HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa289sec9-11Alaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna‐Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
Fish passage feasibility at Watana Dam, Study plan Section 9.11, 2014
Study Implementation 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:
October 2015
Published for:
Alaska Energy Authority
Date or date range of report:
Volume and/or Part numbers:
Study plan Section 9.11
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Document type:
Pagination:
56 pages in various pagings
Related works(s):
Pages added/changed by ARLIS:
Notes:
All reports in the Susitna‐Watana Hydroelectric Project Document series include an ARLIS‐
produced cover page and an ARLIS‐assigned number for uniformity and citability. All reports
are posted online at http://www.arlis.org/resources/susitna‐watana/
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
(FERC No. 14241)
Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam
Study Plan Section 9.11
2014 Study Implementation Report
Prepared for
Alaska Energy Authority
Prepared by
R2 Resource Consultants, Inc.
October 2015
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page i October 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................1
2. Study Objectives.................................................................................................................1
3. Study Area ..........................................................................................................................2
4. Methods ...............................................................................................................................2
4.1 Task 4: Develop Concepts. ............................................................................................ 2
4.2 Variances from Study Plan ............................................................................................ 3
5. Results .................................................................................................................................3
5.1 Task 4 Progress in 2014 ................................................................................................. 3
5.1.1 Workshop #2 – Brainstorm Conceptual Alternatives ............................................. 3
5.1.2 FPTT Meeting #5 – Regular Update ....................................................................... 4
6. Discussion............................................................................................................................4
7. Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................4
7.1 Decision Points from Study Plan ................................................................................... 5
7.2 Modifications to Study Plan ........................................................................................... 5
8. Literature Cited .................................................................................................................5
9. Tables ..................................................................................................................................6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1. Fish Passage Technical Team (FPTT) members as of December 3, 2014. ...................6
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Information Item B11. Biological Performance Tool
Appendix B. Information Item B12. Summary of Biological Information
Appendix C. Reconciled Brainstorm Concepts and Tally
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ii October 2015
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SCIENTIFIC LABELS
Abbreviation Definition
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
BPT Biological Performance Tool
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FPTT Fish Passage Technical Team
ILP Integrated Licensing Process
ISR Initial Study Report (AEA 2014)
PRM Project River Mile
RM River Mile
RSP Revised Study Report
SPD Study Plan Determination
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1 October 2015
1. INTRODUCTION
This Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam Study, Section 9.11 of the Revised Study Plan
(RSP) approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 14241, focuses on developing, to the feasibility level, a
fish passage strategy in support of the license application for the proposed Project (AEA 2012).
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. 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 plan for
the Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam Study. For example:
• As described in detail below, AEA initiated Task 4 of the study, which involves the
development of fish passage concepts, in 2014.
• On October 15, 2014, AEA held an ISR meeting for the Fish Passage Feasibility at
Watana Dam Study.
In furtherance of the next round of ISR meetings and FERC’s Study Plan Determination (SPD)
expected in 2016, this report describes AEA’s overall progress in implementing the Fish Passage
Feasibility at Watana Dam Study during calendar year 2014. Rather than a comprehensive
reporting of all field work, data collection, and data analysis since the beginning of AEA’s study
program, this report is intended to supplement and update the information presented in Part A of
the ISR for the Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam Study through the end of calendar year
2014. It describes the methods and results of the 2014 effort, and includes a discussion of the
results achieved.
2. STUDY OBJECTIVES
The goal of this study is to develop, to the feasibility level, a fish passage strategy in support of
the License Application for the proposed Project. The methods section of this report outlines the
process that was used during 2013 and 2014 to achieve this objective. A variety of engineering,
biological, sociological, and economic factors will be considered during this process as it
continues through 2014. The study will explore various alternatives in support of three basic
strategies related to fish passage: (1) proposed Project without fish passage, (2) integration of
upstream and downstream passage features into the current Project design, and (3) the retrofit of
upstream and downstream fish passage features to a Project designed without passage.
In the context of this study “retrofit” means that fish passage features would be either
geographically or temporally independent from the dam design. A retrofitted passage facility
may be constructed some distance upstream or downstream from the dam or later in the future
after the construction of the dam, and thus is independent of the dam design process. Option 3,
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2 October 2015
the retrofit option, avoids constraints with having the only option of fish passage being part of
the dam structure. Thus, the feasibility evaluation can examine a wider spectrum of passage
alternatives.
3. STUDY AREA
As described in RSP Section 9.11.3, the study area (Figure 3-1) extends from the confluence
with Portage Creek (Project river mile [PRM] 152.3; historic river mile [RM] 148) upstream to
the Oshetna River (PRM 235.1; RM 233.4). It is assumed that any potential upstream passage
facilities to be considered (e.g., a trap-and-haul facility) would be located in the mainstem
upstream of the confluence with Portage Creek.
4. METHODS
The six tasks defined in RSP Section 9.11.4 to evaluate the technical feasibility of fish passage
for the Project are summarized below.
1. Establish a Fish Passage Technical Team (FPTT; Table 4-1) to provide input on the
feasibility assessment.
2. Prepare for feasibility study.
3. Conduct site reconnaissance.
4. Develop concepts.
5. Evaluate feasibility of conceptual alternatives.
6. Develop refined passage strategy(ies).
This end of year report summarizes the status of these tasks structured to determine the technical
feasibility of fish passage for the Project.
Tasks 1 through 3 were completed in 2013, and their status was reported in the ISR (AEA 2014).
4.1 Task 4: Develop Concepts.
Task 4, as described in RSP Section 9.11.4, was initiated in 2013, and substantial progress was
made toward completing this task; the following activities were completed as described below.
Preparation for Workshop #2 (Brainstorm Conceptual Alternatives) was completed in summer
2014. All background information was compiled and posted for the FPTT on September 2,
2014 http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/meetings/past-meetings/. An example of draft
evaluation criteria and an evaluation matrix were prepared and shown to the FPTT during
Workshop #2.
Workshop #2 was conducted in Bellevue, WA from September 9 – 11, 2014. This was a
facilitated brainstorm session to identify feasible fish passage concepts. The first step of the
workshop was to review the physical features of the Project, biological information, and
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3 October 2015
operational information. The second step was to use an iterative approach to brainstorm a full
breadth of ideas and then start to organize components into systems. Elements of the
brainstorming included collection and transport for upstream and downstream passage. This was
the first time the FPTT formally discussed fish passage ideas. The goal of this workshop was to
identify concepts for later evaluation.
After completion of Workshop #2, the brainstormed fish passage concepts were organized into a
cohesive list. This list was reviewed with the FPTT at Meeting #5 (Regular Check-in) held on
December 3, 2014. The list was discussed and edited based on FPTT input and the downstream
passage list was reviewed and categories were reassessed by the team http://www.susitna-
watanahydro.org/meetings/past-meetings/. Thus, a cohesive list of the fish passage concepts that
resulted from the brainstorming workshop were organized and the clarification of concepts was
initiated but not completed. The framework and logic of the Biological Performance Tool (BPT)
was also prepared (Appendix A).
4.2 Variances from Study Plan
As in 2013, variances from the Study Plan in 2014 were limited to modification of the schedule.
Task 4 was initiated in 2014 but not completed. Tasks 5 and 6 have not yet been started. Section
7, below, indicates the tasks remaining to complete the study.
5. RESULTS
5.1 Task 4 Progress in 2014
5.1.1 Workshop #2 – Brainstorm Conceptual Alternatives
The purpose of Task 4 was to identify fish passage concepts based on the project understanding
and draft criteria developed in Tasks 1 – 3, and to develop the concepts to a level that would
allow the FPTT to begin evaluation and selection of the most feasible fish passage alternatives
specifically addressing the three basic strategies related to fish passage listed above in Section 2.
The brainstorm workshop was held and the FPTT developed concepts based on the professional
judgment of participants as well as on studies, experience, and history of other fish passage
facilities and specific criteria and guidelines published by NMFS. There were over 170 fish
passage facility concepts (including both upstream and downstream passage) identified and
discussed by the FPTT. Concepts ranged from entire fish passage facilities, facility components,
and supplemental features or enhancements such as operational procedures and locations of
facilities. Supplemental/enhancement features were defined as ideas that could not function as a
stand-alone fish passage concept, but could add to the performance of a primary idea. Some
concepts were deferred by the group, indicating that they were not suited for further
consideration at this time. All other concepts were either clarified and combined, and then
prioritized as Priority 1 or 2 indicating a relative degree of confidence by the team that they
would have potential for application at this Project, with Priority 1 being the highest confidence.
By the end of the workshop, there were 66 upstream passage concepts for further consideration,
51 Priority 1 concepts and 15 Priority 2 concepts. For downstream passage there were 33
concepts to consider further, 32 Priority 1 and 1 Priority 2 concepts.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4 October 2015
5.1.2 FPTT Meeting #5 – Regular Update
AEA held Meeting #5 on December 3, 2014 as a follow-up to the brainstorm workshop. AEA
facilitated a team review of the organized list of passage concepts. The FPTT also added
clarification for some of the concept descriptions and it was decided that re-prioritization of
downstream concepts would be undertaken by AEA between Meeting #5 and Workshop #3.
AEA was also tasked with reassessing the downstream passage categories and providing them to
the FPTT.
At Meeting #5, AEA also introduced the BPT framework, addressed questions to clarify the
intent and function of the BPT, presented a draft evaluation matrix and reviewed the process to
refine and utilize this evaluation tool.
Further clarification of concepts with text and drawings was initiated by AEA in late December
2014.
Work products that were produced in 2014 related to Task 4 activities include the following:
• Meeting notes and materials from Meeting #5, with an update on action items, are posted
on the AEA website http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/meetings/past-meetings/;
• The framework, operational logic, input, and output parameters were completed for the
BPT, and an updated description of the BPT is provided in Appendix A under Item B11.
• An updated version of Item B12, the Summary of Biological Information (Appendix B),
was completed to add conceptual life cycle models for Arctic Grayling and Burbot to the
one prepared for Chinook Salmon
• A reconciled version of the brainstorm concepts and tally (Appendix C).
6. DISCUSSION
The brainstorm workshop was successful with the FPTT developing a list of passage concepts
for upstream collection, upstream passage, and downstream passage. These concepts will be
used by the FPTT to develop passage alternatives once the study abeyance is lifted. The BPT is
under development and will be useful to compare, in a theoretical way, the fish survival that may
be expected from different downstream passage alternatives. Review and comments from the
FPTT are needed prior to the finalizing evaluation matrix for use in Tasks 5 of the study.
7. CONCLUSION
The Fish Passage Feasibility Study was initiated in 2013 and will continue with no anticipated
modifications to the FERC-approved methods. The successful completion of this Study is
dependent on information that will be provided by several interrelated studies (see Section 6).
Modifications to the methods of these studies are not anticipated to affect meeting the objectives
of Study 9.11.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5 October 2015
7.1 Decision Points from Study Plan
There were no decision points in the FERC-approved study plan to be evaluated for this study
based on the work completed thus far.
7.2 Modifications to Study Plan
Although the schedule has been modified, no modifications to the Study Plan are needed to
complete the study and meet Study Plan objectives.
8. LITERATURE CITED
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2012. Revised Study Plan: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project FERC Project No. 14241. December 2012. Prepared for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission by the Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/study-plan.
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2014. Initial Study Report: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project FERC Project No. 14241. June 2014. Prepared for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission by the Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/type/documents/.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6 October 2015
9. TABLES
Table 4-1. Fish Passage Technical Team (FPTT) members as of December 3, 2014.
Name Company Role
Betsy McGregor AEA Environmental Manager
Doug Ott AEA Engineer
Dana Postlewait R2 Study Lead Engineer
MaryLou Keefe R2 Aquatics Lead
Dan Turner R2 Lead Engineer
Tim Sullivan R2 Lead Biologist
Dennis Dorratcague MWH Lead MWH Engineer
Dana Schmidt Golder expert advisor, biologist
Chick Sweeney Alden expert advisor, engineer
Al Giorgi BioAnalysts expert advisor, biologist
Ed Meyer NMFS Agency Representative
Sue Walker NMFS Agency Representative
Ron Benkert ADF&G Agency Representative
Betsy McCracken USFWS Agency Representative
George Gilmour Meridian Biologist under contract to Services
Ed Zapel NHC Engineer under contract to Services
Graham Hill NHC Engineer under contract to Services
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 October 2015
APPENDIX A: INFORMATION ITEM B11. BIOLOGICAL
PERFORMANCE TOOL
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A- Page 1 October 2015
1. BIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE TOOL
In support of the Study of Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam (RSP 9.11, AEA 2012), a
Biological Performance Tool (BPT) is proposed to evaluate the relative success of fish passage
alternatives to attract, collect, and transport downstream migrants through Watana Dam and
reservoir; a given alternative may include one or more facility concepts. Biological performance
will consider a range of contributing factors including constructability, maintenance, reliability,
certainty, and effectiveness. Evaluation of conceptual-level fish passage facility designs will
follow criteria considering structural, operational, environmental, and biological conditions.
These criteria will be quantitatively scored and individual criteria will be ranked on a relative
level of importance. Criteria scorings reflect the opinions of the fish passage panel members
based on consideration of site specific information, panel member experience, fish passage
industry experience, and conceptual-level calculations incorporating facility size, capacity, and
design. Within the overall evaluation process, the BPT will be used to help score passage
alternatives on the relative effectiveness for passing fish. The BPT is intended to evaluate the
success of alternatives in passing downstream migrants from immediately above the reservoir to
immediately below the dam. It not a life-cycle model, but only considers outmigrant survival
and passage during transit of the dam and reservoir.
Upstream fish passage facility concepts at Watana Dam are expected to comprise a limited range
of entrance, transport and release options; and factors affecting the performance of these
concepts are relatively well understood in the industry. Therefore, a biological performance tool
to evaluate upstream passage alternatives is thought to be unnecessary at this time. Although
downstream fish passage alternatives at Watana Dam could be evaluated without the use of a
biological performance tool, the science of downstream fish passage is less developed than
upstream passage, and results in the industry can vary widely depending on site specific
conditions. Additionally, downstream passage involves the integration of fish movement,
periodicity, channel and flow conditions, dam and reservoir features, and project operations.
Rather than relying on panel members to mentally integrate these factors, the BPT will provide a
structured process to calculate downstream fish passage effectiveness as the proportion of
outmigrants successfully passed downstream of Watana Dam. The model can be used to provide
information on facility sizing, siting, range of operations, and effectiveness of individual facility
concepts. It can also be used to evaluate the relative sensitivity of data assumptions and
associated research needs.
Chinook Salmon have been proposed for consideration as the priority species in evaluating fish
passage alternatives because they are the only documented species present in the Upper River
with an obligate anadromous life history. Other target species may benefit from passage
provisions and discussions regarding their relative importance for evaluating different passage
alternatives are continuing. However, Chinook Salmon smolts must exhibit downstream
migrations to fulfill their life history, whereas the motivation for downstream movements by
other species is less clear. In addition, our relative understanding of response variables such as
collection rate and mortality rate is generally greater for salmon than for other species. The
degree of uncertainty in modeling these variables limits the value of the BPT for other species
such as Burbot and Arctic Grayling. For this reason, the BPT is currently focused on evaluating
downstream passage alternatives exclusively for Chinook Salmon outmigrants.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A- Page 2 October 2015
Model outputs include the number of outmigrants that pass the Project (Project outmigrants),
outmigrant mortalities, and the number of outmigrants remaining in the reservoir from a
theoretical 10,000 outmigrants annually entering the reservoir over the user-specified
outmigration season. The selection of 10,000 outmigrants is an arbitrary annual starting
condition; it serves as a normalizing factor to provide comparative evaluations between
downstream passage alternatives. The model output, in terms of the number of Project
outmigrants, is not a function of any actual estimated fish production from tributaries, but
represents that proportion of the initial 10,000 fish assumed to be migrating into the reservoir
that make it downstream past the dam. The BPT will not estimate the number of outmigrants
entering the reservoir, nor the number of adults returning to the Project. This evaluation tool
provides a relative comparison of alternative performance and should not be considered an
indication of the future passage rate of constructed facilities.
To date, evidence of Chinook Salmon spawning in the Upper River has been limited to the
Oshetna River and Kosina Creek. Thus, these two tributaries are included in the BPT as possible
input sources from which juvenile Chinook Salmon would enter the reservoir. Because a
mainstem collector upstream of the Oshetna River confluence also was identified as a potential
collection location during the brainstorming process, the BPT has been developed to
accommodate the potential for juvenile Chinook Salmon inputs to the reservoir from the
mainstem. The total of 10,000 theoretical Chinook Salmon outmigrants from the system can be
apportioned to these three input sources by the user.
An inclusive approach was taken in accommodating different collection locations in the BPT,
reflecting the current state of potential downstream collection alternatives following recent
brainstorming and refinement efforts. As the feasibility study progresses, some collection
locations may be eliminated from further consideration. However, the BPT is being developed
to accommodate evaluation of any one or a combination of the collection locations identified in
Figure A-1. The model allows for collection facility concepts at the following general locations:
dam, reservoir (multiple locations), mainstem Susitna River, and tributary (i.e., Oshetna River
and Kosina Creek). For the purposes of routing fish through the Project, a mid-reservoir
collection location is included downstream of Kosina Creek and an upper-reservoir collection
location is included downstream of the Oshetna River below the upstream reservoir extent during
low pool. Because the Oshetna River joins the mainstem Susitna River several miles upstream
of the reservoir’s full pool extent, two potential mainstem collection locations could be
evaluated, either downstream or upstream of the Oshetna River.
The BPT is an executable program developed using Visual Basic 2010 to quantify the expected
response of outmigrants to conditions encountered along migratory pathways through Watana
Dam and reservoir. The BPT is based on the evaluation of daily inflow, outflow and reservoir
water surface elevation at Watana Dam over a predetermined period. The proportion of the
theoretical 10,000 outmigrants that successfully pass downstream of Watana Dam is determined
by collection and mortality rates (i.e., response functions) assigned to available migratory
pathways or associated with reservoir rearing. If fish remain in the reservoir, they may rear and
subsequently pass downstream, or be exposed to mortality associated with predation, water
quality, harvest and other factors. Figure A-2 shows conceptual passage routes as well as the
steps at which various response functions (i.e., collection rates, collection mortality rates, and
reservoir mortality rates) are applied in the model. In order of preference, biological response
functions will be developed based on 1) site-specific, 2) region-specific, or 3) species-specific
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A- Page 3 October 2015
life history information depending on data availability. Performance functions for facility
concepts will be based on the results of evaluations at similar facilities and/or similar
environments. Ultimately, response functions will reflect assumptions regarding fish behavior
and the effectiveness of various downstream fish passage facility concepts based on best
professional judgment. A response function can be applied across multiple passage alternatives
(and the facility concepts of which they are comprised) for a comparative analysis or can be
modified specific to each alternative as part of sensitivity analyses. Beyond collection and
mortality response functions, other user-defined model inputs include migration periodicity and a
fish-flow response function that apportions the timing of fish entry to the reservoir on the basis
of stream flow. Table A-1 provides a description of response functions and other parameters that
form the basis of the BPT, and identifies likely information sources for each.
Within the BPT framework, the user apportions fish entering the reservoir from three possible
sources (Figure A-2); any fish from the Oshetna River would enter the upper reservoir, while fish
from Kosina Creek would enter mid-reservoir. The theoretical 10,000 outmigrants can be
apportioned by the user based on the observed distribution of Chinook Salmon or other factors
deemed important by the user.
Various permutations of possible collection facility concepts can be accommodated by the BPT.
Each of the collection locations shown in Figure A-1 could be evaluated as a single collector, or
in conjunction with one or more other collectors. For example, a dam collector could be
evaluated independently by setting the collection rate functions of all other locations to zero.
Alternatively, an Oshetna River collector could be operated first and any remaining fish that pass
downstream through the reservoir would be available to a dam collector.
As an example of the BPT framework shown in Figure A-2, the percentage of Chinook Salmon
smolts successfully passed downstream of Watana Dam under an alternative utilizing a dam
collector incorporates the percentage of fish surviving the reservoir, the percentage of reservoir
survivors collected in and surviving the fish passage facility, and the percentage of reservoir
survivors not collected by the fish passage facility that are entrained and survive passage through
the dam (i.e., via turbines, cone valves, or spill). The model output would provide numbers of
surviving system outmigrants, mortalities, and uncollected fish remaining in the reservoir at the
end of the model period.
The results of the BPT will be used to score the relative performance of downstream fish passage
alternatives in collecting and passing outmigrants past Watana Dam as part of the evaluation
matrix. The evaluation matrix will consider biological performance as a criterion, but fish
passage alternatives also will be scored based other criteria as listed below.
• Biological Criteria
o Potential for biological monitoring
o Compatibility with upstream passage facilities
o Effects on other species
o Adaptability of collection and passage
• Technical Criteria
o Functional precedent
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A- Page 4 October 2015
o Simplicity of operations and maintenance
o Ice/debris management and structure durability
o Availability of utilities
o Safety of operation
o Access to collection, holding, transport, and release facilities
o Compatibility with project operations
• Other Criteria
o Public safety
o Land rights
o Permitting and environmental impact
The goal of Study of Fish Passage Feasibility at Watana Dam (RSP 9.11, AEA 2012) is to assess
the technical and biological feasibility, including biological performance, of fish passage at
Watana Dam. After an initial set of fish passage concepts is identified during the brainstorming
workshop, they will be refined and developed into fish passage alternatives that will be evaluated
for their relative performance. The results of the BPT can be used as one of several criteria to
evaluate the feasibility of alternatives. This model is a tool at the disposal of the Fish Passage
Technical Team that can be employed during the feasibility assessment process. The value of
using the BPT will depend on the degree of certainty in model inputs, which in turn will depend
on the level of existing information. The BPT may also help in identifying what data are
important and where uncertainty has the greatest influence. Applying the BPT to the full suite of
individual facility concepts identified during brainstorming sessions would be impractical and
would not provide meaningful results in terms of system outputs. Rather, the BPT is best applied
after facility concepts are pre-screened and develop into a set of passage alternatives.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A- Page 5 October 2015
2. LITERATURE CITED
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2012. Revised Study Plan: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project FERC Project No. 14241. December 2012. Prepared for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission by the Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/study-plan.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A- Page 6 October 2015
3. TABLES
Table A-1. Description of Biological Performance Tool input parameters and likely data sources.
Category Parameter Description/units Source data
Physical Environment
Reservoir Inflow Daily flow (cfs) at Kosina Cr., Oshetna R., and
Upper River mainstem.
Tributary gauging efforts and
hydrologic analysis.
Reservoir
Morphology Size and shape of reservoir
Reservoir Water
Surface
Elevation
Average daily reservoir water surface elevations (ft)
for a given operational scenario.
Provided for 61-yr period by Project
operations model. OS1b and ILF-1
currently available.
Timing of fall
freeze-up and
spring break-up
Will influence operational periods for collection
facilities.
Results from Ice Processes Study
(7.6).
Reservoir
Conditions
Will influence whether reservoir transit positively
(e.g., increased productivity or rearing/overwintering
habitat) or negatively (e.g., increased predation or
adverse conditions) affects outmigrant survival.
Water Quality Modeling Study (5.6)
will provide information on reservoir
flow/circulation, mixing, thermal
dynamics and stratification, sediment
transport, and nutrient fate.
Generation
Flows
Hourly flow (cfs) through turbines for a given
operational scenario. Will influence
Provided for 61-yr period by Project
operations model. OS1b and ILF-1
currently available.
Cone Valve
Flows
Hourly flow (cfs) through cone valves for a given
operational scenario.
Provided for 61-yr period by Project
operations model. OS1b and ILF-1
currently available.
Operational
Scenarios
Will influence reservoir pool levels, magnitude and
timing of flow releases, collection rates and passage
facility operational periods.
Operations model.
Other Studies Tributary delta formation, bank erosion, LWD, timing
and type of organic debris.
Fish Migration
Outmigrant
Source
Total of 10,000 theoretical Chinook Salmon
outmigrants entering reservoir from documented
Chinook Salmon sources (Kosina Cr. and Oshetna
R.) and/or mainstem above Oshetna R. confluence.
Can be user-apportioned based on
basin-specific considerations (e.g.,
drainage area, documented Chinook
Salmon distribution).
Life Stage / Life
History
Some model parameters will vary by life stage (i.e.,
age-0 vs. age-1). The BPT can be run
independently for each potential outmigrant life
stage.
Uncertainty remains as to the
proportional age of Chinook Salmon
outmigrants from the Upper River,
particularly post-impoundment.
Migration
Periodicity
Migration distribution of all juvenile life stages at a
specific location, e.g., mouth of trib, at dam, etc.
Units expressed as weekly frequency of occurrence
over entire year. Values may differ by life stage
(age-0 vs. age-1).
Local data from screw traps at
Kosina Cr., Oshetna R., and dam
site or adjusted from Middle River
traps. Sampling periods restricted
by ice/flow. May not represent early
life stages migrating prior to ice
breakup.
Reservoir
Mortality
Daily mortality rate applied to outmigrant cohort
upon reservoir entry. Reflects factors such as
predation, water quality, and natural mortality.
No local information. Literature
based assumptions applied to site
conditions.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A- Page 7 October 2015
Category Parameter Description/units Source data
Travel Time
Migration rate in miles/day from reservoir entry to
collection/passage. Affects application of daily
reservoir mortality rate and collection-related
reservoir hydrology. Total travel time depends on
factors including outmigrant source drainage,
lifestage, temperature, reservoir pool level, collection
location, and assumptions regarding reservoir
rearing.
No local information on reservoir
travel time. Literature based
assumptions applied to site condition
Reservoir Fish
Populations
Expected development of reservoir-based fish
populations (could affect predation, reservoir rearing
opportunities
FSP 9.10: The Future Watana
Reservoir Fish Community and Risk
of Entrainment Study.
Collection/ passage
Collection
Location
Allows for selection of tributary (Kosina Cr. or
Oshetna River), mainstem (above or below Oshetna
R. confluence), reservoir (upper or mid), or dam
collector locations.
Suite of potential locations identified
in brainstorming exercise and refined
during feasibility study. Can be
user-specified and include one or
more locations.
Collection/
passage rate
Proportion of outmigrants encountering a
collector/passage route entrance that is collected or
passes through that route.
Dependent on facility design. From
evaluations of similar existing
facilities or based on professional
judgment.
Route-specific
Mortality
Mortality rate applied to daily outmigrants at each
collector/passage route. Reflects mortality during
collection, transport, and release. Includes
predation, screen impingement, and mechanical
injury. Values may differ by collection
technology/passage route and can be flow
dependent.
Dependent on facility design. From
evaluations of similar existing
facilities or based on professional
judgment.
Operational
Periodicity
Annual period (date range) during which ice/flow
conditions and project operations would allow
collector to operate. May differ based on collection
location and technology. Binary function,
independent of collection rate.
Results from Ice Processes Study
(7.6), tributary gauging, and
operations model.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A- Page 8 October 2015
4. FIGURES
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A - Page 9 October 2015
Figure A-1. Potential downstream passage collection locations for the purpose of routing outmigrants through the Biological Performance Tool.
Tributary CollectorReservoir CollectorDam Collector Mainstem Collector
WATANA DAM SITE
FULL POOL
EXTENT
LOW POOL
EXTENT
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A - Page 10 October 2015
Figure A-2. Conceptual framework of the Biological Performance Tool showing potential outmigrant passage routes, collection locations, and collection
rate and mortality functions.
Mainstem Migrants (n=x)
Mainstem / Upper-
Reservoir Collections
Surviving Migrants Passed Downstream
Turbine
Passage
Cone Valve
Passage
Oshetna River
Migrants (n=y)
Oshetna River
Tributary Collections
Dam
Collections
Kosina Creek
Migrants (n=z)
Kosina Creek
Tributary Collections
Mainstem
Collections
Mid -Reservoir
Collections
Collection/Passage Mortality FunctionCollection Rate Function
Reservoir
Remnant*
*Fish remaining in reservoir at end of model period Reservoir Mortality Function
Theoretical total annual Chinook migrants (x + y + z) = 10,000
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 October 2015
APPENDIX B: INFORMATION ITEM B12. SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL
INFORMATION
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B - Page 1 October 2015
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this information item (B12) is to summarize existing biological information that
is pertinent to developing fish passage alternatives at Watana Dam. This summary is intended to
organize a simple framework for consideration during the brainstorming and identification of all
possible alternatives. This summary includes a conceptual model for select species (i.e.,
Chinook Salmon, Arctic Grayling, and Burbot) and tables that summarize information related to
collection, sorting, and design requirements for upstream and downstream passage facilities.
2. CONCEPTUAL MODELS FOR REPRESENTATIVE SPECIES
Chinook Salmon have been proposed for consideration as the priority species in evaluating fish
passage alternatives because they are the only documented species present in the Upper River
with an obligate anadromous life history. However, other target species may benefit from
passage provisions and discussions regarding their relative importance for evaluating different
passage alternatives are continuing. This section provides conceptual models for a subset of
species that reflect the range of body sizes, life histories, and swimming abilities of fish that
could potentially benefit from passage facilities. In addition to Chinook Salmon, conceptual
models for Arctic Grayling and Burbot are provided.1 Whereas some information exists
regarding populations of these species in the Upper Susitna River under existing conditions,
empirical information under post-impoundment conditions is not available. Thus, these
conceptual models are intended to provide a framework within which the advantages and
disadvantages of different passage alternatives can be considered based on our current
understanding of the species and our expectations following impoundment.
2.1. Chinook Salmon
The following section provides a conceptual model for the segment of the Susitna River Chinook
Salmon population that may use fish passage facilities at Watana Dam. Although some data is
available regarding Chinook Salmon in the Upper Susitna River under existing conditions,
empirical information regarding this population segment under post-impoundment conditions is
not available nor yet attainable. For this reason, the following conceptual model provides a
framework for addressing Chinook salmon passage considerations.
Other Pacific salmon species have been identified for consideration by the Fish Passage
Technical Team (FPTT). However, only Chinook Salmon have been documented in the Upper
River. Moreover, for the purposes of the feasibility study, Chinook Salmon are considered
sufficiently representative of other salmon species; they are large-bodied, strong swimmers with
an obligate anadromous life history that exhibit life stage periodicities generally similar to other
1 Arctic lamprey also represent a unique species with respect to passage requirements. However, this species has not been
documented upstream of Devils Canyon. Moreover, discussions to date amongst the Fish Passage Technical Team have
assumed that specific technical provisions could be added to various passage alternatives to accommodate lamprey based on
criteria established elsewhere for this taxon.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B - Page 2 October 2015
salmon (e.g., late summer/early fall spawning, migrate downstream as sub-yearlings and
yearlings).
2.1.1. Life History Pattern in Existing Environment
Chinook Salmon life history data are derived from recent studies by AEA (AEA 2014) and
ADF&G (Buckwalter 2011). Adults migrate upstream past the proposed dam site from mid-July
to early-August and have been documented moving into the Oshetna and Kosina watersheds.
Spawning has been documented in both the Oshetna River and Kosina Creek based on historic
and recent observations and fish capture. In 2013 and 2014, juvenile Chinook Salmon were
captured in these tributaries during summer months and also in downstream migrant traps
located near tributary mouths. The size range of juveniles that were captured in traps (46 to 114
mm) indicates that some juveniles migrate out of the tributary into the mainstem Susitna River
during their first summer of life, while others rear in Kosina Creek for more than one year, and
migrate downstream as yearlings. Data from July 2014 included captures of Chinook smolts at
the Upper River mainstem downstream migrant trap (at approximately RM 200) as well as in
mainstem off-channel habitats further upstream.
2.1.2. Expectations Following Impoundment
The construction of a dam will present migratory and passage challenges to this species.
Additionally, the impoundment will dramatically alter habitat characteristics within the Susitna
River as well as the lower reaches of a major tributary used by Chinook Salmon. In terms of
migratory impacts, both adult and juvenile life stages will be affected. For adults the timing of
migration in the vicinity of the dam could be altered due to changes in the hydrograph (timing
and velocity) and/or water temperature in the tailrace and downstream environs. Those same
factors can potentially affect juveniles as well. Experience in other river systems has revealed
that migration timing and speed are sensitive to both water temperature and water velocity. Any
shift from baseline conditions is difficult to predict until operations are finalized and effects on
water flow/velocity and temperature downstream from the project are analyzed. However, water
quality models are being developed that will help us to predict both reservoir and riverine
conditions under future operational scenarios (Study Plan Section 5.6 – Water Quality
Modeling).
Within the reservoir, if adults are released in the forebay, observations from other impounded
river systems suggest that Chinook can successfully navigate reservoirs in route to destination
tributaries (e.g., Keefer et al. 2004, 2006, 2008). Observations from populations inhabiting river
systems with lakes in the migratory path exhibit the same behavior. We do not expect the
reservoir to impede adult migration. In contrast, with respect to juveniles the reservoir will
likely impede migration downstream. Water velocity will decrease dramatically, diminishing an
important migratory cue, thereby slowing the migration seaward, increasing exposure to
predators, and decreasing the probability of survival through the project area.
An additional consideration may be needed regarding tributaries where the water elevation in the
reservoir will provide access to new streams suitable for, but not currently inhabited by, Chinook
Salmon. Successful colonization of virgin streams requires both access (flooded natural barriers)
and availability of habitat suitable to promote successful spawning, egg incubation and juvenile
rearing. Fish passage alternatives will consider the possibility of colonization into any tributary
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B - Page 3 October 2015
with newly accessible habitat due to inundation from the reservoir; at this time it is thought that
Deadman Creek is the only Upper River tributary that meets this description.
The dam structure itself will be a direct impediment to passage, although our collective
experience at numerous other dam sites suggests there are viable options for safely passing adults
with negligible effects on survival. However, dams can have a negative effect on downstream
migrating juveniles that encounter the structures. Not all fish will be able to locate passage
routes, and those that do will incur varying levels of mortality associated with the specific route.
Providing suitable and effective juvenile passage for anadromous salmonids at dams has proved
to be a challenging endeavor at sites throughout the Pacific Northwest. Solutions are usually
site-specific and tailored to the unique environmental conditions and operational constraints at
the project. The FPTTis charged with evaluating the feasibility of various passage options to
optimize fish passage success at the dam for both juvenile and adult life stages.
2.1.3. Anticipated Impact on the Chinook Population
Viable self-sustaining salmon populations are dependent on successful passage and suitable
migration conditions to access critical habitats. However, the existence of effective passage
facilities does not necessarily ensure a positive outcome for the Chinook Salmon population in
the Upper River. Given the variety of uncertainties regarding the effects of impoundment at this
site, it is difficult to predict the net effect at the population level with the data and analyses
currently in hand. We have noted that creation of the impoundment may affect habitat-driven
life history processes separate from alterations to the migratory corridor. Inundation of currently
productive habitat may be offset by providing access to new productive streams or stream
segments. Post-impoundment spawning and rearing habitat potential will likely weigh heavily in
any final determination of total effects at the population level. Such a population-level
evaluation is beyond the scope of the FPTT.
2.2. Arctic Grayling
Arctic Grayling, a salmonid of moderate size and swimming ability, are among the most
abundant fish species in the Upper River (AEA 2014, Delaney et al. 1981). They exhibit
movement along the mainstem river and between tributaries. As such, grayling are the preferred
surrogate to represent other moderately-sized non-anadromous salmonid and catostomid (i.e.,
longnose sucker) species in considering fish passage alternatives.
2.2.1. Life History Pattern in Existing Environment
In recent Upper River surveys, grayling were distributed throughout the mainstem river, in the
majority of tributaries surveyed, and in multiple lakes (AEA 2014). After migrating from
overwintering habitat that is thought to include the mainstem Susitna River (Sundet 1986),
spawning occurs in tributaries during the spring. Spawning typically occurs in clear, non-glacial
tributaries soon after ice breakup. Spawning has been documented in May and early June but
timing can vary among tributaries (Sundet and Wenger 1984; Sundet and Pechek 1985).
Spawning typically occurs in upper extents of tributaries but also has been documented near
tributary mouths (Sundet and Wenger 1984). After spawning, and throughout the open water
period, adults remain in spawning tributaries or move into nearby tributaries to feed; they have
also been found using main channel and off-channel habitats associated with the mainstem.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B - Page 4 October 2015
Recent PIT tagging and radio-telemetry efforts showed grayling moving between several Upper
River tributaries, including Kosina Creek, Oshetna River, Goose Creek and Tyone River (AEA
2014). Most juvenile grayling appear to use their natal tributaries for at least one year before
moving between the mainstem and other tributary habitats (Schmidt et al. 1983).
Although found in some lakes, most grayling in the Upper River appear to exhibit a fluvial life
history. Recent studies found numerous radiotagged grayling moving downstream past the Dam
site during the open water period as well as from the mainstem into Upper River tributaries.
During the winter, radiotagged grayling continued to move out of Upper River tributaries and
also showed downstream movement in the mainstem, from below of Kosina Creek past the Dam
site to overwinter upstream of Devils Island.
2.2.2. Expectations Following Impoundment
Construction of Watana Dam will present migratory and passage challenges for the segment of
the Arctic Grayling population that currently move past the dam site. While evaluations of
upstream passage facilities for grayling are limited, they have demonstrated an ability to
negotiate steep pass (Tack and Fisher 1977) and weir-type fishways (Clay 1994). However, the
timing of upstream migration could be altered by changes to the hydrograph (timing and
velocity) and/or water temperature resulting from the Project. Both water temperature (warming
to 1°C) and discharge have been identified as important stimuli for triggering grayling
movements from overwintering areas to spawning habitat in Interior and Arctic Alaska (Tack
1980).
For upstream migrants released into the reservoir and downstream migrants entering from
upstream tributaries, there is little available information to predict the ability of migrants to
successfully negotiate the reservoir in completing their migrations. Grayling may be particularly
susceptible to predation in the reservoir if a population of Lake Trout becomes established.
Following impoundment, grayling habitat in the inundation zone will shift from lotic to
lacustrine. While adfluvial arctic grayling populations exist in reservoirs elsewhere in North
America (e.g., Peterson and Ardren 2009), the degree to which a fluvial grayling population can
adapt to another life history is unclear. Studies have suggested that the degree of positive
rheotaxis exhibited by Arctic Grayling fry of fluvial parentage from the Big Hole River,
Montana is a heritable trait exceeding that exhibited by fry of lacustrine parentage (Kaya and
Jeanes 1995, Kaya 1991). Conversely, in considering the listing of fluvial Big Hole River
grayling under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that
they did not represent a distinct population segment relative to other Arctic Grayling in the
Upper Missouri River basin based on existing genetic information (USFWS 2010).
Fluvial Arctic Grayling in the Williston Reservoir Watershed, British Columbia, initially
maintained a robust population for roughly a decade following impoundment. However,
dramatic declines occurred during subsequent decades (Blackman 2002). Blackman (2002)
suggests possible mechanisms for the decline, including overfishing, competition with other
species more suited to a reservoir environment, a decline in forage and cover, and interruption of
their migration patterns by the reservoir. Clarke et al. (2007) contend that early persistence of
the robust grayling population in the Williston Reservoir was simply a reflection of residual pre-
impoundment fish that masked immediate effects. Clarke et al. (2007) suggest that the formation
of the Williston Reservoir primarily affected the grayling population by creating a migratory
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B - Page 5 October 2015
barrier that prevented grayling from fulfilling their pre-impoundment life history migrations.
Currently, grayling in this watershed are found throughout headwater streams, but the degree to
which they use the Williston Reservoir as habitat or as a migratory corridor to move among
major tributaries was unknown. Based on otolith microchemistry, Clarke et al. (2007) suggest
that grayling do not currently move into the reservoir and that the species may now be restricted
to several tributary streams with no interconnectivity.
Williston Reservoir is considerably larger than Watana Reservoir and it is unclear whether
similar effects could be expected for Susitna River grayling post-impoundment. In a recent
modeling exercise, Hawkshaw et al. (2014) evaluated the relationships between existing juvenile
grayling occurrence and habitat attributes in tributaries to Williston Reservoir. They found that
juvenile grayling occurrence was positively associated with both distance from the reservoir and
stream order (i.e., increasing stream size), but negatively associated with water temperature and
temperature variance. These results suggest that specific habitat attributes may drive the
persistence of grayling in an impounded system and that anticipated impacts of impoundment are
project-specific. Nonetheless, the habitat change in the inundation zone is an important
consideration in assessing alternatives for fish passage.
2.2.3. Anticipated Impact on the Arctic Grayling Population
Arctic Grayling exhibit complex life histories and movement patterns. Existing migrations in the
Susitna River are not yet fully understood and there is much uncertainty as to how such patterns
may shift in a post-impoundment environment. The degree to which grayling would rear in the
reservoir or use it as a migratory corridor between tributary habitat will have a profound effect
on the utility of any passage alternative. Potential scenarios that could arise for grayling
populations include: 1) isolated tributary populations, 2) an Upper River population that utilizes
the reservoir and moves between Upper River tributaries, and 3) a population that utilizes fish
passage facilities at the Dam and moves between tributary and mainstem habitat in the Upper
and Middle River. Reservoir habitat conditions and the future fish community will likely be
important determinants as to whether reservoir utilization has a positive or negative impact on
the grayling population. Reservoir water temperatures, nutrient loads, and shoreline conditions
will influence suitability for grayling and the potential presence of predatory lake trout could be
an important limiting factor. To the extent that the future physical and biological attributes of
the reservoir can be predicted, results from the completion of Study 9.10 (Future Watana
Reservoir Fish Community and Risk of Entrainment) may help clarify the anticipated impacts on
grayling movements and population expectations.
An additional confounding factor is the uncertainty associated with grayling movements. The
existing fluvial population exhibits complex movement patterns between various tributaries and
the mainstem. Given this complexity, identifying appropriate passage goals and suitable passage
alternatives with regard to collection locations and release destinations may pose a significant
challenge.
2.3. Burbot
Burbot are distinct from other Upper River fish species in several respects. Burbot exhibit both a
planktonic larval stage and a benthic or demersal orientation. Compared to salmonids, they are
weak swimmers and unlike other fishes in the Upper River, they typically spawn in the winter.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B - Page 6 October 2015
These unique traits warrant consideration as to how collection depths, water velocities, and
operational periods for different passage alternatives could influence passage effectiveness for
Burbot. Existing Burbot life history strategies and expectations following impoundment will
also influence the benefits of providing passage for this species. Because of their unique traits,
the following conceptual model has been developed to help evaluate passage alternatives with
respect to Burbot populations in the Susitna River.
2.3.1. Life History Pattern in Existing Environment
Burbot are widely distributed in both the Upper and Middle River, although their relative
abundance is low compared to most other species encountered during sampling (AEA 2014;
Delaney et al. 1981). While also found at the mouths and in the lower reaches of several smaller
tributaries of the Upper River, Burbot were most consistently observed in mainstem habitats and
throughout larger tributaries, namely the Oshetna River and its tributary the Black River (AEA
2014). In the Susitna River, spawning is thought to primarily occur from January through
February, but may extend from December to as late as April. Specific spawning areas in the
Upper River are unknown, but elsewhere in the system broadcast spawning this thought to occur
in areas influenced by mainstem flow such as tributary and slough mouths or mainstem areas
with upwelling (Schmidt et al. 1983); seasonally consistent observations in much of the Oshetna
River system suggest that spawning may also take place there. Egg incubation is poorly
understood in the Susitna River due to difficulty of sampling ice covered spawning sites during
winter (Sundet and Pechek 1985). The duration of egg incubation varies considerably with
temperature, ranging from 30 days (at 6°C) to 100 days or more (near 0°C) (Bjorn 1940,
MacCrimmon 1971, McPhail and Paragamian 2000). Based on this range, egg incubation is
estimated to occur from mid-January through April. After hatching, larval Burbot drift
downstream with the current before demersal settlement occurs; this is thought to occur by early
summer when larvae are greater than 15 mm in length (McPhail and Paragamian 2000). Juvenile
burbot were infrequently captured in the Susitna Basin (Sundet and Pechek 1985, AEA 2014).
Juveniles are believed utilize habitats proximal to the spawning areas from which they originate,
although they have been captured in downstream migrant traps (Schmidt et al. 1983; AEA 2014)
suggesting some degree of dispersal occurs.
Burbot exhibit diverse life history patterns (e.g., lacustrine, adfluvial, fluvial, and resident)
throughout their range and the extent of their migrations can vary considerably. Burbot are
typically sedentary with the exception of pre- and post-spawning migrations. In the Susitna
River, predominant life history patterns have not been discerned, although fluvial life histories
appear to exist. Spawning migrations generally range from 5-40 miles (100-mile maximum),
beginning as early as mid-August and continuing through winter until spawning (Schmidt and
Estes 1983, Sundet 1986). Although migrations exhibited by Burbot upstream of Devils Canyon
are not fully understood, recent radiotelemetry efforts confirm movement along the mainstem
during winter; Burbot tagged in the Middle River moved both upstream and downstream in the
mainstem and Burbot tagged in the Upper River moved upstream in the mainstem. While tagged
Burbot have not been documented passing the Watana Dam site, no fish were tagged between the
Dam site and Devils Canyon.
Given the weak swimming ability of Burbot and the high velocities in Devils Canyon, upstream
connectivity between populations below Devils Canyon and the Upper River is currently
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B - Page 7 October 2015
unlikely 2. However, larval drift and any downstream migration exhibited by other life stages
from the Upper River would provide a source of recruitment for populations downstream of
Devils Canyon. In addition, mixing of Upper River Burbot populations with those in the Middle
River upstream of Devils Canyon is presumably possible under current conditions. Likewise,
individual Burbot may currently be able to utilize habitat (i.e., spawning, foraging, or
overwintering) both upstream and downstream of the Dam site.
2.3.2. Expectations Following Impoundment
Construction of Watana Dam will present migratory and passage challenges for the segment of
the Burbot population that currently move past the dam site. A limited number of studies have
documented Burbot using upstream passage structures such as nature-like (Calles 2005, Calles
and Greenberg 2007, Zitek et al. 2012), Denil (Schwalme et al. 1985), vertical slot (Schwalme et
al. 1985, Zitek et al. 2012), and step-and-pool (Slavik and Bartoš 2002) fishways. However, the
timing of upstream burbot migration could be altered by changes to the hydrograph (timing and
velocity) and/or water temperature resulting from the Project. For example, in the Kootenai
River, Montana/Idaho, high winter discharges from Libby Dam disrupt Burbot spawning
migration in downstream reaches, both as a function of increased velocities and warmer water
temperatures from operational flow releases at the dam (Hardy and Paragamian 2012).
There is little available information regarding the need for, or feasibility of downstream passage
measures for Burbot at hydroelectric projects, although there are examples of robust Burbot
populations inhabiting reservoir systems. The Wind River system in Wyoming is a regulated
watershed with several reservoirs, irrigation diversions, and a hydroelectric/flood control project.
There are no passage facilities although Burbot have persisted in the system (Hubert et al. 2007).
Extensive emigration has been observed from natural lakes higher in the system, which is
thought to serve as a recruitment source for downstream reaches. Connectivity was not
identified as a limiting factor, although losses to irrigation canals, along with high rates of
harvest and habitat degradation, are considered the primary issues affecting Burbot persistence in
the watershed.
Following impoundment by Watana Dam, Burbot habitat in the inundation zone will shift from
lotic to lacustrine. Fish exhibiting a fluvial life history would be restricted to the Oshetna River
system and the mainstem upstream of the reservoir. Assuming that Burbot populations are able
to exhibit plasticity in life history strategy (i.e., spawning habitat), a more pronounced adfluvial
population may develop in which fish forage and rear in the reservoir and spawn in tributaries or
the mainstem upstream of the reservoir. Burbot are also known to spawn in lakes, typically
utilizing near-shore shallows or off-shore reefs and shoals (McPhail and Paragamian 2000). To
the extent such habitat would persist under post-impoundment conditions, a strictly lacustrine
population may also develop.
With respect to Burbot populations upstream of the Watana Dam site, the reservoir may create
conditions more favorable than currently exist for certain life stages. Citing a repeated pattern
observed in Europe, Siberia, and North America, McPhail (1997) explains that Burbot are often
2 Persistence of Devils Canyon as an upstream migration barrier for adult Burbot assumes that velocities would still exceed their
swimming ability during the low flows that typically occur in winter, when upstream movements have been documented
elsewhere.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B - Page 8 October 2015
rare before becoming the dominant species within a few years after impoundment. As possible
explanations, he suggests that larval survival in a reservoir is likely greater than in flowing water,
and that the amount of forage species generally increases in reservoirs. The amount of suitable
spawning habitat, reservoir productivity, thermal regime, and operations could also influence the
degree to which impoundment may benefit Burbot populations in the Upper River.
Larval drift is a primary component of downstream dispersal. Post-impoundment, lower water
velocities in the reservoir would likely restrict the extent of larval drift. Depending on the degree
to which larval drift under existing free-flowing conditions extends past the Dam site, the
reservoir would potentially restrict downstream recruitment to the Middle River. There are no
known examples of larval burbot being collected for downstream passage, but the general
fragility of this lifestage would suggest that such collection efforts with acceptable levels of
mortality would be unlikely. Burbot are also a physoclistus species, meaning their swim bladder
has no connection to the gut. Potential passage alternatives should account for potential injury
associated with any transport from depth at rates that exceed the capacity for burbot to acclimate
to resulting pressure changes.
2.3.3. Anticipated Impact on the Burbot Population
Depending on site-specific knowledge of seasonal habitat use, maintaining habitat, genetic, and
recruitment connectivity between the Upper and Middle River for Burbot populations could
benefit from effective fish passage provisions at the dam. However, the degree to which viable
self-sustaining Burbot populations would rely on such connectivity remains unclear. If sufficient
suitable habitat exists for each life stage, both in the Upper River and in the Middle River reach
above Devils Canyon, then viable Burbot populations would presumably persist, even in the
absence of passage such as has occurred in the Wind River basin, Wyoming. However,
developing specific predictions regarding life history and population level effects of the Project
on Burbot is beyond the scope of the FPTT. In order to accommodate burbot, passage
alternatives would need to consider the timing of Burbot movements (e.g., winter spawning),
their predominantly benthic orientation, and weak swimming ability.
3. COLLECTION, SORTING, AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
The detailed information described in Information Items B1-B11 has been filtered down to those
data that are critical for development of passage alternative and is presented below in two tables.
This tabular format provides a concise reference for use by the design team during the
development of fish passage alternatives. Information relevant to upstream passage is presented
in Table B-1 while information relevant to downstream passage is presented in Table B-2. In
addition, these tables also have been prepared so as to stimulate discussion regarding
management considerations that will influence fish passage facility alternatives, and as such,
should be considered a work-in-progress to be completed and refined during the course of
alternative development.
As described in the conceptual models, some fish species have similar traits (e.g., body size,
swimming ability, life stage periodicity, or general migratory behavior) that could influence the
performance of various passage alternatives. Thus, species are grouped in Table B-1 and Table
B-2 based on such similarities. Pacific Salmon fall under a single group based on their similar
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B - Page 9 October 2015
life stage periodicities, swimming ability, and body size. Although they exhibit a variety of life
history periodicities (e.g., spring vs. fall spawning), non-anadromous salmonids (grayling, char,
trout, and whitefish species) and Longnose Sucker (Catostomidae) have been grouped together
as a Salmonid Guild based on similarities in their relative body size, swimming ability, and scale
of migratory behavior. Given the unique life history periodicity, benthic orientation, and weak
swimming ability of Burbot and the unique locomotory traits of Arctic Lamprey, these two
species are each listed separately.
The tables are organized by fish species; the list of species includes those targeted for fish
passage as well as species that may need to be considered during design due to potential
collection, holding, handling, or sorting concerns. For example Lake Trout are on the
downstream passage list due to their voracious predatory behavior and an anticipated need to
minimize risk of exposure of salmon smolts to this species during passage. The information
presented in the Species Information section of the tables summarizes our current understanding
of the life history and distribution of the fishes in the Susitna River.
The development of fish passage alternatives includes the identification of appropriate release
destinations for any fishes collected. The Release Destination section of the tables reflects an
initial suite of potential destinations. As an example, potential release destinations for adult
Chinook Salmon would be in the reservoir above the dam, while for juvenile Chinook Salmon
collected above the dam an appropriate release would be below the dam. For discussion
purposes, these examples are reflected in Tables B-1 and B-2. Table B-2 includes an additional
section that describes possible Collection Location options; the suite of potential collection
locations will be developed further as part of the alternative development.
Each table also provides information under the Design Data section that should be considered in
the development of fish passage concepts. This includes the identification of potential
piscivorous predators, the relative swimming ability of each species (based on Information Item
B6: Life Stage Specific Passage Information), and estimates of the size and number of fish to be
handled. Certain criteria (e.g., design length and weight) may be needed at later stages of
alternative development and have been included, herein, as placeholders.
Lastly, each table summarizes our current understanding of the run timing exhibited by each
species/life stage. Run timing is based on Information Item B3: Periodicity and may be refined
as additional site-specific data becomes available.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B - Page 10 October 2015
4. REFERENCES
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2014. Initial Study Report: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project FERC Project No. 14241. June 2014. Prepared for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission by the Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/type/documents.
Bjorn, E.E. 1940. Preliminary observations and experimental study of the ling, Lota maculosa
(LeSueur), in Wyoming. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 69: 192-196.
Blackman, B.G. 2002. Radio telemetry studies of Arctic Grayling migrations to overwinter,
spawning, and summer feeding areas in the Parsnip River watershed 1996–97.
Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program Report no. 263, 25 pp. +
appendices. http://www.bchydro.com/pwcp/reports2.html.
Buckwalter, J.D. 2011. Synopsis of ADF&G’s Upper Susitna Drainage Fish Inventory, August
2011. ADF&G Division of Sport fish. Prepared November 2011.
Calles, O. 2005. Re-establishment of connectivity for fish populations in regulated rivers. PhD
thesis, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden, 56 pages and 6 appendices.
Calles, E.O. and Greenberg, L.A. 2007. The use of two nature-like fishways by some fish
species in the Swedish River Emån. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 16: 183–190. doi:
10.1111/j.1600-0633.2006.00210.x
Clarke, A.D., K.H. Telmer, and J. Shrimpton. 2007. Habitat use and movement patterns for a
fluvial species, the Arctic Grayling, in a watershed impacted by a large reservoir:
evidence from otolith microchemistry. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44(6), 1156-1165.
Clay, C.H. 1994. Design of fishways and other fish facilities. CRC Press.
Delaney, K., D. Crawford, L. Dugan, S. Hale, K. Kuntz, B. Marshall, J. Mauney, J. Quinn, K.
Roth, P Suchanek, R. Sundet, and M. Stratton. 1981c. Resident fish investigation on the
Upper Susitna River. Phase I Final Draft Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. 157 pp. APA Document # 316.
Hardy, R., and Paragamian, V.L. 2013. A synthesis of Kootenai River Burbot stock history and
future management goals. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 142(6), 1662-
1670.
Hawkshaw, Sarah C.F., Michael P. Gillingham, and J. Mark Shrimpton. “Habitat characteristics
affecting occurrence of a fluvial species in a watershed altered by a large
reservoir.” Ecology of Freshwater Fish 23.3 (2014): 383-394.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B - Page 11 October 2015
Hubert, W., Dufek, D., Deromedi, J., Johnson, K., Roth, S. and Skates, D. (2008) Burbot in the
Wind River Drainage of Wyoming: knowledge of stocks and management issues. In:
Burbot: Biology, Management, and Culture (eds /miscellaneoustext> V.L. Paragamian
and D.H. Bennett). American Fisheries Society, Symposium 59, Bethesda, MD, pp. 187–
200.
Kaya, C.M. 1991. Rheotactic Differentiation between Fluvial and Lacustrine Populations of
Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus), and Implications for the Only Remaining
Indigenous Population of Fluvial “Montana Grayling.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences, 48(1), 53-59.
Kaya, C.M., and Jeanes, E.D. 1995. Notes: Retention of Adaptive Rheotactic Behavior by F1
Fluvial Arctic Grayling. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 124(3), 453-
457.
Keefer, M.L., C.C. Caudill, C.A. Peery, and C.T. Boggs. 2008. Non‐direct homing behaviours
by adult Chinook Salmon in a large, multi‐stock river system. Journal of Fish
Biology, 72(1), 27-44.
Keefer, M.L., C.C. Caudill, C.A. Peery, and T.C. Bjornn. 2006. Route selection in a large river
during the homing migration of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 63(8), 1752-1762.
Keefer, M.L., C.A. Peery, T.C. Bjornn, M.A. Jepson, and L.C. Stuehrenberg. 2004.
Hydrosystem, dam, and reservoir passage rates of adult Chinook Salmon and steelhead in
the Columbia and Snake rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 133(6),
1413-1439.
McPhail, J.D., and Paragamian, V.L. 2000. Burbot biology and life history. Burbot: biology,
ecology, and management. American Fisheries Society, Fisheries Management Section,
Publication 1, 11-23.
McPhail, J.D. 1997. A review of Burbot (Lota lota) life-history and habitat use in relation to
compensation and improvement opportunities. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
2397: viii+37 p.
MacCrimmon, H.R. 1971. Observations on spawning of burbot in Lake Simcoe, Ontario.
Journal of Wildlife Management 23(4): 447-449.
Peterson, D.P., and W.R. Ardren. 2009. Ancestry, population structure, and conservation
genetics of Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) in the upper Missouri River, USA.
Canadian journal of fisheries and aquatic sciences, 66(10), 1758-1774.
Schmidt, D. and C. Estes. 1983. Winter aquatic studies (October 1982 - May 1983). Phase II
Data Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 269 pp. APA Document #
397.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B - Page 12 October 2015
Schmidt, D., S. Hale, D. Crawford, and P. Suchanek. 1983. Resident and juvenile anadromous
fish studies on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, 1982. Volume 3, Phase II Basic
Data Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 303 pp + appendices. APA
Documents #s 486, 487.
Schwalme, K., Mackay, W.C., and Lindner, D. 1985. Suitability of vertical slot and Denil
fishways for passing north-temperate, nonsalmonid fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences, 42(11), 1815-1822.
Slavík, O., and L. Bartoš. 2002. Factors affecting migrations of burbot. Journal of Fish Biology
60.4 (2002): 989-998.
Sundet, R.L. 1986. Winter resident fish distribution and habitat studies conducted in the Susitna
River below Devil Canyon, 1984-1985. Report No. 11, Part 1, Alaska Department of
Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage, Alaska. 80 pp. APA Document # 3062.
Sundet, R.L., and M.N. Wenger. 1984. Resident fish distribution and population dynamics in
the Susitna River below Devil Canyon. Pages 250-358 in Schmidt, D.C., S.S. Hale, D.L.
Crawford, and P.M. Suchanek, eds., Resident and juvenile anadromous fish
investigations (May - October 1983). Report No. 2, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska. APA Document # 1784.
Sundet, R.L., and S.D. Pechek. 1985. Resident fish distribution and life history in the Susitna
River below Devil Canyon. Part 3 (97 pages) in Schmidt, D.C., S.S. Hale, and D.L.
Crawford, eds., Resident and juvenile anadromous fish investigations (May - October
1984). Report No. 7, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. APA Document #
2837.
Tack, S.L. 1980. Migrations and distributions of Arctic grayling in interior and Arctic Alaska.
Alaska Dept. Fish and Game. Ann. Rep. of Prog 1980 (1979).
Tack, S.L., and J.G. Fisher. 1977. Performance of arctic grayling in a 20 foot section of model
“A” Alaska steeppass fish ladder. Final Rept., Alaska Div., Army Corps of Engineers,
Anchorage.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Revised 12-Month Finding to List the Upper Missouri River Distinct
Population Segment of Arctic Grayling as Endangered or Threatened. Federal Register
75 (175): 54708-54753
Zitek, A., K. Pacher, W. Honsig-Erlenburg, and S. Schmutz. 2012. Attraction and passage
efficiency of a fish pass within a chain of impoundments at the River Drau, Villach,
Austria. Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics. H. Mader
and J. Kraml editors. ISBN: 978-3-200-02862-3.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B - Page 13 October 2015
5. TABLES
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B - Page 14 October 2015
Table B-1. Upstream Passage Sorting Requirements and Design Data by Fish Species.
See key to notes on next page.
Species Information Release Destination A Design Data Run Timing B
Documented Distribution Life History
Species Lower River PRM 3 – 102.4 Middle River: Below DC PRM 102.4 – 153.9 Middle River: DC to Dam PRM 153.9 – 187.1 Upper River PRM 187.1 – 234.5 Anadromous Freshwater Unknown Life Stage F Down-River Below Dam Reservoir Above Dam Upstream Tributaries Head of Reservoir Cull Potential Predator Relative Swimming Ability Length Range (mm) F Fish Design Length (mm) Body Width Range (mm) Fish Design Weight (lbs) Design Peak Daily (no.) J F M A M J J A S O N D
Pacific Salmon
Chinook Salmon A Strong 550-1250 L 290 C X X
Chum salmon A Strong 550-800 L 930 C - X - -
Coho salmon A Strong 450-700 L 490 C - X - -
Sockeye salmon R A Strong 450-750 L 16,000 C X X - -
Mid-sized Salmonids/Catostomids
Arctic Grayling A Moderate 190-420 H <100 D - - - - - -
Bering cisco A Moderate 240-410 J <100 D - - -
Dolly Varden A Moderate 83-370 M <100 D - - - - - -
Humpback Whitefish A Moderate 280-350 N <100 D - X - - -
Longnose sucker A Moderate 188-670 O <100 D X X
Rainbow trout S A Moderate 200-620 P <100 D - - - -
Round Whitefish A Moderate 199-440 Q <100 D - - - -
Burbot A Weak 280-740 K <100 D - - - - - - - -
Arctic lamprey A Weak 125-320 I <100 D - - -
Other (i.e., invasive/non-native spp.) E A, J NA G NA G <100 D NA G
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B - Page 15 October 2015
Notes:
A Potential destinations provided here have been selected for discussion purposes only and are likely to change during TWG sessions and as management objectives develop.
B “X” denotes peak run-timing; “-” denotes the remaining run timing interval. For some species, periods of peak run-timing could not be discerned from available information.
C Calculated as 10% of total Upper River adult production potential reported by Barrick et al. (1983), rounded to two significant digits. For comparison, maximum daily catch by species at Curry fishwheels comprised 10.7% (Chinook), 10.4% (Chum), 8.0% (Coho),
and 7.6% (Sockeye) of total catch in 2012 (LGL 2013).
D For species that do not exhibit an obligate anadromous life history, are not abundant, or for which information is lacking to estimate potential numbers that would utilize passage facilities, “<100” was selected as an initial estimate. These values are subject to
refinement during TWG sessions.
E Northern Pike have been documented in the Lower River and their suspected distribution extends to tributaries up to the Three Rivers (Ivey 2009). The distribution of Alaska Blackfish is unknown in the Susitna River basin (AEA 2012, USFWS 2008).
F “A” denotes adult; “J” denotes juvenile. Length distinctions by life stage are based on the classifications provided in Table 4.7-1 of ISR Part A for Study Plan 9.5 (Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River). Length ranges for the
“juvenile-or-adult” category were grouped into the “adult” category for the purposes of this summary.
G “NA” indicates no available information or pending review.
H Maximum length (FL) from Arctic Grayling age-4+ and older captured upstream of Devils Canyon during 1981-1982 (Delaney et al. 1981, Sautner and Stratton 1983)
H Maximum length from Arctic Lamprey captured in the Susitna River during 1981-1982 (Schmidt et al. 1983). Neither life stages nor length-at-age information were provided; thus, this length range likely includes juveniles.
J0 Length range of age-3+ to age-6+ Bering Cisco captured in the Susitna River during 1981-1982 (ADF&G 1981, 1983).
K1 Maximum length from age-3+ to age-10+ Burbot captured upstream of Devils Canyon during 1981-1982 (Delaney et al. 1981, Sautner and Stratton 1982).
L Length range from 2012 Curry fishwheel captures (note, based on 5-cm bin sizes) (LGL 2013)
M Maximum length from sampling by HDR (2012) upstream of Devils Canyon that captured Dolly Varden ranging from 2.6 to 36.6 cm.
N Maximum length from Humpback Whitefish captured upstream of Devils Canyon by HDR (2013) and Delaney et al. (1981).
O Maximum length from longnose sucker age-4+ and older captured upstream of Devils Canyon during 1981-1982 (Delaney et al. 1981, Sautner and Stratton 1982).
P Maximum length from Rainbow Trout age-3+ and older captured in the Middle River during 1981-1983 (Delaney et al. 1981, Schmidt et al. 1983, 1984).
Q Maximum length from Round Whitefish age-6+ and older captured upstream of Devils Canyon during 1981 (Delaney et al. 1981).
R ADF&G indicated that anecdotal reports of Sockeye Salmon were made in Tsisi Lake and at the mouth of the Oshetna River, but that these were visual observations from 20 years ago that were not documented and never confirmed by any subsequent sampling.
S In 2014, one Rainbow Trout was observed in Devil Creek, upstream of impediment 3 at PRM 164.8.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B - Page 16 October 2015
Table B-2. Downstream Passage Sorting Requirements and Design Data by Fish Species.
Species Information
Collection
Location A
Release
Destination A Design Data Run Timing D
Species
Documented Distribution Life History Tributary Collector Reservoir Collector Dam Collector Below Dam Reservoir Tributaries Cull Potential Predator Length Range (mm) Fish Design Length (mm) Body Width Range (mm) Fish Design Weight (lbs) Design Peak Daily (no.) J F M A M J J A S O N D Lower River PRM 3 – 102.4 Middle River: Below DC PRM 102.4 – 153.9 Middle River: DC to Dam PRM 153.9 – 187.1 Upper River PRM 187.1 – 234.5 Anadromous Freshwater Unknown Life Stage F Pacific Salmon
Chinook Salmon J 40-120 P 9,800 B - - - X X X X -
Chum Salmon J 30-70 Q 93,000 B X X - -
Coho Salmon J 30-170 R 4,900 B - - - - X X X X - -
Sockeye Salmon W J 30-90 S 160,000 B - X X X - -
Mid-sized Salmonids/Catostomids
Arctic Grayling A 190-430 H <100 C - - -
J L 55-189 H <100 C - - - - - - -
Bering Cisco A K 240-410 J <100 C - - - - -
J NA G <100 C - - -
Dolly Varden A 83-370 M <100 C - - - - - -
J L 26-82 M <100 C - - - - - - -
Humpback Whitefish A L 280-350 T <100 C - - - - - - -
J 30-279 T <100 C - X X - -
Lake Trout A ≥300 F <100 C NA G
J <300 F <100 C
Longnose Sucker A 188-670 V <100 C - - - - -
J <188 V <100 C X - X X
Rainbow Trout X A 200-620 N <100 C - - - - X - X
J L 84-199 N <100 C - - - - - - -
Round Whitefish A L 199-440 U <100 C - - - - - -
J 20-198 U <100 C - X X - -
Burbot A 280-740 O <100 C - - - - - - - -
J 90-279 O <100 C X X - -
Arctic Lamprey J L 80-124 I <100 C - - - - - - -
Other (i.e., invasive/non-native spp.) E A, J NA G <100 C NA G
See key to notes on next page.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B - Page 17 October 2015
Notes:
A Potential collection and release locations provided here have been selected for discussion purposes only and are likely to change during TWG sessions and as management objectives develop.
B Calculated as 10% of total Upper River smolt production potential reported by Barrick et al. (1983), rounded to two significant digits.
C For species that do not exhibit an obligate anadromous life history, are not abundant, or for which information is lacking to estimate potential numbers that would utilize passage facilities, “<100” was selected as an initial estimate. These values are subject to
refinement during TWG sessions.
D “X” denotes peak run-timing; “-” denotes the remaining run timing interval. For some species, periods of peak run-timing could not be discerned from available information.
E Northern Pike have been documented in the Lower River and their suspected distribution extends to tributaries up to the Three Rivers (Ivey 2009). The distribution of Alaska blackfish is unknown in the Susitna River basin (AEA 2012, USFWS 2008).
F “A” denotes adult; “J” denotes juvenile. Length distinctions by life stage are based on the classifications provided in Table 4.7-1 of ISR Part A for Study Plan 9.5 (Study of Fish Distribution and Abundance in the Upper Susitna River). Length ranges for the
“juvenile-or-adult” category were grouped into the “adult” category for the purposes of this summary.
G “NA” indicates no available information or pending review.
H Length (FL) range of Arctic Grayling age-1+ and older captured upstream of Devils Canyon during 1981-1982 (Delaney et al. 1981, Sautner and Stratton 1983) and the length range tagged in the Upper Susitna River in 2013 (AEA 2014).
I Minimum length from Arctic Lamprey captured in the Susitna River during 1981-1982 (Schmidt et al. 1983). Adults die after spawning (Scott and Crossman 1973).
J Length range of age-3+ to age-6+ Bering Cisco captured in the Susitna River during 1981-1982 (ADF&G 1981, 1983). No lengths of Bering Cisco younger than age-3+ were reported.
K The timing of post-spawn Bering Cisco downstream migrations are unknown; in 1982, no adults were captured during winter sampling or sampling methods other than fishwheel traps (Schmidt et al. 1983). As such, post-spawn adults were assumed to move
downstream either immediately after spawning or during the spring when juvenile outmigration occurs.
L Life stages for which downstream movement periodicity is unknown tentatively include the entire open water period.
M Upstream of Devils Canyon, HDR (2012) captured Dolly Varden ranging from 2.6 to 36.6 cm FL.
N Length range of Rainbow Trout age-1+ and older captured in the Middle River during 1981-1983 (Delaney et al. 1981, Schmidt et al. 1983, 1984).
O Length range of age-0+ to age-10+ Burbot captured upstream and downstream of Devils Canyon during 1981-1982 (ADF&G 1981, Delaney et al. 1981, Sautner and Stratton 1982) and the length range tagged in the Upper Susitna River in 2013 (AEA 2014).
P Combined length range of age-0+ (3.6-9.5 cm) and age-1+ (6.1-11.7 cm) Chinook Salmon captured at the Talkeetna Station outmigrant trap in 1984 (Roth and Stratton 1985).
Q Length range of age-0+ Chum Salmon captured in the Talkeetna Station outmigrant trap in 1984 (Roth and Stratton 1985).
R Combined length range of age-0+ (2.8-8.7 cm) and age-1+ (5.1-15.0 cm) Coho Salmon captured at the Talkeetna Station outmigrant trap and age-2+ (10.9-17.4 cm) captured throughout the Susitna River in 1985 (Roth et al. 1986).
S Combined length range of age-0+ (2.5-9.1 cm) and age-1+ (5.6-10.2 cm) Sockeye Salmon captured at the Talkeetna Station outmigrant trap in 1984 (Roth and Stratton 1985).
T Minimum length reflects the smallest Humpback Whitefish captured in juvenile outmigrant traps in 1983 (Sundet and Wenger 1984), while maximum length reflects the largest adult captured upstream of Devils Canyon in 1981 (Delaney et al. 1981).
U Minimum length reflects the smallest Round Whitefish captured in juvenile outmigrant traps in 1983 (Sundet and Wenger 1984), while maximum length reflects the largest adult captured upstream of Devils Canyon in 1981 (Delaney et al. 1981).
V Minimum length reflects the smallest Longnose Sucker captured in juvenile outmigrant traps in 1983 (Sundet and Wenger 1984), while maximum length reflects the largest adult captured upstream of Devils Canyon during 1981-1982 (Delaney et al. 1981, Sautner
and Stratton 1982).
W ADF&G indicated that anecdotal observations of Sockeye Salmon were made in Tsisi Lake and at the mouth of the Oshetna River, but that these were visual observations from 20 years ago that were not documented or confirmed by any subsequent sampling.
X In 2014, one Rainbow Trout was observed in Devil Creek, upstream of impediment 3 at PRM 164.8.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 October 2015
APPENDIX C: RECONCILED BRAINSTORM CONCEPTS AND TALLY
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 1 October 2015
Upstream Brainstorm Concepts
No. Category Component Priority Description List #
1 Strategy/
Criteria
Prototype
phasing
options
1 This is a strategy that would phase installation of facilities. GLOBAL TO ALL
FACILITIES. CONSIDER OPTIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.
86
2 Strategy/
Criteria
Ability to
retrofit
1 See criteria document New
Today
3 Collection
Location
Tsusena Creek
(nature like
entrance)
1 A high gradient stream not currently used by Spring Chinook. It is used by Grayling.
Requires a barrier and attraction flow from mainstem, somewhere upstream. This
creek is just below the dam. Example from Graham Hill, built side-channel ½ mile
long. Example noted was mainly for coho, 80' head. Similar on Tualatin, bypass a
water fall. Could be used as a phased component during construction.
1
4 Collection
Location
Tsusena Creek
(constructed
fishway
entrance)
1 A high gradient stream not currently used by Spring Chinook. It is used by Grayling.
Similar to #1, but with a constructed weird entrance. Could be used as a phased
component during construction.
2
5 Collection
Location
Fog Creek
(nature like
entrance)
1 See List #1. Could be used as a phased component during construction 3
6 Collection
Location
Fog Creek
(constructed
fishway
entrance)
1 See List #2. Could be used as a phased component during construction 4
7 Collection
Location
At
Powerhouse:
Right, Left,
collection
channel
1 Conventional dam entrance. 6
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 2 October 2015
Upstream Brainstorm Concepts
No. Category Component Priority Description List #
8 Collection
Location
At new barrier
(where
appropriate,
at bridge?)
1 Goal of Idea is more focused attraction flows to fishway entrance. Could be used
as phased component during construction.
8
9 Collection
Location
Sluice tunnel
through dam.
Submerged
lock, would
need gates.
Utilize
dewatering
tunnel.
1 Duncan Dam, gated low level port used as a lock. Used for ~30 years. 500 to 1,000
bull trout over last 30 years. This idea was focused on collecting burbot. Could be a
supplement to chinook goals. COULD RECLASSIFY AS SUPPLEMENTAL ENTRANCE
FOR DEEP MIGRATING SPECIES
12
10 Collection
Location
Deep intake
below turbine
outfall
1 This idea was focused on collecting burbot. Could be a supplement to chinook
goals. COULD RECLASSIFY AS SUPPLEMENTAL ENTRANCE FOR DEEP MIGRATING
SPECIES
13
11 Collection
Location
Diversion
bypass
channel
tunnel outlet
2 Use of diversion tunnel for location/entrance. Could be used as a phased
component during construction.
11
12 Collection
Location
Downstream
of dam on
bank (left,
right)
2 This is possibly redundant with #8. It could be possible to characterize with
auxiliary entrances with #6. Intent is a conventional ladder entrance. Located at a
location downstream. Could use if fish shown to accumulate downstream.
14
13 Collection
Location
Mobile
feature (can
be relocated)
2 This is a floating fish trap in tailrace with pumped attraction water at the entrance.
It may function as an auxiliary entrance. Example is Cabinet Gorge, bull trout
floating collector (it sunk). Movable or fixed.
15
14 Collection
Location
Fishwheel 2 Could be a phased or temporary feature, or a feature used during construction. 17
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 3 October 2015
Upstream Brainstorm Concepts
No. Category Component Priority Description List #
15 Collection
Location
Batch vs
continuous
Feature 107
16 Collection
Location
Count
windows
Feature 108
17 Collection
Location
Performance
Tracking
Feature 109
18 Collection
Location
Monitoring
trap
Feature 110
19 Collection
Location
Species
sorting
Feature 111
20 Collection
Location
Monitoring
facility
Feature 112
21 Collection
Location
Video
Monitoring
facility
Feature 113
22 Collection
Location
Size grading Feature 114
23 Collection
Location
Electronic
sorting
Feature 115
24 Collection
Location
Predator
separator
Feature 116
25 Collection
Location
Phased
implementatio
n
Feature 117
26 Collection
Location
Sorted fish
fate &
transport
Feature 118
27 Collection
Location
Upstream of
Portage Creek
Defer Fatal Flaw: lose existing Chinook Salmon habitat. Potential to move unintended
fish. Too far downstream.
5
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 4 October 2015
Upstream Brainstorm Concepts
No. Category Component Priority Description List #
28 Collection
Location
At natural
barrier:
Impediment 1
or
Impediment 3
Defer Fatal Flaw: lose existing Chinook Salmon habitat. Potential to move unintended
fish. Too far downstream.
7
29 Collection
Location
At dam Defer Redundant with List #6 9
30 Collection
Location
Collection
channel at
dam
Defer Redundant with List #6 10
31 Collection
Location
Boat &
Anglers
Defer Better options available, low efficiency, fish handling impacts, unknown success
rate with chinook, not feeding.
16
32 Collection
Location
Dip net fishery Defer Better options available, low efficiency, fish handling impacts. Site specific
Performance
18
33 Collector
Entrance
Shallow weir 1 Could be used as an exclusion means for pike, non-jumping species 19
34 Collector
Entrance
Creek 1 It is Co-located with a tributary. Can be a water source option. Limited to existing
creeks.
20
35 Collector
Entrance
Deep Portal 1 Goal for deep oriented fish (burbot) 21
36 Collector
Entrance
Orifice 1 22
37 Collector
Entrance
Vertical slot,
submerged
weir
1 23
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 5 October 2015
Upstream Brainstorm Concepts
No. Category Component Priority Description List #
38 Collector
Entrance
Natural
bedrock,
nature like
entrance
shape
1 Shape, texture, and flow conditions affect location of this component 24
39 Collector
Entrance
Hourglass
entrance
1 This is an advanced version of a vertical slot entrance 25
40 Collector
Entrance
Multi-level
entrance
1 26
41 Collector
Entrance
Adjustable
gate to track
water surface
1 An adjustable gate with a floating mechanism; it is typically used in collection
channels.
27
42 Collector
Entrance
Draft tube
entrance
1 Using draft tube with cycling with unit to attract deep oriented fish. Manual or
automated salvage operation at a specified frequency. Include idea of emulating
draft tube, from experience with turbines sitting idle for a period of time.
29
43 Collector
Entrance
Tailrace
barrier
1 MOVE TO SUPPLEMENT/FEATURE, NOT STAND ALONE FISH COLLECTION DEVICE 30
44 Collector
Entrance
Watana Dam 1 56
45 Collector
Entrance
Another dam:
fixed, rubber
1 This would be a separate barrier dam located downstream from the Watana Dam. 57
46 Collector
Entrance
Scoop
(Fishwheel)
2 28
47 Collector
Entrance
Picket weir 2 Operation of picket weir would be limited to open-water (ice free) flow period in
river. Includes fixed or floating type weirs. FEATURE TO CONSIDER DURING
CONSTRUCTION.
58
48 Collector
Entrance
Lamprey
friendly
features
Supple
mental
Lamprey have not been observed in the Upper River to date. Confirm won't impact
other species (it likely will not, based on today's knowledge). i.e., rounded corners,
no wall-to-wall diffusers, no slot guides, etc.
31
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 6 October 2015
Upstream Brainstorm Concepts
No. Category Component Priority Description List #
49 Collector
Entrance
Submerged
guide wall for
burbot
Supple
mental
Engineered wall 61
50 Collector
Entrance
Submerged
directional
features
Supple
mental
Cofferdam remnants, directed flows, rocks, etc. Includes guidance characteristics
of hydraulic features such as barrier dams to guide, end wall of stilling basin, etc.
Faraday example, berms to pinch river, help guide fish. Hanford reach constructed
gravel spur dikes to guide fish, historical. East coast native fisheries, more typical
to shallow river.
62
51 Collector
Entrance
Draft tube
barrier
Supple
mental
63
52 Collector
Entrance
Floating picket Supple
mental
Could be considered during construction 64
53 Collector
Entrance
draft tube
stop logs
Supple
mental
92
54 Collector
Entrance
Volitional fish
intake
Defer This is not a unique entrance type and it will be addressed with other components. 32
55 Collector
Entrance
Electrical Defer This technology is classified as experimental by NMFS. There are wildlife impact
concerns, a power source to the tributaries is problematic, and a concern for
reliability. Could be revisited as a retrofit type supplemental.
59
56 Collector
Entrance
Behavioral
(strobe/lights/
bubble
curtain/scents
/acoustic)
Defer This is not proven to be reliable as a primary barrier, or enhancement. It is not
predictable. Could be revisited as a retrofit type supplemental.
60
57 Collector
Entrance
Rotating
Screen
Defer This component would be difficult to implement due to the size/flow of the river. 65
58 Collector
Entrance
Louvers Defer Maintenance, scale, debris, and ice are concerns for this component. It is not
reliably an exclusionary screening facility. Defined as a picket lead. Idea is captured
with use of diffusers for AWS, or attraction water.
66
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 7 October 2015
Upstream Brainstorm Concepts
No. Category Component Priority Description List #
59 Collector
Entrance
porous
weir/embank
ment
Defer This component is not feasible in a river of this scale. 67
60 Collector
Entrance
Existing
impediment/v
elocity barrier
Defer This will result in loss of existing Chinook Salmon habitat. Or movement of
unintended fish into other habitats. Too far downstream.
68
61 Attraction Turbine
discharge
1 Direct from draft tubes. Temperature will be dependent on turbine intake design. 34
62 Attraction Outlet valve
discharge
1 Tap off the tube, easier than use of cone valve. Cone valve sprays above water
surface. Depending on configuration. Will pass temperature of water based on
inlet elevation.
35
63 Attraction Low-head,
electric
Pumps
1 Will be used for supply of auxiliary water. Low head pumps in tailrace. Temp is
same as tailrace.
36
64 Attraction Spillway flow 1 Will maintain this idea for use with other components, not a primary use as
operational scenarios don't spill.
40
65 Attraction Fish turbine,
dedicated fish
attraction flow
1 This would be a power producing turbine, specific for fish passage, or a fish
attraction flow source.
41
66 Attraction Gravity flow 1 Simple design, could be incorporated into any alt. Also as use for backup water.
Energy dissipation must be considered.
42
67 Attraction Turbine
pumps
1 A small amount of water is utilized to power a pump. Can use drive water for AWS
water.
43
68 Attraction Susitna Upper
River water
1 Upstream water is important source for homing fish. Key requirement of all
upstream passage system.
50
69 Attraction Dewatering
flow from
other
components
1 This source is potentially available from downstream passage components 51
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 8 October 2015
Upstream Brainstorm Concepts
No. Category Component Priority Description List #
70 Attraction 5-10 percent
of fish design
flow (near-
field)
1 Typical NMFS fish passage criteria/guidelines. Bonneville Dam 3 to 5% as a
reference. May not be required for all species, site specific need to discuss more.
53
71 Attraction Flow
shaping/config
uration (far-
field)
1 Shaping discharge to provide attraction to the fish entrance facility or avoid
hydraulic occlusion.
54
72 Attraction Variable flows
that mimic
natural
conditions (far
field
operational
concept)
1 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATION OF PROJECT. ADDRESSED WITH OPERATION
GROUP. Natural hydrograph idea. Could peak within a band of natural hydrograph.
Effect would be limited at this project due to volume. No precedent. Note AWS
system must compete with what is happening at dam.
55
73 Attraction Coffer dam
remnant used
Upstream
1 Collaborate on design for construction dewatering and fish passage. Could guide
towards entrance. Coffer Dam ~100ft. Has been problematic in Columbia
93
74 Attraction Tributary
flows
2 The location is from a specific source. Potentially use spawning stream water as
attraction flow.
38
75 Attraction Bypass tunnel 2 It would be co-located with the dam spillway. Secondary priority due to more
practical alts. MAY BE OPTION DURING CONSTRUCTION.
39
76 Attraction Natural
attraction
2 No auxiliary flow associated with this component. MOVE TO DEFERED. WON'T
MEET NMFS CRITERIA, WON'T FUNCTION WELL. UNCLEAR DEFINITION, IDEA FROM
BRAINSTORM.
45
77 Attraction Directed flow Supple
mental
Use of flow, not a source. Turbulence or Circulation. Possible from many potential
sources. Mixer pumps may create flow. Low head pump used to create flow, flygt
pump. EX: Thompson Falls (jet augmentation)
33
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 9 October 2015
Upstream Brainstorm Concepts
No. Category Component Priority Description List #
78 Attraction Chemical
attraction
Supple
mental
Experimental. 46
79 Attraction Temperature
attraction
Supple
mental
Could be a feature. No real need to pursue unless different water source from
river.
47
80 Attraction Mixer pumps Defer Redundant with List #33 37
81 Attraction Gravity flow
from forebay
Defer Redundant with List #42 44
82 Attraction Groundwater Defer Not known to be a potential water source at the component project locations. 48
83 Attraction Drainage
galleries
Defer Construction may limit the availability of flow. This may be good for lamprey.
Gravel/silt/etc. contamination is a risk.
49
84 Attraction Deep pit with
flow, for
burbot
Defer Not a source 52
85 Conveyance Structural
Fishway
1 Utilizes slope of 1/10-1/16 with resting pools due to structure height (~600
vertical). Normally has a short segment with a trap to deal with tailrace water
surface variations.
69
86 Conveyance Nature-like
Fishway
1 Utilizes 1-3 percent slope with flows ranging from 20-50cfs. Short segments also
used with a trap to deal with tailrace water surface variations. Generally most
applicable to low head projects.
70
87 Conveyance Haul: truck,
boat/barge,
hydrofoil,
tram,
helicopter,
float plane,
Sherpa mules,
drones,
snowmachine
1 Generally a fish transport container with life support and transportation included. 72
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 10 October 2015
Upstream Brainstorm Concepts
No. Category Component Priority Description List #
88 Conveyance Fish Lock 1 Could be used in association with a bypass tunnel over the sluiceway. It would
consist of a dedicated tower and abutment.
73
89 Conveyance Fish Lift 1 74
90 Conveyance Helical Ladder 1 Fishway alignment would weave up a tower. This is a feature of structural fishway. 78
91 Conveyance Tunnel 1 Potential component for shorter section of passage system or as a means to route
a structural fishway. Could potentially be located in north abutment.
80
92 Conveyance Lamprey
passage
system: LAPS
@ Bonneville
1 Closed duct. 81
93 Conveyance Lamp ramp @
Willamette
Falls
1 Open flume 82
94 Conveyance Modified
tributary (Fog
or Tsusena)
2 Use of this existing tributary for a passage route as far upstream as possible, then
transition to transport channel/structural fishway/tunnel for remaining distance.
Potentially suitable for downstream passage as well. Tsusena Creek preferable due
to proximity to dam and reduced impact to Chinook use. Fog Creek has a lower
gradient, and also has existing Chinook Salmon use.
71
95 Conveyance Pescalator 2 The design is based on an archimedes screw principle. It is a potential component
of a larger system.
75
96 Conveyance Rock ramp 2 This is a potential component of a system, used generally for shorter sections at 3-
6 percent slope.
79
97 Conveyance Series of steep
pass/Denil
2 This could be a component of a larger system, or a second entrance, or part of a
temporary facility.
88
98 Conveyance Bypass
tunnel/diversi
on tunnel
2 This would repurpose tunnel used for construction of the dam. 89
99 Conveyance Slow turbine
start-up
Supple
mental
90
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 11 October 2015
Upstream Brainstorm Concepts
No. Category Component Priority Description List #
100 Conveyance Pressurized
draft tube
Supple
mental
91
101 Conveyance Fish cannon
(whooshh)
Defer This is an experimental system with long term health concerns. Project scale is too
big for this idea.
76
102 Conveyance Catapult Defer There are better options available. This idea was presented to illustrate the value
of brainstorming.
77
103 Conveyance Fish pump &
pipe
Defer System is not feasible for adults, doesn't meet NMFS criteria 83
104 Conveyance Pneumatic
pump & pipe
Defer System is not feasible for adults, doesn't meet NMFS criteria 84
105 Conveyance Jet pump &
pipe
Defer System is not feasible for adults, doesn't meet NMFS criteria 85
106 Conveyance Challenge
section
Defer Potential to use as faunal filter. Potential volitional sorting system. 87
107 Conveyance Pipe to end of
reservoir
Defer Too long (42mi +/-), no precedent. 94
108 Exit Fish Slide 1 Feature for ladder or haul release. 95
109 Exit Multi-port 1 Feature for ladder or haul release. Multi-level, deep to shallow. 96
110 Exit Truck ramp 1 Location near the quarry on south abutment. 97
111 Exit Multiple
release
locations
1 Most compatible with boat, float plane, helicopter, hauling options. 98
112 Exit Release at
dam
1 101
113 Exit Head of
reservoir
release
1 102
114 Exit Release lock 1 Could be tied to ladder, or other feature. Could be duplicated to reduce hold time. 103
115 Exit Floating exit 1 This used in combination with a variable slope to accommodate pool fluctuation. 104
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 12 October 2015
Upstream Brainstorm Concepts
No. Category Component Priority Description List #
116 Exit Hose Release Supple
mental
Design Detail 99
117 Exit Stress release
ponds
Supple
mental
Includes acclimation goals, temperature, fallback, etc. More amenable to transport
options, not likely to need volitional alts.
100
118 Exit Submerged
exit
Supple
mental
105
119 Exit Cycling lock
exit
Defer Repeat of List #103 106
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 13 October 2015
Downstream Brainstorm Concepts
No. Category Component Priority Description List #
1 Collection
Location
Tributaries 1 Kosina & Oshetna 119
2 Collection
Location
Dam 1 Could include right bank, left bank, over turbines, near spillway 120
3 Collection
Location
Head of reservoir:
above high pool
upstream of
Oshetna
1 ~PRM 235.3 121
4 Collection
Location
Head of reservoir:
above high pool
downstream of
Oshetna
1 ~PRM 234 122
5 Collection
Location
Tributaries and
Upper Mainstem
Susitna
1 Combination of #119 and #121 123
6 Collection
Location
Head of reservoir:
below low pool
1 ~PRM 222. As far upstream as possible. 124
7 Collection
Location
Reservoir below
Kosina/ mid-
reservoir
1 125
8 Collection
Location
Moveable in
reservoir
1 For placement anywhere in reservoir 126
9 Collection
Entrance
Temporary
portable trap
Screw
trap/inclined
plane/ fyke
1 For tributary locations, component of larger system and guidance elements to
increase efficiency. CONSIDER FOR USE DURING CONSTRUCTION.
127
10 Collection
Entrance
Merwin-type trap
in reservoir
1 Net pen with guide nets, floating deck, reservoir/low-velocity locations.
CONSIDER FOR USE DURING CONSTRUCTION.
128
11 Collection
Entrance
Picket rack 1 In channel, with upstream and downstream collection boxes. Suitable for
smaller streams. CONSIDER FOR USE DURING CONSTRUCTION.
129
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 14 October 2015
Downstream Brainstorm Concepts
No. Category Component Priority Description List #
12 Collection
Entrance
Off-channel with
weir/rubber dam
1 Exclusionary (NOAA criteria) and directs fish and flow to bypass screen.
Tributary collection style/type.
130
13 Collection
Entrance
Screened facility 1 Screens in river, assuming exclusionary screening. Tributary. Ice, debris concerns. 132
14 Collection
Entrance
Collection tower,
in Reservoir near
tributaries
1 Fixed concrete tower, requires power, multiple fixed ports or movable screens. 136
15 Collection
Entrance
Movable screen
inside tower - at
Dam with or
without pumps
1 Traditional screen inside tower near dam, movable screens to track water
surface.
137
16 Collection
Entrance
Floating surface
collector
1 FSC – often has guide nets in reservoir to assist in directing fish to collector. ice
concerns - low/high pool issues
138
17 Collection
Entrance
Partial screen
collector
1 Columbia River SBS, STS, etc. Turbine based or cone valve based 139
18 Collection
Entrance
High velocity
screens
1 Do not comply with NMFS criteria for fish screens. Smolt screens, not for fry, 0.8
fps
141
19 Collection
Entrance
Conventional
screen
1 Low velocity, NOAA criteria screens 143
20 Collection
Entrance
Turbine
passage/cone
valves
1 High head so likely very low survival. Baseline if nothing else is done. 144
21 Collection
Entrance
Modification of
existing spillway
1 This will requires a safe route downstream and needs to accommodate a
fluctuating pool. Notched feature.
147
22 Collection
Entrance
Dedicated spillway
feature
1 This will requires a safe route downstream and needs to accommodate a
fluctuating pool. Design will consist of a 30 percent slope down face of dam with
multiple intake ports in pool. No screening involved.
148
23 Collection
Entrance
Surface flow
outlet/Corner
collector
1 Could be full flow unscreened source or fully screened. Fixed height. 149
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 15 October 2015
Downstream Brainstorm Concepts
No. Category Component Priority Description List #
24 Collection
Entrance
Turbine intake
screen collection
1 Similar to #141 and 139. 150
25 Collection
Entrance
Cycling lock (low
level
pressurization
chamber)
1 Conduit under dam with gates at both ends for benthic species. Not standalone
for salmon species. Downstream Migrant Lock
151
26 Collection
Entrance
Simulated Wells
intakes
1 Location above turbine, can be combined with many elements. Uses bulk flow
towards intake (turbines near intake). Entrance type for collection system.
Form of Surface Flow Outlet (SFO). Vertical slot collection device.
153
27 Collection
Entrance
Floating ice/trash
sluiceway
1 Could be positioned over intake or spillway. Higher flows, surface water,
dewatering screens or not.
154
28 Collection
Entrance
Rearrange intake
location
1 Slide intakes towards left bank with diagonal penstocks to current powerhouse
location. Move spillway cone valve inlets near turbine outlets to maximize bulk
flow. Example of #148. put intakes in corner.
158
29 Collection
Entrance
Two-vessel trawl
in reservoir
1 172
30 Collection
Entrance
Off-channel with
weir/rubber dam
with FCA
(farmers…)
screen/Coanda
2 Exclusionary which directs fish and flow to a FCA or coanda screen. 131
31 Collection
Entrance
MIS/Eicher screen 2 Passage flow is pressurized in a conduit. 142
32 Collection
Entrance
Louvers Supple
mental
In tributaries, could be combined with other facility. Off channel use. Use at
dam. More guidance than exclusionary. Doesn’t meet NMFS criteria. Mayfield
Dam, Holyoke MA, Seton Dam, tributary of Frazier River BC (~10 yrs ago),
Skinner & Tracy in CA.
133
33 Collection
Entrance
Guide nets/Barrier
nets
Supple
mental
134
34 Collection
Entrance
Behavioral
guidance (strobe,
Supple
mental
135
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 16 October 2015
Downstream Brainstorm Concepts
No. Category Component Priority Description List #
noise, bubbles,
turbulence)
35 Collection
Entrance
Modified
operations for
passage – pool
level modification
Supple
mental
145
36 Collection
Entrance
Floating Guide
walls/curtains in
forebay
Supple
mental
155
37 Collection
Entrance
Shoreline
alteration to
shape flow
Supple
mental
159
38 Collection
Entrance
Guidance
circulation
Supple
mental
Induced flow, B2 powerhouse corner collector, turbulence signature. 160
39 Collection
Entrance
Simulated lake
outlet
Supple
mental
Baker FSC, RSW’s in Columbia. Velocity, shape, acceleration, substrate/texture. 162
40 Collection
Entrance
Modified valves or
dedicated fish
turbine
Supple
mental
Use cone valve discharge to drive collector. Function of frequency, need flow
conveyance. Consider use of valve for collector, dedicated or supplement for
flow when flow being bypassed anyway.
163
41 Collection
Entrance
Fish friendly
turbines
Defer High head of this dam is a fatal flaw 140
42 Collection
Entrance
Spillway passage Defer Fatal flaw is that the spillway not used regularly. 146
43 Collection
Entrance
Decompression
raceway
Defer Experimental technology, not tested, concern for debris, difficult access if
something goes wrong.
152
44 Collection
Entrance
Rearrange dam
axis
Defer Fatal flaw is that it is structurally challenging for foundation needs. Outside
scope of study. Other means may accomplish same goal, such as guidance
devices.
157
45 Attraction Coffer dam
remnant use
1 Coffer dam utilized as a potential base of a structure. Used for burbot, upstream
cofferdam.
156
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY AT WATANA DAM (STUDY 9.11)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 17 October 2015
Downstream Brainstorm Concepts
No. Category Component Priority Description List #
46 Conveyance Nature-like
channel
2 Kwoiek project listed as example in brainstorm list, channel from tributaries to
dam along reservoir? (I'm not sure about this one), move to deferred?
168
47 Conveyance Full flow vs partial
flow (screening)
Featur
e
Feature. Removable Spillway Weir (RSW) on Columbia vs. STS/SBS (partial).
Using full collection flow to convey fish to tailrace vs dewatering.
164
48 Conveyance Continuous vs
discrete batch
Featur
e
Bypass running all the time, vs. haul (lock/tram/helicopter/truck, etc.). Two
categories.
165
49 Conveyance Truck/boat/float
plane/tram/heli
Featur
e
Conveyance means. 166
50 Conveyance Channel/pipe or
trough around
dam
Featur
e
Continuous, what you put it in. Clackamas pipeline, Green Peter, B2 Corner
collector, bypass at many dams.
167
51 Conveyance Small turbine-like
shallow intake
Surface collector
to attract and pass
Featur
e
Cowlitz Falls North Shore Collector. Multi port collector, CleElum concept by
USBR.
171
52 Conveyance Sluice tunnel
through dam
Featur
e
Conveyance piece of burbot passage. Could be standalone for deep species. 173
53 Conveyance Associated
sampling/sorting
facilities
Supple
mental
174
54 Conveyance Tributary channel Defer Release into a tributary downstream, and allow them to move volitionally. Could
imprint on non-natal tributary.
169