HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa91Alaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna‐Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
Adult salmon distribution and habitat utilization study : final (4/30/12)
SuWa 91
Author(s) – Personal:
Author(s) – Corporate:
[by Alaska Energy Authority ?]
AEA‐identified category, if specified:
2012 Environmental Study Plans
AEA‐identified series, if specified:
Series (ARLIS‐assigned report number):
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 91
Existing numbers on document:
Published by:
[Anchorage, Alaska : Alaska Energy Authority, 2013]
Date published:
April 30, 2012
Published for:
Date or date range of report:
Volume and/or Part numbers:
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Final
Document type:
Pagination:
27 pages
Related work(s):
Revised under the same title as SuWa 7 and 28 (two
distributions of the same draft version of January 2013) and
SuWa 301 (February 2013).
Pages added/changed by ARLIS:
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/
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 1
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization Study – FINAL (4/30/12)
1. INTRODUCTION
The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is preparing a License Application that will be submitted to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project (Project). The application will use the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). The Project
is located on the Susitna River, an approximately 300 mile long river in the Southcentral region
of Alaska (Figure 1). The Project’s dam site will be located at River Mile (RM) 184. The results
of this study and of other proposed studies will provide information needed to support the
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. This study plan outlines the goals,
objectives, and methods for characterizing adult salmon habitat utilization in the Susitna River in
order to provide data to evaluate potential Project-related effects to fish habitat. This study will
initiate a multi-year effort, which will include data collection activities beginning in 2012. A
comprehensive set of fisheries study plans (2013-2014 Fish Study Plans) will be developed
during 2012 as part of the Project licensing process. The 2013-2014 Fish Studies will be used
to describe the fisheries resources and their habitat within the Project area.
Figure 1. Susitna watershed showing fish capture sites (fishwheels) and the proposed
locations of fixed-station telemetry receivers in the middle and upper Susitna River.
The lower river ADF&G telemetry stations are not shown here. The middle river joins
the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers to form the lower river near the town of Talkeetna.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 2
2. STUDY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Goals
• 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 Susitna River in 2012.
• 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.
• Provide spawning habitat data to support the selection of sites for the instream flow
study, develop site-specific habitat suitability criteria, and develop a habitat sampling
protocol for 2013-14.
• Develop information to refine the scope, methods, and study sites for studying habitat
use by adult salmon during the follow-on 2013-14 studies.
Objectives
1. Capture, radiotag, and track adults from five species of Pacific salmon in the middle
Susitna River in proportion to their abundance.
2. Determine the migration behavior and spawning locations of radiotagged fish in the
lower, middle, and upper Susitna 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, locations of spawning and
holding salmon, and use of mainstem, side-channel, slough, and tributary habitat types
by adult salmon.
6. Locate individual holding and spawning salmon in clear and turbid water and collect
habitat data from holding and spawning salmon in the middle and lower 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.
3. EXISTING INFORMATION
Existing information includes recent and historic aerial photography of the study area, fish spatial
and temporal distribution, and relative abundance information from existing recent and early
1980s studies. 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. The adult salmon habitat utilization studies conducted by ADF&G
during the 1980s are summarized by Woodward-Clyde Consultants and Entrix, Inc. (1985).
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 3
In recent years, ADF&G has been conducting adult salmon (sockeye, coho, and chum)
spawning distribution and abundance studies in the Susitna River (e.g., Merizon et al. 2010;
Yanusz et al. 2011). In addition to information contained in annual reports from these recent
radio telemetry studies, telemetry re-sighting data are available in raw form and these can be
used to inform the distribution of field effort in this study.
4. STUDY AREA
The study area encompasses the Susitna River from Cook Inlet (RM 0) upstream to the
Oshetna River (RM 234.4), with an emphasis on river reaches between its confluence with the
Chulitna River (RM 98) and Devils Canyon (RM 150). The mainstem Susitna is divided into
three generalized reaches for the purposes of this study plan: lower river (RM 0-98), middle river
(RM 98-150), and upper river (150-234). Devils Canyon encompasses RM 150 to 154.
5. METHODS
This study will be coordinated with basin-wide radiotelemetry studies that are being conducted
by ADF&G. The goals of ADF&G studies include characterizing timing and distribution of the
2012 salmon escapement to the Susitna River among major and minor tributaries, and
estimating the system-wide escapement of chum, sockeye, and coho salmon above Flathorn
(RM 22). In 2012, AEA is supporting an additional radiotelemetry component by ADF&G to
describe the distribution of adult Chinook and pink salmon in mainstem and tributary habitats.
The 2012 AEA-supported ADF&G study will also examine the feasibility of estimating the
system-wide escapement of Chinook salmon to the Susitna River. In 2012, ADF&G anticipates
radiotagging 400 coho, 400 chum, 400 pink, 100 sockeye, and 500 Chinook salmon at capture
sites at Flathorn and RM 30. An array of fixed stations located at mainstem sites and tributary
mouths will be combined with fixed-wing aerial surveys to apportion the radiotagged fish to
various waterbodies surveyed. ADF&G will track these radiotagged fish to the nearest river mile
at intervals of approximately 14 days. The ADF&G studies will focus on apportioning the runs to
various tributaries and, for coho, chum, and sockeye salmon, estimating escapement to the
entire Susitna watershed.
This study differs from the ADF&G studies in that spatial data will be collected from radiotagged
fish on a finer scale; the objective is to obtain locations of spawning and holding salmon at the
microhabitat level. This contrasts with the tributary apportionment and the nearest river mile
spatial resolution of the ADF&G studies. There is also a middle and upper river focus to this
study, although the study includes assessment of habitat use in the lower river. This study will
expand on the ADF&G effort by more frequent tracking of both AEA and ADF&G radiotagged
fish in the lower, middle, and upper Susitna River. This study will use helicopter surveys to
locate tagged fish and then boat and foot surveys to determine more precise locations of those
fish that are holding and/or spawning.
Objective 1: Capture, radiotag, and track adults from five species of Pacific salmon in
the middle Susitna River in proportion to their abundance.
Meeting several of the goals of this study requires that the radiotagged fish of each species are
representative of each species’ “population” in the middle river. Tagging particular stocks
and/or sizes of fish at different rates than others will weaken inferences about habitat uses of
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 4
the middle river such as the relative distribution of spawning fish, migratory behaviors, and any
fish passage above Devils Canyon. For example, it is possible that mainstem spawning
populations could be more vulnerable to capture in the fishwheels due to higher residence time
and milling near the site. If this were to occur, the radiotagging would overestimate the
contribution of mainstem fish and habitat use by the middle river population. Another example
would be if the fishwheels are size selective, which they can be across species with a large
range in body size (e.g., Chinook salmon); if larger fish are less vulnerable to being tagged,
results will underestimate the contribution and extent of habitat use by large-fish stocks (e.g.,
mainstem or above Devils Canyon). Put differently, there is a need to examine whether all fish
passing the tagging site are equally vulnerable to capture. If they are not, there are ways to
stratify the data to mitigate or eliminate effects on results due to unequal vulnerability to capture.
There are multiple ways to assess whether fish passing Curry (RM 120) are equally vulnerable
to being radiotagged. Of greatest importance is to survey spawning areas to determine the size
composition of tagged and untagged fish (size distributions) and determine the proportion of fish
in different areas that contain a tag (i.e., the mark rate). Statistically significant differences in
mark rates among areas would suggest unequal vulnerability; differences in the size
distributions of the marked and unmarked fractions of the fish would suggest size-selective
capture and tagging.
Fish Capture
Fishwheels will be used to capture adult salmon for tagging. In late May 2012, a field camp for
the fishwheel crew will be set up near Curry. Three fishwheels will be built and minimum of two
will be operated at Curry from the first week of June through the first week of September 2012; if
the sites are still favorable, these two fishwheels will be operated at the same sites used during
the 1983 to 1985 studies (west bank at RM 120.6, east bank at RM 119.4). The other fishwheel
will be used to test new sites in the same general area and to provide additional capacity to fish
the primary sites continuously in the event of any damage to the primary fishwheels.
The fishwheels will be similar in design to those used by ADF&G (Yanusz et al. 2011) and
consist of aluminum pontoons, two or three baskets, and two partially submerged live tanks for
holding fish in river water. A tower and winch assembly will be used to adjust the height of the
baskets and ensure the baskets are fishing within 30 cm of the river bottom. When necessary,
picket weirs will be installed between fishwheels and the adjacent riverbank to direct fish away
from the bank and into the path of the collection baskets. We will operate the fishwheels up to
18 hours per day. A 2-4 person crew will visit the fishwheels hourly whenever the fishwheels
are fishing; when the crew is not on the river, the fishwheel baskets will stopped. The rotational
speed (revolutions per minute, RPM) of each fishwheel will be recorded two to three times per
day by measuring the number of axle revolutions in one minute.
Fishwheel effectiveness, expressed as a fraction of the passing salmon run they capture, often
varies within and among seasons. Also known as the catchability coefficient, effectiveness
changes with water depth under the fishwheel and water velocity around the fishwheel. The
overall abundance of fish in the river at any one time may also affect effectiveness. Variable
effectiveness within a season is most problematic for a study of this nature if it varies across the
period of the annual run of a particular species and less problematic if it varies across species.
Fish later or earlier within a run of a particular species can represent fish of different sizes, ages,
and ultimately, fish bound for different habitats. Therefore, stable effectiveness across time,
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 5
body size, and spawning destination are ideal, and these are assumptions that will need to be
tested by appropriate data collection at the fishwheels and surveys of spawning areas. If
sufficiently large numbers of fish can be tagged and later examined, any changes in
effectiveness can be mitigated for by stratification of results.
A DIDSON sonar system will be used periodically and as changes in river conditions
necessitate to guide fishwheel placement, characterize changes in fish behavior around the
fishwheels over time, and help detect substantial changes in effectiveness over time. Study
team members have recent experience doing this elsewhere, and the tool has been a cost-
effective way to monitor fish behavior and fishwheel effectiveness that are otherwise difficult to
assess (Smith et al. 2009). This method can help to interpret whether large increases or
decreases in fishwheel catches are a result of changes in fishwheel effectiveness or the
abundance of fish. This information can be used to guide changes in the position of the
fishwheels to stabilize fishwheel effectiveness.
Radiotagging
The goal of this study is to deploy radio tags in approximately 400 Chinook salmon and 200
each of coho, sockeye, chum, and pink salmon captured at the Curry fishwheels. Only
uninjured fish that meet or exceed a specific length threshold will be radiotagged. We anticipate
tagging Chinook salmon with a mid-eye to fork length (METF) of ≥ 500 mm; coho, sockeye, and
chum salmon ≥ 400 mm; and pink salmon ≥ 325 mm. These size thresholds proposed for coho,
sockeye, and chum salmon are similar to those used by ADF&G (Yanusz 2011; Merizon 2010).
The Chinook salmon length threshold will coincide with all ocean-age 3 fish and a to-be-
determined portion of ocean-age 2 fish. All fish to be tagged will be placed in a water-filled,
foam-lined, V-shaped trough. To minimize handling time (< 1 min per fish) and tagging-related
effects on fish behavior, anesthetic will not be used. Radio tags will be inserted orally into the
stomach of the fish using a piece of PVC tubing (1 cm diameter, 46 cm long) with a whip
antenna left to protrude from the mouth. No external marks will be applied to radiotagged fish.
All radiotagged salmon will be measured for METF length (to the nearest mm), sexed from
external morphological characteristics (coloration, body and fin shape, jaw morphology), and
sampled for scales (age), with the exception of pink salmon (all are age 2). Every other
radiotagged fish will be tagged with a spaghetti tag 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 a fish has a radio tag.
To minimize any effects from holding fish, only salmon held for 1 hour or less in the fishwheel
live tanks will be radiotagged, and all fish will be released immediately after tagging. All fish will
be inspected for radio and conventional (spaghetti) tags that were applied by ADF&G at the
lower river fishwheels or at the Curry fishwheels. Catches and recaptures in the Curry
fishwheels of ADF&G tagged fish can be used with recoveries from other sites to generate
Susitna-wide escapement estimates (e.g., for coho and chum salmon).
Spaghetti Tagging
We expect the fishwheels will capture more fish than we have radio tags available for each
species. More importantly, these additional fish will be useful to test assumptions about the
representativeness of the fish captured to reflect the species-specific middle river populations.
A portion of these additional fish captured will be spaghetti tagged and the portion will vary
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 6
among the availability and abundance of the different species. At a minimum, testing of these
assumptions in 2012 can guide the scope for 2013 and 2014.
All Chinook salmon above our daily goals will be spaghetti tagged, up to 400 additional fish over
the season. Radiotagged Chinook salmon can be subsequently examined in Portage and
Indian creeks (~90% of the middle river run) to verify study assumptions.
Sockeye and chum salmon spawn will be available for counting and sampling in clear-water
side channels and sloughs, and tributaries. Given the number of radio tags deployed
(200/species), some additional marking with spaghetti tags of sockeye and chum will enable a
test of assumptions of marking in proportion to abundance and stocks passing Curry. Coho
salmon are not likely to be very abundant and may provide few opportunities to subsequently
examine fish, and therefore we do not expect that additional tagging effort is warranted. Pink
salmon are expected to be abundant in 2012 (a “peak”, even-year run) and therefore, a large
tagging effort for pink salmon is not justified given spawning ground sampling may be difficult to
achieve and conventional tagging will likely come at the expense of efforts to apply 1200 radio
tags to all five species of salmon. Spaghetti tags will be applied systematically at a rate of some
number fish per radio tag (to be determined).
Tagging Goals
Historical fishwheel catches, effectiveness, and salmon run timing will guide tag application
rates over the season. In 1983, 1984, and 1985, respectively, totals of 1,064, 1,589, and 1,098
Chinook salmon, were captured at two fishwheels located at Curry. Based on mark-recapture
estimates generated from collections at these fishwheels, these catches represented 8.8-11.7%
of the total Chinook salmon run at that location. Across the five years from 1981 to 1985,
Chinook salmon were caught at Curry from as early as 9 June (range 9-20 June) to as late as
20 August (range 29 July to 20 August), with midpoints ranging from 25 June to 9 July. During
those studies, catches ranged from 201-379 (average 301) for sockeye salmon, 93-350
(average 215) for coho salmon, 861-4228 (average 2131) for chum salmon, and 17,394 for the
1984 even-year pink salmon run. Midpoints of the migrations at Curry ranged from
approximately 4-5 August for sockeye, 12-13 August for coho, 3-15 August for chum, and 31
July to 7 August for pink salmon.
Early season tagging rates of fish captured in the fishwheels will be based on average historical
run timing and expected daily fishwheel catches at Curry (Appendix A). These initial radio-
tagging rates will be adjusted in-season using run timing information from the lower Susitna
fishwheels (RM 22 and 30) and the ratio of 2012 daily catch at Curry to the expected daily
fishwheel catch based on historical data.
Numbers and Size of Marked and Unmarked Fish at Selected Locations above Curry
To test if Chinook, sockeye, and chum salmon passing Curry are equally vulnerable to being
captured and radiotagged we will count and examine fish on selected spawning grounds to
develop two primary metrics. We will develop estimates of the proportion of fish tagged (mark
rate) at two or more sites and characterize the size distributions of marked (i.e., tagged) and
unmarked fish.
Foot surveys to count live and dead fish, combined with fixed-station and aerial survey data, will
provide counts of marked and unmarked fish. Lengths of dead fish will be measured to the
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 7
nearest mm (MEFT) and the sex and spawning success noted. For Chinook salmon, historical
aerial survey data suggest as much as 90% of fish passing Curry are expected to return to
Portage (70%) and Indian (20%) creeks. For sockeye and chum salmon, these two creeks
combined with Sloughs 8A, 11, and 21 likely accounts for a similarly large portion of the middle
river population. Fourth of July Creek, Indian River, and Portage Creek also have significant
numbers of chum salmon.
Key Assumptions
Equal Probability of Capture across Fish from all Spawning Destinations
This assumption can be tested indirectly by examining several sources of information. If there
are unequal probabilities of capture among spawning stocks it will be caused by, and manifest
itself, in multiple ways.
Fishwheel effectiveness across time: The main assumption of this study component is that the
radio tags are deployed at the Curry fishwheels in proportion to abundance for each species.
To help evaluate this assumption, we will compare the relative effectiveness of each fishwheel,
as determined from the ratio of fish caught by a fishwheel and the number of fish observed with
DIDSON across different time periods, fishwheel rotational speeds (RPM), and river discharge
(all three are expected to co-vary). DIDSON will also be used to qualitatively assess fish
approach behavior at the fishwheel relative to discharge and fish abundance. We will also
compare the catch per unit effort (CPUE; fish per fishwheel hour) over time and across a range
of discharges. Additionally, we will compare the cumulative run-timing profiles for each species
to historic run-timing profiles at the Curry fishwheels and to those generated from fish
radiotagged at ADF&G’s lower river sites (RM 22 and 30) that are subsequently detected in the
middle river.
For all species, radio tags will be deployed in proportion to catch on the east and west bank
fishwheels as long as there is no sign that individual fishwheel effectiveness is dramatically
different (from other fishwheels) and/or has not changed substantially within the season. If
individual fishwheel effectiveness appears to have changed, the proportion of the catch to tag
may be altered in-season.
Differences among stocks: To assess whether fish from a particular spawning area were right
or left bank-oriented with respect to capture at Curry, we will compare the proportion of fish
migrating into specific areas with the collection bank at Curry. Assuming data are suited to
statistical analysis, we will also use contingency table analysis to compare mark rates over time
and area at locations upstream of Curry. If tags are deployed in proportion to abundance, then
we would expect mark rates to be constant across both temporal and spatial strata in these
spawning ground areas. For example, mark rates by period for Chinook salmon in Portage
Creek can be obtained from regular aerial/foot surveys (total number of live and dead fish) in
combination with mobile-tracking surveys (number of tagged live and dead fish). Assessing the
mark rate in any groups of fish spawning in mainstem habitats will be more challenging. One
concern is that mainstem fish could be more vulnerable to the fishwheels because they linger or
mill upstream and downstream of Curry. We expect that the fishwheels will recapture some of
our radiotagged fish; assuming capture efficiencies of 5-10% and no significant “trap
avoidance,” we could recapture as many as 10-40 fish of each species. In addition to
quantitative and qualitative assessment of subsequent behavior of these recaptured fish, we will
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 8
compare the final destinations (mainstem/tributary) of recaptured fish to other tagged fish to
determine whether fish that spawn in the mainstem are recaptured at a higher rate.
Size-selective capture: Size-related (and age-related) bias will be tested using Kolmogorov-
Smirnov (K-S) two-sample tests. For each species, we will compare the cumulative length-
frequency distributions of: 1) radiotagged and spaghetti-tagged fish and those fish randomly
sampled on the spawning grounds; 2) radiotagged and spaghetti-tagged fish and all other fish
sampled for length at the Curry fishwheels; and 3) radiotagged and spaghetti-tagged fish
captured in individual fishwheels. Using data from similar sources, contingency table analyses
and Chi-square tests will be used to compare the sex and age composition of fish radiotagged
by species. Size-related bias can usually be eliminated by size stratification of results.
Handling-Induced Changes in Behavior: An assumption of this study component is that the
behavior of radiotagged fish is not materially affected by the capture and handling process. By
materially affected, we mean that the capture and tagging does not affect the final spawning
destination of a fish and/or its migration behavior once it has recovered from the tagging event
and resumed its upstream migration. These assumptions cannot be tested directly but there are
several indirect ways to assess its potential magnitude.
The post-release survival and travel time (days) to first detection at upstream fixed-station
receivers will provide an indication of 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, we will compare the upstream movement (delays and rates of travel) of tagged fish that
were subjected to different holding densities and holding times in the fishwheels. Third,
although potentially confounded with different stock-specific vulnerabilities to capture, tag mark
rates at spawning locations based on visual observations and telemetry detections (number of
tags) can provide an indication of possible handling-induced changes in behavior. Stratification
of results by spawning destination based on mark rates can help to mitigate any effects of
differences that this source of post-release changes in spawning destination might have on our
conclusions. Finally, we expect that the fishwheels will recapture some of our radiotagged fish
and the post-release migratory behavior of these already tagged fish will provide additional data
on the effects of the fish capture process, including any potential cumulative handling effects.
Objective 2: Determine the migration behavior and spawning locations of radiotagged
fish in the lower, middle, and upper Susitna River.
Adult Chinook, coho, chum, pink, and sockeye salmon will be radiotagged and released in the
lower (RM 22 and 30) and middle (Curry, RM 120) Susitna River during their upstream
migration (Figure 1). ADF&G is conducting the tagging in the lower river and LGL is tagging fish
at Curry. The two studies will be tightly coordinated and analysis will be done in a collaborative
manner. All mobile (aerial, boat, and foot) and fixed-station receiver data will be handled
together for relevant analyses and analysis products will be characterized in a consistent
manner.
The primary function of the telemetry component is to track these tagged fish spatially and
temporally with a combination of fixed and mobile receivers. Time/date stamped, coded radio
signals from tags implanted in fish will be recorded by fixed station or mobile positioning. All
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 9
telemetry gear (tags and receivers) across both studies will be provided by ATS, Inc. (Advanced
Telemetry Systems, www.atstrack.com)
The types of behavior to be characterized include:
• arrival and departure timing at specific locations/positions;
• direction of travel;
• residence time at specific locations/positions;
• travel time between locations/positions;
• identification of migratory, holding, and spawning time and locations/positions; and
• movement patterns in and between habitats in relation to water conditions (e.g.,
discharge, temperature, turbidity).
These data, in conjunction with habitat descriptions, will allow the characterization of migratory
behavior and final destinations for salmon in mainstem habitats (main channel, slough, side
channel) and tributaries. In addition, observed spawning locations will be characterized at a
microhabitat level (e.g., depth, velocity, substrate). Spawning or final locations of tagged fish
will be used to determine the number and proportion of the tagged fish of each species using
mainstem habitats.
Radio Tags
ATS pulse-coded, extended-range tags will be applied to a subset of salmon captured in the
lower and middle river fishwheels. There are 18 and 12 frequencies allocated to the lower
(ADF&G) and middle river (F-S3) tags, respectively (Table 1). There are 100 unique codes on
each frequency, except for the reference tag, which will use a single code. In total, these
frequency/code combinations will provide unique tags for ~3,000 radiotagged fish in 2012.
Model F1835B transmitters will be used for pink salmon (16 g, 30 cm long antenna, 96 d battery
life), Model F1840B tags for sockeye, coho, and chum salmon (22 g, 30 cm antenna, 127 d
battery life), and Model F1845B tags for Chinook salmon (26 g, 41 cm antenna, 162 d battery
life). All transmitters will be equipped with a mortality sensor that changes the signal pattern to
an “inactive” mode for the remainder of the season once the tag becomes stationary for 24 h.
All of the radio tags will be labeled with return contact information. Each tag will be tested
immediately prior to deployment to ensure it is functioning properly upon release. The fishwheel
field team will regularly provide the telemetry team with the records of tags released to inform
them of the specific tags at large.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 10
Table 1. Expected radio frequencies (MHz) for tags applied to salmon in the lower and middle
Susitna River in 2012. Middle river frequencies (Curry) will be apportioned among species as
noted.
Fixed-Station Monitoring
Stand-alone operating telemetry arrays will be deployed at strategic locations on the middle and
upper river to provide migration checkpoints and spawning ground inventories. Each station will
include a radio receiver, power supply, antenna switcher, and two or three aerial antennas.
Antennas may be mounted in trees or on tripod-mounted poles, and orientated to distinguish
upstream/downstream movements by fish (i.e., direction of travel). Receivers will be
programmed to scan all middle river tag frequencies (Curry released) and record coded tags.
Initial station installation will include range testing to define the expected detection range
(approximately 900 linear feet at 10 foot water depth, configuration dependent) of each antenna.
Standard reference or “beacon” tags will be deployed at most fixed stations to provide a
continuous record of known signal detections. Fixed stations will be manually downloaded (i.e.,
by the field crew) on a weekly basis unless a remote communication protocol is established.
Raw telemetry files will be archived and then imported into the Telemetry Manager database
software for processing and summarizing throughout the season.
Proposed locations for radio-telemetry fixed stations in the middle river of the Susitna (Figure 2):
1. Gateway - mainstem of middle river about 4.2 miles below Curry (~ RM 116.5);
2. Confluence of Fifth of July Creek (RM 123.7);
3. Slough 11 (~ RM 135.3);
4. Confluence of Indian River (RM 138.6);
5. Slough 21 (~ RM 141.1);
Flathorn and RM 30 Curry
Frequencies (all species) Frequencies Species
151.033 151.710 Chinook
151.204 151.760 Chinook
151.264 151.780 Chinook
151.324 151.910 Chinook
151.343 151.920 Chum, Coho, Sockeye
151.363 151.930 Chum, Coho, Sockeye
151.384 151.940 Chum, Coho, Sockeye
151.404 151.950 Chum, Coho, Sockeye
151.423 151.960 Chum, Coho, Sockeye
151.500 151.970 Chum, Coho, Sockeye
151.510 151.980 Pink
151.520 151.990 Pink
151.530 152.000 Reference tags
151.540
151.560
151.570
151.580
151.633
Tagging Sites/Frequencies
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 11
6. Confluence of Portage Creek (RM 148.8);
7. Devils Canyon impasse (~ RM154);
8. Confluence of Kosina Creek (RM 206.8)
These sites were chosen based on: 1) the need to provide basic geographic separation of the
Middle River area to describe migration and spawning behaviors, 2) monitoring at the
appropriate resolution through the upper river area to quantify passage through Devils Canyon,
and 3) the need to focus mobile survey effort over an expansive area. At the Gateway station, a
second receiver (provided by ADF&G) will be dedicated to monitoring the 18 frequencies for fish
tagged in the lower river. When tagged fish are detected at this station, the individual tag
frequencies of these fish will be scanned during mobile aerial surveys of the middle river to
document their migration and final destination. See Objective 4 (below) for additional details
about the telemetric monitoring in Devils Canyon.
Telemetry Aerial Surveys
Aerial surveys of the mainstem Susitna from Flathorn up to Kosina Creek and/or the Oshetna
River will be conducted by helicopter to allow relatively accurate positioning of tagged fish as
compared to fixed-wing surveys, to locate spawning areas, and to make visual counts of fish in
clear water areas, all with respect to mainstem habitat type. Aerial surveys will begin in July
and end in early October (≈14 weeks). Survey timing may be adjusted depending on the
observed fishwheel catches in the lower and middle river. Surveys will be scheduled at 5-day
intervals with the intent to ensure a maximum of 7 days between surveys with weather
contingencies. In the event that fixed stations indicate that no tagged fish have migrated
upstream of Devils Canyon, aerial surveys to at least Kosina Creek will be conducted at least
three times to confirm these results. If radiotagged fish are detected moving upstream in the
mainstem at the Kosina Creek telemetry station, aerial surveys will be extended to locate those
radiotagged fish and visually survey for untagged fish.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 12
Figure 2. Proposed fixed-station telemetry locations in the middle and upper
reaches of the Susitna River.
Surveys via helicopter can be conducted at lower elevations and at slower speeds than can be
achieved using fixed wing, and therefore will allow more time for signal acquisition, higher
spatial resolution, and fish/habitat observations. Fixed-wing surveys are most appropriate when
the study goal is a spatial resolution of tagged fish locations to be within ≈800 m (to the nearest
0.5 river mile), as is the case for ADF&G’s fish apportionment study (i.e., the lower river
radiotagging). The goal for helicopter-based surveys is to be within ≈300 m, as well as to
determine whether the fish is in off-channel or the river mainstem habitat. Higher precision will
be achievable in reaches where conditions are most favorable. Geographic coordinates will be
recorded for each detected signal using an integrated communication link between the telemetry
receiver and a Global Positioning System (GPS). The position of the fish will be determined as
that position of the aircraft at the time of the highest signal power. Range testing of the mobile
aerial setup will be conducted in the lower river to confirm detection ranges for typical flying
heights, receiver gains, and antenna orientation, as well as to work with the helicopter pilot to
refine our methods for achieving highest spatial resolution.
The mainstem aerial surveys will need to cover over 200 river miles (RM 22 to RM 230), and
multiples of that total when side channels and braids of the lower river are included. To allocate
survey effort efficiently and to the highest priority needs, resolution will be a function of fish
behavior. The highest priority and highest resolution needs will be for fish that appear to be
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 13
holding or spawning. For migrating fish, resolution to the nearest 300 m of river will generally be
sufficient. The proposed frequent surveys will provide a means of focusing a higher-resolution
and time-intensive tracking effort on identifying exact locations of spawning and holding fish. To
do this, the aerial survey team will have available the most recent observed river locations (to
the nearest 1 km) of all mainstem fish “at large” (i.e., tagged and not tracked in a tributary).
During the survey, the “river km” of all detected fish will be compared to the last seen location
from previous surveys to ascertain whether its position has changed by more than 2 km. When
tagged fish are within 2 km of their last seen location, the helicopter will circle at a lower altitude
to pinpoint the fish location to mainstem, side channel, or slough habitats.
As well, when aggregations of two or more tagged fish are found “stationary” (i.e., within 2 km
on one or more surveys) and/or when visual observations of spawning fish are made from the
helicopter, ground- and boat-based surveys will pinpoint spawning locations to within 5-10 m.
This protocol will be particularly important for ensuring coverage of any suspected lower river
habitats with the appropriate level of spatial resolution.
The channel location (mainstem, side channel, slough) and relative water turbidity at the
location of the fish will be classified for each tag detected (time stamp, frequency, code, power
level) during aerial surveys. If other fish can be seen in the area of the tag position, their
relative abundance will be estimated to provide context for the tag observation.
Tag identification, coordinates, and habitat type data will be archived and systematically
processed after each survey. A data handling script will be used to extract unique tag records
with the highest power level from the receiver files generated during the survey. These records
will be imported into a custom database software application (Telemetry Manager) and
incorporated into a GIS-based mapping database. Geographically and temporally stratified data
of radiotagged fish will be provided to the habitat sampling team and Instream Flow Study to
inform their field sampling efforts.
Lower River Surveys
Mobile aerial surveys of the lower river will cover mainstem areas from Flathorn (RM 22) to the
confluence of the Chulitna River (RM 98). This reach is highly braided with side channels and
sloughs, so complete coverage will require considerable effort and in-flight route tracking. With
the survey protocol outlined above and the number of tags anticipated to be at-large on any one
survey, this area will require up to two survey days to complete.
Middle River Surveys
Mobile aerial surveys of the middle river will cover mainstem areas from the confluence of the
Chulitna River (RM 98) to the Devils Canyon impasse (≈ RM 150-154). This reach (52 miles)
will require approximately one day to complete, and as much as two days late in the season
when all tags are deployed.
Upper River Surveys
Mobile aerial surveys of the upper river will regularly cover the mainstem areas from Devils
Canyon (≈ RM 150-154) to the confluence of the Kosina Creek (RM 206.8). This reach will
include approximately 57 relatively confined river miles, and we predict we will see less than 50
tags at-large. This survey will require approximately one survey day; less when done in
conjunction with middle river surveys (i.e., when less conveyance time involved). Radiotagged
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 14
fish above Devils Canyon will be located to similar spatial resolution and habitat types as in the
middle and lower river surveys. The F-S4 study team will be informed of all radiotagged fish
movement above Devils Canyon and will be provided the locations of all spawning radiotagged
fish for measurements of microhabitat features.
Boat and Ground Surveys
Telemetry surveys also will be conducted by boat and on foot to obtain the most accurate and
highest resolution positions of spawning fish. Using the guidance of fixed-station and aerial
survey data on the known positions of tagged fish, specific locations of any concentration of
tagged fish that are suspected to be spawning will be visited to obtain individual fish positions.
We expect resolution to be within 5-10 m in turbid water and within 2-3 meters in clear water
(dependent on density and highest resolution at low densities). Underwater stripped-coax
antennas and judicious use of signal gain control will allow locating tagged fish and recording
their geographic position with a GPS. These data will be collected in concert with the field
activities and provided to the habitat suitability sampling team to inform their sampling efforts.
These surveys will be conducted approximately weekly during the July through September
mobile tracking period.
Objective 3: Assess the feasibility of using sonar to determine spawning
locations in turbid water.
Previous studies in the mainstem Susitna River have relied on late-season visual surveys of
redds to identify and characterize salmon spawning that occurs in turbid water after
temperatures have fallen and the river water has cleared. The efficacy of this technique in the
Susitna mainstem habitats has not been evaluated and may underestimate the extent of
spawning activity in turbid waters. Late-season visual surveys of redds may fall below 100% as
detection may vary with discharge, suspended sediment levels, etc. This study will explore the
feasibility of using sonar to sample turbid water to quantify spawning activity. Sonar has the
potential to detect redds in turbid water and confirm spawning activity by directly monitoring fish
behavior. Radio telemetry provides a powerful tool to identify suspected spawning activity but
subsequent sampling of fish with sonar may be needed to help determine whether spawning
has actually occurred. Net sampling may help to determine the degree of sexual maturation
and reduce confusion between holding and spawning areas in some instances.
To examine the feasibility of using sonar for this purpose, a combination of DIDSON and high
resolution side-scan sonar will be used in known clear-water spawning areas, in known turbid-
water spawning areas, and the results compared to visual surveys of spawning fish (in clear
water) and counts of redds (in clear but previously turbid water).
Sonar Equipment and Methods
The EdgeTech 4125 600/1600 kHz side-scan sonar can generate high-resolution images with
an across-track resolution of 0.6 cm, independent of the range sampled. The system is
therefore well suited for collecting data over large areas. Depending on the water depth, the
high frequency side-scan sonar can sample a swath of up to 50 m. As a rule of thumb, if the
transducer is 1 m above the bottom, one can “see” a ~10 m wide swath on each side of the
survey boat (port and starboard). The minimum water depth required for the deployment of the
transducer is approximately 0.5 m. The draft of the boat and boat motor may require deeper
water. The survey will be conducted at a boat speed of approximately 1 m/s, slower in shallow
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 15
water if there is a danger of hitting obstacles. Where the side-scan sonar encounters
aggregations of redds, the survey will periodically be paused to supplement the data with
stationary spot checks with a DIDSON.
DIDSON is a high-resolution imaging sonar that provides video-type images over a 29° field of
view and can thus be used to observe fish behavior associated with spawning, i.e., dynamic
behavior that cannot be identified on the static side-scan images. To obtain high-quality images
of adult salmon the maximum range will be limited to 15 m. Within this field of view, evidence of
spawning behavior, e.g., redd digging, chasing, spawning, will be clearly identifiable.
Furthermore, on DIDSON images fish can be classified by size category, e.g., < 40 cm, 40 – 70
cm, > 70 cm. While this is not sufficient for a direct species ID, it will give some separation of
smaller resident fish, medium-sized adult salmon, and large Chinook salmon. DIDSON sonar
has successfully been used to survey salmon redds in the Columbia River.
The feasibility study will focus on selected areas for which visual estimates with sufficient spatial
accuracy and resolution can be obtained. Approximately one third of the sampling effort will be
in clear-water sloughs where we expect to see spawning fish based on historical data. Another
third of the sampling effort will be directed toward areas where redds were historically observed
after the water had cleared up. The remaining third of the survey we would reserve for areas
that had been difficult to survey in the 1980s, or where no redds had been observed previously,
but where current information (radio telemetry, recent aerial photography, etc.) indicates
potential spawning sites. The selection of survey sites may be modified after the first survey
based on accessibility and telemetry data. The number of sites that can be covered in one
survey depends on their size as well as the travel time required to move between sites. Three
days for each survey should provide sufficient data to examine the feasibility of the technique.
At a minimum, we will conduct three surveys from early August through September. The goal is
to have the surveys coincide with the times when sockeye, chum, Chinook, and pink salmon are
actively spawning, and for the last survey, to wait until the water has cleared up to maximize the
chances of obtaining good visual comparison data. Additional surveys may be conducted in the
event that the radiotelemetry component of this study identifies suspected new spawning areas
in turbid water.
Data Analysis and Reporting
All sonar data will be collected along with a differential GPS with 10 Hz positioning rate. The
GPS coordinates together with heading, pitch and roll information will allow us to match side-
scan and DIDSON data with the visual ground-truthed data. The visual data will be collected by
an independent crew. The side-scan analysis will provide locations for individual redds or redd
fields. The DIDSON data analysis will provide the coordinates, coverage and duration of each
station surveyed, together with the mean number of fish observed in the field of view, their size
category (< 40 cm, 40 – 70 cm, > 70 cm) and a qualitative description of their behavior.
The results will be compared to those obtained with aerial and/or ground-based visual
observations and radio telemetry. Visual observations made under good conditions will
represent the expected value. When visual conditions are less than ideal (e.g., poor visibility,
redds covered with silt) sonar may detect redds that may be missed in the visual surveys. The
results will be assessed in terms of the number and location of redds (or redd fields) and
associated fish detected, the ability to observe actively spawning fish, the correspondence of
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 16
areas surveyed where no sign of spawning activity was seen, and the conditions under which it
was possible to make observations. The results will also include screen shots of selected side-
scan images and DIDSON video clips and a map overlay. A cost-benefit analysis will
summarize the trade-offs involved in the different methods.
The final report will present the methods, the results and their discussion, and provide
recommendations whether or not to use side-scan in conjunction with DIDSON sonar for future
spawning habitat surveys. This report will be included as an appendix in the study report.
Objective 4: Characterize salmon migration behavior and timing above Devils Canyon.
A combination of fixed-station receivers below (middle river at the Portage Creek confluence),
and above Devils Canyon (≈ RM 154) will be used to determine the migration timing and
behavior of any radiotagged salmon that pass into the Upper river area (Figure 2). Fixed station
receivers will be deployed at locations where they will have the highest probability of detecting
radiotagged salmon. The fixed station deployed at the confluence with Kosina Creek will
provide additional information that can be used to assess the detection efficiencies for all
mainstem fixed-station receivers downstream from this site. The data from these receivers will
also be used to identify the broad reaches where radio-tagged fish are located to guide the
aerial and ground based survey efforts needed to identify spawning areas.
The mobile survey data will aid in confirming the presence of radio-tagged fish, and locating any
fish not detected at downstream fixed-station receiver sites. These additional detections will be
combined with the fixed-station data to estimate detection efficiencies for each fixed-station
receiver as done in other studies (e.g., English et al. 2005; Robichaud and English 2007).
Aerial surveys will be conducted in the mainstem Susitna to at least Kosina Creek; they will
begin when fish are first detected at the Devils Canyon station and continue through late
September. The timing and proportion of tagged salmon to pass Devils Canyon will be
calculated, and their final spawning locations will be identified.
Objective 5: Compare historical and recent data on relative abundance, locations
of spawning and holding salmon, and use of mainstem habitat types
by adult salmon.
Research effort in the early 1980s provided information relevant to this study. Annual
abundance estimates relevant to at least four fishwheel sites along the Susitna River mainstem
were developed in each of three years (1983-85). These abundance estimates were
apportioned to mainstem, sloughs, and tributaries, and the results will be useful for assessing
the potential impacts of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project. One weakness of these
studies was that they relied heavily on visual observations of fish (and abandoned late-season
redds). These methods and results may underestimate the use and relative importance of
mainstem habitats, many of which are covered in turbid water during a substantial portion of the
spawning period. Another more general concern is that data collected approximately 30 years
ago may not characterize the current habitat use in the mainstem Susitna River.
This study will address both of these concerns by deploying a similarly scaled study of the
spawning runs to the Susitna in 2012-14 and using radio telemetry and sonar technology not
available and/or used in the 1980s. Both methods will provide a more rigorous characterization
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 17
of the use of mainstem habitats than methods used in the 1980s. To the extent spawning
distribution and habitat use in the current study are similar to earlier studies, it will greatly
increase the sample size and confidence in the conclusions from studies in both periods.
Therefore, it will be important to explicitly compare and contrast the distribution and habitat use
of salmon in the lower, middle, and upper river habitats of the Susitna River.
In addition, new instream flow studies (F-S5) are proposed for 2013-14, and results from this
study will help guide the site selection for that study. Similarities and differences in habitat use
between the 1980s and now will influence the selection of IFIM study sites.
Objective 6: Locate individual holding and spawning salmon in clear and turbid
water and collect habitat data from spawning salmon in the middle
and lower river mainstem consistent with developing habitat
suitability criteria for instream flow modeling.
Beginning in early August and continuing into October 2012, we will locate clear and turbid
water locations in the mainstem middle and lower Susitna River that are representative of
different habitats (side-channels, sloughs, and tributary mouths) used by spawning salmon.
From these habitats, 10 to 20 redds for each salmon species will be sampled for microhabitat
data (water depth, water velocity, turbidity, substrate size and composition, surface and
intergravel water temperature, and vertical hydraulic gradient). These data will be used to
develop habitat suitability criteria (HSC) for spawning salmon. Spawning habitats located, but
not sampled for microhabitat in 2012, will be sampled as part of the 2013-2014 study. This field
effort will be coordinated with the Instream Flow Program (ISF) staff to ensure data are collected
consistent with requirements for developing habitat suitability criteria. As part of the integration
of this study with ISF study (F-S5), we will provide the ISF team with spawning habitat locations
and microhabitat data to be used in the development of their ISF model. The compilation of site
locations will also be supplied to the aquatic habitat and geomorphic mapping team as part of
integration with the G-S2 study; this will ensure that the necessary sections of river are digitized.
To locate turbid and clear water mainstem spawning locations in the lower and middle Susitna
River, we will use existing data (concurrent radio telemetry studies, recent ADF&G radio
telemetry studies, and 1980s data) to identify known and potential spawning locations to include
as study sites. Spawning locations in turbid water areas will be identified with the use of radio
telemetry tracking and/or sonar (combination of DIDSON and side scan sonar) technologies.
Some pre-selected sites, based on historic data, will be sampled in 2012. These sites will
include 2 to 4 documented sloughs above river mile 98.6 where the percent distribution of visual
counts of spawning fish was greater than 10% of the total annual counts in the middle Susitna
River for a given species. This will be done for each species documented to spawn in mainstem
habitats (chum, sockeye, and pink salmon) from 1981-1983 (Table 2). These sites selections
will allow us to begin to characterize the microhabitats for salmon spawning in the middle
Susitna River. Additional sites will be determined in-season from telemetry tracking and aerial
visual surveys.
Table 2. Distribution of visual counts of sockeye, chum, and pink salmon in mainstem habitats
in the middle Susitna River based on the average percent of the annual counts by slough name
and river mile. Shaded values represent the locations with greater than 5% of the annual
counts.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 18
Data for developing HSC will be collected following close collaboration and direction from the
ISF team. Species-specific microhabitat data will be collected at the time of spawning. Data
will include measurements of redd area, water depth, water velocity, turbidity, substrate size and
composition, surface and intergravel water temperature, and vertical hydraulic gradient. Each of
these measurements will be made at redds. At each site up to 5 redds will be systematically
sampled. Coordinates will be recorded for the upper and lower extent of each spawning patch
(grouping of redds) that has been sampled.
Habitat surveys will be conducted by walking the habitat reach or sub-plot in an upstream
direction and identifying the location of newly constructed redds. For each redd sampled, the
following measurements will be made:
1. Redd dimensions, length and width, to nearest 1.0 cm, to allow computation of area;
Slough River Mile Sockeye Chum Pink
1 99.6 0.0 0.1 0.0
2 100.2 0.0 1.2 0.0
3B 101.4 0.3 * 0.0
3A 101.9 0.3 0.0 *
4 105.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 107.6 0.0 * 0.0
6 108.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
6A 112.3 0.0 0.3 6.3
7 113.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
8 113.7 0.0 4.6 4.2
8D 121.8 0.0 0.4 0.0
8C 121.9 0.1 0.8 0.0
8B 122.2 0.3 2.8 0.0
Moose 123.5 1.2 3.9 1.6
A' 124.6 0.0 3.3 0.0
A' 124.7 0.0 0.6 0.5
8A 125.4 13.0 15.1 5.2
B 126.3 0.6 1.5 8.4
9 128.3 0.7 11.1 2.1
9B 129.2 3.4 1.5 0.0
9A 133.8 0.1 6.2 0.0
10 133.8 0.0 * 0.0
11 135.3 66.3 16.9 24.1
12 135.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
13 135.9 0.0 0.1 0.0
14 135.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
15 137.2 0.0 * 23.0
16 137.3 0.0 * 0.0
17 138.9 0.5 2.3 0.0
18 139.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
19 139.7 1.1 0.1 0.5
20 140.0 0.1 1.7 12.6
21 141.1 12.0 20.2 11.5
22 144.5 0.0 5.2 0.0
21A 145.3 0.0 0.1 0.0
*Indicates a location were a trace of fish were observed
Distribution (% of annual observations)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 19
2. Water depth to the nearest 1.0 cm at the upstream end of each redd measured using a
top setting wading rod;
3. Mean water column velocity (m/s) at the upstream end of each redd to the nearest 0.01
m/s using a Swoffer Model 2100 or Marsh McBirney Flow Mate 2000 current meter;
4. Turbidity to the nearest 1.0 NTU;
5. Substrate size (dominant, sub-dominant, and percent dominant);
6. Surface and intergravel water temperature to the nearest 0.1 oC. Intergravel
temperature measurements will be taken at a depth representative of the average egg
burial depth from literature for each salmon species;
a. Chinook salmon = 30.0 cm (Healey 1991).
b. Chum salmon = 35.0 cm (Salo 1991).
c. Coho and pink salmon = 25.0 cm (Sandercock 1991; Heard 1991).
d. Sockeye salmon = 20.0 cm (Burgner 1991).
7. Vertical hydraulic gradient (upwelling or downwelling) will be measured using mini-
standpipe piezometers. Piezometer installation depth will follow the same, previously
mentioned, criteria as measurements of intergravel temperature. Measurements will be
made to the nearest 1.0 mm.
In addition, representative digital photographs of selected redds will be taken. Collected data
will be checked for errors and supplied to the ISF team to be used as HSC for ISF.
Objective 7: Examine the effectiveness of methods used in 2012 to address study
goals and objectives, and assess their suitability for future years’
studies.
As part of the study report, we will examine the study’s overall success toward meeting its
objectives and goals. A critical evaluation will be required to make improvements to the 2013-
14 studies and make any improvements to the usefulness of this study to guide the instream
flow study. The ultimate use of results of this study is as input to the instream flow model, which
will assess potential Project-related impacts.
6. NEXUS BETWEEN PROJECT AND RESOURCES TO BE STUDIED AND HOW THE
RESULTS WILL BE USED
Project facilities and operations will modify the flow, thermal, and sediment regimes of the
Susitna River, which may alter the composition and distribution of fish habitat. Knowing the
seasonal use of different riverine habitat types by fish species and life-stage is essential to
evaluating the impact of potential Project-induced changes on habitat and in turn on fish species
composition, distribution and abundance. Information from this habitat utilization study will also
be used in combination with other studies, including the geomorphology studies, Instream Flow
Study, and Production Study.
Existing fish and aquatic resource information appears insufficient to address the following
issues that were identified in the PAD (AEA 2011):
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 20
F4: Effect of Project operations on flow regimes, sediment transport, temperature, and water
quality that would result in changes to seasonal availability and quality of aquatic habitats,
including primary and secondary productivity. The effect of Project-induced changes include
stream flow, stream ice processes, and channel morphology (streambed coarsening) on
anadromous fish spawning and incubation habitat availability and suitability in the mainstem and
side channels and sloughs in the Middle River above and below Devils Canyon.
F5: Potential effect of Project flow regime on anadromous fish migration above Devils Canyon.
Devils Canyon is a velocity barrier to most fish movement and changes in flows could result in
changes in potential fish movement through this area (approximately RM 150-154).
F6: Potential influence of the proposed Project flow regime and the associated response of
tributary mouths on fish movement between the mainstem and tributaries within the Middle
River reach.
F7: Influence of Project-induced changes to mainstem water surface elevations from July
through September on adult salmon access to upland sloughs, side sloughs, and side channels.
F8: Potential effect of Project-induced changes to stream temperatures, particularly in winter,
changing the distribution of fish communities, particularly invasive northern pike.
7. STUDY PRODUCTS
Data
All original data collected in the field in 2012 will be entered into the relational database
described below, QA/QC’d, and delivered to AEA.
Geospatially-Referenced Relational Database
All data generated during this study will be incorporated into the Susitna Fish Program
geospatially-referenced relational database. This database will form the basis for additional
data collection in 2013-2014. All new field data will be associated with location information
collected using a GPS receiver in unprojected geographic coordinates (latitude/longitude) and
the WGS84 datum. Naming conventions of files and data fields, spatial resolution, and
metadata descriptions will meet the ADNR standards established for the Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project.
Spatial Products in ArcGIS Software
The geospatial products will include geodatabases and maps indicating survey area,
radiotagged fish locations by survey, habitat types used by spawning fish, habitat data, and
locations of significant features such as barriers and springs. Naming conventions of files, data
fields, and metadata descriptions will meet the ADNR standards established for the Susitna-
Watana Hydroelectric Project. All map and spatial data products will be delivered in the two-
dimensional Alaska Albers Conical Equal Area projection and North American Datum of 1983
(NAD 83) horizontal datum consistent with ADNR standards.
Summary of Interim Results
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 21
A brief interim report will be prepared and presented to the licensing participants to document
the progress of the study, identify any issues that have occurred, and allow for further
refinement of the 2013-2014 studies.
Technical Memorandum
A technical memo summarizing the 2012 results will be presented to resource agency personnel
and other licensing participants, along with spatial data products.
Project Report
A report will be prepared that documents the methods, field effort, results, conclusions, and
recommendations from the 2012 study.
8. SCHEDULE
This is a multi-year study and includes an ongoing study planning component. The schedule for
the 2013-2014 components will be developed in coordination with the AEA during the 2013-2014
study planning process.
• Final Draft 2013-2014 Study Plan – March 23, 2012.
• Summary of Interim Results – September 10, 2012.
• Original QC’d 2012 Data - December 1, 2012.
• QC’d geospatially-referenced relational database – December 1, 2012.
• Technical Memorandum on 2012 Activity – December 1, 2012.
• Draft report, December 7, 2012.
• Final report, December 31, 2012.
9. REFERENCES
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2011a. Pre-Application Document: Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 14241, December 29, 2011.
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2011b. Aquatic Resources Data Gap Analysis. Draft. Prepared
for Alaska Energy Authority. July 20, 2011.
Burgner, R. L. 1991. Life history of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) In: Groot, C. and
Margolis, L. (eds). Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C., pp. 1-118.
English; K. K., W. R. Koski; C. Sliwinski; A. Blakley; A. Cass, and J. C. Woodey. 2005.
Migration timing and river survival of late-run Fraser River sockeye salmon estimated
using radiotelemetry techniques. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134:
1342-1365.
Healey, M. C. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) In: Groot, C.
and Margolis, L. (eds). Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C., pp.
311-394.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 22
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., and English, K. K. 2007. River entry timing, survival and migration behaviour of
Fraser River sockeye salmon in 2006. Report prepared for Fisheries and Oceans,
Canada, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C., August 2007.
Salo, E. O. 1991. Life history of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) In: Groot, C. and Margolis
L. (eds). Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C., pp. 231-310.
Sandercock, F. K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) In: Groot, C. and
Margolis L. (eds). Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C., pp. 395-
446
Smith, J. J., D. Robichaud, K. K. English, and P. Johnson. 2009. Feasibility of fishwheel use
for escapement estimation and results from the salmon radio-tracking on the lower
Fraser River in 2008. Prepared by LGL Limited, Sidney, for the Pacific Salmon
Commission and Fraser Salmon and Watersheds Program, Vancouver, BC.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2007. Instream flow study guidelines: Technical
and habitat suitability isues including fish preference curves. Olympia, Washington.
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.
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 23
APPENDIX A: Anticipated daily catches at Curry based on historical catches and run
timing and preliminary radiotagging goals for each of five species of
salmon at Curry in 2012, based on fitting a normal curve to the
average annual catches and run duration in two fishwheels 1983-85
(1984 for an even-year pink salmon run). The second set of figures
show the daily catches by species from two fishwheels at Curry, 1983-
85.
Figure A-1. Anticipated daily catch rates by species in two fishwheels at Curry, based
on fitting a normal curve to the historical catch data from 1983-85.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1-Jun8-Jun15-Jun22-Jun29-Jun6-Jul13-Jul20-Jul27-Jul3-Aug10-Aug17-Aug24-Aug31-AugPink AbundanceNon-Pink AbundanceChinook
Sockeye
Coho
Chum
Pink
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 24
Table A-1. Anticipated catches and tagging goals by species for salmon to be captured
at Curry.
Fishwheel Catch based Historical Average Total Tagging Goal
Chinook Sockeye Coho Chum Pink Catch Chinook Sockeye Coho Chum Pink Total
Calibration Parameters
Abundance 1000 300 215 2131 17394 400 200 200 200 200
50% Date 1-Jul 4-Aug 12-Aug 3-Aug 31-Jul 1-Jul 4-Aug 12-Aug 3-Aug 31-Jul
Spread 25 30 30 30 20 25 30 30 30 20
% Tagged 40% 67% 93% 9% 1%
Predicted catch and tag daily deployment
1-Jun 0 00000 0 00000
2-Jun 0 00000 0 00000
3-Jun 0 00000 0 00000
4-Jun 0 00000 0 00000
5-Jun 0 00000 0 00000
6-Jun 0 00000 0 00000
7-Jun 0 00000 0 00000
8-Jun 0 00000 0 00000
9-Jun 0 00000 0 00000
10-Jun 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
11-Jun 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
12-Jun 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
13-Jun 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1
14-Jun 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1
15-Jun 4 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 2
16-Jun 5 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 2
17-Jun 7 0 0 0 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 3
18-Jun 10 0 0 0 0 10 4 0 0 0 0 4
19-Jun 13 0 0 0 0 13 5 0 0 0 0 5
20-Jun 16 0 0 0 0 16 6 0 0 0 0 6
21-Jun 20 0 0 0 0 20 8 0 0 0 0 8
22-Jun 25 0 0 0 0 25 10 0 0 0 0 10
23-Jun 29 0 0 0 0 29 12 0 0 0 0 12
24-Jun 35 0 0 0 0 35 14 0 0 0 0 14
25-Jun 40 0 0 0 0 40 16 0 0 0 0 16
26-Jun 45 0 0 0 0 45 18 0 0 0 0 18
27-Jun 49 0 0 0 0 49 20 0 0 0 0 20
28-Jun 53 0 0 0 0 53 21 0 0 0 0 21
29-Jun 56 0 0 0 0 56 22 0 0 0 0 22
30-Jun 58 0 0 0 0 58 23 0 0 0 0 23
1-Jul 58 0 0 0 0 58 23 0 0 0 0 23
2-Jul 58 0 0 0 0 58 23 0 0 0 0 23
3-Jul 56 0 0 0 0 56 22 0 0 0 0 22
4-Jul 53 0 0 0 0 53 21 0 0 0 0 21
5-Jul 49 0 0 0 0 49 20 0 0 0 0 20
6-Jul 45 0 0 0 0 45 18 0 0 0 0 18
7-Jul 40 0 0 0 0 40 16 0 0 0 0 16
8-Jul 35 0 0 1 0 36 14 0 0 0 0 14
9-Jul 29 0 0 1 0 30 12 0 0 0 0 12
10-Jul 25 0 0 1 1 27 10 0 0 0 0 10
11-Jul 20 0 0 2 2 24 8 0 0 0 0 8
12-Jul 16 0 0 3 3 22 6 0 0 0 0 6
13-Jul 13 0 0 4 6 23 5 0 0 0 0 5
14-Jul 10 1 0 5 10 26 4 0 0 1 0 5
15-Jul 7 1 0 7 18 33 3 1 0 1 0 5
16-Jul 5 1 0 9 30 45 2 1 0 1 0 4
17-Jul 4 1 0 12 49 66 2 1 0 1 1 5
18-Jul 3 2 0 16 76 97 1 1 0 1 1 4
19-Jul 2 2 0 20 116 140 1 1 0 2 1 5
20-Jul 1 3 0 24 170 198 1 2 0 2 2 7
21-Jul 1 3 0 30 240 274 0 2 0 3 3 8
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 25
Fishwheel Catch based Historical Average Total Tagging Goal
Chinook Sockeye Coho Chum Pink Catch Chinook Sockeye Coho Chum Pink Total
Calibration Parameters
Abundance 1000 300 215 2131 17394 400 200 200 200 200
50% Date 1-Jul 4-Aug 12-Aug 3-Aug 31-Jul 1-Jul 4-Aug 12-Aug 3-Aug 31-Jul
Spread 25 30 30 30 20 25 30 30 30 20
% Tagged 40% 67% 93% 9% 1%
Predicted catch and tag daily deployment
22-Jul 1 4 0 36 330 371 0 3 0 3 4 10
23-Jul 0 5 1 42 437 485 0 3 1 4 5 13
24-Jul 0 6 1 49 561 617 0 4 1 5 6 16
25-Jul 0 7 1 57 696 761 0 5 1 5 8 19
26-Jul 0 8 1 64 835 908 0 5 1 6 10 22
27-Jul 0 9 2 72 969 1052 0 6 1 7 11 25
28-Jul 0 10 2 79 1089 1180 0 7 2 7 13 29
29-Jul 0 11 2 86 1183 1282 0 7 2 8 14 31
30-Jul 0 12 3 92 1244 1351 0 8 3 9 14 34
31-Jul 0 13 4 97 1264 1378 0 9 3 9 15 36
1-Aug 0 14 4 100 1244 1362 0 9 4 9 14 36
2-Aug 0 14 5 103 1183 1305 0 9 5 10 14 38
3-Aug 0 14 6 103 1089 1212 0 10 5 10 13 38
4-Aug 0 15 6 103 969 1093 0 10 6 10 11 37
5-Aug 0 14 7 100 835 956 0 10 7 9 10 36
6-Aug 0 14 8 97 696 815 0 9 7 9 8 33
7-Aug 0 14 9 92 561 676 0 9 8 9 6 32
8-Aug 0 13 9 86 437 545 0 9 9 8 5 31
9-Aug 0 12 10 79 330 431 0 8 9 7 4 28
10-Aug 0 11 10 72 240 333 0 7 9 7 3 26
11-Aug 0 10 10 64 170 254 0 7 10 6 2 25
12-Aug 0 9 10 57 116 192 0 6 10 5 1 22
13-Aug 0 8 10 49 76 143 0 5 10 5 1 21
14-Aug 0 7 10 42 49 108 0 5 9 4 1 19
15-Aug 0 6 10 36 30 82 0 4 9 3 0 16
16-Aug 0 5 9301862 0 3 9 3 015
17-Aug 0 4 9241047 0 3 8 2 013
18-Aug 0 3 8 20 6 37 0 2 7 2 0 11
19-Aug 0 3 7 16 3 29 0 2 7 1 0 10
20-Aug 0 2 6 12 2 22 0 1 6 1 0 8
21-Aug 0 2 6 9 1 18 0 1 5 1 0 7
22-Aug 0 1 5 7 0 13 0 1 5 1 0 7
23-Aug 0 1 4 5 0 10 0 1 4 1 0 6
24-Aug 0 14409 0 13004
25-Aug 0 13307 0 03003
26-Aug 0 02204 0 02002
27-Aug 0 02103 0 02002
28-Aug 0 02103 0 01001
29-Aug 0 01102 0 01001
30-Aug 0 01001 0 01001
31-Aug 0 01001 0 01001
1-Sep 0 01001 0 01001
2-Sep 0 00000 0 00000
3-Sep 0 00000 0 00000
1004 297 212 2127 17394 401 198 198 198 201
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 26
Figures A-2 to A-6. Daily catches by species in two fishwheels at Curry, 1983-85.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
9-Jun16-Jun23-Jun30-Jun7-Jul14-Jul21-Jul28-Jul4-Aug11-Aug18-Aug25-Aug1-Sep8-Sep15-Sep1983
1984
1985
Chinook
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
9-Jun16-Jun23-Jun30-Jun7-Jul14-Jul21-Jul28-Jul4-Aug11-Aug18-Aug25-Aug1-Sep8-Sep15-Sep1983
1984
1985
Sockeye
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
9-Jun16-Jun23-Jun30-Jun7-Jul14-Jul21-Jul28-Jul4-Aug11-Aug18-Aug25-Aug1-Sep8-Sep15-Sep1983
1984
1985
Pink
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC #14241 Alaska Energy Authority
Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, F-S3 Page 27
0
5
10
15
20
25
9-Jun16-Jun23-Jun30-Jun7-Jul14-Jul21-Jul28-Jul4-Aug11-Aug18-Aug25-Aug1-Sep8-Sep15-Sep1983
1984
1985
Coho
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
9-Jun16-Jun23-Jun30-Jun7-Jul14-Jul21-Jul28-Jul4-Aug11-Aug18-Aug25-Aug1-Sep8-Sep15-Sep1983
1984
1985
Chum