The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPhase 2 Vol 1 synopsis of the 1982 aquatic studies 1983• • • sus 1 ~4 D FT SUSITNA HYDRO AQUATIC STUDIES PHASE li DRAFT REPORT Volume I-Synopsis of the 1982 Aquatic Studies and Analysis of Fish and Habitat Relationships. -APPENDICES- by ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies ~207 Spanard Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 1983 PREFACE This report is Volume One of a five volume presentation of the fisheries, aquatic habitat, and in stream flow data collected by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Susitna Hydroelectric (Su Hydro) :?easibility Aquatic Studies Program during the 1981-82 (October-May) ice-covered and 1982 open water (May-October) seasons. It is one of a series of reports prepared for the Alaska Power Authority (APA) by the ADF&G and other contractors to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project. This draft report is intended for data transmittal to other Susitna Hydroelec tric Feasibility Study p a rticipants. This volume presents a synopsis of the information contained in the other four volumes. The topics discussed in Volumes Two through Five are illustrated in Figure A. In addition to the synopsis, this report also includes the analysis of the pre-project fishery and habitat relationships derived from Volumes Two through Five and related reports prepared by other study participants. The final report will be submitted to the APA on June 30, 1983 for formal distribution to study participants, state and federal agencies , and the public. Also scheduled for completion on June 30, 1983 is the first draft of the ADFlG 1982-83 ice-covered season basic data r eport. It will include a presentation of 1982-83 incubation and other fishery and habitat data. These and other ADFlG reports (1974, 1976, 1977, 1978 , 1979, 1981a, b, c, d, e, f. 1982) an<.l information reported by others will be summarized and analyzed by the Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC) to evaluate post-project conditions within the overall study area of the proposed project (Figure B). Woodward Clyde Consultants will, in tum, use this information to support the • Factors Influencing Aquatic Habitat Fish Life Phases Influenced by Habitat IUwer Morpllol ooy Vol.4, Vol. !I Hydraulic Condition• "'''·"'' ~(!)-------- ........ ~ t! ------ Vol. 4, Vol. 5 Clle111lcol Vol. 4, Vol 5 Tlmlno. Dietrlbullon ond Population ---=::> Vol . 2, Vol. 4 Spownlno Vol. 2, Vol.4, Vol. !I Spownlno Vol. 3, Vol. !I Reorlno Vol. !1, Vol. 4, Vol . 5 Olttrl butlon Vol. !1, Vol.4, Vol. !I Figure A. Intregration of and relationships among program elements presented in Vo lumes II thr-oug h IV. • • • • ·~ ..... - 0 I 26 I • AOF 8 G FIELD CAMPS Figu re B. Ove r a l 1 study area of the Su s itna Hydroelectri c Feasibility Study Prog r am. • • preparation of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission License Appli- cntir.n fo r Acres. The fi ve year (Acres 1980) ADFlG Su Hydro Aquatic Studies program was initiated in November 1980 . It is s ubdivided into three study sections: Adult Anadromous Fish Studies (AA), Residen t a nd Juvenile Anadromous Fish Studies (RJ), a nd Aquatic Habitat and lnstream Flow Studies (AH). Specific objectives of the three sections are: 1. AA -determine the seasonal distribution and relative abun- dance of adult anadromous fish populations produced within the study area (Figure B); 2. 3 . RJ -determine the seasonal distribution and relative abu.n- dance of selected resident and juvenile anndromous fish populations within the study area; and AH characterize the seasonal habitat requirements of selected anadromous and resident fish s pecies within the study area and the relationship between the availability of these habitat conditions and the mainstem discharge of the Susitna River. The 1981 -82 ice-covered and 1982 open-water ADF•G study areas (Figures C and D) were limited to the mainstem Susitna River, associated sloughs and side channels, and the mouths of major tnoutaries . Portions of tributaries which will be inundated by the proposed Watana and Devil Canyon reservoirs were also evaluated . Descriptions of study sites are presented in each of these volumes including the ADFlG reports (ADFlG 1981a , b, c , d , e, f). • 0 ·· ...... .,., 0 ------ miles ~""' / / / / I I I I / ,""' • / I I .I nch o roo'-' ' ' ' ..... .......... .......... .......... \ \ I I I I I I I I I I / / 19 81-82 I CE-COV ERED SEASON STUDY ARE AS L OW ER RIVER STUDY AR E A UPPER RIVER STUDY AREA • DRAI NAGE BOUNDARY Figure D. 1981-82 AO F&G i ce -cove red seaso n (Octo ber t hrough Hay) study area . ' ·······-" / I 0 25 ..,-"' / • ,-"' / / nchoraoe / / / ' ' ' .......... '-, '-, ... ' \ \ ' ' I I I I I ~~~ ..,--------------- I _,/ 1982 OPEN WATER S EASON STUDY AREAS 1m UPPER RIVER W1i STUDY AREA m LOWER RIVER ~ STUDY AREA --DRAINAGE BOUNDAR Y Figure C. 1982 ADF&G open water seaso n (May through October) study area . ., • • Questions concerning these reports should be directed to: Thomas W. Trent Aquatic Studies Coordinator Alaska Department of Fish • Game Su Hydro Aquatic Studies Program 2207 Spenard Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Telephone (907) 274-7583 • • ,. PREFACE REFERENCES Acres American, Inc. (Acres) 1980. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Plan of Study. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 1974. An assessment of the anadromous fish populations in the Upper Susitna River Watershed between Devil Canyon and the Chulitna River. Anchorage, Alaska. 1976. Fish and Wildlife studies related to the Corps of Engineers Devil Canyon , Watana Rese rvoir Hydroelectric Project. ADF&G. Anchorage, Alaska. 1977 . Preauthorization assessment of the proposed Susitna Hyd:oelectric Projects: preliminary investigations of water qualit y and aquatic species composition. ADF&G. Anchorage, Alaska . 1978. Preliminary environmental assessment of hydroelectric development on the Susitna River. Anchorage, Alaska. 1979. Preliminary final plan of study fish and studies proposed by the ADF&G. ADFlG. Anchorage, Alaska. 1981a. Aquatic studies procedures manual. Phase I. Final Draft. Subtask 7 .10. Prepared for Acres American , Incorporated, by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game/Su Hydro. Anchorage, Alaska. 198lb . Adult anadromous fisheries project. Phase I . Final Draft. Subtask 7.10. Prepared for Acres American, Incorporated, by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game/Su Hydro. Anchorage, Alaska. • • PREFACE REF ERENCES (Continued) 198lc. Aquatic habitat and instream flow project. Phase I. Final Draft. Prepared for Acres American, Incorporated, by the Alaska Department of Fish a nd Game/Su Hydro . Anchorage, Alaska. 198ld. Resident fish investigation on the lower Susitna River. Phase I. Final Draft. Prepared for Acres American, Incorporated by Alaska Department of Fish and Game/Su Hydro. Anchorage, Alaska. 198le. Resident fish investigations on the lower Susitna River. Phase I. Final Draft. ADFlG Su Hydro Aquatic Studies Program. Anchorage, Alaska. 1981f. Resident fish investigations on the upper Susitna River. Phase I. Final Draft. ADFlG Su Hydro Aquatic Studies Program. Anchorage, Alaska. 1982 . Aquati c Studies Program. Phase I. Final Draft. Subtask 7 .10. Prep.n-ed for Acres American, Incorporated by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game/Su Hydro. Anchorage, Alaska. • • • DRAFT /PAGE 1 FHR/CRAWFORD APP2 /Table of Contents APPENDI X TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendi x A Appendi x B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Appendix Appendix J Appendix K Analysis of the species selectivity of fishwheels for the capture of adult s a lmon in the Susitna Ri ver ...........•.............•.. Mainstem Su s itna discharge influence on timing a~d acce ss by fish to the sloughs and tributaries of the Susitna River above the Chu 1 i tna confluence ....•..............•..•.. Influences of substrate on spawning habitat of chums and sockeye sa lmon at selected s lough s above the Chulitna confluence of the Sus i tna River .•...........••.• Hydraulic model projections of chum salmon spawning habitat in side sloughs of the Susitna River .....•.•........•........•.......•• Effects of mainstem Susitna discharge on total wetted and backwater surface area at se 1 ected study sites ........................... . Influence of habitat parameters on distribution and relative abundance of juvenile salmon and resident species ........ . Use of major habitat types by juvenile salmon and resident species ..•...•....•........• Habitat relationships of juvenne salmon outmi grat ion ..•.....•........•.•....••.•..•....• Population analY'sis of Arctic grayling above Dev i 1 Canyo n .•...••..•.•••.•..••...•.....• Age-length curve·s and growth •~ f A r et 1 c grayling and rainb~w trout ••••.•••••.••.••...•.• Evaluation of Arcti ~ grayling spawni ng ana rearing habitat o~d notes on salmon spawning in the impoundment study area ••......•• • APPENDIX A DRAFT /PAGE 2 FHR/CRAWFORD APP2/Table of Contents DR AFT Analysis of the species selectivity of fishwheels for the capture of adult salmon in the Susitna River . • • • APPENDIX A LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES Append i x Figure A-1 Susitna River ba sin map showing DRAFT /PAGE 3 FHR/CRAWFORO APP2 /T abl e of Contents field stations and major tributaries •.••••• Appendix Figure A-2 Tempo r al timing of sockeye, pink, chum, and coho salmon at Talkeetna station in 1981 and 1982 .•••••••.•••••••... • • APPENDIX A DRAFT/PAGE 4 FHR/CRAWFORD APP2/Table of Contents LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Append i x Table A-1 Appendix Table A-2 Appendi x Table A-3 Appendix Table A-4 Appendi x Table A-5 Appendix Table A-6 Percent tag loss based on surveys conducted between Talkeetna station and Devil Canyon in 1981 and 1982 ••..•....• Chi square test results of observed versus expected number of recaptures at Talkeetna and Curry stations in 1981 ..•...................•................ Chi square test results of observed versus expected number of recaptures at Talkeetna and Curry stations in 1982 ..................................... 4. Coefficient of selectivity and percent deviation for chinook, so~keye, pink, chum , and coho salmon tagged at Talkeetna and Curry stations in 1982 ••••••.••••••••••••.. Coefficient of selectivity and percent deviation for sockeye, pink, chum, and coho salmo~ tagged at Talkeetna station ••••••••••.••••• Coefficient of selectivity and percent deviation for sockeye, pink, chum, and coho salmon tagged at Curry station in 1981 and 1982 ............................. . • Introduction ' DRAFT/PAGE 1 FHR REPORT/M. Thompson APPl/Appendix A Fishwheels have been used to intercept adult salmon for commercial and subsistence purposes for many years. They are usually most successful in glacial, turbid rivers such as the Susitna River. More recently, however, fi s hwheels have become a tool used by fishery biologists to manage salmon fisheries. As with any capture gea ·~ used to manage a fisheries it becomes necessary to identify and, if possible, quantify any gear deficiencies or biases. An inherent bias with fishwheels has been the species selectiveness in their capture of adult salmon. Meehan (1961} found that chinook and coho salmon in the Taku River were least susceptible to recapture by fishwheel while pink salmon were more susceptible to recapture. He also noted fishwheel selectivity within a species; the smaller 11 jack11 chinook salmon were more readily captured than the larger, older chinook salmon. He felt that fishwheel selectivity was manageable when the data were used as a relative index of the escapement and not as a definitive measure of the escapement. In relation to the present study, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (AOF&G) Su Hydro, Adult Anadromous staff deployed fishwheels for tag/ recapture programs at Sunshine, Talkeetna and Curry stations. Also side scan sonar units, with associated fishwheels to apportion the sonar counts, were operated at Susitna , Yentna, Sunshine and Talkeetna stations (Appendix Figure A-1). The enuipment located at Susitna ' DRAFT /PAGE 2 FHR REPORT/M. Thompson APP1/Appendix A station was managed by AOF&G, Commercial Fisheries Division, So ldotna. It is the purpose of this paper to ascertain wheth~r or not fish~heel s were selective in their capture of adult salmon in the Susitna River, and if so, riiscuss the implications of using fishwheels to apporti on sonar counts. Methods .!!gg_ing Process Fishwheels, designed and built by AOF&G/Su Hydro, Adult Anadromous staff, were used to intercept salmon for tag application at Sunshine, Talkeetna and Curry stations in 1981 and 1982. There were four fishwheels located at Sunshine and Talkeetna stations and two at Curry Station. Fishwheel specifications may be obtained by consulting the Phase I, ADF&G/Su Hydro, Adult Anadromous Report (1981). Adult salmon were trapped in rotating fishwheel baskets and exited via a padded chute into a live box. A merrber of the tagging crew dipnetted salmon from the live box and placed them on a cushioned tagging platform. Next, a second crewmember inserted and secured either a flay FT-4 spaghetti tag or a Petersen disc beneath the dorsal fin and gently released the salmon . Both tag types were color coded and identifi able to station. The total time elapse of the tagging process, from dipnetting to release, was 10 to 15 seconds. SUNSHINE STATION STAT ION Appe ndix Figu r e A-1. Susitna River bas i n map showing fie l d stations and major tributa r ies . - - Tag Recovery DRAFT /PAGE 3 FHR REPORT/H. Thompson APPl/Appendix A Marked salmon were recovered during repetitive surveys of streams and sloughs above the tagging sites . For each survey, s urveyors recorded the number of tagged live salmon by tag type and color and the number of live untagged salmon by species. Results of the repetitive surveys were sunmed and provided the seasona 1 number of tagged salmon ( r) and t he number of salmon examined for marks (c), by species and station. Only those surveys with good to excellent visibil i ty were used in computing the seasonal r/c proportions. Tag loss The percent tag loss was used to adjust the nun'tler of tags recovered (r) for each spec ies tagged at s t ations with reported tag loss. The adjust- ment was made a s follows with the results presented in Appendix Table A-1: radjusted = (robserved X percent tag loss) + robserved Data Analy sis A chi square test of association was used to t est the hypothesis that fishwheels were species non-selective in capturing adult salmon or: H • o· - • DRAFT /PAGE 1 FHR/Thompson APPTAB/A-1 Appendix Table A-1 Percent tag loss basr.d on surveys conducted between Talkeetna Station ar:d Devil Canyon in 1981 and 1982 No . tagged No. Tagging fish shed Percent Tag T~~e Station Year examined tags tag loss FT-4/Sraghetti Talkeetna 1981 397 27 7.5 FT -4/Spaghetti Talkeetna 1982 386 ?6 6.3 Petersen disc Curry 1982 325 3 .9 • DRAFT I PAGE 4 FHR REPORT /M. Thompson APPl /Append ix A Where ri = total number of tagged adult salmon for the ;th species ci = total number of the ith species of adult s a lmon examined for tags This test i ncorporated the following assumptions : 1) Fishwheels were not selective for s tocks within a s pe c ies ~ (with the exception of chinook sa l mon L 350 millimeters in 1 ength). 2) Tagged salmon mi xed randomly with untagged salmon and exhib i t- 41' e d essentially no behaviora l differences. • 3) Reported tag loss, by station and tag type, occurred at the same rate for all species. 4) Tagged and untagged salmon had no differential mortality. 5) Salmon passage during flood events was negl i gible i n relation to total salmon passage (substantiated by sonar counts and electroshocking efforts). Next, an e xpected value for r (Er) not weighted by sample size was derived for each species. This was accomplished by calculating an arithmetic mean of t il e observed r/c proportions for a 11 species at each ,_·I.- IH ~I ,• • DRAFT /PAGE 5 FHR REPORT/M. Thompson APP1/Appendix A station and multiplying this value by the total number of each species examined for marks (c). The resultant expected value, E , and the r observed value for r (Or) were expressed as the ratio Or:Er. letting Er ( =1) define the base of comparison Or then becomes a function of fishwheel selectivity herein referred to as the coefficient of selec- tivity (C.S.). Or values less than one indicate fewer tagged salmon of that species were recovered than expected and conversely Or values greater than one indicate more tagged salmon of that species were recove red than expected. Finally, the percent deviation between observed r values (Or) and expected r values (Er) were determined for each spec ies at each station . These values were derived by subtracting Or from Er and expressing this value as a percent of Er . Using Er as a base for comparison, the percent deviation, as with the coefficient of selectivity, may be greater than the expected Er) or less than expected ( Er ) and when referred to wi 11 always be pre-fixed by the appropriate sign. The percent deviations, regardless of sign, were divided into three categories: 1) < 15% low deviati on from expected value 2) 15% to 30% mod~rate deviation from expected value high de~iation from expected val~e !. • •; • • • RESULTS DRAFT /PAGE 6 FHR REPORT/H. Thompson APPl /Appendix A The null hypothesis, H0 the number of tagged (r) salmon per number salmon observed (c) ;s equal for all species, was tested for salmon tagged at Talkeetna and Curry stations in 1981 and 1982 . Salmon tagged at Sunshine station were not included in the test as fishwheels there did not operate continuously and therefore had a disproportionate amount of capture effort expended for each spec ies. Results of the cht square test indicated a highly significant (~ .001) difference between r/c proportions of sockeye, pink, chum and coho salmon tagged at Talkeetna and Curry stations in 1981 (Appendix Table A-2). Similarly, the results of the chi square test t or data coll ected in 1982 also indicated a highly significant (~ .001} difference between the r/c proportions for chinook, sockeye, pink, chum and coho tagged at Talkeetna stations and chinook, sockeye, chum and coho salmon tagged at Curry Station (Appendix Table A-3). Only fifty percent of the pink salmon captured at Curry Station in 1982 were tagged and subsequently they were not included in the analysis. Fishwheels operated at Talke e tna and Curry Stations in 1981 and 1982, based on the chi square test results, were selective in capturing adult salmon. The unwe i ghted mean value of the r /c proportions and subsequently derived expected r . tlues provided a quantitive method to access the species selectivity of fishwheels located at Talkeetna and Curry Stations. The deviation of the observed number of tag recoveries, provided the assumptions previously described are true, reflects the • • • DRAFT/PAGE 1 FHR/Thompson APPTAB/A-2 Append ix Table A-2 Chi square test results of observed versus expected number of recaptures at Talkeetna and Curry stations in 1981. TALKEETNA STATION c1 Observed 2 Expected 3 Sign ~ficance Species r r Cell x2 DF=3 Sockeye 4,167 286 296 .37 N.S. Pink 724 82 51 11.36 ** Chum 5 ,944 346 423 16 .98 *** Co ho 852 117 61 27.21 *** Total 11,687 831 831 91.39 *** , _J CURRY STATJON Observed Exp ected Spec hs c r r Ce 11 x2 Sockeye 3,040 403 324 15 .55 Pink 69 12 7 1.80 Chum 4,033 345 430 20.76 Coho 105 12 11 .05 Total 7,247 772 772 43.67 1 c = Total number of ;th species examined for mark s. 2 r = Total number of tags (adjusted) recovered 3 x2 = Chi square ~# 7.:_ : t-'··r:.~ Significance DF=3 *** N.S. *** N.S. *** • • • DRAFT /PAGE 1 FHR/Thompson APPTAB/A-3 Appendix Table A-3 Chi square test results of observed versus expected number of recaptures at Talkeetna and Curry stations in 1982. TALKEETNA STATION cl Observed 2 Expected 3 seecies r r Cell x2 Chinook 1,436 88 183 49.52 Sockeye 2,128 287 272 . 88 Pink 13 ,93 6 2,597 1,779 376.61 Chum 9,588 503 1,223 424 .42 Coho 1,065 118 136 2.36 Total 28,153 3,593 3,593 978.70 CURRY STATION Observed Expected Cell x2 Species c r r Chinook 642 35 35 . 00 Sockeye 1,970 171 108 36.67 Chum 7,802 361 428 10.46 Coho 398 26 22 .80 Total 10,812 593 593 50.72 1 c = Total number of ith spec : ~s examined for marks. 2 r = Total number of tags (adjusted) recovered 3 x2 = Chi square Sign ificance OF=4 *** N.S . *** *** N.S. *** Significance DF =3 N.S . *** * N.S. *** • DRAFT/PAGE 7 FHR REPORT/M. Thompson APP1/Appendix A selectivity or non-selectivity of fishwheel captures for each species. Resu .ts for each species are summarized below: 1) Chinook salmon Chinook salmon were tagged at Talkeetna and Curry Station in 1982 only. Chinook salmon less than 351 mm were not tagged. The coefficient of selectivity was .56 at Talkeetna Station and .61 at Curry Stations. The present deviation between the number of tag recoveries observed and the number expected was high, less than 44.0 percent at Talkeetna Station and less than 34 .0 percent at Curry Station (Appendix Table A-4). 2) Sockeye salmon Fishwheels did not appear to selectively capture sockeye salmon in 1982. The percent deviation between observed and exp ected tag recoveries was greater than 10.5 percent at Ta lkeetna Station and less than 2.8 percent at Curry Station, both low values. In 1981 sockeye salmon were caught at less than the expected rate {moderate percent deviation of less than 28.1 percent) at Talkeetna Station while fishwheels at Curry Station did not appear to be selective in capture (low percent deviation of greater than 1.6 percent) (Appendix Table A-5 and A-6). 3) Pink salmon Pink salmon tended to have consistently higher r values than expected. The coefficient of selectivity in 1981 was 1.19 and 1.50 at Talkeetna - DRAFT/PAGE 1 FHR/Thompson APPTAB/A-4 Appendix Table A-4 Coefficient of selectivity and percent deviation for chinook, sockeye, pink, chum and coho salmon tagged at Talkeetna and Curry stations in 1982. TALKEETNA STATION Coeffi- Observed Expected cient of Percent Values Value s Select-Devia- Species c r r/c r/c r ivity tion -- Chinook 1,436 88 .06 .11 157 .56 44.0 Sockeye 2,126 284 .13 .11 233 1.22 21.9 Pink 13,936 2 ,596 .19 .11 1,473 1. 76 76.2 Chum 9,588 502 .05 .11 1,054 .48 47.6 Coho 1,065 117 .11 .11 117 1.0 0 .0 CURRY STATION Coeffi- Observed Expected cient of Percent Values Values Select-Devia- Species c r r/c r/c r ivity tion Chinook 642 35 . 06 .09 57 .66 34 .0 Sockeye 1970 171 .09 .09 177 1.05 4.9 Pink 4,470 726 .16 .09 371 1.96 95 .7 Chum 7,802 359 .05 .09 647 .55 44.5 Coho 398 26 .07 .09 33 .79 21.2 • • • DRAFT/PAGE 1 FHR/Thompson APPTAB/A-5 Appendix Table A-5 Coefficien~ of selectivity and percent deviation for sockeye, pink, chum and coho sallilon tagged at Talkeetna Stations in 1981 and 1982. 1981 Coe-Ffi- Observed Expected cient of Percent Values Values Select-Devia- Species c r r/c r/c r ivity tion Sockeye 4,167 299 .07 .10 . 416 .72 28.1 Pink 724 86 .12 .10 72 1.19 19.4 Chum 5,944 357 .06 .10 I 594 .60 39.9 Coho 852 125 .15 .10 . --85 1.47 47 .1 -:1 J_ 1982 Coeffi- Observed Expected cient of Percent Values Values Select-Oevia- Species c r r/c r/c r ivity tion Sockeye 2,126 284 .13 .12 257 1.11 10.5 Pink 13,936 2,596 .19 .12 1,686 1.54 54.0 Chum 9,588 502 .05 .12 1,160 .43 56.7 Coho 1,065 117 .11 .12 128 .91 8.6 ~ ... . • t DRAFT/PAGE 2 FHR/Thompson APPTAB/A-6 Appendix Table A-6 Co efficient of selectivity and percent deviation for sockeye, pink, chum and coho salmon tagged at Curry Station in 1981 and 1982. 1981 Coeffi - Observed Expected cient of Percent Value s Valu es Select-Oevia- Species c r r /c r /c r ivity t ion Sockeye 3,040 386 .13 .13 380 1.02 1.6 Pink 69 12 .17 .13 8 1.50 50.0 Chum 4,033 333 .08 .13 504 .66 33.9 Coho 105 12 .11 .13 13 .92 7.7 r 7 .) • I) 1982 Coeffi - Observed Expected cient <J f Percent Values Values Select-Devia - ,_ Spec i es c r r/c r/c r ivit,l tion Sockeye 1,970 172 .09 .09 177 .97 2 .8 Pink 4 ,470 732 .16 .09 402 1.82 82.1 Chum 7 ,t J2 362 .04 .09 702 .52 48 .4 Co ho 398 26 .07 .09 35 .74 27.7 DRAFT/PAGE 8 FHR REPORT/M. Thompson APP1/Appendix A and Curry Stations, respectively (Appendix Table A-5 and A-6). In 1982, the large number of pink salmon in the Susitna River drainage and manpower constraints allowed only 50 percent of the pink salmon to be tagged at Curry Station and number of observed tag recoveries was doubled to compensate. The 1981 trend of larger observed r values than expected continued in 1982. The percent deviation was greater than 54.0 and greater than 82.1 percent at Talkeetna and Curry Stations, respectively (Appendix Table A-5 and A-6). Pink salmon appear to be captured by fishwheels at a rate that exceeds expectations regardless of the location. 4) Chum salmon The number of chum salmon tag recoveries was lower than expected for fish tagged at Talkeetna and Curry Stations in both 1981 and 1982. In 1981 th.e coefficient of selectivity was .60 and .66 at Talkeetna and Curry Station:., ~~spectively. In 1982 the coefficient of selectivity was lower, .43 and .S2 in the above station order. The percent deviation remained high (great~r than 30 percent at both Talkeetna and Curry Stations in 1981 and 1982 (Appendix Table A-5 and A-6). 5) Coho salmon Coho salmon observed tag recoveries and expected tag recoveries varied considerably between years and between sites. In 1981 the percent deviation at Talkeetna and Curry Stations were less than 47.1 and ~. l .s 11 ' , . DRAFT/PAGE 9 FHR REPORT/M. Thompson APPl/Appendix A greater than 7.7 percents, respectively. In 1982 for the same stations the percent deviations were greater than 8.6 and greater than 27.7 percents, respectively (Appendix Table A-5 and A-6). DISCUSSION Fishwheel selectivity has been a frequently discussed subject. (l ' ,\J/ Selectivity can be a function of many parameters such as fishwheel site, channel c onfiguration, water velocity, fish size and behavioral traits. ~.·· These parameters have been considered intuitively but were difficult to I . . I ~ I l ' , .. , ) / . ' . .. . • . .. ;~:~) I ' • . ' .. quantify. The large number of fish tagged and the extensive random surveys pursuant to goals of this project provided the means to assess fishwheel selectivity in a quantitive manner. For reasons yet to be defined it appears that chinook and chum salmon generally tend to be undercaught by fishwheels while pink salmon are usually overcaught. Sockeye and coho salmon do not exhibit these general trends and are caught at different rates by fi~.twheels at Talkc.etna and Curry Stations. Having established fishwheel selectivity it becomes apparent that using fishwheels to apportion sonar counts in the Susitna Ri ver would bias the counts based on the fishwheel selectivity of the fishwheels at that site. This bias can change cons tantly , from no bias (one species present) to bias which severely impacts daily sonar estimates of the number of each species present (when two or more species temporarily overlap). This i s graphically visualized in Appendix Figure A-2 where as many as four species temporarily overlap during passage by Talkeetna Station. • SOC KE Y E PINK CHUM CO HO JULY 5 T A LKEETNA SlATION I MEDIAN ~ 1982 01981 I . • VOVJII!mmmm I J V777!ZIJI7l7llll/1771/11/i1 I I I JULY 15 JULY 25 AUGUST 4 AUGU ST 14 AUGU ST '24 SEPT. 3 DATE App endi x Fi gur e A-2. Temporal t im ing of :ockeye, pin k , chum and co ho s almon at Ta lkee tna s tati on in 1981 and 1982. • SEPT. 13 • • • LITERATURE CITED DRAFT /PAGE 10 FHR REPORT /M. Thompson APPl/Appendi x A Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G ). 1981. Adult Anadromous Pha se I final species/subject report . ADF&G /Su Hydro Aquatic Studies Program . Anchorage. Ala s ka. Meehan. W.R. 1961. Use of a Fishwhee l in Salmon Research Management. Trans. Amer. Fish . Sol. Vol. 90(4): 490-494 • APPENDIX B DRAFT /PAGE 1 6/10/83 APP1/App06 Timing and Access of Adult Salmon into Sloughs of the Susitna River Between Talkeetna and Devil Ca nyon ·. APPENDIX B LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES DRAFT/PAGE 2 6/10/83 APP1/App06 Fi Appendix Figure B-1 Timing of salmon migration, spawning, incubation and rearing in the Susitna River sys tem RM IJC.·~ above Talkeetna, and Susitna ~ River discharge at Gold Creekv~ ,,~,~o oo (USGS l982b) ....................•.......... Appen~ix Figure B-2 Sus itna River fishwhc~l catches for the five species or Pacific salmon at Susitna Station, RM 2ll (ADF&G 1983), Susitna River discharge at Susitna Station, 11 5294350 (USGS 1982b provisional data) and Susitna River surface water temperature above the con- fluence of the Yentna River, RM 29.5 (AOF&G 198 3) ..........•...•....•.. Appendix Fi gure B-3 Susitna River fishwheel catches for the five species of Pacific salmon at Sunshine Station, RM 80 (ADF&G 1983), Susitna River discharge at Sunshi ne Station, #5292780 (USGS 1982b provisional data) and Susitna River surface water temperature at the Parks Highway Bridge, RM 83.9 (AD F&G 1983) ...... . Appendix Figure B-4 Susitna River fishwheel catche s for the five species of Pacific salmon at Talkeetna Station, RM 10 3 (AOF&G 1983}, Susitna River discharge at Gold Creek, RM 136.6, ~ #15292000 (USGS 1982b provision al data) and Susitna River s urfa ce water temperatures at Talkeetna fishwheel , RM 103 .0 {ADF&G 1983) .......... . Appendix Figure B-5 Periodicity of salmon fishwheel catches and Susitna River d ischarge, 1982 •.•.......................•. Appendix Fiqure B-6 Periodicity of 1 ive sJlmon in Susitna River tributaries, RM 101. through 113.6, and sloughs, R~ 99 .6 through 145.5 {AOF&G 1981), and Susitna River discharge at Go ld Creek 115292000 {USGS 1982a, provisional data) 1981 ....•.......•........ I ·. LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES (Continued ) Afl Appendix Figure B-7 Periodicity of live salmon in Susitna River tributaries, RM 101.4 through 161.0, and sloughs, RM 99.6 through 144.3 {AOF&G 1983 ), and Susitna River discharge at Gold Creek #15292000 (USGS 1982, DRAFT/PAGE 3 6/10/83 APP1/App06 provisional data) 1982 •••••..•.••.••.•...•• Appendix Figure B-8 Thalweg profile and water surface e levations in the lower reach of Slough SA at various mainstem discharges. Passage reaches are those segments of the channel where water depth restricts . access of ~dult salmon into the slough .................................... . Appendix Figure B-9 Thalweg profile and water suriace elevations in the mouth of Slough 9 at var i ous mainstem discharges of the Susitna River at Gold Creek. Passage reaches are those segments of the channel where water depth restricts access of adult sa lmon into the slough ....•••••....•..••... Appendi x Figure B-10 Thalweg profile and water surface elevations in the lower reach of Slough 11 at various mainstem discharges. Passage reaches are those segments of the channel where water depths restricts access of adult salmon into the slough ......•..... Appendi x Figure B-11 Thalweg profile and water surface elevations in the lower reach of Sl ough 21 at various mainstem discharges. Passag e reaches are those segments of the channel where water depth r ~s tricts access of adult salmon into the slough .•....................•.....•.... ' APPENDIX B DRAFT /PAGE 4 6/10/83 APP1/App06 LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Appendix Table B-1 Appendix Table B-2 Flow measurements obtained in Slough SA during unbreached cond i t ions •.....•............•••.•.•.•...•. Access conditions at mouths of selected side sloughs of the Talkeetna to Devil Canyon reach of the Susitna River at various mainstem Susitna River discharges (USGS Gold Creek gage #15292000) .•••.••.•.•.•.•.•..... • • • I. INTRODUCTION DRAFT/PAGE 5 6/10/83 APP1/App06 This appendix discusses the effect of mainstem discharge on adult salmon timing and access into slough habitats of the Susitna River located between Talkeetna and Devil Canyon. It presents a s ummary of timing of passage through the mainstem and into the slough and tributaries and ; an as sessment of access conditions at sloughs SA, 9, 11 and 21. A com- pilation of relevant field ohservations which describe access conditions at other sloughs is also included . The access portion ad dressed in this paper is an extension of the analysis of ADF&G data presented earlier for Slou gh 9 (Trihey 1982). Five species of Pacific salmon (chinook, Oncorhynchus tshwayscha; coho ~ kisutch; sockeye, ~ nerka; chum, ~ keta; and pink~ gorbushka) are known to utilize the various habitats associated with the Susitna River within the Cook Inl e t (RM 0) to De vil CanyJn (RM 157) reach. Hydraulic barr i e rs within Devil Canyon prevents access of salmon to habitats above t his reach (ADF&G 1981, 1983). The use of each habitat type varies for both life phase and s pecies . Studies of salmon in the various habitats located in the Talkeetna t o Devil Canyon reach of the Su s itna river indicate that main s tem and side channel habitats are used to a limited extent by chum salmon. The most intensively used spawning ares within the Talkeetna to Devil Canyon reach are located in tributari es and side sloughs . Tributaries are used most heavily for spawning by chinoo k . coho, chum and pink s almon, whereas side sloughs are used primarily by chum and sockeye salmon . • • • DRAFT/PAGE 6 6/10/83 APP1/App06 Timing of the four principle life stages must be evaluated for ea ch salmon species: spawning, incubation, rearing and passage (Figure B-1). This presentation focuses on the timing of adult salmon passage to the slough habitats and the accessibility of these slough spawning habitats to adult salmon. At present, the data base necessary for a comprehen- sive assessment of the other hab~t~p~~~ife phase is incomplete. The reduced annual variation in flow resulting from construction, filling and operation of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectri c facilities will affect anadromous fish populations. Present data indicate that the greatest changes in exi!Sting physical and chemical characterist ~cs of anadromous fish habitat are expected to occur between Ta 1 keetna and Devil Canyon . Therefore, the Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Program has focused its data collect irn program in this reach. These data document dynamics of fish populations at relatively undisturbed habitat con- ditions and will allow projection of responses of future runs to alter- native project op e rational scenarios. They will also provide informa- tion for possible mitigation options. Importance of ~iming Adult salmon returning to spawn in Alaskan rivers and streams must arrive at the proper time and in good health if spawning is to be successful. Thus, migrating salmon must be able to reac h their spawning area and complete spawning before adverse climatological, or physio- logical factors intervene, and at a time compatible with the hydraulic conditions allowing access. If factors such as unfavorable discharges, • ADULT PASSAGE SPAWNING INCUBATION . REARING • ----s~s•tn a Stoltan (USGS 152943,01 ---Sun•htn o (USGS 1,29271101 --Gold C10ok (USGS 152920001 1/ (W(IIfllHC[ DATA NOT &V&IL"IU l/ DATA UON SWOLT Til&,, IIIITALI.(D 1/lt/ll USGS 1982 PROVISIONAL DATA DEC Figure B-1. Timing of salmon migration, spawning, incubation and rearing in the Susitna River sys tem above Talkeetna, and Susitna River discharge at Go ld Creek, RM 136.6, #1529~000 {USGS 1982 b). • ' DRAFT /PAGE 7 6/10/83 APP1/App06 water temperatures, turbidity levels or water quality delay fish from completing their arrival to their natal spawning grounds it may reduce their chances for spawning to be successfully completed (Reiser and Bjornn 1979). Importance of Access The proposed Susitna hydroelectric project ~ill alter the existing streamflow, sediment, and thermal regimes of the Susitna River. The project would reduce streamflows during summer and increase them during winter (Acres 1982). Suspended sediment, turbidity, and water tempera- tures are expected to follow similar patterns. Natural flows for the Susitna River at the Gold Creek stream gage commonly range between 20,000 and 30,000 cfs during June, July, and August (R&M 1982). Average monthly postproject streamflows at Gold Creek are forecast to be in the range of 7,000 to 11,000 cfs during June, July, and early August with a proposed controlled flow of no less than 12,000 cfs from mid-August to mid-September (Acres 1982). In general, when adult salmon migrate upstream they encounter pro- gressively lower flows as they pass into smaller drainage basins. This too, is the case, under natural conditions within the Susitna River. However, reduct i on in flow and associ ated stage in the Susitna River system at the point where migrating salmon pass from the mainstem river and begin to ascend tributaries and side sloughs is pronounced. There- ~ore it is expected that under reduced post ;>ro.ject flows, entrance conditions may reduce or prohibit salmon access into these spawning areas. If access were denied in t o a slough, all available upstream DRAFT /PAGE 8 6/lD/83 APP1 /A pp06 spawning habitat would be unavailable for use by adult salmon, elimi- nating reproduction in this habitat) f l Al though high velocities have been identified as blocking the upstream migration of spawning fish in some Alaskan rivers (Trihey 1982), field observations of entrance conditions at severa l side sloughs i r. the Talkeetna to Devil Canyon reach indicate that it is unlikely that velocity barriers will exist at these locations. Thus the ease with which adult salmon can enter the side s l oughs from the ma ins tem Susitna is primarily a function of dep th. De pth s of 0 .3 ft f or less than 10D ft in association with adjacent pools for holding (rest ing ) were used by Trihey (1982} for evaluating access by adult chum s al mo n to slough 9. On the basis of ADF&G field obser- vations the criteria suggested by Trihey appear reasonable, and are used as passag e criteria for slough access in this re port. 2 . METHODS Timing of upstream fish migration Numbers of adult salmon were counted daily at fishwheels located at three sites on the Susitna River: Susi tna Station (Rr~ 26) from July 1 to Se ptember 5, 1982, Sunshine Station (RM 80) from J une 4 to October 1, 1982 and Talkeetna camp (RM 103 ) from June 6 to September 18, 1982. These data were tabulated in Volume Two of the Basic Data Rep ort (ADF&G 1983). • • • • DRAFT/PAGE 9 6/10/83 APP1/App06 Daily surface water temperatures and daily discharges (USGS 1982a, b) were plotted against daily number of salmon captured in fishwheels . Susitna River discharge data were recorded daily at three USGS gaging stations (Susitna Station, RM 25.7; Sunshine Station, RM 83.9; Gold Creek, RM 136.7) located near fishwheels (Susitna Station, RM 26.0; Sunshine Station, RM 80.0; Talkeetna Station, RM 103). liischarge data for 1982 is provisional. Surface water temperatures were also recorded daily at three locations near the fishwheels: above the confluence of the Yentna River (RM 29.5), at the Parks Highway Bridge (RM 83.9) and at Talkeetna Camp (RM 103). These data were tabulated Volume 4, of the 1982 Basic Data Report (ADF&G 1983) . Timing of Movement into sloughs and tributaries To determine times of arrival of different salmon species into sloughs and tributaries. observers surveyed each slough or tributary approxi- mately once each week. In sloughs, numbers of each species were censused at each visit, whereas in tributaries, numbers of each species were counted only in a portion (index area) of each tributary. In 1981, foot surveys to count chum, sockeye, pink and coho salmon began in late July and ended in early October. .Surveys for chinook salmon were initiated in late July and terminated in mid August . Surveys for chinook salmon we r e performed by heli copter, fixed-wing aircraft, and in one instance, by foot. In 1982, surveys for all species were performed on foot , and began in mid July and ended in late October. A detailed DRAFT /PAGE 10 6/10/83 APP1 /A pp06 d'~cus s ion of methods is included in the 1981 and 1982 Basic Data Reports (AOF&G 1981, 1982). The 1982 data were compared with pro- visional discharge data from the Gold Creek gaging station (USGS 1982b). Access into sloughs D AF Access conditions at the mouth of ~ s lough are primarily determined by observations of fish, discharge i n the mainstem, discharge of the slough and slough channel geometry . Two approaches were used to evaluate access conditions for adult salmon into sloughs and are discussed below. Se lection of the appro ach was dependent upon the level of deta i led information available . The first approach was applied to sloughs SA, 9, 11 and 21. These were studied more intensively than other s loughs . In the fall of 1982, streambed profiles (thalweg) and water surface profiles were surveyed from the head of, to the mouth of. these sloughs. A section of this thalweg, both upstream and down stream of the slough mouth, was used as a basis for the analysis. In each case the critical passage reach (segment of slough where depth controls access) is located upstream from the slough mouth and the backwater control (streambed or water surface elevation in the river which controls depth in the passa ge reach) is located downstream from the slough mouth. Corresponding water surface elevations (WSEL) were determined from AOF&G and R&M staff gages near the mouth of the s lough s. Water surface elevations were matched with the average daily mainstem flow at the USGS Gold Creek gaging station D DRAFT /PAGE 11 6/10/83 APP1/App06 for the date of the readings. This provided a tabulation of WSEL versus mainstem discharge for each of the sloughs being investigated . This information was plotted for each of the four sloughs, and a piecewise l i near fit made through the data points. These graphs provide the basis for interpolati ng WSELS for unobserved mainstem flows . The WSELS deri ved from these graphs were compared to the streambed profiles near the mouths of the sloughs to d~termine what mainstem flows were neces - sary f or access. The second approach was applied to a study of s l oughs 22, 20 , 16B and Whiskers Creek Slough. Streambed and water surfJ ce profi l es were not available for these sloughs. Cross sections which had been located at the mouth, mi d-s 1 ough. and head of these s 1 oughs were utili zed instead. As with the sloughs for which streambed profiles were available, gage height observations from R&M and ADF&G staff gages at these cross sections were matched with corresponding mainstem discharges ~or the date of the observations. Field observations from ADF&G personnel were incorporate d to prese nt a more accurate evaluation of s l ough access at various discharges . 3. RESULTS Timing of upstream migration The upstream migration of salmon in the mainstem Susitna River in 1982 was characterized by temporal spacing between different species with periods of overlap (Figures B-2 to B-4). The dates when peak and median • ~ .. c ... • :II i 0 c w • :a ::t - ... ... II: • 000 ... ... - a . .. ::t .... X z u A: ~ .. ... c o .• o .., c • .., i • 0 :II ::t II: • o ' :1: 8 ... o., c .., Ill :1 ::t II: 0 I 6/1~ .. • , . ..._.~.,_, ... _*',.~ .. -·-·--.-.. (ft t ftOO' I 6 /lO u',, • ... ••• 0 ~ ... I • "' " .. c .•• i2 • ... I .. ~ • 1 0 .. ~ a -i • ; , a ..,..,_ - .;., ,)so figure B-2. Susitna River fishwheel catches for the five species of Pacific salmon at Susitna Station, RM 28 (ADF&G 1983}, Susitna River discharge at Susitna Station , #15294350 (USGS 1982b provisional data) and Susitna River surface water temperature above the confluence of t he Yentna River, RM 29 .o (ADF&G 1983). • - I tOO - ·-1000 - ·- 2 •- :;) X " 1000 u z ... o_ a: ... • 2 ::» z 0 o' X 0 u ... 0 a: ... • 2 ::» z 0 • • A " II l M I \ I \ I I I II II I I .• •. • I I ' •v 1 • 1 I I f 'i \ I I .. . • \ I I ,/I"' I \ .V ··t ,. r-· 1 \~ 1\-------_-!fl'L / \ \-. __ ~---P-,n-i---CIIu"' ,--\,..., ,. • • .'V\ I ' --'(""t.:f-l.o:-\----'--------------soc -.r• .-./"\! "'''-·-------·-·-·-·-·-C ll onoo• 6/1~ 6/)0 "'~ 7/ )0 "'' 1/)0 t/)0 DATE ·- Figure B-3. Susitna River fishwheel catches for the five species of Pacif c salmo n at Sun s hine Station, RM 80 (ADF&G 1983), Susitna River dischargP at Sunsh roe Station, #5292780 (USGS 1982b orovic:i':'"!~ ::~-.~ auu ~us1tna River sur ra c~ wat..:;· t:~;:.-~ ... :ature at the Parks Hlgnway Bridge, RM 83.9 (AOF&G 1983). • • ~tOO 0 ~ z u ... 0 10 II: .., • :II :;) 0 z ..... - - .... 1110 .... -0 :a: 0 2100 u ;:, ... :a: 0 -u fl "' ... w , ~ o •e ,.. ct. II: .., "' ... .., u ouo • z. 0 0 II: :II ., .., :;) ... 1 0 • z 0 0 z II: :;) ... z 0 • :II :;) 0 z 5130 ., . • . ,, I'\ 1 • II I fl f \I \ ,:·J 1(/\ I !·---...... ~r I I tX ('\ _ __;.......,. \I ' \ I ~ '"-J,• ..I • ,_.., ........ _.,,, ' ~...,-__ ,... ____ ~~ ----_\ ___ , ... __ ,_, ' -""""'-------Sock•J • __ _...., .. _,.,.,, ... ,;"'" .......... ~ ...... \ ............ ._.. .. -·--... Ch •nook \ \...A '---Pi n k 6/15 6/30 7/15 7/30 "'' 1/)0 ,,, ' DATE - t /)0 II 0 iii .. ~ .. ,. c: :: ~r:: ~ : ~ II § I ~ 10-0 i "0 !! • Fi gure B-4 . Susi t na Ri •1er f i s hwhe el catches for the five species of Pacific sa l mon at Talkeetna St a ti on , RM 103 (A DF&G 1983), Susi t na River d i scharge at Gold Creek , RM 136 .6 #1529200C (USGS 1982b prov i s i ona l data) and Susitna River s ur f ace water temperatures at Tal ke etna f i shwhee l, RM 103 .0 (ADF&G 1983). I DRAFT/PAGE 12 6/10/83 APP1/App06 numbers of each species migrated generally were distinct. Chinook salmon were the first species of salmon to immigrate into the Susitna system. Peak and median numbers of c hinook salmon were followed b ~· peak or median n•Jmbers of sockeye, pink, chum and coho salmon, in that order. As fish moved upstream past Susitna, Sunshine and Talkeetna Station, the number of migrating adults of each species peaked at successively later dates, with two exceptions. Numbers of coho and chum salmon recorded at the Susitna Station fishwheels (Figure B-2) pe1ked later than numbers recorded at the Talkeetna fishwhee ls (Figure 4). This discrepancy in timing suggests that many of the coho and chum salmon at Susitna Station actually migrated into the Chulitna and/or Talkeetna Rivers. In 1982 all salmon species migrated up the Susitna River when surface water temperatures ranged between 7 and 12°C (Figures B-2 to B-4). However there was no obvious relationship between timing of fish move- ments and changes in water temperature. Upstream movements of salmon in the Susitna River appear to be influ- enced by discharge. A major movement of sockeye salmon was sharply reduced o n July 26 by a peak discharge of 99,300 cfs recorded at Sun- shine Station (AOF&G 1983). Peak movements upstream seem to occur for all five species when discharge is not increasing (Figure B-5). I t appears that fish tend to move upstream when discharge is falling rather than stable. This pattern is best illustrated by the peaks in Figure .. • J SUSITNA STATION FISHWHEEL RM 28 8/15 8/SO FISH WHEEL 8/15 II/SO FI SH WHEEL " T/1$ 7/SO 7/15 7/SO DATE • 0 1schorof 8 /15 'J ~ -Oi l~ ~ ~ 8 /15 8 /lO 9/15 9/30 Coho Figure U-5. Periodicity of salmon fishwheel ca tches and Susitna River d ischa r ge, 1982. • I DRAFT/PAGE 13 6/10/83 APP1/App06 B-2 because of the large number of al l species of salmon captured at the Sunshine fishwheels. DR AFT Timing of movement into sloughs and tributaries The order in which salmon species migrated up the mainstem Susitna River in 1981 and 1982 (chinook, sockeye, pink, chum, and coho salmon, respec- tively) differed from the order (Figures B-6 and B-7) in which they entered sloughs and/or tributaries (chinook, pink, chum, sockeye and coho salmon, respectively). The difference occurred in the relative position of sockeye movements and is probably not of significance in terms of differences in access to spawning habitat. Although each species of salmon arrived a few days later in 1982. The median date of arrival for a species in sloughs and tributaries was similar in 1981 and 1982 (Figures B-6 and B-7). The largest difference in median arrival time between the two years was less than J"l days . This difference is relatively small in light of the large differences in mainstem discharges between years (Figures B-6 and B-7). The difference between times when median numbers of each fish species passed Talkeetna fishwheels and times where median numbers of each s pecies were observed in sloughs and/or tributaries differed between species. In 1982 median numbers of pink salmon were observed in sloughs and tributaries (Figure B-7) less than 10 days after they were observed at • SPECIES COHO CHUM PI NK SOCt<EYE CHIN()()( SITE S Tri butari es Sloughs Tri butaries Sloughs Tr ibutari es Sloughs Tri butaries Sloughs Tr l bulanu Sloughs ·.• o/V • lncld l n ll of I Oimon Ol l lltl / 10101 no. of s l it "''" • 198 1 :' :~;T;TI r ~,... ~·.~7P , .............. ·.~.,.)j , .............. . I .... , ..... I I I t---~--~ / \ .. \ .... .., ....... ..::..... .................. ----~ I IV • 28/6 7 ·······································~ o/V• 0/209 ~---·------[ij~~~---· ···-------~ . ----· .... -··-··v.on · ··-···i ~-------··----------- s ..... ••cr .... , ~ I· .......................... ···-·· ... ..... ·----~ o/V•23 /67 o/V• 70/209 o/V•17/67 o/V• 3 /209 oiV• 1/67 I /V • 49/209 1/V• 23/23 ~-------------------------·······----------·---------·---·--·-1 l/V>0 /67 • ,.... so § • Cl) ..... u 4 0 1&.1 Cl a: c( X u 30 Cl) 0 ~ 1&.1 1&.1 a: 20 u 10 0 ...J g L-------~~------------~------------~r--------------r----------------r---------------r----------------r--------------r---------------~~0 Figure B-6 . 6 /30 :0/IS ~/30 8/IS 8 /30 9 11 5 9/30 DA TE Periodicity of live s almon in Susitna River tributaries , RM 10i.O through 113.6, and s l oughs, RM 99.6 through 145.5 (ADF&G 1981), and Susitna Ri ver disch arge at Gold Cr eek #15292000 (USG S 1982a, provisional data) 1981 . SPECI E~ Tri butaries CO HO S louoll s Trlbutori• CHUM Slouohs Tri butories PI NK Slouohs Trabutones SOCKEYE Slouohs Tro butories CHI NOOK Slouohs 6/30 • 1982 ~------------------------------ ~ ------------ 1------------------------- StAfl:t ""''''"' 1-------·------~·------ o/V • lncode nll of tolmon o1 1i1"/ 10101 no of sol e vt~i ta 1/Va 38/153 ''"" 7/287 I IV• 38/153 ,, ". 74/287 o/V • 4 9/153 oiV•261287 II II• 11153 o/V • 451287 1------~l ~r'ifTI!JrrJ ~-------------------______ -----------4 o/V • Y:J/153 .,......s••••• '"''"'" ~------·----------------· -------------.. ------------------------~ ''"' 1/287 7/15 7/30 8115 8/30 9 /1 5 9/30 10/16 D A TE • 50 --§ 40 M en 1&.. (.) L&.l (!) 30 a: ct :J: (.) en 0 20 :.:: L&.l L&.l a: (.) 10 0 ...J 0 (!) 0 Figure B-7. Periodicity of live sa l mon in Susitna River tributaries, RM 101 .4 th rough 161.0, and s loughs, RM 99.6 through 144.3 (ADF&G 1983) and Susitna River discharge at Gold Cree K w152Y200G (USG~ 1982, provisional data) 1982. • • SITES : ............ . 1982 SPECIES o/V • lnco4tnl• o l oolmon ot '''"' totot no ol •••• ....... '0 1/V• l$/15) --~ o1V•7/287 § ~------------------------------- ~ ------------ 4 0 JC (I) 1/V • )8/153 LL u ~----------------------- o/ Y • 74/287 w (!) 30 a: ~ oiV• 4 9/153 :s: u tiV• 261287 (I) 0 20 ~ II Y• 11153 1.&.1 1.&.1 S•At'• lll'lc•••"' ~ -------------:::-::-. _____ _ a: oiV• 4 !1/287 u tO 0 ...J t--------ll~q TII ~fl-----------------------------------1 o/Y • 301153 0 (!) ,.,;S"'tl• fftC.I,t M ~------•------------------------------•• -· ---• •••• • -------------~ o/Y• 11287 ~--~-----~-------,--------.--------.------~--------~------~~~~~~0 7/IS 7/30 8/1!1 8 /30 9 /15 9/30 10/16 DATE Figure B-7. Periodicity of live salmon in Susitna River tributaries, RM 101.4 through 161.0, and s loughs, RM 99 .6 through 144.3 (A OF&G 198J) and Susitna River discharge at Gold CreeK w 15 2~20 00 (USG~ 1982, provisio nal data) 1982. • DRAFT/PAGE 14 6/10/83 APP1 /App06 Talkeetna f ishw heels (Figure B-4). However, t his time differe nce was approximately two wee ks for c hum salmon and a month or more for chinook, sock eye and co ho salmon. Reasons for these differences may be rela ted to variations in lengths of time that each species mill or hold near t he mouth of tributaries or s l ough s . Access R T Slough 8A The s treambed and water su rfa ce profiles that define entrance conditions for Slough 8A on October 14, 1982 are presented in Figure B-8. The main stem di scharge at Gold Creek was 7860 cfs and flow in Slough 8A wa s appro ximately 7 cfs . Depth of flow wa s rep eatedly measured ~rom 0.2 to D.4 f t in the deepest portions (thalweg) of the riffle areas. A large backwater pool which is generally present during summer months at the entrance t o Slough 8A was notably reduced i n s ize . Gage height readings at the mouth of Slough 8A {gage #125.2Wl) and water surface elevations for two independent cross section s urveys at the mouth Jf Sloug h 8A (AOF&G 1982, R&M 1982 ) were used to define the relationship between mainstem discharge and the water surface elevati on at the mouth of Slough 8A {Figure B-8}. This relationship and the surveyed streambed profile for Slough 8A w ~re the princi pal physical data used to evaluate access conditions. Water surface profi l es were determined f or a slough flow of approximately 7 cfs and various level s of mainstem discharge (Figure 8-8}. Entrance or passage conditions were • --CD 5 CD - .. - • SLOUGH SA __ !~h~~~~3~,~~~-------------------------------------- --!~h~~~~J~~~~------------------~------------------~~h~!~~2~~~~--------------------------------- --~~!.'.!1:1~.!1...2~~·--------------------------- PASSAGE REACH B PASSAGE REACH A Moinstem Ftow(efs) 7,860 12./)00 Depth I ftl 0 .25 0.50 o•oo Reach Lenlj!lh (ft) I I 3 0 5i'OO THALWEG STATION (feet) Moi nstem Flow (efs) 10•00 7,860 112,000 116,000 Depth Iff l 0 .25 0 .25 I 25 15•00 Reach L enQih( f t) 80 eo 0 • Figu re B-8. Thalweg profile and water surface elevations in the lower reach of Slough BA at various mainstem discharges. Passage reaches are those segme nts of the channel where water depth restricts access of adult salmon into the slough. ; • • DRAFT /PAGE 15 6/10/S3 APP1/App06 derived from field observations and interpretations of the data presented in Figure B-S. Passage problems are not anticipated for returning adult salmon in Slough SA when mainstem discharge at Gold Creek equals or exceeds 12,000 cfs. When mainstem flows are less than 12,000 cfs access by adult salmon into Slough SA is probably dependent upon base slough flow. Insufficient data are ava ilable at this time to indicate whether or not midsummer base slough flows are suffici ent to provide access into Slough SA when mainstem discharges are less than 12,000 cfs (Table B-1). Table B-1 . Flow measurements obtained in Slough SA during unbreached conditions • Date 06/25/S2 07/21/Sl 09/30/S1 OS/22/S2* 09/07/82* 09/19/S2* Slough SA Discharge (cfs) 6.36 551.00 2.76 3.S4 6 .21 22.2S Mainstem Di:.:icharge (cfs) Gold Creek 17,100 40,SOO N/A 13,600 11,700 24,100 * 1982 slough discharges are averages of several transect measurements. However, it is thought that precipitation events and the resulting local runoff will increase slough flow to about 30 to 40 cfs and mainstem flow by 2,000 to 3,000 cfs (Trihey 19S3~). Under these natural summer flow conditions passage into Slough SA would probably no t be restric ~ed. • • , • Slough 9 DRAFT /PAG E 16 6/10/83 APP1 /App06 Streambed and water surface profiles surveyed on August 24, 1982 are illustrated in Figure B-9. The mainstem discharge at Gold Creek was 12 ,500 cfs and flow in Slough 9 was 3 cfs . The representative depth associated with this flow condition was 0.4 ft for pas sage reach A and 0.2 ft for passage reach B on the date of survey. A small pool existed upstream from passage reach A nearly 2 .0 feet at the s 1 ough mouth. from changes in streambed elevation rather than from mainstem backwater effects. Staff gages (gage #129.2W1A and gage #129.2W1B) were installed in passage reach A and numerous gage height readings were recorded throughout the open water field season. The staff gage was installed in the deepes t water available within the reach to ensure that it would not dewater before the passage reach. These data were used to define the relationship between mainstem discharge and the water surface elevation at the mouth of Slough 9 (Figure B-9). This relationship and the surveyed streambed profile provided the basic infonnation to evaluate tht: physical aspects of access to Slough 9 by spawning salmon. Wate r surface profiles were extended up into the slough for various levels of mainstem flow and a slough flow of 3 cfs (Figure B-9). Access into Slough 9 by adult salmon was detennined on the basis of the depth of flow, the length of passage reach B, and observations of fish passage • • 594 593 --• • 592 --z 2 591 ~ ~ 590 ...J "' "' 589 ;:) a:: ... 588 587 • • • WS[L • 111 4 .1 MolnlleM ll2,!100 c h -----------------------------------------------------AOf ao Goon •121.2 WIA oU ·" WI I WI[L• 1110.00 Meleete • It 800o fe SIOY Ob :Se ll Re«~A Gtodllftl •0002 11/ft PASSAGE REACH A Motnatem Flow (eta) Depth ( ft I 12 ,1100 16,000 11,000 22,1100 0.110 1.311 I. 711 2 .70 Rea c h Length ( ft) 0 +0 0 5+00 THALWEG STATION (feet) -.;ASSAG E REA CH B -= Ma instem Flo w(ch) 12,1100 16,000 111,000 22,1100 Depth (tt I 0.20 0 40 0.4 0 O liO 10+00 Reach Length(ll) 241 14 3 143 10 Figure B-9. Thalweg profi le and water surface elevations i n the mo uth of Slough 9 at various mainstem disc har ges of the Susitna River at Go ld Creek. Passage reache s are those segme nts of the channel where wate r depth restricts access of adult sa l mon int0 the slo ugh. • • DRAFT /PAGE 17 6/10/83 APP1/App06 Upstream passage into Slough 9 by adult salmon does not appear to be restricted wh en mainstem flows are 18,000 cfs or higher. Upstrearr access becomes increasingly more difficult for salmon as mains t e n1 discharges decrease and become acutP at mainstem streamfl ows of 12,001) cfs and l ess . f It is thought that precipitation events and the resulting local runof f will increase slough flow to about 10 to 15 cfs and mainstem flow hy 2,000 to 3,000 cfs (Trihey 1983). Under these natural sunmer fl 'M conditions passage into Slough 9 would probably not be restr icted. Slough 11 Streambed and water surface profiles at Sl r . 17, 1982 (Figure B-10). The main stem disci cfs while flow in Slough 11 was approx1mat~ 1 were surveyed Octoter ~ Gold Cre ek was 6,660 .::fs. A depth of 0.5 f eet was mea s ured at several locations along the thalweg upstream of the backwater area under these flow conditions. The backwater zone at the downstream entrance to Slough 11 was about ten feet wi de at the mouth (Station 0+00) and extended approximately 175 ft into the slougn . Mid-s unmer observations indicate this backwater zone is generally 50 1:0 50 feet wide at the mouth and e xtends more than 500 ft into the slou ~·h (AOF&G 1983, Volume 3). A staff gage was installed at the mouth of S l oug h 11 (gage i 135.3wl) anti in the side channel approximately 250 ft downstream from the mouth of the slough (gage 1135.3M4A). Repetitive r eading of these gages -• ~ z 0 .... c( > I&J ~ I&J I&J :) a:: .... • • • 6 66 !!68 661 . ----... ----- 666- 662 661 ~·oo THALWEG STATION (feet) PASSAGE REACH Moonsltm Flowlclsl 6,660 12,000 16,000 0 4 0 4 0 ~ R 110c1> Le n glll lfl) 10100 ,,, n • e Figure B-10. Thalweg profile and water surface elevations in the lower reach of Slough 11 at various mainstem discharges. Passage reaches are those segments of the chan nel where water depths restricts access of adult salmon into the s lough . • • DRAFT /PAGE 18 6/10/83 APP1/App06 throughout the 1982 open water field season provided the data used to define the relationships between mainstem discharge and the water surface elevatiJn at the entrance to Slough 11 (Figure B-10). These relationships combined with observations o f salmon, and the surveyed streambed profile are the criteria used to evaluate access conditions for adult salmon. ' I I When mainstem flow is 7,000 cfs or greater adequate depths for passage exist throughout the lower reach of Slough 11. In part this is attri- butable to the slough flow in the lower reach of Slough 11 being confined to a very narrow channel. Thus the naturally occurring flow from Slough 11 appears adequate to provide for fish passage provided the existing channel geometry of the slough is maintained . Slough 21 The streambed and water surface profi i e for Slough 21 (Figure B-11) was surveyed October 14, 1982. The mainstem discharge on the date of the survey was 16,000 cfs with the flow in Slough 21 being less than 5 cfs. Depth of flow was less than 0.2 ft throughout ITlJCh of a 200 ft reach between stat ions 5+50 and 7+50. These shallow depths were also observed throughout much of the 1982 spawning period (mid-August to mid- September) when mainstem flows were less than 22,500 cfs. A fairly l arge pool occurred at the mouth of Slough 21 due to the nature of the channel geometry in which most of the observed zpawning occurred. • 7 51 748 • ! 747 1- ~ > w ..J w w ~ Q: 1-~3 1142 741 .,. --------- -o•oo • • --------- ------------------~w~s~E~L~•17~4!6l2l7llllj~~3~2~.ooo~c~l~'------------; A OF' ao Go9• 14 2.0S7 Elewo tiO<u 74 3.05 I 1 O•OO THALWEG STATION (f eet) , .. ..-" , .. , .. 16,000 22,500 32,000 ,, ,, ... ,' , ... ' ,, PASSAGE REACH • Oepll'l 1111 Reacl'l Lenqll'lllll 10'00 003 023 I 75 1 2 0 50 0 Figure B-11 . Thalweg prof ile and water s urface elevations in the lower reach of Slough 21 at various mainstem discharge s . Passage reache s are those segments of the channel where water depth restricts access of adult salmon into the s lough . • • .. • DRAFT/PAGE 19 6/10/83 APP1/App06 Staff gage (gage #142.0W5) was installed at the mouth of Slough 21 with two additional gages (gages Nl42.0S7 and #142.0S6 ) installed appro x- imately 500 feet upstream and downstream of the slough mouth, respectively. Periodic observations of water surface elevations at these three staff gages provided the data base used to define the relationship between mainstem discharge and water surface eleva.lt ions near the mouth of Slough 21 (Figure B-11). Observations of salmon, this relationship and the surveyed str P.ambed profile were used as the principal indicators of access conditi~ns at the mouth of Slough 21 . Water surface profiles were developed using the three staff gages for selected mainstem disc harges between 16,000 and 32,000 cfs . Access into this slough by sal ~on is apparently limited or restricted until mainstem flows exceed 22,500 cfs and breach the up s tream end of Slough 21. This breaching flow has been defined at 23 ,000 cfs (AOF&G 1983). Other Slough s Access to Whiskers Creek Slough and sloughs 6A, 168, 20 and 22 was evaluated using cross sections and staff gage data . Streambed and water surface profiles were not surveyed at these locations. Based on fiel d observations during the low flow period H was noted that the cross sections, which were established during a period of high flow, did not necessarily represent the most critical access conditions . Therefore the results from the direct comparison be tween mainstem discharge and I • ' DRAFT /PAGE 20 6/10/83 APP1/App06 depth at the mouths of these sloughs were adjusted by incorporating the professional judgement of field biologists familiar with these sites. The results of the effects of mainstem discharge on access to thr nine sloughs evaluated are summarized in Table B-2. The most significant finding of this assessment is the trend toward lower mainstem flow requirements for access by salmon into sloughs in a downstream direction from Devil Canyon toward Talkeetna. This analysis was substantiateo during helicopter flights. It appeared that access problems did not exist downstream of River Mile 140 (Slough 20} for mainstem flows of 20,000 cfs whereas. access conditions were questionable or absent upstream of RM 140 at this flow (sloughs 20, 21. 22 and 2 1A} (Trihey 1983 }. 4. DISCUSSION Fish passage in the Susitna River can be partitioned into three phases , e ach defined by district hydraulic conditions. In the first phase, adult salmon r e turn to the Susitna River where passage conditions are primarily determi ned by the hydraulic conditions present in the mainstem river. The salmon progress upstream to their natal spawning areas in sloughs and tributaries, eventually reaching the mouth regions of these habitats. In their second phase they enter a bydraul ic zor;e at the mouths of sloughs and tributaries defined by either slough and mainstem conditions tributary and mainstem. In this phase of their migration they often mill for various periods of time before entering into their natal habitat within the s lough or tributary . In the third phase of • Table B-2. Slough 22b,c DRAFT/PAGE 26 6/10/83 APP1/App06 Access conditions at mouths of selected sloughs of the Talkeetna to Devil Canyon reach of the Susitna River at various mainstem Susitna discharges (USGS Gold Creek gage 1!15;::92000). Percent of Susitna River escapement past Talkeetna utilizino each slou~h Access Condition Sockeye Pink Chum oho Acute Difficult No Problem 16,000 20 ,000 22,500 ,_ 21a 9 13 33 20,000 22,000 25,000 1'-·''!,.;il. 20b,c 13 8,480 12,500 21,500 16Bb,c 20,200 24,000 26 ,400 15 26 lla 75 26 21 \) \\ "ti 12,200 16,000 9A 5 9a 13 12,000 16,000 18,000 BAa 11 15 7,860 10,000 16,000 6Ab,c 7 8,440 B 6 Whiskersb,c 28 7,950 8 ,440 23,000 Creek aDet~rm i ned from surveyed tha l wegs and staff gage readings . bEstimated from cross sections, ~t aff gage read i ngs and field obse r - vations. cNo problem was considered when the entire slough could be utilized • • • DRAFT /PAGE 21 6/10/83 APP1/App06 their migration fish c-scend above the influence of the mainstem river water into upper slough or tributary reaches where hydraulic conditions are primarily a function of the slough base flow and channel geomet 1·y, or tributary flows. ~~AFT In this report we have focused on the sl ,Jugh habitat and the second phase of the upstream migration of salmon in the Susitna River; when salmon enter the mouth region of sloughs. The first phase of migration in the mainstem river has been limited to consideration of timing of upstream move:11ents of fish relative to mainstem discharge and temperature . Consideration of a third phase of the salmon migration, when fish ascend above the influence of the mainstem river, has been 1 imited to observations between distributions of spawning fish between 1981 and 1982 when slough base flows were significantly different, and observations of fish distributions before and after a high water event when slough heads were breached. Mainstem River In general there is a temporal separation in the timing of migration f or different salmon species migrating in the mainstem Susitna River. This pattern is consistent at each of the AOF&G sampling stations in the mainstem (Figure B-5) with chinook salmon migrating first, followed by sockeye, pink, chum and coho salmon respectively. The order of species migration in the mainstem differed slightly with the order in which fish entered sloughs and tri butaries (Figures B-7 and B-8). Reasons for this difference in order are presently unknown. DRAFT /PAGE 22 6/10/83 APP1 /App06 Passage of adult salmon did not appedr to be influenced by temperatures from 7 to 12 °C measured in the Susitna River in 1981 and 1982. They were in the lower range of temperatures reported by Bell (1973) for species in other areas of North America : fall chinook salmon (10.6 - 19.4°C), chum salmon (8.3 -15.6°C), coho salmon (7 .2 -15.6°C). pink salmon (7 .2 -15.6°C) and sockeye salmon (7 .2 -15 .6°C). However it shou ld be not£!d that abrupt changes from the normal temperature pattern could alter the timing of migration and adversely affect survival (Reiser and Bjornn 19 79). AFT In contrast to temperature, variations of mainstem discharge and cor r esponding velocities influenced upstream movements of several salmon species, whereas reductions i n discharge corresponded with increased numbers of fish being caught at fishwheels (Figures B-2 and B-4). Presumably, avoidance of migration at high discharges (water velocities) results in a reduction of energy cost to fish. Hynes (1970} and others have also discussed the relationship between discharge and fish migration. Mouth of Sloughs Although discharges in the mainstem Susitna River were d ifferent between 1981 and 1982, the time at which each species arrived at the slough s each year were similar (Figures B-6 and B-7). The largest difference in median arrival time for any species was less than 10 days . Thus, it appears that fish may arrive at s lough mouths at a uniform time every year, but many not be able t o access areas within each slough due to • • DRAFT/PAGE 23 6/10/83 APP1/App06 variable difficulties in access condHions as evidenced in 1981 and 1982. Difficulties in access condHions seem to follow a general downstream pattern from Devil Canyon to Talkeetna. In general lower mainstem flows are required to maintain suitable access conditions for salmon into sloughs (Table 8··2) in a downstream direct i on than are required in the vicinity of Devil Canyon and a flow of 20,000 cfs will support the ~ccess of salmon into most sloughs. DRAfT Discharges of the mainstem Susitna River also influence the ability of salmon to access habitats within the slough after having entered the slough. Observations during 1982 suggest that if the timing of a peak mainstem flow (resulting in temporary breaching of sloughs 8A, 9. and 21) more closely coincided with peak numbers of live spawners, access to upper reaches of sloughs would have undoubtedly been facilitated. As it were many fish were restricted to lower quality spawning habitat in the lower reaches of the sloughs. Such an event, if properly timed would probably reduce many access probl ems near the mouth (e.g., Slough 9) . • LITERATURE CITED DRAFT /PAGE 24 6/10/83 APP1 /App06 Acres American, Inc. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project : FERC license application. Exhibit E. Volume 1, Chapter 2 (Draft Report). Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Alaska Department of ~ommerce and Economic Development, Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fi s h and Game (AOF&G). 1980. Annual management report: Kuskokwim area. Commercial Fisheries Oiv. Juneau, AK. 1981. Adult An~romous ~stJf.ries Project . Phase I. Final Draft. Sub't:ssk 7 .la-. eA.~ fir Acres American, Incorporated, by the Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Anchorage, AK. 1982. Phase I Final Draft Report. Su btask 7.10. Prepared for Acres American, Incorporated, by the Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Anchorage, AK. 1983. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Phase II Basic Data Report . Prepared for Acres American Inc. by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Su Hydro Studies team. Anchorage, Alaska . Bell, M.C. 1973. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biologic;al criteria: useful factors in life histr.ry of most coiTITlon species. Unpubl. report . Submitted to Fish. f.ng . Re s. Program, U.S. Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Oiv. Portland, OR • • • • DRAFT/PAGE 25 6/10/83 APP1/App06 Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. Ecology of Running Waters. Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. Mattson, C.R. and R.A. Hobart. 1962 . Chum salmon studies in southea s t- ern Alaska, 1961. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Ser~ice, Bureau of Commer- c i al Fisheries Manuscript Report 62-5. Auke Bay, AK. 32 pp. R&M. 1982. Provisional data from R&M Consultants, Inc. Reiser, O.W. and T.C. Bjornn.[)1~~IJ;1Jbnces of forest and rangeland management on anadromous fish habi t at in western North America: habitat requirements of anadromous sa 1monids. U.S. Forest Service Anadromous Fish Habitat Program, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station Gen . Tech. Report PNW-96. U.S . Dept. of Agriculture. Portland, OR. 54 pp. Trihey, E.W . 1982. Preli ~inary assessment of access by spawning salmon to side s lou gh habitat above Talkeetna. Draft Report . Prepared for Acres American, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. 1983 Personal communication. U.S . Geological Survey (USGS). 1982a . Summary of water resources for Alaska. 1981 . AK-81-1. Anchorage, AK. 1982b . Provisional su~ J of 1982 water r esources for Alaska . • -~ • • • ·. APPENDIX C AH DRAFT I PAGE 1 6/10/83 APP1/Appendix C DRA fT Observations of Salmon Spawning Habitat in Susitna River Sloughs Located Within the Talkeetna to Devil Canyon Reach of t he Susitna River • • • APPENDIX C AH DRAFT/PAGE 2 6/10/83 APP1/Appendix C LIST OF TABLES PAGE ~ble C-1. Number of observations of salmon in Susitna River sloughs during 1981 •.•.•..•••..••••••.•••••• Table C-2. Number of observations of salmon in Susitna River sloughs during 1982 .•..•.•••.••.•...••..•••. Table C-3. Number of observations of salmon in Susitna River tributaries during 1981 ............•.•.•.•.• Table C-4. Number of observations of salmon in Susitna River tributa ies durin~ 1982 •••••••••.•••••••...• Table C-5. Abundance of adult salmon in the Susitna River sloughs during peak observations in 1982 .....................................•..... Table C-6. Comparison of upwelling, substrate and distribution of s pawning salmon among some Susitna River sloughs ..•••••••..•.••••••..•.•••••. nRAFT • • • INTRODUCTION AH DRAFT/PAG C J 6/10/83 APP1/AppendiJC C This appe ndix addresses general habitat utilization in slough habitats once ac cess is ga i ned through the mouth of the slough. One of the major effects of the proposed hydroelectric project would be the change in flow regime. The slough habitats would be af~~ ~ rr changes to a much greater extent than the tributaries. lJ r\ ll In order to maximize use of finite resources, fish species have adapted to a variety of habitat conditions. In this way a species lessens competition for a scarce resource, such as food or spawn ing habitat , by selec ~ing a particular range of acceptable condit i ons • Adult salmon usually return to their natal waters to spawn {Hasler 1966). Access into these natal areas is the first critical obstacle to overcome and access depends on mainstem discharge, as is discussed in Appendix B. O~ce the adult salmon have gained access into sloughs and tributaries there are several environmental variables that determine their selection of spawning habitat. Spawning habitat is a limited resource for all salmon species in the Susitna River between Talkeetna and Devil Canyon. Only a few salmon, pri rna ri ly chum sa 1 mon, spawn i n the rna f ns tern or side channP.l s. The primary spawni ng habitat for all five species of salmon are tributaries and side sloughs • • • • AH DRAFT/PAGE 4 6/10/83 APP1/Appendix C The habitat variables of substrate composition and areas of upwelling ground ~ater, in a wide range of sloughs were evaluated with respect to their importance to the spawning preferences of the five salmon species. METHODS )~Afl Distribution and abundance of adult salmon in 33 sloughs and 20 tribu- taries of the Susitna River between the Chulitna River and upper Devil Canyon were determined in 1981 and/or 1982. Survey methods and data are presented, in the Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies FY82 and FY83 Basic Data Reports (AOF&G 198la, 1983b). Procedures are further detailed in the 1981 and 1982 Procedures Manuals (ADF&G 1981b, 1983a). Peak numbers of live salmon in a slough were assumed to indicate the relative importance of a slough for spawning salmon. Fourteen of these sloughs were evaluated during the open-water season for upwelling and seepage areas, substrate composition, and salmon spawning activity. During the ice-covered months, sloughs were observed for open 1 eads in the ice cover. These open 1 eads were used as an indicator of upwelling ground water or other warm water sources. During the open water season upwelling was detected by vents with ascending water currents in the substrate. Although these areas were easily visible in silt and sand substra ~ types they were difficult to detect visually in slough substrates with little or no sand or silt. Thus, the presence and extent of upwelling was difficult to quantify. Sloughs sampled included: Whiskers c.~eek Slough, Slough 6A, Lane Creek Slough (Slough 8), and sloughs SA, 9, 98, 9A, 10, 11, 168, 19, 20, 21 and 22. • • • - AH DRAFT/PAGE 5 6/10/83 APP1/Appendix C Observations during the ope n-water season were recorded and mapped during foot surveys along the sloughs. Observations were recorded on blue line aerial photographs of a scale 1" = 50'. These aerial photo- graphs were taken during a medium-low water level (20,000 cfs at Gold Creek) on May 31, 1982 . During the ice-covered'1 eqo4~ l eads were photographed and mapped from an altitude of 600 feet during two helicop- ter flights on November 18, 1982, and February 23, 1983. From the air it was difficult to determine differences between open leads and areas covered with clear ice unless a recent snow or wind left a layer of snow on the ice. Maps of open leads are included in Volume 4 of the Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies FY 83 Basic Data Report (ADF&G 1983b). During the open water season presence and extent of upwelling/seepage areas were rated on a scale of 0 to 3. A slough with no observed upwelling/seepage was assigned a value of 0. A slough where upwelling/seepage was infrequently observed was assigned a value of 1. A s lough with several localized areas of strong upwelling/seepage or numerous areas of weak upwelling/seepage was assigned a value of 2. A slough with numerous areas of strong upwelling/seepage was assigned a value of 3. Surface areas of substrate types during the open water season and open leads during the ice covered season were computed directly f rom the scaled blue line ma ps using a Numonics Digitizer. Surface areas of open leads and substrate types are expressed as percentage of total wetted surface area in the slough . ~. • AH DRAFT/PAGE 6 6/10/83 APP1/Appendix C Access conditions were de termined by observations of salmon moving into sloughs from the mainstem or by distribution of salmon within sloughs, or at slough mouths. RESULTS The distribution and abundance of adult salmon differed be t ween each slough, and tributary location. They also varied between yea rs (1981 and 1982) for each location. Chinook salmon spawned ex c lus i vely in tributaries where~s sockeye salmon spawned only in sl oughs (Tables C-1 to C-4). Chum, pink, and coho salmon spawned in both habitats. Abundance of live salmon in tributaries is not comparable to abundance in the sloughs because entire tributaries were not surveyed. Relatively few sloughs contained large numbers of spawning salmon (Table C-5). Only sloughs SA, 9, 9A, 11, 15, and 21 contained more tha n 100 salmon of a given species (ADF&G 1983b, Vol. 2). Table C-6 sunmarizes the habitat variables of the sloughs studied. Field observations of open leads and areas of upwelling/seepage indicated that open leads occur immediately downstream from the point of upwelling/seepage. Correlations between these two characteristics were noted at Lane Creek Slough, and sloughs 9, 9A, 11, 21, and 22. Several sloughs had many open leads yet little or no observed upwelling or seepage. In most of these instances open lead were due to presence of a nearby tributary or other source of moving water. This occurred at • • - DRAFT/PAGE 1 6/10/83 APPTA8 /C-1 Appendi x Table C-1 Number of observations of salmon in Susitna Rive r sloughs in the Talkeetna to Devil Canyon reach during 1981 (adapted from ADF&G 1981b). Total Number of visits live salmon River # of were observed in sloughs Sampling Slough Mile visits chinook Sockeye Pink chum Coho Period 1 99.6 6 0 0 1 8/21 -10/2 2 100.2 7 0 0 3 8/2 -10/2 38 101.4 8 2 0 0 8/5 -10/2 3A 101.9 8 4 1 0 8/4 -10/2 4 105.2 8 0 0 0 8/4 -10/2 5 107.2 5 0 0 0 8/7 -9/22 6 108.2 5 0 0 0 8/2 -9/22 6A 112.3 4 2 0 ~ 8/19 -9/22 7 113.2 3 g" ll~~ f~ 8/7 -8/29 8 113.7 7 8/7 -9/28 8D 121.8 4 8/1 -8/27 8C 121.9 4 0 0 0 8/1 -8/27 88 122.2 4 0 0 1 8/1 -8/27 Moose 123.5 5 0 0 5 8/27 -9/27 A' 124 .6 4 0 0 4 8/27 -9/21 A 124.7 7 0 1 4 8/7 -9/24 8A 125.1 7 4 0 4 8/7 -9/27 9 128 .3 8 3 0 4 8/7 -9/27 98 129.2 7 7 0 6 8/11 -9/27 9A 133 .3 8 3 0 5 7/31 -9/27 10 133 .8 5 0 0 0 7/31 -9/20 11 135.3 10 8 0 7 7/31 -9/26 12 135 .4 7 8 0 0 7/31 -9/26 13 135 .7 8 0 0 2 7/31 -9/26 14 135.9 7 0 0 0 7/31 -9/26 15 137.2 7 0 0 1 7/31 -9/19 168 137 .3 7 0 0 0 8/6 -9/26 17 138.S 8 4 0 7 8/6 -9/26 18 139.1 5 0 0 0 8/6 -9/3 19 139.7 8 6 0 1 8/6 -9/26 20 140.0 7 1 0 2 8/6 -9/19 21 141.1 8 5 0 4 8/6 -9/26 21A 144.3 3 0 0 3 8/26 -9/11 TOTAL 209 49 3 70 • • I .. - DRAFT /PAGE 1 6/10/83 APPTA8/C-2 Appendix Table C-2 Number of observations of salmon in Susitna River sloughs in the Talkeetna to Devil Canyon reach during 1982 (adapted from ADF&G 1983b, Vol. 2). Total Number of visits live salmon River # of were observed in sloughs Sampling Slough Mile visits chinook Sockeye Pink chum coho Period 1 99,6 6 0 (' 0 0 0 8/8 -9/29 2 100.2 6 0 0 0 0 0 8/8 -9/29 38 101.4 7 0 0 0 0 0 8/8 -9/29 3A 101.9 6 0 0 0 0 0 8/8 -9/21 4 105.2 7 0 0 0 0 0 8/13 -9/29 5 107.2 7 0 0 0 ~ 0 8/7 -9/21 6 108 .2 6 0 0-"' no~ fo 0 8/13 -9/21 6A 112.3 9 0 0 1 t 2 2 8/7 -9/27 7 113.2 8 0 0 0 0 0 8/8 -9/27 8 113.7 10 0 0 0 0 0 7/28 -9/21 80 121.8 8 0 0 0 1 0 8/6 -9/25 ac 121.9 7 0 2 0 3 0 8/6 -9/25 88 122.2 10 oa 4 0 6 0 8/6 -9/25 Moose 123.5 8 ~ 2 .. 0 8/6 -9/25 1 I A• 124.6 9 0 0 0 0 0 7/29 -9/19 A 124.7 9 0 0 0 0 0 7/29 -9/19 SA 125 .1 10 0 9 3 10 3 8/6 -10/2 B 126.3 9 0 4 2 6 0 8/12 -10/2 9 128.3 8 0 4 3 6 0 8/6 -9/25 98 129.2 3 0 1 0 1 0 8/6 -9/25 9A 133 .3 11 0 1 0 3 0 8/6 -10/1 10 133.8 9 0 0 0 2 0 8/6 -9/25 11 135.3 12 0 11 4 10 0 8/2 -10/5 12 135.4 10 0 0 0 0 0 8/2 -9/25 13 135.7 10 0 0 0 0 0 8/6 -9/25 14 135.9 10 0 0 0 0 0 8/6 -9/25 15 137.2 9 0 0 3 1 2 8/4 -9/25 168 137.3 9 0 0 0 0 0 8/4 -9/25 17 138 .9 10 0 0 0 3 0 8/4 -9/30 18 139 .1 10 0 0 0 0 0 8/4 -9/30 19 !39.7 10 0 0 1 0 0 8/4 -9/30 20 140.0 10 0 0 4 4 0 8/4 -9/30 21 141.1 10 0 7 3 8 0 8/4 -9/30 21A 144.3 4 0 0 0 0 0 8/4 -9/23 TOTAL 287 1 45 26 74 7 aSingle chinook salmon observed in Moose Slough. • • • DRAFT /PAGE 1 6/10/83 APPTAB/C-3 Appendix Table C-3 Number of observations of salmon in Sus i tna River tributaries in the Talkeetna to Devil Canyon reach, 1981 (adapted from AOF&G 1981a). Total Number of visits live salmon River I of were observed in sloughs Sampling Tributary Mile visits chinook sockeye Pink chum Coho Period Whiskers Creek 101.4 8 0 0 0 7 8/5 -10/2 Chase Creek 106.9 9 0 2 1 7 8/4 -10 /2 Gash Creek 111.6 2 0 0 0 2 9/23 -9/28 Lane Creek 113.6 7 0 3 6 2 8/19 -9/28 L. Mckenzie T}n t f1 Creek 116.2 6 4 8/23 -9/28 .. McKenzie Creek 116.7 2 0 0 0 0 8/11 -8/23 Oeadhorse 120 .9 2 0 0 0 0 8/11 -9/25 5th of Ju l y 123 .7 1 0 1 0 0 8/11 Sku ll Creek 124.7 3 0 2 1 0 8/20 -9/19 Sherman Creek 130.8 6 0 3 4 0 7/31 -9/25 4th of July Creek 131.0 6 0 4 4 2 7/31 -9/25 Gold Creek 136.7 1 0 0 0 0 8/25 Indian River 138.6 8 0 1 5 3 8/6 -9/26 Jack Long Creek 144.5 3 0 1 0 0 8/21 -9/24 Portage Creek 148.9 3 0 0 0 1 8/21 -9/24 TOTAL 67 1 17 23 28 • • • CllAFT/PAGE 6/10/83 APPTAS/C-4 Appen oh Table C-4 Hudler of observations of s1l1110n ir Susltna River Tr ibutaries in t he Talkeetna to Devil Canyon reach, 1982 . Total N~er of visits live s1l1110n Tribu tlry P.ive r 1 of were observed i n Sloughs Hile visits Chinook Sockeye Plnk ChUII Coho SaqJling Period Whisker'S Creek 101.4 6 0 c 4 c 5 8/8 -9/24 Chase Creek 106.9 8 0 4 0 3 P./8 -9/27 L. Gash 111.2 0 0 0 0 9/21 Creek Guh C r~!ek 111.6 7 0 0 0 0 3 8/1 -10/2 Lane Creek 113 .6 11 4 0 5 ~ 11! 1li ,,,, -,,,, L. Mckenzie 116 .2 10 0 0 1'2 , 817 -10/2 (r"eek Mcke11Z 1e Cr' 116.7 10 0 0 0 0 817 -10/2 L . Port1ge 117 .7 10 0 0 4 3 3 8 /7 -10/2 Creek 5th of July Creek 123.7 8 0 4 0 8 /6 -9/20 Stull Creek 124.7 8 0 0 3 0 8/6 -9/19 SherNn Cr 130.8 8 0 J 0 0 8/6 -10/1 4 t h of J uly 131.0 11 3 0 4 g 3 8/28 -10/1 ctoltl Creek 136.7 5 (I 2 0 8/3 -8/30 Indian River 138 .E 13 6 0 6 9 7 7/21 -~/30 J•ck Long Creek 1•t.S 9 2 0 3 8/4 -9/30 Port1ge Cr 148.9 12 4 4 6 3 7/21 -9130 Cheech1to Creek 152.5 8 4 0 0 c G 8 /5 -9/24 Chinook Cr 156 .8 4 3 0 0 0 0 8 /6 -8/'12 Devil .:r 161.4 4 0 0 -0 0 _Q 8 /6 -8/22 TOTAL 153 30 49 38 38 • • • DRAFT /PAGE 1 6/10/83 APPTA8/C-5 Appendix Table C-5 Abundance of adult sa lmon in the Susitna River sloughs during peak observations in 1982. Highs (H) 100, Medium (M) 50-100, Low (L) 50, none observed (-). River Slough Mile Chinook Sockeye Pink Chum Coho 1-4 99.6-105.2 5 107.2 L 6 108.2 6A 112.3 L L L 7 113.2 8 113.7 80 121.8 L 8C 121.9 L -L 88 122 .2 La RtAFT M t:tYose 123.5 L L A 124.6 A 124.7 SA 125.1 M L H L 8 126.3 l l L 9 128.3 L l H 98 129.2 l L 9A 133.3 l H 10 133.8 L 11 135.3 H H H 12 135.4 13 135.7 14 135.9 15 137.2 H L l 168 137.3 17 138.9 L 18 139.1 19 139.7 -L 20 140.0 '<'--M L .. - 21 141.1 l M H 21A 144.3 aSingle chinook salmon observed milling in slough • • ORAFT/PAGE 1 6/10/83 APPTita/C-fJ Appendl1 Table C-6 Ca-parison of upwelli ng, substrate and d1stributlon of spaW"Ing sal-on aeong so-e Susitn~ r i ver sloughs. Open lead in Cpe,; w11ter ice-cove r upwelling Substrate 2 S~awnina .. Slough t seepage: Ty~ 1g8 199 2 Wh iskers Cree k 52 GRRUCO g8 p Sl ough SISA 2 coho Slaugh 6A 33 0 SICO 4 s.c p,c Sl 96 col:o '-ane Creek 59 2 CORU 44 p,c Slough SISA !i6 ~Iough SA 10 3 GRRUCO 91 c,s c,p,s SISA 9 coho Slcugh 9 24 2 rts1J p C,S c,p, s • Slough 98 8 CORU 1 c,s c ,s SISA 99 Slough 9A 52 2 RUCO 95 c,s c ,s Sl5.' 5 , Slough 10 19 0 RUCO 58 c SISA 42 Slough 11 48 2 CRRUCO 60 c c,p CROSI 40 s s Slough 168 8 0 CRRUCO % SA 4 Slou~•h 19 11 2 RUCO 45 ~ Sl 55 Slough 20 6 GRRUCO 67 c,s p,c 51 33 Slough 21 70 3 RUCO 64 c .s c ,p,s SISA 36 Slough 22 15 ruco 65 c !.I 35 • Sl -silt RIJ -Nbe>le •• C -chua st leon SA -sand CO -cobble S -sockeye sal-on GP. -grnel 80 -boulder P -pink sal-on Coho -coho sal.an • • - AH DRAFT/PAGE 7 6/10/83 APP1/Appendix C Whiskers Creek Slough, s loughs 6A, 10 and 20 . Slough 19 has a concen- trated upwelling area yet very few open leads, none near the upwelling. Open leads were present in Slough 168 yet no upwelling/seepage was ob served (perhaps due to rubble-cobble substrate) and no tributaries are present (Table C-6). Sub s trate in sloughs varied from silt to cobble and boulders. In most sloughs the sub strate included a thin layer of silt that was easily fanned away. However, Sloughs 6A, 10 and 19 contained more silt and/or s and than the 1 a rger substrate types . Very few fish were observed in these areas . In substrate other than silt or sand it was difficult to note upwelling or seepage. The "1l>'f'yA ofl:s,;mon spawning in the s lou gh s were observed utilizing a combinati on ~f ~ravel, rubble, and/or cobble (Table C-6). DISCUSSION Chum Salmon Most chum spawning occurred in or near areas of upwelling/seepage . The spawning substrate consisteJ of a r ubble-cobble mixture with a t op layer of silt which was fanned away by the spawning female. Such habitat is abund ant in sloughs SA, 9, 9A, 98, 11, 20, 21 and Lane Creek Slough. Some sloughs with s ubstantial upwelling/s eepage, such as Lane Creek Slough and sloughs 19 and 22 did not attract spawning chum salmon, perhaps due to limited ac cess, variable velocities or unacceptable substrates. • • • Pink Salmon AH DRAFT/PAGE S 6/10/SJ APPl/Appendix C Pink salmon apparently select tributary-like areas for spawning within the sloughs. In sloughs SA, 9, 11, 20 and 21 they were found spawning in shallow riffle zones containing gravel-rubble-cobble substrate. Pink salmon a lso spawned in t he cobbled riffle zones just below the confluence of Waterfall Creek in Slough 20. Sockeye Salmo n n RAf J· Sockeye salmon apparently select the slower deeper pool type areas with a rubble-cobble substrate such as those in sloughs SA, 9 (near the 90° bend), 11, 19 (19S1 only), 20 (in the upper tributary) and 21 • Coho Salmon Co ho salmon are not nearly as abundant in the sloughs as chum, pink and sockeye salmon. Coho salmon usually prefer to spawn in the tributaries but were observed in Whiskers Creek Slough in 19S1 and observed to spawn in the upper reaches of Slough SA during both 19S1 and 19S2. Coho salmon were not observed in upper Slough SA until after the water level rose in mid September 19S2. Coho also arrived in Slough SA during the same time in 19S1 although water level had been high and turbid during most of sunmer. Chinook Salmon Chinook sa lmon spawned exclusively in tributaries. I LITERATURE CITED AH DRAFT/PAGE 9 6/10/83 APP1/Appendix C Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1981a. Adult anadromous phase I final species/subject report. ADF&G Su Hydro Aquatic Studies Program. Anchorage, Alaska . 1981b. Aquatic Studies Procedures Manual. Phase I. Prepared for Acres American Incorporated, by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game/Su Hydro Studies team. Anchorage, Alaska. 1983a. Aquatic Studie~Pr~e~r!: Jr:ual. Phase 11. Prepared for Acres American Inc. by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Su Hydro Studies team. Anchorage, Alaska. 1983b. Susitno Hydro Aquatic Studies Phase II Basic Data Report (Vols . 1-Sj. Prepared for Acre s American Inc . by the Alaska Depar t ment of F'.s h and Game, Su Hydro Studies team. Anchorage, Alaska . Hasler, A.D. 1966 . Underwater guideposts: homing of salmon. Univ . Wisconsin Press, Madison. 155 pp. I \ I t APPENDIX D DRAFT /PAGE 1 6/10/83 APPl /Appendi x D T Hydraul ic and Habitat Mode l ing of Chum Sa l mon Spawning Habitat in Side Slough s of the Sus i tna River • • APPENDIX D DRAFT/PAGE 2 6/10/83 APP1/Appendix D LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES Figure D-1 Figure D-2 Figure D-3 Figure D-4 Figure D-5 Figure D-6 Figure D-7 Illustration of method used to \ \ categorize habitat by ranks .....•••.•........ Model predicted frequency" distribution of the w~~ surface area of Sloughl~ having associated water depths at two selected discharges. Water column depth is expressed in 0 .2 ft increments .••...............•...•.. Model predicted frequency distribution of the water surface area of Slough 9 having associated water depths at four selected discharges. Water depth io; expressed in 0 .2 ft increments ••.••..•...•..•.•..•.•••.... Model predicted frequency distribution of the water surface area of Slough 21 having associated wa ter depths at fou r selected discharges . Water depth is expressed in 0.2 ft increments .....•.•.•.....•............ Model predicted frequency distribution of the water surface area of Chum Channel having associ ated wa ter depths at three selected discharges. Water depth i s expressed in 0. 2 ft increments •.•....•.•.•••••.....•...... Mode l predicted frequency dist ribution of the water su rface area of Sloug h SA having associated velocities at two selected di scharges . Water ve locities are expressed in 0.2 ft/sec inc r ements .................... . Model predicted fre~uency distribution of t~e water surface area of Slough 9 having associated water velocities at four selected discharges. Water veloc ity is expressed in 0.2 ft/ sec increments •....•••.••.•.•••••••....... • • DRAFT /PAGE 3 6/10/S3 APP1/Appendix D LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES (Co ntinued} Page Figure D-S Figure D-9 Figure D-10 Model predicted frequency distribution of the water surface area of Slough tl R A f ·t· having associated water velocities at four sele d discharges. Water veloci ty is expressed in 0.2 ft/sec increments .................................. . Model predicted frequency distribution of the surface water area of Ch um Channel having associated water velocities at three selected discharges. Water velocity is expressed in 0.2 ft/sec intervals ....••...... Comparison of the model predicted water surface area a t associated water depth frequen t.j distribution ~lith the frequency distribution of observed chum salmon redd s versus their associated water depths at Sloughs SA, 9 and 21 ....•.••.........•...•... Figure D-11 Comparison of the observed water surface area versus associated substrate freque ncy distribution (~he frequency distr~n o~ 1 __...---"--oo'Served chum sa lmonfVer sus ~~Q!. substrate composition for sloughs SA , 9 and 21 ...•..•..•..•......•............. Figure D-12 Compa r ison of the model predicted water surface area versus associated water velocity with the frequency distribution of observed chum salmon redds versus their associated water ve locities for s l oug hs SA, 9 and 21 .•.•.•••.. • • APPENDIX D DRAFT /PAGE 4 6/10/83 APP1/Appendix D LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Table D-1. Table D-2. Table D-3. Table D-4. Table D-5. Table 0-6. Calibration of water ,n,l f\ f l elevations and dischar~ at two flows for transects in Chum Channel ..................................... . Calibration of water surface elevations and di s charges at three flows for transects in Slough 8A ••.•........• Calibration of water surface elevations and discharges at three flows for transects in Slough 9 •..••.••••...• Calibration of water surface elevations and discharges at three flows for transects in in Slough 21. •••.•••.. Comparison of observed and predicted water depths and velocities along Slough 8A transect 1 at two slough flows: 4 and 20 cf s ................................ . Comparison of observed and predicted water depth s and velocities along Chum Channel Transect 5 at two slough flows: 6.7 and 90 cfs ...•...•........••••..........• • • INTRODUCTION l DRAFT/PAGE 5 6/10/83 APPl/Appendix 0 This appendix presents an C'nalysis of the velocity, depth and substrate spawning habitat characteristics utilized by chum salmon in side sloughs located within the Talkeetna to Devil Canyon reach of the Susitna River. Hydraulic conditions that comprise aquatic hab ita t s can be favorable or unfa vo rable to a particular '"pecies and 1 ife phase of fish depending upon their magnitude or character. The Ala sk a Department of Fish and Game (AOF&G) began a hydraulic and soawning habitat modeling study of four sit1 e sloughs of the Susitna River in August of 1982. The study was initiated to evaluate fish habitat i n the side sloughs. Particular attention was to be given to the range of discharge •evels, particularly those that may occur as a result of the operation of the proposed hydroelectric facility. The ~~~ll! -~ hydraulic model is calibrated using observPd hydraulic conditions at a ,,~,~~,,~ range of discharges and is used to predict the hydraulic conditions at 1\ various discharges within the calibration range. Th ~ modeling study underway will eventually simulate hydraulic conditions for slough flows from 5 to 500 cfs. ~ cJJ.ve)Of';.,.J ' InAa habitat model for the evaluation of fish habitatAwhich is combined with the hydraulic model to evaluate the availability of habitat at various flows, the following assumptio~s are made. Fish will generally not be found in unfavorable habitats . They will instead be distributed among f avorable habitats. Furthermore, they will be most abundant i n • DRAFT /PAGE 6 6/10/83 APPl /Appendix 0 the most favorable habitats. Thus the importance of a particular habitat variable can be determined by comparin g the proportion of the population found within increments of the habitat variable avail ~ble. \' Spawn i ng is a critical period in the ~~c e of any fish, particular- ly anadromous fish such as salmon. In the Susitna Ri ver basin salmon often spawn in sloughs. Water levels in the sloughs are affected by water levels in the mainstem. Low mainstem discharge often limits ---access to spawning areas in sloughs. Medium levels 1n the mainstem provide back water areas near the mouth of the slough which can facili- ~ tate access to l ower reaches. High mainstem discharges overtop the 1 'U - 16" . ~o fs loughs and ~ fish passage throughout the slough. ~enti- will define the relationship between flow and access to spawning areas. / C The quality of the spawning hab i tat is dependent upon the environmental V\f\ ~"~ ' 'v d factors within the sloughj,some of which are flow dependent. Modeling . I ~~ hydraulic conditions at representative spawning areas in the sloughs and comparing the forecast conditions to measurements obtained over active '/ redds can aid in assessing the influence of flow on the quality and ---availability of habitat. Chum salmon were the most abundant spawning salmon in the sloughs studied in 1982 . Consequently, their spawning requirements were select- ed for detailed analysis. Chum salmon redds were examined with respect t') to available water depths, water velocities, substrate composition and ,.._- intragravel water temperatures. These habitat variables were chosen as I t DRAFT /PAGE 7 6/10/83 APP1/Appendi x 0 being the most critical to the selection of adequate spawning sites. An t( I \ '. anal}sis of intragravel temperatures i s not included in this appendix . \~·~\ METHODS Five sloughs (8A, 9, 21, Rabid~~, Slough and Chum Channel) were selected to evaluate salmon spawning habitat in sloughs in the Susitna River (RM ---1 \;b 76.0 to 141.0). Rational for selecting these study sloughs is discussed ~ o y\0 ~ in Volume 4 of the Basic Data Report (ADF&G 1983) and the Procedures ~· Manual (ADF&G 1982). ---r ~.fv"-'1;.- Study sites within each slough were reaches selected to represent the habitat conditions throughout that portion of the slough not influenced e.: by mainstem backwate~ects. These reach~s were selected to encompass areas known to support chum salmon spawning durinq 1981. Transects within the study sites were selected to represent each type and propor- tion of habitat present (i.e., pool, r iffle, or run). Detailed descrip- tion of the site selection process and physical habitat data collection methods are described in the 1982 Aquat ic Studies Procedures Manual (ADF&G 1982). Chum, pink and sockeye salmon redds were sampled in sloughs between August 25 and September 6, 1982. Basic site selection and field data collection techniques are based on those developed by the instream f low ~roup/~ (Bovee 1982,aAd-Bovee and Milhouse 1978). Suffi- ... -:... cient numbers of salmon redds were to be sampled to be analyzed statis- tically. Bovee (1978) recommends a minimum of 200. However,hyd r aulic Ill I • , DRAFT/PAGE 8 6/10/83 APPl/Appendix D conditions during 1982 limited the anticipat1 d utilization of this habitat and measurements were limited to 37 chum salmon redds in Slough Et A~ VB:~ S lo ,.JL. 9 and 33 in Slough 21. Water depth s, velocities and substrate composi-) 1 \;. I ~ •• J)· tion were measured at active redds on~ \-s\ough flows (4-8 cfs}. ./l , .. :·~ .. \ ~ \ ·-· ,.{,)Y, ' I f/~) Low flows in the Susitna River prevented access to~l981 spawning areas! ~~;r{ thus , no chum salmon redds were found in Chum Channel or Rabideux Slough. ~ ~.~· Original data are tabulated ..:i.n .the bas;ic da-ta-repOf't--tAOf&G-198'3~ ~tl s AppeAdix B). %ite descriptions, including maps, are given in the A Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Phase II Basic Data Report (ADF&G 1983 }. Data Analysis Predicting Hydraul ic Conditions Field data were reduced according to the procedures developed by Trihey ,. ... ( (1980), the hydraulic conditions in the sloughs were simulated by a . ' computer model developed by Milhous et al. (1981 ). The model, IFG-4, was designed for use by fisheries biologists to predict hydraulic conditions for a wide range of discharges. Bec ause each study site was selected to represent a larger portion of the slough, the ~epth, velocity and substrate data collected at transects withi n each site were usedou:dict characteristic physical , • .,f.'• ... h.:thitat paramete rs for the -8-t+Fe s Qh se~tM:M being represented . /1 Hydraulic data and substrate type at ea ch measuring point alon9 a transect were used to r opresent the area halfway between ad j ac e nt .,.r 6-- fr ...... I .. • DRAFT/PAGE 9 6/10/83 APP1/Appendix D transects at that point, this is referred to as a slough segment. Dimensions of each segment were calculated using procedures outlined in the AOF&G Su Hydro Aquatic Studies Procedure ~ Manual (AOF&G 1982). Observed water depths, velocities, water surface elevations and slough flows were used to calibrate the_ hydi,u\!_c~dels. Calibrating the IFG-4 mode 1 , as described by ~~ \A \1 • ( 1981)' involved s 1 i ght adjustments to observed depths, velocities and water surface elevations within the range of accuracy of the field measurements. Adjustments rarely exceeded 0.1 ft in depth, 0.1 ft/sec in velocity or 0 .01 ft in water surface elevation. Predicted depth and velocity values were ' accepted as "calibrated" by a final comparison with actual field measurements at known flows. Observed water surface elevations and discharges were compared with predicted water surface elevations and discharges at each transect in sloughs SA, 9, 21 and Chum Channel • During the calibration process the model adjusts velocities at each transect by a constant (the velocity adjustment factor), which is a ratio between the calibration and calculated discharge. The velocity adjustment factor in a calibrated model must be between 0.9 and 1 .1 in order for the model to accurately simulate natural conditions. The computer program generates roughness coeffici e nts ("Manning's n" "'~~· ~~ values) needed to predict flow s . Computer generated roughness coeffi-?J' ,• , dents were altered when necessary to better approximate known veloc-y/r ~~ J ities. Values for most roughness coefficients were assigned within an (A ~ ~~eo~ b ~~~ acceptabl~potential values (Trihey 1980). ~~~v ~ I rl. r\ ' . ' ,, ,, \. ~J UN' I • ... I t I . ;./ DRAFT /PAGE 10 6/10/83 APPl/Appendix D Once calibrated the IFG-4 program can predict hydraulic conditions at any discharge within the calibration range. Depending on how accurately the model fits observed values, the upper boundary of predicted flows can be up to 250 percent of the highest measur~~ow (Bovee and Milhous 1978). Measured depth and velocity~~~s1rud} sites in the sloughs were not directly comparable because they were collected at differ ent discharges . Discharges ranging between 4 and S cfs were measured at sloughs SA , 9, 21 and Chum Channel when salmon were spawning; thus, 5 c-- cfs was se lected as a common predicted/ low flow. The maximum predict- able flow within the calibration range of the model for Slough SA was 50 cfs. Therefore this was selected as an intennediate predicted flow A h :_,J.... f.,~ IL: c..+~ ' common to all four study areas. ~Re highest predictable flow for Chum o.l s11 Channel, 150 cfs, w:ss"selected as an intermediate predicted flow~ for sloughs 9 and 21. The maximum predictable flow in Slough 21 was approximately 300 c-€) therefore, this was selected as the highest predicted flow in Slough 9 as well. Observed discharges in Slough SA wer~ not sufficient to predict hydraulic conditions at intermediate and high flows (150 and 300 cfs). Data collected at Rabideux sloughs were insufficient for model calibration. Salmon were not observed spawning at intermediate and high flows. Ult imate l y, the purpose of predicting these hydt·aulic conditions from the calibrated model is to qualify a~d ouantify the habitat that would be available to a particular 1 ife phase of fish at a variety of dis- charges . At the present stage of development of the model and the • • DRAFT /PAGE 11 6/lG,83 APPl/Appendix 0 available data ba s e, the available habitat values for substrate composi- tion are based o~ observed conditions as opposed to predicted values.* In order t o determine whether a particular type of habitat is important for a particular species and life phase of fish, the habitat being utilized by the species and life phase of interest (spawning chum salmon) must be compared to the total amount and types of habitat available. The IFG-4 program can ~ predict hydraulic conditions at various discharges . The area available for use by fish of a particular species and life stage must therefore be determined by linking the IFG-4 ".,~ ... a...-.l :c. model to a habitat model. This type of linkage to determine weighted usable area has been applied in other Alaskan river systems (Estes et al. 1981, Wilson et al. 1981). Aquatic habitat modeling provides a good index of available fish habitat to stream flow . Unfortunately, it cannot be calculated without knowing the range of acceptable and 0ptimal habitat conditions required by the life stage of the fish. An insufficient number of .:hum salmon redds were sampled this yea r to develop habitat suitability indices for water depths, velocities or substrate required for habitat model1ng. In addition , insufficient intermediate and high discharges, needed to -pre~e~ly calibrate the * One of the assumptions of the IFG-4 model is that substrate compo- sition will not vary with changes in di s charge . Rather, the proportion of a particular substrate type to the total water surface area associated with a parti c ular discharge is a function of a change in the wetted perimeter associated with that discharge (i.e. the area of substrate covered by water). • • DRAFT/PAGE 12 6/10/83 APP1/Appendix D hydraulic models, were collected due to low water conditions during 1\ 1982. Habitat criteria for the same specie;~'~ ~c}lected in other should not be used unless their applicability to the system is systems validated (Estes et al. 1981, Wilson et al. 1981). Therefore, the physical habitat modeling cannot be used to predict usable surface areas for Susitna River sloughs at this time. For the -reasonsl above l a 1 ess rigorous analysis was performed and the -I relationship between flow and chum salmon spawning habitat {expressed as total water surface area) was determined in five steps. First, the range of ha bita ~va i ~~~~~ was determined using the hydraulic model discussed above. Second, spawning habitat was categorized into four ranks (unacceptable, utilized, preferred and optimal) based upon dis- tributi on of habitats where redds were established, within the range of habitat available (Figure D-lV.:,: ( Unaccepta s awning habitat conditions in a slough are defined as those · ere ents of the available habitat where no active redds were obs . '7 t ~~ Utilized spawning habitat conditions in a slough are d7 fined as the combination of all increments of a particu lar habitatA(i.e . depth, velocity, substrate) where active redds were observea. Utilized spawning habitats included those that were also preferred and optimal. Preferred spawning habitat conditions in a slough are defined as the combination of all increments of a particular habitat type where the proportion of active redds exceeded the propo r ti o n of wetted surface area. Preferred spawning habitats included optimal habitat. Optimal spawning habitat conditions in a slough are defined as the preferred increment or combination of increments of a particular habitat type in which the largest proportions (mode) of redds occurred. • • I· DRAFT /PAGE 13 6/10/83 APP1/Appendix D Third, the rankings of each habitat type within a segment were compared. If all habitat types within a segment were of the same rank the entire segment was assigned that rank. If different rank s were assigned to the habitat types within a segment, the lowest ra,was segment. ~ ~~ assigned to that Fourth, the surface area of all segments were summed . The final step in the analysis was accomplished by dividing the surface area of each rank by the total water surface area of the slough to calculate the percent of total water surface area for each rank within the slough. Water /'depth, velocity, substrate composition and intragrave 1 water temperature data a re presented in Volume 4 of the Basic Data Report (ADF &G 1983: Appe ndix B). In order to determine if a part icular habitat type could be used to calculate usable spawning habitat the cumulative fr~quencies of utilized water depths, velocities and ~ .. :h.-. . ' ~-h .~.M...-fL-;t ..,_c ~~:t .. ,l ~ -J.. substrate types wereAtested for significant difference in di stribution ~e~ tnos~~t~et wePe availa~le with a Kolmogorov-Smirnov two sample test (Conover 1971). RESULTS Accuracy and Precision of Models The IFG-4 model must be ca 1 i ~rat e d to meet required standards of preci- sion (Milhous et al. 1981). The IFG-4 models for hydraulic simul ation in sloughs 8A, 9, 21 and Chum Channel predicted the water surface • ' • DRAFT/PAGE 14 6/10/83 APP1/Appendix 0 elevation and discharge at each transec~ 1tv~~~e percent of the predicted water surface elevations were\Ji~n 0 .05 foot of observed water surface elevations (Tables D-1 to 0-4). Overall, predicted water surface elevations we re highly correlated with observed values (r = 0.999). Eight-two percent of the predicted discharges at each transect differed from mean observed discharges for each slough by no more than 1 percent. Only one transect (transect 5 of Chum Channe 1 at 7 .1 cfs) predicted discharge deviated by more than 5 percent from observed mean c f s discharge of 6.~. Overall, predicted discharges at each transect were hi9hly correlated with mean slough discharges (r = 0 .999 ). Forty-seven percent of the velocity adjustment factors were 1.00 .:!:_ 0 .01. All but one velocity adjustment factor (VAF) was considered 11 good" (0.9 ~ VAF ~ 1.1 ) That one was the velocity adj ustme nt factor for Slough 21 Transect 6 (at 10 cfs) which was considered 11 fair11 (0 .8 ~ VAF ~ 1.2). Precision standards also recomme nd keepi ng predicted water depths and velocities in each segment within 0.1 ft and 0.2 ft/sec of the measured depths and ve locities (Milhou s et al. 1981). A represe ntative example of a transect at two discharges wh ere the fit was not good (Ta ble 0-5} and another where t he fit wa s good (Table 0-6) are provided. Corre - lation coeffic ients may be somew ha t misleading at the discharge level at which the mode l s were ca li brated. At such shallow depths and low ve l ocities differences of 0.1 ft or ft/sec can appear disproportionally large . I !· • Predicting Hydraulic Conditions DRAFT /PAGE 15 6/10/83 APP1/Appendix D \fx\1 Water depths, velocities or substrate types were not measured at redds )1 I. r, ~ ~,,. when slough flows exceeded 8 cfs. However, the predicted proportions 9f depths and velocities are presented for slough flows of 5 and SO~fs for all four sloug~50 cfs for sloughs 9, 21 and Chum Channel and 300 cfs for sloughs 9 and 21 (Figures D-2 to D-9) for comparative pur poses. Hyd r auli c conditions in a slough depend on whether r r not the slough head is breached by water from the mainstem. Sloughs SA, 9, 21 and Chum Channel were breached at mainstem flows of 32,000 cfs, 20,000 cfs, 25 ,000 cfs and 53,000 cfs, respectively (ADF&G 1983). When the sloughs were not breached, their discharges were generally les s than 20 cfs. As breaching occurred, slough f l ows increased rapidly. Conversely, slough flows decreased rapidl y when mainstem stage fell below the breaching point. Therefore, in these three sloughs discharges of 50 cfs (and perhaps as hi gh as 150 cfs) were transitory . Predicting Useable Proportion of Available Habitat 1 Available water depth0 elocities and s ubstrate type s were compared with those found ~hum salmon redds (Figu r e s D-10 and D-11). Depths and sub ~trate types at chum salmon redds in every slough (at 5 cfs) were significantly different (f <. 0.05) from those available. Velocities measured at active redds (Figure 0-12) were detennined not to differ signi f icantly Q!ffptpnt from available velocities at predictable slough flows of 5 cfs ba sed on the Kolmogrov-Smirnov test. Therefore, water I I · 1 .. I • • • DRAFT/PAGE 16 6/10/83 APP1/Appendix 0 1 depth and substrate were selected as critical variables determining salmon habitat preference. Gaps in the range of uti 1 ized water depths J ,... .. -can probably be attributed to the low sample size of redds rather than actual avoidance of those depths. In Slough were 0.2 SA, at 5 cfs, the water depths l)~J\\J ng chum salmon -1.6 and 1.8 -2.0 ft. Gravel-rubble and rubble-cobble substrates were used. Preferred water depths were 0.2 -1.2 ft and the preferred substrate was gravel-rubble. Optimal wate r depths were 0.4 - 0.6 ft and the optimal substrate was gravel-rubble. The Slough SA study area was comprised of 30.5 percent usable spawning area. Only 6.0 percent of the total water surface area was preferred and 1.0 percent was optimal for spawning • In Slough 9, at 5 cfs, the water depths used by spawning chum salmon were 0.2 -2.~ ft. Gravel-rubble, rubble-cobble and cobble-boulder substrates were used . Preferred water depths were 0.8 -2.2 ft and the preferred substrates were gravel-rubble and rubble-cobble. Optimal water depths were 1.2 - 1.4 ft and optimal substrates were gravel-rubble and rubble-cobble. The Slough 9 study area was comprised of 24 .4 pe rce nt usable spawning area. Only 0.8 percent of the total water surface area was preferred and 0.3 percent was optimal for spawning. In Slough 21, at 5 cfs, the water depths used by spawning chum salmon were 0.2 -2.0 and 2.4 -2.6 ft. Substrate types used for spawning ranged from gravel to cobble-boulder. Preferred water depths were 0.4 - 1.2 and 1.4 -2.0 ft. The preferred substrates ranged from gravel to • • t ... ' • I I. DRAFT/PAGE 17 6/10/83 APP1/Appendix 0 rubble-cobble and cobble-boulder. Optim~l water depths were 1.0 -1.2 ft and optimal substrates were grave l-rubble and rubble-cobble . The Slough 21 study area wa s comprised of 21.4 percent usable spawning area. Only 8 .2 percent of the total water surface area was preferred and 1.5 pe rce nt was o~tima l for spawning . DISCUSSION Spaw ning in the s lough s was res t ricted to wa ter depths greater than 0.2 ft. The upper range of depths used for spawning was probably no t reached be ca use of l ow flows in August and September 1982. Water de pths used for spawning in all three sioughs were within the range of depths (0.16 -3.9 ft) reported for chum salmon redds in the Chena River (Kogl 1965). Similarly, water depth~ in the sloughs were within the range of o~pths {0.25 -3.5 ft) reported for chum salmon redds in the Terror and Kizhuyak Rivers on Kodiak Is l and (Wi l s on et al . 1981). The frequency distributions of water velocities in the three s lou ghs we re not sign ifi cantly different (f >0.05 ) at each predicted flow. As with depths, t he upper l imit of velocities used for sp awn i ng was proh ably not obse rved becau se of low flows in August and September 1982. Water velocities used for spawn i ng in all three sloughs were within the range of ve loc ities (0.0 -2.0 ft/sec) reported at chum salmon redds in the Chena River (Kogl 19€5). Velocities reported at chum salmon redds in the Terror and Kizhuyak rivers (0 .0 -3.9 ft/sec) were even higher (Wilson et al. 1981}. Chum sa lmon, l ike other salmonids, require moving water in redds to assure aeration of eggs (Wes c he and Rechard 1980 , Ha le • • • I· DRAFT /PAGE 18 6/10/83 APP1/Appendix D 1981). When redds were located in velocities of 0.0 -0.2 ft/sec, upwelling ground water was frequently observed. Chum salmon were found to prefer areas of upwelling ground water in the Alaskan interior (Kogl 1965, Francisco 1977) and on Kodiak Island (Wilson et al. 1981). Upwelling ground water, which is wanner in winter than surface water, also prevents substrate freezing in shallow water and in slow currents (Levanidov 1954, Kogl 1965, Sano 1966 , Francisco 1977~ For several reasons -3-f' increase in slough flow may not result in a proportiona I increase in spawning habitat. As flows increase in the slough so does the water surface area. But velocities will also in- crease with increased slough discharge . If velocities associated with .... highe r discharges were to increase beyond the range utilized by the species of interest a reduction in the proportion of habitat acceptable ( ~ \ ' ) ,) . I for spawning would result . Thus the surface area that is usable by spaw n ~ng salmon may decrease at high discharges (Hooper 1973). t; Secondly, salmon eggs and ale~ remain in the gravel of redds for months and require a long tenn supply of water. Peaks in the Susitna River flow t hat are large enough to breach s l oug hs are general l y s hort term. Spawning on this e ph emeral habitat would resu lt in unsuccessful incubation due to dewatering. Unl ess int r agravel water sources (upwelling) were sufficient to support the entire incubation and al evin 1 ife phases. * A pi lot program to collect intragravel water temperatures in sloughs was initiated in 1982 and will be continued in 1983 . An analysis of these data and their influence on spawning utilization in sloughs will be p ~esented in the FY84 ADF&G report. h ) i • • .. • FT DRAFT/PAGE 19 6/10/83 APPl/Appendix D This relationship of slough flow and spawning i n no way reduces the necessity for seasonal l y timed high discharges in the mai nstem. High water and breaching in sloughs is critically important to access and ( w~ t.f'wtfl;"'j ~..._,...,,....,.........., '-c J ... (.~·c..·c-..T -{b f~t..lli!l ... ~ movement into upper reaches of the slough,: as well as flushing of fine~;::.,. ... ~ '·r.J .ti;. material from spawning subs trate. The hydraulic pres s ure of high _1 I Al mainstem flows may also contribute to upwelling in the sloughs. Ranges of utilized particle sizes is noteworthy. Redds were not found in substrate smaller than gravel, including the combination of sand- grave l. Subst rate t:omposition in these three Susitna River sloughs differs from that found in other Alaskan chum salmon spaw ning areas. Most other studies found gravel (2 -76 nlTl) substrate to be most used (Francisco 1976, Morrow 1980, Wilson et a l. 1981 ). Rubble substrates, with particles as large as 127 lllll . were also used on the Del ta River (Francisco 1976 }. Water depths. velocities and substrate types at chum sa lmon redds in s loughs are compara ble with spawning sites in the Susitna River under a much wider range of environmental conditions. Chum sa lm on s pawn infre- quentl y in side channe ls of the Susitna River. Of 23 samples collected at 8 spawning sites between September 4-14, , water was measured at one site. Th ese are all within the range of depths at c hum salmon redds in sloughs. Water velocit ies measured at all but ene spawni ng site in the Susitna River ranged from 0 -0.3 ft/sec. The same site with 4 ft depth had a velocity of 1.0 ft/sec. Thu s , water veloc- ities at the limited number of spawning sites located within these • • • 0 R.I\FT I PAGE 20 6/10/83 APP1/Appendix 0 peripheral areas of the mainstem Susitna River were similar to those observed in sloughs . Substrate composition at 6 of the 8 samples was 60 -90 percent gravel, rubble and/or cobble. Eight of the mainstem sites :::b;e_substrate composition ofT) R 3l tTt gravel. rubble and/or Plans for data collection during the 1983 field season are based on the data in this report and other ADF&G reports. Additional data from chum salmon redds in sloughs are required to develop fish suitability curves for a habitat model. Additional hyd r aulic data must also be collected at intermediate and high flows in order to complete calibration of hydraulic models. Plans for 1983 also include the hydraulic simulation of two side channels of the Susitna River between Talkeetna and Devil Canyon . An attempt will also be made to collect enough data from pink and sockeye salmon redds to include these species in the habitat model. Intragravel water temperatures will be collected at transects while the salmon are spawning to compare available temperatures with those observed at redds . • I· • • LITERATURE CITED DRAFT/PAGE 21 6/10/83 APP1/Appendix D Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 1982. Aquatic studies procedures manual. Phase II. rf~a~d ~~cres American, Incor- porated, by the Alaska DepJ~mt~t ~tlr Fish and Game/Su Hydro Anchorage, Alaska. 1983. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Ph1se II. Basic data report. Volume 4. Aauatic habitat and instream flow studies, 1983. Prepared for Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture. Anchorage, Alaska . Bovee, K.D. 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology. Instream Flow Information Paper No. 12. t:J.~.F.W.S. ft. ColliAs. Ce•1'· x,._Jt.,~ f7uw ~tt:c.... (lt,.,~"'1', (A. s. 4=:,1.. ~ (,J UJ.f, {._ .L-.-:c.. I H-. C./I,· ... j l ~. _{and R. l~ilhous. 1978. Hydraulic simulation in instream flow studies theory and techniques. Instream Flow Information Paper No. 5. Coop. Instream Flow Service Group, U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft Collins, Co . 130 pp. Conover, W.J. 1971. Practical nonparametric statistics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. NY . 462 pp . • • DRAFT/PAGE 22 6/10/83 APPl/Appendix D Estes, C., K. Hepler aud A. Hoffmann 1981. Willow and Deception creeks instream flow demonstration study. Vol. 1. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Protection and Sport Fi s h Divisions. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, So il Co nservation Service, Interagency Coop. Susitna RiveH1 "At"FT 134 pp. Francisco, K. 1976 . First interim report of the Cc.rmercial Fish-Techn ical Evaluati on Study. Joint State/Federal Fish and Wildlife Advisory Team. Special Report No. 4. Anchorage, Alaska. 85 pp. 1977 . Second interim report of the Conmercial Fish-Technical Evaluation Study . Joint Sta te/Federal Fish and Wildlife Advisory Team . Specia l Report No . 9. Anchorage, Alaska. 46 pp. Hal~. S.S. 1981. Freshwater habitat relationships: chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta). Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division , Resource Assessment Branch. Anchorage, Ala ska . 94 pp. Hooper, D.R. 1973 . Evaluation of the effects of flows on trout stream ecology. Dept. Eng. Res., Pac ific Ga s and Electric Co . Emeryv il le , CA. 97 pp. Kogl, 0. R. 1965. Springs and ground-water as factors affecting survival of chum salmon spawn in a sub-arctic stream. M.S. the s i s , Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks . 59 pp . • • (,~ '0 \ DRA FT/PAGE 23 6/10/83 APPl/Appendix D Levanidov, V.Y. 1954. Way s of increasing the reproduction of Amer chum sa lmon . (Transl. from Ru ss ian). Akademiya. Nauk SSSR, Ikhtiologi cheskaya Komissya, Trudy Sovescha nii , No. 4:120-128. Israel Program for Scie ntific Translations . Cat. No. 8. Office of Tech. Service, U.S. Dept. Of Commerce, Milhous, R.T., D.L. Wegner and T. Waddle. 1981. Use r•s guide to t he physical habitat sirrulation system. Instream Flow Infonnat ion Paper No. 11. Coop . Instream Flow Service Group, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. Ft . Collins, Co. Morrow, J.E. 1980. Th e freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alas ka Northwest Publishing Co. Anch ~rage , Alask a . 248 pp • Reiser, D.W . and T.C Bjounn. ~9~: Influence of forest and rangeland J man agement of anadromous fish habitat in Western North America: habitat requirement s ~f anadromous salmonids . USDA Fo re st Service Anadromous Fish Habitat Program. Gen . Tech. Rpt. PNW-96. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Stati on. Portland, OR. 54 pp. S. 1966. Salmon of the North Pacific Ocean -Part III. A revi eC:) of the life history of North Pacific sa lmon . 3. Chum salmon in the Far East. Internati onal North Pacific Fisheries Conmission Bull . No. 18. Vancouver, B.C. pp. 41-57 . 'i • ~: ,. ;I ,. • DRAFT /PAGE 24 6/10 /83 APP1 /Appendix D Trihey, E. W. 1980. Field reducti on and coding procedures for use wi th the IFG-2 and IFG-4 hydraulic simulation models. Coop. Instream Flow Service r,roup. U.S. Fi sh and Wild1ife Service Ft . Collins, Co. Draft. DRAfT Wesche, T.A. and P.A. Rechard. 1980. A summary of instream flow methods for fisheries and related research needs . Eisenhower Consorti um Bull. No. 9. Water Resources Research Institute . Univ . Wyoming. laramie. 122 pp. Wilson, W.J ., E.W. Tri hey, J.E. Baldrige, C.D. Evans, J.G. Thiele and D.E. Trudgen. 1981. An assessme nt of environmental effects of construction and operation of the proposed(t,ehor (ljke hydroelec- tric facility, Kodiak, Alaska. lnstream flow studies final report. Arctic environmental infonmation and d ta center , Univ. of Alaska. 419 pp • J ... ~t-, .. . ......... _ .. . . ---. \ .. .• . ..•.. ..:'l WATER DEPTH ( ft) DRAFT WATER DEPTH (ft) J..:; . ..... SLOUGH SA STUDY AREA Selected Slouoh Oi cchoro• = 5 c fa Pred icted Total Wattr Surfact Area= 81 ,500 ft 1 Sel ected Slouoh Discharge = 50cfs Pred icted Tota l Water Surface Area= 95, 100 ft t Figure 0-2. Mode l -predicted frequency di stri bution of the wate r surface area of Slough SA having associated water depths at two se l ected discharges. Wate r column depth is expressed fn 0.2 ft increments. t·. .. ~-· -~· ~~ ... u t• .'- \ ~j. c( 1&.1 a: c( 1&.1 0 c( I.L. ~ en a: 1&.1 ~ c( ~ ~ ~ a: c( 1&.1 0 c( I.L. a: ::) en a: 1&.1 ~ c( ~ ~ SLOUGH 9 STUDY AREA Selleted S Iough Oheharge c 5eh Predicte d Total Wat er Surface Area • 118 ,600 ft 1 ~4 Z.l U 10 l.Z WATER DEPTH (ft) •.• 4 .1 4 .1 DRAFT 0.0 O.Z 0.4 0.1 o• LO I.Z 1.4 1.1 1.1 ~0 Z.Z Z.4 ~~ U WATER DEPTH (ft ) Se lecte d Slouoll Di acllorge • 50ch P re dicle d Totol Wa ter Surface Area • IT I,SCOft 1 1 4 11 11 4.0 4.t S elected Slough Ohch oroe •ISOch Predicte d Totol Woler Surface Areo • 199,000 ft • Z.l u s.o 12 14 3.6 S.t •• 0 4.2 WATER D EPTH (ft) 4 ,6 .... WATER DEPTH (ft ) S elec ted S lough Olacho ro e • 300ch Predicte d Toto I Wot e r Surface A reo • 222,000 ft 1 Figure 0-3. Model-predicted frequency distribution of the water s urface a r ea of Slough 9 having associated water depths at fou r sel ected discharges. Water depth is exp r essed in 0.2 ft i ncreme nts . " .. ~J ~· ... ~· •• \. 3 0 ct w a:: ct w 0 ct ~ a:: :> C/) a:: w .... ct ~ ~ 20 ct w a:: 10 ct w 0 ~ a:: :> C/) a:: w .... ct 10 ~ ~ 0 12 WATER DEPTH (ftl DEPTH ( ft) DRAFT WATER DEPTH (ft) WATER DEPTH (ftl SLOUGH 21 STUDY AREA Selected SlouQh CliachorQe • !I ch Predicted Total Water Suffoce Areo • Z6, 700 ft 1 Selected SlouQh Oiacllaroe "!IOc:fc Predicted Total Woter Surface Areo • 36, 500 ft 1 Selected Slouoll Oiac:lloroe• ISO cfc Predicted Totol Water Svrfac:e Area • 45, 600ft 1 Selected SlouQh Oicc:horoe a 300c:h Pred lc:ted Toto I · Woter Surface A reo • 48, ZOO ft 1 Figure 0-4. Model-predicted frequency distribution of the water surface area of Slough 21 having associated water depths at four selected discharges . Water depth is expressed in 0.2 ft increments . I' .> \.. l ~ 4 0 a:: ~ w 0 0 ~ a:: :l «<) a:: w ... ~ ~ -.t ~ a:: C( w ~ ~ «<) a:: w ... C( ~ ~ ~ w a:: C( )() ~ ~ a:: :l «<) a: w ... C( ~ -.t CHUM CHANNEL STUDY AREA Selected Chonnel OuchO<Qf: ~ch Pted tC itd Tolol Wolf< Sutfoce Ateo s 71,600ft 1 0.0 O.l 0.4 0.& OA 1.0 l .l 1,4 1,& 1,1 t.O ZZ L 4 Ll t• 1 0 12 14 S.& WATER DEPTH (fll DRAFT S t iiCit d ChOMII Oll ~hO<Qt= 501';fc Prt dtc led Totol Woter S u rfoce A reo : 13Z, 800 11• 00 0 .2 0 ,4 0 .1 0 .1 1.0 1.2 1.4 u •.• 2.0 2.2 2.4 Z.l 2.1 10 l .t 1 4 WATER DEPTH (ft) S elected Chonne l Ouchoroe : 150ch Predicted TOCol Wottr Surfoce Areosi67,500ftt 14 1& WATER DEPTH ( ft l Figure 0-5. Model-predicted frequency distribu ti on of the water surface area of Chum Channel having associated water depths at three selected discharges . Water depth is expressed in 0.2 ft increments. ~· I • c( [ .. ILl a: ct ILl .. 0 ~ a: ::> (/) a: ILl 1- c( 3: 0 ~ DRAFT SLOUGH BA STUDY AREA Selected Slouoh Oischoroe c 5ch Predicted Tolol Waler Surface Area • !I, 500 fl' WATER VELOCITY (ft/uc) Sflected Slouoh Oisch oroe • 50 ch Predicted Tolol Waitt Surfoc• Area a 95, 100 It • WATER VELOCITY (ft/ltC) Figure 0-6. Model-predicted frequency distribution of the water surface area of Slough SA having associated water velocities at two selected discharges. Water velocity is expressed in 0 .2 ft/s ec increments. !'· ·. ; t ·~ . &·t·. c ~··. n 4( "' a: 4( "" 0 4( I&. a: ::> (I) a: "" ... 4( ~ ~ S L OUG H 9 STUDY AREA Sel e c.ted Channe l Ouc.horo• = 5c:h Predlc:t ed Tolo l Woler Surloc:• Area: 118,60 011' 1.4 1,1 U U t.• 2.1 l.O WATER VEL('IC ITY (ft/uc) DRAFT Selec:led Channel Oi&c:haroe ~ SOc:h Predicted Toto I Water Surfac:e Area a 171,500 It 1 1.1 1.1 2.D Lt %.4 Z.l t,l l.O 3 .2 3 .4 U 3.1 4.0 WATER VELOCITY ( ftluc) WATER S e l ec:ttd Channel Oi"horoe•ISOc:ls Prtdic:lld Total Water Surfac:e Area= 199,000 fl 1 S elected Channel Oisc:horo• •300c:fc Predicted To lol Woter Surfoc:e Area"' 222,000 II 1 Figure D-7. Model-predicted frequency distribution of the water s urface area of Slough 9 fiaving associated water velocities at f our selected discharges. Water velocity is expressed in 0.2 ft/sec increments. ·. i ·:.:~ -: ~ a: < ~ ~ a: ::> (I) a: ·~ l&.l ~ < • ~ /: < l&.l a: < l&.l u lt. a: ::> (I) a: l&.l ~ ~ ~ •• 4 1.8 SLOUGH 21 STUDY AREA Sel ected S lough Oi tc horo e c~ch Predicted Totol Wo te r Surfou Ar eo • 26,700 ft ' WATER VELOCITY (ft/uc) DRAFT Sele cted Slough Oi •chorge "50ch P red lcte d Toto I 1/(oler Surfoc:.e Area • 36, 500ft « WATER •.1 4,4 4 .& 4 .1 VELOCITY(ft/sec) Selected Slough Oi1chorge • 150cfl Predicted Totol Woter Surfoce Areo: 45,600 ft« U 1.1 ~ 4.1 "-4 4A 4 .I Selected S Iough Oicchoroe• 300ch Predicted Total Water Surface Area c 48, 200 fl• Figure 0-8. Model-predicted frequency distribution of the water surface area of Slough 21 having associated water velociti~s at four selected discharges. Water velocity is expressed in 0.2 ft/sec increments. ~ <!·; ,.. ' ~ . •• -> .. • " I ~ \. • • . : ( [:; .. · . ;r:·., ..,.._ .. ~ a: 4( LLI ~ a: :;) en a: LLI ... <0( ~ ~ 4( LLI a: <I( LLI 0 ~ a: :;) &I) a:: w ... <I( 31: ft. ~ a:: 4( LLI 0 ~ a: ::J &I) a:: w ... C( ~ ft. ··I CHUM CHANNEL S TU DY AREA to 10 0 )C) zo 10 0 30 zo 10 Sele c ted Channel Oi ec:ha ro• •5 c:h Predlc:t e~ Total Water S ur f ace Area • 71 , 600 ffl WATER VELOCITY (ft/Mc) DR AFT Se lec t e d Channel Oi ec:haro• • 50c:fc Predlc:t t d Total Wattr Surfou Area & 132, eoo ft I WATER VELOCir: \ft/,.c l Selected Channel Dicc:ho r oe•ISOc:fc Predicted Total Water Surface Area" 167, 500 ft ' 1.4 U U ~0 ~~ ~4 U U SD WATER VELOCITY (ft/ .. c ) Figure 0-9. Model-predi c ted frequency distribution of tne surface water area of Chum Channel having associated water velocities at three selected discharges. Water velocity i s e xpressed in 0 .2 ft/sec increments . ... ~-, :;i): :~:4 • ,. • '-· <Z . LL 0 tO 1-z ..., 0 10 0::: ..., ~ SLOUGH 8A STUDY AREA Selected SlouQh Oiacharoe• 5cfa Predicted Total Water Surfoct Ana • 81,~ ft• Humber of Redd1 • 37 0 Water Surface Area ~ Active Chum Salmoft Redda o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-r~=9F=~4F~~~~~~9F~~~~ 0.0 O.t 0.4 0.1 Q.l 1.0 U 1.4 1.1 .J )() ct t-o I- LL tO 0 1-z ..., 10 0 0::: ..., WATER DEPTH (ft) DRAFT SLOUGH 9 STUDY AREA Selected SlouQh Oi&ctlarQt • 5Cfl Predicted Total Water Surfac• Area • 118 800 ft1 Nulftber of ReAd, • 43 0 Woter Surface Ana ~ Ac tive Chulft Salmoft Reddl Q. o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T=~~~~~-r~~,- .J so ~ 0 I- I&.. to 0 1- ~ 10 0 0::: ..., ~ 0 o.o 0.2 Q4 Ql 0.1 1.0 l .t 1.4 1.1 1.1 t.O l.2 t.4 U 2 .1 :S.O WATER DEPTH (ft) SLOUGH 21 STUDY AREA Selected SlouQh Oiacharoe • 5ch Predicted Total Watw Surface Area • Z6, 700 ftl Number of Redda • 33 0 Water Surrace Area ~ Active Chum Salmoft Rtdda 0 .0 Q.t Q.4 Q.l Q.l 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.1 2D 2.2 2.4 2.1 2.1 3.0 12 S.4 S.l l.l 4.0 4 .2 4.4 4A 4.1 ~0 WATER DEPTH (ft l Figure D-10 . Comparisons of the model-predicted water surface area at associated water depth frequency destribution with the frequency distribution of observed chum salmon redds versus their assoc i ated water depths for Slough SA, 9 and 21 . \ ' • •• . ,. (~·· ~: ~ 'it:.' • :1 ·~ -. ~ 4 .. 0 .. ... 0 .. .. .. .. "' .. .. .. .. .. 5 .. .. : u • .. ... ...,,.u. Stu t••J u~;.o=:::= ::lt"-=i!:Ot-'1-:foo ~r==;:n.~=-- SLOUGH U SlUOY ARt:A ......................... , ............. " . a., .. • "·•oor•• ...:.., ., ....... , D....,....._. 6fte a ..... ,._ ........... St.DUGtt t STUOY AltU o.. ......................... .. , ......... .., ... . ...:.·.; ~'!~!"!'.",· Sl.OUGH 21 STVOY AIIU o.. .. -.. ................... tt. , ................ .. .. .... Hr... JIOOtt • ......... ........ ,_, a .............. .., .. o ..... , ..... .._ ..... Figure 0-11. ~omparison of the observed water surface area versus associated substrate frequency distrib~tion with the frequency distribution of observed chum salmon redds versus substrate composition for sloughs SA, 9 and 21 • ·. :· . ; .. .- ~ \. .J ~ 0 t- IL 0 .._ z .... 0 cz: .... CL .J 10 < 1-?0 ~ IL oeo .._ z: .... 0 cz: 10 .... CL u SLOUGH 8A STUDY AREA Sele<:l..t Slouoll Oicc ... •oe • S ch l'rodi ctod f 4 IOI Wollf Sut i- Aroo • II, SOOft t Hu..,llor ol Roddo • 31 0 Wolu hrfoco Aroo ~ Actl .. Cllulft SoiMOA Atddo WATER VELOCITY (ft/uc:) SLOUGH 9 STUDY AREA Soloct..t Slovoll 011cllo•o• • S ch Prodict..t Toto! Wolar Stuloce ...... 118 150011 1 H""'"' ol Aod'dc • 4S 0 Wotar Svrloco Aroo l\1 Acll•o CIIOIM $41,_ Aoddc WATER VELOCITY (ft/~ c) SLOUGH 21 STUDY AREA Saloctod Stouoll Ooocllaro• • Sch Prodictod Total Wotar Surface ,.,.., • 26,70011 1 Number of Rodda • ll 0 Wotor S...foco Aroo IS1 Actin Chv"' Sol-Rodda WATER VELOCITY ( ft/toc) Figure 0-12. Comparisons of the model-predicted water surface area versus associated water velocity with the frequency distribution of observed chum sal~~ redds versus their .... .. D R A FT OWI/PAC( I 6/10/1) ~ fMITAII/fAIH ) hill~ D-1. C•l lbr•tiOft of ... ur svrf.c~ tlevuloiiS "'" dh cll•r~s H two flows for transects 111 C..._ '"'""''· (t IIHtr S..rltet Yeloctt, AdJvstar11t ~ lltntfoe l ft! Disc"'~ lets! ftetor DbSt,..,td Pt'tdtcttd t Dbse,..,ed Pt'tdtcttd I 0\ff I 11Z.ID llZ .I D 6 .7 6 .5 -l I .DDDD l 11t.21 11l.H 6 .7 6.1 •I I .DDDD ) 172.U 172 .31 6 .7 6 .1 •I .999 5 • 172 .32 11l.U 6 .7 6 .7 D .986Z s 11l. 35 112.35 6 .7 7.1 •6 .9146 6 172.35 112 .35 6 .7 6 .5 •l .9977 7 17Z .SD 17Z .SD •• 7 6 .1 •I I. DODD I 172.66 112 .66 f..7 6 .5 .) .9184 I 172,45 172 .45 90.0 U .l -2 .9819 l 172.72 112 .72 90 .0 90.1 •I .9964 ) 11 1 .19 172 .79 90.0 90.9 •I .9960 • 172.11 172.11 90.0 89.0 ·I .9813 5 17l.9l 172.93 90 .0 U .9 •4 I.OOJS 6 172.02 172.02 90.0 91 .4 •Z .9992 1 173 .10 173.10 90.0 92.1 •Z .9658 I 173.13 171 ll 90 .0 89.6 -I .9971 -~r ~ .. ""'' o-z. C.llbntloe of •c.r Sll:'"flct tl..,atiOfts a 11d dhdlartcs H til'" flows for traAsteu '" Slou911 SA . ~ Yeloctt, IIIC.r Sllrfact AdJvsc.-t ~ ~ (ltntloe lft! OhCIII!J! lch! Factor Observed Pt'tdfcttd T DbseNtd Predicted t Olff I 565 .47 565.50 4 .0 4.1 •l ·'Sl9 l 565 .41 565.51 4 .0 4 ,0 0 .nu 3 565 .52 565.55 4 .0 4.0 0 .9)U • 565 .84 565.1 7 4 .0 •.o 0 1.0043 5 566 .01 566 .02 4 ,0 4,0 0 .91 24 "' 6 566.05 566.06 4 .0 t .I •3 1.0036 :.~ 7 566.)1 566.ll 4 .0 •.o 0 1.0108 8 566.62 566 .63 4 ,0 4.0 0 1.0060 9 567 .20 567 .21 4 .0 4.0 0 .9866 10 567 .zo 567 .21 4 ,0 4.0 0 .985 1 II 567 .zo 567 .21 4.0 4.0 D .9884 I 565,65 565.50 7.00 7.1 •I .9195 2 565.66 565.61 7.00 7.1 •I .9746 3 565." 565.64 7 .00 7.1 •I .9617 4 566.0S 566,03 7.00 7.0 0 1.0076 s 566.13 566.1) 7 ,00 7.0 0 .9740 6 566.15 566 .15 7.00 7 .I •I 1 .0146 7 566.37 566,37 7,00 7 .0 0 .91)) 8 566.51 566.11 7.00 7 ,0 0 I .OJSD 9 567.ll 567.ll 7.00 7 .0 0 ·'"I 10 567 .29 567.29 7.00 7.0 0 .m5 11 567.29 567 .29 7.00 7.0 0 1.0107 I 565.76 565.10 20.05 20.1 •I 1.DZOI z 565.77 565.11 20.0S 20.1 •1 1.0011 l 565.10 565.14 zo .os 20.1 •I 1.0016 4 566 ,)1 566.31 zo.os zo.z •I .9t91 5 566.36 566.36 zo.os 19.9 ·I 1.0191 6 566 .)7 566.17 zo.os ZO.I •I .9167 7 566 .U 566.U zo.os zo .o 0 1.0103 ~ I 566.7t 566 .79 zo.os lt.l -I 1.0009 9 567.« 567.« 20.05 zo.o 0 l .OOU 10 567.46 567 .46 zo.os zo .o 0 I .OOSZ II 567 .cs 567.45 zo.os ZO .I •I .ttzo ~i:; •• to .. ~ D RA FT (. hill~ 0-l. C.llllratloe of ~t~r 1u rfa c~ ~•~•tl oel ._. 411~rtf' at t~r« tl~ for tr.,.ucu 111 SloutJI 9 . Vaur Svrlaee ~ f1rtltl0ft {ftl hlocllJ AdjUI "'"l OhC ... !)! ichJ fac tor Otue,..,H PrHI ClH r Obu,..,ed PrHiclH I Ollf I Stl.40 sn.co a.o t .O 0 .9901 l 592.60 592.60 1 .0 1 .( •I 1.00Z6 4 S9l.7S S9Z .7S 1 .0 1.0 0 .9961 6 Stl.40 S9l.l6 1.0 1 .1 •I I.OZU 1 SU.4S SU.44 1 .0 1 .0 " 1.0117 • SU.40 S9l.l9 11,0 7.9 ·I 1.0054 9 SU.50 sn.50 a.o l .l •) .9UO 10 Stl.60 S9J.S9 1 .0 1 .0 0 .9945 I S9J.U S9J.C2 14S .O 146 .4 •I 1.007) 2 593.60 59).57 145.0 144 .7 0 1.0141 4 593.60 593.65 145 .0 145.) 0 1.0450 6 594 .00 594.11 145 .0 144.9 0 .997l 1 594 .ZO 594 .l5 145 .0 147 .a •I l.OOll I 59C .lfl 594.29 145 .0 143 .) ·I 1.018Z 9 594.30 594.35 145 .0 145.4 0 l .OUI 10 594.)0 594.31 145.0 144 .7 0 1.0111 ··~ ~ I 59).70 59).11 ZlZ.O U4.6 •1 .990) z 593.10 5U.Il Zll.O Zl1 .0 0 .9917 4 594.00 593.94 Zll.O Zll.6 0 ·*' ' 594 .50 594.36 uz.o zn.4 0 .96ll 7 594 .50 594.45 lll.O ZH.9 •Z .M14 • 594 .ZO 594 .52 Zll.O ZH.S ·1 _,. 9 594.60 594.56 Zll.O Ul.l 0 .99ZO 10 594 .60 594 .54 Zll.O Ul.4 0 .• u t• Ttble o-•. C.llllratiOft of waur '"rlac t tltW&tiOII I •"" d hdol,..es a t Ulrte fiDWS for trustetl 111 Sloutfl 21 • ... Vattr Sllrlace Yelocltt Ujvst.11t l!:!!!lli El~ltiOII i f t} Ohc ""!!! l<hl Factor Ob,e,..,ecl PrHIClH T Obsc,..,td Pred icted I Olft ) 744 .2) 744 .ZI 5.0 5.0 0 1.0067 ~ .. , • 7U .ZS 7U.Z9 s.o 5 .0 0 .9726 I ~~ 5 744 .27 744.31 5.0 ••• -4 1.0295 6 7U .SS 744.57 5 .0 ••• •• .9952 7 744 .74 744.77 5.0 5.0 0 .96SS l 744 .60 7U.50 10.0 10.0 0 .9951 4 744.59 744 .51 10.0 10.0 0 .9990 5 744 .51 744 .51 10.0 9.7 .) .tHa 6 744.71 744 .72 10.0 '·' •Z 1.1046 7 744 .99 744 .9) 10.0 10.11 0 1.0641 ) 745.14 745.90 157 .0 156.1 0 .9906 4 745.15 745 .90 157 .0 IS6 .Z ·I .Mil 5 745.17 745.96 157 .o 1M.l •1 .tS6Z ' 745.H 745 .94 157.0 157 •• •I .tt70 1 74S .M 746.02 157.0 157.7 0 .tSse "' ...... r ~-. ' ~ ' ... ;;.~. hbl~ 0 -S. Sel}lllentb LWE 12 14 16 18 ?.0 22 24 26 28 JO 32 34 36 J8 40 42 44 46 48 so 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 n 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 1M 92 94 11\1£96 DRAFT OllAfT /PAGE 1 6/10/83 fHRTA8/TAlll£ 2 Co-p•rlson or ob\erv~d •nd prediCt ed Wll~r derth\ •nd velocltte\ •long Slctgh 8A Tr•n\~rt I •t two \Iough fl~: 4 •nd 20 c f\. 4 ch 20 cfs Depth Yeloclt~ Depth Veloclt~ ( (t) (ftfsec ( ft) Ht/sec. ~ pred . obs . pred . ob~. pr ed . obs . pred . .40 . 60 .00 .00 .70 .90 .OS .OS .80 .8S .00 .00 l.OS I. IS .OS .OS .90 .90 .10 .00 1.20 1.20 .10 .OS 1.00 .95 .00 .00 1.10 1.25 .10 .OS 1.00 1.00 .00 .00 1.30 1.30 .10 .OS 1.00 1.00 .00 .02 1.30 l.JO .10 .11 1.05 1.10 .OS .0? 1.40 1.40 .10 .11 1.20 1.25 .05 .04 1.40 1.55 .10 .12 1.30 1. 35 .05 .04 1.50 1.65 .10 .12 1.45 1.40 .OJ .04 1.70 l. 70 .10 .12 1.40 1.40 .10 .OJ 1.70 1.70 .10 .11 1.50 1.45 .10 .04 l.6S 1.7S .10 .13 1.60 1.50 .05 .04 1.80 t.eo .10 .12 1.55 1.55 .OS .04 1.80 1.85 .10 .12 1.60 1.60 .00 .06 1.90 1.90 .20 .18 1.65 1.60 .05 -~ 1.80 1.90 .20 .18 1.60 1.60 .OS .06 l.SS 1.90 .30 .30 1.60 1.60 .05 .Of' 1.90 1.90 .20 .25 1.60 1.55 .10 .08 1.90 t.es .35 .32 l.SS 1.50 .05 .07 1.80 1.80 .30 .32 1.50 1.50 .OS .10 1.80 1.80 .40 .32 1.50 1.50 .05 .10 l. 70 1.80 .4S .37 1.50 1.45 -~ .07 l. 75 1.75 .30 .32 1.40 1.3S .05 .06 1.65 1.65 .30 .30 1.2S 1.20 .OS .06 1.50 1.50 .3S .JS 1.10 1.05 .00 .06 1.35 1.35 .JO .30 1.00 .95 .00 .06 1.!0 1.25 .25 .26 .9S .90 .05 .06 1.30 1.20 .20 .20 .9S .90 .00 .06 1.30 1.20 .?0 .20 .9S .85 .00 .09 1.30 l.1S .20 .20 .85 .80 .00 .07 1.10 1.10 .20 .13 .90 .8(1 .00 .03 1.10 1.10 .20 .12 .80 .80 .00 .OJ 1.10 1.10 .15 .12 .8S .75 .oo .01 1.00 l.OS .1$ .07 .80 .65 .00 .01 1.00 .95 .10 .07 .60 .60 .00 .01 .90 .90 .10 .07 .65 .ss .00 .0 1 1.00 .8S .10 .07 .so .45 .00 .01 .80 .75 .lO .07 ,45 .35 .00 .00 .6S .6S .OS .OS .30 .20 .00 .oo .60 .50 .00 .05 .10 .05 .00 .00 .40 .JO .00 .OS .2(1 .IS .00 .ll .on .05 .00 .00 r • .99 r • .35 r • .99 r • 1.00 bofst•ftCe (ft) along transect froa left ~nt head ptn. LWE •nd ltv( are left and rlgllt water 's f'dge at the t wo dhc:ll•~s • • .:· ~ O'Aff/,AC! I 6/10/ll t l r .. fAI /fAIU hlllr l'·6 . C...,.rhoa of ollsr"t4 •1>4 prt41tlt4 w•ttr *Pths •ad ••locltln .10019 C..... f"•-• lrlftl~c · S a t tooo s 100f9h flows : 6 .7 alld 90 ch. 6.7 (~S 90th Di•tll teioclti Oiptli trlocni l~~ftt-( ft) (ft/w< (ft) ~ft/~ olll . prd. oils. prt4. oils . pr~3i oils . ·~ ~ ~ l6 .to II .10 .10 Zl .zo .ll .60 .~1 lO .lO .ll .10 .II l1 .40 .41 l .lO 1.29 )4 .so .Sl l.lO l .ll lll( lS.2 .DO .DO )6 .01 .DO .60 .6) 1.90 1.40 l7 .10 .DO ll .IS .sa .&0 .73 1.90 1.73 l9 .zo .zo 40 .zs .Z4 .10 .ll 1.10 1.11 41 .lO JO 47 .45 .Zt I .DO 1.03 Z.IO Z.ll 4) .so .lO 44 .60 .l9 I.ZO I. I I z.zo l.ll £~ 45 .so .lO t6 .6S .)9 l.lO I .Zl l .lO z.zt 47 .70 .so " .75 .49 l.lO l .ll 2 .40 Z.41 ., .70 .so so .IS .u 1.'0 1.4) l.SO Z.SI 51 .70 .40 sz .IS .l! I. SO 1.4) Z.lO l.ll Sl .70 .40 S4 .IS .)9 I. SO 1.4) Z.lO 2.11 ss .70 .40 S6 .10 .u I .SO l .ll Z.lO Z.ZI le 57 .70 .so S8 .75 .u 1.40 1.)) Z.lO i.il 59 .60 .40 60 .10 .)9 1.40 l.l8 Z.lO Z.ll ~ " .so .40 6l .60 .34 l.ZO 1.41--l .lO l .ZI 6) .so .lO 64 .so .)9 l .ZD 1.11 Z.DO l .OI 65 .40 .lO 66 .40 .Z4 1.10 .91 l.DO Z.OI 67 .lO .zo 61 .zo .24 I. DO .71 1.10 1.11 69 .10 .DO ;;: 70 .Ol .za .70 .sa 1.30 1.57 :~ ltv( 71 .DO .DO 1l .00 .00 .so .Sl 1.30 1.40 74 .so .48 1.30 1.32 L:-76 ._ .•o .48 .._1.10 l.ll 78 D R A FT .so ••• .90 .90 10 .40 .ll .70 ·.n 8l .lO .ZI .so .so a• .zo .u .40 .39 86 .zo .ZJ .so .so 88 .zo .II .40 .40 90 .to .ll .zo .zo 9Z .10 .oe .zo .zo 1111(94 .00 .Ol .oo .oe r • ·" r • .S7 r • ·" r • ·" •ohtaiiU (ftj et..., triAMCt f,_ left MH loee4 pi•. Ide aM r1,e.c •U.er's e4te et uw boO 4IICNI"fH. lll( .... Ill( .,. ' APPENDIX E DRAFT /PAGE 5 FHR/CRAWFORD APP2/Table of Contents Effects of mainstem Susitna discharge on total wetted and backwater surface areas at selected study sites • • • • AP PEND IX E DRAFT/PAGE 6 FHR/CRAWFORD APP2 /Table of Con t ents LIST OF APPENDI X FIG URE S Appendi x Figure E-1 IJ Wetted s ur face area s at Slou gh 21 versu s main s tem di s charge at Gold Creek •..................................... Appendi x Figure E-2 Wetted surf ace areas at Slough 20 versus main s tem discharge at Gold Creek .............•.....•.................. Appendix Figure E-3 Wetted surface areas at Slough 19 versus main s tem dis charge at Gold Creek ..•...•....•...........••...•.....•... Appendi x Figure E-4 We t ted surface area at Slough 11 v ~rsus main s tem di s charge at Gold C r·eek ••••••••..••••••.••••••••••••.••..•..• Appendi x Fi gure E-5 Wetted surface areas at Slough 9 versu s mainstem di scharge at Gold Cr·eek ..•..•.•..•••.......••..••........•..• Appendi x Figure E-6 Wetted s urfa ce area s at Slough SA versus !:'.Jinstem discharge at Gold Cree k ......•........•..•......•.........•.. Appendix Figure E-7 Wetted surfac e areas at lane Creek/ Slough 8 versus mainstem discharge at Go 1 d Creek •.••...•.••.•...••....•....... Appendix Figure E-8 Wetted surface areas at Slough 6A versus mainstem discharge at Gold Creek .........••...•......•••.•....•...•... Appendix Figure E-9 Wetted surface area at Whisker s Creek versus mainstem discharge at Gold Creek •••••.•••••••...•••..•.•..•.•• Appendi x Fi gure E-10 Wetted surface area at Birch Creek /Sl ough versus mainstem discharge at Sunsh i ne ••••••••••••..•...•.•• Appendi x Figure E-ll Wetted surface areas at Sunshine Creek versus mainstem discharge at Sunshine •••••••••••••••••••••.•.•...•••• Appendi x Figure E-12 Wetted su r face areas at Rabideu x Creek /Slough vers us mainstem discharge at Sunshine •..•••.•••••..•.•.••.. • • • • LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES (Continued) Appendix Figure E-13 Wetted surface areas at Whitefish Sloug~ versus mainstem discharge DRAFT I PAGE 7 FHR/CRAWFORD APP2/Tab l e of Contents at Sunshi~e ...••••......•...•.....••....•.. Appendi x Figure E-14 Wetted surface areas at Goose ~ Creek/S;de Channel versus mainstem discharge at Sunshine .•.........•. Appendix Figure E-15 Wetted surface area summations for the nine upper Susitna sites versus Susi tna River discharge at Gold Creek •...•.•.••...••........•...... Appendix Figure E-16 Wetted surface area summations for the five lower Susitna sites versus Susitna River discharge at Sunshine •...........•...............•.•• • • I • APPENDI X E DRAFT /PAGE 8 FHR/C RAWFORD APP 2/Table of Con t ents LIST OF APPE NDI X TABLES Appendix Table E-1 Appendix Table E-2 Appendix Table E-3 Appendix Table E-4 Total wetted and aggregate t y pe II (backwater ) surface area s of selected regi ons of Designated Fish Habitat (DFH) sites , and mainstem Susitna River discharge s , June through September, 1982 ..•..•..•.•.... Su r face areas of morphological pools not regulated by mainstem Susitna Rive r discharge at Designated Fish Habitat (DFH) sites , and mainstem Susitna River di scharges, June through Septe.mbe r, 1982 •....•••••.••••.•.•••...••.. Total wetted surface areas measured within the boundaries of nine study areas on the upper Susitna River, versus Gold Creek discharge, June through September, 1982 ••.•••••....•.•••••• Total wetted surface areas measured within the boundaries of five study areas on the lower Susitna River, versus Sunshine discharge, June through September, 1982 ....•••.•.•.....••.• } • • • APPENDIX E DRAFT /PAG E 9 FHR/CRAWFORD APP2/Table of Contents LIST OF APPENDI X PLATES Appendix Plate E-1 August 1980 aerial photograph of Slough 21 (RM 142.0) .••..••.......•••... Appendix Plate E-2 August 1982 aerial photograph of Slough 20 !RM 140.1) •••••••....••.••••.• Appendi x Plate E-3 May 1982 aerial photograph of Slough 19 (RM 140.0) •.•••.......•...•..• Appendix Plate E-4 August 1980 aerial photograph of Slough 11 (RM 135 .3 ) .••.•...•••...••.•.• Appendix Plate E-5 Augu s t 1980 aerial photograph of Slough 9 (RM 129.2) ..........•.•.•.....• Appendix Plate E-6 August 1980 ~erial photograph of Slough SA (RH 125.3) •......•.....•.•.... Appendix Plate E-7 August 1982 aerial photograph of Lane Creek mouth and Slough 8 (RH 113.6) ••.....••••..•.....•...•..••.•. Appendi x Plate E-8 May 1982 aerial photograph of Slough 6A (RM 112 .3) ..•..•........•.••...•. Appendix Plate E-9 May 1982 aerial photograph of Whiskers Creek and Slough (RM 101.2) •.........•....••....•.......•... Appendix Plate E-10 August 1980 aerial photograph of Birch Creek and Slough (RM 88.4) .......... . Appendix Plate E-ll August 1980 aerial photograph of Sunshine Creek and Side Channel (RM 85. 7) ..•••••.••..•.•••.••......••••.... Appendix Plate E-12 August 1982 aeri al photograph of Rabideux Creek and Slough (RM 83.1) ......•• Appendix Plate E-13 Hay 1982 aerial photograph of Whitefish Slough (RM 78.7) •...•.........••• Appendix Plate E-14 August 1980 aerial photograph of Goose Creek 2 and Side Channe 1 ( RH 73. 1) ••.••.............•••••..• • • .. ,!· Introduction DRAFT/PAGE 1 FHR REPORT/B . MARSHALL APP1/APP 01 This appendix provides additional informatio;l concerning the response of backwater surface areas to changes i n mainstem discharge. Wetted surf ace areas which were 1 arger than the backwater areas present at the slough and tributary locations sampled, are presented. These larger areas are re ~erred to as the total wetted surface areas. A discussion concerning the relationship between the backwater and total wetted areas, and some data on the abund ance of morphological pools at these study sites is also presented . Methods Fourteen slough and t ributary mouths , between Susitna River miles 73.1 and 14 2 .0, were visited twice monthly from the beginning of June to the end of September during 198 2. Maps were drawn of the wetted surfaces present at each site, for each sampling. lhe total wetted and backwater surface areas rep~esented on the maps we ~ digitized after ensuring that t he mapped boundarie s were identical from trip to trip. Details of the me t hodology are described in the Basic Data Report, Volume 4, Part I AOF&G, 1983. A detailed narrative describing each s tudy site is available in Appendix F, Volume 4 of the Basic Data Report . • • , • .. DRAFT /PAGE 2 FHR REPORT/B. MARSHALL APPl/APP 01 Aerial photographs of each of the study s i tes are presented as Appendix Plates E-1 to E-14. The sampling boundaries illustrated in these photo- graphs bracket those reaches of each site where the surface area measurements were taken. The entire wetted surface found within this area during each sampling is termed the "total" wetted surface area. Inspection of the photographs will provide an indi cation of the level of abstraction involved if the reader associates the total wetted Jyrface areas reported with the larger physical or hydrauli c features of some of these habitat areas. Some changes have been made in defining the ''study" boundaries at the Sunshine Creek, Slough 9, lane and Goose Creek sites from those defined in the Basic Data Report . At the Lane and Goose Creek sites, the creek portion of the sites has been omitted because mapping of this area was not always complete. At the Slough 9 location, maps of the upper half of the study area were not made during low water samplings. Thus, the upper hal f of the area was omitted from consideration. At the Sunshine site, a section of the previously defined study area was also deleted due to inconsistent mapping of the uppermost reaches of the creek. As a result, 15,000 ft2 at 60,100 cfs and 24,000 ft2 at 82,400 cfs (of the true total) backwater area present during the July samplings was omitted in this study in order to obtain comparable total and backwater area measurements. In genet•al, the sampling boundaries at each site were chosen to encompass the backwater areas present over the range of flows sampled, • • .. . . ' I . . ."'. ' . . , 'II. • : • .~~ ...... ,, ·~ ... . ' '• jiAI ,~,l .r, .. • • .. ' "": , ... , .. ~ ... , .. ... · ,~· .. \.-~ . . .... -··-. " .. r ---: .,: . ,. .~;· ' . ":... ... ~!' ..• ·, .... . ... ~ ... , . ,: ... ' ~ • r f" '• . .. .. . ., ·.: .... A .. '"' 1 • "'' I I .. Appendix Plate E-1. August l~ao photograph of Slough 21 (RM ,42 .0). The surface area measurements reported are for the slough between the study boundaries shown . ' ret! ~0 I ' Appendix ~late E-2 . August 1982 photograph of Slough 20 (RM 1 40. 1). The sul'face area meas urements reported are for the s lo ug h oetween the study boundaries s h0wn . • Appendix Plate E-3. May 1982 photograp h of Slough 1~ \RM 140 .0). The s urfac e area measurements reported are for th~ s l ough and its imm~diat~ly downstream reach oetween t he study boundaries shown. ... • • Append1x Plate E-4 . Augu st 1980 phot~graph of S1 ough 11 (RM 135 .3). The s urface area measurement~ re ported are for the s lou gh b etwe ~n the study boundaries shown. • • • Appendix Plate E-~. August 1980 photograph of Slough 9 (RM 1~9.2). The su rface area meas uremen t s reported are for tne s l ough between the study bou ndaries s hown. • • .. • • 0 ~.10 J((l ---., ~· ... . " .. t. • . .. . , ... -t' , .... . .. • .. -.. -. · . -. .. ,. ·.. . . ' .· " ..... •• • I' .. ' .. :· ./ . ... '• I .~ •• •· ·..,~ " _,..- ,.,-. • • t ·, i4 t . ,. . ' . . . . .· . . . Appendix Plate E-6. August 1Y80 photograph of Slough 8A (RM 125.3). The surface area measureme nts reported are for the s lough between the study boundaries s hown . • 0 2&0 FEET • LANE CREEK MOUTH AREA PRIOR TO AUGU ST 1982 0 S T UDY AREA Appendix Pl ate E-7. August 1982 photograph of Lane t r eek mo ut h and Slo ugh 8 (RM 113 .6 ). Th~ s urface area measuremen t s repo rted are for the slough oetween its mo uth (se e inset} and the upper bo un da ry s nown. • , • Appe,1dix Plate E-8. May •982 photograph of Sl ough 6A {HM 112.3). Tne surface area measurements reported are for the slough between the study ooundaries shown. • • • Appendix ~lace t-9. May 1982 photograpn of Whiskers treek and Sl ough (RM 101.2). The s urface area measurements reported are for the creek and slough between tne s tudy bounda r ies show n . • Appenai.x f')ate E-10. August 1Y80 photograph of 13irch Creel< ana SlolJgl'l (RM 138.4). 'i he surface area meas urements reported are for the creel< and slough oetween th e study uoundaries shown. • • S UPI SIIIN£ CA[(IC /SUSII NA AIV[N 'Ill( r ltANN[1 C(>ll r! ll[ .. C[ AAI A Appen dix Pl at e E-11. August 1980 photograph of Sun s h1ne Cr ee k and Side Cnannel (~M 85 ./}. The s urface area meas ureme nts reported are for the creek and s lough area s sho wn in the in se t a nd the creek above to the s tudy boundary shown. • • • • ·-~ .. . . ' Appendix Plate E-12. August 1982 photograph of Rabideux Creek and Slough (RM 83.1}. The surface area measurements reported are for the site between the ~tudy boundaries shown and a point on the creek about 400 ft. off the photograph. I ' . (' L • ~ · · .. ~~. f~·.Y 250 Appendix Plate E-13. May 1982 photograph of Whitefi s h Sl ough (RM 78 .7). The surface area measureme nts reported are for the slough between the study bou ndaries s hown . • • 0 1000 FEET ~-. . ... J Appendix Plate E-14 . August 1980 pn otogra:h of Goose Creek 2 and Side Chann e l (RM 73.1). The surface area meas urements r e ported are for the slough between the stud y bo undaries s hown. • . • .. • • • DRAFT/PAGE 3 FHR REPORT/B. MARSHALL APPl/APP 01 and as much additional free flowing s lough or tributary water as was necessary for the fish collection aspect of the study. Results Appendi x Table E-1 presents by two wee ks intervals between June and September. 1982. the backwater and tota 1 wetted surface areas mapped within the boundaries at Designated Fish Habitat locations . Surface areas are tabu l ated with the corresponding mean daily discharge reported for the Gold Creek or Sunshine gaging station. Plots of the total wetted surface areas versus ma ins tem discharge are found as Appendi x Figures E-1 to E-14. At most sites, the relationship between total wetted surface area and discharge was pl otted by fitting least square~ linear regressions to the data. For Wh i tefish Slough and Slough 21, a hand drawn curve was best fitted to the data. The relationship between ba ck water surface area and discharge is replotted in the manner developed previously (Volume 4, Part 1, Basic Data Report) on a site by site basis . Discussion Even though sampling was centered around slough and tributary reaches where mainstem backwater zones were a dom inant feature, a very diverse set of hydraulic and physical habitats were sampled. The total wetted surface areas measured decreased with decreasing mainstem discharges. The wetted surface areas of the upper portions of severa 1 sites were greatly reduced as flows declined. a nd the habitat (types) present in • • DRAFT • FIIRIAB /tnble .•. Appendix Table £·1 . totd vetted and aggregate type II (backwater) sur1ace areas of selected regions of Designated nsh H11bitat (Dr~) s ites, and mainstem Susitna River discharges , June through Se ptembe r , 1982 . DFH Site Slough 2lb Slough 20 Slough 19 Slough 11 DlachJrge cfl 31,900 28,500c 24,000 17,000 13,800 12,500 12,200 33,250c 26 ,800 23,000 16,500 14,400 14,000 12,500 24,900 22,000 22,000 16,800 16,600 15,000 14,400 13,300 33,250c 27,300 23,600 23,000 14,400 12,400 12,200 12,200 •uses provlaional data at Gold Creek, 1982, !5292000 . bJune 10, 1982 1 data for Slouah 21 incomplete. Date 7/25 6/19 7/11 8/09 9/27 8/20 9/06 6/20 7/24 6/04 8/07 9/04 9/26 8/20 7/23 6/17 6/05 8/06 7/07 9/25 9/04 8 /H 6/20 7/14 7/29 6/04 8/12 9/29 9/06 8/22 cAmcnded matnstem discharge at Gold Creek as determined from ADFC stage discharge curve. eNo backwater area mapped. A very smal l a r ea pr obably existed. Total Wetted Surface Area Surface Area (Ft2 ) ~2! II (Ft2 ) 316,000 72,800 203,000 16,300 166 ,000 0 160,000 73 ,600 89,000 48,200 96,000 47,300 99,000 61,200 139,000 20,600 137,000 0 115,000 0 68,900 0 68,900 ~~e 69,700 55 ,700 1,800 46,000 21.,000 30,000 10,000 39,000 16,500 29,000 12,300 25,000 4,800 20,000 0 17,000 0 15,000 4,200 153 ,000 128,000 135,000 92 ,800 155,000 124,000 132,000 95,000 69,000 25,600 50,000 19 ,300 68 ,000 25,300 53,000 23,700 .:'n • Appendix Tab l e £·1 (Contir •te d ). DFH Site Discharae cfa Slough 9 31,500 29,100 28,400 26 ,000 19,400 16,700 1 2,200 11,700 Slouah 8A 28 ,000 26,500c 26,500 25 ,600 17,100 15 ,400 12,200 11,700 Lane Creek 28 ,500c 25,000 22 ,400 18,100 16 ,600 15,000 1':,400 12,500 Slou&f\ 6A 33,250c 24,900 23,000 21 ,500 16,600 14,400 14,000 12,200 1 USCS provisional data at Cold Creek, 1982, 15292000. bJune 10 and June 22 data for Sl ouah 9 incomplete. ,. • Date 6/22 7/27 7/13 6/10 9/23 8/10 8/21 9/07 6/08 7/12 6/23 7/28 9/24 8/11 8/21 9/07 6 /19 6/07 7/22 7/08 8/08 9/25 9/10 8/20 6/20 7/23 6/06 7/09 8/08 9/10 9/26 8/21 cAmended lll.al.nstcm discharge at C'.old Cr eek as determined from ADFC staae discharge c urve. DRAFT 1u'' mRTAB/Table To tal Wetted Su rface Area Su rface /rea (Ft 2 ) !l:l!! II ( rt 2 ) 269,000 ---b 321,000 0 305,000 298,000 --~b 168,000 118 ,000 185,000 133,000 134,000 0 172,000 0 223,000 210,000 218,000 202 ,000 223,000 210 ,000 257,000 205,000 169,000 143,000 220,000 193 ,000 185,000 158,000 182,000 15 5 ,000 57 ,ooo 48 ,200 61,000 45 ,000 45,000 14,400 54,000 14,700 37,000 12,700 32,000 8,000 38,000 9,400 36,000 6 ,100 138,000 138,000 135,000 135,000 131,000 131 ,000 134 ,000 134 ,ooo 131,000 131 ,000 129,000 129,000 131,000 131,000 127,000 127,000 -• • Appendix Table E·1 (Continued). DFH Site DhchJrge cfa ~ 37 ,ooo' 6/21 31,900 7/25 25,000 6/03 2:1 ,voo 7/10 16,600 8/08 13,800 9/27 13,400 9/0J 12,200 8/22 Whisker Creek and Slou&h 99,300 7/26 61,600 6/23 59,700 6/04 58,400 7/11 52 ,500 8/09 38,000 8/23 35,900 9/28 ----33,800 9/11 Birch Creek and Slough 82,400e 7/27 70 ,200 6 /09 62,700 6/24 60,100 7/12 51,600 8/10 38 ,700 8/24 35,000 9/12 33,400 9/30 Sunshine Creek and Sidechannel lluscs provisional data at Cold Creek 15292000 (with Whisker Creek data). bsur face area measurements for June 21 and July 25, 1982, are lower limits. cSurface area meaaure~nt for June 3, 1982 is an upper li~it . dHigh t r ibutary discharge this date eliminated zone 2 (see ADFC Basic Data Report, 1982 ). eUSCS prov isiona l data at Sunshine 15292780. £D i ffers fro!ll va l ue in ADFG Oa t~ic Data Report, 1982 (sec text). &Amended malnstem discharge at Cold Creek a s determined from ADFC s tage discharge curve. Total Wetted Surface Area (Ft2 ) 217,000 236,000 217,000 213,000 163,00v 190,000 195,000 150,000 458,000 388,000 394,000 422,000 370,000 362,000 376,000 363,000 332,000 277,000 275 ,000 259,000 214,000 180,000 179,000 154,000 DRAFT A FHRTAB/Table 1W' Surface Area !%2! TI (Ft2 ) b 76,000b 56,000c 160,000 83,900 4~!~ood 29,200 28,500 424,000 354,000 359,000 398,000 157,000 147 ,ooo 59,500 81,900 218,ooor 121,000 134 ,OOOr 163,000 128,000 46,300 12,200 25 ,300 • Appendix Table £-1 (Con tinued). DFH Site Rabideux Creek and Sloughb Whitefish Sl oughc Cot'se Creek and Sidechannel t Discharge cfa 11,700 6 7 ,900 53 ,000 44,000 38,700 33,400 72,000 66,700 60,100 53,000 47 ,900 38 ,700 33,900 72,000 66,700 64,200 63,000 47,900 38,700 36 ,400 33,900 1 USGS provialonal data ~t Sunsh ine, 1982, 15292780 . bNot a .. pled in early J une or in early July. cNo t ... pled in earl y July. • Date 6/26 7/29 9 /14 8/12 8/25 9/30 7/28 6/25 7/1 2 9/11. 8/11 8/25 9/29 7/28 6/25 6/10 7/13 8/11 8 /25 9/13 9 /29 Total Wetted Surface Area (Ft1 ) 1,170,000 1,120,000 1,220,000 1 ,070,000 1,080,000 968,000 85,800 75,000 65,800 71,000 56,200 32 ,200 14,200 166 ,000 170,000 176,000 158 ,000 1 54,000 148 ,000 137,000 134,000 DRAFT ,A FHRTAB/Tab l e i 9 Su rt..ce Area 1Y2e 11 (Ft2 ) 1,160,000 1,180,000 965,000 876,000 836 ,000 344,000 85,800 75,000 65,800 71,000 56,200 32,200 14,200 75,000 83,000 87 ,000 74,400 113,000 122,000 0 0 ->-8 cQ :::> J( ~~ enL&J L&J LLlLL. :z::· ~L&J a: Z<t -:::> :z::o )-en ~~ N <t:z:: L&J(!) a:::> <!0 L&J..J uen ltLL. a:O =>en enL&J a: a: LLlc:t ~c <tz ~:::> 0 CD 300 200 100 0 0 • --1 TOTAL WETTED SUR FACE ~---~ BACKWATER ZONE H-ll ./·- • ----·~~· 5 I 0 I 5 20 2 ~ 30 SUSITNA R . DISCHARGE ( CFS x 1000) AT GOLD CREEK USGS PROVISIONAL DATA 1982 1~292000 • Appendix Figure E-1. \Jetted su rface area at Slough 21 versus ma ins tem discharge at Go ld Creek . The measurement s repre se nt the areas within the study boundaries i l lustrated in Appendix plate E-1. . .. ' -§ >--c)( ~8 U>u.. LLILLI :I: a: .... <{ z => _o ::I:U) .... -_o ~N <{:I: LLIC> a::=> c:t3 LLIU> <.>u.. ~0 u.. a:U) =>w 2 U>- 0: 0::<{ L&Jo .... z <t => 3:o CD 0 ....... I •--• TOTAL WETTED SURFAC E 6 ---6 BACKWATER ZONE H-n • • • 6-~---6--6--- ----6-----6-- • .... ~ 10 15 20 2 5 30 35 SUSITNA R. DISCHARGE (CFSx 1000) AT GO L D CREEK USGS PROVISIONAL DATA 1982 1!5292000 Appendix Figure E-2. Wetted surface area at Slough · 20 versus mai nstem discha r ge a t Gold Creek. The measurements represent the areas within the study boundaries illustrated in Appendi x Pl ate E-2. • • 5 0 >-Q O J< ::>~ .... LLJ (/)u. LLILLJ :I: a: t-ct z => -0 :I: (f) ..... --0') ~- ct:I: LLJ<!> a:=> ct O ..J LLJ (/) Uu. ~0 a:(/) ::>LLJ (/)_ a: O:ct LLJo t-z ct ::> ~0 m 0 • •-• TO T AL WETTED SURFACE ~---~BACKWATER ZONE H-ll • • • (l I I I /.. (l 1/ • I (l / / / / /" ll I u \ ' I Doll _ ...... --(l 5 10 15 20 2 5 30 S USITNA R. DISC HARGE (CFS xiOOO) AT GOLD CREE K USGS PROVISIONAL DA TA 1982 152920 00 Appendix Figure E-3. Wet t ed surface area at Slough 19 vers us mai nstem discharge at Go l d Creek. The measurements represen t the areas within the s t udy boun daries i llustrated i n Appendix Plate E-3. ' ->-8 oQ => )( t;ti wW :J:LL t-w za:: -~ ::t:=> .,_o _en ~ ~:I: We, 0::=:> ~0 ..J Wen (.)l1. Lto a:: =:>en enw a:: a:: wet ..... 0 ~z ~=> 0 en 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 •-• TO TAL WETTED SUR FA CE ~---~BACKWATER ZONE H·ll • • • .,..,. ----------- , • • • / ~.,'6 / / / / I I I / I I I / I 6 I 5 10 I 5 2 0 2 5 30 SUSITNA. R. DISCHARGE (CFS Jt 1000) AT GOLD CREEK USGS PROVISIONAL DATA 1982 1~292000 Appe nd ix Figure E-4 . Wetted surface area at Sl ough 11 vers us mainstem discharge at Gold Creek. The measurements represent the areas within the study boundaries i llustrated in Appendix Pla t e E-4. 35 • -0 >-0 co ::::> )( ~--~ (I)L&J L&JLL J:L&J 1-Q: -r <X ..:::::> :t:O 1-(1) --~m oex:t: L&JC> a:::> oexo ..J L&J(I) OLL ~0 a: (I) ::::>L&J (I)_ a: a: L&J< 1-c <z ~a CD 350 3 00 250 200 150 100 5 0 0 0 •-• TOTAL WE T TED SURFACE 0---o BACKWATER ZONE H-n • • 10 I~ 2 0 25 30 SUSITNA R. DISCHARGE ( CFS x 1000) AT GOLD CREEK USGS PROVISIONAL DATA 1982 1~292000 Appendix Figure E-5 . Wetted s urface area at Sl ough 9 ve r s us mainstem discharge at Go l d Creek. The meas urements re present the areas within the study bo undaries i ll ustrated in Appendix Plate E-5 . • • -0 >-0 c2 :::> )( ~~ L&J L&J~ :z::L&J .... a: zct -:::> :z::o .... (/) --~ct CD ct:z:: L&J~ a:::> cto LIJ_J (.)(/) ctLL LLO a:(/) =>w (/)_ a: a: LLJ<t .,_c ctZ ~5 CD 2~0 200 1~0 100 ~0 I 0 •-• TOTAL WE TTE D SURFACE D.---D. BACKWAT ER ZONE H·TI ,. • • • • ----D. ..,.., -... -. r • I 10 I~ 20 SUSITNA R. DISCHARGE (CFS x 1000) AT GOLD USGS PROVISIONAL DATA 1982 15292000 I 30 CREEK Appendix Figure E-6. Wetted surface area at Slo ugh SA versus mainstem disch3 rQe at Gold Creek. The mea surements represent the areas within the study boundarie s illustrated in Append i x Plate E-6 . I 3S • ' • 80 60 •-•TOTAL WETTED SUR FACE l:l---l:lBACKWAT ER ZONE H -II • • 40 20 0 • ._.....- • • f--- I I 1 I I I I 0 5 10 1 5 20 25 --l:l SUSITNA R. DISCHARGE (CFS x IOOO)AT GOLD CREEK USGS PROVISIONAL DATA 1982 15292000 30 Appendix Figure E-7 . Wetted surface area at Sl ough 8 I La ne Creek versus mainstem di scharge at Gold Creek . The measurements represent the areas within the study boundaries illustrated in Appendix Plate E-7 . • ... • -0 0 >-2 0 JC ~~ w 140 w LL ::z:::w ~a: 120 zct _::J ::z:::O 100 ~en --~ct eo CD ct::z::: w(.!) ~::J 60 cto ~ LIJen 0 ctLL. 40 LLO a: ::Jen en~ 20 a: a: LIJct ~0 0 ctZ ~5 CD 0 • ----. ---. -------· ··-· . . - •-• TOTAL W ETTED SURFAr~ AND BACKWAT ER ZONE :-1-n ~ 10 15 20 2 5 30 3~ SUSI TN A R . DI SC H AR GE (C FS x 1000 } AT GO L D C REE K U SGS P ROV IS IONAL DATA 1982 15292000 Appendix Figure E-8. Wetted surface area at Sl ough 6A versus mainstem di scharge at Go l d Creek. The measurements represent the areas with i n the study bo un daries illustrated in Appendi x Pl ate E-8 . • • -0 225 0 ~0 c )( 2 ~~ (I)LIJ LL L&J L&J 175 :ro:: 1-<l z 5 150 -(I) :r~ t: ~ 125 3;(1) <to:: L&JL&J 0::~ <l~ :I: 75 LLJ3; ULL ~0 0:: ::>(I) (I)L&J -o::O:: w<t ,_c <tz 3;5 m .I • • •-• TOTAL WETTED S U RFACE • ~---~BACKWATER ZONE H·U • • • ~I • "' ~ "' / "' "' "' "' ~2 "' / /~ "' , UPP ER LI MIT ~-C::/' I 2 LO WER Ll M t T 0 5 10 I~ 20 25 30 35 SUS I TNA R . DISCHARGE ( C FS xiOOO) AT GOLD CREEK USGS PROVISIONAL DATA 1982 15292000 Appendix F1gure E-9 . Wett ed surface area at Whiskers Creek I Sl ough versus mainstem di scharge at Gold Cre ek . The measurement s represent the areas within the study bounda ries illustrated in Appe ndi x Pl ate E-9. • • ~2 4 0 • 400 300 200 100 0 • • •--• TOTAL WETTED SURFACE 6---6 BACKWA TE R ZONE H -ll 99300 .- 0 • ·-· -~ • 99300 6-6.-------. --_...------6-- / 6 I I I 6--------6 I I I 6j 6 I I I I I I I I 10 20 30 40 50 60 7 0 S USITNA R. DI SC HARGE (CFS x 1000) AT S U NSH I NE USGS PROVISIONAL DAT A 1982 15292780 Appendix Figure E-10 . Wetted surface area at Birch Creek I Slough versus mainstem di sc harge at Sunshine . The measuremen t s r e presen t the areas within the study boundarie~ i ll ustrated in Appe ndix Plate E-10. ? • 3 ~0 300 2 ~0 1~0 100 ~0 0 0 •-• TOTAL WETTED SURFACE t:l---Cl BACKWATER ZONE H·n • • • .:---· • 10 2 0 30 4 0 ~0 6 0 SU SITNA R. DISCHARGE {CFSx 1000} AT SUNSHIN E USGS PROVISIONAL DATA 1982 1~292780 70 Appendix Figure E-11. Wetted surface area at Sunshi ne Creek versus mainstem di scila rge at Sunshine. The measureme nts represent the a reas within the study boundaries i l lustrated in Appendix Plate E-11. • • Cl / 8 0 • • >- 0 ::>:t: .,_ <!> 1400 •-• TOTAL WETTED SURFACE Cl> ::> 0---0BACKWATER ZONE H-IT wO :X: .J 1200 .... C/) ' zci o -l.) 0 1000 :t:xo .... ::>--w)( ~ 0 ..... 800 _w ctmW wctu.. a: a: w 600 ctu_a: wo<t l.) C/) 5 400 ~wcn a:--::>0: C/)ct 0 a:Z w=> .... o <(II) ~ 200 0 0 • ------6=-_A --· - • I I J/ I & 10 20 30 6 -- / I I • -6----- 4 0 50 6-- 60 SUS I TN A R. 0 I S C H A R G E ( C F S x I 000) AT S UN S H I N E USGS PROVISIONAL DATA 19 82 15292780 70 AppPndix Figure E-12. Wetted surface a rea at Rabide ux Creek versus mainste m disc harge at Sunshine. The measurements represent the a r eas within the study boundarie s illustrated in Appendix Plate E-1 2. • ... • z:r -(!) :r:::> .... o -...J ~Cf) ct::r: 1.&.1~ o::LL <t:~ 1.&.1-(.):r <t:~ LLLL. o::o :::> Cf)Cf) 1.&.1 o::- 1.&.10:: .,_<t: ct:Q ~~ 0 CD 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 •-• TOTAL WETTED SURFACE AND BACKWATER ZONE H·ll NOTE : STUDY AREA LIMITED TO A 900 1 LONG REACH • AOJOI N lNG MO U T H OF SLOUGH . I • • • I 0 20 30 40 ~0 60 SUSITNA R. DISCHARGE (CFSJliOOO) AT SUNSHINE USGS PROVISIONAL DATA 1982 152927 80 • 70 Appendix Figure E-13. We t ted surface area at Whitefish Sl ough versus mainstem disc harge at Sunshine. The measureme nts represent the areas with in the study boundaries illustrated in Appe ndix Plate E-13. • • • • 200 •-• TOTAL WETTE D SURFACE 6---6 BACKWATER ZOOE H ·TI ISO 0 I 0 .. .----• • 6- 1 --.... I -6-_ ...... I I , .... _ -... 6 -6_ I I I I I I , I I I C:.--6 2b 3b 4'o 56 s1o SUSIT·NA R . OI~CHARGE (CFS x 1000) AT SUNSHINE USGS PROVISIONAL DATA 1982 1~292780 -6 Append ix Figure E-14. Wetted surface area a t Goose Creek I Side Channel versus main- stem discharge at Sunshine. The measurements represe nt the areas within the study boundaries i llustra ted i n Appendix Plate E-14. • -· .. DRAFT/PAGE 4 FHR REPORT/B. MARSHALL APP1/APP 01 many oi these areas changed considerab l y over the range of mainstem discharges observed. Total wetted surface area plots are typically represented by simple 1 i ""'"'" regres s ion s . In contrast, backwater area plots are more complex. In part, this complexity is attributed to these areas moving, receding and r eforming downstrean as flow decreased (see Volume 4 for more discussion of this topic). At Slough 6A and at Whitefish Slough, the total wetted and backwater surface areas are identical within the range of discharges observed. The reaches of Sloughs SA and 11 which were mapped consisted predom i - nantly of backwater areas. At these and other habitat locations, except when zone 9 (calm water} pools were present (Appendix Table E-2), the difference between the total and backwater surface areas reported equals the surface area of water present in the study area which had appreciable velocity. Appreciable velocity was generally defined as a velocity of 0.5 ft/sec or greater (Volume 4, Part II). Conversely, the pool plus backwater surface area sum eq ual s the low velocity (0.0 to 0.5 ft/sec) surface areas present within the boundaries mapped at a habitat site. Additional discussion relating surface areas to habitat is found in the Juvenile Anadromous Section of this vo lume. A su~tion of the total wetted surface areas, within the boundaries ~f all upper and lower Susitna River study sites sampled, is shown in Appendix Tables E-3 and E-4, and in Appendix Figures E-15 and E-16. These values were obtained by determining the areas indicated at 2500 • • DRAf"T FHRTAII /Tnblc Appendlx Table £-2. Surface areas of morphological pools8 not regulated by mainstcm Susitna River discharge at Designated Flsh Habitat (DFH) sites, and molnstem Susitna River discharges, June through September , 1982. DFH Site Discharge Zone 9 cfa Date Surface Area 36,400 9/13 64,200 33,900 9/29 77,400 Coose Creek and Sidcchannel 22,400 7/22 22,200 18,100 7/08 23,100 16,600 8/08 19,500 15,000 9/25 18 ,800 14,400 9/10 18,900 12,500 8/20 18,700 Lane Creek/Slough 8 Rabldeux Creek and SlouiS" 33,400 9/30 308,000 33,250 6/20 40,500 26,800 7/24 54 ,800 23,000 6/04 36,300 18,100 7/08 11,500 16,500 8/07 20,300 14,400 9/04 18,100 14 ,000 9/26 18,100 12,500 di20 15,900 37 ,000 21 41,400 31,900 ~~ 8,400 25,000 none 23,000 ~ 55,200 16 ,600 25 ,100 13,800 ~~ 23,500 13,400 23,500 12,200 8/22 19,500 Slough 20 Wh i sker Creek and Slough 'These a r eas vere identified a s zone 9 and occurred (as calm vate r morphologic pools) ln free flavin& t rl butarr o r ground voter areas . ,. -• Appendix Table E-2. (Continued). om Site Discharge c:fl Sunshine Creek and Sidec:hannel 35 ,000 33,400 Birch Creek and Slough 38,000 35,900 33,800 Slough 19 15,500 14,400 l3 ,30C Slou&h 8A • Date 9/12 9/30 8/23 9/28 9/11 9/25 9/04 8 /19 Zo ne 9 Surface Area 8,400 7 ,700 33,900 37,400 37,400 5,500 5,100 4 ,600. Apprc ... 8,oooR DRAFT FHRTAB/Table •• 1 A 1111111 pool wu located below the first beaver dam throughout most of the sampling year. Thia pool was not mapped as such but wos the aite of systematic: fish captures. • Surface Areasb Kabl.tat Location 12,500 15 ,000 Slough 21 88. 129. Slough 20 57. 69. Slough 19 16.c 20 . Slough 11 58. 77 . Slough 9 150. 171. S l ough 8A 186. 194 . Lane Creek/Slough 8 35. 39. Slough 6A 128. 129. \.'h iaken Creek/S l.dechanne 1 170. ~ Total by Discharge 888. 1007. Auscs Provisional data at Gold Creek, 1982, 15292000. b~~ta compiled from Appendix Figures E-1 through E-9. cA.ea measured at 13,300 cfs. dArea measured at 24,900 cfs. • DRAPI' • FIIRTAB/Tabl(' (Sguare Feet x 1000) at llabitat Location, by Dl.echarge l7 ,500 20,000 ~ 25,000 27,500 160 . 161. .I ~tJ. 173 . 194. J 82. 94. 106. 118 . 130 . 26. 32 . 38. 44,d 44.d 97 . 116 . 136 • .-.\ 143. 145. 193. 215. 237. 25 9. 280. 201. 208. 215. 22:\. 230. 43. 47. 51. 55. 59. 131. 132. lll.. JJS. 137. 189 . 198. .19!:.... 217 . ...ill:_ 1122. 1203. J2nj , 1367 . 1437. , . • • DRJ.fi f'liRTAR /Table • Appendix Table E-4, Total wetted sur face arena measu red with in the boundnrles of fl vl.' study areas on the Lower Susitno Ri •Je r, versus Suns hine discharge , J une through Septembe r, 1962 . Surface Area sb (Square Feet x 1000) at II obi t:1 t Loc atlun, by Discharge Ha bitat Loca t ion 35 ,000 40 ,000 45 ,000 50 ,000 55,000 60 ,000 65 ,000 70,000 Birch Creek 362. 366. 374. 360. :366 . 394. 400. 406. Sunshine Creek/Stdech~nnel 1 66 . 165. 202. 219 . 236 . 253. 270 . 287 . Rabidt~~ Cr eek/Sl ough 1020 . 1050 . 1070. 1110 . 1120. 1150. 1160. 1200 . ~~itefish Sl ough 21. 37. 51. 61. 67. 72. 77 . 80. Coose Creek/S I.dcchannel ..!l!:..... 143 . ~ 152. ...!E.:_ 161. 166. liO . Total by Discharge 1710. 178 3. 1645. 1922. 1966 . 20 30. 2093 . ::143 , auscs Provis i onal data a t Suns hine, 1962 , 15292780. biJata compil ed f r om Ap pend ix Figures E-10 through E-14. 1500 ,_ 1250 - 1000 - 750 - 500 - 250 - 0 ~ 0 • 0 TOTAL WETTED AREA G]j BACKWATER H ·ll ZONES ) - J !, .: -.: ~' !. I_ I I I 20 25 5 10 15 S USITNA R. DISCHARGE ( C FS x 1000) AT GOLD CREEK USGS PROVISIONAL DATA 1982 15292000 : I 30 Appendix Figure E-15. Wetted surface area summations for the nine upper Susitna sites ver s us mainstem di sc harge at Gold Creek . The measurements represent the areas within the study boundaries illus trated in Appe ~dix Pl ates E-1 th rough E-9. • • ·! ' (/) ~ • ... 2000 ,_ 0 TO T A L WETTED AR EA (/) a:: 1.1.1 > (£] BACKWATE R H -11 ZONES ., 1 50 o- ~ .. ~ . ..-) • ~ 100 o-~ ' 1.- ---' ,4u& - r .?.-.· ~~' '1 l r~ I ' ' 50 o-I ~:· ~. .. (' :;r~ ', 0 I 0 10 It· ~~~ .. ; .. .. f;:;,~~ .•· I I J l I 20 30 40 50 60 SUSITNA R. DISCHARGE (C FX x 1000) AT SUNSHINE USGS PROVISIONAL DATA 1982 15 2 92780 I 70 Appen dix Figure E-16. Wetted s :Jrface area summ ations for the five lower Su s itna sites vars us mains tem d1schar ge ~t Sunsh i ne . The mea s ureme nts rep r esent t he a r ea s wi thi n the s tu dy bo unda r i e s i ll ustrated i n Appendi x Pl ates E-1 0 through E-14 . • l 80 • DRAFT /PAGE 5 FHR REPORT/B. MA RSHALL APPl /APP 01 and 5000 cfs discha rge i nt e rvals from Appendix Figures E-1 to E-14. Th e upper river total wetted area versus Susitna Riv er discharge plot indicates a small inflect ion in the rela t ionship of area s to Go ld Cree k discharges above and bel ow approximately 17 ,500 cfs . The lower river plot indi cates that a simple re l ationship between total wetted surface areas and Sunsh ine s tation discharge exi s t s within th e range of discharges observed . Appendix Figure s E-15 and E-16 also display the corresponding backwater surface data as adapted from Tables 41-4-1 and 41-4-2 of the Basic Data Report . Comparison between the total wetted and backwat er sur ·face area plots requires careful interpretation . As noted above, the backwater areas occurring at each s ite were normally mapped in their entirety. The 11 total 11 wetted surfaces mapped were, however, selectively limited in area by s tudy design and sam pling l ogisti cs. Within the lower river slough and tributary areas sampled however, backwater surface areas decrease faster than do tota l wetted areas, at mainstem discharges below approximately 60,000 cfs. At mainstem discharges ebove 60,000 cfs, the total wetted areas increase faster than do backwater areas, yie lding the highest proporti on of backwater area near 60,000 cfs. At upper river sites, the inflection point near 17,500 cfs appears to be similar to the 60,000 cfs point in the lower river plot: above 17,500 cfs , the total wetted area increa ses faster than backwater area . Below 17,500 cfs (in the upper r iver plot), it is not clear that backwater surface areas decrease faster than do tota 1 wetted s urfaces , as it appears in the l • • DRAFT/PAGE 6 FHR REPORT/B . MARSHALL APPl/APP 01 lower river. Data at discharges of 10,000 cfs and below may show that this is the case in the upper river as well. Use of this sloug h and tributary mouth wetted surface area data to model the total wetted surfaces of the Susitna River \'lith decreasing flows should not be attempted . This data was not obtained from areas representative of the average mainstem environment, as the proportion of free flowing mainstem surfaces included represent an insignificantly small proportion of the Susitna River 's total . There is however confidence for using the backwater data to represent true backwater surface area versus discharge relationship for larger reaches of the Susitna (as was done) as a significant percentage of these types of surfaces we r e actually measured. Thus, the total wetted surface areas presented are intended primarily to be illustrative of changes that occur within the slough ~nvironments. This work illustrates that many difficulties might be involved in attempting discharge related assessments of available juvenile fish (slough and tributary) habitat based on overly simplified parameters, such as total wetted surface a1eas. Total backwater area relationships, which appear to be more comp l ex, may be better indicators for selected species and life history stages. In addition, separating those backwater areas that reform downstream (in mai nstem type environments during low mainstem flows) from the slough and tributary backwater habitats present at higher flows, would also contribute to a habitat analysis . • ' DRAFT I PAGE 7 FHR REPORT /B . 11ARSHALL APP l/APP 0 1 Both the total wetted and backwater surface area relationships pres e nt ed s hould not be used to infer s urface areas at mainstem discharge ~ beyond those ob served. APPE l·' F • In f luence of Habi t at Parameters on Di ~ of Juve nil e Salmon and Resident Species • DRAFT /PAGE 10 FHR/CRAWFORD APP2/Table of Contents DRAF T ~n a nd Relative Abundance • • • APPENDIX F LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES Appendix Figure F-1 Mean water temperature of the aggregate hydraulic zone types DRAFT /PAGE 11 FHR/CRAWFORO APP2/Table of Contents by sampling period .•......•••....•....•.... Appendix Figure F-2 Mean water velocity of the aggregate velocity zones by sampling period .•.••••...••..•••....••••... Appendix Figure F-3 Habitat index parameters versus mainstem discharge for chinook juveniles at the Whiskers Creek and Slough study site ..••••.....••........•••.• Appendix Figure F-4 Habitat index parameters versus mainstem discharge for coho salmon juveniles at the Birch Creek and Slough study site •••••..••..........•..••.. Appendix Figure F-5 Habitat index parameter versus mainstem discharge for sockeye salmon juveniles at the Slough SA study site ..••.•..•.•.......• Appendix Figure F-6 Habitat index parameters versus mainstem discharge for chum salmon juve~~s at the Slough 6A study U/f 4.1' ...... . "' APPENDIX F DRAFT/PAGE 12 FHR/CRAWFORD APP2 /Table of Content s LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Appendix Table F-1 Appendix Table F-2 Appendi x Table F-3 Appendix Table F-4 Appendi x Table F-5 Appendix Table F-5 Appendi x Table F-7 Appendi x Table F-8 Matrix table of habitat conditions by zone .....•.•..•.•••••.•••............... Matrix table of habitat conditions by aggregate zone ••••••••.•••.•.•....••.•.. Chinook juvenile catch pe r minnow trap by zone at selected DFH sites on the Susitna Rive r below Devil Canyon, June through September, ::::. ~~~~~;;~. ~~~~~. ~~ • inin~~-. :~T ..... trap by zone at selected DFH sites on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, June through September, 1982 ...................................... . Rainbow trout catch by trotline by zone at selected DFH sites on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, June through September, 1982 ...................................... . Burbot ca t ch by trotline by zone at selected DFH sites on thP Susitna River below Devil Canyon, June through September, 1982 ...................................... . Chinook juvenile catch per minnow trap by aggregate zone at selected DFH sites on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, June through September, 1982 ...................................... . Coho juvenile catch per minnow trap by aggregate zone at selected OFH sites on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, June through September, 1982 ...................................... . • • • DRAFT /PAGE 13 FHR/CRAWFORD APP2/Table of Contents LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES (Continued) Appendix Table F-9 Rainbow trout catch per trotline by aggregate zone at selected DFH sites on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, June through September, 1982 •......•.•....•••••......... Appendix Table F-10 Burbot catch per Appendix Table F-11 Appendix Table F-12 Appendix Table F-13 Appendix Table F-14 trotline by aggregate zone at selected DFH sites on the Susitna Riv~r be'~ Devil Canyon, June through September, 1982 .••.•...•.....••.•.•.......• Range and mean zone quality indices (ZQI) for aggregate ~ydraulic zones by reach by ~pecies, June through September , 1982 ..........•.........••..•... Habitat indices for juvenile chinook salmon for aggregate hydraulic zones at Whiskers Creek and Slough, June through September, 1982. Habitat indices for coho salmon for aggregate hydraulic zones at Birch Creek and Slough, June through September, 1982 ••••.•.•.••..•••.... Habitat indices for juvenile sockeye salmon for aggregate hydraulic zones at Slough SA, June through September, 1982 •........•.•... Appendix Table F-15 Habitat indices for juvenile chum salmon for aggregate hydraulic zones at Slough 6A, June through September, 1982 ....•..••..•••. Page • • TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT /PAGE 2 FHR/S. HALE APP2 /Appen di x F A. INTRODUCTION B. METHODS 1. Spatial and temporal variation in habitat variables and in relative abundance of fish . 2. Relationship of habitat index and mainstem discharge. C. RESULTS D. 1. Spatial and temporal variation in habitat variahles and spatial variation in relative abundance of fi ~h. Habitat variables Catch data 2. Relationship of habitat index and mainstem df scharge. Zone quality indices Habitat indices Juvenile chinook salmon Juvenile coho sa l mon Juvenile sockeye s~lmon Juvenile chum sa lmon DISCUSSION II 1. Spatial and temporal variation in habitat variables and in relative abundance of fish. 2. Relationship of habitat index and mainstem discharge. Zone quality indices Habitat indices I • • • • A. INTRODUCTION DRAFT /PAGE 3 FHR/S. HALE APP2/Appendix F The physical and chemical parameters present in the Susitna River, such as discharge, surface area, water velocity and depth, temperature, and water quality have wide ranging s patial and ~ ~P rat. ¥riations. Spatial variations range from micro-habitat (on the oriferf of a few feet), to macro-habitat (such as tributary mouths or sloughs), to entire reaches. Temporal variations occur on a scale ranging from daily to annual to rulti-year cycles. Fish and other organisms respond to these soatial and temporal variations and this response is reflected in the distribution and relative abundance of each species. The distribution of juvenile fish in the Su s itna present formidable difficulties in measuring the quantity of productive habitat with changing mainstem discharges. Although si gnificant amounts of research have been conducted using hydraulic models to predict the availability of habitats over incrementally varying discharges, these studies have not been directed towards large and diverse glacial systems such as the Sus itna River . The broad geographical distribution of juvenile fish observed in 1981 provided an overall perspective and an indication of problems associated with evaluating the Susitna's juvenile salmon habitat on a very detailed level. These observations have also provided the basis for hypothesis of the factors which influence the distribution and abundance of the juvenile species at an intermediate level of resolution. Of tt-ese factors, those that were obviously influenced by mainstem discharge were • • • DRAFT/PAGE 4 FHR/S. HALE APP2/Appendix F selected as the focal point for the 1982 field study plan. A central thesis of this effort is that the highly va ried habitats required collections at many sites to adequately represent the effects of changing mainstem flows on the habitat used by the majority of the fish. The decision to examine a large number of habitats prevented the quantification of available micro-habitat conditions at the study sites. To monitor the physical habitat response to discharge without intensive data collection, a system of c lassifying t~e rby~aul i c conditions present at a study site into zones L\ Q el lofed) The zones were defined into a set of criteria that could be identified and easily mapped i n the field using aerial photographs. The zones were mea s ured for surface area under the variable flow conditions of t he mainstem Susitna throughout the course of the sumner and the distribution and relative abundance of fish were evaluated as a function of their distribution among zone types . The analysis presented attempts to develop an estimate of habitat changes with discharge by combining the catch variations between zones with the changes in the surface area of the zones . The resulting index of habitat at t he study sites h an approximation of the available habitat where t he habitat is defined as the surface area multipli ed times a weighting factor. The weighting factor is based on the value of a site as reflected by the relative abundance of the species among the zones sampled at each site. Changes in micro-habitat within the zones as a function of discharge were not evaluated in this years study . This • • • DRAFT /PAGE 5 FHR/S . HALE APP2 /Appe ndix F work provide s a l ogical step in the quantitative analysis of the available habitats over an incremental range of mainstem Susitna Rive r discharge s . B. METHODS Da ta we11e drawn from the 1982 open-water studies at the 17 De s ignated Fish Habitat (DFH) s ites describ" '\"\ V l'rt (Section 2.1.3) and Volume 4 (Section 2.1.3 .1 of Part I and Sec fio 2.2 and 2.3.2 of Part II) of the Basic Data Report (ADF&G, 1983). Thest! sites included several different major habitat type s located from Goose Creek (RM 73.1) to Portage Creek (RM 148.8). Two reaches were def i ned -the upper reach included twelve sites above the Chulitna River confluence (RM 98.5) and the lower reach in c luded five sites below this point. These 17 sites were sampled tw i ce per month in June, July, August, and September . As sumption s Each species of fish, during any particulat· sampling period wa s assumed to have a choice of avail able habitat types at a site and presumably would be found in greatest abundance in that habitat type which is most de sirable to them. Recognizable habitat types at a site were categorized as ''habitat zones 11 and are defi ned in Volume 4, Part II, Section 2.2. Criteria used in delineating habitat zones included water source, water velocity , and mainstem influence. Sampling at each s ite wa s standardized by zone • • • DRAFT/PAGE 6 FHR/S. HALE APP2 /Appendix F A word model of the factors affecting juvenile salmon ca tch within a zone can be constructed as follows: Catch= F (abundance, sampling effort, gear efficiency, and fish catchability) Where : Abundance = F (Local hab;tat suitability, time of season, success Where: of previous fall's spawning and incubation survival, proximity to spawning grounds) Local habitat suitabil i ty = F (~p~tJ[eJ:Ir velocity, depth, substra~e, t~rb ity, cover, food) Some of these parameters are quantifiable and s ome a .. e semi-quanti- fiable. For others, we have no data. During data collection and subsequent analysis, however, we have attempted to eliminate the variables of sampling effort, gear efficiency, and fish catcha'Jil ity so that catch reflects abundance by using a constant effort with one type of gear that is most effective in catching the species of interest. The location of the site integrates such factors as proximity to spawning grounds and success of previous fall spawning and incubation survival . Local habitat suitability is integrated by hydraulic zone. Therefore we can simplify the model to catch = F (abundance) = F (time of season, site, and habitat zone within - DRAFT/PAGE 7 FHR/S. HALE APP2/Appendix F sampl ing site). Presumably higher catches reflect greater abundance and therefore we can pro ceed with a greatly si mplified analysis. 1. Spatial and temporal variation in habitat variables and in relative abundance of fish. Catch data were grouped by sampling site, habitat zone within sampling site, and sampling period. Analysis by samp ling site and ha~itat zone address spatial variation and sampling period addresses seasonal variation . Sampling site takes into account macro-habitat variations including differences between reaches and differences between major habitat types such as tributary mouths ve~sQ,p/1n . s;rughs. Habitat zone addresses a more narrowly de fined habitat and considers the effect of habitat variables such as water temperature and velocity within a site. Habitat zone f alls somewhere in between macro-habitat and micro- habitat (such as would be obtained by point-specific measurements). Also, the catch and habitat data were sorted and pooled in various ways (as outlined in the results section) and mean values were tested for significant differences using a t test. In order to increase sample sizes, habitat zones were pooled by aggregate zone types. Three different criteria were used to aggregate habitat zones -by the presence or absence of a mainstem backwate r zon e , by water source, and by water velocity. Details describing these aggregate zones ware presented in Section 2.2, Part II, Volume 4 of the Ba s ic Data Report (ADF&G, 1983). A summary follows: • • • 1. 2. 3 . Criterion presence of mainstem backwater area water source water velocity Aggregate Zone H-I Description DRAFT /PAGE 8 FHR/S. HALE APP2/Appendix F tributary or slough above mainstem backwater area H-11 mainstem backwater area H-Ill mixing zone below mainstem W-1 W-11 W-Ill V-1 backwater area tributary water mainstem water . • t' ) " m1x1ng wa er fast water V-II slack water 1 2. Relationship of a habitat index and mainstem discharge The value of a habitat type to a population of fish is a function both of thP. quality of the habitat and the amount available. In this section, we derive a quality index for each habitat zone and multip'y the index by the surface area of that habitat zone available within the study boundaries at incremental levels of mainstem discharge. The raw catch data from the fish habitat sites used to determine quality indices are contained in Appendices G and H of Volume 4 of· the Basic Data Report. The surface area data art~ from Sections 3.1.3.1 and 4.1.3.1 of Volume 4, Part I, and from Appr:ndix E of the present report • DRAFT /PAGE 9 FHR/S. HALE APP2/Appendix F First, the nine separate habitat zones were aggregated into three catego r ies of hydraulic zone types. These zones are defined in Volume 4, Section 2.2, of the Basic Data Report (ADF&G, 1983). Briefly, the H-1 aggregate zone consisted of al1 habitat zones which occurred above the influence of mainstem backwater areas. The H-11 aggregate zone included all habitat zones which were backed up by ~ hydraulic barrier created by mainstem stage at the mouth of tributaries, sloug hs. or side channels. The H-Ill aggregate zone was the main~tem itself, just below the H-11 zone. A catch ratio (rc) was calcul a ted for each hydraulic ('-oDf at each site during each sampling period. This was done f r'la ~srecles . The ratio took the form: rc = (CP "E)i ,-n~-1~~~~)~---\ E (CPUE)j /n-1 where: CPUE = catch pe r unit effort n = total number of zones sampled i = zone number of the zone in question j = zone numbers of all other zones Thi s is simply the ratio of the CPUE of the zone in question to the mean of the CPUEs of all other zones. The ratio was calculated in this manner in accordance wHh the or iginal assumption -that each species will con centrate in the zone that has the most desirable conditions . This ra t io is also i n ~"";:>endent of the absolute numbers of fish at the site; if a particular zone is preferred. it could have the same ratio whether there were 50 fish or 500 fish present. A further advantage of • • • DRAFT /PAGE l) FHR/S. HAt E APP2 /Appendi x F the ratio is that it is independent of the number of zones sampled, which ranged from two to four. If less than ten fish of any one species were captured at a site during a particular sampling period, the case was dropped from the data set because of the small sample size. Only minnow trap data were used to compile the CPUE for juvenile chinolk and coho salmon . The CPUE was defined as catch/trap in a three hour set. Minnow traps were most effective in collecting these two species and were the most reproducible unit of gear between zones. The CPUE for j uvenile sockeye and chum salmon were compiled from beach seining c nd backpack electrofishing data, which were the two methods most effect ·ve in capturing these species. Because of the dHficulty i n replicat· ng effG rt among zones with these types of gear , a code was establ isl1ed using actual catch numbers: Number Captured 0 1-10 11-25 more than 25 Code 0 1 2 3 To be included in the analysis, at least two zones at any one site and sampling period had to have been sampled by the gear previous iy mentioned. The catch ratio can vary from zero, if no fish were captured in the zont! in question, to infinity, if all the fish at the site were captured i~ this zone. In order to transform this range into the range zero to one , • • • DRAFT/PAGE 11 FHR/S. HALE APP2/Appendix F which was desirable from the perspective of a habitat quality index, we derived the following equation: 1 ZQI = 1- rc + 1 where: ZQI = zone quality index rc = catch ratio This asymptotic equation transforms catch ratios to a value ranging from zero to one . A value of zero means that none of the fish captured at the site were caught in the zone in question, & value of one means that all the fish were caught in this zone, and a value of 0.5 means that the fish caught at the site were equal to the average of all other zones . Further, if the catch/trap in zone X is twice as great as the catch/trap in zone Y, then the ZQI for zone X is twice as high as that for Zone Y. This zone quality index has the feature of being independent of mainstem discharge and surface area. This zone quality index is unlike the quality index conmonly used in habitat evaluation preference (HEP) curves in that it is a relative measure only -one zone relative to other zones . For example, if no fish of a certain species were captured at a site, a HEP quality index of zero would be indicated; in this case, a ZQI would not be calcul ated because there is no sample to compare one zone against another. The only way to obtain a ZQI of zero are the cases where the spec ies was captured at the site, but none were captured in the zone in question • .. I • • DRAFT /PAGE 12 FHR/S. HALE APP2/Appendix F ZQJ's were calculated for each species, each site, each aggregate hydraulic zone, each period which met the criteria listed previously. For the present analysis, seasonal ZQI's for each site were calculated by taking the mean of all sampling periods at that site. This was perfonned after examin~tion of the ratios between periods for time trend s in the ratios. As no obvious trend over the periods of time that the fish were collected were observed, with the exception of early period chum salmon, the pooling of the data sets from the different collection periods appeared to be justified. This was done for each species for each of the three aggregate hydraulic zones. The assumption is that the value of each of the different zones relative to the other zones for a species was approximately constant over the period June through September. Having obtained a site quality index for each zone for each species, the next procedure was to multiply these ZQI's by the total surface area of tha t zone which was present at a particular level of mainstem discharge. The surface area data used were those which were calculated for dis- charge increments of 2,500 cfs (upper reach) and 5,000 cfs (lower reach). The surface area va 1 ues for the aggregate zone H-II were pr esented in Sections 3.1.3.1 and 4.1.3.1 of Volume 4, Part I, of the Basic Data Report. The values for the total wetted surface area are included in Appendix E of the present report. Values for the surface area of zones H-1 and H-Ill were similarly obtained from the digitized maps, when this zone was present in the study area. The tributary sites (Portage, Indian and 4th of July) were excluded from the analysis at ' DRAFT /PAGE 13 FHR/S. HALE .l\PP2/f,ppendix F this point because none of them had a mainstem backwater (aggregate zone H-I I area). The product of zone quality index times surface area pro vides a habitat inde x (HI). This was calculated according to the following equation : n HI ~ E ZQ I . X SA . i=l 1 1 whe re: ZQI = zone quality index for zone i SA; = surface area of zone i n = number of zones For the present analysis, this equation took the form: where: H-I = aggregate hydraulic zone H-I H-II = aggregate hydraulic zone H-11 The surface area of the aggregate H-Ill zone is not included because it is assumed t~ b ~ a constant -this type of habitat is always available to fish, reyardless of the level of mainstem discharge, and is theref ore not a factor. This habitat index (HI) is a product of habitat quality and habitat quantity and c~n be plotted as a function of mainstem discharge. • • • C. RESULTS DRAFT /PAGE 14 FHR/S. HALE APP2/Appendix F 1. Spatial and temporal variation in habitat variables and spatial variation in relative abundance of fish Habitat variables Appendix Table F-1 is a ma t rix table of the habitat variables that were measured in each of the nine habitat zones. Some general results are as follows. The mainstem backwater z!>nes (zones 2, 6, 7, and 8) were generally warmer than the other zones. There does not appear to be any real differe"lces in dissolved oxygen levels that would matter to fish except that the levels in Zone 9 (morphological pools) was somewhat low. The pH of tributary water (zones 1 and 2) was lower than the other zones . As expected, the turbidity of tributary water was low and other zones are higher. Zone 9 has a low turbidity because this zone generally occurred within tributaries. A habitat matrix table for the aggregate zones is presented in Appendix Table F-2. Slack water areas (zones H-11 and V-II) were warmer than areas of a faster ,,,ater velocity. This is illustrated by sampling period in Appendix Figure F-1. Slack water zones also had a lower dissolved oxygen level than other zones . Mainstem water zones (H-Ill and W-I I) had a higher pH, conductivity, and turbidity than other zones . The mainstem backwater zone (H-11) and the low velocity zone (V-II) by definition had lower water velocities than the other zones. This is illustrated by sampling period in Appendix Figure F-2 . • • • DRAFT/PAGE 1 FHR/ APPTAB/F-A Appendix Table F-1 Matrix table of habitat conditions by zone. All sites, all dates, June through September, 1982. Mean Mean Mea n Mean Mean Conduc-Turbi-Water Water DO Mean tivity dity Velocit) Zone Tem2(°C) (~/1~ ...£!!..__ (umhos/cm) NTU (ft/sec 1 8.8 10.9 6.8 81 5 1 2 9.5 10.3 6.8 105 6 0 3 8.7 11.0 7.0 98 45 1 4 9.0 11.2 7.1 101 36 1 5 (6.6) (12. 3) (7 .1) (75) (17) (1) 6 9.2 10.7 7.0 114 52 0 7 10.5 10.9 6.9 62 36 1 8 (15.5) (9.1} (7.4) (82} (R5) (1) 9 8.7 8.9 r.\ 78 12 0 "D Appendix Table F-2 Matrix table of habitat conditions by aggregate zone. All sites, all dates, June through September, 1982. Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Conduc-Turbi-Water Water DO Mean tivity dity Velocit) Zone Tem2(0 C} (mg/ll ...£!!..__ (umhos/cm} NTU ~ft/sec H-1 8.8 10.7 6.8 83 10 1.?. H-I I 9.7 10.4 6.9 98 18 0.2 H-Ili 8. 7 11.0 7.0 98 45 1.2 W-1 9.1 10.7 6.8 91 5 0.9 W-11 9.3 10.9 7.1 106 44 0.7 W-Ill 9.0 11.0 7.0 92 43 1.1 V-I 8.8 11.0 7.0 90 26 1.3 V-II 9.5 10.2 6.8 95 17 0.2 , • ~ • \lATER TEMPERATURE BY AGGREGATE HYDRAULIC ZONES DFH SITES Jm1e t.!u·ouc;h September, 1 902 IZ II '"-./~ •• ----7ij \ u \ l ..; '~ . a: • ;:) ... oC \~ a: '"' • ~ 'L '"' \~ ... a: J ~-'"' ... \~ c :a • \ . :j ' Legend ~ tt-t ,...,." ---~~ tt-U ~!!! I It-Ill,.., ... ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I z ' • s • 7 • SAHPLING PERIOD ' Appendix Figure F-1. Mean water temperature of the aggragate hydraulic zone types by sampling period • \lATER VELOCITY BY AGGREGATE \lATER VELOCITY ZONES DFH SITES 1.• J u:..1e tlu·ougb Se!)tember, 1 982 ... u w rn I.Z ' 1-... ,: I .. H 8 ••• ..... w > a:: 1&: ,_ ••• • :a z ••• • ~ •.a ..,......__ .................... "- --'-. .X L e g e nd '-...._________ :,:r.sr::.:....._ • I I I • I I I SA.IPLING PERIOD Appendix Figure F-2. Mean water velocity of the agg r agate velocity zones by sampli ng period. • • • DRAFT/PAGE 15 FHR/S. HALE APP2/Appendi x F The mean values of all 17 sites and all sampling periods for each of the three aggregate hydraulic zones for wat er temperature , water velocity, and turMdity were tested u ~ing a t test (Snedecor and Cochran 1967). These three variables w ~re chosen for the analysis because they are the most important of the measured variables in influencing fi s h dis- tribution . In all cases using these pooled data, the mean values of the ....... !""'\ ~ .-1 \ i ' three zones were significantly different (P< O.Ol}J ~ a shown in the following table: Pair H-1/H-11 H-1 /H-II I H-11/H-III Water Temperature p < 0.01 p < 0 .01 P <0.01 Water Ve 1 oci ty p < 0.01 p < 0 . 01 p < 0.01 Turbidity p < 0.01 p ( 0 .01 p <0.01 Conducting the same analysis for each of the eight sampling periods s howed that water temperature and water velocity of the three zones were significantly different (P < 0.01} during every period. Turbidity differences among the three zones were not significantly different in about one-half of the cases. The abo ~·e analy s is establishes the uniqueness of the hydraulic zones with regard to these habitat variables. Therefore, it is valid to relate variation in catch to habitat variations among these zones. Catch Data The means of catch per unit effort data for four species of fi s h for all sites and sampling periods pooled are presented by habitat zone in • • • DRAFT/PAGE 16 FHR/S. HALE APP2/Appendix F Appendi x Tables F-3 to F-6. These four spec1es and two gear types were chosen because the gear is ~fficient at capturing the species "ndicated and replicated observations enable statistical comparisons of means . The highest catch rates for chinook salmon juveniles occurred in habitat zones 1 and 2 (tributary} and 7 (mainstem backwater zone below tributary mouth). Coho salmon catch rates were highest in the tributary habitat zones. Rainbow trout were more broadly distributed among the habit~t zones, but s howed a preference for tributary zones (zones 1 and 2} over slough or mainstem zones. Burbot were caught most frequently in the mainstem mixing zone, followed by s 'ough zone s • The results of taking these same data and aggregating them by zone, using three separate criteria, are presented in Appendix Tables F-7 to F-10. A t test wus conducted for each pair of aggregate zones under each of the three zone aggregating categories for each of the four species. In all cases, these means representing pooled sites and sampling periods, showed highly significant differences (P < 0 .01). The catch rate for chi nook salmon was about equally ba 1 anced between zone H-1 and zone H-II, the rate for zone H-Ill was lower (Appendix Table F-7). Chinooks showed a slight preference for tributary water (W-I) over mainstem water. There was not a clear preference demonstrated for water velocity aggregates (V-1 versus V-II) • e • DRAFT /PAGE 1 FHR/HALE APPTAB/Table F-3 Appendix Table F-3. Chinook juvenile catch per minnow trap by zone at s elected DFH sites on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, June through September, 1982. Zone Min Max Mean n 1 0.0 6.9 0.4 15 2 0.0 5.8 0 .2 13 3 0.0 1.0 0.1 17 4 0.0 0.2 0.0 7 5 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 2 6 0 .0 0.7 0 .1 5 7 0.0 13.0 0 .9 6 8 0.0 0 .0 0.0 1 9 0.0 0.4 0 .0 5 • • • Ap pendix Table F-4. Zone Min 1 0 .0 2 0.0 3 0.0 4 0.0 5 0.0 6 0.0 7 0.0 8 0.0 9 0.0 DRAFT /PAGE 1 FHR/HALE APPTAB/Table F-4 Coho juvenile catch per minnow trap by zone at selected DFH sites on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, June through September, 1982. Max Mean n 25.6 1.2 15 18 .1 0 .9 13 1.4 0.0 17 0.3 0 .0 7 1.8 0.9 2 0 .7 0.1 5 1.7 0 .3 6 0.0 0 .0 1 1.9 0.1 5 Like zone 1 best, then 2 and 5, then 7 (below trib). ·~ f T • • • DRAFT/PAGE 1 FHR/HALE APPTAB/Table F-5 Appendi x Table F-5. Rainbow trout catch by trotline by zone at selected DFH sites on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, June through September, 1982. Zone Min Ma x Mean n 1 0.0 2.0 0.2 15 2 0.0 4.0 0.3 13 3 0 .0 5.0 0.2 17 4 0.0 1.0 0.1 7 5 0.0 0.0 0 .0 2 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 7 0.0 2.0 0.2 5 8 0.0 0.0 0 .0 1 9 0.0 1.0 0.1 4 Like zone 2 best, then 3, 1, and 7. • • • DRAFT/PAGE 1 FHR/HALE APPTAB/F-6 Appendix Table F-6 . Burbot catch by trotline by zone at se lected DFH sites on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, June through September, 1982. Zone Min Max Mean n 1 0.0 2.0 0.0 15 2 0.0 5.0 0.3 13 3 0.0 4.0 0.7 17 4 0 .0 2.0 0.6 7 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 6 0.0 2.0 0.6 c ~ 7 0.0 2.0 0.5 ' 8 0 .0 0.0 0.0 9 0.0 2.0 0.3 l like zone 3 best, then 4 and 6 (above trib), 7 next. • • • DRAFT/PAGE. 1 FHR/HALE APPTAB/F-7 Appendix Table F-7. Chi nook juvenile catch per minnow trap by aggregate zone at selected DFH sites on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, June through September, 1982 • • • • DRAFT/PAGE 17 FHR/S. HALE APP2/Appendix F Coho salmon preferred the area above the mainstem backwater zone over the backwater zone itself (Appendix Table F-8). The catch rate in the mixing zone (H-I I I was 1ow). Cohos strongly preferred tributary water (W-1) over slough or mainstem water (W-11 or W-11 1). Rdinbow trout did not show any strong separation by the aggregate zones (Appendi x Table F-9). Burbot clearly demonstrated a preference for the mixing zone (H-Ill and W-Ill), mainstem water (W-11), and higher velocity water (V-I) (App endi x Table F-10). 2. Relationship of the habitat index and mainstem discharge Zone quality indices The calculated zone quality indices (ZQI) of the aggregate hydraulic zones for four species of juvenile salmon for each of the two reaches are presented in Appendix Table F-11 . The mean shown is the mean of the seasonal ZQI's of all the sampling sites in the reach where the data from at least one sampling period met the previously defined criteria. The mean ZQis for chinook salmon are fairly evenly balanced between zone H-1 and zone H-11 in both reaches, with a slight preference shown for zone H-1. The ZQI for zone H-Ill is substantially smaller, although it is larger for chinook in the lower reach than for the other species. Coho salmon show a strong preference for zone H-1 over zone H-11 in both reaches; there were very few caught in zone H-Ill. There was one site • • • DRAFT /PAGE 1 FHR/HALE APPTAB/F-8 Appendix Table F-8. Coho juvenile catch per minnow trap by aggregate zone at selected DFH sites on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, June through September, 1982 . Aggregate Mean Zone n -Catch/Trap Hydraulic H-1 15 1.2 H-11 ~1 14 0.8 H-Ill 17 0.0 ' Water Source W-i: 17 1.0 W-I I 8 0.0 W-I II 17 0.1 Water Velocity V-I 17 0.6 V-II 15 0 .8 DRAFT/PAGE 1 FHR/HALE APPTAB/F-9 41t Appendix Table f-9. Rainbow trout catch per trotline by aggregate zone at Aggregate Zone Hydraulic H-I H-11 H-Ill Water Source W-I W-11 W-Ill Water Velocity V-I • V-II • selected DFH sites on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, June through September, 1982 . Mean n Catch/Tral:! 15 ~ 1 0.2 0.3 "" ~ 0.2 17 0.3 8 0.1 17 0 .2 17 0.2 14 0 .3 • • • DRAFT /PAGE 1 FHR/HALE APPTAB/F-10 Appendix Table F-10. Burbot catch per trotline by aggregate zone at selected DFH sites on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon, June through September, 1982. Aggregate Mean Zone n Catch/Tra~ Hydraulic H-1 n ft {-1 0.1 H-11 0.2 H-Ill 17 0.7 Water Source W-1 17 0.1 W-11 8 0.6 W-1 II 17 0.6 Water Velocity V-1 17 0.5 V-II 14 0.2 • • • • DRAFT /PAGE 1 FHR/ APPTAB/F-1 Appendix Table F-11.Range and mean zone quality indices (ZQI) for Lower reach Spec ies Min Chinook 0.49 Coho 0.71 Sockeye 0.00 Chum 0.28 Upper reach Ch.inook 0.52 Coho 0.94 Sockeye " "0 Chum O.u" aggregate hydraulic zones by reach by species, June through September, 1982. The means are the mean of the seasonal ZQJ•s for all the sites in the reach. The sample size (n) equals the number of sites included in calculating the mean. Zone H-1 ~-1 Zone H-1 II Max mean n n Min Max mean n .---- 0. 71 0.59 4 0.46 0.66 0.53 4 0.32 0.32 0.32 1 0.88 0.82 3 0.18 0.45 0.32 3 0.00 0.05 0.02 3 0.00 0.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 0.67 0.54 3 0.33 0.72 0.57 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.52 0.52 1 0.48 0.48 0.48 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 1.00 0.97 3 0.04 1.00 0.40 3 0.00 0.03 0.01 4 1.00 0.59 6 0.33 1.00 0.70 5 0.00 0.50 0.20 6 0.33 0.29 4 0.67 1.00 0.88 5 0 .00 0.00 0.00 3 • • :· DRAFT/PAGE 18 FHR/S. HALE APP2/Appendix F in the upper reach {Slough 6A) which never had a zone H-I present during the samplings. All the coho salmon caught at the site were in zone H-II; none were ever caught in zone H-III . This is the reason for the maximum ZQI of 1.00 for coho in the upper reach. A 11 of the sockeye sa 1 mon present at the one site in the 1 ower reach which met the previously defined criteria were caught in zone H-II. In the upper reach, a preference for zone H-II is apparent. However, there was at least one site where all the sockeye present were in zone H-I, leading to the maximum value of 1.00 for that zone. Chum salmon in the lower reach were approximately equally divided between zone H-1 and · Jne H-II, with a slight preference shown for the latter. A strong preference for zone H-Jl was shown in the upper reach . Chum salmon were rarely caught in zone H-Ill. Habitat Indices There are several possi bilities for presenting the results of this analysis. There are four salmon species multiplied by 17 sampling sites. The sites could be pooled into the two reaches. Another com- binatior'l could be produced by aggregating the nine habitat zones in a different manner than hydraulic aggregates; for example, habitat zones could be aggregated tJY water source . Rather than present the large number of graphs which could be generated, we have included in this report one graph for each of the four salmon species. One site was selected for each species. This site in each case was among t hose which • - • DRAFT /PAGE 19 FHR/S. HALE APP2/Appendix F had the highest catch for the species and which had zone quality indices which were typi ca 1 for that species among the sever a 1 sites in the reach. Together, the graphs include upland sloughs, side sloughs associated with a large tributary mouth, and side sloughs with no large tributary mouth; represent both reaches; and illustrate all the major points which result from this kind of analysis. Juvenile Chinook Salmon The site habitat index (sum of the habitat indices for each separate zone) for chirook salmon at the Whiskers Creek and s l ough site shows a steady increase with increasing discharge (Appendix Figure F-3). This results from summing the habitat indices of the two zones represented. The shape of the hab;tat index curves for the individual zones is exactly the same as the shape of their s urface area curves because the habitat index is a multiple of the surface area . The shape of the zone H-II curve is typical for sites in the reach -i t shows a steady increac~ and then levels off at a discharge of approximately 22,500 cfs. The zone H-1 surface area curve is relatively more constant. At the 1 ower discharge 1 eve 1 s, the 1 i near extent of zone H-I increased down- stream as the backwater zone (zone H-11) receded. However, at the same time, the width of zone H-1 was decreasing. The result of the two was a slight increase in zone H-1 surface area as discharge decreased. Because the zone quality indices for the two zones at Whiskers Creek for chinook salmon were fairly similar (Appendix Table F-12), zone H-1 and • ~ • ~ ~ • 120 100 )( 8 0 ~ 0 z ~ ~ t: 60 CD ~ :r 4 0 20 0 0 C HINOOK SALMON Whisk•'s C reek and Slough Jnne throue}l Septenbe:-, 1 982 _,-----SUM .---~~ ....._ . ......_ ....-. _ ... ZONE H~I . ..,,.._. ~a \' ,..cr--~---a ZONE H-n " ,; fl , J:f' " , , ...d CY 5 10 15 20 25 30 SUS ITN A RIVER DI SCH A RG E AT GOLD CR EE K ( x 10 5 c h) Appe ndi x Figu r e F-3 . Habitat indices for chinoo k s almon j uve ni l es at Whiskers Cr eek and Sl ough a s a f uncti on of mainstem di scharge . - ORAFT/PAGE 1 FHR/ APPTAB/F-2 Appendix Table F-12. Habitat indices for juvenile chinook salmon for aggregate hydraulic zones at Whiskers Creek and slough, June through September, 1982. Susitna Discharge Site habi- at Gold Creek Zone H-I Zone H-11 tat index (cfs) {ZQI=0.52) -SZQI=0.48) ( ~ HI) 12,500 73 -, ., ~ ~\ 14 87 15,000 74 ... 18 92 17,500 71 ·J' 25 96 20,000 69 32 101 22,500 66 39 105 25,000 69 40 109 27 ,500 70 40 110 DRAFT /PAGE 20 FHR/S. HALE APP2/Appendix F zone H-It were given nearly equal weight in comp i ling the site habitat index. Zone H-1 is slightly favored (ZQI = 0.52) over zone H-11 (ZQI = 0.48). If the ZQI for each zone had been equal to 0.5, which means that chinook salmon were equally distributed between the two zones, then the site habitat index curve would exactly parallel the total wetted surface area. Juvenile Coho Salmon The shape of the surface area curves for zones H-1 and H-11 ~t the Birch Creek and Slough sampling site reflect a pattern which occurs at several of the study sites (Appendi x Fig ure F-4); with increasing mainstem dis- charge, the surface area of zone H-1 decreases. The zone H-1 surface area decreases because the zone H-11 (backwater area) encroaches upon it as the discharge level increases. Because zone H-I was strongly preferred by coho salmon (Appendix Table F-13), the site habitat index curve is heavily weighted by the zone H-t habitat index and the two curves have a similar shape (Appendix Figure F-4). Basically, this means that a loss of zone H-1 reflects an impor- tant loss of habitat for coho salmon at this site, because they may not have the capability of compensating for a decrease in this zone H-I surface area. • X LLI a z 1-< 1- CD < :X: COHO SAL MON ~oo Birch Creek and Slouoh June through Se~tember, 1 982 2 50 200 ISO \)~ ~f l 10 0 50 ZONE Hl·n \ ZONE H·I \ \ \ O +-------~------,--------r-------r------~------~------~- 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 SUSITNA RIVER DISCHARGE AT SUNSHINE ( x IO'cfl) Appendix Figure F-4. Habitat indices for coho salmon juveniles at Birch Creek and Slough as a function of mainstem discharge. .. - Appendi x Table F-13. Susitna Discharge at Sunshine (cfs) 35,000 40,000 45,000 50 ,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 • DRAFT/PAGE 1 FHR/ APPTAB/F-3 Habitat indices for juvenile coho salmon for aggregate hydraulic zones at Birch Creek and Slough, June through September, 198 2 . Site habi- Zone H-1 Zone H-11 tat index (ZQI=O.&B) {ZQI=0.18) { ~ HI) 245 15 260 194 26 220 197 27 224 200 r~ f\ f 1 28 228 146. 40 182 26 66 92 19 68 87 18 69 87 Juvenile Sockeye Salmon DRAFT/PAGE 21 FHR/S. HALE APP2/Appendix F Juvenile sockeye salmon preferred the zone H-11 area (ZQI = 0.66} over the zone H-1 area (ZQI = 0.55} {Appendix Table F-14}. This, along with the fact that the surface area of the zone H-1 area changed very 1 ittle with variation in discharge, gave a site habitat index for Slough SA for sockeye salmon wh i ch closely resembled the shaoe of the zone H-11 habitat index (Appendix Figure F-5). This is opposite the situation for coho at Birch Creek, where the site habitat index was strongly i nfluenced by the H-1 zone. The flatness of the zone H-1 curve at Slough SA is in part due to the gradually sloping banks of the H-11 zone at Slough SA and because the gradient near the zone l /1 1 interface is relatively steep. Juvenile Chum Salmon Slough 6A was chosen as the site to depict habitat indices for chum salmon (Appendix Table F-15). The study boundary for this upland slough did not include an H-I zone. This slough has stef..p banks and a deep entrance channel, so the surface area of the slough showed only a small response to variations in mainstem discharge. All of the chums present at this site were captured in the H-II zone, which gives that zone a ZQI of 1.00 and zo ne H-Ill a ZQI of 0.00. The net result of the above is that the site habitat index is exactly the same as the zone H-II habitat index and that this index did not vary much with variations in discharge (Appendix Figure F-6). • • DRAFT/PAGE 1 FHR/ AP PTAB/F-4 Appendix Table F-14. Habitat indices for juvenile sockeye salmon for aggregate hydrau l ic zones at Sloug h SA, Ju ne t hrough Sep t ember, 1982 . Susitna Discharge Site habi- at Gold Creek Zone H-1 Zone H-II tat index ~cfs (Zgi=0.55) (Zg i =0 .66) ( ~HI} 12,500 16 103 119 15,000 16 llf\~1 108 124 17,500 15 114 129 20,000 14 120 134 22,500 14 't \ 125 139 25,000 13 131 144 27,500 12 137 149 )( w 0 z ..... ~ ..... CD ~ :X: • 140 130 100 80 1>0 4 0 SOCKEYE SA LMON Slouoh 8A J une throueh Scptcrnbe~, ....... __ ._ _...._ , , .... SIJ M _..._ ·-._._ -. ZO ttE lt ·I 0 ~-------,--------~-------r------~r-------,-------~----- 0 5 10 I 5 20 ~! ~ 0 SUSITNA RIVER DISCHARGE AT GOLD CR EEK(xiOlcfs) Appendix Figu r e F-5. Habitat indices for sockeye salmon juven iles at Sl ough SA as a func tion of main stem discharge . I • • • DRAFT /PAGE 1 FHR/ APPTAB/F-5 Appendix Table F-15. Habitat indices f nr juvenile chum salmon for aggregate hydraulic zones at Slough 6A, June through September, 1982. Susitna Discharge Site habi - at Go l d Creek Zone H-I Zone H-11 tat index (cfs} (Zgi = N/A) ( ZQI=l.OO} ( ~HI) 12,500 .~ 128 128 15,000 129 139 17,500 131 131 20,000 132 132 22,500 134 134 25,000 135 135 27,500 137 137 - )( "" 0 z .... ~ .... II) ~ X: 140 120 100 "0 .;o 4 0 2 0 CHUM SAL MON Stough 6A ------ June through Se?tember, 1 982 -----SUM o ,-------r------r------,------.r------r------~-- 0 ~ 10 I~ 20 25 :!10 S USITNA RIVER DISCHARGE AT GOLD CR~EK (a lOse fs) Appendi x Figure F-6. Habitat indices for chum salmon juveniles at Slough 6A as a fun ct ion of mainstem dishcarge. • • • D. DISCUSSION DRAFT/PAGE 22 FHR/S. HALE APP2 /A ppendi x F 1. Spatial and temporal variations in habitat variables and in relative abundance ~f fish The validity of any type of analys is relating discharge to habitat would first establish if the fish species life stage in question can be demons t rated to respond to the variability of the habitat component s be i ng examined. The data presented suggests ~ significant difference in the key habitat indicators present in our defined areas and is maintained over time and over variations in mainstem discharge. The distribution of fish among the habitat zones is also established by the analysis present. That is, there are significant differences in the catch rates for t he s pecies between the zones s ampled. The calculation of the zone quality indices from these catch data is therefore demonstrated by the stati s tical validity of the differences in di s tribution observed. 2. ~P.lationship of the habitat index and mainstem discharge Zon e Quality Indices We believe the re s ults s how that the mea s ure of habitat quality which was derived for thi s study, the zone quality index (ZQI), provide s logi cal results which reflect juvenile salmon habitat preferences . DRAFT/PAGE 23 FHR/S. HALE APP2/Appendix F Chinook salmon apparently do not have strong preferences between the backwater areas (Zone H-11) and the free-flowing areas above the back- water zone (Zone H-1). They also show more association with the mixing zone (zone H-Ill) below the backwater area than other juvenile salmon species. These results suggest that chi nook juveniles are associated with broader ranges of habitat parameters than the other species. Similar results were obtained when examini ng chinook distribution among the major habitat types (tributary mouths, upland sloughs, and so on) in Appendix G. Coho salmon showed the strongest association of all the species for the area (zo~e H-1) above the backwater zone. This may be related to their preference for areas with tributary water . If the nine separate habitat zones had been aggregated using water source as a criterion rather than mainstem backup, a strong preference by coho for tributary water would have been evident. This kind of aggregation would separate the turbid H-I area of sloughs with a mainstem water source (called Zone 4) from the clear water H-I area of tributaries (called zone 1). Sockeye and ch um salmon juveniles both showed a marked preference for the mainstem backwater zone (Zone H-11). However, there were several cases where both these species were present in Zone H-1; thus, the ZQI for zone H-I is not insignificant. Field observations indicated that the sockeye present in zone H-I were often associated with the small calm water morphological pools present in these areas. This was the case in sites such as Slough 8A and Slough 19 . Jf point-specific data were available for sockeye juveniles, it would probably show a very • • • strong preference by sockeyes for low-velocity account for the presence of chum salmon juveniles water. in zone DRAFT /PAGE 24 FHR/S. HALE APP2/Appendix Two factors H-1. First, they were captured in this area durir.g outmigr.Jtion from tributary spawning grounds (at Goose Creek). Second, they were frequently present in sloughs above the backwater zones, ha ving emerged from nearby redd s (Slough 11) or having entered the slough head during outmigration (Birch Creek Slough). The examination of the distribution of this species over time also suggests that this may be the reason for their occurrence in zone H-1. Juvenile chums sampled shortly after emergence were found in a higher ratio in zone H-1 than in later sampling periods when a higher ratio occurred in zone H-11. This presumably reflects their migration from natal areas in zone H-1 to rearing areas in zone H-2 . Habitat Indices The habitat indices which were presented in this report represent only one of the several possible approaches using this kind of analysis . The nine individual habitat zones could be treated separately or they could be aggregated using criteria other than the influence of the mainstem backwater. Other zone aggregations could be compiled using water velocity or water source as a criterion. However, the value of the approach has been demonstrated by what has been presented so far . In interpreting the habitat index curves, one should be careful about extending the curves beyond the range of mainstem discharge which was observed, because the trends may not hold outside that range. Also, it very important to keep in mind that these curves reflect the situation F • • DRAFT /PAGE 25 FHR/S. HALE APP2 /A ppendix F only within the study boundaries. These boundaries usually included a tributary or slough mouth, some of the area above, and s ome of the mainstem mixing zone below. Just because the surface area of a preferred habitat diminished within the study boundary does not mean that the habitat was completely lost. For example, the coho salmon present in zone H-I at Bi r ch Creek and S 1 ough may be ab 1 e to move further up the creek as a r ising mainstem discharge causes the backwater zone to advance on zone H-1. Similarly, decreasing areas of hackwater zones may not have replacement habitat available, such a$ are used by sockeye and chum salmon. These study sites for this analysis were chosen in part because of their importance to the fish populations, and loss of surface area can correctly be interpreted as a habitat loss which wi 11 influence the populations. The four site habitat index curves which were presented show all of the three possible relationships with an increase in mainstem discharge - they increase, decrease, or remain relatively constant. In practice, the curves showing a positive correlation with discharge are the norm. Only coho site habitat indices would be expected to decline with an increasing discharge. This relationship exists because of the strong association of cohos with zone H-1. The curve where there is little change in habitat index with a change in discharge (Slough 6A) is the exception. This occurs only at upland sloughs which are completely backed up by the ma instem, and extends only over the range at discharges sampled. • • • LITERATURE CITED DRAFT/PAGE 26 FHR/S. HALE APP2/Appendi x F Snedecor, G.W., and W.G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical methods. The Iowa State University Press, Ames. 593 pp . • • APPENDIX G DRAFT/PAGE 14 FHR/CRAWFORD APP2/Table of Contents Use of Major Habitat Types by Juvenile Salmon and Resident Species • • • APPENDIX G LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES Appendix Figure G-1 Distribution of juvenile salmon DRAFT/PAGE 15 FHR/CRAWFORD APP2/Table of Contents by species among the major habitat sites at DFH sites, J une through September , 198 2 ........................... . Appendix Figure G-2 Proportions of juveniles of four species of salmon at each of five major habitat types, June through September, 1982 .....••............. Appendix Figure G-3 Relative distribution of six resident species among four major habitat types located above the Chulitna River confluence sampled by boat electrofishing, May through September, 1982 ......•.....•••.••.•......•• • • • APPEN DIX G DRAFT /PAGE 115 FHR /C RAWf ORD APP 2/Table of Co nten ts LIST OF APPENDI X TABLES Ap pendi x Table G-1 Appendi x Table r,-2 hppendix Table G-3 Appendix Table G-4 Appendix Table G-5 Appendi x Table G-6 Appendix Table G-7 Summary of chi s quare anal ys is performed on 1982 presence/ absence proportion data .•.................. Effort (number of s ampling trips) and presence (number of trips that each species was present) of juv~n ile salmon at DFH sites. In cludin g catch by a 11 gear types ................... . Summary of results of chi square tests of association between juvenile salmon presence/absence and habitat type at DFH sites .•.••...•.••.•...•.••..... Ratios of observed to expected presence of coho and sockeye salmon juveniles at five different habitat types at OFH sites . June through September, 1So2 ......••.•.......... Resident species percentages by habitat type and by season within two habitat types at sites boat electrofished between Cook Inlet and Devil Canyon, May thro:.~gh September 1982 ••••••••••.•••.•• Comparison of species proportions for resident fish (rainbow trout, Arctic grayling, longnose sucker and other) between habitat types and by season within each habitat type, May through Septe1111le r, 1982 •.....•..................... Chi square tests of resident fish presence/absence associations among four major habitat tJpes at sites a~lve the Chulitna River confluence sampled by boat electrofishing, May through Septeni>e r. 1982 ............................ . ' ~ • LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES (Continued) DRAFT/PAGE 17 FHR/CRAW FORD APP2/Table of Contents Appendi x Table G-8 Ratios of observed to expected presence of resident fish by species at four different habitat types on the Susitna River betw~en the Chulitna River and Devil Canyon, May through September, 1982 ........................... . Appendix Table G-9 Chi square tests of seasonal associations of resident fish presence within a major habitat type at sites above the Ch ulitna River confluence which were boat electrofished May through September, 1982 ........•..•••.. Appendix Table G-10 Ratios of observed to expected presence of resident fish by season at sites ab ove the Chulitna River confluence which were boat-electrofished, May through September, 1982 ..•..•....••..•. Appendix Table G-11 Chi-square tests of resident fist. presence/absence associ ations among five major habitat types at DfH s ites, May through September, 1982 ...................................... . • • • 1. Introduction DRAFT/PAGE 1 FHR/HALE/SUCIIANEK APP G APP1/APP04 The preference of fish for a certain kind of habitat varies with species, life history stage, time of year, and other factors. This appendix is an analysis of preferE:nces of resident fish and juvenile salmon during the open water season fo,· six major habitat types occurring on the Susitna River between Cook Inlet and Devil C&nyon. The six major habitat types were defined as tributary mouths, side channels with large tributary mouth, side sloughs with large tributary mouth, side sloughs with small tributary mouth or groundwater input, upland sloughs, and mainstem channels or side channels . Methods Two kinds of proportions wet·e analyzed using chi square analysis (Snedecor and Cochran, 1974; Summers et al., 1981). The first kind was the distribution of a group of spedes among se'ieral different habitat types. The second was similar except that the distribution of a single species among these habitat types was tested. These tests were per- formed for both juvenile salmon (pink salmon not included because of low numbers captured) and resident species. A third kind of comparison which was conducted graphically but not with chi square analysis was the proportion of the four juvenile salmon species at one particular habitat type . • DRAFT/PAGE 2 FHR/HALE/SUCHANEK APP G APP1 /APP04 Sta t istica l significance for all the chi square tests was set at t he 95 ~ confidence level. Continuity correction factors were calculated for all 2 X 2 contingency tables. Species, dates, or sites were pooled where ne cessary to keep the expected values greater than five . Presence/absence da t a were extracted from (ADF&G 1983) and were collected by a number of gear types and method s (A ppendi x Table G-1). Appendi x Table G-2 shows how the 17 De signated Fish Habitat (DFH) s ites were grouped into five major habitat types along with sampling effort at each type. 3. RESULTS Juvenile salmon The presence/absence of the four s pecies of juvenile sal mo n at the fi ve major habitat types at DFH s ites i s s hown i n Appendi x Table G-2. A 4 x 5 chi square test of the pre s ence/absence of four species of juvenile salmon versus five majo r habitat types (Appendix Table G-3) showed that juvenile salmon did exhibit habitat preferences. A closer examinati on conducted by individual species revealed that coho s and sockeye s exhibited a significant preference for certain habitat types but no such preference by chinook and chums was demonstrated (Appendi x Table G-3). DRAFT/PACE 1 FliR/S, HALE APP/TAB C•l Appendix Table C-1. Summary of chi square analyses performed on 1982 presence/absence or species proportion dete. Method and Type of Data All geer types1 except boet ei~otrofishing, presence/absence by species Beach seine or backpack electroflshingc, presence/ absence by species Boat electrof1shing, catch numbers Boat electroflshing, presence/absence by speclea Where Collected 17 DFH sltesb 17 DFH sites Cook Inlet to Devil Canyon Above Chulitna River confluence (RH 98.5) Species All juvftnile salmon species Chi nook sa 1 mon Coho salmon Chum salmon Sockeye salmon Round whi tefi st> Arctic grayling Longnose s ucker Slimy sculpin resident species Round whitefish Arctic grayling Longnose sucker Burbot Humpback whitefish Rainbow trout Dolly va rden 1 Cear types Include minnow traps, beach seines, and backpack electrofishlng units. b The 17 DFH (Designated Fish Habitat) sites ranged from Coose Creek (RH 73.1) to Portage Creek (RH 1-8.8). 0 These methods were the only effective techniques for capturing these species at these sites . Chi Sguare Comparisons Among hebitat types by all species Among habitat types by species Among habitat types by species Comparison of species proportions between habitat types and by season within mainstem end tributary types 1) Among habitat type or pooled habitat type by species 2) Within habitat types by season by species • Appendi x Table G-2 . DRAFT /PAGE 1 FHR/HALE APPENDIX 6 APPTAB/G-2 Effort (number of sampling trips) and presence (number of trips that ea ch species was present) of juvenile salmon at DFH sites. Includes catch by all gear types, June through September, 1982. Appendi x Table G-3. Species DRAFT /PAGE 1 FHR/HALE APPENDI X 6 APPTAB /G-3 Summary of results of chi-square tests of association between juvenile salmon presence/absen ce and habitat type at DFH sites. Habitat types were tributary mouths, upland s loughs, side sloughs with large tributaries, side sloughs without large tributaries and side channels with large tributaries, Ju ne through September, 1982. Chi -square Of Probabilitx All four species of juvenile salmona 22 .8 12 p .05 Chinooka 7.8 4 NSc 40.9 Coho a Chumb Sockeyeb ~ 1 0.0 aAll gear types bBeach seining and electrofishing only eNS = Not significant 11.1 4 p 1d NS 4 p dHabitat types were pooled into tributary sites and sloughs with no large tributaries. .01 .01 • • • DRAFT /PAGE 3 FHR/HALE/S UC HANEK APP G APP1/APP04 Ratios of observed presence t r expected pre sence show an association of coho salmon juveniles with upland sloughs , side sloughs with la rge tributary mouths , and side channels with large tributary mouths (Appendix Table G-4). Sockeye salmon juveniles were associated with upland sloughs and side sloughs without large tributary mouths. The distribution of each species among the major habitat types is illustrated in Appendix Figure G-1 . An examination of juvenile salmon species proportions at each of the five major habitat types (Appendix Figure G-2) shows that each habitat type had a rather distinctive community of juvenile salmon. Chi square tests were not performed on these proportions . Resident Species Boat electrofishing catch data were used to characterize species pro- portions of the resident fish community at five different habitat types of the Susitna River at sites both above and below the Chulitna River confluence (Appendix Table G-5). After less abundant species were pooled to increase sample sizes, species proportions between habitat types were tested, using ar.tual numbers from c~t~n data, with chi square analysis and found to be significantly di f ferent (Appendix Table G-6). The seasonal differences in species proportions at mainstem and tribu- tary sites were also significantly different (Appendix Table G-6) • • • • Appendix Table G-4. Habitat type Tributary Upland Slough DRAFT/PAGE 1 FHR/HALE APPENDIX 6 APPTAB/G-4 Ratios of observed to expected presence of coho and sockeye salmon juveniles ilt five different habitat types at DFH sites, June through September, 1982. Based on results presented in Appendix Table G-3. Coho Sockeye Side Slough with large trib Side Slough w/o large trib Side channel with tributary 0.29 1.07 1.53 0.35 1.96 0.36 1.46 0.78 1.25 0.92 1 \. •t\S U tll l t..J '\. n •t c.-o ••• '" COHO SALMON JUVENILES t •JI \fhtt ...OUt,., ' ,.. lt. WI \G UU I I ,IJ CH UM SALMON JUVENILE S ••a• ..... CH I NOOK SALMON JUVENILES SO CKEYE SALMON JUVE NILES Appen di x Figure G-1. Distri buti on of juven il r s -1 .~ , .. pecies amo ng the major habitat types at DFH sites, June tr ,, . , 198 2 . Based on the number of t i mes t he s pecies wa s pres ,·ce nta ge of the total num ber of t.i mes tt ;~ sites were sampl ed. (r , ., gear types in c lud e d. Percent ag~s corrected for unequal sa mplin g , •, a t t he differe nt habi tat types . • • • S IDE SLOUGHS W I TH LARGE TRIBUTARY SIDE CHANNELS WITH TRIBUTARY UPLAND SLOUGHS TRIBUTARY MOUTHS ~R iq f SIDE SLOUGHS WITH GROUNDWATER Appendi x Figure G-2. Proportions of juvenil ~s of four species of salmon at each of five major habitat types located on the Susitna River, June through September, 1982. Based on the number of times the species was pt'~sent as a percentage of the tota 1 number of times the sites were f ished. Effort by all gear types included . Percentages corrected for unequal samp 1 i ng effort at the different habitat types. Chum percentages are low because chums were not present in the Susitna system for the entire sampling season. DRAFT /PAGE 1 FHR/HALE APPENDIX 6 APPTAB/G-5 Append i x Tab l e G-5. Resident spec i es percentages by habitat type and by season within two habitat types at sites boat-electrofished between Cook In l et and Devil Canyon, May through September 1982. No. of Percenta9e bl Seec ies Res i dent Fish Arctic Round Humpback Longno:P. Caetured Rainbow Grayling Burbot Whitefish Whitefish Sucker Other Habitat T~pe Ma1nstem 1057 2 4 20 .2 7.2 30 .9 3.3 30.7 5.2 Tributary mouth!> 1494 5.0 28.6 2.1 38.5 2.9 18.5 4.4 Upland s l oughs 263 3.8 12 .9 "'. 2.7 30.0 12.5 33.8 4.2 Side sloughs without trib 119 5.9 18.5 1.7 47.1 5.0 16.8 5.0 Side sloughs w/large tribs 377 5.6 19 .4 ~ 2.1 19.4 2.4 47.5 3 .7 Mainstem Month -r1 2.9 May:J'une 347 2 .9 30.8 38.9 1.2 14.1 9.2 J uly-August 356 0.8 8 .7 -44.3 23.0 5.6 43 .0 4.5 September 354 3.4 21.5 4 .5 31.1 3.1 34.5 2.0 Tributary Month RaY-June 599 4.3 29.4 1.3 42.2 3.0 15.2 4.5 Ju l y-August 509 1.0 30.1 4.1 34.4 3.5 20.0 6.9 September 386 11.1 25.4 0.8 38.1 2.1 21.8 0 .8 • • • ·. DRAFT /PAGE 1 FHR/HALE APPENDIX 6 APPTAB/G -6 Appendi x Table G-6. Ccmpar ison of species proportions of resident fish (rainbow trout, round whitefish, Arctic grayling, longnose sucker, and other) between habitat types and by season within each habitat type, May through September, 1982 . 1 -Up land Slough s 3 -Mainstem 5 -Slough/w/tributary 2 -Side Sloughs 4 -Trib Sign ificance Comparison Chi-sguare df level 1 vs 2 vs 3 vs 4 vs 5 244.0 16 p .01 1 VS 2 1~:i T 4 p .01 4 vs 5 4 p .01 By season for mainstem sites: May-Jun vs Jul-Aug vs Sept 139.7 8 p .01 By season for Trib sites: May-Jun vs Jul-Aug vs Sept 87.3 8 p .01 • • ' • DRAFT/PAGE 4 FHR /HALE /SUCHANEK APP G APP1 /APP04 Resident species propo r tions at tributary, side sl ough , upland sl ou gh , and mainstem sites above the Ch ulitna River conf luen ce were further examined with presence/absence data collected with bo at electrofishing gear for six species of resident fish. The relative distribution of each species among the fo ur major habitat types is illustrated in Appendix Figure G-3. Differences in species presence/absence at the four d1 ,e ferent habitat types above the confluence were tested for seven species of res i dent fish. If nece ssary, habitat types were pooled to increase sample sizes. Significant differences in hab itat us e were found for all exc€~t burbot (Appendix Table G-7). Ratios of observed to expected use of thP. various habitat types by species (only for tho s e that were si gnificantly different) are presented in Appendi x Table G-8. A few seasonal differences in species use of a given habitat type were also si gnificant (Appendi x Tab l e G-9}. In July and August, use of a given habitat type was often lower than in May, June and September (Appendi x Table G-10}. In another se ries of tes ts , resident fish distribution among five di f ferent habitat types at the 17 OFH sites were examined using catch dJta col lected with beach seines and backpack electrofi shing gear (Appendi x Tab le G-11). Of the four species of resident fish examined, only Arc ti c grayling showed significant differences in their us e of different habitat types. Arctic grayling were present at tributary sites relatively more than they were present at sloughs . GRAYLING BUR BOT . r r-,...,. HUMPBACK WHITEFISH LONGNOSE SUCKER RAINBOW TROUT ROUND WHITEFISH Appendix Figure G-3 . Relative distribution of six resident species amount four major habitat types located above the Chulitna River confluence and sampled by boat electrofishing , May through September, 1982. Based on presence/absence data which were corrected for unequal effort at the different habitat types . • • • App~ndix Table G-7. Species Round whitefish Arctic grayling longnos e sucker Burbot Humpback whit;fish Rainbow trou5 Dolly varden DRAFT /PAGE 1 FHR/HALE APPENDIX 6 APPTAB/G-7 Chi-square tests of resident fish presence/absence associations among four major habitat types at sites above the Chulitn~ River confluence s ampled by boat electro- fishing. The four habitat types were tributaries, upland sloughs, side sloughs with no large tributaries, and mainstem sites, May through September, 1982. Chi-square df Probabi 1 it~ 38.5 3 p .01 46.0 3 p .01 9.5 3 p .05 4.7 3 NS 32.3 3 p .01 31.5 2 p .01 7.5 1 p .01 :upland and side sloughs were pooled due to small sample size Tributaries and mainstem only. No Dolly varden were captured in upland or side sloughs • • • • Appendix Table G-8. Tributaries Side sloughs Upland s l oughs Ma in stem Tri but aries Mainstem DRAFT /PAGE 1 FHR/HALE APPENDIX 6 APPTAB/G-8 Ratios of observed to PXpected presence of resident fish by species at four different habitat types on the Susitna River between the Chulitna River and Devil Canyon, May through September, 1982. Only for those chi-square tests which were statistically significant. Round Ardic LongnosP. Humpback Whitefish Gra~ling Sucker Whitefish 1.62 1.94 1.36 1.22 1.08 1.25 1.30 2 .04 1.42 0 .75 1.00 3.45 0 .73 0.69 0 .85 0 .50 " ~ r.-r ... Doll~ Varden Rainbow 2.42 Tributaries 2.31 0 .52 Upland & Side Sloughs (pooled) 1.61 Mains tern D.41 (No Dolly Varden were captured in upland or side sloughs) FHR/HALE APPENDIX 6 APPTAB/G-9 Appendix Table G-9 . Chi-square tests of seasona l associations of resident fish presence with in a major habitat type at sites above the Chulitna River confluence which were boat electrofished, May through September, 1982. Species Chi-sguare df Probabil i tl Rainbow within tributaries: Spring (May, Jun) & Fall Summer (Jul, Aug) (Sep) \'S 7.4 1 p .01 Grayling within tributaries: Spr ing & Fall vs Summer 0.5 1 NS within side s lough s & upland sloughs: Spring & Fall vs Summer 3.3 1 NS .I~ within mainstem sites : ~u.\ Spring & Fall vs Summe r { . 1 p .01 •:J • e Round Whitefish within tributaries: Spring & Fall vs Summer 0.1 1 tiS within side sloughs & upland sloughs: Spl'i ng & Fa 11 vs Summer 0.7 1 NS within mainstem sites: Spring vs Summer vs Fall 36.6 2 p .01 Longnose Sucker within tributaries: Spring & Fall vs Summer 1.2 1 NS within side sloughs & upland slough s: Spring & Fall vs Summer 0.1 1 NS within mainstem sites : Spring vs Summer vs Fa ll 15 .5 2 p .01 Burbot within tributaries: Spring & Summer vs Fall 0.0 1 NS e within mainstem sites: Spring & Summer vs Fall 0.0 1 NS • Appendi x Table G-10. Species Rainbow Tributaries Grayling Mainstem Round Whitefish Mainstem Longnose Sucker Mainstem • • DRAFT/PAGE 1 FHR/HALE APPENDIX 6 APPTAB/G-10 Ratios of observed to expected presence of resident fish by season at sites above the Chulitna River confluence which were boat-electrofished, May through September, 1982 . Only those ratios from significant Chi-square tests are presented. Season Obs/Exp Soring & Fall 1.5 Surrmer 0.5 Spring & Fall 1.6 Surrmer 0.6 Spring 2.7 Su~r . t 0.6 Fall ; 1.2 Spring 2.1 Surrmer 0.7 Fall 1.1 Appendi x Table G-11. Species Round whitefi s h Arctic graylinga Longnose suckera Slimy Sculpin ----- DRAFT /PAGE 1 FHR/HALE APPENDIX 6 APPTAB /G -11 Chi -square tests of resident fish pres ence /absence associations among five major habitat types (the same as those used in Appendix Table G-3) at DFH sites, May through September, 1982. Only catch data from beach seining or backpack electrofishing were used . Chi-square df Probabil ;ty 8.6 rJ 4 NS f l 6.9 B\ p 0.01 0.4 1 NS 6.9 4 NS -------------- a Sites were pooled into tributary mot~t hs versus sloughs beca use of small samp le size. • • • 4. Discussion Juvenile salmon DRAFT/PAGE 5 FHR/HAL~!SUCHANEK APP G APP1/APP04 Chinook salmon juveniles appeared to be equally likely to be ~resent at any of the five major habitat types defined . They apparently show less preference for particular major habitat types than the other species and are more broadly distributed. No significant association of juvenile chum salmon with any of the five major habitat types was demonstrated, but this was probable a result of the relatively short time chum juveniles are present in the Susitna system. Because most chums have outmigrated by the end of July, there were only four or five possible sampling periods that they could have been present, as opposed to eight periods for the other species. Coho salmon juveniles showed a definite prefe~ence for side sloughs with large tributary mouths and side channeh with large tributary mouths. Sockeye salmon juveniles exhibited a strong preference for upland sloughs and side sloughs not associated with tributary mouths. Possibly many did not move from their natal areas (sloughs) to other habitat types. The attractiveness of diffe rent ma j or habitat types for juvenile salmon can be seen from examining Appendix Figure G-2. Sites that include large tributary mouths (both sloughs and side ch r~nels) attract chinook - DRAFT/PAGE 6 FHR/HALE/SUCHANEK APP G APP1/APP04 and coho salmon. Side sloughs without large tributary mouths attrac chinook and sockeye. Resident Species Definite major habitat type preferences were demonstrated for all species except burbot. Burbot, in fact, have a strong preference hr turbid water (see Appendix F). but this wa s not established with the present analysis becau se all nf the samp~ing sites included areas of turbid water. Of the six species examined, longnose suckers showed the least prefer- ence for certain habitat types (the chi square test for longnose suc~er was significant at the 95% level, but not at the 99% level). Arctic grayling preferred tributary mouths and side sloughs over upland sloughs and the ma i nstem. Rainbow trout and Dolly Varden mainly used tributary mouths. Round whitefish were most likely to ue found in tributary mouths and upland sloughs and humpback whitefish preferred sloughs. Additionally, seasonal differences in habitat use were demonstrated f<1r rainbow trout, Arctic grayling~ round whitefish. and longnose suckers. Rainbow trout were more 1 ikely to be found at tributary mouths in th~ spring and fall than in the sunrner. This probably results from mi·· gration patterns into and out of tributaries. Arctic grayling, round whitefish, and longnose suckers were all more 1 ikely to be found in the mairnstem in tht~ spring and fall than in the • • • DRAFT/PAGE 7 FHR/HALE/SUCHANEK APP G APP1/APP04 sumner. These species apparently use tributaries and sloughs in the summer and the main stem in the spring and fall during migrations and as over-wintering habitat • Literature Cited DRAFT/PAGE 8 FHR/HALE/SUCHANEK APP G APP1 /APP04 ADF&G, 1983. Volume 3, Resident and juvenile anadromou~ fish studies be 1 ow Dev i1 Canyon, 1982. Anchorage. Sus '. na Hydro Aquatic Studies, Snedecor, G,W., and W.G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical methods. The Iowa State University Press, Ames. 593 pp. Summers, G.W. W.S. Peters, and C.P. Armstrong. 1981. Basic statistics in business and economics . Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA. 594 pp. ~ :Z--'."P--I>~;·; , '.L. ~---r.'! ;,.T.J APPENDIX H Habitat Relationships of Juvenile Salmon Outmigration OJWJl fAGf_-_,18,.,.. FHR/CRAWFORD APP2 /Table of Contents • • • APPENDIX H LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES Appendix Figure H-1 Variation of Susitna River mainstem environmental vari ables above the Chulitna River confluence from June 18 to DRAFT/PAGE 20 FHR/C.~AWFORD APP2/Table of Contents October 1.2. 1982 .....•••................... Appendix Figure H-2 Catch per hour f~r Age 0+ and Age 1+ chinook salmon at the outmigrant trap. June 18 to October 12, 1982 .•.•.•••••...••.......•..•• Appendix Figure H-3 Catch per hour for Age 0+ and 2+ combined coho salmon at the outmigrant trap, June 18 to October 12, 1982 ••••••••••••.••••••.••.• Appendix Figure H-4 Catch per hour for juvenile sockeye and chum salmon at the outmigrant trap, June 18 Appendix Figure H-5 Appendix Figure H-6 Appendix Figure H-7 to October 12, 1982 •••••.•.••••..•..••.•.•• Relationship of mean length and catch per hour for juvenile chinook salmon captured at the outmigrant trap, June 18 to October 12, 1982 ••••.••••...•••••••••••...• Relationship of mean length and catch per ~our for juvenile coho salmon captured at the outmigrant trap .........••.........•.....•. Relationship of mean length and catch per hour for juvenile juvenile sockeye salmon captured at the outmigrant trap ...................................... . Appendi x Figure H-8 Relationship of mean length and catch per hour for juvenile chum salmon captured at the outmigrant trap ••••..••••••...•..•.••....•• A . • ! ~ • ·~ ~ - I • • APPENDIX H DRAFT/PAGE 19 FHR/CRAWFORD APP2/Table of Contents LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Appendix Tabl e H-1 Appendi x Table H-2 Range and mean for hab itat va riables and juveni le salmon catch/hour, outmigrant trap, June 18 -October 12, 1982 ............. . Civil twilight at Talkeetna, Alaska (Source: National Weather Service) ..••...•.....•.....••.•.••. 1. Introduction DRAFT/PAGE 1 FHR REPORT /HALE FHR/Append i x H This appendix is an analysis of the relationships between the outmi- gration timing of juvenile salmon and environmental variables for the Susitna River between the Chulitna River confluence and Devil Canyon. The purpose is to increase our understanding 'Jf how environmental factors influence the outmigration of juvenile salmon since the proposed hydroelectric project will change the timing and magnitude of several environmental parameters. If the effect of these changes on the outmigration of juvenile salmon can be predicted, subsequent effects on t he production of juvenile salmon by this r each of river can be better analyzed. 2. Methods Parameters examined included mainstem discha_rge, water temperature , turbidity and photoperiod . Time of season was another parameter used to integrate and sum other parameters such as photoperiod, water tempera- ture and fish size. The variation in size (mean length} of the juvenile salmon species was also examined as a factor influencing outmigration. The catch data for this appendix came from an outmigrant trap located at river mile 103.0, 4.5 miles above the Chulitna River confluence. The trap was operated from June 18 to October 12, 1982. Deta i 1 s of the methods used to operate the trap and the results are outlined in the Basic Data Report (ADF&G, 1983a}. Capture rates of juveniles of four species of salmon (chinook, coho, sockeye, and chum) were analyzed. Not • DRAFT/PAGE 2 FHR Rf:PORT/HALE FHR /Appendi x H enough juvenile pink salmon were captured to draw any conclusions about this species. Discharges are from provisional data taken by the U.S. Geological Survey at the Gold Creek station. To obtain wat e; temperatures representative of the area from which the juven il e salmon were migrating , most of the mainstem water temperature data were obtained fro~ a continuous temperature recorder located at Curry (river mile 120.7), 17 .7 miles above the outmigrant trap location (AOF&G, 1983b). Since this recorder was not operated for the entire season, other data were taken from recorders located at river miles 130.0 and 113.0 for the periods from June 24 t o July 6 and from October 1 to 16 respectively. Data for June 18 to 24 were extracted from temperatures recorded by fish distribution crews at sites above the trap. Turbidities were taKen at the trap locati on (ADF&G, 1983a) only from August 14 to the end of the season. Day len ~th informati on was obtained from the National Weather Service. Time of season was computed as the number of days since the day (day 1) that the outmigrant trap began fishing. Mean length for each species (age 0+ only) was calculated by summing the daily catches of fish until a sample size of at le~st 25 fish was obtained, and then taking the mean length of t hese fish. In some cases, it took only one day to get a sample size of at l east 25, and in other cases, it took several days . The number of fish caught in this period was divided by the number of hours that the trap was fished to obtain an overall catch/hour. The median date during the period was used as the time marker. • • • DRAFT /PAGE 3 FHR REPORT/HALE FHR/Appendix H Outmigration timing was examined using catch/hour data taken on a daily basis for each of the four species of j uvenile salmon . Age classes were not separated. The relationship of these data to the habitat var ~ables was examined through the use of linear regression using one or multiple independent (habitat) variables, correlati on analysis, and analysis of variance (Snedecor and Cochran, 1967). Because the catch/hour data were quite variable from day to day, various data manipulations, including ~ving averages, exponential smoothing, time lags, and logarithmic transformations, were performed. We a 1 so used first-difference regressions, in which change in a dependent variable is regressed against the change in an independent variable (Summers et al., 1981). This has the advantage that any existing cause/effect relationships can be detected without problems caused by differences in relative magnitude. 3. Results Habitat variables The mean and range for the physicochemical variables are sunmarized in Appendix Table H-1. The pattern of water temperature was a mirror image of the discharge pattern (Appendix Figure H-1), during the middle part of the season, but during the early and late part of the season, water temperature more closely paralleled discharge. Turbidity fluctuations lagged discharge by two or three days. Day length (Appendix Table H-2) remained at 24 hours/day from the beginning of the sampling season until • • • FHR/HALE APPENDIX H FHR/Table H-1 Appendix Table H-1. Range and mean for habitat variables and juvenile salmon catch/hour. outmigrant trap. June 18 - October 12. 1982. min max n mean Discharge (ft3/sec) 7.950 37.000 104 19.225 Water temperature (oc) 0.5 14 .1 104 9.2 Turbidity (NTU)a 8 284 51 103 Oaylen gth (hrs) 11.8 24.0 104 18.4 Catch/hour n ,.~ chinoolc 0.0 1.2 104 0.2 coho 0.0 19.5 104 0 .7 soclcsye 0 .0 16.2 104 1.2 chum 0.0 10.0 55 0.6 a Aug 14 -Oct 12 only b Jun 18 -Aug 15 only • -• .. 2 .. ~ ..... zo n lo s tO '' zo n JUNE JULY .. . • ,-~ ,~ , ', I . , ... --~ ,, ,,,, \ "~ ,_, \~ '-... ' r, \ \. ' I ' )t 5 AUGUST S EPTEMBER OCT08~ Appendix Figure H-1. Variation of Susitna River ma1nstem environmental variables above the Chulitna River co nfluence from J une 18 to October 12, 1982 . See text for e xact source of data. )()C) -:::1 .... 3 zoo :: Q Ill a:: :::1 tOO I- • Appendix Table H-2. Civil twilight at Talk eetna, Alaska (Source: National Weather Service) Day length Date (hcurs) Day length Date (hours) June 18 24 .0 August 01 19.8 June 19 24.0 August 02 19.7 June 20 24 .0 August 03 19.5 June 21 24.0 August 04 1Y.4 Jun e 22 24.0 August OS 19 .3 June 23 24 .0 August 06 19.1 June 24 24.0 August 07 19.0 June 2S 24.0 August 08 18 .9 June 26 24.0 August 09 18.7 June 27 24.0 August 10 18 .6 June 28 24.0 August 11 18.S June 29 24.0 August 12 18.4 June 30 24.0 August 13 18.2 Jul y 01 24.0 ~:.. ~u~s trt:; 18.1 Ju ly 02 24.0 August' lS 18.0 July 03 24.0 August 16 17.9 July 04 24 .0 August 17 17 .7 July OS 24.0 August 18 17.6 July 06 24.0 August 19 17. s July 07 24 .0 August 20 17 .4 July 08 24 .0 August 21 17.3 July 09 24 .0 August 22 17.2 July 10 24.0 August 23 17.0 July 11 24 .0 August 24 16.9 July 12 24.0 August 2S 16.8 July 13 24.0 August 26 16.7 July 14 23 .7 Au gust 27 16.6 July 1S 23.0 August 28 16.S July 16 22.7 August 29 16.3 July 17 22.4 August 30 16.2 July 18 22.2 August 31 16.1 July 19 22.0 September 01 16.0 July 20 21.8 September 02 15 .9 July 21 21.6 September 03 15.8 July 22 21.4 September 04 1S.7 July 23 21.2 September OS 1S .6 July 24 21.0 September 06 15.5 July 25 20.9 September 07 15.4 July 26 20.7 September 08 15.3 July 27 20.6 September 09 15.2 July 28 20.4 September 10 15.0 July 29 20.3 September 11 14 .9 July 30 20.1 September 12 14.8 July 31 20.0 September 13 14 .7 DRAFT /PAGE 1 FHR/HALE APPENDIX H APPTAB/H-2 Date Oayl .?ngth (hoJrs) September 14 14.6 ~eptember 15 14.5 September 16 14 .4 Se ptember 17 14.3 September 18 14 2 September 19 l4 .1 September 20 14.0 September 21 :.3. 9 September 22 :.3.8 September 23 :.3. 7 September 24 ·.3.6 September 25 '.3 .S September 26 .3.4 September 27 .3.3 September 28 .3. 2 September 29 .3.1 September 30 .3.0 October 01 :.2. 9 October 02 :.2.8 October 03 :.2. 7 October 04 12.6 October OS l2.S Octo ber 06 12.4 October 07 12.3 October 08 12.2 October 09 12.1 October 10 12.0 October 11 11.9 October 12 ll.8 II DRAFT/PAGE 4 FHR REPORT/HALE FHR/Appendh H mid-July, after which it steadily declined, usually by no more than 0.2 hr/day, to 11.8 hours/day on October 12 . Except for a peak in mid-September, discharge generally declined over the course of the season. The correlation coefficient (r) between discharge and tim.: of season was -0 .65, p <: 0.01. Temperature also generally decreased; with time of season (r = -0.83, p "'0.01). The correlation between discharge and water temperature was highly significant (p~ 0.01) but relatively low (r = 0.42). This correlation was not improved by lagging wat e r temperature one day behind discharge. Juvenil~ salmon catch -all species The catch/hour for juvenile salmon was initially relatively high and then declined over tne course of the season (Appendix Figures H-2, H-3, and H-4). Appendix Table H-1 gives the range and mean catch/hour observed for each species. Generally, a highly significant (p<.01) relationship was found between catch/hour for each individual species and the physical variables, but correlation coefficients were usually not very high. Correlations with turbidity were not calc•Jlated be cause turbidity data were available only after August 14. During this period, turbidity gene:rally appeared to be closely related to discharge, so any corre- lation that existed between catch/hour and discharge would most likely also exist between catch/hour and turbidity. 0::: ::> 0 I 0 OJ ::t: Ql 0::: "" CL ::t: 0 04 .,_ cc u 01 I I I I I I I I I I . . . I ~. ., '' ' . I 1 I I I I • I I I I I I ' ' I I I I I ~ ,, ~~ I :1 :•, •'' I •' ,I I I I I ,, • I • • .. • --CHINOOK , AG E 0 + ----CHINOOK, A GE t + I 00 ~4-~~--~~~~,-~~--~~~--~------~~~~-'r-~~~r-------~--.. ~~~----~-'------~ JUIC II JUMl lO J UU 10 JULY ZO OAT E Appendix Figure H-2. Catch per hour for Age 0+ and Age 1+ chinook salmon at the outmigrant trap, June 18 to October 12 , 1982. OCT IZ • a: => 0 l: a: 1&.1 Q. :r 0 1-ct 0 ).0 2 .0 1.0 '/' I . • ;'\ ,.;-' ll : ' --COHO, A GE O+ ----CO HO, AGE 1•6 2~Comb i ned .. _ ... " . " ' .-- ' w .., " f ' # ' • ' ~, t , 0~~--~~~~------~L--~~--~--~~-~_,~~~~~~~~r---~~-r~~~-r----~~--~~, JUNE 18 JUH( )0 JUlY 10 JUlY 20 JUlY lO AUG 10 AUG 20 OUG )0 $(PT 10 S(PT 20 S[PT 30 0 CT IZ DATE Appen dix Figure H-3. Ca tch per hour for Age 0+ and Age 1+ a nd 2+ combined coho sa l mon at the outmigrant trap, June 18 to October 12 , 1982 . • • a: :l 0 • :c 4 I I I I I I I l ~ \ I\ I I I I II I ' I I I I I e l6 I I '' I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 I ,-. I I ,, I 1 '.,r" ,,,1 I I' I , '...,,-, JUI..l tO JUlY lO • --SOCKEYE ---CHUM &UO 30 S(PT 10 Appendix Figure H-4. Catch per hour for j uvenile sockeye and chum s almon at the outmigran t trap, June 18 to October 12, 1982. • DRAFT/PAGE 5 FHR REPORT/HALE FHR/Appendix H The catch per hour for all species of salmon was summed to determine if there was a dominant facto r influencing all spec ies. This total was related to time of season (r = -.69} and to daylength (r = 0.67), but the correlations of total catch pt:r hour with discharge and water temperature were low . Juvenil e chinook salmon The majority of age 1+ chinook s ulmon outmigrated in June and early July (Appendix Figure H-2). The peak outmigration for age 0+ chinook occurred in July after the peak for the age 1+ fish. There was a moderate correlation of juvenile chinook salmon catch/hour with discharge (r = 0.56). The correlation was not imp r oved by lagging catch/hour one day b e ~ind discharge or by using a logarithmi c transfor- mation of both variables . A firs t-difference regression between catch/hour and discharge gave a poor correlation. The correlation of catch/hour with time of season was slightly higher than the one with di scharge. The best coefficient of 1etermination ( r 2 = 0.64, p <:: 0.01) was obtai ned by regressing the three day moving average of catch/hour versus time of season and temperature. This equat1on took the form: moving average of catch/hour = 0 .93 -0.01 (time of seas.on) -0.03 (temperature). Most of the variation in moving average which was acctJt•nted for was expla ined by time of season. Outmigrating age 0+ chinooks showed two pulses in catch/hour -one at a mean length of 50 mm and one at a mean length of 60 mm (Appendix Figure • • • DRAFT /PAGE 6 FHR REPORT/HALE FHR/Appendix H H-5}. The 60 11111 pu 1 se occurred prior to the 50 mm pu 1 se. Re 1 at i ve ly large numbers of 50 mm fish outmig r ating near the end of July depresseG the plot of mean length at that time . Juvenile ~oho salmon Coho salmon ou t migrated in a more consistent manner throughout the season than the other species (Appendix Figure H-3}. This was especially true with the age 1+ and age 2+ cohos, which showed a marked contrast w1th the pattern of age 1+ chinook salmon. The relationships of juvenile coho salmon catch/hour with discharge and timt Qf season were highly significant (p< 0.01}, but the correlations were modest. These correlations were not improved by data lags or transformations. The T:. -•-difference regression between catch/hour and discharge yielded a poor relat .1nship. The relationship of catch/hour with temperature was not significant. Th o highest catch/hour for age 0+ coho generally occurred at the smaller size classes (Appendix Figure H-6}. Juvenile sockeye salmon The correlation of juvenile sockeye salmon with discharge was poor and was not improved by time lags, by using a moving average, or by perform- ing a first-difference regression. There was a modest correlation with time of season. A logarithmic transformation of the catch/hour gave 51 ,. " ,. 0 .10 ,.. Sl 0 .65 £ E &2 0 .60 .c o.u -Sl ~ I 0: • I o.so ..J I I I 0 .45 g 1\ I I I I I 1-cotcii/Ho"' 0.40 % I I I I .... I I I I .c I I I O.lS u I I -' 0 I I I 0 .30 u I I ' I I I I I 0.25 • I \ I I I \ I ' I o.zo I I I ' I 'J ' O.IS I ' ' 4 ' 0.10 \. 0 .7 • .. 0 .6 , 0 0 .5 % • .... 0 .4 ~ O.l C' • u o.z o.os • • 0.1 • 40 0 .0 u lO II 10 '' tO 25 lO 4 i 14 li 24 40 50 60 -.IUN[ JULY auo- DATE M ea n LtnQih (m"'' Appendix Figure H-5. Relationship of mean lengt and ca tch per hour for ~veAile ~~e o r chinook salmon captured at the outmigrant trap. ,, E E .s:: -0 c: Cll ..J 70 68 66 64 62 60 :18 ~6 :14 :12 ~ 48 38 36 1---cot cll I Hour I I I I "" • 9 .0 8 .:1 8 .0 7,, 7.0 6 ,, ... 6 .0 g J: 0 .0 ....... .s:: s.o ~ 0 4.5 (.) 4.0 .... ~ 0 3 .5 :I: 3 .0 ....... .s::: u 2~ 0 2.0 u 1.5 1.0 0 ., 90 • I • 1.5 • t.O • • • • • • • • 0 .5 • • • • • •• • • • • • • •• • / •, .. - o .o -+---y----..-~.---T"""'--r---.----T--- 10 20 30 10 20 30 10 20 30 10 20 30 10 -JUNE....-JULY-AUG_...,._ SEPT-OCT DATE 3 5 40 50 60 70 Mean Length (mm) Appendix Figure H-6. 1' c '\" Relationship of mean l ength and catch per hour for juvaAi1e coho sa lm on captured at the outm1grant trap. • DRAFT/PAGE 7 FHR REPORT/HALE FHR/Appendix H fairly good correlations with t ime of season (r = -0 .82) and temperature (r = 0.71). The mean length/catch per hour relationship for age 0+ sockeye salmon is similar to that of age 0+ coho s almo n (A ppendi x Figure H-7). The correlatior. coefficient between these two was r = -0 .53. The highest catch/hour, occurring in early July, was related to a sharp decrease in the mean length. J uv enile chum s almon The last juvenile chum salmon was captured on August 15, so only those sampling days f r om June 18 to Augu st 15 (55 casP:i) were included in the analysis . The strongest factor relat ing to catch/hour was time of season (r = -0.71). The relationship of catch/hour with discharge was modest and the relationshi p with temperature was poor. Logarithmic transformation of catch/hour provided no further insight. A firs t - difference regression of catch/hour with discharge gave inconclusive results . Using the three day mov i ng average of catch/hour in a multiple regression against time of season and daily difference in discharge "explained .. the most variation in catch/hC'ur {r2 = 0.72, p(O.Ol }. The equation for this regression i s: moving average of chum catch/hour = 3 .34 -0 .07 (time of season) + 1.30 (dai1y change in disc harge/104 ). Host of the variation in the moving average was accounted for by time of season. • E E &. 0> c: Ql ..J c: 0 Ql ~ • • II 17 16.1 10 lr ·~ ... 7 .0 A Ill A 12 60 ... :I II 0 :X: 10 ...... 5 .0 &. ... t (J :I -0 0 • u X: 4.0 ...... 7 &. A (J 0 0 30 u ' 4 20 A 3 2 1.0 38 0.0 10 20 30 10 20 30 10 20 30 10 20 30 10 40 ~JUNE~ JULY...,._ AUG ~ SEPT.,._OCT OAT E App e ndix Fi gure H-7 . Re l ationship of mean len gth and catch per soc keye salmon captured at the outmigrant A • A. A • A AA • A A A • A A A lA A A AAA A • • !50 60 Mean Len9th ( mm) • A 70 • • -.. DRAFT /PAGE 8 FHR REPORT/HALE FHR/Appendix H The pattern of catch/hour and mean length was not as clear for chum salmon as it was for the other species {Appendix Figure H-8), but generally, the highest catch/hour occurred early in the seascn when the mean length was low. When the largest fish were outmigrating, the catch/hour was low. 4. Discussion It is apparent from the catch/hour plots over the course of the season (Appendix Figures H-2, H-3, H-4) that catch/hour for all species generally declined with time. Also apparent from Appendix Figure H-1 and Appendix Table H-2 is the fact that the levels of the environmental variables (discharge, water temperature, and daylength) also generally decreased over the course of the season. These two facts alone would probably lead to reasonable correlation coefficients between habitat variables and catch/hour. However, the real question is whether there is a cause-effect relationship between them or whether the correla~ion is simply coincidental. It may be that the fish are merely outmigrating in response to time of season. Many years of evolution have coded them to outmigrate when conditions (discharge, water temperature, timing of plankton blooms in t !.e estuary, and so on) are most 1 ikely to be favorable. Given this, the objective of this study has been to determine if the fish respond to short-term fluctuations (on the order of days) in environmental variables and if changes in those variables, such as might be caused by the proposed hydroelectric project, would affect the timing of outmigration. • e e .c. -00 c: ., .J c: c Q) ~ • 47 100 t 10 5 .0 9 • 38 8 4.0 37 -1 ... ... :J :;, 0 ~~ 6 0 J: 3.0 I ..... ..... .c. 35 5 .c. ~ Q 0 34 4 -u 2.0 c /Cat c h / Hou r u 33 3 .~ ........ 32 ' 2 1.0 ' ' • • I ' 3 1 L..4 . .. ~-.... '' ..... o.o • 10 15 15 30 4 0 Mean Length (mm) Appendix Figure H-8. \~~ Ot Relationship of mean length and catch per hour for ja o !Ai l ~ chum salmon captured at the outmigrant trap. • 4 5 • • Strength of correlations DRAFT/PAGE 9 FHR REPOi'T/HALE FHR/Appendix H Although the relationships examined were usually highly significant, the correlation coefficients calculated were generally moderate to low. At best , 72 percent of the variation in catch/hour was "explained" by variation in habitat variables. The relationsh·:ps would probably be much stronger had catch/hour data been available for the entire period of outmigration. Outmigratio~ probably begins some time in late April or early May, so at least on e and a half months of data were not avail - able. By tl•e time the outmigrant trap began operation, the catch/hour for a l l species was already near the seasonal peak. Good data for outmigration occurring under the ice or during breakup (usua l ly up unti l mid-May) will probably never be obtained because of sampling problems during this time of year. Another factor leading to low correlations is that certain variables may have a strong influence on outmigra tion for a short period of time, but would not show a high correlation when calculated for the entire season. For examp l e, the correlation of catch/hour and discharge was not very hi~h for the whole season, but it can be seen from Appendi x Figures H-1, H-2, and H-3 that the mid-September surge in discharge correlated very well with an increase in outmigration of chinooks and cohos. Correlations could probably be improved if more habitat data were av =tilable. Mainstem water temperature wa s us ed in the calculations: slough and tributary water temperatures might be a better meas u re of the effect of te111perature on outmigrat i on. Also, other fa ctors which may • • • DRAFT/PAGE 10 FHR REPORT/HALE FHR/Appendix H influence outmigration timing, such as rate s of egg development, were not measured. Correlations for chinook and coho salmon might be improved by calculating the correlations for separate age classes, rather than for all age classes together. Importance of the habitat variables Before examining the relative importance of the different habitat variables, one should have a clear understanding of how these parameters interact with juvenile salmon: Discharge is important because an adequate flow may be necessary for the fish to outmigrate. Also, an adequate stage of river at the heads and mouths of sloughs and other areas may be necessary for the juv~niles to gain access to the mainstem . A faster curre nt requires less energy to outmigrate than a slower current. Turbidity is an important factor in providing cover to outmigrating salmon in a large river such as the Susitna. In relatively short non-turbid r i vers, juvenile chum salmon outmigrate mainly at night (Neave, 1955}. In the Susitna area, there is no true darkness during the time most of the juvenile salmon are outmigrating (Appendix Table H-2). Water temperature is a regulator of metabolism and juvenile salmon show a preference for certain ranges (Reiser and Bjornn, 1979). Temperature can serve as an impetus for outmigration (Sano, 1966}. Day length regulates the biological clocks of juvenile salmon. For example, an increasing day length (photoperiod) affects the pituitary • • •• DRAFT /PAGE 11 FHR REPORT/HAL£ FHR/Appendix H system of juvenile chum salmon, causing an increasing tolerance for salt water (Baggerman , 1960; S helbo ~rn, 1966). The highest correlations were generally obtained between catch/hour and time of season. This was parti cu larly true with chum sa lmon. As mentioned previously, t ime of season is an integrator of seve ral vari- ables. The correlation wi th di sc harge was mo de st with all species except soc keye, wh os e catch/hour was poorly correlated with discharge. The correlation with temperature wa s never strong for an y species, but temperature contributed to explaining catch/hour variation in some of the multiple regressions. Daylength and t urbidity correlations were not calculated for each spe c ies, but daylength correl ated well with the total catr.h of all saln~n >p ec ies . Correlations with habitat variables were generally the be st with chum salmon catch/hour, which began high and then generally declined to zero in mid-August. Co ho sa lmon co rrelations were the lowest. Thi s spe c ies continued to outmigrate the entire season, whereas the others did not outmigrate in large numbers after the end of Augu st . Comments on methods None of the first-difference regressions which were computed gave very good results. There are probably unpredictable time lags of one to three days which occur between the occurrence of an environ~~ntal event and the response of catch /hour at the outmigrant trap. If the time lag s cou ld be predicted, then a lag could be built into the calculation . DRAFT/PAGE 12 FHR REPORT/HALE FHR/Appendix H The daily catch/hour for all species is quite variable from day to day (Appendix Figures H-2, H-3 and H-4). The reasons for this variability are not evident at this time. The variability may be a result of juvenile salmon re-distributing themselves throughout the mainstem after migrating out of tributaries and sloughs. Small groups or individuals may hold for various lengths of time in the numerous small eddies, backwaters, and slack-water border areas. On any given day with this scenario, a more or less random number of individuals or groups of individuals migrates past the outmigrant trap. Regardless of the cause, the sharp fluctuations in numbers create problems in data analysis and probably require some sort of smoothing function. Stable results were obtained using a three day movi·ng average. Some preliminary work using exponential smoothing a 1 so appeared to be promising. Further investi- gation with both of these techniques would probably be profitable, as would further calculations using different time lags. Mixed results were obtained using logarithmic transformations of one or two variables in a bivariate analysis . Future work The ultimate goal of this analysis, given the appropriate habitat data, is a prediction of the relative magnitude and timing of juvenile salmon outmigration. This goal was not met during the 1982 studies as the amount and types of data available did not allow for definitive · relationships to be developed . In particular, more than one season of data is necessary in order to corroborate or expand on what only one year's data indicates. For example, a season in which discharge is low l DRAFT /PAGE 13 FHR REPORT/HALE FHR/Appendix H early in the season and then increases would be useful in determining whether this kind of discharge regime would override the effect of time of season on outmigration. This report has provided some insight into the problem of habitat/ outm i gration relationships and some direction for future work. During the 1983 studies, two outmigrant traps will be operated and they will begin operation in mid-May. Also, more complete habitat data will be obtained. Furthermore, coded wit·e tagging, in conjunction with habitat measurements, will be conducted in several sloughs above the outmigrant traps . These studies will contribute a great deal to a more powerful analysis of juvenile salmon outmigration. • LITERATURE CITED DRAFT/PAGE 14 FHP. REPORT /HALE FHR/Appendix H ADF&G, 1983a. Volume 3, Resident and juvenile anadromou~ fish studies be 1 ow Devil Canyon, 1982. Sus itna Hydro Aquatic Studies, Anchorage . 1983b. Volume 4, Aq uati c hatitat and instream flow studies, 1982. Parts I and II. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies, Anchorage. Baggenman, Bertha. 1960. Salinity preference, thyroid activity and the seaward migration of four species of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus). J. Fish. Res . Bd. Can. 17(3):295-322 . Neave, Ferris. 1955. Notes on the seaward migration of pink and chum salmon fry. J. Fish . Res. Bd. Ca n. 12(3):369-374. Reiser, O.W. and T.C. Bjornn. 1979. Influen ce of forest and rangeland management of anadromous fish habitat in the western United States and Canada. 1. Habitat requirements of anadromous salmonids . U.S. Dept. of Agricul., Forest Service. General Technical Report PNW -96, Portlard, Oregon. 54 pp . Sano, S. 1966 . Salmon of the North Pacific Ocean -Part III. A review of the life history of North Pacific salmon . 3. Chum salmon in the Far East. International North Pacific Fisheries Co0111ission Bull. No. 18. Vancouver, B.C . pp. 41-57 . • • She 1 bourn, J. E. 1966 . DRAFT/PAGE 15 FHR REPORT/HALE FHR/Appendix H Influence of temperature, salinity, and photoperiod on the aggregations of chum s almon fry 'Oncorhynchus keta). J. Fish. Re s . Bd . Can. 23{2):293-304. Snedecor, G.W ., and W.G. Coc hran. 1967 . Statistical methods . Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa . 593 pp . Summe rs, G.W., W.S. Peters , and C.P. Anmstrong. 1981. Basic sta tistics in business and economics. Wad swo rth Publishing Co., Ca l if 594 pp • - • AP PENDIX I DRAFT/PAGE 21 FHR/CRAWFORD APP2/Table of Contents Population analysis of Arctic gray l ing above Devil Canyon • • • ~·· • APPENDIX I LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES Appendix Figure I-1 Maximum sustained yield of Arctic gray ling for different DRAFT/PAGE 22 FHR/CRAWFORD APP2/Table of Contents levels of fishing pressure ................ . Appendix Figure 1-2 Effect of heavy fishing pressure on Arctic grayling catch rates assuming effort of harvest on recruitment ..........••.................... • • • • APPENDIX I DRAFT/PAGE 23 FHR/CRAWFORD APP2 /Table of Contents LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Appendix Tab le 1-1 Appendix Table 1-2 Appendix Table 1-3 Summary of catch and effort made during the July 1982 proposed impou nd ment grayling tag and recapture sampling program. An f (fishing pressure) value of one (1.0) equals the 6.05 hrs/ mile of effort expended by ADF&G during thi s time .................... . Results of age class and total population ca l cula tions at variable levels of fishing pressure ..•.......•••........•............• Results of analysis of effects of decreasing spawner population s caused by fishing pressure on twenty year catch rates .......•.......•.... • • Introduction DRAFT /PAGE 1 FHR/0. SCHMIOT APP I APP1/APP02 The opening of access roads into the proposed imp vundment area can be expected to create a substantial grayling sport fishery in this previ- ously seldom fished drainage. This study was initiated t o examine the effects of increasing mortality rates {due t:o fishing pressure) on the age structure and populations in the clear water tributaries studied to date. The results of the analysis can suggest management strategies anc should be useful in the impact analysis. Predicted increased access anc ! fishing pressure can be used with this data set to predict the change!. that may be expected in these unexploited populations of grayling. Methods Hook and line sampling methods were used to collect mark and recaptur1! data over two open water se ~sons at eight major clear water tributarie; in the proposed impoundment on the Susitna River. This data base i:·. presented in ADF&G (1981) and ADF&G {1983). All field collectio11 methods and data su1m1a ri es are presented in those vo 1 umes and are not reported here. Because hook and line methods were used to collect the data, the effects of fishing pressure can be projected from these ca ~ch records and population estimates. The theoretical analysis of the data was developed using equations described by Ricker (1975). The equations used show the relationships between mortality, population size and age structure. The Arctic grayling population structure in the proposed impoundment is presently • =· • • £'RAFT/PAGE 2 FHR/0. SCHMIDT APP I APP1/APP02 assumed to be unexploited and with natural mortality rates in a state of equilibrium . The following equations were used to project population chanqes: where: N+ and Nt+l are known for each age class and give estimates for stn for each age class in an exploited fishery then, The actual annual mortality rate, A, is related to S, as: (3) Atn+F = 1 -Stn+F and, (4) Stn+F = e -Zt and, where: where: where: Nt+l = Population number of age class t plus one year. Nt = Population number of age class t fish 5tn = Natural survival rate of age t fish Stn+F = Survival rate of age t fish due to combined natural and fishing mortalities. Zt = Instantaneous rate of total mortalities of age t fish. Ft = Instantaneous rate of fishing mortality of age class t fish. • • (6)M =-lnS t tn where : DRAFT/PAGE 3 FHR/D. SCHMIDT APP I APP1/APP02 Mt = Instantaneous rate of natural mortalities of age class t fish. Since Mt is available from Nt and Nt+l data, it is possible to substitute (model) values of Ft for a hypothetical fishery and predict the resulting age structure of the population with time. To do this, the following assumptions are made. (1) The rate of catch for each age class of fi~h per unit of fishing effort experienced by ADF&G will hold .. , ;-....... ,; '\.Y true for the general public. (2) Only grayling of age I II and older r t lll'l .e- are subject to increased mortality by (hook and line) fishing. (3) Recruitment of age II class fish is constant. The recruitment constancy was also examined briefly in a separate analysis . ln an exploited system then, Ft is viewed as where: and qt is estimated from (8) qt = -ln (1-ut) using qt = catchability of age class t; proportioned fish per unit time fijhed. f = fishing effort, (98 .25 hrs or 6.05 hrs/mile stream). e where: DRAFT I PAGE 4 FHR/0. SCHMIDT APP I APP1/APP02 Rt = #of grayling marked in July that were r~captured in August 1982 by age class t. Mt =#of grayling marked in July 1982, by age class t. ut is termed the rate of exploitation and is available from the mark- recapture fishing data found in Volume 5. Calculation of Atn+F (eq. 3) thus allows calculation of predicted catch at different lev€15 of exploitation. (10) AtF = Atn+F -{1-Stn) A = 1-S tn tn t = VI II ( 11) ct = z AtF X Nt ct = total catch t = I II A model of the maximum sustained yield of Arctic grayling at various levels of effort was constructed. (The analytical formula and data were manipulated using a microcomputer and a commercial spreadsheet software entitled SuperCalcR). Fishing pressure, f, and the exploitation coefficient u(t)' were taken from R/M' data limited to the July and August 1982 samplings . This restriction most closely fulfills the "closed system assumption" (no in or outmigration), thus improving the level of certainty in the model. • • • DRAFT/PAGE 5 FHR/D. SCHMIDT APP I APP1/APP02 Appendix Table 1-1 summarizes the July catch and effort. The f value, whi ch was varied to calculate Ct in the model, was taken as multiples of the 6.05 hrs/mile of effort reported during this period. Results Appendix Table I-2 presents the calculated maximum sustained catches resulting from differing levels of f. Appendix Figure 1-1 graphically iilustrates those calculations. The calculated rate of fishing pressure for maximum sustained c ~Gh~of all age classes greater than II) is less /\J j than 1,000 fish/year. ( ~~ ,) \v\ An additional calculation was made at this point to estimate the ma ximum '(\ sustained yield if catch (mortalities) are limited to individuals VI and older (roughly) 35D mm and greater in length). The maximum sustained (, /yield '\ tota 1 under these conditions is very low (less than 100 fish). The \ ' harvest of all size classes (~II) of fish is about 650 fish -------at the same level of f. This compares to the,maximum sustained yield of '~ ----~ fish \(which occurs at f=4.5) when maximi~~g -the total number , __ harvested of all age classes • ... J.,/c; \ , ..... '' l . These values assume equal distribution of effort, and similar success levels, that ADF&G crews experienced in the field while collecting this data. If fisherman access is not limiting, the distribution of fishermen will probably parallel the relative densities of fish. . • ?, " •. ·- ( I .. , " • • DRAFT /PAGE 1 FHR/0. SCHMIDT APPTAB/TABLE 1 Appendix Table I-1. Summary of catch and effort made during the July 1982 proposed impoundment grayling tag and recapture sampling program. An f (fishing pressure) value of one (1 .0) equals the 6.05 hrs/mile of effort expended by ADF&G during this time. Impoundment Miles of Hour s Fish River River Hours Fished Per Fished Fished Fished Catch CPUE Per Mile Mile Oshetna 2.2 21.25 288 13.6 9.66 1103 Goose 1.2 6.75 91 13 .5 5.63 791 Jay 3.5 12.00 130 10.8 3.43 455 Kosina 4.5 31.50 491 15 .6 7.00 1232 Watana 4.0 18.00 175 9.7 4.50 324 Deadman 0.3 4 .50 51 11.3 15.0 1835 Tsusena 0.4 3.00 29 9.7 7.5 Fog 0 .2 1.25 5 4.0 6.25 440 Total 16.3 98.25 1260 12.8 6.05 665 • • Appendix Table 1-2. Results of age class and total population calculations at variable levels of ffsh f ng pressure. Tot1l Populat i on Population Relative ffshfng pressure (f) •• 00 Age Il l of and Older Spawners II Ill IV v VI VII VI II Fish (~e V+) Nttural lnst1nt1neous Mortality (H) .90 ... 6 • 27 .11 .78 1,06 Natural Survlv1l (S) .-1 .63 .85 .46 .ft6 .35 Fishing Mortality (F) .oo .oo .oo .oo .00 .00 Mlrk/Rec1pture (H1/R) Ratio .04 .09 .14 .24 .20 .26 Tot1l lnst1ntaneous Mortality (Z) .90 .46 .11 .71 .18 1.06 . Totel Actual ~ Mortal i ty (AF+N) .59 .)l, .t5 .54 .54 .65 Total Survival (SF+N) .41 .63 ... 85 ... 6 .46 .35 Year : 1982 11363 4602 2904 245/t " 1134 521 180 11795 ft289 1983 11363 4602 2904 2454 1134 521 180 11195 ft289 198" 11363 4602 2904 2-54 113ft 521 180 11795 ft289 1985 11363 li602 2904 2454 1134 521 180 11 795 lt289 1986 11363 4602 29011 21154 1134 521 180 11 795 4289 1987 11363 4602 29011 21151t 11311 521 180 11 795 4289 1988 11363 4602 29011 21t51t 11311 521 180 11795 4289 1989 11363 4602 290/t 2115/t 11311 521 180 11795 4289 1990 11363 4602 2904 21154 1i34 521 180 11795 4289 1991 11363 4602 2904 21t5ft 113ft 521 180 11795 4289 DRAF r-E 1 FliR/SCHH I OT APPTAS /1-2 Spawne rs a s a Percent of To tal Popuh t f on 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 ..... . .·. • • Appendh Te.ble 1-2 (Continued). Relative fishing pressure II Ill IV v Netura l lnat antaneous Mortality (H) .90 .46 .17 Natural Survival (S) .oo .41 .63 .as Ffahing Mortality (F) .02 .OS .07 Hark/Recapture (H1/R) Ratio .04 .09 .1'+ Total lnatantaneoua Morta11ty (Z) .93 • 51 • 21t Total Actuel Mortality (AF+N) .60 .ItO • 21 Total Survival (SF+Nl .ItO .60 .79 Year: 1982 11363 lt602 2904 21tSit 1983 11363 ltSOO 2773 2280 1981t 11363 ltSOO 2712 2177 1985 11363 ltSOO 2712 2129 1986 11363 4500 2712 2129 1987 11363 4500 2712 2129 1988 11363 ltSOO 2712 2129 1989 11363 ltSOO 2712 2129 1990 11363 4500 2712 2129 1991 11363 4500 2712 2129 (f) ... so VI VII VIII .77 .78 1.06 .46 .'+6 .35 .13 • 11 .1 5 • 24 .20 .26 -.91 .' .. , 1. 21 I .60 .59 .70 .ItO .'+1 .30 1134 521 180 992 467 I SS 921 408 139 880 379 12 2 860 362 113 860 3S1t 108 860 3Sit lOS 860 354 105 860 354 lOS 860 35 4 lOS Tota l Popuhtion Popul etion Age I l l of and Older Sp a,.,ers Fhh (Age V+) 11795 4289 11166 3893 10857 3646 10720 3509 10675 31t61t 10662 3'+51 10660 31!1!8 10660 3'+48 10660 3448 10660 31tlt8 c::·'& ORAF, ::~CE 2 FliR/SCHH I OT APPTAB/1-2 Spe,.,ers as a Percent of Total Po~ulatlon 36 35 31! 33 32 32 32 32 32 32 • Appendix Table 1·2 (Continued). Relati ve f i shi ng preasure (f). 1.00 II Ill IV v VI Natural In stantaneous Mortality (H) .90 .lt6 .17 .77 Natural Survival (S) .00 ,41 .63 .as .46 Ffahfng Mortality (F) .04 .09 .15 .27 Hark/Recapture (H1/R) Ratio .04 .09 ,14 .24 Total lnstantaneoua .55 /) 1: 32 11 Mortality (Z) .95 1.0/t .. Total Actual ~I j ... Mortality (AF+N) .61 .lt2 .21 .. J 6s Total ~rvival (SF+H) .39 .58 .73 .35 Year1 1982 11363 4602 2904 2ft 54 1134 1983 11363 41t00 261t8 211 d 868 1981t 11363 41t00 2532 1931 71t 9 1985 11363 lt400 2532 181t6 683 1986 11363 41t00 2532 181t6 653 1987 11363 ltltOO 2532 181t6 653 1988 11363 ltltOO 2532 181t6 653 1989 11 363 41t00 2532 181t6 653 1990 11363 ltltOO 25!2 181t6 653 1991 11363 41t00 2532 181t6 653 Tota l Popuhtion Age I ll end Older VII VIII ~h __ .78 1.06 .46 .35 .22 .30 .20 .26 1 ,00 1.36 .63 .74 .37 .26 521 180 11 795 418 134 105 85 320 107 10038 276 82 9819 252 71 9753 241 65 9736 21t1 62 9733 241 62 9733 241 62 9733 241 62 9733 Populetion of Spawn ers (Ag e V+) 4289 3537 3107 2887 2822 280ft 2801 2801 2801 2801 ORAFi ',,CE 3 FHR/SCHHIOT APPTAB/1·2 Sp awners e:s a Percent o f Total Popuhtfon 36 33 31 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 • Appendi x Ttble 1·2 (Continued). Relative fishing pressure (f) • 2.00 II Ill IV v VI Hltura1 lnstantaneoua Horttlity (H) .90 .46 .17 .77 Hlturt1 Survfv1l (S) .00 .41 .63 .85 .46 Fishing Mortality (F) .09 • 18 .29 .54 Hark/Recapture (H1/R) Rat t o .04 .09 .14 .24 Total lnatanteneous Horttlfty (Z) .99 .64 '+6 1.31 Total Actual Mortality (AF+H) .63 .lt8 .37 .73 Tottl Survival (SF+H) .37 .52 .63 .27 Veer: 1982 11363 4602 2904 245/t 1134 1983 11363 ~~~06 .<415 1828 661t 1984 11363 4206 2208 1520 lt94 1985 11363 420 6 2208 1389 411 1986 11363 4206 2208 1389 376 1987 11363 11206 2208 1389 376 1988 11363 4206 2208 1389 376 1989 11363 4206 2208 1389 376 1990 11363 4206 22011 1389 376 1991 11363 11206 2208 1389 376 Total Population Age I ll and Older VII VIII Fish .78 1.06 .11 6 .35 .ltlt .59 .20 .26 1. 22 1.66 .70 • 81 .30 .19 52 1 180 11795 335 99 9547 196 64 8688 146 37 8397 121 28 8328 111 23 8313 111 21 83 11 111 21 8311 111 21 831 1 111 21 831 1 Population of Spawners (Age V+) 4289 2926 2271t 198ft 191 4 1899 1897 1897 1897 1897 DRAF11-CE 4 FHR/SCHH I DT APPTAB/1 ·2 Spa wne rs as a Percent of Total Po pulation 36 31 26 24 23 23 23 23 23 23 4' • Appendix Teble 1-2 (Continued), Relative f ishing pressure II Ill IV v Neturel Instantaneous Horta If ty (H) .90 ,lt6 .17 Neturel Survfvel (S) .00 .lt1 .63 .85 Ffahfng Hortelfty (F) • 18 .37 .59 Herk/Recapture (H1 /~l Retfo .04 .09 .14 Totel Instantaneous Hortellty (Z) 1,08 .83 .76 Totel Act uel Hortelfty (AF+N) .66 .56 .53 Totel Survfvel (Sf++l) .34 .44 .117 Veer: 1982 11363 lt602 2901t 21t51t 1983 11363 38411 2009 1361 19811 11363 38/tlt 1678 91t2 1985 11363 38/tlt 1678 787 1986 11363 38ltlt 1678 787 1987 11363 3841t 1678 787 1988 11363 381tlt 1678 787 1989 11363 3844 1678 787 1990 11363 38/tlt 1678 787 1991 11363 3844 1678 787 (f) • 11.00 VI VII VIII .77 .78 1.06 .46 .46 .35 1.07 .88 1.19 .24 .20 .26 1.84 1.66 2.25 .84 . 81 .89 .16 • 19 . 11 11311 521 180 388 216 55 215 71t 23 149 lt1 8 124 28 4 121t 24 3 121t 21t 2 1211 24 2 1211 2/t 2 124 24 2 Total Populetfon Population Age II I of and Older Spawners Fish (Age V+) 11795 4289 7813 2020 6716 1254 6506 984 61166 944 6460 938 6459 93 7 6459 937 6459 937 6459 937 DRAF1~'-E 5 FHR/SoiM I DT APPTAB/1 -2 Spawners 1$ I Pe r cent of Total Population 36 26 19 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 • • Appendi x Table 1-2 (Continued). Relative fishing preasure (f) • 6.00 II I l l IV v _:!J_ Nltural lnatantaneoua Mortalt t y (H) .90 .116 .17 .77 Nltural Survival (S ) .oo .Ill .63 .85 .116 Ffahf ng Mortality (F) .27 .55 .88 1 . 61 Hark/Recapture (H1/R) Ratto .Oit .09 ,l it .2'1 Tota l lnatantaneoua Hortaltty (Z) 1.17 1.01 1.05 ' J . '138 Total Actual Hortalfty (AF+N) ,69 .611 .65 • 91 Total Survi va l (SF+N) .31 .36 .31t .09 Year: 1982 1136l lt602 2901t 211511 11311 1983 11363 3513 1671 10111 227 19811 11363 3513 1276 583 9'1 1985 11363 3513 1276 11115 54 1986 11363 3513 1276 445 .. , 1987 11363 3513 1276 lt lt5 .. , 1988 11363 3513 1276 41t5 '1 1 1989 11363 3513 1276 It ItS .. , 1990 11 3"' 3513 12 76 ltlt5 lt 1 1991 113b3 3513 1276 ltlt5 41 'f ' Total Population Age Ill and Older VII VIII Fish .78 1.06 .116 .35 1. 32 1. 78 .20 .26 2.10 2.85 .88 .9'1 .12 .06 521 180 11795 139 30 6594 28 8 5502 11 2 5301 7 1 5283 5 0 5281 5 0 5281 s 0 5281 5 0 5281 s 0 5281 Population of Spa wner a !AQe V+) 4298 1410 713 512 49'1 lt 92 492 lt92 492 '192 "il ... DRAFl .l'l!l!lfCE 6 AiR/SCHMIDT APPT AB /1-2 Spawner~ ua Percent o f Total Pop u lation 36 21 13 10 9 9 9 9 9 9 • Appe"o .x Tab l e 1·2 (Continued). Total Spa wners Population Population IS cl Relative fishing p r essure (f) • 8.00 Age II I o f Percent and Older Spa wners of Total II Il l IV v VI VII VII I Fhl'l (Age V+) Popu!ation Natural lnatentaneous Hortali ty (M) .90 .46 • 17 .77 .78 1.06 Neture l Survi val (S) .00 .41 .63 .85 .46 .'+6 .35 Fishing Hortelity (F) .36 .7'+ 1 .1 8 2 .14 1.77 2.38 Hark/Recapture (H1 /R) Ratio .04 .09 .14 • 24 .20 .26 Total Instantaneou s Mortality (Z) 1.26 1.20 1.35 2 .92 2.5'+ 3.'+'• Tot el Actua l Mortality (AF+H) .72 .70 .71t .95 .92 .97 Total Survival (SF+H) .28 .30 .26 .05 .08 .03 Veer: 1982 11363 lt602 2901t 21t51t 1134 521 180 11795 '+289 36 1983 11353 321 1 1390 755 133 89 17 5595 994 18 1984 11363 321 1 970 361 '+1 10 3 4596 '+16 9 1985 11363 321 1 970 252 20 3 0 '+'+56 275 6 1986 11363 321 1 970 252 lit ? 0 '+'+'+8 267 6 19P7 11363 3211 970 252 14 1 0 '+'14 7 267 6 1988 11363 321 1 970 252 1'+ , 0 '+'1'+7 267 6 1989 11363 3211 970 252 14 1 0 '+'+47 267 6 1990 11363 3211 970 252 ,. , 0 4447 267 6 1991 11363 321 1 970 252 14 , ' 0 '+4'+7 267 6 ... ·• • Appendix T1ble 1·2 (Continued). Reletive fi s hi ng pressure (f) • 10.00 I I Ill IV v VI N1tura1 lnat1ntaneous Mortality (H) .90 .46 .17 .77 Natur•1 Survive! (5) .oo .41 .63 .85 .46 Fishing Mortel i t y (F) .45 .92 1.47 2.68 Mark /Recapture (M1/R) R1ti o .04 .09 .14 .24 Total lnatentlneous HorhHty (Z) 1.35 1 .• 38 1.64 3.45 Tot1l Actual Mort1l i ty (AF+N) .7'+ • 75 • 81 .97 Tot1l Surviv11 (SF+N ) .26 .25 • 19 .03 Ye1r: 1982 11363 4602 29~ 2'+54 1134 1983 11363 2931! 1156 562 78 1984 11363 2934 737 22 '+ 18 1985 11363 2934 737 1113 7 1986 11l6l 29311 737 143 5 1987 11363 29311 73 7 143 5 1988 11363 2934 7l7 143 5 ,,89 11363 29311 7'!.7 1113 5 1990 11363 2934 737 1113 5 1991 11363 2931t 7'!.7 11t3 5 Total Popuhtion Age Ill 1nd Older VII VIII Fish .78 1.06 .46 .35 2.21 2.97 .20 .26 2.98 4.03 .95 .98 .05 .02 521 180 11795 57 9 4797 It 1 39111 1 0 3822 0 0 3819 0 0 3819 0 0 38 19 0 0 38 19 0 0 3819 0 0 3819 Por uhti on of Spawne r s (Age V+) 4289 707 247 151 148 1117 l lt 7 11t 7 147 11t7 DRAF"r 'E 8 FliR/SCHM IO T APP TA B/1-2 Spe wners as e Percent of Total Popu lat ion 36 15 6 4 It 4 It " It It 13<..0 1200 ~ 1100 (!) :::> c( 1000 0 :J: U) ~0 &L I&. 0 /t )C. /._, I ' I \ ~FISH>I4"FORK I \.............- LENGTH / '\ I \ I \ I \ \ r'; I \ \ \ \ \ \ 11 '\H r I ' ' ' ' ' ' .......... ..... , ,.~ '(". ', ' ..... RE~ATIVE RATE OF FISHING PRESSURE (f) 100 90 80 70 • ~ - 60 1\ ::z: (I) 50 LL. &&.. 0 4 0 0 z 30 20 ...... 10 Appendix Figu re 1-1. (I {, i ;, ~ ..l / Maximum sustained y ield of Ar cti c gray l ing for different levels of fishing pre ssure. Th e f va lue represents multiples of 6.05 hr s per mile of hook and l ine sport f i s hing per year. -,.. ,. ~) --<. , • • DRAF'i /PAGE 6 FHR/0 . SCHMi!H APP l APP1/APP02 Possible effects of higher levels of ex pl oitation on recruitment a r e al so presented in Appendix Table 1-3 and illustrated in Appendix Figure 1-2. Under baseline conditions, the age III and older f l sh are composed of 36% spawr.ers. At the hi gher rates of exp l oitation this number drops off rather rapidly. Although recruitment is probab l y in excess of wha t is required under the current conditions, the projected de creases of the spawners to the population at the high rates of exploitation i s probably sufficient to effect recruitment. Using the as sumptions of the model and assuming a 1 inear dec rease in recruitment following a decrease of spawning ag ed fi sh to 10% of tlhe noll-exploi ted population the number of fish caught annually rap i dl y decreases when f=78 (48.8 hrs /mile of "-' river). -I. ~ -I -' -I \ c q__ \. ::;: h ' \ ~ Conclusion The model demonstrates that in a closed system fishery , where f ishenman access is not limiting, modest levels of fishing pressure can drastically reduce grayling population. In reality, the disappearance of the fish will probably result in a decrease in fi s hing pressure before the population totally disappears. The residual fishery, after such an event, would probably reflect recruitment by i11111igration of stock from other areas . Although the data collected pertai ns to the streams that will be inundated by the impo undment, the similarity in age structure among the streams (ADF&G, 1983 , Table 5-3-8) suggests that this data base may be applicable to gray l ing fisherie s in other tributaries of the upper Susitna basin . The modeling of the available data resembles age/class 7 • DRAFT /PACE 1 FliR /SCHHI OT APPTAB/1-3 • Append ix Table 1-3 . Reaulta of anelysia of effects of dec reasing spawner populations ceuaed by fishing pressure on t wenty year catch ratea. Relative Flshin~ Press ure (f) • 6 .00 Total Nudler Spawner~ Total Nullber of of Age VI end Total Catch All Aye a s • Percent of ~1mers l~e V+~ 01 der Fish Cau~ht Classes (A~e Ill+ Tot•l Poeul•tion Neturel lnstantnaeous Mor tality (H) .90 Natural Survlva 1 (S) .~t1 Fishing Mortality (F) .27 Hark/Recepture (M1/R) Ratio .Oit Tote I lnatantaneoua Mortal i ty (Z) 1.17 Tote l Actuel Mortal i t y (AF+N) .69 Totel Survlvel (SF+N) .31 Yeer z 1982 4289 646 3083 36 1983 11t10 139 1427 21 198' 713 46 101, 13 1985 512 21t 924 10 1986 '" 18 917 9 1987 lt92 17 916 9 19118 lt92 17 916 9 1989 lt92 17 916 9 1990 492 17 916 9 1991 492 17 916 9 1992 4192 17 916 9 1993 "2 17 916 9 1991t 492 17 916 9 1995 492 17 916 9 1996 lt92 17 916 9 1997 1.92 17 91 6 9 1998 '92 17 916 9 1999 lt92 17 916 9 2000 lt92 17 916 9 2001 lt92 17 916 9 2002 lt92 17 916 9 Appendix Table 1-3 (Continued), Total Number of Seawners {AQe V+) Natural lnstantnaeous Mortality (H) .90 Natural Survival (S) ,41 Fishing Mortality (F) .29 Kirk/Re capture (H1/R) Ratto .04 Total lnstantaneoua Mortality (Z) 1 .20 Total Ac tual Mortality (AF+N ) .70 Total Survival (SF t N) .30 Yea r : 1982 4289 1983 1291 1981t 622 1985 438 1986 423 1987 421 1988 421 1989 421 1990 lt21 1991 415 1992 414 1993 414 i991t lt14 1995 It lit 1996 408 1997 406 1998 406 1999 406 2000 lt06 2001 401 2002 399 • Relative Fiahlng Pressure (f ) • 6 .50 Total Number of Age VI and Older Fish Caught Tota l Catch All Aye Classes (Ag e Ill+ c-.... -,-~ ....... 668 3244 12,7 1424 .-All 999 19 912 14 906 13 906 13 906 13 901 13 894 13 890 13 889 13 889 13 885 13 879 13 875 13 874 13 873 13 869 13 863 13 859 13 858 DRAFT/PACE 2 FliR/SCHHIOT APPTAB/1-3 Spa,nera • as a Percent of Total Poeuhtlot• 36 20 12 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 . ' • • Appendi x Teble 1·3 (Continued), Total Number of Se awners (~e V+! Nlturel lna ta11tneeoua Morta l ity (H) .90 .._turel Survival (S) ,,1 Ffahfng Hortelity (F) .31 Ha rk/Recapture (H 1/R) Rat t o .04 Total lnatanteneo ua Mort a lity (Z ) 1 , 22 Total Actuel Mortality (AF+H) ,70 Total Survival (SF +H) .30 Vur: 1982 11289 1983 1182 198, ~3 1985 3711 1986 362 1987 361 1988 361 19 89 361 1990 319 1991 306 1992 304 1993 304 19911 304 1995 271 1996 259 1997 257 1998 256 1999 256 2000 230 2001 219 2002 216 • Reletfve Fiahlng Pr essure (f) • 7.00 Totel ~mber of "J• VI and 01 der i ah Caught Total Catch All Aye Classes (Age Ill+ 686 3395 115 1415 32 983 ~ 15 898 11 894 10 893 10 847 10 794 10 760 9 753 9 753 9 716 9 672 9 643 8 635 7 634 7 605 7 569 7 543 6 53 6 6 534 DRAFT/PACE 3 F'HR/SCHHIOT APP TAB II -3 Spawne rs • u a Percent of Total Poeulation 36 19 11 8 7 7 8 9 8 8 7 8 9 8 8 7 8 9 8 8 7 ·• Appendix Table 1-~ (Continued). Total Number of S2awners (~e V+) Natural lnstantnaeoua Mortality (H) .90 Natural Survtval (S) __ , Ftahfng Mortality (F) .36 Hark/Recapture (H1/R) Ratio .04 Total lnatantaneoua Mortality (Z) 1.26 Total Actual Mortality (AF+N) .72 Total Survival (SF+N) .28 Year: 1982 -289 198~ 9911 198\ 416 1985 275 1986 267 1987 267 1988 267 1989 259 1990 176 1991 167 1992 166 1993 166 199\ 161 1995 112 1996 1~ 1997 103 1998 103 1999 101 2000 72 2001 65 2002 64 Relative Fiahlng Pressure (f) • 8.00 Total Number of Age VI and 01 der Ffst· Caught Total Catch All Aye Claases ~Age Ill+_ 717 ~672 93 1386 22 945 9 869 6 866 6 853 6 715 6 599 6 51tlt .. 539 .. 531 -450 It 377 It 341 3 336 2 331 2 283 2 237 2 213 2 209 206 DRAFT /PACE 4 • FHR/SCH~IDT APPTAB/1-3 Spawners u a Percent of Total Poeu l atf on 36 18 9 6 6 6 8 9 6 6 6 8 9 6 6 6 8 9 7 6 6 Appendi~ Table 1·3 (Continued). Total Number of Seawners (~e V+! ... tural lnstantnaeous Mortality (H) .90 Natural Survival (S) .lt1 Fishing Mortality (F) ,ItO Ha r k/Recapture (H1/R) Ratto .04 Total lnstantaneoua Morta l ity (Z) 1 .31 Total Actual Mortality (AF+N) .73 Total Survival tSF+N) .27 Year: 1982 '+289 1983 837 198'+ 320 1985 203 1986 198 1987 198 1988 198 1989 1J0 1990 96 1991 92 1992 91 1993 91 199'+ 70 1995 lt6 1996 lt3 1997 42 :998 42 1'.)99 26 2000 16 2001 15 2002 15 • Relative Fishins Pressure Cfl • 9.00 Total ,.,lllber of "Je VI and Older tsh Causht Total Catch All A~e Classes (Ago Ill+ ~ 7'+1 3918 75 131tlt lit 906 -:J 6 838 4 836 It 730 4 51t1 ,. 425 3 389 2 386 2 339 2 251t 2 199 1 ,80 1 178 1 1'+4 1 98 1 71 0 62 0 61 0 so DRAFT /PACE 5 FHR/SOiH I OT APPTAB/1-3 • Spawner& u a Percent of Total Poeulatlon 36 16 8 5 5 6 9 8 5 5 6 9 8 5 5 7 11 8 5 5 7 Appendix Table 1-3 (Continued). Total Number of S~awners (Age V+) Natural lnatantneeoua Mortelity (H) .90 Natural Survi val (S) ,,1 Fishing Mortelfty (F) ,,5 Hark/Recepture 'H1/R) Ratio .04 Total Instantaneous Mortality (Z) 1.35 Totel Actual Mortality (AF+N) .7'+ Total Survival (SF+N) .26 Veer: 1982 '+289 1983 707 198, 2'+7 1985 151 1986 148 1987 147 1988 147 1989 87 1990 53 1991 51 1992 51 1~3 51 19911 31 1995 19 1996 18 1997 17 1998 17 1999 11 2000 7 2001 6 2002 6 Relative Fishing Pre,sure (f) • 10.00 Total Number of Age VI end Older Ffsh Caught Total Catch All Age Classes (~e II I+) 760 4137 60 1296 10 866 3 807 2 806 2 623 2 407 2 302 1 278 1 277 1 2Ui 1 143 1 105 0 96 0 95 0 75 0 50 0 37 0 33 0 33 0 29 DRAfT /PACE 6 FliR/SOiH 'OT APPTA8/1·3 Spawners n a Percent of Total Po~utatfon 36 15 6 It It 6 9 6 ,. 4 6 9 7 ,. It 6 9 7 ,. It 5 4000 t-3000 X (!) ~ 4t; (.) • (I) &L 2000 &&. 0 ~ .J ~ ~ 1000 0 ~ ~ ·'ii.~. F=4 .·---.__--..:::-.··~...:::---·=-----.:.;.-=:."=------------------F = 6 .5 ........... _._ ·-. -----F=I ............ ...._, ----..--·-· ............. -...... ·-·-F=8 F=-10 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 NO. OF YEARS FROM ONSET OF INCREASED F ISH lNG PRESSURE Appendix Figure 1-2. Effort of heavy fishing pressure on Arctic grayling catch rates assuming effort of harvest on re cruitment. The f value represents multiples of 6.05 hrs per mile of hook and line sport fishing per year . .. ' ... r • • •• DRAFT/PAGE 7 FHR/D. SCHMIDT APP I At'f'J /APP02 population structures as presently found in exploited grayling systems in other parts of interior Alaska (Armstrong, 1982). The spreadsheet program used in the analysis allows very rapid changes in assumptions and output of usable information with insignificant programming effort. Projections can be made given any rea s onable set of assumptions concerning harvest, recruitment , management strategies, and other aspects of the population dynamics of grayling, with minor adjust- ments to the model presented . J.•rv) ~ : ( ~ ,..,(" , fc..o- & . rJ ~~ r " /<NW . "') ~~· . , :} I . '"" , j ~ ""'''-.. ' ._,A J ·' .... / . o../ ~ n /.J I·J I /,.J • r ~ f ,I ; .... r r , t , I' ('-. v . , .; ,, .)._ 4 • -. J .I .,· . , :r4A.r·', 01~. ~ i' .. l c._. ', / ,.J,; • literature Cited DRAFT/PAGE 8 FHR/0. SCHM I o·r APP I APP1/APP02 ADF&G, 1981. Resident fish investigations on the upper Susitna River. Phase I. Final Draft. AOF&G Su Hydro Aquatic Studies Program, Anchorage, Alaska. ______ • 1983. Basic Data Report, ADF&G Su Hydro Studies, Volume 5. Armstrong, Robert H. 1982. Arctic Grayling Studies in Alaska. A special compilation of the Alaska Cooperative Fi5heries Research Unit and the Al a ska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish. August, 1982. Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statis- tics of fish populations. Fish. Res. Board Can. 191:382 p. • APPENDI X J DRAFT /PAGE 24 FHR/CRAWFORD APP2/Table of Contents A~e-Length Relati onships for Arctic Grayling and Rainbow Trout • • • APPENDI X J LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES Appendix Figure J-1 Comparisons of age-length relationships of Arctic grayling in the Susitna River with growth rates of Arctic grayling in other DRAFT I PAGE 25 FHR/CRAWFORD APP2/Table of Contents regions of Alaska ......................... . Appendi x Figure J-2 Compari sons of age-length relationship of rainbow t rout in the Susitna River a bove the Chulitna River confluence wi t h other systems ••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••• • • • APPENDIX J LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Append i x Table J-1 Results of regression analyses for Arctic grayling and rainbow DRAFT/PAGE 26 FHR/CRAWFORD APP2/Table of Contents trout ..................................... . • • - 1. Introduction DRAFT /PAGE 1 FHR/SUCHANEK/HALE APP J APP1/APP03 Age-length curves and regressions were examined for Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) to determine if the growth of the population in the proposed impoundment area above Devil Canyon was significantly different from that of the population below Devil Canyon. Prelimi 1ary analysis of 1981 data had indicated that there might be such a difference which, if true, would have relevance to proposed mitigation strategies for Arctic grayling in the impoundment area. The same kind of data was analyzed for rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). This species is near the northern limit of its range in the Susitna River basin. Comparing the growth of the population in the Susitna River with that of other populations provides an indication of the capability of the Susitna population to absorb impacts associated with the proposed hydroelectric project. 2. Methods Scales taken from rainbow trout and Arctic grayling captured and measured during 1981 and 1982 were aged. log (Y = a + b ln{x)) and linear (Y = a + bx) regressions of age versus length were then run for both species. Arctic grayl i ng were divided into three groups by sampling reach: Cook Inlet to Chulitna River confluence, Chulitna River confluence to Devil Canyon, and Devil Canyon to Oshetna River con- fluence. Si nee there are no rainbow trout in the impoundment area except for a transplanted population in the High Lakes, rainbow trout • • • DRAFT/PAGE 2 FHR/SUCHANEK/HALE APP J APP1/APP03 were divided into two groups, above and below the Chulitna River con- fluence. Data from 1981 and 1982 were analyzed . Each year's data was analyzed by reach separately for comparative purpo 5es and as a check on sampling and aging procedures . Selec.ted slopes of different regressions were tested for equality (Dixon and Massey 1969). large catches of rainbow trout and Arctic grayling were most often made in May~ June, or September and to compare rainbow trout captured in May with other rainbow trout captured in September only by year class would give biased results since most growth occurs during a short period in the sunmer. Therefore , data were entered by month for each age class of fish. For example, a~ age 1+ grayling was entered as 1.0 years of age if caught in May and 1.2 , 1.4, 1.6, and 1.8 years of age if caught in June~ July, August, and September respectively. 3. Results and Discussion Arctic grayling log regressions of Arctic grayling age versus length generally fit the data as well or better than linear regressions (Appendix Table J-1). Although slopes and intercepts varied somewhat, by reach and year, all the log regressions are very similar and differences are probably due to chance. Growth rates of Arctic grayling in the impoundment and below Devil Canyon are nearly identical. Comparison of slopes (growth) of the log regressions of Arctic gray l ing captured in 198~ in the impoundment with those captured between the Chulitna River and Devil Canyon revealed • • DRAFT/PAGE 1 RFH/SUCHANEK APPTAB/TABL E 2 Appendix Table J-1. Results of regression analyses between length and age for Arctic grayling and rainbow trout captured on the Susitna River, 1981 and 1982. Area ~ Arctic Grayling b.Q9. Linear Rainbow Trout LQQ Linear Impoundment, 1982 141.0 Above Chulitna, 1982 160.8 Below Chulitna, 1982 139.8 Impoundment, 1981 155.2 Above Chulitna, 1981 117.0 Below Chulitna, 1981 152.9 Impoundment, 1982 \ 1:· 6 Above Chulitna,~~ .6 Below Chuli~ 8 47.7 Impoundmen , 1981 33.2 Above Chulitna, 1981 Below Chulitna, 1981 Above Chulitna, 1982 Below Chulitna, 1982 Above Chulitna, 1982 Below Chulitna, 1982 Above Chu litna, 1981 Below Chulitna, 1981 44.8 38.2 271.3 167.5 57.0 42 .0 50.5 62.4 y Inter-r2 cept n Std En·or - 84 .0 282 .90 14.9 23 .9 398 ,S3 27.4 74.9 62 .88 24.8 42 .6 382 .82 18.4 47 .6 65 .93 19 .0 62.6 209 .87 23.5 144.5 282 .85 18 .3 54.6 398 .86 24.8 68.3 62 .88 25 .2 119 .5 382 .81 18 .9 71.1 65 .91 21.2 101.5 209 .87 23 .6 -104 .5 132 .84 34.5 50 .7 35 • 76 36.4 132 .86 32.2 103 .0 35 .82 39.8 73 .6 43.5 92 .66 39.4 92 .81 37.6 • • • DRAFT I PAGE 3 rHR /SUCHANEK/HALE APP J APP1/APP03 a statistically significant difference (t=3.71, df=67o, p(.01), but this difference is probably not biologically important as 1981 data suggest the opposite trend. The growth rates of Arcti c grayling i n the Susitna River ba s in are very similar to those of other interior Alaskan popul~tions (Appendix Figur ~ J-1). Rainbow Trout Available rainbow trout length-age data from t he Sus itna River ba~in fit linear regress ions as well or better than log regressions (Appendix Table J-1 ). Growth rates (slope of age/length regression) of rainbow trout captured above the Ch ulitna River confluence were not significantly different in 1981 than in 1982 (t = 1.10, df = 220). These data were pooled a,d a regression 1 ine computed f'lr comparison with other rainbow trout populations {Appendix Figure J-2). The Susitna River rainbow trout were the smallest for any given age class of the other populations e xami ned . , -e e - ' I J' Br i stol Bay Interior -----Susi tna River --..._._ Arctic Gray I ino o~----~~--r--r--r-~r-.~.---- 0 Appendix Figure J-1. Comparisons of age-length relationship of Arctic grayling in the Susitna RivPr with growth rates of Arctic grayling in other regions of Ala . :.a. Figure is adapted from Arms t rong (1982 }. t. - :f :f X ~ 0 z ... ..J X a: 0 &I.. 800 RA INBOW TROUT 700 600 500 400 300 (!) SUSITNA ltiVU ABOV£ CHULITNA CONFLU(NC[ @ P'f'RAIIIIO LAI([I.AU[RTA !Rf:WSON & f:L~f:'f' 19!101 @ I..OW[R TALAIIII( Cll(£1( kVICHAK ORAIHAGf:, AK (AOI'I!I'>,1977) (!} KOOTf:HAT LAI([, I . C . (CARTWRIGHT 1951) 0 1-----~----~----or----.-----or----or-----r- o 2 3 4 AGE (YEARSl 5 6 7 Fi~ure J-2. Comparisons of age-length relationship of rainbow trout in the Susitna River above the Chulitna confluence with other systems. ' ,. ( " \ ) l ' I) >' ",, . .. .·· I Literature Cited DRAFT/PAGE 4 FH?./SUCHANEK/HALE APP J APP1/APP03 AOF&G, 1977 . Rainbow trout l i fe h istory studies i n the lower Talarik Creek -Kvichak Drainage. Federa l Aid in Fi s h Resto ration, Vol. 18, Study No. G-11. Armstrong, R.H. 1982. Arctic grayling studies in Alaska (Uraft) Alaska Cooperative Fishery Research Unit and ADF&G Sportfish. T.E.S. (Terrestrial Environrrw@a ~peci,glist s , Inc.). 1981. LifP history and ecology of selectef'lrCh/ that occur in the Susitna River. Phoenix, New York. 59 pp. APPEND IX K AH DRAFT /PAG E 1 6!10/83 APPl/Appendix K DRAFT Eval~ation of Arctic Grayling Spawning and Rearing Habitat and Notes on Salmon Spawning in the Impoundment Study Area of the Susitna River . ,. LIST OF FIGURES Figure K-1. Figure K-2. ~· AP PENDIX K Proposed Susitna Hydroelectric AH DRAFT/PAGE 2 6/10/83 APPl/Appendix K PAGE impoundment study area, 1982 •..••.•.••..•..•...•. K-2 Chinook salmon holding area near the mouth of Cheechako Creek in the Susitna River at RH 152.4 (GC SJ2N01EJJCCB) August 6, 1982 .........................••••.•••••• K-8 ... .. AH DRAFT /PAGE 3 6/10 /83 APP1 /Appendix K ARCTIC G~YLING 1 . INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to determine the locations of Arctic grayling} Thymallu s arcticus, spawning and rearing habitats above and below the proposed impoundment elevation (PIE) within the eleven major tributaries of the impoundment study area (Figure K-1). Inundation of the lower reach of each of these streams below the PIE will result in th ~ loss of existing lotic grayling spawning and rearing habi t ats. Therefore, the degree of continued spawning and rearing of Arctic grayling presently occurring in these streams will depend upon the quantity, quality and availability of habitat above the PIE. 2. METHODS DRAFT General habitat investigations were conducted above and below the PIE on eight of the eleven major tributaries within the impoundment study area during 1982. Three small, steep gradient tributaries, Cheechalc.o Creek (RM 152.5), Chinook Creek (RM 156.8), and Devil Creek (RM 161.4), because of time con~traints and study pri o rities. were not adequately surveyed during the 1982 field season*. Therefor~. \these_ . ·I •. C:·= . I ~.) streams have been deleted from further discussion inVthis appendix . * A foot survey. conducted at the mouth of Cheechalc.o Creek and along the lower mile of Devil Creek i ndicated that very few grayl i ng were present in these locations. Habitat was assessed to be poor in the extreme lower reach of Cheechako Creek. while good to excellent habitat was identified in Devil Creek. During aerial surveys above and below the PIE, several fish passage barriers were observed in • ·-·-·----· • PROPOSED IMPOUNDMENT ARE A LIMITS OF AOF a G IMPOUNDMENT STUDY AREA .. Figure K-1 . Proposed Susitna Hydroelectric impoundment study area, 1982. DENALI 'HIGHWAY BR lOGE / I I ! AH DRAFT/PAGE 4 6/10/83 APPl/Appendix K Investigations of the eight tributaries studied [Fog (RM 176.7), Tsusena (RM 181.3), Deadman (186.7), Watana (RM 194.1). Kosina (RM 206.8) and Jay (208.5) Creeks and the Oshetna River (RM 233.4)] were limited to the reach between the tributary mouth and a point five miles above the PIE on each stream. Evaluation of spawning and rearing habitats were based on stream gradient, substrate ty~~. stream velocities and observations . -,~:~r /'\ . _.,..,_ ""'-J: /. -- of grayling in each stream. Specifically, .,.,preferred spawni11g habitat <..:..:: characteristics/cgravel substrate and . stream velocities of 0.8 to 3.3 ~ feet per second (fps) (Tack 1973) )~and/or observed use of habitat by E- ~ spawning grayling were the criteria used to identify spawning habitat. fl'sfl \tX(;1 f:IYI' ~i'u1YJ fY~tt1~f1\Y'aDf '1/rtVu·v-·:.'V -v ·-··- t.,..:Vthe'cWYra u~ igenfilt s¥mi~g h~lifJ,t. Based on previous observations, slow flowing and backwater areas and/or observed young-of-the-year grayling (fry} were the criteria used~ ~~ify the presence of fry rearing habitat. Juvenile and adult'fg~~g observations indicated the presence of adequate reari ng habitat f for these life stages. Data collection methods and detailed ind i vidual stream descriptions for the tributaries investigated are presented in the ADF&G Procedures Manual (AOF&G 1982) and the ADF&G Su Hydro Draft Basic Data Report, 1983 ( AOF&G 1983a) . Cheechako and Chinook creeks. One barrier, a large waterfall 0.5 miles above the PIE, was identified in Devil Creek. The inundation of barriers below the PIE on each stream by the proposed Oevi 1 Canyon Reservoir will not affect the present inaccessibility to the upper reaches of these streams by Susitna River fish. Soawning and rearing habitats above and below the PIE were not assessed within Cheechako, Chinook and Devil creeks. .. 3 . RESULTS AH DRAFT /PAGE 5 6/10/83 APPl /Appendix K , Adults, juv eniles and grayling fry were f ound sc attered throughout the study reach of G11 tributaries i nvestigated . Because gray l ing fry spend their first summer near their hatch site (Ta ck 1980), the observations of fry indicated that spawn i ng had taken place above and below the PIE in all t ributaries. In addition, a ll streams co ntained the gravel substrates and medium to slow stream velocities necessary for suitable spawning hab {tat throughout their s urveye d length. Actual grayling spawning was not observed because of spring turbid water conditions. The observa t ion of fry , juvenile and adult grayling al ong with the identi fica tion of spawning and rearing habitats within~he study rea ch on each tributary indi cated that grayling of all "ifJ..s;;ges were •• mpor ted throughout the.e reach•s. #If~/' ' Large waterfalls l ~~~~~rl within the study reaches of Tsusena and Deadman Creeks pl'esently preven t 1 . '"t pa ssage from the Susitna River to the upper reaches of these streams. The ~~terfall l oc ated in Deadman Creek wou l d be inunda ted by the proposed Wata na Reservo ir, eliminating thi_s fish passage b3rrier. However, the pro posed Devi l Canyon Reservoir, which would flood the lower portion of Tsusena C ree ~. will not inundate the waterf all loca ted on thi s stream but will decrease the amount of available habitat above the PIE and bel ow the waterfall . Likewise, the proposed i nundation of Fog, Watana and Jay Creeks below possible hydrau - li c fish passage ba rriers may also decrease the amount of available I . - • - AH DRAFT/PAGE 6 6/10/83 APP1 /Appe ndi x K hab i tat in each stream below the s e barriers. A more complete discussion on fish passage barriers in the study area ;s presented in the AOF&G Draft Basic Data Report, 1983 (ADF&G 1983a). 4 . CONCLUSIONS All reaches of tributaries studied contained su i ta ble spawni ng and rearing habitats above and below t he PIE. However, the quality, quanti - ty and ac cessib i lity of these habitats varies considerably among streams and within streams above and below the PIE. Most notable c hange s with i n s treams abov e and below the PIE occ ur on Deadman and Kosina Creeks where an abrupt ch ange in stream gradient and a chaJ'le in stream gradient pattern, respectively, cha nges the quality oO.,available habitat (ADF&G 1983a). Habitat differences among strea~~~asically a function of stream gr adient, discharge . substrate and rrvJ rp~~gy . J Ad ult Arctic grayling are sus pe cted to spawn* in t he same secti on of river where they were hatched (Tack 1980 } and have been show n to return to the same summer feeding station yearly {Sc hall ock and Roguski 1967, AO F&G 1983a). Spawning and rearing habita t s above and below the PIE on all tributaries surveyed are sea sona ll y used by Arctic gray ling which probably home to thes e s pe cific area s yearly. However, afte r reservJ ir -•..-J * Spring 1983 field stud ies located active grayling sp aw ning area s. These data will be reported and co tpared to the infonmation of this appendix in the FY84 ADF&G report . , ., AH DRAFT /PAGE 7 6/10/83 APP 1 I Appe ndix t< development, grayling which had homed t o the rea ch of tributary bel ow the PIE wi ll be displaced . The suspe cted inva s i on and use of spawning and rearing habitats above the PIE by these displaced grayl i ng will likely af .. ect the grayling population above the PIE. These effects cannot be predicted since estimating t he grayling carrying capacity of these habitats is beyond the scope of this study . Therefore, the lotic habitats above the PIE cannot be considered as replacement habitat for hab i tat lost below the PIE . SALI'ION Cheechako and Chinook Creeks, located /)· :{J,f within ~rvil Canyon at RM 152 .5 and 156.8, respectively, are the only tributaries of the Susitna River within the proposed impoundment areas presently known to be used by spawning salmon. Although unconfirmed sightings of saimon have been reported near the mouth of Jay Creek, RM 208.5 (USFWS 1954), studies conducted by ADF&G during 1981 and 1982 (ADF&G 1981, 1983b) have tenta- tively placed the upstream 1 imit of the salmon migratiu•• in the Susitna River near the moiJth of Chinook Creek, RM 157 .0. The constricted river channel of Devil Cany··m above Chinook Creek creates a fish passage velocity barrier which inhibits further upstream migration of fish. ADF&G Su Hydro staff initially documented chinook salmon spawning within the Devil Canyon reach of the Susitna River in the glacial clearwater mixing zones of Cheechako and Chinook Creeks on August 4 and 5, 1982, • AH DRAFT/PAGE 8 6/10/83 APP1 /Appendi x K respectively (AOF&G 1983b ). On August 6, 1982 , ADF&G Su Hydro Aquatic Habitat per so nnel measure d streamflow velocities and dep th s associated with holding chinook salmon with in the clear-water plume and mi r ing zone of Cheechako Creek (Figure K-2). Alt;,o ugh actual spa wn i ng wa s not obse r ved a t thi s time, a semi-dewatered chinook salmon redd was observed along the water's edge approximately 150 feet downstream from the mo uth of Cheec hako Cre ek, indicat i ng that spawning had taken place during a higher discharge period. Subsequent surveys on Cheechako and Chinook Creeks during August. 1982 indicated that salmon used only a small portion of the habitat above the mouth on each stream. Severa 1 fish passa~ barriers within Ch eechako and Chinook Creeks prevented salmo n acces ~~ upper reach es of the s e streams. Host of the lower reach on each ~(.., ~s charac terized by turbulent, high velocity whitewater areas and spawn~habitat appeared to be limited. Additional investigations are planned FY 84 i n the Dev il Canyon ~rea of the Susi tna River to further document the extent of sa lmon movement above the Devi l Canyon dam site, RM 152.0 . V'• • o.e• 0 .7 SALMON REDO SUSI THA RIVER DISCHARGE 18 1 800 ch GAGE HO.I&U2000 (USGS ltel) * DEP.TH (ft)/ MEAN WATER CO LUMN VELOCITY (ft/ucl 0 25 FEET • _.., (\. -· •a 07 ""Q .,. 1l0 Q 1-C'\ ....... -· • ... \ • Figure K-2 . Chin oo k sal mo n holding area r.ear the mouth of Cheechako Creek in the Sus itna Rive r at RM 152 .4 (GC S32N01E33 CCB) August 6, 1982. • LITE RATURE C I TEO AH DRAFT/PAGE 9 6/10/83 APP1 /Appendi x K Alas ka Department of Fi s h and Game (ADF&G). 198 1. Adult anadromous phase 1 final species/sub j e c t report. ADF&G Su llydro Aquat i c studies Pro gram. Anchorage, Alaska . 1982. Procedures manual. ADF&G Su Hydro Aquatic Studies Program. Anchorage, Alaska . 1983a . Su Hydro draft basic data report, Volume 5. ADF&G Su Hydro Aq uatic Studies Program. Anchorag~la s ka . 14. . 1983b. Su Hydro draft bas ic data report, v,C,. 2. Hyd r o Aquati c Studies Program . Anchorage, Alaska. AOF&G Su Schall ock, E.W. and E.A. Roguski. 1967. Investigations of the Tanana River and Tangle Lakes fisheries : Migratory and pop ulation study. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game. Fe deral Aid in Fish Restor<~tion, Annual Report of Progress 1966-1967, Project F-S-R-8, 8{16-B). iack , S.L. 1973. Distributio1, abundance , and natural history of the Arc tic grayling in the Tanana River dra i nage . Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Federal Aid in Fi sh Restoration , Annual Report of pro- gress, 1972-1973, Project F-9-5, 14 {R-1). I AH DRAFT /PAGE 10 6/10/83 APP1/Appendix K 1980 . Distrib ution, abundan ce and natural history of the Ar c tic grayling in the Tanana Piver drainage, Alaska. Dept. 'lf Fish and Game, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration, Annual Report of Progress, 1979-1980, Project F-9-1 2. 21 R-1 ). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1954. A progress report on the fishery resources of the Susitna River Basin. Juneau, Alaska. :1 \ i ' .. • .