HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa289sec8-5Alaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna‐Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
Fish and aquatics instream flow study, Study plan Section 8.5, 2014-2015
Study Implementation Report. [ Main report ] SuWa 289
Author(s) – Personal:
Author(s) – Corporate:
R2 Resource Consultants, Inc.
AEA‐identified category, if specified:
November 2015; Study Completion and 2014/2015 Implementation Reports
AEA‐identified series, if specified:
Series (ARLIS‐assigned report number):
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 289
Existing numbers on document:
Published by:
[Anchorage : Alaska Energy Authority, 2015]
Date published:
November 2015
Published for:
Alaska Energy Authority
Date or date range of report:
Volume and/or Part numbers:
Study plan Section 8.5
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Document type:
Pagination:
xii, 122 pages (main report only)
Related works(s):
Pages added/changed by ARLIS:
Notes:
See other PDFs for these volumes:
Appendix A. 2014 instream flow winter studies
Appendix B. Open-water hydrology data collection and open-water flow routing model (version
2.8)
Appendix C. 2014 moving boat Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) measurements
Appendix D. Habitat suitability criteria development
Appendix E. Fish habitat modeling data: surficial substrate and cover characterization and
salmon spawning observations by focus area
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)
Fish and Aquatics Instream Flow Study
Study Plan Section 8.5
2014-2015 Study Implementation Report
Prepared for
Alaska Energy Authority
Prepared by
R2 Resource Consultants, Inc.
November 2015
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page i November 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
2. Study Objectives................................................................................................................ 4
3. Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 5
4. Methods .............................................................................................................................. 5
4.1. IFS Analytical Framework ................................................................................ 5
4.1.1. Methodology ................................................................................... 5
4.1.2. Variances ......................................................................................... 6
4.2. River Stratification and Study Area Selection .................................................. 6
4.2.1. Variances from Study Plan ............................................................. 7
4.3. Hydrologic Data Analysis ................................................................................. 7
4.3.1. Methodology ................................................................................... 7
4.4. Reservoir Operations Model and Open-water Flow Routing Model .............. 11
4.4.1. Reservoir Operations Model ......................................................... 11
4.4.2. Open-water Flow Routing Model ................................................. 11
4.4.3. Variances from Study Plan ........................................................... 13
4.5. Habitat Suitability Criteria Development ....................................................... 14
4.5.1. Select Priority Fish Species and Development of Periodicity
Information ................................................................................... 14
4.5.2. Development of Draft Final HSC/HSI .......................................... 15
4.5.3. Habitat Availability Data Collection ............................................ 17
4.5.4. Habitat Utilization Data and Frequency Histograms .................... 17
4.5.5. HSC/HSI Modeling ....................................................................... 17
4.5.6. Other Methods for HSC/HSI Curve Development ....................... 18
4.5.7. Winter Habitat Use Sampling ....................................................... 18
4.5.8. Stranding and Trapping ................................................................. 19
4.5.9. River Productivity ......................................................................... 19
4.5.10. Relationship between Microhabitat Use and Fish Abundance ..... 19
4.5.11. Variances from Study Plan ........................................................... 19
4.6. Habitat-Specific Model Development ............................................................ 22
4.6.1. Collection of Field Data in FA-151 (Portage Creek) .................... 22
4.6.2. Collection and Analysis of Surficial Substrate and Cover Data ... 22
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ii November 2015
4.6.3. Completion of Aerial Spawning Surveys ..................................... 23
4.6.4. Refinement of 2-D Hydraulic and Fish Habitat Models – Middle
River Segment ............................................................................... 23
4.6.5. Continued analysis and calibration of 1-D Hydraulic Models –
Lower River Segment ................................................................... 24
4.6.6. Variances from Study Plan ........................................................... 24
4.7. Temporal and Spatial Habitat Analyses .......................................................... 24
4.7.1. Temporal Analysis ........................................................................ 25
4.7.2. Spatial Analysis ............................................................................ 25
4.7.3. Variances from Study Plan ........................................................... 25
4.8. Instream Flow Study Integration .................................................................... 25
4.8.1. Decision Support System .............................................................. 25
4.8.2. Variances from Study Plan ........................................................... 26
5. Results .............................................................................................................................. 26
5.1. IFS Analytical Framework .............................................................................. 26
5.2. River Stratification and Study Area Selection ................................................ 27
5.3. Hydrologic Data Analysis ............................................................................... 27
5.3.1. Mainstem Susitna River ................................................................ 27
5.3.2. Tributaries to Susitna River .......................................................... 28
5.3.3. Realtime Hydrologic Data and Network ....................................... 28
5.3.4. Representative Years .................................................................... 28
5.3.5. Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration and Environmental Flow
Components .................................................................................. 28
5.4. Reservoir Operations and Open-water Flow Routing Modeling .................... 29
5.4.1. Reservoir Operations Model ......................................................... 29
5.4.2. Open-water Flow Routing Model ................................................. 29
5.5. Habitat Suitability Criteria Development ....................................................... 32
5.5.1. Select Priority Fish Species .......................................................... 32
5.5.2. Development of Draft Final HSC/HSI .......................................... 32
5.5.3. Habitat Utilization Data and Frequency Histograms .................... 34
5.5.4. HSC/HSI Modeling ....................................................................... 35
5.5.5. Other Methods for HSC/HSI Curve Development ....................... 40
5.5.6. Winter Habitat Use Sampling ....................................................... 40
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iii November 2015
5.5.7. Stranding and Trapping ................................................................. 42
5.5.8. River Productivity ......................................................................... 43
5.5.9. Relationship between Microhabitat Use and Fish Abundance ..... 43
5.6. Habitat-Specific Model Development ............................................................ 43
5.6.1. Collection of Field Data in FA-151 (Portage Creek) .................... 44
5.6.2. Collection and Analysis of Surficial Substrate and Cover Data ... 44
5.6.3. Completion of Aerial Spawning Surveys ..................................... 45
5.6.4. Refinement of 2-D Hydraulic and Fish Habitat Models – Middle
River Segment ............................................................................... 45
5.6.5. Continued analysis and calibration of 1-D Hydraulic Models –
Lower River Segment ................................................................... 46
5.7. Temporal and Spatial Analysis ....................................................................... 46
5.7.1. Temporal Analysis ........................................................................ 46
5.7.2. Spatial Analysis ............................................................................ 46
5.8. Instream Flow Study Integration .................................................................... 46
6. Discussion......................................................................................................................... 47
6.1. IFS Analytical Framework .............................................................................. 47
6.2. River Stratification and Study Area Selection ................................................ 47
6.3. Hydrologic Data Analysis ............................................................................... 47
6.3.1. Mainstem Susitna River ................................................................ 47
6.3.2. Tributaries to the Susitna River .................................................... 48
6.3.3. Realtime Hydrologic Data and Network ....................................... 48
6.3.4. Representative Years .................................................................... 48
6.3.5. Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration and Environmental Flow
Components .................................................................................. 48
6.4. Reservoir Operations and Open-water Flow Routing Modeling .................... 48
6.4.1. Reservoir Operations Model ......................................................... 48
6.4.2. Open-water Flow Routing Model ................................................. 49
6.5. Habitat Suitability Criteria Development ....................................................... 49
6.5.1. 2013-2014 HSC Sampling ............................................................ 50
6.5.2. Winter Habitat Use Sampling ....................................................... 50
6.5.3. Habitat Utilization Frequency Histograms ................................... 50
6.5.4. HSC Models .................................................................................. 51
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iv November 2015
6.6. Habitat-Specific Model Development ............................................................ 52
6.6.1. Collection of Field Data in FA-151 (Portage Creek) .................... 52
6.6.2. Collection and Analysis of Surficial Substrate and Cover Data ... 52
6.6.3. Completion of Aerial Spawning Surveys ..................................... 52
6.6.4. Refinement of 2-D Hydraulic and Fish Habitat Models – Middle
River Segment ............................................................................... 52
6.6.5. Continued analysis and calibration of 1-D Hydraulic Models –
Lower River Segment ................................................................... 53
6.7. Temporal and Spatial Habitat Analyses .......................................................... 53
6.8. Instream Flow Study Integration .................................................................... 53
7. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 54
7.1. IFS Analytical Framework .............................................................................. 54
7.2. River Stratification and Study Area Selection ................................................ 54
7.3. Hydrologic Data Analysis ............................................................................... 54
7.4. Reservoir Operations and Open-water Flow Routing Modeling .................... 55
7.5. Habitat Suitability Criteria Development ....................................................... 55
7.5.1. Proposed Methodologies and Modifications ................................ 55
7.5.2. Conclusion .................................................................................... 57
7.6. Habitat-Specific Model Development ............................................................ 58
7.7. Temporal and Spatial Habitat Analyses .......................................................... 60
7.8. Instream Flow Study Integration .................................................................... 60
8. Literature Cited .............................................................................................................. 61
9. Tables ............................................................................................................................... 65
10. Figures .............................................................................................................................. 92
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page v November 2015
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.3-1. Susitna Real-Time Reporting Network Stations. (Source: Modified ISR Study 8.5,
Table 4.3-1.) .................................................................................................................................. 66
Table 4.3-2. Focus Area pressure transducer site locations. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix
B, Table 5.) ................................................................................................................................... 67
Table 4.3-3. Tributary gaging site information. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Table 6.)
....................................................................................................................................................... 67
Table 4.4-1. Comparison of the content contained in the three versions of the hydraulic routing
model. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Table 1.)............................................................... 68
Table 4.4-2. Summary of 2012-2014 surface water data collected at selected ESS stations in the
Susitna River. ESS = AEASusitnaSurface water measurements. Source: Modified ISR Study
8.5, Table 4.4-2.) ........................................................................................................................... 69
Table 5-1. Cumulative data files containing QC3’d data (as of October 2015) for Instream Flow
Study 8.5 available on the Geographic Information Network of Alaska (GINA) at
http://gis.suhydro.org/SIR/08-Instream_Flow/8.5-Fish_and_Aquatics_Instream_Flow/. ........... 70
Table 5.3-1. Mainstem Transect Data Summary Table. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B,
Table 3.) ........................................................................................................................................ 74
Table 5.5-1. Priority ranking of fish species for development of site-specific Habitat Suitability
Curves for the Susitna River, Alaska. (Presented to TWG during Q2 2013 meeting.) (Source:
SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.1-1.).................................................................................... 78
Table 5.5-2. Updated priority ranking of fish species and life stages for development of Habitat
Suitability Criteria for the Susitna River, Alaska. (Presented to Technical Team during Q2 2014
meeting.) (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.1-2.) .................................................... 78
Table 5.5-3. Number of individual sampling events by Focus Area, habitat type, and sampling
session during 2013 - 2014 HSC sampling in the Middle and Lower River segments of the
Susitna River, Alaska. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.2-1.) ............................... 79
Table 5.5-4. Number of microhabitat use measurements used in HSC model development by
Focus Area and habitat type for all species and life stages observed during 2013 - 2014 HSC
surveys of the Middle and Lower River segments of the Susitna River, Alaska. (Source: SIR
Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.2-2.) ........................................................................................... 80
Table 5.5-5. Total number of HSC observations recorded during electrofish sampling in each
winter season of 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, by fish species and life stage. (Source: SIR Study
8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.2-3.) ..................................................................................................... 81
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page vi November 2015
Table 5.5-6. Total number of HSC observations recorded during electrofish sampling in each
winter season of 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, by fish species and life stage. (Source: SIR Study
8.5, Appendix D, Table 1-1.) ........................................................................................................ 82
Table 5.5-7. Proposed minimum and maximum threshold values for use with individual
HSC/HSI model variables and life stages. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.5-1.) 83
Table 5.5-8. Utilization of categorical habitats as a percent of total samples (including
availability) for chum salmon spawning. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.6-7.) .. 84
Table 5.5-9. AIC model comparisons testing random effects and interaction between spawning
site type (random vs. select) and each predictor variable. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D,
Table 5.6-8.) .................................................................................................................................. 85
Table 5.5-10. Chum salmon spawning univariate model AIC comparisons used to select
relationships for multivariate analysis. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.6-9.) ...... 86
Table 5.5-11. AIC results for chum salmon spawning multivariate models. (Source: SIR Study
8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.6-10.) ................................................................................................... 87
Table 5.5-12. Coho fry utilization of habitats with and without each cover type, including
turbidity (>30 NTU) as a cover type (last two rows), or as an interacting factor (last four
columns). (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.6-11.) ................................................. 88
Table 5.5-13. Coho salmon fry univariate model AIC comparisons used to select relationships
for multivariate analysis. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.6-12.) ......................... 89
Table 5.5-14. AIC results for coho salmon fry multivariate models. (Source: SIR Study 8.5,
Appendix D, Table 5.6-13.) .......................................................................................................... 90
Table 5.5-15. Evaluation of FERC requested variables and recommendations for inclusion in
future HSC curve development. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.4-1.) ................ 91
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Map depicting the Upper, Middle and Lower Segments of the Susitna River
potentially influenced by the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project. .......................................... 93
Figure 3-2. Map of the Middle Segment of the Susitna River depicting the eight Geomorphic
Reaches and locations of ten Focus Areas. No Focus Areas were located in MR-3 and MR-4 due
to safety issues related to sampling within or proximal to Devils Canyon. .................................. 94
Figure 3-3. Map of the Lower Segment of the Susitna River depicting the six Geomorphic
Reaches. ........................................................................................................................................ 95
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page vii November 2015
Figure 4.1-1a. Conceptual framework for the Susitna-Watana Instream Flow Study depicting
integration of habitat specific models and riverine processes to support integrated resource
analyses. (Source: ISR Study 8.5, Figure 4.1-1.) .......................................................................... 96
Figure 4.1-1b. Conceptual framework for the Susitna-Watana Instream Flow Study depicting
integration of riverine processes to develop fish and aquatic habitat specific models. (Source:
ISR Study 8.5, Figure 4.1-1.) ........................................................................................................ 97
Figure 4.3-1. Location of tributary gage sites. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Figure 1.)
....................................................................................................................................................... 98
Figure 4.4-1. Mainstem gaging locations. ................................................................................... 99
Figure 4.5-1. Locations of IFS winter studies sites used for continuous and instantaneous water
quality monitoring, water level monitoring, and fish sampling in FA-104 (Whiskers Slough)
during the winter seasons of 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. (Source: SIR Study 8.5,
Appendix D, Figure 5.2-13.) ....................................................................................................... 100
Figure 4.5-2. Locations of IFS winter studies sites used for continuous and instantaneous water
quality monitoring, water level monitoring, and fish sampling in FA-128 (Slough 8A) during the
winter seasons of 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D,
Figure 5.2-14.) ............................................................................................................................ 101
Figure 4.5-3. Locations of IFS winter studies sites used for continuous and instantaneous water
quality monitoring, water level monitoring, and fish sampling in FA-138 (Gold Creek) during the
winter seasons of 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Figure 5.2-
15.) .............................................................................................................................................. 102
Figure 4.6-1. 2-D Model calibration transects at FA-151 (Portage Creek). (Source: SIR Study
8.5, Appendix C, Figure 4.) ........................................................................................................ 103
Figure 5.3-1 Location of 2012, 2013, and 2014 measured flow-routing cross-sections. (Source:
Modified ISR Study 8.5, Figure 5.3-1.\) ..................................................................................... 104
Figure 5.4-1 Longitudinal thalweg profile of the Susitna River extending from PRM 29.9 to
PRM 187.2. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Figure 14.) ................................................. 105
Figure 5.4-2. Locations of flow measurements in the upper Susitna River in 2012-2014, and
classification of flows as low, medium, or high based on concurrent measurements in the Susitna
River at Gold Creek (USGS No. 15292000). (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Figure 15.)
..................................................................................................................................................... 106
Figure 5.4-3. Locations of flow measurements in the lower Susitna River in 2012-2014, and
classification of flows as low, medium, or high based on concurrent measurements in the Susitna
River at Sunshine gage (USGS No. 15292780). (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Figure
16.) .............................................................................................................................................. 107
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page viii November 2015
Figure 5.4-4. Manning’s n channel roughness coefficients derived from steady-state calibration
of flow routing model for 216 cross-sections of the Susitna River surveyed between 2012 and
2014. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Figure 17.) ........................................................... 108
Figure 5.4-5. Comparison of measured versus simulated flow hydrographs in the Susitna River
at Gold Creek (USGS No. 15292000) during the period from July 28 to August 3, 2013.
(Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Figure 18.) ...................................................................... 109
Figure 5.4-6. Comparison of measured versus simulated flow hydrographs in the Susitna River
at Gold Creek (USGS No. 15292000) during the 2013 open-water period. (Source: SIR Study
8.5, Appendix B, Figure 19.) ...................................................................................................... 110
Figure 5.4-7. Comparison of measured versus simulated flow hydrographs in the Susitna River
at Sunshine (USGS No. 15292780) during the period from July 28 to August 3, 2013. (Source:
SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Figure 20.) ..................................................................................... 111
Figure 5.4-8. Comparison of measured versus simulated flow hydrographs in the Susitna River
at Sunshine (USGS No. 15292780) during the 2013 open-water period. (Source: SIR Study 8.5,
Appendix B, Figure 21.) ............................................................................................................. 112
Figure 5.4-9. Comparison of measured versus simulated flow hydrographs in the Susitna River
at Susitna Station (USGS No. 15294350) during the period from July 28 to August 3, 2013.
(Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Figure 22.) ...................................................................... 113
Figure 5.4-10. Comparison of measured versus simulated flow hydrographs in the Susitna River
at Susitna Station (USGS No. 15294350) during the 2013 open-water period. (Source: SIR
Study 8.5, Appendix B, Figure 23.) ............................................................................................ 114
Figure 5.5-1. Normalized utilization for four continuous habitat variables for spawning chum
salmon. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Attachment 5, Figure D5-3.)............................ 115
Figure 5.5-2. Chum spawning HSC as a function of velocity for two substrate types and surface
water temperatures, with depth fixed at 1.2 feet. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Figure
5.6-5.) .......................................................................................................................................... 116
Figure 5.5-3. Chum spawning HSC as a function of surface water temperature for two substrate
types and velocities, with depth fixed at 1.2 feet. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Figure
5.6-6.) .......................................................................................................................................... 116
Figure 5.5-4. Chum spawning HSC as a function of depth for two substrate types, with velocity
fixed at 0.2 fps, and water temperature fixed at 5.5 degrees C. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix
D, Figure 5.6-7.).......................................................................................................................... 117
Figure 5.5-5. Normalized utilization for four continuous habitat variables for coho salmon fry.
(Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Attachment 5, Figure D5-4.) .......................................... 118
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ix November 2015
Figure 5.5-6. HSC model for coho salmon fry as a function of depth for fixed velocity of 0.4 fps
for three different substrate/turbidity groups. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Figure 5.6-
8.) ................................................................................................................................................ 119
Figure 5.5-7. HSC model for coho salmon fry as a function of velocity for fixed depth of 1 foot
for three different substrate/turbidity groups. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Figure 5.6-
9.) ................................................................................................................................................ 119
Figure 5.6-1. Substrate characterization mapping in FA-128 (Slough 8A) on September 21,
2013. For display purposes, the figure shows the distribution of coarse and fine substrate within
the Focus Area; however, the dominant and subdominant particle size and the percent
composition of each substrate polygon is used for habitat modeling purposes (see enlargement of
the lower end of the Focus Area). (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix E, Figure 5.) ................. 120
Figure 5.6-2. Cover polygons in FA-128 (Slough 8A) mapped during September 2013 habitat
surveys. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix E, Figure 13.) ....................................................... 121
Figure 5.6-3. Salmon spawning areas mapped within FA-128 (Slough 8A) during 2013 and 2014
IFS aerial and ground spawning surveys and in association with 1981-1984 monitoring efforts in
the Middle River Segment of the Susitna River. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix E, Figure 20.)
..................................................................................................................................................... 122
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page x November 2015
APPENDICES
Appendix A: 2014 Instream Flow Winter Studies
Appendix B: Open-water Hydrology Data Collection and Open-water Flow Routing Model
(Version 2.8)
Appendix C: 2014 Moving Boat Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) Measurements
Appendix D: Habitat Suitability Criteria Development
Appendix E: Fish Habitat Modeling Data: Surficial Substrate and Cover Characterization and
Salmon Spawning Observations by Focus Area
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xi November 2015
LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS
Abbreviation Definition
1-D One-dimensional
2-D Two-dimensional
ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
AIC Akaike’s Information Criteria
AICc AIC corrected for sample size
cfs cubic feet per second
CIRWG Cook Inlet Region Working Group
DO Dissolved Oxygen
DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon
DSS Decision Support System
EFC Environmental Flow Component
EFDC Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code
EFM Ecosystem Functions Model
FA Focus Area
FDAML Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna River (Study 9.6)
FDAUP Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River (Study 9.5)
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
fps feet per second
GINA Geographic Information Network of Alaska
GIS Geographic Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
GW Groundwater
HSC Habitat Suitability Criteria
HSI Habitat Suitability Index
IFS Fish and Aquatics Instream Flow Study (Study 8.5)
IHA Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration
ILF Integrated Load Following
ILP Integrated Licensing Process
ISR Initial Study Report
LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging
LR Lower Susitna River Segment
mg/L milligrams per liter
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xii November 2015
Abbreviation Definition
MR Middle Susitna River Segment
MWH MWH Global
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
OS Operating Scenario
OWFRM Open-water Flow Routing Model
PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation
PHABSIM Physical Habitat Simulation
ppm parts per million
PRM Project River Mile
Project Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14241
Q Flow
QA Quality Assurance
QC Quality Control
RIFS Riparian Instream Flow Study (Study 8.6)
RSP Revised Study Plan
RTK Real-time kinematic
SIR Study Implementation Report
SPD Study Plan Determination
SW Surface Water
TM Technical Memorandum
TT Technical Team
TWG Technical Workgroup
USGS United States Geological Survey
USR Updated Study Report
VB Visual Basic
VHG Vertical Hydraulic Gradient
VIF Variance Inflation Factor
WSE Water Surface Elevation
WUA Weighted Usable Area
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1 November 2015
1. INTRODUCTION
This Instream Flow Study, Section 8.5 of the Revised Study Plan (RSP) (AEA 2012) approved
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project, FERC Project No. 14241 (Project), focuses on establishing an understanding of
important biological communities and associated habitats, and of the hydrologic, physical, and
chemical processes in the Susitna River that directly influence those resources. RSP Section 8.5
also described the study methods that will be used to evaluate Project effects, including the
selection of study sites, collection of field data, data analysis, and modeling. A summary of the
development of this study, together with the Alaska Energy Authority’s (AEA) implementation
of it through the 2013 study season, appears in Part A, Section 1 of the Initial Study Report (ISR)
filed with FERC in June 2014 (AEA 2014). As required under FERC’s regulations for the
Integrated Licensing Process (ILP), the ISR describes AEA’s “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)).
Since filing the ISR in June 2014, AEA has continued to implement the FERC-approved Study
Plan for the Instream Flow Study. For example:
Three Technical Memoranda (TM) were prepared and submitted in September 2014 that
presented a) results of the analysis of the relationship between various microhabitat
variables and fish abundance; 2) results of the 2013-2014 Fish and Aquatics Instream
Flow Study (IFS) (Study 8.5) winter studies; and 3) results of preliminary groundwater
(GW)/surface water (SW) analysis related to GW Study 7.5 that pertains to the IFS
(Study 8.5). The first two TMs related to Objectives 4 and 5 of the IFS (Study 8.5). The
three TMs were:
o R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2014a. Evaluation of Relationships between Fish
Abundance and Specific Microhabitat Variables. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project, FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: September 17, 2014, Attachment G, Study
8.5 Technical Memorandum.
o R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. (R2). 2014b. 2013-2014 Instream Flow Winter
Studies. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14241 Submittal:
September 17, 2014, Attachment H, Study 8.5 Technical Memorandum.
o Geo-Watersheds Scientific (GWS) and R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2014a.
Preliminary Groundwater and Surface-Water Relationships in Lateral Aquatic
Habitats within Focus Areas FA-128 (Slough 8A) and FA-138 (Gold Creek) in the
Middle Susitna River. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14241
Submittal: September 30, 2014, Attachment C, Study 7.5 Technical
Memorandum.
Five technical reports have been prepared and are included as Appendices to this Study
Implementation Report (SIR). The first report (SIR Study 8.5, Appendix A) provides an
updated analysis of the IFS winter studies that will factor into both the Habitat Suitability
Criteria (HSC) development and the Fish Habitat Modeling. Further refinements to the
Open-water Flow Routing Model (OWFRM) have been made and presented in another
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2 November 2015
report (SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B) that is supportive of addressing Objective 3 of the
IFS (Study 8.5), and a companion report (SIR Study 8.5, Appendix C) describes the
methods used in completing Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) measurements.
The final two reports relate to HSC and Fish Habitat Modeling; the first (SIR Study 8.5,
Appendix D) presents further detailed analysis regarding the development of HSC curves
(specified in Objective 4 of the IFS [Study 8.5]) that will be used to support the Fish
Habitat Modeling (specified in Objective 5 of the IFS [Study 8.5]) and the second (SIR
Study 8.5, Appendix E) describes the collection of substrate and cover data from different
Focus Areas that will likewise be used in the Fish Habitat Modeling, and includes
observations of salmon spawning. The five Appendices include:
o Appendix A: R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2015. 2014 Instream Flow Winter
Studies. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14241 Submittal:
2014-2015 Study Implementation Report, Study 8.5.
o Appendix B: R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2015. Open-water Hydrology Data
Collection and Open-water Flow Routing Model (Version 2.8). Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: 2014-2015 Study
Implementation Report, Study 8.5.
o Appendix C: Brailey Hydrologic. 2015. 2014 Moving Boat Acoustic Doppler
Current Profiler (ADCP) Measurements. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project,
FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: 2014-2015 Study Implementation Report, Study
8.5.
o Appendix D: R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2015. Habitat Suitability Criteria
Development. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14241
Submittal: 2014-2015 Study Implementation Report, Study 8.5.
o Appendix E: R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2015. Fish Habitat Modeling Data:
Surficial Substrate and Cover Characterization and Salmon Spawning
Observations by Focus Area. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.
P-14241 Submittal: 2014-2015 Study Implementation Report, Study 8.5.
Field data collection activities have also continued and have included:
o Recovery and downloading of data from instrumentation that monitored water
level, temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) during the 2014-2015 winter
conditions. Instruments were redeployed within four Focus Areas and will remain
operational throughout the 2015-2016 winter-time period.
o Installation (June 2014) and continuous monitoring of gages at 12 tributary sites
and 5 mainstem sites, and collection of spot flow measurements during July and
September 2014. These gages remained operational through September 2015
when they were decommissioned.
o Collection of a series of discharge measurements over a five day period in
September 2014 within various lateral habitats and at tributary mouths in seven
Focus Areas; these measurements were conducted as part of a joint effort between
the IFS (Study 8.5) and Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling (Study 6.6) and were
designed to occur during a relatively low-flow period in the Susitna River.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3 November 2015
o Collection of substrate, cover, and other hydraulic data within eight Middle
Susitna River Segment (MR) Focus Areas below Devils Canyon to support two-
dimensional (2-D) model development. Field surveys were completed in
September 2014.
o Completion of aerial salmon spawning surveys of the MR Focus Areas in
September 2014.
o Continued collection of HSC data that involved surveys in the MR and Lower
Susitna River Segment (LR) in May, June, July, and September 2014.
o Collection of data from 11 SW stations that were maintained at different locations
along the mainstem Susitna River. Information collected at the stations included
some or all of the following: stage, water temperature, camera images, and
meteorological conditions. These stations were serviced in September/October
2015 during which time five were decommissioned and removed, and six were
maintained and will continue to collect data.
Data analysis and model refinements have continued including:
o Refinements to the MR 2-D Fish Habitat Model to incorporate a common grid
system that can process data from both SRH-2D and River2D model outputs, as
well as outputs from the Water Quality Modeling (Study 5.6), and GW (Study
7.5) studies.
o Continued development of a HEC-RAS hydraulic model and calibration and
model simulation of remaining LR sites collected during 2013 at Trapper Creek,
and transects located at Project River Mile (PRM) 95, and PRM96.
o Completion of Version 2.8 of the OWFRM that incorporated additional cross-
sectional data collected in 2014.
o Continued analysis of HSC data and development of draft final multivariate HSC
models for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) fry and juvenile, chum
salmon (O. keta) spawning, coho salmon (O. kisutch) fry and juvenile, sockeye
salmon (O. nerka) spawning, Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) fry and
juvenile, whitefish fry and juvenile, and longnose sucker (Catostomus
catostomus) juvenile and adult.
o Continued advancement of the Decision Support System (DSS) that is leading to
development of a detailed example that illustrates estimation of one metric in the
Decision Support Matrix (with consideration of uncertainty) based on habitat
modeling results from two flow scenarios.
A combined GW-IFS-Riparian Instream Flow (RIFS Study 8.6) Technical Team (TT)
meeting was held on December 5, 2014 to discuss and solicit questions from Licensing
Participants regarding the October 2014 ISR meetings and the GW-IFS-RIFS TMs that
were submitted in September 2014 (the GW-IFS TM is listed above (GWS and R2
2014a); the GW-RIFS TM is listed in SIR Study 7.5 and SIR Study 8.6 (Groundwater
and Surface-Water Relationships in Support of Riparian Vegetation Modeling, submitted
to the FERC September 30, 2014 [GWS and R2 2014b]). A meeting summary was
subsequently prepared and made available to the Licensing Participants on AEA’s public
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4 November 2015
website. A copy of the presentation materials and the meeting summary are included in
SIR Study 7.5, Appendix D.
In furtherance of the next round of ISR meetings and the FERC Director’s Study Determination
expected in 2016, this SIR describes AEA’s overall progress in implementing the IFS (Study 8.5)
through the end of calendar year 2014 and up through and including the submittal of this SIR in
2015. The SIR is not intended to provide a comprehensive reporting of all field work, data
collection, and data analysis since the beginning of AEA’s study program, but rather to provide
an update of information presented in ISR Part A for the IFS. The SIR and its Appendices
describe the methods and results of these efforts, and discusses the results in terms of the eight
stated objectives of the IFS (Study 8.5). Although each of the eight objectives is included in the
SIR, only those for which substantial work was completed are discussed in detail.
2. STUDY OBJECTIVES
The overall goal of the IFS (Study 8.5) and its component study efforts is to provide quantitative
indices of existing aquatic habitats that enable a determination of the effects of alternative
Project operational scenarios. The eight study objectives were established and listed in RSP
Section 8.5.1.2 and are summarized below:
1. Map the current aquatic habitat in main channel and off-channel habitats of the Susitna
River affected by Project operations. This objective will be completed as part of the RSP
Study 9.9 (Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats).
2. Select study areas and sampling procedures to collect data and information that can be
used to characterize, quantify, and model mainstem and lateral Susitna River habitat
types at different scales (RSP Section 8.5.4.2).
3. Develop a mainstem OWFRM that estimates water surface elevations and average water
velocity along modeled transects on an hourly basis under alternative operational
scenarios (RSP Section 8.5.4.3).
4. Develop site-specific HSC and Habitat Suitability Indices (HSI) for various species and
life stages of fish for biologically relevant time periods selected in consultation with the
Technical Workgroup (TWG). If study efforts are unable to develop robust site-specific
data, HSC/HSI will be developed using the best available information and selected in
consultation with the TWG (RSP Section 8.5.4.5).
5. Develop integrated aquatic habitat models that produce a time series of data for a variety
of biological metrics under existing conditions and alternative operational scenarios (RSP
Section 8.5.4.7).
6. Evaluate existing conditions and alternative operational scenarios using a hydrologic
database that includes specific years or portions of annual hydrographs for wet, average,
and dry hydrologic conditions and warm and cool Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)
phases (RSP Section 8.5.4.7).
7. Coordinate instream flow modeling and evaluation procedures with complementary study
efforts, including Riparian Instream Flow (Study 8.6), Geomorphology (Studies 6.5 and
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5 November 2015
6.6), GW (Study 7.5), Baseline Water Quality (Study 5.5), Fish Passage Barriers (Study
9.12), and Ice Processes (Study 7.6) (RSP Section 8.5.4.8).
8. Develop a Decision Support System (DSS)-type framework to conduct a variety of post-
processing comparative analyses derived from the output metrics estimated under aquatic
habitat models (RSP Section 8.5.4.8).
3. STUDY AREA
The IFS program is focused on addressing flow-related effects of Project operations downstream
of the Watana Dam (PRM 187.1). As established in the Study Plan, the Susitna River is
characterized into three segments (Figure 3-1). The overall study area of the IFS includes the
two lower segments of the river: the MR which extends from PRM 187.1 downstream to the
Three Rivers Confluence at PRM 102.4 (Figure 3-2) and the LR which extends from the Three
Rivers Confluence to Cook Inlet (Figure 3-3). Figure 3-2 also displays the locations of the ten
Focus Areas that were identified as part of the River Stratification and Study Area Selection
process described in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.2.
4. METHODS
The IFS Study is divided into eight study components related to the study objectives outlined in
Section 2 above: 1) IFS Analytical Framework, 2) River Stratification and Study Area Selection,
3) Hydraulic Routing, 4) Hydrologic Data Analysis, 5) Habitat Suitability Curve Development,
6) Habitat-Specific Model Development, 7) Temporal and Spatial Habitat Analysis, and 8)
Instream Flow Study Integration. Each of the components and its related study methods have
been explained in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4. This section provides an update of activities
related to each of the objectives that have occurred since the June 2014 ISR. Only objectives for
which work has been completed since June 2014 are discussed in detail; others are cross-
referenced back to the methods in the RSP and ISR.
4.1. IFS Analytical Framework
4.1.1. Methodology
As described in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.1, AEA implemented the methods associated
with this study element in accordance with the Study Plan with no variances.
The analytical framework of the IFS was described in detail in Section 4.1.1 of the ISR and
depicted in Figure 4.1-1a and Figure 4.1-1b. The instream flow framework is designed to
integrate riverine processes, including geomorphology, ice processes, water quality, and GW/SW
interactions to quantify changes in indicators used to measure the integrity of aquatic resources.
The framework includes the development of a number of resource specific models that will be
linked together to collectively evaluate Project operational effects.
Since the June 2014 ISR, work has continued on the development and refinement of these
models as described in SIR for Studies 5.6, 6.6, 7.5, 7.6, 8.5 and 8.6. Of particular note is the
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6 November 2015
development of a preliminary three dimensional MODFLOW GW model for FA-128 (Slough
8A) (SIR Study 7.5; Appendix B). When fully calibrated, this model will utilize inputs from the
OWFRM (SIR Study 8.5), SRH-2D hydraulic models (SIR Study 6.6), and the River1D and
River2D (SIR Study 7.6) Ice Processes models for evaluating Project operational effects on
GW/SW interactions. Output from the MODFLOW can then be linked with the 2-D Physical
Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) Fish Habitat Models for assessing Project effects on fish
habitats dependent on/influenced by GW (e.g., spawning, egg incubation, juvenile
overwintering). Similar MODFLOW models can be developed and utilized for FA-104
(Whiskers Slough), FA-115 (Slough 6A), and FA-138 (Gold Creek) (SIR Study 7.5).
In addition, a combined GW-IFS-RIFS TT meeting occurred on December 5, 2014 to discuss
progress on the GW analysis related to the IFS (Study 8.5) and RIFS (Study 8.6) studies.
4.1.2. Variances
AEA implemented the methods as described in the Study Plan and ISR Study 8.5, Part A,
Section 4.1 with no variances, and there have been no additional variances since the June 2014
ISR.
4.2. River Stratification and Study Area Selection
AEA implemented the methods as described in the Study Plan and ISR Study 8.5, Part A,
Section 4.1, with the exception of variances explained below. The methods that have been used
for stratification and study area selection were described in detail in ISR Study 8.5, Part A,
Sections 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2 and are not repeated here. The study area selection process resulted
in the selection of ten Focus Areas (FAs) located in the MR of the Susitna River (Figure 3-2)
from which to conduct coordinated multi-resource studies (ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section
4.2.1.2.1), and located in the LR of the Susitna River there are five one-dimensional (1-D)
PHABSIM sites in LR-1 between PRM 92.5 and PRM 97.5 including Trapper Creek and Birch
Creek confluences, five 1-D PHABSIM sites in LR-2 between PRM 65 and PRM 70 including
Sheep Creek and Caswell Creek confluences, and the Deshka River confluence (PRM 44.9)
(Figure 3-3) from which to conduct IFS studies.
Detailed surveys were initiated on the lower seven of the ten Focus Areas in 2013 and
preliminary study results were presented for FA-128 (Slough 8A) in the Appendix N of the June
2014 ISR. However, surveys of the upper three Focus Areas (FA-151 [Portage Creek], FA-173
[Stephan Lake Complex], and FA-184 [Watana Dam]) were limited in 2013 due to access
restrictions associated with Cook Inlet Regional Working Group (CIRWG) lands. These
restrictions were resolved and since the June 2014 ISR, AEA completed detailed bathymetric and
2-D model calibration surveys at FA-151 (Portage Creek) that are necessary to develop 2-D
hydraulic models that will be used for evaluating Project operational effects on fish and aquatic
habitats (IFS Study 8.5), fish access to Portage Creek (Study 9.12), channel morphology (Study
6.6), and Ice Processes (Study 7.6). Surveys of FA-173 (Stephan Lake Complex) and FA-184
(Watana Dam) are needed to complete this study component.
The IFS field surveys at the five LR-1 sites were completed in 2013, and preliminary hydraulic
analysis for the Birch Creek and PRM97 sites were presented in ISR Study 8.5, Part A,
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 7 November 2015
Appendix I: Lower River Hydraulic Model Calibration (R2 2014c). Transect data were collected
at the Deshka River confluence as part of Study 6.6 (Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling). Since
the June 2014 ISR, the Trapper and Birch Creek data and mainstem transect data at PRM95,
PRM96, and PRM97 sites are undergoing additional analysis (ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section
4.6.1.2.3). However, field measurements of the LR-2 sites are needed to complete this study
component.
4.2.1. Variances from Study Plan
AEA implemented the methods as described in the Study Plan and ISR Study 8.5 with the
exception of the variance explained below. While land access was not available for the three
upper Focus Areas adjacent to CIRWG lands in 2013, this restriction was resolved in 2014 and
AEA was able to complete detailed surveys in one of the three Focus Areas FA-151 (Portage
Creek) by September 2014. However, surveys of FA-173 (Stephan Lake Complex) and FA-184
(Watana Dam) are still needed to complete this study component. Even so, this is not considered
a variance because this study was designed to collect data over multiple years.
Sampling of sites in LR-1, LR-2, and the Deshka River was originally scheduled for 2013, but
sites in LR-2 were not surveyed and were scheduled for the next year of study (ISR Study 8.5,
Part A, Section 4.6.2). Surveying of 1-D PHABSIM sites in LR-2 was not conducted in 2014;
however, flow data were collected in Sheep and Caswell creeks and the Deshka River (Section
4.3) and HSC data were collected in LR-2 between PRM 65 and PRM 70. The IFS sites in LR-2
must still be surveyed to complete this study component. This change in schedule will not have
a substantive effect on meeting study objectives.
4.3. Hydrologic Data Analysis
AEA implemented the methods as described in the Study Plan and ISR Study 8.5 with the
exception of the variances explained in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.3.2 (Variances from
Study Plan).
AEA’s overall hydrology program includes; 1) an assessment of existing hydrology data that will
summarize seasonal and long-term hydrologic characteristics for the river including daily,
monthly, and annual summaries, exceedance summaries, and recurrence intervals of small and
large floods; and 2) the installation and monitoring of a number of mainstem and tributary gages
that will fill-in data gaps, contemporize the flow record, and provide for a more robust
hydrologic data set. Activities completed in 2013 were summarized in ISR Study 8.5, Part A,
Appendix A: Hydrologic Data Collection Methods (R2 2014d). Since the June 2014 ISR, AEA
has continued implementation of the hydrology program with details of activities completed
since then described below.
4.3.1. Methodology
4.3.1.1. Hydrologic Data Collection
In 2014, AEA continued the collection and analysis of hydrologic data at a number of existing
mainstem gaging stations, collected transect data at additional mainstem locations, collected
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 8 November 2015
water surface elevation (WSE) data at upstream and downstream ends of Focus Areas, and
maintained existing and installed new tributary gages at a total of 13 sites. The mainstem
Susitna River hydrologic data collection included stage and discharge measurements, cross-
sectional and areal bathymetric surveys, velocity mapping, and roughness determinations.
During open-water conditions, mainstem discharge measurements were performed using an
Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) following current United States Geological Survey
(USGS) guidance (Mueller et al. 2013). Stage, discharge and bathymetric surveys were
performed at 63 mainstem cross-sections following methods described in ISR Study 8.5, Part A,
Section 4.3.1.1), and numerous calibration transects were measured within Focus Areas
(including inlets and outlets) using the surveying and ADCP methods. A description of the
Focus Area measurements is also provided in SIR Study 8.5, Appendix C: 2014 Moving Boat
Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) Measurements. Continuous stage measurements
(along with temperature and meteorological data) were also recorded in 2014 at AEA hydrology
stations, following methods described in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.3.1.1). Table 4.3-1
shows a listing of the stations in the real-time reporting data network. In addition, forty-two staff
gages were installed in September 2014 within side channels and sloughs of the Susitna River (4
in FA-144 [Slough 21], 5 in FA-141 [Indian River], 8 in FA-138 [Gold Creek], 8 in FA-128
[Slough 8A], 6 in FA-115 [Slough 6A], 4 in FA-113 [Oxbow 1], 3 at PRM 112, and 4 in FA-104
[Whiskers Slough]). All staff gages were surveyed into the project datum and were installed to
allow manual opportunistic measurements to be made of water surface elevations and discharge
by resource study field participants who may be within those areas. All but one of the staff
gages were removed in September 2015.
Mainstem stage data were collected at the upstream and downstream ends of the eight Focus
Areas below Devils Canyon to support the Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling Study (Study 6.6).
For this effort, Solinst levelogger pressure transducers were installed at 11 locations along the
mainstem of the Susitna River (Table 4.3-2). The leveloggers were set to record in 15-minute
increments, installed on July 22 and 23, 2014 and removed in mid-September 2014.
Benchmarks and WSEs were surveyed during installation and removal and hourly hydrograph
data calculated in reference to the project datum.
No additional winter streamflow measurements have been made since the June 2014 ISR.
4.3.1.1.1. Tributaries to the Susitna River
Tributary gaging stations installed at selected tributaries in 2013 were maintained in 2014 and
four additional sites (Tsusena Creek, Fog Creek, Portage Creek, and Gold Creek) were installed
in spring/early summer 2014 (Table 4.3-3; Figure 4.3-1). The gaging stations were installed in
spring/early summer of 2014 to help measure the spring snowmelt peaks. In all, there were 12
continuous sites, five companion stage-only sites located in the downstream slough of the
mainstem of the Susitna River, and nine spot measurement sites measured in 2014. Details
concerning the installation, monitoring, and data analysis procedures of the tributary gages are
presented in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Appendix A (R2 2014d) and this SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B.
Of the 26 sites, 16 were removed in September 2014 and the remaining 10 sites removed in
September 2015.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 9 November 2015
4.3.1.1.2. Hydrologic Data Real-time Reporting Network Operations
The data network system and stations that were installed in 2012 were operated through 2015 as
a means to provide real-time updates on hydrology and other meteorological parameters at
locations throughout the river (Table 4.3-1). These stations are connected through a radio
telemetry system using spread-spectrum radio communication and a network of repeater stations
to communicate to a central base station. The stations were serviced in September 2015 during
which time five stations (ESS10, ESS15, ESS30, ESS50, and ESS65) were decommissioned
(data needs were met) and six stations (ESS20, ESS40, ESS45, ESS55, ESS70 and ESS80) were
maintained. Table 4.3-1 summarizes the current status of the original 13 ESS stations.
4.3.1.2. Hydrologic Data Analyses
Since the June 2014 ISR, the primary activities associated with hydrologic data analysis have
included data compilation and Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Control (QC) reviews of flow
and stage data; tributary gaging data QC, rating curve development, and stream flow
computations; and Susitna River mainstem transect cross-section and bathymetric data post-
processing. Processed mainstem transect and tributary data collected through September 2014
are provided in Appendix B: Open-water Hydrology Data Collection and Open-water Flow
Routing Model (Version 2.8). Tributary data analysis is ongoing and will include the revisions
to daily and hourly hydrology for 59 tributaries to the Susitna River used in the Susitna River
OWFRM and by other resource studies in Focus Area 2-D modeling efforts.
The analysis of representative years was also completed in 2014 with the rationale for the
recommended years provided in the ISR Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix J: Representative Years
(R2 2014e). The topic of representative years was discussed at the November 13-15, 2013 IFS
TT Riverine Modelers meeting, at the Q4 2013 TWG meeting, and during the April 15-17, 2014
IFS TT Riverine Modeling Proof of Concept meeting.
4.3.1.3. Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration and Environmental Flow Components
Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA)/Environmental Flow Component (EFC) -type
analyses will be used as indicators of Project effects by comparing hydrologic statistics
describing Existing Conditions and Project operational scenarios. AEA proposed a list of
IHA/EFC metrics at the March 21, 2014 TWG meeting. Final metrics will be developed with
input from the Licensing Participants and other resource disciplines after Version 3 of the Open-
water Flow Routing Model is completed. Variances from Study Plan
AEA implemented the methods as described in this section of the Study Plan with the exception
of the variances explained below.
4.3.1.4. Tributaries to the Susitna River
The RSP states that “Additional gaging stations will be added at selected tributaries to help
provide additional hydrologic analysis for hydrologic and fisheries studies. These tributaries will
include Fog Creek, Portage Creek, and Indian River. These gaging stations will be installed in
spring 2013 to help measure the spring snowmelt peaks.”
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 10 November 2015
Twenty-six spot measurement, continuous, and companion stage-only tributary gaging stations
were installed on tributaries of the Susitna River between 2013 and 2015. Data were collected
on Indian River between July 2013 and September 2015. A gage was installed on Portage Creek
and data were collected between June 2014 and September 2015. A continuous gage was also
installed on Fog Creek between June 2014 and September 2015, but no rating curve could be
established since a tree fell after the gage was installed affecting the site hydraulics. Instead,
only spot measurement streamflow data were collected at Fog Creek. Tributary inputs in the
OWFRM were estimated based on drainage area and then adjusted using available tributary
gaging data as described in SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B. Adjustments for Fog Creek were based
on spot measurement data collected in three different years (1982, 2014, and 2015). Data gaps
associated with the lack of continuous gage data on Fog Creek will not appreciably affect
accretion calculations used in the OWFRM.
4.3.1.5. Representative Years
The RSP states that “Five representative years will be selected that represent, wet, average, and
dry conditions, and warm and cool Pacific Decadal Oscillation phases so that Project effects for
various project alternatives can be evaluated under a range of climatic and hydrologic conditions.
In addition, a multi-year continuous flow record will be evaluated to identify year-to-year
variations independent of average, wet, or dry conditions. The specific representative years and
the duration of the continuous flow record will be selected by AEA in consultation with the
TWG in Q3 2013.”
A variance was noted regarding the schedule for the selection of representative years. However,
AEA has developed a set of recommended representative years which were presented in ISR
Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix J: Representative Years (R2 2014e) so this is no longer a variance.
4.3.1.6. Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration and Environmental Flow Components
The RSP states that “In consultation with the TWG, the IHA/ Environmental Flow Component
(EFC) or HEC-Ecosystems Function Model (EFM) programs will be used to evaluate existing
conditions and alternative operational scenarios for the Project. Select hydrologic parameters,
considered to be ecologically relevant to Susitna River resources, will be developed in
consultation with the TWG in Q3 2013, and initial results and potential modification reviewed
by the TWG in Q1 2014.” The RSP also states that “Interim results of the IHA-type analyses
will be presented in the ISR.”
Candidate metrics and the proposed IHA analysis were presented in the March 21, 2014 IFS TT
meeting. A variance in schedule has occurred for the IHA analysis. The determination of the
appropriate methodology to apply, and parameters to use, from the Indicators of Hydrologic
Alteration continued through Q4 of 2014. The final metrics will be developed with input from
the TWG and other resource disciplines after Version 3 of the OWFRM is available. Delay in
selecting the final IHA/EFC parameters will not affect the ability to meet study objectives.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 11 November 2015
4.4. Reservoir Operations Model and Open-water Flow Routing
Model
AEA implemented the methods as described in the Study Plan (RSP Section 8.5.4.3) with the
exception of the variances described in Section 4.4.2.
4.4.1. Reservoir Operations Model
A reservoir operations model is needed to forecast a range of reservoir outflows associated with
different operational scenarios that will be evaluated as part of the IFS. Originally HEC ResSim
was used to simulate reservoir operations as described in the ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.4.
As the model operational scenarios changed, it became apparent HEC ResSim could not
adequately simulate conditions and a proprietary reservoir operations model was developed
(MWH-ROM). This model is a water balance type of reservoir operation model that accounts
for flow through the project reservoir, penstocks, and powerhouse on an hourly basis for the
continuous 61-year period of record. The model is written in FORTRAN and uses a number of
text input and output files.
The operation model input includes: 1) daily inflows to the reservoir; 2) daily local inflows
between Watana Dam and the USGS gaging station at Gold Creek; 3) general model input
parameters that describe the physical and operating rules and characteristics of the reservoir; 4)
Susitna-Watana powerhouse characteristics, which contains the preliminary turbine efficiencies
as a function of flow and head, preliminary generator efficiencies as a function of output, and
limiting maximums of the units; 5) the Railbelt electricity load for each hour of the year from
which the generation requirements at Susitna-Watana are developed; and 6) minimum flow
requirements at Gold Creek for each day of the year. A description of the MWH-ROM can be
found in the Engineering Feasibility Report Section 12 Project Operation and Resource
Utilization (MWH 2014). The MWH-ROM will be used for all future reservoir operations
modeling scenarios.
4.4.2. Open-water Flow Routing Model
The HEC-RAS model (USACE 2010a, 2010b, and 2010c) was selected as the platform for the
Open-water Flow Routing Model (OWFRM) to route stage fluctuations downstream from the
proposed Project dam under open-water conditions (i.e., summer, ice-free). Two different flow
routing models have been developed: an open-water model (HEC-RAS) described in this section
of the SIR and a winter model to route flows under ice-covered conditions (Study 7.6). The
seasonal timing of the transition from the HEC-RAS model to the ice processes model and vice
versa will vary from year to year and depends on seasonal climate conditions and conditions
such as the onset of frazil and bank ice formation in the fall and loss of river and bank ice
following spring breakup.
The OWFRM will utilize outputs from the Reservoir Operations Model as input to assess the
magnitude, timing and frequency of hourly flow and stage conditions during open-water periods
(i.e., ice-free) at numerous locations longitudinally distributed throughout the length of the river
extending from PRM 187.2 downstream to PRM 29.9 (about 1.5 miles downstream from the
confluence with the Yentna River) during open-water periods (i.e., ice-free). The OWFRM was
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 12 November 2015
developed using river cross-sections and streamflow gaging stations established on the Susitna
River. Three versions of the model have been developed and provided for distribution to other
resource studies. Each successive version of the model is refined and contains more detail based
on additional information available.
The OWFRM V 2.8 was developed using cross-sectional data collected between 2012 and 2014
in accordance with USGS procedures and as described in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Appendix C:
Moving Boat ADCP Measurements [R2 2014g]). This entailed surveying of ground surface and
water surface elevations at each cross-section using Real-time Kinetic (RTK) Global Positioning
System (GPS) instrumentation. River bathymetry and flow velocities were measured using an
ADCP system consisting of a Sontek M9 equipped with RTK GPS positioning. Water surface
slopes were also measured, photographs taken and vegetation descriptions developed at each
section. Flow measurements were made at each river cross-section by completing at least four
passes across the channel width.
The 2012 cross-sections were measured during three field trips intended to capture high-flow
(28,000 cubic feet per second [cfs]), medium-flow (16,000 cfs), and low-flow (8,000 cfs)
conditions corresponding to the USGS gaging station at Gold Creek (USGS No. 15292000). The
2013 and 2014 cross-sections were surveyed to improve the OWFRM, to extend the model down
to PRM 29.9, to fill in data gaps from the 2012 cross-sections to capture high-, medium-, and
low-flow conditions, and to provide additional cross-sections needed in the geomorphology
model (Study 6.6) and for the RIFS (Study 8.6) analysis.
Results and documentation of Version 1 of the OWFRM were completed in January 2013 (Open-
water HEC-RAS Flow Routing Model, submitted to the FERC January 31, 2013 [R2 et al.
2013]). The January 2013 version of the model extended from the proposed Dam Site at PRM
187.1 downstream to PRM 80.0 (about 23 miles downstream from the confluence with the
Chulitna River). Version 1 of the model relied on data collected during the 2012 summer field
season and included data from 88 surveyed river cross-sections (16 between the proposed Dam
Site and Devils Canyon, 59 between Devils Canyon and the Three Rivers Confluence, and 13
downstream from the Three Rivers Confluence). Version 2 of the OWFRM was completed in
2014 and was developed using 167 river cross-sections surveyed in 2012 and 2013, 383
flow/water surface elevation pairs, and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) surveys of the
floodplain in 2011. The Version 2 model extended from the proposed Dam Site at PRM 187.1
downstream to PRM 29.9.
As described in the FERC-approved Study Plan, the final Version 3 of the OWFRM was
anticipated for completion as part of the Updated Study Report (USR). However an intermediate
version of the model was completed that represents an update from Version 2, but is not the final
version that will be presented as Version 3. This intermediate version of the model is
documented in this SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B and is termed Version 2.8. Based on the
differences in data collection and model completion, the Susitna River has been separated into
two reaches, above and below the USGS gage Susitna River at Sunshine (USGS No. 15292780)
at PRM 87.9.
Version 2.8 of the OWFRM includes a revision of the reach between the proposed Dam Site at
PRM 187.1 downstream to PRM 87.9 (USGS No. 15292780 Susitna River at Sunshine), while
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 13 November 2015
the model from PRM 87.9 downstream to PRM 29.9 (USGS No. 15294350 Susitna River at
Susitna Station) has not changed from Version 2. The reach from the Proposed Dam Site to
Sunshine incorporates the additional transect and Q (flow) and WSE pair data collected in 2014,
the revised LiDAR data collected in 2013, diurnal fluctuations, and adjustments of tributary
estimates based on gage data collected in 2013 and 2014. In order to simulate the lower
Sunshine to Susitna Station reach of the model, the results of the upper reach (Dam Site to
Sunshine reach) are used as input to the lower reach and represent a boundary condition for the
Sunshine to Susitna Station reach. The electronic files needed to run each of these two reaches
of the OWFRM are provided separately.
The reach of the model from Sunshine to Susitna Station uses the data and calibration provided
in Version 2 and documented in ISR Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix K: Hydrology and Version 2
Open-water Flow Routing Model (R2 2014h). The final version “Version 3” of the OWFRM
will include validation of the upper Susitna River portion and revisions to the lower Susitna
River portion with additional cross-section and hydrologic data. A comparison of the three
completed versions and the content contained in each is provided in Table 4.4-1.
The hourly flow records from USGS gaging stations on the Susitna River were also utilized to
help develop Version 2.8 of the OWFRM. Water stage, water temperature, air temperature, and
time-laps photographic (camera) images of river conditions were also collected at each ESS
station. The additional ESS mainstem gaging stations (Table 4.3-1) will be used to validate
OWFRM output.
During the development and calibration of Version 2.8 of the OWFRM, the drainage areas of
ungaged tributaries were quantified and used to help estimate accretion flows to the Susitna
River between locations of mainstem USGS gages where flows are measured. The flow
estimates developed for ungaged tributaries were refined based on flows that were measured in
those tributaries in 2013 and 2014 (SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B). These distributions will be
further refined based on final measured data collected through 2015.
4.4.3. Variances from Study Plan
AEA implemented the methods as described in the Study Plan with the exception of the
variances explained below.
Section 8.5.4.3.1 of the RSP states that “The gaging stations initially installed in 2012 will be
maintained through 2013 and 2014 to help calibrate and validate the flow routing models and
provide data supporting other studies.” This section also states that one of the objectives is to
“Install and operate 13 water-level recording stations within the mainstem Susitna River.”
Version 1 of the OWFRM (R2 et al. 2013) was developed in January 2013 following submittal
of the RSP. However, as noted in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.4.2, during the development
of the OWFRM it became apparent that all 13 mainstem water-level recording stations were not
needed for calibration purposes (see Table 4.4-2 and Figure 4.4-1 for locations of these stations)
since the 15-minute USGS data were used for model calibration. Thus, the data available from
the mainstem ESS stations will be primarily used in validation of Version 3 of the model. Use of
the ESS data for validation purposes is an important element in the development of the final
Version 3 OWFRM and is not a variance.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 14 November 2015
Section 8.5.4.3.2 of the RSP states that “The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic
Engineering Center (HEC) reservoir system simulation model HEC-ResSim Version 3.0 will be
used to develop the reservoir outflows used in the Instream Flow Study.
Preliminary versions of the reservoir operations model were developed using HEC ResSim.
However, during model development it became apparent that HEC ResSim could not
accommodate all of the necessary reservoir modeling components. In response to this
development, a proprietary reservoir operations model was developed (MWH-ROM) and will be
used for development of reservoir operations scenarios.
4.5. Habitat Suitability Criteria Development
AEA implemented the methods as described in the Study Plan with the exception of the
variances described in Section 4.5.2. The general basis for and methods used for developing
HSC and HSI were described in the FERC-approved Study Plan and further detailed in the ISR
Study 8.5, and ISR Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix M: Habitat Suitability Curve Development (R2
2014i). As noted in the ISR, HSC and HSI are considered together and are reported hereafter as
HSC/HSI.
Since the June 2014 ISR, activities associated with the HSC/HSI study component have
included: 1) selection of final draft priority fish species and life stages and per iodicity tables; 2)
collection of summer (May-October) and winter (February-April) microhabitat use and
availability data in the MR and LR; 3) development of updated histograms displaying frequency
of use for different microhabitat variables by season (summer vs. winter) and by river segment
(MR and LR); 4) development of draft final multivariate preference curves for Chinook salmon
fry and juvenile, chum salmon spawning, coho salmon fry and juvenile, sockeye salmon
spawning, Arctic grayling fry and juvenile, whitefish fry and juvenile (round [Prosopium
cylindraceum] and humpback [Coregonus pidschian]), and longnose sucker juvenile and adult;
5) recommendation of HSC/HSI thresholds values to help define habitat preference; and 6) for
species and life stages with insufficient site-specific observations for development of preference
curves, habitat utilization measurements were compared to HSC developed as part of the 1980s
Susitna River studies.
A detailed description of each of these elements is presented in SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D and
summarized below.
4.5.1. Select Priority Fish Species and Development of Periodicity Information
Defining the species of interest (i.e., priority species) and then developing an understanding of
the timing of different life stage functions (i.e., periodicity) for each of the species is an
important aspect of instream flow studies. Both the 1980s studies and the current licensing
studies (IFS Study 8.5, and Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Middle and Lower Susitna
River [FDAML] Study 9.6) recognized the importance of defining priority species and their life
stage periodicities for evaluating potential Project effects. A proposed final list of priority fish
species for potential development of HSC curves was developed in collaboration with the
Technical Working Group (TWG) during meetings held in Q1 and Q2 2013, and during a
Technical Team meeting held in Q1 2014. The species rankings were based on information
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 15 November 2015
presented in the 1980s technical studies, results of the 2013 and 2014 HSC surveys, management
status, and perceived sensitivity to changes in habitat due to potential Project operations. The
ranking specifies the general methodology that will be used to develop HSC for a particular
species and life stage based the number of site-specific observations collected during 2013-2014
surveys, availability of HSC curves developed during the 1980s Susitna studies, availability of
HSC curves from outside the Susitna basin, and life history information.
Draft periodicity tables were presented in the ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Appendix H: Periodicity
Tables (R2 2014j). The draft periodicity tables were developed to describe the temporal periods
which each priority species and life stage are expected to occur in the Project area. No updates
or refinements have been made to the draft periodicity tables since the submi ttal of the June 2014
ISR.
4.5.2. Development of Draft Final HSC/HSI
The HSC/HSI Development Study has been implemented following methods described in the
FERC-approved Study Plan with the exception of variances noted in Section 4.6.2.
Specific activities used in development of the draft HSC have included: 1) study site selection
and distribution; 2) collection of site-specific HSC/HSI data during summer and winter sampling
events; 3) development of histograms using 2013-2014 habitat utilization data to display the
frequency of microhabitat use by river segment, season, and comparisons with 1980s HSC for
specific species and life stages; and 4) development of draft final HSC for those species and life
stages with sufficient observations (2013 and 2014 data) using statistical methods.
4.5.2.1. HSC/HSI Sample Area Selection
Summer and winter HSC surveys utilized both random and non-random sampling in selection of
HSC sampling sites. Utilizing both a random and non-random site selection approach provided
representative sampling of a range of macrohabitat types available to fish, while also ensuring
that sufficient numbers of observations were collected.
Summer HSC sampling occurred at random locations within the LR and MR of the Susitna
River. A majority of the HSC sampling sites were within the ten Focus Areas located within the
MR of the Susitna River. During 2013, HSC sampling was conducted at seven of the ten 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], and FA-144 [Slough 21]). In 2014, HSC
sampling was conducted in all ten MR Focus Areas and in the Trapper-Birch and Sheep-Caswell
Creek complexes in the LR (SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Figures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2). Because of
the spatial clustering of spawning activities, HSC spawning surveys in 2014 were only conducted
at those locations (within and outside of Focus Areas) where spawning was observed during the
1980s and 2013 surveys.
Winter HSC sampling in the MR occurred during two winter periods (2012-2013 and 2013-
2014) (SIR Study 8.5, Appendix A). Data collection primarily occurred within three Focus
Areas: FA-104 (Whisker Slough), FA-128 (Slough 8A), and FA-138 (Gold Creek); however,
opportunistic sampling also occurred within FA-141 (Indian River) (SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D,
Figure 4.2-3). These Focus Areas were selected for the 2012-2014 sampling effort because they
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 16 November 2015
contain a diversity of habitat types with GW influence, they have documented fish utilization by
multiple fish species and life stages, and they could be safely accessed during the winter.
A detailed description of the random sampling approach used for HSC sampling is presented in
ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.5.1.3. In summary, the stratification approach splits
macrohabitat into linear habitat units of 500-meter (main and side-channels) and 200-meter-long
(off-channel) segments. These units were then stratified into areas of known fish use versus
unknown fish use based on studies conducted in the 1980s. Individual sample sites (100-meter
and 50-meter) were then placed within the habitat units, in areas that visually appeared to have
the greatest diversity of microhabitat types (i.e., fast and slow, deep and shallow water) an d
could be safely surveyed.
The general location of each summer and winter sampling site within the LR and MR segment is
presented in SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Figures 5.2-1 through 5.2-15.
4.5.2.2. Collect Site-Specific Habitat Use Information
As previously stated, both summer and winter HSC/HSI surveys were completed to evaluate
potential seasonal difference in habitat use by target fish species. During each survey,
microhabitat data (e.g., water depth, velocity, substrate composition, cover, water quality) were
recorded at each fish observation point.
While fish microhabitat use information was collected on all species and life stages encountered
(with the exception of sculpin [Cottid]), the locations, timing, and methods of sampling efforts
targeted key (high-moderate priority) species and life stages identified in consultation with the
TWG during Q1 2013.
4.5.2.3. Summer Surveys
Summertime surveys were completed in 2013 and 2014 to collect site-specific information on
microhabitat use and availability for development of multivariate HSC. Collection of summer
2014 HSC data closely followed the methods utilized during the summer 2013 sampling. The
only notable differences between the summer 2013 and 2014 sampling methods were the
frequency of sampling (approximately every 2 weeks in 2013, approximately monthly in 2014)
and the increased intensity of vertical hydraulic gradient (VHG) or indicator measurements
completed in 2014 for the detection of GW upwelling. A detailed description of the 2013 -2014
sampling methods is presented in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.5.1.4 and SIR Study 8.5,
Appendix D.
4.5.2.4. Winter Surveys
The 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 winter surveys were conducted during February, March, and
April. Methods utilized during the 2013-2014 study were initially developed during the 2012-
2013 pilot winter study conducted at FA-104 (Whiskers Slough) and FA-128 (Slough 8A).
Detailed descriptions of the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 winter surveys are provided in the ISR
Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix L: 2012-2013 Instream Flow Winter Studies submitted to the FERC
June 3, 2014 (R2 2014k), the TM, 2013-2014 Instream Flow Winter Studies submitted to the
FERC September 17, 2014 (R2 2014b), and in SIR Study 8.5, Appendix A. Although no winter
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 17 November 2015
HSC/HSI surveys have been completed since issuance of the ISR in June 2014, results of the
2012-2013 and 2013-2014 winter surveys have now been incorporated into the assessment of
microhabitat use and comparisons between summer and winter microhabitat use have been
completed.
4.5.3. Habitat Availability Data Collection
Habitat availability measurements were completed in accordance with procedures described in
ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.5.1.7.
All 2013-2014 HSC/HSI data were entered into spreadsheet format and subsequently checked for
data entry accuracy. Any necessary edits or corrections were then made to the database and
checked by a senior staff member for completeness. A database of 2013 -2014 HSC utilization
and availability data has been completed and is available (see Section 5 for a link to the data).
4.5.4. Habitat Utilization Data and Frequency Histograms
Frequency histograms were developed using the 2013-2014 HSC data to visually compare
habitat utilization (velocity, depth, and substrate type) between the LR and MRs, seasonal habitat
use within the MR, and HSC developed during the 1980s studies. The histograms were
developed following methods described in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.5.1.8. Along with
the histogram plots, the range and median habitat utilization values were also determined (SIR
Study 8.5, Appendix D).
For comparison purposes the following guidelines were adapted:
Frequency distributions were only generated for a particular species and life stage with
greater than 10 habitat use observations.
A bin size of 0.2 feet was used for depth and mean column velocity histograms.
The frequency of fish observations in each of the bins was normalized to create
probability histograms with values between 0 and 1.
For the comparison between summer and winter microhabitat use, only those
observations collected from within sample areas (FA-104 [Whiskers Slough], FA-128
[Slough 8A], FA-138 [Gold Creek], and FA-141 [Indian River]) common to both surveys
were included.
The 1980s HSC curves are presented exactly as reported in their respective source
references with the exception of substrate which was adjusted to allow for a comparison
between the two studied (1980s and 2013-2014).
4.5.5. HSC/HSI Modeling
Habitat suitability modeling provides information on which habitat variables (of those collected
synoptic with HSC) are most predictive of fish presence, as well as final predictive multivariate
HSC models to be used to assess Project effects. Habitat suitability was determin ed based on the
likelihood of habitat use by each fish species-life stage. Habitat parameters were measured
where fish were observed (utilization data) and at additional stratified random locations at each
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 18 November 2015
selected sampling site (availability data). The probability of fish presence as a function of these
habitat variables was modeled with univariate and multivariate logistic regression.
The ISR Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix M (R2 2014i) and SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D provide a
detailed descriptions of the methods used for HSC/HSI development. The only notable change
in the HSC/HSI modeling methods described in ISR Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix M (R2 2014i)
and SIR Appendix D, is that the SIR combines data collected in 2013 and 2014 where the June
2014 ISR only included data collected in 2013.
4.5.6. Other Methods for HSC/HSI Curve Development
For some of the target species and life stages, there were insufficient habitat use observations
collected during the 2013-2014 surveys to construct site-specific HSC/HSI curves. For species
and life stages that are rarely observed, AEA is considering and evaluating a number of other
methods (e.g., references cited in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.5.1.9) for developing HSC.
4.5.7. Winter Habitat Use Sampling
The IFS winter studies were comprised of two primary components: 1) monitoring of water
level, water quality, and ice conditions and 2) fish behavior and habitat use observations.
Surface water level and surface and intergravel water quality were continuously monitored at
various monitoring stations, while instantaneous measurements of depth, water quality and ice
thickness were also recorded during field visits. Site specific observations of habitat utilization
by fish species were recorded during electrofishing and underwater video surveys. Methods
utilized during the 2013-2014 study were initially developed during the winter 2012-2013 pilot
effort and are described in detail in R2 2014k and R2 2014b. Winter studies were coordinated
with the study leads for IFS (Study 8.5), FDAML (Study 9.6), GW (Study 7.5), Geomorphology
(Study 6.5), Baseline Water Quality (Study 5.5), and Ice Processes (Study 7.6).
The continuation of winter studies during 2014-2015 was specified in ISR Study 8.5 (IFS), Part
C, Section 7.5.1 and ISR Study 9.6 (FDAML), Part C, Section 7.1 and primarily consisted of the
second season of monitoring of water level and water quality conditions within selected Focus
Areas. For this, 25 continuous water level loggers and 108 water quality instruments (consisting
of 102 surface and intergravel water temperature loggers, and 6 combined intergravel
temperature and DO loggers), were again installed during September 2014 in representative
habitats and in salmon spawning areas in FA-104 (Whiskers Slough), FA-128 (Slough 8A), and
FA-138 (Gold Creek) (Figure 4.5-1, Figure 4.5-2, and Figure 4.5-3). Instruments were also
installed within side channel habitats in FA-144 (Slough 21) in areas with substantial GW
influence and observed salmon spawning (SIR Study 8.5, Appendix A, Figure 3-4).
Configuration and deployment of instrumentation followed methods previously described in R2
2014k and R2 2014b. No biological monitoring or sampling was completed during the 2014-
2015 winter period. Water level and water quality loggers deployed during the winter 2014-
2015 period were maintained and downloaded during September 2015. A total of 18 water level
loggers and 53 water quality instruments (consisting of 51 surface and intergravel temperature
loggers and 2 combined intergravel temperature and DO loggers) were also redeployed at select
sites during this effort to collect additional data through winter 2015-2016 in the Susitna River
main channel and in salmon spawning habitats of FA-104 (Whiskers Slough), FA-128 (Slough
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 19 November 2015
8A), FA-138 (Gold Creek), FA-141 (Indian River) and FA-144 (Slough 21). Prominent
spawning habitats and areas in which limited data have been collected were prioritized for 2015-
2016 data collection.
4.5.8. Stranding and Trapping
No formal stranding and trapping surveys were conducted during the 2013-2014 data collection
effort. The Study Plan indicated that field surveys would be conducted at potential stranding and
trapping areas on an opportunistic basis following up to three flow reduction events during 2013-
2014 (RSP Section 8.5.4.5.1.2.2). During a May 17, 2013 Technical Team meeting, participants
indicated that site-specific stranding and trapping studies should be a low priority. Because the
Project does not yet exist, the effects of Project-induced flow fluctuations cannot be directly
studied in the Susitna River. Although specific stranding and trapping surveys were not
conducted during 2013-2014, this change is not expected to adversely impact achieving Project
objectives. As discussed and documented during the May 17, 2013 TWG meeting, ramping
criteria developed in Washington State (Hunter 1992) will be proposed as fallback criteria during
effects analyses.
4.5.9. River Productivity
Development of HSC/HSI for macroinvertebrates and algae will follow a similar general
approach to that for fish, and will include a literature search for available information and field
studies to supplement literature-based information and to provide site-specific data. The
development of HSC/HSI information for macroinvertebrates and algae is ongoing as part of the
more comprehensive River Productivity Study (Study 9.8). No macroinvertebrate or algae
HSC/HIS data collection occurred in 2014.
4.5.10. Relationship between Microhabitat Use and Fish Abundance
In response to the April 1, 2013 FERC Study Plan Determination (SPD) (FERC 2013), AEA
completed a detailed evaluation of fish abundance measures and eight additional habitat
variables (surface flow and GW exchange flux, surface and intergravel DO and temperature,
macronutrients, pH, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), alkalinity, and chlorophyll-a) to determine
whether relationships were evident and if additional HSC curve development was warranted. A
TM, Evaluation of Relationships between Fish Abundance and Specific Microhabitat Variables
(R2 2014a), describing the results of the evaluation was submitted to the FERC on September
17, 2014.
Most of the analyses used in the evaluation involved comparisons between habitat data collected
by various studies and fish abundance data collected by the FDAML (Study 9.6) and Fish
Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River (FDAUP) (Study 9.5). Fish abundance
data collected at random sites in the Upper River Segment of the Susitna River (UR), MR, and
LR using electrofishing, seining, and snorkeling were used for these comparisons.
4.5.11. Variances from Study Plan
The HSC Development Study has been implemented following methods described in the FERC-
approved Study Plan with the exception of the variances explained below.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 20 November 2015
During 2013 HSC sampling was conducted in the MR below Devils Canyon (PRM
151.8); but no HSC sampling was conducted in the MR above Devils Canyon, or in the
LR. In 2014, HSC sampling was conducted in the MR above and below Devils Canyon
and in the LR at two tributary complexes (Trapper/Birch creeks and Sheep/Caswell
creeks). Additional sampling effort in the MR above Devils Canyon and in the LR will
be conducted to complete this study component. These changes are not anticipated to
adversely impact achieving Project objectives.
Spawning redd dimensions were not collected as part of the 2013-2014 HSC spawning
surveys. The Study Plan states “Redd dimensions (length and width in feet to nearest 0.1
foot) will be collected.” Redd dimension measurements were recorded as part of the
2012 Pilot HSC surveys. Additional redd measurements were not deemed necessary to
develop evaluation metrics. This change is not anticipated to adversely impact achieving
Project objectives as spawning redd dimensions are not an input variable in the IFS Fish
Habitat Modeling.
Substrate composition was simplified to include only two gravel size classes (small and
large). The Study Plan states: “Substrate size (dominant, sub-dominant, percent
dominant) characterized in accordance with a Wentworth grain size scale modified to
reflect English units.” Field personnel found it impracticable to attempt to accurately
differentiate gravel composition into three size classes in turbid water conditions. Using
two size classifications to describe gravel is consistent with substrate classifications used
on numerous other HSC/HSI curve development studies and is not anticipated to impact
HSC/HSI curve development.
Only one velocity measurement (mean column) was recorded for each individual fish
microhabitat use observation. The Study Plan states “Location in water column (distance
from the bottom), focal point and mean column velocity (feet per second [fps] to nearest
0.05 fps) measured using a Price AA current meter”. Most fish captures occurred using
electrofishing, seining or a combination of the two methods which precluded the
identification of fish focal point position within the water column. The IFS habitat
models rely on mean column water velocities and therefore not measuring focal point
velocity will have no adverse impacts on HSC/HSI development or on the habitat
modeling.
The Study Plan indicated that “field surveys will be conducted at potential stranding and
trapping areas on an opportunistic basis following up to three flow reduction events
during 2013.” During a May 17, 2013 TT meeting, participants indicated that site-
specific stranding and trapping studies should be a low priority. Because the Project does
not yet exist, the effects of Project-induced flow fluctuations cannot be directly studied in
the Susitna River. Some opportunistic observations of potential stranding and trapping
areas were recorded during substrate classification surveys conducted during falling river
stage conditions in September 2013, but the observations did not follow robust survey
protocols. Although specific stranding and trapping surveys were not conducted in 2013
or 2014, this change is not expected to adversely impact achieving Project objectives. As
discussed and documented during the May 17, 2013 TWG meeting, ramping criteria
developed in Washington State (Hunter 1992) will be proposed as fallback criteria during
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 21 November 2015
effects analyses. These criteria were developed to protect juvenile salmonids exposed to
flow fluctuations associated with hydropower operations.
The results the 2012-2013 IFS winter pilot study was distributed during Q1 2014 rather
than Q3 2013, as was prescribed in RSP Section 8.5.4.5.1.2.1 (AEA 2012). This variance
was described in the ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.5.2 (AEA 2014).
Mesohabitat type was not recorded for fish observation/capture points. Mesohabitat
mapping was completed as part of RSP Study 9.9. After the mesohabitat mapping task is
complete, Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers containing the location of
HSC/HSI fish use observations will be compared to GIS data layers containing
mesohabitat types to determine mesohabitat use by individual fish species and life stages.
This change will not adversely impact Project objectives.
The Study Plan indicated that macroinvertebrate “sampling will occur at six stations,
each with three sites (one mainstem site and two off-channel sites associated with the
mainstem site), for a total of 18 sites. River Productivity sampling occurred at five
stations on the Susitna River, each station with three to five sites (establishing sites at all
macrohabitat types present within the station), for a total of 20 sites. Four stations were
located in Focus Areas (FA-184 [Watana Dam], FA-173 [Stephen lake Complex], FA-
141 [Indian River], and FA-104 [Whiskers Slough]). Station RP-81 is located in the
vicinity of the mouth of Montana Creek. This change will not adversely impact
achieving Project objectives since the greater sample coverage per site offsets the
reduction of one site.
The FERC-approved Study Plan for the Biological Cues Study indicated Deshka River
Chinook salmon and Yentna River sockeye salmon datasets would be examined for flow-
dependent biological cues. Mainly due to the lack of the necessary data, the Deshka
River and the Yentna River were not used for this study. As noted above (ISR Study 8.5,
Part A, Section 4.5.1.1.14), through discussions with ADF&G, the Taku River and
Stikine River Chinook salmon stocks were selected and the analysis completed.
As part of the April 1, 2013 FERC Study Plan Determination, FERC recommended that the
following additional variables be compared to fish distribution and abundance: surface flow and
groundwater exchange fluxes, dissolved oxygen (intergravel and surface water), macronutrients,
temperature (intergravel and surface water), pH, dissolved organic carbon, alkalinity, and
Chlorophyll-a. If strong relationships are evident between fish habitat use and any of these
variables, FERC suggested that additional HSC preference curves may need to be developed for
the various species and life stages. Most of the data necessary to complete this analysis was not
available as of June 2014 (ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.5.2 and Part C, Section 7.5.1.2.1).
Since then, a detailed evaluation of the comparison of fish abundance measures with specific
microhabitat variable measurements was completed and presented in a Technical Memorandum
(Evaluation of Relationships between Fish Abundance and Specific Microhabitat Variables)
submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on September 17, 2014 and
discussed at the October 17, 2014 ISR meetings (2014a). This delay did not impact achieving
objectives of this study component,
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 22 November 2015
4.6. Habitat-Specific Model Development
AEA implemented the methods related to habitat model development for both the MR and LR as
described in the Study Plan. There were no variances pertaining to the MR, but a few variances
occurred relative to the LR that are described in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.6.2 and Part C,
Section 7.6.1.2. The habitat-specific models represent the core analytical tools that will be used
to first, determine the relationships between the amount of streamflow and the quantity and
quality of physical habitats of fish at different locations in the Susitna River and during different
times, and second, using those relationships in combination with outputs from other resource
models evaluate the effects of different Project operations on those habitats.
Since the June 2014 ISR, work on this study component has included: 1) collection of field data
to support 2-D hydraulic model development in FA-151 (Portage Creek); 2) collection and
analysis of surficial substrate and cover data to support Fish Habitat Modeling at each of the
eight MR Focus Area below Devils Canyon ; 3) completion of aerial spawning surveys in Focus
Areas downstream of Devils Canyon; 4) continued development and refinement of the 2-D
hydraulic models and the PHABSIM based Fish Habitat Modeling framework that will be
applied to the ten Focus Areas within the MR; and 5) continued analysis and calibration of the 1-
D HEC-RAS hydraulic models for application of the Fish Habitat Models for the Trapper and
Birch creeks and 1-D transects in PRM95, PRM96, and PRM97 sites. Details of each of these
activities are described below.
4.6.1. Collection of Field Data in FA-151 (Portage Creek)
Detailed surveys to collect bathymetric data and other physical and hydraulic data required for 2-
D hydraulic model development were completed for the lower seven of the ten Focus Areas in
2013. While land access was not available for the three upper Focus Areas adjacent to CIRWG
lands in 2013, this restriction was resolved in 2014 and AEA was able to complete detailed
surveys in one of the three Focus Areas FA-151 (Portage Creek) by September 2014. However,
surveys of FA-173 (Stephan Lake Complex) and FA-184 (Watana Dam) are still needed to
complete this study component. As before, the collection of data at FA-151 (Portage Creek) was
closely coordinated between and among the different resource leads to ensure that data necessary
for developing the different resource models was being collected. The bathymetric surveys were
completed on June 22, 2014 following the same general procedures described in ISR Study 8.5,
Part A, Section 4.6.1.2.2. Two sets of 2-D model calibration transects were likewise measured in
FA-151, the first on June 22 and the second on September 15, 2014 (Figure 4.6-1). Detailed
methods used for collecting the field data for the calibration transects are provided in SIR Study
8.5, Appendix C.
4.6.2. Collection and Analysis of Surficial Substrate and Cover Data
Physical and hydraulic data (boundary conditions, stage and discharge measurements,
bathymetric surveys, velocity mapping, roughness (channel substrate), and cover determinations
were collected in 2013 at seven 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) using methods described in ISR, Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.6.2. Since the
June 2014 ISR, AEA has completed the collection of substrate and cover data at FA-151
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 23 November 2015
(Portage Creek) using the same general field methods as used for the first seven Focus Areas.
The same substrate categories as used for the HSC data collection were applied during the
substrate surveys with the substrate size (dominant, subdominant, and percent composition)
within each Focus Area characterized in accordance with a Wentworth grain size scale.
Categories of cover habitat were characterized as: boulders, aquatic vegetation, overhanging
vegetation, undercut bank and woody debris. Cover features were identified during the 2013 and
2014 field surveys and mapped on enlarged, laminated aerial photographs as polygons. The
substrate and cover data from all eight Focus Areas were analyzed and translated into
Geographic Information System (GIS) layers for use in habitat modeling. Detailed descriptions
of field data collection and analysis methods are provided in SIR Study 8.5, Appendix E.
4.6.3. Completion of Aerial Spawning Surveys
Aerial surveys to map areas of salmon redds and salmon spawning activity were conducted by
helicopter on September 10 and September 26, 2014 within Focus Areas downstream of Devils
Canyon (SIR Study 8.5, Appendix E). Surveys were performed during low flow conditions
when salmon were actively spawning. The surveys were completed on each Focus Areas and
covered the extent of all wetted main channel (i.e., main channel, side channel and tributary
mouth) and off-channel (i.e., side slough and upland slough) habitat within each Focus Area.
Susitna River discharge at the USGS Gold Creek Gage (USGS No. 15292000) was
approximately 16,000 cfs for the September 10 flight and 13,500 cfs during the September 26
survey (USGS 2015). The 2014 survey results were digitized into GIS layers and comparisons
made with survey results completed in the 1980s. Results of this mapping will be used in part to
compare spawning area use between current and 1980s studies and as part of the habitat model
validation process to compare model predictions of habitat with known areas of spawning use.
4.6.4. Refinement of 2-D Hydraulic and Fish Habitat Models – Middle River
Segment
Since the June 2014 ISR, AEA has continued working on both the 2-D hydraulic models (SRH-
2D and River2D) as well as the 2-D PHABSIM based Fish Habitat Models for the MR. Work
completed on the 2-D hydraulic models is described in SIR Study 6.6 (Geomorphology) and
Study 7.6 (Ice Processes).
Work completed on the Fish Habitat Models has focused on development of a unique grid
system compatible with both SRH-2D and River2D outputs that will allow cell by cell hydraulic
computations. In addition, the conceptual planning for the Visual Basic (VB) habitat time series
model was completed. Since salmonids (salmon and trout) have discreet spawning locations and
bury their eggs within the stream gravels, a cell by cell analysis is needed to determine
successful spawning and emergence (effective spawning habitat). A conceptual outline of the
steps needed for development of the VB time series model was developed and is undergoing
additional review and modification. A cell by cell analysis is not needed for free swimming life
stages since they are capable of movement from one location to another as flows change. The
analysis for free swimming life stages will evaluate each Focus Area as a single unit based on the
habitat flow relationship developed for the range of flows modeled at each Focus Area.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 24 November 2015
4.6.5. Continued analysis and calibration of 1-D Hydraulic Models – Lower
River Segment
AEA has continued analysis of the 1-D transect hydraulic data sets collected in LR-1 in 2013
(Trapper Creek and Birch Creek, and mainstem sites PRM95, PRM96, and PRM97. Field data
collection methods and initial analyses were presented in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Appendix I (R2
2014c) and were presented during the Proof of Concept meetings held April 15-17, 2014 (ISR
Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix N: Middle River Fish Habitat and Riverine Modeling Proof of
Concept [R2 et al. 2014]). Data are being analyzed using the 1-D HEC-RAS hydraulic model
(Version 4.1) to simulate water levels at the respective transect locations. Work has included
preparation of model input data, calibration of hydraulic models using survey data and Version 2
of the OWFRM (ISR Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix K [R2 2014h]), preliminary model simulations
and sensitivity analysis, and where possible, development of stage-discharge rating curves.
4.6.6. Variances from Study Plan
AEA implemented the methods as described in the Study Plan pertaining to MR Fish Habitat
Modeling with no variances. As described in the Study Plan schedule of activities, most Fish
Habitat Modeling activities will occur after the ISR. While land access was not available for the
three upper Focus Areas adjacent to CIRWG lands in 2013, this restriction was resolved in 2014
and AEA was able to complete detailed surveys in one of the three Focus Areas (FA-151-Portage
Creek) in September 2014. However, surveys of FA-173 (Stephan Lake Complex) and FA-184
(Watana Dam) are still needed to complete this study component. This delay is not considered a
variance because this study was designed to collect data over multiple years.
AEA implemented the methods as described in the Study Plan pertaining to LR Fish Habitat
Modeling with the exception of the variance explained below:
The Study Plan (Selection of Focus Areas and Study Sites in the Middle and Lower
Susitna River for Instream Flow and Joint Resource Studies – 2013 and 2014, submitted
to the FERC March 1, 2013 [R2 2013]) indicated that 1-D PHABSIM sites in LR
geomorphic reaches LR-1 and LR-2 would be surveyed in 2013. Sites in LR-1 (PRM97,
PRM96, PRM95, Trapper Creek, Birch Creek), and Deshka River (PRM 44.9) were
surveyed in 2013, but survey of sites in LR-2 between PRM 65 and PRM 70 (including
Sheep Creek and Caswell Creek) was deferred to the next study year in order to evaluate
the effectiveness of the model outputs and evaluate the need for additional sites (ISR
Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.6.2). Surveying of 1-D PHABSIM sites in LR-2 was not
conducted in 2014; however, flow data were collected in Sheep and Caswell creeks and
the Deshka River (Section 4.3) and HSC data were collected in LR-2 between PRM 65 to
PRM 70. Surveying, hydraulic model calibration and habitat modeling of LR-2 sites is
needed to complete this study component; this change in schedule will not have a
substantive effect on meeting study objectives.
4.7. Temporal and Spatial Habitat Analyses
AEA implemented the methods as described in the Study Plan with the exception of the variance
described in Section 4.7.3.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 25 November 2015
4.7.1. Temporal Analysis
AEA described the general approaches that will be used in completing the temporal habitat
analysis in RSP Section 8.5.4.7.1.1, with further details provided in ISR Study 8.5, Part C,
Section 7.7.1.1.1 and during the IFS TT Proof of Concept meeting on April 15-17, 2014. These
include varial zone analysis, effective spawning/incubation habitat analysis, analysis of rearing
habitats, breaching flow analysis, and analysis of other riverine processes (e.g., water quality,
sediment deposition, ice) that may directly influence fish habitats. As noted in SIR Study 8.5,
Section 4.6.4, modifications have been made to the 2-D Fish Habitat Model to allow for a cell by
cell analysis of spawning and incubation habitats over time, which is needed to complete the
effective spawning/incubation habitat analysis.
4.7.2. Spatial Analysis
How data and habitat-flow relationships developed from one location relate to other non-
modeled locations is the focus of the spatial analysis. AEA presented and discussed four options
(linear distance, microhabitat linear distance, macrohabitat area, and macrohabitat area weighted
by fish use) for completing the spatial analysis during the IFS TT Proof of Concept meeting on
April 15-17, 2014 and described these further in ISR Study 8.5, Part C, Section 7.7.1.1.2. Pros
and cons of each of the options were presented, and although no singular approach was agreed
to, there was general agreement that the approach involving weightings based on fish use was not
appropriate since the HSC analysis was already addressing fish habitat preferences. Further
evaluation of the different approaches will be completed.
4.7.3. Variances from Study Plan
AEA implemented the methods as described in the Study Plan, with the exception of the variance
noted in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.7.2 that pertained to the completion of a meeting
specific to evaluating spatial and temporal methods. However, since then, AEA completed the
Proof of Concept meeting in April 15-17, 2014 during which spatial and temporal analyses were
explicitly discussed with further analyses presented in ISR Study 8.5, Part C, Section 7.7.1. As a
result, there are no variances associated with this study component.
4.8. Instream Flow Study Integration
AEA implemented the methods as described in this section of the Study Plan with no variances.
4.8.1. Decision Support System
In the ISR (ISR Study 8.5, Part C, Section 7.8), AEA proposed five key evaluation metrics for
anadromous fish habitat, and flow charts were presented detailing the process for developing
those metrics. Further, AEA stated that consideration was being given to incorporating several
key uncertainties associated with each riverine resource analysis. During both the April 15-17,
2014 Proof of Concept meeting, and the October 2014 ISR meetings, Licensing Participants
expressed interest in the DSS process, and encouraged further development of the study
integration components of the project sooner in the project timeline. The issue of addressing
uncertainties associated with model outputs has been a continuing theme in the discussions with
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 26 November 2015
the agencies and was explicitly raised during the October ISR meetings. To further advance this
analysis, AEA is currently developing an example to demonstrate how the issues of uncertainty
can be addressed as part of the DSS process.
Specifically, an example of the estimation of several metrics in the decision support matrix with
consideration of uncertainty in the HSC step is being developed. The example will be based on
habitat results from limited example flow scenarios for FA-128 (Slough 8A) (e.g., as used in the
Proof of Concept) and final draft coho salmon juvenile HSC curves. The example will use
hydrology from the selected moderate flow year, 1985, for the open-water period only. Specific
activities used in the development of the example include: 1) estimating flow at FA-128
(upstream and downstream ends) for the open-water period in 1985 under existing conditions
and under a Project operational scenario; 2) estimating weighted usable area (WUA) for coho
salmon juveniles during the 1985 open-water period, including standard errors for existing
conditions and Project operational scenario flow estimates; 3) estimating expected values (mean
results) for three WUA metrics based on these data; and 4) simulating other potential results
based on the standard error in the HSC model estimates, and reviewing the potential impact of
uncertainty on decisions based on the selected metrics.
4.8.2. Variances from Study Plan
AEA implemented the methods as described in this section of the Study Plan with no variances.
5. RESULTS
Field data that has been QA/QC’d, and used in developing: 1) ISR Study 8.5 Parts A and C; 2)
Post-ISR TMs (Evaluation of Relationships between Fish Abundance and Specific Microhabitat
Variables [R2 2014a]; 2013-2014 Instream Flow Winter Studies [R2 2014b]) and 3) SIR Study
8.5 are available on the Geographic Information Network of Alaska (GINA) website at the links
below.
http://gis.suhydro.org/isr/08-Instream_Flow/8.5-Fish_and_Aquatics_Instream_Flow/
http://gis.suhydro.org/Post_ISR/08-Instream_Flow/8.5-
Fish_and_Aquatics_Instream_Flow/
http://gis.suhydro.org/SIR/08-Instream_Flow/8.5-Fish_and_Aquatics_Instream_Flow/
See Table 5-1 for a listing of data files pertaining to this SIR on the GINA website.
5.1. IFS Analytical Framework
Since the June 2014 ISR, AEA continues to work within the construct of the IFS analytical
framework described in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.1. This has included the continued
interaction with resource study leads and the development and refinement of the different
resource models that will be used for evaluating Project effects. The IFS analytical framework
will continue to serve as a means to demonstrate interrelationships between riverine habitats and
associated resource studies and models that will be used to address specific questions.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 27 November 2015
5.2. River Stratification and Study Area Selection
AEA is following the stratification and study area selection process that was described in ISR
Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.2 and 5.2. This has included the selection of ten Focus Areas in the
MR and two study areas in the LR in which to conduct detailed IFS studies. The results of the
field verification habitat mapping analysis (SIR Study 9.9) completed for MR found only minor
differences in the original macrohabitat calls and support the current selection of the Focus Areas
as being representative of macrohabitats in other sections of river. Although the inclusion of a
few additional habitat features may strengthen the IFS analysis, no modifications to existing
Focus Areas or adding additional study areas were indicated. Therefore the study area selection
process for the MR has been completed. Analysis of the instream flow data collected in the
Geomorphic Reach LR-1 study sites is not complete, and field studies at the Geomorphic Reach
LR-2 sites have not occurred. A determination for the need for additional sites in the LR will be
made once all data have been collected and analyzed from LR-1 and LR-2.
5.3. Hydrologic Data Analysis
5.3.1. Mainstem Susitna River
Results from the stage and discharge surveys collected from 2012 to 2014 are summarized in
Table 5.3-1 and locations are provided in Figure 5.3-1. The table indicates whether or not a
bathymetry profile was collected, the date of the measurement, and the corresponding discharge
and water surface elevation. Each discharge measurement has an associated rating of poor, fair,
good, or excellent (see ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Appendix C [R2 2014g] and this SIR Study 8.5,
Appendix B for more detail). Of the 224 discharge measurements, 2 were rated as poor, 13 as
fair, 110 as good, and 99 as excellent.
Technical memoranda, dated December 2013 (ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Appendix C [R2 2014g])
and October 2015 (SIR Study 8.5, Appendix C) and prepared by Brailey Hydrologic, provide a
more detailed description of the ADCP boat measurement data collection, and the QA/QC
process that was applied to the data including the calculation of uncertainty. Detailed
information on the mainstem transect bathymetry, WSE, and flow measurement data collected in
2012 and 2013 can be found in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.3 and Section 5.3 and ISR Study
8.5, Part A, Appendix C. The 2014 mainstem transect data are described in the SIR Study 8.5,
Appendix B and SIR Study 8.5, Appendix C.
Overall, field procedures and data processing in 2014 ensured the ADCP measurements collected
met project data quality objectives. Although compass performance was compromised by
hardware and software issues, these problems were avoided by relying on bottom-track
positioning for all but one measurement. Moving bed bias was quantified using constant-
heading loop tests, which eliminate the effect of variable heading (compass) errors. Bad bottom-
tracking represents another concern, but results of 35 comparison measurements at USGS gages
indicate that bad bottom-tracking had no discernible effect on measurement accuracy. Because
only two of the comparison measurements had more than 15% bad bottom-tracking, additional
uncertainty was added for measurements exceeding 15% bad bottom-tracking. Uncertainties
computed from the variation between repeated transects were added to those resulting from bad
bottom-tracking, short exposure durations, use of GPS positioning (1 measurement), instrument
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 28 November 2015
bias, and systematic errors. Following current USGS guidance, the resulting uncertainties were
used to rate each measurement as Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor. Despite challenging
measurement conditions and the added uncertainties identified above, 86% of the measurements
performed in 2014 were rated either Good or Excellent.
Flow measurements associated with the development of 2-D-hydraulic models were collected in
seven Focus Areas within the MR in 2013 and are described in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Appendix
C (R2 2014g). Additional Focus Area measurements were collected in 2014 at FA-151 (Portage
Creek) which are described in SIR Study 8.5, Appendix C. Similar procedures as those used in
2012 and 2013 were used for the 2014 2-D calibration transects at FA-151. A 2-D calibration
transect was planned for the downstream end of FA-151, but could not be measured due to flow
velocities over 15 ft/s and associated standing waves.
5.3.2. Tributaries to Susitna River
Site schematics are provided in this SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Attachment 1 for all continuous
tributary gaging sites. These schematics include the location of the benchmarks, transect profile,
staff gage, and water level recorder. Streamflow and staff gage measurements for the data
collected in 2013 and 2014 are provided in SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Attachment 2. The
rating curves used to produce the hourly hydrograph data are provided in SIR Study 8.5,
Appendix B, Attachment 3. The hourly records for each of the continuous gaging sites are
extensive and are provided on the GINA website (see Table 5-1 for data locations). Additional
data collected at select tributary locations for the 2014-2015 period will be provided once they
have been finalized.
5.3.3. Realtime Hydrologic Data and Network
A summary of the types of data collected at the 13 SW stations in the realtime hydrologic data
network is provided in Table 4.4-2. This table includes the location of each station (PRM), the
periods of monitoring various parameters (water level, water temperature, and air temperature),
and whether camera images were collected. A map of these stations is provided in Figure 4.4 -1.
As noted in Section 4.3.3, five of the ESS stations were decommissioned in September 2015, and
six maintained (Table 4.3-1).
5.3.4. Representative Years
Project effects will need to be evaluated over a range of climatic and hydrologic conditions
which requires the selection of representative year types from the hydrologic record. The
selection of representative years is described in the June 2014 ISR Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix J
(R2 2014e). The years selected include 1981 (wet/warm), 1985 (average), and 1976 (dry/cold).
The years selected were also discussed at the April 15-17, 2014 IFS TT Riverine Modeling Proof
of Concept meeting (http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/03/2014_04_15_TT_Riverine_RepresentativeYears.pdf).
5.3.5. Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration and Environmental Flow Components
As noted in SIR Study 8.5, Section 4.3, the candidate metrics and proposed IHA analysis were
presented in the March 21, 2014 IFS TT Meeting (http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 29 November 2015
content/uploads/2014/03/2014-03-21TT_IFS_Presentation-IHA.pdf) with details provided in the
ISR Study 8.5, Part C, Section 7.3. The final metrics will be developed with input from the
TWG and other resource disciplines after Version 3 of the OWFRM is available. A fully
developed set of metrics will be available for use prior to the USR.
5.4. Reservoir Operations and Open-water Flow Routing Modeling
5.4.1. Reservoir Operations Model
Results of the MWH-ROM can be found in the Engineering Feasibility Report Section 12
(MWH 2014). The Engineering Feasibility Report provides average monthly total release to the
Susitna River at Watana Dam for the 61-years. Operational conditions have changed since the
release of the June 2014 ISR. AEA has modified the maximum load following operations model
(Operating Scenario [OS]-1b) to reduce powerhouse discharge variability through assigning peak
mode operation to other existing hydropower plants on the Railbelt grid (Integrated Load
Following [ILF]-1). Additional detail on the project operations is provided in the Engineering
Feasibility Report Section 12.1.4. Other ILF operations may be evaluated during the impact
assessment. The MWH-ROM output serves as input into the OWFRM that can be used to
predict stage and flow conditions resulting from a given powerhouse discharge at locations
downstream. Project simulations for ILF-1 runs using the most recent Version 2.8 OWFRM are
being conducted and will include ILF-1 project operations for two of the representative years.
5.4.2. Open-water Flow Routing Model
This section provides the results of the field data collection in 2014 and the calibration and steps
used for Version 2.8 of the OWFRM. A complete description of the development of Version 2.8
of the model is provided in SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B.
5.4.2.1. Field Data Collection
Version 2.8 of the OWFRM relied on field data that were collected between 2012 and 2014.
These data included:
Cross-sections of the Susitna River surveyed between PRM 29.9 and PRM 187.2.
Flow measurements and concurrent WSE surveys at the river cross-sections as described
in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.4; ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Appendix A [R2 2014d] and
C [R2 2014g]; and SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B and C.
Stage hydrographs measured at gaging stations established on the Susitna River.
Data collection methods are described in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.3: Hydrologic Data
Analysis and SIR Study 8.5, Section 4.3: Hydrologic Data Analysis. A summary of the cross-
sectional profile data collected between 2012 and 2014 is provided in Table 5.3-1. This table
summarizes the cross-section location, date of data collection, and the associated water surface
elevations or discharge measurements. The locations of the cross-sections are shown in Figure
5.3-1.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 30 November 2015
5.4.2.2. Model Development and Calibration
Version 2.8 of the OWFRM was developed from the 216 cross-sections surveyed between 2012
and 2014. For safety reasons, no mainstem transect data were collected in the Devils Canyon
reach. Instead, cross-sectional profiles were estimated using the LiDAR topography data and a
rectangular conveyance channel (ISR Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix K [R2 2014h]). For
numerical stability under unsteady conditions, additional river cross-sections were included
approximately 1000 feet downstream of measured cross-sections. A longitudinal thalweg profile
of the Susitna River was then developed from the 216 cross-sections (Figure 5.4-1). The channel
gradient was steepest through Devils Canyon (0.57 percent) with a gradual reduction in channel
gradient downstream.
5.4.2.2.1. Steady State Model
The OWFRM was first calibrated under steady-state conditions using over 500 pairs of
flow/water surface elevation measurements obtained at the 216 cross-sections in 2012, 2013, and
2014. The relative magnitude of these flow measurements was assessed by using the concurrent
flows in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS No. 15292000) and Susitna River at Sunshine
(USGS No. 15292780) as a common reference point (Figure 5.4-2 and Figure 5.4-3). Transects
upstream of PRM 102.5 were assessed using the Susitna River at Gold Creek gage as shown in
Figure 5.4-2 while transects downstream of PRM 102.5 were assessed using the Susitna River at
Sunshine gage as shown in Figure 5.4-3. Similar to the previous work, flows at transects
compared to the Susitna River at Gold Creek were considered high if the flow was greater than
24,000 cfs, medium if they were between 17,700 cfs and 24,000 cfs, and low if they were less
than 17,700 cfs. Flows at transects compared to the Susitna River at Sunshine Gage were
considered high if the flow was greater than 60,600 cfs, medium if they were between 45,500 cfs
and 60,600 cfs, and low if they were less than 45,500 cfs.
Calibration procedures generally followed those applied to previous versions of the model with a
few exceptions. No changes were made to the downstream boundary condition or the cross-
sections or calibration in the Devils Canyon reach. Interpolated cross-sections were not included
every 1000 feet, but were instead only included downstream of measured cross-sections. To
make the model more representative of varying channel and vegetation types, changes were
made to the Manning’s n’s. Multiple Manning’s n’s were used both within the main channel and
within the overbank. As a result, many channels had six different manning’s n’s. In some cases
(for less than half of the transects) it was necessary to vary Manning’s n by flow magnitude.
However, the magnitude of Manning’s n’s did not vary significantly from those presented in ISR
Study 8.5 for Version 2 of the OWFRM (ISR Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix K [R2 2014h]).
The goal was for calibration to simulate water surface elevations to within plus or minus 0.2 feet
of the observed water surface elevation for the transects upstream of the Three Rivers
Confluence and 0.25 feet of the observed water surface elevation for the transects downstream of
the confluence. Almost all of the calculated water surface elevations fell within this range. The
model was calibrated by selecting a reasonable Manning’s “n” based on records of field
observations and photographs, and by adjusting the shape of the interpolated cross-section
located downstream from each surveyed cross-section. A summary of the Manning’s “n”
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 31 November 2015
coefficients that were used for model calibration is presented in Figure 5.4-4. The Manning’s
“n” coefficients ranged from 0.03 to 0.04.
5.4.2.2.2. Unsteady State Model.
Version 2.8 of the model was calibrated under unsteady-state conditions using the data available
between 2012 and 2014. Accretion estimates were included in the model using either a tributary
point source or uniform lateral inflow as described in ISR Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix K,
Section 5.4.2.2: Unsteady-State Model Calibration (R2 2014h). Accretion estimates are
calculated using measured USGS gage data and calculated travel times between gages. Travel
times were calculated by observing peak flow arrival times and were estimated as 6.91 miles p er
hour between the Dam Site and the Susitna River at Gold Creek gage, 3.86 miles per hour
between the Gold Creek and Sunshine gages, and 2.21 miles per hour between the Sunshine and
Susitna Station gages. Accretion estimates were then distributed to discrete subbasins using a
percentage distribution. The basin distribution percentage was based on drainage area and
modified to reflect measured tributary gage data available. Specific accretion calculations and
tributary hydrology is described in SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Section 6.5. In some cases the
USGS gage data have conflicting measurements and mass balance cannot be maintained between
the Gold Creek Gage, Chulitna Gage, Talkeetna Gage, and Sunshine Gage. In these cases, the
priority is given to the Gold Creek, Chulitna, and Talkeetna gages.
Unsteady model calibration results comparing measured and simulated hydrographs for the July
28 – August 4 2013 period and the entire 2013 open-water period in the Susitna River at Gold
Creek (USGS No. 15292000) are shown in Figures 5.4-5 and 5.4-6, respectively. These figures
show good agreement between the hourly measured USGS streamflow and the simulated hourly
streamflow. The comparison of the measured and simulated streamflow at the Susitna River at
Sunshine (USGS No. 15292780) is shown in Figures 5.4-7 and 5.4-8, respectively. These
figures show similar magnitudes and shape of the hydrographs, but in some periods, there are
distinct differences between the measured and simulated hydrographs. The previous two
versions of the model and hydrology placed a higher priority on the Susitna River at Sunshine
gage and used adjusted values for the Talkeetna and Chulitna River values. In discussion with
other riverine modelers (e.g., Study 6.6 [Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling] Study 7.6 [Ice
Processes]), a higher priority is placed on the Talkeetna and Chulitna River gages due to the
robustness of data at those gage sites. As a result the model does not always closely match flows
at the Susitna River at Sunshine gage. This approach was a conscious decision among the
multiple study groups to work within the constraints of the data available while also meeting the
needs of each individual study’s goals.
Version 2 of the OWFRM is documented in the ISR Section 8.5, Part C, Appendix K (R2
2014h). This version of the model was used to simulate the reach from the Sunshine gage to the
Susitna Station gage. A new tributary hydrology for this reach has been updated and is provided
in SIR Section 8.5, Appendix B, Section 6.5.3. The new tributary hydrology was used to re-run
the Version 2 model for the 2013 calibration period. The results from this simulation for the
Susitna River at Susitna Station for the July 28 – August 4, 2013 period and the entire 2013
open-water period are shown in Figures 5.4-9 and 5.4-10, respectively.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 32 November 2015
5.4.2.3. Model Validation
The OWFRM was calibrated under both steady and unsteady state conditions using data
collected in 2013. It will be subsequently validated during development of Version 3 of the
OWFRM using data from ESS stations.
5.4.2.4. Model Runs
Potential downstream changes in flow and water surface elevations will be assessed by
comparing pre-Project conditions with an ILF-1 operation condition. AEA has modified the
Operating Scenario (OS) 1-b to reduce powerhouse discharge variability through assigning peak
mode operation to other existing hydropower plants on the Railbelt grid. Other intermediate load
following operations may be evaluated during impact assessment. Simulation runs of two
representative years are being conducted using the ILF-1 operation condition.
5.5. Habitat Suitability Criteria Development
5.5.1. Select Priority Fish Species
A priority ranking of the 19 fish species to be considered for site-specific HSC was developed in
collaboration with TWG during Q2 2013 (Table 5.5-1). Five of the original 19 species (lake
trout [Salvelinus namaycush], northern pike [Esox lucius], sculpin, Arctic lamprey [Lethenteron
japonicum], and threespine stickleback [Gasterosteus aculeatus]) were considered a low priority
for development of site-specific HSC due to low numbers within the study area or that their
habitat needs were similar to other species.
The priority list was further refined during a March 21, 2014 TT meeting during which the
remaining species were once again ranked using results of the 2013 HSC surveys, management
status, and perceived sensitivity to changes in habitat due to potential Project operations (Table
5.5-2).
5.5.2. Development of Draft Final HSC/HSI
Draft final HSC/HSI have been developed using site-specific habitat use and availability data
collected over two sampling years in the LR and MR segment of the Susitna River. A detailed
description of the results of the 2013-2014 HSC/HSI sampling is presented in SIR Study 8.5,
Appendix D. A summary description of the HSC/HSI sample area, collection of summer and
winter habitat use data, and resulting habitat frequencies histograms is presented below.
5.5.2.1. HSC/HSI Sample Area Selection
During the 2014 HSC sampling effort, 72 additional sites were selected and sampled. For the
combined 2013-2014 HSC sampling, a total of 129 sites were sampled (including both 50- and
100-meter sampling sites [164 and 328 feet, respectively]) for collection of site-specific data to
define microhabitat use and availability by spawning and freshwater ‘rearing’ (juvenile resident
or anadromous fish) or adult (resident fish) life stages. Both microhabitat utilization and
availability data were collected during each sampling event. Microhabitat availability data was
combined with habitat utilization data for developing species and life stage habitat preference.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 33 November 2015
Collection of habitat availability data allows modeling of fish presence/absence as a function of
single or multiple parameters (e.g., water depth, velocity, cover, water quality, temperature, and
GW upwelling) using availability measurements at locations where fish were not observed, and
utilization measurements as locations where fish were observed (Manly et al. 1993).
5.5.2.2. Collect Site-Specific Habitat Use Information
Both summer (May-September) and winter (October-April) HSC data were collected to
determine if significant differences in seasonal microhabitat use were evident. Summer 2014
field data collection was expanded to include all ten MR Focus Areas and two LR tributary
complexes. Summertime data collection occurred during eight separate surveys from mid-May
through late-September at 129 sample sites. Many of the sites were sampled more than once
resulting in 267 unique sampling events. A total of 2,799 microhabitat use measurements were
collected for 12 different species of fish from within ten different macrohabitat types. Sampling
in the LR, and the three upstream most Focus Areas (FA-151 [Portage Creek], FA-173 [Stephan
Lake Complex], FA-184 [Watana Dam]) that were unsampled in 2013, accounted for just over
19 percent of the total number of summer observations.
5.5.2.3. Summer Surveys
Summertime HSC data collection was completed during eight separate sampling sessions from
June through September 2013 and May through September 2014 (Table 5.5-3). Habitat
measurements were collected for four life history stages (spawning, juvenile, fry, and adult) and
twelve fish species: Chinook, sockeye, chum, coho, and pink (O. gorbuscha) salmon; rainbow
trout (O. mykiss); Arctic grayling; Arctic lamprey; Dolly Varden (S. malma) char; whitefish
(round and humpback); longnose sucker; and burbot (Lota lota).
Combined 2013 (n=57) and 2014 (n=72) sampling included 129 individual habitat segments
representing ten different habitat types (Table 5.5-3). Each of the selected habitat segments was
sampled a minimum of once and in many cases twice, resulting in a total of 267 unique sampling
events. A total of 2,799 observations of site-specific habitat use were used in development of the
HSC models. A summary of the 2013-2014 HSC observations is presented by species and life
stage in Table 5.5-4. Of the 2,799 utilization observations collected, approximately 80 percent
were from MR Focus Areas (Table 5.5-4). Chum, sockeye, pink, and coho salmon were the only
species observed spawning during the 2013-2014 surveys. Nearly half (44.7%) of all spawning
observations were in side slough macrohabitat types with the next highest percentage (35.6%) of
spawning observed in side channel habitat (Table 5.5-4).
5.5.2.4. Winter Surveys
Winter 2012-2013 HSC sampling was conducted in open-water areas of FA-104 (Whiskers
Slough) and FA-128 (Slough 8A). Winter 2013-2014 HSC sampling was expanded to open-
water areas within FA-104 (Whiskers Slough), FA-128 (Slough 8A) and FA-138 (Gold Creek)
(Figures 4.5-1 through 4.5-3) (R2 2014k; R2 2014b); with one additional opportunistic sampling
event conducted in FA-141 (Indian River). Selection of winter sampling sites was non-random
and relied on fish utilization information obtained during summer surveys, the availability of
open-water areas, and safety concerns. Using these criteria, 8 open-water sites were selected for
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 34 November 2015
sampling during 2012-2013 and expanded to 18 sites for the 2013-2014 sampling. One
additional site was located in FA-141 (Indian River), but was only sampled once during the
winter sampling. Like the summer sampling, many of the winter sites were visited multiple
times throughout the winter resulting in 45 unique sampling events.
A total of 59 electrofishing surveys were conducted during the winter HSC data collection efforts
in FA-104 (Whiskers Slough), FA-128 (Slough 8A), FA-138 (Gold Creek), and FA-141 (Indian
River). Over both winter survey years, a total of 291 site-specific HSC observations were
recorded for eight fish species (Chinook, sockeye, chum and coho salmon, rainbow trout, Arctic
grayling, longnose sucker, and Arctic lamprey) (Table 5.5-5). Most HSC observations were of
fry and juvenile salmonids (coho salmon (126 observations), sockeye salmon (68 observations),
and chum salmon (42 observations). The distribution of winter observations within FA-104
(Whiskers Slough), FA-128 (Slough 8A), and FA-138 (Gold Creek) was nearly equal with 38.5
percent, 26.1 percent, and 34.0 percent of the total respectively. A detailed description of results
of the 2012-2014 winter studies surveys is provided in the SIR Study 8.5, Appendix A.
5.5.3. Habitat Utilization Data and Frequency Histograms
Summer and winter habitat utilization data were used to develop frequency histograms to
compare habitat utilization (velocity, depth, and substrate type) between the LR and MR
segments, seasonal habitat use within the MR, and HSC developed during the 1980s studies. A
detailed comparison of the similarities and difference in habitat use between river segments,
seasonal use, and the finding of the 1980s HSC studies is presented in SIR Study 8.5, Appendix
D, Attachments 1, 2, and 3.
A summary of the major findings by river segment, season and comparison with the 1980s HSC
are presented below.
5.5.3.1. River Segment Comparison
Although there were some minor differences in the depth and velocity of water utilized by fish in
the LR and MRs, a visual assessment of the range of microhabitat use by high priority species
and life stages common to both the LR and MRs of the Susitna River suggested little difference
in microhabitat utilization between the two segments. Of the 12 high priority species/life stages,
Chinook fry and juvenile, coho fry and juvenile, longnose sucker juvenile, and whitefish fry
were observed during HSC surveys of both the LR and MRs of the Susitna River (Table 5.5-4).
5.5.3.2. Seasonal Comparison
A comparison of summer and winter microhabitat use observations was completed to determine
if differences in microhabitat (water depth and velocity) selection between seasons justifies
development of separate (summer and winter) HSC models. Only Chinook fry and juvenile,
coho fry and juvenile, chum fry, and sockeye fry and juvenile had enough observations between
the seasons to draw any conclusions regarding differences in habitat. It was assumed that
sockeye and chum salmon fry migrate out of the Susitna River shortly after breakup and so
comparisons of microhabitat use or selection between summer and winter seasons may not be
appropriate.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 35 November 2015
When compared to summer habitat use, the maximum velocity and depth use during the winter
was 1-3 times lower for overwintering Chinook and coho salmon. The use of lower velocity
areas during the winter is not surprising given that nearly all fish species exhibit physiological
and/or behavioral responses to the seasonal change in habitat from summer to winter, such as
movement to off-channel and low velocity habitat. The dramatic shift in use of lower velocity
areas by fry and juvenile Chinook and coho, during the winter, appears to justify an adjustment
of the velocity preference model between seasons.
5.5.3.3. 1980s and 2013-2014 Comparison
A comparison of HSC curves developed from the 1980s studies and habitat use data collected as
part of the 2013-2014 data collection effort was completed for a select number of species and life
stages including Chinook and coho salmon juvenile, pink salmon spawning, Arctic grayling
adult, rainbow trout adult, and whitefish adult (SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Attachment 3). Pink
salmon spawning and whitefish adult were the only two species/life stages with a sufficient
number of 2013-2014 site-specific observation (>30) to provide a meaningful comparison to the
1980s HSC. A visual comparison of the 2013-2014 pink salmon spawning data (n=53) and the
1980s HSC suggests strong similarity in habitat utilization. Due to the limited number of site-
specific observations collected for whitefish adult during the 2013-2014 sampling (n=38), it is
difficult to draw any conclusions when compared to the 1980s HSC. Additionally, differences in
data collection methods between the 1980s and 2013-2014 surveys make comparison of results
problematic.
5.5.4. HSC/HSI Modeling
Draft final multivariate HSC models have been developed for the 12 high priority species and
life stages proposed for application in the habitat-flow analysis for evaluating Project operational
effects. Both univariate and multivariate modeling results were produced for each of the 12
species and life stages (Chinook salmon fry and juvenile, chum salmon spawning, coho salmon
fry and juvenile, sockeye salmon spawning, Arctic grayling fry and juvenile, whitefish fry and
juvenile, and longnose sucker juvenile and adult). The status of HSC/HSI development for all
priority species and life stages in presented in Table 5.5-6.
For the HSC/HSI modeling, a multiple regression approach was used to combine all significant
predictors (identified during univariate modeling) into a combined index of preference or
suitability. Interactions among variables (e.g., the impact of velocity depends on substrate type)
may be important, and were examined using multiple regression. Multiple regression candidate
models included all combinations of main effects for which univariate models were found to be
predictive. The multivariate models were compared using the Akaike’s Information Criteria
(AIC) criterion, and models within AIC of 2.0 of the best-fit model (Burnham and Anderson
2002) were considered potential final models.
Some of the more significant model assumptions, data considerations, and variable thresholds
include:
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 36 November 2015
Priority ranking for development of HSC models was given to those species and life
stages that are assumed to select and utilize specific microhabitat areas for rearing or
spawning purposes.
Only those data (utilization and availability) collected concurrently were used as part of
the model development.
Possible random effect in fish use among sites was considered.
Only those sampling events that included fish observations were used for developing the
multivariate HSC curves for each species and life stage.
Macrohabitat type has not been included in HSC modeling.
Substrate and cover types have been simplified into groups of similar classes to test the
best fit of the HSC model.
Threshold values have been proposed for many of the variables to set minimum and/or
maximum ranges within the HSC models (Table 5.5-7).
Although the presence of GW upwelling was considered critical to defining spawning
suitability in the 1980s studies, statistical analysis of the 2013-2014 data currently does
not support that conclusion.
Limits within the sampling methods (high water velocity), sometimes restricted the areas
that could be safely sampled to determine the outmost extent of fish utilization.
A detailed description of the HSC/HSI modeling, terms, and data considerations specific to
model results for each of the 12 species and life stages are presented in SIR Study 8.5, Appendix
D. As an example, the results of the HSC/HSI modeling for two species and life stages (chum
salmon spawning and coho fry) are presented here.
5.5.4.1. 2013-2014 HSC Model for Chum Salmon Spawning
5.5.4.1.1. Univariate Analysis
Utilization of available substrate and upwelling locations by chum salmon spawning is
summarized in Table 5.5-8. Model AIC results comparing fixed and random effects models and
models with interaction between spawning site type and predictors are displayed in Table 5.5-9.
Random effects models fit better in all cases. There were some differences between random and
select spawning sites in the preference for depth. Spawning at the select sites was not obviously
selective for depth, whereas there was more spawning at deeper locations for the random sites.
Therefore, the inclusion of select sites in the model may cause an overestimate of preference for
shallow sites.
The models showing the best predicted univariate relationships for each predictor are compared
using AIC in Table 5.5-10. For depth, the linear model (increasing) had the lowest AIC, but the
quadratic model had similar AIC and has a better ecological interpretation, with the beginning of
a decline in preference near 3 feet deep. For DO, the linear model had similar AIC to the null
model, but the linear relationship was decreasing, indicating a reduction in preference for higher
DO levels (Figure 5.5-1). The predictors tested in the multivariate model below are depth
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 37 November 2015
(quadratic), velocity (quadratic), water temperature (linear), upwelling (2-level factor) and
substrate (3-level factor).
5.5.4.1.2. Multivariate Analysis
Based on the univariate model results, depth, velocity, substrate, upwelling, and water
temperature were included in the multivariate modeling. Using all of these variables, the highest
adjusted Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) is 1.40, indicating that confidence intervals around
predicted coefficients may be 18 percent wider than they would be with uncorrelated predictors.
This VIF (1.4) was well below the threshold of 10 typically used to indicate a concern for
multicollinearity.
Including upwelling and substrate as separate factors in the model is not possible because of the
low sample sizes retained in 8 different groups (e.g., six downwelling sites with all -gravel
substrate). Thus, the full model was first tested with three options, 1) upwelling only, 2)
substrate only, or 3) a combined upwelling substrate group, consisting of all downwelling sites as
one level of the factor, then the four substrate groups with upwelling as four additional levels.
When these three options were compared, the AICc (AIC corrected for sample size) values were
1) 1000.6; 2) 969.4; and 3) 971.3. Thus, the categorical substrate factor was the best predictor of
chum spawning preference and therefore, upwelling was not included in further multivariate
comparisons.
The multivariate AIC results are compared in Table 5.5-11. The best fit main effects model
includes substrate, linear effects for depth and temperature, and quadratic effects for velocity.
All two-way interaction terms were tested with the best-fit main effects model and with the
model including a quadratic effect rather than a linear effect for depth. The interaction between
velocity and temperature improved the fit for both of these models, and no other interaction did.
This interaction allows for a different velocity preference depending on SW temperature, and is
included in the HSC model. The second best-fit model, with AIC 1.2 greater than the best fit
model is proposed for the HSC because it is within 2.0 of the top model, and the relationship
with depth is more ecologically reasonable. This model matches expected and common
relationships between depth and velocity and selection of spawning sites for chum salmon.
The draft Final HSC multivariate model for chum salmon spawning is:
log (𝑝
1 −𝑝)= 𝐶𝑘+0.999𝑑𝑑𝑝𝑡ℎ−0.155𝑑𝑑𝑝𝑡ℎ2 +0.408𝑣𝑑𝑙−1.23𝑣𝑑𝑙2
−0.225𝑡𝑑𝑙𝑝+0.247(𝑣𝑑𝑙∗𝑡𝑑𝑙𝑝)+𝛾𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑒+𝜀,
where:
p is the probability of chum salmon spawning,
k indexes eight intercept values for substrate/upwelling combinations:
𝐶1 = 0.811 (all gravel substrate)
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 38 November 2015
𝐶2 = 0.382 (gravel dominant mixed substrate)
𝐶3 = −0.131 (gravel subdominant mixed substrate)
𝐶4 = −0.999 (no gravel, but cobble dominant),
𝛾𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑒 is the random effect for site, and
𝜀 is random error (assumed normally distributed).
The random site effect and the random error term are included in the above displayed model to
highlight the intention of the model, which is to discriminate among habitats based on physical
features. The non-modeled differences among sites are included in the random site effect, and
all other sources of variance are included in the random error term. It is important to note that
this model is not intended to be predictive of the level of spawning that will occur in a particular
location.
The above model applies only to sites with dominant or subdominant gravel or dominant cobble
substrates, and with depths of at least 0.30 feet; other sites are assigned a suitability of zero. This
model also applies only to the ranges of all variables that were observed during HSC sampling.
Locations on the river with habitat values outside of the observed ranges are assigned a
suitability based on threshold values (Table 5.5-7). HSC for temperatures, depths and velocities
outside of these observed ranges but within the allowed ranges displayed in Table 5.5-7 are set
on a linear trajectory from the last modeled point to the zero suitability endpoint, as displayed in
Figures 5.5-2, 5.5-3, and 5.5-4.
5.5.4.2. 2013-2014 HSC Model for Coho Salmon Fry
5.5.4.2.1. Univariate Analysis
The utilization of cover by coho salmon fry, including turbidity as a cover type and a potential
interacting factor, is summarized in Table 5.5-12. Because there are often multiple cover types
at the same location, individual cover types cannot be assessed in a single model. Instead, the
forms of cover showing increased utilization were combined into one factor – cover or no cover.
Although the preference is not increased for boulder cover overall, it is increased in non-turbid
water, so boulder is retained as a cover type. There is some apparent interaction with turbidity –
cover is utilized mainly in non-turbid water.
The univariate regression models are displayed with AIC results in Table 5.5-13. The random
effects model improves the fit for all univariate models, and is used for the HSC analyses in this
Section. Cover interacting with turbidity, depth (quadratic), and velocity (linear) were selected
for inclusion in the multivariate analysis based on the model results. A decreasing relationship
between DO and preference improves predictions, but it is not an ecologically reasonable
relationship and is therefore not included in multivariate analysis (Figure 5.5-5).
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 39 November 2015
5.5.4.2.2. Multivariate Analysis
Based on the univariate model results, depth, velocity, and presence/absence of cover interacting
with turbidity were included in multivariate modeling. The interaction factor is included by
creating a three-level factor with levels of “turbid” for locations with Nephelometric Turbidity
Units (NTU)>30, and locations with cover vs. no cover split for non-turbid sites. Using all of
these variables, there was no evidence that multicollinearity was an issue of concern based on
variance inflation factors. The square root of the highest VIF was 1.01, indicating that
confidence intervals around predicted coefficients may be 1 percent inflated.
The best-fit model included the cover/turbidity factor, a quadratic relationship with depth, and a
linear decreasing relationship with velocity (Table 5.5-14). Two interactions reduced the AIC,
depth:velocity and depth:cover/turbidity. The depth:velocity interaction is related to a higher
preference for deep, fast water than the main effects model captures. This relationship is based
on a relatively low number of observations in deep, fast water, and may be due to fry captured
during migration rather than rearing. This interaction is not included in the final draft model.
The interaction between cover/turbidity and depth is included, however, as the data suggest a
preference for a more shallow depth when there is no cover or when the water is turbid.
The draft final model for coho salmon fry is presented below in three equations, one for each
cover/turbidity group:
With Cover and NTU ≤ 30:
log (𝑝
1 −𝑝)= −1.91 +2.51 ∗𝑑𝑑𝑝𝑡ℎ−0.744 ∗𝑑𝑑𝑝𝑡ℎ2 −1.08 ∗𝑣𝑑𝑙+𝛾𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑒+𝜀,
With No Cover and NTU ≤ 30:
log (𝑝
1 −𝑝)= −1.97 +1.34 ∗𝑑𝑑𝑝𝑡ℎ−0.744 ∗𝑑𝑑𝑝𝑡ℎ2 −1.08 ∗𝑣𝑑𝑙+𝛾𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑒+𝜀,
With NTU > 30:
log (𝑝
1 −𝑝)= −3.33 +2.46 ∗𝑑𝑑𝑝𝑡ℎ−0.744 ∗𝑑𝑑𝑝𝑡ℎ2 −1.08 ∗𝑣𝑑𝑙+𝛾𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑒+𝜀,
where:
p is the probability of coho salmon fry presence,
𝛾𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑒 is the random effect for site, and
and 𝜀 is random error (assumed normally distributed).
The random site effect and the random error term are included in the above displayed model to
highlight the intention of the model, which is to discriminate among habitats based on physical
features. The non-modeled differences among sites are included in the random site effect, and
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 40 November 2015
all other sources of variance are included in the random error term. It is important to note that
this model is not intended to be predictive of the number of fish that will occur in a particular
location.
The draft final HSC model for coho salmon fry is displayed as a function of depth and velocity in
Figure 5.5-6 and Figure 5.5-7, respectively.
The same general model development process was followed for all species and life stages for
which sufficient observations for model development have been attained. For those species and
life stages with insufficient numbers of site-specific observations, additional data collection
efforts may be warranted or alternative methods for HSC development will need to be
developed.
5.5.5. Other Methods for HSC/HSI Curve Development
For moderate and low priority species and life stages with an insufficient number of observations
for development of site-specific HSC models, alternative HSC development method(s) will need
to be used. Alternative methods were described in the FERC-approved Study Plan for
developing HSC including site specific curves. Alternative curve development methods are
being evaluated for all species lacking the requisite numbers of site specific measurements.
5.5.6. Winter Habitat Use Sampling
The sections below summarize the overall results and findings of the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014
winter studies, in terms of water surface elevations, measurements of water quality, and fish
observations. These topics are described in greater detail in SIR Study 8.5, Appendix A and
were previously summarized in ISR Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix L (R2 2014k) and in a
September 2014 TM (R2 2014b). Water level and water temperature data were retrieved from
IFS instruments during September 2014, but this information was collected too late to be
included in the September 2014 TM. Therefore, the time series plots originally contained within
that TM have been revised to include the September 2014 data and are now presented in this
report (SIR Study 8.5, Appendix A). Continuous data collected during the 2014-2015 winter
period were downloaded during September 2015 and additional time is needed to complete
analysis of these data. Data associated with IFS winter studies have been compiled and were
delivered as a comprehensive set (SIR Study 8.5, Table 5-1). Data associated with IFS winter
fish captures have been consolidated within the HSC database and are discussed in SIR Study
8.5, Appendix D, while FDAML (Study 9.6) winter fish results are summarized in SIR Study
9.6.
5.5.6.1. Water Surface Elevations
Water levels at main channel and various other continuous monitoring sites within FA-104
(Whiskers Slough), FA-128 (Slough 8A) and FA-138 (Gold Creek) varied widely over the
2012-2013 and 2013-2014 winter periods in response to ice formation and staging (SIR Study
8.5, Appendix A; R2 2014k; R2 2014b). In general, water levels declined during late September
and October 2013 and several monitoring locations likely became dewatered prior to main
channel staging in November and early December. Water levels at many sites increased
markedly in response to main channel staging and/or ice jamming events. An ice jam
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 41 November 2015
downstream of FA-104 (Whiskers Slough) in November 2013 caused many habitats to become
inundated by backwatered main channel flow, while a main channel ice jam near FA-128
(Slough 8A) was likely the cause for a side channel to become breached by main channel flow in
January 2014. During the ice-covered period (i.e., January – April 2014), most habitats
experienced minor stage fluctuations. Though nearly all areas were either breached or
backwatered by main channel streamflow during staging and/or ice breakup, the magnitude and
duration of the stage response to these events was less in side slough, upland slough and tributary
habitats relative to side channel sites. In addition, these areas were generally less susceptible to
dewatering during winter than side channel areas, though this appeared to be dependent upon
site-specific conditions (e.g., GW upwelling) (SIR Study 8.5, Appendix A; R2 2014k; R2
2014b).
5.5.6.2. Water Quality
Water temperatures at each main channel monitoring site were approximately 6-8°C at the time
of deployment in September 2013 and decreased during the fall to nearly 0°C at the time of ice
freeze-up in November and December 2013 (SIR Study 8.5, Appendix A; R2 2014k; R2 2014b).
Main channel surface and intergravel temperatures were nearly 0°C during ice covered periods
(e.g., January/February – April) in each season of study. In general, tributary monitoring sites
most closely resembled the main channel temperature regime during winter as temperatures at
each of these sites ranged between 0 to 1°C for ice-covered periods. Various side channel
habitats were breached or backwatered by main channel flow in association with freeze-up and
ice jamming. Although surface and intergravel temperatures in side channels were typically
below 1°C during breaching or backwater episodes, intergravel temperatures at some sites were
nearly 4°C following such events. Side slough and upland slough habitats were generally
characterized by consistently warmer surface and intergravel temperatures (2–4°C) compared to
other macrohabitat types.
Continuous intergravel DO data recorded at two sites for two seasons in FA-128 (Slough 8A)
were similar. Median DO concentration was 5.21 milligrams per liter (mg/L) at 128-SL8A-15
during March-April 2013 and 5.88 mg/L at 128-SL8A-40 during September 2013-March 2014
(SIR Study 8.5, Appendix A; R2 2014k; R2 2014b). With the exception of two periods, one in
November 2013 and one in February 2014, DO concentrations were generally stable during each
monitoring period and ranged from approximately 4.0 mg/L to 6.5 mg/L. During November
2013, concentrations were between 9–11 mg/L and approximately 7 mg/L during one week in
February 2014. While it is not known whether Slough 8A was breached during November 2013,
the elevated intergravel DO levels during February 2014 were coincident with an observed
breach event within Slough 8A by main channel streamflow. Intergravel DO at FA-138 (Gold
Creek) Site 138-SL11-04 fluctuated between 7–10 mg/L during the September 2013 through
April 2014 monitoring period with some temporary excursions to values less than 4 mg/L. The
median DO concentration was 10.33 mg/L during the measurement period.
Instantaneous measurements of SW temperature recorded during September 2014 indicated
cooler water in side slough and upland slough habitats relative to the Susitna River main channel
and side channel areas. Following freeze-up, the inverse of this relationship was observed with
slough habitats typically warmer than main channel and side channel areas (SIR Study 8.5,
Appendix A; R2 2014k; R2 2014b). Although specific conductance values generally differed
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 42 November 2015
between main channel and off-channel habitats during winter, the degree and manner in which
values differed was not consistent. In FA-104 (Whiskers Slough) and FA-128 (Slough 8A),
specific conductance measured during February and March 2014 in main channel and side
channel sites tended to be higher than off-channel and tributary areas, while conductance
measured in FA-138 (Gold Creek) side sloughs was often equivalent to or higher than main
channel sites (R2 2014b).
The majority of the main channel and side channel habitats were completely ice-covered during
the studies, although open-water leads were present in certain locations (SIR Study 8.5,
Appendix A; R2 2014k; R2 2014b). The open leads in main channel areas were likely related to
high SW turbulence or velocity, while open-water in side channel, side slough and upland
sloughs were likely linked to warmer water temperatures as influenced by GW. During February
and March 2014, ice thickness measurements at instantaneous water quality sites was generally
greater than 3 feet in the main channel, and ranged from 0–2 feet at side channel sites, 0–1 foot
in side sloughs, 0–2 feet at upland sloughs, and 0–1.5 feet in tributaries (SIR Study 8.5,
Appendix A; R2 2014b).
5.5.6.1. Fish Observations
A total of 59 electrofishing surveys were conducted during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 winter
data collection efforts in FA-104 (Whiskers Slough), FA-128 (Slough 8A), FA-138 (Gold
Creek), and FA-141 (Indian River) (SIR Study 8.5, Appendix A; R2 2014a; R2 2014b), 21 of
which were conducted at night. Fish species captured during day and night electrofishing
surveys consisted of Chinook, sockeye, chum and coho salmon, rainbow trout, Arctic grayling,
Longnose sucker, lamprey, and sculpin.
A total of 248 fish were captured during 29 daytime electrofishing surveys conducted between
February–April 2014, while 659 fish were captured during 16 nighttime surveys. Overall, a total
of 288 site specific HSC observations were recorded for eight fish species during the winter
studies (Table 5.5-5). Most HSC observations were of coho salmon (124 observations), sockeye
(68 observations), and chum (42 observations) though other observations were recorded for
Chinook salmon, rainbow trout, Arctic grayling, longnose sucker and lamprey (Table 5.5-5).
Few fish were detected during underwater video surveys; no fish were observed at sites in FA-
104 (Whiskers Creek) or FA-128 (Slough 8A) during February, March, and April 2014, and only
a few juvenile salmon (unidentified 60-120 mm fork length) were observed during nighttime
surveys at FA-138 (Gold Creek) at Site 138-SL11-22. As a result, no HSC observations were
made based on underwater video surveys (SIR Study 8.5, Appendix A; R2 2014k; R2 2014b;
ISR Study 9.6, Appendix C: Winter Sampling Report (2012-2013), submitted to the FERC June
3, 2014 [R2 and LGL 2014a]; 2013-2014 Winter Fish Study, submitted to the FERC September
17, 2014 [R2 and LGL 2014b]).
5.5.7. Stranding and Trapping
During a May 17, 2013 TT meeting, participants indicated that site-specific stranding and
trapping studies should be a low priority. As such, no formal stranding and trapping surveys
were completed in 2013 or 2014. If stranding and trapping surveys are not completed, ramping
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 43 November 2015
criteria developed in Washington State (Hunter 1992) will be proposed as fallback criteria during
effects analyses. This was noted during the May 17, 2013 TWG meeting.
5.5.8. River Productivity
At this time, data processing and analysis needed for HSC/HSI curve/model development for
macroinvertebrates and algae is not yet complete. Draft HSC/HSI curves and model
development for macroinvertebrates and algae are scheduled for completion following the
second year of study and prior to the USR.
5.5.9. Relationship between Microhabitat Use and Fish Abundance
In response to the April 1, 2013 FERC SPD [FERC 2013], a detailed evaluation of fish
abundance measures and eight additional habitat variables (surface flow and GW exchange flux,
surface and intergravel DO and temperature, macronutrients, pH, DOC, alkalinity, and
chlorophyll-a) was completed to determine whether relationships were evident and if additional
HSC curve development was warranted (R2 2014a).
There were three crucial requirements to be met for habitat variables to be included in HSC
development. The first is that there is a predictive and direct relationship between the habitat
variable and fish presence; second, that changes to the habitat variable as a function of flow can
be spatially and quantitatively predicted at the Focus Area scale; and third, that predicted
changes in the variable are observable at a temporal scale (hours to days) similar to changes in
flow conditions in response to Project operations. If any of these criteria cannot be met, then the
individual variable was not considered as part of site-specific HSC curve development.
Of the eight variables requested by the FERC for further investigation of possible HSC
development, three (VHG as a surrogate for surface and GW exchange flux, SW DO, and
temperature) are included as part of the HSC suitability curve development process. Intergravel
DO and temperature continue to be collected, but this data will be used to develop threshold
(highs and lows) that can be applied as part of the effective spawning habitat analysis.
For the five remaining variables (pH, DOC, alkalinity, macronutrients, and chlorophyll-a),
statistical analysis was completed to estimate the probability that these variables are “strong”
predictors of habitat use by the target species and life stages (R2 2014a). Of the five variables,
only pH demonstrated a strong relationship with salmonids (resident and anadromous fry and
juvenile) habitat use in the MR and LR. The analysis shows that 90-100% of salmonids are
selecting habitats in the pH range of 6.2-8.7. Therefore, it is recommended that a pH range of
6.5-8.5 be used as a threshold by which to evaluate the loss or gain in habitat area.
A detailed description of the predictive value of each of these five variables is presented in the
September 2014 TM (R2 2014a). Recommendations regarding inclusion of each of the variables
in future HSC development activities are presented in Table 5.5-15.
5.6. Habitat-Specific Model Development
Since the June 2014 ISR, work on this study component has included: 1) collection of field data
to support 2-D hydraulic model development in FA-151 (Portage Creek); 2) collection and
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 44 November 2015
analysis of surficial substrate and cover data to support Fish Habitat Modeling at each Focus
Area; 3) completion of aerial spawning surveys in Focus Areas downstream of Devils Canyon;
4) continued development and refinement of the 2-D hydraulic models and the PHABSIM based
Fish Habitat Modeling framework that will be applied to the ten Focus Areas within the MR; and
5) continued analysis and calibration of the 1-D HEC-RAS hydraulic models for application of
the Fish Habitat Models for the Trapper and Birch creeks and 1-D transects in PRM95, PRM96
and PRM97. Details of each of these activities are described below.
5.6.1. Collection of Field Data in FA-151 (Portage Creek)
Detailed surveys to collect bathymetric data and other physical and hydraulic data required from
2-D hydraulic model development were initiated on the lower seven of the ten Focus Areas in
2013 and study results presented in the June 2014 ISR. However, limited surveys were
completed on the upper three Focus Areas (FA-151 [Portage Creek]; FA-173 [Stephan Lake
Complex]; FA-184 [Watana Dam]) due to access restrictions associated with CIRWG lands.
These restrictions were resolved and since the June 2014 ISR, AEA has completed detailed
bathymetric and 2-D model calibration surveys at FA-151. As before, the collection of data at
FA-151 was closely coordinated between and among the different resource leads to ensure that
data necessary for developing the different resource models was being collected. The
bathymetric surveys were completed on June 22, 2014 following the same general procedures
described in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.6.1.2.2. Two sets of 2-D model calibration
transects were likewise measured in FA-151, the first on June 22 and the second on September
15, 2014 (Figure 4.6-1). Measurement procedures followed those established in 2013 that
required all of the 2-D calibration measurements be completed on the same day. Detailed
methods used for collecting the field data for the calibration transects are provided in SIR Study
8.5, Appendix C.
5.6.2. Collection and Analysis of Surficial Substrate and Cover Data
Substrate maps showing geo-referenced polygons of substrate and cover composition for each
surveyed Focus Area are presented in SIR Study 8.5, Appendix E. For illustration purposes the
substrate and cover maps for FA-128 (Slough 8A) are displayed in Figure 5.6-1 and Figure 5.6-2,
respectively. The substrate Figure 5.6-1 shows both the distribution of coarse and fine substrate
within the entire Focus Area, and in the figure inset, the dominant and subdominant particle size
and the percent composition of each substrate polygon that will be used for aquatic habitat
modeling.
The fish habitat cover Figure 5.6-2 depicts locations of boulders, aquatic vegetation, overhanging
vegetation, undercut bank and woody debris. Aquatic vegetation is a cover type that consists of
both submergent and emergent vegetation. Some of the gravel and sand bars that are frequently
inundated have sparse emergent vegetation such as willow and alder seedlings and saplings.
Inundation of this vegetation will provide cover to fish such as juvenile salmonids. Gravel bars
and riparian areas that have not been exposed to the scouring effects of spring break up or high
flow events become colonized by more mature vegetation including trees and shrubs. These trees
and shrubs were characterized as overhanging vegetation and will represent aquatic cover when
those areas become inundated. As for substrate, the cover polygons will be used in the habitat
modeling.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 45 November 2015
5.6.3. Completion of Aerial Spawning Surveys
The spawning areas identified during the September 2014 aerial surveys were mapped and
digitized into GIS layers of observed spawning activity. Salmon redds were enumerated and
mapped in FA-104 (Whiskers Slough), FA-128 (Slough 8A), FA-138 (Gold Creek), FA-141
(Indian River) and FA-144 (Slough 21) and are displayed in SIR Study 8.5, Appendix E. Figure
5.6-3 depicts the spawning area map for FA-128. The map (and the maps in SIR Study 8.5,
Appendix E) displays spawning areas observed during each of the aerial surveys, as well as areas
identified during HSC ground surveys in 2013 and 2014, and during the 1980s studies.
No evidence of spawning activity was apparent in FA-113 (Oxbow 1), FA-115 (Slough 6A) or
FA-151 (Portage Creek) during either aerial spawning survey conducted in September 2014.
The vast majority of salmon spawning areas observed during the September 2014 aerial surveys
were located in side channel and side slough macrohabitats. A main channel spawning area
documented during the surveys was located in FA-141 (Indian River) on the north bank of the
main channel immediately upstream and downstream of the Indian River confluence.
Overall, the distribution of salmon spawning recorded during the 1980s was generally similar to
salmon spawning areas observed in 2013-2014. At a broad scale, results during each period
indicated that tributary and slough (side slough and upland slough) habitats were primary
spawning areas for salmon species, while main channel and side channel habitats were
considered secondary or incidental spawning areas. At a finer scale, discrete areas of salmon
spawning mapped within each Focus Area during 2013 and 2014 closely resemble the spatial
extent of spawning mapped during 1980s surveys. Although some differences in spawning
distribution are apparent between recent and 1980s spawning surveys, some discrepancies are
attributable to changes in habitat accessibility and/or channel configuration. For example,
salmon access and use of spawning areas documented in Slough 11 (FA-138 [Gold Creek]); and
Slough 21 (FA-144 [Slough 21]) during the 1980s may have been hindered by the presence of
large beaver dams near the outlets of each channel.
5.6.4. Refinement of 2-D Hydraulic and Fish Habitat Models – Middle River
Segment
Since the June 2014 ISR, AEA has continued working on both the 2-D hydraulic models (SRH-
2D and River2D) as well as the 2-D PHABSIM based Fish Habitat Models for the MR. Work
completed on the 2-D hydraulic models is described in SIR Study 6.6 (Fluvial Geomorphology
Modeling) and Study 7.6 (Ice Processes).
Work completed on the Fish Habitat Models has focused on development of a unique grid
system compatible with both SRH-2D and River2D outputs that will allow cell by cell hydraulic
computations. In addition, the conceptual planning for the Visual Basic (VB) habitat time series
model was completed. Since salmonids (salmon and trout) have discreet spawning locations and
bury their eggs within the stream gravels, a cell by cell analysis is need to determine successful
spawning and emergence (effective spawning habitat). A conceptual outline of the steps needed
for development of the VB time series model was developed and is undergoing additional review
and modification. A cell by cell analysis is not needed for free swimming life stages since they
are capable of movement from one location to another as flows change. The analysis for free
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 46 November 2015
swimming life stages will evaluate each Focus Area as a single unit based on the habitat flow
relationship developed for the range of flows modeled at each Focus Area.
5.6.5. Continued analysis and calibration of 1-D Hydraulic Models – Lower
River Segment
AEA has continued analysis of the 1-D transect hydraulic data sets collected in Trapper Creek
and Birch Creek, and mainstem transects located at PRM95, PRM96 and PRM97. Field data
collection methods and initial analyses were presented in ISR Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix O:
Fish Habitat Modeling in the Lower River (R2 2014l) and as well presented during the Proof of
Concept meeting held April 15-17, 2014 (ISR Study 8.5, Appendix N: Middle River Fish Habitat
and Riverine Modeling Proof of Concept [R2 et al. 2014]). Data are being analyzed using the 1-
D HEC-RAS hydraulic model (Version 4.1) to simulate water levels at the respective transect
locations. Work has included preparation of model input data, calibration of hydraulic models
using survey data and Version 2 of the OWFRM (ISR Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix K [R2
2014h]), preliminary model simulations and sensitivity analysis, and where possible,
development of stage-discharge rating curves.
5.7. Temporal and Spatial Analysis
5.7.1. Temporal Analysis
Since the June 2014 ISR, AEA has completed modifications to the 2-D Fish Habitat Model to
enable cell by cell analysis of spawning and incubation habitats needed to conduct the effective
spawning and incubation modeling within the Focus Areas. AEA will continue working on
model refinements needed to complete the temporal analyses as described in RSP Study 8.5,
Section 8.5.4.7.1 and ISR Study 8.5, Part C, Section 7.7.1.1.1.
5.7.2. Spatial Analysis
AEA presented four options for completing the spatial analysis during the IFS TT Proof of
Concept meeting on April 15-17, 2014 and described these further in ISR Study 8.5, Part C,
Section 7.7.1.1.2, one of which (option involving weightings based on fish use) was deemed
inappropriate for further consideration. Further discussions are needed with the Licensing
Participants regarding the remaining three options before selection of a specific approach for
conducting the spatial analysis can be made.
5.8. Instream Flow Study Integration
Study integration efforts are continuing with one of the primary goals being to provide more
information and explanation of the DSS that AEA is developing. One aspect of this relates to the
issue of uncertainty, and AEA is working on developing an example to demonstrate how this
issue can be addressed as part of the DSS process.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 47 November 2015
6. DISCUSSION
6.1. IFS Analytical Framework
The IFS analytical framework developed in 2012 was and continues to be applied as work
progresses on the IFS and related resource studies. This framework has proven especially
beneficial in the development and successful implementation of key interdisciplinary resource
studies and the identification of data dependencies between studies. Continued adherence to this
framework will ensure successful completion of the overall IFS study as specified in the FERC-
approved Study Plan.
6.2. River Stratification and Study Area Selection
AEA has followed the stratification and study area selection process that was described in ISR
Study 8.5, Part A, Sections 4.2 and 5.2. This has included the selection of ten Focus Areas in the
MR (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]). Results of the field
verification habitat mapping analysis (SIR Study 9.9) completed for the MR found only minor
differences in the original macro-habitat calls and support the current selection of the Focus
Areas. As a result, no modifications to existing Focus Areas or adding additional study areas
were indicated; the study area selection process for the MR has been completed.
Analysis of the 1-D PHABSIM data collected in the Geomorphic Reach LR-1 study sites is not
complete, and although HSC and tributary gaging work has been conducted in LR2, field studies
to collect 1-D PHABSIM transect data at the Geomorphic Reach LR-2 sites have not occurred.
A determination for the need for additional sites in the LR will be made once all data have been
collected and analyzed from LR-1 and LR-2.
6.3. Hydrologic Data Analysis
6.3.1. Mainstem Susitna River
The study objectives of the hydrologic data analysis for the mainstem Susitna River were met
through collection of cross-sectional and hydrologic data to support a variety of resource studies
and development of physical, hydraulic and habitat models. The results from the water surface
elevation and discharge measurement surveys collected between 2012 and 2014 were used in
development of Version 2.8 of the OWFRM. In all years ADCP data collection and analysis
techniques were adjusted to accommodate specific field and equipment conditions. In all cases,
any modifications of protocols were documented and are available for review (ISR Study 8.5,
Part A, Appendix C [R2 2014g]; SIR Study 8.5, Appendix C). As noted in SIR Study 8.5,
Section 5.3, 2-D flow measurements were performed in FA-151 (Portage Creek).
Although not a requirement in the RSP, additional data were collected in the Susitna River to
meet all resource study needs. Pressure transducers were installed at upstream and downstream
ends of Focus Areas during 2014 to measure WSE and meet needs of the Fluvial
Geomorphology Modeling Study (Study 6.6). Forty-two staff gages were also installed in side
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 48 November 2015
channels and sloughs of the Susitna River to assess stage height during resource study field
activities and for use in 2-D modeling efforts.
6.3.2. Tributaries to the Susitna River
Tributary gaging measurements were completed in accordance with the Study Plan and will be
used to help synthesize a long-term period of record. These synthesized records will be used in
the OWFRM and other riverine-related studies, such as Water Quality Modeling (Study 5.6),
Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling (Study 6.6); and GW (Study 7.5). Hourly hydrograph data are
available to the public on the GINA website (see Table 5-1 for location information). Additional
tributary data collected during the 2014-2015 period have not yet been finalized. The available
tributary data were used to adjust the tributary hydrology estimates. Additional revisions will be
made to the synthesized tributary records once all the tributary gage data are finalized. This
effort is anticipated in Q4 2015. No additional tributary gage data are anticipated for
development of Version 3 of the OWFRM. However, future tributary gage data may be
necessary to support 2-D Focus Area or other riverine modeling efforts.
6.3.3. Realtime Hydrologic Data and Network
The objectives of the Real-time Hydrologic Data Network were met in 2014 with the
continuation of collection of data at the mainstem recording stations. As noted in Section 4.3.3,
five of the ESS stations were decommissioned in September 2015, and six maintained (Table
4.3-1).
6.3.4. Representative Years
Study objectives for Representative Years have been met; recommendations were presented
during the Proof of Concept Meeting in 2014 and described in ISR Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix
J.
6.3.5. Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration and Environmental Flow Components
The final IHA metrics will be developed with input from the TWG and other resource disciplines
after Version 3 of the OWFRM is available. A fully developed set of metrics will be available
for use prior to the USR.
6.4. Reservoir Operations and Open-water Flow Routing Modeling
6.4.1. Reservoir Operations Model
The Reservoir Operations Model is on target to meet the study objectives identified in the Study
Plan. The Reservoir Operations Model will be simulated using several different condition s.
Operational scenarios will be developed under the direction of AEA and the TWG. Once
operational scenarios have been identified, they will be simulated using the Reservoir Operations
Model and the output will be provided for use by other studies, in particular the OWFRM.
Additional detail and discussion concerning the model will be provided in the USR.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 49 November 2015
6.4.2. Open-water Flow Routing Model
The OWFRM Version 2.8 developed in 2015 (Version 2.8) has met Project objectives. The
model was refined by including diurnal fluctuations, revised LiDAR data collected in 2013 to
extend over bank channel cross-sections, and additional transect data collected in 2013 and 2014.
This version of the model is complete for the Dam Site to Sunshine reach. The final Version 3 of
the OWFRM will be developed and distributed for review in the last year of the study. Version 3
will include revisions to the lower Susitna River portion with additional cross-section and
hydrologic data. Specific tasks to complete the OWFRM include:
Validation of the OWFRM using 2014 USGS data and the 2012-2015 ESS station data.
Improvement to tributary hydrology estimates of diurnal fluctuations for the Sunshine to
Susitna Station reach.
Completion and calibration of the OWFRM for the Sunshine to Susitna Station Reach.
Simulation of the 61-year period of record.
Several other studies included in this project have also developed flow routing models to meet
their specific needs. These include Reservoir Operations (ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.4),
Ice Processes (River1D) (ISR Study 7.6), Water Quality (Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code
[EFDC]) (ISR Study 5.6), and Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling (ISR Study 6.6). The
Reservoir Operations Model has a river component that is used to incorporate minimum instream
flow conditions into the simulation of the with-Project scenario. The water quality model has a
different time step and utilizes different transects. The ice processes modeling utilizes the
OWFRM to link with an under ice model (River1D). The sediment transport modeling uses
input from the OWFRM and also includes a steady-state 2-D hydraulic model at Focus Areas.
Each of these models is being developed for specific purposes and where appropriate, cross-
comparisons of model outputs will be made for QA/QC purposes. As noted, the OWFRM will
continue to be used to evaluate stage conditions in the Susitna River with and without the Project
and will also provide inputs to certain models.
6.5. Habitat Suitability Criteria Development
The overall goal of the HSC study is to develop site-specific HSC/HSI curves for various priority
species and life stages of fish for use in assessing the effects of the proposed Project on the
quantity and quality of fish habitats through the use of aquatic habitat models (ISR Study 8.5,
Part A, Sections 5.6 and 6.6).
The goal of the HSC Development Study was to collect sufficient habitat utilization and
availability data to develop site-specific HSC models to support the evaluation of Project effects.
SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D presents the statistical approach used for developing draft final HSC
models for the priority species and life stages of fish found in the Susit na River using site-
specific habitat utilization and availability data. For species and life stages with some, but not
enough site-specific observation to construct HSC models, additional data collection may be
warranted. Development of site-specific empirical HSC/HSI data will not be attainable for some
species and life stages due to their low abundance or primary use of tributary rather than
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 50 November 2015
mainstem habitats. In those cases, alternative HSC development methods (literature based,
enveloping, guilding, expert opinion/roundtable discussions, and Bayesian statistical) are being
evaluated.
6.5.1. 2013-2014 HSC Sampling
Both summer (May-September) and winter (October-April) HSC data were collected to
determine if significant differences in seasonal microhabitat use were evident. Summer 2014
field data collection was expanded to include all ten MR Focus Areas and two LR tributary
complexes. Summertime data collection occurred during eight separate surveys from mid-May
through late-September at 129 sample sites. Many of the sites were sampled more than once
resulting in 267 unique sampling events. A total of 2,799 microhabitat use measurements were
collected for 12 different species of fish from within ten different macrohabitat types. Sampling
in the LR, and the three upstream most Focus Areas (FA-151 [Portage Creek], FA-173 [Stephan
Lake Complex], FA-184 [Watana Dam]) that were unsampled in 2013, accounted for just over
19 percent of the total number of summer observations.
6.5.2. Winter Habitat Use Sampling
Winter 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 HSC data collection was concentrated within three MR Focus
Areas (FA-104 [Whiskers Slough], FA-128 [Slough 8A], and FA-138 [Gold Creek]) during three
separate sampling events (February, March, and April). Winter habitat use measurements for
rearing Chinook, coho, chum, and sockeye salmon made up over 96 percent of the total number
of observations (n=291). For salmon species, there were a similar number of HSC measurements
for the fry (n=131) and juvenile (n=151) life stages. The distribution of observations within the
three Focus Areas was similar with 38.5 percent collected at FA-104 (Whiskers Slough), 26.1
percent at FA-128 (Slough 8A), and 34 percent at FA-138 (Gold Creek). There were 4
observations of habitat use in FA-141 (Indian River) that accounted for the remainder of the
winter HSC measurements.
6.5.3. Habitat Utilization Frequency Histograms
Frequency distributions (i.e., histograms) were generated for mean velocity, depth, and substrate
utilization for each species. Frequency bin widths of 0.2 were used to evaluate the mean velocity
and depth utilization distributions. Histogram plots of depth and mean column velocity
utilization were then produced for each species and life stage for which sufficient field
observations were recorded. Summer HSC data were plotted for the LR and MR, and as a
combined dataset. Winter HSC were plotted for summer and winter observations. Additionally,
a comparison of microhabitat use observed during the 2013-2014 surveys and the 1980s HSC
curves was completed.
6.5.3.1. River Segment Comparison
Although there were some minor differences in the depth and velocity of water utilized by fish in
the LR and MRs, the range (percentiles) of microhabitat use was generally similar between the
segments for most species and life stages.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 51 November 2015
6.5.3.2. Seasonal Comparison
A comparison of summer and winter microhabitat use observations was completed to determine
if difference in microhabitat (water depth and velocity) selection between seasons justifies
development of separate (summer and winter) HSC models. The comparison could only be
made for those species and life stages with sufficient (>10) habitat use observations between the
two seasons.
For the fry and juvenile life stages of Chinook and coho salmon, habitat use between seas ons
was significantly different in both the overall range (0-100 percentile) and median (50th
percentile) depth and velocity use. When compared to summer habitat use, the maximum
velocity and depth use during the winter was 1-3 times lower for both species and life stages.
The use of lower velocity areas during the winter is not surprising given that nearly all fish
species exhibit physiological and/or behavioral responses to the seasonal change in habitat from
summer to winter, such as movement to off-channel and low velocity habitat. The dramatic shift
in use of lower velocity areas by fry and juvenile Chinook and coho, during the winter, appears
to justify an adjustment of the velocity preference model between seasons.
Although it is not possible to construct a unique winter habitat preference model without
wintertime habitat availability data, a reduction in the maximum velocity threshold from 3.0 feet
per second in the summer to 1.5 feet per second in the winter is recommended. This reduction or
limitation in the range of suitable velocities would increase the sensitivity of the habitat
modeling to detect changes in suitable habitat for overwintering Chinook and coho salmon.
6.5.3.3. 1980s and 2013-2014 Comparison
A comparison of HSC developed from the 1980s studies and habitat use data collected as part of
the 2013-2014 data collection effort was completed for Chinook and coho salmon juvenile, pink
salmon spawning, Arctic grayling adult, rainbow trout adult, and whitefish adult.
Pink salmon spawning and whitefish adult were the only two species/life stages with a large
enough number of 2013-2014 site-specific observation (>30) to provide a meaningful
comparison to the 1980s HSC. A visual comparison of the 2013-2014 pink salmon spawning
data (n=53) and the 1980s HSC appears to indicated strong similarities in habitat utilization.
Even though the 1980s pink salmon spawning HSC were not developed from Susitna River but
were transferred from site-specific data collected from the Terror River (Alaska), the 1980s HSC
should be considered as a potential source of HSC for the current effort. Similarities between the
1980s HSC and 2013-2014 habitat use data for Arctic grayling, rainbow trout, and whitefish
adult was not nearly as evident. There were only 8 habitat use observations of rainbow trout
adult during the 2013-2014 surveys making it difficult to draw any conclusion from a
comparison of the data.
6.5.4. HSC Models
Multivariate HSC models have been developed from 2013-2014 HSC sampling data for Chinook
salmon fry and juvenile, chum salmon spawning, coho salmon fry and juvenile, sockeye salmon
spawning, Arctic grayling fry and juvenile, whitefish fry and juvenile, and longnose sucker
juvenile and adult. Completing the statistical analysis for a diverse data set collected over a wide
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 52 November 2015
range of habitat conditions required certain model assumptions (see Section 5.5.4), data grouping
or consolidations and applying threshold to set minimum and/or maximum ranges within the
HSC models. Further modification to the HSC/HSI models will be completed after reviewing
comments from the Licensing Participants and the FERC. Final HSC model assumptions and
data considerations will be presented in the USR.
6.6. Habitat-Specific Model Development
Since the June 2014 ISR, work on this study component has continued and was centered around
the five activities described in Section 5.6 that are discussed briefly below.
6.6.1. Collection of Field Data in FA-151 (Portage Creek)
Detailed surveys to collect bathymetric data and other physical and hydraulic data have now
been completed on the eight Focus Areas below Devils Canyon. Surveys in the upper two Focus
Areas (FA-173 [Stephan Lake Complex]; FA-184 [Watana Dam]) are yet to be completed.
6.6.2. Collection and Analysis of Surficial Substrate and Cover Data
Substrate and cover data have been collected and analyzed for the lower eight Focus Areas and
substrate maps showing geo-referenced polygons of substrate and cover composition for each
surveyed Focus Areas prepared (SIR Study 8.5, Appendix E). For illustration purposes the
substrate and cover maps for FA-128 (Slough 8A) are displayed in Figure 5.6-1 and Figure 5.6-2,
respectively.
6.6.3. Completion of Aerial Spawning Surveys
Aerial spawning surveys were completed in September 2014 and spawning areas mapped and
digitized into GIS layers of observed spawning activity. Salmon redds were enumerated and
mapped in FA-104 (Whiskers Slough), FA-128 (Slough 8A), FA-138 (Gold Creek), FA-141
(Indian River) and FA-144 (Slough 21) and are displayed in SIR Study 8.5, Appendix E.
Overall, the distribution of salmon spawning recorded during the 1980s was generally similar to
salmon spawning areas observed in 2013-2014. At a broad scale, results during each period
indicated that tributary and slough (side slough and upland slough) habitats were primary
spawning areas for salmon species, while main channel and side channel habitats were
considered secondary or incidental spawning areas. At a finer scale, discrete areas of salmon
spawning mapped within each Focus Area during 2013 and 2014 closely resemble the spatial
extent of spawning mapped during 1980s surveys. This information will be used in validation of
the 2-D Fish Habitat Models.
6.6.4. Refinement of 2-D Hydraulic and Fish Habitat Models – Middle River
Segment
AEA has continued working on both the 2-D hydraulic models (SRH-2D and River2D) as well
as the 2-D PHABSIM based Fish Habitat Models for the MR. Work completed on the 2-D
hydraulic models is described in SIR Study 6.6 (Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling) and Study
7.6 (Ice Processes). Work completed on the Fish Habitat Models has focused on development of
a unique grid system compatible with both SRH-2D and River2D outputs that will allow cell by
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 53 November 2015
cell hydraulic computations. In addition, the conceptual planning for the Visual Basic (VB)
habitat time series model was completed.
6.6.5. Continued analysis and calibration of 1-D Hydraulic Models – Lower
River Segment
Since the June 2014 ISR, AEA has continued analysis of the 1-D transect hydraulic data sets
collected in Trapper Creek and Birch Creek, and mainstem transects located at PRM95, PRM96,
and PRM97 sites. These data will continue to be evaluated with final models developed for use
in the habitat modeling.
6.7. Temporal and Spatial Habitat Analyses
AEA has advanced the methods for modeling important key species and life stage habitats in the
Focus Areas, including spawning and incubation habitats that must be tracked over discrete time
steps as part of an effective spawning and incubation habitat analysis. AEA will continue to
refine these and other methods as needed to address Project operational effects that are time
sensitive (e.g., load following will be evaluated via varial zone modeling).
AEA has also identified and presented to the Licensing Participants four options for expanding
the habitat-flow modeling results from the Focus Areas to the remaining unmeasured portions of
the MR. These were discussed during the IFS TT April 15-17 Proof of Concept meeting. An
additional option raised during the meetings was to simply rely on the models developed in the
Focus Areas for evaluating Project operational effects without expansion to un-measured areas.
AEA will discuss these options further with the Licensing Participants and a final approach will
subsequently be selected.
6.8. Instream Flow Study Integration
Based on an evaluation of several approaches and discussion with the TWG as part of the IFS TT
Riverine Modelers meeting of November 13-15, 2013, AEA decided to use the matrix method as
the basis for the DSS for decision making, with the possible consideration of addressing
uncertainties in a decision analysis framework. In two follow-up meetings including the April
15-17, 2014 Proof of Concept meeting, and the October 2014 ISR meetings, Licensing
Participants expressed a strong interest in the DSS process, and encouraged further development
of the study integration components of the project sooner in the project timeline. The issue of
addressing uncertainties associated with model outputs has been a continuing theme in the
discussions with the agencies and was explicitly raised during the October ISR meetings. To
further advance this analysis, AEA is currently developing an example to demonstrate how the
issues of uncertainty can be addressed as part of the DSS process. AEA is planning on working
in collaboration with the Licensing Participants in developing the final DSS that will be used for
evaluating overall Project effects across resource disciplines and user groups.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 54 November 2015
7. CONCLUSION
The IFS study, which consists of eight study components, was initiated in 2013 in accordance
with the FERC- approved Study Plan and resulted in the selection of study areas and study sites
that are being used across resource disciplines. Major field efforts were associated with
collection of mainstem Susitna River and tributary hydrology data, bathymetry and topographic
data, HSC/ HSI fish habitat data (winter and open-water periods), and characterization of
substrates and cover. Data collection and analysis efforts have continued throughout 2014 and
into 2015 and have substantively contributed to completion or near-completion of certain study
elements, and have also helped to identify and prioritize all remaining work needed for the
successful completion of the study. Highlights of each of the study components are presented
below along with a listing of remaining work needed to meet the study objectives.
7.1. IFS Analytical Framework
AEA developed and successfully implemented the IFS analytical framework in 2012-
2013, and continued to apply the framework in 2014 and into 2015.
AEA will continue to adhere to this framework to ensure successful completion of the
overall IFS study.
7.2. River Stratification and Study Area Selection
AEA successfully developed and applied the stratification and study area selection
process described in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 4.2 and 5.2. This process resulted in
the selection of ten Focus Areas in the Middle River Segment and two study areas
associated with important tributary mouths in the Lower River Segment for conducting
detailed studies.
The representativeness of the ten Focus Areas was tested based on habitat mapping that
was field verified in 2014. As a result, no modifications to existing Focus Areas or
adding additional study areas are warranted and the study area selection process for the
Middle River Segment has been completed.
Field studies were completed in the upper LR in Geomorphic Reach LR-1 (Trapper and
Birch creeks, and transects at PRM95, PRM96 and PRM97) of the Lower River Segment
but work still needs to be completed at the lower study area in LR-2 (Caswell and Sheep
creeks and mainstem transects). A determination for the need for additional sites in the
LR will be made once all data have been collected and analyzed from LR-1 and LR-2.
7.3. Hydrologic Data Analysis
The collection and analysis of hydrologic data will continue for the LR in the next year of the
study using methods and procedures in accordance with the Study Plan. This will include
collection of water level and discharge data on the mainstem in the LR using previously applied
methods. Data collection efforts needed for tributary hydrology estimates used in the OWFRM
are complete. However, additional data may be necessary to support 2-D modeling or other
riverine resource study efforts. No changes from the Study Plan were necessary for field data
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 55 November 2015
collection procedures for mainstem transect data, tributary measurements, or winter gaging.
Changes to the mainstem hydrology stations in 2013 (as described in ISR Study 8.5, Part A,
Section 4.3.2) and in 2014 (SIR Study 8.5, Appendix C) were made to reflect actual application
of these data to modeling and other efforts. As such, completion of the data collection efforts
and hydrologic analyses described above will achieve the objectives of this study component in
support of the IFS Study Plan.
7.4. Reservoir Operations and Open-water Flow Routing Modeling
The Reservoir Operations Model will be simulated under conditions outlined in the Study Plan
with the exception of the modeling platform. The Study Plan identified HEC ResSim as the
modeling platform for reservoir operations modeling. Early model runs were simulated with
HEC ResSim, but an additional proprietary reservoir operations model (MWH-ROM) became
necessary in order to incorporate all the necessary model components. It is anticipated that the
MWH-ROM will be used for all future reservoir operation modeling developments. Output from
the reservoir operations model is used as input into the OWFRM to evaluate impacts of the
Project on downstream streamflows and WSE. The OWFRM will continue to be refined and
will include updates to the LR. Both the Reservoir Operations Model and the OWFRM, in
combination with those specific to Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling (Study 6.6), Ice Processes
(Study 7.6), Water Quality (Study 5.6), GW (Study 7.5) and Fish Habitat Modeling (Study 8.5),
as well as data and information provided from other Study 8.5 components, and information
from FDAML (Study 9.6), River Productivity (Study 9.8) and Fish Passage Barriers (Study 9.12)
will provide analytical tools and data to address the objectives of the Study Plan.
7.5. Habitat Suitability Criteria Development
7.5.1. Proposed Methodologies and Modifications
To complete this study component, AEA will implement the methods in the FERC-approved
Study Plan (RSP Section 8.5.4.5) except as described in Section 4.5.11 of this report. These
activities are described below and will include:
HSC/HSI Model Development
Finalization list of priority species: A revised priority ranking of species for HSC development
was proposed during a TT meeting on 21 March 2014.
Finalize species and life stage periodicity: Detailed interim periodicity tables were
developed for twelve of the priority species and life stages and presented in the June 2014
ISR Study 8.5. The interim periodicity tables were developed from site-specific data
(list) and in general are consistent with periodicity information developed in the 1980s.
Additional site-specific information will be developed during analysis of the results of
FDAML (Study 9.6) and may modify the draft periodicity values for some life stages.
Final species and life stage periodicity will be developed as part of the USR.
For moderate and low priority species and life stages, select alternative HSC
development method(s). Alternative methods were described in the FERC-approved
Study Plan for developing HSC including site specific curves. Alternative curve
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 56 November 2015
development methods will be identified for all species lacking the requisite numbers of
site specific measurements. These methods will be presented to the agency and
stakeholders representatives during subsequent TWG or TT meetings. Complete
development of HSC using alternative methods for those species and life stages with
insufficient numbers of site-specific observations (i.e., Adult Arctic grayling, Bering
cisco [Coregonus laurettae], burbot, and eulachon [Thaleichthys pacificus]).
Two years of HSC sampling has been completed in the MR Focus Areas below Devils
Canyon, and one year of study has been completed in MR Focus Areas downstream of
FA-151 (Portage Creek) and in the LR. An additional year of study will be completed in
MR FA-151 (Portage Creek), FA-173 (Stephan Lake Complex), and FA-184 (Watana
Dam) and in the LR.
Conduct additional HSC surveys to collect site-specific habitat use observations for pink
salmon spawning and adult whitefish and rainbow trout. Sample site selection, timing,
and survey methods would be directed towards maximizing the number of observations
for each species/life stage
Continue to review potential relationships between spawning habitat selection/preference
and GW upwelling or downwelling. Although upwelling/downwelling was not a strong
predictor of habitat preference, a weighting factor or threshold may be warranted as a
way to assign a relative importance to spawning areas with upwelling/downwelling.
Complete multivariate HSC modeling utilizing new/additional observations for moderate
priority species and life stages with sufficient numbers and diversity of observations to
develop site-specific HSC. Review and evaluate both univariate and multivariate HSC
modeling results and proposed HSC based on alternative methods with agency and
stakeholder representatives.
Develop final HSC models for all priority species and life stages for use in the IFS habitat
modeling. Final HSC will be included in the USR.
Winter Studies
Review and analysis of continuous stage, water temperature and DO data recorded during
winter 2014-2015. These continuous data will be used to evaluate potential relationships
between main channel stage fluctuation and water levels in Focus Area habitats and to
describe the effect of water level change on surface and intergravel habitat conditions in
habitats utilized for juvenile fish rearing and salmon egg incubation. Data collected
during this period represents the second complete winter season of IFS winter studies
data collection identified in the RSP and ISR.
Retrieval of instrumentation deployed during winter 2015-2016. Instruments deployed
during September 2015 to continuously record water level and water quality conditions in
MR Focus Areas will be maintained and downloaded.
Conduct fish behavior and fish habitat utilization studies during an additional winter
period. Coordinated fish monitoring and sampling will occur in association with IFS and
FDAML winter studies to describe relative distribution of fish among macrohabitat types
and site-specific microhabitat utilization. Water level will also be monitored at selected
habitat features such as side channel or side slough hydraulic controls/inlets that may
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 57 November 2015
help discern changes to aquatic habitat conditions through the winter period. Data
collection will primarily occur in FA-104 (Whiskers Slough), FA-128 (Slough 8A) and
FA-138 (Gold Creek) and secondarily in Focus Area habitats proximal to these areas
(e.g., FA-141 [Indian River]) and accessible during winter.
7.5.1.1. Decision Points from Study Plan
There were no decision points in the FERC-approved Study Plan to be evaluated for this study
following completion of 2014 work.
7.5.1.2. Modifications to Study Plan
No modifications are needed to complete the HSC/HSI model development.
7.5.2. Conclusion
Over 3,000 site-specific observations of habitat use were collected during summer and winter
HSC/HSI surveys of the Susitna River. Habitat use and availability measurements were
collected from 129 sampling sites during 267 unique sampling events. Collection of synoptic
habitat use and availability data, allowed for development of habitat suitability or preference
models (univariate and multivariate) for individual species and life stages with sufficient
numbers of observations. Utilizing the 2013-2014 HSC/HSI survey data, multivariate HSC/HSI
models were developed for Chinook salmon fry and juvenile, chum salmon spawning, coho
salmon fry and juvenile, sockeye salmon spawning, Arctic grayling fry and juvenile, whitefish
fry and juvenile, and longnose sucker juvenile and adult. No additional data collection is
proposed for these species and life stages.
Comparison of HSC/HSI data collected in different river segments (LR and MR) and season,
displayed similar ranges and median values for water depth and velocity use of most species and
life stages. The one notable exception was between summer and winter habitat use by early life
stages of Chinook and coho salmon. This apparent difference in habitat use between summer
and winter seasons may justify the development of wintertime HSC/HSI for these two species.
An evaluation of fish abundance measures and eight additional habitat variables (surface flow
and GW exchange flux, surface and intergravel DO and temperature, macronutrients, pH, DOC,
alkalinity, and chlorophyll-a) showed generally weak relationships between the variables and
fish habitat use (R2 2014a). The one exception was for pH. Although there was insufficient
synoptic data for inclusion of pH in development of the HSC/HSI models, a minimum and
maximum threshold range has been proposed for use in evaluating potential Project impacts.
Although HSC/HSI models have been developed for a majority of the high and moderate priority
fish species and life stages, additional targeted data collection is proposed for a select number of
species and life stages. For those species and life stages with limited numbers of observation
other methods for developing HSC will need to be developed. Alternative methods were
described in the FERC-approved Study Plan for developing HSC including site specific curves
including the use of literature based curves, developing envelope curves, expert opinion/round
table discussions and/or the use of Bayesian statistical methods. These methods will be
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 58 November 2015
presented to the agency and stakeholders representatives during subsequent TWG or TT
meetings.
7.6. Habitat-Specific Model Development
Bathymetric, ADCP, and substrate/cover characterization surveys were completed for
seven of the ten Focus Areas; data are used in development of 2-D hydraulic models
(SRH-2D [Study 6.6]; and River2D [Study 7.6]) that will provide hydraulic data to the 2-
D PHABSIM Fish Habitat Models for developing habitat-flow relationships for target
fish species and life stages. In 2014, similar bathymetry, velocity, stage, substrate, and
cover data were collected for FA-151 (Portage Creek).
In 2014, collected supplemental physical/hydraulic data at seven Focus Area features
below Devils Canyon.
In 2013, completed physical and hydrologic surveys in the LR consisting of the collection
of field data at 1-D single transect locations that will be used for defining habitat-flow
relationships. LR field data collection consisted of three site visits (June, August, and
September) at the Geomorphic Reach LR-1 fish habitat sites to coincide with high,
moderate, and low flow conditions.
Preliminary hydraulic model calibrations using HEC-RAS were completed in 2013 for
two of the LR fish habitat sites located in Geomorphic Reach LR-1 to provide analysis to
be presented at the Proof of Concept meeting. The hydraulic modeling results were
imported into PHABSIM and an example of the habitat modeling output was generated
using available HSC. Examples of WUA and a habitat time series analysis were
presented at the Proof of Concept meeting April 15-17, 2014. Completed further
calibrations of the transect data in 2014.
Conducted aerial salmon spawning surveys at Focus Areas below Devils Canyon to
validate salmon spawning habitat metrics that will be generated from the 2-D PHABSIM
Fish Habitat Modeling (ISR Study 8.5, Part C, Section 7.3).
AEA will complete the development of habitat-specific models in the MR with specific
efforts to include:
o Collection of substrate and cover data within the remaining two Focus Areas
above Devils Canyon (FA-173 [Stephan Lake Complex] and FA-184 [Watana
Dam Site]).
o Finalization of 2-D hydraulic models in each of the eight Focus Areas that have
already been surveyed between PRM 104 and PRM 151: (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]), and FA-151 [Portage
Creek]), and the two Focus Areas that have not yet been surveyed (FA-173
[Stephan Lake Complex] and FA-184 [Watana Dam]). The 2-D hydraulic models
will be developed under Study 6.6 (Fluvial Geomorphology Modeling) but
reviewed and potentially adjusted for use in habitat modeling.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 59 November 2015
o Finalization of the Visual Basic (VB) models and associated GIS tools to allow
computation of HSC/HSI habitat evaluation metrics in MR Focus Areas over a
range of flow conditions.
o Final calibration and refinement of the Effective Spawning/Incubation and
Salmon Rearing models as described in ISR Study 8.5, Part A, Section 5.6.4.2,
and presented during the IFS TT POC meeting on April 15-17, 2014.
o Development of varial zone models for each of the ten Focus Areas (RSP Section
8.5.4.6.1.6).
o Development of habitat evaluation metrics for priority species and life stages
using hydraulic/habitat models developed for MR Focus Areas.
o Analyzing breaching flows to quantify habitat connectivity of side channels and
sloughs within MR Focus Areas; breaching flows will also be analyzed at major
side channel and slough within the MR to evaluate the representativeness of
Focus Area data. The IFS breaching flow analysis will be complementary to
Study 9.12 (Fish Passage Barriers) that is designed to evaluate existing and future
potential barriers to fish movement.
AEA will complete the development of habitat-specific models in the LR with specific
efforts to include:
o Finalization of open-water, 1-D hydraulic models in each of the six LR-1
PHABSIM sites that have already been surveyed: (PRM95, PRM96, PRM97,
Trapper Creek, Birch Creek, and Deshka River).
o Identification of transect locations within targeted habitats for Geomorphic Reach
LR-2 in the vicinity of Sheep Creek and Caswell Creek.
o Collection of open-water field data to support Fish Habitat Modeling at
Geomorphic Reach LR-2 fish habitat sites.
o Finalization of open-water, 1-D hydraulic models in the LR PHABSIM sites to be
located in LR-2 between PRM 65 to PRM 70.
o Identification of priority species, life stages and periodicity for LR-1 and LR-2 to
use for HSC curve development to apply to the Fish Habitat Modeling.
o Calculation of WUA curves for sites in LR-1 and LR-2 using calibrated
PHABSIM models.
o Calculation of WUA time series of open-water habitat for LR-1 and LR-2 sites
based on species and life stage periodicity for existing conditions and Project
operational scenarios.
o Development of depth and velocity criteria for defining breaching, fish passage,
and connectivity conditions for the tributary mouths.
o Calculation of fish passage probabilities and percentage of time open-water
connectivity is maintained to identify changes to timing, frequency or duration of
conditions.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 60 November 2015
7.7. Temporal and Spatial Habitat Analyses
AEA described the general approaches that will be used in completing the temporal
habitat analysis in RSP Section 8.5.4.7.1.1, with further details provided in ISR Study
8.5, Part C, Section 7.7.1.1.1 and during the IFS TT Proof of Concept meeting on April
15-17, 2014. These include varial zone analysis, effective spawning/incubation habitat
analysis, analysis of rearing habitats, breaching flow analysis, and analysis of other
riverine processes (e.g., water quality, sediment deposition, ice) that may directly
influence fish habitats.
AEA will continue to work on development and finalization of methods for completing
both the temporal and spatial analyses of data, and will apply those methods in evaluating
Project operational effects.
7.8. Instream Flow Study Integration
AEA reviewed potential options and benefits regarding DSS during the November 13-15,
2013 Riverine Modelers meeting. Based on an evaluation of several approaches, AEA
elected to use the matrix method as the basis for the DSS, with the possible consideration
of addressing uncertainties in a decision analysis framework (ISR Study 8.5, Part C,
Section 7.8).
Further discussion regarding the DSS occurred during the April 15-17, 2014 Proof of
Concept meeting and the October ISR meetings during which Licensing Participants
encouraged further development of the study integration components. The issue of
addressing uncertainties associated with model outputs was explicitly raised during the
October meetings. To further advance this analysis, AEA is currently developing an
example to demonstrate how the issues of uncertainty can be addressed as part of the
DSS process.
AEA is planning on working in collaboration with the Licensing Participants in
developing the final DSS that will be used for evaluating overall Project effects across
resource disciplines and user groups.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 61 November 2015
8. LITERATURE CITED
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2012. Revised Study Plan. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project, FERC Project No. 14241 Submittal: December 14, 2012. http://www.susitna-
watanahydro.org/study-plan.
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2014. Initial Study Report. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project, FERC Project No. 14241 Submittal: June 3, 2014. http://www.susitna-
watanahydro.org/type/documents/.
Burnham, K.P., and D.R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: A
practical information-theoretic approach. 2nd Edition. Springer-Verlag, New York
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2013. Study Plan Determination on 14
remaining studies for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project. Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14241. April 1, 2013.
http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130401-3022.
Geo-Watersheds Scientific (GWS) and R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2014a. Preliminary
Groundwater and Surface-Water Relationships in Lateral Aquatic Habitats within Focus
Areas FA-128 (Slough 8A) and FA-138 (Gold Creek) in the Middle Susitna River.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: September 30,
2014, Attachment C, Study 7.5 Technical Memorandum. Prepared for Alaska Energy
Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/09/07.5_GW_GWS_T6_TM_Aquatic_Hydro_Final_Draft_201409
25.pdf.
Geo-Watersheds Scientific (GWS) and R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2014b. Groundwater and
Surface-Water Relationships in Support of Riparian Vegetation Modeling. Susitna-
Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: September 30, 2014,
Attachment D, Study 7.5 Technical Memorandum. Prepared for Alaska Energy
Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/09/07.5_GW_GWS_T5_TM_Riparian_Final_Draft_20140926.pdf.
Hunter, M.A. 1992. Hydropower flow fluctuations and salmonids: a review of the biological
effects, mechanical causes, and options for mitigation. Washington Department of
Fisheries, Technical Report No. 119. 46 pp.
Manly, B.F.J., L.L. McDonald, and D.L. Thomas. 1993. Resource Selection by Animals:
Statistical Design and Analysis for Field Studies. Chapman and Hall, London, United
Kingdom, p. 192.
Mueller, D.S., C.R. Wagner, M.S. Rehmel., K.A. Oberg, and F. Rainville. 2013. Measuring
discharge with acoustic Doppler current profilers from a moving boat. U.S. Geological
Survey Techniques and Methods 3A-22, 95 p.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 62 November 2015
MWH Americas, Inc. (MWH). 2014. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Engineering
Feasibility Report, AEA11-022, Report, 14-21-REP, v0.0. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project, FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: December 2014. Prepared for Alaska Energy
Authority. http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/type/documents/.
R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2013. Selection of Focus Areas and Study Sites in the Middle
and Lower Susitna River for Instream Flow and Joint Resource Studies – 2013 and 2014.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: March 1, 2013,
Attachment C, Joint Resource Study Technical Memorandum. Prepared for Alaska
Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/09/TechMemoSelectionOfFocusAreas.pdf.
R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. (R2). 2014a. Evaluation of Relationships between Fish
Abundance and Specific Microhabitat Variables. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project,
FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: September 17, 2014, Attachment G, Study 8.5 Technical
Memorandum. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/09/08.5_IFS_R2_TM_FishAbundance-
MicrohabitatVariables_FINAL.pdf.
R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. (R2). 2014b. 2013-2014 Instream Flow Winter Studies. Susitna-
Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: September 17, 2014,
Attachment H, Study 8.5 Technical Memorandum. Prepared for Alaska Energy
Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/09/08.5_IFS_R2_TM_2013-2014WinterStudies.pdf.
R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2014c. Lower River Hydraulic Model Calibration. Susitna-
Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: June 3, 2014, Initial Study
Report, Study 8.5, Part A, Appendix I. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority,
Anchorage, Alaska. http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/05/08.5_IFS_ISR_PartA_5_of_5_App_G-I.pdf.
R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2014d. Hydrologic Data Collection Methods. Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: June 3, 2014, Initial Study Report,
Study 8.5, Part A, Appendix A. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/05/08.5_IFS_ISR_PartA_3_of_5_App_A-C.pdf.
R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2014e. Representative Years. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project, FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: June 3, 2014, Initial Study Report, Study 8.5, Part
C, Appendix J. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/08.5_IFS_ISR_PartC_1_of_2.pdf.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 63 November 2015
R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2014f. Biological Cues Study. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project, FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: June 3, 2014, Initial Study Report, Study 8.5, Part
A, Appendix B. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/05/08.5_IFS_ISR_PartA_3_of_5_App_A-C.pdf.
R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2014g. 2013 Moving Boat ADCP Measurements. Susitna-
Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: June 3, 2014, Initial Study
Report, Study 8.5, Part A, Appendix C. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority,
Anchorage, Alaska. http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/05/08.5_IFS_ISR_PartA_3_of_5_App_A-C.pdf.
R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2014h. Hydrology and Version 2 Open-water Flow Routing
Model. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: June 3,
2014, Initial Study Report, Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix K. Prepared for Alaska Energy
Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/08.5_IFS_ISR_PartC_1_of_2.pdf.
R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2014i. Habitat Suitability Curve Development. Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: June 3, 2014, Initial Study Report,
Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix M. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/08.5_IFS_ISR_PartC_2_of_2.pdf.
R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2014j. Periodicity Tables. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project, FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: June 3, 2014, Initial Study Report, Study 8.5, Part
A, Appendix H. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/05/08.5_IFS_ISR_PartA_5_of_5_App_G-I.pdf.
R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. (R2). 2014k. 2012-2013 Instream Flow Winter Pilot Studies.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: June 3, 2014,
Initial Study Report, Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix L. Prepared for Alaska Energy
Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/08.5_IFS_ISR_PartC_2_of_2.pdf.
R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. (R2). 2014l. Fish Habitat Modeling in Lower River. Susitna-
Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: June 3, 2014, Initial Study
Report, Study 8.5, Part C, Appendix O. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority,
Anchorage, Alaska. http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/08.5_IFS_ISR_PartC_2_of_2.pdf.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 64 November 2015
R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. (R2), Geo-Watersheds Scientific (GWS), Brailey Hydrologic, and
Geovera. 2013. Open-water HEC-RAS Flow Routing Model. Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: January 31, 2013, Attachment A,
Technical Memorandum. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Att-A-Flow-Routing-
Model.pdf.
R2 Resource Consultants (R2) and LGL Alaska Research Associates (LGL). 2014a. Winter
Sampling Report (2012-2013). Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-
14241 Submittal: June 3, 2014, Initial Study Report, Study 9.6, Part A, Appendix C.
Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. http://www.susitna-
watanahydro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/05/09.06_FDAML_ISR_PartA_4_of_5_App_C.pdf.
R2 Resource Consultants (R2) and LGL Alaska Research Associates (LGL). 2014b. 2013-2014
Winter Fish Study. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14241
Submittal: September 17, 2014, Attachment D, Study 9.6 Technical Memorandum.
Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. http://www.susitna-
watanahydro.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/09.06_FDAML_Winter_TM.pdf.
R2 Resource Consultants (R2), Miller Ecological Consultants, Tetra Tech, HDR, Geo-
Watersheds Scientific, and Montgomery Watson Harza. 2014. Middle River Fish
Habitat and Riverine Modeling Proof of Concept. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project,
FERC No. P-14241 Submittal: June 3, 2014, Initial Study Report, Study 8.5, Part C,
Appendix N. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/08.5_IFS_ISR_PartC_2_of_2.pdf.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010a. HEC-RAS River Analysis System
Applications Guide, CPD-70.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010b. HEC-RAS River Analysis System
Hydraulic Reference Manual, CPD-69.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010c. HEC-RAS River Analysis System
User’s Manual, CPD-68.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2015. May 8, 2015. USGS real-time gage Susitna
River at Gold Creek (No. 152920000).
http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ak/nwis/uv/?site_no=15292000&PARAmeter_cd=00065,
00060.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 65 November 2015
9. TABLES
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 66 November 2015
Table 4.3-1. Susitna Real-Time Reporting Network Stations. (Source: Modified ISR Study 8.5, Table 4.3-1.)
Site Name
Short
Name PRM Parameters Status
Upper Segment AEA Gaging Stations
15291500 Susitna River Near
Cantwell ESS80 225.0 discharge, water level, water
and air temperature, camera Maintained
Middle Segment AEA Gaging Stations
Susitna River Below Deadman Creek ESS70 187.1 discharge, water level, water
and air temperature, camera Maintained
Susitna River Below Fog Creek ESS65 176.5 discharge, water level, water
and air temperature, camera Removed 2015
Susitna River Above Devil Creek ESS60 168.1 discharge, water level, water
and air temperature, camera Removed in June 2013
Susitna River Below Portage Creek ESS55 152.2 discharge, water level, water
and air temperature, camera Maintained
Susitna River at Curry ESS50 124.1 discharge, water level, water
and air temperature, camera Removed 2015
Susitna River Below Lane Creek ESS45 116.6 discharge, water level, water
and air temperature, camera Maintained
Susitna River Above Whiskers Creek ESS40 107.2 discharge, water level, water
and air temperature, camera Maintained
Lower Segment AEA Gaging Stations
Susitna River at Chulitna River ESS35 102.1 discharge, water level, water
and air temperature, camera Removed in July 2014
Susitna River Below Twister Creek ESS30 98.4 discharge, water level, water
and air temperature, camera Removed 2015
15294350 Susitna River at Susitna
Station ESS20 29.9 discharge, water level, water
and air temperature, camera Maintained
Susitna River Near Dinglishna Hill ESS15 24.7 water level, water and air
temperature, camera Removed 2015
Susitna River Below Flat Horn Lake ESS10 17.4 water level, water and air
temperature, camera Removed 2015
Repeater Stations
Mount Susitna Near Granite Creek ESR1 air temperature Maintained
Repeater, East of ESM1, First
Potential Site ESR2 air temperature Maintained
Repeater, Dam Site to Glacial
Repeater ESR3 air temperature Maintained
Curry Ridge near McKenzie Creek
Repeater ESR4 air temperature Maintained
Curry Pt. to State Park Repeater ESR5 air temperature, camera Maintained
State Park over Devils Canyon
Repeater ESR6 air temperature, camera Maintained
Portage Creek Repeater ESR7 air temperature Maintained
ESR2 to ESS80, ESM2 link ESR8 air temperature Maintained
Base Stations
Talkeetna Base Station ESB2 N/A Maintained
Notes:
1 ESS = AEA Susitna River Surface-Water Station.
2 ESR = AEA Susitna River Repeater Station.
3 ESB = AEA Susitna River Base Station.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 67 November 2015
Table 4.3-2. Focus Area pressure transducer site locations. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Table 5.)
Focus Area Name PRM Latitude Longitude
151 Portage Creek – downstream 151.8 62.829458 -149.395588
144 Slough 21 – upstream 145.7 62.818930 -149.576018
144 Slough 21 – downstream 144.3 62.803036 -149.601279
141 Indian River – downstream 141.9 62.784096 -149.662469
138 Gold Creek - downstream 138.5 62.753528 -149.719407
128 Slough 8A – Upstream 129.7 62.671285 -149.901254
128 Slough 8 A - downstream 128.2 62.660587 -149.939926
115 Slough 6A - Downstream 115.4 62.507323 -150.113471
113 Oxbow 1 - Downstream 113.6 62.485240 -150.098638
104 Whiskers Slough – upstream 106 62.383478 -150.142623
104 Whiskers Slough – downstream 104.8 62.370041 -150.165218
Table 4.3-3. Tributary gaging site information. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Table 6.)
Tributary Name
Susitna
PRM Gage Site Type
Data
Collection
Years Latitude Longitude
Oshetna River 235.1 Continuous 2013-2014 62.628520 -147.369830
Kosina Creek 209.1 Continuous with
barologger 2013-2014 62.755970 -147.955150
Tsusena Creek 184.6 Continuous 2014 62.825689 -148.609891
Fog Creek 179.3 Spot 2014, 2015 62.774199 -148.705479
Unnamed Tributary 174.3 174.3 Spot 2014 62.765622 -148.842813
Unnamed Tributary 173.8 173.8 Spot 2014 62.767920 -148.857384
Portage Creek 152.3 Continuous 2014-2015 62.833177 -149.378048
Unnamed Tributary 144.6 144.6 Spot 2013, 2014 62.803980 -149.591350
Indian River 142.1 Continuous 2013-2015 62.800881 -149.664233
Gold Creek 140.1 Continuous 2014 62.762437 -149.676828
Skull Creek 128.1 Continuous with
barologger 2013-2014 62.657530 -149.932540
Unnamed Tributary 115.4 115.4 Spot 2013, 2014 62.508178 -150.114503
Gash Creek 115 Spot 2013, 2014 62.504288 -150.104018
Slash Creek 114.9 Spot 2013, 2014 62.503202 -150.103737
Unnamed Tributary 113.7 113.7 Spot 2013, 2014 62.486316 -150.093785
Whiskers Creek 105.1 Continuous with
barologger 2013-2014 62.378096 -150.170806
Trapper Creek 95.4 Continuous 2013-2014 62.257540 -150.172762
Susitna River at Trapper Creek 95.4 Continuous stage
only 2013-2014 62.253622 -150.168375
Birch Creek 93.3 Continuous 2013-2014 62.250468 -150.089622
Susitna River at Birch Creek Slough 92.6 Continuous stage
only 2013-2014 62.223373 -150.116821
Sheep Creek 71.7 Continuous 2014-2015 61.996301 -150.052516
Susitna River at Sheep Creek 68.3 Continuous stage
only 2014-2015 61.979015 -150.072249
Caswell Creek 67.3 Spot 2014, 2015 61.947736 -150.056148
Susitna River at Caswell Creek 67.3 Continuous stage
only 2014-2015 61.940156 -150.081047
Deshka River 44.9 Continuous with
barologger 2013-2014 61.754522 -150.328552
Susitna River at Deshka River 44.9 Continuous stage
only 2013-2014 61.696491 -150.313659
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 68 November 2015
Table 4.4-1. Comparison of the content contained in the three versions of the hydraulic routing model. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Table 1.)
Model Component Version 1 Version 2 Version 2.8
Reach NA NA Dam Site to Sunshine Sunshine to Susitna Station
Extent PRM 80-187.1 PRM 29.9-187.1 PRM 87.9-187.1 PRM 29.9-87.9
Number of Measured
Cross-sections
88 167 169 47
WSE/Q Pairs 120 387 194 Measured 204 Estimated 13 Measured, 99 Estimated
Accretion Hourly Hourly Hourly Hourly
Diurnal Fluctuations None Measured where and when
available, not estimated for missing
gaps
Complete Complete
Floodplain coverage None Extended using 2011 and 2013
LiDAR
Extended using 2011, 2013,
and 2014 LiDAR
Extended using 2011 and 2013
LiDAR
Calibration/Validation Data 6 gages
15291500
15291700
15292000
15292780
15292400
15292700
8 gages
15291500
15291700
15292000
15292780
15294350
15292400
15292700
15294345
8 gages
15291500
15291700
15292000
15292780
15294350
15292400
15292700
15294345
8 gages
15291500
15291700
15292000
15292780
15294350
15292400
15292700
15294345
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 69 November 2015
Table 4.4-2. Summary of 2012-2014 surface water data collected at selected ESS stations in the Susitna River. ESS = AEASusitnaSurface water
measurements. Source: Modified ISR Study 8.5, Table 4.4-2.)
Station PRM
Water Level Record
Available
Water Temperature
Record Available
Air Temperature
Record
Available
Camera
Images
Land
Access
Granted Studies Using Data
ESS80 225.0 Complete Complete Complete Yes Yes Engineering, Upper Basin DGGS, Glacier
and Runoff Changes, Reservoir Modeling
ESS70 187.1 Aug 2012 – Oct 2012
Aug 2014 – Nov 2014 Aug 2012 – Oct 2012 Complete Yes No
IFS, Ice Processes, Geomorphology,
Water quality, Engineering, Upper Basin
DGGS, Glacier and Runoff Changes,
Groundwater
ESS65 176.5
Oct 2012,
Jan – May 2013
Aug 2014 – Dec 2014
Oct 2012,
Jan – May 2013 Complete Yes No IFS, Ice Processes, Geomorphology,
Water Quality
ESS60 168.1 Oct 2012 – May 2013 Oct 2012 – May 2013 Complete Yes No IFS, Ice Processes, Geomorphology,
Water Quality
ESS55 152.2 Aug 2012 – May 2013 Aug 2012 – May 2013 Complete Yes No IFS, Ice Processes, Geomorphology,
Water Quality, Groundwater
ESS50 124.1
Aug 2013 – Oct 2012,
Aug 2013 – Dec 2013,
July 2014 – Dec 2014
Aug – Oct 2012,
Aug – Dec 2013 Complete Yes Yes IFS, Ice Processes, Geomorphology,
Water Quality, Groundwater
ESS45 116.6
Aug 2012 – May 2013,
Aug 2013– Dec 2013,
Aug 2014 – Dec 2014
Aug 2012 – May 2013,
Aug – Dec 2013 Complete Yes Yes IFS, Ice Processes, Geomorphology,
Water Quality, Groundwater
ESS40 107.2
Aug 2012 – May 2013,
Aug 2013 – Dec 2013,
Aug 2014 – Dc 2014
Aug 2012 – May 2013,
Aug-Dec 2013 Complete Yes Yes IFS, Ice Processes, Geomorphology,
Water Quality, Groundwater
ESS35 102.1 Aug 2012 – May 2013 Aug 2012 – May 2013 Complete Yes Yes IFS, Ice Processes, Geomorphology,
Water Quality, Groundwater
ESS30 98.4 Complete Complete Complete Yes Yes IFS, Ice Processes, Geomorphology,
Water Quality, Groundwater
ESS20 29.9 Sep 2012 – Dec 2013 Complete Complete Yes Yes IFS, Ice Processes, Geomorphology,
Water Quality, Groundwater
ESS15 24.7 Complete Complete Complete Yes Yes Ice Processes, Beluga
ESS10 17.4
Aug 2012 – Oct 2012;
Oct 2013 – Dec 2013,
May 2014 – Dec 2014
Aug – Oct 2012;
Oct – Dec 2013 Complete Yes Yes Ice Processes, Beluga
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 70 November 2015
Table 5-1. Cumulative data files containing QC3’d data (as of October 2015) for Instream Flow Study 8.5 available on the Geographic Information
Network of Alaska (GINA) at http://gis.suhydro.org/SIR/08-Instream_Flow/8.5-Fish_and_Aquatics_Instream_Flow/.
Component1 Data File Name Description
Appendix A SIR_8_5_IFS_2013-WinterStage-FA104-128_20151030.xlsx Continuous water level data recorded in FA-104 and FA-128 during
February-April 2013
Appendix A SIR_8_5_IFS_2013-WinterTemperature-FA104_20151030.xlsx Continuous surface and intergravel water temperature data during
February-April 2013
Appendix A SIR_8_5_IFS_2014-WinterStage-FA104_20151030.xlsx
Continuous water level data in representative habitats (i.e., main
channel, side channel, side slough, upland slough and tributary)
within FA-104 during winter 2013-2014
Appendix A SIR_8_5_IFS_2014-WinterStage-FA128_20151030.xlsx
Continuous water level data in representative habitats (i.e., main
channel, side channel, side slough, upland slough and tributary)
within FA-128 during winter 2013-2014
Appendix A SIR_8_5_IFS_2014-WinterStage-FA138_20151030.xlsx
Continuous water level data in representative habitats (i.e., main
channel, side channel, side slough and upland slough) within FA-138
during winter 2013-2014
Appendix A SIR_8_5_IFS_2014-WinterTemperature-FA104_20151030.xlsx Continuous water temperature data in FA-104 during winter 2013-
2014
Appendix A SIR_8_5_IFS_2014-WinterTemperature-FA128_20151030.xlsx Continuous water temperature data in FA-128 during winter 2013-
2014
Appendix A SIR_8_5_IFS_2014-WinterTemperature-FA138_20151030.xlsx
Continuous water temperature data in representative habitats (i.e.,
main channel, side channel, side slough and upland slough) within
FA-138 during winter 2013-2014
Appendix A SIR_8_5_IFS_InstantaneousWQ_20151030.xlsx Instantaneous water quality data recorded during 2012-2013, 2013-
2014, and 2014-2015 IFS winter studies
Appendix A SIR_8_5_IFS_IntergravelDO-FA128-138_20151030.xlsx Continuous intergravel dissolved oxygen concentration recorded
during 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 IFS winter studies
Appendix A SIR_8_5_IFS_WinterStudies_GPS_20151030.xlsx IFS winter studies spatial data
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_FocusAreaStageHydrographs_20151106.xlsx Focus area pressure transducer data at upstream and downstream
end of Focus Area
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_Gaging_SusitnaTributaryGagingHourlyRecords2013-
2014_20151106.xlsx
Tributary gage coordinate location, measured stage data, and
calculated hourly flow
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_ILF-1 Daily Reservoir Elevation Data_20151106.xlsx ILF-1 scenario (data provided by MWH for 61 years)
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_ILF-1 Hourly Reservoir Outflow Data_20151106.xlsx ILF-1 scenario (data provided by MWH for 61 years)
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_MainstemCrossSectionData_Q&WSE_20151106.xlsx Measured Q/WSE data by transect for data collected in 2012-2014
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_MSHydrology_Susitna Flows at Dam Site (PRM187.2)_20151106.zip
Mainstem hydrology, 62 files total, 61 files of the hourly streamflow of
existing conditions at the dam site by year, 1 file of the daily flow at
the dam site under existing conditions
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_OWFRM_CrossSectionAlignments_20151106.shp GIS file of OWFRM cross-section alignments
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 71 November 2015
Component1 Data File Name Description
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_Metadata_20151106.xlsx Metadata for the tributary hydrology text files
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM100.3-95.4_20151106.zip
Tributary hydrology, 62 files total, 61 files of the hourly accretion by
year for the subbasin identified, 1 file of the total daily accretion for the
subbasin identified
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM100.3Talkeetna_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM102.5-100.3_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM102.5Chulitna_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM105.1-102.5_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM105.1WhiskersCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM128.1-105.1_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM128.1SkullCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM140.0-128.1_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM140.1-140.0_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM140.1GoldCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM142.1-140.1_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM142.1IndianRiver_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM152.3-142.1_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM152.3PortageCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM155.9-152.3_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM155.9CheechakoCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM160.5-155.9_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM160.5ChinookCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM164.8-160.5_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM164.8DevilCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM179.3-164.8_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM179.3FogCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM184.6TsusenaCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM187.2-184.6_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM31.4-29.9_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM31.4YentnaRiver_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM43.3-31.4_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM43.3RollyCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM44.9-43.3_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM44.9DeshkaRiver_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM52.1-44.9_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM52.1WillowCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM54.5-52.1_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM54.5LittleWillowCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM63.4-197.5MileCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM63.4-54.5_20151106.zip
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 72 November 2015
Component1 Data File Name Description
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM64.7-63.4_20151106.zip
Tributary hydrology, 62 files total, 61 files of the hourly accretion by
year for the subbasin identified, 1 file of the total daily accretion for the
subbasin identified
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM64.7KashwitnaRiver_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM67.3-64.7_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM67.3CaswellCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM71.7-67.3_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM71.7SheepCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM76.8-71.7_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM76.8GooseCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM81.0-76.8_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM81.0MontanaCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM87.2-81.0_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM87.2RabideuxCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM87.9-87.2_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM88.0-87.9_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM88.0SunshineCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM93.3-88.0_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM93.3BirchCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM95.4-93.3_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRM95.4TrapperCreek_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_TribHydrology_PRMPRM184.6-179.3_20151106.zip
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_USGS15291700_2012-2015_20151106.txt
15-minute data for the available data from 2012-2015 at USGS gage
15291700 (data provided by USGS)
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_USGS15292000_2012-2015_20151106.txt
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_USGS15292400_2012-2015_20151106.txt
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_USGS15292700_2012-2015_20151106.txt
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_USGS15292780_2012-2015_20151106.txt
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_USGS15294345_2012-2015_20151106.txt
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_USGS15294350_2013-2015_20151106.txt
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_V2.8OWFRM_20151106.zip OWFRM HEC-RAS model and input DSS files (13 files)
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_WinterGaging_QMeasurementSummaryTable_Jun2014ISR_2015110
6.xlsx
2014 mainstem and tributary winter gaging measurements reported in
the June 2014 ISR
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_WinterGaging_SusitnaMainstem_IceCrossSections_Jan2014_201511
06.pdf January 2014 winter gaging mainstem ice cross sections
Appendix B SIR_8_5_IFS_WinterGaging_SusitnaMainstem_IceCrossSections_Mar2014_201511
06.pdf March 2014 winter gaging mainstem ice cross sections
Appendix D SIR_8_5_IFS_HSC_Database2013-2014_20151030.xlsx HSC/HSI fish utilization and availability data 2013-2014
Appendix E SIR_8_5_IFS_Cover_20151106.shp GIS file of fish habitat model cover polygons
Appendix E SIR_8_5_IFS_SalmonSpawning_20151106.shp GIS file of salmon spawning areas
Appendix E SIR_8_5_IFS_SalmonSpawning1980s_20151106.shp GIS file of 1980s salmon spawning areas
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 73 November 2015
Component1 Data File Name Description
Appendix E SIR_8_5_IFS_Substrate_20151106.shp GIS file of fish habitat model surficial substrate polygons
Notes:
Appendix A: 2014 Instream Flow Winter Studies.
Appendix B: Open-water Hydrology Data Collection and Open-water Flow Routing Model (Version 2.8).
Appendix D: Habitat Suitability Criteria Development.
Appendix E: Fish Habitat Modeling Data: Surficial Substrate and Cover Characterization and Salmon Spawning Observations by Focus Area.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 74 November 2015
Table 5.3-1. Mainstem Transect Data Summary Table. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Table 3.)
UPPER RIVER (PRM 261.3 - 187.1)
Project River XS Profile XS Profile
Mile (PRM)/Bathy Date /Bathy Date 2 Date Time Q, cfs1 Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs1 Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs1 Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3
225.0 NA 6/14/2012 17:57 26,900 Good NA 8/9/2012 15:03 11,300 Excellent NA 10/18/2012 NA WSE only5 1906.26 8/8/2013 15:05 11,900 Excellent NA 9/3/2013 13:32 14,700 Good NA 6/17/2014 13:40 14,400 Fair NA
187.2 6/17/2012 6/17/2012 16:30 27,700 Poor 1466.42 8/6/2012 16:13 14,700 Good 1464.09 9/15/2012 13:17 7,840 Good 1461.81 6/19/2014 15:14 20,300 Fair 1465.63
MIDDLE RIVER (PRM 187.1 - 102.4)
Project River XS Profile XS Profile
Mile (PRM)/Bathy Date /Bathy Date 2 Date Time Q, cfs1 Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs1 Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs1 Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3
6/17/2014 17:41 WSE only5 1460.50
6/19/2014 16:29 20,700 Poor 1460.74
186.2 6/18/2012 6/18/2012 14:13 24,500 Good 1458.50 8/6/2012 17:05 14,400 Good 1457.07 9/15/2012 14:05 7,630 Excellent 1455.36
185.5 6/18/2012 6/18/2012 16:10 25,400 Good 1452.14 8/6/2012 17:17 WSE only5 1450.52 9/15/2012 14:28 WSE only5 1449.17
185.2 6/19/2012 6/19/2012 13:00 26,700 Good 1449.28 8/6/2012 17:43 WSE only5 1447.37 9/15/2012 14:57 WSE only5 1445.92
6/19/2012 15:49 27,600 Good 1446.04 8/6/2012 18:24 14,200 Excellent 1443.72 9/15/2012 14:57 7,710 Excellent 1442.10 8/14/2014 14:32 14,500 Good NA 9/12/2014 15:22 12,800 Good NA
9/26/2014 14:48 9,600 Good NA
6/18/2014 12:35 WSE only5 1441.86 8/16/2014 16:31 16,400 Good 1441.16 9/13/2014 11:36 12,300 Good 1440.09
6/20/2014 11:23 19,300 Good 1442.10
184.4 6/19/2012 6/19/2012 16:51 27,900 Fair 1440.48 8/7/2012 12:38 14,800 Good 1437.43 9/15/2012 15:52 8,350 Good 1435.55
183.8 6/18/2014 6/18/2014 13:27 WSE only5 1429.84
183.3 6/20/2012 6/20/2012 13:19 29,400 Fair 1424.86 8/7/2012 13:35 14,200 Excellent 1422.91 9/15/2012 16:41 8,310 Excellent 1421.75
182.9 6/20/2012 6/20/2012 16:01 29,200 Good 1418.25 8/7/2012 13:40 WSE only5 1416.49 9/15/2012 17:10 WSE only5 1415.30
182.2 6/18/2014 6/18/2014 14:19 WSE only5 1408.89
181.6 6/20/2012 6/20/2012 17:56 29,600 Excellent 1402.27 8/7/2012 14:44 14,700 Good 1400.11 9/15/2012 17:55 8,690 Good 1398.98
180.7 6/18/2014 6/18/2014 19:11 WSE only5 1390.70 9/13/2014 13:30 13,100 Good 1389.73
180.1 6/19/2014 6/19/2014 13:43 WSE only5 1385.28
179.5 6/21/2012 6/21/2012 12:28 30,900 Fair 1381.40 8/7/2012 15:41 14,300 Excellent 1377.74 9/14/2012 17:05 8,360 Good 1375.79
179.0 6/19/2014 6/19/2014 15:04 WSE only5 1375.23
178.5 6/16/2012 6/16/2012 18:35 29,800 Good 1370.75 8/7/2012 16:37 14,800 Excellent 1367.82 9/14/2012 17:47 8,740 Good 1366.14
177.8 6/19/2014 6/19/2014 16:37 WSE only5 1361.73
177.3 6/19/2014 6/19/2014 17:30 WSE only5 1354.38 9/13/2014 14:59 13,500 Good 1352.73
176.5 6/21/2012 6/21/2012 14:40 31,200 Excellent 1346.56 8/8/2012 12:07 14,600 Excellent 1344.03 9/16/2012 14:50 10,800 Excellent 1343.18 6/20/2014 14:07 21,600 Good 1345.20 8/17/2014 11:10 18,700 Good 1344.69
175.9 6/19/2014 6/19/2014 18:07 WSE only5 1339.06
174.9 6/21/2012 6/21/2012 16:12 31,200 Good 1329.91 8/8/2012 13:22 WSE only5 1327.53 9/16/2012 16:00 WSE only5 1326.88
173.5 6/20/2014 6/20/2014 15:28 21,700 Good 1314.04 8/17/2014 12:25 18,200 Good 1313.89 9/14/2014 12:03 14,500 Good 1313.13
173.4 6/20/2014 6/20/2014 13:43 WSE only5 1312.93
173.1 6/21/2012 6/21/2012 17:39 30,600 Good 1310.65 8/8/2012 14:28 WSE only5 1307.89 9/16/2012 16:29 11,100 Excellent 1306.82
172.3 6/20/2014 6/20/2014 14:38 WSE only5 1302.63
171.6 6/20/2014 6/20/2014 15:26 WSE only5 1296.50
170.8 6/20/2014 6/20/2014 16:22 WSE only5 1289.03
170.1 6/22/2012 6/22/2012 12:56 31,100 Good 1285.05 8/8/2012 15:16 14,600 Excellent 1282.38 9/16/2012 17:33 11,100 Excellent 1281.59
169.6 6/21/2014 6/21/2014 11:53 WSE only5 1277.73
168.8 6/21/2014 6/21/2014 13:29 WSE only5 1266.24 9/14/2014 13:28 14,400 Good 1264.47
168.1 6/22/2012 6/22/2012 14:33 32,300 Good 1259.50 8/8/2012 16:03 14,700 Excellent 1256.43 9/17/2012 15:19 14,600 Good 1256.46
167.4 6/21/2014 6/21/2014 14:47 WSE only5 1250.43
166.3 6/21/2014 6/21/2014 17:01 WSE only5 1239.72
153.7 6/25/2012 6/25/2012 17:15 32,200 Good 862.57 8/10/2012 15:03 14,600 Excellent 858.93
153.3 6/27/2014,
7/6/2014 6/27/2014 12:54 WSE only5 859.93
152.9 6/26/2012 6/26/2012 13:43 30,500 Fair 853.72 8/10/2012 15:14 WSE only5 850.17
6/26/2012 15:38 30,000 Good 843.65 8/10/2012 16:07 15,400 Good 840.96 9/29/2012 15:20 18,500 Good 841.61 6/22/2014 13:36 24,600 Good 842.35
7/6/2014 14:21 28,500 Good NA
6/23/2014 13:22 21,700 Good 837.35 8/12/2014 17:29 16,400 Good 836.59 9/16/2014 11:20 19,000 Good 837.08
6/27/2014 15:58 WSE only5 839.99
151.5 6/27/2014 6/27/2014 16:26 WSE only5 836.57
151.1 6/25/2012 6/25/2012 14:00 33,200 Good 832.09 8/10/2012 17:32 WSE only5 827.79 9/29/2012 15:59 WSE only5 829.13
150.6 6/28/2014 6/28/2014 12:25 WSE only5 825.07
150.1 6/28/2014 6/28/2014 14:14 WSE only5 818.17 9/16/2014 13:14 19,200 Good 816.87
149.3 6/28/2014 6/28/2014 15:08 WSE only5 807.59
148.8 6/28/2014 6/28/2014 15:39 WSE only5 803.19
148.3 6/26/2012 6/26/2012 18:24 32,100 Good 796.39 8/10/2012 18:03 14,900 Excellent 793.54 9/29/2012 NA WSE only5 794.00
147.9 6/28/2014 6/28/2014 16:55 WSE only5 793.65
147.5 6/28/2014 6/28/2014 17:20 WSE only5 787.27 9/16/2014 15:13 19,200 Good 4 786.39
147.0 6/29/2014 6/29/2014 11:04 WSE only5 777.88
146.6 6/27/2012 6/27/2012 12:24 31,000 Fair 773.49 8/12/2012 12:54 WSE only5 771.94 9/29/2012 16:36 WSE only5 772.02
146.1 8/3/2013 8/3/2013 12:30 WSE only5 766.45 9/5/2013 13:09 WSE only5 767.62
145.7 6/27/2012 9/29/2012 6/27/2012 13:51 31,400 Fair 761.96 8/12/2012 13:12 17,400 Excellent 759.65 9/29/2012 16:51 18,100 Good 759.86 6/20/2013 14:42 WSE only5 761.43 9/7/2013 13:18 WSE only5 760.93
145.5 6/27/2012 6/27/2012 14:40 31,900 Fair 760.04 8/12/2012 13:53 WSE only5 757.93 6/20/2013 12:10 WSE only5 758.22 8/3/2013 9:38 WSE only5 758.57 9/5/2013 13:33 WSE only5 760.03
144.9 6/27/2012 6/27/2012 17:01 31,900 Fair 751.50 8/12/2012 14:11 WSE only5 749.46 9/29/2012 17:15 WSE only5 749.80 6/20/2013 16:12 WSE only5 751.24
6/27/2012 18:50 31,100 Good 742.52 8/12/2012 14:32 WSE only5 740.68 8/3/2013 16:25 WSE only5 740.93 9/5/2013 9:21 WSE only5 742.36 8/13/2014 13:12 17,100 Good 4 740.43
8/15/2013 15:28 WSE only5 740.77
143.9 8/3/2013 8/3/2013 15:44 WSE only5 736.31 9/5/2013 14:16 WSE only5 737.47
143.5 6/28/2012 6/28/2012 12:17 30,300 Excellent 732.35 8/12/2012 14:58 17,000 Excellent 730.64 9/29/2012 17:26 WSE only5 730.72 7/30/2013 16:16 WSE only5 730.63
143.0 6/28/2012 6/28/2012 13:53 29,500 Good 725.04 8/12/2012 15:40 WSE only5 723.49 6/23/2013 14:30 WSE only5 725.33 8/4/2013 14:34 WSE only5 725.07 9/5/2013 15:16 WSE only5 726.11
142.2 6/28/2012 9/29/2012 6/28/2012 15:15 29,800 Good 716.41 8/12/2012 16:29 16,800 Excellent 714.51 9/29/2012 17:45 18,300 Excellent 714.78 9/8/2013 14:53 WSE only5 716.21
151.8 6/27/2014
144.3 6/27/2012
184.7 6/18/2014
152.1 6/26/2012 9/29/2012
186.6 6/17/2014
184.9 6/19/2012
June/July 2014 August 2014 September 2014
Q Rating2 Q Rating2 Q Rating2 Q Rating2 Q Rating2
June/July 2012 August 2012 September/October 2012 June/July 2013 August 2013 September/October 2013
June/July 2014 August 2014 September 2014
Q Rating2 Q Rating2 Q Rating2 Q Rating2 Q Rating2
June/July 2012 August 2012 September/October 2012 June/July 2013 August 2013 September/October 2013
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 75 November 2015
MIDDLE RIVER (PRM 187.1 - 102.4)
Project River XS Profile XS Profile
Mile (PRM)/Bathy Date /Bathy Date 2 Date Time Q, cfs1 Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs1 Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs1 Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3
141.9 6/28/2012 6/28/2012 16:27 30,600 Good 712.88 8/12/2012 17:13 16,800 Excellent 710.84 6/22/2013 17:50 WSE only5 712.34 8/4/2013 15:21 WSE only5 711.25 9/5/2013 15:39 WSE only5 712.73 8/13/2014 14:49 17,400 Good 710.73
141.7 6/28/2012 6/28/2012 17:41 30,600 Excellent 711.43 8/12/2012 17:13 WSE only5 709.09 8/4/2013 15:44 WSE only5 710.00 9/5/2013 15:53 WSE only5 711.76
141.4 6/29/2014 6/29/2014 14:17 WSE only5 706.46
141.2 8/4/2013 8/4/2013 17:16 WSE only5 703.48 9/6/2013 11:27 WSE only5 705.26
140.8 8/4/2013 8/4/2013 18:41 WSE only5 700.72 9/6/2013 11:39 WSE only5 702.23
140.5 8/5/2013 8/5/2013 10:55 WSE only5 696.94 9/6/2013 12:31 WSE only5 698.50
140.2 6/30/2014 6/30/2014 10:22 WSE only5 694.52
140.0 6/29/2012 9/30/2012 6/29/2012 14:48 30,400 Excellent 693.77 8/13/2012 12:54 16,400 Excellent 691.69 9/30/2012 13:56 17,600 Good 691.94 8/5/2013 12:08 WSE only5 692.12 9/6/2013 12:29 WSE only5 693.56
6/29/2012 16:21 29,100 Excellent 691.34 8/13/2012 13:10 WSE only5 689.07 8/5/2013 12:30 WSE only5 689.52 9/6/2013 12:39 WSE only5 691.01
8/10/2013 15:03 WSE only5 688.92
6/30/2012 13:56 28,000 Good 679.92 8/13/2012 13:58 16,400 Good 678.26 9/30/2012 14:26 WSE only5 678.50 6/7/2013 11:39 WSE only5 680.77 8/10/2013 15:40 15,900 Excellent 678.03 9/6/2013 12:50 WSE only5 679.90 6/23/2014 16:57 22,300 Good 678.89 8/13/2014 16:35 17,600 Good 678.19 9/17/2014 11:15 21,000 Good 678.75
6/25/2013 11:11 WSE only5 678.93 9/27/2014 14:11 12,000 Excellent NA
7/28/2013 14:59 WSE only5 678.28
6/30/2012 14:51 28,200 Excellent 678.08 8/13/2012 14:48 16,300 Excellent 677.07 8/5/2013 12:50 WSE only5 677.46 9/6/2013 13:15 WSE only5 678.55
8/10/2013 15:48 WSE only5 677.06
138.4 8/5/2013 8/5/2013 15:34 WSE only5 673.21 9/6/2013 13:27 WSE only5 674.41 6/24/2014 12:40 20,900 Good 4 673.61 8/18/2014 11:08 21,100 Good 4 673.55 9/17/2014 13:04 20,700 Good 4 673.47
6/30/2012 16:33 28,200 Good 670.43 8/13/2012 15:07 WSE only5 669.00 9/30/2012 14:52 WSE only5 669.36 8/5/2013 13:21 WSE only5 669.70 9/6/2013 9:10 WSE only5 670.74
8/10/2013 16:12 WSE only5 669.46
137.7 6/25/2014 6/25/2014 12:49 WSE only5 664.64
137.6 6/30/2012 9/30/2012 6/30/2012 18:13 27,900 Good 664.17 8/13/2012 16:14 16,400 Excellent 662.67 9/30/2012 15:00 17,400 Excellent 662.58 8/10/2013 16:51 15,700 Excellent 662.13 9/6/2013 14:20 WSE only5 663.95
137.2 8/5/2013 8/5/2013 17:22 WSE only5 658.44 9/6/2013 17:07 WSE only5 659.83
136.8 6/25/2014 6/25/2014 14:55 WSE only5 655.62
136.7 7/1/2012 7/1/2012 13:35 26,800 Good 654.82 8/13/2012 16:34 WSE only5 653.46 8/5/2013 17:54 WSE only5 653.47 9/6/2013 17:21 WSE only5 654.78
136.2 7/1/2012 7/1/2012 16:06 26,900 Good 648.86 8/13/2012 17:06 WSE only5 648.12 8/6/2013 11:24 WSE only5 648.21 9/6/2013 17:36 WSE only5 649.06
135.6 8/6/2013 8/6/2013 12:54 WSE only5 640.17 9/6/2013 17:51 WSE only5 641.23
135.4 6/30/2014 6/30/2014 11:47 WSE only5 639.33
135.2 6/30/14, 7/1/14 7/1/2014 12:56 WSE only5 637.15
135.0 7/1/2012 7/1/2012 18:33 26,500 Excellent 634.86 8/13/2012 17:41 15,600 Excellent 632.97 8/6/2013 13:39 WSE only5 633.09 9/6/2013 18:04 WSE only5 635.01
134.7 8/6/2013 8/6/2013 15:31 WSE only5 631.40 9/6/2013 18:14 WSE only5 632.73
134.3 7/2/2012 10/1/2012 7/2/2012 12:16 25,500 Good 627.51 8/13/2012 18:21 WSE only5 625.41 10/1/2012 13:40 15,600 Excellent 625.68 8/6/2013 14:45 WSE only5 625.99 9/6/2013 18:24 WSE only5 628.13
134.1 7/2/2012 7/2/2012 13:18 26,200 Good 625.74 8/14/2012 13:14 16,500 Excellent 624.10 8/7/2013 10:45 WSE only5 623.64 9/12/2013 13:24 WSE only5 626.31
133.8 7/2/2012 7/2/2012 14:30 25,700 Good 623.51 8/14/2012 14:05 16,300 Excellent 622.22 8/7/2013 11:01 WSE only5 622.05 9/12/2013 13:35 WSE only5 624.06
133.3 7/2/2012 7/2/2012 16:22 25,700 Excellent 618.46 8/14/2012 14:41 WSE only5 617.34 8/7/2013 5:45 WSE only5 618.23 9/12/2013 13:52 WSE only5 618.70
132.6 7/2/2012 7/2/2012 17:57 25,000 Excellent 609.97 8/14/2012 15:17 16,000 Good 608.67 8/7/2013 12:00 WSE only5 608.61 9/12/2013 14:09 WSE only5 610.90
132.0 8/7/2013 8/7/2013 13:18 WSE only5 601.78 9/12/2013 14:25 WSE only5 604.41
131.4 7/3/2012 7/3/2012 15:27 28,600 Good 598.37 8/14/2012 16:05 WSE only5 597.82 8/7/2013 14:34 WSE only5 597.89 9/10/2013 14:29 WSE only5 598.97
130.9 8/8/2013 8/8/2013 13:27 WSE only5 592.37 9/10/2013 13:57 WSE only5 592.97
130.4 8/9/2013 8/9/2013 6:49 WSE only5 585.67 9/10/2013 13:11 WSE only5 587.41
130.1 7/1/2014 7/1/2014 15:23 WSE only5 583.92
129.7 7/3/2012 10/1/2012 7/3/2012 17:33 28,200 Good 580.58 8/14/2012 17:00 16,300 Excellent 578.98 10/1/2012 16:16 15,700 Excellent 579.02 6/27/2013 11:38 WSE only5 580.28 9/10/2013 11:43 WSE only5 580.53
128.1 7/4/2012 7/4/2012 15:40 26,700 Good 564.50 8/15/2012 12:50 15,900 Excellent 563.54 8/9/2013 15:02 WSE only5 562.69 8/18/2014 14:22 21,600 Good 4 562.47
127.8 8/9/2013 8/9/2013 15:44 WSE only5 560.66
127.4 7/1/2014 7/1/2014 16:20 WSE only5 558.37
126.8 7/4/2012 10/1/2012 7/4/2012 17:22 27,600 Excellent 552.41 8/15/2012 13:40 16,100 Excellent 550.87 10/1/2012 17:02 15,600 Excellent 551.04 7/9/2013 13:24 23,100 Good 552.15 8/11/2013 12:26 16,200 Excellent 550.96 9/12/2013 16:52 31,100 Good 552.79
126.4 8/10/2013 8/10/2013 13:58 WSE only5 547.78
126.1 7/5/2012 7/5/2012 14:24 27,200 Good 546.88 8/15/2012 13:41 WSE only5 545.26 8/11/2013 12:48 WSE only5 544.76
125.9 7/2/2014 7/2/2014 14:25 WSE only5 546.78
125.8 8/11/2013 8/11/2013 14:10 WSE only5 543.45
125.4 7/5/2012 7/5/2012 16:38 26,400 Excellent 541.32 8/15/2012 14:12 WSE only5 540.09 8/10/2013 15:15 WSE only5 540.55
124.9 8/11/2013 8/11/2013 12:56 WSE only5 535.81
124.6 6/30/2014 6/30/2014 12:48 WSE only5 533.64
124.5 8/11/2013 8/11/2013 14:57 WSE only5 531.40
7/5/2012 18:11 26,100 Good 530.43 8/15/2012 14:27 16,200 Excellent 529.24 10/1/2012 17:42 15,600 Good 529.40 7/9/2013 14:14 22,500 Good 530.21 8/11/2013 13:32 16,600 Excellent 529.32 9/10/2013 13:51 WSE only5 530.81 9/17/2014 15:39 21,300 Good 529.81
9/12/2013 17:41 30,600 Good 531.16
123.9 6/30/2014 6/30/2014 15:06 WSE only5 529.84
123.7 7/6/2012 7/6/2012 12:18 23,900 Excellent 527.93 8/15/2012 15:54 WSE only5 527.43 8/11/2013 16:15 WSE only5 528.09 9/10/2013 11:38 WSE only5 528.61
123.2 8/12/2013 8/12/2013 12:45 WSE only5 521.89
122.7 7/6/2012 7/6/2012 14:23 23,300 Excellent 518.91 8/15/2012 17:15 WSE only5 517.91 8/12/2013 1:09 WSE only5 518.85 9/9/2013 15:48 WSE only5 520.10
122.6 7/6/2012 7/6/2012 15:59 22,900 Good 517.85 8/15/2012 16:13 16,300 Excellent 516.97 8/12/2013 12:26 WSE only5 517.56 9/9/2013 15:33 WSE only5 518.69
122.1 8/12/2013 8/12/2013 6:30 WSE only5 512.92
121.4 8/12/2013 8/12/2013 15:04 WSE only5 508.79
120.7 7/6/2012 7/6/2012 17:19 22,700 Good 502.03 8/15/2012 17:27 WSE only5 501.13 8/12/2013 16:34 WSE only5 502.32 9/9/2013 15:18 WSE only5 503.32
120.3 8/12/2013 8/12/2013 8:40 WSE only5 498.48
119.9 7/7/2012 10/3/2012 7/7/2012 12:19 20,700 Excellent 495.29 8/16/2012 12:54 16,000 Excellent 494.37 10/3/2012 14:47 14,000 Excellent 493.97 7/9/2013 17:10 22,700 Excellent 495.34 8/14/2013 11:38 WSE only5 494.54 9/9/2013 9:59 WSE only5 496.49
119.5 7/1/2014 7/1/2014 13:13 WSE only5 492.91
118.9 8/14/2013 8/14/2013 12:06 WSE only5 489.01
118.3 7/7/2012 7/7/2012 14:06 20,700 Excellent 485.32 8/16/2012 13:04 WSE only5 484.18 10/3/2012 14:39 WSE only5 484.62 8/14/2013 13:27 WSE only5 484.58 9/9/2013 13:45 WSE only5 486.42
118.1 7/1/2014 7/1/2014 14:03 WSE only5 484.17
117.9 8/14/2013 8/14/2013 14:11 WSE only5 481.58
117.4 7/7/2012 7/7/2012 16:15 20,700 Excellent 477.82 8/16/2012 13:39 WSE only5 477.21 8/14/2013 16:10 WSE only5 477.65 9/9/2013 13:18 WSE only5 478.57
117.0 8/14/2013 8/14/2013 14:37 WSE only5 471.85
Q Rating2 Q Rating2 Q Rating2 Q Rating2 Q Rating2
June/July 2012 August 2012 September/October 2012 June/July 2013 August 2013 September/October 2013 June/July 2014 August 2014 September 2014
124.1 7/5/2012 10/1/2012
139.0 6/30/2012
138.7 6/30/2012
138.1 6/30/2012
139.8 6/29/2012
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 76 November 2015
MIDDLE RIVER (PRM 187.1 - 102.4)
Project River XS Profile XS Profile
Mile (PRM)/Bathy Date /Bathy Date 2 Date Time Q, cfs1 Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs1 Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs1 Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3
116.9 7/2/2014 7/2/2014 16:58 WSE only5 472.94
7/7/2012 17:36 20,700 Excellent 468.98 8/16/2012 14:15 16,100 Excellent 468.16 10/3/2012 15:53 14,300 Excellent 467.97 7/9/2013 15:55 22,900 Excellent 469.33 8/14/2013 14:00 18,100 Excellent 468.71 9/9/2013 12:31 WSE only5 470.52
9/13/2013 12:05 30,800 Good 470.62
116.3 7/8/2012 7/8/2012 12:42 23,800 Excellent 467.39 8/16/2012 14:49 WSE only5 466.24 7/23/2013 10:40 WSE only5 466.98 8/14/2013 12:50 WSE only5 466.79
115.7 7/8/2012 7/8/2012 14:05 25,000 Excellent 461.95 8/16/2012 15:17 WSE only5 461.01 8/14/2013 12:30 WSE only5 461.83
7/8/2012 16:13 26,000 Excellent 458.41 8/16/2012 15:44 WSE only5 456.99 7/5/2013 15:46 WSE only5 457.29 8/14/2013 12:17 WSE only5 457.30
7/23/2013 15:20 WSE only5 457.50
7/8/2012 18:29 25,900 Excellent 450.21 8/16/2012 16:07 WSE only5 448.97 8/13/2013 16:01 WSE only5 449.42
8/14/2013 16:25 WSE only5 449.39
7/9/2012 14:23 28,300 Excellent 444.75 8/16/2012 16:38 16,300 Excellent 443.10 10/3/2012 16:41 13,500 Excellent 442.90 8/14/2013 12:48 WSE only5 443.28
8/14/2013 16:12 18,100 Excellent 443.45
8/14/2013 17:30 WSE only5 439.27
8/15/2013 11:00 WSE only5 438.67
112.5 8/15/2013 8/15/2013 13:07 WSE only5 432.60
111.9 7/9/2012 7/9/2012 15:23 28,300 Good 429.73 8/17/2012 14:02 WSE only5 427.98 8/15/2013 14:05 WSE only5 428.51
111.2 7/2/2014 7/2/2014 18:20 WSE only5 423.99
110.5 7/9/2012 10/3/2012 7/9/2012 16:46 28,800 Good 417.55 8/17/2012 14:57 15,300 Excellent 415.70 10/3/2012 17:33 14,200 Excellent 415.49 8/15/2013 14:32 WSE only5 416.25
109.7 7/3/2014 7/3/2014 12:08 WSE only5 412.49
109.0 8/15/2013 8/15/2013 14:13 WSE only5 403.26
108.3 8/18/2012 8/17/2012 17:55 16,400 Good 396.50 8/15/2013 13:23 WSE only5 397.46 9/7/2013 13:51 WSE only5 398.01
107.8 8/15/2013 8/15/2013 12:56 WSE only5 391.77
107.4 7/3/2014 7/3/2014 12:48 WSE only5 390.69
7/9/2012 18:26 28,400 Good 387.63 8/18/2012 13:12 15,500 Excellent 385.44 10/4/2012 14:10 14,600 Excellent 385.12 7/11/2013 16:50 19,700 Excellent 385.92 8/15/2013 15:53 18,900 Excellent 385.64 9/7/2013 12:57 WSE only5 387.46 7/3/2014 12:59 41,700 Good 389.00
9/15/2013 12:09 21,700 Excellent 386.36
106.9 7/3/2014 7/3/2014 13:31 WSE only5 387.77
106.6 8/15/2013 8/15/2013 10:49 WSE only5 382.41
106.1 8/18/2012 8/18/2012 14:22 15,300 Excellent 377.95 10/4/2012 14:26 WSE only5 377.75 8/15/2013 10:08 WSE only5 378.31 9/7/2013 12:40 WSE only5 380.10
105.3 8/18/2012 8/18/2012 15:52 15,400 Excellent 372.01 8/16/2013 10:05 WSE only5 372.44 9/7/2013 23:05 WSE only5 374.10
104.7 8/18/2012 8/18/2012 17:48 15,400 Excellent 367.05 10/4/2012 14:58 WSE only5 366.93 8/16/2013 10:29 WSE only5 367.15 7/3/2014 16:09 41,500 Fair 4 369.85 8/18/2014 18:27 21,700 Good 4 367.75
104.1 8/19/2012 8/19/2012 12:49 15,300 Excellent 364.79 8/16/2013 10:56 WSE only5 365.31 9/6/2013 12:10 WSE only5 366.38
103.5 10/1/2012 10/4/2012 16:49 14,600 Excellent 359.89 8/16/2013 11:24 WSE only5 359.88 9/6/2013 11:54 WSE only5 361.21
102.7 7/10/2012 7/10/2012 13:53 26,600 Good 352.87 8/19/2012 15:05 WSE only5 351.70 8/16/2013 10:32 WSE only5 352.66
LOWER RIVER (PRM 102.4 - 3.3)
Project River XS Profile XS Profile
Mile (PRM)/Bathy Date /Bathy Date 2 Date Time Q, cfs1 Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs1 Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs1 Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3
102.1 8/16/2013 8/16/2013 14:11 WSE only5 348.19
101.4 7/10/2012 10/15/2012 7/10/2012 16:28 WSE only5 346.09 8/19/2012 15:54 WSE only5 344.82 10/15/2012 15:31 WSE only5 344.68
6/10/13 - 6/11/13,6/10/2013 6:10 WSE only5 341.09 8/1/2013 14:00 WSE only5 341.54
7/17/2013 7/17/2013 14:28 WSE only5 342.11
6/10/13 - 6/11/13,6/10/2013 15:53 WSE only5 337.43 8/1/2013 14:55 WSE only5 336.51
7/17/2013 6/11/2013 11:57 WSE only5 338.15
98.4 7/11/2012 10/5/2012 7/11/2012 14:09 46,500 Good 326.86 8/20/2012 14:51 40,600 Good 326.37 10/5/2012 14:37 39,100 Excellent 326.08 8/1/2013 15:15 WSE only5 327.62 7/4/2014 13:39 74,600 Good 4 328.46 9/18/2014 15:53 50,600 Good 4 326.97
97.0 7/11/2012 7/11/2012 18:27 45,100 Good 318.49 8/20/2012 17:03 40,300 Excellent 318.38 10/5/2012 15:18 WSE only5 318.21 8/1/2013 15:55 WSE only5 319.19
96.2 6/12/2013 6/12/2013 11:06 WSE only5 315.50 8/1/2013 16:23 WSE only5 315.28
95.3 7/4/2014,7/5/2014 7/4/2014,
7/5/2014
over 2
days WSE only5 309.73
6/12/2013 12:29 WSE only5 307.57 8/1/2013 15:40 53,800 Good 4 306.38
7/18/2013 10:30 WSE only5 305.77 8/2/2013 11:49 WSE only5 306.16
6/13/2013 13:02 WSE only5 301.54
7/18/2013 10:58 WSE only5 300.72
93.2 6/13/2013 6/13/2013 15:42 WSE only5 297.59 8/2/2013 12:21 WSE only5 296.23
6/13/2013 5:36 WSE only5 292.79 8/2/2013 14:08 WSE only5 291.73
7/18/2013 7:01 WSE only5 291.17
91.6 8/21/2012 8/21/2012 14:55 46,300 Excellent 285.74 8/2/2013 16:27 WSE only5 286.54
91.0 7/12/2012 7/12/2012 15:39 43,900 Good 282.34 8/21/2012 16:51 46,200 Excellent 282.34 8/2/2013 16:40 WSE only5 283.58
90.2 6/14/2013 6/14/2013 13:24 WSE only5 280.51 8/3/2013 13:00 51,900 Good 4 279.73
6/14/2013 7:30 WSE only5 276.16 8/2/2013 17:01 WSE only5 275.58
7/18/2013 15:36 WSE only5 274.24
88.4 8/22/2012 8/22/2012 15:01 41,700 Excellent 268.25 8/3/2013 11:00 WSE only5 269.39
88.0 6/15/2013 6/15/2013 11:18 WSE only5 268.19 8/3/2013 13:20 WSE only5 266.71
87.6 6/15/2013 6/15/2013 13:29 WSE only5 267.00 8/3/2013 16:23 52,700 Excellent 265.99
87.1 7/12/2012 7/12/2012 18:00 42,600 Excellent 263.24 8/22/2012 17:33 WSE only5 262.89 8/3/2013 14:17 WSE only5 264.23
86.3 7/13/2012 7/13/2012 13:13 41,900 Excellent 258.59 8/22/2012 17:54 WSE only5 258.39 8/3/2013 16:33 WSE only5 259.92
85.4 8/22/2012 8/22/2012 18:01 40,500 Excellent 255.18 8/3/2013 17:10 WSE only5 256.22
84.4 8/23/2012 8/23/2012 15:16 37,000 Good 251.19 8/3/2013 17:00 WSE only5 252.05
83.0 7/13/2012 7/13/2012 16:09 42,000 Excellent 245.29 8/23/2012 16:33 WSE only5 244.93 8/4/2013 14:30 WSE only5 245.63
82.3 8/23/2012 8/23/2012 17:52 37,900 Good 241.19 8/4/2013 14:00 WSE only5 242.01
81.4 6/16/2013 6/16/2013 11:47 WSE only5 238.57 8/4/2013 13:33 WSE only5 237.22
80.7 6/16/2013 6/16/2013 13:44 WSE only5 235.84 8/4/2013 11:02 WSE only5 234.64
80.0 8/24/2012 8/24/2012 15:07 36,600 Excellent 229.51 8/4/2013 12:56 WSE only5 230.55
Q Rating2 Q Rating2 Q Rating2 Q Rating2 Q Rating2
June/July 2012 August 2012 September/October 2012 June/July 2013 August 2013 September/October 2013 June/July 2014 August 2014 September 2014
92.3 6/13/2013,
7/18/2013
89.5 6/14/2013
100.7
99.9
94.8 6/12/2013,
7/18/2013
94.0 6/13/2013
August 2013 September/October 2013 June/July 2014 August 2014 September 2014
Q Rating2 Q Rating2 Q Rating2 Q Rating2 Q Rating2
107.1 7/9/2012
June/July 2012 August 2012 September/October 2012 June/July 2013
114.4 7/8/2012
113.6 7/9/2012 10/3/2012
113.1 8/15/2013
116.6 7/7/2012
115.4 7/8/2012
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 77 November 2015
LOWER RIVER (PRM 102.4 - 3.3)
Project River XS Profile XS Profile
Mile (PRM)/Bathy Date /Bathy Date 2 Date Time Q, cfs1 Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs1 Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs1 Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs Q Rating2 WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3 Date Time Q, cfs WSE3
79.0 6/17/2013 6/17/2013 12:21 WSE only5 226.66 8/4/2013 12:33 WSE only5 225.93
78.0 6/17/2013 6/17/2013 13:38 WSE only5 221.54 8/4/2013 12:32 52,100 Good 4 220.90 9/20/2013 16:59 WSE only5 219.48
77.0 6/18/2013 6/18/2013 10:08 WSE only5 215.46
6/18/2013 8:33 WSE only5 209.14 8/5/2013 12:40 WSE only5 207.19 9/20/2013 15:49 WSE only5 206.23
8/20/2013 6:05 WSE only5 208.22
75.0 6/19/2013 6/19/2013 12:07 WSE only5 205.04
6/19/2013 14:29 WSE only5 200.98 8/5/2013 13:12 WSE only5 199.62
8/20/2013 13:02 WSE only5 199.48
73.1 6/20/2013 6/20/2013 13:54 WSE only5 194.77 8/5/2013 13:28 51,100 Good 4 193.41 9/20/2013 14:43 WSE only5 192.32
6/20/2013 15:12 WSE only5 182.36 8/26/2013 16:06 WSE only5 181.26 9/20/2013 9:14 WSE only5 180.38
6/21/2013 13:41 WSE only5 182.89
69.2 6/23/2013 6/23/2013 12:38 WSE only5 171.39 8/5/2013 16:09 WSE only5 170.71 9/20/2013 13:07 WSE only5 170.12
68.2 6/24/2013-
6/25/2013 6/25/2013 0:48 WSE only5 166.79 8/5/2013 16:54 WSE only5 166.43
67.2 6/25/2013 6/25/2013 13:02 WSE only5 161.48 8/6&7/2013 NA 45,400 Fair 4 160.18 9/20/2013 12:42 WSE only5 159.69
66.1 6/25/2013-
6/26/2013 6/25/2013 15:09 WSE only5 155.90 8/6/2013 12:46 WSE only5 155.12
64.6 6/26/2013 6/27/2013 13:41 WSE only5 150.46 8/6/2013 13:30 WSE only5 149.75 9/20/2013 11:51 WSE only5 148.97
62.7 6/27/2013 6/27/2013 12:17 WSE only5 141.33 8/6/2013 13:57 WSE only5 141.07 9/20/2013 11:31 WSE only5 139.84
60.3 6/27/2013 6/27/2013 13:39 WSE only5 131.89 8/6/2013 14:51 WSE only5 130.95 9/18/2013 12:28 WSE only5 130.98
59.1 6/28/2013 6/28/2013 11:35 WSE only5 126.07
6/28/2013 9:55 WSE only5 120.33 8/6/2013 15:19 WSE only5 119.04 9/18/2013 8:56 WSE only5 118.63
8/27/2013 13:40 WSE only5 119.21
55.4 6/29/2013 6/29/2013 12:48 WSE only5 110.65 8/27/2013 14:37 WSE only5 109.84 9/18/2013 13:52 WSE only5 109.09
6/30/2013 8:51 WSE only5 104.51 8/27/2013 15:54 WSE only5 102.80 9/16&17/2013 NA 50,600 Fair 4 103.00
9/18/2013 9:26 WSE only5 102.48
7/2/2013 16:39 WSE only5 96.88 8/28/2013 16:14 WSE only5 94.06
7/3/2013 12:52 WSE only5 98.97
7/4/2013 12:26 WSE only5 83.55 8/28/2013 14:49 WSE only5 82.58 9/12/2013 14:08 WSE only5 84.95
9/18/2013 12:26 44,100 Good 4 82.72
47.9 7/4/2013, 7/6/2013 7/4/2013 14:34 WSE only5 79.97 8/28/2013 14:27 WSE only5 79.22
47.1 7/5/2013 7/5/2013 12:38 WSE only5 77.10 8/28/2013 14:12 WSE only5 76.06
7/5/2013 11:21 WSE only5 72.84 8/28/2013 17:01 WSE only5 72.16 9/12/2013 14:46 WSE only5 76.91
7/7/2013 11:02 WSE only5 72.15 9/18/2013 11:07 WSE only5 71.93
45.6 7/7/2013 7/7/2013 12:13 WSE only5 71.35 8/29/2013 12:25 WSE only5 71.59
7/7/2013 13:42 WSE only5 68.30 8/29/2013 13:00 WSE only5 68.73 9/12/2013 15:28 WSE only5 72.70
9/18/2013 11:24 WSE only5 68.28
41.3 7/8/2013 7/8/2013 12:41 WSE only5 61.84 8/29/2013 14:40 WSE only5 62.10
40.4 7/8/13 - 7/10/2013 7/8/2013 13:07 WSE only5 60.14 8/29/2013 14:20 WSE only5 60.76 9/19/2013 12:34 44,500 Good 4 60.03
7/10/2013 15:10 WSE only5 58.48 8/29/2013 14:55 WSE only5 58.71 9/12/2013 15:55 WSE only5 61.22
9/19/2013 8:37 WSE only5 58.11
7/12/2013 12:46 WSE only5 55.34 8/29/2013 15:15 WSE only5 55.49
7/18/2013 15:43 WSE only5 55.56
7/13/2013 2:18 WSE only5 50.82 8/30/2013 14:30 WSE only5 51.05
9/20/2013 13:17 40,900 Good 4 50.05
7/14/2013 12:57 WSE only5 47.35 9/12/2013 16:24 WSE only5 52.09
9/15/2013 14:58 WSE only5 47.76
9/19/2013 13:00 WSE only5 46.79
9/21/2013 12:18 38,100 Excellent 4 46.15
33.7 7/14/2013 7/14/2013 14:13 WSE only5 46.41 8/30/2013 13:30 WSE only5 46.17
32.4 7/15/2013 7/15/2013 10:58 WSE only5 45.33 8/30/2013 12:56 WSE only5 45.03
31.6 7/15/2013 7/15/2013 13:24 WSE only5 44.64
30.8 7/14/2014 7/14/2014 14:34 WSE only5 46.11
9/11/2012 15:05 WSE only5 40.16 7/15/2013 13:18 WSE only5 42.42 8/30/2013 12:31 WSE only5 41.43 9/9/2013 17:19 WSE only5 46.03
9/19/2013 9:42 WSE only5 40.65
extra Q mmt at Sunshine extra Q mmt at Sunshine and at FA151
1 Data approved by HDR Alaska, Inc. (See HDR, 2013)
2 Q measurement rated according to guidance of U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Surface Water (see USGS OSW, 2012)
3 WSE = water surface elevation (feet, NAVD 88). WSE was measured during, or within 2 hours of, the flow measurement, typically at left and right banks of all channels . The average WSE of the main channel is reported here.
4 2013/2014 multiple channel measurement. Q rating methodology adapted for summing multiple channel Q measurements (see ISR Section 8.5, Appendix C)
5 Only water surface elevation (WSE) was measured at these cross sections. Flows to be estimated by interpolating/synthesizing from nearby stations.
NA WSE not provided.
74.1 6/19/2013,
8/20/2013
71.0 6/20-6/22,
8/26/2013
57.8 6/28/2013
75.9 6/18/2013,
8/20/2013
46.3 7/5/2013, 7/7/2013
44.5 7/7/2013
39.5 7/10/13 - 7/12/2013
54.2 6/30/2013
52.1 7/2/2013 - 7/3/2013
49.0 7/4/2013, 7/6/2013
29.9 7/15/2013
Not measured concurrently with Q (or reasonably close in time). Pairing of Q and WSE may not be appropriate.
Known channel change affects WSE measurements.
In post processing transects for calibration, the designation of the main channel was changed. Therefore, by the new designation, these WSE measurements are on a side channel.
Following the 2012 flood, measurements show noteworthy change in the channel cross section. The post flood bathymetry has been adopted, therefore these measurements might not reflect the current channel geometry.
38.3 7/11/13 - 7/13/2013
36.4 7/11/2013 -
7/13/2013
34.8 7/14/2013
June/July 2012 August 2012 September/October 2012 June/July 2013 August 2013 September/October 2013 June/July 2014 August 2014 September 2014
Q Rating2 Q Rating2 Q Rating2 Q Rating2 Q Rating2
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 78 November 2015
Table 5.5-1. Priority ranking of fish species for development of site-specific Habitat Suitability Curves for the
Susitna River, Alaska. (Presented to TWG during Q2 2013 meeting.) (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D,
Table 5.1-1.)
Common Name High Moderate Low
Chinook salmon X
Chum salmon X
Coho salmon X
Pink salmon X
Sockeye salmon X
Arctic grayling X
Arctic lamprey
X
Bering cisco
X
Burbot
X
Dolly Varden
X
Eulachon
X
Humpback whitefish
X
Lake trout
X
Longnose sucker
X
Northern pike
X
Rainbow trout X
Round whitefish
X
Sculpin
X
Threespine stickleback
X
Table 5.5-2. Updated priority ranking of fish species and life stages for development of Habitat Suitability
Criteria for the Susitna River, Alaska. (Presented to Technical Team during Q2 2014 meeting.) (Source: SIR
Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.1-2.)
Life Stage
Priority Ranking
High Moderate Low
Multivariate
Preference Curves
Univariate Utilization /
1980s Curves
Literature Based /
Expert Panel
Spawning
Chum
Sockeye
Pink
Adult
Whitefish1 Rainbow trout Bering cisco
Arctic grayling Dolly Varden Eulachon
Longnose sucker Burbot
Juvenile
Coho Arctic grayling
Chinook
Longnose sucker
Fry
Coho Whitefish1
Chinook Arctic grayling
Sockeye Longnose sucker
Notes:
1 To eliminate potential for miss identification, no distinction was made between whitefish species
(humpback and round).
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 79 November 2015
Table 5.5-3. Number of individual sampling events by Focus Area, habitat type, and sampling session during
2013 - 2014 HSC sampling in the Middle and Lower River segments of the Susitna River, Alaska. (Source:
SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.2-1.)
Focus Area
Number of
Sample Sites Habitat Type1
Number of
Sample
Sites Sample Session
Number of
Sampling
Events
Lower River2 16 Bar Island Complex 3 June 18-22, 2013 12
FA-104 (Whiskers Slough) 17 Main Channel 21 July 10-30, 2013 49
FA-113 (Oxbow 1) 9 Split Main Channel 6 Aug 6-27, 2013 64
FA-115 (Slough 6A) 5 Multi-Split Main Channel 1 Sep 10-29, 2013 42
FA-128 (Slough 8A) 13 Side Channel 27 May 20-31, 2014 30
FA-138 (Gold Creek) 15 Side Channel Complex 2 June 1-7, 2014 20
FA-141 (Indian River) 10 Side Slough 30 July 15-22, 2014 27
FA-144 (Slough 21) 8 Upland Slough 25 Sep 17-24, 2014 23
FA-151 (Portage Creek) 3 Tributary Mouth 8
FA-173 (Stephan Lake) 9 Tributary 6
FA-184 (Watana Dam) 3
Outside Focus Area 21
Total 129 129 267
Notes:
1 Habitat types defined in ISR Study 9.9 (AEA 2014a).
2 Lower River (Susitna River downstream of Talkeetna including the Trapper-Birch and Sheep-Caswell
complexes).
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 80 November 2015
Table 5.5-4. Number of microhabitat use measurements used in HSC model development by Focus Area and habitat type for all species and l ife stages observed during 2013 - 2014 HSC surveys of the Middle and Lower River segments of the Susitna
River, Alaska. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.2-2.)
Species
Life
Stage
Lower
River1
Middle River Focus Areas
Total
Habitat Type2
Total 104 113 115 128 138 141 144 151 173 184 NFA MC SC SS SMC MSMC Trib TM US BIC SCC
Chinook Fry 32 51 15 7 14 13 45 3 35
2 217 33 17 52 15 38 35 21 5 1 217
Juv 18 11 2 3 8 10 5
7
3 67 13 18 16 2 1 4 9 2 2 67
Chum
Fry 77 65 36 8 18 4 30 15
253 48 59 52 27 16 11 14 14 12 253
Juvenile
1
1 2 1 1
2
Spawning
71 71 19 76
160 397 51 129 124 25
7 61
397
Coho
Fry 33 119 22 7 21 15 42 4 3
8 274 8 21 98 17 36 28 65
1 274
Juv 7 30 10 16 3 6 3 2 5
5 87 4 6 16 2 10 3 45
1 87
Spawning
3
3
3
3
Pink Fry 1 1
2
34 1
39
4 1
23 11
39
Spawning
17
36 53
17 36
53
Sockeye
Fry 44 69 26 15 71 46 56 20 2
8 357 8 46 166 13 32 18 65 7 2 357
Juv 2 6 2
1 6 2
2 21
5 13
3
21
Spawning
51 68 19 82
24 244
65 123
7 12 37
244
Arctic Grayling
Fry
10 6 11 21 11 35 11
6 1 8 120 14 22 37 3 1 17 26
120
Juv
4 3
9 3 15 4 1 26 9 4 78 36 21 12 3 1 1 4
78
Adult
1
4
3 7 15 10 5
15
Arctic lamprey juv
1
1
1
1
Lamprey (undiff) juv 1
1
1
1
Burbot
Fry
1
1
1
1
Juv
1 3
1
5 2
3
5
Adult 1 7 1 5 2 2
1 2 1
22 6 8 1 1
5
1 22
Dolly Varden
Fry
2 7
10
1
1 21 1
10 4 6
21
Juv
1
1
2
1
1
2
Adult
1
1 1
3 1
2
3
Longnose sucker
Fry 12 13 20 6 1
9 1 1 22 1 2 88 6 17 33 4
8 18 2
88
Juv 7 16 7 6 3 10 7 1 3 31 2 4 97 15 20 45 2 1
12 1 1 97
Adult 2 16 8 4 7 14 6 3
1
10 71 19 22 13 7 2
7
1 71
Rainbow trout
Fry
2
2
4 1
2 1
4
Juv
4 2
1
7 1 1
2
3
7
Adult
4
1
1 1
1 8 2 2 1
3
8
Whitefish
Fry 25 5 5 5 3 12 8 1 1 21 15 4 105 24 30 29
2 14 4 2 105
Juv 9 5 6 2 9 5 8 1 2 23 28 3 101 46 23 14 4
1 11 2
101
Adult 2 2 3 1 6 5 6 1 4
1 4 35 19 8 2 3
3
35
TOTAL 273 443 187 96 326 303 382 228 71 136 64 290 2,799 369 553 852 132 3 197 199 433 37 24 2,799
Notes:
1 Lower River: Susitna River downstream of Talkeetna including the Trapper-Birch and Sheep-Caswell complexes.
2 Habitat Types defined in ISR Study 9.9 (AEA 2014a): MC=Main Channel, SC=Side Channel, SS=Side Slough, SMC=Split Main Channel, Multi-Split Main Channel, Trib=Tributary, TM=Tributary Mouth, US=Upland Slough, BIC=Bar Island Complex,
SCC=Side Channel Complex.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 81 November 2015
Table 5.5-5. Total number of HSC observations recorded during electrofish sampling in each winter season
of 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, by fish species and life stage. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.2-3.)
Winter
Season Species Life stage1
FA-104
(Whiskers
Slough)
FA-128
Slough 8A)
FA-138
(Gold
Creek)
FA-141
(Indian
River) Total
2012-2013
Chinook salmon Fry 1 2 0 0 3
Juvenile 13 10 0 0 23
Coho salmon Fry 2 0 0 0 2
Juvenile 1 0 0 0 1
2013-2014
Chinook salmon Fry 13 0 0 1 14
Juvenile 2 3 1 0 6
Sockeye salmon Fry 1 30 4 0 35
Juvenile 0 0 33 0 33
Chum salmon Fry 0 17 25 0 42
Coho salmon Fry 25 7 2 1 35
Juvenile 47 7 32 2 88
Rainbow trout Juvenile 2 0 2 0 4
Arctic grayling Juvenile 1 0 0 0 1
Longnose sucker Juvenile 2 0 0 0 2
Arctic lamprey Juvenile 2 0 0 0 2
2012-2013 Total 17 12 0 0 29
2013-2014 Total 95 64 99 4 262
Cumulative Total 112 76 99 4 291
Notes:
1 Fry consist of fish less than 60 mm fork length; juvenile life stage represents fish between 60 mm and 150
mm fork length.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 82 November 2015
Table 5.5-6. Total number of HSC observations recorded during electrofish sampling in each winter season
of 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, by fish species and life stage. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 1-1.)
Species 1 Life Stage
Number of
Microhabitat
Measurements
Multivariate
Preference
HSC Model
Univariate
Utilization
HSC
Non-site
Specific
HSC
Field Data
Collection
Complete?
Targeted
Future Data
Collection
High Priority Species
Chinook salmon
Fry-summer 217 X Yes
Fry-winter 17 X X
Juv-summer 67 X Yes
Juv-winter 28 X X
Chum salmon Fry 2 253 N/A N/A N/A Yes
Spawning 397 X Yes
Coho salmon
Fry-summer 274 X Yes
Fry-winter 36 X X
Juv-summer 87 X Yes
Juv-winter 88 X X
Spawning 3 X Yes
Pink salmon Fry2 39 N/A N/A N/A Yes
Spawning 53 X X
Sockeye salmon
Fry-summer2 357 N/A N/A N/A Yes
Fry-winter 35 X X
Spawning 244 X Yes
Arctic grayling
Fry 120 X
Yes
Juv 78 X
Yes
Adult 15
X X
Rainbow trout
Fry 4
X Yes
Juvenile 7
X Yes
Adult 8 X
X
Moderate Priority Species
Burbot
Fry 1
X Yes
Juvenile 5
X Yes
Adult 22
X
X
Dolly Varden
Fry 21
X Yes
Juvenile 2
X Yes
Adult 3
X Yes
Eulachon Spawning
X
X 3
Longnose sucker
Fry4 88
X
Yes
Juvenile 97 X
Yes
Adult 71 X
Yes
Whitefish (undiff)
Fry 105 X
Yes
Juvenile 101 X
Yes
Adult 35
X
X
Notes:
Juv=Juvenile, undiff=undifferentiated
1 HSC will not be developed for low priority species northern pike, round whitefish, sculpin, three-spine
stickleback, Arctic lamprey, Bering cisco, and lake trout.
2 N/A – Not applicable since HSC will not be developed for fry that outmigrate shortly after emergence.
3 Data collection activities will be conducted under Study 9.16 (Eulachon Run timing, Distribution, and
Spawning in the Susitna River).
4 Considered for multivariate model development.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 83 November 2015
Table 5.5-7. Proposed minimum and maximum threshold values for use with individual HSC/HSI model
variables and life stages. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.5-1.)
Variable
Life
Stage
Time
Period
Threshold Range
Comments Minimum Maximum
Depth
Fry All Year 0.1 ft Model/non-
limiting
If descending limb does not extend to zero preference, set
probability constant from last (deepest) utilization point to
outer extend of depth range
Juv. All Year 0.2 ft Model/non-
limiting
If descending limb does not extend to zero preference, set
probability constant from last (deepest) utilization point to
outer extend of depth range
Adult All Year 0.25 ft Model/non-
limiting
If descending limb does not extend to zero preference, set
probability constant from last (deepest) utilization point to
outer extend of depth range
Spawning Summer 0.3 ft Model/non-
limiting
If descending limb does not extend to zero preference, set
probability constant from last (deepest) utilization point to
outer extend of depth range
Velocity
Fry Summer 0.0 fps Model or
3.0 fps
If descending limb does not extend to zero preference, use
maximum threshold to set upper extent of velocity
preference. Last utilization point at 2.9 fps
Juv. Summer 0.0 fps Model or
3.0 fps
If descending limb does not extend to zero preference, use
maximum threshold to set upper extent of velocity
preference. Last utilization point at 2.9 fps
Adult Summer 0.0 fps Model Last utilization point at 2.9 fps
Spawning Summer 0.0 fps Model or
4.5 fps
Last utilization point at 3.47 fps, similar to maximum
spawning velocity used in 1980s HSC study
Fry Winter 0.0 fps 1.5 fps Last utilization point at 0.93 fps (winter)
Juv. Winter 0.0 fps 1.5 fps Last utilization point at 1.15 fps (winter)
pH
Fry All Year 6.5 8.5 Alaska DEC (2012)
Juv. All Year 6.5 8.5 Daily minimum and maximum values
Adult All Year 6.5 8.5
Spawning All Year 6.5 8.5
DO
Fry Winter 7 mg/l 17 mg/l Daily minimum and maximum values
Juv. Winter 7 mg/l 17 mg/l
Adult Winter 7 mg/l 17 mg/l
Incubation Winter 7 mg/l 17 mg/l Assume 2 mg/l depression for intergravel (Alaska DEC,
2012)
Fry Summer 7 mg/l 17 mg/l If D.O. pre-project <7 mg/l, no greater than 2 mg/l reduction
from background, but no lower than 3 mg/l regardless of
pre-project level. Juv. Summer 7 mg/l 17 mg/l
Adult Summer 7 mg/l 17 mg/l
Spawning Summer 7 mg/l 17 mg/l
Temp.
Fry Summer 3.0°C 20.0°C Alaska DEC (2012)
Juv. Summer 3.0°C 20.0°C Daily minimum and maximum values
Adult Summer 3.0°C 20.0°C
Spawning Summer 3.0°C 13.0°C Aug. 15 – Sep. 30; applied to only those areas with >0.0
spawning preference
Distance
to
Water’s
Edge
Fry Summer none 75.0 ft Based on maximum distance from bank observed during
2013-2014 surveys
Juv. Summer none 75.0 ft Based on maximum distance from bank observed during
2013-2014 surveys
Adult Summer none None
Spawning Summer none None
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 84 November 2015
Table 5.5-8. Utilization of categorical habitats as a percent of total samples (including availability) for chum
salmon spawning. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.6-7.)
Factor Group Number of Samples1 Percent Utilization
Substrate
All Gravel 159 63%
Gravel Dominant Mix 293 58%
Gravel Subdominant Mix 226 45%
Cobble Dominant / No Gravel 103 23%
Upwelling Upwelling 722 52%
Downwelling 32 28%
Note:
1 Number of samples includes availability + utilization observations.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 85 November 2015
Table 5.5-9. AIC model comparisons testing random effects and interaction between spawning site type (random vs. select) and each predictor variable.
(Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.6-8.)
Predictor Model1,2 AICc deltaAIC Conclusion
Depth
3rd order Depth with Site Type 1051.9 3.4 Some evidence that select sites have no
depth preference; potential impact would be
that relationship with depth is understated by
including select sites.
3rd order Depth with Site Type and Interaction 1048.5 0.0
Fixed Model: 3rd order Depth with Site Type and Interaction 1067.0 18
Velocity
3rd order Vel with Site Type 1052.7 0.0
No evidence of interaction. 3rd order Vel with Site Type and Interaction 1053.7 1.0
Fixed Model: 3rd order Vel with Site Type and Interaction 1062.0 9.3
Water
Temperature
Quadratic Temp with Site Type 1063.7 0.0
No evidence of interaction. Quadratic Temp with Site Type and Interaction 1064.6 0.9
Fixed Model: quadratic Temp with Site Type and Interaction 1083.0 19
Substrate Group
Substrate Group with Site Type 1024.6 0.0
No evidence of interaction. Substrate Group with Site Type and Interaction 1024.7 0.1
Fixed effects: Substrate Group with Site Type and Interaction 1048.4 24
Upwelling
Upwelling with Site Type 1026.6 0.0
No evidence of interaction. Upwelling with Site Type and Interaction 1028.3 1.7
Fixed effects: Upwelling with Site Type and Interaction 1044.1 18
Dissolved
Oxygen
Quadratic DO with Site Type 1052.8 0
No evidence of interaction. Quadratic DO with Site Type and Interaction 1054.2 1.5
Fixed effects: quadratic DO with Site Type and Interaction 1071.1 18
Notes:
1 Displayed models are mixed/random effects models unless noted.
2 Interaction is added to the univariate model including all predictors.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 86 November 2015
Table 5.5-10. Chum salmon spawning univariate model AIC comparisons used to select relationships for multivariate analysis. (Source: SIR Study 8.5,
Appendix D, Table 5.6-9.)
Predictor Model AICc
Difference From
Null Model Selected Model Reason for Model Selection
Depth
Null (No covariates) 1065 0
Linear and quadratic have similar AIC Linear Depth 1049.2 -16 **
Quadratic Depth 1050.1 -15 **
3rd order Depth 1051.5 -14
Velocity
Null (No covariates) 1065 0
Lowest AIC Linear Velocity 1066.1 1.1
Quadratic Velocity 1051.6 -13 **
3rd order Velocity 1053.6 -11
Water Temperature
Null (No covariates) 1065 0
Lowest AIC Linear Temperature 1063.4 -1.6 **
Quadratic Temperature 1065.1 0.1
Upwelling Null (sites with upwelling measured) 1027.2 0 Lowest AIC Categorical 1025.8 -1.4 **
Substrate Group Null (No covariates) 1065 0 Lowest AIC Categorical 1024.1 -41 **
Dissolved Oxygen
Null (sites with DO measured) 1049.7 0 **
Null has lowest AIC Linear DO 1050.2 0.50
Quadratic DO 1051.7 2.0
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 87 November 2015
Table 5.5-11. AIC results for chum salmon spawning multivariate models. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.6-10.) Intercept Substrate Depth Depth2 Temp Velocity Velocity2 Substrate: Depth Substrate: Velocity Substrate: Temperature Depth: Velocity Depth: Temperature Velocity: Temperature Degrees of Freedom AICc Delta AIC1 Notes3 x x x x x x x 10 997.1 0.0
x x x x x x x x 11 998.3 1.2 S
x x x x x x 9 999.1 2.0 BME
x x x x x x x 12 999.4 2.3
x x x x x 8 1000.1 3.0
x x x x x x x 10 1000.3 3.2
x x x x x x x x 13 1000.7 3.7
x x x x x x x 10 1000.9 3.8
x x x x x x 9 1001.0 3.9
x x x x x x x 10 1001.1 4.0
x x x x x x x 12 1001.9 4.8
x x x x x x x x 11 1002.2 5.1
x x x x x x x x 11 1002.3 5.3
x x x x x x x x 13 1003.0 6.0
x x x x x x x 12 1004.9 7.8
x x x x x x x x 13 1006.1 9.0
x x x x x 8 1007.2 10.1
x x x x 7 1007.7 10.6
x x x x x x 9 1008.3 11.2
x x x x x 8 1008.5 11.4
x x x x 7 1008.9 11.8
x 2 1065.0 67.9 NULL
Notes:
1 Models other than the null model with deltaAIC > 12 are not displayed for brevity.
2 Quadratic term.
3 S = Selected Model; BME = Best main-effects model (i.e., no interactions); NULL = model with no predictors.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 88 November 2015
Table 5.5-12. Coho fry utilization of habitats with and without each cover type, including turbidity (>30 NTU) as a cover type (last two rows), or as an
interacting factor (last four columns). (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.6-11.)
Type of Cover
All Turbidity≤301 Turbidity>301
Cover Absent Cover Present Cover Absent Cover Present Cover Absent Cover Present
Boulder Number of Observations 1168 106 933 87 198 18
Percent Utilization 22% 21% 23% 24% 11% 0%
Wood Number of Observations 1143 131 913 107 199 17
Percent Utilization 18% 50% 20% 55% 10% 12%
Aquatic Vegetation Number of Observations 1006 268 778 242 199 17
Percent Utilization 18% 34% 20% 36% 10% 12%
Overhead
Vegetation
Number of Observations 1219 55 968 52 214 2
Percent Utilization 20% 45% 22% 48% 10% 0%
Undercut Bank Number of Observations 1246 28 992 28 216 0
Percent Utilization 20% 75% 22% 75% 10% na
Any (Non-Turbidity) Number of Observations 760 514 576 444 165 51
Percent Utilization 14% 33% 14% 36% 10.9% 7.8%
Turbidity (>30 NTU) Number of Observations 1020 216
Percent Utilization 23% 10%
Note:
na = not applicable
1 Turbidity was not recorded at each coho fry utilization measurement point.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 89 November 2015
Table 5.5-13. Coho salmon fry univariate model AIC comparisons used to select relationships for multivariate analysis. (Source: SIR Study 8.5,
Appendix D, Table 5.6-12.)
Predictor Model1 AICc
Difference From
Null Model Selected Model Reason for Model Selection
Depth
Null (No covariates) 1284.9 0
Lowest AIC
Linear Depth 1285.3 0.4
Quadratic Depth 1266 -19 **
3rd order Depth 1266.8 -18
Fixed effects: 3rd order Depth 1307.6 23
Velocity
Null (No covariates) 1284.9 0
Lowest AIC
Linear Velocity 1260.3 -25 **
Quadratic Velocity 1262.3 -23
3rd order Velocity 1264.3 -21
Fixed effects 3rd order Velocity 1296.6 12
Water Temperature
Null (No covariates) 1277.5 0 **
Null model has lowest AIC Linear Temperature 1279.5 2.0
Quadratic Temperature 1280.1 2.5
Fixed effects quadratic Temperature 1323.7 46
Cover and Turbidity
Null (where turbidity available) 1234 0
Lowest AIC Cover 1179.4 -55
Cover:Turbidity 1172.8 -61 **
Fixed effects Cover:Turbidity 1190.7 -43
Dissolved Oxygen
Null (sites with DO measured) 1264.9 0 **
Linear decreasing relationship with DO
is not ecologically reasonable
Linear DO 1243.8 -21
Quadratic DO 1245.8 -19
Fixed effects quadratic DO 1286.9 22
Notes:
1 Displayed Models are Mixed/Random effects models except where noted.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 90 November 2015
Table 5.5-14. AIC results for coho salmon fry multivariate models. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.6-13.) Intercept Cover/ Turbidity Depth Depth2 Velocity Cover/Turbidity: Depth Cover/Turbidity: Velocity Depth: Velocity Degrees of Freedom AICc deltaAIC1 Notes3 x x x x x x 9 1122.4 0 S
x x x x x x 8 1129.6 7.2
x x x x x 7 1133.6 11.2 BME
x x x x x x 9 1134.3 11.9
x x x x 6 1151.7 29
x x x 5 1155.8 33.4
x x x x 6 1157.6 35.2
x x 4 1170.9 48.5
x x x 5 1172.5 50.1
x 2 1234 111.6 NULL
Notes:
1 Models other than the null model with deltaAIC > 50 are not displayed for brevity.
2 Quadratic term.
3 S = Selected Model; BME = Best main-effects model (i.e., no interactions); NULL = model with no predictors.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 91 November 2015
Table 5.5-15. Evaluation of FERC requested variables and recommendations for inclusion in future HSC
curve development. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Table 5.4-1.)
Variable
Relationship with
Fish Abundance
Measures
(Strong, Weak,
None)
Direct Link
to Fish
Habitat Use
Modeled at
Focus
Area Scale
Recommended
for Future HSC
Analysis
Macronutrients: Total Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen Insufficient Data Unknown No No
pH Strong Yes Yes Yes
Dissolved Organic Carbon None No Yes No
Alkalinity Weak No No No
Chlorophyll-a Strong No Yes No1
Notes:
1 Chlorophyll-a showed a strong relationship to non-salmonid species only and was not recommended for further
analysis.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 92 November 2015
10. FIGURES
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 93 November 2015
Figure 3-1. Map depicting the Upper, Middle and Lower Segments of the Susitna River potentially influenced by the Susitna -Watana Hydroelectric
Project.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 94 November 2015
Figure 3-2. Map of the Middle Segment of the Susitna River depicting the eight Geomorphic Reaches and locations of ten Focus Areas. No Focus Areas
were located in MR-3 and MR-4 due to safety issues related to sampling within or proximal to Devils Canyon.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 95 November 2015
Figure 3-3. Map of the Lower Segment of the Susitna River depicting the six Geomorphic Reaches.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 96 November 2015
Figure 4.1-1a. Conceptual framework for the Susitna-Watana Instream Flow Study depicting integration of
habitat specific models and riverine processes to support integrated resource analyses. (Source: ISR Study
8.5, Figure 4.1-1.)
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 97 November 2015
Figure 4.1-1b. Conceptual framework for the Susitna-Watana Instream Flow Study depicting integration of
riverine processes to develop fish and aquatic habitat specific models. (Source: ISR Study 8.5, Figure 4.1-1.)
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 98 November 2015
Figure 4.3-1. Location of tributary gage sites. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Figure 1.)
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 99 November 2015
Figure 4.4-1. Mainstem gaging locations.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 100 November 2015
Figure 4.5-1. Locations of IFS winter studies sites used for continuous and instantaneous water quality monitoring, water level monitoring, and fish
sampling in FA-104 (Whiskers Slough) during the winter seasons of 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Figure
5.2-13.)
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 101 November 2015
Figure 4.5-2. Locations of IFS winter studies sites used for continuous and instantaneous water quality monitoring, water level monitoring, and fish
sampling in FA-128 (Slough 8A) during the winter seasons of 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Figure 5.2-14.)
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 102 November 2015
Figure 4.5-3. Locations of IFS winter studies sites used for continuous and instantaneous water quality monitoring, water level monitoring, and fish
sampling in FA-138 (Gold Creek) during the winter seasons of 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Figure 5.2-15.)
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 103 November 2015
Figure 4.6-1. 2-D Model calibration transects at FA-151 (Portage Creek). (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix
C, Figure 4.)
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 104 November 2015
Figure 5.3-1 Location of 2012, 2013, and 2014 measured flow-routing cross-sections. (Source: Modified ISR Study 8.5, Figure 5.3-1.)
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 105 November 2015
Figure 5.4-1 Longitudinal thalweg profile of the Susitna River extending from PRM 29.9 to PRM 187.2. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Figure
14.)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200Elevation (feet, NAVD 88)Project River MileUSGS Gage at SusitnaStationUSGS Gage at SunshineConfluence with the YentnaRiverConfluence with the DeshkaRiverConfluencewiht the Kashwitna RiverConfluencewiht the Talkeetna RiverConfluence with the ChulitnaRiverUSGS Gage at GoldCreekUSGS Gage aboveTsusena CreekProposedDam SiteDevils Canyon
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 106 November 2015
Figure 5.4-2. Locations of flow measurements in the upper Susitna River in 2012-2014, and classification of flows as low, medium, or high based on
concurrent measurements in the Susitna River at Gold Creek (USGS No. 15292000). (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Figure 15.)
100 120 140 160 180 200
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
Project River MileSusitna River at Gold Creek Streamflow (cfs) 2012 Measured
2012 Estimated
2013 Measured
2013 Estimated
2014 Measured
High
Medium
Low
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 107 November 2015
Figure 5.4-3. Locations of flow measurements in the lower Susitna River in 2012-2014, and classification of flows as low, medium, or high based on
concurrent measurements in the Susitna River at Sunshine gage (USGS No. 15292780). (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Figure 16.)
40 60 80 100
20000
40000
60000
80000
Project River MileSusitna River at Sunshine Streamflow (cfs) 2012 Measured
2012 Estimated
2013 Measured
2013 Estimated
2014 Measured
High
Medium
Low
2014-2015 STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 108 November 2015
Figure 5.4-4. Manning’s n channel roughness coefficients derived from steady-state calibration of flow
routing model for 216 cross-sections of the Susitna River surveyed between 2012 and 2014. (Source: SIR
Study 8.5, Appendix B, Figure 17.)
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0.05
75 95 115 135 155 175 195Manning's nProject River Mile
2014-2015 STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 109 November 2015
Figure 5.4-5. Comparison of measured versus simulated flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Gold
Creek (USGS No. 15292000) during the period from July 28 to August 3, 2013. (Source: SIR Study 8.5,
Appendix B, Figure 18.)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
7/28/2013 12 AM7/29/2013 12 AM7/30/2013 12 AM7/31/2013 12 AM8/1/2013 12 AM8/2/2013 12 AM8/3/2013 12 AM8/4/2013 12 AMStreamflow (cfs)Susitna River at Gold Creek (PRM 140.0)
USGS
Simulated
2014-2015 STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 110 November 2015
Figure 5.4-6. Comparison of measured versus simulated flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Gold
Creek (USGS No. 15292000) during the 2013 open-water period. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Figure
19.)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
6/1/2013 12 AM6/21/2013 12 AM7/11/2013 12 AM7/31/2013 12 AM8/20/2013 12 AM9/9/2013 12 AM9/29/2013 12 AM10/19/2013 12 AMStreamflow (cfs)Susitna River at Gold Creek (PRM 140.0)
USGS
Simulated
2014-2015 STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 111 November 2015
Figure 5.4-7. Comparison of measured versus simulated flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Sunshine
(USGS No. 15292780) during the period from July 28 to August 3, 2013. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B,
Figure 20.)
50000
55000
60000
65000
70000
75000
80000
7/28/2013 12 AM7/29/2013 12 AM7/30/2013 12 AM7/31/2013 12 AM8/1/2013 12 AM8/2/2013 12 AM8/3/2013 12 AM8/4/2013 12 AMStreamflow (cfs)Susitna River at Sunshine (PRM 88.0)
USGS
Simulated
2014-2015 STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 112 November 2015
Figure 5.4-8. Comparison of measured versus simulated flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Sunshine
(USGS No. 15292780) during the 2013 open-water period. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B, Figure 21.)
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
6/1/2013 12 AM6/21/2013 12 AM7/11/2013 12 AM7/31/2013 12 AM8/20/2013 12 AM9/9/2013 12 AM9/29/2013 12 AM10/19/2013 12 AMStreamflow (cfs)Susitna River at Sunshine (PRM 88.0)
USGS
Simulated
2014-2015 STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 113 November 2015
Figure 5.4-9. Comparison of measured versus simulated flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Susitna
Station (USGS No. 15294350) during the period from July 28 to August 3, 2013. (Source: SIR Study 8.5,
Appendix B, Figure 22.)
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
7/28/13 0:007/29/13 0:007/30/13 0:007/31/13 0:008/1/13 0:008/2/13 0:008/3/13 0:008/4/13 0:00Streamflow (cfs)Sustina River at Susitna Station (PRM 29.9)
USGS
Simulated
2014-2015 STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 114 November 2015
Figure 5.4-10. Comparison of measured versus simulated flow hydrographs in the Susitna River at Susitna
Station (USGS No. 15294350) during the 2013 open-water period. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix B,
Figure 23.)
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
7/15/13 0:007/25/13 0:008/4/13 0:008/14/13 0:008/24/13 0:009/3/13 0:009/13/13 0:009/23/13 0:00Streamflow (cfs)Sustina River at Susitna Station (PRM 29.9)
USGS
Simulated
2014-2015 STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 115 November 2015
Figure 5.5-1. Normalized utilization for four continuous habitat variables for spawning chum salmon. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D,
Attachment 5, Figure D5-3.)
Note: Utilization data are normalized to availability of habitat for sites where fish were observed only.
2014-2015 STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 116 November 2015
Figure 5.5-2. Chum spawning HSC as a function of velocity for two substrate types and surface water
temperatures, with depth fixed at 1.2 feet. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Figure 5.6-5.)
Note: Estimated preference for velocity > 2.4 fps is based on linear decline to 0 probability at threshold value of 4.5
fps.
Figure 5.5-3. Chum spawning HSC as a function of surface water temperature for two substrate types and
velocities, with depth fixed at 1.2 feet. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Figure 5.6-6.)
Note: Estimated preference for temperatures less than 3.1 and greater than 9.3 are based on linear decline to 0
probability at threshold values of 3 and 13 degrees C, respectively.
2014-2015 STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 117 November 2015
Figure 5.5-4. Chum spawning HSC as a function of depth for two substrate types, with velocity fixed at 0.2
fps, and water temperature fixed at 5.5 degrees C. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Figure 5.6-7.)
Note: Estimated preference for depth < 0.3 feet is zero, and estimated preference for depth > 3.3 feet is non-limiting
(i.e., fixed at the highest modeled value).
2014-2015 STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 118 November 2015
Figure 5.5-5. Normalized utilization for four continuous habitat variables for coho salmon fry. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Attachment 5,
Figure D5-4.)
Note: Utilization data are normalized to availability of habitat for sites where fish were observed only.
2014-2015 STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 119 November 2015
Figure 5.5-6. HSC model for coho salmon fry as a function of depth for fixed velocity of 0.4 fps for three
different substrate/turbidity groups. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Figure 5.6-8.)
Note: Estimated preference for depth < 0.2 feet (first observed fish) is linear decreasing to the threshold of 0.05 feet,
and estimated preference for depths > 3.4 feet (last observed fish) is non-limiting (i.e., fixed at the highest
modeled value).
Figure 5.5-7. HSC model for coho salmon fry as a function of velocity for fixed depth of 1 foot for three
different substrate/turbidity groups. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix D, Figure 5.6-9.)
Note: Estimated preference for velocity > 1.7 fps (last observed fish) is based on linear decline to 0 probability at
threshold value of 3 fps.
0 1 2 3 40.00.10.20.30.40.50.6Depth (ft)Probability of Utilization by Coho Salmon FryCover and NTU=<30
No Cover and NTU=<30
NTU>30
Modeled HSC
2014-2015 STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 120 November 2015
Figure 5.6-1. Substrate characterization mapping in FA-128 (Slough 8A) on September 21, 2013. For display purposes, the figure shows the
distribution of coarse and fine substrate within the Focus Area; however, the dominant and subdominant particle size and the percent composition of
each substrate polygon is used for habitat modeling purposes (see enlargement of the lower end of the Focus Area). (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix
E, Figure 5.)
2014-2015 STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 121 November 2015
Figure 5.6-2. Cover polygons in FA-128 (Slough 8A) mapped during September 2013 habitat surveys. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix E, Figure 13.)
2014-2015 STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 122 November 2015
Figure 5.6-3. Salmon spawning areas mapped within FA-128 (Slough 8A) during 2013 and 2014 IFS aerial and ground spawning surveys and in
association with 1981-1984 monitoring efforts in the Middle River Segment of the Susitna River. (Source: SIR Study 8.5, Appendix E, Figure 20.)
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH AND AQUATICS INSTREAM FLOW STUDY (STUDY 8.5)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 November 2015
APPENDIX A: 2014 INSTREAM FLOW WINTER STUDIES
[See separate file for Appendix.]
APPENDIX B: OPEN-WATER HYDROLOGY DATA COLLECTION AND
OPEN-WATER FLOW ROUTING MODEL (VERSION 2.8)
[See separate file for Appendix.]
APPENDIX C: 2014 MOVING BOAT ACOUSTIC DOPPLER CURRENT
PROFILER (ADCP) MEASUREMENTS
[See separate file for Appendix.]
APPENDIX D: HABITAT SUITABILITY CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT
[See separate file for Appendix.]
APPENDIX E: FISH HABITAT MODELING DATA: SURFICIAL
SUBSTRATE AND COVER CHARACTERIZATION AND SALMON
SPAWNING OBSERVATIONS BY FOCUS AREA
[See separate file for Appendix.]