HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa23Alaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
Open water HEC-RAS flow routing model
SuWa 23
Author(s) – Personal:
Author(s) – Corporate:
R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., GW Scientific, Brailey Hydrologic, Geovera
AEA-identified category, if specified:
January 31, 2013 Filing
AEA-identified series, if specified:
Series (ARLIS-assigned report number):
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 23
Existing numbers on document:
Published by:
[Anchorage, Alaska : Alaska Energy Authority, 2013]
Date published:
January 2013
Published for:
Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority
Date or date range of report:
Volume and/or Part numbers:
Attachment A
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Final
Document type:
Pagination:
234 in various pagings
Related work(s):
Cover letter (SuWa 22), Attachments B-E (SuWa 24 -27)
Pages added/changed by ARLIS:
Added cover letter
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/
1
January 31,2013
Ms. Kimberly Bose
Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426
Re: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 14241-000
Dear Secretary Bose:
By letter dated January 17, 2013, Staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) issued a modified schedule for its April 1, 2013 study plan
determination (SPD)for 13 of the individual studies contained in the Alaska Energy
Authority’s (AEA) Revised Study Plan (RSP) for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project, FERC Project No. 14241.1 Among other milestones, Staff’s modified schedule
required AEA to file specified information related to these 13 individual studies by
January 31, 2013, and to convene public meetings on February 14-15, 2013, to discuss
these materials with federal and state resource agencies and other licensing participants.
In accordance with Staff’s modified schedule, the purposes of this filing are to: (1)
submit all information specified by Staff for filing by January 31; and (2) provide details
of the public meetings to be held in Anchorage, Alaska, on February 14-15, 2013.
Description of Attached Information
Commission Staff’s January 17 modified schedule required AEA to file the
following information by January 31, 2013:
results of 2012 open-water flow routing model and habitat mapping; draft
implementation plans for the Fish Distribution and Abundance in the
Upper Susitna River (study 9.5), the Fish Distribution and Abundance in
the Lower and Middle Susitna River (study 9.6), and River Productivity
1 See Letter from Jeff C. Wright, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to Wayne Dyok, Alaska
Energy Authority, Attachment A, Project No. 14241-000 (issued Jan. 17, 2013)[hereinafter, Schedule
Modification Letter]. The 13 individual studies scheduled for Staff’s April 1 SPD consist of the following:
(1) Baseline Water Quality (RSP 5.5); (2) Water Quality Modeling Study (RSP 5.6); (3) Mercury
Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation Study (RSP 5.7); (4) Geomorphology Study (RSP 6.5); (5)
Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Below Watana Dam Study (RSP 6.6); (6) Groundwater Study (RSP 7.5);
(7) Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study (RSP 7.6); (8) Fish and Aquatics Instream Flow Study (RSP
8.5); (9) Riparian Instream Flow Study (RSP 8.6); (10) Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the
Upper Susitna River (RSP 9.5); (11) Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower
Susitna River (RSP 9.6); (12) River Productivity Study (RSP 9.8); and (13) Characterization and Mapping
of Aquatic Habitats (RSP 9.9).
2
(study 9.8) studies; all proposed focus areas; and a description of habitat
units within the focus areas for all aquatic studies to be implemented in the
middle Susitna River.2
In response to Staff’s request, and in furtherance of its efforts to finalize study reports
associated with its 2012 early licensing studies, AEA has prepared several study reports
and technical memoranda containing all the requested information. The information
requested by Commission Staff appears in the attachments as follows:
Requested Information Attachment
Results of 2012 Open-Water Flow Routing Attachment A, Open Water HEC-RAS
Flow Routing Model (January 2013)
Results of 2012 Habitat Mapping Attachment B, Middle Susitna River
Segment Remote Line Habitat Mapping
Technical Memo (January 2013)
Draft Implementation Plan for Study of
Fish Distribution and Abundance in the
Upper Susitna River (RSP 9.5)
Attachment C, Draft Susitna River Fish
Distribution and Abundance
Implementation Plan (January 2013)
Draft Implementation Plan for Study of
Fish Distribution and Abundance in the
Middle and Lower Susitna River (RSP 9.6)
Attachment C, Draft Susitna River Fish
Distribution and Abundance
Implementation Plan (January 2013)
Draft Implementation Plan for River
Productivity Study (RSP 9.8)
Attachment D, Draft Susitna River
Productivity Study Implementation Plan
(January 2013)
Proposed Focus Areas Attachment E, Selection of Focus Areas
and Study Sites in the Middle and Lower
Susitna River for Instream Flow and Joint
Resource Studies –2013 and 2014
(January 2013)
Description of Habitat Units within Focus
Areas for All Aquatic Studies to Be
Implemented in the Middle Susitna River
Attachment E, Selection of Focus Areas
and Study Sites in the Middle and Lower
Susitna River for Instream Flow and Joint
Resource Studies –2013 and 2014
(January 2013)
Details of Public Meetings
Commission Staff’s modified schedule directed AEA to hold meetings on
February 14-15, 2013, “to discuss the study results, proposed implementation plans, and
selected focus areas in the middle and lower Susitna River.”3 These Technical
Workgroup (TWG) meetings, which are open to federal and state resource agencies, other
licensing participants, and interested members of the public, will begin each day at 8:30
a.m. (Alaska Standard Time), and will be held in the Public Conference Room of the Z.J.
2 Schedule Modification Letter, Attachment A.
3 Id.
3
Loussac Public Library, located at 3600 Denali Street, Anchorage, Alaska. Additional
information regarding these TWG meetings—including instructions for participating
online and via teleconference for those unable to attend in person—appear at AEA’s
licensing website, http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/meetings/. More detailed
information regarding these TWG meetings, including a draft agenda, will be posted to
the website in the coming days.
AEA looks forward to discussing these materials in the upcoming TWG meetings.
These discussions will inform and assist AEA in its development of the final
implementation plans for the Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper
Susitna River (RSP 9.5), Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and
Lower Susitna River (RSP 9.6), and River Productivity Study (RSP 9.8). As provided in
Commission Staff’s modified schedule, AEA will file these final implementation plans
with the Commission by March 1, 2013.
AEA acknowledges and greatly appreciates the participation and commitment to
this licensing process of Commission Staff, federal and state resource agencies, and other
licensing participants. AEA is particularly appreciative of all participants’ efforts to date
to work efficiently and collaboratively in developing a robust study plan that can be
approved by Commission Staff in accordance with the modified schedule and
implemented beginning with the 2013 field season.
If you have questions concerning this submission please contact me at
wdyok@aidea.org or (907) 771-3955.
Sincerely,
Wayne Dyok
Project Manager
Alaska Energy Authority
Attachments
cc: Distribution List (w/o Attachments)
Attachment A
Open Water HEC-RAS Flow Routing Model (January 2013)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
(FERC No. 14241)
Open Water HEC-RAS Flow Routing Model
Prepared for
Alaska Energy Authority
Prepared by
R2 Resource Consultants, Inc.
GW Scientific
Brailey Hydrologic
Geovera
January 2013
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page i January 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction and Study Goals ....................................................................................... 1
2. Project Setting ............................................................................................................... 4
2.1. Study Area ..................................................................................................... 4
3. Summary of Existing Information ................................................................................ 4
3.1. 1980s Information Review ............................................................................. 4
3.2. 2012 HEC-ResSim Model .............................................................................. 5
3.3. USGS Hydrologic Records ............................................................................. 6
3.4. Maximum Load Following Operational Scenario 1......................................... 6
4. Methods .......................................................................................................................... 6
4.1. Field Data Collection...................................................................................... 6
4.2. HEC-RAS Model Development and Calibration ............................................. 7
4.2.1. Steady-State Model Calibration .....................................................7
4.2.2. Unsteady-State Model Calibration.................................................8
4.3. Model Validation ........................................................................................... 9
4.4. Assessment of Potential Downstream Stage Changes ..................................... 9
4.5. Deviations from Scope of Work ................................................................... 10
5. Results .......................................................................................................................... 10
5.1. Field Data Collection.................................................................................... 10
5.2. HEC-RAS Model Development and Calibration ........................................... 11
5.2.1. Steady-State Model Calibration ................................................... 11
5.2.2. Unsteady-State Model Calibration............................................... 11
5.3. Model Validation ......................................................................................... 11
5.4. Assessment of Potential Downstream Stage Changes ................................... 11
6. Future Improvements to the Model ............................................................................ 13
7. References .................................................................................................................... 14
8. Tables ........................................................................................................................... 15
9. Figures.......................................................................................................................... 16
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ii January 2013
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1-1. Map depicting the Upper, Middle and Lower Segments of the Susitna River
potentially influenced by the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, and the locations of 88
cross-sections of the Susitna River surveyed in 2012. ........................................................ 17
Figure 4.2-1. Longitudinal thalweg profile of the Susitna River extending from PRM 80.0 to
PRM 187.2 (Devils Canyon is represented by the dashed red line. ..................................... 18
Figure 4.2-2. Locations of flow measurements in the Susitna River in 2012, and classification of
flows as low, medium, or high based on concurrent measurements in the Susitna River at
Gold Creek (USGS 15292000). ......................................................................................... 19
Figure 4.2-3. Locations of USGS gages on the Susitna River, and its tributaries, used for
calibration of the flow routing model. ................................................................................ 20
Figure 4.2-4. Flow hydrographs measured at 15-minute intervals by the U.S. Geological Survey
in the Susitna River at Sunshine (Gage 15292780), at Gold Creek (Gage 15292000), and
above Tsusena Creek (USGS 15291700) during the week of August 11 to 17, 2012 when
there were diurnal pulses associated with glacial melt. ....................................................... 21
Figure 4.2-5. Flow hydrographs measured at 15-minute intervals by the U.S. Geological Survey
in the Chulitna River near Talkeetna (Gage 15292400) and in the Talkeetna River near
Talkeetna (USGS 15292700) during the week of August 11 to 17, 2012 when there were
diurnal pulses associated with glacial melt. ........................................................................ 22
Figure 4.2-6. Flow hydrographs measured at 15-minute intervals by the U.S. Geological Survey
in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (Gage 15292000) and above Tsusena Creek (USGS
15291700, shifted forward by 6.4 hours) during the week of August 11 to 17, 2012. ......... 23
Figure 4.2-7. Ungaged lateral inflow hydrographs at 15-minute intervals to the Susitna River to
four reaches between Tsusena Gage and Sunshine Gage, August 11 to 17, 2012. ............... 24
Figure 4.3-1. Flow hydrographs measured at 15-minute intervals by the U.S. Geological Survey
in the Susitna River at Sunshine (Gage 15292780), at Gold Creek (Gage 15292000), and
above Tsusena Creek (USGS 15291700) during the period from June 4 to October 14, 2012.
.......................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 4.3-2. Flow hydrographs measured at 15-minute intervals by the U.S. Geological Survey
in the Chulitna River near Talkeetna (Gage 15292400) and in the Talkeetna River near
Talkeetna (USGS 15292700) during the period from June 4 to October 14, 2012............... 26
Figure 4.3-3. Ungaged lateral inflow hydrographs at 15-minute intervals to the Susitna River to
four reaches between Tsusena Gage and Sunshine Gage during the period from June 4 to
October 14, 2012. .............................................................................................................. 27
Figure 4.4-1. Flow releases from Watana Dam site, input to the flow routing model for the Pre-
Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 scenarios during calendar year 1984. ........... 28
Figure 4.4-2. Illustration of 15-minute flow hydrograph, synthesized from available daily flows.
The synthesized 15-minute flow hydrograph does not account for potential diurnal variation
associated with glacial melt. .............................................................................................. 29
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iii January 2013
Figure 4.4-3. Flow hydrographs synthesized at 15-minute intervals from daily flows reported by
the U.S. Geological Survey in the Susitna River at Sunshine (Gage 15292780), at Gold
Creek (Gage 15292000), and above Tsusena Creek (USGS 15291700) during calendar year
1984. ................................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 4.4-4. Flow hydrographs synthesized at 15-minute intervals from daily flows reported by
the U.S. Geological Survey in the Chulitna River near Talkeetna (Gage 15292400) and in
the Talkeetna River near Talkeetna (USGS 15292700) during calendar year 1984. ............ 31
Figure 4.4-5. Ungaged lateral inflow hydrographs at 15-minute intervals to the Susitna River to
four reaches between Tsusena Gage and Sunshine Gage during calendar year 1984. .......... 32
Figure 5.2-1. Manning’s n channel roughness coefficients derived from steady-state calibration
of flow routing model for 88 cross-sections of the Susitna River surveyed in 2012. ........... 33
Figure 5.2-2. Comparison of measured versus simulated flow hydrographs in the Susitna River
at Gold Creek (USGS 15292000) during the period from August 11 to August 17, 2012
when there were distinct diurnal flow fluctuations associated with glacial melt. ................. 34
Figure 5.2-3. Comparison of measured versus simulated flow hydrographs in the Susitna River
at Sunshine (USGS 15292780) during the period from August 11 to August 17, 2012 when
there were distinct diurnal flow fluctuations associated with glacial melt. .......................... 35
Figure 5.3-1. Comparison of measured versus simulated flow hydrographs in the Susitna River
at Gold Creek (USGS 15292000) during the period from June 4 to October 14, 2012. ....... 36
Figure 5.3-2. Comparison of measured versus simulated flow hydrographs in the Susitna River
at Sunshine (USGS 15292780) during the period from June 4 to October 14, 2012. ........... 37
Figure 5.4-1. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River below Watana Dam Site under
Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions for calendar year 1984. This
portion of the Susitna River is expected to remain ice-free under Maximum Load Following
OS-1 conditions. ................................................................................................................ 38
Figure 5.4-2. Predicted flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS 15292000)
under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions for calendar year 1984.
Actual results may differ from those depicted as a result of ice formation in the river. ....... 39
Figure 5.4-3. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS 15292000)
under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions for calendar year 1984.
Actual results may differ from those depicted as a result of ice formation in the river. ....... 40
Figure 5.4-4. Predicted flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Sunshine (USGS 15292780)
under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions for calendar year 1984.
Actual results may differ from those depicted as a result of ice formation in the river. ....... 41
Figure 5.4-5. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River at Sunshine (USGS 15292780)
under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions for calendar year 1984.
Actual results may differ from those depicted as a result of ice formation in the river. ....... 42
Figure 5.4-6. Flow releases from Watana Dam site, input to the flow routing model for the Pre-
Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 scenarios during the week of July 23 to July
29, 1984. Pre-Project conditions do not account for potential diurnal fluctuations associated
with glacial melt. ............................................................................................................... 43
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iv January 2013
Figure 5.4-7. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River below Watana Dam Site under
Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of July 23 to
July 29, 1984. Pre-Project conditions do not account for potential diurnal fluctuations
associated with glacial melt. .............................................................................................. 44
Figure 5.4-8. Predicted flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS 15292000)
under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of July
23 to July 29, 1984. Pre-Project conditions do not account for potential diurnal fluctuations
associated with glacial melt. .............................................................................................. 45
Figure 5.4-9. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS 15292000)
under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of July
23 to July 29, 1984. Pre-Project conditions do not account for potential diurnal fluctuations
associated with glacial melt. .............................................................................................. 46
Figure 5.4-10. Predicted flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Sunshine (USGS 15292780)
under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of July
23 to July 29, 1984. Pre-Project conditions do not account for potential diurnal fluctuations
associated with glacial melt. .............................................................................................. 47
Figure 5.4-11. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River at Sunshine (USGS 15292780)
under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of July
23 to July 29, 1984. Pre-Project conditions do not account for potential diurnal fluctuations
associated with glacial melt. .............................................................................................. 48
Figure 5.4-12. Location of USGS gage on highway bridge in upper right hand corner of photo.
The Susitna River is a confined single channel in the vicinity of the gage, and not
representative of the overall river. ...................................................................................... 49
Figure 5.4-13. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River PRM 87.1 under Pre-Project
and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of July 23 to July 29,
1984. Pre-Project conditions do not account for potential diurnal fluctuations associated
with glacial melt. ............................................................................................................... 50
Figure 5.4-14. Flow releases from Watana Dam site, input to the flow routing model for the Pre-
Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 scenarios during the week of January 8 to
January 14 1984. ............................................................................................................... 51
Figure 5.4-15. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River below Watana Dam Site under
Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of January 8 to
14, 1984. This portion of the Susitna River is expected to remain ice-free under Maximum
Load Following OS-1 conditions. ...................................................................................... 52
Figure 5.4-16. Predicted flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS
15292000) under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the
week of January 8 to 14, 1984. Actual results may differ from those depicted as a result of
ice formation in the river. .................................................................................................. 53
Figure 5.4-17. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS
15292000) under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the
week of January 8 to 14, 1984. Actual results may differ from those depicted as a result of
ice formation in the river. .................................................................................................. 54
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page v January 2013
Figure 5.4-18. Predicted flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Sunshine (USGS 15292780)
under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of
January 8 to 14, 1984. Actual results may differ from those depicted as a result of ice
formation in the river. ........................................................................................................ 55
Figure 5.4-19. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River at Sunshine (USGS 15292780)
under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of
January 8 to 14, 1984. Actual results may differ from those depicted as a result of ice
formation in the river. ........................................................................................................ 56
Figure 5.4-20. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River PRM 87.1 under Pre-Project
and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of January 8 to 14, 1984.
Actual results may differ from those depicted as a result of ice formation in the river. ....... 57
Figure 5.4-21. Range of daily stage fluctuations in the Susitna River cross-section at PRM 87.1
under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions on January 10, 1984 and
July 29, 1984. The thickness of each water surface elevation line was scaled to represent
the range between minimum and maximum water surface elevation each day. ................... 58
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. WR-S1 Reservoir and River Flow Routing Model Transect Data Collection Study
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page vi January 2013
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SCIENTIFIC LABELS
Abbreviation Definition
ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler
Alluvial Relating to, composed of, or found in alluvium.
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
AT air temperature
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.
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.
Cfs cubic feet per second
Channel A natural or artificial watercourse that continuously or intermittently contains water,
with definite bed and banks that confine all but overbank stream flows.
Confluence The junction of two or more rivers or streams.
COV coefficient of variation
Cross-section A plane across a river or stream channel perpendicular to the direction of water flow.
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).
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.
Discharge The rate of stream flow or the volume of water flowing at a location within a specified
time interval.
Drainage area The total land area draining to any point in a stream. Also called catchment area,
watershed, and basin.
El. Elevation
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
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.
Fps feet per second
Ft Feet
Gaging station A specific site on a stream where systematic observations of stream flow or other
hydrologic data are obtained.
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.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page vii January 2013
Abbreviation Definition
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.
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.
Groundwater (GW) In the broadest sense, all subsurface water; more commonly that part of the
subsurface water in the saturated zone.
HEC-RAS hydraulic flow-routing model
Hydrograph A graph showing stage, flow, velocity, or other property of water with respect to time.
Hydraulic model A computer model of a segment of river used to evaluate stream flow characteristics
over a range of flows.
Ice cover A significant expanse of ice of any form on the surface of a body of water.
Ice-free No floating ice present.
ILP Integrated Licensing Process
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.
Main channel For habitat classification system: a single dominant main channel. Also, the primary
downstream segment of a river, as contrasted to its tributaries.
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.
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.
Mph miles per hour
N/A not applicable or not available
NAVD North American Vertical Datum, 1988
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
No. Number
NSRS National Spatial Reference System
ºC degrees Celsius
OHW ordinary high water
Open lead Elongated opening in the ice cover caused by water current (velocity lead) or warm
water (thermal lead).
Period of record The length of time for which data for an environmental variable has been collected
on a regular and continuous basis.
PRM
Project River Mile(s) based on the wetted width centerline of the main channel from
20122 Matanuska-Susitna Borough digital orthophotos. PRM 0.0 is established as
mean lower low water of the Susitna River confluence at Cook Inlet.
Project Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
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).
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page viii January 2013
Abbreviation Definition
QC quality assurance, quality control
Reservoir A body of water, either natural or artificial, that is used to manipulate flow or store
water for future use.
Riparian Pertaining to anything connected with or adjacent to the bank of a stream or other
body of water.
River mile
River Mile(s) referencing those of the APA Project. These were the distance of a
point on a river measured in miles from the river's mouth along the low-water
channel.
RTK Real time kinematic, in reference to a GPS survey method.
S Second
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.
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.
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.
Thalweg A continuous line that defines the deepest channel of a watercourse.
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.
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.
TWG Technical Workgroup
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USGS DOI, Geological Survey
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.
Water slope Change in water surface elevation per unit distance.
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.
WT water temperature
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1 January 2013
1. INTRODUCTION AND STUDY GOALS
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 Southcentral region of Alaska. The Project’s dam site will be located at Project River
Mile (PRM) 187.2. 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.
Project operations will likely store water during the snowmelt season (May through August) and
release it during the winter (October through April; AEA 2011). This would alter the seasonal
hydrology in the Susitna River downstream from the dam. In addition to these seasonal changes,
the Project may be operated in a load-following mode. Daily load-following operations will
typically release higher volumes of water during peak-load hours, and lower volumes of water
during off-peak hours. Flow fluctuations that originate at the powerhouse will travel
downstream and attenuate, or dampen, as they travel downstream. The waves created by load
following operations will affect the aquatic habitat of the Susitna River downstream from the
powerhouse, especially along the margins of the river that are exposed to daily cycles of
inundation and dewatering (i.e., the varial zone).
Flow releases from the Project are the result of hydropower rules that specify minimum flow
releases needed from a Project powerhouse to meet a power generation requirement and
schedule. In addition, flow releases are constrained by assumed flow requirements to protect
non-power resources such as fish and aquatic habitats. In an effort to meet multiple resource
interests, available resources under existing conditions will be analyzed in comparison to
alternative operational scenarios. To analyze the impacts of alternative Project operational
scenarios on habitats downstream of the Watana Dam site, an open-water flow routing model
will be used to translate the effects of changes in flow associated with Project operations to
downstream Susitna River locations.
Steady state flow models are used to estimate flow and water surface elevations in a river
system provided that flows are stable or changing relatively slowly. For instance, a steady state
model can be used to calculate daily flows at downstream locations or when modeling daily
habitat time series as part of an instream flow study. However, if flows are fluctuating on an
hourly basis, an unsteady flow model is needed to accurately represent how downstream reaches
of a river will respond to upstream flow changes. For instance, determining flow and water
surface elevations at downstream locations must take into account the travel speed and
attenuation of the downstream wave caused by a hydropower project operating in load-following
mode. If a downstream tributary exhibits hourly flow fluctuations as a result of glacial runoff, an
unsteady flow routing model is needed to integrate the hourly tributary fluctuations into hourly
mainstem flow fluctuations downstream of the tributary confluence.
One-dimensional unsteady flow hydraulic models are commonly used to route flow and stage
fluctuations through rivers and reservoirs. Examples of public-domain computer models used to
perform these types of processes include FEQ (USGS 1997), FLDWAV (U.S. National Weather
Service 1998), UNET (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2001), and HEC-RAS (U.S. Army Corps
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2 January 2013
of Engineers 2010a, 2010b, and 2010c). The HEC-RAS model has proven to be very robust
under mixed flow conditions (subcritical and supercritical), as will be expected in the Susitna
River. The HEC-RAS model also has the capability of automatically varying Manning’s “n”
with stage through the use of the equivalent roughness option. Another feature of HEC-RAS is
the capability of varying Manning’s “n” on a seasonal basis. The robust performance and
flexibility of HEC-RAS make this model an appropriate choice for routing stage fluctuations
downstream from the proposed Project dam under open-water conditions (i.e., summer, ice-free).
Information on downstream flow and water surface elevations during winter ice-covered
conditions will be developed as part of an Ice Processes Model as described in RSP Section 7.6:
Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study. The seasonal timing of the transition from the HEC-
RAS model to the Ice Processes Model and vice versa will vary from year-to-year and will
depend on seasonal climate conditions.
The foundation of the Instream Flow Study (IFS) analyses rests with the development of the
Susitna River Mainstem Flow Routing Models (MFRM) (HEC-RAS, Ice Processes Model) that
will provide hourly flow and water surface elevation data at numerous locations longitudinally
distributed throughout the length of the river downstream of the proposed dam site. During
2012, the open-water flow routing model extended from the proposed dam site at PRM 187.2
downstream to PRM 80.0 (about 23 miles downstream from the confluence with the Chulitna
River). The downstream extent of the open-water flow routing model will be identified by Q2
2013 and revisited in Q1 2014 following collection and analyses of additional data.
The IFS analyses will involve the development of two different flow routing models: the open-
water model (HEC-RAS) and a winter model to route flows under ice-covered conditions. As
noted, the HEC-RAS routing model has been developed initially based on river cross-sections
and on gaging stations on the Susitna River that were established and measured in 2012 as part
of the IFS program. A total of 88 cross-sections were surveyed in 2012 (16 between the
proposed dam site and Devils Canyon, 59 between Devils Canyon and the Three Rivers
Confluence, and 13 downstream from the Three Rivers Confluence). At these cross-sections, a
total of 170 pairs of flow and water surface elevations were measured during the course of the
2012 field season.
In addition, a total of 13 gaging stations were established on the Susitna River in 2012. These
stations were set up to measure and record stage in real time every 15 minutes. The stations will
be maintained in 2013–2014. Data recorded at these stations in 2012 was used to calibrate flow
pulse arrival time in the open-water flow routing model, based on measured diurnal glacial melt
pulses and rainstorm-generated flood peaks.
The hourly flow records from USGS gaging stations on the Susitna River were also utilized to
help develop the HEC-RAS routing model. Depending on the initial results of the flow routing
models, it may be necessary to add additional transects to improve the performance of the
models between PRM 80.0 and PRM 187.2, and to extend the models downstream of PRM 80.0.
Additional transects between PRM 80.0 and PRM 187.2 may be measured in 2013 and 2014 to
improve the accuracy for flow and water surface elevation simulations.
Initial results of the initial flow routing model are discussed in this report. As the flow routing
model continues to be refined and improved during 2013 and 2014, results from the model will
be used to assess the magnitude, timing, and frequency of hourly flow and stage changes
associated with proposed load-following operations during ice-free periods. Project operations
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3 January 2013
will likely include storing water during the snowmelt season (May through August) and releasing
it during the winter (October through April) (AEA 2011). This would reduce flows downstream
of the dam site from May through August and increase flows October through April. Results of
the draft open-water flow routing model will also be used to evaluate downstream changes in
flow and stage associated with reduced Project flow releases during the open-water portions of
the reservoir refill period. Because the results of the Ice Processes Model will not be available
prior to the start of the 2013 summer field season, the downstream extent of Project effects on
flow and stage during the winter will be assessed by routing winter flow releases identified by
the operations model downstream using the open-water flow routing model. Although stage and
flow projections during the winter will not be robust, they will provide sufficient information on
downstream flow and stage effects to support early 2013 decisions regarding the need to extend
resource studies into the Lower River Segment. Should extension of an open-water flow routing
model downstream of PRM 80.0 be needed to address data needs of riverine process and habitat
modeling studies, the additional channel and hydraulic data can be collected in Q3 2013 and if
necessary, Q3 2014.
During the initial development and calibration of the HEC-RAS model, the drainage areas of
ungaged tributaries were estimated and used to help estimate accretion flows to the Susitna River
between locations where flows are measured. The flow estimates developed for ungaged
tributaries will be refined based on flows measured in those tributaries in 2013 and 2014.
The gaging stations initially installed in 2012 will be maintained through 2013 and 2014 to help
calibrate and validate the flow routing models and provide data supporting other studies. The
gaging stations will be used to monitor stage and flow under summer, ice-free conditions and to
monitor water pressure under winter ice-covered conditions. The stations record additional
measurements including water temperature and camera images of the river conditions (summer
and winter). Continuous measurement of water pressures during the 2012–2013 and the 2013–
14 winter periods under ice-covered conditions will produce information different from open-
water conditions. During partial ice cover, the pressure levels measured by the pressure
transducers are affected by flow velocities, ice-cover roughness characteristics, and other factors
such as entrained ice in the water column. The pressure-head data are important for
understanding groundwater/surface water interactions.
Periodic winter discharge measurements (January and March) will be completed at selected
gaging stations in the winter, in coordination with USGS winter measurement programs, and will
provide valuable information for understanding hydraulic conditions in the river during a season
when groundwater plays a more prominent role in aquatic habitat functions. Winter flow
measurements will also be used to help develop the Ice Processes Model and supporting
analyses.
Once developed and calibrated, the HEC-RAS model can be used to provide a time history of
flow releases from the dam and to predict the flow and stage history at each of the downstream
cross-sections. These predicted flow and stage responses can then be evaluated at multiple levels
to assess the impacts to aquatic habitat.
Output from the flow routing models will provide the fundamental input data to a suite of
habitat-specific and riverine process-specific models that will be used to describe how the
existing flow regime relates to and has influenced various resource elements (e.g., salmonid
spawning and rearing habitats and the accessibility to these habitats in the mainstem, side
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4 January 2013
channels, sloughs, and tributary deltas; invertebrate habitat; sediment transport processes; ice
dynamics; large woody debris (LWD); the health and composition of the riparian zone). These
same models will likewise be used to evaluate resource responses under existing conditions and
under alternative Project operational scenarios, again via output from the routing models. As an
unsteady flow model, the routing models will be capable of providing flow and water surface
elevation information at each location on an hourly basis and therefore Project effects on flow
can be evaluated on multiple time steps (hourly, daily, and monthly) as necessary to evaluate
different resource elements.
2. PROJECT SETTING
2.1. Study Area
During the 1980s studies, the Susitna River was characterized into three river segments
extending above and below the two proposed dam sites. After researching potential Project
configurations, AEA is proposing a single dam configuration at the Watana Dam site at PRM
187.2. The proposed study characterizes the Susitna River as three segments (Figure 2.1-1). The
Upper River Segment represents that portion of the watershed above the Watana Dam site at
PRM 187.2, the Middle River Segment extends from PRM 187.2 downstream to the Three
Rivers Confluence at PRM 101, and the Lower River Segment extends from the Three Rivers
Confluence to Cook Inlet (Figure 2.1-1). The 2012 study area for these analyses extends from
the Watana Dam site at PRM 187.2 on the Susitna River downstream to PRM 80 (about 21 miles
downstream from the Three Rivers Confluence).
Although both Middle and Lower River segments are under consideration as part of the Susitna
Instream Flow Study (RSP Section 8.5: Fish and Aquatics Instream Flow Study and RSP Section
8.6: Riparian Instream Flow Study), the focus of the 2012 open-water flow routing modeling
effort was on the Middle River and a 21 mile long section at the upstream end of the Lower
River Segment. The downstream extent of the open-water flow routing model will be identified
by Q2 2013 and revisited in Q1 2014 following collection and analyses of additional data.
3. SUMMARY OF EXISTING INFORMATION
3.1. 1980s Information Review
A one-dimensional, steady-state hydraulic model (HEC-2, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1976)
was initially developed for the Susitna River in the 1980s by R&M Consultants (1982). Two
reaches were modeled: one below Devils Canyon, and the other above Devils Canyon.
The reach below Devils Canyon extended from the confluence with the Chulitna River to the
downstream end of Devils Canyon. The reach below Devils Canyon consisted of 66 cross-
sections of the Susitna River. These cross-sections were surveyed just prior to and during freeze-
up in the fall of 1980.
The reach above Devils Canyon consisted of 23 cross-sections of the Susitna River. This reach
extended from the confluence with Devil Creek (about 23 miles downstream from the proposed
Watana Dam site) to the confluence with Deadman Creek (about 2 miles upstream from the
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5 January 2013
proposed Watana Dam site). These cross-sections were surveyed in March 1981 by drilling
holes through the ice.
Water surface elevations were monitored at eight sites in the reach below Devils Canyon for
flows ranging from 9,700 to 52,000 cfs as measured at the Gold Creek gage. Water surface
elevations were monitored at four sites in the reach above Devils Canyon for flows ranging from
8,100 to 46,400 cfs as measured at the Watana gage. While water surface elevations were
monitored at eight sites downstream from Devils Canyon and four sites above Devils Canyon,
concurrent flow measurements were not made at those 12 locations. Flows were estimated at
those 12 sites from flows measured at the Watana and Gold Creek gages, with a drainage area
correction applied. With these measured water surface elevations and estimated flows, the HEC-
2 model was calibrated to simulate water surface elevations that were mostly within plus or
minus 0.5 feet of the observed water surface elevations.
The HEC-2 model that was originally developed by R&M Consultants (1982) was then modified
by the Harza-EBASCO Susitna Joint Venture (1984). The focus of the work by the Harza-
EBASCO Susitna Joint Venture was on the reach below Devils Canyon. The length of this reach
was extended downstream to Sunshine Gage, and the total number of cross-sections was
increased from 66 to 107. The HEC-2 model developed by the Harza-EBASCO Susitna Joint
Venture was then recalibrated to simulate water surface elevations that were mostly within plus
or minus 0.5 feet of the observed water surface elevations.
3.2. 2012 HEC-ResSim Model
A HEC-ResSim model (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2007) was developed for the Susitna
River downstream from the Watana Dam site using the cross-sections that were surveyed in the
1980s, and the stage discharge rating curves that were developed during the 1980s (MWH 2012).
The HEC-ResSim model will route flow fluctuations downstream through a river using
hydrologic routing methods. The HEC-ResSim model will account for the downstream
propagation and attenuation of flow pulses.
A hydrologic unsteady flow routing model, such as HEC-ResSim, can use measured stage
hydrographs and stage:discharge relationships at an upstream and downstream location to
calibrate how an hourly flow time series at the upstream location translates and dampens at the
downstream location. A rough estimate of stage fluctuations can be developed at intermediate
locations, but only if a stage:discharge relationship is available for that intermediate location. If
hourly flow and stage information are needed at numerous locations, such as the connections
between Susitna River side channels and main channel flows, the hydrologic unsteady flow
model will require significantly more data than a hydraulic unsteady flow routing model.
In comparison, a hydraulic unsteady flow routing model, such as the HEC-RAS model
incorporates calculations of the conservation of momentum to directly simulate both flow and
stage at downstream locations. A hydraulic routing model can provide reasonably accurate flow
and stage information for both steady and unsteady conditions even if a stage-discharge
relationship is not available at the locations of interest.
The HEC-ResSim model was used to simulate flow and stage hydrographs downstream from
Watana Dam site under Pre-Project and Post-Project conditions during calendar year 1984. This
year was selected because USGS Gaging records were available for the entire year in the Susitna
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6 January 2013
River, as well at the two major tributaries (Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers). In addition, the flows
during 1984 are representative of average conditions on both and annual and monthly basis.
The Post-Project condition is referred to herein as the Maximum Load Following Operations
Scenario 1 (OS 1). It is based on the assumption that the entire load fluctuation of the entire
Railbelt would be provided by the Susitna-Watana Project, and that all other sources of electrical
power in the Railbelt would be running at base load. This assumed condition is not realistic for
an entire year, and the results of this condition should be conservative with respect to assessing
downstream impacts of load following.
3.3. USGS Hydrologic Records
Available stage and flow measurements were obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
for the following gaging stations:
Susitna River above Tsusena Creek, USGS 15291700
Susitna River at Gold Creek, USGS 15292000
Chulitna River near Talkeetna, USGS 15292400
Talkeetna River near Talkeetna, USGS 15292700
Susitna River at Sunshine, USGS 15292780
Available data from these five gaging stations in 2012 were used to calibrate and validate the
flow routing model, while available data from these five gaging stations in 1984 were used to
help assess potential downstream effects of the Project for extreme load following conditions.
3.4. Maximum Load Following Operational Scenario 1
Simulated flow releases from the Watana Dam to the Susitna River for the Maximum Load
Following Operational Scenario 1 were obtained from MWH for calendar year 1984. These
were the same flows that were used in their assessment with the HEC-ResSim model (MWH
2012). As previously discussed this scenario represents an extreme condition that would not
occur for an entire year.
4. METHODS
4.1. Field Data Collection
The open water flow routing model relied on field data that were collected in 2012. These data
included:
Cross-sections of the Susitna River surveyed between PRM 80.0 and PRM 187.2
Flow measurements and concurrent water surface elevation surveys at the river cross-
sections
Stage hydrographs measured at gaging stations established on the Susitna River
Methods for collecting these field data are described in Appendix 1.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 7 January 2013
4.2. HEC-RAS Model Development and Calibration
The HEC-RAS flow routing model was initially developed from the 88 cross-sections that were
surveyed in 2012 on the Susitna River between PRM 80.0 and PRM 187.2 (Figure 2.1-1). For
numerical stability under unsteady conditions, additional river cross-sections were interpolated at
1,000-foot intervals. This was especially necessary to route flows through Devils Canyon, a 14-
mile long reach of the Susitna River where no cross-sections were surveyed for safety reasons.
With the interpolated cross-sections added to the model, the average drop in elevation between
cross-sections was about 2 feet.
A longitudinal thalweg profile of the Susitna River was developed from the 88 cross-sections
that were surveyed in 2012 (Figure 4.2-1). The channel gradient was steepest through Devils
Canyon (0.52%). Downstream from Devils Canyon there was a gradual reduction in channel
gradient as would be expected.
4.2.1. Steady-State Model Calibration
The HEC-RAS flow routing model was first calibrated under steady-state conditions using 170
pairs of flow/water surface elevation measurements obtained at the 88 transects in 2012. The
relative magnitude of these flow measurements was assessed by using the concurrent flows in the
Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS 15292000) as a common reference point (Figure 4.2-2).
At all of the cross-sections, there was good coverage at the low flow range; however, some
transects did not have medium and high flow measurements, especially near the downstream end
of the study reach. The cross-sections were measured during three field trips intended to capture
high-flow (28,000 cfs), medium-flow (16,000 cfs), and low-flow (8,000 cfs) conditions
corresponding to the USGS gage station at Gold Creek (No 15292000). The first two trips were
intended to measure medium and high flow conditions during late June-early July and August,
but rapidly changing flows made it difficult to predict the timing of target flow conditions. The
low-flow trip that began on September 14 was interrupted by a 25-year flood event that required
evacuation of the field team on September 20. Work resumed on September 29, but was
suspended on October 6 when a second late fall storm resulted in unseasonably high flows. A
final attempt commenced on October 15, but abundant river ice and slush pans precluded
accurate flow measurements.
The HEC-RAS model was calibrated under steady-state conditions to calculate water surface
elevations to within plus or minus 0.2 feet of the observed water surface elevation. The model
was calibrated by selecting a reasonable Manning’s “n” based on records of field observations
and photographs and by adjusting the shape of the interpolated cross-section located downstream
from each surveyed cross-section. Energy losses in rivers result from a combination of friction
losses (as accounted for with Manning’s equation) and expansion/contraction losses (controlled
by downstream channel geometry). In the absence of real channel shape information
downstream from each surveyed cross-section, the shape of the interpolated cross-section was
used as a calibration tool. This method of calibration is especially appropriate for cross-sections
that are influenced by a downstream hydraulic control that has not been surveyed.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 8 January 2013
4.2.2. Unsteady-State Model Calibration
Flow hydrographs measured in 2012 by the U.S. Geological Survey were used to calibrate the
flow routing model under unsteady-state conditions. The locations of these gaging stations are
shown in Figure 4.2-3. They consisted of the following locations:
Susitna River above Tsusena Creek, USGS 15291700
Susitna River at Gold Creek, USGS 15292000
Chulitna River near Talkeetna, USGS 15292400
Talkeetna River near Talkeetna, USGS 15292700
Susitna River at Sunshine, USGS 15292780
Hydrology data for the week of August 11 to 17, 2012 were selected for model calibration. This
week was selected because there was a distinct pattern of diurnal flow pulses associated with
glacial melt (Figures 4.2-4 and 4.2-5).
By examining the 15 minute flow hydrographs in the Susitna River above Tsusena Creek and at
Gold Creek, it was found that the two hydrographs could be synchronized if the flow hydrograph
in the Susitna River above Tsusena Creek was shifted forward by 6.4 hours (Figure 4.2-6). The
travel time of the pulses over the 47.2 mile-long distance between the two gages is therefore 6.4
hours. The speed of propagation of the pulses, also referred to as the celerity, was estimated to
be 7.4 miles per hour (mph) (10.8 feet per second (fps)). The difference in magnitude of flows
from Figure 4.2-6 was used to estimate a hydrograph of the ungaged lateral inflow to the Susitna
River between Tsusena Creek and Gold Creek.
A similar process was used to estimate hydrographs of ungaged lateral inflow to the Susitna
River between Gold Creek and Sunshine. However, the process was complicated by the diurnal
fluctuations observed in the Susitna River at Sunshine being influenced by the fluctuations
observed in the Susitna River at Gold Creek, the Chulitna River, and the Talkeetna River.
The celerity was assumed to be roughly proportional to the square root of the channel slope,
consistent with Manning’s equation. From the celerity measured upstream (7.4 mph), and the
channel slopes shown in Figure 4.2-1, the following travel times were estimated:
9.75 hr – Susitna River from Gold Creek to Sunshine
3.00 hr – Susitna River from the confluence with the Chulitna River to Sunshine
2.75 hr – Susitna River from the confluence with the Talkeetna River to Sunshine
In addition the USGS gage on the Chulitna River is several miles upstream from the confluence
with the Susitna River. A travel time of 3 hr was assumed between the USGS gage on the
Chulitna River and the confluence with the Susitna River.
Using these travel times, the flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Gold Creek, the Chulitna
River, and the Talkeetna River were shifted forward and summed up. The difference between
the flow hydrograph at Sunshine gage, and the sum of the three upstream gages was used to
estimate the total ungaged lateral accretion to the Susitna River between Gold Creek and
Sunshine.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 9 January 2013
The total ungaged lateral accretion flow to the Susitna River between Gold Creek was then
distributed to the following three reaches in proportion to the length of the Susitna River in each
reach:
37.7 miles – distance along Susitna River between Gold Creek and the confluence
with the Chulitna River
2.2 miles – distance along the Susitna River between the confluence with the Chulitna
River and the confluence with the Talkeetna River
12.3 miles – distance along the Susitna River between the confluence with the
Talkeetna River and Sunshine
The resultant flow hydrographs for the ungaged lateral inflow to the Susitna River are shown in
Figure 4.2-7.
The goal of calibration under unsteady-state conditions was to match the arrival time of pulses
from upstream sources in the Susitna River at Gold Creek and also at Sunshine. If it was
necessary to accelerate the arrival time of pulses from upstream sources, then interpolated cross-
sections that were not used for steady-state calibration were made narrower to increase the
celerity. If it was necessary to decelerate the arrival time of pulses from upstream sources, then
interpolated cross-sections that were not used for steady-state calibration were made wider to
decrease the celerity.
The celerity that was derived from the August 2012 diurnal pulses in the Susitna River between
Watana Dam site and Gold Creek gage was used to help select a computational time step in the
open water flow routing model. For numerical stability and accurate results, the computational
time step should be less than the distance between river cross-sections divided by the celerity.
With the surveyed and interpolated cross-sections combined, the distance between cross-sections
is about 1,000 feet. This distance divided by the celerity (10.8 fps) yields a time increment of 93
seconds. Thus, a computational time step of one minute (60 seconds) was adopted for the open
water flow routing model.
4.3. Model Validation
The flow routing model, calibrated under steady- and unsteady- state conditions, was then
validated using the available hydrologic data set for the June 4 through October 14, 2012 period.
Input to the model was based on the flow hydrographs illustrated in Figures 4.3-1, 4.3-2, and 4.3-
3. Validation consisted of comparing simulated versus measured hydrographs in the Susitna
River at Gold Creek and Sunshine. Flows observed in 2012 covered a wide range including the
flood that occurred in September when peak flows of about 200,000 cfs were observed in the
Susitna River at Sunshine Gage (Figure 4.3-1).
4.4. Assessment of Potential Downstream Stage Changes
Potential downstream changes in flow and water surface elevations were assessed by comparing
Pre-Project conditions with the Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions for calendar year
1984. As previously mentioned, the Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions represents an
extreme condition that would not likely occur for an entire year. Calendar year 1984 was
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 10 January 2013
selected because historical gage records were available from the USGS, and because 1984
represents an average hydrological condition on both annual and monthly basis.
The two scenarios (i.e., Pre-Project and OS-1) represent different flow hydrograph releases from
Watana Dam and were used as input to the flow routing model (Figure 4.4-1). With the
Maximum Load Following OS-1, higher flows would generally be released during winter, and
lower flows would be released during the spring and summer until the reservoir fills to capacity.
During periods when the reservoir is not full, flow releases with Maximum Load Following OS-
1 would exhibit daily and weekly flow fluctuations in response to power generation
requirements.
Daily flow records were available from the U.S. Geological Survey for the following locations in
1984:
Susitna River above Tsusena Creek, USGS 15291700
Susitna River at Gold Creek, USGS 15292000
Chulitna River near Talkeetna, USGS 15292400
Talkeetna River near Talkeetna, USGS 15292700
Susitna River at Sunshine, USGS 15292780
These daily flows were converted to 15-minute flows in a manner as illustrated in Figure 4.4-2.
With the 15-minute flow hydrograph, the daily average was preserved each day, and the 15-
minute flow hydrograph was smooth and continuous. No attempt was made during these
Version 1 open-water flow routing model runs to account for diurnal glacial melt fluctuations.
The 15-minute flow hydrographs, thus derived, are illustrated in Figures 4.4-3, 4.4-4, and 4.4-5.
4.5. Deviations from Scope of Work
There were no significant deviations from Revised Study Plan (AEA 2012) related to
development of the Open-water Flow Routing Model. The only exceptions were the number of
paired flow/water surface elevations and the tributary drainage area delineations. While there
was good low flow coverage in the Middle River and the upper portion of the Lower River
segments, some discharge and water level data pairs were not measured at medium and higher
flows in 2012, especially in the Lower River below the Three Rivers confluence. As described
in Appendix 1, establishing a GPS static control network for the Project and measuring multiple
mainstem river channels presented challenging data collection procedures; in addition, flow
conditions in 2012 included a 25-year flood event in September which affected the data
collection schedule. Drainage areas of tributaries downstream from Watana Dam will be refined
in 2013.
5. RESULTS
5.1. Field Data Collection
Version 1 of the open water flow routing model is based on field data that were collected in
2012. Results of the 2012 field data collection activities are discussed in Appendix 1. The open
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 11 January 2013
water flow routing model will be updated with field data collected in 2013 (Version 2), and
additional field data collected in 2014 (Version 3).
5.2. HEC-RAS Model Development and Calibration
5.2.1. Steady-State Model Calibration
The HEC-RAS model was calibrated under steady-state conditions to calculate water surface
elevations to within plus or minus 0.2 feet of the observed water surface elevation. Almost all of
the calculated water surface elevations fell within this target range. However, there were a few
that were slightly outside of this range.
A summary of the Manning’s “n” coefficients that were used for model calibration is presented
in Figure 5.2-1. The Manning’s “n” coefficients ranged from 0.030 to 0.045. These values are
within the range of values determined in the 1980s studies, and are reasonable values for a river
as large as the Susitna River. There was a gradual trend of decreasing roughness from upstream
to downstream as would normally be expected.
5.2.2. Unsteady-State Model Calibration
For the unsteady-state calibration period from August 11 to August 17, 2012, initial results
predicted that the diurnal pulses would arrive late in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS
15292000). To accelerate the arrival of the pulses, the interpolated cross-sections in Devils
Canyon were made narrower. After this adjustment, there was good agreement between
measured and simulated hydrographs in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (Figure 5.2-2).
A comparison of measured and simulated hydrographs in the Susitna River at Sunshine (USGS
15292780) is shown in Figure 5.2-3). Collecting additional hydrologic data in 2013 and
modeling refinements in Q4 2013 will further improve model calibration.
5.3. Model Validation
The calibrated model was then used to analyze the period from June 4 to October 14, 2012. A
comparison of measured and simulated hydrographs for this validation period is shown in Figure
5.3-1 for the Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS 15292000) and in Figure 5.3-2 for the Susitna
River at Sunshine (USGS 15292780). Good agreement was found between measured and
simulated hydrographs at both locations over a wide range of flow conditions.
5.4. Assessment of Potential Downstream Stage Changes
The calibrated model was then used to assess downstream stage changes associated with Pre-
Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 scenarios for calendar year 1984. Predicted stage
hydrographs are shown for the entire year in the Susitna River just below Watana Dam site in
Figure 5.4-1. The river at this location is expected to remain ice-free during the winter for the
Maximum Load Following OS-1 scenario (RSP Section 7.6: Ice Processes, Section 7.6.2.1).
These results suggest an increase in daily average water level of up to 3 to 4 feet in the winter,
and a reduction of daily average water level of as much as 6 to 7 feet in the summer when high
pre-project flow occurs. It is difficult to discern hourly fluctuations in water level from Figure
5.4-1. Hourly flow and stage fluctuations will be addressed later in this section.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 12 January 2013
Predicted flow and stage hydrographs are shown for the entire year in the Susitna River at Gold
Creek (USGS 15292000) in Figures 5.4-2 and 5.4-3, respectively. Actual results may differ from
those depicted in these figures as a result of ice formation in the Middle River downstream of
Devils Canyon. These results suggest an increase in daily average water level of up to 2 to 3 feet
in the winter, and a reduction of daily average water level of as much as 5 feet in the summer.
The data also indicate less daily average flow variability for Maximum Load Following OS-1.
Predicted flow and stage hydrographs are shown for the entire year in the Susitna River at
Sunshine (USGS 15292780) in Figures 5.4-4 and 5.4-5, respectively. Actual results may differ
from those depicted in these figures as a result of ice formation in the river. These results
suggest an increase in daily average water level of up to 1 to 2 feet in the winter, and a reduction
of daily average water level of as much as 3 feet in the summer. On average, the daily average
water stage change reduction is 1 to 2 feet.
Predicted flow and stage hydrographs are shown for the week of July 23 to July 29, 2012 in the
Susitna River below Watana Dam site in Figures 5.4-6 and 5.4-7, respectively. Pre-Project
conditions simulated at the various gaging locations do not account for potential diurnal
fluctuations associated with summer-time glacial melt. Hourly stage fluctuations within each
day associated with Maximum Load Following OS-1 may range from 1.2 to 1.6 feet.
Predicted flow and stage hydrographs are shown for the week of July 23 to July 29, 2012 in the
Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS 15292000) in Figures 5.4-8 and 5.4-9, respectively. Hourly
stage fluctuations within each day associated with Maximum Load Following OS-1 may range
from 0.7 to 1.0 feet.
Predicted flow and stage hydrographs are shown for the week of July 23 to July 29, 2012 in the
Susitna River at Sunshine (USGS 15292000) in Figures 5.4-10 and 5.4-11, respectively. Hourly
stage fluctuations within each day associated with Maximum Load Following OS-1 may range
from 0.2 to 0.4 feet.
The USGS gage in the Susitna River at Sunshine (USGS 1529780) is located near a highway
bridge, as shown in Figure 5.4-12. The Susitna River is a single confined channel in the vicinity
of the gage. While this narrow, stable channel serves as a good location for a USGS flow gaging
purposes, it is not representative of the overall morphology of the Susitna River below the Three
Rivers Confluence.
A wider channel location was measured at PRM 87.1 where the river splits into two channels
around an island (Figure 5.4-12). The river at this location is about twice as wide as the wetted
channel at the USGS gage, but bank to bank width at PRM 87.1 is not as wide as much of the
mainstem river channel in the Lower River Segment. The predicted stage hydrograph at this
location is shown for the week of July 23 to July 29, 2012 in Figure 5.4-13. A comparison of
stage changes at the USGS gage at Sunshine (PRM 87.9) and the wider transect at PRM 87.1
under Pre-Project conditions and scenario OS-1 indicate the wider transect at PRM 87.1 results
in approximately 12 to 19 percent less stage change in response to flow fluctuations than
observed at the narrow Sunshine gage location. During flows of 6,000 to about 10,000 cfs, there
is little difference between the two locations because the flow is concentrated in the bottom of
the channels. As flows increase and inundate the river margins, the influence of a wider channel
becomes more apparent and stage changes observed at narrow channel locations such as the
Sunshine gage are less representative of overall channel conditions in the river segment.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 13 January 2013
Predicted flow and stage hydrographs are shown for the week of January 8 to January 14, 2012
in the Susitna River below Watana Dam site in Figures 5.4-14 and 5.4-15, respectively. This
portion of the Susitna River is expected to remain ice-free under Maximum Load Following OS-
1 conditions. Hourly stage fluctuations within each day associated with Maximum Load
Following OS-1 may range from 1.0 to 1.6 feet.
Predicted flow and stage hydrographs are shown for the week of January 8 to January 14, 2012
in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS 15292000) in Figures 5.4-16 and 5.4-17, respectively.
Actual results may differ from those depicted in these figures as a result of ice formation in the
river. Hourly stage fluctuations within each day associated with Maximum Load Following OS-
1 may range from 1.3 to 1.5 feet.
Predicted flow and stage hydrographs are shown for the week of July 23 to July 29, 2012 in the
Susitna River at Sunshine (USGS 15292000) in Figures 5.4-18 and 5.4-19, respectively. Actual
results may differ from those depicted in these figures as a result of ice formation in the river.
Hourly stage fluctuations within each day associated with Maximum Load Following OS-1 may
range from 0.6 to 0.8 feet.
The predicted stage hydrograph at PRM 87.1 is shown for the week of January 8 to January 14,
2012 in Figure 5.4-20. Actual results may differ from those depicted in this figure as a result of
ice formation in the river. Hourly stage fluctuations within each day associated with Maximum
Load Following OS-1 may range from 0.6 to 0.8 feet, similar in magnitude to the stage
fluctuations in the Susitna River at Sunshine (USGS 15292780).
To help illustrate the differences between Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1
conditions at Susitna River cross-section PRM 87.1, Figure 5.4-21 was prepared. This figure
shows the shape of the cross-section at PRM 87.1, and water surface elevations associated with
Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions on January 10, 1984 and July 29,
1984. The thickness of each water surface elevation line was scaled to represent the range
between minimum and maximum water surface elevation each day.
6. FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MODEL
The flow routing model described in this technical memo represents Version 1. The model in its
present form is adequate to provide information to support decisions on the downstream extent of
Project effects, help schedule field studies targeting specific flow and stage conditions, and
identify 2013 data needs to improve model accuracy. This model will continue to be refined and
improved based on field data collected in 2013 and 2014. As described in RSP Table 8.5-14, this
initial draft of the open-water flow routing model is being distributed for review in Q1 2013.
Additional data needs will be identified in Q2 2013 and field data collected in 2013. Hydrologic
data that may be collected in 2013 include additional transect cross-sectional profiles, additional
discharge/water level data pairs, and hourly stage data from main channel and tributary locations.
A refined version of the open-water flow routing model will be developed in Q4 2013
incorporating available additional data. Hydrologic data will continue to be collected in 2014
and a final open-water flow routing model developed and distributed for review in Q4 2014.
Major changes in the mainstem open-water flow routing model results are not anticipated as a
result of the additional data collected in 2013 and 2014. However, the additional data and model
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 14 January 2013
refinements will improve the accuracy of hourly flow and stage simulations at complex channel
features and within instream flow sampling and modeling areas.
Version 2 of this model to be developed and distributed for review in Q4 2013 will incorporate
the following additional information:
Tributary drainage areas will be delineated, and tributary flow measurements will be
made. These will be used to help estimate lateral accretion flows.
Cross-sections will be extended up to higher elevations using LiDAR data and
ground-based RTK-GPS surveys.
Additional pairs of flow/water surface elevations will be made, especially in the
Lower Susitna River. These data will be used to help improve the steady-state
calibration.
The model will incorporate additional cross-sections if available through
implementation of the geomorphology study (RSP Section 6.6).
Diurnal glacial melt fluctuations will be incorporated into the summer hydrographs.
7. REFERENCES
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2012. Revised Study Plan, Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project, FERC Project No. 14241-000, submitted by AEA, Anchorage, Alaska.
Harza-EBASCO Susitna Joint Venture. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Water Surface
Profiles and Discharge Rating Curves for Middle and Lower Susitna River, Prepared for
Alaska Power Authority, Draft Report, January.
MWH. 2012. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, Preliminary Susitna River Pre-Project and
Post-Project Flow Stages, presented at Technical Work Group Meetings, October 23-25.
R&M Consultants, Inc. 1982. Alaska Power Authority Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Task 3
Hydrology, Hydraulic and Ice Studies, prepared for Acres American Incorporated,
March.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1976. HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles User’s Manual,
CPD-2A.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2001. UNET One-dimensional unsteady flow through a full
network of open channels, User’s manual, CPD-66.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007. HEC-ResSim Reservoir System Simulation,
User’s Manual, Version 3.0, CPD-82.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010a. HEC-RAS River Analysis System User’s Manual, CPD-
68.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010b. HEC-RAS River Analysis System Hydraulic Reference
Manual, CPD-69.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010c. HEC-RAS River Analysis System Applications Guide,
CPD-70.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 15 January 2013
U.S. Geological Survey. 1997. Full Equations (FEQ) model for the solution of the full, dynamic
equations of motion for one-dimensional unsteady flow in open channels and through
control structures, Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4240.
U.S. National Weather Service. 1998. NWS FLDWAV model: theoretical description and user
documentation, November 28.
8. TABLES
No tables are included in this report.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 16 January 2013
9. FIGURES
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 17 January 2013 Figure 2.1-1. Map depicting the Upper, Middle and Lower Segments of the Susitna River potentially influenced by the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, and the locations of 88 cross-sections of the Susitna River surveyed in 2012.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 18 January 2013 Figure 4.2-1. Longitudinal thalweg profile of the Susitna River extending from PRM 80.0 to PRM 187.2 (Devils Canyon is represented by the dashed red line.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 19 January 2013 Figure 4.2-2. Locations of flow measurements in the Susitna River in 2012, and classification of flows as low, medium, or high based on concurrent measurements in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS 15292000).
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 20 January 2013 Figure 4.2-3. Locations of USGS gages on the Susitna River, and its tributaries, used for calibration of the flow routing model.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 21 January 2013 Figure 4.2-4. Flow hydrographs measured at 15-minute intervals by the U.S. Geological Survey in the Susitna River at Sunshine (Gage 15292780), at Gold Creek (Gage 15292000), and above Tsusena Creek (USGS 15291700) during the week of August 11 to 17, 2012 when there were diurnal pulses associated with glacial melt.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 22 January 2013 Figure 4.2-5. Flow hydrographs measured at 15-minute intervals by the U.S. Geological Survey in the Chulitna River near Talkeetna (Gage 15292400) and in the Talkeetna River near Talkeetna (USGS 15292700) during the week of August 11 to 17, 2012 when there were diurnal pulses associated with glacial melt.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 23 January 2013 Figure 4.2-6. Flow hydrographs measured at 15-minute intervals by the U.S. Geological Survey in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (Gage 15292000) and above Tsusena Creek (USGS 15291700, shifted forward by 6.4 hours) during the week of August 11 to 17, 2012.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 24 January 2013 . Figure 4.2-7. Ungaged lateral inflow hydrographs at 15-minute intervals to the Susitna River to four reaches between Tsusena Gage and Sunshine Gage, August 11 to 17, 2012.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 25 January 2013 Figure 4.3-1. Flow hydrographs measured at 15-minute intervals by the U.S. Geological Survey in the Susitna River at Sunshine (Gage 15292780), at Gold Creek (Gage 15292000), and above Tsusena Creek (USGS 15291700) during the period from June 4 to October 14, 2012.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 26 January 2013 Figure 4.3-2. Flow hydrographs measured at 15-minute intervals by the U.S. Geological Survey in the Chulitna River near Talkeetna (Gage 15292400) and in the Talkeetna River near Talkeetna (USGS 15292700) during the period from June 4 to October 14, 2012.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 27 January 2013 Figure 4.3-3. Ungaged lateral inflow hydrographs at 15-minute intervals to the Susitna River to four reaches between Tsusena Gage and Sunshine Gage during the period from June 4 to October 14, 2012.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 28 January 2013 Figure 4.4-1. Flow releases from Watana Dam site, input to the flow routing model for the Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 scenarios during calendar year 1984.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 29 January 2013 Figure 4.4-2. Illustration of 15-minute flow hydrograph, synthesized from available daily flows. The synthesized 15-minute flow hydrograph does not account for potential diurnal variation associated with glacial melt.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 30 January 2013 Figure 4.4-3. Flow hydrographs synthesized at 15-minute intervals from daily flows reported by the U.S. Geological Survey in the Susitna River at Sunshine (Gage 15292780), at Gold Creek (Gage 15292000), and above Tsusena Creek (USGS 15291700) during calendar year 1984.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 31 January 2013 Figure 4.4-4. Flow hydrographs synthesized at 15-minute intervals from daily flows reported by the U.S. Geological Survey in the Chulitna River near Talkeetna (Gage 15292400) and in the Talkeetna River near Talkeetna (USGS 15292700) during calendar year 1984.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 32 January 2013 Figure 4.4-5. Ungaged lateral inflow hydrographs at 15-minute intervals to the Susitna River to four reaches between Tsusena Gage and Sunshine Gage during calendar year 1984.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 33 January 2013 Figure 5.2-1. Manning’s n channel roughness coefficients derived from steady-state calibration of flow routing model for 88 cross-sections of the Susitna River surveyed in 2012.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 34 January 2013 Figure 5.2-2. Comparison of measured versus simulated flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS 15292000) during the period from August 11 to August 17, 2012 when there were distinct diurnal flow fluctuations associated with glacial melt.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 35 January 2013 Figure 5.2-3. Comparison of measured versus simulated flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Sunshine (USGS 15292780) during the period from August 11 to August 17, 2012 when there were distinct diurnal flow fluctuations associated with glacial melt.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 36 January 2013 Figure 5.3-1. Comparison of measured versus simulated flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS 15292000) during the period from June 4 to October 14, 2012.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 37 January 2013 Figure 5.3-2. Comparison of measured versus simulated flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Sunshine (USGS 15292780) during the period from June 4 to October 14, 2012.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 38 January 2013 Figure 5.4-1. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River below Watana Dam Site under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions for calendar year 1984. This portion of the Susitna River is expected to remain ice-free under Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 39 January 2013 Figure 5.4-2. Predicted flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS 15292000) under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions for calendar year 1984. Actual results may differ from those depicted as a result of ice formation in the river.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 40 January 2013 Figure 5.4-3. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS 15292000) under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions for calendar year 1984. Actual results may differ from those depicted as a result of ice formation in the river.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 41 January 2013 Figure 5.4-4. Predicted flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Sunshine (USGS 15292780) under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions for calendar year 1984. Actual results may differ from those depicted as a result of ice formation in the river.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 42 January 2013 Figure 5.4-5. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River at Sunshine (USGS 15292780) under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions for calendar year 1984. Actual results may differ from those depicted as a result of ice formation in the river.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 43 January 2013 Figure 5.4-6. Flow releases from Watana Dam site, input to the flow routing model for the Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 scenarios during the week of July 23 to July 29, 1984. Pre-Project conditions do not account for potential diurnal fluctuations associated with glacial melt.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 44 January 2013 Figure 5.4-7. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River below Watana Dam Site under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of July 23 to July 29, 1984. Pre-Project conditions do not account for potential diurnal fluctuations associated with glacial melt.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 45 January 2013 Figure 5.4-8. Predicted flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS 15292000) under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of July 23 to July 29, 1984. Pre-Project conditions do not account for potential diurnal fluctuations associated with glacial melt.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 46 January 2013 Figure 5.4-9. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS 15292000) under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of July 23 to July 29, 1984. Pre-Project conditions do not account for potential diurnal fluctuations associated with glacial melt.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 47 January 2013 Figure 5.4-10. Predicted flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Sunshine (USGS 15292780) under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of July 23 to July 29, 1984. Pre-Project conditions do not account for potential diurnal fluctuations associated with glacial melt.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 48 January 2013 Figure 5.4-11. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River at Sunshine (USGS 15292780) under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of July 23 to July 29, 1984. Pre-Project conditions do not account for potential diurnal fluctuations associated with glacial melt.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 49 January 2013 Figure 5.4-12. Location of USGS gage on highway bridge in upper right hand corner of photo. The Susitna River is a confined single channel in the vicinity of the gage, and not representative of the overall river.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 50 January 2013 Figure 5.4-13. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River PRM 87.1 under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of July 23 to July 29, 1984. Pre-Project conditions do not account for potential diurnal fluctuations associated with glacial melt.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 51 January 2013 Figure 5.4-14. Flow releases from Watana Dam site, input to the flow routing model for the Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 scenarios during the week of January 8 to January 14 1984.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 52 January 2013 Figure 5.4-15. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River below Watana Dam Site under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of January 8 to 14, 1984. This portion of the Susitna River is expected to remain ice-free under Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 53 January 2013 Figure 5.4-16. Predicted flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS 15292000) under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of January 8 to 14, 1984. Actual results may differ from those depicted as a result of ice formation in the river.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 54 January 2013 Figure 5.4-17. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS 15292000) under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of January 8 to 14, 1984. Actual results may differ from those depicted as a result of ice formation in the river.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 55 January 2013 Figure 5.4-18. Predicted flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Sunshine (USGS 15292780) under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of January 8 to 14, 1984. Actual results may differ from those depicted as a result of ice formation in the river.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 56 January 2013 Figure 5.4-19. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River at Sunshine (USGS 15292780) under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of January 8 to 14, 1984. Actual results may differ from those depicted as a result of ice formation in the river.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 57 January 2013 Figure 5.4-20. Predicted stage hydrographs in the Susitna River PRM 87.1 under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions during the week of January 8 to 14, 1984. Actual results may differ from those depicted as a result of ice formation in the river.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 58 January 2013 Figure 5.4-21. Range of daily stage fluctuations in the Susitna River cross-section at PRM 87.1 under Pre-Project and Maximum Load Following OS-1 conditions on January 10, 1984 and July 29, 1984. The thickness of each water surface elevation line was scaled to represent the range between minimum and maximum water surface elevation each day.
FINAL REPORT OPEN WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 January 2013
APPENDIX 1. WR-S1 RESERVOIR AND RIVER FLOW ROUTING
MODEL TRANSECT DATA COLLECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
(FERC No. 14241)
APPENDIX 1
WR-S1 Reservoir and River Flow Routing Model
Transect Data Collection Study
Prepared for
Alaska Energy Authority
Prepared by
Geo-Watersheds Scientific
Brailey Hydrologic
Geovera
R2 Resource Consultants
January 31, 2013
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page i January 31, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
2. Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 2
3. Methods .......................................................................................................................... 2
3.1. Surveying Methods ........................................................................................ 2
3.1.1. Standards for GPS Control Networks ............................................3
3.1.2. Static GPS Surveying ....................................................................3
3.1.3. Real Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS Surveying ................................3
3.1.4. Online Positioning Users Service (OPUS) .....................................4
3.1.5. GPS Static Control Network Accuracy, Design, Collection and
Processing .....................................................................................4
3.1.6. Differential Leveling .....................................................................6
3.2. Hydrologic Data Collection ............................................................................ 7
3.2.1. Transect Cross-Section Profiles .....................................................7
3.2.2. Manual Water-Level Measurements ..............................................8
3.2.3. ADCP Discharge Measurements ...................................................8
3.2.4. Water Slope Measurements ......................................................... 16
3.2.5. Continuous Stage Hydrographs at Gaging Stations ...................... 16
3.2.6. Other Transect Data .................................................................... 17
3.3. Data Analysis ............................................................................................... 17
3.4. Deviations from Study Plan .......................................................................... 17
4. Results .......................................................................................................................... 19
4.1. Survey Control Network and Results ............................................................ 19
4.2. Hydrologic Data Collection .......................................................................... 20
4.2.1. Transect Cross-Section Profiles ................................................... 20
4.2.2. Water-Level Measurements ........................................................ 20
4.2.3. Discharge Measurements ............................................................ 20
4.2.4. Other Transect Data .................................................................... 22
5. Discussion and Conclusion .......................................................................................... 22
6. References .................................................................................................................... 23
7. Tables ........................................................................................................................... 25
8. Figures.......................................................................................................................... 32
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page ii January 31, 2013
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.2-1. Calculating 95% uncertainty for reciprocal transects. ............................................ 25
Table 3.2-2. ADCP check measurements. ................................................................................. 25
Table 4.1-1. GPS Survey Control Network Benchmarks. .......................................................... 26
Table 4.2-1. AEA gaging stations with PRMs, locations and measured parameters. .................. 28
Table 4.2-2. Table of cross-section discharge measurement dates and preliminary discharge
values. ............................................................................................................................... 29
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Map of general study area for the study showing station locations. ......................... 32
Figure 2-1. Map of general study area for the study showing cross-section locations. ............... 33
Figure 3.1-1. Level-loop survey methods (Kennedy 1990). ...................................................... 34
Figure 3.2-1. ADCP cataraft in 1-foot standing waves at PRM 183.5, August 7, 2012. ............. 34
Figure 3.2-2. Constant heading error based on GGA COV. ...................................................... 35
Figure 3.2-3. Accuracy of stationary bed GGA measurements. ................................................. 35
Figure 3.2-4. Accuracy of moving bed GGA measurements. .................................................... 36
Figure 3.2-5. Flow direction versus constant heading error. ...................................................... 36
Figure 3.2-6. GGA accuracy versus constant heading error, excluding high and low outliers. ... 37
Figure 3.2-7. GGA accuracy at sites with downstream (invalid) loop closures. ......................... 37
Figure 3.2-8. Proportion of upstream versus downstream loop closures. ................................... 38
Figure 3.2-9. Moving bed velocity versus Brailey river mile. See Attachment 3 for conversions
between Brailey river miles and PRMs. ............................................................................. 38
Figure 3.2-10. Moving bed velocity vs. loop test percent correction. ........................................ 39
Figure 3.2-11. Example velocity profiles. ................................................................................. 39
Figure 3.2-12. Example gaging station water level plot showing manual water level
measurements and the continuous data measured by pressure transducers. ......................... 40
Figure 3.2-13. Example of image used for vegetation description at PRM 174.9; the image
depicts white spruce forest on the right bank of the channel. .............................................. 41
Figure 4.1-1. Survey control network. ...................................................................................... 43
Figure 4.2-1. 2012 transect and flow measurement campaign and flow conditions. .................... 44
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page iii January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-2. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging
stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 187 down stream to PRM
181. ................................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 4.2-3. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging
stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 181 down stream to PRM
176. ................................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 4.2-4. . Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging
stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 176 down stream to PRM
171. ................................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 4.2-5. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging
stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 171 down stream to PRM
168. ................................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 4.2-6. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging
stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 156 down stream to PRM
151. ................................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 4.2-7. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging
stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 151 down stream to PRM
147. ................................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 4.2-8. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging
stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 147 down stream to PRM
142. ................................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 4.2-9. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging
stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 142 down stream to PRM
137. ................................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 4.2-10. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging
stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 137 down stream to PRM
132. ................................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 4.2-11. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging
stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 132 down stream to PRM
127. ................................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 4.2-12. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging
stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 127 down stream to PRM
122. ................................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 4.2-13. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging
stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 122 down stream to PRM
117. ................................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 4.2-14. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging
stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 117 down stream to PRM
112. ................................................................................................................................... 57
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page iv January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-15. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging
stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 112 down stream to PRM
107. ................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 4.2-16. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging
stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 107 down stream to PRM
102. ................................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 4.2-17. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging
stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 103 down stream to PRM
98. ..................................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 4.2-18. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging
stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 96 down stream to PRM
88. ..................................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 4.2-19. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging
stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 88 down stream to PRM
80. ..................................................................................................................................... 62
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1. Data quality assurance and final reporting standards summaries
Attachment 2. Gaging station metadata example
Attachment 3. ADCP discharge measurement summary
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page v January 31, 2013
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SCIENTIFIC LABELS
Abbreviation Definition
ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
ASPLS Alaska Society of Professional Land Surveyors
AT air temperature
AVC Alaska Vegetation Classification
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.
BT Bottom-tracking, a method to determine the boat velocity using acoustic reflections
off the streambed.
CAM camera
cfs cubic feet per second
CGCC California Geodetic Control Committee
Channel A natural or artificial watercourse that continuously or intermittently contains water,
with definite bed and banks that confine all but overbank stream flows.
CORS Continually Operating Reference Station
COV coefficient of variation
Cross-section A plane across a river or stream channel perpendicular to the direction of water flow.
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.
Discharge The rate of stream flow or the volume of water flowing at a location within a specified
time interval.
et al. “et alia”; and the rest
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
fps feet per second
ft feet
Gaging station A specific site on a stream where systematic observations of stream flow or other
hydrologic data are obtained.
GGA
Geographic position information determined by reference to the Global Positioning
System. The position data includes the time, latitude, longitude, and information
about the satellite constellation used to reach the position solution.
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.
GPS Global Positioning System. A system of radio-emitting and -receiving satellites used
for determining positions on the earth.
HEC-RAS hydraulic flow-routing model
Hydrograph A graph showing stage, flow, velocity, or other property of water with respect to time.
ILP Integrated Licensing Process
LC Loop-corrected discharge data
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page vi January 31, 2013
Abbreviation Definition
Main channel For habitat classification system: a single dominant main channel. Also, the primary
downstream segment of a river, as contrasted to its tributaries.
N/A not applicable or not available
NAVD North American Vertical Datum, 1988
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
No. number
NSRS National Spatial Reference System
ºC degrees Celsius
OPUS Online Positioning Users Service
PRM Project River Mile
Project Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
PT pressure transducer
OHW ordinary high water
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).
QC quality assurance, quality control
Reservoir A body of water, either natural or artificial, that is used to manipulate flow or store
water for future use.
River mile The distance of a point on a river measured in miles from the river's mouth along the
low-water channel.
RM Brailey River Mile(s) for the purpose of this report
RSL RiverSurveyorLive, data acquisition and processing software.
RTK Real time kinematic, in reference to a GPS survey method.
s second
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.
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.
Stage The distance of the water surface in a river above a known datum.
USGS DOI, Geological Survey
VTG Velocity relative to the ground by measurement of the Doppler shift in the satellite
carrier phase frequencies, which includes data on direction and speed.
WAAS Wide Area Augmentation System
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.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page vii January 31, 2013
Abbreviation Definition
WT water temperature
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 1 January 31, 2013
1. INTRODUCTION
This report provides the results of the 2012 WR-S1 Reservoir and River Flow Routing Model
Transect Data Collection Study (Cross-Section Study). The development of hydraulic routing
models (ice-free summer and ice-cover winter models) requires horizontal and elevation survey
control standards and benchmarks, collection of river cross-section profiles, discharge and stage
measurements, descriptions of the river channel characteristics, and gaging stations to collect
continuous stage data and supporting meteorological information.
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) using the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). The Project is located on the
Susitna River, an approximately 300 mile-long river in the Southcentral Region of Alaska. The
Project’s proposed dam site is located at Project River Mile (PRM) 187.2 (RM 184.1). This
study provided information to serve as the basis for the 2013–2014 formal study program, for
preparing Exhibit E of the License Application, and for use in FERC’s National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) analysis for the Project license.
A hydraulic flow-routing model (HEC-RAS) will be used to simulate unsteady water-surface
elevations in response to proposed Project operations during ice-free summer conditions.
Additionally, other flow-routing models that simulate ice-cover conditions during winter months
will also use the study data and results. The HEC-RAS model will require detailed topographic
data in the form of cross sections spaced along the length of the river downstream of the
reservoir. In order to accurately simulate unsteady flows, the model will require rating
measurements at each cross section, roughness information, and model calibration and
verification measurements. The Cross-Section Study objectives included a number of important
tasks related to setting up a hydrologic data collection network. A horizontal and vertical GPS
survey control network was established to provide a uniform and high quality baseline for all
studies to use. The accurate location and common elevation datum of data collection sites is a
requirement when water level data will be used across multiple studies and entered into GIS
spatial databases and maps. Although data collection to support the river flow routing model is
the primary objective of this study, the resulting data will be used by a variety of hydrologic,
geomorphic, and instream flow studies. To the extent possible, field data collection will be
designed to support all of these studies.
In addition to flow, geometry, and roughness data, continuous water level measurements at a
series of gaging stations will be needed to calibrate the model. Water level and temperature data
has been and continues to be collected at nine new gaging stations selected to augment five
existing USGS stations on the Susitna, Talkeetna, and Chulitna Rivers. An additional four
stations are located outside the modeling area (Figure 1-1).
The Cross-Section Study also included data collection at the Susitna River Near Cantwell (No
15291500), a gaging station previously operated by the USGS in the upper Susitna basin to
support the proposed Watana Dam Reservoir related studies. Study objectives included the
collection of water levels in coordination with the Data Network and Installation and Operations
(Network Study) efforts and performing flow measurements to verify the historic rating curves
and provide data to compare with other gaging sites downstream of the proposed Watana Dam
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 2 January 31, 2013
location. Additionally, the data is being collected in the lower basin to support the Beluga whale
study, focusing on the effect of tidal influences. Members of the study team also led water safety
training classes to help encourage water safety practices on study teams working on or adjacent
to the river.
The study objectives also included coordination with other studies to collect flow, temperature,
and stage data at the Susitna River at Susitna Station (discontinued USGS station No. 15294345),
and to collect temperature and stage data at two downstream locations within the range of tidal
fluctuation. The study also included remote cameras collecting river images at all of the gaging
stations outlined above to support the Project’s Ice Processes study. This same data also
supported the operations and quality assurance of the gaging stations.
Data sets from this study are available from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) upon request.
2. STUDY AREA
The Cross-Section Study area covered sites in the upper river starting at Susitna River Near
Cantwell Gage (ESS80, prior USGS No. 15291500, PRM 225.0 (RM 223.0)) to the lower river
at Susitna River Below Flathorn Lake (ESS10) (Figure 1-1). The main focus of the 2012 study
was from the proposed Watana Dam site at PRM 187.2 (RM 184.1) to PRM 80.0 (RM 76.0),
which is about seven miles downstream of the Park Highway bridge (Figure 2-1). This portion
of the middle and lower river is where the cross-section data collection efforts were
concentrated. The reach through Devils Canyon did not involve any field data collection due to
safety considerations. The stations in the lower portion of the lower river were installed for
support of studies related to beluga whales. The Susitna River near Cantwell gaging station was
installed for support of upper basin studies and the studies related to the proposed Watana Dam
reservoir studies.
3. METHODS
The study team developed methods and quality assurance (QC) protocols to help insure high
quality data products. When applicable, USGS methods and practices were used and USGS staff
were consulted about different aspects of the field data collection efforts, especially methods
involving the collection of discharge data. QC protocol documents are included in Attachment 1.
3.1. Surveying Methods
A number of different survey methods were used in the study. Global Positioning System (GPS)
surveying included both high accuracy methods and the use of hand-held GPS systems for
reconnaissance surveying. Optical level surveying was also used in some locations for
determining water level elevations and setting up temporary benchmarks at gaging stations.
It is of utmost importance to ensure that precision-critical data be located from a geodetic control
network based on a single datum and epoch. In order to insure the integrity of precision-critical
study data, strict standards were implemented for the survey of the geodetic control network
from which the data locations will be referenced. It was also necessary to implement strict
standards for the survey of data locations tied from the control network.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 3 January 31, 2013
Other aspects of the study will require geographic location, but not to a high level of accuracy. It
is important to distinguish between geographic data that is based on the geodetic control network
(Static and RTK GPS) and data that is not based on the geodetic control network (hand held GPS
systems). A system of data descriptors quality assurance steps was implemented to distinguish
whether a particular data point is based on the geodetic control network or from a source of less
geodetic accuracy.
Finally, it will be important to ensure that the control network can be repeated in the future with
the same standards of accuracy and methodology, based on the identical source of geodetic
control (datum, epoch and geoid model).
3.1.1. Standards for GPS Control Networks
The Alaska Society of Professional Land Surveyors (ASPLS) Standards of Practice Manual
adopted the California Geodetic Control Committee (CGCC) “Specifications for Geodetic
Control Networks Using High-Production GPS Surveying Techniques 1995” as the standard for
GPS surveying in Alaska. The specifications outline accuracy standards for various levels of
GPS control. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities adopted the CGCC
standard for Band IV surveys for surveying and mapping services for highways and airports.
The CGCC specifications list four items that are considered paramount for insuring success of a
geodetic control project:
1. Elimination or reduction of known and potential systematic error sources
2. Sufficient redundancy to clearly demonstrate the stated accuracy
3. Adequate analysis and data processing
4. Sufficient documentation to allow verification of the results
Careful adherence to the CGCC specifications for GPS surveying ensured that the data used for
position modeling was reliable and accurate, and that subsequent work can be reliably based on a
common basis of geodetic control.
3.1.2. Static GPS Surveying
Static GPS surveying is the traditional method for relative positioning. Static procedures were
used to produce baselines between stationary GPS units. An extended observation period
(typically 30 to 120 minutes) through a change in satellite geometry was recorded on one or both
carrier frequencies. Post processing utilizes various mathematical models accounting for satellite
orbits, ionospheric refraction, and carrier phase ambiguities. The strongest solutions successfully
resolved the carrier phase ambiguities and held those values fixed for the final baseline
determinations.
3.1.3. Real Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS Surveying
RTK surveying is the method by which a single reference station is used to provide real-time
carrier phase corrections by radio link to a roving GPS receiver, providing up to centimeter-level
accuracy under ideal conditions. RTK surveys made use of two or more GPS units. At least one
unit was set up over a known reference station and remained stationary, while the other (rover)
GPS units were moved from station to station. All baselines were produced from the GPS unit
occupying a reference station to the rover units. The stationary unit provided real-time
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 4 January 31, 2013
corrections which allowed the rover units to resolve integer ambiguities on the fly, providing up
to centimeter accuracy under ideal conditions.
Most of the data collected during the course of the project was surveyed using RTK. All RTK
data were surveyed from reference stations that are part of the Band IV accuracy level control
network. Occupation of the reference control stations was in accordance with the procedures
described for static control occupations.
RTK data collected is electronically stored in a “data collector”. Occupation data and point
descriptors were entered manually for RTK surveyed points. Each day, the data collector files
were downloaded and electronically stored as part of the permanent record. Data collector files
contain all of the observation and occupation data for each RTK data point, as well as coordinate
data and point descriptors. Coordinates in the data collector files can be adjusted, if required, to
reflect different reference station coordinates and/or geoid models used to compute orthometric
heights.
Data points, such as TBM elevations, that require a level of accuracy greater than RTK methods
can provide, were tied using static GPS observations. Typically those observations were for a
minimum period of 15 minutes. The post processed results using single vector solutions over
relatively short distances from the reference station provide the desired accuracy for sub-network
level control points.
3.1.4. Online Positioning Users Service (OPUS)
The NGS OPUS allows users to submit individual GPS unit data files directly to NGS for
automatic processing. Each data file that is submitted is processed with software which
computes coordinates for NGS’ Continually Operating Reference Station (CORS) network. The
resulting positions are accurate and consistent with other National Spatial Reference System
(NSRS) users. This study used OPUS processing as an additional layer of redundancy.
3.1.5. GPS Static Control Network Accuracy, Design, Collection and
Processing
3.1.5.1. Accuracy
Static GPS control surveying was conducted according to the standards of accuracy for Band IV
surveys. Band IV horizontal and vertical accuracy is defined as a radius of the relative positional
error circle of 95% confidence between 0.005 meters and 0.010 meters. Post processing of static
GPS observations was constrained to a 95% confidence level for the adjustment process and any
adjusted coordinates that failed to meet the criteria for band IV surveys were re-collected.
3.1.5.2. Network Design
The CGCC standards state that space-based measurement systems, such as GPS, are not
significantly affected by such factors as network shape or intervisibility. However, GPS-derived
orthometric heights are particularly sensitive to the distribution of observations and network
constraints.
To meet a network accuracy classification, a GPS project must be connected to sufficiently
accurate and well distributed existing control. The project control network was based on a GPS
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 5 January 31, 2013
control monument with a published NGS value and verified with ties to two additional
monuments with NGS published values. The network was extended up and down the river by
constraining multiple vector static observations within a pair of control points at each end.
Redundancy was achieved by basing the next constrained control group on the furthest end point
of the previous constrained group and conducting at least one static observation on a control
point outside the constrained network into the previous day’s constrained network. In addition,
static observations were conducted across constrained control network groups during the course
of the in-stream work whenever possible. Static observations were submitted to OPUS for
additional redundant checks. Due to the remote location of the project, the extreme distance
from existing CORS network stations and the length of observation times, the OPUS solutions
were determined to not be of sufficient accuracy to supersede the highly accurate post-processing
results and redundant checks. The OPUS results did serve as a redundant check against systemic
error or an individual gross observational error.
3.1.5.3. Data Collection
The key to providing proof of the precision to which a measurement is made is redundancy.
Redundancy in GPS surveying is achieved primarily by way of a change in the relative geometry
of the satellite constellation. Observations across constrained control groups and ties to the
NSRS control network described above are one way to achieve that redundancy. Equally
important is the methodology used to document each station occupation.
Each station occupation was independently setup and data collected. Antenna heights were
measured, both in feet and in meters, at the beginning and the end of each occupation. A clear
photograph/rubbing of the station monument was collected for each station. Notes were
prepared for each occupation and included as a minimum:
1. The beginning and ending times for the occupation.
2. The name of the surveyor performing the occupation.
3. The receiver identifier (make, model, serial number).
4. The centering device identifier.
5. All antenna height measurements (in meters and feet).
6. The station identifier (name and/or survey point number).
7. A description of the monument and center mark.
8. Monument photograph/rubbing.
Each station occupation was for a minimum of 120 minutes. Tribracs (centering devices) were
calibrated and adjusted prior to the start of the static control network survey.
All control point static GPS observations used a minimum of two vectors. Two base stations
continually operated, as nearly as possible, at opposite ends of each day’s network control survey
area.
3.1.5.4. Data Post-Processing
Static data post-processing was performed according to CGCC guidelines. Post-processing
software used least squares adjustment algorithms and provided for atmospheric correction.
GPS post-processing reports were produced for each day’s control network group. Post-
processing reports show that GPS observations have met the desired specifications Band IV
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 6 January 31, 2013
surveys for each vector as well as GPS occupation data for each control point and resulting post-
processed and adjusted coordinates.
3.1.6. Differential Leveling
3.1.6.1. Standards for Differential Leveling
Differential leveling for setting gages at streamflow gaging stations were conducted in
accordance with USGS Publication “Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the
United States Geological Survey “Levels at Streamflow Gaging Stations” (Kennedy 1990).
Leveling was conducted according to the two leveling classifications, “gaging-station levels” or
“ordinary levels”, as the requirements determine.
Only “automatic” leveling instruments were used. Automatic levels employ compensators that
use gravity to suspend or balance a portion of the instruments optics. In this way, the optical
path of light through the instrument is compensated for the vertical axis error before reaching the
user’s eye. The user should tap the telescope before each reading while looking at the rod to
verify that the crosshair returns to its original reading. This method ensures that the compensator
is working properly.
3.1.6.2. Leveling Procedure and Documentation
Specific leveling techniques were implemented in order to limit the effects of curvature of the
earth, refraction of light, and slight instrument error. Earth curvature, refraction of light and
slight instrument error can be mitigated by balancing the distance between the backsight and
foresight for each setup of the level. Heat wave interference can be mitigated by conducting
leveling operations on an overcast day. Figure 3.1-1 shows the standard leveling procedure and
level notes format for gaging-station and ordinary levels (Kennedy 1990).
3.1.6.3. Adjustment of Elevations
Levels were run in a closed circuit that allowed for adjustment by distributing the closure errors
as parts of circuits. Each mark on which the leveling rod was read, other than the starting mark,
was included in only one circuit and was leveled to both the outward and return paths of only one
circuit. The differences in elevation between each pair of adjacent points were meaned to
compute each adjusted elevation. Figure 4, leveling, notes and adjustments, in Kennedy, 1990,
show the procedure and level adjustment notes format for gaging-station and ordinary levels.
3.1.6.4. Peg Testing and Adjustment of Leveling Instruments
Each level instrument was peg tested and adjusted prior to use in closed circuit level loops.
Additional peg tests were required if the leveling instrument was subjected to a shock such as
dropping or bumping the instrument. Peg testing consists of driving two stakes about 120 feet
apart, setting one of the stakes at a short backsight distance and setting the other stake at a long
foresight distance. The level setup was broken and moved to a point a short distance from the
foresight stake. The procedure was repeated sitting both stakes. The discrepancy between the
sitting distances exaggerated any collimation error in the leveling instrument. The leveling
instrument was adjusted and the peg test re-run until the exaggerated level loop closes. Peg tests
were documented according to Kennedy, 1990, and kept as part of the permanent record.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 7 January 31, 2013
Automatic leveling instruments should be adjusted according to the manufacturing specifications
for each type of instrument used. This typically involves adjustment of the level bubble and/or
the compensator. The method of adjusting the compensator will vary for each manufacturer’s
product, so specific adjustment information is required to be carried with each automatic level
used in the field.
3.1.6.5. Leveling Rods
Level rods for setting gages at streamflow gaging stations are required to be either
“Philadelphia”, “Chicago” or “Frisco” rods. The two section Philadelphia rod is a very popular
general purpose model. It is graduated in hundredths of a foot and is incased in brass sleeves. It
is designed for use at distances up to 250 feet. Rod readings of up to thirteen feet can be
measured.
Philadelphia rods can be used with a leveling bubble that attaches to the side of the rod. Rod
shots must be read with the rod held plumb in order for measurements to accurately reflect the
difference in elevation between the benchmark and the instrument crosshair. If a leveling bubble
is not available, an accurate reading can be obtained by holding the rod as plumb as possible, and
slowly rocking the rod directly toward and directly away from the leveling instrument. The
reading is recorded at the lowest point that the crosshair is observed on the rod. The person
operating the leveling instrument can check whether the rod is plumb by checking the rod against
the vertical crosshair of the instrument, and direct the rod holder to adjust the rod until it is
vertical.
Great care should be taken to insure that the rod is clean, particularly at the bottom where it
makes contact with the mark being measured. When rod heights greater than seven feet are
required, great care must be taken to fully extend the rod in order to obtain accurate
measurements. The rod should be transported in a fabric cover and nothing should be placed on
the rod during transportation that could scratch or bend the rod. Any rod that has the graduated
marks partially or fully obscured or rubbed off should be replaced.
Rod checking and operation will be in accordance with the requirements outlined in Kennedy,
1990.
3.2. Hydrologic Data Collection
This section will discuss the general measurements of water levels, cross-section profiles,
Doppler methods, and water-slope determination. Channel roughness determinations were made
through the hydraulic modeling efforts reporting the flow-routing model technical memorandum.
Field data and photographs of cross-sections from this study were also used when needed.
3.2.1. Transect Cross-Section Profiles
Cross-section profiles were measured using a combination of RTK surveying methods.
Baselines were established and permanent monuments (rebar with aluminum cap or cemented
brass tablet) were set at both ends of each cross-section location. RTK profiles were taken in the
upland portion (from edge of water to edge of vegetation typically) and additional water surface
elevations were taken approximately 200 feet upstream and downstream of the baseline. The
goal of the cross-section measurements was to measure up to the 90% exceedance discharge for
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 8 January 31, 2013
the Susitna River at Gold Creek, which is approximately 25,000 cfs. The lead river
hydrographer made field determinations of the upper elevation boundary based on flow
conditions at the Susitna River at Gold Creek gage. River bottom profiles were measured with
the ADCP unit, making multiple tracks back and forth across the channel. Positions of the
ADCP observations were tracked using RTK and stored in ASCII files. These files were
imported into AutoCAD, along with the RTK upland survey data. A topographic surface was
then created and a line profile was generated along the cross-section baseline representing the
channel cross-section profile. This data was then translated into both latitude and longitude and
state-plane coordinates.
90% exceedance Q for Gold Greek is ~25K cfs
3.2.2. Manual Water-Level Measurements
Water level measurements were made primarily by RTK surveying or level-loop surveying
methods. Staff gages were evaluated for measuring water levels on the main channel of the
Susitna River and were eliminated for the following reasons;
1. Trees and woody debris in the river would create too much damage to staff plates
2. Two to four staff plates at each section would be required to cover the range of stage
changes, creating a boating hazard at each location
3. Unstable banks and moving riverbed conditions did not make staff plates a practical
solution in most locations
The use of staff plates should still be considered in sloughs, creeks and other areas that do not
have the above problems. Field crews took into account wave motion of the water surface and
determined an average location to hold survey rods for determining the water surface location at
each measurement location.
3.2.3. ADCP Discharge Measurements
Discharge measurements were performed using a Sontek M9 ADCP deployed from a motorized
cataraft. The ADCP was mounted in a plastic monohull to prevent cavitation at high flow
velocities. Pivoting struts allow the instrument’s pitch to vary independent of the cataraft, and
roll is minimized by the cataraft’s small depth to beam ratio. The slight downpressure of the
struts maintains acoustic contact at high flow velocities, but requires a tether to prevent the
monohull from diving in standing waves (Figure 3.2-1).
The forward position of the ADCP and computer interface allows the hydrographer to monitor
depth, velocity, measurement duration, and data quality while simultaneously navigating the
boat. A sole operator permits a lighter boat and motor than that required for 2 or more people.
This allows navigation in shallower water, so that unmeasured bank sections usually comprise a
negligible proportion of the total discharge. Safety was provided by an accompanying
support/rescue craft.
Although the cataraft frame and accessories are comprised of non-ferrous materials, the outboard
motor (85 lbs.) is largely steel. The motor is located approximately 10 feet aft of the ADCP.
Beginning with a description of measurement procedures, the following sections provide results
of data quality evaluations currently required by USGS (OSW 2012c). These evaluations are
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 9 January 31, 2013
unique to ADCP measurements from a moving boat; different evaluations would be appropriate
for current meter measurements or ADCP measurements through ice.
Relying on the Doppler principle, ADCPs measure water velocity using acoustic reflections from
suspended particles. In order to calculate discharge, the instrument velocity is also required.
Most ADCPs use bottom-tracking (BT) to determine the instrument velocity using acoustic
reflections off the streambed. However, BT-based discharge measurements can be biased low by
moving bedload. In this case, the instrument velocity can be measured using GPS methods, or
BT-based discharge measurements can be corrected using moving bed tests. Both of these
alternatives require accurate heading information, either from an internal compass or an external
heading device.
As an option, the Sontek M9 includes a GPS receiver that accepts differential corrections from a
real-time kinematic (RTK) base station or from the Federal Aviation Administration’s Wide
Area Augmentation System (WAAS). Whereas WAAS precision is within 1 meter, the precision
of RTK measurements can be within centimeters. Although GPS transmissions include two data
strings used to compute discharge (GGA and VTG), differential corrections apply only to GGA
positions. Because of the improved precision provided by the WAAS and RTK corrections,
discharge data were processed using only GGA positions. VTG positions are recorded in the
data file for each transect, however.
The Sontek M9 uses Sontek’s RiverSurveyorLive (RSL) software for data acquisition and
processing. Most of the measurements were acquired using RSL v. 3.01 and firmware v. 2.00,
dated October 2011. The RSL software includes the USGS LC program for analysis of loop
moving bed tests. In response to a July 2012 revision of LC (v. 4.04), Sontek released RSL v.
3.50 and firmware v. 3.00 in August 2012. To correct errors resulting from the outdated RSL v.
3.01 software, all of the data were post-processed using RSL v. 3.50.
In August 2012, the USGS issued Best Practice Recommendations identifying compass
calibration issues for late-generation ADCPs including the Sontek M9/S5 and the Teledyne/RDI
RiverRay (OSW 2012b; 2012d). Specifically, the algorithms in RiverSurveyorLive were shown
to be unreliable for creating accurate compass calibrations. The Recommendations conclude that
the calibration score cannot be used to evaluate compass accuracy, and “the best that can be done
is to follow good calibration procedures and then carefully observe the collected data for
potential compass errors”.
Including compass calibrations, discharge measurements were performed in accordance with
current USGS guidance (Mueller and Wagner 2009; OSW 2012c). This includes:
pre-season factory instrument checks
software and firmware upgrades
periodic field instrument checks
daily and site-specific compass calibrations, two complete rotations, 1-2 minutes
site-specific loop moving bed tests (3 minute minimum)
reciprocal transects comprising at least 12 minutes of exposure time
site-specific velocity profile extrapolations
office review and evaluation
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 10 January 31, 2013
3.2.3.1. ADCP Data Quality
The quality of ADCP measurements was evaluated using procedures outlined in the USGS
Hydroacoustics webinar Review and Rating of Moving-Boat ADCP Q Measurements (OSW
2012c). This webinar recommends procedures for assigning four qualitative ratings to ADCP
data: Excellent, Good, Fair, and Poor. These ratings correspond to categories of uncertainty
ranging from 0-2%, 2-5%, 5-8%, and over 8%, respectively. Because some data quality metrics
are non-quantitative, the rating categories are semi-qualitative in nature.
Although much of the supporting data was compiled by the field hydrographer, the final ratings
were assigned by an independent reviewer on a separate AEA Study Team. Discharge
measurement results, including the final ratings, are summarized on Attachment 3. Because the
same evaluations were performed on over 200 measurements, they are summarized below
following procedures outlined in current USGS guidance (Mueller and Wagner 2009; OSW
2012a, 2012c).
3.2.3.2. Measurement Variation and Base Uncertainty
The four discharge rating categories correspond to levels of uncertainty that include both flow
variability and measurement error. In accordance with USGS guidance, the ratings were
assigned using both qualitative and quantitative information. The coefficient of variation (COV)
represents a fundamental data quality metric, defined as the standard deviation divided by the
mean of replicate transects. As described by USGS (OSW 2012c), the 95 percent uncertainty of
a measurement can be approximated as the COV (in percent) multiplied by a factor related to the
number of transects (Table 3.2-1), plus 0.5 percent for systematic errors. If additional
uncertainty is indicated by moving bed tests or data quality issues, the 95 percent uncertainty
value should be increased. The final 95 percent uncertainty values can then be used to rate the
measurement as either Excellent (0-2%), Good (2-5%), Fair (5-8%) or Poor (over 8%).
Calculated 95 percent uncertainty values are summarized on Attachment 3. These values include
the base uncertainty described above, plus additional uncertainty for measurements affected by
moving bedload. Due to a slight negative bias between GGA and both BT and LC results,
results were compared for each measurement and the highest value was reported.
3.2.3.3. Compass Calibration
In August 2012, the USGS issued Best Practice Recommendations for late-generation ADCPs
including the Sontek M9/S5 and the Teledyne/RDI RiverRay (OSW 2012b; 2012d). Both of
these instruments allow automatic bin sizing that has been shown to be an important factor in
reducing measurement uncertainty (Garcia et al. 2012). The recommendations conclude that the
Sontek M9’s calibration score cannot be used to evaluate compass accuracy, and “the best that
can be done is to follow good calibration procedures and then carefully observe the collected
data for potential compass errors”.
During an initial instrument check at USGS Gaging Station No. 15281000 (Knik River near
Palmer), failing calibration scores were obtained for both a newly-manufactured M9 (serial no.
3061) and a one year-old model (serial no. 2837). Despite these results, agreement between the
two instruments was within 2 percent, and agreement with the rating was within 4 percent.
Based on subsequent discussions with Sontek, calibration scores were disregarded if the
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 11 January 31, 2013
collected data appeared unaffected by compass errors. According to USGS (OSW 2012a),
common indications of compass error include directional bias in ship tracks or transect
discharges, and downstream closure of loop moving bed tests.
In an effort to resolve calibration issues, compass calibrations were performed with the ADCP
both on-board and removed from the boat. In both cases, the ADCP was rotated through at least
720 degrees in a 1-2 minute interval. Relatively low pitch and roll was maintained during the
calibrations, similar to that during normal boat operations.
The first 35 measurements were performed after site-specific compass calibrations with the
ADCP mounted on the boat. All of the calibrations exhibited failing scores, but successful loop
tests and low directional biases initially indicated normal compass operation. Downstream loop
test closure occurred on the 13th measurement, and recurred for 8 of the next 22 measurements.
Downstream loop closures persisted during subsequent measurements using off-boat compass
calibrations, but the overall measurement quality improved (Attachment 3).
3.2.3.4. Constant and Variable Heading Errors
If the local magnetic declination differs from that entered in an ADCP’s data acquisition
software, a heading error will be manifested as directional disparities in GPS ship tracks and
computed discharges. This effect can be reduced by adjusting the magnetic declination until
directional disparity in GPS discharge reaches a minimum, corresponding to the minimum COV
for reciprocal transects (Figure 3.2-2). In this report, the difference between the declination
obtained from a geomagnetic model (e.g., NOAA 2012) and a local value yielding the minimum
COV for reciprocal GPS transects is termed constant heading error.
Constant heading errors can be caused by magnetic interference from stationary objects like
bridges, or local anomalies in the earth’s magnetic field. Provided that measurements are
comprised of reciprocal transects, the effect of constant heading errors can be removed by
adjusting the declination until the GGA COV reaches a minimum. Constant heading errors do
not affect the results of loop moving bed tests (Mueller and Wagner 2006).
Another type of heading error can be caused by interference from magnetic objects on the boat.
This type of error varies with heading, and is modeled using sinusoidal functions (Mueller and
Wagner 2006). In this report, the latter type of error is termed variable heading error. Variable
heading errors can cause both upstream and downstream loop closure errors (Mueller and
Wagner 2006). Although downstream loop closures are easily identified, upstream loop closure
errors are difficult to distinguish from actual bed movement.
To evaluate the effect of heading errors, the accuracy of 2012 stationary-bed measurements was
compared against 63 stationary-bed measurements from the United States, Canada, and New
Zealand (Wagner and Mueller 2011). These data were found to be of sufficient quality to
support the use of both GGA and VTG positioning for discharge measurements. By excluding
RTK measurements, their results support the use of WAAS-corrected GGA positions, thereby
eliminating the need for a local base station.
For their dataset, Wagner and Mueller computed the accuracy of GGA-based discharge
measurements as the percent difference between bottom-track and GGA-based discharge values
([GGA-BT]/BT). They computed [GGA-BT]/BT for both individual transects and
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 12 January 31, 2013
measurements comprised of multiple transects. The latter analysis exhibited better precision and
eliminated spatial bias inherent in the data.
Figure 3.2-3 compares the accuracy of Wagner and Mueller’s (2011) results with 2012
measurements where loop tests indicated stationary bed conditions. Excluding 1 low outlier for
a small, backwatered channel, the average 2012 bias is equivalent to Wagner and Mueller’s (0.52
percent). Wagner and Mueller used these results to show that the GGA and BT results are not
significantly different, thereby supporting the use of GGA positioning. By analogy with Wagner
and Mueller’s results, the accuracy of the 2012 GGA results for stationary bed conditions
appears acceptable.
A similar analysis was performed for 2012 measurements with upstream loop closures indicating
moving bed conditions. Figure 3.2-4 displays the accuracy of 2012 loop-corrected (LC)
discharge data, calculated as [GGA-LC]/LC. Two low outliers measured during high-flow
conditions showed GGA discharges well below their corresponding BT discharges. Although
this situation is expected for a small proportion of measurements, it is most likely to occur at low
bed velocities. Because the two outliers yielded moving bed velocities within the top quintile of
all measurements, they are presumed to reflect upstream loop closure errors. The remaining
sample population exhibits a distribution similar to Mueller and Wagner’s, with a slightly lower
mean (-0.87 percent). This could reflect either additional upstream loop closures or an
exaggeration of the slight negative bias between GGA and BT results (Figure 3.2-3). To account
for this additional uncertainty, the 95% uncertainty values shown on Attachment 3 were
increased by 0.5 percent for all measurements affected by moving bedload.
Using flow direction as an indicator of the average boat orientation, Figure 3.2-5 suggests that
constant heading errors are related to the boat orientation. This indicates magnetic interference
from an on- board source, most likely the outboard motor. It is clear from Figure 3.2-5 that on-
board compass calibrations were not effective at eliminating this effect. Although the data show
that some constant heading errors can be attributed to fixed objects (e.g., the Gold Creek railroad
bridge), it appears that most heading errors are only “constant” to the extent that changes in boat
orientation are small relative to the average boat orientation. Evidently, changes in boat
orientation were small enough to allow accurate loop closures for the 117 stationary and moving
bed measurements shown on Figures 3.2-3 and 3.2-4. Although a detailed analysis of boat
orientations has not been performed, it appears that larger variations in boat orientation were
responsible for the 39 downstream loop closures.
For sites with stationary and upstream loop closures (except as noted above), GGA and LC
accuracy appears acceptable and is unrelated to the magnitude of constant heading errors (Figure
3.2-6). LC results are invalid for sites with downstream loop closures, where GGA results are
consistently lower than BT results (Figure 3.2-7). At these sites, BT results must qualified for
potential moving bed effects.
3.2.3.5. Moving Bed Tests
Although BT-based discharge measurements are not affected by heading errors, they can be
biased low by moving bedload. In this case, discharge can be measured using GPS positioning,
or BT-based discharge measurements can be corrected using moving bed tests. To allow the use
of BT measurements, moving bed tests were performed at most cross sections.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 13 January 31, 2013
Moving bed bias can be evaluated using either stationary or loop moving bed tests. For this
study, loop tests were selected because they provide a measure of the average bed velocity across
the width of the channel. Stationary moving bed tests measure the bed velocity at individual
points, requiring averaging or extrapolation across the remainder of the channel.
Whereas loop moving bed tests require accurate compass headings, stationary moving bed tests
do not. Due to the recent identification of compass calibration problems with late-generation
ADCPs, USGS currently recommends stationary moving bed tests due to their more consistent
reliability than loop moving bed tests (OSW 2012b,d).
Loop tests are performed by recording a loop-shaped transect beginning at marked location
(typically a buoy) near one bank, traversing the channel, and returning to the original starting
point. If there is moving bedload, the BT shiptrack will be displaced so that the transect
endpoint is located upstream of the starting point. The USGS LC program uses these data to
compute the corrected discharge using the starting point displacement and the measured velocity
profile.
Although loop tests were planned for every measurement, high flow velocities during the first
three measurements caused diving of the ADCP monohull in standing waves. Initially, this
situation was remedied by performing diagonal transects with lower boat-to-water velocities.
Although this technique was successful, it precluded loop tests due to the inability to return to
the original starting point. Eventually, a tether system was developed to prevent diving of the
ADCP (Figure 3.2-1). After the third measurement, loop tests were performed at all of the main
channel crossings except where fast, shallow water required walking of the cataraft. In these
situations it was not possible to maintain the uniform boat speed and orientation necessary for an
accurate loop test.
A total of 178 loop tests were performed, of which 71 tests yielded upstream loop closures, 38
tests yielded downstream loop closures, and 51 tests indicated stationary bed conditions (bed
velocity < 0.04 fps). Eight loop tests were invalid due to lost bottom track or apparent changes
in flow direction, and 10 tests did not warrant loop corrections due to bed velocities less than 1
percent of the mean flow velocity. A rose diagram illustrates the proportion of upstream vs.
downstream loop closures (Figure 3.2-8).
As shown by Figure 3.2-5, it appears that compass headings were affected by magnetic
interference from an on-board source, most likely the outboard motor. The 38 downstream loop
closures and two erroneous upstream loop closures (Figure 3.2-4) were probably caused by
variable heading errors as the boat changed orientation during the loop. Changes in boat
orientation were apparently small enough that 69 upstream loop closures and 51 stationary loop
tests yielded acceptable results. Due to swift current and the long duration of most loops
(average = 307 seconds), only slight changes in ferry angle were needed for most transects.
Larger changes in boat orientation were required above and below islands, in eddies, and across
slack channels.
Plots of bed velocities vs. river mile show that moving bed conditions were predominant above
PRM 143 (RM 139.4) during late June, when Gold Creek flows were above 33,000 cfs (Figure
3.2-9). Moving bed conditions also predominated below the Chulitna confluence throughout the
summer and fall.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 14 January 31, 2013
As shown by Figure 3.2-7, GGA-based discharge measurements with invalid loop closures show
a large negative bias relative to BT-based measurements. This indicates that these GGA data are
affected by variable heading errors and cannot be used. As a result, discharge values for
measurements with invalid loop closures must rely on BT positioning, qualified for moving bed
bias. To assess the amount of moving bed bias, bed velocities at sites without accurate loop tests
were estimated by interpolating between adjacent sites (Figure 3.2-9). Using the empirical
relationship shown on Figure 3.2-10, interpolated bed velocities were used to calculate estimated
moving bed biases for sites without valid loop closures. The calculated moving bed biases are
shown on Attachment 3, ranging from zero to 4.7 percent. Considering the variance of adjacent
bed velocities (Figure 3.2-9), an additional 1 percent of uncertainty was added for measurements
with calculated moving bed biases.
For sites with multiple channels, the highest bed velocity was plotted on Figure 3.2-9, typically
corresponding to the main (largest) largest channel. Loop tests were omitted for some side
channels containing less than 10 percent of the total discharge. If accurate loop tests were not
available for side channels containing more than 10 percent of the total discharge, moving bed
bias was estimated using main channel values, either measured or calculated.
3.2.3.6. ADCP Check Measurements
ADCP check measurements were performed prior to the field program at USGS Gaging Station
No. 15281000 (Knik River near Palmer), and during each field trip at USGS Gaging Station No.
15292000 (Susitna River at Gold Creek). Field measurements were compared against online
discharge data obtained through the National Water Information System. These data are
provisional pending review and approval by USGS. Provisional data are commonly revised due
to rating shifts, transducer movement, and ice affects.
During the initial Knik River check measurement, agreement between the two ADCPs was
within 2 percent, and agreement with preliminary online discharge values was within 4 percent
(Table 3.2-2). June and August check measurements on the Susitna River at Gold Creek were 6
to 8 percent lower than the provisional online values, but the September check measurement was
within 1.1 percent. Although the August and September online discharge values are identical,
the surveyed river stage in August was 0.25 feet lower than September. This could explain the
apparent low bias of the August check measurements, but review of the provisional data is
needed.
3.2.3.7. Extrapolation Settings
Due to signal interference, ADCPs cannot measure velocities near the surface or in close
proximity to the streambed. As a result, velocities in these areas are estimated by extrapolation
of the measured velocity profile. By default, RiverSurveyorLive uses a power law fit to estimate
velocities in these areas. As shown on Attachment 4, combined top and bottom estimates ranged
from 19 and 47 percent of measured flows. Because these areas comprise a large proportion of
the total flow, the extrapolation settings were evaluated further using the USGS program Extrap
(OSW 2012e).
Processing of the 872 transects summarized on Attachment 3 revealed that most velocity profiles
approach constant or decreasing values toward the water surface, rather than increasing
velocities as predicted by the power law (Figure 3.2-11). As a result, the “constant”
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 15 January 31, 2013
extrapolation method was typically selected in Extrap for calculating near-surface velocities.
Similarly, the “no-slip” extrapolation method typically provided a better fit for near-bottom
velocities. Using Extrap, the appropriate extrapolation settings were selected for each
measurement, and results were used to compute revised discharge values in RiverSurveyorLive.
Extrapolation settings for each measurement are summarized on Attachment 3.
3.2.3.8. Edge Estimates
Because ADCPs require a minimum water depth for velocity measurement (termed the blanking
distance), the discharge near both banks must be estimated based on the adjacent flow velocity.
In accordance with USGS protocols (Mueller and Wagner 2009), edge estimates require at least
10 stationary velocity measurements (termed samples) containing at least two valid “bins”
beneath the ADCP. For ADCPs with large blanking distances or vessels with deep drafts, edge
estimates can be a significant potential source of error. However, the Sontek M9 can measure
two valid bins in depths ranging from 0.7 to 1.3 feet of water. Because these depths can be
readily navigated with the solo cataraft, 2012 edge estimates comprised a minor proportion of the
total discharge.
Excluding one channel with a near-shore obstacle (RM223, 6/14/12), the maximum edge
estimate was less than 1 percent of the total discharge for any cross section, and sum of the left
and right edge estimates averaged less than 0.1 percent of the total cross-sectional discharge.
Because the magnitude of these estimates is smaller than the precision of measured flows
(Figures 3.2-3 and 3.2-4), 2012 edge estimates are not a significant source of error.
Nevertheless, edge estimates were reviewed during post-processing to confirm that valid velocity
measurements were obtained, and that bank distances matched those recorded in the field book.
Bank distances less than 10 feet were measured using a graduated cataraft oar, and bank
distances over 10 feet were measured with a laser rangefinder.
3.2.3.9. Transect Duration and Exposure Time
Current USGS protocol requires that measurements consist of reciprocal transects with a
minimum combined duration of at least 720 seconds (OSW 2012a). This requirement was
achieved for 146 of the 154 main channel measurements (Attachment 3). Another 5 main
channel measurements were shorter (668 to 716 seconds), but were co-located with side channel
measurements that increased the combined measurement duration to over 1,100 seconds.
Similarly, 27 side channel measurements ranged from 416 to 716 seconds, but were paired with
main channel measurements that increased the total duration to over 1,000 seconds. Three
single-channel measurements with durations less than 720 seconds are highlighted on
Attachment 3.
Additional USGS guidance recommends a minimum transect duration of 150 samples. This goal
was achieved for 855 of the 872 transects. Shorter transects (104 to 148 samples) were
necessary in smaller side channels because of their limited widths. Because of their relatively
low discharge, short transect durations in small side channels are not expected to significantly
affect the total discharge for multi-channel measurements.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 16 January 31, 2013
3.2.3.10. Invalid Samples and Bad Bottom Tracking
Incomplete velocity profiles can result from loss of communication with the ADCP or signal
interference. No communication problems were encountered during data acquisition, and no
interference from turbulence, shear, or high suspended sediment concentrations was identified.
However, loss of bottom-track positioning occurred during several loop tests, and the associated
discharge measurements showed poor bottom track strength (Attachment 3). In these cases,
discharge measurements relied on GGA positioning.
3.2.3.11. System Tests
Instrument diagnostic checks were performed daily from RiverSurveyorLive, and results are
saved with the associated measurement files. No anomalous system test results were obtained.
3.2.3.12. Temperature Checks
Water temperatures were measured at each cross section with a digital thermometer. No
discrepancies were observed during comparison of manual temperature measurements against
those recorded by the ADCP.
3.2.4. Water Slope Measurements
Water slope measurements were made at each cross-section for each discharge measurement
period. In some cases, additional water slope measurements were made at sections where
discharge measurements were not made. The water surface elevations were generally measured
generally by RTK surveying; although in some cases water surface elevations were measured by
level-loop surveying. The RTK survey method was faster and allowed a greater number of
measurements per day. In general water levels were collected on both banks, upstream and
downstream of each section. The distances between observations and water slopes were
calculated for each set of measurements. The location of all points, PRMs, water elevations, and
slopes were reported in printable and GIS data formats.
3.2.5. Continuous Stage Hydrographs at Gaging Stations
Thirteen gaging stations were installed and operated for the objectives of this study. Each gaging
station incorporated a Campbell Scientific Inc. CR1000 data acquisition and control logger, 2
CS450 pressure transducers that measure water pressure and water temperature, and one GWS-
YSI air temperature sensor. A gaging station metadata standard document is included in
Attachment 2. Data was recorded at 15 minutes intervals and saved in data tables on the logger.
Each station is on a radio-telemetry network and data is retrieved on an hourly collection
interval. Each gaging station has established vertical datum benchmarks to allow the surveying
of manual water level measurements through either level-loop of RTK methods. The water
levels allow the conversion of the pressure transducer data to surface-water elevation in Project
vertical datum standards.
Manual water-level measurements were collected at stations during the summer to help
determine offsets for the continuous data and validate pressure transducer readings. The
continuous data and manual water level measurements were processed in Aquarius Workstation
to help apply elevation shifts and evaluate the continuous data.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 17 January 31, 2013
Graphical plots were made for each gaging station and compared with nearby stations, both
upstream and downstream as part of the QC process for the data (Figure 3.2-12) (Attachment1).
3.2.6. Other Transect Data
3.2.6.1. Channel Roughness
Field observations and photos at each transect were recorded to support estimates of channel
roughness. Calculated channel roughness values were a product of the open-water flow routing
model (see Section 4.4.1 of the Open-water Flow Routing report (R2 2013). Recorded field
observations and photos were used to help calibrate the values calculated using the open-water
flow routing model.
3.2.6.2. Vegetation Descriptions
Vegetation descriptions were developed from photographs taken at each section. In general there
is at least one set of photographs at each section looking upstream, downstream, and across the
channel. Information on vegetation types (Viereck et al. 1992) was used in classifying
vegetation at each cross-section. An example cross-section photograph is shown in Figure
3.2-13.
3.3. Data Analysis
The 2012 study period resulted in three measurement campaigns that produced approximately
170 pairs of stage and discharge data pairs. Each section measured had one to three
measurement points, plus a measured thalweg point. These data are used to help develop rating
curves (stage versus discharge) for the cross-sections and gaging stations. Plots were made to
help show the initial location of rating curve points. Additional data will need to be collected to
establish full rating curve relationships. The lack of low flow measurements at most locations
limits the development of full rating curves from the 2012 field measurements. An example is
shown for PRM 187.2 (RM 184.1) in Figure 3.3-1.
3.4. Deviations from Study Plan
The following deviations from the Cross-Section Scope of Work cover many of the field and
hydrology conditions encountered during the 2012 open-water season. No major objectives of
the study were impacted except for the lack of low-flow conditions during the summer.
The general high flow conditions in 2012 resulted in few low flow measurements being
made. The cross-sections were measured during three field trips intended to capture
high-flow (28,000 cfs), medium-flow (16,000 cfs), and low-flow (8,000 cfs) conditions
corresponding to the USGS gage station at Gold Creek (No 15292000). The first two
trips were successful at capturing high-flow and medium-flow conditions during late
June-early July and August, respectively. However, the low-flow trip that began on
September 14 was interrupted by a 25-year flood event that required evacuation of the
field team on September 20. Work resumed on September 29, but was suspended on
October 6 when a second late fall storm resulted in unseasonably high flows. A final
attempt commenced on October 15, but abundant river ice and slush pans precluded
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 18 January 31, 2013
accurate flow measurements. The development of rating curves for the gaging stations
and cross-sections will require additional flow measurement in subsequent years. This
deviation resulted in fewer low flow measurements which limited the determination of
rating curves for sections.
The original field plan identified the need for cross section and historic image
georeferencing. The development of these products was not part of the study scope, but
the study planned on using them in the early planning. These GIS products were not
produced in time to use for the study activities. This generated a set of river mile
conventions, termed Brailey River Miles (RM) for this study. The final Project River
Miles (PRM) did not become available until the end of 2012, so all study data products
were converted over to the PRM designations, and cross-indexes were made between the
study RMs and PRMs. This deviation did not impact the final data products, but resulted
in additional time to complete them.
Measurements of sections results from the high water levels and flooding during
September, which was also intended to be the low-flow measurement campaign. This
broke the trip up into two segments. The second portion being in October, when another
flood event was encountered and the field crew had to stop work and then try and restart
field measurements a third time. By this time the amount of river ice developing resulted
in poor quality data and the 2012 field measurement campaign series was ended. This
deviation resulted in fewer low flow measurements which limited the determination of
rating curves for sections.
The September flooding events resulted in the potential for channel changes, so 10
additional cross-sections were re-measured to document potential channel changes due to
the flooding. This deviation did not impact the creation of final data sets, but added data
to help evaluate the impacts of the September flooding.
The original study scope did not include permitting, which became a requirement to help
conduct the planned activities for the summer. This deviation did not impact data
products, but did require more staff resources to help keep the project timeline objectives.
A primary deviation from the study plan was the configuration of field crews to use RTK
survey methods for all measurement trips and issues related to flooding and high water
levels in complex channel sections. The number of channels at most cross-sections,
water velocities and various water hazards limited the number of sections that could be
measured downstream of the Chulitna River and Susitna River confluence. In some cases
there were up to nine channels in one cross section. An average of 4 channels can be
measured in a typical day, under ideal conditions. Level Loop surveying was also
determined to be a limiting factor in the field and would have resulted in significantly
less sections being measured. In many cases, this was due to the steep or loose bank
conditions along the river. The switch to RTK surveying methods allowed the survey
crew to keep up with the pace of the river gaging crew and to have the water safety field
crew focus on the river hydrographer, who otherwise would have been working solo and
without adequate safety oversight. This deviation in field methods was made to ensure
the transect data needed for flow routing model development was achievable within the
study period and to help meet the FERC evaluation process, but the final field approach
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 19 January 31, 2013
helped ensure the required data was collected under the challenging field conditions in a
safe and efficient manner.
4. RESULTS
All the major objectives of the study were achieved. A number of cross sections were not
measured due to the field conditions, flood events and onset of winter ice conditions in the river.
These reductions in the number of sections and measurements did not result in any significant
loss of study objectives. Most of these sections were in the portion of the lower river below the
confluence of the Chulitna River (PRM 102 (RM 98.5)) to PRM 80 (RM 76), about 8 miles
below the Parks Highway Bridge. The loss of measurements would affect the simulation
accuracy of Lower River water levels with the Version 1 of the flow routing model; but initial
model results appear consistent with HEC-ResSim modeling results (see January 2013 Open-
water Flow Routing Technical Memorandum). Additional sections and discharge measurements
at gaging stations and select cross sections in 2013 and 2014 will help refine and improve
subsequent versions of the flow routing model.
4.1. Survey Control Network and Results
The survey control network was established and is shown in Figure 4.1-1, with control point
stations listed in Table 4.1-1. The control network extends from the upper portion of the
proposed reservoir down to the lower portion of the lower Susitna River. Geodetic coordinates,
benchmark descriptions and photographs were produced and also provided for the Project
geospatial databases.
As part of the 2013 work program it is recommended that additional control points be added to
the project control network. Project control was extended to the lower part of the river for
specific use at gaging stations. Large gaps between control points exist in that portion of the
project area. Should RTK surveying be required throughout the lower portion of the river, it will
be necessary to increase the density of the control network to support studies in this river
segment.
The standards for GPS control networks in use for this project require redundant checks of the
control points to provide verification of positional accuracy. This is particularly important when
the control points have gone through a series of winter freeze thaw cycles. During the initial
2012 control network survey, several brass tablets were cemented into rock in locations where it
was practical. These brass tablets are certain to be stable through the winter freeze thaw cycles,
providing anchors in between adjacent control points. If brass tablets cemented into rock can be
installed in additional strategic locations throughout the project corridor, it will make it possible
to verify the positional accuracy of the control points that are subject to freeze thaw movement
without having to initiate a major resurvey of the entire network.
The original control network was designed to provide RTK radio link between the base GPS
receiver and the rover GPS receivers in all areas of the project corridor. During the 2012 season
there were several locations within the project corridor where it was discovered that radio
linkage was difficult. The study program would benefit from placement of additional control
points during the resurvey/redundant verification of the network control.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 20 January 31, 2013
4.2. Hydrologic Data Collection
The following sections describe the results of the hydrologic data collection activities for the
study in 2012. The use of this data for modeling and other interpretation will primarily be
covered by future studies. The open-water season measurements were broken down into three
measurement campaigns. The study intent was to collect a series of high flow observations in
June and July, then moderate flow observations in August and then low flow observations in
September. Figure 4.2-1 illustrates the three time campaigns and the actual flow conditions
encountered during 2012, using the Susitna River at Gold Creek as an index station for
understanding general flow conditions. Table 4.2-1 listed the gaging stations established for the
study. Table 4.2-2 lists the cross-sections and discharge values measured during the 2012 open-
water season. The series of maps shown in Figures 4.2-2 through 4.2-19 shows the location of
the measured cross sections, gaging stations and GPS control network survey points along the
Susitna River from approximately PRM187.2 (RM 184.1) to PRM 80 (RM 76.0).
4.2.1. Transect Cross-Section Profiles
88 transect profiles were measured from PRM 187.2 (RM 184.1) (proposed Watana Dam site) to
PRM 80 (RM 76.0) (about 8 miles downstream of the Park Highway Bridge) during the 2012
open water season. Details of the cross sections are reported in the open-water flow routing
model (see Section 5.4 of the Open-water Flow Routing report (R2 2013).
4.2.2. Water-Level Measurements
Water level measurements were primarily made by RTK surveying and in some cases level-lop
surveying. Data collected at the gaging stations typically used level-loop survey methods. Data
collected at cross sections typically used RTK survey methods. The water level measurements
went through a QC process (Attachment 1) and were used in the interpretation of gaging station
continuous water level data (Figure 3.2-13) and for the development of rating curve development
data (Figure 3.3-1).
4.2.3. Discharge Measurements
During the 2012 open-water season, a total of 214 discharge measurements were performed at 89
cross sections. This includes 88 cross-sections between PRM187.2 (RM 184.1)and PRM 80
(RM 76.0), plus some additional locations outside of the modeling domain (PRM 225.0 (RM
223.0), and QC measurements at various locations). The river transect at PRM 101.4 (RM
100.4), cross-section measurements were made, but no final discharge measurements that passed
QC evaluation.
The data collection approach was to measure at least one discharge at each cross section transect
channel. Subsequent measurement campaigns were to measure discharges at an intermediate and
low flow condition. Where closely spaced channels could have flows adequately estimated for
model simulations objectives, about a third of the transects were estimated to only need the
single discharge measurement. The exact number of transects requiring more than one
measurement were identified by field hydrographers in conjunction with the flow-routing
modelers. There were not a specific number of water level/discharge measurement pairs targeted
for the 2012 open water season. Water levels were collected at all cross-sections during
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 21 January 31, 2013
discharge measurement campaigns, except during the September discharge measurement
campaign which was interrupted by two flood events (damaging RTK GPS equipment) and onset
of winter icing conditions. Discharge was measured using a Sontek M9 acoustic Doppler current
profiler (ADCP) following USGS guidance published in January 2012 (OSW 2012a). Although
over 90 percent of the measurements are rated as either Excellent or Good (0-5% uncertainty),
about 8 percent of the measurements are rated as Fair or Poor (5-10% uncertainty). These
ratings are preliminary pending technical review by an independent AEA contractor.
The primary data quality issue involves heading errors caused by inaccurate compass calibration.
As outlined in an August 2012 USGS Best Practice Recommendation (OSW 2012b), the
inaccurate calibrations are related to unreliable scores produced by Sontek’s data acquisition
software. The Recommendations conclude that “the calibration score cannot be used to evaluate
compass accuracy, and “the best that can be done is to follow good calibration procedures and
then carefully observe the collected data for potential compass errors”.
In addition to measuring the water velocity, ADCPs must also measure the boat velocity in order
to calculate discharge. Most ADCPs use bottom-tracking (BT) to determine the boat velocity
using acoustic reflections off the streambed. However, BT-based discharge measurements can
be biased low by moving bedload. In this case, the boat velocity can be measured using GPS
methods, or BT-based discharge measurements can be corrected based on moving bed tests.
Both of these options require an accurate compass, however.
A total of 178 loop moving bed tests were performed, of which 71 tests yielded upstream loop
closures, 38 tests yielded downstream loop closures, and 51 tests indicated stationary bed
conditions. The 71 upstream loop closures indicated moving bed conditions resulting in loop-
corrected (LC) discharges up to 5.7 percent greater than their corresponding BT discharges. The
38 downstream loop closures indicate compass errors rendering GPS-based discharge results
invalid. Although the corresponding BT results are potentially biased low, the bias was
quantified using bed velocities from nearby sites. Including uncertainty for the estimated bias
and other moving bed effects, the total uncertainty was used to qualify BT results for sites with
downstream loop closures.
All ADCP data was post-processed following procedures outlined in the USGS Hydroacoustics
Webinar Review and Rating of ADCP Q Measurements (OSW 2012c). These procedures
resulted in qualification of data as either Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor, corresponding to levels
of uncertainty ranging from 0-2%, 2-5%, 5-8%, and over 8%, respectively. In addition, the 2012
results were compared against published results from the United States, Canada, and New
Zealand (Wagner and Mueller 2011). Results confirmed the accuracy of GPS-based discharge
measurements for both stationary and moving bed conditions, provided that loop tests indicated
upstream (i.e., valid) loop closures.
The compass errors that resulted in downstream loop closures are attributed to failure of the
Sontek calibration algorithms to compensate for magnetic effects from the cataraft’s outboard
motor. For cases where the boat orientation remained relatively constant, the heading errors did
not affect discharge accuracy. However, where significant changes in boat orientation were
required, the heading errors resulted in failed loop tests and inaccurate GPS-based discharge
results.
It is not clear that problems associated with the Sontek M9’s compass will be resolved prior to
the 2013 field season. To avoid continued problems, the Teledyne/RDI RiverRay ADCP is
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 22 January 31, 2013
being considered for 2013 work. Although the RiverRay was initially produced with a
Honeywell compass that had similar issues (OSW 2012d), it is now configured with the more
reliable StreamPro compass. If pre-season testing indicates continued problems, the RiverRay
software accepts heading information from external devices, including GPS-based systems that
are not subject to magnetic effects.
After the initial cross section measurements during the high discharge campaign, some cross-
sections were eliminated from additional discharge measurements as certain section did not have
any tributary inflows between section, or other reasons to expect additional flow contributions.
This was part of the original study design. The listing of all cross sections, with the measured
flow values is shown in Table 4.2-2.
4.2.4. Other Transect Data
A thorough description of the vegetation conditions at each measured cross section and channel
was developed and referenced to PRM and channel bank descriptions. This data was also
provided in a format to be compatible with the GIS geospatial databases being developed for the
Project. The series of photographs used for the vegetation descriptions at each section were
developed into an image data set to be incorporated into the Project GIS spatial databases. The
images and other field information were also used in the flow-routing modeling analysis to assist
in the determination of surface roughness.
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to establish the initial survey control network and hydrologic
network for the Project. It was also the first major hydrologic field campaign in the Susitna
River watershed since the prior 1980s studies. The GPS control network was established for the
study area, which will provide the survey foundation for all other studies. Three measurement
campaigns where made during the 2012 open-water seasons. The intent was to measure high,
moderate and low flow conditions. The June to July event did measure high flow conditions.
During this measurement period, key lessons were learned about the complexity of the channels
and flow conditions from the confluence of the Chulitna River downstream to PRM 80 (RM 76).
Some of the conditions encountered included multiple channels (up to nine in some sections),
shallow water with high velocities (up to 10 feet per second), trees and other woody debris
hazards, quick-sand conditions on actively developing bars, channels with reverse flow
conditions, and many dead-end channels. The successful and efficient measurement of cross-
section profiles in this segment of the river will require lower water conditions than was
encountered during the 2012 field campaign.
End of summer field measurements, intended on measuring low flow conditions, had two
separate flooding events interrupt the trip. One flood resulted in the safe evacuation of the river
crew from the Indian River camp they were using. Efforts were continued during this trip until
river ice conditions resulted in ADCP measurements that would not meet the study QC standards
and the discharge measurement portion of the field season was ended.
The gaging station network was then prepared for winter operations and any remaining field
repairs were performed. The high water-level conditions going into winter resulted in a number
of pressure transducers freezing into ice, others were taken out by the frequent fall ice jams and
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 23 January 31, 2013
releases. Through the 2012 summer season, no personal injuries or environmental problems
were encountered, in spite of the difficult working environment, flooding, and other logistical
issues encountered during the summer.
Data sets from this study are available from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) upon request.
6. REFERENCES
Garcia, C.M.; Tarrab, L; Oberg, K; Szupiany, R; and Cantero, M.I. 2012. Variance of discharge
estimates sampled using acoustic Doppler current profilers from moving platforms.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, v. 138, pp 684-694.
Kennedy, E.J. 1990. Levels at streamflow gaging stations. Techniques of Water-Resources
Investigations of the United States Geological Survey, Book 3, Chapter A19, 31 p.
Mueller, D.S. and Wagner, C.R. 2006. Application of the loop method for correcting acoustic
Doppler current profiler discharge measurements biased by sediment transport. U.S.
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5079.
________ 2009. Measuring Discharge with Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers from a Moving
Boat. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 3A-22, 72 p.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2012. Online magnetic declination
calculator available at http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomagmodels/Declination.jsp
R2 Resource Consultants, GW Scientific, Brailey Hydrologic, Geovera. 2013. Open-water
HEC-RAS Flow Routing Model. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska.
U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Surface Water (OSW) 2012a. Processing ADCP discharge
measurements on-site and performing ADCP check measurements. USGS OSW
Technical Memorandum No. 2012-01, January 9, 2012.
________ 2012b. Best practice for calibrating SonTek RiverSurveyor M9/S5 compass. USGS
Best Practice Recommendation, August 30, 2012.
________ 2012c. Review and rating of moving-boat ADCP Q measurements. USGS
Hydroacoustics Webinar, October 4, 2012.
________ 2012d. Best practice for calibrating a TRDI RiverRay compass. USGS Best Practice
Recommendation, August 2012.
________ 2012e. Introduction to Extrap 3.10. USGS Hydroacoustics Podcast, August 2, 2012.
Viereck, L.A., C.T. Dyrness, A.R. Batten, and K.J. Wenzlick. 1992. The Alaska vegetation
classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-286. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 278 pp
Wagner, C.R. and Mueller, D.S. 2011. Comparison of bottom-track to global positioning
system referenced discharges measured using an acoustic Doppler current profiler.
Journal of Hydrology v. 401, pp. 250-258.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 24 January 31, 2013
7. TABLES
Table 3.2-1. Calculating 95% uncertainty for reciprocal transects.
No. of Reciprocal Transects Approximate 95% Uncertainty (OSW 2012c)
8 COV * 0.8
6 COV * 1.0
4 COV * 1.2
2 Round COV to nearest whole percent, use 3% if COV rounds
to zero or COV * 3.3 if COV rounds to 1 or greater
Table 3.2-2. ADCP check measurements.
Date Time ADCP Serial
No.
Measured Q,
cfs
Online Q,
cfs
Percent
Difference
Measured Stage, ft
Gage Datum NAVD 881
6/11/12 08:25 3061 9,580 9,920 -3.43 8.36 @
10:45 hrs UA2 6/11/12 10:10 2837 9,418 9,700 -2.91
6/29/12 14:48 2837 30,378 32,300 -5.95 UA 693.77
8/13/12 12:54 3061 16,350 17,800 -8.15 9.32 691.69
Notes:
1 Average of left- and right-bank RTK elevations, PRM 140.0 (RM 136.7)
2 UA = unavailable
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 25 January 31, 2013
Table 4.1-1. GPS Survey Control Network Benchmarks.
Point No. Date Latitude Longitude
Horiz. Accuracy (feet)
Horiz. Precision (feet)
Elevation (feet)
Vertical Accuracy (feet)
Vertical Precision (feet) Descriptor
96 8/27/2012 62.8294421545 -148.5509790448 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 2366.021 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 R&M_BM22C
98 6/11/2012 62.2985896036 -150.1056570195 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 568.902 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 TALKEETNA_RE
SET
99 -- 62.3210816242 -150.1044921632 Datum Datum 350.865 Datum Datum DOT_GPS_38
100 6/6/2012 62.0999313983 -150.0762751529 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 240.011 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_100
101 6/6/2012 62.1462485821 -150.1326291530 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 257.110 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_101
102 6/6/2012 62.1832961043 -150.1575965881 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 276.225 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_102
103 6/6/2012 62.2502825626 -150.1625537512 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 307.203 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_103
104 6/6/2012 62.3091785852 -150.1216540100 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 336.854 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_104
105 6/7/2012 62.3792717442 -150.1591861857 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 377.616 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_105
106 6/7/2012 62.4486429192 -150.1326242226 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 422.413 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_106
107 6/7/2012 62.5166562050 -150.1186592177 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 467.597 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_107
108 6/7/2012 62.5782042562 -150.0460110421 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 512.172 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_108
109 6/7/2012 62.6534474576 -149.9548473422 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 559.857 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_109
110 6/9/2012 62.7104972520 -149.8323600083 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 620.325 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_110
111 6/9/2012 62.7349166049 -149.7428299523 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 660.502 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_111
112 6/9/2012 62.7758843958 -149.6892659082 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 705.033 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_112
113 6/8/2012 62.7885480038 -149.6362530060 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 724.012 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_113
114 6/9/2012 62.8206344717 -149.5533979849 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 773.193 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_114
115 6/9/2012 62.8264892482 -149.4673679524 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 812.821 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_115
116 6/25/2012 62.8303134832 -149.3799887264 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 849.674 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_116
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 26 January 31, 2013
Point No. Date Latitude Longitude
Horiz. Accuracy (feet)
Horiz. Precision (feet)
Elevation (feet)
Vertical Accuracy (feet)
Vertical Precision (feet) Descriptor
117 6/10/2012 62.8085078497 -149.0017155136 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 1251.791 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_117
118 6/10/2012 62.7771157386 -148.9933570086 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 1278.141 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_118
119 6/10/2012 62.7678113366 -148.8411199706 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 1325.934 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_119
120 6/13/2012 62.7591793360 -148.7298230021 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 1366.445 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_120
121 6/13/2012 62.8131286883 -148.6615890254 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 1421.692 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_121
122 6/13/2012 62.8225627266 -148.5923384076 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 1453.002 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_122
123 9/10/2012 61.4054088732 -150.4601911115 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 32.185 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_123
124 8/29/2012 62.6979445976 -147.5472023541 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 1912.328 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_124
125 8/29/2012 62.8510278638 -148.0270373569 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 4325.140 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_125
126 9/9/2012 61.8638599068 -150.1770700421 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 134.069 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_126
127 9/11/2012 61.7270189776 -150.2092785958 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 86.930 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_127
128 9/11/2012 61.4895371372 -150.5620496789 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 47.207 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_128
129 9/10/2012 61.5434605531 -150.5168361788 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 61.524 <= 0.05 <= 0.05 CP_129
Notes:
1 Horizontal data is WGS84/AKSP Zone 4 U.S. Survey Feet, Vertical data is NAVD88/Geoid09.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 27 January 31, 2013
Table 4.2-1. AEA gaging stations with PRMs, locations and measured parameters.
Station Name Station ID Project River Mile Brailey River Mile Latitude1 Longitude1 Measurement Parameters2
Susitna River Near
Cantwell ESS80 PRM 225.0 — N 62.697770° W 147.547290° AT, WT, PT, CAM
Susitna River Below
Deadman Creek ESS70 PRM 187.1 RM 184.1 N 62.822990° W 148.538340° AT, WT, PT, CAM
Susitna River Below
Fog Creek ESS65 PRM 176.5 RM 173.9 N 62.764608° W 148.774144° AT, WT, PT, CAM
Susitna River Above
Devil Creek ESS60 PRM 168.1 RM 164.5 N 62.791830° W 148.993810° AT, WT, PT, CAM
Susitna River Below
Portage Creek ESS55 PRM 152.2 RM 148.7 N 62.830534° W 149.383802° AT, WT, PT, CAM
Susitna River at
Curry ESS50 PRM 124.1 RM 120.7 N 62.617157° W 150.015167° AT, WT, PT, CAM
Susitna River Below
Lane Creek ESS45 PRM 116.6 RM 113.0 N 62.525580° W 150.114870° AT, WT, PT, CAM
Susitna River Above
Whiskers Creek ESS40 PRM 107.2 RM 103.0 N 62.399145° W 150.137222° AT, WT, PT, CAM
Susitna River at
Chulitna River ESS35 PRM 102.1 RM 98.0 N 62.337906° W 150.142737° AT, WT, PT, CAM
Susitna River Below
Twister Creek ESS30 PRM 98.4 RM 95.0 N 62.294553° W 150.115996° AT, WT, PT, CAM
Susitna River at
Susitna Station ESS20 PRM 29.9 — N 61.544250° W 150.515332° AT, WT, PT, CAM
Susitna River Near
Dinglishna Hill ESS15 PRM 24.7 — N 61.489539° W 150.562073° AT, WT, PT, CAM
Susitna River Below
Flat Horn Lake ESS10 PRM 17.4 — N 61.405410° W 150.460214° AT, WT, PT, CAM
Notes:
1 Horizontal data is WGS84/AKSP Zone 4 U.S. Survey Feet
2 AT, air temperature; WT, water temperature; PT, pressure transducer; CAM, camera.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 28 January 31, 2013
Table 4.2-2. Table of cross-section discharge measurement dates and preliminary discharge values.
Project River Mile
Brailey River Mile
High Q Trip Mid Q Trip Low Q Trip
Date Time Discharge Date Time Discharge Date Time Discharge
PRM 225.0 RM 223.0 6/14/12 17:57 26,932 8/9/12 15:03 11,260 -- -- --
PRM 187.2 RM 184.1 6/17/12 16:30 27,698 8/6/12 16:13 14,707 9/15/12 13:17 7,838
PRM 186.2 RM 183.4 6/18/12 14:13 24,493 8/6/12 17:05 14,419 9/15/12 14:05 7,630
PRM 185.5 RM 182.8 6/18/12 16:10 25,389 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 185.2 RM 182.6 6/19/12 13:00 26,676 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 184.9 RM 182.2 6/19/12 15:49 27,619 8/6/12 18:24 14,239 9/15/12 14:57 7,714
PRM 184.4 RM 181.7 6/19/12 16:51 27,886 8/7/12 12:38 14,775 9/15/12 15:52 8,353
PRM 183.3 RM 180.3 6/20/12 13:19 29,426 8/7/12 13:35 14,183 9/15/12 16:41 8,310
PRM 182.9 RM 179.8 6/20/12 16:01 29,218 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 181.6 RM 178.9 6/20/12 17:56 29,645 8/7/12 14:44 14,705 9/15/12 17:55 8,689
PRM 179.5 RM 176.8 6/21/12 12:28 30,866 8/7/12 15:41 14,345 9/14/12 17:05 8,361
PRM 178.5 RM 176.1 6/16/12 18:35 29,756 8/7/12 16:37 14,799 9/14/12 17:47 8,738
PRM 176.5 RM 173.9 6/21/12 14:40 31,240 8/8/12 12:07 14,559 9/16/12 14:50 10,768
PRM 174.9 RM 172.0 6/21/12 16:12 31,163 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 173.1 RM 170.0 6/21/12 17:39 30,571 -- -- -- 9/16/12 16:29 11,082
PRM 170.1 RM 167.0 6/22/12 12:56 31,121 8/8/12 15:16 14,568 9/16/12 17:33 11,137
PRM 168.1 RM 164.5 6/22/12 14:33 32,265 8/8/12 16:03 14,655 9/17/12 15:19 14,619
PRM 153.7 RM 150.2 6/25/12 17:15 32,162 8/10/12 15:03 14,588 -- -- --
PRM 152.9 RM 149.5 6/26/12 13:43 30,487 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 152.1 RM 148.7 6/26/12 15:38 30,036 8/10/12 16:07 15,351 9/29/12 15:20 18,488
PRM 151.1 RM 147.6 6/25/12 14:00 33,180 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 148.3 RM 144.8 6/26/12 18:24 32,114 8/10/12 18:03 14,941 -- -- --
PRM 146.6 RM 143.2 6/27/12 12:24 31,030 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 145.7 RM 142.3 6/27/12 13:51 31,396 8/12/12 13:12 17,354 9/29/12 16:51 18,131
PRM 145.5 RM 142.1 6/27/12 14:40 31,868 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 144.9 RM 141.5 6/27/12 17:01 31,949 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 144.3 RM 140.8 6/27/12 18:50 31,121 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 143.5 RM 140.2 6/28/12 12:17 30,330 8/12/12 14:58 17,006 -- -- --
PRM 143.0 RM 139.4 6/28/12 13:53 29,492 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 142.2 RM 138.9 6/28/12 15:15 29,753 8/12/12 16:29 16,798 9/29/12 17:45 18,301
PRM 141.9 RM 138.5 6/28/12 16:27 30,583 8/12/12 17:13 16,803 -- -- --
PRM 141.7 RM 138.2 6/28/12 17:41 30,555 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 140.0 RM 136.7 6/29/12 14:48 30,378 8/13/12 12:54 16,350 9/30/12 13:56 17,619
PRM 139.8 RM 136.4 6/29/12 16:21 30,378 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 139.0 RM 135.7 6/30/12 13:56 28,039 8/13/12 13:58 16,449 -- -- --
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 29 January 31, 2013
PRM 138.7 RM 135.4 6/30/12 14:51 28,230 8/13/12 14:48 16,344 -- -- --
PRM 138.1 RM 134.7 6/30/12 16:33 28,203 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 137.6 RM 134.3 6/30/12 18:13 27,893 8/13/12 16:14 16,409 9/30/12 15:00 17,382
PRM 136.7 RM 133.3 7/1/12 13:35 26,756 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 136.2 RM 132.9 7/1/12 16:06 26,943 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 135.0 RM 131.8 7/1/12 18:33 26,526 8/13/12 17:41 15,627 -- -- --
PRM 134.3 RM 131.2 7/2/12 12:16 25,463 -- -- -- 10/1/12 13:40 15,568
PRM 134.1 RM 130.9 7/2/12 13:18 26,166 8/14/12 13:14 16,491 -- -- --
PRM 133.8 RM 130.5 7/2/12 14:30 25,715 8/14/12 14:05 16,275 -- -- --
PRM 133.3 RM 130.0 7/2/12 16:22 25,678 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 132.6 RM 129.4 7/2/12 17:57 25,046 8/14/12 15:17 16,039 -- -- --
PRM 131.4 RM 128.1 7/3/12 22:08 28,628 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 129.7 RM 126.6 7/3/12 17:33 28,243 8/14/12 17:00 16,330 10/1/12 16:16 15,731
PRM 128.1 RM 124.4 7/4/12 15:40 26,748 8/15/12 12:50 15,926 -- -- --
PRM 126.8 RM 123.3 7/4/12 17:22 27,608 8/15/12 13:40 16,078 10/1/12 17:02 15,582
PRM 126.1 RM 122.6 7/5/12 14:24 27,248 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 125.4 RM 121.8 7/5/12 16:38 26,427 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 124.1 RM 120.7 7/5/12 18:11 26,132 8/15/12 14:27 16,161 10/1/12 17:42 15,582
PRM 123.7 RM 120.3 7/6/12 12:18 23,875 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 122.7 RM 119.3 7/6/12 14:23 23,331 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 122.6 RM 119.2 7/6/12 15:59 22,890 8/15/12 16:13 16,287 -- -- --
PRM 120.7 RM 117.2 7/6/12 17:19 22,687 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 119.9 RM 116.4 7/7/12 12:19 20,715 8/16/12 12:54 16,005 10/3/12 14:47 13,998
PRM 118.4 RM 115.0 7/7/12 14:06 20,656 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 117.4 RM 114.0 7/7/12 16:15 20,747 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 116.6 RM 113.0 7/7/12 17:36 20,665 8/16/12 14:15 16,136 10/3/12 15:53 14,323
PRM 116.3 RM 112.7 7/8/12 12:42 23,766 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 115.7 RM 112.2 7/8/12 14:05 25,006 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 115.4 RM 111.8 7/8/12 16:13 25,958 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 114.4 RM 110.9 7/8/12 18:29 25,860 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 113.6 RM 110.0 7/9/12 14:23 28,329 8/16/12 16:38 16,311 10/3/12 16:41 13,476
PRM 111.9 RM 108.4 7/9/12 15:23 28,296 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 110.5 RM 106.7 7/9/12 16:46 28,825 8/17/12 14:57 15,254 10/3/12 17:33 14,172
PRM 108.3 RM 104.8 -- -- -- 8/17/12 17:55 16,394
PRM 107.1 RM 103.0 7/9/12 18:26 28,409 8/18/12 13:12 15,508 10/4/12 14:10 14,558
PRM 106.1 RM 102.4 -- -- -- 8/18/12 14:22 15,278 -- -- --
PRM 105.3 RM 101.5 -- -- -- 8/18/12 15:52 15,362 -- -- --
PRM 104.7 RM 101.0 -- -- -- 8/18/12 17:48 15,377 -- -- --
PRM 104.1 RM 100.4 -- -- -- 8/19/12 12:49 15,345 -- -- --
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 30 January 31, 2013
PRM 103.5 RM 99.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- 10/4/12 16:49 14,575
PRM 102.7 RM 98.8 7/10/12 13:53 26,635 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 101.4 RM 98.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 98.4 RM 95.0 7/11/12 14:09 46,499 8/20/12 14:51 40,623 10/5/12 14:37 39,065
PRM 97.0 RM 94.0 7/11/12 18:27 45,118 8/20/12 17:03 40,261 -- -- --
PRM 91.6 RM 87.7 8/21/12 14:55 46,330 -- -- --
PRM 91.0 RM 86.9 7/12/12 15:39 43,922 8/21/12 16:51 46,197 -- -- --
PRM 88.4 RM 84.6 -- -- -- 8/22/12 15:01 41,697 -- -- --
PRM 87.1 RM 83.0 7/12/12 18:00 42,550 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 86.3 RM 82.0 7/13/12 13:13 41,895 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 85.4 RM 81.2 -- -- -- 8/22/12 18:01 40,468 -- -- --
PRM 84.4 RM 80.0 -- -- -- 8/23/12 15:16 36,988 -- -- --
PRM 83.0 RM 79.0 7/13/12 16:09 41,975 -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 82.3 RM 78.0 -- -- -- 8/23/12 17:52 37,947 -- -- --
PRM 80.0 RM 76.0 -- -- -- 8/24/12 15:07 36,580 -- -- --
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 31 January 31, 2013
8. FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Map of general study area for the study showing station locations.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 32 January 31, 2013
Figure 2-1. Map of general study area for the study showing cross-section locations.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 33 January 31, 2013
Figure 3.1-1. Level-loop survey methods (Kennedy 1990).
Figure 3.2-1. ADCP cataraft in 1-foot standing waves at PRM 183.5, August 7, 2012.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 34 January 31, 2013
Figure 3.2-2. Constant heading error based on GGA COV.
Figure 3.2-3. Accuracy of stationary bed GGA measurements.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 35 January 31, 2013
Figure 3.2-4. Accuracy of moving bed GGA measurements.
Figure 3.2-5. Flow direction versus constant heading error.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 36 January 31, 2013
(a) Stationary Bed Measurements (b) Moving Bed Measurements
Figure 3.2-6. GGA accuracy versus constant heading error, excluding high and low outliers.
Figure 3.2-7. GGA accuracy at sites with downstream (invalid) loop closures.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 37 January 31, 2013
Figure 3.2-8. Proportion of upstream versus downstream loop closures.
Figure 3.2-9. Moving bed velocity versus Brailey river mile. See Attachment 3 for conversions between Brailey river
miles and PRMs.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 38 January 31, 2013
Figure 3.2-10. Moving bed velocity vs. loop test percent correction.
Figure 3.2-11. Example velocity profiles.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 39 January 31, 2013
Figure 3.2-12. Example gaging station water level plot showing manual water level measurements and the continuous
data measured by pressure transducers.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 40 January 31, 2013
Figure 3.2-13. Example of image used for vegetation description at PRM 174.9 (RM 172.0); the image depicts white
spruce forest on the right bank of the channel.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 41 January 31, 2013
Figure 3.3-1. Example rating curve points and thalweg elevation.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 42 January 31, 2013
Figure 4.1-1. Survey control network.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 43 January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-1. 2012 transect and flow measurement campaign and flow conditions.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 44 January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-2. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 187
down stream to PRM 181.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 45 January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-3. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 181
down stream to PRM 176.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 46 January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-4. . Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 176
down stream to PRM 171.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 47 January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-5. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 171
down stream to PRM 168.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 48 January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-6. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 156
down stream to PRM 151.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 49 January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-7. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 151
down stream to PRM 147.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 50 January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-8. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 147
down stream to PRM 142.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 51 January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-9. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 142
down stream to PRM 137.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 52 January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-10. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 137
down stream to PRM 132.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 53 January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-11. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 132
down stream to PRM 127.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 54 January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-12. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 127
down stream to PRM 122.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 55 January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-13. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 122
down stream to PRM 117.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 56 January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-14. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 117
down stream to PRM 112.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 57 January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-15. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 112
down stream to PRM 107.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 58 January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-16. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 107
down stream to PRM 102.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 59 January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-17. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 103
down stream to PRM 98.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 60 January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-18. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 96
down stream to PRM 88.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1—Page 61 January 31, 2013
Figure 4.2-19. Maps of cross-section locations, survey control network benchmarks and gaging stations. The map covers the approximate river reach from PRM 88
down stream to PRM 80.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 January 31, 2013
ATTACHMENT 1. DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE AND FINAL
REPORTING STANDARDS SUMMARIES
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 1 January 31, 2013
AEA Susitna Project 2012 – Instream Task2 Cross-Section and Task5 Network Studies
GPS Survey Network—Control Point Survey QC Protocol
Last Update: 20130104
Last Update By: Marielle Remillard, GW Scientific
Introduction
The F&A Program Lead team is tasked with implementing a standardized QA/QC protocol,
intended for use in all environmental field studies in 2012, including fish and aquatic, water
quality, river ice, terrestrial wildlife and botany, ISF, and others. This document will be
presented to the leader and appointed Data Coordinator of each of these study teams.
Key Study staff for this data product:
- Study Lead: Steve Smith (Lead), Geovera
- Field Survey Team Lead: Billy Day, Geovera
- Data Processing Staff: Steve Smith (Lead), Geovera;
- Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants
- Data Resource Manager: Dana Stewart, R2 Resource Consultants
QC Levels
There will be 5 levels of data QC, named QC1 to QC5. This allows for quick determination of the
QC status of every data record. The first three levels are to be completed by the field study
team, the fourth level by the Program Lead team, and the final level by senior professionals
during analysis and reporting.
QC1 – Field Review: QC review performed by the person collecting field data, recorded in field
books, and reviewed by the field team leader. The goal of QC1 is to identify errors and
omissions and correct them under similar field conditions prior to leaving the field.
Review is done on 100% of data and includes completeness, legibility, and logic on all
information recorded. This is typically completed in the field at time of survey; however, if
outstanding conditions related to field team safety require that the team depart the survey site
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 2 January 31, 2013
prior to completing QC1, QC1 shall be completed immediately upon arriving at an appropriate
location.
Field book notations for static GPS observations shall contain the name of the person making
the observations, the date, and a brief description of the weather. Notes for each control point
observed shall contain a sketch of the monument markings, a sketch of the control point
location, a handheld GPS position, a full description of the monument set or observed, the
measure up from the monument to the receiver recorded in both feet and meters, the GPS
receiver used for the static observation, and the name of the static observation file. At the end
of the static GPS observation the measure up will be confirmed in the notes and a visual check
of the optical plum will be made to verify that the receiver position did not change during the
course of the observation.
At the end of each day the static observation files will be downloaded from the GPS receivers
and put into an individual folder for that day’s static GPS observations. The date of the
observations shall be made a part of the folder name. The folder shall also contain electronic
images (scan or photograph) of the field notes for each static observation and photographs of
the control points and their immediate surroundings. The folders containing the record of the
static observations will be transferred to the main office for post-processing.
QC2 – GPS Static Observation Post Processing: Static GPS observation files will be inserted into
the GPS post-processing software. The autonomous positions of the observed control points
will be checked against the handheld GPS positions to verify that the file names labeled in the
field book match the file names brought into the post-processing software. The measure up for
each control point will be confirmed by multiplying the distance recorded in meters by
3.280833 to confirm that it matches the distance recorded in feet. Each point will be given the
name of the control point on which the static observations were conducted. This will insure
that the reports containing the post-processing results clearly identify the control point for
which the observations were made.
Post-processed points will be checked to insure that all results were fixed, and that the results
meet the project requirements for observational precision. All points meeting the criteria for
observational precision will be least-squares adjusted and a report will be generated outlining
all of the post-processing and adjustment results.
Coordinates of the control points will be exported to an ascii file which will be stored in that
day’s static observation folder. The post processing report will be saved to PDF format and
stored in the folder along with the post-processing software file, the GPS static observation
files, control point photographs, and the field note images.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 3 January 31, 2013
The goal of QC2 is to verify correct, complete, and consistent data entry, but it is also an
opportunity to compare previous independent observation results with current observation
results. During QC2, previous observations will be referenced to determine whether or not
there are any discrepancies between a previous and current control point position. A note can
be added to the electronic survey sheet regarding this movement. However, the position of a
primary monument shall not be adjusted until QC3.
Data Entry Study Staff: Steve Smith (Lead), Geovera
QC3 – Senior Review: Data is reviewed by a senior professional on the project team, checking
for logic, soundness, and adding qualifiers to results if warranted. Coordinates of project
control points will be placed in a spreadsheet for final posting to the wiki. The spreadsheet will
contain the point number, date of the static observations, latitude and longitude (in decimal
degrees), Alaska State Plane Zone 4 coordinates, elevation and point descriptor of each of the
project control points. In addition, there will be a statement of precision that each of the
control point’s static observations fall within, as determined from the post-processing results.
The spreadsheet will contain a header that labels the contents, date of last entry, person
responsible for the data entry, as well a statement about the datum (WGS84/NAD83), Alaska
state plane zone (4), and geoid (09) used to determine the orthometric heights (elevations) of
the points.
All data will be entered into electronic format directly, either by importing the data directly
from an ascii file, or cutting and pasting directly from and to electronic files. No coordinate
data will be hand entered (typed with a keyboard). This is to eliminate the possibility of
erroneously transposing numbers. Once all data has been entered into the spreadsheet, the
data fields will be cross-checked directly against the original GPS post-processing files to insure
their accuracy.
Senior Review Study Staff: Steve Smith (Lead), Geovera
QC4 – Database Validation: Electronic data files are submitted to the Program Lead’s data
resources manager. The deadline for this delivery is negotiated with the team Data
Coordinator in consideration of the study due date.
Further QC4 verification of data isn’t applicable to Control Point Survey data.
Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants
QC5 – Technical Review: Data revision and qualification may be applied by senior professionals
when analyzing data for reports, trends, and FERC applications. Data calculations may be
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 4 January 31, 2013
stored with the data. Some data items may get corrected or qualified within the database,
while others are only addressed in report text. QC5 may be iterative, as data are analyzed in
multiple years.
If a data item is revised directly, it’s recorded in 2 columns of the Control Point Survey Log: QC5
(date and staff) and QC5Edit (what is revised and why). Additionally, the date and data
coordinator should be updated in the file name when appropriate. This will serve as adequate
documentation of the revisions, so maintenance of additional documentation isn’t usually
necessary. QC5 revisions should not be made until reviewed and accepted by the Lead
Surveyor or Study Lead if he is not available. The data will be changed in final Project files, and
the Data Resource Manager notified.
Field Data Backups
Both paper and electronic field forms should be backed up nightly in the field by scanning and
downloading to a storage unit or photocopy to paper. Field notes books and electronic files are
posted to the Study Internal Wiki sites where appropriate.
Data Revisions
Once the processed field data (QC3) have been submitted by the Study Lead (Michael Lilly) to
AEA via R2 (Joetta Zablotney), and it has been validated as ready for incorporation into the
Susitna project data collection (QC4), the data are considered to reside with AEA, and
subsequent revisions will be made in a manner determined to be appropriate by the Program
Lead team or AEA at the time. If a study team discovers that data require revisions, their Data
Coordinator can send a formal, written request (i.e. email) to the Data Resources Manager.
Revisions will be made and the appropriate QC columns updated, which will serve as adequate
documentation.
Data Deliverables
The following information describes the intermediate and final data deliverable for the Study
control point survey data. QC1 information is primarily recorded in the field and then field
notebooks are scanned and stored on the Task 2 Wiki site. The QC2 files are saved on the Task2
Internal Wiki site until level QC3 is complete. Once Level QC3 is complete, the files will be made
available to other study teams on the Task 5 wiki site. At this stage, the Excel survey data files
will be made available to the Program Lead’s data resources manager.
Data files will be submitted following the Project standards for data deliverables. The following
subdirectory and file naming structures will be used.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 5 January 31, 2013
Excel Files:
Subdirectory Descriptor Format / Example
Project Name SuWa (Level 1)
Submitting Consultant GWS (Level 1)
Program Name FA-IFS (Level 2)
Study Subject XSection (Level 2)
Beginning Study Date 20120601 (Level 2)
Final Deliverable GPS Control Survey Network (Level 3)
Filename Descriptor Format / Example
Program Name FA-IFS
Study Subject XSection
Data Type Susitna Control Geodetic
Date Last Updated YYYYMMDD
File Type .xlsx (most recent versions of Excel (2007 to 2013))
Example: SuWa_GWS\FA-IFS_XSection_20120601\ GPS Control Survey Network \
FA-IFS_XSection_Susitna_Control_Geodetic_20121029.xlsx
Notes:
- DO NOT use spaces or special characters in subdirectory (folder) and file names
- File naming convention is to allow files to indicate content when stand alone and not in the
submitted subdirectory.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 6 January 31, 2013
AEA Susitna Project 2012 – Instream Task2 Cross-Section and Task5 Network Studies
GPS Survey Network – Control Point Photos: Data QC Protocol
Last Update: 20130104
Last Update By: Marielle Remillard
Introduction
This document is intended to cover the data processing, quality control (QC), and final reporting
for the GPS Survey Control Network photographs (photos) of control points (cp). The cp photos
will be a final deliverable along with the final cp survey data. The separation of the cp photo
data processing is to allow it to be processed separately.
Key Study staff for this data product:
- Study Lead: Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
- Field Survey Team Lead: Billy Day, Geovera
- CP Photo Processing Staff: Marielle Remillard (Lead), Martha Ballard; GW Scientific
- Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants
- Data Resource Manager: Dana Stewart, R2 Resource Consultants
There will be 5 levels of data QC, named QC1 to QC5, each of which is tracked within the cp
photo catalog (FA-IFS_XSection_GPS_CP_Photos_Network_PhotoLog_YYYYMMDD). This allows
for quick determination of the QC status of every cp photo data record. The first three levels
are to be completed by the field study team, the fourth level by the Program Lead team, and
the final level by senior professionals during analysis and reporting.
QC1 – Field Review: QC review performed by the person collecting cp photo data, recorded in
field books, and then by the field team leader. The goal of QC1 is to save image files and back
them up in an organized format prior to leaving the field. Review is done on 100% of cp photo
data and includes accurate organization of the photos on all information recorded. This is
typically completed in the end of the day for each survey event.
QC2 – Data Entry: CP photo data are organized by cp location and renamed accordingly to the
Project naming convention listed below. The goal of QC2 is to correctly rename the cp photos
so they can later be used by Project studies to help locate cp’s in the field.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 7 January 31, 2013
Verification is done on 100% of cp photo data entered and includes extrapolation of shorthand
codes that might be used in the field into longhand or standard codes during cp photo
renaming. CP photo data renaming errors are corrected at this time, then QC is recorded in the
photo catalog column named “QC2”, containing the date and responsible staff as formatted as
“YYYYMMDD FLastname” (example: “20120915 MRemillard”).
Data Entry Study Staff: Daniel Reichardt (Lead), Marielle Remillard, Martha Ballard, GW
Scientific
QC3 – Senior Review: CP photo data are reviewed by a senior professional on the project
team, checking for logic, soundness, and adding qualifiers to results if warranted. Q3 is the step
where the photo location is verified. This is the final review before submitting cp photo data to
the Program Lead, and is recorded in the photo catalog “QC3” column in the same format as
QC2. This is also the QC level of raw files that have been “cleaned up” or otherwise processed
for delivery to AEA.
Senior Review Study Staff: Billy Day (Lead), Geovera, or Michael Lilly, GW Scientific,
Daniel Reichardt, GW Scientific
QC4 – Database Validation: Electronic cp photo data files are submitted to a photo catalog by
the Program Lead’s data resources manager. The deadline for this delivery is negotiated with
the team Data Coordinator in consideration of the study due date.
QC4 of photos will verify that file naming matches project standards and the task naming
convention listed below. It will not verify photo contents against the file names or descriptive
attributes within the catalog. QC4 of the photo catalog will be done as needed to incorporate it
into a comprehensive photo catalog for the project. This involves verification of field name
conventions, date formats, etc., splitting it into normalized tables as necessary and establishing
primary and foreign keys. If any errors are detected, an error report is generated for the study
team lead, who is expected to make corrections and resubmit data. The process is repeated
until verification is clean and records are marked in the photo catalog column “QC4” (such as
“20121001 DStewart”).
Program Lead’s Data Resource Manager: Dana Stewart, R2 Resource Consultants
QC5 – Technical Review: Photo content should not be altered during technical review.
Qualification of photos or attributes within the catalog may be applied by senior professionals
when analyzing data for reports, trends, and FERC applications. Some data items may be
corrected or qualified within the database photo catalog itself, while others are only addressed
in report text.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 8 January 31, 2013
Notes pertaining to cross section photo data item are recorded in 2 columns: QC5 (date and
staff) and QC5Edit (what is changed and why). This will serve as adequate documentation of
the qualifications, so maintenance of additional documentation isn’t usually necessary. QC5
revisions will be physically made by the Data Resource Manager, directed by the senior
professional.
Field Data Backups
Field photos should be backed up nightly from cameras to field laptops and USB drives. The cp
photos should then be placed by supporting field staff onto the Study Task2 internal wiki site
for access by other study staff.
Data Revisions
Once the processed cp photo data (QC3) have been submitted by the Study Lead (Michael Lilly)
to AEA via R2 (Joetta Zablotney), and it has been validated as ready for incorporation into the
Susitna project database (QC4), the data are considered to reside with AEA, and subsequent
revisions will only be made by the Program Lead team on their behalf. If a study team discovers
that data require revisions, their Data Coordinator (Joetta Zablotney) can send a formal, written
request (i.e. email) to the Data Resources Manager. Revisions will be made and the appropriate
QC columns updated in the photo catalog, which will serve as adequate documentation.
Data Deliverables
The following information describes the intermediate and final data deliverable for the Study cp
photo data. QC1 information is primarily recorded in the field or field office when images are
downloaded and organized. CP photos are then stored on the Task 2 Wiki site for study staff
access. The QC2 level files are saved on the Task2 Internal Wiki site until level QC3 is complete.
Once Level QC3 is complete, the files will be made available to other study teams on the Task 5
wiki site. At this stage, the Excel photo index files and cp photo files will be made available to
the Program Lead’s data resources manager on a USB flash drive with transmittal memo.
The JPG files will be submitted following the Project standards for data deliverables. The
following subdirectory and file naming structures will be used.
Subdirectory Descriptor Format / Example/ (Subdirectory level)
Project Name SuWa (Level 1)
Submitting Consultant GWS (Level 1)
Program Name FA-IFS (Level 2)
Study Subject XSection (Level 2)
Beginning Study Date 20120601 (Level 2)
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 9 January 31, 2013
Final Deliverable GPS Control Survey Network (Level 3)
Control Point Name CPxxx (ex: CP99, CP101) (Level 4)
Data Type Survey_Control_Network_Photos (Level 4)
Filename Descriptor Format / Example
Program Name FA-IFS
Study Subject XSection
Data Type Survey_Control_Network
QC Level QC2 or QC3
Control Point Name CPxxx (ex: CP99, CP101)
Survey Date (Photo Date) YYYYMMDD (ex: 20120610)
Original Photo Name DC12345 (varies by camera and user)
File Type .jpg (image file format)
Example:
SuWa_GWS\FA-IFS_XSection_20120601\ GPS_Control_Survey_Network\
CP101_Survey_Control_Network_Photos\FA-
IFS_XSection_Survey_Control_Network_QC2_CP101_20120610_DC12345.jpg
Notes:
- DO NOT use spaces or special characters in subdirectory (folder) and file names
- File naming convention is to allow files to indicate content when stand alone and not in the
submitted subdirectory
- Images are kept in their original resolution taken by the camera
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 10 January 31, 2013
AEA Susitna Project 2012 – Instream Task2 Cross-Section and Task5 Network Studies
GPS Survey Network—RTK Survey QC Protocol
Last Update: 20130111
Last Update By: Marielle Remillard, GW Scientific
Introduction
The F&A Program Lead team is tasked with implementing a standardized QA/QC protocol,
intended for use in all environmental field studies in 2012, including fish and aquatic, water
quality, river ice, terrestrial wildlife and botany, ISF, and others. This document will be
presented to the leader and appointed Data Coordinator of each of these study teams.
Key Study staff for this data product:
- Study Lead: Steve Smith (Lead), Geovera, LLC
- Field Survey Team Lead: Billy Day, Geovera, LLC
- Data Processing Staff: Steve Smith (Lead), Geovera, LLC
- Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants
- Data Resource Manager: Dana Stewart, R2 Resource Consultants
QC Levels
There will be 5 levels of data QC, named QC1 to QC5. This allows for quick determination of the
QC status of every data record. The first three levels are to be completed by the field study
team, the fourth level by the Program Lead team, and the final level by senior professionals
during analysis and reporting.
QC1 – Field Review: QC review performed by the person collecting field data, recorded in field
books, and reviewed by the field team leader. The goal of QC1 is to identify errors and
omissions and correct them under similar field conditions prior to leaving the field.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 11 January 31, 2013
Review is done on 100% of data and includes completeness, legibility, and logic on all
information recorded. This is typically completed in the field at time of survey; however, if
outstanding conditions related to field team safety require that the team depart the survey site
prior to completing QC1, QC1 shall be completed immediately upon arriving at an appropriate
location.
GPS Static Control
Field book notations for static GPS observations shall be in accordance with the Susitna-Watana
Project Geodetic Control Standards. Notes for each occupation will be checked to insure that
the following information is included:
1. The beginning and ending times for the occupation.
2. The name of the surveyor performing the occupation.
3. The receiver identifier (make, model, serial number).
4. The centering device identifier.
5. All antenna height measurements (in meters and feet).
6. The station identifier (name and/or survey point number).
7. A description of the monument and center mark.
8. Monument photograph/rubbing.
At the end of each day the static observation files will be downloaded from the GPS receivers
and put into an individual folder for that day’s static GPS observations. The date of the
observations shall be made a part of the folder name. The folder shall also contain electronic
images (scan or photograph) of the field notes for each static observation and photographs of
the control points and their immediate surroundings (if any). The folders containing the record
of the static observations will be transferred to the main office for post-processing.
RTK Surveying
Field book notations for RTK (Real Time Kinematic) observations shall be in accordance with the
Susitna-Watana Project Geodetic Control Standards. Occupation of the reference control
(base) stations will be in accordance with the procedures described for GPS static control
above.
RTK data collected is electronically stored in a “data collector”. Occupation data and point
descriptors are entered manually for RTK surveyed points. In addition, descriptors of the RTK
points are noted in the field book. If multiple observations are made on a point (typically a
survey monument or similar point of special interest), a note will be made in the field book as
to which of the observations had the best residuals.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 12 January 31, 2013
Each day, the data collector files will be downloaded and electronically stored as part of the
permanent job record. Data collector files contain all of the observation and occupation data
for each RTK data point, as well as coordinate data and point descriptors. Field notes for the
day’s work will be scanned into electronic format and made a part of the permanent job record.
QC2 – GPS Static Observation Post Processing: Static GPS observation files will be inserted into
the GPS post-processing software. The measure up for each control point will be confirmed by
multiplying the distance recorded in meters by 3.280833 to confirm that it matches the
distance recorded in feet. Each point will be given the name of the control point on which the
static observations were conducted. This will insure that the reports containing the post-
processing results clearly identify the control point for which the observations were made.
Post-processed points will be checked to insure that all results were fixed, and that the results
meet the project requirements for observational precision. All points meeting the criteria for
observational precision will be least-squares adjusted and a report will be generated outlining
all of the post-processing and adjustment results.
Coordinates of the control points will be exported to an ASCII file which will be stored in that
day’s static observation folder. The post processing report will be saved to PDF format and
stored in the folder along with the post-processing software file, the GPS static observation
files, control point photographs, and the field note images.
The goal of QC2 is to verify correct, complete, and consistent data entry, but it is also an
opportunity to compare previous independent observation results with current observation
results. During QC2, previous observations will be referenced to determine whether or not
there are any discrepancies between a previous and current control point position. A note can
be added to the electronic survey sheet regarding any positional differences. However, the
position of a primary monument shall not be adjusted until QC3.
Data Entry Study Staff: Steve Smith (Lead), Geovera
QC3 – Senior Review: Data is reviewed by a senior professional on the project team, checking
for logic, soundness, and adding qualifiers to results if warranted. Coordinates of project
control points will be placed in a spreadsheet for final posting to the wiki. The spreadsheet will
contain the point number, date of the static observations, latitude and longitude (in decimal
degrees), Alaska State Plane Zone 4 coordinates, elevation and point descriptor of each of the
project control points. In addition, there will be a statement of precision that each of the
control point’s static observations fall within, as determined from the post-processing results.
The spreadsheet will contain a header that labels the contents, date of last entry, person
responsible for the data entry, as well a statement about the datum (WGS84/NAD83), Alaska
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 13 January 31, 2013
state plane zone (4), and geoid (09) used to determine the orthometric heights (elevations) of
the points.
All data will be entered into electronic format directly, either by importing the data directly
from an ASCII file, or cutting and pasting directly from and to electronic files. No coordinate
data will be hand entered (typed with a keyboard). This is to eliminate the possibility of
erroneously transposing numbers. Once all data has been entered into the spreadsheet, the
data fields will be cross-checked directly against the original GPS post-processing files to insure
their accuracy.
Senior Review Study Staff: Steve Smith (Lead), Geovera
QC4 – Database Validation: Not applicable. There is no specific data deliverable associated
with this protocol.
QC5 – Technical Review: Not applicable. There is no specific data deliverable associated with
this protocol.
Field Data Backups
Both paper and electronic field forms should be backed up nightly in the field by scanning and
downloading to a storage unit or photocopy to paper. Field notes books and electronic files are
posted to the Study Internal Wiki sites where appropriate.
Data Revisions and Deliverables
The information provided above gives a general overview of the quality control process for RTK
survey data. This data is typically associated with specific data sets (ie. miscellaneous ties, cross
section water elevation, etc), and data revisions and deliverables are addressed further in those
respective QC documents. There is no specific data deliverable for this protocol.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 14 January 31, 2013
AEA Susitna Project 2012 – Instream Task2 Cross-Section and Task5 Network Studies
GPS Survey Network –RTK Coordinates Miscellaneous Points
Last Update: 20130111
Last Update By: Steve Smith
Introduction
This document is intended to cover the quality control (QC) and final reporting for GPS RTK
coordinates of miscellaneous data points tied into the project coordinate system during the
course of the project. Accurate GPS coordinates are necessary for sustained, coordinated
research, and will be submitted as a final deliverable.
Key Study staff for this data product:
- Study Lead: Steve Smith, Geovera, LLC
- Field Survey Team Lead: Billy Day, Geovera, LLC
- Survey Data Processing: Steve Smith, Geovera, LLC
- Data Coordinator: Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
There will be 5 levels of data QC, named QC1 to QC5. The first three levels are to be completed
by the field study team, the fourth level by the Program Lead team, and the final level by senior
professionals during analysis and reporting.
QC1 – Field Review: QC review performed by the person collecting field data, recorded in field
books, and reviewed by the field team leader. The goal of QC1 is to identify errors and
omissions and correct them under similar field conditions prior to leaving the field.
All data is reviewed for completeness, legibility, and logic. This is typically completed in the
field at time of survey; however, if outstanding conditions related to field team safety require
that the team depart the survey site prior to completing QC1, QC1 shall be completed
immediately upon arriving at an appropriate location.
During the course of the project there is a requirement to tie miscellaneous data points into the
project coordinate system. Field procedures and field book notations for the GPS RTK
observations of miscellaneous data points shall be in accordance with the procedures outlined
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 15 January 31, 2013
in the “GPS Survey Network—Control Point Survey QC Protocol” and “GPS Survey Network—
RTK Survey QC Protocol.”
Field book notations for GPS RTK base station occupation shall be in accordance with the
Susitna-Watana Project Geodetic Control Standards. Notes for each RTK base station
occupation will be checked to insure that the following information is included:
1. The beginning and ending times for the occupation.
2. The name of the surveyor performing the occupation.
3. The receiver identifier (make, model, serial number).
4. Antenna height measurements (in meters and feet).
5. The station identifier (name and/or survey point number).
Miscellaneous data points will be described in the field book. Descriptions will include at a
minimum the RTK point number, description of the point tied, and any additional information
that would further identify the object tied and/or its relevance to a specific study group. If
necessary, a sketch will be included that will show the general layout of the point(s) tied, their
relationship to the river, and any features that would help identify their location.
At the end of each day the electronic files will be downloaded from the GPS data collector put
into a folder for that day’s observations. The date of the observations shall be made a part of
the folder name. The folders containing the electronic record of the cross section RTK and
bathymetry data will be transferred to the main office for post-processing.
Field Staff: Steve Smith, Geovera, LLC
QC2- Data Processing: RTK data will be processed in conjunction with the senior review. See
item QC3.
QC3 – Senior Review: Miscellaneous data point coordinates are reviewed by a senior
professional on the project team, checking for logic, soundness, and adding qualifiers to results
if warranted. Miscellaneous data points will be placed in a spreadsheet for final posting to the
wiki. The spreadsheet will contain the point number, latitude and longitude (in decimal
degrees), Alaska State Plane Zone 4 coordinates, the elevation of each point (in feet), and a
descriptor that includes the point tied, and any pertinent information that will further identify
the point. The spreadsheet will contain a header that labels the contents, date of last entry,
person responsible for the data entry, as well a statement about the datum (WGS84/NAD83),
Alaska state plane zone (4), and geoid (09) used to determine the orthometric heights
(elevations) of the points.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 16 January 31, 2013
All data will be entered into electronic format directly, either by importing the data directly
from an ASCII file, or cutting and pasting directly from and to electronic files. No coordinate
data will be hand entered (typed with a keyboard). This is to eliminate the possibility of
erroneously transposing numbers. Once all data has been entered into the spreadsheet, the
data fields will be cross-checked directly against the original GPS post-processing files to insure
their accuracy.
Senior Review Study Staff: Steve Smith, Geovera, LLC
QC4 – Database Validation Electronic data files are submitted to the Program Lead’s data
resources manager. The deadline for this delivery is negotiated with the team Data
Coordinator in consideration of the study due date.
Further QC4 verification of data isn’t applicable to miscellaneous RTK tie data.
Data Coordinator: Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
QC5 – Technical Review: GPS coordinates corresponding to study cross sections are considered
a historical record for the Project study. If GPS location errors are suspected by senior
professionals when analyzing data, the Lead Surveyor or Study Lead if he is not available, must
be notified to determine a course of corrective action. Data qualification may be applied by
senior professionals when analyzing data for reports, trends, and FERC applications, however,
the Study and Survey Leads must be notified if any substantive changes must be made to the
data.
Field Data Backups
Both paper and electronic field forms should be backed up nightly in the field by scanning and
downloading to a storage unit or photocopy to paper. Field notes books and electronic files are
posted to the Study Internal Wiki sites where appropriate.
Data Revisions
Once the processed field data (QC3) has been submitted by the Study Lead (Michael Lilly) to
AEA, and it has been validated as ready for incorporation into the Susitna project data
collection (QC4), the data are considered to reside with AEA, and subsequent revisions will be
made in a manner determined to be appropriate by the Program Lead team or AEA at the time.
If a study team discovers that data require revisions, their Data Coordinator can send a formal,
written request (i.e. email) to the Data Resources Manager.
Data Deliverables
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 17 January 31, 2013
The following information describes the final data deliverable for the Study miscellaneous RTK
points. QC1 level data is taken from the Task 2 Wiki page. Once Level QC3 is complete, the
updated document entitled “FA-IFS_XSection_RTK_Coordinate_Misc_Points_YYYYMMDD.xlsx”
will be made available to other study teams on the Task 5 wiki site. Additionally, it will be made
available to the Program Lead’s data resources manager on a USB flash drive, with a transmittal
memo.
The file will be submitted following the Project standards for data deliverables. The following
subdirectory and file naming structures will be used.
Excel Files:
Subdirectory Descriptor Format / Example
Project Name SuWa (Level 1)
Submitting Consultant GWS (Level 1)
Program Name FA-IFS (Level 2)
Study Subject XSection (Level 2)
Beginning Study Date 20120601 (Level 2)
Final Deliverable RTK Coordinate Misc Points (Level 3)
Filename Descriptor Format / Example
Program Name FA-IFS
Study Subject XSection
Data Type RTK Coordinate Misc Points
Last Updated YYYYMMDD (ex: 20120610)
File Type .xlsx (excel file format)
Example:
SuWa_GWS\FA-IFS_XSection_20120601\ RTK_Coordinate_Misc_Points\ FA-
IFS_XSection_RTK_Coordinate_Misc_Points_20130110.xlsx
Notes:
- DO NOT use spaces or special characters in subdirectory (folder) and file names
- File naming convention is to allow files to indicate content when stand alone and not in the
submitted subdirectory
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 18 January 31, 2013
AEA Susitna Project 2012 – Instream Task2 Cross-Section and Task5 Network Studies
GPS Survey Network – Cross-Section Baseline Control Points
Last Update: 20120109
Last Update By: Marielle Remillard
Introduction
This document is intended to cover the quality control (QC) and final reporting for GPS
coordinates corresponding to Susitna River cross section baseline control. Accurate GPS
coordinates are necessary for sustained, coordinated research, and will be submitted as a final
deliverable.
Key Study staff for this data product:
- Study Lead: Steve Smith, Geovera, LLC
- Field Survey Team Lead: Billy Day, Geovera, LLC
- Survey Data Processing: Steve Smith, Geovera, LLC
- Data Coordinator: Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
There will be 5 levels of data QC, named QC1 to QC5. The first three levels are to be completed
by the field study team, the fourth level by the Program Lead team, and the final level by senior
professionals during analysis and reporting.
QC1 – Field Review: QC review performed by the person collecting field data, recorded in field
books, and reviewed by the field team leader. The goal of QC1 is to identify errors and
omissions and correct them under similar field conditions prior to leaving the field.
All data is reviewed for completeness, legibility, and logic. This is typically completed in the
field at time of survey; however, if outstanding conditions related to field team safety require
that the team depart the survey site prior to completing QC1, QC1 shall be completed
immediately upon arriving at an appropriate location.
Each cross-section is monumented with a permanent set of survey monuments that control the
cross-section baseline(s). Field procedures and field book notations for the monumentation of
cross-section baseline points shall be in accordance with the procedures outlined in the “GPS
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 19 January 31, 2013
Survey Network—Control Point Survey QC Protocol” and “GPS Survey Network—RTK Survey QC
Protocol.”
Field book notations for GPS RTK base station occupation shall be in accordance with the
Susitna-Watana Project Geodetic Control Standards. Notes for each RTK base station
occupation will be checked to insure that the following information is included:
1. The beginning and ending times for the occupation.
2. The name of the surveyor performing the occupation.
3. The receiver identifier (make, model, serial number).
4. Antenna height measurements (in meters and feet).
5. The station identifier (name and/or survey point number).
Survey monuments (rebar w/ aluminum cap / brass tablet / spike etc.) set at cross-section
baseline end points will be described in the field book. Descriptions will include at a minimum
the RTK point number, monument description, the channel and bank (left or right), and the
proximity to surrounding vegetation and geographical features. A sketch will be included that
will show the general layout of the survey monuments set, their relationship to the river, and
any features that would help identify their location.
At the end of each day the electronic files will be downloaded from the GPS data collector put
into a folder for that day’s observations. The date of the observations shall be made a part of
the folder name. The folders containing the electronic record of the cross section RTK and
bathymetry data will be transferred to the main office for post-processing.
Field Staff: Steve Smith, Geovera, LLC
QC2- Data Processing: RTK data will be processed in conjunction with the senior review. See
item QC3.
QC3 – Senior Review: Cross-section coordinates are reviewed by a senior professional on the
project team, checking for logic, soundness, and adding qualifiers to results if warranted. Cross-
section baseline points will be placed in a spreadsheet for final posting to the wiki.
Spreadsheets will be organized by project river mile, and the spreadsheet will contain the point
number, latitude and longitude (in decimal degrees), Alaska State Plane Zone 4 coordinates, the
elevation of each point (in feet), and a descriptor that includes the type of monument set,
project river mile, and channel designation (LCL / MCL / RCR etc.). The spreadsheet will contain
a header that labels the contents, date of last entry, person responsible for the data entry, as
well a statement about the datum (WGS84/NAD83), Alaska state plane zone (4), and geoid (09)
used to determine the orthometric heights (elevations) of the points.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 20 January 31, 2013
All data will be entered into electronic format directly, either by importing the data directly
from an ASCII file, or cutting and pasting directly from and to electronic files. No coordinate
data will be hand entered (typed with a keyboard). This is to eliminate the possibility of
erroneously transposing numbers. Once all data has been entered into the spreadsheet, the
data fields will be cross-checked directly against the original GPS post-processing files to insure
their accuracy.
Senior Review Study Staff: Steve Smith, Geovera, LLC
QC4 – Database Validation Electronic data files are submitted to the Program Lead’s data
resources manager. The deadline for this delivery is negotiated with the team Data
Coordinator in consideration of the study due date.
Further QC4 verification of data isn’t applicable to Cross Section Baseline Control data.
Data Coordinator: Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
QC5 – Technical Review: GPS coordinates corresponding to study cross sections are considered
a historical record for the Project study. If GPS location errors are suspected by senior
professionals when analyzing data, the Lead Surveyor or Study Lead if he is not available, must
be notified to determine a course of corrective action. Data qualification may be applied by
senior professionals when analyzing data for reports, trends, and FERC applications, however,
the Study and Survey Leads must be notified if any substantive changes must be made to the
data.
Field Data Backups
Both paper and electronic field forms should be backed up nightly in the field by scanning and
downloading to a storage unit or photocopy to paper. Field notes books and electronic files are
posted to the Study Internal Wiki sites where appropriate.
Data Revisions
Once the processed field data (QC3) has been submitted by the Study Lead (Michael Lilly) to
AEA, and it has been validated as ready for incorporation into the Susitna project data
collection (QC4), the data are considered to reside with AEA, and subsequent revisions will be
made in a manner determined to be appropriate by the Program Lead team or AEA at the time.
If a study team discovers that data require revisions, their Data Coordinator can send a formal,
written request (i.e. email) to the Data Resources Manager.
Data Deliverables
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 21 January 31, 2013
The following information describes the final data deliverable for the Study cross-section
baseline control. Once Level QC3 is complete, the updated document entitled “FA-
IFS_XSection_X-Section_Baseline_Control_Points_YYYYMMDD” will be made available to other
study teams on the Task 5 wiki site. Additionally, it will be made available to the Program Lead’s
data resources manager on a USB flash drive, with a transmittal memo.
The file will be submitted following the Project standards for data deliverables. The following
subdirectory and file naming structures will be used.
Excel Files:
Subdirectory Descriptor Format / Example
Project Name SuWa (Level 1)
Submitting Consultant GWS (Level 1)
Program Name FA-IFS (Level 2)
Study Subject XSection (Level 2)
Beginning Study Date 20120601 (Level 2)
Final Deliverable X-Section_Baseline_Control_Points (Level 3)
Filename Descriptor Format / Example
Program Name FA-IFS
Study Subject XSection
Data Type X-Section_Baseline_Control_Points
Last Updated YYYYMMDD (ex: 20120610)
File Type .xlsx (excel file format)
Example:
SuWa_GWS\FA-IFS_XSection_20120601\ X-Section_Baseline_Control_Points\ FA-IFS_XSection_X-
Section_Baseline_Control_Points_20130107
Notes:
- DO NOT use spaces or special characters in subdirectory (folder) and file names
- File naming convention is to allow files to indicate content when stand alone and not in the
submitted subdirectory
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 22 January 31, 2013
AEA Susitna Project 2012 – Instream Task2 Cross-Section and Task5 Network Studies
GPS Survey Network – Cross-Section Photos: Data QC Protocol
Last Update: 20130104
Last Update By: Marielle Remillard
Introduction
This document is intended to cover the data processing, quality control (QC), and final reporting
for the cross section survey photographs (cross-section photos). The cross-section photos will
be a final deliverable along with the final cross-section surveys, gaging data, and bathymetry
data.
Key Study staff for this data product:
- Study Lead: Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
- Field Survey Team Lead: Billy Day (Lead), Ryan Taylor; Geovera
- Photo Processing Staff: Marielle Remillard (Lead), Martha Ballard; GW Scientific
- Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants
- Data Resource Manager: Dana Stewart, R2 Resource Consultants
There will be 5 levels of data QC, named QC1 to QC5, each of which is tracked within the cross-
section photo catalog (FA-IFS_XSection_X-Section_Survey_PhotoLog_YYYYMMDD). This allows
for quick determination of the QC status of every cross-section photo data record. The first
three levels are to be completed by the field study team, the fourth level by the Program Lead
team, and the final level by senior professionals during analysis and reporting.
QC1 – Field Review: Includes QC review performed by the person collecting cross-section photo
data and the subsequent review by the field team leader. The goal of QC1 is to save image files
and back them up in an organized format prior to leaving the field. Review is done on 100% of
cross-section photo data and includes accurate organization of the photos and all related
information. This is typically completed in the end of the day for each survey event.
QC2 – Data Entry: Cross-section photo data is organized by river mile (RM) and renamed
accordingly to the Project naming convention listed below. The goal of QC2 is to correctly
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 23 January 31, 2013
rename the cross-section photos so they can later be used by Project studies to help locate
cross-sections in the field and affirm river geometry and hydraulics.
Verification is performed on all cross-section photo data, including extrapolation of shorthand
codes that might be used in the field into longhand or standard codes during cross-section
photo renaming. Cross-section photo data naming errors are corrected at this time, then QC is
recorded in the photo catalog column named “QC2,” containing the date and responsible staff
as formatted as “YYYYMMDD FLastname” (example: “20120915 MRemillard”).
Data Entry Study Staff: Daniel Reichardt (Lead), Marielle Remillard, Martha Ballard; GW
Scientific
QC3 – Senior Review: Cross-section photo data is reviewed by a senior professional on the
project team, checking for logic, soundness, and adding qualifiers to results if warranted. Q3 is
the step where the photo location (river mile) and orientation (left- vs. right-bank) are verified.
This is the final review before submitting cross section photo data to the Program Lead, and is
recorded in the photo catalog “QC3” column in the same format as QC2. This is also the QC
level of raw files that have been “cleaned up” or otherwise processed for delivery to AEA.
Senior Review Study Staff: Billy Day (Lead), Geovera, or Michael Lilly, Daniel Reichardt;
GW Scientific
QC4 – Database Validation: Electronic cross-section photo data files are submitted to and
verified by the Program Lead’s data resources manager. The deadline for this delivery is
negotiated with the team Data Coordinator in consideration of the study due date.
QC4 of photos will verify that file naming matches project standards and the task naming
convention listed below. It will not verify photo contents against the file names or descriptive
attributes within the catalog. QC4 of the photo catalog will be done as needed to incorporate it
into a comprehensive photo catalog for the project. This involves verification of field name
conventions, date formats, etc., splitting it into normalized tables as necessary and establishing
primary and foreign keys. If any errors are detected, an error report is generated for the study
team lead, who is expected to make corrections and resubmit data. The process is repeated
until verification is clean and records are marked in the photo catalog column “QC4” (such as
“20121001 DStewart”).
Program Lead’s Data Resource Manager: Dana Stewart, R2 Resource Consultants
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 24 January 31, 2013
QC5 – Technical Review: Photo content should not be altered during technical review.
Qualification of photos or attributes within the catalog may be applied by senior professionals
when analyzing data for reports, trends, and FERC applications. Some data items may be
corrected or qualified within the database photo catalog itself, while others are only addressed
in report text.
Notes pertaining to cross section photo data item are recorded in 2 columns: QC5 (date and
staff) and QC5Edit (what is changed and why). This will serve as adequate documentation of
the qualifications, so maintenance of additional documentation isn’t usually necessary. QC5
revisions will be physically made by the Data Resource Manager, directed by the senior
professional.
Field Data Backups
Field photos should be backed up nightly from cameras to field laptops and USB drives. The
cross-section photos should then be placed by supporting field staff onto the Study Task2
internal wiki site for access by other study staff.
Data Revisions
Once the processed cross-section photo data (QC3) has been submitted by the Study Lead
(Michael Lilly) to AEA via R2 (Joetta Zablotney), and it has been validated as ready for
incorporation into the Susitna project database (QC4), the data is considered to reside with
AEA, and subsequent revisions will only be made by the Program Lead team on their behalf. If a
study team discovers that data requires revision, their Data Coordinator (Joetta Zablotney) can
send a formal, written request (i.e. email) to the Data Resources Manager. Revisions will be
made and the appropriate QC columns updated in the catalog, which will serve as adequate
documentation.
Data Deliverables
The following information describes the intermediate and final data deliverable for the Study
cross section photo data. QC1 information is primarily recorded in the field or field office when
images are downloaded and organized. Cross-section photos are then stored on the Task 2 Wiki
site for study staff access. The QC2 level files are saved on the Task2 Internal Wiki site until level
QC3 is complete. Once Level QC3 is complete, the files will be made available to other study
teams on the Task 5 wiki site. At this stage, the Excel photo index files and cross-section photo
files will be made available to the Program Lead’s data resources manager on a USB flash drive
with transmittal memo.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 25 January 31, 2013
The JPG files will be submitted following the Project standards for data deliverables. The
following subdirectory and file naming structures will be used.
Subdirectory Descriptor Format / Example / (Subdirectory level)
Project Name SuWa (Level 1)
Submitting Consultant GWS (Level 1)
Program Name FA-IFS (Level 2)
Study Subject XSection (Level 2)
Beginning Study Date 20120601 (Level 2)
Final Deliverable Cross-Section Bank Photo Sets (Level 3)
Project River Mile PRMxxx (ex: PRM75.0, PRM102.4) (Level 4)
Data Type XSection_Survey_Photos (Level 4)
Filename Descriptor Format / Example
Program Name FA-IFS
Study Subject XSection
Data Type X-Section_Survey
QC Level QC2 or QC3
Project River Mile PRMxxx (ex: PRM75.0, PRM102.4)
Brailey River Mile RMxxx (ex: RM113.0) (used only in 2012 studies)
Channel1 MC, LC, or RC (not applicable for all images)
Orientation2 L or R
Survey Date (Photo Date) YYYYMMDD (ex: 20120610)
Original Photo Name DC12345 (varies by camera and user)
File Type .jpg (image file format)
Example:
SuWa_GWS\FA-IFS_XSection_20120601\ Cross-
Section_Bank_Photo_Sets\PRM75.0_XSection_Survey_Photos\FA-IFS_XSection_X-
Section_Survey_QC2_PRM179.8LCR_RM112.0LCR_20120610_DC12345.jpg
Notes:
- DO NOT use spaces or special characters in subdirectory (folder) and file names
1 Only relevant for cross sections where multiple channels were present. “MC” = main channel, “LC”= left-most channel when
facing downstream, “RC”= right-most channel when facing downstream. If there are multiple middle channels, they will be
numbered from left to right when facing downstream. Channel numbers only reflect the river on the date of observation. This
naming convention will not be present where the river is a single channel.
2 “R”= image faces downstream when the shore is on the right hand side and the river is on the left side of the image. The image
faces upstream when the shore is on the left-hand side of the image and the river is on the right hand side. “L”: the image faces
downstream when the shore is on the left hand side of the image with the river on the right. The image faces upstream when the
shore is on the right-hand side of the image and the river is on the left.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 26 January 31, 2013
- File naming convention is to allow files to indicate content when stand alone and not in the
submitted subdirectory
- Images are kept in their original resolution taken by the camera
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 27 January 31, 2013
AEA Susitna Project 2012 – Instream Task2 Cross-Section and Task5 Network Studies
Level-Loop Vertical Elevation Surveys: Data QC Protocol
Last Update: 20120107
Last Update By: Marielle Remillard
Introduction
The F&A Program Lead team is tasked with implementing a standardized QA/QC protocol,
intended for use in all environmental field studies in 2012, including fish and aquatic, water
quality, river ice, terrestrial wildlife and botany, ISF, and others. This document will be
presented to the leader and appointed Data Coordinator of each of these study teams.
Key Study staff for this data product:
- Study Lead: Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
- Field Survey Team Lead: Michael McCool, GWScientific
- Data Processing Staff: Steve Smith (Lead), Geovera; Marielle Remillard, GW Scientific
- Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants
- Data Resource Manager: Dana Stewart, R2 Resource Consultants
QC Levels
There will be 5 levels of data QC, named QC1 to QC5, each of which is tracked within the
electronic Elevation Survey Form (F-001). This allows for quick determination of the QC status
of every data record. The first three levels are to be completed by the field study team, the
fourth level by the Program Lead team, and the final level by senior professionals during
analysis and reporting.
QC1 – Field Review: QC review performed by the person collecting field data, recorded in field
books, and reviewed by the field team leader. The goal of QC1 is to identify errors and
omissions and correct them under similar field conditions prior to leaving the field.
Review is done on 100% of data and includes completeness, legibility, level-loop closure, and
logic on all information recorded. This is typically completed in the field at time of survey;
however, if outstanding conditions related to field team safety require that the team depart the
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 28 January 31, 2013
survey site prior to completing QC1, QC1 shall be completed immediately upon arriving at an
appropriate location. Once completed, QC1 notations are made directly in the field book in an
entry named “QC1”, containing the date and responsible staff and formatted as “YYYYMMDD
FLastname” (example: “20120631 JDoe”).
QC2 – Data Entry: Data from paper forms are entered into an Excel electronic Elevation Survey
Form (F-001), and data entry is verified by a second party against the field forms. The Excel
field forms contain equations to help verify field calculations. It is important to note that the
field team will sometimes complete a level survey using a temporary arbitrary datum.
Commonly, the primary benchmark will be assigned an elevation of 100.00 ft for the purposes
of completing the survey. When this approach is used, the data should first be entered into the
electronic format using the same datum that was used during the field survey. Only after
completing electronic entry and checking for accuracy and completeness is the arbitrary datum
adjusted by using the previously established primary benchmark elevation. Draft entries will be
made in the Water Surface Elevation Log (F-002). Adjustment of data from the arbitrary datum
to the actual elevation will take place during QC3.
The goal of QC2 is to verify correct, complete, and consistent data entry. During QC2 previous
surveys should be referenced to determine whether or not the elevation of benchmarks and
monuments may have drifted. A note can be added to the electronic survey sheet regarding
this movement. However, the elevation of the primary benchmark shall not be adjusted until
QC3.
Verification is done on 100% of data entered and includes extrapolation of shorthand codes
that might be used in the field into longhand or standard codes during data entry. Data entry
errors are corrected at this time, then QC is recorded at the bottom of the Elevation Survey
Form (F-001) in a column named “QC2”, containing the date and responsible staff and
formatted as “YYYYMMDD FLastname” (example: “20120631 JDoe”).
Data Entry Study Staff: Daniel Reichardt (Lead), Marielle Remillard, Michael McCool,
Kristie Hilton, GW Scientific
QC3 – Senior Review: Data is reviewed by a senior professional on the project team, checking
for logic, soundness, and adding qualifiers to results if warranted. Data that was collected using
an arbitrary 100 ft. elevation datum will be corrected at this time to reflect true elevation. A
note will be made on the electronic survey form that the survey was completed with an
arbitrary datum, which was adjusted during QC3. The Water Surface Elevation Log (F-002) will
be updated at this stage. Calculated results can also be added at this time (formulas must be
documented in the data dictionary). In addition, Q3 is the step where the elevation of the
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 29 January 31, 2013
primary benchmark may be adjusted based upon all acquired evidence. If the primary
benchmark elevation is adjusted a note to that affect must be added to the electronic survey
form. This is the final review before submitting field data to the Program Lead, and is recorded
in the “QC3” location of the Elevation Survey Form (F-001) in the same format as QC2. This is
also the QC level of raw files that have been “cleaned up” or otherwise processed for delivery
to AEA, such as photos and site diagrams.
Senior Review Study Staff: Steve Smith (Lead), Geovera, or Michael Lilly, GW Scientific,
Daniel Reichardt, GW Scientific
QC4 – Database Validation: Electronic data files are submitted to the Program Lead’s data
resources manager. The deadline for this delivery is negotiated with the team Data
Coordinator in consideration of the study due date.
Further QC4 verification of data isn’t applicable to Level Loop Survey data.
Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants
QC5 – Technical Review: Data revision and qualification may be applied by senior professionals
when analyzing data for reports, trends, and FERC applications. Data calculations may be
stored with the data. Some data items may get corrected or qualified within the database,
while others are only addressed in report text. QC5 may be iterative, as data are analyzed in
multiple years.
If a data item is revised directly, it’s recorded in 2 columns of the Level Loop Survey Log: QC5
(date and staff) and QC5Edit (what is revised and why). Additionally, the date and data
coordinator should be updated in the file name when appropriate. This will serve as adequate
documentation of the revisions, so maintenance of additional documentation isn’t usually
necessary. QC5 revisions should not be made until reviewed and accepted by the Lead
Surveyor or Study Lead if he is not available. The data will be changed in final Project files, and
the Data Resource Manager notified.
Field Data Backups
Both paper and electronic field forms should be backed up nightly in the field by scanning and
downloading to a storage unit or photocopy to paper. Field notes books and electronic files are
posted to the Study Internal Wiki sites where appropriate.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 30 January 31, 2013
Data Revisions
Once the processed field data (QC3) have been submitted by the Study Lead (Michael Lilly) to
AEA via R2 (Joetta Zablotney), and it has been validated as ready for incorporation into the
Susitna project data collection (QC4), the data are considered to reside with AEA, and
subsequent revisions will be made in a manner determined to be appropriate by the Program
Lead team or AEA at the time. If a study team discovers that data require revisions, their Data
Coordinator can send a formal, written request (i.e. email) to the Data Resources Manager.
Revisions will be made and the appropriate QC columns updated, which will serve as adequate
documentation.
Data Deliverables
The following information describes the intermediate and final data deliverable for the Study
level-loop elevation survey data. QC1 information is primarily recorded in the field and then
field notebooks are scanned and stored on the Task 2 Wiki site. The QC2 level files are saved on
the Task2 Internal Wiki site until level QC3 is complete. Once Level QC3 is complete, the files
will be made available to other study teams on the Task 5 wiki site. At this stage, the Excel
survey files and summary water level files will be made available to the Program Lead’s data
resources manager.
Data files will be submitted following the Project standards for data deliverables. The following
subdirectory and file naming structures will be used.
Excel Files:
Subdirectory Descriptor Format / Example
Project Name SuWa (Level 1)
Submitting Consultant GWS (Level 1)
Program Name FA-IFS (Level 2)
Study Subject XSection (Level 2)
Beginning Study Date YYYYMMDD (Level 2)
Final Deliverable LL_Surveys_at_Gaging_Stations (Level 3)
Gaging Station Name ESSxx (Level 4)
Data Type LL_Surveys (Level Loop) (Level 4)
Filename Descriptor Format / Example
Program Name FA-IFS
Study Subject XSection
Data Type LL_Surveys (Level Loop)
Form F-001
QC Level QC2 or QC3
Gaging Station Name ESSxx
Survey Date YYYYMMDD
File Type .xlsx (most recent versions of Excel (2007 to 2013))
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 31 January 31, 2013
Example: SuWa_GWS\FA-IFS_XSection_20120601\ LL_Surveys_at_Gaging_Stations \ESS55_LL_Surveys\
FA-IFS _XSection_LL_Surveys_F-001_QC3_ESS10_20120731.xlsx
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 32 January 31, 2013
AEA Susitna Project 2012 – Instream Task2 Cross-Section and Task5 Network Studies
Cross-Section Vegetation Descriptions: Data QC Protocol
Last Update: 20130117
Last Update By: Marielle Remillard
Introduction
This document covers the data processing, quality control (QC), and final reporting of the
Susitna River cross-section vegetation descriptions. The cross-section vegetation descriptions
will be a final deliverable.
Key Study staff for this data product:
- Study Lead: Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
- Vegetation Description Lead: Janet Kidd, ABR
- Photo Processing Staff: Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
- Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants, Michael Lilly, GW
Scientific
There will be 5 levels of data QC, named QC1 to QC5. The first three levels are to be completed
by the field study team, the fourth level by the Program Lead team, and the final level by senior
professionals during analysis and reporting.
QC1 – Field Review: Vegetation descriptions for riparian flora are based on photographs taken
at each river cross-section. Cross-section photos are subject to five levels of QC review, as
outlined in the “GPS Survey Network – Cross-Section Photos: Data QC Protocol” document.
Photo quality control ensures extrapolation of short-hand field notes, organization of photos by
Project River Mile (PRM), correct naming of photographs, and verification of photo dates and
location.
QC2 – Data Entry: Riparian vegetation is identified at each cross-section based on cross section
photographs. Vegetation descriptions, arranged by project river mile, are organized for use in
Project related studies and reports. Vegetation descriptions, along with Project River Mile
(PRM), photograph file name and date of image are recorded in the “Cross-Section Vegetation
Description Index” (FA-IFS_XSection_Vegetation_Description_Index_YYYYMMDD).
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 33 January 31, 2013
Each river mile includes several photos and each photo was reviewed and assigned a vegetation
class when appropriate (in some cases the photograph was of a survey marker or some other
view not related to the channel banks). If more than one vegetation class was visible in a photo
(typically due to increased terrace height/age), the vegetation type on the older terrace was
used for the final designation. For example, the vegetation type directly adjacent to the channel
may be a thin strip of open low willow, followed by a band of open tall alder willow, and then
closed balsam poplar. In this case, Closed Balsam Poplar was the assigned vegetation class,
even if the majority of the photos were of other vegetation types. In some cases the
photograph was of the opposite bank. When applicable, we gave these photographs a
vegetation class but the site class was determined using only photos of the designated channel
view.
In several cases there was insufficient information to make a definitive decision on vegetation
class or the confidence was low in the vegetation designation because the views available of
vegetation were limited. These entries were either No Data or the level of confidence for the
classification given was included in the notes field of the spreadsheet. In general, photo-
documentation of riparian vegetation was limited and it is recommended that direct views of
the bank vegetation be taken in addition to channel views. If the vegetation is represented
primarily by forest, then the photograph should include as much of the canopy as possible.
Data Entry Study Staff: Rebecca Baird, ABR
QC3 – Senior Review: An accuracy assessment of the vegetation descriptions was conducted
by Janet Kidd (ABR) and involved reviewing at least 25% of the final vegetation class
assignments within each vegetation class for concurrence with the classification. All classes with
only 1 occurrence were reviewed. This is the final review before submitting vegetation
descriptions to the Program Lead.
Senior Review Study Staff: Janet Kidd (Lead), ABR
QC4 – Database Validation: The Cross-Section Vegetation Description Index is submitted to the
Program Lead’s data resources manager. The deadline for this delivery is negotiated with the
team Data Coordinator in consideration of the study due date.
QC4 of the vegetation descriptions will verify that all necessary information is contained within
the vegetation description index, and that naming matches project standards. It will not verify
photo contents against the file names or descriptive attributes within the catalog.
QC5 – Technical Review: Vegetation information may be used by senior professionals when
analyzing data for reports, trends, and FERC applications. If any errors are detected, the Project
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 34 January 31, 2013
Lead (Michael Lilly) and Lead Botanist (Janet Kidd) must be notified before changes are made to
the Cross-Section Vegetation Description Index.
Data Revisions
Once the processed cross-section vegetation descriptions (QC3) have been submitted by the
Study Lead (Michael Lilly) to AEA, and it has been validated as ready for incorporation into the
Susitna project database (QC4), the data is considered to reside with AEA, and subsequent
revisions will only be made by the Program Lead team on their behalf. If a study team discovers
that data requires revision, their Data Coordinator (Joetta Zablotney) can send a formal, written
request (i.e. email) to the Data Resources Manager.
Data Deliverables
The following information describes the intermediate and final data deliverable for the Study
cross section photo data. QC1 information (cross-section photographs) is obtained from the
Task 2 Internal Wiki site after they have completed the quality control review. The QC2 level
vegetation descriptions are saved on the Task2 Internal Wiki site until level QC3 is complete.
Once Level QC3 is complete, the files will be made available to other study teams on the Task 5
wiki site. At this stage, the Cross-Section Vegetation Description Index will be made available to
the Program Lead’s data resources manager on a USB flash drive with transmittal memo.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 35 January 31, 2013
The excel files will be submitted following the Project standards for data deliverables. The
following subdirectory and file naming structures will be used.
Excel Files:
Subdirectory Descriptor Format / Example / (Subdirectory level)
Project Name SuWa (Level 1)
Submitting Consultant GWS (Level 1)
Program Name FA-IFS (Level 2)
Study Subject XSection (Level 2)
Beginning Study Date 20120601 (Level 2)
Final Deliverable X-Section Vegetation Descriptions (Level 3)
Filename Descriptor Format / Example
Program Name FA-IFS
Study Subject XSection
Data Type Vegetation Description Index
QC Level QC2 or QC3
Last Update Date YYYYMMDD (ex: 20130117)
File Type .xlsx (excel file format)
Example:
SuWa_GWS\FA-IFS_XSection_20120601\ X-Section_Vegetation_Descriptions \ FA-IFS_XSection_
Vegetation_Description_Index_20130117.xlsx
Notes:
- DO NOT use spaces or special characters in subdirectory (folder) and file names
- File naming convention is to allow files to indicate content when stand alone and not in the
submitted subdirectory
- Images are kept in their original resolution taken by the camera
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 36 January 31, 2013
AEA Susitna Project 2012 – Instream Task2 Cross-Section and Task5 Network Studies
Water-Surface Elevation Log QC Protocol
Last Update: 20130107
Last Update By: Marielle Remillard, GW Scientific
Introduction
This document covers data processing, quality control (QC), and final reporting for water level
elevations measured at cross sections and gauging stations over time. GPS RTK (Real Time
Kinematic) observations, level loop surveys, and tape down measurements are compiled into a
water level elevation log for each location. The water level summary files will be submitted as a
final deliverable.
Key Study staff for this data product:
- Study Lead: Michael Lilly (Lead), GW Scientific
- Field Survey Team Lead: Billy Day, Steve Smith, Geovera; Michael McCool, GW Scientific
- Data Processing Staff: Marielle Remillard, Martha Ballard; GW Scientific
- Data Coordinator: Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
QC Levels
There will be 5 levels of data QC, named QC1 to QC5. This allows for quick determination of the
QC status of every data record. The first three levels are to be completed by the field study
team, the fourth level by the Program Lead team, and the final level by senior professionals
during analysis and reporting.
QC1 – Data Collection: Water elevation is measured using GPS RTK (Real Time Kinematic)
observations, level loop surveys, and manual tape down readings. Each data set is prepared
according to the respective QC document. QC Review includes checks for accuracy, logic, and
completeness of data sets. When necessary, water elevation is converted to Project datum.
Verified water elevation measurements are obtained from the internal Task 2 Wiki page.
QC2 – Data Processing: Water surface elevation results are compiled into the “Water Surface
Elevation Log” (Form F-002) and organized by site location. There will be one summary file per
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 37 January 31, 2013
gauging station or cross section. All data points are entered into the spreadsheet by copying
and pasting from the master spreadsheets in order to reduce typing errors. All data is checked
for correct, complete, and consistent data entry and processing.
The spreadsheet will contain the date and time of each observation, time unit (AST), method,
manual WL reading, reference point, reference point elevation, estimated error, and water
elevations. The spreadsheet will contain a header that labels the contents, date of last entry,
person responsible for the data entry, as well a statement about the datum (WGS84/NAD83),
Alaska state plane zone (4), and geoid (09) used to determine the orthometric heights
(elevations) of the points. Channel designations (LCL, MCR, etc.), are provided for the water
surface shots under the “remarks” heading if applicable.
Data Entry Study Staff: Marielle Remillard (Lead), Martha Ballard, GW Scientific
QC3 – Senior Review: After the water surface elevation logs have been compiled, an
independent analysis of the data is done by a senior professional on the project team. River
Mile descriptions are verified and each data point is cross-checked with the original data files
including a check of the time-stamp, water elevation, and reference point (if applicable). Once
the independent comparison of the data sets is complete, the spreadsheet is approved and
posted to the Task 5 Wiki page for other agencies and partners to access.
Senior Review Study Staff: Michael Lilly (Lead), Marielle Remillard, GW Scientific
QC4 – Database Validation: Electronic data files are submitted to the Program Lead’s data
resources manager. The deadline for this delivery is negotiated with the team Data
Coordinator in consideration of the study due date.
Water level elevation logs will be update as new information is made available. The data
coordinator will assist in ensuring the most current version is made available.
Data Coordinator: Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
QC5 – Technical Review: Data revision and qualification may be applied by senior professionals
when analyzing data for reports, trends, and FERC applications. Data calculations may be
stored with the data. Some data items may get corrected or qualified within the database,
while others are only addressed in report text. QC5 may be iterative, as data are analyzed in
multiple years.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 38 January 31, 2013
Data Backups
Electronic field forms should be backed up to the Study Internal Wiki sites, in addition to
external hard drives residing within AEA.
Data Revisions
Once the processed field data (QC3) have been submitted by the Study Lead (Michael Lilly) to
AEA, and it has been validated as ready for incorporation into the Susitna project data
collection (QC4), the data are considered to reside with AEA, and subsequent revisions will be
made in a manner determined to be appropriate by the Program Lead team or AEA at the time.
If a study team discovers that data require revisions, their Data Coordinator can send a formal,
written request (i.e. email) to the Data Resources Manager.
Data Deliverables
The following information describes the intermediate and final data deliverable for the Study.
QC1 information (verified RTK surveys, level loop surveys, and other manual readings) is
obtained from the Task 2 Wiki site. QC2 summary logs are prepared as data is produced and
stored on the Task 2 Wiki until level QC3 is complete. Once Level QC3 is complete, the files will
be made available to other study teams on the Task 5 wiki site. At this stage, the Excel water-
[surface] elevation summary files will be made available to the Program Lead’s data resources
manager.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 39 January 31, 2013
Data files will be submitted following the Project standards for data deliverables. The following
subdirectory and file naming structures will be used.
Excel Files:
Subdirectory Descriptor Format / Example
Project Name SuWa (Level 1)
Submitting Consultant GWS (Level 1)
Program Name FA-IFS (Level 2)
Study Subject XSection (Level 2)
Beginning Study Date 20120601 (Level 2)
Final Deliverable WS_Elevations (Level 3)
Location Gauging Stations(Level 3)
Filename Descriptor Format / Example
Program Name FA-IFS
Study Subject XSection
Data Type WS Elevations
Form F-002
Gauging Station ESSxxx (if applicable)
Project River Mile PRMxxx (ex: PRM75.0, PRM102.4)
Date Last Updated YYYYMMDD
File Type .xlsx (most recent versions of Excel (2007 to 2013))
Example: SuWa_GWS\FA-IFS_XSection_20120601\ WS_Elevations_Gauging_Stations\
FA-IFS_XSection _WS_Elevation_Log_F-002_ ESS10_PRM17.4_20130107.xlsx
Notes:
- DO NOT use spaces or special characters in subdirectory (folder) and file names
- File naming convention is to allow files to indicate content when stand alone and not in the
submitted subdirectory.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 40 January 31, 2013
AEA Susitna Project 2012 – Instream Task2 Cross-Section and Task5 Network Studies
Continuous Stage Data QC Protocol
Last Update: 20130118
Last Update By: Dave Brailey, Brailey Hydrologic
Introduction
This document explains the data processing, quality control (QC), and final reporting of
continuous stage data from AEA gaging stations. Uncorrected stage data is reported at 15-
minute intervals via the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Data Network (Network). These data are
converted to water surface elevations using the Aquarius Workstation software (v. 3.0).
Key Study staff for this data product:
- Study Lead: Dave Brailey (Lead), Brailey Hydrologic
- Data Processing Staff: Dave Brailey (Lead), Brailey Hydrologic
- Senior Review Staff: Michael Lilly (Lead), GW Scientific
- Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants
QC Levels
There will be 5 levels of data QC, named QC1 to QC5. This allows for quick determination of the
QC status of every data record. The first three levels are to be completed by the field study
team, the fourth level by the Program Lead team, and the final level by senior professionals
during analysis and reporting.
QC1 – Data Collection: Raw transducer data is downloaded from the Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Data Network. Summaries of manual stage measurements are obtained from
logs (form F-002) maintained on the internal project wiki site.
Data Entry Study Staff: Dave Brailey (Lead), Brailey Hydrologic
QC2 – Data Processing: Multiple transducer data files are combined into a single text file, and a
file of manual stage measurements is prepared from logs maintained for each station (form F-
002). These data are imported into the Aquarius Workstation software, which automatically
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 41 January 31, 2013
identifies data gaps and removes duplicate records. The raw data are then converted to water
surface elevations by matching manual stage measurements against the raw transducer data.
Post Processing Study Staff: Dave Brailey (Lead), Brailey Hydrologic
QC3 – Senior Review: The corrected stage data is reviewed by a senior professional on the
project team, including comparison against nearby stations. After review and approval, the
corrected stage data is posted to the Task 5 Wiki page for access by agencies and AEA partners.
Senior Review Study Staff: Michael Lilly, GW
Scientific
QC4 – Database Validation: Electronic files of the corrected stage data will be submitted to the
Program Lead’s data resources manager. The deadline for this delivery is negotiated with the
team Data Coordinator in consideration of the study due date.
Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants; Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
QC5 – Technical Review: Data revision and qualification may be applied by senior professionals
when analyzing data for reports, trends, and FERC applications. Data calculations may be
stored with the data. Some data items may get corrected or qualified within the database,
while others are only addressed in report text. QC5 may be iterative, as data are analyzed in
multiple years.
Data Revisions
Once the processed field data (QC3) have been submitted by the Study Lead (Dave Brailey) to
AEA via the Data Coordinator (Michael Lilly), and it has been validated as ready for
incorporation into the Susitna project data collection (QC4), the data are considered to reside
with AEA, and subsequent revisions will be made in a manner determined to be appropriate by
the Program Lead team or AEA at the time. If a study team discovers that data require
revisions, their Data Coordinator can send a formal, written request (i.e. email) to the Data
Resources Manager. Revisions will be made as appropriate.
Data Deliverables
Data files will be submitted following the Project standards for data deliverables. The following
subdirectory and file naming structures will be used.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 42 January 31, 2013
Excel Files:
Subdirectory Descriptor Format / Example
Project Name SuWa (Level 1)
Submitting Consultant GWS (Level 1)
Program Name FA-IFS (Level 2)
Study Subject XSection (Level 2)
Beginning Study Date 20120601 (Level 2)
Final Deliverable Stage Hydrographs (Level 3)
Filename Descriptor Format / Example
Program Name FA-IFS
Study Subject XSection
Data Type Corrected Stage
QC Level QC2 or QC3
Gauging Station ESSxx (ex. ESS30)
Project River Mile PRMxx.x (ex. PRM98.4)
Date Last Updated YYYYMMDD
File Type .xlsx (most recent versions of Excel (2007 to 2013))
Example: SuWa_GWS\FA-IFS_XSection_20120601\ Stage_Hydrographs \
FA-IFS_XSection_CorrectedStage_QC3_ESS30_PRM98.4_20130118.xlsx
Notes:
- DO NOT use spaces or special characters in subdirectory (folder) and file names
- File naming convention is to allow files to indicate content when stand alone and not in the
submitted subdirectory.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 43 January 31, 2013
AEA Susitna Project 2012 – Instream Task2 Cross-Section and Task5 Network Studies
Water-Surface Elevation Log QC Protocol
Last Update: 20130107
Last Update By: Marielle Remillard, GW Scientific
Introduction
This document covers data processing, quality control (QC), and final reporting for water level
elevations measured at cross sections and gauging stations over time. GPS RTK (Real Time
Kinematic) observations, level loop surveys, and tape down measurements are compiled into a
water level elevation log for each location. The water level summary files will be submitted as a
final deliverable.
Key Study staff for this data product:
- Study Lead: Michael Lilly (Lead), GW Scientific
- Field Survey Team Lead: Billy Day, Steve Smith, Geovera; Michael McCool, GW Scientific
- Data Processing Staff: Marielle Remillard, Martha Ballard; GW Scientific
- Data Coordinator: Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
QC Levels
There will be 5 levels of data QC, named QC1 to QC5. This allows for quick determination of the
QC status of every data record. The first three levels are to be completed by the field study
team, the fourth level by the Program Lead team, and the final level by senior professionals
during analysis and reporting.
QC1 – Data Collection: Water elevation is measured using GPS RTK (Real Time Kinematic)
observations, level loop surveys, and manual tape down readings. Each data set is prepared
according to the respective QC document. QC Review includes checks for accuracy, logic, and
completeness of data sets. When necessary, water elevation is converted to Project datum.
Verified water elevation measurements are obtained from the internal Task 2 Wiki page.
QC2 – Data Processing: Water surface elevation results are compiled into the “Water Surface
Elevation Log” (Form F-002) and organized by site location. There will be one summary file per
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 44 January 31, 2013
gauging station or cross section. All data points are entered into the spreadsheet by copying
and pasting from the master spreadsheets in order to reduce typing errors. All data is checked
for correct, complete, and consistent data entry and processing.
The spreadsheet will contain the date and time of each observation, time unit (AST), method,
manual WL reading, reference point, reference point elevation, estimated error, and water
elevations. The spreadsheet will contain a header that labels the contents, date of last entry,
person responsible for the data entry, as well a statement about the datum (WGS84/NAD83),
Alaska state plane zone (4), and geoid (09) used to determine the orthometric heights
(elevations) of the points. Channel designations (LCL, MCR, etc.), are provided for the water
surface shots under the “remarks” heading if applicable.
Data Entry Study Staff: Marielle Remillard (Lead), Martha Ballard, GW Scientific
QC3 – Senior Review: After the water surface elevation logs have been compiled, an
independent analysis of the data is done by a senior professional on the project team. River
Mile descriptions are verified and each data point is cross-checked with the original data files
including a check of the time-stamp, water elevation, and reference point (if applicable). Once
the independent comparison of the data sets is complete, the spreadsheet is approved and
posted to the Task 5 Wiki page for other agencies and partners to access.
Senior Review Study Staff: Michael Lilly (Lead), Marielle Remillard, GW Scientific
QC4 – Database Validation: Electronic data files are submitted to the Program Lead’s data
resources manager. The deadline for this delivery is negotiated with the team Data
Coordinator in consideration of the study due date.
Water level elevation logs will be update as new information is made available. The data
coordinator will assist in ensuring the most current version is made available.
Data Coordinator: Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
QC5 – Technical Review: Data revision and qualification may be applied by senior professionals
when analyzing data for reports, trends, and FERC applications. Data calculations may be
stored with the data. Some data items may get corrected or qualified within the database,
while others are only addressed in report text. QC5 may be iterative, as data are analyzed in
multiple years.
Data Backups
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 45 January 31, 2013
Electronic field forms should be backed up to the Study Internal Wiki sites, in addition to
external hard drives residing within AEA.
Data Revisions
Once the processed field data (QC3) have been submitted by the Study Lead (Michael Lilly) to
AEA, and it has been validated as ready for incorporation into the Susitna project data
collection (QC4), the data are considered to reside with AEA, and subsequent revisions will be
made in a manner determined to be appropriate by the Program Lead team or AEA at the time.
If a study team discovers that data require revisions, their Data Coordinator can send a formal,
written request (i.e. email) to the Data Resources Manager.
Data Deliverables
The following information describes the intermediate and final data deliverable for the Study.
QC1 information (verified RTK surveys, level loop surveys, and other manual readings) is
obtained from the Task 2 Wiki site. QC2 summary logs are prepared as data is produced and
stored on the Task 2 Wiki until level QC3 is complete. Once Level QC3 is complete, the files will
be made available to other study teams on the Task 5 wiki site. At this stage, the Excel water-
[surface] elevation summary files will be made available to the Program Lead’s data resources
manager.
Data files will be submitted following the Project standards for data deliverables. The following
subdirectory and file naming structures will be used.
Excel Files:
Subdirectory Descriptor Format / Example
Project Name SuWa (Level 1)
Submitting Consultant GWS (Level 1)
Program Name FA-IFS (Level 2)
Study Subject XSection (Level 2)
Beginning Study Date 20120601 (Level 2)
Final Deliverable X-Section_WS_Elevation_and_Slope (Level 3)
Data WS_Elevations (Level 4)
Filename Descriptor Format / Example
Program Name FA-IFS
Study Subject XSection
Data Type WS Elevations
Form F-002
Gauging Station ESSxxx (if applicable)
Project River Mile PRMxxx (ex: PRM75.0, PRM102.4)
Date Last Updated YYYYMMDD
File Type .xlsx (most recent versions of Excel (2007 to 2013))
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 46 January 31, 2013
Example: SuWa_GWS\FA-IFS_XSection_20120601\ X-Section_WS_Elevation_and_Slope \WS_Elevations \FA-
IFS_XSection _WS_Elevation_Log_F-002_PRM17.4_20130107.xlsx
Notes:
- DO NOT use spaces or special characters in subdirectory (folder) and file names
- File naming convention is to allow files to indicate content when stand alone and not in the
submitted subdirectory.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 47 January 31, 2013
AEA Susitna Project 2012 – Instream Task2 Cross-Section and Task5 Network Studies
Cross-Section Water-Surface and Slope Observations QC Protocol
Last Update: 20130110
Last Update By: Marielle Remillard, GW Scientific
Introduction
The Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Instream Flow Study Program requires measurement
of water surface elevations at various stages of flow. As a part of the water flow study a series
of cross-section measurements are taken at various locations along the river. Each cross-
section is monumented with a permanent set of survey monuments that control the cross-
section baseline(s). At various stages of flow, water surface measurements are taken at the
cross-section locations with additional water surface measurements taken approximately 200
feet upstream and downstream of the cross-section locations.
Key Study staff for this data product:
- Study Lead: Steve Smith (Lead), Geovera, LLC
- Field Survey Team Lead: Billy Day, Geovera, LLC
- Data Processing Staff: Steve Smith (Lead), Geovera, LLC
- Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants
QC Levels
There will be 5 levels of data QC, named QC1 to QC5. This allows for quick determination of the
QC status of every data record. The first three levels are to be completed by the field study
team, the fourth level by the Program Lead team, and the final level by senior professionals
during analysis and reporting.
QC1 – Data Collection: Measurements are taken either with GPS RTK (Real Time Kinematic)
observations or by running level loops from the RTK control points at each cross-section
location. RTK and level loop data is processed according to the respective QC protocols. Review
includes completeness, legibility, and accuracy of all information recorded.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 48 January 31, 2013
QC2 – Data Processing: All data is verified for correct, complete, and consistent data entry and
processing. After all RTK measurements are verified, the coordinates are exported to a
spreadsheet and an ASCII file. A spreadsheet of the water surface measurement points is
developed by copying and pasting from the master RTK coordinate spreadsheet. This insures
that no coordinate data is transposed by typing error. River Mile designations are provided for
the water surface shots by referencing the field book entries. The designators contain the
cross-section river mile, the channel designation (LCL, MCR, etc.), and the distance upstream or
downstream from the cross-section baseline if applicable. Slope calculations and distances
between the baseline measurements and the upstream and downstream measurements are
computed directly from the data controller by inversing between the points. The time-stamp
information for each measurement is taken directly from the electronic data controller file.
Data Entry Study Staff: Billy Day, Geovera, LLC
QC3 – Senior Review: After the water surface measurement spreadsheets have been compiled,
an independent analysis of the data is done by a senior professional on the project team.
Coordinate data imported into the AutoCad drawing for each cross-section is compared to the
spreadsheet data. River Mile descriptions are verified and independent calculations of the
slopes and distances between the baseline measurement and the upstream and downstream
measurements are performed. A check of the time-stamp in the electronic data file is done.
Once the independent comparison of the data sets is complete, the spreadsheet is approved
and posted to the Task 2 Wiki page for other agencies and partners to access.
The spreadsheet will contain the point number, date and time of the static observations,
latitude and longitude (in decimal degrees), Alaska State Plane Zone 4 coordinates, elevation,
point descriptor, river mile, and slope (where applicable) of each measurement. The
spreadsheet will contain a header that labels the contents, date of last entry, person
responsible for the data entry, as well a statement about the datum (WGS84/NAD83), Alaska
state plane zone (4), and geoid (09) used to determine the orthometric heights (elevations) of
the points.
Water surface observations are entered into the Water Elevation Log (Form F-002) at this time.
There is one Water Elevation Log per cross section.
Senior Review Study Staff: Steve Smith (Lead), Geovera, LLC
QC4 – Database Validation: Electronic data files are submitted to the Program Lead’s data
resources manager. The deadline for this delivery is negotiated with the team Data
Coordinator in consideration of the study due date.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 49 January 31, 2013
Further QC4 verification of data isn’t applicable to water level and slope observations.
Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants; Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
QC5 – Technical Review: Data revision and qualification may be applied by senior professionals
when analyzing data for reports, trends, and FERC applications. Data calculations may be
stored with the data. Some data items may get corrected or qualified within the database,
while others are only addressed in report text. QC5 may be iterative, as data are analyzed in
multiple years.
Additionally, the date and data coordinator should be updated in the file name when
appropriate. This will serve as adequate documentation of the revisions, so maintenance of
additional documentation isn’t usually necessary. QC5 revisions should not be made until
reviewed and accepted by the Lead Surveyor or Study Lead if he is not available. The data will
be changed in final Project files, and the Data Resource Manager notified.
Field Data Backups
Both paper and electronic field forms should be backed up nightly in the field by scanning and
downloading to a storage unit or photocopying to paper. Field notes books and electronic files
are posted to the Study Internal Wiki sites where appropriate.
Data Revisions
Once the processed field data (QC3) have been submitted by the Study Lead (Michael Lilly) to
AEA, and it has been validated as ready for incorporation into the Susitna project data
collection (QC4), the data are considered to reside with AEA, and subsequent revisions will be
made in a manner determined to be appropriate by the Program Lead team or AEA at the time.
If a study team discovers that data require revisions, their Data Coordinator can send a formal,
written request (i.e. email) to the Data Resources Manager.
Data Deliverables
The following information describes the intermediate and final data deliverable for the Study
water surface elevation and slope calculation data. QC1 information consists of verified water
level survey data, taken from the Task 2 wiki page. The QC2 processed summary files are saved
on the Task2 Internal Wiki site until level QC3 is complete. Once Level QC3 is complete, the files
will be made available to other study teams on the Task 5 wiki site. At this stage, the Excel
survey data files will be made available to the Program Lead’s data resources manager.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 50 January 31, 2013
Data files will be submitted following the Project standards for data deliverables. The following
subdirectory and file naming structures will be used.
Excel Files:
Subdirectory Descriptor Format / Example
Project Name SuWa (Level 1)
Submitting Consultant GWS (Level 1)
Program Name FA-IFS (Level 2)
Study Subject XSection (Level 2)
Beginning Study Date 20120601 (Level 2)
Final Deliverable X-Section_WS_Elevation_and_Slope (Level 3)
Data Slope_Observations (Level 4)
Filename Descriptor Format / Example
Program Name FA-IFS
Study Subject XSection
Data Type X-Section WS and Slope
Data Collection Year 2012
Trip Number TripX
Date Last Updated YYYYMMDD
File Type .xlsx (most recent versions of Excel (2007 to 2013))
Example: SuWa_GWS\FA-IFS_XSection_20120601\ X-Section_WS_Elevation_and_Slope \ Slope_Observations\
FA-IFS_XSection_X-Section_WS_and_Slope_2012_Trip1_20130110.xlsx
Notes:
- DO NOT use spaces or special characters in subdirectory (folder) and file names
- File naming convention is to allow files to indicate content when stand alone and not in the
submitted subdirectory.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 51 January 31, 2013
AEA Susitna Project 2012 – Instream Task2 Cross-Section and Task5 Network Studies
GPS Survey Network – Cross-Section Profile Coordinates
Last Update: 20130111
Last Update By: Marielle Remillard, GW Scientific
Introduction
This document covers the quality control (QC) and final reporting for GPS coordinates
corresponding to Susitna River cross section control and profile points. Accurate GPS
coordinates are necessary for sustained, coordinated research, and will be submitted as a final
deliverable.
Key Study staff for this data product:
- Study Lead: Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
- Field Survey Team Lead: Dave Brailey, Brailey Hydrologic
- Survey Data Processing: Steve Smith, Geovera
- GIS Processing and Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants
There will be 5 levels of data QC, named QC1 to QC5. The first three levels are to be completed
by the field study team, the fourth level by the Program Lead team, and the final level by senior
professionals during analysis and reporting.
QC1 – Field Review: QC review performed by the person collecting field data, recorded in field
books, and reviewed by the field team leader. The goal of QC1 is to identify errors and
omissions and correct them under similar field conditions prior to leaving the field.
All data is reviewed for completeness, legibility, and logic. This is typically completed in the
field at time of survey; however, if outstanding conditions related to field team safety require
that the team depart the survey site prior to completing QC1, QC1 shall be completed
immediately upon arriving at an appropriate location.
Each cross-section is monumented with a permanent set of survey monuments that control the
cross-section baseline(s). Field procedures and field book notations for the monumentation of
cross-section end points shall be in accordance with the procedures outlined in the “GPS Survey
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 52 January 31, 2013
Network—Control Point Survey QC Protocol” and “GPS Survey Network—RTK Survey QC
Protocol.”
Cross section bathymetry measurements are obtained using Sontek M9 ADCP equipped with
RTK GPS positioning. Multiple strings of bathymetry data are collected at each cross-section.
These strings of data are collected as closely as possible to the cross-section baseline and run
from shoreline to shoreline. Data collected on these runs include the geographic position
(Latitude/Longitude) and the depth to the river bottom. The data is stored in the field in ASCII
files that are transferred from the field computer and imported into spreadsheets.
Field book notations for Doppler bathymetry observations shall contain the name of the person
making the observations, the date, and a brief description of the weather.
Concurrently with the collection of bathymetric data, the upland portion of the cross-section is
surveyed using GPS RTK observations. Water surface measurements are taken at the cross-
section baseline at the time of the bathymetric measurements. Those water surface elevations
are used to convert the depth measurements from the bathymetric data to elevations
conformed to the project control network.
At the end of each day the electronic will be downloaded from the GPS data collector and
bathymetry field computer and put into a folder for that day’s observations. The date of the
observations shall be made a part of the folder name. The folders containing the electronic
record of the cross section RTK and bathymetry data will be transferred to the main office for
post-processing.
Preliminary Development of Bathymetry Data: Steve Smith, Geovera, LLC
QC2 – Data Entry: The geographic position and depth information from each run is extracted
from the bathymetry spreadsheets, converted to Alaska Zone 4 state plane coordinates, and
imported into an AutoCad drawing. A datum (the average water surface elevation from both
sides of the channel) is applied to the depths resulting in xyz state plane coordinates conformed
to the project control network. Bathymetric data points nearest to the cross-section baseline
and the upland RTK points are then projected to the baseline and the resulting coordinates are
exported to an ASCII file. The coordinate data is then imported from the ASCII file into a
spreadsheet for final reporting. This insures that no coordinate data is transposed by typing
error.
Processing Staff: Steve Smith, Geovera, LLC
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 53 January 31, 2013
QC3 – Senior Review: Cross-section coordinates are reviewed by a senior professional on the
project team, checking for logic, soundness, and adding qualifiers to results if warranted. Cross-
section end- and mid-points will be placed in a spreadsheet (FA-IFS_XSection_X-
Section_Coordinates_QC3_PRMxx.x_YYYYMMDD) for final posting to the wiki. Spreadsheets
will be organized by project river mile, and the spreadsheet will contain the point number,
latitude and longitude (in decimal degrees), Alaska State Plane Zone 4 coordinates, and
elevation of each point measured along the cross section. The spreadsheet will contain a
header that labels the contents, date of last entry, person responsible for the data entry, as
well a statement about the datum (WGS84/NAD83), Alaska state plane zone (4), and geoid (09)
used to determine the orthometric heights (elevations) of the points.
All data will be entered into electronic format directly, either by importing the data directly
from an ascii file, or cutting and pasting directly from and to electronic files. No coordinate
data will be hand entered (typed with a keyboard). This is to eliminate the possibility of
erroneously transposing numbers. Once all data has been entered into the spreadsheet, the
data fields will be cross-checked directly against the original GPS post-processing files to insure
their accuracy.
Senior Review Study Staff: Steve Smith, Geovera, LLC
QC4 – Database Validation: The final list of cross-section coordinates are submitted to the
Program Lead’s data resources manager, checked for completeness, and stored according to
the project database schema. The deadline for this delivery is negotiated with the team Data
Coordinator in consideration of the study due date.
Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants; Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
QC5 – Technical Review: GPS coordinates corresponding to study cross sections are considered
a historical record for the Project study. If GPS location errors are suspected by senior
professionals when analyzing data, the Lead Surveyor or Study Lead if he is not available, must
be notified to determine a course of corrective action.
Data revision and qualification may be applied by senior professionals when analyzing data for
reports, trends, and FERC applications. QC5 may be iterative, as data are analyzed in multiple
years.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 54 January 31, 2013
Field Data Backups
Both paper and electronic field forms should be backed up nightly in the field by scanning and
downloading to a storage unit or photocopy to paper. Field notes books and electronic files are
posted to the Study Internal Wiki sites where appropriate.
Data Revisions
Once the processed field data (QC3) has been submitted by the Study Lead (Michael Lilly) to
AEA, and it has been validated as ready for incorporation into the Susitna project data
collection (QC4), the data are considered to reside with AEA, and subsequent revisions will be
made in a manner determined to be appropriate by the Program Lead team or AEA at the time.
If a study team discovers that data require revisions, their Data Coordinator can send a formal,
written request (i.e. email) to the Data Resources Manager.
Data Deliverables
The following information describes the final data deliverable for the Study cross-section
coordinates. Once Level QC3 is complete, the updated document entitled “FA-IFS_XSection_X-
Section_Coordinates_QC3_PRMxx.x_YYYYMMDD” will be made available to other study teams
on the Task 5 wiki site. Additionally, it will be made available to the Program Lead’s data
resources manager on a USB flash drive, with a transmittal memo.
The file will be submitted following the Project standards for data deliverables. The following
subdirectory and file naming structures will be used.
Subdirectory Descriptor Format / Example
Project Name SuWa (Level 1)
Submitting Consultant GWS (Level 1)
Program Name FA-IFS (Level 2)
Study Subject XSection (Level 2)
Beginning Study Date 20120601 (Level 2)
Final Deliverable X-Section Profile Coordinates (Level 3)
Filename Descriptor Format / Example
Program Name FA-IFS
Study Subject XSection
Data Type X-Section_Coordinates
QC Level QC2 or QC3
Project River Mile PRMxxx (ex: PRM75.0, PRM102.4)
Last Updated YYYYMMDD (ex: 20120610)
File Type .xlsx (excel file format)
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 55 January 31, 2013
Example:
SuWa_GWS\FA-IFS_XSection_20120601\ X-Section_Profile_Coordinates \ FA-IFS_XSection_X-
Section_Coordinates_QC3_PRM80.0_20130110.xlsx
Notes:
- DO NOT use spaces or special characters in subdirectory (folder) and file names
- File naming convention is to allow files to indicate content when stand alone and not in the
submitted subdirectory
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 56 January 31, 2013
AEA Susitna Project 2012 – Instream Task2 Cross-Section and Task5 Network Studies
ADCP Cross-Section Discharge Measurement QC Protocol
Last Update: 20130108
Last Update By: Marielle Remillard, GW Scientific
Introduction
This document explains the data processing, quality control (QC), and final reporting of
discharge measurements made using acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCPs).
Key Study staff for this data product:
- Study Lead: Dave Brailey (Lead), Brailey Hydrologic
- Field Survey Team Lead: Dave Brailey (Lead), Brailey Hydrologic; Billy Day, Geovera
- Data Processing Staff: Dave Brailey (Lead), Brailey Hydrologic
- Senior Review Staff: Adinda Demske (Lead), HDR
- Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants
QC Levels
There will be 5 levels of data QC, named QC1 to QC5. This allows for quick determination of the
QC status of every data record. The first three levels are to be completed by the field study
team, the fourth level by the Program Lead team, and the final level by senior professionals
during analysis and reporting.
QC1 – Data Collection: Discharge measurements are recorded using an acoustic Doppler
current profiler following current USGS guidance (Mueller and Wagner 2009; OSW 2012a).
Data are recorded in the field logbook and in electronic files. Daily backups are maintained for
the field logbooks and electronic files.
Data Entry Study Staff: Dave Brailey (Lead), Brailey Hydrologic
QC2 – Data Post Processing: Data are reprocessed to evaluate moving bed conditions, GPS and
bottom-track quality, velocity profile extrapolation settings, and other criteria recommended by
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 57 January 31, 2013
current USGS guidance (OSW 2012b). Preliminary ratings are developed in accordance with
current USGS guidance (OSW 2012b).
Post Processing Study Staff: Dave Brailey (Lead), Brailey Hydrologic
QC3 – Senior Review: An independent analysis of the discharge data and preliminary ratings is
done by a senior professional on a separate AEA study team. Results are summarized in a
written narrative and proposed revisions are submitted to the Field Survey Team Lead (David
Brailey). After review and approval of the revisions, a summary of final discharge data is posted
to the Task 5 Wiki page for access by agencies and AEA partners.
Senior Review Study Staff: Adinda Demske (Lead), HDR
QC4 – Database Validation: Electronic data files are submitted to the Program Lead’s data
resources manager. The deadline for this delivery is negotiated with the team Data
Coordinator in consideration of the study due date.
Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants; Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
QC5 – Technical Review: Data revision and qualification may be applied by senior professionals
when analyzing data for reports, trends, and FERC applications. Data calculations may be
stored with the data. Some data items may get corrected or qualified within the database,
while others are only addressed in report text. QC5 may be iterative, as data are analyzed in
multiple years.
Data Revisions
Once the processed field data (QC3) have been submitted by the Study Lead (Dave Brailey) to
AEA via the Data Coordinator (Michael Lilly), and it has been validated as ready for
incorporation into the Susitna project data collection (QC4), the data are considered to reside
with AEA, and subsequent revisions will be made in a manner determined to be appropriate by
the Program Lead team or AEA at the time. If a study team discovers that data require
revisions, their Data Coordinator can send a formal, written request (i.e. email) to the Data
Resources Manager. Revisions will be made as appropriate.
Data Deliverables
Data files will be submitted following the Project standards for data deliverables. The following
subdirectory and file naming structures will be used.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 58 January 31, 2013
Excel Files:
Subdirectory Descriptor Format / Example
Project Name SuWa (Level 1)
Submitting Consultant GWS (Level 1)
Program Name FA-IFS (Level 2)
Study Subject XSection (Level 2)
Beginning Study Date 20120601 (Level 2)
Final Deliverable X-Section_Discharge_ Measurements (Level 3)
Filename Descriptor Format / Example
Program Name FA-IFS
Study Subject XSection
Summary Year 2012
Data Type ADCP X-Section Discharge Summary
Date Last Updated YYYYMMDD
File Type .xlsx (most recent versions of Excel (2007 to 2013))
Example: SuWa_GWS\FA-IFS_XSection_20120601\ X-Section_Discharge_ Measurements \
FA-IFS_XSection_ 2012_ADCP_X-Section_Discharge_Summary_20130105.xlsx
Notes:
- DO NOT use spaces or special characters in subdirectory (folder) and file names
- File naming convention is to allow files to indicate content when stand alone and not in the
submitted subdirectory.
References Cited
Mueller, D.S. and Wagner, C.R. 2009. Measuring discharge with acoustic Doppler current profilers from
a moving boat. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 3A-22, 72 p.
U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Surface Water (OSW) 2012a. Processing ADCP discharge
measurements on-site and performing ADCP check measurements. USGS OSW Technical Memorandum
No. 2012-01, January 9, 2012.
________ 2012b. Review and rating of moving-boat ADCP Q measurements. USGS Hydroacoustics
Webinar, October 4, 2012.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 59 January 31, 2013
AEA Susitna Project 2012 – Instream Task2 Cross-Section and Task5 Network Studies
Rating Curve Development QC Protocol
Last Update: 20130119
Last Update By: Marielle Remillard, GW Scientific
Introduction
This document explains the data processing, quality control (QC), and final reporting of cross-
section rating curves. Rating curves express the relationship between stage and discharge at a
given location on a stream. Depending on the complexity of the relationship, six to ten stage-
discharge measurements are required for initial rating curve development, and additional
measurements are required if flow conditions are altered (by floods, for example). Because a
maximum of three stage-discharge measurements were obtained at each cross section during
2012, insufficient data is available to develop rating curves. However, the 2012 stage-discharge
data will be plotted to support hydraulic modeling efforts, and to guide future data collection
activities.
Key Study staff for this data product:
- Study Lead: Dave Brailey (Lead), Brailey Hydrologic
- Data Processing Staff: Dave Brailey (Lead), Brailey Hydrologic
- Senior Review Staff: Michael Lilly (Lead), GW Scientific
- Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants; Michael Lilly, GW
Scientific
QC Levels
There will be 5 levels of data QC, named QC1 to QC5. This allows for quick determination of the
QC status of every data record. The first three levels are to be completed by the field study
team, the fourth level by the Program Lead team, and the final level by senior professionals
during analysis and reporting.
QC1 – Data Collection: Rating curves are developed from concurrent stage and discharge
measurements. Stage and discharge data will be measured and verified according to their
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 60 January 31, 2013
respective QC protocols. Data already verified for completeness and accuracy will be obtained
from the internal Task 2 Wiki site.
Data Entry Study Staff: Dave Brailey (Lead), Brailey Hydrologic
QC2 – Data Processing: Stage and discharge data will be imported into the Rating Development
Toolbox of the Aquarius Workstation software (v 3.0), and a preliminary gage offset will be
selected using the thalweg elevation as a guide. The rating points will then be plotted in both
linear and log-log space, using the preliminary gage offset to linearize the log-log plots.
Post Processing Study Staff: Dave Brailey (Lead), Brailey Hydrologic
QC3 – Senior Review: The rating curve development plots (rating points) will be reviewed by a
senior professional on the project team. The stage and discharge data will be inspected for
accuracy and selection of an appropriate preliminary gage offset. After review and approval,
the rating curve development plots will be posted to the Task 5 Wiki page for access by
agencies and AEA partners.
Senior Review Study Staff: Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
QC4 – Database Validation: Electronic files of the rating curve development plots (rating
points) will be submitted to the Program Lead’s data resources manager. The deadline for this
delivery is negotiated with the team Data Coordinator in consideration of the study due date.
Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants; Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
QC5 – Technical Review: Data revision and qualification may be applied by senior professionals
when analyzing data for reports, trends, and FERC applications. Data calculations may be
stored with the data. Some data items may get corrected or qualified within the database,
while others are only addressed in report text. QC5 may be iterative, as data are analyzed in
multiple years.
Data Revisions
Once the processed field data (QC3) have been submitted by the Study Lead (Dave Brailey) to
AEA via the Data Coordinator (Michael Lilly), and it has been validated as ready for
incorporation into the Susitna project data collection (QC4), the data are considered to reside
with AEA, and subsequent revisions will be made in a manner determined to be appropriate by
the Program Lead team or AEA at the time. If a study team discovers that data require
revisions, their Data Coordinator can send a formal, written request (i.e. email) to the Data
Resources Manager. Revisions will be made as appropriate.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 61 January 31, 2013
Data Deliverables
Data files will be submitted following the Project standards for data deliverables. The following
subdirectory and file naming structures will be used. Please note: the location or cross-section
river mile is not printed on the image itself, but is specified in the file name.
Image Files:
Subdirectory Descriptor Format / Example
Project Name SuWa (Level 1)
Submitting Consultant GWS (Level 1)
Program Name FA-IFS (Level 2)
Study Subject XSection (Level 2)
Beginning Study Date 20120601 (Level 2)
Final Deliverable Rating Curve Development Data (Level 3)
Filename Descriptor Format / Example
Program Name FA-IFS
Study Subject XSection
Data Type Rating Points
QC Level QC2 or QC3
Project River Mile PRMxx.x
Date Last Updated YYYYMMDD
File Type .jpg
Example: SuWa_GWS\FA-IFS_XSection_20120601\ Rating_Curve_Development_Data \
FA-IFS_XSection_RatingPoints_QC3_PRM98.4_20130118.jpg
Notes:
- DO NOT use spaces or special characters in subdirectory (folder) and file names
- File naming convention is to allow files to indicate content when stand alone and not in the
submitted subdirectory.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 62 January 31, 2013
AEA Susitna Project 2012 – Instream Task2 Cross-Section and Task5 Network Studies
Surface Water Station Data Sets – Air Temperature Data: Data QC Protocol
Last Update: 20130122
Last Update By: Marielle Remillard
Introduction
This document is intended to cover the data processing, quality control (QC), and final reporting
for the gauging station air temperature data. The data will be a final deliverable.
Key Study staff for this data product:
- Study Lead: Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
- Data Processing Staff: Ron Paetzold (Lead), Jamie Kretz, Demi Mixon; GW Scientific
- Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants
There will be 5 levels of data QC, named QC1 to QC5, each of which is tracked within the
Monthly Quality Reporting Summary for Surface Water Stations. This allows for quick
determination of the QC status of every station data record. The first three levels are to be
completed by the field study team, the fourth level by the Program Lead team, and the final
level by senior professionals during analysis and reporting.
QC1 – Field Collection: Automated. Data are automatically downloaded from each station to
the LoggerNet server.
QC2 – Data Entry: QC review performed by the person retrieving air temperature data from
the LoggerNet server, and then by the field team leader. Air temperature data are organized by
location and renamed accordingly to the Project naming convention listed below. The goal of
QC2 is to identify missing and out-of-range data.
Data are retrieved from the LoggerNet server and imported into two Excel files: Original Data
and QA Process Data. The Original Data files are saved without modification, except for
addition of blank rows for missing data and deletion of duplicated data. The QA Process data
files may be edited to remove obviously problematic data such as spikes. The data are
imported from the Original Data files into monthly QA Calculation (sometimes called QA
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 63 January 31, 2013
Command) files where automatic checking for out-of-range data takes place. The QA
Calculation files also check for completeness of data (missing or duplicated data). Notes are
made on each monthly QA Calculation file about data problems. The results of all monthly QA
Calculation files for all stations are summarized on the Monthly Quality Reporting Summary file
(Excel).
Data are plotted using Origin graphing software in order to identify problems not detected by
the automated Monthly QA Calculation files. These problems include things such as sensor
drift, spikes in the data, etc. Problems discovered in the graphing process are noted on the QA
Process data file and if appropriate, corrections are made to the data. The QA Process data will
become the Archive Data after correction.
All QA files are posted to the Task 5 Wiki (http://network.susitna-watershed.net/). The QA
Process data files are always in draft status and subject to change at any time.
Data QA Processing Staff: Ron Paetzold (Lead), Jamie Kretz, and Demi Mixon, GW
Scientific
QC3 – Senior Review: Air temperature data are reviewed by a senior professional on the
project team, checking for logic, soundness, and adding qualifiers to results if warranted. Q3 is
the step where the QA Process Data file is finalized and saved as Archive Data. This is the final
review before submitting data to the Program Lead. This is also the QC level of files that have
been processed for delivery to AEA.
Senior Review Study Staff: Michael Lilly (Lead), Ron Paetzold, GW Scientific
QC4 – Database Validation: Electronic data files are posted to the Task 5 Wiki
(http://network.susitna-watershed.net/) by the Program Lead’s data resources manager. The
deadline for this delivery is negotiated with the team Data Coordinator in consideration of the
study due date.
Program Lead’s Data Resource Manager: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants
QC5 – Technical Review: Air temperature data should not be altered during technical review.
Qualification of air temperature or may be applied by senior professionals when analyzing data
for reports, trends, and FERC applications.
Data Revisions
Once the processed air temperature data have been submitted by the Study Lead (Michael Lilly)
to AEA via R2 (Joetta Zablotney), and it has been validated as ready for incorporation into the
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 64 January 31, 2013
Susitna project database (QC4), the data are considered to reside with AEA, and subsequent
revisions will only be made by the Program Lead team on their behalf. If a study team discovers
that data require revisions, their Data Coordinator (Joetta Zablotney) can send a formal, written
request (i.e. email) to the Data Resources Manager.
Data Deliverables
The following information describes the intermediate and final data deliverable for the Study
air temperature data. QC1 information (raw data) is automatically downloaded from each
station to the LoggerNet server. The QC2 level files are saved on the Task5 Internal Wiki site
until level QC3 is complete. Once Level QC3 is complete, the files will be made available to
other study teams on the Task 5 wiki site. At this stage, the air temperature data files will be
made available to the Program Lead’s data resources manager on a USB flash drive with
transmittal memo.
Data files will be submitted following the Project standards for data deliverables. The following
subdirectory and file naming structures will be used.
Excel Files:
Subdirectory Descriptor Format / Example
Project name SuWa (Level 1)
Submitting comp./agency GWS (Level 1)
Program Name FA-IFS (Level 2)
Study Subject Network (Level 2)
Beginning Study Date 20120601 (Level 2)
Final Deliverable Air Temperature Data (Level 3)
Filename Descriptor Format / Example
Program Name FA-IFS
Study Subject Network
Data Processing Original Data, QA Process Data, or AirT (for final archive data)
QC level QC1, QC2 or QC3
Station Name ESSxx
Date of Last Data Point YYYYMMDD
File Type .xlsx (most recent versions of Excel (2007 to 2013))
Example: SuWa_GWS\FA-IFS_XSection_20120601\ Air_Temperature_Data \
FA-IFS_Network_AirT_QC3_ESS55_20120930.xlsx
Other File Examples:
Original Data: FA-IFS_Network_OriginalData_QC1_ESS55_20130104.xlsx (Date is the date of the last
data point in the file.)
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 65 January 31, 2013
QA Process Data: FA-IFS_Network_QAProcessData_QC2_ESS55_20130104.xlsx (Date is the date of the
last data point in the file.)
QA Graphs: FA-IFS_Network_QAPlots_QC2_ESS55_20130104.opj (Date is the date of the last data point
in the file.)
Archive Data: (Date of last data point in the file.) FA-IFS_Network_AirT_QC3_ESS55_20120930.xlsx
Monthly QA Calculation Sheets. (First date is the year and month of the data in the file. Second date is
the date of the last modification.)
FA-IFS_Network_QACalculationSheet_QC2_ESS55_Dec_2012_20130107.xlsx
Monthly Quality Reporting Summary. (One sheet for all stations. Date is the date of the last update.)FA-
IFS_ Network _MonthlyQASummary_20121113.xlsx
Notes:
- DO NOT use spaces or special characters in subdirectory (folder) and file names
- File naming convention is to allow files to indicate content when stand alone and not in the
submitted subdirectory.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 66 January 31, 2013
AEA Susitna Project 2012 – Instream Task2 Cross-Section and Task5 Network Studies
Surface Water Station Data Sets – Water Temperature Data: Data QC Protocol
Last Update: 20130123
Last Update By: Marielle Remillard
Introduction
This document is intended to cover the data processing, quality control (QC), and final reporting
for the gauging station water temperature data. The data will be a final deliverable.
Key Study staff for this data product:
- Study Lead: Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
- Data Processing Staff: Ron Paetzold (Lead), Jamie Kretz, Demi Mixon; GW Scientific
- Senior Review: Michael Lilly, Ron Paetzold; GW Scientific
- Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants
There will be 5 levels of data QC, named QC1 to QC5, each of which is tracked within the
Monthly Quality Reporting Summary for Surface Water Stations. This allows for quick
determination of the QC status of every station data record. The first three levels are to be
completed by the field study team, the fourth level by the Program Lead team, and the final
level by senior professionals during analysis and reporting.
QC1 – Field Collection: Automated. Data is automatically downloaded from each station to the
LoggerNet server.
QC2 – Data Entry: QC review performed by the person retrieving water temperature data from
the LoggerNet server. Water temperature data is organized by location and renamed
accordingly to the Project naming convention listed below. The goal of QC2 is to identify
missing and out-of-range data.
Data is retrieved from the LoggerNet server and imported into two Excel files: Original Data and
QA Process Data. The Original Data files are saved without modification, except for addition of
blank rows for missing data and deletion of duplicated data. The QA Process data files may be
edited to remove obviously problematic data such as spikes. The data are imported from the
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 67 January 31, 2013
Original Data files into monthly QA Calculation (sometimes called QA Command) files where
automatic checking for out-of-range data takes place. The QA Calculation files also check for
completeness of data (missing or duplicated data). Notes are made on each monthly QA
Calculation file about data problems. The results of all monthly QA Calculation files for all
stations are summarized on the Monthly Quality Reporting Summary file (Excel).
Data are plotted using Origin graphing software in order to identify problems not detected by
the automated Monthly QA Calculation files. These problems include things such as sensor
drift, spikes in the data, etc. Problems discovered in the graphing process are noted on the QA
Process data file and if appropriate, corrections are made to the data. The QA Process data will
become the Archive Data after correction.
All QA files are posted to the Task 5 Wiki (http://network.susitna-watershed.net/). The QA
Process data files are always in draft status and subject to change at any time.
Data QA Processing Staff: Ron Paetzold (Lead), Jamie Kretz, and Demi Mixon, GW
Scientific
QC3 – Senior Review: Water temperature data is reviewed by a senior professional on the
project team, checking for logic, soundness, and adding qualifiers to results if warranted. Q3 is
the step where the QA Process Data file is finalized and saved as Archive Data. This is the final
review before submitting data to the Program Lead. This is also the QC level of files that have
been processed for delivery to AEA.
Senior Review Study Staff: Michael Lilly (Lead), Ron Paetzold, GW Scientific
QC4 – Database Validation: Electronic data files are posted to the Task 5 Wiki
(http://network.susitna-watershed.net/) by the Program Lead’s data resources manager. The
deadline for this delivery is negotiated with the team Data Coordinator in consideration of the
study due date.
Program Lead’s Data Resource Manager: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants
QC5 – Technical Review: Air temperature data should not be altered during technical review.
Qualification of air temperature or may be applied by senior professionals when analyzing data
for reports, trends, and FERC applications.
Data Revisions
Once the processed water temperature data has been submitted by the Study Lead (Michael
Lilly) to AEA via R2 (Joetta Zablotney), and it has been validated as ready for incorporation into
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 68 January 31, 2013
the Susitna project database (QC4), the data are considered to reside with AEA, and subsequent
revisions will only be made by the Program Lead team on their behalf. If a study team discovers
that data require revisions, their Data Coordinator (Joetta Zablotney) can send a formal, written
request (i.e. email) to the Data Resources Manager.
Data Deliverables
The following information describes the intermediate and final data deliverable for the Study
water temperature data. QC1 information (raw data) is automatically downloaded from each
station to the LoggerNet server. The QC2 level files are saved on the Task5 Internal Wiki site
until level QC3 is complete. Once Level QC3 is complete, the files will be made available to
other study teams on the Task 5 wiki site. At this stage, the water temperature data files will be
made available to the Program Lead’s data resources manager on a USB flash drive with
transmittal memo.
Data files will be submitted following the Project standards for data deliverables. The following
subdirectory and file naming structures will be used.
Excel Files:
Subdirectory Descriptor Format / Example
Project name SuWa (Level 1)
Submitting comp./agency GWS (Level 1)
Program Name FA-IFS (Level 2)
Study Subject Network (Level 2)
Beginning Study Date 20120601 (Level 2)
Final Deliverable Water Temperature Data (Level 3)
Filename Descriptor Format / Example
Program Name FA-IFS
Study Subject Network
Data Processing Original Data, QA Process Data, or WaterT (for final archive data)
QC level QC1, QC2 or QC3
Station Name ESSxx
Date of Last Data Point YYYYMMDD
File Type .xlsx (most recent versions of Excel (2007 to 2013))
Example: SuWa_GWS\FA-IFS_XSection_20120601\ Water_Temperature_Data \
FA-IFS_Network_WaterT_QC3_ESS55_20120930.xlsx
Other File Examples:
Original Data: FA-IFS_Network_OriginalData_QC1_ESS55_20130104.xlsx (Date is the date of the last
data point in the file.)
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 69 January 31, 2013
QA Process Data: FA-IFS_Network_QAProcessData_QC2_ESS55_20130104.xlsx (Date is the date of the
last data point in the file.)
QA Graphs: FA-IFS_Network_QAPlots_QC2_ESS55_20130104.opj (Date is the date of the last data point
in the file.)
Archive Data: (Date of last data point in the file.)
FA-IFS_Network_WaterT_QC3_ESS55_20120930.xlsx
Monthly QA Calculation Sheets. (First date is the year and month of the data in the file. Second date is
the date of the last modification.)
FA-IFS_Network_QACalculationSheet_QC2_ESS55_Dec_2012_20130107.xlsx
Monthly Quality Reporting Summary. (One sheet for all stations. Date is the date of the last update.)FA-
IFS_ Network _MonthlyQASummary_20121113.xlsx
Notes:
- DO NOT use spaces or special characters in subdirectory (folder) and file names
- File naming convention is to allow files to indicate content when stand alone and not in the
submitted subdirectory.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 70 January 31, 2013
AEA Susitna Project 2012 – Instream Task2 Cross-Section and Task5 Network Studies
High and Low Resolution Station Images: Data QC Protocol
Last Update: 20130117
Last Update By: Marielle Remillard
Introduction
This document covers the data processing, quality control (QC), and final reporting of images
taken by CC5MPX cameras installed at repeater and gauging stations. These camera images are
a final deliverable, available in both high and low resolution formats.
Key Study staff for this data product:
- Study Lead: Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
- Field Team Lead: Mike McCool (Lead), Austin McHugh, James Shinas; GW Scientific
- Photo Processing Staff: Joshua Kugler, EEI; James Shinas, GW Scientific
- Data Coordinator: Joetta Zablotney, R2 Resource Consultants, Michael Lilly, GW
Scientific
There will be 5 levels of data QC, named QC1 to QC5. QC1 is automated, QC2 and QC3 are to
be completed by the field study team, QC4 is conducted by the Program Lead team, and QC5 by
senior professionals during analysis and reporting.
QC1 – Field Review: The goal of QC1 is to save image files and back them up in an organized
format. One high and one low resolution image is taken at each station every hour on the hour;
images are saved to an SD card located within the camera. During site visits, all images are
manually downloaded from the SD card to a laptop and stored in folders according to station
ID.
Low-resolution (640x480) camera images are posted online (http://www.susitna-
watershed.net/network.shtml) in real-time. The status of image data collected at each site will
be monitored through the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Data Network Diagnostics page
(http://www.susitna-watershed.net/stations/diag.html). If camera images posted online are
not current, GWS staff are notified via email. Staff members attempt to troubleshoot the
problems remotely first. If unsuccessful, the station will be visited by personnel. Gaps in the
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 71 January 31, 2013
photo series must be corrected manually by downloading camera images from the station’s
camera and uploading them to the website in the correct time series.
QC2 – Data Entry: Images obtained during site visits will be sorted and renamed based on time
signature via computer program. Low resolution images that were not posted on-line
automatically will be added to the website to fill in data gaps. High resolution images will be
posted to the web page alongside the corresponding low resolution image.
Dark (night-time) images are manually removed from the data set. Automatic website reporting
of low-resolution images will be modified monthly to collect only daylight images while insuring
no data is lost.
A title bar stamped on every image contains essential meta data information: date, time (AST),
location, and site ID.
Data Entry Staff: Joshua Kugler, EEI; James Shinas, GW Scientific
QC3 – Senior Review: A random sample of images will be reviewed for quality, including
camera focus and orientation. If any problems are detected, appropriate corrective measures
will be taken by GW Scientific staff.
Senior Review Study Staff: Michael Lilly, Austin McHugh, Mike McCool; GW Scientific
QC4 – Database Validation: A complete set of camera image files, including both high and low
resolution images, are submitted to the Program Lead’s data resources manager for archival
purposes. Images will be organized by site location and submitted via USB drive with submittal
memo. The deadline for this delivery is negotiated with the team Study Lead or Data
Coordinator in consideration of the study due date.
Study Lead: Michael Lilly, GW Scientific
QC5 – Technical Review: Photo content must not be altered during technical review.
Qualification of photos or attributes may be applied by senior professionals when analyzing
data for reports, trends, and FERC applications.
Data Revisions
Camera images from repeater, meteorological and/or gauging stations should not be modified
in any way. Once the camera images have been posted online, the data is considered final and
resides with AEA.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 1 - Page 72 January 31, 2013
Data Deliverables
Camera images posted to the website (http://www.susitna-watershed.net/network.shtml) are
considered final and available for Project study needs. Duplicate and high resolution copies of
camera images are submitted via USB drive along with transmittal memo for historical records.
The JPG files will be submitted following the Project standards for data deliverables. The
following subdirectory and file naming structures will be used.
Image File:
Subdirectory Descriptor Format / Example / (Subdirectory level)
Project Name SuWa (Level 1)
Submitting Consultant GWS (Level 1)
Program Name FA-IFS (Level 2)
Study Subject XSection (Level 2)
Beginning Study Date 20120601 (Level 2)
Final Deliverable Station Images (Level 3)
Station Name ESSxx or ESRxx (ex: ESS55, ESR1) (Level 4)
Resolution HighRes or LowRes (Level 5)
Filename Descriptor Format / Example
Image Date and Time YYYY-MM-DD-hh-mm (2013-01-06-13-45)
Resolution HR (for high resolution images only)
File Type .jpg (image file format)
Example:
SuWa_GWS\FA-IFS_XSection_20120601\ Station_Images \ESS55\HighRes\2013-01-06-13-45-HR.jpg
Notes:
- DO NOT use spaces or special characters in subdirectory (folder) and file names
- File naming convention is to allow files to indicate content when stand alone and not in the
submitted subdirectory
- Images are kept in their original resolution taken by the camera
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 January 31, 2013
ATTACHMENT 2. STATION METADATA STANDARDS
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 2 - Page 1 January 31, 2013
ATTACHMENT 2. STATION METADATA STANDARDS
Susitna Hydrology Project
ESS40 Surface Water Station
Data Measurement and Recording Standards
Last Update: 06/24/2012
Last Update By: R Paetzold
Surface Water Station
Data-Collection Objectives: Meteorological data to evaluate the potential for hydro-electric
power generation in the Susitna River region.
Time Recording Standard: Always Alaska Standard Time (UTC – 9).
Datalogger Scan Interval Standard: 60 seconds.
Time Measurement Standards:
- Hourly readings are recorded at the end of the hour; therefore, the hourly average water
temperature, for example, with a 60-second scan interval and a time stamp of 14:00 is
measured from 13:01 to 14:00:00. For a 60-second scan interval, the hourly average
would be the average of 60 min = 60 values.
- Quarter-hourly readings are recorded every fifteen minutes starting at the top of the hour.
- Instantaneous readings are taken at the time specified by the time stamp.
- A day begins at midnight (00:00:00) and ends at midnight (23:59:55). All daily data are
from the day prior to the date of the time stamp. For example, if the time stamp reads
09/09/2007 00:00 or 09/09/2007 12:00:00 AM, the data are from 09/08/2007.
Data Retrieval Interval: Data will be retrieved hourly.
Data Reporting Interval: Hourly
Images
Cameras: CC5MPXWD digital camera.
Memory Card: 8G Flash Memory Card
Flash Card Capacity: ~20,000 Images or over 2 years.
Images Taken: Triggered from external trigger (Logger control port. Allows images to be taken
as needed.)
Images Saved on Datalogger: Five.
Image Trigger Interval: 60-minutes.
Data Retrieval Interval: One image every hour.
Connection: Direct for single camera
Air Temperature
Sensor: Triplicate YSI Series 44033 thermistors
Operating Range: -80°C to +75°C
Installation: In 6-gill radiation shield, non-aspirated.
Height: 2 meters
Output Units: k , °C.
Scan Interval: 60 seconds
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 2 - Page 2 January 31, 2013
Output to Tables:
• Hourly Atmospheric Table:
o Hourly Sample Air Temperature: Recorded at the top of each hour. (three values, one
for each thermistor).
o Hourly Average Air Temperature: Average of the 60 one-minute readings for the
previous hour. (three values, one for each thermistor).
• Daily Table:
o Daily Average Air Temperature: Average of all temperature readings for the previous
day ending at midnight AST. (three values, one for each thermistor).
o Daily Maximum Air Temperature: The highest reading from the previous day. (three
values, one for each thermistor).
o Daily Minimum Air Temperature: The lowest reading from the previous day. (three
values, one for each thermistor).
• Hourly Raw Table:
o Hourly Sample Sensor Resistance: Recorded at the top of each hour. "Raw" data in
k . (three values, one for each thermistor)
o Hourly Average Sensor Resistance: Average of the 60 one-minute readings for the
previous hour. "Raw" data in k . (three values, one for each thermistor).
Water Height
Sensor: Two CS450 (Campbell Scientific, Inc) pressure transducer, SDI-12 type sensors
Pressure Measurement Range: 0-7.25 psig
Output Units: cm, ft (water height above sensor), psig
Scan Interval: 60 seconds
Output to Tables:
• Fifteen-Minute Water Height Table:
o Fifteen-Minute Sample Water Height: Fifteen minute sample (point) reading
recorded at the top of the hour, 15, 30, and 45 minutes past the hour.
o Fifteen-Minute Average Water Height: Fifteen minute average of all 15 readings
recorded at the top of the hour, 15, 30, and 45 minutes past the hour.
o Fifteen-Minute Maximum Water Height: Fifteen minute maximum of all 15 readings
recorded at the top of the hour, 15, 30, and 45 minutes past the hour.
o Fifteen-Minute Minimum Water Height: Fifteen minute minimum of all 15 readings
recorded at the top of the hour, 15, 30, and 45 minutes past the hour.
• Daily Table:
o Daily Average Water Height: Average of all readings for the previous day.
o Daily Maximum Water Height: Maximum water height for the previous day.
o Daily Minimum Water Height: Minimum water height for the previous day.
Surface-Water Temperature
Sensor: Two CS450 (Campbell Scientific, Inc) SDI-12 Sensors
Operating Range: -10°C to 80°C
Output Units: °C
Scan Interval: 60 seconds
Output to Tables:
• Fifteen-Minute Water Level Table:
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 2 - Page 3 January 31, 2013
o Fifteen-Minute Average Water Temperature: Fifteen minute average of all 15
readings recorded at the top of the hour, 15, 30, and 45 minutes past the hour.
o Fifteen-Minute Maximum Water Temperature: The highest reading taken during the
previous fifteen minutes.
o Fifteen-Minute Minimum Water Temperature: The lowest reading taken during the
previous fifteen minutes.
• Daily Table:
o Daily Average Water Temperature: Average of all readings for the previous day.
o Daily Maximum Water Temperature: the highest reading taken during the previous
day.
o Daily Minimum Water Temperature: the lowest reading taken during the previous
day.
Surface-Water Temperature, Independent
Sensor: Five Model 109 (Campbell Scientific, Inc) Sensors
Operating Range: -50°C to 70°C
Output Units: °C
Scan Interval: 60 seconds
Output to Tables:
• Fifteen-Minute Water Level Table:
o Fifteen-Minute Average Water Temperature: Fifteen minute average of all 15
readings recorded at the top of the hour, 15, 30, and 45 minutes past the hour.
o Fifteen-Minute Maximum Water Temperature: The highest reading taken during the
previous fifteen minutes.
o Fifteen-Minute Minimum Water Temperature: The lowest reading taken during the
previous fifteen minutes.
• Daily Table:
o Daily Average Water Temperature: Average of all readings for the previous day.
o Daily Maximum Water Temperature: the highest reading taken during the previous
day.
o Daily Minimum Water Temperature: the lowest reading taken during the previous
day.
Battery Voltage
Sensor: CH200
Output Units: V.
Scan Interval: 60 seconds
Output to Tables:
• Hourly Diagnostics Table:
o Hourly Sample CR1000 Battery Voltage: Measured at the top of the hour.
o Hourly Average CR1000 Battery Voltage: Average of the 60 one-minute readings for
the previous hour.
o Hourly Maximum CR1000 Battery Voltage: The highest reading from the previous
hour.
o Hourly Minimum CR1000 Battery Voltage: The lowest reading from the previous
hour.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 2 - Page 4 January 31, 2013
Battery Current
Sensor: CH200
Output Units: A.
Scan Interval: 60 seconds
Output to Tables:
• Hourly Diagnostics Table:
o Hourly Sample CR1000 Battery Current: Measured at the top of the hour.
o Hourly Average CR1000 Battery Current: Average of the 60 one-minute readings for
the previous hour.
o Hourly Maximum CR1000 Battery Current: The highest reading from the previous
hour.
o Hourly Minimum CR1000 Battery Current: The lowest reading from the previous
hour.
Load Current
Sensor: CH200
Output Units: A.
Scan Interval: 60 seconds
Output to Tables:
• Hourly Diagnostics Table:
o Hourly Sample Load Current: Measured at the top of the hour.
o Hourly Average Load Current: Average of the 60 one-minute readings for the
previous hour.
o Hourly Maximum Load Current: The highest reading from the previous hour.
o Hourly Minimum CR1000 Battery Current: The lowest reading from the previous
hour.
Solar Panel Voltage
Sensor: CH200
Output Units: V.
Scan Interval: 60 seconds
Output to Tables:
• Hourly Diagnostics Table:
o Hourly Sample Solar Panel Voltage: Hourly reading at the top of the hour.
o Hourly Average Solar Panel Voltage: Average of the 60 one-minute readings for the
previous hour.
o Hourly Maximum Solar Panel Voltage: The highest reading from the previous hour.
o Hourly Minimum Solar Panel Voltage: The lowest reading from the previous hour.
Solar Panel Current
Sensor: CH200
Output Units: A.
Scan Interval: 60 seconds
Output to Tables:
• Hourly Diagnostics Table:
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 2 - Page 5 January 31, 2013
o Hourly Sample Solar Panel Current: Hourly reading at the top of the hour.
o Hourly Average Solar Panel Current: Average of the 60 one-minute readings for the
previous hour.
o Hourly Maximum Solar Panel Current: The highest reading from the previous hour.
o Hourly Minimum Solar Panel Current: The lowest reading from the previous hour.
Datalogger (CR1000) Panel Temperature
Sensor: CR1000 Internal thermistor
Output Units: °C.
Scan Interval: 60 seconds
Output to Tables:
• Hourly Diagnostics Table:
o Hourly Average CR1000 Panel Temperature: Average of the 60 one-minute readings
for the previous hour.
Voltage Regulator (CH200) Temperature
Sensor: CH200
Output Units: °C.
Scan Interval: 60 seconds
Output to Tables:
• Hourly Diagnostics Table:
o Hourly Average CR1000 Panel Temperature: Average of the 60 one-minute readings
for the previous hour.
Resulting Final Storage Data Tables:
See Datalogger Output Files Excel Document
Notes
Definitions:
Scan interval = sampling duration = scan rate
Time of maximum or minimum values is not recorded
Sample reading = instantaneous reading
Beginning of the hour = top of the hour
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 2 - Page 6 January 31, 2013 Susitna ESS40 Surface Water Station Data StandardsData FilesTableSurface WaterA Station DiagnosticsHourlyDiagLast Update: 6/24/12B Hourly table for all measurements HourlyLast Update By: R PaetzoldC 15-min water tableQuarterHourlyWaterLHourly Raw Data (collected for field diagnostics)HourlyRawKey Analysis and Demonstration QuestionsM Overall daily outputDailyDetermine the potential for generating hydroelectric power.CSI Data Station Collection Standards Summary TableParameters# Sensors Units Sample Point Avg Max Min Sample Point Avg Max Min Sample Point Avg - Air Temperature (YSI 44033)3 °CBBM - Air Temperature (YSI 44033)3ohmsLL - Water Ht (CS450)2cm, ft, psigCC C CM - Surface Water Temperature (CS450)2 °CC C CM - Surface Water Temperature (CSI 109)5 °CC C CMMonitoring System Diagnostic Conditions - Station IDnumber number CA,B, LM - Battery Voltage1 VAA A A - Battery Current1 AAA A A - Load Current1 AAA A A - Solar Panel Voltage1 VAA A A - Solar Panel Current1 AAA A A - CR1000 Temperature1°CA - CH200 Voltage RegulatorTemperature1°CA - Camera Images (every hour or on demand)1Quarter Hourly DataHourly DataDaily DataData Tables
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 January 31, 2013
ATTACHMENT 3. ADCP DISCHARGE MEASUREMENT SUMMARIES
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 3 - Page 1 January 31, 2013
Table A3-1. Combined Measurements.
Project
River Mile
Brailey
River
Mile Date Time Q, cfs Rating
Gold
Ck Q,
cfs Date Time Q, cfs Rating
Gold
Ck Q,
cfs Date Time Q, cfs Rating
Gold
Ck Q,
cfs
PRM 225.0 RM 223.0 6/14/12 17:57 26,932 Good 42,600 8/9/12 15:03 11,260 Excellent 17,500 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 187.2 RM 184.1 6/17/12 16:30 27,698 Poor 32,800 8/6/12 16:13 14,707 Good 19,300 9/15/12 13:17 7,838 Good 10,800
PRM 186.2 RM 183.4 6/18/12 14:13 24,493 Good 32,200 8/6/12 17:05 14,419 Good 19,300 9/15/12 14:05 7,630 Excellent 10,800
PRM 185.5 RM 182.8 6/18/12 16:10 25,389 Good 32,300 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 185.2 RM 182.6 6/19/12 13:00 26,676 Good 34,400 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 184.9 RM 182.2 6/19/12 15:49 27,619 Good 35,500 8/6/12 18:24 14,239 Excellent 19,100 9/15/12 14:57 7,714 Excellent 11,000
PRM 184.4 RM 181.7 6/19/12 16:51 27,886 Fair 35,500 8/7/12 12:38 14,775 Good 18,300 9/15/12 15:52 8,353 Good 11,100
PRM 183.3 RM 180.3 6/20/12 13:19 29,426 Fair 36,300 8/7/12 13:35 14,183 Excellent 18,200 9/15/12 16:41 8,310 Excellent 11,300
PRM 182.9 RM 179.8 6/20/12 16:01 29,218 Good 36,400 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 181.6 RM 178.9 6/20/12 17:56 29,645 Excellent 36,200 8/7/12 14:44 14,705 Good 18,200 9/15/12 17:55 8,689 Good 11,500
PRM 179.5 RM 176.8 6/21/12 12:28 30,866 Fair 37,500 8/7/12 15:41 14,345 Excellent 18,100 9/14/12 17:05 8,361 Good 10,100
PRM 178.5 RM 176.1 6/16/12 18:35 29,756 Good 36,900 8/7/12 16:37 14,799 Excellent 18,000 9/14/12 17:47 8,738 Good 10,000
PRM 176.5 RM 173.9 6/21/12 14:40 31,240 Excellent 37,500 8/8/12 12:07 14,559 Excellent 17,300 9/16/12 14:50 10,768 Excellent 16,500
PRM 174.9 RM 172.0 6/21/12 16:12 31,163 Good 37,300 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 173.1 RM 170.0 6/21/12 17:39 30,571 Good 37,000 -- -- -- -- -- 9/16/12 16:29 11,082 Excellent 17,200
PRM 170.1 RM 167.0 6/22/12 12:56 31,121 Good 36,700 8/8/12 15:16 14,568 Excellent 17,200 9/16/12 17:33 11,137 Excellent 17,600
PRM 168.1 RM 164.5 6/22/12 14:33 32,265 Good 36,700 8/8/12 16:03 14,655 Excellent 17,300 9/17/12 15:19 14,619 Good 20,200
PRM 153.7 RM 150.2 6/25/12 17:15 32,162 Good 35,900 8/10/12 15:03 14,588 Excellent 16,800 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 152.9 RM 149.5 6/26/12 13:43 30,487 Fair 35,800 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 152.1 RM 148.7 6/26/12 15:38 30,036 Good 36,000 8/10/12 16:07 15,351 Good 16,800 9/29/12 15:20 18,488 Good 20,000
PRM 151.1 RM 147.6 6/25/12 14:00 33,180 Good 36,400 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 148.3 RM 144.8 6/26/12 18:24 32,114 Good 35,600 8/10/12 18:03 14,941 Excellent 16,600 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 146.6 RM 143.2 6/27/12 12:24 31,030 Fair 34,400 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 145.7 RM 142.3 6/27/12 13:51 31,396 Fair 34,500 8/12/12 13:12 17,354 Excellent 18,100 9/29/12 16:51 18,131 Good 19,800
PRM 145.5 RM 142.1 6/27/12 14:40 31,868 Fair 34,800 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 144.9 RM 141.5 6/27/12 17:01 31,949 Fair 35,100 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 144.3 RM 140.8 6/27/12 18:50 31,121 Good 35,000 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 143.5 RM 140.2 6/28/12 12:17 30,330 Excellent 32,900 8/12/12 14:58 17,006 Excellent 18,100 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 143.0 RM 139.4 6/28/12 13:53 29,492 Good 32,900 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 142.2 RM 138.9 6/28/12 15:15 29,753 Good 33,200 8/12/12 16:29 16,798 Excellent 18,100 9/29/12 17:45 18,301 Excellent 19,800
PRM 141.9 RM 138.5 6/28/12 16:27 30,583 Good 33,200 8/12/12 17:13 16,803 Excellent 18,000 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 141.7 RM 138.2 6/28/12 17:41 30,555 Excellent 33,300 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 140.0 RM 136.7 6/29/12 14:48 30,378 Excellent 32,300 8/13/12 12:54 16,350 Excellent 17,800 9/30/12 13:56 17,619 Good 17,800
PRM 139.8 RM 136.4 6/29/12 16:21 30,378 Excellent 32,200 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 139.0 RM 135.7 6/30/12 13:56 28,039 Good 31,000 8/13/12 13:58 16,449 Good 17,700 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 138.7 RM 135.4 6/30/12 14:51 28,230 Excellent 31,000 8/13/12 14:48 16,344 Excellent 17,700 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 138.1 RM 134.7 6/30/12 16:33 28,203 Good 31,000 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 137.6 RM 134.3 6/30/12 18:13 27,893 Good 31,000 8/13/12 16:14 16,409 Excellent 17,600 9/30/12 15:00 17,382 Excellent 17,700
PRM 136.7 RM 133.3 7/1/12 13:35 26,756 Good 30,000 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 136.2 RM 132.9 7/1/12 16:06 26,943 Good 30,000 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 135.0 RM 131.8 7/1/12 18:33 26,526 Excellent 29,700 8/13/12 17:41 15,627 Excellent 17,400 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 134.3 RM 131.2 7/2/12 12:16 25,463 Good 28,000 -- -- -- -- -- 10/1/12 13:40 15,568 Excellent 15,500
PRM 134.1 RM 130.9 7/2/12 13:18 26,166 Good 27,900 8/14/12 13:14 16,491 Excellent 17,400 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 133.8 RM 130.5 7/2/12 14:30 25,715 Good 28,000 8/14/12 14:05 16,275 Excellent 17,300 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 133.3 RM 130.0 7/2/12 16:22 25,678 Excellent 27,900 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 132.6 RM 129.4 7/2/12 17:57 25,046 Excellent 27,800 8/14/12 15:17 16,039 Good 17,300 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 131.4 RM 128.1 7/3/12 22:08 28,628 Good 31,200 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 129.7 RM 126.6 7/3/12 17:33 28,243 Good 30,900 8/14/12 17:00 16,330 Excellent 17,300 10/1/12 16:16 15,731 Excellent 15,400
PRM 128.1 RM 124.4 7/4/12 15:40 26,748 Good 30,000 8/15/12 12:50 15,926 Excellent 17,600 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 126.8 RM 123.3 7/4/12 17:22 27,608 Excellent 29,900 8/15/12 13:40 16,078 Excellent 17,600 10/1/12 17:02 15,582 Excellent 15,400
PRM 126.1 RM 122.6 7/5/12 14:24 27,248 Good 28,800 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 125.4 RM 121.8 7/5/12 16:38 26,427 Excellent 28,500 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 124.1 RM 120.7 7/5/12 18:11 26,132 Good 27,900 8/15/12 14:27 16,161 Excellent 17,600 10/1/12 17:42 15,582 Good 15,300
PRM 123.7 RM 120.3 7/6/12 12:18 23,875 Excellent 24,700 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 122.7 RM 119.3 7/6/12 14:23 23,331 Excellent 24,100 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 122.6 RM 119.2 7/6/12 15:59 22,890 Good 24,000 8/15/12 16:13 16,287 Excellent 17,600 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 120.7 RM 117.2 7/6/12 17:19 22,687 Good 23,400 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 119.9 RM 116.4 7/7/12 12:19 20,715 Excellent 21,600 8/16/12 12:54 16,005 Excellent 17,600 10/3/12 14:47 13,998 Excellent 13,500
PRM 118.4 RM 115.0 7/7/12 14:06 20,656 Excellent 21,600 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 117.4 RM 114.0 7/7/12 16:15 20,747 Excellent 21,100 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 116.6 RM 113.0 7/7/12 17:36 20,665 Excellent 21,000 8/16/12 14:15 16,136 Excellent 17,600 10/3/12 15:53 14,323 Excellent 13,400
PRM 116.3 RM 112.7 7/8/12 12:42 23,766 Excellent 28,600 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 3 - Page 2 January 31, 2013
Project
River Mile
Brailey
River
Mile Date Time Q, cfs Rating
Gold
Ck Q,
cfs Date Time Q, cfs Rating
Gold
Ck Q,
cfs Date Time Q, cfs Rating
Gold
Ck Q,
cfs
PRM 115.7 RM 112.2 7/8/12 14:05 25,006 Excellent 28,900 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 115.4 RM 111.8 7/8/12 16:13 25,958 Excellent 29,100 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 114.4 RM 110.9 7/8/12 18:29 25,860 Excellent 29,100 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 113.6 RM 110.0 7/9/12 14:23 28,329 Excellent 31,900 8/16/12 16:38 16,311 Excellent 17,500 10/3/12 16:41 13,476 Excellent 13,400
PRM 111.9 RM 108.4 7/9/12 15:23 28,296 Good 31,900 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 110.5 RM 106.7 7/9/12 16:46 28,825 Good 31,800 8/17/12 14:57 15,254 Excellent 18,000 10/3/12 17:33 14,172 Excellent 13,400
PRM 108.3 RM 104.8 -- -- -- -- -- 8/17/12 17:55 16,394 Good 17,900
PRM 107.1 RM 103.0 7/9/12 18:26 28,409 Good 31,600 8/18/12 13:12 15,508 Excellent 16,300 10/4/12 14:10 14,558 Excellent 13,700
PRM 106.1 RM 102.4 -- -- -- -- -- 8/18/12 14:22 15,278 Excellent 16,100 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 105.3 RM 101.5 -- -- -- -- -- 8/18/12 15:52 15,362 Excellent 16,000 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 104.7 RM 101.0 -- -- -- -- -- 8/18/12 17:48 15,377 Excellent 16,000 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 104.1 RM 100.4 -- -- -- -- -- 8/19/12 12:49 15,345 Excellent 16,400 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 103.5 RM 99.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 10/4/12 16:49 14,575 Excellent 13,700
PRM 102.7 RM 98.8 7/10/12 13:53 26,635 Good 26,900 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 101.4 RM 98.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 98.4 RM 95.0 7/11/12 14:09 46,499 Good 22,600 8/20/12 14:51 40,623 Good 16,600 10/5/12 14:37 39,065 Excellent 13,800
PRM 97.0 RM 94.0 7/11/12 18:27 45,118 Good 21,800 8/20/12 17:03 40,261 Excellent 17,400 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 91.6 RM 87.7 8/21/12 14:55 46,330 Excellent 18,500 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 91.0 RM 86.9 7/12/12 15:39 43,922 Good 20,100 8/21/12 16:51 46,197 Excellent 18,500 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 88.4 RM 84.6 -- -- -- -- -- 8/22/12 15:01 41,697 Excellent 18,200 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 87.1 RM 83.0 7/12/12 18:00 42,550 Excellent 19,700 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 86.3 RM 82.0 7/13/12 13:13 41,895 Excellent 18,800 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 85.4 RM 81.2 -- -- -- -- -- 8/22/12 18:01 40,468 Excellent 17,600 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 84.4 RM 80.0 -- -- -- -- -- 8/23/12 15:16 36,988 Good 16,100 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 83.0 RM 79.0 7/13/12 16:09 41,975 Excellent 18,700 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PRM 82.3 RM 78.0 -- -- -- -- -- 8/23/12 17:52 37,947 Good 15,800 -- -- -- -- --
PRM 80.0 RM 76.0 -- -- -- -- -- 8/24/12 15:07 36,580 Excellent 16,200 -- -- -- -- --
Notes:
1 No discharge measurements reported at PRM 101.4 (RM xx), insufficient data collected.
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 3 - Page 3 January 31, 2013 Table A3-2. Individual Measurements. Date Mid-point time Site Project River Mile Brailey River Mile ADCP Serial No. Compass Calibration Mmt duration, s No. of Transects % Top & Bottom Est's Extrapolation Settings1 % Edge Est's. Loop Test Results Start time Duration, s DMG, ft Velocity, ft/s Direction, deg % Corr % bad out-back Bed Flow Bed Flow Diff BT difference 6/11/12 8:25 15281000 -- Knik R. 3061 on-board 784 2 28.5 C/N-0.133 0.184 08:11 462 94.3 0.20 3.68 73.1 251.6 178.4 5.54 2.16 0.6 6/11/12 10:10 15281000 -- Knik R. 2837 on-board 904 2 28.3 C/N-0.115 0.173 09:56 544 103.7 0.19 3.61 81.5 253.3 171.9 5.28 2.95 0.2 6/14/12 17:57 15291500 225.0 223.0 3061 on-board 700 2 22.7 C/N-0.296 1.365 No loop test due to diving of ADCP in standing waves 6/16/12 18:35 X176.1C1 178.5 176.1 3061 on-board 1884 6 23.0 C/N-0.218 0.093 No loop test due to diving of ADCP in standing waves 6/17/12 16:30 X184.1C1 187.2 184.1 3061 on-board 1680 6 24.3 P/P-0.170 0.035 No loop test due to diving of ADCP in standing waves 6/18/12 14:13 X183.4C1 186.2 183.4 3061 on-board 880 4 22.5 C/N-0.241 0.045 13:55 308 35.8 0.12 7.17 74.8 267.8 193.1 1.62 11.73 2.5 6/18/12 16:10 X182.8C1 185.5 182.8 3061 on-board 1012 4 25.2 C/N-0.213 0.063 15:54 312 80.1 0.26 6.83 73.9 268.7 194.8 3.76 4.18 6.3 6/19/12 12:04 X182.6C3 185.2 182.6 3061 on-board 700 4 27.6 C/N-0.160 0.261 11:56 194 17.4 0.09 6.60 57.2 283.1 225.9 1.36 25.77 2.9 6/19/12 13:02 X182.6C1 185.2 182.6 3061 on-board 592 4 35.8 C/N-0.240 1.795 12:53 155 6.7 0.04 3.63 16.2 298.8 283.6 1.19 14.29 2.8 6/19/12 13:54 X182.6C2 185.2 182.6 3061 on-board 812 4 27.9 C/N-0.151 0.241 13:40 307 86.7 0.28 8.41 11.9 275.5 263.6 3.36 44.44 4.9 6/19/12 15:49 X182.2C1 184.9 182.2 3061 on-board 872 4 24.4 C/N-0.215 0.044 15:02 317 59.0 0.19 7.57 110.5 262.5 152.0 2.46 30.70 17.3 6/19/12 16:51 X181.7C1 184.4 181.7 3061 on-board 948 4 23.8 C/N-0.202 0.196 16:30 262 99.6 0.38 8.19 126.2 281.2 155.0 4.64 16.48 16.5 6/20/12 13:19 X180.3C1 183.3 180.3 3061 on-board 908 4 22.6 C/N-0.218 0.021 13:08 252 32.6 0.13 7.81 227.9 253.2 25.4 1.66 8.76 10.8 6/20/12 15:03 X179.8C1 182.9 179.8 3061 on-board 636 4 30.1 C/N-0.204 1.577 14:41 187 19.2 0.10 8.16 263.1 244.4 341.3 1.26 11.29 2.4 6/20/12 16:58 X179.8C2 182.9 179.8 3061 on-board 852 4 23.4 C/N-0.229 0.104 16:46 268 25.0 0.09 8.36 104.5 274.6 170.2 1.12 9.36 3.8 6/20/12 17:56 X178.9C1 181.6 178.9 3061 on-board 1200 4 24.2 C/N-0.209 0.066 17:43 296 66.9 0.23 7.52 351.8 181.6 189.8 3.00 2.71 0.2 6/21/12 12:28 X176.8C1 179.5 176.8 3061 on-board 920 4 22.0 C/N-0.212 0.089 12:17 291 18.1 0.06 8.41 215.9 231.3 15.5 0.74 9.31 12.8 6/21/12 14:40 X173.9C1 176.5 173.9 3061 on-board 980 4 25.1 C/N-0.191 0.086 14:21 323 25.7 0.08 8.07 79.7 295.8 216.2 0.98 7.74 2.2 6/21/12 16:12 X172.0C1 174.9 172.0 3061 on-board 1632 6 24.5 C/N-0.213 0.062 15:49 340 35.9 0.11 8.35 99.1 274.5 175.4 1.26 5.90 2.6 6/21/12 17:39 X170.0C1 173.1 170.0 3061 on-board 1072 4 23.5 C/N-0.225 0.015 17:18 462 77.2 0.17 8.13 96.4 280.1 183.7 2.05 4.12 3.4 6/22/12 12:56 X167.0C1 170.1 167.0 3061 on-board 1004 4 24.0 C/N-0.209 0.035 12:34 332 21.0 0.06 8.30 123.3 282.2 158.9 0.76 3.93 1.7 6/22/12 14:33 X164.5C1 164.5 164.5 3061 on-board 1096 4 23.4 C/N-0.200 0.030 14:08 362 112.3 0.31 8.19 184.1 359.2 175.1 3.79 3.60 8.6 6/25/12 14:00 X147.6C1 151.1 147.6 3061 on-board 960 4 23.6 C/N-0.181 0.007 13:48 260 13.1 0.05 8.35 134.9 282.7 147.8 0.60 5.79 3.1 6/25/12 17:15 X150.2C1 153.7 150.2 3061 on-board 888 4 21.5 C/N-0.224 0.019 16:55 303 42.4 0.14 10.23 106.6 306.6 200.1 1.37 11.26 1.2 6/26/12 13:43 X149.5C1 152.9 149.5 3061 on-board 1056 4 24.4 C/N-0.255 0.012 13:26 335 77.7 0.23 7.47 132.5 313.6 181.0 3.11 4.49 4.6 6/26/12 15:38 X148.7C1 152.1 148.7 3061 on-board 844 4 21.1 C/N-0.229 0.036 15:20 259 4.6 0.02 8.51 347.5 281.9 294.4 NR 9.69 0.9 6/26/12 18:24 X144.8C1 148.3 144.8 3061 on-board 836 4 21.8 C/N-0.222 0.029 17:45 216 38.5 0.18 8.56 116.5 269.3 152.9 2.08 8.37 9.8 6/27/12 12:04 X143.2C2 146.6 143.2 3061 on-board 728 4 22.4 C/N-0.249 0.020 10:22 222 57.5 0.26 8.96 60.3 244.1 183.8 2.89 4.05 3.5 6/27/12 12:45 X143.2C1 146.6 143.2 2837 on-board 906 6 40.4 P/P-0.198 2.416 12:30 171 18.3 0.11 4.21 272.4 273.3 0.8 2.54 15.20 9.0 6/27/12 13:51 X142.3C1 145.7 142.3 2837 on-board 808 4 22.8 C/N-0.222 0.080 13:35 234 53.9 0.23 8.18 240.0 233.4 353.4 2.82 6.01 11.7 6/27/12 14:40 X142.1C1 145.5 142.1 2837 on-board 1204 4 23.6 C/N-0.225 0.017 14:16 298 135.1 0.45 8.50 237.4 237.7 0.4 5.34 9.73 18.3 6/27/12 16:39 X141.5C1 144.9 141.5 2837 on-board 1296 4 33.5 C/N-0.158 0.246 No loop test due to a fast, shallow passage that required walking 6/27/12 17:23 X141.5C2 144.9 141.5 2837 on-board 736 4 23.2 C/N-0.238 0.039 17:13 224 170.7 0.76 8.14 230.7 226.6 355.9 9.36 11.66 27.8 6/27/12 18:29 X140.8C2 144.3 140.8 2837 on-board 936 4 24.3 C/N-0.234 0.057 18:17 291 159.9 0.55 8.67 208.9 208.0 359.1 6.34 20.96 324.0 6/27/12 19:12 X140.8C1 144.3 140.8 2837 on-board 796 4 33.5 C/N-0.194 1.880 No loop test - lost bottom track 6/28/12 12:17 X140.2C1 143.5 140.2 2837 off-boat 1040 4 23.7 C/N-0.202 0.056 12:04 271 34.0 0.13 7.93 34.2 219.4 185.2 1.58 4.80 0.5 6/28/12 13:20 X139.4C1 143.0 139.4 2837 off-boat 1272 4 28.1 C/P-0.214 0.007 13:01 433 16.6 0.04 7.29 330.5 259.3 71.2 0.00 9.47 4.1 6/28/12 14:27 X139.4C2 143.0 139.4 2837 off-boat 660 4 30.3 C/N-0.220 0.160 14:16 230 11.5 0.05 4.84 235.0 257.4 22.4 1.03 2.17 2.2 6/28/12 15:15 X138.9C1 142.2 138.9 2837 off-boat 920 4 23.6 C/N-0.218 0.042 15:02 290 4.9 0.02 7.85 134.5 248.3 113.8 NR 1.72 0.9 6/28/12 16:27 X138.5C1 141.9 138.5 2837 off-boat 824 4 22.1 C/N-0.227 0.014 16:16 254 20.1 0.08 7.68 50.7 232.5 181.8 1.03 2.76 1.7 6/28/12 17:41 X138.2C1 141.7 138.2 2837 off-boat 1016 4 24.7 C/N-0.229 0.027 17:21 381 9.4 0.02 8.12 48.1 223.5 175.5 NR 2.11 0.1 6/29/12 14:48 X136.7C1 140.0 136.7 2837 off-boat 744 4 22.0 C/N-0.199 0.069 14:28 231 16.1 0.07 9.60 55.5 255.9 200.4 0.73 4.33 0.7 6/29/12 16:21 X136.4C1 139.8 136.4 2837 off-boat 908 4 23.8 C/N-0.227 0.007 16:03 287 7.2 0.02 8.14 145.5 269.2 123.7 0.73 5.23 2.0 6/30/12 13:56 X135.7C1 139.0 135.7 2837 off-boat 784 4 20.6 C/N-0.237 0.043 13:39 250 17.1 0.07 7.67 243.4 194.8 311.4 0.89 2.80 2.7 6/30/12 14:51 X135.4C1 138.7 135.4 2837 off-boat 780 4 22.9 C/N-0.211 0.056 14:38 243 25.7 0.11 7.15 172.5 192.9 20.4 1.48 1.65 3.2
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 3 - Page 4 January 31, 2013 Date Mid-point time Site Project River Mile Brailey River Mile Bottom Track Loop Corrected GPS-GGA Constant Gold Moving Calculated 95% Q, cfs COV Q, cfs COV Q, cfs COV Mag var., deg Heading Creek bed moving bed Uncer- Rating NOAA adjust2 Error, deg Q, cfs uncertainty bias tainty 6/11/12 8:25 15281000 -- Knik R. 8,986 0.004 9,580 0.005 9,365 0.001 18.6 16 2.6 0.5 4.3 Good 6/11/12 10:10 15281000 -- Knik R. 8,888 0.026 9,418 0.024 9,270 0.003 18.6 15 3.6 0.5 7.6 Fair 6/14/12 17:57 15291500 225.0 223.0 26,922 0.028 No loop test 26,932 0.002 19.5 19 0.5 42600 0.5 4.0 Good 6/16/12 18:35 X176.1C1 178.5 176.1 29,275 0.021 No loop test 29,756 0.011 19.1 19.1 0.0 36900 0.5 2.1 Good 6/17/12 16:30 X184.1C1 187.2 184.1 27,619 0.064 No loop test 27,698 0.071 19.2 19.2 0.0 32800 0.5 8.1 Poor 6/18/12 14:13 X183.4C1 186.2 183.4 23,922 0.019 24,372 0.020 24,493 0.017 19.2 15 4.2 32200 0.5 3.0 Good 6/18/12 16:10 X182.8C1 185.5 182.8 24,325 0.012 25,389 0.014 24,580 0.012278895 19.2 16 3.2 32300 0.5 2.7 Good 6/19/12 12:04 X182.6C3 185.2 182.6 7,680 0.025 Bad bottom track 7,712 0.006 19.2 22 -2.8 34400 1.5 1.3 4.0 Good 6/19/12 13:02 X182.6C1 185.2 182.6 1,193 0.030 NR - bed v £ 0.04 1,172 0.023 19.2 20 -0.8 34900 4.1 Good 6/19/12 13:54 X182.6C2 185.2 182.6 17,508 0.061 Bad bottom track 17,771 0.07 19.2 16 3.2 35300 1.5 1.3 11.7 Poor 6/19/12 15:49 X182.2C1 184.9 182.2 27,058 0.004 Bad bottom track 27,619 0.007 19.2 19.2 0.0 35500 1.5 1.1 4.0 Good 6/19/12 16:51 X181.7C1 184.4 181.7 27,886 0.035 Invalid closure 27,419 0.024 19.2 3 16.2 35500 1.5 0.9 7.1 Fair 6/20/12 13:19 X180.3C1 183.3 180.3 29,426 0.028 Invalid closure 29,101 0.012446284 19.1 15 4.1 36300 1.5 0.2 5.5 Fair 6/20/12 15:03 X179.8C1 182.9 179.8 5,496 0.032 Invalid closure 5,456 0.006 19.1 15 4.1 36400 1.5 1.1 7.0 Fair 6/20/12 16:58 X179.8C2 182.9 179.8 23,317 0.007 23,633 0.007 22,969 0.002 19.1 17 2.1 36300 0.5 1.8 Excellent 6/20/12 17:56 X178.9C1 181.6 178.9 28,688 0.006 29,645 0.004 28,793 0.001 19.1 20 -0.9 36200 0.5 1.5 Excellent 6/21/12 12:28 X176.8C1 179.5 176.8 30,866 0.023 Invalid closure 29,802 0.006 19.1 15 4.1 37500 1.5 1.3 6.0 Fair 6/21/12 14:40 X173.9C1 176.5 173.9 31,186 0.005 <1% correction 31,240 0.003 19.2 21 -1.8 37500 0.5 1.4 Excellent 6/21/12 16:12 X172.0C1 174.9 172.0 30,711 0.018 31,163 0.018 30,937 0.009 19.1 8 11.1 37300 0.5 2.8 Good 6/21/12 17:39 X170.0C1 173.1 170.0 29,815 0.017 30,571 0.017 30,420 0.009 19.1 7 12.1 37000 0.5 3.0 Good 6/22/12 12:56 X167.0C1 170.1 167.0 31,121 0.009 <1% correction 30,827 0.004 19.0 9 10.0 36700 0.5 2.1 Good 6/22/12 14:33 X164.5C1 164.5 164.5 30,943 0.010 32,265 0.010 31,643 0.003 19.0 11 8.0 36700 0.5 2.2 Good 6/25/12 14:00 X147.6C1 151.1 147.6 33,180 0.014 <1% correction 33,180 0.014 18.9 8 10.9 36400 0.5 2.7 Good 6/25/12 17:15 X150.2C1 153.7 150.2 31,596 0.010 32,162 0.010 31,114 0.008 18.9 6 12.9 35900 0.5 2.2 Good 6/26/12 13:43 X149.5C1 152.9 149.5 29,361 0.032 30,487 0.034 29,997 0.017 18.9 14 4.9 35800 0.5 5.1 Fair 6/26/12 15:38 X148.7C1 152.1 148.7 30,036 0.017 NR - bed v £ 0.04 29,980 0.014 18.9 11 7.9 36000 2.5 Good 6/26/12 18:24 X144.8C1 148.3 144.8 31,328 0.015 32,114 0.015 31,067 0.012 18.8 9 9.8 35600 0.5 2.8 Good 6/27/12 12:04 X143.2C2 146.6 143.2 29,724 0.020 Invalid closure 28,504 0.01 18.8 5 13.8 34400 1.5 2.4 6.8 Fair 6/27/12 12:45 X143.2C1 146.6 143.2 1,306 0.039 Invalid closure 1,264 0.026 18.8 16 2.8 34400 4.4 Good 6/27/12 13:51 X142.3C1 145.7 142.3 31,396 0.010 Invalid closure 30,120 0.005 18.8 12 6.8 34500 1.5 2.2 5.4 Fair 6/27/12 14:40 X142.1C1 145.5 142.1 31,868 0.009 Invalid closure 29,894 0.02 18.8 15 3.8 34800 1.5 2.2 5.3 Fair 6/27/12 16:39 X141.5C1 144.9 141.5 7,621 0.025 No loop test 7,338 0.012 18.8 20 -1.2 35100 1.5 2.1 7.1 Fair 6/27/12 17:23 X141.5C2 144.9 141.5 24,328 0.011 Invalid closure 22,373 0.011 18.8 11 7.8 35200 1.5 2.1 5.4 Fair 6/27/12 18:29 X140.8C2 144.3 140.8 28,728 0.011 Invalid closure 25,413 0.015 18.8 29 -10.2 35000 1.5 3.3 Good 6/27/12 19:12 X140.8C1 144.3 140.8 2,379 0.028 Lost bottom track 2,393 0.012 18.8 18.8 0.0 35000 0.5 2.4 Good 6/28/12 12:17 X140.2C1 143.5 140.2 29,703 0.004 30,330 0.003 29,767 0.011 18.8 19 -0.2 32900 0.5 1.4 Excellent 6/28/12 13:20 X139.4C1 143.0 139.4 24,720 0.015 NR - bed v £ 0.04 24,503 0.006 18.8 18.8 0.0 32900 2.3 Good 6/28/12 14:27 X139.4C2 143.0 139.4 4,772 0.010 Invalid closure 4,723 0.013 18.8 18.8 0.0 33100 1.7 Excellent 6/28/12 15:15 X138.9C1 142.2 138.9 29,753 0.016 NR - bed v £ 0.04 29,602 0.01 18.8 19 -0.2 33200 2.4 Good 6/28/12 16:27 X138.5C1 141.9 138.5 30,161 0.012 30,583 0.012 30,109 0.004 18.8 19 -0.2 33200 0.5 2.4 Good 6/28/12 17:41 X138.2C1 141.7 138.2 30,239 0.012 NR - bed v £ 0.04 30,555 0.008 18.8 18 0.8 33300 1.5 Excellent 6/29/12 14:48 X136.7C1 140.0 136.7 30,378 0.005 <1% correction 29,900 0.005 18.8 25 -6.2 32300 1.1 Excellent 6/29/12 16:21 X136.4C1 139.8 136.4 29,071 0.011 NR - bed v £ 0.04 28,786 0.008 18.8 18.8 0.0 32200 1.8 Excellent 6/30/12 13:56 X135.7C1 139.0 135.7 28,039 0.013 Invalid closure 27,609 0.012 18.7 19 -0.3 31000 2.1 Good 6/30/12 14:51 X135.4C1 138.7 135.4 28,230 0.007 Invalid closure 27,696 0.004 18.7 19 -0.3 31000 1.3 Excellent
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 3 - Page 5 January 31, 2013 Date Mid-point time Site Project River Mile Brailey River Mile ADCP Serial No. Compass Calibration Mmt duration, s No. of Transects % Top & Bottom Est's Extrapolation Settings1 % Edge Est's. Loop Test Results Start time Duration, s DMG, ft Velocity, ft/s Direction, deg % Corr % bad out-back Bed Flow Bed Flow Diff BT difference 6/30/12 15:53 X134.7C1 138.1 134.7 2837 off-boat 1156 4 37.7 P/P-0.172 0.33 No loop test because C2 channel shows stationary bed 6/30/12 17:13 X134.7C2 138.1 134.7 2837 off-boat 808 4 24.1 C/N-0.201 0.126 16:57 263 9.0 0.03 7.96 201.3 199.9 358.6 NR 1.14 3.5 6/30/12 18:13 X134.3C1 137.6 134.3 2837 off-boat 920 4 23.6 C/N-0.220 0.040 17:57 307 34.8 0.11 7.07 202.6 213.6 11.0 1.60 0.33 3.7 7/1/12 13:35 X133.3C1 136.7 133.3 2837 off-boat 1084 4 27.0 C/N-0.204 0.067 13:10 391 151.6 0.39 6.38 220.7 210.5 349.9 6.07 10.74 12.0 7/1/12 15:15 X132.9C2 136.2 132.9 2837 off-boat 812 4 30.1 C/N-0.181 0.803 14:55 303 86.9 0.29 6.23 230.9 209.0 338.1 4.61 1.32 7.7 7/1/12 16:57 X132.9C1 136.2 132.9 2837 off-boat 684 4 25.8 C/N-0.222 0.134 16:48 192 20.0 0.10 7.11 29.6 208.2 178.6 1.46 2.08 1.1 7/1/12 18:17 X131.8C1 135.0 131.8 2837 off-boat 692 4 22.7 C/N-0.223 0.013 18:02 274 11.2 0.04 7.11 70.2 251.9 181.7 0.57 2.55 0.6 7/1/12 18:48 X131.8C2 135.0 131.8 2837 off-boat 820 4 33.9 C/N-0.198 0.629 No loop test - small channel. Mean H2O velocity 1.3 ft/s, bed probably not moving 7/2/12 12:16 X131.2C1 134.3 131.2 2837 off-boat 860 4 24.0 C/N-0.232 0.048 12:03 275 5.8 0.02 7.37 161.0 269.3 108.3 NR 0.73 1.1 7/2/12 13:18 X130.9C1 134.1 130.9 2837 off-boat 648 4 21.4 C/N-0.185 0.034 13:08 222 2.9 0.01 7.08 280.5 252.7 332.2 NR 3.60 0.5 7/2/12 14:30 X130.5C2 133.8 130.5 2837 off-boat 668 4 24.2 C/N-0.220 0.063 14:00 198 20.2 0.10 7.43 261.9 252.3 350.4 1.37 1.01 2.6 7/2/12 15:18 X130.5C1 133.8 130.5 2837 off-boat 436 4 39.8 C/N-0.250 1.74 No loop test - small channel. Mean H2O velocity 2.7 ft/s, bed probably not moving 7/2/12 16:22 X130.0C2 133.3 130.0 2837 off-boat 2212 4 25.8 C/N-0.176 0.062 No loop test due to a wide, shallow bar that required walking 7/2/12 17:57 X129.4C1 132.6 129.4 2837 off-boat 996 4 28.1 C/N-0.207 0.049 17:43 336 8.6 0.03 6.19 237.0 212.9 335.9 NR 1.49 2.1 7/3/12 13:11 X130.0C1 133.3 130.0 2837 off-boat 708 4 46.9 C/N-0.226 2.59 No loop test - small channel. Mean H2O velocity 2.5 ft/s, bed probably not moving 7/3/12 14:31 X128.1C1 131.4 128.1 2837 off-boat 2380 4 27.2 C/N-0.191 0.035 No loop test due to fast shallows requiring 2 people to walk the boat 7/3/12 16:23 X128.1C2 131.4 128.1 2837 off-boat 780 4 39.8 C/N-0.178 0.382 16:11 201 1.7 0.01 4.66 6.2 211.3 205.1 NR 0.50 1.2 7/3/12 17:33 X126.6C1 129.7 126.6 2837 off-boat 916 4 22.5 C/N-0.194 0.03 17:17 304 18.4 0.06 6.63 30.0 228.1 198.1 0.91 1.97 0.5 7/4/12 15:40 X124.4C1 128.1 124.4 2837 off-boat 1108 4 26.8 C/N-0.240 0.10 16:07 338 40.6 0.12 5.66 357.5 209.2 211.8 2.12 7.1* 0.3 7/4/12 17:22 X123.3C1 126.8 123.3 2837 off-boat 896 4 20.9 C/N-0.220 0.11 17:10 294 36.6 0.12 6.78 13.3 208.1 194.8 1.83 1.36 2.5 7/5/12 13:51 X122.6C2 126.1 122.6 2837 off-boat 684 4 24.4 C/N-0.212 0.02 13:41 249 64.9 0.26 7.07 16.0 204.8 188.8 3.69 3.21 5.0 7/5/12 14:56 X122.6C1 126.1 122.6 2837 off-boat 488 4 31.2 C/N-0.236 1.96 No loop test - small channel. Mean H2O velocity 1.3 ft/s, bed probably not moving 7/5/12 16:06 X121.8C2 125.4 121.8 2837 off-boat 816 4 26.0 C/N-0.186 0.02 15:48 302 74.1 0.25 6.86 22.2 206.3 184.1 3.57 2.98 6.5 7/5/12 17:11 X121.8C1 125.4 121.8 2837 off-boat 572 4 35.8 C/N-0.192 0.62 17:00 180 23.8 0.13 5.40 15.4 201.0 185.6 2.45 1.11 6.2 7/5/12 18:11 X120.7C1 124.1 120.7 2837 off-boat 988 4 23.6 C/N-0.184 0.03 17:55 263 53.3 0.20 6.96 35.6 219.1 183.5 2.91 2.28 3.3 7/6/12 11:47 X120.3C1 123.7 120.3 2837 off-boat 784 4 25.7 C/N-0.212 0.12 11:29 219 99.5 0.45 5.48 18.1 203.3 185.1 8.29 0.91 9.3 7/6/12 12:49 X120.3C2 123.7 120.3 2837 off-boat 560 4 23.6 C/N-0.239 0.25 12:41 193 10.6 0.05 4.25 43.3 220.7 177.4 1.29 0.00 2.8 7/6/12 14:23 X119.3C1 122.7 119.3 2837 off-boat 900 4 25.2 C/N-0.185 0.02 14:10 324 47.9 0.15 5.68 12.2 207.7 195.6 2.60 0.93 2.1 7/6/12 15:12 X119.2C2 122.6 119.2 2837 off-boat 716 4 21.8 C/N-0.252 0.08 15:01 233 28.2 0.12 6.75 11.3 195.5 184.2 1.79 1.29 1.6 7/6/12 15:59 X119.2C1 122.6 119.2 2837 off-boat 536 4 37.7 C/N-0.104 2.22 15:44 176 4.7 0.03 2.37 20.9 194.5 173.6 NR 0.00 1.7 7/6/12 16:44 X117.2C2 120.7 117.2 2837 off-boat 756 4 26.4 C/N-0.203 0.20 16:35 225 22.3 0.10 6.31 41.9 228.1 186.1 1.57 0.89 2.8 7/6/12 17:55 X117.2C1 120.7 117.2 2837 off-boat 708 4 24.3 C/N-0.227 0.07 17:44 217 19.0 0.09 6.81 19.4 203.5 184.1 1.28 1.84 3.0 7/7/12 12:19 X116.4C1 119.9 116.4 2837 off-boat 696 4 22.5 C/N-0.216 0.10 12:03 238 7.9 0.03 6.54 173.4 215.6 42.1 NR 0.42 0.8 7/7/12 13:09 X115.0C2 118.4 115.0 2837 off-boat 696 4 23.7 C/N-0.219 0.04 12:58 249 7.0 0.03 6.57 234.0 184.1 310.1 NR 1.61 1.5 7/7/12 15:03 X115.0C1 118.4 115.0 2837 off-boat 820 4 27.8 C/N-0.175 0.59 No loop test - small channel. Mean H2O velocity 0.72 ft/s, bed probably not moving 7/7/12 15:50 X114.0C1 117.4 114.0 2837 off-boat 1140 4 38.2 C/N-0.093 0.77 No loop test - small channel. Mean H2O velocity 2.2 ft/s, bed probably not moving 7/7/12 16:40 X114.0C2 117.4 114.0 2837 off-boat 728 4 23.8 C/N-0.219 0.06 16:25 228 13.1 0.06 7.24 253.2 180.9 287.7 0.80 1.75 1.9 7/7/12 17:36 X113.0C1 116.6 113.0 2837 off-boat 1028 4 23.9 C/N-0.187 0.02 17:20 379 15.1 0.04 5.97 172.6 182.4 9.8 0.67 1.06 1.6 7/8/12 12:42 X112.7C1 116.3 112.7 2837 off-boat 924 4 27.9 C/N-0.195 0.07 12:26 248 15.9 0.06 6.38 24.6 180.3 155.7 1.01 1.61 1.4 7/8/12 13:41 X112.2C2 115.7 112.2 2837 off-boat 1056 4 38.9 C/N-0.167 0.34 13:27 373 28.4 0.08 4.97 330.9 135.7 164.8 1.53 0.27 4.9 7/8/12 14:29 X112.2C1 115.7 112.2 2837 off-boat 804 4 22.8 C/N-0.248 0.05 14:18 266 34.1 0.13 6.86 7.2 174.3 167.1 1.87 0.38 0.7 7/8/12 15:45 X111.8C2 115.4* 111.8 2837 off-boat 736 4 23.7 C/N-0.225 0.05 15:32 253 42.9 0.17 7.21 354.5 168.5 174.0 2.35 5.14 3.0 7/8/12 16:41 X111.8C1 115.4* 111.8 2837 off-boat 600 4 28.0 C/N-0.224 0.55 16:25 165 12.9 0.08 3.49 7.5 172.2 164.7 2.24 1.82 2.7 7/8/12 18:01 X110.9C1 114.4 110.9 2837 off-boat 756 4 29.4 C/N-0.220 0.39 17:51 245 37.9 0.15 5.54 321.3 157.9 196.5 2.80 10.61 1.3 7/8/12 18:57 X110.9C2 114.4 110.9 2837 off-boat 792 4 21.6 C/N-0.214 0.08 18:43 216 18.4 0.09 7.89 320.5 131.6 171.1 1.08 0.46 1.3
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 3 - Page 6 January 31, 2013 Date Mid-point time Site Project River Mile Brailey River Mile Bottom Track Loop Corrected GPS-GGA Constant Gold Moving Calculated 95% Q, cfs COV Q, cfs COV Q, cfs COV Mag var., deg Heading Creek bed moving bed Uncer- Rating NOAA adjust2 Error, deg Q, cfs uncertainty bias tainty 6/30/12 15:53 X134.7C1 138.1 134.7 4,805 0.018 No loop test 4,718 0.009 18.7 18 0.7 31000 2.7 Good 6/30/12 17:13 X134.7C2 138.1 134.7 23,398 0.011 NR - bed v £ 0.04 23,103 0.007 18.7 20 -1.3 31000 1.8 Excellent 6/30/12 18:13 X134.3C1 137.6 134.3 27,893 0.006 Invalid closure 27,417 0.003 18.7 18.7 0.0 31000 1.5 0.9 3.6 Good 7/1/12 13:35 X133.3C1 136.7 133.3 26,756 0.007 Invalid closure 24,213 0.012 18.7 24 -5.3 30000 1.5 1.4 4.2 Good 7/1/12 15:15 X132.9C2 136.2 132.9 11,953 0.011 Invalid closure 11,033 0.02 18.7 20 -1.3 30000 1.5 1.5 4.8 Good 7/1/12 16:57 X132.9C1 136.2 132.9 14,734 0.007 14,990 0.006 14,825 0.009 18.7 18 0.7 29900 0.5 1.7 Excellent 7/1/12 18:17 X131.8C1 135.0 131.8 25,989 0.009 NR - bed v £ 0.04 25,486 0.008 18.7 18.7 0.0 29700 1.6 Excellent 7/1/12 18:48 X131.8C2 135.0 131.8 537 0.004 No loop test 514 0.019 18.7 16 2.7 29700 1.0 Excellent 7/2/12 12:16 X131.2C1 134.3 131.2 25,463 0.014 NR - bed v £ 0.04 25,183 0.004 18.7 17 1.7 28000 2.2 Good 7/2/12 13:18 X130.9C1 134.1 130.9 26,166 0.021 NR - bed v £ 0.04 25,782 0.008 18.7 18.7 0.0 27900 3.0 Good 7/2/12 14:30 X130.5C2 133.8 130.5 25,100 0.015 Invalid closure 24,592 0.01 18.7 18 0.7 28000 2.3 Good 7/2/12 15:18 X130.5C1 133.8 130.5 615 0.040 No loop test 606 0.003 18.7 18 0.7 28000 5.3 Fair 7/2/12 16:22 X130.0C2 133.3 130.0 24,799 0.009 No loop test 24,450 0.003 18.7 18 0.7 27900 1.6 Excellent 7/2/12 17:57 X129.4C1 132.6 129.4 25,046 0.008 NR - bed v £ 0.04 24,964 0.003 18.7 18.7 0.0 27800 1.5 Excellent 7/3/12 13:11 X130.0C1 133.3 130.0 840 0.054 No loop test 879 0.019 18.7 18.7 0.0 31100 2.8 Good 7/3/12 14:31 X128.1C1 131.4 128.1 25,331 0.017 No loop test 26,583 0.034 18.7 18.7 0.0 31200 4.6 Good 7/3/12 16:23 X128.1C2 131.4 128.1 2,045 0.006 NR - bed v £ 0.04 GPS ship tracks incorrect 31000 1.2 Excellent 7/3/12 17:33 X126.6C1 129.7 126.6 28,243 0.016 <1% correction 28,233 0.006 18.7 18.7 0.0 30900 2.4 Good 7/4/12 15:40 X124.4C1 128.1 124.4 26,325 0.011 Lost bottom track 26,748 0.008 18.6 19 -0.4 30000 0.5 2.0 Good 7/4/12 17:22 X123.3C1 126.8 123.3 26,960 0.008 27,608 0.007 27,183 0.003 18.6 20 -1.4 29900 0.5 1.8 Excellent 7/5/12 13:51 X122.6C2 126.1 122.6 25,938 0.013 27,028 0.013 26,791 0.009 18.6 21 -2.4 28800 0.5 2.6 Good 7/5/12 14:56 X122.6C1 126.1 122.6 215 0.015 No loop test 220 0.021 18.6 19 -0.4 28600 3.0 Good 7/5/12 16:06 X121.8C2 125.4 121.8 22,027 0.001 22,996 0.001 22,796 0.003 18.6 20 -1.4 28500 0.5 1.1 Excellent 7/5/12 17:11 X121.8C1 125.4 121.8 3,333 0.017 3,430 0.016 3,428 0.012 18.6 20 -1.4 28200 0.5 2.9 Good 7/5/12 18:11 X120.7C1 124.1 120.7 25,086 0.027 26,132 0.026 25,927 0.009 18.6 22 -3.4 27900 0.5 4.1 Good 7/6/12 11:47 X120.3C1 123.7 120.3 18,274 0.004 bad out-back Ð 19,515 0.005 18.6 20 -1.4 24700 0.5 1.6 Excellent 7/6/12 12:49 X120.3C2 123.7 120.3 4,295 0.009 4,360 0.009 4,350 0.006 18.6 16 2.6 24500 0.5 2.1 Good 7/6/12 14:23 X119.3C1 122.7 119.3 22,510 0.006 23,331 0.007 22,932 0.009 18.6 16 2.6 24100 0.5 1.8 Excellent 7/6/12 15:12 X119.2C2 122.6 119.2 21,715 0.017 22,260 0.018 22,132 0.006 18.6 15 3.6 24000 0.5 3.2 Good 7/6/12 15:59 X119.2C1 122.6 119.2 629 0.015 NR - bed v £ 0.04 630 0.014 18.6 16 2.6 23600 2.2 Good 7/6/12 16:44 X117.2C2 120.7 117.2 11,031 0.015 11,214 0.015 11,144 0.004 18.6 16 2.6 23400 0.5 2.8 Good 7/6/12 17:55 X117.2C1 120.7 117.2 11,286 0.009 11,472 0.009 11,308 0.009 18.6 15 3.6 23100 0.5 2.1 Good 7/7/12 12:19 X116.4C1 119.9 116.4 20,715 0.012 NR - bed v £ 0.04 20,580 0.006 18.6 14 4.6 21600 1.9 Excellent 7/7/12 13:09 X115.0C2 118.4 115.0 20,345 0.005 NR - bed v £ 0.04 20,269 0.003 18.6 16 2.6 21600 1.1 Excellent 7/7/12 15:03 X115.0C1 118.4 115.0 311 0.008 No loop test 285 0.007 18.6 16 2.6 21200 1.5 Excellent 7/7/12 15:50 X114.0C1 117.4 114.0 1,808 0.006 No loop test 1,763 0.013 18.6 15 3.6 21100 1.2 Excellent 7/7/12 16:40 X114.0C2 117.4 114.0 18,939 0.007 Invalid closure 18,842 0.002 18.6 16 2.6 21000 1.3 Excellent 7/7/12 17:36 X113.0C1 116.6 113.0 20,665 0.011 NR - bed v £ 0.04 20,415 0.007 18.6 16 2.6 21000 1.8 Excellent 7/8/12 12:42 X112.7C1 116.3 112.7 23,766 0.011 24,060 0.011 24,092 0.006 18.5 18 0.5 28600 0.5 1.7 Excellent 7/8/12 13:41 X112.2C2 115.7 112.2 6,442 0.007 6,557 0.006 6,556 0.01 18.5 17 1.5 28900 0.5 1.7 Excellent 7/8/12 14:29 X112.2C1 115.7 112.2 18,089 0.004 18,449 0.005 18,243 0.002 18.5 18.5 0.0 29100 0.5 1.6 Excellent 7/8/12 15:45 X111.8C2 115.4* 111.8 22,918 0.006 23,538 0.006 23,180 0.006 18.5 18 0.5 29100 0.5 1.7 Excellent 7/8/12 16:41 X111.8C1 115.4* 111.8 2,354 0.014 2,420 0.016 2,381 0.005 18.5 18 0.5 29100 0.5 2.9 Good 7/8/12 18:01 X110.9C1 114.4 110.9 6,096 0.006 6,308 0.008 6,336 0.005 18.5 17 1.5 29100 0.5 1.6 Excellent 7/8/12 18:57 X110.9C2 114.4 110.9 19,216 0.005 19,457 0.006 19,525 0.003 18.5 16 2.5 28900 0.5 1.4 Excellent
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 3 - Page 7 January 31, 2013 Date Mid-point time Site Project River Mile Brailey River Mile ADCP Serial No. Compass Calibration Mmt duration, s No. of Transects % Top & Bottom Est's Extrapolation Settings1 % Edge Est's. Loop Test Results Start time Duration, s DMG, ft Velocity, ft/s Direction, deg % Corr % bad out-back Bed Flow Bed Flow Diff BT difference 7/9/12 14:23 X110.0C1 113.6 110.0 2837 off-boat 876 4 22.6 C/N-0.223 0.02 14:10 267 29.0 0.11 6.77 354.1 192.2 198.2 1.60 1.50 1.7 7/9/12 15:23 X108.4C1 111.9 108.4 2837 off-boat 876 4 23.3 C/N-0.223 0.02 15:09 290 15.9 0.05 6.81 347.7 203.4 215.7 0.80 1.03 0.1 7/9/12 16:46 X106.7C1 110.5 106.7 2837 off-boat 992 4 24.4 C/N-0.219 0.05 16:11 323 26.3 0.08 6.92 17.5 200.6 183.1 1.18 3.41 1.3 7/9/12 18:26 X103.0C1 107.1 103 2837 off-boat 856 4 22.8 C/N-0.209 0.07 18:10 245 43.3 0.18 7.32 0.2 183.6 183.4 2.41 2.04 1.8 7/10/12 12:59 X98.8C2 -- 98.8 2837 off-boat 704 4 28.5 C/N-0.174 1.04 No loop test - small channel. Mean H2O velocity 2.2 ft/s, bed probably not moving 7/10/12 14:01 X98.8C1 -- 98.8 2837 off-boat 792 4 29.5 C/N-0.209 0.05 13:48 275 77.8 0.28 6.25 46.5 201.2 154.7 4.53 14.55 4.5 7/10/12 14:38 X98.8C3 -- 98.8 2837 off-boat 528 4 24.7 C/N-0.197 0.25 No loop test - small channel. Mean H2O velocity 2.8 ft/s, bed probably not moving 7/10/12 16:08 X98.0C5 101.4 98.0 2837 off-boat 760 4 24.5 C/N-0.197 0.321 15:44 203 36.5 0.18 6.36 10.6 201.5 190.9 2.83 4.43 2.2 7/11/12 12:32 X95.0C1 98.4 95.0 2837 off-boat 904 4 23.5 C/N-0.168 0.023 12:12 284 103.8 0.37 6.77 354.2 183.7 189.5 5.40 6.71 1.8 7/11/12 13:36 X95.0C2 98.4 95.0 2837 off-boat 688 4 26.1 C/N-0.20 0.711 13:22 180 12.1 0.07 2.20 11.1 191.7 180.6 3.04 1.12 3.8 7/11/12 16:19 X95.0C4 98.4 95.0 2837 off-boat 936 4 37.4 C/N-0.207 0.500 16:04 254 18.5 0.07 0.70 197.6 195.1 357.5 10.35 0.00 7.2 7/11/12 17:48 X94.0C2 97.0 94.0 2837 off-boat 996 4 26.7 C/N-0.178 0.088 17:25 339 89.4 0.26 6.79 39.4 245.1 205.7 3.88 2.06 5.5 7/11/12 19:06 X94.0C1 97.0 94.0 2837 off-boat 840 4 24.2 C/N-0.178 0.071 18:55 247 21.5 0.09 5.16 18.7 194.0 175.3 1.69 1.21 3.7 7/12/12 14:43 X86.9C2 91.0 86.9 2837 off-boat 1548 4 25.8 C/N-0.150 0.015 14:20 291 58.7 0.20 5.93 7.3 192.7 185.5 3.40 3.09 1.0 7/12/12 15:55 X86.9C1 91.0 86.9 2837 off-boat 416 4 41.8 C/N-0.161 3.731 15:46 153 2.3 0.01 3.58 335.6 202.0 226.4 NR 1.32 1.2 7/12/12 16:20 X86.9C1.5 91.0 86.9 2837 off-boat 624 4 31.6 C/N-0.181 3.260 No loop test - small channel. Mean H2O velocity 1.4 ft/s, bed probably not moving 7/12/12 17:30 X83.0C2 87.1 83.0 2837 off-boat 936 4 23.5 C/N-0.212 0.263 17:14 311 43.3 0.14 6.76 357.6 181.3 183.7 2.06 8.36 2.9 7/12/12 18:30 X83.0C1 87.1 83.0 2837 off-boat 1148 4 26.8 C/N-0.171 0.073 18:12 399 55.1 0.14 4.96 337.1 150.4 173.3 2.79 2.26 3.7 7/13/12 12:46 X82.0C1 86.3 82.0 2837 off-boat 828 4 27.5 C/N-0.212 0.264 12:31 285 35.5 0.12 3.46 322.1 140.8 178.8 3.61 0.00 2.4 7/13/12 13:40 X82.0C2 86.3 82.0 2837 off-boat 1012 4 25.6 C/N-0.192 0.066 13:22 390 73.7 0.19 6.57 334.5 150.5 175.9 2.88 8.4* 2.7 7/13/12 15:29 X79.0C2 83.0 79.0 2837 off-boat 1508 4 27.7 C/N-0.215 0.009 15:07 448 11.2 0.02 5.22 86.3 225.2 138.9 NR 12.75 0.4 7/13/12 16:48 X79.0C1 83.0 79.0 2837 off-boat 884 4 24.0 C/N-0.200 0.165 16:32 296 64.9 0.22 6.16 328.0 139.6 171.6 3.56 3.39 3.6 8/6/12 16:13 X184.1C1 187.2 184.1 3061 off-boat 752 4 23.7 C/N-0.271 0.043 No compass calibration - Bluetooth failure. 8/6/12 17:05 X183.4C1 186.2 183.4 3061 off-boat 856 4 23.7 C/N-0.236 0.038 No compass calibration - Bluetooth failure. 8/6/12 18:24 X182.2C1 184.9 182.2 3061 off-boat 904 4 24.0 C/N-0.236 0.164 No compass calibration - Bluetooth failure. 8/7/12 12:38 X181.7C1 184.4 181.7 3061 off-boat 860 4 23.8 C/N-0.234 0.171 12:22 235 9.1 0.04 6.84 121.4 267.8 146.4 NR 3.40 1.1 8/7/12 13:35 X180.3C1 183.3 180.3 3061 off-boat 840 4 23.5 C/N-0.259 0.039 13:14 376 9.0 0.02 5.02 61.8 252.6 190.8 NR 0.53 1.5 8/7/12 14:44 X178.9C1 181.6 178.9 3061 off-boat 884 4 24.0 C/N-0.227 0.066 14:31 343 41.0 0.12 5.34 357.6 175.3 177.7 2.24 0.29 1.3 8/7/12 15:41 X176.8C1 179.5 176.8 3061 off-boat 836 4 23.2 C/N-0.231 0.094 15:28 297 14.6 0.05 6.65 47.0 231.2 184.2 0.74 0.34 0.1 8/7/12 16:37 X176.1C1 178.5 176.1 3061 off-boat 908 4 24.1 C/N-0.215 0.155 16:24 340 39.6 0.12 6.35 358.0 186.2 188.2 1.83 0.59 3.1 8/8/12 12:07 X173.9C1 176.5 173.9 3061 off-boat 928 4 24.1 C/N-0.214 0.091 11:55 327 8.5 0.03 5.89 198.0 293.6 95.6 NR 0.59 1.5 8/8/12 15:16 X167.0C1 170.1 167.0 3061 off-boat 812 4 22.6 C/N-0.240 0.080 15:04 297 8.2 0.03 5.86 102.7 283.0 180.4 NR 1.01 0.0 8/8/12 16:03 X164.5C1 168.1 164.5 3061 off-boat 780 4 26.1 C/N-0.243 0.042 15:51 309 16.7 0.05 6.34 178.8 358.8 180.0 0.85 1.29 0.8 8/9/12 15:03 15291500 225.0 223.0 3061 off-boat 960 4 25.1 C/N-0.237 0.094 14:50 346 30.1 0.09 6.60 33.4 212.5 179.0 1.32 1.16 1.2 8/10/12 15:03 X150.2C1 153.7 150.2 3061 off-boat 744 4 24.0 C/N-0.243 0.073 14:53 252 10.6 0.04 7.44 274.1 305.5 31.4 0.57 0.40 3.7 8/10/12 16:07 X148.7C1 152.1 148.7 3061 off-boat 928 4 21.9 C/N-0.242 0.061 15:54 321 20.1 0.06 5.83 285.1 282.6 357.5 1.08 1.87 3.3 8/10/12 18:03 X144.8C1 148.3 144.8 3061 off-boat 880 4 23.4 C/N-0.244 0.155 17:50 342 16.7 0.05 6.46 283.0 269.5 346.5 0.76 1.46 2.7 8/12/12 13:12 X142.3C1 146.6 142.3 3061 off-boat 768 4 24.9 C/N-0.205 0.093 12:57 296 14.3 0.05 6.65 235.4 230.2 354.8 0.73 0.68 2.4 8/12/12 14:58 X140.2C1 143.5 140.2 3061 off-boat 840 4 23.8 C/N-0.235 0.125 14:46 349 8.3 0.02 6.28 180.1 222.3 42.2 NR 0.29 1.7 8/12/12 16:29 X138.9C1 142.2 138.9 3061 off-boat 936 4 27.8 C/N-0.200 0.097 16:07 349 21.8 0.05 6.38 229.7 247.3 17.5 0.85 0.25 1.3 8/12/12 17:13 X138.5C1 141.9 138.5 3061 off-boat 896 4 23.4 C/N-0.250 0.077 16:59 339 4.9 0.01 5.94 233.0 235.6 2.6 NR 0.88 1.4 8/13/12 12:54 X136.7C1 140.0 136.7 3061 off-boat 816 4 23.1 C/N-0.230 0.087 12:36 384 6.2 0.02 7.25 9.1 254.9 245.8 NR 1.04 2.2 8/13/12 13:58 X135.7C1 139.0 135.7 3061 off-boat 788 4 19.6 C/N-0.286 0.064 13:45 321 6.4 0.02 5.80 233.9 192.1 318.3 NR 2.80 2.5 8/13/12 14:48 X135.4C1 138.7 135.4 3061 off-boat 780 4 23.9 C/N-0.228 0.057 14:35 325 20.4 0.06 5.16 173.8 194.9 21.1 1.22 0.31 2.6 8/13/12 16:14 X134.3C1 137.6 134.3 3061 off-boat 936 4 27.3 C/N-0.209 0.059 15:58 423 45.0 0.11 5.64 213.8 214.2 0.4 1.88 0.71 4.5
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 3 - Page 8 January 31, 2013 Date Mid-point time Site Project River Mile Brailey River Mile Bottom Track Loop Corrected GPS-GGA Constant Gold Moving Calculated 95% Q, cfs COV Q, cfs COV Q, cfs COV Mag var., deg Heading Creek bed moving bed Uncer- Rating NOAA adjust2 Error, deg Q, cfs uncertainty bias tainty 7/9/12 14:23 X110.0C1 113.6 110.0 28,329 0.005 28,894 0.005 28,697 0.006 18.5 18.5 0.0 31900 0.5 1.6 Excellent 7/9/12 15:23 X108.4C1 111.9 108.4 28,296 0.004 <1% correction 28,559 0.009 18.5 21 -2.5 31900 0.5 2.1 Good 7/9/12 16:46 X106.7C1 110.5 106.7 28,825 0.007 29,277 0.008 28,920 0.005 18.5 19 -0.5 31800 0.5 2.0 Good 7/9/12 18:26 X103.0C1 107.1 103.0 28,409 0.012 29,320 0.012 29,148 0.006 18.5 20 -1.5 31600 0.5 2.4 Good 7/10/12 12:59 X98.8C2 102.7 98.8 1,463 0.021 No loop test 1,487 0.016 18.5 15 3.5 26900 0.5 2.9 Good 7/10/12 14:01 X98.8C1 102.7 98.8 22,546 0.023 23,806 0.020 23,377 0.009365213 18.5 18 0.5 26600 0.5 3.4 Good 7/10/12 14:38 X98.8C3 102.7 98.8 1,321 0.018 No loop test 1,341 0.002 18.5 18 0.5 26300 0.5 1.2 Excellent 7/10/12 16:08 X98.0C5 101.4 98.0 20,285 0.006 20,947 0.004 21,192 0.005 18.5 18.5 0.0 25900 0.5 1.6 Excellent 7/11/12 12:32 X95.0C1 98.4 95.0 42,006 0.014 44,895 0.011 45,024 0.018 18.5 16 2.5 22600 0.5 3.2 Good 7/11/12 13:36 X95.0C2 98.4 95.0 1,252 0.016 1,299 0.017 1,287 0.011 18.5 16 2.5 22500 0.5 3.0 Good 7/11/12 16:19 X95.0C4 98.4 95.0 176 0.048 Invalid closure 164 0.064 18.5 18 0.5 22200 1.5 3.0 10.8 Poor 7/11/12 17:48 X94.0C2 97.0 94.0 33,005 0.011 34,604 0.012 34,289 0.007 18.5 18.5 0.0 21800 0.5 2.4 Good 7/11/12 19:06 X94.0C1 97.0 94.0 10,198 0.025 10,513 0.024 10,347 0.014 18.5 18 0.5 21600 0.5 3.9 Good 7/12/12 14:43 X86.9C2 91.0 86.9 41,328 0.015 43,483 0.012 42,843 0.004 18.5 18 0.5 20100 0.5 2.4 Good 7/12/12 15:55 X86.9C1 91.0 86.9 467 0.036 NR - bed v £ 0.04 475 0.012 18.5 13 5.5 20000 1.9 Excellent 7/12/12 16:20 X86.9C1.5 91.0 86.9 507 0.009 No loop test 511 0.011 18.5 18.5 0.0 19900 1.8 Excellent 7/12/12 17:30 X83.0C2 87.1 83.0 28,650 0.010 29,345 0.011 29,359 0.005 18.5 18.5 0.0 19700 0.5 1.6 Excellent 7/12/12 18:30 X83.0C1 87.1 83.0 12,724 0.008 13,191 0.008 12,947 0.009 18.5 18 0.5 19700 0.5 2.0 Good 7/13/12 12:46 X82.0C1 86.3 82.0 4,059 0.012 4,222 0.013 4,238 0.006 18.4 17 1.4 18800 0.5 1.7 Excellent 7/13/12 13:40 X82.0C2 86.3 82.0 36,017 0.008 Lost bottom track 37,658 0.007 18.4 17 1.4 18900 0.5 1.8 Excellent 7/13/12 15:29 X79.0C2 83.0 79.0 12,422 0.005 NR - bed v £ 0.04 12,317 0.005 18.4 18 0.4 18700 1.1 Excellent 7/13/12 16:48 X79.0C1 83.0 79.0 28,394 0.007 29,554 0.006 29,392 0.003 18.4 17 1.4 18600 0.5 1.7 Excellent 8/6/12 16:13 X184.1C1 187.2 184.1 14,707 0.025 No loop test 14,668 0.007 19.2 21 -1.8 19300 3.5 Good 8/6/12 17:05 X183.4C1 186.2 183.4 14,419 0.021 No loop test 14,111 0.017 19.2 24 -4.8 19300 3.0 Good 8/6/12 18:24 X182.2C1 184.9 182.2 14,176 0.011 No loop test 14,239 0.005 19.2 22 -2.8 19100 1.1 Excellent 8/7/12 12:38 X181.7C1 184.4 181.7 14,775 0.018 NR - bed v £ 0.04 14,700 0.006 19.2 20 -0.8 18300 2.7 Good 8/7/12 13:35 X180.3C1 183.3 180.3 14,153 0.023 NR - bed v £ 0.04 14,183 0.001 19.1 22 -2.9 18200 0.6 Excellent 8/7/12 14:44 X178.9C1 181.6 178.9 14,330 0.008 14,705 0.008 14,568 0.005 19.1 21 -1.9 18200 0.5 2.0 Good 8/7/12 15:41 X176.8C1 179.5 176.8 14,222 0.007 <1% correction 14,345 0.003 19.1 24 -4.9 18100 0.5 1.4 Excellent 8/7/12 16:37 X176.1C1 178.5 176.1 14,486 0.010 14,796 0.009 14,799 0.007 19.1 22 -2.9 18000 0.5 1.8 Excellent 8/8/12 12:07 X173.9C1 176.5 173.9 14,559 0.012 NR - bed v £ 0.04 14,469 0.007 19.1 18 1.1 17300 1.9 Excellent 8/8/12 15:16 X167.0C1 170.1 167.0 14,568 0.010 NR - bed v £ 0.04 14,490 0.01 19.0 17 2.0 17200 1.7 Excellent 8/8/12 16:03 X164.5C1 168.1 164.5 14,593 0.004 <1% correction 14,655 0.005 19.0 17 2.0 17300 0.5 1.6 Excellent 8/9/12 15:03 15291500 225.0 223.0 10,938 0.022 11,091 0.022 11,260 0.003 19.5 24 -4.5 17500 0.5 1.4 Excellent 8/10/12 15:03 X150.2C1 153.7 150.2 14,588 0.007 NR - bed v £ 0.04 14,508 0.003 18.9 12 6.9 16800 1.3 Excellent 8/10/12 16:07 X148.7C1 152.1 148.7 15,351 0.028 Invalid closure 15,173 0.003 18.9 15 3.9 16800 3.9 Good 8/10/12 18:03 X144.8C1 148.3 144.8 14,941 0.005 Invalid closure 14,622 0.004 18.8 17 1.8 16600 1.1 Excellent 8/12/12 13:12 X142.3C1 146.6 142.3 17,354 0.010 Invalid closure 16,890 0.009 18.8 20 -1.2 18100 1.7 Excellent 8/12/12 14:58 X140.2C1 143.5 140.2 17,006 0.007 NR - bed v £ 0.04 16,905 0.007 18.8 20 -1.2 18100 1.3 Excellent 8/12/12 16:29 X138.9C1 142.2 138.9 16,798 0.008 Invalid closure 16,508 0.007 18.8 20 -1.2 18100 1.5 Excellent 8/12/12 17:13 X138.5C1 141.9 138.5 16,803 0.005 NR - bed v £ 0.04 16,580 0.009 18.8 20 -1.2 18000 1.1 Excellent 8/13/12 12:54 X136.7C1 140.0 136.7 16,350 0.010 NR - bed v £ 0.04 16,345 0.02 18.7 23 -4.3 17800 1.7 Excellent 8/13/12 13:58 X135.7C1 139.0 135.7 16,449 0.015 NR - bed v £ 0.04 16,242 0.008 18.7 20 -1.3 17700 2.3 Good 8/13/12 14:48 X135.4C1 138.7 135.4 16,344 0.008 Invalid closure 15,936 0.004 18.7 20 -1.3 17700 1.5 Excellent 8/13/12 16:14 X134.3C1 137.6 134.3 16,409 0.002 Invalid closure 15,980 0.005 18.7 19 -0.3 17600 0.7 Excellent
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 3 - Page 9 January 31, 2013 Date Mid-point time Site Project River Mile Brailey River Mile ADCP Serial No. Compass Calibration Mmt duration, s No. of Transects % Top & Bottom Est's Extrapolation Settings1 % Edge Est's. Loop Test Results Start time Duration, s DMG, ft Velocity, ft/s Direction, deg % Corr % bad out-back Bed Flow Bed Flow Diff BT difference 8/13/12 17:41 X131.8C1 135.0 131.8 3061 off-boat 692 4 21.0 C/N-0.269 0.003 17:26 304 31.5 0.10 6.67 240.8 253.3 12.5 1.55 1.97 3.6 8/14/12 13:14 X130.9C1 134.1 130.9 3061 off-boat 764 4 20.7 C/N-0.269 0.027 13:02 302 15.2 0.05 5.41 286.7 255.2 328.4 0.93 0.66 3.8 8/14/12 14:05 X130.5C2 133.8 130.5 3061 off-boat 892 4 24.6 C/N-0.249 0.176 13:47 359 32.3 0.09 6.27 268.3 248.1 339.8 1.43 0.56 4.2 8/14/12 15:17 X129.4C1 132.6 129.4 3061 off-boat 948 4 27.7 C/N-0.274 0.048 15:05 323 112.2 0.35 5.87 251.6 205.8 314.2 5.92 0.00 7.3 8/14/12 17:00 X126.6C1 129.7 126.6 3061 off-boat 840 4 24.4 C/N-0.174 0.030 16:47 340 42.8 0.13 5.17 237.9 228.4 350.5 2.43 0.59 2.8 8/15/12 12:50 X124.4C1 128.1 124.4 3061 off-boat 1132 4 30.2 C/N-0.214 0.202 12:32 384 105.4 0.27 5.59 232.0 206.6 334.7 4.90 0.26 5.2 8/15/12 13:40 X123.3C1 126.8 123.3 3061 off-boat 728 4 21.2 C/N-0.258 0.073 13:29 310 29.4 0.09 5.14 218.7 208.2 349.5 1.85 1.61 4.4 8/15/12 14:27 X120.7C1 124.1 120.7 3061 off-boat 796 4 22.5 C/N-0.224 0.045 14:16 321 11.1 0.03 5.28 47.2 217.3 170.1 NR 1.25 0.2 8/15/12 15:59 X119.2C2 122.6 119.2 3061 off-boat 808 4 22.9 C/N-0.210 0.071 15:47 350 1.9 0.01 5.60 154.5 196.6 42.0 NR 1.43 1.6 8/15/12 16:26 X119.2C1 122.6 119.2 3061 off-boat 796 4 25.6 C/N-0.176 0.248 16:15 332 8.2 0.02 0.65 197.7 198.2 0.5 NR 1.20 2.0 8/16/12 12:54 X116.4C1 119.9 116.4 3061 off-boat 828 4 23.3 C/N-0.176 0.093 12:41 369 6.0 0.02 5.94 73.2 214.2 141.0 NR 0.27 1.3 8/16/12 14:15 X113.0C1 116.6 113.0 3061 off-boat 952 4 24.2 C/N-0.217 0.028 13:54 354 18.0 0.05 5.53 6.9 183.0 176.1 0.92 0.56 0.8 8/16/12 16:38 X110.0C1 113.6 110.0 3061 off-boat 976 4 23.8 C/N-0.209 0.057 16:24 415 18.3 0.04 5.15 13.2 192.6 179.4 0.86 0.00 1.2 8/17/12 14:57 X106.7C1 110.5 106.7 3061 off-boat 872 4 23.9 C/N-0.230 0.107 14:44 376 24.9 0.07 5.15 23.0 202.8 179.9 1.29 1.06 3.3 8/17/12 17:36 X104.8C1 108.3 104.8 3061 off-boat 808 4 32.8 C/N-0.167 0.117 17:25 308 33.1 0.11 5.57 357.8 167.7 170.0 1.93 0.00 3.6 8/17/12 18:13 X104.8C2 108.3 104.8 3061 off-boat 780 4 30.1 C/N-0.220 0.491 18:02 339 33.2 0.10 5.32 323.0 147.2 184.2 1.84 2.65 2.6 8/18/12 13:12 X103.0C1 107.1 103.0 3061 off-boat 808 4 23.8 C/N-0.227 0.154 13:00 356 10.4 0.03 5.61 12.4 180.1 167.7 NR 1.69 0.5 8/18/12 14:22 X102.4C1 106.1 102.4 3061 off-boat 952 4 23.7 C/N-0.255 0.128 13:46 386 59.2 0.15 5.80 237.0 232.4 355.4 2.64 1.30 4.4 8/18/12 15:23 X101.5C2 105.3 101.5 3061 off-boat 740 4 36.9 C/N-0.237 1.987 15:12 332 7.7 0.02 3.70 212.4 214.6 2.2 NR 1.20 1.8 8/18/12 16:21 X101.5C1 105.3 101.5 3061 off-boat 856 4 24.7 C/N-0.231 0.312 16:08 323 0.7 0.00 6.30 135.0 208.1 73.1 NR 0.31 0.2 8/18/12 17:29 X101.0C1 104.7 101.0 3061 off-boat 776 4 37.1 C/N-0.224 1.084 17:17 359 18.3 0.05 2.73 329.1 143.8 174.7 1.87 0.84 2.9 8/18/12 18:07 X101.0C2 104.7 101.0 3061 off-boat 768 4 25.7 C/N-0.229 0.206 17:55 342 19.5 0.06 6.77 349.3 161.8 172.5 0.84 0.00 1.3 8/19/12 12:07 X100.4C3 104.1 100.4 3061 off-boat 876 4 30.2 C/N-0.154 0.403 11:53 365 20.3 0.06 5.20 347.4 161.7 174.3 1.07 0.27 1.5 8/19/12 12:42 X100.4C2 104.1 100.4 3061 off-boat 456 4 35.2 C/N-0.275 23.401 No loop test - small channel. Mean H2O velocity 0.6 ft/s, bed probably not moving 8/19/12 13:37 X100.4C1 104.1 100.4 3061 off-boat 834 6 31.3 C/N-0.193 3.702 13:24 308 6.3 0.02 6.15 307.2 132.5 185.3 0.00 2.93 1.8 8/19/12 15:40 2RIVC1 -- 98.2 3061 off-boat 1700 4 25.4 C/N-0.209 0.001 15:10 641 203.5 0.32 6.39 325.0 181.5 216.5 4.97 1.09 1.9 8/20/12 14:13 X95.0C1 98.4 95.0 3061 off-boat 968 4 23.7 C/N-0.190 0.033 13:59 410 112.0 0.27 6.31 351.1 187.9 196.8 4.33 8.31 3.7 8/20/12 14:40 X95.0C2 98.4 95.0 3061 off-boat 930 6 32.9 C/N-0.170 0.263 No loop test - small channel. Mean H2O velocity 1.8 ft/s, bed probably not moving 8/20/12 15:41 X95.0C3 98.4 95.0 3061 off-boat 762 6 38.2 P/P-0.249 5.007 No loop test - small channel. Mean H2O velocity 0.8 ft/s, bed probably not moving 8/20/12 16:42 X94.0C2 97.0 94.0 3061 off-boat 1028 4 24.9 C/N-0.213 0.039 16:28 365 74.9 0.21 6.06 63.5 248.8 185.3 3.39 3.57 0.2 8/20/12 17:25 X94.0C1 97.0 94.0 3061 off-boat 784 4 22.4 C/N-0.167 -0.017 17:14 333 14.2 0.04 4.34 18.6 194.6 176.0 0.98 2.11 1.6 8/21/12 14:12 X87.7C2 91.6 87.7 3061 off-boat 1016 4 24.9 C/N-0.178 0.018 13:55 372 171.0 0.46 5.68 340.5 157.7 177.2 8.09 1.89 5.4 8/21/12 15:38 X87.7C1 91.6 87.7 3061 off-boat 896 4 27.2 C/N-0.241 0.184 No loop test - small channel. Mean H2O velocity 1.0 ft/s, bed probably not moving 8/21/12 16:51 X86.9C3 91.0 86.9 3061 off-boat 1308 4 25.3 C/N-0.152 0.015 16:31 417 134.9 0.32 6.17 358.1 187.9 189.8 5.24 1.92 2.8 8/22/12 13:34 X84.6C3 88.4 84.6 3061 off-boat 726 6 24.0 C/N-0.238 0.190 13:23 197 3.1 0.02 6.74 53.8 221.8 168.1 5.24 1.53 0.5 8/22/12 13:54 X84.6C2 88.4 84.6 3061 off-boat 808 8 41.4 C/N-0.221 4.528 No loop test because C3 bed not moving with similar slope and 10X discharge 8/22/12 15:56 X84.6C1 88.4 84.6 3061 off-boat 780 4 33.2 C/N-0.162 0.263 15:41 302 17.1 0.06 3.49 112.6 307.5 194.8 1.62 1.33 0.7 8/22/12 16:41 X84.6C4 88.4 84.6 3061 off-boat 944 4 25.6 C/N-0.211 0.044 16:21 379 49.2 0.13 7.99 37.5 215.0 177.4 1.63 3.97 2.2 8/22/12 18:01 X81.2C2 85.4 81.2 3061 off-boat 992 4 23.0 C/N-0.184 0.018 17:47 387 130.0 0.34 5.92 296.1 106.6 170.4 5.67 2.07 5.4 8/23/12 14:24 X80.0C1 84.4 80.0 3061 off-boat 788 4 20.1 C/N-0.169 0.103 14:07 327 46.7 0.14 6.43 330.5 152.1 181.6 2.22 2.45 0.3 8/23/12 15:15 X80.0C4 84.4 80.0 3061 off-boat 732 6 28.5 C/N-0.157 0.774 No loop test - small channel. Mean H2O velocity 1.4 ft/s, bed probably not moving 8/23/12 16:10 X80.0C5 84.4 80.0 3061 off-boat 968 4 37.8 C/N-0.077 0.178 15:58 359 34.0 0.09 2.27 152.7 198.4 45.7 4.16 0.56 6.1 8/23/12 17:29 X78.0C1 82.3 78.0 3061 off-boat 848 4 25.5 C/N-0.180 0.034 17:16 330 35.7 0.11 5.69 1.9 153.9 152.1 1.90 1.22 0.2 8/23/12 18:14 X78.0C2 82.3 78.0 3061 off-boat 752 4 23.4 C/N-0.195 0.091 18:03 319 21.2 0.07 4.02 295.3 113.9 178.6 1.65 1.26 2.4 8/24/12 14:28 X76.0C1 80.0 76.0 3061 off-boat 912 4 23.2 C/N-0.190 0.078 14:13 358 69.7 0.19 6.14 356.8 188.9 192.1 3.17 1.68 3.4
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 3 - Page 10 January 31, 2013 Date Mid-point time Site Project River Mile Brailey River Mile Bottom Track Loop Corrected GPS-GGA Constant Gold Moving Calculated 95% Q, cfs COV Q, cfs COV Q, cfs COV Mag var., deg Heading Creek bed moving bed Uncer- Rating NOAA adjust2 Error, deg Q, cfs uncertainty bias tainty 8/13/12 17:41 X131.8C1 135.0 131.8 15,627 0.006 Invalid closure 15,028 0.01 18.7 18 0.7 17400 1.2 Excellent 8/14/12 13:14 X130.9C1 134.1 130.9 16,491 0.009 Invalid closure 16,159 0.018 18.7 17 1.7 17400 1.6 Excellent 8/14/12 14:05 X130.5C2 133.8 130.5 16,275 0.008 Invalid closure 15,758 0.011 18.7 17 1.7 17300 1.5 Excellent 8/14/12 15:17 X129.4C1 132.6 129.4 16,039 0.013 Invalid closure 14,925 0.015 18.7 20 -1.3 17300 2.1 Good 8/14/12 17:00 X126.6C1 129.7 126.6 16,330 0.005 Invalid closure 15,829 0.002 18.7 20 -1.3 17300 1.1 Excellent 8/15/12 12:50 X124.4C1 128.1 124.4 15,926 0.009 Invalid closure 15,155 0.006 18.6 18 0.6 17600 1.6 Excellent 8/15/12 13:40 X123.3C1 126.8 123.3 16,078 0.011 Invalid closure 15,709 0.006 18.6 18 0.6 17600 1.8 Excellent 8/15/12 14:27 X120.7C1 124.1 120.7 16,161 0.006 NR - bed v £ 0.04 16,114 0.01 18.6 16 2.6 17600 1.2 Excellent 8/15/12 15:59 X119.2C2 122.6 119.2 16,110 0.006 NR - bed v £ 0.04 15,895 0.006 18.6 18 0.6 17600 1.2 Excellent 8/15/12 16:26 X119.2C1 122.6 119.2 177 0.028 NR - bed v £ 0.04 168 0.026 18.6 18 0.6 17400 3.9 Good 8/16/12 12:54 X116.4C1 119.9 116.4 16,005 0.008 NR - bed v £ 0.04 15,827 0.005 18.6 19 -0.4 17600 1.5 Excellent 8/16/12 14:15 X113.0C1 116.6 113.0 16,129 0.006 <1% correction 16,136 0.004 18.5 20 -1.5 17600 0.5 1.5 Excellent 8/16/12 16:38 X110.0C1 113.6 110.0 16,291 0.013 NR - bed v £ 0.04 16,311 0.003 18.5 19 -0.5 17500 0.9 Excellent 8/17/12 14:57 X106.7C1 110.5 106.7 14,997 0.004 15,239 0.005 15,254 0.006 18.5 20 -1.5 18000 0.5 1.7 Excellent 8/17/12 17:36 X104.8C1 108.3 104.8 9,066 0.019 9,260 0.019 9,119 0.005 18.5 19 -0.5 17900 0.5 3.3 Good 8/17/12 18:13 X104.8C2 108.3 104.8 6,993 0.005 7,134 0.004 7,130 0.017 18.5 17 1.5 17800 0.5 1.5 Excellent 8/18/12 13:12 X103.0C1 107.1 103.0 15,508 0.001 NR - bed v £ 0.04 GPS ship tracks incorrect 16300 0.6 Excellent 8/18/12 14:22 X102.4C1 106.1 102.4 15,278 0.005 Invalid closure GPS ship tracks incorrect 16100 1.1 Excellent 8/18/12 15:23 X101.5C2 105.3 101.5 2,369 0.008 NR - bed v £ 0.04 2,333 0.006 18.5 22 -3.5 16000 1.5 Excellent 8/18/12 16:21 X101.5C1 105.3 101.5 12,993 0.008 NR - bed v £ 0.04 12,854 0.006 18.5 22 -3.5 15900 1.5 Excellent 8/18/12 17:29 X101.0C1 104.7 101.0 2,073 0.008 2,115 0.008 2,098 0.007 18.5 21 -2.5 16000 1.3 Excellent 8/18/12 18:07 X101.0C2 104.7 101.0 13,259 0.006 <1% correction 13,279 0.004 18.5 23 -4.5 16000 0.5 1.5 Excellent 8/19/12 12:07 X100.4C3 104.1 100.4 11,394 0.010 11,527 0.009 11,442 0.005 18.5 21 -2.5 16400 1.6 Excellent 8/19/12 12:42 X100.4C2 104.1 100.4 48 0.028 No loop test 48 0.04 18.5 22 -3.5 16500 5.3 Fair 8/19/12 13:37 X100.4C1 104.1 100.4 3,754 0.010 NR - bed v £ 0.04 3,770 0.006 18.5 21 -2.5 16400 1.1 Excellent 8/19/12 15:40 2RIVC1 -- 98.2 30,581 0.009 32,450 0.011 34,297 0.031670209 18.5 20 -1.5 16500 0.5 4.8 Good 8/20/12 14:13 X95.0C1 98.4 95.0 36,913 0.029 38,872 0.026 39,546 0.01 18.5 21 -2.5 16600 0.5 2.2 Good 8/20/12 14:40 X95.0C2 98.4 95.0 961 0.021 No loop test 979 0.013 18.5 22 -3.5 16700 1.8 Excellent 8/20/12 15:41 X95.0C3 98.4 95.0 96 0.019 No loop test 98 0.029 18.5 19 -0.5 17000 3.4 Good 8/20/12 16:42 X94.0C2 97.0 94.0 30,338 0.013 31,621 0.014 31,722 0.004 18.5 20 -1.5 17400 0.5 1.5 Excellent 8/20/12 17:25 X94.0C1 97.0 94.0 8,473 0.009 NR - bed v £ 0.04 8,539 0.004 18.5 21 -2.5 17600 0.5 1.5 Excellent 8/21/12 14:12 X87.7C2 91.6 87.7 42,175 0.006 bad out-back Ð 45,689 0.002 18.4 20 -1.6 18500 0.5 1.2 Excellent 8/21/12 15:38 X87.7C1 91.6 87.7 608 0.013 No loop test 641 0.01 18.4 21 -2.6 18500 1.7 Excellent 8/21/12 16:51 X86.9C3 91.0 86.9 41,921 0.007 45,216 0.013 45,557 0.005 18.4 21 -2.6 18500 0.5 1.6 Excellent 8/22/12 13:34 X84.6C3 88.4 84.6 4,057 0.011 NR - bed v £ 0.04 4,041 0.007 18.4 21 -2.6 18200 1.6 Excellent 8/22/12 13:54 X84.6C2 88.4 84.6 468 0.021 No loop test 470 0.016 18.4 20 -1.6 18200 1.8 Excellent 8/22/12 15:56 X84.6C1 88.4 84.6 2,818 0.017 2,870 0.017 2,860 0.009 18.4 17 1.4 17900 0.5 2.1 Good 8/22/12 16:41 X84.6C4 88.4 84.6 33,470 0.013 34,203 0.011 34,310 0.005 18.4 20 -1.6 17900 0.5 1.6 Excellent 8/22/12 18:01 X81.2C2 85.4 81.2 40,468 0.004 43,318 0.005 42,181 0.009 18.4 16 2.4 17600 0.5 1.6 Excellent 8/23/12 14:24 X80.0C1 84.4 80.0 31,997 0.007 32,864 0.008 32,533 0.009 18.4 22 -3.6 16100 0.5 2.0 Good 8/23/12 15:15 X80.0C4 84.4 80.0 712 0.038 No loop test 706 0.026 18.4 21 -2.6 16100 4.3 Good 8/23/12 16:10 X80.0C5 84.4 80.0 3,356 0.037 Invalid closure 3,187 0.017 18.4 18 0.4 15900 1.5 2.2 8.7 Poor 8/23/12 17:29 X78.0C1 82.3 78.0 25,660 0.008 26,202 0.008 25,852 0.003 18.4 20 -1.6 15800 0.5 2.0 Good 8/23/12 18:14 X78.0C2 82.3 78.0 11,520 0.007 11,745 0.007 11,671 0.005 18.4 20 -1.6 15700 0.5 1.8 Excellent 8/24/12 14:28 X76.0C1 80.0 76.0 34,223 0.007 35,401 0.007 35,490 0.007 18.4 20 -1.6 16200 0.5 1.8 Excellent
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 3 - Page 11 January 31, 2013 Date Mid-point time Site Project River Mile Brailey River Mile ADCP Serial No. Compass Calibration Mmt duration, s No. of Transects % Top & Bottom Est's Extrapolation Settings1 % Edge Est's. Loop Test Results Start time Duration, s DMG, ft Velocity, ft/s Direction, deg % Corr % bad out-back Bed Flow Bed Flow Diff BT difference 8/24/12 15:45 X76.0C5 80.0 76 3061 off-boat 732 4 20.7 C/N-0.124 -0.026 15:35 240 6.7 0.03 0.93 10.2 201.2 191.1 NR 0.84 1.9 9/14/12 17:05 X176.8C1 179.5 176.8 3061 off-boat 740 4 24.9 C/N-0.231 0.190 16:54 303 9.4 0.03 5.47 41.5 230.6 189.1 NR 0.66 1.4 9/14/12 17:47 X176.2C1 178.5* 176.2 3061 off-boat 836 4 26.2 C/N-0.246 0.180 17:35 332 18.6 0.06 5.08 11.0 185.2 174.1 1.10 1.81 2.8 9/15/12 13:17 X184.1C1 187.2 184.1 3061 off-boat 788 4 25.1 C/N-0.230 0.157 13:06 302 4.2 0.01 6.07 307.1 272.7 325.6 NR 2.65 0.3 9/15/12 14:05 X183.4C1 186.2 183.4 3061 off-boat 864 4 24.0 C/N-0.248 0.088 13:52 375 2.7 0.01 3.72 221.8 268.8 47.0 NR 1.33 3.2 9/15/12 14:57 X182.2C1 184.9 182.2 3061 off-boat 864 4 28.9 C/N-0.219 0.115 14:45 337 9.7 0.03 4.91 290.4 262.6 332.2 NR 0.59 1.4 9/15/12 15:52 X181.7C1 184.4 181.7 3061 off-boat 812 4 25.0 C/N-0.230 0.124 15:41 314 6.1 0.02 5.48 183.5 266.8 83.3 NR 2.23 3.8 9/15/12 16:41 X180.3C1 183.3 180.3 3061 off-boat 888 4 25.7 C/N-0.188 0.058 16:28 368 1.8 0.00 3.54 138.4 251.7 113.3 NR 1.09 2.2 9/15/12 17:55 X178.9C1 181.6 178.9 3061 off-boat 860 4 25.3 C/N-0.233 0.063 17:43 328 24.6 0.08 4.26 352.9 173.3 180.4 1.76 0.61 0.3 9/16/12 14:50 X173.9C1 176.5 173.9 2837 off-boat 820 4 26.1 C/N-0.232 0.104 14:39 317 12.9 0.04 5.22 305.2 294.7 349.6 0.78 0.63 2.2 9/16/12 16:29 X170.0C1 173.1 170 2837 off-boat 800 4 26.1 C/N-0.202 0.302 16:17 318 7.7 0.02 6.39 307.9 284.2 336.3 0.78 0.94 1.6 9/16/12 17:33 X167.0C1 170.1 167 2837 off-boat 840 4 24.3 C/N-0.232 0.149 17:21 327 8.5 0.03 5.13 294.6 282.9 348.3 0.78 0.92 2.3 9/17/12 15:19 X164.5C1 168.1 164.5 2837 off-boat 856 4 26.4 C/N-0.205 0.062 15:08 310 22.0 0.07 6.40 164.1 359.1 195.0 1.11 2.26 0.6 9/29/12 15:20 X148.7C1 152.1 148.7 2837 off-boat 792 4 22.2 C/N-0.218 0.045 15:05 343 6.9 0.02 6.47 209.7 283.8 74.1 NR 2.05 3.0 9/29/12 16:51 X142.3C1 145.7 142.3 2837 off-boat 784 4 24.9 C/N-0.223 0.031 16:38 307 76.9 0.25 6.43 230.1 231.0 0.9 3.90 1.63 9.9 9/29/12 17:45 X138.9C1 142.2 138.9 2837 off-boat 884 4 27.1 C/N-0.209 0.072 17:31 400 74.3 0.19 6.50 252.9 247.7 354.9 2.86 1.75 6.3 9/30/12 13:56 X136.7C1 140.0 136.7 2837 off-boat 752 4 23.0 C/N-0.221 0.033 13:39 307 2.9 0.01 7.10 111.1 258.0 146.9 NR 1.95 1.0 9/30/12 15:00 X134.3C1 137.6 134.3 2837 off-boat 924 4 25.9 C/N-0.230 0.029 14:44 339 31.7 0.09 5.73 203.8 212.0 8.3 1.63 0.59 2.6 10/1/12 13:40 X131.2C1 134.3 131.2 2837 off-boat 936 4 24.9 C/N-0.217 0.054 13:25 364 65.9 0.18 7.40 258.3 266.9 8.6 2.45 1.93 6.6 10/1/12 16:16 X126.6C1 129.7 126.6 2837 off-boat 812 4 23.1 C/N-0.204 0.014 16:00 331 110.9 0.34 4.58 230.66 228 8.57 7.32 1.82 9.0 10/1/12 17:02 X123.3C1 126.8 123.3 2837 off-boat 776 4 20.8 C/N-0.258 0.073 16:51 311 74.0 0.24 4.62 205.5 207.5 1.9 7.32 2.89 11.0 10/1/12 17:42 X120.7C1 124.1 120.7 2837 off-boat 744 4 24.1 C/N-0.258 0.016 17:31 318 48.2 0.15 4.45 219.1 218.7 359.5 3.41 4.42 10.1 10/3/12 14:47 X116.4C1 119.9 116.4 2837 off-boat 768 4 24.0 C/N-0.194 0.090 Loop test module wont execute - recorder issue 10/3/12 15:53 X113.0C1 116.6 113.0 2837 off-boat 760 4 23.8 C/N-0.226 0.147 Loop test module wont execute - recorder issue 10/3/12 16:41 X110.0C1 113.6 110.0 2837 off-boat 868 4 19.0 C/N-0.212 0.044 Loop test module wont execute - recorder issue 10/3/12 17:33 X106.7C1 110.5 106.7 2837 off-boat 872 4 24.9 C/N-0.216 0.148 Loop test module wont execute - recorder issue 10/4/12 14:10 X103.0C1 107.1 103.0 2837 off-boat 776 4 23.9 C/N-0.242 0.184 14:20 320 13.6 0.04 5.11 Loop transect with upstream DMG 10/4/12 15:58 X99.6C3 103.5 99.6 2837 off-boat 804 4 26.1 C/N-0.218 0.090 15:41 328 8.6 0.03 5.23 Loop transect with upstream DMG 10/4/12 16:48 X99.6C2 103.5 99.6 2837 off-boat 904 4 33.5 C/N-0.213 0.401 16:33 368 27.9 0.08 3.11 Loop transect with upstream DMG 10/4/12 17:41 X99.6C1 103.5 99.6 2837 off-boat 780 4 36 C/N-0.170 0.504 17:29 327 14.0 0.04 3.56 Loop transect with upstream DMG 10/5/12 14:06 X95.0C1 98.4 95.0 2837 off-boat 956 4 23.2 C/N-0.193 0.003 13:54 326 80.2 0.25 5.09 359.8 186.4 186.6 4.83 4.60 3.3 10/5/12 14:36 X95.0C2 98.4 95.0 2837 off-boat 822 6 24.9 C/N-0.120 0.051 No loop test - small channel. Mean H2O velocity 1.1 ft/s, bed probably not moving 10/5/12 15:10 X95.0C3&4 98.4 95.0 2837 off-boat 666 6 44.9 C/N-0.174 0.234 No loop test - small channel. Mean H2O velocity 3.4 ft/s, bed probably not moving 10/5/12 15:24 X95.0C4 98.4 95.0 2837 off-boat 436 4 30.1 P/P-0.210 0.569 No loop test - small channel. Mean H2O velocity 0.85 ft/s, bed probably not moving
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 3 - Page 12 January 31, 2013 Date Mid-point time Site Project River Mile Brailey River Mile Bottom Track Loop Corrected GPS-GGA Constant Gold Moving Calculated 95% Q, cfs COV Q, cfs COV Q, cfs COV Mag var., deg Heading Creek bed moving bed Uncer- Rating NOAA adjust2 Error, deg Q, cfs uncertainty bias tainty 8/24/12 15:45 X76.0C5 80.0 76.0 1,005 0.037 NR - bed v £ 0.04 1,013 0.027 18.4 20 -1.6 16200 0.5 4.2 Good 9/14/12 17:05 X176.8C1 179.5 176.8 8,297 0.008 NR - bed v £ 0.04 8,361 0.01 19.1 24 -4.9 10100 0.5 2.2 Good 9/14/12 17:47 X176.2C1 178.5* 176.2 8,628 0.008 8,738 0.008 8,670 0.013 19.1 22 -2.9 10000 0.5 2.0 Good 9/15/12 13:17 X184.1C1 187.2 184.1 7,838 0.018 NR - bed v £ 0.04 7,774 0.009 19.2 22 -2.8 10800 2.7 Good 9/15/12 14:05 X183.4C1 186.2 183.4 7,621 0.009 NR - bed v £ 0.04 7,630 0.003 19.2 20 -0.8 10800 0.9 Excellent 9/15/12 14:57 X182.2C1 184.9 182.2 7,692 0.007 NR - bed v £ 0.04 7,714 0.003 19.2 19.2 0.0 11000 0.9 Excellent 9/15/12 15:52 X181.7C1 184.4 181.7 8,353 0.022 NR - bed v £ 0.04 8,352 0.005 19.2 20 -0.8 11100 3.1 Good 9/15/12 16:41 X180.3C1 183.3 180.3 8,310 0.010 NR - bed v £ 0.04 8,306 0.008 19.1 20 -0.9 11300 1.7 Excellent 9/15/12 17:55 X178.9C1 181.6 178.9 8,508 0.015 8,689 0.016 8,584 0.007 19.1 21 -1.9 11500 0.5 2.9 Good 9/16/12 14:50 X173.9C1 176.5 173.9 10,768 0.011 NR - bed v £ 0.04 10,638 0.006 19.1 16 3.1 16500 1.8 Excellent 9/16/12 16:29 X170.0C1 173.1 170.0 11,082 0.008 NR - bed v £ 0.04 11,045 0.008 19.1 15 4.1 17200 1.5 Excellent 9/16/12 17:33 X167.0C1 170.1 167.0 11,137 0.012 NR - bed v £ 0.04 10,921 0.007 19.0 15 4.0 17600 1.9 Excellent 9/17/12 15:19 X164.5C1 168.1 164.5 14,445 0.008 14,619 0.008 14,433 0.006 19.0 16 3.0 20200 0.5 2.0 Good 9/29/12 15:20 X148.7C1 152.1 148.7 18,488 0.014 NR - bed v £ 0.04 18,064 0.02 18.9 9 9.9 20000 2.2 Good 9/29/12 16:51 X142.3C1 145.7 142.3 18,131 0.018 Invalid closure 17,268 0.006 18.8 15 3.8 19800 2.7 Good 9/29/12 17:45 X138.9C1 142.2 138.9 18,301 0.004 Invalid closure 17,580 0.007 18.8 12 6.8 19800 1.0 Excellent 9/30/12 13:56 X136.7C1 140.0 136.7 17,619 0.018 NR - bed v £ 0.04 17,541 0.005 18.8 23 -4.2 17800 2.7 Good 9/30/12 15:00 X134.3C1 137.6 134.3 17,382 0.005 Invalid closure 17,033 0.006 18.7 16 2.7 17700 1.1 Excellent 10/1/12 13:40 X131.2C1 134.3 131.2 15,568 0.008 Invalid closure 15,214 0.011 18.7 12 6.7 15500 1.5 Excellent 10/1/12 16:16 X126.6C1 129.7 126.6 15,731 0.008 Invalid closure 14,340 0.003 18.8 19 -0.2 15400 1.5 Excellent 10/1/12 17:02 X123.3C1 126.8 123.3 15,582 0.007 Invalid closure 14,676 0.006 18.6 21 -2.4 15400 1.3 Excellent 10/1/12 17:42 X120.7C1 124.1 120.7 15,582 0.016 Invalid closure 14,928 0.01 18.6 21 -2.4 15300 2.4 Good 10/3/12 14:47 X116.4C1 119.9 116.4 13,927 0.006 No loop test 13,998 0.004 18.6 18.6 0.0 13500 0.5 1.5 Excellent 10/3/12 15:53 X113.0C1 116.6 113.0 14,178 0.009 No loop test 14,323 0.001 18.5 18.5 0.0 13400 0.5 1.1 Excellent 10/3/12 16:41 X110.0C1 113.6 110.0 13,418 0.006 No loop test 13,476 0.004 18.5 18.5 0.0 13400 0.5 1.5 Excellent 10/3/12 17:33 X106.7C1 110.5 106.7 14,053 0.006 No loop test 14,172 0.004 18.5 18 0.5 13400 0.5 1.5 Excellent 10/4/12 14:10 X103.0C1 107.1 103.0 14,532 0.007 NR - bed v £ 0.04 14,558 0.003 18.5 18 0.5 13700 0.9 Excellent 10/4/12 15:58 X99.6C3 -- 99.6 7,012 0.013 NR - bed v £ 0.04 7,033 0.009 18.5 18 0.5 13700 1.6 Excellent 10/4/12 16:48 X99.6C2 -- 99.6 4,454 0.011 No loop test 4,521 0.011 18.5 18 0.5 13600 0.5 2.3 Good 10/4/12 17:41 X99.6C1 -- 99.6 3001.685 0.009 No loop test 3,021 0.009 19 18 0.5 13600 1.6 Excellent 10/5/12 14:06 X95.0C1 98.4 95.0 34,952 0.007 37,161 0.007 36,770 0.005 18.5 21 -2.5 13800 0.5 1.8 Excellent 10/5/12 14:36 X95.0C2 98.4 95.0 858 0.015 No loop test 876 0.025 18.5 20 -1.5 13800 0.5 3.5 Good 10/5/12 15:10 X95.0C3&4 98.4 95.0 808 0.021 No loop test 807 0.018 18.5 24 -5.5 13900 2.6 Good 10/5/12 15:24 X95.0C4 98.4 95.0 207 0.015 No loop test 221 0.028 18.5 19 -0.5 13900 0.5 4.4 Good Notes: 1 Yellow: values outside accepted ranges 2 Blue: related fields 3 Green: recommended value 4 P/P Extrap recommends a power fit for top and bottom; a 0.167 exponent results in <1% error (no correction recommended). 5 C/P User specified a constant fit for the top and power fit for the bottom, using the exponent shown. 6 * Not valid 7 If moving bed suspected, assumed equal to C2 channel
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 3 - Page 13 January 31, 2013
Table A3-3. Estimated Moving Bed Corrections.
Date Mid-point
time Site Project
River Mile
Brailey
River Mile
Loop Test Results measured inter- calculated
Start time Duration, s DMG, ft
Velocity, ft/s Direction, deg
% Corr
% bad out-back bed v polated %
Bed Flow Bed Flow Diff BT difference see note to right bed v correction
6/16/12 18:35 X176.1C1 178.5 176.1 No loop test due to diving of ADCP in standing waves 0.08 1.3
6/17/12 16:30 X184.1C1 187.2 184.1 No loop test due to diving of ADCP in standing waves none
6/18/12 14:13 X183.4C1 186.2 183.4 13:55 308 35.8 0.12 7.17 75 268 193.05 1.62 11.73 2.5 0.12
6/18/12 16:10 X182.8C1 185.5 182.8 15:54 312 80.1 0.26 6.83 74 269 194.82 3.76 4.18 6.3 0.26
6/19/12 13:54 X182.6C2 185.2 182.6 13:40 307 86.7 8.41 12 275 263.59 3.36 44.44 4.9 bad 0.09 1.3
6/19/12 15:49 X182.2C1 184.9 182.2 15:02 317 59.0 7.57 111 263 152.03 2.46 30.7 17.3 bad 0.07 1.1
6/19/12 16:51 X181.7C1 184.4 181.7 16:30 262 99.6 8.19 126 281 154.98 4.64 16.48 16.5 bad 0.05 0.9
6/20/12 13:19 X180.3C1 183.3 180.3 13:08 252 32.6 7.81 228 253 25.35 1.66 8.76 10.8 bad 0.00 0.2
6/20/12 16:58 X179.8C2 182.9 179.8 16:46 268 25.0 0.09 8.36 104 275 170.18 1.12 9.36 3.8 0.09
6/20/12 17:56 X178.9C1 181.6 178.9 17:43 296 66.9 0.23 7.52 352 182 189.84 3 2.71 0.2 0.23
6/21/12 12:28 X176.8C1 179.5 176.8 12:17 291 18.1 8.41 216 231 15.46 0.74 9.31 12.8 bad 0.08 1.3
6/21/12 14:40 X173.9C1 178.5 173.9 14:21 323 25.7 0.08 8.07 80 296 216 0.98 7.74 2.2 0.08
6/21/12 16:12 X172.0C1 174.9 172.0 15:49 340 35.9 0.11 8.35 99 275 175.44 1.26 5.9 2.6 0.11
6/21/12 17:39 X170.0C1 173.1 170.0 17:18 462 77.2 0.17 8.13 96 280 183.71 2.05 4.12 3.4 0.17
6/22/12 12:56 X167.0C1 170.1 167.0 12:34 332 21.0 0.06 8.3 123 282 158.91 0.76 3.93 1.7 0.06
6/22/12 14:33 X164.5C1 168.1 164.5 14:08 362 112.3 0.31 8.19 184 359 535.08 3.79 3.6 8.6 0.31
6/25/12 14:00 X147.6C1 151.1 147.6 13:48 260 13.1 0.05 8.35 135 283 147.84 0.6 5.79 3.1 0.05
6/25/12 17:15 X150.2C1 153.7 150.2 16:55 303 42.4 0.14 10.23 107 307 200.06 1.37 11.26 1.2 0.14
6/26/12 13:43 X149.5C1 152.9 149.5 13:26 335 77.7 0.23 7.47 133 314 181.03 3.11 4.49 4.6 0.23
6/26/12 15:38 X148.7C1 152.1 148.7 15:20 259 4.6 0.02 8.51 348 282 294.44 NR 9.69 0.9 0.04
6/26/12 18:24 X144.8C1 148.3 144.8 17:45 216 38.5 0.18 8.56 116 269 152.85 2.08 8.37 9.8 0.18
6/27/12 12:04 X143.2C2 146.6 143.2 10:22 222 57.5 8.96 60 244 183.77 2.89 4.05 3.5 bad 0.16 2.4
6/27/12 13:51 X142.3C1 145.7 142.3 13:35 234 53.9 8.18 240 233 353.44 2.82 6.01 11.7 bad 0.15 2.2
6/27/12 14:40 X142.1C1 145.5 142.1 14:16 298 135.2 8.5 237 238 0.35 5.34 9.73 18.3 bad 0.15 2.2
6/27/12 17:23 X141.5C2 144.9 141.5 17:13 224 170.7 8.14 231 227 355.94 9.36 11.66 27.8 bad 0.14 2.1
6/27/12 18:29 X140.8C2 144.3 140.8 18:17 291 159.9 8.67 209 208 359.12 6.34 20.96 324 bad 0.14 2.0
6/28/12 12:17 X140.2C1 143.5 140.2 12:04 271 34.0 0.13 7.93 34 219 185.19 1.58 4.8 0.5 0.13
6/28/12 13:20 X139.4C1 143.0 139.4 13:01 433 16.6 0.04 7.29 330 259 71.17 0 9.47 4.1 0.04
6/28/12 15:15 X138.9C1 142.2 138.9 15:02 290 4.9 0.02 7.85 134 248 113.80 1.72 0.9 0.04
6/28/12 16:27 X138.5C1 141.9 138.5 16:16 254 20.1 0.08 7.68 51 232 181.79 1.03 2.76 1.7 0.08
6/28/12 17:41 X138.2C1 141.7 138.2 17:21 381 9.4 0.02 8.12 48 224 175.46 2.11 0.1 0.04
6/29/12 14:48 X136.7C1 140.0 136.7 14:28 231 16.1 0.07 9.6 56 256 200.39 0.73 4.33 0.7 0.07
6/29/12 16:21 X136.4C1 139.8 136.4 16:03 287 7.2 0.02 8.14 145 269 123.69 0.73 5.23 2 0.04
6/30/12 13:56 X135.7C1 139.0 135.7 13:39 250 17.1 7.67 243 195 311.35 0.89 2.8 2.7 bad 0.04
6/30/12 14:51 X135.4C1 138.7 135.4 14:38 243 25.7 7.15 173 193 20.39 1.48 1.65 3.2 bad 0.04
6/30/12 17:13 X134.7C2 138.1 134.7 16:57 263 9.0 0.03 7.96 201 200 358.57 1.14 3.5 0.04
6/30/12 18:13 X134.3C1 137.6 134.3 17:57 307 34.8 7.07 203 214 10.99 1.6 0.33 3.7 bad 0.06 0.9
7/1/12 13:35 X133.3C1 136.7 133.3 13:10 391 151.6 6.38 221 211 349.86 6.07 10.74 12 bad 0.09 1.4
7/1/12 16:57 X132.9C1 136.2 132.9 16:48 192 20.0 0.1 7.11 30 208 178.60 1.46 2.08 1.1 0.10
7/1/12 18:17 X131.8C1 135.0 131.8 18:02 274 11.2 0.04 7.11 70 252 181.69 0.57 2.55 0.6 0.04
7/2/12 12:16 X131.2C1 134.3 131.2 12:03 275 5.8 0.02 7.37 161 269 108.34 NR 0.73 1.1 0.04
7/2/12 13:18 X130.9C1 134.1 130.9 13:08 222 2.9 0.01 7.08 281 253 332.17 3.6 0.5 0.04
7/2/12 14:30 X130.5C2 133.8 130.5 14:00 198 20.2 7.43 262 252 350.39 1.37 1.01 2.6 bad 0.04
7/2/12 16:22 X130.0C2 133.3 130.0 No loop test due to a wide, shallow bar that required walking none 0.04
7/2/12 17:57 X129.4C1 132.6 129.4 17:43 336 8.6 0.03 6.19 237.02 212.89 335.87 NR 1.49 2.1 0.04
7/3/12 14:31 X128.1C1 131.4 128.1 No loop test due to fast shallows requiring 2 people to walk the boat none 0.05 0.8
7/3/12 17:33 X126.6C1 129.7 126.6 17:17 304 18.4 0.06 6.63 30 228 198.07 0.91 1.97 0.5 0.06
7/4/12 15:40 X124.4C1 128.1 124.4 16:07 338 40.6 5.66 357 209 211.77 2.12 7.1* 0.3 bad 0.10 1.5
7/4/12 17:22 X123.3C1 126.8 123.3 17:10 294 36.6 0.12 6.78 13 208 194.80 1.83 1.36 2.5 0.12
7/5/12 13:51 X122.6C2 126.1 122.6 13:41 249 64.9 0.26 7.07 16 205 188.84 3.69 3.21 5.0 0.26
7/5/12 16:06 X121.8C2 125.4 121.8 15:48 302 74.1 0.25 6.86 22 206 184.12 3.57 2.98 6.5 0.25
7/5/12 18:11 X120.7C1 124.1 120.7 17:55 263 53.3 0.2 6.96 36 219 183.51 2.91 2.28 3.3 0.20
7/6/12 11:47 X120.3C1 123.7 120.3 11:29 219 99.5 5.48 18 203 185.11 8.29 0.91 9.3 bad 0.19 2.7
7/6/12 14:23 X119.3C1 122.7 119.3 14:10 324 47.9 0.15 5.68 12 208 195.57 2.6 0.93 2.1 0.15
7/6/12 15:12 X119.2C2 122.6 119.2 15:01 233 28.2 0.12 6.75 11 196 184.21 1.79 1.29 1.6 0.12
7/6/12 17:55 X117.2C1 120.7 117.2 17:44 217 19.0 0.09 6.81 19 203 184.12 1.28 1.84 3.0 0.09
7/7/12 12:19 X116.4C1 119.9 116.4 12:03 238 7.9 0.03 6.5 173 216 42.14 NR 0.4 0.8 0.04
7/7/12 13:09 X115.0C2 118.4 115.0 12:58 249 7.0 0.03 6.6 234 184 310.12 NR 1.61 1.5 0.04
7/7/12 16:40 X114.0C2 117.4 114.0 16:25 228 13.1 7.24 253 181 287.68 0.8 1.8 1.9 bad 0.04 0.7
7/7/12 17:36 X113.0C1 116.6 113.0 17:20 379 15.1 0.04 5.97 173 182 9.81 0.67 1.06 1.6 0.04
7/8/12 12:42 X112.7C1 116.3 112.7 12:26 248 15.9 0.06 6.38 25 180 155.73 1.01 1.61 1.4 0.06
7/8/12 14:29 X112.2C1 115.7 112.2 14:18 266 34.1 0.13 6.86 7 174 167.06 1.87 0.38 0.7 0.13
7/8/12 15:45 X111.8C2 115.4 111.8 15:32 253 42.9 0.17 7.21 354 168 173.99 2.35 5.14 3.0 0.17
7/8/12 18:57 X110.9C2 114.4 110.9 18:43 216 18.4 0.09 7.89 320 132 171.11 1.08 0.46 1.3 0.09
7/9/12 14:23 X110.0C1 113.6 110.0 14:10 267 29.0 0.11 6.77 354 192 198.16 1.6 1.5 1.7 0.11
7/9/12 15:23 X108.4C1 111.9 108.4 15:09 290 15.9 0.05 6.81 348 203 215.68 0.8 1.03 0.1 0.05
7/9/12 16:46 X106.7C1 110.5 106.7 16:11 323 26.3 0.08 6.92 17 201 183.11 1.18 3.41 1.3 0.08
7/9/12 18:26 X103.0C1 107.1 103.0 18:10 245 43.3 0.18 7.32 0 184 543.39 2.41 2.04 1.8 0.18
7/10/12 14:01 X98.8C1 102.7 98.8 13:48 275 77.8 0.28 6.25 47 201 154.69 4.53 14.55 4.5 0.28
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 3 - Page 14 January 31, 2013
Date Mid-point
time Site Project
River Mile
Brailey
River Mile
Loop Test Results measured inter- calculated
Start time Duration, s DMG, ft
Velocity, ft/s Direction, deg
% Corr
% bad out-back bed v polated %
Bed Flow Bed Flow Diff BT difference see note to right bed v correction
7/10/12 16:08 X98.0C5 101.4 98.0 15:44 203 36.5 0.18 6.36 11 202 190.89 2.83 4.43 2.2 0.18
7/11/12 12:32 X95.0C1 98.4 95.0 12:12 284 103.8 0.37 6.77 354 184 189.50 5.4 6.71 1.8 0.37
7/11/12 17:48 X94.0C2 97.0 94.0 17:25 339 89.4 0.26 6.79 39 245 205.70 3.88 2.1 5.5 0.26
7/12/12 14:43 X86.9C2 91.0 86.9 14:20 291 58.7 0.2 5.93 7 193 185.45 3.4 3.1 1.0 0.20
7/12/12 17:30 X83.0C2 87.1 83.0 17:14 311 43.3 0.14 6.76 358 181 183.66 2.06 8.4 2.9 0.14
7/13/12 13:40 X82.0C2 86.3 82.0 13:22 390 73.7 6.57 335 150 175.93 2.88 8.4* 2.7 bad 0.16 2.3
7/13/12 16:48 X79.0C1 83.0 79.0 16:32 296 64.9 0.22 6.16 328 140 171.59 3.56 3.4 3.6 0.22
8/6/12 16:13 X184.1C1 187.2 184.1 No compass calibration - Bluetooth failure. none 0.04
8/6/12 17:05 X183.4C1 186.2 183.4 No compass calibration - Bluetooth failure. none 0.04
8/6/12 18:24 X182.2C1 184.9 182.2 No compass calibration - Bluetooth failure. none 0.04
8/7/12 12:38 X181.7C1 184.4 181.7 12:22 235 9.1 0.04 6.84 121 268 146.38 NR 3.4 1.1 0.04
8/7/12 13:35 X180.3C1 183.3 180.3 13:14 376 9.0 0.02 5.02 62 253 190.78 NR 0.5 1.5 0.04
8/7/12 14:44 X178.9C1 182.9 178.9 14:31 343 41.0 0.12 5.34 358 175 177.70 2.24 0.3 1.3 0.12
8/7/12 15:41 X176.8C1 179.5 176.8 15:28 297 14.6 0.05 6.65 47 231 184.20 0.74 0.3 0.1 0.05
8/7/12 16:37 X176.1C1 178.5 176.1 16:24 340 39.6 0.12 6.35 358 186 188.22 1.83 0.6 3.1 0.12
8/8/12 12:07 X173.9C1 176.5 173.9 11:55 327 8.5 0.03 5.89 198 294 95.60 NR 0.6 1.5 0.04
8/8/12 15:16 X167.0C1 170.1 167.0 15:04 297 8.2 0.03 5.86 102.65 283 180.37 NR 1.0 0.0 0.04
8/8/12 16:03 X164.5C1 168.1 164.5 15:51 309 16.7 0.05 6.34 178.77 359 539.99 0.85 1.3 0.8 0.05
8/10/12 15:03 X150.2C1 153.7 150.2 14:53 252 10.6 0.04 7.44 274 305 31.41 0.57 0.4 3.7 0.04
8/10/12 16:07 X148.7C1 152.1 148.7 15:54 321 20.1 5.83 285 283 357.46 1.08 1.9 3.3 bad 0.04
8/10/12 18:03 X144.8C1 148.3 144.8 17:50 342 16.7 6.46 283 270 346.53 0.76 1.5 2.7 bad 0.04
8/12/12 13:12 X142.3C1 146.6 142.3 12:57 296 14.3 6.65 235 230 354.79 0.73 0.7 2.4 bad 0.04
8/12/12 14:58 X140.2C1 143.5 140.2 14:46 349 8.3 0.02 6.28 180 222 42.23 NR 0.3 1.7 0.04
8/12/12 16:29 X138.9C1 142.2 138.9 16:07 349 21.8 6.38 230 247 17.52 0.85 0.3 1.3 bad 0.04
8/12/12 17:13 X138.5C1 141.9 138.5 16:59 339 4.9 0.01 5.94 233 236 2.58 NR 0.9 1.4 0.04
8/13/12 12:54 X136.7C1 140.0 136.7 12:36 384 6.2 0.02 7.25 9 255 245.80 NR 1.0 2.2 0.04
8/13/12 13:58 X135.7C1 139.0 135.7 13:45 321 6.4 0.02 5.8 234 192 318.28 NR 2.8 2.5 0.04
8/13/12 14:48 X135.4C1 138.7 135.4 14:35 325 20.4 5.16 174 195 21.06 1.22 0.3 2.6 bad 0.04
8/13/12 16:14 X134.3C1 137.6 134.3 15:58 423 45.0 5.64 214 214 0.43 1.88 0.7 4.5 bad 0.04
8/13/12 17:41 X131.8C1 135.0 131.8 17:26 304 31.5 6.67 241 253 12.54 1.55 2.0 3.6 bad 0.04
8/14/12 13:14 X130.9C1 134.1 130.9 13:02 302 15.2 5.41 286.74 255 328.44 0.93 0.7 3.8 bad 0.04
8/14/12 14:05 X130.5C2 133.8 130.5 13:47 359 32.3 6.27 268.32 248 339.80 1.43 0.6 4.2 bad 0.04
8/14/12 15:17 X129.4C1 132.6 129.4 15:05 323 112.2 5.87 251.61 206 314.18 5.92 0.0 7.3 bad 0.04
8/14/12 17:00 X126.6C1 129.7 126.6 16:47 340 42.8 5.17 237.92 228 350.49 2.43 0.6 2.8 bad 0.04
8/15/12 12:50 X124.4C1 128.1 124.4 12:32 384 105.4 5.59 231.96 207 334.67 4.9 0.3 5.2 bad 0.04
8/15/12 13:40 X123.3C1 126.8 123.3 13:29 310 29.4 5.14 218.71 208 349.45 1.85 1.6 4.4 bad 0.04
8/15/12 14:27 X120.7C1 122.7 120.7 14:16 321 11.1 0.03 5.28 47.23 217 170.07 1.3 0.2 0.04
8/15/12 15:59 X119.2C2 122.6 119.2 15:47 350 1.9 0.01 5.6 154.54 197 42.04 1.4 1.6 0.04
8/16/12 12:54 X116.4C1 119.9 116.4 12:41 369 6.0 0.02 5.94 73.18 214 141.03 0.3 1.3 0.04
8/16/12 14:15 X113.0C1 116.6 113.0 13:54 354 18.0 0.05 5.53 6.92 183 176.05 0.92 0.6 0.8 0.05
8/16/12 16:38 X110.0C1 113.6 110.0 16:24 415 18.3 0.04 5.15 13.16 193 179.41 0.86 0.0 1.2 0.04
8/17/12 14:57 X106.7C1 110.5 106.7 14:44 376 24.9 0.07 5.15 22.99 203 179.85 1.29 1.1 3.3 0.07
8/17/12 17:36 X104.8C1 108.3 104.8 17:25 308 33.1 0.11 5.57 357.75 168 169.97 1.93 0.0 3.6 0.11
8/18/12 13:12 X103.0C1 107.1 103.0 13:00 356 10.4 0.03 5.61 12.39 180 167.72 1.7 0.5 0.04
8/18/12 14:22 X102.4C1 106.1 102.4 13:46 386 59.2 5.8 236.97 232 355.44 2.64 1.3 4.4 bad 0.05
8/18/12 16:21 X101.5C1 105.3 101.5 16:08 323 0.7 0 6.3 135.01 208 73.13 0.3 0.2 bad 0.06
8/18/12 18:07 X101.0C2 104.7 101.0 17:55 342 19.5 0.06 6.77 349.34 162 172.46 0.84 0.0 1.3 0.06
8/19/12 12:07 X100.4C3 104.1 100.4 11:53 365 20.3 0.06 5.2 347.4 162 174.30 1.07 0.3 1.5 0.06
8/19/12 15:40 2RIVC1 -- 98.2 15:10 641 203.5 0.32 6.39 324.96 181 216.52 4.97 1.1 1.9 0.32
8/20/12 14:13 X95.0C1 98.4 95.0 13:59 410 112.0 0.27 6.31 351.14 188 196.78 4.33 8.3 3.7 0.27
8/20/12 16:42 X94.0C2 97.0 94.0 16:28 365 74.9 0.21 6.06 63.48 249 185.29 3.39 3.6 0.2 0.21
8/21/12 14:12 X87.7C2 91.6 87.7 13:55 372 171.0 5.68 340.52 158 177.17 8.09 1.9 5.4 bad 0.31 4.7
8/21/12 16:51 X86.9C3 91.0 86.9 16:31 417 134.9 0.32 6.17 358.12 188 189.77 5.24 1.9 2.8 0.32
8/22/12 16:41 X84.6C4 88.4 84.6 16:21 379 49.2 0.13 7.99 37.53 215 177.42 1.63 4.0 2.2 0.13
8/22/12 18:01 X81.2C2 85.4 81.2 17:47 387 130.0 0.34 5.92 296.14 107 170.44 5.67 2.1 5.4 0.34
8/23/12 14:24 X80.0C1 84.4 80.0 14:07 327 46.7 0.14 6.43 330.48 152 181.64 2.22 2.5 0.3 0.14
8/23/12 17:29 X78.0C1 82.3 78.0 17:16 330 35.7 0.11 5.69 1.85 154 152.09 1.9 1.2 0.2 0.11
8/24/12 14:28 X76.0C1 80.0 76.0 14:13 358 69.7 0.19 6.14 356.76 189 192.12 3.17 1.7 3.4 0.19
9/14/12 17:05 X176.8C1 179.5 176.8 16:54 303 9.4 0.03 5.47 41.45 231 189.11 0.66 1.4 0.04
9/14/12 17:47 X176.2C1 178.5 176.2 17:35 332 18.6 0.06 5.08 11.02 185 174.14 1.1 1.81 2.8 0.06
9/15/12 13:17 X184.1C1 187.2 184.1 13:06 302 4.2 0.01 6.07 307.11 273 325.58 2.65 0.3 0.04
9/15/12 14:05 X183.4C1 186.2 183.4 13:52 375 2.7 0.01 3.72 221.76 269 47.02 1.33 3.2 0.04
9/15/12 14:57 X182.2C1 184.9 182.2 14:45 337 9.7 0.03 4.91 290.43 263 332.21 0.59 1.4 0.04
9/15/12 15:52 X181.7C1 184.4 181.7 15:41 314 6.1 0.02 5.48 183.5 267 83.25 2.23 3.8 0.04
9/15/12 16:41 X180.3C1 183.3 180.3 16:28 368 1.8 0 3.54 138.43 252 113.31 1.09 2.2 bad 0.06 0.9
9/15/12 17:55 X178.9C1 182.9 178.9 17:43 328 24.6 0.08 4.26 352.89 173 180.44 1.76 0.61 0.3 0.08
9/16/12 14:50 X173.9C1 176.5 173.9 14:39 317 12.9 0.04 5.22 305.18 295 349.55 0.78 0.63 2.2 0.04
9/16/12 16:29 X170.0C1 173.1 170.0 16:17 318 7.7 0.02 6.39 307.88 284 336.31 0.78 0.94 1.6 0.04
9/16/12 17:33 X167.0C1 170.1 167.0 17:21 327 8.5 0.03 5.13 294.57 283 348.28 0.78 0.92 2.3 0.04
9/17/12 15:19 X164.5C1 168.1 164.5 15:08 310 22.0 0.07 6.4 164.06 359 555.00 1.11 2.26 0.6 0.07
9/29/12 15:20 X148.7C1 152.1 148.7 15:05 343 6.9 0.02 6.47 209.71 284 74.07 2.05 3.0 0.04
FINAL REPORT CROSS-SECTION STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Attachment 3 - Page 15 January 31, 2013
Date Mid-point
time Site Project
River Mile
Brailey
River Mile
Loop Test Results measured inter- calculated
Start time Duration, s DMG, ft
Velocity, ft/s Direction, deg
% Corr
% bad out-back bed v polated %
Bed Flow Bed Flow Diff BT difference see note to right bed v correction
9/29/12 16:51 X142.3C1 145.7 142.3 16:38 307 76.9 6.43 230.05 231 0.93 3.9 1.63 9.9 bad 0.04
9/29/12 17:45 X138.9C1 142.2 138.9 17:31 400 74.3 6.5 252.86 248 354.88 2.86 1.75 6.3 bad 0.04
9/30/12 13:56 X136.7C1 140.0 136.7 13:39 307 2.9 0.01 7.1 111.11 258 146.87 1.95 1.0 0.04
9/30/12 15:00 X134.3C1 137.6 134.3 14:44 339 31.7 5.73 203.75 212 8.27 1.63 0.59 2.6 bad 0.04
10/1/12 13:40 X131.2C1 134.3 131.2 13:25 364 65.9 7.4 258.28 267 8.61 2.45 1.93 6.6 bad 0.04
10/1/12 17:02 X123.3C1 126.8 123.3 16:51 311 74.0 4.62 205.53 207 1.95 7.32 2.89 11.0 bad 0.04
10/1/12 17:42 X120.7C1 124.1 120.7 17:31 318 48.2 4.45 219.14 219 359.53 3.41 4.42 10.1 bad 0.04
10/3/12 14:47 X116.4C1 119.9 116.4 Loop test module wont execute - recorder issue none 0.04
10/3/12 15:53 X113.0C1 116.6 113.0 Loop test module wont execute - recorder issue none 0.04
10/3/12 16:41 X110.0C1 113.6 110.0 Loop test module wont execute - recorder issue none 0.04
10/3/12 17:33 X106.7C1 110.5 106.7 Loop test module wont execute - recorder issue none 0.04
10/4/12 14:10 X103.0C1 107.1 103.0 14:20 320 13.6 0.04 5.1 Loop transect with upstream DMG 0.04
10/4/12 15:58 X99.6C3 103.5 99.6 15:41 328 8.6 0.03 5.2 Loop transect with upstream DMG 0.04
10/5/12 14:06 X95.0C1 98.4 95.0 13:54 326 80.2 0.25 5.09 359.82 186 186.62 4.83 4.6 3.3 0.25