HomeMy WebLinkAboutBradley River Salmon Escapement and Monitoring 1992• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
NORTHERN
ECOLOGICAL
SERVICES
FINAL REPORT
BRADLEY RIVER S.AniON ESCAPEMENT MONITORING
and
TAILRACE ATTRACTION STUDIES
1992
Prepared for:
ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY
December 1992
17120 Tideview Drive • Anchorage, Alaska 99516 • (907) 345-4944
FIHAL REPORT
BRADLEY RIVER SAIKON ESCAPEMENT MONITORING
and
TAILRACE ATTRACTION STUDIES
1992
Prepared for:
ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY
December 1992
FINAL REPORT
BRADLEY RIVER SALMON ESCAPEIIEN'l' MONITORING
AND
TAILRACE ATTRACTION STUDIES
1992
By
John w. Morsel!
Northern Ecological Services
Randall L. Howard
LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.
and
Mary M. Bingham
Northern Ecological services
Prepared for
Alaska Energy Authority
December 1992
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I BRADLEY RIVER SAlMON ESCAPEMENT MONITORING STUDY ••••
INTRODUCTION
METHODS •••••
Study Area ••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Study Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trap Net Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Beach Seine sampling
carcass counts •••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fox Farm Creek Suryeys . . . . . .
Biological Data Management ••••••.
Population and Escapement Estimation
Physical Data Collection ...
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Miscellaneous Observations . . . . . . . .
RESULTS ••••••••••.•.•••••••••
overall catch •••••••••••
Trap Net Index Sampling
Pink Salmon ••••
Chum Salmon
Coho salmon.
Sockeye Salmon
Chinook Salmon
Dolly Varden ••••
Beach Seining ••••••
Carcass Counts .••••••
Fish Condition
Pink Salmon
Chum Salmon
Coho Salmon
. . . . . . . . . .
Sockeye Salmon •••••.•••••••
Chinook Salmon . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . ...
stream Life Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pink Salmon ••••....•••••.
Chum Salmon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Spawning Area L9cation ••••••••••••
Fox Farm Creek Suryeys
Population Estimates
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pink Salmon ••••••••••• .....
Estimates of Total Escapement . . . . .
Pink
Chum
salmon
Salmon ....
Coho Salmon
Sockeye
Chinook
Salmon
Salmon ••
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
i
. . . . .
. . . . . . . ..
. . . . . .
. . . . . . .
1
1
3
3
3
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
14
14
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( COHT. )
Tag Returns From Outside the
Physical Data •••.••••••••..
Miscellaneous Observations
DISCUSSION
Comparison With Prior Years
Pink Salmon
Chum Salmon •••••
Coho Salmon
Sockeye Salmon
Chinook Salmon ....••••
study Area
Validity of Abundance Indices and Estimates
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE 'YEARS •••••••••••••••••
PART II TAILRACE ATTRACTION STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . .
METHODS •.••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Study Area
Tailrace Description •••••
Tailrace Water Volume
study Duration ••.••.
Trap Net Sampling
Beach Seine Sampling
Ultrasonic Tag Tracking
RESULTS
Trap Net catch
seine Sampling
. . . . .
Tag Returns From Outside the Tailrace Area
Ultrasonic Tagging .•• . . . . . . . . . . . .
DISCUSSION
Presence of Salmon in the Tailrace
Behavior of Salmon in the Tailrace Area
...
Pink Salmon
Sockeye Salmon
Coho Salmon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tailrace Impacts •••••
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1993
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
14
14
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
19
20
20
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
24
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
30
31
32
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Total catch for all sample methods combined •••••.... 34
Trap net catch statistics for pink salmon ••.••••••.. 35
Trap net catch statistics for chum salmon •••••....•. 35
Trap net catch statistics for coho salmon •••••••••.• 36
Trap net catch statistics for sockeye salmon ••••.•.. 36
Trap net catch statistics for chinook salmon ..•••••• 37
Trap net catch statistics for Dolly Varden ••••••••.. 37
Seine catch summary for pink salmon •.••••••••••••••• 38
Carcass count summary •••.•..•.••••••••••••••....•••• 3 9
Comparison of the week of marking with the week
of recapture for all recaptured pink salmon ••••••••• 40
Fox Farm Creek visual survey observations ••••.•••••• 41
Fish tagged with ultrasonic tags •••••••.•••••••••••. 42
Tracking history for salmon with ultrasonic tags •••. 43
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Lower Bradley River with salmon escapement
study area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4
Figure 2. Bradley River trap net design •••••••.•••••••••...•• 45
Figure 3. Trap net and seine sites •••••.••••••••••.•..••..•.. 46
Figure 4. Catch-per-unit-effort for pink salmon by
study week. . . . . • • • • • • • . . . . • • • • • • • • . . . . . • • • • . . • . . . . . 4 7
Figure 5. Catch-per-unit-effort for chum salmon by
study week. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8
Figure 6. Catch-per-unit-effort for coho salmon by
study week............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 7. Catch-per-unit-effort for sockeye salmon by
study week......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Figure 8. Catch-per-unit-effort for chinook salmon by
study week...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 9. Catch-per-unit-effort for Dolly Varden by
study week .•..••••••..••••••......•••••••..••••.... 52
Figure 10. Percent frequency of occurrence of ripe pink
salmon by study week ..............................• 53
Figure 11. Estimated total annual escapements for
pink salmon-1986 through 1991 ••••...•••••••••..•. 54
Figure 12. Tailrace study area and net site locations ••••••••• 55
Figure 13. Recovery locations of salmon tagged in the
Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project tailrace .••..••• 56
iv
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Catch records
Appendix A-1. Pink salmon catch records.
Appendix A-2. Chum salmon catch records.
Appendix A-3. coho salmon catch records.
Appendix A-4. Sockeye salmon catch records.
Appendix A-5. Chinook salmon catch records.
Appendix A-6 Dolly Varden catch records.
Appendix B. Fishing effort summary for each net by week during
1992 Bradley River sampling.
Appendix c. Physical Data.
Appendix D. Tailrace catch records.
Appendix D-1. Tailrace pink salmon catch.
Appendix D-2. Tailrace chum salmon catch.
Appendix D-3. Tailrace coho salmon catch.
Appendix D-4. Tailrace sockeye salmon catch.
Appendix D-5. Tailrace Dolly Varden catch.
v
PART I
BRADLEY RIVER SAIKON ESCAPEMENT MONITORING STUDY
INTRODUCTION
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license
granted to the Alaska Power Authority (now Alaska Energy Authority)
for the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project No. 8221)
stipulates that a plan be developed and implemented to monitor the
abundance of salmon in the Bradley River. A salmon monitoring plan
was submitted to FERC in June of 1986 (Alaska Power Authority
1986a). The intent of this monitoring plan is to provide a yearly
index of salmon abundance during both the pre-operational and post-
operational periods to allow an appraisal of project impacts to
salmon resources of the Bradley River. This report summarizes the
results of the eighth year (1992) of studies of salmon escapement
to the Bradley River per the proposed scope of work described in
the Salmon Monitoring Plan.
Operation of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project began in
the fall of 1991, consequently 1992 was the first full year of
project operation.
during the summer
However, operational flows were in effect
of 1991 while the reservoir was filling.
Therefore, 1992 was the second year of the study to examine the
salmon resources under the operational flow regime. Studies of
salmon attraction to the powerhouse discharge channel (tailrace}
were instituted in 1992 and comprise Part II of this report.
Biological activities that occur in the Bradley River are inter-
related with activities that occur at the tailrace. These inter-
relationships are examined in Part II.
The salmon resources of the Bradley River have been documented
in considerable detail through a series of studies (USFWS 1982~
Woodward-Clyde consultants 1983, 1984; Northern Technical Services
1
1985). The Bradley River is a turbid stream of glacial origin,
consequently fish cannot be visually detected. Various active and
passive sampling techniques were utilized to gain insight into the
fish populations. The results of these early studies indicated
that pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) was the principal salmon
species using the river for spawning, although smaller numbers of
chum (~ keta), coho (2L kisutch), and chinook (0. tshawytscha)
also utilized the river. These studies also indicated that
potential spawning habitat was limited to a short segment of the
river due to high gradient and coarse substrate at the upstream end
and silty tideflats at the lower end.
The 1985 study by Northern Technical Services represented the
first year of study for the pre-operational salmon monitoring
program. However, the sampling methodology was modified in 1986
per the approved Salmon Monitoring Plan; therefore, data comparable
to the 1992 study have only been collected during the 1986 through
1991 field seasons. The 1986-1988 studies were conducted by Dames
& Moore (Alaska Power Authority 1986b, 1987, and 1988). The 1989
through 1991 studies (Alaska Energy Authority 1989, 1990 and 1991)
as well as the 1992 field studies, which this report addresses,
were conducted by Northern Ecological Services/LGL Alaska Research
Associates, Inc. The 1986-1991 studies confirmed that pink salmon
were the major spawners and that the river also supports small runs
of the other salmon species. Considerable information on the
abundance, spawning distribution, and other aspects of life history
has been collected over the last eight years.
The primary objectives of the 1992 field effort were to:
-Continue the sampling methodology for the operational flow
regime which was initiated in 1991 in order to allow estimates
of salmon abundance to be compared with past years and, at the
same time, provide standard catch procedures to be used for
catch-per-unit-effort comparisons with 1991 and future years.
2
-Continue the general assessment of the habitat value of the
river under the operational flow regime as compared to the
pre-operational flow regime
-Maximize the amount of biological information obtained
from the study by thoroughly analyzing the data.
METHODS
Study Area
The primary study area was essentially identical to that in
the 1986-1991 studies consisting of a 2,011-m (6600-ft) stream
segment extending from the downs~ream end of Riffle Reach to just
above the upstream end of Bear Island Slough (Figure 1). The
reduced flow in 1991 and 1992, compared to previous years, allowed
access by both fish and study team investigators above Bear Island
Slough for a distance of about 300 m, thus the effective study area
was lengthened slightly from years prior to 1991. The study area
encompasses almost all of the known spawning habitat in the Bradley
River system.
One study site was located outside of the primary study area.
Fox Farm Creek, a small clear-water tributary to the Bradley River
at RM 2.5 was monitored for salmon escapement (Figure 1).
Study Duration
The study was conducted over a 9 week period from July 14
through September 10. The general timing of the study was
originally selected to coincide with the duration and timing of
the pink salmon run based on the results of the earlier studies
and confirmed in recent years.
Under the normal schedule of sampling, the field crew traveled
to the site on Monday evening of each calendar week and intensive
3
sampling took place on every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
Trap Net Sampling
Trap nets were again used as a primary sampling technique as
in the 1986-1991 efforts. The standard project trap nets as
redesigned in 1990 (see Alaska Energy Authority 1990) were designed
to fish in water as shallow as 0.5 m and proved to work well at
selected deeper sites in the river. The redesigned nets are
illustrated in Figure 2. These nets were made from 6.35 em {2.5
inch) stretch mesh nylon. Net wings were attached to the main
frame of the net in various configurations depending on the
location of the net in the river.
The 6 trap net sites established in 1991 for the operational
flow regime were utilized again in 1992 (Figure 3). There was no
indication that significant stream channel changes had occurred
since the 1991 season, consequently the conditions at each net
location effectively duplicated the conditions present during the
1991 study. Some of the nets were accessible by boat and some were
only accessible by foot.
During each typical weekly sampling period, the trap nets in
the primary study area were set Tuesday morning and fished until
Thursday morning for a total of approximately 48 hours, after which
they were removed from the water until the following week. During
normal operations, each net was checked every 4 hours during the
daytime and then allowed to fish overnight. some variation in the
typical sampling regime occurred in some weeks to avoid having to
check the nets during extreme high tides.
The fish were removed from the nets at each check, identified
to species, measured, and salmon species were tagged using
sequentially numbered Floy spaghetti tags. Larger Dolly Varden
were marked by punching a hole in the upper lobe of the caudal fin
with a standard paper punch. Sex and spawning condition were
4
recorded for all salmon. Spawning condition codes were as follows:
~ Condition
1 Fresh, non-spawning coloration,
silvery
2 Spawning coloration, not spawned
out
3
4
5
6
Beach Seine Sampling
Ripe, eggs or milt readily stripped
Spawned out, little deterioration
Spawned out, visible deterioration
Dead
As a supplemental sampling method, beach seining was conducted
during weeks 1 through 9 of the study period. Seine sites are
indicated on Figure 3. Sites Sl, S3 and S7 were seined
consistently each week whereas seining at the other sites was
irregular. The seine utilized was 100 ft. long by 6 ft. deep
constructed of 2.5 in. stretch mesh netting. Captured fish were
processed in a manner similar to that described for the hoop net
sampling.
Carcass Counts
All salmon carcasses were counted and tags were noted.
Fox Farm Creek Surveys
Visual foot surveys of fish present in Fox Farm Creek, a clear
tributary to the Bradley River (Figure 1), were conducted once
during each sample week. Observors walked the entire habitable
length of the creek at low tide and recorded the numbers of fish
present for each species of salmon and the numbers of fish showing
visible project tags.
5
Biological Data Management
Data from field data books were entered into a computer
spreadsheet (Quattro Pro) using an IBM compatible microcomputer.
Printouts from the spreadsheets were checked by field personnel
against the field notebooks. The spreadsheets were edited,
correcting any observed errors. Graphs were prepared using the
Quattro Pro program.
Population and Escapement Estimation
The principal methods used for estimating populations were
the same as those used in past years to assure comparability of
data. Population estimates based on trap net catches were
calculated for the primary species of salmon present during each
sample week using the Peterson model, as modified by Chapman
(Ricker 1975). The following assumptions were used in constructing
the model:
1. Salmon numbers remained constant during the 3-day sample
period.
2. All fish marked during the previous 2 sample weeks were
still present in the study area.
3. Fish marked 3 or more weeks prior to the sample week
were no longer present in the study area.
4. Marked and unmarked fish were equally susceptable to
capture.
In addition, population estimates were also calculated based
on selected seine catches.
Physical Data Collection
Air temperature, water temperature, turbidity, and stream
stage were recorded daily at the field camp (Figure 1) on those
days that the study crew was in the field. Turbidity was measured
6
in the field using an HF Instruments Model DRT15 nephelometric
turbidity meter. Stream stage was measured using a staff gauge.
The gauge measurements were strictly relative and were not tied to
any datum.
Miscellaneous Observations
Miscellaneous biological events were noted as they occurred.
RESULTS
overall catch
overall catch for all methods combined is summarized by week
in Table 1. Complete catch records for each species are presented
in Appendix A.
As in past years, all five species of Pacific salmon
indigenous to Alaska were captured in the Bradley River. Pink
salmon were again the most abundant species with a total catch of
125 fish. Substantial numbers of chum, coho, and sockeye salmon
were also caught, as well as smaller numbers of chinook salmon.
Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) were also caught in significant
numbers.
Trap Net Index Sampling
Trap nets were the primary sampling technique and proved to
be effective at catching adult salmon. The sampling effort for the
6 index nets was uniform throughout the study period. Trap net
fishing times for each net and week are summarized in Appendix B.
Pink Salmon
Pink salmon catch and catch-per-hour are presented in Table
2. The catch-per-hour reached its peak during week 3 (July 28 -
7
July 30) , declined through week 6 then increased somewhat and
remained stable through the end of the study period (Figure 4).
The maximum catch rate reached in week 3 was 0.107 fish per hour
as compared to 0.01 fish per hour in week 6 (Table 2).
Chum Salmon
Small numbers of chum salmon were present in the study area
during weeks 1 through 5 (Table 3). The chum salmon catch peaked
during week 3 (July 28 -July 30) then declined rapidly with few
fish remaining after the second week of August (Figure 5). The
maximum catch rate occurred during the third week of the study at
0.052 fish per hour (Table 3).
Coho Salmon
Coho salmon (Table 4 and Figure 6) were first seen in the
study area during week 5 (August 11-13). The catch rate increased
reaching a peak in early september then decreased somewhat during
the last week of the study.
Sockeye Salmon
Sockeye salmon were present in the Bradley River from week 2
through week 9 (Table 5 and Figure 7) with the highest catch rate
occurring during week 6 (Aug. 18-20). A relatively high catch was
also recorded in week 9.
Chinook Salmon
Chinook salmon were present in small numbers through the first
week of August (Table 6). The maximum catch rate of 0.055 fish per
hour occurred in week 2 (July 21-23) with catch gradually declining
thereafter (Figure 8). No chinooks were caught in weeks 5 through
9.
8
Dolly Varden
Dolly varden caught in the trap nets were limited to larger
fish (generally greater than 250 mm) because of the size of the
net mesh. Dolly Varden (Table 7 and Figure 9) were present in the
catch from late July through the end of the study period. The
highest catch occurred in week 7. The abundance of Dolly Varden
in the Bradley River appeared to correspond to the abundance of
pink salmon and was probably related to the availability of salmon
eggs as a food source.
Beach Seining
Beach seine catch data are presented in Appendices A-1 through
A-6 and summarized for pink salmon in Table 8. Because of the
apparently low numbers of pink salmon, seining was much less
successful in 1992 as compared to 1991. A total of 40 pink salmon
were caught by the beach seine in 1992, of which 5 were fish that
had been tagged previously.
Seine site S1 (Figure 3) yielded by far the greatest number
of fish. This site corresponded with a major pink salmon spawning
area. Other salmon species were not caught in significant numbers
in the seine.
carcass Counts
The results of carcass counts are presented in Table 9. Few
carcasses were observed in 1992, reflecting the generally low
numbers of salmon in the river.
Fish Condition
Pink Salmon
The condition codes for all pink salmon captured are presented
9
in Appendix A-1. Condition 3, "ripe", is indicative of spawning
condition and was the least subjective of the condition codes since
it depended on the actual presence of eggs or milt. Figure 10
shows the percent frequency of occurrence of Condition 3 fish for
both male and female pink salmon. As has been the case in past
years, males reached spawning condition earlier than females;
nearly all males were in spawning condition from week 4 until the
end of the study. About half of the females caught in weeks 4
through 7 were ripe and about 75 percent of the females caught in
weeks 8 and 9 were ripe. The pattern of maturity was somewhat
irregular in 1992. It appeared that there were 2 small runs of
pink salmon, an early run that spawned in mid-August and a later
run that reached a spawning peak in mid-September.
Chum Salmon
The small number of chums caught in 1992 make conclusions
regarding the timimg of spawning somewhat difficult. As has been
the case in past years, most of the male chum salmon were already
in spawning condition at the start of the study in mid-July
{Appendix A-2). It is likely that most spawning occurred during
late July and early August. The number of chum salmon in the river
decreased dramatically by week 5 (August 11-13).
Coho Salmon
Most of the cohos observed during the study period were in
fresh condition or in the early stages of acquiring their spawning
coloration {Appendix A-3). Some males in weeks 8 and 9 had reached
spawning condition but no ripe females were observed during the
study. The peak of coho spawning undoubtedly occurred after the
end of the study period in late September or early October.
Sockeye Salmon
Sockeyes were present in the Bradley River in significant
10
numbers throughout the entire study period except for week 1.
Percentages of ripe fish in weeks 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, a, and 9 were
33, 28, 12, 30, 67, 100, 100, and 73 percent respectively,
suggesting that the peak of spawning occurred from late August to
early September.
Chinook salmon
Almost all chinook salmon captured in weeks 1 and 2 ( July 14
-July 23) were ripe suggesting that the peak of spawning occurred
during this time. In early August most chinooks were in post-
spawning condition and no chinooks were caught after week 4. The
study period did not overlap the beginning of the chinook run,
therefore the maturation data were incomplete for this species.
Stream Life Duration
Pink Salmon
Table 10 provides information on the tagging history of all
pink salmon recaptured in trap nets. Because of the small number
of recaptures, little information on stream life duration was
obtained from the 1992 study program. One fish that was originally
tagged on July 29 was recaptured on August 27 indicating a minimum
stream life for that fish of 32 days.
Chum Salmon
The chum salmon catch was small in 1992 and chum salmon were
present in the Bradley River at the start of the study; therefore,
information on duration of stream life based on the 1992 study is
limited. None of the recaptured fish had been in the river for
longer than 2 weeks based on mark and recapture dates.
11
Spawning Area Location
The small number of most species of salmon prevented any
meaningful delineation of spawning areas. Based on the results of
seine hauls and visual observations, it appeared that the majority
of pink salmon spawning occurred in Tree Bar Reach (Figure 3) with
little spawning noted in downstream areas.
Fox Farm Creek Suryeys
The results of the visual surveys of Fox Farm Creek are
presented in Table 12. Fox Farm Creek was not utilized by pink
salmon in 1992 and only a few chum salmon were observed. Stream
flow appeared adequate to support spawning.
Population Estimates
Pink Salmon
Because of the low trap net catch (Table 2) and the very low
number of recaptures (Table 10), population estimates using mark
and recapture methods for trap net fish comparable to previous
years were not considered possible for 1992. In no study week was
there more than 1 recapture from the previous 2 weeks suggesting
that any estimates would not be statistically meaningful.
Seining in week 9 provided some catch data that were utilized
to make a single estimate:
Week Total catch
9 19
Tags out
15
Recaps.
2
12
Pop. Est.
106
95% Conf.Limits
44 -1600
Estimates of Total Escapement
Pink Salmon
The limited catch and recapture data prevent accurate
estimates of escapement. There is no doubt that the population was
small compared to other years. The total number of untagged pink
salmon caught in 1992 was 112 which represents a minimum
escapement. Of the total captures, about 12 percent were tagged
fish suggesting that significant numbers of fish were present but
not captured. It is reasonable to speculate that the total
escapement was between 300 and 1000 fish.
Another approach to escapement estimation is to compare the
overall catch-per-hour for 1992 with the catch-per-hour for 1991
and relate to the 1991 escapement estimates. overall catch per
hour in 1992 was 0.033 compared to 0.466 in 1991. Therefore, catch
per unit effort was 14 times greater in 1991. Dividing the 1991
escapement (about 8400 fish) by 14 results in an estimate for 1992
of about 600 fish.
Chum Salmon
Estimating the total escapement of chum salmon is difficult
since the catch and population data are minimal and no data are
available during the beginning of the chum run. The total number
of untagged chums caught during the study was 22 which represents
the minimum number of fish using the study area. About 19 percent
of the total captures were marked fish. A reasonable estimate of
total escapement is 60 to 150 fish.
Coho Salmon
The study ended early in the coho run, therefore escapement
cannot be estimated. The total trap net catch was 72 cohos, of
which only 6 were recaptures. The data suggest that several
13
hundred coho salmon were present in the river during the study
period and that more would likely be arriving after the end of the
study.
Sockeye Salmon
A total of 50 sockeye salmon were caught during the study (not
including recaptures) . Approximately 26 percent of the total catch
consisted of recaptures. Mark and recapture estimates were not
conducted for sockeyes because of a definite tendency for fish to
be recaptured multiple times in the same net. A conservative
estimate of the number of sockeyes present in the Bradley River
based on observations during the 1992 season is 75 to 150 fish.
Chinook Salmon
The total number of chinook salmon caught (not including
recaptures) was 36 fish. About 23 percent of the total trap net
catch were recaptures. There are insufficient data to accurately
estimate escapement. The actual number of fish captured (36) is
the minimum escapement. If the percent recaptures is a reasonable
representation of the proportion of chinooks that were marked, then
escapement may have been as high as 150. It is likely that the
number of chinooks utilizing the Bradley River in 1992 was greater
than 50 but less than 200.
Tag Returns From Outside the study Area
No returns of fish tagged in the Bradley River were reported
to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game or the Alaska Energy
Authority in 1992.
Physical Data
Air and water temperature, turbidity, and relative water level
data are presented in Appendix c. Temperature data were collected
14
at about 8:00 a.m. and, thus, are approximately representative of
daily minimums. Water temperature varied from 5.4 to 10 degrees
c. indicating a very constant temperature regime. Turbidity ranged
from 10 to 84 NTU. TUrbidity was generally lower during the early
weeks of the study and gradually increased with highest levels in
September. Base water level was very stable varying only 0.3 ft.
over the course of the study period (not including tidal variation
which occurred during extreme tides).
Miscellaneous Observations
Wildlife was generally less abundant along the Bradley River
in 1992 than in 1991, probably because of the small salmon run.
A black bear moved into the area in mid-August and remained for
several weeks. Seals were observed in the Bradley River on several
occasions during high tides as far upstream as Riffle Reach.
DISCUSSION
Comparison With Prior Years
Pink Salmon
Figure 11 compares the estimated total escapements for the
years 1986 through 1992. The data clearly indicate that escapement
in 1992 was one of the lowest that has been observed during the
seven year period of record. Even year returns to the Bradley
River have been poor since 1988, probably because severe flooding
that occurred in the fall of 1986 destroyed eggs that had been
spawned in that year. In addition, returns of both hatchery and
wild pink salmon to southcentral Alaska streams was unusually poor
in 1992, suggesting that saltwater survival of pink salmon was
generally low. Pink salmon returns to Humpy Creek, the most
productive pink salmon stream in Kachemak Bay, were about 25
percent of the long term average (Hammarstrom, personal
communication). The low number of pink salmon observed in the
15
Bradley River in 1992 probably resulted from the combination of a
low spawning population in 1990 and poor saltwater survival.
Chum Salmon
The number of chum salmon using the Bradley River in 1992 also
appeared to be low compared to past years. Estimated chum salmon
escapements have varied from 50 fish to 1600 fish since 1986 with
3 years having escapements of greater than 500 fish. Chum salmon
returns in general to Kachemak Bay were very low in 1992
(Hammarstrom, personal communication), consequently the low number
in the Bradley River is consistent with area trends.
Coho Salmon
study timing in 1992, as well as in previous years, has
prevented estimates of coho salmon escapement and meaningful
comparisons are difficult. The 1992 catch was significantly lower
than the catch in 1991 but close to the numbers caught in 1988-
1990.
Sockeye Salmon
The number of sockeyes caught in 1992 was less than the
numbers observed in 1989 through 1991 but greater than in 1986,
1987, and 1988. Some fish clearly matured and may have spawned in
the Bradley River. Whether or not the Bradley River has a self-
sustaining population of sockeye salmon is still open to question.
No juvenile sockeyes have been observed in the river.
Chinook Salmon
The number of chinook salmon utilizing the Bradley River study
area in 1992 was probably similar to the number present in 1988
through 1991 but greater than was present in 1986 and 1987. Over
the 7 year study period the number of chinooks caught has been very
16
consistent suggesting relatively uniform use of the river during
the study period.
Validity of Abundance Indices and Estimates
The generally small number of pink and chum salmon caught
during the 1992 study prevented the use of mark and recapture
population estimating techniques. Therefore, realistic estimates
of weekly abundance and total escapement could not be made.
However, it is certain that numbers were very small. The trap net
catch-per-hour combined with visual observations, carcass counts
and seining of known spawning areas indicated that few pink and
chum salmon were present.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE YEARS
The basic methodology developed in 1991 and continued in 1992
should be continued in future years. An index of abundance based
on trap net catch-per-hour will be roughly comparable from year to
year starting in 1991, and mark and recapture population estimates
will provide valuable additional information as has been the case
in past years.
Some of the trap nets as sited and configured in 1991 did not
fish efficiently in 1992; nets 1 and 3 caught very few fish. It
is recommended that minor changes in location and wing
configuration be made at some of the sites to improve catch success
and allow a better sampling of the fish present in the river. Any
such changes will partially invalidate catch-per-unit-effort
comparisons with 1991 and 1992, but the additional catch success
will improve population estimates and provide a better basis for
future comparisons.
17
PART II
TAILRACE ATTRACTION STUDY
INTRODUCTION
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license
granted to the Alaska Power Authority (now Alaska Energy Authority)
for the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project No. 8221)
stipulates
extent of
(tailrace)
that a plan be developed and implemented to study the
attraction of salmon to the powerhouse discharge
area. The overall intent of the tailrace attraction
study (in combination with the Bradley River salmon escapement
study) is to provide insight into the question of whether the
operation of the Bradley Lake Hy~roelectric Project is causing a
significant impact to the salmon resources of the Bradley River and
to provide information regarding possible mitigation measures. The
tailrace attraction study was scheduled to begin during the first
full year of project operation and to continue for a minimum of 2
years. This report summarizes the results of the first year of
tailrace studies per the proposed scope of work approved by FERC
in 1986.
The Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project consists of the Bradley
Lake reservoir formed by constructing a dam at the original lake
outlet, a power tunnel which diverts reservoir water through a
mountainside, and a powerhouse located at tidewater at the extreme
head of Kachemak Bay. Water used for power generation is released
from the powerhouse onto an intertidal flat. The Bradley River is
totally bypassed by the water used for power generation. A minimum
flow of water consistent with permit requirements is maintained in
the Bradley River by discharging water from the dam into the
natural channel of the river. Water released from the powerhouse
enters an excavated tailrace channel and then is allowed to find
its way through the intertidal flat into Kachemak Bay. The
tailrace discharge is opposite the mouths of the Bradley River and
adjoining Sheep Creek.
18
The primary objectives of the 1992 tailrace attraction study
were to:
-Determine whether, and to what extent, salmon are attracted
to the tailrace drainage.
-Gain information regarding the behavior, movements, and
duration of residence of fish in the tailrace drainage area
-Evaluate methodologies that can be used to capture and
monitor fish within the tailrace environment
-Evaluate possible project impact by integrating information
from the tailrace attraction and Bradley River escapement
monitoring study components
METHODS
Study Area
The overall study area consisted of the intertidal area
through which the tailrace discharge flows prior to entering
Kachemak Bay plus portions of the Bradley River and the estuarine
environment between the tailrace discharge and the Bradley River
(Figure 12) .
Tailrace Description
The portion of the tailrace immediately downstream from the
powerhouse consists of a riprapped basin about 200 ft. by 200 ft.
The depth is approximately 15 ft. A riprap sill separates this
inner basin from the remainder of the tailrace. When power is
being generated, conditions within the inner basin are generally
turbulent except at the margins because of the water entering from
the turbine discharge. Downstream from the rock sill, the
19
excavated tailrace continues for an additional 700ft. (Figure 12).
This portion is a uniform trapezoidal channel about 200 ft. wide
and 3 ft. deep under moderate generation flows. When no power is
being generated the channel goes dry. The elevation of the bottom
of the excavated tailrace is near mean high tide elevation and the
tailrace flow is normally not significantly affected by high tides.
However, extreme tides above about 20 ft. inundate the tailrace
area. Bottom substrate in the lower portion of the excavated
tailrace is glacial silt. Surrounding terrain consists of salt
marsh vegetation growing on glacial silt.
During power generation, water exits the excavated tailrace
at several locations. About 30 percent of the water flows into a
natural tidal channel that connects with the southwest corner of
the tailrace (Figure 12). This channel then enters a larger tidal
channel which flows westward and dumps into Kachemak Bay through
a short section of excavated channel just east of the project barge
dock. The remainder overflows the tailrace along the northern edge
and at the northwest corner and flows over the salt marsh where it
converges onto an eroding area prior to entering the large tidal
channel. It is likely that continuing erosion will eventually
create a channel that meets the excavated tailrace at its
northwestern portion. The resulting channel would then carry most
of the water.
Tailrace Water Volume
The volume of water discharged from the tailrace varies from
0-1500 cfs. During most of the study period normal mid-day
discharge ranged from 800-1000 cfs. However, during most nights
from about midnight to about 6: oo a.m. power generation ceased
completely, allowing the tailrace to go dry.
Study Duration
The study was conducted over an 8 week period from July 20 to
20
September 10, 1992. The general timing of the study was selected
to coincide with the duration and timing of the pink salmon run
based on the results of the earlier studies and confirmed in recent
years. During the normal schedule of sampling, the field crew
traveled to the site on Monday of each week and worked through
Thursday in coordination with the Bradley River escapement study.
Trap Net Sampling
It should be emphasized that much of the sampling effort in
1992 was experimental and not all attempts were successful. Water
levels in the tidal channels downstream from the tailrace
fluctuated widely depending on tide stage and the muddy substrate
limited access to some areas. Also, current velocity in tidal
channels during conditions of low tide and high power generation
was often too high to permit use of trap nets. Velocity impacts
were complicated by the fact that detritus originating from the
salt marsh vegetation often accumulated on the netting creating
high water resistance. Nevertheless, trap nets proved to be the
most valuable sampling technique.
standard project trap nets as described in Part I (Figure 2)
were utilized. Three net sites proved to be feasible for
consistent use (Figure 12). A fourth net site was was abandoned
early in the study because of difficult conditions resulting from
tidal variation. The two net sites in the tailrace proper fished
effectively at all tide stages. Net Site No. 3 in the tidal
channel downstream from the tailrace only fished effectively at
half tide or higher. All nets were checked at approximately 4 hour
intervals during the day from 8:00 am to 9:00 pm. For most of the
study period, the nets were either pulled out or propped up so that
traps were out of the water after 9:00 p.m. to avoid fish mortality
when power generation ceased at night (causing the nets to go dry).
Fish were removed from the nets at each check, identified to
species, measured, and salmon species were tagged using
21
sequentially numbered Flay spaghetti tags. All tailrace fish were
tagged with yellow tags to allow easy recognition offsite. Dolly
Varden were marked by punching a hole in the upper lobe of the
caudal fin with a standard paper punch. sex and spawning condition
were recorded for all salmon using the condition codes described
in Part I.
Beach Seine Sampling
Beach seining was conducted during weeks 1 through 3 of the
study period in the lower part of the excavated tailrace. The
seine utilized was 150 ft. long, 6 ft. deep, and constructed of 2.5
in. stretch mesh nylon. The seine was deployed by anchoring one
end to shore and stacking the remainder on the bow of the boat.
The boat backed up while playing out the seine in a semi-circle and
coming back to shore. The net was then pulled in from shore.
seine hauls were made from both the north and south banks of the
tailrace. Captured fish were processed in the same manner as
described for the trap net sampling. Seine sampling was
discontinued after the third week because of poor success.
Ultrasonic Tag Tracking
As an additional means of examining behavior of fish in
relation to the tailrace, selected salmon were moni tared using
ultrasonic tags. Transmitters that emit individually coded
ultrasonic signals were implanted into the stomachs of the fish.
The cylindrical ultrasonic tags (Sonotronics CT-82-2) were 60 mm
long and 16 mm in diameter. The tags were lubricated with glycerin
and pushed past the gullet and into the stomach of the salmon using
a dowel of the same diameter as the tag. The first two fish were
anesthetized with tricaine sulfonate (MS-222) prior to tag
implantation. Initial experimentation suggested that the total
trauma to the fish was greater when anesthesia was involved than
when the fish were tagged without anesthesia because of the
increased handling. With subsequent fish, tag insertion was
22
accomplished without anesthesia usually at the same time that the
fish were measured and Floy tagged. Salmon carrying ultrasonic
tags were also marked with a hole punched in the upper lobe of the
caudal fin so that they could be recognized if recaptured.
Ultrasonic tagged salmon were held for varying periods of time
prior to release, usually ranging from 1 to 4 hours.
After release, the fish were tracked using a directional
hydrophone ( Sonotronics DH-2) that was connected to a standard
ultrasonic receiver (Sonotronics USR-4D). The operator utilized
headphones to hear the coded signal and controlled the hydrophone
direction by rotating it on a PVC shaft. In most cases fish were
tracked from a boat. However, some tracking also occurred on foot
from stream banks.
Ultrasonic tagging gear was not available until week 3 of the
study and tagging was initiated on August 4. Normally, tagged fish
were actively tracked for a period of several hours after release.
Subsequently, ultrasonic monitoring transects were established in
the tailrace to detect fish presence from day to day. Ultrasonic
monitoring also was conducted on the Bradley River in weeks 6, 7,
8, and 9 and intermittantly in Kachemak Bay near the outlet of the
tidal channel carrying the tailrace discharge.
RESULTS
Trap Net catch
Trap nets 1, 2, and 3 were successful at catching salmon in
the tailrace environment. Catch records for all fish caught in the
tailrace study are listed in Appendices D-1 through D-5. During
the study period 8 pink salmon, 1 chum salmon, 15 coho salmon, 62
sockeye salmon, and 25 Dolly Varden were caught. Nets 1 and 2
within the tailrace proper appeared to be reasonably efficient at
sampling fish within the tailrace. Net 3 in the tidal channel
downstream from the tailrace was less successful.
23
Of the salmon caught in the trap nets, 81 percent were in pre-
spawning condition. Significant numbers of the sockeye salmon
caught in late August were ripe.
Seine Sampling
No salmon were caught in the seine and only a few Dolly Varden
(Appendix D-5). Seining as a technique appeared to work well in
the lower tailrace. Uniform depth, smooth bottom and moderate
current velocity allowed the seine to be deployed successfully.
The lack of catch success most likely reflected a very low density
of fish.
Tag Returns from Outside the Tailrace Area
Five salmon with distinctive yellow Floy tags were recovered
outside of the tailrace area including 3 sockeye salmon recovered
from the Bradley River and 2 salmon recovered from Fox Creek,
across Kachemak Bay from the tailrace (Figure 13):
1. Sockeye salmon tagged at Net 3 on Aug. 11 was recovered
in Bradley River Net 6A on Aug. 20.
2. Sockeye salmon tagged at Net 2 on Aug. 18 was recovered
in Bradley River Net 4 on Aug. 26.
3. Sockeye salmon tagged at Net 2 on Aug. 18 was recovered
in Bradley River Net 3 on Sept. 9.
4. Coho salmon tagged at Net 1 on Aug. 13 was recovered in
Fox Creek by a subsistence fisherman on Aug. 21.
5. Sockeye (?) salmon tagged at Net 2 on July 28 was
recovered by a subsistence fisherman on Fox Creek on Sept. 3
(identified by fisherman as a coho salmon).
Ultrasonic Tagging
Ultrasonic tags were placed in 20 fish including 5 pink
24
salmon, 9 sockeye salmon, and 6 coho salmon. Table 12 summarizes
information on tagged fish. The original study plan called for an
emphasis on pink salmon. However, the small number of available
pink salmon necessitated that other species be utilized to make the
most of the limited study season and to provide a firm basis for
planning the 1993 sonic tagging effort.
The ultrasonic tags and the receiving equipment functioned
reasonably well in the tailrace environment and surrounding area.
Background noise was a concern at some locations and at some times.
Noise and bubbles resulting from the turbine discharge prevented
ultrasonic monitoring in the center portion of the upper tailrace,
between the powerhouse and the rock weir. High wind and the
resulting wave action caused noise and reduced the listening range
at times within the lower tailrace. However, for the most part,
the lower tailrace allowed a listening range of between 150 and
1000 ft. depending on conditions. One longitudinal drift transect
down the center of the tailrace channel allowed easy recovery of
all signals present in the area. Limited tracking experience in
the open water of upper Kachemak Bay suggested that signals could
be heard for a distance of at least 1000 ft. and probably
substantially farther. Tracking in the Bradley River also was
successful, but as would be expected, shallow, turbulent reaches
prevented signal propagation; therefore, ultrasonic monitoring
involved moving from pool to pool where conditions were favorable.
Table 13 provides a summary of the tracking history of all
salmon fitted with ultrasonic tags. The movements of these fish
fell into 3 general categories: 1) fish that moved quickly out of
the tailrace area and were not heard again; 2) fish that moved out
of the tailrace but were subsequently heard at another location
(e.g. Bradley River); or 3) fish that remained in the tailrace area
for a prolonged time (more than 3 days). Of the 20 tagged fish,
12 left the tailrace or adjoining area within 24 hours and were not
located again. Four fish (all sockeye salmon) remained in the
tailrace for an extended time; at least one of those fish appeared
25
to have died in the tailrace. One sockeye salmon was relocated in
Kachemak Bay northeast of the barge dock. Three salmon (one each
pink, sockeye and coho) were relocated in the Bradley River 7-8
days after release in the tailrace. Figure 13 provides a visual
summary of the recovery locations for fish with ultrasonic tags.
The response of fish to tag insertion was variable. Most fish
tended to remain relatively inactive for 1-3 hours after tag
insertion then resumed activity. One tagged fish died after
several days in a holding net prior to release; autopsy revealed
no obvious damage to the digestive tract from the sonic tag and no
obvious cause of death. At least one released fish ( #44 7)
apparently died after several days in the tailrace. Several fish
were known to have survived for at least a week after tagging and
one fish (#97) was probably alive more than 20 days after tagging.
The life span of salmon in spawning condition is short and
conclusions regarding the effect of tag insertion would be
difficult. Most of the fish with ultrasonic tags resumed movement
after a period of several hours and 8 of the 20 tagged fish were
known to have survived for at least 2 days following tag insertion.
DISCUSSION
Presence of Salmon in the Tailrace
The results of the trap netting clearly showed that some
salmon, especially sockeyes, were attracted to the Bradley Lake
Hydroelectric Project tailrace discharge. The trap nets in the
tailrace channel proper effectively blocked about 50 percent of the
channel including the area along each bank. It is suspected that
these nets caught a significant proportion of the fish within the
tailrace; the number of fish present in the tailrace at any given
time was probably small.
Only 8 pink salmon and 1 chum salmon were caught in 7 weeks
of active sampling indicating that few fish of these species were
26
present. The Bradley River sampling indicated that the spawning
populations of both of these species was unusually low in 1992 and,
therefore, it is not surprising that few of these fish were caught
in the tailrace. On the other hand, the small number of pinks and
chums in the tailrace provides reasonably strong evidence that
tailrace attraction was not the cause of the poor returns to the
Bradley River.
Sockeye salmon accounted for 72 percent of the total salmon
catch in the tailrace. Increasing numbers of sockeye salmon have
been noted in recent years in the Bradley River and their presence
in upper Kachemak Bay is somewhat puzzling. There has been no
evidence of spawning success in the Bradley River and it is
suspected that most of these fish are strays from the various
enhanced fisheries on Kenai Peninsula drainages or perhaps strays
from the small natural runs of sockeyes that occur in the Martin
and Fox Rivers. Most of the sockeyes caught in late August were
ready to spawn.
Fifteen coho salmon were caught in the tailrace in late August
and early september. None of these fish were in spawning
condition.
Behavior of Salmon in the Tailrace Area
Some indication of salmon behavior relative to the Bradley
Project tailrace can be inferred from Floy tag return information
and ultrasonic tag tracking (Figure 13).
Pink Salmon
Information is limited because of the small number of pinks
captured and tagged in the tailrace. Four pink salmon captured in
the tailrace area were tagged with sonic tags and 1 pink from the
Bradley River was transported to the tailrace, tagged, and
released. All 5 of these fish actively departed the tailrace area
27
within a few hours of release, prior to being forced downstream by
the lack of water that occurred each night when power generation
was shut down. One of the fish was located again 8 days later in
the Bradley River near Fox Farm creek. Based on this small sample,
there was no tendency to remain in the tailrace.
Sockeye Salmon
Three of the sockeye salmon tagged with Flay tags in the
tailrace were subsequently recaptured in the Bradley River. The
time lapse between initial tagging and recapture varied from 8 days
to 22 days. Another sockeye tagged in the tailrace with a sonic
tag was relocated in the Bradley River 8 days after release. The
histories of these 4 fish clearly indicate that sockeyes can and
do move from the tailrace to the Bradley River. On the other hand,
4 of the 9 sockeye salmon fitted with sonic tags remained in the
tailrace for periods of time ranging from several days to 2 weeks.
Because the flow of water decreased to near 0 in the early morning
hours, the fish that remained in the tailrace area had to either
seek refuge in the ponded water of the upper tailrace basin or go
downstream to the point of tidal influence and subsequently swim
back upstream into the tailrace after flow resumed. Sockeye salmon
appeared to have more of a tendency to remain in the tailrace area
than the other salmon species.
Coho Salmon
Of the 11 coho salmon that were tagged with Flay tags in the
tailrace, one was recaptured in Fox Creek across Kachemak Bay from
the tailrace. Of the 6 coho salmon fitted with sonic tags, all
left the tailrace area within a few hours after release and one was
relocated in the lower Bradley River 7 days after release. The
cohos appeared to have little tendency to remain in the tailrace.
28
Tailrace Impacts
It should be noted that power production at the Bradley Lake
hydroelectric facility was shut down in the early morning hours
(usually midnight to about 6:00 am) of most days. This operating
regime was unexpected and had a number of effects on the study
program. During these shutdown periods, most of the tailrace
downstream from the rock sill was dry (except during periods of
extreme tides) and the tidal channels that carried the tailrace
water also had greatly decreased flow depending on tide stage.
Trap nets obviously did not function during these periods. Salmon
movements often occur during hours of reduced light and,
consequently, the shut down period probably eliminated the best
fishing time for the nets. The shut down period undoubtedly also
discouraged fish from entering or remaining in the tailrace. In
effect, the shutdown regime acted like a mitigation measure to
prevent fish from being attracted to the tailrace flow. Future
power demands or altered generating strategies could change this
regime and, thus, create different conditions. This fact should
be kept in mind when considering the results of this study.
The number of pink salmon utilizing the Bradley River drainage
was small in 1992 and, therefore, data on the key evaluation
species are lacking. Also, the capture methods and use of
ultrasonic tagging were in a somewhat experimental stage during the
1992 study program.
Given the above precautionary considerations, the results of
the 1992 tailrace study program suggest that most salmon did not
remain in the tailrace area for an extended time. A significant
proportion of the fish originally caught in the tailrace were
subsequently located in the Bradley River; whereas, there was no
indication of movement from the Bradley River to the tailrace.
29
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1993
The timing, logistics and basic methodology of the overall
study program worked well in 1992. It is recommended that the
basic study program be continued and expanded in 1993 with the
following improvements:
1. Consider the purchase of addi tiona! trap net leads so that
the length of the wings on the tailrace trap nets can be
expanded to cover additional area.
2. Consider the purchase of 2 additional trap nets of the
seal-proof open top design. Place an additional trap net at
the end of the tidal channel that discharges the tailrace
water (near the barge dock) to intercept salmon before they
reach the tailrace. The net would have to be configured to
float at higher tide stages. The other trap net would be used
as a spare for both the tailrace and Bradley River study
efforts since all nets were used in 1992.
3. Consider the use of longer seines for use in the tailrace
area, possibly deployed from 2 boats. Existing nets could
probably be adapted for use.
4. Consider expanding the sonic tagging program to include
automatic recording receivers to provide constant monitoring
at 2-3 locations. At a minimum, receivers should be placed
in the lower Bradley River and near the outlet to the tidal
channel that carries the tailrace water (to detect fi:sh
leaving the tailrace influence). A third receiver could Joe
placed at the lower end of the excavated tailrace channel.
It would be desirable to place ultrasonic tags in at least 100
fish to obtain a reasonable sample size.
30
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the Alaska Energy Authority Bradley
Lake Hydroelectric Project field staff for their cooperation and
logistical support of the river and tailrace crews during the
course of the 1992 field study. Field technicians -Ms. Elizabeth
Neumann and Mr. Scott Morsel! -are thanked for conducting the
field work in a safe, efficient and professional manner.
31
REFERENCES
Alaska Power Authority, 1986a. Salmon monitoring plan for Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. P-8221-000. Prepared
by Stone and Webster Engineering Corp., Anchorage, Ak.
_____ , 198Gb. Bradley River salmon escapement monitoring report
for 1986. Prepared by Dames & Moore under contract to Bechtel
Civil & Minerals, Inc. for the Alaska Power Authority, Bradley
Lake Hydroelectric Project. Anchorage, Ak.
____ , 1987. Bradley River salmon escapement monitoring report
for 1987. Prepared by Dames & Moore under contract to Bechtel
civil & Minerals, Inc. for the Alaska Power Authority, Bradley
Lake Hydroelectric Project. Anchorage, Ak.
_______ , 1988. Bradley River salmon escapement monitoring report
for 1988. Prepared by Dames & Moore under contract to Bechtel
Civil & Minerals, Inc. for the Alaska Power Authority, Bradley
Lake Hydroelectric Project. Anchorage, Ak.
Alaska Energy Authority, 1989. Bradley River salmon escapement
monitoring study-1989. Prepared by Northern Ecological
Services for the Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage,
Alaska
____ , 1990. Bradley River salmon escapement monitoring study-
1990. Prepared by Northern Ecological Services for the Alaska
Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska
____ , 1991. Bradley River salmon escapement monitoring study -
1991. Prepared by Northern Ecological Services for the Alaska
Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska
Beland, Tom (Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game), 1992. Personal
communication with John Morsel!, Northern Ecological Services.
32
Hammarstrom, Lee (Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game), 1992. Personal
communication with John Morsel!, Northern Ecological services.
Northern Technical Services, Inc., 1985. 1985 salmon escapement
survey report. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority,
Anchorage, Ak.
Pirtle, R.B. and M.L. McCurdy, 1980. Prince William Sound general
districts 1976 pink and chum salmon aerial and ground
escapement surveys and consequent brood year egg deposition
and pre-emergent fry index programs. Alaska Dept. of Fish &
Game Technical Data Report No. 51.
Ricker, W.E., 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological
statistics of fish populations. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can.
191. 383 pp.
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1982. Appendix B: Bradley Lake
Hydroelectric Project, Homer, Alaska. Final coordination
report. USFWS Western Alaska Ecological Services, Anchorage,
Alaska. 131 pp. In: u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, 1982.
Bradley lake Hydroelectric Project, Alaska. Final
Environmental Impact Statement. Alaska District, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
Woodward Clyde consultants, 1983. Bradley River instream flow
studies. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage,
Ak. 77 pp.
Woodward Clyde Consultants, 1984. Report on salmon fry sampling
in the Bradley River. Prepared for the Alaska Power
Authority, Anchorage, Ak. 6 pp.
33
TABLE 1. TOTAL CATCH FOR ALL SAMPLE METHODS COMBINED
WEEK DATES PINK CHUM COHO SOCKEYE CHINOOK DOLLY
NO. SALMON SALMON SALMON SALMON SALMON VARDEN
----------------------------------------------------------------
1 JUL 14-16 11 5 0 0 14 1
2 JUL 21-23 9 3 0 6 16 11
3 JUL 28-30 31 16 0 7 13 7
4 AUG 4-6 13 1 0 8 5 4
5 AUG 11-13 15 2 1 10 0 9
6 AUG 18-20 3 0 6 15 0 15
7 AUG 25-27 10 0 12 8 0 25
8 SEP 1-3 8 0 40 2 0 18
9 SEP 8-10 25 0 19 15 0 12
TOTAL 125 27 78 71 48 102
34
TABLE 2 TRAP NBT CATQI STATIS'l1C:S FOR PINK SALMON-1!192
NBT
1
3
4
SA
6A
7A
TOTAL
w
U1
1
CATOI
1
0
1
1
1
2
6
2
CPH CATOI
0.021 0
0.000 1
0.021 2
0.021 1
0.021 2
0.042 1
0.021 7
3 4
CPH CATCH CPH CATCH
0.000 1 0.021 0
0.021 1 0.021 0
0.041 9 0.116 2
0.021 6 o.t24 1
0.042 3 0.063 4
0.021 11 0.229 3
0.024 31 0.101 10
TABLE 1 TRAP NBT CATQI STATIS'l1C:S FOR QIUM SALMON-1!192
1 2 3 4
NBT CATQI CPH CATQI CPH CATCH CPH CATQI
1 0 0.000 0 0.000 1 0.021 0
3 1 0.021 2 0.042 1 0.021 0
4 1 0.021 1 0.021 4 0.013 0
SA 1 0.021 0 0.000 1 0.021 0
6A 1 0.021 0 0.000 4 0.013 1
7A 0 0.000 0 0.000 4 0.013 0
TOTAL 4 0.014 \l 0.010 lS O.OS2 1 "'
CPH
0.000
0.000
0.042
0.021
0.~
0.064
0.035
CPH
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.021
0.000
0.004
SAMPUNO WBBK
s 6 7 ' 9 TOTAL
CATQI CPH CATCH CPH CATCH CPH CATCH CPH CATQI CPH CATCH CPH
2 0.042 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 4 0.009
0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 2 0.005
4 0.014 1 0.021 0 0.000 2 0.043 1 0.021 22 0.051
1 0.021 1 0.021 3 0.063 0 0.000 1 0.021 1S 0.035
3 0.063 0 0.000 2 0.042 1 0.021 0 0.000 16 0.037
0 0.000 1 0.021 1 0.021 3 0.064 4 0.014 26 0.061
10 0.03S 3 0.010 6 0.021 6 0.021 6 0.021 as 0.033 .
SAMPUNO WBBK
s 6 7 I g TOTAL
CATCH CPH CATCH CPH CATCH CPH CATCH CPH CATCH CPH CATCH CPH
1 0.021 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 2 0.005
0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 4 0.009
0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 6 0.014
1 0.021 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 3 0.007
0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 6 0.014
0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 4 0.009
2 0.0111 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 2:5 0.010
TABLB 4. TRAP NBT CATOI STA11STICS POR COHO SALMON-1992
NBT
1
3
4
SA
6A
7A
TOTAL
....,
0\
1
CATOI CPH
0 0.000
0 0.000
0 0.000
0 0.000
0 0.000
0 0.000
0 0.000
2 3 4
CATOI CPH CATOI CPH CATOI
0 0.000 0 0.000 0
0 0.000 0 0.000 0
0 0.000 0 0.000 0
0 0.000 0 0.000 0
0 0.000 0 0.000 0
0 0.000 0 0.000 0
0 0.000 0 0.000 0
TABLB S. TRAP NBT CATOI STA11STICS POR SOCKBYB SALMON-1992
1 2 3 4
NBT CATCH CPH CATCH CPH CATat CPH CATOi
1 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0
3 0 0.000 2 0.042 0 0.000 0
4 0 0.000 1 0.021 4 0.013 1
SA 0 0.000 0 0.000 1 0.021 0
6A 0 0.000 1 0.021 0 0.000 s
7A 0 0.000 1 0.021 1 0.021 2
TOTAL 0 0.000 s 0.017 ' 0.021 •
CPH
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
CPH
0.000
0.000
0.021
0.000
0.106
0.043
0.028
SAMPLING WBBK.
s 6 7 • 9 TOTAL
CATat CPH CATOI CPH CATCH CPH CATCH CPH CATCH CPH CATCH CPH
0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 1 0.021 1 0.002
0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000
0 0.000 0 0.000 1 0.021 6 0.129 1 0.021 • 0.019
0 0.000 0 0.000 3 0.063 0 0.000 3 0.063 6 o.014 1
0 0.000 1 0.021 s 0.104 3 0.063 s 0.10S 14 0,033 I
1 0.021 3 0.063 0 0.000 31 0.664 • 0.167 43 0.100
1 0.003 4 0.014 9 0.031 40 0.142 ta 0.063 72 0.028
SAMPLING WBBK I
s ' 7 • 9 TOTAL
CATOi CPH CA. Tat CPH CA. Tat CPH CA. Tat C'H CATOi CPH CATCH CPH
0 0.000 0 0.000 1 0.021 0 0.000 3 0.063 4 0.009
2 0.042 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 1 0.021 s 0.012
0 0.000 1 0.021 1 0.021 0 0.000 1 0.021 9 0.021
2 0.042 s 0.104 1 0.021 1 0.021 3 0.063 13 0.030
s 0.104 7 0.1445 s 0.104 1 0.021 6 0.126 30 0.~0
1 0.021 2 0.042 0 0.000 0 0.000 1 0.021 a 0.019
10 0.03S 1S O.OS2 a 0.021 2 0.007 1S O.OS2 69 0.027
TABLB 6. TRAP NBT CATCH STA11STICS POR OUNOOK SALMON-1992
NET
1
3
4
SA
6A
7A
TOTAL
w
-..J
1
CATCH
0
0
0
2
s
7
14
2
CPH CATCH
0.000 0
0.000 1
0.000 1
0.043 3
0.10S s
0.14& 6
0.049 16
3 4
CPH CATOf CPH CATOf CPH
0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000
0.021 0 0.000 1 0.021
0.021 1 0.021 0 0.000
0.062 2 0.041 4 O.OIS
0.104 0 0.000 0 0.000
o.t2S 10 0.201 0 0.000
O.OS!5 13 0.04S s o.o1a ------·-·---
TABLE 7. TRAP NBT CATCH STA11STICS POR DOLLY VARDEN-1992
1 2 3 4
NET CATCH C7H CATCH CPH CATOf CPH CATOf CPH
1 0 0.000 0 0.000 1 0.021 1 0.021
3 0 0.000 0 0.000 1 0.021 1 0.021
4 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000
SA 0 0.000 0 0.000 2 0.041 1 0.021
6A 0 0.000 0 0.000 3 0.063 1 0.021
7A 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000
TOTAL 0 0.000 0 0.000 7 0.024 4 0.014
SAMPLING WEEK
s 6
CATOf CPH CATCH
0 0.000 0
0 0.000 0
0 0.000 0
0 0.000 0
0 0.000 0
0 0.000 0
0 0.000 0
SAMPLING WEEK
s 6
CATCH CPH CATCH
1 0.021 1
1 0.021 2
0 0.000 1
1 0.021 1
3 0.063 6
0 0.000 1
6 0.021 u
7 I 9 TOTAL
CPH CATCH CPH CATCH CPH CATQI CPH CATQI CPH
0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000
0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 2 o.oos
0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 2 o.oos
0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 11 0.026
0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 10 0.023
0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 23 O.OS4
0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 4& 0.019
7 • 9 TOTAL
CPH CATQI CPH CATOf CPH CATOf CPH CATCH CPH
0.021 2 0.042 4 0.014 1 0.021 11 0.026
0.042 4 0.013 3 0.06S 2 0.042 14 0.033
0.021 1 0.021 1 0.022 0 0.000 3 0.007
0.021 4 0.014 2 0.043 1 0.021 12 0.021
0.12S • 0.167 6 0.127 4 0.014 31 0.072
0.021 3 0.063 1 0.021 1 0.021 6 0.014
0.042 22 0.076 17 0.061 9 0.031 77 0.030 '
TABLE 8. SEINE CATCH SUMMARY FOR PINK SALMON
DATE UN TAGGED TAGGED TOTAL
7/15 3 0 3
7/16 1 1 2
7/23 2 0 2
8/4 1 2 3
8/11 5 0 5
8/25 4 0 4
9/1 2 0 2
9/8 17 2 19
TOTALS 35 5 40
38
TABLE 9 • CARCASS COUNT SUMMARY
SPECIES
PINK SALMON
CHUM SALMON
CHINOOK SALMON
SOCKEYE SALMON
DATE
7/29
9/8
9/9
7/23
7/29
8/7
8/13
8/20
UN TAGGED
1
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
39
TAGGED
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
TOTAL
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
TABLE 10. COMPARISON OF THE WEEK OF MARKING wm-I THE WEEK
OF RECAP'IURE FOR ALL PINK SALMON TRAP NET RECAPTURES
RECAPTURE MARKING WEEK
WEEK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL
1 0
2 0
3 1 1 2
4 0
5 1 1
6 0
7 1 1 2
8 0
9 2 2
TOTAL RECAPS. 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 2 7
TOTAL TAGS OIIT 9 7 27 9 8 3 8 7 19 97
%RECAPTURED
40
TABLE 11: FOX FARM CREEK VISUAL SURVEYS-1992
DATE SPECIES TOTAL LIVE LIVE W/TAGS TOTAL DEAD DEADW/TAGS
JUL 15 NO FISH OBSERVED
JUL22 CHUM 4 1 0 0
JUL30 CHUM 2 0 0 0
AUGS CHUM 2 0 0 0
AUG12 NO FISH OBSERVED
AUG19 NO FISH OBSERVED
AUG26 NO FISH OBSERVED
SEP2 NO FISH OBSERVED
SEP9 NO FISH OBSERVED
41
TABLE 12. FISH TAGGED WITH ULTRASONIC TAGS
DATE TAG SPECIES CAPTURE SEX COND. INSERTION RELEASE RELEASE
CODE LOCATION TIME TIME LOCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------------
8/05 2446 PINK NET 3 M 2 08:57 09:10 NET 3
8/05 2255 SOCK. NET 3 F 1 13:45 14:52 UPPER T.R.
8/11 2345 SOCK. NET 2 M 2 10:05 10:20 UPPER T.R.
8/12 2426 PINK BRAD.R. M 3 16:50 ? UPPER T.R.
8/13 2336 COHO NET 2 M 1 09:20 10:45 MID T.R.
8/18 88 PINR NET 3 F 2 08:50 09:45 UPPER T.R.
8/18 97 SOCK. NET 2 F 1 12:45 13:50 LOWER T.R.
8/18 555 SOCK. NET 2 M 3 12:47 15:43 UPPER T.R.
8/19 384 COHO NET 2 M 1 14:51 16:15 MID T.R.
8/20 2228 SOCK NET 3 F 2 09:00 10:43 LOWER T.R.
8/20 447 SOCK NET 1 F 2 09:00 11:25 UPPER T.R.
8/25 456 SOCK NET 2 M 3 08:35 14:05 BARGE D.
8/25 375 SOCK NET 1 M 1 08:40 10:07 LOWER T.R.
8/26 2237 SOCK NET 2 F 2 08:55 09:00 MID T.R.
8/27 2264 COHO NET 2 F 1 08:50 10:50 MID T.R.
8/27 465 COHO NET 1 M 1 08:52 13:25 MID T.R.
8/27 2363 PINK NET 3 M 3 08:54 09:00 LOWER T.R.
9/01 339 PINK NET 1 F 2 13:10 13:15 MID T.R.
9/01 249 COHO NET 1 M 1 20:15 08:59 MID T.R.
9/01 258 COHO NET 2 F 1 20:25 10:25 MID T.R.
42
TABLE 13. TRACKING HISTORY FOR SALMON WITH ULTRASONIC TAGS.
#2446 Pink Salmon
Aug. 5-Released inS. tidal channel near Net 3 at 09:10-began to
move downstream at 09:22-followed downstream until10:20 when
the signal was lost near the confluence of N. and S. channels -not
heard again
#2255 Sockeye Salmon
Aug. 5 -Released near Net 1 in tailrace at 14:52 -remained near
release point until 15:40 then moved downstream out of tailrace -
signal was lost at 16:40-out of study ar'tla
#2345 Sockeye Salmon
Aug. 11 -Released near Net 1 in Tailrace at 10:20-remained In same
area through evening
Aug. 12-Relocated in upper tailrace at 08:40-moved actively in the
upper tailrace until noon-relocated In the lower tailrace at 13:10
Aug. 18-Relocated In tailrace near Net 2 at 09:20-remained In lower
tailrace through evening
Aug. 19-Could not locate-out of study area
#2426 Pink Salmon from Bradley River
Aug. 13-Escaped from holding net-located in upper tailrace at
08:30 -moved to lower tailrace In early afternoon
Aug. 18-Could not locate-out of study area
12336 Coho Salmon
Aug. 13-Released in middle tailrace at 10:45-moved downstream
and remained In lower tailrace through the afternoon
Aug. 17-Could not locate-out of study area
188 Pink Salmon
Aug. 18-Released In upper tailrace at 09:45-LDst signal at 10:00-
could not relocate -out of study area
1555 8ookeye Salmon
Aug. 18-Released in upper tailrace at 13:50-remained in same area
until evening
Aug. 19-Relocated In upper tailrace at 08:55-moved downstream
to middle tailrace -remained until evening
Aug. 20 -Relocated in upper tailrace at 08:35 -moved throughout
tailrace over the course of the day
Aug. 24 -Relocated in tailrace near Net 2 -remained In same area
through evening
Aug. 25 -Remained In lower tailrace
Aug. 26 -Remained In lower tailrace
Aug. 27 -In upper tailrace at 08:30 then moved to lower tailrace
Sept. 1 -Could not locate -out of study area
#97 Sockeye Salmon
Aug. 18-Released near Net 1 in tailrace at 15:43-could not relocate
in the evening -out of the study area
Aug. 20 -Relocated In middle of tailrace at 08:35 -remained In
tailrace throughout the day
Aug. 24 -Could not relocate In tailrace
Aug. 26 -L.ocated in the Bradley River near Eagle Pool
Sept. 1 -Relocated In the Bradley River near Eagle Pool
Sept. 8 -Relocated In the Bradley River near Eagle Pool
Sept. 9 -Could not locate in the Bradley River
1384 Coho Salmon
Aug. 19 -Released in the middle of lower tailrace at 16: 15 -remained
in lower tailrace through evening
Aug. 20-Could not locate-out of study area
12228 Sockeye Salmon
Aug. 20-Released at lower end of tailrace at 10:43-moved to upper
end by early afternoon
Aug. 24-Relocated in lower tailrace at 17:00
Aug. 25-27-Remained in tailrace
Sept. 1-2-Remained in same area of tailrace-possibly dead
Sept. 9 -Could not locate -out of study area
43
#447 Sockeye Salmon
Aug. 20 -Released near Net 1 in tailrace at 11:25 -remained near
same spot through the afternoon
Aug. 24-27-Relocated in tailrace -remained near same spot in upper
part of lower tailrace -probably dead
Sept. 1-2 -Relocated at same spot
Sept. 9 -Relocated at same spot -undoubtedly dead
#456 Sockeye Salmon
Aug. 25-Released into Kachemak Bay northeast of Barge Dock at
14:05 -moved within a radius of 1000 ft. until 14:35 then headed
north toward the mouth of Sheep Creek -discontinued tracking at
15: 10 because of outgoing tide
Aug. 26 -Could not relocate at release point
1375 8ookeye Salmon
Aug. 25 -Released in lower end of tailrace at 10:07 -little or no
movement through early afternoon-could not relocate at 16:00-out
of study area
Aug. 26 -Relocated in Kachemak Bay northeast of Barge Dock at
12:50-remained in same area until 15:30
Sept. 1 -Could not relocate In Kachemak Bay
12237 5ockeye Salmon
Aug. 26 -Released In middle of lower tailrace at 09:00 -moved to
entrance of south outlet channel by 09:40 -remained in lower portion
of tailrace through late afternoon
Aug. 27 -Could not relocate -out of study area
12363 Pink Salmon
Aug. 27 -Released In lower end of tailrace at 09:00 -moiled toward
south outlet channel and signal disappeared at 09:10-trlied to track
in channel but no signal heard -out of study area
12264 Coho Salmon
Aug. 27-Released in middle of lower tailrace at 10:50 ··moved to
near south channel outlet at 11:35 and remained In sarne general
area through the afternoon
Sept. 1 -Could not relocate -out of the study area
1465 Coho Salmon
Aug. 27 -Released in middle of lower tailrace at 13:25 -remained
near same spot through the afternoon
Sept. 1 -Could not relocate -out of the study area
1339 Pink Salmon
Sept. 1 -Released in middle of lower tailrace at 13:15 -moved
upstream to near weir at 14:35-remained In tailrace through evening
Sept. 2 -Could not locate -out of the study area
Sept. 9 -Located In the Bradley FUver near the mouth of Fox Farm
Creek at 15:30
1249 Coho Salmon
Sept. 2 -Released in middle of lower tailrace at 08:59 .. moved to
north outlet channel area by 09: 15 -moved down channel and lost
signal at 09:22 -fish was visually observed In north channnel near
eroding falls at 13:45
1258 Coho Salmon
Sept. 2-Released In middle of lower tailrace at 10:25-moved to
south channel entrance at 10:32 and signal disappeared -out of
study area
Sept. 9-Located In the lower Bradley FUver at Mile 3.4 at 15:35
Cl.)
~ ::s
b.O .....
~
LONG
SLOUGH
Bt-l STUDY AREA
S.O etc. • RIVER MilES
0 , .. , 500
SCALE
PIGURB 1
LOWER BRADLEY RIVER WITH
SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY AREA
44
..
Ul".
4'
12"
BOTTOM
'\. "'\~~"\_;;.~ ~~·~
END VIEW
Showing offset throat
t·
4'
\~\\
4' 4'
SIDE VIEW
·~·x.>.~: )( )o ")l
;.:~x'-",.
)
6'
Figure 2
Bradley River Trap Net Design
(As Modified in 1990)
N
Key
Trap Nets 4
Seine Sites nmmn .
0 300
Scale in Feet
6A
46
S1
SA.
1
3
Figure 3.
Trap Net Locations and
Seine Sites
PINK SALMON -1992
0.12 JULY AUGUST SEPT J~---___,
0.1-v·························································
oc ~ 5 o.oa-v························································· E~
J:
oc
~ 0.06-v ......................................................... 1-H-+III··············································································································································
J:
()
<(
1--0. 04-V ......................................................... 1-+-+-HII··············································································································································
() odllllllllll fill
0.02-v·················i'l~~
1
..... ~~ ···1-+-+--i.a··· t-t-.. I-
t-t-t-t-t--
1-
·························plllll ·····,.all ·····pllllll ·····················
t-t-t-t-t-t-
3
I-
l-l-
1-1-
4 5 6
STUDY WEEK
7 8 9
Figure 4. Catch-per-unit-effort for pink salmon by study week.
47
a:
:::>
0 :r:
a: w
0..
:r:
0
f-~
0.06 JULY
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
1 2
CHUM SALMON -1992
3
AUGUST
4 5 6 7
STUDY WEEK
SEPT
8 9
Figure 5. Catch-per-unit-effort for chum salmon by study week.
48
a:
::>
0
J:
a: w
D..
J:
0
5
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
COHO SALMON -1992
JULY AUGUST SEPT
.............................................................................................................................................................. H-+--4 ........................................... .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
STUDY WEEK
8 9
Figure 6. catch-per-unit-effort for coho salmon by study week.
49
~-/ 0.06
0.05 V'
a:
,-5 0.04
::I:
a: w a..
::I:
()
~
()
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
JULY
~~
I
1 2
SOCKEYE SALMON -1992
AUGUST 1-SEPT
IIIII ..
f-+-
t-t-
f-
~~~
m
11111111 f-·
lEE
1-1-I-I-
I-I-!--......
filii II I-I-
? 1-1-? ? ? "::; 7
I I I I I I I 'l
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
STUDY WEEK
Figure 7. Catch-per-unit-effort for sockeye salmon by study week.
50
CHINOOK SALMON -1992
0.06 AUGUST SEPT
0.05
a:
:::) 0.04 .. ~~~~~~--~··-----
0
J:
a: w 0.03 --·-·--------........
a..
J:
0
I-0.02 5
0.01
o~==~~~~~ttn~--~~~~--~~==~
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
STUDY WEEK
Figure 8. Catch-per-unit-effort for chinook salmon by study week ..
51
a:
:J
0 :r:
a: w a.
:r:
0 ~
0
0.08 JULY
0.07 v
0.06 -
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02 _I/
0.01 -
0 I
1 2
DOLLY VARDEN -1992
011111111
1-1-
f···
I I
3
AUGUST
IIIII IIIIi
f1=F
I!~ 1-1-
? 7 m
I I 4 5 6
STUDY WEEK
•
SEPT
r·· I···U:t=
t··· .... -_Lilli
t-II
1-r·· t-t--7
I I I I
7 8 9
Figure 9. Catch-per-unit-effort for Dolly Varden by study week.
52
~ z w
::::>
0 w a:
LL
~ z w
() a: w a..
PINK SALMON
RIPE MALES AND FEMALES
JULY AUGUST
1 2 3 4 5 6
STUDY WEEK
I• MALES -FEMALES
SEPT
Figure 10. Percent frequency of occurrence of ripe pink salmon by
study week.
53
::I: en
ESTIMATED ESCAPEMENT-1986 THROUGH 1992
PINK SALMON
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
STUDY YEAR
Figure 11. Estimated total annual escapements for pink salmon -
1986 through 1992.
54
U1
U1
Kachemak Bay
..illLL
Salt Marsh illLL
Mud Flats
illlL
~
-~
~
-LLll1L
Bradley River
Salt Marsh iliLL
.ill.L.
Figure 12.
Tailrace study area and
net site locations.
-Filii
FLOY TAGS
~~~-
-Alb
··Number~
Figure 13. Recovery locations of salmon tagged in the Bradley Lake
Hydroelectric Project tailrace.
56
APPENDIX A-1. PINK SALMON CATCH RECORDS Al-l
WEEK DAY METHOD SITE# SEX COND. LENGTH TAG COL. TAG# RECAP.# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
1 7/14 1 6A M 2 438 OR 1
1 7/15 1 1 F 2/6 421
1 7/15 1 5 F 2 518 OR 2
1 7/15 1 4 F 2 469 OR 3
1 7/15 2 Sl F 3 469 OR 4
1 7/15 2 Sl M 2 521 OR 5
1 7/15 2 Sl M 2 496 OR 6
1 7/16 1 7A F 2 442 OR 7
1 7/16 1 7A F 2 470 OR 8
1 7/16 2 S4 M 3 412 OR 9
1 7/16 2 S7 F 2 470 OR 08
2 7/21 1 5 F 2 460 OR 10
2 7/21 1 6A M 3 372 OR 11
2 7/22 1 6A F 2 421 OR 12
2 7/22 1 4 M 2/6 462
2 7/22 1 3 M 3 500 OR 13
2 7/23 1 7A M 3 460 OR 14
2 7/23 1 4 M 2/6 388
2 7/23 2 S7 F 2 412 OR 15
2 7/23 2 S7 M 2 515 OR 16
3 7/28 1 5A M 2 469 OR 17
3 7/28 1 7A M 2 465 OR 18
3 7/29 1 6A M 3 454 OR 19
3 7/29 1 6A F 3 435 OR 20
3 7/29 1 5A M 2 463 OR 21
3 7/29 1 3 M 2 512 OR 22
3 7/29 1 7A M 2 542 OR 23
3 7/29 1 4 F 2 497 OR 24
3 7/29 1 4 M 2 490 OR 25
3 7/29 1 4 M 3 373 OR 11
3 7/29 1 7A F 2 437 OR 26
3 7/29 1 7A M 2 321 OR 27
3 7/29 1 7A F 2 440 OR 28
3 7/29 1 5A F 2 495 OR 29
3 7/29 1 5A F 3 498 OR 30
3 7/29 1 5A M 3 442 OR 31
3 7/29 1 7A M
3 7/29 1 7A M
3 7/29 1 7A M 3 479 OR 32
3 7/29 1 7A M 2 492 OR 33
3 7/29 1 4 F 3 449 OR 34
3 7/29 1 4 M 3 429 OR 35
3 7/29 1 4 F 2 470 OR 36
3 7/29 1 4 M 3 500 OR 37
3 7/29 1 4 F 2 519 OR 38
3 7/29 1 4 F 2 442 OR 39
3 7/30 1 6A F 3 452 OR 40
3 7/30 1 1 F 2 478 OR 41
3 7/30 1 5A F 2 409 OR 42
APPENDIX A-1. PINK SALMON CATCH RECORDS A1-2
WEEK DAY METHOD SITE# SEX COND. LENGTH TAG COL. TAG# RECAP.#
3 7/30 1 7A M 3 431 OR 43
3 7/30 1 7A M 3 470 OR 17
4 8/04 1 6A M 3 500 OR 44
4 8/04 1 6A F 2 445 OR 45
4 8/04 1 5A F 2 424 OR 46
4 8/04 2 51 M 3 346 OR 19
4 8/04 2 51 M 3 438 OR 47
4 8/04 2 53 F 3 475 OR 41
4 8/04 1 6A M 3 452 OR 48
4 8/05 1 7A M 3 522 OR 49
4 8/05 1 7A M 6 462
4 8/05 1 7A M 6 467
4 8/05 1 4 M 3 480 OR 50
4 8/05 1 4 F 3 466 OR 51
4 8/06 1 6A F 2 483 OR 53
5 8/11 2 53 M 3 435 SAVE
5 8/11 2 53 F 3 463 SAVE
5 8/11 2 53 M 3 425 OR 54
5 8/11 2 53 F 3 449 OR 55
5 8/11 2 53 M 3 429 OR 56
5 8/11 1 6A M 3 464 OR 57
5 8/12 1 1 M 4 435 OR 47
5 8/12 1 5A M 3 533 OR 58
5 8/12 1 4 F 2 452 SAVE
5 8/12 1 4 M 3 429 SAVE
5 8/12 1 4 F 2/6 443
5 8/12 1 6A M 3 490 OR 59
5 8/12 1 6A M 3 484 OR 61
5 8/13 1 1 F 6 446
5 8/13 1 4 M 3 463 OR 62
6 8/18 1 5A M 3 526 OR 63
6 8/19 1 7A F 3 482 OR 64
6 8/20 1 4 F 2 499 OR 65
7 8/25 2 S1 F 3 450 OR 66
7 8/25 2 51 F 3 469 OR 67
7 8/25 2 51 M 3 504 OR 68
7 8/25 2 53 M 3 462 OR 69
7 8/25 1 5A M 3 447 OR 70
7 8/26 1 6A M 3 536 OR 71
7 8/26 1 6A F 2 489 OR 72
7 8/26 1 5A M 3 503 OR 68
7 8/27 1 5A M 5 442 OR 39
7 8/27 1 7A F 2 500 OR 73
8 9/01 2 51 M 3 495 OR 75
8 9/01 2 S3 F 3 530 OR 76
8 9/01 1 7A M 3 495 OR 77
8 9/01 1 4 F 3 497 OR 78
APPENDIX A-1. PINK SALMON CATCH RECORDS A1-3
WEEK DAY METHOD SITE# SEX COND. LENGTH TAG COL. TAG# RECAP.#
8 9/02 1 6A F 3 520 OR 79
8 9/02 1 7A F 2 477 OR 80
8 9/02 1 4 F 6 413
8 9/03 1 7A M 3 545 OR 81
9 9/08 2 S1 F 4 492 OR 82
9 9/08 2 S1 M 3 554 OR 83
9 9/08 2 S1 M 4 489 OR 84
9 9/08 2 S1 F 3 456 OR 85
9 9/08 2 S1 M 3 497 OR 75
9 9/08 2 S1 M 3 533 OR 86
9 9/08 2 S1 F 4 508 OR 87
9 9/08 2 S1 M 3 477 OR 88
9 9/08 2 S1 M 3 532 OR 89
9 9/08 2 S1 F 3 528 OR 90
9 9/08 2 S1 F 3 509 OR 76
9 9/08 2 S1 F 3 492 OR 91
9 9/08 2 S1 F 3 500 OR 92
9 9/08 2 S1 M 3 463 OR 93
9 9/08 2 S1 F 3 495 OR 94
9 9/08 2 S1 M 3 521 OR 95
9 9/08 2 S1 M 3 569 OR 96
9 9/08 2 S1 F 3 489 OR 97
9 9/08 2 S3 F 3 524 OR 98
9 9/09 1 7A M 6 458
9 9/09 1 5A M 3 425 OR 100
9 9/09 1 7A M 3 479 OR 101
9 9/10 1 7A M 3 475 OR 88
9 9/10 1 7A M 3 505
9 9/10 1 4 M 3 423 OR 100
APPENDIX A-2. CHUM SALMON CATCH RECORDS A2-1
WEEK DAY METHOD SITE# SEX COND. LENGTH TAG COL. TAG# RECAP.# ---------------------------------------------------------------------1 7/15 1 5A M 3 692 G 12
1 7/15 2 51 M 3 551 B 1
1 7/16 1 6A F 2 592 B 2
1 7/16 1 3 M 3 685 B 3
1 7/16 1 4 F 2 615 B 4
2 7/22 1 3 M 3 551 B 5
2 7/23 1 3 M 2 630 B 6
2 7/23 1 4 M 2 665 B 7
3 7/28 2 57 M 3 580 B 8
3 7/29 1 7A M 3/6 594
3 7/29 1 4 M 2 530 B 9
3 7/29 1 4 F 2 642 B 10
3 7/29 1 7A M 3 574 B 08
3 7/29 1 6A M 3 619 B 12
3 7/29 1 6A M 2 600 B 13
3 7/29 1 6A F 2 608 B 14
3 7/29 1 6A F 2 574 B 15
3 7/29 1 1 M 5 682 B 03
3 7/29 1 7A M 3 529 B 09
3 7/29 1 4 ? ? ?
3 7/30 1 5A F 2 550 G 44
3 7/30 1 3 M 4 572 B 08
3 7/30 1 7A M 3 619 B 17
3 7/30 1 4 M 6 568
4 8/04 1 6A M 3 614 B 18
5 8/11 1 5A M 3 579 B 19
5 8/13 1 1 M 3 562 G 44
APPENDIX A-3. COHO SALMON CATCH RECORDS A3-1
WEEK DAY METHOD SITE# SEX COND. LENGTH TAG COL. TAG# RECAP.#
---------------------------------------------------------------------5 8/12 1 7A M 1 589 G 68
6 8/19 1 7A M 2 638 G 81
6 8/19 2 S7 M 1 504 G 83
6 8/19 2 S7 M 1 497 G 84
6 8/20 1 6A F 1 SS2 G 87
6 8/20 1 7A F 1/6 618
6 8/20 1 7A M 1 S95 G 88
7 8/25 1 SA F 2 54S G 87
7 8/2S 2 S7 M 2 S78 G 89
7 8/25 2 S7 F 1 S56 G 90
7 8/2S 2 S7 M 1 449 G 91
7 8/2S 1 6A ? 1 573 G 92
7 8/2S 1 6A ? 1 601 G 93
7 8/25 1 5A F 2 446 G 94
7 8/2S 1 4 F 1 556 G 90
7 8/26 1 6A M 2 658 G 9S
7 8/26 1 6A M 2 S34 G 96
7 8/26 1 SA F 2 600 G 100
7 8/27 1 6A F 1 680 G 101
8 9/01 1 7A F 1 592 G 102
8 9/01 1 7A M 1 662 G 104
8 9/01 1 7A M 2 S94 G 105
8 9/01 1 4 M 2 G 106
8 9/01 1 7A M 2 608 G 107
8 9/01 1 7A M 2 614 G 108
8 9/01 1 7A M 2 S80 G 109
8 9/01 1 7A F 2 6SS G 110
8 9/01 1 7A M 2 649 G 111
8 9/01 1 7A M 2 674 G 112
8 9/01 1 7A F 2 643 G 113
8 9/01 1 7A F 2 6S1 G 114
8 9/01 1 7A M 2 689 G 115
8 9/01 1 7A M 2 638 G 116
8 9/01 1 7A F 2 672 G 117
8 9/02 1 6A M 3 480
8 9/02 1 7A M 2 724 G 118
8 9/02 1 7A M 6 646
8 9/02 1 7A M 3 43S G 91
8 9/02 1 7A M 1 700 G 119
8 9/02 1 7A F 2 6S3 G 120
8 9/02 1 7A F 1 554 G 121
8 9/02 1 7A M 1 548 G 122
8 9/02 1 7A M 2 601 G 123
8 9/02 1 7A ? 1 608 G 108
8 9/02 1 7A M 1 604 G 124
8 9/02 1 7A F 2 67i G 12S
8 9/02 1 4 M 3 570 G 109
8 9/02 1 7A M 1 564 G 126
APPENDIX A-3. COHO SALMON CATCH RECORDS A3-2
WEEK DAY METHOD SITE# SEX COND. LENGTH TAG COL. TAG# RECAP.#
8 9/02 1 7A M 1 669 G 127
8 9/02 1 4 M 2 6S7 G 128
8 9/02 1 7A M 1 620 G 129
8 9/03 1 6A F 1 700 G 130
8 9/03 1 6A M 1 624 G 131
8 9/03 1 4 M 2 674 G 112
8 9/03 1 4 M 2 S60 G 133
8 9/03 1 4 M 2 S28 G 134
8 9/03 1 7A M 3 700 G 13S
8 9/03 1 7A F 2 6S4 G 136
8 9/03 1 7A F 2 62S G 137
9 9/08 2 S3 F 1 622 G 138
9 9/08 1 SA F 1 608 G 140
9 9/08 1 6A F 1 46S G 143
9 9/08 1 SA M 3 740 G 144
9 9/08 1 SA F 1 62S G 14S
9 9/09 1 6A M 2 S19 G 146
9 9/09 1 7A M 2 700 G 1S1
9 9/09 1 7A M 2 709 G 1S3
9 9/09 1 7A M 2 680 G 1S4
9 9/09 1 7A M 1 728 G 1SS
9 9/09 1 6A M 3 604 G 1S6
9 9/10 1 6A F 2 474
9 9/10 1 6A F 1 434
9 9/10 1 1 M 3 732 G 118
9 9/10 1 7A F 1 S9S
9 9/10 1 7A F 1 66S
9 9/10 1 7A M 1 601
9 9/10 1 7A F 1 648
9 9/10 1 4 M 3 424
APPENDIX A-4. SOCKEYE SAIBON CATCH RECORDS A4-1
WEEK DAY METHOD SITE# SEX COND. LENGTH TAG COL. TAG# RECAP.# ---------------------------------------------------------------------2 7/21 1 6A M 3 372 OR 11
2 7/23 1 3 M 2 588 G 31
2 7/23 1 3 M 1 420 G 32
2 7/23 1 7A F 1 489 G 34
2 7/23 1 4 M 3 370 OR 11
2 7/23 2 S7 F 1 489 G 34
3 7/28 2 S7 M 3 510 G 40
3 7/29 1 7A ? 1 361 G 42
3 7/29 1 4 M 3 373 OR 11
3 7/30 1 5A M 2 543 G 45
3 7/30 1 4 M 2 519 G 50
3 7/30 1 4 M 2 421 G 49
3 7/30 1 4 M 2 369 OR 11
4 8/04 1 6A F 1 399 G 51
4 8/05 1 6A M 1 404 G 53
4 8/05 1 7A F 1 395 G 55
4 8/05 1 4 M 3 380 G 56
4 8/05 1 7A ? 1 338 G 58
4 8/06 1 6A M 1 438 G 59
4 8/06 1 6A F 2 471 G 60
4 8/06 1 6A M 1 411 G 61
5 8/11 1 6A M 1 422 G 64
5 8/11 1 6A F 2 501 G 65
5 8/12 1 6A M 2 638 G 65
5 8/12 1 5A M 3 410 G 66
5 8/12 1 5A F 1 328 G 58
5 8/12 1 6A M 3 700 G 69
5 8/13 1 6A F 2 508 G 70
5 8/13 1 3 M 2 493 G 71
5 8/13 1 3 M 3 558 G 72
5 8/13 1 7A M 2 622 G 73
6 8/18 1 6A M 4 482 G 71
6 8/18 1 6A M 3 544 G 45
6 8/19 1 6A M 3 605 G 75
6 8/19 1 5A M 3 556 G 76
6 8/19 1 5A M 3 402 G 77
6 8/19 1 5A M 3 583 G 78
6 8/19 1 7A F 2 554 G 79
6 8/19 1 7A M 3 378 G 81
6 8/19 1 4 M 4 440 G 82
6 8/19 1 5A M 1 418 G 85
6 8/19 1 5A M 3 420 G 86
6 8/19 1 6A M 3 409 G 67
6 8/20 1 6A M 3 397 y 34
6 8/20 1 6A M 3 542 G 45
6 8/20 1 6A F 6 346
APPENDIX A-4. SOCKEYE SALMON CATCH RECORDS A4-2
WEEK DAY METHOD SITE# SEX COND. LENGTH TAG COL. TAG# RECAP.#
7 8/25 1 SA M 3 419 G 86
7 8/26 1 6A M 3 444 G 59
7 8/26 1 4 M 3 371 y 55
7 8/26 1 6A F 3 410 G 57
7 8/26 1 6A M 3 686 G 97
7 8/26 1 6A M 3 549 G 98
7 8/26 1 6A M 3 354 G 99
7 8/27 1 1 M 3 422 G 102
8 9/02 1 6A M 3 378 G 74
8 9/03 1 SA M 3 442 G 132
9 9/08 1 6A F 5 483 OR 99
9 9/08 1 SA M 3 550 G 139
9 9/08 1 4 M 5 380 G 141
9 9/09 1 1 M 3 508 G 147
9 9/09 1 SA M 3 510 G 148
9 9/09 1 SA M 3 414 G 149
9 9/09 1 3 M 3 528 y 58
9 9/09 1 6A F 3 606 G 157
9 9/09 1 7A M 3 446 G 158
9 9/10 1 6A M 3 509 G 147
9 9/10 1 6A M 3 590
9 9/10 1 6A M 3 664
9 9/10 1 6A F 4 425 G 91
9 9/10 1 1 M 3 525 y 58
9 9/10 1 1 F 5 490 OR 99
APPENDIX A-5. CHINOOK SALMON CATCH RECORDS A5-1
WEEK DAY METHOD SITE# SEX COND. LENGTH TAG COL. TAG# RECAP.#
---------------------------------------------------------------------1 7/14 1 6A M 3 639 G 1
1 7/14 1 6A M 2 381 G 283
1 7/14 1 6A M 3 696 G 4
1 7/14 1 6A F 3 950 G 5
1 7/14 1 5A M 3 483 G 6
1 7/14 1 6A F 3 905 G 7
1 7/14 1 5A M 3 685 G 9
1 7/15 1 7A M 3 705 G 10
1 7/15 1 7A M 3 540 G 11
1 7/15 1 7A M 3 630 G 13
1 7/15 1 7A M 3 604 G 14
1 7/15 1 7A M 3 609 G 15
1 7/15 1 7A M 3 684 G 16
1 7/16 1 7A M 3 650 G 17
2 7/21 1 7A M 3 700 G 10
2 7/21 1 6A M 3 687 G 19
2 7/21 1 6A M 3 910 G 20
2 7/21 1 5A M 3 430 G 21
2 7/21 1 3 M 3 662 G 22
2 7/22 1 6A M 3 708 G 23
2 7/22 1 6A M 3 654 G 24
2 7/22 1 5A M 4 639 G 01
2 7/22 1 7A M 3 637 G 26
2 7/22 1 7A M 3 480 G 06
2 7/22 1 7A M 3 997 G 27
2 7/22 1 7A M 3 400 G 28
2 7/22 1 7A M 3 640 G 29
2 7/22 1 6A M 3 681 G 09
2 7/23 1 5A M 3 636 G 30
2 7/23 1 4 M 3 640 G 26
3 7/28 1 5A M 3 698 G 35
3 7/28 1 4 M 3 660 G 36
3 7/28 1 7A M 4 690 G 37
3 7/28 1 7A M 3 560 G 38
3 7/28 1 5A M 3 549 G 38
3 7/28 1 7A M 3 633 G 30
3 7/28 1 7A M 3 714 G 41
3 7/29 1 7A M 3 660 G 36
3 7/29 1 7A M 5 609 G 13
3 7/30 1 7A F 5 671 G 46
3 7/30 1 7A M 5 649 G 24
3 7/30 1 7A M 3 617 G 47
'3 3 7/30 1 7A F 5 746 G 48
4 8/04 1 5A M 3 714 G 52
4 8/05 1 5A M 3 668 G 54
4 8/05 1 5A ? 6 560
4 8/06 1 5A M 5 671 G 62
4 8/06 1 3 M 5 661 LOST TAG
APPENDIX A-6. DOLLY VARDEN CATCH RECORDS A6-1
WEEK DAY METHOD SITE# SEX COND. LENGTH TAG COL. TAG# RECAP.# ---------------------------------------------------------------------1 7/16 2 S7 444 T.P.
2 7/23 2 S7 278 T.P.
2 7/23 2 S7 374 T.P. OLD T.P.
2 7/23 2 S7 30S T.P.
2 7/23 2 S7 420 T.P.
2 7/23 2 S7 310 T.P.
2 7/23 2 S7 320 T.P.
2 7/23 2 S7 320 T.P.
2 7/23 2 S7 30S T.P. OLD T.P.
2 7/23 2 S7 440 T.P.
2 7/23 2 S7 414 T.P.
2 7/23 2 S7 300 T.P.
3 7/29 1 6A 321 T.P.
3 7/29 1 SA 379 T.P.
3 7/30 1 6A 328 T.P.
3 7/30 1 6A 341 T.P.
3 7/30 1 1 2SS T.P.
3 7/30 1 SA 322 T.P.
3 7/30 1 3 274 T.P.
4 8/0S 1 6A 294 T.P.
4 8/0S 1 SA 326 T.P.
4 8/0S 1 3 2SO T.P.
4 8/06 1 1 306 T.P.
s 8/11 2 S1 243 T.P.
s 8/11 2 S3 320 T.P.
s 8/11 2 S7 308 T.P.
s 8/12 1 6A 313 T.P.
s 8/12 1 SA 298 T.P.
s 8/12 1 6A 6 348
s 8/13 1 6A 312 T.P.
s 8/13 1 1 306 T.P.
s 8/13 1 3 298 T.P.
6 8/18 2 S3 242 T.P.
6 8/18 1 6A 308 T.P.
6 8/19 1 6A 282 T.P.
6 8/19 1 6A 316 T.P.
6 8/19 1 SA 316
6 8/19 2 S7 27S T.P.
6 8/19 2 S7 2S4 T.P.
6 8/19 1 6A 282 T.P.
6 8/19 1 3 292 T.P.
6 8/20 1 6A 343 T.P.
6 8/20 1 6A 339 T.P.
6 8/20 1 1 318 T.P.
6 8/20 1 3 284 T.P.
6 8/20 1 7A 6 301
APPENDIX A-6. DOLLY VARDEN CATCH RECORDS A6-2
WEEK DAY METHOD SITE# SEX COND. LENGTH TAG COL. TAG# RECAP.#
6 8/20 1 4 262 T.P.
7 8/25 2 57 276
7 8/25 2 57 284
7 8/25 2 57 254
7 8/26 1 6A 330 T.P.
7 8/26 1 6A 339 T.P.
7 8/26 1 1 298 T.P.
7 8/26 1 5A 292 T.P.
7 8/26 1 4 306 T.P.
7 8/26 1 7A 6 288
7 8/26 1 7A 6 290
7 8/26 1 6A 355 T.P.
7 8/26 1 5A 273 T.P.
7 8/26 1 6A 309 T.P.
7 8/27 1 6A 274 T.P.
7 8/27 1 6A 296 T.P.
7 8/27 1 6A 310 T.P.
7 8/27 1 6A 355 T.P.
7 8/27 1 1 292 T.P.
7 8/27 1 5A 6 302
7 8/27 1 5A 6 335
7 8/27 1 3 324 T.P.
7 8/27 1 3 341 T.P.
7 8/27 1 3 306 T.P.
7 8/27 1 3 6 309
7 8/27 1 7A 6 342
8 9/01 2 53 298 T.P.
8 9/01 1 4 309 T.P.
8 9/02 1 6A 290 T.P.
8 9/02 1 6A 309 T.P.
8 9/02 1 6A 291 T.P.
8 9/02 1 6A 312 T.P.
8 9/02 1 6A 294 T.P.
8 9/02 1 1 286 T.P.
8 9/02 1 1 286 T.P.
8 9/02 1 5A 310 T.P.
8 9/02 1 3 295 T.P.
8 9/02 1 3 254 T.P.
8 9/02 1 7A 307 T.P.
8 9/03 1 6A 264 T.P.
8 9/03 1 1 310 T.P.
8 9/03 1 1 254 T.P.
8 9/03 1 5A 310 T.P.
8 9/03 1 3 324 T.P.
9 9/08 2 57 278 T.P.
9 9/08 2 57 322 T.P.
9 9/08 2 57 325 T.P.
9 9/08 1 6A 282 T.P.
9 9/08 1 6A 338 T.P.
APPENDIX A-6. DOLLY VARDEN CATCH RECORDS A6-3
WEEK DAY METHOD SITE# SEX COND. LENGTH TAG COL. TAG# RECAP.#
9 9/08 1 7A 269 T.P.
9 9/09 1 6A 272 T.P.
9 9/09 1 6A 275 T.P.
9 9/09 1 5A 275 T.P.
9 9/09 1 1 273 T.P.
9 9/10 1 3 260
9 9/10 1 3 6 345
APPENDIX B:
WEEK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
NET
1
3
4
5A
6A
7A
1
3
4
5A
6A
7A
1
3
4
5A
6A
7A
1
3
4
5A
6A
7A
1
3
4
5A
6A
7A
1
3
4
5A
6A
7A
1
3
4
5A
TRAP NET FISHING EFFORT SUMMARY-1992
DATE/TIME SET
07/14 08:56
07/14 10:00
07/14 09:20
07/14 10:00
07/14 08:40
07/14 09:46
07/21 08:40
07/21 09:04
07/21 09:20
07/21 08:52
07/21 08:30
07/21 09:16
07/28 08:45
07/28 09:35
07/28 09:54
07/28 09:15
07/28 08:30
07/28 10:10
08/04 08:55
08/04 09:30
08/04 09:52
08/04 09:20
08/04 08:30
08/04 09:45
08/11 08:55
08/11 09:37
08/11 09:53
08/11 09:22
08/11 08:32
08/11 09:48
08/18 08:55
08/18 09:22
08/18 09:40
08/18 09:10
08/18 08:42
08/18 09:33
08/25 08:55
08/25 09:25
08/25 09:46
08/25 09:15
DATE/TIME PULLED
07/16 08:45
07/16 09:00
07/16 09:24
07/16 08:51
07/16 08:27
07/16 09:06
07/23 08:45
07/23 09:10
07/23 09:32
07/23 09:00
07/23 08:26
07/23 09:16
07/30 08:50
07/30 09:45
07/30 10:20
07/30 09:29
07/30 08:27
07/30 10:07
08/06 08:01
08/06 08:31
08/06 08:55
08/06 08:17
08/06 07:49
08/06 08:42
08/13 08:43
08/13 08:58
08/13 09:40
08/13 09:14
08/13 08:29
08/13 09:28
08/20 09:00
08/20 09:19
08/20 09:51
08/20 09:12
08/20 08:39
08/20 09:33
08/27 08:58
08/27 09:25
08/27 09:55
08/27 09:10
EFFORT (HRS)
47.8
47.0
48.1
46.9
47.8
47.3
48.1
48.1
48.2
48.1
47.9
48.0
48.1
48.2
48.4
48.2
48.0
48.0
47.1
47.0
47.1
47.0
47.3
47.0
47.8
47.4
47.8
47.9
48.0
47.7
48.1
48.0
48.2
48.0
48.0
48.0
48.1
48.0
48.2
47.9
B-1
APPENDIX B: TRAP NET FISHING EFFORT SUMMARY-1992 B-2
WEEK NET DATE/TIME SET DATE/TIME PULLED EFFORT (HRS)
6A 08/2S 08:4S 08/27 08:40 47.9
7A 08/2S 09:40 08/27 09:40 48.0
8 1 09/01 08:S4 09/03 07:31 47.4
3 09/01 09:17 09/03 07:49 46.S
4 09/01 09:40 09/03 08:02 46.4
SA 09/01 09:06 09/03 07:39 46.6
6A 09/01 08:3S 09/03 07:17 47.3
7A 09/01 09:31 09/03 08:10 46.7
9 1 09/08 08:39 09/10 08:29 47.8
3 09/08 08:S6 09/10 08:44 47.8
4 09/08 09:14 09/10 09:10 47.9
SA 09/08 08:49 09/10 08:39 47.8
6A 09/08 08:26 09/10 08:13 47.8
7A 09/08 09:08 09/10 08:S4 47.8
APPENDIX C: PHYSICAL DATA C-1
DATE WATER TEMP. (C) TURBIDITY(NTU) AIR TEMP. (C) STAFF GAUGE(FT)
JUL 14 24
JUL 15 8.3 22 14.4 1.00
JUL 16 10.0 24 12.0 0.98
JUL 17
JUL 18
JUL 19
JUL 20
JUL 21 8.5 17 11.2 0.70
JUL 22 8.2 16 11.8 0.71
JUL 23 7.6 17 11.8 0.72
JUL 24
JUL 25
JUL 26
JUL 27
JUL 28 8.8 27 12.4 0.74
JUL 29 7.8 24 12.0 0.74
JUL 30 7.9 34 12.0 0.76
JUL 31
AUG 01
AUG 02
AUG 03
AUG 04 9.2 19 13.2 0.76
AUG 05 7.8 10 13.0
AUG 06 8.8 32 12.2 0.90
AUG 07
AUG 08
AUG 09
AUG 10
AUG 11 9.4 36 13.5 0.74
AUG 12 9.2 40 11.8 0.78
AUG 13 8.6 40 10.4 0.82
AUG 14
AUG 15
AUG 16
AUG 17
AUG 18 8.2 58 7.0 0.74
AUG 19 8.4 45 11.0 0.74
AUG 20 9.0 48 10.6 0.78
AUG 21
AUG 22
AUG 23
AUG 24
AUG 25 7.8 46 8.4 0.84
AUG 26 8.1 40 9.6 1.04
AUG 27 7.4 62 5.4 0.92
AUG 28
AUG 29
AUG 30
AUG 31
APPENDIX c: PHYSICAL DATA C-2
DATE WATER TEMP. (C) TURBIDITY(NTU) AIR TEMP. (C) STAFF GAUGE(FT)
SEP 01 7.6 84 9.0 0.72
SEP 02 7.5 74 8.1 0.77
SEP 03 7.2 73 6.1
SEP 04
SEP 05
SEP 06
SEP 07
SEP 08 7.4 76 10.8 0.77
SEP 09 7.1 5.8 0.77
SEP 10 5.4 75 -1.2 0.75
APPENDIX D-1. TAILRACE PINK SALMON CATCH D1-1
WEEK DAY METHOD SITE# SEX COND. LENGTH TAG # RECAP# SONIC# ------------------------------------------------------------------2 7/28 1 2 F 2 478 y 02
2 7/29 1 1 M 2 452 y 09
3 8/04 1 3 M 3 599 y 18
3 8/05 1 3 M 2 530 y 15 2446
4 8/11 1 3 M 2/6 556
4 8/12 1 3 F 2 468 y 38 88
6 8/26 1 3 M 3 552 y 77 2363
7 9/01 1 1 F 2 656 y 80 339
APPENDIX D-2. TAILRACE CHUM SALMON CATCH D2-1
WEEK DAY METHOD SITE# SEX COND. LENGTH TAG # RECAP# SONIC#
3 8/10 1 1 F 2 515 y 19
APPENDIX D-3. TAILRACE COHO SALMON CATCH D3-1
WEEK DAY METHOD SITE# SEX COND. LENGTH TAG # RECAP# SONIC# ------------------------------------------------------------------4 8/12 1 2 M 1 588 y 39
4 8/13 1 1 M 1 572 y 41
5 8/19 1 2 M 1 597 y 61 384
5 8/20 1 1 F 1/6 667
5 8/20 1 1 F 1 655 y 64 456
6 8/24 1 2 F 1 475 y 66
6 8/24 1 3 F 1/6 618
6 8/24 1 3 M 1/6 619
6 8/26 1 1 F 1/6 625
6 8/26 1 1 M 1 582 y 72 465
6 8/26 1 2 F 1 675 y 75 2264
6 8/26 1 3 F 1 500 y 78
6 8/26 1 1 F 2 594 y 79
7 9/01 1 1 M 1 695 y 81 249
7 9/01 1 2 F 1 604 y 82 258
APPENDIX D-4. TAILRACE SOCKEYE SALMON CATCH D4-1
WEEK DAY METHOD SITE# SEX COND. LENGTH TAG # RECAP. SONIC TA
------------------------------------------------------------------1 7/23 1 4 M 1 430 y 02
1 7/23 1 4 F 1 380 y 03
2 7/28 1 1 M 2 634 y 04
2 7/28 1 1 M 2 584 y 05
2 7/28 1 2 F 1 549 y 06
2 7/28 1 2 F 1 534 y 07
2 7/28 1 1 F 1 545 y 06
2 7/29 1 2 M 2 610 y 10
2 7/29 1 2 F 1 400 y 11
2 7/29 1 3 M 2 478 y 12
2 7/30 1 2 F 2 563 y 13
3 8/04 1 2 M 1 544 y 14
3 8/05 1 1 M 2/6 690
3 8/05 1 1 F 2/6 511
3 8/05 1 1 M 1/6 341
3 8/05 1 3 M 2 369 y 16
3 8/05 1 3 F 1 550 y 17 2255
4 8/10 1 1 M 3 521 y 20
4 8/10 1 2 F 2 524 y 22
4 8/10 1 2 M 3 525 y 23
4 8/10 1 2 M 3 414 y 27
4 8/11 1 1 M 1/6 581
4 8/11 1 1 F 2/6 616
4 8/11 1 1 F 1/6 499
4 8/11 1 1 M 2/6 515
4 8/11 1 1 M 1/6 488
4 8/11 1 1 M 3/6 518 y 23
4 8/11 1 2 M 2/6 596
4 8/11 1 3 F 2/6 525
4 8/11 1 2 M 2 620 y 28 2345
4 8/11 1 2 F 3 549 y 31
4 8/11 1 2 M 2 383 y 32
4 8/11 1 3 M 1 404 y 34
4 8/12 1 2 M 1 537 y 37
4 8/13 1 1 F 2 514 y 40
4 8/13 1 1 M 3 534 y 45
4 8/13 1 1 F 3 578 y 46
4 8/13 1 1 M 1 479 y 49
4 8/13 1 2 M 2 423 y 51
5 8/18 1 2 M 3 405 y 52
5 8/18 1 2 F 1 549 y 53 97
5 8/18 1 2 M 3 418 y 54
5 8/18 1 2 F 1 372 y 55
5 8/18 1 2 M 3 601 y 56 555
5 8/18 1 2 F 3 476 y 57
5 8/18 1 2 M 2 533 y 58
5 8/19 1 2 F 1 346 y 59
APPENDIX D-4. TAILRACE SOCKEYE SALMON CATCH D4-2
WEEK DAY METHOD SITE# SEX COND. LENGTH TAG # RECAP. SONIC TA
5 8/19 1 1 M 1 429 y 60
5 8/19 1 3 F 2 547 y 62 2228
5 8/19 1 1 F 2 512 y 63 447
5 8/20 1 1 M 3/6 550
5 8/20 1 2 F 1 549 y 53 97
6 8/24 1 1 F 3 511 y 65
6 8/24 1 2 M 3 432 y 67
6 8/24 1 2 M 3 430 y 68
6 8/24 1 2 M 3 534 y 69 456
6 8/25 1 2 M 3/6 527
6 8/25 1 2 F 3 545 y 62 2228
6 8/25 1 2 F 2 510 y 70 2237
6 8/25 1 3 F 3 492 y 71
6 8/25 1 2 M 3 431 y 68
6 8/26 1 2 M 2 548 y 14
APPENDIX D-5. TAILRACE DOLLY VARDEN CATCH D5-1
WEEK DAY METHOD SITE# SEX COND. LENGTH TAG # RECAP# SONIC# ------------------------------------------------------------------1 7/23 2 TR 362 T.P.
1 7/23 2 TR 270 T.P.
2 7/28 2 TR 379 T.P.
2 7/28 1 1 302 T.P.
2 7/30 1 1 304 T.P.
3 8/06 1 3 6 315
3 8/06 1 3 6 310
4 8/10 1 1 344 T.P.
4 8/11 1 2 399 T.P.
4 8/12 1 2 369 T.P.
4 8/12 1 2 354 T.P.
4 8/12 1 2 300 T.P.
4 8/13 1 2 308 T.P.
4 8/13 1 1 299 T.P.
4 8/13 1 2 331 T.P.
5 8/18 1 1 363 T.P.
6 8/25 1 2 359 T.P.
6 8/25 1 2 300 T.P.
6 8/26 1 2 6 277
6 8/26 1 3 305 T.P.
6 8/26 1 1 342 T.P.
6 8/26 1 2 312 T.P.
6 8/26 1 2 355 T.P.
6 8/27 1 2 310 T.P.
6 8/27 1 2 354 T.P.