HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa267Alaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
SuWa 267
Study of fish passage barriers in the middle and upper Susitna River and
Susitna tributaries (Study 9.12), fish passage criteria technical
memorandum
Author(s) – Personal:
Author(s) – Corporate:
R2 Resource Consultants, Inc.
AEA-identified category, if specified:
November 14, 2014 technical memorandum filings
AEA-identified series, if specified:
Series (ARLIS-assigned report number): Existing numbers on document:
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 267
Published by: Date published:
[Anchorage, Alaska : Alaska Energy Authority, 2014] November 2014
Published for: Date or date range of report: Alaska Energy Authority
Volume and/or Part numbers:
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Attachment M
Document type: Pagination:
Technical memorandum iii, 12, 5, 40 p.
Related work(s): Pages added/changed by ARLIS:
Cover letter to this report: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project, FERC Project no. 14241-000; Filing of Initial Study Plan
Meetings transcripts and additional information in response to
October 2014 Initial Study Plan Meetings. (SuWa 254)
Attachments A-L (SuWa 255-256) and N (SuWa 268)
Added cover letter (4 pages)
Notes:
All reports in the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document series include an ARLIS-
produced cover page and an ARLIS-assigned number for uniformity and citability. All reports
are posted online at http://www.arlis.org/resources/susitna-watana/
November 14, 2014
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose
Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426
Re: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, Project No. 14241-000
Filing of Initial Study Plan Meetings Transcripts and Additional Information in
Response to October 2014 Initial Study Plan Meetings
Dear Secretary Bose:
By letter dated January 28, 2014, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) modified the procedural schedule for the preparation and review
of the Initial Study Report (ISR) for the proposed Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project,
FERC Project No. 14241 (Project).1 As required by the Commission’s January 28 letter,
the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) filed the ISR with the Commission on June 3, 2014
and conducted ISR meetings on October 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 23, 2014. Attached as
Attachments A-1 through F-2 are the written transcripts (along with the agenda and
PowerPoint presentations) for these ISR meetings.
During the October ISR meetings, AEA and licensing participants identified
certain technical memoranda and other information that AEA would file with the
Commission by November 15, 2014. In accordance, AEA is filing and distributing the
following technical memoranda and other information:
• Attachment G: Glacier and Runoff Changes (Study 7.7) and Fluvial
Geomorphology (Study 6.5) - Assessment of the Potential for Changes in
Sediment Delivery to Watana Reservoir Due to Glacial Surges Technical
Memorandum. This technical memorandum documents AEA’s analysis of the
potential changes to sediment delivery from the upper Susitna watershed into
the Project’s reservoir from glacial surges.
• Attachment H: Riparian Instream Flow (Study 8.6) and Fluvial
Geomorphology (Study 6.6) - Dam Effects on Downstream Channel and
Floodplain Geomorphology and Riparian Plant Communities and Ecosystems
− Literature Review Technical Memorandum. This literature review technical
1 Letter from Jeff Wright, FERC Office of Energy Projects, to Wayne Dyok, Alaska Energy Authority,
Project No. 14241-000 (issued Jan. 28, 2014).
2
memorandum synthesizes historic physical and biologic data for the Susitna
River floodplain vegetation (including 1980s studies), studies of hydro project
impacts on downstream floodplain plant communities, and studies of un-
impacted floodplain plant community successional processes.
• Attachment I: Susitna River Fish Distribution and Abundance Implementation
Plan, Appendix 3. Protocol for Site-Specific Gear Type Selection, Version 5.
In accordance with the fish distribution and abundance studies, as described in
Revised Study Plan (RSP) Sections 9.5 and 9.6 and in the Fish Distribution
and Abundance Implementation Plan, this appendix establishes the protocol
for site-specific gear type selection for fish surveys. Throughout study plan
implementation, AEA has updated this appendix as needed to provide
consistent direction to all field teams. Version 1 of Appendix 3 was originally
filed with the Fish Distribution and Abundance Implementation Plan in March
2013. That version was updated twice (Versions 2 and 3) during the 2013
field season to accommodate protocol changes that related to FERC’s April 1,
2013 Study Plan Determination, field permits, and lessons learned during
study implementation. Version 4 was the protocol used for the 2014 field
season and was updated with respect to the prioritization of gear use and
based on 2013 data collected. This version herein, Version 5, will be followed
during the 2015 field season.
• Attachment J: Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper and
Middle/Lower Susitna River (Studies 9.5 and 9.6): Draft Chinook and Coho
Salmon Identification Protocol. This document established a Chinook and
coho salmon identification protocol to support accurate and consistent field
identification across field teams. It will allow for additional quality control
and assurance of field identification calls and for estimation and reporting of
any field identification error that may occur in future sampling efforts.
• Attachment K: Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats (9.9),
Errata to Initial Study Report Part A - Appendix A, Remote Line Mapping,
2012. This errata provides a corrected version of map book for Remote Line
Mapping, 2012. The version filed with the ISR (June 3, 2014) used a data
query to build the maps in geomorphic reaches MR-1 to UR-5 that mistakenly
did not include side slough habitat, so that no side sloughs were depicted on
the Appendix A maps 1 through 21. This version was corrected by including
side slough habitat in the data query for geomorphic reaches MR-1 to UR-5.
This version now includes side sloughs.
• Attachment L: Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study 9.9,
Revised Map Book for 2012 Remote Line Mapping. This map book represents
an update to the version published on June 3, 2014 with the Study 9.9 Initial
Study Report and the errata provided concurrently with this filing (see
Attachment K). The maps presented include all macrohabitat and mesohabitat
line identifications available in the 2012 Remote Line Mapping ArcGIS
3
shapefile. This map book should be considered a full replacement for
previous versions and represents the final product for the 2012 remote line
habitat mapping effort.
• Attachment M: Study of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and Upper
Susitna River and Susitna Tributaries (Study 9.12), Fish Passage Criteria
Technical Memorandum. This technical memorandum presents a proposed
final list of fish species that will be included in the fish barrier analysis as well
as depth, leaping and velocity passage criteria for selected fish species. AEA
previously consulted with the federal agencies and other licensing participants
regarding the information within the technical memorandum during a March
19, 2014 Fisheries Technical Meeting.
In addition to the technical memoranda and other information identified above,
AEA is filing a short errata (Attachment N) to the Mercury Assessment and Potential for
Bioaccumulation Study (Study 5.7), Evaluation of Continued Mercury Monitoring
Beyond 2014 Technical Memorandum. This technical memorandum, which was
originally filed on September 30, 2014, evaluates the need for continued monitoring of
mercury data beyond 2014 and whether the existing data collection efforts are sufficient
to satisfy objectives for characterizing baseline mercury conditions in the Susitna River
and tributaries (RSP Section 5.7.1). Since the filing of this TM and based upon the
ongoing QA/QC of the data reported in that TM, AEA discovered errors in the TM. The
attached TM corrects those errors. Additionally, the errata corrects corresponding errors
in the Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation presentation presented
during the October 16, 2014 ISR meeting.
Finally, AEA notes that data collected during the Study Plan implementation, to the
extent they have been verified through AEA’s quality assurance and quality control (QAQC)
procedures and are publicly available, can be accessed at http://gis.suhydro.org/isr_mtg. On
November 14, 2014, AEA posted the following data to this website:
• Baseline Water Quality Data (Study 5.5), 2013 QAQC water quality data
and DVRs per the Quality Assurance Project Plan.
• Breeding Survey Study of Landbirds and Shorebirds (Study 10.16),
cumulative 2013-2014 data.
• Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats (Study 9.9), ArcGIS
shapefile “ISR_9_9_AQHAB_RemoteLineMapping_2012.shp” used to
generate the maps in Attachment L.
4
AEA appreciates the opportunity to provide this additional information to the
Commission and licensing participants, which it believes will be helpful in determining
the appropriate development of the 2015 study plan as set forth in the ISR. If you have
questions concerning this submission please contact me at wdyok@aidea.org or (907)
771-3955.
Sincerely,
Wayne Dyok
Project Manager
Alaska Energy Authority
Attachments
cc: Distribution List (w/o Attachments)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
(FERC No. 14241)
Study of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and
Upper Susitna River and Susitna Tributaries
(Study 9.12)
Fish Passage Criteria
Technical Memorandum
Prepared for
Alaska Energy Authority
Prepared by
R2 Resource Consultants, Inc.
November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1
2. Fish species and passage criteria selection .......................................................................... 1
2.1. Fish Species Selection .................................................................................................... 1
2.2. Passage Criteria for the Selected Fish Species ............................................................... 1
2.2.1. Depth Criteria for Adult Upstream Migration and Downstream Migration ........... 2
2.2.2. Leaping Criteria for Adult Upstream Migration ..................................................... 2
2.2.3. Velocity Criteria...................................................................................................... 3
3. Application of Passage Criteria ............................................................................................ 3
4. Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................... 6
5. Tables ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page i November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
LIST OF TABLES
Table 5-1. AEA proposed species list, additional species suggested by licensing participants, and
preliminary species list following consultation during fisheries technical meeting on March 19,
2014................................................................................................................................................. 9
Table 5-2 Depth criteria reported in the literature for selected fish species and adult and juvenile
life stages ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Table 5-3 Pacific salmon leaping height capabilities from three sources. .................................... 11
Table 5-4 Pool depth and gradient criteria adapted from the Forest Service Handbook (FSH)
2090.21 Adult Salmonid Migration Blockage Table. ................................................................... 11
Table 5-5 Swimming capabilities and velocity criteria reported in the literature for selected fish
species including adult and juvenile life stages. ........................................................................... 12
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Notes from Technical Team Meeting March 19, 2014
Appendix B: Presentation from Technical Team Meeting March 19, 2014
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ii November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS
Abbreviation Definition
2-D Two dimensional
ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
ft feet
ISR Initial Study Report
Q1 First quarter
TM Technical Memorandum
USFS United States Forest Service
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iii November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
1. INTRODUCTION
The Initial Study Report (ISR) for Study 9.12, Study of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and
Upper Susitna River and Susitna Tributaries Part A: Sections 1-6, 8-10, outlined the approach for
selecting target fish species and passage criteria for the fish passage barrier analysis. AEA
proposed a draft target species list and depth, leaping and velocity criteria in a technical team
meeting on March 19, 2014. During and following the technical team meeting, AEA received
input from the licensing participants. This Technical Memorandum (TM) presents a proposed
final list of fish species that will be included in the fish barrier analysis as well as depth, leaping
and velocity passage criteria for selected fish species.
2. FISH SPECIES AND PASSAGE CRITERIA SELECTION
Anadromous and resident fish species require access to a range of habitats to complete their life
cycle for spawning, incubation and rearing. Moreover, passage of returning adults or
outmigrating juveniles must be achieved during specific periods. The movement of fish between
the mainstem Susitna and off-channel habitats and tributaries requires adequate depth, velocity
and gradient conditions that can be attained by species with varying capabilities and at different
life stages. Depth barriers can prevent or delay fish passage between the mainstem Susitna and
off-channel habitats such as sloughs and side channels. Depth and velocity barriers may affect
fish passage at the mouth of tributaries to access tributary habitats. Lastly, cascades and
waterfalls are the main physical barriers within tributaries and are evaluated with respect to the
species-specific swimming and leaping abilities.
2.1. Fish Species Selection
The fish community of the Susitna River includes approximately 19 documented fish species.
Within this community, some fish species exhibit life history patterns that rely on multiple
habitats during freshwater rearing, and therefore may be more sensitive to changes in access to
side channels, sloughs, and/or tributary habitats. A subset of species was selected for the fish
passage barrier analysis based on passage sensitivity, species presence in the Middle and Upper
Susitna, and the locations of potential barriers (Table 5.1-1). Following the technical team
meeting on March 19, 2014, additional species were recommended by licensing participants
including Arctic lamprey, Bering cisco, eulachon, northern pike, and humpback whitefish. AEA
examined the distribution of these additional species, and it was determined that Bering cisco
and eulachon were not present in the study area of the Middle River and Upper River.
Consequently, Arctic lamprey and humpback whitefish, which are present in the Middle River
were added to the final list that now includes eleven species in total (Table 5-1).
2.2. Passage Criteria for the Selected Fish Species
A literature review of passage criteria was conducted for selected fish species and adult and
juvenile life stages. Salmonid passage criteria are well researched and some criteria exist for all
salmonid species. Passage criteria for many non-salmonids have not been extensively researched,
and in some cases, criteria do not currently exist. Where criteria for selected species were not
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
available, closely related “surrogate” species were substituted. Basic categories of fish passage
criteria for use in this study include water depth, fish swimming ability (as related to velocity
criteria), and fish leaping ability. Depth criteria will be used to assess fish passage into, within,
and out of side channels, sloughs, and tributaries. Leaping criteria will be used to evaluate the
vertical and horizontal distances fish must leap to pass a physical barrier. The velocity
component of passage at a physical or depth barrier will be applied where velocity may influence
successful passage.
2.2.1. Depth Criteria for Adult Upstream Migration and Downstream Migration
Minimum depth criteria for fish passage have been reported for many fish species. While the
majority of studies focus on the design of fish ladders, culverts or other man-made structures,
fewer studies focus on fish passage in natural channels (R2 Resource Consultants 2007). The
criteria chosen for minimum depth requirements vary by study. A minimum depth may be
chosen that a fish species can successfully swim through (Furniss 2008), or a minimum depth
may be considered that is required to fully submerge the species (Powers and Orsborn 1985). In
other studies, a body depth plus an additional depth to account for fish behavior, injury
prevention or substrate composition is suggested (for example 2.5 times the caudal fin depth;
ADF&G 2001). Overall, minimum depth varies with fish size and life stage. A range of
minimum depth criteria from the literature for selected fish species and life stages are presented
in Table 5-2.
2.2.2. Leaping Criteria for Adult Upstream Migration
The ability of a fish to pass a vertical barrier is determined by species- and life stage-specific
endogenous factors such as burst speed, swimming form, and leaping capability. Exogenous
factors include water depth, stream flow, and barrier geometry. Powers and Orsborn (1985)
present a detailed analysis of passage at physical barriers to upstream migration by salmon and
trout. Powers and Orsborn (1985) present criteria for Chinook, coho, sockeye, pink, and chum
salmon passage at waterfalls and cascades. Other sources of leaping height criteria are available
from Reiser and Peacock (1985) and the USFS (2001). Table 5-3 presents the leaping criteria
from these sources.
Leaping curves and jumping equations assume that the depth of the pool the fish must leap from
is adequate. Reiser and Peacock (1985) also suggest a ratio of 1:1.25 (barrier height/leaping pool
depth) and a pool depth of at least 2.5 meters (8.2 ft). Aaserude and Orsborn (1985) concluded
that for optimum leaping conditions the depth of the leaping pool must be on the order of, or
greater than, the length of the fish attempting to pass. These general guidelines are incorporated
into the USFS 2001 Aquatic Habitat Management Handbook for the Alaska Region and
presented in Table 5-4.
An additional impediment to upstream passage is a gradient over reach distance. Fish passage
may occur at steeper gradients over shorter reaches (e.g. > 50 ft at 20 percent gradient for
Chinook, coho and sockeye), but the gradient for successful passage decreases with increasing
reach length (see Table 5-4). The USFS (2001) gradient criteria indicate that Dolly Varden have
the greatest ability to attain steep gradients for short distances, followed by Chinook, coho and
sockeye, and pink and chum salmon are the poorest leapers. Overall, a combination of waterfall
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
height, pool depth, and cascade length and gradient above and below waterfalls are used to
evaluate the impediments for fish passage in Study 9.12.
2.2.3. Velocity Criteria
Stream velocities higher than a fishes swimming speed can create barriers to upstream migration.
If velocity barriers to upstream adult migration currently exist or if they are created by the
Project, they would likely occur as temporary barriers during high flow in tributaries. Gradients
or channel constrictions at the entrances to sloughs and side channels are likely not sufficient to
create velocity barriers to adult fish or juveniles with or without the Project. Furthermore, in
natural river and stream systems, rapids will often have areas of flow that are below the
maximum velocity criteria. Velocity only becomes an effective barrier when flow is concentrated
in a chute and its combined length and velocity overcome the fish’s swimming ability, and the
geometry of the channel does not enable the fish to leap over or otherwise avoid the velocity
barrier (R2 Resource Consultants 2007).
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 (more than 200 minutes) and is also referred to as cruising speed. Prolonged
swimming is a more moderate speed than sustained speed that can be maintained for a specific
period of time (20 seconds to 200 minutes). Burst swimming is the fastest speed achievable and
can only be maintained for short durations (less than 20 seconds) as it utilizes more anaerobic
metabolism than the other swimming modes. Similar to the Fish Passage Study 9.11, the Fish
Passage Barrier Study 9.12 focused on burst swimming and prolonged swimming. Prolonged
swimming is an indication of a fish’s ability to traverse longer reaches, whereas burst swimming
provides an indication of the ability of fish to traverse discrete high velocity areas. We
recommend that high-end prolonged speed and burst speed are applicable to fish passage in
higher velocity and gradient reaches found in Susitna River tributaries. A literature review of
prolonged and burst speeds for adult and juvenile fish species are reported in Table 5-5.
3. APPLICATION OF PASSAGE CRITERIA
The application of depth and velocity criteria for fish passage has been examined extensively
with respect to man-made structures, but few established criteria exist for evaluating natural
channels. Thompson (1972) presented the most widely used approach to evaluate passage for a
river or stream reach. The critical passage section of the reach is identified by a transect that
follows the shallowest course from bank to bank. A flow is considered adequate for passage
when minimum depth and maximum velocity criteria are met for at least 25 percent of the total
transect width and for a continuous portion for at least 10 percent of the total width. Other
studies have suggested that the Thompson (1972) method is relatively conservative and that
narrower passage widths may be used for successful fish passage (Mosley 1982). Mosley (1982)
noted that while it is possible for fish to pass reaches shallower than minimum depth criteria,
abrasion and loss of spawning condition was observed. The Thompson (1972) method has been
applied in California streams with a regression method to identify flow rates that meet the
minimum continuous and total passable widths (CDFG 2013).
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
ADF&G (1984) determined that depth of water and length of passage reach were the most
significant factors affecting migrating fish in sloughs and side channels. Multiple cross section
profiles perpendicular to the channel were surveyed and the deepest point representing the
thalweg was identified. Longitudinal thalweg profiles were mapped by connecting the deepest
point along the entire length of each slough and side channel site during low water conditions.
Passage curves representing passage depth requirements as a function of reach length were
developed for chum salmon for uniform (<3 inches) and non-uniform (>3 inches) substrates
(ADF&G 1984, Study 9.12 ISR (Figures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2)). Using this “passage reach” concept,
the minimum depth required for successful passage increases with reach length. Overall, three
categories of passage were developed ranging from “successful”, “successful with difficulty and
exposure”, to “unsuccessful”. For example, over a 0 to 200 ft reach length the minimum depth
for the “successful with difficulty and exposure” category, ranged from 0.18 to 0.32 ft and 0.3 to
0.41 ft for uniform and non-uniform substrates, respectively. In contrast, the minimum depth for
the more conservative “successful” category, ranged from 0.30 to 0.41 ft and 0.41 to 0.54 ft for
uniform and non-uniform substrates, respectively.
The approaches outlined above provide a basis for applying depth criteria to sloughs and side
channels in Focus Areas of the Susitna River. The final approach will be refined to account for
the range of target species in Table 5-1 and will be based on 2-D model results from the Fluvial
Geomorphology Modelling Study 6.6. For the side channels and sloughs, results from the 2-D
hydraulic models will provide comparisons of existing conditions and with-Project conditions
over a range of discharges. The 2-D model results for evaluating passage into tributaries will
include the potential for fan growth, changes in slope and length of the tributary channel within
the fan, and the location and elevation of the intersection of topset and forest slopes. This
information would be combined with hydraulic and hydrologic information for the mainstem and
tributary to evaluate potential with-Project changes to tributary access. Lastly, the Study 7.6 Ice
Processes Study will use the River2D model in Focus Areas during the ice-cover period in
coordination with the 2-D hydraulic model to evaluate how ice conditions may influence fish
passage between the mainstem Susitna River and sloughs or side-channels.
Overall, model outputs will be used to evaluate minimum water depth and corresponding
discharge at key areas for passage between mainstem and off-channel habitats. ADF&G (1984)
evaluated breaching and backwater conditions at the heads and mouths of sloughs and side
channels that were considered critical points for fish access in Focus Areas. Similarly, 2-D model
coverage across Focus Areas FA-104 (Whiskers Slough), FA-113 (Oxbow 1), FA-115 (Slough
6A), FA-128 (Slough 8A), FA-138 (Gold Creek), FA-141 (Indian River), FA-144 (Slough 21),
FA-151 (Portage Creek), FA-173 (Stephan Lake Complex), and FA-184 (Watana Dam) will
enable mapping of the minimum depths across key access points as well as the longitudinal
extent of depth in the upstream and downstream direction. The spatial distribution of minimum
water depth and corresponding flow rates will be used to determine the duration of successful or
unsuccessful passage conditions. These passage conditions will be compared with the periodicity
of anadromous migration as well as known patterns of resident fish movement.
The final approach that will be used in this study is being refined in coordination with the Study
6.6 Fluvial Geomorphology Modelling and the Study 7.6 Ice Processes. The first step will be to
test the methodologies for the 2-D model runs for FA-128 (Slough 8A) in Q1 2015 with the
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
results presented in the AEA (2014b) technical memorandum. Subsequent analysis will include
model output from River2D in Focus Areas during the ice-cover period.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
4. LITERATURE CITED
Aaserude, R.G. and J.F. Orsborn. 1985 "New Concepts in Fish Ladder Design, Volume II of IV;
Results of Laboratory and Field Research on New Concepts in Weir and Pool Fishways",
1982-1984 Final Report, Project No. 198201400, 175 electronic pages, (BPA Report
DOE/BP-36523-3)
ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1984. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies, Report
No.3: Aquatic habitat and instream flow investigations, May - October 1983 (Review
Draft). Chapter 6: An evaluation of passage conditions for adult salmon in sloughs and
side channels of the Middle Susitna River. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage, AK.
ADFG. 2001. Memorandum of Agreement Between ADFG and ADOT for the Design,
Permitting and Construction of Culverts for Fish Passage. 33 pp.
AEA (Alaska Energy Authority). 2014a. Study of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and Upper
Susitna River and Susitna Tributaries: Initial Study Report, Part A: Sections 1-6, 8-10,
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 14241)
AEA. 2014b. Updated Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Approach Technical Memorandum,
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 14241)
Bainbridge, R. 1960. Speed and stamina in three fish. Journal of Experimental Biology 37:129–
153.
Bates, K., B. Barnard, B. Heiner, J. P. Klavas, and P. D. Powers. 2003. Design of Road Culverts
for Fish Passage. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
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.
Beamish, F. W. H. 1980. Swimming performance and oxygen consumption of the charrs. Pages
739-748 in E. K. Balon, editor. Charrs. Salmonid fishes of the genus Salvelinus. Dr W.
Junk, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Bell, Milo C. 1991. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon.
Bugert, R.M., T.C. Bjornn, and W.R. Meehan. 1991. Summer Habitat Use by Young Salmonids
and Their Responses to Cover and Predators in a Small Southeast Alaska Stream.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120: 478-485
CDFG 2013. California Department of Fish and Game Instream Flow Program. Standard
Operating Procedure for Critical Riffle Analysis for Fish Passage in California. DFG-
IFP-001
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Clemens, B. J., M. G. Mesa, R. J. Magie, D. A. Young, and C. B. Schreck. 2012. Pre-spawning
migrations of adult Pacific lamprey, Entosphenus tridentatus, in the Willamette River,
Oregon, U.S.A. Environmental Biology of Fishes 93:245-254.
Deegan 2005 Swimming performance and metabolism of 0+ year Thymallus arcticus Journal of
Fish Biology (2005) 67, 910–918
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).
Glova, G.J. & McInerney, J.E. 1977. Critical swimming speeds of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch) fry to smolt stages in relation to salinity and temperature. Journal of the Fisheries
Research Board of Canada 34, 151–154.
Hinch S.G., E. M. Standen, M.C. Healey, A. P. Farrell. 2002. Swimming patterns and behaviour
of upriver migrating adult pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and sockeye (O. nerka)
salmon as assessed by EMG telemetry in the Fraser River, British Columbia, Canada.
Hydrobiologia 483:147-160
Jones, D.R., J.W. Kiceniuk, and O.S. Bamford. 1974. Evaluation of the swimming performance
of several fish species from the Mackenzie River. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 31:1641-1647.
Katopodis, Chris. Introduction to fishway design. Freshwater Institute, Central and Arctic
Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 1992
Keefer, M. L., W. R. Daigle, C. A. Peery, H. T. Pennington, S. R. Lee, and M. L. Moser. 2010.
Testing adult Pacific lamprey performance at structural challenges in fishways. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 30:376–385.
Lee, C.G., R.H. Devlin, and A.P. Farrell. 2003. Swimming performance, oxygen consumption
and excess post-exercise oxygen consumption in adult transgenic and ocean-ranched
coho salmon. Journal of Fish Biology 62:753-766.
Mesa, M.G., L.K. Weiland, and G.B. Zydlewski. 2002. Swimming performance of bull trout
(Salvelinus confluentus). Unpublished annual report. U.S. Geological Survey.
Mesa M.G., J.M Bayer, and J.G. Seelye. 2003. Swimming Performance and Physiological
Responses to Exhaustive Exercise in Radio-Tagged and Untagged Pacific Lamprey.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 132:483-492
Mesa M.G., L.K. Welland, and G.B Zydlewski. 2004. Critical swimming speeds of Wild Bull
Trout. Northwest Science. 78: 59-65.
Mosley, M.P. 1982. Critical depths for passage in braided rivers, Canterbury, New Zealand..
New Zealand Journal Marine Freshwater Research. 16: 351-357.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 7 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Powers, P. D., and J. F. Orsborn. 1985. New Concepts in Fish Ladder Design: Analysis of
Barriers to Upstream Fish Migration, Volume IV of IV; Investigation of the Physical and
Biological Conditions Affecting Fish Passage Success at Culverts and Waterfalls", 1982-
1984 Final Report, Project No. 198201400, 134 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP-
36523-1)
R2 Resource Consultants. 2007: Scientific Basis and Development of Alternatives Protecting
Anadromous Salmonids, Task 3 Report Administrative Draft Appendices prepared for
California State Water Resources Control Board North Coast Instream Flow Policy
Randall, D.J., Mense D. and R.G. Boutilier. 1987. The effects of burst swimming on aerobic
swimming in chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Marine Behaviour and
Physiology 13: 77-88.
Robinson, T. C., and J. M. Bayer. 2005. Upstream migration of Pacific lampreys in the John Day
River, Oregon: behavior, timing, and habitat use. Northwest Science 79:106-119.
Schwalme, K., W. C. Mackay and D. Lindner. 1985. Suitability of vertical slot and Denil
fishways for passing north-temperate, nonsalmonid fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences. 42:1815-1822.
Smith, L.S. and L.T. Carpenter. 1987. Salmonid Fry Swimming Stamina Data for Diversion
Screen Criteria. Final Report. Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington,
Seattle, WA (1987).
Snider, W.M. 1985. Instream Flow Requirements of Anadromous Salmonids, Brush Creek,
Mendocino County, California. California Department Of Fish And Game, Stream
Evaluation Report No. 85-1. Sacramento, California. September.
Sutphin Z.A.,and C.D. Hueth. 2010. Swimming Performance of Larval Pacific Lamprey
(Lampetra tridentata). Northwest Science. 84: 196-200.
USFS. 2001. Aquatic habitat management handbook. Chapter 20 – Fish and Aquatic Stream
Habitat Survey, FSH 2090.21
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 8 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
5. TABLES
Table 5-1. AEA proposed species list, additional species suggested by licensing participants, and preliminary species list following consultation during fisheries technical meeting on March 19, 2014.
AEA Proposed Species List Additional Species Suggested by
Licensing Participants Species List Following Consultation
Chinook salmon Arctic lamprey Chinook salmon
Chum salmon Bering cisco1 Chum salmon
Coho salmon Eulachon1 Coho salmon
Pink salmon Northern pike1 Pink salmon
Sockeye salmon Humpback whitefish Sockeye salmon
Arctic grayling Arctic grayling
Burbot Arctic lamprey
Dolly Varden Burbot
Rainbow trout Dolly Varden
Humpback whitefish
Rainbow trout
1 Species not added due to absence from study area
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 9 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Table 5-2 Depth criteria reported in the literature for selected fish species and adult and juvenile life stages
Species Life Stage Depth Criteria
Feet References
Arctic grayling adult 0.6 ADFG (2001)
juvenile 0.4 ADFG (2001)
Dolly Varden adult 0.2 - 1.0 ADFG (2001)
juvenile 0.2 Bugert et al. (1991)
Chinook salmon adult 0.8 - 0.9 CDFG (2013), Thompson (1972)
juvenile 0.3 CDFG (2013)
Coho salmon adult 0.6 - 0.7 CDFG (2013), Thompson (1972)
juvenile 0.3 CDFG (2013)
Chum salmon adult 0.6 - 0.8 CDFG (2013), Thompson (1972)
juvenile 0.3 CDFG (2013)
Pink salmon adult 0.6 - 0.8 CDFG (2013), Thompson (1972)
juvenile 0.3 Nordlund, B. (2008)
Sockeye salmon
adult 0.6 – 0.7 Bates et al. (2003)
juvenile 0.3 CDFG (2013)
Rainbow trout
adult 0.5 - 0.7 Snider (1985), CDFG (2013)
juvenile 0.3 CDFG (2013)
.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 10 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Table 5-3 Pacific salmon leaping height capabilities from three sources.
Species Leaping Height (in feet)
Powers and Orsborn (1985)1 Reiser and Peacock (1985) USFS (2001)
Dolly Varden - - 6
Chinook 7.5 7.9 11.0
Chum 3.5 4.0 4.0
Coho 7.5 7.3 11.0
Pink 3.5 4.0 4.0
Sockeye 7.5 6.9 10.0
Note: Assumes a trajectory of 800 with a condition factor of 1.0. Maximum leaping height is less at a lower trajectory and lower fish condition factor.
Table 5-4 Pool depth and gradient criteria adapted from the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2090.21 Adult Salmonid Migration Blockage Table.
Species
Criterion Chinook Coho Sockeye Pink/Chum Dolly Varden
Pool depth
A blockage may be
presumed if pool depth is
less than the following,
and the pool is
unobstructed by boulders
or be bedrock:
1.25 x jump height, except that there is no minimum pool depth for falls:
(a)<4 feet (1.2,) in the case of coho and steelhead; and
(b)<2 feet (0.6m) in the case of other anadromous fish species.
Steep channel
A blockage may be
presumed if channel
steepness is greater than
the following without
resting places for fish:
>225 feet (68.6m) @ 12% gradient
>100 feet (30.5m) @ 16% gradient
>50 feet (15.2m) @ 20% gradient
>100 feet (30.5m) @ 9%
gradient
>50 feet
(15.2m) @ 30%
gradient
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 11 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Table 5-5 Swimming capabilities and velocity criteria reported in the literature for selected fish species including adult and juvenile life stages.
Species Life Stage Prolonged Speed Burst Speed
ft/s References ft/s References
Arctic Grayling Adult 1.4 - 4.1 Katapodis (1992) 6.9 - 13.9 Bell (1991)
Juvenile 0.5 - 0.8 Deegan et al. (2005) NR NR
Arctic Lamprey Adult 0.2 - 0.8 *Robinson and Bayer (2005), *Clemens (2012) 2.5 to 10 *Mesa et al. (2003), *Keefer (2010)
Juvenile 0.3 - 0.6 *Sutphin and Hueth (2010) 1.0 to 2.5 *Sutphin and Hueth (2010)
Burbot Adult 1.3 - 2.6 Jones et al. (1974), Schwalme et al. (1985) 1.1 to 4.0 Bell (1991)
Juvenile 1.1 - 1.3 Jones et al. (1974) NR NR
Dolly Varden Adult 2.0 - 3.3 **Beamish (1980) 4.2 to 7.5 +Mesa (2004)
Juvenile 0.5-1.6 +Mesa (2004) NR NR
Humpback whitefish Adult 1.0 - 2.3 Jones et al. (1974), Beamish (1980) 3.0 - 4.0 Bell (1991)
Juvenile 0.2 to 1.3 Jones et al. (1974) NR NR
Chinook salmon Adult 2.9 - 11.0 Bell (1991) 11.0 - 22.1 Bell (1991)
Juvenile 0.5 - 0.9 Furniss et al. (2008) 2.0 - 2.3 Randall et al. (1987)
Coho salmon Adult 3.1 - 10.9 Lee et al. (2003) 11.7 - 21.0 Bell (1991)
Juvenile 0.4 - 2.1 Bell (1991) NR NR
Chum salmon Adult 1.7 - 5.1 Aaserude and Orsborn (1985) 6.0 - 12.6 Powers and Orsborn (1985)
Juvenile 0.4 - 0.6 Smith and Carpenter (1987) NR NR
Pink salmon Adult 2.9 - 11.0 Lee et al. (2003), Bell (1991) 11.0 – 21.0 Bell (1991)
Juvenile 0.4 - 0.5 Smith & Carpenter 1987 7.7 – 11.0 Powers & Orsborn (1985)
Sockeye salmon Adult 4.0 – 8.8 Bell (1991) 10.0 - 21.9 Bell (1991), Bainbridge (1960)
Juvenile 1.4 - 2.1 Bell (1991) NR NR
Rainbow trout Adult 2.1 - 2.6 Furniss (2008) 14.0 - 20.3 Bell (1991)
Juvenile 1.0 - 2.0 Bainbridge (1960) 2.4 - 7.2 Bainbridge (1960)
*for Pacific lamprey
**for Arctic char
+for Bull trout
NR = no reference available
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 12 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
APPENDIX A: NOTES FROM TECHNICAL TEAM MEETING MARCH 19,
2014
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A– Page 1 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Meeting Notes
Fisheries Technical Meeting
03/19/2014
LOCATION: Alaska Energy Authority – Board Room
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
TIME: 1:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. (AKST)
SUBJECT: Study 9.12 - Fish Barriers Study
Goal Collaboration on topics as identified in the Study Plan
ATTENDEES: Kathryn Peltier McMillen, Scott Crowther Ratepayers, MaryLouise Keefe R2, Betsy
McGregor AEA, Lori Verbrugge USFWS, Phil Hilgert R2, Bill Fullerton Tetra Tech,
Kevin Petrone R2
ON PHONE: Betsy McCracken USFWS, Matt Cutlip FERC, Nick Jayjack FERC, Matt Love VNF,
Sharon Kramer CIRI fisheries consultant, Stormy Haught ADF&G, Kai Steimle R2,
Dara Glass CIRI Joe Klein ADF&G, Sue Walker NMFS (part of meeting), David Pizzi
Tetra Tech
The purpose of this meeting was to collaborate with licensing participants on topics identified in the
Study Plan and during the December 2013 TWG meetings. Through this collaboration, AEA hopes to
include input from licensing participants into the final ISR section 7 (plans for completing the study).
Comments and suggestions are welcomed by AEA and can be provided by contacting Betsy McGregor
(BMcGregor@aidea.org).
The following meeting notes are intended to capture any significant discussion/information in addition
to the materials provided on the Project website (http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/). The meeting
agenda and materials are available under the “previous meetings” tab (link provided under the meetings
tab) on the Project website.
Study 9.12 Fish Passage Barriers Presentation - Kevin Petrone
Betsy McCracken said that the USFWS will be submitting formal suggestions/comments to the final ISR.
Target/Priority Species - Based on the criteria explained in slide 4, slide 5 indicates the proposed target
species for the Fish Passage Barrier Study. Some of these species can be targeted for specific reaches
since their presence has not been documented throughout all reaches of the study area.
• Stormy Haught suggested that humpback whitefish be considered for Lower River reaches.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A– Page 2 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
• Betsy McCracken suggested considering eulachon in the Lower River reaches. Stormy Haught
indicated that eulachon would be limited to the mainstem and would not be entering
tributaries.
• Betsy McCracken explained that arctic lamprey require unique passage requirements and should
be approached with methods specific to the species. Stormy Haught agreed with this
suggestion. MaryLouise Keefe indicated that AEA will be in contact Betsy McCracken regarding
lamprey details.
• Betsy McCracken suggested focusing some efforts on predicting the reduction of passage for
northern pike. Stormy Haught confirmed that northern pike are mostly sedentary, but move
throughout systems on occasion; not yet above ~ River Mile 60. Phil Hilgert suggested that once
potential Project- induced passage barrier changes are evaluated, tributaries impassable for
northern pike could be identified. Stormy later added that northern pike are not good
swimmers and will be restricted by velocity barriers which may not restrict other species.
• Betsy McCracken suggested targeting Bering cisco in the Lower River, although she is unsure if
they access tributaries.
• Scott Crowther said that he has caught rainbow trout in Susitna Lake and Lake Louise (near the
headwaters of the Susitna River). MaryLouise Keefe explained that thus far, those populations
do not show signs of entering the study area and seem to be isolated. The study area’s upper
extent ends just upstream of the inundation zone near the confluence of the Oshetna River.
Kevin Petrone explained that the study is currently focused on Middle and Upper River segments. Based
on information from the open water flow routing model (expected in time for the Proof of Concept
meeting this spring), the Lower River may be included in this study. If the Lower River were to be added,
suggestions related to Lower River species would be considered.
Species-specific Passage Criteria – Slides 6-22 explain the passage criteria which will be determined for
each target species. Details are provided in the fish passage feasibility draft ISR (Study 9.11).
• Slide 8 does not include burbot which have a prolonged speed of 1 foot per second (fps) and
burst speed of 1-4 fps.
• Kevin Petrone proposed that burst speeds be used as criteria to determine movement in
evaluating velocity barriers. In response to MaryLouise, Kevin will look into the literature to see
if velocity barrier lengths are a factor. Sharon Kramer mentioned that fish are able to take
“breaks” in low velocity pockets. Bill Fullerton explained that the model resolution is
approximately 2 meters at slough mouths within Focus Areas. This will not identify things such
as a 1-foot boulder with a small eddy with a low velocity pocket.
• Matt Cutlip asked if models will be verifying the “Gradients or channel constrictions at entrances
to sloughs and side channels not sufficient to create velocity barriers for adult or juvenile fish”
component of the study. Kevin explained that models will be evaluating this, but other criteria
are expected to play a larger role in increasing/decreasing barriers.
• Based on the information in slide 11, the study is considering a 12-foot elevation difference a
definitive barrier (1 foot over the max. leap height).
• MaryLouise Keefe mentioned that there were no leaping criteria found for some species and
asked if Betsy McCracken knew of any surrogates used. Most criteria were determined for
culverts and the criteria may be different for natural systems. Stormy Haught said that
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A– Page 3 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
steelhead may be used as a surrogate for rainbow trout. MaryLouise added that juvenile
steelhead would be comparable in size to adult rainbow.
• Betsy McCracken and Sharon Kramer will look to see if they can provide suggestions for
surrogates.
• Depth criteria are from the ADF&G/DOT culvert document and are presented on slide 16.
• Data provided on slides 19-20 are only from the Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle
and Lower River Study (Study 9.6). Juvenile screw trap counts and Salmon Escapement (Study
9.7) data will be added to these tables and reposted. Otolith analyses for humpback whitefish
and Dolly Varden are not yet available to determine the upper extent of species anadromy.
• Data for the studies are provided in the respective draft ISR. Summaries are in the draft ISR text
or appendices with more detailed data provided on GINA (link in draft ISR).
• MaryLouise explained that lamprey were found throughout the river and since most were
juvenile fish they were unable to be identified to species. Very few Bering cisco, less than 10
total, were found in the Lower River late in the summer.
• Periodicity on slide 22 reflects data from the 1980s. This table will be updated with current data
throughout the study.
Application of Passage Criteria – Slides 23-27 present the proposed application of the passage criteria.
The approach is being proposed, and details will be refined as data is available.
• The figures on slides 25-27 are from the 1980s studies. The dotted line on slides 25-26 should
be located at 0.41 feet on the Y axis.
• The 1980s used chum as a surrogate for all salmon species because they have a deep body and
are weak swimmers; assuming that if chum could pass, other salmonids could pass. Sue Walker
said that there is no need to limit analyses to one surrogate and that more specific analyses per
habitat is needed.
• Kevin Petrone explained that the details of the approach will be discussed when sediment
model results are available (not expected for a while).
• Phil Hilgert said that it is important to determine the timing/duration below a minimum passage
depth to accurately influence operations.
Geomorphological Assessment and Modeling – Bill Fullerton presented slides 28 – 38 to discuss the
geomorphology studies (Study 6.6) in relation to fish passage. Data provided in slides 31, 34, and 37 do
not include escapement data. These data will be added to the presentation tables and the online
presentation will be updated.
In slide 31, the fish species acronyms follow ADF&G standards and are defined as follows:
SCK – Chinook salmon; GBR – Burbot; CDV – Dolly Varden; WRN – Round whitefish; GRA – Arctic grayling
• Lori Verbrugge asked what variables are being considered when selecting tributaries (as
indicated in green on slides 31, 34, and 37). Bill Fullerton said that the presence of fish is the
primary factor. The red highlighted tributaries are not proposed for studies of delta formation
and potential barrier impacts mostly because the drainage areas are small (thus low potential to
produce the quantity of sediment to form deltas) or existing barriers at elevations above the
reservoir pool will limit access to habitat. Tributaries without highlighting (white) do not have a
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A– Page 4 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
clear basis for recommending further study, so the licensing participants were asked for input.
Note that all tributaries in Focus Areas will have sediment modeling applied.
• Unnamed tributary 115.4 on slide 37 has a pseudo-lake at the mouth so it is not considered a
significant contributor of sediment. Also, Whiskers Creek’s sediment influence is masked by
Whiskers Slough.
Action Items Responsibility
If the Lower River is added to Fish Passage Barriers Study Area:
Consider the following target species:
• humpback whitefish
• eulachon (mainstem)
• Bering cisco;
Identify tributaries where accessibility by northern pike may change.
AEA
Add lamprey to the target species lists for Middle and Upper River as applicable based
on fish distribution data.
AEA
Determine if velocity barrier length is a needed factor for fish passage criteria. R2
Coordinate with Betsy McCracken regarding potential need and criteria for lamprey. R2
Identify surrogate species and their passage criteria that can be used in this study. Licensing
participants
Add 2013 rotary screw trap and fish escapement data to the presentation and repost
to website.
AEA
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A– Page 5 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
APPENDIX B: PRESENTATION FROM TECHNICAL TEAM MEETING MARCH 19, 2014
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 1 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 2 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 3 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 4 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 5 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 6 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 7 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 8 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 9 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 10 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 11 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 12 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 13 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 14 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 15 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 16 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 17 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 18 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 19 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 20 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 21 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 22 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 23 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 24 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 25 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 26 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 27 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 28 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 29 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 30 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 31 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 32 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 33 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 34 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 35 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 36 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 37 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 38 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 39 November 2014
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B– Page 40 November 2014