Jackson Project Relicensing. Aquatic Resources Work Group. Friday, February 1, Meeting Summary

Transcription

1 Jackson Project Relicensing Aquatic Resources Work Group Friday, February 1, 2008 Meeting Summary Start Time: 9:05 a.m. End Time: 11:20 a.m. Subject: Update on studies of aquatic habitat and their integration to inform the PM&Es Attendees: American Whitewater: Tom O Keefe City of Everett: Julie Sklare FERC: David Tuner and Matt Cutlip (via phone) PUD: Keith Binkley, Bruce Meaker, Kim Moore, Dawn Presler, Joel Cappello R2 Resource Consultants: Dudley Reiser Stillwater Sciences: Derek Booth, Byron Amerson, Steve Ralph, Eric Edlund Tulalip Tribes: Cleve Steward (AMEC), Abby Hook US Fish and Wildlife Service: Tim Romanski (via phone) US Forest Service: Barry Gall WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife: Al Wald, Rich Johnson DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Purpose of Meeting Keith Binkley (District) introduced the purpose of the meeting. Three studies (SP 3 Instream Flows, SP 18 Riverine, Riparian, and Wetland Habitat, and SP 22 Physical Processes) relate to aquatic habitat conditions in the Sultan River downstream of Culmback Dam. At the Initial Study Report (ISR) meeting in October, there was limited information to present on the results of studies. At the ISR meeting, the PUD committed to meeting in early 2008 as the results of these studies came in. This meeting was scheduled to provide an update on the status of the studies and to discuss their integration. This meeting sets the stage for future meetings of the ARWG in 2008 to discuss the results of studies. This particular meeting was broadcast via WebEx technology which made the presentations interactive and available to persons tele-conferencing. 2. SP-18 This meeting provided an opportunity to display the GIS products prepared for SP18. Steve Ralph of Stillwater Sciences discussed the overall objectives of the study and methods that were employed in collecting field data as well as analytical tools used for evaluating the LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data and GIS coverages. Eric Edlund of Stillwater Sciences presented a 40-minute overview of the GIS focusing on aspects of riverine habitat. Eric presented information on the creation of the digital elevation model (DEM) from the LiDAR Henry M. Jackson Hydroelectric Project ARWG Meeting Summary 02/01/2008 FERC No Page 1

2 flights conducted by Snohomish County and the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Eric explained the filtering process and the challenges associated with the terrain in the Sultan River canyon. Eric demonstrated the various data layers related to riverine habitat and their organization. The audience was able to see representative pictures of habitat types and features and their linkage with the GIS system. Eric displayed several examples of different reaches of the river and how the GIS could be used to analyze habitat features. Dudley Reiser of R2 Resource Consultants noted that one use of the database will be in extrapolating the results of the instream flow study based on measured habitat types to unmeasured areas consisting of similar habitat types as determined via habitat mapping and GIS analysis. Steve described the general procedures used by their field crew in assessing the habitat features throughout the length of river. With the exception of a relatively small section of river just below Culmback Dam that was too difficult to sample, the entire length of stream was surveyed. The crew used a combination of wading and floating (with drysuits) to complete the surveys. One of the examples Eric displayed was a reach of the lower river (Reach 1) that contained one of the major side channel complexes. However, for this particular segment, no empirical data were collected from the side channels during the surveys. Steve explained that because stream flows during the surveys were relatively low, no flow was occurring in the side channels during the survey and therefore the field crew was not able to collect habitat-type data from the channel. Dudley noted that some habitat mapping of the side channels had been completed as part of the instream flow study and that those data could be integrated into the GIS data base. Abby Hook (Tulalip Tribes) expressed a desire to see the data organized by process reach rather than solely by operational reach. 3. SP-22 Byron Amerson of Stillwater Sciences provided an update on the status of SP22. Byron pointed out that it was premature to discuss the results of many aspects of SP22. He stated that the draft report is due out in April and that Stillwater is on schedule. Abby asked several questions related to the study effort. One question related to the re-survey of the transects established by Geo- Engineers in the 1980 s. Byron relayed that the survey was complete but the results were not ready. Abby asked if there were indications of incision or aggradation. Byron said it was premature to discuss since data analysis is still ongoing. Abby asked about channel location and whether much channel movement has occurred. Byron stated that the river has moved little laterally and that the channel is in the same general location as in There was some discussion of the encroachment of vegetation on some bars in the lower river. Byron and Derek Booth (Stillwater Sciences) talked about the DNR mapping of the landslide areas and their visits to the landslides including the sampling of the sediments from specific landslides. Byron explained that there is a v shaped canyon extending from Culmback Dam downstream about 3 miles. He discussed inputs in the form of debris flows in this reach, and the highly confined nature of the rest of the canyon. Al Wald (WDFW) asked about the transport of fine sediment. Byron shared that deposits of fine sediment and sand are present in some locations. Keith Binkley explained that there are some sand deposits present in the river, generally in locations where they would be expected such as backwater areas and lateral margins. He noted that the very fine materials such as silts and colloidal particles are generally transported through the system. He briefly described the results of the spawning gravel monitoring study recently completed by R2 that indicated that fine Henry M. Jackson Hydroelectric Project ARWG Meeting Summary 02/01/2008 FERC No Page 2

3 sediment is not negatively impacting gravel quality. Keith explained that the PUD currently has a program in place to assess the quality of the spawning gravels if flow in the Sultan River below the Powerhouse does not exceed a mobilizing flow of 4000 cfs in a 6 year period. In 2006, the PUD hired R2 to conduct a gravel quality assessment and found that the fines thresholds had not been exceeded. A question was raised as to how would the results of this study (SP 22) be used in evaluating project effects. Dudley Reiser noted that among other things, this study would identify flow magnitudes necessary to transport sediments and mobilize the stream bed. That information will be used in evaluating project effects and also for considering flushing flow and channel maintenance flow needs. Derek Booth said that the sediment transport mechanisms are different in each reach. He offered that pre-construction of Culmback Dam, the meandering nature of the Sultan River where Spada Lake is located indicates that there was not much sediment transport out of the Sultan Basin into the gorge area. Sediment supply has always been downstream of the Culmback Dam site. The process of sediment delivery to the Sultan River is not dependent on stream flow. Rather, they are based on geologic processes. Only movement through the system is flow related. 4. SP-3 Dudley Reiser presented several slides depicting the progress to date on SP3. He mentioned that all field data have been collected and entered into the computer and that the hydraulic calibration process is nearing completion. He noted that the next step in the study will be to prepare, circulate and discuss the results of the Habitat Suitability Curve (HSC) analysis that has included collection of microhabitat data for Chinook and steelhead. Dudley indicated that a draft document would be prepared in February and that a meeting to discuss the results would subsequently be scheduled. Abby and Cleve Steward (AMEC/Tulalip Tribes) asked questions about the range of flows measured and their relation to bankfull flow. Keith noted that the mean annual flow of the Sultan River is roughly 780 cfs which gives a point a reference for the flow volumes associated with the studies. Dudley explained the rationale behind the selection and measurement of the test flow releases, noting the range selected would allow for extrapolation to levels that should provide for a well defined habitat-flow relationship. After reviewing photographs taken during the surveys there was a discussion about flows in the bypass reach and their relation to bankfull. The general consensus was that in the upper reach, channel wetted width at the time of the survey was 1:1 with bankfull conditions; the channel width only increases with flow in the downstream reach near the mouth of the river. Tom O Keefe (American Whitewater) stated that this is his impression as well since he has boated the upper river under many different flow conditions. Keith explained that SP3 provides information on day-to-day species needs whereas SP22 provides information related to physical processes. Al provided some perspective on the difference between process flows and PHABSIM flows and asked how potential conflicts between the two would be handled. Keith explained that the two studies inform different aspects of the flow regime. Dudley noted that PHABSIM based flows are generally much lower than physical process flows but that it is recognized that higher flows are needed to maintain existing and create new habitat features in streams. For streams that are regulated such as the Sultan River, the goal is to define the timing, magnitude, frequency, and duration of the higher flows that may be needed to maintain habitat diversity in the system. Dudley explained that the modeling is going well and the results will be out in early summer. Henry M. Jackson Hydroelectric Project ARWG Meeting Summary 02/01/2008 FERC No Page 3

4 Cleve asked if there would be an assessment of how the habitat units presented in SP18 change with flow. Dudley explained that SP18 will be useful for extrapolating flow-habitat relationships measured at selected sites as part of SP3 to unmeasured sites with similar habitat types as determined via SP18. He mentioned that the area of each habitat unit as it might be influenced by flow is not being evaluated. Keith suggested that in the canyon sections, changes in habitat units probably tracked closely with changes in hydraulics. Cleve asked about the possibility of applying other techniques to evaluate habitat-flow changes such as habitat mapping under different flows. Dudley noted he was involved with another study where that approach was used along with PHABSIM analysis and that both approaches provided the same general habitat-flow relationships. Al asked if R2 was using standard HSI curves. Dudley explained that they were developing site specific HSI curves for this study. Al asked if the flow studies would be investigating hyporheic flows in the lower river. Steve explained that level of investigation is expensive and not in the scope of studies or requested. Derek shared that he had the impression that the lower river may be a losing reach. 5. Integration Dudley moved the discussion into the integration of the various studies. Dudley presented a schematic depicting the integration of the revised study plan data results (3, 18, 22, and 23) and the PUD project operations model. Bruce explained that the operations model can be used to show the potential stream conditions during wet, dry, and average year hydrologic conditions. The model can be used to test the impacts of setting a range of instream flow targets based on the values produced by the SP 3 study. Cleve asked if it was possible to get a demonstration of the model. Bruce said when the results of the study plans are finalized then the PUD will convene a meeting of the ARWG to demonstrate the output of the modeling. This will include a discussion of how the model is calibrated to accurately simulate Jackson operations. The modeling integration meeting will likely take place in the summer (June or July). Cleve stated that he had been involved in other relicensing efforts and that he was impressed with the level of information gathering on the Sultan River system and the amount of data that is available to inform this relicensing effort. Bruce stated that he hoped that as the ARWG is addressing channel forming processes, that various parameters of river health could be periodically assessed to determine if intervention is necessary above and beyond normal operations. Being creative in assessing such parameters as gravel fine sediment content, as is currently done, makes more sense that a standard article prescription such as the utility will provide flushing flows every two years that exceed some specified flow level. 6. Next Steps Keith suggested that it was a good idea to have at least two more meetings in 2008 as the results of the aquatic habitat studies come in. It was also agreed that the side-channel habitat mapping data collected as part of RSP3 be integrated into the GIS database. END MEETING Henry M. Jackson Hydroelectric Project ARWG Meeting Summary 02/01/2008 FERC No Page 4

5 NEXT MEETING Late May / Early June Henry M. Jackson Hydroelectric Project ARWG Meeting Summary 02/01/2008 FERC No Page 5

6

7

8 ARWG Meeting Summary February 1, 2008 Comments on draft meeting summary received from: Tulalip Tribes

9 Message 3/11/2008 Page 1 of 2 Presler, Dawn From: Hinson, Dustin R [Dustin.Hinson@amec.com] Sent: Thursday, February 28, :48 AM To: Presler, Dawn Cc: Daryl Williams; Anne Savery; Abby Hook; Steward, Cleve Subject: RE: Jackson Project (FERC No. 2157) - ARWG 02/01/08 Draft Mtg Summary Dawn, Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft meeting summary from the 2/1/08 meeting discussing SP18 and study integrations. The Tulalip Tribes have the following comments: 1. The draft meeting summary did not include much about the integration of the studies. We understood that one of the reasons the meeting was called (by Al Wald) was to discuss where the integration was going to take place. We discussed this briefly and reached no decision. Are there plans to reconvene the ARWG after SP22 and the PHABSIM are released to discuss integration? 2. The summary also fails to mention the discussion about process vs. operation reaches. Please contact me if you need further clarification relative to our comments. Thank you, Dustin Dustin R. Hinson Aquatic Ecologist AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc N. Alberta Rd. Spokane, Washington Tel/Fax dustin.hinson@amec.com *Please update my address in your contact list to Dustin.Hinson@amec.com From: Presler, Dawn [mailto:djpresler@snopud.com] Sent: Thursday, February 14, :32 AM To: okeefe@amwhitewater.org; matt.cutlip@ferc.gov; david.turner@ferc.gov; ahook@tulaliptribes-nsn.gov; Steward, Cleve; Tim_Romanski@fws.gov; bgall@fs.fed.us; johnsrj@dfw.wa.gov; WaldARW@dfw.wa.gov Cc: Binkley, Keith; Moore, Kim; Meaker, Bruce; Julie Sklare; dreiser@r2usa.com; Stephen Ralph; deborah.knight@ci.sultan.wa.us; steven.m.fransen@noaa.gov; ian@snoqualmienation.com; Karen.suyama@snoqualmienation.com; cindy@snoqualmienation.com; nshore@nwlink.com; kmiller@tu.org; Dwilliams@tulaliptribes-nsn.gov; asavery@tulaliptribes-nsn.gov; Hinson, Dustin R; Kchang@fs.fed.us; mkan461@ecy.wa.gov; jdra461@ecy.wa.gov; Paul Pickett; jpac461@ecy.wa.gov; cmay461@ecy.wa.gov; brca461@ecy.wa.gov; beechhab@dfw.wa.gov; laurie.bergvall@dnr.wa.gov; alison.hitchcock@dnr.wa.gov; jay.guthrie@dnr.wa.gov Subject: Jackson Project (FERC No. 2157) - ARWG 02/01/08 Draft Mtg Summary Dear Aquatic Resources Work Group: Attached is the draft meeting summary from the 2/1/08 meeting discussing SP18 and study integrations. Per the Relicensing Communication and Distribution Protocols, please provide any comments/edits, if

10 Message 3/11/2008 Page 2 of 2 any, on the meeting summary to me by Friday February 29, A lack of response will be deemed as approval of the meeting summary as written. Sincerely, Dawn Presler Relicensing Specialist Jackson Hydroelectric Project (P-2157) Snohomish County PUD Phone: Fax: The information contained in this is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Its contents (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient you must not use, disclose, disseminate, copy or print its contents. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete and destroy the message.