HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa7Alaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna‐Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
Adult salmon distribution and habitat utilization study
SuWa 7
Author(s) – Personal:
Author(s) – Corporate:
LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.
AEA‐identified category, if specified:
March 01, 2013 Filing
AEA‐identified series, if specified:
Series (ARLIS‐assigned report number):
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 7
Existing numbers on document:
Published by:
[Anchorage, Alaska : Alaska Energy Authority, 2013]
Date published:
January 31, 2013
Published for:
Alaska Energy Authority
Date or date range of report:
Volume and/or Part numbers:
Attachment A
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Draft
Document type:
Pagination:
xv, 139, [52] pages
Related work(s):
Distributed with this copy: Cover letter (SuWa 6), Attachments B-I
(SuWa 8-15).
This report is the same as SuWa 28 (which was distributed not as an
attachment to a cover letter).
This report is a revision of SuWa 91 (April 30, 2012). It was later
revised as SuWa 301 (February 2013). All versions have the same
title.
Pages added/changed by ARLIS:
Added cover letter
Notes:
All reports in the Susitna‐Watana Hydroelectric Project Document series include an ARLIS‐
produced cover page and an ARLIS‐assigned number for uniformity and citability. All reports
are posted online at http://www.arlis.org/resources/susitna‐watana/
March 1, 2013
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose
Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426
Re: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 14241-000;
Filing of 2012 Baseline Environmental and Resources Study Reports
Dear Secretary Bose:
As explained in its Pre-Application Document and Revised Study Plan (RSP) for
the proposed Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 14241 (Project),
the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) carried out numerous baseline environmental and
resources studies related to the proposed Project during the 2012 field season. Because
the 2012 studies occurred prior to the commencement of the study phase of the licensing
effort under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission) Integrated
Licensing Process, AEA was not required to complete these baseline studies. However,
AEA voluntarily undertook these studies for purposes of taking advantage of the 2012
field season to gather environmental data related to the proposed Project, and to help
inform the scope and methods of the licensing studies during 2013-14, as set forth in
AEA’s RSP.
As AEA has completed the study reports associated with these 2012 baseline
environmental and resources studies, it has made the study reports publicly available by
uploading them to the “Documents” page of its licensing website, http://www.susitna-
watanahydro.org/type/documents/. The purpose of this filing is to submit these study
reports to the Commission’s record for the above-referenced Project.
In particular, the following study reports are attached, all of which are relevant to
the Commission’s study plan determination scheduled for April 1, 2013:
• Attachment A: Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization Study
(January 2013)
• Attachment B: Synthesis of Existing Fish Population Data (February 2013)
• Attachment C: Mercury Assessment and Potential for Bioaccumulation
(February 2013)
2
• Attachment D: Technical Memorandum, Susitna River Large Woody Debris
Reconnaissance (March 2013)
• Attachment E: Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed
Susitna-Watana Dam (February 2013)
• Attachment F: Technical Memorandum, Reconnaissance Level Assessment of
Potential Channel Change in the Lower Susitna River Segment (February
2013)
• Attachment G: Stream Flow Assessment (February 2013)
• Attachment H: Development of Sediment-Transport Relationships and an
Initial Sediment Balance for the Middle and Lower Susitna River Segments
(February 2013)
• Attachment I: Technical Memorandum, Initial Geomorphic Reach
Delineation and Characterization, Middle and Lower Susitna River Segments
(February 2013)
As the remaining 2012 study reports are finalized, AEA will continue to update its
website and submit them to the record.
If you have questions concerning this submission, please contact me at
wdyok@aidea.org or (907) 771-3955.
Sincerely,
Wayne Dyok
Project Manager
Alaska Energy Authority
Attachments
cc: Distribution List (w/o Attachments)
Attachment A
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization Study (January 2013)
Draft 01/31/2013
Adult Salmon Distribution and
Habitat Utilization Study
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 14241)
Prepared for
Alaska Energy Authority
Prepared by
LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization Study
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 14241)
Draft Report
Michael R. Link, Bryan Nass, Jason J. Smith, Dave Robichaud, Sean Burril, Karl English, Steve
Crawford, Justin T. Priest, and Matthew J. Nemeth1
Prepared for:
Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
January 2013
1 LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., 2000 West International Airport Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99502
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page i AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................v
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. vii
List of Photos ..................................................................................................................................x
List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ xi
List of Acronyms and Scientific Labels .................................................................................... xii
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... xiii
Spawning Locations ......................................................................................................... xiii
Salmon Migration Above Devils Canyon ........................................................................ xiii
Salmon Migration Behavior ............................................................................................. xiv
Current and Historical Distribution and Habitat Use ....................................................... xiv
Effectiveness of Methods Used in 2012 and Recommendations for 2013–2014 ..............xv
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................1
2. Study Objectives.................................................................................................................2
3. Study Area ..........................................................................................................................3
3.1. Upper Susitna River ...........................................................................................4
3.2. Middle Susitna River .........................................................................................4
3.3. Lower Susitna River ..........................................................................................4
3.4. Fishes of the Susitna River ................................................................................5
4. Methods ...............................................................................................................................5
4.1. Deviations from Study Plan ...............................................................................6
4.2. Objective 1 – Capture, Tag and Track Fish in the Middle Susitna River ..........7
4.2.1. Fish Capture at Curry – Design and Operation ..................................7
4.2.2. Fish Tagging at Curry ........................................................................8
4.2.3. Diagnostics to Assess Effectiveness and Representativeness of
Catch and Tag Methods .....................................................................9
4.2.4. Tracking of Salmon to Describe Distribution and Migration
Behavior ...........................................................................................13
4.2.5. Telemetry Data Management ...........................................................16
4.3. Objective 2 – Salmon Migration Behavior and Spawning Locations in the
Lower, Middle, and Upper Susitna River ........................................................18
4.3.1. Middle and Lower River Tagging and Tracking ..............................18
4.3.2. Stock Classifications and Spawning Locations ................................19
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ii AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
4.3.3. Migration Behavior ..........................................................................20
4.4. Objective 3 – Feasibility of using Sonar to Detect Spawning Locations in
Turbid Water ....................................................................................................22
4.4.1. Deviations from Study Plan (Section 4.1) ........................................23
4.5. Objective 4 – Characterize Salmon Migration Behavior and Timing Above
Devils Canyon ..................................................................................................23
4.6. Objective 5 – Distribution Among Habitats: Current Versus Historic Use
and Relative Abundance ..................................................................................24
4.7. Objective 6 – Locate Individual and Holding and Spawning Salmon,
Collect Habitat Data in Lower and Middle River Consistent with HSC
Data Collection ................................................................................................24
4.7.1. Spawning and Holding Fish Identified .............................................24
4.7.2. Habitat Data Collection Consistent with Habitat Suitability
Criteria .............................................................................................24
4.8. Objective 7 – Effectiveness of Methods used in 2012 .....................................25
4.8.1. Capture and Tagging of Fish at Curry ..............................................26
4.8.2. Effectiveness of Radio Telemetry to Address Objectives ................26
5. Results ...............................................................................................................................26
5.1. Objective 1 – Fish Capture, Tagging, and Tracking in the Middle Susitna
River .................................................................................................................26
5.1.1. Fish Capture – Operation, Effort, and Catch ....................................26
5.1.2. Fish Tagging .....................................................................................28
5.1.3. Diagnostics – Effectiveness of Catch, Representation of Run .........29
5.1.4. Tracking of Tagged Salmon .............................................................33
5.2. Objective 2 – Migration Behavior and Spawning Locations in the Lower,
Middle, and Upper Susitna River.....................................................................34
5.2.1. Stock Classifications and Spawning Locations – Lower River .......35
5.2.2. Stock Classifications and Spawning Locations – Middle and
Upper River ......................................................................................36
5.2.3. Migration Behavior ..........................................................................39
5.3. Objective 3 – Feasibility of Sonar to Identify Spawning Locations in
Turbid Water ....................................................................................................41
5.4. Objective 4 – Characterize Salmon Migration Behavior and Timing Above
Devils Canyon ..................................................................................................42
5.4.1. Survey Effort ....................................................................................42
5.4.2. Species, Number, and Fate ...............................................................42
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iii AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
5.4.3. Migration Timing for Fish Passing Above Devils Canyon ..............43
5.4.4. Relative Abundance of Salmon Passing Above Devils Canyon ......44
5.4.5. Size of Chinook Salmon Tracked In and Above Devils Canyon .....44
5.5. Objective 5 – Distribution Among Habitats: Current Versus Historic Use
and Relative Abundance ..................................................................................44
5.6. Objective 6 – Locate Individual and Holding and Spawning Salmon,
Collect Habitat Data in Middle and Lower River Consistent with HSC
Data Collection ................................................................................................46
5.6.1. Habitat Data Collection ....................................................................47
5.7. Objective 7 – Effectiveness of 2012 Methods .................................................48
5.7.1. Capture and Tagging of Fish at Curry ..............................................48
5.7.2. Effectiveness of Radio Telemetry to Address Questions .................48
5.7.3. How Our Studies of Distribution and Categorization (e.g.,
Habitat Used) Affect 2013/2014 ......................................................49
6. Discussion..........................................................................................................................49
6.1. Fish Capture at Curry for Purpose of Marking Fish to Determine
Distribution of the Middle and Upper River Population(s) .............................49
6.1.1. Fishwheel Effectiveness ...................................................................49
6.1.2. Size Selectivity .................................................................................50
6.2. Migration Behavior and Spawning Locations of Salmon in the Lower,
Middle, and Upper Susitna River.....................................................................51
6.2.1. Lower River ......................................................................................51
6.2.2. Middle and Upper River ...................................................................51
6.2.3. Migration Behavior .......................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.3. Current Versus Historical Spawning Locations, Use of Habitat Types ...........51
6.4. Salmon Migration Above Devils Canyon ........................................................52
6.5. Ability to Detect Salmon in Clear and Turbid Water, and to Collect
Spawning Habitat Data in Turbid, Mainstem Water .......................................53
6.5.1. Sonar to Identify Spawning Locations in Turbid Water ..................53
6.6. Operational Lessons about the Effectiveness of Our Approaches in 2012,
with Implications for 2013 ...............................................................................54
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................55
Literature Cited ...........................................................................................................................56
Tables. ...........................................................................................................................................59
Figures ...........................................................................................................................................90
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iv AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Photos. .........................................................................................................................................130
Appendices ..................................................................................................................................138
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page v AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Use of various methods to accomplish each of seven major objectives in 2012. .......... 60
Table 2. Total catch of salmon at two fishwheel sites near Curry on the Susitna River, 2012. .. 61
Table 3. Fork lengths and linear regression equations for fish sampled at the Curry fishwheels,
2012. ...................................................................................................................................... 61
Table 4. Number of fish, by species and location, sampled for DNA and otoliths. .................... 61
Table 5. Number of adult salmon tagged and recaptured at two fishwheel sites near Curry on the
Susitna River, 2012. .............................................................................................................. 62
Table 6. Number of recaptured radio-tagged fish, by location of tagging, and the elapsed time
between tag and recapture events.......................................................................................... 62
Table 7. Statistical results of Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests comparing cumulative length-
frequency distributions of fish measured at the Curry fishwheels, 2012. ............................. 62
Table 8. Chinook salmon capture efficiency by the Site 1 fishwheel, 2012. ............................... 63
Table 9. Tag rate estimate adjustments based on theoretical observation efficiency during stream
counts of Chinook salmon in Portage Creek and Indian River, 2012. .................................. 63
Table 10. Summary of visual ground surveys for live Chinook salmon in Portage Creek and
Indian River, 2012. ............................................................................................................... 64
Table 11. Summary of the Chinook salmon mortality tag recovery efforts in Indian River, 2012.
............................................................................................................................................... 64
Table 12. Comparison of the number of radio-tagged Chinook salmon detected during an aerial-
tracking survey on July 24, and the number of Chinook salmon visually counted on an aerial
survey conducted the same day. ............................................................................................ 65
Table 13. Detection efficiencies of fixed-station receivers in the Middle River, by species. ..... 66
Table 14. Monitoring efficiency (percent operational) of fixed-station receivers in the Middle
and Upper River in 2012, by week. ...................................................................................... 67
Table 15. Monitoring efficiency (percent operational) of Lower River fixed-station receivers in
2012, by week. ...................................................................................................................... 68
Table 16. The numbers and proportions of tags that had malfunctioning mortality functions. ... 69
Table 17. Destinations of radio-tagged fish by species and release location............................... 70
Table 18. Summary of monitoring effort at potential spawning sites for Chinook salmon in the
Middle River, 2012. .............................................................................................................. 72
Table 19. Summary of monitoring effort at potential spawning sites for chum salmon in the
Middle River, 2012. .............................................................................................................. 73
Table 20. Summary of monitoring effort at potential spawning sites for coho salmon in the
Middle River, 2012. .............................................................................................................. 75
Table 21. Summary of monitoring effort at potential spawning sites for pink salmon in the
Middle River, 2012. .............................................................................................................. 76
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page vi AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 22. Summary of monitoring effort at potential spawning sites for sockeye salmon in the
Middle River, 2012. .............................................................................................................. 77
Table 23. Salmon displaying roaming behavior in the Middle River. ......................................... 78
Table 24. Farthest upstream detection locations for radio-tagged fish that eventually entered a
tributary downstream of Lane (for fish released in the Lower River, top panel) or Gateway
(for fish released at Curry, bottom panel) ............................................................................. 79
Table 25. Minimum, median and maximum dates of fishwheel and fixed-station receiver
passage, by species. ............................................................................................................... 80
Table 26. Sites visited during assessment of sonar to identify Chinook salmon spawning
locations in turbid water. ....................................................................................................... 81
Table 27. Details of the fish that approached or passed the Middle River impediments. ........... 82
Table 28. Destinations of radio-tagged Chinook salmon that passed each impediment. ............ 84
Table 29. Summary of migration and spawning behavior for 12 radio-tagged Chinook salmon
after they passed Impediment 3. ........................................................................................... 85
Table 30. Details of impediment-passage events. Details include the date of first detections
above each impediment, the duration of holding time below each impediment, and the flow
(measured at Gold Creek) at the time of the first detection upstream of the impediment. ... 86
Table 31. Average percent distribution of spawning salmon in slough habitats of the Middle
River from 1981–1985, and confirmation of spawning in 2012. .......................................... 88
Table 32. Sites sampled for habitat suitability criteria data in the Middle River, 2012. ............. 89
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page vii AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Susitna River watershed showing fish capture sites (ADF&G and Curry fishwheels),
fixed-station receivers, and the proposed reservoir area for the Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project. ........................................................................................................... 91
Figure 2. Middle and Upper River segments showing fish capture sites (sites 1 and 2), fixed-
station receivers, and the proposed reservoir area for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project. .................................................................................................................................. 92
Figure 3. Middle River Segment showing fish capture sites (sites 1 and 2), the Lane Creek and
Gateway fixed-station receivers, and the camp site in Curry. .............................................. 93
Figure 4. Daily catch by species at the Curry fishwheels (east and west bank combined), 1981–
1985. ...................................................................................................................................... 94
Figure 5. Three potential impediments (impediments 1, 2, and 3) to fish passage on the Susitna
River located between Portage and Devil creeks at the top end of the Middle River
Segment. ................................................................................................................................ 95
Figure 6. Average daily discharge of the Susitna River at Gold Creek (RM 136), May 1 to
November 30, 2012. .............................................................................................................. 96
Figure 7. Daily fishing effort (hours) and fishwheel speed (RPM) for the fishwheels operated
near Curry on the Susitna River, 2012. ................................................................................. 96
Figure 8. Daily catch of adult salmon at the fishwheels operated near Curry on the Susitna
River, 2012. ........................................................................................................................... 97
Figure 9. Daily catch-per-unit-effort of adult salmon at the fishwheels operated near Curry on
the Susitna River, 2012. ........................................................................................................ 98
Figure 10. Daily number of tags applied to adult salmon at the fishwheels operated near Curry
on the Susitna River, 2012. ................................................................................................... 99
Figure 11. Cumulative proportion of daily catch, catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE), and tags applied
to adult salmon at the fishwheels operated near Curry on the Susitna River, 2012............ 100
Figure 12. Relative length-frequency distributions of fish caught at sites 1 and 2 near Curry on
the Susitna River, 2012. ...................................................................................................... 101
Figure 13. Cumulative length-frequency distributions of fish caught at sites 1 and 2 near Curry
on the Susitna River, 2012. ................................................................................................. 102
Figure 14. Relative length-frequency distributions of fish caught and radio-tagged at sites 1 and
2 near Curry on the Susitna River, 2012. ............................................................................ 103
Figure 15. Cumulative length-frequency distributions of fish caught and radio-tagged at sites 1
and 2 near Curry on the Susitna River, 2012. ..................................................................... 104
Figure 16. DIDSON data review effort of Chinook salmon passage below the fishwheel at Site 1
on the Middle River, June 15 to July 4, 2012. .................................................................... 105
Figure 17. Catch per unit effort (CPUE), or the number of Chinook salmon counted using the
DIDSON per hour, below the fishwheel at Site 1 in the Middle River, June 15–28, 2012. 105
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page viii AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 18. Number of Chinook salmon, by size category, counted using DIDSON at Site 1 as a
function of the distance from shore where they were first detected in the field of view, June
19–20, 2012. ........................................................................................................................ 106
Figure 19. Linear regression of the detection range where Chinook salmon were first observed
by DIDSON and fish length as estimated from DIDSON images, June 15 to July 4, 2012.
............................................................................................................................................. 106
Figure 20. Diel migration of Chinook salmon observed at fishwheel Site 1using DIDSON
technology, June 15–20, 2012. ........................................................................................... 107
Figure 21. Average daily discharge of the Susitna River at Gold Creek (RM 136), and the daily
number of radio tags that 'resurrected' (i.e., changed from their mortality signal mode, in
which they were supposed to be locked, to the live signal mode). ..................................... 107
Figure 22. Destinations of radio-tagged fish released in the Lower River (left panels) or at Curry
(right panels), by species. .................................................................................................... 108
Figure 23. Relative frequencies of tributary use by radio-tagged fish released in the Lower
River. ................................................................................................................................... 109
Figure 24. Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Lower River for all radio-tagged
Chinook salmon that did not enter a tributary and were detected at least twice near the same
mainstem location during the spawning period in 2012. .................................................... 110
Figure 25. Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Lower River for all radio-tagged chum
salmon that did not enter a tributary and were detected at least twice near the same
mainstem location during the spawning period in 2012. .................................................... 111
Figure 26. Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Lower River for all radio-tagged coho
salmon that did not enter a tributary and were detected at least twice near the same
mainstem location during the spawning period in 2012. .................................................... 112
Figure 27. Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Lower River for all radio-tagged pink
salmon that did not enter a tributary and were detected at least twice near the same
mainstem location during the spawning period in 2012. .................................................... 113
Figure 28. Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Middle River for all radio-tagged
Chinook salmon that did not enter a tributary and were detected at least twice near the same
mainstem location during the spawning period in 2012. .................................................... 114
Figure 29. Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Middle River for all radio-tagged chum
salmon that did not enter a tributary and were detected at least twice near the same
mainstem location during the spawning period in 2012. .................................................... 115
Figure 30. Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Middle River for all radio-tagged coho
salmon that did not enter a tributary and were detected at least twice near the same
mainstem location during the spawning period in 2012. .................................................... 116
Figure 31. Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Middle River for all radio-tagged pink
salmon that did not enter a tributary and were detected at least twice near the same
mainstem location during the spawning period in 2012. .................................................... 117
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ix AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 32. Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Middle River for all radio-tagged
sockeye salmon that did not enter a tributary and were detected at least twice near the same
mainstem location during the spawning period in 2012. .................................................... 118
Figure 33. Relative frequencies of tributary use by radio-tagged fish released at Curry. ......... 119
Figure 34. Run timing in the Middle River, by species. ............................................................ 120
Figure 35. Stock-specific run timing in the Middle River, by species. ..................................... 121
Figure 36. Timing of fishwheel and fixed-station receiver passage in the Middle River, by
species. ................................................................................................................................ 122
Figure 37. Median travel speeds of radio-tagged fish in four major river reaches, by species. 123
Figure 38. Median travel speeds of radio-tagged for Chinook salmon, by river reach. ............ 123
Figure 39. Middle River (downstream of Devils Canyon) travel speeds for Chinook salmon that
were detected at Devil Station, by first-detection date. ...................................................... 124
Figure 40. Median travel speeds of radio-tagged fish in the 'Gateway to Indian' river reach, for
Portage Creek and Indian River stocks, by species. ........................................................... 125
Figure 41. Daily numbers of fish that approached and passed each of the three Middle River
impediments. ....................................................................................................................... 126
Figure 42. Daily number of radio-tagged Chinook salmon that held or passed Impediment 3. 127
Figure 43. Potential mainstem spawning locations and redd sites for sockeye salmon in the
Middle River. ...................................................................................................................... 128
Figure 44. Potential mainstem spawning locations and redd sites for chum salmon in the Middle
River. ................................................................................................................................... 129
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page x AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo 1. Fishwheel components being taken off a rail car at Curry, June 4, 2012. ................... 131
Photo 2. Chinook salmon being measured for length while held in a water-filled trough at Site 1,
2012. .................................................................................................................................... 131
Photo 3. A radio-tagged adult Chinook salmon just prior to release from a fishwheel at Site 1,
July 16, 2012. ...................................................................................................................... 132
Photo 4. Fixed-station receiver site near Chinook Creek on the Susitna River, July 19, 2012. 132
Photo 5. Helicopter (R44) setup for aerial-tracking surveys conducted on the Susitna River in
2012. .................................................................................................................................... 133
Photo 6. Setup for boat surveys using sonar to assess spawning activity in turbid water, July 28,
2012. .................................................................................................................................... 133
Photo 7. Aerial photograph (downstream view) of the Susitna River at Curry showing the
location of two fishwheel sites (RM 119.4 and 120.6) used in 2012 (photo taken: June 19,
2012). .................................................................................................................................. 134
Photo 8. Aerial photograph (upstream view) of the Susitna River near Curry showing the
location of two fishwheel sites (RM 119.4 and 120.6) used in 2012 (photo taken: June 19,
2012). .................................................................................................................................. 134
Photo 9. Fishwheel 1 operating at Site 1 (RM 120.6) on the right bank of the Susitna River, June
19, 2012. .............................................................................................................................. 135
Photo 10. Fishwheel 2 operating at Site 2 (RM 119.4) on the left bank of the Susitna River, July
11, 2012. .............................................................................................................................. 135
Photo 11. Chinook salmon carcass found along the bank of Portage Creek, July 30, 2012. ..... 136
Photo 12. Image produced from the side-scan sonar (600 kHz) taken while pointed upstream at
the mouth of 4th of July Creek............................................................................................. 136
Photo 13. Pre-spawn sockeye salmon holding in Slough 8A, August 26, 2012. ....................... 137
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xi AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: River Mile Designations
Table A-1. Index of location names and historical river mile designations. ................................. 2
Appendix B: Fixed-receiver Station Setup and Performance
Table B-1. Number of radio tags deployed at the Curry fishwheels on specific radio frequencies.
................................................................................................................................................. 2
Table B-2. Location and antenna orientation of fixed-station receivers in the Middle and Upper
Susitna River, 2012. ................................................................................................................ 2
Table B-3. List of the mobile-tracking surveys conducted in 2012, by location, date and vehicle
type. ......................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure B-1. Detection activity at fixed-station receivers, including numbers of fish detections
(black line), beacon-tag hits (blue line) and noise events (red line), by day. ......................... 3
Appendix C: Fishwheel Effort, Catch, and Tags Applied
Table C-1. Fishwheel effort and speed at the Curry fishwheels, 2012. ......................................... 2
Table C-2. Catch, catch-per-unit-effort, and tags applied to Chinook salmon at the Curry
fishwheels, 2012. .................................................................................................................... 3
Table C-3. Catch, catch-per-unit-effort, and tags applied to sockeye salmon at the Curry
fishwheels, 2012. .................................................................................................................... 5
Table C-4. Catch, catch-per-unit-effort, and tags applied to pink salmon at the Curry fishwheels,
2012. ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Table C-5. Catch, catch-per-unit-effort, and tags applied to chum salmon at the Curry
fishwheels, 2012. .................................................................................................................... 9
Table C-6. Catch, catch-per-unit-effort, and tags applied to coho salmon at the Curry fishwheels,
2012. ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Appendix D: Radio telemetry Results
Table D-1. Summary of radio tag recovery information for fish released at the Curry fishwheels,
2012. ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Table D-2. Summary of radio tag recovery information for fish released at the Lower River
fishwheels. .............................................................................................................................. 4
Appendix E: Tracking History of Chinook Salmon Above Impediment 3.
Appendix F: Base Map and Figure Map References
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xii AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SCIENTIFIC LABELS
Abbreviation Definition
ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
ARDGA Aquatic Resources Data Gap Analysis
ATS Applied Telemetry Systems
C Celsius
cfs Cubic feet per second
cm Centimeter
CPUE Catch per unit effort
DIDSON Dual Frequency Identification Sonar
F Fahrenheit
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FL Nose to tail fork length
ft Feet, foot
GIS Geographic Information System
HSC Habitat Suitability Criteria
ILP Integrated Licensing Process
in Inch
ISF Instream Flow
km Kilometer
kt Knots
KS Kolmogorov-Smirnov
m Meter
MEF Mid eye to tail fork length
mi Mile
MHz Megahertz
mm Millimeter
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
PAD Pre-application Document
RM River Mile
s Second
TB Terabyte
UCI Upper Cook Inlet
USGS United States Geological Survey
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xiii AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Five species of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) were radio-tagged and tracked in the
mainstem Susitna River in 2012 as part of a multi-objective study to describe salmon migration
behavior, identify salmon spawning locations, and evaluate techniques for future studies of
salmon in turbid water. The study was conducted to support the licensing process for the
proposed Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (Project). The study design allowed for
comparisons to salmon distribution and habitat use in the 1980s, when similar studies were
conducted for the Alaska Power Authority Hydroelectric Project. The 2012 study focused on the
mainstem Susitna River due to possible effects both above and below the Project dam site where
the river was separated into Lower (river mile [RM] 0–98), Middle (RM 98–184), and Upper
(upstream of RM 184) River segments.
Spawning Locations
Radio telemetry was used to assign final destinations (either the mainstem Susitna River, or
tributaries) for 79–100 percent of salmon tagged by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) in the Lower River (near RM 22 and 30), depending on species. For each species,
most final destinations were in tributaries upstream from the portion of the tributaries potentially
impacted by Project-induced changes to the Susitna River hydrology (81 percent of Chinook O.
tshawytscha, 71 percent of chum O. keta, 82 percent of coho O. kisutch, 93 percent of pink O.
gorbuscha, and 99 percent of sockeye salmon O. nerka). An additional two Chinook salmon (<1
percent of those tagged) had a final destination in a tributary upstream of the proposed Project
dam site. Few salmon had final destinations in mainstem habitats that might be susceptible to
flow effects resulting from future hydropower operations (2 percent of Chinook, 8 percent of
chum, 6 percent of coho, 3 percent of pink, and 1 percent of sockeye salmon). Spawning could
not be visually verified in mainstem river habitats in the Lower River due to high water turbidity.
Final destinations could not be determined for the remaining proportions of each species tagged
in the Lower River.
Radio telemetry was used to assign final destinations for 67–90 percent of salmon tagged in the
Middle River at Curry (RM 120), depending on species. Below the Project dam site (RM 184),
most final destinations of tagged fish were documented in tributaries (80 percent of Chinook, 63
percent of chum, 66 percent of coho, 67 percent of pink, and 14 percent of sockeye salmon). An
additional four Chinook salmon (1.1 percent of those tagged) had a final destination in a tributary
upstream of the proposed Project dam site. Relatively few final destinations for most salmon
species were in mainstem river habitats (9 percent of Chinook, 20 percent of chum, 13 percent of
coho, 4 percent of pink, and 53 percent of sockeye salmon). Some locations in the mainstem
Susitna River had clear enough water to visually verify spawning and generally supported
locations identified using radio telemetry. Final destinations could not be determined for the
remaining proportions of each species tagged in the Middle River.
Salmon Migration Above Devils Canyon
Chinook salmon was the only species identified migrating upstream of any of the three high-
velocity impediments in Devils Canyon (RM 150–161). One tagged sockeye salmon and one
tagged chum salmon approached the farthest downstream impediment (Impediment 1) but did
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xiv AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
not migrate above it. Of the 313 viable Chinook salmon tagged in the Middle River, 23 (7
percent) migrated above Impediment 1, 20 (6 percent) above Impediment 2, and 10 (3 percent)
above Impediment 3. Four (1 percent) of these Chinook salmon had final destinations upstream
of the Project dam site. Of the 442 Chinook salmon tagged in the Lower River, three migrated
above Impediment 1; of these, two migrated above Impediment 3.
Of all 26 tagged Chinook salmon (Lower and Middle River tagging-sites combined) that
migrated upstream of Impediment 1, seven eventually migrated back downstream and were
assigned to final destinations downstream of the lower end of Devils Canyon. Chinook salmon
migrated through the Devils Canyon impediments between July 7–20. Average daily discharge
of the Susitna River at Gold Creek (RM 136) ranged from 17,300–31,100 cubic feet per second
(cfs) when Chinook salmon passed Impediment 1, 17,300–21,300 cfs when fish passed
Impediment 2, and 17,300–19,000 cfs when fish passed Impediment 3.
Salmon Migration Behavior
Run timing at Curry peaked in early July for Chinook salmon, early August for chum and pink
salmon, mid-July through mid-August for sockeye salmon, and mid-August for coho salmon.
These results were similar to those obtained across five seasons in the early 1980s; however, the
Chinook salmon run at Curry was late relative to three of the five years in the 1980s (1981, 1983,
and 1984) and most similar to the 1982 run. Average daily discharge of the Susitna River at
Gold Creek (RM 136) approached the 52-year high (1950–2011) in June 2012 and may have
delayed the Chinook salmon run timing at Curry.
Approximately 10 percent of tagged salmon in the Middle River exhibited roaming behavior,
ascending into the Middle River temporarily before moving downstream of Curry. This pattern
of upstream migration followed by downstream movement to spawning destinations did not
appear to be an immediate dropback effect from tagging because it was also exhibited by fish
tagged many miles downstream in the Lower River. Of the salmon tagged at RM 22 or 30 in the
Lower River, 69 (all species combined) ascended as high as Lane Creek (RM 114) in the Middle
River, a distance of 83 to 91 river miles. Of these, 14 (20 percent) migrated back downstream
and were ultimately assigned to areas in the Lower River (Chulitna River, Talkeetna River, and
Montana Creek). Of the salmon tagged seven miles upstream of Lane Creek at Curry (RM 120),
902 were assigned final destinations (all species combined) and 93 (10 percent) of these showed
that fish migrated back downstream and were ultimately assigned to areas downstream of Curry
(e.g., Lane Creek, Chulitna River, Talkeetna River, Whiskers Creek, Montana Creek, and
Deshka River). All species of salmon showed some level of roaming behavior in the Middle
River (below Impediment 1) that did not appear associated with time or distance since tagging.
Roaming behavior was also seen in Chinook salmon that migrated above Devils Canyon. For
example, 4 of 12 (33 percent) Chinook salmon that passed Impediment 3 eventually entered a
tributary downstream of Devils Canyon.
Current and Historical Distribution and Habitat Use
In 2012, sockeye salmon were observed spawning in five sloughs or side channels (Slough or
Side Channel 21 and sloughs 19, 11, 9, 8A) and chum salmon were observed spawning in six
sloughs or side channels (Slough or Side Channel 21 and sloughs 11, 9A, 9, 8A, and 4th of July)
and two tributary deltas (Indian River and 4th of July Creek) in the mainstem of the Middle
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page xv AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
River. Each of these species and locations was also documented in the 1980s. Several Middle
River spawning locations documented in the 1980s were not verified in 2012, in part because of
an absence of radio tagged fish or high water turbidity. No mainstem river spawning locations
were identified for Chinook or coho salmon in the 1980s. In 2012, radio telemetry was used to
identify potential mainstem spawning in the Lower and Middle River segments by Chinook,
coho, and pink salmon, but this could not be visually verified due to high water turbidity.
Mainstem spawning by sockeye and chum salmon was documented only in the Middle River in
both the 1980s and in 2012. In both time periods, a substantial portion of spawning in sloughs
(20–92 percent) occurred in the same three sloughs. Sonar was not effective for verifying
spawning activity in turbid water in 2012.
Effectiveness of Methods Used in 2012 and Recommendations for
2013–2014
Fishwheels were used successfully for capturing salmon near Curry and describing species-
specific run timing. Radio telemetry was suitable for tracking tagged salmon, assigning final
destinations, identifying likely spawning locations, and guiding field crews to potential spawning
locations in season. Radio telemetry was also effective for describing fish movement behavior,
including passage through Devils Canyon and what appeared to be roaming by individual fish.
Confirming spawning activity visually or with sonar was difficult due to high water turbidity and
velocity. And lastly, too few tags were recovered from live and dead fish on the spawning
grounds to thoroughly assess the representativeness of fishwheel catches.
The following aspects of the 2013–2014 study, as indicated in the Revised Study Plan (RSP),
were based on the implementation of the 2012 study. The RSP includes the 2012 study
objectives to improve data quality and quantity, and to increase capture variation across years,
environmental conditions, and salmon run abundance. Tagging efforts will continue for all
species in the Middle River, and for Chinook, coho, and pink salmon in the Lower River. The
addition of a third tagging location just downstream of Devils Canyon will be assessed in 2013 to
increase the sample size of tagged fish migrating into Devils Canyon and above the
impediments. The number of Chinook and coho salmon migrating through the Lower River will
be estimated using mark-recapture methods; this will require tagging salmon in the Lower River
fishwheels, then recapturing salmon in various drainages upstream. Separately, the mark rate of
salmon tagged at Curry will be reassessed to help estimate the actual number of salmon
migrating past the site, and if sufficient data can be obtained, the number of fish above Devils
Canyon. Visual verification of spawning will be continued during periods of low water volume
or turbidity. Non-visual verification methods (e.g., sonar) will also be employed again in 2013.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
1. INTRODUCTION
The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is preparing a License Application to submit to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (Project)
using the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). The Project is located on the Susitna River, an
approximately 300-mile (mi) long river in the Southcentral Region of Alaska (Figure 1). The
Project’s dam site will be located at river mile (RM) 184 (see Table A-1 for a list of river mile
designations). The results of this study will provide information that will serve as the basis for
the Revised Study Plan (RSP) filed with FERC December 14, 2012, in preparing Exhibit E of the
license application (18 CFR 4.41) and for use in FERC’s National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) analysis for the Project license.
Construction and operation of the Project as described in the Pre-application Document (PAD;
AEA 2011a) will modify the flow, thermal, and sediment regimes of the Susitna River, which
may alter the composition and distribution of fish habitat. Several fisheries study plans were
initiated during 2012 to describe fisheries resources in the Project area, prior to development of
the RSP, including the Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization Study. This study is
the first of three years of study designed to help evaluate potential Project-related effects to fish
habitat by characterizing adult salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) habitat use in the Susitna River. The
study plan outlining the proposed methods was published on the AEA web site (AEA 2012a;
http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org). Proposed methods for the 2013 and 2014 study years
were outlined in Section 9.7 (Salmon Escapement Study) of the RSP (AEA 2012c).
This report documents the final results from the first year of the study in 2012. Earlier, an
interim report was submitted to license participants to provide an update on the progress of the
2012 study prior to its completion, identify any issues or obstacles that occurred, and allow for
further refinement of the RSP (AEA 2012b). The final report provided here supersedes the
interim report from September 2012.
This report describes the migration behavior and spawning habitat use of salmon in the Lower
(RM 0–98), Middle (RM 98–184), and Upper (upstream of RM 184) River segments of the
mainstem Susitna River (hereafter, Lower River, Middle River, and Upper River), while
evaluating approaches such as sonar and radio telemetry for future use on the Project. The work
in 2012 followed up on an extensive series of salmon distribution and spawning studies from the
1980s, thereby providing an assessment of similarities and differences between the 1980s and
2012. The Aquatic Resources Data Gap Analysis (ARDGA; AEA 2011b) and PAD (AEA
2011a) summarized existing information and identified data gaps for adult salmon and resident
and rearing fish. Adult salmon habitat utilization studies conducted by ADF&G during the
1980s were summarized by Woodward-Clyde Consultants and Entrix, Inc. (1985). In recent
years, ADF&G conducted adult salmon (sockeye, chum, and coho) spawning distribution and
abundance studies in the Susitna River (e.g., Merizon et al. 2010; Yanusz et al. 2011).
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
2. STUDY OBJECTIVES
The goals of Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization Study in 2012 were to:
1. Characterize the distribution, migration behavior, and proportional abundance of adult
anadromous salmon and determine their use of mainstem, side channel, and slough
habitats in the Lower, Middle, and Upper River in 2012.
2. Determine whether historical study results and conclusions are consistent with the current
distribution and relative abundance of spawning adult salmon in the mainstem Susitna
River.
3. Provide spawning habitat data to support the selection of sites for the instream flow (ISF)
study, develop site-specific habitat suitability criteria (HSC), and develop a habitat
sampling protocol for 2013–2014.
4. Develop information to refine the scope, methods, and study sites for studying habitat use
by adult salmon during the follow-on 2013–2014 studies.
To achieve these goals, we developed seven specific objectives for the 2012 study:
1. Capture, radio-tag, and track adults from five species of Pacific salmon in the Middle
River in proportion to their abundance.
2. Determine the migration behavior and spawning locations of radio-tagged salmon in the
Lower, Middle, and Upper River.
3. Assess the feasibility of using sonar to determine spawning locations in turbid water.
4. Characterize salmon migration behavior and timing above Devils Canyon.
5. Compare historical and current data on relative abundance and distribution of spawning
and holding salmon across mainstem, side-channel, slough, and tributary delta habitat
types.
6. Locate individual holding and spawning salmon in clear and turbid water and collect
habitat data from holding and spawning salmon in the Lower and Middle River mainstem
consistent with developing habitat suitability criteria for instream flow modeling.
7. Evaluate the effectiveness of methods used in 2012 to address study goals and objectives,
and assess their suitability for future years’ studies.
This study was coordinated with basin-wide radio telemetry studies conducted by the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). The goals of the ADF&G studies were to characterize
the timing and distribution of the 2012 salmon escapement to the Susitna River among major and
minor tributaries, and to estimate the system-wide escapement of chum O. keta and coho O.
kisutch salmon above RM 22. In 2012, AEA supported an additional radio telemetry component
by ADF&G to describe the distribution of adult Chinook O. tshawytscha and pink O. gorbuscha
salmon in mainstem and tributary habitats. The 2012 AEA-supported ADF&G study also
examined the feasibility of estimating the system-wide escapement of Chinook salmon to the
Susitna River. In 2012, ADF&G anticipated radio-tagging 500 Chinook, 400 chum, 400 coho,
400 pink, and 100 sockeye salmon at capture sites at RM 22 and 30, combined. An array of
fixed-station receivers located at mainstem sites and tributary mouths was combined with fixed-
wing aerial surveys to apportion the radio-tagged fish to various water bodies. Radio-tagged fish
were tracked to the nearest river mile and at intervals of approximately fourteen days.
This study differed from ADF&G’s ongoing studies in that spatial data was collected from radio-
tagged fish on finer spatial and temporal scale; the objective was to obtain locations of spawning
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
and holding salmon at the macro- and microhabitat levels. This contrasted with the tributary
apportionment and the nearest river mile spatial resolution of the ADF&G studies. This study
expanded on the ADF&G effort by more frequent tracking of both AEA and ADF&G radio-
tagged fish in the Lower, Middle, and Upper River. This study also used helicopter surveys to
locate tagged fish, and then boat and foot surveys to determine more precise locations of those
fish that were holding and/or spawning.
3. STUDY AREA
The Susitna River is one of the largest rivers in Alaska draining an area of 49,210 square
kilometers (19,000 square miles). The river begins in the Alaska Range and Talkeetna
Mountains and flows into Upper Cook Inlet (UCI) in Southcentral Alaska (Figure 1). The
climate within the watershed varies from maritime, coastal conditions in the lower watershed to
weather typical of interior Alaska in the upper watershed. Climate conditions at Talkeetna,
Alaska (RM 97) have been recorded since 1918. From 1918 through 2007, mean monthly
minimum and maximum air temperatures for the summer months (June–August) in Talkeetna
ranged from 6.7°Celsius (C) to 20.3°C (44.1°Fahrenheit [F] to 68.5°F; ACRC 2012).
Precipitation typically peaked in August at 12.27 centimeters (cm; 4.83 inches [in]) for the
month. Mean monthly minimum and maximum air temperatures are coldest in January ranging
from -17.3°C to -12.1°C (0.9°F to 10.2°F; ACRC 2012). The Susitna River freezes in October
though pan ice is observed in late September. Though most of the river is frozen in winter,
upwelling can cause some open sections of water. Break-up of the river typically occurs in late
April to mid-May. Spring melting of snowfall (freshet) causes the river discharge to peak from
mid-May to mid-June, dependent upon snow levels. Discharge data used to evaluate salmon
migration at different water levels were obtained from the gaging stations at Gold Creek (RM
136), operated by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) via the National Water
Information System web site (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). This station has a period of
record from 1949 to 2012. Water temperatures were also collected by the fishwheel crew at
Curry (RM 120) in 2012, using a handheld thermometer.
As indicated in the study plan for this study, the Susitna River was initially divided into three
sections: the Upper River (above RM 150), the Middle River (RM 98–150), and the Lower River
(RM 0–98). However, during subsequent agency consultation and RSP development, a standard
Project-wide delineation of river segments was designated as follows:
Upper River Segment – above the proposed dam site (RM 184).
Middle River Segment – Three Rivers Confluence (RM 98) to the proposed dam site
(RM 184).
Lower River Segment – Cook Inlet (RM 0) to the Three Rivers Confluence (RM 98).
The analysis in this report follows the standard Project-wide Susitna River segment designations.
The study area for this project encompasses the Susitna River mainstem from Cook Inlet (RM 0)
to the Oshetna River (RM 234).
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
3.1. Upper Susitna River
The Upper River Segment is the stretch of river above the proposed dam site at RM 184 (Figure
2). The headwaters and tributaries are braided, fed by glaciers on the south slopes of the Alaska
Range (Gatto et al. 1980). The Upper River is joined by the McLaren River (RM 260), the
Tyone River draining Lake Louise and Susitna Lake (RM 247), and the Oshetna River (RM
233). After the Oshetna River, the river turns northwest and is mostly constrained for the
remainder of the Upper River and passes through two major canyons with rapids: Vee Canyon
and Watana Canyon. Elwood et al. (1984) report that the river gradient in the Upper River is 14
feet per mile (ft/mi; 4 meters per kilometer [m/km]).
3.2. Middle Susitna River
The Middle River Segment is defined as the Susitna River from the confluence of the Chulitna,
Talkeetna, and Susitna rivers, referred to as the Three Rivers Confluence (RM 98), to the
proposed dam site at RM 184 (Figure 2). The upper portion of this segment is mostly
constrained and passes through a significant canyon with rapids: Devils Canyon. Several
tributaries enter the Middle River Segment between the canyon and the dam site including:
Tsusena (RM 181), Fog (RM 177), and Devil (RM 161) creeks. Within Devils Canyon the
channel constricts forming three impediments that may block or impede fish passage (RM 150–
161): Impediment 1 is the farthest downstream, Impediment 3 is the farthest upstream. Two
tributaries enter the Middle River Segment in the canyon; Cheechako Creek enters between
Impediment 1 and Impediment 2 at RM 152, the mouth of Chinook Creek is between
Impediment 2 and Impediment 3 at RM 157. Sections of the river within the canyon can have a
steep gradient, up to 31 ft/mi from Impediment 1 (RM 152) to Devil Creek (RM 161; Elwood et
al. 1984). Sections of the river within the canyons can have a steep gradient, up to 31 feet per
mile (ft/mi) (9.5 meters per kilometer [m/km]); Elwood et al. 1984). Below Devils Canyon, the
river becomes less confined; in locations where the valley widens, silt and gravel depositions
allow for the formation of sloughs and side channels (Elwood et al. 1984). The major tributaries
in this section of river are non-glaciated streams entering from the north including Portage
Creek, Indian River, and 4th of July Creek (Figure 2). There are no major lakes draining into the
Middle River downstream of Fog Creek.
3.3. Lower Susitna River
The Lower River Segment is the stretch of river below the confluences of the Chulitna and
Talkeetna rivers with the Susitna River (RM 98; Figure 1). The Chulitna River contributes a
greater silt load to the Lower Susitna River because it is fed by many glaciers including those on
Mt Denali, Mt Foraker, and Mt Hunter. Immediately downstream of the mouth of the Chulitna
River, the Talkeetna River flows into the Susitna River from the west (RM 97). The Lower
River floodplain is broad and braided with numerous side channels and gravel bars. Several
tributaries enter the Lower River, including the Kashwitna River (RM 61), Willow Creek (RM
50), Deshka River (RM 41), and the Yentna River (RM 30) (which alone contributes about 40
percent of mean annual total discharge of the entire Susitna River drainage). The mouth of the
Susitna River is approximately 38 km (24 mi) northwest of Anchorage, Alaska (Figure 1).
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
3.4. Fishes of the Susitna River
The Lower and Middle River below Devils Canyon provide habitat for Chinook, chum, coho,
pink, and sockeye salmon; combined, these species are important for subsistence, commercial,
and sport fisheries, either within the Susitna River drainage or downstream in Upper Cook Inlet
(Ivey et al. 2009; Shields and Dupuis 2012). Preliminary studies in the 1980s documented
relative abundance and habitat usage by species for salmon in the Lower and Middle River,
finding no evidence that Chinook salmon spawn outside of the tributaries (Barrett et al. 1984,
1985; Thompson et al. 1986). Mainstem habitats (e.g., side channels and sloughs) provide
important spawning habitats for other salmon species and rearing habitat for juveniles. After
emergence, juvenile Chinook, coho, and some sockeye salmon rear in the Susitna River drainage
and outmigrate as age 1+ or 2+ smolts. Chum, pink, and some sockeye salmon leave the Susitna
River within several months after emergence (age 0+).
Chinook salmon are the only anadromous species documented in the tributaries within and above
Devils Canyon. Aerial counts conducted 1982-1985 and 2012 found Chinook salmon adults
each year in both Cheechako and Chinook creeks, which are below Impediment 3 in Devils
Canyon. Above Impediment 3, Chinook salmon have been periodically documented in Devil,
Fog and Tsusena creeks. Though studies in the 1980s did not find salmon in the Upper River
Segment, recent surveys documented juvenile Chinook salmon rearing in Kosina Creek and the
Oshetna River (Buckwalter 2011). Aerial salmon counts conducted in 2012 in the Upper River
tributaries documented adult Chinook salmon spawning in Kosina Creek. No other anadromous
salmon species has been found above Devils Canyon.
In addition to Pacific salmon, at least 13 anadromous and resident fishes are also present within
the Susitna River drainage (Coutant and Van Winkle 1984). Resident fish species and juvenile
anadromous fishes are found in higher densities in clear water because the high sediment load in
the mainstem river impairs feeding (Schmidt et al. 1984). Northern pike (Esox lucius) are a non-
indigenous species to the Susitna River and were likely introduced to the drainage in the 1950s
(Rutz 1996). Northern pike are most often found in lakes and sloughs of the tributaries that drain
into the Lower River.
4. METHODS
Many of the study objectives were interrelated and shared a common approach or method.
Several objectives, for example, relied on data from fish originally captured and tagged in two
areas of the drainage. Sonar was used to achieve some objectives, and to evaluate the
effectiveness of the fish capture efforts elsewhere. Habitat was sampled as part of other,
distinctly different, objectives. Table 1 presents an overview of the approaches and their various
purposes; this overview is summarized below, with more detailed descriptions of the full
methods used to achieve each objective following.
Salmon were captured and tagged in the Lower River, near the confluence with the Yentna
River. These salmon were captured in fishwheels operated at RM 22 and RM 30 by ADF&G
(ADF&G 2013). A subset of the salmon was tagged with radio tags; these salmon were then
tracked by ADF&G to generate information for both this study and ongoing ADF&G research
(ADF&G 2013). The fish tagged by ADF&G at these Lower River sites were also tracked as
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
part of this study in the Lower, Middle, and Upper River segments. Tagged salmon were used to
identify spawning locations in the mainstem river (Objective 2), to add to the sample size of fish
potentially migrating above Devils Canyon (Objective 4), and to increase the sample sizes of
spawning locations to classify and characterize (Objectives 5 and 6; Table 1). Geographic
spawning locations identified using radio telemetry were termed destinations. Destinations were
classified into one of three groups: tributary, mainstem, or other. Fish capture and tagging in the
Lower River is described in Section 4.3.1 below, and in ADF&G (2013).
The second site used for salmon capture and tagging was in the Middle River, near the historic
site of Curry. Here, salmon were captured in two fishwheels near RM 120. A subset of these
salmon was tagged with radio tags and then tracked to generate information specifically for this
study. The tags were used to track fish in the Middle River (Objective 1), to describe migration
behavior and spawning locations in the mainstem river (Objective 2), to detect fish passage
above Devils Canyon (Objective 4), and to help identify and characterize salmon spawning
locations (Objectives 5 and 6; Table 1). Radio-tagged fish were tracked from aircraft, from
boats, on foot from the stream bank, and from fixed-station receivers along the river; full details
are described in Section 4.2, below.
An overall goal of the study in 2012 was to identify and characterize spawning habitat for each
salmon species. This entailed classifying the type of habitat used, and collecting data needed to
develop HSC and inform instream flow models being developed by AEA. Since the mainstem
Susitna River is turbid, sonar was used to verify spawning activity and to help characterize
spawning habitat that was not visible or was otherwise unable to be sampled. Sonar was also
used to evaluate the behavior of fish swimming past the fishwheels in turbid water at Curry. The
assessment of sonar as a study tool in future years is directly addressed as Objective 3 of this
study (Table 1).
Data from other studies were also used to inform implementation of this study. ADF&G’s
capture and tagging in the Lower River (described in Section 4.3) was one such study. Others
were average daily discharge of the Susitna River at Gold Creek (RM 136) from 1949 to 2012
(U.S. Geological Survey via the National Water Information System web site
[http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis]); aerial surveys of untagged salmon conducted by ADF&G for
fishery management (S. Ivey, ADF&G Fisheries Biologist, personal communication, July 25,
2012), and by AEA to document adult Chinook salmon above Devils Canyon.
4.1. Deviations from Study Plan
Study objectives and methods were described in detail in the 2012 Study Plan (AEA 2012a).
Notable aspects of the 2012 field program that deviated from the study plan are listed below and
further described in the following sections.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 7 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Spaghetti tags were not placed in salmon radio-tagged at Curry (Section 4.2.2.1).
Fish scales and DNA were not collected from salmon at Curry (Section 4.2.2.1).
Dual Frequency Identification Sonar (DIDSON) was not mounted on the offshore corner
of fishwheels at Curry and was only used at one of the two fishwheel sites (Section
4.2.3.1.1).
Chinook, chum, and sockeye salmon were not sampled in clear-water side channels,
sloughs, or tributaries to assess mark rates or size selectivity (Section 4.2.3.7.1).
One DIDSON/side-scan survey, instead of three, was conducted from early August
through September (Section 4.4.1).
4.2. Objective 1 – Capture, Tag and Track Fish in the Middle Susitna
River
Fish were captured and tagged in the lower portion of the Middle River at Curry (RM 120) to
provide the tagged salmon needed to address many study objectives. Salmon tagged at Curry
were tracked to generate information such as migration behavior and spawning locations
(Objective 2, described in Section 4.3) and passage through Devils Canyon (Objective 4,
described in Section 4.5). Tagging at Curry mirrored similar efforts downstream in the Lower
River (RM 22 and 30), thereby having a large sample of upstream-moving salmon tagged at the
lower portion of each river segment. Data from the salmon tagged in the Lower and Middle
River were combined to augment the individual data sets. The capture, tag, and tracking
operation in the Middle River is described in the following sections. For the Lower River, the
study operation is summarized in Section 4.3.1, below, and described in full detail by ADF&G
(2013).
4.2.1. Fish Capture at Curry – Design and Operation
Fish were captured using three fishwheels (fishwheels 1, 2, and 3) operated at two different sites
(sites 1 and 2) on the mainstem Susitna River near Curry, Alaska (Figure 2; Figure 3). Site 1
(RM 120) was located on the right bank of the Susitna River approximately 0.4 miles
downstream from the mouth of Deadhorse Creek. Site 2 (RM 119) was located on the left bank
of the Susitna River approximately 1 mile downstream of Site 1. Fishwheels 1 and 3 operated at
Site 1 (one at a time), and Fishwheel 2 operated at Site 2.
All fishwheel components were delivered to Curry by train on June 4 and the fishwheels were
assembled on site (Photo 1). Each fishwheel consisted of two aluminum pontoons (24 feet [ft]
long by 30 in wide by 15 in deep), two partially submerged live tanks for holding fish in river
water (7 ft long by 24 in wide by 46 in deep), and three baskets built from 1.5-in aluminum
tubing and lined with 2.5-in knotless nylon mesh. A tower and winch assembly was used to
adjust the height of the axles and ensure the baskets were fished within 1 ft of the river bottom.
All fishwheel baskets were 8 ft wide, but their lengths varied: 88 in for Fishwheel 1, 76 in for
Fishwheel 2, and 72 in for Fishwheel 3 (Figure 2; Figure 3). Typically, the axle was
approximately 15 in above the water line, so maximum fishing depths were 79 in, 61 in, and 57
in, for fishwheels 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The bottom of each live tank had two panels of
extruded aluminum mesh (21 in by 13 in each) to allow for ample water circulation. The
fishwheels were secured along the riverbank using wire rope (5/16 in) and Polysteel rope (5/8 in)
attached to large trees and steel anchor pins sunk into bedrock or rip-rap. Spar poles (2-in square
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 8 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Telespar) were used to hold the fishwheels offshore in water deep enough to allow the baskets to
rotate effectively. Lead nets were deployed at both sites between the fishwheels and adjacent
riverbanks to direct fish away from shore and into the path of the baskets.
For safety reasons, all fish were sampled during daylight hours (encompassing the times 0604–
0045 hours over the season) and a minimum of two people were present on each fishwheel. If
the crews were not on the river, the fishwheel baskets were stopped. All fish were sampled and
released immediately after being captured to minimize holding times in the live tanks. Fishing
effort was calculated as the number of hours that a fishwheel operated on a given calendar day
from midnight to midnight. Catch-per-unit-effort (fish/hour) was calculated by dividing the
number of fish caught on a given day by the fishing effort. Fishwheel speed (RPM) was
determined one or more times each day by measuring the time required for the fishwheel baskets
to complete three revolutions.
4.2.2. Fish Tagging at Curry
Only healthy fish held in the live tanks for ≤30 minutes that met or exceeded a specific length
threshold were radio-tagged. Length thresholds were ≥500 millimeters (mm; 19.7 in) mid eye to
tail fork (MEF) for Chinook salmon; ≥400 mm (15.7 in) MEF for chum, coho, and sockeye
salmon; and ≥330 mm (13.0 in) MEF for pink salmon. Fish measuring less than these threshold
lengths were either jacks or considered too small to accommodate a radio tag. A dip net lined
with knotless nylon mesh was used to transfer individual fish from the live tanks (or directly
from the fishwheel slides) to a water-filled, foam-lined, V-shaped trough (Photo 2). Crews
recorded the length of time that individual fish were held in a live tank (hold time), as well as the
length of time it took to transfer a fish from a live tank to the sampling trough, apply a tag,
collect biosamples, and release (process time). To minimize handling time and tagging-related
effects on fish behavior, anesthetic was not used. Radio tags were inserted orally into the
stomach of the fish using a piece of plastic tubing (3/8 in diameter by 8 in long). The whip
antenna of the radio tag was left protruding from the mouth (Photo 3).
All tagged salmon were measured for length to the nearest 1 centimeter (cm; 0.39 in) and sexed
using external morphological characteristics (coloration, body and fin shape, and jaw
morphology). Both MEF and nose to tail fork (FL) lengths were recorded for each tagged fish
until a reliable linear regression relationship was established. With the exception of pink salmon
(which are all age 2 spawners), scales (age) were collected opportunistically from all tagged fish
that remained relatively calm in the sampling trough. Scales were taken from the preferred
location, posterior to the dorsal fin and above the lateral line.
All non-target fish species captured were counted and measured to the nearest 1 cm FL (0.39 in).
At the request of ADF&G’s Gene Conservation Lab, non-lethal tissue samples (axillary process
or pelvic fin clip) for genetic analysis were to be collected from all non-target species. Dolly
Varden Salvelinus malma, humpback whitefish Coregonus pidschian, least cisco C. sardinella,
and Bering cisco C. laurettae measuring ≥250 mm FL (9.84 in) were to be sacrificed for their
otoliths (up to a maximum of 12 individuals per species).
The initial goal of this study was to radio-tag 400 Chinook salmon and 200 each of chum, coho,
pink, and sockeye salmon captured at the Curry fishwheels. Early season tagging rates of fish
captured at the fishwheels was based on the average historical run timing at the Curry fishwheels
(1981–1984 for Chinook; 1981–1985 for chum, coho, and sockeye; and 1982 and 1984 for pink
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 9 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
salmon; Figure 4). Across the five years from 1981 to 1985, Chinook salmon were caught at
Curry from as early as June 9 (range: June 9–20) to as late as August 20 (range: July 29 to
August 20), with midpoints ranging from June 25 to July 9 (ADF&G 1981; Barrett et al. 1983,
1984, 1985; Thompson et al. 1986). During those studies, catches were 201–379 (mean: 301)
sockeye salmon, 93–350 (mean: 215) coho salmon, 861–4,228 (mean: 2,131) chum salmon, and
17,394 for the 1984 even-year pink salmon run. Midpoints of the migrations at Curry ranged
from about August 4–5 for sockeye, July 31 to August 7 for pink, August 3–15 for chum, and
August 12–13 for coho salmon. The 2012 tag deployment schedule was adjusted in-season using
run-timing information from the Lower River fishwheels and the ratio of daily catches at Curry
to the expected catches based on historical data.
4.2.2.1. Deviations from the Study Plan (Section 4.1)
Every second radio-tagged fish was to receive a blue spaghetti tag sewn through the dorsal
musculature. Fish with both radio and spaghetti tags would help to assess tag loss, the effects of
spaghetti tagging on post-handling behavior and final spawning destination, and, in the case of
Chinook and coho salmon, provide an external mark for anglers to recognize that a fish has a
radio tag. In addition, it was anticipated that the fishwheels would capture more fish than the
number of radio tags available for each species. Once the radio-tagging goals had been met for a
given day, a systematic portion (i.e., one out of every n fish caught) of the Chinook, chum, and
sockeye salmon were to receive a green spaghetti tag (up to an additional 400 Chinook, 700
chum, and 400 sockeye salmon). These additional tagged fish would help test assumptions about
the representativeness of the fish captured to reflect the species-specific Middle River
populations. However, through an emergency order (EO No. 2-KS-2-20-12) effective June 25,
2012, ADF&G closed the sport fishery targeting Chinook salmon in the Susitna River and all its
tributaries in an effort to meet minimum spawning goals. It was therefore unlikely that any
tagged Chinook salmon would be recovered. As a result, and in an effort to reduce the
processing time for each fish, it was decided after the first four days of sampling that no
additional spaghetti tags would be deployed for any species. Consequently, we lost one potential
way to estimate mark rates (which was not needed for any primary objective).
Fish scales were only collected opportunistically from tagged fish that remained relatively calm
in the sampling trough. Similar to spaghetti-tagging, the collection of scales ceased less than a
week into sampling in order to minimize processing times on all species.
For similar reasons, tissue samples (DNA) were also not collected from radio-tagged fish at
Curry. Consequently, this delays the eventual development of genetic baselines and parentage
studies for salmon in the Middle and Upper River, which was also not a primary objective of this
study.
4.2.3. Diagnostics to Assess Effectiveness and Representativeness of Catch
and Tag Methods
4.2.3.1. Using DIDSON to Assess Fishwheel Effectiveness
A DIDSON sonar system was used to guide fishwheel placement, characterize changes in fish
behavior around the fishwheels over time, and help detect substantial changes in fishwheel
effectiveness over time. The following questions were addressed using DIDSON:
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 10 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
1. What proportion of the salmon that migrate nearshore and in the path of the fishwheel
baskets are subsequently captured, and does this change over time and across different
water conditions?
2. Do salmon migrate in higher velocity waters offshore of the fishwheel baskets, or are
they strictly bank-oriented, and does this change over time and across different water
conditions?
3. Is there a size difference between fish captured at the fishwheels and those that migrate
nearshore and offshore?
4. What is the diel pattern of salmon migration past the fishwheels?
One standard DIDSON unit was deployed at Site 1 just off the shore downstream of the
fishwheel and aimed nearly perpendicular to the flow. This configuration allowed the lateral
distribution of Chinook salmon to be assessed as they approached the fishwheel at Site 1 (Figure
2; Figure 3). The sampling window length was approximately 10 m (33 ft), which included the
offshore portion of the net weir and the width of the fishwheel capture area. The data collection
system included the sonar head, DIDSON cable, topside control box, laptop computer, and
external hard drive. The electronic components were housed in an environmental box on shore
and powered by a portable generator. Data were collected in continuous (24 hours per day)
successive 15-minute files, and each file name included the date, time, and deployment location.
Data were ported directly to a 1 terabyte (TB) external drive and periodically backed up and
archived to additional hard drives. Data were collected using the highest optimal frame rates.
Data review involved replaying the files through the DIDSON software to observe detected
salmon targets. For each target observed, the following were noted: deployment location, date,
time, first and last range detected, direction of movement, and estimated body size. Avoidance
of the fishwheel was assessed by comparing the estimated number of fish observed using
DIDSON with the fishwheel catch.
4.2.3.1.1. Deviations from Study Plan (Section 4.1)
At Curry, the DIDSON was not mounted on the offshore corner of the fishwheels. Instead, the
DIDSON was installed just off shore near the river bank to determine fish passage in proximity
to the fishwheel and help with fishwheel placement, as described in Section 4.2.3.1. Also, the
DIDSON was only operated at Site 1 in 2012. Further characterization of fish passage for
effective fishwheel placement was deemed unnecessary following these initial DIDSON surveys.
Catches at Site 2 were comparable to Site 1, and at an acceptable level.
4.2.3.2. Tests for Handling-Induced Changes in Behavior
One assumption of this study was that the capture and handling process did not affect the final
spawning destination and/or migration behavior of a fish once it recovered from being tagged
and resumed its upstream migration. This assumption could not be tested directly, but there were
several indirect ways to assess its potential magnitude. First, comparing post-release survival
and travel time (days) to first detection at upstream fixed-station receivers would indicate the
level of handling-induced changes in behavior. Long delays to resume upstream migration and
high mortality rates would be indicative of significant changes in behavior; little delay and low
mortality rates would be indicative of little effect. Second, if sufficient contrast in handling
times was available, it would allow comparison of survival and migration behavior (delays,
migration rates) of radio-tagged fish subjected to different hold (in the live tanks) and process
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 11 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
(sampling) times. Finally, comparing post-release survival and migration behavior of radio-
tagged fish captured twice (i.e., recaptures) in the Curry fishwheels would help assess the
potential for cumulative capture and handling effects.
4.2.3.3. Tests for Equal Capture Probabilities at Curry
Meeting several goals of this study required that the radio-tagged fish of each species were
representative of the respective “populations” in the Middle River. Tagging particular stocks
and/or sizes of fish at different rates than others would weaken inferences about habitat uses of
the Middle River such as the relative distribution of spawning fish, migratory behavior, and any
fish passage above Devils Canyon. Therefore, there was a need to examine whether all fish
passing the tagging site were equally vulnerable to capture. If they were not, there are ways to
stratify the data to mitigate or eliminate effects on results due to unequal capture probabilities.
Equal probability of capture can be evaluated by time, area (stock), and size.
4.2.3.4. Capture Probabilities by Time
Our intent was to test whether all salmon (by species) had the same probability of being tagged,
regardless of when they passed the tagging site, by comparing weekly (or some other temporal
stratification) mark rates of fish sampled on the spawning grounds using contingency table
analysis (Chi-square test). Significant test results would suggest fish were not sampled
proportionally over time. However, insufficient spawning ground samples precluded these tests.
As described in Section 4.2.3.1, we also compared the relative effectiveness of the fishwheels, as
determined from the ratio of fish caught by a fishwheel and the number of fish observed with
DIDSON across different time periods and river discharge. DIDSON was also used to
qualitatively assess fish approach behavior at the fishwheel relative to discharge and fish
abundance.
To ensure complete coverage of the runs, sampling (marking) at the Curry fishwheels began
prior to significant passage of fish and continued through the run until passage dropped to near
zero.
4.2.3.5. Capture Probabilities by Area (Stock)
Our intent was to test whether all salmon (by species) had the same probability of being tagged,
regardless of their spawning destination (stock), by comparing the mark rates of fish sampled in
different spawning areas using contingency table analysis (Chi-square test). Significant test
results would suggest fish were not sampled proportionally across stocks. This approach is
better suited for fish that are readily accessible in clear-water tributaries and side channels, but
not for fish in mainstem areas. Again, insufficient spawning ground samples precluded these
tests.
It is possible that mainstem spawning populations could be more vulnerable to capture in the
fishwheels due to higher residence time and milling around Curry. If this were to occur, the
radio-tagging would overestimate the contribution of mainstem fish and habitat use by the
Middle River population. To evaluate this potential source of bias, we compared the proportion
of radio-tagged fish that was recaptured at the fishwheels across subsequent spawning locations
(mainstem vs. tributary).
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 12 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
To assess whether fish from a particular spawning area were right or left bank-oriented with
respect to capture at Curry, we used contingency table analyses to compare the proportion of fish
migrating into specific areas with the collection bank at Curry.
4.2.3.6. Capture Probabilities by Fish Size
Fishwheels can be size-selective across a range of adult Pacific salmon body sizes (Meehan
1961; ADF&G 1983; Link and Nass 1999; Smith et al. 2005; Robichaud et al. 2010). The
potential for size-related bias at the Curry fishwheels was tested using Kolmogorov-Smirnov
(KS) two-sample tests. To determine whether fish size was independent of capture location,
cumulative length-frequency distributions of fish caught at Site 1 were compared to those of fish
caught at Site 2. Also, the cumulative length-frequency distributions of radio-tagged fish were
compared to those of all fish captured at Curry to determine whether tagged fish were
representative of all fish caught at the fishwheels. Size-related bias can usually be eliminated by
size stratification of results (Link and Nass 1999; Smith et al. 2005).
4.2.3.7. Stream Counts and Carcass Surveys
Stream counts and carcass surveys were conducted for live and dead Chinook salmon in Indian
River and Portage Creek to generate diagnostics useful for interpreting fishwheel catches and
analyses. The three main objectives of the surveys were to:
1. Assess fishwheel catch rates based on the proportion of tagged to untagged fish (i.e.,
mark rate) observed on the spawning grounds.
2. Assess size selectivity at the fishwheels by comparing the size distributions of tagged and
untagged fish.
3. Assess handling-related effects on survival by comparing the mortality rates of tagged
and untagged fish.
Historical data suggest up to 90 percent of the spawning Chinook salmon population above the
Three Rivers Confluence spawn in Portage Creek (70 percent) and Indian River (20 percent;
Thompson et al. 1986). The proportion of tagged to untagged fish in these tributaries should
therefore provide a reasonable estimate of the mark rate for the population of Chinook salmon in
the Middle and Upper River.
For ground-based surveys, a two-person field crew was transported by helicopter to the top of a
particular river section, typically near the upstream extent of where the bulk of the radio tags
were detected on previous aerial-tracking surveys. As the crew walked downstream, they
counted the number of live and dead Chinook salmon. The crew estimated their observer
efficiency based on the environmental conditions (e.g., water level and turbidity) and proportion
of habitat surveyed within each river section. For each carcass encountered, crews recorded a
GPS location, measured the length (FL and MEF), inspected for tags, and collected tissue for
DNA analysis. Crews also used mobile receivers and hand-held antennas to recover radio tags
emitting inactive codes (and these were re-deployed in fish at the Curry fishwheels).
On the same day of each ground-based survey, an aerial-tracking survey was conducted to
determine the number of active (live) radio tags present in the same river section.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 13 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Additionally, on July 24, ADF&G conducted its annual aerial-counting surveys for Chinook
salmon in Indian River and Portage Creek. An aerial-tracking survey was conducted on the same
day to determine the number of radio tags present in each river.
4.2.3.7.1. Deviations from Study Plan (Section 4.1)
Chinook, chum, and sockeye salmon were not sampled in clear-water side channels and sloughs
because conditions during the target sampling periods precluded visual assessments in the
mainstem river. Tributaries that were clear were surveyed for marked fish, as described in
Section 5.1.3.6, but yielded only coarse information. Early in the season, water levels were near
record highs and turbid, so very little clear-water habitat existed in the mainstem river.
Thereafter, water levels dropped so fast and far that much side channel and slough habitat was
inaccessible by boat. Given that only coarse information came from surveying tributaries, which
were likely the source of greatest sample sizes, it is unlikely that side channels or sloughs would
have added much mark-rate information.
4.2.4. Tracking of Salmon to Describe Distribution and Migration Behavior
4.2.4.1. Radio Transmitters
Applied Telemetry Systems (ATS; Isanti, MN) pulse-coded, extended-range radio tags were
applied to a subset of salmon captured in the Middle River fishwheels. Twelve frequencies were
allocated to the Middle River tag site (151.713–151.994 megahertz [MHz] range; Table B-1),
and eighteen frequencies to ADF&G’s Lower River tag site (151.033–151.633 MHz range).
Model F1835B transmitters were purchased for pink salmon (0.6 oz, 12 in antenna, 96 day
battery life), Model F1840B tags for sockeye, coho, and chum salmon (0.8 oz, 12 in antenna, 127
day battery life), and Model F1845B tags for Chinook salmon (0.9 oz, 16 in antenna, 162 day
battery life). These transmitters are equipped with a sensor that changes the signal pattern to a
“motionless” or an “inactive” mode once the tag becomes stationary for 24 consecutive hours.
Tagged fish were presumed dead when inactive codes were received; effort was made to recover
inactive tags and redeploy them on other fish captured at Curry. Each recovered tag was tested
immediately prior to deployment to ensure it was functioning properly upon release.
4.2.4.2. Fixed-Station Receivers
Fixed-station receivers were operated at ten strategic locations in the Middle and Upper River,
including: Lane Creek Station (RM 113), Gateway (RM 125, located near the Fifth of July Creek
confluence), Slough 11 (RM 135), Indian River confluence (RM 139), Slough 21 (RM 141),
Portage Creek confluence (RM 149), Cheechako Station (RM 152, located upstream of the
Cheechako Creek confluence), Chinook Creek confluence (RM 157), Devil Station (RM 164,
located upstream of the Devil Creek confluence), and Kosina Creek confluence (RM 207; Figure
2; Table B-2). These sites were chosen based on: 1) the need to provide basic geographic
separation of the Middle River area (below Devils Canyon) to describe migration and spawning
behaviors; 2) monitoring at the appropriate resolution to quantify passage through Devils
Canyon; and 3) the need to focus mobile survey effort over an expansive area. In addition to
these fixed-station receivers, ADF&G operated the following fixed-station receivers in the
Lower River that scanned the frequencies of fish tagged at Curry: Sunshine, Talkeetna, and
Chulitna stations (Figure 2). Fixed-station receiver data were used to track fish movements,
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 14 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
calculate reach-specific travel speeds, and determine the timing of fish movements through
migratory impediments.
In the Middle and Upper River, each fixed station included a waterproof housing unit, telemetry
receiver, reference radio tag, 12-volt battery, 50-watt solar panel, and 4-element Yagi antennas
(Photo 4). The reference (or beacon) tags were deployed to provide a continuous record of
known signal detections. Many sites had additional antennas and a 4-way antenna switcher that
allowed the telemetry receiver to scan each antenna individually. Some locations also included
an additional receiver for scanning ADF&G radio frequencies. Some sites were enclosed within
a bear fence.
During installation of fixed stations at Lane Creek, Gateway, Indian River, and Portage Creek, a
reference radio tag was used to calibrate each receiver and verify that it would be capable of
detecting tags passing along the opposite riverbank. The results from testing at these sites were
used as a guide when installing the stations inaccessible by boat.
All Middle and Upper River fixed-station receivers used the same type of telemetry receiver
(ATS model R4500). The receivers had user-programmable settings for scan time and store rate,
room for four frequency tables, and the ability to store up to 100,000 blocks of data. In general,
a receiver would scan all available antennas for three seconds. If no radio tag was detected, the
receiver scanned the next frequency in the table. If a radio tag was detected, the receiver would
scan each antenna individually for 12 seconds before moving to the next frequency in the table.
Antennas were oriented to allow for determination of a fish’s direction of migration, be it
upstream, downstream, or in some cases into a tributary. Data were stored at different rates
throughout the study area, depending on the number of tags located near a station, in order to
best avoid the data loss that results from filling memory banks beyond their capacity.
From installation until early September, the Middle and Upper River fixed-station receivers were
visited at least once per week. Data were downloaded from the R4500 receivers using a field
laptop computer equipped with ATS’s ATSWinRec_C (Version 1.0.14) software. Reference tag
records were checked to ensure that all antennas were working properly. The most common
problem encountered at stations involved animals chewing on the coaxial cable connecting the
antennas to the receiver. Later in the season, as the days became shorter, the solar panels did not
produce as much electricity, so that the 12-volt batteries needed replacement during the weekly
visits. The date, time, battery voltage, file name, memory-bank status, and any changes made to
the station were recorded onto a datasheet log stored at the station (a backup copy was also
maintained in the laptop case).
During the period from July 1–10, receivers at the mouths of Indian River and Portage Creek
stopped functioning after being over-taxed by the number of tags within their detection ranges.
The manufacturer assessed this behavior to be a result of a software flaw, and provided
replacement receivers while they repaired the original receivers. During this period data was not
collected at these two fixed-station receivers (see Figure B-1 for details of receiver performance).
The project objectives were still met because the receivers were visited more frequently than
planned to download the data, and the problems were fixed relatively quickly. However, the
system downtime may have affected estimates of travel times. To avoid bias, detection data
from July 1–11 at the Indian River and Portage Creek stations were not used for travel time and
travel speed analyses.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 15 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
For all fixed-station receivers, detection efficiencies were estimated by dividing the total number
of unique radio-tagged fish detected at the site by the total number of unique radio-tagged fish
known to have passed. The number of fish detected at each site included only fish moving in the
upstream direction (detection efficiencies would be artificially inflated if they included fish that
were missed as they passed a receiver in the upstream direction, but which were subsequently
detected as they dropped back past the receiver in a downstream direction). The total number
known to have passed each receiver included all those radio-tagged fish detected at that site, or at
any site located farther upstream. The detection efficiency of some receivers cannot be
calculated as there are no upstream receivers to act as detection zones (e.g., Kosina Creek
station). In this study, only tags deployed from the Curry fishwheels were included in detection
efficiency calculations.
Receiver performance was also assessed as the percentage of deployment time during which the
receiver was actively recording data. Activity and deployment were assessed on a per-hour
basis, and then summed over days or weeks to calculate daily or weekly activity percentages.
Receivers were considered active in a given hour if at least one fish detection, beacon-tag hit, or
noise event was recorded during the hour. Any detection (frequency-code) that did not
correspond to a valid fish was considered as noise.
4.2.4.3. Mobile Tracking
Aerial-tracking surveys were conducted by helicopter (Robinson R44) to allow relatively
accurate positioning of tagged fish (as compared to a fixed-wing aircraft), locate spawning areas,
and identify salmon in clear water areas. A 4-element Yagi antenna was mounted to the cargo
racks on each side of the helicopter (Photo 5). The antenna on the right side of the helicopter
was oriented downward and was used to pinpoint the location of a tagged fish. The antenna on
the left side of the helicopter was oriented forward and was used to scan in front of the helicopter
for upcoming tags. Coaxial cable from the antennas was run into the body of the helicopter and
connected to an antenna switcher that allowed the telemetry operator to scan for tags on one or
both antennas. Coaxial cable from the antenna switcher was connected to a bank of two ATS
R4520 and two R4500 receivers. Each receiver was equipped with a Garmin GPS antenna, so
the receivers could record the coordinates of each tag detected. A Garmin GPS was also used to
track the flight path on each survey.
Prior to the first survey of the season, the aerial setup was tested for accuracy in locating a tag’s
position. A radio tag was attached to a piece of rope with a buoy and placed in the river. The
helicopter then flew multiple passes over the tag during which different combinations of flight
path, antenna orientations, and receiver settings were used to determine the best technique for
achieving high-power readings when near the tag. In general, the forward antenna could be used
until the power reading reached approximately 95 (scale: 40–154), at which point it was best to
switch to the downward oriented antenna to pinpoint the tag. As the season progressed and more
tags were present in the river, often all river channels were flown and the downward-oriented
antenna was used almost exclusively.
Before each flight, the aerial setup was tested to ensure that it was working properly. An extra
radio tag was left in the vicinity of the landing area. After all the telemetry gear was attached to
the helicopter and connected to the receiver bank inside the helicopter, each receiver was
checked to ensure it was reading the tag correctly (antennas were tested individually and
combined).
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 16 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Aerial surveys were conducted in the mainstem Susitna River from RM 10 to approximately RM
223, about 16 river miles above the Kosina Creek confluence. Aerial surveys were flown
upstream of the Kosina Creek confluence if the fixed-station receiver at Kosina Creek detected a
radio-tagged fish passing (and it was not detected later in Kosina Creek or elsewhere).
Additionally, approximately 20 tributaries in the Middle and Upper River, and two tributaries in
the Lower River (the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers) were covered during aerial surveys. Much
of the river downstream of the confluence with the Chulitna River was highly braided and
required multiple passes during each survey to ensure that all tagged fish were located as
accurately as possible. Areas with large numbers of fish, such as creek mouths, were often flown
over multiple times, or the helicopter hovered over the sites, to ensure that all tags were detected.
Some areas of the Middle and Upper River were within buffer zones implemented to protect
known raptor nesting areas. The buffer zone around these nests had a radius of 1,000 ft within
which aerial surveys could not be conducted. In particular, Impediment 3 near Devil Creek and
the mouth of Kosina Creek were surveyed from the fringes due to raptor buffer zones.
Focused aerial-tracking surveys were conducted from June 29 to November 12 (see Table B-3
for details of mobile survey effort). Tracking typically occurred weekly until late October, at
which time surveys were done approximately every other week. Tracking effort was dependent
on weather conditions, helicopter availability, whether fish had been documented passing fixed-
station receivers, and whether fish were moving into areas where more frequent tracking
information was sought. The Middle River was surveyed consistently; some areas were
surveyed during certain parts of the year, and other areas were only surveyed as time allowed.
The Middle River above Devils Canyon and the Upper River were surveyed heavily during the
Chinook salmon run but never thereafter because no other fish were documented migrating
through Devils Canyon (as indicated by fixed-station receivers downstream). No surveys were
conducted below Montana Creek after September 27 and there was only one fixed-wing survey
of tributaries in the Lower River in October. The mainstem below the confluence with the
Deshka River (RM 41) was only surveyed a few times due to the effort involved to get there
from upriver, and the few tags in that stretch of river.
Data were downloaded from the receivers and GPS unit after each flight, and the digital data
were backed up at that time. Survey track information was recorded as a backup to the GPS
track log, including the start/end time, river section, and GPS coordinates. For each tagged fish
detected, the habitat type (mainstem, side channel, slough, and tributary delta) and relative water
turbidity was recorded. A laptop computer with fish locations from the most recent surveys was
used by the helicopter crew to help identify possible spawning locations in real time.
Using the guidance of fixed-station receiver and aerial survey data on the known positions of
tagged fish, mobile tracking was also conducted opportunistically by boat to obtain high-
resolution location information for any concentrations of tagged fish.
4.2.5. Telemetry Data Management
4.2.5.1. Fixed-Station Receiver Data
Files downloaded from fixed-station receivers were uploaded into custom processing software,
Telemetry Assessor. Telemetry Assessor was used to run diagnostics before erasing the internal
memory in the receiver, to ensure that all data were transferred, the file was readable, and the
receiver and antennas were operating properly. The diagnostics included the number of
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 17 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
detections per antenna per day, and the number of beacon-tag hits per antenna per day. Once
diagnostics were checked, Telemetry Assessor was used to produce a processed download file
containing the receiver number, and the date, time, antenna, frequency, code, and maximum
signal strength for a set of tag (or beacon tag) detections. Next, the receivers’ memory banks
were erased, and the receiver was set to continue recording detection data. The processed
download files were uploaded into custom database software, Telemetry Manager.
4.2.5.2. Mobile Data
During each mobile track, several receivers were run, each scanning a different table of
frequencies. Data from all aerial receivers were downloaded and checked for completeness.
Start and end times were checked to ensure that all data were present. GPS coordinates were
checked to ensure that the receiver recorded locations for all detections. Missing coordinates
were interpolated. All files from a given survey were loaded into Telemetry Assessor, which
processed all the files together to generate a single file per survey containing the timestamp,
coordinates and signal strength of the highest power detection for each tag (i.e., one record per
tag), along with the number of detections per tag, and the proportion of detections that were in
inactive mode. The processed mobile file was fed into geographic information system (GIS)
software which assigned zone numbers to the detection coordinates, after which it was uploaded
into Telemetry Manager.
4.2.5.3. Tag Returns
All tags were labeled with the principle investigator’s address and phone number so that any fish
recovered in in-river fisheries could be reported and/or returned. A form was kept at the
principle investigator’s Anchorage office to record all relevant recovery information, including:
angler name, contact information, date reported, date fish caught, capture location, species, radio
tag frequency/code, and spaghetti tag number. In general, recovery data were treated as mobile-
tracking data for the purposes of data processing. Thus, the recoveries dataset was fed into GIS
software which assigned zone numbers to the recovery coordinates, after which it was uploaded
into Telemetry Manager. To avoid ‘tracking’ fish to an angler’s residence, we removed all
detections of a recovered fish that were recorded after the reported recovery date from the
compressed Telemetry Manager operational database.
4.2.5.4. Data Processing
All files produced by Telemetry Assessor (fixed-station receiver and mobile-tracking files) and
all tag-recovery files were processed and analyzed using Telemetry Manager which facilitates
data organization, record validation, and analysis through the systematic application of user-
defined criteria. Raw data were archived so that the temporal or spatial resolution, or noise
filtering criteria could be changed by the user at any time without altering the raw data. An
important aspect of radio-telemetry is the removal of false records in receiver files, for example,
those that arise from electronic noise. In this study, the following criteria were set for records to
be considered valid: 1) for fixed-station receiver data, there must have been at least five
detections recorded per scan cycle (single records, or records separated by more than the scan
cycle time minutes were rejected); 2) for mobile data, single detection were allowed; 3) all
detections had to be recorded at zones that were geographically located between the locations of
previous and subsequent valid detections; and 4) any detections requiring unrealistic travel times
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 18 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
were removed. Once false records were removed, Telemetry Manager created a compressed
database of sequential detections for each fish. Each record included the tag number, location
(coordinates and zone number), the first and last time and date for sequential detections in that
location, and the maximum power for all detections in that interval. For mobile data, the
proportion of detections that were in inactive mode was also included. The compressed (i.e.,
“operational”) database was used to determine when each fish entered the study area, residence
times at each fixed-station receiver or spawning area, rates of movement between detection sites,
probable spawning locations and sites of last detection.
4.3. Objective 2 – Salmon Migration Behavior and Spawning
Locations in the Lower, Middle, and Upper Susitna River
Salmon migration behavior and spawning locations were described by tracking the salmon
tagged with radio transmitters in the Lower, Middle, and Upper River segments. Radio-tagged
salmon were assigned to spawning locations at the end of the season based on mobile and fixed
data collected throughout the season, which included combined results from AEA and ADF&G
surveys.
Inseason, we also used the potential spawning locations identified from radio telemetry to guide
field activities needed for other objectives, such as testing the ability of sonar to detect spawning
fish (Section 4.4), and describing spawning habitat characteristics and collection of data needed
to develop HSC models (Section 4.6). For this reason, we attempted to visually confirm
spawning activity at sites identified using radio telemetry.
4.3.1. Middle and Lower River Tagging and Tracking
Most mobile surveys and many of the fixed stations collected telemetry data from fish tagged by
both AEA and ADF&G. To provide comprehensive descriptions of behavior and spawning
throughout the entire mainstem river, AEA and ADF&G crafted an agreement to share radio
telemetry tracking data collected by each group. Middle River tagging and tracking was
described in detail in Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.4, above.
In the Lower River, salmon were captured and tagged by ADF&G as part of a separate, existing
study to estimate abundance and spawning distribution in different parts of the Susitna River
drainage (ADF&G 2013). The existing study was expanded to assist Project efforts to describe
spawning and migration of all salmon species in the mainstem Susitna River. Salmon tagged by
ADF&G were the only fish available for study in the Lower River, and augmented the number of
salmon tagged at Curry for study in the Middle and Upper River.
Salmon in the Lower River were captured and tagged in six fishwheels in 2012. The lowest four
fishwheels were grouped downstream of the confluence of the Susitna and Deshka rivers, near
RM 22, and were used to catch and tag chum, coho, pink, and sockeye salmon. The upper two
fishwheels were in a pair located above the confluence of the Susitna and Deshka rivers, at RM
30, and were used to capture Chinook salmon. Fishwheels were operated for various lengths of
time during the 2012 field season, depending on the run timing of the target fish. Salmon were
tagged with internal (esophageal) tags, following the schedule developed a priori. Tags were
placed in 500 Chinook salmon, 400 each of chum, coho, and pink salmon, and 100 sockeye
salmon. Full details of sampling and tagging protocols in the Lower River fishwheels are
described in ADF&G (2013).
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 19 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
After tagging, fish were tracked with a combination of fixed-station receivers and mobile
surveys. ADF&G installed four fixed-station receivers on the mainstem river. The lowest was
Susitna Station (RM 26), which was upstream of the lowest group of four fishwheels and served
as the gateway to the study for chum, coho, pink, and sockeye salmon (Figure 1). Next
upstream, Deshka Station (RM 40) served as the gateway for Chinook salmon. Continuing
upstream, Sunshine Station (RM 83) was the uppermost station on the Lower River, and Lane
Creek Station (RM 113) was the lowermost station on the Middle River. Devil Station at RM
164 was the uppermost station able to monitor tags deployed with the tag frequencies used by
ADF&G, and therefore the uppermost fixed station able to detect fish tagged in the Lower River.
The fraction of salmon tagged in the Lower River that did not migrate into tributaries (e.g., the
Deshka, Yentna, Talkeetna, or Chulitna rivers, or other smaller tributaries) became part of the
study of distribution and migration in the Middle and Upper River sections of the mainstem
Susitna River. The size of this tag group was increased by tagging more salmon at Curry, in the
lower part of the Middle River (RM 120). At Curry, another 400 Chinook, 200 chum, 200 coho,
and 200 pink salmon were intended to be tagged and then tracked upstream in the Middle and
Upper River; full description of the tagging at Curry is above, in Section 4.2.
4.3.2. Stock Classifications and Spawning Locations
Tracking histories (i.e., detection histories) of radio-tagged salmon were used to describe
distribution, straying, run timing, travel timing, and travel speeds. The compressed operational
database produced by Telemetry Manager was used to display tracking histories of individual
fish, and was queried to quantify behavior.
4.3.2.1. Classification of Tributary Stocks and Mainstem Spawners
The detection history of each radio-tagged salmon was used to assign the salmon to one of three
“destinations” (Tributary Destination, Mainstem Spawning, or Mainstem Other), based on
temporal patterns in detection positions within the study area. Fish with detections that were
restricted to the release area, fish that were never detected, fish whose tag was removed upon
recapture, and those that moved only in a downstream direction were excluded to avoid potential
handling-related biases. We used detection histories, instead of final tag locations, to assign a
destination because salmon can drift downstream after spawning or death, obscuring the true
destination and distribution of the salmon.
The Tributary Destination category consisted of all salmon that moved into a tributary,
presumably for spawning, regardless of whether they subsequently returned to the mainstem
river. The tributary into which the fish entered was recorded as its “stock.” Any fish that
entered one tributary, exited, and subsequently entered another tributary was given a stock
assignment based on the latter tributary. The one exception, noted under Objective 4, was a
Chinook salmon assigned to the Devil Creek Stock despite the fact that it later moved into Fog
Creek (specifically, the fish spent more than a week in Devil Creek, then moved upstream into
Fog Creek for likely less than two days before exiting and moving downriver). The study was
not designed to identify exact spawning positions in the tributaries, so tributary spawning
locations were not described.
All remaining fish were classified on a fish-by-fish basis into one of two remaining categories
(“Mainstem Spawning” and “Other Mainstem”). Classifications were assigned to each
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 20 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
individual fish after displaying its complete detection history on a base-map and examining each
detection in succession. Before proceeding with classification, several detections were
eliminated from consideration. First, movements were ignored after the tag entered mortality
mode. Second, downstream movements following the most upstream location were typically
ignored as the fish may have already been dead or moribund, unless the fish showed subsequent
upstream movements. The remaining data were examined, looking for any geographically
aggregated cluster of detections which might indicate that the fish should potentially be included
in the Mainstem Spawning category. Clusters in which the last live detection was obviously
before the published species-specific spawn-timing window were ignored. Each remaining
cluster was scrutinized before placing it into one of two ‘relative spawning probability’ groups:
Clusters were classified as “likely” spawning locations if the cluster consisted of several
detections in relatively close proximity to one another. The number of detections was
variable, but was greater than two; the distance between detections also varied, but was
generally within a few hundred meters (<1,000 ft). In these cases, the fish was assigned
to the Mainstem Spawning group.
Clusters were classified as “possible” spawning locations if the cluster was made up of
few detections, if the locations were more loosely aggregated, or if they were clustered in
an area where fish may be holding (rather than spawning, e.g., tributary mouths). These
fish were also assigned to the Mainstem Spawning group.
When tags were physically recovered in a spawning area, the recovery location was listed
as a "likely” mainstem spawning location, regardless of the nature of the detection
cluster.
As described above, the Mainstem Spawning category included salmon whose tags were either
physically recovered in a historic mainstem spawning areas (e.g., sloughs), or salmon whose
movement behavior fit the above criteria considered to resemble spawning. Habitat used by fish
in the Mainstem Spawning group was classified as Side Channel/Slough, Tributary Mouth, or
Mainstem Proper, based on position of the potential spawning location.
All other remaining fish were assigned to the catch-all “Other Mainstem” classification. Most
salmon in this group were only detected once, died well before the published species-specific
spawn timing window, showed no clustered mainstem locations, or moved downstream after
being tagged at Curry but then never subsequently moved into a tributary.
Determining the representative distribution of fish was only possible for salmon in the Mainstem
Spawning group. Salmon in this group had a cluster of detections in the potential spawning area,
and a single location was selected from within the cluster. To select the single point, we
identified either the last live detection or a detection that appeared to represent the center of mass
of the cluster.
4.3.3. Migration Behavior
4.3.3.1. Roaming Behavior in the Middle Susitna River
By assigning final destinations to all tagged fish, we were able to determine the proportion of
fish that moved through different habitats and ultimately moved into certain areas for spawning.
One category of interest was salmon that were detected in the Middle River, but that
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 21 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
subsequently moved downstream to spawn. For this, we decided to use only those salmon with
swimming behavior indicative of healthy fish not affected by the process of handling and
tagging. We chose fish that were detected at Lane Creek Station (for fish tagged in the Lower
River) or Gateway Station (for fish tagged in the Middle River), then moved downstream from
that location before ascending into a tributary. Detection of fish at Lane or Gateway stations was
taken as indication of the fish having recovered from tagging enough to migrate upstream; ascent
into a final tributary was taken as an indication that fish dropping downstream were not injured
or moribund. Note that none of these roaming fish were included in the Mainstem Spawning
category.
4.3.3.2. Salmon Run Timing
The run timing of each salmon species in the Middle River was assessed using fishwheel catch
data from Curry (RM 120). Run timing estimates assumed that 1) salmon were caught in a
sequence that was representative of the timing of their arrival in the study area, and 2) species-
specific catch rates did not vary over time. To create a run-timing curve, catch dates for all j fish
of a given species were sorted sequentially, and then each was given an index number from 1 to
j, starting at 1 for the earliest date, 2 for the next earliest date, etc., and ending at j for the latest
date. Each index value was then multiplied by (j-1) to calculate the cumulative proportion value,
which for the species ranged from j-1 to 1.0. To show their similarity, species-specific run-timing
curves from the Curry fishwheels were plotted together with the Lane Station passage dates for
fish that were radio-tagged in the Lower River.
Tagged salmon that were assigned to a stock (Section 4.3.2.1) were grouped together to calculate
stock-specific run-timing distributions. Stock-specific run-timing curves were produced in the
same manner as the species-specific curves, except that only fish with radio tags were used
(rather than the whole fishwheel catch—only tagged fish could be assigned to a stock). To
create a stock-specific run-timing curve, the catch dates for all tagged fish of a given species that
were assigned to a given stock were sorted sequentially. Only stocks represented by at least six
tagged fish were plotted.
Run timing was also described for salmon passing each fixed station in the Middle and Upper
River, using plots similar to those used for run timing at Curry. Cumulative passage timing
curves were generated for each species’ passage by Curry (release dates from fishwheels),
Gateway (RM 125), Indian River (RM 139), and Portage Creek (RM 149). For Chinook salmon,
we also generated cumulative passage curves for timing past Cheechako Station (RM 152),
Chinook Creek (RM 157), Devil Station (RM 164), and the Kosina confluence (RM 207). For
this analysis, passage times were interpolated from detections at neighboring sites (assuming a
constant travel speed) whenever a fish passed a station without being detected. Median,
minimum, and maximum passage dates were also tabulated for each receiver, by species (no
interpolated data points were included). Passage by the Slough 11 and Slough 21 receivers were
not plotted or tabulated due to the low numbers of fish detected in those locations.
Due to the malfunctioning of receivers at the Indian and Portage stations from July 1–10,
accurate travel times could not be calculated from detections during this period. Detection data
from July 1–11 at these two receivers were removed from analysis of run timing past these two
stations. Station passage timing may have been affected by the interpolation of missing values if
fish traveled at different speeds during the period of the malfunction relative to the remaining
study period.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 22 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
4.3.3.3. Travel Speeds
Travel speed for each individual radio-tagged fish was calculated based on the timing between
detections at the various fixed-station receivers. Travel time between two receiver stations was
calculated as the time between the first detection at the downstream receiver and that at the
upstream receiver. Travel speeds were calculated by dividing the distance (in km) between
receivers by the travel time. Travel speeds tended to be non-normal. For non-parametric
comparisons, median travel speeds were compared among stocks, and among reaches using
Kruskal-Wallis tests.
Due to the malfunctioning of the Indian and Portage receivers from July 1–10, travel speeds
measured from detections made during this period could not be considered accurate. As such,
detection data from July 1–11 at these two receivers were excluded from the travel speed
analyses. If fish traveled at different speeds during the period of the malfunction relative to the
remaining study period, then our travel speed estimates may be biased. Given the early date of
the malfunction relative to species-specific run timing, this problem would conceivably only
affect Chinook salmon data.
4.4. Objective 3 – Feasibility of using Sonar to Detect Spawning
Locations in Turbid Water
Sonar has the potential to detect redds in turbid water and confirm spawning activity by directly
observing fish behavior. Radio telemetry can be used to identify suspected spawning locations
(based upon holding durations), but subsequent sampling with sonar may be needed to verify
whether spawning actually occurred. To examine the feasibility of using sonar for this purpose,
DIDSON and high-resolution, side-scan sonar were operated in suspected clear and turbid water
spawning areas, and if possible, the results would be compared to visual surveys of spawning
fish (in clear water) and counts of redds (in clear but previously turbid water). Two surveys were
planned for the 2012 field season: the first survey was intended to coincide with Chinook
salmon actively spawning, and the second survey was to occur later in the season when turbidity
had decreased to maximize the chances of obtaining visual comparisons.
An EdgeTech 4125 600/1600 kHz side-scan sonar system was used which generates static
images with a down-range resolution of 0.6 cm (0.2 in) and an across-range resolution at 10 m
(33 ft) range of approximately 4–6 cm (1.6–2.4 in). The transducer “tow fish” was deployed
with a chain and cable that were attached to a vertical pole mounted on the gunnel of the boat
approximately 1.5 m (4.9 ft) aft of the bow. The length of the cable was adjusted so that the
transducer was suspended at a depth of 20 cm (7.9 in) while the boat was moving. Side-scan
sonar data were collected at boat speeds of 1–2 knots (kt) with a 25 m (82 ft) sampling range on
each side (left and right) of the transducer. The minimum water depth required for the
deployment of the transducer was approximately 0.5 m (1.6 ft).
Dynamic sonar data were collected with an unmodified DIDSON system deployed on a swivel
pole mounted in the same position as the side-scan sonar. Data were collected with the boat
stationary or at a slow drift (<1 kt; Photo 6). For stationary samples, the tilt angle was adjusted
until optimal, and manually rotated to scan upstream and downstream. While searching for fish,
data were collected in low-frequency mode (0.8 MHz) to a maximum range of 25 m (82 ft). For
detailed observations of fish behavior, data were collected in high-frequency mode to a
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 23 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
maximum range of 10–15 m (33–49 ft). Fish observed using DIDSON were categorized by size
class. Although DIDSON data cannot be used to identify fish by species, size classes provide
some ability to distinguish large adult salmon (e.g., Chinook salmon) from smaller resident
fishes. All sonar data were correlated to positional data, acquired by a Trimble DSM 212 DGPS
with a 10 Hz update rate and differential corrections received from the Alaska Coast Guard
station in Kenai, Alaska.
4.4.1. Deviations from Study Plan (Section 4.1)
One DIDSON/side-scan survey was conducted from early August through September, instead of
three, as proposed in the study plan. Following the first DIDSON/side-scan survey, described in
Section 5.3, the ability of the sonar technologies to provide the level of detail needed to assess
spawning activity at main channel locations was unclear. High water levels and poor access to
suitable sample sites led to the cancellation of two scheduled trips. The first sampling trip was
not overly successful, and the crew considered it unlikely that two more trips would have yielded
substantially more spawning habitat validations.
4.5. Objective 4 – Characterize Salmon Migration Behavior and
Timing Above Devils Canyon
Three potential impediments to fish passage were identified between Portage and Devil creeks at RM 152,
RM 156, and RM 161 (
Figure 5). All fish radio-tagged at the Lower and Middle River fishwheels were included in the
passage evaluation through Devils Canyon. Radio-tagged fish approaching or passing the
farthest downstream of these, Impediment 1 (RM 152), were analyzed for species, length, sex,
tag release date, and tag release location based on data recorded at the time of tagging. The dates
of detection near or above each impediment, hold times, and a brief summary of the fish’s final
destination were also summarized. River flows were compared to fish passage to assess
movement at different levels of discharge.
Hold times were calculated as the time from the first to the last detection downstream of an
impediment. When only a single detection was made downstream of an impediment, hold times
were estimated from the timing of adjacent detections (i.e., the time below impediment must
have been less than the time between two adjacent detections away from the impediments). As
hold times tend to be non-normal, Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare median hold times
between fish that passed and those that did not pass, with each impediment analyzed separately.
All flows used in this report were measured at Gold Creek (RM 136), where discharge is likely
higher than at the Devils Canyon impediments due to water inputs in between. When assessing
individual fish passage, this report uses average daily discharge at Gold Creek on dates each fish
was first detected upstream of an impediment. Instantaneous discharges may vary across a
calendar day. For fish that did not pass above an impediment, flows were determined on the date
that a fish was first detected below the impediment. Because discharges were found to be highly
skewed, Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare flows experienced by fish to those of fish
that did not pass, with each impediment analyzed separately.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 24 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
4.6. Objective 5 – Distribution Among Habitats: Current Versus
Historic Use and Relative Abundance
From 1981 through 1985, ADF&G conducted radio telemetry, aerial, and ground surveys to
locate mainstem spawning habitat for Chinook, chum, coho, pink, and sockeye salmon in the
Lower and Middle River (Barrett et al. 1984, 1985; Thompson 1986). Mainstem spawning was
separated into four mainstem habitat types: main channel, side channel, slough, and tributary
delta. During peak spawning times, ADF&G field crews enumerated spawning salmon at
various mainstem habitats on a weekly basis. These counts were used to produce estimates of
percent distribution of a salmon species at a mainstem habitat location relative to the total
number of that species enumerated at all similar mainstem habitat locations within the Middle
River.
Methodology in 2012 was similar to that used in the 1980s studies (radio telemetry surveys in
conjunction with aerial and ground visual surveys) to locate and confirm mainstem (main
channel, side channel, slough, and tributary delta) spawning locations for Chinook, chum, coho,
pink, and sockeye salmon. Spawning locations for each salmon species were compared to results
from the 1980s spawning ground surveys (Barrett et al. 1984, 1985; Thompson et al. 1986).
Because indices of relative abundance were not achieved in 2012, all inferences and comparisons
to historic percent distribution data were based on 2012 field observations. These comparisons
highlight specific spawning locations important (as indicated by past and present consistencies in
usage) to mainstem spawning salmon species. Because no salmon species were found to spawn
within the mainstem Lower River in the 1980s, all comparisons with the 2012 results were made
for the Middle River.
4.7. Objective 6 – Locate Individual and Holding and Spawning
Salmon, Collect Habitat Data in Lower and Middle River
Consistent with HSC Data Collection
4.7.1. Spawning and Holding Fish Identified
From June 26 to October 29, 2012, we used concurrent radio telemetry studies, recent ADF&G
radio telemetry studies, and 1980s data to locate salmon holding and spawning sites in mainstem
habitats of the Lower and Middle River. These potential spawning sites were then assessed
using visual aerial and ground surveys for confirmation of spawning activity. For more detail on
this process see Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2.
4.7.2. Habitat Data Collection Consistent with Habitat Suitability Criteria
Potential spawning locations were surveyed by air or boat to verify the presence of spawning
salmon (Section 4.7.1). Once identified, a subset of locations was chosen for spawning ground
sampling, which was designed to acquire data needed for developing HSC to be used in the
habitat models as part of the instream flow study.
Surveys to collect HSC data were conducted from August 11 to October 29 in the Middle River.
The goal was to sample 10 to 20 redds for each salmon species for microhabitat data (water
depth, water velocity, turbidity, substrate size and composition, surface water temperature, and
presence/absence of upwelling). Potential spawning sites in turbid water areas were identified by
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 25 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
radio telemetry. Some of these sites were also used to assess the feasibility of using sonar
(combination of DIDSON and side-scan sonar) technologies to collect HSC data. Additional
surveys were conducted by AEA in the Middle and Lower River as part of the instream flow
study.
Some pre-selected sites, based on historic data, were also sampled in 2012. These sites included
sloughs 21, 11, 9A, 9, and 8A, all of which provided spawning habitat for a large percentage of
the chum, pink, and sockeye salmon that spawned within the mainstem Middle River from 1981
through 1985 (see Section 5.6). Additional sites were determined in-season from telemetry
tracking and aerial visual surveys. Spawning sites located, but not sampled for microhabitat data
in 2012, will be re-visited as part of the 2013–2014 study.
Habitat surveys were conducted by walking the habitat reach or sub-plot in an upstream direction
and identifying the location of newly constructed redds. Only redds occupied by spawning
salmon were sampled to ensure accurate species-specific HSC data collection. At each site, up
to five redds were systematically sampled. A digital image, when practical, was taken of each
sampled redd. Coordinates were recorded for the upper and lower extent of each spawning patch
(grouping of redds) that was sampled. For each redd sampled, the following measurements of
microhabitat and observations were made:
1. Redd dimensions, length and width, to nearest 1.0 cm (0.39 in), to allow computation of
area;
2. Water depth to the nearest 1.0 cm (0.39 in) at the upstream end of each redd measured
using a top setting wading rod;
3. Mean water column velocity at the upstream end of each redd to the nearest 0.01 meters
per second (m/s; 0.033 ft/s) using a Swoffer Model 2100 flowmeter;
4. Turbidity to the nearest 1.0 Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU) using a Hach Model
2100 Q turbidimeter;
5. Substrate size (dominant, sub-dominant, and percent dominant);
6. Surface water temperature to the nearest 0.2°C (0.36°F); and
7. Presence/absence of upwelling.
This field effort and data collection criteria were coordinated with the Instream Flow Program
investigators to ensure quality and consistent data collection were achieved for developing HSC.
As part of the integration of this study with the instream flow study, spawning locations and
microhabitat data were provided to the instream flow study team for use in the development of
their models. A compilation of site locations was also supplied to the aquatic habitat and
geomorphic mapping team to ensure that necessary sections of river were digitized.
4.8. Objective 7 – Effectiveness of Methods used in 2012
While conducting the study, effort was spent to evaluate the effectiveness of the methods used in
2012 and to suggest changes or new approaches in 2013 and 2014. Our evaluation of methods
consisted mainly of assessing the effectiveness of fishwheels to capture representative
proportions of the salmon populations, and the usefulness of radio telemetry to describe salmon
migration behavior and habitat use. Because this study was also interconnected with others
conducted by different organizations, communication and information transfer were also
evaluated to facilitate coordination in future years. Finally, results of salmon capture,
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 26 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
distribution, and habitat use were incorporated into development of the RSP for 2013–2014 study
years.
The use of sonar to sample fish and habitat in turbid water was an additional evaluation
addressed specifically as Objective 3, and is described in Section 4.4.
4.8.1. Capture and Tagging of Fish at Curry
In addition to stream count and carcass survey data (Section 5.1.3.6), fish count data from
ADF&G’s inseason aerial surveys (Sam Ivey, Area Management Biologist, ADF&G, personal
communication, July 25, 2012) were used to further refine the estimates of the proportion of
Chinook salmon captured and tagged at the Middle River fishwheels.
4.8.2. Effectiveness of Radio Telemetry to Address Objectives
The effectiveness of radio telemetry for describing migration behavior, spawning locations,
stock-specific run-timing, post-spawning mortality and passage through Devils Canyon was
assessed using the extensive data collected from fixed-station receivers and mobile surveys.
Estimates of migration speeds and post-release tracking success were compared with those from
other radio telemetry studies conducted on Pacific salmon. The reliability of the telemetry
equipment was assessed by calculating detection efficiencies for each fixed station and
examining the sequential recorded for each radio tag to determine if the mortality sensors were
functioning properly.
5. RESULTS
From June 10 to October 20, 2012, daily discharge of the Susitna River at Gold Creek (RM 136)
averaged 23,073 cfs and ranged from a high of 73,584 cfs on September 22 to a low of 5,051 cfs
on October 20 (Figure 6). From June 29 to August 30, water temperature of the Middle River
near Curry (RM 120) ranged from a low of 9°C (48°F; July 9–10) to a high of 17°C (63°F; July
17–18).
5.1. Objective 1 – Fish Capture, Tagging, and Tracking in the Middle
Susitna River
5.1.1. Fish Capture – Operation, Effort, and Catch
5.1.1.1. Fishwheel Operation in 2012
As stated in Section 4.2.1, three fishwheels were operated at two different sites near Curry in
2012 (Figure 3; Photo 7; Photo 8). Fishwheel 1 operated at Site 1 from June 17 to July 15, and
then it was replaced at Site 1 by Fishwheel 3 from July 16 to September 1 (Photo 9). The
riverbank at this site had a gradual slope, so the fishwheels were held 20–30 ft offshore using
spar poles to keep them in water with sufficient depth and velocity to turn the baskets. As a
result, a block net was required between the riverbank and fishwheel baskets to direct fish from
the nearshore area into the fishwheel. Fishwheel 3 was built in mid-July with shallower baskets
that were better suited for Site 1, particularly when river discharge decreased.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 27 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Fishwheel 2 operated at Site 2 from June 18 to August 22 (Photo 10). This site was heavily rip-
rapped with large boulders to support the adjacent railroad. The fishwheel was located on the
inside bank of a river bend, so it was somewhat protected from debris. As discharges decreased
over the season, the fishwheel was moved upstream to keep it in fast-flowing water.
Due to highly variable water levels, frequent fishwheel adjustments (inshore/offshore), and rocky
substrates, picket weirs could not be used at either site to direct fish away from shore and into the
path of the fishwheel. No leads were used at either site prior to June 30. On June 30, leads were
installed at both sites consisting of nylon net (2.5-in mesh) strung between the shore-side
pontoon and riverbank. Rocks were tied along bottom of the nets to hold them in place. A
review of DIDSON footage collected at Site 1 revealed that some fish were passing underneath
the lead net. On July 16, a new lead net (3.5 in coated nylon mesh net, 2.5 lb/ft chain for a lead
line) was installed at Site 1. Although the DIDSON had been removed from Site 1 by this time,
the crew considered the new lead net impenetrable to upstream-migrating fish.
5.1.1.2. Effort
Two fishwheels operated at Site 1 for a total of 807 hours (FW1 = 373 hours; FW3 = 434 hours)
between 11:45 A.M. on June 17 and 7:08 P.M. on September 1, which represented 44.1 percent of
the available time they were in place (Figure 7; Table C-1). Daily fishing effort at Site 1 ranged
from 0.0 to 17.7 hours, and fishwheel speed ranged from 1.7 to 4.7 RPM. Fishing effort was
reduced to 4.2 hours on August 27, and 0.0 hours on August 28, due to a sudden rise in river
discharge and the presence of large woody debris. Fishing ended for the season on September 1
at Site 1 when coho salmon catches dropped to zero.
Fishwheel 2 operated for a total of 646 hours at Site 2 between 10:00 A.M. on June 18 and 1:05
P.M. on August 22, which represented 41.3 percent of the available time it was in place. Daily
fishing effort at Site 2 ranged from 0.0 to 16.8 hours, and fishwheel speed ranged from 2.1 to 4.5
RPM. Fishwheel 2 was not operated on July 15 as crew efforts were focused on building a third
fishwheel. Fishing ended for the season on August 22 at Site 2 after five consecutive days of no
coho salmon caught.
5.1.1.3. Catch
A total of 566 Chinook, 1,734 chum, 265 coho, 4,705 pink, and 100 sockeye, salmon were
captured at the Curry fishwheels (including jacks and recaptures; Table 2; Table C-2 to Table C-
6). Of the 566 Chinook salmon captured at the fishwheels from June 18 to August 9, 422 (74.6
percent) were adults and 144 (25.4 percent) were jacks (Table 2). The majority (59.9 percent) of
Chinook salmon were captured at Site 1. Peak daily catches occurred on June 30 at Site 1 (26
fish) and July 2 at Site 2 (21 fish; Figure 8). Catch per unit effort (CPUE) peaked at 1.8
fish/hour at Site 1 (June 30) and 1.5 fish/hour at Site 2 (July 2; Figure 9; Table C-2). Chinook
salmon (n = 492) averaged 71 cm FL (28.0 in) and ranged from 33 to 123 cm FL (13.0 to 48.4
in; Table 3).
Of the 100 sockeye salmon captured from July 2 to August 22, 92 (92 percent) were adults and
eight (8 percent) were jacks (Table 2). The majority (63 percent) of sockeye salmon were
captured at Site 2. Peak daily catches occurred on August 8 at Site 1 (3 fish) and August 6 at
Site 2 (6 fish; Figure 8). Peak CPUE was 0.3 fish/hour at Site 1 (August 8) and 0.7 fish/hour at
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 28 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Site 2 (August 6; Figure 9; Table C-3). Sockeye salmon (n = 91) averaged 54 cm FL (21.3 in)
and ranged from 32 to 72 cm FL (12.6 to 28.3 in; Table 3).
From July 16 to August 31, 4,164 (89 percent) pink salmon were caught at Site 1 and 541 (11
percent) were caught at Site 2 (Table 2). Peak daily catches occurred on August 3 at Site 1 (451
fish) and August 2 at Site 2 (125 fish; Figure 8); while CPUE peaked at 49.5 (August 6) and 14.4
(August 2) fish/hour, respectively, at sites 1 and 2 (Figure 9; Table C-4). The average length of
pink salmon (n = 588) was 49 cm FL (19.3 in) and ranged from 34 to 59 cm FL (13.4 to 23.2 in;
Table 3).
Chum salmon were captured from July 10 to September 1 in comparable numbers at Site 1 (877
fish) and Site 2 (857 fish; Table 2). Peak daily catches occurred on August 2 at Site 1 (66 fish)
and Site 2 (115 fish; Figure 8). Peak CPUE was on August 2 (7.5 fish/hour at Site 1, 13.2
fish/hour at Site 2; Figure 9; Table C-5). Chum salmon averaged 67 cm FL (26.4 in) and ranged
from 52 to 77 cm FL (20.5 to 30.3 in; n = 867; Table 3).
From July 28 to August 31, 264 adult coho salmon and one jack were captured (229 at Site 1 and
35 at Site 2; Table 2). Daily catches peaked on August 11 at Site 1 (21 fish) and August 7 at Site
2 (7 fish; Figure 8). Peak daily CPUE was higher at Site 1 (2.3 fish/hour on August 11) than Site
2 (0.8 fish/hour on August 7; Figure 9; Table C-6). The average length of coho salmon was 55
cm FL (21.7 in) and ranged from 35 to 69 cm FL (13.8 to 27.2 in; n = 250; Table 3).
Site 1 was fished longer (807 hours) and captured more Chinook, chum, coho, and pink salmon
than Site 2 (646 hours); but despite considerably less fishing effort, Site 2 captured more sockeye
salmon than Site 1.
Six other fish species were captured and released, including 29 round whitefish, 23 rainbow
trout, 22 longnose sucker, six humpback whitefish, one arctic grayling, and two Dolly Varden.
Tissue samples and otoliths were collected from a portion of these fish (Table 4).
5.1.2. Fish Tagging
Radio tags were applied to 352 Chinook, 279 chum, 184 coho, 230 pink, and 70 sockeye salmon
Figure 10; Table C-2 to Table C-6). Of the untagged, healthy adult salmon captured at the Curry
fishwheels, radio tags were applied to 87.8 percent of Chinook, 16.1 percent of chum, 70.5
percent of coho, 4.9 percent of pink, and 77.8 percent of sockeye salmon. Figure 11 shows the
cumulative proportion of daily catch, CPUE, and radio tags applied for each species. The daily
number of radio tags applied peaked at 37 for Chinook, 30 for chum, 19 for coho, 24 for pink,
and five for sockeye salmon.
Spaghetti tags were applied to every second Chinook salmon captured from June 19–22. Of the
352 radio-tagged Chinook salmon, 338 (96.0 percent) received a radio tag only and 14 (4.0
percent) received both a radio tag and spaghetti tag.
A number of tagged salmon were recaptured at the fishwheels, including 20 Chinook, seven
chum, three coho, one pink, and two sockeye salmon (Table 5). Of these, four chum and one
pink salmon were spaghetti-tagged by ADF&G at the Lower River fishwheels. Of the salmon
both tagged and recaptured at Curry, 23 were recaptured at Site 1 and 10 at Site 2. The radio
tags from two Chinook salmon recaptures were removed prior to release (one was tagged in the
Lower River and one was tagged in the Middle River).
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 29 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
5.1.3. Diagnostics – Effectiveness of Catch, Representation of Run
5.1.3.1. Tests for Handling-Induced Changes in Behavior
For Chinook salmon radio-tagged at the Curry fishwheels, the elapsed time between tag and
recapture events ranged from 3 minutes to 11 days (median = 6.9 hours, n = 13; Table 6). Nine
out of thirteen Chinook salmon were recaptured the same day as they had been tagged (0–7 hour
delay), two were recaptured the day after being tagged (15 and 23 hour delay), and two were
recaptured several days later (6 and 11 day delay). Three Chinook salmon radio-tagged in the
Lower River were recaptured at the Curry fishwheels 26 to 29 days (median = 26.7 days) after
release in the Lower River. Two sockeye salmon radio-tagged at the Curry fishwheels were
recaptured 2.6 hours and 20.7 days after being tagged; two chum salmon were captured 0.6 and
2.2 hours after being tagged; and three coho salmon were recaptured 1.6 hours, 1.9 hours, and 8
days after being tagged. No pink salmon tagged at Curry were recaptured.
Migration rates for Chinook salmon traveling between the Curry fishwheels and Gateway station
were slower for radio-tagged fish that were captured twice at the fishwheels (mean = 9.1 km/day
[5.7 mi/day], n = 8) than for fish that were captured only once (mean = 10.6 km/day [6.6
mi/day], n = 204) but the sample of eight fish was small and we made no attempt to correct for
any confounding of time trends in discharge and any potential variation in fishwheel catch
efficiencies, both of which could influence this metric.
Fourteen recaptured Chinook salmon (with known tag numbers) were released at the fishwheels
with their radio tags intact. Of these, one (7.1 percent) was last detected at the release site while
the remaining 13 (92.9 percent) were tracked into tributaries.
Ninety-seven percent of fish (all species) radio-tagged spent less than 10 minutes in the
fishwheel live tanks prior to tagging and 84 percent spent less than five minutes. No radio-
tagged fish (all species) were held in the live tanks for longer than 28 minutes. Due to a lack of
contrast in holding times, we did not evaluate post-release survival and migration behavior as a
function of holding time.
5.1.3.2. Test for Equal Capture Probabilities by Time
Temporally stratified mark-rate data were not obtained from spawning ground surveys due to a
combination of limited access to clear-water spawning areas and too few carcasses available in
accessible clear-water habitats (see Section 5.1.3.6). As a result we could not directly test for
equal capture probabilities over time at the fishwheels. Section 5.1.3.5 describes the results of
using DIDSON to evaluate fishwheel effectiveness.
Due to near-record high water levels at the start of the season, the fishwheel at Site 1 did not
begin operating until June 17 (target start date was second week of June). Despite this delay, no
fish were caught on the first day of operation and only one Chinook salmon was caught on June
18. This initial zero point suggests that it was unlikely that many Chinook salmon passed Curry
prior to the onset of sampling. Historically, 0.0–3.5 percent (mean = 1.7 percent) of Chinook
salmon catches at the Curry fishwheels occurred prior to June 17.
Fishing at Curry was stopped for the season on September 1. No coho salmon were captured that
day, and only one coho salmon was captured on August 31. Historically, 0.0–13.7 percent (mean
= 6.5 percent) of coho salmon catches at the Curry fishwheels occurred after September 1. It
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 30 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
was possible that a small portion of late-run coho salmon passed Curry after the fishwheels were
shut down and water levels subsided after September 1.
5.1.3.3. Tests for Equal Capture Probabilities by Area (Stock)
For the same reasons described in Section 5.1.3.2, geographically stratified mark-rate
information was not collected in 2012 which precluded direct tests for equal capture probabilities
by areas (stock).
Of the 21 radio-tagged salmon recaptured at the Curry fishwheels with known final destinations,
two (9.5 percent) were classified as mainstem spawners (slough/side channel), whereas 19 fish
(90.5 percent) were classified as tributary spawners. These results indicate mainstem spawning
populations were not more vulnerable to capture than tributary spawners.
At Curry, there was some evidence of possible stock-specific bank orientation by coho salmon,
but not by tributary stocks of Chinook, chum, or pink salmon. Sample sizes for sockeye salmon
were too small to evaluate. A larger proportion of coho salmon tagged on the east bank at Curry
(25 percent) returned to Portage Creek compared to those tagged on the west bank (9.6 percent;
χ2 = 5.3, P = 0.02); one of the cells in the contingency table analysis, however, had an expected
value less than five because of small sample sizes. Conversely, a larger proportion of coho
salmon tagged on the west bank (41.0 percent) returned to Indian River compared to those
tagged on the east bank (14.3 percent; χ2 = 7.3, P = 0.01). The proportion of Chinook salmon
returning to Portage Creek did not differ for fish tagged on the east (48.1 percent) and west (42.6
percent) banks at Curry (χ2 = 1.0, P = 0.32). Similarly, the proportion of Chinook salmon
returning to Indian River did not differ or fish tagged on the east (20.2 percent) and west (26.5
percent) banks (χ2 = 1.8, P = 0.18).
5.1.3.4. Tests for Equal Capture Probabilities by Fish Size
Size selectivity at the fishwheels could not be directly tested in 2012 because there were not
enough independent, unbiased length samples available for comparison. As per Section 5.1.3.6,
ground surveys conducted to collect length data observed that there were few carcasses available
to measure. Only three adult Chinook salmon were measured for length on the spawning
grounds (all from the Indian River). For all species, there were no significant differences
detected between the cumulative length-frequency distributions of fish caught at sites 1 and 2
(Table 7; Figure 12; Figure 13). Similarly, the cumulative length-frequency distributions of fish
caught at sites 1 and 2 (combined) were not significantly different than those for fish that were
radio-tagged (Table 7; Figure 14; Figure 15). These results indicate that fish caught at sites 1
and 2, as well as those that were caught and tagged, had similar length distributions. However,
we could not determine whether the length distributions of fish sampled at the fishwheels were
necessarily representative of the population passing Curry.
5.1.3.5. Use of DIDSON to Assess Fishwheel Effectiveness
The DIDSON was operated consistently from June 15 to July 4 below the fishwheel at Site 1.
Review of the DIDSON data was limited to periods of greatest interest (Table 8; Figure 16).
Complete data reviews (i.e., all 24-hours) were performed for June 16–20 to aid in fishwheel
placement and determine initial fishwheel effectiveness. Shorter blocks of data were reviewed
from June 21–28 and July 4 to help answer questions about migration behavior and potential
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 31 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
changes to fishwheel catch efficiency following a weir installation. Given the timing of its use,
the DIDSON helped establish fishing sites and lead net configurations, but was not used late in
the run once the fishwheels appeared effective at meeting the tagging goals and fishwheel CPUE
appeared to be a good indication of run timing. The DIDSON data was useful to fully or
partially address several questions related to fishwheel effectiveness. The DIDSON was not
used to address the extended temporal aspects of the questions below (i.e., across the season).
5.1.3.5.1. Were fishwheels established in time to capture the leading and trailing ends of
each species run?
DIDSON counts corrected for sampling effort (counts per hour) provided a good indication that
the leading edge of the Chinook salmon run was captured (Figure 17; Figure 18). This
conclusion was further reinforced by the CPUE of the fishwheel at Site 1 (Figure 10). Review of
full 24-hour DIDSON files from June 15–16 provided counts of three and five Chinook salmon,
respectively. The fishwheel CPUE generally conformed to the relative changes in Chinook
salmon observed in the DIDSON data, although data was not analyzed through the peak of the
Chinook salmon run.
The DIDSON was not operated after the fishwheels were removed on September 1 and therefore
it was not used to characterize the end of the run at Curry. The DIDSON could not be used to
address the end of species-specific runs that may have occurred at Curry prior to the fishwheels
shutting down because distinguishing among the fish species migrating in August would have
been impossible. Instead, fishwheel CPUE was used to assess the tail end of each run.
5.1.3.5.2. Can the DIDSON be used to assess fishwheel (and net lead) placement?
Shorter blocks of DIDSON data were reviewed from June 21–28 and on July 4 to help answer
questions about migration behavior and potential changes to fishwheel effectiveness following a
weir installation. These data provided crews in the field with excellent near video-quality
imagery of the fish approaching the net lead and the fishwheel baskets. Fish were observed
moving under the net prior to improvements to the anchoring system, and fish were seen moving
through the area between the end of the lead and the fishwheel baskets.
5.1.3.5.3. Were fish migrating offshore of the fishwheel?
The majority of Chinook salmon reviewed on DIDSON data appeared to be bank oriented and
were observed between 1 and 6 m (3 and 20 ft) from shore, with the majority of fish detected at 4
m (13 ft; Figure 18). Given that detectability of fish by the DIDSON generally decreases with
range, Figure 16 should be interpreted with caution. However, in the area of what would be
considered high detectability (out to at least 8 m or 26 ft), the fish peak at 4 m (13 ft) and begin
to decline. Of possibly greater importance was that the fish size (as measured from the DIDSON
imagery) did not show a pattern or significant difference across the lengths of Chinook salmon
and the distance travelled from shore (Figure 19).
5.1.3.5.4. Was there a diel pattern of migration at the fishwheel sites?
Analysis of video files from June 21–28, during hours when the fishwheel was not operational,
along with complete 24-hour video analysis from June 15–20, confirmed that the majority of
Chinook salmon were migrating between 8:00 A.M. and 22:00 P.M. and that the majority of this
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 32 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
migration occurred during hours of daily fishwheel operations (Figure 20). In fact, these data,
combined with fishwheel CPUE, were used to optimize the periods of fishing for the fishwheels.
5.1.3.6. Stream Counts and Carcass Surveys
Ground-based stream counts and carcass surveys, aerial-tracking surveys, and aerial-counting
surveys (ADF&G) were used to estimate the mark rate of Chinook salmon in Portage Creek and
Indian River. River discharge and turbidity were low during all surveys making visibility very
good or excellent for counting fish. These data were generally insufficient for rigorously testing
assumptions about catch rates and representativeness of the tagged fish but are presented here for
completeness and to inform planning efforts for 2013.
5.1.3.6.1. Ground and Aerial-Tracking Surveys
Visual ground surveys (stream walks) of Chinook salmon were conducted in sections of Portage
Creek (July 30) and Indian River (July 31 and August 8; Table 9; Table 10). For all of the
ground surveys, crews considered their observer efficiency to be roughly 80 percent. On July 30
in Portage Creek, surveyors on foot counted 146 live Chinook salmon, and estimated another 34
in part of a side channel blocked by a brown bear (Ursus arctos). Based on an observer
efficiency of 80 percent, the 180 fish counted represented approximately 225 fish present in the
survey area. A concurrent aerial-tracking survey documented 29 tags, and was assumed to have
100 percent detection efficiency in the study area. Based on these results, the mark rate of
Chinook salmon in Portage Creek was 13 percent (29 tags / 216 fish total). To bound this
estimate, an observer efficiency of 50 percent (unreasonably low) yields a mark rate of 11
percent (29 radio tags / 270 fish), and an observer efficiency of 100 percent (an unrealistically
high number) yields a mark rate of 16 percent (29 radio tags / 180 fish).
On July 31, 82 live Chinook salmon were counted during a ground survey in Indian River (Table
9; Table 10), and 11 active tags were detected during the aerial-tracking survey. Again,
assuming an observer efficiency of 80 percent during the ground surveys, the mark rate of
Chinook salmon within the sampled reach of Indian River was 11 percent (11 tags / 98 fish
total).
On August 8, 43 live Chinook salmon were counted during a ground survey in Indian River, and
17 active radio tags were detected during an aerial-tracking survey of the same area (Table 9;
Table 10). However, because the ground-survey crew found three carcasses in the woods
containing radio tags that were emitting an active signal, the estimated number of active tags was
decreased to 14. Assuming 80 percent observer efficiency for ground surveys, the estimated
mark-rate was 27 percent. We believe this estimate may be biased high because of uncertainty in
the number of tags emitting an active signal that were unavailable to the ground-survey crew.
Surveys that occur prior to significant numbers of dead fish appearing in the stream likely
provide better but still potentially biased (high) mark-rate estimates.
One Chinook salmon carcass was found during the survey of Portage Creek on July 30 (Photo
11). This fish was a pre-spawn radio-tagged male that had been partially consumed by a bear
(condition of carcass precluded measuring for length). No carcasses were found in Indian River.
On August 2, 5, and 8, efforts were made to recover inactive radio tags in Indian River. In total,
20 radio tags were recovered, of which the majority were assumed to be associated with bear
predation (Table 11; Table D-1). Indicators of bear predation included fish remains in close
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 33 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
proximity to a radio tag, a radio tag found in the woods, or a combination of both. It could not
be determined if the actual cause of mortality was bear predation, natural, or human induced.
Due to bears removing carcasses in Indian River (and likely Portage Creek), carcass recovery
was not a suitable method of obtaining samples to evaluate fishwheel mark rates, size selectivity,
or handling-related effects on mortality.
5.1.3.6.2. Aerial-Counting Survey (ADF&G)
On July 24, ADF&G aerial-counting surveys counted a total of 338 and 501 live Chinook salmon
in Indian River and Portage Creek, respectively (Table 12; Sam Ivey, ADF&G, pers. comm.,
July 25, 2012). An aerial-tracking survey was conducted on the same day and 77 radio-tagged
Chinook salmon were detected in Indian River (69 live, 8 dead) and 153 tags were detected in
Portage Creek (139 live, 14 dead). Overall, 4.4 Chinook salmon were counted for every radio
tag present in the Indian River and 3.5 fish were counted for every radio tag in Portage Creek
(Table 12). Based on detections of live tags from Curry-tagged fish, and assuming 100 percent
observer efficiency during the ADF&G aerial-counting surveys, the estimated mark rate of
Curry-tagged fish was 23 percent (19 percent for Indian River and 26 percent for Portage Creek).
The observer efficiency during the aerial-counting surveys was likely less than 100 percent. We
conducted a sensitivity analysis to illustrate how the observer efficiency during the aerial-
counting surveys would affect the estimated mark rate of Curry-tagged fish (Table 12). For
example, if the observer efficiency during aerial-counting surveys was in the range of 50 percent,
then the overall mark rate of Curry-tagged fish would be approximately 12 percent.
Note that 9.6 percent of the 230 radio tags detected in Portage Creek and Indian River on July 24
were transmitting inactive signals; however, no dead Chinook salmon were observed during the
aerial-counting survey. These data should not be used to estimate the efficiency of the aerial
observer to see carcasses because a portion of these fish may have been in the woods or
otherwise outside of the surveyed area.
In summary, the 2012 spawner surveys resulted in crude mark-rate estimates of unknown
precision and bias. These results will be used to improve the program in 2013.
5.1.4. Tracking of Tagged Salmon
5.1.4.1. Fixed-Station Receiver Detection Efficiency
Detection efficiencies and operational periods were summarized for each major fixed-station
receiver site (Table 13; Table 14; Table 15). Since Slough 11 and Slough 21 were deliberately
located away from the mainstem riverbank, it was not surprising that these stations did not detect
every fish that passed. As noted in Section 4.2.4.2, the Indian River and Portage Creek stations
had significant periods of receiver inactivity when many fish were potentially missed (July 1–10,
and August 2–4 for both sites; August 10–14 again for Indian).
5.1.4.2. Tag Returns
Eight salmon tagged in the Middle River were recovered by anglers (Table D-1). Two Chinook
salmon tags were found in the Indian River on August 18. One chum salmon was recovered on
August 8 in the Byers Creek drainage (Chulitna River). It migrated 22 miles downstream after
release at Site 1 on July 22, and then 27 miles up the Chulitna River prior to recovery. Three
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 34 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
coho salmon were caught by anglers: two at the mouth of Byer’s Creek (August 15 and
September 13) and one at the mouth of Portage Creek (August 26). Two pink salmon were
recovered in Clear Creek (August 16 and October 3). These fish migrated 22 miles downstream
after release at Site 2 on August 10, then approximately 6 miles up the Talkeetna River prior to
capture.
Forty-four of the radio tags deployed in the Lower River were recovered (presumably by anglers;
Table D-2). This included 15 Chinook salmon recovered in the Deshka (8), Talkeetna (2), and
Chulitna (1) rivers, as well as Willow (1), Sheep (1), Montana (1), and Sunshine (1) creeks. Five
chum salmon were recovered from the Yentna River (1) and Willow (2) and Montana (2) creeks.
Twenty coho salmon were recovered from a variety of tributaries, including the Deshka (6),
Yentna (5), Talkeetna (3) and Kashwitna (1) rivers, and one from each of Alexander, Willow,
Goose, Sunshine, and Rabideaux creeks. Three pink salmon were recovered: one in Indian
River, one in Willow Creek, and one in Montana Creek. And lastly, one sockeye salmon was
recovered in the Yentna River.
5.1.4.3. Radio Tag Performance
No problems were detected with the performance of the radio tags in “active” mode. Of the
1,115 salmon released with radio tags at Curry, only one was not detected after release. Radio
tags were readily detected at distances up to 2 km (1.2 mi) during aerial surveys and up to 500 m
(0.3 mi) during on-water surveys. All recovered radio tags were transmitting when recovered.
The mortality sensors malfunctioned in some tags. As described in Section 4.2.4.1, each radio
tag was equipped with a mortality sensor that changed the signal pattern to an “inactive” mode
once the tag became stationary for 24 hours (i.e., the fish is presumed dead). Of the radio tags
deployed in the Middle River and detected during AEA mobile surveys, 87 percent entered
mortality mode. Of these, 10.2, 7.5, and 6.7 percent of small, midsized and large model tags
‘resurrected’ (i.e., changed from their mortality signal mode, in which they were supposed to be
locked, to the live signal mode (Table 16). The majority of resurrection events occurred during
periods of increasing river discharge, presumably the result of carcasses washing downstream
(Figure 21). Additionally, a small fraction (0.0 to 1.7 percent) of radio tags had faulty sensors, as
they remained in live mode when they were likely in fish that had been dead for longer than 24
hours. The proportion of malfunctioning tags (resurrections and sensor failures combined) was
largest for small model tags (10.1 percent), followed by large (6.4 percent) and midsized (6.3
percent) model tags. Although tag malfunctions can make it more difficult to determine the
behavior and subsequent fate of a radio-tagged fish, this was not a significant issue in 2012 due
to the frequency of mobile surveys.
5.2. Objective 2 – Migration Behavior and Spawning Locations in
the Lower, Middle, and Upper Susitna River
Radio-tagged salmon were assigned to spawning locations based on mobile and fixed-station
receiver data collected from May 9 through October 16 in the Lower River, June 17 through
November 12 in the Middle River, and June 29 through September 4 in the Upper River. In the
Lower River, mobile surveys were flown 11 times below the Deshka River confluence and 18–
21 times between the Deshka and Talkeetna rivers (Table B-3). In the Middle River, aerial and
ground reconnaissance surveys were conducted 23 times from Talkeetna to Lane, and from 34 to
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 35 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
37 times along the mainstem between Lane and Impediment 1 (depending on the area), 31 times
in the reach from Impediment 1 to Cheechako Creek, 22 to 24 times between Cheechako Creek
and Devil Station, and 16 times from Devil Station to Watana Creek (Table B-3). In the Upper
River, there were 14 aerial surveys in the reach from Watana Creek to Kosina Creek. The reach
above Kosina Creek was surveyed once (Table B-3).
Potential spawning locations in the Middle and Upper River were visually validated inseason
when water conditions were suitable to guide additional sonar and physical habitat data
collections (see Sections 5.3 and 5.6). Water turbidity in the main channel of the Lower River
was always too high to visually confirm any potential spawning salmon.
Each of the 1,742 radio-tagged fish released in the Lower River and 1,115 radio-tagged fish
released in the Middle River was assigned a final destination using all available fixed station and
mobile tracking data (Table 17). The portion of each species tracked to tributaries, the various
mainstem habitat types, and other locations is presented in Figure 22 for each release site.
Tracking results by species are described in the following sections.
5.2.1. Stock Classifications and Spawning Locations – Lower River
5.2.1.1. Chinook Salmon
Of the 442 Chinook salmon tagged in the Lower River, 371 (84 percent) were classified by
destination. Of these, 360 (97 percent) went to tributaries (mainly the Deshka, Chulitna,
Talkeetna, and Yentna rivers), and 11 (3 percent) went to destinations in the mainstem Susitna
River (Table 17; Figure 22; Figure 23). The remaining salmon, not able to be classified by a
specific destination (see “other classifications” in Table 17) exhibited movements that prevented
conclusive assignment to the mainstem or tributaries.
Telemetry crews tracked 10 radio-tagged Chinook salmon to nine mainstem spawning locations
classified as “possible” within the Lower River (Figure 24). Six of the nine locations were
between the Yentna and Deshka junction, and three of the ten fish were at the mouth of the
Deshka River. Initially, one Chinook salmon was classified as “likely” at a spawning location
due to the close proximity of the sequential detections, but the first detection of that tag in
mortality mode was June 29 and thus well before the spawning period.
5.2.1.2. Chum Salmon
Of the 400 chum salmon tagged in the Lower River, 315 (79 percent) were classified by
destination. Of these, 283 (90 percent) went to tributaries (mainly the Yentna, Talkeetna and
Chulitna rivers; Table 17; Figure 22; Figure 23) and 32 (10 percent) went to destinations in the
mainstem Susitna River (Table 17; Figure 22). The remaining salmon, not able to be classified
by a specific destination, exhibited movements that prevented conclusive assignment to the
mainstem or tributaries (Table 17).
Telemetry crews tracked four radio-tagged chum salmon to mainstem spawning locations
classified as “likely” and 26 to locations classified as “possible” within the Lower River (Figure
25). The greatest concentration of detections was from immediately downstream of the Deshka
River confluence, upstream to the Kashwitna River confluence. Of the four chum salmon
classified as “likely” mainstem spawners, one appeared to be within main channel habitats and
three were likely associated with side channel/slough habitat types.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 36 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
5.2.1.3. Coho Salmon
Of the 399 coho salmon tagged in the Lower River, 349 (85 percent) were classified by
destination. Of these, 326 (93 percent) went to tributaries (mainly the Yentna, Chulitna,
Talkeetna, and Deshka rivers) and 23 (7 percent) and went to destinations in the mainstem
Susitna River (Table 17; Figure 22; Figure 23). The remaining salmon, not able to be classified
by a specific destination, exhibited movements that prevented conclusive assignment to the
mainstem or tributaries (Table 17).
Telemetry crews tracked three coho salmon to mainstem spawning locations classified as
“likely” and 20 to locations classified as “possible” within the Lower River (Figure 26). Of the
three coho salmon classified as “likely” spawners, one was associated with main channel habitat,
one with side channel/slough habitat, and one with tributary mouth habitat. Aggregations of
possible spawners were distributed throughout the Lower River from just above the fishwheel
tagging sites to sites near the confluence with Whiskers Creek above the Chulitna River junction.
5.2.1.4. Pink Salmon
Of the 401 pink salmon tagged in the Lower River, 383 (96 percent) were classified by
destination. Of these, 372 (97 percent) went to tributaries (mainly the Yentna, Chulitna, Deshka
and Talkeetna rivers) and 11 (3 percent) went to destinations in the mainstem Susitna River
(Table 17; Figure 22; Figure 23). The remaining salmon, not able to be classified by a specific
destination, exhibited movements that prevented conclusive assignment to the mainstem or
tributaries (Table 17).
Telemetry crews tracked two pink salmon to mainstem spawning locations classified as “likely”
and nine to locations classified as “possible” within the Lower River (Figure 27). Of the two
pink salmon classified as “likely” spawners, one was associated with a side channel/slough
habitat in close proximity to the confluence of Willow Creek, and the other was in a main
channel habitat just downstream of the confluence with the Kashwitna River. All aggregations
of pink salmon detections were in close proximity to tributary confluences.
5.2.1.5. Sockeye Salmon
All of the 100 sockeye salmon tagged in the Lower River were classified by destination. Of
these, 99 (99 percent) were tracked to tributaries (96 in Yentna, 2 in Chulitna, and 1 in Deshka)
and 1 (1 percent) was tracked to a mainstem location in the Middle River upstream of Lane
Creek (Table 17; Figure 22; Figure 23). Telemetry crews did not track sockeye salmon to any
potential mainstem spawning locations in the Lower River. This may have been partially due to
the location of the Lower River tagging site, which was located just downstream of the Yentna
River, a major sockeye salmon spawning river.
5.2.2. Stock Classifications and Spawning Locations – Middle and Upper River
In the Middle Susitna, we did not distinguish between “possible” and “likely” spawning
locations because it was more important to display the consistency between the September and
Final tracking results for each species (Figures 28–32) and the data available for the Middle
River was much more extensive than that for the Lower River. Consequently, we have classified
all the mainstem spawning locations on the Middle River derived from radio telemetry data as
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 37 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
“potential” spawning locations. Later sections of the report present the locations of confirmed
spawning sites and compare these with the “potential” spawning locations.
5.2.2.1. Chinook Salmon
Of the 352 Chinook salmon tagged in the Middle River, 317 (90 percent) were able to be
classified by destination. Of these, 286 (90 percent) went to tributaries (mainly Portage Creek or
Indian River; Figure 33) and 31 (10 percent) went to destinations in the mainstem Susitna River
(Table 17; Figure 22). The remaining salmon, not able to be classified by a specific destination,
exhibited movements that prevented conclusive assignment to the mainstem or tributaries (Table
17).
The telemetry crews tracked radio-tagged Chinook salmon to 13 potential mainstem spawning
locations in between Curry and Portage Creek, prior to the end of August. Each of these
locations was visually examined during mobile surveys (helicopter or boat; Table 18; Figure 28).
Our final analysis of the radio-telemetry data revealed one additional fish tracked to a “potential”
mainstem spawning location just upstream of Cheechako Creek above Impediment 1 (Figure 28).
No evidence of spawning was detected at any of the 13 locations surveyed. Holding behavior
was documented at three tributary delta locations (4th of July Creek, Indian River, and Portage
Creek) and two mainstem locations (between Gateway and Slough 11, and between Indian River
and Slough 21; Table 18). All mainstem locations were too turbid to assess using visual survey
techniques during the peak spawning period for Chinook salmon (July 25–August 15).
Chinook salmon was the only salmon species detected spawning upstream of Portage Creek.
The telemetry crew tracked radio-tagged Chinook salmon upstream of Portage Creek to one
potential mainstem spawning location and four potential spawning tributaries (one of which was
in the Upper River). High water turbidity prevented visual confirmation of spawning in the
mainstem location, which was near the Cheechako Creek station. Of the four possible spawning
tributaries, Cheechako, Chinook, and Devil creeks were too turbulent to verify spawning activity
from the air, and steep terrain precluded landing the helicopter for ground surveys. The potential
spawning area in both Cheechako and Chinook creeks was the lower 0.5 mile of each stream.
The Devil Creek potential spawning area was the lower 1.5 miles (below a barrier waterfall). In
the upper River, Kosina Creek was the only potential spawning area located. The Kosina Creek
location was 6.5 miles upstream from the Susitna River; most of the tagged Chinook salmon
were located in a low gradient reach. A ground level survey on July 27 confirmed the presence
of Chinook salmon upstream from where Tsisi Creek enters Kosina Creek, but spawning activity
was not observed.
5.2.2.2. Chum Salmon
Of the 279 chum salmon tagged in the Middle River, 230 (82 percent) were able to be classified
by destination. Of these, 175 (76 percent) went to tributaries (mainly Portage Creek and Indian
and Talkeetna rivers) and 55 (24 percent) went to destinations in the mainstem Susitna River
(Table 17; Figure 22; Figure 33). The remaining salmon, not able to be classified by a specific
destination, exhibited movements that prevented conclusive assignment to the mainstem or
tributaries (Table 17).
Radio telemetry crews tracked tagged chum salmon to 19 potential mainstem spawning or
holding sites in the Middle River; these sites were then visually surveyed using aerial or boat-
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 38 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
based observations (Table 19; Figure 29). Spawning was visually confirmed at six sloughs and
two tributary delta locations. Chum salmon were initially observed spawning on August 15 in
4th of July Slough and Slough 21, and were the first salmon species observed spawning in
mainstem Susitna River habitats. Holding was visually confirmed at six sloughs and four
tributary delta locations (Table 19). No evidence of holding or spawning was detected at the six
potential mainstem locations, where water was too turbid to see chum salmon in late August
during the presumed peak of spawning.
5.2.2.3. Coho Salmon
Of the 184 coho salmon tagged in the Middle River, 145 (79 percent) were able to be classified
by destination. Of these, 122 (84 percent) went to tributaries (primarily the Indian River and
Portage and Jack Long creeks) and 23 (16 percent) went to destinations in the mainstem Susitna
River (Table 17; Figure 22; Figure 33). The remaining salmon, not able to be classified by a
specific destination, exhibited movements that prevented conclusive assignment to the mainstem
or tributaries (Table 17).
Radio telemetry crews tracked tagged coho salmon to 10 potential mainstem spawning or
holding sites in the Middle River; these sites were then visually surveyed using aerial or boat-
based observations (Table 20; Figure 30). Crews did not visually confirm spawning at any sites,
and confirmed holding at one site in the tributary delta. Radio telemetry and aerial visual
surveys for coho salmon continued until November 12. Visual observations of mainstem
spawning activity during the peak of the coho salmon run were complicated by higher than
normal river discharge, heavy flooding, and associated high turbidity levels. No evidence of
mainstem spawning by coho salmon was seen in five aerial surveys conducted after water levels
subsided in early October.
5.2.2.4. Pink Salmon
Of the 230 pink salmon tagged in the Middle River, 163 (71 percent) were able to be classified
by destination. Of these, 154 (94 percent) went to tributaries (primarily Indian River, Portage
Creek, 4th of July Creek, and Talkeetna River) and 9 (6 percent) went to destinations in the
mainstem Susitna River (Table 17; Figure 22; Figure 33). The remaining salmon, not able to be
classified by a specific destination, exhibited movements that prevented conclusive assignment
to the mainstem or tributaries (Table 17).
Radio telemetry crews tracked tagged pink salmon to six potential mainstem spawning or
holding sites in the Middle River; these sites were then visually surveyed using aerial or boat-
based observations (Table 21; Figure 31). Crews did not visually confirm spawning at any sites,
and confirmed holding behavior at three tributary deltas (the mouths of 4th of July Creek, Indian
River, and Portage Creek; Table 21). Surveys included multiple visits to Sloughs 11 and 21,
which contained a substantial proportion of pink salmon spawning in mainstem habitats from
1981 through 1985 (see Section 5.5.1.4).
5.2.2.5. Sockeye Salmon
Of the 70 sockeye salmon tagged in the Middle River, 47 (67 percent) were able to be classified
by destination. Of these, 10 (21 percent) went to tributaries (three to Portage Creek, three to
Chulitna River, two to 4th of July Creek, and one each to Indian and Talkeetna rivers) and 37 (79
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 39 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
percent) went to destinations in the mainstem Susitna River (Table 17; Figure 22; Figure 33).
The remaining salmon, not able to be classified by a specific destination, exhibited movements
that prevented conclusive assignment to the mainstem or tributaries (Table 17).
Radio telemetry crews tracked tagged sockeye salmon to 13 potential mainstem spawning or
holding sites in the Middle River; these sites were then visually surveyed using aerial or boat-
based observations (Table 22; Figure 32). Sockeye salmon were first observed spawning on
August 22, and spawning was visually verified in a total of five Susitna River mainstem habitats
(four sloughs and a side channel). No evidence of holding or spawning sockeye was detected at
the other eight locations with tagged sockeye, where water turbidity was high (Table 22).
5.2.3. Migration Behavior
5.2.3.1. Roaming Behavior in the Middle Susitna River
Several fish tagged at the Curry fishwheels moved upstream after release (i.e., were detected at
least as far as Gateway), then moved downstream below Curry before again swimming upstream
into a Lower or Middle River tributary (Table 23). Based on what appeared to be directed
movements by unimpaired fish, these salmon appeared to have temporarily entered the Middle
River in the course of migrating to final spawning destinations elsewhere. The purpose of this
behavior is not clear, and was classified as roaming behavior. The proportions of salmon tagged
at Curry that exhibited this roaming behavior were 7 percent of Chinook salmon, 13 percent of
chum salmon, 12 percent of coho salmon, 12 percent of pink salmon, and 9 percent of sockeye
salmon. Similarly, there were several salmon tagged in the Lower River that showed this same
behavior: these fish migrated as far upstream as Lane Station (in the Middle River), then moved
downstream into the Lower River before swimming upstream into a Lower River tributary.
These were also roaming fish in the Middle River, but were evaluated separately from fish
tagged at Curry to discern any differences in behavior between fish tagged in the Lower River
versus those tagged at Curry. The proportion of fish tagged in the Lower River that exhibited
this roaming behavior was 13 percent of Chinook salmon, 15 percent of chum salmon, 17
percent of coho salmon, 46 percent of pink salmon, and 67 percent of sockeye salmon.
Some roaming fish in the Middle River later moved as far up as the Portage Creek mouth (fish
tagged at Curry) or the mouth of Indian River (Chinook and pink salmon tagged in the Lower
River; Table 24), before dropping back to enter downstream tributaries (e.g., the Chulitna River,
Talkeetna River, and Lane Creek; Table 23). One Chinook salmon (Fish 505) tagged at Curry on
July 13 moved upstream to Portage Creek on July 17 and then dropped back to enter the Deshka
River on July 31. This tributary migration was late with respect to run timing on the Deshka
River.
5.2.3.2. Run Timing
Chinook salmon moved past the Curry fishwheel sites from late June to early August with the
midpoint of catches occurring on July 2 (Figure 34; Table C-2). Among major stock groupings
(as defined in Section 4.3.2.1), only five days (range: June 29–July 3) separated the 50th
percentiles of passage at Curry (and this was likely within the range of expected measurement
error). Those Chinook salmon that migrated upstream of Devils Canyon had passed Curry the
earliest, and those that had mainstem destinations below the canyon started running the latest
(Figure 35).
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 40 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Chum salmon moved past the Curry fishwheel sites from mid-July to early September with the
midpoint occurring on August 7 (Figure 34; Table C-5). Only six days separated the 50th
percentiles of passage among four stock groupings at Curry (August 2–7), with the Indian River
stock passing the earliest and the Talkeetna River stock the latest (Figure 35).
Coho salmon moved past the Curry fishwheel sites from late July to the end of August with the
midpoint occurring on August 15 (Figure 34; Table C-6). There was little differentiation in the
50th percentiles of passage among five stock groupings (range: August 11–14), except that the
Indian River stock ran latest (Figure 32).
The pink salmon run was relatively short compared to the run timing of other salmon species.
Pink salmon passed Curry from mid-July to the end of August with a midpoint of catches
occurring on August 6 (Figure 34; Table C-4). Again, there was little distinction in run timing
among five stock groupings (50th percentiles ranged from August 3–7), although fish that headed
downstream to the Talkeetna River passed Curry on relatively late dates (Figure 35).
Sockeye salmon moved past the Curry fishwheel sites from early July to late August (Figure 34;
Table C-3). Too few sockeye salmon were assigned to tributaries to identify run timing by
tributary stock. Fish classified as mainstem spawners arrived at Curry consistently but in low
numbers from mid-July to mid-August, with no obvious peak (50 percent had passed by August
3; Figure 35).
5.2.3.3. Travel Timing
Median Chinook salmon travel times were 0.9 days from release at the Curry fishwheels to
Gateway, 2.0 days from Gateway to Indian River, 1.1 days from Indian River to Portage Creek,
7.7 days from Portage Creek to Cheechako Station, 0.3 days from Cheechako Station to Chinook
Creek, 3.8 days from Chinook Creek to Devil Station, and 2.2 days from Devil Station to Kosina
Creek (Table 25). Minimum, median, and maximum arrival dates are also shown in Table 25.
All other fish species migrated from Curry to Portage relatively quickly, with little differentiation
in arrival dates among fixed-station receivers (Figure 36). Median travel times from Curry to
Portage were 3.3 days for chum salmon, 3.5 days for coho salmon, 2.3 days for pink salmon, and
3.1 days for sockeye salmon.
5.2.3.4. Travel Speeds
Travel speeds are shown by species and river-reach in Figure 37. Chinook salmon travel speeds
from Deshka to Sunshine were significantly slower (median 8.9 km/d [5.1 mi/d]) than those in
either the Sunshine to Lane reach (16.9 km/d [10.5 mi/d]), or the Indian to Portage reach (14.6
km/d [9.1 mi/d]; χ2 = 15.3, P = 0.0016). Although the fastest median travel speeds were
observed for fish released in the Lower River (between Sunshine and Lane), the slowest median
speeds were also observed there (between Deshka and Sunshine; Figure 37).
For Chinook salmon released at Curry, travel speeds varied significantly among reaches (χ2 =
67.6, P < 0.0001; Figure 38). Chinook salmon travel speeds between Cheechako Station and
Chinook Creek (median 24.7 km/d [15.3 mi/d]), and those upstream of Devil Station (31.0 km/d
[19.3 mi/d]) were significantly faster than those in other reaches. Moreover, travel speeds
between Portage Creek and Cheechako Station (0.8 km/d [0.5 mi/d]), and those between
Chinook Creek and Devil Station (3.0 km/d [1.9 mi/d]) were significantly slower than those in
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 41 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
all other reaches. This result suggests that Impediment 1 and Impediment 3 posed greater delays
to Chinook salmon travel than Impediment 2 (between Cheechako Station and Chinook Creek).
For Chinook salmon that passed all impediments and were later detected at Devil Station, there
was no trend for travel times to have been affected by arrival date or release location (Figure 39).
Chum salmon travel speeds from Indian to Portage were significantly faster (median 22.1 km/d
[13.7 mi/d]) than those in any other reach (medians 12.5–16.7 km/d [7.8–10.4 mi/d]; χ2 = 22.3, P
< 0.0001; Figure 37).
Among-reach differences in travel speed were not statistically significant for coho, pink and
sockeye salmon (χ2 = 3.9, 4.2, and 0.7, respectively; P = 0.27, 0.24, and 0.87, respectively;
Figure 37).
Stock-specific travel speeds were compared (Portage vs. Indian stocks) for each species (Figure
40). For chum and pink salmon, fish that entered Portage Creek traveled faster between
Gateway and Indian than did fish that entered Indian River (chum salmon: χ2 = 4.2, P = 0.04;
pink salmon: χ2 = 5.4, P = 0.02). No other stock differences in travel speed were statistically
significant (Chinook, coho and sockeye salmon: χ2 = 0.7, 0.7, and 1.0, respectively; P = 0.41,
0.39, and 0.32, respectively).
5.3. Objective 3 – Feasibility of Sonar to Identify Spawning
Locations in Turbid Water
In late July, six potential sonar sampling sites were identified in the Middle River using in-
season radio telemetry data and aerial observations (Table 26; Figure 28). From July 28–29,
DIDSON and side-scan sonar were used to sample four of the sites (sites 2, 4, 5, and 6) located
in the mainstem Susitna River. The two remaining sites (sites 1 and 3) were in side channels too
shallow to access by boat and thus were not sampled.
Four transects were made at Site 2 (mouth of 4th of July Creek) using the side-scan sonar,
covering a length of river approximately 170 m (558 ft) long in an upstream-downstream
direction and approximately 100 m (328 ft) from the river bank. None of the side-scan images
showed obvious signs of salmon redds (no redds were seen during visual observations of the
clear-water areas downstream from the mouth of the creek either). A gravel bar and different
substrate types could be identified from the side-scan images. Gravel (<8 cm [3.1 in]) was seen
on the bar, while cobble and rock were seen along the shore and offshore of the gravel bar. A
DIDSON operated at this site collected approximately 90 minutes of data: images were collected
while pulling the boat along shore and while stationary (manually panning the transducer). The
maximum range sampled alternated between 10 and 20 m (33 and 66 ft). We used the longer
range window to find fish and the shorter range window to watch the behavior of the fish. The
maximum number of fish visible on a single frame was 15 fish. These fish were milling and
appeared to stay mostly within a restricted band that roughly coincided with the clear-turbid
water interface. We did not observe any redd digging activity, nor did we see any redd-shaped
depressions in the river bottom. Visual observations conducted from the boat identified
Chinook, chum, and one sockeye salmon in the clear-water area.
At Site 4, the side-scan survey covered an area of approximately 280 m (919 ft) in length from
upstream to downstream, and with a width of 50 m (164 ft) extending from shore. Farther
offshore the current was too fast to keep the boat stable enough to provide useful images. Photo
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 42 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
12 shows an example image taken at high frequency (1600 kHz). Though the image includes
some artifacts introduced by the boat rolling in the current, it does provide a good picture of the
substrate at this site (primarily gravel with a band of sand). The sonar did not record any
obvious signs of redds, and the water was too turbid for any visual observations. We also
recorded approximately 30 minutes of DIDSON data. Over this time, a solitary fish moved
through the field of view on two occasions, but no obvious signs of redds were observed.
Side-scan data collection was hindered at Site 5 by high water velocities which made it difficult
to maneuver the boat. Image quality was less than optimal because of the pitch and roll of the
boat. We collected approximately 80 minutes of DIDSON data at Site 5, less than 100 m (328 ft)
upstream of the mouth of Gold Creek. Most DIDSON data were collected with the boat tied to
shore, with the transducer aimed at different pan angles. No fish were observed at Gold Creek
even though radio-tagged fish were detected nearby. An attempt to sample with the DIDSON
while the boat was moving was aborted because the strong current put too much pressure on the
transducer and side mount.
Approximately 45 minutes of DIDSON data were collected at Site 6 while the boat was tied to
shore and the transducer was panned in search of fish. On several occasions we observed a
solitary large fish (>75 cm [29.5 in]); and on one occasion a second fish was observed following
the first one. No obvious spawning or holding behavior or signs of obvious redds. Side-scan
sonar data was not collected at Site 6 because of high water velocities (similar to Site 5).
5.4. Objective 4 – Characterize Salmon Migration Behavior and
Timing Above Devils Canyon
5.4.1. Survey Effort
Aerial surveys above Devils Canyon were guided by data on tagged fish passing from the fixed-
station receivers in the canyon. Surveys were not conducted in the Upper River until radio-
tagged Chinook salmon had passed Devil Station. Surveys were not conducted upstream of
Kosina Creek until a radio-tagged salmon had moved up the Susitna River beyond that location.
From July into November, a total of 31 aerial tracking surveys included reaches above
Impediment 1; 14 of these surveys extended upstream to Kosina Creek. The majority of these
surveys were conducted during July and August (Table B-3). The surveys in the Upper River
primarily focused on eight tributaries upstream of Portage Creek, with tagged Chinook salmon
detected in six of those tributaries (Cheechako, Chinook, Devil, Fog, Watana, and Kosina
creeks).
At least one fixed-station was monitoring for radio-tagged salmon in Devils Canyon from June
21 to November 12 (Table 14). All fixed stations in Devils Canyon were operational over 95
percent of the time they were deployed until the week of August 27, when a reduction of solar
energy partially interrupted coverage at some stations. Coverage among all stations remained
sufficient to operate effectively, despite this interruption. The Kosina Creek fixed station was
100 percent operational during the time it was deployed.
5.4.2. Species, Number, and Destination
Chinook salmon were the only species tracked above Impediment 1. Of the 313 radio-tagged
Chinook salmon released at the Curry fishwheels that entered the study area (i.e., were detected
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 43 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
above Gateway Station after tagging), 23 (7.3 percent) were tracked above Impediment 1, 20 (6.4
percent) above Impediment 2, and 10 (3.2 percent) above Impediment 3. Three of the Chinook
salmon radio-tagged and released at the RM32 fishwheels in the Lower River were tracked
above Impediment 1; two of these were then tracked above Impediment 3 (Table 27).
Based on final tag assignments, the likely spawning areas for each of the 26 Chinook salmon that
passed Impediment 1 are provided in Table 28. Of the 12 Chinook salmon that passed
Impediment 3, five (42 percent) dropped back and likely spawned in tributaries downstream of
Impediment 3. Of the 10 Chinook salmon that passed Impediment 2 but not Impediment 3,
seven (70 percent) dropped back and likely spawned in tributaries downstream of Impediment 2.
Of the four Chinook salmon that passed Impediment 1 but not Impediment 2, one dropped back
and likely spawned in a tributary downstream of Impediment 1. Overall, 50 percent of the
Chinook salmon that passed at least one of the three impediments likely spawned downstream of
the last impediment they passed and 54 percent (7 of 13) of these drop-back fish likely spawned
in Portage Creek.
The 12 Chinook salmon that passed Impediment 3 (2 tagged in Lower River, 10 tagged in
Middle River) showed a wide range of movement distance and times. Of these Chinook salmon,
seven were tracked to locations 24–93 km (15–58 mi) upstream of their eventual spawning
location. These relatively extensive upstream explorations ranged from 1–26 days (Table 29).
The peak spawning interval for these 12 fish was July 25 to August 5 (11 days) and fish were
detected alive in their spawning streams for 3–20 days. The shortest live period was for two fish
that entered Kosina Creek on July 23, were tracked alive on July 26, and then detected with
mortality signals on the next Kosina Creek survey on July 31. After spawning, three fish (Tag
numbers 27, 94, and 5005) appeared to remain alive for 8–16 days and move downstream
considerable distances (19–103 km [12–65 mi]) before their tags started transmitting a mortality
signal. Using the last live detection for each of these 12 fish, we estimated their life span after
passing Impediment 3 to range from 6–31 days (calculated from values in Table 27 and Table
29).
5.4.3. Migration Timing for Fish Passing Above Devils Canyon
The 10 Curry-tagged Chinook salmon that passed Impediment 3 had passed Impediment 1 from
two to seven days earlier than those that only passed Impediment 1 or Impediment 2 (Table 27).
Run timing at Curry was similar for tagged Chinook salmon that were subsequently detected at
or above Devils Canyon vs. Chinook salmon that were not (Table 27).
The first successful fish passage past Impediment 1 occurred on July 7 when flows dropped to
21,000 cfs from previous sustained levels in excess of 30,000 cfs (Figure 41, Table 29. Summary of
migration and spawning behavior for 12 radio-tagged Chinook salmon after they passed Impediment 3. Distances are in
kilometers.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 44 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 30). Two Chinook salmon passed impediments 1 and 2 on July 7 before flows increased to
above 30,000 cfs on July 9. One Chinook salmon was detected passing Impediment 1 on July 8
and another on July 9. All of the remaining successful passage events for each impediment
(48/51 or 94 percent) occurred between July 12–20 when flows were at or below 21,000 cfs
(Figure 41).
Fish showed noticeable milling or holding behavior below Impediment 1 and Impediment 3.
Fish that moved past Impediment 1 held below it for an average of 3.3 days. Fish moved quicker
past Impediment 2, with only two of the 22 radio-tagged salmon holding below it for more than
one day (Table 29. Summary of migration and spawning behavior for 12 radio-tagged Chinook salmon after they passed
Impediment 3. Distances are in kilometers.
Spawning Period Explorations before Spawning Downstream After Spawning
Tag
Number
Capture
Date
Length
(TL cm)Sex
Spawning
Area First Live Last Live Days
Max
Upstream
Location
Max
Upstream
Distance Days
Max
Downstream
Location
Max
Downstream
Distance Days
27 22-Jun 78 Undetermined Chinook 28-Jul 05-Aug 8 Kosina 80 11 Curry 60 8
52 25-Jun 89 Undetermined Kosina 20-Jul 09-Aug 20
94 29-Jun 81 Undetermined Devil 23-Jul 05-Aug 13 Fog 30 4 Cheechako 19 12
104 29-Jun 66 Undetermined Portage 24-Jul 30-Jul 6 Above Devil 30 10
113 30-Jun 84 Undetermined Kosina 26-Jul 07-Aug 12
219 2-Jul 73 Male Kosina 23-Jul 26-Jul 3 Above Kosina 30 1
246 3-Jul 85 Female Kosina 23-Jul 26-Jul 3
257 3-Jul 89 Female Portage 30-Jul 17-Aug 18 Devil 24 13
266 4-Jul 101 Male Portage 24-Jul 06-Aug 13 Near Fog 44 15
359 6-Jul 93 Male Portage 06-Aug 11-Aug 5 Kosina 93 26
5005 26-May - Undetermined Kosina 23-Jul 31-Jul 8 Portage 103 16
5019 28-May 87 MEF Undetermined Kosina 23-Jul 11-Aug 19
Average 25-Jul 05-Aug 11 47 11 61 12
Notes:
1 Total days the fish was alive after passing Impediment 3.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 45 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 30). Four fish that passed Impediment 1 did not attempt to pass Impediment 2 and moved
directly to their final destinations. Of the 22 fish that passed Impediment 2, the 12 that also
passed Impediment 3 held below the upper Impediment for just under 2 days on average. Nine
of the remaining fish above Impediment 2 held below Impediment 3 for an average of 9.8 days
before moving to downstream habitats. A single fish that passed Impediment 2 did not attempt
to pass Impediment 3. All of the fish that did not pass Impediment 3 were present above
Impediment 2 from July 17–20, when all passage events past Impediment 3 occurred (Figure
42). One Chinook salmon (Tag number 5005) passed all three Impediments on July 17 on its
way to Kosina Creek.
5.4.4. Relative Abundance of Salmon Passing Above Devils Canyon
Chinook salmon was the only species with radio-tagged fish detected upstream of Devils
Canyon. Of the 313 Chinook salmon tagged at Curry and detected moving above Gateway
Station, 10 (3.2 percent) successfully migrated through all three impediments located in Devils
Canyon (Table 27). Given the extensive mobile survey effort and the high detection efficiency
for the Cheechako, Chinook, Devil and Kosina creek stations, it is unlikely that any radio-tagged
fish passed upstream of Devils Canyon undetected.
5.4.5. Size of Chinook Salmon Tracked In and Above Devils Canyon
Of the 36 radio-tagged Chinook salmon that entered Devils Canyon, the mean body length of
fish that approached but did not pass Impediment 1 (74.2 cm [29.2 in]) was less than that of fish
that passed Impediment 1 (79.3 cm [31.2 in]; Table 27; t33 = 0.93, P = 0.36). No fish approached
Impediment 2 without passing it. The mean fork length of fish that approached but did not pass
Impediment 3 (75.0 [29.5 in]) was smaller than that of fish that passed Impediment 3 (84.9 cm
[33.4 in]; t18 = 1.71, P = 0.11). These observations are suggestive that fish size may have been a
factor in successful passage for Impediments 1 and 3. These results should be interpreted
cautiously as group sample sizes were small, and neither comparison was statistically significant.
Spawning Period Explorations before Spawning Downstream After Spawning
Tag
Number
Capture
Date
Length
(TL cm)Sex
Spawning
Area First Live Last Live Days
Max
Upstream
Location
Max
Upstream
Distance Days
Max
Downstream
Location
Max
Downstream
Distance Days
27 22-Jun 78 Undetermined Chinook 28-Jul 05-Aug 8 Kosina 80 11 Curry 60 8
52 25-Jun 89 Undetermined Kosina 20-Jul 09-Aug 20
94 29-Jun 81 Undetermined Devil 23-Jul 05-Aug 13 Fog 30 4 Cheechako 19 12
104 29-Jun 66 Undetermined Portage 24-Jul 30-Jul 6 Above Devil 30 10
113 30-Jun 84 Undetermined Kosina 26-Jul 07-Aug 12
219 2-Jul 73 Male Kosina 23-Jul 26-Jul 3 Above Kosina 30 1
246 3-Jul 85 Female Kosina 23-Jul 26-Jul 3
257 3-Jul 89 Female Portage 30-Jul 17-Aug 18 Devil 24 13
266 4-Jul 101 Male Portage 24-Jul 06-Aug 13 Near Fog 44 15
359 6-Jul 93 Male Portage 06-Aug 11-Aug 5 Kosina 93 26
5005 26-May - Undetermined Kosina 23-Jul 31-Jul 8 Portage 103 16
5019 28-May 87 MEF Undetermined Kosina 23-Jul 11-Aug 19
Average 25-Jul 05-Aug 11 47 11 61 12
Notes:
1 Total days the fish was alive after passing Impediment 3.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 46 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Converted to snout-fork length (FL mm = -9.508535 + 1.0999002*MEF mm), the two Lower
River Chinook that migrated upstream of Impediment 1 were 94.7 cm and 63.9 cm (37.3 and
25.2 in; Table 27).
5.5. Objective 5 – Distribution Among Habitats: Current Versus
Historic Use and Relative Abundance
In 2012, potential spawning locations of Chinook, chum, coho, pink, and sockeye salmon in the
mainstem river were identified using radio telemetry (Section 5.2). Some spawning locations
were able to be visually confirmed for sockeye and chum salmon in the Middle River. Mainstem
spawning for both sockeye and chum salmon occurred in slough and, to a lesser extent, side
channel habitats. In addition, a few chum salmon were confirmed spawning in tributary delta
habitats. Of the confirmed spawning habitats located during the 2012 surveys, many were the
same as those used for spawning by sockeye and chum salmon from 1981–1985 (Thompson et
al. 1986; Table 31). In addition, the absence of mainstem spawning by Chinook and coho
salmon was also similar to results from the 1980s. The only appreciable difference in results
from 2012 and the 1980s surveys was the absence of confirmed mainstem spawning by pink
salmon.
5.5.1.1. Chinook Salmon
In 2012, Chinook salmon were tracked to nine possible mainstem spawning locations in the
Lower River and 13 locations in the Middle River (Table 18; Figure 24; Figure 28). Despite
multiple visual surveys and DIDSON and side-scan sonar surveys (see Section 5.3), spawning
could not be confirmed at any of these locations. Similarly, spawning ground surveys from
1981–1985 could not confirm any mainstem spawning locations for Chinook salmon (Barrett et
al. 1985; Thompson et al. 1986). The only confirmed locations, from the 2012 and 1980s
surveys, of spawning habitat for Chinook salmon in the Lower and Middle River were
tributaries.
5.5.1.2. Sockeye Salmon
In 2012, sockeye salmon were only tracked to mainstem spawning locations within the Middle
River (Figure 32). Confirmed spawning locations were confined to five sloughs and one side
channel (Table 22). Based on visual observations of sockeye salmon densities, the sloughs with
the highest use for sockeye salmon spawning were Sloughs 11, 8A, and 21 (Photo 13). Of the
radiotagged sockeye salmon using sloughs, 47 percent had these destinations (Table 17). A few
sockeye salmon were also confirmed spawning in sloughs 9 and 19 and side channel 21.
Similarly, from 1981–1985, of all the sockeye salmon enumerated spawning in sloughs, an
average of 92.5 percent were in sloughs 11, 8A, and 21 (Table 31). Historically, sloughs 9 and
19 only provided spawning habitat for a combined average of 1.4 percent of all the enumerated
sockeye salmon that spawned within the mainstem habitats of the Middle River. All other
locations where sockeye salmon were observed spawning in the 1980s, with the exception of
Moose Slough (1.6 percent) and Slough 9B (1.9 percent) contained an average of <1.0 percent of
the total sockeye salmon enumerated (Table 31). Sockeye salmon were not confirmed spawning
in Slough 9B during the 2012 surveys. A low number of sockeye salmon (<10) were present
spawning in Side Channel 21 in 2012, and there were no reports of sockeye salmon at this
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 47 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
location in the 1980s. It is important to note that it is often difficult to determine both the
boundary that separates a slough and a side channel and the distinction between a slough and a
side channel at various river discharges, therefore, the sockeye salmon observed in Side Channel
21 may have actually been within Slough 21.
5.5.1.3. Chum Salmon
In 2012, chum salmon were radio-tracked to several potential mainstem spawning locations
within the Lower and Middle River (Figure 25; Figure 29). Of the sites identified via radio
telemetry, only sites in the Middle River were visually confirmed. Spawning was confirmed for
chum salmon at 6 sloughs, 1 side channel, and 2 tributary deltas (Table 19). Based on visual
observations of chum salmon densities, the sloughs with the highest use by chum salmon for
spawning were sloughs 21, 8A, 11, and 4th of July Slough (historically referred to as 4th of July
side channel), respectively. Of the radiotagged chum salmon using sloughs, 21 percent had these
destination (Table 17). Other sloughs confirmed for spawning, but to a lesser extent were
sloughs 9, 9A, and 19. In comparison, from 1981–1985, of all the chum salmon enumerated
spawning within the mainstem Middle River, an average of 56.7 percent were in sloughs 21, 11,
and 8A (Table 31); percent distribution data was not available for 4th of July slough/side channel,
but spawning was confirmed at this location (Barrett et al. 1984). Sloughs 9 and 9A provided
spawning habitat for an additional 14.9 percent of the enumerated mainstem spawning chum
salmon in the 1980s. The remaining 28.4 percent of chum salmon were distributed across 27
other sloughs, of which 24 sloughs each accounted for less than 3.0 percent of the total average
distribution (Table 31).
Side Channel 21 was the only side channel habitat confirmed as a spawning location for chum
salmon during the 2012 surveys. Based on visual observations, densities of chum salmon at Side
Channel 21 were comparable to densities of chum salmon within Slough 21. During the 1980s
surveys, chum salmon were reported as spawning in Side Channel 21 in addition to a few other
side channels, but the overall contribution of chum salmon at these locations to that of slough
habitat was considered minor (Barrett et al. 1984, 1985; Thompson et al. 1986). It is important
to note that it is often difficult to determine the boundary that separates a slough and a side
channel and the distinction between a slough and a side channel at various river discharges;
therefore, the chum salmon observed in Side Channel 21 may have actually been within Slough
21.
As in the 1980s, chum salmon in 2012 were confirmed spawning at the tributary deltas for 4th of
July Creek and Indian River (Barrett et al. 1984). Repeated visits to these locations in 2012
confirmed one chum salmon redd in the tributary delta of 4th of July Creek and four chum
salmon redds in the tributary delta of Indian River. As an overall comparison, tributary deltas
provided spawning habitat for chum salmon in 2012 and in the 1980s, but the contribution of
chum salmon use relative to slough habitats was minor in both time periods.
5.5.1.4. Pink Salmon
In 2012, pink salmon were tracked to several mainstem spawning locations within the Lower and
Middle River (Figure 27; Figure 31). Despite several aerial and ground surveys, spawning by
pink salmon was not confirmed at any locations (Table 21). From 1981–1985, Sloughs 8A, 9,
11, and 21 provided spawning habitat for an average of 32.1 percent of all the pink salmon
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 48 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
enumerated spawning within mainstem Middle River habitats (Table 31); all of these sloughs
were visited during 2012 during times when pink salmon should have been spawning, but no
pink salmon spawning was observed.
5.5.1.5. Coho Salmon
In 2012, coho salmon were tracked to several potential mainstem spawning locations in the
Lower and Middle River (Figure 26; Figure 30). Despite multiple aerial and ground surveys,
spawning could not be confirmed at any of these locations (Table 20). Similarly, spawning
ground surveys from 1981–1985 could not confirm any mainstem spawning locations for coho
salmon (Barrett et al. 1985; Thompson et al. 1986). The only confirmed locations from the 2012
and 1980s surveys of spawning habitat for coho salmon were tributaries.
5.6. Objective 6 – Locate Individual and Holding and Spawning
Salmon, Collect Habitat Data in Middle and Lower River
Consistent with HSC Data Collection
From June 26 through November 12, crews tracked Chinook, chum, coho, pink, and sockeye
salmon to potential spawning locations within the Lower and Middle River. Following
designation as a potential spawning site, each site was classified to the mainstem habitat level as
a main channel, side channel, slough, or tributary delta. Then, aerial and ground reconnaissance
surveys were made to confirm each site for spawning prior to the collection of HSC data. For
more detail on spawning site location and classification, see Section 5.2.
HSC surveys were conducted from August 11 to October 29. Turbidity in the main channel of
the Susitna River, from June through mid-October was too high to visually confirm any potential
spawning salmon or locate redds. In addition, elevated water levels in the Susitna River from
mid-August through October prevented crews from revisiting previously sampled spawning
locations, or visiting newly confirmed locations.
5.6.1. Habitat Data Collection
Of the potential spawning sites detected for all species of salmon by telemetry in the Lower and
Middle River (see Section 5.2), only the Middle River contained sites in off-channel habitats
where spawning was visually verified and were then sampled for HSC data. Of the potential
Middle River spawning sites detected, only five sockeye and eight chum salmon sites were
confirmed (Figure 29; Figure 32). Of these, three sockeye and seven chum salmon sites were
sampled for HSC data (Figure 43; Figure 44). Of the three sockeye salmon spawning sites
sampled for HSC, all were slough habitats. Of the seven chum salmon spawning sites sampled,
five were slough and two were tributary delta habitats. In total, 11 and 28 redds were sampled
from slough habitats for sockeye and chum salmon, respectively, and an additional four chum
salmon redds were sampled in tributary delta habitats (Table 32). Additional sites (Slough 19
and Side Channel 21) that were confirmed as spawning locations, but were not sampled due to
environmental conditions, will be targeted in 2013 for collection of HSC data.
In the Lower River, despite multiple aerial surveys, field crews did not visually verify any
mainstem spawning habitats for sampling of HSC data. All potential spawning locations
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 49 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
suggested by radio telemetry were provided to the ISF field crews for focused HSC data efforts
that are reported elsewhere.
In the Middle River, many slough habitats used for spawning by sockeye and chum salmon were
side channels until flows at their mainstem head were cut-off. As an example, Sloughs 8A and
9A, and 4th of July Slough remained side channels until mainstem flows were just under
approximately 17,000 cfs; only at flows below this threshold did the water in these habitats
become clear enough to sample for HSC data. Other slough habitats (e.g., Slough 9) experienced
similar main channel re-connectivity, but had a greater tolerance in flow levels (>24,000 cfs)
before the upstream head of the slough was breached. Large fluctuations in precipitation during
early and late fall 2012 caused repeated main channel re-connectivity, increased water velocities,
and increased turbidity at many of these side channel/slough locations and prevented either the
confirmation of spawning by salmon or HSC sampling visits during much of the peak spawning
periods. As another example, following the first HSC survey on August 11, flows prevented
HSC sampling at Sloughs 8A and 9, and 4th of July Slough during these date ranges: August 11–
15, August 21–22, August 27–29, September 3–6, and September 18–29.
5.7. Objective 7 – Effectiveness of 2012 Methods
5.7.1. Capture and Tagging of Fish at Curry
The goal of capturing and tagging relatively large numbers of all species of salmon and tracking
them in mainstem and tributary habitats was met in 2012. Relatively high catches were achieved
at Curry in 2012, considering the fishwheels operated at sites 1 and 2, respectively, for only 41
and 44 percent of the time they were in place. Relative to the 1980–1985 studies, where
fishwheels were generally operated 24 hours per day and salmon were generally more abundant
than in 2012 we captured 41 percent fewer Chinook, 8 percent fewer chum, 62 percent fewer
pink (even years only), and 67 percent fewer sockeye salmon, on average, were caught at the
Curry fishwheels in 2012. On average, 25 percent more coho salmon were captured in 2012 than
in the 1980s studies, despite concerns about generally low coho salmon returns to the Susitna
River in 2012.
The preseason tag targets were exceeded for chum (140 percent) and pink (115 percent of target)
salmon, but not met for Chinook (88 percent of target), coho (92 percent), and sockeye (35
percent) salmon. When it became apparent that the initial tagging goals for Chinook and
sockeye salmon would not be met, an amendment to the Fish Resource Permit (SF2012-128) was
obtained to allow for additional chum and pink salmon to be radio-tagged using the available
inventory of tags. In 2013, we recommend similar flexibility be maintained in the Fish Resource
Permit to maximize the benefits across species from the considerable telemetry survey effort.
5.7.2. Effectiveness of Radio Telemetry to Address Questions
The radio telemetry techniques used in the 2012 study were successful in providing the data
needed to address the related study objectives. Of the 1,115 radio-tagged salmon released at
Curry, only one was not detected after release. Data was efficiently processed during the field
season so field crews could use the information from fixed-station receivers to direct mobile
survey effort, and tracking results from mobile surveys were used to direct ground surveys to
determine spawning locations. There were a few initial problems with receiver software that
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 50 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
were quickly sorted out and resolved without any major impact on study results. Receiver
sensitivity and tag signal power were sufficient to ensure that most of the tagged fish passing a
fixed-station receiver were detected (Table 13). All of the radio telemetry data from AEA and
ADF&G fixed stations and mobile surveys were efficiently analyzed using Telemetry Manager
software.
There was no evidence of negative effects on tagged fish from the capture, handling or tagging
process. Tagged fish moved consistently and without delay in reaching fixed stations up to
Portage Creek (Figure 36). In some instances fish returned downstream, but these migrated to
other spawning destinations, suggesting unimpaired swimming behavior. The only deficiency
with the radio tags was associated with mortality sensors. This was not a major problem because
of the frequent mobile surveys and the observation that most of the tags were detected in
mortality mode after the peak spawning period and only a few of these were resurrected to their
live signal mode. This malfunction was communicated to the tag supplier and we are optimistic
that they will find a solution to this problem.
The configuration and operation of the fixed-station receivers could be improved in future years.
Additional fixed-station receivers or greater separation between the antennas at tributary
junctions would provide greater certainty on whether a fish had entered a tributary or was
continuing up the mainstem. The detection efficiencies should be improved in 2013 with the
elimination of software problems and our greater familiarity with the ATS equipment.
5.7.3. How Our Studies of Distribution and Categorization (e.g., Habitat Used)
Affect 2013/2014
Results from 2012 were used throughout the preparation of the 2013/2014 Revised Study Plan
(RSP) in the fall of 2012. Noteworthy was the expansion of the Genetics Study Plan to address
the genetics of Chinook salmon above Devils Canyon, and the recommendation in the 2013/2014
Salmon Escapement Study that tagging effort be augmented in the vicinity of Devils Canyon to
better characterize behavior in and above the canyon. Data on fish spawning locations in the
Middle River are also being considered for site selection of Focus Areas and fish sampling.
6. DISCUSSION
6.1. Fish Capture at Curry for Purpose of Marking Fish to Determine
Distribution of the Middle and Upper River Population(s)
6.1.1. Fishwheel Effectiveness
High catch rates at the Curry fishwheels were due largely to the physical characteristics of the
sites, design and operation of the fishwheels, and use of leads. Sites 1 and 2 were the only
locations within several miles of Curry with suitable water depths and velocities to allow the
fishwheel baskets to rotate effectively from mid-June through early September in 2012. The
sites were protected from floating debris at low to moderate river discharges, yet had sufficiently
high water velocities offshore to force fish against the bank and into the path of the fishwheels
(2–3 m/s offshore of the outer fishwheel pontoon). These were undoubtedly the same
characteristics that made these sites attractive to ADF&G biologists during the 1980s studies.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 51 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
The Curry fishwheels were custom-built in 2012 and modeled after fishwheels used successfully
in the lower Susitna (Yanusz et al. 2011), Copper (Smith et al. 2005), and Nass (Link and
English 1996) rivers. A key feature of the Curry fishwheels was the ability to vary the fishing
depths (by raising or lowering the baskets) as water levels changed. Minor adjustments each day
kept the baskets fishing near the river bottom and reduced the amount of down time required had
the fishwheels needed to be moved to a new location every time water levels changed. Three
sets of variable-depth baskets (72, 76, and 88 in) were built that provided investigators with
some flexibility when deciding which fishwheels to place at each site. And lastly, due to the
solid three-basket design, there were no extended periods of down time due to damage (e.g.,
from floating debris).
Lead nets hung between the shore-side pontoon and adjacent riverbank also contributed to higher
catch rates in 2012, particularly at Site 1 where the fishwheels were held up to 25 ft offshore
with spar poles. DIDSON footage showed that the majority of fish migrated upstream within 13
ft of shore, so without the lead net these fish would not have been directed offshore and into the
path of the fishwheel. Every three or four days, crews spent approximately 20 minutes cleaning
organic debris from the lead net at Site 1.
Experience from 2012 will help improve and refine fishwheel effectiveness in future years. The
development, installation, and evaluation with DIDSON sonar was informative, and the 2013/14
program will benefit significantly from this experience. In addition, we encountered wide
fluctuations in river discharge and this will help with preparations for 2013. Maintaining high
fishwheel effectiveness was most difficult during periods of low flows; we expect the greatest
challenge to capturing sufficient numbers of fish in 2013 will be from sustained very low flows
at critical periods (e.g., August).
6.1.2. Size Selectivity
Achieving the goals of this study was dependent on the size composition of tagged fish being
representative of their respective spawning populations. Tagging particular stocks and/or sizes
of fish at different rates than others might weaken inferences about habitat uses of the Middle
and Upper River such as the relative distribution of spawning fish, migratory behavior, and any
fish passage above Devils Canyon. Fishwheels have been shown to be size (and species)
selective for adult salmon. Meehan (1961) showed that fishwheels on the Taku River caught a
larger proportion of smaller-sized Chinook salmon compared to samples collected on the
spawning grounds. Meehan (1961) also showed that Chinook and coho salmon were least
susceptible to recapture in a fishwheel, while pink salmon were most easily recaptured. In 1981
and 1982 on the Susitna River, ADF&G (1983) compared observed and expected mark rates on
the spawning grounds and found that fishwheels operated near Curry were species selective:
Chinook and chum salmon catches were biased low, and pink salmon catches were biased high.
Meehan (1961) hypothesized that size selectivity was due to larger fish avoiding the fishwheel,
or migrating in faster and deeper water away from shore, relative to smaller fish. Species
selectivity may also be a function of fish size, as there is a tendency for large salmon to swim
upstream farther from the bank than smaller ones in locations where the river gradient is low and
velocities offshore are modest (ADF&G 1983; Hughes 2004). In contrast, there is also evidence
showing that fishwheels can catch a representative sample of salmon when deployed in areas
where elevated water velocities force fish to migrate near shore (Link and Nass 1999). Based on
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 52 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
our experience, we characterize the Curry sites as generally high gradient, and similar to
locations where we have encountered the least size selectivity in fishwheels.
In 2012, early season DIDSON data suggested that there was not a strong offshore component to
the Chinook salmon run at Site 1 (Figure 18) and fish of all sizes seemed equally distributed at
range from shore (Figure 19). Also, length frequencies of the Chinook salmon catch (Figure 12)
suggests that fish across all sizes appeared at least somewhat vulnerable to capture and tagging,
something that would not be possible if there was significant size selectivity like is sometimes
seen with fishwheel projects on low gradient rivers. However, a lack of spawning ground
samples for length of marked and not marked fish for all species (there were very few carcasses
ever found) precluded direct testing for size selectivity. Ancillary comparisons (e.g., Site 1 vs.
Site 2, length of fish captured vs. tagged) provided no evidence to suggest the Curry fishwheels
were size selective. More focused efforts to obtain length measurements will be needed in 2013
than was achieved in 2012.
6.2. Migration Behavior and Spawning Locations of Salmon in the
Lower Middle, and Upper Susitna River
6.2.1. Lower River
The tracking results for salmon tagged in the lower Susitna indicated that 71–99 percent of these
fish, depending on the species, likely spawned in tributaries (Figure 22). Despite the high
proportion of tagged fish returning to tributaries, the remaining number of tagged Chinook,
chum, coho, and pink salmon allowed major spawning locations in the mainstem river to be
identified (Figures 24–27). In contrast, so great a proportion of the radio-tagged sockeye salmon
migrated into tributaries (96 of 100 tagged fish) that the few sockeye salmon remaining in the
mainstem river were not sufficient to identify most mainstem spawning locations.
High and turbid river flows throughout the salmon spawning period prevented our field crews
from being able to visually verify potential spawning locations identified by radio telemetry in
the Lower River. It is possible that some late-run salmon (e.g., coho salmon) last tracked to
mainstem locations could have entered tributaries after the last surveys, which would have
resulted in overestimating the number of mainstem spawning fish.
6.2.2. Middle and Upper River
The tracking results for Chinook, chum, coho, and pink salmon tagged at Curry indicated that
63–81 percent of these fish likely spawned in tributaries (Figure 22). The number of radio tags
applied to Chinook, chum, pink and coho (184–352 per species) identified major spawning
locations for these species (Figures 28–31). The relatively small sockeye return to the Middle
River in 2012 resulted in only 70 radio tags applied to sockeye. Mainstem habitats contributed
to over 50 percent of sockeye spawning destinations (Figure 22) and were concentrated in five
primary areas between 5th of July Creek and Portage Creek (Figure 32).
The frequent aerial surveys conducted on the Middle River from Whiskers to Portage creeks
provide multiple detections for most of the radio-tagged fish in this portion of the river. These
detections before, during and after the spawning period allowed us to identify those fish that
were likely holding and/or spawning in mainstem habitats. There was a high degree of
consistency between the potential spawning sites identified for radio-tagged chum and sockeye
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 53 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
salmon in early September 2012 and the confirmed redd sites for these species (Figure 43; Figure
44). This consistency provides further support for using radio-telemetry to direct HSC survey
crews. Additional HSC survey efforts should be conducted in 2013 to reconfirm these results for
chum and sockeye salmon and assess potential mainstem spawning locations for the other
salmon species.
6.3. Current Versus Historical Spawning Locations, Use of Habitat
Types
Overall, spawning locations documented in 2012 were consistent with results from the 1981–
1985 surveys. In both the 2012 and historic surveys, potential spawning locations identified by
radio telemetry were not visually confirmed in the mainstem Lower River. In 2012, however, we
did identify potential spawning sites using radio telemetry, and were able to confirm some of
these sites when water cleared in the Middle and Upper River. In 2012, radio telemetry analysis
suggested behavior indicative of spawning at multiple locations within main channel areas of the
Lower and Middle River by all species of salmon (sections 4.3 and 5.2). In 2012 and
historically, only mainstem habitats in the Middle River were confirmed as spawning habitats,
and only for sockeye (1981–1985 and 2012), chum (1981–1985 and 2012), and pink salmon
(1981–1985). In both surveys, the most extensive spawning in mainstem habitats was by chum
and sockeye salmon. Of those sockeye and chum salmon that were confirmed spawning, sloughs
were the primary habitat occupied. Of the 32 sloughs identified within the Middle River from
1981–1985 (Table 27), five sloughs (21, 11, 9A, 9, and 8A) provided spawning habitat for the
bulk of spawning salmon in both 2012 and 1981–1985. Historical and recent consistencies
among the usage of these five sloughs by sockeye and chum salmon highlight their importance
as habitat within the mainstem Susitna River.
Similar to the 1981–1985 surveys, surveys conducted in 2012 did not confirm any spawning
activity in mainstem habitat by Chinook and coho salmon. All confirmed spawning by these
species was within tributaries.
The absence of pink salmon spawning in slough habitats in 2012 was the only major difference
in the comparison of both surveys. In 2012, despite multiple surveys to slough habitats
historically important to pink salmon spawning (sloughs 21, 11, 9A, 9, and 8A), pink salmon
spawning was not confirmed within mainstem habitats. The reason for the lack of observations
of pink salmon spawning in 2012 is unknown and difficult to assess given one year of data.
In summary, due to the intensity of spawning activity at a small number of sloughs along the
Middle River, and the consistency of these results with historic studies, a better understanding is
warranted on how mainstem flows affect the physical properties at each of these habitats and
how changes to these physical properties might affect the behavior of sockeye, chum, and pink
salmon. In addition, further efforts are needed to develop methodologies capable of confirming
spawning activity in turbid water.
6.4. Salmon Migration Above Devils Canyon
The extensive mobile tracking effort in 2012 detected a substantial number of pre-spawning and
post-spawning movements of Chinook salmon that passed Devils Canyon. These data revealed
that seven of the 12 Chinook salmon that passed Impediment 3 migrated 24–93 km (15–58 mi)
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 54 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
upstream from their eventual spawning location, and four of these fish moved back downstream
of Devils Canyon and likely spawned in Portage Creek. One male Chinook salmon (Fish 359)
was detected in two tributaries (Devil Creek and Portage Creek) during potential spawning
intervals after being detected at the mouth of Kosina Creek. Although these behaviors suggest
exploratory movements, more fish and more study years are needed to know how well the
movements represent the entire population, and how much the behavior varies among years and
different environmental conditions.
The telemetry gear worked well for detecting fish moving into and above Devils Canyon. All
salmon detected at Devil Station, at the lower end of Devils Canyon, were subsequently detected
during aerial surveys. Any fish that went undetected past Devil Station would have also had to
have moved back down undetected in order to have gone undocumented. Given the reliability of
these stations and the close agreement between fixed station and aerial survey detections,
undetected migration through Devils Canyon was unlikely.
The observation of Chinook spawning in streams above Devils Canyon is consistent with the
results from surveys conducted in previous years. As summarized in AEA (2011b), few Chinook
salmon (20–45 fish) were observed in tributaries above Devils Canyon in 1982–83. In 1984,
Chinook salmon spawning was observed in Chinook (n = 15) and Fog (n = 2) creeks. In 2003,
juvenile Chinook salmon were sampled in Fog Creek, Kosina Creek, and as far upstream as the
mouth of the Oshetna River; adult Chinook salmon were also documented in the Upper River
(Buckwalter 2011). No other salmon species have been reported spawning above Devils Canyon
(AEA 2011b).
The information collected on fish size, passage timing, and flow data for the successful fish
passages events suggests that a broad size range of Chinook salmon passed through Devils
Canyon when flows were at or below 21,000 cfs, but not above 30,000 cfs. The coincident
timing of fish passage above Devils Canyon at times of low flows in 2012 leads to questions of
whether flow affected passage. However suggestive, the 2012 results are limited in sample size,
confounded with time and discharge, and were not part of a formal control-treatment experiment,
and therefore are insufficient to infer whether low flow played a causal role in the passage of
Chinook salmon in late July. The results from 2012 will help, however, with planning for 2013
(maximizing sample sizes and spatial coverage of fixed-station receivers and mobile telemetry)
and with providing a more detailed look at the flows during various successful and unsuccessful
passage periods.
6.5. Ability to Detect Salmon in Clear and Turbid Water, and to
Collect Spawning Habitat Data in Turbid, Mainstem Water
6.5.1. Sonar to Identify Spawning Locations in Turbid Water
Using sonar to identify spawning locations in turbid water proved difficult in 2012. Side-scan
images showed features of the river bathymetry (e.g., gravel bars) and a variety of substrate types
(e.g., sand, gravel, cobble, and rocks); however, no obvious salmon redds were observed with
side-scan or DIDSON sonar. No sonar sampling occurred during low, clear-water conditions, so
crews could not ‘ground-truth’ the turbid-water sample sites using visual observations. Shallow
water also limited boat access to some sites, including at least two (side channels 1 and 3) where
radio-tagged fish had been reported over a prolonged period of time. Thus, though sonar did not
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 55 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
detect the presence of redds, it remains unknown whether this was attributable to the absence of
redds, or because redds were not recognizable on the images; furthermore, some sites were
inaccessible due to shallow water.
For the identification of Chinook salmon redds, Tiffan (2004) found that DIDSON was more
effective when redds exhibited sufficient morphology (i.e., well-developed tailspills) and where
the topography of the riverbed was somewhat smooth so that redds would not be confused with
other bottom features. In 2012, the DIDSON footage provided a rough estimate (order of
magnitude) of the number of fish present, and indicated that observed fish were milling rather
than engaged in spawning activity. In the absence of unidirectional movement, and given the
relatively small area sampled, it was difficult to provide more precise estimates of fish
abundance.
6.6. Operational Lessons about the Effectiveness of Our
Approaches in 2012, with Implications for 2013
The following is a summary of operational lessons that augment or emphasize lessons from 2012
raised elsewhere in the report. The focus is on those that will influence the 2013 Salmon
Escapement Study, and are in addition to those lessons that directly influenced the genetics and
other study plans submitted to FERC in December as part of the RSP.
1. To better characterize Chinook salmon migration behavior and timing in and above
Devils Canyon, it would be beneficial to increase the numbers of radio-tagged fish in
Devils Canyon in 2013 and 2014 over that achieved in 2012. To achieve this goal
without jeopardizing the other study component (characterize mainstem habitat use in the
Middle River), we propose to augment and split the Chinook salmon tagging effort at
Curry with two additional fishwheels located in lower Devils Canyon. Although we are
not certain of the feasibility of operating fishwheels in the area, the additional fishing
effort in Devils Canyon has a disproportionate impact on increasing the numbers of
radio-tagged Chinook salmon in Devils Canyon.
2. Establish tagging goal ranges for each species that are contingent upon estimated
fishwheel catches and the number of radio tags available. When applying for the initial
Fish Resource Permit from ADF&G, request permission to tag up to the upper boundary
of the tag goal ranges. This will provide greater flexibility in-season to adjust tag goals,
maximize the use of considerable survey effort, ensure all radio tags available can be
deployed in a given year, and eliminate the paperwork associated with amending the
permit midseason.
3. Explore alternative methods for sampling (e.g., mark rates, lengths) fish on the spawning
grounds so that investigators can test whether tagged fish were representative of their
respective runs. In 2012, bear predation on Chinook salmon precluded effective
spawning ground sampling in the Indian River and Portage Creek. In future studies,
consider a strategically located adult salmon weir and/or video system with partial weir in
either of these systems to provide the necessary samples.
4. Fixed-station receivers located at tributaries (e.g., Indian River, Portage Creek) should be
added farther upstream from their confluence with the Susitna River. This will improve
our ability to differentiate between mainstem and tributary spawners and reduce the
amount of aerial-tracking effort required in the tributaries.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 56 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
5. Continue a high level of aerial-tracking coverage and expand collaboration and
integration with the Lower River investigators (i.e., ADF&G). Surveys were conducted
weekly in 2012 and provided extremely high-resolution information on fish movements
throughout the drainage. Data processing time was not significantly increased with
regular surveys, and the benefits were substantial when detecting and tracking fish above
Devils Canyon. With an expanded Lower River program in 2013, the need for
coordination and integration of efforts among investigators will grow.
6. Install intergravel temperature probes in close proximity to redds in the fall and remove
them the following spring. These probes will provide data on hyphoreic flows through
spawning gravels at mainstem locations over the winter incubation months. These data
may help to characterize the influence of mainstem flows (over the winter months) on
hyphoreic stability on a site-by-site basis, and indicate why only a few of these sites (e.g.,
sloughs 21, 11, 8A) comprised the majority of mainstem spawning in 2012 and the
1980s.
7. Conduct more frequent spawner and HSC surveys in mainstem habitats of the Middle
River to more accurately define spawning activity and timing in relation to discharge.
Observations in 2012 and the 1980s indicated that relatively specific conditions appear to
trigger spawning activity on a site-by-site basis. The additional information gained from
more frequent surveys will provide more specific criteria for ISF analyses.
8. When using boat-based sonar to survey redds, a side mount that isolates the transducer
from the rolling motion of the boat is required. In deeper water, a side-scan transducer is
usually towed on a long tether to separate it from the heave, pitch, and roll of the survey
vessel. This was not an option at the 2012 sample sites due to shallow water. However,
since roll appeared to have the biggest effect on image quality, it is possible that
improvements can be made by mounting the transducer at the bow of the boat (a new
bow mount has been designed for future studies).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Wayne Dyok and Betsy McGregor from the Alaska Energy Authority for their support
and project oversight. From R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Mary Lou Keefe, Jude Simon, Mike
Gagner, and Dudley Reiser provided advice and assistance with project logistics, data collection,
and data management. We are grateful to Jack Erickson and Richard Yanusz from ADF&G
(Sport Fish Division) for providing valuable advice, assisting with preseason fishwheel design,
and sharing in the collection and analysis of radio telemetry data. Don Degan and Anna-Maria
Mueller of Aquacoustics, Inc. (Soldotna, AK) provided sonar assistance.
We thank the Alaska Railroad Corporation for all the services they provided, without which this
project would not have been possible. Specifically, we thank Tom Brooks, Karen Morisee, and
Michelle Schmidt for their patience and diligence throughout the land-use permitting process;
Bob Hanson for assistance with camp mobilization and safety; Donald Worthley for help with
logistics and sharing knowledge of the Curry area; Michelle Renfrew and Sandy Wanner for
coordinating supply shipments; and the crew of the Hurricane Turn train for providing safe and
enjoyable transportation to and from Curry.
We are grateful to Quicksilver Air (Mike Terwilliger, Mark Stott, Brad Winne) for making the
mobile telemetry surveys a success and transporting crew and gear throughout the summer. The
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 57 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Hamilton Construction Company at Curry assisted with project logistics and provided invaluable
advice during the season. Mahay’s Jet Boat Adventures shared their knowledge of the Susitna
River and transported crew and gear to camp.
Our thanks to the field crew for their hard work and dedication, including Matt Hyatt, James
Macaulley, Josh Moffi, Alec Radford, Kris Shippen, and Roger Tyler. Lisa Bearden, Marc
Bourdon, Robin Tamasi, Andrew Bruce, Mike Demarchi, Peter Johnson, Guy Wade, Amber
Stephens, and Carrie Ziolkowski from LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. (Anchorage, AK)
were instrumental in making this project a success. Vicki Priebe of Happy Computer Services
(Willow, AK) assisted with document production.
LITERATURE CITED
Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC). 2012. Monthly time series climate data for
Talkeetna, Alaska. Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska Fairbanks,
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Climate/Location/TimeSeries/Talkeetna.html. Accessed Dec
20, 2012.
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2012a. Adult salmon distribution and habitat utilization.
Study Plan: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 14241, 2012.
AEA. 2012b. Adult Salmon Distribution and habitat utilization study. Interim Report: Susitna-
Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 14241, 2012.
AEA. 2012c. Proposed Study Plan. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No.
14241, 2012.
AEA. 2011a. Pre-Application Document: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project
No. 14241, December 29, 2011.
AEA. 2011b. Aquatic Resources Data Gap Analysis. Draft. Prepared for Alaska Energy
Authority. July 20, 2011.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 1981. Phase 1 final draft report. Subtask
7.10. Adult anadromous fisheries project (June–September 1981). Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies, Anchorage, Alaska.
ADF&G. 1983. Phase 2 draft report. Volume 1. Synopsis of the 1982 aquatic studies and
analysis of fish and habitat relationships. Appendices. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies, Anchorage, Alaska.
ADF&G. 2013. Distribution of spawning Susitna River Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha, 2012. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage.
Barrett, B. M., F. M. Thompson, and S. N. Wick. 1983. Phase 2 final report. Volume 2. Adult
anadromous fish studies, 1982. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro
Aquatic Studies, Anchorage, Alaska.
Barrett, B. M., F. M. Thompson, and S. N. Wick. 1984. Adult anadromous fish investigations:
May-October 1983. Report No. 1. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro
Aquatic Studies, Anchorage, Alaska.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 58 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Barrett, B. M., F. M. Thompson, and S. N. Wick. 1985. Adult salmon investigations: May-
October 1984. Report No. 6. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro
Aquatic Studies, Anchorage, Alaska.
Buckwalter, J. D. 2011. Synopsis of ADF&G’s Upper Susitna Drainage Fish Inventory, August 2011. November 22, 2011. ADF&G Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, AK. 173 pp.
Coutant, C. C., and W. Van Winkle Jr. 1984. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Susitna
Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 7114. Volume 4, Appendix I: Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 74 pp.
Elwood, J. W., D. W. Lee, M. J. Sale, and A. J. Witten. 1984. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, Susitna Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 7114. Volume 4, Appendix H:
Water Resources. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 52 pp.
Gatto, L. W., C. J. Merry, H. L. McKim, and D. E. Lawson. 1980. Environmental analysis of
the Upper Susitna River Basin using Landsat imagery. CRREL Report No. 80-4, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.
Hanover, New Hampshire. 41 pp.
Hughes, N. F. 2004. The wave-drag hypothesis: an explanation for size-based lateral
segregation during the upstream migration of salmonids. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 61: 103-109.
Ivey, S., C. Brockman, and D. Rutz. 2009. Area Management Report for the Recreational
Fisheries of Northern Cook Inlet, 2005 and 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Fishery Management Report No. 09-27. Anchorage, Alaska. 164 pp plus appendices.
Link, M. R., and K. K. English. 1996. The 1993 fishwheel project on the Nass River and an
evaluation of fishwheels as an inseason management and stock assessment tool for the
Nass River. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2130: xi +
103 p.
Link, M. R., and B. L. Nass. 1999. Estimated abundance of Chinook salmon returning to the
Nass River, B.C., 1997. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
2475: xi + 64.
Meehan, W. R. 1961. The use of a fishwheel in salmon research and management. Transactions
of the American Fisheries Society 90: 490-494.
Merizon, R. A., R. J. Yanusz, D. J. Reed, and T. R. Spencer. 2010. Distribution of spawning
Susitna River chum Oncorhynchus keta and coho O. kisutch salmon, 2009. Alaska
Fishery Data Series No. 10-72. Department of Fish and Game, Divisions of Sport and
Fish and Commercial Fisheries.
Robichaud, D., K. K. English, J. J. Smith, and S. C. Tyerman. 2010. Application of fishwheels
and radio-telemetry for in-season assessment of salmon returns to the Fraser River, 2009.
Pacific Salmon Foundation, Fraser Salmon and Watersheds Program, Vancouver, B.C.
Rutz, D. S. 1996. Seasonal movements, age and size statistics, and food habits of Northern Pike
in Upper Cook Inlet during 1994 and 1995. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Fishery Data Series No. 96-29. Anchorage, Alaska.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 59 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Schmidt, D. C., S. S. Hale, D. L. Crawford, and P. M. Suchanek. 1984. Report No. 2: Resident
and Juvenile Anadromous Fish Investigations (May – October 1983). Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Anchorage, Alaska. 42 pp plus
appendices.
Shields, P. and A. Dupuis. 2012. Upper Cook Inlet commercial fisheries annual management
report, 2011. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 12-
25, Anchorage.
Smith, J. J., M. R. Link, and B. D. Cain. 2005. Development of a long-term monitoring project
to estimate abundance of Chinook salmon in the Copper River, Alaska, 2001-2004.
Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin 11 (2): 118-134.
Thompson, F. M., S. N. Wick, and B. L. Stratton. 1986b. Adult salmon investigations: May-
October 1985. Technical Data Report No. 13, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies, Anchorage, Alaska.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, and Entrix, Inc. 1985. Fish Resources and Habitats in the
Middle Susitna River. Technical Report No. 1. Instream Flow Relationships Series.
Alaska Power Authority Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Vol. 1.
Yanusz, R. J., R. A. Merizon, T. M. Willette, D. G. Evans, and T. R. Spencer. 2011. Inriver
abundance and distribution of spawning Susitna River sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus
nerka, 2008. Alaska Fishery Data Series No. 11-12. Department of Fish and Game,
Divisions of Sport and Fish and Commercial Fisheries.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 60 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
TABLES.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 61 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 1. Use of various methods to accomplish each of seven major objectives in 2012.
Objective
Middle River
Fishwheel
Operation
Lower River
Fishwheel
Operation 1
Middle River
Radio-tagging
Lower River
Radio-
tagging 1 Sonar
Mobile and
Fixed Tracking
Surveys
Physical
Habitat
Sampling
1. Fish capture, tagging, and
tracking in Middle River X X X X
2. Migration behavior,
spawning locations of salmon
in up/middle/lower Susitna
River
X X X X X X
3. Feasibility of sonar to
determine spawning locs in
turbid water
X
4. Characterize salmon
migration behavior, timing
above Devils Canyon
X X X X X
5. Habitat use historic and
current X X X X X
6. Locate individual holding
and spawning salmon (clear,
turbid) & collect habitat data
in middle and lower river,
consistent with developing
HSC.
X X X X X X X
7. Evaluate effectiveness of
2012 methods.X X X X
Notes:
1 Operated by ADF&G and reported in Yanusz et al. (2013).
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 62 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 2. Total catch of salmon at two fishwheel sites near Curry on the Susitna River, 2012.
Table 3. Fork lengths and linear regression equations for fish sampled at the Curry fishwheels, 2012.
Table 4. Number of fish, by species and location, sampled for DNA and otoliths.
Species 1 Adult Jack Total Adult Jack Total Adult Jack Total
Chinook Salmon 256 83 339 166 61 227 422 144 566
Sockeye Salmon 35 2 37 57 6 63 92 8 100
Pink Salmon 4,164 4,164 541 541 4,705 4,705
Chum Salmon 877 877 857 857 1,734 1,734
Coho Salmon 229 1 230 35 0 35 264 1 265
Total 5,561 86 5,647 1,656 67 1,723 7,217 153 7,370
Notes:
1 Adult salmon catches include recaptures: 20 Chinook, 2 sockeye, 1 pink, 7 chum, 3 coho.
Site 1 Site 2 Total
Species Min Max Mean n Equation n R2
Chinook Salmon 33 123 71 492 MEF = 0.9001 * FL + 1.4705 207 0.99
Sockeye Salmon 32 72 54 91 MEF = 0.8494 * FL + 3.4589 71 0.97
Pink Salmon 34 59 49 588 MEF = 0.8383 * FL + 3.8108 307 0.94
Chum Salmon 52 77 67 867 MEF = 0.7675 * FL + 9.3872 843 0.94
Coho Salmon 35 69 55 250 MEF = 0.8498 * FL + 3.7535 247 0.93
Linear Regression: MEF-FL (cm)Fork Length (cm)
Number
Species Caught Min Max Mean n DNA Otolith
Arctic Grayling 1 31 31 31.0 1
Dolly Varden 2 25 33 29.0 2 1 1
Longnose Sucker 22 22 36 30.1 15 9
Rainbow Trout 23 17 50 30.2 21 10
Round Whitefish 29 15 38 30.1 19 15
Humpback Whitefish 6 17 34 27.0 5 4 2
Fork Length (cm)Number of Samples
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 63 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 5. Number of adult salmon tagged and recaptured at two fishwheel sites near Curry on the Susitna River, 2012.
Table 6. Number of recaptured radio-tagged fish, by location of tagging, and the elapsed time between tag and recapture
events.
Table 7. Statistical results of Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests comparing cumulative length-frequency distributions of fish
measured at the Curry fishwheels, 2012.
Preseason
Species Tag Goal Tagged Recaps Tagged Recaps Tagged Recaps
Chinook salmon 400 214 15 138 5 352 20
Sockeye Salmon 200 27 0 43 2 70 2
Pink Salmon 200 122 1 108 0 230 1
Chum Salmon 200 140 4 139 3 279 7
Coho Salmon 200 156 3 28 0 184 3
Total 1,200 659 23 456 10 1,115 33
Site 2 TotalSite 1
Location Number of
of Tagging Species Recaptures Min Max Median n
Middle River Chinook Salmon 17 0.0 263.1 6.9 13
(Curry) Sockeye Salmon 2 2.6 495.8 249.2 2
Chum Salmon 2 0.6 2.2 1.4 2
Coho Salmon 3 1.6 193.3 2.0 3
Lower River Chinook Salmon 3 630.8 693.7 640.5 3
Pink Salmon 3
Chum Salmon 1
Time Between Capture Events (Hours)
Location / Species n 1 n 2 D max P-value
Site 1 vs. Site 2
Chinook Salmon 314 178 0.05 1.00
Sockeye Salmon 34 57 0.16 0.71
Pink Salmon 388 200 0.12 0.06
Chum Salmon 460 407 0.05 0.70
Coho Salmon 216 34 0.16 0.39
Captured vs. Tagged
Chinook Salmon 404 350 0.03 1.00
Sockeye Salmon 79 70 0.04 1.00
Pink Salmon 584 230 0.03 1.00
Chum Salmon 867 279 0.06 0.45
Coho Salmon 248 184 0.05 1.00
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 64 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 8. Chinook salmon capture efficiency by the Site 1 fishwheel, 2012.
Table 9. Tag rate estimate adjustments based on theoretical observation efficiency during stream counts of Chinook
salmon in Portage Creek and Indian River, 2012.
Date 24-h Period
When FW1
Operating FW1 Count 24-h Period
When FW1
Operating
19-Jun 29 20 2 6.9 10.0
20-Jun 54 48 3 5.6 6.3
04-Jul 69 13 0.0 18.8
Total 83 137 18 21.7 13.1
DIDSON Count Percent Caught
Date Location Actual Count
Observer
Efficiency (%)Fish Missed
Adjusted
Count
Adjusted Tag
Rate (%)
30-Jul Portage Creek
146+341 100.0 0.0 180.0 16.1
90.0 18.0 198.0 14.6
85.0 27.0 207.0 14.0
80.0 36.0 216.0 13.4
75.0 45.0 225.0 12.9
70.0 54.0 234.0 12.4
31-Jul Indian River 82 100.0 0.0 82.0 13.4
90.0 8.2 90.2 12.2
85.0 12.3 94.3 11.7
80.0 16.4 98.4 11.2
75.0 20.5 102.5 10.7
70.0 24.6 106.6 10.3
08-Aug Indian River 43 100.0 0.0 43.0 32.6
90.0 4.3 47.3 29.6
85.0 6.5 49.5 28.3
80.0 8.6 51.6 27.1
75.0 10.8 53.8 26.0
70.0 12.9 55.9 25.0
Note:
1 the 34 additional counts represent an estimated number of Chinook salmon present in a section of stream
blocked by bear activity.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 65 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 10. Summary of visual ground surveys for live Chinook salmon in Portage Creek and Indian River, 2012.
Coordinates are in decimal degrees.
Table 11. Summary of the Chinook salmon mortality tag recovery efforts in Indian River, 2012. Coordinates are in
decimal degrees.
Date Location Lat Long Lat Long Live Count
30-Jul Portage Creek 62.90057 -149.24913 62.87752 -149.32030
146+341
31-Jul Upper Indian 62.87892 -149.58368 62.86988 -149.59747 82
08-Aug Lower Indian 62.82844 -149.64476 62.78484 -149.66217 43
Note:
Start Location Stop Location
1 the 34 additional counts represent an estimated number of Chinook salmon present in a section of stream
blocked by bear activity.
Tags Bear-Related
Date Location Lat long Lat Long Recovered Recoveries
02-Aug Lower Indian 62.78484 -149.66217 62.78955 -149.66135 1 1
05-Aug Upper Indian 62.88493 -149.56596 62.85728 -149.61330 8 4
08-Aug Lower Indian 62.82844 -149.64476 62.78484 -149.66217 11 8
Start Location Stop Location
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 66 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 12. Comparison of the number of radio-tagged Chinook salmon detected during an aerial-tracking survey on July
24, and the number of Chinook salmon visually counted on an aerial survey conducted the same day. A sensitivity
analysis of the estimated proportion of fish marked in the Middle River as a function of observer efficiency on the aerial
surveys is also shown.
Survey Method Tag Site and Status Indian River Portage Creek Total
Aerial-Tracking Middle River - Live 65 131 196
Survey (LGL) Middle River - Dead 8 12 20
Lower River - Live 4 8 12
Lower River - Dead 0 2 2
Total 77 153 230
Aerial-Counting No. of Chinook Observed 338 501 839
Survey (ADF&G) Count:Radio Ratio 4.4 3.3 3.6
Count:Radio Ratio (Middle River)4.6 3.5 3.9
Sensitivity of Estimated Mark Rate in Middle River to Observer Efficiency on Aerial-Counting Survey
Observer Efficiency
20%3.8%5.2%4.7%
40%7.7% 10.5%9.3%
60%11.5% 15.7% 14.0%
80%15.4% 20.9% 18.7%
100%19.2% 26.1% 23.4%
Mark Rate (Middle River Live Tags / Visual Count)
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 67 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 13. Detection efficiencies of fixed-station receivers in the Middle River, by species. Also shown: numbers of radio-tagged fish that were detected at each fixed-
station receiver, and numbers known to have passed (i.e., detected at or upstream of the receiver). No terminal zones are included because detection efficiencies for
these sites cannot be computed (there are no upstream detection zones). Only tags deployed from the Curry fishwheels are included. To be included in the 'detected'
column, a fish had to be detected during its upstream movements (i.e., detections of fish moving downstream are not included).
Receiver Detect Pass DE (%) Detect Pass DE (%) Detect Pass DE (%) Detect Pass DE (%) Detect Pass DE (%)
Gateway 212 313 67.7 233 238 97.9 149 153 97.4 192 194 99.0 62 63 98.4
Slough 11 30 305 9.8 1 199 0.5 0 136 0.0 0 147 0.0 1 53 1.9
Indian River 226 303 74.6 179 198 90.4 124 136 91.2 134 147 91.2 45 53 84.9
Slough 21 26 230 11.3 0 121 0.0 0 70 0.0 0 71 0.0 1 47 2.1
Portage Creek 205 225 91.1 113 117 96.6 63 65 96.9 67 70 95.7 45 46 97.8
Cheechako Station 23 23 100.0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .
Chinook Creek 20 20 100.0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .
Devil Station 9 9 100.0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .
Sockeye SalmonChinook Salmon Chum Salmon Coho Salmon Pink Salmon
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 68 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 14. Monitoring efficiency (percent operational) of fixed-station receivers in the Middle and Upper River in 2012, by week. Percentages were calculated as the
number of hours of recorded receiver activity divided by the number of hours for which it was deployed, summed by week; "-" = 'not deployed'. Receivers were
considered active in a given hour if at least one fish detection, beacon-tag hit, or noise event was recorded during the hour.
Week
Lane
Station
ADFG
Lane
Station
LGL Gateway Slough 11
Indian
River Slough 21
Portage
Creek
Cheechako
Station
Chinook
Creek
Devil
Station
ADFG
Devil
Station
LGL
Kosina
Creek
6/11 - 6/17 -44 92 100 - - - - - - - -
6/18 - 6/24 70 100 95 100 88 -25 100 100 100 - -
6/25 - 7/1 100 100 100 100 91 100 98 100 100 100 -100
7/2 - 7/8 99 100 100 100 20 100 24 100 100 99 -100
7/9 - 7/15 100 100 100 100 79 100 80 100 100 98 -100
7/16 - 7/22 100 100 100 100 100 86 100 100 100 100 100 100
7/23 - 7/29 100 60 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7/30 - 8/5 95 64 100 99 87 100 67 100 100 100 100 100
8/6 - 8/12 100 100 95 100 67 100 88 100 100 100 100 100
8/13 - 8/19 100 100 100 100 81 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8/20 - 8/26 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8/27 - 9/2 100 93 73 100 100 100 100 100 100 81 68 100
9/3 - 9/9 100 100 100 -100 -100 100 63 100 100 100
9/10 - 9/16 100 60 22 -100 -100 100 - - - -
9/17 - 9/23 100 100 88 -79 -54 100 - - - -
9/24 - 9/30 100 100 100 -93 -50 100 - - - -
10/1 - 10/7 100 100 100 -100 -100 100 - - - -
10/8 - 10/14 100 100 100 -100 -100 100 - - - -
10/15 - 10/21 100 100 100 -100 -100 64 - - - -
10/22 - 10/28 - - - - - - -100 - - - -
10/29 - 11/4 - - - - - - -100 - - - -
11/5 - 11/11 - - - - - - -100 - - - -
11/12 - 11/18 - - - - - - -100 - - - -
Fixed-station Receiver
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 69 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 15. Monitoring efficiency (percent operational) of Lower River fixed-station receivers in 2012, by week. Percentages were calculated as the number of hours of
recorded receiver activity divided by the number of hours for which it was deployed, summed by week; "-" = 'not deployed'. Receivers were considered active in a given
hour if at least one fish detection, beacon-tag hit, or noise event was recorded during the hour.
Week
Susitna
Station
Lower
Yentna
Upper
Yentna
Skwentna
River
Deshka
Mouth
Deshka
Weir
Sunshine
Mouth
Talkeetna
Station
Chulitna
Station
4/30 - 5/6 ---------
5/7 - 5/13 100 100 -------
5/14 - 5/20 100 100 --100 100 100 --
5/21 - 5/27 100 100 --100 100 100 100 100
5/28 - 6/3 100 100 --100 100 100 100 100
6/4 - 6/10 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
6/11 - 6/17 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
6/18 - 6/24 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
6/25 - 7/1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7/2 - 7/8 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7/9 - 7/15 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7/16 - 7/22 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7/23 - 7/29 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7/30 - 8/5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8/6 - 8/12 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8/13 - 8/19 100 100 100 38 100 100 100 100 100
8/20 - 8/26 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 100
8/27 - 9/2 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 100
9/3 - 9/9 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 80 100
9/10 - 9/16 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 26 100
9/17 - 9/23 --100 0 --100 55 100
9/24 - 9/30 --100 0 --100 -100
10/1 - 10/7 --100 0 ----100
10/8 - 10/14 ---------
Fixed-station Receiver
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 70 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 16. The numbers and proportions of tags that had malfunctioning mortality functions. Resurrections: some tags
that changed from their mortality signal mode, in which they were supposed to be locked, to the live signal mode. Sensor
failures: some tags failed to go into mortality when after being inactive for long periods of time. Results are shown
separately for each model type.
Small Mid-sized Large
Detected During LGL Mobile-tracks 179 505 375
Entered Mortality Mode 147 429 345
'Resurrection' Events 15 32 23
% Resurrections 10.2% 7.5% 6.7%
Remained in Live Mode 32 76 30
Likely dead fish with 'live' tags 3 0 1
% Sensor Failure 1.7% 0.0% 0.3%
Total Malfunctions 18 32 24
% Malfunctions 10.1% 6.3% 6.4%
Tag Model
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 71 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 17. Destinations of radio-tagged fish by species and release location. Fish that did not enter tributaries and were detected on several occasions within a limited
area were classified with a 'Mainstem Destination' (either in side-channel/slough locations, in a tributary mouth, or in the mainstem proper). Tags that were recovered
or returned were included in this table either under the 'Other Mainstem' classification (if the recovery date was outside of the range of probable spawning dates) or
within the row that was associated with the recovery location (if recoveries were from within a tributary, or were in a possible mainstem spawning location).
Classification
Tributary Destinations (total)360 286 283 175 326 122 372 154 99 10
Alexander Creek 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yentna River 40 0 122 0 133 0 168 0 96 0
Deshka River 109 1 3 0 28 0 42 0 1 0
Willow Creek 19 0 14 0 3 0 13 0 0 0
Little Willow Creek 23 0 4 0 7 0 5 0 0 0
Kashwitna Creek 12 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0
Goose Creek 2 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
Sheep Creek 10 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
Montana Creek 10 3 11 0 5 0 6 0 0 0
Rabideaux Creek 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Talkeetna River 53 6 73 23 41 4 30 14 0 1
Chulitna River 60 13 33 4 91 7 99 2 2 3
Whiskers Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
Unnamed trib (Zone 97)0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Lane Creek 0 0 0 2 0 5 1 2 0 0
5th of July Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
Sherman Creek 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
4th of July Creek 0 5 1 5 0 1 0 18 0 2
Gold Creek 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Indian River 7 85 5 68 5 68 5 80 0 1
Jack Long Creek 0 1 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0
Portage Creek 11 157 9 73 0 22 0 34 0 3
Cheechako Creek 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chinook Creek 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Devil Creek 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kosina Creek 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Lower RiverMiddle RiverLower RiverLower RiverMiddle RiverMiddle RiverMiddle RiverSockeye SalmonPink Salmon
Middle RiverLower RiverLower RiverChinook Salmon Chum Salmon Coho Salmon
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 72 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 17. Continued.
Classification
Mainstem Destinations (total)11 31 32 55 23 23 11 9 1 37
Mainstem Proper 4 11 10 13 7 5 2 3 1 3
Downstream of Lane 3 0 10 0 7 0 2 0 0 0
Upstream of Lane 1 11 0 13 0 5 0 3 1 3
Tributary Mouths 2 18 3 8 3 10 6 3 0 4
Deshka River 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Willow Creek 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0
Montana Creek 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0
Talkeetna River 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Chulitna River 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4th of July Creek 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Indian River 0 10 0 3 0 5 0 2 0 0
Jack Long Creek 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Portage Creek 0 7 0 4 0 4 0 1 0 4
Side Channels & Sloughs 5 2 19 34 13 8 3 3 0 30
Slough 8A 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5
Slough 9 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 3
Slough 11 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 9
Slough 21 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other areas 5 2 19 24 13 7 3 2 0 13
Other Classifications (total)71 35 85 49 50 39 18 67 0 23
Other Mainstem 29 11 48 34 42 14 12 40 0 17
Max Zone downstream of Lane 29 0 43 0 42 0 12 0 0 0
Max Zone upstream of Lane 0 11 5 34 0 14 0 40 0 17
Downstream Only 32 6 6 7 0 13 0 22 0 5
Near Release Site 6 17 21 7 3 12 3 5 0 1
Not Detected 3 0 10 1 5 0 3 0 0 0
Tag Removed 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Tags Released 442 352 400 279 399 184 401 230 100 70Middle RiverSockeye SalmonPink Salmon
Middle RiverLower RiverLower RiverChinook Salmon Chum Salmon Coho Salmon
Lower RiverMiddle RiverLower RiverLower RiverMiddle RiverMiddle River
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 73 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 18. Summary of monitoring effort at potential spawning sites for Chinook salmon in the Middle River, 2012. River flows are in cubic feet per second.
Habitat Survey Survey Fish Observed River
Site # Location Type Date 1 Type None Holding Spawning Flow
1 5th of July Creek Tributary Delta Aerial/Boat Recon Too Turbid To Assess
2 Lane Creek - Gateway Mainstem 06-Aug Aerial/Boat Recon Too Turbid To Assess 19,578
Aerial X
3 4th of July Creek Tributary Delta 20-Jul Aerial Too Turbid To Assess 17,320
25-Jul Boat Recon Too Turbid To Assess 28,891
28-Jul Aquacoustics X 22,132
4 Gateway - Slough 11 Mainstem Aerial/Boat Recon Too Turbid To Assess
5 Gateway - Slough 11 Mainstem Aerial/Boat Recon Too Turbid To Assess
28-Jul Aquacoustics X 22,132
6 Gold Creek Tributary Delta Aerial/Boat Recon Too Turbid To Assess
28-Jul Aquacoustics X 22,132
7 Slough 11 - Indian River Mainstem Aerial Too Turbid To Assess
8 Indian River Tributary Delta Aerial/Boat Recon X
9 Indian River - Slough 21 Mainstem Aerial/Boat Recon Too Turbid To Assess
10 Indian River - Slough 21 Mainstem Aerial/Boat Recon Too Turbid To Assess
29-Jul Aquacoustics X 22,621
11 Slough 21 - Portage Creek Mainstem Aerial/Boat Recon Too Turbid To Assess
12 Slough 21 - Portage Creek Mainstem Aerial/Boat Recon Too Turbid To Assess
13 Portage Creek Tributary Delta Aerial/Boat Recon X
Notes:
1 Blank cells indicate locations that were monitored on a regular basis, but fish were not observed or confirmed and specific dates of monitoring were not
recorded. Most are turbid water locations.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 74 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 19. Summary of monitoring effort at potential spawning sites for chum salmon in the Middle River, 2012. River flows are in cubic feet per second.
Habitat Survey Survey Fish Observed River
Site # Location Type Date 1 Type None Holding Spawning Flow
1 Lane Creek - Gateway Tributary Delta 01-Sep Boat Recon X 16,592
2 Slough 8C & 8D Slough 06-Aug Boat Recon X 19,578
07-Aug Boat Recon X 18,043
Aerial X
3 Moose Slough Slough Aerial X
4 Lane Creek - Gateway Mainstem Aerial Too Turbid To Assess
5 Lane Creek - Gateway Mainstem Aerial Too Turbid To Assess
6 Slough 8A Slough 13-Aug Aerial X 17,366
16-Aug Aerial X 16,972
22-Aug Aerial X X 17,728
26-Aug HSC X X 15,408
27-Aug Aerial Too Turbid To Assess 22,851
03-Sep Aerial Too Turbid To Assess 17,173
7 Mainstem Mainstem Aerial Too Turbid To Assess
8 Slough 9 Slough 13-Aug Aerial X 17,366
16-Aug Aerial X 16,972
22-Aug Aerial X X 17,728
27-Aug HSC X X 22,851
9 4th of July Creek Tributary Delta 11-Aug Boat Recon X 17,397
15-Aug HSC X X 16,992
10 4th of July Slough Slough 11-Aug Boat Recon X 17,397
13-Aug Aerial X X 17,366
15-Aug HSC X X 16,992
27-Aug Aerial Too Turbid To Assess 22,851
11 Slough 9A Slough 22-Aug Aerial X X 17,728
26-Aug HSC X X 15,408
27-Aug Aerial X 22,851
Aerial X
12 Side Channel 11 Side Channel Aerial Too Turbid To Assess
13 Slough 11 Slough 15-Aug Boat Recon X 16,992
29-Aug HSC X X 22,271
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 75 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 19. Continued.
Habitat Survey Survey Fish Observed River
Site # Location Type Date 1 Type None Holding Spawning Flow
14 Mainstem Mainstem Aerial Too Turbid To Assess
15 Indian River Tributary Delta 11-Aug Boat Recon X 17,397
26-Aug HSC X X 15,408
29-Aug HSC X X 22,271
16 Slough 21 Slough 05-Aug Aerial X 21,966
06-Aug Aerial X 19,578
11-Aug Boat Recon/HSC X X 17,397
17 Mainstem Mainstem Aerial Too Turbid To Assess
18 Mainstem Mainstem Aerial Too Turbid To Assess
19 Portage Creek Tributary Delta Aerial/Boat Recon X
Notes:
1 Blank cells indicate locations that were monitored on a regular basis, but fish were not observed or confirmed and specific dates of monitoring were not
recorded. Most are turbid water locations.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 76 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 20. Summary of monitoring effort at potential spawning sites for coho salmon in the Middle River, 2012. River flows are in cubic feet per second.
Habitat Survey Survey Fish Observed River
Site # Location Type Date 1 Type None Holding Spawning Flow
1 Lane Creek Tributary Delta Aerial/Boat Recon X
2 Moose Slough Slough Aerial X
3 Slough 8A Slough 22-Aug Aerial X 17,728
26-Aug Boat Recon X 15,408
27-Aug Aerial Too Turbid To Assess 22,851
Aerial X
4 Gateway - Slough 11 Mainstem Aerial Too Turbid To Assess
5 4th of July Slough Slough 27-Aug Aerial Too Turbid To Assess 22,851
Aerial Too Turbid To Assess
6 Gateway - Slough 11 Mainstem Aerial Too Turbid To Assess
7 Indian River Tributary Delta 26-Aug Boat Recon X 15,408
29-Aug Boat Recon X 22,271
Aerial X
8 Slough 21 - Portage Creek Mainstem Aerial Too Turbid To Assess
9 Slough 21 - Portage Creek Mainstem Aerial Too Turbid To Assess
10 Portage Creek Tributary Delta Aerial/Boat Recon X
Notes:
1 Blank cells indicate locations that were monitored on a regular basis, but fish were not observed or confirmed and specific dates of monitoring were not
recorded. Most are turbid water locations.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 77 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 21. Summary of monitoring effort at potential spawning sites for pink salmon in the Middle River, 2012. River flows are in cubic feet per second.
Habitat Survey Survey Fish Observed River
Site # Location Type Date 1 Type None Holding Spawning Flow
1 5th of July Creek Trubtary Delta Aerial X
2 Slough 9 Slough 13-Aug Aerial X 17,366
16-Aug Aerial X 16,972
22-Aug Aerial X 17,728
27-Aug Boat Recon X 22,851
29-Aug Boat Recon X 22,271
3 4th of July Creek Trubtary Delta 11-Aug Boat Recon X 17,397
15-Aug Boat Recon X 16,992
Aerial X
4 Slough 11 Slough 15-Aug Boat Recon X 16,992
29-Aug Boat Recon X 22,271
5 Indian River Trubtary Delta 11-Aug Boat Recon X 17,397
26-Aug Boat Recon X 15,408
29-Aug Boat Recon X 22,271
6 Portage Creek Trubtary Delta Aerial/Boat Recon X
Notes:
1 Blank cells indicate locations that were monitored on a regular basis, but fish were not observed or confirmed and specific dates of monitoring were not
recorded. Most are turbid water locations.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 78 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 22. Summary of monitoring effort at potential spawning sites for sockeye salmon in the Middle River, 2012. River flows are in cubic feet per second.
Habitat Survey Survey Fish Observed River
Site # Location Type Date 1 Type None Holding Spawning Flow
1 Moose Slough Slough Aerial X
2 Slough 8A Slough 13-Aug Aerial Too Turbid to Assess 17,366
16-Aug Aerial Too Turbid to Assess 16,972
22-Aug Aerial X X 17,728
26-Aug HSC X X 15,408
27-Aug Aerial Too Turbid to Assess 22,851
03-Sep Aerial Too Turbid to Assess 17,173
3 Lane Creek - Gateway Mainstem Aerial Too Turbid to Assess
4 Slough 9 Slough 13-Aug Aerial X 17,366
16-Aug Aerial X 16,972
22-Aug Aerial X X 17,728
27-Aug HSC X X 22,851
5 Slough 10 Slough 11-Aug Recon X 17,397
22-Aug Aerial X 17,728
27-Aug Recon X 22,851
6 Side Channel 11 Side Channel Aerial Too Turbid to Assess
7 Slough 11 Slough 15-Aug Recon X 16,992
29-Aug HSC X X 22,271
8 Slough 19 Slough Aerial X
09-Sep Aerial X X 13,283
18-Sep Aerial Too Turbid to Assess 20,719
9 Slough 20 Slough Aerial X
10 Side Channel 21 Side Channel Aerial Too Turbid to Assess
09-Sep Aerial X X 13,283
18-Sep Aerial Too Turbid to Assess 20,719
11 Slough 21 - Portage Mainstem Aerial Too Turbid to Assess
12 Portage Creek Tributary Delta Aerial/Recon X
13 Portage - Impediment 1 Mainstem Aerial X
Notes:
1 Blank cells indicate locations that were monitored on a regular basis, but fish were not observed or confirmed and specific dates of monitoring were not
recorded. Most are turbid water locations.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 79 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 23. Salmon displaying roaming behavior in the Middle River. These were radio-tagged fish of known destination
that passed Lane Creek (for released in the Lower River, top panel) or Gateway (for fish released at Curry, bottom
panel), then subsequently returned downstream to enter a tributary. See Table 17 for further details about classifications
of fish destinations.
Tagged in Lower River
Classification / Destination
Chinook
Salmon
Chum
Salmon
Coho
Salmon
Pink
Salmon
Sockeye
Salmon
Reached Lane Station 24 25 6 11 3
Unknown Classification 0 5 0 0 0
Tag removed 1 0 0 0 0
Known Destination (a)1 23 20 6 11 3
Mid/Upper-Susitna Tributary 19 15 5 6 0
Mid/Upper-Susitna Mainstem 1 2 0 0 1
Returned Downstream (b)1 3 3 1 5 2
Chulitna River 2 0 1 4 2
Talkeetna River 0 3 0 1 0
Montana Creek 1 0 0 0 0
Proportion Roaming (c)1 13.0% 15.0% 16.7% 45.5% 66.7%
Tagged at Curry
Classification / Destination
Chinook
Salmon
Chum
Salmon
Coho
Salmon
Pink
Salmon
Sockeye
Salmon
Tagged at Curry 352 279 184 230 70
Other Classifications (from Table 17)35 49 39 67 23
Other Mainstem 11 34 14 40 17
Downstream Only 6 7 13 22 5
Near Release Site 17 7 12 5 1
Not Detected 0 1 0 0 0
Tag removed 1 0 0 0 0
Known Destination (a)1 317 230 145 163 47
Susitna Trib. above Gateway 263 146 105 134 6
Susitna Mainstem above Gateway 31 55 23 9 37
Returned Downstream (b)1 23 29 17 20 4
Lane Creek 0 2 5 2 0
Chulitna River 13 4 7 2 3
Talkeetna River 6 23 4 14 1
Whiskers Creek 0 0 0 2 0
Trib, Zone 97 0 0 1 0 0
Montana Creek 3 0 0 0 0
Deshka River 1 0 0 0 0
Proportion Roaming (c)1 7.3% 12.6% 11.7% 12.3% 8.5%
Notes:
1 c = b / a
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 80 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 24. Farthest upstream detection locations for radio-tagged fish that eventually entered a tributary downstream of
Lane (for fish released in the Lower River, top panel) or Gateway (for fish released at Curry, bottom panel).
Tagged in Lower River
Farthest Upstream Location
Chinook
Salmon
Chum
Salmon
Coho
Salmon
Pink
Salmon
Sockeye
Salmon
Near Indian River 1 0 0 1 0
Slough 11 0 0 0 0 1
4th of July 0 0 0 0 1
Curry 1 0 0 0 0
Lane Station 1 3 1 4 0
Total number that reached
Lane Station, then entered
downriver tributary 3 3 1 5 2
Tagged at Curry
Farthest Upstream Location
Chinook
Salmon
Chum
Salmon
Coho
Salmon
Pink
Salmon
Sockeye
Salmon
Portage Creek mouth 4 2 2 3 3
Indian River mouth 2 1 3 0 0
4th of July 1 0 0 0 0
Gateway 2 5 7 9 0
Total number that reached
Gateway, then entered
downriver tributary 9 8 12 12 3
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 81 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 25. Minimum, median and maximum dates of fishwheel and fixed-station receiver passage, by species. Only fish radio-tagged at the Curry fishwheels are
included. Receivers at Slough 11 and Slough 21 detected few fish and are not included.
Middle River
Fishwheels Gateway
Indian
River
Portage
Creek
Cheechako
Station
Chinook
Creek
Devil
Station
Kosina
Creek
Chinook Salmon
Minimum 18-Jun 19-Jun 20-Jun 23-Jun 7-Jul 7-Jul 17-Jul 19-Jul
Median 2-Jul 4-Jul 7-Jul 8-Jul 15-Jul 16-Jul 19-Jul 21-Jul
Maximum 2-Aug 27-Aug 17-Oct 3-Oct 20-Jul 20-Jul 6-Aug 23-Jul
Chum Salmon
Minimum 10-Jul 13-Jul 14-Jul 17-Jul
Median 4-Aug 6-Aug 7-Aug 8-Aug
Maximum 26-Aug 20-Sep 13-Sep 3-Oct
Coho Salmon
Minimum 31-Jul 2-Aug 4-Aug 7-Aug
Median 13-Aug 14-Aug 16-Aug 16-Aug
Maximum 31-Aug 7-Sep 13-Sep 17-Sep
Pink Salmon
Minimum 16-Jul 26-Jul 27-Jul 30-Jul
Median 5-Aug 5-Aug 6-Aug 8-Aug
Maximum 22-Aug 25-Aug 17-Sep 16-Aug
Sockeye Salmon
Minimum 2-Jul 6-Jul 7-Jul 5-Jul
Median 1-Aug 4-Aug 4-Aug 5-Aug
Maximum 20-Aug 22-Aug 26-Aug 28-Aug
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 82 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 26. Sites visited during assessment of sonar to identify Chinook salmon spawning locations in turbid water.
Location River Mile Sonar Type Turbidity Fish Observed? Notes
Site 1 123.8 n/a n/a n/a Could not access
Site 2 - Fourth of July 131.1 DIDSON/Side-scan Some clear water Yes
Site 3 132.5 n/a n/a n/a Could not access
Site 4 134.0 DIDSON/Side-scan Very turbid Yes
Site 5 - Gold Creek 137.0 DIDSON Very turbid No
Site 6 142.0 DIDSON Very turbid Yes
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 83 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 27. Details of the fish that approached or passed the Middle River impediments. Fish characteristics include 'tag numbers' (unique numbers assigned to each
individual radio-tagged fish), species (CN = Chinook salmon, CM = Chum salmon, SO = Sockeye salmon), capture and release site ('Left' and 'Right Bank' fishwheels
were near Curry), capture date, fork length (except for fish tagged in the Lower River, which had mid eye to fork (MEF) measurements) and sex. Tracking details
include the date of first detections above each impediment, and a comment about the general conclusion of the fish. Top panel: fish that passed Impediment 3. Second
panel: fish that passed Impediment 2, but not Impediment 3. Third panel: fish that passed Impediment 1, but not Impediment 2. Bottom panel: fish that approached
within 1 km of Impediment 1, but did not pass.
Fish that Passed I3
Tag
Number Species
Capture/
Release
Fishwheel
Capture
Date
Length
(FL cm)Sex
First
Detection
Above I-1
First
Detection
Above I-2
First
Detection
Above I-3 Comments
27 CN Left Bank 22-Jun 78 Undetermined 15-Jul 16-Jul 18-Jul In Chinook Creek late Jul - early Aug
52 CN Right Bank 25-Jun 89 Undetermined 7-Jul 7-Jul 17-Jul Died in Kosina Creek
94 CN Right Bank 29-Jun 81 Undetermined 8-Jul 12-Jul 17-Jul In Devils Creek 19 Jul - 8 Aug
104 CN Left Bank 29-Jun 66 Undetermined 18-Jul 18-Jul 20-Jul Died in Portage Creek
113 CN Left Bank 30-Jun 84 Undetermined 15-Jul 15-Jul 19-Jul Died in Tsisi Creek
219 CN Right Bank 2-Jul 73 Male 15-Jul 16-Jul 19-Jul Died in Kosina Creek
246 CN Left Bank 3-Jul 85 Female 13-Jul 14-Jul 20-Jul Died in Kosina Creek
257 CN Left Bank 3-Jul 89 Female 15-Jul 16-Jul 20-Jul In Portage since 30 Jul
266 CN Right Bank 4-Jul 101 Male 15-Jul 16-Jul 19-Jul Died in Portage Creek
359 CN Right Bank 6-Jul 93 Male 12-Jul 12-Jul 17-Jul In Devils Creek 23-31 Jul, Died in Portage Creek
5005 CN Lower River 26-May - Undetermined 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul In Kosina Creek 23 Jul - 7 Aug
5019 CN Lower River 28-May 94.7 Undetermined 9-Jul 17-Jul 18-Jul Died in Kosina Creek
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 84 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 27. Continued.
Tag
Number Species
Capture/
Release
Fishweheel
Capture
Date
Length
(FL cm)Sex
First
Detection
Above I-1
First
Detection
Above I-2
First
Detection
Above I-3 Comments
Fish That Passed I2 but not I3
16 CN Right Bank 21-Jun 69 Male 17-Jul 18-Jul - Died in Cheechako Creek
48 CN Left Bank 24-Jun 87 Undetermined 7-Jul 7-Jul - Died at mouth of Cheechako
71 CN Right Bank 27-Jun 55 Undetermined 15-Jul 15-Jul - In Chinook Creek 5-11 Aug
159 CN Right Bank 1-Jul 57 Undetermined 18-Jul 19-Jul - In Chinook Cr. (23-28 Jul) then died in Cheechako
264 CN Left Bank 3-Jul 94 Female 13-Jul 14-Jul - Died at mouth of Cheechako
313 CN Right Bank 5-Jul 90 Female 18-Jul 18-Jul - Died in Cheechako Creek
397 CN Right Bank 7-Jul 92 Female 18-Jul 18-Jul - Died in Chinook Creek
416 CN Left Bank 7-Jul 68 Undetermined 20-Jul 20-Jul - In Chinook Cr. (31 Jul-7 Aug) then died in Portage Cr
459 CN Left Bank 10-Jul 63 Undetermined 19-Jul 19-Jul - In Cheechako Cr. (31 Jul) then in Portage Cr.
494 CN Left Bank 12-Jul 86 Undetermined 17-Jul 17-Jul - Died in Susitna upstream of Cheechako mouth
Fish That Passed I1 but not I2
119 CN Left Bank 30-Jun 99 Male 17-Jul - - Died in Cheechako Creek
152 CN Right Bank 1-Jul 67 Undetermined 15-Jul - - Died in Portage Creek
161 CN Right Bank 1-Jul 58 Undetermined 20-Jul - - Died in Cheechako Creek
5041 CN Lower River 30-May 63.9 Undetermined 17-Jul - - Held downstream of Cheech. Stn from 17 Jul-9 Aug
Fish That Approached I1 but didn't pass
2 CN Right Bank 19-Jun 61 Female - - - Died in Portage Creek
91 CN Left Bank 28-Jun 59 Undetermined - - - Died in Portage Creek
297 CN Right Bank 5-Jul 63 Undetermined - - - Entered Indian River
302 CN Right Bank 5-Jul 93 Male - - - Died in Portage Creek
475 CN Right Bank 11-Jul 68 Male - - - Approached mouth of Indian, died in Portage Creek
486 CN Right Bank 12-Jul 95 Undetermined - - - Died in Portage Creek
504 CN Right Bank 13-Jul 91 Undetermined - - - Died in Portage Creek
508 CN Left Bank 13-Jul 64 Undetermined - - - Died in Indian River
509 CN Left Bank 13-Jul 91 Female - - - Died in Portage Creek
624 CM Left Bank 26-Jul 67 Male - - - Entered Portage Creek, left
742 SO Left Bank 29-Jul 62 Female - - - Held between I1 and Portage. Potential MS Spawner
5014 CN Lower River 28-May 57.3 Undetermined - - - Died in Portage Creek
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 85 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 28. Destinations of radio-tagged Chinook salmon that passed each impediment. An “I” refers to “impediment”.
Passed I1
but not I2
Passed I2
but not I3 Passed I3 Total
Classification
Tributary Destinations
Portage Creek 1 2 4 7
Cheechako Creek 2 5 7
Chinook Creek 2 1 3
Devil Creek 1 1
Kosina Creek 6 6
Mainstem Destinations
Near Cheechako 1 1 2
Total 4 10 12 26
Downstream from Impediment
Number 1 7 5 13
Percent 25% 70% 42% 50%
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 86 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 29. Summary of migration and spawning behavior for 12 radio-tagged Chinook salmon after they passed Impediment 3. Distances are in kilometers.
Spawning Period Explorations before Spawning Downstream After Spawning
Tag
Number
Capture
Date
Length
(TL cm)Sex
Spawning
Area First Live Last Live Days
Max
Upstream
Location
Max
Upstream
Distance Days
Max
Downstream
Location
Max
Downstream
Distance Days
27 22-Jun 78 Undetermined Chinook 28-Jul 05-Aug 8 Kosina 80 11 Curry 60 8
52 25-Jun 89 Undetermined Kosina 20-Jul 09-Aug 20
94 29-Jun 81 Undetermined Devil 23-Jul 05-Aug 13 Fog 30 4 Cheechako 19 12
104 29-Jun 66 Undetermined Portage 24-Jul 30-Jul 6 Above Devil 30 10
113 30-Jun 84 Undetermined Kosina 26-Jul 07-Aug 12
219 2-Jul 73 Male Kosina 23-Jul 26-Jul 3 Above Kosina 30 1
246 3-Jul 85 Female Kosina 23-Jul 26-Jul 3
257 3-Jul 89 Female Portage 30-Jul 17-Aug 18 Devil 24 13
266 4-Jul 101 Male Portage 24-Jul 06-Aug 13 Near Fog 44 15
359 6-Jul 93 Male Portage 06-Aug 11-Aug 5 Kosina 93 26
5005 26-May - Undetermined Kosina 23-Jul 31-Jul 8 Portage 103 16
5019 28-May 87 MEF Undetermined Kosina 23-Jul 11-Aug 19
Average 25-Jul 05-Aug 11 47 11 61 12
Notes:
1 Total days the fish was alive after passing Impediment 3.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 87 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 30. Details of impediment-passage events. Details include the date of first detections above each impediment, the duration of holding time below each
impediment, and the flow (measured at Gold Creek) at the time of the first detection upstream of the impediment. When single detections were made downstream of an
impediment, hold times were estimated from the timing of adjacent detections (i.e., time below impediment must have been less than the time between two adjacent
detections away from the impediments). "d.n.a" = Did not approach next upstream impediment. Top panel: fish that passed Impediment 3. Second panel: fish that
passed Impediment 2, but not Impediment 3. Third panel: fish that passed Impediment 1, but not Impediment 2. Bottom panel: fish that approached within 1 km of
Impediment 1, but did not pass. See Table 17 for details of each fish and its destination.
Fish that Passed I3
Tag
Number
First
Detection
Above I-1
First
Detection
Above I-2
First
Detection
Above I-3
Hold Time
Below I1
(d)
Hold Time
Below I2
(d)
Hold Time
Below I3
(d)
Flow at I-1
Passage
(cfs)
Flow at I-2
Passage
(cfs)
Flow at I-3
Passage
(cfs)
27 15-Jul 16-Jul 18-Jul 2.2 0.3 1.4 18,608 19,252 17,774
52 7-Jul 7-Jul 17-Jul 2.0 0.2 9.6 21,302 21,302 19,042
94 8-Jul 12-Jul 17-Jul 2.5 3.4 0.1 26,550 20,060 19,042
104 18-Jul 18-Jul 20-Jul 1.3 0.2 1.1 17,774 17,774 17,320
113 15-Jul 15-Jul 19-Jul 6.8 0.2 1.9 18,608 18,608 17,407
219 15-Jul 16-Jul 19-Jul 2.4 0.3 0.5 18,608 19,252 17,407
246 13-Jul 14-Jul 20-Jul 7.9 0.6 1.1 18,755 18,275 17,320
257 15-Jul 16-Jul 20-Jul 4.3 0.3 1.1 18,608 19,252 17,320
266 15-Jul 16-Jul 19-Jul 5.3 0.8 0.5 18,608 19,252 17,407
359 12-Jul 12-Jul 17-Jul 3.1 0.3 4.5 20,060 20,060 19,042
5005 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 11.7 0.0 0.1 19,042 19,042 19,042
5019 9-Jul 17-Jul 18-Jul 3.8 7.9 1.3 31,067 19,042 17,774
Average 13 Jul 14 Jul 18 Jul 4.4 1.2 1.9 20,633 19,264 17,991
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 88 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 30. Continued.
Tag
Number
First
Detection
Above I-1
First
Detection
Above I-2
First
Detection
Above I-3
Hold Time
Below I1
(d)
Hold Time
Below I2
(d)
Hold Time
Below I3
(d)
Flow at I-1
Passage
(cfs)
Flow at I-2
Passage
(cfs)
Flow at I-3
Passage
(cfs)
Fish That Passed I2 but not I3
16 17-Jul 18-Jul - 0.0 0.3 5.9 19,042 17,774 -
48 7-Jul 7-Jul - 1.3 0.3 22.1 21,302 21,302 -
71 15-Jul 15-Jul - 5.6 0.3 14.1 18,608 18,608 -
159 18-Jul 19-Jul - 1.4 0.3 < 1.4 17,774 17,407 -
264 13-Jul 14-Jul - 4.4 0.4 14.1 18,755 18,275 -
313 18-Jul 18-Jul - 0.7 0.4 7.1 17,774 17,774 -
397 18-Jul 18-Jul - 0.7 0.3 4.1 17,774 17,774 -
416 20-Jul 20-Jul - 1.1 0.2 5.0 17,320 17,320 -
459 19-Jul 19-Jul - 0.8 0.3 5.9 17,407 17,407 -
494 17-Jul 17-Jul - 2.7 0.0 d.n.a. 19,042 19,042 -
Average 16 Jul 16 Jul 1.9 0.3 9.8 18,480 18,268
Fish That Passed I1 but not I2
119 17-Jul -- 6.4 d.n.a.- 19,042 --
152 15-Jul -- 2.0 d.n.a.- 18,608 --
161 20-Jul -- 0.6 d.n.a.- 17,320 --
5041 17-Jul -- 4.0 d.n.a.- 19,042 --
Average 17 Jul 3.2 18,503
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 89 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 31. Average percent distribution of spawning salmon in slough habitats of the Middle River from 1981–1985, and
confirmation of spawning in 2012. An "X" indicates a confirmed spawning location.
River
Slough Mile Sockeye Chum Pink Sockeye Chum Pink
1 99.6 0.3 0.1 -
2 100.2 0.2 1.5 0.1
3B 101.4 0.8 0.2 0.7
3A 101.9 0.4 0.1 2.2
4 105.2 - - -
5 107.6 0.0 0.0 0.1
6 108.2 - - -
6A 112.3 0.0 0.2 2.8
7 113.2 - - -
8 113.7 0.1 3.3 20.7
Bushrod 117.8 0.1 1.2 4.0
8D 121.8 - 0.5 -
8C 121.9 0.1 1.5 0.0
8B 122.2 0.2 6.3 4.1
Moose 123.5 1.6 2.9 1.0
A'124.6 - 2.5 0.6
A'124.7 - 0.5 3.0
8A 125.4 13.8 13.7 8.1 X X
B 126.3 0.8 2.3 2.1
9 128.3 0.6 8.9 1.9 X X
9B 129.2 1.9 1.2 -
9A 133.8 0.1 6.0 -X
10 133.8 0.1 0.2 -
11 135.3 65.6 20.9 17.6 X X
12 135.4 - - -
13 135.9 - 0.2 -
14 135.9 - 0.0 -
15 137.2 0.0 0.7 19.4
16 137.3 - 0.2 35.7
17 138.9 0.8 2.4 0.0
18 139.1 - 0.1 -
19 139.7 0.8 0.2 1.3 X
20 140.0 0.0 2.5 13.6
21 141.1 13.2 22.1 4.5 X X
22 144.5 0.1 3.7 -
21A 145.3 - 0.1 -
Total Fish Count (1981-85) 4,252 15,827 1,639
Notes:
1 Percent distribution data were synthesized from Barrett et al. (1985) and Thompson et al. (1986).
Annual total counts for each species:
1981: sockeye (1,241), chum (2,596), and pink salmon (28)
1982: sockeye (607), chum (2,244), and pink salmon (507)
1983: sockeye (555), chum (1,467), and pink salmon (21)
1984: sockeye (926), chum (7,556), and pink salmon (1,069)
1985: sockeye (923), chum (1,964), and pink salmon (14)
1981-1985 Percent Distribution 1 2012 Confirmed Spawning
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 90 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table 32. Sites sampled for habitat suitability criteria data in the Middle River, 2012. Values indicate the number or
redds sampled at each location.
Mainstem Habitat Type Chinook Sockeye Pink Chum Coho
Slough
Slough 21 0 * 1 0 7 0
Slough 20 0 0 0 0 0
Slough 19 0 * 1 0 0 0
Slough 11 0 4 0 4 0
4th of July Slough 0 0 0 10 0
Slough 9A 0 0 0 5 0
Slough 9 0 3 0 1 0
Slough 8A 0 4 0 1 0
Slough 10 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 11 0 28 0
Tributary Delta
Indian River 0 0 0 3 0
4th of July Creek 0 0 0 1 0
Total 0 0 0 4 0
Side Channel
Side Channel 21 0 0 0
* 1 0
Main Channel 0 0 0 0 0
Grand Total 0 11 0 32 0
Notes:
1 asterisks indicate a location visually confirmed as a spawning habitat, but not sampled for HSC.
Salmon Species
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 91 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
FIGURES
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 92 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 1. Susitna River watershed showing fish capture sites (ADF&G and Curry fishwheels), fixed-station receivers, and the proposed reservoir area for the Susitna-
Watana Hydroelectric Project.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 93 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 2. Middle and Upper River segments showing fish capture sites (sites 1 and 2), fixed-station receivers, and the proposed reservoir area for the Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project. Fishwheels 1 and 3, as well as a shore-based DIDSON unit, were operated at Site 1; Fishwheel 2 was operated at Site 2.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 94 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 3. Middle River Segment showing fish capture sites (sites 1 and 2), the Lane Creek and Gateway fixed-station
receivers, and the camp site in Curry. Fishwheels 1 and 3, as well as a shore-based DIDSON unit, were operated at Site 1;
Fishwheel 2 was operated at Site 2.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 95 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 4. Daily catch by species at the Curry fishwheels (east and west bank combined), 1981–1985.
Date (m/d)Number of Fish0
40
80
120
160
200
6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/151981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Chinook
0
10
20
30
40
50
6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/15Sockeye
0
5
10
15
20
25
6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/15Coho
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/15Pink
0
100
200
300
400
6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/15Chum
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 96 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 5. Three potential impediments (impediments 1, 2, and 3) to fish passage on the Susitna River located between Portage and Devil creeks at the top end of the
Middle River Segment.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 97 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 6. Average daily discharge of the Susitna River at Gold Creek (RM 136), May 1 to November 30, 2012. Historical
(1949–2011) minimum, maximum, and mean data are also shown.
Figure 7. Daily fishing effort (hours) and fishwheel speed (RPM) for the fishwheels operated near Curry on the Susitna
River, 2012.
0
15,000
30,000
45,000
60,000
75,000
90,000
5/15/115/215/316/106/206/307/107/207/308/98/198/299/89/189/2810/810/1810/2811/711/1711/27Discharge (cfs)Date (m/d)
2012
Min/Max
Mean
Daily Fishing Effort (h)Fishwheel Speed (RPM)Date (m/d)
1
2
3
4
5
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
6/176/226/277/27/77/127/177/227/278/18/68/118/168/218/268/31Effort RPM
Site 1 (Right Bank)
1
2
3
4
5
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
6/176/226/277/27/77/127/177/227/278/18/68/118/168/218/268/31Site 2 (Left Bank)
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 98 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 8. Daily catch of adult salmon at the fishwheels operated near Curry on the Susitna River, 2012. Recaptures were
included in these data; however, jacks were excluded. Y-axis is numbers of fish.
Date (m/d)
0
2
4
6
8
10
6/176/226/277/27/77/127/177/227/278/18/68/118/168/218/268/31Sockeye
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
6/176/226/277/27/77/127/177/227/278/18/68/118/168/218/268/31Pink
0
50
100
150
200
6/176/226/277/27/77/127/177/227/278/18/68/118/168/218/268/31Chum
0
5
10
15
20
25
6/176/226/277/27/77/127/177/227/278/18/68/118/168/218/268/31Coho
0
10
20
30
40
50
6/176/226/277/27/77/127/177/227/278/18/68/118/168/218/268/31Site 2 (Left Bank, RM 119.4)
Site 1 (Right Bank, RM 120.6)
Chinook
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 99 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 9. Daily catch-per-unit-effort of adult salmon at the fishwheels operated near Curry on the Susitna River, 2012.
Recaptures were included in these data; however, jacks were excluded. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (fish/hour)Date (m/d)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
6/176/226/277/27/77/127/177/227/278/18/68/118/168/218/268/31Sockeye
0.0
15.0
30.0
45.0
60.0
6/176/226/277/27/77/127/177/227/278/18/68/118/168/218/268/31Pink
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
6/176/226/277/27/77/127/177/227/278/18/68/118/168/218/268/31Chum
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
6/176/226/277/27/77/127/177/227/278/18/68/118/168/218/268/31Coho
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
6/176/226/277/27/77/127/177/227/278/18/68/118/168/218/268/31Site 2 (Left Bank, RM 119.4)
Site 1 (Right Bank, RM 120.6)
Chinook
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 100 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 10. Daily number of tags applied to adult salmon at the fishwheels operated near Curry on the Susitna River,
2012. Tags AppliedDate (m/d)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6/176/226/277/27/77/127/177/227/278/18/68/118/168/218/268/31Sockeye
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
6/176/226/277/27/77/127/177/227/278/18/68/118/168/218/268/31Pink
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
6/176/226/277/27/77/127/177/227/278/18/68/118/168/218/268/31Chum
0
5
10
15
20
6/176/226/277/27/77/127/177/227/278/18/68/118/168/218/268/31Coho
0
10
20
30
40
6/176/226/277/27/77/127/177/227/278/18/68/118/168/218/268/31Site 2 (Left Bank, RM 119.4)
Site 1 (Right Bank, RM 120.6)
Chinook
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 101 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 11. Cumulative proportion of daily catch, catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE), and tags applied to adult salmon at the
fishwheels operated near Curry on the Susitna River, 2012. Cumulative ProportionDate (month/day)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
6/176/247/17/87/157/227/298/58/128/198/26Catch
CPUE
Tags Applied
Chinook
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
6/176/247/17/87/157/227/298/58/128/198/26Sockeye
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
6/176/247/17/87/157/227/298/58/128/198/26Pink
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
6/176/247/17/87/157/227/298/58/128/198/26Chum
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
6/176/247/17/87/157/227/298/58/128/198/26Coho
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 102 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 12. Relative length-frequency distributions of fish caught at sites 1 and 2 near Curry on the Susitna River, 2012.
Fork Length (cm)Relative Proportion0.0
0.1
0.2
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
Site 1
Site 2
Chinook
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
Sockeye
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
Pink
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
Chum
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
Coho
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 103 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 13. Cumulative length-frequency distributions of fish caught at sites 1 and 2 near Curry on the Susitna River,
2012.
Fork Length (cm)Cumulative Proportion0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Chinook
Site 1
Site 2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Sockeye
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Pink
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Chum
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Coho
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 104 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 14. Relative length-frequency distributions of fish caught and radio-tagged at sites 1 and 2 near Curry on the
Susitna River, 2012. Relative ProportionFork Length (cm)
0.0
0.1
0.2
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
Caught
Tagged
Chinook
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
Sockeye
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
Pink
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
Chum
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
Coho
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 105 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 15. Cumulative length-frequency distributions of fish caught and radio-tagged at sites 1 and 2 near Curry on the
Susitna River, 2012.
Fork Length (cm)Cumulative Proportion0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Chinook
Caught
Tagged
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Sockeye
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Pink
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Chum
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Coho
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 106 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 16. DIDSON data review effort of Chinook salmon passage below the fishwheel at Site 1 on the Middle River,
June 15 to July 4, 2012.
Figure 17. Catch per unit effort (CPUE), or the number of Chinook salmon counted using the DIDSON per hour, below
the fishwheel at Site 1 in the Middle River, June 15–28, 2012.
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
6/156/166/176/186/196/206/216/226/236/246/256/266/276/286/296/307/17/27/37/4Effort (hours)Date (m/d)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6/156/166/176/186/196/206/216/226/236/246/256/266/276/28CPUE (fish/day)Date (m/d)
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 107 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 18. Number of Chinook salmon, by size category, counted using DIDSON at Site 1 as a function of the distance
from shore where they were first detected in the field of view, June 19–20, 2012. The shaded area on the x-axis represents
the confirmed capture range of Chinook salmon by the fishwheel at Site 1.
Figure 19. Linear regression of the detection range where Chinook salmon were first observed by DIDSON and fish
length as estimated from DIDSON images, June 15 to July 4, 2012.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Relative FrequencyDistance from Shore (m)
Chinook Salmon ≥ 50 cm FL
Chinook Salmon < 50 cm FL
Length (cm)
50
60
60
55
55
50
50
60
45
55
50
y = 0.0018x + 4.2446
R² = 0.0003
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120Range first detected (m)Fork Length (cm)
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 108 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 20. Diel migration of Chinook salmon observed at fishwheel Site 1using DIDSON technology, June 15–20, 2012.
Figure 21. Average daily discharge of the Susitna River at Gold Creek (RM 136), and the daily number of radio tags that
'resurrected' (i.e., changed from their mortality signal mode, in which they were supposed to be locked, to the live signal
mode).
Data only Inlcude full 24-hour observations taken from 15 - 20 June
Hour
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
3
6
9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23Relative AbundanceHour of Day
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
7/10 7/17 7/24 7/31 8/7 8/14 8/21 8/28 9/4 9/11 9/18 9/25 10/2 10/9 Number of 'Resurrection' EventsDischarge (cfs)Date
'Resurrection' Tags and Discharge at Gold Creek
Resurrection Tags
Discharge
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 109 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 22. Destinations of radio-tagged fish released in the Lower River (left panels) or at Curry (right panels), by
species. Top panels: Fish that entered a tributary were given a 'Tributary Destination' classification; those that did not
enter any tributaries and that were detected on several occasions within a limited area were classified with a 'Mainstem
Destination'. See text and Table 17 for more detailed classifications. Middle Panels: Relative use of side-channel/slough
locations, tributary mouths, and the mainstem proper, by fish that were classified with a 'Mainstem Destination'. Bottom
Panel: Relative use of sloughs vs. side-channel habitats by fish classified with a 'Mainstem Destination'.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Chinook
Salmon
Chum
Salmon
Coho
Salmon
Pink
Salmon
Sockeye
SalmonRelative FrequencyTributary Mainstem Other
General Classification
Releases from Lower River
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Chinook
Salmon
Chum
Salmon
Coho
Salmon
Pink
Salmon
Sockeye
SalmonRelative FrequencyMainstem Proper Tributary Mouths Side-channel / Sloughs
Mainstem Use
Releases from Lower River
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Chinook
Salmon
Chum
Salmon
Coho
Salmon
Pink
Salmon
Sockeye
Salmon
General Classification
Releases from Curry
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Chinook
Salmon
Chum
Salmon
Coho
Salmon
Pink
Salmon
Sockeye
Salmon
Mainstem Use
Releases from Curry
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Chinook
Salmon
Chum
Salmon
Coho
Salmon
Pink
Salmon
Sockeye
Salmon
Slough 8A
Slough 9
Slough 11
Slough 21
Side-channels
Side -channel / Slough UseReleases from Curry
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 110 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 23. Relative frequencies of tributary use by radio-tagged fish released in the Lower River.
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%Relative FrequencyLower River Chinook Salmon
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%Yentna RiverDeshka RiverWillow Ck.Little Willow Ck.Kashwitna Ck.Goose Ck.Sheep Ck.Montana Ck.Talkeetna RiverChulitna RiverLane Ck.4th of July Ck.Indian RiverJack Long Ck.Portage Ck.Cheechako Ck.Chinook Ck.Devils Ck.Kosina Ck.OtherRelative FrequencyStock
Lower River Sockeye Salmon
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%Relative FrequencyLower River Chum Salmon
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%Relative FrequencyLower River Coho Salmon
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%Relative FrequencyLower River Pink Salmon
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 111 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 24. Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Lower River for all radio-tagged Chinook salmon that did not
enter a tributary and were detected at least twice near the same mainstem location during the spawning period in 2012.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 112 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 25. Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Lower River for all radio-tagged chum salmon that did not enter
a tributary and were detected at least twice near the same mainstem location during the spawning period in 2012.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 113 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 26. Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Lower River for all radio-tagged coho salmon that did not enter
a tributary and were detected at least twice near the same mainstem location during the spawning period in 2012.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 114 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 27. Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Lower River for all radio-tagged pink salmon that did not enter
a tributary and were detected at least twice near the same mainstem location during the spawning period in 2012.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 115 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 28. Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Middle River for all radio-tagged Chinook salmon that did not
enter a tributary and were detected at least twice near the same mainstem location during the spawning period in 2012.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 116 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 29. Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Middle River for all radio-tagged chum salmon that did not
enter a tributary and were detected at least twice near the same mainstem location during the spawning period in 2012.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 117 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 30. Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Middle River for all radio-tagged coho salmon that did not enter
a tributary and were detected at least twice near the same mainstem location during the spawning period in 2012.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 118 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 31. Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Middle River for all radio-tagged pink salmon that did not enter
a tributary and were detected at least twice near the same mainstem location during the spawning period in 2012.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 119 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 32. Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Middle River for all radio-tagged sockeye salmon that did not
enter a tributary and were detected at least twice near the same mainstem location during the spawning period in 2012.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 120 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 33. Relative frequencies of tributary use by radio-tagged fish released at Curry.
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%Relative FrequencyCurry Chinook Salmon
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%Yentna RiverDeshka RiverWillow Ck.Little Willow Ck.Kashwitna Ck.Goose Ck.Sheep Ck.Montana Ck.Talkeetna RiverChulitna RiverLane Ck.4th of July Ck.Indian RiverJack Long Ck.Portage Ck.Cheechako Ck.Chinook Ck.Devils Ck.Kosina Ck.OtherRelative FrequencyStock
Curry Sockeye Salmon
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%Relative FrequencyCurry Chum Salmon
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%Relative FrequencyCurry Coho Salmon
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%Relative FrequencyCurry Pink Salmon
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 121 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 34. Run timing in the Middle River, by species. Lines show cumulative proportions of fish either passing Lane
Station (red lines: cumulative timing of fish that were radio-tagged in the Lower River and passed Lane Station) or being
caught in the Curry fishwheels (blue lines), by date. Cumulative Proportion0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
6/10 6/20 6/30 7/10 7/20 7/30 8/9 8/19 8/29
'Lower River' Tags at Lane
Curry Fishwheel Catch
Chinook salmon
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
6/10 6/20 6/30 7/10 7/20 7/30 8/9 8/19 8/29
Chum salmon
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
6/10 6/20 6/30 7/10 7/20 7/30 8/9 8/19 8/29
Coho salmon
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
6/10 6/20 6/30 7/10 7/20 7/30 8/9 8/19 8/29
Pink salmon
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
6/10 6/20 6/30 7/10 7/20 7/30 8/9 8/19 8/29
Curry or Lane Passage
Sockeye salmon
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 122 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 35. Stock-specific run timing in the Middle River, by species. Only fish tagged at Curry fishwheels, and, within a
species only stocks with > 6 radio-tagged fish were included. Lines show cumulative timing of fish released at Curry.
'Mainstem' stock includes fish in tributary mouths, sloughs/side-channels, and in the mainstem proper. 'Above
Impediment 1' stock includes fish in Cheechako (6), Chinook (3), Devil (1), and Kosina (4). Cumulative Proportion0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
6/10 6/20 6/30 7/10 7/20 7/30 8/9 8/19 8/29
Talkeetna Mainstem
4th of July Indian
Portage
Pink salmon
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
6/10 6/20 6/30 7/10 7/20 7/30 8/9 8/19 8/29
Talkeetna Chulitna
Mainstem Indian
Portage Above I1
Chinook salmon
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
6/10 6/20 6/30 7/10 7/20 7/30 8/9 8/19 8/29
Curry Passage
Mainstem
Sockeye salmon
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
6/10 6/20 6/30 7/10 7/20 7/30 8/9 8/19 8/29
Talkeetna Mainstem
Indian Portage
Chum salmon
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
6/10 6/20 6/30 7/10 7/20 7/30 8/9 8/19 8/29
Chulitna Mainstem
Indian Jack Long
Portage
Coho salmon
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 123 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 36. Timing of fishwheel and fixed-station receiver passage in the Middle River, by species. Lines show cumulative
proportions of passage dates at the Curry fishwheels, and at upstream fixed-station receivers. Only fish radio-tagged at
the Curry fishwheels are included. Cumulative Proportion0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
6/10 6/20 6/30 7/10 7/20 7/30 8/9 8/19 8/29
Curry Gateway
Indian Portage
Cheechako Chinook
Devils Kosina
Chinook salmon
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
6/10 6/20 6/30 7/10 7/20 7/30 8/9 8/19 8/29
Curry Gateway
Indian Portage
Chum salmon
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
6/10 6/20 6/30 7/10 7/20 7/30 8/9 8/19 8/29
Curry Gateway
Indian Portage
Coho salmon
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
6/10 6/20 6/30 7/10 7/20 7/30 8/9 8/19 8/29
Curry Gateway
Indian Portage
Pink salmon
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
6/10 6/20 6/30 7/10 7/20 7/30 8/9 8/19 8/29
Station (or Fishwheel) Passage
Curry Gateway
Indian Portage
Sockeye salmon
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 124 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 37. Median travel speeds of radio-tagged fish in four major river reaches, by species. Error bars represent 95
percent confidence in the median value (generated using the method recommended in Zar 1984). Statistical comparisons
(see text) were done using non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests; overlapping error bars do not preclude statistical
significance. For species with significant differences among reaches, letters indicate the results of post-hoc comparisons
(i.e., reaches that do not share a letter were statistically different from each other).
Figure 38. Median travel speeds of radio-tagged for Chinook salmon, by river reach. Error bars represent 95 percent
confidence in the median value (generated using the method recommended in Zar, 1984). Statistical comparisons (see
text) were done using non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests; overlapping error bars do not preclude statistical
significance. Letters indicate the results of post-hoc comparisons (i.e., reaches that do not share a letter were statistically
different from each other).
b
b
a
b
ab
b
a
a
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Chinook salmon
Chum salmon
Coho salmon
Pink salmon
Sockeye salmon
Travel Speed (km/d)
Indian to Portage
Gateway to Indian
Sunshine to Lane
Deshka to Sunshine
b
b
c
a
c
a
0 10 20 30 40
Gateway to Indian
Indian to Portage
Portage to Cheechako
Cheechako to Chinook
Chinook to Devils
Devils to Kosina
Travel Speed (km/d)
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 125 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 39. Middle River (downstream of Devils Canyon) travel speeds for Chinook salmon that were detected at Devil
Station, by first-detection date. Data labels are 'tag numbers' (unique numbers assigned to each individual radio-tagged
fish), which were greater than 5,000 for Chinook released in the Lower River.
27
52
246
359
5005
5019
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
17 Jul 18 Jul 19 Jul 20 Jul 21 JulTravel Speed (km/d)Date of First Detection at Devils Station
Curry tags (Gateway to Devils)
Lower River tags (Lane to Devils)
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 126 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 40. Median travel speeds of radio-tagged fish in the 'Gateway to Indian' river reach, for Portage Creek and
Indian River stocks, by species. Error bars represent 95 percent confidence in the median value (generated using the
method recommended in Zar 1984). Statistical comparisons (see text) were done using non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis
tests; overlapping error bars do not preclude statistical significance. Asterisks mark species for which travel speeds
varied significantly between stocks.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Chinook salmon
Chum salmon
Coho salmon
Pink salmon
Sockeye salmon
'Gateway to Indian' Travel Speed (km/d)
Portage Stock
Indian Stock
*
*
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 127 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 41. Daily numbers of fish that approached and passed each of the three Middle River impediments. Orange bars:
fish that approached but did not pass. Blue bars: fish that approached and successfully passed. No fish approached
Impediment 2 without passing. Figures show the date of first detection above the impediment (blue) or the date of first
detection below the impediment (orange). Also shown is the average daily discharge of the Susitna River at Gold Creek
(RM 136).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
6/10 6/17 6/24 7/1 7/8 7/15 7/22 7/29 8/5 8/12 8/19 8/26 9/2Number of Fish at I1Discharge (cfs)Date
Impediment One
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
6/10 6/17 6/24 7/1 7/8 7/15 7/22 7/29 8/5 8/12 8/19 8/26 9/2Number of Fish at I3Discharge (cfs)Date
Passed
Approached (did not pass)
Impediment Three
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
6/10 6/17 6/24 7/1 7/8 7/15 7/22 7/29 8/5 8/12 8/19 8/26 9/2Number of Fish at I2Discharge (cfs)Date
Impediment Two
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 128 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 42. Daily number of radio-tagged Chinook salmon that held or passed Impediment 3. Also shown is the average
daily discharge of the Susitna River at Gold Creek (RM 136).
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
7/7 7/8 7/9 7/10 7/11 7/12 7/13 7/14 7/15 7/16 7/17 7/18 7/19 7/20 7/21 7/22 7/23 7/24 7/25 7/26 7/27Discharge (cfs)Radio-tagged ChinookDate
Holding Passage Flow
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 129 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 43. Potential mainstem spawning locations and redd sites for sockeye salmon in the Middle River.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 130 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure 44. Potential mainstem spawning locations and redd sites for chum salmon in the Middle River.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 131 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
PHOTOS.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 132 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Photo 1. Fishwheel components being taken off a rail car at Curry, June 4, 2012.
Photo 2. Chinook salmon being measured for length while held in a water-filled trough at Site 1, 2012.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 133 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Photo 3. A radio-tagged adult Chinook salmon just prior to release from a fishwheel at Site 1, July 16, 2012. Note the
whip antenna of the radio tag protruding from the mouth.
Photo 4. Fixed-station receiver site near Chinook Creek on the Susitna River, July 19, 2012.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 134 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Photo 5. Helicopter (R44) setup for aerial-tracking surveys conducted on the Susitna River in 2012.
Photo 6. Setup for boat surveys using sonar to assess spawning activity in turbid water, July 28, 2012.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 135 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Photo 7. Aerial photograph (downstream view) of the Susitna River at Curry showing the location of two fishwheel sites
(RM 119.4 and 120.6) used in 2012 (photo taken: June 19, 2012).
Photo 8. Aerial photograph (upstream view) of the Susitna River near Curry showing the location of two fishwheel sites
(RM 119.4 and 120.6) used in 2012 (photo taken: June 19, 2012).
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 136 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Photo 9. Fishwheel 1 operating at Site 1 (RM 120.6) on the right bank of the Susitna River, June 19, 2012.
Photo 10. Fishwheel 2 operating at Site 2 (RM 119.4) on the left bank of the Susitna River, July 11, 2012.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 137 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Photo 11. Chinook salmon carcass found along the bank of Portage Creek, July 30, 2012. Note the blue spaghetti tag
sewn into the dorsal musculature and the radio tag still present in the stomach contents that had been removed by a bear.
Photo 12. Image produced from the side-scan sonar (600 kHz) taken while pointed upstream at the mouth of 4 th of July
Creek. The photograph is a composite of simultaneous data received on the port (left half of the image) and
starboard side (right half of the image) of the towed transducer. Left to right the image covers a total of 50 m
(164 ft). On the left side the image shows the shoreline is visible between 15 and 20 m (49 and 66 ft) from the
center. The image shows basic bathymetry: areas with a shallower slope reflect less sound and therefore
appear darker, while steeper slopes appear brighter. Larger substrate can be seen closer to shore.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 138 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Photo 13. Pre-spawn sockeye salmon holding in Slough 8A, August 26, 2012.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 139 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
APPENDICES
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A—Page 1 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
APPENDIX A. RIVER MILE DESIGNATIONS
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A—Page 2 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table A-1. Index of location names and historical river mile designations.
Location Name River Mile Location Name River Mile
Alexander Creek 10.1 Alexander Creek 10.1
Flathorn Station 18.2 Anderson Creek 23.8
Anderson Creek 23.8 Answer Creek 84.0
Susitna Station 25.5 Birch Creek 88.4
Kroto Slough Mouth 30.1 Birch Creek Slough 88.4
Yentna River 30.1 Byers Creek (Chulitna R)98.6
Mainstem Susitna Slough 31.0 Cache Creek 96.0
Mid Kroto Slough 36.3 Cache Creek Slough 95.5
Deshka River 40.6 Caswell Creek 63.0
Delta Islands 44.0 Chase Creek 106.4
Little Willow Creek 50.5 Cheechako Creek 152.4
Rustic Wilderness 58.1 Chinook Creek 157.0
Kashwitna River 61.0 Chulitna River 98.6
Caswell Creek 63.0 Curry Station 120.0
Slough West Bank 65.6 Dead Horse Creek 120.9
Sheep Creek Slough 66.1 Deadman Creek 186.7
Goose Creek 72.0 Delta Islands 44.0
Montana Creek 77.0 Deshka River 40.6
Sunshine Station 80.0 Devil Creek 161.0
Rabideaux Creek Slough 83.1 Devils Canyon Back Eddy 150.0
Parks Highway Bridge 83.9 Fat Canoe Island 147.0
Answer Creek 84.0 Fifth of July Creek 123.7
Question Creek 84.1 Fish Creek (Talkeetna R)97.2
Sunshine Creek 85.7 Flathorn Station 18.2
Birch Creek Slough 88.4 Fog Creek 176.7
Birch Creek 88.4 Fourth of July Creek 131.1
Cache Creek Slough 95.5 Gash Creek 111.6
Cache Creek 96.0 Gold Creek 136.7
Fish Creek (Talkeetna R)97.2 Gold Creek Bridge 136.7
Talkeetna River 97.2 Goose Creek 72.0
Byers Creek (Chulitna R)98.6 Goose Creek 231.3
Troublesome Creek (Chulitna R) 98.6 Indian River 138.6
Swan Lake (Chulitna R)98.6 Jack Long Creek 144.5
Chulitna River 98.6 Jay Creek 208.5
Slough 1 99.6 Kashwitna River 61.0
Slough 2 100.2 Kosina Creek 206.8
Whiskers Creek Slough 101.2 Kroto Slough Mouth 30.1
Whiskers Creek 101.4 Lane Creek 113.6
Slough 3B 101.4 Little Portage Creek 117.7
Slough 3A 101.9 Little Willow Creek 50.5
Talkeetna Station 103.0 Lower McKenzie Creek 116.2
Slough 4 105.2 Mainstem Susitna Slough 31.0
Chase Creek 106.4 Mid Kroto Slough 36.3
Slough 5 107.6 Montana Creek 77.0
Slough 6 108.2 Moose Slough 123.5
Oxbow I 110.2 Oshetna River 233.4
Sorted By River Mile Sorted By Location Name
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A—Page 3 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Location Name River Mile Location Name River Mile
Slash Creek 111.5 Oxbow I 110.2
Gash Creek 111.6 Parks Highway Bridge 83.9
Slough 6A 112.3 Portage Creek 148.9
Slough 7 113.2 Question Creek 84.1
Lane Creek 113.6 Rabideaux Creek Slough 83.1
Slough 8 113.7 Rustic Wilderness 58.1
Lower McKenzie Creek 116.2 Sheep Creek Slough 66.1
Upper McKenzie Creek 116.7 Sherman Creek 130.8
Little Portage Creek 117.7 Side Channel 10A 132.1
Curry Station 120.0 Skull Creek 124.7
Dead Horse Creek 120.9 Slash Creek 111.5
Susitna Side Channel 121.6 Slough 1 99.6
Slough 8D 121.8 Slough 10 133.8
Slough 8C 121.9 Slough 10 133.8
Slough 8B 122.2 Slough 10 Side Channel 133.7
Moose Slough 123.5 Slough 11 135.3
Fifth of July Creek 123.7 Slough 12 135.4
Slough A prime 124.6 Slough 13 135.9
Slough A 124.7 Slough 14 135.9
Skull Creek 124.7 Slough 15 137.2
Slough 8A 125.1 Slough 16B 137.3
Slough B 126.3 Slough 17 138.9
Slough 9 128.3 Slough 18 139.1
Slough 9B 129.2 Slough 19 139.7
Sherman Creek 130.8 Slough 2 100.2
Fourth of July Creek 131.1 Slough 20 140.0
Side Channel 10A 132.1 Slough 21 141.1
Slough 10 Side Channel 133.7 Slough 21 Side Channel 140.5
Slough 10 133.8 Slough 21A 144.3
Slough 9A 133.8 Slough 22 144.3
Slough 10 133.8 Slough 3A 101.9
Slough 11 135.3 Slough 3B 101.4
Slough 12 135.4 Slough 4 105.2
Slough 13 135.9 Slough 5 107.6
Slough 14 135.9 Slough 6 108.2
Gold Creek 136.7 Slough 6A 112.3
Gold Creek Bridge 136.7 Slough 7 113.2
Slough 15 137.2 Slough 8 113.7
Slough 16B 137.3 Slough 8A 125.1
Indian River 138.6 Slough 8B 122.2
Slough 17 138.9 Slough 8C 121.9
Slough 18 139.1 Slough 8D 121.8
Slough 19 139.7 Slough 9 128.3
Slough 20 140.0 Slough 9A 133.8
Slough 21 Side Channel 140.5 Slough 9B 129.2
Slough 21 141.1 Slough A 124.7
Slough 21A 144.3 Slough A prime 124.6
Slough 22 144.3 Slough B 126.3
Sorted By River Mile Sorted By Location Name
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A—Page 4 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Location Name River Mile Location Name River Mile
Jack Long Creek 144.5 Slough West Bank 65.6
Fat Canoe Island 147.0 Sunshine Creek 85.7
Portage Creek 148.9 Sunshine Station 80.0
Devils Canyon Back Eddy 150.0 Susitna Side Channel 121.6
Cheechako Creek 152.4 Susitna Station 25.5
Chinook Creek 157.0 Swan Lake (Chulitna R)98.6
Devil Creek 161.0 Talkeetna River 97.2
Fog Creek 176.7 Talkeetna Station 103.0
Tsusena Creek 181.3 Troublesome Creek (Chulitna R) 98.6
Watana Dam Site 184.0 Tsusena Creek 181.3
Deadman Creek 186.7 Upper McKenzie Creek 116.7
Watana Creek 194.1 Watana Creek 194.1
Kosina Creek 206.8 Watana Dam Site 184.0
Jay Creek 208.5 Whiskers Creek 101.4
Goose Creek 231.3 Whiskers Creek Slough 101.2
Oshetna River 233.4 Yentna River 30.1
Sorted By River Mile Sorted By Location Name
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B—Page 1 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
APPENDIX B: FIXED-STATION RECEIVER SITES (SETUP AND
PERFORMANCE) AND MOBILE-TRACKING SURVEY EFFORT
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B—Page 2 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table B-1. Number of radio tags deployed at the Curry fishwheels on specific radio frequencies.
Table B-2. Location and antenna orientation of fixed-station receivers in the Middle and Upper Susitna River, 2012.
Frequency (MHz) Chinook Sockeye Pink Chum Coho
151.713 85 5
151.763 89 11
151.783 92 6
151.914 86 14
151.924 12 5 36 33
151.934 14 3 39 24
151.943 7 6 43 34
151.954 10 3 46 29
151.963 14 6 38 33
151.974 13 6 41 31
151.983 101
151.994 100
Total 352 70 230 279 184
Notes:
151.000 MHz was used for reference tags
Site Location
Receiver
No.RM Latitude Longitude
River
Bank Antenna Antenna Orientation
Lane Creek 1,2 113 62.52792 -150.11407 Right 1 Downstream
2 Upstream
3 Across the river
Gateway 3 126 62.67645 -149.89303 Right 1 Downstream
2 Upstream
Slough 11 4 136 62.75823 -149.70432 Left 1 Across the slough
Indian River 5 139 62.7853 -149.65793 Right 1 Downstream
2 Upstream
3 Up tributary
Slough 21 6 142 62.81361 -149.57637 Left 1 Across the slough
Portage Creek 7 149 62.83009 -149.38151 Right 1 Downstream
2 Upstream
3 Up tributary
Cheechako Creek 8 154 62.80732 -149.2526 Left 1 Downstream
2 Upstream
Chinook Creek 9 157 62.80153 -149.16333 Left 1 Downstream
2 Upstream
Devil Creek 10, 11 164 62.80846 -149.00186 1 River Left Channel
2 River Right Channel
3 Upstream
Kosina Creek 12 207 62.78389 -147.93802 Right 1 Downstream
2 Upstream
3 Up tributary
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B—Page 3 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure B-1. Detection activity at fixed-station receivers, including numbers of fish detections (black line), beacon-tag hits
(blue line) and noise events (red line), by day. Also shown, receiver activity patterns (grey shading, right axis). Any
detection (frequency-code) that did not correspond to a valid fish was considered as noise. Note: Y-axis scale varies
among panels.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsSusitna Station Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsLower Yentna Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsUpper Yentna Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsSkwentna Station Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B—Page 4 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure B-1. Continued.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsDeshka Mouth Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsDeshka Weir Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsSunshine Mouth Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsTalkeetna Station Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B—Page 5 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure B-1. Continued.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsChulitna Station Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsLane Station, Lower River Frequencies
Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsLane Station, Curry Frequencies
Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B—Page 6 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure B-1. Continued.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsGateway
Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsIndian River Mouth
Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsPortage Creek Mouth
Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsCheechako Station
Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B—Page 7 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure B-1. Continued.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsChinook River Mouth
Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsDevil Station Lower River Frequencies
Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsDevil Station Curry Frequencies
Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsKosina Mouth
Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B—Page 8 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Figure B-1. Continued.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsSlough 11
Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 Receiver ActivityDetectionsSlough 21
Activity
Signal
Noise
Beacon
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B—Page 9 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table B-3. List of the mobile-tracking surveys conducted in 2012, by location, date and vehicle type.
Susitna Mainstem 6/29 6/30 7/3 7/5 7/8 7/9 7/10 7/13 7/16 7/17 7/18 7/19 7/20 7/23 7/24 7/25 7/26 7/28 7/30 7/31 8/1
Outside Susitna F
Confluence - Yentna F F F H
Yentna - Deshka F F F H
Deshka - Kashwitna F F F HF H H
Kashwitna - Montana F F HF H H
Montana - Sunshine F F HF H H
Sunshine - Talkeetna F HF H H H
Talkeetna - Lane F H H H
Lane - Gateway F B B B B H B H HF H H H H H H H
Gateway - Slough11 F B B B H B H HF H H H H H H H
Slough11 - Indian F B B B H B H HF H H H H H H H
Indian - Slough21 F B B B H B H HF H H H H H H
Slough21 - Portage F B B B H B H HF H H H H H
Portage - Impediment1 F B H HF H H H H H H
Impediment1 - Cheechako H HF H H H H H H
Cheechako - Impediment2 H HF H H H H H H
Impediment2 - Chinook H HF H H H H H H
Chinook - Impediment3 H HF H H H H H H
Impediment3 - Devil Stn H HF H H H H H H
Devil - Wantana HF H H H H H H
Wantana - Kosina H H H H H H H
Above Kosina H
Notes:
B - boat; F - fixed wing; H - helicopter
Survey Date
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B—Page 10 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table B-3. Continued.
Susitna Mainstem 8/3 8/5 8/6 8/7 8/8 8/9 8/10 8/11 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 8/18 8/21 8/22 8/24 8/25 8/27 8/28 8/29
Outside Susitna
Confluence - Yetna F H F F
Yetna - Deshka F F F H F H
Deshka - Kashwitna F H F H F H H F
Kashwitna - Montana F H F F H H F H H F
Montana - Sunshine F H F F H H F H H F
Sunshine - Talkeetna HF F F H HF H F
Talkeetna - Lane HF F F H H HF H F
Lane - Gateway HF F H H HF H F
Gateway - Slough11 H HF F H H HF H F
Slough11 - Indian H HF H F H H HF H F
Indian - Slough21 H H F H H HF H F
Slough21 - Portage H H H H F H H H HF H F
Portage - Impediment1 H F H HF F H H H H H HF H F
Impediment1 - Cheechako H F H H F H H H H F H F
Cheechako - Impediment2 H F H H F H H H H F H F
Impediment2 - Chinook H H H F H H H H F H F
Chinook - Impediment3 H H H F H H H H F H F
Impediment3 - Devil Stn H H H F H H H H F H F
Devil - Wantana H H H H H H H
Wantana - Kosina H H H H H H H
Above Kosina
Notes:
B - boat; F - fixed wing; H - helicopter
Survey Date
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B—Page 11 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table B-3. Continued.
Susitna Mainstem 8/30 9/3 9/7 9/9 9/10 9/11 9/13 9/17 9/24 9/26 9/27 10/1 10/2 10/3 10/9 10/10 10/16 10/29 11/12
Outside Susitna
Confluence - Yetna H F F
Yetna - Deshka F
Deshka - Kashwitna F H F
Kashwitna - Montana H F
Montana - Sunshine H H F F H
Sunshine - Talkeetna H H F H F H H H
Talkeetna - Lane H H H H F H H H H
Lane - Gateway H H H H F H H H H H H
Gateway - Slough11 H H H H F H H H H H
Slough11 - Indian H H H H F H H H H H
Indian - Slough21 H H H H F H H H H H
Slough21 - Portage H H H H F H H H H H
Portage - Impediment1 H H H H F H H H H H
Impediment1 - Cheechako H H H H F H H H H H
Cheechako - Impediment2 H F H
Impediment2 - Chinook H F H
Chinook - Impediment3 F H
Impediment3 - Devil Stn F H
Devil - Wantana H
Wantana - Kosina
Above Kosina
Notes:
B - boat; F - fixed wing; H - helicopter
Survey Date
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B—Page 12 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table B-3. Continued.
Tributaries and Other Watersheds 6/29 6/30 7/3 7/5 7/8 7/9 7/10 7/13 7/16 7/17 7/18 7/19 7/20 7/23 7/24 7/25 7/26 7/28 7/30 7/31 8/1
Little Susitna F
Alexander Creek
Yentna River F
Deshka River F F F
Willow and Little Willow cr F F F
Kashwitna River F F
Caswell area tribs F F
Sunshine Creek
Rabideux Creek
Talkeetna River F
Chulitna River F F
Whiskers Creek
Trib off Zone 95
Lane Creek
5th of July Creek
Slough 8A
Slough 9
Sherman Creek
4th of July Creek H H H H H H
Slough 11 H H
Gold Creek
Indian trib F H F H H H H H
Slough 21 H
Jack Long Creek
Portage trib F H HF H H H H
Cheechako Creek H H H H
Chinook Creek H H H H H
Devils Creek H H H H H H
Fog Creek H H H
Tsusena Creek H H
Deadman & Watana cr.H H H
Kosina Creek H H H H H
Oshetna Creek
B - boat; F - fixed wing; H - helicopter
Survey Date
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B—Page 13 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table B-3. Continued.
Tributaries and Other Watersheds 8/3 8/5 8/6 8/7 8/8 8/9 8/10 8/11 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 8/18 8/21 8/22 8/24 8/25 8/27 8/28 8/29
Little Susitna
Alexander Creek
Yentna River F F F F F
Deshka River F F F F F
Willow and Little Willow cr F F F F
Kashwitna River F F F F
Caswell area tribs F F F F
Sunshine Creek
Rabideux Creek
Talkeetna River F F F H F F
Chulitna River F F F H F F
Whiskers Creek
Trib off Zone 95
Lane Creek
5th of July Creek
Slough 8A H H H H H
Slough 9 H H H H
Sherman Creek
4th of July Creek H H H H H H
Slough 11 H H H H H H
Gold Creek H H H H
Indian trib HF H F H H F F
Slough 21 H H H H H
Jack Long Creek H H H H
Portage trib HF F H H F F
Cheechako Creek H H H H H H H
Chinook Creek H H H H H H
Devils Creek H H H H H H
Fog Creek H H H H H H
Tsusena Creek H H H H H H
Deadman & Watana cr.H H H H H H
Kosina Creek H H H H H H
Oshetna Creek
B - boat; F - fixed wing; H - helicopter
Survey Date
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B—Page 14 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table B-3. Continued.
Tributaries and Other Watersheds 8/30 9/3 9/7 9/9 9/10 9/11 9/13 9/17 9/24 9/26 9/27 10/1 10/2 10/3 10/9 10/10 10/16 10/29 11/12
Little Susitna
Alexander Creek F
Yentna River F F F F
Deshka River F F
Willow and Little Willow cr F F
Kashwitna River F F
Caswell area tribs F F
Sunshine Creek
Rabideux Creek
Talkeetna River F H H
Chulitna River F F F H
Whiskers Creek H H H H
Trib off Zone 95 H H
Lane Creek H H H
5th of July Creek H H H
Slough 8A H H H H H
Slough 9 H H H H H
Sherman Creek H H H
4th of July Creek H H H H H
Slough 11 H H H H H H H H H
Gold Creek H H H
Indian trib H F H H H H H
Slough 21 H H H H
Jack Long Creek H H H H
Portage trib F H H H
Cheechako Creek H
Chinook Creek
Devils Creek H
Fog Creek
Tsusena Creek
Deadman & Watana cr.
Kosina Creek
Oshetna Creek
B - boat; F - fixed wing; H - helicopter
Survey Date
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C—Page 1 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
APPENDIX C: FISHWHEEL EFFORT, CATCH, AND TAGS APPLIED
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C—Page 2 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table C-1. Fishwheel effort and speed at the Curry fishwheels, 2012.
Date Effort (h) RPM Effort (h) RPM Date Effort (h) RPM Effort (h) RPM
17-Jun 9.0 2.8 28-Jul 9.0 3.2 9.0 3.1
18-Jun 12.3 2.5 7.6 2.8 29-Jul 8.6 3.4 11.4 3.3
19-Jun 15.4 2.7 15.6 3.2 30-Jul 9.1 3.6 8.5 3.6
20-Jun 16.9 16.2 3.2 31-Jul 9.1 3.6 9.1 3.5
21-Jun 15.9 3.6 14.0 3.5 01-Aug 8.7 3.2 8.7 2.9
22-Jun 16.1 3.2 15.6 3.4 02-Aug 8.9 3.3 8.7 2.7
23-Jun 17.7 3.2 16.8 3.3 03-Aug 9.2 3.0 9.0 3.0
24-Jun 17.1 3.3 16.7 3.6 04-Aug 9.0 3.7 9.1 3.6
25-Jun 10.6 3.2 9.7 3.5 05-Aug 9.2 3.4 9.0 3.0
26-Jun 12.0 2.7 9.6 3.5 06-Aug 9.1 3.1 9.0 2.8
27-Jun 9.9 2.7 10.2 3.3 07-Aug 9.1 2.6 9.2 2.4
28-Jun 9.8 2.7 9.8 3.0 08-Aug 10.0 2.6 9.1 2.5
29-Jun 11.9 2.8 9.8 2.7 09-Aug 9.0 2.7 9.1 3.4
30-Jun 14.8 2.5 7.6 2.2 10-Aug 9.0 2.5 9.0 3.2
01-Jul 12.5 2.8 11.8 3.4 11-Aug 9.0 2.9 9.1 3.5
02-Jul 14.0 2.5 14.0 2.7 12-Aug 9.1 2.7 9.0 3.2
03-Jul 11.6 3.0 13.5 3.2 13-Aug 9.0 2.6 9.0 3.4
04-Jul 14.0 2.9 13.4 3.2 14-Aug 9.0 2.6 9.0 3.2
05-Jul 13.9 2.8 13.9 2.7 15-Aug 9.1 2.6 9.0 3.3
06-Jul 13.8 2.0 13.6 2.4 16-Aug 9.0 2.5 9.0 3.3
07-Jul 12.2 1.7 9.7 3.1 17-Aug 9.1 2.5 9.0 2.9
08-Jul 9.0 3.7 11.9 4.3 18-Aug 9.0 2.4 9.0 3.0
09-Jul 8.0 4.0 5.3 3.1 19-Aug 8.8 2.4 8.4 3.0
10-Jul 11.8 3.4 8.4 2.9 20-Aug 9.0 2.5 8.1 3.0
11-Jul 14.9 2.6 11.2 3.3 21-Aug 9.0 3.0 8.9 3.5
12-Jul 14.0 2.6 11.8 2.8 22-Aug 11.1 3.0 3.6 3.9
13-Jul 13.9 2.8 8.8 2.6 23-Aug 11.9 2.4
14-Jul 12.3 2.6 4.7 2.4 24-Aug 11.9 2.2
15-Jul 8.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 25-Aug 11.8 2.3
16-Jul 7.2 2.9 3.9 2.6 26-Aug 11.9 2.2
17-Jul 9.2 3.4 9.8 2.7 27-Aug 4.2 3.5
18-Jul 9.3 3.2 8.4 2.4 28-Aug 0.0 0.0
19-Jul 8.5 2.9 8.3 2.2 29-Aug 8.8 3.5
20-Jul 9.0 2.9 7.3 2.1 30-Aug 10.0 2.8
21-Jul 11.2 3.3 11.8 2.6 31-Aug 6.7 2.5
22-Jul 11.6 4.0 11.5 3.4 01-Sep 9.1 2.8
23-Jul 8.6 4.7 11.7 4.5
24-Jul 10.0 4.3 9.0 4.1
25-Jul 8.4 4.1 8.6 3.6
26-Jul 9.0 3.6 7.9 3.1
27-Jul 8.7 3.5 8.0 3.1
Notes:
1 Fishwheel 1 operated at Site 1 from 17-Jun to 15-Jul; Fishwheel 3 operated at Site 1 from 16-Jul to 1-Sep.
Site 11 Site 2 Site 1 Site 2
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C—Page 3 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table C-2. Catch, catch-per-unit-effort, and tags applied to Chinook salmon at the Curry fishwheels, 2012.
Date Catch CPUE Tags Catch CPUE Tags Catch CPUE Tags
17-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
18-Jun 0 0.00 0 1 0.13 1 1 0.13 1
19-Jun 2 0.13 2 3 0.19 3 5 0.32 5
20-Jun 3 0.18 3 5 0.31 5 8 0.49 8
21-Jun 2 0.13 2 4 0.29 4 6 0.41 6
22-Jun 3 0.19 3 4 0.26 4 7 0.44 7
23-Jun 13 0.74 10 5 0.30 4 18 1.03 14
24-Jun 5 0.29 4 4 0.24 4 9 0.53 8
25-Jun 5 0.47 5 0 0.00 0 5 0.47 5
26-Jun 7 0.58 5 4 0.42 4 11 1.00 9
27-Jun 11 1.11 10 4 0.39 3 15 1.50 13
28-Jun 8 0.82 7 4 0.41 4 12 1.23 11
29-Jun 13 1.09 13 8 0.81 8 21 1.91 21
30-Jun 26 1.75 23 8 1.05 7 34 2.80 30
01-Jul 13 1.04 11 16 1.36 14 29 2.39 25
02-Jul 24 1.72 20 21 1.50 17 45 3.22 37
03-Jul 10 0.87 8 20 1.48 18 30 2.35 26
04-Jul 16 1.15 14 8 0.60 3 24 1.74 17
05-Jul 15 1.08 12 7 0.50 6 22 1.58 18
06-Jul 19 1.38 16 8 0.59 5 27 1.97 21
07-Jul 19 1.56 14 8 0.83 6 27 2.39 20
08-Jul 9 1.00 7 2 0.17 2 11 1.17 9
09-Jul 0 0.00 0 1 0.19 1 1 0.19 1
10-Jul 3 0.25 3 4 0.48 3 7 0.73 6
11-Jul 8 0.54 6 3 0.27 2 11 0.80 8
12-Jul 5 0.36 4 2 0.17 2 7 0.53 6
13-Jul 5 0.36 4 2 0.23 2 7 0.59 6
14-Jul 4 0.33 3 1 0.21 0 5 0.54 3
15-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
16-Jul 1 0.14 1 2 0.51 2 3 0.65 3
17-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
18-Jul 1 0.11 0 1 0.12 1 2 0.23 1
19-Jul 1 0.12 1 0 0.00 0 1 0.12 1
20-Jul 0 0.00 0 1 0.14 1 1 0.14 1
21-Jul 1 0.09 1 2 0.17 1 3 0.26 2
22-Jul 0 0.00 0 1 0.09 1 1 0.09 1
23-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
24-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
25-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
26-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
27-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
28-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
29-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
30-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
31-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
01-Aug 1 0.11 1 0 0.00 0 1 0.11 1
TotalSite 2Site 1
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C—Page 4 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table C-2. Continued.
Date Catch CPUE Tags Catch CPUE Tags Catch CPUE Tags
02-Aug 1 0.11 1 0 0.00 0 1 0.11 1
03-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
04-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
05-Aug 1 0.11 0 0 0.00 0 1 0.11 0
06-Aug 0 0.00 0 1 0.11 0 1 0.11 0
07-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
08-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
09-Aug 1 0.11 0 1 0.11 0 2 0.22 0
10-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
11-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
12-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
13-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
14-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
15-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
16-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
17-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
18-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
19-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
20-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
21-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
22-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
23-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
24-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
25-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
26-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
27-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
28-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
29-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
30-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
31-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
01-Sep 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
Total 256 214 166 138 422 352
TotalSite 2Site 1
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C—Page 5 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table C-3. Catch, catch-per-unit-effort, and tags applied to sockeye salmon at the Curry fishwheels, 2012.
Date Catch CPUE Tags Catch CPUE Tags Catch CPUE Tags
17-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
18-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
19-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
20-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
21-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
22-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
23-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
24-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
25-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
26-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
27-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
28-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
29-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
30-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
01-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
02-Jul 1 0.07 1 0 0.00 0 1 0.07 1
03-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
04-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
05-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
06-Jul 2 0.15 1 0 0.00 0 2 0.15 1
07-Jul 0 0.00 0 1 0.10 0 1 0.10 0
08-Jul 0 0.00 0 1 0.08 1 1 0.08 1
09-Jul 0 0.00 0 1 0.19 1 1 0.19 1
10-Jul 1 0.08 1 0 0.00 1 1 0.08 2
11-Jul 1 0.07 1 0 0.00 0 1 0.07 1
12-Jul 2 0.14 2 1 0.08 0 3 0.23 2
13-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1 0 0.00 1
14-Jul 2 0.16 2 0 0.00 0 2 0.16 2
15-Jul 2 0.24 1 0 0.00 0 2 0.24 1
16-Jul 0 0.00 0 2 0.51 0 2 0.51 0
17-Jul 0 0.00 0 2 0.20 1 2 0.20 1
18-Jul 0 0.00 0 3 0.36 1 3 0.36 1
19-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 2 0 0.00 2
20-Jul 1 0.11 1 0 0.00 0 1 0.11 1
21-Jul 2 0.18 1 4 0.34 0 6 0.52 1
22-Jul 0 0.00 0 1 0.09 2 1 0.09 2
23-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1 0 0.00 1
24-Jul 0 0.00 0 1 0.11 0 1 0.11 0
25-Jul 0 0.00 0 1 0.12 1 1 0.12 1
26-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1 0 0.00 1
27-Jul 0 0.00 0 3 0.38 0 3 0.38 0
28-Jul 2 0.22 1 4 0.45 3 6 0.67 4
29-Jul 0 0.00 0 3 0.26 3 3 0.26 3
30-Jul 0 0.00 0 2 0.24 2 2 0.24 2
31-Jul 1 0.11 1 1 0.11 1 2 0.22 2
01-Aug 0 0.00 0 1 0.11 0 1 0.11 0
Site 1 Site 2 Total
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C—Page 6 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table C-3. Continued.
Date Catch CPUE Tags Catch CPUE Tags Catch CPUE Tags
02-Aug 0 0.00 0 1 0.11 1 1 0.11 1
03-Aug 1 0.11 1 3 0.33 1 4 0.44 2
04-Aug 0 0.00 0 1 0.11 3 1 0.11 3
05-Aug 0 0.00 0 4 0.44 0 4 0.44 0
06-Aug 1 0.11 0 6 0.67 4 7 0.78 4
07-Aug 2 0.22 2 1 0.11 4 3 0.33 6
08-Aug 3 0.30 3 4 0.44 1 7 0.74 4
09-Aug 1 0.11 1 1 0.11 2 2 0.22 3
10-Aug 1 0.11 1 0 0.00 1 1 0.11 2
11-Aug 2 0.22 1 0 0.00 0 2 0.22 1
12-Aug 2 0.22 2 2 0.22 0 4 0.44 2
13-Aug 1 0.11 1 0 0.00 2 1 0.11 3
14-Aug 1 0.11 1 0 0.00 0 1 0.11 1
15-Aug 1 0.11 1 0 0.00 0 1 0.11 1
16-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
17-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
18-Aug 0 0.00 0 1 0.11 0 1 0.11 0
19-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1 0 0.00 1
20-Aug 0 0.00 0 1 0.12 0 1 0.12 0
21-Aug 1 0.11 0 0 0.00 1 1 0.11 1
22-Aug 1 0.09 0 0 0.00 0 1 0.09 0
23-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
24-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
25-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
26-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
27-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
28-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
29-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
30-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
31-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
01-Sep 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
Total 35 27 57 43 92 70
Site 1 Site 2 Total
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C—Page 7 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table C-4. Catch, catch-per-unit-effort, and tags applied to pink salmon at the Curry fishwheels, 2012.
Date Catch CPUE Tags Catch CPUE Tags Catch CPUE Tags
17-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
18-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
19-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
20-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
21-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
22-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
23-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
24-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
25-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
26-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
27-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
28-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
29-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
30-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
01-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
02-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
03-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
04-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
05-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
06-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
07-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
08-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
09-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
10-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
11-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
12-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
13-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
14-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
15-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
16-Jul 1 0.14 1 0 0.00 0 1 0.14 1
17-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
18-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
19-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
20-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
21-Jul 0 0.00 0 2 0.17 0 2 0.17 0
22-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1 0 0.00 1
23-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
24-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
25-Jul 0 0.00 0 1 0.12 0 1 0.12 0
26-Jul 4 0.44 4 0 0.00 1 4 0.44 5
27-Jul 4 0.46 1 3 0.38 0 7 0.84 1
28-Jul 8 0.89 1 2 0.22 1 10 1.11 2
29-Jul 12 1.40 1 9 0.79 1 21 2.18 2
30-Jul 42 4.61 1 6 0.71 1 48 5.31 2
31-Jul 86 9.45 4 13 1.42 1 99 10.87 5
01-Aug 177 20.31 10 40 4.58 4 217 24.89 14
Site 1 Site 2 Total
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C—Page 8 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table C-4. Continued.
Date Catch CPUE Tags Catch CPUE Tags Catch CPUE Tags
02-Aug 423 47.80 12 125 14.37 10 548 62.16 22
03-Aug 451 49.20 9 65 7.21 12 516 56.41 21
04-Aug 160 17.71 11 31 3.43 9 191 21.14 20
05-Aug 292 31.91 12 42 4.65 11 334 36.56 23
06-Aug 449 49.52 9 57 6.35 12 506 55.87 21
07-Aug 385 42.46 12 80 8.74 9 465 51.21 21
08-Aug 327 32.59 12 20 2.21 12 347 34.80 24
09-Aug 402 44.50 5 14 1.55 12 416 46.05 17
10-Aug 250 27.83 3 5 0.56 5 255 28.38 8
11-Aug 163 18.11 2 7 0.77 3 170 18.88 5
12-Aug 137 15.11 2 4 0.44 2 141 15.55 4
13-Aug 107 11.89 1 4 0.44 0 111 12.33 1
14-Aug 91 10.09 1 3 0.33 0 94 10.43 1
15-Aug 43 4.74 1 2 0.22 0 45 4.96 1
16-Aug 39 4.32 1 2 0.22 1 41 4.54 2
17-Aug 34 3.74 1 2 0.22 0 36 3.97 1
18-Aug 13 1.44 1 0 0.00 0 13 1.44 1
19-Aug 16 1.83 1 0 0.00 0 16 1.83 1
20-Aug 17 1.90 1 0 0.00 0 17 1.90 1
21-Aug 8 0.89 1 2 0.23 0 10 1.11 1
22-Aug 2 0.18 1 0 0.00 0 2 0.18 1
23-Aug 9 0.76 0 9 0.76 0
24-Aug 6 0.51 0 6 0.51 0
25-Aug 2 0.17 0 2 0.17 0
26-Aug 2 0.17 0 2 0.17 0
27-Aug 1 0.24 0 1 0.24 0
28-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
29-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
30-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
31-Aug 1 0.15 0 1 0.15 0
01-Sep 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
Total 4,164 122 541 108 4,705 230
Site 1 Site 2 Total
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C—Page 9 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table C-5. Catch, catch-per-unit-effort, and tags applied to chum salmon at the Curry fishwheels, 2012.
Date Catch CPUE Tags Catch CPUE Tags Catch CPUE Tags
17-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
18-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
19-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
20-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
21-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
22-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
23-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
24-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
25-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
26-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
27-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
28-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
29-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
30-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
01-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
02-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
03-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
04-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
05-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
06-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
07-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
08-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
09-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
10-Jul 1 0.08 1 0 0.00 0 1 0.08 1
11-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
12-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
13-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
14-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
15-Jul 1 0.12 1 0 0.00 0 1 0.12 1
16-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
17-Jul 0 0.00 0 1 0.10 0 1 0.10 0
18-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1 0 0.00 1
19-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
20-Jul 1 0.11 1 1 0.14 0 2 0.25 1
21-Jul 5 0.45 4 9 0.77 1 14 1.21 5
22-Jul 7 0.61 2 10 0.87 8 17 1.47 10
23-Jul 0 0.00 0 3 0.26 2 3 0.26 2
24-Jul 1 0.10 1 1 0.11 1 2 0.21 2
25-Jul 0 0.00 0 2 0.23 1 2 0.23 1
26-Jul 2 0.22 1 2 0.25 1 4 0.47 2
27-Jul 8 0.92 2 6 0.75 1 14 1.68 3
28-Jul 14 1.55 1 22 2.45 2 36 4.00 3
29-Jul 25 2.91 3 31 2.72 1 56 5.62 4
30-Jul 30 3.29 3 22 2.59 3 52 5.88 6
31-Jul 14 1.54 3 11 1.20 2 25 2.74 5
01-Aug 46 5.28 13 47 5.38 2 93 10.66 15
Site 1 Site 2 Total
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C—Page 10 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table C-5. Continued.
Date Catch CPUE Tags Catch CPUE Tags Catch CPUE Tags
02-Aug 66 7.46 15 115 13.22 13 181 20.68 28
03-Aug 49 5.35 10 33 3.66 15 82 9.01 25
04-Aug 27 2.99 9 22 2.43 10 49 5.42 19
05-Aug 32 3.50 9 37 4.10 9 69 7.59 18
06-Aug 42 4.63 9 81 9.02 9 123 13.65 18
07-Aug 41 4.52 12 75 8.20 9 116 12.72 21
08-Aug 31 3.09 10 60 6.63 12 91 9.72 22
09-Aug 20 2.21 5 38 4.20 10 58 6.41 15
10-Aug 44 4.90 3 39 4.33 5 83 9.23 8
11-Aug 41 4.56 3 26 2.87 3 67 7.42 6
12-Aug 35 3.86 2 18 2.00 3 53 5.86 5
13-Aug 40 4.44 2 38 4.22 1 78 8.67 3
14-Aug 35 3.88 1 14 1.55 2 49 5.43 3
15-Aug 40 4.41 2 24 2.66 2 64 7.07 4
16-Aug 21 2.32 0 9 1.00 1 30 3.32 1
17-Aug 27 2.97 0 13 1.44 2 40 4.42 2
18-Aug 25 2.77 0 14 1.55 2 39 4.32 2
19-Aug 20 2.28 0 15 1.78 2 35 4.06 2
20-Aug 16 1.78 1 10 1.24 2 26 3.03 3
21-Aug 16 1.77 2 7 0.79 1 23 2.56 3
22-Aug 7 0.63 2 1 0.28 0 8 0.91 2
23-Aug 14 1.17 2 14 1.17 2
24-Aug 7 0.59 2 7 0.59 2
25-Aug 7 0.60 2 7 0.60 2
26-Aug 9 0.76 1 9 0.76 1
27-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
28-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
29-Aug 3 0.34 0 3 0.34 0
30-Aug 2 0.20 0 2 0.20 0
31-Aug 3 0.45 0 3 0.45 0
01-Sep 2 0.00 0 2 0.00 0
Total 877 140 857 139 1,734 279
Site 1 Site 2 Total
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C—Page 11 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table C-6. Catch, catch-per-unit-effort, and tags applied to coho salmon at the Curry fishwheels, 2012.
Date Catch CPUE Tags Catch CPUE Tags Catch CPUE Tags
17-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
18-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
19-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
20-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
21-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
22-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
23-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
24-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
25-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
26-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
27-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
28-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
29-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
30-Jun 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
01-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
02-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
03-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
04-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
05-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
06-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
07-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
08-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
09-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
10-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
11-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
12-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
13-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
14-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
15-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
16-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
17-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
18-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
19-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
20-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
21-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
22-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
23-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
24-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
25-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
26-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
27-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
28-Jul 1 0.11 0 0 0.00 0 1 0.11 0
29-Jul 1 0.12 0 0 0.00 0 1 0.12 0
30-Jul 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
31-Jul 0 0.00 0 1 0.11 0 1 0.11 0
01-Aug 1 0.11 1 0 0.00 1 1 0.11 2
Site 1 Site 2 Total
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C—Page 12 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table C-6. Continued.
Date Catch CPUE Tags Catch CPUE Tags Catch CPUE Tags
02-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
03-Aug 3 0.33 2 3 0.33 0 6 0.66 2
04-Aug 0 0.00 0 2 0.22 1 2 0.22 1
05-Aug 0 0.00 0 2 0.22 2 2 0.22 2
06-Aug 2 0.22 2 1 0.11 2 3 0.33 4
07-Aug 2 0.22 2 7 0.77 1 9 0.99 3
08-Aug 7 0.70 7 5 0.55 7 12 1.25 14
09-Aug 5 0.55 4 1 0.11 5 6 0.66 9
10-Aug 14 1.56 12 2 0.22 1 16 1.78 13
11-Aug 21 2.33 19 0 0.00 2 21 2.33 21
12-Aug 14 1.54 14 3 0.33 0 17 1.88 14
13-Aug 13 1.44 13 2 0.22 2 15 1.67 15
14-Aug 13 1.44 8 1 0.11 2 14 1.55 10
15-Aug 18 1.99 7 3 0.33 0 21 2.32 7
16-Aug 15 1.66 6 1 0.11 1 16 1.77 7
17-Aug 19 2.09 5 1 0.11 0 20 2.20 5
18-Aug 12 1.33 4 0 0.00 1 12 1.33 5
19-Aug 8 0.91 6 0 0.00 0 8 0.91 6
20-Aug 8 0.89 6 0 0.00 0 8 0.89 6
21-Aug 5 0.55 5 0 0.00 0 5 0.55 5
22-Aug 11 0.99 6 0 0.00 0 11 0.99 6
23-Aug 8 0.67 7 8 0.67 7
24-Aug 7 0.59 5 7 0.59 5
25-Aug 9 0.77 9 9 0.77 9
26-Aug 6 0.51 2 6 0.51 2
27-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
28-Aug 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
29-Aug 2 0.23 1 2 0.23 1
30-Aug 3 0.30 2 3 0.30 2
31-Aug 1 0.15 1 1 0.15 1
01-Sep 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
Total 229 156 35 28 264 184
Site 1 Site 2 Total
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix D—Page 1 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
APPENDIX D: RADIO TELEMETRY RESULTS
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix D—Page 2 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table D-1. Summary of radio tag recovery information for fish released at the Curry fishwheels, 2012. No recovery
coordinates were available for the tag that was sent to ADF&G by an angler.
Tag Date Recovery
Number Recovered Description Latitude Longitude Method
Chinook 2 30-Jul Portage 62.87766 -149.31946 LGL crew
307 31-Jul 4th of July 62.71873 -149.80825 LGL crew
319 2-Aug Indian 62.78955 -149.66135 LGL crew
419 3-Aug 4th of July 62.71897 -149.80937 LGL crew
6 5-Aug Indian 62.87664 -149.58420 LGL crew
24 5-Aug Indian 62.87664 -149.58420 LGL crew
51 5-Aug Indian 62.87531 -149.58328 LGL crew
89 5-Aug Indian 62.86866 -149.59660 LGL crew
142 5-Aug Indian 62.85728 -149.61330 LGL crew
183 5-Aug Indian 62.87002 -149.59393 LGL crew
186 5-Aug Indian 62.85728 -149.61330 LGL crew
308 5-Aug Indian 62.87945 -149.58168 LGL crew
18 8-Aug Indian 62.80849 -149.66151 LGL crew
22 8-Aug Indian 62.79346 -149.66273 LGL crew
28 8-Aug Indian 62.81335 -149.66116 LGL crew
50 8-Aug Indian 62.81142 -149.65912 LGL crew
111 8-Aug Indian 62.81639 -149.65948 LGL crew
126 8-Aug Indian 62.79686 -149.66078 LGL crew
130 8-Aug Indian 62.80689 -149.66249 LGL crew
154 8-Aug Indian 62.82144 -149.65526 LGL crew
210 8-Aug Indian 62.82255 -149.65404 LGL crew
231 8-Aug Indian 62.81335 -149.66116 LGL crew
255 8-Aug Indian 62.82144 -149.65526 LGL crew
288 8-Aug Indian 62.81639 -149.65948 LGL crew
333 8-Aug Indian 62.81908 -149.65714 LGL crew
149 18-Aug Indian 62.87887 -149.58185 Angler
409 18-Aug Mouth of Indian 62.78561 -149.65559 Angler
394 19-Aug Portage 62.83023 -149.37965 LGL crew
Chum 828 6-Aug Slough 8 c/d 62.62378 -149.98213 LGL crew
1008 6-Aug Slough 8 c/d 62.62378 -149.98213 LGL crew
868 7-Aug Slough 8 c/d 62.63065 -149.97787 LGL crew
583 8-Aug Chulitna - Byer's 62.73127 -150.19466 Angler
848 26-Aug Mouth of Indian 62.7849 -149.6592 LGL crew
1374 26-Aug Slough 9a 62.7275 -149.7496 LGL crew
Coho 929 15-Aug Chulitna - Byer's 62.7312722 -150.194658 Angler
1643 26-Aug Mouth of Portage 62.8300433 -149.381723 Angler
2237 13-Sep Chulitna - Byer's 62.7312722 -150.194658 Angler
Recovery Location
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix D—Page 3 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table D-1. Continued.
Tag Date Recovery
Number Recovered Description Latitude Longitude Method
Pink 1033 7-Aug Gateway 62.67699 -149.89204 LGL crew
1607 16-Aug Talkeetna - Clear Cr 62.3677 -150.0171 Angler
1025 26-Aug Mouth of Indian 62.7848 -149.6585 LGL crew
1401 3-Oct Talkeetna - Clear Cr n/a n/a Angler/ADFG
Recovery Location
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix D—Page 4 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table D-2. Summary of radio tag recovery information for fish released at the Lower River fishwheels. The recovery
method was unknown for most tags, but it was assumed to be largely tags sent to ADF&G by anglers.
Tag Date Recovery
Number Recovered Location
Chinook 5081 4-Jun Deshka River
5148 8-Jun Deshka River mouth
5018 12-Jun Deshka River
5165 15-Jun Deshka River
5263 15-Jun Deshka River mouth
5166 16-Jun Deshka River
5330 19-Jun Deshka River mouth
5387 10-Jul Talkeetna watershed
5426 10-Jul Talkeetna watershed
5436 18-Jul Deshka River
5415 20-Jul Sunshine Creek mouth
5109 30-Jul Willow Creek
5053 10-Aug Chulitna
5209 19-Aug Sheep Creek
5217 1-Sep Montana Creek
Chum 3822 10-Aug Yentna watershed
3241 16-Aug Willow Creek
3414 18-Aug Willow Creek
3115 30-Aug Montana Creek
3147 5-Oct Montana Creek
Coho 3465 22-Jul Deshka River
3179 27-Jul Deshka River mouth
3172 3-Aug Alexander Creek mouth
3369 5-Aug Deshka weir
4291 5-Aug Talkeetna watershed
3397 8-Aug Deshka River
3763 9-Aug Yentna watershed
3391 11-Aug Rabideaux Creek
3483 13-Aug Willow Creek Mouth
3266 14-Aug Goose Creek
3461 14-Aug Yentna watershed
3361 15-Aug Yentna watershed
3081 16-Aug Sunshine Creek
3357 18-Aug Yentna watershed
3880 20-Aug Yentna watershed
4299 25-Aug Deshka River
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix D—Page 5 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
Table D-2. Continued.
Tag Date Recovery
Number Recovered Location
3897 26-Aug Deshka weir
4274 11-Sep Kashwitna
3390 2-Oct Talkeetna watershed
4290 2-Oct Talkeetna watershed
Pink 4153 10-Aug Indian river
4101 27-Aug Willow Creek
3909 15-Sep Montana Creek
Sockeye 3688 9-Aug Yentna watershed
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix E—Page 1 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
APPENDIX E: TRACKING HISTORIES OF CHINOOK
SALMON ABOVE IMPEDIMENT 3
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix E—Page 2 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix E—Page 3 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix E—Page 4 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix E—Page 5 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix E—Page 6 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix E—Page 7 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix E—Page 8 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix E—Page 9 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix E—Page 10 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix E—Page 11 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix E—Page 12 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix E—Page 13 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F—Page 1 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
APPENDIX F: BASE MAP AND MAP FIGURE REFERENCES
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F—Page 2 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
BASE MAP REFERENCES
Category Data Source Date File Name and Description
Hydrography
National Hydrography Dataset
2012 NHDArea_DoubleLineROcean_SusitnaWS:
National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Area
features (double-line rivers, ocean) for the
Susitna Watershed.
National Hydrography Dataset
2012 NHDFlowlines_SusitnaWS:
National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
Flowlines features for the Susitna
Watershed.
National Hydrography Dataset
2012 NHDWaterbody_Lakes_SusitnaWS:
National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
Waterbody features (lakes, ponds) for the
Susitna Watershed.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources 1998 AlaskaBoundary63K:
Alaska coastline.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
1995-10-05 SusitnaWatershedBoundary: Subset of the
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) dataset
showing entire Susitna drainage basin.
Project
Location
Facilities and
Operations
Alaska Energy Authority 2012 PreliminaryProjectArea:
Watana Dam Reservoir and Corridors
Alaska Department of Natural Resources PopulatedPlaces_SusitnaArea:
Location of towns and villages.
Alaska DOT & PF
2010 ProposedDamSite:
Proposed Watana Dam site from Alaska
DOT&PF baseline data for the evaluation of
Watana Transportation Access Study.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F—Page 3 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
MAP FIGURE DATA
Figure No. Figure Name Data Source Date File Name and Description
Figure 1
Figure 2
(1)Susitna River Watershed
(2)Middle/Upper Susitna River
LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. 2012 LGLFixedStations:
Locations of LGL Radio Telemetry Fixed Stations.
LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. 2012 CurryFishWheels:
Location of LGL Curry Fishwheels.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2012 ADFGFixedStations:
Locations of ADF&G Radio Telemetry Fixed Stations.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2012 ADFGFishWheels
Locations of ADF&G Fishwheels.:
Figure 3
Figure 5
Impediment Map
Fishwheel Location Map
LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.
2012 FishwheelTelemetryImpedimentLocations:
Locations of stationary telemetry, Fishwheel and
impediment in point format.
University of Alaska Fairbanks,
Geographic Information Network of
Alaska; Matanuska-Susitna Borough GIS
2011 Matanuska Susitna Borough LiDAR/Imagery Project
Imagery mosaic available as a 1 ft, ortho-rectified, 4-
band imagery for the entire 3680 sq/mi area, terrain
corrected against the LiDAR elevation model during the
2011 collection. http://matsu.gina.alaska.edu.
Figure 24
Figure 25
Figure 26
Figure 27
Lower Susitna Mainstem
Potential Spawning Locations
Fish Tracking Locations
LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.
2012 PotentialSpawning:
Locations of “likely” and “possible” mainstem spawning
in the Lower Susitna River derived from radio-telemetry
data in December 2012.
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F—Page 4 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
MAP FIGURE DATA
Figure No. Figure Name Data Source Date File Name and Description
Figure 28
Figure 29
Figure 30
Figure 31
Figure 32
Middle Susitna Mainstem Potential
Spawning Locations, Fish Tracking
Results
Chinook, chum, coho, pink, and
sockeye salmon
LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.
2012 PotentialSpawning_InSeason:
Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Middle
Susitna River derived from radio-telemetry data in early
September 2012.
LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.
2012 PotentialSpawning:
Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Middle
Susitna River derived from radio-telemetry data in
December 2012.
Figure 43
Figure 44
Middle Susitna Mainstem
Potential Spawning
Locations and Redd Sites
Fish Tracking Results
LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.
2012 PotentialSpawning_InSeason:
Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Middle
Susitna River derived from radio-telemetry data in early
September 2012.
LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.
2012 PotentialSpawning:
Potential mainstem spawning locations in the Middle
Susitna River derived from radio-telemetry data in
December 2012.
LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.
2012 MiddleSusitnaREDD:
Confirmed locations of salmon redds in the Middle
Susitna River from HSC surveys
FINAL REPORT DRAFT 01/31/2013 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F—Page 5 AEA Second Review Draft: 31 January 2013
MAP FIGURE DATA
Figure No. Figure Name Data Source Date File Name and Description
12 Figures,
Appendix E
Fish 27
Fish 52
Fish 94
Fish 104
Fish 113
Fish 219
Fish 246
Fish 257
Fish 266
Fish 359
Fish 5005
Fish 5019
LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.
2012 DetectionHistoryforFishPassingImpediments:
Locations of all detections of fish that approached or
passed the middle-Susitna Impediments.