservoir.
The study area includes the Susitna River within the proposed Watana Reservoir and downstream of the
proposed Watana Dam. Water quality studies will be conducted from river mile 15.1 (Susitna River above
Alexander Creek) to river mile 233.4 (at Oshetna Creek, just above the upper extent of the proposed
reservoir area) and within select tributaries. The proposed dam would be located at river mile 184.5. The
dam would create a reservoir 42.5 miles long and 1 to 2 miles wide, with a normal reservoir surface area
of approximately 23,546 acres and a normal maximum pool elevation of 2,050 feet. The lowermost
boundary of the monitoring activity is above the area protected for Beluga whale activity.
The collective goal of the water quality studies is to assess the impacts of the proposed Project operations
on water quality in the Susitna River basin with particular reference to state water quality standards set
forth in ADEC regulations Title 18-Health, Safety, and Housing; Chapters: 70-Water Quality Standards
[surface water]; 75-Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control [groundwater], and 80-
Drinking Water Standards; of the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC); 18 AAC 70, 18 AAC 75, and 18
AAC 80, respectively (ADEC 2012a; ADEC 2012b; and ADEC 2012c). Predicting the potential impacts
of the dam and its proposed operations on water quality will require the development of water quality
models. The goal of the Water Quality Modeling Study will be to utilize the extensive information
collected from the Baseline Water Quality Study to develop a model(s) in which to evaluate the potential
impacts of the proposed Project and operations on various physical parameters within the Susitna River
watershed.
The specific objectives of the Baseline Water Quality Study are to:
• Document historical water quality data and combine with data generated from this study. The
combined data set will be used in the water quality modeling study to predict Project impacts
under various operations.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 5 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
• Add three years of current stream temperature and meteorological data to the existing data.
Stream temperatures and meteorological data was collected in 2012 (Tetra Tech 2012) and will
continue to be collected in 2013-2014.
• Develop a monitoring program to adequately characterize surface water physical, chemical, and
bacterial conditions in the Susitna River within and downstream of the proposed Project area.
• Measure baseline inorganic metals concentrations in sediment and fish tissue for comparison to
federal and state criteria.
• Perform a pilot thermal imaging assessment of a portion of the Susitna River.
A large-scale assessment of water quality conditions throughout the Susitna drainage has not been
completed. Historical water quality data available for the study area includes water temperature data,
some general water quality data, and limited metals data primarily collected during the 1980s. Additional
data has been recently collected at limited mainstem Susitna sites describing flow, in-situ, general, and
metals parameters by the United States Geological Study (USGS). In 2012, water temperature data
loggers and meteorological stations were installed throughout the Project area. A data gap analysis was
conducted for water quality and sediment transport in 2011 (URS 2011) summarizing mainstem and
tributary data available. Some general observations based on existing data are as follows:
• Large amounts of data were collected during the 1980s. A comprehensive data set for the Susitna
River and tributaries is not available.
• The influence of major tributaries (Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers) on Susitna River water quality
conditions is unknown. There are no monitoring stations in receiving water at these mainstem
locations.
• Continuous temperature data and seasonal water quality data are not available for the Susitna
River mainstem and sloughs potentially used for spawning and rearing habitat.
Concentrations of water quality parameters including metals in sediment immediately below the proposed
Project are unknown. Metals in these sediments may become mobile once the Project begins operation.
Monitoring information in the immediate vicinity of the reservoir and riverine habitat will be important
for developing two models (reservoir and riverine) and coupled for predicting expected water quality
conditions below the proposed dam.
An expanded network of continuous temperature monitoring data and water quality data (including
sediment, surface water, potentially pore water) collection is required for this Study because:
• More information is needed to define existing thermal refugia throughout the Susitna drainage.
• Limited information is available on natural, background conditions for water quality.
• It is unknown if seasonal patterns exist for select water quality parameters.
• Additional information is required for calibrating the water quality model to be used in the water
quality modeling study. More recent water quality data will be used for predicting reservoir
conditions and predicting riverine conditions downstream of the proposed dam.
An expanded network of water quality and temperature monitoring sites is proposed from approximately
RM 15.1 to RM 234. Monitoring sites are located at the same sites characterized during the 1980s studies,
as well as additional sites. Monitoring of areas of the mainstem Susitna River or tributaries with high
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 6 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
metals concentrations or temperature measurements (based on the Data Gap Analysis for Water Quality,
URS 2011) will confirm previous observations and will describe the persistence of any water quality
exceedances that might exist.
A 3.0 PROJECT/TASK DESCRIPTION
This section provides an overview of the staffing organization and schedule. The key personnel involved
in the Water Quality Monitoring Study of the Susitna River are listed in Table A3-1.
Table A3-1. Project/Task Organization and Responsibility Summary
Personnel Responsibility Address/E-Mail Phone Number
Betsy McGregor,
Alaska Energy Authority
Responsible for project
coordination with local,
county, state, and federal
government officials; and
for reviewing drafts of the
study plan, SAP/QAPP and
summary data reports
Alaska Energy Authority
813 W. Northern Lights Blvd
Anchorage, AK 99503
bmcgregor@aidea.org
907-771-3957
Paul Dworian, URS Responsible for directing
daily project activities and
tracking product delivery.
Communicates with AEA
Environmental Manager on
project schedule and
timing for product
delivery.
URS Corporation
700 G Street, Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
paul.dworian@urs.com
907-261-6735
Mark Vania, URS Responsible for field
sampling assistance,
quality assurance and
quality control of field
protocols.
URS Corporation
700 G Street, Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
mark.vania@urs.com
907-261-9755
Robert Plotnikoff, Tetra
Tech, Inc.
Responsible for preparing
the project SAP/QAPP,
coordinating and
completing sampling
activities, analyzing project
data, and preparing the
draft and final data reports.
Serves as the principal
project team contact for
field staff for the duration
of the study
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 5th Ave. Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
robert.plotnikoff@tetratech.c
om
206-728-9655
Harry Gibbons Tetra
Tech, Inc. Responsible for managing
the project, overseeing
preparation of the project
QAPP, reviewing analysis
of project data, and review
of the draft and final data
reports. Serves as the
principal project team
contact for the technical
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 5th Ave. Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
harry.gibbons@tetratech.com
206-728-9655
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 7 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Personnel Responsibility Address/E-Mail Phone Number
aspects of the study
Shannon Brattebo,
Tetra Tech, Inc. Responsible for field
sampling assistance,
quality assurance and
quality control of field
protocols.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
316 W. Boone Ave Suite 363
Spokane, WA 99201
shannon.brattebo@tetratech.c
om
509-232-4312
Gene Welch,
Tetra Tech, Inc. Reviews SAP/QAPP and
all Ecology quality
assurance programs.
Provides technical
assistance on QA/QC
issues during the
implementation and
assessment of the project.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 5th Ave. Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
gene.welch@tetratech.com
206-728-9655
The Water Quality Monitoring Study for the Susitna River will begin October 2012 and continue through
March 2014. The exact scheduling of the monthly and seasonal sampling will be coordinated between
AEA and Tetra Tech staff. Table A3-2 gives the projected schedule of activities and deliverables.
Table A3-2. Schedule for the Baseline Water Quality Study Elements and Production of Associated
Deliverables
Monitoring Activity Timeline
Thermal Imaging (one survey) October 2012
MET Station Installation and Data Collection (as
part of the 2012 Water Temperature Monitoring
and MET Station Installation Study)
July 2012
QAPP/SAP Preparation and Review January 2013-March 2013
Deployment of Temperature Monitoring
Apparatus
(if removed before winter ice-up)
June 2013 (retrieve in October 2014)
Water Quality Monitoring (monthly) June 2013-October 2013 (one sampling event in
each of December 2013 and March 2014)
Sediment Sampling (one survey) August-September 2013
Fish Tissue Sampling (one survey) August-September 2012/2013
Thermal Imaging (one survey) October 2013
Data Analysis and Management June 2013-November 2013
Initial Study Report December 2013
Updated Study Report December 2014
A 4.0 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA
Measurement quality objectives (MQOs) are the performance or acceptance criteria for individual data
quality indicators, including precision, bias, and sensitivity (Ecology, 2004). The MQOs1 for this project
are presented in Table A4-1. Industry standard field methods will be used throughout this project to
minimize measurement bias (systematic error) and to improve precision (to reduce random error). MQOs
are listed for each of the parameters measured in water and from meteorological sites established in the
upper river region of the Project area.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 8 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Table A4-1. Measurement Quality Objectives
Parameter
Check Standard
(LCS) Duplicate
Measurements Expected Range of
Measurements
Lowest
Measurement of
Interest
% Calibration
Checks/Recovery
Limits
RPD Units of
Measurement
Baseline WQ – In-situ
Temperature ± 0.1 ºC ± 10 % 0-25 oC 0.1 ºC
pH ± 0.2 pH units ± 0.1 pH units 6.0 – 9.0 pH units 0.1 pH units
Dissolved oxygen ± 0.2 mg/L ± 10 % 1.0 – 12 mg/L 0.2 mg/L
Specific
Conductance ± 10 µS/cm ± 10 % 50 – 500 µS/cm 25 µS/cm
Redox Potential N/A ± 10 % -400 - +400 mv 25-50 mv
Turbidity 5 NTU ± 10 % 5 – 1000 NTU 5 NTU
Color N/A N/A N/A N/A
Residues N/A N/A N/A N/A
Baseline WQ – General WQ Parameters
Hardness ± 3.0 mg/L as
CaCO3 ±20% 3.0 – 200 mg/L as
CaCO3
3.0 mg/L as
CaCO3
Nitrate/Nitrite ± 0.10 mg/L ±20% 0.1 – 30 mg/L 0.1 mg/L
Alkalinity ± 10 mg/L as
CaCO3 ±20% 20 – 200 mg/L as CaCO3 10 mg/L as
CaCO3
Ammonia-N ± 0.10 mg/L ±20% 0.1 – 30 mg/L 0.1 mg/L
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen ± 0.10 mg/L ±20% 0.1 – 30 mg/L 0.1 mg/L
Total Phosphorus ± 0.01 mg/L ±20% 0.01 – 10 mg/L 0.01 mg/L
Ortho-Phosphorus ± 0.01 mg/L ±20% 0.01 – 5 mg/L 0.01 mg/L
Chlorophyll a ± 0.1 µg/L ±20% 0.1 – 200 µg/L 0.1 µg/L
Total Dissolved
Solids ± 10 mg/L ±20% 1 – 10,000 mg/L N/A
Total Suspended
Solids ± 10 mg/L ±20% 1 – 10,000 mg/L N/A
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 9 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Parameter
Check Standard
(LCS) Duplicate
Measurements Expected Range of
Measurements
Lowest
Measurement of
Interest
% Calibration
Checks/Recovery
Limits
RPD Units of
Measurement
Turbidity 5 NTU ± 20 % 5 – 1000 NTU 5 NTU
TOC ± 0.5 mg/L ± 20% 0.5 – 20 mg/L 0.5 mg/L
DOC ± 0.5 mg/L ± 20% 0.5 – 20 mg/L 0.5 mg/L
Fecal Coliform ± 11 mg/L ± 20% Not Known Not Known
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons 60 % ± 20% Not Known Not Known
Radionuclides Not Known ± 20% Not Known Not Known
Baseline WQ – Metals (Water) Dissolved and Total
Aluminum 85 % ± 20% Not Known 50 µg/L
Arsenic 85 %
± 35% Not Known 100 µg/L
Barium 85 % ± 20% Not Known Not Known
Beryllium 85 % ± 20% Not Known Not Known
Cadmium 85 % ± 5% Not Known 5 µg/L
Cobalt 85 % ± 20% Not Known 10 µg/L
Copper 85 % ± 20% Not Known 10 µg/L
Iron 85 % ± 20% Not Known 20 µg/L
Lead 85 % ± 25% Not Known 50 µg/L
Magnesium 85 % ± 20% Not Known 20 µg/L
Manganese 85 % ± 20% Not Known 5 µg/L
Mercury 85 % ± 15% Not Known 0.2 µg/L
Molybdenum 85 % ± 20% Not Known 10 µg/L
Nickel 85 % ± 20% Not Known 20 µg/L
Selenium 85 % ± 20% Not Known 100 µg/L
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 10 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Parameter
Check Standard
(LCS) Duplicate
Measurements Expected Range of
Measurements
Lowest
Measurement of
Interest
% Calibration
Checks/Recovery
Limits
RPD Units of
Measurement
Thallium 85 % ± 20% Not Known Not Known
Vanadium 85 % ± 20% Not Known 10 µg/L
Zinc 85 % ± 20% Not Known 10 µg/L
Baseline WQ – Metals (Sediment) Total
Aluminum NA ± 20% Not Known Not Known
Arsenic NA ± 35% Not Known 3.0 mg/kg
Cadmium NA ± 20% Not Known 1.0 mg/kg
Copper NA ± 20% Not Known Not Known
Iron NA ± 20% Not Known Not Known
Lead NA ± 25% Not Known 1.5 mg/kg
Mercury NA ± 30% Not Known 0.1 mg/kg
Zinc NA ± 20% Not Known 3.5 mg/kg
Baseline WQ – Metals, Fish Tissue
Total Mercury ±10 ±10 % Not Known 5 ng/L
Methyl-mercury ±10 ±10 % Not Known 5 ng/L
Arsenic ±10 ±10 % Not Known 10 ng/L
Cadmium ±10 ±10 % Not Known 10 ng/L
Selenium ±10 ±10 % Not Known 10 ng/L
(a) Field temperatures will be verified by comparing pre-deployed instrument readings and in-situ temperature readings
collected on a monthly schedule when data downloads are completed.
Precision - Precision is defined as the degree to which a set of observations or measurements of the same
property, obtained under similar conditions, conform to subsequent (repeated) measurements. Precision is
usually expressed as standard deviation, variance, or range, in either absolute or relative terms. Field
sample replicates for assessment of precision will be analyzed at no less than a 5 percent frequency of the
total number of samples. Laboratory replicates for assessment of precision will be analyzed at no less than
a 5 percent frequency of the total number of samples submitted to the laboratory.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 11 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
For sample results that exceed the reporting detection limit (RDL), the relative percent difference (RPD)
will be less than or equal to 20 percent. No criteria are presented for duplicates that are below the RDL, as
these data are provided for informational purposes only. When one or more of the results is below the
RDL, professional judgment will be used in determining the compliance of the data to project
requirements.
Representativeness - Sample representativeness is the degree to which data accurately and precisely
represent a characteristic of a population. Representativeness will be addressed at two distinct points in
the data collection process. During sample collection, the use of generally accepted sampling procedures
applied in a consistent manner throughout the project will help ensure that samples are representative of
conditions at the point where the sample was taken. During subsampling (sample aliquot removal) in the
laboratory, samples will be inverted several times to ensure that the analytical subsample is well mixed
and therefore representative of the sample container’s contents.
Completeness - Completeness is a measure of the amount of valid data needed to meet the project’s
objectives. Completeness will be judged by the amount of valid data compared to the data expected. Valid
data are those data in compliance with the data quality criteria as presented in this section, and in
compliance within expected range of conditions and daily fluctuation patterns. While the goal for the
criteria described above is 100 percent completeness, a level of 95 percent completeness will be
considered acceptable. However, any time data are incomplete, decisions regarding re-sampling and/or re-
analysis will be made. These decisions will take into account the project data quality objectives as
presented above.
Comparability - Comparability is a measure of the confidence with which one dataset can be compared to
another. This is a qualitative assessment and is addressed primarily by sampling design through use of
comparable sampling procedures or, for monitoring programs, through consistent sampling of stations
over time. In the laboratory, comparability is assured through the use of comparable analytical procedures
and ensuring that project staff are trained in the proper application of the procedures. Within-study
comparability will be assessed through analytical performance (quality control samples).
A 5.0 SPECIAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS/CERTIFICATION
This QAPP and supporting materials will be distributed to all participants. The local Project Manager,
Paul Dworian and/or Mark Vania, will conduct a procedural review before the field team is mobilized for
sampling. The procedural review will include the requirements of the QAPP and referenced SOPs, as well
as instrument manufacturers’ operation and maintenance instructions. It will be performed concurrently
with a check that all equipment and sampling gear are fully functional and ready for deployment. In
addition, there will be discussions and demonstrations of sampling method(s) to be used and discussions
regarding specific health and safety concerns. Each sampling team will consist of, at a minimum, one
sample collector and a scientist familiar with QC requirements, which will ensure strict adherence to the
project protocols, check all documentation for completeness and correctness, and verify that no
transcription errors or omissions have been made in preparing sample custody records and other project
documentation.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 12 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
A 6.0 DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS
Thorough documentation of all field sample collection is necessary for proper processing of data and,
ultimately, for interpreting study results. Field sample collection will be documented in writing, on forms
as well as on the following forms and labels:
• A field log notebook for general observations and notes
• A Field Data Record Form that contains information about observations and measurements
made and samples collected at the site
• Checklists for each sampling event, sampling point, and sampling time.
The Technical Leads, and the appropriate PMs within subcontractor organizations will maintain files, as
appropriate, as repositories for information and data used in preparing any reports and documents during
the project and will supervise the use of materials in the project files. The following information will be
included:
• Any reports and documents prepared
• Contract and Task Order information
• Project QAPP
• Results of technical reviews, data quality assessments, and audits
• Communications (memoranda; internal notes; telephone conversation records; letters;
meeting minutes; and all written correspondence among the project team personnel,
subcontractors, suppliers, or others)
• Maps, photographs, and drawings
• Studies, reports, documents, and newspaper articles pertaining to the project
• Special data compilations
• Spreadsheet data files: physical measurements, analytical chemistry data (hard copy and
disk)
Copies of the field log books and physical characterization/water quality data sheets and sampling
checklists will be supplied to the Field PMs at the close of each sampling event. These data will be used
in conjunction with inspection checklists to compile the sampling event reports. Formal reports that are
generated from the data will be subject to technical and editorial review before submission to Alaska
Energy Authority and will be maintained at Tt’s Seattle, Washington office in the central file (disk and
hard copy). The data reports will include a summary of the types of data collected, sampling dates, and
any problems or anomalies observed during sample collection.
If any change(s) in this QAPP are required during the study, a memo will be sent to each person on the
distribution list describing the change(s), following approval by the appropriate persons. The memos will
be attached to the QAPP. All written records relevant to the sampling and processing of samples will be
maintained at Tt’s Seattle, Washington office in the central file. Unless other arrangements are made,
records will be maintained for a minimum of 5 years following expiration of the contract.
B. MEASUREMENT AND DATA ACQUISITION
B 1.0 SAMPLING DESIGN
This SAP and QAPP is prepared as part of the implementation of the 2013-2014 Baseline Water Quality
Study Plan. The SAP and QAPP is standard documentation prepared before any water model
development begins. These documents follow guidelines for the State of Alaska and U.S. Environmental
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 13 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Protection Agency Region 10 Credible Data Policy (ADEC 2005). The following sections document how
water quality data will be collected such that existing and post-Project water quality conditions within the
Susitna River basin can be characterized. Data collected as part of this study will be used in the Water
Quality Model to predict how operational scenarios will impact water quality conditions in both the
reservoir and riverine portions of the basin.
Water quality data will be collected from multiple aquatic media including surface water, sediment, and
fish tissue. The fish tissue collection will be conducted as part of Study Plan 7.5/7.6 (Study of Fish
Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River and the Middle/Lower Susitna River,
respectively). Tissue or whole fish samples will be collected in the mainstem Susitna River under Study
Plan 7.5 and Study Plan 7.6 for use in analysis of potential for bioaccumulation. Continuous temperature
monitoring will inform the predictive model on how the mainstem river and tributaries will respond to
alternative Project operational scenarios and if changes in water quality conditions could affect aquatic
life use and survival in the Project area. In addition, several other requirements of the 401 Water Quality
Certification Process will be addressed with collection and description of additional data including the
following:
• conducting a water quality baseline assessment;
• description of how existing and designated uses are met;
• use of appropriate field methods and models;
• use of acceptable data quality assurance methods;
• scheduling of technical work to meet deadlines; and
• derivation of load calculations of potential pollutants (pre-Project conditions).
Two types of water quality monitoring activities will be implemented: 1) routine monitoring for
characterizing water quality baseline conditions, and 2) a single, comprehensive survey for a larger array
of parameters. Frequency of sampling water quality parameters varies by category and potential for
mobilization and bioavailability. Most of the general water quality parameters and select metals will be
sampled on a monthly basis since each parameter has been demonstrated to be present in one or both of
surface water and sediment (URS 2011). An initial screening survey has been proposed for several other
toxics that might be detected in sediment and tissue samples (Table 6-1). The single surveys for toxics in
sediment, tissue, or water will trigger additional study for extent of contamination and potential timing of
exposure if results exceed criteria or thresholds (e.g., LAETs, LC50s, etc.). The general list of water
quality parameters and metals will be used in calibrating the water quality model in both a riverine and
reservoir environment.
The operation of temperature monitoring sites (Tetra Tech 2012) will continue as part of water quality
monitoring activities in 2013/2014. Table 3-1 lists the temperature monitoring sites. These sites were
selected based on the following rationale:
• Adequate representation of locations throughout the Susitna River and tributaries above and
below the proposed dam site for the purpose of a baseline water quality characterization;
• Location on tributaries where proposed access road-crossing impacts might occur during and after
construction (upstream/downstream sampling points on each crossing);
• Preliminary consultation with AEA and licensing participants including co-location with other
study sites (e.g., instream flow, ice processes);
• Access and land ownership issues; and
• Eight of the sites are mainstem monitoring sites that were previously used for SNTEMP modeling
in the 1980s. Thirty-one of the sites are Susitna River mainstem, tributary, or slough locations,
most of which were monitored in the 1980s.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 14 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Water Quality Data Collection: Longitudinal Profile of the Susitna River
Twelve mainstem Susitna River monitoring sites are located below the proposed dam site and two
mainstem sites above this location. Five sloughs will be monitored that represent a combination of
physical settings in the drainage and that are known to support important fish-rearing habitat. Tributaries
to the Susitna River will be monitored and include those contributing large portions of the lower river
flow like the Talkeetna, Chulitna, Deshka, and Yentna rivers. A partial list of the remaining tributaries
that will be monitored represent important spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous and resident
fisheries and include: Gold Creek, Portage Creek, Tsusena Creek, Watana Creek, and Oshetna Creek.
Monitoring sites are spaced at approximately 5 mile intervals so that the various factors that influence
water quality conditions are captured and support the development (and calibration) of the water quality
model. Frequency of sites along the length of the river is important for capturing localized effects from
tributaries and from past and current human activity.
These sites were selected based on the following rationale:
• Adequate representation of locations throughout the Susitna River and tributaries above and
below the proposed dam site for the purpose of a baseline water quality characterization.
• Location on tributaries where proposed access road-crossing impacts might occur during and after
construction (upstream/downstream sampling points on each crossing).
• Preliminary consultation with licensing participants including co-location with other study sites
(e.g., instream flow, ice processes).
• Access and land ownership issues.
• Eight of the sites are mainstem monitoring sites that were previously used for SNTEMP modeling
(see Section 5.6) in the 1980s. Thirty-one of the sites are Susitna River mainstem, tributary, or
slough locations, most of which were monitored in the 1980s.
Water quality data collection will be at the locations in bold in Table B1-2. The initial sampling will be
expanded if general water quality, metals in surface water, or metals in fish tissue exceed criteria or
thresholds. Additional contiguous sample sites will be visited on this list beginning the following
sampling month wherever criteria or thresholds have been exceeded by individual parameters. This
proposed spacing follows accepted practice when segmenting large river systems for development of
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) water quality models. Sampling during winter months will be
focused on locations where flow data is currently collected (or was historically collected by the USGS)
and will be used for water quality modeling.
Water quality collection can be broken into two components: in-situ water quality sampling and general
water quality sampling. In-situ water quality sampling consists of on-site monthly measurements of
physical parameters at fixed locations using field equipment. General water quality sampling will consist
of monthly grab samples that will be sent to an off-site laboratory for analysis. The laboratory will have at
a minimum, National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) Certification in order
to generate credible data for use by state, federal, and tribal regulatory programs for evaluating current
and future water quality conditions. In general, these samples represent water quality components that
cannot be easily measured in-situ, such as metals concentrations, nitrates, etc.
Water quality samples will be analyzed for several parameters reported in Table B1-3. Metals monitoring
for total and dissolved fractions in surface water include the full set of parameters used by ADEC in fish
health consumption screening. The creation of a reservoir and potential alteration of surface water
downstream of the proposed dam site may change characteristics of groundwater in the upper and middle
Susitna basin. The water quality parameters identified in Table B1-3 will address the influence surface
water may have on adjoining groundwater supplies in the vicinity of each sampling site. Changes to
groundwater quality may have an effect on drinking water supplies so several parameters included on the
inorganic chemical contaminants list have been included as part of this sampling program (ADEC 2003).
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 15 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
The criteria that will be used for comparison with sampling results are the drinking water primary
maximum contaminant levels.
Additional parameters will be measured from all sites in a single survey that occurs during low water
conditions (e.g., August/September) in the Susitna basin. The following is a list of pollutants for which
Alaska Water Quality Standards has established water quality criteria (18 ACC 70.020(b)) for protecting
designated uses in freshwater:
• Continuous temperature monitoring program
— Temperature, already included as part of the continuous temperature monitoring program.
• In -situ monitoring program
— pH, included as part of the monthly water quality sampling routine.
— Color, categorical observation.
— Residues, categorical assessment (floating solids, debris, sludge, deposits, foam, or scum).
• General water quality program
— Dissolved gas, included in the monitoring program (Dissolved Oxygen).
— Dissolved inorganic substances (Total Dissolved Solids), included in monthly monitoring.
— Turbidity, already included as part of the monthly water quality sampling routine.
— Toxic and other deleterious organic and inorganic, already included in monitoring for inorganic
metals and mercury/methyl-mercury (organometals).
• One time survey
— Fecal coliform bacteria, included in monthly monitoring.
— Sediment, already included in assessing mercury and other metals from sediments.
— Petroleum Hydrocarbons, oil, and grease, included in a one-time survey.
— Radioactivity; radionuclide concentrations to be generated from surface water samples.
— Toxic and other deleterious organic and inorganic, already included in monitoring for inorganic
metals and mercury/methyl-mercury (organometals).
Water quality parameters listed above that do not exceed Alaska Water Quality Standards will not be
collected in succeeding months; the exception are those parameters in Table A4-1 associated with
monthly sample collection from surface water.
Water Quality Data Collection: Focus Areas on the Susitna River
A total of ten Focus Areas were presented and discussed with the TWG and are proposed for detailed
study within the Middle Segment of the river. The Focus Areas are intended to serve as specific
geographic areas of the river that will be the subject of intensive investigation by multiple resource
disciplines including water quality. The proposed Focus Areas were selected during an interdisciplinary
resource meeting that involved a systematic review of aerial imagery within each of the Geomorphic
Reaches (MR1 through MR8) for the entire Middle Segment of the river. Focus Areas were selected
within MR1, MR2, MR5, MR6, MR7, and MR8. Focus Areas were not selected for MR3 or MR4 due to
safety considerations related to Devils Canyon.
The areas selected were those deemed representative of the major features in the Geomorphic Reach and
included mainstem habitat types of known biological significance (i.e., where fish have been observed
based on previous and/or contemporary studies), as well as some locations (e.g, Slough 17) where
previous sampling revealed few/ no fish. The areas included representative side channels, side sloughs,
upland sloughs, and tributary mouths.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 16 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
The Focus Area selections considered:
o All major habitat types (main channel, side channel, side slough, upland slough, tributary
delta).
o At least one Focus Area per geomorphic reach (excepting reaches associated with Devils
Canyon) will be included that are representative of other areas.
o A replicate sampling strategy will be used for measure habitat types within each Focus Area
which many include random selection process.
o Areas that are known (based on existing and contemporary data) to be biologically important
for salmon spawning/ rearing in mainstem and lateral habitats will be sampled (i.e., critical
habitats) and
o Areas for which little or no fish use has been documented or for which information on fish
use is lacking, will also be sampled.
Maps of each FA with River Mile numbers included are shown below in Figure B1-1 through B1-10.
Figure B1-1. Map of Focus Area 1
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 17 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure B1-2. Map of Focus Area 2
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 18 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure B1-3. Map of Focus Area 3
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 19 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure B1-4. Map of Focus Area 4
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 20 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure B1-5. Map of Focus Area 5
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 21 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure B1-6. Map of Focus Area 6
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 22 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure B1-7. Map of Focus Area 7
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 23 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure B1-8. Map of Focus Area 8
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 24 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure B1-9. Map of Focus Area 9
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 25 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure B1-10. Map of Focus Area 10
The Focus Areas will have a higher density of sampling locations, in contrast to the mainstem network, so
that prediction of change in water quality conditions from Project operations can be made with a higher
degree of resolution. The resolution expected for predicting conditions will be as short as 100-meter (m)
longitudinal distances within the Focus Areas. Depending on the length of the Focus Area, transects will
be spaced every 100 m to 500 m and water quality samples collected at three locations along each
transect. The collection points along a transect will be in open water areas and have 3 to 5 collection
points. These will be discrete samples taken at each collection point. The density of monitoring locations
within the Focus Areas will be used as a grid to detect and describe groundwater input. Plumes of
groundwater input to a Focus Area will be traceable using thermal data or conductivity. The area of
groundwater input will be described using the monitoring grid network represented by the transects and
sampling points along each transect. The location of open water transects and piezometers will be
coordinated with the Instream Flow Study (Section 8) and the Groundwater Study (Section 7.5) to
efficiently implement common elements in each of the studies. Piezometers will be installed as part of the
Water Quality Monitoring Study so that surface water and groundwater samples are collected at the same
time for determination of influence of groundwater on surface water. Collection of groundwater and
surface water during each site visit will be used to evaluate the influence of groundwater on surface water
quality. Frequency of sampling will be every 2 weeks for a total duration of 6 weeks and coordinated with
the Instream Flow and Groundwater studies.
The following parameters that could affect habitat used by anadromous and resident fish in this
drainage:
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 26 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Field Parameters
• Water temperature
• Dissolved oxygen
• Conductivity
• pH
General Chemistry
• Turbidity
• Hardness
• Total nitrogen
• Nitrate+nitrite-nitrogen
• Total phosphorus
• Soluble reactive phosphorus
Metals
• Mercury ( total)
• Methylmercury (dissolved)
• Aluminum (dissolved and total)
• Iron (dissolved and total)
Sediment Samples for Mercury/Metals in Reservoir Area Data Collection
This portion of the study was designed to gather specific information on the distribution of Susitna River
sediment contaminants of concern in potential source areas. In general, all sediment samples will be taken
from sheltered backwater areas, downstream of islands, and in similar riverine locations in which water
currents are slowed, favoring accumulation of finer sediment along the channel bottom. Samples will be
analyzed for total metals, including aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury,
nickel, selenium, and zinc. In addition, sediment size and total organic carbon (TOC) will be included to
evaluate whether these parameters are predictors for elevated metal concentrations. Samples will be
collected just below and above the proposed dam site. Additional samples will be collected near the
mouth of tributaries near the proposed dam site, including Fog, Deadman, Watana, Tsusena, Kosina, Jay,
and Goose creeks, and the Oshetna River. The purpose of this sampling will be to determine where
metals, if found in the water or sediment, originate in the drainage. Toxics modeling will be conducted to
address potential for bioavailability in resident aquatic life. Comparison of bioaccumulation of metals in
tissue analysis with results from sediment samples will inform on potential for transfer mechanisms
between source and fate.
Most of the contaminants of interest are typically associated with fine sediments, rather than with coarse-
grained sandy sediment or rocky substrates. Therefore, the goal of the sampling will be to obtain
sediments with at least 5 percent fines (i.e., particle size less than 0.0025 inches [63 micrometers], or
passing through a #230 sieve). At some locations, however, larger-sized sediment may be all that are
available.
Baseline Metals Levels in Fish Tissue
Two screening level tasks will be conducted. The first will be for methyl mercury in sport fish. Methyl
mercury bioaccumulates and the highest concentrations are typically in the muscle tissue of adult
predatory fish. Final determination of tissue type(s) for analysis will be coordinated with ADEC’s
Division of Environmental Health and guidance on fish tissue sampling. Target fish species in the vicinity
of the Susitna-Watana Reservoir will be Dolly Varden, Arctic grayling, long nose sucker, lake trout,
whitefish species, burbot and resident rainbow trout. Filet samples will be analyzed for methyl and total
mercury. Liver samples will also be collected from burbot and analyzed for mercury, methyl-mercury,
arsenic, cadmium, and selenium. Fish samples will be submitted to a state-certified analytical laboratory
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 27 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
for individual fish muscle tissue analysis. Results will be reported with respect to applicable State and
federal standards.
Results from fish tissue analysis will also be used as a baseline for determining how the proposed Project
may increase the potential of current metals concentrations to become bioavailable. The projected water
conditions in the reservoir will be estimated and current results for metals concentrations re-evaluated for
determining potential toxicities to resident and anadromous fish species. Detection of mercury in fish
tissue and sediment will prompt further study of naturally occurring concentrations in soils and plants and
how parent geology contributes to concentrations of this native element in both compartments of the
landscape. The focused study will estimate the extent and magnitude of mercury contamination so that an
estimate of increased bioavailability might be made once the reservoir inundates areas where high
concentrations of mercury are sequestered. Detectable concentrations of mercury may prompt additional
sampling and analysis of tissues in the benthic macroinvertebrate community. The bio-magnification of
mercury impact from sediments and plants to the fish community may be facilitated through consumption
of impacted food sources like the benthic macroinvertebrates. Impact of this component of a trophic level
may also be a conduit for mercury biomagnification in waterfowl and other wildlife that consume this
food source.
Pilot Thermal Imaging Assessment of a Portion of the Susitna River
Thermal imagery of a portion of the Susitna River (e.g., 10 miles of the Middle River) was collected in
the 2012 season. The primary goal is to establish baseline data for assessing the availability and spatial
extent of thermal refugia/upwelling. Data from the thermal imaging will be ground-truthed using in-
stream thermographs that will be utilized to calibrate the thermal imagery, assess absolute accuracy, and
provide a temporal context for the thermal infrared data collection. In coordination with the Instream
Flow and fish studies, a determination will be made as to whether thermal imaging data will be applicable
and if additional thermal imagery will be collected during the 2013 field season.
If the pilot study is successful, then a description of thermal refugia throughout the Project area can be
mapped using aerial imagery calibrated with on-the-ground verification. The verification data will be
collected at the same time as the aerial imagery (or nearly the same time) using the established continuous
temperature monitoring network and additional grab sample temperature readings where there may be
gaps, such as in select sloughs. The following elements are important considerations for data collection,
specifications for data quality, and strategy for relating digital imagery and actual river surface water
temperatures.
Remotely sensed thermal images allow for spatially distributed measurements of radiant temperatures in
the river. Radiant temperature measurements are made only on the surface layer of the water (top 4
inches [10 centimeters]). Temperature readings can vary depending on the amount of suspended sediment
in the water and the turbidity of the water. Collection of data will occur near the end of October when the
freeze begins and the contrast between cold surface water and warmer groundwater influence is
accentuated. The suspended sediment and turbidity will be diminished during this period of the year when
the glacial flour content in the water column is reduced from glacial meltwater.
If the thermal imaging is not successful, the reason for the failure will be evaluated. Future
actions will depend on the causes of the failure. Potential causes for failure could include:
• Poor timing for the data acquisition flight.
• Insufficient differences in temperature between groundwater and surface water.
• Complex missing or dilution of the groundwater signal.
Potential solutions would include:
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 28 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
• Re-fly the thermal imaging under better conditions (a greater contrast in temperature
between groundwater and surface water).
• Hand held FLIR meters that could be used during stream side studies, and a more focused
thermal mapping task within focus areas using handheld temperature meters and probes
may prove useful.
• Use of documentation of open water leads as a substitute.
• Outfit the R44 helicopter to take advantage of regular field presence. Thermal imagery
could be shot all summer long and brief intervals of ideal conditions could be used.
• The Focus Area results represent habitat identified as representative of the most
important for fisheries use as described by the rational for site selection in Section 8.5.4.2
of the RSP. These results can be extrapolated to similar reaches, side channels, and
sloughs in other areas of the Susitna drainage not directly monitored in this study to
determine thermal refugia for fish.
Groundwater Quality in Selected Habitats
The purpose of this portion of the study will be to characterize the water quality differences between a set
of key productive aquatic habitat types (3 to 5 sites) and a set of non-productive habitat types (3 to 5) that
are related to the absence or presence of groundwater upwelling to improve the understanding of the
water quality differences and related groundwater/surface water processes.
The density of monitoring locations within the Focus Areas will be used as a grid to detect and describe
groundwater input. Plumes of groundwater input to a Focus Area will be traceable using thermal data or
conductivity. The area of groundwater input will be described using the monitoring grid network
represented by transects and sampling points along each transect. The location of open water transects and
piezometers will be coordinated with the Instream Flow Study (Section 8) and the Groundwater Study
(Section 7.5) to efficiently implement common elements in each of the studies. Piezometers will be
installed as part of the Water Quality Monitoring Study so that surface water and groundwater samples
are collected at the same time for determination of influence of groundwater on surface water. Collection
of groundwater and surface water during each site visit will be used to evaluate the influence of
groundwater on surface water quality. Frequency of sampling will be every 2 weeks for a total duration of
6 weeks and coordinated with the Instream Flow and Groundwater studies.
Basic water chemistry (temperature, DO, conductivity, pH, turbidity, redox potential) that define habitat
conditions will be collected at selected instream flow, fish population, and riparian study sites. These data
will be used to characterize groundwater and surface water interactions.
Table B1-1. List of water quality parameters and frequency of collection
Parameter Task Frequency of
Collection
In-Situ Water Quality Parameters
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Baseline WQ and Sediment Each Sampling Event
pH Baseline WQ and Sediment Each Sampling Event
Water Temperature Baseline WQ and Sediment Each Sampling Event
Specific Conductance Baseline WQ and Sediment Each Sampling Event
Turbidity Baseline WQ and Sediment Each Sampling Event
Redox Potential Baseline WQ and Sediment Each Sampling Event
Color Baseline WQ (Visual) Monthly
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 29 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Parameter Task Frequency of
Collection
Residues Baseline WQ (Visual) One Survey-summer
General Water Quality Parameters (grab samples for laboratory analysis)
Hardness Baseline WQ Monthly
Alkalinity Baseline WQ Monthly
Nitrate/Nitrite Baseline WQ Monthly
Ammonia as N Baseline WQ Monthly
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Baseline WQ Monthly
Total Phosphorus Baseline WQ Monthly
Ortho-phosphate Baseline WQ Monthly
Chlorophyll a Baseline WQ Monthly
Total Dissolved Solids Baseline WQ Monthly
Total Suspended Solids Baseline WQ Monthly
Turbidity Baseline WQ Monthly
TOC Baseline WQ One Survey-summer
DOC Baseline WQ Monthly
Fecal Coliform Baseline WQ One Survey-summer
Petroleum Hydrocarbons Baseline WQ One Survey-summer
Radioactivity Baseline WQ One Survey-summer
Metals – (Water) Dissolved and Total
Aluminum Baseline WQ (Total &
Dissolved) One Survey-summer
Arsenic Baseline WQ (Total &
Dissolved)
Monthly
Barium Baseline WQ (Total &
Dissolved)
Monthly
Beryllium Baseline WQ (Total &
Dissolved)
Monthly
Cadmium Baseline WQ (Total &
Dissolved)
Monthly
Chromium (III & IV) Baseline WQ (Total &
Dissolved)
One Survey-summer
Cobalt Baseline WQ (Total &
Dissolved)
Monthly
Copper Baseline WQ (Total &
Dissolved)
Monthly
Iron Baseline WQ (Total &
Dissolved)
Monthly
Lead Baseline WQ (Total &
Dissolved)
Monthly
Manganese Baseline WQ (Total & Monthly
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 30 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Parameter Task Frequency of
Collection
Dissolved)
Magnesium Baseline WQ (Total &
Dissolved)
Monthly
Mercury Baseline WQ (Total &
Dissolved)
Monthly
Molybdenum Baseline WQ (Total &
Dissolved)
Monthly
Nickel Baseline WQ (Total &
Dissolved)
Monthly
Selenium Baseline WQ (Total &
Dissolved)
One Survey-summer
Thallium Baseline WQ (Total &
Dissolved)
Monthly
Vanadium Baseline WQ (Total &
Dissolved)
Monthly
Zinc Baseline WQ (Total &
Dissolved)
Monthly
Metals –Sediment (Total)
Aluminum Sediment Samples One Survey-summer
Arsenic Sediment Samples One Survey-summer
Cadmium Sediment Samples One Survey-summer
Copper Sediment Samples One Survey-summer
Iron Sediment Samples One Survey-summer
Lead Sediment Samples One Survey-summer
Mercury Sediment Samples One Survey-summer
Zinc Sediment Samples One Survey-summer
Metals – Fish Tissue (Use EPA Sampling Method 1669)
Total Mercury Fish Tissue Screening One Survey-late
summer
Methyl-mercury Fish Tissue Screening One Survey-late
summer
Arsenic Fish Tissue Screening One Survey-late
summer
Cadmium Fish Tissue Screening One Survey-late
summer
Selenium Fish Tissue Screening One Survey-late
summer
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 31 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Table B1-2. Proposed Susitna River Basin Temperature and Water Quality Monitoring Sites
Susitna
River Mile
Description Susitna River
Slough ID
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal degrees)
15.1 Susitna above Alexander
Creek
NA 61.4391 -150.4851
25.83 Susitna Station NA 61.5454 -150.516
28.0 Yentna River NA 61.5876 -150.4831
29.5 Susitna above Yentna NA 61.5759 -150.4270
40.63 Deshka River NA 61.7095 -150.3248
55.01 Susitna NA 61.8622 -150.1844
83.83 Susitna at Parks Highway
East
NA 62.1748 -150.1732
83.93 Susitna at Parks Highway
West
NA 62.1811 -150.1679
95.8 LRX 1 NA 62.3063 -150.1087
97.2 Talkeetna River NA 62.3424 -150.1122
98.1 Chulitna River NA 62.5676 -150.2379
103.02,3 Talkeetna NA 62.3943 -150.134
103.3 Talkeetna NA 62.3972 -150.1373
113.02 LRX 18 NA 62.5252 -150.1144
120.72,3 Curry Fishwheel Camp NA 62.6178 -150.0136
126.0 -- 8A 62.6704 -149.9029
126.12 LRX 29 NA 62.6739 -149.8991
129.23 -- 9 62.7025 -149.8412
130.82 LRX 35 NA 62.7136 -149.8089
136.5 Susitna near Gold Creek NA 62.7673 -149.6935
136.83 Gold Creek NA 62.7675 -149.6919
138.01 -- 16B 62.7802 -149.6853
138.63 Indian River NA 62.8009 -149.664
138.72 Susitna above Indian
River
NA 62.7854 -149.6484
140.0 -- 19 62.7939 -149.6143
140.12 LRX 53 NA 62.7945 -149.6129
142.0 -- 21 62.8163 -149.576
148.0 Susitna below Portage
Creek
NA 62.8303 -149.3827
148.82 Susitna above Portage
Creek
NA 62.8304 -149.3803
148.8 Portage Creek NA 62.8267 -149.3693
165.01 Susitna NA 62.7916 -148.997
180.31 Susitna below Tsusena
Creek NA 62.8134 -148.6568
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 32 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Susitna
River Mile
Description Susitna River
Slough ID
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal degrees)
181.33 Tsusena Creek NA 62.8217 -148.6068
184.51 Susitna at Watana Dam
site
NA 62.8226 -148.533
194.1 Watana Creek NA 62.8296 -148.259
206.8 Kosina Creek NA 62.7822 -147.94
223.73 Susitna near Cantwell NA 62.7052 147.538
233.4 Oshetna Creek NA 62.6402 -147.383
1 Site not sampled for water quality or temperature in the 1980s or location moved slightly from original location.
2 Proposed mainstem Susitna River temperature monitoring sites for purposes of 1980s SNTEMP model evaluation.
3 Locations with overlap of water quality temperature monitoring sites with other studies.
Locations in bold font represent that both temperature and water quality samples are collected from a site. Locations
in italics represent sites which were not installed during the 2012 sampling year.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 33 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Table B1-3. Parameters for water quality monitoring and laboratory analysis.
Parameter Analysis Method Method
Detection Limit
Sample Holding
Times
In-Situ Water Quality Parameters
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Water Quality Meter 0.2 mg/L Not Applicable
pH Water Quality Meter 0.1 pH units Not Applicable
Water Temperature Water Quality Meter 0.1°C Not Applicable
Specific Conductance Water Quality Meter 0.1 µS/cm Not Applicable
Turbidity Water Quality Meter .05 NTU Not Applicable
Redox Potential Water Quality Meter Unknown Not Applicable
Color Platinum-Cobalt Scale
(SM)
N/A Not Applicable
Residues Defined in 18 ACC 70 N/A Not Applicable
General Water Quality Parameters (grab samples for laboratory analysis)
Hardness EPA - 130.2 2.0 mg/L as
CaCO3
180 days
Nitrate/Nitrite EPA - 353.2 0.031 mg/L 48 hours
Alkalinity EPA - 2320 3.1 mg/L 14 days
Ammonia as N EPA - 350.1 0.031 mg/L 28 days
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen EPA - 351.2 0.2 mg/L 28 days
Total Phosphorus EPA - 365.3 0.0031 mg/L 28 days
Ortho-phosphate EPA - 365.3 0.01 mg/L 48 hours
Chlorophyll a SM 10300 0.2 µg/L 28 days
Total Dissolved Solids EPA - 160.1 3.1 mg/L 7 days
Total Suspended Solids EPA - 160.2 0.15 mg/L 7 days
Turbidity EPA - 180.1 0.05 NTU 48 hours
TOC EPA - 415.1 .15 mg/L 28 days
DOC EPA – 415.1 0.07 mg/L 28 days
Fecal Coliform EPA 1604 1 30 hours
Petroleum Hydrocarbons EPA 602/624 (TAqH)
EPA 610/625 (TAH)
31 µg/L 14 days
Radionuclides1
EPA 900.0, 901.1, 903.1,
904.0, 905.0, Alpha
Spectroscopy
Varies from 0.7 to
1,000 pCi/L 5 days
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 34 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Parameter Analysis Method Method
Detection Limit
Sample Holding
Times
Metals – (Water) Dissolved and Total
Aluminum EPA – 6010B/6020A .62 µg/L 48 hours
Arsenic EPA – 6010B/6020A .15 µg/L 48 hours
Barium EPA – 6010B/6020A 0.025 µg/L 48 hours
Beryllium EPA – 6010B/6020A 0.025 µg/L 48 hours
Cadmium EPA – 6010B/6020A 0.015 µg/L 48 hours
Chromium (III & IV) EPA – 6010B/6020A 0.062 µg/L 48 hours
Cobalt EPA – 6010B/6020A 0.01 µg/L 48 hours
Copper EPA – 6010B/6020A 0.05 µg/L 48 hours
Iron EPA – 6010B/6020A 6.2 µg/L 48 hours
Lead EPA – 6010B/6020A 0.031 µg/L 48 hours
Magnesium EPA – 6010B/6020A 0.015 µg/L 48 hours
Manganese EPA – 6010B/6020A 0.015 µg/L 48 hours
Mercury EPA – 7470A 1.5 ng/L 48 hours
Molybdenum EPA – 6010B/6020A 0.015µg/L 48 hours
Nickel EPA – 6010B/6020A 0.062 µg/L 48 hours
Selenium EPA – 6010B/6020A 0.31 µg/L 48 hours
Thallium EPA – 6010B/6020A 0.0062 µg/L 48 hours
Vanadium EPA – 6010B/6020A 0.31 µg/L 48 hours
Zinc EPA – 6010B/6020A 0.4 µg/L 48 hours
Metals –Sediment (Total)
Aluminum EPA - 200.7 Not Known 180 days
Arsenic EPA - 200.7 3.0 mg/kg 180 days
Cadmium EPA - 200.7 1.0 mg/kg 180 days
Copper EPA - 200.7 Not Known 180 days
Iron EPA - 200.7 Not Known 180 days
Lead EPA - 200.7 1.5 mg/kg 180 days
Mercury EPA – 245.5 / 7470A 0.1 mg/kg 28 days
Zinc EPA - 200.7 3.5 mg/kg 180 days
Metals – Fish Tissue (Use EPA Sampling Method 1669)
Total Mercury EPA – 1631 Not Known 7 days
Methylmercury EPA – 1631 Not Known 7 days
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 35 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Parameter Analysis Method Method
Detection Limit
Sample Holding
Times
Arsenic EPA - 1632, Revision A Not Known 7 days
Cadmium EPA - 1632 Not Known 7 days
Selenium EPA - 1632 Not Known 7 days
Note: List of Radionuclides suggested for analysis includes the following: Americium-241; Cesium-137; Lead-210;
Plutonium-238, 239, 240; Potassium-40; Radium-226; Radium-228; Strontium-90; Thorium-230, 232; Uranium-
234, 235, 238; Tritium Gross Alpha, Gross Beta
Figure B1-11. Proposed 2012 Stream Water Quality and Temperature Data Collection Sites for the
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 36 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
B 2.0 SAMPLING METHODS
Water Quality Data Collection: Monitoring Protocol
Water quality grab samples will be collected during each site visit along a transect of the stream
channel/water body, using methods consistent with ADEC and EPA protocols for sampling ambient water
and trace metal water quality criteria.
Mainstem areas of the river not immediately influenced by a tributary will be characterized with a single
transect. Areas of the mainstem with an upstream tributary that may influence the nearshore zone or that
are well-mixed with the mainstem will be characterized by collecting samples at two transect locations: in
the tributary and in the mainstem upstream of the tributary confluence. Samples will be collected at 3
equi-distant locations along each transect (i.e. 25% from left bank, 50% from left bank, and 75% from left
bank). Samples will be collected from a depth of 0.5 meters below the surface as well as 0.5 meters
above the bottom. This will ensure that variations in concentrations, especially metals, are captured and
adequately characterized throughout the study area.
These samples will be collected on approximately a monthly basis (four samples from June to
September). The period for collecting surface water samples will begin at ice break-up and extend to
beginning of ice formation on the river. Limited winter sampling (once in December, and again in March)
will be conducted where existing or historic USGS sites are located.
Review of existing data (URS 2011) indicates that few exceedances occur with metals concentrations
during the winter months. If the 2013 data sets suggest that mercury concentrations exceed criteria or
thresholds, then an expanded 2014 water quality monitoring program will be conducted to characterize
conditions on a monthly basis throughout the winter months.
Variation of water quality in a river cross-section is often significant and is most likely to occur because
of incomplete mixing of upstream tributary inflows, point-source discharges, or variations in velocity and
channel geometry. Water quality profiles at each location on each transect will be conducted for field
water quality parameters (e.g., temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity) to determine the
extent of vertical and lateral mixing.
Water quality samples will be collected using a davit/cable/winch system. A 50lb+ weight will be
attached to the end of the cable to ensure that both the cable and sampling equipment remain vertical
throughout the water column. Water quality grab samples are anticipated to be collected via a Kemmerer
Sampler, made out of Teflon for low level metals analysis, which will be attached to the davit cable. The
sampler will be lowered into the water column via the wench until the desired sampling depth is reached.
At that point the rope/cable attached to the sampler will be pulled tight and messenger sent down to close
the sampler. Water from the sampler will be then be poured into the appropriate sample containers. If
troubles are encountered while using the Kemmerer sampler due to high velocities in the Susitna river, a
second sample collection method could be utilized where Tygon tubing is attached to the davit cable and
water is pulled from the desired depth via a peristaltic pump. It is unknown at this time which sampling
technique is better suited for conditions on the Susitna River and tributaries.
Water quality indicators like conductivity (specific conductance) has been suggested as a surrogate
measure for transfer of metals from groundwater to surface water or in mobilization of metals within the
river channel. Available USGS data from select continuous gaging stations will be reviewed for increases
in specific conductance during monthly and seasonal intervals, and these results will be used to determine
if further metals sampling is warranted during additional winter months.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 37 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
In-Situ Water Quality Sampling
During each site visit, in situ measurements of dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance, redox
potential, turbidity, and water temperature will be made. A Hanna Instruments HI 98703 Portable
Turbidity Meter will be used to measure turbidity, while a Hydrolab® datasonde (MS5) will be used to
measure the remaining field parameters during each site visit. Continuous turbidity measurement may be
conducted with the Hydrolab datasonde at select locations (e.g., former/current USGS sites where
turbidity data are available from the 1980s) and operated during summer and winter conditions. The
following list of former and current USGS mainstem Susitna River monitoring sites will be considered for
continuous turbidity monitoring: Susitna Station, Sunshine, Gold Creek, Tsusena Creek, and near
Cantwell. These locations have historic and current flow data that will be used in water quality modeling
(Section 5.6) of effects on turbidity from Project operations. Continuous logging of water quality
parameters using a multi-parameter probe (e.g., temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity)
may be placed at Focus Area locations (identified in Section 5.5.4.5. The period of deployment will be
focused on summer months June through September (four months) as water conditions permit
deployment and routine download of data. Maintenance of a multi-parameter probe and risk from damage
is high during winter months. Also, freezing conditions will damage sensor apparatus and the logging unit
if enclosed by formation of ice.
Standard techniques for pre- and post-sampling calibration of in situ instrumentation will be used to
ensure quality of data generation and will follow accepted practice. If calibration failure is observed
during a site visit, field data will be corrected according to equipment manufacturer’s instructions.
General Water Quality Sampling
Water quality grab sampling will avoid eddies, pools, and deadwater. For sites upstream of the proposed
Project site, samples will have to be collected nearshore via wading since sites are only accessible by
helicopter. Samples will be collected using a Kemmerer sampler when collecting from a boat or a HDPE
collection bottle mounted on an extendable pole when collecting from the river bank. Samples will be
collected at 3 equi-distant locations along each transect (i.e. 25% from left bank, 50% from left bank, and
75% from left bank). Samples will be collected from a depth of 0.5 meters below the surface as well as
0.5 meters above the bottom. Sampling will avoid unnecessary collection of sediments in water samples,
and touching the inside or lip of the sample container. Sample collection container will be rinsed with
deionized water after each station to avoid cross-contamination. Samples will be delivered to ADEC
approved laboratories within the holding time frame. Each batch of samples will have a separate
completed chain of custody sheet. A field duplicate will be collected for 10 percent of samples (i.e., 1 for
every 10 water grab samples). Laboratory quality control samples including duplicate, spiked, and blank
samples will be prepared and processed by the laboratory.
Sample numbers will be recorded on field data sheets immediately after collection. Samples intended for
the laboratory will be stored/preserved in coolers and kept under the custody of the field team at all times.
Samples will be shipped/transported to the laboratory in coolers with ice and cooled to approximately 4
°C. Chain of custody records and other sampling documentation will be kept in sealed plastic bags
(Ziploc®) and taped inside the lid of the coolers prior to shipment. Packaging, marking, labeling, and
shipping of samples will be in compliance with all regulations promulgated by the U. S. Department of
Transportation in the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR 171-177.
Sediment Samples for Mercury/Metals in Reservoir Area Data Collection: Monitoring
Protocol
Sediment samples will be collected using an Ekman dredge or a modified Van Veen grab sampler.
Sampling devices will be deployed from the boat. Samples may also be collected by wading into shallow
near shore areas. To the extent possible, samples will consist of the top 6 inches (15 centimeters) of
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 38 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
sediment. Comparison of results from the Susitna drainage will be made with other studies for Blue
Lake, Eklutna Lake, and Bradley Lake when similar data are available and where physical settings are
comparable.
Sediment samples will be stored in cooler and kept under the custody of the field times at all times.
Samples will be shipped/transported to the laboratory in coolers with ice and cooled to approximately 4
°C. Chain of custody records and other sampling documentation will be kept in sealed plastic bags
(Ziploc®) and taped inside the lid of the coolers prior to shipment. Packaging, marking, labeling, and
shipping of samples will be in compliance with all regulations promulgated by the U. S. Department of
Transportation in the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR 171-177.
Baseline Metals Levels in Fish Tissue: Monitoring Protocol
Target fish species in the vicinity of the Susitna-Watana Reservoir will be Dolly Varden, Arctic grayling,
whitefish species, burbot, long nose sucker, lake trout, and resident rainbow trout. If possible, filets will
be sampled from 7 adult individuals from each species. Body size targeted for collection will represent
the non-anadromous phase of each species life cycle (e.g., Dolly Varden will be 3.5 to 5 inches [90 to 125
millimeters] total length to represent the resident portion of the life cycle). Collection times for fish
samples will occur in late August and early September 2013. Filet samples will be analyzed for methyl
and total mercury. Liver samples will also be collected from burbot and analyzed for mercury, methyl-
mercury, arsenic, cadmium, and selenium.
Field procedures will be consistent with those outlined in applicable ADEC and/or EPA sampling
protocols (USEPA 2000). Clean nylon nets and polyethylene-gloves will be used during fish tissue
collection. The species, fork length, and weight of each fish will be recorded. Fish will be placed in
Teflon® sheets and into zipper-closure bags and placed immediately on ice. Fish samples will be
submitted to a state-certified analytical laboratory for individual fish muscle tissue analysis. Results will
be reported with respect to applicable state and federal standards.
Pilot Thermal Imaging Assessment of a Portion of the Susitna River: Monitoring Protocol
Pilot Thermal Imaging Assessment of a Portion of the Susitna River
Thermal imagery of a portion of the Susitna River (e.g., 10 miles of the Middle River) was collected in
the 2012 season. The primary goal is to establish baseline data for assessing the availability and spatial
extent of thermal refugia/upwelling. Data from the thermal imaging will be ground-truthed using in-
stream thermographs that will be utilized to calibrate the thermal imagery, assess absolute accuracy, and
provide a temporal context for the thermal infrared data collection. In coordination with the Instream
Flow and fish studies, a determination will be made as to whether thermal imaging data will be applicable
and if additional thermal imagery will be collected during the 2013 field season.
Remotely sensed thermal images allow for spatially distributed measurements of radiant temperatures in
the river. Radiant temperature measurements are made only on the surface layer of the water (top 4
inches [10 centimeters]). Temperature readings can vary depending on the amount of suspended sediment
in the water and the turbidity of the water. Collection of data will occur near the end of October when the
freeze begins and the contrast between cold surface water and warmer groundwater influence is
accentuated. To maximize thermal contrast between warmer ground water discharge and cooler river
temperatures, the sensor will be flown during early morning when solar loading is minimized. The
suspended sediment and turbidity will be diminished during the fall when the glacial flour content in the
water column is reduced from glacial meltwater.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 39 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
After processing, the resulting TIR image mosaic will be visually inspected to look for spatial variability
in surface temperatures within the study area. Analysts will identify thermal features and areas of ground
water discharge either through direct detection of a spring or inferred from bulk temperature patterns. The
median temperatures for each sampled image will be plotted versus the corresponding river mile to
develop a longitudinal temperature profile. The profile will illustrate how stream temperatures vary
spatially along the stream gradient. The location and median temperature of all sampled surface water
inflows (e.g. tributaries, surface springs, etc.) will be included on the plot to illustrate how these inflows
influence the main stem temperature patterns.
If the pilot study is successful, then a description of thermal refugia throughout the Project area can be
mapped using aerial imagery calibrated with on-the-ground verification. The verification data will be
collected at the same time as the aerial imagery (or nearly the same time) using the established continuous
temperature monitoring network and additional grab sample temperature readings where there may be
gaps, such as in select sloughs. The following elements are important considerations for thermal data
collection, specifications for data quality, and strategy for relating digital imagery and actual river surface
water temperatures.
Radiant Temperature
• Remotely sensed thermal images allow for spatially distributed measurements of radiant
temperatures in the river.
• Radiant temperature measurements are made only on the surface layer of the water (top 10cm).
• Temperature readings can vary depending on the amount of suspended sediment in the water and
the turbidity of the water.
Spatial Resolution
• The key to good data quality is determining the pixel size of the thermal infrared (TIR) sensor
and how that relates to the near-bank environment.
• Best practice is 3 pure-water pixels (ensures that the digital image represented by any 3
contiguous pixels identifies water versus land).
• Very fine resolution (0.2 – 1m) imagery is best used to determine ground water springs and cold-
water seeps.
• Larger pixels can be useful for determining characteristic patterns of latitude and longitude
thermal variation in riverine landscapes.
Calibrating Temperature
• Water temperatures change during the day, therefore collection will be measured near the same
time daily and when water temp is most stable (early afternoon).
• Validation sampling site selections are determined where there is channel accessibility and where
there are not known influences of tributaries, or seeps in the area.
• Hand-held ground imaging radiometers can provide validation as long as the precision is at least
as good as that expected from airborne TIR measurements.
Availability of historical imagery for thermal analysis will be also being investigated.
Water Sample Processing
Field equipment used for collection, measurement, and testing will be subject to a strict program of
control, calibration, adjustment and maintenance. The Kemmerer sampler or tygon tubing/ pump used to
collect surface water samples will be routinely inspected to verify that it is working properly. The Van
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 40 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Veen grab sampler used to collect sediment sample will also be routinely inspected. Routine maintenance
of all sample equipment will be conducted prior to each sampling event. Maintenance will include a
visual inspection that all parts are present, attached correctly and devoid of any obvious contamination. .
The project manager will coordinate ordering replacement parts and repairing samplers. Spare sampling
equipment will be available on-site in case of primary equipment failure.
QA/QC and Blank Samples and Frequency
Quality control activities in the field will consist of the following items:
• Adherence to documented procedures in this SAP and the companion QAPP;
• Cross-checking of field measurements and recording to ensure consistency and accuracy; and
• Comprehensive documentation of field observations, sample collection and sample identification
information.
Multiple field quality control samples will be collected: one blind field duplicate sample will be collected
for every ten sites sampled and sent to the laboratory to test for precision (e.g., repeatability) of analytical
procedures. A trip blank will be submitted to the lab to ensure that equipment handling and transport
procedures do not introduce contamination to transported project samples. Rinsate blanks will be
collected at different periods throughout the program to assure that cross-contamination between samples
does not occur.
B 3.0 SAMPLE DOCUMENTATION AND SHIPPING
Field Logbook and Field Log Forms
Thorough documentation of all field sample collection is necessary for proper processing of data and,
ultimately, for interpreting study results. Field sample collection will be documented in writing, on forms
included in (to be included in Appendix B), as well as on the following forms and labels:
• A field log notebook for general observations and notes
• A Field Data Record Form that contains information about observations and measurements made
and samples collected at the site
• Checklists for each sampling event, sampling point, and sampling time.
Copies of the field log books and physical characterization/water quality data sheets and sampling
checklists will be supplied to the Field Project Managers at the close of each sampling event. These data
will be used in conjunction with inspection checklists to compile the sampling event reports. Formal
reports that are generated from the data will be subject to technical and editorial review before submission
to AEA, and will be maintained at Tetra Tech’s Seattle, Washington, office in the central file (disk and
hard copy). The data reports will include a summary of the types of data collected, sampling dates, and
any problems or anomalies observed during sample collection.
Samples will be documented and tracked on Field Data Record forms, Sample Identification labels, and
Chain of Custody records. The Field Task Leaders (one for each team) will be responsible for ensuring
that these forms are completed and reviewed for correctness and completeness by the designated field QC
Officer. Tt will maintain copies of these forms in the project files. A sampling report will be prepared
following each sampling event. Another person will manually check data entered into any spreadsheet or
other format against the original source to ensure accurate data entry. If there is any indication that
requirements for sample integrity or data quality have not been met (for samples or measurements
collected by Tetra Tech), the Tetra Tech QAO will be notified immediately (with an accompanying
explanation of the problems encountered).
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 41 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Photographic Records
Recording of sampling locations will be documented with photographs using a conventional photo-point
procedure. Photographs will be taken at each sampling location and the photograph number and the
associated date, description of the photograph, site identification number and GPS coordinates will be
recorded in the photographic log. The photos will be stored as digital images and maintained as files, as
appropriate, in repositories for information and data used in preparing any reports and documents during
the project. Digital photos will be submitted with an index for each set of photographs, identifying the
project, site identification number and a description of the photograph.
Investigation-Derived Wastes
Excess sample water collected from each site will be returned to the reservoir or river. Excess
preservatives, when needed for preservation of field samples for transport to the laboratory, will be either
returned to the original sample reservoir or will be disposed of safely according to the Material Safety
Data Sheets (MSDS) directions.
B 4.0 SAMPLE HANDLING AND CUSTODY
Field Data Recording
In-situ field data measurements will be recorded immediately following collection, both, electronically
(stored within Hydrolab Surveyor) and on a field data sheet for each station. Field data sheets will be
printed on Rite in the Rain paper. Promptly following each sample event, scanned copies of field data
sheets will be made and stored electronically.
Each sample bottle will have a waterproof sample identification label, tag, or permanent marker
identification. All sample bottles will be labeled with an indelible marker before the time of collection.
Sample labels will include station designation, date, time, collector’s initials, and sample/analysis type.
Special analyses to be performed and any pertinent remarks will also be recorded on the label.
Sample Packaging and Shipping Requirements
Samples for laboratory analysis will be collected in containers appropriate for the analytes of interest,
filtered if necessary and will be properly preserved until delivery to the analytical laboratory. All samples
will be immediately placed in coolers and packed with gel ice after sampling and will remain chilled to
4°C (±2°C) during transportation to the contract laboratory. All samples will be accompanied with
completed chain-of-custody forms when shipped, and coolers will be sealed with signed and dated fiber
tape for shipment. Tetra Tech maintains specific SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) for sample chain
of custody, sample shipping, and supporting sample documentation.
Chain of Custody
Chain of custody (COC) can be defined as a systematic procedure for tracking a sample or datum from its
origin to its final use. Chain of custody procedures is necessary to ensure thorough documentation of
handling for each sample, from field collection to data analysis. The purpose of this procedure is to
minimize errors, maintain sample integrity, and protect the quality of data collected.
A data sample is considered to be under a person's custody if it is:
• In the individual's physical possession
• In the individual's sight
• Secured in a tamper-proof way by that person, or
• Secured by the person in an area that is restricted to authorized personnel.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 42 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Elements of chain-of-custody include:
• Sample identification
• Security seals and locks
• Security procedures
• Chain-of-custody record
The analytical laboratory will provide blank COCs with each bottle order and provide scanned copies of
finished COCs with sample results.
B 5.0 ANALYTICAL METHODS
This study will employ both field measurements and collection of samples to be analyzed in the
laboratory. Field and laboratory analytical procedures will follow APHA et al. (1998) methods. The
expected detection or reporting limits for field parameters and laboratory analyses are listed in Table B1-3
along with the anticipated analytical method.
Field Sampling Decisions
Damage to equipment from wildlife, physical forces of the river, or equipment failure will be addressed
using the following protocol. Field sampling decisions to deviate or modify field sampling locations or
methods will only be made with the approval of the field crew chief. The field crew chief will document
the decision on the field note sheets, and email a copy of the sheet or telephone the information to the
study manager. If the field decision is large enough in scale to significantly affect the study’s data, scope,
schedule or budget, the field crew chief is authorized to stop work until further contact and coordination
with the study manager can be performed.
Laboratory Operations Documentation
Laboratory data results will be recorded on laboratory data sheets, bench sheets and/or in laboratory
logbooks for each sampling event. These records as well as control charts, logbook records of equipment
maintenance records, calibration and quality control checks, such as preparation and use of standard
solutions, inventory of supplies and consumables, check-in of equipment, equipment parts and chemicals
will be kept on file at the laboratory.
Any procedural or equipment problems will be recorded in the field notebooks. Any deviation from this
Sampling and Analysis Plan will also be noted in the field notebooks. Data results will include
information on field and/or laboratory QA/QC problems and corrective actions.
Standard turnaround time for the analytical samples taken to the contract laboratory will be seven to ten
working days and will not exceed twenty-two working days for reporting of data.
Chain-of-custody forms will be kept with the sample during transport and will accompany data results
back to Tetra Tech. Training records and data review records will be kept on file at Tetra Tech and the
contract laboratory and will be available on request. All sample analysis records and documents are kept
at the contract laboratory and will be available to AEA for inspection at any time. In addition to any
written report, data collected for the project will be provided electronically via a CD-ROM or e-mail ZIP
file format.
All records will be retained by the contract laboratory for five years. All project records at Tetra Tech are
retained permanently.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 43 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
B 6.0 QUALITY CONTROL
Data quality is addressed, in part, by consistent performance of valid procedures documented in the SOPs
(Appendix B to this QAPP). It is enhanced by the training and experience of project staff and
documentation of project activities This QAPP including its appendices will be distributed to all sampling
personnel. A QC Officer (or equivalent) will ensure that samples are taken according to the established
protocols and that all forms, checklists, and measurements are recorded and completed correctly during
the sampling event.
Measurement performance criteria for data to be collected during this project are discussed in the
following sections.
Precision
Precision is a measure of internal method consistency. It is demonstrated by the degree of mutual
agreement between individual measurements or enumerated values of the same property of a sample,
usually under demonstrated similar conditions. The usability assessment will include consideration of this
condition in evaluating field measures from the entire measurement system. Although precision
evaluation within 20 percent relative percent difference (RPD) are generally considered acceptable for
water quality studies and analyses, no data validation or usability action will be taken for results in excess
of the 20 percent limit (unless RPD is specified as acceptable when >20%). Instead, the results will be
noted and compared with the balance of the parameters analyzed for a more comprehensive assessment
before any negative assessment, disqualification, or exclusion of data.
This QC calculation also addresses uncertainty due to natural variation and sampling error. Precision is
calculated from two duplicate samples by RPD as follows:
%100),(
||
21
21 ×−=CC
CCRPD
where C1 = the first of the two values and C2 = the second of the two if precision is to be calculated from
three or more replicate samples (as is often the case in laboratory analytical work), the relative standard
deviation (RSD) will be used and is calculated as
χ
sRSD=
where χ is the of the replicate samples, and s is the standard deviation and is determined by the following
equation:
( )
1
1
2
−
−
=
∑
=
nSD
n
i
i χχ
where iχ is the measured value of the replicate, χ is the mean of the measured values, and n is the number
of replicates.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 44 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Accuracy
Accuracy is defined as the degree of agreement between an observed value and an accepted reference or
true value. Accuracy is determined by using a combination of random error (precision) and systematic
error (bias) due to sampling and analytical operations. Bias is the systematic distortion of a measurement
process that causes errors in one direction so that the expected sample measurement is always greater or
lesser to the same degree than the sample’s true value. EPA now recommends that the term accuracy not
be used and that precision and bias be used instead.
Because accuracy is the measurement of a parameter and comparison to a truth, and the true values of
environmental physicochemical characteristics cannot be known, use of a surrogate is required. Accuracy
of field measurements will be assumed to be determined through use of precision.
The accuracy of field equipment for the measurement of temperature, DO, conductivity, salinity, and pH
will be determined at a minimum of two points that span the expected range of values for these
parameters. Instruments used and procedures for determining accuracy include the following:
Accuracy of data entry into the project database will be controlled by double-checking all manual data
entries.
Representativeness
Data representativeness is defined as the degree to which data accurately and precisely represents a
characteristic of a population, parameter, and variations at a sampling point, a process condition, or an
environmental condition. It therefore addresses the natural variability or the spatial and temporal
heterogeneity of a population. The number of sampling points and their location within the study area
were selected from a random draw to ensure that representative sample collection of each area of the
watershed and each assessment characteristic occurs.
Completeness
Completeness is defined as the percentage of measurements made that are judged to be valid according to
specific criteria and entered into the data management system. To achieve this objective, every effort is
made to avoid accidental or inadvertent sample or data loss. Accidents during sample transport or lab
activities that cause the loss of the original samples will result in irreparable loss of data. Lack of data
entry into the database will reduce the ability to perform analyses, integrate results, and prepare reports.
Samples will be stored and transported in unbreakable (plastic) containers wherever possible. All sample
processing (subsampling, sorting, identification, and enumeration) will occur in a controlled environment
within the laboratory. Field personnel will assign a set of continuous identifiers to a batch of samples.
Percent completeness (%C ) for measurement parameters can be defined as follows:
%100%×=T
VC
where V = the number of measurements judged valid and T = the total number of measurements planned.
For this project, sampling will be considered complete when no less than 90 percent of the samples
collected during a particular sampling event are judged valid.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 45 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Comparability
Two data sets are considered to be comparable when there is confidence that the two sets can be
considered equivalent with respect to the measurement of a specific variable or group of variables.
Comparability is dependent on the proper design of the sampling program and on adherence to accepted
sampling techniques, and QA guidelines.
B 7.0 INSTRUMENT/EQUIPMENT TESTING, INSPECTION, AND MAINTENANCE
Periodic regular inspection of equipment and instruments is needed to ensure the satisfactory performance
of the systems. Equipment to be used during the sampling event is listed in the appropriate SOPs. Before
any piece of sampling or measurement equipment is taken into the field, it will be inspected to ensure that
the equipment is appropriate for the task to be performed, all necessary parts of the equipment are intact,
and the equipment is in working order. In addition, the equipment will be visually inspected before its
use. Broken equipment will be labeled “DO NOT USE” and returned to the Tt office to receive necessary
repairs, or it will be disposed of. Backup field equipment will be available during all field activities in the
event of equipment failure.
The objective of preventive maintenance is to ensure the availability and satisfactory performance of the
measurement systems. All field measurement instruments will receive preventive maintenance in
accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.
B 8.0 INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION AND FREQUENCY
Calibrated field instruments will be used for in-field, instantaneous measurement of temperature, DO,
conductivity, salinity, and redox potential. Instruments will be calibrated in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications and as described in the measurement SOPs. The SOPs include pre- and
post-calibration verification on each sampling date. Verification of pH measurement accuracy will be
checked against standard solutions in the field and adjustments made to the meter prior to the next
measurement, if necessary.
The calibration of temperature, DO, conductivity/salinity, and pH probes will be checked before and after
each sampling event, or as deemed necessary by the multiprobe’s manufacturer, using certified standard
solutions. Field calibrations will be recorded in the field sampling log book. Individual sensors will be
considered to be operating correctly if the instrument reading is within 15 percent of the calibration
standard value. If the two values are not within 15 percent of each other, the probe will be cleaned and
recalibrated. If these two values are still not within 15 percent of each other following cleaning and
recalibration, the probe itself will be replaced.
B 9.0 INSPECTION/ACCEPTANCE OF SUPPLIES AND CONSUMABLES
Supplies and consumables are those items necessary to support the sampling and analysis operation. They
include bottleware, calibration solutions, hoses, decontamination supplies, preservatives, and various
types of water (e.g., potable, deionized, organic-free). Upon delivery of supplies, field crews will ensure
that types and quantities of supplies received are consistent with what was ordered, and with what is
indicated on the packing list and invoice for the material. If any discrepancies are found, the supplier will
be contacted immediately.
While preparing for specific sampling events, the field sampling Task Leaders will be responsible for
acquiring and inspecting materials and solutions that will be used for obtaining the samples for field
measurements. Other materials must also meet specific requirements as indicated by the appropriate
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 46 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
manufacturer; for example, only certified standard solutions will be used for the multiprobe calibration.
Buffers and standards will be checked for expiration dates and appearance (correct color).
B 10.0 NONDIRECT MEASUREMENTS
Comparison of data collected during this field effort to historical data will be used for qualitative
assessment only. Assessment of applicability for historical data is outside the scope of this document and
is not addressed further in this data collection QAPP.
B 11.0 DATA MANAGEMENT
Samples will be documented and tracked on Field Data Record forms, Sample Identification labels, and
Chain of Custody records. The Field Task Leaders (one for each team) will be responsible for ensuring
that these forms are completed and reviewed for correctness and completeness by the designated field QC
Officer. Tt will maintain copies of these forms in the project files. A sampling report will be prepared
following each sampling event. Another person will manually check data entered into any spreadsheet or
other format against the original source to ensure accurate data entry. If there is any indication that
requirements for sample integrity or data quality have not been met (for samples or measurements
collected by Tt), the Tt QAO will be notified immediately (with an accompanying explanation of the
problems encountered).
Hard copy data packages will be paginated, fully validated raw data packages that include an analytical
narrative with a signed certification of compliance with this QAPP and all method requirements; copies of
Chain of Custody forms; sample inspection records; laboratory sample and QC results; calibration
summaries; example calculations by parameter; and copies of all sample preparation, analysis, and
standards logs adequate to reconstruct the entire analysis. The CD-ROM data will include a full copy of
the paginated report scanned and stored in portable document format (PDF) for potential future
submission to the client, if requested, and for long-term storage in the project files. Initially, the full raw
data package will be submitted to the Tt QAO for assessment of compliance with the program goals and
guidance.
All computer files associated with the project will be stored in a project subdirectory by Tt (subject to
regular system backups) and will be copied to disk for archive for the 5 years subsequent to project
completion. The data may eventually be stored using a data management system specified Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 47 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
C. ASSESSMENTS AND OVERSIGHT
C 1.0 ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE ACTIONS
The QA program under which this task order will operate includes technical system audits, with
independent checks of the data obtained from sampling, analysis, and data-gathering activities. Tt will
review the QA programs that subcontractors follow to ensure similar levels of QA and QC are attained.
The essential steps in the QA program are as follows:
• Identify and define the problem
• Assign responsibility for investigating the problem
• Investigate and determine the cause of the problem
• Assign and accept responsibility for implementing appropriate corrective action
• Establish the effectiveness of and implement the corrective action
• Verify that the corrective action has eliminated the problem
Many of the technical problems that might occur can be solved on the spot by the staff members involved;
for example, by modifying the technical approach, repairing instrumentation that is not working properly,
or correcting errors or deficiencies in documentation. Immediate corrective actions form part of normal
operating procedures and are noted in records for the project. Problems not solved this way require more
formalized, long-term corrective action. If quality problems that require attention are identified, Tt or the
subcontractor will determine whether attaining acceptable quality requires short- or long-term actions. If a
failure in an analytical system occurs (e.g., performance requirements are not met), the appropriate QC
Officer or subcontractor QA Manager will be responsible for corrective action and will immediately
inform the Tt PM or QAO, as appropriate. Subsequent steps taken will depend on the nature and
significance of the problem.
The Tt Technical Lead has primary responsibility for monitoring the activities of this project and
identifying or confirming any quality problems. These problems will also be brought to the attention of
the Tt QAO, who will initiate the corrective action system described above, document the nature of the
problem, and ensure that the recommended corrective action is carried out. The Tt QAO has the authority
to stop work on the project if problems affecting data quality require extensive effort to resolve and are
identified.
The AEA PM and Tt Technical Lead will be notified of major corrective actions and stop work orders.
Corrective actions might include the following:
• Re-emphasizing to staff the project objectives, the limitations in scope, the need to adhere to
the agreed-upon schedule and procedures, and the need to document QC and QA activities
• Securing additional commitment of staff time to devote to the project
• Retaining outside consultants to review problems in specialized technical areas
• Changing procedures
• The Tt Technical Lead may replace a staff member or subcontractor, as appropriate, if it is in
the best interest of the project to do so.
• The Tt QC Officers are responsible for overseeing work as it is performed and periodically
conducting checks during the data entry and analysis phases of the project. As data entries,
calculations, or other activities are checked, the person performing the check will sign and
date a hard copy of the material or complete a review form, as appropriate, and provide this
documentation to the Tt Technical Lead for inclusion in the project files. Field audits and
technical system audits will not be conducted under this task order.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 48 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
C 2.0 QA REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT
A draft data report will be prepared and forwarded to the AEA for data analysis completed during winter
2013. The report will include the following:
• Description of the project purpose, goals, and objectives.
• Map(s) of the study area and sampling sites.
• Descriptions of field methods.
• Discussion of data quality and the significance of any problems encountered in the analyses.
• Summary tables of field data.
• Observations regarding significant or potentially significant findings.
• Recommendations based on project goals.
D. DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY
D 1.0 DATA REVIEW, VERIFICATION, AND VALIDATION
Data validation and review services provide a method for determining the usability and limitations of data
and provide a standardized data quality assessment. All Field Data forms will be reviewed by the Tt
Technical Lead and Field Task Manager (assisted by the QAO, as needed) for completeness and
correctness. Tt will be responsible for reviewing data entries and transmissions for completeness and
adherence to QA requirements. Data quality will be assessed by comparing entered data to original data
or by comparing results to the measurement performance criteria summarized in Section 4.0 to determine
whether to accept, reject, or qualify the data. Results of the review and validation processes will be
reported to the Technical Leads.
D 2.0 VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION METHODS
The Tt Technical Leads or designee will review all Field Data Record forms. The Tt QAO will review a
minimum of 5 percent of the Field Data Record forms and other records. Any discrepancies in the records
will be reconciled with the appropriate associated field personnel and will be reported to the Tt Technical
Leads. The AEA PM will be consulted with deficiencies, observations, and findings, as well as with
corrective action and technical directive recommendations for consideration and approval.
Data verification requires confirmation by examination or provision of objective evidence that the
requirements of these specified QC acceptance criteria are met. Each step of the data collection and
analysis process must be evaluated and its conformance to the protocols established in this QAPP
verified, including:
• Sampling design
• Sample collection procedures
• Data analysis procedures
• Quality control
• Data format reduction and processing data
Validation involves detailed examination of the complete data package using professional judgment to
determine whether the established procedures were followed. Validation will be done by the Study Lead.
Tetra Tech and URS managers for the project will review all results to verify that methods and protocols
specified in this QAPP were followed; that all instrument calibrations, quality control checks, and
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 49 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
intermediate calculations were performed appropriately; and that the final reported data are consistent,
correct, and complete, with no omissions or errors.
Evaluation criteria will include the acceptability of instrument calibrations and precision data and the
appropriateness of assigned data qualifiers, if any. The study lead will review the data packages and
companion field notations to determine if the results met the MQOs for bias, precision, and accuracy for
that sampling interval (monthly) and to ensure that all analyses specified on the "Chain of Custody" form
were performed. Based on these assessments, the data will either be accepted, accepted with appropriate
qualifications, or rejected.
After the field data have been reviewed and verified by the project manager, they will be independently
reviewed by QA officer for errors before closing out the study. The initial data review will consist of a 10
percent random sampling of the project data. If any errors are discovered during the initial data review, a
full independent review will be undertaken QA officer.
D 3.0 RECONCILIATION WITH USER REQUIREMENTS
As soon as possible following completion of the sample collection and analyses, Tt will assess the
precision, accuracy, and completeness measures and compare them with the criteria discussed in Section
A 4.0. This will be the final determination of whether the data collected are of the correct type, quantity,
and quality to support their intended use for this project. Any problems encountered in meeting the
performance criteria (or uncertainties and limitations in the use of the data) will be discussed with the
project QA personnel and the Alaska Energy Authority PM, and will be reconciled if possible.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 50 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
REFERENCES
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2003. Alaska Water Quality Criteria
Manual for Toxic and Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances. Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation: Division of Water. Juneau, Alaska. 51p.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2005. Water Quality Assessment and
Monitoring Program. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation: Division of Water.
Juneau, Alaska. 58p.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2012a. 18 AAC 70-Water Quality
Standards, Amended April 8, 2012.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2012b. 18 AAC 75-Oil and Other
Hazardous Substances Pollution Control, Amended April 8, 2012.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2012c. 18 AAC 80-Drinking Water
Standards, Amended August 20, 2012.
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2011. Pre-Application Document: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 14241. December 2011. Prepared for the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission by the Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC). 1983a. Examination of Susitna River
Discharge and Temperature Changes Due to the Proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project – Final
Report. Prepared by Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center Anchorage, AK. Submitted
to Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture Anchorage, AK. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage, AK.
AEIDC. 1983b. Stream Flow and Temperature Modeling in the Susitna Basin, Alaska. Prepared by Arctic
Environmental Information and Data Center Anchorage, AK. Submitted to Harza-Ebasco Susitna
Joint Venture Anchorage, AK. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK.
AEIDC. 1984a. Effects of Project-Related Changes in Temperature, Turbidity and Stream Discharge on
Upper Susitna Salmon Resources During June – Sept. January 1984. University of Alaska –
Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document Number 454.
AEIDC. 1984b. Examination of Susitna River Discharge and Temperature Changes Due to the Proposed
Susitna Hydroelectric Project. February 1984. University of Alaska – Anchorage, Anchorage,
Alaska. APA Document Number 861.
AEIDC. 1984c. Assessment of the Effects of the Proposed SHP on Instream Temperature and Fishery
Resources in the Watana to Talkeetna Reach Vol. 1 Main Text – Final. October 1984. University of
Alaska – Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document Number 2330.
AEIDC. 1984d. Assessment of the Effects of the Proposed SHP on Instream Temperature and Fishery
Resources in the Watana to Talkeetna Reach Vol. 2 Appendices A-H– Final. October 1984.
University of Alaska – Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document Number 2331.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 51 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
AEIDC. 1985. Assessment of the Effects of the Proposed SHP on Instream Temperature and Fish
Resources in the Watana to Talkeetna Reach. May 22, 1985. University of Alaska – Anchorage,
Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document Number 2706.
APHA (American Public Health Association). 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 20th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.
Banks, W.S.L., Paylor, R.L., and Hughes, W.B., 1996, Using thermal-infrared imagery to delineate
ground-water discharge: Ground Water, v. 34, no. 3, p. 434–443.
Cole, T.M. and S. A. Wells. 2000. CE-QUAL-W2: A two-dimensional, laterally averaged, Hydrodynamic
and Water Quality Model, Version 3.0, Instruction Report EL-2000. US Army Engineering and
Research Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
EPA (U.S Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans
(EPA QA/G-5). Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/R-98/018. Washington, D.C. 136p.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant
Data for use in Fish Advisories: Volume 1 Fish Sampling and Analysis, 3rd Edition. EPA-823-B-00-
007. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, D.C. 485p.
EPA (U.S Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project
Plans (EPA QA/R-5, EPA/240/B-01/003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Quality
Assurance Division, Washington, DC.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. EPA Contract Laboratory Program, National
Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review, OSWER 9240.1-35, EPA 540-R-01-008. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC.
EPA (U.S Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance
Project Plans: Evaluating, Assessing, and Documenting Environmental Data Collection and Use
Programs. EPA-505-B-04-900A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Defense,
and Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
Fischer, W.A., Davis, D.A., and Sousa, T.M., 1966, Fresh-water springs of Hawaii from infrared images:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas 218, 1 map.
Hamrick, J.M. 1992. A Three-Dimensional Environmental Fluid Dynamics Computer Code: Theoretical
and Computational Aspects, Special Report 317. The College of William and Mary, Virginia
Institute of Marine Science. 63 pp.
Imberger, J., and Patterson, J. C. (1981). A dynamic reservoir simulation model- DYRESM. In Transport
Models for Inland and Coastal Waters (H. B. Fischer ed.), pp. 310-361. Academic Press, New
York.
LaBaugh, James W., and Rosenberry, Donald O. 2008. Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes
between Surface Water and Ground Water. Techniques and Methods Chapter 4–D2, U.S.
Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 52 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Patterson, John, J. Imberger, B. Hebbert, and I. Loh. 1977. Users Guide to DYRESM – A Simulation
Model for Reservoirs of Medium Size. University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western
Australia.
Pluhowski, E.J., 1972, Hydrologic interpretations based on infrared imagery of Long Island, New York,
Contributions to the hydrology of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper
2009–B, 20 p.
Robinove, C.J., 1965, Infrared photography and imagery in water resources research: Journal of the
American Water Works Association, v. 57, pt. 2, p. 834–840.
Robinove, C.J., and Anderson, D.G., 1969, Some guidelines for remote sensing in hydrology: Water
Resources Bulletin, v. 5, no. 2, p. 10–19.
Rundquist, D., Murray, G., and Queen, L., 1985, Airborne thermal mapping of a “flow-through” lake in
the Nebraska Sandhills: Water Resources Research, v. 21, no. 6, p. 989–994.
Taylor, J.I., and Stingelin, R.W., 1969, Infrared imaging for water resources studies: Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, v. 95, no. 1, p. 175–
189.
Theurer, F.D., K.A. Voos, and W.J. Miller. 1984. Instream Water Temperature Model. Instream Flow Inf.
Pap. 16. U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Serv. FWS/OBS-84/15. v.p.
URS. 2011. AEA Susitna Water Quality and Sediment Transport Data Gap Analysis Report. Prepared by
Tetra Tech, URS, and Arctic Hydrologic Consultants. Anchorage, Alaska. 62p.+Appendixes.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 53 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
This page left intentionally blank
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 54 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
APPENDIX A: LOCATION MAPS
Figure A-1. Map of site Susitna above Alexander Creek at RM 15.1
Figure A-2. Map of site Susitna Station at RM 25.8
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 55 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure A-3. Map of site Yentna River at RM 28
Figure A-4. Map of site Susitna above Yentna at RM 29.5
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 56 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure A-5. Map of site Deshka River at RM 40.6
Figure A-6. Map of site Susitna at RM 55
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 57 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure A-7. Map of site Susitna at Parks Highway East at RM 83.3
Figure A-8. Map of site Susitna at Parks highway West at RM 83.9
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 58 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure A-9. Map of site Talkeetna at RM 97.2
Figure A-10. Map of site Talkeetna at RM 103
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 59 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure A-11. Map of site Talkeetna at RM 103.3
Figure A-12. Map of site LRX 18 at RM 113
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 60 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure A-13. Map of site Curry Fishwheel Camp at RM 120.7
Figure A-14. Map of Site Slough 8A at RM 126
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 61 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure A-15. Map of site LRX 29 at RM 126.1
Figure A-16. Map of site Slough 9 at RM 129.2
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 62 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure A-17. Map of site LRX 35 at RM 130.8
Figure A-18. Map of site Susitna near Gold Creek at RM 136.5
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 63 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure A-19. Map of site Gold Creek at RM 136.8
Figure A-20. Map of site Slough 16B at RM 138
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 64 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure A-21. Map of site Indian River at RM 138.6
Figure A-22. Map of site Susitna above Indian River at RM 138.7
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 65 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure A-23. Map of site Slough 19 at RM 140
Figure A-24. Map of site LRX 53 at RM 140.1
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 66 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure A-25. Map of site Slough 21 at RM 142
Figure A-26. Map of site Susitna below Portage Creek at RM 148
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 67 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure A-27. Map of site Susitna above Portage Creek at RM 148.8
Figure A-28. Map of site Portage Creek at RM 148.8
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 68 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure A-29. Map of site Susitna at RM 165
Figure A-30. Map of site Susitna at Watana Dam at RM 184.5
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 69 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure A-31. Map of site Watana Creek at RM 194.1
Figure A-32. Map of site Kosina Creek at RM 206.8
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 70 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure A-33. Map of site Susitna near Cantwell at RM 223.7
Figure A-34. Map of site Oshetna Creek at RM 233.4
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 71 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
This page left intentionally blank.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 72 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
APPENDIX B: Temperature Probe Field Data Forms
a. Temperature Logger Calibration Check Form
b. Field Deployment Form
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 73 of 73
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-1 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
ATTACHMENT 5-2
WATER QUALITY MODELING STUDY
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN (SAP) / QUALITY ASSURANCE
PROJECT PLAN (QAPP)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Sampling and Analysis Plan/Quality Assurance
Project Plan
for the
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project
Water Quality Modeling Study
Susitna River, Southcentral Alaska
FERC Project No. 14241
Contract No. AEA-11-025
Prepared for:
Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights
Anchorage, AK 99503
Prepared by:
URS/Tetra Tech, Inc.
700 G Street, Suite 500
Anchorage AK, 99501
November 7, 2012
QAPP 352, Revision 0
This quality assurance project plan (QAPP) has been prepared according to guidance from the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation and EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA QA/R-5, EPA/240/B-
01/003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Quality Assurance Division, Washington, DC, March 2001
[Reissued May 2006]) to ensure that environmental and related data collected, compiled, and/or generated for this project
are complete, accurate, and of the type, quantity, and quality required for their intended use. Tetra Tech will conduct
work in conformance with the quality assurance program described in the quality management plan for Tetra Tech’s
Fairfax Group and with the procedures detailed in this QAPP.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Approvals:
_______________________ _______ ________________________ _______
Betsy McGregor Date Paul Dworian Date
Assistant Director Principal Manager
Alaska Energy Authority URS Corporation
_______________________ _______ ________________________ _______
Robert Plotnikoff Date Andrew Parker Date
Technical Lead TMDL Modeling Manager
Tetra Tech, Inc. Tetra Tech, Inc.
_______________________ _______ ________________________ _______
Harry Gibbons, Ph.D. Date John Hamrick, Ph.D. Date
Project Manager Principal Modeler
Tetra Tech, Inc. Tetra Tech, Inc.
_______________________ _______ ________________________ _______
Gene Welch Date Susan Lanberg Date
QA Officer QA Officer
Tetra Tech, Inc. Tetra Tech, Inc.
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP 352, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page ii of iv
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... iii
DISTRIBUTION............................................................................................................................ iv
A 1.0 PROJECT/TASK ORGANIZATION .............................................................................. 1
A 2.0 PROBLEM DEFINITION/BACKGROUND .................................................................. 3
A 3.0 PROJECT/TASK DESCRIPTION .................................................................................. 4
A 4.0 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA ...................................................... 6
A4.1 State the Problem .......................................................................................................... 6
A4.2 Identify the Study Question .......................................................................................... 6
A4.3 Identify Information Needs .......................................................................................... 7
A4.4 Specify the Characteristics that Define the Population of Interest ............................... 7
A4.5 Develop the Strategy for Information Synthesis .......................................................... 7
A4.6 Specify Performance and Acceptance Criteria ............................................................. 8
A4.7 Optimize the Design for Obtaining and Generating Adequate Data or Information .... 9
A 5.0 SPECIAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS/CERTIFICATION .................................... 10
A 6.0 DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS ........................................................................ 10
B 1.0 MODELING DESIGN ................................................................................................... 12
B 2.0 MODEL CALIBRATIONSAMPLING METHODS ..................................................... 20
B 3.0 NONDIRECT MEASUREMENT .................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
B 4.0 DATA MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 21
C 1.0 ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE ACTIONS ............................................................. 22
D 1.0 MODEL VALIDATION ................................................................................................ 23
D 2.0 VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION METHODS .................................................... 23
D 3.0 COMPARING CALIBRATION/VALIDATION RESULTS TO DATA QUALITY
INDICATORS ............................................................................................................... 24
D 4.0 RECONCILIATION WITH USER REQUIREMENTS................................................ 24
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 26
RECONCILIATION WITH USER REQUIREMENTS
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP 352, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page iii of iv
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
°C degrees Celsius
cm centimeters
DO Dissolved oxygen
DQI Data quality indicators
DQO Data Quality Objectives
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
g grams
m meter(s)
µS/cm microSiemens per centimeter
mg/L milligrams per liter
NPS Nonpoint source
PDF Portable Document Format
PM Project Manager
QA Quality assurance
QAM Quality Assurance Manager
QAO Quality Assurance Officer
QAPP Quality assurance project plan
QC Quality control
QCO Quality Control Officer
RPD Relative percent difference
RSD Relative standard deviation
SFPR South Fork Palouse River
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TL Technical Lead
Tt Tetra Tech, Inc.
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP 352, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page iv of iv
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
DISTRIBUTION
This document will be distributed to the following people who are involved in this project, as well as to
all responsible subcontractors.
Name
Title
Phone, Fax
E-mail
Mailing Address
Alaska Energy Authority
Betsy McGregor
Assistant Director
907-771-3957 (phone)
bmcgregor@aidea.org
Alaska Energy Authority
411 W. 4th Ave, Suite 1
Anchorage, AK 99501
URS Corporation
Paul Dworian
Principal Manager
907-261-6735 (phone)
(fax)
paul.dworian@urs.com
URS Corporation
700 G Street, Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
Bill Loskutoff
QA Officer
907-261-xxxx (phone)
(fax)
bill.lozkutoff@urs.com
Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tt)
Harry Gibbons, Ph.D.
Project Manager
206-728-9655 Ext. 107 (phone)
206-728-9670 (fax)
harry.gibbons@tetratech.com
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
Robert Plotnikoff
Technical Lead
206-728-9655 Ext. 124 (phone)
206-728-9670 (fax)
robert.plotnikoff@tetratech.com
Andrew Parker
Modeling Manager
703-385-6000 (phone)
703-385-6007 (fax)
andrew.parker@tetratech.com
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
John Hamrick, Ph.D.
Principal Modeler
703-385-6000 (phone)
703-385-6007 (fax)
john.hamrick@tetratech.com (email)
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite
340Fairfax, VA 22030
Susan Lanberg
QA Officer
703-385-6000 (phone)
703-385-6007 (fax)
susan.lanberg@tetratech.com
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 1 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
A. PROJECT MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS
A 1.0 PROJECT/TASK ORGANIZATION
The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is preparing a License Application that will be submitted to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (Project).
The application will use the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). The Project is located on the Susitna
River, an approximately 300 mile long river in the South-central region of Alaska. The Project’s dam site
will be located at River Mile (RM) 184. The results of this study and of other proposed studies will
provide information needed to support the FERC’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis
for the Project license.
Construction and operation of the Project as described in the Pre-Application Document (PAD, AEA
2011) is expected to change some of the water quality characteristics of the resulting riverine portion of
the drainage downstream of the dam site as well as the inundated area that will become the reservoir. This
study plan outlines the objectives and methods for developing a modeling framework that will adequately
characterize water quality and stream temperatures in the Susitna River within and downstream of the
proposed Project area.
The purpose of this document is to present the quality assurance project plan (QAPP) for developing
water quality model(s) based on calibration data collected in the Baseline Water Quality Study of the
Susitna River (Section 5.5 of the Revised Study Plan). A modeling team comprised of scientists and
engineers from Tetra Tech’s (Tt) Fairfax, Virginia and Seattle, Washington offices will calibrate then
conduct modeling of both the riverine and reservoir environments.
This QAPP provides general descriptions of the work to be performed to develop and apply models and to
ensure that objectives are met and that procedures will be used to ensure results are scientifically valid
and defensible and that uncertainty in the model has been reduced to a known and practical minimum
through a sensitivity analysis.
The organizational aspects of a program provide the framework for conducting tasks. The organizational
structure can also facilitate project performance and adherence to quality control (QC) procedures and
quality assurance (QA) requirements. Key project roles are filled by those persons responsible for
ensuring the precision and accuracy related to model development and application. The key personnel
involved in the Water Quality Modeling Study of the Susitna River are listed in Table A1-1.
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 2 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Table A1-1. Project/Task Organization and Responsibility Summary
Personnel Responsibility Address/E-Mail Phone Number
Betsy McGregor
Responsible for project
coordination with local,
county, state, and federal
government officials; and
for reviewing drafts of the
study plan, QAPP and
summary data reports
Alaska Energy Authority
813 W Northern Lights Blvd
Anchorage, AK 99503
bmcgregor@aidea.org
907-771-3957
Paul Dworian Responsible for directing
daily project activities and
tracking product delivery.
Communicates with AEA
Environmental Manager on
project schedule and timing
for product delivery.
URS Corporation
700 G Street, Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
paul_dworian@urs.com
907-261-6735
Robert Plotnikoff Responsible for preparing
the project QAPP and
providing input for
modeling and preparation of
the draft and final data
reports.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 5th Ave. Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
robert.plotnikoff@tetratech.c
om
206-728-9655
Andrew Parker Serves as the Modeling
Manager and is responsible
for providing input for the
QAPP, coordinating
modeling efforts and
secondary data collection,
and preparing the draft and
final reports.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
andrew.parker@tetratech.co
m
703-385-6000
John Hamrick, Ph.D. Serves as the Principal
Modeler and is responsible
for developing the
hydrodynamic, temperature,
and water quality model.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
john.hamrick@tetratech.com
703-385-6000
Harry Gibbons, Ph.D. Serves as the Project
Manager and is responsible
for managing the project,
overseeing preparation of
the project QAPP,
reviewing analysis of
project data, and review of
the draft and final data
reports. Serves as the
principal project team
contact for the technical
aspects of the study
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 5th Ave. Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
harry.gibbons@tetratech.com
206-728-9655
Susan Lanberg Serves as the Quality
Assurance Officer and is
responsible for providing
support to the Tt Project
Manager in preparing and
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
susan.lanberg@tetratech.com
703-385-6000
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 3 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
distributing the QAPP;
reviewing and approving
the QAPP; and monitoring
QC activities to determine
conformance
Gene Welch
Provides technical
assistance on QA/QC issues
during the implementation
and assessment of the
project. Determines the
applicability of model
results in comparing against
effects to aquatic life.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 5th Ave. Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
gene.welch@tetratech.com
206-728-9655
Additional technical staff will be responsible for conducting specific tasks during the project (e.g.,
secondary data collection, model configuration, model calibration, model validation, model scenario
analysis, and reporting) at the direction and discretion of the Modeling Manager. The Modeling Manager
will supervise the technical staff participating in the project, including implementing the QC program,
completing assigned work on schedule with strict adherence to procedures established in the approved
QAPP, and completing required documentation. The Modeling Manager will direct the work of the
modeling team including secondary data collection, model configuration, model calibration, model
validation, model scenario analysis, and reporting. They must perform all work in adherence with the
project work plan and QAPP.
Additional oversight will be provided by the QC Officers (QCO), who are responsible for performing
evaluations to ensure that QC is maintained throughout the sampling process, that the data collected will
be of optimal validity and usability, and that limitations of the data set are minimized as much as is
possible. The QCO is any senior technical staff assigned the responsibility of providing a second-level
review of all documentation and records developed. The QC evaluations will include double-checking
work as it is completed and providing written documentation of these reviews (minimally initialing and
dating documents as they are reviewed) to ensure that the standards set forth in the QAPP are met or
exceeded. Other QA/QC staff, such as technical reviewers and technical editors selected as needed, will
provide peer review oversight on the content of work products and ensure that work products comply with
the client’s specifications.
Technical staff involved with the program will be responsible for reading and understanding this QAPP
and complying with and adhering to its requirements in executing their assigned tasks relative to this
project.
A 2.0 PROBLEM DEFINITION/BACKGROUND
Construction and operation of the Project as described in the Pre-Application Document (PAD, AEA
2011) is expected to change some of the water quality characteristics of the resulting riverine portion of
the drainage downstream of the dam site as well as the inundated area that will become the reservoir.
The study area includes the Susitna River within the proposed Watana Reservoir and downstream of the
proposed Watana Dam. Water quality studies will be conducted from river mile 15.1 (Susitna River above
Alexander Creek) to river mile 233.4 (at Oshetna Creek, just above the upper extent of the proposed
reservoir area) and within select tributaries. The proposed dam would be located at river mile 184.5. The
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 4 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
dam would create a reservoir 42.5 miles long and 1 to 2 miles wide, with a normal reservoir surface area
of approximately 23,546 acres and a normal maximum pool elevation of 2,050 feet.
The collective goal of the water quality studies is to assess the impacts of the proposed Project operations
on water quality in the Susitna River basin with particular reference to state water quality standards.
Predicting the potential impacts of the dam and its proposed operations on water quality will require the
development of a water quality model. The goal of the Water Quality Modeling Study will be to utilize
the extensive information collected from the Baseline Water Quality Study to develop a model(s) in
which to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed Project and operations on various physical
parameters within the Susitna River watershed.
There are a large number of water quality models available for use on the Susitna-Watana Project.
Selection of the appropriate model is based on a variety of factors, including cost, data inputs, model
availability, time, licensing participant familiarity, ease of use, and available documentation. Under the
current study, a multi-dimensional model capable of representing reservoir flow circulation, temperature
stratification, and dam operations among other parameters is necessary. The proposed model must
account for water quality conditions in the proposed Susitna-Watana Reservoir, including temperature,
dissolved oxygen (DO), suspended sediment and turbidity, chlorophyll a, nutrients, and metals; and water
quality conditions in the Susitna River downstream of the proposed dam. The model must also simulate
current Susitna River baseline conditions (in the absence of the dam) for comparison to conditions in the
presence of the dam and reservoir.
In the 1980s, hydrologic and temperature modeling was conducted in the Susitna River basin to predict
the effects of one or more dams on downstream temperatures and flows. The modeling suite used was
called H2OBAL/SNTEMP/DYRESM. The modeling suite addressed temperature and had some limited
hydrodynamic representation, but it lacked the ability to predict vertical stratification or local effects. In
addition, the modeling suite lacked a water quality modeling component.
A 3.0 PROJECT/TASK DESCRIPTION
The collective goal of the water quality studies is to assess the impacts of the proposed Project
operations on water quality in the Susitna River basin with particular reference to state water
quality standards. Predicting the potential impacts of the dam and its proposed operations on
water quality will require the development of a water quality model. The goal of the Water
Quality Modeling Study will be to utilize the extensive information collected from the Baseline
Water Quality Study to develop a model(s) to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed
Project and operations on various physical parameters within the Susitna River watershed.
The Water Quality Modeling Study for the Susitna River will begin November 2012 and continue through
December 2014. Table A3-1 gives the projected schedule of activities and deliverables.
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 5 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Table A3-1. Schedule for the Water Quality Modeling Study Elements and Production of
Associated Deliverables
Modeling Activity Timeline
Coordination with water quality data collection and analysis 4Q 2012 – 1Q 2014
Model Evaluation/Selection 3Q 2012
Model Calibration (Water Quality) 3Q 2013 – 4Q 2013
Initial Study Report 1Q 2014
Re-calibration adjustments 2Q 2014 – 3Q 2014
Verification runs 3Q - 2014
Generate Results for Operational Scenarios 2Q 2014 – 4Q 2014
Updated Study Report 1Q 2015
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 6 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
A 4.0 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA
Data quality objectives (DQOs) are qualitative and quantitative statements that are used in the project
planning and implementation to clarify the intended use of the data, define the type of data needed to
support the decision, identify the conditions under which the data should be collected, and specify
tolerable limits on the probability of making a decision error because of uncertainty in the data (if
applicable). Data users develop DQOs to specify the data quality needed to support specific decisions.
Project quality objectives and criteria for measurement data will be addressed in the context of the two
tasks discussed above: (1) evaluating the quality of the data used, and (2) assessing the results of the
model application.
Sections 4.1 through 4.7 describe DQOs and criteria for model inputs and outputs for this project, written
in accordance with the seven steps described in EPA’s Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data
Quality Objectives Process (EPA QA/G-4) (USEPA 2006b).
A4.1 State the Problem
Construction and operation of the Project as described in the Pre-Application Document (PAD,
AEA 2011) is expected to change some of the water quality characteristics of the resulting
riverine portion of the drainage downstream of the dam site as well as the inundated area that
will become the reservoir.
The study area includes the Susitna River within the proposed Watana Reservoir and
downstream of the proposed Watana Dam. Water quality studies will be conducted from river
mile 15.1 (Susitna River above Alexander Creek) to river mile 233.4 (at Oshetna Creek, just
above the upper extent of the proposed reservoir area) and within select tributaries. The proposed
dam would be located at river mile 184. The dam would create a reservoir 42.5 miles long and 1
to 2 miles wide, with a normal reservoir surface area of approximately 23,546 acres and a normal
maximum pool elevation of 2,050 feet.
The collective goal of the water quality studies is to assess the impacts of the proposed Project
operations on water quality in the Susitna River basin with particular reference to state water
quality standards. Predicting the potential impacts of the dam and its proposed operations on
water quality will require the development of a water quality model.
A4.2 Identify the Study Question
The goal of the Water Quality Modeling Study will be to utilize the extensive information
collected from the Baseline Water Quality Study to develop a model(s) in which to evaluate the
potential impacts of the proposed Project and operations on various physical parameters within
the Susitna River watershed.
The objectives of the Water Quality Modeling Study are as follows:
• With input from licensing participants, implement an appropriate reservoir and river
water temperature model for use with past and current monitoring data.
• Using the data developed in Section 5.5 (Baseline Water Quality Study) and 7.6 (Ice
Processes Study) in the Revised Study Plan, model water quality conditions in the
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 7 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
proposed Watana Reservoir, including (but not necessarily limited to), temperature, DO,
suspended sediment and turbidity, chlorophyll-a, nutrients, ice, and metals.
• Model water quality conditions in the Susitna River from the proposed site of the Watana
Dam downstream, including (but not necessarily limited to) temperature, suspended
sediment and turbidity, and ice processes (in coordination with the Ice Processes Study).
Concentrations of water quality parameters including metals in sediment immediately below the
proposed Project are unknown. Metals in these sediments may become mobile once the Project
begins operation. Monitoring information in the immediate vicinity of the reservoir and riverine
habitat will be important for developing two models (reservoir and riverine) and coupled for
predicting expected water quality conditions below the proposed dam.
A4.3 Identify Information Needs
Review of existing water quality and sediment transport data revealed several gaps that present
challenges for calibrating a water quality model (URS 2011). Analysis of existing data was used
to identify future studies needed to develop the riverine and reservoir water quality models and
to eventually predict pre-Project water quality conditions throughout the drainage. Some
general observations based on existing data are as follows:
• Large amounts of data were collected during the 1980s. A comprehensive data set for the
Susitna River and tributaries is not available.
• The influence of major tributaries (Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers) on Susitna River water
quality conditions is unknown. There are no monitoring stations in receiving water at
these mainstem locations.
• Continuous temperature data and seasonal water quality data are not available for the
Susitna River mainstem and sloughs potentially used for spawning and rearing habitat.
A4.4 Specify the Characteristics that Define the Population of Interest
Tetra Tech will use extensive information collected from the Baseline Water Quality Study to
develop a model(s) in which to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed Project and
operations on various physical parameters within the Susitna River watershed . Specifically,
Tetra Tech will use hydrodynamic models coupled to water quality models to simulate coupled
physical, chemical, and biological processes.
In most cases, the statistical criteria for loads and concentrations are detailed in the error discussion in
Section 4.6.
A4.5 Develop the Strategy for Information Synthesis
Tetra Tech will use a systematic planning process to develop models for evaluating the potential
impacts of the proposed Project and operations on various physical parameters within the Susitna
River watershed. That process takes into account the accuracy and precision needed for the
models to predict a given quantity at the application site of interest to satisfy regulatory
objectives.
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 8 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Acceptance criteria that result from systematic planning address the following types of components for
modeling projects. Criteria used in selecting the appropriate model will be documented in the modeling
reports and typically include the following:
• Technical criteria (concerning the requirements for the model’s simulation of the physical
system)
• Regulatory criteria (concerning constraints imposed by regulations, such as WQSs)
• User criteria (concerning operational or economic constraints, such as hardware/software
compatibility)
The Tetra Tech Modeling Manager compared available models to select the most ones to use for this
study. In addition, existing model programming language can be converted into a different programming
language to enhance software compatibility. The models that will be used are
A4.6 Specify Performance and Acceptance Criteria
Quantitative measures, sometimes referred to as calibration criteria, include the relative error between
model predictions and observations. The relative error is the ratio of the absolute mean error to the mean
of the observations and is expressed as a percent.
Models will be deemed acceptable when they are able to simulate field data within
predetermined statistical measures. A variety of performance targets have been documented in
the literature, including Donigian (2000). Specific targets will be specified once the data have
been reviewed and the model initially configured.
Table 4. Statistical Measures for Model Comparisons (Donigian 2000)
State Variable Percent Difference between Simulated and Observed Values
Very Good Good Fair
Salinity <15 15-25 25-40
Water Temperature <7 8-12 13-18
Water Quality /
Dissolved Oxygen
<15 15-25 25-35
Nutrients / Chlorophyll
a
<30 30-45 45-60
An overall assessment of the success of the calibration can be expressed using calibration levels.
• Level 1: Simulated values fall within the target range (highest degree of calibration).
• Level 2: Simulated values fall within two times the associated error of the calibration target.
• Level 3: Simulated values fall within three times the associated error of the calibration target.
• Level 4: Simulated values fall within n times the associated error of the calibration target
(lowest degree of calibration).
The model will be considered calibrated when it reproduces data within an acceptable level of accuracy
determined in consultation with AEA and stakeholder agencies.
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 9 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
A4.7 Optimize the Design for Obtaining and Generating Adequate Data or Information
The data requirements of this project encompass aspects of both laboratory analytical results obtained as
secondary data and database management to reduce sources of errors and uncertainty in the use of the
data. Data commonly required for populating a database to supply data for calibrating a model are listed
in Table 6.
Table 6. Secondary environmental data to be collected for the Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project
Water Quality Modeling Study
Data type Example measurement endpoint(s) or units
Geographic or location information (typically in Geographic Information System [GIS] format)
Topography (stream networks, watershed
boundaries, contours, or digital elevation)
Elevation in feet and meters (North American
Vertical Datum of 1988; NAVD88); percent slope
Water quality and biological monitoring station
locations
Latitude and longitude, decimal degrees (North
American Datum 1983; NAD83)
Meteorological station locations Latitude and longitude, decimal degrees (NAD83)
Permitted facility locations Latitude and longitude, decimal degrees (NAD83)
Impaired waterbodies (georeferenced 2009
303(d)-listed AUs)
Latitude and longitude, decimal degrees (NAD83)
Dam locations Latitude and longitude, decimal degrees (NAD83)
Flow
Historical record (daily, hourly, 15-minute
interval)
Cubic feet per second (cfs)
Dam release flow records Cfs
Peak flows Cfs
Meteorological data
Rainfall Inches
Temperature °C
Wind speed Miles per hour
Dew point °C
Humidity Percent or grams per cubic meter
Cloud cover Percent
Solar radiation Watts per square meter
Water quality (surface water, groundwater)
Chemical monitoring data Milligrams per liter (mg/L)
Discharge Monitoring Report Discharge characteristics including flow and
chemical composition
Permit Limits mg/L
Regulatory or policy information
Applicable state water quality standards mg/L
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 10 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Data type Example measurement endpoint(s) or units
EPA water quality standards mg/L
Secondary data will be downloaded electronically from various sources to reduce manual data entry
whenever possible. Secondary data will be organized into a standard model application database. A
screening process will be used to scan through the database and flag data that are outside typical ranges
for a given parameter.
Tetra Tech documents all data sources, including full reference citations in a bibliography and
parenthetical references in report text. Tetra Tech also maintains paper and electronic copies of all
references. Documentation for all data sources (i.e., full bibliographical information and metadata where
appropriate) will be collected and recorded.
A 5.0 SPECIAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS/CERTIFICATION
This QAPP and supporting materials will be distributed to all participants. The Modeling
Manager will conduct a procedural review before the modeling team begins work. The
procedural review will include the requirements of the QAPP and Revised Study Plan. All
relevant project personnel will have experience in water quality modeling.
A 6.0 DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS
The Tetra Tech Project Manager will distribute the QAPP to all participants. The Tetra Tech
Project Manager and Modeling Manager will maintain files, as appropriate, as repositories for
information and data used in preparing any reports and documents during the project and will
supervise the use of materials in the project files. The following information will be included:
• Any reports and documents prepared
• Contract and Task Order information
• Project QAPP
• Results of technical reviews, data quality assessments, and audits
• Communications (memoranda; internal notes; telephone conversation records; letters;
meeting minutes; and all written correspondence among the project team personnel,
subcontractors, suppliers, or others)
• Maps, photographs, and drawings
• Studies, reports, documents, and newspaper articles pertaining to the project
• Special data compilations
• Spreadsheet data files: physical measurements, analytical chemistry data (hard copy
and disk)
The model application will include complete record keeping of each step of the modeling
process. The documentation will consist of reports and files addressing the following items:
• Assumptions
• Parameter values and sources
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 11 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
• Nature of grid, network design, or subwatershed delineation
• Changes and verification of changes made in code
• Actual input used
• Output of model runs and interpretation
• Calibration and performance of the model(s)
Modeling reports will be subject to technical and editorial review before submission to Alaska
Energy Authority and will be maintained at Tt’s Seattle, Washington office in the central file
(disk and hard copy).
If any change(s) in this QAPP are required during the study, a memo will be sent to each person
on the distribution list describing the change(s), following approval by the appropriate persons.
The memos will be attached to the QAPP. Unless other arrangements are made, records will be
maintained for a minimum of 5 years following expiration of the contract.
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 12 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
B. MODEL IMPLEMENTATION
B 1.0 MODELING DESIGN
This QAPP is prepared as part of the implementation of the 2013-2014 Water Quality Modeling Study
Plan. The QAPP is standard documentation prepared before any water model development begins. These
documents follow guidelines for the State of Alaska and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region
10 Credible Data Policy (ADEC 2005). The following sections document how the model will be
developed and post-Project water quality conditions within the Susitna River basin can be characterized.
Model Selection
This section assesses potential water quality models and identifies key considerations for the selection of
the appropriate modeling platform. In coordination with licensing participants, a final modeling platform
will be selected and implemented.
For the current project, the model will need to be capable of simulating both river and reservoir
environments. It must also be a multi-dimensional dynamic model that includes hydrodynamics, water
temperature, water quality, and sediment transport modules and considers ice formation and breakup. Ice
dynamics evaluated in the Ice Processes Study will be used to inform the water quality model. Ice
formation and breakup will have a profound impact on hydrodynamics and water quality conditions in the
reservoir and riverine sections of the basin. Ice cover affects transfer of oxygen to and from the
atmosphere and this directly impacts the dissolved oxygen concentration at points along the water
column. The output from the ice study (Section 7.5 Revised Study Plan) will provide boundary
conditions for the water quality model.
The model will be configured for the reservoir and internally coupled with the downstream river model.
This will form a holistic modeling framework which can accurately simulate changes in the
hydrodynamic, temperature, and water quality regime within the reservoir and downstream. A model for
use in this study should feature an advanced turbulence closure scheme to represent vertical mixing in
reservoirs, and be able to predict future conditions. Thus, it will be capable of representing the
temperature regime within the reservoir without resorting to arbitrary assumptions about vertical mixing
coefficients.
The model will need to have the ability to simulate an entire suite of water quality parameters, and the
capacity for internal coupling with the hydrodynamic and temperature modeling processes. The model
will be configured to simulate the impact of the proposed Project on temperature as well as DO, nutrients,
algae, turbidity, TSS, and other key water quality features both within the reservoir and for the
downstream river. This avoids the added complexity associated with transferring information among
multiple models and increases the efficiency of model application.
Other important factors when selecting a water quality model include the following:
• The model and code are easily accessible and are part of the public domain.
• The model is commonly used and accepted by EPA and other public regulatory agencies.
• The water quality model will be available for current and future use and remain available for the
life of the project and beyond (including upgraded versions).
• Model output can be compared to relevant ADEC water quality criteria (18 ACC 70.020(b)).
The following sections summarize the capabilities of models considered for use on this project.
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 13 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
H2OBAL/SNTEMP/DYRESM Model Review
The existing H2OBAL/SNTEMP/DYRESM model of the Susitna River basin is perhaps the most obvious
candidate model to implement when assessing the effects of the originally proposed Project. The existing
model was expressly configured to represent the unique conditions in the Susitna River basin. However,
the modeling suite is limited to flow and temperature predictions. Hydrodynamics are simplified, and
water quality is not addressed.
The Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC) previously completed a study that
examined the temperature and discharge effects if the proposed Project was completed and compared the
effects to the natural stream conditions, without a dam and reservoir system (AEIDC 1983a). The study
also assessed the downstream point at which post-project flows would be statistically the same as natural
flows. Multiple models were used in the assessment: SNTEMP, a riverine temperature model, H2OBAL,
a water balance program and DYRESM, a reservoir hydrodynamic model.
The simulation period covered the years 1968 through 1982. Only the summer period was simulated,
using historical meteorological and hydrological data to represent normal, maximum and minimum
stream temperature conditions, represented by the years 1980, 1977, and 1970, respectively (AEIDC
1983a). Post-project modifications were applied to these summer periods to compare natural conditions to
post-project stream temperatures. Due to a lack of data, a monthly time-step was used in these summer
condition simulations.
Mainstem discharges from the Susitna-Watana Dam site were estimated from statistically-filled
streamflow data and the H2OBAL program, which computes tributary inflow on a watershed area-
weighted basis. Post-project flows were predicted for both a one-dam scenario and a two-dam scenario
using release discharge estimates from a reservoir operation schedule scenario in the FERC license
application. Flows derived from H2OBAL were input into SNTEMP.
SNTEMP is a riverine temperature simulation model that can predict temperature on a daily basis and for
longer time periods. This allows for the analysis of both critical river reaches at a fine scale and the full
river system over a longer averaging period (AEIDC 1983b). SNTEMP was selected because it contains a
regression model that can fill in data gaps in temperature records. This is useful because data records in
the Susitna River watershed are sparse. SNTEMP can also be calibrated to adjust for low-confidence
input parameters. SNTEMP outputs include average daily water temperatures and daily maximum and
minimum temperatures.
SNTEMP contains several sub-models, including a solar radiation model that predicts solar radiation
based on stream latitude, time of year, topography, and meteorological conditions (AEIDC 1983b).
SNTEMP was modified to include the extreme shading conditions that occur in the basin by developing a
monthly topographic shading parameter. Modifications were also made to represent the winter air
temperature inversions that occur in the basin. Sub-models are also included for heat flux, heat transport,
and flow mixing.
SNTEMP validation indicated that upper tributary temperatures were under-predicted (AEIDC 1983b).
Most of the data for the tributaries were assumed or estimated, leading to uncertainty. Five key poorly
defined variables were identified as possible contributors to the under-prediction of temperatures: stream
flow, initial stream temperature, stream length, stream width and distributed flow temperatures.
Distributed flow temperatures were highlighted as the most important of the five variables. During
calibration, groundwater temperature parameters were adjusted to modify distributed flow and improve
tributary temperature prediction.
Water temperatures are derived from USGS gages, but when data was lacking, SNTEMP computed
equilibrium temperatures and then estimated initial temperatures from a regression model. AEIDC noted
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 14 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
that the reliability of the regression models “restricts the accuracy of the physical process temperature
simulations” (1983a). The level of confidence in the regression model varies by the amount of gage data
available. Continuous data yielded higher confidence, while years with only grab sample data notably
decreased the confidence in the predicted temperatures.
The DYRESM model is a one-dimensional, hydrodynamic model designed specifically for medium size
reservoirs (Patterson, et al. 1977). The size limitation ensures that the assumptions of the model algorithm
remain valid. DYRESM predicts daily temperature and salinity variations with depth and the temperature
and salinity of off-take supply. The reservoir is modeled as horizontal layers with variable vertical
location, volume, temperature and salinity. Mixing between layers is through amalgamation. Inflow and
withdrawal are modeled by changes in the horizontal layer thickness and insertion or removal of layers, as
appropriate. The model incorporates up to two submerged off-takes and one overflow outlet. Model
output is on a daily time-step.
The DYRESM model was run to simulate the reservoir scenario for 1981 conditions (AEIDC 1983a).
Other reservoir release temperature estimates were not available. The AEIDC report cautions that the
results from 1981 may not be representative of other years due to annual variations in meteorology,
hydrology, reservoir storage, and power requirements. The lack of reservoir release temperature data
limited the simulation of downstream temperatures under operational conditions to one year. AEIDC
noted that the “effort to delineate river reaches where post-project flows differ significantly from natural
flows has been unsuccessful” (AEIDC 1983a). This was attributed in large part to the lack of estimates for
the reservoir release temperatures. Additional data was needed to increase the predictive ability of
SNTEMP.
Perhaps the biggest limitations of the existing H2OBAL/SNTEMP/DYRESM modeling suite are the lack
of suitable data, simplified hydrology and the lack of a water quality component. Modeling is limited to
discharge and temperature. Other issues that limit the suitability of the modeling suite for the Water
Quality Modeling Study are the chronic under-prediction of upper tributary temperatures, and the inability
to predict vertical stratification within the reservoir.
Other Modeling Approaches
Two other modeling approaches may provide better results than the previously used
H2OBAL/SNTEMP/DYRESM model. These are discussed below.
Two-Dimensional Approach (Ce-Qual-W2)
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ CE-QUAL-W2 model is a two-dimensional, longitudinal/vertical
(laterally averaged), hydrodynamic and water quality model (Cole, et al. 2000). The model can be applied
to streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries with variable grid spacing, time-variable boundary
conditions, and multiple inflows and outflows from point/nonpoint sources and precipitation.
The two major components of the model include hydrodynamics and water quality kinetics. Both of these
components are coupled (i.e., the hydrodynamic output is used to drive the water quality output at every
time-step). The hydrodynamic portion of the model predicts water surface elevations, velocities, and
temperature. The water quality portion of the model can simulate 21 constituents including DO,
suspended sediment, chlorophyll a, nutrients, and metals. A dynamic shading algorithm is incorporated to
represent topographic and vegetative cover effects on solar radiation.
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 15 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Three-Dimensional Approach (EFDC)
The Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) model was originally developed at the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science and is considered public domain software (Hamrick 1992). This model is now
being supported by EPA. EFDC is a dynamic, three-dimensional, coupled water quality and
hydrodynamic model. In addition to hydrodynamic, salinity, and temperature transport simulation
capabilities, EFDC is capable of simulating cohesive and non-cohesive sediment transport, near field and
far field discharge dilution from multiple sources, eutrophication processes, the transport and fate of toxic
contaminants in the water and sediment phases, and the transport and fate of various life stages of finfish
and shellfish. The EFDC model has been extensively tested, documented, and applied to environmental
studies world-wide by universities, governmental agencies, and environmental consulting firms.
The structure of the EFDC model includes four major modules: (1) a hydrodynamic model, (2) a water
quality model, (3) a sediment transport model, and (4) a toxics model. The water quality portion of the
model simulates the spatial and temporal distributions of 22 water quality parameters including DO,
suspended algae (3 groups), periphyton, various components of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and silica
cycles, and fecal coliform bacteria. Salinity, water temperature, and total suspended solids are needed for
computation of the 22 state variables, and they are provided by the hydrodynamic model. EFDC
incorporates solar radiation using the algorithms from the CE-QUAL-W2 model.
Qualitative Comparison of Models
Table B1-1 presents an evaluation of the models’ applicability to a range of important technical,
regulatory, and management considerations. Technical criteria refer to the ability to simulate the physical
system in question, including physical characteristics/processes and constituents of interest. Regulatory
criteria make up the constraints imposed by regulations, such as water quality standards or procedural
protocol. Management criteria comprise the operational or economic constraints imposed by the end-user
and include factors such as financial and technical resources. The relative importance of each
consideration, as it pertains to the Project, are presented alongside the models’ applicability ratings.
Although the evaluation is qualitative, it is useful in selecting a model based on the factors that are most
critical to this project.
Technical Considerations
The following discussion highlights some of the key technical considerations for modeling associated
with the Susitna-Watana Project and compares the ability of CE-QUAL-W2 and EFDC to address these
considerations. For informational purposes, the H2OBAL/SYNTEMP/DYRESM modeling suite is also
discussed in the technical considerations. Based on a review of the literature, some key factors that will
likely be important in the modeling effort include:
1. Predicting vertical stratification in the reservoir when the dam is present;
2. Nutrient and algae representation;
3. Sediment transport;
4. Ability to represent metals concentrations;
5. Integration between temperature and ice dynamics models; and
6. Capability of representing local effects.
Predicting Vertical Stratification
Both EFDC and CE-QUAL-W2 are equipped with turbulence closure schemes which allow prediction of
temporally/spatially variable vertical mixing strength based on time, weather condition, and reservoir
operations. Therefore, both are capable of evaluating the impact of dam/reservoir operations/climate
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 16 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
change on reservoir stratification. In contrast, the existing H2OBAL/SYNTEMP/DYRESM model does
not have the necessary predictive capability because vertical stratification is represented based on
parameterization through calibration. Therefore, it cannot represent the response of vertical mixing
features to the changes in external forces.
Nutrient and Algae Representation
Both EFDC and CE-QUAL-W2 are capable of simulating dynamic interactions between nutrients and
algae in reservoirs and interactions between nutrients and periphyton in riverine sections. This is very
important for addressing the potential impact of the proposed Project on water quality and ecology in the
river. EFDC has better nutrient predictive capabilities due to its sediment diagenesis module, which
simulates interactions between external nutrient loading and bed-water fluxes. EFDC is thus capable of
predicting long-term effects of the proposed Project. CE-QUAL-W2 does not have such a predictive
capability. The existing H2OBAL/SNTEMP/DYRESM modeling suite is not capable of representing
nutrient and algae interactions.
Sediment Transport
EFDC is fully capable of predicting sediment erosion, transport, and settling/deposition processes. CE-
QUAL-W2 has limited sediment transport simulation capabilities. It handles water column transport and
settling; however, it is not capable of fully predicting sediment bed re-suspension and deposition
processes. H2OBAL/SNTEMP/DYRESM is not capable of simulating sediment transport.
Ability to Represent Metals Concentrations
EFDC is fully capable of simulating fate and transport of metals in association with sediments in both
rivers and reservoirs. CE-QUAL-W2 does not have a module to simulate metals; however, a simplified
representation can be implemented using the phosphorus slot in the model and simple partitioning (to
couple with its basic sediment transport representation). The H2OBAL/SNTEMP/DYRESM is not
capable of addressing metals issues.
Integration between Temperature and Ice Dynamics Models
The CE-QUAL-W2 model has a coupled temperature-ice simulation module, which is of moderate
complexity and predictive capability. EFDC has a slightly simpler ice representation which was
previously applied to a number of Canadian rivers (e.g., Lower Athabasca River and the North
Saskatchewan River in Alberta, Canada). Both models, however, can be coupled to external ice models
with a properly designed interface to communicate temperature results. Fully predictive simulation within
either model would require code modification to handle the interaction between temperature simulation,
ice formation and transport, hydrodynamics simulation, and water quality simulation.
Capability of Representing Local Effects
CE-QUAL-W2 is a longitudinal-vertical two-dimensional model; therefore, it is capable of resolving
spatial variability in the longitudinal and vertical directions. It is not capable of representing high
resolution local effects such as lateral discharge, areas impacted by secondary circulation, or certain
habitat characteristic changes. EFDC is a three-dimensional model which can be configured at nearly any
spatial resolution to represent local effects. H2OBAL/SNTEMP/DYRESM is a one-dimensional
modeling suite and therefore has limited capability representing local effects.
Reservoir and River Downstream of Reservoir Modeling Approach
Reservoir modeling will focus on the length of the river from above the expected area of reservoir
inundation to the proposed dam location. It will involve first running the initial reservoir condition. This
initial condition represents current baseline conditions in the absence of the dam. Subsequently, the model
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 17 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
will represent the proposed reservoir condition, when the dam is in place. The reservoir representation
will be developed based on the local bathymetry and dimensions of the proposed dam. It is recommended
that a three-dimensional model be developed for the proposed reservoir to represent the spatial variability
in hydrodynamics and water quality in longitudinal, vertical and lateral directions. The model will be able
to simulate flow circulation in the reservoir, turbulence mixing, temperature dynamics, nutrient fate and
transport, interaction between nutrients and algae, sediment transport, and metals transport. The key
feature that needs to be captured is water column stratification during the warm season and the de-
stratification when air temperatures cool down. The capability of predictively representing the
stratification/de-stratification period is of critical importance for evaluating the impact of the dam since
this is the critical water quality process in the reservoir.
With the dam in place, the original river will be converted into a slow flowing reservoir; therefore, any
sediment previously mobilized will likely settle in the reservoir, disrupting the natural sediment transport
processes. Before the construction of the dam, primary production is likely driven by periphyton. After
construction of the dam, periphyton will be largely driven out of existence due to deep water conditions
typical of a reservoir environment. In lieu of periphyton, phytoplankton will likely be the dominant source
of primary production of the ecological system with the dam in place. Nutrients from upstream will have
longer retention in the reservoir, providing nutrient sources to fuel phytoplankton growth. All processes
would need to be predictively simulated by both the reservoir model and the pre-reservoir river model for
the same river segment.
Because the dam is not in place when the model is constructed, proper calibration of the model using
actual reservoir data is not possible. To achieve reasonable predictions of water quality conditions in the
proposed reservoir, a literature survey will be conducted to acquire parameterization schemes of the
model. An uncertainty analysis approach will also be developed to account for the lack of data for
calibration, therefore enhancing the reliability of reservoir model predictions.
Downstream of the proposed dam location, a river model will also be developed to evaluate the effects of
the proposed Project. It is anticipated that the same model platform used for the reservoir model will be
implemented for the river model (at a minimum the two models will be tightly coupled). The river model
will be capable of representing conditions in both the absence and presence of the dam. The downstream
spatial extent of this model is yet to be determined, but it is likely it will extend to shortly downstream of
the Susitna-Talkeetna-Chulitna confluence (e.g., Sunshine USGS Gage). If water quality modeling
indicates that water quality effects extend into the lower river downstream of the initial modeling effort,
then, as appropriate, water quality modeling will extend farther downstream. This would require
additional channel topography and flow data at select locations in order to develop a model for predicting
water quality conditions under various Project operational scenarios.
Flow, temperature, TSS, DO, nutrients, turbidity (continuous at USGS sites & bi-weekly at additional
locations required for calibrating the model), and chlorophyll-a output from the reservoir model will be
directly input into the downstream river model. This will enable downstream evaluation of potential
impacts of the proposed Project on hydrodynamic, temperature, and water quality conditions.
The river model will be calibrated and validated using available data concurrently with the initial
reservoir condition model (representing absence of the dam). Output from the models will be used
directly in other studies (e.g., Ice Processes, Productivity, and Instream Flow studies).
The model will be calibrated in order to simulate water quality conditions for load following analysis.
Organic carbon content from inflow sources will be correlated with mercury concentrations determined
from the Baseline Water Quality Study discussed below. Predicted water quality conditions established
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 18 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
by Project operations and that promote methylation of mercury in the bioaccumulative form will be
identified by location and intensity in both riverine and reservoir habitats. Water temperature modeling
and routing of fluctuating flows immediately prior to and during ice cover development may be
conducted with a separate thermodynamics based ice process model (e.g., CRISSP 1D).
Table B1-1. Evaluation of models based on technical, regulatory, and management criteria
High Suitability Medium Suitability Low Suitability
Considerations Relative
Importance
H2OBAL/SNTE
MP/DYRESM
CE QUAL
W2 EFDC
Technical Criteria
Physical Processes:
• advection, dispersion High
• momentum High
• compatible with external
ice simulation models High
• reservoir operations High
• predictive temperature
simulation (high latitude
shading)
High
Water Quality:
• total nutrient
concentrations High
• dissolved/particulate
partitioning Medium
• predictive sediment
diagenesis Medium
• sediment transport High
• algae High
• dissolved oxygen High
• metals High
Temporal Scale and Representation:
• long term trends and
averages Medium
• continuous – ability to
predict small time-step
variability
High
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 19 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
High Suitability Medium Suitability Low Suitability
Considerations Relative
Importance
H2OBAL/SNTE
MP/DYRESM
CE QUAL
W2 EFDC
Spatial Scale and Representation:
• multi-dimensional
representation High
• grid complexity - allows
predictions at numerous
locations throughout
model domain
High
• suitability for local scale
analyses, including local
discharge evaluation
Medium
Regulatory Criteria
Enables comparison to AK
criteria High
Flexibility for analysis of
scenarios, including climate
change
High
Technically defensible (previous
use/validation, thoroughly
tested, results in peer-reviewed
literature, TMDL studies)
High
Management Criteria
Existing model availability High
Data needs High
Public domain (non-proprietary) High
Cost Medium
Time needed for application Medium N/A
Licensing participant community
familiarity Low
Level of expertise required Low
User interface Low
Model documentation Medium
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 20 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
B 2.0 MODEL CALIBRATION FREQUENCY
A model calibration is a measure of how well the model results represent field data. The use of a
calibrated model, the scientific veracity of which is well defined, is of paramount importance.
The Tetra Tech Modeling Manager will direct the model calibration efforts. Some model
parameters will need to be estimated using site-specific field data for the model’s application.
Some example parameters follow:
• Kinetic coefficients and parameters (e.g., partition coefficients, decay coefficients)
• Forcing terms (e.g., sources and sinks for state variables)
• Boundary conditions (specified concentrations, flows)
Models are often calibrated through a subjective trial-and-error adjustment of model input data
because a large number of interrelated factors influence model output. The model calibration
goodness of fit measure can be either qualitative or quantitative. Qualitative measures of
calibration progress are commonly based on the following:
• Graphical time-series plots of observed and predicted data
• Graphical transect plots of observed and predicted data at a given time interval
• Comparison between contour maps of observed and predicted data, providing
information on the spatial distribution of the error
• Scatter plots of observed versus predicted values in which the deviation of points from a
45-degree straight line gives a sense of fit
• Tabulation of measured and predicted values and their deviations
The EFDC model will be calibrated to the best available data, including literature values and
interpolated or extrapolated existing field data. If multiple data sets are available, an appropriate
period and corresponding data set will be chosen on the basis of factors characterizing the data
set, such as corresponding weather conditions, amount of data, and temporal and spatial
variability of data. The model will be considered calibrated when it reproduces data within an
acceptable level of accuracy or approved by AEA.
Quantitative calibration measures include time series error measures, and other statistic based
dimensionless performance indices. Quantitative measures allow comparison of the level of
calibration and performance between modeling studies of different water bodies and different
modeling studies of a specific water body. Time series error measures, particularly root mean
square errors, are typically used to evaluate model performance with respect to predicting water
surface elevation, temperature and salinity. The limits used will be documented in the modeling
report.
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 21 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
As shown in the project schedule provided in Table A3-1, model calibration will be performed in
the third and fourth quarters of 2013. This QAPP will be updated to include a description of
modeling calibration before the third quarter of 2013.
B 3.0 NONDIRECT MEASUREMENT
Nondirect measurements are data that were previously collected under many different efforts
outside of this project. Secondary data for this project will be in the form of electronic data sets
and reports provided by ADEC and those data generated from the 1980s studies. All numeric
data will be downloaded or received in electronic format, which the project team will directly
download and use. Tetra Tech will perform general quality checks of the transfer of data from
any source databases to another database, spreadsheet, or document. Someone other than the
person who originally transferred the data will perform these checks.
B 4.0 DATA MANAGEMENT
The data management process and the computer hardware and software configuration
requirements will be developed and submitted to the AEA technical team for review before
model equations and related algorithms are coded into an integrated, efficient computer code.
Modeling staff members will work closely with the Tetra Tech Modeling Manager and will
consult with experts as necessary to ensure the theory is accurately represented in the code. The
modeling code is continually checked by the developers and compared to bench test runs to
ensure the accuracy of the mechanistic equations and solution techniques. A Modeling QC
Officer will conduct internal reviews of the computer code.
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 22 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
C. ASSESSMENTS AND OVERSIGHT
C 1.0 ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE ACTIONS
The QA program under which this task order will operate includes technical system audits. The essential
steps in the QA program are as follows:
• Identify and define the problem
• Assign responsibility for investigating the problem
• Investigate and determine the cause of the problem
• Assign and accept responsibility for implementing appropriate corrective action
• Establish the effectiveness of and implement the corrective action
• Verify that the corrective action has eliminated the problem
Many of the technical problems that might occur can be solved on the spot by the staff members involved;
for example, by modifying the technical approach or correcting errors or deficiencies. Immediate
corrective actions form part of normal operating procedures and are noted in records for the project.
Problems not solved this way require more formalized, long-term corrective action. If quality problems
that require attention are identified, Tt or the subcontractor will determine whether attaining acceptable
quality requires short- or long-term actions. If a failure in an analytical system occurs (e.g., performance
requirements are not met), the appropriate QC Officer or subcontractor QA Manager will be responsible
for corrective action and will immediately inform the Tt PM or QAO, as appropriate. Subsequent steps
taken will depend on the nature and significance of the problem.
The Tt Modeling Manager has primary responsibility for monitoring the modeling activities of this
project and identifying or confirming any quality problems. These problems will also be brought to the
attention of the Tt QAO, who will initiate the corrective action system described above, document the
nature of the problem, and ensure that the recommended corrective action is carried out. The Tt QAO has
the authority to stop work on the project if problems affecting data quality require extensive effort to
resolve and are identified.
The AEA PM and Tt Modeling Manager will be notified of major corrective actions and stop work
orders.
Corrective actions might include the following:
• Re-emphasizing to staff the project objectives, the limitations in scope, the need to adhere to
the agreed-upon schedule and procedures, and the need to document QC and QA activities
• Securing additional commitment of staff time to devote to the project
• Retaining outside consultants to review problems in specialized technical areas
• Changing procedures
• The Tt Modeling Manager may replace a staff member or subcontractor, as appropriate, if it
is in the best interest of the project to do so.
• The Tt QC Officers are responsible for overseeing work as it is performed and periodically
conducting checks during the data entry and analysis phases of the project. As data entries,
calculations, or other activities are checked, the person performing the check will sign and
date a hard copy of the material or complete a review form, as appropriate, and provide this
documentation to the Tt Modeling Manager for inclusion in the project files. Field audits and
technical system audits will not be conducted under this task order.
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 23 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
C 2.0 REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT
The Tetra Tech Project Manager and Modeling Manager will provide the AEA Assistant
Director with a report describing the status of the project and the results of any intermediate
assessments. The results of the study will be provided to the AEA Assistant Director in the final
modeling report summarizing the results of this study after all modeling analyses have been
completed. In addition, Tetra Tech will deliver the project files that will contain copies of all
records and documents, including soft copy versions of the data and model input data sets. Tetra
Tech will deliver the files to AEA at the end of the project.
The final modeling report will include results of technical reviews, model tests, data quality
assessments of output data and audits, actual input and databases used, response actions to
correct model development of implementation problems, and if applicable, pre- and post-
software development.
D. DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY
D 1.0 MODEL VALIDATION
Data review and validation services provide a method for determining the usability and
limitations of data and provide a standardized data quality assessment. Verification of new model
components or parameters (when applicable) improves the predictive capabilities of new models
or modified existing models. Experienced professionals will be used in the data review,
compilation, and evaluation phases of the study. Tetra Tech will be responsible for reviewing
data entries, transmittals, and analyses for completeness and adherence to QA requirements. The
data will be organized in a standard database on a microcomputer. A screening process that scans
through the database and flags data that are outside typical ranges for a given parameter will be
used. Values outside typical ranges will not be used to develop model calibration data sets or
model kinetic parameters.
D 2.0 VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION METHODS
The Modeling QC Officer will review or oversee review of all data related to the project for
completeness and correctness. Raw data received in hard copy format will be entered into the
standard database. All entries will be compared to the original hard copy data sheets by the team
personnel. Screening methods will be used to scan through the database and flag data that are
outside typical ranges for a given parameter. Data will also be manipulated using specialized
programs and Microsoft Excel 2007. Unless otherwise directed by the AEA Assistant Director,
Tetra Tech anticipates that it will recalculate ten percent of the calculations to ensure that correct
formula commands were entered into the program. If 5 percent of the data calculations are
incorrect, all calculations will be rechecked after the correction is made to the database. Data
quality will be assessed by comparing entered data to original data; performing the data and
model evaluations; and comparing results with the measurement performance or acceptance
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 24 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
criteria summarized in the Revised Study Plan to determine whether to accept, reject, or qualify
the data. Results of the review and performance processes will be reported to the AEA Assistant
Director.
General guidelines and procedures for model data performance and calibration are listed in
Section 13.0. Verification will be performed by comparing new model parameters or components
to theory. The model will be considered calibrated when it reproduces data within an acceptable
level of accuracy determined in consultation with the AEA Assistant Director. The quantitative
calibration measure calculations will be included in the final modeling report.
Model performance evaluates the model’s ability to appropriately simulate conditions under a
data set or period that is independent from those used in the calibration. The calibration and
performance process will be documented in the nutrients modeling report.
Because the goal is to be able to predict when point and nonpoint source loads produce water
quality impairment on the basis of the ambient water quality criteria, model calibration and
performance should strive to reduce errors (deviations between model predictions and observed
measurement data) to zero.
D 3.0 COMPARING CALIBRATION/VALIDATION RESULTS TO DATA QUALITY
INDICATORS
A set of parameters used in the calibrated model might not accurately represent field values, and
the calibrated parameters might not represent the system under a different set of boundary
conditions or hydrologic stresses. Therefore, a second model performance period helps establish
greater confidence in the calibration and the predictive capabilities of the model. A site-specific
model is considered validated if its accuracy and predictive capability have been proven to be
within acceptable limits of error independently of the calibration data. In general, model
performance is performed using a data set that differs from the calibration data set (i.e., low-flow
data set for calibration versus higher-flow data set for verification). If only a single time series is
available, the series can be split into two sub-series, one for calibration and another for
performance. If the model parameters are changed during the performance, the exercise becomes
a second calibration, and the first calibration needs to be repeated to account for any changes.
Acceptable limits are those defined by the combined process of quantitative and qualitative
examination of the model versus the data. There are not quantifiable limits because the Tetra
Tech modelers may decide for a particular station that the statistics (quantitative) are more or
less important that the graphical plots (qualitative). The limits used will be documented in the
modeling report.
Model performance will be accomplished by calibration. A model calibration is the process of
adjusting model inputs within acceptable limits until the resulting predictions give good
correlation with observed data. Commonly, the calibration begins with the best estimates for
model input on the basis of measurements and subsequent data analyses. Results from initial
simulations are then used to improve the concepts of the system or to modify the values of the
model input parameters. The success of a model calibration is largely dependent on the validity
of the underlying model formulation.
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 25 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
D 4.0 RECONCILIATION WITH USER REQUIREMENTS
All data quality indicators will be calculated at the completion of the data analysis phase.
Measurement quality requirements will be met and compared with the DQOs to confirm that the
correct type, quality, and quantity of data are being used for model development in support of the
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project, Water Quality Modeling Study. The interpretation and
presentation stage includes inspection of the form of the results, and the meaning and
reasonableness of the computation results and post-simulation analysis.
The Tetra Tech Modeling QC Officers will perform internal reviews to assess departures from
assumptions established in the planning phase of the modeling process. Tetra Tech, in
consultation with the AEA Assistant Director, will determine how anomalies will be resolved.
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 26 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
REFERENCES
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2005. Water Quality Assessment and
Monitoring Program. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation: Division of Water. Juneau,
Alaska. 58p.
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2011. Pre-Application Document: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 14241. December 2011. Prepared for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by
the Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC). 1983a. Examination of Susitna River
Discharge and Temperature Changes Due to the Proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project – Final Report.
Prepared by Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center Anchorage, AK. Submitted to Harza-
Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture Anchorage, AK. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK.
AEIDC. 1983b. Stream Flow and Temperature Modeling in the Susitna Basin, Alaska. Prepared by Arctic
Environmental Information and Data Center Anchorage, AK. Submitted to Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint
Venture Anchorage, AK. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK.
AEIDC. 1984a. Effects of Project-Related Changes in Temperature, Turbidity and Stream Discharge on
Upper Susitna Salmon Resources During June – Sept. January 1984. University of Alaska – Anchorage,
Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document Number 454.
AEIDC. 1984b. Examination of Susitna River Discharge and Temperature Changes Due to the Proposed
Susitna Hydroelectric Project. February 1984. University of Alaska – Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska.
APA Document Number 861.
AEIDC. 1984c. Assessment of the Effects of the Proposed SHP on Instream Temperature and Fishery
Resources in the Watana to Talkeetna Reach Vol. 1 Main Text – Final. October 1984. University of
Alaska – Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document Number 2330.
AEIDC. 1984d. Assessment of the Effects of the Proposed SHP on Instream Temperature and Fishery
Resources in the Watana to Talkeetna Reach Vol. 2 Appendices A-H– Final. October 1984. University of
Alaska – Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document Number 2331.
AEIDC. 1985. Assessment of the Effects of the Proposed SHP on Instream Temperature and Fish
Resources in the Watana to Talkeetna Reach. May 22, 1985. University of Alaska – Anchorage,
Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document Number 2706.
APHA (American Public Health Association). 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 20th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.
Banks, W.S.L., Paylor, R.L., and Hughes, W.B., 1996, Using thermal-infrared imagery to delineate
ground-water discharge: Ground Water, v. 34, no. 3, p. 434–443.
Cole, T.M. and S. A. Wells. 2000. CE-QUAL-W2: A two-dimensional, laterally averaged, Hydrodynamic
and Water Quality Model, Version 3.0, Instruction Report EL-2000. US Army Engineering and Research
Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
EPA (U.S Environmental Protection Agency). 2001 (Reissued May 2006). EPA Requirements
for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA QA/R-5, EPA/240/B-01/003). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information Washington, DC.
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Water Quality Modeling Study QAPP Date: October 31, 2012
Page 27 of 27
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-2 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Guidance for Quality Assurance Project
Plans for Modeling (EPA QA/G-5M, EPA/240/R-02/007). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Washington DC, December 2002).
EPA (U.S Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance
Project Plans: Evaluating, Assessing, and Documenting Environmental Data Collection and Use
Programs. EPA-505-B-04-900A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Defense, and
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
Fischer, W.A., Davis, D.A., and Sousa, T.M., 1966, Fresh-water springs of Hawaii from infrared images:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas 218, 1 map.
Hamrick, J.M. 1992. A Three-Dimensional Environmental Fluid Dynamics Computer Code: Theoretical
and Computational Aspects, Special Report 317. The College of William and Mary, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science. 63 pp.
Imberger, J., and Patterson, J. C. (1981). A dynamic reservoir simulation model- DYRESM. In Transport
Models for Inland and Coastal Waters (H. B. Fischer ed.), pp. 310-361. Academic Press, New York.
LaBaugh, James W., and Rosenberry, Donald O. 2008. Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes
between Surface Water and Ground Water. Techniques and Methods Chapter 4–D2, U.S. Geological
Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior
Patterson, John, J. Imberger, B. Hebbert, and I. Loh. 1977. Users Guide to DYRESM – A Simulation
Model for Reservoirs of Medium Size. University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia.
Pluhowski, E.J., 1972, Hydrologic interpretations based on infrared imagery of Long Island, New York,
Contributions to the hydrology of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2009–
B, 20 p.
Robinove, C.J., 1965, Infrared photography and imagery in water resources research: Journal of the
American Water Works Association, v. 57, pt. 2, p. 834–840.
Robinove, C.J., and Anderson, D.G., 1969, Some guidelines for remote sensing in hydrology: Water
Resources Bulletin, v. 5, no. 2, p. 10–19.
Rundquist, D., Murray, G., and Queen, L., 1985, Airborne thermal mapping of a “flow-through” lake in
the Nebraska Sandhills: Water Resources Research, v. 21, no. 6, p. 989–994.
Taylor, J.I., and Stingelin, R.W., 1969, Infrared imaging for water resources studies: Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, v. 95, no. 1, p. 175–189.
Theurer, F.D., K.A. Voos, and W.J. Miller. 1984. Instream Water Temperature Model. Instream Flow Inf.
Pap. 16. U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Serv. FWS/OBS-84/15. v.p.
URS. 2011. AEA Susitna Water Quality and Sediment Transport Data Gap Analysis Report. Prepared by
Tetra Tech, URS, and Arctic Hydrologic Consultants. Anchorage, Alaska. 62p.+Appendixes.
ATTACHMENT 5-3
MERCURY ASSESSMENT AND POTENTIAL FOR BIOACCUMULATION
STUDY
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN (SAP) / QUALITY ASSURANCE
PROJECT PLAN (QAPP)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Sampling and Analysis Plan/Quality Assurance
Project Plan
for the
Susitna – Watana Hydroelectric Project
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study
Susitna River, Southcentral Alaska
FERC Project No. 14241
Alaska Energy Authority
Contract No. AEA-11-025
Prepared for:
Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights
Anchorage, AK 99503
Prepared by:
URS/Tetra Tech, Inc.
700 G Street, Suite 500
Anchorage AK, 99501
November 7, 2012
QAPP xxx, Revision 0
This quality assurance project plan (QAPP) has been prepared according to guidance provided in Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation and EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA QA/R-5, EPA/240/B-
01/003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Quality Assurance Division, Washington, DC, March 2001
[Reissued May 2006]) to ensure that environmental and related data collected, compiled, and/or generated for this project
are complete, accurate, and of the type, quantity, and quality required for their intended use. Tetra Tech will conduct
work in conformance with the quality assurance program described in the quality management plan for Tetra Tech’s
Fairfax Group and with the procedures detailed in this QAPP.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Approvals:
_______________________ _______ ________________________ _______
Betsy McGregor Date Paul Dworian Date
Assistant Director Principal Manager
Alaska Energy Authority URS Corporation
_______________________ _______ ________________________ _______
Robert Plotnikoff Date Harry Gibbons Date
Technical Lead Project Manager
Tetra Tech, Inc. Tetra Tech, Inc.
_______________________ _______ ________________________ _______
Jerry Diamond Date Susan Lanberg Date
Toxicologist QA Officer
Tetra Tech, Inc. Tetra Tech, Inc.
_______________________ _______
William Loskutoff Date
QA Manager
URS Corporation
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page ii of iv
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... iii
DISTRIBUTION............................................................................................................................ iv
A 1.0 PROJECT/TASK ORGANIZATION .............................................................................. 1
A 2.0 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 4
A 3.0 PROJECT/TASK DESCRIPTION .................................................................................. 5
A 4.0 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA ...................................................... 7
A 5.0 SPECIAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS/CERTIFICATION ...................................... 8
A 6.0 DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS .......................................................................... 8
B 1.0 SAMPLING DESIGN ...................................................................................................... 9
B 2.0 SAMPLING METHODS ............................................................................................... 18
B 3.0 SAMPLE DOCUMENTATION AND SHIPPING ........................................................ 24
B 4.0 SAMPLE HANDLING AND CUSTODY .................................................................... 25
B 5.0 ANALYTICAL METHODS .......................................................................................... 26
B 6.0 QUALITY CONTROL .................................................................................................. 27
B 7.0 INSTRUMENT/EQUIPMENT TESTING, INSPECTION, AND MAINTENANCE .. 29
B 8.0 INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION AND FREQUENCY ............................................... 29
B 9.0 INSPECTION/ACCEPTANCE OF SUPPLIES AND CONSUMABLES .................... 30
B 10.0 NONDIRECT MEASUREMENTS ............................................................................... 30
B 11.0 DATA MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 30
C 1.0 ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE ACTIONS ............................................................. 31
C 2.0 QA REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT ........................................................................... 32
D 1.0 DATA REVIEW, VERIFICATION, AND VALIDATION .......................................... 32
D 2.0 VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION METHODS .................................................... 32
D 3.0 RECONCILIATION WITH USER REQUIREMENTS................................................ 33
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 34
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page iii of iv
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
°C degrees Celsius
cm centimeters
DO Dissolved oxygen
DQI Data quality indicators
DQO Data Quality Objectives
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
g grams
m meter(s)
µS/cm microSiemens per centimeter
mg/L milligrams per liter
NPS Nonpoint source
PDF Portable Document Format
PM Project Manager
QA Quality assurance
QAM Quality Assurance Manager
QAO Quality Assurance Officer
QAPP Quality assurance project plan
QC Quality control
QCO Quality Control Officer
RPD Relative percent difference
RSD Relative standard deviation
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TL Technical Lead
Tt Tetra Tech, Inc.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page iv of iv
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
DISTRIBUTION
This document will be distributed to the following Alaska Energy Authority, URS Corporation, and Tetra
Tech, Inc. staff members who are involved in this project, as well as to all responsible subcontractors.
Name
Title
Phone, Fax
E-mail
Mailing Address
Alaska Energy Authority
Betsy McGregor
Assistant Director
907-771-3957 (phone)
bmcgregor@aidea.org
Alaska Energy Authority
411 W. 4th Ave, Suite 1
Anchorage, AK 99501
URS Corporation
Paul Dworian
Principal Manager
907-261-6735 (phone)
907-562-1297 (fax)
paul.dworian@urs.com
URS Corporation
700 G Street, Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
Mark Vania,
URS Project Field Lead
907-261-9755 (phone)
907-562-1297 (fax)
mark.vania@urs.com
URS Corporation
700 G Street, Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tt)
Harry Gibbons
Project Manager
206-728-9655 Ext. 107 (phone)
206-728-9670 (fax)
harry.gibbons@tetratech.com
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
Robert Plotnikoff
Technical Lead
206-728-9655 Ext. 124 (phone)
206-728-9670 (fax)
robert.plotnikoff@tetratech.com
Shannon Brattebo
Tt Project Field Lead
509-232-4312 (phone)
509-744-9281(fax)
shannon.brattebo@tetratech.com
Tetra Tech, Inc.
316 W. Boone Avenue, Suite 363
Spokane, WA 99201
Jerry Diamond 410-356-8993 (phone)
jerry.diamond@tetratech.com
Tetra Tech, Inc.
400 Red Brook Blvd.
Ste. 200
Owings Mills, MD 21117
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 1 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
A. PROJECT MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS
A 1.0 PROJECT/TASK ORGANIZATION
The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is preparing a License Application that will be submitted to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (Project).
The Project is located on the Susitna River in the South-central region of Alaska. The Project’s dam site
will be located at River Mile (RM) 184. The results of this study and of other proposed studies will
provide information needed to support the FERC’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis
for the Project license.
Construction and operation of the Project as described in the Pre-Application Document (PAD, AEA
2011) is expected to change some of the water quality characteristics of the resulting riverine portion of
the drainage downstream of the dam site as well as the inundated area that will become the reservoir. This
SAP/ QAPP outlines the objectives and methods for developing a monitoring program that will
adequately characterize baseline methylmercury concentrations in the Susitna River within and
downstream of the proposed Project area, as well as predict methylmercury impacts that may occur due to
the dam’s construction.
This Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)/Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) is being prepared to
document the quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) measures that will be observed to ensure
the following objectives are met: data are consistent, correct, and complete, with no errors or omissions;
QC sample results have been reviewed and are included; established criteria for QC results are met;
measurement quality objectives have been met, or data qualifiers are properly assigned where necessary;
and data specified in the sampling process design are obtained. Data collection methods will follow
established state and federal (e.g., Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; EPA) guidelines.
The organizational aspects of a program provide the framework for conducting tasks. The organizational
structure can also facilitate project performance and adherence to quality control (QC) procedures and
quality assurance (QA) requirements. Key project roles are filled by those persons responsible for
ensuring the collection of valid data and the routine assessment of the data for precision and accuracy, as
well as the data users and the person(s) responsible for approving and accepting final products and
deliverables. The key personnel involved in the Mercury Assessment Study of the Susitna River are
listed in Table A1-1.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 2 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Table A1-1. Project/Task Organization and Responsibility Summary
Personnel Responsibility Address/E-Mail Phone Number
Betsy McGregor
Responsible for project
coordination with local,
county, state, and federal
government officials; and
for reviewing drafts of the
study plan, QAPP and
summary data reports
Alaska Energy Authority
813 W Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
bmcgregor@aidea.org
907-771-3957
Paul Dworian Responsible for directing
daily project activities and
tracking product delivery.
Communicates with AEA
Environmental Manager on
project schedule and timing
for product delivery.
URS Corporation
700 G Street, Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
paul_dworian@urs.com
907-261-6735
Mark Vania
Responsible for field
sampling assistance, quality
assurance and quality
control of field protocols.
URS Corporation
700 G Street, Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
Mark.vania@urs.com
907-261-9755
Robert Plotnikoff Responsible for preparing
the project QAPP,
coordinating and
completing sampling
activities, analyzing project
data, and preparing the draft
and final data reports.
Serves as the principal
project team contact for
field staff for the duration
of the study
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 5th Ave. Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
robert.plotnikoff@tetratech.com
206-728-9655
Harry Gibbons
Responsible for managing
the project, overseeing
preparation of the project
QAPP, reviewing analysis
of project data, and review
of the draft and final data
reports. Serves as the
principal project team
contact for the technical
aspects of the study
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 5th Ave. Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
harry.gibbons@tetratech.com
206-728-9655
Shannon Brattebo,
Responsible for field
sampling assistance, quality
assurance and quality
control of field protocols.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
316 W. Boone Avenue, Suite363
Spokane, WA 99201
shannon.brattebo@tetratech.com
509-232-4312
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 3 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Personnel Responsibility Address/E-Mail Phone Number
Jerry Diamond
Reviews QAPP and all
Ecology quality assurance
programs. Provides
technical assistance on
QA/QC issues during the
implementation and
assessment of the project.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
400 Red Brook Blvd.
Ste. 200
Owings Mills, MD 21117
jerry.diamond@tetratech.com
410-356-8993
Additional technical staff will be responsible for conducting specific tasks during the project (e.g.,
performing field sampling and collecting surface water quality data) at the direction and discretion of the
Project Manager (PM). The Project Manager will supervise the technical staff participating in the project,
including implementing the QC program, completing assigned work on schedule with strict adherence to
procedures established in the approved QAPP, and completing required documentation. The PM will
direct the work of the field sampling team including collection, preparation, and shipment of samples and
completion of field-sampling records. To perform the required work effectively and efficiently, the field-
sampling team will include scientific staff with specialization and technical competence in field-sampling
activities, as required to ensure the highest quality data are collected without incident. They must perform
all work in adherence with the project work plan and QAPP, including maintenance of field sample
documentation. Where applicable, custody procedures are required to ensure the integrity of the samples
with respect to preventing contamination and maintaining proper sample identification during handling.
Where field samples are collected the sampling team is responsible for the following:
• Receiving and inspecting the sample containers
• Receiving, inspecting, calibrating, and maintaining field instrumentation
• Completing, reviewing, and signing appropriate field records
• Assigning tracking numbers to each sample (sample identification numbers)
• Controlling and monitoring access to samples while in their custody
• Verifying the completeness and accuracy of chain-of-custody documentation
• Initiating shipment and verifying receipt of samples at their appropriate destinations
• Verifying the results of sample measurements collected for compliance with the requirements
of the reference methods and this QAPP
Additional oversight will be provided by the QC Officers (QCO), who are responsible for performing
evaluations to ensure that QC is maintained throughout the sampling process, that the data collected will
be of optimal validity and usability, and that limitations of the data set are minimized as much as is
possible given the challenges of the routine field investigation. The QCO is any senior technical staff
assigned the responsibility of providing a second-level review of all documentation and records
developed during the sample and data collection process. The QC evaluations will include double-
checking work as it is completed and providing written documentation of these reviews (minimally
initialing and dating documents as they are reviewed) to ensure that the standards set forth in the QAPP
are met or exceeded. QCOs may be assigned at the task or subtask level allowing teams to efficiently
divide work processes or tasks required and exchanging project documentation for review prior to
departure from a sampling station. In this regard, QCOs ensure that all required data and information are
recorded for each sampling station prior to physically leaving the collection site. Other QA/QC staff, such
as technical reviewers and technical editors selected as needed, will provide peer review oversight on the
content of work products and ensure that work products comply with the client’s specifications.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 4 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Technical staff involved with the program will be responsible for reading and understanding this QAPP
and complying with and adhering to its requirements in executing their assigned tasks relative to this
project.
A 2.0 BACKGROUND
Construction and operation of the Project as described in the Pre-application Document (PAD, AEA
2011) is expected to change some of the water quality characteristics of the resulting riverine portion of
the drainage downstream of the dam site as well as the inundated area that will become the reservoir.
Many studies have documented increased mercury concentrations in wildlife following the flooding of
terrestrial areas to create hydroelectric reservoirs. The purpose of this study is to assess the potential for
such an occurrence in the proposed Project area.
The study area includes the Susitna River within the proposed Watana Reservoir and downstream of the
proposed Watana Dam. The study area begins at river mile 15.1 (Susitna River above Alexander Creek)
and extends past the proposed dam site to river mile 233.4 (at Oshetna Creek, just above the upper extent
of the proposed reservoir area). Tributaries to the Susitna River will be sampled and include those
contributing large portions of the lower river flow such as the Talkeenta, Chulitna, Deshka, and Yentna
river. Also included are smaller tributaries such as Gold, Portage, Tsusena, and Watana creeks, and the
Oshetna River.
Soil and vegetation samples will be collected from the proposed inundation area. The proposed dam
would be located at river mile 184. The dam would create a reservoir 42.5 miles long and 1 to 2 miles
wide, with a normal reservoir surface area of approximately 23,546 acres and a normal maximum pool
elevation of 2,050 feet. Piscivorous birds and mammals, and fish samples will be collected from a variety
of drainages in the study area; however, the focus will be on the proposed inundation area for the dam to
establish background concentrations of methylmercury in fish prior to site development.
Based on several studies, mercury that is found in newly formed reservoirs originates predominantly from
inundation of organic soils. Receptors are and will be present in the Project inundation area
(macroinvertebrates, fish, birds, etc.). Mercury methylation in reservoirs is a fairly well understood
process, and numerous models exist to predict the occurrence and magnitude of the phenomena.
Given these known factors, key questions that need to be answered by this study include the following:
1) Whether conditions within the reservoir will cause mercury methylation from this source.
2) The concentrations of methylmercury that might occur.
3) Whether a mechanism exists (fish and small invertebrates living in the methylation zone) to transfer
that methylmercury to wildlife, resulting in detrimental impacts.
Based on these questions, specific objectives of this study are as follows:
• Summarize available and historic water quality information for the Susitna River basin,
including data collection from the 1980s Alaska Power Authority (APA) Susitna
Hydroelectric Project.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 5 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
• Characterize the baseline mercury concentrations of the Susitna River and tributaries. This
will include collection and analyses of vegetation, soil, water, sediment pore water, sediment,
avian, terrestrial furbearers, and fish tissue samples for mercury.
• Utilize available geologic information to determine if a mineralogical source of mercury
exists within the inundation area.
• Map mercury concentrations of soils and vegetation within the proposed inundation area.
This information will be used to develop maps of where mercury methylation may occur.
• Use the water quality model to predict where in the reservoir conditions (pH, dissolved
oxygen, turnover) are likely to be conducive to methylmercury formation.
• Use modeling to estimate methylmercury concentrations in fish.
• Assess potential pathways for methylmercury to migrate to the surrounding environment.
• Coordinate study results with other study areas, including fish, instream flow, and other
piscivorous bird and mammal studies.
A 3.0 PROJECT/TASK DESCRIPTION
This section provides an overview of the staffing organization and schedule. The key personnel involved
in the Mercury Assessment Study of the Susitna River are listed in Table A3-1.
Table A3-1. Project/Task Organization and Responsibility Summary
Personnel Responsibility Address/E-Mail Phone Number
Betsy McGregor,
Alaska Energy Authority
Responsible for project
coordination with local,
county, state, and federal
government officials; and
for reviewing drafts of the
study plan, QAPP and
summary data reports
Alaska Energy Authority
813 W Northern Lights Blvd
Anchorage, AK 99503
bmcgregor@aidea.org
907-771-3957
Paul Dworian, URS Responsible for directing
daily project activities and
tracking product delivery.
Communicates with AEA
Environmental Manager on
project schedule and timing
for product delivery.
URS Corporation
700 G Street, Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
paul.dworian@urs.com
907-261-6735
Mark Vania, URS Responsible for field
sampling assistance, quality
assurance and quality
control of field protocols.
URS Corporation
700 G Street, Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
mark.vania@urs.com
907-261-9755
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 6 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Personnel Responsibility Address/E-Mail Phone Number
Robert Plotnikoff, Tetra
Tech, Inc.
Responsible for preparing
the project QAPP,
coordinating and
completing sampling
activities, analyzing project
data, and preparing the draft
and final data reports.
Serves as the principal
project team contact for
field staff for the duration
of the study
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 5th Ave. Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
robert.plotnikoff@tetratech.c
om
206-728-9655
Harry Gibbons Tetra
Tech, Inc. Responsible for managing
the project, overseeing
preparation of the project
QAPP, reviewing analysis
of project data, and review
of the draft and final data
reports. Serves as the
principal project team
contact for the technical
aspects of the study
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 5th Ave. Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
harry.gibbons@tetratech.com
206-728-9655
Shannon Brattebo,
Tetra Tech, Inc. Responsible for field
sampling assistance, quality
assurance and quality
control of field protocols.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
316 W. Boone Ave Suite 363
Spokane, WA 99201
shannon.brattebo@tetratech.c
om
509-232-4312
Gene Welch,
Tetra Tech, Inc. Reviews QAPP and all
Ecology quality assurance
programs. Provides
technical assistance on
QA/QC issues during the
implementation and
assessment of the project.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 5th Ave. Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
gene.welch@tetratech.com
206-728-9655
The Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study for the Susitna River will begin in
2013 and continue through the beginning of 2015. The exact scheduling of the monthly and seasonal
sampling will be coordinated between AEA and URS/Tt staff. Table 4-2 gives the projected schedule of
activities and deliverables.
Table A3-2: Schedule for the Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study and
Production of Associated Deliverables
Monitoring Activity Timeline
QAPP/SAP Preparation and Review January 2013 – March 2013
Water Quality Monitoring (monthly) June 2013 - October 2013 (one sampling event in
each of December 2013 and March 2014)
Soil and Vegetation Sampling (one survey) August - September 2013
Sediment and Sediment Pore Water Sampling
(one survey)
August - September 2013
Bird and Aquatic Furbearer Sampling July - September 2013 and July - September 2014
Fish Tissue Sampling (one survey) August - September 2012/2013
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 7 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Monitoring Activity Timeline
Data Analysis and Management November 2013 – March 2014
Initial Study Report February 2014
Updated Study Report February 2015
A 4.0 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA
Measurement quality objectives (MQOs) are the performance or acceptance criteria for individual data
quality indicators, including precision, bias, and sensitivity. The MQOs1 for this project are presented in
Table A4-1. Industry standard field methods will be used throughout this project to minimize
measurement bias (systematic error) and to improve precision (to reduce random error). MQOs are listed
for each of the parameters measured in water and from meteorological sites established in the upper river
region of the Project area.
Table A4-1: Measurement Quality Objectives
Analyte Precision
(% RSD)
Bias
(% deviation
from true value)
Required
Reporting Limit
WATER / PORE WATER
Dissolved Oxygen 20 20 NA
Conductivity 20 20 NA
pH 20 20 NA
Temperature 20 20 NA
Mercury, Total and
Methyl
15 20 0.002 up/L
SOIL/SEDIMENT/VEGETATION
Mercury, Total 30 30 1 mg/kg
Total Organic Carbon
(Sediment Only)
20 20 NA
Sediment Grain Size
(Sediment Only)
NA NA NA
AVIAN/TERRESTRIAL FURBEARERS/FISH TISSUE
Mercury, Total 10 10 0.03 mg/kg
NA Not applicable
Precision - Precision is defined as the degree to which a set of observations or measurements of the same
property, obtained under similar conditions, conform to subsequent (repeated) measurements. Precision is
usually expressed as standard deviation, variance, or range, in either absolute or relative terms. Field
sample replicates for assessment of precision will be analyzed at no less than a 5 percent frequency of the
total number of samples. Laboratory replicates for assessment of precision will be analyzed at no less than
a 5 percent frequency of the total number of samples submitted to the laboratory.
For sample results that exceed the reporting detection limit (RDL), the relative percent difference (RPD)
will be less than or equal to 20 percent. No criteria are presented for duplicates that are below the RDL, as
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 8 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
these data are provided for informational purposes only. When one or more of the results is below the
RDL, professional judgment will be used in determining the compliance of the data to project
requirements.
Representativeness - Sample representativeness is the degree to which data accurately and precisely
represent a characteristic of a population. Representativeness will be addressed at two distinct points in
the data collection process. During sample collection, the use of generally accepted sampling procedures
applied in a consistent manner throughout the project will help ensure that samples are representative of
conditions at the point where the sample was taken. During subsampling (sample aliquot removal) in the
laboratory, samples will be inverted several times to ensure that the analytical subsample is well mixed
and therefore representative of the sample container’s contents.
Completeness - Completeness is a measure of the amount of valid data needed to meet the project’s
objectives. Completeness will be judged by the amount of valid data compared to the data expected. Valid
data are those data in compliance with the data quality criteria as presented in this section, and in
compliance within expected range of conditions and daily fluctuation patterns. While the goal for the
criteria described above is 100 percent completeness, a level of 95 percent completeness will be
considered acceptable. However, any time data are incomplete, decisions regarding re-sampling and/or re-
analysis will be made. These decisions will take into account the project data quality objectives as
presented above.
Comparability - Comparability is a measure of the confidence with which one dataset can be compared to
another. This is a qualitative assessment and is addressed primarily by sampling design through use of
comparable sampling procedures or, for monitoring programs, through consistent sampling of stations
over time. In the laboratory, comparability is assured through the use of comparable analytical procedures
and ensuring that project staff are trained in the proper application of the procedures. Within-study
comparability will be assessed through analytical performance (quality control samples).
A 5.0 SPECIAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS/CERTIFICATION
This QAPP and supporting materials will be distributed to all participants. The local Project Manager will
conduct a procedural review before the field team is mobilized for sampling. The procedural review will
include the requirements of the QAPP and referenced SOPs, as well as instrument manufacturers’
operation and maintenance instructions. It will be performed concurrently with a check that all equipment
and sampling gear are fully functional and ready for deployment. In addition, there will be discussions
and demonstrations of sampling method(s) to be used and discussions regarding specific health and safety
concerns. Each sampling team will consist of, at a minimum, one sample collector and a scientist familiar
with QC requirements, which will ensure strict adherence to the project protocols, check all
documentation for completeness and correctness, and verify that no transcription errors or omissions have
been made in preparing sample custody records and other project documentation.
A 6.0 DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS
Thorough documentation of all field sample collection is necessary for proper processing of data and,
ultimately, for interpreting study results. Field sample collection will be documented in writing, on forms
as well as on the following forms and labels:
• A field log notebook for general observations and notes
• A Field Data Record Form that contains information about observations and measurements
made and samples collected at the site
• Checklists for each sampling event, sampling point, and sampling time.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 9 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
The Technical Leads, and the appropriate PMs within subcontractor organizations will maintain files, as
appropriate, as repositories for information and data used in preparing any reports and documents during
the project and will supervise the use of materials in the project files. The following information will be
included:
• Any reports and documents prepared
• Contract and Task Order information
• Project QAPP
• Results of technical reviews, data quality assessments, and audits
• Communications (memoranda; internal notes; telephone conversation records; letters;
meeting minutes; and all written correspondence among the project team personnel,
subcontractors, suppliers, or others)
• Maps, photographs, and drawings
• Studies, reports, documents, and newspaper articles pertaining to the project
• Special data compilations
• Spreadsheet data files: physical measurements, analytical chemistry data (hard copy and
disk)
Copies of the field log books and physical characterization/water quality data sheets and sampling
checklists will be supplied to the Field PMs at the close of each sampling event. These data will be used
in conjunction with inspection checklists to compile the sampling event reports. Formal reports that are
generated from the data will be subject to technical and editorial review before submission to Alaska
Energy Authority and will be maintained at Tt’s Seattle, Washington office in the central file (disk and
hard copy). The data reports will include a summary of the types of data collected, sampling dates, and
any problems or anomalies observed during sample collection.
If any change(s) in this QAPP are required during the study, a memo will be sent to each person on the
distribution list describing the change(s), following approval by the appropriate persons. The memos will
be attached to the QAPP. All written records relevant to the sampling and processing of samples will be
maintained at Tt’s Seattle, Washington office in the central file. Unless other arrangements are made,
records will be maintained for a minimum of 5 years following expiration of the contract.
B. MEASUREMENT AND DATA ACQUISITION
B 1.0 SAMPLING DESIGN
This QAPP/SAP includes specific detail describing study design, sampling procedures, and determining
quality of data collected that satisfy the study objectives. This QAPP/SAP is a required document when
generating environmental data intended for use in making regulatory decisions. This document ensures
that defensible and high quality data is generated in this study by establishing performance goals and a
process for evaluation of each of the study elements.
This study consists of six study components as listed below:
• Summarize available information for the Susitna River basin, including data collection from the
1980s APA Susitna Hydroelectric Project, and existing geologic information to determine if a
mineralogical source of mercury exists within the inundation area.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 10 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
• Collect and analyze background vegetation, soil, water, sediment, sediment pore water, and avian,
terrestrial furbearer, and fish tissue samples for mercury. This will include mapping vegetation
types and the lateral extent, thickness, and mercury concentrations of soils within the proposed
inundation area. These data will be used to provide background concentrations for mercury, but
will also help evaluate potential mitigation methods (soil and vegetation removal) should that
become necessary.
• Use the water quality model to predict where in the reservoir conditions (pH, dissolved oxygen,
turnover) are likely to be conducive to methylmercury formation (see Section 5.6 of Revised
Study Plan).
• Utilize specialty models to predict potential fish methylmercury concentrations.
• Assess potential pathways for mercury movement from different areas of methylmercury
formation to the surrounding environment.
• Prepare a technical report on analytical results, modeling, and mercury pathway assessment.
Data will be collected from multiple aquatic media including surface water, sediment, vegetation,
piscivorous birds and mammals, and fish tissue. The work will be done as a single, comprehensive
survey to determine the baseline concentrations of mercury in the watershed. Table B1-1 summarizes the
parameters to be analyzed for this study according to media type and the frequency of collection.
Water quality and sediment samples will be collected at the sites identified in Table B1-2. The study area
begins at RM 15.1 and extends past the proposed dam site to RM 233.4. Tributaries to the Susitna River
will be sampled and include those contributing large portions of the lower river flow such as the
Talkeetna, Chulitna, Deshka, and Yentna rivers. Also included are smaller tributaries such as Gold,
Portage, Tsusena, and Watana creeks, and the Oshetna River. These sites were selected based on the
following rationale:
• Adequate representation of locations throughout the Susitna River and tributaries above and
below the proposed dam site for the purpose of a baseline mercury characterization.
• Location on tributaries where proposed access road crossing impacts might occur during and after
construction (upstream/downstream sampling points on each crossing).
• Consultation with licensing participants including co-location with other study sites (e.g.,
instream flow, ice processes).
• Sites that are in the Susitna River mainstem, tributary, or slough locations, most of which were
monitored in the 1980s.
Additional sample sites will be added at the Focus Areas (see below for further detail and Figures B1-1
through B1-10.
Soil and vegetation samples will be collected from the proposed inundation area. Avian, terrestrial
furbearers, and fish samples will be collected from a variety of drainages in the study area; however, the
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 11 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
focus will be on the proposed inundation area for the dam to establish background concentrations of
methylmercury in fish prior to site development.
Water Quality Data Collection: Focus Areas on the Susitna River
A total of ten intensive study areas (Focus Areas) were presented and discussed with the TWG and are
proposed for detailed study within the Middle Segment of the river. The proposed Focus Areas are
intended to serve as specific geographic areas of the river that will be the subject of intensive
investigation by multiple resource disciplines including water quality and mercury assessment. The
Focus Areas were selected during an interdisciplinary resource meeting that involved a systematic review
of aerial imagery within each of the Geomorphic Reaches (MR1 through MR8) for the entire Middle
Segment of the river. Focus Areas were selected within MR1, MR2, MR5, MR6, MR7, and MR8. Focus
Areas were not selected for MR3 or MR4 due to safety considerations related to Devils Canyon.
The areas selected were those deemed representative of the major features in the Geomorphic Reach and
included mainstem habitat types of known biological significance (i.e., where fish have been observed
based on previous and/or contemporary studies), as well as some locations (e.g, Slough 17) where
previous sampling revealed few/ no fish. The areas included representative side channels, side sloughs,
upland sloughs, and tributary mouths.
The Focus Area selections considered:
o All major habitat types (main channel, side channel, side slough, upland slough, tributary
delta).
o At least one Focus Area per geomorphic reach (excepting reaches associated with Devils
Canyon) will be included that are representative of other areas.
o A replicate sampling strategy will be used for measure habitat types within each Focus Area
which many include random selection process.
o Areas that are known (based on existing and contemporary data) to be biologically important
for salmon spawning/ rearing in mainstem and lateral habitats will be sampled (i.e., critical
habitats) and
o Areas for which little or no fish use has been documented or for which information on fish
use is lacking, will also be sampled.
Maps of each FA with River Mile numbers included are shown below in Figures B1-1 through B1-10.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 12 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure B1-1. Map of Focus Area 1
Figure B1-2. Map of Focus Area 2
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 13 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure B1-3. Map of Focus Area 3
Figure B1-4. Map of Focus Area 4
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 14 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure B1-5. Map of Focus Area 5
Figure B1-6. Map of Focus Area 6
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 15 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure B1-7. Map of Focus Area 7
Figure B1-8. Map of Focus Area 8
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 16 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Figure B1-9. Map of Focus Area 9
Figure B1-10. Map of Focus Area 10
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 17 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Table B1-1. List of parameters and frequency of collection
Media Analyses Frequency of Collection Holding Time
Surface Water,
Sediment Pore Water
Total and methylmercury
(EPA-7470A)
Surface Water Only:
Temperature, pH, DO,
Conductivity, Redox
Potential (Multi-
parameter sonde)
Monthly 48 hours
Soil, Sediment
Total mercury (EPA
245.2/7470A)
Sediment Only:
Total Organic Carbon
(EPA 415.1/9060)
Sediment Grain Size
(ASTM D422)
One Survey-summer 28 days
Avian and Terrestrial
Furbearers
Total mercury (EPA-
1631) One Survey-late summer 7 days
Fish Tissue Total and methylmercury
(EPA-1631) One Survey-late summer 7 days
Table B1-2. Proposed Susitna River Basin mercury assessment sites
Susitna River
Mile
Description Susitna River
Slough ID
Latitude
(decimal degrees)
Longitude
(decimal degrees)
25.8 Susitna Station NA 61.5454 -150.516
28.0 Yentna River NA 61.589 -150.468
29.5 Susitna above Yentna NA 61.5752 -150.248
40.6 Deshka River NA 61.7098 -150.324
55.0 Susitna NA 61.8589 -150.18
83.8 Susitna at Parks Highway East NA 62.175 -150.174
97.2 Talkeetna River NA 62.3418 -150.106
98.5 Chulitna River NA 62.5574 -150.236
103.0 Talkeetna NA 62.3943 -150.134
120.7 Curry Fishwheel Camp NA 62.6178 -150.012
136.8 Gold Creek NA 62.7676 -149.691
138.6 Indian River NA 62.8009 -149.664
138.7 Susitna above Indian River NA 62.7857 -149.651
148.8 Susitna above Portage Creek NA 62.8286 -149.379
148.8 Portage Creek NA 62.8317 -149.379
184.5 Susitna at Watana Dam site NA 62.8226 -148.533
223.7 Susitna near Cantwell NA 62.7052 147.538
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 18 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
B 2.0 SAMPLING METHODS
Below is a description of the sampling methods and techniques that will be used when collecting samples
as part of the mercury assessment and potential for bioaccumulation study on the Susitna River. The
sampling methods are broken out by media type.
Vegetation
The principal concern for the vegetation study is to determine the mass of organics and mercury
concentrations in the reservoir area. Plant species differ in their ability to take up mercury. At the Red
Devil and Cinnabar Creek mines, alders and willows concentrate mercury at levels as much as 20 times
higher than those in the other species collected in this study (Baily and Gray 1997). The mechanism of
mercury uptake and reason for variation in mercury uptake by species is unclear. Siegal et al. (1985,
1987) have suggested that some species are mercury accumulators, whereas other plant species release
their absorbed mercury as mercury vapor and thus lower their total concentration of mercury. Overall,
leaves and needles have been found to hold the greatest accumulations of mercury in Alaska plants (Baily
and Gray 1997).
The degradation rate for organic materials in water seems to be a primary source of the spike in
methylmercury concentrations after filling of a reservoir (Hydro-Quebec 2003). Only the green part of the
vegetation (leaves of trees and shrubs as well as forest ground cover) and the top centimeters of humus
decompose quickly. Tree branches, trunks and roots, as well as deeper humus, remain almost intact
decades after flooding (Morrison and Thérien 1991). Previous studies by Hydro-Quebec have shown that
woody debris, even if it contains mercury, is not a problem for mercury methylation because the decay
rate is slow in cold water (Hydro-Quebec 2003).
Based on these studies, up to 50 samples of vegetation will be collected from various plants within the
proposed inundation area. Studies are currently being completed on the distribution of types of species in
the inundation zone, and this information is currently unavailable. The sampling will be biased toward
total vegetative mass, that is to say species that are present in the inundation area at low frequency and
size may not be sampled, because their contributions to mercury methylation will be low. Multiple
samples (five to seven) will be collected at different locations for each species in the inundation area.
Based on the available preliminary data, it is anticipated that a majority of the samples will consist of
alder (Alnus crispa), willow (Salix sp.), white spruce (Picea glauca), cottonwood (Populus balsamifera),
black spruce (Picea mariana), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), and dwarf birch(Betula nana). Leaves and
needles will be collected and placed in appropriate sample containers. Vegetation samples will be
shipped to the contract laboratory for total mercury analysis.
To collect vegetation samples the following equipment is needed: latex gloves, large Ziploc bags, sharpie
pens and waterproof paper labels. Samples will be collected as follows:
• Samples of shrubs, and leaves or needles of trees should be collected by gathering the current
year’s growth (i.e., tips of coniferous trees and leaves).
• All vegetation samples should be collected by hand using disposable latex gloves.
• Samples will be placed in a single large Ziploc bag. Samples will consist of at least 10 grams of
organic matter.
• Samples may be a composite of several identical species from the same area.
• Physical attributes such as species, location, exposed soil, herbaceous litter/mulch, woody litter,
standing water, and rock type will be recorded in the field notes.
• All plant species collected will be assigned a stratum category (tall tree, stunted tree, shrub,
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 19 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
graminoid herbaceous, forb, etc.). The actual height for a representative species will be recorded.
• An estimation of percentage of cover will be made. Emergent and aquatic plants will be recorded
at the immediate margin of water less than one foot deep.
• The outside of the bag will be labeled with a sharpie pen and place a waterproof paper label
inside the bag.
• Samples will be refrigerated prior to shipping.
• The cooler will be sealed and transported to the laboratory with the appropriate chain-of custody
(COC) forms which should accompany the shipment.
• Samples will be analyzed for total mercury using EPA Method 1631E. It is unnecessary to
analyze these samples for methylmercury, given that these materials are considered as a source
for methylmercury generation, and total mercy analyses includes both methylated and inorganic
forms of mercury.
This sampling method is in accordance with USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
guidelines for vegetative sampling.
Soil
Studies have found that the primary source of mercury to new reservoirs was the inundated soils (Meister
et al. 1979), especially the upper organic soil horizon, which often has higher mercury levels than the
lower inorganic soil layers (Bodaly et al. 1984). Measuring the thickness and mercury content of these
soils prior to inundation may allow predictions of possible mercury methylation, and assist with
evaluating potential mitigation methods, if necessary.
To the extent possible, soil samples will be coincident with vegetative samples. The primary concern is to
document the thickness and extent of organic rich soils, because these soils will have the highest
concentrations of mercury and will provide most of the organic material resulting in the generation of
methylmercury.
To collect soil the following general procedures should be followed:
• Samples will be collected using a soil probe with a window slot in the cylinder of the probe for
easy sample recovery. The probe will be pushed till refusal.
• The soil layers encountered will be recorded using a tape measure and record depth (cm) in the
field book.
• Each recovered soil profile will be catalogued, measured and photographed, along with each soil
sample location. Data recorded from each collection point will include coordinates, slope,
elevation, depth to water table, and depth to refusal. Soil properties such as soil horizons, texture,
rock fragments, are recorded in the horizon data field. The soil will be classified in accordance
with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Alaska Field Guide for Soil
Classification.
• Soil samples will be collected from only the upper 5 to 7 inches of material. This is the zone of
most active root development and is generally the primary zone of mercury accumulation in
forest soils (Godbold, 1994). In addition, it is anticipated that soils will be poorly developed
below about 6 inches, and are unlikely to have significant organic matter below that depth.
• Samples will consist of at least 10 grams of organic matter. Soil samples will be placed in 4
ounce plastic jars.
• Any large stones will be separated and discarded.
• Inorganic soils will be noted, but not sampled.
• Each sample will be handled using latex or vinyl disposable gloves.
• The field equipment will be cleaned with a mild soap solution and water between samples to
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 20 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
avoid cross-contamination.
• Samples will be frozen until delivery to the analytical laboratory under standard COC procedures.
• The samples will be analyzed for total mercury using EPA Method 1631E. It is unnecessary to
analyze these samples for methylmercury, given that these materials are considered as a source
for methylmercury generation, total mercy analyses includes both methylated and inorganic forms
of mercury.
Water
The purpose of the water sampling is to collect baseline water quality information to support an
assessment of the effects of the proposed Project operations on water quality in the Susitna River basin.
Mercury in water will be tested monthly during the summer because it has been shown to vary in
concentrations throughout the year (Frenzel 2000). Two sampling events will also be performed during
the winter.
Water samples will be collected at the locations listed in Table B1-2. The proposed spacing of the sample
locations follows accepted practice when segmenting large river systems for development of Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) water quality models. Water sampling during winter months will be
focused on locations where flow data are currently collected, or were historically collected by USGS.
Water samples will be analyzed for the parameters reported in Table B1-1.
Grab samples will be collected along a transect of the stream channel/water body, using methods
consistent with Alaska and EPA protocols for sampling ambient water and trace metal water quality
criteria. Mainstem areas of the river not immediately influenced by a tributary will be characterized with a
single transect. Areas of the mainstem with an upstream tributary that may influence the nearshore zone
or that are well-mixed with the mainstem will be characterized by collecting samples at two transect
locations: in the tributary and in the mainstem upstream of the tributary confluence. Samples will be
collected at 3 equi-distant locations along each transect (i.e. 25% from left bank, 50% from left bank, and
75% from left bank). Samples will be collected from a depth of 0.5 meters below the surface as well as
0.5 meters above the bottom. This will ensure that variations in concentrations, especially metals, are
captured and adequately characterized throughout the study area.
These samples will be collected on approximately a monthly basis (four samples from June to
September). The period for collecting surface water samples will begin at ice break-up and extend to
beginning of ice formation on the river. Limited winter sampling (once in December, and again in March)
will be conducted where existing or historic USGS sites are located.
Review of existing data (URS 2011) indicates that few exceedances occur with metals concentrations
during the winter months. If the 2013 data sets suggest that mercury concentrations exceed criteria or
thresholds, then an expanded 2014 water quality monitoring program will be conducted to characterize
conditions on a monthly basis throughout the winter months.
Variation of water quality in a river cross-section is often significant and is most likely to occur because
of incomplete mixing of upstream tributary inflows, point-source discharges, or variations in velocity and
channel geometry. Water quality profiles at each location on each transect will be conducted for field
water quality parameters (e.g., temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity) to determine the
extent of vertical and lateral mixing.
Water quality samples will be collected using a davit/cable/winch system. A 50lb+ weight will be
attached to the end of the cable to ensure that both the cable and sampling equipment remain vertical
throughout the water column. Water quality grab samples are anticipated to be collected via a Kemmerer
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 21 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Sampler, made out of Teflon for low level metals analysis, which will be attached to the davit cable. The
sampler will be lowered into the water column via the winch until the desired sampling depth is reached.
At that point the rope/cable attached to the sampler will be pulled tight and messenger sent down to close
the sampler. Water from the sampler will be then be poured into the appropriate sample containers. If
troubles are encountered while using the Kemmerer sampler due to high velocities in the Susitna River, a
second sample collection method could be utilized where Tygon tubing is attached to the davit cable and
water is pulled from the desired depth via a peristaltic pump. It is unknown at this time which sampling
technique is better suited for conditions on the Susitna River and tributaries.
Sediment and Sediment Pore Water
In general, all sediment samples will be taken from sheltered backwater areas, downstream of islands, and
in similar riverine locations in which water currents are slowed, favoring accumulation of finer sediment
along the channel bottom. Samples will be analyzed for mercury (Table B1-1). In addition, sediment size
and total organic carbon (TOC) will be included to evaluate whether these parameters are predictors for
elevated mercury concentrations. Samples will be collected just below and above the proposed dam site.
Additional samples will be collected near the mouth of tributaries near the proposed dam site, including
Fog, Deadman, Watana, Tsusena, Kosina, Jay, and Goose creeks, and the Oshetna River. The purpose of
this sampling will be to determine where metals, if found in the water or sediment, originate in the
drainage.
Mercury occurrence is typically associated with fine sediments, rather than with coarse-grained sandy
sediment or rocky substrates. Therefore, the goal of the sampling will be to obtain sediments with at least
5 percent fines (i.e., particle size <63 μm, or passing through a #230 sieve).
Surficial sediment sampling will be conducted with a Van Veen sampler lowered from a boat by a power
winch. This sampling device collects high-quality sediment samples from the top four to six inches of
sediment. Three sediment samples will be collected at each of the sites sampled. These three samples will
be collected and analyzed separately to characterize the presence of mercury and generate statistical
summaries for site characterization. A photographic record of each sediment sample will be assembled
from images of newly collected material.
Care will be taken to ensure the following:
• The sampler will not be overfilled with sediment.
• The overlying water is present when the sampler is retrieved.
• At least two inches of sediment depth is collected.
• There is no evidence of incomplete closure of the sampling device.
If a sediment sample does not meet all of the criteria listed above, it will be discarded and another sample
will be collected.
Sediment interstitial water, or pore water, is defined as the water occupying the space between sediment
particles. Interstitial waters will be collected from sites listed above and separated from sediments in the
field house laboratory using a pump apparatus to draw pore water from each of the replicate samples.
Filtering of samples will utilize a 0.45-μm pore size filter in both the lab apparatus and field apparatus. In
some cases, pore water may be drawn from sediment samples in the field by using 100-milliliter (mL)
syringes immersed in the dredge sample once a sediment sample is collected in a sample jar. These would
be cases where sediment samples have slightly coarser particle sizes and pore water extraction in the field
is possible. In other instances, where sediment samples have finer particle sizes requiring more time to
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 22 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
draw samples for laboratory analysis, these samples will be transferred to the field laboratory for pore
water extraction.
Birds and Aquatic Furbearers
The potential impacts of methylmercury on upper trophic level species can be influenced by a variety of
factors including animal behavior and physiology (e.g., foraging behavior, diet composition) and
physical/chemical properties of the receiving environment (e.g., organic carbon content, anaerobic
conditions, sulfides, etc.). Fish, in particular, absorb methylmercury efficiently from dietary sources and
store this material in organs and tissues (U.S. EPA, 1997). Because fish are the primary source of
methylmercury migration into the terrestrial ecosystem, this evaluation focuses on the impact of
methylmercury generated in the proposed reservoir on fish-eating (piscivorous) upper trophic species.
There are two significant challenges to the proposed sampling program. The first is that the populations
of most piscivorous birds and aquatic furbearers are relatively small in the proposed study area. For that
reason, sampling efforts are likely to collect few samples, or may be entirely unsuccessful for some
species. From a statistical standpoint, low sample returns (< 5 samples), coupled with high variability in
methylmercury concentrations, can result in inaccurate results and conclusions for this study. In addition,
damaging relatively small populations of these species as part of this study is undesirable, and therefore
non-destructive sampling methods are preferred.
The second challenge is that some species may be feeding in areas outside the area of project effects.
Previous studies (Frenzel 2000, ADEC 2012) have shown that methylmercury concentrations may vary
greatly between water bodies. Species that feed in more than one area may therefore be exposed to
widely varying methylmercury dietary loads that are not specific to the inundation zone.
To compensate for these problems, the proposed study will:
1. Utilize data obtained in other studies on background concentrations of methylmercury in natural
northern environments.
2. While methylmercury concentrates in the muscle and liver of various species, studies have found
that it is also found in the feathers and the fur, where it does not degrade quickly (Thompson,
1996; Strom 2008). These types of samples can be collected without harvesting or even harassing
the species being sampled.
For this study feathers will be collected from nests of raptors (principally bald eagles, given that ospreys
are rare in the study area), loons, grebes, arctic terns, and kingfishers found during the wildlife surveys
planned for 2013 and 2014. Feathers from raptors and water birds will only be collected after the nests
have been vacated for the season, which typically occur in August. Kingfisher feathers will be collected
from borrows during the planned survey of colonially nesting swallows. The feathers will be
characterized by type, and species of bird sampled. To the extent possible the feathers will be segregated
to those that came from adults or juveniles. It should be noted that samples may contain feathers from
more than one individual. Samples will be placed in sealed plastic bags and labeled with the date, time,
location, species sampled, and type of feather collected.
Nearly 100% of the mercury in feathers is in the form of methylmercury (Thompson and Furness, 1989)
and represent body burdens at the time of feather growth (Scheuhammer, 1987). For this reason, the
feathers collected will only be analyzed for total mercury. Feather mercury concentrations are also
positively correlated with mercury concentrations in other tissues (Ohlendorf and Harrison, 1986,
Spalding et al., 2000, Ackerman et al., 2007, Tsao et al., 2009).
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 23 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Fur samples from river otters and mink will be sought from animals harvested by trappers in the study
area; river otter furs must be presented to ADF&G for sealing, at which time fur samples can be obtained
from animals known to have been harvested in or near the study area. In view of the low level of trapping
expected to occur in the area, however, it is possible that this approach will yield few samples. If this
approach does not yield fur samples in 2013, fur will be collected by placing hair-snag “traps” at or near
the mouths of tributaries near the proposed dam site, including Fog, Deadman, Watana, Tsusena, Kosina,
Jay, and Goose creeks, and the Oshetna River. It is possible that fur collected from snags may represent a
mix of individuals or a particular species. The fur will be characterized by species. To the extent
possible the fur will be segregated to those that came from adults or juveniles.
Samples will be placed in sealed plastic bags and labeled with the date, time, location, species sampled,
and type of fur collected. Nearly 100% of the mercury in fur is in the form of methylmercury. For this
reason, the fur collected will only be analyzed for total mercury.
Feather and fur samples will be kept cold until shipment to the analytical lab. In the laboratory all fur
samples will be weighed and cut into small pieces and homogenized. The samples will be analyzed using
EPA Method 1631 (US EPA, 2001).
There is no minimum size for the feather or fur samples, but smaller size samples will result in higher
detection limits. For 500 mg of mass, the MDL is 0.03 mg/kg (wet-weight). This will be the goal for all
samples.
Fish Tissue
Methylmercury is ubiquitous in the environment, and can be found in fish throughout Alaska. The
primary concern of this study is not to catalogue this source of mercury in the environment; rather, it is to
evaluate the potential for increasing mercury concentrations above background due to filling of the
reservoir.
Methylmercury bioaccumulates, and the highest concentrations are typically in the muscle tissue of adult
predatory fish. Targeting adult fish is a good way of monitoring methylmercury migration to the larger
environment. While it may be possible for methylmercury generated by the reservoir to affect other
species, there does not appear to be any pathway by which this could happen without also affecting fish.
Target fish species in the vicinity of the Susitna-Watana Reservoir will be Dolly Varden, arctic grayling,
stickleback, long nose sucker, lake trout, whitefish species, burbot, and resident rainbow trout. If possible,
filets will be sampled from seven adult individuals from each species. The larger number of samples from
existing fish species will allow for some statistical control over the results.
Salmon will not be sampled. Preliminary data suggests that approximately 30 Chinook (king) salmon
spawn in the Watana area. Collecting a sufficient number of samples from this resource would seriously
deplete it. Instead, sampling data from ADEC will be used to evaluate mercury concentrations in this
resource (ADEC 2012). It should be noted that most of the mercury in salmon is oceanic in origin.
There is a well-known positive correlation between fish size (length and weight) and mercury
concentration in muscle tissue (Bodaly et al. 1984; Somers and Jackson 1993). Larger, older fish tend to
have higher mercury concentrations. These fish will be the targets for sampling.
Body size targeted for collection will represent the non-anadromous phase of each species life cycle. For
stickleback, whole fish samples will need to be used. Collection times for fish samples will occur in late
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 24 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
August and early September. Samples will be analyzed for methyl and total mercury (Tables B1-1). As
previously stated, the study is prejudiced toward finding fish with the highest mercury concentrations that
are drainage-specific.
Liver samples will also be collected from burbot and analyzed for mercury and methylmercury.
Field procedures will be consistent with those outlined in applicable Alaska State and/or EPA sampling
protocols (USEPA 2000). Clean nylon nets and polyethylene gloves will be used during fish tissue
collection. Species identification, measurement of total length (mm), and weight (g) will be recorded,
along with sex and sexual. If possible, efforts will be made to determine the age of the fish, including an
examination of otoliths and scales.
It is possible that adult fish of all species may not be present or available in the drainage. In this case,
younger fish may be sampled. To eliminate the bias associated with differences in fish size, appropriate
statistical procedures will be used to determine the mean mercury concentration for a specific fish size
(Hydro Quebec 2003).
Water Sample Processing
Field equipment used for collection, measurement, and testing will be subject to a strict program of
control, calibration, adjustment and maintenance. The Kemmerer sampler or tygon tubing/pump used to
collect surface water samples will be routinely inspected to verify that it is working properly. The Van
Veen grab sampler used to collected sediment sample will also be routinely inspected. Routine
maintenance of all sample equipment will be conducted prior to each sampling event. Maintenance will
include a visual inspection that all parts are present, attached correctly and devoid of any obvious
contamination. The project manager will coordinate ordering replacement parts and repairing samplers.
Spare sampling equipment will be available on-site in case of primary equipment failure.
QA/QC and Blank Samples and Frequency
Quality control activities in the field will consist of the following items:
• Adherence to documented procedures in this SAP and the companion QAPP;
• Cross-checking of field measurements and recording to ensure consistency and accuracy; and
• Comprehensive documentation of field observations, sample collection and sample identification
information.
Multiple field quality control samples will be collected: one blind field duplicate sample will be collected
for every ten sites sampled and sent to the laboratory to test for precision (e.g., repeatability) of analytical
procedures. A trip blank will be submitted to the lab to ensure that equipment handling and transport
procedures do not introduce contamination to transported project samples. Rinsate blanks will be
collected at different periods throughout the program to assure that cross-contamination between samples
does not occur.
B 3.0 SAMPLE DOCUMENTATION AND SHIPPING
Field Logbook and Field Log Forms
Thorough documentation of all field sample collection is necessary for proper processing of data and,
ultimately, for interpreting study results. Field sample collection will be documented in writing, on forms,
as well as on the following forms and labels:
• A field log notebook for general observations and notes
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 25 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
• A Field Data Record Form that contains information about observations and measurements made
and samples collected at the site
• Checklists for each sampling event, sampling point, and sampling time.
Copies of the field log books and physical characterization/water quality/sediment data sheets and
sampling checklists will be supplied to the Field Project Managers at the close of each sampling event.
These data will be used in conjunction with inspection checklists to compile the sampling event reports.
Formal reports that are generated from the data will be subject to technical and editorial review before
submission to AEA, and will be maintained at Tt’s Seattle, WA, office in the central file (disk and hard
copy). The data reports will include a summary of the types of data collected, sampling dates, and any
problems or anomalies observed during sample collection.
Samples will be documented and tracked on Field Data Record forms, Sample Identification labels, and
Chain of Custody records. The Field Task Leaders (one for each team) will be responsible for ensuring
that these forms are completed and reviewed for correctness and completeness by the designated field QC
Officer. Tt will maintain copies of these forms in the project files. A sampling report will be prepared
following each sampling event. Another person will manually check data entered into any spreadsheet or
other format against the original source to ensure accurate data entry. If there is any indication that
requirements for sample integrity or data quality have not been met (for samples or measurements
collected by Tt), the Tt QAO will be notified immediately (with an accompanying explanation of the
problems encountered).
Photographic Records
Recording of sampling locations will be documented with photographs using a conventional photo-point
procedure. Photographs will be taken at each sampling location and the photograph number and the
associated date, description of the photograph, site identification number and GPS coordinates will be
recorded in the photographic log. The photos will be stored as digital images and maintained as files, as
appropriate, in repositories for information and data used in preparing any reports and documents during
the project. Digital photos will be submitted with an index for each set of photographs, identifying the
project, site identification number and a description of the photograph.
B 4.0 SAMPLE HANDLING AND CUSTODY
Field Data Recording
In-situ field data measurements will be recorded immediately following collection, both, electronically
(stored within Hydrolab Surveyor) and on a field data sheet for each station. Field data sheets will be
printed on Rite in the Rain paper. Promptly following each sample event, scanned copies of field data
sheets will be made and stored electronically.
Each sample bottle will have a waterproof sample identification label, tag, or permanent marker
identification. All sample bottles will be labeled with an indelible marker before the time of collection.
Sample labels will include station designation, date, time, collector’s initials, and sample/analysis type.
Special analyses to be performed and any pertinent remarks will also be recorded on the label.
Sample Packaging and Shipping Requirements
Samples for laboratory analysis will be collected in containers appropriate for the analytes of interest,
filtered if necessary and will be properly preserved until delivery to the analytical laboratory. All samples
will be immediately placed in coolers and packed with gel ice after sampling and will remain chilled to
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 26 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
4°C (±2°C) during transportation to the contract laboratory. All samples will be accompanied with
completed chain-of-custody forms when shipped, and coolers will be sealed with signed and dated fiber
tape for shipment. Tetra Tech maintains specific SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) for sample chain
of custody, sample shipping, and supporting sample documentation.
Chain of Custody
Chain of custody (COC) can be defined as a systematic procedure for tracking a sample or datum from its
origin to its final use. Chain of custody procedures is necessary to ensure thorough documentation of
handling for each sample, from field collection to data analysis. The purpose of this procedure is to
minimize errors, maintain sample integrity, and protect the quality of data collected.
A data sample is considered to be under a person's custody if it is:
• In the individual's physical possession
• In the individual's sight
• Secured in a tamper-proof way by that person, or
• Secured by the person in an area that is restricted to authorized personnel.
Elements of chain-of-custody include:
• Sample identification
• Security seals and locks
• Security procedures
• Chain-of-custody record
The analytical laboratory will provide blank COCs with each bottle order and provide scanned copies of
finished COCs with sample results.
B 5.0 ANALYTICAL METHODS
This study will employ both field measurements and collection of samples to be analyzed in the
laboratory. Field and laboratory analytical procedures will follow U.S. EPA (1983, 1991) or APHA et al.
(1998) methods. The expected detection or reporting limits for field parameters and laboratory analyses
are listed in Table A4-1 along with the anticipated analytical method.
Field Sampling Decisions
Damage to equipment from wildlife, physical forces of the river, or equipment failure will be addressed
using the following protocol. Field sampling decisions to deviate or modify field sampling locations or
methods will only be made with the approval of the field crew chief. The field crew chief will document
the decision on the field note sheets, and email a copy of the sheet or telephone the information to the
study manager. If the field decision is large enough in scale to significantly affect the study’s data, scope,
schedule or budget, the field crew chief is authorized to stop work until further contact and coordination
with the study manager can be performed.
Laboratory Operations Documentation
Laboratory data results will be recorded on laboratory data sheets, bench sheets and/or in laboratory
logbooks for each sampling event. These records as well as control charts, logbook records of equipment
maintenance records, calibration and quality control checks, such as preparation and use of standard
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 27 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
solutions, inventory of supplies and consumables, check-in of equipment, equipment parts and chemicals
will be kept on file at the laboratory.
Any procedural or equipment problems will be recorded in the field notebooks. Any deviation from this
Sampling and Analysis Plan will also be noted in the field notebooks. Data results will include
information on field and/or laboratory QA/QC problems and corrective actions.
Standard turnaround time for the analytical samples taken to the contract laboratory will be seven to ten
working days and will not exceed twenty-two working days for reporting of data.
Chain-of-custody forms will be kept with the sample during transport and will accompany data results
back to Tt and AEA. Training records and data review records will be kept on file at Tt and the contract
laboratory and will be available on request. All sample analysis records and documents are kept at the
contract laboratory and will be available to AEA for inspection at any time. In addition to any written
report, data collected for the project will be provided electronically via a CD-ROM or e-mail ZIP file
format.
All records will be retained by the contract laboratory for five years. All project records at Tt are retained
permanently.
B 6.0 QUALITY CONTROL
Data quality is addressed, in part, by consistent performance of valid procedures in this SAP/QAPP. It is
enhanced by the training and experience of project staff and documentation of project activities .This
QAPP including its appendices will be distributed to all sampling personnel. A QC Officer (or equivalent)
will ensure that samples are taken according to the established protocols and that all forms, checklists, and
measurements are recorded and completed correctly during the sampling event.
Measurement performance criteria for data to be collected during this project are discussed in the
following sections.
Precision
Precision is a measure of internal method consistency. It is demonstrated by the degree of mutual
agreement between individual measurements or enumerated values of the same property of a sample,
usually under demonstrated similar conditions. The usability assessment will include consideration of this
condition in evaluating field measures from the entire measurement system. Although precision
evaluation within 20 percent relative percent difference (RPD) are generally considered acceptable for
water quality studies and analyses, no data validation or usability action will be taken for results in excess
of the 20 percent limit (unless RPD is specified as acceptable when >20%). Instead, the results will be
noted and compared with the balance of the parameters analyzed for a more comprehensive assessment
before any negative assessment, disqualification, or exclusion of data.
This QC calculation also addresses uncertainty due to natural variation and sampling error. Precision is
calculated from two duplicate samples by RPD as follows:
%100),(
||
21
21 ×−=CC
CCRPD
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 28 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
where C1 = the first of the two values and C2 = the second of the two if precision is to be calculated from
three or more replicate samples (as is often the case in laboratory analytical work), the relative standard
deviation (RSD) will be used and is calculated as
χ
sRSD=
where χ is the measured value of the replicate sample and s is the standard deviation and is determined by
the following equation:
( )
1
1
2
−
−
=
∑
=
nSD
n
i
i χχ
where iχ is the measured value of the replicate, χ is the mean of the measured values, and n is the number
of replicates.
Accuracy
Accuracy is defined as the degree of agreement between an observed value and an accepted reference or
true value. Accuracy is determined by using a combination of random error (precision) and systematic
error (bias) due to sampling and analytical operations. Bias is the systematic distortion of a measurement
process that causes errors in one direction so that the expected sample measurement is always greater or
lesser to the same degree than the sample’s true value. EPA now recommends that the term accuracy not
be used and that precision and bias be used instead.
Because accuracy is the measurement of a parameter and comparison to a truth, and the true values of
environmental physicochemical characteristics cannot be known, use of a surrogate is required. Accuracy
of field measurements will be assumed to be determined through use of precision.
Accuracy of data entry into the project database will be controlled by double-checking all manual data
entries.
Representativeness
Data representativeness is defined as the degree to which data accurately and precisely represents a
characteristic of a population, parameter, and variations at a sampling point, a process condition, or an
environmental condition. It therefore addresses the natural variability or the spatial and temporal
heterogeneity of a population. The number of sampling points and their location within the study area
were selected from a random draw to ensure that representative sample collection of each area of the
watershed and each assessment characteristic occurs.
Completeness
Completeness is defined as the percentage of measurements made that are judged to be valid according to
specific criteria and entered into the data management system. To achieve this objective, every effort is
made to avoid accidental or inadvertent sample or data loss. Accidents during sample transport or lab
activities that cause the loss of the original samples will result in irreparable loss of data. Lack of data
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 29 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
entry into the database will reduce the ability to perform analyses, integrate results, and prepare reports.
Samples will be stored and transported in unbreakable (plastic) containers wherever possible. All sample
processing (subsampling, sorting, identification, and enumeration) will occur in a controlled environment
within the laboratory. Field personnel will assign a set of continuous identifiers to a batch of samples.
Percent completeness (%C ) for measurement parameters can be defined as follows:
%100%×=T
VC
where V = the number of measurements judged valid and T = the total number of measurements planned.
For this project, sampling will be considered complete when no less than 90 percent of the samples
collected during a particular sampling event are judged valid.
Comparability
Two data sets are considered to be comparable when there is confidence that the two sets can be
considered equivalent with respect to the measurement of a specific variable or group of variables.
Comparability is dependent on the proper design of the sampling program and on adherence to accepted
sampling techniques, and QA guidelines.
B 7.0 INSTRUMENT/EQUIPMENT TESTING, INSPECTION, AND MAINTENANCE
Periodic regular inspection of equipment and instruments is needed to ensure the satisfactory performance
of the systems. Equipment to be used during the sampling event is listed in the appropriate SOPs. Before
any piece of sampling or measurement equipment is taken into the field, it will be inspected to ensure that
the equipment is appropriate for the task to be performed, all necessary parts of the equipment are intact,
and the equipment is in working order. In addition, the equipment will be visually inspected before its
use. Broken equipment will be labeled “DO NOT USE” and returned to the Tt office to receive necessary
repairs, or it will be disposed of. Backup field equipment will be available during all field activities in the
event of equipment failure.
The objective of preventive maintenance is to ensure the availability and satisfactory performance of the
measurement systems. All field measurement instruments will receive preventive maintenance in
accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.
B 8.0 INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION AND FREQUENCY
Calibrated field instruments will be used for in-field, instantaneous measurement of temperature, DO,
conductivity, salinity, pH, and redox potential. Instruments will be calibrated in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications and as described in the measurement SOPs. The SOPs include pre- and
post-calibration verification on each sampling date. Verification of pH measurement accuracy will be
checked against standard solutions in the field and adjustments made to the meter prior to the next
measurement, if necessary.
The calibration of temperature, DO, conductivity/salinity, and pH probes will be checked before and after
each sampling event, or as deemed necessary by the multiprobe’s manufacturer, using certified standard
solutions. Field calibrations will be recorded in the field sampling log book. Individual sensors will be
considered to be operating correctly if the instrument reading is within 15 percent of the calibration
standard value. If the two values are not within 15 percent of each other, the probe will be cleaned and
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 30 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
recalibrated. If these two values are still not within 15 percent of each other following cleaning and
recalibration, the probe itself will be replaced.
B 9.0 INSPECTION/ACCEPTANCE OF SUPPLIES AND CONSUMABLES
Supplies and consumables are those items necessary to support the sampling and analysis operation. They
include bottleware, calibration solutions, hoses, decontamination supplies, preservatives, and various
types of water (e.g., potable, deionized, organic-free). Upon delivery of supplies, field crews will ensure
that types and quantities of supplies received are consistent with what was ordered, and with what is
indicated on the packing list and invoice for the material. If any discrepancies are found, the supplier will
be contacted immediately.
While preparing for specific sampling events, the field sampling Task Leaders will be responsible for
acquiring and inspecting materials and solutions that will be used for obtaining the samples for field
measurements. Other materials must also meet specific requirements as indicated by the appropriate
manufacturer; for example, only certified standard solutions will be used for the multiprobe calibration.
Buffers and standards will be checked for expiration dates and appearance (correct color).
B 10.0 NONDIRECT MEASUREMENTS
Comparison of data collected during this field effort to historical data will be used for qualitative
assessment only. Assessment of applicability for historical data is outside the scope of this document and
is not addressed further in this data collection QAPP.
B 11.0 DATA MANAGEMENT
Samples will be documented and tracked on Field Data Record forms, Sample Identification labels, and
Chain of Custody records. The Field Task Leaders (one for each team) will be responsible for ensuring
that these forms are completed and reviewed for correctness and completeness by the designated field QC
Officer. Tt will maintain copies of these forms in the project files. A sampling report will be prepared
following each sampling event. Another person will manually check data entered into any spreadsheet or
other format against the original source to ensure accurate data entry. If there is any indication that
requirements for sample integrity or data quality have not been met (for samples or measurements
collected by Tt), the Tt QAO will be notified immediately (with an accompanying explanation of the
problems encountered).
Hard copy data packages will be paginated, fully validated raw data packages that include an analytical
narrative with a signed certification of compliance with this QAPP and all method requirements; copies of
Chain of Custody forms; sample inspection records; laboratory sample and QC results; calibration
summaries; example calculations by parameter; and copies of all sample preparation, analysis, and
standards logs adequate to reconstruct the entire analysis. The CD-ROM data will include a full copy of
the paginated report scanned and stored in portable document format (PDF) for potential future
submission to the client, if requested, and for long-term storage in the project files. Initially, the full raw
data package will be submitted to the Tt QAO for assessment of compliance with the program goals and
guidance.
All computer files associated with the project will be stored in a project subdirectory by Tt (subject to
regular system backups) and will be copied to disk for archive for the 5 years subsequent to project
completion. The data may eventually be stored using a State data management system specified Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 31 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
C. ASSESSMENTS AND OVERSIGHT
C 1.0 ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE ACTIONS
The QA program under which this task order will operate includes technical system audits, with
independent checks of the data obtained from sampling, analysis, and data-gathering activities. Tt will
review the QA programs that subcontractors follow to ensure similar levels of QA and QC are attained.
The essential steps in the QA program are as follows:
• Identify and define the problem
• Assign responsibility for investigating the problem
• Investigate and determine the cause of the problem
• Assign and accept responsibility for implementing appropriate corrective action
• Establish the effectiveness of and implement the corrective action
• Verify that the corrective action has eliminated the problem
Many of the technical problems that might occur can be solved on the spot by the staff members involved;
for example, by modifying the technical approach, repairing instrumentation that is not working properly,
or correcting errors or deficiencies in documentation. Immediate corrective actions form part of normal
operating procedures and are noted in records for the project. Problems not solved this way require more
formalized, long-term corrective action. If quality problems that require attention are identified, Tt or the
subcontractor will determine whether attaining acceptable quality requires short- or long-term actions. If a
failure in an analytical system occurs (e.g., performance requirements are not met), the appropriate QC
Officer or subcontractor QA Manager will be responsible for corrective action and will immediately
inform the Tt PM or QAO, as appropriate. Subsequent steps taken will depend on the nature and
significance of the problem.
The Tt Technical Lead has primary responsibility for monitoring the activities of this project and
identifying or confirming any quality problems. These problems will also be brought to the attention of
the Tt QAO, who will initiate the corrective action system described above, document the nature of the
problem, and ensure that the recommended corrective action is carried out. The Tt QAO has the authority
to stop work on the project if problems affecting data quality require extensive effort to resolve and are
identified.
The AEA PM and Tt Technical Lead will be notified of major corrective actions and stop work orders.
Corrective actions might include the following:
• Re-emphasizing to staff the project objectives, the limitations in scope, the need to adhere to
the agreed-upon schedule and procedures, and the need to document QC and QA activities
• Securing additional commitment of staff time to devote to the project
• Retaining outside consultants to review problems in specialized technical areas
• Changing procedures
• The Tt Technical Lead may replace a staff member or subcontractor, as appropriate, if it is in
the best interest of the project to do so.
• The Tt QC Officers are responsible for overseeing work as it is performed and periodically
conducting checks during the data entry and analysis phases of the project. As data entries,
calculations, or other activities are checked, the person performing the check will sign and
date a hard copy of the material or complete a review form, as appropriate, and provide this
documentation to the Tt Technical Lead for inclusion in the project files. Field audits and
technical system audits will not be conducted under this task order.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 32 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
C 2.0 QA REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT
A draft data report will be prepared and forwarded to the AEA for data analysis completed during winter
2013.
The report will include the following:
• Description of the project purpose, goals, and objectives.
• Map(s) of the study area and sampling sites.
• Descriptions of field methods.
• Discussion of data quality and the significance of any problems encountered in the analyses.
• Summary tables of field data.
• Observations regarding significant or potentially significant findings.
• Recommendations based on project goals.
D. DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY
D 1.0 DATA REVIEW, VERIFICATION, AND VALIDATION
Data validation and review services provide a method for determining the usability and limitations of data
and provide a standardized data quality assessment. All Field Data forms will be reviewed by the Tt
Technical Lead and Field Task Manager (assisted by the QAO, as needed) for completeness and
correctness. Tt will be responsible for reviewing data entries and transmissions for completeness and
adherence to QA requirements. Data quality will be assessed by comparing entered data to original data
or by comparing results to the measurement performance criteria summarized in Section 4.0 to determine
whether to accept, reject, or qualify the data. Results of the review and validation processes will be
reported to the Technical Leads.
D 2.0 VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION METHODS
The Tt Technical Leads or designee will review all Field Data Record forms. The Tt QAO will review a
minimum of 5 percent of the Field Data Record forms and other records. Any discrepancies in the records
will be reconciled with the appropriate associated field personnel and will be reported to the Tt Technical
Leads. The AEA PM will be consulted with deficiencies, observations, and findings, as well as with
corrective action and technical directive recommendations for consideration and approval.
Data verification requires confirmation by examination or provision of objective evidence that the
requirements of these specified QC acceptance criteria are met. Each step of the data collection and
analysis process must be evaluated and its conformance to the protocols established in this QAPP
verified, including:
• Sampling design
• Sample collection procedures
• Data analysis procedures
• Quality control
• Data format reduction and processing data
Validation involves detailed examination of the complete data package using professional judgment to
determine whether the established procedures were followed. Validation will be done by the Study Lead.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 33 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Tetra Tech and URS managers for the project will review all results to verify that methods and protocols
specified in this QAPP were followed; that all instrument calibrations, quality control checks, and
intermediate calculations were performed appropriately; and that the final reported data are consistent,
correct, and complete, with no omissions or errors.
Evaluation criteria will include the acceptability of instrument calibrations and precision data and the
appropriateness of assigned data qualifiers, if any.
The study lead will review the data packages and companion field notations to determine if the results
met the MQOs for bias, precision, and accuracy for that sampling interval (monthly) and to ensure that all
analyses specified on the "Chain of Custody" form were performed. Based on these assessments, the data
will either be accepted, accepted with appropriate qualifications, or rejected.
After the field data have been reviewed and verified by the project manager, they will be independently
reviewed by QA officer for errors before closing out the study. The initial data review will consist of a 10
percent random sampling of the project data. If any errors are discovered during the initial data review, a
full independent review will be undertaken QA officer.
D 3.0 RECONCILIATION WITH USER REQUIREMENTS
As soon as possible following completion of the sample collection and analyses, Tt will assess the
precision, accuracy, and completeness measures and compare them with the criteria discussed in Section
A 4.0. This will be the final determination of whether the data collected are of the correct type, quantity,
and quality to support their intended use for this project. Any problems encountered in meeting the
performance criteria (or uncertainties and limitations in the use of the data) will be discussed with the
project QA personnel and the AEA PM, and will be reconciled if possible.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 34 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
REFERENCES
Ackerman J.T., Eagles-Smith C.A., Takekawa J.Y., Demers S.A., Adelsbach T.L., Bluso J.D., et al.,
2007. Mercury concentrations and space use of pre-breeding American avocets and black-necked stilts in
San Francisco Bay. Sci Total Environ 2007;384:452–66.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), 2005. Water Quality Assessment and
Monitoring Program. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation: Division of Water. Juneau,
Alaska. 58p.
ADEC, 2012. Mercury concentration in fresh water fish Southcentral Susitna Watershed. Personal
communication with Bob Gerlach, VMD, State Veterinarian. June 2012.
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Pollution
Federation (APHA, AWWA, WEF), 1996. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater. Washington, D.C.: APHA.
Bailey, E.A., and Gray, J.E., 1997. Mercury in the terrestrial environment, Kuskokwim Mountains region,
southwestern Alaska, in Dumoulin, J.A. and Gray J.E., ed., Geologic studies in Alaska by the U.S.
Geological Survey, 1995: U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1574, p. 41-56.
Bodaly R.A., Hecky R.E., Fudge R.J.P., 1984. Increases in fish mercury levels in lakes flooded by the
Churchill River Diversion, Northern Manitoba. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 41:682-691.
Frenzel, S.A., 2000. Selected Organic Compounds and Trace Elements in Streambed Sediments and Fish
Tissues, Cook Inlet Basin, Alaska. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4004. Prepared as
part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program.
Hydro-Quebec, 2003. Environmental Monitoring at the La Grande Complex Summary Report 1978–
2000: Evolution of Fish Mercury Levels. Joint Report: Direction Barrages et Environment Hydro-Quebec
Production and Groupe Conseil, Genivar Inc. December 2003.
Meister, J.F., DiNunzio J., Cox J.A., 1979. Source and level of mercury in a new impoundment. Journal
of the American Water Works Association 71:574-576.
Morrison, K. and Thérien, N., 1991. Influence of Environmental Factors on Mercury Release in
Hydroelectric Reservoirs, Montréal, Quebec, Canadian Electrical Association, 122 p.
Ohlendorf, H.M., Harrison, C.S., 1986. Mercury, selenium, cadmium, and organochlorines in eggs of
three Hawaiian seabird species. Environ Pollut 46:263–95.
Scheuhammer, A.M., 1987. The chronic toxicity of aluminum, cadmium, mercury, and lead in birds: a
review. Environ Pollut 46:263–95.
Siegal, S.M., Siegal, B.Z., Lipp, C., Kruckeberg, A., Towers, G.H.N., and Warren, H. 1985. Indicator
plant-soil mercury patterns in a mercury-rich mining area of British Columbia: Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution, v. 25, p. 73-85.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 35 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
Siegal, S.M., Siegal, B.Z., Barghigiani, C., Aratani, K.. Penny, P., and Penny, D., 1987. A contribution to
the environmental biology of mercury accumulation in plants: Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, v. 33, p. 65-
72.
Somers, K.M. and D.A. Jackson, 1993. Adjusting mercury concentration for fish-size covariation: a
multivariate alternative to bivariate regression. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50: 2388-2396.
Spalding M.G., Frederick P.C., McGill H.C., Bouton S.N., McDowell L.R., 2000. Mercury accumulation
in tissues and its effects on growth and appetite in captive great egrets. J Wildl Dis 2000;36:411–22.
Strom S.M., 2008. Total mercury and methylmercury residues in river otters (Lutra canadensis) from
Wisconsin. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2008 Apr;54(3):546-54. Epub 2007 Oct 10.
Thompson, D.R., Furness R.W., 1989. The chemical form of mercury stored in south Atlantic seabirds.
Environ Pollut 1989;60:305–17.
Thompson, D. R. 1996. Mercury in birds and terrestrial mammals. In Beyer, W.N., G.H. Heinz, and A.W.
Redman-Norwood (eds.). Environmental contaminants in wildlife: interpreting tissue concentrations.
Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL. 341-356.
Tsao D.C., Miles A.K., Takekawa J.Y., Woo I., 2009. Potential effects of mercury on threatened
California black rails. Arch Environ Contam. Toxicol. 56:292–301.
URS, 2011. AEA Susitna Water Quality and Sediment Transport Data Gap Analysis Report. Prepared by
Tetra Tech, URS, and Arctic Hydrologic Consultants. Anchorage, Alaska. 62p.+Appendixes.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1997. Mercury Study Report to Congress Volume I:
Executive Summary. December 1997. EPA-452/R-97-003.
USEPA, 2000. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for use in Fish Advisories: Volume 1
Fish Sampling and Analysis, 3rd Edition. EPA-823-B-00-007. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water. Washington, D.C. 485p.
Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation SAP/QAPP QAPP xxx, Revision 0
Date: October 31, 2012
Page 36 of 36
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-3 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 December 2012
This page left intentionally blank
ATTACHMENT 5-4
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS – WATER QUALITY
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-4 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1 December 2012
Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
Water Quality
ADEC: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
Advection: Advection is a transport mechanism of a substance by a fluid due
to the fluid's bulk motion.
AEIDC: Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center.
Anadromous fisheries: Fish that migrate between the ocean and freshwater.
Anoxic: Without oxygen.
APA: Alaska Power Authority.
Aquatic: Relating to water; living in or near water, or taking place in water.
AWQS: Alaska Water Quality Standards (18 ACC 70.020(b)).
Benthic: Living and feeding in the sediment at the bottom of a water body.
Bioabsorption: Uptake of nutrients or contaminants by organisms.
Bioavailable: The availability nutrients or contaminants for biological uptake.
Bioaccumulation: The accumulation of contaminants in organisms over time.
Biomagnification: The concentration of contaminants in higher trophic lives of the
ecosystem over time.
BW: Body weight of an animal.
Channel geometry: Shape of a river or stream channel.
Chlorophyll-a: A type of chlorophyll that is most common in photosynthetic
organisms such as higher plants, red and green algae.
Coefficient: Multiplicative factor in a mathematical equation.
Cohesive sediment: Sediment particles composed primarily of clay-sized materials
which stick together due to their surface ionic charges. Many
pollutants, such as heavy metals, pesticides, and nutrients
preferentially adsorb to cohesive sediments. In addition the
sediments themselves are sometimes a water quality concern due
to turbidity.
Cross-section: A section formed by a plane cutting through an object, usually at
right angles to an axis.
CWA: Clean Water Act, the federal law that protects water quality in the
United States.
D: Daily intake. This is the amount of a contaminant that an organism
is exposed to per day on a body weight basis.
Deciduous: Trees or shrubs that lose their leaves seasonally.
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-4 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2 December 2012
Demethylation Conversion of methylmercury to other forms of mercury.
Dissolved/particulate
Partitioning: Water quality parameters can be associated with solid, inorganic
particles or appear as a dissolved form in surface water. This
reference is typical for nutrients where parameters like phosphorus
are either measured as a dissolved form in water or are part of a
larger “clump” of material suspended in the water column.
Partitioning is accomplished by filtering (typically 45µ pore size)
to differentiate dissolved from particulate forms.
Divalent mercury: Hg(I) and Hg(II) or Hg2+ are mercury compounds commonly
found in nature, including mercuric sulphide (HgS), mercuric
oxide (HgO) and mercuric chloride (HgCl2). Some mercury salts,
such as mercury chloride, form a vapor and can be transported in
the air.
DOC: Dissolved oxygen content.
Drawdown zone: The area of the shoreline periodically submerged and exposed to
air during operations of a reservoir.
EFDC: Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code. A modeling program for
water bodies.
EPA: Environmental protection agency.
EPC: Exposure point concentration. This is the amount of a contaminant
per kilogram in a food source.
Eutrophication: The ecosystem response to the addition of artificial or natural
substances, such as nitrates and phosphates, to an aquatic system.
Evapotranspiration: The sum of evaporation and plant transpiration from the Earth's
land surface to atmosphere.
EWI: Equal width increment method. A sampling device is lowered and
raised at a uniform rate through equally-spaced vertical increments
in a river cross-section. It is a flow-integrated sampling technique
employed by USGS.
Field duplicates: Field duplicates are identical field samples obtained from one
location at the same time. They are treated as separate samples
throughout the sample handling and analytical processes. These
samples are used to assess total error (precision) associated with
sample heterogeneity, sample methodology, and analytical
procedures. This procedure is useful in determining total (sampling
and analytical) error because it evaluates sample collection, sample
preparation, and analytical procedures.
FLIR: Forward Looking Infra-Red.
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-4 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3 December 2012
Flow mixing: Moving water exhibits different flow patterns (e.g., isolated
roughness, wake interference, and quasi-smooth) and these
patterns influence predictability of water quality conditions within
a model. This term refers to a rate of mixing that is included
among other rates like heat flux and heat transport when
calibrating a surface water temperature model.
Fsite: Fraction of the total food ingestion that is ingested from a
particular site.
g: Grams.
Grid spacing: The surface area of the waterbody is partitioned into “grids” and
defined as various shapes. The EFDC model (Environmental Fluid
Dynamics Code) can auto-generate shapes described as
“curvilinear-orthogonol grids” that serve as cells within which a
water quality prediction is made. The center of each grid is the
point water quality is predicted by the EFDC model.
Groundwater upwelling: Groundwater driven springs that occur within water bodies. These
help to regulate temperature and create thermal refugia for fish.
Heat flux: Heat flux or thermal flux is the rate of heat energy transfer through
a given surface.
Heat transport: Same definition as for “heat flux”.
Herbivores: Organisms that eat only plants.
Hgp: Mercury concentration in piscivorous muscle tissue.
Hgnp: Mercury concentration in non-piscivorous muscle tissue.
HSC curves: Habitat suitability criteria (HSC) curves are a component of
instream flow modeling that links to the hydraulic flow model to
create a habitat‐flow relationship. HSC curves consist of an X‐Y
graph, with the X axis representing a range of water velocity, water
depth, and substrate characteristics, while the Y axis represents the
probability of use for a given value. Separate HSC curves are
typically developed for each species by life stage and for each
parameter; i.e. separate curves are developed for velocity, depth,
and substrate.
Humus: An upper soil horizon rich in organic material.
HQ: Hazard quotient. This is the ratio of the average anticipated
concentration of a contaminant and the known concentration were
adverse effects can occur.
Hydrodynamics: Turbulence in water accounted for by basic equations in a water
quality model that predict motion and movement of dissolved and
solid particles in a 3-dimensional matrix.
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-4 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4 December 2012
Ice Dynamics: Processes involving formation and breakup of ice in riverine and
reservoir settings and how these events influence surface water
conditions.
IF: Intake factor. This is how much of a particular food source is
consumed per kilogram of body weight by an organism each day.
ILP: Integrated licensing process.
Indicator species: A species that is particularly susceptible to a potential
contaminants, and is considered as a stand in for the impacts to
larger groups of organisms.
Inorganic mercury: Metallic mercury and divalent mercury.
Inundation area: Area that will be flooded in creating a reservoir.
Isokinetic: Refers to flow properties of water that moves through a sampling
device that maintains consistency between surrounding riverine
flow with that moving through the sampling device.
FERC: Federal energy regulatory commission.
LAET: Lowest Apparent Effects Threshold. This is the lowest
concentration of a compound in that can be tolerated by the
majority of benthic organisms.
LC50: Lethal concentration 50. Also sometimes called the median lethal
dose. This is the standard measure of the toxicity of a specific
concentration of an element or compound. It will kill half the
population of a specific test-animal in a specified period of time.
The lower the number, the more toxic the material. LC50 values
cannot be directly extrapolated from one species to another.
Macroinvertebrates: Macroinvertebrates are organisms without backbones, which are
visible to the eye without the aid of a microscope. Aquatic
macroinvertebrates live in water of lakes, rivers, and streams.
Examples of macroinvertebrates include fly larvae, beetles,
dragonfly larvae, aquatic worms, snails, leeches etc.
Mainstem: The main channel of a large river.
Matrix spikes: Matrix spike are environmental samples that are spiked in the
laboratory or in the field with a known concentration of a target
analyte to verify percent recoveries. Matrix spike and matrix spike
duplicate samples are primarily used to check matrix interferences.
They can also be used to monitor laboratory performance.
Matrix spike duplicates: A duplicate of the matrix spike analyzed to check precision of the
matrix spike analyses.
Mercury: Mercury (Hg) is an element that occurs naturally in the
environment. It exists in several different chemical forms.
MET: Meteorological station. Used for recording weather conditions.
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-4 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5 December 2012
Metallic mercury: Also known as elemental mercury or Hg0, it is mercury in its pure,
un-combined form. It is a shiny, silver-white metal that is liquid at
room temperature. At room temperature metallic mercury slowly
evaporates, forming a vapor.
Methylmercury: Also known as organic mercury, MeHg, or CH3Hg+, it is mercury
combined with a methyl group. It is formed when mercury is
combined with carbon and other elements by natural anaerobic
organisms that live lakes, rivers, wetlands, sediments, soils and the
open ocean. Methylmercury is not readily eliminated from
organisms, and is biomagnified in aquatic food chains.
NELAP: National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program.
NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service.
Omnivores: Organisms that east both plants and animals.
Organometals: Metals that easily bond with carbon. Common examples include
mercury, iron, and copper.
Otoliths: An otolith, also called statoconium or otoconium, is a structure in
the saccule or utricle of the inner ear, specifically in the vestibular
labyrinth of vertebrates. The layers on an otolith can be used to
estimate the age of a fish.
pg/L: picograms per liter.
Pi: Total phosphorous from inflows (mg/yr.).
Pf: Portion of the food consumed by an animal each day that contains
a contaminant of concern.
Pr: Concentration of total phosphorous in the reservoir at time t.
Peak increase factor: Peak increase factor in fish of methylmercury over background
concentrations.
Periphyton: Periphyton are algae, cyanobacteria, heterotrophic microbes, and
detritus that are attached to submerged surfaces in most aquatic
ecosystems. It serves as an important food source for invertebrates
and some fish. It can also absorb contaminants; removing them
from the water column.
Phosphorus release model: Decaying organic material releases phosphorous at a set rate.
Phosphorus cycle: Movement of phosphorous through the environment.
Photodegradation: Breakdown of a compound by light, usually sunlight.
Piscivorous: Fish-eating.
Point/nonpoint sources: Point sources are sources of water or contaminants that originate
from a definitive place, for example a stream entering a reservoir.
Nonpoint sources are from diffuse sources, for example rainfall or
atmospheric deposition of dust.
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-4 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6 December 2012
Pore water: Water that exists within the spaces of sediment.
Project: The Susitna-Watana Dam project.
Q: Mean annual flow.
QAPP: Quality assurance project plan.
Radiant temperature: Temperature of an object as measured using infrared radiation.
This is just the surface temperature of an object.
Regression calculations: A statistical method used to predict the behavior of a dependent
variable. The result is an equation representing the relation
between selected values of one variable (x) and observed values of
the other (y). It allows the prediction of the most probable values
of x based on the measured values of y.
Resident fisheries: Non migrating fish.
Reservoir release temp.: Temperature of water released from a reservoir.
Reservoir storage: Amount of water stored in a reservoir.
Rinsate blanks: Sample of water used to rinse field equipment to check if
equipment was clean prior to sampling.
Riparian: Relating to or living or located on the bank of a natural water body.
Riverine: Located on or inhabiting the banks of a river.
RM: River mile. Distance along the Susitna River, as measured from
the mouth.
RSP: Revised study plan.
SAP: Sampling and analyses plan.
Smax: Maximum surface area flooded by a reservoir.
Section 401: Water Quality Certification process under the CWA.
Sediment: Material deposited at the bottom of aquatic systems such as
streams, rivers, and lakes.
Sediment diagenesis: The sum of all the processes that bring about changes (e.g.,
composition and texture) in sediment. The processes may be
physical, chemical, and/or biological in nature.
Sediment transport: Movement of sediment in a water body.
Silica cycle: Movement of silica through the environment.
Sloughs: A side channel from a river. Commonly formed by migration of a
river and its tributaries over time.
SNTEMP: Modeling program used in the 1980s for the Susitna project.
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-4 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 7 December 2012
Solar Degree Days: The number of degree hours (heating and cooling) with respect to a
standard reference temperature and totaled for the period of one
day.
Speciated: Determining the chemical form of various metals, for example
chromium or mercury.
SPM: Suspended particulate matter.
SQuiRT: Screening Quick Reference Tables. These are thresholds developed
by NOAA that are used as screening values for evaluation of toxics
and potential effect to aquatic life in several media.
TDS: Total dissolved solids.
Temperature Regime: Spatial and temporal temperature patterns in the aquatic
environment. Often used to refer to temperature patterns on a
seasonal basis.
Thermal refugia: Water temperatures have critical impacts on fish physiology,
distribution, and behavior. At the limits of their thermal tolerance,
fish may move to localized patches of colder or warmer water,
known as thermal refugia. In Alaska this typically are areas of
water bodies that stay relatively warm throughout the winter.
TIR: Thermal infra-red.
TMDL: Total maximum daily load.
TOC: Total organic carbon.
TRV: Toxicity reference value. This is the concentration of a
contaminants where adverse ecological effects occur.
TSS: Total suspended solids.
Transect measurements: Measurements across a river, stream or other water body. Usually
performed at right angles to flow.
Trophic level: Relationship of different organisms in a food chain. For example,
bacteria are grazed on by phytoplankton, which in are eaten by
macroinvertebrates, which are fed on by fish. Each part of the
food chain is considered to be a separate trophic level.
Turbidity: The cloudiness or haziness of a fluid caused by individual particles
(suspended solids) that are generally invisible to the naked eye.
TWG: Technical Work Group.
µg/g: Micrograms per gram. Also known as parts per million (ppm).
µm: Micrometer.
USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
USGS: U.S. Geological Survey.
Revised Study Plan
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Attachment 5-4 Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 8 December 2012
V: Reservoir volume in cubic meters.
Vertical stratification: Vertical variations in a water body.
Water Quality Kinetics: Transfer of water quality characteristics from one reach to another.
Zooplankton: Heterotrophic organisms drifting in bodies of water.