HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa289sec9-12Alaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna‐Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
Fish passage barriers in the middle and upper Susitna River and Susitna
tributaries, Study plan Section 9.12, 2014 Study Implementation Report SuWa 289
Author(s) – Personal:
Author(s) – Corporate:
R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. and ABR, 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 9.12
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Document type:
Pagination:
v, 48, [2], 42 pages
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 Barriers in the Middle and Upper
Susitna River and Susitna Tributaries
Study Plan Section 9.12
2014 Study Implementation Report
Prepared for
Alaska Energy Authority
Prepared by
R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. and ABR, Inc.
October 2015
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page i October 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
2. Study Objectives .................................................................................................................... 2
3. Study Area .............................................................................................................................. 2
4. Methods .................................................................................................................................. 3
4.1. Fish Species Identification ............................................................................................. 3
4.2. Passage Criteria for Identified Fish Species................................................................... 3
4.3. Site Selection .................................................................................................................. 3
4.4. Field Methods ................................................................................................................ 3
4.4.1. Geologic Barriers to Fish Passage .......................................................................... 3
4.4.2. Beaver Dams ........................................................................................................... 4
4.4.3. Passage Conditions in Tributary Mouths ................................................................ 5
4.4.4. Variances ................................................................................................................. 5
5. Results ..................................................................................................................................... 5
5.1. Fish species and passage criteria selection..................................................................... 5
5.1.1. Fish Species Selection............................................................................................. 6
5.1.2. Passage Criteria for the Selected Fish Species ....................................................... 6
5.2. Geologic Barriers ........................................................................................................... 7
5.2.1. Cheechako Creek, PB152.4-A ................................................................................ 7
5.2.2. Unnamed Tributary 158.7 (RB), PB155.3-C .......................................................... 8
5.2.3. Unnamed Tributary to Devil Creek, PB161.5-C .................................................... 8
5.2.4. Unnamed Tributary 169.1, PB165.6-A ................................................................... 8
5.2.5. Unnamed Tributary 204.5, PB201.8-A and PB201.8-B ......................................... 8
5.3. Beaver Dam Survey ....................................................................................................... 8
5.4. Tributary Mouth Surveys ............................................................................................... 9
5.4.1. Lower McKenzie Creek/Slough (PRM 119.7) ....................................................... 9
5.4.2. McKenzie Creek (PRM 120.2) ............................................................................... 9
5.4.3. Little Portage Creek (PRM 121.4) .......................................................................... 9
5.4.4. Jack Long Creek (PRM 148.3) ............................................................................. 10
5.4.5. Cheechako Creek (PRM 155.9) ............................................................................ 10
5.4.6. Chinook Creek (PRM 160.5) ................................................................................ 10
5.4.7. Devil Creek (PRM 164.8) ..................................................................................... 10
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ii October 2015
5.4.8. Fog Creek (PRM 179.3) ........................................................................................ 11
5.4.9. Tsusena Creek (PRM 184.6) ................................................................................. 11
6. Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 11
7. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 12
7.1. Decision Points from Study Plan ................................................................................. 12
7.2. Modifications to Study Plan ......................................................................................... 12
8. Literature Cited ................................................................................................................... 13
9. Tables .................................................................................................................................... 16
10. Figures .................................................................................................................................. 33
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iii October 2015
LIST OF TABLES
Table 5.1-1. Target species list for fish passage barrier evaluation following consultation with
licensing participants. ................................................................................................................... 16
Table 5.1-2. Depth criteria required for fish passage as reported in the literature for targeted fish
species and adult and juvenile life stages. .................................................................................... 17
Table 5.1-3. Pacific Salmon leaping height capabilities from three sources. .............................. 18
Table 5.1-4. Pool depth and channel gradient fish passage criteria for target Salmonids adapted
from the Forest Service Handbook 2090.21 Adult Salmonid Migration Blockage Table. ........... 19
Table 5.1-5. Swimming capabilities and velocity criteria for fish passage based literature values
for selected fish species and life stages. ........................................................................................ 20
Table 5.3-1. Data from field verification of beaver dams in Focus Areas. ................................... 22
Table 5.4-1. Lower McKenzie Creek/Slough thalweg characteristics. ....................................... 24
Table 5.4-2. McKenzie Creek thalweg characteristics. ............................................................... 25
Table 5.4-3. Little Portage Creek thalweg characteristics. .......................................................... 26
Table 5.4-4. Jack Long Creek thalweg characteristics. ............................................................... 27
Table 5.4-5. Cheechako Creek thalweg characteristics. .............................................................. 28
Table 5.4-6. Chinook Creek thalweg characteristics. .................................................................. 29
Table 5.4-7. Devil Creek thalweg characteristics. ....................................................................... 30
Table 5.4-8. Fog Creek thalweg characteristics. .......................................................................... 31
Table 5.4-9. Tsusena Creek thalweg characteristics. ................................................................... 32
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 5.2-1. Photos of PB152.4-A, October 10, 2014................................................................ 33
Figure 5.2-2. Photos of PB155.3-C, October 4, 2014. ................................................................. 34
Figure 5.2-3. Photos of PB161.5-C, October 4, 2014. ................................................................. 35
Figure 5.2-4. Photo of PB165.6-A, October 10, 2014. ................................................................ 36
Figure 5.2-5. Photos of PB201.8-A and PB201.8B, October 6, 2014. ........................................ 37
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iv October 2015
Figure 5.3-1. Overview of 2014 Remote Beaver Dam Mapping. ................................................. 38
Figure 5.4-1. Photos of lower McKenzie Creek/Slough, September 30, 2014. ........................... 39
Figure 5.4-2. Lower McKenzie Creek/Slough thalweg profile. .................................................. 39
Figure 5.4-3. Photos of McKenzie Creek, September 30, 2014. ................................................. 40
Figure 5.4-4. McKenzie Creek thalweg profile. .......................................................................... 40
Figure 5.4-5. Photos of Little Portage Creek, September 30, 2014. ............................................ 41
Figure 5.4-6. Little Portage Creek thalweg profile. ..................................................................... 41
Figure 5.4-7. Photos of Jack Long Creek, October 1, 2014......................................................... 42
Figure 5.4-8. Jack Long Creek thalweg profile. .......................................................................... 42
Figure 5.4-9. Photos of Cheechako Creek, October 2, 2014. ...................................................... 43
Figure 5.4-10. Cheechako Creek thalweg profile. ....................................................................... 43
Figure 5.4-11. Photos of Chinook Creek, October 2, 2014. ........................................................ 44
Figure 5.4-12. Chinook Creek thalweg profile. ........................................................................... 44
Figure 5.4-13. Photos of Devil Creek, October 3, 2014. ............................................................. 45
Figure 5.4-14. Devil Creek thalweg profile. ................................................................................ 45
Figure 5.4-15. Photos of Fog Creek, October 3, 2014. ................................................................ 46
Figure 5.4-16. Fog Creek thalweg profile. ................................................................................... 46
Figure 5.4-17. Photos of Tsusena Creek, October 4, 2014. ......................................................... 47
Figure 5.4-18. Tsusena Creek thalweg profile ............................................................................. 48
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Maps from 2014 Remote Mapping of Beaver Dams
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page v October 2015
LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS
Abbreviation Definition
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
cfs cubic feet per second
FA(s) focus area(s)
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
fps feet per second
ft feet
GIS geographic information system
GPS Global Positioning System
ILP Integrated Licensing Process
ISR Initial Study Report
ITU Integrated Terrain Unit
LiDAR Light Detection And Ranging. A remote sensing technology that measures distance by
illuminating a target with a laser and analyzing the reflected light.
PRM Project river mile
RM river mile
RSP Revised Study Plan
SPD Study Plan Determination
TM technical memorandum
USFS United States Forest Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
ZHI zone of hydrologic influence
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1 October 2015
1. INTRODUCTION
This Study of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and Upper Susitna River and Susitna
Tributaries, Section 9.12 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 the potential effects of Project-induced changes in flow and water surface
elevation on free access of fish into, within, and out of suitable habitats in the Upper Susitna
River (inundation zone above the Watana Dam site) and the Middle Susitna River (Watana Dam
site to the confluence of Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers).
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)). On October 15, 2014, AEA
held an ISR meeting for the Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and Upper Susitna River and
Susitna Tributaries Study covering the material presented in the June 2014 ISR.
Since filing the ISR in June 2014, AEA has continued to implement the FERC-approved plan for
the Study of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and Upper Susitna River and Susitna
Tributaries. For example:
A technical memorandum (TM) was prepared in November 2014 that presented a
proposed final list of fish species to be included in the fish barrier analysis a s well as
depth, leaping and velocity passage criteria for selected fish species (R2 2014).
During 2014, additional field surveys included evaluation of potential vertical geologic
barriers in six tributaries in the Middle and Upper Susitna River and nine tributary mouth
thalweg surveys in Middle Susitna River. All 2014 surveys followed the approach
described in the ISR Section 4.5 (AEA 2014) and in the Fish Passage Barrier Assessment
Implementation Plan (HDR 2013) using species and passage criteria described in the
November 2014 TM (R2 2014). Additional field data in support of this study was
collected at modeling sites (ISR Section 4.3.5 [AEA 2014]) by other studies (see ISRs for
Study 6.6 Sections 4.1.2.9.2 and 4.1.2.9.3. and Study 8.5 Section 4.3 and 4.6; AEA
2014).
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 Study of
Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and Upper Susitna River and Susitna Tributaries (Study
9.12) 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 of Fish Passage
Barriers in the Middle and Upper Susitna River and Susitna Tributaries 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.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2 October 2015
2. STUDY OBJECTIVES
The overall goal of Study 9.12 is to evaluate the potential effects of Project-induced changes in
flow and water surface elevation on free access of fish into, within, and out of suitable habitats in
the Upper Susitna River (inundation zone above the Watana Dam site) and the Middle Susitna
River (Watana Dam site to the confluence of Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers). This goal is being
achieved by meeting the following objectives:
1. Locate and categorize all existing fish passage barriers (e.g., falls, cascades, beaver dams,
road or railroad crossings) located in selected tributaries in the Middle and Upper Susitna
River.
2. Locate the barriers using a global positioning system (GPS), identify the type (permanent,
temporary, seasonal, partial), and characterize the physical nature of any existing fish
barriers located within the Project’s zone of hydrologic influence (ZHI).
3. Evaluate the potential changes to existing fish barriers (both natural and man-made)
located within the Project’s ZHI.
4. Evaluate the potential creation of fish passage barriers within existing habitats
(tributaries, sloughs, side channels, off-channel habitats) related to future flow conditions,
water surface elevations, and sediment transport.
Field activities during 2014 were designed to help meet objectives (1) and (2) and will supply the
baseline condition for future evaluations of barrier creation under Objectives 3 and 4.
3. STUDY AREA
The study area includes the mainstem and selected tributaries in the Upper and Middle segments
of the Susitna River that would be affected by construction and operation of the Project. For
purposes of this study, the study area has been divided into three segments:
Upper River—Susitna River and selected tributaries within this segment extend from the
Proposed Watana Dam site (RM 184 [PRM 187.1]) to the upper extent of the Proposed
Watana Reservoir Maximum Pool (PRM 232.5). In tributaries known to support
Chinook Salmon, barriers were surveyed to 3,000 ft elevation unless a permanent
impassable barrier existed between 2,200 and 3,000 ft elevation. If a barrier existed
within this range, surveys stopped at the barrier.
Middle River—Susitna River and selected tributaries within this segment extend from the
Proposed Watana Dam site to the lower extent of Devils Canyon (PRM 153.9). In all
tributaries, barriers were surveyed to 3,000 ft elevation or to the first permanent
anadromous barrier.
Middle River below Devils Canyon — Passage study sites in the mainstem Middle River
included sloughs, upland sloughs, side channels, and tributary mouths. Passage studies in
tributaries to the Middle River included select tributaries and extended from the mouth to
include the upper limit of the ZHI for each tributary, The ZHI is defined as a 1.5-year
recurrence flow interval (38,500 cubic feet per second [cfs]) at Gold Creek.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3 October 2015
4. METHODS
Methods of 2014 activities included the finalization of proposed target fish species and passage
criteria, follow-up field assessment at six geologic barriers and field surveys of nine tributary
mouths in the Middle Susitna River.
4.1. Fish Species Identification
The methods for selecting the 11 target fish species were detailed in R2’s Fish Passage Criteria
Technical Memorandum (R2 2014; http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/11/Barrier-Passage-Criteria-TM-20141110.pdf).
4.2. Passage Criteria for Identified Fish Species
The methods for developing passage criteria for selected target fish species were detailed in R2
(2014; http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Barrier-Passage-
Criteria-TM-20141110.pdf).
4.3. Site Selection
As described in 9.12 ISR Section 4.3 (AEA 2014), site selection for both geologic and tributary
mouth field surveys was completed in 2013 for field surveys conducted over 2013 and 2014
study seasons.
4.4. Field Methods
Study methods for field surveys conducted during 2014 varied primarily depending on the type
of barrier being assessed. Depth barriers were evaluated at the mouths of tributaries whereas
geologic barriers (cascades and waterfalls) were assessed within tributary streams. All surveys
were conducted during a low flow window in late September to early October, just prior to
freeze up.
4.4.1. Geologic Barriers to Fish Passage
The 2014 surveys of potential geologic barriers consisted of a follow-up to surveys conducted
during 2012 and 2013 using the methods described in Study 9.12 Implementation Plan (AEA
2013; http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2013-06-17-Barrier-
Implementation-Plan-Filing.pdf)
Six geologic barriers that had been previously visited and reported as potential barriers were
revisited during fall low flow conditions to see if access for measurement would be feasible and,
if not, to photo document and further describe each barrier. Aerial surveys were conducted from
October 4 to October 10, 2014 and no safe landing zones were located in the vicinity of barriers
even under low flow conditions. Conditions at the following six potential barriers and were
assessed.
Upper River
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4 October 2015
o PB201.8-A and 201.8-B in Unnamed Tributary 204.5
Middle River
o PB152.4-A in Cheechako Creek
o PB155.3-C in Unnamed Tributary 158.7
o PB161.5-C in an Unnamed Tributary to Devil Creek
o PB165.6-A in Unnamed Tributary 169.1
4.4.2. Beaver Dams
As reported in the ISR (Section 4.4.2), field survey data collection on beaver dams in Focus
Areas was completed in 2013 for Study 6.6 Section 4.1.2.9.2 (AEA 2014) and aerial surveys of
active beaver lodges were completed by the Aquatic Furbearers Study (Study 10.11 Section 5.1).
In 2014, AEA completed remote mapping of beaver dams as part of the riparian surveys being
conducted by the Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Susitna-Watana Dam
(Study 11.6). All potential beaver dams located between PRM 187.2 and 98 were identified
using the methods detailed below. Dams were assigned to one of four structural integrity
categories: intact, partial, undetermined, or not intact.
The remote mapping of beaver dams was conducted within the study area for Study 11.6 (PRM
187–29) by a GIS analyst on-screen in ArcGIS. Beaver dams were photo-interpreted from and
digitized over 1) 4-band Digital Mapping Camera aerial imagery at 1-foot resolution (half-foot
for selected areas), and 2) Bare Earth DEM Hillshade from LiDAR. The aerial imagery and
LiDAR were both acquired at multiple dates in 2011 by Aerometric (now Quantum Spatial) for
the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Imagery and LiDAR project. The Integrated Terrain Unit (ITU)
mapping prepared for Study 11.6 (ISR 11.6, Part A, Section 4.3.2) and the beaver colony
locations from Study 10.11 (Aquatic Furbearer Abundance & Habitat Use, ISR 10.11, Part A,
Section 4.1) were also used as base layers in the mapping of beaver dams.
Beaver dam mapping occurred in two steps. First, to acquire an image library of known beaver
structures and the experience to identify beaver structures across the full study area, the analyst
assessed the imagery at a scale of 1:3,000 to 1:5,000 in areas with known beaver activity. Areas
with known beaver structures were identified based on the beaver colony locations from Study
10.11, beaver dams observed by field personnel working on the Geomorphology Study (Study
6.5) and reported in ISR 6.5 (Table 5.1-4), and from those aquatic geomorphic units in the Study
11.6 ITU mapping with a high likelihood of beaver presence (e.g., Shallow Connected Beaver
Pond). Beaver dams were usually found at the 1:3,000 to 1:5,000 scale by finding deep, clear
water impoundments or linear features in waterways. LIDAR was used to evaluate the
geomorphology of questionable areas (where water impoundments were observed but surface
features were difficult to distinguish). Second, the analyst zoomed in (1:1,000 scale) to each area
where potential beaver dams were identified during Step 1 and mapped potential beaver dams as
line features. Following the initial mapping, the biologist that completed the beaver colony
surveys for Study 10.11 reviewed each of the digitized line features. Each digitized line feature
was assigned two data attributes, including 1) the likelihood that the digitized line actually
represents a beaver dam, and 2) for those digitized lines determined to be a beaver dam, whether
or not the dam appeared to be intact or not based on review of the imagery
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5 October 2015
4.4.3. Passage Conditions in Tributary Mouths
Thalweg profile surveys were conducted from the confluence with the Susitna River upstream to
include the tributary mouth for nine Middle River tributaries using methods described in ISR
Section 4.4.3. In summary, longitudinal profiles were collected, along with depth and velocity
measurements and stream substrate assessments, at each thalweg survey point. The 2014
surveys covered the extent of the tributary delta for all tributaries. Field surveys began with
Susitna flows just above 10,600 cfs on September 30 (at the USGS Gold Creek gage 15292000)
and concluded with flows below 9,420 cfs on October 4, 2014
Nine Middle River tributary mouths were surveyed for passage conditions and evaluation of
current and/or future potential barriers.
Middle River
o Tsusena Creek (PRM 184.6)
o Fog Creek (PRM 179.3)
o Devil Creek (PRM 164.8)
o Chinook Creek (PRM 160.5)
o Cheechako Creek (PRM 155.9)
Middle River below Devils Canyon
o Jack Long Creek (PRM 148.3)
o Little Portage Creek (PRM 121.4)
o McKenzie Creek (PRM 120.2)
o Lower McKenzie Creek/Slough (PRM 119.7)
4.4.4. Variances
There were no variances for 2014 beyond those described in the ISR Part C (AEA 2014).
5. RESULTS
Results of 2014 activities included the finalization of proposed target fish species and passage
criteria, follow-up field assessment at six geologic barriers and field surveys of nine tributary
mouths in the Middle Susitna River.
5.1. Fish species and passage criteria selection
Species- and, where appropriate, life stage-specific criteria have been developed for a list of
target species. The criteria will be used to evaluate the potential for these barrier features to
impede free passage of fishes among each of the aforementioned habitats. Fish species selection
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6 October 2015
and passage criteria were reported in the Fish Passage Criteria Technical Memorandum filed
with FERC November 14, 2014 (R2 2014). The results of the TM are summarized below.
5.1.1. Fish Species Selection
Some fish species in the Susitna River exhibit life history patterns that rely on multiple habitats
during freshwater rearing, and therefore, they may be more sensitive to changes in access to side
channels, sloughs, and/or tributary habitats. Target species for fish passage barrier analysis was
based on passage sensitivity, presence in the Middle and Upper Susitna, and locations of
potential barriers (Table 5.1-1). Following the technical team meeting on March 19, 2014,
additional species were recommended by licensing participants including Arctic Lamprey,
Bering Cisco, Eulachon, Northern Pike, and Humpback Whitefish. AEA examined the
distribution of these additional species, and it was determined that both Arctic Lamprey and
Humpback Whitefish are present in the Middle River. Thus, these two species were added to the
target species list (Table 5.1-1).
The distribution of Bering Cisco and Eulachon were determined to be outside of the study area.
In addition, the life history and distribution of these fishes indicate a reliance upon mainstem
habitat and/or very large tributaries during their limited time in the Susitna River basin.
Consequently, neither Eulachon nor Bering Cisco were added to the target species list for this
study.
Northern Pike initially was excluded from the target species list for Study 9.12 due to
distribution outside the Study Area; however, based on consultation during the November 2014
Fish Barriers Technical Team Meeting, AEA will evaluate Northern Pike under the modeling
component of this study as related to potential effects of Project operation on mainstem flows
and migratory conditions, i.e., elimination of mainstem velocity barriers. This modeling will
occur with the use of mainstem velocity data collected under Study 8.6 (AEA 2014).
5.1.2. Passage Criteria for the Selected Fish Species
A literature review of passage criteria was conducted for the adult and juvenile life stages of
target fish species identified in Table 5.1-1. Salmonid passage criteria are well researched and
some criteria exist for all species. Passage criteria for many non-salmonids have not been
extensively researched, and in some cases, criteria do not currently exist. Where criteria for
selected species were not available, criteria for closely related “surrogate” species were
substituted. Basic categories of fish passage criteria evaluated for use in this study include water
depth, fish swimming ability (as related to velocity criteria), and fish leaping ability. Depth
criteria will be used to assess fish passage into, within, and out of side cha nnels, sloughs, and
tributaries. Leaping criteria will be used to evaluate the vertical and horizontal distances fish
must leap to pass an isolated geologic barrier. The velocity component of passage at a physical
or depth barrier also will be applied where velocity may influence successful passage.
5.1.2.1. Depth Criteria for Adult Upstream Migration and Downstream Migration
Minimum depth criteria for fish passage have been reported for many fish species; although the
majority of studies have focused on the design of fish passage structures. The criteria used to
assess minimum depth requirements have varied by study, with fish size and life stage. A range
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 7 October 2015
of minimum depth criteria from the literature for target fish species and life stages are presented
in Table 5.1-2.
5.1.2.2. Leaping Criteria for Adult Upstream Migration
The ability of a fish to pass a vertical barrier is determined by species- and life stage-specific
endogenous factors such as burst speed, swimming form, and leaping capability. Exogenous
factors include water depth, stream flow, and barrier geometry. Table 5.1-3 presents the leaping
criteria from source documents.
Leaping curves and jumping equations assume that the depth of the pool a fish leaps from is
adequate for achieving maximum speed at the initiation of the jump. Both a minimum pool
depth and the ratio of barrier height to pool depth have been suggested as appropriate metrics by
which to evaluate potential for successful passage. These general guidelines were incorporated
into the USFS 2001 Aquatic habitat management handbook for the Alaska Region and are
presented in Table 5.1-4.
5.1.2.3. Velocity and Gradient Criteria
Velocity can become an effective barrier when flow is concentrated, the length and velocity of
the flow field combine to overcome the fish’s swimming ability, and the geometry of the channel
does not allow the fish to leap over or otherwise avoid the velocity barrier (R2 Resource
Consultants, Inc 2007). In addition to a critical velocity barrier, upstream passage can be limited
by the channel gradient over an extended reach if no resting areas are present. Fish passage may
occur at steeper gradients over shorter reaches (e.g. > 50 ft at 20 percent gradient for Chinook,
Coho and Sockeye Salmon), but the gradient for successful passage decreases with increasing
reach length (
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 8 October 2015
Table 5.1-4). Prolonged swimming is an indication of a fish’s ability to traverse longer reaches,
whereas burst swimming provides an indication of the ability of fish to traverse discrete high
velocity areas. We recommend that the high-end of prolonged speed and burst speed are
applicable to fish passage in higher velocity and gradient reaches found in Susitna River
tributaries. Known species- and life stage-specific prolonged and burst speed values were
obtained from the literature are reported in Table 5.1-5.
5.2. Geologic Barriers
5.2.1. Cheechako Creek, PB152.4-A
Cheechako Creek, located on the right bank of the Susitna River at PRM 155.9 was flown from
helicopter on October 10, 2014. There was no safe landing site within the vicinity of the
potential barrier site that was located approximately one mile upstream from the mouth. The site
contained three waterfalls followed by a high gradient reach of boulder dominated cascades. The
waterfall located at the upstream end of the reach was estimated at five feet in height and was
preceded by a 40 ft long cascade (Figure 5.2-1; upper left). The height of middle waterfall was
estimated at 10 ft and below this waterfall the stream dropped into a turbulent pool (Figure 5.2-1;
upper right). The lowermost waterfall was estimated at 8 feet in height. Downstream of this
lowermost waterfall was a high gradient boulder cascade estimated at 200 ft long (Figure 5.2-1;
lower right). The 2012 barrier classification of Potential Fixed Permanent Compound barrier
was confirmed. This site could not be confirmed or disproved as a complete barrier to upstream
passage of fishes because it could not be measured due to lack of access. The high gradient
nature of the habitat downstream of the lower falls indicates that passage for adult salmon at this
site is unlikely.
5.2.2. Unnamed Tributary 158.7 (RB), PB155.3-C
The potential barrier was located in an unnamed tributary that flows into the Susitna River at
PRM 158.7 on river right. The barrier survey was flown on October 4, 2014. The stream section
surveyed contained a continuous steep cascade estimated to be greater than 250 ft long and with
a gradient estimated at more than 45 degrees (Figure 5.2-2). The site was re-classified, as a
Fixed Permanent Boulder Cascade barrier to upstream fish passage due to excessive gradient.
5.2.3. Unnamed Tributary to Devil Creek, PB161.5-C
The potential barrier was located in an unnamed tributary to Devil Creek approximately 2,000 ft
from the tributary confluence with Devil Creek, and approximately one mile from the mouth of
Devil Creek. This site contained three waterfalls estimated over ten feet in height with few
resting places between waterfalls (Figure 5.2-3). Although a plunge pool was observed below
the downstream waterfall, high gradient boulder cascades were observed above and below the
multiple waterfalls that would preclude fish passage. The site was re-classified as a Fixed
Permanent Compound barrier.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 9 October 2015
5.2.4. Unnamed Tributary 169.1, PB165.6-A
This potential barrier was located on Unnamed Tributary 169.1 entering the Susitna River on
river left. The barrier was approximately 2,000 ft from the tributary mouth. The survey,
conducted on October 10, 2014, estimated the waterfall was greater than 12 ft with boulder
cascades above and below the waterfall. The gradient of the downstream cascade was 17
percent. The site classification was maintained, Fixed Permanent Compound (Figure 5.2-4);
because no ground measurements were possible the site is considered a potential barrier to
upstream fish passage.
5.2.5. Unnamed Tributary 204.5, PB201.8-A and PB201.8-B
These potential barriers were located on an unnamed tributary entering the Susitna River on river
left. The lowermost barrier was approximately 2,500 ft upstream from the creek mouth. The
survey occurred on October 6, 2014. The barriers were approximately 500 ft apart. Under the
low flow conditions, the estimated height for the downstream waterfall (PB-204.5A) was 12 ft,
while the estimated height for upstream waterfall (PB-204.5B) was 10 ft (Figure 5.2-5). Both of
the estimated heights were greater than the previous survey at higher flows. The site was re-
classified as a Fixed Seasonal Compound barrier.
5.3. Beaver Dam Survey
Review of remote imagery for approximately 89 miles of the Middle River identified 433
potential beaver dams (Figure 5.3-1). The assessment of structural integrity of the dams
identified 164 intact dams, 34 partial dams, and 147 not intact dams. The integrity of 88 dams
could not be determined from remote imagery. The dam locations are presented in 19 of the 43
reach maps depicting the results of the review (Appendix A) and these detailed maps also
indicate the dams within Focus Areas where field verification occurred as part of Study 6.6.
Dam. Heights and status of the field verified dams is reported in Table 5.3-1.
5.4. Tributary Mouth Surveys
5.4.1. Lower McKenzie Creek/Slough (PRM 119.7)
Lower McKenzie Creek/Slough enters into the mainstem Susitna River on the left bank at PRM
119.7. The stream channel was surveyed for a distance of 343.7 ft on September 30, 2014. At
the upstream end of the survey, upstream of a culvert under the Alaska Railroad, the stream was
flooded by a beaver dam partially blocking the culvert (Figure 5.4-1).
Downstream of the culvert, the stream traversed a large pool (at thalweg station 275.1 ft) then
sped up over a shallow riffle (Figure 5.4-2). Overall, substrate downstream of the culvert was
dominated by a mixture of cobble, gravel and silt with depths between 0.2 and 3.2 ft (Table 5.4-
1). A mainstem gravel bar extended across the creek mouth and separated the creek from the
mainstem Susitna River at the low flow condition during surveys (mean daily flow at Gold Creek
was 10,609 cfs).
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 10 October 2015
During the survey, survey staff were accompanied by personnel from the Alaska Railroad. They
indicated that the beaver would be re-located from this location prior to freeze-up. The geometry
and composition of Lower McKenzie Creek/Slough likely will change after removal of the
beaver(s).
5.4.2. McKenzie Creek (PRM 120.2)
McKenzie Creek entered the Susitna River on river left at PRM 120.2. The stream channel was
surveyed for a distance of 348.8 ft on September 30, 2015 from downstream of the railroad
culvert to the mouth. This section of creek was contained within a defined channel as it
meandered through a mixed cottonwood and birch stand (Figure 5.4-3). Downstream of the
hardwood stand, flow spread out across a small boulder apron just before reaching the Susitna
River (Figure 5.4-4). During low Susitna River flow conditions (mean daily flow at Gold Creek
USGS gage was 10,609 cfs), the creek mouth was separated from the mainstem flow by a gravel
bar. Thalweg substrate was dominated by cobbles and gravel with water depths between 0.3 and
1.0 ft and water velocities averaging 1.4 feet per second (fps) with a maximum of 2.8 fps (Table
5.4-2).
5.4.3. Little Portage Creek (PRM 121.4)
Little Portage Creek was surveyed over a distance of 745.6 ft on September 30, 2014. The
stream flowed through a moderate gradient channel and dispersed across a delta before reaching
a shallow side channel riffle adjacent to the left bank of the Susitna River. While this riffle was
comprised solely of creek flow during the low flow survey conditions it likely becomes
submerged by mainstem flows at higher Susitna River flows (Figure 5.4-5, Figure 5.4-6).
Substrates were dominated by cobble and gravel and stream depth ranged from 0.25 to 1.10 ft
(Table 5.4-3). Water velocity was generally low with an average of 0.8 fps and range of 0.4 to
1.9 fps.
5.4.4. Jack Long Creek (PRM 148.3)
Jack Long Creek entered the Susitna River on river right at PRM 148.3. The stream channel was
surveyed over a distance of 297.7 ft on October 1, 2014. At the upstream end of the survey, the
channel was distinct with high gradients up to 7.3 percent and large boulders (Figures 5.4-7 and
Figure 5.4-8). The stream then dispersed over a large delta dominated by boulder and cobble
substrate (Figure 5.4-7) and no defined thalweg was present. Nevertheless, the deepest channel
with the majority of the flow was surveyed and this channel extended in the downstream
direction of the mainstem Susitna River. Substrate along the entire thalweg survey was
dominated by boulder and cobble and channel depths ranged from 0.9 to 2.1 ft (Table 5.4-4).
Water velocity averaged 2.8 fps with a maximum of 4.7 fps.
5.4.5. Cheechako Creek (PRM 155.9)
Cheechako Creek joined with the Susitna River on river left at PRM 155.9. Approximately 130
ft of the lower portion of this stream was surveyed on October 2, 2014. The mouth of
Cheechako Creek was a high gradient rapid with numerous pools and drops through a large
boulder cascade (Figure 5.4-9). Substrate was dominated by boulders and cobbles with a greater
proportion of bedrock at the upper survey stations. Flow depths ranged from 1.3 to 2.3 ft (Table
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 11 October 2015
5.4-5). Velocities were consistently high, ranging from 1.3 to 5.0 fps with a mean velocity of 2.7
fps. The channel was incised through an unconsolidated gravel and boulder bank. Overall
gradient for the 138.3 feet-long thalweg profile was 5.1 percent with a maximum of 19.3 percent
(Figure 5.4-10).
5.4.6. Chinook Creek (PRM 160.5)
Chinook Creek joined the Susitna River on river left at PRM 160.5. The lower section of
Chinook Creek was surveyed for 157 ft on October 2, 2014, and consisted of a high gradient
rapid with numerous pools and drops among large boulders (Figure 5.4-11). Substrate was
dominated by bedrock, boulders and cobbles with flow depths ranging from 1.0 to 2.1 ft.
Velocities were consistently high, ranging from 1.8 to 6.7 fps with a mean velocity of 4.3 fps
(Table 5.4-6). The channel was incised through an unconsolidated gravel and boulder bank.
Overall gradient for the thalweg profile was 4.3 percent (Figure 5.4-12).
5.4.7. Devil Creek (PRM 164.8)
Devil Creek joined the Susitna River on river right at PRM 164.8. The mouth of Devil Creek
was surveyed on October 3, 2014, over a distance of 141.9 ft. This section of the creek consisted
of a high gradient rapid with a distinct thalweg that ran adjacent to a bedrock wall (Figure 5.4-
13). The depth and swiftness of the thalweg prevented survey staff from measuring flow in the
deepest channel. As a result, water velocity and depth measurements may underestimate values
at the thalweg for some stations. Overall gradient for the thalweg profile was 4.0 percent and the
substrate was dominated by bedrock and boulders (Figure 5.4-14). The flow depth ranged from
1.4 to 5.0 ft, and flow velocities were between 1.8 and 7.4 fps with a mean of 4.1 fps (Table 5.4-
7).
5.4.8. Fog Creek (PRM 179.3)
Fog Creek joined the Susitna River on river left at PRM 179.3. A distance of 370 ft was
surveyed on October 3, 2014. In the mouth of Fog Creek, flow split into two channels across a
broad debris fan (Figure 5.4-15). The majority of flow (estimated >90 percent) was contained in
the north channel where the survey was conducted. The substrate in this channel was dominated
by bedrock and cobble with water depths between 1.1 and 2.4 ft and velocities between 2.7 and
7.4 fps with an average of 5.0 fps (Table 5.4-8). Overall gradient for the thalweg profile was 2.5
percent with a maximum of 12.6 percent (Figure 5.4-16).
5.4.9. Tsusena Creek (PRM 184.6)
Tsusena Creek joined the Susitna River on river right at PRM 184.6. The mouth of Tsusena
Creek was surveyed on October 4, 2105, over a distance of 374.8 ft. The stream flowed across a
broad alluvial fan consisting of shallow flow over a large extent of the fan as well as within a
well-defined thalweg channel (Figure 5.4-17). The substrate was dominated by bedrock and
cobble with water depths between 0.95 and 2.8 ft (Table 5.4-9). Average water column velocity
ranged from 1.1 to 6.1 fps and the overall gradient along the thalweg length was 1.5 percent with
a maximum of 9.4 percent (Figure 5.4-18).
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 12 October 2015
6. DISCUSSION
To date, the Study of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and Upper Susitna River and Susitna
Tributaries has identified target fish species to be evaluated with input from the licensing
participants and has proposed velocity, leaping, and depth criteria to use in evaluating
species/lifestage specific passage potential. In 2012 through 2014, AEA completed field surveys
conducted under this study, including aerial surveys for geologic barriers in all major tributaries
in the Upper and Middle River and thalweg surveys of tributary mouths within the Middle River.
In addition, field data collection characterization of existing physical barriers within FAs,
including beaver dams, and for additional selected tributary mouths outside of FAs has been
completed by the Geomorphology Study (Study 6.5) and Instream Flow Study (Study 8.5) and
will be used to developed hydraulic and flow-habitat models.
In addition, the Salmon Escapement Study is evaluating the upstream passage of adult salmon
through Devils Canyon (Study 9.7). Impacts of changes to barriers will be evaluated in
coordination with results from the Geomorphology Modeling Study (Study 8.6) Fish and Aquatic
Instream Flow Study (Study 8.5), the Upper and Middle River Fish Distribution and Abundance
Studies (Studies 9.5 and 9.6), and the Habitat Characterization and Mapping Study (Study 9.9).
Both data collection and model development activities are on track to evaluate the potential
effects of Project-induced changes in flow and geomorphology on free access of fish into, within,
and out of suitable habitats in the Upper River and the Middle River.
7. CONCLUSION
The Study of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and Upper Susitna River and Susitna
Tributaries has: 1) documented existing barriers present in Middle and Upper Rivers tributaries,
2) characterized the thalweg depths and velocities within selected Middle River Tributary
mouths, 3) characterized beaver dams within FAs, 4) conducted consultation with licensing
participants on target fish species and passage criteria, and 5) coordinated with interrelated
modeling studies. The field data collection efforts for characterizing existing barrier conditions
are complete. To evaluate the potential for Project Operations to alter barrier conditions in these
areas outputs from modeling efforts will be integrated with the data collected to fully achieve the
approved study objectives.
7.1. Decision Points from Study Plan
No decision points beyond those described in Study 9.12 ISR Part C (AEA 2014) have been
established.
7.2. Modifications to Study Plan
No modifications to the Study Plan are needed to complete the study and meet Study Plan
objectives.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 13 October 2015
8. LITERATURE CITED
Aaserude, R.G. and J.F. Orsborn. 1985. New Concepts in Fish Ladder Design, Volume II of IV;
Results of Laboratory and Field Research on New Concepts in Weir and Pool Fishways.
1982-1984 Final Report, Project No. 198201400. BPA Report DOE/BP-36523-3. 175
pp.
ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2001. Memorandum of Agreement between
ADF&G and ADOT for the Design, Permitting and Construction of Culverts for Fish
Passage. 33 pp.
AEA (Alaska Energy Authority). 2014. Study of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and Upper
Susitna River and Susitna Tributaries: Initial Study Report, Part A: Sections 1-6, 8-10,
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 14241)
Bainbridge, R. 1960. Speed and stamina in three fish. Journal of Experimental Biology
37:129–153.
Bates, K., B. Barnard, B. Heiner, J. P. Klavas, and P. D. Powers. 2003. Design of Road
Culverts for Fish Passage. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
Beamish, F.W.H. 1980. Swimming performance and oxygen consumption of the charrs. Pages
739-748 in E.K. Balon, editor. Charrs. Salmonid fishes of the genus Salvelinus. Dr. W.
Junk, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Bell, M.C. 1991. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon.
Bugert, R.M., T.C. Bjornn, and W.R. Meehan. 1991. Summer Habitat Use by Young Salmonids
and Their Responses to Cover and Predators in a Small Southeast Alaska Stream.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120: 478-485
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2013. California Department of Fish and
Game Instream Flow Program. Standard Operating Procedure for Critical Riffle Analysis
for Fish Passage in California. DFG-IFP-001
Clemens, B.J., M.G. Lee, R.J. Magie, D.A. Young, and C.B. Schreck. 2012. Pre-spawning
migrations of adult Pacific lamprey, Entosphenus tridentatus, in the Willamette River,
Oregon, U.S.A. Environmental Biology of Fishes 93:245-254.
Deegan, L.A., H.E. Golden, J. Harrison, and J. Kracko. 2005. Swimming performance and
metabolism of 0+ year Thymallus arcticus Journal of Fish Biology (2005) 67, 910–918
Furniss, M., M. Love, S. Firor, K. Moynan, A. Llanos, J. Guntle, and R. Gubernick. 2008.
FishXing, version 3.0. U.S. Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development
Center, San Dimas, California. Available: www.stream.fs.fed.us/fishxing. (March 2012).
HDR, Inc, 2013. Fish Passage Barrier Assessment Implementation Plan. Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority,
Anchorage, Alaska. June 2013.
Jones, D.R., J.W. Kiceniuk, and O.S. Bamford. 1974. Evaluation of the swimming performance
of several fish species from the Mackenzie River. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 31:1641-
1647.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 14 October 2015
Katopodis, C. 1992. Introduction to fishway design. Freshwater Institute, Central and Arctic
Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 1992
Keefer, M.L., W.R. Daigle, C.A. Peery, H.T. Pennington, S.R. Lee, and M.L. Moser. 2010.
Testing adult Pacific lamprey performance at structural challenges in fishways. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 30:376–385.
Lee, C.G., R.H. Devlin, and A.P. Farrell. 2003. Swimming performance, oxygen consumption
and excess post-exercise oxygen consumption in adult transgenic and ocean-ranched
coho salmon. Journal of Fish Biology 62:753-766.
Mesa M.G., J.M Bayer, and J.G. Seelye. 2003. Swimming Performance and Physiological
Responses to Exhaustive Exercise in Radio-Tagged and Untagged Pacific Lamprey.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 132:483-492
Mesa M.G., L.K. Welland, and G.B Zydlewski. 2004. Critical swimming speeds of Wild Bull
Trout. Northwest Science. 78: 59-65.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility
Design. NMFS, Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 137 pp.
Peake, S.J. 2008. Swimming performance and behaviour of fish species endemic to
Newfoundland and Labrador: A literature review for the purpose of establishing design
and water velocity criteria for fishways and culverts. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat.
Sci. 2843: v + 52p.
Powers, P.D., and J.F. Orsborn. 1985. New Concepts in Fish Ladder Design: Analysis of
Barriers to Upstream Fish Migration, Volume IV of IV; Investigation of the Physical and
Biological Conditions Affecting Fish Passage Success at Culverts and Waterfalls", 1982-
1984 Final Report, Project No. 198201400, 134 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP-
36523-1)
R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. 2007. Scientific Basis and Development of Alternatives
Protecting Anadromous Salmonids, Task 3 Report Administrative Draft Appendices
prepared for California State Water Resources Control Board North Coast Instream Flow
Policy
R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. 2014. Study of Fish Passage Barriers in the Middle and Upper
Susitna River and Susitna Tributaries, Fish Passage Criteria Technical Memorandum.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241. Prepared for Alaska
Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. November 2014.
Randall, D.J., Mense D. and R.G. Boutilier. 1987. The effects of burst swimming on aerobic
swimming in chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Marine Behaviour and
Physiology 13: 77-88.
Reiser, D.W., and R.T. Peacock. 1985. A technique for assessing upstream fish passage
problems at small-scale hydropower developments. In: Proceedings of the symposium on
small hydropower and fisheries. Page 423.
Robinson, T.C., and J.M. Bayer. 2005. Upstream migration of Pacific lampreys in the John Day
River, Oregon: behavior, timing, and habitat use. Northwest Science 79:106-119.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 15 October 2015
Schwalme, K., W.C. Mackay and D. Lindner. 1985. Suitability of vertical slot and Denil
fishways for passing north-temperate, nonsalmonid fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences. 42:1815-1822.
Smith, L.S. and L.T. Carpenter. 1987. Salmonid Fry Swimming Stamina Data for Diversion
Screen Criteria. Final Report. Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington,
Seattle, WA (1987).
Snider, W.M. 1985. Instream Flow Requirements of Anadromous Salmonids, Brush Creek,
Mendocino County, California. California Department Of Fish And Game, Stream
Evaluation Report No. 85-1. Sacramento, California. September.
Sutphin Z.A.,and C.D. Hueth. 2010. Swimming Performance of Larval Pacific Lamprey
(Lampetra tridentata). Northwest Science. 84: 196-200.
Thompson, K. 1972. Determining Stream Flows for Fish Life. Pacific Northwest River Basins
Commission Instream Flow Requirement Workshop. March 15-16, 1972. 34 pp.
USFS (United States Forest Service). 2001. Aquatic habitat management handbook. Chapter
20 – Fish and Aquatic Stream Habitat Survey.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 16 October 2015
9. TABLES
Table 5.1-1. Target species list for fish passage barrier evaluation following consultation with licensing participants.
Target Species
Chinook Salmon
Chum Salmon
Coho Salmon
Pink Salmon
Sockeye Salmon
Arctic Grayling
Arctic Lamprey 1
Burbot
Dolly Varden
Humpback Whitefish1
Northern Pike1,2
Rainbow Trout
1 Target species suggested for consideration by licensing participants.
2 Northern Pike will be evaluated for mainstem velocity barrier.
3 Bering Cisco and Eulachon were suggested but not added due to distribution and life history characteristics.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 17 October 2015
Table 5.1-2. Depth criteria required for fish passage as reported in the literature for targeted fish species and adult and
juvenile life stages.
Species Lifestage Depth Criteria
(ft) References
Arctic Grayling
adult 0.6 ADF&G (2001)
juvenile 0.4 ADF&G (2001)
Dolly Varden
adult 0.2 - 1.0 ADF&G (2001)
juvenile 0.2 Bugert et al. (1991)
Chinook Salmon
adult 0.8 - 0.9 CDFG (2013), Thompson (1972)
juvenile 0.3 CDFG (2013)
Coho Salmon
adult 0.6 - 0.7 CDFG (2013), Thompson (1972)
juvenile 0.3 CDFG (2013)
Chum Salmon
adult 0.6 - 0.8 CDFG (2013), Thompson (1972),
juvenile 0.3 CDFG (2013)
Pink Salmon
adult 0.6 - 0.8 CDFG (2013), Thompson (1972),
juvenile 0.3 NMFS (2008)
Sockeye Salmon
adult 0.6 – 0.7 Bates et al. (2003)
juvenile 0.3 CDFG (2013)
Rainbow Trout
adult 0.5 - 0.7 Snider (1985), CDFG (2013)
juvenile 0.3 CDFG (2013)
Note: Northern Pike are being evaluated for velocity and not depth.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 18 October 2015
Table 5.1-3. Pacific Salmon leaping height capabilities from three sources.
Species
Leaping Height (feet)
Powers and Orsborn
(1985)1
Reiser and Peacock
(1985) USFS (2001)
Dolly Varden - - 6.0
Chinook Salmon 7.5 7.9 11.0
Chum Salmon 3.5 4.0 4.0
Coho Salmon 7.5 7.3 11.0
Pink Salmon 3.5 4.0 4.0
Sockeye Salmon 7.5 6.9 10.0
Note: Assumes a trajectory of 800 with a condition factor of 1.0. Maximum leaping height is less at a lower trajectory and lower fish condition
factor.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 19 October 2015
Table 5.1-4. Pool depth and channel gradient fish passage criteria for target Salmonids adapted from the Forest Service
Handbook 2090.21 Adult Salmonid Migration Blockage Table.
Species
Criterion Chinook Coho Sockeye Pink/Chum Dolly Varden
Pool depth
A blockage may be
presumed if pool
depth is less than
the following, and
the pool is
unobstructed by
boulders or be
bedrock:
1.25 x jump height, except that there is no minimum pool depth for falls:
(a)<4 feet (1.2m) in the case of Coho and Steelhead; and
(b)<2 feet (0.6m) in the case of other anadromous fish species.
Steep channel
A blockage may be
presumed if
channel steepness
is greater than the
following without
resting places for
fish:
>225 feet (68.6m) @ 12% gradient
>100 feet (30.5m) @ 16% gradient
>50 feet (15.2m) @ 20% gradient
>100 feet
(30.5m) @ 9%
gradient
>50 feet
(15.2m) @
30% gradient
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 20 October 2015
Table 5.1-5. Swimming capabilities and velocity criteria for fish passage based literature values for selected fish species and life stages.
Species
Life
stage
Prolonged Speed Burst Speed
ft/s References ft/s References
Arctic Grayling Adult 1.4 - 4.1 Katapodis (1992) 6.9 - 13.9 Bell (1991)
Juvenile 0.5 - 0.8 Deegan et al. (2005) NR NR
Arctic Lamprey Adult 0.2 - 0.8
a Robinson and Bayer (2005), a
Clemens et al. (2012) 2.5 - 10
a Mesa et al. (2003), a Keefer
et al. (2010)
Juvenile 0.3 - 0.6 aSutphin and Hueth (2010) 1.0 - 2.5 a Sutphin and Hueth (2010)
Burbot Adult 1.3 - 2.6
Jones et al. (1974), Schwalme et al.
(1985) 1.1 - 4.0 Bell (1991)
Juvenile 1.1 - 1.3 Jones et al. (1974) NR NR
Dolly Varden Adult 2.0 - 3.3 bBeamish (1980) 4.2 - 7.5 b Mesa et al. (2004)
Juvenile 0.5-1.6 cMesa et al. (2004) NR NR
Humpback
Whitefish
Adult 1.0 - 2.3 Jones et al. (1974), Beamish (1980) 3.0 - 4.0 Bell (1991)
Juvenile 0.2 - 1.3 Jones et al. (1974) NR NR
Northern Pike Adult 1.9 – 2.0 Peake (2008) d 5.7 – 17.4e Peake (2008)
Juvenile 0.4 – 1.2 Peake (2008) d NR NR
Chinook Salmon Adult
2.9 -
11.0 Bell (1991)
11.0 -
22.1 Bell (1991)
Juvenile 0.5 - 0.9 Furniss et al. (2008) 2.0 - 2.3 Randall et al. (1987)
Coho Salmon Adult
3.1 -
10.9 Lee et al. (2003)
11.7 -
21.0 Bell (1991)
Juvenile 0.4 - 2.1 Bell (1991) NR NR
Chum Salmon Adult 1.7 - 5.1 Aaserude and Orsborn (1985) 6.0 - 12.6 Powers and Orsborn (1985)
Juvenile 0.4 - 0.6 Smith and Carpenter (1987) NR NR
Pink Salmon Adult
2.9 -
11.0 Lee et al. (2003), Bell (1991)
11.0 –
21.0 Bell (1991)
Juvenile 0.4 - 0.5 Smith and Carpenter (1987) 7.7 – 11.0 Powers and Orsborn (1985)
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 21 October 2015
Species
Life
stage
Prolonged Speed Burst Speed
ft/s References ft/s References
Sockeye Salmon Adult 4.0 – 8.8 Bell (1991)
10.0 -
21.9
Bell (1991), Bainbridge
(1960)
Juvenile 1.4 - 2.1 Bell (1991) NR NR
Rainbow Trout Adult 2.1 - 2.6 Furniss et al. (2008)
14.0 -
20.3 Bell (1991)
Juvenile 1.0 - 2.0 Bainbridge (1960) 2.4 - 7.2 Bainbridge (1960)
a Pacific Lamprey is used as a surrogate; b Arctic Char is used as a surrogate; c Bull Trout is used as a surrogate; d Converted from
metric UCrit speeds at temperature greater than 12°C; e Maximum swimming speed for 20.7 to 35.8 cm Northern Pike at 15°C; +for
Bull Trout; NR = no reference available
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 22 October 2015
Table 5.3-1. Data from field verification of beaver dams in Focus Areas.
Dam ID Survey Date
Focus
Area Status Height (ft) Comments
1 9/14/13 FA-104 Active 5.5
Large beaver dam in upland
slough
2 9/ 14/13 FA-104 Undetermined ND Beaver pond
3 9/15/13 FA-113 Inactive ND Old beaver dam
4 9/16/13 FA-113 Inactive ND
Abandoned beaver dam that
was partially filled in. Raised
water table.
5 9/16/13 FA-113 Inactive ND
Old beaver dam was intact
but doesn't appear to be
active.
6 9/16/13 FA-115 Active ND Beaver dam in upland slough
8 8/26/13 FA-128 Active ND
Two dam structures located
at upstream end of side
slough.
7 9/20/13 FA-115 Inactive 5
Old abandoned, breached
beaver dam.
9 8/15/13 FA-138 Inactive ND*
Two points associated with
one beaver pond and blown
out beaver dam
11 8/14/2013 FA-138 Active 1.5
Two points associated with
one beaver dam across a side
channel
12 8/14/2013 FA-138 Active 2
Beaver dam at head of
coarse riffle
14 8/15/2013 FA-138 Active 3
Downstream end of beaver
dam
15 9/21/13 FA-141 Active 3
Beaver dam across upland
slough; status uncertain.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 23 October 2015
Dam ID Survey Date
Focus
Area Status Height (ft) Comments
16 9/21/13 FA-141 Active 4.5
Beaver dam in upland
slough.
17 8/17/2013 FA-144 Active ND
Beaver dam at confluence of
side slough and side channel
18 8/18/2013 FA-144 Inactive 0
Old beaver dam at mouth.
Flow backed up from beaver
dam 17.
*ND = no data
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 24 October 2015
Table 5.4-1. Lower McKenzie Creek/Slough thalweg characteristics. Thalweg Station (ft) Bed Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/sec) Bedrock (%) Boulder (%) Cobbles (%) Gravel (%) Fines (%) Organics (%) 0.0 489.2 1.4 0.7 0 0 0 0 100 0
22.4 489.6 1.6 1.2 0 0 60 0 40 0
52.9 490.4 0.6 0.9 0 0 20 0 80 0
81.3 490.4 0.5 1.1 0 0 90 10 0 0
135.5 490.9 0.4 1.4 0 0 20 70 10 0
161.1 491.3 0.3 1.6 0 0 10 90 0 0
193.5 492.2 0.2 1.7 0 0 90 0 10 0
217.8 492.2 0.7 0.9 0 0 20 60 20 0
235.3 492.4 0.5 1.2 0 0 10 80 10 0
252.1 492.0 1.0 0.6 0 0 0 70 30 0
275.1 491.6 1.5 0.7 0 0 10 70 20 0
343.7 494.7 3.2 0.1 NRD NRD NRD NRD NRD NRD
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 25 October 2015
Table 5.4-2. McKenzie Creek thalweg characteristics. Thalweg Station (ft) Bed Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/sec) Bedrock (%) Boulder (%) Cobbles (%) Gravel (%) Fines (%) Organics (%) 0.0 493.6 0.65 1.0 0 0 0 0 90 10
21.4 495.3 0.45 1.1 0 0 40 50 10 0
41.5 495.8 0.35 1.1 0 0 60 30 0 10
80.7 495.5 0.85 0.7 0 0 40 50 10 0
101.4 495.8 0.65 1.9 0 10 60 20 10 0
118.8 497.2 0.45 1.8 0 0 70 20 10 0
134.8 497.7 0.40 2.8 0 10 50 30 10 0
159.8 499.3 0.60 1.4 0 10 40 40 10 0
176.2 499.6 1.00 1.2 0 20 40 40 0 0
204.8 502.4 0.30 1.3 0 10 50 40 0 0
229.0 502.2 0.40 1.4 0 0 30 60 10 0
265.7 503.2 0.45 1.3 0 0 40 40 20 0
348.8 506.0 0.60 2.4 0 10 50 40 0 0
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 26 October 2015
Table 5.4-3. Little Portage Creek thalweg characteristics. Thalweg Station (ft) Bed Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/sec) Bedrock (%) Boulder (%) Cobbles (%) Gravel (%) Fines (%) Organics (%) 0.0 503.8 0.30 0.3 0 0 20 70 10 0
27.1 503.8 0.55 0.6 0 0 30 60 0 10
60.5 504.0 0.45 0.9 0 0 30 50 10 10
113.0 504.5 0.40 0.8 0 0 60 20 10 10
147.7 504.8 0.25 0.7 0 0 30 70 0 0
180.2 505.3 0.30 0.9 0 0 70 30 0 0
210.9 506.0 0.25 0.6 0 0 60 30 0 10
247.3 506.2 0.40 1.0 0 0 70 20 0 10
292.5 506.2 0.45 0.4 0 0 30 50 10 10
327.4 506.1 0.80 0.5 0 0 20 60 10 10
363.8 506.5 0.50 0.9 0 0 60 30 0 10
420.0 506.3 0.80 0.4 0 0 70 20 0 10
475.3 506.2 0.80 0.6 0 0 50 40 0 10
522.9 506.5 0.40 0.6 0 0 50 40 0 10
584.8 506.1 1.10 0.9 0 0 40 40 10 10
609.3 506.6 0.65 0.7 0 0 30 70 0 0
643.7 508.4 0.45 1.1 0 0 70 30 0 0
745.6 512.3 0.65 1.9 0 10 30 60 0 0
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 27 October 2015
Table 5.4-4. Jack Long Creek thalweg characteristics. Thalweg Station (ft) Bed Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/sec) Bedrock (%) Boulder (%) Cobbles (%) Gravel (%) Fines (%) Organics (%) 0.0 789.2 1.2 0.2 0 70 20 10 0 0
28.3 790.5 1.0 0.9 0 60 20 10 10 0
41.1 791.5 0.9 3.0 0 70 20 10 0 0
60.1 791.9 1.3 1.2 0 80 20 0 0 0
85.5 792.7 0.9 2.1 0 80 20 0 0 0
101.7 792.9 0.9 3.7 0 90 10 0 0 0
124.4 793.5 1.1 4.7 0 80 10 10 0 0
149.3 793.9 1.0 3.3 0 70 20 10 0 0
168.6 793.8 2.1 4.4 0 90 10 0 0 0
186.2 794.8 1.0 3.7 0 90 10 0 0 0
208.8 795.2 1.1 1.8 0 70 20 10 0 0
227.1 796.0 1.1 4.1 0 70 20 10 0 0
250.1 796.5 1.3 3.9 0 60 20 10 10 0
274.6 796.8 1.3 2.7 0 60 20 10 10 0
297.7 796.1 2.1 2.6 0 50 20 20 10 0
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 28 October 2015
Table 5.4-5. Cheechako Creek thalweg characteristics. Thalweg Station (ft) Bed Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/sec) Bedrock (%) Boulder (%) Cobbles (%) Gravel (%) Fines (%) Organics (%) 0.0 968.9 2.20 1.8 0 90 10 0 0 0
12.6 970.1 1.80 1.3 0 90 7 3 0 0
25.0 970.5 2.30 1.3 0 100 0 0 0 0
39.2 972.9 1.75 3.7 0 90 10 0 0 0
60.7 974.2 1.25 5.0 0 95 5 0 0 0
69.1 975.1 1.30 4.6 0 60 35 5 0 0
83.0 974.8 1.70 2.5 0 75 20 5 0 0
94.0 974.8 1.80 2.5 50 40 10 0 0 0
108.9 975.3 1.90 1.8 0 60 30 10 0 0
129.7 976.7 2.00 3.4 30 60 10 0 0 0
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 29 October 2015
Table 5.4-6. Chinook Creek thalweg characteristics. Thalweg Station (ft) Bed Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/sec) Bedrock (%) Boulder (%) Cobbles (%) Gravel (%) Fines (%) Organics (%) 0.0 1069.0 1.7 2.1 0 70 25 5 0 0
8.6 1069.9 1.0 4.3 0 50 40 10 0 0
22.6 1070.4 1.1 1.8 0 60 30 10 0 0
34.5 1072.2 1.2 5.2 0 90 10 0 0 0
52.7 1072.9 2.1 2.7 10 70 15 5 0 0
59.1 1073.6 1.8 5.7 10 80 10 0 0 0
65.5 1074.1 1.4 4.9 10 80 10 0 0 0
72.9 1075.3 1.7 5.1 20 75 5 0 0 0
79.0 1076.1 1.2 6.7 50 40 10 0 0 0
85.7 1076.6 1.9 4.1 0 95 5 0 0 0
95.9 1077.5 1.3 3.8 0 50 40 10 0 0
105.4 1077.8 1.3 5.3 0 50 40 10 0 0
111.8 1077.5 1.5 6.4 0 70 20 10 0 0
122.3 1078.7 1.4 5.0 0 80 15 5 0 0
138.5 1079.7 1.3 4.9 0 75 20 5 0 0
157.0 1080.0 1.7 2.9 40 30 20 10 0 0
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 30 October 2015
Table 5.4-7. Devil Creek thalweg characteristics. Thalweg Station (ft) Bed Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/sec) Bedrock (%) Boulder (%) Cobbles (%) Gravel (%) Fines (%) Organics (%) 0.0 1200.7 3.3 2.1 20 75 5 0 0 0
7.4 1200.2 3.6 1.8 0 90 10 0 0 0
19.2 1200.7 3.5 2.7 20 75 5 0 0 0
47.1 1201.2 3.5 4.3 0 90 10 0 0 0
64.2 1203.7 1.4 4.8 20 75 5 0 0 0
71.6 1202.3 2.7 2.2 15 85 0 0 0 0
88.1 1204.7 2.4 7.4 40 60 0 0 0 0
96.4 1204.8 2.3 5.9 60 40 0 0 0 0
105.4 1205.7 2.3 4.3 0 85 10 5 0 0
117.7 1206.2 2.7 4.1 60 35 5 0 0 0
141.9 1206.4 2.3 4.9 40 50 10 0 0 0
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 31 October 2015
Table 5.4-8. Fog Creek thalweg characteristics. Thalweg Station (ft) Bed Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/sec) Bedrock (%) Boulder (%) Cobbles (%) Gravel (%) Fines (%) Organics (%) 0.0 1372.1 1.2 4.0 0 40 50 10 0 0
18.1 1371.4 2.4 3.8 0 50 40 10 0 0
33.7 1372.2 1.5 6.1 0 50 45 5 0 0
44.4 1372.3 1.4 5.5 0 30 60 10 0 0
53.0 1372.5 1.3 7.4 0 40 50 10 0 0
61.6 1373.1 1.4 6.0 0 40 50 10 0 0
68.9 1373.5 1.5 5.8 0 30 60 10 0 0
74.3 1373.6 1.5 6.9 0 25 70 5 0 0
86.6 1373.7 2.3 3.8 0 60 35 5 0 0
95.1 1374.7 1.6 6.4 0 40 50 10 0 0
102.8 1374.3 2.2 3.2 0 60 35 5 0 0
113.4 1375.7 1.5 5.2 0 45 50 5 0 0
122.3 1376.1 1.1 6.0 0 40 55 5 0 0
133.6 1376.5 1.3 5.3 0 30 60 10 0 0
151.1 1376.9 1.4 3.9 0 20 70 10 0 0
164.3 1376.9 1.6 2.7 0 20 60 20 0 0
186.5 1377.2 1.4 4.4 0 10 70 20 0 0
222.4 1376.9 2.0 5.5 0 30 65 5 0 0
239.1 1376.8 2.2 3.9 0 40 55 5 0 0
330.4 1379.4 2.0 5.1 0 60 35 5 0 0
349.9 1380.0 1.4 4.8 0 50 45 5 0 0
370.0 1380.5 1.4 4.0 0 60 40 0 0 0
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 32 October 2015
Table 5.4-9. Tsusena Creek thalweg characteristics. Thalweg Station (ft) Bed Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/sec) Bedrock (%) Boulder (%) Cobbles (%) Gravel (%) Fines (%) Organics (%) 0.0 1435.6 1.80 3.2 0 50 40 10 0 0
14.5 1436.3 1.20 3.4 0 20 70 10 0 0
28.4 1436.8 0.95 3.6 0 40 50 10 0 0
39.8 1436.7 1.40 4.7 0 30 60 10 0 0
53.1 1437.1 1.60 3.3 0 40 50 10 0 0
64.8 1437.3 1.50 4.7 0 60 30 10 0 0
76.2 1437.9 1.30 5.4 0 70 25 5 0 0
87.1 1438.0 1.70 2.8 0 80 20 0 0 0
100.2 1438.0 1.60 6.1 0 80 20 0 0 0
113.8 1439.2 1.30 4.1 0 75 20 5 0 0
123.7 1440.0 1.50 5.1 0 80 10 10 0 0
142.6 1440.1 1.60 3.5 0 40 50 10 0 0
151.7 1440.3 1.50 5.0 0 70 25 5 0 0
174.8 1440.5 1.40 4.4 0 50 40 10 0 0
185.8 1440.6 1.60 4.9 0 40 55 5 0 0
196.1 1440.9 1.50 3.6 0 50 45 5 0 0
207.5 1441.1 1.70 3.6 0 70 20 10 0 0
219.9 1441.1 1.80 1.8 0 40 50 10 0 0
235.4 1441.2 1.90 2.6 0 30 60 10 0 0
252.3 1440.8 2.40 2.1 0 20 70 10 0 0
332.2 1441.2 2.40 1.1 0 70 20 10 0 0
351.0 1441.1 2.45 2.7 0 70 20 10 0 0
374.8 1441.1 2.80 3.8 0 70 20 10 0 0
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 33 October 2015
10. FIGURES
Figure 5.2-1. Photos of PB152.4-A, October 10, 2014. Clockwise from upper left: upper waterfall; middle waterfall;
lower waterfall, lower cascade.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 34 October 2015
Figure 5.2-2. Photos of PB155.3-C, October 4, 2014. Clockwise from upper left: lower section of cascade; upper section
of cascade; full section of cascade view #1; full section of cascade view #2.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 35 October 2015
Figure 5.2-3. Photos of PB161.5-C, October 4, 2014. Left panel: view of three waterfalls and downstream cascade; right
panel: full waterfall and cascade view.
Waterfalls
Cascade
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 36 October 2015
Figure 5.2-4. Photo of PB165.6-A, October 10, 2014.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 37 October 2015
Figure 5.2-5. Photos of PB201.8-A and PB201.8B, October 6, 2014. Clockwise from upper left: barrier PB-204.5A
waterfall; barrier PB-204.5A plunge pool; barrier PB204.5B wide view, barrier PB204.5B close view.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 38 October 2015
Figure 5.3-1. Overview of 2014 Remote Beaver Dam Mapping.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 39 October 2015
Figure 5.4-1. Photos of Lower McKenzie Creek/Slough, September 30, 2014. Clockwise from upper left: bottom of creek
mouth; upstream view to culvert; culvert and beaver dam; and beaver dam above culvert and upstream of Alaska
Railroad tracks.
Figure 5.4-2. Lower McKenzie Creek/Slough thalweg profile.
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200Elevation (ft) Thalweg Station (ft)
Lower McKenzie Creek Thalweg Profile
Thalweg Channel Bed Water Surface
Upstream Exent of Tributary Mouth Upper Extent of ZHI
Culvert
with
Beaver
Dam
Upstream
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 40 October 2015
Figure 5.4-3. Photos of McKenzie Creek, September 30, 2014. Clockwise from upper left: bottom of creek mouth and
debris apron from mainstem Susitna River; bottom of creek mouth; looking downstream to creek mouth; and looking
downstream from Alaska Railroad bridge.
Figure 5.4-4. McKenzie Creek thalweg profile.
492
494
496
498
500
502
504
506
508
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Elevation (ft) Thalweg Station (ft)
McKenzie Creek Thalweg Profile
Thalweg Channel Bed Water Surface
Upstream Exent of Tributary Mouth Upstream Extent of ZHI
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 41 October 2015
Figure 5.4-5. Photos of Little Portage Creek, September 30, 2014. Clockwise from upper left: looking upstream to creek
mouth from mainstem Susitna River; creek mouth and debris apron; and looking upstream under Alaska Railroad
bridge, looking downstream to creek mouth from Alaska Railroad bridge.
Figure 5.4-6. Little Portage Creek thalweg profile.
502
504
506
508
510
512
514
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800Elevation (ft) Thalweg Station (ft)
Little Portage Creek Thalweg Profile
Thalweg Channel Bed Water Surface
Upstream Exent of Tributary Mouth Upstream Extent of ZHI
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 42 October 2015
Figure 5.4-7. Photos of Jack Long Creek, October 1, 2014. Clockwise from upper left: looking upstream from Susitna
River to creek mouth; flow over debris apron; flow above creek mouth; downstream view to creek mouth from top survey
station.
Figure 5.4-8. Jack Long Creek thalweg profile.
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
0 50 100 150 200 250 300Elevation (ft) Thalweg Station (ft)
Jack Long Creek Thalweg Profile
Thalweg Channel Bed Water Surface
Upstream Exent of Tributary Mouth Upstream Extent of ZHI
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 43 October 2015
Figure 5.4-9. Photos of Cheechako Creek, October 2, 2014. Clockwise from upper left: bottom of creek mouth; multiple
channels through creek mouth; riffle upstream of tributary apron; and looking downstream from top of survey.
Figure 5.4-10. Cheechako Creek thalweg profile. No ZHI was modeled for Cheechako Creek at the time of the survey.
968
970
972
974
976
978
980
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Elevation (ft) Thalweg Station (ft)
Cheechako Creek Thalweg Profile
Thalweg Channel Bed Water Surface Upstream Exent of Tributary Mouth
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 44 October 2015
Figure 5.4-11. Photos of Chinook Creek, October 2, 2014. Clockwise from upper left: bottom of creek mouth from
mainstem Susitna River; upstream view from creek mouth; downstream view of creek mouth; downstream view from top
survey station.
Figure 5.4-12. Chinook Creek thalweg profile.
1068
1070
1072
1074
1076
1078
1080
1082
1084
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180Elevation (ft) Thalweg Station (ft)
Chinook Creek Thalweg Profile
Thalweg Channel Bed Water Surface
Upstream Exent of Tributary Mouth Upstream Extent of ZHI
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 45 October 2015
Figure 5.4-13. Photos of Devil Creek, October 3, 2014. Clockwise from upper left: bottom of creek mouth from mainstem
Susitna River; upstream view from creek mouth; downstream view of creek mouth; downstream view from top survey
station.
Figure 5.4-14. Devil Creek thalweg profile. No ZHI was modeled for Devil Creek at the time of the survey.
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160Elevation (ft) Thalweg Station (ft)
Devil Creek Thalweg Profile
Thalweg Channel Bed Water Surface Elevation Upstream Extent of Tributary Mouth
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 46 October 2015
Figure 5.4-15. Photos of Fog Creek, October 3, 2014. Clockwise from upper left: bottom of creek mouth from mainstem
Susitna River; view of creek mouth from middle of transect; downstream view from top survey station; aerial view of
main surveyed channel and a secondary channel.
Figure 5.4-16. Fog Creek thalweg profile.
1370
1372
1374
1376
1378
1380
1382
1384
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Elevation (ft) Thalweg Station (ft)
Fog Creek Thalweg Profile
Thalweg Channel Bed Water Surface Upstream Exent of Tributary Mouth
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 47 October 2015
Figure 5.4-17. Photos of Tsusena Creek, October 4, 2014. Clockwise from upper left: bottom of creek looking
downstream from mainstem Susitna; upstream view from creek mouth; upstream view above creek mouth; downstream
view from top survey station, upstream view from top survey station, aerial view of creek mouth.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 48 October 2015
Figure 5.4-18. Tsusena Creek thalweg profile
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800Elevation (ft) Thalweg Station (ft)
Tsusena Creek Thalweg Profile
Thalweg Channel Bed Water Surface
Upstream Exent of Tributary Mouth Upper Extent of ZHI
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS (STUDY 9.12)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 October 2015
APPENDIX A: MAPS FROM 2014 REMOTE MAPPING OF BEAVER
DAMS