HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA3507ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library &Information Services
llnchorage,AJaska
If(
1!.f;ZS
.>~
A-'b 8
Y)\).3 ~0,
SUSITNA PROJECT REVIEW
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Central Region
October 2 -4,1985
~~IG TS F,le,;s
::£?aD Je:J.00 i 4tJ 0 (0(2j
/P r cfLrO-~f Ffj 8 (;;RSrPOS
::;:00,,0 .1o?J..oc{Y)
\
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library &Information Services ;t9t;;'FG 314
Anchorage.Alaska
REVIEW TEAM
Susitna Aquatic Review
October 2 -4,1985
Review Team Staff
Sport Fish
Paul Krasnowski
Michael Mills
Commercial Fish
Kenneth Florey
Douglas Eggers
Habitat
Carl Yanagawa
Regional Supervisor
Biometrician I II
Regional Supervisor
Biometrician 111
Regional Supervisor
Division Mailing Address
FRED Div.
~Raspberry Road
Anchorage,Alaska 99501
SPORT FISH Div.
~aspberry Road
Anchorage,Alaska 99501
COMMERCIAL FISHERIES Div.
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage,Alaska 99501
COMMERCIAL FISHERIES Div.
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage,Alaska 99501
HABITAT Div.
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage,Alaska 99501
Phone Number
267-2168
267-2369
267-2104
267-2104
267-2283
Wednesday,October 2
8:30a -9:30a
9:30a -10:30a
10:30a -12:00p
12 :OOp - 1 :OOp
1:00p -2:00p
2:00p -3:00p
3:00p -4:30p
Thursday,October 3
8:30a -lO:30a
10:30a -12:00p
12:00p -1:00p
1:00p -4:30p
Friday,October 4
10:00a -12:00p
REVISED AGENDA
Susitna River Project Review
October 2 -4,1985
Lower River Salmon Escapement (K.Tarbox)
Middle River Salmon Escapement (M.Thompson)
Middle River Outmigrant Evaluation (K.Roth)
BREAK FOR LUNCH
Lower River Spawning Habitat Evaluation (L.Bartlett)
Middle River Resident Fish Study (R.Sundet)
Aquatic Habitat Monitoring (D.Vincent-Lang)
Long Term ~1onitoring Strategies (L.Bartlett)
Review Team Discussion
BREAK FOR LUNCH
Review Team Report Preparation
ADF&G/APA Long Term Monitoring Meeting
REVIE~rERS GUIDE
Your participation in the Susitna Project Review is sincerely appreciated.
As a reviewer,your comments and recommendations will assist the Commercial
Fisheries Division develop and refine future fisheries study plans for the
Susitna River.
The Division presently has two primary management goals for the Susitna.The
fi rst goal is liTO ENSURE THAT OPTIMUM ("ADEQUATE")SPAWNING ESCAPEMENTS ARE
MAINTAINED FOR SUSITNA RIVER SALMON STOCKS.II The second primary goal ad-
dresses monitori ng potential changes resulti ng from the constructi on and
operation of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on fish populations and their
habitats.More specifically the goal is liTO DESCRIBE THE NATURAL PRE-PROJECT
VARIATIONS IN FISH POPULATIONS AND THEIR HABITATS AT A LEVEL OF RELIABILITY
NECESSARY TO DETECT AND EXPLAIN POSSIBLE FUTURE CHANGES CAUSED BY THE
HYDRO-ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT".
Given the reality of shrinking budgets and rapi dly increased resource de-
mands,we must carefully assess our fisheries projects to ensure 1)techni-
cal merit 2)cost effectiveness,and 3)relevance to primary management
goals.In this regard,please attempt to use the following list of questions
as an outline to structure your comments and recommendations.
1.Do the objectives of this project appear to adequately address the
DivisionIs primary goals?How might project objectives be modified to
more clearly address our goals?
2.If you believe that technical difficulties associated with this project
may exist;what are they and how might they be remedied?
3.Could our sampling programs be modified to reduce project costs without
unreasonably sacrificing technical quality.
4.What priority would you give this project in terms of meeting the
DivisionIs primary goals?
Table of Contents
Susitna Project Review
October 2 -4,1985
A.Background Information
1.Correspondence
2.White Paper
3.1979 Plan of Study
B.Project Description
1.Lower River Salmon Escapement
2.Middle River Salmon Escapement
3.Middle River Outmigrant Evaluation
4.Lower River Spawning Habitat Evaluation
5.Middle River Resident Fish Study
6.Aquatic Habitat Monitoring
7.Long Term Monitoring Strategies
B-1 Lower River Salmon Escapement
/'''-.PROJECT TITLE:Lower River Salmon Esea pernent
PROJECT SUPERVISOR:Kenneth Tarbox
ASSISTANT PROJECT SUPERVISOR:Bruce King
FY 86 ALLOCATION:
- $53,500 (operational)
74,147 (C.l.P.)
1 5,000 (C.1.P.)
Susitna Station
Biosonie Contract
Species Allocation -
FY 86 SPENT TO DATE (AUGUST):
- $32,612
71,147
14,1 00
Sus itna Station
Biosonic Contract
Species Allocation -
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
i
The Susitna River drainage is located within the northern portion of the Cook
Inlet area and drains an area exceeding 49,200 km 2 .The mainstream Susitna
River extends approximately 442 km from its source in the Alaska Mountain Range
to its point of discharge on the west side of Cook Inlet.The major tributaries
are the Chulitna,Talkeetna,and Yentna Rivers.All are glacial in origin and
are heavily silt laden during ice free months.Many smaller tributaries are
characterized by clear water and are perennially silt free.
Deter~ining total salmon escapement by species into the Susitna River is compli-
cated by the glacial nature and multiple channels of the major streams.No
successful method for achieving this result has been defined to date.
OBJECTIVES:
The objectives of the Susitna Station and Yentna River drainage salmon escapement
project is to assess:
1)the relative magnitude of escapement,migrational timing,and migrational
behavior of sockeye salmon in the mainstem river at River Mile 26;
2)the age,length,weight,sex,and scale characteristics of the sockeye
salmon escapement;and
3)the magnitude,timing and distribution of spawning sockeye salmon within
established tributary index areas.
Additional objectives within the time frame of the sockeye salmon escapement
project are to assess:
1)the relative magnitude of escapement of coho salmon,chum salmon,and
pink salmon in the mainstem river;and
2)the age,length,weight,and sex characteristics of coho salmon,chum
salmon,and pink salmon escapements.
OVERVIEW OF METHODS:
Because of the complex nature of this project,please refer to the attached
operational plans for each project phase.However,in general,hydroacoustic
equipment was operated as follows in 1985:
Susitna River Mil e 26 (east bank)-Bendix counter (1978 model)
Bendix long range counter (1984 model)
Yentna River Mil e 4 (north bank and south bank)-
Bendix counter (19S0 model)
Susitna River Mile 26 (transect across river)-
Biosonic dual beam system
Sampling for species allocation of hydroacoustic targets was accomplishe~by
fishwheels and gill nets.
CONCLUSIONS DRAWN TO DATE:
1.The horizontal and verticle distribution of salmon in the Susitna River (RM 26)
is var}able and dependent on a number of factors (water velocity,depth,bottom
profile,species,tributary input,etc.).
2.DO\'instream movement of salmon is evident and a counting system must take this
into consideration.
3.A flexible counting system is required to monitor and meet changing river con-
ditions.
4.Species apportionment of hydroacoustic targets remains a critical problem.
5.The Bendix system alone is not conducive to achieving a total estimate of
salmon escapement.
6.The Bendix system fixed counting logic is not suitable for monitoring fish
behavior.
7.The ultimate cost of counting salmon by hydroacoustic techniques in the main-
stem at RM 26 may reach $100,000-$200,000 annually.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.Evaluate the cost/benefit of counting salmon in the Susitna River.
2.Continue the Yentna River and east bank Susitna Station Bendix counting oper-
ations for inseason management.
3.Continue the Biosonic program with emphasis on deployment techniques and system
des i gn.
UPPER COOK INLET SOCKEYE SALMON ENUMERATION INVESTIGATION
OPERATIONAL PLAN
1985
I NTRODUCTI ON
Sockeye salmon escapement enumeration projects ..will be conducted on the
Kenai,Kasilof,Susitna,Yentna and Crescent Rivers in 1985 (Figure 1).
Methods of enumeration and monitoring will include side scanning sonar
counters,fishwheels,and index area escapement surveys.
The Kenai River drainage encompasses approximately 5,200 km 2 of the western
Kenai Peninsula and is considered to be the major sockeye salmon producing
watershed in the Upper and Lower Cook Inlet areas (Figure 2).Four species
of Pacific salmon (sockeye salmon,coho salmon,pink salmon,and chinook
salmon)spawn in the river or tributary lakes and streams.Chum salmon,a
fifth species,do not utilize the drainage to an appreciable extent.Numerous
sockeye salmon nursery lakes are contained within the drainage:Skilak,
Kenai,Hidden.Upper Trail,Lower Trail,Upper Russian,Lower Jean and Tern
(Mud)Lakes.Skilak,Kenai,Upper Trail,and Lower Trail Lakes are glacially
occluded.
Two runs of sockeye salmon occur in the Kenai River~An early run enters
the river from late May through June and a late run enters the river from
late June t~rough August.
Early-run fish are believed to be bound predominately for Upper Russian Lake
and its tributaries and Lower Jean Lake.The late run fish are more numerous,
and excluding Lower Jean Lake,spawn throughout the system upstream of the
outlet of Skilak Lake.Since 1964 only the late run of sockeye salmon has
been commercially harvested.
Sonar enumeration of the sockeye salmon escapement into the Kenai River has
been conducted annually 32 km upstream of the river mouth.Since 1930,
enumeration efforts have employed two 1980 model Bendix side scan sonar
(SSS)counters.
Escapement sampling was originally conducted from 1957 to 1959 to monitor
the age,length,and sex characteristics of the Kenai River sockeye salmon.
Sampling was discontinued from 1960 to 1965,however,investigations were
resumed in 1966 and have been conducted annually to establish a data bank
of escapement information.
Surveys of the cl earwater sockeye salmon index spawni n9 areas in the Kenai
River drainage were initiated in 1925.Comprehensive surveys have been
conducted annually since 1946 to obtain an indication of spawner distribution
and relative escapement magnitude.These index area surveys have also served
~,as an alternate index of escapement to compare with more recent sonar
enumera ti on.
rift River
~'Little Jack Slough
-.Harriet ()
Creek ~ckers Creekrf)
Creek
River
Fitz Creek
Clearwater Creek
Chi nitna Ri ver
--8 is hop
Creek
River
Deep Creek
River
Figure 1.Anadromous streams of Upper Sook Inlet,Alaska.
X Escapement Enumeration Site
.'.,.,
.,.....~I••:.·••:.~··..,:....'
.,""
.:•t"
COOK
IN LET
.~.'...~..
't.,.,.
"'I
',.
,\
L
~
N
\
Upper
Ru ••Ion
Lake
8 km.I I
Anchorogl
11
I
I
I
I,
(
I
\
)
l
J
f
Seward
I"irjure 2.Kenai River dra'inage and Illajor sockeye Si.llII\CHl roaring lakes.
/......The Kasilof River drainage encompasses 190 km 2 and contains the largest
glacial lake,Tustumena lake,in the Cook Inlet area (Figure 3).Four
species of Pacific salmon,sockeye salmon,coho salmon,pink salmon,and
chinook salmon are known to spawn within the drainage.Chum salmon are
infrequently observed in the system.Sockeye salmon are believed to begin
entering the river in early June,but the majority of the run occurs in
July.
In-season escapement enumeration in the past has been limited by the glacial
nature of the Kas~lof River and Tustumena lake.Prior to the initial
deployment of sonar counters in 1968,escapement enumeration activities
consisted of test fishing at the mouth of the river;age,length,and sex
sampling;and index area escapement surveys.Test fishing was conducted
from 1962 through 1974.Sonar enumeration (using two 1978 model SSS counters)
of sockeye salmon has been conducted annually 27 km upstream of the mouth
of the Kasilof River.A new site (adjacent to the Sterling Highway bridge)
was selected for operation of the SSS system in 1983.The move was
accomplished to provide counting conditions more suitable to the Bendix
system.Age,1ength,and sex characteristics of sockeye salmon escapement
have been monitored annually since 1966.Clearwater index area surveys have
been conducted annually since 1925 to determine relative escapement magnitude
and distribution.More recently,these surveys have also been used to
establish the reliability of the sonar counts.
The Susitna River drainage is located within the northern portion of the
Cook Inlet area and drains an area exceeding 49,200 km 2.The mainstream
Susitna River extends approximately 442 km from its source in the Alaska
Mountain Range to its point of discharge on the west side of Cook Inlet
(Figure 4).'The major tributaries are the Chulitna,Talkeetna,and Yentna
Rivers.'All are glacial in origin and are heavily silt laden during ice
free months.Many smaller tributaries are characterized by clear water
and are perennially silt free.
The salmon stocks of the Susitna River drainage are major contributors to
the Cook Inlet sport and commercial salmon harvest.All five species of
Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus ap.)spawn within the drainage.
Determining total escapement into the Susitna River is greatly complicated
by the glacial nature and multiple channels of the major streams.A test
fish program was conducted near the mouth of the river from 1963 through
1970 to determine relative abundance of all salmon species.A fishwheel
and gill net escapement sampling program was initiated 40 km upstream from
the Susitna River mouth at Susitna Station in 1969 and continued through
the 1972 season.Research investigations were expanded in 1972 to include
monitoring of the salmon escapement into the Talachulitna River drainage,a
major producer of sockeye salmon and pink salmon.
Since 1974 various methods have been employed to generate salmon escapement
estimates.A sockeye salmon tag and recovery population estimate was derived
for the Yentna River in 1974.This program was expanded in 1975 to encompass
the entire Susitna River drainage for population estimates of sockeye salmon
and chum salmon.In 1976,two 1972-model MTS (multiple transducer sonar)
)
Creek
Flat Creek
Crystal Creek
."
'::':'<:'.>:,'.'~'::.....,\...-."'.
X Escapement Enumeration Sitet4
\
Nikolai
Crook
5 10
L _I
km
o
"Crooked
Creek
,
j
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I,
1
I
I•I
I,
I
I
I
I
I,,
I
I
I
'.'.:...":.;;1 .
:.'I
:-:'I .
, I
I '
I'
I
I'
".,::\
:."I
::.•, I
" I
Inlot
Figure 3.Kasilof River drainage and major sockeye salmon spawning 'and rearing areas.
Cook
I I
\---------I ...__~
X Escapement Enumera ....il-0 n S ~-:e
N
I
1
·/
JI40km
Il
Fi gure 4,.Susitna R".'·...er d "
ra 1 nage and rajar tribu ...."luf"Y ri'~'::rs
counters were deployed at Susitna Station.but problems associated with
pressure on the transducers as a result of water depth precluded an accurate
estimate of sockeye salmon numbers.In 1977 a tag and recovery project was
reinstituted at Susitna Station with major emphasis on sockeye salmon although
partial escapement estimates were determined for coho salmon,chum salmon,
and pink salmon.Two 1978 model SSS counters have been used at Susitna
Station since the 1978 season.Because of siting and operational problems
in 1982 and 1983,the west bank counter will not be operated in 1985.Sonar
counts and fishwheel catches from Yentna Station will provide daily escapement
estimates for.the west bank.Additional studies will be conducted on the
east bank to assess mid-river and upper water column migration of salmon.
These studies will be performed with existing side scanning equipment,and
a new experiemental substrateless long range (up to 500 feet)counter recently
developed by Bendix Corporation.
The Crescent (Grecian)River drainage comprises a major sockeye salmon
spawning and rearing area on the west side of the Central District of the
Cook Inlet area (Figure 5).All five species of Pacific salmon spawn within
the watershed.Crescent Lake,a semi-glacial lake approximately 10 km long
and 3 km wide is drained by the river.
Annual escapement surveys of the clearwater spawning areas were initiated-
in 1947.Escapement enumeration activities were limited to post-season
surveys until 1974 when the State Legislature appropriated funds for a
fi shwheel project.No work was conducted in the area from 1976 to 1978.A
side scanning sonar unit and a multiple transducer sonar unit were placed in
the river in 1979 for in-season escapement enumeration of sockeye salmon.
Two side scanning sonar units (one 1977 and one 1979)have been operated
since the 1980 season.Beginning in 1984,the Crescent River sonar project
was moved to a site approximately one to two miles from.the terminus of
the river at Cook Inlet.Success of the project at the new site will
determine whether additional enumeration activities at the Crescent Lake site
are necessary.If it appears that this is the case,enumeration equipment
will be transferred to the upper site prior to entry of the run into Crescent
Lake.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the Kenai,Kasilof,Susitna,Yentna and Crescent River
drainage escapement projects in 1984 will be to determine:
1)the relative magnitude of escapement and migrational timing of
sockeye salmon in the mainstern river;
2)the age,length,weight.sex.and scale characteristics of the
sockeye salmon escapement;and
3)the magnitude.timing and distribution of adult sockeye salmon
within established index areas (excluding Crescent River).
Additional objectives within the time frame of the sockeye salmon escapement
project will be to determine:
)
Crescent Lake:.
".~.:.....;.~....---....:.:..~'J
1
N
I
,6.4 km I
North Fork
~)
.....
River
Is.
Horrie1 Pt.
COOK INLET
XEscapement Enumeration Site
)
rigure 5.Crescent River drainage and major sockeye salmon rearing lake.
1)the relative magnitude of escapement of coho salmon,chum salmon,
and pink salmon in the mainstem river;and
2)the age,length,weight,and sex characteristics of coho salmon,
chum salmon.and pink salmon escapements.
PERSONNEL
During the 1985 season,supervision of projects will be the responsibility
of the Research Section of the Division of Commercial Fisheries.Project
supervisors will be Ken Tarbox and Bruce King.The crew will consist of
four seasonal fishery biologists and eleven seasonal fishery technicians.
The crews will be assisted in the field periodically by the project
supervisors.
OPERATION DATES
Field activities for sonar enumeration will begin and end on the following
dates:
Kenai River Sonar:22 June to 8 August
Kasilof River Sonar:10 June to 31 July
Crescent River Sonar:16 June to 31 July
Susitna River Sonar:1 July to 31 July
Yentna River Sonar:1 July to 8 August
Index area escapement surveys for the Kenai,Kasilof and Susitna River
drainages will occur between 1 August and 1 Septe~ber.
METHODS
Two Bendix SSS counters will be employed at each of the sonar sites except
Susitna Station.Procedures for deployment of the substrate and equipment
operations are described in the Cook Inlet Field Operations Manual.
Sonar counters and transducers will be tested and monitored by Mr.Al Menin
(Bendix Corporation engineer)and trained ADF&G personnel.
Counts of salmon crossing the substrate will be recorded on printer tape
each hour of the day.The paper printouts will be removed from the counters
and the counts tabulated on a separate fonn once each day.The accuracy of
the counter will be monitored daily by hand tallying fish-related echos
displayed on an oscilloscope.The ratio of visual counts to SSS counts
will be used to derive a calibration factor.This calibration factor will
then be used to adjust the fish swimming speed setting on the sonar counter.
Because the sockeye salmon run into each system differs in strength,entry
pattern,and daily timing,different criteria for adequate monitoring are
necessary for each sonar system.All sites will monitor a minimum of two
hours per counter per day (four visits at one-half hour each)prior to the
begi nni ng of the pea k of the run.
When the sonar counts begin to increase indicating the beginning of the peak,
monitori ng time at the Crescent and Kasilof River sites will increase to
three hours per counter per day.The approximate dates during which increased
monitoring will be conducted (based on historic average escapement dates
for entry of 60%of the run)are as follows:
Kasilof River:
Crescent Ri ver :
5 July -21 July
1 July -24 July
These dates may be adjusted in-season at the discretion of the Project Leader.
Monitoring time on the Kenai,Susitna and Yentna Rivers will be increased when
sonar counts reach 500 per hour (12,000 per day)as follows:
1)a minimum of TOO visual oscilloscope counts per hour will be recorded
and compared with SSS counts to determine counter accuracy;
2)if counts from the two sources differ by more than 20%,then the
pulse repetition rate will be adjusted accordingly;
3)if results from monitoring indicate a change in pulse rate is
necessary,then an additional lOa fish targets will be counted to
assess the results of the change.This step will be repeated
after each change in pulse rate;
4)as counts drop below the 500 per hour level,the monitoring level.
will return to a minimum of two hours per counter per bank.
Evaluation of hourly passage rate between 1979-1984 suggests definite trends
in fish movement during different parts of the day at each site.Therefore,
monitoring effort will be concentrated during those periods when most of
the fish are moving.Monitoring schedules will be as follows:
Crescent River:1200 -1800 hours
Yentna River:0800 -2200 hours
Susitna River:0800 -2200 hours
Kenai River:1600 -0400 hours
Kasilof River:0800 -2200 hours
Fishwheels will be installed at all sites to assist in assessing migrational
timing and relative abundance of salmon species,apportion sonar counts,and
obtain escapement samples.All fish captured in the fishwheels will be
enumerated by species and sampled according to methods and schedule provided
in the Cook Inlet Field Operations Manual.Additional crewmembers will
be provided to assist in obtaining samples during peak passage periods.
Radio or telephone contact will be maintained between sonar sites and
Soldotna on a daily basis.
Index area escapement surveys will be conducted by staff personnel on the
Kenai,Kasilof,and various Northern District minor river systems.Foot
surveys will be conducted on the Kenai and Kasilof River drainages.Spawning
areas to be surveyed are 1 isted in Table 1.A minimum of two survey rounds
will be conducted in each area.
),
Table 1.Upper Cook Inlet sockeye salmon escapement index areas.
Susitna River Drainage
Byers Lake
Talachulitna River
Trinity-Movie Lakes
Shell Lake
Hewitt-Whiskey Lakes
Red Salmon Lake
Puntilla Lake
West Fork Yentna River
Chel a tna Lake
Fish Lake
Clear Creek
StePhan-Mur~~r Lakes
La rson Lake.!J
Swan Lake
Red "Shirt Lake
Kenai River Drainage
Railroad Creek
Johnson Creek
Carter-Moose Creek
Ptarmigan Creek"
Tern (Mud)Lake
Quartz CreekJi
Lower Russian River
Hidden Lakel/
Kasilof River Drainage
Nikolai Creek
'Crystal Creek
Clear Creek
Glacier Flat Creekl!
Seepage Creek
r~oose Creek
Bear Creekll
Northern District ~1inor System
Fish Creek (Big Lake)lI
Nancy Lake
Coal Creek (Beluga River)
Cottonwood Creek
1/F.R.E.D.Division weir counts.
STANDARD AGREEMENT FORM
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT Ccn:ract Au:hority No.
This contract is betv.-een the Sta~::.:e:...:o.:f.:.A~fa~s*:::..:.:a~.,--~-1
D.~..nm.r:t of
Fish and Game,Divisicn of CO~'mercial Fis~h~e~r__i~e~s~~h~er_e_a__h_e_~_t_h_e _S_t_at_e_,_an__d ~
COntrKtor
BioSonics,Inc.
1,.,l-ailing Addreu Strt-oil':or P.o.Box
4520 Union Bay Pl ~E----------------Seattle,
City
hereafter,the Contractor
98105
ARTICLE 1.
ARTICLE 2.
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
ARTICLE 3.
ARTICLE 4.
4.'.
4.2.
AD:JendicEts:Apper,c·c~:eferi€:d 'to in this contract and cH,:ached to it arP car.~;d~~eD part of it.
p~rnance of S~'"V~C2'5:
Appendi,:,A (Genera:?<:;,;.ions~Articles 1 through 14,governs the periDrma~<ce of ~rvic~uno.;r this controct.
Appendix 8 seu for:~,:-,e l:cbiliry and irsurancl'provisions of Ihis controct.
Appendix C sets for:h :1o..e ~er",;cH to be performed by the contractor.PeriDcf_o~!'~'!o_'_'__:::.c~,~he ~er;od of performance this contract bi>gins _Ju It ,1~.'9~.
and end-s ~_e..C_2=__':_.=-r 2Q..~~__~_. ,9 ~.Perfcrr.-ci':e may De EX :E::n:::'~d for cdditior.al periods by the
\......-rinen agreem::nt c'":"",€,parties.
COf"'sid~rat;on:
In full cors.:de:-a:;or.:::~:"'E'Cont:-oC1or"s performance unc=::'"this contract.the Sta1e s~all pay the Contre<:':.or a sum nO!to e)(ceed
$.-63,647 in iKcDrdance with the provisions of ApPEndix D.
~Vhen bil/;ng the S:?~e.:-~ContractOr shall refer to the State Contract Num~~2<"'lC send t.~e billing to:
__Ash and Game
~••~l"Adcr e,.
l"'rt~o~~~~ncOifal Fisheries
___________.L ~._
bOX 3-2000 Juneau,99802
CONlh~::::I OR C;~:FQl-10147nf)
APPROVAL BY THE CC.\iTRACTING AGENCY
NO nCE!This certifies ava/fabi!!;;,of funds.
/!-4(/'--I-J/o J.C f "?01-'LU.Ji -Vf.J -I -q 'iY (~b <r -:;)
S:gnatwl'"e of HEr.!!ld 01 ContrltCtlng AiI"*;1'!:)'or Ce-sign..
T'r'p~d or Printed N.arne 01 Author~ljr':';Cffici.t
Titl.
---------------_._-----~---~-----------------
C:a te
--------------------------------~
Fisheries
-~
APPROVAL BY THE DEPARHlENT OF ADMINISTRATION
APPf:HDIX A
GE'lEFiAl PROViSiONS
r~~OIICE!This contr2ct hcs no <;'<',exc2;::>t 2S an offer by the wnH2c!Or until it is c;:;J'o.·"d by tr:e Department of Administr2tion.r'-'-.-----
I
I
--
-:~~s ."":;:~~-:-:'.:-....-:-:''S c:-:-~:·,~':':'t ;t~:,-'-<~-:;t..;....~.:::··e ;.~:-:':~..~-....,~~;~
APPENDlf.C
the horizon~~l and
Susitna RIver the
stationed at the
Station and provide
necessary support
Data collection
per sonne 11,and
~order to achievl'i a quantitative description of
·.···rtical distribution of migrating salmon in the
contractor will provide 4 field technicians for to be
Alaska Departmant of Fish and Game Field Camp at Susitna
them with two complte hydroacQustic systems and all
instrumentation and supplies to perform data acquistion.
will begin on July 20,1985 or later if requested ~y RDF+G
continue for 20 days.
D l-l r i n g t his
str~atEgy:
time,the contractor will implement tne following sampling
(at the high water marks)of
segments (3 on each bank)
The remaining mldriver
a.section the horizontal dIstance
the river into 10 segments with six,200 ft.
beginning at the high water mark on EIther bank.
distanCE will be divided .into 4 equal parts.
b.partition the 20 day data collection period into 20,24 hour
periods with each period consisting of 2 ten hour periods (beginning and
ending times to be determined by consultation with ADFG staff).Each of the
10 segments will be sampled during each 10 hour period.Two 30 minute
samples will be collected in the nearest inshore s~gment on each ~ank wnile
one 30 minute sample will be collected in each of the 8 remaining segments.
A sampling period will be extended 15 m1nutes when less than 20 fish are
observed.The location of each sample will be ~~ndomly located in each
~rnent.
I"
c.within each segrnent,transducer'S will be aImed ver'tical1y
sl..tch that POSi.ti'on in the,ter coll-lmn can be ceter':ilined along with upstream
or downstream movement.\When water depth 1S less ~han 4 ft.,transducers
will be oriented horizontally and depth information collected by varying the
~r i z'::lnt a I aim 1 ng ang 1,(}J::,~~~"=0.,::>\~
Postseason,the contractor will process data in or~er to record:
a.time of detection
b.range at fIrst detection
c.range at last detection
d.target strength as determ1ned by dual beam recordings
The contractor will also analyze data according to 4 day groupings in order
to deter~mine:
a.the number of fISh passing through each segment per unit tIme
b.the vertical distribution in each se;ment
c.basic statistics c,r d1stributions f·:,;'each segrllent
The cont t'act ':Jr wi 11 prov i de a d r'a ft r'epor-t to HCFG fc,r rev i ew no 1 at er t hal'"l
1
~~?vcr,b c r 1 8,
'including;
1985 ~ith a final report to follo~-0 later than December 20
vertical
summaries
downstream
and
4
a.a oum~ary by sampling station of t~e horizontal
dIstribution of migrants over the field season.A minimum of
will be prepared with one each for combinations of u~stream and
migrants with periods of high and low passage rates.
b.
di5tribution
movement and
sumrnar i es
of migrants
time of day.
by 4
over
day periods of
the total field
horizontal
season by
and vertIcal
d i t'ect i on e,f
c.other
rnu t ua I consent.
summaries as requested by P~~G and agreed tilrO'.lgh
Alaska Department of Fish and Game wlll provide the following:
1.round trip transportation of
Anchora~e to Susitna Station
pet'son"-ell and equ i prllent ft'OOl
2.boats,motors and gasoline at Susitna St~tion
3.Tood
is $1,200)
and lodging at tile Susitna Station (estimated cost to RUF+G
2
APPENDIX 0
1 The total amount of this contract shall not exceed $63,647 ...'..,
2.Up to 201.of the...total amount a'S stated in Rppendix D,
b~withheld by tha state as the fInal payment in order
Contractor's completa performance of all terms as specified
this contract.
Article 1,may
to insure tne
in Appendix C of
3.The Contractor shall submit a detailed billing inclUding manhours
workod and overhead charges upon satisfactory completion of the contract.
The Department project representative as designated under Article 4.2 of
this contract will approve the billings and forward same to the Director,
Division of Administration,Department of Fish and Game for prompt payment.
4.The Contractor will be reimbursed for actual costs according to the
following budget:
ProJQct management and supervision
DAta acquistion technician labor
Travel
Equipm2nt leases
Expendable supplies
Data reduction techician
Data analysis
Pr'oJ ect 1 eacer
Project technician
R2po~'t i ng
hlord pr'oces sin 9
Tech~ic~l editing
TOTAL
3
"
$3,449
$19,732
$4,000
$11,500
$5,000
$5,760
$10,883
$1,200
$'311
$1,152
$63,547
RS )-1 c)1 .l.?
BioS oni<;:!.Inc.
4520 Union Bay Pliice NE
Seanie.Washington 98105
(206)627..(9J5
14,..1Ud11985
D5ve OetJdat
A~e Dept of nsh &1d 6:zt--ne
furl rwrc~l f tsh DI '/i'siOO
Box 3-2000
Jure:lJ,f«99802
Tet:>;:nma.at 907~';65~42fO
Te1efsx $907-586-6595
De:::..-CA..~.
tief'e.~the ootoil sheets for the p~pr-oj £:Ct.If 'tOO t\o'(e ~ioos please try to CQtch
rna !.lA"))fX'f'O'tY slrn /'11 be out of my office until frkb;of next weet.
~
TIunO$v.carlson
DATE:14 Men::h 1985
•8S 3-14 1:,:13 P(lSF 02
Bio$onics '"
TO:Dove eeuirl,Alesko Dept.of fish .n1 Gmle
fRa'1:Tan C3r isoo
SUBJECT:Detafl fer Project to Estimate the l-bri200taJ and Vtlf"tical Otstrtbutfoo of
Upstres.1l Mig'e;nts 10 the SUsftno River.A~8 Us1rIfJ ~fc MetOOd3
DATA ACO'JISlTtOH
Crew.Boot end Hyd.~ic JnstrltftlOOtation
Asingle toot wHl be used (I spo!.:e with Ken TlrOOx whan I Wfil in Solcbtna He ~Ibed
the Wrtoos heats 8'foflcble.I believe that one of the existing project boats wt11 be ~e with
th3 &ffitlc:n of e cmves ctro;)Y to PruvfcB shelter to the Instruments eft!CN!1II.We wm be ebJe
to ~the cmopy wt of the project furrl.$an~ted fCl"m15a1n~supply expenses.).
The f:r'GW wl1J ttmlst of foor mro wen:I~In two 10 000r shifts eech cbI CCtlUnuoosly
~...the 20 Ooy dote ~lsition pedro.The two 10 hour ~icd3wiJI be selected In
ronfertll''Ce with ADFM3 SuisUna projEct ~t so th5t ~ny time perfcrls of major interest
Ci'"'8 irx:luirl The Cf'e#wil1 fJliva at the projoct site fcor 00ys before ssmpliOQ 15 to b9Jin to
instoH the ~tic tqllpment oboord the roet &'"rl to ptJSfUoo the SWlp1i~stations mrier
bw,-s.The crew will spend one chy after ~p liD;}he:s ooj}j to remove the fnstrument&fon
frun the tm!Md prep.y-e It fa-shipment Md to perform etta-~p ~irtJ cOOres.The total
time at the projccl site wlll be 2S (h,Is.It is assumEd that fm:l1n1 krljing wilt be prwicb:l fer
the crert ot ro cost to tile projoct bl.$t whfle tre(er9 at the projret site (I.e.they will be
fl)lX't'~ed into the proi oct cornp and tN'J&ed os otrer ADf U3 emp 1~6t the CflITlp).Jt is
also 8SSl.Jffi.trl that ADf &G will prov ide transpc.x"tatfoo of the (fa ld crew to the proj ect site frooJ
"'rdafrlj ot 00 e:tHti0CJ.6!cost to tre proia;!bt.dJrt.BioSoolcs wi11 proYid9 oir tr-ens:jXll"tatioo
of th3 r::t'eV(to Arlch:J('eq3 rrexn Soottlo using projECt flJl)js alkx:.&tOO fer t~pUrlXS9-
Two ~lc 5)~ems Olld 011 ~suppxl instruffi€;fl~ion end ~ppl ies
required to perfccm the C.;jt.a ro::pJisltfoo ~to be d3scrlbed wll1 be provl~by BloSooics.
~cte~HOO list of this ~iDment focludll)"J Hs Q;mroslons f4/d It':e!~t wlll De pr-ovlc1X1 toN)f&O
pc."'J'J:1oo1 woo ere to r:rr~for tretlsfer of too equ~p~t from ~f:fJ3 to lhe project sHe
\iJ:-l()J project plS.'lflil)J.It is esslJmed L~t ADF&G will ~the roond trip cx:sts of shippIng the
~Jlpm['"':tl b<:lwccn UJB pr1Jje::t sits tn1Ar)::;!¥f~.BiOSi:lrlIcs will mcke.sll ~rqe.l1ents
rrdX':::..-';$::P(to ship t.he e:rJiprn\.,-...,t to Arr:!:rr~cod will ';.iij fer nir freio.'lt fro1)project funds
ell.co3'.ej rOC'tid pu:r~.
,05 3-14 15.19
BioSonics til
.Sttmp)h~stnrteQy
The rlver-l.':rOOS sect 100 at cr nets'the pNljact site wlJ1 be dlvlOO:i into ten ~ts
(moosuro1 txrJzooteHy boot to b!ri::),Thera will be three 200 foot wl~ses}1lents as measured
(run the e:xpoctOO hi\tl water b:xJrd'y fer oo::h hmt.There wm 8lro b8 four segnents of €QU01
wilfu~that wiIJ loch.m the ~l rIver width rot jrx;Jt.d::d in the ollie:r six 200 foot se;rnents.
Irs expectoo thst the msiority of Hsh wm P8SS with'"the fIrst few hul'lcroc1 foot of the
shere (Le.tim is.the distribuUoo of fltsh ~the rtvar is rd expected to be uolform but
skewed te1trtrd staa).The exact nature of 100 distributioo of upstNWn mlgr'Mts ~the
river ls rot kW:in.of rourse,cr this stl..dy woold not be ~but e.xperleoce by ADF&O
~ooJ to ~te lrdfcates that tots is a rres:nsbla esstImplion tn:l need be Inchrl:d tn the resi~
of too stl»{.In Erl:1ihon.it is the nsr sh«'e envirmment most s:usoeptleb1e to both stut tarms'
os wen os frog term ~I;i.Je to erosion,~In r-fver flows,etc.It is not un~~le to
expo:;t tMt,yiV1:fl the ptoo.~lHty of h~)ff"~rates ~stJore,the shor't tarm
ffb'i.2blllty of the ne:s-sl"lore envlroomS,it (relotlve to mkl river r-eo1oos)ffid the unkrKhVn
s:pecies spE;Cific beheviorel ~ie3 for ~~~~versus offshore mi~lon;tMt the5e nrst
few hur;..V-e:i fret frem srae wm be lccotfons wt'lere tf'J3 ~for (t.e.lier'tical ~OOr'izootol
dlstrIbuHoo 'fffiCO]othar VCf'lobles)of fish will be most vfriebla em wIi9f'e the most s::Jmplt~
afTert rieed ~el1o:::oted to flChJeye Slnple sIzes Jet'ge ~to overcome (in G statistical sense)
too effect of thIs h~~fdJmty.
in eanUon to lli:lse staUstical ~erlls thet coold be m~fer alkx::atioo Of more
S8fn p Jlrq effcrt ~.there is eiso the neOO to ffiOO'SUf'e es OCCtJrately as passfb Ie the
~~distribution of fish so that dote OCX1Jiro:J in the pest by ADF&;6 Md otOOrs usi~
various ~tlc 00:1 nonl'ryu·'otW.lsHC rnettojs to estimate fish pesse;;e con be reevalU5tM.
An essential estimate In this context Is eo estimate of the percenkQ3 of the tot!'l number 01'fOJU
frsh passll'lg ~~OOwf'l9tr-esm that pass within 200 feet of sha'8.
The bouOO-ies uf the ~enb will be m~ked with bOO)'S held tn place with 6ttcOC.rs (The
e.c'lCl~wnJ be wal\tlted with chain m wtH be J~enotJlit to maintain their poslUoo even
shoold the 000t ~b9:Xrne foc.loo with rebrlS.).ln fDiltioo to txluldy morkars U1e buoYS
w111 :erve tIS points to tie the ~dJrtng sernpling.The loc:otion of the ~plilYJ sletten
bcundrtes wf11 be OOtennira:f usfrYJ 8 posltiCflirlJ systan.
Tre primryy cbj'3ctlve of'the sttrllls to esUma!e the horizontal end vertical distributloo
of uJ}Streem m~e:tts p&;sIr'J through river-mHe 28.It's elea tMt tp,a time em re5(fd~to
echieve U-Ij~tilja;tive E1'e lirnlte:1 so bourr'J5 must 00 ploo:d 00 the spoxiol Old temporal
rfBJlutioo with which es-timetes of u~roi'1'oot dtstr-ibutlOfl Br'e to be mooe.Resolution of
,-....the ffie<~re:nents to be rneoo is the subject of Uta rest of tnis sxt ioo.
T<>Jlp.YPj a::D3irer:t~if}.JS...Th3 field ~.J".&:lll wm lXX1s1st of 20 OO(S (more pr:2.CiS';~t\l<-eilty
24 k)'jr po;;,rictis)of ~'l;.J1irrJ ph>::>roo.(\-Joy'S prliX to S8;-:lplinJ t1 the DrDl!'rJ.site DN:;.':.;l~If):J the
oc<Jt em instrum,::d.s e:-~C,IC 00y one!'socnplirq e.rili to ~the EQ,Jipment O-]¢m m1 PN";:'.ti'8 It
for Si'lipme:,t ~to 5:'3ttle,This 20 d:3v S&llpling pericd ¥1m 00 dfvtcbj Into ffve <1 c'e{
•85 J-14 1 5 :2a PAGE 02
During sxh 24 toJ{'parloo tt-era 'It'1ll be two 10 to:Jr sompllrq shIfts.The assiglment of
the SOO1 PIir'llJ Sh tfts \II i th in the 24 !uJ r per Icds 'II(ill be mOOe s{too ~rtn frig of tha fle ld SM900
8fler Cl:X1SUltotfon with AOfM persoooo.l ot the sits.lrealty roe 10 hour pericd wfH corresp<:n1
to tha ttme OOrirrJ eedl 24 00ui periOO w~~rate is hi~too other'to when ~
r et.e Is ~-t c.-to some other pll::nom 00 such os ~I nl!f!t per i r::rl5 wh k:h mi\;tlt effect the
beOsvia'of upstream m~ts.
Cos of the pl"lmery prOO.ds of the projoct wm be leo estimates of the vertical ero
hcri:.--oo~l dlstrlbutlon of upstream mIgrlYlts,ore estlrMte W're.spcnjl~to el'dl to hour
perk)j within e9Ch 4 d:1{sompllrq segnrot.fEd'!of these estimates wtH be based 00 e semple
size of '"measurernsnts.()('J1!mfft5tlN.ffif:1\t resu It!~fron the ssnp ltfYJ CXX'rlxted eed1 10 hour
perloo.Thus the pJenre:i tem~,reeo Iut ion of the measuremmts will be a sir)'J Ie est i mate of
the vef"tical end hori2lY\tal distribution of llpstf"63m mlg'Btlts eril96 oour ~io1
~Individual s5.:np ke will consist of too fiSil dsiectro wring st~
ob:s:erv-5{too per fcrls oo:h 30 m1l'VJtes lCOJ.The staIrl:n:f obssr'vat too per ied wf 11 be ext6f1lijd an
a:tJiticmJ 15 minutes if fewer-lhe!l 20 fish en ootocted c1lrlfYJ tre steoi'rd perlCJ1
DuriN;J eoch 10 twr semp Hog shift oo:h of the 10 SOOlp lfng 5e,Jnents ($tBtfoos)tD'O$S
t.re river wnt be ~p Ted.5eQ7JS6 of the Imper tenca of the rr.ear sh::.c"e ~efIts two ~p les
wiH be U:ten In et:dl of the two ne:Y'shore ~ents 800 roe S<:Jilp le will be token in 69Ch of the
rema1 n1l"Q 8 SS'J'OOllts for a tD'.a 1of twa1 ve 30 minute st.ard::i'd cbser"vettoo pertcds E6:':h
saup1i~shUt.The location ofaxh samp1:e will be rfub;nly seleeta1 within e:i:h 58P1enl
Irens(b;er OCtrotctkns.The st8rldTd S<:)1]pH~mefu:rlJkqy will be to use vertically
at IT'.ro tr~Too ve:rtic5l eim i~~J.a wm be sa l6ct.OO to optoo1 ize tre c!stoctloo of
mi~oots While perrnittfng retermiMlion of treir dira.:i.ion 0(travel (te.upStream or
dM'nstreem)tYXIlcI::cl 100 in the water rolum n.which is ~~fIX"est 1metfon of
vertical ctIstributkn The ~tioo to this stEo.iard will 00 t.he near sOOrs r-69loo where w6teC"
cEpths ere less thm '"foot.In these reg100s lQ-l2crItally al~tr~wil1 be used The
OC'ientatioo of the rorizontollycimed t.ransdx::ers wUlnot ~fly be restricted to a shore
out~d rrienlation.Ol,fu-lX'lentations llirt htNe pr~"ef1 to bB very effEdiva tn s1mfllr
s1t!J5t~oos Sl...dl 0$upstre&1llX"(j],rtf'l'St.room ort~ttlUros w111 also be used to optomlze fish
d:f.Ect ioo and 03t.s;~m h~Uoo of fish dirEction of movement
In loccrlions Y""rtf'S '"~~llth will not ~rn1t ver-tlall ~ientatjoo of tr~.the
lce::i.ioo of miwents v;lthin U"$,",'6lel-COk~T1£)oamm be d3t.ermlr-"s.-j End thus vartical
chs-trihdion ~re EStim~3i
,8S ]-1 4 15 :21
PHGE 03
DATA PROCESSHW.ANAlYSIS AND REPORT PREPAAATION
l>5t4 p rt1C5'$3 tng
_Dats wm be ~jred in two forms,as echo;J'Mls ordas ~~i~
The prlmEry cbt&flX'm wHl be ~s.EclioToms will be pro:essed by dlglttZ5tfon
uslrq a o:mputet'&ld bit pad.Fet"eoch fish OOtectfoo the foHa«!no reta will be ~frem
the ~om ra:xnt I)time of retectioo,2)rbfll;fl at nrst OOtecUon,3)rtrfJ3 et 1est detecl foo
&'-.:J 4)~plfng statim.Thtsd=1~wm permit estimct 100 of too dfrecHon of lrwel of the
~fish.the fish's loceUm In too woter column end wm plOO3lhe fish In the river end In
time.
On ly M 1 ~echo returns wm 00 t~fecu a:d (excllX1lng the possibt 11 ty of cM"'t
~f~llure).n~~wiH be pro:;e:$SOO to obtain moon ~stroogth estlmet8s of
OOtectad fiSh.MJltl0031 processfno may 00 u-oaerto1::en to pn:dJce f1lGOStJresslmfllY to those
obtoired turirq echo;;t'flm ~~frq.
lila prtma-y statistic to be estimatfd from eech somple is the flux of fish (number of f1sh
passifli1 thtfOjl the totnl ensonifi6d volum"per unit time)throu1l6&.tJ slatton.Abasic
assurnptioo is t.hst the nux of fish 1tI~the total volume ~ffi6d til the tr~s used
for SMlp ling is 8 o:m est lm6te of the flux thrco.;il the san pled set}1lent as a whole (i.e.en
~mptjoo of uo;form di*,ibu'Uoo of fi~flux thrDUgl eo:;h oegneol)..
The r1rst 5~of onalysis wm be to compute est1mete3 of fist!flux 0C\d verUcal
distribution from each 96rTlple.These estimates will be lT~e::arding to too schema
preseflted e:rHer etld estima'.es of mean flux:ocrl msen verttcal distribution for 4 ~lro::J
~iOO3 will be computai rre meen estimates ClOd e5$Xi~stetistiLal m~es of dispersioo
will provl(E a bas\c wt.a 00sa fCK"further analysis of cfiffererx:es between periexis within ciffs
Efld aver the oourse of the field~.However.s1rt:e thts proj eel haS been ms1!Ped primfr'tly
to prwiCe estimates of mig'Mt diztributioo end 00 'PfCiflc trypothese:s haYs been sto'tsd,
extensive malysis of ada more 8ppfWrt8te to hypotheses testfng will rot.be un!i:!r1llken.
Estimates of m~sirqle (ish tel'g9t strength will be onalysOO to ~lU5te the Uge of su::h
~remrots es elsnents of 8 rnettOO to closstfy fish~.
R9Of't PrE-'pGraHon
Data rrldioo trf.!~1y3is will be COfrll:cted immeJiotely follO\:ji.~d:M ocqu1sition.A
c.rf\fl rer-,.:o:t will be S'Jbmirc£xi fer revlEr.v on N;a/e::i1b:::f'18 A ffr.31 rf"{~)f'l will be Sl10mlUed by
D.;(x,TIL(<!'20 t;flEJi e)pro.\lir'H::~i:rr 2 weeks of r>jY\p'l'of UP?(C8ft PE;pX't by AOFtAl
A ffi('ljif po.~tiC.l of tre Ic;X)Ct will t·3 pre:;:..~tot 1011 of the cillo t<.~Jlred cJr f rlg th3 project
H\B mta will B::O be sto.-e:::l in fdes wriHf-')in IBM fVlfi.::O-!00 fk;::,W ol:*s.CJples of the dIsKs
8iyj 0 C<:..-::cr ipt ;~\uf 'Jig Cc!~:dE:st,octu,1]...ill ff'::Hi)v:vY the final r~t
'55 3-14 15:23 PAGE 04
BioSonics T
"
The rest of tile ~t wflJ ccnsist of presentat10n of the "lysIs or the verli~l end
rorllOOtal distribution of mlg-ants pesslng tl1ro.9l river'mile 28.Definite r-esults to be
pre900tai wtlJ be:
.1.Asummary by somplfng statton of th6 lxri200tel end vertical distrfbuttoo of mf!J'mts
(ffl£the tDt81 field se6SOO.At least 4 sumnw-~w11l be prepared roe eoch for
combinatioos of upstl'1ll3m 8M Ibwnskeem mf'Tants wfth parfcds of hiifa encIlow
~rate.
2.SUmmaries by 4 d::rf perltds of the rorilOOtaJ ood Wl'Ucal distrlbutioo of mil1'oots
CNer'the tfmJ)field seesoo.ThIs wm result In 20 arts Ubles g-oupOO ~1i\J to the
direct leo of milTMt movament EO:!time of ~(I.e.~rate periOO).
..
3.other e.ummor ie:s linerm foed OOri~the prujact as resirettlla (J'"~oo by AOF &0.
Na attempt wIll be mtrla to oorepolate the results oftt'lfs study to previoos IX'current·
A.Of&0 ~udies of ml700t ~if to fnterpert the resu lts of th is studt in the cootext of the
rtlSUlts ci Slrll stOOies.
B-2 Middle River Salmon Escapement
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Title:Susitna River Adult Salmon Investigations (1981-1985)
Project Supervisor:Larry Bartlett
Task Manager:Mike Thompson
FY 86 Allocation:335.7K
Spent To Date:Unavailable.
Problem Statement:
Anadromous fish utilizing the lower and middle Susitna River are one facet of
the fisheries resource that may be impacted from operation of proposed hydro-
electric development at Devil and Watana canyons.Because of this potential
impact t the Alaska Power Authority has contracted the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G)to provide a basel ine data base on the escapement of
anadromous fish to the middle and to a lesser extent j the lower river reaches.
Objectives:
~,1.Determine the abundance of sockeye,pink,chum,and coho salmon at
Flathorn (1984-85),Yentna (1981-84),Sunshine (1981-85),Talkeetna
(1981-84),and Curry (1981-85)stations.Also,determine the abundance
of chinook salmon at Flathorn (1985),Sunshine (1982-85),Talkeetna
(1982-84),and Curry (1982-85)stations.
2.Evaluate migrational timing and migrational characteristics (rates of
travel and bank/channel preference)of adult salmon at stations operated
from 1981-85.
3.Monitor the age,length,and sex composition of the adult salmon escape-
ments at the locations and years defined in objective 1.
4.Assess the extent of adult salmon spawning in middle river side channel,
main channel t slough and tributary habitats (1981-85).
5.Assess the extent of adult salmon spawning in lower river main channel,
side channel,slough (1981-84,except 1983)and tributary stream mouths
(1984-85)habitats.
6.Determine the timing,age,length t and sex characteristics and spawning
areas of eulachon in the Susitna River (1982-83).
-1-
Overview of Methods:
Salmon escapements were enumerated using either a modified Petersen estimator
or Bendix side scan sonar.The Petersen estimate was derived using the tagged
to untagged ratios of salmon captured in fishwheels and from spawning ground
surveys.The number of tags deployed was adjusted for tag loss prior to
calculating population estimates.The Bendix sonars were 1980 models and had
an effective counting range (with substrate)of up to 60 feet.All sonar
counts were apportioned to species using fishwheel catch composition.
Migrational timing and characteristics (bank/channel preference and travel
rates)were determined from fishwheel catch per unit effort information and
recapture of previously tagged fish.
Age,length,and sex composition were assessed from a subsample of the fish-
wheel catch.Standard sampling procedures were employed.
Location,timing,and extent of salmon spawning in slough,side channel,main
channel,and tributary habitats were determined using data collected from foot
and helicopter surveys.
Conclusions:
All presented conclusions are a very brief synopsis of findings presented in
1981-84 Su Hydro,Adul t Anadromous reports.Therefore,stated concl usi ons
relate specifically to the years of study.
-2-
1.Population estimates by location and year:
ESCAPEMENT BY SPECIES AND SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR 1981-1984
ESCAPEMENT
SAMPLING
SOCKEYEYLOCATIONYEARCHINOOK PINK CHUM COHO TOTAL
Flathorn 1984 3/605,800 3,629,900 812,700 190,100 5,238,500
Station
Yentna 1981 139,400 36,100 19,800 17,000 212,300
Station 1982 113,800 447,300 27,800 34,100 623,00
1983 104,400 60,700 10,800 8,900 184,800
1984 149,400 369,300 26,500 18,200 563,400
Sunshine 1981 3/133,500 49,500 262,900 19,800 465,700
Station 1982 52,900 151,500 443,200 430,400 45,700 1,123,700
1983 90,100 71,500 40,500 265,800 15,200 483,100
1984 121,700 130,100 1,017,000 765,000 94,700 2,128,500
Talkeetna 1981 3/4,800 2,300 20,800 3,300 31 ,200
Station 1982 1U,900 3,100 73,000 49,100 5,100 141,200
1983 14,400 4,200 9,500 50,400 2,400 80,900
1984 24,800 13,100 177 ,900 98,200 11,800 325,800
Curry 1981 3/2,800 1,000 13,100 1,100 18,000
Station 1982 1T,300 1,300 58,800 29,400 2,400 103,200
~1983 9,700 1,900 5,500 21,100 800 39,000
,1984 18,000 3,600 116,900 49,300 2,200 190,000
Y Escapement estimates were derived from tag/recapture population estimates except Yentna
Station escapements which were obtained using side scan sonar.
2/Second-run sockeye salmon escapements only.
3/Chinook salmon were not monitored for escapement.
2.Migration timing and rates:
Adult salmon occupied the middle river from mid-June through mid-September
based on fishwheel catches.Specifically,each species were present as
follows:
Chinook
Sockeye
Pink
Chum
Coho
mid-June to mid-July
mid-July to end of August
last of July to mid-August
mid-July to end of August
last of July to mid-September
There was a behavioral trend,exhibited by all species,to increase their
travel rate as they pro~ressed beyond the three ri vers confl uence (Susitna,
Chulitna,and Talkeetna).This trend was attributed to milling in the
confluence area.
-3-
3.Spawni ng:
Chinook salmon spawned exclusively in tributary habitats in the middle river.
Peak spawning generally occurred during the last week of July and first week
of August.Chinook have been documented in four tributaries above the pro-
posed Devil Canyon dam site.
Second-run sockeye spawned primarily in middle river slough habitats.Minor
spawning has been noted in main channel areas (1983-1984).Peak spawning in
sloughs has occurred between the first and third weeks of September.
Pink salmon,like chinook,spawned almost exclusively in middle river tribu-
taries.They spawned in sloughs to a limited extent,while the main channel
was not used for spawning.Peak spawning in tributaries has occurred during
mid-August.
Chum salmon spawn in middle river main channel,slough,and tributary hab-
itats.Spawning in sloughs reaches a peak during the first week of September,
one or two weeks later than peak spawning in tributaries.
Coho spawn primaril,y in middle river tributary streams.Peak spawning oc-
curred during the last two weeks of September.
4.Eul achon:
Eulachon entered the Susitna River in two distinct runs (1982-83).In 1982,
the first migration passed through the intertidal reach (RM 0-7)after ice
breakup,in late May (May 16-30).A second migration followed in early June
(June 1-8).In1983,the first migration occurred in mid-May (May 10-17)
followed by a second migration in mid-May and early June (May 19-June 6).
The upper distance of eula~hon migration in the Susitna River was about 50
miles in 1982 and 1983.The first migration reached RM 40.5 in 1982 and RM
28.5 in 1983.The second migration reached RM 48.5 and 50.5 in 1982 and 1983,
respectively.The largest concentrations of first and second migration
eulachon in both years remained in the initial 29 miles of the Susitna River
main channel.
Recommendations:
1.Refine the existing tag/recapture model to a form which stratifies tag
deployment into several time intervals.This will allow seasonal vari-
ation in gear efficiency to be addressed.
2.Review alternative methods to assess stock characteristics (age,length,
and sex composition).Presently,all reported characteristics are
subject to fishwheel selectivity bias.
3.Develop a method to accurately assess milling at population estimate
sites.
-4-
OPERATION PLAN
Adult Salmon Escapement
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Susitna Aquatic Studies
Anchorage,Alaska
Prepared by Mike Thompson
September 1985
I.Problem Statement
A.Scope
B.Objectives
C.Justification
r~
II.Project Narrative
A.Duration
B.Location
c.Personnel
D.Discussion of Assumptions
E.Procedures
F.Budget
-1-
I.Problem Statement
Anadromous fish utilizing the lower and the middle Susitna River are one facet
of the fisheries resource that may be impacted from operation of the proposed
hydroelectric development at Devil andWatana canyons.Because of this
potential impact,the Alaska Power Authority has contracted the Alaska Depart-
ment of Fish and Game (ADF&G)to provide a basel ine data base on the escape-
ment of anadromous fish to the middle and to a lesser extent,the lower river
reaches.
A.Scope:
Adult salmon captured with fishwheels were tagged and released at Flathorn,
Sunshine,and Curry stations (Figure 1).Tag recovery and spawning ground
surveys were conducted ina11 m;ddl e ri ver sloughs and streams and to a
limited extent in lower river sloughs and streams.Population estimates were
derived by the Petersen method.Tag recoveries were also used to evaluate
migrational timing between fishwheel sites.The adult salmon escapement
compositi on of age,1ength and sex was determined from a sub-sampl e of the
fishwheel catch.
B.Objectives:
1.Determine the abundance of sockeye,pink,chum,and coho salmon at
Flathorn (1984-85),Yentna (1981-84),Sunshine (1981-85),Talkeetna
(1981-84),and Curry (1981-85)stations.Also,determine the abundance
of chinook salmon at Flathorn (1985),Sunshine (1982-85),Tal keetna
(1982-84),and Curry (1982-85)stations.
2.Evaluate migrational timing and migrational characteristics (rates of
travel and bank/channel preference)of adult salmon at stations operated
from 1981-85..
3.Monitor the age,length,and sex composition of the adult salmon escape-
ments at the locations and years defined in objective 1.
4.Assess the extent of adult salmon spawning in middle river side channel,
main channel,slough and tributary habitats (1981-85).
5.Assess the extent of adult salmon spawning in lower river main channel,
side channel,slough (1981-84,except 1983)and tributary stream mouth
(1984-85)habitats.
6.Determine the timing,age,length,and sex characteristics and spawning
areas of eulachon in the Susitna River (1982-83).
C.Justification:
In the event of hydroelectric construction on the Susitna River,a fisheries
baseline data base will be necessary to develop a long-term monitoring program
and to make specific recommendations concerning possible mitigation.
-2-
II.Project Narrative
A.Duration:
1.Adult salmon escapement monitoring stations were operated as follows:
Flathorn Station (RM 22)
Sunshine Station (RM 80)
Curry Station (RM 120)
May 25 -September 3
June 4 -September 10
June 10 -September 12
2.Lower river tag recovery surveys began ,July 5 and will end October 7.
3.Middle river tag recovery and escapement surveys began July 15 and will
end October 15.
B.Location:
1.Escapement monitoring locations are presented in Figure 1.
2.Lower river tag recovery survey schedules:
Table 1.Lower river general salmon escapement survey schedule.
SURVEY
RIVER
STREAM MILE PERIOD FREQUENCY METHOD DISTANCE
Noname Creek 27.8 7/5-10/7 Weekly Foot 1/3 mil e
Fish Creek 31.2 7/5-10/7 Weekly Foot 1/3 mile
Whitsol Creek 35.2 7/5-10/7 Weekly Foot 1/3 mile
Rolly Creek 39.0 7/5-10/7 Weekly Foot 1/3 mile
Wi 11 ow Creek 49.1 7/5-10/7 Weekly Foot 1/3 mil e
Little Willow Creek 50.5 7/5-10/7 Weekly Foot 1/3 mil e
Grays Creek 59.5 7/5-10/7 Weekly Foot 1/3 mil e
Kashwitna River 61.0 7/5-10/7 Weekly Foot 1/3 mile
Caswell Creek 64.0 7/5-10/7 Weekly Foot 1/3 mil e
Sheep Creek 66.1 7/5-10/7 Weekly Foot 1/3 mil e
Goose Creek 72.0 7/5-10/7 Weekly Foot 1/3 mile
Montana Creek 77 .0 7/5-10/7 Weekly Foot 1/3 mil e
Rabideux Creek 83.1 7/5-10/7 Weekly Foot 1/3 mil e
Sunshine Creek 85.1 7/5-10/7 Weekly Foot 1/3 mil e
Bi rch Creek 89.2 7/5-10/7 Weekly Foot 1/3 mile
Trapper Creek 91.5 7/5-10/7 Weekly Foot 1/3 mile
Cache Creek 95.5 7/5-10/7 Weekly Foot 1/3 mil e
-3-
MIDDLE RIVER
LOWER
RIVER
REACH
SUNSHINE
o 10 20 30
!I I I
MILES
(Approx.Scale)
-4-
Table 2.Specific lower river chinook salmon tag recovery survey schedule.
SURVEY
RIVER
STREAM MILE PERIOD FREQUENCY METHOD DISTANCE
Alexander Creek 10.1 7/15-8/5 Once Min.Boat Field Selected
Talchulitna Creek 28.0 7/20-8/5 Once Min.Boat Field Selected
Lake Creek 28.0 7/15-8/5 Once Min.Boat Field Selected
Deshka River 40.6 7/20-8/5 Once Min.Raft Field Selected
Rabideaux Creek 83.1 7/20-8/5 Once Min.Canoe Field Selected
Clear Creek 97.1 7/15-8/1 Once Min.Helicopter Field Selected
Prairie Creek 97.1 7/15-8/1 Twice Min.Foot Field Selected
Troublesome Creek 97.8 7/20-8/5 Once Min.Foot Field Selected
Byers Creek 97.8 7/20-8/5 Once Min.Foot Field Selected
Middle Fork
Chulitna River 97.8 7/20-8/5 Twice Min.Raft Field Selected
-5-
3.Middle river tag recovery and escapement survey schedules:
Table 3.General salmon escapement survey schedule above river mile 97.1.
SURVEY
RIVER
STREAM MILE PERIOD FREQUENCY METHOD DISTANCE
Fish Creek 97.1 8/10-8/25 Twice Foot Field Selected
Larson Creek 97.1 8/11-8/10 Once Foot Fi el d Sel ected
Byers Creek 97.8 8/10-8/15 Once Foot Field Selected
Unnamed Tributary to
8/1-8/10TOkositna97.8 Once Foot Field Selected
Troublesome Creek 97.8 9/5-9/15 Once Foot Field Selected
Byers Creek 97.8 9/5-9/20 Once Foot Field Selected
All Sloughs 98.6-161.0 8/6-10/7 Weekly Foot Entire
Whiskers Creek 101.4 8/6-10/7 Weekly Foot 0.5
Chase Creek 106.4 8/8-10/7 Weekly Foot 0.75
Slash Creek 106.9 8/8-10/7 Weekly Foot 0.25
Gash Creek 11.6 8/8-10/8 Weekly Foot 1.0
Lane Creek 113.6 8/8-10/7 Weekly Foot 0.5
Lower McKenzie Creek 116.2 8/8-10/7 Weekly Foot 0.25
McKenzie Creek 116,7 B/8-10/7 Weekly Foot 0.25
Little Portage Creek 117.7 8/B-l()/7 Weekly Foot 0.25
Deadhorse Creek 120.9 8/8-10/7 Weekly Foot 0.25
Fifth of July Creek 123.7 8/8-10/7 Weekly Foot 0.25
Skull Creek 124.7 8/8-10/7 Weekly Foot 0.25
Sherman Creek 130.8 8/8-10/7 Weekly Foot 0.25
Fourth of July Creek 131.1 8/8-10/7 Weekly Foot 0.25
Gold Creek 136.7 8/8-10/7 Weekly Foot 0.25
Indian River 138.6 8/8-10/7 Weekly Foot 1.0
138.6 8/8-10/7 Weekly Helicopter Upper Spawni ng Umi t
Jack Long Creek 144.5 8/8-10/7 Weekly Foot 0.25
Portage Creek 148.9 8/8-10/7 Weekly Foot 0.25
148.9 8/8-10/7 Weekly Helicopter Upper Spawning Limit
Cheechako Creek 152.4 8/8-10/7 Weekly Helicopter 1.0
Chinook Creek 157.0 8/8-10/7 Weekly Helicopter 1.5
Devil Creek 161.0 8/8-10/7 Weekly Helicopter 1.0
-6-
Table 4.Chinook salmon escapement and tag recovery survey schedule.
SURVEY
RIVER
STREAM MILE PERIOD FREQUENCY METHOD DISTANCE
Whi skers Creek 101.4 7/15-8/5 Twice Foot 0.5 Mne
Chase Creek 106.9 7/15-8/5 Once Foot 1 Mne
Lane Creek 113.6 7/15-8/5 Twice Foot Upper Spawning Limit
Fifth of July Creek 123.7 7/15-8/5 Twice Foot Upper Spawning Limit
Sherman Creek 130.8 7/15-8/5 Twice Foot Upper Spawning limit
Fourth of July Creek 131 .1 7/15-8/5 Twice Foot Upper Spawning Limit
Gold Creek 136.7 7/15-8/5 Twice Foot or Helicopter Upper Spawning limit
Indian River 138.9 7/15-8/15 Four Foot 1 Mne
Portage Creek 148.9 7/15-8/15 Four Foot 0.25 Mne
CheechakoCreek 152.4 7/15-8/5 Twice Hell copter Upper Spawning Limit
Chinook Creek 157.0 7/15-8/5 Twice Helicopter Upper Spawning Limit
Devil Creek 161.0 7/15-8/5 Twice Helicopter Upper Spawning limit
C.Personnel:
Project Leader:
Task Manager:
Flathorn Station:
Sunshine Station:
Curry Station:
Lower river survey:
Middle river survey:
1 Fishery Biologist III
1 Fishery Biologist II
6 Fishery Technician II's
9 Fishery Technician II's
1 Fishery Biologist I &1 Fishery Technician II
2 Fishery Biologist l's
1 Fishery Biologist I &1 Fishery Technician II
D.Discussion of Assumptions:
Tag/Recapture and Sonar
This project has had the unique opportunity to evaluate tag/recapture and so-
nar as methods of population enumeration at the same site in the same year.
The tag/recapture projects used the modified Petersen estimator and the sonars
were 1980 model Bendix side scan units.
There were discrepancies between population estimates from sonar versus esti-
mates from the tag/recapture project.Both estimates have inherent
deficiencies.It should not be assumed that all fish pass over the sonar sub-
strate.The sector distribution of salmon will vary with site and species,
with an undetermined number of salmon passing beyond the counting range.A
-7-
major source of error present in sonar counts is related to the methods of ap-
portionment and the bias inherent in those methods.Although all fishwheels
used to apportion counts were in close proximity to the counters,it must be
recognized that fishwheels are species selective.The apportioned sonar
counts would then reflect the selected catchability of the fishwheel.In ad-
dition,sonar counters are adjusted for fish velocity and sensitivity,thereby
introducing an unknown variance component into the counts.
Tag/recapture methods of estimating the population and the Petersen estimate
in particular make six assumptions.Failure to meet these assumptions will
bias the population estimate and consequently the confidence intervals.The
following assumptions were made in estimating population size:
1.Fishwheel capture of salmon was random with respect to the population.
2.There was no mortality as a result of the tagging process.
3.There was no differential mortality between tagged and un tagged salmon.
4.Tagged salmon mixed randomly within the population.
5.Recovery of tagged salmon was not influenced by the tag.
6.There was no unknown tag loss.
In summary,both methods of enumerating salmon have potential drawbacks but at
this point,they represent the state of the art in estimating population sizes
in glacial river systems.The discrepancies,where they exist,between Peter-
sen and sonar population estimates reflect the limitations inherent in both
techniques.
E.Procedures:
1.Tagging Operation
Fi shwheel s were operated for tag/recapture at a 11 main channel monitori ng
stations.At Flathorn Station,six fishwheels were operated for the duration
of the chinook salmon escapement period,approximately May 25 through July 1,
and four for the remainder of the season.Two fishwheels were deployed on
each side the Susitna River at Sunshine Station and a single fishwheel off-
shore of each bank at Curry Station.
Fishwheels were operated on a continuous 24 hour basis.Exceptions were dur-
ing periods of high flows when fishwheels were not operated for safety reasons
and during periods of peak catches when fishwheels were stopped for four hours
from 4:00 a.m.to 6:00 a.m.and 4:00 p.m.to 6:00 p.m.
Fishwheels were sampled for catch and checked for maintenance needs a minimum
four times daily.
-8-
~.
(
All adult salmon caught by fishwheels at Flathorn,Sunshine,and Curry sta-
tions were tagged and released except:
1.Fish that appeared lethargic or stressed.
2.Fish which were in post-spawning condition.
3.Chinook salmon less than 400 mm in length (FL)and sockeye,pink,
chum,and coho salmon less than 300 mm in length.
4.Fish previously tagged at another tagging site.
These fish were released untagged.
The type of tag,color,and percent of each species tagged at Flathorn,Sun-
shine,and Curry stations are defined in Table 5.
-9-
)
Table 5.
)
Tag type,color and percent of each species tagged at Flathorn,Sunshine,and Curry stations.
STATION
RIVER
MILE SPECIES LENGTH
PERCENT OF
CATCH TAGGED
TAG
TYPE
TAG
COLOR
Flathorn 22 Chinook 400 mm a
Chinook 400 mm 100 FT -4 Spaghett i Yellow
Sockeye 300 mm 100 FT-4 Spaghetti Yell ow
Pink 300 mm 100 FT-4 Spaghetti Yell ow
Chum 300 rnm 100 FT-4 Spaghetti Yell ow
Coho 300 mm 100 FT-4 Spaghetti Yellow
I....a
I Sunshine 80 Chinook 400 mm a
Chinook 400 mm 100 FT-4 Spaghetti Orange
Sockeye 300 mm 100 FT-4 Spaghetti Orange
Pink 300 rnm 100 FT-4 Spaghetti Orange
Chum 300 mm 100 FT-4 Spaghetti Orange/Blue
Coho 300 mm 100 FT-4 Spaghetti Orange
Curry 120 Chinook 400 mm a
Chinook 400 mm 100 1"dia.Petersen Disc Orange
Sockeye 300 mm 100 1"dia.Petersen Disc Orange
Pink 300 mm 100 1"dia.Petersen Disc Orange
Chum 300 mm 100 1"dia.Petersen Disc Orange
Coho 300 mm 100 1"dia.Petersen Disc Orange
Special Tagging Instructions:
1.At Flathorn Station odd one thousand tag series (xxxx)were used for fish
captured in west channel fishwheels and even one thousand tag series were
used for fish captured in east channel fishwheels (note:0-999 are
considered even one thousand series).
2.Chinook salmon captured at Fl athorn and Sunshine stations were tagged
with 15 inch FT-4 spaghetti tags.All other species at these sites were
tagged with 13.5 inch FT-4 spaghetti tags.
3.At Sunshine Station early run sockeye salmon (through approximately June
28)were tagged with blank FT-4 spaghetti tags
Fish recaptured from other tagging location were released with the original
tag left in place following species identification and recording of tag type,
color and number.All resident fish were identified to species and,if time
allowed,tagged before being released.
2.Age,Length and Sex Composition Sampling
At Flathorn,Sunshine and Curry stations age,length and sex data were collec-
ted daily from 50 chinook,sockeye,pink,chum and coho.At Flathorn Station
the 50 samples were divided such that 25 are from west channel fishwheels and
25 were from east channel fishwheels.
3.Surveys
Sloughs were surveyed in their entirety and streams to a distance previously
defined in Tables 1-4.Surveyors wore polarized glasses and used hand held
tally counters to enumerate live tagged and untagged salmon and carcasses.
Salmon spawning in main and side channel habitats was recorded on the Adult
Anadromous Spawning Site Map form.Information recorded included date,river
mile,geographic code,a map of the spawning site,number of fish and a
general habitat description.
4.Eul achon
Eulachon timing and age,length and sex compositon were determined from set
gillnet catches between river mile 3 and 5 on the Susitna River.
Spawning locations and the upper limits of migration were identified by
electrofishing and hand-held dipnets.
-11-
F.Budget:
LINE
TASK DESCRIPTION 100 200 300 400 500 TOTAL
4A Middle River Escapement 55.4 0.2 7.5 14.8 0 77 .9
5A Sunshine Escapement 98.2 0.4 13.6 15.7 0 127.9
8A Flathorn Escapement 101.6 1.4 8.9 18.0 0 129.9
TOTAL 255.2 2.0 30.0 48.5 0 335.7
-12-
.1"""'.
B-3 Middle River Outmigrant Evaluation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Title:Susitna River Juvenile Salmon Outmigration Monitoring;Susitna
Aquatic Studies,Tasks 4B,5B,and 8B.
1.Task 4B:Middle River Outmigrant Monitoring
2.Task 5B:SunshineOutmigrant Monitoring
3.Task 88:Flathorn Outmigrant Monitoring
Project Supervisor:
Task Manager:
FY 86 Allocation:
Larry Bartlett
Kent J.Roth
Task 4B
Task 5B
Task 88
TOTAL
257.1
36.1
85.1
378.3
Spent to Date:Not Available.
Problem Statement:
The hydroelectric development proposed for the Susitna River would alter the
natural environmental conditions and subsequently would affect the incubation,
emergence,and outmigration of juvenile salmon produced in the middle reach of
the river (Tal keetna to Devi 1 Canyon).We must detemi ne the present regimes
of seasonal juvenile salmon distribution and relative abundance in this reach,
as well as the timing of outmigration and its response to naturally changing
habitat conditions.These baseline data will assist to observe and mitigate
dam-induced changes in the freshwater life history of middle river juvenile
salmon.
Objectives:
1982
1.Estimate the timing,size,and relative abundance of the five species of
juvenile salmon outmigrating past the Talkeetna Monitoring Station.
2.Estimate the affects of changes in mainstem Susitna River discharges and
other environmental variables on juvenile salmon outmigration rates and
timing.
3.Continue the data collection on the relative timing,abundance,and size
of downstream migrating juvenile resident fish.
-1-
1983
4.Estimate the middle river population of emergent chum and sockeye salmon
fry and their survival from egg to outmigrant fry.
1984 to Present
5.Continuation of objectives 1 through 4 and inclusion of objectives 1
through 3 at Flathorn Monitoring Station.
6.Estimate the timing,rate of movement,and population size of juvenile
chinook and coho salmon outmigrating from Indian River.
7.Estimate the overwintering survival of juvenile chinook salmon in the
middle river.
8.Estimate the horizontal distribution of juvenile salmon migrating past
Flathorn Station.
Overview of Methods:
Minnow traps,beach seines,and backpack electroshockers provided initial data
duri ng 1981 tocatal og and inventory the di stributi on and rel ati on abundance
of juvenile salmon in the Susitna River from Cook Inlet upstream to Devil
".,.-Canyon.Outmigration studies were begun in 1982 with the deployment of an
inclined plane trap at Talkeetna Station.A mark-recapture study was ini-
tiated in 1983 using one-half length coded wire tags to mark post-emergent
chum and sockeye salmon fry,and a second outmigrant trap was deployed at
Talkeetna Station which served as the primary recapture site.Cold branding
of juvenile chinook and coho salmon in the middle river was begun in 1984,and
a stationary and a mobile outmigrant trap were operated at Flathorn Station in
the lower river.The collection equipment at Flathorn Station was improved
during 1985 and the outmigrant programs are continuing.
Conclusions Drawn to Date:
Chinook Salmon
A significant percentage of middle river chinook salmon juveniles outmigrate
from thi s reach as age 0+fry.Peak downstream movement past Talkeetna
Station occurs from 1ate June through mid-August at a mean total 1ength of
approximately 55 mill imeters (mm).The remaining chinook fry overwinter in
the natal tributaries or in sloughs and side channels of the middle river,and
then outmigrate as age 1+fish during May and June at a mean length of approx-
imately 90 mm.A portion of the outmigration of age 0+fish occurs in
response to changes in the mainstem discharge.
Coho Salmon
Juvenile coho salmon outmigration from the middle river is relatively contin-
uous for all age classes through the open water season.Most coho juveniles
enter the ocean as age 1+or 2+fish after rearing in tributary,side channel,
slough,or beaver pond habitats.
-2-
Sockeye Salmon
Similar to chinook salmon juveniles,a large percentage of middle river
sockeye outmigrate from this reach as age 0+fish.Preliminary data indicates
that many of these fish enter side channel habitats in the lower river to
overwinter while some continue to the ocean as age 0+smolts.Peak downstream
movement of this age class past Talkeetna Station occurred from June through
August.Coded wire tagging data showed that following emergence,sockeye fry
grow approximately three millimeters each week until they reach a critical
size of 50 to 55 mm.The juvenile sockeye which overwinter in the middle
river outmigrate at a mean length of approximately 75 mm.
Information collected from the coded wire tagging program for sockeye salmon
fry are presented in the following table.
SAMPLING NO.OF FRY
SEASON MARKED
1983 17,963
1984 14,532
~
1985*11,436
7,484
5,082
366
189
299,000 268,000 to
328,000
306,000 266,000 to
353,000
21.9
9.3
19.6 to 24.0
8.1 to 10.8
*Through August 31,1985 (Provisional)
Chum Salmon c .J.
Chum salmon outmigrate as age 0+fish during the spring and summer with peaks
observed during May and June,and the outmigration is virtually complete by
the end of July.A portion of the chum fry outmigrate shortly after emergence
while the other fry remain in the middle to rear for a few weeks before
outmigrating.The peaks in chum salmon fry outmigration coincide with increas-
ing mainstem discharge.
Population and survival estimates for middle river chum fry are presented in
the following table.
-3-
SAMPLING NO.OF FRY NO.OF FRY NO.OF MARKS POPULATION 95%SURVIVAL 95%
SEASON MARKED CAPTURED RECAPTURED ESTIMATE C.1.ESTIMATE C.I•
1983 24,287 8,616 62 3,322,000 2,633,000 14.0 11.2 to 16.4
to
4,327,000
1984 31,396 3,590 51 2,039,000 1,845,000 16.0 14.8 to 19.4
to
2,414,000
1985*13,341 6,126 34 3,096,000 2,236,000 12.0 6.7 to 17.2
to
4,426,000
*Provisional
Pink Salmon
Pink salmon outmigrate soon after emergence and the peak catches at Talkeetna
Station occur during May and June.
General:
The methods presently being used to monitor middle river outmigration are very
effective in collecting and marking juvenile salmon.Coded wire tagging has
been shown by this program to be the most efficient method of marking large
numbers of post-emergent sockeye and chum salmon fry while cold branding is
very efficient in providing long-term marks on larger juvenile salmon.The
inclined plane traps provide an effective method of capture for juvenile fish
in a river system such as the Susitna River,and marked fish are randomly
mixed with unmarked fish as they pass the recapture site.
Recommendations:
1.Continue the outmigrant programs being conducted in the middle river to
provide the long-term data base on the timing and size of juvenile salmon
outmigration in this reach.
2.Begin the operation of the mobile outmigrant trap at Talkeetna Station
for comparison to the stationary trap data.The information collected in
the mobile trap would also show the horizontal distribution of outmigra-
ting fish as well as helping to more accurately define the timing and
abundance of outmigrating chum and pink salmon fry and age 1+fish.The
mobile trap would also help to collect a larger percentage of marked chum
fry resulting in tighter confidence intervals for the population esti-
mates.
-4-
3.Develop a sampling design that would allow for the comparison of the
stati onary trap catch data to the mobil e trap data to determi ne if it
would be possible to provide the outmigration data by operating only the
mobile trap.This comparative design would also assist in determining if
a reduced sampling schedule would be sufficient to provide the outmigra-
tion data.
4.Monitor specific sites to quantify present spawning success at sites
which would be affected by hydroelectric development.
5.Monitor specific sites to quantify present overwintering survival of
rearing juvenile salmon to provide a data base for comparison to the
construction and operation phases of development.
-5-
OPERATION PLAN
Susitna River Juvenile Salmon Outmigration
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Susitna Aquatic Studies
Anchorage,Alaska
Prepared by Kent J.Roth
September 1985
1.Problem Statement
A.Scope
B.Objectives
C.Justification
II.Project Narrative
A.Duration
B.Location
c.Personnel
D.Assumptions
E.Procedures
F.Budget
G.Literature Cited
-1-
I.Problem Statement
Determine the present regimes of juvenile salmon seasonal distribution and
relative abundance in the Susitna River as well as the timing of outmigration
and its response to naturally changing habitat conditions.This information
is necessary to provide the basel ine data to assist in observing and miti-
gating changes in the freshwater life history of middle river juvenile salmon
resulting from the proposed hydroelectric development.
A.Scope:
Post-emergent chum and sockeye salmon fry were marked using 1/2 length coded
wire tags,and juvenile chinook and coho salmon were marked using cold brands.
Outmigrating fish were collected at the Talkeetna Station traps and all marked
and unmarked fish were recorded.Population estimates were calculated using
the Schaefer (1951)and Petersen (Ricker 1975)methods.
Population estimates for juvenile chinook and coho were also calculated using
the Jolly-Seber method (Ricker 1975).Survival estimates were generated by
comparing the population estimate to the calculated total potential egg
deposition.Habitat timing,size,and growth data as well as environmental
variables were collected at the outmigrant trapping sites monitored.
B.Objectives:
1982
1.Estimate the timing,size,and relative abundance of the five species of
juvenile salmon outmigrating past the Talkeetna Monitoring Station.
2.Estimate the affects of changes in mainstem Susitna River discharges and
other environmental variables on juvenile salmon outmigration rates and
timing.
3.Continue the data collection on the relative timing,abundance,and size
of downstream migrating juvenile resident fish.
1983
4.Estimate the middle river population of emergent chum and sockeye salmon
fry and their survival from egg to outmigrant fry.
1984 to Present
5.Continuation of objectives 1 through 4 and inclusion of objectives 1
through 3 at Flathorn Monitoring Station.
6.Estimate the timing,rate of movement,and population size of juvenile
chinook and coho salmon outmigrating from Indian River.
!~7.Estimate the overwintering survival of juvenile chinook salmon in the
middle river.
-2-
8.Estimate the horizontal distribution of juvenile salmon migrating past
Flathorn Station.
C.Justification:
A measurement of the current production of juvenile salmon in the Susitna
River is necessary to assess potential impacts resulting from hydroelectric
development.These data can also be used as a benchmark to compare to future
project effects and for determining the mitigation required to protect the
fisheries resources in areas impacted by this development.
II.Project Narrative
This narrative describes the 1985 field season.
A.Duration:
1.Post-emergent chum and sockeye salmon fry were marked with coded wi re
tags from breakup through late June.
2.Juvenile chinook and coho salmon were minnow trapped from late June
through early October,and collected fish were marked with cold brands.
3.Outmigrant trapping was conducted through the open water period (mid-May
through early October).
B.Location:
1.Coded wire tagging was conducted at Indian River and at sloughs where
high density adult spawning was documented the previous fall.
2.Cold-branding was conducted at two sites in Portage Creek and four sites
in Indian River.
3.Outmigrant trapping and mark recovery was conducted at Talkeetna Station
(RM 103).Outmigrant trapping and horizontal di stribution studies were
conducted at Flathorn Station (RM 22).
C.Personne 1:
Larry Bartlett (FB III)was the supervisor during the 1985 field season.Kent
Roth (FB II)was the task manager in charge of the outmigrant studies.Gold
Creek Station (coded wire tagging and cold-branding)was operated by one FB I
(crew leader)and one Fishery Biologist (FB I)and two Fishery Technicians (FT
II).Talkeetna Station outmigrant trapping was conducted by one to two FB lIs
and one to two FT II's.Flathorn Station outmigrant trapping was conducted by
one FB II,one to four FB I's,and one to two FT Ills.
D.Assumptions:
1.Neither mortal ity nor catchabil ity varies between marked and unmarked
fish.
-3-
2.Tag retention does not vary between tagging and recovery.
3.Marked fish are randomly distributed within the total outmigrant popula-
tion at the point of recovery.
4.All marks were recognized and reported during recovery.
E.Procedures:
1.Coded Wire Tagging Operation
Binary coded one-half length wire tags were used in conjunction with adipose
fin clips to field mark post-emergent sockeye and chum salmon fry.
Coded wire tagging operations were conducted at Slough 11 (RM 135.3)with
equipment and personnel staged in a portable wall tent.Fish to be tagged
were transported in an aerated holding tub from the various collection areas
to the tagging site at Slough 11.The tagged fish were returned to the areas
of collection,held overnight,and then released the following day.
The primary fisheries collection techniques were beach seines and weirs.One
or more seines were set as weirs at fixed locations across the lower end of
the sampling location and fished as necessary during the tagging period.The
seines were made from 3/16 inch or 1/4 inch square mesh,four feet in depth
and 25 to 40 feet in length.The weirs were checked periodically to collect
fish and remove debris.All captured fish were removed by dipnet and placed
in live boxes for holding until the tagging operation.Active beach seining
supplemented the weirs at sites where wei ring did not provide enough fish for
the tagging operation,or at those sites at which weirs were not deployable.
The coded wire tagging equipment was leased from Northwest Marine Technology,
Inc.(Shaw Island,Washington)and operated in accordance with the manufac-
turer's instruction and operation manual.The equipment used was the NMT,
Model MK2A tagging unit and included the following:
Coded wire tag injector with 1/2 length tag capability
Quality Control Device (QCD)
Water pump
Portable power supply
The one-half length tag capability was necessary due to the small size of the
fish to be tagged.Susitna River chum salmon emerge at a mean total length of
40 millimeters (mm)and averaging 1,500 fish per pound,while sockeye salmon
were observed emerging at a mean total length of 32 ~n and averaging approxi-
mately 3,000 fish per pound.The small area of cartilage in the snout of fish
at this size for tag implantation does not allow the use of full length tags.
The coded wire tags for the program were made from biologically inert stain-
less steel wire which are capable of magnetic detection,and have a contin-
ually repeating binary code etched into the wire which allows code reading of
recovered tags.Half-length tags measure .02 inches (.533 mm)in length and
.01 inches (.254 mm)in diameter.
-4-
A total of 60,000 one-half length coded wire tags consisting of 21 separate
binary code groups were ordered for the program.As many tag code groups as
poss'ible were implanted,however,only one tag code was used for each species
at any given site during each collection and tagging period.A tagging period
consisted of one to six days of tagging per site,depending on the availabil-
ity of fish.At the completion of each tagging period,a new tag code group
was used for the next site or species to be sampled.Up to four different tag
code groups were implanted at anyone site for a given species during the
enti re program.
The coded wire tag implantation procedures were similar to those outlined by
Moberly et al.(1977).Adjustments to these procedures were implemented as
necessary by our particular field program.
The following day,a random sample of 100 tagged fish were collected from the
holding tank and run through the QCD to determine the percent tag retention
and tag mortality was recorded.All tagged fish were released at the capture
site at the end of each tagging period.
Coded wire tagging data recorded at each site included date tagged,tag code,
species,number of fish tagged,percent tag retention,mortality,and date and
time of release data as well as final tag retention and mortality were tabu-
lated for each tag code.
2.Cold Branding
Cold-branding operations were conducted at the Gold Creek camp (RM 136.3).
The fish were transported in buckets from the collection site to the Gold
Creek camp and were then returned to the release site after branding.Fish
were held a minimum of 24 hours after branding to determine mortality.
The primary fisheries collection techniques included beach seines,dip nets,
and minnow traps.Minnow traps and beach seines were used to collect juvenile
chinook and coho salmon in Portage Creek.Ten minnow traps were set twice
each week in each of the three upper Indian River sites.Twenty-five traps
were fished daily at the mouth of Indian River.
The cold-branding equipment included:
Cyrogenics nitrogen container (60 liter)
Cold-branding box
Brands
This equipment is all field portable.The nitrogen container is a doubled-
walled insulated canister which will last for approximately 10,000 juvenile
fish brands or 15 days.The cold-branding box was constructed from a poly-
vinyl chloride (PVC)pipe coupling,a 4 inch brass-cap,threaded brass pipes,
and spray urethane insulation.The design is similar to that used by Mighell
(1969),Raleigh et al.(1973)and Laird et al.(1975).The brands consisted
of letters and symbols approximately 3 mm in height soldered on threaded brass
caps by a local jeweler.
-5-
Juvenile chinook and coho salmon were marked with a distinctive brand to
signify the collection site and date of their capture.Fish were marked on
one side of the body at one of three target branding areas,and a branding
time of two seconds was used.
Date,collection site,gear type,fishing effort,species,number of fish
captured,and brand symbol were recorded for each site.The number of recap-
tures by species and the symbols for previously marked fish were also record-
ed.Total length was measured for 50 fish of each species for each collection
site every two weeks.
3.Talkeetna Station Outmigrant Traps
Two i ncl i ned plane outmi grant traps were operated conti nuously through the
open water season.Trap fishing depths and distances from shore were adjusted
to maximize catches while maintaining trap efficiency.All juvenile fish
captured were anesthetized using MS-222 (Tricaine methanesulfonate).Field
specimens were identified using the guidelines set forth by McConnell and
Snyder (1972),Trautman (1973),and Morrow (1980).Juvenile chinook and coho
salmon collected at the traps were checked for a cold-brand mark and all
recovered marks were recorded.Chum and sockeye salmon juvenil es with a
clipped adipose fin were passed through a detector to verify the presence of
coded wire tag.All coded wire tagged fish recovered at the traps were
preserved and tags will be later removed and decoded using a reading jig and a
binocular microscope.All other fish recovered at the traps were held until
anesthetic recovery was complete and then released downstream of the traps.-
~1easurements of the following habitat parameters were recorded daily at the
outmigrant traps:surface water temperature (OC),turbidity (NTU),water
velocity (ft/sec),and mainstem stage data.The equipment and methods used to
collect the habitat data are given in ADF&G (1985).
Scales were collected from a sub-sample of fish captured for comparison to
length frequency data for final age class determination.Biological and
habitat data were entered directly into an Epson HX-20 microcomputer.Print-
outs and cassettes were periodically transferred to Data Processing to be
entered into a mainframe computer for later data retrieval and analysis.
Length and weight relationship data were also collected from samples of
juvenile salmon captured in the outmigrant traps at Talkeetna and Flathorn
stations.Total length was recorded to the nearest millimeter and live
weights were determined to the nearest 0.1 gram.
4.Flathorn Station Outmigrant Traps
Two inclined plane outmigrant traps were operated daily from 7:00 a.m.to 7:00
p.m.The traps were fished continuously for one 24 hour period each week.
Data collected were similar to Talkeetna Station.
A mobile inclined plane outmigrant trap was fished daily at up to 12 transect
points.Vertical sampling was conducted at a single transect point once each
week.Transect number,fishing effort,total water column depth,set velo-
city,and drift velocity (if the trap was not held stationary during the set)
-6-
were recorded for each individual transect point at which the mobile outmi-
grant trap was fished.Total catch by species and age class was also record-
ed,and total length measurements were taken for all captured fish.Data were
recorded on a field data form for later analysis.
F.Budget:(FY 86)
TASK 4B TASK 58 TASK 8B TOTAL
Line 100 178.0 24.7 56.8 259.5
Line 200 4.7 1.2 1.0 6.9
Line 300 16.9 2.7 7.3 26.9
Line 400 57.5 7.5 20.0 85.0
Line 500 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 257.1 36.1 85.1 378.3
~G.Literature Cited:
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G).1985.(Unpublished draft).
Resi dent and juvenil e anadromous studi es.Procedures manual draft (May
1984-April 1985).Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Program,Alaska Depart-
ment of Fish and Game.Anchorage,Alaska.
Laird,L.M.,R.J.Roberts,W.M.Shearer,and J.F.McArdle.1974.
branding of juvenile salmon.Journal of Fisheries Biology.
Freeze
(7):167-171.
Mi ghe 11,J.L.
nitrogen.
2765-2769.
McConnell,R.J.and G.R.Snyder.1972.Key to field identification of
anadromous juvenile salmonids in the Pacific Northwest.National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration Technical Report,National Marine Fish-
eries Service CIRC-366.
1969.Rapid cold-branding of salmon and trout with liquid
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada.26(10):
Moberly,S.A.,R.Miller,K.Crandall,and S.Bates.1977.Mark-tag manual
for salmon.Alaska Department of Fish and Game.Fisheries Rehabilita-
tion and Enhancement Division.
Morrow,J.E.1980.The freshwater fishes of Alaska.Alaska Northwest
Publishing Company,Anchorage,Alaska.
-7-
Raleigh,R.F.,J.B.McLaren,and D.R.Graff.1973.Effects of topical
location,branding techniques and changes in hue on recognition of cold
brands in Centrarchid and Salmonid fish.Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society.102 (3):637-641.
Ricker,W.E.1975.Computation and interpretation of biological statistics
of fish populations.Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
191.
Schaefer,M.B.1951.Estimation of the size of animal populations by marking
experiments.United States Fish and Wildlife Service,Fisheries Bulletin
52:189-203.
Trautman,M.B.1973.A guide to the collection and identification of pre-
smolt Pacific salmon in Alaskawith an illustrated key.National Oceano-
graphic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum.NMFS
ABFL-2.
-8-
r
B-4 lower River Spawning Habitat Evaluation
~,
•
Project Title:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chum Salmon Spawning and Passage Habitat Assessment in
Lower River Mainstem and Side Channel Habitats;Susitna
Aquatic Studies Task 9
Project Supervisor:Larry Bartlett
Task Manager:Tim Quane
FY 85 Allocation:128.2 K
Spent to Date:
Problem Statement:
FY 86
FY 85
20.2
27.6
Approximately 5,000 chum salmon were discovered spawning in lower river
mainstem side channel and slough habitats in 1984.Baseline data to
characterize this spawning habitat had not been collected.
Substantial numbers of 0+juvenile salmon outmigrate passed Talkeetna Station.
It is uncertain if these fish outmigrate to Cook Inlet or overwinter in side
channel and slough habitat in the lower river.
Objectives:
1.Estimate the number of adult salmon spawning in mainstem and side channel
habitats of the lower Susitna River between RM 28.0 and RM 98.6 (Yentna
River confluence and the Talkeetna/Chulitna rivers confluence).
2.Monitor the inmigration and the outmigration of juvenile salmon to
Trapper Creek Side Channel to ascertain the use of this side channel by
outmigrating middle river juvenile salmon as overwintering habitat.
3.Evaluate passage conditions for adult salmon in those side channel habi-
tats identified from surveys to support relatively large numbers (~100)
of spawners.
Overview of Procedures:
Adult surveys by helicopter followed by foot.Passage by physical measurement
of depth and length correlated to mainstem discharge.Water surface elevation
by physi cal measurement and survey to a temporary bench mark;correl ated to
mainstem discharge.Juvenile inmigrants captured in fyke nets.
Conclusions:
1.Chum salmon utilize lower river side-channels for spawning;incubation is
successful.
-1-
2.Chinook,coho and sockeye juvenile salmon utilize lower river side
channel habitat for overwinter rearing.
3.Passage,spawning,incubation and rearing success is related to ground
water flow in side channels and the controlling mainstem discharge.
Recommendations:
1.Baseline data be collected through the 1985 season on side channel
habitat in the lower river when large numbers of adult salmon spawn.
2.The section of the lower river between RM 63 and RM 98 be monitored in
conjunction with the middl e river reach for project rel ated impacts if
the baseline data collection indicates this habitat is used by substan-
tial numbers of salmon for spawning and/or overwinter rearing.
-2-
APPENDIX
Table 1.Summary of chum sa1mon spawning observations in lower river sloughs
and side channels.
YEAR
1981
1984
1985
NUMBER FISH
72
3,600 -4,900
1,4001/
RIVER MILES
68.3 -97.0
57.0 -98.6
SURVEY PERIOD
9/2 -10/9
8/8 -9/10
l!This number represents the peak counts of chum salmon for the period of
8/8 -9/10.Total salmon observed from surveys for same period is 1,590
and includes chum,sockeye,and coho.
Table 2a.Summary of outmigrating juvenile salmon observations in lower river
side channel habitats April-May 1985.Task 9 Technical memorandum.
SPECIES
SIDE CHANNEL CHINOOK COHO SOCKEYE CHUM PINK
Trapper Creek 372 436 671*32 45
Sunset 2 4 0 165 2
Circular 310 143 36 131 1
Birch Creek 2 2 0 1 1
*Includes six 1+sockeye tagged as 0+in the middle river during the 1984
season;an estimated 250 additional sockeye were released uncounted.
Table 2b.Summary August-September of juveniles salmon observations in Trapper
Creek side channel.Task 9,1985.
INMIGRANT SPECIES
CHINOOK COHO SOCKEYE CHUM PINK
Total Fish Passing Inmi-240 373 118 2 a
grating Aug.26-Sept.11
Fi sh With Ventral Cl i p.!/.4 11 1 0 0
Total Fish Passed Outmigra-80 114 16 a 1
ting Aug.29-Sept.11
Fish With Ventral Cli~1 6 21 2 0 a
II Fish were clipped when observed outmigrating.2/Fish were clipped when captured inmigrating.
/d1/¥o?/bf'"'.,
Table 3.Summary of lower Susitna River study sites to be evaluated for
passage conditions during the 1985 open water season.
STUDY SITE RIVER MILE SALMON UTILIZATION
Circular Side Chann t )1J 75.3 Chum
Sunset Side Channel-86.9 Chum
Birch Creek Side Channel 87.0 Chum,Sockeye,Coho
Birch Camp Area 88.5 Chum
Trapper Creek Side Channel 96.0 Chum,Sockeye,Coho
Upper Cache Side Channel 99.0 Chum,Sockeye,Coho
l/Turbid water has precluded an accurate count of fish in these side
channel.Field observations from 1984 have shown these side channel to
have over 100 chum salmon spawning.Present surveys have noted salmon in
Sunset Side Channel.
I/PP£R CACHE SlOE CHANNEL LOWE"MlISN£R
SIDE C"'''NN£L
~
o
I .,..10
I
Figure 1.Side channel and slough habitats surveyed for spawning chum salmon
in the lower Susitna River (mile 28 to mile 98.6)1985.Task 9.
Table 4.Main channel and side channel salmon areas surveyed to date in the
lower reach of the Susitna River between RM 28.0 and 98.6,for 1985.
Other side channels have been observed to have fish but due to flow
conditions,spawning counts have not been possible.
SITE
Upper Cache Side Channel
Trapper Creek Side Channel
Lower Musher Side Channel
Birch Creek Side Channel
Sunset Side Channel
Goose East Side Channel
RIVER MILE
99.0
96.0
95.2
87.0
86.9
70.0
Summary of conclusions of work conducted in 1984 as reported in the Task 9
Technical memorandum June 1985.
1.Substantial numbers of chum salmon were observed to spawn in the lower
river side channel habitats.
2.Chum salmon spawn primarily in side channel areas influenced by ground
water upwelling or bank seepage.
3.Intragravel water temperatures in side channels influenced by ground
water upwelling are generally warmer and more stable in temperature than
is surface water.
4.Water surface elevations in side channels influenced by ground water
upwelling remain relatively constant over a wide range of mainstem flows
until breaching occurs.Low winter mainstem flows lower the water
surface elevations in side channel until the mainstem ice cover forms.
The surface water elevation then rises and stabilizes.
5.Substrate composition varies from site to site and within sites.Com-
position is predominantly large gravel (1.3")from the surface to approx--
imately 4 inches.Smaller gravel generally follows the larger gravel to
a depth of approximately 16 inches.Sand and silt are intermixed to
varying degrees throughout.(Substrate was not 1imiting to survival at
any redds examined.)
6.Weighted usable area (WUA)for spawning in most side channels peaked just
after the site flows became controlled by mainstem discharge and then
decreased as mainstem flows increased.Overall,the sites with higher
controlling discharges provided more WUA for chum salmon spawning over
time than did sites with lower controlling discharges.
7.The survival of incubating embryos was generally high during the incu-
bation period examined (August-January).Those side channel s subject to
dewatering had higher mortality than those that were not because of redd
desiccation and freezing.
8.Outmigrant trapping confirms the survival of chum salmon embryos through
emergence and the overwinter use of the habitat by rearing chinook,coho,
and sockeye juvenile salmon.
OPERATION PLAN
Susitna Aquatic Studies -Task 9
Chum Salmon Spawning and Passage Habitat Assessment
in Lower River Mainstem and Side Channel Habitats
I.Problem Statement
A.Scope
B.Objectives
C.Justification
II.Project Narrative
,""""'"A.Durationr
B.Location
c.Personnel
D.Assumptions
E.Procedures
F.Budget
G.Literature Cited
APPENDIX
-1-
I.Problem Statement
1.Adult Salmon
Approximately 5,000 salmon (predominantly chum)were di scovered spawni ng in
lower river mainstem side channel and slough habitats during 1984 (Barrett et
al.1985).The Alaska Power Authority,funding agency of the Susitna Aquatic
Studies,has proposed that the Department of Fish and Game ascertain if
observations of this magnitude were the result of an above normal 1984 escape-
ment or if these habitats are used consistently but undiscovered in previous
years.Basel ine data to characterize this spawning habitat.had not been
collected;and because of the large number of fish utilizing this habitat,and
its proximity to the impacted middle reach,a reconnaissance study of spawning
habitat is underway.
2.Juvenile Salmon
Trapping of outmigrant juvenile salmon at Talkeetna Station has proven that
substantial numbers of 0+juvenile salmon outmigrate from the middle river.
The life history of these juvenile salmon after they pass Talkeetna Station
(e.g.,do they overwinter downstream or migrate to the estuary?)is uncertain.
In the spring of 1985,1,556 1+juvenile salmon were caught when leaving
Trapper Creek side channel where they all egedl y overwi ntered.Severa 1 of
these fish had been coded wire tagged as 0+in the middle river the previous
~spring.The Alaska Power Authority has proposed that the Department of Fish
and Game undertake a reconnaissance 1evel study to determine the timing,
species composition,age class,and relative abundance of juvenile salmon
entering Trapper Creek side channel to overwinter.
A.Scope:
This task will determine the timing,location,and abundance of adult chum
salmon spawning in the side channel and mainstem habitats of the lower river.
The effects of temperature on spawning will be monitored by monitoring the
ground water temperature at selected sites until the mainstem ice cover forms
and the ground water flow stabilizes for the winter.
Potential passage and incubation problems will be identified through the
correlation of mainstem discharge to side channel ground water flow.
The timing and abundance of juvenile salmon migrating into Trapper Creek side
channe 1 to overwi nter wi 11 be determi ned by capturi ng i nmi grati ng and out-
migrating fry during the fall until the numbers of fish caught substantially
fall off.
B.Objectives:
1.Estimate the number of adult salmon spawning in mainstem and side channel
habitats of the lower Susitna River between RM 28.0 and RM 98.6 (Yentna
River confluence and the Talkeetna/Chulitna river confluence).
-2-
~,
I
2.Monitor the inmigration and the outmigration of juvenile salmon to
Trapper Creek side channel to ascertain the use of this side channel by
outmigrating middle river juvenile salmon as overwintering habitat.
3.Evaluate passage conditions for adult salmon in those side channel
habitats i dentifi ed from surveys to support rel ati vely 1arge numbers
("100)of spawners.
C.Justification:
There is no baseline data base for spawning habitat in the side channel and
mainstem habitats where substantial numbers of salmon were observed spawning
in 1984;and in Trapper Creek side channel for juvenile salmon which were
observed to have allegedly overwintered there.
II.Project Narrative
A.Duration:(1985)
Task 9 begins with the spawning surveys in mid-August.The surveys continue
through approximately October 15.
Temperature data is collected from selected side channels until the mainstem
ice cover is formed and the ground water flow in the side channels stabilize.
The passage assessment begins when the side channels are no longer breached
and will continue through mainstem discharge increments of approximately 5,000
cfs until passage is no longer possible.
Water surface elevations will be obtained from selected side channels from
when the side channels are no longer breached until a solid ice cover is
formed on the mainstem.
Juvenile salmon inmigration and outmigration will be monitored at one side
channel (Trapper Creek)beginning in mid-September and until migrations have
substantially decreased.
This task is "presently funded for one year only (FY 86).
B.Location:
Side channel,slough and mainstem habitats of the lower reach of the Susitna
River.For this task,the lower reach of the Susitna River is characterized
as extending from the Yentna River confluence (RM 28.0)to the Talkeetna/Chu-
litna river confluence (RM 98.6).
The trapping of inmigrant and outmigrant juvenile salmon is being conducted at
Trapper Creek side channel (RM 91.6).This side channel is logistically
accessible;was not observed to totally freeze over during the winter of
1984-85;and was discovered to contain a sizable number (1,556 captured)of
overwintering juvenile salmon in the spring of 1985.
-3-
C.Personnel:
1.Project Leader:Larry Bartlett,FB III
2.Task Manager:Tim Quane,FB II
3.Field Crew:Jeff Bigler,FB I
4.Field Crew:Jeff Blakely,FB I
D.Assumptions:
1.Chum salmon util ize lower river side channel and mainstem habitats for
spawning and their presence in 1984 was not the result of an above
average escapement.
2.Changes in seasonal with-project mainstem flows may affect the ground
water contribution and water surface elevations in side channel habitats.
This may result in impacts on passage,spawning,incubation,and over-
winter rearing.
3.Lower river side channels are important overwinter rearing habitat for
juvenile salmon.Juvenile salmon from upstream habitats enter the side
channels (which offer suitable habitat)in September and October to
overwi nter.
E.Procedures:
1.Spawning Surveys -Mainstem and side channel habitats between RM 28.0 and
RM 98.6 will be surveyed for adult salmon spawning from mid-August
through mid-October.These spawning surveys will include both aerial
counts and foot counts.The reach of river extending from RM 28.0 to RM
98.7 will be divided into three sub-reaches identified as follows:
Sub-reach 1:
Sub-reach 2:
Sub-reach 3:
RM 28 -Willow Creek
Willow Creek -Montana Creek
Montana Creek -Chulitna Confluence
Aerial Survey:Adult salmon will be enumerated by absolute count from a
hover;ng he 1;copter.The aeri a1 count wi 11 be performed on one day for
the reach of Susitna River from RM 28.0 to RM 98.6 and will be repeated
following a minimum of 7-9 days (chum salmon streamlife in the Susitna
River has been estimated to be 7 days;Barrett et ale 1984).
Foot Survey:Immediately following the aerial count,foot surveys will
be conducted on sub-reaches 1-3.One day wi 11 be expended for foot
surveys for each sub-reach.Foot surveys will include a count of live
and dead salmon with carcasses being marked.
2.Temperature -Intragravel and surface water temperatures will be obtained
on a continuous basis using Omnidata two-channel recorders.These
recorders simultaneously record both surface and intragravel water
temperatures.
-4-
~.
!
3.Passage Evaluation -Passage reaches will be identified in the field by
locating areas where water depth is potentially limiting passage of adult
salmon into spawning areas.Passage reaches will be defined as areas
where the thalweg water depths are 0.5 feet or less based on the passage
criteria threshold for successful passage (Blakely et al.1985).At each
identified passage reach,a transect is established perpendicular to the
flow of water to represent the depth characteristics of the passage reach
and provide a consistent point of measurement.Representative transects
are established at the shallowest or most critical point of the passage
reach and marked with wood stakes and rebar headpins.The physical
habitat characteristics of individual passage reaches are defined by
measuring lengths,widths,and water depths,using the established
transect asa reference point.Passage reach lengths and widths are
measured wi th a fi bergl ass surveyor I s tape graduated in one-tenth foot
increments.A standard surveying rod is used to measure the thalweg
depth at each transect.~
Substrate conditions will be evaluated to determine the type of substrate
present at each passage reach.Substrate data are collected by visually
classifying the substrate present in the passage reach into the two
dominant size groups based on the substrate size classification system
presented in the following:
Table 1.Substrate size classification system used to evaluate substrate
conditions at lower river study sites.
SUBSTRATE TYPE SYMBOL SIZE CLASS
Silt SI Very Fines
Sand SA Fines
Small Gravel SG 1/4 -I"
Large Gravel LG 1"-3"
Rubble RU 3"- 5
11
Cobble CO 511
-10"
Boulder BO Greater than 10"
Passage reach data collected will include length,width,depth,and
substrate.These data will be summarized in table format for the physi-
cal conditions characterizing each passage reach.Site maps will be
developed from aerial photos to illustrate locations of passage reaches
at each site.A summary table of breaching flows will be developed for
each site incorporating any revisions made this year.
-5-
4.Water Surface Elevations -Water surface elevations will be evaluated in
the side channels in areas influenced by ground water and will be ob-
tained by staff gage measurements.Water surface elevations will also be
obtained in the mainstem in areas adjoining the side channel study sites.
These water surface elevations will also be obtained by staff gage
measurements except during periods of ice cover.During periods of ice
cover,water surface elevations will be obtained using the survey tech-
nique of differential leveling relative to a temporary bench mark.
5.Inmigrating and outmigrating juvenile salmon will be monitored in Trapper
Creek side channel on a daily basis.Juvenile salmon will be captured
with fyke nets and marked with a left ventral fin clip for inmigrating
fish and right ventral fin clip for outmigrating fish.The length and
species of each fish will be recorded,as will scale samples be obtained
for each speci es for each 1ength cl ass.Cold branded fi sh wi 11 be
recorded.Wire tagged fish will be preserved.
This task had no specific budget in FY 85.All effort was in conjunction with
other tasks.Costs are estimated as:
TASK 36 DATA PROCESSING ADMIN.SUPPORT
Line:100
19,500
300
2,500
-6-
100
5,000
300
600
I~
FY 86
Line 100 FB II 9mm 38.7
FB I 9mm 32.0
FB I 8mm 29.2
DPC II I 0.8mm 2.3
Li ne 200 Travel and Per Diem 1.0
Line 300 Contractual Services 17.0
Line 400 Commodities 8.0
Line 500 Equipment 0.0
TOTAL 128.2
G.Literature Cited:
Barrett,et al.1985.Adult Salmon Investigations:May-October 1984.
Susitna Aquatic Studies Program.Report No.6.Alaska Department of
Fish and Game,Anchorage,Alaska.
Blakely,et al.1985.Salmon Passage Validation Studies (August-October
1984).Susitna Aquatic Studies Program.Addendum to Report No.3,
Chapter 6.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Anchorage,Alaska.
-7-
APPENDIX
Table 1.Summary of chum salmon spawning observations in lower river sloughs
and side channels.
YEAR
1981
1984
1985
NUMBER FISH
72
3,600 -4,900
1,40al!
RIVER MILES
68.3 -97.0
57.0 -98.6
SURVEY PERIOD
9/2 -10/9
8/8 -9/10
1/This number represents the peak counts of chum salmon for the period of
8/8 -9/10.Total salmon observed from surveys for same period is 1,590
and includes chum,sockeye,and coho.
Table 2a.Summary of outl1ligrating juvenile salmon observations in lower river
side channel habitats April-May 1985.Task 9 Technical memorandum.
SPECIES
SIDE CHANNEL CHINOOK COHO SOCKEYE CHUM PINK
Trapper Creek 372 436 671*32 45
Sunset 2 4 0 165 2
Circular 310 143 36 131 1
Birch Creek 2 2 0 1 1
*Includes six 1+sockeye tagged as 0+in the middle river during the 1984
season;an estimated 250 additional sockeye were released uncounted.
Table 2b.Summary August-September of juveniles salmon observations in Trapper
Creek side channel.Task 9,1985.
INMIGRANT SPECIES
CHINOOK COHO SOCKEYE CHUM PINK
Total Fish Passing Inmi-240 373 118 2 0
grating Aug.26-Sept.11
Fish With Ventral Clipl!4 11 1 a a
Total Fish Passed Outmigra-80 114 16 0 1
ting Aug.29-Sept.11
Fish With Ventral CliP£!6 21 2 0 0
1/Fish were clipped when observed outmigrating.II Fish were clipped when captured inmigrating.
Table 3.Summary of lower Susitna River study sites to be evaluated for
passage c.onditions during the 1985 open water season.
STUDY SITE RIVER MILE SALMON UTILIZATION
Circular Side Chann 1}1!75.3 Chum
Sunset Side Channel-86.9 Chum
Birch Creek Side Channel 87.0 Chum,Sockeye,Coho
Birch Camp Area 88.5 Chum
Trapper Creek Side Channel 96.0 Chum,Sockeye,Coho
Upper Cache Side Channel 99.0 Chum,Sockeye,Coho
1.1 Turbid water has precluded an accurate count of fish in these side
channel.Field observations from 1984 have shown these side channel to
have over 100 chum salmon spawning.Present surveys have noted salmon in
Sunset Side Channel.
IIPPEI?CACHE SIDE CHANNEL
10
I
Figure 1.Side channel and slough habitats surveyed for spawning chum salmon
in the lower Susitna River (mfle 28 to mile 98.6)1985.Task 9.
Table 4.Main channel and side channel salmon areas surveyed to date in the
lower reach of the Susitna River between RM 28.0 and 98.6,for 1985.
Other side channels have been observed to have fish but due to flow
conditions,spawning counts have not been possible.
SITE
Upper Cache Side Channel
Trapper Creek Side Channel
Lower Musher Side Channel
Birch Creek Side Channel
Sunset Side Channel
Goose East-Side Channel
RIVER MILE
99.0
96.0
95.2
87.0
86.9
70.0
8-5 Middle River Resident Fish Study
Project Title:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Middle River Resident Fish Monitoring;Susitna Aquatic
Studies Tasks 2 and 6
1.Task 2:Completion of FY 85 Task 34:Winter Studies of Resident and
Juvenile Anadromous Fish
2.Task 6:Middle River Resident Fish Monitoring
Task 2 Project Supervisor:
Task 6 Project Supervisor:
Task 2 and 6 Task Manager:
FY 86 Allocation:
Stephen Hale
Larry Bartlett
Richard Sundet
Task 2
Task 6
Task Manager Salary (w/benefits)
spent to Date:
Task 2
Task 6
Task Manager
Problem Statement:
0.8K (only Line 300 and 400)
67.0
51.6
0.4
30.0
17.2
Population and habitat characteristics of resident fish species in the Susitna
River below Devil Canyon are.It is anticipated resident fish will be affec-
ted by the proposed hydroelectric development on the Susitna River.
Objectives:
1.
2.
Define the seasonal distribution and relative abundance of resident fish
in the Susitna River between Cook Inlet and Devil Canyon.(Stated in the
1981 RSA.)
Characterize the seasonal habitat requirements of selected resident
species within the study area.(Stated in the 1981 RSA.)
3.Quanti fy the important habitat parameters assoc i ated with spawni ng and
rearing (growth)of resident fish species such as rainbow trout and
burbot;and measure fish density in these habitats to provide an estimate
of habitat quality.(Stated in the 1983 RSA.)
4.Describe the distribution and habitat associated with overwintering
,c-rainbow trout in the mainstem Susitna River below the Chulitna River
confluence.(Stated in the 1984 RSA.)
-1-
5.Estimate the response of rainbow trout overwintering habitat at selected
sites to hydraul ic changes duri ng the winter period (assumi I1g habitat
response parallels open channel hydraulics).(Stated in the 1984 RSA.)
6.Provide long-term baseline data on the distribution and abundance of
resident fish in the middle reach of the Susitna River.(Stated in the
1985 RSA.)
Overview of Methods:
Since 1982,sampling efforts have primarily focused on the middle river rather
than the lower river.Resident fish are collected primarily by boat electro-
fishing.In the middle river,most boat e1ectrofishing efforts has been at 13
index sites.In the lower river,less boat electrofishing has been expended
and these efforts have been focused at tributary mouths and several randomly
chosen mainstem sites.
Secondary gear types used are hook and line,baited trot1ines and hoop nets,
gill nets,and beach seines.In addition,resident fish catches at outmigrant
traps and fishwheels are recorded.Radio tags have been implanted in rainbow
trout,burbot,and Arctic grayling to monitor seasonal movements and document
spawning areas.
Conclusions to Date:
1.Resident fish relative abundance studies on the middle river show the
most important rainbow trout summer rearing tributaries are:Whiskers
Creek,Lane Creek,Fourth of July Creek,Indian River,and Portage Creek.
Arcti c gray1 i ng are found most often at Indi an River and Portage Creek
compared to other middle river areas.Round whitefish are found most
often above RM 136.7 compared to other areas.CPUE data show burbot are
more numerous in the lower than the middle Susitna River.
2.Modal gill raker counts show Coregonus pidschian is the species of the
humpback whitefish complex found in the Susitna River.This species
appears to be anadromous in the lower river.Anadromous Bering cisco
migrate into the Susitna River in September.
3.Rainbow trout and Arctic grayling move into middle river tributaries with
clear water in mid-May.Middle river Arctic grayling usually spawn in
late May and rainbow trout usually spawn in early June.Studies suggest
much of the middle river rainbow trout population originates from lakes
which drain into Fourth of JUly and Portage creeks.
Round whitefish and 10ngnose suckers use themainstem Susitna as well as
tributary mouths for spawning.Round whitefish spawn during mid-October
(freeze-up)and longnose suckers spawn during 1ate May to early June.
Lower river burbot spawn up to TRM 25.0 of the Deshka River.Burbot in
both reaches of river are bel i eved to use the mai nstem Susitna for
spawning.Burbot spawn during late January.Bering cisco spawn in
mid-October near RM 77 in the mainstem Susitna River.
-2-
4.Radio telemetry and CPUE data shows most middle river adult resident
species migrate into tributaries from the mainstem Susitna during the
spring for summer rearing;then begin to migrate back to the mainstem
during the fall for overwintering.Limited data shows similar behavior
occurs in the smaller,lower river east side tributaries.Burbot is one
species which is found primarily year-round in the mainstem Susitna.
Summer rearing rainbow trout show a close association with spawning
salmon.
5.Microhabitat suitabil ity criteria were generated in the summer of 1983
for adult rainbow trout,Arctic grayling,round whitefish,and longnose
sucker,and juvenile round whitefish in mainstem influenced areas of the
middle Susitna River.Microhabitat criteria were generated for rainbow
trout in middle river clear water tributaries.Turbidity appeared to
have the most effect on fish species distribution.Adult rainbow trout,
Arctic grayling,and round whitefish appear to avoid turbid Susitna water
(;>30 NTU'.Adult longnose suckers and juvenile round whitefish avoid
cl ear water (<.30 NTU).Rainbow trout in cl ear water tributari es pre-
ferred pools with velocities <0.5 fps and depths >2.0 ft.An abundance
of cover also appeared to be tied to rainbow distribution in clear water
tributaries.
6.Instantaneous survival rates calculated in 1983 for four middle river
species (however,burbot were pooled from the lower and middle rivers)
ranged from 33.3 percent for rainbow trout to 70.5 percent for burbot.
Data suggests the lower rainbow trout survival rate is due to high
overwintering and post-spawning mortalities.Also,overall rainbow trout
populations are low probably because of low reproduction and/or low egg
and juvenile survival.
7.Population estimates were generated for four adult resident species from
the middle Susitna River in 1984 using the Jolly-Seber model.The
population estimates of these species for the year 1983 are the follow-
ing:
Rainbow trout
Arcti c grayl i ng
Round whitefish
Longnose sucker
1,036
6,783
-7,264
7,613
Appendix A provides further information on the 1984 Jolly-Seber
population estimates.
8.Population estimates were generated in 1983 for rainbow trout in Fourth
of July Creek (RM 131.1,TRM 0.0-0.8:107 fish>150mm)and for burbot in
the mainstem Susitna River (RM's 138.9-140.1:15 fish )300mm).
9.Radio telemetry studies indicate lower river rainbow trout prefer to
overwinter under ice cover in side channels which have low to moderate
water velocities and depths.Radio telemetry studies also show middle
~river rainbow trout overwinter in areas usually downstream and within
-3-
four miles of the tributary where the fish was tagged.These areas are
characterized by no anchor ice and low to moderate water velocities.
After the middle river freeze over in mid-January,rainbow trout appear
to use surface ice as cover.
Recommendations:
1.Continue boat electrofishing at 16 middle river index sites to monitor
trends in relative abundance.Boat electrofishinghas proven to be the
most effective capture method for resident fish in mainstem Susitna
influenced areas.Biological information should also be collected from
captured resident fish.
2.Continue to capture fish by secondary gear methods such as gill netting
and baited traps to supplement boat electrofishing data.These data will
supplement inherent mark-recapture data problems generated from boat
electrofishing capture data such as fish avoiding the electric field and
low recaptures.
3.Continue the mark-and-recapture program to generate middle river popula-
ti on estimates.and to further define mi grati ona 1 patterns of sel ected
resident fish species.
4.Continue to make a yearly population estimate (in late July)for rainbow
trout in Fourth of July Creek as a long term index site.
5.Continue to collect habitat data of selected spawning resident fish to
further document their spawning locations,timing,and habitat character-
istics.
6.In 1986,coll ect habitat data to further defi ne the mi crohabitat suit-
ability criterias of selected middle river resident fish.
7.Continue to record adult resident fish catches in fishwheels and juvenile
fish catches in outmigrant traps to assist in evaluating trends in fish
populations.
Literature Cited:
Manly,B.F.J.1984.Obtaining confidence limits on parameters of the Jolly-
Seber model for capture-recapture data.Biometrics 40:749-758.
Ricker,W.E.1975.Computation and interpretation of biological statistics
of fish populations.Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
Bulletin 191.Ottawa,Canada.
Sundet,R.L.and S.D.Pechek.1985.Resident fish distribution and life
history in the Susitna River below Devil Canyon.Part 3 In:D.C.
Schmidt,S.S.Hale,and D.L.Crawford,editors.Resident and Juvenile
Anadromous Fish Investigations (May-October 1984).Susitna Aquatic
Studies Program.Report No.7.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Anchorage,Alaska.
-4-
APPENDIX A
The 1984 Jolly-Seber population estimates for middle river resident fish were
made using multiple-year data from four catch periods (1981-1984).Each catch
period was one year.The methodology behind the Llolly-Seber model is the
following:on time 1(1981),the fish were marked;on times 2(1982),3(1983),
and 4(1984),unmarked fish were recorded as well as recaptured fish from
previous years.The Jolly-Seber model can also be used when sampling is
longer than four catch periods.Therefore,in 1985,recaptured fish from
years 1981-1984 can be used.
Included is an excerpt from Sundet and Pechek (1985)on methods,results and
discussion of the Jolly-Seber population estimates done in 1984.
r1ethods
Population estimates were made of adult rainbow trout,Arctic grayling,round
whitefish,and longnose sucker populations in the middle river using the
multi pl e-year (1981-1984)tagging and recapture data.Si nce only adult fish
have been tagged,population estimates are applicable only for fish above 199
mm fork length.The Jolly-Seber and Bailey methods (Ricker 1975)were set up
on a commercial microcomputer spreadsheet program.The 95 percent confidence
interval for the Jolly-Seber population estimate was developed using the
method of Manly (1984).
The number of recaptures of each speci es was adjusted by the tag retenti on
rate for that species (Appendix A;Appendix Table 0-2).Floy anchor tag
retention rates were calculated in 1983 and 1984 for several resident fish
species.This was done by comparing the number of fish recaptured with tags
to the number of fish recaptured which showed a tag scar.Tag scars were not
recorded for fish captured in 1982 so actual tag retention rates are unavail-
able for that year.However,since retention rates are known for 1983 and
assuming there was 1ittle change in retention rates between years,1983
retention rates were applied to recaptures made in 1982.
Results and Discussion
Population estimates presented in Appendix Table 0-1 from the Jolly-Seber
method and Bailey's method must be considered tentative at this time.The
numbers of recaptures were low,leading to large confidence intervals on the
population estimates using the Jolly-Seber method.One of the main problems
was that there was a high mortality on the fish marked in 1981;hence the
recapture rate of these fish was low in comparison to 1982 and 1983.The high
mortality was caused by the use of gill nets in 1981;we changed in 1982 to
boat electrofishing as the primary capture method.Round whitefish are
particularly sensitive to gill nets;only one of the 48 fish marked in 1981
was ever recaptured.Because the Jolly-Seber method requi res three marking
periods,the 1981 data cannot be discarded from the estimate presented here.
However,we will be able to discard the 1981 data after the 1985 field season,
and use the 1982 to 1985 data.
Note that several of the confidence intervals (particularly in 1982,which was
affected by the 1981 mortality)are so wide as to be meaningless.The 1983
estimates,however,give a general idea of the magnitude of the populations.
We can conclude,for example,that it is unlikely that there are more than
15,000 Arctic grayling larger than 200 mm in the middle reach of the Susitna
River,and that the true number is closer to 7,000.A similar type of con-
clusion can be made for round whitefish and longnose suckers.
For the long term monitoring program,efforts will be redirected so that we
can get higher recapture rates and therefore better population estimates.
Appendix Table 0-1.Population estimates,using the Jolly-Seber and Bailey methods,for four species of resident fish in the middle river,
1981-84.
POPULATION ESTIMATES
FISH FISH RECAPTURES OF FISH MARKED AT
JOLLY-95%CONFIDE~CE
BAILEy b NEWLY CHECKED TOTAL
DATE SEBER a INTERVAL S.D.BAILEY c S.D.MARKED FOR MARKS 1981 1982 1983 RECAPTURES
Rainbow Trout
1981 NA -NA ---92 NA NA NA NA NA
1982 1,408 548 -6,661 1,450 1,148 NA -151 191 7 NA NA 7
1983 1,036 312 -29,667 NA -1,009 1,009 274 312 2 4 NA 6
1984 NA ---NA -NA 204 0 1 16 17
Total Recaptures NA NA 9 5 16 30
Arctic Gra~
1981 NA -NA -- -
49 NA NA NA NA NA
1982 2,866 783 -28,192 2,356 1,551 NA -400 425 6 NA NA 6
1983 6,783 4,070 -15,152 NA -5,787 2,329 765 911 3 30 NA 33
1984 NA ---NA -NA 563 1 9 34 44
Total Recaptures NA NA 10 39 34 83
Round Whitefish
1981 NA -NA ---48 NA NA NA NA NA
1982 9,529 -11 ,125 11,125 NA -720 787 0 NA NA 0
1983 7,264 4,829 -13,806 NA -6,204 2,006 1,079 1,172 1 50 NA 51
1984 NA - -
-NA -NA 642 0 14 55 69
Total Recaptures NA NA 1 64 55 120
Longnose Suckers
1981 NA -NA ---80 NA NA NA NA NA
1982 6,930 837 -261,062 8,602 6,922 NA -418 462 2 NA NA 2
1983 7,613 4,003 -20,439 NA -8,101 4,667 434 447 2 14 NA 16
1984 NA -- -
NA -NA 223 0 5 7 12
Total Recaptures NA NA 4 19 7 30
a PopUlation estimates made using 1981-84 data.b
c Population estimates made using 1981-83 data.
d Population estimates made using 1982-84 data.
See text for explanation.
NA =Not applicable.
S.D.=Standard deviation.
0-2
OPERATION PLAN FOR FY 86 TASK 6
MIDDLE RIVER RESIDENT FISH MONITORING
Prepared by Richard Sundet
September 1984
I.Problem Statement
A.Scope
B.Objective
C.Justification
II.Project Narrative
A.Duration
B.Location
C.Personnel
D.Assumptions
E.Procedures
F.Budget
G.Literature Cited
-1-
I.Problem Statement
Population and habitat characteristics of resident fish species in the Susitna
River below Devil Canyon are not well defined.It is anticipated these
populations will be affected by the proposed two-dam hydroelectric development
on the Susitna River.A monitoring program should be implemented to determine
what these effects are on resident fish populations.
A.Scope:
Resident fish will be captured in the middle Susitna River from mid-May to
mid-October primarily by boat electrofishing at 16 index sites.Using these
data,trends in relative abundance can then be made at these sites within the
year and between years.A mark-and-recapture program will continue so popula-
tion estimates can be generated and further information on fish movement
behavior can be learned.The population estimate will be done by the Jolly-
Seber model using multiple-year data.
B.Objective:
Provide long-term baseline data on the distribution and abundance of resident
fish in the middle Susitna River.
C.Justification:
Past hydroelectric projects have produced both positive and negative effects
on the nearby fisheries.The principal effects of the proposed Susitna dams
that are expected to impact resident fish populations are changes in turbidi-
ties,temperatures,and fluctuations in mainstem discharge.The most positive
post-proj ect effect expected may be a decrease in summer sediment load and
turbidity.This would likely manifest itself in the creation of more favor-
able resident fish rearing and spawning habitat for several resident fish
species.Also,with warmer winter temperatures and higher discharge,the
survival of some resident fish species could be expected to increase.
Negative effects of the proposed dams include an increase in water turbidity
during the winter and possibly rapid water fluctuations if power-peaking flows
were to occur.Although the mainstem Susitna River is the principal over-
wintering area of middle river resident fish,it is unknown what effect an
increase in winter turbidity would have on middle river resident fish distri-
bution.It is suspected that burbot and round whitefish spawning which
currently occurs in the mainstem may be affected.
In addition,fishing pressure will almost certainly increase likely causing
populations,and age and species composition of some resident fish species
(most likely rainbow trout and Arctic grayling)to change.
Selected reaches of the mainstem middle Susitna River have been monitored
during the summer for the past four years.Because various populations of
resident fish use the mainstem for some summer rearing and much overwintering,
a monitoring program should be implemented to provide a long-term index of the
abundance and distribution of resident fish populations that use the middle
river reach.
-2-
II.Project Narrative
A.Durati on:
1.From ice-out (mid-May)to freeze-up (mid-October).the resident fish crew
will boat electrofish at index sites twice per month.In 1986.sampling
will be conducted as in 1983 where sites were divided into cells.This
information will be used to generate microhabitat suitability criteria
and supplement the criterias developed in 1983.
2.Between mid-May and mid-October.sampling will also be done with second-
ary sampling gear such as gill nets whenever possible and appropriate.
This sampling will be done at Susitna influenced areas as well as at
selected sites in important tributaries.Gill nets will not be set when
large numbers of adult salmon are present.
3.A mark-and-recapture program using Floy anchor tags will be conducted on
selected species of adult resident fish from mid-May to mid-October.
Biological data of captured fish whether tagged or not will also be
recorded during this time period.
4.During late July.sampling will be done on lower Fourth of July Creek to
generate a population estimate of rainbow trout.
5.Between June 1 and September 15.sampling will be done in the mainstem
middle Susitna River to generate population estimates of burbot.
B.Location:
1.Sixteen middle river index sites will be sampled consistently during the
summer (Figure 1).These sites are composed of three major macrohabitats
infl uenced by the Susitna River.These macrohabitats are:mai nstem,
sloughs.and tributary mouths.Other middle river opportunistic sites
will be sampled by boat electrofishing and other gear methods during the
summer whenever possible and appropriate.These sites include Susitna
influenced areas as well as in important tributaries such as Portage
Creek.
2.A population estimate will be made for rainbow trout between tributary
river miles (TRM)0.0 and 0.8 of Fourth of July Creek.
3.Population estimates will be made for burbot during 1985 in five one mile
reaches of the mainstem middle Susitna River.These one mile reaches of
river will be within the following areas:RMls 98.5-110.0,110.0-120.0,
120.0-130.0,130.0-140.0,and 140.0-150.0.
C.Personnel:
The project supervisor will be Larry Bartlett (FB.III)and the task manager
will be Richard Sundet (FB II).A two man crew will conduct the resident fish
sampling program.Between mid-May and June 1,Richard Sundet and one seasonal
FB I will conduct sampling.Between June 1 and August 31.two FB lis will
continue the sampling program.After August 1.Richard Sundet and one FB I
will continue sampling until freeze-up.
-3-
SLOUGH SA
SUSITNA MAINSTEM
113.6
124.7
131.1
138.6
144.5
148.8
101.2
112.3
125.3
140.1
98.8 -99.6
115.3 -116.2
121.8 -122.8
137.3 -138.3
147.0 -148.0
150.1
SLOUGH 20
SUSITNA MAINSTEM -
WEST BANK
Site River Mile
Tributary Mouth Sites
Lane Creek
Skull Creek
Fourth of July Creek
Indian River
Jack Lon g Cree k
Portage Creek
Slough Sites
Whiskers Creek Slough -Mouth
Slough 6A
Slough 8A
Slough 20 -·Mouth
Mainstem Sites
Susitna Mainstem -East 8ank
Susitna Mainstem
Susitna Mainstem
Susitna Mainstem -west Bank
Susitna Mainstem
Susitna Mainstem -Eddy
SUSITNA MAINSTEM-
EAST BANK
Hi"e r
o 5 10
I I I
MILES
(Appro•.Scale)
Figure 1.Resident fish study sites on the Susitna River between
the Chulitna River confluence and Devil Canyon,1985.
Between June 1 and August 30,Richard Sundet will work on Task 2.
D.Assumptions:
1.Random mark-and-recapture effort.
2.Time does not affect recapture probabilities.
3.The population is closed geographically.
4.Population estimates limited to the older age classes of fish species are
due only to insufficient sample sizes of smaller fish.
5.There is a random mixing of tagged fish with non-tagged fish.
6.Mortalities,due to capture and tagging are insignificant.
7.There is little difference in behavior between tagged and untagged fish.
8.There is little variability in sampling effort.
F.Procedures:
During the open water period,a two man crew will collect samples of resident
fi sh on the Susitna River between the Chul itna River confluence and Devil
Canyon for habitat and relative abundance studies and a radio telemetry-
migrational study.River boats,fixed-wing aircraft,and helicopters will be
used for support.Sampling methods to be used in this study area include boat
and backback electrofishing,angling,trotlines,gill nets,and hoop nets.
The crew will operate out of a tent camp located on the Susitna River at Gold
Creek and at the ADF&G trailer at Talkeetna.
1.Habitat and Relative Abundance
Resident fish will be collected at Susitna mainstem,slough,and tributary
mouth sites primarily with a boat mounted electrofishing unit.In addition,
sampling will be done by secondary gear types in important tributaries.
Biological data (species,age,length,sex,and sexual maturity) will be
collected as outlined in ADF&G (1983a).Scales for age determination will be
taken from a representative sample of rainbow trout captured above the Chulit-
na River confluence.Scales will also be collected from spawning Arctic
grayling and round whitefish to determine ages of spawners for these species.
Survival rates will be calculated for rainbow trout above the Chulitna River
confluence as in 1983 and 1984 using catch and age data.These methods are
presented in Everhart et al.(1975).
The following habitat parameters will be collected at all resident fish
spawning sites:water temperatures,water depths,water velocities,conduc-
tivity,dissolved oxygen,pH,turbidity,and substrate composition.
-4-
·.
The mark-and-recapture program to generate popu1 ati on estimates and moni tor
the seasonal movements of adult resident fish will be continued.In 1981 and
1982,1,550 and 3,118 adult resident fish were F10y anchor tagged in the
Susitna River between Cook Inlet and Devil Canyon (ADF&G 1981,1983b).During
1983 and 1984,3,037 and 2,287 adult resident fish were tagged in the same
reach,respectively (Sundet and Wenger 1984;Sundet and Pechek 1985).Tagging
crews will attempt to tag on additional 3,000 resident fish during the 1985-
1986 field season.Tagging in 1985-1986 will be primarily conducted above the
Chulitna River confluence,however,fishwhee1 crews below the Chulitna River
confluence will also tag fish.
F10y anchor tags will be used to tag seven species of adult resident fish.
Species to be tagged are humpback whitefish,round whitefish,burbot,10ngnose
suckers,rainbow trout,Arctic grayling,and Dolly Varden.
All resident fish that appear healthy after capture and large enough to
accorrmodate a tag will be tagged.Burbot with a total length (Tl)greater
than 225 millimeters (mm)will be tagged and other resident species with fork
lengths (Fl)greater than 225 mm will be tagged.
F10y anchor tags will be inserted between the lateral line and the posterior
ray of the dorsal fin with a F10y tagging gun.
Tags will be recovered by the following means:
Resident fishery crew
The angling public will be requested to return recovered tags or report
the tag number to the nearest office of the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game with information regarding the location and date of catch,and if
the fi sh was released wi th the tag intact.The pub 1ic wi 11 be informed
of the tagging program by Su Hydro staff and posters placed in conspi-
cuous places frequented by anglers.
Adult Anadromous fishwhee1 operations
Population estimates will be made for rainbow trout,Arctic grayling,round
whitefish,and 10ngnose suckers greater than 225 mm in fork length in the
middle river using the Jolly-Seber model incorporating multiple-year (1981-
1985)tagging and recapture data.Population estimates will not be made for
other species because past year!s data show they are too infrequently cap-
tured.
Population estimates will be made for rainbow trout on Fourth of July Creek
using a behavioral model from a computer program called CAPTURE.This program
is described in Otis et a1.(1978)and White et a1.(1982).Population
estimates will be made for burbot in selected mainstem reaches of the Susitna
River by a multiple removal model.Rainbow trout will be captured by hook and
line and burbot will be captured by baited hoop nets and trot1ines.
-5-
2.Radio Telemetry
During May and June 1985,the resident fish crew will attempt to deploy the
remaining 30 radio tags left over from 1984 studies.
Approximately 15 internal and 8 external radio tags will be implanted in or
attached to,respectively,rainbow trout in the middle Susitna River for
spawning and migrational studies.The remaining seven external tags will be
attached to middle river Arctic grayling for the same studies.
The tagging crew will radio tag healthy adult resident fish collected within
the proposed study area.
Tags to be internally implanted in rainbow trout during the 1985 radio tele-
metry study are Advanced Telemetry System's Model 10-35.Advanced Telemetry
System's Model 625 external tag will be used to radio tag Arctic grayling and
advanced pre-spawning rainbow trout.
The same procedures to surgically implant radio tags in resident fish that
were described in Sundet and Wenger (1984)will be used in 1985.The external
tag will be attached using the same methods used as in 1984 (Sundet and Pechek
1985).Radio tagged fish will be monitored through the winter of 1985-86 or
until the batteries of their radio tags expire.In January,ground surveys
will be conducted at locations of still functioning radio tags to determine
the fate and habitat characteristics of the radio tagged fish.
F.Budget:
Task 2
Line 300 0.5
Line 400 0.3
TOTAL 0.8
Task 6
Line 100 29.5
Line 200 1.2
Line 300 20.7
line 400 15.6
Line 500 0.0
TOTAL 67.0
Task Managers Salary for Tasks 2 and 6:
Grand Total for Tasks 2 and 6
-6-
51.6
119.4
G.Literature Cited:
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G).1981.Resident fish investiga-
tion on the Lower Susitna River (November 1980-0ctober 1981).Susitna
Hydro Aquatic Studies.Phase 1 final draft report.Subtask 7.10.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Anchorage,Alaska.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G).1983a.Aquatic studies proce-
dures manual (1982-1983).Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.Phase 2.
Subtask 7.10.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Anchorage,Alaska.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G).1983b.Resident and juvenile
anadromous fish studies on the Susitna River below Devil Canyon,1982.
Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.Phase 2 basic data report.Volume 3 (l
of 2).Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Anchorage,Alaska.
Everhart,W.H.,A.W.Eupper,and W.O.Youngs.1975.Principles of fishery
science.Cornell University Press.London,United Kingdom.
Otis,D.L.,K.P.Burnham,G.C.White,and D.R.Anderson.1978.Wildlife
Monographs 62:1-135.
Sundet,R.L.and M.N.Wenger.1984.Resident fish distribution and popula-
tion dynamics in the Susitna River below Devil Canyon.Part 5 In:D.C .
.~.Schmidt,S.S.Hale,D.L.Crawford,and P.M.Suchanek,editors.Resident
and juvenile anadromous fish investigations (May-October 1983).Susitna
Hydro.Aquatic Studies.Report No.2.Alaska Department of Fish and
Game,Anchorage,Alaska.
Sundet,R.L.and S.D.Pechek.1985.Resident fish distribution and life
history in the Susitna River below Devil Canyon.Part 3 In:D.C.
Schmidt,S.S.Hale,and D.L.Crawford,editors.Resident and juvenile
anadromous fish investigations (May-October 1984).Susitna Aquatic
Studi es Program.Report No.7.Alaska Department of Fi sh and Game,
Anchorage,Alaska.
White,G.C.,D.R.Anderson,K.P.Burnham,and D.L.Otis.1982.Capture-
recapture and removal methods for sampling closed populations.Los
Alamos National Laboratory.Los Alamos,New Mexico,U.S.A.
-7-
B-6 Aquatic Habitat Monitoring
Project Title:Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow
Investigations.
project supervisors:C.Estes,D.Vincent-Lang,and D.
schmidt.
Problem Statement:The susitna River and its associated
riparian lands support diverse and abundant populations of
fish and wildlife resources which are of considerable
commercial,cultural,and recreational value to the people
of Alaska.The State of Alaska has proposed to build and
operate hydroelectric power generation facilities on the
susitna River.A prerequisete for such development is the
acquistion of a Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission
(FERC)license and other associated state and federal
permits.Integral to the acquistion of the license and
associated permits is consideration of the impacts the
development will have on the fish and wildlife resources of
the river and mitigative measures that can be taken to
alleviate these impacts.
The commonly accepted means for evaluating the impacts that
a proposed hydroelectric development will have on fish and
their associated aquatic resources in a river is to first
detemine the spatial and temporal distribution of fish
species according to their life phases within the various
aquatic habitats of the river to be impacted.Once this
information is obtained,the next step is to determine if
and how these utilized habitats are influenced by variations
in flow which would occur with the proposed hydroelectric
development and whether and how these changes would
influence the quality.and quantity of the habitat avaiable
to fish.
An advantange of evaluating habitat as opposed to fish
directly is that the amount of habitat available in a given
river can be modeled over a specified flow range.Because
the habitat can be modelled over a range of flows,an
quantitative assessment of flow-related changes can be made
and thereby of the potential impacts expected.Also,an
evaluation of the impact and mitigative potentials of
alternative flow regimes can be tested.
For these reasons,an assessment of the baseline habitat
conditions present in the Susitna River and their
relationship to flow was undertaken.Flow of the mainstem
river was chosen as an index for monitoring change of other
habitat variables as it was thought to be the variable that
was expected to change the greatest with construction and
operation of the proposed dams and was thought to influence,
to varying degrees,the other physical and water quality
habitat variables of importance to the fish species/life
stages that utilize the various habitats of the Susitna
River.
Habitat Project Objectives:
1.To define the aquatic habitat types available
to the anadromous and resident fish populations of
the Susitna River and rank them according to the
type and degree of impact expected.
2.To determine the seasonal utilization of the
defined aquatic habitat types by the fish
species/life stages that utilize them.
3.To describe the habitat conditions present in
each of the aquatic habitat types and determine
those which are limiting to selected critical fish
species/life stages that utilize them.
4.To select target species/life stages and
aquatic habitat types that will be impacted by the
proposed project for detailed evaluation.
5.To evaluate the habitat conditions present in
selected representative habitats of each target
aquatic habitat type and to determine the
relationship these habitat conditions have to
discharge of the Susitna River.
6.To extrapolate the result of the site-
specific representative habitat analysis to the
the remaining impacted river segement.
7.To determine,based on the site-specific and
extrapo1iation reSUlts,the impacts that are
expected to occur to fish and their habitats
reSUlting from construction and operation of the
proposed hydroelectric facilities.
8.To determine specific mitigation options
available to a1iveate expected impacts to fish and
their habitats.
Overview of past work and conclusions drawn to date:
1.Using a macrohabitat approach,the river segment thought
to be impacted by hydroelectric development was divided into
unique reaches depending on selected macrohabitat
characteristics such as channel morphology and gradient,
watershed characteristics,riparian habitat characteristics,
and the type and degree of impacts expected.Based on this
approach,three reaches were defined:
Lower Reach -This reach extends from the three
rivers confluence downstream to the estuary.The
river in this reach is typically mUltiple or
braided in nature and less confined within its
floodplain.Due to a lower reach gradient,lower
channel velocities and smaller,less-armoured
SUbstrates are present in the reach.Lesser
impacts were expected in this reach due to the
aleviating flows of the unimpacted Chulitna,
Talkeetna,and Yentna rivers.
Middle Reach -This reach extends from Devil
Canyon downstream to three rivers (Chultina,
Talkeetna,and Susitna Rivers)confluence.The
river in this reach is typically single or
multiple channel confined by less steep canyon
walls.It has a steep gradient which results in
high channel velocities and large well-armoured
substrates.Many peripheral-type habitat occur in
this reach.Significant impacts were expected to
occur in this reach as flows in this reach will
primarily be influenced by dam outflows.
u~per Reach -This reach extends from the Tyone
R1ver downstream to Devil Canyon.The river in
this reach is typically single channel and
confined by steep canyon walls.It has a
relatively steep gradient which results in high
channel velocities and large well-armoured
substrates.Significant impacts were expected in
this reach as the river will be changed from a
free-flowing (lotic-type)to lentic-type habitat.
Because the upper reach was expected to have impacts that
are not reconciable and because the lower reach was expected
to have impacts that were less than those of the middle
reach,the middle reach was selected for intial detailed
habitat investigations on a multi-year prioritization basis.
Habitat investigations were,however,conducted in the upper
and lower reaches.The investigations conducted in the
upper reach centered on quantifying the amount of habitat
that would be lost to inudation and thus would need to be
mitigated for.The investigations conducted in the lower
reach were similar to those conducted in the middle reach as
discuused below,but on a less detailed basis.
2.The aquatic habitat types that were present in each of
the reaches were then delineated based on selected
hydrological,hydraulic,and water quality characteristics
(i.e.,streamflow,temperature,channel gradient and
geometry,turbidity,substrate composition,etc.).
Hydrological and hydraulic characteristics were selected as
the basis for delineation as these were the characteristics
of these habitats which would most likely change with
construction and operation of the proposed hydroelectric
facilities.
Using this process,seven aquatic habitat types were defined
and ranked according to the degree of impact expected on the
habitat type (see attachment for a description of the
aquatic habitat types defined).These aquatic habitat
types,with the degree of physical and water quality impact
expected to occur,include:
.11"'-.
Mainstem -High degree of physical and water
quality impact.
Side Channel -High degree of physical and water
quality impact.
Side Slough -Moderately high degree of physical
and water quality impact.
Upland Slough -Moderate degree of physical and
water quality impact.
Tributary Mouth -Moderate degree of physical and
water quality impact.
Tributary -Impact only for those tributaries to
be impouned.
Lake -Impact only for those lakes to be
impounded.
3.Selected physical (discharge/flow,channel gradient and
geometry,substrate,ice,and upwelling)and water quality
(dissolved oxyg~n,conductivity,pH,turbidity,and surface
and intragravel temperature)variables were monitored in
each of the seven aquatic types to determine baseline
habitat conditions in each of the seven habitat types and
any relationship they may have to mainstem discharge.
4.The seasonal utilization of each of the seven aquatic
habitat types in each reach by anadromous and resident fish
species during each stage of their life cycle was then
determined.Important findings include:
Mainstem habitat -Little utilization by
anadromous species other than as a migrational
corridor,with the exception of eulachon and
Bering cisco which use it as their primary
spawning habitat.Supports limited chum and
sockeye salmon spawning and chinook and chum
rearing.Used primarily as an overwintering
habitat by resident fish although some use does
occur year-round (i.e.,burbot).
Side channel habitat -Moderate utilization by
chum,sockeye,and pink salmon for spawning and
incubation.High degree of utilization by
juvenile chinook salmon for summer rearing and
overwintering (if not dewatered).Moderate
utilization by resident fish for rearing and
overwintering.
Side slough habitat -Significant utilization by
chum and sockeye salmon for spawning,incubation,
and early rearing.Significant seasonal
utilization by juvenile chinook and coho salmon
for rearing and overwintering.Moderate
utilization by resident fish for rearing.
Upland slough habitat -Little utilization by
salmon for spawning.Significant utilization by
juvenile coho and sockeye salmon for rearing and
utilization.Moderate utilization by resident
fish as a rearing area.
Tributaax mouth habitat -Moderate utilization by
chum an pink salmon for spawning and incubation.
High seasonal degree of utilization by rearing
juvenile salmon during periods of high food
availability and outmigration.High degree of
utilization by rearing resident fish.
Tributary habitat -Very high utilization by
chinook,coho,chum,and pink salmon for spawning,
incubation,and rearing.High degree of
utilization by resident fish for spawning and
rearing.
5.Evaluation species and life phases were then selected
for those aquatic habitat types that were expected to be
impacted and that had significant fish utilization.
Selection of evaluation species was based on the occurance
of a species/life stage in a critically impacted habitat and
on the relative importance of a species in terms of its
economic,cultural,and recreational value.Selection of
target aquaitc habitat types was based on the degree of
physical and water quality impact expected and the degree of
utilization by the species/life phase of interest.
Species/life phases selected for evaluation in such critical
aquatic habitat types were:
Chum and sockeye salmon spawning and incubation in
side slough/side channel habitats.
Chum salmon spawning in tributary mouth habitats.
Chinook,chum,and coho salmon rearing in side
channel/side slough and upland slough habitats.
other species/life phases and habitats were also evaluated,
but because of limited time time,will not be discussed
here.These include chum,pink,and sockeye salmon rearing
in side and upland slough habitats,chum and sockeye salmon
spawning and incubation in mainstem habitats,resident fish
rearing in mainstem,side channel and side and upland slough
habitats,and eulachon and Bering cisco spawning in mainstem
habitats.The reader is referred to the SU Hydro report
series for information on these species/life phases and
habitat evaluations (see attached bibliography)•
6.Based on the baseline habitat data collected in support
s
of 3,important habitat variables for each of the evaluation
species/life stages in each of the critical habitat types
were then determined.The habitat variables determined to
be critical included:
Depth,velocity,substrate,and upwelling for chum
and sockeye salmon spawning in side slough/side
channel and tributary mouth habitats;
Upwelling,temperature,and substrate for chum and
sockeye salmon incubation in side slough/side
channel and tributary mouth habitats;and,
Velocity,cover/turbidity,and depth for chinook,
chum,and coho salmon rearing in side channel/side
slough and upland slough habitats.
7.Representative habitats in each of the critical aquatic
habitat types were then selected for detailed habitat
investigations.Selection of representative h~bitats was
based on the representativeness of particular habitats in
terms of their habitat characteristics and fish utilization
patterns.In general,representative sites selected for
study were those sites which had fish utilization by the
species/life phase of interest and which were representative
of other similar habitats,in terms of their habitat
characteristics,that had fish utilization by the
species/life phase of interest.The representative habitat
r"\types selected for detailed investigations in the middle
river reach based on these criteria were:
Chum and sockeye salmon spawning in side
slough/side channel habitats -Sloughs 8A,9,and
21 and Side Channels lOA,Lower and Upper 11,and
21.
Chum and sockeye salmon incubation in side
slough/side channel habitats -Side Sloughs 10,
11,and 21and Side Channels 10,Upper 11,and 21.
Chum salmon spawning in tributary mouth habitats -
Lane and Fourth of July Creek tributary mouths.
Chinook and chum salmon rearing in side
slough/side channel habitats -Side Sloughs 8,9,
21,and 22,and Whiskers Creek Side Slough and
Side Channels lOA,Lower 11,Upper 11,and 21.
Chinook and coho salmon rearing in upland slough
habitats -Upland Sloughs 5 and 6A.
8.Methods were then selected for use in evaluating the
representative habitat types.Selection of a method
depended on:
a.The abi1tiy of the method to describe the
response of the critical habitat variables at the
representative study sites to changes in discharge
of the river expected with construction and
operation of the hydroelectric facilities.
b.The abiltiy of the method to describe the
habitat responses of the target species/life
phases to changes in discharge of the mainstem
Susitna River.
Based on these criteria,the methods selected for use and
rationale for their selection were:
Chum and sockeye salmon spawning in side slough
and side channel habitats -u.s.Fish and wildlife
Service (USF&WS)Instream Flow Incremental
Methodology (IFIM)Physical Habitat simulation
Modelling (PHABSIM)methods (IFG 1980,Bovee
1982).USF&WS IFIM PHABSIM methods were selected
because:
-The method is a legally accepted means
of quantifying habitat changes as a
function of flow.
-The input variables into the models
which form the basis of this methodology
are the variables'which limit the
species/life phases under study,
-The method is able to predict the
incremental responses of habitat in
these habitat types in terms of the
limiting habitat variables to changes in
flow ranging from the current to
expected post-project flows,and
-The method provides the required
information about habitat changes over
time to allow an evaluation of project
impacts and mitigation options.
-For a detailed discussion of the
underlying assumptions in this
methodology refer to Vincent-Lang et aI,
1984 and Estes,1984.
Chum salmon incubation in side channel and side
slough habitats -Whitlock-Vibert Box methods.
-A'quantitative methodology such as IFIM
to assess the availabiltiy of incubation
habitat in terms of flow was not
available at the time of the stUdy.
-For this reason and monetary and
personnel restrictions,the assessment
of incubation habitat was limited to a
more qualitatively-based assessment of
7
incubating embyro development and
survival in terms of selected critical
habitat variables through the use of in
situ egg incubation chambers.These
methods,however,did not allow for a
quantitative assessment of the effects
of flow on the availabiltiy of
incubation habitat.For this reason,
only qualitative assessments could be
made.
Chum salmon spawning in tributary mouth habitats -
An adaptation of Washington methods (Collins 1972,
1974).washigton-type methods were selected as
the basis for analysis because:
-The USF&WS IFIM PHABSIM methods could
not be applied as the tributary mouth
habitats did not have fixed boundaries
and are thus not amenable to modelling
with the IFIM approach.
-An adaptation of the Washington
methodology was the most applicable
method available to estimate the
response of habitat as a function of
observed flow.Because the method is
not emprically predictive,evaluations
outside the observed flow range must be
extraploiated based on professional
jUdgement.For this reason,the method
could only be used to estimate expected
impacts but not to quantify them or to
evaluate flow related mitigative
measures quantitatively.
Chinook,chum,and coho salmon rearing in side
channel and side and upland slough habitats -
USF&WS IFIM PHABSIM methods and Schmidt et al
RJHAB methods (Schmidt et aI,1984).These
methods were selected for these analyses as:
-The USF&WS IFIM methods were selected
for analysis for the same reasons they
werecho~en for the chum and sockeye
spawning habitat assessment in side
sloughs and side channels as outlined
above.
-It was felt,however,that the IFIM
methods may not always accurately assess
rearing habitat in these habitat types
as rearing fish density may not be
solely a function of the factors
integral to the models which form the
basis for the method (i.e.,depth,
velocity,substrate cover may not be
sole limiting habitat variables).
Further,the IFIM methods do not
effectively model backwater ares with
little flow which appear to be utilized
by juvenile salmon ~or rearing
For these reasons and due to manpower
limitations,a more generalized approach
was also developed and applied to assess
rearing habitat changes as a function of
flow in these habitat types.This
method,called the RJHAB method,better
evaluated changes in habitat in terms of
large scale catastrophic hydraulic
events and the availability of cover in
terms of turbidity.These factors were
considered to be the dominant variables
influeing the quality of habitat for
rearing by chinook and coho salmon
juveniles.RJHAB models cannot,
however,simulate physical conditions
and therefore cannot be used to predict
habitat conditions outside the range of
flows evaluated,only extrapoliated.
Such predictive quantitative assessments
were made with the IFIM approach.
-For a detailed discussion of the
limitations of the RJHAB model and a
discussion of its comparision to USF&WS
IFIM methods see Schmidt et al (1984).
8.The representative habitats were then evaluated using
the respective methods described above to define the
responses of habitat in each representative habitat type in
terms of the critical habitat variables to changes in
discharge of the mainstem river.Important findings
include:
-The baseline amount of chum and sockeye salmon
spawning habitat in side slough and side channel
habitat types was found to be dependent on the
amount of upwelling surface area present at a
specific study habitat.Above this baseline,the
amount of habitat available was found to peak
near the breaching discharge of the specific study
habitat indicating,that up until breaching,the
amount of wetted surface area (i.e.,depth)
present in a site is the factor limiting the
amount of usable spawning habitat after which
velocity becomes limiting.Additionally,the
availability of the habitat in these habitat types
was found to be dependent on the accessabiltiy of
the habitat in the sites.Accessibility was found
to be a function of the depth at the study sites
which itself was found to be dependent on both the
specific channel geometry and discharge/site flow
characteristics of the sites.For details,refer
to Vincent-Lang et a1 (1984)and Sautner et
a1(1984).
-The amount of chum salmon spawning habitat in
tributary mouth habitats was found to be a
function of both the tributary flow and mainstem
discharge depending on the type on confluence the
tributary has with the mainstem river (i.e.,sheer
or non-sheer).At sheer type confluences,the
amount of available usable habitat generally
decreased with increasing mainstem discharge
regardless of tribuary flow,whereas at non-sheer
type confluences the amount of available usable
habitat incresed with both increasing mainstem and
tributary discharges.For details,refer to
Sandone et a1 (1984).
-The largest demonstrated cause of incubating
embyro mortality within side channel,side slough,
and tributary mouth habitats was found to be due
to dewatering and subsequent freezing of the
streambed.The effect was greatest in side
channels and least in side slough habitats and was
directly related to the presense or absence of
upwelling.Thus,the amount of incubation habitat
within these habitats appeared to be a function of
the amount of upwelling that persisted within the
habitats throughout the incubation period of the
embyros.Other factors that were also found to be
important included temperature of the upwelling
water source,the degree of upwelling present,and
the occurance of breaching winter flows.For
details,refer to Vining et a1 (1985).
-The amount of chinook salmon rearing habitat in
side slough and side channel habitats was modelled
for turbity levels above and below 30 NTU's as
turbidity appeared to be the major variable
influencing the distribution of juvenile chinook
salmon in these habitat types.In general,the
amount of available usable habitat in these
habitat types was greatest under turbid conditions
when the velocity was moderate.For this reason,
usable habitat in the modelled habitats peaked
just after the modelled study sites became
breached by the mainstem flow.The reason for
this appeared to be based in the use of turbidity
as suitable cover.Under low turbidity
conditions,the amount of usable habitat was found
to be dependent largely on the amount of object
cover present.Coho salmon did not appear to
utilize to any large extent the turbid-water
mainstem-inf1uenced side slough and side channel
habitats for rearing.
In contrast,upland slough habitats appeared to be
highly suitable habitat for coho salmon juvenile
rearing and less suitable habitat for chinook
/0
..~
salmon juvenile rearing.The reason for this is
that upland sloughs are typically clear and have
slow moving waters and object cover which are
preferred by coho salmon juveniles but not by
chinook salmon juveniles.The amount of coho
salmon rearing habitat in upland slough habitats
was found to be largely a function of the surface
area of those habitats.For details,refer to
Schmidt et al (1984).
9.The results of the ADF&G site-specific habitat
investigations are currently being extrapoliated by E.W.
Trihey and Associates,with the input of ADF&G,to the
overall set of habitats that the representative habitats
were intended to represent.The extrapoliation is
concentrating on the target species selected by the Alaska
Power Authority which are chum salmon spawning in side
channel and side slough habitats and chinook salmon rearing
in side channel habitats.Included in the extrapoliation
process is consideration of the relative utilization of
specific evaluated and non-evaluated habitats by the
species/life stages that utilize them and of the influence
the limiting habitat variables have on the utilization of
these habitats.Also considered is the relationship of
other life phases on the target life phase such as effects
of passage restrictions on spawning.
10.After the extrapoliation is completed,a detailed impact
assessment will be conducted by Harza-Ebasco to determine
specific impacts expected with specific discharge regimes of
the proposed hydroelectric facilities.
11.The results of the impact assessments will then be used
in conjunction with the aquatic habitat evaluations to
develope a mitigation plan to alliveate expected impacts.
12.Work similar to that discussed above for the middle
reach has also been initiated for the lower river reach.
This work is centering on describing the relationship that
juvenile salmon rearing habitat in lower river side channels
has to lower river discharge.Initial findinds show the
response of juvenile salmon habitat to changes in discharge
in the lower river to be generally the same as for the
middle river with the exception that after breaching,usable
habitat in side channels did not always fall as it did in
the middle river.The reason for this is likely tied to the
increses in surface area with increases in mainstem dischage
that are usable in terms of velocity.
Work is also progressing on evaluating the response of chum
salmon spawning and incubation habitat and juvenile sockeye
salmon overwintering habitat in lower river side channels to
changes in lower river discharge.Important findings to
date include:
-A significant population of spawning chum salmon
utilize lower river side channels for spawning and
1/
incubation.
-The availability of the habitat is a function of
mainstem discharge.The relationship of these
factors is currently being investigated.
-The success of incubating embyros in the side
channels is tied to the maintenance of upweeling
groundwater which appears to be related to
mainstem ice staging conditions.
-Significant juvenile sockeye salmon overwintering
may occur in selected lower river habitats.
The results of these site specific will also be
extrapoliated to the overall lower river using similar
approaches developed for the midle river.Based on the
results,an impact assessment will be conducted and
mitigation plan developed for the lower river.
I'd..
References cited:
Bovee,K.D.1982.A guide to stream habitat and analysis
using instream flow incremental methodology.Instream Flow
Information Paper No.12.Coop.Instream Flow Service
Group.USF&WS.Colorado.
collings,M.R.1972.A methodology for determing instream
flow requirements for fish.pp.72-86.In Proc.,Instream
Flow Methodology Workshop.Washington State Department of
Ecology,Olympia,Washington.
•1974.Generalization of spawning and rearing~d~i-s-ch~arges for several PAcific salmon species in western
Washington.u.s.Geological Service Open File Report.39
pp.
Estes,C.C.and D.S.Vincent-Lang,editors.Aquatic Habitat
and instream flow investigations,May-October 1983 (10
volumes:Chapters 1-10).Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.
Report No.3.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Anchorage,Alaska.
Estes,C.C.1984.Evaluation of methods for recommending
instream flows to support spawning by salmon.M.S.Thesis.
Washington State University,Pullman,WA.
Instream Flow Group (IFG).1980.The incremental approach
to the study of instrem flows.USF&WS.W/IFG-89W31.Fort
Collins,Colorado.
Sandone,G.,D.S.Vincent-Lang,and A.Hoffmann.1984.
Evaluation of chum salmon spawning habitat in selected
tributary mouth habitats on the middle Susitna River.
Chapter 8 in:C.C.Estes and D.S.Vincent-Lang,eds.
Aquatic Habitat and instream flow investigations,May-
October 1983.Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.Report No.3.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Anchorage,Alaska.
Sautner,J.,L.J.Vining,and L.A.Rundquist.1984.An
evaluation of passage conditions for adult salmon in sloughs
and side channels of the middle Susitna River.Chapter 6
in:C.C.Estes and D.S.Vincent-Lang,eds.Aquatic Habitat
and instream flow investigations,May-october 1983.Susitna
Hydro Aquatic Studies.Report No.3.Alaska Department of
Fish and Game,Anchorage,Alaska.
Schmidt,D.C.,S.S.Hale,D.L.Crawford,and P.Suchanek.
1984.Resident and juvenile anadromous fish investigations
(May-October 1983).Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.Report
No.2.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Anchorage,
Alaska.
Vincent-Lang,D.S.,A.Hoffmann,A.E.Bingham,C.C.Estes,
13
D.Hilliard,c.Steward,E.W.Trihey,and S.Crumley.1984.
An evaluation of chum and sockeye salmon spawning habitat in
sloughs and side channels of the middle Susitna River.
Chapter 7 in:C.C.Estes and D.S.Vincent-Lang,eds.
Aquatic Habitat and instream flow investigations,May-
October 1983.Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies.Report No.3.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Anchorage,Alaska.
Vining,L.J.,J.S.Blakely,and G.Freemann.1985.An
evaluation of the incubation life phase of chum salmon in
the middle Susitna River,Alaska.Volume 1 in:C.C.Estes,
J.Sautner,and D.S.Vincent-Lang,editors.winter aquatic
investigations (September 1983-May 1984).Susitna Aquatic
Studies Program.Report No.5.Alaska Department of Fish
and Game,Anchorage,Alaska.
14
8-7 Long Term Monitoring Strategies
·.
RESIDENT FISH LONG TERM MONITORING
Problem:
Hydroelectric development may alter the population struc-
tures of resident fish in the middle Susitna River reach.
Natural conditions are characterized by:
1.low,clear winter flows
2.high turbid summer flows'
With-project conditions will be characterized by:
l.
2.
3.
high,relatively turbid and warmer winter flows
delayed ice formation
lower and clearer summer flows
Objective:
Assess the positive and negative with-project effects to
resident fish populations in the Susitna River by comparing
these populations'densities and distributions from pre-to
wi th-project.
Procedures:
We propose a continuation of the basic procedures now in
place.The pre-project data will be compared to the post-
project data.Changes will be documented and reported.
The procedure for long term resident fish monitoring is
divided into:
Pre-project (natural conditions)
1.Below Devil Canyon
With-project
1.Below Devil Canyon
2.Impoundment
Pre-Project:
Below Devil Canyon
1.Continue to electrofish by boat at the 16 middle river
index sites to make pre-to with-project comparisons in
catch and CPUE.These sites are composed of three
major habitats and comparisons in resident fish catches
can also be made between macrohabitats.
2.Continue to use secondary gear types such as gill nets
and hook and line to supplement boat electrofishing
data.Also,continue to record fishwheel and out-
migrant resident fish catches.
3.Continue to collect biological data from resident fish
to observe for trends in age compositions.
4.Continue the mark-and-recapture program to generate
population estimates and determine migrational patterns
of selected resident fish species.Population esti-
mates will be made for adult rainbow trout,Arctic
grayling,burbot,round whitefish,and longnose sucker
in the middle river.Population estimates will also be
made separately for rainbow trout )150 rrml in Fourth of
L1uly Creek.
Fish movement data will be provided by analysis of tag
recoveries.Species that will be tagged are rainbow
trout,Arctic grayling,burbot,Dolly Varden,round and
humpback whitefish,and longnose suckers.
5.Every third year beginning in 1986,generate micro-
habitat suitability criteria curves to supplement
microhabitat data gathered during previous years.
With-Project:
A.Below Devil Canyon
1.Continue boat electrofishing at middle river index
sites and use of secondary gear types as described in
the with-project procedure.
2.Continue to collect biological data as described in the
with-project procedure.
3.Continue the mark-and-recapture program as described in
the with-project procedure.
4.The radio telemetry program should be re-instituted for
two years during construction and for at least three
years after construction to provide better movement
data on middle river rainbow trout,Arctic grayling,
and burbot.
5.Microhabitat suitability criteria for adult middle
river resident fish should be generated each year
during construction and for at least two years after
-constructi on to determine'how these fi sh have adapted
to with-project changes.
B.Impoundment
1.Re-institute the mark-and-recapture program during
construction and continue the program for at least two
years after construction to:
a)generate population estimates for Arctic grayling,
and
b)determine movement patterns of selected fish
species in the eight major clear water tribu-
taries.
Tagging and subsequent recapture of Arctic grayling
wi 11 also be done.in the upper reaches of Deadman
Creek.This area has a much greater frequency of large
Arctic grayl ing compared to other areas in the upper
Susitna drainage.One access proposal to the dam site
is the building of a road nearby upper Deadman Creek.
Because of easier access,fishing pressure is expected
to increase and thereby substantially alter the Arctic
grayling·population structure in the now "trophy ll
Arctic grayling area.
2.Continue to collect biological data from resident fish
to observe for trends in age structures.
3.Radio tag Arctic grayl ing for at least two years to
provide better information than gathered by tag recov-
eries on with-project Arctic grayling movement beha-
vi or.
Assumptions:
1.Random mark-and-recapture effort.
2.Time between sampling does not affect recapture proba-
bilities.
3.The population is closed geographically.
4.Gear efficiency varies with the size of fish.
5.There is a random mixing of tagged with non-tagged
fish.
6.Mortalities due to capture and tagging.are insignifi-
cant.
7.There is little difference in behavior between tagged
and untagged fish.
8.The variability in sampling remains constant within and
between years.
..
Recommendations:
1.With the expected increase in fishing pressure at
middle river and impoundment clear water tributaries,a
creel census program could possibly be instituted to
monitor the effects of fishing mortality on populations
and to provide biological data.This method may also
provide an alternative to sampling in the post-project
phase.
2.Data suggests much of the middle river rainbow trout
population originates from lakes draining into clear
water tributaries,and that there is a low existing
reproduction of rainbow trout in the middle river.In
several middle river lakes,there is known good spawn-
ing habitat.t~iddle river rainbow trout populations
may be enhanced by stocking existing lakes with access
to middle river tributaries that currently have no
rainbow trout.Also,suitable stockino lakes with
limited access to r1iddle river tributaries could be
altered to provide better access.This scheme may
ultimately increase the numbers of rainbow trout in the
middle river.
,-
MIDDLE RIVER LONG TERM WATER QUALITY PARAMETER
AND DISSOLVED GAS MONITORING PROGRAM
Problem:
Development and operation of the proposed hydroelectric
facilities on the Susitna River is expected to alter the
natural habitat conditions.Changes in water quality
conditions which influence habitat are expected to include
changes in downstream dissolved gas concentrations,turbid-
ity 1evel s,and water temperatures.Thi s task wi 11 impl e-
ment a long-term monitoring of these water qual ity param-
eters.
,Objecti ve:
To monitor selected water quality parameters (water tempera-
ture,dissolved gas concentrations,turbidity levels,
suspended sediments,dissolved oxygen,and pH)for the
development of a historical data base.
~1ethods =
1.Temperature
Surface water temperature will be monitored on a continuous
basis from May-October 1985 at the following locations:
SITE
Mainstem upstream of Parks Highway Bridge
Talkeetna Station
Curry Station
Fourth of July Creek
Mainstem downstream of Gold Creek Bridge
Indian River
LRX 53
Portage Creek
Mainstem downstream of Devil Canyon
Mainstem at Watana Dam Site
RM
86.6
103.0
120.7
131.1
135.8
138.6
140~1
148.8
150.1
184.2
HABITAT
Mainstem
~1ainstem
Mainstem
Tributary
Mainstem
Tributary
Mainstem
Tributary
~1a i nstem
Mainstem
Surface water temperatures will be obtained on a continuous
basis using Omnidata two channel datapod recorders.These
temperature recorders are capable of monitoring water
temperature simultaneously from each of the two channels.
Both channels will be used to monitor surface water tempera-
tures to ensure as complete a record as possible.In
addition to the datapod recorders,Ryan thermographs will be
installed as backup units in the event the datapod recorder
malfunctions.
2.Turbidity
Turbidity samples will be obtained on a daily,weekly,or
bi-monthly schedule from seven mainstem locations extending
from just upstream of the Parks Highway Bridge to Devil
Canyon at river mile 150.1.These sites are as follow:
SITE
Mainstem upstream of Parks Highway Bridge
Talkeetna Station
Curry Station
Mainstem upstream of Curry Station
Mainstem downstream of Gold Creek Bridge
Mainstem upstream of Portage Creek
Mainstem at Watana Dam Site
RM
86.2
103.0
120.7
120.9
135.8
149.4
184.2
SAMPLING
SCHEDULE
Weekly
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Bi-Monthly
Both 250 ml and two liter water samples will be obtained in
the field for turbidity analysis.Turbidity samples ob-
tained in 250 ml bottles will be analyzed in the field on a
HF Instruments ORT-15 turbidity meter according to instruc-
tions outlined in Appendix IX of the Phase I ADF&G Su Hydro
Aquatic Studies Procedure Manual (ADF&G 1981).The two
liter water samples will be returned to Anchorage within 24
hours for analysis by Northern Testing Laboratories,Inc.
All turbidity samples will be analyzed as Nephlometric
Turbidity Units (NTU).
3.Total Dissolved Gas Concentrations
Dissolved gas will also be monitored on a continuous basis
for the 1985 open water field season at four mainstem
locations restricted to the reach of river extending from
Curry Station (RM 120.7)to the proposed Watana Dam Site (RM
184.2).These sites are as follows:
SITE
Curry Station
Mainstem downstream of Gold Creek Bridge
Mainstem downstream of Devil Canyon
Mainstem at Watana Dam Site
RM
120.7
135.8
150.1
184.2
Total dissolved gas concentrations will be continuously
monitored using a Common Sensing model TGT-F tensionometer.
Long term monitor;ng of di ssol ved gas shoul d normally be
from May-October.The sites selected for installation are
areas of steep banks and well mixed mainstem water.
4.Dissolved Oxygen,pH,and Suspended and Settleable
Solids
The water quality parameters of dissolved oxygen,pH,and
suspended and settleable solids will be obtained on a weekly
basis from five mainstem locations with the exception of the
Watana Dam site sampling location where only dissolved
oxygen and pH will be obtained.These samples sites are as
follow:
SUSPENDED
AND
RIVER SETTLEABLE
SITE MILE D.O.pH SOLIDS
Mainstem upstream of Parks 86.2 X X X
Highway Bridge
Talkeetna Station 103.0 X X X
Mainstem upstream of Curry 120.9 X X X
Station
Mainstem downstream of Gold 135.8 X X X
Creek Bridge
Mainstem upstream of Portage 149.4 X X X
Creek
Mainstem at Watana Dam Site 184.2 X X
a.Dissolved Oxygen and pH
The water quality parameters of dissolved oxygen (D.O.)and
pH will be measured using a Hydrolab model 4041 portable
multiparameter meter using procedures outlined in the FY 84
ADF&G Procedures Manual (ADF&G 1984).Measurements will be
made on an instantaneous basis in areas considered to be
well mixed.
b.Suspended Solids and Settleable Solids
Water samples will be collected on a weekly basis at selec-
ted sites in areas observed as being well mixed.These
water samples will be obtained by submersing two one-liter
nalgene bottles simultaneously.These water samples will
provide ample water for analysis to be performed by Northern
Testing Laboratories,Inc.Both suspended solids and
settleable solids will be reported as mg/l.
Conclusions Drawn to Date:
Temperature
Surface water temperature recording at the seven mainstem
sites from upstream of the Parks Highway Bridge (RM 86.6)to
the Watana Dam site (RM 184.2)provide a good temperature
evaluation for that reach.Installation of temperature
recorders on the smolt traps has improved the continuity of
data collection needed at those sites.
Water temperature data are retrieved from the datapod
temperature recorders as six-hour minimum,mean,and maximum
temperatures.These six-hour bases are edited and corrected
for storage errors and anomalous data.From these corrected
data bases,the daily and monthly mean,minimum,and maximum
temperatures are calculated and reported in tables and
plots.Examples of these tables and plots are presented in
Attachments 1 and 2.
Turbidity
Turbidity has been measured in the field daily at four
sites;by Northern Testing Laboratories,Inc.and ADF&G
weekly at four sites and bi-monthly at one site.The data
will be put in table form for comparison and plotted against
time and/or mainstem discharge.No conclusions have been
derived to date.
Total Dissolved Gas
Dissolved gas is being measured at four mainstem sites from
RM 120.7 to 184.6.These sites appear adequate to describe
changes in dissolved gas within this reach.After a data
base is established (possibly by November 1986)at these
sites,one or more of the sites may need to be moved to
evaluate a longer reach.Tables and plots will be made to
include total dissolved gas,dissolved oxygen,time and
mainstem discharge at Gold Creek.
Data collected in 1982 by Dr.Dana Schmidt indicates that
total dissolved gas concentrations greater than 100 percent
occur naturally in Devil Canyon and decay at a steady rate
downstream approximately as far as Gold Creek.
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
This parameter is being measured weekly at six mainstem
sites from RM 86.2 to 184.2.These sites are adequate but
sampling should be more often so a wider range of mainstem
discharges could be encompassed.In addition to being
analyzed with total dissolved gas,monthly averages will be
tabulated and plotted.
Suspended Solids and Settleable Solids
Suspended solids and settleable solids are being measured
from samples collected at five mainstem sites from RM 86.6
to 149.4.These samples are processed by a lab in Anchor-
age.This arrangement has worked well.These data and the
turbidity of the samples will be tabulated and plotted with
time and/or mainstem discharge.
Recommendations:
1.Surface Water Temperature
a.To establish a historical data base for the reach from
Talkeetna to Watana,the six mainstem sites should be
continued at least two more years.
b.Temperature sites at the smolt traps should continue as
long as the traps are used.
c.If temperature needs to be described for the reach
below Talkeetna,sites should be chosen for that
purpose.
2.Turbidity
a.Past turbidity data and this years should be carefully
examined to determine whether daily sampling is useful
and whether field methods are adequate.
~.
(
3.Total Dissolved Gas
Recommendation should await the input of more data.
4.Dissolved Oxygen,pH,Settleable Solids,Suspended
Solids
These parameters should continue to be sampled weekly at the
present sites for at least two more years to establish a
data base.Sampling of these parameters should be done more
often if manpower and funding allow.
DIVISION OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
SUSITNA AQUATIC STUDIES
Proposal Of
LONG TERM MONITORING STRATEGY
For
WATER QUALITY AND DISSOLVED GAS MONITORING
October 1985
Project Title:Middle River Long-Term Water Quality Parameter and Dis-
solved Gas Monitoring Program
Project Supervisor:Larry Bartlett
Task Manager:Tim Quane
Budget:
Allocated Spent To Date
Line 100 80.0 25.0
Line 200 0.5 0.2
Line 300 8.5 1.0
Line 400 11.0 4.0
Line 500 0.0 0.0
TOTAL 100.0 30.2
Problem Statement:
Develop and operation of the proposed hydroelectric facilities on the Susitna
River is expected to alter the natural habitat conditions currently util ized
by fish in the various aquatic habitat types present.Changes in water
quality conditions which influence habitat are expected to include changes in
downstream dissolved gas concentrations!turbidity levels!and water tempera-
tures.This task will implement a long-term monitoring of these water quality
parameters.The data collected can be used on the short-term basis for impact
and mitigation analyses and for developing a historical data base.On a
long-term basis!the data collected can be used to ensure the project is
operated under licensed guidelines.
Objective:
To monitor selected water quality parameters (water temperature!dissolved gas
concentrations!turbidity levels!suspended sediments!dissolved oxygen,and
pH)over a short-term basis for use in impact and mitigation assessments and
over a long-term basis for the development of a historical data base.
Overview of Methods:
1.Temperature
Surface water temperature will be monitored on a continuous basis from May-
October 1985 as the following locations:
-1-
SITE RM HABITAT
Flathorn West Channel 22.4 Mainstem
Flathorn East Channel 25.1 Mainstem
Mainstem upstream of Parks Highway Bridge 86.6 Mainstem
Talkeetna Station 103.0 Mainstem
Curry Station 120.7 Mainstem
Fourth of July Creek 131.1 Tributary
Mainstem downstream of Gold Creek Bridge 135.8 Mainstem
Indian River 138.6 Tributary
LRX 53 140.1 Mainstem
Portage Creek 148.8 Tributary
Mainstem downstream of Devil Canyon 150.1 r~ainstem
Mainstem at Watana Dam Site 184.2 Mainstem
Surface water temperatures will be obtained on a continuous basis using
Omni data two channel data pod recorders.These temperature recorders are
capable of monitoring water temperature simultaneously from each of the two
channels.Both channels will be used to monitor surface water temperatures to
ensure as complete a record as possible.In addition to the datapod record-
ers,Ryan thermographs will be installed as backup units in the event the
datapod recorder malfunctions.
2.Turbidity
Turbidity samples will be obtained on both a daily and weekly schedule from
seven mainstem locations extending from Flathorn Station (RM 22.4)to Devil
Canyon at river mile 150.1.These sites are as follow:
SITE
Flathorn West Channel
Flathorn East Channel
Mainstem upstream of Parks Highway Bridge
Talkeetna Station
Curry Station
Mainstem upstream of Curry Station
Mainstem downstream of Gold Creek Bridge
Mainstem upstream of Portage Creek
Mainstem at Watana Dam Site
-2-
RM
22.4
25.1
86.2
103.0
120.7
120.9
135.8
149.4
184.2
SAMPLING
SCHEDULE
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Daily
Da ily
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Bi-Monthly
Both 250 m1 and two liter water samples will be obtained in the field for
turbidity analysis.Turbidity samples obtained in 250 m1 bottles will be
analyzed in the field on a HF Instruments DRT-15 turbidity meter according to
instructions outlined in Appendix IX of the Phase I ADF&G Su Hydro Aquatic
Studies Procedure Manual (ADF&G 1981).The two liter water samples will be
returned to Anchorage within a 24 hour period for analysis by Northern Testing
Laboratories,Inc.All turbidity samples will be analyzed as Neph10metric
Turbidity Units (NTU).
3.Total Dissolved Gas Concentrations
Dissolved gas will also be monitored on a continuous basis for the 1985 open
water field season at four mainstem locations restricted to the reach of river
extending from Curry Station (RM 120.7)to the proposed Watana Dam Site (RM
184.2).These sites are as follows:
SITE
Curry Station
Mainstem downstream of Gold Creek Bridge
Mainstem downstream of Devil Canyon
Mainstem at Watana Dam Site
RM
120.7
135.8
150.1
184.2
Total dissolved gas concentrations will be continuously monitored using a
Common Sensing model TGT-F tensionometer.Time of installation for three of
these meters in 1985 is dependent on the purchase of the instrume~ts and the
time necessary to ensure their compatibility with Omnidata datapod recorders.
The fourth meter was installed at the Devil Canyon site on June 15,1985.
Long term monitoring of dissolved gas should normally be from May-October.
The sites selected for installation are areas of steep banks and well mixed
mainstem water.
4.Dissolved Oxygen,pH,and Suspended and Settleable Solids
The water quality parameters of dissolved oxygen,pH,and suspended and
settleable solids will be obtained on a weekly basis from five mainstem
locations with the exception of the Watana Dam site sampling location where
only dissolved oxygen and pH will be obtained.These samples sites are as
follow:
-3-
SUSPENDED AND
SITE RM D.O.pH SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
Mainstem upstream of Parks 86.2 X X X
Highway Bridge
Talkeetna Station 103.0 X X X
Mainstem upstream of Curry 120.9 X X X
Station
Mainstem downstream of Gold 135.8 X X X
Creek Bri dge
Mainstem upstream of Portage 149.4 X X X
Creek
Mainstem at Watana Dam Site 184.2 X X
a.Dissolved Oxygen and pH
The water quality parameters of dissolved oxygen (D.O.)and pH will be mea-
sured using a Hydrolab model 404·1 portable multiparameter meter using proce-
dures outl ined in the FY 84 ADF&G Procedures Manual (ADF&G 1984).Measure-
ments will be made on an instantaneous basis in areas considered to be well
mixed.
b.Suspended Solids and Settleable Solids
Water samples will be collected on a weekly basis at selected sites in areas
observed as being well mixed.These water samples will be obtained by sub-
mersing two one-liter nalgene bottles simultaneously.These water samples
will provide ample water for analysis to be performed by Northern Testing
Laboratories,Inc.Both suspended solids and settleable solids will be
reported as mg/l.
Conclusions Drawn to Date:
Temperature
Surface water temperature recording at the seven mainstem sites from upstream
of the Parks Highway Bridge (RM 86.6)to the Watana Dam site (RM 184.2)
provide a good temperature evaluation for that reach.The three temperature
sites from the mouth to Talkeetna do not adequately evaluate that reach.
Installation of temperature recorders on the smolt traps has improved the
continuity of data collection needed at those sites.
-4-
Water temperature data are retrieved from the datapod temperature recorders as
six-hour minimum,mean,and maximum temperatures.These six-hour bases are
edited and corrected for storage errors and anomalous data.From these
corrected data bases,the daily and monthly mean,minimum,and maximum temper-
atures are calculated and reported in tables and plots.Examples of these
tables and plots are presented in Attachments 1 and 2.
Turbidity
Turbidity has been measured in the field daily at four sites;by Northern
Testing Laboratories,Inc.and ADF&G weekly at four sites and bi-monthly at
one site.The data will be put in table form for comparison and plotted
against time and/or mainstem discharge.No conclusions have been derived to
date.
Total Dissolved Gas
Dissolved gas is being measured at four mainstem sites from RM 120.7 to 184.6.
These sites appear adequate to describe changes in dissolved gas within this
reach.After data base is established (possibly by November 1986)at these
sites,one or more of the sites may need to be moved to evaluate a longer
reach.Tables and plots will be made to include total dissolved gas,dis-
solved oxygen,time and mainstem discharge at Gold Creek.
Data collected in 1982 by Or.Dana Schmidt indicates that total dissolved gas
concentrations greater than 100 percent occur naturally in Devil Canyon and
decay at a steady rate downstream approximately as far as Gold Creek.
Dissolved Oxygen (0.0.)
This parameter is being measured weekly at six mainstem sites from RM 86.2 to
184.2.These sites are adequate but sampling should be more often so a wider
range of mainstem discharges could be encompassed.In addition to being
analyzed with total dissolved gas,monthly averages will be tabulated and
plotted.
Suspended Solids and Settleable Solids
Suspended solids and settleable solids are being measured from samples collec-
ted at five mainstem sites from RM 86.6 to 149.4.These samples are processed
by a lab in Anchorage.This arrangement has worked well.These data and the
turbidity of the samples will be tabulated and plotted with time and/or
mainstem discharge.
Recommendations:
1.Surface Water Temperature
a.To establish a historical data base for the reach from Talkeetna to
Watana~the six mainstem sites should be continued at least two more·
years.
-5-
b.Temperature sites at the smolt traps should continue as long as the traps
are used.
c.If temperature needs to be described for the reach below Talkeetna,sites
should be chosen for that purpose.
2.Turbi di ty
a.Past turbidity data and this years should be carefully examined to
determine whether daily sampling is useful and whether field methods are
adequate.
3.Total Dissolved Gas
Recommendation should await the input of more data.
4.Dissolved Oxygen,pH,Settleable Solids,Suspended Solids
These parameters should continue to be sampled weekly at the present sites for
at least two more years to establish a data base.Sampling of these param-
eters should be done more often if manpower and funding allow.
-6-
/-.,
i
ATTACHMENT 1
Datapod temperature recorder data summary:intragravel and surface water
temperatures (C)recorded at Fourth of July Creek -Site 3,RM 131.1,TRM 0.2.
OCTOBER 1984
INTRAGRAVEL SURFACE WATER
DATE MIN.MEAN MAX.MIN.MEAN MAX.
841010 2.0 2.6 1.8 2.4
841011 2.2 2.7 3.4 1.9 2.5 3.1
841012 2.1 2.6 3.2 1.9 2.4 3.0
841013 0.0 .9 2.6 1.2 2.4
841014 -0.2 .1 .6
841015 -0.3 0.0 .7
841016 -0.3 0.0 .4
841017 -0.3 -0.2 0.0
841018 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1
841019 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1
841020 -0.2 .1 .8
841021 .7 1.4 2.2
841022 1.0 1.4 2.0
841023 -0.2 .2 1.1
841024 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1
841025 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1
Monthly Value -0.3 3.4 1.2 3.1
---Data not available
19 -I ~M I rmEJl "l"TP4.m:n",n "";EL
18-
11-
16--U 15-
o_14-
12-'
o
11-
10-
Q::6-
W
l-5-
<{
~4
3
2
W 13-
Q::
::>
l-
<{
0:
W
0..9-
:E
W 8-
l-1-
I
MAY
1
JUNE
1
JULY
I
AUG
I
SEPT
I
OCT
I
NOV
Attachment 2.Mean daily surface water temperature recorded at Mainstem
Susitna River at Talkeetna Fishwheel Camp (RM 103.0)during
the 1984 open water season.
,
'"
DIVISION OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
SUSITNA AQUATIC STUDIES
Proposal Of
LONG TERM MONITORING STRATEGY
For
BENDIX SONAR EVALUATION
October 1985
~.r
Project Title:Evaluation of Long-Range,Side-Scan Sonar Counters as an
Alternative to Tag and Recapture Program
Project Supervisor:Larry Bartlett
Task Manager:Mike Thompson
FY 86 Allocation:
Approximately 20.0K in FY 85 carryover funds.
Spent To Date:None
Problem Statement:
Tag and recapture methods are currently used by ADF&G Su Hydro to estimate
adult salmon escapements in the Susitna River.Estimates obtained by this
method are extremely labor intensive and costly.For the development of a
long term monitoring program,it would be preferable to have a more cost-
effective method of enumerating adult salmon escapements.Hydroacoustic
techniques may provide this alternative.Recent developments in hydroacoustic
technology extend the effective counting range and negate the use of an
artifi ci al substrate,both of whi ch were problems encountered usi ng earl i er
model side scan sonar counters in the Susitna River.
Objective:
To evaluate the Bendix long range side scan sonar in the turbid Susitna River
as a possible cost effective alternative to tag and recapture programs.
Overview of Methods:
Two Bendix long range side scan sonars will be deployed off each bank near the
Parks Highway Bridge at approximately RM 83.These units will be operated
with a tag/recapture program at Sunshine Station (RM 80).The tag/recapture
escapement estimates will be used as a basis to judge the accuracy of the side
scan sonars.Two fishwheels will also be deployed,one near each sonar unit,
to provide species composition data to apportion the sonar counts.
Conclusions:
None.The experiment is scheduled for June 1986.
Recommendations:
The Bendi x sonar,although des i gned for salmon,has a 1imited range in the
Susitna River (approximately 120 feet).A BioSonicssonar should be used for
one season at the site to determine if mid-channel migration paths are used.
-1-
DIVISION OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
SUSITNA AQUATIC STUDIES
Proposal Of
LONG TERM MONITORING STRATEGY
For
RESIDENT FISH POPULATIONS
October 1985
Problem Statement:
Hydroelectric development is proposed for the Susitna River at Devil Canyon
(Rr1 152)and Watana Canyon (RM 184).With project changes in seasonal dis-
charge,temperature and turbidity are predicted to occur.These changes may
alter the population structures of resident fish.Pre-project (natural)
conditions are characterized by low winter flows and high summer flows.Under
pre-project conditions,resident fish characteristically overwinter in the
mainstem river and summer in the clear-water tributaries.With-project
conditions will be characterized by higher and warmer winter flows,with a
delay in ice formation,and lower summer flows.The resident fish populations
must be monitored under natural (pre-project)conditions for comparison
against with-project conditions.
Objective:
Assess the positive and negative with-project effects to resident fish popula-
tions in the Susitna River by comparing these populations'densities and
distributions from pre-to with-project.
Procedure:
To monitor the resident fish populations during pre-and with-project river
and impoundment area conditions,we propose a continuation of the basic
procedures that have been in place since the beginning of the project.The
pre-project baseline data will be compared to the with-project data to docu-
ment any changes in resident fish populations that are detected.
Pre-Project:
Below Devil Canyon
1.Continue to electrofish by boat at the 16 middle river index sites to
make pre-to with-project comparisons in catch and CPUE.These sites are
composed of three major habitats and comparisons in resident fish catches
can also be made between macrohabitats.
2.Continue to use secondary gear types such as gill nets and hook and line
to supplement boat electrofishing data.Also,continue to record fish-
wheel and outmigrant resident fish catches.
3.Continue to collect biological data from resident fish to observe for
trends in age compositions.
4.Continue the mark-and-recapture program to generate population estimates
and determine migrational patterns of selected resident fish species.
Population estimates will be made for adult rainbow trout,Arctic gray-
ling,burbot,round whitefish,and longnose sucker in the middle river.
Population estimates will also be made separately for rainbow trout '7150
mm in Fourth of July Creek.
-1-
Fish movement data will be provided by analysis of tag recoveries.
Species that will be tagged are rainbow trout,Arctic grayling,burbot,
Dolly Varden,round and humpback whitefish,and longnose suckers.
6.Every thi rd year begi nni ng in 1986,generate mi crohabitat suitabil i ty
criteria curves to supplement microhabitat data gathered during previous
years.
With-Project:
A.Below Devil Canyon
1.Continue boat electrofishing at middle river index sites and use of
secondary gear types as described in the with-project procedure.
2.Continue to collect biological data as described in the with-project
procedure.
3.Continue the mark-and-recapture program as described in the with-project
procedure.
4.The radio telemetry program should be re-instituted for two years during
construction and for at least three years after construction to provide
better movement data on middle river rainbow trout,Arctic grayling,and
burbot.
5.Microhabitat suitability criteria for adult middle river resident fish
should be generated each year during construction and for at least two
years after construction to determine how these fish have adapted to
with-project changes.
B.Impoundment
1.Re-institute the mark-and-recapture program during construction and
continue the program for at least two years after construction to gener-
ate population estimates for Arctic grayling,and determine movement
patterns of selected fish species in the eight major clear water tribu-
taries.
Tagging and subsequent recapture of Arctic grayling will also be done in
the upper reaches of Deadman Creek.This area has a much greater fre-
quency of large Arctic grayling compared to other areas in the upper
Susitna drainage.One access proposal to the dam site is the building of
a road nearby upper Deadman Creek.Because of easier access,fishing
pressure is expected to increase and thereby substantially alter the
Arctic grayling population structure in the now "trophy"Arctic grayling
area.
2.Continue to collect biological data from resident fish to observe for
trends in age structures.
-2-
3.Radio tag Arctic grayling for at least two years to provide better
information than gathered by tag recoveries on with-project Arctic
grayling movement behavior.
Assumptions:
1.Random mark-and-recapture effort.
2.Time does not affect recapture probabilities.
3.The population is closed geographically.
4.Population estimates limited to the older age classes of fish species due
only to insufficient sample sizes of smaller fish.
5.There is a random mixing of tagged with non-tagged fish.
6.Mortalities due to capture and tagging,are insignificant.
7.There is little difference in behavior between tagged and untagged fish.
8.There is little variability in sampling effort.
Recommendations:
1.With the expected increase in fishing pressure at middle river and
impoundment clear water tributaries,a creel census program could pos-
sibly be instituted to monitor the effects of fishing mortality on
populations and to provide biological data.This method may also provide
an alternative to sampling in the post-project phase.
2.Data suggests much of the middle river rainbow trout population origi-
nates from lakes draining into clear water tributaries,and that there is
a low existing reproduction of rainbow trout in the middle river.In
several middle river lakes,there is known good spawning habitat.Middle
river rainbow trout populations may be enhanced by stocking existing
lakes with access to middle river tributaries that currently have no
rainbow trout.Also,suitable stocking lakes with limited assess to
middle river tributaries could be altered to provide better access.This
scheme may ultimately increase the numbers of rainbow trout in the middle
river.
-3-
LONG TER~1 MONITORING ADULT AND JUVENILE SAL~10N
Problem:
Hydroelectric development has been proposed for the Susitna
River.A long term monitoring plan to monitor natural and
with-project variation in the numbers of salmon util izing
the middle river reach needs to be developed.
The design must be cost effective and fit within the overall
RSA appropriation of 1.1 to 1.5 million dollars.
Objective:
To develop a long term monitoring plan which will provide
the capability to detect hydroelectric development related
impacts to middle Susitna River reach.
Rationale:
1.Natural variation in pre-project adult escapement and
juvenile outmigration needs to be defined and quanti-
fied to detect with-project impacts.
2.Strategy suggests that natural variation can be detec-
ted by calculating a Survival ~1onitoring Index (SMI)
based on fry to adult ratios.
3.Plan requires the collection of CPUE at two points,a
"treatment"and a "con troll!.The objective is a
compa ri son ..•
,4.After several years monitoring natural variation,the
assumption is that any post dam (with-project)change
outside the natural variation would be a result of the
dam(sL
SUNSHINE STATION
(CaNTRaLl
STATION
a 10 20 30
I I I I
MILES
(Approl..Scale)
~.
f
The Plan:
Treatment:
1.Adult CPUE data from Curry (RM 120).
5 years data from this site.
2.Juvenile CPUE data from Talkeetna (RM 103)or
Curry.
4 years data from Talkeetna (Curry proposed to
facilitate logistics)
Control:
1.Adult CPUE data from Sunshine (RM 80).
5 years data from this site.
2.Juvenile CPUE data from near the Parks Highway
Bridge.
No data from this site.
Methods:
1.Adult CPUE from fishwheels.
2.Juvenile CPUE from incline plane traps.
a.stationary (bank)traps
b.mobile traps
1.cable suspended
2.powered sweep
3.powered horizontal
Calculations:
Adult to fry ratio based on CPUE index:
Outmi grant IndexFry/Adult Ratio =Inmigrant Index
Problem of how to calculate:
Adults:
,Period of fishwheel operation must span peaks of migration.
Convert CPUE to 24 hour CPUE and then sum over entire
season.
Juveniles:
The period of operation should also span the peaks of
ou tmi grat i on.
W
:J
a..
u
I~TRAPS OPERATING ~I
I I
1 r peak delayed I
,-,2 weeks I"\I I
1,-\
....JI
__year X
----year Y
However,we can1t be certain of operating the traps to
detect the peak outmigration every year.
a.climate changes timing
b.some juveniles outmigrate under the ice
c.mid-winter redistribution of juveniles is possible
Resolution of juvenile problems:
1.Select an empirically derived percentage of the peak 24
hour CPUE for the entire season.
2.Summarize all days when CPUE exceeds percentage.
Survival Monitoring Index (SMI):
Calculation of juvenile and adult annual indices would be
done for both the treatment and control populations.
Then,one number,the Survival Monitoring Index (SMI)would
be calculated by:
SMI =Fry/Adult Ratio for Treatment
Fry/Adult Ratio for Control
Will this method detect change?
Assumptions:
1.Sampl ing variance is the same for both the treatment
and the control.
2.Factors affecting annual natural variation work equally
on both ratios.
How a dam caused decrease in the treatment fry/adult ratio
and SMI would look:
t-,c-dom Jfdam
..J ,control:::>
0 ~~,!J)......\"",'""r ~I 'w'\,J ...'.../
a:::"treatment
I.L..
YEARS YEARS
Important Questions:
significant?
Large variances mean only large change (impact)could be
detected.
What percentage of change in the rati 0 is requi red before
change can be statistically detected?
Percentage could be calculated beforehand (Shipman et al.
1985)if the variance structure of the ratio is known.
Several years of data may be required before the variance
structure can be known.By then,if a large degree of vari-
ance between the years is evident,it is possible the model
will not accomplish its objective.
Assumptions:
The following are assumptions which to a greater or lesser
degree need to be valid for the SMI approach for detecting
impacts to work.
1.The control is a valid control.
2.Salmon stocks
portion of the
to the same
porti on of the
in the Talkeetna,Chulitna,and that
Susitna River in the control are subject
natural variability as the treatment
Susitna River.
3.The Cook Inlet commercial fishery does not selectively
fish for any stock or species migrating above Sunshine
Station (the control).
4.That adult fishwheel CPUE is mostly related to total
escapement regardless of the extent of milling.
5.The peak of juvenile outmigration for all species
occurs during the open water period.
6.Smolt trap and fishwheel efficiency remains constant.
For example,a change in the position of the fishwheels
as a result of with-project flows must not affect the
efficiency of the wheels.
7.The number of outmigrants are related to the number of
i nmi grants.
8.Any with-project change outside the natural variation
of the ratio would be a dam-caused effect.
Problems:
1.It is not very likely that the control.will be subject
to the same variability as the treatment.
a.The control (Sunshine)is not a true control
because it includes treatment effects.The
Talkeetna River may be a better control and should
be considered.
b.The treatment and the control experience different
and varying milling rates.
c.Gear efficiency varies with discharge.debris
loading.catch rates.etc.
2.Adult milling is not considered in the CPUE ratio
equation.
3.The peak migration of some species and age classes may
occur before it is physically possible to place outmi-
grant traps in the river (i.e .•under the ice or with
break-up).
4.The variance in the natural ratio may be so large it
will be impossible to detect a with-project effect
(until a catastrophic impact has occurred).Since work
on the diversion tunnel will begin in 19 this may
not have been enough years of pre-project data to
detect the full range of the natural variation.
·...•»
Options/Alternatives:
1.Time series analysis where the natural variability at
one site (Curry)is used for both the treatment and the
control.This method has a problem where several years
waul d pass before a change coul d be detected unl ess
projected physical parameters regimes were linked to an
index (survival,adult inmigration,juvenile outmigra-
tion)with a transfer function model.
2.Evaluate habitat for a specific life stage (for
example,incubation)in conjunction with the adult
inmigration and juvenile outmigration.
EVALUATION OF LONG-RANGE
SIDE-SCAN SONAR COUNTERS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO TAG
AND RECAPTURE PROGRAM
Problem:
Tag and recapture methods are currently used by ADF&G Su
Hydro to estimate adult salmon escapements in the Susitna
River.Estimates obtained by this method are·extremely
labor intensive and costly.For the development of a long
tenn monitoring program,it would be preferable to have a
more cost-effective method of enumerating adult salmon
escapements.Hydroacoustic techniques may provide this
alternative.Recent developments in hydroacoustic tech-
nology extend the effective counting range and negate the
use of an artificial substrate,both of which were problems
encountered using earlier model side scan sonar counters in
the Susitna River.
Objective:
To evaluate the Bendix long range side scan sonar in the
turbid Susitna River as a possible cost effective alterna-
tive to tag and recapture programs.
Methods:
Two Bendix long range side scan sonars will be deployed off
each bank near the Parks Highway Bridge at approximately RM
83.These units will be operated with a tag/recapture
program at Sunshi ne Stati on (RM 80).The tag/recapture
escapement estimates will be used as a basis to judge the
accuracy of the side scan sonars.Two fishwheels will also
be deployed,one near each sonar unit,to provide species
composition data to apportion the sonar counts.
Recommendations:
The Bendix sonar,although designed for salmon,has a
limited range in the Susitna River (approximately 120 feet).
A BioSonics sonar should be used for one season at the site
to determine if mid-channel migration paths are used.
~.
/'
I
PARKS HIGHWAY
SUNSHINE
TAG/RECAPTURE
ADF8G CAMP
CD FISHWHEEL
DIVISION OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
SUSITNA AQUATIC STUDIES
Proposal Of
LONG TERM MONITORING STRATEGY
For
ADULT AND JUVENILE SALMON
October 1985
Problem Statement:
Hydroelectric development has been proposed for the Susitna River at Devil and
Watana canyons.This development may impact the fish resources of the middle
reach.A long-term plan to monitor natural variability in the numbers of
salmon which utilize the middle reach needs to be developed.The design
should provide an accurate measure of variabil ity in Susitna River stocks
under natural conditi ons whi ch coul d ultimately be compared to vari abil ity
under with-project conditions.The monitoring design must be cost effective
in scope to fit the overall projected RSA appropriation of 1.1 to 1.5 million
dollars in FY 87.
This strategy introduces a conceptual approach on how this task might be
accomplished by monitoring the adult salmon inmigration and juvenile salmon
outmigration from the middle river reach.Some additional conceptual approach-
es which could be explored are also mentioned.
Objective:
To develop a long-term monitoring plan which will provide the capabil ity to
detect hydroelectric development related impacts to middle Susitna River reach
juvenil e salmon.
Rationale:
The basis of this proposal is that the natural variation in pre-project adult
escapement and juveni 1e outmi grati on needs to be defi ned and quantifi ed so
with-project impacts,if any,can be detected.With-project variation would
have to be "outside"the pre-project variation to label the variation "project
impact".This strategy suggests that pre-project variation can be detected by
calculating a Survival Monitoring Index (SMI)based on fry to adult ratios.
This plan would require the collection of CPUE data at two points,a "treat-
ment"and a "con trol".The objective is to monitor the SMI in the middle
reach of the Susitna River (the treatment)and compare it to the SMI of the
control.The ratio of the treatment to the control would be monitored for
several years under natural conditions.The assumption being,that any post
dam (i.e.,with-project)change in the ratio outside of the natural variation
would indicate a dam-caused effect.
Sampling Locations:(The Plan)
Treatment:
Adult salmon CPUE data for the treatment population would be collected with
fishwheels at Curry Station (RM 120).There already exists five years of
adult data at this location.Juvenile CPUE data would be collected at either
Curry or Talkeetna Station (RM 103).There exists four years of juvenile data
at Talkeetna.The rationale for proposing that the outmigrant data collection
be moved to Curry is simplicity of logistics.It is untested if the data from
Talkeetna would be comparable to that of Curry if past data were to be used.
Da ta shou 1d be collected at both poi nts for several seasons to tes t the
assumption they would be comparable.
-1-
Control:
Adult CPUE data for the control would be taken at Sunshine Station (RM 80)
with fishwheels.There exists five years of adult data from this site.The
juvenile data would be collected near the Parks Highway Bridge (RM 83)just
upstream from Sunshine Station where the river flows through a single channel.
Calculations:
A probable way of calculating fry to adult ratios is to base the ratio on a
CPUE index of the number of adult and juvenile salmon for the years in ques-
tion.The equation would be:
Fry/Adult Ratio =Outmigrant Index
Inmigrant Index
The only problem is to decide how to calculate this index and how to estimate
the variance.For adult salmon,the fishwheels are operating before the fish
arrive and continue operating until after virtually all of the fish have
passed by on their way upstream,so it is fairly easy to convert each day's
CPUE to a 24 hour CPUE and then sum over the entire season.The period when
the fishwheels are operating has been and should remain constant from year to
year.
Developing a CPUE index for juveniles poses some additional problems.Ideal-
ly,the period for which the outmigrant traps were operated would be constant
from year to year relative to the timing of outmigration (Figure 1).The peak
outmigration would have to be detected annually.This may not be possible
however,because cl imatic differences from year to year change the timing.
There is evidence that some fry outmigrate under the ice before the outmigrant
traps are placed.
LLJ
:J
a.
u
I-t-TRAPS OPERATI NG --+-1
I I
I r peak delayed I
/\2 weeks I
/\
I I
I,...\~
'-../
__year X
----year Y
Figure 1.Operating Period.
-2-
To resolve this problem,one might summarize the CPUE by adjusting to a 24
hour period,for all those days when the CPUE exceeds an empirically derived
percentage of the peak 24 hour CPUE for the entire season.This method would
result in a index that would be comparable from year to year provided that the
pre-or post-seasonoutmigration rates did not exceed the percentage selec-
ted.
After several years of data have been collected,the inter-annual variance of
either the adult on juvenile indicies could be estimated by using the variance
of the mean of several years of indicies.This may best be approached by
taking the mean of the index from 0-10 percent,11-20 percent,etc.of the
cumulative migration.Calculation of these adult and juvenile ;ndicies would
be done for both the treatment and the control populations;and then the one
number which would be calculated each year is:
Survival Monitoring Index =Fry/Adult Ratio for Treatment
Fry/Adult Ratio for Control
Wi 11 It Work?
Variance:
The ability to statistically detect a change is the basic goal of any monitor-
ing program.It is hoped that it will be possible to detect change in the
salmon populations of the middle Susitna River with this proposed methodology.
"
Variance arises from both natural processes and from sampling.We can prob-
ably assume that the sampling variance is the same for the treatment and the
control because similar methods will be used at both areas.We also have to
assume that the factors affecting year to year natural variation work equally
on both important ratios.
The survival monitoring index (SMI),which is the ratio of the fry/adult ratio
for the treatment to the fry/adult ratio for the control,is probably under
natural conditions somewhere around one because survival in the two areas
should be roughly equal.Let's assume for a moment that the dam did cause a
sUbstantial decrease in the fry/adult ratio for the treatment.The time
series plots of the fry/adult ratios and the SMI would look like this:
.....",dam ,(dam
...J ,control:::>
0 ~<t ,en......\I'1',...")-~I \,,,.\)..I \/
Q:"treatmentu..
YEARS YEARS
-3-
The questi on we woul d want to ask then is whether the drop in the SMIwas
significant.If the fry/adult ratios for the treatment and the control have
large variances,then only a large change over a long period of time in the
SMI will be statistically detectable.It is not possible to"cancel"these
large variances by dividing the two.So the question now is what percentage
change in the treatment/control ratio is required before a change can be
statistically detected?What this percentage is could easily be calculated
before the fact (Shipman et al.1985)if one knew the variance structure of
the ~atio.There is probably no good way to make this calculation until we
have several years of data.We will have to calculate the index for several
years and see how much it varies.If there is a large degree of variance
between the years,the model will probably not accomplish the objective.
Assumptions:
The following are assumptions which to a greater or lesser degree need to be
valid for the SMI approach for detecting impacts to work.
1.Salmon stocks in the Talkeetna,Chulitna,and that portion of the Susitna
River in the control are subject to the same natural variability as the
treatment portion of,the Susitna River.
2.The Cook Inlet commercial fishery does not selectively fish for any stock
or species migrating above Sunshine Station (the control).
3.That adult fishwheel CPUE is mostly related to total escapement regard-
less of the extent of milling.
4.The peak of juvenile outmigration for all species occurs during the open
water period.
5.Smolt trap and fishwheel efficiency remains constant.
6.A change in the position of the fishwheels as a result of with-project
flows will not adversely affect the efficiency of the wheels.
7.Any with-project change outside the natural variation of the ratio would
be a dam-caused effect.
Problems:
1.It is not very 1 ike ly that the control,wi 11 be subject to the same
variability as the treatment.
a.The control (Sunshine)is not a true control because it includes
treatment effects.The Talkeetna River may be a better control and
should be considered.
b.The treatment and the control experience different and varying
mi 11 i ng rates.
c.Gear efficiency varies with discharge,debris loading,catch rates,
etc.
-4-
2.Adult milling is not considered in the CPUE ratio equation.
3.The peak migration of chum and pink salmon may occur before it is physic-
ally possible to place outmigrant traps in the river (i.e.,under the ice
or with break-up).
4.The variance in the natural ratio may be so large it will be impossible
to detect a with-project effect (unti 1 a catastrophi c impact has oc-
curred).
Options/Alternatives:
1.Time series analysis where the natural variability at one site (Curry)is
used for both the treatment and the control.This method has a problem
where several years woul d pass before a change were detected unless
projected physical parameters regimes were linked to an index (survival,
adult inmigration,juvenile outmigration)with a transfer function model.
2.Evaluate habitat for a specific life stage (for example,incubation)in
conjunction with the adult inmigration and juvenile outmigration.
Literature Cited:
Shipman,J.,M.Bowen,and P.Kinner.1985 Natural variability in a 10ng-
term study and implications for impact monitoring.Abstracts for the
Eight Biennial International Estuarine Research Conference,July 29 to
August 2,1985,University of New Hampshire,Durham.
Acknowledgements:
To Dr.Dana Schmidt and Mr.Bruce Barrett for their conceptual thought and
planning.To Mr.Steve Hale for his statistical innovation and writing.To
Mr.Mike Thompson and Allen Bingham for their editorial comment and assist-
ance.
-5-