HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa207sec9-11Alaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
Study of fish passage feasibility at Watana Dam, Study plan Section 9.11 :
Initial study report
SuWa 207
Author(s) – Personal:
Author(s) – Corporate:
Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc.
AEA-identified category, if specified:
Draft initial study report
AEA-identified series, if specified:
Series (ARLIS-assigned report number):
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 207
Existing numbers on document:
Published by:
[Anchorage : Alaska Energy Authority, 2014]
Date published:
February 2014
Published for:
Alaska Energy Authority
Date or date range of report:
Volume and/or Part numbers:
Study plan Section 9.11
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Draft
Document type: Pagination:
491 p. in various pagings (first
volume is 252 pages)
Related work(s): Pages added/changed by ARLIS:
Notes:
Contents: [Main report] -- appendix A. Fish Passage Technical Working Group consultation record
-- appendix B. Biological information.
The following parts of Section 9.11 appear in separate files: Main report ; Appendices C-D.
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/
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
(FERC No. 14241)
Study of Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam
Study Plan Section 9.11
Initial Study Report
Prepared for
Alaska Energy Authority
Prepared by
R2 Resource Consultants, Inc.
February 2014 Draft
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page i February 2014 Draft
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... iv
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
2. Study Objectives ................................................................................................................. 2
3. Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 2
4. Methods............................................................................................................................... 2
4.1. Task 1: Establish the Fish Passage Technical Workgroup to Provide Input on
the Feasibility Assessment. ............................................................................... 3
4.2. Task 2: Prepare for Feasibility Study................................................................ 3
4.3. Task 3: Conduct Site Reconnaissance. ............................................................. 5
4.4. Task 4: Develop Concepts. ............................................................................... 5
4.5. Task 5: Evaluate Feasibility of Conceptual Alternatives. ................................. 5
4.6. Task 6: Develop Refined Passage Strategy(ies) ............................................... 5
4.7. Variances........................................................................................................... 5
5. Results ................................................................................................................................. 6
5.1. Fish Passage Technical Working Group ........................................................... 6
5.2. Feasibility Study Preparation ............................................................................ 6
5.3. Site Visit............................................................................................................ 6
5.4. Concept Development ....................................................................................... 7
5.5. Feasibility Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives............................................... 7
5.6. Passage Strategy(ies) Development .................................................................. 7
6. Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 7
7. Completing the Study ......................................................................................................... 8
8. Literature Cited ................................................................................................................... 9
9. Tables ................................................................................................................................ 10
10. Figures............................................................................................................................... 12
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ii February 2014 Draft
LIST OF TABLES
Table 5.1-1. Fish Passage TWG members as of September 26, 2013. ........................................ 10
Table 5.2-1. List of preliminary target fish species for the Fish Passage Feasibility Study. ....... 11
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Study area for Fish Passage Feasibility, from the confluence with Portage Creek
(PRM 152.3) upstream to the Oshetna River (PRM 235.1) ................................................. 13
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Fish Passage Technical Working Group Consultation Record
Appendix B: Biological Information
Appendix C: Physical, Hydrological, and Engineering Information
Appendix D: Detailed Study Schedule Updated July 10, 2013
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iii February 2014 Draft
LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS
Abbreviation Definition
ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
BPT biological performance tool
CEII Critical Energy Infrastructure Information
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FPTWG Fish Passage Technical Workgroup
ILP Integrated Licensing Process
ISR Initial Study Report
NMFS NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service
PRM project river mile
Project Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
RM River Mile(s) referencing those of the 1980s Alaska Power Authority Project.
RSP Revised Study Plan
SPD study plan determination
TWG Technical Workgroup
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iv February 2014 Draft
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Study of Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam
Purpose The goal of this study is to develop, to the feasibility level, a fish passage
strategy in support of the License Application for the proposed Project. The
study will explore various alternatives in support of three basic strategies
related to fish passage: (1) proposed Project without fish passage, (2)
integration of upstream and downstream passage features into the current
Project design, and (3) the retrofit of upstream and downstream fish passage
features to a Project designed without passage.
Status This is a multi-year ongoing study initiated in 2013.
Study
Components Major study components include:
• Task 1: Establish the Fish Passage Technical Workgroup (FPTWG) to
Provide Input on the Feasibility Assessment
• Task 2: Prepare for Feasibility Study
• Task 3: Conduct Site Reconnaissance
• Task 4: Develop Concepts
• Task 5: Evaluate Feasibility of Conceptual Alternatives
• Task 6: Develop Refined Passage Strategy(ies)
2013 Variances Variances from the Study Plan in 2013 were limited to schedule modifications
for Tasks 2 and 3 (RSP Section 9.11.6).
Steps to
Complete the
Study
As explained in the cover letter to this draft ISR, AEA’s plan for completing
this study will be included in the final ISR filed with FERC on June 3, 2014.
Highlighted
Results and
Achievements
Important accomplishments during 2013 included the establishment of the
Fish Passage Technical Workgroup (FPTWG), selection of the potential target
fish species, a site visit by the FPTWG in September 2013, and compilation of
biological, physical, and Project feature information. Development of the
biological performance tool (BPT) began in September 2013.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1 February 2014 Draft
1. INTRODUCTION
On December 14, 2012, Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) filed its Revised Study Plan (RSP) with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project (FERC Project No. 14241), which included 58 individual study plans (AEA 2012).
Section 9.11 of the RSP described the Study of Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam. This
section focuses on conducting a study to develop, to the feasibility level, a fish passage strategy
in support of the license application for the proposed Project. RSP Section 9.11 provided goals,
objectives, and proposed methods for assessing the feasibility of fish passage at Watana Dam.
On February 1, 2013, FERC staff issued its study plan determination (February 1 SPD) for 44 of
the 58 studies, approving 31 studies as filed and 13 with modifications. RSP Section 9.11 was
one of the 31 studies approved with no modifications.
On February 21, 2013, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) filed a notice of study
dispute pursuant to section 5.14(a) of the Commission’s regulations. This dispute included four
elements of RSP Study 9.11.
On April 3, 2013, a dispute resolution panel held the technical conference, which was attended
by representatives from NMFS, AEA, the Commission, and other licensing participants. On
April 12, 2013, the panel filed its findings with the Commission, and recommended the
following modification to RSP Section 9.11:
AEA is required to review existing literature relevant to glacial retreat and summarize
the understanding of potential future changes in runoff associated with glacier wastage
and retreat, as described in RSP section 7.7.4.1. RSP section 9.11.1, General Description
of the Proposed Study, is modified to delete the text that reads: “(2) Can the fish passage
alternative be constructed and operated while maintaining the original purpose of the
project?” The deleted text shall be replaced with the following: “(2) Can the fish passage
alternative be constructed and operated while allowing an economically feasible
Project?”
On April 26, 2013, FERC issued a formal study dispute determination and AEA adopted the
recommended changes. The RSP and adopted changes were applied in 2013 study efforts as the
final study plan (study plan).
Following the first study season, FERC’s regulations for the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP)
require AEA to “prepare and file with the Commission an initial study report describing its
overall progress in implementing the study plan and schedule and the data collected, including an
explanation of any variance from the study plan and schedule.” (18 CFR 5.15(c)(1)) This Initial
Study R eport (ISR) on Fish Passage Feasibility has been prepared in accordance with FERC’s
ILP regulations and details AEA’s status in implementing the study, as set forth in the FERC-
approved RSP, and as modified by FERC’s April 26, 2013 SPD (collectively referred to herein
as the “Study Plan”)."
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2 February 2014 Draft
2. STUDY OBJECTIVES
The goal of this study is to develop, to the feasibility level, a fish passage strategy in support of
the License Application for the proposed Project. The methods section of this report outlines the
process that was used during 2013 to achieve this objective. A variety of engineering, biological,
sociological, and economic factors will be considered during this process as it continues through
2014. The study will explore various alternatives in support of three basic strategies related to
fish passage: (1) proposed Project without fish passage, (2) integration of upstream and
downstream passage features into the current Project design, and (3) the retrofit of upstream and
downstream fish passage features to a Project designed without passage.
In the context of this study “retrofit” means that fish passage features would be either
geographically or temporally independent from the dam design. A retrofitted passage facility
may be constructed some distance upstream or downstream from the dam or later in the future
after the construction of the dam, and thus is independent of the dam design process. Option 3,
the retrofit option, avoids constraints with having the only option of fish passage being part of
the dam structure. Thus, the feasibility evaluation can examine a wider spectrum of passage
alternatives.
3. STUDY AREA
As described in RSP Section 9.11.3, the study area (Figure 3-1) extends from the confluence
with Portage Creek (Project river mile [PRM] 152.3; historic river mile [RM] 148) upstream to
the Oshetna River (PRM 235.1; RM 233.4). It is assumed that any potential upstream passage
facilities to be considered (e.g., a trap-and-haul facility) would be located in the mainstem
upstream of the confluence with Portage Creek.
4. METHODS
This feasibility evaluation includes six tasks needed to determine the technical feasibility of fish
passage for the Project. The first four of these tasks were initiated in 2013, and the first three of
these were completed during 2013. This study generally follows the guidance provided in the
NMFS Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design document (NMFS 2011). These tasks
are summarized below.
1. Establish a Fish Passage Technical Workgroup (FPTWG) to provide input on the
feasibility assessment.
2. Prepare for feasibility study.
3. Conduct site reconnaissance.
4. Develop concepts.
5. Evaluate feasibility of conceptual alternatives.
6. Develop refined passage strategy(ies).
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3 February 2014 Draft
4.1. Task 1: Establish the Fish Passage Technical Workgroup to
Provide Input on the Feasibility Assessment.
AEA implemented the methods as described in the Study Plan with no variances.
In cooperation with state and federal agencies and other interested licensing participants, AEA
established a FPTWG with representatives from state and federal agencies, and included the
contracting of regional experts selected cooperatively by AEA and participating state and federal
agencies and other interested licensing participants. This workgroup convened regularly
(approximately bi-monthly [once every other month]) from February through September, 2013.
Regular meetings and workshops were scheduled for the duration of this study in order to
provide input on assessing additional data needs, developing evaluation criteria, and developing
conceptual design passage strategies.
The workshops are planned as multi-day meetings where participants will help to develop and
refine alternatives as described below. The first of four workshops was completed. The four
workshops intend to address the following topics: (1) review of dam design and operational
concepts, biological, physical and site specific information, (2) conceptual alternatives
brainstorming, (3) critique and refinement of concepts and packaging of conceptual components
into alternatives, and (4) alternatives selection, refinement, and costs. The first FPTWG meeting
on February 22, 2013 was convened to identify goals, set schedules, establish process, and refine
and obtain input on list of information needed for Task 2.
4.2. Task 2: Prepare for Feasibility Study.
AEA implemented the methods as described in the Study Plan with no variances.
Task 2 is focused on technical preparation for the concept development brainstorming session
described in Task 4. AEA compiled the existing and salient background information listed
below, and the information was disseminated and presented to the FPTWG at the first FPTWG
Workshop held on April 9 - 10, 2013. Updates were distributed on September 3, 2013 for the
Site Reconnaissance tour held on September 17 – 20, 2013. In addition, AEA prepared
workshop materials including a draft passage evaluation and comparison matrix, and will be
producing draft evaluation criteria prior to the brainstorming workshop. The review materials
and workshop allowed the FPTWG to become familiar with the operational, physical,
hydrologic, and biological setting of the Watana Dam. This information will assist the FPTWG
during Task 4 in providing input to alternatives identified by AEA that can reasonably and
realistically fit within the construct of the proposed Project operations, and that are compatible
with hydrological and physical constraints.
Existing data was obtained from the 1980s Susitna studies, ADF&G surveys conducted between
2003 and 2011, AEA survey reports, and engineering documents prepared in 2012 (ADF&G
1984, ADF&G 2003a, ADF&G 2003b, ADF&G 2011, Buckwalter 2011, Delaney et al. 1981,
Harza-Ebasco 1985, Thompson et al. 1986). Additional data were developed during the
licensing baseline study program in 2013 and these data will also be used to inform development
of alternatives and conceptual design. A majority of the following information was compiled to
date as part of Task 2, and will be supplemented in the next year of study as more information
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4 February 2014 Draft
becomes available and TWG members are able to comment on the initial information (to be
distributed prior to the brainstorm workshop).
• Biological
o List of potential target fish species and life stages that will benefit from passage
o Species and life stage-specific periodicity
o Life stage-specific parameters: size, migratory behavior, swimming behavior,
swimming ability, and other physical passage constraints
o Fish relative abundance and distribution upstream and downstream of the proposed
Watana Dam site
o Locations of spawning and rearing habitats
o Migratory characteristics (seasonal timing, duration) by species and life stage
o Identification of existing ecological conditions (e.g. presence of predatory and/or
invasive species, light, temperature and flow) and how they might be affected by
passage facilities
• Physical
o Topographic survey
o Water quality and water temperature
o Hydrologic and hydraulic information (e.g., 5 percent and 95 percent exceedance
flows)
o Ice processes
o Sedimentation transport processes
o Geomorphology
• Project Features
o Project conceptual drawings
o Project operations (e.g., reservoir storage, powerhouse, and spillway flows)
o Aerial photos
o Seasonal flows downstream of the Project (e.g., tailwater rating curves, flow duration
curves)
o Seasonal pool elevation (e.g., forebay rating curves, fluctuations, etc.)
o Project design components (e.g., dam layout, cross-sections, turbine type, draft tube
velocity, sediment capacity, power availability, etc.)
o Project access or restrictions to access for operations and maintenance
The above information will be used to support the development of a biological performance tool
(BPT) as part of Task 4 rather than Task 2, as described in the study plan. In addition, compiling
information on migratory behavior, preferably behavior specific to the Susitna River from
studies conducted during 2013 (Studies 9.5 Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper
Susitna River, 9.6 Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River, and
9.7 Salmon Escapement), will help identify the type, location, size, and timing of potential
upstream and downstream fish passage facility components. Additional information needs may
be defined during the compilation.
The deliverables for this task are base drawings; maps; synthesized biological, physical, and site
data listed above; and operational protocols necessary to conduct the study.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5 February 2014 Draft
4.3. Task 3: Conduct Site Reconnaissance.
AEA implemented the methods as described in the Study Plan with the exception of variances
explained below (Section 4.7).
AEA and the FPTWG conducted a site reconnaissance to observe conditions and collect
information, as appropriate, for concept development. The visit included an helicopter fly-over
of the study area as planned, from the mouth of Portage Creek, over the proposed Watana Dam
site at PRM 187.1, as well as tributaries to the proposed reservoir where Chinook salmon have
been documented. A summary of the site visit is provided in Section 5.3 below.
4.4. Task 4: Develop Concepts.
AEA initiated implementation of the methods as described in the Study Plan, but varied from the
Study Plan in that it did not complete Task 4 in 2013.
Work completed under Task 4 in 2013 included the initial development of the BPT. The BPT
was developed using information compiled under Task 2. This tool will be used to qualitatively
estimate potential passage success of alternate facilities using concepts to be identified and
refined in the feasibility study. Examples of challenging issues that can be addressed with this
tool include the influence of reservoir survival on outmigrant success and the effect of facility
design flow on fish guidance efficiency. The BPT will present the potential passage success of
target life stages and species associated with the alternate passage concepts under consideration.
Additional BPT and concept development work will continue in the next year of study.
4.5. Task 5: Evaluate Feasibility of Conceptual Alternatives.
Implementation of Task 5 was initially and is currently scheduled in the next year of study.
4.6. Task 6: Develop Refined Passage Strategy(ies)
Implementation of Task 6 was initially and is currently scheduled in the next year of study.
4.7. Variances
Variances from the Study Plan in 2013 were limited to a schedule modification for Tasks 3 and
4. Task 3 (i.e., site reconnaissance) was initially scheduled for the second quarter of 2013 but
was not conducted until the third quarter, in order to target Susitna River low flow time period.
Modifications to the schedule occurred in collaboration with the FPTWG.
The Study Plan envisioned completion of Task 4 during 2013. During 2013, AEA work on Task
4 included the initial development of the BPT. In order to allow for further collaboration with
the FPTWG and integration of information from other studies, AEA intends to continue
additional BPT and concept development in the next year of study. This modification to the
schedule will not impact AEA’s ability to meet the objectives of the Study Plan.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6 February 2014 Draft
5. RESULTS
5.1. Fish Passage Technical Working Group
The FPTWG is a subgroup of the Fish and Aquatic TWG and includes representatives from
AEA, NMFS, USFWS, ADF&G and their respective contractors. As part of the February 22,
2013 kick-off meeting, participants were solicited for names of any additional passage experts
they would like to participate on the Passage TWG. As a result, three experts were added to the
FPTWG. A list of FPTWG participants and their roles, as of September 26, 2013, is provided in
Table 5.1-1.
5.2. Feasibility Study Preparation
Preparation for the feasibility study involved the compilation of available biological and physical
information as well as descriptions of Project features. The FPTWG will be updated with the
current status documented through an Information List. The Information List will be treated as a
living document along with updates to the relevant information. This information was initially
distributed to the FPTWG prior to the Background Information Review workshop (Workshop
#1) held on April 9 and 10, 2013. Updates to this information were provided prior to the Site
Reconnaissance meeting held on September 18 and 19, 2013, effectively superseding much of
the initial information. Additional updates are anticipated as the study progresses. The current
lists and available compiled information for biological data and physical, hydrographic, and
engineering data needs are provided in Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively.
An important step in the preparation of the feasibility study is identification of potential target
species. An initial set of seven potential target species was identified based upon their presence
in the Upper Susitna River and a qualitative assessment of three criteria: migratory behavior,
relative abundance, and importance to commercial, sport, or subsistence fisheries. Further
discussion within the FPTWG expanded the list to include consideration of six additional species
not currently known to be present in the Upper Susitna River. In total, the TWG identified 13
target species to potentially consider in the study (Table 5.2-1).
By design, the FPTWG identified a broad set of potential target fish species because of
uncertainty regarding the distribution and abundance of some species. Of the identified target
species, only Chinook salmon , Arctic grayling, burbot, Dolly Varden, longnose sucker ,
humpback whitefish, and round whitefish, are known to be present upstream of Devils Canyon
(Study 9.5).
5.3. Site Visit
Nearly all members of the FPTWG were able to attend the site reconnaissance trip that was held
on September 18, 2013, and a half-day meeting on September 19, 2013 to debrief and prepare for
the brainstorm workshop. A site tour via four helicopters was conducted on September 18, 2013.
The tour left Talkeetna at 10 am and included a flight upriver through the Project Area depicted
on Figure 3-1 to the Oshetna River. The group landed and observed the mouth of the Oshetna
River, observed the screw trap and sampling operations in action, and discussed tributary
collector options. The group then traveled downriver and landed near the mouth of Kosina
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 7 February 2014 Draft
Creek and observed that site. The last stop was at a gravel bar approximately one-half mile
upstream of the dam site. At least two of the helicopters flew up the Oshetna River and Kosina
Creek to the projected full pool location and beyond, to observe conditions for potential tributary
collectors. The group flew back downriver through Devils Canyon, and returned to Talkeetna.
Weather was overcast with some rain and snow in the morning, and cleared to overcast with
broken clouds in the afternoon, so visibility was generally very good.
A brief meeting was held upon landing to debrief and discuss the overall study plan. This
meeting continued on September 19, 2013 to capture comments resulting from the site visit and
to discuss steps leading up to the March 18-20, 2014 brainstorming workshop. Summary tables
with fish passage information were discussed, and FPTWG input received. A handout with an
update of adult Chinook passage through Devils Canyon in 2013 was distributed, and a sample
evaluation and comparison matrix for alternative passage concepts was presented. Finally, an
updated site plan and Project data was distributed to the FPTWG that was classified as Critical
Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) information.
5.4. Concept Development
Additional work under Task 4 is scheduled for the next year of study. Consequently, there are
no Task 4 results to report in the ISR.
5.5. Feasibility Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives
This study component is scheduled for implementation during the next year of study.
Consequently, there are no results to report in the ISR.
5.6. Passage Strategy(ies) Development
This study component is scheduled for implementation during the next year of study.
Consequently, there are no results to report in the ISR.
6. DISCUSSION
Overall, the status of the Study of Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam is ongoing.
Tasks completed in 2013 include:
• Task 1: Establishment of the Fish Passage Technical Workgroup to provide input on the
Feasibility Assessment
• Task 2: Preparation for the Feasibility Study
• Task 3: Site reconnaissance
Although Task 2 has been completed, additional updates to information lists are anticipated as
results from other Project studies become available.
Ongoing tasks include:
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 8 February 2014 Draft
• Task 4: Concept development
Task 4 work in 2013 included the initial development of the BPT. Additional BPT and concept
development will continue in the next year of study.
Tasks to be initiated in the next year of study include:
• Task 5: Feasibility evaluation of conceptual alternatives
• Task 6: Development of refined passage strategy(ies)
As described in RSP Section 9.11, the Fish Passage Feasibility Study will require integration of
results from multiple studies. An overview of these studies and their status relative to meeting
the objectives of the Fish Passage Feasibility Study are provided below.
The Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River (Study 9.5), the Study
of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River (Study 9.6), the
Salmon Escapement Study (Study 9.7), and the Study of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and
Upper Susitna River and Susitna Tributaries (Study 9.12) will provide baseline biological inputs
on migratory timing and behavior as well as distribution of fishes over various life stages in the
vicinity of the proposed dam site. These studies are ongoing. Study variances in 2013 are not
anticipated to affect the successful completion of the Fish Passage Feasibility Study.
The Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community and Risk of Entrainment Study (Study 9.10) will
interrelate by providing biological information on the anticipated reservoir fish assemblage and
entrainment risk. This study is currently scheduled for initiation in the next year of study. This
delay in study initiation is not anticipated to affect the successful completion of the Fish Passage
Feasibility Study.
The Geology and Soils Study (Study 4.5), Water Quality studies (Studies 5.5, 5.6, and 5.7), the
Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study (Study 7.6),and the Geomorphology Study (Study 6.5)
will provide input related to hydraulics, sediment transport, and other physical processes for the
Study of Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam. These studies are ongoing. Study variances
in 2013 are not anticipated to affect the successful completion of the Fish Passage Feasibility
Study.
7. COMPLETING THE STUDY
[As explained in the cover letter to this draft ISR, AEA’s plan for completing this study will be
included in the final ISR filed with FERC on June 3, 2014.]
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 9 February 2014 Draft
8. LITERATURE CITED
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 1984. Resident and juvenile anadromous fish
investigations (May – October, 1983). Part II: The distribution and relative abundance of
juvenile salmon in the Susitna River drainage above the Chulitna River confluence.
Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Report No. 2, Draft. Prepared for Alaska Power
Authority.
ADF&G. 2003a. Fish Survey Nomination Fish Distribution Database, Nomination 04-067,
Waterway 247-10-10200-2880. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage,
Alaska.
ADF&G. 2003b. Fish Survey Nomination Fish Distribution Database, Nomination 04-066,
Waterway 247-10-10200-2810. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage,
Alaska.
ADF&G. 2011. Synopsis of ADF&G’s Upper Susitna Drainage Fish Inventory, August 2011.
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2012. Revised Study Plan, Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project FERC No. 14241. Filed December 2012.
Buckwalter, J.D. 2011. Synopsis of ADF&G's Upper Susitna Drainage Fish Inventory, August
2011. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, Alaska.
27 pp.
Delaney, K., D. Crawford, L. Dugan, S. Hale, K. Kuntz, B. Marshall, J. Mauney, J. Quinn, K.
Roth, P. Suchanek, R. Sundet, and M. Stratton. 1981. Resident Fish Investigation on the
Upper Susitna River. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK. 157 pp.
Harza-Ebasco. 1985. Fish, wildlife, and botanical resources. Exhibit E, Volume 9. Alaska Power
Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2011. Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility
Design. NMFS, Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.
Thompson, F.M., S. Wick, and B. Stratton. 1986. Adult Salmon Investigations: May – October
1985. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies, Anchorage,
Alaska. 173 pp.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 10 February 2014 Draft
9. TABLES
Table 5.1-1. Fish Passage TWG members as of September 26, 2013.
Name Company Role
Betsy McGregor AEA Environmental Manager.
Dana Postlewait R2 Study Lead
MaryLou Keefe R2 Aquatics Lead
Dan Turner R2 Lead R2 Engineer
Tim Sullivan R2 Lead Biologist
Dennis Dorratcague MWH Lead MWH Engineer
Dana Schmidt Golder expert advisor, biologist
Chick Sweeney Alden expert advisor, engineer
Al Giorgi BioAnalysts expert advisor, biologist
Ed Meyer NMFS Agency Representative
Sue Walker NMFS Agency Representative
Stormy Haught ADF&G Agency Representative
Phil Brna USFWS Agency Representative
Jeff Davis ARRI Biologist under contract to Services
Ed Zapel NHC Engineer under contract to Services
Graham Hill NHC Engineer under contract to Services
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 11 February 2014 Draft
Table 5.2-1. List of preliminary target fish species for the Fish Passage Feasibility Study. The list includes additional target species identified during FPTWG discussions.
Species Latin Name
Documented
in Upper
River Basin
Migratory
Potential
Relative
Abundance3
Harvest
Importance
Target
Species
Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha Yes High Low High
Chum Salmon Oncorhynchus keta No Included based on TWG discussion
Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch No Included based on TWG discussion
Sockeye Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka No Included based on TWG discussion
Arctic Grayling Thymallus arcticus Yes Moderate High High
Burbot Lota lota Yes Moderate Low High
Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma Yes Moderate High High
Lamprey, Arctic Thymallus arcticus No Included based on TWG discussion
Longnose Sucker Catostomus
catostomus Yes Moderate Moderate None
Sculpin1 Cottus spp. Yes Low High None
Trout, Lake Salvelinus namaycush Yes Low Low High
Trout, Rainbow
Trout/ Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss No Included based on TWG discussion
Whitefish, Bering
Cisco Coregonus laurettae No Included based on TWG discussion
Whitefish,
Humpback2 Coregonus pidschian Yes Moderate Low Moderate
Whitefish, Round Prosopium
cylindraceum Yes Moderate Moderate Moderate
Notes:
1 Sculpin species were generally not differentiated in the field. In addition to slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus),
species may include others belonging to the Cottus genus.
2 Whitefish species that were not identifiable to species by physical characteristics in the field were called
humpback by default. This group may have included lake (Coregonus clupeaformis) or Alaska (Coregonus
nelsonii) whitefish.
3 Reflects relative abundance in the Upper River Basin based on best available information.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 12 February 2014 Draft
10. FIGURES
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 13 February 2014 Draft
Figure 3-1. Study area for Fish Passage Feasibility, from the confluence with Portage Creek (PRM 152.3) upstream to the Oshetna River (PRM 235.1)
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 February 2014 Draft
APPENDIX A: FISH PASSAGE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP
CONSULTATION RECORD
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM 9.11
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A – Page 1 February 2014 Draft
Table A1. Summary of consultation for the Study of Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam (RSP Section 9.11).
Date
Agency/Organization
Consulted Summary of Contact
2/22/2013 Fish Passage TWG Kickoff Meeting1
2/26/2013 ADF&G MaryLouise Keefe (R2) contacted Stormy Haught (ADF&G)
by telephone about ADF&G attendance at FPTWG meetings
3/13/2013 NMFS Dana Postlewait (R2) contacted Ed Meyer (NMFS) by
telephone about a preliminary list of experts to consider for
fish passage brainstorm session
3/20/2013 Fish Passage TWG Update Web Teleconference1
4/9/2013 Fish Passage TWG Workshop #11
5/21/2013 Fish Passage TWG Update Web Teleconference1
6/24/2013 Fish and Aquatic
TWG
Quarterly Meeting – Updated FATWG with the progress of
Study 9.11
7/9/2013 Fish Passage TWG Update Web Teleconference1
9/17/2013
to
9/19/2013
Fish Passage TWG Site Visit
1. Meeting notes attached as part of appendix.
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1
Agenda and Schedule
Fish Passage
Technical Workgroup Meeting
February 22, 2013
LOCATION: MWH office Conference Room
806 SW Broadway, Suite 200
Portland, OR
TIME: 9:00 am – 2:00 pm AKST (10:00 am – 3:00 pm PST)
SUBJECT: Kick-off meeting to review study plan, set protocols, refine information needs, and review
meeting schedules
ATENDEES: Betsy McGregor AEA, Wayne Dyok AEA, MaryLouise Keefe R2, Dana Postlewait R2, Dan
Turner R2, Dennis Dorratcague MWH, Kirby Gilbert MWH, Steve Padula McMillen, Leslie
Jensen ARRI, Matt Love Van Ness Feldman, Marie Steele OPMP, Ed Meyer NMFS, Sue
Walker NMFS, Jeff Davis ARRI, Graham Hill NHC, , Ed Zapel NHC, Bryan Carey AEA
ON PHONE: Brian Bjorkquist State of Alaska, Stormy Haught ADF&G, Kathryn Toews McMillen, Greg
Auble USGS
The purpose of today’s meeting is to kick off the efforts of the fish passage TWG. The main goal is to achieve
agreement on the work approach and to address the desired content of acceptable work products. Although
presentations will be displayed, the intended approach for today’s meeting is interactive with input desired from
all attendees.
MaryLouise Keefe discussed the study goals of the Fish Passage Study as explained in the RSP Section 9.11.1.
The primary goal is to develop a passage strategy to support the ILP. The secondary goal is to understand, from
an engineering perspective, the feasibility of fish passage. Sue Walker asked for the original stated purpose of
the proposed Susitna-Watana Project. Wayne Dyok noted that this is explained in the PAD and includes meeting
Alaska’s state energy demands, to achieve 50% renewable energy goal by 2025, and fulfilling AEA’s obligations
under Senate Bill 42. Sue Walker asked that the Project purpose be included in the Fish Passage Study. Wayne
Dyok agreed to make these changes.
Ed Meyer asked about the protocol for meeting notes at the Fish Passage meetings. Steve Padula said that
notes will be posted according to the Project’s communication protocol, with a goal of within 2 weeks after the
meeting.
The following engineers introduced themselves and provided a brief overview of their relative experience:
Dennis Dorratcague (MWH) was involved in his first fish passage project in 1979. Most of his experience is
in the Pacific Northwest and California.
Appendix A - Page 2
DRAFT MEETING NOTES FEBRUARY 22, 2013 FISH PASSAGE TWG
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2
Dana Postlewait (R2) was involved in his first fish passage project in 1991. He has experience in the Pacific
Northwest, Idaho, California, and Canada.
Dan Turner (R2) is a civil engineer with about 20 years of fish passage experience, including many projects
involved with FERC licensing.
Ed Meyer (NMFS) is a civil engineer with specialization in hydrology. He has international experience and
primarily works on relatively large hydro projects.
Ed Zaple (NHC) worked on his first fish passage project in 1987. He has experience in California, the Pacific
Northwest, the mid-West, and Canada.
Graham Hill (NHC) has much experience in natural channel bypasses to about 80-90 feet in height.
Sue Walker asked how much of Dennis Dorratcague, Dana Postlewait and Dan Turner’s experience is with new
dams. Most, if not all, of their major work has been related to retrofitting to existing dam structures.
Sue Walker informed the attendees that NMFS had filed a study dispute with FERC on three studies, including
fish passage, the previous day. She warned that changes in the fish passage study plan may be requested. Steve
Padula acknowledged this and said any required changes would be addressed when necessary, but for now the
TWG process must follow the current Revised Study Plan (RSP).
To ensure that everyone had a complete understanding of the study plan, Dana Postlewait reviewed the Fish
Passage RSP study goals and tasks (available under the study plan tab on the Project website
http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/study-plan/). The intended work product of the TWG’s efforts is
information on passage alternatives that can be utilized when decisions are being made regarding the feasibility
of fish passage. The process throughout the study will be documented so decisions and how they are made will
be recorded.
Clarification was made regarding the third study goal in RSP Section 9.11.1. It was clarified that “retrofit”
includes a fish passage structure that is either geographically or temporally independent of the dam design. A
retrofitted passage facility may be constructed some distance upstream or downstream from the dam or later in
the future after the construction of the dam, and thus is independent of the dam design process. Jeff Davis
questioned the importance of the third goal in this study. MaryLouise Keefe explained that the three specified
goals were created as result of a conversation with licensing participants in September 2012. Dennis
Dorratcague explained that the retrofit option avoids constraints with having the only option of fish passage
being part of the dam structure. The language in the study report will be elaborated on to further define the full
intent of “retrofit”. Sue Walker added that NMFS may reserve the request to require fish passage at a later
date.
The Fish Passage TWG is considered a subgroup of the Fish and Aquatic TWG. For efficiency and practicality, the
TWG will consist only of fish passage experts. They will develop information and present it to the larger
workgroup. Sue Walker requested that meeting notifications include USFWS representatives so that the
opportunity for their involvement is assured. The TWG Workshop #2 will be a “brainstorming session”. This
may include experts outside of the current participants. The attendees are asked to compile a list of experts
that they would like to involve in the brainstorming session. The logistics of the brainstorming session are
Appendix A - Page 3
DRAFT MEETING NOTES FEBRUARY 22, 2013 FISH PASSAGE TWG
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3
currently uncertain because many people may be in Seattle/Portland and many may be in Alaska. The idea of
using videoconferencing was mentioned, as well as holding multiple brainstorming sessions.
Dana Postlewait explained that fish passage structures are unique compared with other engineering structures.
There are so many driving factors related to biology that it is not as simple as “does it work” or “does it not”
(such as a bridge). The involvement of experienced experts is necessary to create an acceptable work product.
Dana Postlewait mentioned that 6-8 weeks between each workshop would be ideal. If they were scheduled too
close together there would not be enough data finalized to present at each meeting. He said that materials will
be posted 2 weeks before each meeting, and during those 2 weeks, more revisions may be made. A tentative
schedule (Attachment A) was provided and confirmation of the dates was discussed. Steve Padula said that the
closer dates needed to be finalized. The later dates can remain tentative and at later meetings they can be
confirmed. Sue Walker noted that the proposed March 20 date is 2 days after comments are due to FERC on the
14 outstanding study plans, and commenters may not be prepared for the fish passage meeting.
Marie Steele suggested using a Gantt chart and creating a standing agenda item to update the chart at every
meeting.
Other possible participants to include in the fish passage TWG were discussed. Sue Walker will contact EPA to
confirm if it would like a representative present. Either Stormy Haught or Joe Klein will likely represent ADF&G.
Sue Walker asked for clarification on FERC’s involvement in the Fish Passage TWG efforts. Wayne Dyok agreed
to follow up with FERC.
One component of Task 2 of the RSP is a spreadsheet based biological performance tool. This tool will be used
to identify pros and cons related to fish passage alternatives, allowing the team to narrow down the list of
alternatives. It will also be used to identify data gaps. Many attendees, including Ed Meyer, have used the
biological performance tool on other projects. An example of this tool will be distributed before the brainstorm
session. Per Jeff Davis’ request, an example from other projects will be provided to allow for a better
understanding of what to expect. MaryLouise Keefe explained that this tool can be created with data pulled
from other projects. It identifies issues associated with alternatives from a biological perspective. Ed Meyers
added that the spreadsheet can also be used to compare / rank one alternative to another qualitatively. The
data compilation, also a part of Task 2 will be completed before site reconnaissance (TWG #4) so the
participants can use the time in the field efficiently with an understanding of hydrological, ecological, and
biological implications of various alternatives.
Dana explained that he will condense information for the workshops to avoid overloading attendees with details
and risk running out of time to make decisions. Marie Steele would like all of the 1980s data to be provided to
the TWG in order to allow members to confirm AEA’s approach based on 1980s data. MaryLouise Keefe said
that the synthesis of 1980s fish data will be posted by March 1, 2013. Jeff Davis mentioned that he has
performed a synthesis as well and asks that any assumptions and uncertainties related to the use of 1980s data
be identified. MaryLouise Keefe said that when historic data are presented, uncertainties should be given so
that everyone understands the limitations. Dennis added that these limitations are essential to understand
when evaluating data used in the biological performance tool.
Appendix A - Page 4
DRAFT MEETING NOTES FEBRUARY 22, 2013 FISH PASSAGE TWG
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4
Sue Walker asked how biological data gaps will be addressed. Dennis mentioned that there are many other
studies on the biological aspects of the area. The Fish Passage Study will identify needs and if there are gaps
identified that will affect the fish passage feasibility analysis, more data will be collected.
A check-in TWG meeting will occur on March 20, 2013 as a 1-hour long teleconference. The purpose of this
meeting is to have everyone understand the status of today’s action items and for the TWG members to present
any comments or questions. It was agreed that the fish passage team will digest any provided materials prior to
the meeting.
MaryLouise Keefe presented a data request table, explaining the engineering and biological data needs, and said
that it will be updated and distributed at least 2 weeks before Workshop #1 in April. The licensing participants
can present their edits at the meeting.
Dennis discussed Task 3 of the RSP (site reconnaissance), which is currently scheduled to take place on June 19,
2013. Wayne Dyok asked if the videography provides enough detail and questioned the need for a site visit.
The group felt that it would be useful because NHC and others have not been to the dam site. This will be a 2-
day trip, 1 day on a helicopter tour and 1 day for debriefing. It was noted that restrictions are in place through
August 15 for nesting eagles and other raptors and vegetation clearing is not allowed through July 15. Dennis
mentioned that the participants need information and understanding of Task 2 and all interim consultation so
they can apply this information in the field. Visiting the site and envisioning the application of alternatives are
very helpful in supporting later decisions. Sue Walker mentioned the extensive logistics that need to be
arranged before a site visit, such as refueling and landing locations. Wayne Dyok said that a logistics coordinator
has been hired and will be starting with AEA soon to coordinate these efforts. The date for the site visit was
pushed back into July 2013 in anticipation of better conditions along the river.
Dana explained Task 4 as the development of passage concepts. This consists of a 2-3 day interactive workshop
beginning with a day of systematically going through ideas to create a list for further development. The second
day would consist of a brainstorming session. Ed Meyer said that if outside resources are included in the
brainstorming, half of the first day would be used getting everyone up-to-date with the study/Project status so
they can suggest approaches. MaryLouise Keefe asked about the advantage of having a large meeting vs. a
small meeting. Ed explained that larger groups provide more perspectives and experience. Sue Walker liked the
idea of including outside resources and having a larger brainstorming session. Dan said that logistics need to be
considered immediately if outside resources are being invited. The attendees need to be identified and location
of the meeting needs to be confirmed. Because any new experts will not be fully informed about the Project,
Wayne Dyok suggested having them attend (by phone if needed) at the informational workshop. AEA’s Fish
Passage Consultants will compile a list of prospective attendees and distribute it for the group’s review. AEA will
still need to determine if additional experts will be brought into the process.
Task 5 includes creating an evaluation matrix to establish and weight criteria. This is a result of the
brainstorming session (Task 4). The matrix is a comparison tool used in evaluating options. Dennis presented an
example of this matrix. Weights are assigned to each criterion as a group effort. Once alternatives are
established based on these criteria, the participants apply “grades” and these are compared. Dana mentioned
that there are generally several cycles of refining the matrix as more information becomes available and is
discussed. Sue Walker asked if a narrative is provided to define the grades as well as to explain the
disagreements and agreements. Dana confirmed that such a narrative is provided.
Appendix A - Page 5
DRAFT MEETING NOTES FEBRUARY 22, 2013 FISH PASSAGE TWG
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5
Dana presented a sample report and explained that all consultation is applied to and included in the report. He
presented sample drawings of fish passage structures from multiple perspectives to express the level of detail to
anticipate in the fish passage final work product. Alternatives are narrowed down while considering many
aspects such as feasibility, risks, cost, and stability.
The chart listing the data needs for this fish passage study was discussed (Attachment B). MaryLouise Keefe
explained that other resources will be engaged to complete the table and it will be distributed for comment.
She continued by explaining each item and asking for feedback. Once the data needs are confirmed, AEA and its
contractors will collect all data available and identify the data gaps. These gaps will influence plans for 2013 and
2014 studies.
Jeff Davis requested that, rather than providing a list of target migratory species at the dam site, AEA provide a
list of all species and life stages in the Susitna River and indicate which ones were considered not to pass
through the dam site (not part of the fish passage study) and rationale for not including them. MaryLouise
Keefe agreed to provide this list. Sue Walker requested that all salmon species, except pink, be added to the
target species list.
MaryLouise Keefe added that, for the species chosen, a periodicity chart will be provided. This chart will be
based on life stage information, behavioral information, migratory/habitat information, abundance and
distribution information both upstream and downstream of the dam site, known spawning and rearing habitat,
and ecological conditions. Jeff Davis requested that discrepancies be provided when an inference is being made.
MaryLouise Keefe agreed to do so.
Sue Walker asked how the predatory invasive species will be evaluated. Betsy McGregor explained that in
addition to the stream surveys, ponds and lakes to be inundated will be sampled to determine fish species, such
as lake trout, that need to be evaluated. Ed Zapel said we should be aware of changes in the trophic structure
that may occur due to the likelihood of lake trout moving into the reservoir and decreased turbidity in the
reservoir. Sue Walker mentioned the loss of salmon spawning habitat in the reservoir due to inundation. She
noted the possibility of salmon moving upstream of the reservoir if spawning habitat is available. Sue Walker
mentioned a FRED study in the 80s that may have useful habitat measures of the area.
Jeff Davis asked if effects on migration will be studied, such as ice on the reservoir and up tributaries.
MaryLouise Keefe said that this might be an additional data need and inquired where these data could be
collected. She said that today’s focus is to see what data need to be collected. A placeholder was added for this
reservoir ice topic. How to obtain such data will be discussed later. Steve Padula said that the data needs should
be established first. Then, at the first workshop in April, the list will be narrowed to items relevant to the study
and items identified for which data cannot be collected. MaryLouise Keefe requested that additional items be
provided ASAP. If additional items are provided via email, Betsy McGregor, Wayne Dyok and Sue Walker need
to be CCed. Jeff Davis requested that information on the distribution of spawning and rearing habitats after
inundation be added to the list. Clarification will be added to the “floating debris” item.
PROTOCOL
Protocols, as discussed in the PAD, will be applied to fish passage, unless the participants agree on fish-passage-
specific protocol.
Appendix A - Page 6
DRAFT MEETING NOTES FEBRUARY 22, 2013 FISH PASSAGE TWG
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6
A meeting notice will be posted at http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org 30 days prior to the meeting date.
MaryLouise Keefe explained that the goal is to provide meeting dates as soon as possible to allow for
accommodations to be made. Sue Walker added that the lack of State-approved overtime should be
considered.
Meeting materials will be posted 2 weeks prior to the meeting date.
Draft meeting notes will be posted 2 weeks after the meeting has taken place. They are considered “draft” for 2
weeks and participants may provide edits within that time. A standing agenda item will be included for each fish
passage meeting to discuss any concerns with the notes from the previous meeting. Sue Walker voiced concern
about the level of detail in the meeting notes. Attendees agreed that future meeting notes should include
decisions made, ”parking lot” items, and action items. Wayne Dyok mentioned that if someone wants to ensure
that something is included in the notes, they should request that the item be captured in the notes.
Sue Walker requested that a neutral facilitator be present for each meeting. Wayne Dyok asked if there were
any concerns about having Steve Padula as the facilitator. There were no objections, although it was noted that
a request could be made in the future to change the facilitator. Throughout the meetings, the facilitator will
write all action items, “parking lot” items, and decisions on an easel to ensure a full understanding of these
items.
MaryLouise Keefe asked where the future fish passage meetings will be held. Betsy McGregor mentioned that
AEA prefers that as many meetings as possible be held in Alaska. Wayne Dyok and Betsy McGregor will speak
with Sara Fisher-Goad regarding acceptable locations for the fish passage workshops and TWG meetings.
Seattle or Oregon would be preferred by most attendees because they are located in those areas. It was
mentioned that conference centers located at the airports may be a possibility. Betsy McGregor also proposed
rotating the meeting location.
Confirmed representatives to be part of the fish passage technical team include: Ed Meyer (NMFS), Graham Hill
(NHC), Ed Zapel (NHC), Jeff Davis (ARRI), Dana Postlewait (R2), Dan Turner (R2), Dennis Dorratcague (MWH), Tim
Sullivan (R2), MaryLouise Keefe (R2), Betsy McGregor (AEA), and Bryan Carey (AEA). Attendees need to be
confirmed. The outstanding confirmations include whether Stormy Haught or Joe Klein will represent ADF&G
(Stormy Haught will find out), and if there will be a USFWS staff representative (Sue Walker will find out). Will
EPA contribute a staff representative (Sue Walker will find out)?
Betsy McGregor requested that all fish passage email communications between contractor groups CC her. Ed
Meyer and Sue Walker should be CCed as well.
MaryLouise Keefe asked if anyone has a conflict with the workshop scheduled on April 9 and 10. Steve Padula
will be unable to attend as facilitator for this session. MaryLouise Keefe will confirm with Michael Barclay so he
can present video taken on the Upper River. The ice study had also taken video in 2012. This will be available
on AEA’s website before the April 9 and 10 meeting. A 10:00 a.m. time was agreed upon for the March 20
meeting. Wednesdays at 10:00 a.m. was established as the default day and time for all fish passage meetings.
Also, at all meetings, WebEx will be available.
The May 22 TWG meeting (#3) was rescheduled to take place on May 21 starting at 10:00 a.m.
Appendix A - Page 7
DRAFT MEETING NOTES FEBRUARY 22, 2013 FISH PASSAGE TWG
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 7
The June 19 meeting was rescheduled to a date during the week of July 8 (TBD).
The July 23 Workshop (#2) meeting was rescheduled for 2 days during the week of August 19. This is the
brainstorming session with possible additional attendees from outside organizations. Once their availability is
known, a date will be chosen.
MaryLouise Keefe will provide a Gantt chart of meeting dates at the April meeting, and attendees can provide
feedback.
Marie Steele mentioned that the multiple layers on DNR’s GIS files are not available. Betsy McGregor went
online to view the available data. She mentioned that only final data are presented so people can expect to see
data after QA/QC review has taken place. Betsy McGregor added that DNR staff members are in transition and
this may be cause for delay in data posting.
Appendix A - Page 8
DRAFT MEETING NOTES FEBRUARY 22, 2013 FISH PASSAGE TWG
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 8
Action Item Date Responsibility
Identify Strategy Statement (e.g., Senate Bill; PAD) 3/8/13 AEA
Clarify meaning of “retrofit” with space/time components 3/8/13 R2
Propose meeting and workshop locations 3/8/13 AEA
Data needs table: Input from TWG on list of items 3/8/13 All participants
Add changes in spawning and rearing habitat in proposed
inundation zone to data needs table
3/8/13 R2
Include discrepancies in data to information table 3/8/13 R2
Produce/distribute communications protocol from PAD (cc:
Betsy, Ed, Sue)
3/8/13 McMillen
Standing agenda item for agendas – review and approve
previous meeting notes and future meeting schedule
NA NA
Meeting protocol – summarize action items, decisions, parking
lot items
NA NA
Follow-up with others re: future participation in TWG; FERC
(AEA), EPA (Sue W.), NGOs (AEA), ADF&G (AEA), FWS (Sue W.),
ADNR (Marie S.), Jan Konigsberg (AEA)
3/20/13 AEA, Sue Walker, Marie
Steele
Identify other fish passage at high head dam experts 3/20/13 MWH, R2, Ed Meyer
Issue updated meeting and workshop calendar (Gantt chart) 3/20/13 R2
Provide a list of all Susitna River species and life stages. Provide
rationale of species not considered to travel to dam site
XXX R2
Distribute updated table and data synthesis to TWG 3/26/13 R2
Issue sample biological tool spreadsheet and description of tool 3/26/13 R2
Presentation of videography at first workshop 4/9/13 AEA
Appendix A - Page 9
ATTACHMENT A
RSP 9.11 – Fish Passage Meeting and Workshop Summary
(Prepared for TWG Meeting #1 held on 2/22/2013)
2013-02-22TWG_notes_UPDATED.docx Page 1 of 4
February 22, 2013 – Fish Passage TWG Mtg #1 (Portland, OR)
Purpose:
Kick-off meeting to review study plan, set protocols, refine information needs, and
review meeting schedules.
Agenda Items:
Facilitate TWG member introductions and general kick-off
Review goals for feasibility assessment
Review RSP plan, deliverables, and schedule
Provide more detail and refine feasibility process to be used
Review and confirm TWG protocols
Review and Confirm WORKSHOP and Meeting schedule
Define additional, and obtain input on information needs
Define action items
March 20, 2013 – Fish Passage TWG Meeting #2 (Web call)
This is a placeholder for now, meeting only if needed
Purpose:
Regularly scheduled interim check-in meeting for TWG, Tentative at this point in time to
address any issues that may arise following Mtg #1.
Tentative Agenda Items:
Review action items from Meeting #1.
Discuss general progress
Identify any additional data needs
Review agenda for WORKSHOP #1
April 9-10, 2013 – Fish Passage TWG 2-DAY Workshop #1 – Review
Background Information (Location TBD, Anchorage tentative)
Purpose:
Review background project information
Agenda Items:
Review of dam design and project operational concepts
Review hydrologic conditions
Appendix A - Page 10
2013-02-22TWG_notes_UPDATED.docx Page 2 of 4
Review of physical conditions and site specific information
Review of existing biological information and goals
May 22, 2013 – Fish Passage TWG Meeting #3 – Regular Check-in (web call)
Purpose:
Regularly scheduled interim check-in meeting for TWG
Agenda Items:
Review action items from WORKSHOP #1.
Review information needs.
Discuss preparation for Site Reconnaissance planned for Meeting #4
Discuss upcoming Brainstorming WORKSHOP #2
June 19, 2013 – Fish Passage TWG Meeting #4 – Site Reconnaissance
(AEA Offices and Site Tour)
Purpose:
TWG to tour site
Agenda Items:
Logistics and safety protocols
Site tour
Debrief
Prepare for upcoming Brainstorming WORKSHOP #2
July 23 – 24, 2013 (2 days) – Fish Passage TWG WORKSHOP #2 –
Brainstorm Alternatives, Task 4 (location TBD)
Purpose:
Conceptual Alternatives Brainstorming
Agenda Items:
Review background information, address any questions
Review evaluation criteria
Review evaluation process
Brainstorm concepts, and record ideas
Review Biological Performance Tool
Assign action items for concept development
Appendix A - Page 11
2013-02-22TWG_notes_UPDATED.docx Page 3 of 4
September 19, 2013 – Fish Passage TWG Meetings #5
Purpose:
Regular check-in
Agenda Items:
Review Workshop #2 Action Items
Discuss general progress
Identify any additional data needs
November 15, 2013 – Fish Passage TWG Meetings #6
Purpose:
Regular check-in
Agenda Items:
Review Action Items from last call
Discuss general progress
Identify any additional data needs
Discuss agenda and prepare for upcoming WORKSHOP #3
January 14-15, 2014 – Fish Passage TWG WORKSHOP #3 – Critique and
Refine Alternatives, Task 4 (location TBD)
Purpose:
Critique and refinement of concepts
Package concepts into fish passage alternatives
Agenda Items:
Review updated alternatives.
Review Biological performance tool.
Prepare for next steps
March 19, 2014 – Fish Passage TWG Meetings #7
Purpose:
Regular check-in
Agenda Items:
Review Action Items from last meeting
Review draft report
Review alternatives and Pugh Matrix
Discuss next steps
Appendix A - Page 12
2013-02-22TWG_notes_UPDATED.docx Page 4 of 4
May 15, 2014 – Fish Passage TWG Meetings #8
Purpose:
Regular check-in
Agenda Items:
Review Action Items from last call
Discuss general progress
Discuss agenda and prepare for upcoming WORKSHOP #3
July 11, 2014 – Fish Passage TWG WORKSHOP #4 – Final Alternatives
Selection, Task 5 (location TBD)
Purpose:
Alternatives selection for final refinement.
Agenda Items:
Review updated alternatives
Review evaluation matrix
Review biological performance tool results
Select final list of alternatives
Critique alternatives for final refinement and cost estimating assumptions
Meetings #9, #10 and #11 (confirm schedule and location)
Purpose and Agenda items TBD
Tentative dates are:
o September 8, 2014
o November 4, 2014
o December 31, 2014
April 13, 2015 – Fish Passage TWG Meetings #12
Purpose:
Review final report
Agenda Items:
TBD
Appendix A - Page 13
ATTACHMENT B
2013-02-22TWG_notes_UPDATED.docx Page 1 of 4
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
Fish Passage Study
Information Needs
Rev #1: March 7, 2013
In meetings on September 24 and 25, 2012, Fisheries agencies and AEA agreed to an approach to the fish passage study and
the general outline of data required for the study. After this meeting a list of information needed for the fish passage study was
developed, reviewed by NMFS and issued to AEA on October 3, 2012. The Revised Study Plan (RSP) for fish passage was
issued by AEA in December, 2012 as “RSP 9.11 Study of Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam”. This study plan listed
data requirements from this table.
On February 22, 2013 the kickoff meeting for the fish passage study was held in Portland. In this meeting a schedule of
milestones and meetings were set for the first six months of the study. The next meeting will be Workshop No. 1 on April 9
and 10, 2013, which is intended to provide background information on the project for the fish passage study team. The first
draft of information to be presented at this meeting is to be sent to the participants two weeks before the meeting, on March 26.
Given the amount of information necessary for this study, we plan on ongoing development and updates to this information as
the study progresses, with the goal of providing a thorough coverage of all subject matters prior to the Site Tour scheduled as
Meeting #4 during the week of July 8.
The list of information in the tables below is based on the previous list of data needs noted above, the NMFS letter dated
March 2012 commenting on Scoping Document 1, the material listed in RSP 9.11, and input from the fish passage study
consulting team. Additional information and guidance will be obtained from NMFS, Northwest Region, “Anadromous
Salmonid Passage Facility Design”, July 2011 and other accepted fish passage design books and papers.
Please provide the data and information listed in the table below to Dennis Dorratcague by March 26. In the “Item” column is
a list of data, needed in order to develop fish passage design concepts. Please attach the information and give it an Appendix
number. The “Data” column will contain the data or the appendix reference where the data can be found. Much of the
requested information is still being developed or augmented. We are asking that the latest information be supplied and that you
use the “Comments” column to describe its limitations and whether additional information will be developed in the next two
Appendix A - Page 14
2013-02-22TWG_notes_UPDATED.docx Page 2 of 4
years. This table and the appendices will form the information packet used by the fish passage Technical Work Group (TWG)
to supplement the Site Reconnaissance trip, and in the brainstorming session and development of fish passage alternatives.
Table 1 – Biological Data Needs
No. Item Data Comments
B1 Target fish species for passage
B2 List of other species in the system
that may be accessible to any
passage facilities
B3 Life stage specific periodicity,
B4 Migratory characteristics - routes,
seasonal timing & duration by
species & life stages
B5 Estimated numbers & sizes of fish
for upstream and downstream
migrants
B6 Life stage specific parameters – size,
migratory behavior, swimming
behavior & speed, other physical
passage constraints
B7 Fish relative abundance upstream
and downstream of project including
tributaries
B8 Locations of spawning and rearing
habitats
B9 Predators – species, abundance,
location
B10 Existing ecological conditions –
invasive species, light, temperature,
flows
Appendix A - Page 15
2013-02-22TWG_notes_UPDATED.docx Page 3 of 4
Table 2. Physical, Hydrologic and Engineering Information
No. Item Data Comments
P1 Water quality & water temperature
under existing conditions, main stem
&B tributaries
P2 Water quality & water temperature
above & below proposed dam
P3 Tailwater Rating curves at dam and
expected trap location
Forebay rating information is in Item No P5
below
P4 Flow duration by month, through
turbines, spillways, other outlets
From operations modeling
P5 Reservoir elevation duration curves
by month
From operations modeling
P6 Other project operations data (rule
curve, expected operating
restrictions)
P7 Ice cover on river and tributaries in
project area before project
P8 Ice cover on reservoir and in river
below dam
P9 Water temperatures during upstream
migration period
P10 Water temperatures during
downstream migration period
P11 Air temperature information by
month (max, min, average)
P12 Sediment information (transport
rates, sediment gradation, sediment
sources & their location)
Appendix A - Page 16
2013-02-22TWG_notes_UPDATED.docx Page 4 of 4
Table 2. Physical, Hydrologic and Engineering Information
No. Item Data Comments
P13 River morphology trends after
project operation
P14 Topographic mapping of the project
site and along river downstream
Fish passage will be sketched on these sheets
P15 Current dam layout drawings, plans,
elevations, and cross sections
(include details of outlet works and
spillways)
Fish passage will be sketched on these sheets.
Prefer simplified, scale drawings with a plan,
section, and elevation suitable for brainstorm
sketching in 11x17 format. Any 3D drawings
showing general arrangement would also be
helpful.
P16 Makeup of project components –
turbines (number & type), outlet
valves & gates
P17 Projected operation of project
turbines, gates, & valves
P18 Site access or restrictions to access
for operation and maintenance.
Include entire project area at dam,
along reservoir, and into tributaries
(i.e., existing or planned access
roads)
P19 Electrical power availability
P20 Amounts and types of debris
expected in the reservoir
P21 Amounts and types of debris
expected below the dam
P22 Location downstream of any barrier
and trap & haul locations
P23 Other data which you feel are
important to fish passage
Appendix A - Page 17
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1
Meeting Notes
Fish and Aquatics
Fish Passage Technical Workgroup Meeting #2 – Regular Update
3/20/2013
LOCATION: Teleconference
TIME: 10:00 am – 11:30 am (AKST)
SUBJECT: Fish Passage Technical Workgroup – Regular Update Teleconference
Goal: Opportunity for the Fish Passage Technical Workgroup to coordinate on any items prior to the
next meeting
ON PHONE: Fish Passage TWG Attendees: MaryLouise Keefe R2, Dana Postlewait R2, Dan Turner R2, Ed
Meyer NMFS, Dennis Dorratcague MWH, Catherine Berg USFWS, Stormy Haught ADF&G, Ed
Zapel NHC, Graham Hill NHC, Jeff Davis ARRI, Betsy McGregor AEA, Bryan Carey AEA.
Other Attendees: Wayne Dyok AEA, Steve Padula McMillen, Kathryn Peltier McMillen, Justin
Crowther AEA, Chuck Sensiba VNF, Leslie Jensen ARRI, Becky Long CSDA.
Materials and the agenda for today’s meeting can be found at the Susitna Watana Hydro website
(http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org). The purpose of these meeting notes is to capture any significant information
not provided in the meeting materials. Following the text are tables capturing any active action items including
unfinished items from previous meetings, decisions made, and topics for future discussion (“parking lot items”).
After introductions, Steve Padula began the meeting by presenting the agenda and asking attendees if any
modifications are necessary. None were requested.
Steve Padula explained that the 2/22/13 meeting notes had been posted days prior to today. Because of the limited
review time, he proposed that attendees have another week to suggest edits. The protocol for providing meeting
notes for review and edits by the Fish Passage TWG members in attendance was agreed as follows: Meeting notes
will be distributed to Fish Passage TWG members in attendance for review within two weeks of the meeting by the
note taker as a MSword file. Recipients will edit the review draft in track changes and send the file “reply all” to the
original email. The note taker will compile all redlines into a single document and it will be posted to the Project
website within two weeks from the original review draft being distributed.
Meeting notes will include a summary of action items, decisions made during the meeting, and parking lot items.
Tracking of action items was discussed. It was agreed that a running action item list would be maintained. A unique
ID will be attributed to each action item, consisting of the date of the meeting and a sequential number; columns will
be added to indicate the distribution method of the action and the status of the action item. An archive list will be
created and populated with action items as they are completed.
Appendix A - Page 18
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MARCH 20, 2013 FISH PASSAGE WORKGROUP #2
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2
Steve Padula presented the list of 2/22/13 meeting action items and decisions. While mentioning each item, the
responsible party updated the group on that item’s status. The items below are those which initiated further
discussion.
02.22-01 Strategy Statement update
Wayne Dyok is awaiting Brian Bjorkquist’s approval of the modified strategy statement. Wayne Dyok explained that
fish passage is not specified in senate bill 42, but he has included language in the modified fish passage strategy
statement to include AEA’s fish passage responsibilities. Wayne Dyok expects this item to be completed by 3/31/13
and he agreed to distribute it to the fish passage group. The statement will be included in the Final Study Plan and
the Initial Study Report (ISR).
02.22-02 Further define “retrofit”
The meaning of “retrofit” with respect to fish passage structures will be further defined in the Final Study Plan and
ISR.
02.22-03 Meeting locations
Fish Passage TWG meetings will occur outside of Alaska (i.e. Washington or Portland, Oregon) if it is proven to be
most cost efficient option for AEA. The next fish passage meeting (April 9th and 10th) will be located in Bellevue, WA
at MWH’s office, as indicated on today’s meeting agenda. The location of future meetings will be determined based
on cost and available facilities. WebEx will be provided for every meeting to accommodate participation by those
who are unable to travel.
02.22-04 Data Needs Table additions
The Data Needs table includes suggestions from the 2/22/13 meeting. Additional comments to the table from the
participants were due 3/8/13; no comments were provided. While additional comments can be received, these will
not be flushed out in further detail in the 4/9-10/13 meeting materials to be distributed 3/26/13, as there is not
sufficient time. Jeff Davis asked that reservoir effects on migration timing be included in the Data Needs table. Jeff
Davis and Ed Zapel requested that reservoir effects on trophic cascade with respect to predatory lake trout be
included in the table; Jeff Davis will provide detail clarifying this request to MaryLouise Keefe by 3/25/13.
MaryLouise Keefe referenced the entrainment study and the predators item already included in the Data Needs
table. Ed Zapel requested the citations for literature being reviewed for the biological needs be listed.
02.22-07 Meeting protocol
On 3/8/2013 Kathryn Peltier distributed an email summarizing the meeting protocol from the Preliminary Application
Document (PAD). Further detail will be added and distributed to the group to clarify fish passage-specific protocols,
as determined at this meeting (see above). Catherine Berg requested that she, ARRI (Jeff Davis) and NHC (Ed Zapel
and Graham Hill) be included in the fish passage email list.
02.22-08 Follow-up with potential Fish Passage TWG members
Catherine Berg will follow-up with EPA and Wayne Dyok will contact FERC and Jan Konigsberg to determine their
interest in participating in the Fish Passage TWG. Stormy Haught confirmed that he will represent ADF&G.
Appendix A - Page 19
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MARCH 20, 2013 FISH PASSAGE WORKGROUP #2
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3
02.22-09 High head dam expertise
Dana Postlewait, Dan Turner, Dennis Dorratcague, and MaryLouise Keefe had created a list of potential experts to
participate in the first two fish passage workshops. The list was narrowed from 8 individuals to two; Dana Schmidt
(biologist) and Chick Sweeney (engineer). Ed Meyer was expecting more than 2 individuals to supplement the
brainstorming sessions, but he doesn’t want to duplicate expertise/experience. MaryLouise Keefe will email Ed
Meyer the resume of Dana Schmidt (Ed Meyer is familiar with Chick Sweeney’s credentials). Ed Meyer will review
Dana Schmidt’s resume. Participation in the brainstorming session by additional high head dam experts will be
determined by AEA Friday, 3/22/13. Wayne Dyok indicated that it would be possible to add experts if it was
warranted following the April 9 and 10, 2013 meetings.
02.22-10 Schedule and Gantt chart
An updated schedule and Gantt chart were provided (available on the website) to assist in understanding the scope
and upcoming events. The Gantt chart currently mimics the schedule provided in the Fish Passage RSP. As dates are
finalized, updates will be provided.
02.22-11 List of Susitna River species and rationale when not a target species
Rationale for not including some Susitna River fish species as target species for fish passage will be provided in the
Biological Data Needs table.
02.22-13 Biological Tool
Jeff Davis asked for clarification of what would be provided in the March 26th meeting materials pertaining to the
biological spreadsheet tool. He asked if the spreadsheet with coefficients would be provided. R2 clarified that an
example from a past project would be provided not the spreadsheet model. That the model would be built after the
workshop. MaryLouise Keefe commented that the coefficients would be transparent in the model once the Project-
specific model was developed.
The location and time of the April 9 and 10, 2013 workshop was discussed. The meeting will be located in Bellevue,
WA at MWH’s office from 8 am – 3 pm AKST (9 am – 4 pm PST). A draft agenda will be posted to the Susitna Watana
Project website by COB 3/27/2013. As indicated in the 2/22/13 action items, the meeting materials will be posted
3/26/13. Betsy McGregor reminded attendees that some of the meeting materials are summaries of larger reports,
such as the fish data synthesis report which is currently available on the Project website.
Appendix A - Page 20
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4
ID Action Item Date Responsibility Distribution Method
03.20-01 Distribute MSWord document of
2/22/13 meeting notes to
attendees for edits
3/20/13 KPeltier Email
03.20-02 Create an archive list of
completed action items
3/20/13 KPeltier Email
03.20-03 Update communication protocol
and distribute
3/22/13 KPeltier Email
03.20-04 Distribute list of all Fish Passage
team members
3/22/13 KPeltier Email
03.20-05 Provide Ed Meyer with Dana
Schmidt’s resume
3/21/13 MKeefe Email
03.20-06 Review Dana Schmidt’s and Chick
Sweeney’s resumes as high head
dam fish passage experts
3/22/13 EMeyer Email
03.20-07 Add to applicable entrainment
reference in the data needs table
3/26/13 MLKeefe Data Needs Table
03.20-08 Include reservoir effects on
migration timing is in the data
needs table
3/26/13 MKeefe Data Needs Table
03.20-09 Provide MaryLouise Keefe with a
detailed description regarding
data needs of trophic cascade
information
3/25/13 JDavis Email, Data Needs Table
03.20-10 Distribute draft Agenda for April
9&10 Fish Passage Meeting
3/27/13 AEA Website: Meeting Materials for
April 9&10; Listserve email
ID Decisions
03.20-01 Modify communications protocol to include delivery of draft review meeting notes to the Fish Passage
TWG members in attendance in MSWord for their review/revisions.
03.20-02 At this time, AEA will approve two additional high-head dam experts to participate in the first FP TWG
worksession and the brainstorming worksession.
Appendix A - Page 21
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1
Meeting Notes
Fish and Aquatics
Fish Passage Technical Workshop #1
April 9-10, 2013
LOCATION: MWH Office
2353 130th Ave NE, Suite 200
Bellevue, WA 98005
TIME: 8:00 am – 4:00 pm (AKST); 9:00 am – 5:00 pm (PST) both days
SUBJECT: Fish Passage Technical Workgroup – Review background Project information
Goal: Review existing Physical Data
IN PERSON: Fish Passage TWG Attendees: MaryLouise Keefe R2, Dana Postlewait R2, Dan Turner R2, Ed
Meyer NMFS, Dennis Dorratcague MWH, Stormy Haught ADF&G, Ed Zapel NHC, Graham Hill
NHC, Jeff Davis ARRI, Dana Schmidt Golder Associates, Chick Sweeney Alden Labs.
Other Attendees: Leslie Jensen, ARRI, Kirby Gilbert MWH, John Haapala MWH, Aled Hughes
MWH, Bill Fullerton Tetratech (4/9/13 only), Rob Plotnikoff Tetratech (4/9/13 only).
ON PHONE: Fish Passage TWG Attendees: Catherine Berg USFWS, Betsy McGregor AEA, Bryan Carey AEA.
Other Attendees: Sue Walker NMFS, Eric Rothwell NMFS, Robin Beebee HDR (4/9/13 only).
Materials and the agenda for the two-day workshop are found at the Susitna Watana Hydro website
(http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org). The purpose of these workshop meeting notes is to identify action items
and give a brief overview of the subject matter covered and to capture any key information not provided in the
meeting materials or noted in the working tables and materials the team is developing. A table of action items is
presented at the end of the notes, summarizing key action items
After introductions, Kirby Gilbert began the meeting by presenting the agenda and status of 2/22/13 meeting notes
and 3/20/13 meeting notes. Other than edits provided by Catherine Berg 3/20/13, no other edits have been
provided to AEA. AEA requested all edits by 4/10/13. AEA distributed 3/20/13 meeting notes in MSWord to the
FPTWG members that had attended the meeting and requested edits be returned to AEA in two weeks (4/23/13).
Prior to starting with the agenda items, Ed Meyer asked about the composition of the TWG, wondering if additional
high-head dam fish passage experts were going to join the study team. Dana Postelwait mentioned that Dana
Schmidt had joined the team as had Chick Sweeney and Phil Hilgert would be available at other times. Ed Meyer
recommended Al Giorgi join the team for the brainstorming workshop, noting his experience with fish movements
and high-head dams. There was further discussion about limitations to the size of the group and additional costs and
the need to have ice processes expertise, which Dana Schmidt brings to the team. Betsy McGregor agreed to have
Wayne Dyok follow up with Ed Meyer on this item.
Appendix A - Page 22
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MARCH 20, 2013 FISH PASSAGE WORKSHOP #1
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2
The Data Needs table was requested to be provided in MSWord format instead of Adobe PDF; it was emailed to the
group during the meeting. Susan Walker requested the titles of the various appendices be included within the
website link for each appendix.
The study meeting schedule presented at the March 20th FPTWG meeting was reviewed. Chick Sweeney mentioned a
conflict with the August 15-20th workshop schedule, and noted his availability August 21st and 22nd, 2013. Dana
noted the schedule would be revisited again later. The next meeting will be a teleconference on May 21, 2013 to
start at 9:00 am Alaska Daylight Time.
Kirby Gilbert provided an overview of the general Project layout and Project area. Chick Sweeney asked about where
the hydrographic transects were located, particularly near the dam. Betsy McGregor noted that Appendix 2 of the
2012 Open-water Flow Routing study report, currently available on the Project website, has the locations presented
as Figures 4.2-2 through 4.2-19.
Aled Hughes of MWH went over the dam design parameters, statistics and answered questions about dam design
information. Aled noted the current design is a “snapshot in time”, and the fish passage team should be aware that
changes may be made as the work progresses. Dana P. noted that the team is aware of this, and will work with AEA
and the design team to stay informed of significant changes that could be relevant to fish passage conceptual
designs.
Rob Plotnikoff provided an overview of the water quality studies performed in 2012 and plans for 2013/14. There
was some discussion about the historical data in terms of the frequency of sampling and that some data might not be
directly comparable to today’s more continuous data. Rob also went over the reservoir water quality modeling plan,
discussing how the effort is expected to help predict the amount of vertical stratification in temperatures in the
reservoir. There was further discussion about turbidity and potential turbidity changes in the reservoir with the fish
passage team expressing interest in understanding how turbidity might change.
Bill Fullerton went over the geomorphology study (RSP Section 6.5), as well as the fluvial geomorphology modeling
study (RSP Section 6.6) noting that the goal of the studies is to assess the potential effects of the Project on the
geomorphology of the river. Bill went over the work accomplished in 2012 and then described the 2013 and 2014
studies. There was discussion about the timing of when results might be ready from this work and the water quality
studies.
There was mention of how it was important for the fish passage group to understand some basic information about
stratification including how cool water from tributaries might enter the reservoir and how selective withdrawal at the
dam might be used. Rob mentioned that John Hamrick of this study team could probably help the group with a
demonstration of the modeling of the reservoirs. There was further discussion about finding other lake systems or
reservoirs in cold climates where fish behavior has been studied so the group could get some idea of fish movements.
Dana Schmidt noted there is a large set of data about Chinook and coho salmon movements with regard to
temperature. Stormy noted that Kluane Lake in the Yukon may have some research information of use to the group.
It was agreed that Dana Schmidt could look at previous data sets on glacial fed lakes and get back to the group with
some possible examples.
After lunch John Haapala presented information on the reservoir operations modeling to date. There was follow on
discussion about development of a reservoir operations rule curve, but it was noted that at this time this operation
scenario is only based on the 61 years of historical record from the USGS, minimum flows considered in the 1980s
Appendix A - Page 23
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MARCH 20, 2013 FISH PASSAGE WORKSHOP #1
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3
(Case EV-1 minimum instream flow), and also to meet the full load following electrical load demands of the Railbelt
all on an hourly basis.
There was some follow on discussion about running a run-of-river operational flow alternative as noted in FERC’s
April 1st Study Plan Determination. John Haapala noted he can run a run-of-river flow scenario but it would not be
very realistic for the dam being considered to date. Bryan Carey noted that run-of-river would provide the most
energy at a time when it is least needed, and provide the least output when energy is needed the most. There was
further discussion that the fish passage study probably needs some kind of operational scenario in between the
maximum load following and run-of-river, and the conclusion was that perhaps Wayne could provide some guidance
to the study team on when other operating alternatives might be available. The study team noted the design
considerations for the two alternatives discussed would be widely different so something more in between the two
might be of more use to the feasibility study effort. There was a also a request for John Haapala to provide the flow
outputs in an Excel format for use by the fish passage study team. Sue Walker noted that AEA had discussed using a
base load alternative in its analysis also.
Robin Beebee went over the ice studies to date, noting ice bridges and example break up conditions in the upper
segment of the Susitna River. Jeff asked about predicting ice formation in the reservoir, particularly how ice might
form at tributaries. It was noted that Mica Reservoir in B.C. has ice formations and information from that project
might be useful. Rob noted that he will take some of the groups questions back to his study team to find out more
about assumptions and observations his modeling group can perhaps use to help the fisheries engineering team with
regard to how reservoir ice and break up might affect tributaries.
Bill Fullerton discussed sediment loads and how the dam might affect sediment movement and channel formations
along with potential changes to tributary mouths, noting there was a technical memo from 2012 studies on sediment
balance in the system, which is available on AEA’s Porject website. Bill noted that his study team should know more
after this summer’s work and some 1D modeling.
Based on the discussion and presentations of the day, the table of information needs was filled out further by Dana
Postlewait, in collaboration with the group. It was noted the table will be updated regularly and posted prior to the
next workshop.
Chick Sweeney noted that prior to the next fish passage workshop it would be good to get a synthesis of existing
information on sediment, flows, and drawings before the workshop and Dana noted that was the plan so the
workshop participants had materials to review prior to the workshop. Sue Walker asked how the hydrological
information might factor in results of the climate change study. Ed Meyer noted the fish passage study team would
be interested in seeing the results of such a study to determine if it would affect the potential designs developed by
the team. It was noted that Dennis Dorratcague would work with Eric Zimmerman of MWH to create some detail
maps of the reservoir and its tributaries prior to the brainstorming workshop. There was discussion about how to
access the videography of the Susitna River from 2012 and it was noted that Sara Nogg at AEA could provide a loaner
hard drive, or study team members could send in their own hard drives and AEA would load the files. Kirby handed
out the CEII forms to be signed by all meeting participants in order to be able to review the dam design details for use
in the fish passage feasibility studies. The first day of the workshop closed with Chick Sweeney noting that he could
provide the group with an example of EFDC modeling results from Round Butte Dam by May 7, 2013.
DAY 2 – 4/10/13
Appendix A - Page 24
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MARCH 20, 2013 FISH PASSAGE WORKSHOP #1
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4
Other than Rob Plotnikoff, Bill Fullerton, and Robin Beebee, the attendees where the same as Tuesday 4/9; with Sue
Walker, Catherine Berg and Betsy McGregor on the telephone and the rest in person at MWH Bellevue offices. There
was a brief recap noting that yesterday was intended to be an overview presentation of physical, hydrologic and
engineering information needs and today was set aside to discuss biological data needs for the fish passage feasibility
study team.
Tim Sullivan of R2 went over a series of slides that covered Appendices B1 – B10. For Appendix B1, Target Fish
Species, it was noted how limited the information was for upriver distribution of Chinook salmon in particular. There
was further discussion as to what species of fish the fish passage study team should consider and there was
agreement to consider all species of salmon that might exist in the area. After much discussion, the table of
information needs was updated for this section to include the species the team agreed upon. This discussion led into
Appendix B2, about other species potentially accessing the upper river and Stormy noted that there could be some
concerns if we end up introducing some species into the upper basin that we do not want in the upper basin due to
potential conflicts with resident species. Stormy also noted that Lake Trout was considered a native species. For
Appendix B3, there was agreement made to update the headers to clarify and specify the meanings of the categories
and then, if needed update the periods noted in the table. During the presentation of Appendix B5, number and size
of target fish species, there was discussion about potential for sorting juvenile fish and Ed Meyer noted the group
should start developing management questions that might affect the design options being considered. Stormy
Haught agreed to identify management considerations from ADF&G staff and bring information back to the group.
The study team agreed to start a list of management considerations in a section of the information needs table. For
Appendix B6 it was noted that the group could lump whitefish, and Stormy noted that humpback whitefish were a
common species found in a 2011 study of the upper river. Prior to a break, the group discussed that it may be good
to initially consider designs to accommodate the maximum fish numbers, and scale down from there.
After a short break Tim Sullivan went over Appendix B6, life stage specific passage information and he discussed what
is known about swimming abilities. There was discussion that the group needs more information on burbot
populations and connectivity of populations. Under Appendix B7, Fish Relative Abundance, there was a question if
lamprey were found in the Middle River as it was noted that they are found in the Lower River. For Appendix B8,
location of spawning and rearing habitats, there was clarification on what was meant by adult/juvenile salmon in
terms of what was presented in the pie chart verses the text, this is to be clarified for next version as noted in the
table by Dana Postlewait. For Appendix B9, Predation, it was noted that Mustelid section is labeled incorrectly in the
appendix report. For Appendix B10, Existing Environmental Conditions, there was discussion about whether turbidity
changes will increase or decrease predation and the concensus for now was that the table would just note that
predation will change, affecting some species more than others.
Prior to the lunch break Marylouise Keefe noted that if we designed a conceptual passage program for hundreds of
thousands of anadromus fish, the smaller numbers of resident fish could get shortchanged in the system’s ability to
accommodate their specific needs. If we use theoretical escapement, those numbers will drive the collection
facilities design. Ed Meyer noted that we should keep in mind for any facilities the group designs it will be important
to evaluate it in terms of how it might perform for all species. Betsy McGregor noted that the group should design
for both what is there now (i.e., small numbers of Chinook and resident fish) as well as adaptations for future
expansion to accommodate future population levels.
After Lunch, Marylou presented slides on the 2012 upper river fish distribution and habitat study. There was further
discussion about what tributaries might or might not have Chinook salmon present. Jeff noted that the group should
Appendix A - Page 25
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MARCH 20, 2013 FISH PASSAGE WORKSHOP #1
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5
probably not just focus on Kosina Creek, where salmonids have been found, until we know in the next few years
where we find Chinook. Marylou went over salmon migration studies and the group went to a break.
After the break Tim Sullivan went over Appendix B11, the biological performance tool under development. After
much discussion about the comparative aspects of the tool there was more discussion about the potential uses of the
tool. It was noted that one purpose was just to get the study team to discuss ranges presented in the tool. The next
step is to start populating values for the brainstorming session. Phil Hilgert and Tim are going to develop a strawfish
version for use in the August workshop. They noted there might be another tool that evaluates alternatives, from
which the biological performance tool would serve as likely input. Another purpose of the tool is to raise red flags on
information or data the team might need. The meeting concluded with Stormy noting he will try and develop more
of the management consideration portion of the table for the next meeting.
ACTION ITEMS From 4/9 and 4/10:
ID Action Item Date Responsibility Distribution Method
04.09-01 Provide edits to 2/22/13 FPTWG
meeting notes to AEA
4/10/13 FPTWG 2/22 meeting
attendees
Email
04.09-02 Provide edits to 3/20/13 FPTWG
meeting notes to AEA
4/23/13 FPTWG 3/20 meeting
attendees
Email
04.09-03 AEA to discuss its choice of
additional fish passage experts
with Ed Meyer/Sue Walker
4/16/13 W Dyok Phone call
04.09-04 Provide FPTWG Information
Needs Table in MSWord
4/09/13 B McGregor Email
04.09-05 Include appendix titles in website
link description/title
4/09/13 J Crowther Susitna-watanahydro.org
04.09-06 Distribute report on glacial lakes
study, if one was produced
6/7/13 if
data is
available
D Schmidt; AEA Email; ARLIS
04.09-07 Rob to get John Hamrick to
provide some background
information on simulating
reservoirs and fish movements
based on past experience
Rob Plotnikoff Next Meeting
04.09-08 Flow duration data in Excel; data
presented today plus totals
5/7/13 John Haapala
04.09-09 Need guidance from Wayne/AEA
on how run of river scenario will
be handled; and importantly
when some scenarios with
environmental flows will be
available to be modeled and
available to the FPTWG (in
between run of river and
maximum load following).
5/7/13 W Dyok
Appendix A - Page 26
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MARCH 20, 2013 FISH PASSAGE WORKSHOP #1
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6
04.09-10 Find out from Stuart when he will
be completed with estimating
flows in tributaries to reservoirs
and just below dam – when that
data will be available to the fish
passage study team.
MaryLou
04.09-11 Request to Rob Plotnikoff to find
out when his reservoir ice study
will have some results to report
to the Fish Passage group, or at
least some findings of
preliminary observations,
particularly effects of ice
formation and breakup at
tributary mouths in reservoir.
5/7/13 Rob Plotnikoff
04.09-12 Get synthesis book to hand out
before brainstorming out by July
8-12 site vist
04.09-13 Request wind speed data in excel
file format to assist in estimating
wave heights/loads
6/24/13 Dennis Dorratcague Dennis will work with John
Haapala
04.10-01 Update biological appendices to
account for other target species
added to Target Species list
(those added into Table 1- No. B1
Biological Data Needs)
6/24/13 Marylou and Tim
Sullivan
Nusiance species is another list
and to date we have not
included periodicity type
information on those nuisance
species.
04.10-02 Fix appendix B2 to note lake
trout are native
6/24/13 Tim Sullivan
04.10-03 Table B3 needs the
headings/categories clarified and
if appropriate update periods.
6/24/13 Tim Sullivan If needed follow up with
smaller group of Stormy, Jeff
Davis, Marylou.
04.10-04 Add a series or component to the
Information Needs table that
relate to management
considerations of the target
species (policy information on
species management or how to
handle nuisance species)
6/24/13 Dana P./Stormy Stormy to go back to ADF&G
staff and try and get more
information on what might be
policy considerations that
could be identified. Dana going
to draft template for June 24th.
04.10-05 Take out Adult Chinook relative
abundance bulleted item in the
B7 slide (on relative abundance)
6/24/13 Tim Sullivan At request of Jeff Davis and Sue
Walker – not really needed
04.10-06 Create combined table to
address design criteria
information for B3-B6 for target
species
6/24/13 Tim and Marylou
04.10-07 Get Chick input to Evaluation of
Alternatives Matrix
August
workshop
Chick Sweeney/Tim
Sullivan
04.10-08 Biological Performance Tool to
be populated/created as straw
man
August
Workshop
Tim S. / Phil H. For review at brainstorming
meeting.
Appendix A - Page 27
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MARCH 20, 2013 FISH PASSAGE WORKSHOP #1
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 7
04.10-09 Compile available mapping of
tributaries with plan/profile
information to extent possible
prior to the workshop
August
Workshop
Dennis D., Dana P. For review/use at
brainstorming meeting.
Appendix A - Page 28
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1
Meeting Notes
Fish and Aquatics
Fish Passage Technical Workgroup Meeting #3 – Regular Update
May 21, 2013
LOCATION: Web Meeting
TIME: 8:00 am – 10:00 am (AKST); 9:00 am – 11:00 am (PST)
SUBJECT: Fish Passage Technical Workgroup Meeting #3 – Regular Update
GOAL: Regularly scheduled interim check-in meeting
PARTICIPANTS: Fish Passage TWG Attendees: Betsy McGregor AEA, Wayne Dyok AEA, Dana Postlewait R2, Tim
Sullivan R2, Al Giorgi BioAnalysts, Chick Sweeney Alden Labs, Dennis Dorratcague MWH, Ed
Meyer NMFS, Stormy Haught ADF&G, Ed Zapel NHC, Jeff Davis ARRI, , Catherine Berg USFWS,
Other Attendees: Kirby Gilbert MWH, Matt Love Van Ness Feldman, Becky Long Coalition for
Susitna Dam Alternatives, Leanne Hanson USGS, Steve Padula McMillen, Sandie Hayes AEA
This meeting was a regularly scheduled check-in amongst the Fish Passage Technical Workgroup, the third such
check-in meeting and the first since the April 9-10 Fish Passage Technical Workshop (Workshop #1). These meeting
notes are intended to give a brief overview of discussions, review the status of prior action items, and identify new
action items. New action items from this meeting as well as the status of remaining action items from Workshop #1
are provided in a table at the end of this document; a copy of the agenda is also attached. After introductions, Steve
Padula began the meeting by presenting the agenda.
Last Meeting Note Review
Betsy McGregor mentioned that the notes from the 2/22/13 and 3/20/13 meetings have been posted to the Project
website. Regarding the meeting notes from Workshop #1, Ed Meyer mentioned that Sue Walker had some
comments to be added, which she would provide to AEA shortly via email. Jeff Davis was also still reviewing and
would have comments to AEA shortly via email. No other comments from Workshop #1 meeting notes were
pending.
Fish Passage TWG Meeting Composition
Wayne Dyok announced the addition of Al Giorgi as a new member of the Fish Passage Technical Workgroup
(FPTWG) and participants welcomed Al to the group.
Action Item Review
Dana Postlewait followed by leading into a review of the status of action items identified during Workshop #1. Status
updates and new action items are listed in the table below.
Appendix A - Page 29
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MAY 21, 2013 FISH PASSAGE MEETING #3
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2
Operational Scenarios
A discussion followed on different operational scenarios that could be considered for the fish passage study,
specifically regarding the nature and availability of environmental flow modeling for use by the group and whether a
run-of-river scenario will be incorporated. Becky Long asked if only three scenarios will be considered, and explained
that the impetus behind the run-or-river request was to help the NGO’s address ice processes. Wayne confirmed
that initially only three operational scenarios will be developed but that the need for a fourth (or additional)
modeling scenarios will be considered as the Project proceeds and that this will need to be addressed within the
larger technical working groups (Fish and Aquatics, IFIM, Geomorphology, Ice Processes, etc.). Wayne summarized
that the three current planned operational scenarios are:
1) A maximum load-following scenario (which John Haapala presented to the FPTWG at Workshop #1),
2) A baseload generation scenario, and
3) Some intermediate level of load-following depending on energy system demands and natural resource
needs. This scenario will bracket the above two bounding case scenarios, and will be more representative of
the anticipated operations that will meet the Rail Belt needs and provide a balance with natural resource
needs.
Ed Zapel inquired as to when a fourth scenario might be defined, to which Wayne responded that it would depend on
results from the 2013 field season and would most likely be in late 2014 or 2015. This discussion concluded with a
plan for Wayne, Becky Long, and Sue Walker (per Ed Meyer’s request) to follow up offline for further discussion.
The topic of post-construction ice conditions at reservoir tributary mouths was raised. Betsy explained that tributary
mouths were surveyed this past winter, providing an indication of existing conditions; she will follow up with Rob
Plotnikoff to clarify whether modeling efforts will provide information related to post-construction ice conditions at
tributary mouths. Wayne added that ice thickness information was provided during the 1980s studies and if this was
based on predicted conditions, then it might prove reasonable as a first cut if needed.
Information Needs Table
Dana P. moved on to the status of the updated information needs table which had been previously distributed to the
group. Dana suggested waiting on the review of the information needs table until the group has finished providing
comments. Jeff D. requested that the updated table be provided in MS Word to facilitate providing comments
electronically; Betsy agreed to send the file as a MS Word document to participants. Dana requested that comments
be provided by 6/18/13 so that a revised table could be available for the next meeting.
Study Schedule
Discussion turned to the schedule for the Fish Passage study. Dana described a proposed schedule modification that
would shift the planned site visit to late August or early September to take advantage of better weather and lower
flows that would allow better access, and shift the brainstorming session until late February or early March 2014 that
would allow the group to take advantage of the 2013 field season preliminary results. The second week of
September, 2013 was proposed for the site visit for discussion. Ed Meyer raised concerns regarding potential
difficulties associated with the end of the federal fiscal year and federal furlough days, and that the change would
affect many people’s schedules who had planned around the previously published dates. Wayne then explained that
the change was necessary to address AEA budget constraints, and that he was comfortable proposing the schedule
Appendix A - Page 30
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MAY 21, 2013 FISH PASSAGE MEETING #3
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3
change for this study because the additional information available for the brainstorming would benefit the process.
It was agreed that Dana and Betsy will work on circulating a Doodle Poll among the group to identify a suitable time
for the site visit, including the following options:
· August 19-22, 2013
· September 3-6, 2013
· September 9-12, 2013
Time initially scheduled for the site visit was held for the next check-in meeting, which is now scheduled to occur on
July 9, 2013 from 8:00 am – 10:00 am AKST (9:00 am – 11:00 am PST).
The revised schedule for the brainstorming session was tentatively set as March 18-19, 2014, which was identified to
accommodate the anticipated time constraints of those associated with the production and review of Initial Study
Reports that are due for release on February 3, 2014. The location for the brainstorming session is still to be
determined.
The meeting concluded with a review of new action items which are summarized in the table below.
ACTION ITEMS From 4/9 and 4/10:
ID Action Item Date/Status Responsibility Distribution Method
04.09-
01
Provide edits to 2/22/13
FPTWG meeting notes to
AEA
Complete.
Notes posted
FPTWG 2/22
meeting
attendees
Email for edits.
Susitna-watanahydro.org
04.09-
02
Provide edits to 3/20/13
FPTWG meeting notes to
AEA
Complete.
Notes posted
FPTWG 3/20
meeting
attendees
Email for edits.
Susitna-watanahydro.org
04.09-
03
AEA to discuss its choice of
additional fish passage
experts with Ed Meyer/Sue
Walker
Complete/
Added Dr. Al
Giorgi to FPTWG
W Dyok Phone call
04.09-
04
Provide FPTWG
Information Needs Table in
MSWord
Complete B McGregor Email
04.09-
05
Include appendix titles in
website link
description/title
Complete.
Posted
J Crowther Susitna-watanahydro.org
04.09-
06
Distribute report on glacial
lakes study, if one was
produced
6/7/13 if data is
available
D Schmidt;
AEA
Email to study leads.
Post after review. Potentially available
on ARLIS
(http://www.arlis.org/resources/susitna-
watana/)
Appendix A - Page 31
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MAY 21, 2013 FISH PASSAGE MEETING #3
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4
ID Action Item Date/Status Responsibility Distribution Method
04.09-
07
Rob P. to get John Hamrick
to provide some
background information on
simulating reservoirs and
fish movements based on
past experience
Pending Rob Plotnikoff Update for next meeting
04.09-
08
Flow duration data in
Excel; data presented
today plus totals
Posted – Dennis
D. to reprint
with pagination
corrected for re-
posting
John Haapala,
D.
Dorratcague
Susitna-watanahydro.org
04.09-
09
Need guidance from
Wayne/AEA on how run of
river scenario will be
handled; and importantly
when some scenarios with
environmental flows will
be available to be modeled
and available to the
FPTWG (in between run of
river and maximum load
following).
See
05.21-02
W Dyok
04.09-
10
Find out from Stuart when
he will be completed with
estimating flows in
tributaries to reservoirs
and just below dam –
when that data will be
available to the fish
passage study team.
Complete.
Stage data to be
collected this
year, and stage/
discharge
relationships to
be developed in
2014 with
results available
after 2014
season.
MaryLou
04.09-
11
Request to Rob Plotnikoff
to find out when his
reservoir ice study will
have some results to
report to the Fish Passage
group, or at least some
findings of preliminary
observations, particularly
effects of ice formation
and breakup at tributary
mouths in reservoir.
Prior to next
meeting
Rob Plotnikoff
04.09-
12
Get synthesis book to hand
out before brainstorming
out by July 8-12 site visit
TBD – prior to
rescheduled site
tour
Dana P.,
Dennis D., Tim
S.
Appendix A - Page 32
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MAY 21, 2013 FISH PASSAGE MEETING #3
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5
ID Action Item Date/Status Responsibility Distribution Method
04.09-
13
Request wind speed data
in excel file format to assist
in estimating wave
heights/loads
6/24/13 Dennis
Dorratcague
Dennis will work with John Haapala
04.10-
01
Update biological
appendices to account for
other target species added
to Target Species list
(those added into Table 1-
No. B1 Biological Data
Needs)
6/24/13 MaryLou and
Tim Sullivan
Nuisance species is another list and to
date we have not included periodicity
type information on those nuisance
species.
04.10-
02
Fix appendix B2 to note
lake trout are native
6/24/13 Tim Sullivan
04.10-
03
Table B3 needs the
headings/categories
clarified and if appropriate
update periods.
6/24/13 Tim Sullivan If needed follow up with smaller group
of Stormy, Jeff Davis, MaryLou.
04.10-
04
Add a series or component
to the Information Needs
table that relate to
management
considerations of the
target species (policy
information on species
management or how to
handle nuisance species)
6/24/13 Dana
P./Stormy
Stormy to go back to ADF&G staff and
try and get more information on what
might be policy considerations that
could be identified. Dana going to draft
template for June 24th.
04.10-
05
Take out Adult Chinook
relative abundance
bulleted item in the B7
slide (on relative
abundance)
6/24/13 Tim Sullivan At request of Jeff Davis and Sue Walker
– not really needed
04.10-
06
Create combined table to
address design criteria
information for B3-B6 for
target species
6/24/13 Tim S. and
MaryLou K.
04.10-
07
Get Chick input to
Evaluation of Alternatives
Matrix
TBD – prior to
March 2014
workshop
Chick
Sweeney/Tim
Sullivan
04.10-
08
Biological Performance
Tool to be
populated/created as
straw man
TBD – prior to
March 2014
Workshop
Tim S. / Phil H. For review at brainstorming meeting.
04.10-
09
Compile available mapping
of tributaries with
plan/profile information to
extent possible prior to the
workshop
TBD – prior to
March 2014
Workshop
Dennis D.,
Dana P.
For review/use at brainstorming
meeting.
Appendix A - Page 33
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MAY 21, 2013 FISH PASSAGE MEETING #3
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6
ID Action Item Date/Status Responsibility Distribution Method
05.21-
01
Provide remaining edits to
April 9-10, 2013 Workshop
#1 meeting notes to AEA
5/24/13 Jeff Davis and
Sue Walker
Email
05.21-
02
AEA to follow up off-line
with B. Long and S. Walker
regarding operational
scenarios
6/25/13 Wayne Dyok Phone call
05.21-
03
AEA to follow up with Rob
P. regarding the
timing/availability of ice
modeling results
6/25/13 Betsy
McGregor
Update for next meeting
05.21-
04
Provide edits to
Information Needs List
and update table
Edits to AEA by
6/18/13
Workshop #1
participants
B. McGregor to email MS-Word version
participants for editing. Updated table
distributed for 7/9/13 meeting.
05.21-
05
Doodle Poll for site
reconnaissance
5/31/13 Dana
Postlewait,
Betsy
McGregor
Email
05.21-
06
Rework schedule/meeting
list including 7/9/13
check-in and March 18-19,
2014 brainstorm session
6/25/13 Dana
Postlewait
Email
05.21-
07
Draft notes of 5/21/13
check-in meeting and
action items
5/31/13 S. Padula, D.
Postlewait, T.
Sullivan
Email
Appendix A - Page 34
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MAY 21, 2013 FISH PASSAGE MEETING #3
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 7
Agenda
Fish Passage TWG
Fish Passage Meeting #3
5/21/2013
LOCATION: Web Call
TIME: 8:00 am – 10:00 am (AKST); 9:00 am – 11:00 pm (PST)
SUBJECT: Regularly scheduled interim check-in meeting for Fish Passage Technical Team
GoTo MEETING: https://www4.gotomeeting.com/register/291822519
1-800-315-6338 Code 3957#
Introductions
Meeting Purpose and Objectives
Regularly schedule interim check-in meeting.
Review Workshop #1 Meeting Items (held on April 9-10, 2013)
Review meeting notes and action items
Review information needs list updates
Review fish passage technical team composition
Discuss preparation for site reconnaissance planned for Meeting #4
Schedule meeting, suggest late August, early September for better flow conditions
Planning needs
Discuss upcoming Brainstorming Workshop #2
Schedule meeting, suggest late February or early March 2014 so we have results of 2013 studies
Planning needs
Review Fish Passage Study Schedule and Next Steps
Review meeting schedule and set dates
2013-05-21 FPTWG_Agenda_Draft_V2.docx
Appendix A - Page 35
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1
Meeting Notes
Fish and Aquatics
Fish Passage Technical Workgroup Meeting #3a – Regular Update
July 09, 2013
LOCATION: Web Meeting
TIME: 8:00 am – 10:00 am (AKST); 9:00 am – 11:00 am (PST)
SUBJECT: Fish Passage Technical Workgroup Meeting #3a – Regular Update
GOAL: Regularly scheduled interim check-in meeting
PARTICIPANTS: Fish Passage TWG Attendees: Betsy McGregor AEA, Dana Postlewait R2, MaryLou Keefe R2,
Tim Sullivan R2, Chick Sweeney Alden Labs, Ed Meyer NMFS, Stormy Haught ADF&G, Ed Zapel
NHC, Catherine Berg USFWS, Sue Walker NMFS, Dan Turner R2, Dana Schmidt Golder, Graham
Hill NHC
Other Attendees: Steve Padula McMillen, Kathryn Peltier McMillen, Justin Crowther AEA
This meeting was a regularly scheduled check-in amongst the Fish Passage Technical Workgroup, the fourth such
check-in meeting and the second since the April 9-10 Fish Passage Technical Workshop (Workshop #1). These
meeting notes are intended to give a brief overview of discussions, review the status of prior action items, and
identify new action items. Active action items from this meeting as well as those not completed from previous
meetings are provided in a table at the end of this document; a copy of the agenda is also attached. Completed
action items and “parking lot items” are included in separate tables, also following these meeting notes. After
introductions, Steve Padula began the meeting by presenting the agenda.
Previous Meeting Note Review
On June 24, 2013 the previous meeting notes were distributed for attendees’ review. The NMFS representatives
indicated that they would be conferring internally but did not anticipate any comments on the meeting notes.
Action Item Review
Dana Postlewait reviewed the status of action items identified during the May 21st TWG #4. Action items are listed in
the tables below. Red text indicates updates to previous action items still considered active.
Information Needs Table
Tim Sullivan led a review of the Information Needs Table (Rev 4, dated May 16, 2013). The updates and edits to the
appendices referenced in the table are not completed for all of the appendices. The attendees agreed that it would
be most useful to wait until all appendices are completed before distributing to the group. The next major update
will occur at least two weeks prior to the September 17-20, 2013 site visit. An addendum to this update will be
planned for early January to have a more complete product for the March 18-19, 2014 brainstorm workshop, which
Appendix A - Page 36
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MAY 21, 2013 FISH PASSAGE MEETING #4
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2
will allow for incorporation of any updates prepared after this field season, and other information that becomes
available that will assist this group.
An additional two weeks was provided for FP TWG members to review the Information Needs Table. Any
correspondence regarding suggested edits should be sent to Dana Postlewait and CCed to Betsy McGregor by July 23,
2013.
Site Visit Logistics
The site reconnaissance dates have been confirmed as September 17-20, 2013. Dana Postlewait informed attendees
that it may be useful for them to review the aerial videos prior to the trip. Dana said that he will provide any relevant
data that is available from the 2013 field season during the scheduled meeting times in Talkeetna. Two weeks prior
to the trip, multiple items will be distributed to the fish passage team as noted above. These are detailed in action
item 07.09-01. Two days prior to the trip, Dana Postlewait will review the weather conditions and coordinate with
Betsy McGregor to determine the feasibility of flying. If conditions are not favorable for flying, the trip may be
rescheduled to “Plan B” or postponed for a future date. Notification will be made by e-mail. Agency members are
responsible for procuring their own lodging and travel. AEA members and consultants will arrange lodging through
AES at the Talkeetna field camp.
The detailed schedule was discussed as presented below. No concerns were expressed.
Plan A – Good Weather
1. Tuesday, Sept 17 – travel day
a. Fly to Anchorage
b. Drive to Talkeetna
c. Potential for an informal group dinner
d. Overnight in Talkeetna
2. Wednesday, Sept 18 – site tour (weather allowing)
a. Tour the site via helicopters, AEA will arrange for travel and will accommodate federal personnel
travel requirements. This will take about 4 to 5 hours if the weather allows.
b. Debrief in a conference room
c. Overnight in Talkeetna
3. Thursday, Sept 19
a. Meet in a conference room to debrief and share ideas. Plan on 4 hours.
b. Drive back to Anchorage
c. Overnight in Anchorage (or fly out if standby seats are available)
4. Friday, Sept 20
a. Travel home
Plan B – Can’t fly Wednesday due to Weather
1. Tuesday, Sept 17 – travel day
a. Fly to Anchorage
b. Drive to Talkeetna
c. Potential for an informal group dinner
d. Overnight in Talkeetna
2. Wednesday, Sept 18 – If can’t fly due to weather
a. Meet for the day in a conference room
i. Discuss flight plans and trip needs
ii. Discuss updated material
Appendix A - Page 37
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MAY 21, 2013 FISH PASSAGE MEETING #4
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3
iii. Informal brainstorm with initial concepts. Goal will be to record initial ideas, discuss
criteria, site access, etc., and record ideas to help initiate the formal brainstorming session
planned for next March.
b. Overnight in Talkeetna
3. Thursday, Sept 19 – Site Tour (weather allowing)
a. Tour the site via helicopters, AEA will arrange for travel and will accommodate federal personnel
travel requirements.
b. Short debrief in a conference room
c. Drive back to Anchorage
d. Overnight in Anchorage (or fly out if standby seats are available)
4. Friday, Sept 20
a. Travel home
Study Schedule
Dana reviewed a proposed schedule which included modifications that shifted the planned site visit to September
and shifted the brainstorming session into early March 2014. The detailed schedule updated per this discussion is
provided below.
An updated study schedule (Gantt chart) and meeting list is attached.
Brainstorm Meeting
A brainstorm meeting is scheduled for March 18-19, 2014 in the MWH Bellevue, WA offices. Dana Postlewait
explained the importance of being in person for any active TWG member. Sue Walker mentioned Dara Glass’ (CIRI)
opposition to holding meetings outside of Alaska. Betsy McGregor will contact CIRI on this issue.
Additional Discussion
The FP TWG agreed there was no need to schedule another meeting prior to the September site visit. If something
unexpected occurs, it will be communicated by e-mail.
Appendix A - Page 38
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4 ID Active Action Items Date Due Responsibility Distribution Notes 04.09-06 Distribute report on glacial lakes study, if one was produced. 1/2/2014 D Schmidt; AEA Email to study leads. Post after review. Potentially available on ARLIS (http://www.arlis.org/resources/susitna-watana/) 7.9.13 - Dana Schmidt will reach out to Siberia and Scandinavia 04.09-07 Rob Plotnikoff to request John Hamrick provide some background information on simulating reservoirs and fish movements based on past experience. Pending Rob Plotnikoff Update for next meeting 7.9.13 – MaryLou K and D Postlewait will follow up with Rob Plotnikoff. 04.09-09 Need guidance from Wayne/AEA on how run of river scenario will be handled; and importantly when some scenarios with environmental flows will be available to be modeled and available to the FPTWG (in between run of river and maximum load following). See 05.21-02 W Dyok 04.09-11 Determine when reservoir ice study will have some results to report to the Fish Passage group, or at least some findings of preliminary observations, particularly effects of ice formation and breakup at tributary mouths in reservoir. Prior to next meeting Rob Plotnikoff 7.9.13 – MaryLou K and D Postlewait will follow up with Rob Plotnikoff. 04.09-12 Distribute synthesis book to hand out before July 8-12 site visit. [now planned for Sept 17-19] 9/3/2013 Dana Postlewait, Dennis Dorratcague, Tim Sullivan Planned for email and posting Susitna-watanahydro.org To be distributed by September 3, 2013 (2-weeks prior to site tour). 04.09-13 Request wind speed data in excel file format to assist in estimating wave heights/loads 9/3/2013 Dennis Dorratcague Dennis will work with John Haapala Appendix A - Page 39
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MAY 21, 2013 FISH PASSAGE MEETING #4 Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5 ID Active Action Items Date Due Responsibility Distribution Notes 04.10-01 Update biological appendices to account for other target species added to Target Species list (those added into Table 1- No. B1 Biological Data Needs) 9/3/2013 MaryLou Keefe, Tim Sullivan Nuisance species is another list and to date we have not included periodicity type information on those nuisance species. 04.10-02 Fix appendix B2 to note lake trout are native 9/3/2013 Tim Sullivan 04.10-03 Clarify Table B3 headings/categories and if appropriate update periods. 9/3/2013 Tim Sullivan If needed follow up with smaller group of Stormy Haught, Jeff Davis, MaryLou Keefe. 04.10-05 Take out Adult Chinook relative abundance bulleted item in the B7 slide (on relative abundance) 9/3/2013 Tim Sullivan At request of Jeff Davis and Sue Walker – not really needed 04.10-06 Create combined table to address design criteria information for B3-B6 for target species 9/3/2013 Tim Sullivan, MaryLou Keefe 04.10-07 Obtain Chick Sweeney’s input to Evaluation of Alternatives Matrix 9/3/2013 Chick Sweeney, Tim Sullivan, Dana Postlewait Chick will provide draft to Dana Postlewait and Tim Sullivan by 8/26/2013. Tim and Dana to add to 9/3/2013 distribution package. 04.10-08 Biological Performance Tool to be populated/created as straw man 1/2/2014 Tim Sullivan, Phil Hilgert For review at brainstorming meeting. See updated schedule. 04.10-09 Compile available mapping of tributaries with plan/profile information to extent possible prior to the workshop 9/3/2013 Dennis Dorratcague, Dana Postlewait For review/use at brainstorming meeting. Expect this will be updated following site tour to prepare for brainstorm session in March, 2013. 05.21-02 AEA to follow up off-line with B. Long and S. Walker regarding operational scenarios (related to 04.09-9). 7/9/2013 Wayne Dyok Phone call Sue Walker will remind Wayne 7/9/2013 call. 05.21-03 AEA to follow up with Rob Plotnikoff regarding the timing/availability of ice modeling results 9/3/2013 Betsy McGregor Update for next meeting Betsy emailed Rob 7/9/2013 Appendix A - Page 40
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MAY 21, 2013 FISH PASSAGE MEETING #4 Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6 ID Active Action Items Date Due Responsibility Distribution Notes 05.21-06 Rework schedule/meeting list including 7/9/13 check-in and March 18-19, 2014 brainstorm session 7/15/2013 Dana Postlewait Email Done - Distributed with draft Meeting Notes on 7/23/2013 07.09-01 Materials to be distributed 2 weeks prior to site visit - AI 04.09-12 - AI 04.10-04 - AI 04.10-07 - AI 04.10-09 - Information Needs Appendices - Safety/gear requirements for site visit - Workbook 9/3/2013 07.09-03 Review of the Information Needs Table 7/23/2013 FP TWG Email to Dana Postlewait, with cc to Betsy McGregor. R2 and MWH will consider comments for update to Table, to be distributed on 9/3/2013. 07.09-04 Contact CIRI regarding their concern with AEA hosting meeting outside of Alaska 9/18/2013 Betsy McGregor Update for next meeting 07.09-05 Confirm additional Fish Passage "other participants and contacts" - Eric Rothwell (NMFS) - CIRI - FERC - NGOs (see AI 07.09-06) 9/18/2013 Betsy McGregor Update for next meeting 07.09-06 Review previous fish passage meeting for attending NGOs to potentially add to the Fish Passage "other participants and contact" 9/18/2013 Betsy McGregor, Wayne Dyok Update for next meeting 07.09-07 Confirm site tour travel is feasible based on latest weather. 9/16/2013, by 17:00 ADT Dana Postlewait Email to meeting attendees Dana Postlewait will confirm feasibility of helicopter travel based on latest weather forecast, and coordinate with Betsy McGregor. Appendix A - Page 41
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MAY 21, 2013 FISH PASSAGE MEETING #4 Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 7 ID Parking Lot Item Date Noted Responsibility Distribution Notes 02.22-01 Identify Strategy Statement (e.g., Senate Bill; PAD) 3/31/2013 AEA Will be in FSP, ISR 02.22-02 Clarify meaning of “retrofit” with space/time components 3/8/2013 R2 Will be in FSP and ISR 02.22-06 Include discrepancies in data to information table 3/8/2013 R2 Will be in final product. 04.10-04 Add a series or component to the Information Needs table that relate to management considerations of the target species (policy information on species management or how to handle nuisance species) 9/3/2013 Dana Postlewait, Stormy Haught Stormy to go back to ADF&G staff and try and get more information on what might be policy considerations that could be identified. Dana going to draft template for June 24, 2013. ADF&G finds it is premature to comment. They prefer 1-2 years of field data before considerations are made. - parking lot item 07.09-02 created 07.09-02 ADF& G policy information on species management or how to handle nuisance species 7/9/2013 Dana Postlewait, Stormy Haught ADF&G finds it is premature to comment. They prefer 1-2 years of field data before considerations are made. ADF&G will comment in year 2015 after field data is available. Appendix A - Page 42
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MAY 21, 2013 FISH PASSAGE MEETING #4 Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 8 ID Completed Action Items Date Completed Responsibility Distribution Notes 02.22-03 Confirm next meeting location 3/8/2013 AEA Done. Next meeting will be held in Bellevue, WA. Future meetings will be held at most cost-effective locations. 02.22-04 Data needs table: Input from TWG on list of items 3/8/2013 All participants 02.22-05 Add changes in spawning and rearing habitat in proposed inundation zone to data needs table 3/8/2013 R2 02.22-07 Produce/distribute communications protocol from PAD (cc: Betsy, Ed, Sue) 3/8/2013 McMillen Done 3/8/2013. 02.22-08 Standing agenda item for agendas – review and approve previous meeting notes and future meeting schedule NA NA 02.22-09 Follow-up with others re: future participation in TWG; FERC (AEA), EPA (Catherine Berg), NGOs (AEA), ADF&G (AEA), FWS (Sue Walker), ADNR (Marie Steele), Jan Konigsberg (AEA) 3/20/2013 AEA, Catherine Berg, Marie Steele Email 02.22-10 Meeting protocol – summarize action items, decisions, parking lot items NA NA 02.22-11 Identify other fish passage at high head dam experts 3/20/2013 MWH, R2, Ed Meyer Done 3/20/2013. 02.22-12 Issue updated meeting and workshop calendar (Gantt chart) 3/20/2013 R2 FP TWG email Done 3/20/2013. 02.22-13 Provide a list of all Susitna River species and life stages. Provide rationale of species not considered to travel to dam site 3/26/2013 R2 Website: Meeting Materials for April 9 and 10; Listserve email 02.22-14 Distribute updated data needs table and data synthesis to TWG 3/26/2013 R2 Website: Meeting Materials for April 9 and 10; Listserve email Done 3/26/2013. 02.22-15 Provide a list of all Susitna River species and life stages. Provide rationale of species not considered to travel to dam site 3/26/2013 R2 Done 3/26/2013. Appendix A - Page 43
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MAY 21, 2013 FISH PASSAGE MEETING #4 Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 9 ID Completed Action Items Date Completed Responsibility Distribution Notes 02.22-16 Distribute sample biological tool spreadsheet and description of tool 3/26/2013 R2 Website: Meeting Materials for April 9 and 10; Listserve email Done 3/26/2013. 02.22-17 Presentation of videography at first workshop 4/9/2013 AEA April 9 and 10, 2013 FP TWG 03.20-01 Distribute MSWord document of 2/22/13 meeting notes to attendees for edits 3/20/2013 Kathryn Peltier Email Done. Betsy McGregor distributed to FP TWG 3/22/2013. 03.20-02 Create an archive list of completed action items 3/20/2013 Kathryn Peltier Email Done. Distributed to FP TWG 4/8/2013. 03.20-03 Update communication protocol and distribute 3/22/2013 Kathryn Peltier Email Done. Distributed to FP TWG in 3/20/2013 mtg notes on 4/8/2013. 03.20-04 Distribute list of all Fish Passage team members 3/22/2013 Kathryn Peltier Email Done. Distributed to FP TWG on 4/8/2013. 03.20-05 Provide Ed Meyer with Dana Schmidt’s resume 3/21/2013 MaryLou Keefe Email Done. MaryLou Keefe sent to Ed Meyer 3/21/2013. 03.20-06 Review Dana Schmidt’s and Chick Sweeney’s resumes as high head dam fish passage experts 3/22/2013 Ed Meyer Email Done. 03.20-07 Add to applicable entrainment reference in the data needs table 3/26/2013 MaryLou Keefe Data Needs Table Done. 03.20-08 Include reservoir effects on migration timing is in the data needs table 3/26/2013 MaryLou Keefe Data Needs Table Done. 03.20-09 Provide MaryLouise Keefe with a detailed description regarding data needs of trophic cascade information 3/25/2013 Jeff Davis Email, Data Needs Table Done 3/26/2013. 03.20-10 Distribute draft Agenda for April 9 and 10 Fish Passage Meeting 3/27/2013 AEA Website: Meeting Materials for April 9 and 10; Listserve email 04.09-01 Provide edits to 2/22/2013 FPTWG meeting notes to AEA Complete. Notes posted FPTWG 2/22/2013 meeting attendees Email for edits. Susitna-watanahydro.org Appendix A - Page 44
DRAFT MEETING NOTES MAY 21, 2013 FISH PASSAGE MEETING #4 Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 10 ID Completed Action Items Date Completed Responsibility Distribution Notes 04.09-02 Provide edits to 3/20/2013 FPTWG meeting notes to AEA Complete. Notes posted FPTWG 3/20/2013 meeting attendees Email for edits. Susitna-watanahydro.org 04.09-03 AEA to discuss its choice of additional fish passage experts with Ed Meyer/Sue Walker Complete. Added Dr. Al Giorgi to FP TWG Wayne Dyok Phone call 04.09-04 Provide FPTWG Information Needs Table in MSWord Complete Betsy McGregor Email Dana Postlewait distributed by email for Betsy McGregor. 04.09-05 Include appendix titles in website link description/title Complete. Posted Justin Crowther Susitna-watanahydro.org 04.09-08 Flow duration data in Excel; data presented today plus totals Posted John Haapala, Dennis Dorratcague Susitna-watanahydro.org Dennis Dorratcague to reprint with pagination corrected for re-posting. 04.09-10 Find out from Stuart when he will be completed with estimating flows in tributaries to reservoirs and just below dam – when that data will be available to the fish passage study team. Complete. MaryLou Stage data to be collected this year, and stage/ discharge relationships to be developed in 2014 with results available after 2014 season. 05.21-01 Provide remaining edits to April 9-10, 2013 Workshop #1 meeting notes to AEA 5/24/2013 Jeff Davis and Sue Walker Email 05.21-04 Provide edits to Information Needs List and update table Edits to AEA by 6/18/2013 Workshop #1 participants Betsy McGregor to email MS-Word version participants for editing. Updated table distributed for 7/9/2013 meeting. Distributed 6/24/2013 05.21-05 Doodle Poll for site reconnaissance 5/31/2013 Dana Postlewait, Betsy McGregor Email Completed confirming 9/17-9/20 05.21-07 Draft notes of 5/21/2013 check-in meeting and action items 5/31/2013 Steve Padula, Dana Postlewait, Tim Sullivan Email Appendix A - Page 45
Susitna–Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 11
Agenda
Fish Passage TWG
Fish Passage Meeting #3a
7/9/2013
LOCATION: Web Call
TIME: 8:00 am – 10:00 am (AKDT); 9:00 am – 11:00 am (PDT)
SUBJECT: Regularly scheduled interim check-in meeting for Fish Passage Technical Team
GoTo MEETING: https://www4.gotomeeting.com/register/800785847
1-800-315-6338 Code 3957#
Introductions
Meeting Purpose and Objectives
Regularly schedule interim check-in meeting.
Plan for site reconnaissance trip
Review May 21 Meeting Items (Meeting #3)
Review meeting notes and action items
Review information needs list updates
Discuss preparation for site reconnaissance planned for Meeting #4
Date confirmed
Travel logistics
Review agenda
Review Fish Passage Study Schedule and Next Steps
Review updated meeting schedule and Gantt chart schedule
Critical path items
Discuss upcoming Brainstorming Workshop #2
Scheduled for March 18-19, 2014
Planning needs
Appendix A - Page 46
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 February 2014 Draft
APPENDIX B: BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Information Tables 10_03_13.docx Page 1 Table B-1. List of biological data needs. The available information as of January 8, 2014 follows in this appendix. Except where the noted initial compilation of information was provided to the FPTWG prior to Workshop #1 (April 9 and 10, 2013) and updates provided prior to the Site Visit (September 18 and 19, 2013). Item Description Comments B1 Target fish species for upstream and downstream passage. Added to Table B1: coho, sockeye, chum, rainbow trout, steelhead, arctic lamprey, Bering cisco. Passage facilities will require species sorting. Consider species that we do not want to pass (nuisance species). Updated appendices to reflect additional species, including periodicity and numbers. Specified which species documented in Upper River. B2 List of other species in the system that may be accessible to any passage facilities. Changed lake trout to be considered as native species. B3 Life stage specific periodicity Updated table headings and created a combined fish passage design table for Items B3, B4, B5, and B6 (See Item B17). B4 Migratory characteristics - routes, seasonal timing & duration by species & life stages Created a combined fish passage design table for Items B3, B4, B5, and B6 (See Item B17). Reference routes in Item B8 also. B5 Estimated numbers & sizes of fish for upstream and downstream migrants Created a combined fish passage design table for Items B3, B4, B5, and B6 (See Item B17). Reference upper reservoir future fish community study (note this is a management decision). Consider how large numbers of potential anadromous fish could impact passage of resident fish. Intent for passage facility design is to create bookends for feasibility analysis. Later work needs to revisit this issue, and plans could consider flexibility, phased approach, etc. Provide 2 columns in the population number estimate table: best estimate of numbers (design for what is there now), and potential future fish numbers. Note potential rate of increase, as feasible. B6 Life stage specific parameters – size, migratory behavior, swimming behavior & speed, other physical passage constraints Created a combined fish passage design table for Items B3, B4, B5, and B6. See Item B17 B7 Fish relative abundance upstream and downstream of project including tributaries Merged with Item B5. B8 Locations of spawning and rearing habitats Updated B8 with new data on Chinook observation maps. Reference migration routes with Item B4. B9 Predators – species, abundance, location Will be used to help compare alternatives, may be a data need. Likely a management issue. This item has been added to the management table, and will be retained here also. B10 Existing ecological conditions – invasive species, light, temperature, flows See Water Quality Items P1 and P11. B11 Bio performance tool See update distributed on 1/8/14. Not on current short-term critical path. B12 Influence of the reservoir on juvenile and smolt migration timing, and Merged with Item B6 See temperature model being developed this summer by R. Appendix B - Page 1
Information Tables 10_03_13.docx Page 2 Item Description Comments migration routes from tributaries to the reservoir to the intake or capture location. Plotnikoff which may also provide velocity information (RSP 5.6 – Water Quality Modeling Study). B13 Influence of post-project reservoir on ice formation on juvenile and smolt migration from tributaries. See temperature model output noted in Item B12. Is there risk of increased ice conditions that could affect downstream migration and the ability to collect fish out of tributaries? B14 Influence of the reservoir on fish community and target species including the introduction and proliferation of predators (i.e. Lake Trout) in the modified reservoir environment. Merged with Item B9 B15 Risk of entrainment of non-target species into the intake or capture device under different passage alternatives Merged with Item B2 B16 Influence of seasonal and longitudinal changes in turbidity, and thermocline presence and depth on predation and migration routes (depth). Merged with B10. See water quality model output (RSP 5.6 – Water Quality Modeling Study), which will indicate thermal barriers, etc. (Items P2 and P9) B17 Combined fish passage design table Combines information from Items B3, B4, B5, and B6 Appendix B - Page 2
INFORMATION ITEM B1: TARGET SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 August 2013
INFORMATION ITEM B1. TARGET FISH SPECIES FOR PASSAGE
Appendix B - Page 3
INFORMATION ITEM B1: TARGET SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B1 - Page 1 August 2013
1. TARGET SPECIES SELECTION RATIONALE
The proposed Susitna-Watana Project would block the upstream passage of Chinook salmon and
resident fish that migrate through and otherwise use the dam site and upstream habitat in the
Upper Susitna River and its tributaries. Likewise, the proposed dam and reservoir could
potentially affect the downstream movement of fish in the Upper River that exhibit migratory
behavior. This information item provides a preliminary list of target species for consideration in
the Study of Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam.
As a first step in selecting target species, only those fish species that have been documented in
the Upper River (upstream of the dam site) were considered. This criterion is based on the
assumption that, compared to current conditions, the Project has the potential to affect
connectivity of habitat and/or gene flow for species that have documented presence in the Upper
River. From the list of Upper River fish species, target species were then selected based on the
following three criteria.
Exhibit migratory behavior – Fish passage has a greater importance to species that may
exhibit migratory behavior as part of their natural life history compared to fish that
exhibit only localized movement, especially when the migration is necessary to complete
the life cycle of the species.
High relative abundance – Species that are relatively abundant in the Upper River and
its tributaries would theoretically utilize fish passage facilities with greater frequency
than less abundant species, disregarding other criteria (e.g., migratory behavior).
Importance to commercial, sport, or subsistence fisheries – Species that are harvested in
commercial, sport, or subsistence fisheries have added importance with regard to the
study of fish passage feasibility.
Preliminary target species were selected if they met two of the three criteria listed above.
Because the amount of available information related to these criteria is inconsistent for each
species, this assessment was qualitative and in some cases relied on assumptions based on out-
of-basin literature. For each criterion, categorical scores of High, Moderate, and Low/None were
assigned to each species and only those rated as High or Moderate were deemed to meet that
criterion. This approach does not account for any current of future conservation or management
objectives that may exist for a given species.
Table B1-1 shows the criteria scores for all fish species known to occur in the Upper River and
identifies those selected as target species based on the criteria. For those selected as target
species, the following sections provide a brief rationale for the scores assigned. Other
appendices to this document provide further details regarding migratory behavior (Information
Item B4) and relative abundance (Information Item B7) in support of these scores. Brief
descriptions of other species that were not selected as target species but are known to occur in
the Upper River and could potentially access passage facilities are provided in Information Item
B2.
The Fish Passage Technical Workgroup meeting held on March 9-10, 2013 (Workshop #1)
included a discussion as to whether the fish passage study team should consider additional
species beyond the target species identified based on the criteria above. There was agreement to
Appendix B - Page 4
INFORMATION ITEM B1: TARGET SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B1 - Page 2 August 2013
consider all species that might exist in the area, including anadromous fish documented in the
Middle River. Based on this discussion, these additional species will also be considered target
species and are included in Table B1-1 as well as the sections below.
2. ARCTIC GRAYLING
Evidence of movement between tributaries in the Upper River with use of the main
channel as a migratory corridor (Delaney et al. 1981b). In the Middle River, documented
migrations of up 40 miles to overwinter in the mainstem near Talkeetna (Sundet 1986).
High relative abundance in the Upper Susitna River compared to catches of other species
(Delaney et al. 1981b; AEA unpublished data).
An important species comprising a significant component of the sport fish harvest in the
Susitna River Drainage (Jennings et al. 2007, 2011).
3. ARCTIC LAMPREY
Arctic lamprey populations in the Susitna River are thought to exhibit both anadromous
and freshwater life histories (Schmidt et al. 1983). Ammocoetes undergo a
metamorphosis in the fall and migrate as young adults to the sea, or to lakes and larger
rivers. After an undetermined period, adults migrate upstream to spawn (Delaney et al.
1981a).
Arctic lamprey are primarily distributed in the lower Susitna River (downstream of RM
50.5), but have been found as far upstream as Gash Creek (RM 111.5) (Schmidt et al.
1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984).
Arctic lamprey are believed to be abundant in the Susitna River below HRM 50.5 with
decreased abundance upstream (Sundet and Wenger 1984).
Added as a target species following TWG discussions.
4. BERING CISCO
Susitna River Bering cisco are anadromous (Delaney et al. 1981a).
Bering cisco are known to be present in the Lower Susitna River and are thought to bee
distributed primarily downstream of the confluence with the Chulitna River (Jennings
1985). During the 1980s only one Bering cisco was ever documented upstream of the
three rivers confluence. They have not been documented in the Upper River.
While information is not specifically provided for Bering cisco, whitefish spp. as a whole
comprise a small component of the sport fish harvest in the Susitna River Drainage
(Jennings et al. 2007, 2011).
Added as a target species following TWG discussions.
Appendix B - Page 5
INFORMATION ITEM B1: TARGET SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B1 - Page 3 August 2013
5. BURBOT
Burbot are generally sedentary except for pre- and post-spawning migrations documented
to extend up to 70 miles based on telemetry and mark-recapture studies in the Middle
Susitna River (Schmidt et al. 1983).
Widely distributed in the Upper River, but at relatively low abundance compared to other
target species (Delaney et al. 1981b; AEA unpublished data).
An important species comprising a significant component of the sport fish harvest in the
Susitna River Drainage (Jennings et al. 2007, 2011).
6. CHINOOK SALMON
Exhibit extensive upstream spawning and downstream smolt migrations as part of
obligate anadromous life history.
Low relative abundance based on juvenile sampling and adult aerial surveys in the
Susitna River and its tributaries upstream of Devils Canyon (AEA unpublished data;
Buckwalter 2011; Barrett 1985).
Comprise a major component of the sport fish harvest in the Susitna River drainage
(Jennings et al. 2007, 2011) and supports commercial (Shields 2010) and subsistence
(Fall et al. 2009) harvest in Cook Inlet.
7. CHUM SALMON
Exhibit upstream spawning and downstream smolt migrations as part of obligate
anadromous life history.
Have not been documented in the Upper River but are present in the Middle River.
Comprise a major component of the sport fish harvest in the Susitna River drainage
(Jennings et al. 2007, 2011) and supports commercial (Shields 2010) and subsistence
(Fall et al. 2009) harvest in Cook Inlet.
Added as a target species following TWG discussions.
8. COHO SALMON
Exhibit upstream spawning and downstream smolt migrations as part of obligate
anadromous life history.
Have not been documented in the Upper River but are present in the Middle River.
Comprise a major component of the sport fish harvest in the Susitna River drainage
(Jennings et al. 2007, 2011) and supports commercial (Shields 2010) and subsistence
(Fall et al. 2009) harvest in Cook Inlet.
Added as a target species following TWG discussions.
Appendix B - Page 6
INFORMATION ITEM B1: TARGET SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B1 - Page 4 August 2013
9. DOLLY VARDEN
Limited available information regarding migration but some evidence from 1980s Middle
River studies suggest upstream spawning movements up tributaries and post-spawn
movements to the mainstem for overwintering (Schmidt et al. 1983; Sautner and Stratton
1983; Sundet and Wenger 1984).
Infrequently encountered in the Upper River during 1980s studies (Delaney et al. 1981b)
though more recent sampling upstream of Devils Canyon indicates a higher relative
abundance and broader distribution compared to other species (AEA unpublished data;
Buckwalter 2011)
An important species comprising a significant component of the sport fish harvest in the
Susitna River Drainage (Jennings et al. 2007, 2011).
10. HUMPBACK WHITEFISH
Evidence of upstream spawning migration (>10 miles) in the main channel of the Middle
River (Schmidt et al. 1983; Sundet and Wenger 1984). Limited indication of possible
spring migration from overwintering areas (Schmidt et al. 1983).
Low relative abundance compared to other species based on sampling upstream of Devils
Canyon (AEA unpublished data; Buckwalter 2011; Delaney et al. 1981b).
Whitefish spp. comprise a small component of the sport fish harvest in the Susitna River
Drainage (Jennings et al. 2007, 2011). In addition, whitefish are components of
subsistence harvest in several Alaska rivers.
11. LONGNOSE SUCKER
In the Middle River, some indication of limited upstream movement in the spring
associated with spawning, though migration distances are unknown (Schmidt et al. 1983).
Adults are generally thought to move from lakes into inlet streams or from deep pools to
shallow, gravel-bottomed areas in streams (Morrow 1980). Longnose suckers are not
thought to exhibit any definite migrations except to and from spawning areas (Morrow
1980).
Moderate relative abundance compared to other species based on sampling upstream of
Devils Canyon (Delaney et al. 1981b; Buckwalter 2011; AEA unpublished data).
Longnose sucker are not listed in sport fish harvest reports (Jennings et al. 2007, 2011)
and are thought to comprise a negligible component of sport fish harvest. However,
Morrow (1980) describes harvest elsewhere in their range outside of Alaska. Likewise,
longnose sucker have been reported as a component of subsistence harvest in various
parts of Alaska (Krieg et al. 2005; Simeone and Kari 2005; Andersen et al. 2004).
Appendix B - Page 7
INFORMATION ITEM B1: TARGET SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B1 - Page 5 August 2013
12. RAINBOW TROUT / STEELHEAD
Rainbow trout have not been documented in the Upper River but are present in the
Middle River.
During spawning migrations, adult rainbow trout spawning migrations typically begin in
March prior to ice break-up when adults move from main channel holding areas to
spawning tributaries (Sundet 1986). Post-spawning movements occur from tributaries to
overwintering habitat in the mainstem and side channels. After emergence, juvenile
rainbow trout primarily reside in natal tributary habitats throughout the year (Schmidt et
al. 1983). Rainbow trout exhibiting an anadromous life history (i.e., steelhead) have not
been documented in the Middle Susitna River.
Rainbow trout comprise a component of the sport fish harvest in the Susitna River
Drainage (Jennings et al. 2007, 2011).
Added as a target species following TWG discussions.
13. ROUND WHITEFISH
In the Middle River, some evidence of an upstream migration in the main channel
thought to be associated with spawning (Schmidt et al. 1983; Sundet and Wenger 1984).
Some fish documented moving over 10 miles.
Moderate relative abundance compared to other species based on sampling upstream of
Devils Canyon (Delaney et al. 1981b; Buckwalter 2011; AEA unpublished data).
Whitefish spp. comprise a small component of the sport fish harvest in the Susitna River
Drainage (Jennings et al. 2007, 2011).
14. SOCKEYE SALMON
Exhibit upstream spawning and downstream smolt migrations as part of obligate
anadromous life history.
Have not been documented in the Upper River but are present in the Middle River.
Comprise a major component of the sport fish harvest in the Susitna River drainage
(Jennings et al. 2007, 2011) and supports commercial (Shields 2010) and subsistence
(Fall et al. 2009) harvest in Cook Inlet.
Added as a target species following TWG discussions.
Appendix B - Page 8
INFORMATION ITEM B1: TARGET SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B1 - Page 6 August 2013
15. REFERENCES
Andersen, D.B., C.L. Brown, R.J. Walker, and K. Elkin. 2004. Traditional Ecological
Knowledge and Contemporary Subsistence Harvest of Non-Salmon Fish in the Koyukuk
River Drainage, Alaska. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Technical Paper No. 282.
Barrett, B.M., F.M. Thompson, S. Wick, and S. Krueger. 1983. Adult Anadromous Fish
Studies, 1982. Phase II data report, Volume 2. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 275 pp.
Barrett, B.M. 1985. Adult Salmon Investigations, May - October 1984. Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies, Anchorage, Alaska. 528 pp.
Buckwalter, J.D. 2011. Synopsis of ADF&G’s Upper Susitna Drainage Fish Inventory, August
2011. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, Alaska.
27 pp.
Delaney, K., D. Crawford, L. Dugan, S. Hale, K. Kuntz, B. Marshall, J. Mauney, J. Quinn, K.
Roth, P Suchanek, R. Sundet, and M. Stratton. 1981a. Resident Fish Investigation on the
Lower Susitna River. Prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro
Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK. 311 pp.
Delaney, K., D. Crawford, L. Dugan, S. Hale, K Kuntz, B. Marshall, J. Mauney, J. Quinn, K.
Roth, P Suchanek, R. Sundet, and M. Stratton. 1981b. Resident Fish Investigation on the
Upper Susitna River. Prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro
Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK. 157 pp.
Fall, J.A., C. Brown, M.F. Turek, N. Braem, J.J. Simon, W.E. Simeone, D.L. Holen, L. Naves, L.
Hutchison-Scarbrough, T. Lemons, V. Ciccone, T.M. Krieg, and D. Koster. 2009.
Alaska subsistence salmon fisheries 2007 annual report. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 346, Anchorage.
Jennings, T.R. 1985. Fish Resources and Habitats in the Middle Susitna River. Woodward-Clyde
Consultants and Entrix. Final Report to Alaska Power Authority. 175 pp.
Jennings, G.B., K. Sundet, and A.E. Bingham. 2007. Participation, catch, and harvest in Alaska
sport fisheries during 2004. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series
No. 07-40, Anchorage.
Jennings, G.B., K. Sundet, and A.E. Bingham. 2011. Estimates of participation, catch, and
harvest in Alaska sport fisheries during 2010. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Fishery Data Series No. 11-60, Anchorage.
Krieg, T., M. Chythlook, P. Coiley-Kenner, D. Holen, K. Kamletz, and H. Nicholson. 2005.
Freshwater Fish Harvest and Use in Communities of the Kvichak Watershed, 2003.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technical Paper Number
297. Juneau, Alaska.
Morrow, J.E. 1980. The Freshwater Fishes of Alaska. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Northwest
Publishing Company.
Appendix B - Page 9
INFORMATION ITEM B1: TARGET SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B1 - Page 7 August 2013
Sautner, J., and M. Stratton. 1983. Upper Susitna River Impoundment Studies 1982. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. Anchorage, AK. 220 pp.
Schmidt, D., S. Hale, D. Crawford, and P. Suchanek. 1983. Resident and Juvenile Anadromous
Fish Studies on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, 1982. Prepared by Alaska
Department of Fish and Game for the Alaska Power Authority. 303 pp.
Shields, P. 2010. Upper Cook Inlet commercial fisheries annual management report, 2010.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 10-54,
Anchorage.
Simeone, William E. and Jim Kari. 2005. The Harvest and Use of non-Salmon Fish Species in
the Copper River Basin. In collaboration with the Mentasta Tribal Council, Cheesh Na’
Tribal Council, Copper River Native Association and the Chitina Tribal Council. Final
Report (FIS) Project 01-110, Anchorage, Alaska.
Sundet, R.L. and M.N. Wenger. 1984. Resident Fish Distribution and Population Dynamics in
the Susitna River below Devil Canyon. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Anchorage,
AK.
Sundet, R.L. 1986. Winter Resident Fish Distribution and Habitat Studies Conducted in the
Susitna River Below Devil Canyon, 1984-1985. Report to Alaska Power Authority by
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies, Anchorage, AK.
80 pp.
Appendix B - Page 10
INFORMATION ITEM B1: TARGET SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B1 - Page 8 August 2013
16. TABLES
Table B1-1. List of fish species documented in the Upper Susitna River, a qualitative assessment of their potential for
migratory behavior, relative abundance, and harvest importance, and the identification of preliminary target species for
the Study of Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam. Additional target species identified during TWG discussions are
also listed; corresponding information for these species can be found in Information Items B3 through B8.
Species Latin Name
Documented
in Upper
River Basin
Migratory
Potential
Relative
Abundance3
Harvest
Importance
Target
Species
Arctic Grayling Thymallus arcticus Yes Moderate High High
Arctic Lamprey Thymallus arcticus No Included based on TWG discussion
Bering Cisco Coregonus laurettae No Included based on TWG discussion
Burbot Lota lota Yes Moderate Low High
Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha Yes High Low High
Chum Salmon Oncorhynchus keta No Included based on TWG discussion
Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch No Included based on TWG discussion
Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma Yes Moderate High High
Humpback
Whitefish1 Coregonus pidschian Yes Moderate Low Moderate
Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush Yes Low Low High
Longnose Sucker Catostomus
catostomus Yes Moderate Moderate None
Rainbow Trout/
Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss No Included based on TWG discussion
Round Whitefish Prosopium
cylindraceum Yes Moderate Moderate Moderate
Sculpin2 Cottus spp. Yes Low High None
Sockeye Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka No Included based on TWG discussion
Notes:
1 Whitefish species that were not identifiable to species by physical characteristics in the field were called
humpback by default. This group may have included lake (Coregonus clupeaformis) or Alaska (Coregonus
nelsonii) whitefish.
2 Sculpin species were generally not differentiated in the field. In addition to slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus),
species may include others belonging to the Cottus genus.
3 Reflects relative abundance in the Upper River Basin based on best available information.
Appendix B - Page 11
INFORMATION ITEM B2: OTHER SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 August 2013
INFORMATION ITEM B2. OTHER SPECIES POTENTIALLY
ACCESSIBLE TO ANY PASSAGE FACILITIES
Appendix B - Page 12
INFORMATION ITEM B2: OTHER SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B2 - Page 1 August 2013
1. INTRODUCTION
Information Item B1 describes proposed target species for the Study of Fish Passage Feasibility
at Watana Dam. These target species were identified based on their documented presence in the
Upper Susitna River, the degree to which they are expected to exhibit migratory behavior, their
relative abundance, and their importance to harvest. In addition, several other fish species were
identified for inclusion as target species following TWG discussions. Two other taxa, lake trout
and sculpin, have also been identified in the Upper Susitna basin but were not proposed as target
species for the Study of Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam. Nonetheless, these taxa would
have the potential to encounter fish passage facilities at the Project. This information item
provides a summary of available life history, distribution, and abundance information for these
taxa, as well as rationale by which they are proposed as non-target species.
2. LAKE TROUT
2.1. General Life History and Periodicity
Similar to other species of char, lake trout spawn in the fall generally between September and
October before freeze-up (Morrow 1980). Lake trout are broadcast spawners and do not
excavate a redd, but instead congregate in large groups over coarse, rocky habitats at night and
broadcast eggs and milt over spawning beds. Lake trout are a slow-growing, long lived fish
species that spend their entire lives in lake habitats. Lake trout are sexually mature after 5 to 8
years. Larvae emerge in the spring though little is known about subsequent juvenile behavior.
Lake trout are slow-growing and can often live for 25 years, though have been documented as
old as 62 years (Burr 1987). Lake trout generally do not spawn every year. Little is known
about their early life history. Prey items include a combination of zooplankton, aquatic
invertebrates, and other fish species (Bendock 1994).
2.2. Distribution and Relative Abundance
Lake trout primarily occupy deep lake habitats that can include both clear-water and glacial
lakes, although they tend to only occupy clear-water systems in northern Alaska (Bendock
1994). Lake trout have been documented in lake outlet channels, though their use of connected
stream and river systems is less clear (Burr 1987).
Jennings (1985) reported that lake trout occur in relatively large and deep lakes throughout the
Susitna Basin. Occasionally, lake trout can also be found in the inlet or outlet streams of these
lakes (Jennings 1985). Lake trout were not captured during surveys of mainstem-influenced
areas of the Susitna River below Devil Canyon in the 1980s (ADF&G 1981, 1983; Schmidt et al.
1984). They are most widely distributed in the upper Susitna River drainage, but also are present
in lakes of the eastern side of the Susitna River drainage. Lake trout distribution in the Susitna
River basin is not well understood, but they have been documented in Beaver, Clarence, Crater,
Curtis, Stephens, Louise, Little Louise, and Butte lakes (Burr 1987) as well as Deadman and
Sally lakes (Sautner and Stratton 1983).
Appendix B - Page 13
INFORMATION ITEM B2: OTHER SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B2 - Page 2 August 2013
Little detailed information is available from the studies of the 1980s regarding lake trout in the
Susitna River basin. The most detailed information comes from sampling during 1981 in
Deadman Lake and during 1981 and 1982 in Sally Lake, which would have been inundated
under the proposed project configuration of the 1980s (Delaney et al. 1981a; Sautner and
Stratton 1983). Sampling in Sally Lake during 1981 was primarily by gillnet with some angling;
only angling was attempted at Deadman Lake. Lake trout were captured in both Sally Lake (32
fish, 2 by angling) and Deadman Lake (3 fish, all by angling). Lake trout in Sally Lake were
captured in less than 6 feet of water and within 100 feet of shore. The length of Lake Trout in
Sally Lake ranged from 305 mm to 508 mm with a mean of 410 mm. Most scales removed from
Lake Trout were unreadable, precluding age determination. During 1982, sampling in Sally
Lake resulted in the capture of 32 Lake Trout (Sautner and Stratton 1983). Similar to the 1981
sampling, fish sizes ranged from 260 to 490 mm with an average length of 419 mm.
2.3. Rationale as Non-Target Species
Lake trout are thought to exhibit little migratory behavior outside of lacustrine habitat,
with observations of movement to lotic habitat in the Susitna Basin limited to inlet/outlet
streams (Jennings 1985). Thus, any connectivity afforded by passage facilities would be
expected to provide little benefit for this species.
Although frequently found in some Susitna Basin lakes, lake trout were not documented
in the mainstem Susitna River (AEA unpublished data; Jennings 1985; Sautner and
Stratton 1983). While the potential exists for lake trout to inhabit the Project reservoir
following impoundment, it appears unlikely that they would move past the dam site under
current conditions.
Although lake trout are an important component of sport fisheries in the Susitna Basin
(Jennings et al. 2007, 2011), their importance with regard to the study of fish passage
feasibility is thought to be negligible. Should lake trout ultimately inhabit the future
Project reservoir, predation by lake trout and entrainment may be considerations.
Predation risks associated with Fish Passage are addressed in Information Item B9. The
probability of lake trout inhabiting the future Project reservoir and potential entrainment
risks will be considered in RSP 9.10 - The Future Watana Reservoir Fish Community and
Risk of Entrainment Study.
3. SCULPIN
3.1. General Life History and Periodicity
Sculpin observed in the Susitna River during the 1980s were generally not differentiated by
species, and as a result, there is little information about individual species (AEA 2012). The
slimy sculpin (Cottus congnatus) is the most abundant sculpin species and the only sculpin
species conclusively identified as present within the Susitna River drainage (Delaney et al.
1981a, 1981b). This section includes information specific to slimy sculpin where available, but
otherwise may reflect information related to sculpin (Cottus spp.) generally.
Slimy sculpin spawn between late March and late May following ice break-up in freshwater
streams and lakes. Males construct a nest, approximately 2 to 4 cm high, beneath the cover of
Appendix B - Page 14
INFORMATION ITEM B2: OTHER SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B2 - Page 3 August 2013
rocks and logs. As a ripe female approaches the nest, courtship ensues, and milt and eggs are
released into the nest (Morrow 1980). Males usually mate with two or three females, who
deposit their eggs into the male’s nest. Males attend the nest for approximately 30 days during
incubation (Morrow 1980; Scott and Crossman 1973). One week after hatching, the young leave
the nest and occupy habitats similar to those used by adult sculpin. Sexual maturity is normally
reached at age 2, and slimy sculpin may live up to 7 years. Aside from movement into shallow
spawning waters, migration seldom occurs with this species (Morrow 1980).
Sculpin in the Susitna River are sedentary with spawning, juvenile rearing and adult movements
confined to a limited area (Schmidt et al. 1983). Limited periodicity data is available for sculpin
species in the Susitna River. Late July catches of young-of-the-year suggests that spawning
occurs between spring break-up and mid-June (Delaney et al. 1981b). The duration of
incubation is thought to be about 30 days (Morrow 1980).
3.2. Distribution and Relative Abundance
The slimy sculpin is a freshwater species that resides in lakes and streams (Mecklenburg et al.
2002). As lake residents, they can be found from rocky near-shore shallows to depths up to 210
m, although depths ranging from 37 to 108 m appear to be most common (McPhail and Lindsey
1970; Mecklenburg et al. 2002). As stream residents, slimy sculpin prefer fast-flowing streams
with rocky and gravelly bottoms (Mecklenburg et al. 2002; Scott and Crossman 1973). Slimy
sculpin spawning habitat typically includes rocky lake shores and gravel-bottom streams with
water depths of 2 to 30 cm. Spawning occurs when water temperatures are between 4.5°C and
10°C (McPhail and Lindsey 1970; Morrow 1980).
Sculpin are distributed throughout the mainstem Susitna River (ADF&G 1981, 1983). Sculpin
were documented in the lower, middle, and upper Susitna River during the 1980s (AEA 2012).
Below Devils Canyon, slimy sculpin were widely distributed and occurred at almost all study
sites (Schmidt et al. 1983). Sculpin were documented in most locations sampled in the upper
Susitna River, including abundant populations in the Oshetna River, Fog Creek and Tsusena
Creek (Delaney et al. 1981a). Slimy sculpin were captured in minnow traps within all tributaries
sampled in 1981 except Jay Creek (Delaney et al. 1981a). Sculpin were also collected in Sally
Lake in the Upper Susitna River drainage (Delaney et al. 1981a).
Slimy sculpin almost exclusively eat insects (Morrow 1980). Aquatic insect larvae and nymphs
(e.g., mayflies, caddisflies, dipterans, and odonates) are primary food items for fish of all sizes,
although larger fish tend to consume larger prey items (Scott and Crossman 1973). Predation on
crustaceans and small fish, and consumption of aquatic vegetation have also been reported for
this species (Morrow 1980; Scott and Crossman 1973).
Sculpin were observed in all Designated Fish Habitat sites sampled in 1982 (Schmidt et al.
1983). Populations of slimy sculpin in the Upper Segment were widely distributed in almost all
tributary streams sampled (Delaney et al. 1981b), however their abundance relative to Lower and
Middle segment populations is uncertain. Upstream of Devils Canyon, slimy sculpin were most
abundant in the Oshetna River, Fog Creek, and Tsusena Creek (Delaney et al. 1981a).
Appendix B - Page 15
INFORMATION ITEM B2: OTHER SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B2 - Page 4 August 2013
3.3. Rationale as Non-Target Species
Sculpin in the Susitna River are sedentary with spawning, juvenile rearing and adult
movements confined to a limited area (Schmidt et al. 1983). Thus, any connectivity
afforded by passage facilities would be expected to provide little benefit for this species.
While abundant and widely distributed, sculpin are not targeted for harvest and lack the
added importance of harvested species with regard to fish passage considerations.
Appendix B - Page 16
INFORMATION ITEM B2: OTHER SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B2 - Page 5 August 2013
4. REFERENCES
ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1981. Subtask 7.10 Phase 1 Final Draft
Report Resident Fish Investigation on the Upper Susitna River. Anchorage, Alaska.
ADF&G. 1983. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Phase II Basic Data Report. Volume 3:
Resident and juvenile anadromous fish studies below Devil Canyon, 1982. Anchorage,
AX. 277 pp.
AEA (Alaska Energy Authority). 2012. Draft of Aquatic Resources Data Gap Analysis:
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project. Anchorage, Alaska.
Bendock, T. 1994. Lake Trout. Wildlife Notebook Series, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game.
Burr, J.M. 1987. Synopsis and Bibliography of Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush). Fishery
Manuscript No. 5, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Anchorage, AK.
Delaney, K., D. Crawford, L. Dugan, S. Hale, K Kuntz, B. Marshall, J. Mauney, J. Quinn, K.
Roth, P Suchanek, R. Sundet, and M. Stratton. 1981a. Resident Fish Investigation on the
Upper Susitna River. Prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro
Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK. 157 pp.
Delaney, K., D. Crawford, L. Dugan, S. Hale, K. Kuntz, B. Marshall, J. Mauney, J. Quinn, K.
Roth, P Suchanek, R. Sundet, and M. Stratton. 1981b. Resident Fish Investigation on the
Lower Susitna River. Prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro
Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK. 311 pp.
Jennings, G.B., K. Sundet, and A.E. Bingham. 2007. Participation, catch, and harvest in Alaska
sport fisheries during 2004. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series
No. 07-40, Anchorage.
Jennings, G.B., K. Sundet, and A.E. Bingham. 2011. Estimates of participation, catch, and
harvest in Alaska sport fisheries during 2010. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Fishery Data Series No. 11-60, Anchorage.
Jennings, T.R. 1985. Fish Resources and Habitats in the Middle Susitna River. Woodward-
Clyde Consultants and Entrix. Final Report to Alaska Power Authority. 175 pp.
McPhail, J.D., and C.C. Lindsey. 1970. Freshwater Fishes of Northwestern Canada and Alaska.
Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Mecklenburg, C.W., T.A. Mecklenburg, and L.K. Thorsteinson. 2002. Fishes of Alaska.
American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD.
Morrow, J.E. 1980. The Freshwater Fishes of Alaska. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Northwest
Publishing Company.
Sautner, J., and M. Stratton. 1983. Upper Susitna River Impoundment Studies 1982. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. Anchorage, AK. 220 pp.
Schmidt, D., S. Hale, D. Crawford, and P. Suchanek. 1983. Resident and Juvenile Anadromous
Fish Studies on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, 1982. Prepared by Alaska
Department of Fish and Game for the Alaska Power Authority. 303 pp.
Appendix B - Page 17
INFORMATION ITEM B2: OTHER SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B2 - Page 6 August 2013
Schmidt, D.C., S.S. Hale, D.L. Crawford, and P.M. Suchanek. 1984. Resident and juvenile
anadromous fish investigations (May - October 1983). Prepared for the Alaska Power
Authority. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies
Anchorage, Alaska. 458 pp.
Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board
of Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Appendix B - Page 18
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 August 2013
INFORMATION ITEM B3. LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PERIODICITY
Appendix B - Page 19
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 1 August 2013
1. DEVELOPMENT OF TARGET SPECIES PERIODICITIES
The life stage and migration periodicities for target species will be an important consideration for
the Study of Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam given the changes in passage facility design
constraints, hydrology, Project operations, and other physical processes that would occur over
the course of a year. This information item provides target species periodicities that have been
developed as part of the Susitna-Watana licensing studies based on information available to date.
Collection of additional information on fish distribution, abundance, and movement patterns in
the Susitna Basin will continue in 2013/2014 and may allow for further refinement; the
periodicities presented here are a work in progress.
These periodicities are primarily based on studies conducted in the Susitna Basin the 1980s and
2000s, particularly in the in the Middle Segment of the Susitna River (RM 98-184). Some
periodicity data are available for the Lower River (RM 0-98), though information for the Upper
River (RM 184-248) is sparse. Thus, the periodicities presented here are generally based on
information from the Middle River, supplemented with Lower River information as warranted.
In addition, periodicities for certain species/life stages for which Susitna-specific information
was lacking were developed using supplementary out-of-basin information (e.g., Morrow 1980).
For each target species, periodicity information is summarized in the following sections and is
also displayed in Tables B3-1 through B3-12. Although details regarding the migratory
characteristics of each target species are presented in Information Item B4, the information
presented below also includes migration timing as it is an important component of life history
periodicity. In addition to periodicity, Tables B3-1 through B3-12 also describe the utilization of
different habitat types for each species/life stage. This information was included as an indication
of the habitat types between which movements may occur.
2. ARCTIC GRAYLING
Arctic grayling periodicity is shown in Table B3-1.
Spring spawning migration occurs concurrently with increasing tributary water
temperatures during April and May, though movement of some large adults into ice-free
tributaries occurred prior to or during ice breakup (Sundet and Wenger 1984; Sundet and
Pechek 1985)
Spawning typically occurs in May and early June but can vary among tributaries (Sundet
and Wenger 1984; Sundet and Pechek 1985). Spawning typically occurs in upper extents
of clear, non-glacial tributaries soon after ice breakup, though spawning also documented
near tributary mouths (Sundet and Wenger 1984). Adult grayling movement and spawn
timing differed up to 10 days among Middle River tributaries and up to 20 days between
tributaries in the Middle and Lower River due to variable tributary water temperatures
(Sundet and Wenger 1984; Sundet and Pechek 1985). These differences suggest that
timing in the Upper River may be later assuming colder temperatures.
During the open water season, many adult grayling either remain within spawning
tributaries or move to nearby tributaries to feed during summer (Delaney et al. 1981a;
Appendix B - Page 20
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 2 August 2013
Delaney et al. 1981b; Schmidt et al. 1983; Sundet and Pechek 1985). Use of tributary
mouth, side slough and main channel habitats during the open water season was also
documented.
Adults disperse from tributaries during early August through early October to winter
holding habitats (Sundet and Wenger 1984; Sundet and Pechek 1985), with some moving
10 to 35 miles (Sundet and Pechek 1985; Sundet 1986). Winter habitat use in the
mainstem Susitna River is poorly understood, but some evidence main channel
overwintering exists (Sundet 1986).
The duration of egg incubation (from fertilization to hatching) is generally from 11 to 21
days, depending on water temperatures (Morrow 1980), suggesting incubation during
May and June and fry emergence likely during late May and June.
Juveniles typically reside in natal tributaries for at least one year, though some age-0+
grayling were observed to move to tributary mouth habitats during late summer (Schmidt
et al. 1983).
3. ARCTIC LAMPREY
Susitna River Arctic lamprey populations include both anadromous and freshwater life
histories, with approximately 30% following an anadromous life history based on
analysis of length frequency (Schmidt et al. 1983). However, little is known about the
periodicity of either life history in the Susitna River (Sundet and Wenger 1984). Thus,
there was insufficient information to develop a periodicity table for Arctic lamprey.
Arctic lamprey were captured in the Susitna River from the beginning of May through
mid-October in 1982 (Schmidt et al. 1983).
Arctic lamprey spawn during spring in streams with low-to moderate flow. Spawning
was observed at the Birch Creek and Slough site during late June (Schmidt et al. 1983).
Embryos develop into a larval stage, during which one to four years are spent burrowed
into soft substrate. Recent studies with other lamprey species suggest that lamprey
ammocoetes are generally widely dispersed from spawning areas downstream throughout
the river where suitable habitat is found (Jolley et al. 2012).
Ammocoetes undergo a metamorphosis in the fall and migrate as young adults to the sea,
or to lakes and larger rivers.
Downstream migrant traps in 1983 collected most Arctic lamprey between May and late
June suggesting outmigration during this time (Sundet and Wenger 1984).
After an undetermined period, adults migrate upstream to spawn (Delaney et al. 1981a).
4. BERING CISCO
Bering cisco periodicity is shown in Table B3-2.
Appendix B - Page 21
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 3 August 2013
The ecology of Bering cisco in Alaska is not well understood. Most Bering cisco in
Alaska disperse to estuarine or marine habitats during winter, though some populations
appear to reside entirely within freshwater (Morrow 1980).
Adult Bering cisco were captured at fishwheel traps but were never captured during other
summer or winter sampling in the Susitna River in 1982 (Schmidt et al. 1983). As a
result, little is known regarding adult Bering periodicity.
Upstream spawning migrations of Bering cisco in the Susitna River occurred from early
August through October, though fishwheel operation ended October 1 in 1982 and earlier
in other years, so the end of migration is not well defined (ADF&G 1983). Migration
appeared to peak in late September during 1982 (ADF&G 1983). Spawning during 1982
and 1983 occurred during September and October, with peak activity in early October
(ADF&G 1983, Barrett et al. 1984). No spawning was observed in the Middle Segment
during 1981, 1982, or 1983 (ADF&G 1983, Barrett et al. 1984).
Egg incubation and emergence timing is not well defined for Bering cisco populations.
In general, egg incubation of other cisco (e.g., arctic cisco) occurs through the winter and
early spring and fry hatch in the spring (Morrow 1980). Based on this general timing,
Bering cisco egg incubation is estimated to occur from early September through June and
fry emergence is presumed to occur in May and June. Soon after emergence, cisco fry
migrate to the estuarine environment to rear (Morrow 1980). Juvenile fry migration from
natal areas in the Lower Susitna is estimated to occur from mid-May through mid-July.
In the Susitna River, most Bering cisco appear to migrate to estuarine or marine areas as
age-0+ fry, but the duration of residence in saltwater habitats is not known (ADF&G
1983, Jennings 1985).
5. BURBOT
Burbot periodicity is shown in Table B3-3.
During summer, adult burbot movement appears to be infrequent and over short distances
(Sundet and Wenger 1984).
Adult burbot migrate to spawning locations in tributaries, tributary mouths and main
channel habitats in the Susitna Basin beginning as early as mid-August and continuing
through winter until spawning (Schmidt and Estes 1983; Sundet 1986). Spawning
migrations in the Susitna Basin generally range from 5 – 40 miles in length, but have
been documented up to 100 miles (Schmidt and Estes 1983).
Spawning occurs from mid-January to early February (Schmidt and Estes 1983; Sundet
and Pechek 1985).
Post-spawning migrations occur from February through March and are thought to be
relatively short (0.5 – 7 miles) (Schmidt and Estes 1983).
Egg incubation is poorly understood in the Susitna River due to difficulty of sampling ice
covered spawning sites during winter (Sundet and Pechek 1985). The duration of egg
incubation varies considerably with temperature, ranging from 30 days (at 6°C) to 100
days or more (near 0°C) (Bjorn 1940, MacCrimmon 1959, McPhail and Paragamian
Appendix B - Page 22
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 4 August 2013
2000). Based on this range, egg incubation is estimated to occur from mid-January
through April.
Upon hatching, burbot fry are small (3-4 mm, total length) and drift passively until
swimming ability improves (McPhail and Paragamian 2000). In the Middle and Lower
Susitna River, small age-0+ fry (15 mm, total length) were observed in mid-June (Sundet
and Pechek 1985).
Juvenile burbot were infrequently captured in the Susitna Basin (Sundet and Pechek
1985). While they are believed utilize habitats proximal to natal areas, juveniles were
primarily captured in downstream migrant traps (Schmidt et al. 1983).
6. CHINOOK SALMON
Chinook periodicity is shown in Table B3-4.
The timing of adult Chinook migration and spawning is not well defined in the Upper
River because of limited observations. However, active spawning observed in late July
in Kosina Creek which suggests that the periods of adult Chinook migration and
spawning in this segment may be similar to that described for Chinook in the Middle
Susitna River (Buckwalter 2011). If so, the timing and duration of egg incubation and fry
emergence would also likely be comparable to the period described for the Middle
Segment.
Chinook fry were documented in Kosina Creek (RM 206.8) in 2003 and 2011 and in the
Oshetna River (RM 233.4) in 2003 (Buckwalter 2011). No Chinook salmon were
identified in any Upper Segment tributaries sampled during impoundment studies in 1982
(Deadman, Watana, Kosina and Jay Creeks) or in Watana Creek (RM 194.1) or Deadman
Creek (RM 186.7) during aerial spawning surveys conducted in 1984 (Sautner and
Stratton 1983, Barrett et al. 1985). The periodicity of juvenile Chinook salmon rearing
and migration are poorly defined in the Upper Segment due to a paucity of data
pertaining to juvenile Chinook presence and movement. It is unclear whether juvenile
Chinook captured in 2003 and 2011 in the Upper Segment were age 0+ and/or age 1+
(Buckwalter 2011). Periodicity of juvenile Chinook rearing and migration are considered
undefined until additional data are available.
In the Middle River, Juvenile Chinook salmon exhibited very little freshwater life history
diversity during studies conducted in the 1980s. Scale samples from adult Chinook
salmon collected at fishwheels indicated that nearly all Chinook salmon that survive to
adulthood exhibit a stream-type life history pattern and outmigrate to the ocean as
yearlings (ADF&G 1981, ADF&G 1983, Barrett et al. 1984, Barrett et al. 1985,
Thompson et al. 1986). A small percentage of returning adult Chinook salmon
outmigrated as fry.
Roth and Stratton (1985) suggested Chinook salmon juveniles have three patterns of
distribution following emergence in tributary streams. One group rears and overwinters
in the natal tributary, and then outmigrates at Age 1+. Another group rears in the natal
tributary during part of the first summer, migrates to the mainstem for overwintering and
additional rearing and eventually outmigration to the ocean, again at Age 1+. The third
Appendix B - Page 23
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 5 August 2013
group migrates to the lower Susitna River as fry. Roth and Stratton (1985) were
uncertain what the relative proportion of Chinook production used the three behavior
patterns.
During 1980s studies, the bulk of Chinook salmon fry outmigrated from Indian and
Portage creeks by mid-August and redistributed into sloughs and side channels of the
Middle Susitna River or migrated to the Lower River (Roth and Stratton 1985, Roth et al.
1986). Outmigrant trapping occurred at Talkeetna Station (RM 103) during open water
periods from 1982 to 1985 and demonstrated Chinook salmon fry were migrating
downstream to the Lower Susitna River throughout the time traps were operating
(Schmidt et al. 1983, Roth et al. 1984, Roth and Stratton 1985, Roth et al. 1986). Based
on timing of movements, Roth and Stratton (1986) suggested that some Chinook salmon
fry from the Middle Susitna River either overwinter in the Lower Susitna River
downstream of Flathorn Station or outmigrate to the ocean as fry, but are unsuccessful, as
demonstrated by the low prevalence of Age 0 outmigrant characteristics in adult scales.
The capture of a small number of Age 1+ Chinook salmon juveniles in the Indian River
during winter sampling indicated that some Chinook salmon fry remain in natal
tributaries throughout their first year of life (Stratton 1986). During 1984, sampling in
the Indian River failed to capture any Chinook salmon Age 1+ fish during July, but were
successful during May and June, indicating that Age 1+ Chinook salmon juveniles
emigrated from tributary streams shortly after ice-out (Roth and Stratton 1985). The
cumulative frequency of Age 1+ Chinook salmon juveniles catch at the Talkeetna Station
reached 90 percent by early July in 1985 and by late-July at the Flathorn Station (Roth et
al. 1986Error! Reference source not found.). Consequently, most outmigrating
Chinook salmon Age 1+ smolts are generally in estuarine or nearshore waters by mid-
summer.
7. CHUM SALMON
Chum salmon periodicity is shown in Table B3-5.
In the Middle Susitna River, adult chum salmon migration during the 1980s studies
typically began in mid- July and peaked during September in mainstem and tributary
habitats (Jennings 1985, Thompson et al. 1986). The timing of entry into spawning
tributaries by adult chum can be delayed for a week or more as fish hold near the mouth
of the tributary, based on radio tag studies in the early 1980s (ADF&G 1981, ADF&G
1983).
Spawn timing was observed to differ among side slough, tributary and mainstem habitats
(Jennings 1985). The tributary spawning period was from early August through
September and peaked in late August and early September (Barrett et al. 1985, Jennings
1985, Thompson et al. 1986). In side slough habitats, chum spawning occurred from
early August through mid-October, with peak activity occurring during September
(Barrett et al. 1985, Jennings 1985, Thompson et al. 1986). Mainstem spawning occurred
from early September through early October, though most chum spawned during early
September (Barrett et al. 1985, Jennings 1985, Thompson et al. 1986).
Appendix B - Page 24
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 6 August 2013
Incubation of chum salmon eggs began at the start of spawning in each habitat type: early
August in tributary and side sloughs, and early September in main channel areas (Barrett
et al. 1985, Jennings 1985, Thompson et al. 1986). Egg incubation conditions among
these habitats differ considerably, particularly in terms of water temperature, and such
differences can affect egg development timing (Wangaard and Burger 1983, Vining et al.
1985). Intergravel water temperatures in tributary and main channel are strongly
influenced by surface streamflow, which suggests that incubation temperatures are high
during fall and near freezing during winter (Vining et al. 1985). In contrast, intergravel
water temperatures in side slough habitats are typically higher relative to tributary and
main channel areas during winter due to the influence of thermally stable groundwater
upwelling (Vining et al. 1985). Timing of chum fry emergence in tributary and main
channel areas is estimated to begin in early March, approximately two weeks later than
the estimated start of emergence in side slough areas, based on evaluation of chum egg
incubation and development in variable temperature regimes (Wangaard and Burger
1983, Vining et al. 1985). The duration of chum emergence periods among habitats are
not well defined due to sampling difficulty during this time, however, based on the small
size of juvenile chum captured at downstream traps in late May, it is assumed that
emergence in tributary and main channel areas extends through mid-May (Bigler and
Levesque 1985, Roth and Stratton 1985).
Juvenile chum salmon emigrate from the natal habitats to marine areas as age-0+ smolts,
though some may feed within nursery habitats for one to three months prior to or during
migration (Morrow 1980, ADF&G 1983, Jennings 1985). Primary nursery habitats for
age-0+ chum generally corresponded with areas highly utilized by adult chum spawners
(i.e., tributary and side slough); areas with the highest juvenile density also supported the
highest spawning density (Jennings 1985, Dugan et al. 1984). Tributary mouths and side
channels were also occupied by juvenile chum, though their use was low relative to side
slough and tributary areas (Schmidt et al. 1983). Downstream migration of juvenile
chum began prior to the start of outmigrant trap seasonal operation in mid- and late May
1983 and 1985, and fyke trap data collected in the Lower River suggest an early May
start of juvenile chum movement (Dugan et al. 1984, Roth et al. 1986). Based on these
capture data, age-0+ chum movement in the Middle Segment is estimated to occur from
early May through mid-August and peak during late May and June, though peak timing
was variable during the 1980s and correlated with Susitna River discharge levels (Roth et
al. 1984, Dugan et al. 1984, Roth et al. 1986). The vast majority (> 95 percent) of
juvenile chum movement was completed by mid-July during 1980s studies (Jennings
1985, Roth et al. 1986).
8. COHO SALMON
Coho salmon periodicity is shown in Table B3-6.
Upstream spawning migration of adult coho salmon into the Middle River of the Susitna
River typically began in late July and continued through early October based on studies
conducted in during the 1980s, with peak movement during early and mid-August
(Jennings 1985, Thompson et al. 1986). Adult coho primarily used main channel areas
for migration to access tributary spawning sites (Jennings 1985). Timing of upstream
Appendix B - Page 25
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 7 August 2013
migration into spawning tributaries was delayed from main channel movement due to
holding and milling behavior by adult coho in the lower extent of the Middle Segment or
proximal to spawning tributaries (ADF&G 1981, ADF&G 1983). Based on observed
milling and/or delay between date of radio tagging and tributary entry, the timing of
tributary entry and upstream migration is estimated to occur from early August through
early October, with peak movement in late August and early September.
Adult coho salmon spawning occurred almost entirely within clear water tributaries,
though occasional use of one main channel habitat has been observed in the Middle
Segment (ADF&G 1984, Barrett et al. 1985, Merizon et al. 2010). Radio tracking studies
conducted in 2009 indicated that approximately 1 percent of all tagged coho salmon (n =
275) spawned in mainstem (i.e., main channel, side channel and/or off-channel) habitats
in the Middle Segment (Merizon et al. 2010). No spawning was observed by coho
salmon in surveyed slough or tributary mouth habitats during 1980s studies (Barrett et al.
1985, Jennings 1985). Coho spawning during 1980s studies occurred from mid-August
through early October and peaked during mid- and late September. The spawn period for
coho salmon main channel spawning is assumed to be the same as tributary spawning due
to sparse main channel spawning data. Primary spawning tributaries in the Middle
Segment are Indian River (RM 138.6), Gash Creek (RM 111.6), Chase Creek (RM
106.4), and Whiskers Creek (RM 101.4) (Jennings 1985, Thompson et al. 1986).
The timing and duration of coho egg incubation and fry emergency is not well defined in
the Susitna River due to sparse winter data. The incubation period is considered to
coincide with the start of spawning in mid-August and continue through fry emergence.
Coho fry emergence began prior to the start of outmigrant trap seasonal operation in mid-
May 1983 and 1985, though ice cover precluded trap operation prior to this point
(Schmidt et al. 1983, Roth et al. 1986). Salmon egg incubation time depends on water
temperature and the duration necessary for coho egg development from the point of
fertilization to fry emergence can range from 228 days at water temperatures of 2° C to
139 days at 5° C (Murray and McPhail 1988, Quinn 2005). Based on these data and
approximate timing of coho salmon emergence in similar areas, coho fry emergence in
the Susitna River is estimated to begin in early March (Scott and Crossman 1973). The
small size (35 mm) of age-0+ coho captured in June and July of 1981, 1982 and 1983
suggests that emergence may continue through May or beyond (Jennings 1985).
Age 0+ coho salmon utilized natal tributaries for nursery habitats immediately following
emergence, but many emigrated from tributaries soon after emergence to mainstem
habitats between early May through October (Jennings 1985). Within the Susitna River
mainstem, age-0+ coho primarily used clear upland sloughs and side sloughs relative to
turbid areas affected by main channel streamflow (Schmidt and Bingham 1983, Dugan et
al. 1984). Many age-0+ coho salmon moved downstream to the Lower River during the
open water period based on outmigrant trap catch data (Roth et al. 1984). Downstream
movement of age-0+ coho to the Lower River appeared to begin in early May, prior to
outmigrant trap seasonal operation each year, and continued through October, with peak
movement from late June to late August (Jennings 1985, Roth et al. 1986). Observed
movement by age-0+ coho observed in September and October may have been a
reflection of dispersal to suitable winter nursery habitats, which were primarily located in
side sloughs and upland sloughs in the Middle Segment (Jennings 1985, Roth et al.
Appendix B - Page 26
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 8 August 2013
1986). Catch at the Flathorn Station (RM 22) outmigrant trap during fall suggested that
some age-0+ coho may have immigrated to marine or estuarine areas (Roth and Stratton
1985).
Ages-1+ and 2+ coho salmon primarily utilize clear water natal tributaries, side sloughs,
and upland sloughs as nursery habitat in the Middle Segment (Dugan et al. 1984).
Juvenile coho salmon that remain in the Susitna Basin as age-1+ parr, typically disperse
from natal tributaries and mainstem nursery habitats within the Middle Segment to Lower
River habitats, as few age- 2+ coho were captured within the Middle Segment during the
1980s (Stratton 1986). Coho parr that remain within the Middle Segment during winter
utilize tributaries, side sloughs and upland sloughs as nursery habitats (Delaney et al.
1981a, Stratton 1986). During winter and early spring, juvenile coho parr disperse from
nursery habitats, though the timing and pattern of this movement is not well understood.
Limited data collected during winter 1984-1985 suggested that juvenile coho parr exhibit
similar movements as juvenile Chinook salmon, in that downstream migration from
tributaries, and possibly mainstem nursery habitats, begins between early November and
February (Stratton 1986). Downstream movement of age-1+ coho from the Middle
Segment occurs throughout the open water season, with peak activity between late May
and early July (Schmidt et al. 1983, Roth et al. 1984, Roth et al. 1986). Age 2+
emigration from the Middle Segment habitats begins in early winter and continues
through June, with peak migration in late May and early June (Schmidt et al. 1983, Roth
et al. 1984, Roth et al. 1986).
9. DOLLY VARDEN
Dolly Varden periodicity is shown in Table B3-7.
Complex and variable life history patterns can be exhibited that include amphidromous,
adfluvial, fluvial, and stream resident forms (Morrow 1980). The extent to which each
life history pattern is present in the Susitna River is unclear, though adfluvial, fluvial and
stream resident populations were apparent during 1980s studies (Sautner and Stratton
1983, Schmidt et al. 1983, Sautner and Stratton 1984). Stream resident populations
present in headwater areas of Susitna River tributaries were of substantially smaller size
than adfluvial and fluvial populations, though comparison of morphological features
among disparately-sized individuals indicated each was of the same species (Sautner and
Stratton 1983, Schmidt et al. 1983, Sautner and Stratton 1984).
Adults primarily reside within tributary habitats during the open water season, though
apparent adfluvial populations were observed to use lakes to feed during summer
(Sautner and Stratton 1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984, Sautner and Stratton 1984).
Movement into tributaries occurred in June and July during 1980s studies, coincident
with the timing of upstream spawning migrations of adult Chinook salmon (Delaney et al.
1981a).
Spawning is believed to occur in the upstream extents of clear tributaries during late
September and October based on observations of spawning behavior and ripe adults
(Delaney et al. 1981a, Schmidt et al. 1983, Sautner and Stratton 1984).
Appendix B - Page 27
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 9 August 2013
Fishwheel capture data at the Talkeetna Station (RM 103) in 1982 and mark-recapture
data during 1982-1983 suggest upstream movement of adult Dolly Varden in the main
channel in spring and fall, which may represent spring movement to tributary feeding
areas and fall migration to spawning areas (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger
1984).
Most adults are believed to migrate downstream from tributaries during September and
October to winter holding habitats in the Susitna River main channel, though little is
known regarding the timing of such movement or locations of winter rearing (Schmidt et
al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984). Adfluvial populations likely utilize lacustrine
habitats during winter, though timing of movement from tributaries is not known
(Sautner and Stratton 1984).
Egg incubation and development to hatching varies with temperature, occurs over a
period of approximately 130 days at 8.5°C, but may require up to approximately 240
days on the north slope of Alaska (Blackett 1968, Yoshihara 1973, Morrow 1980). After
hatching, pre-emergent fry remain in the gravel for 60 – 70 days (Morrow 1980). Based
on this information, Dolly Varden egg incubation is estimated to occur from mid-
September through late May, and fry emergence likely occurs during April and May.
Juveniles in the Susitna Basin primarily utilize natal tributaries as summer and winter
nursery habitat, though juvenile use of lakes was observed during 1980s studies (Delaney
et al. 1981a, Sautner and Stratton 1983, Sautner and Stratton 1984). Little is known
regarding possible seasonal differences in juvenile Dolly Varden habitat use because
capture rates were generally very low during 1980s studies (Delaney et al. 1981a,
Schmidt et al. 1983, Suchanek et al. 1984). Dolly Varden that use lake habitats are likely
part of adfluvial populations that disperse to lakes from natal tributaries (Sautner and
Stratton 1984). Few juvenile Dolly Varden were captured in main channel outmigrant
traps in 1982 (n=7) and 1983 (n=7) and at tributary mouths in the Susitna River
mainstem, suggesting that few juveniles use mainstem habitat (Delaney et al. 1981a,
Sundet and Wenger 1984, Schmidt et al. 1983). During winter, it is possible that juvenile
Dolly Varden move downstream within natal tributaries, though there is no evidence that
juveniles utilize mainstem habitat during winter (Schmidt et al. 1983). In headwater
tributaries with adfluvial populations, juvenile Dolly Varden likely use lacustrine habitats
during winter (Sautner and Stratton 1984).
10. HUMPBACK WHITEFISH
Humpback whitefish periodicity is shown in Table B3-8.
Humpback whitefish populations in Alaska are typically anadromous, though the marine
distribution and the distance individuals disperse from natal rivers is not well known
(Morrow 1980). In the Susitna River, a portion of the population may utilize estuarine or
marine habitats for a portion of their lifespan, while most humpback whitefish appear to
exhibit a riverine life history pattern based on analysis of adult scale patterns (Sundet and
Wenger 1984, Sundet and Pechek 1985). High growth rates during the first two years of
life, which may indicate estuarine feeding, were apparent in approximately 20% of adult
humpback whitefish captured at Lower River fishwheel traps (Flathorn Station [RM 22],
Appendix B - Page 28
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 10 August 2013
Yentna River Station [Yentna RM 4]) and about 5% of adults captured at the Talkeetna
Station (RM 103) fishwheel in the Middle Segment (Sundet and Pechek 1985).
Adult humpback whitefish exhibited higher relative use of tributary and slough habitats
for holding and feeding in summer relative to mainstem areas during studies conducted in
the Middle and Lower River during 1981-1983 (Sundet and Wenger 1984). Just one
adult humpback whitefish was captured in the Upper River during 1980s studies at a
tributary mouth (Sautner and Stratton 1983). Adult humpback whitefish generally exhibit
little movement during summer except for spawning migrations, which occur in an
upstream direction from July through September in the Susitna River; peak movement
occurs during August (Morrow 1980, Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984).
Spawning is not well-documented but is believed to occur during October in tributaries of
the Susitna River, based on high capture of adults in tributaries during fall (Sundet and
Pechek 1985).
Alaskan humpback whitefish populations utilize estuarine habitat during winter (Morrow
1980), though in the Susitna River overwinter habitat for adult humpback whitefish is
largely unknown due to low winter capture rates (Schmidt et al. 1983). Humpback
whitefish in the Middle Segment were believed to remain in that segment during winter
(Sundet and Pechek 1985).
Incubation and development timing of humpback whitefish eggs is not well known,
though it is presumed that hatching occurs in late winter and spring (Morrow 1980).
Based on this limited information, the period of humpback whitefish egg incubation is
assumed to occur in the Susitna Basin from the start of spawning in early October
through June.
Emergence of humpback whitefish fry started prior to June during 1980s studies based on
outmigrant trap capture records (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984) and is
therefore estimated to occur from early May through late June.
Juvenile humpback whitefish rearing was believed to primarily occur in the Lower
Susitna River during the 1980s, though specific nursery habitat use was not well defined
due to low and infrequent capture (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984). Most
capture of juvenile humpback whitefish during the 1980s studies occurred at outmigrant
traps. Downstream migration of juvenile humpback whitefish was observed to occur
from June through October at the Talkeetna Station (RM 103) outmigrant trap, with peak
movement during July and early August (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984).
Approximately 20% of juvenile humpback whitefish in the Lower Segment and 5% in the
Middle Segment were believed to use estuarine areas during the first two years of life
(Sundet and Pechek 1985).
11. LONGNOSE SUCKER
Longnose sucker periodicity is shown in Table B3-9.
Adult longnose suckers in the Susitna Basin spawn in mainstem and tributary mouth
habitats during May and early June, similar to other Alaskan sucker populations (Morrow
1980, Schmidt et al. 1983). An additional spawning period may occur in the late summer
Appendix B - Page 29
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 11 August 2013
during October and/or November based on observed concentrations of adults with well-
developed eggs and nuptial tubercles during September in suitable spawning habitats,
though spawning during this time has not been verified (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and
Wenger 1984). Morrow (1980) reports that longnose sucker spawning typically occurs at
water temperatures above 5°C.
Following spring spawning, a portion of longnose suckers in the Susitna River appeared
to move upstream to summer feeding habitats and return downstream to winter holding
areas, based on 1980s mark-recapture data (Sundet and Wenger 1984, Sundet and Pechek
1985). Spring upstream movement of adult suckers primarily occurred during June and
July, while the timing of downstream fall movement was less defined (Schmidt et al.
1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984). Many suckers tagged during 1980s studies moved little
during summer, similar to summer movement behavior of other sucker populations
(Morrow 1980, Sundet and Wenger 1984, Sundet and Pechek 1985). Adult suckers were
most commonly captured at tributary and slough sites, though use of mainstem habitat
was greater in the Middle Segment relative to that of the Lower Segment (Schmidt et al.
1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984, Sundet and Pechek 1985). High capture rates of adults
in tributaries and sloughs in August and September may indicate opportunistic feeding on
salmon eggs during this time (Sundet and Wenger 1984). In the Upper Segment, only
sub-adult suckers were captured in mainstem habitats, while larger adults were captured
at the mouths of suspected spawning tributaries (Sautner and Stratton 1983). Habitat
utilization by adult longnose suckers during winter in the Susitna River is not well
known, though winter holding is believed to occur in the mainstem and the only winter
capture of a longnose sucker occurred in side channel habitat (Schmidt and Bingham
1983, Schmidt et al. 1983).
Incubation and development of longnose sucker eggs in the Susitna River has not been
documented, however, general incubation time required from fertilization to hatching is
one to two weeks and newly hatched fry may remain in the gravel for an additional two
weeks prior to emerging (Morrow 1980). Timing of longnose sucker egg incubation is
estimated to occur from early May to mid-July based on this information. Fry emergence
likely occurs during June and early July.
Juvenile longnose sucker fry typically drift from natal sites following emergence to
summer nursery areas (Morrow 1980). Suckers in the Susitna River appear to exhibit this
early life history strategy, though it is not clear to what extent such dispersal occurs based
on low catch at outmigrant traps at Talkeetna Station (RM 103) (Schmidt et al. 1983).
Age-0+ downstream movement in the Middle Segment occurred throughout the open
water period in 1982 and 1983, and exhibited a bi-modal peak during June and during
late August and September, based on outmigrant traps in the Susitna River main channel
and Deshka River (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984, Sundet and Pechek
1985). Summer nursery habitats used by juvenile longnose in the Susitna River during
the 1980s were side channels, upland sloughs, side sloughs and to a lesser extent,
tributary mouths (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984). Winter habitat use by
juvenile suckers is not known (Schmidt et al. 1983). Shallow depth, low water velocity
and turbidity or structural (i.e., aquatic or overhead vegetation) cover are considered
important characteristics for juvenile longnose nursery habitat (Suchanek et al. 1984).
Appendix B - Page 30
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 12 August 2013
12. RAINBOW TROUT / STEELHEAD
Rainbow trout periodicity is shown in Table B3-10.
Rainbow trout in the Susitna River are distributed throughout tributary and mainstem
areas downstream of Devils Canyon (RM 150) (Schmidt et al. 1983). Comparison of
1982 capture data indicated that adult rainbow trout are more abundant in the Middle
Segment of the Susitna River relative to the Lower River (Schmidt et al. 1983).
Estimated abundance of rainbow trout greater than 150 mm in length during the early
1980s in the Middle Segment was approximately 4,000 fish based on a tag-recapture
study conducted during 1981–1983 (Sundet and Wenger 1984). The age range of
rainbow trout captured during the 1980s was up to 9 years old and all captured fish that
were known to spawn were 5 years old or older (Sundet and Wenger 1984).
Adult rainbow trout in the Susitna Basin utilize clear, non-glacial tributary habitats to
spawn (Schmidt et al. 1983). Adult spawning migrations from main channel holding
areas to spawning tributaries began in March prior to ice breakup and continued through
early June (Schmidt et al. 1983, Suchanek et al. 1984, Sundet 1986). Most rainbow trout
spawning occurred during late May and early June (Schmidt et al. 1983, Suchanek et al.
1984, Sundet and Pechek 1985). Migration and spawn timing for rainbow trout appears
to be generally similar between Middle and Lower Susitna Segments, though it was noted
that timing of upstream migration into tributary habitats could occur as much as 10 days
earlier in the Lower River (Sundet and Pechek 1985). Primary spawning tributaries in
the 1980s were 4th of July Creek (RM 131.1) and Portage Creek (RM 148.9) in the
Middle Segment and the Talkeetna River (RM 97.2), Montana Creek (RM 77.0) and
Kashwitna River (RM 61.0) in the Lower River (Sundet and Pechek 1985).
After spawning, adults primarily hold and feed during the open water period in tributary
and tributary mouth habitats, though some utilization of clear side slough habitat was
observed during the 1980s (Schmidt et al. 1983). Holding and feeding areas during the
open water period were closely associated with salmon spawning areas (Chinook, chum
and pink salmon) (Sundet and Pechek 1985). Primary holding and feeding locations for
rainbow trout were 4th of July Creek (RM 131.1) and Indian River (RM 138.6) tributary
mouths and Slough 8A (RM 125.1) and Whiskers Creek Slough (RM 101.2) (Schmidt et
al. 1983).
During late summer in 1983 and 1984, adult rainbow trout migrated from tributary
habitats during late August and September, such that many individuals had moved to
tributary mouths by mid-September and few remained in tributaries by early October
(Suchanek et al. 1984, Sundet and Wenger 1984, Sundet and Pechek 1985). Migration
timing to winter holding areas in main channel and side channel areas occurred from mid-
September through early February, with peak movement in October and late December
(Schmidt and Estes 1983, Sundet 1986). In the Middle Segment, rainbow trout utilize
main channel areas during winter, whereas tagged fish in the Lower River were observed
to typically use side channel habitat during the 1980s (Sundet and Pechek 1985). By
December, most adult rainbow trout were in main channel areas apart from spawning
tributaries (Sundet and Wenger 1984). Movements to winter holding habitats were
commonly in a downstream direction from spawning or feeding tributaries (Sundet and
Pechek 1985). Many adults hold during winter close to spawning tributaries (0.1 – 4
Appendix B - Page 31
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 13 August 2013
miles), though some exhibit long-distance migrations that typically range from 10-20
miles downstream but can extend over 76 miles (Schmidt and Estes 1983, Sundet 1986).
Specific habitat features of winter holding areas during the 1980s were difficult to
measure, though upwelling and ice cover appeared to be common features (Schmidt et al.
1983, Sundet and Pechek 1985). Tagged rainbow trout distribution in winter was patchy
and groups of fish were often observed within 100 feet of an open water lead during
winter, suggesting that ice cover was important in addition to the presence of upwelling
(Sundet and Pechek 1985, Sundet 1986). No radio tagged fish were observed in areas
with anchor ice during radio telemetry studies in the 1980s (Sundet 1986).
There is minimal information relating to rainbow trout incubation and emergence timing
in the Susitna River from studies conducted in the 1980s; however, incubation is assumed
to begin in May based on observed spawn timing (Schmidt et al. 1983, Suchanek et al.
1984, Sundet and Pechek 1985). The start of rainbow trout fry emergence in tributary
habitats is estimated to occur in early July and continue through mid-August based on
generalized incubation times for rainbow trout in cold water temperature regimes (5-8°
C) (Crisp 1988, Quinn 2005).
Juvenile rainbow trout primarily reside in natal tributary habitats throughout the year,
though occasional use of tributary mouths and clear sloughs has been documented
(Schmidt et al. 1983). Capture of juvenile rainbow trout in main channel areas was very
low, though use of tributary mouths and clear sloughs was observed (Sundet and Pechek
1985). Lake systems associated with the 4th of July and Portage creeks were believed to
possibly supplement rainbow trout production in each basin based on analysis of juvenile
scale patterns, though no direct evidence of juvenile rearing in these lakes was recorded
(Sundet and Pechek 1985). Winter rearing for juvenile rainbow trout occurred primarily
in tributaries with occasional use of clear side slough habitats (Schmidt et al. 1983).
13. ROUND WHITEFISH
Round whitefish periodicity is shown in Table B3-11.
Adults in the Susitna River Basin predominantly used tributary, tributary mouth and
sloughs for feeding and holding habitat during the open water season during the 1980s
(Sautner and Stratton 1983, Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984, Sundet and
Pechek 1985).
Tributary sampling indicated that many large adult round whitefish moved upstream into
large clear tributaries in the Middle Segment in June and returned downstream to
mainstem areas in August and September (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger
1984).
During tag-recapture studies in the 1980s, most recaptured adult round whitefish
exhibited little movement, though approximately 20% of recovered fish in 1983 and 1984
had moved an average of 18.5 and 16 miles in the respective years (Sundet and Wenger
1984, Sundet and Pechek 1985). Maximum observed movement of tagged round
whitefish was 55.7 miles based on 1983 recapture data and 69.5 miles based on 1984 tag
recaptures (Sundet and Wenger 1984, Sundet and Pechek 1985). Movement was
typically downstream during summer and upstream in fall (Sundet and Wenger 1984).
Appendix B - Page 32
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 14 August 2013
In late summer, adult round whitefish migrate upstream and downstream from summer
feeding habitats to spawning areas located in main channel and tributary mouth habitats,
though large schools observed at the mouths of Portage Creek (RM 148.8) and Indian
River (RM 138.6) may indicate tributary spawning (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and
Wenger 1984).
Based on fishwheel capture in 1982 and 1983, upstream spawning migration in the main
channel of the Middle Segment occurred during late August and September (Schmidt et
al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984). Round whitefish spawning in the Susitna Basin was
believed to occur during October (Sundet and Wenger 1984, Sundet and Pechek 1985).
After spawning, it is believed that adult round whitefish utilized mainstem areas to hold
for winter, but little is known regarding winter behavior and habitat use (Sundet and
Pechek 1985).
The duration of round whitefish egg incubation and timing of fry emergence in the
Susitna River is not well defined by 1980s studies. Development and incubation time for
round whitefish eggs has been observed to take approximately 140 days at 2.2° C, though
duration can vary with water temperature and other variables (Normandeau 1969,
Morrow 1980). Based on this basic incubation period and the timing of earliest age-0+
round whitefish capture in late May and June, incubation is estimated to occur from
October through June and emergence likely occurs in May and June (Schmidt et al.
1983).
Age-0+ juvenile round whitefish are believed to utilize nursery habitats proximal to
where hatching and emergence occurs, though a portion of the Middle Segment
population migrated downstream in each year of 1982 and 1983 (Schmidt et al. 1983,
Sundet and Wenger 1984). Downstream movement of juvenile round whitefish at the
Talkeetna Station (RM 103) outmigrant trap occurred throughout the trap operational
period in each year, from late May through September, and peaked in late June and July
(Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984).
Following downstream movement, primary habitats used by juvenile round whitefish in
the Middle and Lower segments were side slough, upland slough and turbid main channel
and side channel areas (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984). In the Upper
Segment, juvenile round whitefish were captured at tributary mouths and slough habitats
(Sautner and Stratton 1983). Juvenile round whitefish may utilize turbid mainstem areas
for cover (Suchanek et al. 1984). Little is known regarding juvenile round whitefish
habitat use during the winter, but based on spring capture locations during the 1980s, it
was presumed that winter nursery habitats were proximal to summer habitats (Sundet and
Pechek 1985).
14. SOCKEYE SALMON
Sockeye salmon periodicity is shown in Table B3-12.
Adult sockeye salmon in the Middle Segment, which are comprised of second run stock,
typically began upstream migration during the 1980s in early July with peak movement
during late July and early August (Jennings 1985, Thompson et al. 1986). Minimal
Appendix B - Page 33
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 15 August 2013
holding or milling behavior was observed by adult sockeye salmon, so observed main
channel migration timing at Curry (RM 120) and Talkeetna (RM 103) stations is likely
similar to upstream movements into side slough spawning sites (ADF&G 1983). Adult
sockeye in the Middle Segment utilize main channel and side channel areas to access
primary spawning areas in side sloughs (Jennings 1985).
Nearly all sockeye spawning in the Middle Segment occurred within side sloughs, though
active spawning in the mainstem and occasional use of tributaries was observed (Jennings
1985, Thompson et al. 1986). Sockeye salmon spawning in side sloughs occurred from
early August through early October and peaked during the month of September (Jennings
1985, Thompson et al. 1986). Mainstem spawning in 1983 and 1984 was observed
during mid- and late September, while the few observations of adult sockeye spawning in
tributaries occurred in early September (Barrett et al. 1984, Barrett et al. 1985). Primary
spawning sloughs in the Middle Segment during the 1980s were Slough 21 (RM 141.1),
Slough 11 (RM 135.3), and Slough 8A (RM 125.1) (Jennings 1985).
Sockeye egg incubation in the Middle Segment is initiated at the start of spawning in
early August and is estimated to continue through May based on observations of sockeye
egg development during winter 1982 (Schmidt and Estes 1983, Jennings 1985, Roth and
Stratton 1985). Emergence timing for sockeye in side slough habitats is estimated to
occur from late March through May, though timing is likely variable among sites due to
differences in intergravel incubation conditions (e.g., water temperature and dissolved
oxygen levels) (Schmidt and Estes 1983, Wangaard and Burger 1983, Jennings 1985).
The duration of incubation at two Middle Segment sites, Slough 11 (RM 135.3) and
Slough 21 (RM 141.1), was approximately 130-140 days and sockeye fry emergence was
either initiated or completed at these two sites by late April (Schmidt and Estes 1983).
The wide size range of juvenile sockeye salmon fry captured at outmigrant traps and
Lower River sampling sites may indicate that emergence continues over a long period
(Roth and Stratton 1985).
Age-0+ juvenile sockeye salmon in the Middle Segment primarily utilize natal side
sloughs and upland sloughs for nursery habitat (Schmidt et al. 1983, Dugan et al. 1984).
Juvenile sockeye capture data following breaching events in side sloughs in 1983
suggested that age-0+ sockeye dispersed from breached side sloughs and redistributed to
upland slough areas during late summer (Dugan et al. 1984). Use of main channel, side
channel, tributary and tributary mouth habitats by juvenile sockeye in the Middle
Segment was low during 1980s studies (Dugan et al. 1984). Juvenile sockeye use of
main channel and side channel areas was highest in backwatered areas with low water
velocity (Dugan et al. 1984). Most age-0+ sockeye from the Middle Segment disperse
downstream during the open water season to either reside in Lower River nursery habitats
for the winter or emigrate to marine areas as age-0+ smolts (Roth and Stratton 1985,
Suchanek et al. 1985, Roth et al. 1986). Dispersal of age-0+ sockeye from natal habitats
was typically underway prior to the start of mainstem outmigrant trapping at Talkeetna
Station (RM 13), but likely began in early May, peaked in late June and July and declined
in September (Roth and Stratton 1985, Roth et al. 1986). High juvenile sockeye use was
observed in Side Slough 11 (RM 135.3) and upland Slough 6A (RM 112.3) during
summer 1983 (Dugan et al. 1984).
Appendix B - Page 34
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 16 August 2013
Age-1+ sockeye salmon typically began emigration from the Middle Segment prior to
mainstem outmigrant trap seasonal operation during the 1980s studies, but fyke net traps
operated in Lower River side channels suggest that downstream movement may have
begun in early April (Bigler and Levesque 1985). Age-1+ migration peaked during late
May and early June and was completed by early or late July among sampling years in the
1980s (Schmidt et al. 1983, Roth et al. 1984, Roth and Stratton 1985). Based on the low
number of age-1+ sockeye captured at outmigrant traps, it was hypothesized that most
juvenile sockeye salmon from the Middle Segment dispersed to the Lower River prior to
winter (Roth et al. 1984, Roth and Stratton 1985).
Appendix B - Page 35
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 17 August 2013
15. REFERENCES
ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1981. Adult Anadromous Fisheries Project
ADF&G/Su Hydro 1981. Phase I Final Draft Report, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 467 pp. APA Document #
324.
ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1983c. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Phase
II Report Volume I: Summarization of Volumes 2, 3, 4; Parts I and II, and 5. Prepared
for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 146 pp. APA Document # 96.
Barrett, B. M., F. M. Thompson and S. N. Wick. 1984. Adult anadromous fish investigations:
May - October, 1983. Report No. 1, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro
Aquatic Studies. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 430 pp.
APA Document # 1450.
Barrett, B. M., F. M. Thompson and S. N. Wick. 1985. Adult salmon investigations: May -
October, 1984. Report No. 6, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro
Aquatic Studies. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 528 pp.
APA Document # 2748.
Bigler, J., and K. Levesque. 1985. Lower Susitna River Preliminary Chum Salmon Spawning
Habitat Assessment. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies. 140 pp. APA Document # 3504.
Bjorn, E. E. 1940. Preliminary observations and experimental study of the ling, Lota maculosa
(LeSueur), in Wyoming. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 69: 192-196.
Blackett, R.F. 1968. Spawning behavior, fecundity and early life history of anadromous Dolly
Varden Salvelinus malma (Walbaum) in Southeastern Alaska. Alaska Department of
Fish and Game Research Report 6:1-85.
Buckwalter, J.D. 2011. Synopsis of ADF&G’s Upper Susitna Drainage Fish Inventory, August
2011. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, Alaska.
27 pp.
Crisp, D. T. 1988. Prediction, from temperature, of eyeing, hatching and 'swim-up' times for
salmonid embryos. Freshwater Biology 74: 897-923.
Delaney, K., D. Crawford, L. Dugan, S. Hale, K. Kuntz, B. Marshall, J. Mauney, J. Quinn, K.
Roth, P Suchanek, R. Sundet, and M. Stratton. 1981a. Resident fish investigation on the
Lower Susitna River. Phase I Final Draft Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. 311 pp. APA Document # 318.
Delaney, K., D. Crawford, L. Dugan, S. Hale, K. Kuntz, B. Marshall, J. Mauney, J. Quinn, K.
Roth, P Suchanek, R. Sundet, and M. Stratton. 1981b. Resident fish investigation on the
Upper Susitna River. Phase I Final Draft Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. 157 pp. APA Document # 316.
Dugan, L. J., D. A. Sterritt, and M. E. Stratton. 1984. The distribution and relative abundance of
juvenile salmon in the Susitna River drainage. Pages 75-131 in Schmidt, D.C., S.S. Hale,
Appendix B - Page 36
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 18 August 2013
D.L. Crawford, and P.M. Suchanek, eds., Resident and juvenile anadromous fish
investigations (May-October 1983). Report No. 2, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. APA Document # 1784.
Jennings, T.R. 1985. Fish Resources and Habitats in the Middle Susitna River. Woodward-
Clyde Consultants and Entrix. Final Report to Alaska Power Authority. 175 pp.
Jolley, J.C., G.S. Silver, and T.A. Whitesel. 2012. Occupancy and Detections of Larval Pacific
Lampreys and Lampetra spp. in a Large River: the Lower Willamette River.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141(2):3 305-312.
MacCrimmon, H. R. 1971. Observations on spawning of burbot in Lake Simcoe, Ontario.
Journal of Wildlife Management 23(4): 447-449.
McPhail, J. D., and V. L. Paragamian. 2000. Burbot biology and life history. Pages 10-23 in
Paragamian, V. L. and D. W. Willis, eds., Burbot: Biology, ecology, and management.
Publication 1. Fisheries Management Section, American Fisheries Society, Spokane,
Washington.
Merizon, R. A., R. J. Yanusz, D. J. Reed and T. R. Spencer. 2010. Distribution of spawning
Susitna River chum Oncorhynchus keta and coho O. kisutch salmon, 2009. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 10-72, Anchorage, Alaska.
Morrow, J. E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing Co.,
Anchorage, Alaska. 248 pp.
Murray, C. B., and J. D. McPhail. 1988. The effect of temperature on the development of five
species of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus) embryos and alevins. Canadian Journal of
Zoology 66: 266-273.
Normandeau, D. A. 1969. Life history and ecology of the round whitefish, Prosopium
cylindraceum (Pallas), of Newfound Lake, Bristol, New Hampshire. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 98: 7-13.
Quinn, T.P. 2005. The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. University of
Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 378 pp.
Roth, K. J. and M. E. Stratton. 1985. The migration and growth of juvenile salmon in Susitna
River, 1985. Pages 6-207 in Schmidt, D., S. Hale, and D. Crawford, eds., Resident and
juvenile anadromous fish investigations (May - October 1984). Report No. 7, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game Susitna Aquatic Studies Program. Prepared for the Alaska
Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document # 2836.
Roth, K. J., D. C. Gray, and D. C. Schmidt. 1984. The outmigration of juvenile salmon from the
Susitna River above the Chulitna River confluence. Pages 9-73 in Schmidt, D. C., S. S.
Hale, D. L. Crawford, and P. M. Suchanek, eds., Resident and juvenile anadromous fish
investigations (May - October 1983). Report No. 2, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. APA Document # 1784.
Appendix B - Page 37
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 19 August 2013
Roth, K. J., D. C. Gray, J. W. Anderson, A. C. Blaney, J. P. McDonell. 1986. The migration
and growth of juvenile salmon in Susitna River, 1985. Susitna Aquatic Studies Program
Report No. 14, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 130 pp. APA Document #
3413.
Sautner, J., and M. Stratton. 1983. Upper Susitna River impoundment studies, 1982. Volume 5,
Phase II Basic Data Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 220 pp. APA
Document # 590.
Sautner, J., and M. Stratton. 1984. Access and transmission corridor studies. Pages 7-89 in
Schmidt, D., C. Estes, D. Crawford and D. Vincent-Lang, eds., Access and transmission
corridor aquatic investigations, May - August 1983. Report No. 4, Alaska Department of
Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document # 2049.
Schmidt, D. and C. Estes. 1983. Winter aquatic studies (October 1982 - May 1983). Phase II
Data Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 269 pp. APA Document #
397.
Schmidt, D., and A. Bingham. 1983. Synopsis of the 1982 Aquatic Studies and Analysis of Fish
and Habitat Relationships. Phase II Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. 185 pp + appendices. APA Document #s 40a_ver2 (main report), 40
(appendices).
Schmidt, D., S. Hale, D. Crawford, and P. Suchanek. 1983. Resident and juvenile anadromous
fish studies on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, 1982. Volume 3, Phase II Basic
Data Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 303 pp + appendices. APA
Documents #s 486, 487.
Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board
of Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Stratton, M.E. 1986. Summary of juvenile Chinook and coho salmon winter studies in the
Middle Susitna River, 1984-1985. Report No. 11, Part 2, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. 148 pp. APA Document # 3063.
Suchanek, P.M., R. L. Sundet and M. N. Wenger. 1984a. Resident fish habitat studies. Pages
360-404 in Schmidt, D.C., S.S. Hale, D.L. Crawford, and P.M. Suchanek, eds., Resident
and juvenile anadromous fish investigations (May - October 1983). Report No. 2, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska
Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document # 1784.
Sundet, R. L. 1986. Winter resident fish distribution and habitat studies conducted in the
Susitna River below Devil Canyon, 1984-1985. Report No. 11, Part 1, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska
Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 80 pp. APA Document # 3062.
Appendix B - Page 38
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 20 August 2013
Sundet, R. L., and M. N. Wenger. 1984. Resident fish distribution and population dynamics in
the Susitna River below Devil Canyon. Pages 250-358 in Schmidt, D.C., S.S. Hale, D.L.
Crawford, and P.M. Suchanek, eds., Resident and juvenile anadromous fish
investigations (May - October 1983). Report No. 2, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. APA Document # 1784.
Sundet, R. L., and S. D. Pechek. 1985. Resident fish distribution and life history in the Susitna
River below Devil Canyon. Part 3 (97 pages) in Schmidt, D. C., S. S. Hale, and D. L.
Crawford, eds., Resident and juvenile anadromous fish investigations (May - October
1984). Report No. 7, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document #
2837.
Thompson, F. M., S. N. Wick, and B. L. Stratton. 1986. Adult salmon investigations, May –
October 1985. Report No. 13, Volume 1, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna
Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 173
pp. APA Document # 3412.
Vining, L. J., J. S. Blakely, and G. M. Freeman. 1985. An evaluation of the incubation life-
phase of chum salmon in the middle Susitna River, Alaska. Winter Aquatic
Investigations, September 1983 – May 1984. Report No. 5, Volume 1, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska
Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 232 pp. APA Document # 2658.
Wangaard, D. B. and C. V. Burger. 1983. The effects of various water temperature regimes on
the egg and alevin incubation of Susitna River chum and sockeye salmon. United States
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fishery Research Center, Alaska Field Station,
Anchorage, Alaska, USA.
Yoshihara, H. T. 1973. Monitoring and evaluation of Arctic waters with emphasis on the North
Slope drainages. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration,
Annual Progress Report, 1972-1973, Project F-9-5, Study G-III-A. 14: 1-63.
Appendix B - Page 39
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 21 August 2013
16. TABLES
Appendix B - Page 40
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 22 August 2013 Table B3-1. Periodicity of Arctic grayling utilization among macro-habitat types in the Susitna River by life history stage. Areas shaded light gray indicate timing of utilization by macro-habitat type and dark gray shading represents areas and timing of peak use. Life Stage1 Habitat Type2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Main Channel Side Channel Tributary Mouth Side Slough Upland Slough Tributary Adult Holding Adult Migration Spawning Incubation Fry Emergence Juvenile Rearing Notes: 1 Life stages are separated into two rows if available information suggested different utilization periodicities for certain macro-habitat types. For life stages presented in a single row, available information did not warrant differentiating utilization periodicity by macro-habitat type. 2 Peak utilization of certain macro-habitat types is based on relative numbers of captures or observations described by studies conducted during the 1980s. Appendix B - Page 41
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 23 August 2013 Table B3-2. Periodicity of Bering cisco utilization among macro-habitat types in the Susitna River by life history stage. Areas shaded light gray indicate timing of utilization by macro-habitat type and dark gray shading represents areas and timing of peak use. Life Stage1 Habitat Type2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Main Channel Side Channel Tributary Mouth Side Slough Upland Slough Tributary Adult Holding3 Adult Migration Spawning Incubation Fry Emergence Juvenile Migration4 Notes: 1 Life stages are separated into two rows if available information suggested different utilization periodicities for certain macro-habitat types. For life stages presented in a single row, available information did not warrant differentiating utilization periodicity by macro-habitat type. 2 Peak utilization of certain macro-habitat types is based on relative numbers of captures or observations described by studies conducted during the 1980s. 3 Adult Bering Cisco holding and feeding habitat use in the Susitna River is not known; it is possible these fish reside in marine areas until spawning. 4 Juvenile rearing is not represented here because Bering cisco fry migrate to marine nursery habitats soon after hatching. Appendix B - Page 42
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 24 August 2013 Table B3-3. Periodicity of burbot utilization among macro-habitat types in the Susitna River by life history stage. Areas shaded light gray indicate timing of utilization by macro-habitat type and dark gray shading represents areas and timing of peak use. Life Stage1 Habitat Type2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Main Channel Side Channel Tributary Mouth Side Slough Upland Slough Tributary Adult Holding Adult Migration Spawning Incubation Juvenile Migration Juvenile Rearing Notes: 1 Life stages are separated into two rows if available information suggested different utilization periodicities for certain macro-habitat types. For life stages presented in a single row, available information did not warrant differentiating utilization periodicity by macro-habitat type. 2 Peak utilization of certain macro-habitat types is based on relative numbers of captures or observations described by studies conducted during the 1980s. Appendix B - Page 43
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 25 August 2013 Table B3-4. Periodicity of Chinook salmon utilization among macro-habitat types in the Middle River (RM 184 - 98.5) by life history stage. In the Upper Segment (RM 248 – RM 184), adult Chinook are believed to exhibit similar habitat use to that shown for the Middle Segment, while juvenile Chinook rearing and migration timing in this segment is not known. Areas shaded light gray indicate timing of utilization by macro-habitat type and dark gray shading represents areas and timing of peak use. Life Stage1 Habitat Type2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Main Channel Side Channel Tributary Mouth Side Slough Upland Slough Tributary Adult Migration Spawning Incubation Fry Emergence Age 0+ Rearing Age 0+ Migration3 Age 1+ Rearing Age 1+ Migration Notes: 1 Life stages are separated into two rows if available information suggested different utilization periodicities for certain macro-habitat types. For life stages presented in a single row, available information did not warrant differentiating utilization periodicity by macro-habitat type. 2 Peak utilization of certain macro-habitat types is based on relative numbers of captures or observations described by studies conducted during the 1980s. 3 Age 0+ migration reflects movement out of a given macro-habitat type. Roth and Stratton (1985) suggest that, upon emergence, most Chinook salmon fry either rear in natal tributaries through winter, rear in natal tributaries for part of the first summer before rearing and overwintering in mainstem habitats, or migrate to the lower Susitna River as fry; some may also migrate to the ocean as Age 0+, but these comprise only a small component of adult returns. While Age 0+ may move between the macro-habitat types listed above (e.g., from tributaries to mainstem habitats), the destination of such movements are not necessarily reflected by this utilization periodicity. Appendix B - Page 44
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 26 August 2013 Table B3-5. Periodicity of chum salmon utilization among macro-habitat types in the Middle River (RM 184 – 98.5) by life history stage. Areas shaded light gray indicate timing of utilization by macro-habitat type and dark gray shading represents areas and timing of peak use. Life Stage1 Habitat Type2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Main Channel Side Channel Tributary Mouth Side Slough Upland Slough Tributary Adult Migration Spawning Incubation Fry Emergence Age 0+ Rearing Age 0+ Migration Notes: 1 Life stages are separated into two rows if available information suggested different utilization periodicities for certain macro-habitat types. For life stages presented in a single row, available information did not warrant differentiating utilization periodicity by macro-habitat type. 2 Peak utilization of certain macro-habitat types is based on relative numbers of captures or observations described by studies conducted during the 1980s. Appendix B - Page 45
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 27 August 2013 Table B3-6. Periodicity of coho salmon utilization among macro-habitat types in the Middle River (RM 184 – 98.5) by life history stage. Areas shaded light gray indicate timing of utilization by macro-habitat type and dark gray shading represents areas and timing of peak use. Life Stage1 Habitat Type2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Main Channel Side Channel Tributary Mouth Side Slough Upland Slough Tributary Adult Migration Spawning Incubation Fry Emergence Age 0+ Rearing Age 0+ Migration Age 1+ Rearing Age 1+ Migration Age 2+ Rearing Age 2+ Migration Notes: 1 Life stages are separated into two rows if available information suggested different utilization periodicities for certain macro-habitat types. For life stages presented in a single row, available information did not warrant differentiating utilization periodicity by macro-habitat type. 2 Peak utilization of certain macro-habitat types is based on relative numbers of captures or observations described by studies conducted during the 1980s. Appendix B - Page 46
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 28 August 2013 Table B3-7. Periodicity of Dolly Varden in the Susitna River by life history stage and habitat type. Areas shaded light gray indicate timing of utilization by macro-habitat type and dark gray shading represents areas and timing of peak use. Life Stage1 Habitat Type2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Main Channel Side Channel Tributary Mouth Side Slough Upland Slough Tributary Adult Holding Adult Migration Spawning Incubation Fry Emergence Juvenile Rearing Notes: 1 Life stages are separated into two rows if available information suggested different utilization periodicities for certain macro-habitat types. For life stages presented in a single row, available information did not warrant differentiating utilization periodicity by macro-habitat type. 2 Peak utilization of certain macro-habitat types is based on relative numbers of captures or observations described by studies conducted during the 1980s. Appendix B - Page 47
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 29 August 2013 Table B3-8. Periodicity of humpback whitefish utilization among macro-habitat types in the Susitna River by life history stage. Areas shaded light gray indicate timing of utilization by macro-habitat type and dark gray shading represents areas and timing of peak use. Life Stage1 Habitat Type2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Main Channel Side Channel Tributary Mouth Side Slough Upland Slough Tributary Adult Holding Adult Migration Spawning Incubation Fry Emergence Juvenile Migration Juvenile Rearing3 Notes: 1 Life stages are separated into two rows if available information suggested different utilization periodicities for certain macro-habitat types. For life stages presented in a single row, available information did not warrant differentiating utilization periodicity by macro-habitat type. 2 Peak utilization of certain macro-habitat types is based on relative numbers of captures or observations described by studies conducted during the 1980s. 3 A portion of juvenile humpback whitefish may utilize estuarine habitats to rear during the first two years of life. Appendix B - Page 48
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 30 August 2013 Table B3-9. Periodicity of longnose sucker in the Susitna River by life history stage and habitat type. Areas shaded light gray indicate timing of utilization by macro-habitat type and dark gray shading represents areas and timing of peak use. Life Stage1 Habitat Type2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Main Channel Side Channel Tributary Mouth Side Slough Upland Slough Tributary Adult Holding Adult Migration Spawning1 Incubation Fry Emergence Juvenile Migration Juvenile Rearing Notes: 1 Life stages are separated into two rows if available information suggested different utilization periodicities for certain macro-habitat types. For life stages presented in a single row, available information did not warrant differentiating utilization periodicity by macro-habitat type. 2 Peak utilization of certain macro-habitat types is based on relative numbers of captures or observations described by studies conducted during the 1980s. 3 Longnose sucker typically spawn in spring, however, a second unconfirmed spawn period may occur during the late summer in October or November. Appendix B - Page 49
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 31 August 2013 Table B3-10. Periodicity of rainbow trout utilization among macro-habitat types in the Susitna River by life history stage. Areas shaded light gray indicate timing of utilization by macro-habitat type and dark gray shading represents areas and timing of peak use. Life Stage1 Habitat Type2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Main Channel Side Channel Tributary Mouth Side Slough Upland Slough Tributary Adult Holding Adult Migration Spawning Incubation Fry Emergence Juvenile Rearing Notes: 1 Life stages are separated into two rows if available information suggested different utilization periodicities for certain macro-habitat types. For life stages presented in a single row, available information did not warrant differentiating utilization periodicity by macro-habitat type. 2 Peak utilization of certain macro-habitat types is based on relative numbers of captures or observations described by studies conducted during the 1980s. Appendix B - Page 50
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 32 August 2013 Table B3-11. Periodicity of round whitefish utilization among macro-habitat types in the Susitna River by life history stage. Areas shaded light gray indicate timing of utilization by macro-habitat type and dark gray shading represents areas and timing of peak use. Life Stage1 Habitat Type2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Main Channel Side Channel Tributary Mouth Side Slough Upland Slough Tributary Adult Holding Adult Migration Spawning Incubation Fry Emergence Juvenile Migration Juvenile Rearing Notes: 1 Life stages are separated into two rows if available information suggested different utilization periodicities for certain macro-habitat types. For life stages presented in a single row, available information did not warrant differentiating utilization periodicity by macro-habitat type. 2 Peak utilization of certain macro-habitat types is based on relative numbers of captures or observations described by studies conducted during the 1980s. Appendix B - Page 51
INFORMATION ITEM B3: PERIODICITY FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B3 - Page 33 August 2013 Table B3-12. Periodicity of sockeye salmon utilization among macro-habitat types in the Middle River (RM 184 – 98.5) by life history stage. Areas shaded light gray indicate timing of utilization by macro-habitat type and dark gray shading represents areas and timing of peak use. Life Stage1 Habitat Type2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Main Channel Side Channel Tributary Mouth Side Slough Upland Slough Tributary Adult Migration Spawning Incubation Fry Emergence Age 0+ Rearing Age 0+ Migration Age 1+ Rearing Age 1+ Migration Notes: 1 Life stages are separated into two rows if available information suggested different utilization periodicities for certain macro-habitat types. For life stages presented in a single row, available information did not warrant differentiating utilization periodicity by macro-habitat type. 2 Peak utilization of certain macro-habitat types is based on relative numbers of captures or observations described by studies conducted during the 1980s. Appendix B - Page 52
INFORMATION ITEM B4: MIGRATORY CHARACTERISTICS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 August 2013
INFORMATION ITEM B4. MIGRATORY CHARACTERISTICS
Appendix B - Page 53
INFORMATION ITEM B4: MIGRATORY CHARACTERISTICS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B4 - Page 1 August 2013
1. INTRODUCTION
The timing, duration, and routes by which target fish species in the vicinity of the Project may
exhibit movements will be important considerations in evaluating the feasibility of fish passage
alternatives. To varying degrees, information collected from the Susitna River during the 1980s
and in 2012 have allowed the development of periodicity and life history information, which is
provided in Information Item B3 in terms by life stage. The following information item focuses
solely on this information as it relates to fish movements, as available. Information on the
general migratory routes of target species in the Susitna River is also provided. However,
relevant fine-scale movement behavior under post-Project conditions is clearly an unknown.
While information may be available from other projects for certain target species, the site-
specific nature of hydraulic and bathymetric conditions and their effect on movement behavior
limits the utility of such information at this stage. As the feasibility study progresses and
passage alternatives are developed, a more targeted review of the literature related to movements
of target species in the vicinity of other hydroelectric projects may provide additional relevant
information.
2. ARCTIC GRAYLING
2.1. Adult Movements
Spring spawning migration occurs concurrently with increasing tributary water
temperatures during April and May, though movement of some large adults into ice-free
tributaries occurred prior to or during ice breakup (Sundet and Wenger 1984, Sundet and
Pechek 1985)
During the open water season, many adults either remain within spawning tributaries or
move to nearby tributaries to feed during summer (Delaney et al. 1981a, Delaney et al.
1981b, Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Pechek 1985). Use of tributary mouth, side
slough and main channel habitats during the open water season was also documented.
2.2. Juvenile Movements
Juveniles typically reside in natal tributaries for at least one year, though some age-0+
grayling were observed to move to tributary mouth habitats during late summer (Schmidt
et al. 1983).
3. ARCTIC LAMPREY
Because Arctic lamprey have not been identified in the Upper River, the following
information is based on lower sections of the Susitna River as well as general species
information.
Appendix B - Page 54
INFORMATION ITEM B4: MIGRATORY CHARACTERISTICS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B4 - Page 2 August 2013
3.1. Adult Movements
Relatively little information regarding the life history of Arctic lamprey is available.
Arctic lamprey spawn during spring in streams with low to moderate flow and were
observed at the Birch Creek and Slough site during late June (Schmidt et al. 1983). Prior
to spawning, anadromous adults would presumably exhibit upstream migrations. No data
were available on the spawning migrations of adults exhibiting freshwater life histories in
the Susitna River.
3.2. Juvenile Movements
Ammocoetes undergo a metamorphosis in the fall, or from August to November and
migrate as young adults to the sea, or to lakes and larger rivers, depending upon their
degree of anadromy (Scott and Crossman 1973). Downstream migrant trapping during
1983 study efforts collected most Arctic lamprey between May and late June, although
the size/lifestage of these captures were not reported (Sundet and Wenger 1984).
4. BERING CISCO
Because Bering cisco have not been identified in the Upper River, the following
information is based on cisco in the lower Susitna River as well as general species
information.
4.1. Adult Movements
Bering cisco in the Susitna River are anadromous (Delaney et al. 1981a). Based on
fishwheel catches in 1982, the Bering cisco migration into the Susitna river drainage was
limited to the mainstem Susitna river reach below Talkeetna (RM 97) (Barrett et al.
1983). Peak spawning occurred in the second week of October, with adults occupying
spawning sites for 15 – 20 days (Delaney et al. 1981a). As an anadromous species,
Bering cisco used the mainstem as a migratory channel from Cook Inlet to their
respective spawning areas (FERC 1984). Based on fishwheel catch in 1982, Bering cisco
appeared to utilize the mainstem channels for passage, apparently not utilizing the
sloughs or tributaries upstream of the confluence zones (Barrett et al. 1983). After
spawning, Bering cisco adults migrate downstream to the sea (Delaney 1981a) but may
also overwinter in freshwater as described by Morrow (1980).
4.2. Juvenile Movements
In the Susitna River, most Bering cisco appear to migrate to estuarine or marine areas as
age-0+ fry, but the duration of residence in saltwater habitats is not known (ADF&G
1983, Jennings 1985). Morrow (1980) reported that after emerging from mid-May to
mid-July, cisco fry emigrated to the estuarine environment to rear.
Appendix B - Page 55
INFORMATION ITEM B4: MIGRATORY CHARACTERISTICS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B4 - Page 3 August 2013
5. BURBOT
5.1. Adult Movements
Adult burbot migrate to spawning locations in tributaries, tributary mouths and main
channel habitats in the Susitna Basin beginning as early as mid-August and continuing
through winter until spawning (Schmidt and Estes 1983, Sundet 1986). Spawning
migrations in the Susitna Basin generally range from 5 – 40 miles in length, but have
been documented up to 100 miles (Schmidt and Estes 1983).
Post-spawning migrations occur from February through March and are thought to be
relatively short (0.5 – 7 miles) (Schmidt and Estes 1983).
5.2. Juvenile Movements
Upon hatching, burbot fry are small (3-4 mm, total length) and drift passively until
swimming ability improves (McPhail and Paragamian 2000).
6. CHINOOK SALMON
6.1. Adult Movements
The timing of adult Chinook migration and spawning is not well defined in the Upper
River because of limited observations. However, active spawning observed in late July
in Kosina Creek which suggests that the periods of adult Chinook migration and
spawning in this segment may be similar to that described for Chinook in the Middle
Susitna River (Buckwalter 2011).
Adults in the Susitna River begin their upstream migration in late-May to early June
(Jennings 1985). Although a few Chinook salmon may pass Susitna Station (HRM 26.7)
as late as mid-August, nearly all Chinook salmon (95 percent) have passed the station by
the first week of July (Jennings 1985). Peak run timing is generally later at Talkeetna
Station (HRM 103) compared to Sunshine Station. However, peak run timing at Curry
Station appears to be similar or earlier than at Talkeetna Station, suggesting that upriver
fish (i.e., Chinook salmon bound primarily for Indian and Portage creeks) enter and
migrate during the early portion of the overall Chinook salmon migration period in the
Susitna River Basin.
6.2. Juvenile Movements
The timing of juvenile migration is poorly defined in the Upper River due to limited
information. It is unclear whether juvenile Chinook captured in 2003 and 2011 in the
Upper River were age 0+ and/or age 1+ (Buckwalter 2011). Periodicity of juvenile
Chinook rearing and migration are considered undefined until additional data are
available.
Nearly all Chinook salmon that survive to adulthood exhibit a stream-type life history
pattern and outmigrate to the ocean as yearlings (ADF&G 1981, ADF&G 1983, Barrett et
Appendix B - Page 56
INFORMATION ITEM B4: MIGRATORY CHARACTERISTICS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B4 - Page 4 August 2013
al. 1984, Barrett et al. 1985, Thompson et al. 1986). A small percentage of returning
adult Chinook salmon outmigrated as fry.
During 1980s studies, the bulk of Chinook salmon fry outmigrated from Indian and
Portage creeks by mid-August and redistributed into sloughs and side channels of the
Middle Susitna River or migrated to the Lower River (Roth and Stratton 1985, Roth et al.
1986). Outmigrant trapping at Talkeetna Station (RM 103) indicated that Chinook
salmon fry were migrating downstream to the Lower Susitna River throughout the time
traps were operating (Schmidt et al. 1983, Roth et al. 1984, Roth and Stratton 1985, Roth
et al. 1986Error! Reference source not found.). Roth and Stratton (1986) suggested
that some Chinook salmon fry from the Middle Susitna River either overwinter in the
Lower Susitna River downstream of Flathorn Station or outmigrate to the ocean as fry,
but are unsuccessful, as demonstrated by the low prevalence of Age 0 outmigrant
characteristics in adult scales.
Some Chinook salmon fry remain in natal tributaries throughout their first year of life
(Stratton 1986). Age 1+ juveniles are thought to emigrate from tributary streams shortly
after ice-out (Roth and Stratton 1985). The cumulative frequency of Age 1+ Chinook
salmon juveniles catch at the Talkeetna Station reached 90 percent by early July in 1985
and by late-July at the Flathorn Station (Roth et al. 1986Error! Reference source not
found.). Consequently, most outmigrating Chinook salmon Age 1+ smolts are generally
in estuarine or nearshore waters by mid-summer.
7. CHUM SALMON
Because chum salmon have not been identified in the Upper River, the information
provided below is based on observations from the Middle River.
7.1. Adult Movements
Adult chum salmon migration in the Middle River typically began in mid- July during
1980s studies, peaking during September in mainstem and tributary habitats (Jennings
1985, Thompson et al. 1986). Timing of entry into spawning tributaries by adult chum
can be delayed for a week or more as fish hold near the mouth of the tributary, based on
radio tag studies in the early 1980s (ADF&G 1981, ADF&G 1983). Chum salmon utilize
a range of mainstem and tributary habitat to access Middle River spawning areas located
in tributary, side slough, side channel and main channel habitats (Jennings 1985).
Adult chum salmon primarily spawned in tributary and side slough habitats during the
1980s, though some spawning occurred in mainstem habitats (Jennings 1985, Thompson
et al. 1986). Less than 10 percent of observed chum spawning during 1981-1984
occurred in mainstem habitats in the Middle River (Jennings 1985).
Spawn timing was observed to differ among side slough, tributary and mainstem habitats
(Jennings 1985). The tributary spawning period was from early August through
September and peaked in late August and early September (Barrett et al. 1985, Jennings
1985, Thompson et al. 1986). In side slough habitats, chum spawning occurred from
early August through mid-October, with peak activity occurring during September
Appendix B - Page 57
INFORMATION ITEM B4: MIGRATORY CHARACTERISTICS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B4 - Page 5 August 2013
(Barrett et al. 1985, Jennings 1985, Thompson et al. 1986). Mainstem spawning occurred
from early September through early October, though most chum spawned during early
September (Barrett et al. 1985, Jennings 1985, Thompson et al. 1986). Portage Creek
(RM 148.9), Indian River (RM 138.6) and 4th of July Creek (RM 131.1) were the
primary chum spawning tributaries during the 1980s, while sloughs 21 (RM 141.1), 11
(RM 135.3), and 8A (RM 125.1) were principal side sloughs used for spawning (Jennings
1985).
7.2. Juvenile Movements
Juvenile chum salmon emigrate from natal habitats to marine areas as age-0+ smolts,
though some may feed within nursery habitats for one to three months prior to or during
migration (Morrow 1980, ADF&G 1983, Jennings 1985). Primary nursery habitats for
age-0+ chum generally corresponded with areas highly utilized by adult chum spawners
(i.e., tributary and side slough); areas with the highest juvenile density also supported the
highest spawning density (Jennings 1985, Dugan et al. 1984). Tributary mouths and side
channels were also occupied by juvenile chum, though their use was low relative to side
slough and tributary areas (Schmidt et al. 1983).
Downstream migration of juvenile chum began prior to the start of outmigrant trap
seasonal operation in mid- and late May 1983 and 1985, and fyke trap data collected in
the Lower River suggest an early May start of juvenile chum movement (Dugan et al.
1984, Roth et al. 1986). Based on these capture data, age-0+ chum movement in the
Middle River is estimated to occur from early May through mid-August and peak during
late May and June, though peak timing was variable during the 1980s and correlated with
Susitna River discharge levels (Roth et al. 1984, Dugan et al. 1984, Roth et al. 1986).
The vast majority (> 95 percent) of juvenile chum movement was completed by mid-July
during 1980s studies (Jennings 1985, Roth et al. 1986).
8. COHO SALMON
Because coho salmon have not been identified in the Upper River, the information
provided below is based on observations from the Middle River.
8.1. Adult Movements
Upstream spawning migration of adult coho salmon into the Middle River of the Susitna
River typically began in late July and continued through early October based on studies
conducted in during the 1980s, with peak movement during early and mid-August
(Jennings 1985, Thompson et al. 1986).
Adult coho primarily used main channel areas for migration to access tributary spawning
sites (Jennings 1985). Timing of upstream migration into spawning tributaries was
delayed from main channel movement due to holding and milling behavior in the lower
extent of the Middle River or proximal to spawning tributaries (ADF&G 1981, ADF&G
1983).
Appendix B - Page 58
INFORMATION ITEM B4: MIGRATORY CHARACTERISTICS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B4 - Page 6 August 2013
Based on observed milling and/or delay between date of radio tagging and tributary entry,
the timing of tributary entry and upstream migration is estimated to occur from early
August through early October, with peak movement in late August and early September.
8.2. Juvenile Movements
Age 0+ coho salmon utilized natal tributaries for nursery habitats immediately following
emergence, but many emigrated from tributaries soon after emergence to mainstem
habitats between early May through October (Jennings 1985).
Within the Susitna River mainstem, age-0+ coho primarily used clear upland sloughs and
side sloughs relative to turbid areas affected by main channel streamflow (Schmidt and
Bingham 1983, Dugan et al. 1984). Many age-0+ coho salmon moved downstream to the
Lower River during the open water period based on outmigrant trap catch data (Roth et
al. 1984). Downstream movement of age-0+ coho to the Lower River appeared to begin
in early May, prior to outmigrant trap seasonal operation each year, and continued
through October, with peak movement from late June to late August (Jennings 1985,
Roth et al. 1986).
Observed movement by age-0+ coho observed in September and October may have been
a reflection of dispersal to suitable winter nursery habitats, which were primarily located
in side sloughs and upland sloughs in the Middle River (Jennings 1985, Roth et al. 1986).
Catch at the Flathorn Station (RM 22) outmigrant trap during fall suggested that some
age-0+ coho may have immigrated to marine or estuarine areas (Roth and Stratton 1985).
Ages-1+ and 2+ coho salmon primarily utilize clear water natal tributaries, side sloughs,
and upland sloughs as nursery habitat in the Middle River (Dugan et al. 1984). Juvenile
coho salmon that remain in the Susitna Basin as age-1+ parr, typically disperse from natal
tributaries and mainstem nursery habitats within the Middle River to Lower River
habitats, as few age- 2+ coho were captured within the Middle River during the 1980s
(Stratton 1986). Coho parr that remain within the Middle River during winter utilize
tributaries, side sloughs and upland sloughs as nursery habitats (Delaney et al. 1981a,
Stratton 1986). During winter and early spring, juvenile coho parr disperse from nursery
habitats, though the timing and pattern of this movement is not well understood.
Limited data collected during winter 1984-1985 suggested that juvenile coho parr exhibit
similar movements as juvenile Chinook salmon, in that downstream migration from
tributaries, and possibly mainstem nursery habitats, begins between early November and
February (Stratton 1986). Downstream movement of age-1+ coho from the Middle River
occurs throughout the open water season, with peak activity between late May and early
July (Schmidt et al. 1983, Roth et al. 1984, Roth et al. 1986). Age 2+ emigration from
the Middle River habitats begins in early winter and continues through June, with peak
migration in late May and early June (Schmidt et al. 1983, Roth et al. 1984, Roth et al.
1986).
Appendix B - Page 59
INFORMATION ITEM B4: MIGRATORY CHARACTERISTICS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B4 - Page 7 August 2013
9. DOLLY VARDEN
9.1. Adult Movements
Complex and variable life history patterns can be exhibited that include amphidromous,
adfluvial, fluvial, and stream resident forms (Morrow 1980). The extent to which each
life history pattern is present in the Susitna River is unclear, though adfluvial, fluvial and
stream resident populations were apparent during 1980s studies (Sautner and Stratton
1983, Schmidt et al. 1983, Sautner and Stratton 1984).
Adults primarily reside within tributary habitats during the open water season, though
apparent adfluvial populations were observed to use lakes to feed during summer
(Sautner and Stratton 1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984, Sautner and Stratton 1984).
Movement into tributaries occurred in June and July during 1980s studies, coincident
with the timing of upstream spawning migrations of adult Chinook salmon (Delaney et al.
1981b).
Fishwheel capture data at the Talkeetna Station (RM 103) in 1982 and mark-recapture
data during 1982-1983 suggest upstream movement of adults in the main channel in
spring and fall, which may represent spring movement to tributary feeding areas and fall
migration to spawning areas (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984).
Most adults are believed to migrate downstream from tributaries during September and
October to winter holding habitats in the Susitna River main channel, though little is
known regarding the timing of such movement or locations of winter rearing (Schmidt et
al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984). Adfluvial populations likely utilize lacustrine
habitats during winter, though timing of movement from tributaries is not known
(Sautner and Stratton 1984).
9.2. Juvenile Movements
Little is known regarding possible seasonal movements of juveniles because capture rates
were generally very low during 1980s studies (Delaney et al. 1981b, Schmidt et al. 1983,
Suchanek et al. 1984). Juveniles primarily remain in natal tributaries as summer and
winter nursery habitat, though juvenile use of lakes was observed during 1980s studies
(Delaney et al. 1981b, Sautner and Stratton 1983, Sautner and Stratton 1984). During
winter, it is possible that juveniles move downstream within natal tributaries, though
there is no evidence that juveniles utilize mainstem habitat during winter (Schmidt et al.
1983). In headwater tributaries with adfluvial populations, juveniles likely move to
lacustrine habitats during winter (Sautner and Stratton 1984).
10. HUMPBACK WHITEFISH
10.1. Adult Movements
Movements in the Upper River are essentially unknown due to low capture rates.
Appendix B - Page 60
INFORMATION ITEM B4: MIGRATORY CHARACTERISTICS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B4 - Page 8 August 2013
In the Middle and Lower River, a portion of the population may move to estuarine or
marine habitats for a portion of their lifespan, although most appear to exhibit a riverine
life history pattern based on analysis of adult scale patterns (Sundet and Wenger 1984,
Sundet and Pechek 1985).
Adults generally exhibit little movement during summer except for spawning migrations,
which occur in an upstream direction from July through September in the Susitna River;
peak movement occurs during August (Morrow 1980, Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and
Wenger 1984).
Movements associated with overwintering in the Middle and Lower River is largely
unknown due to low winter capture rates (Schmidt et al. 1983).
10.2. Juvenile Movements
Downstream migration of juvenile humpback whitefish was observed to occur from June
through October at the Talkeetna Station (RM 103) outmigrant trap, with peak movement
during July and early August (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984).
Approximately 20% of juvenile humpback whitefish in the Lower River and 5% in the
Middle River were believed to use estuarine areas during the first two years of life
(Sundet and Pechek 1985).
11. LONGNOSE SUCKER
11.1. Adult Movements
Adults in the Susitna Basin are thought to exhibit some movement associated with
spawning in mainstem and tributary mouth habitats during May and early June, though
the extent of this migration is unclear (Schmidt et al. 1983). An additional spawning
period may occur in the late summer during October and/or November (Schmidt et al.
1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984).
Following spring spawning, some adults appeared to move upstream to summer feeding
habitats and return downstream to winter holding areas (Sundet and Wenger 1984,
Sundet and Pechek 1985). Spring upstream movement of adult suckers primarily
occurred during June and July, while the timing of downstream fall movement was less
defined (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984). High capture rates of adults in
tributaries and sloughs in August and September may indicate opportunistic feeding on
salmon eggs during this time (Sundet and Wenger 1984). In the Upper River, only sub-
adult suckers were captured in mainstem habitats, while larger adults were captured at the
mouths of suspected spawning tributaries (Sautner and Stratton 1983). Habitat utilization
by adult longnose suckers during winter in the Susitna River is not well known, though
winter holding is believed to occur in the mainstem (Schmidt and Bingham 1983,
Schmidt et al. 1983).
Appendix B - Page 61
INFORMATION ITEM B4: MIGRATORY CHARACTERISTICS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B4 - Page 9 August 2013
11.2. Juvenile Movements
Juvenile longnose sucker fry typically drift from natal sites following emergence to
summer nursery areas (Morrow 1980), a strategy apparently exhibited in the Susitna
River; it is not clear to what extent such dispersal occurs based on low catch at
outmigrant traps at Talkeetna Station (RM 103) (Schmidt et al. 1983). Age-0+
downstream movement in the Middle River occurred throughout the open water period in
1982 and 1983, and exhibited a bi-modal peak during June and during late August and
September (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984, Sundet and Pechek 1985).
12. RAINBOW TROUT / STEELHEAD
Rainbow trout have not been identified in the Upper River and steelhead were not
distinguished from rainbow trout during the 1980s studies; presumably, anadromy is not
a common life history type for this species in the Susitna River. Therefore, the
information provided below is based on observations of rainbow trout from the Middle
River.
12.1. Adult Movements
Adult spawning migrations from main channel holding areas to spawning tributaries
began in March prior to ice breakup and continued through early June (Schmidt et al.
1983, Suchanek et al. 1984, Sundet 1986). Most rainbow trout spawning occurred during
late May and early June (Schmidt et al. 1983, Suchanek et al. 1984, Sundet and Pechek
1985). Migration and spawn timing for rainbow trout appears to be generally similar
between Middle and Lower Susitna Segments, though it was noted that timing of
upstream migration into tributary habitats could occur as much as 10 days earlier in the
Lower River (Sundet and Pechek 1985). Primary spawning tributaries in the 1980s were
4th of July Creek (RM 131.1) and Portage Creek (RM 148.9) in the Middle River and the
Talkeetna River (RM 97.2), Montana Creek (RM 77.0) and Kashwitna River (RM 61.0)
in the Lower River (Sundet and Pechek 1985).
During late summer in 1983 and 1984, adult rainbow trout migrated from tributary
habitats during late August and September, such that many individuals had moved to
tributary mouths by mid-September and few remained in tributaries by early October
(Suchanek et al. 1984, Sundet and Wenger 1984, Sundet and Pechek 1985).
Migration timing to winter holding areas in main channel and side channel areas occurred
from mid-September through early February, with peak movement in October and late
December (Schmidt and Estes 1983, Sundet 1986). In the Middle River, rainbow trout
utilize main channel areas during winter, whereas tagged fish in the Lower River were
observed to typically use side channel habitat during the 1980s (Sundet and Pechek
1985). By December, most adult rainbow trout were in main channel areas apart from
spawning tributaries (Sundet and Wenger 1984). Movements to winter holding habitats
were commonly in a downstream direction from spawning or feeding tributaries (Sundet
and Pechek 1985). Many adults hold during winter close to spawning tributaries (0.1 – 4
Appendix B - Page 62
INFORMATION ITEM B4: MIGRATORY CHARACTERISTICS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B4 - Page 10 August 2013
miles), though some exhibit long-distance migrations that typically range from 10-20
miles downstream but can extend over 76 miles (Schmidt and Estes 1983, Sundet 1986).
12.2. Juvenile Movements
Juvenile rainbow trout primarily reside in natal tributary habitats throughout the year
(Schmidt et al. 1983) and no data on movements outside of tributaries was available. Low
capture rates of juvenile rainbow trout in the main-channel was very low and limited to
tributary mouths and clear water slough habitats (Sundet and Pechek 1985).
Lake systems associated with the 4th of July and Portage creeks were believed to
supplement rainbow trout production in these basins based on analysis of juvenile scale
patterns, though no direct evidence of juvenile rearing in these lakes or movement into or
out of lakes was documented (Sundet and Pechek 1985).
13. ROUND WHITEFISH
13.1. Adult Movements
In late summer, adult round whitefish migrate upstream and downstream from summer
feeding habitats to spawning areas located in main channel and tributary mouth habitats,
though large schools observed at the mouths of Portage Creek (RM 148.8) and Indian
River (RM 138.6) may indicate tributary spawning (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and
Wenger 1984).
Tributary sampling indicated that many large adult round whitefish moved upstream into
large clear tributaries in the Middle River in June and returned downstream to mainstem
areas in August and September (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984).
After spawning, it is believed that adult round whitefish utilized mainstem areas to hold
for winter, but little is known regarding winter behavior and habitat use (Sundet and
Pechek 1985).
During tag-recapture studies in the 1980s, most recaptured adult round whitefish
exhibited little movement, though approximately 20% of recovered fish in 1983 and 1984
had moved an average of 18.5 and 16 miles in the respective years (Sundet and Wenger
1984, Sundet and Pechek 1985). Maximum observed movement of tagged round
whitefish was 55.7 miles based on 1983 recapture data and 69.5 miles based on 1984 tag
recaptures (Sundet and Wenger 1984, Sundet and Pechek 1985). Movement was
typically downstream during summer and upstream in fall (Sundet and Wenger 1984).
13.2. Juvenile Movements
Age-0+ juveniles are thought to remain near natal sites, though a portion in the Middle
River migrate downstream (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984). Downstream
movement of juvenile round whitefish at the Talkeetna Station (RM 103) outmigrant trap
Appendix B - Page 63
INFORMATION ITEM B4: MIGRATORY CHARACTERISTICS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B4 - Page 11 August 2013
occurred throughout the trap operational period in each year, from late May through
September, and peaked in late June and July (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger
1984).
Little is known regarding juvenile round whitefish habitat use during the winter, but
based on spring capture locations during the 1980s, it was presumed that winter nursery
habitats were proximal to summer habitats (Sundet and Pechek 1985).
14. SOCKEYE SALMON
Because sockeye salmon have not been identified in the Upper River, the information
provided below is based on observations from the Middle River.
14.1. Adult Movements
Adult sockeye salmon in the Middle River, which are comprised of second run stock,
typically began upstream migration during the 1980s in early July with peak movement
during late July and early August (Jennings 1985, Thompson et al. 1986). Minimal
holding or milling behavior was observed by adult sockeye salmon, so observed main
channel migration timing at Curry (RM 120) and Talkeetna (RM 103) stations is likely
similar to upstream movements into side slough spawning sites (ADF&G 1983). Adult
sockeye in the Middle River utilize main channel and side channel areas to access
primary spawning areas in side sloughs (Jennings 1985).
14.2. Juvenile Movements
Age-0+ juvenile sockeye salmon in the Middle River primarily utilize natal side sloughs
and upland sloughs for nursery habitat (Schmidt et al. 1983, Dugan et al. 1984).
Following breaching events in side sloughs, capture data suggested that age-0+ sockeye
dispersed from breached side sloughs and redistributed to upland slough areas during late
summer (Dugan et al. 1984). Most age-0+ sockeye from the Middle River disperse
downstream during the open water season to either reside in Lower River nursery habitats
for the winter or emigrate to marine areas as age-0+ smolts (Roth and Stratton 1985,
Suchanek et al. 1985, Roth et al. 1986). Dispersal of age-0+ sockeye from natal habitats
was typically underway prior to the start of mainstem outmigrant trapping at Talkeetna
Station (RM 13), but likely began in early May, peaked in late June and July and declined
in September (Roth and Stratton 1985, Roth et al. 1986
Age-1+ sockeye salmon typically began emigration from the Middle River prior to
mainstem outmigrant trap seasonal operation during the 1980s studies, but fyke net traps
operated in Lower River side channels suggest that downstream movement may have
begun in early April (Bigler and Levesque 1985). Age-1+ migration peaked during late
May and early June and was completed by early or late July among sampling years in the
1980s (Schmidt et al. 1983, Roth et al. 1984, Roth and Stratton 1985). Based on the low
number of age-1+ sockeye captured at outmigrant traps, it was hypothesized that most
juvenile sockeye salmon from the Middle River dispersed to the Lower River prior to
winter (Roth et al. 1984, Roth and Stratton 1985).
Appendix B - Page 64
INFORMATION ITEM B4: MIGRATORY CHARACTERISTICS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B4 - Page 12 August 2013
Appendix B - Page 65
INFORMATION ITEM B4: MIGRATORY CHARACTERISTICS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B4 - Page 13 August 2013
15. REFERENCES
ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1981. Adult Anadromous Fisheries Project
ADF&G/Su Hydro 1981. Phase I Final Draft Report, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 467 pp. APA Document #
324.
ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1983c. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Phase
II Report Volume I: Summarization of Volumes 2, 3, 4; Parts I and II, and 5. Prepared
for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 146 pp. APA Document # 96.
Barrett, B. M., F. M. Thompson and S. N. Wick. 1984. Adult anadromous fish investigations:
May - October, 1983. Report No. 1, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro
Aquatic Studies. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 430 pp.
APA Document # 1450.
Barrett, B. M., F. M. Thompson and S. N. Wick. 1985. Adult salmon investigations: May -
October, 1984. Report No. 6, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro
Aquatic Studies. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 528 pp.
APA Document # 2748.
Barrett, B.M., F.M. Thompson, S. Wick, and S. Krueger. 1983. Adult Anadromous Fish
Studies, 1982. Phase II data report, Volume 2. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 275 pp.
Bigler, J., and K. Levesque. 1985. Lower Susitna River Preliminary Chum Salmon Spawning
Habitat Assessment. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies. 140 pp. APA Document # 3504.
Buckwalter, J.D. 2011. Synopsis of ADF&G’s Upper Susitna Drainage Fish Inventory, August
2011. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, Alaska.
27 pp.
Delaney, K., D. Crawford, L. Dugan, S. Hale, K. Kuntz, B. Marshall, J. Mauney, J. Quinn, K.
Roth, P Suchanek, R. Sundet, and M. Stratton. 1981a. Resident fish investigation on the
Lower Susitna River. Phase I Final Draft Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. 311 pp. APA Document # 318.
Delaney, K., D. Crawford, L. Dugan, S. Hale, K. Kuntz, B. Marshall, J. Mauney, J. Quinn, K.
Roth, P Suchanek, R. Sundet, and M. Stratton. 1981b. Resident fish investigation on the
Upper Susitna River. Phase I Final Draft Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. 157 pp. APA Document # 316.
Dugan, L.J., D.A. Sterritt, and M.E. Stratton. 1984. The Distribution and Relative Abundance of
Juvenile Salmon in the Susitna River Drainage above the Chulitna River Confluence. Page
59 In Schmidt, D., S.S. Hale, D.L. Crawford, and P.M. Suchanek (eds.). Part 2 of Resident
and Juvenile Anadromous Fish Investigations (May - October 1983). Prepared by Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK.
Appendix B - Page 66
INFORMATION ITEM B4: MIGRATORY CHARACTERISTICS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B4 - Page 14 August 2013
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 1984. Draft Environmental Impact Statement
– Susitna Hydroelectric Project. FERC No. 7114 – Alaska, Volume 4.
Jennings, T.R. 1985. Fish Resources and Habitats in the Middle Susitna River. Woodward-
Clyde Consultants and Entrix. Final Report to Alaska Power Authority. 175 pp.
McPhail, J. D., and V. L. Paragamian. 2000. Burbot biology and life history. Pages 10-23 in
Paragamian, V. L. and D. W. Willis, eds., Burbot: Biology, ecology, and management.
Publication 1. Fisheries Management Section, American Fisheries Society, Spokane,
Washington.
Morrow, J. E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing Co.,
Anchorage, Alaska. 248 pp.
Roth, K. J. and M. E. Stratton. 1985. The migration and growth of juvenile salmon in Susitna
River, 1985. Pages 6-207 in Schmidt, D., S. Hale, and D. Crawford, eds., Resident and
juvenile anadromous fish investigations (May - October 1984). Report No. 7, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game Susitna Aquatic Studies Program. Prepared for the Alaska
Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document # 2836.
Roth, K. J., D. C. Gray, and D. C. Schmidt. 1984. The outmigration of juvenile salmon from the
Susitna River above the Chulitna River confluence. Pages 9-73 in Schmidt, D. C., S. S.
Hale, D. L. Crawford, and P. M. Suchanek, eds., Resident and juvenile anadromous fish
investigations (May - October 1983). Report No. 2, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. APA Document # 1784.
Roth, K. J., D. C. Gray, J. W. Anderson, A. C. Blaney, J. P. McDonell. 1986. The migration
and growth of juvenile salmon in Susitna River, 1985. Susitna Aquatic Studies Program
Report No. 14, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 130 pp. APA Document #
3413.
Sautner, J., and M. Stratton. 1983. Upper Susitna River impoundment studies, 1982. Volume 5,
Phase II Basic Data Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 220 pp. APA
Document # 590.
Sautner, J., and M. Stratton. 1984. Access and transmission corridor studies. Pages 7-89 in
Schmidt, D., C. Estes, D. Crawford and D. Vincent-Lang, eds., Access and transmission
corridor aquatic investigations, May - August 1983. Report No. 4, Alaska Department of
Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document # 2049.
Schmidt, D. and C. Estes. 1983. Winter aquatic studies (October 1982 - May 1983). Phase II
Data Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 269 pp. APA Document #
397.
Appendix B - Page 67
INFORMATION ITEM B4: MIGRATORY CHARACTERISTICS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B4 - Page 15 August 2013
Schmidt, D., and A. Bingham. 1983. Synopsis of the 1982 Aquatic Studies and Analysis of Fish
and Habitat Relationships. Phase II Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. 185 pp. + appendices. APA Document #s 40a_ver2 (main report), 40
(appendices).
Schmidt, D., S. Hale, D. Crawford, and P. Suchanek. 1983. Resident and juvenile anadromous
fish studies on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, 1982. Volume 3, Phase II Basic
Data Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 303 pp. + appendices. APA
Documents #s 486, 487.
Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board
of Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Stratton, M.E. 1986. Summary of juvenile Chinook and coho salmon winter studies in the
Middle Susitna River, 1984-1985. Report No. 11, Part 2, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. 148 pp. APA Document # 3063.
Suchanek, P. M., K. J. Kuntz, and J. P. McDonell. 1985. The relative abundance, distribution,
and instream flow relationships of juvenile salmon in the Lower Susitna River. Pages
208-384 in Schmidt, D., S. Hale, and D. Crawford, eds., Resident and juvenile
anadromous fish investigations (May-October 1984). Report No. 7, Alaska Department
of Fish and Game Susitna Aquatic Studies Program. Prepared for the Alaska Power
Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document # 2836.
Suchanek, P.M., R. L. Sundet and M. N. Wenger. 1984a. Resident fish habitat studies. Pages
360-404 in Schmidt, D.C., S.S. Hale, D.L. Crawford, and P.M. Suchanek, eds., Resident
and juvenile anadromous fish investigations (May - October 1983). Report No. 2, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska
Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document # 1784.
Sundet, R. L. 1986. Winter resident fish distribution and habitat studies conducted in the
Susitna River below Devil Canyon, 1984-1985. Report No. 11, Part 1, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska
Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 80 pp. APA Document # 3062.
Sundet, R. L., and M. N. Wenger. 1984. Resident fish distribution and population dynamics in
the Susitna River below Devil Canyon. Pages 250-358 in Schmidt, D.C., S.S. Hale, D.L.
Crawford, and P.M. Suchanek, eds., Resident and juvenile anadromous fish
investigations (May - October 1983). Report No. 2, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. APA Document # 1784.
Sundet, R. L., and S. D. Pechek. 1985. Resident fish distribution and life history in the Susitna
River below Devil Canyon. Part 3 (97 pages) in Schmidt, D. C., S. S. Hale, and D. L.
Crawford, eds., Resident and juvenile anadromous fish investigations (May - October
1984). Report No. 7, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document #
2837.
Appendix B - Page 68
INFORMATION ITEM B4: MIGRATORY CHARACTERISTICS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B4 - Page 16 August 2013
Thompson, F. M., S. N. Wick, and B. L. Stratton. 1986. Adult salmon investigations, May –
October 1985. Report No. 13, Volume 1, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna
Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 173
pp. APA Document # 3412.
Appendix B - Page 69
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 August 2013
INFORMATION ITEM B5. NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH
SPECIES
Appendix B - Page 70
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 1 August 2013
1. INTRODUCTION
This information item provides information on the number and size of target fish species that
could potentially use passage facilities at Watana Dam. Target species identified in Information
Item B1 include Arctic grayling, burbot, Chinook salmon, Dolly Varden, humpback whitefish,
longnose sucker, and round whitefish. Of these seven target species only Chinook salmon are
considered to have an obligate anadromous life history. Humpback whitefish are usually, but not
always considered anadromous (Morrow, 1980) and Dolly Varden are considered to have a
facultative anadromous life history pattern, but primarily exhibit a resident life history in the
Middle Susitna River (Jennings 1985). Schmidt et al. (1983) suggested anadromous Dolly
Varden may be present in the Susitna River, but no empirical evidence is available to confirm
this life history pattern.
Additional species that have not been documented in the Upper River but inhabit the Middle
River were identified for inclusion as target species during the April, 2013 Fish Passage TWG
Workshop. These include Arctic lamprey, Bering cisco, three additional salmon species (chum,
coho, and sockeye salmon), and rainbow trout/steelhead. While Bering cisco can exhibit
anadromous or freshwater life histories across their range, the Lower Susitna River population is
thought to be anadromous (Delaney et al. 1981a). Susitna River Arctic lamprey populations include
both anadromous and freshwater life histories (Schmidt et al. 1983). The aforementioned salmon
species exhibit an anadromous life history in the Susitna River. Steelhead were not distinguished
from rainbow trout during the 1980s studies and anadromy is presumably not a life history type
expressed by this species in the Susitna River.
For species that have not been identified in the Upper River, there is increased uncertainty
regarding the number and size of fish that could use passage facilities at Watana Dam. Relative
abundance and size information from the Middle or Lower River are the only data available and
are presented below. Barrick et al. (1983) also developed estimates of production potential in the
Upper Susitna River basin for the four salmon target species. These potential production values
are included below and represent upper estimates of the number of upstream adult and
downstream juvenile salmon migrants that could potentially use passage facilities.1 These
production values were primarily derived based on estimated habitat area and production rates
from out-of-basin literature sources. Estimates of adult production potential incorporated marine
mortality rates but presumably did not account for any freshwater adult mortality that could
occur between the marine environment and the Upper River.
In addition to the information described above, information related to fish relative abundance
upstream and downstream of the Project, including tributaries, has been added to current
1 The production potential estimates presented by Barrick et al. (1983) focused on the area upstream of Devils Canyon and, as
such, included areas downstream of the currently proposed Watana Dam site. To the extent possible, water bodies located
below the Watana Dam site (e.g., Tsusena and Fog creeks) were subtracted from the overall production potential totals to more
accurately reflect production potential upstream of the dam site. The location of some water bodies (e.g., Sandy Creek) named
by Barrick et al. (1983) could not be identified on topographic maps or GIS layers. Production potential values for these water
bodies were included in the totals presented below based on the assumption that they were more likely to fall within the larger
drainage area upstream of the Watana Dam site and because they were generally not major contributors to the overall
production potential totals.
Appendix B - Page 71
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 2 August 2013
iteration of this information item. This information had been initially provided in Information
Item B7 “Fish Relative Abundance”. However, discussions during the April, 2013 Fish Passage
TWG Workshop concluded that Information Item B7 should be merged with Information Item
B5 to consolidate relevant information.
2. ARCTIC GRAYLING
2.1. Relative Abundance / Potential Use of Passage Facilities
Arctic grayling appear to be the most abundant fish species in the Upper River,
particularly in tributaries (Table B5-1).
— Total estimated population size for tributaries surveyed during 1981 was 10,279
Arctic grayling.
— Total estimated population size for tributaries surveyed during 1982 was 16,346
Arctic grayling.
Arctic grayling are relatively common in the Middle Susitna River, particularly at
tributary mouths (Figure B5-1).
6,027 Arctic grayling were tagged during 1981/1982 in tributaries upstream of the three
impediments and there were 953 recaptures (15.8%).
— 871 (91.4%) of recaptures were in the tributary where tagged.
— 82 (8.6%) of the recaptures were in a tributary or slough upstream or downstream of
the tributary where tagged.
· 61 (6.4%) moved to a tributary or slough downstream.
· 21 (2.2%) moved to a tributary or slough upstream.
· 19 of 5593 (0.3%) tagged upstream of Watana Dam site moved to downstream of
Watana Dam Site; farthest movement was Jay Creek to Fog Creek.
· 7 of 434 (1.6%) tagged downstream of Watana Dam site (one from Fog Creek, 6
from Tsusena Creek) moved to upstream of Watana Dam site; farthest movement
was from Fog Creek to Oshetna River.
One fish tagged in Jay Creek during 1981 was recaptured during 1982 by an angler 75
miles upstream in Salt Creek, which drains to Tyone Lake.
While Arctic grayling are relatively abundant and have been documented to exhibit
extensive movements, the number that might utilize passage facilities is unknown.
2.2. Fish Size
Arctic grayling live up to 10 years of age in the Susitna River; Age 5 represented about
31 percent of the sample population collected by angling during 1982.
The maximum size of sampled fish upstream of Devils Canyon during 1982 was 420
mm.
Appendix B - Page 72
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 3 August 2013
Length at age from 1981 and 1982 is depicted in Figure B5-2.
Length frequency of Arctic grayling collected during 2012 is depicted in Figure B5-3.
No weight information is available from the Susitna River.
3. ARCTIC LAMPREY
3.1. Relative Abundance / Potential Use of Passage Facilities
Arctic lamprey are not known to be present upstream of Devils Canyon. The species has
been documented up to Gash Creek at RM 111.5. Although abundance is relatively low
over most of the river, Schmidt et al. (1983) suggested Arctic lamprey were abundant at
tributary mouths downstream of RM 50.5.
Surveys during 1982 captured 62 Arctic lamprey.
— Sampling at Designated Fish Habitat (DFH) Sites documented 31 at Birch Creek and
Slough (RM 98.6), 3 at Whiskers Creek and Slough (RM 101.2), and 1 at Sunshine
Creek and Side Channel (RM 85.7)
— Sampling at Selected Fish Habitat (SFH) Sites documented 7 Arctic lamprey
downstream of RM 58.0.
— Downstream Migrant traps collected 18 Arctic Lamprey.
40 Arctic lamprey were captured in the lower river during 1981.
The number of Arctic lamprey that might utilize passage facilities is uncertain, but likely
to be relatively few, if any under their current distribution.
3.2. Fish Size
During 1981, captured Arctic lamprey ranged in size from 115 to 315 mm.
During 1982, captured Arctic lamprey ranged in size from 84 to 290 mm.
4. BERING CISCO
4.1. Relative Abundance / Potential Use of Passage Facilities
Bering cisco are not known to be present upstream of Devils Canyon. Surveys during the
1980s suggested their distribution was primarily below the Chulitna River confluence
(RM 98.6). A single Bering cisco was observed upstream of the Chulitna River
confluence at RM 101.9 during 1982.
834 Bering cisco captured during 1981, primarily by lower river fish wheel.
518 Bering cisco were captured in the lower river during 1982.
The number of Bering cisco that might utilize passage facilities is uncertain, but likely to
be relatively few, if any, under their current distribution.
Appendix B - Page 73
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 4 August 2013
4.2. Fish Size
During 1981, Bering cisco size ranged from 284 to 385 mm from three age classes (3, 4
and 5 year olds).
During 1982, Bering cisco size ranged from 235 to 405 mm from three age classes (4, 5
and 6 year olds).
5. BURBOT
5.1. Relative Abundance / Potential Use of Passage Facilities
Burbot are commonly found in the mainstem Susitna River both upstream and
downstream of Devils Canyon.
They are generally not present in smaller tributaries, except at the mouth; however, they
are present and abundant in the larger tributaries downstream of Devils Canyon, such as
the Yentna and Deshka rivers.
88 burbot were captured by trotline during 1981 near tributary mouths upstream of Devils
Canyon; maximum catch rate was 1.14 fish per trotline; average 0.68 fish per trotline.
135 burbot were captured by trotline during 1982 at mainstem sites upstream of Devils
Canyon with a maximum catch rate of 3.5 fish per trotline and average 0.7 fish per
trotline.
For comparison, 130 trotlines were set at 17 DFH sites in the Middle and Lower River
during 1982 with a maximum catch rate of 2.7 burbot per trotline and average of 0.4
burbot per trotline.
While relatively abundant, the numbers of burbot that might utilize passage facilities is
unknown.
5.2. Fish Size
Burbot in the Susitna River can live up to 14 years; fish up to Age 10 were captured
upstream of Devils Canyon in 1981 and 1982; maximum size of burbot captured
downstream of Devils Canyon was 900 mm in 1981; maximum size recorded upstream of
Devils Canyon was 740 mm in 1981 (Figure B5-4).
No weight information is available from the Susitna River.
6. CHINOOK SALMON
6.1. Relative Abundance / Potential Use of Passage Facilities
Adults
— Adult relative abundance declines rapidly from the first impediment to the Watana
Dam site (Tables B5-2 and B5-3) although Chinook have been observed in Kosina
Appendix B - Page 74
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 5 August 2013
Creek and the Oshetna River. Relative abundance is higher downstream of Three
Rivers confluence; the Middle River accounts for up to about 10 percent of Susitna
River production.
— Based on existing information, Chinook adult passage above Watana Dam are
unlikely to number more than a few hundred. The highest peak spawning count was
16 fish in Kosina Creek during 2012 (HDR 2013). No adult Chinook were observed
upstream of the proposed Watana Dam site during surveys from 1981-1985 (ADF&G
1981, ADF&G 1983, Barrett et al. 1984, Barrett et al. 1985, Thompson 1986).
— On the order of 10,000 to 20,000 adult Chinook escapement to Curry fishwheel (RM
120) during 1983-1985 (ADF&G 1981, ADF&G 1983, Barrett et al. 1984, Barrett et
al. 1985, Thompson 1986).
— In the Middle River, Chinook spawn exclusively in tributary streams. Approximately
90+ percent of Middle River Chinook escapement is to Indian River and Portage
Creek (ADF&G 1981, ADF&G 1983, Barrett et al. 1984, Barrett et al. 1985,
Thompson 1986).
— In 2012, 317 Chinook salmon were radio-tagged at Curry. For those with mainstem
or tributary final destinations, 26 (8.2%) passed the first impediment, 22 (6.9%)
passed the second impediment, 12 (3.8%) passed all three impediments, and 6 (1.9%)
had final destinations upstream of the proposed Watana Dam site (LGL 2013).
— Based on estimates from Barrick et al. (1983), the production potential of Chinook
salmon in the Upper River is 2,931 adults.
— The potential use of passage facilities by adult Chinook salmon is unknown with any
precision.
Juveniles
— Chinook salmon juveniles primarily use side sloughs and side channels in the Middle
River for summer rearing and overwintering, but most juveniles that exit tributaries
during the open water period appear to migrate to the Lower Susitna River.
— Chinook fry have been infrequently observed in low numbers upstream of proposed
Watana Dam site (Kosina Creek – 3 fish, Oshetna River – 3 fish; Buckwalter 2011).
— Observations of Chinook young of year during 2012 in Cheechako Creek and an
unnamed tributary downstream of the proposed Watana Dam site (HDR 2013).
— All Chinook juveniles observed by Buckwalter (2011) were young-of-year less than
75 mm.
— Based on estimates from Barrick et al. (1983), the production potential of Chinook
salmon in the Upper River is 97,704 smolts of unspecified age.
— The potential use of passage facilities by fry or age 1+ Chinook salmon is unknown.
6.2. Fish Size
Adults.
Appendix B - Page 75
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 6 August 2013
— 10 Chinook radio-tagged at Curry that passed the third impediment were 66 to 101
cm FL (mean 83.9 cm).
— 492 Chinook captured at Curry during 2012 were 33 to 123 cm FL (mean 71 cm);
cumulative length frequency is shown in Figure B5-5 (LGL 2013).
— No empirical weight information from the Susitna River.
— Age of Chinook returns to fishwheels during the 1980s varied considerably from year
to year. Age 4, 5 and 6 typically predominate with some Age 3 and relatively few
Age 7 (ADF&G 1981, ADF&G 1983, Barrett et al. 1984, Barrett et al. 1985,
Thompson 1986). The length frequency distribution from 1984 Curry Station
fishwheel catches is shown in Figure B5-6.
Fry.
— Emergence at approximately 32 mm.
— By late September young of year are typically 50 to 85 mm (weighted average 63.2
mm; Roth and Stratton 1985, Roth et al. 1986).
Age 1+ (Roth et al. 1986)
— Typically 65 to 120 mm at Middle and Lower River outmigrant traps during 1984,
weighted average 86.1 mm.
7. CHUM SALMON
7.1. Relative Abundance / Potential Use of Passage Facilities
Adults
— Chum salmon are not known to be present upstream of Devils Canyon. However a
significant number of chum salmon spawn in Middle Susitna River tributaries
downstream of Devils Canyon.
— The average adult chum salmon escapement to the Curry Station fishwheel from 1981
to 1985 was 27,450 fish with a range of 13,068 to 49,278 fish (ADF&G 1981,
ADF&G 1983, Barrett et al. 1984, Barrett et al. 1985, Thompson 1986).
— Indian River and Portage Creek account for the majority tributary spawning in the
Middle Susitna River while Sloughs 11, 8A, and 21 account for the majority of
slough spawning.
— Based on estimates from Barrick et al. (1983), the production potential of chum
salmon in the Upper River is 9,344 adults.
— Numbers of adult chum salmon that might utilize passage facilities is uncertain, but
likely to be relatively few, if any, under their existing distribution.
Juveniles
Appendix B - Page 76
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 7 August 2013
— Chum salmon outmigrate primarily as fry with 50 percent of the run generally passing
Talkeetna by mid-June and nearly 100 percent by the end of July (Roth and Stratton
1985; Roth et al. 1986).
— During 1983 chum fry were primarily observed in tributaries (34.1%) and side
sloughs (59.3%) (Dugan et al. 1984).
— Based on estimates from Barrick et al. (1983), the production potential of chum
salmon in the Upper River is 934,1994 smolts that would presumably be age 0+.
— Numbers of juvenile chum salmon that might utilize passage facilities is uncertain,
but likely to be relatively few, if any, under their existing distribution.
7.2. Fish Size
Adults
— On average, chum salmon have predominately returned to the Susitna River at Age 4
(80.0 percent) and Age 5 (12.8 percent) with a few Age 3 and Age 6 fish returning
(ADF&G 1981, ADF&G 1983, ADF&G 1984, Barrett et al. 1985, Thompson et al.
1986).
— During 1983 adult males captured at Curry Station ranged from 53 to 68 cm (average
60.6 cm) and females ranged from 42 to 68 cm (average 59.9 cm). These sizes are
typical of other years. The length frequency distribution from 1984 Curry Station
fishwheel catches is shown in Figure B5-7.
— The cumulative length frequency from 2012 Curry Station fishwheel captures is
shown in Figure B5-5 (LGL 2013).
Juveniles
— Chum salmon fry appeared to emerge at sizes of less than 35 mm (Roth and Stratton
1985). During 1984, the average size of outmigrating chum salmon was
approximately 40 to 45 mm Roth and Stratton (1985).
8. COHO SALMON
8.1. Relative Abundance / Potential Use of Passage Facilities
Adults
— Coho salmon are not known to be present upstream of Devils Canyon. However a
significant number of coho salmon spawn in Middle Susitna River tributaries
downstream of Devils Canyon, with occasional use of mainstem channels and
sloughs.
— Relative abundance is higher downstream of Three Rivers confluence; Middle River
accounts for less than 5 percent of Susitna River production. About 1.5 percent of
coho salmon radio-tagged at Flathorn Station had a final destination in the Middle
Susitna River downstream of Devils Canyon.
Appendix B - Page 77
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 8 August 2013
— The average adult coho salmon escapement to the Curry Station fishwheel from 1981
to 1985 was 1,613.4 fish with a range of 761 to 2,438 fish (ADF&G 1981, ADF&G
1983, Barrett et al. 1984, Barrett et al. 1985, Thompson 1986).
— The average returns to the Talkeetna Station from 1981 to 1984 was 5,666 coho
salmon (range 2,399 to 11,847). However, this is an overestimate because many fish
captured at Talkeetna Station spawn in the lower river.
— Whiskers Creek, Indian River and Chase Creek (RM 106.9) account for the majority
of the tributary spawning in the Middle Susitna River.
— Peak spawning counts in Portage Creek averaged 55.6 coho salmon (range 22 to 128)
from 1981 to 1985.
— Based on estimates from Barrick et al. (1983), the production potential of coho
salmon in the Upper River is 4,884 adults.
— Numbers of coho salmon that might utilize passage facilities is uncertain, but likely to
be relatively few, if any, under their existing distribution.
Juveniles
— Based on estimates from Barrick et al. (1983), the production potential of coho
salmon in the Upper River is 48,853 smolts of unspecified age.
8.2. Fish Size
Adults
— On average, coho salmon have predominately returned to the Susitna River at Age 4
(58.0 percent) and Age 3 (40.4 percent) with a few Age 5 (ADF&G 1981, ADF&G
1983, ADF&G 1984, Barrett et al. 1985, Thompson et al. 1986).
— During 1983 adult males captured at Curry Station ranged from 42 to 61 cm (average
51.8 cm) and females ranged from 35.4 to 60 cm (average 53.0 cm). These sizes are
typical of other years. The length frequency distribution from 1984 Curry Station
fishwheel catches is shown in Figure B5-8.
— The cumulative length frequency from 2012 Curry Station fishwheel captures is
shown in Figure B5-5 (LGL 2013)
Juveniles
— Coho young of year range from about 35 mm to 75 mm.
— Coho Age 1+ range from about 65 mm to 115 mm
— During 1985 Age 2+ coho salmon averaged 132 mm with a range of 109 mm to 174
mm (Roth et al. 1986).
Appendix B - Page 78
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 9 August 2013
9. DOLLY VARDEN
9.1. Relative Abundance / Potential Use of Passage Facilities
Few (17) Dolly Varden were captured in the Susitna River and tributaries upstream of
Devils Canyon during 1981 and 1982.
HDR (2013) captured 246 Dolly Varden in the Susitna River and tributaries upstream of
Devils Canyon during 2012.
In 2003 and 2011, ADF&G documented two Dolly Varden during sampling at 11 sites in
the Kosina Creek Basin and 11 Dolly Varden during sampling at 11 sites in the Oshetna
River Basin (Buckwalter 2011).
Downstream of Devils Canyon, Dolly Varden are present, but relatively uncommon in
the Middle River. Maximum catch at DFH sites during 1982 from all gear types was two
fish per sample period. Eight of 17 DFH sites had zero catch of Dolly Varden.
Schmidt and Bingham (1983) suggested Dolly Varden had a higher relative abundance
downstream of the Three Rivers Confluence compared to Middle River.
Numbers of Dolly Varden that might utilize passage facilities is unknown.
9.2. Fish Size
Maximum size of Dolly Varden captured during 1981 and 1982 was 205 mm.
During 2012 the size range was 26 – 366 mm (Figure B5-9).
10. HUMPBACK WHITEFISH
10.1. Relative Abundance / Potential Use of Passage Facilities
During 1981, 1982 and 2013 three humpback whitefish were captured upstream of Devils
Canyon, one each year.
ADF&G captured additional humpback whitefish in the Upper Susitna River Basin in
2011; however, these observations were limited to areas upstream of the MacClaren
River confluence (Buckwalter 2011).
Humpback whitefish are present but not abundant in the Middle River downstream of
Devils Canyon. Maximum total catch at 12 DFH sites upstream of Three Rivers
Confluence during 1982 was five fish per site and period 3 sites had zero catch, and three
sites had one or zero fish captured each period (Figure B5-10).
Numbers of humpback whitefish that might utilize passage facilities is unknown.
Appendix B - Page 79
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 10 August 2013
10.2. Fish Size
Size of humpback whitefish captured upstream of Devils Canyon ranged from 231
(captured 2013) to 347 mm (captured 1981); size of humpback whitefish captured in
1982 not reported.
In the Lower and Middle Susitna River downstream of Devils Canyon, humpback
whitefish live up to Age 13.
— Lower River fish tend to be larger than fish from the Middle River.
— The maximum size captured in the Lower River was an Age 8 fish 489 mm in length.
— The maximum size captured in the Middle River was an Age 8 fish 437 mm in length.
No empirical weight information is available.
11. LONGNOSE SUCKER
11.1. Relative Abundance / Potential Use of Passage Facilities
Longnose sucker are common both upstream and downstream of Devils Canyon.
During 1981, 144 longnose suckers were captured near tributary mouths upstream of
Devils Canyon by gillnet.
During 1982, 66 longnose suckers were captured by gillnet at four of seven mainstem
sampling sites.
During 2012, 32 longnose suckers were captured primarily by backpack electrofishing
within mainstem habitats (20 fish) or tributary plumes by boat electrofishing (8 fish).
Longnose appear to be slightly more abundant in the Lower River compared to the
Middle River downstream of Devils Canyon (Figure B5-11).
Movement patterns of longnose sucker upstream of Devils Canyon are unknown.
The number of longnose suckers that might utilize passage facilities is unknown.
11.2. Fish Size
Longnose sucker in the Susitna River live up to Age 11.
Range of longnose suckers captured upstream of Devils Canyon during 1981 was 105 to
505 mm (Figure B5-12).
Range of longnose suckers captured upstream of Devils Canyon during 1982 was 210 to
495 mm.
Range of longnose suckers captured in the Upper Susitna River during 2012 was 20 to
404 mm.
Appendix B - Page 80
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 11 August 2013
12. RAINBOW TROUT / STEELHEAD
12.1. Relative Abundance / Potential Use of Passage Facilities
Steelhead were not distinguished from rainbow trout during the 1980s studies.
Presumably, anadromy is not expressed by the Onchorynchus mykiss in the Susitna River.
Rainbow are not known to be present upstream of Devils Canyon. However a significant
number of rainbow trout utilize the Middle Susitna River for rearing and overwintering
downstream of Devils Canyon.
Rainbow trout spawning and juvenile rearing occurs in tributaries. Surveys at 17 DFH
sites downstream of Devils Canyon during 1982 suggest rainbow trout are commonly
observed near tributary mouths in the Susitna River downstream of Devils Canyon
(Figure B5-13). During late summer rainbow trout were frequently observed near side
channels and sloughs used by chum and sockeye salmon for spawning.
Mark-recapture during 1981 to 1983 estimated there were about 4,000 rainbow trout
greater than 150 mm using the reach from Talkeetna to Devils Canyon (Jennings 1985).
Numbers of rainbow trout that might utilize passage facilities is uncertain, but likely to be
relatively few, if any, under their existing distribution.
12.2. Fish Size
Rainbow trout in the Susitna River live up to Age 9.
Range of rainbow trout captured from the Three Rivers Confluence to Devils Canyon
was 84 to 612 mm (Figure B5-14).
13. ROUND WHITEFISH
13.1. Relative Abundance / Potential Use of Passage Facilities
During 1981, 33 round whitefish were captured near tributary mouths upstream of Devils
Canyon by gillnet. During 1982, 5 round whitefish were captured by gillnet at one of
seven mainstem sampling sites upstream of Devils Canyon.
In 2003 and 2011, ADF&G documented 42 round whitefish during sampling at 11 sites
in the Kosina Creek Basin, 22 round whitefish during sampling at 11 sites in the Oshetna
River Basin, and 92 round whitefish during sampling at 7 sites in the Watana Creek Basin
(Buckwalter 2011). Additional round whitefish observations in the Upper Susitna River
Basin were located upstream of the Oshetna River confluence.
In the Upper River Basin during 2012, 14 round whitefish were captured primarily by
backpack electrofishing within mainstem habitats (20 fish) or tributary plumes by boat
electrofishing (8 fish).
Schmidt and Bingham (1983) suggested round whitefish were ten times more abundant
than humpback whitefish downstream of Devils Canyon.
Appendix B - Page 81
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 12 August 2013
Surveys at 17 DFH sites downstream of Devils Canyon during 1982 suggest round
whitefish are more abundant in the Middle River downstream of Devils Canyon than in
the Lower River (Figure B7-4).
Movement patterns of round whitefish upstream of Devils Canyon are unknown
The number of round whitefish that might utilize passage facilities is unknown.
13.2. Fish Size
Round whitefish in the Susitna River live up to Age 12 (Schmidt et al. 1983).
Range of round whitefish captured upstream of Devils Canyon during 1981 was 315 to
440 mm (Figure B5-6).
Size of round whitefish captured upstream of Devils Canyon during 1982 was not
reported.
Maximum size of round whitefish captured downstream of Devils Canyon during the
1980s was 444 mm.
Range of round whitefish captured in the Upper Susitna River during 2012 was 20 to 404
mm.
14. SOCKEYE SALMON
14.1. Relative Abundance / Potential Use of Passage Facilities
Adults
— Sockeye salmon are not known to be present upstream of Devils Canyon. However, a
relatively small number of sockeye salmon spawn in Middle Susitna River side
sloughs and side channels downstream of Devils Canyon. Most (95+%, Yanusz et al
2011a, 2011b) Susitna River sockeye salmon spawn in Susitna River tributaries such
as the Talkeetna River, Chulitna River, Yentna River, Deshka River, Birch Creek,
Alexander Creek, etc.
— There are two distinct sockeye salmon runs to the Susitna River. First run sockeye
salmon spawn exclusively in lower river tributaries. Second run sockeye salmon
utilize spawn in Lower Susitna River tributaries and Middle Susitna River side
sloughs and side channels.
— The average second run adult sockeye salmon escapement to the Curry Station
fishwheel from 1981 to 1985 was 2,467 fish with a range of 1,261 to 3,593 fish
(ADF&G 1981, ADF&G 1983, Barrett et al. 1984, Barrett et al. 1985, Thompson
1986).
— Within the Middle Susitna River downstream from Devils Canyon, sockeye salmon
primarily spawned in Sloughs 11, 8A, and 21. Some sloughs were used for spawning
by sockeye salmon in all years while others were only intermittently used
Appendix B - Page 82
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 13 August 2013
— Based on estimates from Barrick et al. (1983), the production potential of sockeye
salmon in the Upper River is 158,261 adults.
— The number of sockeye salmon that might utilize passage facilities is uncertain, but
likely to be relatively few, if any, under their existing distribution.
Juveniles
— Based on estimates from Barrick et al. (1983), the production potential of sockeye
salmon in the Upper River is 1,582,598 smolts of unspecified age.
14.2. Fish Size
Adults
— On average, sockeye salmon have predominately returned to the Susitna River at Age
4 (37.0 percent) and Age 5 (56.6 percent) with a few Age 3 and Age 6 fish returning
(ADF&G 1981, ADF&G 1982c, ADF&G 1984, Barrett et al. 1985, Thompson et al.
1986).
— During 1983 adult males captured at Curry Station ranged from 40 to 64 cm (average
48.1 cm) and females ranged from 38 to 58 cm (average 51.5 cm). These sizes are
typical of other years. The length frequency distribution from 1984 Curry Station
fishwheel catches is shown in Figure B5-16.
— The cumulative length frequency from 2012 Curry Station fishwheel captures is
shown in Figure B5-5 (LGL 2013).
Juveniles
— Sockeye salmon fry emerged at approximately 32 mm in size (Roth and Stratton
1985). By the end of September sockeye salmon fry are about 55 to 60 mm in length.
— During 1985 Age 1+ sockeye salmon juveniles captured with outmigrant traps at the
Talkeetna Station were 11 mm in length shorter on average than Age 1+ sockeye
salmon juveniles captured at the Flathorn Station (69 mm compared to 80 mm).
Appendix B - Page 83
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 14 August 2013
15. REFERENCES
ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1981. Adult Anadromous Fisheries Project
ADF&G/Su Hydro 1981. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies, Anchorage, Alaska. 467 pp.
ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1983. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Phase II
Report Volume I: Summarization of Volumes 2, 3, 4; Parts I and II, and 5. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska. 146 pp.
ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1984. Adult Anadromous Fish Investigations:
May - October, 1983. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies, Anchorage, Alaska. 430 pp.
Barrett, B.M., S. Wick, and F.M. Thompson. ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game).
1984. Adult Anadromous Fish Investigations: May - October, 1983. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies, Anchorage, Alaska. 430 pp.
Barrett, B.M., S. Wick, and F.M. Thompson. 1985. Adult Salmon Investigations, May -
October 1984. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies,
Anchorage, Alaska. 528 pp.
Barrick, L., B. Kepshire, and G. Cunningham. 1983. Upper Susitna River Salmon Enhancement
Study. Number 4. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Fisheries
Rehabilitation, Enhancement, and Development. June, 1983.
Buckwalter, J.D. 2011. Synopsis of ADF&G’s Upper Susitna Drainage Fish Inventory, August
2011. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, Alaska.
27 pp.
Delaney, K., D. Crawford, L. Dugan, S. Hale, K Kuntz, B. Marshall, J. Mauney, J. Quinn, K.
Roth, P. Suchanek, R. Sundet, and M. Stratton. 1981a. Resident Fish Investigation on
the Lower Susitna River. Prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna
Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK. 311 pp.
Delaney, K., D. Crawford, L. Dugan, S. Hale, K Kuntz, B. Marshall, J. Mauney, J. Quinn, K.
Roth, P Suchanek, R. Sundet, and M. Stratton. 1981b. Resident Fish Investigation on the
Upper Susitna River. Prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro
Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK. 157 pp.
Dugan, L.J., D.A. Sterritt, and M.E. Stratton. 1984. The Distribution and Relative Abundance of
Juvenile Salmon in the Susitna River Drainage above the Chulitna River Confluence. Pages
59 In: Schmidt, D., S.S. Hale, D.L. Crawford, and P.M. Suchanek. (eds.) Part 2 of Resident
and Juvenile Anadromous Fish Investigations (May - October 1983). Prepared by Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK.
HDR Engineering, Inc. 2013. 2012 Upper Susitna River Fish Distribution and Habitat Study Fish
Distribution Report. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, AK. 132 pp.
Jennings, T.R. 1985. Fish Resources and Habitats in the Middle Susitna River. Woodward-
Clyde Consultants and Entrix. Final Report to Alaska Power Authority. 175 pp.
Appendix B - Page 84
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 15 August 2013
LGL Alaska Research Associates (LGL). 2013. Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat
Utilization Study Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 14241) Draft Report.
January, 2013. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority. 209 pp.
Morrow, J. E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing Co.,
Anchorage, Alaska. 248 pp.
Roth, K.J., and M.E. Stratton. 1985. The Migration and Growth of Juvenile Salmon in the
Susitna River. Pages 207 in: Schmidt, D.C., S.S. Hale, and D.L. Crawford. (eds.)
Resident and Juvenile Anadromous Fish Investigations (May - October 1984). Prepared
by Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage, AK.
Roth, K.J., D.C. Gray, J.W. Anderson, A.C. Blaney, and J P. McDonell. 1986. The Migration
and Growth of Juvenile Salmon in the Susitna River, 1985. Prepared by Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatics Studies. Prepared for Alaska
Power Authority Anchorage, Alaska. 130 pp.
Sautner, J., and M. Stratton. 1983. Upper Susitna River Impoundment Studies 1982. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. Anchorage, Alaska. 220 pp.
Schmidt, D., and A. Bingham. 1983. Synopsis of the 1982 Aquatic Studies and Analysis of Fish
and Habitat Relationships. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies, Anchorage, Alaska. 185 pp.
Schmidt, D., S. Hale, D. Crawford, and P. Suchanek. 1983. Resident and Juvenile Anadromous
Fish Studies on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, 1982. Prepared by Alaska
Department of Fish and Game for the Alaska Power Authority. 303 pp.
Thompson, F. M., S. Wick, and B. Stratton. 1986. Adult Salmon Investigations: May - October
1985. Report to Alaska Power Authority by Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies, Anchorage, Alaska. 173 pp.
Yanusz, R., R. Merizon, M. Willette, D. Evans, and T. Spencer. 2011a. Inriver abundance and
distribution of spawning Susitna River sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka, 2008.
Fishery Data Series No 11-12. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska. 44
pp.
Yanusz, R.J., R.A. Merizon, T.M. Willette, D.G. Evans, and T.R. Spenser. 2011b. Inriver
abundance and distribution of spawning Susitna River sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus
nerka, 2007. Fishery Data Series No. 11-19. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Anchorage, Alaska. 50 pp
Appendix B - Page 85
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 16 August 2013
16. TABLES
Table B5-1. Estimated Arctic grayling population sizes in tributaries to the upper Susitna River during 1981 and 1982.
Source: Delaney et al. (1981b), Sautner and Stratton (1983).
Stream
19811 19821
Point
Estimate
(fish)
95% Confidence Interval
(fish)
Point Estimate
(fish)
Point Estimate
(fish/mile)
Oshetna River 2,017 1,525 - 2,976 2,426 1,103
Goose Creek 1,327 1,016 - 1,913 949 791
Jay Creek 1,089 868 - 1,462 1,592 455
Kosina Creek 2,787 2,228 - 3,720 5,544 1,232
Deadman Creek 979 604 - 2,575 734 1,835
Tsusena Creek 1,000 743 - 1,530
Fog Creek 176 115 - 369 440
Watana Creek 3,925 324
Upper Susitna River 10,279 9,194 - 11,654 16,3462
Notes:
1 Fish densities were not reported for 1981. Confidence intervals were not reported for 1982.
2 Total of point estimates from 1982 plus 1981 point estimates for Tsusena and Fog creeks.
Appendix B - Page 86
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 17 August 2013 Table B5-2. Chinook salmon escapement survey results from 1982 to 1985 upstream of RM 152. Surveys conducted by helicopter. Stream 1982 1983 1984 1985 # Flights Date of Peak Count Peak Count APA Source/PDF Page # Flights Date of Peak Count Peak Count APA Source/PDF Page # Flights Date of Peak Count Peak Count APA Source/PDF Page # Flights Date of Peak Count Peak Count APA Source/PDF Page Cheechako Cr 9 6-Aug 16 589/314 2 1-Aug 25 1450/111 7 1-Aug 29 2748/60, 506 11 24-Jul 18 3412/127 Chinook Cr 5 6-Aug 5 589/314 2 1-Aug 8 1450/111 7 1-Aug 15 2748/60, 506 11 23-Aug 1 3412/128 Devil Cr 16.1.1.1.1.1.1. 5 0 589/314 1 1-Aug 1 1450/111 6 0 2748/60, 506 11 0 3412/128 Fog Cr 0 2748/60 0 2748/60 4 21-Jul 2 2748/60, 506 3 0 3412/128 Bear Cr 0 0 2748/151 4 0 2748/506 3 0 3412/128 Tsusena Cr 0 0 2748/151 4 0 2748/507 3 0 3412/128 Deadman Cr 0 0 3 0 2748/507 0 Watana Cr 0 0 2 0 2748/507 0 Table B5-3. Chinook salmon information from Buckwalter (2011) Synopsis of ADF&G’s Upper Susitna Drainage Fish Inventory, August 2011. Stream River Mile Date Lifestage Number of Fish Method Reference Above Devils Canyon (RM 152) Fog Creek 176.7 8/1/2003 adults 2 helicopter/foot Buckwalter 2011, AWC Survey ID: FSS03USU01 Tsusena Creek 181.3 8/1/2003 adults 1 helicopter/foot Buckwalter 2011, AWC Survey ID: FSS03USU02 Fog Creek 176.7 8/13/2003 juveniles 5 electrofishing Buckwalter 2011, AWC Survey ID: FSS0305A01 Fog Creek Trib 176.7 8/6/2011 juveniles 8 electrofishing Buckwalter 2011, AWC Survey ID: FSS1104c01 Fog Creek 176.7 8/6/2011 redds Survey ID: FSS1104B01 Above Watana Dam Site (RM 184) Kosina Creek 201 8/14/2003 juveniles 1 electrofishing Buckwalter 2011, AWC Survey ID: FSS0306A01 Oshetna River 225 8/14/2003 juveniles 3 electrofishing Buckwalter 2011, AWC Survey ID: FSS0306A05 Kosina Creek 201 8/15/2003 juveniles 2 electrofishing Buckwalter 2011, AWC Survey ID: FSS0307A06 Kosina Creek 201 7/27/2011 adults 1 helicopter/foot Buckwalter 2011, Survey ID: FSS1101G04 Appendix B - Page 87
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 18 August 2013
17. FIGURES
Appendix B - Page 88
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 19 August 2013 Figure B5-1. Total catch of Arctic grayling at DFH sites in the Lower and Middle Susitna River during 1982. Source: Schmidt et al. (1983).Appendix B - Page 89
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 20 August 2013
Figure B5-2. Age and length of Arctic grayling collected in the upper Susitna River during the open water seasons of
1981 and 1982. Source: Delaney et al. (1981), Sautner and Stratton (1983).
Figure B5-3. Length Frequencies for Arctic Grayling (n=143) captured in tributary, tributary plume, and lake habitats
in the Upper Susitna River study area, July-August, 2012. Fish were captured by boat-mounted electrofisher, backpack
electrofishing, minnow traps, angling, and fyke nets. Source: HDR (2013).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400Frequency
Forklength (mm)
Arctic Grayling
Appendix B - Page 90
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 21 August 2013
Figure B5-4. Age and length of burbot collected upstream of Devils Canyon during the open water seasons of 1981 and
1982. Source: Delaney et al. (1981), Sautner and Stratton (1983).
Appendix B - Page 91
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 22 August 2013
Figure B5-5. Cumulative length-frequency distributions of adult salmon caught at two fishwheels near Curry (RM 120)
on the Susitna River in 2012. Also shown is the length-frequency distribution for the subset of each species implanted
with radio tags. Source: modified from LGL (2013).
Appendix B - Page 92
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 23 August 2013
Figure B5-6. Chinook salmon 1ength frequencies at Curry Station weighted by fishwheel catch per unit effort in 1984.
Source: Barrett et al. (1985).
Figure B5-7. Chum salmon length frequencies at Curry Station weighted by fishwheel catch per unit effort in 1984.
Source: Barrett et al. (1985).
Appendix B - Page 93
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 24 August 2013
Figure B5-8. Coho salmon length frequencies at Curry Station weighted by fishwheel catch per unit effort in 1984.
Source: Barrett et al. (1985).
Figure B5-9. Length Frequencies for Dolly Varden (n=145) captured in tributary, tributary plume, and lake habitats in
the Upper Susitna River study area, July-August, 2012. Fish were captured by boat-mounted electrofisher, backpack
electrofishing, minnow traps, angling, and fyke nets. Source: HDR (2013).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400Frequency
Forklength (mm)
Dolly Varden
Appendix B - Page 94
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 25 August 2013 Figure B5-10. Total catch of humpback whitefish at DFH sites during 1982 by gear type. Source: Schmidt et al. (1983). Appendix B - Page 95
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 26 August 2013 Appendix B - Page 96
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 27 August 2013 Figure B5-11. Total catch of longnose sucker at DFH sites during 1982 by gear type. Data Source: Schmidt et al. (1983). Figure B5-12. Age and length of longnose sucker collected in the upper Susitna River during the open water season of 1981 Source: Delaney et al. (1981).Appendix B - Page 97
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 28 August 2013 Figure B5-13. Total catch of rainbow trout at DFH sites during 1982 by gear type. Source: Schmidt et al. (1983).Appendix B - Page 98
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 29 August 2013
Figure B5-14. Age and length of rainbow trout collected in the Middle Susitna River downstream of Devils Canyon
during the open water seasons of 1981 to 1983. Data Source: Delaney et al. (1981) Schmidt et al. (1983, 1984).
Appendix B - Page 99
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 30 August 2013 Figure B5-15. Total catch of round whitefish at DFH sites during 1982 by gear type. Source: Schmidt et al. (1983).Appendix B - Page 100
INFORMATION ITEM B5: NUMBER AND SIZE OF TARGET FISH SPECIES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B5 - Page 31 August 2013
Figure B5-16. Age and length of round whitefish collected in the upper Susitna River during the open water season of
1981. Source: Delaney et al. (1981).
Figure B5-17. Sockeye salmon length frequencies at Curry Station weighted by fishwheel catch per unit effort in 1984.
Source: Barrett et al. (1985).
Appendix B - Page 101
INFORMATION ITEM B6: LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PASSAGE INFORMATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 August 2013
INFORMATION ITEM B6. LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PASSAGE
INFORMATION
Appendix B - Page 102
INFORMATION ITEM B6: LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PASSAGE INFORMATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B6 - Page 1 August 2013
1. INTRODUCTION
Migratory behavior, fish size, and other factors associated with movement of target fish species
will be an important consideration in identifying the design, location, and sizing of various fish
passage alternatives. Swimming ability of target species is also an important factor as it relates
to the development of fish passage alternatives.
Modes of fish swimming can be classified as one of three categories: sustained, prolonged, or
burst swimming (Beamish 1978). Sustained swimming is that which can be maintained
indefinitely (i.e., longer than 200 minutes) and is also referred to as cruising speed. Prolonged
swimming is a moderate speed that can be maintained for a specific period of time (i.e., up to
200 minutes). Burst swimming is the fastest speed achievable and can only be maintained for
short durations (i.e., less than 20 seconds) as it utilizes more anaerobic metabolism than the other
swimming modes. Another measurement of fish swimming ability commonly reported in the
literature is Ucrit, (or critical swimming speed), which is a standardized calculation of the
maximum swimming speed a fish can maintain for a predetermined period of time. As these
times are typically between 10 and 200 minutes, Ucrit falls under the category of prolonged
swimming speed. For the purposes of evaluating fish passage alternatives, we focused on burst
swimming and prolonged swimming (or Ucrit) as the two most relevant swimming modes. Burst
swimming provides an indication of the ability of fish to traverse discrete high velocity areas
such as those occurring at fish ladder weirs or at the entrance to a collection facility. Prolonged
swimming is an indication of the ability of fish to traverse longer distances within a fish ladder
or to avoid impingement or entrainment near turbine intakes.
Species utilize different modes for swimming related to their body shape. Katapodis (1992)
describes these modes as follows.
Most of the data gathered involve fish swimming in the subcarangiform and
anguilliform modes. Subcarangiform is an undulatory mode of swimming
characterized by small side-to-side amplitude at the anterior and large amplitude
only in the posterior half or one-third of the body. The characteristic body shape
is fusiform, the caudal peduncle is fairly deep and the caudal fin has a rather low
aspect ratio. In the anguilliform mode most or all of the length of the body
participates in propulsion. The body is long and thin, the anterior cylindrical, the
posterior compressed and caudal fin is usually small.
This information item summarizes the available information related to the behavior, size and
swimming ability of target species.
Although lake trout are an important component of sport fisheries in the Susitna Basin (Jennings
et al. 2007, 2011), their importance with regard to the study of fish passage feasibility is thought
to be negligible. Should lake trout ultimately inhabit the future Project reservoir, predation by
lake trout and entrainment may be considerations. Predation risks associated with Fish Passage
are addressed in Information Item B9. The probability of lake trout inhabiting the future Project
reservoir and potential entrainment risks will be considered in RSP 9.10 - The Future Watana
Reservoir Fish Community and Risk of Entrainment Study.
Appendix B - Page 103
INFORMATION ITEM B6: LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PASSAGE INFORMATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B6 - Page 2 August 2013
2. ARCTIC GRAYLING
2.1. Fish Size
2.1.1. Adults
Maximum length of fish sampled upstream of Devils Canyon during 1982 was 420-mm
Maturity reached as early as age-4; average length of age-4 grayling in Upper Susitna
River was approximately 275 mm (see Information Item B5, Figure B5-1).
2.1.2. Juveniles
Juveniles generally thought to reside in natal tributaries for 1 year.
Thus, those potentially exhibiting movement range in length from approximately 150-
mm (age-1) to 250-mm (age-3) based on average age-specific lengths (see Information
Item B5, Figure B5-2).
2.2. Migratory and Swimming Behavior
A preliminary review indicates that information regarding movement patterns in tailrace
or forebay areas of hydroelectric facilities is lacking.
Springtime monitoring of arctic grayling movements at an experimental dam on Poplar
Grove Creek, Alaska indicated that peak activity of both upstream and downstream
migrants was in late afternoon or early evening, though corresponding increase in water
temperature was thought to be an important determinant as well (MacPhee and Watts
1975).
Spring migration away from overwintering areas is thought to be triggered by a general
environmental stimulus such as day length, water temperature, or discharge but can begin
prior to break up at temperatures of 1°C or lower (Tack 1980). Pre-spawning migrations
intensify during flow increases associated with breakup, with the majority occurring
when rivers are at or near flood stage (Tack 1980). Tack (1980) also theorizes that
timing upstream migrations with the spring freshet may allow grayling to use channel
margins and eddies with slow velocities that only are available during higher flows, as
opposed to higher velocities of well defined channels at lower flows.
2.3. Swimming Ability
Exhibit subcarangiform swimming mode (Katapodis 1992).
Burst swimming ability of 213 to 426 cm/s for fish 20.3 to 30.5 cm FL (Bell 1991 as
cited by Furniss 2008).
Length-specific critical (i.e. prolonged) swimming speeds provided in Figure B6-1 (from
Jones et al. 1974).
Appendix B - Page 104
INFORMATION ITEM B6: LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PASSAGE INFORMATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B6 - Page 3 August 2013
2.4. Other Passage Considerations
Observations of arctic grayling leaping behavior at experimental dam (MacPhee and
Watts 1976).
Limited information regarding arctic grayling use of passage facilities, though Katapodis
(1992) lists adults of this species as showing some use of Denil, vertical slot, weir or
culvert fishways.
3. ARCTIC LAMPREY
3.1. Fish Size
The length range of Arctic lamprey captured in the Susitna River during 1981-1982 was
84 to 315 mm (Schmidt et al. 1983). Neither life stages nor length-at-age information
were provided; thus, this length range likely includes both adults and juveniles.
3.2. Migratory and Swimming Behavior
There is little information regarding the migratory and swimming behavior of Arctic
lamprey in the Susitna River, though the species is thought to exhibit both anadromous
and freshwater life histories in the basin.
Migrating adults are often seen in large swarms, especially at obstructions (Scott and
Crossman 1973).
While it is unclear if Arctic lamprey exhibit similar behavior, adult Pacific lamprey
(Lampetra tridentata) are primarily nocturnal in their movements at hydropower facilities
on the Columbia River (Moser et al. 2005, 2006).
3.3. Swimming Ability
Like burbot, lamprey exhibit an anguilliform swimming mode (Katapodis 1992).
No information on Arctic lamprey swimming ability could be identified.
Mean burst swimming ability for Pacific lamprey (mean TL 14.7 cm) of 82.3 cm/s
(Moursund et al. 2003 as cited by Furniss 2008).
Mean prolonged swimming ability for Pacific lamprey (mean TL 14.7 cm) of 39.6 cm/s.
3.4. Other Passage Considerations
Adults die after spawning (Scott and Crossman 1973).
At Bonneville Dam, adult Pacific lamprey are often delayed or obstructed at fishway
entrances and transition, collection, and count station areas but are more successful and
pass more rapidly through pool and weir fishway sections (Moser et al. 2006).
Appendix B - Page 105
INFORMATION ITEM B6: LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PASSAGE INFORMATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B6 - Page 4 August 2013
4. BERING CISCO
4.1. Fish Size
Lengths of age-3+ to age-6+ Bering cisco captured in the Susitna River during 1981-1982
ranged from 235 to 405 mm (ADF&G 1981, 1983). No lengths of Bering cisco younger
than age-3+ were reported.
4.2. Migratory and Swimming Behavior
A preliminary review indicates that information regarding movement patterns in tailrace
or forebay areas of hydroelectric facilities is lacking.
Bering cisco spawning migrations appear to be quite rapid in nature and feeding is not
thought to occur during the migration (ADF&G 1981).
Upstream spawning migrations of adult Bering cisco in the Susitna River occurs from
early August through October, with a peak in late September and early October (ADF&G
1983, Barrett et al. 1984).
4.3. Swimming Ability
Bering cisco presumably exhibit a subcarangiform swimming mode, as reported for other
cisco (Coregonus artedii) (Katapodis 1992).
While information on the swimming ability of Bering cisco could not be identified, cisco
(Coregonus artedii) were found to have prolonged swimming speeds of 46 to 63 cm/s for
fish with a mean FL of 13.5 cm (Bernatchez and Dodson 1985 as cited by Furniss 2008).
Bell (1991) reports a burst (darting) swimming speed of approximately 183 cm/s for
Arctic cisco (Coregonus autumnalis) with a length of 42 cm.
4.4. Other Passage Considerations
In western and interior Alaska, Alt (1973) did not find evidence of repeat spawning in
Bering cisco that were age-3 to age-8.
5. BURBOT
5.1. Fish Size
5.1.1. Adults
Maximum size of burbot captured downstream of Devils Canyon was 900 mm in 1981;
maximum recorded upstream of Devils Canyon was 740 mm in 1981.
Maturity reached as early as age-6 in interior Alaska (Morrow 1980); average length of
age-6 burbot in Upper Susitna River was approximately 425 mm (see Information Item
B5, Figure B5-3).
Appendix B - Page 106
INFORMATION ITEM B6: LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PASSAGE INFORMATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B6 - Page 5 August 2013
5.1.2. Juveniles
Little is known regarding the movement of juvenile burbot. Aside from spawning and
post-spawning migrations, burbot are thought to be relatively sedentary. Thus, the size of
juveniles potentially exhibiting migratory behavior is unknown.
5.2. Migratory and Swimming Behavior
A preliminary review indicates that information regarding movement patterns in tailrace
or forebay areas of hydroelectric facilities is lacking.
Burbot movement studies associated with the proposed Dunvegan Hydroelectric Project
on the Peace River, Alberta indicated a preference for channel margins as migratory
corridors (Mainstream Aquatics 2006).
5.3. Swimming Ability
Exhibit anguilliform swimming mode (Katapodis 1992).
Burst swimming ability of 36 to 121 cm/s for fish 20 to 70 cm FL (Bell 1991 as cited by
Furniss 2008).
A recent flume study of volitional swimming (Vokoun and Watrous 2009) indicated that
Burbot shifted from prolonged to burst swimming at around 4.72 body lengths per
second. Swimming performance decreased markedly once flume velocities reached 105
cm/s.
Length-specific critical (i.e. prolonged) swimming speeds provided in Figure B6-1 (from
Jones et al. 1974); however, length was not a significant factor (p=0.1).
5.4. Other Passage Considerations
Burbot are considered benthically oriented, particularly in lakes, inhabiting depths up to
300 m (McPhail and Paragamian 2000).
Burbot are a large-bodied species with an elongate and cylindrical morphology.
They are relatively poor swimmers compared to other proposed target species.
6. CHINOOK SALMON
6.1. Fish Size
6.1.1. Adults
10 Chinook radio-tagged at Curry that passed the third impediment were 66 to 101 cm FL
(mean 83.9 cm).
492 Chinook captured at Curry during 2012 were 33 to 123 cm FL (mean 71 cm).
Appendix B - Page 107
INFORMATION ITEM B6: LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PASSAGE INFORMATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B6 - Page 6 August 2013
6.1.2. Juveniles
Fry emerge at approximately 32 mm and by late September young of year are typically
50 to 85 mm (weighted average 63.2 mm; Roth and Stratton 1985, Roth et al. 1986).
Age 1+ were typically 65 to 120 mm at Middle and Lower River outmigrant traps during
1984, weighted average 86.1 mm (Roth et al. 1986).
6.2. Migratory and Swimming Behavior
Upstream adult migration is thought to occur primarily during daylight hours, though
some may also migrate upstream at night (Groot and Margolis 1991).
Downstream movement of fry and subyearling primarily occurs at night, though smaller
numbers may move during the day (Groot and Margolis 1991). Yearling smolts appear
to be less nocturnal.
Triggers for downstream movement are poorly understood but increases in flow and
density-dependent factors have been suggested (Groot and Margolis 1991).In the
Columbia River, yearling smolts tend to migrate at a faster rate exhibiting a more
directed outmigration that is independent of river flows compared to subyearling smolts
(Groot and Margolis 1991).
6.3. Swimming Ability
Exhibit subcarangiform swimming mode (Katapodis 1992).
For adult Chinook salmon, burst swimming ability ranges from 335 to 671 cm/s and
prolonged swimming ability ranges from 91 to 335 cm/s (Bell 1991).
Sambilay (2005, citing Randall et al. 1987) reports burst swimming ability of juvenile
Chinook salmon as 3.019 body lengths per second (SL 19.9 cm) and 2.250 body lengths
per second (SL 31.5 cm). This equates to 60.1 cm/s and 70.9 cm/s, respectively.
For juvenile Chinook salmon, several prolonged swimming speeds were reported by
Smith and Carpenter (1987, as cited by Furniss et al. 2008): 20.6 cm/s at 10°C (mean FL
4.06 cm), 16.4 cm/s at 7°C (mean FL 3.5 cm), and 14.0 cm/s at 4°C (mean FL 3.95 cm).
6.4. Other Passage Considerations
Bates and Whiley (2000) summarize various design considerations for Chinook salmon
passage:
o Variable results observed when artificial light provided at fishway entrances;
flexibility in the intensity of light should allow for adjustment based on changing
conditions.
o Unlike pink and chum salmon, adult Chinook will exhibit leaping behavior while
moving upstream.
o Within a fish ladder, early-run Chinook tend to use orifices while late-run
Chinook prefer weirs.
Appendix B - Page 108
INFORMATION ITEM B6: LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PASSAGE INFORMATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B6 - Page 7 August 2013
7. CHUM SALMON
7.1. Fish Size
7.1.1. Adults
Adult chum salmon captured at the Curry fishwheel in 2012 ranged in FL from 52 to 77
cm, with an average FL of 67 cm (LGL 2013).
7.1.2. Juveniles
Chum salmon fry appeared to emerge at sizes of less than 35 mm (Roth and Stratton
1985). During 1984, the average size of outmigrating chum salmon was approximately
40 to 45 mm Roth and Stratton (1985).
7.2. Migratory and Swimming Behavior
While all juvenile chum salmon in the Susitna River outmigrate as age-0+ and are
generally thought to migrate downstream shortly after emergence, some may spend one
to three months rearing in freshwater (Jennings 1985).
In the Middle River, chum fry outmigration was strongly correlated (r = 0.89) with
discharge (Roth et al. 1984).
Adult chum salmon migration rates between Talkeetna Station (RM 103) and Curry
Station (RM 120) ranged from 4.5 miles per day in 1981 to 8.5 miles per day in 1984
(Barrett et al. 1984,1985).
In the Yukon River, autumn run adult chum salmon migrate close to the river banks,
exhibiting a preference for left vs. right banks depending on the tributary stock to which
they belong (Buklis 1981, Buklis and Barton 1984; as cited by Groot and Margolis 1991).
7.3. Swimming Ability
Exhibit subcarangiform swimming mode (Katapodis 1992).
Smith and Carpenter (1987; as cited by Furniss 2008) reported prolonged swimming
speeds of juvenile chum salmon (mean FL of 3.8 to 3.9 cm) ranging from 12.9 cm/s at
4°C to 18.1 cm/s at 10°C.
For adult chum salmon, a prolonged swimming speed of 158 cm/s was reported for fish
with a mean length of 76.2 cm (Aaserude and Orsborn 1986 as cited by Furniss 2008).
Hunter and Mayor (1986 as cited by Furniss 2008) provide the following equation for
prolonged chum salmon swimming speeds based on increased velocity tests:
V=93.59 TL^1.89 V(m/s); TL(m)
A burst swimming speed of 244 cm/s for chum salmon with a mean TL of 76.2 cm was
reported by Powers and Orsborn (1985; as cited by Furniss 2008).
Appendix B - Page 109
INFORMATION ITEM B6: LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PASSAGE INFORMATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B6 - Page 8 August 2013
7.4. Other Passage Considerations
While relatively large-bodied and strong swimmers, adult chum salmon are not leapers
and are generally reluctant to enter long fish ladders; they are typically found below the
first major barrier within a river (Groot and Margolis 1991).
Small plunging drops of less than a foot can be a barrier for adult chum salmon, while
they can easily negotiate a steep four-foot high chute (Bates and Whiley 2000).
8. COHO SALMON
8.1. Fish Size
8.1.1. Adults
Adult coho salmon captured at the Curry fishwheel in 2012 ranged in FL from 35 to 69
cm, with an average FL of 55 cm (LGL 2013).
8.1.2. Juveniles
Coho young of year range from about 35 mm to 75 mm.
Coho Age 1+ range from about 65 mm to 115 mm.
During 1985 Age 2+ coho salmon averaged 132 mm with a range of 109 mm to 174 mm
(Roth et al. 1986).
8.2. Migratory and Swimming Behavior
Juvenile coho salmon in the Middle River exhibit a pattern of downstream movement
throughout the summer which includes some juvenile coho of all age classess (age 0+,
1+, 2+; Jennings 1985).
The timing of adult upstream migration may be influenced by river discharge based on
reduced fishwheel catches at Sunshine Station when flows reached 100,000 cfs or more
Jennings 1985).
Adult coho salmon migration rates between Talkeetna Station (RM 103) and Curry
Station (RM 120) ranged from 2.8 miles per day in 1984 to 11.3 miles per day in 1981
(Barrett et al. 1984,1985).
8.3. Swimming Ability
Exhibit subcarangiform swimming mode (Katapodis 1992).
For juvenile coho salmon, Bell (1991) reports a range of prolonged (sustained) swimming
speeds by length class:
5-cm Length = 15 to 37 cm/s
9-cm Length = 30 to 52 cm/s
Appendix B - Page 110
INFORMATION ITEM B6: LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PASSAGE INFORMATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B6 - Page 9 August 2013
12-cm Length = 40 to 64 cm/s
Smith and Carpenter (1987; as cited by Furniss 2008) reported prolonged swimming
speeds of juvenile coho salmon (mean FL of 3.4 cm) ranging from 13.1 cm/s at 7°C to
15.3 cm/s at 10°C.
For adult coho salmon, a prolonged swimming speed of 96.9 cm/s was reported for fish
with a mean length of 59.5 cm (Lee et al. 2003 as cited by Furniss 2008).
Hunter and Mayor (1986 as cited by Furniss 2008) provide the following equations for
prolonged coho salmon swimming speeds based on increased velocity tests at different
temperature ranges:
8 to 12°C V=3.02 TL^0.52 t^-0.1 V(m/s); TL(m); t(s)
13 to 15°C V=5.67 TL^0.70 t^-0.1 V(m/s); TL(m); t(s)
18 to 20°C V=5.87 TL^0.70 t^-0.1 V(m/s); TL(m); t(s)
For adult coho salmon, Bell (1991) reports a range of prolonged (sustained) swimming
speeds of 122 to 335 cm/s.
For adult coho salmon, Bell (1991) reports a range of burst (darting) swimming speeds of
335 to 640 cm/s.
A burst swimming speed of 420.6 cm/s for coho salmon with a mean TL of 58.3 cm was
reported by Weaver (1963; as cited by Furniss 2008).
8.4. Other Passage Considerations
Adults can exhibit vertical leaps in excess of 2 meters (Groot and Margolis).
In general, adult coho salmon tend to migrate upstream during daylight hours (Groot and
Margolis 1991).
9. DOLLY VARDEN
9.1. Fish Size
9.1.1. Adults
Maximum size of Dolly Varden captured during 1981 and 1982 was 205 mm.
Maturity reached as early as age-4 for the southern form of Dolly Varden (i.e., south of
the Alaska Range; Morrow 1980). However, because length-at-age information is
unavailable for Dolly Varden in the Upper River, the minimum size at which Dolly
Varden would be expected to exhibit any pre-spawning migrations cannot be predicted.
However, the length-frequency information is shown in Information Item B5 (Figure
B5-4).
Appendix B - Page 111
INFORMATION ITEM B6: LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PASSAGE INFORMATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B6 - Page 10 August 2013
9.1.2. Juveniles
Little is known regarding the movement patterns of juvenile Dolly Varden. Likewise,
length-at-age information from the Upper River is lacking. Thus, it is difficult to predict
the size at which any movements associated with the juvenile life stage would occur.
However, the length-frequency information shown in Information Item B5 (Figure B5-4)
provides some indication of size distribution in the Upper River.
9.2. Migratory and Swimming Behavior
A preliminary review indicates that information regarding movement patterns in tailrace
or forebay areas of hydroelectric facilities is lacking.
9.3. Swimming Ability
While not reported, presumably exhibit subcarangiform swimming mode.
Although information is unavailable regarding Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma)
swimming ability, other studies have examined swimming ability of the closely related
bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus).
Length-specific critical (i.e. prolonged) swimming speeds provided for bull trout in
Figure B6-1 (from Zydlewski et al. 2004).
Beamish (1980 as cited by Furniss 2008) reports burst swimming speeds ranging from
109 cm/s (at 10°C) to 133 cm/s (at 12°C) for arctic char (mean TL 340 mm).
9.4. Other Passage Considerations
Although examples of Dolly Varden use of passage facilities are limited, several passage
facilities designed for or utilized by bull trout have been constructed, with varying
degrees of success.
10. HUMPBACK WHITEFISH
10.1. Fish Size
Only three humpback whitefish have been captured upstream of Devils Canyon; these
ranged in size from 231 to 347 mm.
The size of juvenile humpback whitefish in the Upper River is unknown.
10.2. Migratory and Swimming Behavior
A preliminary review indicates that information regarding movement patterns in tailrace
or forebay areas of hydroelectric facilities is lacking.
Appendix B - Page 112
INFORMATION ITEM B6: LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PASSAGE INFORMATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B6 - Page 11 August 2013
10.3. Swimming Ability
Exhibit subcarangiform swimming mode (Katapodis 1992).
Length-specific critical (i.e. prolonged) swimming speeds for humpback whitefish
(reported as Coregonus clupeaformis) provided in Figure B6-1 (from Jones et al. 1974).
Burst swimming ability of 91.4 to 122 cm/s for fish 15.2 to 45.7 cm in length (Bell 1991
as cited by Furniss 2008).
10.4. Other Passage Considerations
Limited information regarding humpback use of passage facilities, though Katapodis
(1992) lists adults of this species as showing some use of Denil, vertical slot, weir or
culvert fishways.
11. LONGNOSE SUCKER
11.1. Fish Size
11.1.1. Adults
Maximum length of fish sampled upstream of Devils Canyon was 495-mm during 1982,
505-mm during 1981, and 404-mm during 2012 (See Information Item B5).
Maturity may be reached as early as age-5 or age-6 in northern populations (Delaney et
al. 1981), which corresponds to a size of approximately 325-mm in the Upper Susitna
(see Information Item B5, Figure B5-5).
11.1.2. Juveniles
Some evidence of downstream movement of age-0 juveniles (See Information Item B3)
though subsequent movement of juveniles is unknown.
Thus, the size range of juveniles potentially exhibiting migratory behavior is unknown.
11.2. Migratory and Swimming Behavior
A preliminary review indicates that information regarding movement patterns in tailrace
or forebay areas of hydroelectric facilities is lacking.
11.3. Swimming Ability
Exhibit subcarangiform swimming mode (Katapodis 1992).
Burst swimming ability of 121 to 242 cm/s for fish 10 to 46 cm in length (Bell 1991 as
cited by Furniss 2008).
Length-specific critical (i.e. prolonged) swimming speeds provided in Figure B6-1 (from
Jones et al. 1974).
Appendix B - Page 113
INFORMATION ITEM B6: LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PASSAGE INFORMATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B6 - Page 12 August 2013
11.4. Other Passage Considerations
Longnose sucker documented passing vertical slot and Denil fishways, though
performance was better in vertical slot (Schwalme et al. 1985).
Afternoon and evening peaks in fishway use (Schwalme et al. 1985, Thiem et al. 2012).
12. RAINBOW TROUT / STEELHEAD
12.1. Fish Size
Rainbow trout in Alaska mature as early as age-3+. The length range of age 3+ rainbow
trout captured in the Middle River during 1981-1983 was 16 to 62 cm (Delaney et al.
1981, Schmidt et al. 1983, 1984).
The length of age-1+ and age 2+ rainbow trout captured in the Middle River ranged from
roughly 8 to 22 cm (Delaney et al. 1981, Schmidt et al. 1983, 1984).
12.2. Migratory and Swimming Behavior
Adult spawning migrations from main channel holding areas to spawning tributaries are
thought to begin in March prior to ice breakup and continue through early June (Schmidt
et al. 1983, Suchanek et al. 1984, Sundet 1986).
After spawning, adults primarily hold and feed during the open water period in tributary
and tributary mouth habitats, though some utilization of clear side slough habitat was
observed during the 1980s (Schmidt et al. 1983).
Adult rainbow trout migrated from tributary habitats during late August and September,
such that many individuals had moved to tributary mouths by mid-September and few
remained in tributaries by early October (Suchanek et al. 1984, Sundet and Wenger 1984,
Sundet and Pechek 1985).
By December, most adult rainbow trout were in main channel areas apart from spawning
tributaries (Sundet and Wenger 1984). Movements to winter holding habitats were
commonly in a downstream direction from spawning or feeding tributaries (Sundet and
Pechek 1985).
Juvenile rainbow trout primarily reside in natal tributary habitats throughout the year,
though occasional use of tributary mouths and clear sloughs has been documented
(Schmidt et al. 1983).
12.3. Swimming Ability
Exhibit subcarangiform swimming mode (Katapodis 1992).
Prolonged swimming speeds for rainbow trout compiled by Furniss (2008) ranged from
66 cm/s (mean length of 11 cm; Jones 1971) to 80 cm/s (mean length of 17 cm;
Tsukamoto 1975).
Appendix B - Page 114
INFORMATION ITEM B6: LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PASSAGE INFORMATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B6 - Page 13 August 2013
Hunter and Mayor (1986; as cited by Furniss 2008) provide the following equation for
rainbow trout burst swimming speeds based on a TL range of 10 to 28 cm :
V=7.16 TL^0.77 t^-0.46 V(m/s); TL(m); t(s)
For adult steelhead, Bell (1991) provides reports prolonged (sustained) swimming speeds
of 152 to 457 cm/s and burst (darting) speeds of 457 to 823 cm/s.
13. SOCKEYE SALMON
13.1. Fish Size
13.1.1. Adults
Adult sockeye salmon captured at the Curry fishwheel in 2012 ranged in FL from 32 to
72 cm, with an average FL of 54 cm (LGL 2013).
13.1.2. Juveniles
Sockeye salmon fry emerged at approximately 32 mm in size (Roth and Stratton 1985).
By the end of September sockeye salmon fry are about 55 to 60 mm in length.
During 1985 Age 1+ sockeye salmon juveniles captured with outmigrant traps at the
Talkeetna Station were 11 mm in length shorter on average than Age 1+ sockeye salmon
juveniles captured at the Flathorn Station (69 mm compared to 80 mm).
13.2. Migratory and Swimming Behavior
Due to the lack of suitable rearing lakes in the Middle River, juvenile sockeye either rear
in sloughs or leave the Middle River as age-0+ (Jennings 1985). Whether age-0+
sockeye leaving the Middle River go directly to see is unclear, though the survival of
such juveniles appears low.
Adult sockeye salmon migration rates between Talkeetna Station (RM 103) and Curry
Station (RM 120) ranged from 2.4 miles per day in 1982 to 8.5 miles per day in 1984
(Barrett et al. 1984,1985; Jennings 1985).
Based on the relationship between fishwheel counts and river discharge, spikes in
discharge over 100,000 cfs at Sunshine Station appear to delay sockeye salmon migration
timing (Jennings 1985).
13.3. Swimming Ability
Exhibit subcarangiform swimming mode (Katapodis 1992).
Taylor and Foote (1991; as cited by Furniss 2008) reported a prolonged swimming speed
for juvenile sockeye salmon (mean FL of 7.8 cm) of 60.1 cm/s.
Bell (1991) reports a range of prolonged (sustained) swimming speeds for juvenile
sockeye (12.7 cm in length) of 58 to 67 cm/s.
Appendix B - Page 115
INFORMATION ITEM B6: LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PASSAGE INFORMATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B6 - Page 14 August 2013
Brett and Glass (1973; as cited by Furniss 2008) provide the following equations for
prolonged coho salmon swimming speeds based on increased velocity tests at different
temperatures:
2°C V=1.499 TL^0.6294 V(m/s); TL(m)
5°C V=1.6 TL^0.6243 V(m/s); TL(m)
10°C V=1.965 TL^0.6294 V(m/s); TL(m)
15°C V=2.5 TL^0.6345 V(m/s); TL(m); t(s)
20°C V=2.3 TL^0.629 V(m/s); TL(m)
Lee et al. (2003; as cited by Furniss 2008) reported prolonged swimming speeds for adult
sockeye ranging from 90 to 137 cm/s.
For adult sockeye salmon, Bell (1991) reports a range of prolonged (sustained)
swimming speeds of 122 to 335 cm/s.
For adult sockeye salmon, Bell (1991) reports a range of burst (darting) swimming speeds
of 335 to 640 cm/s.
13.4. Other Passage Considerations
Outmigrating juvenile sockeye generally school and exhibit active rather than passive
migration; in most lake systems, increased downstream migration occurs during the
darkest hours of the day (Groot and Margolis 1991).
In pool-type fishways, adult sockeye appear to prefer to pass over weirs as opposed to
through orifices (Bates and Whiley 2000).
Adult sockeye exploit slower velocities and eddies during upstream migration and tend to
travel along stream banks (Groot and Margolis 1991).
14. ROUND WHITEFISH
14.1. Fish Size
Maximum size of round whitefish captured upstream of Devils Canyon was 440 mm
during 1981 and 404 mm during 2012 (See Information Item B5).
Maturity is reached from age-5 to age-7 (Morrow 1980), corresponding to approximately
300 mm (See Information Item B5, Figure B5-6).
While there is some evidence of juvenile downstream migration, the size distribution,
age, and magnitude of movements is unclear.
14.2. Migratory and Swimming Behavior
While round whitefish are thought to exhibit upstream or downstream migrations from
summer feeding habitats to spawning areas, they do not exhibit the concentrated
migrations exhibited by other whitefish species in Alaska.
Appendix B - Page 116
INFORMATION ITEM B6: LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PASSAGE INFORMATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B6 - Page 15 August 2013
Little is known regarding migratory behavior associated with winter habitat use.
Preliminary review indicates that information regarding movement patterns in tailrace or
forebay areas of hydroelectric facilities is lacking.
14.3. Swimming Ability
While not reported, presumably exhibit subcarangiform swimming mode.
Information regarding the swimming ability of round whitefish (Prosopium
cylindraceum) is unavailable. However, information for the congeneric mountain
whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) is available.
Burst swimming ability reported for mountain whitefish of 48.8 to 106.7 cm/s for fish
with a mean length of 304 mm (Bell 1991 as cited by Furniss 2008).
Critical (i.e. prolonged) swimming speed for mountain whitefish of 42.5 cm/s for fish
with a mean length of 304 mm (Jones et al. 1974 as cited by Furniss 2008).
14.4. Other Passage Considerations
Preliminary review indicates that information is lacking regarding performance of round
whitefish in passage facilities, migratory cues, and behavior associated with passage.
Appendix B - Page 117
INFORMATION ITEM B6: LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PASSAGE INFORMATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B6 - Page 16 August 2013
15. REFERENCES
Alt, K.T. 1973. Contributions to the biology of the Bering cisco (Coregonus laurettae) in Alaska.
J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 30 (12-1): 1885-1888.
Bates, Ken, and Anthony J. Whiley. Fishway Guidelines for Washington State: Draft.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2000.
Beamish, F.W.H. 1978. Swimming capacity. In Fish Physiology, vol. VII (ed. W. S. Hoar and
D.J. Randall), pp. 101–187. New York: Academic Press.
Bell, Milo C. 1991. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria.
(1991).
Delaney, K., D. Crawford, L. Dugan, S. Hale, K. Kuntz, B. Marshall, J. Mauney, J. Quinn, K.
Roth, P Suchanek, R. Sundet, and M. Stratton. 1981c. Resident fish investigation on the
Upper Susitna River. Phase I Final Draft Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. 157 pp. APA Document # 316.
Furniss, M., M. Love, S. Firor, K. Moynan, A. Llanos, J. Guntle, and R. Gubernick. 2008.
FishXing, version 3.0. U.S. Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development
Center, San Dimas, California. Available: www.stream.fs.fed.us/fishxing. (March 2012).
Groot, Cornelis, and Leo Margolis. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC press, 1991.
Jones, D.R., Kiceniuk, J.W. and Bamford, O.S. 1974. Evaluation of the swimming performance
of several fish species from the Mackenzie River. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board
of Canada 31: 1641-1647.
Katopodis, Chris. Introduction to fishway design. Freshwater Institute, Central and Arctic
Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 1992.
MacPhee, C., & Watts, F. J. (1976). Swimming performance of arctic grayling in highway
culverts.
Mainstream Aquatics 2006. Fish Movement Study (2004/2005) Dunvegan Hydroelectric
Project. Prepared for Glacier Power Ltd., Calgary, Alberta
McPhail, J. Donald, and Vaughn L. Paragamian. "Burbot biology and life history." Burbot:
biology, ecology, and management. American Fisheries Society, Fisheries Management
Section, Publication 1 (2000): 11-23.
Morrow, J. E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing Co.,
Anchorage, Alaska. 248 pp.
Appendix B - Page 118
INFORMATION ITEM B6: LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PASSAGE INFORMATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B6 - Page 17 August 2013
Roth, K. J. and M. E. Stratton. 1985. The migration and growth of juvenile salmon in Susitna
River, 1985. Pages 6-207 in Schmidt, D., S. Hale, and D. Crawford, eds., Resident and
juvenile anadromous fish investigations (May - October 1984). Report No. 7, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game Susitna Aquatic Studies Program. Prepared for the Alaska
Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document # 2836.
Roth, K. J., D. C. Gray, J. W. Anderson, A. C. Blaney, J. P. McDonell. 1986. The migration and
growth of juvenile salmon in Susitna River, 1985. Susitna Aquatic Studies Program
Report No. 14, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 130 pp. APA Document #
3413.
Sambilay Jr, V. C. (2005). Interrelationships between swimming speed, caudal fin aspect ratio
and body length of fishes. Fishbyte, 8(3), 16-20.
Schwalme, K., W. C. Mackay, and D. Lindner. 1985. Suitability of vertical slot and Denil
fishways for passing north-temperate, nonsal9monid fish. Can. I. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42:
1815-1822.
Tack, S. L. Migrations and distribution of Arctic grayling, Thymallus arcticus (Pallas), in interior
and arctic Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration,
Annual Performance Report, 1979-1980. Project F-9-12, 2 1 (RI), 1980.
Thiem, J. D., Binder, T. R., Dumont, P., Hatin, D., Hatry, C., Katopodis, C., ... & Cooke, S. J.
(2012). Multispecies fish passage behaviour in a vertical slot fishway on the Richelieu
River, Quebec, Canada. River Research and Applications.
Vokoun, J.C. and D.C. Watrous. 2009. Determining swim speed performance characteristics for
fish passage of burbot using an experimental flume and nature-like fishway. Completion
Report submitted to Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. University of
Connecticut, Storrs. 27 pp.
Zydlewski, G. B. (2004). Critical swimming speeds of wild bull trout. Northwest Science, 78(1),
59.
Appendix B - Page 119
INFORMATION ITEM B6: LIFE STAGE SPECIFIC PASSAGE INFORMATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B6 - Page 18 August 2013
16. FIGURES
Figure B6-1. Relationship between fork length and critical swimming speeds (Ucrit) of arctic grayling, burbot, humpback
whitefish, and longnose sucker (Jones et al. 1974) and bull trout (Mesa et al. 2004) as a congeneric surrogate for Dolly
Varden.
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Ucrit (cm/s)Fork Length (cm)
Arctic Grayling Burbot Humpback Whitefish Longnose Sucker Bull Trout
Appendix B - Page 120
INFORMATION ITEM B8: SPAWNING AND REARING HABITAT FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 August 2013
INFORMATION ITEM B8. LOCATION OF SPAWNING AND REARING
HABITATS
Appendix B - Page 121
INFORMATION ITEM B8: SPAWNING AND REARING HABITAT FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B8 - Page 1 August 2013
1. INTRODUCTION
This information item provides information on the location of spawning and rearing habitat for
target fish species anticipated to potentially need passage at Watana Dam. The target species
identified in Information Item B1 include Arctic grayling, burbot, Chinook salmon, Dolly
Varden, humpback whitefish, longnose sucker, and round whitefish. With the exception of
Chinook salmon, specific spawning locations for target species in the Susitna River basin and its
tributaries are poorly understood. However, some generic information about the type of habitat
utilized for spawning is available for the resident fish species. Similarly, there is some general
information about juvenile and adult habitat utilization by the resident fish species. Some
specific resident fish rearing location information is available from surveys investigating their
distribution and relative abundance. Additional information related to migration routes can be
found in Information Item B4 (Migratory Characteristics). Information provided in Information
Item B7 (Fish Relative Abundance) also provides information on specific rearing locations
where fish were collected.
2. ARCTIC GRAYLING
Spawning
— Spawning typically occurs in upper extents of clear, non-glacial tributaries soon after
ice breakup, though spawning also documented near tributary mouths (Sundet and
Wenger 1984).
Adult Rearing
— During the open water season, many adult grayling either remain within spawning
tributaries or move to nearby tributaries to feed during summer (Delaney et al. 1981,
Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Pechek 1985). Use of tributary mouth, side slough
and main channel habitats during the open water season was also documented.
— Adults disperse from tributaries during early August through early October to winter
holding habitats (Sundet and Wenger 1984, Sundet and Pechek 1985). Although
winter use of mainstem habitat is poorly understood, some evidence main channel
overwintering exists (Sundet 1986).
Juvenile Rearing
— Juveniles typically reside in natal tributaries for at least one year, though some age-0+
grayling were observed to move to tributary mouth habitats during late summer
(Schmidt et al. 1983).
3. ARCTIC LAMPREY
Spawning
Appendix B - Page 122
INFORMATION ITEM B8: SPAWNING AND REARING HABITAT FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B8 - Page 2 August 2013
— Spawning sites are believed to include tributary mouths and sloughs (e.g., Whiskers
Creek and Slough, Birch Creek, and Gash Creek) based upon the capture of
ammoceotes. Spawning occurs from late to early July (Scott and Crossman 1973)
and observations of spawning lamprey occurred during late June at Birch Creek and
Slough (Schmidt et al. 1983).
— Spawning occurs in nests dug in small gravel substrate with low to moderate flow.
Adult Rearing
— Arctic lamprey may be anadromous or freshwater. Based upon size (<180 mm),
Schmidt et al. (1983) and Sundet and Pechek (1985) believed that most Arctic
lamprey in the Susitna River are the freshwater form and anadromous Arctic lamprey
primarily spawn downstream of RM 40.6.
Juvenile Rearing
— Ammoceotes rear in silty substrate for up to four years then migrate to the ocean,
lakes, or larger rivers following metamorphosis (Delaney et al. 1981).
4. BERING CISCO
Spawning
— Identifying specific spawning locations for Bering cisco is difficult because of the
onset of winter conditions during the spawning period (mid-October).
— Spawning occurs in clear water tributaries (Morrow 1980). Spawning substrates
range from silt to cobble, but mostly 1- to 3- inch gravel and cobble while velocities
ranged from 0.5 to 5.8 fps (Delaney et al. 1981).
— Nine ripe females were observed between RM 76.8 and 77.8 during 1982. Relatively
high numbers were also observed near RM 81.2, but use of the area as a spawning site
could not be confirmed.
Adult Rearing
— Arctic lamprey may be anadromous or freshwater. Based upon size (<180 mm),
Schmidt et al. (1983) and Sundet and Pechek (1985) believed that most Arctic
lamprey in the Susitna River are the freshwater form and anadromous Arctic lamprey
primarily spawn downstream of RM 40.6.
Juvenile Rearing
— Freshwater rearing habitat is unknown. Overwintering is assumed to be in brackish
waters (Morrow 1980).
5. BURBOT
Spawning
— Burbot spawn from mid-January to early April. (Jennings et al. 1985)
Appendix B - Page 123
INFORMATION ITEM B8: SPAWNING AND REARING HABITAT FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B8 - Page 3 August 2013
— Specific locations of burbot spawning in the Middle and Upper River have not been
identified (Jennings et al. 1985); however, some spawning is known to occur in the
Middle River because larvae have been collected upstream of Talkeetna (Schmidt and
Bingham 1983).
— Schmidt et al. (1983) and Sundet and Wenger (1984) suggested that tributary mouths,
slough mouths, and mainstem areas with groundwater upwelling are likely burbot
spawning habitat types. In the Susitna River burbot spawning likely occurs under ice-
over conditions; however, areas with groundwater upwelling may be conducive to the
development of open leads.
Adult Rearing
— Adult burbot rear in turbid mainstem water, avoid clearwater areas, and are widely
distributed in the mainstem Susitna River (Schmidt and Bingham 1983)
Juvenile Rearing
— Little is known about the habitat utilization by burbot larvae in the Susitna River.
However, during 1982 larvae were collected in silty, low velocity areas near the
mouths of sloughs.
6. CHINOOK SALMON
Spawning
— Spawning occurs almost exclusively in tributary streams
— During 1982 two Chinook redds were observed in the mixing zone downstream of the
mouth of Cheechako Creek (ADF&G (1983). This is the only observation of non-
tributary spawning during the 1980s.
— Aerial spawning ground surveys conducted in 2012, identified adult Chinook in
Kosina Creek (peak daily count n = 16; Figure B8-1). These were the only adult
Chinook identified in the Upper River during the 2012 aerial spawning ground
surveys (HDR 2013).
Juvenile Rearing
— Rearing primarily occurs in tributaries, tributary mouths, side channels, side sloughs,
and upland sloughs (Figure B8-2).
— Main channel habitat is used as a migratory corridor. The amount of extended rearing
in the main channel, if any, is unknown.
7. CHUM SALMON
Spawning
— Adults spawn in tributaries, side channels, and side sloughs.
Appendix B - Page 124
INFORMATION ITEM B8: SPAWNING AND REARING HABITAT FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B8 - Page 4 August 2013
— Indian River and Portage Creek account for the majority tributary spawning in the
Middle Susitna River while Sloughs 11, 8A, and 21 account for the majority of
slough spawning.
Juvenile Rearing
— Rearing primarily occurs in side sloughs and tributaries, with minor utilization of side
channels and upland sloughs (Figure B8-3).
8. COHO SALMON
Spawning
— Adults spawn primarily in tributary streams with occasional use of mainstem
channels and sloughs.
— Whiskers Creek, Indian River and Chase Creek (RM 106.9) account for the majority
of the tributary spawning in the Middle Susitna River.
Juvenile Rearing
— Rearing primarily occurs in tributaries and upland sloughs, with some utilization of
side sloughs and side channels (Figure B8-4).
— Main channel habitat is used as a migratory corridor. The amount of extended rearing
in the main channel, if any, is unknown.
9. DOLLY VARDEN
Schmidt et al (1983) and Sundet and Wegner (1984) suggested Dolly Varden primarily spawn
and rear in the upper extents of tributary streams, but some rearing may occur at tributary
mouths. Schmidt and Bingham (1983) suggested Dolly Varden move downstream in tributaries
in the fall and upstream during the spring. Overwintering habitat for Dolly Varden is poorly
understood for the Susitna River.
10. HUMPBACK WHITEFISH
Sundet and Wegner reported there are anadromous and resident stocks of humpback whitefish.
Anadromous whitefish overwinter in the estuary. Sundet and Wegner (1984) also suggested
humpback whitefish spawn in tributaries, but specific spawning locations were unknown. Adult
humpback whitefish primarily rear at mouths of sloughs and tributaries and use the mainstem as
a migration corridor (Jennings 1985).
11. LONGNOSE SUCKER
Based upon ADF&G reports from 1983 and 1984 (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger
1984) Jennings (1985) summarized the following: “In the Talkeetna-to-Devil Canyon reach (RM
Appendix B - Page 125
INFORMATION ITEM B8: SPAWNING AND REARING HABITAT FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B8 - Page 5 August 2013
98.6-152), longnose suckers are primarily associated with tributary and slough mouths, although
the mainstem is also used throughout the open-water season. The major overwintering and
juvenile rearing areas of this species are unknown. The mouths of Trapper Creek (RM 91.5) and
Sunshine Creek and side channel (RM 85.7) are known spawning areas.”
12. RAINBOW TROUT / STEELHEAD
Spawning
— Spawning occurs in clear water tributary streams including Fourth of July Creek and
Portage Creek in the middle River.
Juvenile Rearing
— In Fourth of July Creek and Portage Creek, rearing occurs primarily in lakes (Sundet
and Pechek 1985).
Adults
— Many larger juveniles and adults move to areas with chum and pink salmon spawning
during late summer to forage for eggs.
— Overwintering occurs primarily in the mainstem Susitna River, but little information
is available regarding habitat characteristics, except that some areas appear to be
associated with open leads with moderate water velocities influenced by ground water
inflow (Sundet and Pechek 1985).
13. ROUND WHITEFISH
Based upon ADF&G reports from 1983 and 1984 (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Wenger
1984), Jennings (1985) summarized the following: “Round whitefish were found in tributaries
and sloughs more often than mainstem areas in 1982 and 1983. The mainstem is used for some
spawning and juvenile rearing, and as a migrational corridor….. This species spawns in the
mainstem and at tributary mouths in October. During 1981 through 1983, nine spawning areas
were identified upstream of Talkeetna. Mainstem sites were: RM 100.8, 102.0, 102.6, 114.0,
142.0 and 147.0. Round white fish may also spawn in tributaries, such as Indian River and
Portage Creek. Juvenile round whitefish rear mainly in the mainstem and sloughs. Slow
velocities and turbid water are apparently preferred. Overwintering areas of round whitefish
have not been identified.”
14. SOCKEYE SALMON
Spawning
— Adults spawn in tributaries, side channels, and side sloughs.
— Sloughs 11, 8A, and 21 account for the majority of spawning in the Middle Susitna
River.
Appendix B - Page 126
INFORMATION ITEM B8: SPAWNING AND REARING HABITAT FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B8 - Page 6 August 2013
Juvenile Rearing
— Rearing primarily occurs in upland sloughs and side sloughs, with minor utilization of
side channels and tributaries (Figure B8-5).
Appendix B - Page 127
INFORMATION ITEM B8: SPAWNING AND REARING HABITAT FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B8 - Page 7 August 2013
15. REFERENCES
ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1983. Adult Anadromous Fish Investigations:
May - October, 1982. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies, Anchorage, Alaska. 275 pp.
Delaney, K., D. Crawford, L. Dugan, S. Hale, K. Kuntz, B. Marshall, J. Mauney, J. Quinn, K.
Roth, P Suchanek, R. Sundet, and M. Stratton. 1981. Resident fish investigation on the
Upper Susitna River. Phase I Final Draft Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. 157 pp. APA Document # 316.
Dugan, L.J., D.A. Sterritt, and M.E. Stratton. 1984. The Distribution and Relative Abundance
of Juvenile Salmon in the Susitna River Drainage above the Chulitna River Confluence.
In: Schmidt, D., S.S. Hale, D.L. Crawford, and P.M. Suchanek. (eds.) Part 2 of Resident
and Juvenile Anadromous Fish Investigations (May - October 1983). Prepared by Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK.
59 pp.
HDR Engineering, Inc. 2013. 2012 Upper Susitna River Fish Distribution and Habitat Study Fish
Distribution Report. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, AK. 132 pp.
Jennings, T.R. 1985. Fish Resources and Habitats in the Middle Susitna River. Woodward-
Clyde Consultants and Entrix. Final Report to Alaska Power Authority. 175 pp.
Morrow, J.E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing Co.,
Anchorage.
Schmidt, D., and A. Bingham. 1983. Synopsis of the 1982 Aquatic Studies and Analysis of Fish
and Habitat Relationships. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies, Anchorage, Alaska. 185 pp.
Schmidt, D., S. Hale, D. Crawford, and P. Suchanek. 1983. Resident and Juvenile Anadromous
Fish Studies on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, 1982. Prepared by Alaska
Department of Fish and Game for the Alaska Power Authority. 303 pp.
Sundet, R. L. 1986. Winter resident fish distribution and habitat studies conducted in the
Susitna River below Devil Canyon, 1984-1985. Report No. 11, Part 1, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska
Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 80 pp. APA Document # 3062.
Sundet, R. L., and S. D. Pechek. 1985. Resident fish distribution and life history in the Susitna
River below Devil Canyon. Part 3 (97 pages) in Schmidt, D. C., S. S. Hale, and D. L.
Crawford, eds., Resident and juvenile anadromous fish investigations (May - October
1984). Report No. 7, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document #
2837.
Sundet, R.L., and M.N. Wenger. 1984. Resident Fish Distribution and Population Dynamics in
the Susitna River below Devil Canyon. Part 5 In: Schmidt, D.C., S.S. Hale, and D.L.
Crawford. (eds.) Resident and Juvenile Anadromous Fish Investigations (May - October
Appendix B - Page 128
INFORMATION ITEM B8: SPAWNING AND REARING HABITAT FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B8 - Page 8 August 2013
1983). Prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Prepared for Alaska Power
Authority, Anchorage, AK. 98 pp.
Appendix B - Page 129
INFORMATION ITEM B8: SPAWNING AND REARING HABITAT FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B8 - Page 9 August 2013
16. FIGURES
Appendix B - Page 130
INFORMATION ITEM B8: SPAWNING AND REARING HABITAT FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B8 - Page 10 August 2013 Figure B8-1. Adult Chinook salmon counts in Kosina Creek for all 2012 survey dates. Source: HDR (2013). Appendix B - Page 131
INFORMATION ITEM B8: SPAWNING AND REARING HABITAT FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B8 - Page 11 August 2013
Figure B8-2. Density distribution and juvenile Chinook salmon by macrohabitat type on the Susitna River between the
Chulitna River confluence and Devils Canyon, May through November 1983. Percentages are based on mean catch per
cell. Source: Dugan et al. (1984).
Appendix B - Page 132
INFORMATION ITEM B8: SPAWNING AND REARING HABITAT FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B8 - Page 12 August 2013
Figure B8-3. Density distribution and juvenile chum salmon by macrohabitat type on the Susitna River between the
Chulitna River confluence and Devils Canyon, May through November 1983. Percentages are based on mean catch per
cell. Source: Dugan et al. (1984).
Appendix B - Page 133
INFORMATION ITEM B8: SPAWNING AND REARING HABITAT FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B8 - Page 13 August 2013
Figure B8-4. Density distribution and juvenile coho salmon by macrohabitat type on the Susitna River between the
Chulitna River confluence and Devils Canyon, May through November 1983. Percentages are based on mean catch per
cell. Source: Dugan et al. (1984).
Appendix B - Page 134
INFORMATION ITEM B8: SPAWNING AND REARING HABITAT FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B8 - Page 14 August 2013
Figure B8-5. Density distribution and juvenile chum salmon by macrohabitat type on the Susitna River between the
Chulitna River confluence and Devils Canyon, May through November 1983. Percentages are based on mean catch per
cell. Source: Dugan et al. (1984).
Appendix B - Page 135
INFORMATION ITEM B8: SPAWNING AND REARING HABITAT FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B8 - Page 15 August 2013
Figure B8-4. Density distribution and juvenile sockeye salmon by macrohabitat type on the Susitna River between the
Chulitna River confluence and Devils Canyon, May through November 1983. Percentages are based on mean catch per
cell. Source: Dugan et al. (1984).
Appendix B - Page 136
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 InfoItemB09_Predation.doc August 2013
INFORMATION ITEM B9. PREDATION
Appendix B - Page 137
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 1 August 2013
1. PREDATION
Several fish species in Alaska, in particular anadromous salmon provide valuable food resources
for a variety of aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates. Cederholm et al. (2000) reported that 130
species of terrestrial vertebrates native to Pacific Northwest benefit (or historically benefited)
from salmon and 80 of these species regularly utilize salmon. Salmon are consumed by a wide
variety of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife including fishes, amphibians, reptiles, waterfowl, gulls,
corvids, raptors, rodents, mustelids, canids, and ursids, pinnipeds, and cetaceans (Hilderbrand et
al. 2004). The large and concentrated numbers of prey available during downstream and
upstream migrations of salmon make these events attractive to many of the predatory species
listed above.
Dams, spillways, regulating outlets, and fish passage facilities may increase susceptibility to
predation by concentrating and constricting migratory fish, causing fatigue from migration delay,
disorientation or injury during passage, or by other means. Focused predation efforts are often
evident on migratory fish upstream and downstream of dams when fish are delayed and/or
concentrated and the dam forebay and tailrace habitats offer suitable habitat for predatory
species. Migrating species may suffer increased susceptibility to predation in the vicinity of an
installation as a consequence of operations or passage conditions, for example if fish becoming
trapped in turbulence or recirculating eddies or after passage through or spill over a dam if fish
are injured, stressed or disoriented.
In addition, as a consequence of altering a stream to create a reservoir, the fish community can
be impacted resulting in the expansion and growth of some populations and the decline of others.
Often the fish species that can best adapt and thrive in the comparatively slow moving and deep
lacusterine environment of a reservoir are different from those that inhabit swift moving riverine
environments and frequently are non-native. The results for fish that have evolved migrating
through a riverine system can be substantial.
In the extensively studied Columbia River, stress associated with passage through the mainstem
dams has made smolts more vulnerable to piscine predators in the immediate vicinity of the
dams (Rieman et al. 1991, Mesa 1994, Mesa and Warren 1997). Piscivorous fishes consume
large numbers of juvenile salmonids in the Columbia River basin. Annually, an estimated 16
million juvenile salmonids were consumed throughout the basin by a native fish predator,
northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), in the early 1990s (Ward et al. 1995;
Beamesderfer et al. 1996). This consumption estimate led to large scale management activities,
such as the establishment of bounty fisheries to reduce the number of predatory-sized
pikeminnow and reconfiguration of dam outflows to reduce predation rates.
Predation by piscivorous birds on migrating juvenile salmonids may represent a large source of
predation mortality. In the Columbia River, piscivorous birds aggregate below hydroelectric
dams in the spring to feed on outmigrating fish (Ruggerone 1986). Juvenile salmonids are
especially vulnerable to birds and other predators directly below dams because of the
disorienting effect of passage and upwelling waters that carries fish close to the surface.
Predation on juvenile salmonids during out-migration to the Pacific Ocean is considered a
limiting factor in the recovery of Columbia River basin salmonid populations (NMFS 2008a).
Studies of avian predation in the Columbia River basin have focused on colonial waterbirds that
Appendix B - Page 138
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 2 August 2013
nest in the estuary, which currently hosts the largest known colonies of Caspian terns
Hydroprogne caspia and double-crested cormorants Phalacrocorax auritus in western North
America (Evans et al. 2012; Lyons et al. 2010).
Research by Evans et al. (2012) indicates that avian predation on outmigrant salmonids can vary
by bird and salmonid species. Of the eight salmonid ESUs evaluated, minimum predation rates
were highest steelhead, with an estimated 14-16% consumed by terns and cormorants. Among
avian predators in the estuary, predation on steelhead was significantly higher from terns (9.7–
10.7%) than from cormorants (3.1–5.5%). Of the four Chinook salmon ESUs evaluated,
minimum predation rates by terns and cormorants in the estuary varied from 2.5-4.6%. Terns
and cormorants in the estuary consumed between 0.9% and 2.4% of available Chinook salmon,
which suggests that Chinook salmon ESUs exhibited similar susceptibility to predation. The
combined minimum predation rate on Snake River sockeye salmon by terns and cormorants in
the estuary was estimated at 3.0%; the predation rate on sockeye salmon was higher for
cormorants (2.1%) than for terns (0.9%;).
The following additional factors to consider affect fish predation are taken from Bell (1990).
Unusual congregations of fish, which could result from screens, diversions, bypasses,
other obstructions, or large numbers of fish being released at a given location, can lead to
increased predation from aquatic, avian, and terrestrial predators.
Delayed migration, which can result from obstructions and/or disorientation associated
with releases, may increase predation.
Small or juvenile fish concentrated in shallow ponded areas may be particularly
vulnerable to predation from certain avian species, such as mergansers, kingfishers, gulls,
and blue herons.
Downstream migrants that have been stressed and/or injured as a result of fish capture
and/or handling are more vulnerable to predation.
Turbid water conditions offer a measure of protection to smaller fish species and life
stages by reducing their visibility to aquatic and avian predators.
Shadowed pathways may be used advantageously by aquatic predators.
Aquatic predators may utilize sheltered low-velocity areas to attack small fish moving in
an active current, such as those associated with the bypasses and collection areas.
2. SUSITNA RIVER FISH PREDATORS
Potential piscivorous fish species in the Study Area include: Arctic grayling, burbot, Dolly
Varden, lake trout, northern pike, and rainbow trout (Table B9-1).
2.1. Arctic Grayling
Grayling typically feed on a variety of aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates in the water column or
air-water interface (Armstrong 1986). Adult arctic grayling are sight feeders, which consume a
wide array of food items primarily in drift. As adults they depend heavily on benthic and
terrestrial insects in stream drift but have been observed to feed opportunistically on fish eggs,
Appendix B - Page 139
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 3 August 2013
small fish, and small mammals (Armstrong 1986; Bishop 1967; Moore and Kenagy 2004;
Stewart et al. 2007). Arctic grayling have been found to feed on their own eggs and the eggs of
salmon, and small fish including ninespine stickleback and sockeye salmon fry (Warner 1958;
Williams 1969; Northcote 1993).
Arctic Grayling are distributed throughout the entire Susitna River Basin, including the
following tributaries: Oshetna River (HRM 233.4), Kosina Creek (HRM 206.8), Portage Creek
(HRM 148.9), Indian River (HRM 138.6), Montana Creek (HRM 77.0), Kashwitna River (HRM
61.0) and Deshka River (HRM 40.6) (Delaney et al. 1981a, Delaney et al. 1981b, Sundet and
Pechek 1985). In the Middle Susitna River, Arctic grayling primarily use mainstem habitats for
overwintering and tributaries for spawning and rearing (Schmidt et al. 1983, Schmidt et al.
1984). Upstream of Talkeetna, Arctic grayling move into tributaries to spawn in May and early
June (Schmidt et al. 1983, Schmidt et al. 1984). Based on 1980s mark-recapture data, estimated
Arctic grayling abundance was higher in the Upper Susitna River relative to the Middle and
Lower segments; although, comparable abundance data are limited (Delaney et al. 1981a,
Delaney et al. 1981b, Schmidt et al. 1983). Estimated abundance of grayling greater than 200
mm fork length in the Upper Segment was 10,279 (95% confidence interval: 9,194 – 11,654)
based on 1981 mark-recapture data, and was 6,783 (95% confidence interval: 4,070 – 15,152) in
the Middle Segment based on 1981-1984 data (Delaney et al. 1981b, Sundet and Pechek 1985).
2.2. Burbot
Adult burbot are typically described as piscivores, although the diet can include invertebrates
(insects, iso-pods, leeches and crayfish). Numerous studies reviewed by Polacek et al. (2006)
indicate that the diet of adult fish is comprised from 38-100% fish. Fish prey made up 75% of
the diet in Great Slave Lake (Rawson 1951) and by age-4 fish dominated the diet of burbot in
upper Yukon and Tanana River drainages, Alaska (Chen 1969). Common prey items can include
ciscoes, sticklebacks, whitefish, etc., as available (McPhail and Lindsey 1970). During the
winter, large burbot may shift their diets to include more benthic macroinvertebrates.
Burbot occur throughout the lower, middle, and upper Susitna River basin (Delaney et al. 1981a,
Delaney 1981b, Schmidt et al. 1983). Burbot were documented in 8 tributaries in the Upper
Susitna River with Jay Creek and Watana Creek supporting the highest abundances (Delaney
1981a). In the mainstem Susitna River, the mouth of the Deshka River (HRM 40.5) is a known
spawning area (Schmidt et al. 1983). Burbot spawning also occurs in the Deshka River and
likely in the Alexander River (Sundet and Pechek 1985).
Based on studies from the 1980s, burbot appear to be more abundant downstream from the
Chulitna River confluence (HRM 98.6) (Sundet and Wenger 1984). In 1983, 15 burbot were
estimated to occur between RM 138.9 and140.1 (Sundet and Wenger 1984). This abundance
estimate should be viewed as an approximation because few fish were caught during this study
(Sundet and Wenger 1984). During the 1983 sampling efforts, 163 burbot were caught in the
Middle Segment of the Susitna River between the Chulitna confluence and Devils Canyon
(Sundet and Wenger 1984).
2.3. Dolly Varden
Dolly Varden feed on fish eggs, small fishes and benthic organisms including molluscs, mysids,
amphipods, chironomids, plecopterans and other insect larvae and crustaceans (Palmisano and Helm
Appendix B - Page 140
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 4 August 2013
1971; Stevens and Deschermeier 1986). As Dolly Varden grow and mature, feeding activity decreases
and aquatic insects became less important in the diet while crustaceans and fish became more important
(Palmisano and Helm 1971). Adult fish incorporate juvenile salmon in the diet (Roos 1959).
Dolly Varden occur in the Susitna River Basin upstream to at least the Oshetna River (Delaney et
al. 1981a, Sautner and Stratton 1983). In the Talkeetna-to-Devils Canyon reach, Dolly Varden
are found primarily in the upper reaches of tributaries and at tributary mouths (Schmidt et al.
1983, Sundet and Wenger 1984) but also in the mainstem for overwintering (Sundet and Wenger
1984). Spawning and juvenile rearing areas are suspected to be in tributaries (Schmidt et al.
1983). Dolly Varden have been documented in the Upper Susitna River including Lake Louise,
the mouth of Fog Creek and within Cheechako, Devil, Watana, Jay, and Deadman creeks
(Delaney et al. 1981a, Sautner and Stratton 1983). During June to September 1981, sampling in
the Cook Inlet to Talkeetna reach collected Dolly Varden at 52 percent of the habitat locations
sampled (Delaney et al. 1981b). Based on two-week sampling periods, the presence of Dolly
Varden during sampling efforts ranged from 8 to 20 percent of habitat locations sampled. Dolly
Varden were captured most consistently in tributary stream mouth habitat locations, with the
highest catches occurring at the mouth of Portage Creek (R.M. 148.8) in early June. Sampling
conducted in 1982 captured Dolly Varden at only nine (53%) of the 17 Designated Fish Habitat
(DFH) sites (Schmidt et al. 1983). Total Dolly Varden catch was greatest at the Lane Creek and
Slough 8 site (n=8); however, only 28 were capture at all DFH sites combined. The population
size of Dolly Varden in the Talkeetna-to-Devils Canyon reach appears to be low; they are
apparently more abundant downstream from the Chulitna River confluence (RM 98.6) (Schmidt
et al. 1984).
2.4. Lake Trout
Lake trout are opportunistic feeders, food items may include zooplankton, insect larvae, small
crustaceans, clams, snails, leeches, fish, small mammal and birds. Adult fish incorporate more
fish into the diet and may feed extensively on whitefish, grayling, sticklebacks, sculpin, and
juvenile salmon (Redick 1967; Morrow 1980).
Jennings (1985) reported that Lake trout occur in the relative large and deep lakes throughout the
Susitna Basin. Occasionally, lake trout can also be found in the inlet or outlet streams of these
lakes (Jennings 1985). Lake trout distribution in the Susitna River basin is not well understood,
but they have been documented in Beaver, Clarence, Crater, Curtis, Stephens, Louise, Little
Louise, and Butte lakes (Burr 1987) as well as Deadman and Sally lakes (Sautner and Stratton
1984). Lake trout have not been captured in the mainstem-influenced areas of the Susitna River
below Devils Canyon (Jennings 1985). The most detailed information comes from sampling
during 1981 in Deadman Lake and during 1981 and 1982 in Sally Lake, which would have been
inundated under the proposed project configuration of the 1980s (Delaney et al. 1981a, Sautner
and Stratton 1983).
2.5. Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout are opportunistic predators that feed on a wide variety of prey items, including
various insects (e.g., dipteran larvae and adults), plankton, crustaceans, snails, leeches, fish eggs,
smaller fishes, and adult salmon carcasses (Morrow 1980, Quinn 2005, Scott and Crossman
Appendix B - Page 141
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 5 August 2013
1973). As fish grow and mature they incorporate fish, salmon carcasses, eggs, and small
mammals into the diet.
Within the Susitna River, rainbow trout populations are found up to and including Portage Creek
at RM 148.8 (ADF&G 1983). No rainbow trout have been identified upstream of Devils Canyon
in the impoundment zone (FERC 1983). Rainbow trout in the Susitna River are distributed
throughout tributary and mainstem areas downstream of Devils Canyon (RM 152; Schmidt et al.
1983). Upstream of the Chulitna River confluence (RM 98.6), Whiskers Creek (RM 104.4),
Lane Creek (RM 113.6), Fourth of July Creek (RM 131.1), and Portage Creek are the major
spawning areas (Sundet and Wenger 1984, Sundet and Pechek 1985). Primary spawning
tributaries in the 1980s were the Talkeetna River (RM 97.2), Montana Creek (RM 77.0), and
Kashwitna River (RM 61.0) in the Lower Segment (Sundet and Pechek 1985). Primary holding
and feeding locations for rainbow trout were the Fourth of July Creek and Indian River (RM
138.6) tributary mouths, Slough 8A (RM 125.1), and Whiskers Creek Slough (RM 101.2;
Schmidt et al. 1983).Data collected in the 1980s indicate that adult rainbow trout are more
abundant in the Middle Segment of the Susitna River than in the Lower Segment (Schmidt et al.
1983). Based on a tag-recapture study conducted from 1981 to 1983, the estimated abundance of
rainbow trout greater than 150 mm in FL in the Middle Segment was approximately 4,000 fish
(Sundet and Wenger 1984). In the Lower River in 1984, a total of 155 rainbow trout were
captured using multiple capture methods (Sundet and Wenger 1984). The highest number of
rainbow trout captures (i.e., 62 fish) occurred in the Deshka River.
2.6. Northern Pike
Northern pike feed primarily on other fish, including their own species. Prey selection is largely
based on availability. In Alaska, major prey items include whitefish, small pike, blackfish,
burbot, suckers, dragonflies and damselflies (Morrow 1980). Adults may also consume water
fowl, frogs, small mammals, and crayfish (Morrow 1980). Northern pike are known to consume
large portions of stocked and migrating juvenile salmonids. In southcentral Alaska, juvenile
salmon and trout, particularly coho salmon, sockeye salmon, and rainbow trout, are preferred
prey for pike (Rutz 1996, 1999). All five species of pacific salmon, along with Arctic grayling,
Arctic char, Dolly Varden, burbot, whitefish, blackfish and threespine stickleback are potential
prey items (Rutz 1999).
Northern pike are not native to South-central Alaska. They have been illegally released into
lakes and streams on the Kenai Peninsula, the Anchorage area, and in the Matanuska-Susitna
valleys, and have spread through connected water bodies (Rutz 1999). Within the Susitna River,
Northern Pike have been documented in Lower River tributaries as far upstream as the Deshka
River (RM 45). The suspected distribution extends to tributaries up to the Three Rivers (Ivey
2009).There is little information specific to the Susitna River regarding northern pike spawning,
juvenile emergence, or juvenile rearing. Telemetry studies suggest that adult northern pike do
not migrate significant distances within the Susitna Basin; a 1996 study found that over the
course of one year, only one out of 18 radio-tagged northern pike moved a distance greater than
10 km and many moved less than 1 km (Rutz 1999).
Appendix B - Page 142
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 6 August 2013
3. SUSITNA RIVER AVIAN PREDATORS
Of the avifauna that may occur in the study area, cormorants, terns, mergansers, kittiwakes,
loons, gulls, kingfishers, grebes, and osprey pose the greatest predation threat to juvenile
salmonids (Table B9-2). Other avifauna potentially occurring in the study area that pose a lesser
threat but that have been documented to prey on early life stage salmon or small fish include:
dippers, goldeneye, scoters, magpies, ravens, canvasbacks, gadwall, scaup, shovelers, swans, and
wimbrels (Table B9-2).
3.1. Double breasted cormorant
The double-breasted cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus is presently rare in the study area (Table B9-2).
The diet of double-breasted cormorants consists largely of fish (generally slow-moving or
schooling species), with some occurrence of aquatic animals such as insects, crustaceans,
reptiles, and amphibians (Johnsgard 1993, Hatch and Weseloh 1999). They eat a wide variety of
fish (more than 250 species have been reported). Its diet it almost exclusively fish with a few
crustaceans, with the prey species changing depending on locality. Prey is caught by pursuit-
diving, and individuals can fish co-operatively, sometimes with thousands of birds together at
one time. Fish prey are usually slow-moving or schooling fish, ranging in size from 3-40 cm [1.2-
16 in]), although most commonly less than 15 cm (6 in). The daily dietary requirement of double
breasted cormorants is around 500 grams of fish/day (Major et al. 2003). Double-breasted cormorants
respond rapidly to high concentrations of fish and will congregate where fish are easily caught,
such as “put and take” lakes, stocking release sites, and aquaculture ponds (Hatch and Weseloh
1999, Wires et al. 2001). Predation of juvenile salmonids in the Columbia River system has led to
management and control actions including hazing to limit cormorant predation (NMFS 2008a).
3.2. Arctic Tern
Arctic terns Sterna paradisaea are fairly common in the lower river study area and pose one of
the greatest threats to out migrating juvenile salmonids. Arctic terns typically gather in foraging
flocks to plunge dive for juvenile salmonids migrating near the water surface in estuaries or the
marine environment (Scheel and Hough 1997). The daily dietary requirement of terns is 60-230
grams of fish/day (Major et al. 2003).
3.3. Mergansers
Common merganser (Mergus merganser) and red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator) may be
present in the study area during the breeding season. In terms of relative abundance, both
species are uncommon. During the outmigration period mergansers foraging in streams prey
almost exclusively on juvenile salmon (Wood 1987). Juvenile salmon are consumed extensively
by common merganser broods (contributing 80% of body mass at 10 days of age to 40% of body
mass at 40 days of age) inhabiting streams in coastal British Columbia (Wood 1987). The daily
dietary requirement of mergansers is around 240 grams of fish/day (Major et al. 2003).
Appendix B - Page 143
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 7 August 2013
3.4. Black-legged kittiwake
The black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) is a piscivorous seabird that occurs rarely in the
study area. Kittiwakes typically gather in foraging flocks to plunge dive for juvenile salmonids
migrating near the water surface in estuaries or the marine environment (Scheel and Hough
1997).
3.5. Loons
Common loon (Gavia immer), Pacific loon (Gavia pacifica), and red throated loon (Gavia
stellata), may be present in the study area. In terms of relative abundance, the common loon is
fairly common while the other species are uncommon (Table B9-2). Loons are visual predators,
locating fish by sight and diving deep to catch them. They generally hunt in water 2 to 4 meters
deep. Because they rely on sight, clear water is critical to common loons. Loons are principle
bird predators of lake resident sockeye salmon fry (Emmett et al. 1991) and other juvenile
salmonids in estuaries (Allen and Hassler 1986; Cederaholm et al. 2001).
3.6. Herring gull
The herring gull Larus argentatus is uncommon in the study area. Small fish encompass the
majority of the diet of herring gulls. Herring gulls can consume 200-430 grams of fish each day
(Ruggerone 1986). Gulls aggregate at river-mouths during the season of chum salmon migration
and feed heavily on juveniles (Kawamura et al. 2000). Predation by ring-billed gulls (Larus
delawarenis) below hydroelectric dams has been identified as a significant threat to migrant
steelhead and salmon smolts in the Columbia and Snake Rivers (Steuber et al 1995). This has
led managers to install overhead wire/cable exclusion systems over the tailrace area of 12 dams
to reduce gull predation (Steuber et al 1995).
3.7. Belted Kingfisher
The belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon is uncommon in the study area. The diet of the
kingfisher is composed mainly of fish and 88.4% of the diet can be comprised of salmonids
when present (Cornwell, 1963). Kingfishers consume salmonids 70-165 mm in length and
require 60 grams of prey per day (Major et al 2003). Belted kingfishers are a common predator
at hatcheries and smolt acclimation sites (Siegel and Fast 2005).
3.8. Grebes
Grebes that may be present in the study area include horned Podiceps auritus, Red-necked Podiceps
grisegena, and double-crested Phalacrocorax auritus. In terms or relative abundance grebes are rare to
uncommon in the study area (Table B9-2). Grebes can be significant avian predators of sockeye
smolts (Cederholm et al. 2000).
3.9. Osprey
The osprey Pandion haliaetus is rare in the study area. The daily dietary requirement of osprey
is around 350 grams of fish/day (Major et al. 2003). Fish prey are first sighted when the osprey
is 10–40 m above the water surface, after which the bird hovers momentarily then plunges feet
Appendix B - Page 144
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 8 August 2013
first into the water. While fish make up 99% of the osprey's diet, they are not likely to catch and
prey on juvenile or adult salmon as they prefer prey 250-350 mm in length (Evans 1982).
4. SUSITNA RIVER MAMMALIAN PREDATORS
Throughout the Study Area, several terrestrial mammals that prey on fish have been documented
(Table B9-3). Many of these species are primarily carnivorous and heavily reliant on fish as part
of their diet, while other species exhibit more opportunistic or omnivorous feeding behavior.
Fish represent a smaller portion of the diet of the opportunistic feeders. Mammals typically prey
upon adult salmon during the migration run to spawning areas or on post-spawn carcasses.
4.1. Brown Bear
Brown bear (Ursus arctos) are known to seasonally congregate along salmon-bearing streams
and feed heavily on salmon during adult salmon migration and spawning seasons. On the Kenai
Peninsula, Alaska, spawning adult salmon and salmon carcasses are the single most important
fall food resource to brown bears as they accumulate energy reserves necessary to meet the
demands of hibernation and cub production (Hilderbrand et al. 2004). Brown bear presence in
the Project Study Area is well known. Previous studies of brown bears in relation to the Project
Area in the 1980s were conducted upstream of Devils Canyon; no downstream study was
conducted for this species. Brown bears were studied from 1980 to 1985, during which time 97
bears were equipped with VHF radio-collars (Miller 1987). Density was estimated at 27.9
bears/1,000 km² (386 mi²; Miller 1987). Studies in the western Susitna basin (south of the
Alaska Range between the Yentna and Chulitna rivers) during 1998–2000 found that habitat use
by brown bears varied significantly within years and among seasons for different bears, and
habitat use also differed between daytime and night-time periods. Brown bears foraged heavily
at salmon spawning streams and salmon consistently composed a major portion of their diet,
making an important contribution to body condition (Belant et al. 2006). Black bears avoided
salmon streams occupied by defensive brown bears and instead foraged heavily on berries
(Belant et al. 2006). The Alaska Department of Fish and Game periodically estimates brown
bear density in various parts of GMU 13 encompassing the Project area. Since 1979, those
estimates have ranged from 16 to 41 bears/1,000 km² (386 mi²), some of the highest brown bear
densities in interior and northern Alaska (Tobey and Kelleyhouse 2007).
4.2. Black Bear
Black bear (Ursus americanus) also feed on salmon, but generally avoid salmon-bearing streams
when brown bears are present. There are no current estimates of population size for black bears
in the upstream or downstream study areas along the Susitna River (AEA PAD 2011). Although
black bears in the upstream area occasionally ate moose calves, berries seemed to be their most
important food source (LGL 1985). Bears spent most of their time in forested areas along creek
bottoms, but moved out into adjacent shrublands during late summer as they foraged for berries,
particularly in the area between Tsusena and Deadman creeks, near the proposed Watana
reservoir (Miller 1987). Berries were an important food for black bears in the downstream area
as well. In contrast to the upstream area, movement data showed that black bears in the
downstream area moved to riparian areas in July and August. Miller (1987) hypothesized that
Appendix B - Page 145
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 9 August 2013
those black bears were eating salmon along river sloughs; however, he conducted a scat study in
late August and concluded that black bears were foraging almost exclusively on the berries of
devil’s club (Oplopanax horridus) rather than salmon.
4.3. Red fox
Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) are canine species that consume fish as part of their diet. The red fox
is an opportunistic predator and consumes a wide-variety of prey items, including both
invertebrates and vertebrates. The population density of red foxes in the study area was
estimated at 1 family/83 km² (32 mi²; Gipson et al. 1982). Radiotelemetry data showed that
dispersing foxes readily crossed the Susitna River (Gipson et al. 1982).
4.4. Gray Wolf
Gray wolves (Canis lupus) are canine species that consume fish as part of their diet. The gray
wolf commonly hunts large mammal species such as caribou (Rangifer tarandus), although
recent studies in coastal Alaska and British Columbia suggest adult salmon may also be an
important part of a wolf’s diet, particularly during salmon spawning runs (Szepanski et al. 1999;
Darimont and Reimchen 2002; Darimont et al. 2008). Since 2006, the number of wolves has
been within the current management goal range of 135–165 wolves (3.3–4.1 wolves/1,000 km²)
for the unit, after the end of the hunting and trapping seasons (AEA PAD 2011).
4.5. Mustelids (Weasel Family)
In years of low rodent numbers, salmon carcasses are a major component of the autumn diet of
martens (Martes americana) in southeast Alaska (Ben-David et al. 1997). The population density
of marten in the area that would have been inundated by both of the original APA Susitna
Hydroelectric Project reservoirs was estimated at 84.7 animals/100 km² (Gipson et al. 1984).
Marten occurred from Portage Creek to the Tyrone River, but their density was highest between
Devil Creek and Vee Canyon (Gipson et al. 1982). The total population of marten in both
impoundment zones was estimated as a minimum of 218 animals, but aerial track surveys
suggested that the population could be up to twice that number (Gipson et al. 1984). Nearly
three times as many marten were estimated to inhabit the Watana impoundment zone as the
Devils Canyon impoundment zone (Gipson et al. 1982). Marten rarely crossed water that would
require them to swim; the Susitna River and larger creeks formed home range boundaries
(Gipson et al. 1982). Food habits were studied by analyzing marten scat and gastrointestinal
tract contents (Gipson et al. 1984). Microtine rodents and squirrels were the most important food
classes during fall, winter, and spring.
River otter (Lontra canadensis) mink, and weasel are small furbearing species that feed on a
variety of prey items, including fish. These species are associated with riparian and aquatic
habitats. River otters were distributed fairly evenly throughout the upper Susitna drainage below
1,200 m (3,936 ft) elevation. During a November survey in the 1980s, large numbers of otter
tracks were seen on shelf ice along the Susitna River; those otters were through to have been
feeding on grayling as the fish left tributaries to overwinter in the Susitna. River otters have
been documented preying adult salmon in fish passage facilities (Mehaffey 2012). Mink tracks
were observed along all major tributaries below 1,200 m elevation; 50 percent of all mink tracks
Appendix B - Page 146
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 10 August 2013
were in the upper reaches of the Watana impoundment zone. Most (87 percent) of the weasel
tracks recorded were in the upper reaches of the study area near the Oshetna River.
5. REFERENCES
ABR (ABR, Inc.). 2011. Wildlife Data-Gap Analysis for the Proposed Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project. Draft Report, August 16, 2011. Prepared for The Alaska Energy
Authority by ABR, Inc.–Environmental Research and Services, Fairbanks, Alaska. 114
pp.
ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1983. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Phase II
Report Volume I: Summarization of Volumes 2, 3, 4; Parts I and II, and 5. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game Su Hydro Basic Data Reports, 1982. Anchorage, Alaska.
AEA (Alaska Energy Authority). 2011. Notice of intent and Pre-Application Document (PAD)
for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project. FERC project No. 14241. Filed with the
FERC Dec. 29, 2011.
Allen, M.A., and T.J. Hassler. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental
requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest)--chinook salmon.
U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep.82(11.49). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4.
26 pp.
APA. 1985. Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Draft amended application for
license for major project—Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Volume 11, Exhibit E, Chapter
3: Fish, wildlife, and botanical resources.
Armstrong, R.H. 1986. A review of the Arctic grayling studies in Alaska, 1952-1982. Biol.
Paper Univ. Alaska No. 23:3-17.
Beamesderfer, R. C., Ward, D. L., and A.A. Nigro. 1996. Evaluation of the biological basis for
a predator control program on northern squawfish (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) in the
Columbia and Snake rivers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53(12),
2898-2908.
Belant, J. D., K. Kielland, E. H. Follmann, and L. G. Adams. 2006. Interspecific resource
partitioning in sympatric ursids. Ecological Applications 16:2333–2343.
Bell, M. C. 1991. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria.
Ben-David, M, R.W. Flynn, ANDD .M. Schell. 1997. Annual and seasonal changes in diets of
martens: Evidence from stable isotope analysis. Oecologia 111:280-291.
Birdlife.org. Birdlife datazone species life history searches. Accessed 3/15/2013. Available
online at: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/home
Bishop, F.G. 1967. The biology of the Arctic grayling, Thymallus arcticus (Pallas), in Great
Slave Lake. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Zoology, University of Alberta, Edmonton,
AB. xvi + 165 p.
Burr, J.M. 1987. Synopsis and Bibliography of Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush). Fishery
Manuscript No. 5, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Anchorage, AK.
Appendix B - Page 147
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 11 August 2013
Cederholm, C. J., D. H. Johnson, R. E. Bilby, L.G. Dominguez, A. M. Garrett, W. H. Graeber, E.
L. Greda, M. D. Kunze, B.G. Marcot, J. F. Palmisano, R. W. Plotnikoff, W. G. Pearcy, C.
A. Simenstad, and P. C. Trotter. 2000. Pacific Salmon and Wildlife - Ecological
Contexts, Relationships, and Implications for Management. Special Edition Technical
Report, Prepared for D. H. Johnson and T. A. O’Neil (Managing directors), Wildlife-
Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.
Chen, L. 1969. The Biology and Taxonomy of the Burbot, Lota lota leptura, in interior Alaska.
Biological Papers of the University of Alaska. No.11.
Cornwell, G.W. 1963. Observations on the breeding biology and behavior of a nesting
population of belted kingfishers. Condor 65: 426-431
Darimont, C.T., and T. Reimchen. 2002. Intra-hair Stable Isotope Analysis Implies Seasonal
Shift to Salmon in Gray Wolf Diet. Can. J. Zool., Vol. 80, pp.1638-1642.
Darimont, C.T., P.C. Paquet, and T.E. Reimchen. 2008. Spawning Salmon Disrupt Trophic
Coupling Between Wolves and Ungulate Prey in Coastal British Columbia. BMC
Ecology, Vol. 8, pp. 1-12.
Delaney, K., D. Crawford, L. Dugan, S. Hale, K Kuntz, B. Marshall, J. Mauney, J. Quinn, K.
Roth, P Suchanek, R. Sundet, and M. Stratton. 1981a. Resident Fish Investigation on the
Upper Susitna River. Prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro
Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK. 157 pp.
Delaney, K., D. Crawford, L. Dugan, S. Hale, K. Kuntz, B. Marshall, J. Mauney, J. Quinn, K.
Roth, P Suchanek, R. Sundet, and M. Stratton. 1981b. Resident Fish Investigation on the
Lower Susitna River. Prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro
Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK. 311 pp.
Emmett, R. L., S. L. Stone, S. A. Hinton, and M. E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and abundance
of fishes and invertebrates in west coast estuaries, Volume II: species life history
summaries. ELMR Rep. No. 8 NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments
Division, Rockville, MD, 329 p.
Evans, A.F., N. J. Hostetter, D. D. Roby, K. Collis, D. E. Lyons, B. P. Sandford, R. D.
Ledgerwood and S. Sebring. 2012. Systemwide Evaluation of Avian Predation on
Juvenile Salmonids from the Columbia River Based on Recoveries of Passive Integrated
Transponder Tags, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 141:4, 975-989.
Evans, D.L. 1982. Status Reports on Twelve Raptors: Special Scientific Report Wildl. No. 238.
U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildl. Serv.
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 1983. Application for License for Major
Project, Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Gipson, P. S., S. W. Buskirk, and T. W. Hobgood. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project
environmental studies, Subtask 7.11: furbearers—Phase I report. Report prepared by
Alaska Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, for
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. 81 pp.
Appendix B - Page 148
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 12 August 2013
Gipson, P. S., S. W. Buskirk, T. W. Hobgood, and J. D. Woolington. 1984. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project furbearer studies: Phase I report update. Final report prepared by
Alaska Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, for Alaska
Power Authority, Anchorage. 100 pp.
Hatch, J.J. and D.V. Weseloh. 1999. Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). In The
Birds of North America, No. 441 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North
America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
Hilderbrand, G.V., S.D. Farley, C.C. Schwartz, and C.T. Robbins. 2004. Importance of salmon
to wildlife: Implications for integrated management. Ursus. 15(1): 1-9.
Ivey, S., C. Brockman, and D. Rutz. 2009. Area management report for the recreational
fisheries of Northern Cook Inlet, 2005 and 2006. Fishery Management Report No. 09-
27.
Jennings, T.R. 1985. Fish Resources and Habitats in the Middle Susitna River. Woodward-
Clyde Consultants and Entrix. Final Report to Alaska Power Authority. 175 pp.
Johnsgard, P.A. 1993. Cormorants, Darters, and Pelicans of the World. Smithsonian Inst.
Press: Washington, D.C. 445 pp.
Kawamura, H., S., M. Kudo, M. Miyamoto, M. Nagata, and K. Hirano. 2000. Movements, food
and predators of juvenile chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) entering the coastal Sea of
Japan off northern Hokkaido in warm and cool years. N. Pac. Anadr. Fish Comm. Bull.
2:23-41.
Kessel, B., S. O. MacDonald, D. D. Gibson, B. A. Cooper, and B. A. Anderson. 1982. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project environmental studies, Phase I final report—Subtask 7.11: Birds
and non-game mammals. Report prepared by University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks,
and Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc., Phoenix, NY for Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage. 149 pp.
LGL. 1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project: wildlife and botanical resources impact assessment
and mitigation planning summary. Draft report (revision 1) prepared by LGL Alaska
Research Associates, Inc., Anchorage, for Harza–Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture and
Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. 58 pp.
Lyons, D. E. 2010. Bioenergetics-based predator-prey relationships between piscivorous birds
and juvenile salmonids in the Columbia River estuary. Doctoral dissertation. Oregon
State University, Corvallis. Available: www.birdresearchnw.org/Project-
Info/publicationsreports/graduatestudenttheses. (February 2011).
MacDonald, S. O., and J. A. Cook. 2009. Recent Mammals of Alaska. University of Alaska
Press, Fairbanks. 387 pp
Major III, Walter, J.M. Grassley, K. Ryding, C. Grue, T. Pearsons, and A. Stephenson. 2003.
Abundance, distribution and Estimated Consumption of Piscivorous Birds Along the
Yakima River, Washington State, Implications for Fisheries Management, Annual Report
2002. Project No. 1995-06424. BPA Report DOE/DP-00004666-11.
McPhail, J.D., and C.C. Lindsey. 1970. Freshwater Fishes of Northwestern Canada and Alaska.
Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Appendix B - Page 149
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 13 August 2013
Mehaffey. K.C. 2012. Fish counting — not an exact science, but getting closer The Wenatchee
World. October 27, 2012. Available online at:
http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2012/oct/27/fish-counting-not-an-exact-science-
but-getting/
Mesa, M.G. 1994. Effects of multiple acute stressors on the predator avoidance ability and
physiology of juvenile chinook salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
123: 786-793.
Mesa, M.G., and Warren, J.J. 1997. Predator avoidance ability of juvenile Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) subjected to nonlethal exposures of gas supersaturated
water. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 757-764.
Miller, S. D. 1987. Susitna Hydroelectric Project final report, big game studies: Vol. VI—Black
bear and brown bear. Report prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Anchorage, for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage. 276 pp.
Moore, Jonathan W., and G. J. Kenagy. 2004. Consumption of Shrews, Sorex spp., by Arctic
Grayling, Thymallus arcticus. Canadian Field-Naturalist 118(1): 111-114.
Morrow, J. 1980. The Freshwater Fishes of Alaska. University of British Columbia Resource
Ecology Library: University of British Columbia.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008a. Biological opinion, Endangered Species
Act section 7(a)(2) consultation: consultation on remand for operation of the federal
Columbia River power system, 11 Bureau of Reclamation projects in the Columbia basin
and ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit for juvenile fish transportation program. NOAA
National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, F/NWR/2005/05883, Seattle,
Washington. Available: https://pcts.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/pcts-pub/pcts
Northcote. T.G. 1993. A review of management and enhancement options for the Arctic
grayling (Thymallus arcticus) with special reference to the Williston Reservoir
Watershed in British Columbia. Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation
Program, Report No. 78. 69pp.
Palmisano, J.J. and W.T. Helm. 1971. Freshwater food habits of Salvelinus malma (Walbaum)
on Amchitka Island, Alaska. BioScience 15: 637-641.
Polacek, M.C., C.M. Baldwin, and K. Knuttgen. 2006. Status, distribution, diet and growth of
Burbot in Lake Roosevelt, Washington. Northwest Science. 80(3): 153-164.
Quinn, T.P. 2005. The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. Bethesda, MD:
American Fisheries Society
Rawson, D. S. 1951. Studies of the fish of Great Slave Lake. Journal of the Fisheries Research
Board of Canada. 8(4):207-240
Redick, R. 1967. A review of literature on lake trout life history with notes on Alaskan
management. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Information Leaflet 111. 21 pp.
Rieman, B.E., Beamesderfer, R.C., Vigg, S., and Poe, T.P. 1991. Estimated loss of juvenile
salmonids to predation by northern squawfish, walleyes, and smallmouth bass in John
Day Reservoir, Columbia River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:
448-458.
Appendix B - Page 150
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 14 August 2013
Roos, J.F. 1959. Feeding Habits of the Dolly Varden, Salvelinus malma (Walbaum), at Chignik,
Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 88(4): 253-260.
Ruggerone, G.T. 1986. Consumption of migrating juvenile salmonids by gulls foraging below a
Columbia River dam. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115: 736-742.
Rutz, D. S. 1996. Seasonal movements, age and size statistics, and food habits of northern pike
in upper Cook Inlet during 1994 and 1995. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Fishery Data Series Report No. 96-29. Anchorage.
Rutz, D. S. 1999. Movements, food, availability and stomach contents of northern pike in
selected river drainages, 1996-1997. Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Department of Fish
and Game. Fishery Data Series Report No. 99-5. Anchorage.
Sautner, J., and M. Stratton. 1983. Upper Susitna River impoundment studies, 1982. Volume 5,
Phase II Basic Data Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 220 pp. APA
Document # 590.
Sautner, J., and M. Stratton. 1984. Access and transmission corridor studies. Pages 7-89 in
Schmidt, D., C. Estes, D. Crawford and D. Vincent-Lang, eds., Access and transmission
corridor aquatic investigations, May - August 1983. Report No. 4, Alaska Department of
Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document # 2049.
Scheel, D. and K.R. Hough. 1997. Salmon fry predation by seabirds near an Alaskan hatchery.
Marine Ecology Progress Series.150: 35-48.
Schmidt, D., S. Hale, D. Crawford, and P. Suchanek. 1983. Resident and Juvenile Anadromous
Fish Studies on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, 1982. Prepared by Alaska
Department of Fish and Game for the Alaska Power Authority. 303 pp.
Schmidt, D.C., S.S. Hale, D.L. Crawford, and P.M. Suchanek. 1984. Resident and juvenile
anadromous fish investigations (May - October 1983). Prepared for the Alaska Power
Authority. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies
Anchorage, Alaska. 458 pp.
Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board
of Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Siegel, J. and D.E. Fast. 2006. Monitoring and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Juvenile
Salmonids on the Yakima River, Washington. Appendix I in Yakima/Klickitat
Monitoring and Evaluation Project (199506325) 2005-2006 Annual Report to Bonneville
Power Administration DOE/BP 00022449-1.
Steuber, John E.; Pitzler, Mikel E.; and Oldenburg, J. Gary, "Protection juvenile salmonids from
gull predation using wire exclusion below hydroelectric dams. 1995. Great Plains
Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings. Paper 452.
Stevens, T.M. and S. J. Deschermeier. 1986. The freshwater food habits of juvenile Arctic Char
in streams in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Fairbanks Fishery Resources
Station, Fairbanks, Alaska. 11p.
Appendix B - Page 151
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 15 August 2013
Stewart, D.B., N.J. Mochnacz, J.D. Reis t, T.J. Carmichael, and C.D. Sawatzky. 2007. Fish
diets and food webs in the Northwest Territories: Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus).
Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2796: vi + 21 p
Sundet, R.L. and M.N. Wenger. 1984. Resident Fish Distribution and Population Dynamics in
the Susitna River below Devil Canyon. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Anchorage,
AK.
Sundet, R.L. and S.D. Pecheck. 1985. Resident Fish Distribution and Life History in the Susitna
River below Devil Canyon. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Anchorage, AK.
Szepanski M., M. Ben-David, and V. Van Ballenberghe. 1999. Assessment of Anadromous
Salmon Resources in the Diet of the Alexander Archipelago Wolf Using Stable Isotope
Analysis. Oecologia, Vol. 120, pp. 327-335.
Tobey, R., and R. Kelleyhouse. 2007. Unit 13 brown bear. Pages 143–154 in P. Harper, editor.
Brown bear management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2001–30 June
2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
Ward, D. L., J. H. Petersen, and J. J. Loch. 1995. Index of predation on juvenile salmonids by
northern squawfish in the lower and middle Columbia River and in the lower Snake
River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 124(3), 321-334.
Warner, G.W. 1958. Environmental studies of grayling in Alaska. USWFS. Quarterly Prog.
Rep., Proj. F-1-R-7. 7(3):14pp.
Williams, F.T. 1969. Grayling investigations on Tolsona and Moose Lakes. ADFG. Ann. Rep.
of Prog. 1968-1969, Proj. F-9-1, 10: 291-300.
Wires, L.R., F.J. Cuthbert, D.R. Trexel, and A. R. Joshi. 2001. Status of the Double-crested
Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus): Eastern and Central North America. USFWS Report.
Wood. C.C. 1987. Predation of Juvenile Pacific Salmon by the Common Merganser (Mergus
merganser) on Eastern Vancouver Island. I: Predation during the Seaward Migration.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 1987, Vol. 44, No. 5: pp. 941-949
Appendix B - Page 152
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 16 August 2013
6. TABLES
Table B9-1. Summary of life history, known Susitna River usage, and known extent of distribution of fish species within
the Lower, Middle, and Upper Susitna River Segments (from RSP compiled from ADF&G 1981 a, b, c, etc.).
Common Name Scientific Name
Life
History
a
Susitna
Usageb Distributionc Piscivorous
Alaska blackfish Dallia pectoralis F U U n/a
Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus F O, R, P Low, Mid, Up Yes
Arctic lamprey Lethenteron japonicum A,F O, M2, R, P Low, Mid n/a
Bering cisco Coregonus laurettae A M2, S Low, Mid No
Burbot Lota lota F O, R, P Low, Mid, Up Yes
Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha A M2, R Low, Mid, Up n/a
Chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta A M2, S Low, Mid n/a
Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch A M2, S, R Low, Mid n/a
Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma A,F O, P Low, Mid, Up Yes
Eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus A M2, S Low No
Humpback whitefishd Coregonus pidschian A,F O, R, P Low, Mid, Up No
Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush F U U Yes
Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus F R, P Low, Mid, Up No
Northern pike Esox lucius F P Low, Mid Yes
Pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha A M2, R Low, Mid n/a
Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss F O, M2, P Low, Mid Yes
Round whitefish Prosopium cylindraceum F O, M2, P Low, Mid, Up No
Sculpine Cottid M1f, F P Low, Mid, Up n/a
Sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka A M2, S Low, Mid n/a
Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus A,F M2, S, R, P Low, Mid No
Notes:
1 a A = anadromous, F = freshwater, M1 = marine
2 b O = overwintering, P = present, R = rearing, S = spawning, U = unknown, M2 = migration
3 c Low = Lower River, Mid = Middle River, Up = Upper River, U = Unknown
4 d Whitefish species that were not identifiable to species by physical characteristics in the field were called
humpback by default. This group may have contained Lake (Coregonus clupeaformis), or Alaska
(Coregonus nelsonii) whitefish.
5 e Sculpin species generally were not differentiated in the field. This group may have included Slimy
(Cottus cognatus), Prickly (Cottus asper), Coastal range (Cottus aleuticus), and Pacific staghorn
(Leptocottus armatus).
6 f Pacific staghorn sculpin were found in freshwater habitat within the Lower Susitna River Segment.
Appendix B - Page 153
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 17 August 2013
Table B9-2. Avian species potentially occurring in the study area (from AEA PAD 2011 and ABR 2011), relative
abundance, and association with salmon predation by lifestage.
English Name Scientific Name Status1
Relative
Abundance2
Salmon Predation3 Incubation Freshwater Rearing Spawning Carcass Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum B uncommon
American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus R uncommon x x
American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica B common
American Kestrel Falco sparverius M rare
American Pipit Anthus rubescens B common
American Robin Turdus migratorius B common x
American Three-toed
woodpecker Picoides dorsalis R uncommon
American Tree Sparrow Spizella aborea B abundant
American Wigeon Anas americana B fairly common
Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea B fairly common
X
Arctic Warbler Phylloscopus borealis B fairly common
Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii B uncommon
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus B uncommon
x X
Bank Swallow Riparia riparia B common
Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica B fairly common x x
x
Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon B uncommon
X X
Black Scoter Melanitta americana B fairly common x x
Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus R rare
Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia R uncommon
x
x
Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus R uncommon
Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla M rare
X
Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata B fairly common
Blue-winged Teal Anas discors M rare
Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus B common
Bonaparte’s Gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia B, S uncommon x
x
Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonicus R fairly common
Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus R rare
Brant Brant bernicla M not present
Brown Creeper Certhia americana B uncommon
Bufflehead Bucephala albeola M uncommon x
Canada Goose Branta canadensis M uncommon
Appendix B - Page 154
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 18 August 2013
English Name Scientific Name Status1
Relative
Abundance2
Salmon Predation3 Incubation Freshwater Rearing Spawning Carcass Canvasback Aythya valisineria M uncommon
x
Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota B common
Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula B fairly common x x
x
Common Loon Gavia immer B fairly common
X
Common Merganser Mergus merganser B uncommon x X
Common Raven Corvus corax R common
x x X
Common Redpoll Acanthis flammea R abundant
Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis B common
Double-crested
Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus ? rare
X
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens R uncommon
Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus A accidental
Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca B fairly common
Gadwall Anas strepera M, S rare
x
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos B fairly common
x X
Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa M uncommon
Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla B uncommon
Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis R common
Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus B fairly common
Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch Leucosticte tephrocotis B common
Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus R uncommon
Greater Scaup Aythya marila B common x
Greater White-fronted
goose Anser albifrons M uncommon
Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca B uncommon x
Green-winged Teal Anas crecca B fairly common
Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus R uncommon
Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus R uncommon
Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus B fairly common x
Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus B common
Herring Gull Larus argentatus M, S uncommon
X
x
Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus B uncommon x
Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris B common
Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus B abundant
Appendix B - Page 155
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 19 August 2013
English Name Scientific Name Status1
Relative
Abundance2
Salmon Predation3 Incubation Freshwater Rearing Spawning Carcass Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla B fairly common
Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis B common
x
Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes B, M fairly common
Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii B uncommon
Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus M uncommon
Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis B fairly common
Long-tailed Jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus B fairly common
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos B common x
Merlin Falco columbarius B uncommon
Mew Gull Larus canus B, S common x
Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus B uncommon
Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis B uncommon
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus B fairly common
Northern Hawk Owl Surnia ulula R uncommon
Northern Pintail Anas acuta B common
Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata B uncommon
x
Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor B uncommon
Northern Waterthrush Parkesia noveboracensis B fairly common
Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe B uncommon
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi B uncommon
Orange-crowned Warbler Oreothlypis celata B uncommon
Osprey Pandion haliaetus M rare
X x
Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica B uncommon
X
Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus M rare
Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos M uncommon
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus M unknown
Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator R uncommon
Pine Siskin Spinus pinus B uncommon
Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator B uncommon x X
Redhead Aythya americana M uncommon
Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena B uncommon
X
Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus B fairly common
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis B uncommon
Appendix B - Page 156
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 20 August 2013
English Name Scientific Name Status1
Relative
Abundance2
Salmon Predation3 Incubation Freshwater Rearing Spawning Carcass Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata B uncommon
X
Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris M rare
Rock Ptarmigan Lagopus muta R common
Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula B common
Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus R rare
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus B?, M, S uncommon
Sanderling Calidris alba M rare
Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis M uncommon
Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis B abundant
Say’s Phoebe Sayornis saya B uncommon
Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus B uncommon
Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla B, M uncommon
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus B uncommon
Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus B?, M, S uncommon
Smith’s Longspur Calcarius pictus B uncommon
Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis B fairly common
Snow Goose Chen caerulescens M uncommon
Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus M rare
Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria B uncommon
Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius B common
Spruce Grouse Falcipennis canadensis R fairly common
Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata B fairly common
Surfbird Aphriza virgata B rare
Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus B fairly common
Townsend’s Solitaire Myadestes townsendi B uncommon
Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor B fairly common
Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator B fairly common x x
Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus M uncommon x x
Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda B rare
Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius B common x
Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina B fairly common
Wandering Tattler Tringa incana B, M uncommon
Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus B rare
Appendix B - Page 157
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 21 August 2013
English Name Scientific Name Status1
Relative
Abundance2
Salmon Predation3 Incubation Freshwater Rearing Spawning Carcass Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus B uncommon
x
White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys B abundant
White-tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucura R uncommon
White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera B, S fairly common
White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca M fairly common
x
Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus R common
Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago delicata B common
Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla B common
Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia B rare
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius ? rare
Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata B common
Notes:
1 1 M = migrant (transient); B = breeding; S = summering; R = resident; ? = uncertain (Kessel et al. 1982; APA
1985: AEA PAD 2011 Appendices E5.3 and E6.3).
2 2 From Kessel et al. (1982) and APA (1985: AEA PAD 2011 Appendices E5.3 and E6.3).
3 3 predation of salmon by lifestage based on Cederholm et al. 2000; and birdlife.org. 2013; X: major predator, x:
lesser predator
Appendix B - Page 158
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 22 August 2013
Table B9-3. Mammalian species potentially occurring in the study area (from AEA PAD 2011 and ABR 2011 and
association with salmon predation by lifestage.
English Name Scientific Name
Predation1 Incubation Freshwater Rearing Spawning Carcass Alaska tiny shrew Sorex yukonicus
X
Arctic ground squirrel Spermophilus parryii
Beaver Castor canadensis
Black bear Ursus americanus
X X
Brown bear Ursus arctos
X X
Brown lemming Lemmus trimucronatus
Caribou Rangifer tarandus
Cinereus shrew Sorex cinereus
X
Collared pika Ochotona collaris
Coyote Canis latrans
X
Dall’s sheep Ovis dalli
Dusky shrew Sorex monticolus
X
Hoary marmot Marmota caligata
Least weasel Mustela nivalis
X
Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus
Lynx Lynx canadensis
Marten Martes americana
X
Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius
Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus
Mink Neovison vison
X X X
Moose Alces americanus
Mountain goat Oreamnos americanus
Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus
Northern bog lemming Synaptomys borealis
Northern red-backed vole Myodes rutilus
Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum
Pygmy shrew Sorex hoyi
Red fox Vulpes vulpes
X
Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
River otter Lontra canadensis
X X X
Root vole Microtus oeconomus
Short-tailed weasel Mustela erminea
X
Appendix B - Page 159
INFORMATION ITEM B9: PREDATION FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B9 - Page 23 August 2013
English Name Scientific Name
Predation1 Incubation Freshwater Rearing Spawning Carcass Singing vole Microtus miurus
Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus
Tundra shrew Sorex tundrensis
X
Water shrew Sorex palustris X X
X
Wolf Canis lupus
X X
Wolverine Gulo gulo
X
Notes:
1 1 predation of salmon by lifestage based on Cederholm et al. 2000
2 Sources: Kessel et al. (1982); APA (1985b: Appendix E7.3); MacDonald and Cook (2009); continental
modifiers of English names (e.g., North American river otter) have been dropped from this list.
Appendix B - Page 160
INFORMATION ITEM B10: ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 August 2013
INFORMATION ITEM B10. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Appendix B - Page 161
INFORMATION ITEM B10: ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B10 - Page 1 August 2013
1. INTRODUCTION
Understanding environmental conditions that influence fish behavior and movement and how
these conditions may be altered as a result of proposed Susitna-Watana Project operations is
essential to the development of sound fish passage concepts. Potential Project effects on ambient
environmental conditions that can affect fish behavior include changes in flow, temperature, and
turbidity/light penetration. In the sections that follow, relevant existing environmental
conditions within the Susitna River drainage are briefly summarized and then followed by a
bulleted list of literature-based information on how these conditions have the ability to influence
fish movement and behavior and to ultimately affect the success of a fish passage program.
2. FLOW CONDITIONS
2.1. Existing Conditions
Annual stream flow patterns in the Susitna River basin (20,010 square miles) are governed by the
relative timing and magnitude of glacier melt, snowmelt, and rainfall (Curran 2012). The
relative contribution of each of these sources to the total flow varies among streams as a result of
different subbasin characteristics (e.g., glacier cover). Nonetheless, annual stream flows in the
basin typically follow a seasonal pattern. The low-flow period occurs during winter (i.e.,
approximately November through April), when ice and snow conditions are predominate the
landscape. Breakup typically occurs in April or early May and coincides with an abrupt increase
in flow as a result of ice and snow melt. In streams that are dominated by snowmelt
contributions, peak flows typically occur between May and mid-June, although contributions
from snowmelt continue throughout the summer months. Peak discharges in streams dominated
by glacial melt typically occur later in the summer (e.g., July). After the glacial melt peak is
reached, flows generally begin to decline, but may still remain relatively high. In lower
elevation streams that are less driven by glacial melt, a second peak in flow may be observed in
response to fall rains. Using the gaging station on the Susitna River at Gold Creek as an index,
mean daily discharge for the Susitna River ranges from approximately 1,300 cubic feet per
second (cfs) in January to approximately 28,000 cfs in July (USGS Gage 15292000 data from
October 1, 1948 to September 30, 2011).
2.2. Effects on Fish Behavior and Movement
Seasonal stream flow patterns are known to play an important role in triggering fish
movement. See Information Item B4 for target species migratory characteristics.
Using random-effects meta-analyses, Taylor and Cooke (2012) assessed the effects of
flow magnitude on non-migratory fish movements, upstream migratory movements,
downstream migratory movements, and fine-scale activity. River discharge had a
positive and significant effect on non-migratory movement, and the magnitude of the
effect appeared to be greater for non-salmonid species compared to salmonids.
Discharge was also positively correlated with the rate, frequency, and probability of
upstream migratory movement. Discharge was not significantly related to downstream
Appendix B - Page 162
INFORMATION ITEM B10: ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B10 - Page 2 August 2013
migratory movements or fine-scale activity, possibly due to differences in fish species,
ambient stream conditions (e.g., temperature), season, habitat preferences, individual
variation, and energy trade-offs associated with swimming and prey availability.
In the Susitna River, Hale (1987, cited in Feist and Anderson 1991) found that the
outmigrations of Chinook and sockeye salmon peaked along with river flow and sediment
discharge peaks. However, separating the effects of increased turbidity from increased
flow can be difficult (Bell 1991).
Downstream migration rates have been directly related to flow velocities, since most
downstream migrants move passively during high flows associated with runoff and
snowmelt (Raymond 1968; Ruggles 1980 cited in Clarke et al. 2008; McCormick et al.
1998 cited in Clarke et al. 2008).
In a regulated system, when spring runoff and snowmelt are stored, natural seasonal
flows are reduced and can delay downstream migration (e.g., Raymond 1979 cited in
Clarke et al. 2008).
Flow regulation of tributaries to the Sacramento River has resulted in increased spring-
summer flows and decreased flows in the fall, winter, and early spring, which has
impeded Chinook salmon migration (Yoshiyama et al. 1998). Consequently, spawning
and outmigration have been delayed compared to pre-regulation conditions, and these
delays have contributed to the decline of Chinook salmon in the Central Valley Region
(Yoshiyama et al. 1998).
Spawning migration timing has been correlated with riverine conditions, particularly flow
and water temperature. For example, Keefer et al. (2008) found that spring Chinook
salmon migrations in the Columbia River occurred earliest in years with low river
discharge or warm water temperatures and latest in years with high discharge and colder
water temperatures.
Returning adults are attracted to high velocity flows. Delays in upstream migration can
result from “false attraction” flows associated with hydropower and fish passage
operations (Clarke et al. 2008). For adult salmonids in the Pacific Northwest, delays in
relation to tailrace attraction have been well documented and have been related to
reduced spawning success (e.g., Fleming and Reynolds 1991).
In an experimental study, Fleming and Reynolds (1991) used net pens to intentionally
delay adult Arctic grayling that were migrating upstream to spawn; fish were delayed for
3, 6, and 12 days. Compared to control group fish, which were held for only 12 hours,
adults that were delayed for three days or longer did not travel as far upstream to spawn.
The authors suggest that such delays in Arctic grayling spawning migrations may lead to
the use of non-preferred spawning habitat and ultimately decrease recruitment.
The swimming performance of fish is affected by flow, as well as other factors such as
species, fish size, temperature, stock, ecology/behavior, and physiological status (Feist
and Anderson 1991). See Information Item B6 for details.
Alterations in flow inherently change the amount and quality of habitat that is accessible
to fish. Fish exhibit preferences for habitats that are characterized by specific depth,
velocity, and substrate combinations. See Information Item B4 for target species
migratory characteristics.
Appendix B - Page 163
INFORMATION ITEM B10: ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B10 - Page 3 August 2013
Juvenile Chinook salmon are capable of detecting and responding to constant velocities
of less than 1 inch per second (Hanson and Jacobson 1985 cited in Feist and Anderson
1991).
With regard to fish passage systems, velocity may be used as a barrier or an attractant
(Bell 1991).
In clearwater systems, salmonid smolts have been reported to exhibit active swimming,
maneuvering, and avoidance of changes in water velocity and hydrostatic pressure (Seitz
et al. 2011). For example, in an assessment of fine-scale behavioral responses of Pacific
salmonid smolts to altering flows, Kemp et al. (2005) noted that smolts exhibited
behavioral choices for alternative flow conditions in open and constricted flume channels.
Most smolts passed through the open channel, yet after controlling for the effects of flow,
the rate at which smolts initially selected and subsequently rejected the constricted
channel was greater. The authors concluded that knowledge of how diversion structures
alter local hydraulic conditions and thus influence fish behavior is essential for successful
fish guidance. However, it is unknown if smolts exhibit similar behavioral responses in
turbid, high-velocity rivers (Seitz et al. 2011).
Low winter discharge can result in increased anchor ice, and if the anchor ice forms in
preferred winter habitats, it can result in fish displacement to less suitable habitats
(Brown et al. 1993). Surface ice can protect against the formation of anchor ice, but
warm water releases during the winter can impede surface ice formation (Lehmkuhl 1972
cited in Clarke et al. 2008).
Frazil ice, which could form from turbulent water releases in the winter, has been related
to respiratory complications in trout, and at high enough densities, can even cause
suffocation (Brown et al. 1993).
Changes in total dissolved gasses and hydrostatic pressure can occur as the result of flows
plunging over spillways. The height and angle of the spillway as well as the depth to
which the water plunges can produce supersaturated conditions that are lethal to fish.
Rapid temperature increases and high amounts of photosynthetic activity further
contribute to the likelihood that supersaturated conditions will result. Fish may develop
gas bubble disease as a result of supersaturated conditions. Acute and chronic symptoms
of this disease include stress-response behaviors, a loss of equilibrium, diminished
swimming ability, reduced growth, and loss of lateral line sensitivity. (Clarke et al. 2008)
3. TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS
3.1. Existing Conditions
Existing thermal conditions in the Susitna River and its tributaries are not currently well known
(Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Revised Study Plan Section 5.5). Available historic data
are not spatially or temporally continuous, thus limiting the ability to identify and describe
thermal regimes within the Susitna River drainage. In 2012, a continuous water quality
monitoring program was initiated, and additional monitoring will continue throughout 2013 and
2014. Although the temperature data set at this time is too small to draw conclusions regarding
Appendix B - Page 164
INFORMATION ITEM B10: ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B10 - Page 4 August 2013
the temperature profile of the river, data from 21 sites that were monitored from July through
October 2012 revealed that water temperatures in the mainstem river and its sloughs ranged from
approximately 0 to 18 ºC during this time period (URS Corporation and Tetra Tech Inc. 2013).
3.2. Effects on Fish Behavior and Movement
Spawning migration timing has been correlated with riverine conditions, particularly flow
and water temperature (e.g., Keefer et al. 2008). However, the degree to which
temperature may affect migration and spawn timing is species-specific and may be a
function of different life history strategies and optimal embryonic development and
juvenile rearing conditions (Quinn and Adams 1996).
Adversely warm temperature conditions may delay or obstruct the migration and
spawning of adult salmonids (Bell 1991; McCullough 1999).
Under adverse thermal conditions, adults may utilize thermal refugia in cooler tributaries
(e.g., Fish and Hanavan 1948 cited in McCullough 1999), areas of groundwater
upwelling (e.g., Berman and Quinn 1991 cited in McCullough 1999), or deep holding
pools (e.g., Moyle 1976 cited in McCullough 1999).
Torgersen et al. (1999) found that adult Chinook salmon distribution was positively
correlated with stream temperature patterns at reach-level spatial scales, although the
strength of this correlation was diminished in a cold water stream compared to a warmer
stream. At smaller spatial scales, habitat use patterns may be distinguishable provided
that local variation in water temperatures is large enough to elicit a biologically
significant response (e.g., Ebersole et al. 2001 cited in USEPA 2001).
Temperature has been found to be negatively correlated with juvenile salmonid densities
in both the field (e.g., Bjornn 1978 cited in McCullough 1999) and in the lab (Hahn 1977
cited in McCullough 1999). The temperature effect on density may occur through a
combination of survival effects, behavioral avoidance, and interspecific competition
(McCullough 1999).
In the Snake and Clearwater rivers, Connor et al. (2002) found statistically significant
correlations between stream temperature and juvenile fall Chinook salmon life history
characteristics (i.e., fry emergence, growth to parr size, and smolt emigration), and they
observed that the percentage of parr that overwintered in freshwater and outmigrated the
following spring increased when spring water temperatures decreased. The authors
hypothesized that dam construction and the subsequent flooding of historic spawning
habitat has altered the life history of this stock, by forcing adults to use cooler headwater
streams for spawning.
In an experiment to simulate the transport of fish from warm tributaries to cold tailwaters,
Clarkson and Childs (2000) found that a sudden decrease in water temperature from 20 to
10 ºC caused a loss of equilibrium in young life stages of sucker, chub, and squawfish.
Such losses of equilibrium could potentially increase mortality through involuntary drift.
Because fish have the ability to sense a temperature differential of approximately 0.3 ºC,
it is possible that they may avoid higher than optimal temperatures (Bell 1991).
However, there is no direct evidence suggesting that freshwater fish actively and
immediately avoid higher than optimal temperatures (Bell 1991). In some instances, it is
Appendix B - Page 165
INFORMATION ITEM B10: ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B10 - Page 5 August 2013
possible that brief forays into physiological stressful habitats may provide a net benefit
(e.g., food consumption, predator avoidance; USEPA 2001). Fish may remain in habitats
with temperatures near their upper tolerance limits for long periods of time before
moving to cooler waters, and acclimation to warmer water temperatures may be an
important factor in triggering a movement response (Bell 1991). Fish do not necessarily
move away from high temperature areas until temperatures are greater than their upper
tolerance levels (Bell 1991). Fish may seek cooler waters based on indirect factors (e.g.,
innate responses to conserving body fat) or other potentially unrelated factors (e.g., light
conditions, instream cover; Bell 1991). Alternatively, relatively warmer areas (e.g.,
upwellings) may be utilized during periods of critically low temperatures (Bell 1991).
Indirect effects associated with increased water temperatures (e.g., decreased dissolved
oxygen concentrations, habitat productivity/food availability, intraspecific competition)
may also elicit behavioral responses in fishes. Behavioral responses to limited oxygen
availability include changes in activity (e.g., ventilation frequency, feeding, less predator
avoidance), increased use of air breathing or aquatic surface respiration, and vertical or
horizontal habitat movements (Kramer 1987). Ambient temperature and dissolved
oxygen levels, among other factors such as fish length, species, and flow conditions, can
affect fish swimming ability (Bell 1991). Although the authors did not specifically
address temperature conditions, Näslund et al. (1993) found that some individuals of a
land-locked Arctic char population residing in an oligotrophic lake in Sweden migrated to
distant productive lake habitats for summer foraging when food conditions in the primary
lake were limited.
4. TURBIDITY/LIGHT CONDITIONS
4.1. Existing Conditions
The Susitna River is characterized by naturally occurring turbid waters, as a result of glacial
inputs. Available turbidity data for the Susitna River has been compiled from historic USGS
stations and the 1980s study program (Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Pre-Application
Document Appendix 4.4-1). As expected, turbidity measurements varied seasonally, with the
greatest turbidity measurements observed in the summer months. During the summer, maximum
turbidity measurement at each mainstem site ranged from 200 to 1,056 nephelometric turbidity
units (NTUs). Observed winter values ranged from 0 to 3 NTUs. Spring and fall measurements
were generally moderate to high and ranged from 0.01 to 590 NTUs. During the 2013 and 2014
Baseline Water Quality Study (Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Revised Study Plan
Section 5.5), turbidity will be monitored at several main channel and slough sites along the
length of the Susitna River.
Clear-water inputs (e.g., tributaries) to Susitna River have the ability to attenuate the turbidity of
mainstem waters. However, given the large width of the mainstem river, the spatial extent of
such attenuation is limited. Clear-water plumes from tributaries are typically limited to the
mainstem bank downstream of the tributary confluence, and the spatial extent of a clear-water
plume is expected to fluctuate with discharge, as well as natural changes in turbidity throughout
the seasons. Clear-water areas can also be found in slough and tributary habitats. Relative to the
mainstem, sloughs and tributaries may be less turbid, because they are fed by different source
Appendix B - Page 166
INFORMATION ITEM B10: ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B10 - Page 6 August 2013
flows (e.g., upwellings and non-glacial headwaters). In addition, the relatively low velocities of
slough habitats allow suspended sediments to settle out of the water column, thereby reducing
turbidity.
4.2. Effects on Fish Behavior and Movement
Overall, the effects of turbidity on fish behavior and movement are quite variable. This
variation appears to be related to differences in species, life stage, naturally occurring
turbidity levels, acclimation to altered conditions, the magnitude of turbidity
increases/exceedances, and other ambient conditions (Feist and Anderson 1991).
Some observed behavioral responses of fish to acutely altered turbidity conditions
include: 1. alarm-type responses (e.g., hiding in gravel, sporadic swimming); 2. decreased
reaction distance to prey, as observed in juvenile coho salmon (Berg and Northcote 1985
cited in Feist and Anderson 1991); 3. decreased use of overhead cover; 4. increased
activity; and 5. reduced substrate associations for brook trout and creek chubs (Gradall
and Swenson 1982 cited in Feist and Anderson 1991).
Juvenile salmonids typically avoid chronically turbid streams (Lloyd et al. 1987 cited in
Bjornn and Reiser 1991), except for migratory purposes.
Daily periods of outmigration for Pacific salmon have been found to be extended during
turbid water conditions (e.g., McDonald 1960 cited in Feist and Anderson 1991; Noggle
1978 cited in Feist and Anderson 1991; Bell 1991). In the Susitna River, Hale (1987,
cited in Feist and Anderson 1991) found that the outmigrations of Chinook and sockeye
salmon peaked along with river flow and sediment discharge peaks. However, the effects
of increased turbidity from increased flow were indistinguishable (Bell 1991).
The distribution of downstream migrants across a stream channel is typically non-
uniform with most fish located along the shoreline, although this pattern is likely to vary
among species. Shorelines naturally guide migrating fish, presumably because they
provide a visual reference. Other factors, such as light intensity, instream cover, and
velocity, may also be important in understanding why the lateral distribution of fish is
often greatest along the shoreline. (Bell 1991)
The vertical distribution of downstream migrants is typically characterized by a greater
number of fish in the top half of the water column, yet this distribution may be influenced
by light intensity and time of day as well as water temperature, fish size, and species
(Bell 1991).
Ephemerally high concentrations of suspended sediments, such as those associated with
storms and snow melt, appear to have little effect on larger juvenile and adult salmonids
(Cordone and Kelley 1961 cited in Bjornn and Reiser 1991; Sorenson et al. 1977 cited in
Bjornn and Reiser 1991). However, increased straying of adult fall Chinook and coho
salmon from the Toutle River was observed in response to extremely elevated sediment
concentrations as a result of the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens (Martin et al. 1984).
Breeser et al. (1988) studied burbot movement in the upper Tanana River, a glacial
tributary of the Yukon River. Radio-tagged burbot were most commonly detected in the
main river channel, even when peak summer flows resulted in increased turbidity.
Appendix B - Page 167
INFORMATION ITEM B10: ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B10 - Page 7 August 2013
Turbidity offers a measure of protection from piscivorous fish species (Bell 1991;
Gregory and Levings 1998). Gregory and Levings (1998) found that predation rates of
juvenile Chinook salmon were significantly less in the naturally turbid Fraser River (27-
108 NTU) than in the clear-water Harrison River (1 NTU).
Because fish often rely on visual cues for movement, turbidity can affect movement by
obscuring targets and other visual references (Bell 1991; Brett and Groot 1963).
Light levels, as well as other factors, play a role in the feeding, shelter seeking, and
movement patterns of fish (Feist and Anderson 1991). Fish respond to shadow and light
patterns and generally favor cover (Bell 1991), although specific responses to light and
shadow tend to vary by species, developmental stage, and adaptation to ambient light
levels (Feist and Anderson 1991).
Sensitivity to light was found to increase during smolting in both coho and sockeye
salmon, as evidenced by their seeking cover or deeper water (Hoar et al. 1957).
Both natural and artificial light conditions, among other factors such as velocity, channel
shape, depth, sound, odor, and temperature, play a role in fish guidance and passage at
dams and diversions (Bell 1991). Depending on ambient stream conditions and light
intensity, light can be used for fish guidance as both a deterrent and attractant (Bell
1991). Artificial lighting generally repels fish at higher intensities and attracts them at
lower intensities (Fields et al. 1958). The effectiveness of artificial lighting as a deterrent
may be diminished in more turbid water (Fields et al. 1958). During night time hours,
artificial lighting can reduce the hours of normal darkness and thus impede movement
(Bell 1991).
Appendix B - Page 168
INFORMATION ITEM B10: ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B10 - Page 8 August 2013
5. REFERENCES
Bell, M.C. 1991. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon.
Berg, L., and Northcote, T.G. 1985. Changes in territorial, gill-flaring, and feeding behavior in
juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) following short-term pulses of suspended
sediment. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42:1410-1417.
Berman, C.H. and T.P. Quinn. 1991. Behavioral thermoregulation and homing by spring
chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum), in the Yakima River. J. Fish
Biology 39:301-312.
Bjornn, T.C. 1978. Survival, production, and yield of trout and chinook salmon in the Lemhi
River, Idaho. Idaho Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, College of Forestry, Wildlife
and Range Sciences, University of Idaho. Bull. 27. 57 pp.
Bjornn, T.C., and Reiser, D.W. 1991. Habitat requirements of anadromous salmonids. In:
Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats.
Am. Fish. Soc. Special Publ. 19: 83-138.
Breeser, S.W., Stearns, F.D., Smith, M.W., West, R.L., and Reynolds, J.B. 1988. Observations
of movements and habitat preferences of burbot in an Alaskan glacial river system.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117: 506-509.
Brett, J.R., and Groot, C. 1963. Some aspects of olfactory and visual responses in Pacific
salmon. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 20: 287-303.
Brown, R.S., Stanislawski, S.S., and Mackay, W.C. 1993. Effects of frazil ice on fish. In:
Proceedings of the Workshop on Environmental Aspects of River Ice. Edited by T.D.
Prowse. National Hydrology Research Institute, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. NHRI
Symposium Series No. 12. pp. 261-278.
Clarke, K.D., Pratt, T.C., Randall, R.G., Scruton, D.A., and Smokorowski, K.E. 2008.
Validation of the flow management pathway: effects of altered flow on fish habitat and
fishes downstream from a hydropower dam. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 2784.
Clarkson, R.W., and Childs, M.R. 2000. Temperature effects of hypolimnial-release dams on
early life stages of Colorado River Basin big-river fishes. Copeia 2000: 402-412.
Connor, W.P., Marshall, A.R., Waitt, R., and Bjornn, T.C. 2002. Juvenile life history of wild
fall Chinook salmon in the Snake and Clearwater Rivers. N. Am. J. Fish. Mgmt. 22: 703-
712.
Cordone, A.J., and Kelley, D.W. 1961. The influences of inorganic sediment on the aquatic life
of streams. Reprint from California Fish and Game. Vol. 47, No. 2. California
Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. Sacramento, CA. 41 pp.
Curran, J.H. 2012. Streamflow record extension for selected streams in the Susitna River Basin,
Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5210, 36 p.
Appendix B - Page 169
INFORMATION ITEM B10: ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B10 - Page 9 August 2013
Ebersole, J.L., Liss, W.J. and Frissell, C.A. 2001. Relationship between stream temperature,
thermal refugia and rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss abundance in arid-land streams
in the northwestern United States. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 10: 1–10.
Feist, B.E., and Anderson, J.J. 1991. Review of fish behavior relevant to fish guidance systems.
Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington, FRI-UW-9102.
Fields, P E., Murray, A.K., Johnson, D.E., and Finger, G.L. 1958. Guiding migrant salmon by
light repulsion and attraction in fast and turbid water. University of Washington, College
of Fisheries, Technical Reports 86 and 41.
Fish, F.F., and Hanavan, M.G. 1948. A report upon the Grand Coulee fish-maintenance project
1939-1947. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Science Report 55. 63 p.
Fleming, D.F., and Reynolds, J.B. 1991. Effects of spawning-run delay on spawning migration
of Arctic grayling. In Fisheries Bioengineering Symposium. Edited by J. Colt and R.J.
White. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 10: 299-305.
Gradall, K.S., and Swenson, W.A. 1982. Responses of brook trout and creek chubs to turbidity.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 111:392-95.
Gregory, R.S., and Levings, C.D. 1998. Turbidity reduces predation on migrating juvenile
Pacific salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127: 275-285.
Hahn, P.K.J. 1977. Effects of fluctuating and constant temperatures on behavior of steelhead
trout (Salmo gairdneri). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Idaho. 142 p.
Hale, S.S. 1987. Time-series analysis of discharge, turbidity, and juvenile salmon outmigration
in the Susitna River, Alaska. International Symposium on Common Strategies of
Anadromous and Catadromous Fishes Boston, MA (USA) 9-13 Mar 1986. Am. Fish.
Soc. Symp.
Hanson, C.H., and Jacobson, E. 1985. Orientation of juvenile chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha and bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus, to low water velocities under high and
low light levels. Calif. Fish Game. 71: 110-113.
Hoar, W.S., Keenleyside, M.H.A., and Goodall, R.G. 1957. Reactions of juvenile Pacific
salmon to light. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 14: 815-830.
Keefer, M.L., Peery, C.A., and Caudill, C.C. 2008. Migration timing of Columbia River spring
Chinook salmon: effects of temperature, river discharge, and ocean environment.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137: 1120–1133.
Kemp, P.S., Gessel, M.H., Williams, J.G. 2005. Fine-scale behavioral responses of Pacific
salmonid smolts as they encounter divergence and acceleration of flow. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society 134:390–398.
Kramer, D.L. 1987. Dissolved oxygen and fish behavior. Environmental Biology of Fishes 18:
81-92.
Lehmkuhl, D.M. 1972. Changes in thermal regime as a cause of reduction in benthic fauna
downstream of a reservoir. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 29: 1329-1332.
Lloyd, D.S., Koenings, J.P., and LaPerriere, J.D. 1987. Effects of turbidity in fresh waters of
Alaska. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:18-33.
Appendix B - Page 170
INFORMATION ITEM B10: ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B10 - Page 10 August 2013
Martin, D.J., Wasserman, L.J., Jones, R.P., and Salo, E.O. 1984. Effects of the Mount St.
Helens Eruption on Salmon Populations and Habitat in the Toutle River. FRI-UW-8412.
Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
McCormick, S.D., Hansen, L.P., Quinn, T.P. and Saunders, R.L. 1998. Movement, migration,
and smelting of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55 suppl. 1: 77-
92.
McCullough, D.A. 1999. A review and synthesis of effects of alteration to the water
temperature regime on freshwater life stages of salmonids, with special reference to
chinook salmon. Document 910-R-99010, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
McDonald, J. 1960. The behaviour of Pacific salmon fry during their downstream migration to
freshwater and saltwater nursery areas. Fish. Res. Board Can. 17: 655-676.
Moyle, P.B. 1976. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press. Berkeley,
California. 405 p.
Näslund, I., Milbrink, G., Eriksson, L.O., and Holmgren, S. 1993. Importance of habitat
productivity differences, competition and predation for the migratory behaviour of Arctic
charr. Oikos 66: 538-546.
Noggle, C. 1978. Behavioral, physiological and lethal effects of suspended sediment on
juvenile salmonids. M.S. thesis, Univ. Washington, Seattle. 87 p.
Quinn, T.P., and Adams, D.J. 1996. Environmental changes affecting the migratory timing of
American shad and sockeye salmon. Ecology 77:1151–1162.
Raymond, H.L. 1968. Migration rates of yearling Chinook salmon in the relation to flows and
impoundments in the Columbia and Snake rivers. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 97: 359-356.
Raymond, H.L. 1979. Effects of dams and impoundments on migrations of juvenile Chinook
salmon and steelhead from the Snake River, 1966 to 1975. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 108:
505-529.
Ruggles, C.P. 1980. A review of the downstream migration of Atlantic salmon. Canadian
Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 952.
Seitz, A.C., Moerlein, K., Evans, M.D., Rosenberger, A.E. 2011. Ecology of fishes in a high-
latitude, turbid river with implications for the impacts of hydrokinetic devices. Reviews
in Fish Biology and Fisheries DOI 10.1007/s11160-011-9200-3.
Sorenson, D.L., McCarthy, M.M., Middle-Brooks, E.J., and Porcella, D.B. 1977. Suspended
and dissolved solids effects on freshwater biota: a review. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Report 600/3-77-042. Environmental Research Laboratory.
Corvallis, Oregon.
Torgersen, C.E., Price, D.M., Li, H.W., and McIntosh, B.A. 1999. Multiscale thermal refugia
and stream habitat associations of Chinook salmon in northeastern Oregon. Ecological
Applications 9:301–319.
Taylor, M.K., and Cooke, S.J. 2012. Meta-analyses of the effects of river flow on fish
movement and activity. Environmental Reviews 20: 211-219.
Appendix B - Page 171
INFORMATION ITEM B10: ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B10 - Page 11 August 2013
URS Corporation, and Tetra Tech Inc. 2013. 2012 Susitna River Water Temperature and
Meteorological Field Study. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority. Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 14241).
USEPA. 2001. Issue Paper 1: Salmonid Behavior and Water Temperature, Prepared as Part of
EPA Region 10 Temperature Water Quality Criteria Guidance Development Project.
EPA-910-D-01-001, May 2001, OW-2003-0068-0026.
Yoshiyama, R.M., Fisher, F.W., and Moyle, P.B. 1998. Historical abundance and decline of
Chinook salmon in the Central Valley Region of California. N. Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt. 18:
487-521.
Appendix B - Page 172
INFORMATION ITEM B11: BIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE TOOL FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 August 2013
INFORMATION ITEM B11. BIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE TOOL
Appendix B - Page 173
INFORMATION ITEM B11: BIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE TOOL FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B11 - Page 1 August 2013
1. BIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE TOOL
An important component of the Study of Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam is the
development of a biological performance tool that can be used to qualitatively estimate potential
passage outcomes for different fish passage alternatives identified, developed, and refined as the
feasibility study progresses. The feasibility of providing fish passage will be dependent on a
suite of biological, hydrologic, and engineering factors to be considered collectively for a given
passage alternative. The biological performance tool will provide a means of integrating these
various factors to estimate likely passage outcomes for each alternative in terms of passage
success.
Factors that will likely be incorporated into the biological performance tool include:
1.1. Biological Factors
multiple target species
relevant life stages
life stage periodicity
passage behavior (e.g., flow-related migration)
reservoir survival
dam passage survival (e.g., turbine, spill, or passage facility survival)
1.2. Hydrologic Factors
daily inflow
various water-year types
1.3. Engineering Factors
project operations
passage facility alternatives
expected performance of specific facility alternatives (e.g., collection efficiency or
percent passage)
Specific to downstream passage, the biological performance tool will be developed based on the
following assumptions:
Up to 5 species
Up to 3 lifestages (smolts, fingerlings, fry)
Flow conditions based on daily inflow
Model output for 5 different flow years (high, med-high, medium, med-low, low)
Appendix B - Page 174
INFORMATION ITEM B11: BIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE TOOL FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B11 - Page 2 August 2013
4 discrete downstream passage alternatives, including provisions for turbine/spill survival
(e.g., tributary collector, upper reservoir collector, lower reservoir floating surface
collector, conventional screens)
The Clackamas River Downstream Migrant Mortality Model developed for a multi-dam
hydroelectric project on the Clackamas River, Oregon provides an example of a downstream
module that would be included in the biological performance tool. The Clackamas model is a
daily simulation model that routes water and fish through various flow routes in the system.
There are several potential routes at each dam facility, and the flow is first apportioned to the
bypass, then to the turbine and finally to the spillway. The model incorporates user specified
periodicity to account for the fish migration distribution during different periods in a year. The
model also incorporates a “flow response factor” to adjust the rate of migration as a function of
river flow; higher rates of migration can be assigned to higher flow periods if deemed
appropriate for a given species. The model also provides for a mechanism to alter the percentage
of fish that pass via various routes in a facility as a function of river flow. Thus, when river
flows are high, the model can simulate more fish passing over the spillway. Along each potential
route, the model utilizes user-specified route-specific mortality rates to account for the route
passage condition. Example model input/output interfaces are shown in Figures B11-1 through
B11-4. While the Clackamas model is more complex than the Susitna-Watana Project because it
includes multiple dams, it illustrates conceptually the modeling approach proposed.
In addition to a downstream passage module, as described above, the biological performance tool
can include module(s) to address specific upstream passage issues. Examples of challenging
issues that can be addressed with this tool include volitional passage versus collection and
transport and options to sort species and stocks. This module will be developed to address
specific upstream passage concerns.
The biological performance tool will provide output with which to compare various passage
scenarios. In addition, the biological performance tool will include a user interface that will
allow for “real-time gaming” in which input parameters and scenarios can be readily modified.
The intent of providing such an interface is to allow for discussion-based modifications to the
model in support of the workshop approach of the feasibility study.
While the biological performance tool can provide estimates of expected passage outcomes, the
considerable uncertainty related to post-project conditions (including fish behavior and
migration, community structure, and population levels) will limit the accuracy of any estimates
of future passage performance. Nonetheless, the biological performance tool will provide a
relative means to compare the performance of different scenarios for evaluating fish passage
feasibility.
Appendix B - Page 175
INFORMATION ITEM B11: BIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE TOOL FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B11 - Page 3 August 2013
2. FIGURES
Appendix B - Page 176
INFORMATION ITEM B11: BIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE TOOL FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B11 - Page 4 August 2013 Figure B11-1. Main startup screen of the Clackamas River Downstream Migrant Mortality Model. Appendix B - Page 177
INFORMATION ITEM B11: BIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE TOOL FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B11 - Page 5 August 2013 Figure B11-2. Assignment of flow percentage in the Clackamas River Downstream Migrant Mortality Model. Appendix B - Page 178
INFORMATION ITEM B11: BIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE TOOL FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B11 - Page 6 August 2013 Figure B11-3. Assignment of mortality rates for different migration paths in the Clackamas River Downstream Migrant Mortality Model. Appendix B - Page 179
INFORMATION ITEM B11: BIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE TOOL FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Information Item B11 - Page 7 August 2013 Figure B11-4. Mortality statistics from the Clackamas River Downstream Migrant Mortality Model. Appendix B - Page 180
INFORMATION ITEM B17: SUMMARY TABLES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS DRAFT: Preliminary Version for September 2013 Site Visit Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 August 2013 Page 1 of 4 Table 1. Upstream Passage Sorting Requirements and Design Data by Fish Species. Species Information Release Destination – TankA Design Data Run TimingB Species Documented Distribution Life History Life StageF Down-River Below Dam Reservoir Above Dam Upstream Tributaries Head of Reservoir Cull Length Range (cm) Body Width Range (cm) Fish Design Length (cm) Fish Design Weight (lbs) Design Peak Daily (no.) J F M A M J J A S O N D Anadromous Freshwater Unknown Arctic grayling U, M, L X A 21-42J NAI 35K NAI <100D - - - - - - Arctic lamprey M, L X X A 8-32L NAI 20K NAI <100D - - - Bering cisco M, L X A 24-41M NAI 33K NAI <100D - - - Burbot U, M, L X A 26-74N NAI 48K NAI <100D - - - - - - - - Chinook salmon U, M, L X A 55-125O NAI 71H 16.7G 293C X X - Chum salmon M, L X A 55-80O NAI 67H 7.7G 934C - X - - Coho salmon M, L X A 45-70O NAI 55H 6.1G 488C - X - - Dolly Varden U, M, L X X A 12-37P NAI 25K NAI <100D - - - - - - Humpback Whitefish U, M, L X X A 23-35Q NAI 29K NAI <100D - X - - - Longnose sucker U, M, L X A 29-67R NAI 40L NAI <100D X X Rainbow trout/steelhead M, L X X A 16-62S NAI 39K NAI <100D - - - - Round Whitefish U, M, L X A 32-44T NAI 37K NAI <100D - - - - Sockeye salmon M, L X A 45-75O NAI 54H 6.5G 15,826C X X - - Other (i.e. invasive/non-native spp.) LE X X A, J NAI NAI NAI NAI <100D NAI Appendix B - Page 181
INFORMATION ITEM B17: SUMMARY TABLES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS DRAFT: Preliminary Version for September 2013 Site Visit Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 August 2013 Page 2 of 4 Table 1 Notes: A Potential destinations provided here have been selected for discussion purposes only and are likely to change during TWG sessions and as management objectives develop. B “X” denotes peak run-timing; “-“ denotes the remaining run timing interval. For some species, periods of peak run-timing could not be discerned from available information. C Calculated as 10% of total Upper River adult production potential reported by Barrick et al. (1983). For comparison, maximum daily catch by species at Curry fishwheels comprised 10.7% (Chinook), 10.4% (chum), 8.0% (coho), and 7.6% (sockeye) of total catch in 2012 (LGL 2013). D For species that do not exhibit an obligate anadromous life history, are not abundant, or for which information is lacking to estimate potential numbers that would utilize passage facilities, “<100” was selected as an initial estimate. These values are subject to refinement during TWG sessions. E Northern pike have been documented in the Lower River and their suspected distribution extends to tributaries up to the Three Rivers (Ivey 2009). The distribution of Alaska blackfish is unknown in the Susitna River basin (AEA 2012, USFWS 2008). F “A” denotes adult; “J” denotes juvenile. G Reflect fish weights used by Barrick et al. (1983) to estimate Upper River production potential; based on the average size of commercially-harvested Susitna River fish. H Reflect average FL from 2012 Curry fishweel captures (LGL 2013). I “NA” indicates no available information or pending review. J Length (FL) range of Arctic grayling age-4+ and older captured upstream of Devils Canyon during 1981-1982 (Delaney et al. 1981, Sautner and Stratton 1983) K Midpoint of referenced length range. L Length range of Arctic lamprey captured in the Susitna River during 1981-1982 (Schmidt et al. 1983). Neither life stages nor length-at-age information were provided; thus, this length range likely includes juveniles. M Length range of age-3+ to age-6+ Bering cisco captured in the Susitna River during 1981-1982 (ADF&G 1981, 1983). N Length range of age-3+ to age-10+ burbot captured upstream of Devils Canyon during 1981-1982 (Delaney et al. 1981, Sautner and Stratton 1982). O Length range from 2012 Curry fishwheel captures (note, based on 5-cm bin sizes) (LGL 2013) P Upstream of Devils Canyon, HDR (2012) captured Dolly Varden ranging from 2.6 to 36.6 cm FL using methods more likely to catch juveniles, whereas Sautner and Stratton (1983) captured Dolly Varden ranging from 12.0 to 20.5 cm FL primarily by angling. Thus, 12 cm was selected as the lower adult length range. Q Length range of humpback whitefish captured upstream of Devils Canyon by HDR (2013) and Delaney et al. (1981). R Length range of longnose sucker age-4+ and older captured upstream of Devils Canyon during 1981-1982 (Delaney et al. 1981, Sautner and Stratton 1982). S Length range of rainbow trout age-3+ and older captured in the Middle River during 1981-1983 (Delaney et al. 1981, Schmidt et al. 1983, 1984). T Length range of round whitefish age-6+ and older captured upstream of Devils Canyon during 1981 (Delaney et al. 1981). Appendix B - Page 182
INFORMATION ITEM B17: SUMMARY TABLES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS DRAFT: Preliminary Version for September 2013 Site Visit Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 August 2013 Page 3 of 4 Table 2. Downstream Passage Sorting Requirements and Design Data by Fish Species. Species Information Collection LocationA Release LocationA Design Data Run TimingD Species Documented Distribution Life History Life StageF Tributary Collector Collector at Dam Below Dam Reservoir Tributaries Cull Length Range (cm) Body Width Range (cm) Fish Design Length (cm) Fish Design Weight (lbs) Design Peak Daily (no.) J F M A M J J A S O N D Anadromous Freshwater Unknown Arctic grayling U, M, L X A, J 12-42I NAH 27J NAH <100C - X - Arctic lamprey M, L X X J 8-32K NAH 20J NAH <100C - - - - Bering cisco M, L X AM, J 24-41L NAH 33J NAH <100C - - - Burbot U, M, L X A, J 9-74Q NAH 42J NAH <100C X X - - Chinook salmon U, M, L X J 4-12R NAH 8J 0.01G 9,770B - - - X X X X - Chum salmon M, L X J 3-7S NAH 5J 0.0008G 93,420B X X - - Coho salmon M, L X J 3-17T NAH 10J 0.02G 4,885B - - - - X X X X - - Dolly Varden U, M, L X X A 12-37O NAH 25J NAH <100C - - Humpback Whitefish U, M, L X X AN, J 3-35V NAH 19J NAH <100C - X X - - Lake trout U X A, J NAI NAH NAI NAH <100C NAH Longnose sucker U, M, L X A, J 2-67X NAH 35J NAH <100C X - X X Rainbow trout/steelhead M, L X X A 16-62P NAH 39J NAH <100C X - - X X - X Round Whitefish U, M, L X AN, J 2-44W NAH 23J NAH <100C - X X - - Sockeye salmon M, L X J 3-9U NAH 6J 0.017G 158,260B - X X X - - Other (i.e. invasive/non-native spp.) LE X X A, J NAH NAH NAH NAH <100C NAH Appendix B - Page 183
INFORMATION ITEM B17: SUMMARY TABLES FISH PASSAGE INFORMATION NEEDS DRAFT: Preliminary Version for September 2013 Site Visit Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 August 2013 Page 4 of 4 Table 2 Notes: A Potential collection and release locations provided here have been selected for discussion purposes only and are likely to change during TWG sessions and as management objectives develop. B Calculated as 10% of total Upper River smolt production potential reported by Barrick et al. (1983). C For species that do not exhibit an obligate anadromous life history, are not abundant, or for which information is lacking to estimate potential numbers that would utilize passage facilities, “<100” was selected as an initial estimate. These values are subject to refinement during TWG sessions. D “X” denotes peak run-timing; “-“ denotes the remaining run timing interval. For some species, periods of peak run-timing could not be discerned from available information. E Northern pike have been documented in the Lower River and their suspected distribution extends to tributaries up to the Three Rivers (Ivey 2009). The distribution of Alaska blackfish is unknown in the Susitna River basin (AEA 2012, USFWS 2008). F “A” denotes adult; “J” denotes juvenile. G Reflect fish weights used by Barrick et al. (1983) to estimate Upper River production potential. H “NA” indicates no available information or pending review. I Length (FL) range of Arctic grayling age-1+ and older captured upstream of Devils Canyon during 1981-1982 (Delaney et al. 1981, Sautner and Stratton 1983) J Midpoint of referenced length range. K Length range of Arctic lamprey captured in the Susitna River during 1981-1982 (Schmidt et al. 1983). Neither life stages nor length-at-age information were provided; thus, this length range likely includes juveniles and adults. Adults die after spawning (Scott and Crossman 1973). L Length range of age-3+ to age-6+ Bering cisco captured in the Susitna River during 1981-1982 (ADF&G 1981, 1983). No lengths of Bering cisco younger than age-3+ were reported. M The timing of post-spawn Bering cisco downstream migrations are unknown; in 1982, no adults were captured during winter sampling or sampling methods other than fishwheel traps (Schmidt et al. 1983). N The timing of post-spawn humpback and round whitefish downstream migrations are unknown; overwinter habitat use is unknown due to low winter capture rates (Schmidt et al. 1983, Sundet and Pechek 1985). O Upstream of Devils Canyon, HDR (2012) captured Dolly Varden ranging from 2.6 to 36.6 cm FL using methods more likely to catch juveniles, whereas Sautner and Stratton (1983) captured Dolly Varden ranging from 12.0 to 20.5 cm FL primarily by angling. Thus, 12 cm was selected as the lower adult length range. P Length range of rainbow trout age-3+ [earliest age of sexual maturity (Morrow 1980)] and older captured in the Middle River during 1981-1983 (Delaney et al. 1981, Schmidt et al. 1983, 1984). Q Length range of age-0+ to age-10+ burbot captured upstream and downstream of Devils Canyon during 1981-1982 (ADF&G 1981, Delaney et al. 1981, Sautner and Stratton 1982). R Combined length range of age-0+ (3.6-9.5 cm) and age-1+ (6.1-11.7 cm) Chinook salmon captured at the Talkeetna Station outmigrant trap in 1984 (Roth and Stratton 1985). S Length range of age-0+ chum salmon captured in the Talkeetna Station outmigrant trap in 1984 (Roth and Stratton 1985). T Combined length range of age-0+ (2.8-8.7 cm) and age-1+ (5.1-15.0 cm) coho salmon captured at the Talkeetna Station outmigrant trap and age-2+ (10.9-17.4 cm) captured throughout the Susitna River in 1985 (Roth et al. 1986). U Combined length range of age-0+ (2.5-9.1 cm) and age-1+ (5.6-10.2 cm) sockeye salmon captured at the Talkeetna Station outmigrant trap in 1984 (Roth and Stratton 1985). V Minimum length reflects the smallest humpback whitefish captured in juvenile outmigrant traps in 1983 (Sundet and Wenger 1984), while maximum length reflects the largest adult captured upstream of Devils Canyon in 1981 (Delaney et al. 1981). W Minimum length reflects the smallest round whitefish captured in juvenile outmigrant traps in 1983 (Sundet and Wenger 1984), while maximum length reflects the largest adult captured upstream of Devils Canyon in 1981 (Delaney et al. 1981). X Minimum length reflects the smallest longnose sucker captured in juvenile outmigrant traps in 1983 (Sundet and Wenger 1984), while maximum length reflects the largest adult captured upstream of Devils Canyon during 1981-1982 (Delaney et al. 1981, Sautner and Stratton 1982). Appendix B - Page 184
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 February 2014 Draft
APPENDIX C: PHYSICAL, HYDROLOGICAL, AND ENGINEERING
INFORMATION
[See separate file for appendix.]
INITIAL STUDY REPORT STUDY OF FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 February 2014 Draft
APPENDIX D: DETAILED SCHEDULE UPDATED JULY 10, 2013
[See separate file for appendix.]