HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1938I/,1
.....
I""",
~
1;
"
REPORT NO.3
AQUATIC HABITAT AND INSTREAM FLOW
INVESnGATIONS (MAY-OCTOBER 1983)
Chapter 9:Habitat Suitability Criteria for Chinook,
Coho,and Pink Salmon Spawning
In Tributaries of the Middle Susitna River
TK
1425
.88
A68
no.1938
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME.
SUSITNA HYDRO AQUATIC STUDIES REPORT SERIES
Tl'
11.fJS
·~8
A,S
n~.r~3 ~
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
SUSITNA HYDRO AQUATIC STUDIES
REPORT NO.3
AQUATIC HABITAT AND INSTREAM FLOW
INVESTIGATIONS (MAY-OCTOBER 1983)
Chapter 9:Habitat Suitability Criteria for Chinook,
Coho,and Pink Salmon Spawning
In Tributaries of the Middle Susitna River
N
o
"""CO
LO
M
o
8
LO
LO
I"-
M
M
_._.L
Edited by:
Christopher C.Estes
and
Douglas S.Vincent-Lang
Prepared for:
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 W.FIFTH AVE.
ANCHORAGE.ALASKA 99501
ARLIS
Lib Alaska .Resources
nuy &Information Serv,c
Anchorage.A 'aska .es
--------._~__~.o.....__
-
PREFACE
This report is one of a series of reports prepared for the Alaska Power
Authority (APA)by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)to
provide information to be used in evaluating the feasibi I ity of the
proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project.The ADF&G Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies program was initiated in November 1980.The five year study
program was divided into three study sections:Adult Anadromous Fish
Studies (AA),Resident and Juvenile Anadromous Studies (RJ),and Aquatic
Habitat and Instream Flow Studies (AH).Reports prepared by the ADF&G
prior to 1983 on this subject are available from the APA.
The information in this report summarizes the findings of the 1983 open
water field season investigations.Beginning with the 1983 reports,all
reports were sequentially numbered as part of the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Report 'Series.
TITLES IN THE 1983 SERIES
Access and Transmission Corridor Aquatic Sept 1984
Investigations:May -October 1983
,-
Report
Number
1
2
3
4
Title
Adult Anadromous Fish Investigations:
May -October 1983
Resident and Juvenile Anadromous Fish
Investigations:May -October 1983
Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow
Investigations:May -October 1983
Publ ication
Da te
April 1984
July 1984
Sept 1984
This report,"Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow Investigations"is
divided into two parts.Part I,the "Hydrologic and Water Quality
Investigations",is a compilation of the physical and chemical data
collected by th AOF&G Su Hydro Aquatic Studies team during 1983.These
data are arranged by individual variables and geographic location for
ease of access to user agencies.The combined data set represents the
available physical habitat of the study area within the Cook Inlet to
Oshetna River reach of the Susitna River.Part II,the "Adult Anadro-
mous Fish Habitat Investigations".describes the subset of available
habitat compiled in Part 1 that.is utilized by adult anadromous fish
studied in the middle and lower Susitna River (Cook Inlet to Devil
Canyon)study area.The studies'primarily emphasize the utilization of
side slough and side channel habitats of the middle reach of the Susitna
River for spawning (Figure A).It represents the first stage of
.development for an instream flow relationships analysis report which
will be prepared by E.W.Trihey and Associates.
MID OLE REACH
ADF 6G FIELD CAMPS
OVERALL STUDY AREA
c:J
•
,
"-.....................................
.......
\
\
\,
I
I
I
I
I,
a,/
/1----",
o 26
I ,
miles
-,.••"...tlI
Figure A.Susitna River drainage basin.
t 'I m J )!J _J I J .~~.J ~J 1 J 1 lj
.-
I
Chapter
1
CONTENTS OF REPORT NO.3
Part One
Stage and Discharge Investigations.
2 Channel Geometry Investigations.
3 Continuous Water Temperature Investigations.
4 Water Quality Investigations.
Part Two
Chapter
5
6
7
8
9
10-
Eulachon Spawning in the Lower Susitna River.
An Evaluation of Passage Conditions for Adult Salmon in
Sloughs and Side Channels of the Middle Susitna River.
An Evaluation of Chum and Sockeye Salmon Spawning Habitat in
Sloughs and Side Channels of the Middle Susitna River.
An Evaluation of Salmon Spawning Habitat in Selected Tributary
Mouth Habitats of the Middle Susitna River.
Habitat Suitability Criteria for Chinook.Coho.and -Pink
Salmon Spawning.
The Effect i veness of Infra red Therma 1 Imagery Techniques for
Detecting Upwelling Groundwater.
Questions concerning this and prior reports should be directed to:
Alaska Power Authority
334 W.5th Avenue
Anchorage,Alaska 99501
Telephone (907)276-0001
ARLIS
Alaska Resource-s
Library &InfC'('l',~r,ces
Anchor~1.t~.it
HABITAT SUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR
CHINOOK,COHO,AND PINK SALMON SPAWNING
IN TRIBUTARIES OF THE MIDDLE SUSITNA RIVER
1984 Report No.3,Chapter 9
By
Doug Vincent-Lang,
Andrew Hoffmann,
Allen Bingham,~nd
Christopher Estes
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies
2207 Spenard Road
Anchorage,Alaska 99503
ABSTRACT
Utilization data for the habitat variables of depth,velocity,and
substrate composition were collected at chinook salmon spawning sites in
selected tributaries of the middle reach of the Susitna River.These
data were modified using statistical methods and the professional
judgments of project biologists familiar with Susitna River chinook
salmon stocks to develop suitability criteria for chinook salmon
spawning in tributaries of the middle Susitna River.These criteria show
that depths ranging from 0.5 to 4.0 ft;mean water column velocities
ranging from 0,3 to 4.5 ftjsec;and,substrates ranging from small
gravels to cobbles are suitable for chinook salmon spawning in these
habitats.Suitability criteria were also developed for coho and pink
salmon spawning in tributaries of the middle Susitna River based on
literature information as modified using the professional judgments of
project biologists familiar with Susitna River coho and pink salmon
stocks.These criteria show that depths ranging from 0.3 to 4.0 ft;mean
water column velocities ranging from 0.1 to 5.0 ftjsec;and,substrates
ranging from sand_intermixed with small gravels to large rubbles are
suitable for pink salmon spawning in these habitats.The criteria
developed for coho salmon spawning in these habitats show the range of
depths from 0.3 to 4.0 ft;mean water column velocities from 0.1 to 4.0
ftjsec;and,substrates from sand intermixed with small gravel to large
rubbles are suitable for spawning in tributaries of the middle Susitna
River.Suggested applications and limitations of these suitability
criteria are discussed.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT.... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .......... .. .......... ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. ..................i
TABL E OF COI~TENTS 0........ .... .. .... .. .. .......... .. .. .. .. .. ..;i
LIST OF FIGURES ............. .......... ...... .... .. ........ .. .. .. ........ .... ............ ........ .............. ..;i i
LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................iv
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES .v
1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................9-1
2.0 METHODS....................................................9-2
2.1 Site Selection........................................9-2
2.2 Field Data Collection.................................9-2
2.3 Analytic Approach.....................................9-2
3.0 RESULTS..9-15
3.1 Chinook Salmon .
3.1.1 Depth ~pawning Suitability Criteria .
3.1.2 Velocity Spawning Suitability Criteria .
3.1.3 Substrate Spawning Suitability Criteria.~.
3.1.4 Independence of Habitat Variables Evaluated .
3.2 Pin k Sal rna n .
3.3 Coho Salmon .
9-15
9-15
9-21.
9-21
9-27
9-27
9-36
4.0 DISCUSSION.................................................9-40
6.0 CONTRIBUTORS...............................................9-48
7.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................9-49
8.0 LITERATURE CITED...........................................9-50
9.0 APPENDICES.................................................9-52
-5.0
4.1 Assumption and Limitations of the Data Base .
4.2 Su itabi 1ity Criteri a .
4.2.1 Chinook Salmon .
4.2~2 Pink and Coho Salmon .
4.3 Recommended Applications and Limitations of the
Suitability Criteria .
GLOSSARY ..
9-40
9-41
9-41
9-42
9-42
9-44
Appendix 9-A:Chinook Salmon Spawning Habitat
Utilization Data............................9-A-1
Appendix 9-B:Chinook Salmon Utilization Statistics.......9-B-1
i i
9-1-
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Locations of major tributaries surveyed for chinook
salmon spawning,1983..................................9-3
9-2 Incremental distribution of depths measured at chinook
salmon redds ~9-17
9-3 Best depth utilization curve for chinook salmon
sp·awnlng 9-19
9-10
9-4 Depth suitability curve for chinook salmon spawning ....9-20
9-5 Incremental distribution of velocities measured at
chinook salmon redds 9-22
9-6 Best velocity utilization curve for chinook salmon
spawnlng.............................................................................................9-24
9-7 Velocity suitability curve for chinook salmon spawning.9-25
9-8 Substrate utilization curve for chinook salmon
spawn.lng.............................................................................................9-26
9-9 Substrate suitabil ity curve for chinook salmon
spa wn,ng.... ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..•........ .......... ...... .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. ...... .. .... ..9-29
Plots depicting the relationships between utilized
depths versus velocities (A),utilized depths versus
substrates (B),and utilized velocities versus
substrates (C)for chinook salmon spawning 9-30
9-11 Depth suitability curve for pink salmon spawning 9-33
9-12 Velocity suitability curve for pink spawning 9-34
.....9-13 Substrate suitability curve for pink salmon spawning .•.9-35
.....
9-14 Depth suitability curve for coho salmon spawning 9-37
9-15 Velocity suitability curve for coho salmon spawning 9-38
9-16 Substrate suitability curve for coho salmon spawning 9-39
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
-
9-1
9-2
9-3
Peak chinook salmon counts of major tributaries
surveyed for chinook salmon spawning,1983 ....•••.....•
Comparison of selected biological and physical
characteristics of the four tributaries,selected for
collection of chinook salmon spawning utilization data.
Substrate classification scheme utilized to evaluate
substrate composition at spawning redds ...........•....
9-4
9-5
9-6
9-4 Summary of histograms used to evaluate depth and
velocity utilization data for spawning chinook salmon..9-9
9-5 Number of measurements made at chinook salmon redds in
tributaries of the middle Susitna River,1983 9-16
-9-6 Summary of statistics on various incremental groupings
for chinook salmon utilization depth histograms 9-18
9-8
-
....
-
9-7 Summary of statistics on various incremental groupings
for chinook salmon utilization velocity histograms .....9-23
Detailed substrate classification scheme used in the
derivation of the substrate suitability criteria 9-28
9-9 Comparison of selected hydraulic and physical
characteristics of selected larger clear water
tributaries of the middle Susitna River to those of the
Terror River (Wilson et ale 1981)9-32
iv
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
Appendix Table
-
....
-~
-
9-A-l
9-B-1
9-B-2
9-B-3
9-C-4
Appendix 9-A
Chinook salmon spawning habitat data 9-A-2
Appendix 9-B
Summary of variance statistics and tests for
various groupings for chinook salmon utilization
depth histograms .............•..................9-B-2
Comparison of incremental mean and standard
deviation values with non-incremental values
for various grouping of chinook salmon depth
and velocity histograms ...•...........••........9-B-3
Summary of variance statistics and tests for
various groupings for chinook salmon utilization
velocity histograms .........•............•......9-8-4
Bivariate correlation statistics for evaluating
independence of habitat variables used in the
development of suitability criteria curves for
chinook salmon 9-B-5
v
-t:'
"""
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Thi s chapter presents a di scussi on of chi nook salmon spawni ng habitat
utilization data collected in tributaries of the middle reach of the
Susitna River,the methods ~sed to analyze the data,and the resulting
spawning habitat suitability criteria developed from these data.
Additionally,a discussion is presented of suitability criteria
developed for coho and pink salmon spawning in tributaries based solely
on values reported in literature as modified by the professional opinion
of ADF&G Su Hydro field biologists (Hoffmann et al.1984),henceforward
referred to as project biologists,familiar with Susitna River coho and
pink salmon stocks.These criteria were developed so as to provide a
spawning suitability criteria data for these species based on the
accumulated field experience of project biologists.
Six major riverine habitat types have been identified in the middle
reach of the Susitna River:mainstem,side channel,side slough,upland
slough,tributary,and tributary mouth.Of these habitat types,
tributary habitats support the majority of the documented chinook,coho,
and pink salmon spawn"ing occurr"ing in the middle reach of the Susitna
River (Barrett et al.1984).Tributary habitat,however,is not expected
to be affected si gnifi cantly by the constructi on and operati on of the
proposed hydroelectric project.However,it is anticipated that
suitable depth,velocity,and substrate conditions presently associated
with tributary areas in which chinook,coho,and pink salmon spawn may
become available "in mainstem or side channel habitats under with -
project condition.One means of evaluating such anticipated habitat
changes is through habitat simulation modelling.A requirement for such
modelling is the development of weighted habitat criteria representing
the spawning habitat preferences of chinook,coho,and pink salmon.
Spawning habitat criteria analyses were thus initiated during the 1983
open water period with the objective of collecting sufficient
measurements of selected habitat variables (depth,velocity,and
substrate)at individual chinook,coho,and pink salmon redd sites
(henceforth referred to as utilization data)to determine the behavioral
responses of these species to the various revels of these selected
habitat variables.To maximize use of available resources,these data
were not collected for chum and sockeye salmon spawning in tributaries.
The reader is referred to Chapter 7 of th is report for a si mil ar
analyses conducted for chum and sockeye salmon spawning in sloughs and
side channels of the middle reach of the Susitna River.
Low escapement and resource limitations prevented the collection of
utilization data for spawning coho and pink salmon.Availability data,
that is,the various combinations of the habitat variables which were
available to spawners (Reiser and Wesche 1977;Baldrige and Amos 1982)
were also not collected.For these reasons,the resultant spawning
suitability criteria developed for chinook salmon are based on collected
utilization data as modified using statistical analyses and the
professional opinion of project biologists,whereas the suitability
criteria for coho and pink salmon spawning are based solely on
literature data as modified using qualitative field observations.
9-1
....
-
2.0 METHODS
2.1 Site Selection
Eleven tributaries in the middle reach of the Susitna River (Figure 9-1)
were surveyed in their entirety by foot and helicopter to determine the
timing and distribution of spawning ch"inook salmon.Based on these
surveys,four of these tributaries (Portage Creek,Indian River,Fourth
of July Creek,and Cheechako Creek)were selected for collection of
chinook salmon spawning util ization data due to their relatively high
utilization (Table 9-1).These four tributaries support greater than
98%of the 1983 chinook salmon spawning (Table 9-2)in the middle reach
of the Susitna River the majority of which occurs in Portage and Indian
Creeks.These four tri butari es also support greater than 97%of the
pink salmon spawning and greater than 70%of the coho salmon spawning in
tributaries of the middle reach of the Susitna River (Barrett et al.
1983).
In each of the four tributaries selected for field study,specific sites
for the collection of utilization data were chosen by flying over the
stream in a helicopter to locate areas where high concentrations of fish
were present and to identify field conditions conductive to the
deployment of field personnel.Timing of peak chinook salmon spawning
activity and resultant data collection in these tributaries occurred
from July 10 and August 20..
2.2 Field Data Collection
Spawning salmon were located in each study stream by visual observation.
Biologists observed fish activities from the stream bank for 10 to 30
minutes prior to entering the water to obtain measurements.An active
redd was defined by the fanning of a female at least twice during this
period and the presence of a male exhibiting aggressive or quivering
behavior.The type of behavior observed for each redd was noted.
Detailed descriptions of criteria used to identify active redd locations
are presented in Estes et al.(1981)and ADF&G (1983 b).
Water depth and velocity measurements were collected at the upstream end
of each active redd using a topsetting wading rod and a Marsh McBirney
or Pri ce AA meter usi ng procedures descri bed in ADF&G (1983a).The
substrate composition in the depression of each redd was visually
evaluated using the size classification scheme presented in Table 9-3.
2.3 Analytical Approach
The primary objective of this portion of the study was the development
of wei ghted habi tat criteria representi ng the habi tat preferences of
spawning chinook,coho,and pink salmon.Weighted habitat criteria are
usually expressed in the form of "habitat curves".These curves
describe the weighted usability of different levels of a selected
variable for particular species/life phases with the peak indicating the
greatest usability and the tails tapering towards less usable values.
Curves are developed for each habitat variable believed to influence the
selection of habitat for a life phase activity (Bovee 1982).
9-2
_-~-.J 0
Talk ••t~
o,
MIl.ES
10
I
-
-
Figure 9-1.Locations of major tributaries surveyed for chinook salmon
spawning,1983.
9-3
-
Table 9-1.Peak chinook salmon counts of major tributaries surveyed for
chinook salmon spawning,1983
TRIBUTARIES SURVEYED RIVER DATE OF PEAK
BY ADF&G MILE SURVEY COUNTS 1
'i
Whi skers Creek 101.4 8/4 3
Chase Creek 106.9 8/1 15
Lane Creek 113.6 8/2 12
Fourth of July Creek 131.0 8/2 6
Gold Creek 136.7 7/24 23
Indian River 138.6 7/25 1,193
Jack Long Creek 144.5 8/1 6
Portage Creek 148.9 7/25 3,140
Chinook Creek 156.8 8/1 8
Cheechako Creek 152.5 8/1 25
Devil Creek 161.0 8/1 1
FOOl 1I from Barrett et ale 1984i.
I .
9-4
Table 9-2.Comparison of selected biological and physical
characteri sti cs of the four tri butari es sel ected for
collection of chinook salmon spawning utilization data.
Percenta
Distribution Period b
River In Tributaries Peak Spawning
Tributary Mile Above RM 99 Activity
Portage 148.9 70.8 7/15-8/15
Indian 138.6 26.9 7/15-8/15
Fourth of July 131.0 0.1 7/10-8/8
Cheechako 152.5 0.6 7/20-8/20
Typical Discharge (cfs)
During Period
of Peak Spawning
Activity
500-2000
100-2000
10-50
C
a
b
c
From Barrett et al.1984
From Chapter 1 of this report
Discharge has not been measured in this tributary,however,it is
estimated to have a discharge approximately equivalent to that of
Fourth of July Creek.
9-5
~-
Table 9-3.Substrate classification scheme utilized to evaluate
substrate composition at spawning redds.
r
I
Substrate Category
Silt
.Sand
Sma 11 Gravel
Large Gravel
Rubbl e
Cobble
Boulder
9-6
Size Class
Very Fi ne
Fines
i-III
1-3 11
3-5 11
5-10 11
greater than 1011
Several types of curves are commonly constructed.Habitat util ization
curves typically consist of a plot of values obtained from field
observations and represent the range of conditions util ized by the
species/life stage without taking into consideration the range and
amount of habitat present (Bovee and Cochnauer 1977).Habitat
preference curves take into consideration the range and amount of
habitat present for the species/life stage to use and weight the
utilization information accordingly,as discussed in Reiser and Wesche
(1977),Baldrige and Amos (1982),and AOF&G (l983b).Habitat
suitability curves are a modification of either a utilization or
preference curve based on resul ts from 1 iterature or the professional
opinion of biologists familiar with species/life phase under study in
order to extend the usable range of the curve beyond the range
determined based on utilization and/or availability data.
Typically,each of these curves is constructed by plotting standardized
scaled criteria index values indicating utilization,preference,or
suitability (depending on the curve type being evaluated)on the y-axis
versus levels versus the habitat variable to be evaluated on the x-axis.
The criteria index is scaled between 0 and 1,with 1 denoting the
greatest habitat utilization,preference,or suitability and 0 denoting
no utilization,preference,or suitability.
Depending on the available data base,utilization,preference,or
suitability criteria indices can be developed.In this report,
suitability criteria indices were developed for spawning chinook salmon
by using statistical analyses and the professional opinions of project
biologists familiar with Susitna River chinook salmon stocks,to modify
depth,velocity,and substrate utilization data collected within
selected tributaries of the middle reach of the Susitna River.Coho and
pink salmon spawning suitability criteria were derived from literature
values as modified by the professional judgment of project biologists
familiar with middle Susitna River coho and pink salmon stocks.
The first step in the development of suitability criteria indices for
chinook salmon spawning involved an evaluation of spawning habitat
utilization data plotted as frequency histograms.In this process,the
data were standardized by dividing the frequency of observations in each
increment of the appropriate habitat variable by the frequency of
observations in the increment with the highest occurrence.This
standardization achieved a a to 1 scaling index for frequency on the
y-axis.The resultant scaled frequency histograms represent the
utilization IIcurvesll described earlier.
The ori g;na 1 scale of the increments used in the frequency ana lys is
corresponded to the measuring accuracy for the particular habitat
variable of interest.Accordingly,depth and velocity histograms were
initially divided into 0.1 ft and 0.1 ft/sec increments,respectively.
The substrate histograms were divided into discrete substrate-class
increments (e.g.,silt,silt-sand,sand,etc.).
Additional histograms were constructed for the depth and velocity data
in order to ensure development of utilization curves which did not
exhibit spurious characteristics such as irregular fluctuations or
9-7
-
-
-
r
r
I
i
multi-modal structures.Because utilization curves are developed for one
species/life stage,it is assumed that there should only be one most
utilized increment of a particular habitat variable and that the curves
should be relatively smooth (i.e.,no irregular fluctuations).As
sample size is increased,it is expected that utilization curves
developed from increments at the original measuring accuracy will
approach the ideal of uni-modal structure and smoothness.Small sample
sizes and increments,however,often lead to curves exhibiting
multi-modes and irregularly fluctuations.For these reasons,additional
scaled frequency histograms were d~veloped for depth and velocity
increments of size 0.2 ft and 0.2 ft/sec and 0.3 ft and 0.3 ft/sec.
Several groupings of the data are possible if increment sizes of 0.2 and
0.3 are used,depending on the starting value of the increment.For
this reason,a series of six scaled histograms were developed for depth
and velocity as summarized in Table 9-4.Incremental plots of substrate
are not appropriate because substrate data are not continuous.
Following standardization,the six utilization curves developed from
these data groupings were evaluated in order to select a "best"
utilization curve based on the following criteria:
1.Minimal sample variance of frequency counts;that is,lower
variability among the frequency counts;
2.Minimal coefficient of variation for the frequency counts
(i.e.,the sample standard deviation divided by the sample
mean);
3.Minimal irregular fluctuations,"mean ing grouped values should
continually increase to the maximum grouped value,then
conti nua lly decrease"as defi ned by a seri es of four i ndi ces
proposed by Baldrige and Amos (1982);and,
4.Minimal peakedness,meaning a minimal difference between the
maximum grouped value (i .e.,increment)and the increments
immediately below and above the maximum,as defined by a
peakedness index described below.
The first three evaluation criteria are the same as those described by
Baldrige and Amos (1982).The fourth evaluation criterion is proposed
as a method of quanti fyi ng a characteri sti c of the uti 1i zati on curves
which has been evaluated subjectively in previous studies (pers.comm.
D.Amos 1984).Subjective evaluation of curves would occur in previous
studies if the first three evaluation criteria failed to indicate one
"best"curve.
9-8
I I
Table 9-4.Summary of histograms used to evaluate depth and velocity
utilization data for spawning chinook salmon.
~,
Hi stag ram Increment Size Increment Starting Value
0.1 0.0 ~1
2 0.2 0.0 .....
3 0.2 0.1
4 0.3 0.0 -
5 0.3 0.1
6 0.3 0.2
""'"
-
9-9
F'"
!
-
The four evaluation criteria were weighted in terms of their application
as curve selection tools.The minimal variance and irregular
fluctuation evaluation criteria were weighted most strongly,while the
coefficient of variation was only used to separate curves which were
otherwise indistinguishable.Peakedness was intermediate in importance
between the irregular fluctuations and the coefficient of variation
evaluation criteria.
The first of the above evaluation criteria (the minimal sample variance
of frequency counts)is an adaptation of the chi-square criterion
proposed by Bovee and Cochnauer (1977).Sample variance"is used in
order to allow for comparison of histograms developed with non-count
type data,(e.g.,the ratio of utilized versus available counts).
Although use of the chi-square criterion is possibly more appropriate in
the case of the count data used here,the use of the sample variance of
counts (or ratios)can be applied in a wider variety of circumstances.
In general,this criterion should only be applied when the total number
of different increments utilized is reasonably large,probably greater
than 5 but at least greater than 2.Basically,if the sample size is so
small that very large increments sizes (e.g.,0.5 ft or 0.5 ft/sec in
this case)are necessary to reduce irregular fluctuations or avoid
multi-modes,then the variance criterion should not be used as it may
lend to artificially flat (i.e.,heavy-tailed)curves.
The minimal variance criterion was applied in only those instances where
the difference between vari ances were stati sti ca lly si gnifi cant.
Levene IS W test for homogeneity of"vari ance (Brown and Forsythe 1974;
Glaser 1983)was executed to evaluate the similarity of the variance of
frequency counts between the six scaled frequency histograms.The test
is a robust since it does not require that the data be normally
distributed.The hypotheses tested were:
Ho:All variances are equal,or
Ha :At least one of the variances is different.
If the null hypothesis were rejected,then individual pairs of variances
were compared.The ratio of the larger variance value to the smaller
variance value provided an F statistic which could be evaluated for
significance using standard F tables (Dixon and Massey 1969).The
hypotheses tested were:
H •o'One of the variances is the same as one particular variance of
the other five,or
One of the variances is not the same as one particular
variance of the other five,
A series of 15 pairwise comparisons were made between the six
histograms.The comparisons between histograms with smaller variance
values were those of primary interest (except in cases of violation of
the third criteria above;that is,minimal irregular fluctuations).
9-10
Evaluation of the third criterion was based on a series of four indices
as described in Baldrige and Amos (1982):
-
.1.
2.
Number of irregular fluctuations (number of times grouped
values decreased prior to the maximum value and increased
after the maximum value);
Total magnitude of irregular fluctuations:
M.V.
~group(i_1)-group(i)*
i+2
+
L.G.
:2:group(i)
i +M.V.+1
*-grou p(i)
where:M.V.=maximum value
L.G.=last group
-
4.
*=only when this difference is greater than a
3.Maximum of the individual irregular fluctuations (largest
difference computed in number 2 above prior to any summing);
and,
Average fluctuation (total magnitude of irregular fluctuations
divided by the number of irregular fluctuations).
The best curve should have small values for all four indices.
The minimal irregular fluctuation criterion sometimes led to rejection
of the minimal variance curve.The evaluation of histograms using this
criteria frequently involved professional judgment as to the tradeoffs
involved.These tradeoffs generally involved choosing between a
non-smooth curve with many increments and a smooth curve with fewer
increments (often with a higher variance).A non-smooth curve with many
increments was often indicative of a low number of observations (i.e.,
frequencies).
The peakedness criterion was evaluated using a peakedness index defined
as:
9-11
Index =
where:
F(m+1)
represents the frequency of the increment
immediately below the maximum increment;
represents the frequency of the maximum
increment;and,
represents the frequency of the increment
immediately above the maximum increment.
r
-
If more than one peak existed,the maximum index value was evaluated.
This index has a range of 0,indicating a gradual peak,to 2 indicating
a sharp peak.Generally,the lower the index,the better the curve.
The peakedness criterion,as defined above,is an index of difference
between the most frequently occurring increment (i .e.,with a scaled
frequency of 1)and the increments to either side of this increment.As
such,it does not necessarily preclude curves which are highly peaked
(i.e.,with a large degree of kurtosis),but does ensure against
artificially high peaks due to an arbitrary choice of the method of
grouping.This criterion should be applied only in situations where the
width of individual increments is sufficiently small (i .e.,when the
total number of .increments is greater than approximately 5)such that
the peak increment would be expected to be surrounded by increments
which are of similarly high occurrence.For example,if the increment
size were 0.5 ft and the true optimal depth were 0.8 ft,then the
increments of 0.0 to 0.4 ft and 1.0 to 1.4 ft would likely have low
values as compared to the increment of 0.5 to 0.9 ft.
The peakedness criteri a index was establ i shed primari ly as a means of
quantifying (and therefore allowing for repeatability)a subjective
criterion which had been previously used to evaluate curves which could
not otherwise be distinguished.The criterion of minimal peakedness was
only evaluated when the resulting best curve did not seriously violate
the mi nima 1 i rregul ar fl uctuati on criteri a.Peakedness i ndi ces were
considered "distinguishable"when they differed by +10%from each
other.Specific decisions made during the selectfOn of the best
utilization curves are presented more fully in the appropriate results
section.
Caution is necessary when applying the above criteria for curve
selection.Hypothetically,a curve which is radically different from
the ori gi na 1 observa ti on curve (for example when the medi an or mean
variable value is altered greatly)might be incorrectly selected as the
best curve.Additionally,a curve which is artificially too flat
9-12
(heavy-tailed)might result if sample sizes are very small.For these
reasons,a comparison of the selected "best"utilization curve with the
original observations as well as a review by biologists familiar with
the speci es/l ife stage of .i nterest was made.Specifi cally,compari sons
of the mean and variance of non-grouped data with the means and
variances of the grouped data were made.In no instance of the analysis
presented in this chapter was a "best"utilization curve judged to be
unrealistic based on these considerations.
The last step used in the development of the chinook salmon spawning
suitability criteria indices for depth,velocity,and substrate was to
modify·the best utilization curves on the basis of professional opinions
of project biologists familiar with Susitna River chinook salmon stocks.
An analysis of preference could not be made since availability data were
not collected.
An assumption applied in the development of the suitability criteria is
that the habitat variables evaluated act independently in affecting the
selection of spawning areas by chinook salmon.To determine the
independence of the habitat variables evaluated,the relationship
between utilized depths versus velocities,utilized depths versus
substrates,and uti 1ized velocities versus substrates were eval uated.
It was not possible to evaluate the relationship of utilized depths,
velocities,and substrates to upwelling due to the limited nature of the
upwelling data.However,because upwelling criteria were assigned using
a binary approach,independence is not necessary.
The independence of habitat variables evaluated were determined by
constructing plots of utilized depths versus velocities,utilized depths
versus substrates,and utilized velocities versus substrates.The degree
of correlation between each of these variables was evaluated by
determing the coefficient of linear correlation (r)for each
relationship.
Pruitt (1982)suggest that r values which are less than or equal to an
absolute value of 0.2 do not cause significant interdependence of
habitat variables to effect WUA analysis.Accordingly,the calculated r
values were evaluated in terms of the following hypothesis:
Ho:r~10.21
Ha :r>\o.zl
The test statistic evaluated is that suggested by Snedecor and Cochran
(1980):
Zd =Izo -Zhl
1 -v;:3
9-13
where:
Zd =standard normal deviate
Zo =.l-(1 n (1 +r)-ln (1 -r))2-i Zh =1 (1 n (1 +0.2)-ln (1 -0.2)2"
=0.20273
n =sample size
.....
'"""1
I
--
,-
r'"
I
The standard normal deviate was then compared to standard statistical
tables to determine probability values.Note that only large positive
values of the standard normal deviate can lead to rejection of the null
hypothesis due to the defining of Zd as on absolute value.
The analytical approach described above was used to derive depth,
velocity,and substrate suitability criteria for chinook salmon spawning
in tributaries of the middle Susitna River.As no utilization data were
collected for pink and coho salmon spawning,the suitability curves
developed for depth,velocity,and substrate for these species were
developed from previously published information as modified using
opinions of project biologists familiar with the spawning phase of these
species in the Susitna River drainage.
9-14
"'""i
-
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Chinook Salmon
A total of 265 chinook salmon redds were sampled during 1983 for the
habitat variables of depth,velocity,and substrate (Table 9-5).Of
this total,the majority of measurements were made in Portage Creek
(137)and Indian River (125).Field data are presented in Appendix 9-A.
The derivation of suitability criteria from these field data for each of
these habitat variables is presented below by habitat variable.
3.1.1 Depth Spawning Suitability Criteria
The first step in the analysis of field data to develop depth
suitability criteria for chinook salmon spawning was to evaluate the
depth utilization data to select a best depth utilization curve.Depth
measurements at 265 chinook salmon redds were grouped into six
incremental groupings and plotted as histograms (Figure 9-2).Table 9-6
summarizes the statistics used to select the best utilization curve from
the six histograms.The histogram with the statistically minimal
variance curve is the histogram labelled A (see Appendix Table 9-B-1).
However,histogram A exhibited large indices of irregular fluctuations
and therefore was not chosen as the best curve.Histograms B through F
were not distinguishable in terms of the minimal variance criteria,
however,the minimal irregular fluctuation criterion indicated that
histograms C and E were the most likely candidates for selection as the
best uti 1 i zati on curve.Of these two hi stograms ~hi stogram E had the
lowest distinguishable peakedness index and was therefore selected as the
best depth utilization curve (Figure 9-3).Histogram E also had grouped
mean and variance values which compared favorably with the original
non-grouped values (see Appendix Table 9-B-2).
The next step in the development of the depth suitability criteria was
to modify the best depth utilization curve using the opinions of project
biologists familiar with Susitna River chinook salmon stocks.An
evaluation of preference could not be made due to the lack of
availability data.
Based on the utilization curve,depths up to 0.5 ft were not utilized
for spawning and thus were assigned a suitability index of 0.0.
Additionally,depths ranging from 1.0 to 1.6 ft appeared to be most
often utilized for spawning and were therefore assigned a suitability
index of 1.0.Based on utilization patterns depicted in Figure 9-3,a
linear relationship between depth and suitability was assumed for depths
between 0.5 and 1.0 ft.It is the opinion of project biologists that
depth alone (if greater than 1.6 ft)would not likely limit spawning.
Consequently,the suitabi 1 i ty index of 1.0 ft was extended out to 4.a
ft.A depth of 4.0 ft was chosen as an endpoint as this is the maximum
depth commonly encountered in tributary habitats of the middle Susitna
River.
The resultant depth suitability curve and criteria for chinook salmon
spawning are presented in Figure 9-4.
9-15
a TRM =Tributary River Mile
9-16
-
DEPTH (ft)
INCREMENT 2
INTERVAL OS-s:,.2
A INCREMENT I B
1.0 INTERVAL Xs..O,XS-J 1.0
0.9 0.9
X 0.8 0.1
UJ
Q 0.1 0.1
~
0.6 o.
Z
2 0.11 0.5
I-0 ....0.4e(
N
::::i 0.5 0.5
i=Cl.2 0·2:l
0.1 0.1
0..0 0.0
1.0 z.o 54 4.0 11.0 1.0
DEPTH (ft)
2.0 10 4.0
.....
1.0 INCREMENT 2 1.0 D
0.9 IlfTERYAL .1<_S.3 0.9
;j 0.11 ~
Q 0.7~0.7
0.6 0 ••
Z
2 0.11 0.11
!;(0,4 0.4
N::::i 0.3 0.1
~0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
LO 2.0 3.0 4.0 11.0
F"DEPTH (ft )
-
E INCREMENT 3 1.0 F
1.0 I NTERYAL .1<_s:.4
0.9 0.9
~0.8 0.8
Cl 0.7~0.7
Z 0.8 0.6
20.11 0.11
l-
e(0.4 0.4
N
::J 0.3 0.3
i=0.2:l 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
1..0 2.0 54 4.0 !IO
DEPTH (ftl
INCREMENT 3
INTERVAL 0 <•S..3
40
DEPTH [ft I
INCREM ENT 3
INTERVAL .2<.<;..11
4.0
DEPTH (ft)
5.0
Fi gure 9-2.Incremental distribution of depths measured at chinook
salmon redds.
9-17
iii
9-18
-
-
)-1 1 1 }1 1 .}1 --1 J 1 .
l..O
I
t-'
ill
CHINOOK SALMON
BEST UTILIZATION CURVE
DEPTH
1.0
.9
.8
X
W .7
0
Z
.6
Z
o .5
r-«
N.4
-J
r-.3
:::>
.2
. I
0
0 I 2 3 4 5 6
DEPTH (FT)
Figure 9-3.Best depth utilization curve for chinook salmon spawning.
CHINOOK SALMON
SUITABILITY CRITERIA CURVE
DEPTH
SUITABILITY CRITERIA
1.0
.9
.8
X
W .7
0
Z
.6
>-
..-.5
-J
1.0 en
I «.4Na..-
:::J .3
U>
.2
.1
0
0 I 2 3 4 5
DEPTH (FT)
DEPTH
0.5
1.0
1t.0
SUITABILITY INDEX
0.00
1.00
1.00
Figure 9-4.Depth suitability curve for chinook salmon spawning.
J 11II I 1 J I .~!\~*~J )j l J J ~J ~.1
3.1.2 Velocity Spawning Suitability Criteria
The first step in the analysis of field data to develop of velocity
suitabil ity criteri a for chi nook salmon spawni ng was to analyze the
velocity utilization data to select a best velocity utilization curve.
Velocity measurements at 265 chinook salmon redds were grouped into six
incremental groupings and plotted as histograms (Figure 9-5).Table 9-7
summarizes the statistics used to select the best utilization curve from
the six histograms.The histogram with the statistically minimal
variance is the histogram labelled A (see Appendix Table 9-B-3).
However,histogram A had large indices of irregular fluctuations,and
therefore was not chosen as the best curve.Histograms Band C both had
a variances which were statistically less than the variance for
histogram E,but were not distinguishable from each other or from
histograms 0 and F.The minimal irregular fluctuation criteria
indicated that histograms 0 and F were the most likely candidates for
the best utilization curve.Histogram F had slightly lower values of
irregular fluctuation indices.These two histograms were not
distinguishable in terms of either peakedness,variance,or coefficient
of variation.Accordingly,the slightly lower value for irregular
fluctuation led to selection of histogram F as the best utilization
curve (Figure 9-6).Histogram F also had grouped mean and variance
values which compared favorably with the original non-grouped values
(see Appendix Table 9-B-2).
The velocity suitability criteria for chinook salmon spawning were than
developed by modifying the best velocity utilization curve using the
opinions of project biologists familiar with Susitna River chinook
salmon stocks.Preference could not be evaluated due to the lack of
availability data.
Velocities ranging from 0.0-0.3 ftjsec were not utilized for spawning
and thus were assigned suitability indices of 0.0.Based on the
utilization curve,velocities ranging from 1.7 to 2.3 ftjsec were most
often util i zed for spawni ng and therefore were ass i gned su itabil ity
indices of 1.0.Suitability indices of 0.25 and 0.60 were assigned to
velocities of 0.8 and 2.6 ftjsec,respectively,based on the utilization
patterns depicted in Figure 9-6.Velocities greater than 4.5 ftjsec
were consi dered unsuitable for spawnoj I1g and were therefore assi gned a
suitability index value of O.
The resultant velocity suitab,lity curve and criteria for chinook salmon
spawning is present in Figure 9-7.
3.1.3 Substrate Spawning SUitability Criteria
The first step in the analysis of field data to develop of substrate
suitability criteria for chinook salmon spawning was to analyze the
substrate util ization data to construct a plot of util ized substrates
(Figure 9-8).Incremental plots of substrate are not appropriate
because substrate data are not continuous.Therefore,the utilization
data plot was deemed the best substrate utilization curve.
9-21
I I I -
~
A INCREMENT r B INCREMENT 21.0 INTERVAL X.,0 1.0 INTERVAL Oe 0,,-.2
0.9 0.9
X 0.8 0.8llJ
0 0.7 0.7~
Z 0.8 0.6
2 0.5 0.5
I-<t 004 0.4N
...J 0.3 0.3
....0.2 0.2 Rl~
::::>
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
~
VELOCITy·tft/sec)VELOCITY (ft ISIc)
'"'"
1.0 C INCREMENT 2.1.0 D INCREMENT 3
INTERVAL .1<0.,.3 INTERVAL 0<",,-.3 ~0.9 0.9
X
UJ 0.8 0.11
0
Z 0.7 0.7
Z 0.8 0.8 *""2 0.5 0.5....<t 0.4 0.4N
...J 0.3 0.3....Pi1-
::::>0.2 0.2
0.\0.1
0.0 0.0
1.0 2.0 3·0 4.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -VELOCITY (ft I sed VELOCITY (ft ISlc)
-
VELOCITY (ftlsec)
INCREMENT 3
INTERVAL .1<0.,.4
5.0
INCREMENT 3
INTERVAL .2<0".5
3.0 4.0
VEL.OCITY (ftlsec)
F
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1.0 2.05.04.03·02.0
E
1.0
0.9
X 0.8UJ
0 0.7Z
Z 0.8
2 0.5
I-<t 0.4
N
::i 0.3
....0.2::::>
0.1
0.0
1.0
Figure 9-5.Incremental distribution of velocities measured at
chinook salmon redds.
-
9-22
r Table 9-7.Summary of statistics on various incremental groupings for
chi~ook salmon utilization velocity histograms.
r-HISTOGRAM LABEL A B C D E F
INCREMENT SIZE 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3
INCREMENT START 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2
VARIANCE OF
FREQUENCY COUNTS 33.8 116.3 117.8 224.8 284.2 236.8
COEFFICIENT
OF VARIATION OF
FREQUENCY COUNTS 0.90 0.85 0.89 0.83 0.95 0.81
IRREGULAR-FLUCTUATIONS
Magnitude 55 7 16 3 7 1
~I~urnber 14 3 5 1 2 1
Mean 3.93 2.33 3.20 3.00 3.50 1.00
Maximum 14 5 5 3 4 1
PEAKEDNESS 0.32 0.10 0.34 0.19 0.67 0.20
,....
I""'"
I
9-23
CHINOOK SALMON
BEST UTILIZATION CURVE
VELOCITY
1.0
.9
.8
X
W .7
0
Z
.6
Z
0_.5
t-
'-0 «
I N .4
N
-p>.-l-t-.3
::l
.2
. I
0
0 I 2 3 4 5 6
VELOCITY (FT /SEC)
Figure 9-6.Best velocity utilization curve for chinook salmon spawning.
I )!,!I t ~I J ~J J ,~,J I ~
1 1 J J -I ]1 1 1 '~-"1
CHINOOK SALMON
SUITABILITY CRITERIA CURVE
VELOCITY
.1
.2
1.0
.9
.8 I I \I SUITABILITY CRITERIAxw.7 VELOCITY SUITABILITY INDEX0
Z 0.3 0.00.6
>-0.8 0.25
l-.5 0.7 /.00
-J 2.3 1.00
\.0 III 2.6 0.60I
N «.4 4.5 0.00U1l-
::>.3
en
65432
0'iii iii i Y i •o
VELOCITY (FT/SEC)
Figure 9-7.Velocity suitability curve for chinook salmon spawning.
ID
I
Nm
1.0
.9
.8
X
W
0 .7
Z
.6
Z
0 .5
......«.4N
-.J
.......3
::>
.2
.1
0
CHINOOK SALMON
BEST UTILIZATION CURVE
SUBSTRATE
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II.12 13
SI SA SG LG RU CO 80
SUBSTRATE CODE
SUBSTRATE PARTICLE
CODE SIZE
I SI SILT
2
3 SA SAND
4
5 SG 1/8 -III
6
7 LG 1-3"
8
9 RU 3 -511
10
II CO 5-10"
12
13 80 )010"
Figure 9-8.Substrate utilization curve for chinook salmon spawning.
J J J J I J 1 ~I ,I I J ~I 1 J !J
,~
Substrate utilization data were collected using the substrate size
classification scheme presented in Table 9-3.However,to maintain
consistency with the substrate suitability criteria developed for chum
and sockeye salmon spawning presented in Chapter 7 of this report,a
more detailed substrate size classification scheme was u'sed in the
derivation of the suitability curve (Table 9-8).
The plot of utilized substrates indicates that substrate classes 9 and
10 (rubbles)appear to be most often utilized for spawning.For this
reason,these size classes were assigned a suitability index of 1.0.
Based on literature information (Beauchamp et ale 1983;Estes et ale
1981),the suitability index of 1.0 wa~extended to include substrate
class 8 (large gravels/rubbles).Substrate classes 1 through 6 (silt to
sma 11 gravel substrates)were not util i zed;however,1 i terature data
(Beauchamp et ale 1983;Estes et ale 1981)indicates that small to large
gravel substrates (substrate class 6)may be used by spawning chinook
salmon.Therefore,a linear relationship between substrate and
suitability was assumed for substrates ranging from small gravel (with a
suitability of 0.0)to large gravel/rubble (with a suitability of 1.0).
Cobble and boulder substrates (substrate classes 11,12,and 13)were
a1so uti 1i zed for spawni ng by ch i noo k salmon,but to ales ser extent
that rubble substrates (substrate classes 9 and 10).The apparent
utilization of the larger substrate classes was biased toward larger
substrates than smaller substrates since field personnel were more
likely to record larger substrate sizes than smaller substrate sizes.
Furthermore.,1 iterature i nformati on i ndi cates that cobble and boulder
substrates are less preferred than large gravel and rubble substrates by
spawning chinook salmon (Beauchamp et ale 1983;Estes et ale 1981).
Consequently,substrate class 11 was assigned a suitability index of 0.7
and substrate class 12 a suitability index of 0.35.Substrate class 13
(boulder)was assigned a suitability index of 0.0 after taking into
account the probable sampling bias and the opinion of field biologists
that substrates consisting solely of boulders would not be suitable for
spawning.
The resultant substrate suitability curve and criteria for chinook
salmon spawning is presented in Figure 9-9.
3.1.4 Statistical Independence of Habitat Variables Evaluated
Plots depicting the relationship between utilized depths versus
velocities,utilized depths versus substrates,and utilized velocities
versus substrates for chinook spawning utilization data are depicted in
Figure 9-10.Included on each plot are the number of measurements and
the coefficient of linear correlation (r)computed for each
relationship.Computed r values and their derived statistics indicate
that an acceptable level of independence as defined by Pruitt (1980)
occurs among these habitat variables (Appendix Table 9-B-4)..
3.2 Pink Salmon
Utilization data have not been collected for pink salmon spawning in
tributaries of the middle Susitna River.Therefore,the depth,
9-27
"II
Table 9-8.Detailed substrate classification scheme used in the
derivation of the substrate suitability criteria.
JlIlW'i"
Genera 1
Substrate Category
Particle
Size
9-28
Detailed
Substrate Classification
I )]J ')1 1 1 J -J --I ]
'"
CHINOOK SALMON
SUITABILITY CRITERIA CURVE
SUBSTRATE
1.0 -
.9 -I
SUITABILITY CRITERIA
lit ;t;fl I
SUBSTRATE PARTICLE SUITABILITY
.8 CODE SIZE INDEX
X I 51 SILT 0.00
UJ .7 2 0.00
0 3 SA SAND 0.00Z
.6 4 0.00
>-5 SG 1/8-111 0.00
r .5 6 0.30
..J 7 LG 1-3"0.65-
1.0 m .4 8 1.00
I <t 9 RU 3-5"1.00Nr
I
1.0 .-10 1.00::::>.3 I(j)II CO 5-10"0.70
.2 12 0.35
13 BO >10"0.00
.1
0
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13
SI SA SG LG RU CO 80
SUBSTRATE CODE
Figure 9-9.Substrate suitability curve for chinook salmon spawning.
[]C DC ccaaCCamCDmDCCCCcccoac cec []
D a:J a:cCCDr::::aa::ICIDI:ICQIlCc:c::::IC[][][]CCI:II:I c l:I:I []
c cc cc c [][] []C
iii
14
13 C
12
"
10
<oJ 9CIauB
<oJ>-7 "«'"I-6V1
ID
"5V1
4
3
2
0
0
c cce l::::tI DC ecce c
2
VELOCI"TY (It/s)
c
4
n-265
r -0.20
1IlI!!'I11
Figure 9··10.Plots depicting the relationships between utilized
depths versus velocities (A),utilized depths versus
substrates (B),and utilized velocities versus
substrates (C)for chinook salmon spawning.
9-30
....
-
....
-
.....
velocity,and substrate suitabil ity curves and criteri a developed for
this species were based solely on previolJsly published information as
modified by the opinions of project biologists familiar with Susitna
River pink salmon stocks.Since limited information is available on
pink salmon spawning habitat suitability in the Susitna River watershed
(Estes et al.1981),the pink salmon spawning habitat suitability
curves developed in the Terror Lake environmental assessment (Wilson et
al.1981)were chosen as the basis for modification.
The Terror River is a clear water stream located on the northeast
portion of Kodiak Island in southeastern Alaska.Like many of the clear
water tributaries of the Susitna River (Table 9-9),it supports
populations of pink and coho salmon spawning.Because the Terror River
has hydraulic and physical characteristics similar to many of the
larger clear water tributaries of the middle Susitna River,the curves
developed for pink salmon depth,velocity,and substrate spawning
suitability in this assessment are well suited as a basis for
modification in this study.
The depth suitability criteria curve developed for pink salmon spawning
approximates the depth suitability curve developed for the Terror Lake
system (Figure 9-11),with the exception that the suitability index of
0.0 was extended from 0.1 to 0.3 ft.Furthermore,it is the opinion of
project biologists that depths alone (if less than 0.3 ft)would not be
suitable for pink salmon spawning.Additionally,the suitability index
of 1.0 was extended out to 4.0 feet based on the opinion of field
biologists that depth alone,if greater than 2.5 ft (the depth at which
suitability in the Terror Lake curves begin to decline)would not likely
limit pink salmon spawning in tributaries of the middle Susitna River.
The velocity suitability criteria curve developed for pink salmon
spawning generally matches the velocity suitability curve developed for
the Terror Lake system (Figure 9-12),with the exception that velocities
ranging from 2.0 to 5.0 ft/sec were assigned slightly higher suitability
indices.This modification was justified by the opinions of project
biologists that these velocities are utilized to a greater degree by
spawning pink salmon in tributaries of the middle reach of the Susitna
River.
The substrate suitability criteria curve developed for pink salmon
spawning in the Terror Lake system was judged representative of
substrate su itabil ity for pi nk salmon spawni ng in the mi ddl e reach of
the Susitna River (Figure 9-13).
9-31
I II,
Table 9-9.Comparison of selected hydraulic and physical
characteristics of selected larger clear water tributaries
of the middle Susitna River to those of the Terror River
(Wilson et al.1981).
Stream
Middle Susitna River
Typical
Discharge
(cfs)
Typical
Channel a
structure
Typical
Typical b Water
Substrate ClarityC
R,C,B clearwater
Portage Creek
Indian River
100-2000
50-2000
S,R
S,R
C,B clearwater
Fourth of July Creek
Lane Creek
Whiskers Creek
Terror River
5-50
5-60
10-150
35-600
S,R
S,T
S,R
S,T
R,C,B clearwater
C,B clearwater
R,C,B clearwater
C,B clearwater
a S=Single channel,B=Braided channel,T=Triangular,R=Rectangular
b R=Rubble,C=Cobble,B=Boulder
c clearwater or turbid glacial
9-32
~I
-
1 ----J --..J 1 -J ---1 1 J -]~1--]J ]
PINK SALMON
SUITABILITY CRITERIA CURVE
DEPTH
0-- --0 Terror Lake Criteria
(Wilson et al.1981)
o 0 Susitna Criteria
1.0
I 1
l \
.9 -I \I \
.8 I \
X I \I SUITABILITY CRITERIA
W .7 I \
0 I \TERROR LAKE SUSITNAZ\DEPTH CRITERIA CRITERIA.6 I
~\0.1 0.00
l-.5 I ~0.3 -0.00
-1 I 1.0 1.00 1.00
/\2.5 1.00\.0 ~.4 \I /3.0 0.50wl-\.w I::::J .3 \4.0 0.10 1.00
(f)/\5.0 0.00
.2 /\
I \
. I -I I b..
I ..............
0
0 I 2 3 4 5
DEPTH (FT)
Figure 9-11.Depth suitability curve for pink salmon spawning.
PINK SALMON
SUITABILITY CRITERIA CURVE
VELOCITY
!.O
.9
.8
X
W .7
Q
Z
.6
>-
I-.5
-.J-\.0 en .4I
c:::(W+:::-I-
:::::>.3
en
.2
o 0 Terror Lake Criteria
(Wilson et al.1981)
0-- --0 Susitna Criteria
SUITABILITY CRITERIA
TERROR LAKE SUSITNA
VELOCITY CRITERIA CRITERIA
0.08 0.00
0.10 0.10 0.00
0.40 0.40 0.40
1.00 1.00 1.00
2.00 1.00 1.00
2.50 0.50
3.00 -0.50
3.50 0.10
4.00 -0.10
5.00 0.00 0.00
65432
o '9 ,i I (--~i
o
VELOCITY (FT /SEC)
Figure 9-12.Velocity suitability curve for pink spawning.
I ~i I I I ~J )I I I I J B !.~1
---]I J )1 J -I I J -I -··-1 I
PINK SALMON
SUITABILITY CRITERIA CURVE
SUBSTRATE
0---.()Terror Lake Criteria
(Wilson et al.1981)
1.0
.9J .J~fl tili:I~1 I SUITABILITY CRITERIA
.8 SUBSTRATE PARTICLE TERROR LAKE SUSITNA
X CODE SIZE CRITERIA CRITERIA
~
W .7 I SI SILT -0.00o.
Z 2 -0.00
.6 3 SA SAND 0.00 0.00
>-4 0.10 0.10
I-.5 5 SG 1/8 ~III 0.75 0.75-.....J 6 1.00 1.00-1.0 m ,
7 LG 1_3 11 1.00I«.4 ,-w ,1.00UlI-8 1.00-,
9 RU 3-5"0.50 0.50:J .3 ,
CJ)I 10 -0.25
.2
,II CO 5-10 11 0.00 0.00,
12 -0.00
.1 ...J ~['::':::::",,::::1 I':",:}}'']k",,::::{}'::1 Ii",,:::"':'0:""I ::::,:'::0::::'::1 F:::::}:::O]\I 13 BO >10"-0.00
0 -
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13
SI SA SG LG RU CO 80
SUBSTRATE CODE
Figure 9-13.Substrate suitabil ity curve for pink salmon spawning.
I i I
3.3 Coho Salmon
Utilization data have not been collected for coho salmon spawning in the
Susitna River.Therefore,the suitability curves and criteria developed
for the habitat variables of depth,velocity,and substrate were based
entirely on previously published information as modified using opinion
of field biologists familiar with Susitna River salmon stocks.As with
pink salmon,due to limited published information available on coho,
salmon spawning habitat requirements in the Susitna River watershed the
coho salmon spawning habitat suitability curves developed for the Terror
lake envi ronmenta 1 assessment (Wi 1son et a1.1981)were chosen as the
basis for modification.
The depth suitability criteria curve developed for coho salmon spawning
generally follows the Terror lake system curve (Figure 9-14),with the
exception that the curve developed in this study deflects upward at a
depth of 0.3 ft as opposed to 0.5 ft in the Terror Lake curve.This is
based on the opinion of project biologists that depths less than 0.5 ft
but greater than 0.3 ft,would be suitable for coho spawning.
Additionally,the suitability index of 1.0 was extended out to a depth
of 4.0 ft.This extension was based on the opinion of project
biologists that depth alone,if greater than 2.0 ft (the depth at which
suitability on the Terror lake curves begins to decline)would not
likely limit coho salmon spawning.
The velocity suitability criteria curve developed for coho salmon
spawning generally·coincides with the velocity suitab"1lity curve
developed for the Terror Lake system (Figure 9-15).The curve was
smoothed slightly to reflect the opinion of field biologists familiar
with coho salmon spawning in the Susitna River watershed.
The substrate suitability criteria curve developed for coho salmon
spawning in the Terror Lake system is thought to be representative of
substrate suitability for coho salmon spawning in the middle reach of
th~Susitna River (Figure 9-16).
9-36
'lII5P.
-
-
~.
1 )i ')--1 i 1 1 )-i 1 )
COHO SALMON
SUITABILITY CRITERIA CURVE
DEPTH
0-- -0 Terror Lake Criteria
(Wilson et 01.1981)
o 0 Susitna Criteria
1.0
I I'
I \
.9 -I 'I \
I \
.8 I \
\
X I \I SUITABILITY CRITERIA
w .7 I \0 I \TERROR LAKE .SUSITNA:z DEPTH CRITERIA CRITERIA.6 I \
)-I \0.3 -0.00
.-.5 ,~0.5 0.00
--l I \0.7 \.00 1.00
\.0 -IICD \2.0 1.00w<t .4
"-J ,I \3.0 0.50rI\~.3 3.5 0.20
U>I \4.0 0.10 1.00
.2 I ~5.0 0.00
I ". I -I I I "0..I .............
. I
.......
0-+
0 I 2 3 4 5
DEPTH (FT)
Figure 9-14.Depth 5uitabil ity curve fdr coho sah:on spawning.
COHO SALMON
SUITABILITY CRITERIA CURVE
VELOCITY
SUITABILITY CRITERIA
o 0 Terror Lake Criteria
(Wilson at 01.1981l
cr - --0 Susitna Criteria
0.00
1.00
0.50
SUSITNA
CRITERIA
0.00
0.10
0.50
1.00
TERROR LAKE
CRITERIA
0.00
0.10
0.50
0.90
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.10
0.00
VELOCITY
0.08
0.10
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
654:3
1.0
/
/
.9 -t 19
I
.8 I
I
X Iw.7 I0JZ
.6 ~
>-I
I-.5
~-.J
I -
W CD
CO «.4
I-
:J .3
en
.2
. I
0
0 I 2
VELOCITY (FT/SEC)
Figure 9-15.Velocity suitability curve for coho salmon spawning.
~.~..J ,...1 ..~..I .~I .J !j D 1 J J J
]J .-J J J .J ,J ..-1 .]
COHO SALMON
SUI TABILITY CRITERIA CURVE
SUBSTRATE
0---0 Terror Lake Criteria
(Wilson et 01.1981)
Figure 9-16.Substrate suitability curve for coho salmon spawning.
,
r
.-
4.0 DISCUSSION
4.1 Assumptions and Limitations of the Data Base
The techniques used in the derivation of the habitat suitability
criteria presented in this report are an adaptation of those presented
in Baldrige and Amos (1982),Bovee and Cochnauer (1977),and Reiser and
Weschel (l977).Several underlying assumptions are made in developing
and applying sUitability criteria as they relate to chinook,coho,and
pink salmon spawning.These include:
1)Depth,velocity,and substrate,are the most critical habitat
variables affecting the selection of tributary spawning areas
by chinook,coho,and pink salmon;
2)These habitat variables are mutually independent;that is,
varying the level of one variable does not affect the level of
another;
3)A sufficiently large random sample was obtained to accurately
represent the range of utilized chinook salmon spawning
habitat conditions;
4)The suitability of a selected set of habitat variables for
spawning is based on "an actual preference of a set of habitat
variables at a site by the spawning salmon;and,
5)Suitability criteria developed from data collected at
representative study sites are applicable to the analysis of
simil ar habitats withi n other tri butary areas.
In the present analysis,it is assumed that the suitability of spawning
habitat at a specific location can be accurately determined if all the
variables affecting the behavior of a spawning fish are known.Since.
this is not likely,we have identified three habitat variables which
appear to be the most critical habitat variables for spawners:depth,
velocity,and substrate.Although other habitat variables,notably
water quality and temperature,may also potentially affect the spawning
suitability of a site,they are believed to exert only a limited
influence under prevailing conditions.
The question of whether these three habitat variables act independently
of one another was addressed by statistically analyzing the relationship
between these habitat variables.Based on correlation values and their
derived statistics (Appendix Table 9-B-4),there appears to be an
acceptab 1e 1eve 1 of independence,as defi ned by Pru itt (1982),among
these habitat variables for chinook salmon spawning;that is,they
appear to act independent of one another.Because limited utilization
data are available,coho and pink salmon spawning,these relationships
could not be analyzed for these species.
Although systematic random sampling of the entire spawning population
was attempted,portions of the populations were undoubtedly overlooked.
9-40
High flows during spawning periods made it difficult to locate and
evaluate active chinook salmon redds in deep and fast flowing portions
of tributaries.Because of this,the measured data set is likely biased
toward slower and shallower water.Modification of the util"ization
curves in the process of developing suitability criteria,however,
attempted to correct for this bias.
Only limited utilization and no availability data were collected in this
study.Therefore,it is not possible to evaluate whether the derived
suitability criteria for each habitat variable is based on an actual
preference for that habitat variable.Modification of the criteria,
however,attempted to correct for this inadequacy.Thus although it is
questionable whether the fifth assumption holds true,it is likely that
the derived suitability data base can be used to evaluate spawning
habitat suitability in other tributary habitats assuming that the
variables depth,velocity,and substrate limit the spawning that occurs
in these habitats.
In summary,the inherent assumptions used in the development of the
suitability criteria presented in this chapter appear justified,
although specific assumptions may have been violated under certain
circumstances.The extent to which these violations influence our
analysis is difficuH to evaluate;however,it is believed that such
violations exert only a limited influence.
4.2 Suitability Criteria
4.2.1 Chinook Salmon
The sUitability criteria developed in this chapter for depth,velocity,
and substrate represent our best estimation of the suitabil ity of
various levels of these habitat variables for chinook salmon spawning in
tributaries in the middle reach of the Susitna River.The criteria are
based on a limited utilization data base without corresponding
availability data to support a preference analysis.Professional
opinion of project biologists familiar with Susitna River chinook salmon
stocks and 1iterature i nformati on were used to modify the uti 1i zati on
data base to develop the suitability criteria.
These data and analyses may be compared with information available in
1iterature to assess thei r adequateness.Two 1iterature sources were
located summarizing chinook salmon spawning data which could be used to
evaluate the suitability criteria developed in the study.These include
the 1iterature survey by Beauchamp et a 1.(1983)and a study of Wi 11 ow
Creek by Estes et al.(1981).
Utilization data collected in this study are similar to the ranges
summarized in Beauchamp et al.(1983)However,since the author did not
develop criteria curves,compari sons of suitability criteria coul d not
be made.In the Willow Creek study,Estes et a1.(1981)developed
utilization curves for chinook salmon spawning.The utilization curves
developed in this study generally .follow the utilization curves
developed for Willow Creek,although specific differences do occur.For
9-41
,...
r
-,
example,the depth criteria developed for chinook salmon spawning in
Willow Creek decline to zero suitability at a depth of approximately 3.0
ft;whereas the depth suitability curve developed in this study remains
at a value .of 1.0 up to the maximum depth plotted (4.0 ft).
Additionally,the chinook salmon velocity curves developed for
tributaries of the Susitna River indicate a peak suitability in slower
waters than the Willow Creek curves.
4.2.2 Pink and Coho Salmon
The suitability criteria developed in this chapter for the habitat
variables of depth,velocity,and substrate for pink and coho salmon
spawning represent our best estimation of the suitabil ity of various
levels of these habitat variables for spawning of these species in
tributaries in the middle reach of the Susitna River.Due to the lack
of utilization and availability data,the suitability criteria developed
in this study are based on literature data as modified using
professional opinion of field biologists familiar with Susitna River
pink and coho salmon stocks.The spawning habitat suitabil ity curves
deve loped for the Terror Lake envi ronmenta 1 assessment (Wil son et a 1.
1981)were chosen as a basis for modification.To our knowledge,this is
the only literature source summarizing suitability criteria for pink and
coho salmon spawning in Alaskan waters,although utilization data are
available (Estes et al.1981).
The Terror Lake envi ronmenta 1 assessment evaluated the impacts
associ ated with constructi on of a hydroelectric facil ity on the Terror
River,a cl earwater stream located on the northeast porti on of Kodi ak
Island.The suitability criteria developed in this assessment for the
habitat variables of depth,velocity,and substrate for pink and coho
salmon.spawning were used to quantify,using an instream flow
incremental methodology approach,project effects on pink salmon
habitat.Like many of the larger clearwater tributaries of the middle
Susitna River,the Terror River system supports spawning populations of
pink and coho salmon.Because this river system has similar hydraulic
and physical characteristics of many of the larger tributaries of the
middle Susitna River,the spawning suitability criteria developed in
this environmental assessment are well suited as a basis for
modification in this study.
4.3 Recommended Ap~lication and Limitations
of the Suitabi ity Criteria
The suitability criteria developed in this section represent the
incremental usability of several critical habitat variables important
for chinook,pink,and coho salmon spawning (depth,velocity,and
substrate)in tributaries of the middle Susitna River reach.Depending
on the species,they represent a varied synthesis of limited utilization
data using statistical methods,literature information,and professional
opinion of field biologists familiar with Susitna River salmon stocks.
As such, they represent our best estimation of the sUitability of
various levels of these habitat variables for chinook,coho,and pink
salmon spawning in tributaries of the middle Susitna River.Because of
9-42
the limited utilization data base used in these analyses,application of
these criteria to tributary and other habitat types in the middle
Susitna River reach must be approached cautiously and determined on a
case-by-case basis.
One typical application of suitability criteria is in habitat simulation
modelling.Habitat simulation modelling is one method commonly used to
project a weighted usable area index of usable habitat for selected
habitat variables for a particular species/life phase as a function of
flow.Tributary habitat is not anticipated to be affected by the
operation of the proposed hydroelectric development.However,it is
anticipated that suitable depth,velocity,and substrate conditions
presently associated tributary areas in which chinook,coho,and pink
salmon spawn may become available in mainstem or side channel habitats
under with-project conditions.One means of evaluating such projected
habitat changes is through habitat simulation modelling.Prior to
modelling applications it is recommended that additional field data be
obtained to evaluate the validity of extending these criteria to other
habitats.Evaluation criteria would include determining whether the
habitat variables depth,velocity,and substrate composition are the
habitat variables that limit the spawning in these habitats and whether
seasonal habitat conditions for other life phases necessary for overall
reproductive success are suitable for overall survival (e.g.,passage,
incubation,and rearing).Moreover,the availability of microhabitat
variables in the mainstem and side channel habitats must be considered
as they may be substantially different from those present in tributaries
which could result in altered patterns of utilization and ultimately
suitability criteria.
9·A3
~
I
I
-
,.,..
~-
-
-
,-
-
--
5.0 GLOSSARY
Availability Data -Data collected,or synthesized by a computer model,
which represents range and frequency of selected environmental
condition present which are available to be used by a particular
species/life phase.
Best Curve -Utilization curve,usually with grouped increments,which
represents the distribution with the least variability,lowest
level of irregular fluctuations,minimal peakedness,and minimal
coefficient of variation.
Fi sh Curve -Generi c name,used i nterchangeab ly with habitat curve,
applied to suitability/preference/utilization curves for fish;see
also habitat curve.
Habitat Curve -Generic name,used interchangeably with fish curve,
applied to suitability/preference/utilization curves for fish;see
also fish curve.
Habitat Variable -One element of the total spectrum of elements
(physical and chemical conditions)needed to support the life
functions of a particular species and life stage (e.g.,streamflow,
channel geometry,depth,velocity,substrate,upwelling etc.).
Kurtosis -The peakedness or flatness of a histogram.
Maximum Grouped Value -The x-value associated with the increment in a
scaled frequency histogram plot which has an associated y-value of
1.0,that is the increment with the maximum scaled frequency.
Measured Data -Values derived through the process of obtaining a direct
measurement.
Middle Reach (of the Susitna River):-The segment of the Susitna River
between the Chulitna River confluence and Devil Canyon.(See also
lower reach and upper reach).
Minimal Irregular Fluctuations -Grouped values in a frequency histogram
plot should contlnually lncrease to the maximum grouped value,then
continually decrease (Baldridge and Amos 1982),as defined by a
series of four indices proposed by Baldridge and Amos (1982).
Minimal Peakedness -Meaning a minimal difference between the maximum
grouped value (i .e.,increment)and the increments immediately
below and above the maximum,as defined by a peakedness index.
Minimal Sample Variance -The condition of minimal variability in the
frequency counts used to denote a "best curve".
Non-controlling Condition -The range of discharges at Gold Creek
associated with unbreached through intermediate breaching
conditions at a side slough or side channel.
9-44
GLOSSARY (continued)
Observed Data -Values derived through a visual estimate or evaluation.
Parameter - A quantity that describes a statistical population or a set
of physical properties whose values determine the behavior of a
population.
Peakedness Index - A measure of the di fference between the maximum
grouped value or increment (e.g.,in a scaled frequency histogram
plot)and the increments to either side of the maximum grouped
va 1ue or increment.The index ranges from zero,i ndi cati ng no
peak,to two,indicating a maximum peak.
Preference -An apparent behavioral selection for a particular habitat
component value as indicated by observed or measured data.
Preference Curve - A ut-ilization curve modified to account for selection
of a particular value within the available range of habitat
conditions.Preference curves can be constructed by dividing the
utilized values by values of available habitat in each increment.
The x and y axes are established in the same manner as the
utilization curves.
Spawning Habitat Curve-Types -See utilization curve,preference curve,
suitability criteria curve,habitat curve,fish curve.
Suitability -How well a particular habitat condition meets the life
stage needs of a ~articular species.
Suitability Criteria Curve - A utilization or preference curve,modified
by additional information (e.g.,observations,professional
judgment,field and literature data,etc.)to represent the
suitability of habitat for a particular species and life/stage over
the range of habitat components expected to be encountered.This
is the curve used to calculate weighted usable area.The x and y
axes are established in the same manner as the utilization curves.
Suitability Curve -See suitability criteria curve.
Suitability Index -The label for the y-axis indicating standardization
to the a -1 scale for a suitability curve.Suitability index can
also be used to denote a value determined from a suitability curve.
Utilization Curve -Habitat data (e.g.,depth,velocity,substrate,
upwelling,etc.),collected during selected periods of life stage
activity (i.e.,passage,spawning,incubation,and rearing)plotted
to show distribution of actual field measurements.The scale on
the x-axis corresponds to the accuracy of the measuring device and
is often grouped into increments to smooth the distribution.The
relative number of observations representing each increment is
standardized to a to 1 scale by setting the largest increment to 1
and dividing each increment by this max"imum to assign a
proportional value.
9-45
-
~,
\~
....
-
-
-
"""
GLOSSARY (continued)
Utilization Data -Data collected at an active life stage site (e.g.,
depth,velocity and substrate data collected at an active salmon
redd).
Variable - A characteristic that may have a number of different values.
Weighted Usable Area (WUA)-An index of the capacity of a siTE in terms
of both quantity and quality.of habitat to support the species a~d
life stage being considered.WUA is expressed as square feet (ft )
or percentage (%)of wetted surface habitat area predicted to be
available per 1,000 linear feet or habitat reach at a given flow.
9-46
, I
GLOSSARY OF SCIENTIFIC NAtvlES
Scientific Name
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Welbaum)
Oncorhynchus orbuscha (Walbaum)
Oncorhynchus isutc Walbaum)
9-47
Common Name
Chinook salmon
Pink salmon
Coho salmon
-,
,~
-
,~
~\
~-
~I
-
"""i
I
-
6.0 CONTRIBUTORS
Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow Studies
Project leader and Principal Contact
Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow Studies
Fish Habitat Studies Subproject leader
Data Processing Project leader
Data Reduction and Graphics Coordinator
Graphics
Typing
Editors
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Text
9-48
Christopher Estes
Andrew Hoffmann
Allen E.Bingham
Camille Stephens
Sally Donovan
Carol Hepler
Vicki Cunningham
Bobbie Greene
Mary Gressett
Doug Vincent-lang
Allen E.Bingham
Christopher Estes
Jeff Blakely
Andrew Hoffmann
Sheryl Salas ky
Gene Sandone
Joe Sautner
Don Seagren
Kathy Sheehan
Kim Sylvester
Len Vining
Allen E.Bingham
Andrew Hoffmann
Doug Vincent-Lang
Allen E.Bingham
Christopher Estes
Andrew Hoffmann
Doug Vincent-Lang
-
-
-
-
-I
7.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their appreciation to the following for their
assistance in preparing this report.
The other ADF&G Su Hydro Aquatic Studi es Program staff who
provided their support to this report.
The ADF&G Su Hydro Adult Anadromous Studi es Program staff who
surveyed the tributaries for salmon.
Special appreciation is extended to D.Amos for assisting with
the analytical approach.
We are also grateful to C.Steward (EWT&A)and S.Crumley
(WWC)for their review and critique of this report.
9-49
-
.....
-
8.0 LITERATURE CITED
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G).1983a.Aquatic studies
procedures manual.Phase 11.Prepa red for Acres Ameri can,
Incorporated,by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game/Su Hydro.
Anchorage,Alaska.
1983b.Susitna Hydro aquatic studies phase II basic data
--report.Volume 4 (3 parts).Aquatic habitat and instream flow
studies,1982.Alaska Department of Fish and Game Susitna Hydro
Aquatic Studies.Anchorage,Alaska.
Amos,D.1984.Personal communication.Alaska Department of Fish and
Game,Sport Fish/Biometrics Division.Anchorage,Alaska.
Ba 1dri dge,J.E.and D.Amos.1982.A techni que for determi ni ng fi sh
habitat suitability criteria;a comparison between habitat and
utilization and availability.Paper presented at the symposium on
Acquisition and Utilization of Aquatic Habitat Inventory
Information.Sponsored by American Fisheries Society.Oct.28-30,
1981.Portland,Oregon.
Barrett,B.M.,F.M.Thompson,and S.N.Wick.1984.Adult anadromous
fish investigations,May-October 1983.Alaska Department of Fish
and Game.Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Report Series.No.1.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game.Anchorage,Alaska.
Beauchamp,D.A.,et ale 1983.Species profiles:Life histories and
environmental requirements (Pacific Northwest),chinook salmon.
USFWS.Washington,D.C.
Bovee,K.D.and T.Cochnauer.1977.Development and evaluation for
weighted criteria,probability-of-use curves for instream flow
assessments:fishe~ies.Instream Flow Information Paper No.3.
Instream Flow Service Group.USFWS.Ft.Collins.Colorado
•1982.A guide to stream habitat and analysis using instream flow--incremental methodology.Instream Flow Information Paper No.12.
Instream Flow Service Group.USFWS.Ft.Collins.Colorado.
Brown,M.B.and A.B.Forsythe.1974.Robust tests for the equality of
variances.Journal of the American Statistical Association.
69:364-367.
Dixon,W.J.,and F.J.Massey,Jr.1969.Introduction to statistical
analysis.McGraw-Hill Book Company,New York,New York.
Estes,C.,K.Hepler,and A.Hoffmann.1981.Willow and Deception
Creeks instream flow demonstration study.Volume 1.Alaska
Department of Fish and Game,Habitat Protection and Sport Fish
Divisions.Prepared for the U.S.Department of Agriculture,Soil
Conservation Service,Interagency Coop.Susitna River Basin Study.
Anchorage,Alaska.
9-50
C.Estes,A.Bingham,D.Schmidt,and D.
Personal Communication based on round table
Department of Fish and GamejSu Hydro Studies.
LITERATURE CITED (continued)
Glaser,R.E.1983.Levene's robust test of homogeneity of variances.
Pages 608 -610 in S.Kotz and N.L.Johnson,editor,Encyclopedia
of statistical sciences,Volume 4.John Wiley and Sons.New York,
New York.
Hoffmann,A.B.Barrett,
Vincent-Lang.1984
discussions.Alaska
Anchorage,Alaska.
Pruitt,C.G.1982.The effect of depth-velocity correlations on aquatic
physical habitat usability estimates.PhD dissertation,Colorado
State University,Ft.Collins.Colorado.83pp.
Reiser,D.W.and T.A.Wesche.1977.Determination of physical and
hydraulic preferences of brown and brook trout in the selection of
spawning locations.Water Resources Series No.6.4.Water
Resources Research Institute.University of Wyoming.Laramie,
Wyomi ng.
Snedecor,G.W.and W.G.Cochran.1980.Statistical methods.The Iowa
State University Press,Iowa.
Wilson,W.J.,E.W.Trihey,J.E.Baldridge,C.D.Evans,J.G.Thiele,and
D.E.Trudgen.1981.An assessment of environmental effects of
construction and operation of the proposed Terror Lake
hydroelectric facility,Kodiak,Alaska.Instream Flow studies
final report.Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center.
Univ.of Alaska.Anchorage,Alaska.
9-51
-
-
~--------------~-------~-----~-----,,-
9.0 APPENDICES
....
9-52
-
APPENDIX 9-A
Chinook Salmon Spawning Habitat Utilization Data
9-A-l
Table 9-A-1.Chinook salmon spawning habitat data.
SUBSTRATE
LOCATION DATE
DEPTII
(H)
WATER
VELO-
C[TY
(H!S)PR[MARY SECONDARY
WATER TEMPERATURE (C)
----------------------REDOINTRAGRAVELSURFACENO.
4TH OF JULY CREEK 830804 ),70 1.10 RUB BLE COBBLE 13 .2 I).2
200 fT ABOVE Q SITE
INDIAN RI VER 83 0727 I.70 I.90 COBBLE RUBBLE 9.8 9.8 I
[NOlAN RIVER 830727 .80 2.50 RUBBLE COBBLE 9.5 9.8 2
INDIAN RIVER 830727 I.20 2.40 COBBLE RUBBLE 8.4 9.9 3
INDIAN RIVER 830727 ),30 2.40 COBBLE RUBBLE 8.8 9.9 4
INDIAN RIVER 830727 ),30 1.80 RUBBLE COBBLE 9.6 9.9 5
INDIAN RIVER 830727 1.00 .70 RUBBLE COBBLE 9.1 9.9 6
INDIAN RIVER 830727 ),60 2.10 COBBLE RUIlBLE 9.6 9.9 7
ID INDIAN RIVER 830727 1.30 ),30 RUBBLE COBBLE 9.6 9.9 8
I INDIAN RIVER 830727 1.00 3.20 RUIl BLE COBBLE 9.9 9):>
I INDIAN RIVER 830727 1.60 4.10 RUIlBLE COBBLE 9.9 10
N INDIAN RIVER 830727 I.20 .50 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 10.0 II
INDIAN RIVER 830727 1.30 2.00 RUIlBLE COBBLE 10.0 12
[NOlAN RIVER 830727 1.30 1.80 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 10.1 I)
INDIAN RIVER 830727 1.60 2.60 RUBBLE COBBLE 10.1 14.
INDIAN RIVER 830727 .70 .50 COIlBLE RUBBLE 10.1 15
[NOlAN RIVER 830727 1.10 3.20 RUB BI.I::COBBLE 10.3 16
INDIAN RIVER 830727 I.50 3.00 COBBLE RUB BLE 10.3 17
INDIAN RIVER 830727 I.20 2.33 COIlBLE RUBBLE 10.3 18
INDIAN RIVER 830727 .90 2.00 RUBBLE COBBLE 10.3 19
INDIAN RIVER 830727 1.00 3.00 RUBBLE GOBBLE 10.4 20
INDIAN RIVER 830727 1.50 2.20 COBBLE RUBBLE 10.4 21
INDIAN RIVER 830727 2.50 3.80 GOBBLE RUBBLE 10.5 22
INDIAN RIVER 830727 I.80 2.70 RUBBLE COBBLE 10.5 23
INDIAN RIVER 830727 1.50 3.00 RUBBLE COBBLE 10.5 24
Note:Intragravel temperatures were taken at a depth from 6 to 8 inches.
!.1 )j I i J ,~I I ~I I ,J J •,~
1 i 1 J 1 j 1 1 J J 1 j
---,.~-"'~--""--"""~-~'-~"-'~.-.-,._._..._...._,"---,.•._"'_._"...,.~_..,_..~._,,_,....~,••",___•'"'-.H..-'<'~~_·_,··~·.<~'~_;,..-...~-,..•_"..,.-'~","""-.,.'
Table 9-A-l _Conti nued .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_.
WATER
VELO-SUBSTRATE WATER TEMPERATURE (C)
DEPTII CITY ----------------------------------------------REDOLOCATIONDATE(fT)(rrls)PRHIARY SECONDARY INTRAGRA VEL SURFACE NO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------._-------------------------_.
INDIAN RIVER 8)0727 1.60 3.50 RUnnI./::COBBI.E 10.5 25
INDIAN RIVER 8)0727 I .80 I.50 RUnBI.E COBBLE 10.7 26
INDIAN RIVER 8)0727 1.10 1.60 COBBLE RUIIBLE 10 oF 27
INDIAN RIVER 8)0727 1.60 1.10 COBBLE RUBBLE 10.28
INDIAN RIVER 8)0727 1.50 ).00 RUBBLE COBBLE ILl:29
INDIAN RIVER 8)0728 I .20 3.20 RUBBLE COBBLE 10.2 10.2 1
INDIAN RIVER 8)07 28 1.80 1.40 COBBLE RUBBLE 1
INDIAN RIVER 830728 2.00 3.20 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 10.2 10.2 2
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.70 I.80 COBBLE RUBBLE 2
~INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.00 1.80 COBIILE RUBBLE 10.5 10.6 3
I I NOlAN RI VER 830728 2.00 2.40 BOULDER COBBLE 3):>
I INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.40 1.70 RUBBLE COBBLE 10.3 10.6 4wINDIANRIVER830728.90 2.60 COBBLE 4RUBBLE
INDIAN RIVER 8)07 28 1.60 1.70 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 10.7 10.8 5
INDIAN RI VER 830728 1.20 .75 RUBBLE COBBLE 5
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.50 1.30 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 10.7 10.8 6
INDIAN RI VER 830728 1.30 2.40 RUBBLE COBBLE 6
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.00 2.00 RUB BLE COBBLE 10.9 11.0 7
INDIAN RI VER 830728 1.60 2.40 RUBBLE COBBLE 7
INDIAN RI VER 830728 1.00 1.60 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 1l.1 11.0 8
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.50 2.60 BOULDER COBBLE 8
INDIAN RIVER 830728 .90 2.50 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.0 11.1 9
1NDI AN RI VER 830728 1.)0 .95 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 9
I NOlAN RI VER 830728 1.)0 2.50 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.1 11.1 10
INDIAN RIVER 8)0728 1.10 2.60 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---",....._.._.....,'--""-~'.~~_."'~-~~-,'-..-.~-......."....,.~~.~-..•._-~.-._---."........".,.~.._-.",-.-",,,.-......._-----
Table 9-A-l ,Conti nued ,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~------------------
WATER
VELO-SUBSTRATE WATER TEMPERATURE (C)
DEPTII CITY --------------------~-------------------------REDO
LOCATION DATE (n)(fIlS)PRIMARY SECONDARY INTlIAGRAVEL SURFACE NO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.10 2.60 RlJllBLE COBBLE 10.6 11.1 11
INDIAN RI VER 830728 I.20 2.40 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11
INDIAN RIVER 830728 .90 .90 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 9.2 11.4 12
INDIAN RIVER B3 0728 1.10 3.25 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 12
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.30 1.40 COBBLE RUBBLE 10.3 11.3 13
INDIAN RI VER 830728 I.50 3.40 COBBLE RUBBLE 13
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.50 1.70 COBBLE RUBBLE 10.8 11.5 14
INDIAN RIVER 830728 2.40 3.10 BOULDER COBBLE 14
'"INDIAN RIVER 830728 I.50 2.40 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEl.10.2 11.6 15
I INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.60 3.40 BOULDER COBBLE 15:t:>INDIAN RIVER 830728 .60 1.10 RUBBLE LARGE GRA VEL 11.5 11.7 16I
-t:>INDIAN RI VER 830728 1.20 1.70 COBBLE RUBBLE 16
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.30 2.40 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEl.11.6 11.6 17
I NOlAN RI VER 830728 1.50 2.35 COBBLE RUB BLE 17
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.00 1.50 RUBBLE COBBLE 11.6 11.7 18
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.30 2.40 COBBLE RUBBLE 18
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.50 1.80 COBllLE RUBBLE 11 .5 11.7 19
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.00 2.90 RUBBLE COBBLE 19
INDIAN RIVER 830728 2.10 3.10 COBBLE RUBBLE 10.9 11.7 20
INDIAN RIVER 830728 I.20 1.40 RUBBLE LARGE GRA VEL 20
INDIAN RIVER 830728 .90 1.90 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.7 11.7 21
INDIAN RIVER 830728 .&0 2.40 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEl.21
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.40 2.00 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.7 11.8 22
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.20 2.20 LARGE GRAVEL RUBBLE 22
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.00 2.30 RUBB1.E LARGE eRA VEL 11 .8 11 .8 23
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.00 2.45 RUH llLE COBBLE 23
i J j )J J ,i J I .)I i !J J 1 J ~
]]1 J J J )1 1 -}1 1 -1 }J
---~---------,~~-".._~,,.._-'~•.."-...._,..,,~-..~_._"."-_...-"_...~..'-""---_.,_..",._~-_-.---....------~--
Table 9-A-l.Conti nued ,
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________a
WATER
VELO-SUBSTRATE WATER TEMPERATURE (C)
DEPTH CITY ----------------------------------------------REDO
LOCATION DATE (FT)(FT/S)PRIHARY SECONDARY INTRAGRAVEL SURFACE NO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
INDIAN RIVER B3 07 28 1.00 1.70 RUBBLE LARGE CRAVEL 11.9 11.8 24
INDIAN RI VER 830728 .90 3.70 RUB BLE COBBLE 24
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.30 2.40 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.9 ,11.8 25
INDIAN RI VER 830728 .90 1.90 COBBLE RUBBLE 25
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.00 2.30 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.7 11 .8 26
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.90 1.55 RUBBLE COBBLE 26
INDIAN RI VER 830728 1.30 2.60 RUBBLE COBBLE 11,8 11.8 27
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.50 1.30 COBBLE RUBBLE 27
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.50 2.70 RUBBLE COBBLE 11.8 11 .8 28\.0 INDIAN RI VER 830728 1.10 1.70 COBBLE RUBBLE 28I
):>INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.30 3.30 RUBBLE COBBLE 11 .8 11 .7 29IINDIANRIVER8307281.00 3.20 COBBLE RUBBLE 29U1
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.50 2.40 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11,8 11 .8 30
INDIAN RIVER 830728 I.70 1.50 LARGE GRAVEL RUBBLE 30
INDIAN RI VER 830728 1,60 2.20 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.6 11 .5 31
1NOlAN RI VER 830728 1.10 2.20 COBBLE RUBBLE 31
INDIAN RIVER 830728 I.80 2.70 COBBLE RUB BLE 11 .5 11.5 32
INDIAN RIVER B3 0728 .90 2.00 RUBBLE COBBLE 32
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.40 LBO RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL \1,7 11.4 33
INDIAN RIVER 830728 I.70 3.00 BOULDER COBBLE 33
INDIAN RIVER 830728 1.50 2.20 RUBBLE COBBLE 11.6 11,4 34
I NOlAN RI VER B3 0728 1.10 2.10 BOULDER RUBBLE 34
INDIAN RIVER 830728 .80 1.00 RUBBLE COBBLE 35
INDIAN RIVER 830729 .70 1.55 COBBLE RUBBLE 1
INDIAN RIVER 830729 1.60 2.45 BOULDER COBBLE 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
·_.,'_•........----------.-••~._"',."_.<-~••_,~_._"-----_._,."....._.....--..-,---...---
Table 9-A-l,Continued.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_.
WATER
VELO-SUBSTRATE WATER TEMPERATURE (c)
DEPTll CITY ----------------------------------------------REDOLOCATIONDATE(FT)(FT/S)PRIMARY SECONDARY I NTRACRA VEL SURFACE NO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDIAN RIVER 830729 1.45 3.80 BOULDER COBBLE 3
INDIAN RIVER 830729 .90 2.80 COBIILE BOULDER 4
INDIAN RIVER 830729 1.10 I.25 BOULDER COBBI.E 5
INDIAN RIVER 830729 .90 2.00 COBBLE RUBBLE 6
INDIAN RIVER 830729 1.40 1.80 COBBLE BOULDER 7
INDIAN RI VER 830729 1.30 3.10 COBBtE RUBBLE 8
INDIAN RI VER 830729 .80 1.30 COBBLE RUBBLE 9
INDIAN RIVER 83072'}1.80 2.85 BOULDER COBBLE 10
INDIAN RIVER 830729 1.00 3.50 RUBBLE COBBLE 11
\0 INDIAN RIVER 830729 .90 I.90 BOULDF.R COBBLE 12I
~INDIAN RI VER 83072'}1.00 3.50 RUBBLE COBBLE 13
I INDIAN RI VER 830729 1.00 2.30 COBBLE RUBBLE 14O'l INDIAN RIVER 830729 1.20 ).20 BOULDER COBBLE 15
INDIAN RIVER 830729 1.00 2.50 COBBLE BOULDER 16
INDIAN RIVER 830729 1.10 2.15 RUBBLE COBBLE 17
INDIAN RIVER 8)0729 1.10 2.10 COBBLE RUBBLE 18
INDIAN RIVER 830729 .85 I.95 COBBLE RUBBLE 19
INDIAN RIVER 83072'}1.00 2.10 BOULDER COBBLE 20
INDIAN RIVER 830729 .80 2.20 RUBBLE COBBLE 21
INDIAN RI VER 83072'}1.20 2.10 BOULDER COBBLE 22
INDIAN RIVER 830729 .80 2.40 COBBLE RUBBLE 23
INDIAN RIVER 830729 I.20 2.70 BOULDER COBBLE 24
INDIAN RI VER 830729 I.20 2.10 COBBLE RUBBLE 25
INDIAN RI VER 830729 1.10 2.20 COBBLE RUBBLE 26
INDIAN RIVER 830729 I.SO 2.60 COBBLE RUBBLE 27
•~,J l 1 I J J I I )t I I J ~I J
)]i l J I 1 -I 1 j i -1 ---1 1
------_._~._--_._._-".."'-"'--'.._--"---"-'"-,-"""-""'-
SUBSTRATE
Table 9-A-1.
LOCATION
Continued.
DATE
DEPTH
(FT)
\~ATER
VELO-
ciTY
(fT/S)PRIMARY SECONDARY
WATER TEMPERATURE (C)
----------------------REDO
INTRAGRAVEL SURfACE NO.
PORTAGE CREEK 830724 I.50 2.10 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 7.7 7.8 1
PORTAGE CREEK 830724 1.10 1.80 LARGE GRAVEL RUBBLE 9.9 10.1 1
PORTAGE CREEK 830724 .80 1.10 COBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.2 11.3 1
PORTAGE CREEK 830724 1.70 2.20 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 7.9 7.9 2
PORTAGE CREEK 830724 1.40 1.30 RUBBLE COBBLE 9.2 10.2 2
PORTAGE CREEK 830724 1.10 2.10 .RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.3 11.3 2
PORTAGE CREEK 830724 1.80 2.20 COBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 7.7 8.0 3
PORTAGE CREEK 830724 1.40 2.20 RUBBLE COBBLE 10.4 10.5 3
I.D PORTAGE CREEK 830724 1.90 3.30 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.3 11.3 3
I PORTAGE CREEK 830724 2.10 1.20 LARGE GRAVEL RUBBLE 7 .8 8.0 4)::>
PORTAGE CREEK 830724 1.00 1.00 COBBLE RUBBLE 9.6 10.6 4I........PORTAGE CREEK 830724 2.00 3.00 RUBBLE COBBLE 11.3 11.3 4
PORTAGE CREEK 830721.1.40 1.60 LARGE GRAVEL RUBBLE 7.8 8.0 5
PORTAGE CREEK 830724 1.70 1.80 LARGE GRAVEL RUBBLE 8.1 8.3 6
PORTAGE.CREEK 830724 2.70 1.55 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 8.3 9.0 7
PORTAGE CREEK 830724 2.70 1.70 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 9.1 9.4 8
PORTAGE CREEK 830724 1.40 2.90 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 9.0 9.6 9
PORTAGE CREEK 830725 1.40 2.00 COBBLE RUBBLE 9.0 9.3 1
PORTAGE CREEK 830725 1.00 1.60 RUBBLE COBBLE 9.0 9.4 2
PORTAGE CREEK 830725 1.30 2.00 RUBBLE COBBLE 8.7 9.5 3
PORTAGE CREEK 830725 1.40 1.50 _RUBBLE COBBLE 9.4 9.5 4
PORTAGE CREEK 830725 I.70 1.70 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 10.0 10.0 5
PORTAGE CREEK 830725 I.80 1.30 COBBLE RUBBLE 10.1 10.4 6
PORTAGE CREEK 830725 2.00 2.10 COBBLE RUBBLE 9.7 10.1 7
PORTAGE CREEK 830725 I.70 1.50 RUBBLE C08BLE 9.5 9.7 8
_.__",~".~,-_.""~-:<.~,,-,__,__.....-,,.c.......,....___~~_..-'''~..,L ~''''_•••h ....-.~.....~_'...-,-.._>",_'-_.~"•.-;._'.....,'___"'--~
Table 9-A-l,Continued,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_.
WATER
VELO-SUBSTRATE WATER TEtIPERATURE (c)
DEPTH CITY ----------------------------------------------REDO
LOCATION DATE (rT)(fT/s)PRIMARY SECONDARY INTRAGRAVEL SURFACE NO.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PORTAGE CREEK 830725 2.30 2.40 COBBtE RUBBLE 8.4 9.7 9
PORTAGE CREEK 830725 2.20 2.00 COBBLE RUBBLE 9.6 9.9 10
PORTAGE CREEK 830725 1.10 2.10 COBBLE RUBBLE 10.4 10.5 11
PORTAGE CREEK 830725 1.00 1.00 RUB BLE LARGE GRAVEL 12
PORTAGE CREEK 830725 I.50 1.80 COBBLE RUBBLE 13
PORTAGE CREEK 830725 1.30 2.60 LARGE GllJ\VEL lWBBLE 14
PORTAGE CREEK 830727 2.50 I.58 COBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 9.6 10.0 1
PORTAGE CREEK 830727 1.70 1.90 COBBLE RUBBLE 9.4 10.1 2
PORTAGE CREEK 830727 2.50 3.35 COBBLE RUBBLE 9.6 10.2 3
PORTAGE CREEK 830727 2.30 2.00 COBBtE RUBBLE 10.0 10.2 4
PORTAGE CREEK 830727 .90 I.90 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 9.9 10.3 5
w'PORTAGE CREEK 830727 2.00 1.30 COBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 10.5 10.7 6IPORTAGECREEK8307271.50 1.20 RUB BLE LARGE GRAVEL 8.9 10.7 7:J;>
I PORTAGE CREEK 830727 1.40 1.40 COBBLE RUBBLE 10.5 10.7 8OJPORTAGECREEK8307271.60 2.10 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 10.0 10.7 9
PORTAGE CREEK 830727 1.50 1.30 RUBBLE SMALL GRAVEL 10.7 10.7 10
PORTAGE CREEK 830727 1.30 2.60 COBBLE RUBB\.[10.9 10.9 11
PORTAGE CREEK 830727 1.90 2,00 COBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.1 11.3 12
PORTAGE CREEK 830727 I.80 2.70 COBBLE RUBBLE 11 .2 11.4 13
PORTAGE CREEK 830727 1.70 2.10 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 10.7 11.4 14
PORTAGE CREEK 830727 1.60 1.90 COBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.3 11 .5 15
PORTAGE CREEK 830727 1.50 1.70 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.2 11.6 16
PORTAGE CREEK 830727 1.30 2,70 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.6 11.8 17
PORTAGE CREEK 830727 1.40 1.60 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 12.0 12.2 18
•)J !I I !I I !J .~.~~I I
1 1 ]1 1 1 I ]i J ]-1 ~~-J -]l 1
'.'..".,-_."'...,-.......".-.......,,...._-,.-....
Table 9-A-l.Continued,
-------------------------------~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIIIH:R
VELO-SUBSTRATE IIATER TEMPERATURE (C)
DEPTI!CITY ----------------------------------------------REDD
LOCATION DIITE (fT)(FT!S)PRIMIIRY SECONDARY INTRAGRA VEL SURFACE NO.
---------------------------------------------------------.---------------------------------------------------
PORTAGE CREEl<830728 I.90 3.60 COBBLE RUIlBLE 11.3 11.5 I
PORTAGE CREEK 8)07 28 I.70 3.70 COBBLE RUBBLE 11.9 11.9 2
PORTAGE CREEK 830728 I.50 2.20 RUBBLE COIlBLE 10.5 12.3 3
PORTAGE CREEK 830728 2.20 2.10 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 12.1 12.1 4
PORTAGE CREEK 830728 I.80 3.10 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 12.2 12.2 5
PORTAGE CREEK 830728 1.30 1.60 LARGE GRAVEL RUBBLE 11.5 12.2 6
PORTAGE CREEK 830728 1.30 2.10 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.3 12.2 7
PORTAGE CREEK 830728 2.30 2.00 RUB BLE COBBLE 11.7 12.3 8
PORTAGE CREEK 830728 2.30 1.30 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.2 12.3 9
1.0 PORTAGE CREEK 830728 2.40 2.90 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 12.3 12.4 10
I PORTAGE CREEK 830728 I.20 .80 COBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 13.0 13.1 11);:0
I PORTAGE CREEK 830728 I.90 1.97 COBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 13.0 13.1 12
1.0 PORTAGE CREEK 830728 I.80 2.90 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 13 .2 13.1 13
PORTAGE CREEK 830728 1.80 1.60 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.7 13.1 14
PORTAGE CREEK 830728 I.90 1.40 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 12.5 13 .2 15
PORTAGE CREEK 830728 2.20 1.20 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 13.3 13 .1 16
PORTAGE CREEK 830728 I.70 .90 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 13.3 13.2 17
PORTAGE CREEK 830728 1.20 .90 LARGE GRAVEL COBBLE 13.2 13.2 18
PORTAGE CREEK 830728 1.50 .90 LARGE GRAVEL COBBLE 13.0 13.2 19
PORTAGE CREEK 830728 1.40 .50 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.9 13.3 20
PORTAGE CREEK 830728 1.10 .40 LIIRGE GRAVEL RUBBLE 13.3 13.3 21
PORTAGE CREEK 830728 1.60 2.60 RUBBLE COBBLE 10.6 13.6 22
PORTAGE CREEK 830728 I.20 2.00 LARGE GRAVEL COBBLE 13.6 13.6 23
PORTAGE CREEK 830728 2.10 2.60 RUIlBLE COBBLE 14.5 13.6 24
PORTAGE CREEK 83'0729 I.20 I.29 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 9.0 9.6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
,',...--,---_._----~
Table 9-A-l.Continued,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
WATER
VELO-SUBSTRATE WATER TEMPERATURE (c)
DEPTH CITY ----------------------------------------------REDO
LOCATION DATE (FT)(FT/S)PRIMARY SECONDARY INTRAGRA VEL SURFACE NO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.60 3.40 COBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 9.2 9.1 1
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 2.40 I.54 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 9.3 10.0 2
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.60 3.10 COIlBLE BOULDER 9.9 9.9 2
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 2.50 I.83 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 9.7 10.1 3
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.40 I.50 COBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 10.1 10.,3
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 2.30 1.54 COBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 9.;10.4
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.10 2.20 RUBBI.E LARGE GRAVEL 8.2 9.1 4
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.10 1.11 LARGE CRAVEL RUBBLE 10.3 10.3
;
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 2.00 2.70 COBBLE RUBBLE 10.;10.;;
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.40 2.10 RUB BLE LARGE GRAVEL 12.0 12.1 6
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 I.50 1.40 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 10.7 10.1 6
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.60 1.47 RUBBLE COBBLE 11.6 12.1 7
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.00 1.60 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 10.4 10.9 7
0.0 PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.10 1.58 COBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11 .8 12.2 8
".PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.;0 1.70 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 10.9 11.0 8):>
1 PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.40 2.10 RUBBLE COBBLE 12.1 12.;9......PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.10 1.80 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 10.9 10.9 90PORTAGECREEK830729I.70 1.96 COBBLE RUBBLE 12.3 12.5 10
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 .60 1.20 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 10.4 10.7 10
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 I ./,0 I.;1 RUBBI.E LARGE GRAVEL 12 .;12.;11
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.10 1.80 COBBLE RUBBLE 11.4 ILl 11
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.60 2.20 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.8 12.;12
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.00 2.80 COBBLE RUBBLE 11.1 11.4 12
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.60 1.96 COBBLE RUBBLE 11.7 12.6 13
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.10 1.90 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.0 11.3 13
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.60 1.92 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 12.6 12.6 14
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I 1 ~,I J ;.~I J I J I I m 1 .~~
}1 ~)J 1 'J I ~l 1 1
-------_._---_.--
Table 9-A-l.Conti nued .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WATER
VI::LO-SUBSTRATE WATER TEMPERATURE (C)
DEPTH CITY ----------------------------------------------REDO
LOCATION DATE (FT)(FT/S)PRIMARY SECONDARY INTRAGRA VEL SURFACE NO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.30 2.20 RUB BLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.2 11 .3 14
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 I.20 3.74 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 12.~12.6 I~
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 I.20 I.70 COBBLE RUBBLE 11.6 11.~n
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.40 1.70 CUBBLE RUBBLE 11.8 11.7 16
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 I .50 1.90 BOULDER RUBBLE II.7 11.7 17
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 I.80 3.00 BOULDER COBBLE 11.7 11.7 18
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 .70 I.90 COBBLE RUBBLE 9.6 11.1 19
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.10 2.20 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 10.7 10.9 20
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 LbO 1.20 LARGE GRAVEL SMALL GRAVEL 11.7 12.6 21
PORTAGE CREEK 830729 1.30 1.00 COBBLE RUBBLE 12.6 12.2 22
lO PORTAGE CREEK 830729 2.50 2.50 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 13 .0 12.9 23I
l:>PORTAGE CREEK 830729 2.70 1.50 RUB BLE LARGE GRAVEL 13 .0 12.9 24
I............PORTAGE CREEK 830730 1.50 2.00 BouLDER RUBBLE 8.9 8.9 1
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 1.bO 1.25 BOULDER COBBLE 9.3 9.0 2
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 .90 2.00 COBBLE RUBBLE 9.2 9.0 3
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 I.20 2.80 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 9.2 9.1 4
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 1.00 1.~O COBBLE RUBBLE 9.4 9.4 5
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 .70 2.60 BOULDER CUBBLE 9.4 9.5 (,
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 1.20 2.00 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 9.6 9.6 7
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 1.20 2.90 COBBLE RUBBLE 9.8 9.7 8
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 1.40 2.00 RUB BLE LARGE GRAVEL 10.1 10.0 9
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 2.30 3.40 COBBLE RUBBLE 9.7 9.8 10
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 1.20 1.80 COBBLE RUBBLE (1.9 10.0 11
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 2.70 3.00 COBBLE RUBBLE 10.0 9.9 12
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 LbO 2.40 COBBLE RUBIILE 10.0 9.8 13
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9-A-1.Continued.
SUBSTRATE
LOCATION DATE
DEPTH
(rTl
WATER
VELO-
CI TY
(rT/S)PRItIARY SECONDARY
WATER TEMPERATURE (C)
----------------------REDr
INTRAGRAVEL SURFACE NO.
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 2.00 2,90 COBBLE RUBBLE 9.9 9.9 14
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 1.20 2.60 COBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 10.0 9.9 15
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 2,20 3.30 COBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 9.9 9.8 16
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 2,40 3.40 COBBLE RUBBLE 9.7 9.6 17
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 1.60 2.60 BOULDER COBBLE 9.9 9.6 18
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 1.30 1.80 COBBLE RUBBLE 9.9 9.7 19
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 1.20 I.80 RUlIlILE LARGE GRAVEL 9.6 9.6 20
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 1.40 4.30 COBBLE RUBBLE 9.8 9.7 21
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 1.60 1.90 COBBLE RUBBLE 9.7 9.7 22
PORTAGE CREEK 830730 1.70 2.30 COBBLE RUBBLE 9.7 9.6 230..0 PORTAGE CREEK 830730 I.20 2.60 COBBLE RUBBLE 9.5 9.3 24I
::t:>PORTAGE CREEK 830730 2.70 1.55 RUBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 9.6 9.3 25I......
N CIIEECHAKO CREEK 830805 2.20 1.00 COBBLE LARGE GRAVEL 11.9 11.7 1
CHEECIIAKO CREEK 830805 .90 2.40 LARGE GRAVEL RUBBLE 11.4 11.3 2
~,I 1 ,~1 !,,,i I J J i t 1 J
,~
APPENDIX 9-B
Chinook Salmon Utilization Statistics
9-B-l
Table 9-B-l Summary of variance statistics and tests for various
groupings for chinook salmon utilization depth
hi stograms ..
HISTOGRAM INCREMENT
LABEL SIZE
INCREMENT
START VARIANCE df
"'40.
A 121.1 0.121 .87.5336 22
B 121.2 0.121 353.5379 11
C 0.2 0.1 44121.091219 10 -0 121.3 121.121 682.0278 8
E 0.3 0.1 726.9821 7
F 0.3 0.2 632.4107 7
LEVENE"S TEST
F STATISTIC
5.99012100
df
5,65
PROB
121.1211211211 ....,
PAIRWISE COMPARISONS
PAIR
A,B
A,C
A,D
A,E
A,F
B,C
B,D
B,E
B,F
C,D
C,E
C,F
D,E
D,F
E,F
df
11,22
1121,22
8,22
7,22
7,22
1~,11
8,11
7,11
7,11
8,1121
7,1121
7,1121
7,8
8,7
7,7-;
9-B-2
F VALUE
4.~38882
5.~27680
7.791611 .
8.31215178
7.224777
1.24482121
1.92915121
2.05631216
1.788806
1.549743
1.651891
1.4370121121
1.065913
1.078457
1.149541
PROB
0.121026
0.1211211218
0.01211211
~.l2Il2Il2Il
0.012102
0.361210
121.150121
0.140121
121.191210
0.2500
0.23121121
121.290121
121.46121121
121.47121121
121.43~~
-
-
--J 1 1 j ]1 ---I 1 1 J ]1
Table 9-B-2.Comparison of incremented mean and standard deviation values with non-incremented values for various
groupings for chinook salmon depth and velocity histograms.
Percent Percent
Deviation Deviation
Non-From Non-Non-Fron Non-
Histogram Incremented Incremented Incremented Incremented Incremented Incremented
Variable Label Mean Mean Mean Stand.Dev.Stand.Dev.Stand.Dev.
Depth A 1.40 1.44 3.2 0.46 0.45 2.2
(ft)B 1.40 1.44 3.4 0.46 0.45 1.5
C 1.41 1.44 2.5 0.43 0.45 4.1
D 1.45 1.44 0.5 0.50 0.45 11.4
E 1.40 1.44 3.0 0.48 0.45 6.6
F 1.46 1.44 0.9 0.49 0.45 8.5
~Velocity A 2.11 2.13 0.8 0.77 0.73 4.4I
OJ (ftjsec)B 2.08 2.13 2.4 0.73 0.73 0.3IwC2.09 2.13 1.6 0.73 0.73 0.6
D.2.17 2.13 1.9 0.75 0.73 2.2
E 2.12 2.13 0.4 0.77 0.73 5.2
F 2.16 2.13 1.8 0.76 0.73 3.6
Table 9-B-3.Summary of variance statistics and tests for various
groupings for chinook salmon utilization velocity
histograms.
HISTOGRAM INCREMENT
LABEL SIZE
INCREMENT
START VARIANCE df
-------------------------------------------------------
MJW:'!'
A 121.1 121.121 33.7549 4121
B 121.2 121.121 116.3476 2121
C 121.2 121.1 117.7763 19
D 121.3 121.121 244.841217 13
E 121.3 121.1 284.2381 14
F 121.3 121.2 236.841217 13
-------------------------------------------------------
LEVENE·S TEST
--------------------------------
F STATISTIC
5.3121121121121121
df
5,119
PROS
121.1211211212
PAIRWISE ·COMPARISONS
-------------------------------------------
PAIR df F VALUE PROS ""'"
-------------------------------------------
A,S
A,e
A,D
A,E
A,F
B,e
B,D
B,E
B,F
C,D
C,E
C,F
D,E
D,F
E,F
2121,410
19,4121
13,4121
14,4121
13,4121
19,2121
13,2121
14,2121
13,2121
13,19
14,19
13,19
14,13
13,13
14,13-_
3.446836
3.489162
7.253486
8.42121647
7.12116484
1.1211228121
2.1121439121
2.4431211218
2.035630
2.1378862
2.413373
2.01121937
1.1612191121
1.12133778
1.2121121124
121.1211211214
121.1211211214
0.0121121121
0.0121121121
0.121121121121
121.490121
121.12165121
121.12133121
121.12174121
121.12172121
0.038121
121.12181121
121.401210
121.48121121
121.370121
~,
9-8-4
-
-
Appendix Table 9-B-4.Bivariate correlation statistics for evaluating
independence of habitat variables used in the
development of suitabil i ty cri teri a curves for
chinook salmon.
Approximate
Comparison n r Zd Probabil ity*
Chum
Depth
Vs.265 0.12 -1.33 0.90
Velocity
Substrate
Vs.265 0.06 -2.37 0.99
Depth
Substrate
Vs.265 0.20 0.07 0.47
Velocity
*associated with the hypothesis that Ho =Ipl ~0.2.Probabilities
Note that low values of probability lead to rejection of Ho .
9-B-5