HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa190Alaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
2012 upper Susitna River fish distribution and habitat study : fish
distribution report
SuWa 190
Author(s) – Personal:
Author(s) – Corporate:
Prepared by HDR Alaska, Inc.
AEA-identified category, if specified:
2012 Environmental Studies
AEA-identified series, if specified:
Series (ARLIS-assigned report number):
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 190
Existing numbers on document:
Published by:
[Anchorage, Alaska : Alaska Energy Authority, 2013]
Date published:
April 2013
Published for:
Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority
Date or date range of report:
Volume and/or Part numbers:
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Document type:
Pagination:
v, 95, [54] p.
Related work(s):
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 No. 14241)
2012 Upper Susitna River Fish Distribution
and Habitat Study
Fish Distribution Report
Prepared for
Alaska Energy Authority
Prepared by
HDR Alaska, Inc
2525 C Street
Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
April 2013
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page i April 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary .........................................................................................................................................1
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................1
2. Adult Salmon Spawning Ground Surveys .......................................................................1
2.1. Study Objectives ......................................................................................................2
2.2. Study Area ...............................................................................................................2
2.3. Methods....................................................................................................................2
2.3.1. Survey Frequency and Data Collection ...................................................... 2
2.3.2. Data Review and Quality Control ............................................................... 3
2.3.3. Survey Confidence ...................................................................................... 3
2.4. Deviations from Study Plan .....................................................................................3
2.5. Results ......................................................................................................................4
2.5.1. Distribution and Relative Abundance ......................................................... 5
2.5.2. Genetic Sampling ........................................................................................ 5
2.5.3. Spawning Habitat Characterization ............................................................ 5
2.5.4. Survey Confidence ...................................................................................... 5
2.5.5. Paired Surveys ............................................................................................ 6
2.6. Discussion and Conclusion ......................................................................................6
3. Distribution of Juvenile Chinook and Other Species in the Upper Susitna River.......7
3.1. Study Objectives ......................................................................................................7
3.2. Study Area ...............................................................................................................8
3.3. Methods....................................................................................................................8
3.3.1. Sample Site Selection ................................................................................. 8
3.3.2. Field Data Collection .................................................................................. 9
3.3.3. Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 15
3.3.4. Data Review and Quality Control ............................................................. 15
3.3.5. Deviations from Study Plan ...................................................................... 15
3.4. Results ....................................................................................................................16
3.4.1. Sampling Gear .......................................................................................... 17
3.4.2. Spatial Distribution ................................................................................... 19
3.4.3. Genetics..................................................................................................... 36
3.4.4. Tissue Metals Content............................................................................... 36
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ii April 2013
3.4.5. Otolith Microchemistry ............................................................................. 37
3.5. Discussion and Conclusion ....................................................................................37
3.5.1. Existing Fish Species Distribution Data Summary ................................... 37
3.5.2. Fish Species Distribution in the Upper Susitna River Study Area ........... 38
3.5.3. Chinook Salmon in the Upper Susitna River Study Area ......................... 39
3.5.4. Fish Collection Methodologies Influencing Success ................................ 40
3.5.5. Conclusion ................................................................................................ 41
4. References .........................................................................................................................42
5. Tables ................................................................................................................................45
6. Figures ...............................................................................................................................69
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. 2012 Upper Susitna River aerial spawning surveys results summary. ........................... 45
Table 2. Summary of weather variability survey confidence criteria during aerial
spawning surveys. ................................................................................................................. 46
Table 3. Summary of survey confidence criteria during aerial spawning surveys. ...................... 46
Table 4. Summary of previous adult Chinook salmon observations upstream of Devils
Canyon. ................................................................................................................................. 46
Table 5. Number of surveys, or sample units, by gear type in tributary, tributary plume,
mainstem Susitna River, and lake habitats in the Upper Susitna River study area,
July-August 2012. ................................................................................................................. 47
Table 6. Summary of mesohabitats sampled in tributary streams during backpack
electrofishing surveys in the Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012. ............... 48
Table 7. Total number and size range of fish captured by backpack electrofishing, boat-
based electrofishing, fyke nets, minnow traps, and angling in the Upper Susitna
River study area, July-August 2012. ..................................................................................... 50
Table 8. Fish captured and observed during backpack electrofish surveys, by target
habitat, in the Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012. ...................................... 51
Table 9. Fish captured and observed during boat-based electrofish surveys, by target
habitat, in the Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012. ...................................... 52
Table 10. Fish captured by minnow traps, by target habitat, in the Upper Susitna River
study area, July-August 2012. ............................................................................................... 53
Table 11. Fish captured by fyke nets, by target habitat, in the Upper Susitna River study
area, July-August 2012. ........................................................................................................ 54
Table 12. Fish captured by angling, by target habitat, in the Upper Susitna River study
area, July-August 2012. ........................................................................................................ 55
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iii April 2013
Table 13. Fish observed during snorkel surveys, by target habitat, in the Upper Susitna
River study area, July-August 2012. ..................................................................................... 56
Table 14. Fish captured and observed and gear types used in tributary and lake habitats,
Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012. ............................................................. 57
Table 15. Fish captured and observed and gear types used in the mainstem Susitna River
at tributary plume habitats, Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012. ................. 59
Table 16. Fish captured and observed during backpack electrofish surveys, by stream, in
the Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012. ....................................................... 60
Table 17. Catch-per-unit time (CPUE) (fish captured/minute) by stream for fish captured
during backpack electrofish surveys, in the Upper Susitna River study area, July-
August 2012. ......................................................................................................................... 62
Table 18. Fish captured from the mainstem Susitna River by electrofishing, Upper
Susitna River study area, July-August 2012. ........................................................................ 64
Table 19. Fish species presence in tributary and lake habitats in the Upper Susitna study
area, combining historic data, and data collected from July-August 2012. .......................... 65
Table 20. Summary of Chinook salmon observations based on historical data and July-
August 2012 sampling effort, Upper Susitna River study. ................................................... 67
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Upper Susitna River Adult Salmon Spawning Ground Survey Extent Showing
the Peak 2012 Chinook Salmon Counts. ............................................................................... 69
Figure 2. Study area for fish distribution sampling in the Upper Susitna River, July-
August 2012. ......................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 3. Gear types used during fish species distribution sampling in the Upper Susitna
River study area, July-August 2012, 1 of 2. ......................................................................... 71
Figure 4. Gear types used during fish species distribution sampling in the Upper Susitna
River study area, July-August 2012, 2 of 2. ......................................................................... 72
Figure 5. Fish species distribution for areas sampled in the Upper Susitna River study
area, July-August 2012, 1 of 2. ............................................................................................. 73
Figure 6. Fish species distribution for areas sampled in the Upper Susitna River study
area, July-August 2012, 2 of 2. ............................................................................................. 74
Figure 7. Chinook salmon observations from recent fish distribution surveys throughout
the Upper Susitna River drainage (ADF&G 2011). .............................................................. 75
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iv April 2013
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Adult Salmon Aerial Survey Detail Map
Appendix B. Adult Salmon Aerial Survey Representative Photographs
Appendix C. Descriptions of Tributary Streams in the Study Area Surveyed for Fish
Distribution
Appendix D. Susitna River Mainstem and Mesohabitat Type Descriptions and Substrate
Size Classes
Appendix E. Genetics Tissue Sampling Guidance
Appendix F. Representative Photographs, 2012
Appendix G. Length-frequency Histograms for Select Fish Species and Locations, 2012
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page v April 2013
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SCIENTIFIC LABELS
Abbreviation Definition
ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
AFFI Alaska Freshwater Fish Inventory
ANOVA analysis of variance
ARDGA Aquatic Resources Data Gap Analysis
CPUE catch-per-unit-effort
DNA deoxyribonucleic acid
EtOH Isopropanol/Methanol/Ethanol
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FL fork length
FRP Fish Resource Permit
GIS Geographic Information System
GPP Gas-Powered Pulsator
GPS Global Positioning System
ILP Integrated Licensing Process
km2 square kilometer
kW Kilowatt
m Meter
MANOVA multivariate analysis of variance
mi2 square mile
mL Milliliter
mm Millimeter
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHD National Hydrography Dataset
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
PAD Pre-Application Document
Project Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
RM Susitna River historic river mile
TL total length
USFS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
YOY young-of-the-year
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1 April 2013
SUMMARY
Two study components were conducted to document distribution and relative abundance of adult
Chinook salmon and provide information on the distribution of all fish species and aquatic
habitats upstream of Devils Canyon.
Adult Salmon Distribution
The 2012 Adult Salmon Distribution Study was initiated to provide information on the
distribution and relative abundance of adult Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the
Susitna River and its tributaries upstream of Devils Canyon (RM 150-152). This study consisted
of aerial surveys in the mainstem Upper Susitna River and 12 major tributaries from Cheechako
Creek (RM 152.4) to the Oshetna River (RM 233.5).
Based on available run time information, four aerial spawning ground survey events were
scheduled at 5-day intervals from July 24 through August 11, 2012. Overall, weather was
favorable throughout the survey period and while variable (from sunny to light rain), did not
negatively impact survey confidence and did not prevent or delay survey completion. Surveys
were conducted by a two-person crew and covered the Chinook salmon spawning habitat within
the 12 major tributaries and the mainstem Upper Susitna River.
Adult salmon surveys conducted in 2012 were the most comprehensive to date within the Upper
Susitna River watershed. Adult Chinook salmon distribution observed in this study is similar to
that found previously. Chinook salmon was the only Pacific salmon species observed above
Devils Canyon. In general, counts of Chinook salmon were low in all tributaries and were fairly
consistent across survey dates. Adult Chinook salmon were located in five tributaries, with the
highest number (16) observed in Kosina Creek. Other tributaries with Chinook salmon included
Cheechako (5), Chinook (4), Devil (7), and Fog (1) creeks.
Meso-habitat type and substrate composition were visually estimated at seven locations where
adult Chinook salmon were observed: three locations in Chinook Creek, three locations in Devils
Creek, and one location in Kosina Creek. Riffle was the dominant meso-habitat among all sites
surveyed, and the dominant substrate was cobble.
This study was challenged by the vast extent of the survey area, water with low visibility due to
whitewater and boulder riffles, the relatively small number of fish that return to tributaries above
Devils Canyon, and a lack of documented spawning locations. Poor visibility due to white water
turbulence was present in approximately 50 percent of all streams surveyed and limited data
collection in these areas. As such, visual surveys likely accounted for only a portion of the
spawning population and the number of salmon observed should be considered a minimum
estimate of the number present in the study area.
Juvenile Chinook Salmon and Other Species Distribution within and above Devils
Canyon
The Fish Distribution Study was initiated to provide information on the distribution of all fish
species and aquatic habitats within and upstream of Devils Canyon. Information regarding fish
distribution, including distribution of juvenile Chinook salmon, is important to define the extent
of potential Project effects to fish and aquatic habitat and will inform the planning and design of
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2 April 2013
future Upper Susitna River fish studies. For this study, locations previously documented with
juvenile or adult Chinook salmon presence were identified as the highest priority areas for
sampling.
Sampling was conducted during July and August, 2012. Fish distribution sampling in two
habitats (tributary and lake) was conducted throughout 27 tributary sub-basins. A total of 233
meso-habitat sample units within 27 tributary streams were sampled. In addition, four lakes
located in tributary sub-basins were sampled.
Within tributaries, sampling effort was stratified from the stream mouth to the upper watershed
based on channel gradient and valley confinement. However, the availability of helicopter
landing zones also played a part in the selection of sites. Fish distribution sampling was also
conducted in the mainstem at tributary plumes in the vicinity of 18 tributary mouths and in main
channel, side channel, Susitna River and off-channel habitats at 10 locations on the mainstem
Susitna River between RM 166.3 – 233.5. Of the 28 sample segments on the mainstem, 15
sample segments were located downstream of the proposed dam site, with the remaining 13 and
was located upstream. Where possible, sample sites were selected to be representative of the
habitat types present within the study area.
Catch total of 2,787 fish were captured or observed (i.e. snorkeling) in 2012 including at least 11
species. Sample results included 37 juvenile Chinook salmon and one adult Chinook salmon
which was observed within tributary plume habitat (RM 181.2) during a boat-based
electrofishing survey. Sculpin composed approximately 62 percent of the total catch and were
documented in all but two of the 27 drainages sampled. Arctic grayling were documented in all
but one drainage and Dolly Varden were captured from 13 of the drainages. A total of 109 fish
were captured during fish distribution surveys in mainstem Susitna River habitat; Arctic
grayling, round whitefish, burbot, longnose sucker, and sculpin were collected.
Backpack electrofishing was the most effective gear type used for fish species presence sampling
in wadeable habitats and accounted for approximately 88 percent of total fish captured; it was
also the only gear type that captured juvenile Chinook salmon. As such, this gear type was
utilized the majority of sample time. Differences in turbidity, water turbulence, and habitat
complexity among streams and habitats were all factors influencing differences in electrofishing
results.
Sampling during 2012 provided a qualitative overview of fish species composition, spatial
distribution, and localized relative abundance. All fish captured during sampling were known
native species. Sculpin were most common, but Arctic grayling were relatively ubiquitous
throughout the study area and were captured throughout all major habitats. The 37 juvenile
Chinook salmon collected were concentrated in cascade habitat and along margin habitat with
boulder pocket water located near tributary mouths.
The 2012 Fish Distribution Study provided helpful insight into planning for 2013-2014 field
efforts and a foundation of expanded knowledge of fish distribution and habitat use. The field
effort was not without challenges and field activities provided insight into the effectiveness of
numerous sampling techniques and provide potential refinements for future data collection.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1 April 2013
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 proposed Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14241 (Project) using the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP).
The Project will be located on the Susitna River, an approximately 300-mile-long river in
Southcentral Alaska. The proposed dam site will be located at historical river mile1 (RM) 184.
The 2012 Upper Susitna River Fish Distribution and Habitat Study was implemented to collect
information on fish distribution and abundance and to characterize aquatic habitat in the Upper
Susitna River watershed. The Upper Susitna River is defined as the river reach above the
proposed dam site (RM 184).
The 2012 Upper Susitna River Fish Distribution and Habitat Study Plan (AEA 2012) identified
three goals:
Goal 1: Characterize aquatic habitat in the Susitna River and its tributaries/lakes above Devils
Canyon upstream to and including the Oshetna River.
Goal 2: Determine the distribution and relative abundance of adult Chinook salmon in the
Susitna River and its tributaries above Devils Canyon upstream to and including the
Oshetna River.
Goal 3: Determine the distribution and relative abundance of juvenile Chinook salmon and
other fish species present in the Susitna River and its tributaries and lakes above Devils
Canyon upstream to and including the Oshetna River up to 3,000-foot elevation.
To address the objectives of the study, AEA initiated four component studies in 2012 including
the Adult Salmon Spawning Ground Surveys, the Distribution of Juvenile Chinook and Other
Species in the Upper Susitna River Study (Fish Distribution Study), the Fish Passage Barriers
Assessment, and the Aquatic Habitat Mapping Study. This report contains results from the first
two of these study components.
This information will inform the 2013–2014 licensing study program, Exhibit E of the License
Application, and FERC’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis for the Project
license.
2. ADULT SALMON SPAWNING GROUND SURVEYS
The 2012 Adult Salmon Spawning Ground Surveys were initiated to provide information on the
distribution and relative abundance of adult Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the
Susitna River and its tributaries upstream of Devils Canyon (RM 150–152).
1 River mile (RM) designations used in this document pertaining to the main Susitna River are based on the historic river mile
system established in the 1980s. A new, Project river mile system based on modern channel mapping will be adopted in future
reporting. River miles were interpolated to the nearest tenth to facilitate spatial referencing of tributary confluences with the
Susitna River and other features.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2 April 2013
2.1. Study Objectives
Information from the 2012 Adult Salmon Spawning Ground Surveys supports Goal 2 of the
Upper Susitna River Fish Distribution and Habitat Study Plan (AEA 2012). The three objectives
of the Adult Salmon Spawning Ground Surveys were to (1) determine the distribution and
relative abundance of adult Chinook salmon (and any other Pacific salmon present during the
peak Chinook salmon spawning period) in the mainstem Susitna River and tributaries above
Devils Canyon from Cheechako Creek upstream to and including the Oshetna River; (2) support
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Chinook salmon stock analysis by
collecting tissue samples from individual adult salmon for genetic analysis; and (3) characterize
habitats at adult Chinook salmon spawning sites above Devils Canyon.
2.2. Study Area
The Adult Salmon Spawning Ground Surveys consisted of aerial surveys in the mainstem Upper
Susitna River and 12 major tributaries between Cheechako Creek (RM 152.4) and the Oshetna
River (RM 233.5). The following tributaries were surveyed.
1. Cheechako Creek
2. Chinook Creek
3. Devil Creek
4. Fog Creek
5. Unnamed (RM 181.2)
6. Tsusena Creek
7. Deadman Creek
8. Watana Creek
9. Kosina Creek
10. Jay Creek
11. Goose Creek
12. Oshetna River
Tributary surveys began in tributary mouth habitat at the downstream end of the clear water
plume in the mainstem Susitna River that emanated from the tributary and continued upstream to
an anadromous barrier or an elevation of 3,000 feet (Buckwalter 2011), whichever came first.
2.3. Methods
2.3.1. Survey Frequency and Data Collection
Surveys conducted in 1983 indicated that peak adult Chinook salmon counts for major tributaries
just downstream of Devils Canyon were obtained on July 25, 1983. ADF&G confirmed that
surveys for Indian River and Portage Creek were typically conducted in late July, and by that
time, some Chinook salmon would likely have migrated through Devils Canyon and into Upper
Susitna River tributaries (Ivey, Pers. Comm. 2012).
Based on the available run time information, a total of four aerial spawning ground survey events
were scheduled at 5-day intervals from July 24 through August 11, 2012, on the following dates:
1) July 24–25
2) July 30–31
3) August 5–6
4) August 10–11
Surveys were conducted by a two-person crew. Observations were made from low altitudes,
approximately 50 to 75 feet when trees and terrain allowed, and at an air speed of up to 25 miles
per hour. An experienced survey pilot optimized aircraft positioning and helped minimize the
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3 April 2013
effects of glare off the water. Polarized sunglasses were also worn to reduce glare effects. The
entire survey route was tracked with Global Positioning System (GPS) technology and survey
results were mapped in a Geographic Information System (GIS). If adult salmon were observed
at 3,000-foot elevation, then surveys continued upstream until no adult salmon were observed or
habitat was no longer suitable for spawning.
Fish counts, date, time, tributary stream, and weather conditions were recorded directly on a data
form. All fish locations were marked by GPS, representative photographs of fish locations were
taken from the air, and fish behavior (actively spawning fish) and habitat (e.g., mesohabitat,
dominant substrate) were described. Survey data were entered into a Susitna Project Access
database and queried to summarize fish counts by date and stream.
2.3.2. Data Review and Quality Control
Quality control measures included employing two experienced observers on each survey. To
maintain consistency in observer efficiency, the lead observer conducted all four survey events
from the front seat of the helicopter. The secondary observer varied for all four survey events,
but was important in locating fish, confirming fish observations by the lead observer or pilot,
operating the GPS, and keeping a waypoint comment log. The helicopter pilot also remained
consistent for all surveys, which supported observation consistency and ensured familiarity with
the streams being surveyed.
2.3.3. Survey Confidence
To document the level of survey confidence, observers completed a standardized worksheet
ranking the following set of criteria that could affect the ability to see fish.
1. Weather: sunny, partly sunny, overcast, light rain, rain
2. Sun/Glare: (good) 1 2 3 4 5 (poor)
3. Water Visibility: (good) 1 2 3 4 5 (poor)
4. Vegetation Cover: (good) 1 2 3 4 5 (poor)
5. Notes: other factors potentially affecting the survey
Following each event, a numerical rating for each survey was calculated and used to provide an
index of the observers’ confidence in their ability to see fish. However, no precision or accuracy
criteria were specified for 2012 because estimates were derived solely from aerial surveys and
survey variability was unknown. Observer efficiency trials and expansion factors to account for
observation error were not employed during 2012 given the low numbers of salmon expected in
the study area.
Additionally, to provide an index of consistency between ADF&G and AEA observers, a one-
time paired survey was conducted on the Indian River. The Indian River is a tributary to the
Middle Susitna River (RM 13 8.5) that has been surveyed annually by ADF&G and is known to
have a relatively abundant number of spawning Chinook salmon. The AEA paired survey was
completed on the same day as the annual ADF&G survey.
2.4. Deviations from Study Plan
The 2012 Upper Susitna River Fish Distribution and Habitat Study Plan (AEA 2012) stated that
efforts to determine the distribution of adult Chinook salmon would focus on 16 tributaries of the
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4 April 2013
Upper Susitna River; however, the actual survey focused on only 12 (see Section 2.2). The study
plan included Indian River and Portage Creek in the list of planned streams; these were outside
of the study area. In addition, two unnamed tributaries located between Kosina Creek and the
Oshetna River were not surveyed because an adult salmon passage barrier was identified on one
of the streams (HDR 2013) and the other was found to be unsuitable for Chinook salmon
spawning due to low flow and high gradient.
In the absence of a passage barrier, surveys were not always completed to an elevation of 3,000
feet. Some surveys ended when observers concluded that the habitat was not suitable for
Chinook salmon spawning (e.g., stream was shallow or high gradient). The following lists the
exceptions, which are also presented on the maps in Appendix A.
Fog Creek mainstem surveys ended at 2,660 feet, at which point the stream branches into
two tributaries, each lacking sufficient water depth to support adult salmon spawning.
Watana Creek surveys ended at 2,720 feet where one of several tributaries enters from
the left. Additional habitat may lie above the surveyed extent; therefore, it is expected
that this creek will be aerially surveyed from helicopter in 2013 to 3,000 ft.
Jay Creek surveys ended at 2,840 feet at a prominent beaver pond. The stream channel
above this point is braided lacking sufficient depth to support adult salmon spawning.
Oshetna River surveys ended at 2,760 feet, approximately 17 miles upstream from the
confluence with the Susitna. This was the most distant point from the field camp and
helicopter fuel endurance limited the ability to reach the 3,000-foot elevation.
Habitat at spawning sites was not fully characterized as described in the study plan. Prior to the
survey period, instream flow study managers concluded that spawning habitat data would only
be incorporated into the habitat suitability criteria dataset if locations occurred in the area of
reservoir fluctuation. No redds were observed within the inundation zone in 2012; therefore, no
habitat measurements were collected on the ground. Spawning habitat substrate was visually
estimated from the helicopter at some locations.
The study plan stated that the aerial survey crew would opportunistically obtain genetics samples
from adult Chinook salmon near death (post-spawned) to support the ADF&G Chinook salmon
genetic stock identification program; however, during the survey period all observed fish were
freely swimming and did not meet the near death criteria. Nevertheless, the ADF&G Gene
Conservation Laboratory fielded a sampling team to collect genetic samples from Kosina Creek,
where the largest concentration of Chinook salmon spawners were observed.
2.5. Results
The four, peak-season, aerial surveys were completed as scheduled and covered the accessible
Chinook salmon spawning habitat evident within the 12 major tributaries and the mainstem
Upper Susitna River upstream from the confluence with Cheechako Creek (RM 152.4) to the
Oshetna River (RM 233.5). Turbid water within most of the mainstem Upper Susitna River
portion of the study area during the survey period precluded data collection. However, mainstem
areas were surveyed opportunistically when potential clear water habitat was identified. This
resulted in variations in the extent of the survey area for each tributary (Appendix A). For
example, the clear water plumes of seven small tributaries between RMs 165.6 and 176.1 were
surveyed on July 24 and a clear water slough near RM 171 was surveyed on July 30. Unnamed
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5 April 2013
tributaries to Fog, Watana, and Jay creeks were routinely included in the survey. Tsisi Creek, a
tributary to Kosina Creek, was surveyed on August 11.
2.5.1. Distribution and Relative Abundance
Chinook salmon was the only Pacific salmon species observed within the study area in 2012.
Adult Chinook salmon were located in five tributaries (Table 1). In general, counts of Chinook
salmon were low in all tributaries and were fairly consistent across survey dates. The highest
numbers of Chinook salmon were observed in Kosina Creek during all survey events with a peak
count of 16 on the third survey (August 6; Table 1). Peak adult Chinook salmon counts for all
five streams occurred during either the second or third surveys (Figure 1). No fish were observed
in the clear water portions of the mainstem Susitna River that could be surveyed or within any of
the secondary tributaries surveyed. No fish carcasses were observed. All fish observed during
this survey were seen below adult fish barriers; Kosina Creek was the only tributary without a
barrier (Appendix A).
2.5.2. Genetic Sampling
As described in Section 2.4 above, opportunistic tissue samples were not taken from near death
(post-spawned) salmon to support the ADF&G Chinook salmon stock identification program.
During the survey period, adult Chinook salmon were freely swimming in open water areas and
did not meet the near death criteria. No fish carcasses were observed. ADF&G collected tissue
samples from Chinook salmon in Kosina Creek on July 31. ADF&G used hook-and-line gear to
capture 10 fish and sample axillary tissue for deoxyribonucleic acid analysis.
2.5.3. Spawning Habitat Characterization
Mesohabitat type and substrate composition were visually estimated from the helicopter at seven
locations where adult Chinook salmon were thought to be spawning: three locations in Chinook
Creek, three locations in Devil Creek, and one location in Kosina Creek. No active spawning was
observed and only one redd was identified. Riffle was the dominant mesohabitat where Chinook
salmon were likely spawning (57 percent) followed by run (29 percent) and pool (14 percent). At
these same locations cobble was the dominant substrate (44 percent), followed by gravel (30
percent) and boulder (26 percent).
2.5.4. Survey Confidence
Overall, weather was favorable throughout the survey period, and while variable (from sunny to
light rain), did not negatively affect survey confidence and did not prevent or delay survey
completion. Of the eight survey days, one day was sunny, two were overcast with light rain, and
five had variable weather (Table 2). Water visibility was the most influential factor to survey
confidence, followed by overhanging vegetation and sun glare (Table 3). The most significant
impairment to visibility was whitewater turbulence, which was present in approximately 50
percent of all streams surveyed. Photographs were taken to capture typical whitewater areas and
illustrate the difficulty in locating adult salmon within these areas (Appendix B). The effect of
turbidity and turbulence within the survey confidence rankings ranged from 1 to 5 with an
average of 2.8 and a standard deviation of 1.0 (Table 3).
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6 April 2013
Most streams surveyed contained reaches of clear water and high visibility. However, in several
stream reaches, turbidity from both glacial and erosion sources impaired survey effectiveness.
The glacially-influenced Oshetna River was the most turbid stream within the survey area.
During the first three survey events, water visibility was estimated at 6 to 12 inches. During the
final survey, water clarity had increased so that the substrate was visible in all habitat types
except for the deepest pools and runs. In Watana Creek, visibility was severely limited in the
lower reach due to erosion produced from an area of historic mudslides. Once upstream of this
area, the water was clear. Turbidity in the mainstem Susitna River entirely precluded the ability
to visually locate adult salmon.
2.5.5. Paired Surveys
Results of the paired survey of Indian River showed that fish counts from aerial adult salmon
surveys can be highly variable between observers. On July 24, ADF&G conducted an aerial
survey and counted 338 adult Chinook salmon and approximately one hour later, within the same
river reach and under excellent survey conditions, the AEA survey observed only 149 fish.
2.6. Discussion and Conclusion
Adult salmon surveys conducted in 2012 have been the most comprehensive to-date within the
Upper Susitna River watershed. The adult Chinook salmon distribution observed in this study
was consistent with previous work conducted in these streams that found Chinook in all of the
same tributaries, with the exception of Tsusena Creek (Table 4; ADF&G 1984; Buckwalter
2011). The 2012 surveys counted more salmon in total, and more salmon in each tributary
compared to the historical surveys. This difference in counts could be due to difference in
methods among the studies; the 2012 study comprised four survey periods, whereas the historical
studies were merely point estimates.
Visual surveys likely account for only a portion of the spawning population. At the time of any
one survey, a proportion of the returning population may not have reached its spawning
destination; some may have already spawned and left the area, and some were present but
unseen. This study was challenged by the vast extent of the survey area, large areas of turbid
water, the relatively small number of fish that return to tributaries above Devils Canyon, and a
lack of documented spawning locations. The goal of this study was not to estimate total
escapement but only to determine the relative abundance and distribution of Chinook salmon
spawning in the Upper Susitna River watershed. The actual number of salmon observed should
be considered a minimum estimate of the number of fish present in the study area. This
minimum estimate may be used as an indicator of relative abundance comparable to past and
future study years, though only if compared to the same time period and locations.
The paired survey results for Indian River showed significant variability between ADF&G and
AEA observers. The reason for this discrepancy was not determined in 2012; however, intrinsic
characteristics of a stream such as log jams, overhanging trees, and cut banks can make one
stream more difficult to count than another. It is possible that Indian River wasn’t an ideal
system in which to conduct a paired survey because it does contain some areas of complex
habitat. On other tributaries, results of individual observers paired counts were more consistent
for both ADF&G and AEA. Three AEA surveys completed at 5-day intervals on Kosina Creek
had less than 15 percent variability and paired surveys completed by ADF&G within six Middle
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 7 April 2013
River tributaries on a 2-day interval also had low variability averaging 6.8 percent and ranging
from 1 to 16 percent. In general, variability was higher when fish abundance was higher (Ivey
and Oslund, In Prep.).
To ensure a higher index of consistency in future years, multiple paired surveys should be
conducted and results compared immediately so that if major differences in salmon counts are
found, the reasons for the discrepancies can be investigated. Radio telemetry may provide
another means of assessing the accuracy of aerial counts. If radio -tagged fish are precisely
located with telemetry receiving equipment but are not visible to observers, then it is possible
that a similar proportion of untagged fish are not visible either, whether it be due to water
turbidity, water turbulence, or other factors.
3. DISTRIBUTION OF JUVENILE CHINOOK AND OTHER SPECIES
IN THE UPPER SUSITNA RIVER
The Upper Susitna River Fish Distribution Study was initiated to provide detailed information on
the distribution of all fish species and aquatic habitats upstream of Devils Canyon (RM 150–
152). Information regarding fish distribution, including distribution of juvenile Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), is important to define the extent of potential Project effects to fish
and aquatic habitat and will inform the planning and design of other Upper Susitna River studies
related to fish distribution.
3.1. Study Objectives
Information in this report supports Goal 3 of the 2012 Upper Susitna River Fish Distribution and
Habitat Study Plan (AEA 2012) (see Section 1, Introduction). Specific study objectives related
to Goal 3 were as follows.
Objective 1: Determine the distribution and relative abundance of fish species residing in
tributary and lake habitats downstream of barriers, up to 3,000-foot elevation.
Objective 2: Determine the distribution and relative abundance of fish species residing in
accessible mainstem Susitna River habitats within the reservoir inundation
zone, including the main channel, side channels, side sloughs, upland
sloughs, and tributary mouths.
Objective 3: Characterize fish habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon where found in the
study area.
Objective 4: Support the ADF&G Chinook salmon genetic stock analysis by collecting
tissue samples from individual juvenile salmon.
Objective 5: Determine whether Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and humpback
whitefish (Coregonus oidschian) in the study area have anadromous life
histories.
Objective 6: Determine baseline tissue metal content for select fish species in the study
area.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 8 April 2013
3.2. Study Area
The study area included the Susitna River and its tributary stream drainages from Devils Canyon
upstream to and including the Oshetna River (Figure 2). The study area encompassed nearly
3,880 square kilometers (km2) or over 2,400 square miles (mi2)2, and roughly 81 miles of the
mainstem Susitna River. The study area included 80 tributary streams that drained directly into
the Susitna River and roughly 2,500 lakes/ponds3.
Tributary streams were grouped into three drainage basin size classes. Most tributary streams in
the study area are relatively small streams that drain less than 50 km2 (31 mi2) 4. Eight tributary
streams drained between 50 km2 and 200 km2 (124 mi2), and nine tributary streams drained at
least 200 km2.
Sampling in 2012 was conducted in 24 accessible tributaries to the mainstem Susitna River,
including 14 of 67 that drained less than 50 km2, 4 of 8 that drained 50 km2–200 km2, and 9 of 9
drainage areas exceeding 200 km2 (Appendix C). Sampling was focused in stream habitats
located downstream of adult salmon passage barriers (barriers are described in a companion
report) or to an elevation of 3,000 feet in streams where barriers were not identified. Select
mainstem Susitna River and lake habitats were also sampled.
3.3. Methods
3.3.1. Sample Site Selection
Historical fish species distribution data (1981–2011) were reviewed to help prioritize 2012
sampling. Locations previously documented with juvenile or adult Chinook salmon presence
were identified as the highest priority areas for sampling. The 2012 sample sites were intended to
be representative of the habitat types present within the study area and were selected using a
tiered approach. At the broadest scale, the study area was broken into four target habitats: (1)
tributary streams; (2) tributary plumes, which refers to habitat just downstream of tributary
mouths within the mainstem Susitna River (mixing zone of clear water tributaries in turbid
mainstem); (3) mainstem Susitna River; and (4) lakes. Specific locations to be sampled were
identified based on a number of considerations including spatial distribution throughout the study
area, proximity to proposed Project features (e.g., proposed dam site and reservoir inundation
zone), relative drainage basin size, and accessibility.
Within tributaries, sampling effort was stratified from the stream mouth to the upper watershed
based on channel gradient and valley confinement. Major tributaries to the Upper Susitna River
typically exhibit three major zones: (1) tributary mouths characterized by low to moderate
gradient in moderately confined valleys, (2) transition zones of primarily high gradient with
2 The study area, from the headwaters of all tributary streams that enter the Susitna River between RM 152.4 and 233.5, is over
2,400 square miles (calculated using NAD_1983_Alaska_Albers projected coordinate system).
3 Based on GIS analysis of the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Flowline dataset derived from the NHD (downloaded from
source website December 2011) and clipped to the Susitna Basin. The “lakes” layer used for this analysis was the
NHD_Waterbody feature class where FType = LakePond.
4 Drainage basin size classes generated by ADF&G (Buckwalter 2012) were used to categorize tributary streams in the NDH
Flowline dataset that fall within the study area.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 9 April 2013
steep-walled canyons, and (3) unconfined plateaus of lower gradient that extend from the tree
line to alpine headwaters. Generally, sampling occurred in all three zones, but first priority was
placed in the lower portions of stream drainages, as well as within the vicinity of tributary
plumes of major tributaries. Lakes located at an elevation below 2,050 feet, which is the current
estimate of the maximum pool height of the proposed inundation zone, were also prioritized for
sampling in 2012.
Fish presence was previously documented for a number of tributary streams and lakes in the
study area during sampling conducted in the1980s and during more recent surveys conducted by
the ADF&G (Buckwalter 2011). Tributary drainages that were excluded from previous efforts
were also sampled in 2012 to expand baseline data. Priority was placed on sampling a subset of
smaller tributary streams (drainage basin less than 50 km2) for which no data existed.
Additionally, two locations recommended by Buckwalter (2011) were sampled that included a
tributary near RM 192 and another in the Fog Lakes complex.
Where possible, sample sites were selected to be representative of the habitat types present
within the study area; however, site selection was influenced by several logistical challenges.
Steep terrain, abundant trees, and vegetation often prohibited helicopter access. Sampling was
limited to accessible habitats in wadeable stream channels and side channels. Some accessible
streams were also unsafe to sample because of swift water velocity. Sampling in unwadeable
streams was limited to shallow stream margins. In addition to influencing site selection, these
challenges also limited the ability to sample specific portions of target streams or habitats present
within the stream reaches sampled. The distances from field camp to sampling locations varied
but in some cases exceeded 79 km (49 mi). The time and fuel required to access these tributaries
limited the number and spatial separation of sampling sites. These factors influenced the number
and distribution of selected sample locations (Figure 3and Figure 4; Appendix C).
3.3.2. Field Data Collection
Field data collection methods provided in the 2012 Upper Susitna River Fish Distribution and
Habitat Study Plan (AEA 2012) were reviewed by ADF&G and a Fish Resource Permit (FRP)
SF2012-151 was issued prior to conducting fieldwork. To reduce sample method bias, the field
team used a combination of gear types to address variations in fish species size, life history stage,
behavior, and habitat preference.
Sampling Gear
Both active and passive fish sampling techniques were used in 2012. Active capture techniques
used in 2012 included backpack and boat electrofishing, snorkeling, and angling. Passive
sampling techniques included gillnets, minnow traps, and fyke nets. Methods specific to both
active and passive sampling gear used in 2012 are described below.
Backpack Electrofishing
Single-pass open system backpack electrofishing (Smith-Root LR-24) was used to sample
wadeable stream habitat. Each backpack unit was fitted with a standard Smith-Root cathode and
a single anode pole with a steel ring. A two- or three-person crew conducted electrofishing in
streams by moving in an upstream direction. Team size was based on helicopter fuel and gear
requirements or staff availability. The total linear distance over which fish sampling occurred in
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 10 April 2013
a particular stream reach or general area is referred to as a ‘sample segment.’ Typically, the total
length of a stream’s sample segment was equal to or greater than at least 100 meters (m), but
where access or safety was a concern it may have been reduced.
A sample segment was delineated into one or more mesohabitat ‘sample units.’ Aquatic habitat
was classified at the mesohabitat level using the habitat classification system developed for
Project licensing studies (Appendix D). Mesohabitat types included alcove, cascade, percolation
channel, pool, riffle, pocketwater, run, and slough. Pools were further described as backwater or
scour pools. A discrete mesohabitat unit was recorded if the distance between adjacent habitats
was at least as long as the width of the wetted channel.
The field team recorded a GPS location at the downstream end of each sample segment, and
moved upstream to sample discrete mesohabitat sample units separately. The team captured a
digital image of each mesohabitat unit sampled using a GPS-enabled camera. Parameters
recorded for each mesohabitat sample unit also included a representative wetted channel width
(m) and where feasible, the total mesohabitat unit length (m)5. If sampling was not conducted
throughout the mesohabitat unit’s entire length, the length sampled was recorded. In most cases,
the team was not able to sample the entire width of each stream. Therefore, the portion of the
stream’s wetted width that was sampled was visually estimated. The percent substrate
composition and the mesohabitat unit’s average water depth were visually estimated (Appendix
D).
Netting efficiency and visual observation were compromised in units where turbid water
conditions limited visibility and swift water prohibited access to the entire channel. Water clarity
was noted to provide a measure of confidence in the visual data. Water clarity was recorded in
the field using a qualitative scale of 0–3: i.e., poor, estimated < 25 percent of fish presence
observed; fair, estimated 25–50 percent of fish presence observed; good, estimated > 50–75
percent of fish presence observed; and excellent, estimated >75 percent of fish presence
observed. Data were recorded separately for each mesohabitat sample unit so that fish habitat
associations could be considered. These data were not used for analysis purposes.
Electrofisher settings were determined in the field based on water quality conditions,
professional judgment, and the overall goal of minimizing impacts to fish health. Prior to
electrofishing, the team recorded ambient conductivity (microSiemens) and surface water
temperature in Celsius (°C) with a digital meter (Hanna pH/EC/TDS 98129) at the downstream
end of sample segments to help determine initial electrofisher settings. An ADF&G-generated
table that recommends target voltage settings for juvenile salmonid sampling in cold water was
used as a reference at the onset of sampling (Buckwalter 2012). Backpack electrofishing was
conducted by trained staff per ADF&G FRP requirements; protocols were consistent with
previously established studies and guidelines6. For each mesohabitat sample unit, fish capture
data and sampling effort (e.g., electrofishing ‘power on’ recorded in seconds) were documented
separately to establish catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE).
5 When the mesohabitat unit length exceeded the linear distance over which fish sampling was to occur or extended beyond the
rangefinder’s view, the total length (TL) was not recorded.
6 Personal communication regarding electrofishing field protocols (Buckwalter 2012); Electro-fishing Waters Containing
Salmonids Listed under the Endangered Species Act (NMFS 2000); Backpack and Drift Boat Design Considerations and
Sampling Protocols (Temple and Pearsons 2007).
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 11 April 2013
The naming convention used to identify each sample segment was linked to the name of the GPS
unit and the unit’s automatic waypoint identification. The sample unit name included the sample
segment and a sequential number. For example, the identification of the sample segment if
collected with the first waypoint using the Garmin unit named ‘Golf’ was ‘G001’. The
identification of the first mesohabitat unit encountered was sample unit ‘G001.01’; the second
habitat unit moving in an upstream direction was ‘G001.02’, etc.
Boat Electrofishing
Boat-based electrofishing was used primarily to sample non-wadeable stream habitat and was
conducted from a 16-foot-long cataraft (model Aire Lion) on a break-down aluminum frame
(manufactured at Alaska Raft and Kayak in Anchorage) and outfitted with a Honda 9.9 HP 4-
stroke engine.
The cataraft was mounted with a Smith-Root 2.5 Gas-Powered Pulsator (GPP) electrofisher. The
2.5 GPP electrofisher was selected because it has sufficient power capabilities for low to medium
conductivity water and utilizes a smaller generator (custom wound Honda) than would be
required by other models. The 2.5 GPP (ranges in power from 2.5 to 9 kilowatt [kW]) includes
five pulse settings and a percent-of-range selector to shape the waveform. A pulsed-DC
waveform was used during boat-based operations. As standard practice, low frequency pulse
settings were selected initially to avoid exposing fish to more harmful higher pulse frequencies.
Settings were adjusted according to sampling conditions encountered.
Boat-based electrofishing was conducted by an experienced two-person crew. During sampling
operations, the rower controlled the electrofisher settings and maneuvered the boat with either
the oars or the motor while the netter collected fish with a long-handled fiberglass dip net from
the bow. The forward netting platform was outfitted with a foot switch to initiate or cease
electrofishing, and a lean bar for increased safety. In tributary streams, the boat operator
typically moved the boat laterally across the current with the oars while moving downstream. In
the mainstem Susitna River, the boat operator used either the oars or the motor to access suitable
habitats.
The field team recorded a GPS location at the upstream start of each stream or sample segment
prior to moving downstream to sample. Habitat measurements associated with distinct
mesohabitat types were not recorded during the boat-based surveys in tributaries due primarily to
the difficulty of stopping at habitat breaks while floating downstream. The team captured a
digital image using a GPS-enabled camera and recorded electrofish ‘power on’ seconds for each
area or stream segment sampled to establish CPUE. The naming convention to identify sample
segments and water clarity qualifiers were consistent with that described in the Backpack
Electrofishing section above.
Minnow Traps
Minnow traps baited with commercially-processed salmon eggs were soaked in low velocity
areas of both lacustrine and riverine habitats for varying periods of time. Minnow traps were
roughly 17 inches long and 9 inches in diameter, and were made of galvanized wire mesh. Both
1/4-inch and 1/8-inch mesh size traps were used in 2012. In most cases, traps were set for just a
few hours while teams sampled nearby habitat using other capture gear. However, soak times
varied from roughly 1 hour to several days because of helicopter logistics and inclement weather.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 12 April 2013
The field team recorded general characteristics of the habitat in which traps were placed, such as
mesohabitat type, and captured representative photographs. Fish captures were recorded
separately for each trap. Minnow trap soak times were recorded to establish CPUE for each
species captured. The naming convention to identify sample sites was consistent with that
described in the Backpack Electrofishing section above.
Fyke Nets
Fyke nets used in 2012 were constructed of 0.25-inch (44-pound) green treated netting with two
metal rectangular entrance frames (27 inches by 39 inches), a vertical net throat, and four metal
hoops with a single 6-inch diameter throat. The cod end (fish containment) was 8 feet long and
each net included attached wings and detachable center leads with floats and weighted line. The
maximum depth fished with this configuration was approximately 33 inches. These
comparatively small fyke nets were selected because they are relatively lightweight and fit in the
back seat of an R-44 helicopter. Fyke nets were placed in lacustrine and relatively slow-moving
riverine habitats for varying periods of time and were not baited. Soak times varied from less
than 1 hour to several days, due primarily to helicopter logistics and inclement weather. Fyke
nets used in lakes were situated along the lake margin and typically placed close to a lake’s
outlet channel. The field team recorded the mesohabitat type in which fyke nets were placed and
captured representative photographs of fyke net sets using a GPS-enabled camera. Fyke net set
and pull times were recorded so that a total sampling effort for each net could be calculated. Fish
captures were recorded separately for each net to establish CPUE. The naming convention to
identify sample sites was consistent with that described in the Backpack Electrofishing section
above.
Gillnets
The only gillnet deployed in 2012 measured 30 m (98 feet) long and 2 m (6 feet) deep with a
mesh size of 1.75 inches. The net was placed in slow moving riverine habitat by affixing the net
to riparian vegetation. Gillnets soaked for varying periods of time while other sampling methods
were used in nearby habitats. Soak times were recorded for each net set. The naming convention
to identify sample sites was consistent with that described in the Backpack Electrofishing section
above. The field team recorded mesohabitat types where gillnets were used and captured
representative photographs.
Angling
Angling surveys were conducted opportunistically in streams where electrofishing techniques
were considered ineffective because of excessive water depth or water velocity. Angling was
also performed in areas where field crews concluded that larger fish may have moved to avoid an
electrofishing team. Angling was commonly conducted within relatively deep areas of larger
streams, at tributary mouths of small streams, and at clear water plumes from major tributaries to
the Susitna River. Lakes were also sampled from shorelines. The field team recorded
mesohabitat types where angling was performed.
Collapsible pack rods with spinning reels and lightweight fishing line were used for angling
efforts. Terminal tackle consisted of spinners and spoons; however, if these were ineffective,
imitation fly patterns were used with a bobber indicator. Hooks were rendered barbless to reduce
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 13 April 2013
the likelihood of fish injury. Fish were landed carefully and managed with a net when possible.
Collected fish were identified to species and measured to nearest millimeter (mm). Fish were
either retained for tissue sample collection or released near the point of capture.
Snorkeling
Single-pass open system snorkel surveys supplemented other methods and specifically targeted
areas where conditions were not suitable for either backpack or boat-based electrofishing. The
number of snorkelers used was based on stream width to ensure that the entire channel was
surveyed during a single pass. When multiple snorkelers were used, snorkelers moved
simultaneously within distinct lanes to view the entire stream width in a single pass. Snorkeling
was used only on a limited basis, and when conducted, it was implemented by a single
technician. The snorkeler moved in an upstream direction and identified fish species and
estimated fish lengths in 20-mm increments (e.g. 0–20 mm, 21–40 mm, etc.). Fish observations
were recorded separately for each mesohabitat unit sampled. Habitat parameters were recorded
within each mesohabitat sample unit following methods used by backpack electrofish teams. The
length and estimated sample width within each mesohabitat unit were recorded
Fish Handling and Biological Data Collection
Captured fish were identified to species, or the lowest taxonomic level possible, and enumerated.
Fork length (FL [i.e., fork of the tail to the nose]) was recorded to the nearest mm for captured
salmonids. Total length (TL) was recorded for species with caudal fins that are not forked.
When many individual species with a similar size range were captured, the total catch was
recorded and a subset was measured; each Chinook salmon captured was measured. Fish
observed but not captured were recorded as visual observations. Where possible, fish length was
estimated. Fish life-stage was estimated in the field based on fish species and length.
Standardized fork-length threshold values developed by ADF&G were used to assign measured
fish to selected life-stage classes (Buckwalter 2012).
Fish were returned near the point of capture, except for those retained as specimens for further
identification or analysis. Fish inadvertently killed during sampling were either discarded on-site
or retained for further analysis, when appropriate. The final disposition (e.g., unintended
mortality, voucher specimen, injury) was recorded for each fish handled. Representative
photographs were cataloged for each species captured.
Fish identification reference material was available on-site and consulted when species
identification was in question. Hand lenses were used to aide in the identification of sculpin
(Cottidae). Sculpin that could not be identified to species were recorded as ‘sculpin-spp’. Other
species that could not be confidently identified in the field were photographed and identified at
the lowest taxonomic level possible (e.g., genus or family) at a later date. Voucher specimens
were retained for further identification.
Codes used to report fish species, disposition, and life-stage were consistent with those used
during recent ADF&G studies (Buckwalter 2012) and FRP requirements. All data were recorded
on a standardized datasheet. All fish capture data were submitted to ADF&G, following
standard data submission form guidelines, per FRP requirements.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 14 April 2013
Genetics
Genetic samples were collected from juvenile Chinook salmon to support ADF&G’s genetic
baseline development for Chinook stocks of the Upper Susitna River. Samples from all other fish
species encountered were also collected on an opportunistic basis during the 2012 fish
distribution surveys to supplement ADF&G’s Statewide DNA sampling program.
A 2-mm non-lethal fin clip was taken from the upper caudal fin of juvenile Chinook salmon.
Each fin clip was preserved in a separate 2.0 milliliter (mL) vial filled with
Isopropanol/Methanol/Ethanol (EtOH).
For other fish species except slimy sculpins (Cottus cognatus), genetic samples consisted of an
approximate 2-mm non-lethal fin clip from either the caudal fin or axillary process. The anal fin
was determined to be a more suitable fin to clip from slimy sculpin. Samples for other target fish
species were preserved in species-specific bulk sample bottles filled with EtOH. Length
measurements and capture location (GPS coordinates) were recorded for each fish sampled.
All fins were clipped using scissors; effort was made to minimize contact with human skin. The
ADF&G genetics laboratory provided the field team with sample collection protocols (Appendix
E), bulk sample bottles, and 2.0-mL vials.
Tissue Metals Content
Tissue samples were collected from target species to evaluate baseline metal levels in fish that
may be used for human consumption. Target fish included Dolly Varden, Arctic grayling
(Thymallus arcticus), lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss),
burbot (Lota lota), and whitefish species. Up to seven whole body specimens of each species
were identified as the target sample size. This effort was intended to support the water quality
study; data may also be used to support wildlife investigations of metals in prey for piscivorous
furbearers.
Fish samples were collected opportunistically throughout the study area in 2012. Angling and
gillnets were the primary collection method; however, adult resident fish captured during
electrofishing surveys were also retained for analysis. Samples were kept cool for several hours
before freezing.
Otolith Microchemistry
The goal during 2012 was to collect up to 30 adult Dolly Varden and adult humpback whitefish
(Coregonus pidschian) to extract and analyze otoliths for strontium distribution. Otoliths were
extracted to document whether life histories exhibited by these fish populations in the Upper
Susitna River exhibit anadromy. Strontium distribution within otoliths has been used to describe
fish migrations between marine and freshwater environments (Brown et al. 2007). The
strontium-to-calcium ratio can be used to reconstruct the chronology of migration between
salinity environments for diadromous salmonids (Zimmerman 2005). Predetermined thresholds
from known anadromous and non-anadromous fish standards in published literature are used as
the reference.
Due to the expected low probability of anadromy above Devils Canyon, a large sample size was
considered necessary to achieve the study objective. For example, a sample size of 10 fish has a
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 15 April 2013
97 percent probability of selecting one anadromous fish when the actual proportion of
anadromous fish in the population is 30 percent or greater (Brown et al. 2007).
3.3.3. Data Analysis
Fish distribution and habitat data were summarized into tables, charts, and figures. Data were
first presented by gear type to characterize individual gear type effectiveness and to highlight
gear bias where possible. Results were then presented according to sample location and by the
broad target habitats. Data are presented relative to spatial location along the Susitna River and
organized from downstream to upstream. Fish distribution and habitat information were
generally characterized with a range of observed data and mean values where pertinent.
Individual catch by species and overall composition were reported. CPUE was determined by
dividing the catch by the sampling effort (e.g., seconds electrofished). For each stream sampled
with a backpack electrofisher, CPUE was determined for each fish species captured. CPUE was
not calculated for other methods, although effort is provided where possible.
Fish species populations were also analyzed by age class. Length-frequency histograms were
reviewed and age class determined based on professional review and opinion.
3.3.4. Data Review and Quality Control
All gathered data were maintained through a strict quality control program developed for all
studies within the Project. Entered data were independently reviewed to ensure that entry was
correct. Where errors were found, field technicians were consulted to identify appropriate
revisions. Summarized data, figures, and tables were reviewed for consistency and accuracy.
Final reported information was reviewed by an independent senior biologist to ensure
appropriate scientific reporting.
3.3.5. Deviations from Study Plan
Field Data Collection
The following study plan deviations occurred during field data collection:
Study locations were marked with a GPS coordinate. Monumenting locations did not
occur.
Habitat characteristics were recorded for all areas sampled, in addition to habitats where
juvenile Chinook salmon were found.
Estimated thalweg depth, bankfull width, and dominant in-water cover type were not
recorded in 2012 for all sites because of safety and logistical constraints associated with
wading the entire channel.
Estimates of the percent of each substrate type present were recorded in lieu of recording
only the dominant and sub-dominant substrate types where substrate determination was
possible.
Habitat measurements associated with distinct mesohabitat types were not recorded
during boat-based surveys. This omission was due to logistical constraints and safety
concerns to maintain the boat at specific habitat breaks in swift current.
Seine nets were not used in 2012; snorkeling methodology was included in 2012.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 16 April 2013
Sampling was not conducted in Devils Creek downstream of the adult fish passage
barrier because of the lack of a helicopter landing zone.
The 2012 study plan indicated that the length of stream sampled at each site would be
equal to or greater than 40 wetted channel widths based on the mean wetted width at the
site (Buckwalter et al. 2010). However, it was evident during the initial field event in July
2012 that sampling a distance of 40 wetted channel widths for the majority of the streams
surveyed was not attainable given the large size of the study area, difficult sampling
conditions, access limitations, and small team size. Sampling a pre-determined segment
length allowed for sampling two to three sample segments per day and therefore for 2012
sampling to cover a greater distribution of habitats.
The study plan indicated that the 2012 sampling effort would target lakes that fall within
the proposed inundation zone as well as 10 other lakes in the study area. In 2012, four
lakes were sampled for fish presence. Priority was placed on lakes that are close to the
proposed reservoir footprint; therefore, sampling was conducted in Sally Lake (Watana
Creek drainage) and in a small, unnamed lake with an outlet stream that enters the
Susitna River near RM 203.5. Sampling occurred on one of the five lakes that were
identified for sampling in the Fog Creek drainage, and one of two lakes identified in the
Deadman Creek drainage. Due to helicopter scheduling conflicts and weather delays, not
all lakes could be sampled, but a list of prioritized lakes was completed. Existing fish
species presence data were available for Clarence Lake, Watana Lake, and Deadman
Lake. As a result, these lakes were given low priority and not sampled.
The 2012 study plan indicated that a minimum of two transects running in a north/south
and east/west pattern would be recorded in lakes sampled for fish, and that transects
would be established so that they intersect at what is believed to be the deepest part of
each lake sampled, if possible. Depth data are available for many lakes in the study area.
Weather delays and helicopter scheduling conflicts limited the field team’s ability to
effectively sample lakes using this approach.
No otoliths were collected for micro-chemistry analysis of anadromy due to the limited
number of captures of adult-sized fish. The study plan indicated that CPUE would be
compared between reaches using analysis of variance (ANOVA) to establish statistically
significant differences. Comparisons between basins were not made because of other
biasing factors that can alter the potential success of collecting fish. Biasing factors can
include habitat complexity, turbidity, water quality, and stream size.
Data Analysis
ANOVA statistical testing assumes no correlation between independent variables and error. This
assumption was violated by the influence of stream complexity, water quality, turbidity, stream
size, and other biasing factors that varied among sampling sites. Sufficient data were not
available to perform multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), which would be necessary to
address biasing factors. Therefore, no additional ANOVA or MANOVA testing was completed.
3.4. Results
The 2012 effort focused on stream habitats (Table 5) with sampling limited primarily to
wadeable stream channels and side channels, and along the margins of larger, unwadeable
streams. The majority of sampling was conducted in main channel followed by side channel
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 17 April 2013
habitat; off-channel habitat was sampled less frequently (Table 6). Fish distribution sampling
was conducted in 27 tributary streams and 4 lakes located within tributaries of the study area.
Sampling also occurred in the mainstem river within18 tributary plume habitats and within 10
mainstem Susitna River sites.
Catch diversity was representative of fish species known or assumed to be present in the Upper
Susitna River drainage (Table 7). A total of 2,406 fish were captured in 2012 from at least 11
species, including 37 juvenile Chinook salmon (Appendix F, Photo 1) that were captured from
two locations in the study area (Figure 5 and Figure 6). One adult Chinook was observed within
tributary plume habitat (RM 181.2) during a boat-based electrofishing survey on July 27, 2012.
Sampling activities were suspended as soon as the adult Chinook salmon was observed. No other
Chinook salmon were observed during ground-based surveys.
Sculpin composed 62.0 percent of the total catch and were documented in all but two drainages
sampled. Sculpin species, including slimy sculpin, are referred to as sculpin within the report
unless otherwise noted. Arctic grayling (Appendix F, Photo 4) were the second most frequently
captured species, composing 23.2 percent of the total catch followed by Dolly Varden (10.2
percent). Arctic grayling were documented in all but one drainage sampled; Dolly Varden were
captured from 13 of the 27 tributary stream drainages sampled.
3.4.1. Sampling Gear
Backpack Electrofishing
Backpack electrofishing was the primary gear type used in 2012 (Table 5) and accounted for
87.6 percent of total fish captured. Sampling was conducted in stream habitat within 24
tributaries, 12 tributary plumes sampled from the mainstem Susitna River, and 9 mainstem
Susitna River locations (Table 8). Only one lake was sampled using a backpack electrofisher.
A total of 2,108 fish were captured using the backpack electrofisher, including 37 juvenile
Chinook salmon and 15 unidentified salmonids (Table 8). Backpack electrofishing was the only
gear type that captured Chinook salmon in 2012. Sculpin most often dominated the catch,
followed by Arctic grayling and Dolly Varden. Catch of other species was considerably lower.
Sampling effort was recorded for 209 of the 215 discrete sample units electrofished. A total of
2,067 fish were captured during the 929.15 minutes (55,749 seconds or 15.48 hours) of backpack
electrofishing effort. This equates to a CPUE of 2.2 fish per minute for all species captured
during the 2012 study season.
Boat Electrofishing
Boat-based electrofishing surveys were conducted within three tributary streams, seven tributary
plumes accessed from the mainstem Susitna River, one location in the mainstem Susitna River,
and in one lake.
A total of 121 fish were captured using the boat-based electrofisher during 141.43 minutes
(8,486 seconds) of effort (Table 9). Arctic grayling and sculpin were the most frequently
captured fish. Boat-based electrofishing accounted for 5.0 percent of total fish captured.
Many fish were observed but not captured during boat-based surveys (Table 9). The field team
recorded the presence of 59 fish, including Arctic grayling, whitefish species, and longnose
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 18 April 2013
sucker; however, additional fish were observed but not recorded. Diversity of fish species
observed was consistent with captured fish.
Minnow Traps
A total of 41 minnow traps were used in 2012, including 18 traps set throughout two tributary
stream drainages and 23 traps set in four lakes (Table 10; Figure 3 and Figure 4). Minnow traps
were not used in the mainstem Susitna River or tributary plume habitats.
Traps captured 46 fish over a total effort of 31,679 minutes (572.98 hours; Table 10). Catch was
limited to sculpin, Dolly Varden, and Arctic grayling. Minnow traps accounted for 1.7 percent
of the total fish captured.
Fyke Nets
Fyke nets were used on eight occasions in 2012; seven nets were set in four lakes and in one
tributary plume (Table 11). Lakes sampled included an unnamed lake in the Deadman Creek
drainage, an unnamed lake in the Fog Creek drainage, Sally Lake in the Watana Creek drainage,
and an unnamed lake that drains into the Susitna River at RM 203.4. Fyke nets were not used in
tributary or mainstem Susitna River habitats. Fyke nets captured 75 fish in 12,521 minutes
(208.68 hours, Table 11). Catch was limited to sculpin, Arctic grayling, and Dolly Varden. Fyke
nets accounted for 3.1 percent of the total fish captured.
Gillnets
Gillnets were used on two occasions in 2012, both in the Kosina Creek drainage. One gillnet was
set in a side channel of Kosina Creek on July 28, 2012, and soaked for 2.5 hours. The other
gillnet was deployed in a side channel of Gilbert Creek, a tributary to Kosina Creek, on August
1, 2012. The net soaked for less than 1 hour during an electrofishing survey. No fish were
captured from either set. The field team recorded the presence of young-of-the-year (YOY)
grayling and sculpin in the nets’ proximity, and captured grayling and sculpin during an
electrofishing survey in adjacent habitat.
The field team planned to use a gillnet in Sally Lake to target lake trout for tissue collection.
However, the team used alternative methods because of the presence of loons close to the
sampling area.
Angling
Limited angling was conducted in tributary, tributary plume, and lake habitats in 2012 (Table
12). A total of 49 fish were captured, including Arctic grayling, Dolly Varden, and lake trout.
Angling accounted for 2.0 percent of the total fish captured.
Snorkeling
Snorkeling was conducted along a portion of one unwadeable tributary stream by a two-person
team on August 10, 2012. The entire width of the stream could not be sampled by one snorkeler,
and velocity and depth precluded movement throughout certain portions of the stream channel.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 19 April 2013
The snorkelers observed a total of 40 fish, including Arctic grayling, round whitefish, sculpin,
and Dolly Varden (Table 13).
3.4.2. Spatial Distribution
Tributary Stream Drainages
Field sampling of tributary streams resulted in collection of 1,791 fish comprising six species.
Composition of fish collected within tributary habitat was dominated by sculpin (slimy sculpin
and unclassified sculpin, 67.6 percent), Arctic grayling (15.7 percent), and Dolly Varden (13.6
percent); Chinook salmon accounted for 2.1 percent, with longnose suckers and round white fish
accounting for 1.0 percent. The field team incidentally observed over 290 additional fish that
avoided collection. In addition, 40 fish were observed during snorkeling (Table 13).
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 20 April 2013
Lake sampling resulted in collection of 112 fish from the 4 lakes sampled; no fish were
captured or observed in the unnamed lake within the unnamed tributary drainage at RM
203.4 (Table 14). Four species were documented in lakes; catch was dominated by sculpin
(68.1 percent) and Arctic grayling (24.8 percent). Lake trout and Dolly Varden were also
collected.Backpack electrofishing surveys were conducted in 184 mesohabitat sample units
in tributaries, or 79.0 percent of the sites sampled in tributary habitats (Table 5). Catch
(Table 15. Fish captured and observed and gear types used in the mainstem Susitna River
at tributary plume habitats, Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 166) and CPUE (Table 17) were dominated by sculpin, Arctic grayling, and Dolly Varden.
Fish distribution sampling using seven different gear types resulted in collection of 2,787 fish
(Table 14)
Downstream of Proposed Dam Site
Fish sampling was successfully conducted in 14 tributaries downstream of the proposed Susitna
–Watana Dam site.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 21 April 2013
RM 152.4-Cheechako Creek
Fish distribution sampling was conducted in one sample segment, which was located
downstream of the fish barrier located 3.4 km (2.1miles) from the mouth. Backpack
electrofishing was conducted from the mouth to a point approximately 175 m (574 feet)
upstream. The entire sample segment was characterized as cascade mesohabitat (Table 6). No
other sampling methods were attempted.
A total of 51 fish were captured during 16.75 minutes (1,005 seconds) of effort on August
2012. Juvenile Chinook salmon dominated the catch (68.6 percent), followed by Dolly
Varden (Table 15. Fish captured and observed and gear types used in the mainstem
Susitna River at tributary plume habitats, Upper Susitna River study area, July-August
2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 16). Arctic grayling and sculpin were also collected. Fork lengths of juvenile Chinook
salmon ranged from 54 mm to 72 mm (Appendix G). Water clarity in this clearwater stream was
considered good to excellent during the survey.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 22 April 2013
Cheechako Creek was one of only two tributary streams where juvenile Chinook were captured,
and was the only location where Chinook salmon dominated the catch. Chinook salmon were
captured primarily from behind boulders and on the margins of the left bank. The stream
channel sampled was approximately 12 m (39 feet) wide and mean depth was 0.45 m (1.5 feet).
Boulders (70 percent) dominated the substrate; the presence of cobble (20 percent) and gravel
(10 percent) was also documented. Minimal overhanging vegetation was noted in the sample
area.
Adult Chinook salmon were observed in Cheechako Creek downstream of the barrier during an
aerial salmon spawning survey in 2012. The presence of adult Chinook salmon was also
documented in the 1980s (ADF&G 1985).
RM 157.0-Chinook Creek
Fish distribution sampling occurred in Chinook Creek on July 24, 2012. Backpack electrofishing
was conducted in three spatially separate segments over a combined total distance of 180 m (591
feet), and angling was conducted in the segment near the mouth. Mesohabitat sampled was
classified as riffle, pocket-water, and cascade (Table 6).
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 23 April 2013
A total of 29 fish were captured from Chinook Creek during 16.33 minutes (980 seconds) of
backpack electrofishing effort (Table 15. Fish captured and observed and gear types used
in the mainstem Susitna River at tributary plume habitats, Upper Susitna River study
area, July-August 2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 16). Dolly Varden dominated the catch (70.0 percent); sculpin were also captured. No fish
were captured during angling. Chinook Creek was 1 of 13 streams where Dolly Varden were
captured and was 1 of 3 streams where backpack electrofishing catch was dominated by Dolly
Varden. Water clarity in Chinook Creek was considered excellent during the survey.
Adult Chinook salmon were observed in the main channel during an aerial salmon spawning
survey in 2012. The presence of adult Chinook salmon in this stream was also documented in the
1980s (ADF&G 1985).
RM 161.5-Devil Creek
Fish distribution sampling occurred on August 16, 2012, in Devil Creek. Sampling was not
conducted in Devil Creek downstream of the adult salmon passage barrier located 2.3 km (1.4
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 24 April 2013
miles) upstream of the mouth because of the lack of a landing zone. Backpack electrofishing was
conducted in one area located upstream of the barrier on August 16, 2012, to catalog fish species
presence. Sampling was conducted over a distance of 200 m (656 feet). Mesohabitat sampled
was classified as 100 percent pocket-water riffle (Table 6).
A total of 42 fish were captured from Devil Creek during 9.05 minutes (543 seconds) of
backpack electrofishing effort. Catch was dominated by Dolly Varden (90.5 percent);
were also captured (Table 15. Fish captured and observed and gear types used in the
mainstem Susitna River at tributary plume habitats, Upper Susitna River study area, July-
August 2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 16). Devil Creek was 1 of 13 streams where Dolly Varden were captured and was 1 of 3
streams where backpack electrofishing catch was dominated by Dolly Varden. Water clarity was
considered excellent during the survey.
The presence of adult Chinook salmon has been previously documented downstream of the
barrier (ADF&G 1985); adult Chinook were observed downstream of the barrier during all four
aerial surveys in 2012.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 25 April 2013
RM 166.3-Unnamed Tributary
Fish distribution sampling occurred on July 31 and August 16, 2012. Backpack electrofishing
was the only sampling method used in this tributary. Sampling was conducted in two segments
over a total distance of 169 m (554 ft). Mesohabitat sampled was primarily cascade, with some
classified as run (Table 6).
A total of 29 fish were captured during 15.52 minutes (931 seconds) of backpack
effort (Table 15. Fish captured and observed and gear types used in the mainstem Susitna
River at tributary plume habitats, Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 16). Catch was dominated by sculpin (37.9 percent) and Dolly Varden (34.5 percent);
Arctic grayling and a single unidentified salmonid were also recorded. Water clarity was
considered excellent during the surveys.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 26 April 2013
RM 168.7-Unnamed Tributary
Fish distribution sampling occurred on July 31, 2012. Backpack electrofishing was conducted in
two sample segments over a total distance of 74 m (243 ft). The sites were located downstream
of the barrier located 0.6 km (0.4 mi) above of the confluence. Mesohabitat sampled was 100
percent riffle (Table 6).
A total of 57 fish were captured during 10.73 minutes (644 seconds) of backpack
effort. Catch was dominated by sculpin (80.7 percent); Arctic grayling and Dolly Varden
also collected (Table 15. Fish captured and observed and gear types used in the mainstem
Susitna River at tributary plume habitats, Upper Susitna River study area, July-August
2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 16). Additional sculpin were observed but not captured. Water clarity was considered
excellent during sampling.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 27 April 2013
RM 171.0-Unnamed Tributary
Fish distribution sampling occurred on August 6, 2012. Backpack electrofishing and angling
were conducted in one sample segment downstream of the barriers located 2.3 km (1.4 mi)
upstream of the confluence. A distance of 142 m (466 ft) was sampled with the backpack
electrofisher; mesohabitat was 100 percent riffle (Table 6).
A total of 13 fish were captured during 3.07 minutes (184 seconds) of backpack electrofishing
effort. Arctic grayling (n=8) were captured by angling and all sculpin (n=5) were captured by
electrofishing (Table 14). Water clarity was considered excellent.
RM 173.0-Unnamed Tributary
Fish distribution sampling occurred on July 30, 2012. Backpack electrofishing was conducted in
two sample segments, both located downstream of the barrier 0.3 km (0.2 mi) upstream of the
confluence. Sampling was conducted over a total distance of 77 m (253 ft). No other sampling
methods were used in this stream. The mesohabitat sampled was primarily cascade and run, with
some riffle (Table 6).
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 28 April 2013
A total of 7 fish were captured during 8.27 minutes (496 seconds) of backpack
electrofishing effort. Sculpin dominated the catch (71.4 percent); Dolly Varden and Arctic
grayling were also caught (Table 15. Fish captured and observed and gear types used in the
mainstem Susitna River at tributary plume habitats, Upper Susitna River study area, July-
August 2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 16). Additional sculpin were observed, but not collected. Water clarity was considered
excellent.
RM 174.0-Unnamed Tributary
Fish distribution sampling occurred on July 30, 2012. Backpack electrofishing was conducted in
one sample segment just upstream from the mouth, over a distance of 46 m (151 ft). The
mesohabitat sampled was classified as run and riffle (Table 6).
A total of 53 fish were captured during 12.43 minutes (746 seconds) of backpack
effort. Catch was dominated by sculpin (66.0 percent) followed by Arctic grayling (Table
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 29 April 2013
15. Fish captured and observed and gear types used in the mainstem Susitna River at
tributary plume habitats, Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 16). Dolly Varden, longnose sucker, and YOY unidentified salmonids were also collected.
Water clarity was considered excellent.
RM 174.2-Unnamed Tributary
Fish distribution sampling occurred on July 30, 2012. Backpack electrofishing was conducted in
the main channel over a total distance of 74 m (243 ft), working upstream from the tributary
mouth. The mesohabitat sampled was classified as 100 percent riffle (Table 6).
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 30 April 2013
A total of 58 fish were captured or observed; catch was dominated by sculpin (65.2
percent), followed by Arctic grayling. Dolly Varden and unidentified salmonids were also
captured in fewer numbers (Table 15. Fish captured and observed and gear types used in
the mainstem Susitna River at tributary plume habitats, Upper Susitna River study area,
July-August 2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 16). Backpack electrofishing effort was not recorded from one sample segment. In the unit
where effort was recorded, fifteen fish were captured during 3.48 minutes (209 seconds) of
backpack electrofishing effort. Water clarity was considered excellent.
RM 176.6-Fog Creek
Fish distribution sampling was conducted throughout Fog Creek, within 3 secondary tributary
streams, and 1 lake in the Fog Lakes complex (Figure 3 and Figure 4) on July 18, July 21-23, and
August 9, 2012. Backpack electrofishing was the primary sample method used in stream
habitats; angling and minnow traps were used at a subset of sample segments. Backpack
electrofishing was conducted in 39 stream mesohabitat units over a total distance of 1,123 m
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 31 April 2013
(3,685 ft) in the Fog Creek drainage (Table 6). Effort was concentrated in side channel and main
channel habitats; off channel habitats were also sampled. Most mesohabitat was defined as riffle
(n=13, 42.1 percent), run (n=14, 27.0 percent), or percolation channel (n=4, 14.1 percent).
Cascade, scour pool, pocket-water riffle, and slough were also sampled.
A total of 258 fish were collected or observed within Fog Creek and its tributaries using all
aforementioned methods (Table 14). Backpack electrofishing resulted in capture and/or
observation of 194 fish during 141.70 minutes (1,123 seconds) of effort (Table 15. Fish
captured and observed and gear types used in the mainstem Susitna River at tributary
plume habitats, Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 16). The total catch by all methods was dominated by sculpin (66.3 percent) followed by
Dolly Varden; only four Arctic grayling were captured. Over half of the sculpin were identified
as slimy sculpin (Table 14). Dolly Varden FL ranged from 32 mm to 366 mm (Appendix G).
The Fog Creek drainage was one of two drainages where FL of Dolly Varden exceeded 200 mm.
In general, water clarity was good to excellent.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 32 April 2013
On July 21, 2012, five adult Dolly Varden (FL between 300 mm and 366 mm) were collected
from a percolation channel near the outlet of the Fog Lake system by angling. Dolly Varden
were also captured from minnow traps placed in the lake’s outlet channel.
One lake in the Fog Lakes complex was sampled by boat-based electrofishing, minnow traps,
and a fyke net. A total of 25 fish were captured from the lake, mostly sculpin (Table 14). Dolly
Varden were also collected. Water clarity was during boat-based electrofishing was good.
One adult Chinook salmon was observed in Fog Creek on July 30, 2012, during an aerial salmon
spawning survey. The presence of both adult and juvenile Chinook salmon in Fog Creek has
been previously documented (Buckwalter 2012). Juvenile Chinook salmon were captured from
two locations in the Fog Creek drainage by ADF&G in 2003 and 2011 (Buckwalter 2011).
Sampling in 2012 occurred in close proximity to both locations; however, juvenile Chinook were
not captured or observed.
RM 179.1-Unnamed Tributary
Backpack electrofishing was conducted on July 29, 2012 in one sample segment downstream of
the barrier located 4.5 km (2.8 mi) upstream of the confluence. The sample segment started at the
mouth and extended 137 m (450 ft) upstream, encompassing six mesohabitat sample units.
Mesohabitat within the segment was classified as predominately run, with some cascade (Table
6).
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 33 April 2013
A total of 54 fish were captured during 23.70 minutes (1,442 seconds) of backpack
electrofishing effort, including two juvenile Chinook salmon (Table 15. Fish captured and
observed and gear types used in the mainstem Susitna River at tributary plume habitats,
Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 16). Catch was dominated by Arctic grayling (50.0 percent). Sculpin and Dolly Varden
were also captured in fewer numbers. Water clarity was considered excellent during the survey.
This unnamed stream was 1 of only 2 streams where juvenile Chinook salmon were captured in
2012. Chinook salmon had not previously been documented in this stream drainage. The juvenile
Chinook salmon had FL of 60 mm and 64 mm. Both were captured in run habitat 12 m (39 ft)
upstream from the Susitna River confluence. The habitat unit was 11 m (36 ft) long and averaged
2.6 m wide and 0.25 m (8.5 ft and 0.8 ft respectively) deep. Substrate consisted of 10 percent
boulder, 40 percent cobble, 40 percent gravel, and 10 percent fines. Visibility was considered
excellent in this clearwater stream; overhanging vegetation was prevalent. The fish were holding,
under cover, along a velocity break between slow and fast water.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 34 April 2013
RM 179.4-Unnamed Tributary
Fish distribution sampling occurred on August 10, 2012. Backpack electrofishing was conducted
over a 100 m (328 ft) sample segment. Mesohabitat sampled was defined as 100 percent cascade
(Table 6).
A total of 14 fish were captured during 6.22 minutes (373 seconds) of backpack
effort. Catch including Arctic grayling (64.3 percent) and Dolly Varden (Table 15. Fish
captured and observed and gear types used in the mainstem Susitna River at tributary
plume habitats, Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 16). Water clarity was considered excellent.
RM 181.2-Unnamed Tributary
Fish distribution sampling occurred on July 23, July 27, and August 10, 2012. A distributary
channel flows from the primary channel into the Susitna River approximately 300 m (984 ft)
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 35 April 2013
upstream from the Susitna River confluence. All fish distribution sampling was conducted within
the lower portion of the primary (west) channel, downstream of the bifurcation.
Backpack electrofishing was conducted on July 23, 2012 in the lower 35 m (115 ft) of
habitat in the west channel beginning at the mouth. High velocities precluded the team’s
to sample throughout the entire channel. Sampling was limited to habitats along the stream
margin and behind boulders where slower velocities were encountered. A total of six
were captured during 3.53 minutes (212 seconds) of backpack electrofishing effort (Table
15. Fish captured and observed and gear types used in the mainstem Susitna River at
tributary plume habitats, Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 16). Water clarity was excellent during sampling.
The team returned on August 10, 2012 to snorkel additional habitats. A total distance of 249 m
(817 ft) was sampled. Mesohabitat composition was primarily run, run-pocketwater, and riffle-
pocketwater, with cascade and pool habitat also present (Table 6). The snorkeler observed 40
fish, primarily Arctic grayling. Round whitefish, sculpin, and Dolly Varden were also observed.
The entire width of the stream could not be sampled by one snorkeler, and velocity and depth
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 36 April 2013
precluded movement throughout portions of the stream channel. In total, 46 fish were observed
by snorkeling or captured by backpack electrofishing (Table 14).
RM 181.8-Tsusena Creek
Fish distribution sampling occurred on July 25, July 27, and August 10, 2012. The channel
bifurcates in its lower 0.5 km (0.3 mi) and enters the Susitna River as two channels. An adult
salmon barrier is located approximately 6.1 km (3.8 mi) upstream of the confluence. Backpack
electrofishing was conducted in the west channel, downstream of the bifurcation. Total distance
sampled was 107 m (351 ft); mesohabitat included riffle and run (Table 6).
A total of 50 fish were captured during 10.28 minutes (617 seconds) of backpack
effort. Sculpin dominated the catch (86.0 percent) and Arctic grayling and longnose sucker
also captured (Table 15. Fish captured and observed and gear types used in the mainstem
Susitna River at tributary plume habitats, Upper Susitna River study area, July-August
2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 37 April 2013
Table 16). Some of the sculpin were identified as slimy sculpin. Visibility during backpack
electrofish was considered excellent.
The presence of adult Chinook salmon was documented in the 1980s (ADF&G 1985). Aerial
surveys to document the adult salmon presence were conducted downstream of the barrier in
2012; no salmon were observed.
Upstream of Proposed Dam Site
RM 186.6-Deadman Creek
Fish distribution sampling occurred on July 24, July 26, and August 15, 2012. Fish distribution
sampling was conducted at one location downstream of the barrier located 1.0 km (0.6 mi)
upstream of the confluence, and two locations upstream from the barrier, including an unnamed
lake.
Both boat-based electrofishing and angling were conducted upstream of the barrier (upstream of
the 2,050-ft elevation). The boat-based electrofishing survey was conducted over a distance of
roughly 1 km (0.6 mi). The upstream start was located roughly 4.3 km (2.7 mi) downstream of
Deadman Lake. Velocities were extremely low throughout the area sampled. Mesohabitat
included primarily long, slow runs and deep pools; few riffles were encountered (Table 6). Many
large fish were observed swimming outside of the electrical field multiple times throughout the
survey; however, capture was limited to three sculpin and one juvenile Arctic grayling. The
juvenile Arctic grayling was captured from an aggregate of juveniles visible along the margin of
the stream. Visibility was good during boat-based electrofishing.
Angling was more effective for capturing adult fish in these conditions. Ten Arctic grayling were
captured with angling gear for a total of 12 captured or observed (Table 14).
One unnamed lake in this drainage was sampled in 2012 using angling gear, fyke nets, and
minnow traps. Catch was comprised of Arctic grayling and lake trout (Table 14).
Aerial surveys to document the adult salmon presence were conducted downstream of the barrier
in 2012; no salmon were observed. Chinook salmon have not been documented in Deadman
Creek by previous investigators (ADF&G 1985; Buckwalter 2011).
RM 186.9-Unnamed Tributary
Fish distribution sampling occurred on August 5, 2012. The stream channel in the vicinity of the
mouth is high gradient cascade, with boulders present. Less than 2 m (6.6 ft) of limited backpack
electrofishing was attempted at the mouth of the stream. Water clarity was poor; no fish were
captured or observed. Habitat throughout this stream does not appear suitable for adult salmon.
RM 192.0-Unnamed Tributary
Fish distribution sampling occurred on July 17-18, and July 26, 2012. Backpack electrofishing
was conducted in two discrete segments, over a total distance of 205 m (673 ft). Runs were the
dominant mesohabitat sampled (Table 6). The remaining mesohabitat sample units were riffle,
pocket-water riffle, backwater pool, and scour pool.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 38 April 2013
A total of 34 fish were captured or observed during 23.60 minutes (1,416 seconds) of
backpack electrofishing effort. Sculpin (slimy and unclassified) dominated the catch (85.7
percent); Arctic grayling and Dolly Varden were also captured (Table 15. Fish captured
and observed and gear types used in the mainstem Susitna River at tributary plume
habitats, Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 16). Water clarity was excellent during the sampling.
One sample segment was located downstream of the proposed inundation zone (approximately
2,050-foot elevation) and the other was located upstream. Arctic grayling and sculpin were
present in both segments; Dolly Varden were documented only in the upstream segment.
RM 194.1-Watana Creek
Fish distribution sampling occurred July 19-20, July 26, August 3, August 6, and August 11,
2012. Sampling was conducted in Watana Creek, within 5 tributary streams, and in Sally Lake,
which is located below the proposed reservoir elevation of 2,050 ft. Backpack and boat-mounted
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 39 April 2013
electrofishing were the primary capture methods used in stream habitat. Angling gear and
minnow traps were used at a subset of the stream segments sampled.
A total of 414 fish were captured or observed from stream habitat sampled throughout the
Watana Creek drainage; catch was dominated by sculpin (slimy and unclassified) and Arctic
grayling (Table 14). Catch also included Dolly Varden and round whitefish. Backpack
electrofishing was conducted in main channel (73.6 percent), side channel (21.8 percent), and off
channel (4.6 percent) over a total distance of 1,202 m (3,944 ft, Table 6). Mesohabitat in most
sample units was defined as run or riffle, with smaller amounts of cascade, backwater pool, scour
pool, pocket-water riffle, pocket-water run, and slough.
Backpack electrofishing effort was relatively well distributed throughout Watana Creek. Of the
1,202 m of stream habitat sampled, approximately 471 m (1,545 ft) was located below an
elevation of 2,050 ft, and the remaining 731 m (2,398 ft) was located above an elevation of 2,050
ft.
A total of 320 fish were captured or observed during 84.20 minutes (1,202 seconds) of backpack
electrofishing effort. Sculpin were caught or observed most often (85.3 percent), Arctic grayling
were found often in habitats sampled downstream of 2,050-ft and caught less frequently farther
upstream. Dolly Varden were captured from only two locations on Watana Creek. One Dolly
Varden was captured from riffle habitat in a side channel located roughly 14 km (8.7 mi)
upstream from the mouth, and another six were captured farther upstream. In general, water
clarity was good to excellent.
A boat-electrofishing survey was conducted over a distance of approximately 4.9 km (3.0 mi) on
July 20, 2012. The upstream start was located approximately 12.6 km (7.9 mi) upstream of the
Susitna River confluence. Mesohabitat within the stream segment sampled was dominated by
riffles and runs (Table 6). Boat-based electrofishing resulted in the capture of 16 fish,
predominantly Arctic grayling; round whitefish were also collected. Approximately 15 additional
Arctic grayling were observed but not captured.
Backpack electrofishing, angling, minnow traps, and a fyke net were used to sample Sally Lake.
Fish captures and observations were dominated by sculpin and Arctic grayling (Table 14). Lake
trout were also captured.
RM 194.9-Unnamed Tributary
Fish distribution sampling was conducted on July 18-19, and July 26, 2012. Two segments were
sampled in this tributary, one located near the mouth and the other located farther upstream
above an elevation of 2,050 ft on the east channel. Sampling did not occur upstream of the
suspected barrier in the west channel located 1.3 km (0.8 mi) upstream of the confluence.
Backpack electrofishing was conducted over a total combined distance of 149 m (489 ft).
Sampling occurred at nine discrete mesohabitat units; mesohabitat was primarily run or riffle,
with some scour pools present (Table 6). Additionally, two minnow traps were used at the upper
segment.
Backpack electrofishing effort in the tributary was 13.63 minutes (818 seconds). A total of
fish were captured at the downstream site. Sculpin (slimy and unclassified) were the
fish captured (84.6 percent); Arctic grayling were also caught (Table 15. Fish captured and
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 40 April 2013
observed and gear types used in the mainstem Susitna River at tributary plume habitats,
Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 16). No fish were captured or observed at the upstream segment. Water quality during
tributary sampling was fair.
RM 200.7-Unnamed Tributary
Fish distribution sampling occurred August 1, 2012. Backpack electrofishing was conducted
over 45 m downstream from the barrier located 0.3 km (0.2 mi) upstream of the confluence.
Mesohabitat sampled was limited to pocket-water riffle and cascade (Table 6).
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 41 April 2013
A total of 24 fish were captured or observed. The majority of fish were sculpin (87.5
percent); Arctic grayling were also captured (Table 15. Fish captured and observed and
gear types used in the mainstem Susitna River at tributary plume habitats, Upper Susitna
River study area, July-August 2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 16). Fifteen fish were captured during 5.82 minutes (349 seconds) of backpack
electrofishing effort in one unit. Backpack electrofishing effort was not recorded from one
sample segment. Water clarity was fair.
RM 201.8-Unnamed Tributary
Fish distribution sampling occurred on August 3, 2012. Backpack electrofishing was conducted
in the main channel of the stream over a total distance of 10 m (33 ft), downstream from the
barrier located 0.6 km (0.4 mi) upstream of the confluence. Mesohabitat sampled was
documented as 100 percent riffle (Table 6). Backpack electrofishing effort was abbreviated in
this short section (0.6 minutes); no fish were captured or observed. Water clarity was poor.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 42 April 2013
RM 203.4-Unnamed Tributary
Fish distribution sampling occurred on August 14, 2012. Sampling did not occur in the stream;
the unnamed lake was sampled with fyke nets and minnow traps. No fish were caught or
observed (Table 14). The lake is below an elevation of 2,050-ft.
RM 203.7-Unnamed Tributary
Fish distribution sampling occurred on August 2, 2012. Backpack electrofishing was conducted
in the main channel over a distance of 30 m (98 ft). Mesohabitat sampled was defined as
cascade and pocket-water run (Table 6).
A total of 29 fish were captured or observed during 4.63 minutes (278 seconds) of backpack
electrofishing effort; all fish were sculpin (Table 15. Fish captured and observed and gear
types used in the mainstem Susitna River at tributary plume habitats, Upper Susitna River
study area, July-August 2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 16). Water clarity was fair to good.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 43 April 2013
RM 206.8-Kosina Creek
Fish distribution sampling within the Kosina Creek drainage occurred on July 19, July 28,
August 1, and August 12, 2012. Sampling was conducted throughout Kosina Creek and within
two secondary tributaries: Gilbert Creek and Tsisi Creek. Backpack and boat-mounted
electrofishing were the primary capture methods. Angling gear and gill nets were used at a subset
of the segments sampled.
A total of 412 fish were captured or observed throughout the Kosina Creek drainage. Catch was
dominated by sculpin (79.4 percent) followed by Arctic grayling. Dolly Varden and round
whitefish were also captured (Table 14). Additionally, the presence of unspecified whitefish and
salmonids was recorded. Chinook salmon were not captured or observed during the ground-
based surveys. However, adult Chinook salmon were observed in Kosina Creek during the adult
salmon aerial surveys conducted in July and August, 2012.
Backpack electrofishing was conducted over a total distance of 1,541 m (5,056 ft) within the
Kosina Creek basin. Sampling occurred in main channel (30.9 percent), side channel (62.1
percent), and off channel (7.0 percent) habitat throughout eight spatially distinct areas, which
included 19 mesohabitat sample units (Table 6). Most mesohabitat was defined as run, pocket-
water riffle, and slough. Cascade, scour pool, riffle, and pocket-water run were also sampled.
Sample segments were relatively well distributed spatially throughout Kosina Creek. Sampling
occurred in segments located throughout the mouth to roughly 23.7 km (14.7 mi) upstream from
the Susitna River. The majority of stream habitat sampled was located upstream of the 2,050-foot
elevation. Backpack electrofishing was conducted at two sample segments downstream of the
2,050-foot elevation in slough and main channel habitats over a total distance of 276 m (906 ft).
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 44 April 2013
Fish composition was relatively consistent throughout the areas sampled. A total of 247 fish
were captured during 151.58 minutes (1,541 seconds) of backpack electrofishing effort
(Table 15. Fish captured and observed and gear types used in the mainstem Susitna River
at tributary plume habitats, Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 166). Catch and observation was dominated by sculpin (87.4 percent). Artic grayling were
only captured upstream of 2050-ft; round whitefish were also present. In general, water clarity
was good to excellent; few sample segments were classified as fair.
A boat-based electrofishing survey was conducted over a distance of approximately 5.7 km (3.6
mi) on July 19, 2012. The upstream start was located approximately 23.2 km (14.4 mi) upstream
of the Susitna River confluence. Mesohabitat within the stream segment sampled was dominated
by riffles and runs (Table 6). Boat-based electrofishing resulted in the capture of Arctic grayling,
round whitefish, and sculpin (Table 14). Adult Arctic grayling and whitefish were observed
swimming outside of the electrical field multiple times throughout the survey.
Angling was found to be an effective method for capturing adult grayling in Kosina Creek. Five
adult Arctic grayling were landed with angling gear.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 45 April 2013
The presence of adult and juvenile Chinook salmon in Kosina Creek was recently documented
by ADF&G (Buckwalter 2011; ADF&G 2011). Adult Chinook salmon were observed in Kosina
Creek during an aerial salmon spawning survey in 2012. However, no juvenile Chinook salmon
were captured from Kosina Creek in 2012.
RM 208.6-Jay Creek
Fish distribution sampling occurred on July 25 and August 14, 2012. Backpack electrofishing
was the primary method used to sample Jay Creek; angling was conducted at a subset of
segments sampled. Backpack electrofishing was conducted over a total distance of 754 m (2,474
ft). Six stream segments were sampled, which included 19 discrete mesohabitat sample units.
Backpack electrofishing occurred in main channel (80.0 percent), side channel (12.6 percent),
and off channel (7.4 percent) habitats (Table 6). Most mesohabitat sampled were defined as
riffle, run, or scour pool. Alcove, percolation channel, and slough habitats were also sampled.
Access to stream habitats within the lower portion of Jay Creek is limited. Jay Creek is confined
by steep canyon walls for roughly 5.3 km (3.3 mi), starting at a point approximately 6.8 km (4.2
mi) upstream from its confluence with the Susitna River. The channel is less confined and more
accessible within the lower 1.4 km (0.9 mi). Sampling was not conducted within the canyon
reaches. Backpack electrofishing was conducted in five spatially distinct areas in Jay Creek,
including one segment near the mouth. The upstream-most sample segment was located
approximately 15.1 km (9.4 mi) upstream from the confluence.
Backpack electrofishing was conducted at just one segment downstream of the 2,050-foot
elevation, over a distance of 84 m (276 ft). The remainder of the stream was sampled upstream
of the 2,050-foot elevation. Fish species presence was relatively consistent throughout the areas
sampled.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 46 April 2013
A total of 102 fish were captured during 55.97 minutes (3,358 seconds) of backpack
electrofishing effort throughout Jay Creek (Table 15. Fish captured and observed and gear
types used in the mainstem Susitna River at tributary plume habitats, Upper Susitna River
study area, July-August 2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 16). Catch was dominated by Dolly Varden (63.7 percent), followed by Arctic grayling
and sculpin. An additional Arctic grayling was captured by angling roughly 9.5 km (5.9 m)
upstream from the confluence. Water clarity was good to excellent in 18 of the 19 sample units;
one unit was classified as fair.
Jay Creek was 1 of 13 streams where Dolly Varden were captured and was 1 of 3 streams where
backpack electrofishing catch was dominated by Dolly Varden. Arctic grayling were captured
from most segments sampled. Dolly Varden were captured from four of the five segments
located upstream of 2,050-foot elevation, but were not captured from the downstream backpack
electrofishing segment. Dolly Varden dominated the catch at the two upstream-most segments.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 47 April 2013
RM 231.0-Goose Creek
Fish distribution sampling occurred on July 29 and August 13, 2012. Backpack electrofishing
was conducted over 637 m (2,090 ft) of stream. Sampling occurred in main channel (42.5
percent) and side channel (57.5 percent) habitat, over six stream segments (Table 6).
Mesohabitat was dominated by pocket-water riffle and run, with riffle also present.
A total of 123 fish were captured during 50.78 minutes (3,047 second) of backpack
electrofishing effort. Catch was dominated by sculpin (64.2 percent) and Arctic grayling
(Table 15. Fish captured and observed and gear types used in the mainstem Susitna River
at tributary plume habitats, Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 16). One additional Arctic grayling was observed but not captured. Water clarity was
good to excellent during sampling.
Backpack electrofishing was conducted in three spatially distinct areas in Goose Creek, each
with two sample segments. Distinct sample areas were located at approximately 1.9 km, 4.2 km,
and 5.1 km upstream of the confluence (1.1 mi, 2.6 mi, and 3.2 mi, respectively). Sculpin and
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 48 April 2013
Arctic grayling were captured in each of the three distinct areas; however, the majority of fish
(74.8 percent) were from the two stream segments closest to the confluence.
RM 233.5-Oshetna River
Fish distribution sampling occurred on July 26-27, and August 13, 2012. Backpack
electrofishing occurred in main channel (28.6 percent), side channel (36.7 percent), and off
channel (34.7 percent) habitat over five sample segments (Table 6). A total of 608 m (1,995 ft)
of stream were sampled including two segments totaling 220 m (722 ft) in the Black River.
Overall, eleven mesohabitat units of stream were sampled (Table 6). Most mesohabitat was
defined as percolation channel, riffle, or run, with scour pool habitat also present. No lake
habitats were sampled in the Oshetna River drainage.
Backpack electrofishing was conducted in four spatially distinct areas of the Oshetna River
drainage. Segments were located at the mouth and upstream of the confluence at 3.1 km and 12.4
km (1.9 mi and 7.7 mi, respectively). Two additional segments were located in the Black River
approximately 20.2 km (12.6 mi) upstream of the confluence.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 49 April 2013
A total of 168 fish were captured during 42.67 minutes (2,560 seconds) of backpack
electrofishing effort. Most fish captured were sculpin (93.4 percent); Arctic grayling and a
single longnose sucker were also captured (Table 15. Fish captured and observed and gear
types used in the mainstem Susitna River at tributary plume habitats, Upper Susitna River
study area, July-August 2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
Table 16). A significant amount of the catch (42.8 percent) was collected within the Black River.
Sculpin were captured in each of the four distinct areas; however, the majority of sculpin were
from the Black River. Arctic grayling were distributed from the mouth up to the uppermost
segment located in the Black River; however, they were not captured in all segments. The
majority were captured in the segment located at the mouth. The single longnose sucker was
located in the segment 12.4 km (7.7 mi) from the confluence. Water clarity was variable
throughout the backpack electrofishing effort; 6 of the 11 habitat units sampled had ex cellent
water clarity, the remaining were classified as poor (n=1) or fair (n=4).
The presence of adult and juvenile Chinook salmon in the Oshetna River was recently
documented by ADF&G (Buckwalter 2011; ADF&G 2011). Chinook salmon were not captured
or observed in the Oshetna River in 2012.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 50 April 2013
Mainstem Susitna River
Fish distribution sampling was conducted in the mainstem Susitna River at tributary plumes in
the vicinity of 18 tributary mouths. Sampling also took place in main channel, side channel, and
off-channel habitats at 10 locations on the mainstem Susitna River. Sampling in the mainstem
occurred between RM 166.3 – 233.5. Of the 28 sample segments located on the mainstem, 15
sample segments were located downstream of the proposed dam site, with the remaining 13
located upstream.
In the 10 sample sites not located at tributary plumes, the field team sampled a total of 1,409 m7
(4,623 ft) of stream habitat at 18 individual sample units consisting of isolated pond, backwater
pool, riffle, run, and slough mesohabitats. Riffle mesohabitat (n=5, 40.0 percent) was the most
common sample unit, followed by slough (n=6, 31.5 percent). Backpack electrofishing was the
primary sampling method; one unit, a slough, was sampled with a boat-mounted electrofishing
unit.
A total of 109 fish were captured during fish distribution surveys in the 10 mainstem sample sites
(Table 18). Arctic grayling, round whitefish, burbot, longnose sucker, and sculpin were
collected. The field team recorded over 114 additional fish that were observed but not captured
during capture-based surveys; no additional species were noted.
In the 18 tributary plumes sampled, backpack electrofishing was the primary method utilized
(n=12 plumes). Boat-based electrofishing (n=6 plumes) or a combination of both boat and
backpack electrofishing (n= 2 plumes) were utilized less often. Angling and a fyke net were
utilized in only one plume each. In all, the field team sampled over 875 m (2,871 ft) of plume
habitat utilizing backpack electrofishing. The length of plume sampled by boat-based
electrofishing was not available due to logistical constraints.
Sampling in tributary plumes collected 391 fish with over 150 additional fish observed but not
netted. Six species were documented in tributary plumes, with catch dominated by Arctic
grayling (53.5 percent) and sculpin (slimy sculpin and unclassified sculpin, 40.7 percent). Round
whitefish, longnose suckers, burbot, and humpback whitefish were captured in far fewer
numbers (5.8 percent); two unidentified salmonids were also captured (Table 15).
Downstream of Proposed Dam Site
RM 166.3-Unnamed Tributary
On July 31, 2012, fish distribution sampling by backpack electrofishing and fyke net occurred in
the mainstem Susitna River in the tributary plume of the unnamed tributary at RM 166.3. The
fyke net was set for 23 minutes and captured a single Arctic grayling. Backpack electrofishing
effort was 7.8 minutes (468 seconds) and occurred over a distance of 37 m (121 ft). A total of 49
fish were captured consisting of Arctic grayling (79.6 percent) and sculpin (Table 15).
7 Length sampled was not recorded for two mainstem sample units.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 51 April 2013
RM 168.8, Susitna River
Susitna River off-channel habitat at RM 168.8 was sampled by backpack electrofishing on July
31. Three mesohabitat types were sampled, including backwater pool, slough, and an isolated
pond. Total sample distance was 260 m (853 ft). Sampling effort was greatest in the slough
mesohabitat (49.0 percent), followed by the back-water pool (43.0 percent) and the isolated pond
(8.0 percent).
A total of 22 fish were captured during 24.90 minutes (1,493 seconds) of backpack electrofishing
effort. Catch consisted entirely of sculpin with the exception of one Arctic grayling (Table 18).
In addition, approximately 20 Arctic grayling were observed but not captured. Water clarity
ranged from fair to good.
RM 171.0-Unnamed Tributary
Fish distribution sampling by backpack electrofishing occurred on August 6, 2012 in the
mainstem Susitna River in the tributary plume of the unnamed tributary at RM 171.0. Backpack
electrofishing effort was 4.28 minutes (257 seconds) over a distance of 53 m (174 ft). A total of
18 Arctic grayling were captured and six sculpin were observed in the plume (Table 15).
RM 173.0-Unnamed Tributary
Backpack electrofishing was conducted in the mainstem Susitna River in the tributary plume of
the Unnamed Tributary at RM 173.0 on July 30, 2012. Backpack electrofishing effort was 3.8
minute (228 seconds) over a distance of 20 m (66 ft). A total of 13 fish were captured composed
of Arctic grayling and sculpin (Table 15).
RM 174.0-Unnamed Tributary
Sampling by backpack electrofishing occurred on July 30, 2012 in the tributary plume of the
unnamed tributary at RM 174.0. Backpack electrofishing effort was 7.90 minutes (474 seconds)
over a distance of 39 m (128 ft). A total of 54 fish were collected. Sculpin dominated the catch
(59.3 percent), Arctic grayling and a single unidentified salmonid were also captured (Table
145).
RM 174.1, Susitna River
Backpack electrofishing occurred in off-channel habitat on the mainstem Susitna River at RM
174.1 on July 30, 2012. Mesohabitat was backwater pool approximately 105 m (344 ft) long and
17 m (56 ft) wide; sampling was only completed on the shore margin covering an area
approximately 90 m (295 ft) long by 2 m (6.6 ft) wide because deep mud limited mobility within
the habitat unit.
A total of 30 fish were captured during 8.70 minutes (524 seconds) of backpack electrofishing
effort. Catch consisting primarily of Arctic grayling (73.3 percent); longnose sucker and sculpin
were also captured (Table 18). Water clarity was poor.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 52 April 2013
RM 174.2-Unnamed Tributary
Backpack electrofishing occurred on July 30, 2012 in the mainstem Susitna River within the
vicinity of the tributary plume. Backpack electrofishing effort was 11.75 minutes (705 seconds)
over a distance of 46 m (151 ft). A total of 37 fish were captured with an additional 27 observed.
Species composition of captured and/or observed fish consisted of Arctic grayling, sculpin, and a
single unidentified salmon (Table 14).
RM 178.2, Susitna River
Backpack electrofishing occurred in side channel habitat on the mainstem Susitna River at RM
178.2 on August 10, 2012. Sampling occurred at a shallow riffle located within a main channel
island complex. Sampling was conducted over a distance of 121 m (397 ft).
A total of 8 fish were captured during 5.30 minutes (315 seconds) of backpack electrofishing
effort. Catch consisted of sculpin and longnose sucker (Table 18). Water clarity was poor.
RM 179.1-Unnamed Tributary
On July 29, 2012, backpack electrofishing was conducted in the plume associated with the
unnamed tributary at RM 179.1 in the mainstem Susitna River. Electrofishing effort was 11.72
minutes (703 seconds) over a distance of 55 m (180ft). A total of 43 fish were captured; Arctic
grayling dominated the catch (55.8 percent) and the remaining fish were sculpin (Table 14).
RM 181.2-Unnamed Tributary
Fish distribution sampling using backpack and boat-based electrofishing was conducted on the
mainstem Susitna in the plume of the unnamed tributary at RM 181.2. On August 10, 2012,
backpack electrofishing was conducted over a total distance of 181 m (594 ft) with an effort of
33.08 minutes (1,985 seconds). A total of 43 fish were captured. Sculpin were the dominant fish
caught (primarily identified as slimy sculpin). Arctic grayling and round whitefish were also
collected in fewer numbers (Table 145). The netter observed but was unable to capture other fish
(sculpin and unidentified salmonids).
A single adult Chinook salmon was observed in the clearwater plume during a boat-based
electrofishing survey on July 27, 2012. The Chinook salmon was in spawning colors. Sampling
activities ceased as soon as the adult Chinook salmon was observed. Total sample effort was 19
seconds.
RM 181.8-Tsusena Creek
Fish distribution sampling in the mainstem Susitna River at the Tsusena Creek plume was
conducted using angling, boat-based electrofishing, and back-pack electrofishing during two
separate events. Angling and backback electrofishing was conducted on August 10, 2012. Boat-
based electrofishing took place on July 27, 2012. The majority of fish were captured by boat-
based electrofishing (n=34) with fewer numbers captured by angling (n=4) and backpack
electrofishing (n=5). Boat-based electrofishing effort was 6.58 minutes (395 seconds). Backpack
electrofishing effort was 6.98 minutes (419 seconds) over a distance of 175 m (574 ft).
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 53 April 2013
A total of 43 fish were captured. Fish captured included Arctic grayling (60.5 percent), sculpin,
round whitefish, humpback whitefish, and longnose sucker (Table 145). This was the only
location where a humpback whitefish was identified.
Upstream of Proposed Dam Site
Fish Distribution sampling was successfully conducted in 12 of 13 tributary upstream of the
proposed Dam sight. Sampling in the firat tributary was not successful due to high gradient, high
velocity habitat.
RM 186.0, Susitna River
Backpack electrofishing occurred over 95 m (312 ft) of off-channel slough habitat on the
mainstem Susitna River at RM 186.0 on July 27, 2012. Visibility was poor in the portion of
slough habitat adjacent to the Susitna River and improved as the water cleared toward the top of
the slough.
A total of 17 fish were captured during 8.50 minutes (508 seconds) of backpack electrofishing
effort. Sculpin were the most abundant species captured (52.9 percent), followed by Arctic
grayling and longnose sucker (Table 18).
RM 186.6-Deadman Creek
Fish distribution sampling in the mainstem Susitna River at the Deadman Creek plume was
conducted using boat-based electrofishing on July 26, 2012. Effort totaled 2.77 minutes (166
seconds) and resulted in the capture of two Arctic grayling (Table 145).
RM 186.8, Susitna River
Backpack electrofishing occurred in the main channel of the mainstem Susitna River at RM
186.8 on August 5, 2012. A total of 55 m (180 ft) of shallow back eddy habitat were sampled
upstream and downstream from a small tributary.
A total of four fish were captured during 13.80 minutes (828 seconds) of backpack electrofishing
effort. Arctic grayling, round whitefish, sculpin, and burbot were collected (Table 18). In
addition, 2 sculpin were observed but not captured. Water clarity was poor.
RM 186.9-Unnamed Tributary
Backpack electrofishing in the mainstem Susitna River at the small plume associated with the
unnamed tributary at RM 186.9 occurred on August 5, 2012. Water clarity was poor and a
limited effort of 0.75 minutes (45 seconds) over 6 m (6.5 ft) resulted in no fish captured or
observed.
RM 192.0-Unnamed Tributary
Fish distribution sampling by boat-mounted electrofishing occurred on July 26, 2012 in the
plume created by the unnamed tributary at RM 192. A total of 21 fish were captured over an
effort of 3.40 minutes (204 seconds). The catch included Arctic grayling, longnose sucker, round
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 54 April 2013
whitefish, and sculpin. The netter reported an additional 35 Arctic grayling that were affected by
the electrical field but not captured (Table 145).
RM 192.6, Susitna River
Backpack electrofishing occurred in the main channel of the mainstem Susitna River at RM
192.6 on August 5, 2012. Several hundred meters of shallow riffle along the island shoreline
were sampled; precise survey distance is not available.
Four fish were captured including adult and juvenile Arctic grayling, longnose sucker, and
sculpin (Table 18). In addition, approximately four Arctic grayling were observed but not
captured. Backpack electrofishing effort is not available. Poor water clarity and swift current
made capturing fish difficult.
RM 194.0, Susitna River
Backpack electrofishing occurred On August 6, 2012, in main channel and off-channel habitat of
the mainstem Susitna River at RM 194.0 over a total distance of 261 m (856 ft). Main channel
sampling occurred in run (58.6 percent) and riffle (18.4 percent) mesohabitat types. Off-channel
mesohabitat was slough (23.0 percent).
A total of 14 fish were captured at this site within the main channel habitat (Table 18). Catch
was limited to longnose sucker and sculpin. Numerous additional fish were observed but not
captured during backpack electrofishing surveys; these species included 14 longnose sucker and
15 sculpin. Backpack electrofishing effort was greater than 11.70 minutes (704 seconds) but is
not unavailable at all sites. Water clarity was poor in the main channel; water clarity in the
slough varied from poor near the Susitna River to good in the clear water near the top of the
slough.
RM 194.1-Watana Creek
The small plume of Watana Creek in the mainstem Susitna River was sampled on July 26, 2012.
An effort of 1.10 minutes (66 seconds) by the boat-mounted electrofisher resulted in no
successfully netted fish; however, Arctic grayling, longnose sucker, and an unidentified salmonid
were observed (Table 14).
RM 194.9-Unnamed Tributary
The boat-mounted electrofisher was used to sample habitat in the tributary plume within the
Susitna River on July 26, 2012. The size of the plume was very small. An effort of 0.90 minutes
(54 seconds) captured one Arctic grayling and 2 unidentified salmonids were observed (Table
145).
RM 197.7, Susitna River
Backpack electrofishing occurred on August 2, 2012, in main channel and side-channel habitat
of the mainstem Susitna River at RM 197.7 over 387 m (1,270 ft) of stream. Main channel
sampling consisted mostly of riffle (77.5 percent) mesohabitat. Side-channel mesohabitat was
classified as slough (22.5 percent).
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 55 April 2013
Nine fish were captured during 18.60 minutes (1,117 seconds) of backpack electrofishing effort
(Table 18). Arctic grayling and longnose sucker were captured in the side-channel habitat; one
burbot was captured in the main channel. Additional Arctic grayling, sculpin, and longnose
sucker were observed but not captured in the side channel. Water clarity was poor in the main
channel and improved within the slough.
RM 201.7, Susitna River
Backpack electrofishing occurred on August 1, 2012 in the main channel of the mainstem
Susitna River at RM 201.7 over 70 m (230 ft) of stream. Mesohabitat was classified as riffle
over one sample unit.
No fish were captured at this site during 6.10 minutes (366 second) of backpack electrofishing
effort. Four unidentified fish were observed in the main channel, but not captured (Table 18).
Water clarity was poor.
RM 201.8-Unnamed Tributary
Fish distribution sampling in the plume of the unnamed tributary at RM 201.8 occurred on
August 3, 2012 by backpack electrofishing. Effort was 8.42 minutes (505 seconds) over 91 m
(299 ft). A total of 15 fish were captured, composed primarily of Arctic grayling with fewer
numbers of sculpin and one burbot. In addition, 20 Arctic grayling and sculpin were observed
but not captured (Table 145).
RM 203.7-Unnamed Tributary
Fish distribution sampling in the plume of the unnamed tributary at RM 203.7 occurred on
August 2, 2012 by backpack electrofishing. Backpack electrofishing occurred over a distance of
56 m (184 ft) with an effort of 3.45 minutes (207 seconds). A total of 22 fish comprised of Arctic
grayling and sculpin were captured (Table 145).
RM 205.7, Susitna River
Boat-mounted electrofishing occurred on July 25, 2012, in off-channel slough habitat on the
mainstem Susitna River at RM 205.7 over 70 m (230 ft) of stream. The slough, approximately 50
m (164 ft) wide and 239 m (784 ft) long, was located near the downstream end of the Kosina
Creek clearwater plume.
No fish were caught during 1.40 minutes (81 seconds) of boat electrofishing effort (Table 18).
The team visually observed a school of small fish during the effort and was able to capture a fish
from the school using a small hand net. The fish was identified as YOY Arctic grayling.
Approximately 20 Arctic grayling were observed but not captured. Water clarity in the portion
of the slough closest to the Susitna River was fair. Water clarity improved to good towards the
upstream extent of the slough but the upstream extent became too shallow to effectively sample
with the boat unit.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 56 April 2013
RM 206.8-Kosina Creek
Kosina Creek’s extensive clearwater plume within the mainstem Susitna River was sampled on
July 25, 2012 using a boat-mounted electrofisher. The survey effort totaled 8.05 minutes (483
seconds) and extended nearly 1.6 km (1.0 mi) downstream of the mouth of Kosina Creek. A total
of 12 fish were captured, including Arctic grayling and longnose sucker. In addition, 16
unidentified salmonids were observed but not captured (Table 145).
RM 208.6-Jay Creek
The small plume at the mouth of Jay Creek was sampled in the mainstem Susitna River on July
25, 2012, using a boat-mounted electrofisher. Flow from Jay Creek enters the Susitna River in
three small channels. The mixing zone of clear and turbid water at the base of each channel was
estimated to be approximately 2 m by 2 m (6.5 ft by 6.5 ft). Electrofishing effort was 2.18
minutes (131 seconds). A total of 3 fish comprised of Arctic grayling and one burbot were
captured. In addition, four unidentified salmonids and four Arctic grayling were observed but not
captured (Table 14).
RM 233.5-Oshetna River
Backpack electrofishing was conducted within the mainstem Susitna River in the tributary plume
of the Oshetna River on July 26, 2012. A total distance of 120 m (394 ft) was sampled during
5.07 minutes (304 seconds) of backpack electrofishing. Catch comprised of 16 sculpin and 3
Arctic grayling (Table 14).
3.4.3. Genetics
Fin clips were collected for genetic sampling from 35 juvenile Chinook salmon (FL 54 mm-72
mm) captured in Cheechako Creek. Fin clips were also taken throughout the study area from 69
Arctic grayling (FL 43-384), 29 Dolly Varden (FL 78mm-366mm), 20 longnose sucker (TL
68mm-404), 3 burbot (TL 380mm-410mm), 3 round whitefish (FL 179mm-305mm), and 2 slimy
sculpin (TL 54mm-88mm). Samples were submitted to the ADF&G Genetics Laboratory in
Anchorage on October 4, 2012.
3.4.4. Tissue Metals Content
Nineteen fish were collected as voucher specimens for metals analysis, including 7 Arctic
grayling, 5 round whitefish, 1 humpback whitefish, 4 burbot, and 2 lake trout. However, 13 of
the original 19 samples became unusable and were discarded after a freezer power malfunction at
Stephan Lake Lodge. Tissue samples from 6 fish, including 2 lake trout, 2 burbot, and 2 Arctic
grayling were not affected by the freezer malfunction and were submitted to Rand Brooks
Laboratory for metals analysis. Results of the laboratory analysis will be presented in the Water
Quality report.
All 6 samples analyzed were collected from upstream of the proposed dam site. Five fish were
collected from habitat within the proposed inundation zone; and 1 fish was captured in a
tributary stream just upstream from the proposed inundation zone elevation. The burbot were
captured from the mainstem Susitna River. Lake trout were captured from Sally Lake, which is
located in the Watana Creek drainage. Arctic grayling were captured from Watana Creek.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 57 April 2013
3.4.5. Otolith Microchemistry
Otoliths were not extracted from fish in 2012. One humpback whitefish was retained but the
sample was discarded as a result of a freezer malfunction at Stephan Lake Lodge. The field team
captured 5 adult Dolly Varden (FL ranged between 300 mm and 366 mm) from a percolation
channel in the Fog Creek drainage, near the outlet of the Fog Creek system on July 21, 2012.
However, none were retained for otolith analysis at that time. The team intended to resample
near the initial point of capture to collect adult Dolly Varden, but was unable to return due to
time constraints.
In 2011, ADF&G biologists collected otoliths from humpback whitefish and Dolly Varden from
several reaches upstream of Devils Canyon. The otoliths are being tested for saltwater residency
in an effort to determine whether anadromy may be a component of these species life history in
the Upper Susitna River. Results are pending (Buckwalter 2011).
3.5. Discussion and Conclusion
3.5.1. Existing Fish Species Distribution Data Summary
Information regarding resident species, anadromous non-salmon species, and freshwater life
stages of anadromous salmon throughout the Susitna River basin was collected during studies in
connection with the historical proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project in the 1980s. Historical
data includes the spatial and temporal distribution of fish species and their relative abundance.
To varying degrees, the relative abundance and distribution of resident fish species were
determined during the early 1980s studies. For several species data included classifying
dominant age classes and sex ratios, tracking movements, and identifying spawning and
overwintering habitats. The Pre-Application Document (PAD) (AEA 2011a) and Aquatic
Resources Data Gap Analysis (ARDGA; AEA 2011b) summarized this existing information and
also identified data gaps for resident and rearing anadromous fish.
More recently, the ADF&G conducted fish presence sampling in the Upper Susitna River
subbasin as part of their Alaska Freshwater Fish Inventory (AFFI) program8. In August 2003, the
ADF&G sampled 19 reaches upstream of Devils Canyon with a backpack electrofisher during a
reconnaissance inventory (Buckwalter 2011). In August 2011, ADF&G biologists returned to
sample an additional 60 reaches using backpack and boat-based electrofishing, with an emphasis
on anadromous fish, as part of their standard AFFI fish inventory practices (Buckwalter 2011).
ADF&G recorded aquatic and riparian habitat characteristics at each fish sampling site and
conducted a total of three aerial surveys to identify locations of spawning salmon (Buckwalter
2011). Between both study years, 75 reaches were sampled for fish presence within or upstream
of Devils Canyon. Of these, 38 reaches fall within the study area of the Fish Distribution Study
(Buckwalter 2011).
To date, eight fish species have been documented inhabiting riverine habitats within the Susitna
River basin upstream of Devils Canyon, including Chinook salmon, Arctic grayling, Dolly
Varden, humpback whitefish, round whitefish, burbot, longnose sucker, and slimy sculpin
8 The ADF&G Fishery Data Series (FDS) report that will describe these efforts in detail is currently being prepared. The ADF&G
prepared a synopsis of the 2011 fish inventory in November 2011 (Buckwalter 2011).
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 58 April 2013
(Sautner and Stratton 1983; Buckwalter 2011 ). Two additional species, lake trout and rainbow
trout, have been documented exclusively in lacustrine habitats (Schmidt et. al 1985). Lake trout
were documented in Sally Lake, located in the Watana Creek drainage, and Deadman Lake in the
Deadman Creek drainage (Delaney et al. 1981). Rainbow trout presence was documented in
High Lake and Little High Lake within the Devils Creek drainage in the 1980s (Schmidt et. al
1985) (Table 19). All of these species except rainbow trout were found in 2012.
3.5.2. Fish Species Distribution in the Upper Susitna River Study Area
Sampling in 2012 provided a qualitative overview of fish species composition, spatial
distribution, and localized relative abundance. Collected species were generally representative
of species known to be present in the Upper Susitna River drainage based on historical
information.
All fish captured during sampling were known native species. Sculpin were most common and
composed 62 percent of the total catch for the entire study. Sculpin are common native demersal
riverine species that have little recreational importance.
Arctic grayling were relatively ubiquitous throughout the study area and were captured
throughout all major habitats. In tributary streams, catch appeared to be higher in downstream
sites relative to sites farther upstream. Historically, Arctic grayling were captured from all
tributary habitat evaluation locations, with the exception of Chinook Creek (Delaney et al. 1981;
ADF&G 1982). The majority of Arctic grayling were captured by angling, but other methods
were used (Delaney et al. 1981; Sautner and Stratton 1983). Arctic grayling were identified as
the most abundant fish species throughout the proposed inundation zone (Delaney et al. 1981;
Sautner and Stratton 1983).
Dolly Varden were captured in tributary streams, but were absent from tributary plumes and
mainstem Susitna River sites. Catch appeared higher at upstream sites relative to sites farther
downstream. Sampling in 2012 captured more individual Dolly Varden than the 1980s effort;
distribution was wide.
Burbot and longnose suckers were documented in the vicinity of tributary plumes that extend
into the Susitna River, and within sloughs and along margins of the Susitna River. Although
these two species were observed in the vicinity of tributary mouths, neither was observed in
sampling locations farther upstream. This trend is generally consistent with catch in the 1980s
(Sautner and Stratton 1983).
Sampling in 2012 confirmed the presence of anadromous Chinook salmon above Devils Canyon.
Biologists from the ADF&G recently collected otoliths from optionally-anadromous species,
including humpback whitefish and Dolly Varden, from several reaches upstream of Devils
Canyon. The otoliths are being tested for the presence of saltwater residency in an effort to
determine the migration history of the collected fish (Buckwalter 2011).
Length frequency histograms for Arctic grayling and Dolly Varden captured from Fog, Watana,
Jay, and Kosina creeks and the Oshenta River showed that Age-0 size classes were well
represented for each stream (Appendix F), which suggests successful spawning, hatching and
rearing of the most sensitive early life stages. In most streams, multiple age-classes were present
for these two species.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 59 April 2013
3.5.3. Chinook Salmon in the Upper Susitna River Study Area
Juvenile Chinook salmon were captured in only two streams in 2012. Cheechako Creek is a
clearwater stream located near the base of Devils Canyon. Historical observations identified the
presence of 25 adult salmon in Cheechako Creek (ADF&G 1985). The 35 juvenile Chinook
salmon collected in 2012 were concentrated in cascade habitat and along margin habitat with
boulder pocket water located near the mouth of the confluence. The unnamed tributary (RM
179.1) where the remaining two juveniles were collected is a relatively small, clearwater
drainage. Salmon were not previously documented in the stream. The close proximity of the
collected fish to the confluence of the mainstem Susitna River for both Cheechako Creek and the
unnamed tributary suggest that proximal rearing is occurring in tributaries outside of the
mainstem Susitna River. Chinook spawn in tributary habitat and juvenile rearing in tributaries
can be common due to available velocity refugia and lower predator density.
Although no juvenile Chinook salmon were collected or observed, adults were recently observed
during aerial surveys of Cheechako, Chinook, Devil, Fog, and Kosina creeks. Previous data
identified salmon in all five of these drainages, in addition to Tsusena Creek and the Oshetna
River (Buckwalter 2011) (Figure 7; Table 20).
ADF&G also collected fish tissue samples from Chinook in Kosina Creek on July 31, 2012 using
hook-and-line gear. The single-day effort resulted in collecting 10 Chinook and subsequent
tissue samples.
Information on the extent of Chinook salmon distribution and run size in the Upper Susitna River
basin is limited. Historical data indicate that Susitna River Chinook salmon spawn exclusively
in tributary streams (Thompson et al. 1986; Barrett et al. 1983; ADF&G 1984; ADF&G 1985),
and that nearly all Chinook salmon juveniles in this system outmigrate to the ocean as age-1+
fish. Little is known about the density and distribution of juvenile salmon in the Susitna River
upstream of the proposed dam site at RM 184.
In 2012, a radio-telemetry study titled, Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization, was
conducted in which five species of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp. including Chinook
salmon) were radio-tagged and tracked in the mainstem Susitna River to describe salmon
migration behavior, identify salmon spawning locations, and evaluate techniques for future
studies of salmon in turbid water. The study design was meant to enable comparisons to salmon
distribution and habitat use in the 1980s, when similar studies were conducted for the Alaska
Power Authority Hydroelectric Project.
Radio telemetry detection was used to assign final destination of Chinook salmon in either the
mainstem Susitna River or tributaries. Results found that only two salmon tagged from the
Lower River (1.1 percent) and four salmon tagged from the Middle River had final destinations
upstream of the proposed Project dam site. Chinook salmon was the only species identified
migrating upstream of any of the three high velocity impediments in Devils Canyon (RM 150–
161). Most Chinook salmon migrated through the Devils Canyon impediments in mid-July,
when discharge in the Susitna River was between 17,000 and 21,000 cfs at the Gold Creek gage.
Run timing at Curry peaked in early July.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 60 April 2013
3.5.4. Fish Collection Methodologies Influencing Success
The collection and representation of fish species and size classes was influenced by sampling
methodologies employed. Backpack electrofishing equipment used in 2012 was reliable and,
given the two-person crew size, easily transported in the R-44 helicopter. Backpack
electrofishing was the most effective gear for fish species presence sampling in wadeable
habitats and composed the majority of sample time. Seven of nine species were collected by
backpack electrofishing; however, effort was limited to wadeable streams or shallower stream
margins that did not possess excessively swift water. Less than 10 percent of electrofished
habitat occurred in tributary plumes, mainstem habitat, or lakes. The two species not collected
by backpack electrofishing, lake trout and whitefish, are commonly associated with deep
unwadeable habitat.
Differences in turbidity, water turbulence, and habitat complexity among streams and habitats
were additional factors influencing differences in electrofishing results. Electrofishing was
successful at immobilizing fish in most areas sampled; however, netting efficiency was
considered poor at many sample sites due primarily to turbidity and velocity. Tributary streams
were typically flowing very swiftly and white water turbulence severely limited the ability to see
fish in many streams. Turbid water habitats, particularly in the mainstem Susitna River, were
especially challenging for netting fish. In some cases, the team would see a stunned fish at the
surface (or see evidence of its movement as surface turbulence), but would not be able to react
quickly enough to capture the fish before it was no longer visible in the turbid water. Information
for fish observed, but not captured, was recorded. It is likely that other fish had been stunned but
not observed, especially bottom dwelling species such as sculpin.
Boat-based electrofishing allowed sampling to occur in habitat areas that would otherwise be
inaccessible, and in some habitat areas, unsuitable for other gear types. The effectiveness of
boat-based electrofishing was challenged by low conductivity, high turbidity, and swift water.
Sampling with the boat electrofisher was not possible in high velocity areas because of the
prevalence of boulders and whitewater. Many fish were observed, but not collected. Refinement
to the boat electrofisher configuration (e.g., altered anode array, more powerful control unit, etc)
may incrementally improve the range of the electrical field, but challenges with turbidity,
conductivity, and swift water are notable limitations.
Angling was opportunistically applied to lake, tributary plume, and tributary habitat. Collected
fish were all equal or greater than 148 mm in length, representing a sampling bias to adult
lifestages. Success appeared similar among habitat types and catch was related to the number of
units sampled.
Fyke nets are typically an effective gear type at capturing a wide range of fish species and sizes
in still or slow water habitats. Fyke nets selected for use in 2012 were relatively lightweight and
fit in the backseat of an R-44 helicopter; however, transport of multiple fyke nets required
multiple trips using a single R-44, so use in 2012 was limited. Fyke nets and minnow traps both
collected Dolly Varden, Arctic grayling, and slimy sculpin. Minnow traps were placed primarily
in lacustrine habitat and predominantly collected Dolly Varden. Fyke nets were also placed in
tributary plume habitat and primarily collected slimy sculpin and Arctic grayling. Fyke nets
collected more fish than minnow traps with less effort. Nonetheless, both methods were
effective in their respective applications.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 61 April 2013
Snorkeling was not often utilized because of logistical challenges and safety requirements.
Implementing snorkel surveys in swift water and larger streams would require a larger team to
ensure safe protocol implementation. Snorkeling may still be effective, but would require
additional logistical resources than were planned for 2012.
3.5.5. Conclusion
The 2012 Fish Distribution Study provided helpful insight into planning for 2013–2014 field
efforts and a foundation of expanded knowledge of fish distribution and habitat use. The field
effort was not without challenges and field activity provided insight into the effectiveness of
numerous sampling techniques and how best to refine future data collection. Sampling gear
effectiveness will be critical for planning upcoming field activity (2013–2014).
As field researchers garnered first-hand field experience in implementing the numerous
methodologies, they also gathered information on fish distribution and habitat use that extended
beyond historical data. Chinook salmon were not collected at many locations, but were found in
one new location. Expected species composition has been validated to date; however, much
additional information is yet to be collected. Additional data will help refine habitat use by focus
species, bolster characterization of species relative abundance, and better document multiple life
stages over time. Many drainages were sampled only once. Multiple sample events over time
will increase confidence in species composition and habitat use data. Overall, the study provided
a solid foundation to execute a well-planned research effort in 2013–2014.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 62 April 2013
4. REFERENCES
ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Phase I
final report: big game studies. Vol. I—Big game summary report. Report prepared for
Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK. 76pp. [APA Doc. No. 404]
ADF&G. 1983. Adult anadromous fish studies, 1982. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Phase II
Basic Data Report. Volume 2. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
ADF&G. 1984. Susitna Hydro aquatic studies report no. 1 ADF&G, Susitna Hydro Aquatic
Studies Report Series, Susitna Hydro Document No. 1450, Anchorage, Alaska.
ADF&G. 1985. Adult salmon investigations, May-October 1984. ADF&G Susitna
HydroAquatic Studies Report No. 6 Susitna Hydro Document No. 2748. Anchorage,
Alaska.
ADF&G 2011. Alaska Freshwater Fish Inventory Database; geospatial data, December 2011;
received February 2012.]
ADF&G. 2012. Alaska Fish Resource Monitor, Anadromous Waters. Accessed November 2012.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska.
AEA (Alaska Energy Authority). 2011a. Pre-application Document (PAD): Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241. December 2011. Prepared for the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
AEA. 2011b. Aquatic Resources Gap Analysis. Prepared by HDR, Inc., Anchorage. 107
pp.Barrett, B. M. 1985. Adult Salmon Investigations, May - October 1984. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies, Anchorage, Alaska.
528 pp.
AEA. 2012. Upper Susitna River Fish Distribution and Habitat Study Plan, 2012.
Barrett, B. M., F. M. Thompson, S. Wick, and S. Krueger. 1983. Adult Anadromous Fish
Studies, 1982. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies,
Anchorage, Alaska. 275 pp.
Brown, R. J., N. Bickford, and K. Severin. 2007. Otolith trace element chemistry as an indicator
of anadromy in Yukon River drainage Coregonine fishes. – Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 136:
678–690.
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.
Buckwalter, J.D. 2012. Personal communication with Erin Cunningham at HDR Alaska,
Incorporated, on May 5, 2012.
Buckwalter, J.D., J.M. Kirsch, and D.J. Reed. 2010 Fish inventory and anadromous cataloging in
the lower Yukon River drainage, 2008 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fisheries
Data Series No. 10-76 Anchorage.
Delaney, K., D. Crawford, L. Dugan, S. Hale, K. Kuntz, B. Marshall, J. Mauney, J. Quinn, K.
Roth, P. Suchanek, R. Sundet, and M. Stratton. 1981a. Resident Fish Investigation on the
Upper Susitna River. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK. 157 pp.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 63 April 2013
HDR, 2013. 2012 Upper Susitna River Fish Distribution and Habitat Study – Habitat
Report. Prepared for the Alaska Energy Authority by HDR Alaska Inc., Anchorage,
Alaska.
Ivey, S., and S. Oslund. In Prep. Area Management Report for the Recreational Fisheries of
Northern Cook Inlet, 2010-2012. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery
Management Report No. XX-XX, Anchorage.
Ivey, S. 2012. Personal communication with S. Ivey of Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
June 2012.
Moore, K. M. S., K. K. Jones, and J. M. Dambacher. 2006. Aquatic Inventories Project: Methods
for Stream Habitat Surveys. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis, Oregon.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Guidelines for Electrofishing Waters
Containing Salmonids Listed Under the Endangered Species Act.
Peterson, N.P. and L.M. Reid. 1984. “Wall-base channels: their evolution, distribution and use
by juvenile coho salmon in the Clearwater River, Washington.” Pages 215–226 in J.M.
Walton and D.B. Houston, editors. Proceedings of the Olympic Wild Fish Conference:
Port Angeles.
Sautner, J., and M. Stratton. 1983. Upper Susitna River Impoundment Studies 1982. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. Anchorage, Alaska. 220 pp.
Schmidt, D.C., S.S. Hale, and D.L. Crawford. 1985. Resident and juvenile anadromous fish
investigations (May - October 1984). Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage,
Alaska. 483 pp.
Temple, G. M., and T. N. Pearsons. 2007. Electrofishing: backpack and drift boat. Pages 95–132
in D. H. Johnson, B. M. Shrier, J. S. O’Neal, J. A. Knutzen, X. Augerot, T. A. O’Neil,
and T. N. Pearsons. Salmonid field protocols handbook—techniques for assessing status
and trends in salmon and trout populations. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
Maryland.Trihey, E. W. 1982. Preliminary assessment of access by spawning salmon to
side slough habitat above Talkeetna. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Doc. No. 134. 24 pp.
Thompson, F. M., S. Wick, and B. Stratton. 1986. Adult salmon investigations, May–October
1985. Report No. 13. Susitna Hydro Document No. 3412, Anchorage, Alaska.
Three Rivers Fly and Tackle. 2012. Fish Alaska Marazines Mat-Su Pages. Available
online:http://www.fishalaskamagazine.com/guides/laketrout4.cfm. Accessed: December
14, 2012.
Trihey, E. Woody. 1982. Introduction to an Instream Flow Study Plan for the Proposed Susitna
Hydroelectric Project. Prepared for Acres American Inc. Buffalo, NY.
USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2001. FSH 2090.21 – Aquatic Habitat Management Handbook
Chapter 20 Fish and Aquatic Stream Habitat Survey. November 16, 2001. Juneau,
Alaska.
Washington Department of Ecology. 2012. Channel Migration Assessment. Accessed online
December 2012.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 64 April 2013
Zimmerman, C.E. 2005. Relationship of otolith strontium-to-calcium ratios and salinity:
experimental validation for juvenile salmonids. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences. 62:88-97.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 65 April 2013
5. TABLES
Table 1. 2012 Upper Susitna River aerial spawning surveys results summary.
Numbers of Adult Chinook Salmon Observed During Tributary
Surveys
Stream Name Historic
River Mile
Survey 1
(7/24-7/25)
Survey 2
(7/30-7/31)
Survey 3
(8/5-8/6)
Survey 4
(8/10-8/11)
Cheechako 152.4 0 5 0 2
Chinook 157.0 0 2 4 0
Devils 161.4 2 6 7 1
Fog 176.6 0 1 0 0
Unnamed 181.2 0 0 0 0
Tsusena 181.8 0 0 0 0
Deadman 186.6 0 0 0 0
Watana 194.1 0 0 0 0
Kosina 206.8 15 8 16 14
Jay 208.6 0 0 0 0
Goose 231.0 0 0 0 0
Oshetna 233.5 0 0 0 0
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 66 April 2013
Table 2. Summary of weather variability survey confidence criteria during aerial spawning
surveys.
Date Weather
Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Light Rain Rain
July 24
July 25
July 30
July 31
August 5
August 6
August 10
August 11
Table 3. Summary of survey confidence criteria during aerial spawning surveys.
Variable Average Rank Range Standard
Deviation
Sun Glare 2.0 1 to 3 0.32
Water Visibility 2.8 1 to 5 1.02
Vegetation Cover 2.3 1 to 4 0.66
Note: Variables ranked from 1 to 5 with 1 being good and 5 being poor.
Table 4. Summary of previous adult Chinook salmon observations upstream of Devils
Canyon.
Stream Name Count Lifestage Date
Cheechako Creek 25 Adult 8/1/19831
Chinook Creek 8 Adult 8/1/19831
Devils Creek 1 Adult 8/2/19831
Fog Creek 2 Adult 8/1/20032
Tsusena Creek 1 Adult 8/1/20032
Kosina Creek 1 Adult 7/27/20112
1 ADF&G 1984, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Report No. 1
2 Buckwalter 2011, Synopsis of ADF&G’s Upper Susitna Drainage Fish Inventory
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 67 April 2013
Table 5. Number of surveys, or sample units, by gear type in tributary, tributary plume,
mainstem Susitna River, and lake habitats in the Upper Susitna River study area, July-
August 2012.
Habitat Type Backpack
Electrofisher
Boat-
Mounted
Electrofisher
Minnow
Trap
Fyke
Net Gillnet Angling Snorkel
Tributary 184 14 18 2 9 6
Tributary Plume 12 8 1 1
Mainstem
Susitna 18 2
Lake 1 2 23 7 2
TOTALS 215 26 41 8 2 12 6
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 68 April 2013
Table 6. Summary of mesohabitats sampled in tributary streams during backpack electrofishing surveys in the Upper Susitna River stud y area, July-August 2012.
Susitna Historic
River Mile and
Stream Name
Number
of
Sampled
Units
Secondary
Tributaries
Sampled
Total
Sampled
Length
(m)
% Composition of Sampled
Channel Type % Composition of Sampled Mesohabitat Units Wetted
Width
Range
(m)1
Range
of
Average
Depth
(m)2
Percent Substrate Composition of Sampled Units
Water
Clarity Main
Channel
Side
Channel
Off
Channel Alcove Cascade Percolation
Channel
Pool
(Backwater)
Pool
(Scour)
Riffle
(Pocket
Water)
Riffle
Run
(Pocket
Water)
Run Slough Bed
Rock Boulder Cobble Gravel Fines Organic
152.4-Cheechako
Creek 1 None 175 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12 0.45 0.0% 70.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% clear
157.0-Chinook
Creek 3 None 180 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 4–14 0.3–0.45 0.0% 43.3% 33.3% 23.3% 0.0% 0.0% clear
161.5-Devils
Creek 1 None 75 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22 0.55 0.0% 60.0% 30.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% clear
166.3-Unnamed
Tributary 4 None 169 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 88.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.2% 0.0% 5–8 0.25–0.4 0.0% 45.7% 34.4% 18.8% 1.1% 0.0% clear
168.7-Unnamed
Tributary 2 None 74 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0
% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5–8 0.1 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 45.4% 4.6% 0.0% clear
171.0-Unnamed
Tributary 1 None 142 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0
% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2–3 NA 0.0% 0.0% 70.0% 30.0% 0.0% 0.0% clear
173.0-Unnamed
Tributary 3 None 77 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 58.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.8% 0.0% 33.8% 0.0% 2–6 0.1–0.21 0.0% 15.8% 40.8% 43.4% 0.0% 0.0% clear
174.0-Unnamed
Tributary 2 None 46 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 26.1% 0.0% 73.9% 0.0% 2–17 0.1–0.25 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 22.6% 17.4% 0.0% clear
174.2-Unnamed
Tributary 2 None 72 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0
% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1–12 0.15–0.4 0.0% 9.7% 53.0% 26.2% 8.4% 0.0% clear
176.6-Fog Creek 39
Tributary L1
Tributary R2
Tributary R6
1122.6 27.8% 54.6% 17.6% 0.0% 0.9% 14.1% 0.0% 3.4% 8.9% 42.1% 0.0% 27.0% 3.6% 1.5–19 0.12–
0.43 0.0% 14.8% 42.9% 31.1% 9.0% 2.2% clear
179.1-Unnamed
Tributary 6 None 137 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 86.9% 0.0% 1.1–9 0.1–0.6 0.0% 19.3% 45.5% 25.6% 9.5% 0.0% clear
179.4-Unnamed
Tributary 1 None 100 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4 0.2 0.0% 40.0% 30.0% 30.0% 0.0% 0.0% clear
181.2-Unnamed
Tributary 1 None 35 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9–23 0.45 0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% clear
181.8-Tsusena
Creek 3 None 107 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 74.8% 0.0% 25.2% 0.0% 7–16 0.3–0.4 0.0% 20.0% 42.5% 32.8% 4.7% 0.0% clear
192.0-Unnamed
Tributary 12 None 205 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 8.3% 14.1% 15.1% 0.0% 54.1% 0.0% 1.9–12 0.22–
0.66 0.0% 21.8% 30.8% 27.5% 17.7% 2.1% clear
194.1-Watana
Creek 33
Tributary L1
Tributary R3
Tributary R5
Delusion
Creek
1202 73.6% 21.8% 4.6% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.7% 3.2% 6.7% 27.0% 6.4% 50.5% 4.6% 21 0.15–0.6 0.9% 16.3% 35.9% 25.0% 17.6% 4.3% mostly
clear3
194.9-Unnamed
Tributary 9 None 148.5 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 26.9% 0.0% 64.0% 0.0% 1.4–8 0.14–0.8 0.0% 23.1% 28.3% 29.1% 17.7% 1.8% humic
200.7-Unnamed
Tributary 2 None 45 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 44.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 55.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3–19 0.35 0.0% 35.6% 40.0% 24.4% 0.0% 0.0% clear
201.8-Unnamed
Tributary 1 None 10 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0
% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11 0.2 0.0% 80.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% clear
203.7-Unnamed
Tributary 2 None 30 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3–19 0.05–
0.15 0.0% 30.0% 48.0% 22.0% 0.0% 0.0% clear
206.8-Kosina
Creek 19
Tsisi Creek
Gilbert
Creek
1541 30.9% 62.1% 7.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 20.8% 1.5% 4.2% 52.7% 14.9% 2–25 0.1–0.8 0.0% 21.7% 21.2% 23.7% 32.4% 1.0% clear
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 69 April 2013
Susitna Historic
River Mile and
Stream Name
Number
of
Sampled
Units
Secondary
Tributaries
Sampled
Total
Sampled
Length
(m)
% Composition of Sampled
Channel Type % Composition of Sampled Mesohabitat Units Wetted
Width
Range
(m)1
Range
of
Average
Depth
(m)2
Percent Substrate Composition of Sampled Units
Water
Clarity Main
Channel
Side
Channel
Off
Channel Alcove Cascade Percolation
Channel
Pool
(Backwater)
Pool
(Scour)
Riffle
(Pocket
Water)
Riffle
Run
(Pocket
Water)
Run Slough Bed
Rock Boulder Cobble Gravel Fines Organic
208.6-Jay Creek 19 None 754 80.0% 12.6% 7.4% 0.5% 0.0% 6.9% 0.0% 13.5% 0.0% 41.2% 0.0% 32.8% 5.0% 0.6–54 0.05–1 0.0% 5.8% 41.6% 43.0% 9.2% 0.4% clear
231.0-Goose
Creek 7 None 637 42.5% 57.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 63.3% 6.8% 0.0% 30.0% 0.0% 1.8–2 0.2–0.45 0.0% 34.4% 45.7% 18.9% 1.0% 0.0% clear
233.5-Oshetna
River 11 Black River 608 28.6% 36.7% 34.7% 0.0% 0.0% 34.7% 0.0% 10.9% 0.0% 28.6% 0.0% 25.8% 0.0% 4–49 0.1–0.8 0.0% 10.1% 35.9% 45.8% 8.2% 0.0% mostly
clear4
1 The range of wetted widths varied greatly for some tributaries because side channel and/or secondary tributaries were sampled in addition to the mainstem of the tributary. Where only one habitat unit was sampled a range was not available and only a sing le value was
given.
2 Where only one habitat unit was sampled, a range was not available and only a single value was given.
3 Site was mostly clear with 10% of the units having low glacial turbidity due to tributary inflows.
4 Site was mostly clear with 18% of the units having high glacial turbidity and 18% having low glacial turbidity due to tributary inflows.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 70 April 2013
Table 7. Total number and size range of fish captured by backpack electrofishing, boat-
based electrofishing, fyke nets, minnow traps, and angling in the Upper Susitna River
study area, July-August 2012.
Fish Species
Latin Name1 Fish Species
Common Name
Total
Number
Captured
Minimum
Length2
(mm)
Maximum
Length2
(mm)
Salvelinus malma Dolly Varden 246 26 366
S. namaycush Lake trout 5 320 510
Thymallus arcticus Arctic grayling 559 22 500
Coregonus pidschian Humpback
whitefish 1 231 231
Prosopium
cylindraceum Round whitefish 14 119 420
Salmonidae Salmonid-
unspecified 15 18 52
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha Chinook salmon 37 54 72
Lota lota Burbot 5 372 410
Catostomus
catostomus Longnose sucker 32 20 404
Cottus cognatus Slimy sculpin 366 25 175
Cottidae Sculpin-
unspecified 1126 22 124
Notes:
1 Fish identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible (family, genus, or species).
2 Fork length was measured for fish with forked caudal fins; otherwise TL was measured.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 71 April 2013
Table 8. Fish captured and observed during backpack electrofish surveys, by target
habitat, in the Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012.
8a. Effort at and fish species captured from each habitat type
Habitat Type
No. of
Sample
Units1
Effort
(minut
es)1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy2 Totals Mainstem
Susitna 18 97.60 36 1 3 21 8 39 104
Tributary 184 714.55 37 210 241 13 3 285 902 1691
Tributary
Plume 12 105.00 159 3 2 1 36 112 313
Lake 1 12.00 0
TOTALS 215 929.15 37 210 0 436 4 0 0 15 4 24 329 1053 0 2122
8b. Minimum and Maximum Fish Lengths (mm)
minimum size 54 26 27 119 18 380 20 25 23
maximum size 72 249 350 290 52 410 395 175 124
8c. Fish observed but not captured
Habitat Type Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy2 Totals Mainstem Susitna 38 26 30 4 98
Tributary 5 51 3 195 1 255
Tributary Plume 29 3 58 90
Lake 0
TOTALS 0 5 0 118 0 0 0 6 0 26 0 283 5 443
Notes:
1 Effort was not recorded for 4 sample units in Mainstem Susitna and 2 units in Tributary habitats; a total of 41 fish
were captured, including Dolly Varden (n=2), arctic grayling (n=10), Sculpin (n=27), burbot (n=1) and longnose
sucker (n=1).
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 72 April 2013
Table 9. Fish captured and observed during boat-based electrofish surveys, by target
habitat, in the Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012.
9a. Effort at and fish species captured from each habitat type
Habitat Type
No. of
surveys
Gear effort
(minutes) Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.1 Salmonid spp.1 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.1 Fish, no taxonmy Totals Mainstem Susitna 2 1.35 1 1
Tributary 14 79.85 16 3 6 25
Tributary Plume 8 28.38 45 7 1 1 8 7 4 73
Lake 2 31.85 15 7 22
TOTALS 26 141.43 0 0 0 62 10 1 0 0 1 8 28 11 0 121
9b. Minimum and maximum fish lengths (mm)
minimum size 22 124 231 372 134 34 22
maximum size 356 420 231 372 404 103 63
9c. Fish observed but not captured
Habitat Type Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.1 Salmonid spp.1 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.1 Fish, no taxonmy Totals Mainstem Susitna 20 20
Tributary 18 3 4 25
Tributary Plume 1 6 7 1 15
Lake 0
TOTALS 1 0 0 44 0 0 3 11 0 1 0 0 0 60
Notes:
1 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 73 April 2013
Table 10. Fish captured by minnow traps, by target habitat, in the Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012.
10a. Effort at and fish species captured from habitat type
Habitat Type
No. of
Traps
Gear effort
(minutes) Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.1 Salmonid spp.1 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.1 Fish, no taxonmy Totals Mainstem Susitna 0 0
Tributary 18 11,660 20 1 9 9 39
Tributary Plume 0 0
Lake 23 20,019 1 6 7
TOTALS 41 31679 0 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 15 0 46
10b. Minimum and maximum fish lengths (mm)
minimum size 45 56 77 60
maximum size 156 56 103 80
Notes:
1 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 74 April 2013
Table 11. Fish captured by fyke nets, by target habitat, in the Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012.
11a. Effort at and fish species captured from habitat type
Habitat Type
No. of
Nets
Gear effort
(minutes) Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.1 Salmonid spp.1 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.1 Fish, no taxonmy Totals Mainstem Susitna 0
Tributary 0
Tributary Plume 1 23 1 1
Lake 7 12498 2 23 49 74
TOTALS 8 12521 0 2 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 75
11b. Minimum and maximum fish lengths (mm)
minimum size 116 62 40
maximum size 169 165 83
Notes:
1 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 75 April 2013
Table 12. Fish captured by angling, by target habitat, in the Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012.
12a. Effort at and fish species captured from habitat type
Habitat Type
No. of
Sample
Units
No. of
Anglers Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.¹ Salmonid spp.¹ Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.¹ Fish, no taxonmy Totals Mainstem Susitna 0
Tributary 9 1 13 23 36
Tributary Plume 1 1 4 4
Lake 2 1 5 4 9
TOTALS 12 3 0 13 5 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49
12b. Minimum and maximum fish lengths (mm)
minimum size 148 320 204
maximum size 366 510 500
Notes:
1 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 76 April 2013
Table 13. Fish observed during snorkel surveys, by target habitat, in the Upper Susitna River study area,
July-August 2012.
13a. Fish species observed in each target area.
Habitat Type
No. of
Sample
Units
No. of
Snorkelers Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.¹ Salmonid spp.¹ Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.¹ Fish, no taxonmy Totals Mainstem Susitna 0
Tributary 6 2 2 32 3 3 40
Tributary Plume 0
Lake 0
TOTALS 6 2 0 2 0 32 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 40
13b. Minimum and maximum fish lengths (mm)
estimated minimum size 60 80 300 100
estimated maximum size 200 400 320 120
Notes:
1 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 77 April 2013
Table 14. Fish captured and observed and gear types used in tributary and lake habitats, Upper Susitna River study area,
July-August 2012.
Historic River Mile
and Stream Name Target Area
Gear
Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 152.4-Cheechako Cr Tributary BP 35 12 3 1 51
157.0-Chinook Cr Tributary A, BP 20 2 7 29
161.5-Devils Cr Tributary BP 38 1 3 42
166.3-Unnamed Trib Tributary BP 10 7 1 11 29
168.7-Unnamed Trib Tributary BP 3 8 66 77
171.0-Unnamed Trib Tributary A, BP 8 5 13
173.0-Unnamed Trib Tributary BP 1 1 1 7 10
174.0-Unnamed Trib Tributary BP 3 11 3 1 35 53
174.2-Unnamed Trib Tributary BP 2 10 4 42 58
176.6-Fog Cr
Tributary
A, BP,
MT,
VOG 75 9 3 85 86 258
Unnamed Lake GPP,
Fyk, MT 3 15 7 25
179.1-Unnamed Trib Tributary BP 2 5 27 1 19 54
179.4-Unnamed Trib Tributary BP 5 9 14
181.2-Unnamed Trib Tributary BP, Snrk 2 32 3 9 46
181.8-Tsusena Cr Tributary BP 6 1 13 30 50
186.6-Deadman
Creek
Tributary A, GPP,
VOG 12 3 15
Unnamed Lake
A, Fyk,
MT,
VOG 1 6 7
186.9-Unnamed Trib Tributary Not
Sampled X
192.0-Unnamed Trib Tributary BP 2 3 1 9 19 34
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 78 April 2013
Historic River Mile
and Stream Name Target Area
Gear
Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 194.1-Watana Cr
Tributary
A, BP,
GPP, MT,
VOG 7 85 2 4 80 236 414
Sally Lake A, BP,
Fyk, MT 4 22 55 81
194.9-Unnamed Trib Tributary BP, MT 3 2 12 17
200.7-Unnamed Trib Tributary BP 3 21 24
201.8-Unnamed Trib Tributary BP X 0
203.4-Unnamed Trib Tributary Not
Sampled X
Unnamed Lake Fyk, MT X 0
203.7-Unnamed Trib Tributary BP 29 29
206.8-Kosina Cr Tributary A, BP,
GPP, Gill 1 75 1 3 4 36 291 1 412
208.6-Jay Cr Tributary A, BP 65 29 4 7 105
231.0-Goose Cr Tributary BP 45 11 68 124
233.5-Oshetna River Tributary BP, VOG 11 1 47 110 169
Total: 37 254 5 425 6 0 3 20 0 3 315 1,171 1 0 2,787
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; Gill=Gillnet; MT=Minnow trap; Snrk=Snorke l; VOG=Visual
observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 79 April 2013
Table 15. Fish captured and observed and gear types used in the mainstem Susitna River at tributary plume habitats, Upper
Susitna River study area, July-August 2012.
Historic River Mile and Tributary
Plume Source
Gear Types
Used1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 166.3-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, Fyk 39 10 49
171.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 18 6 24
173.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 8 5 13
174.0-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 32 54
174.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 33 1 30 64
179.1-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 24 19 43
181.2-Unnamed Trib Plume BP, GPP 1 6 3 3 32 32 77
181.8-Tsusena Cr Trib Plume A, BP, GPP 26 3 1 1 7 5 43
186.6-Deadman Creek Trib Plume GPP 2 2
186.9-Unnamed Trib Plume BP X 0
192.0-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP, VOG 44 4 5 2 1 56
194.1-Watana Cr Trib Plume GPP 2 1 1 4
194.9-Unnamed Trib Plume GPP 1 2 3
201.8-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 21 1 13 35
203.7-Unnamed Trib Plume BP 15 7 22
206.8-Kosina Cr Trib Plume GPP, VOG 10 16 2 28
208.6-Jay Cr Trib Plume GPP 6 4 1 11
233.5-Oshetna River Trib Plume BP 3 2 14 19
Total: 1 0 0 279 10 1 0 28 2 9 43 174 0 0 547
Notes:
1 Gear types: A=Angling; BP=Backpack electrofish; Fyk=Fyke net; GPP=Boat electrofish; VOG=Visual observation
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 80 April 2013
Table 16. Fish captured and observed during backpack electrofish surveys, by stream, in the Upper Susitna River study area,
July-August 2012.
16a. Effort at and fish species captured from each tributary sampled
Historic River Mile
and Stream Name
No. of
Sample
Units1
Length
Sampled
(Meters)
Gear
Effort
(minutes)1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 152.4-Cheechako Cr 1 175 16.75 35 12 3 1 51
157.0-Chinook Cr 3 180 16.33 20 2 7 29
161.5-Devils Cr 1 75 9.05 38 1 3 42
166.3-Unnamed Trib 4 169 15.52 10 7 1 11 29
168.7-Unnamed Trib 2 74 10.73 3 8 46 57
171.0-Unnamed Trib 1 142 3.07 5 5
173.0-Unnamed Trib 3 77 8.27 1 1 1 4 7
174.0-Unnamed Trib 2 46 12.43 3 11 3 1 35 53
174.2-Unnamed Trib 1 10 3.48 1 4 11 16
176.6-Fog Cr 39 1123 141.70 39 3 1 76 75 194
179.1-Unnamed Trib 6 137 23.70 2 5 27 1 19 54
179.4-Unnamed Trib 1 100 6.22 5 9 14
181.2-Unnamed Trib 1 35 3.53 6 6
181.8-Tsusena Cr 3 107 10.28 6 1 13 30 50
192.0-Unnamed Trib 12 205 23.60 2 2 9 15 28
194.1-Watana Cr 33 1202 84.20 5 42 80 193 320
194.9-Unnamed Trib 9 149 13.63 2 2 9 13
200.7-Unnamed Trib 1 20 5.82 2 13 15
201.8-Unnamed Trib 1 10 0.60 x 0
203.7-Unnamed Trib 2 30 4.63 29 29
206.8-Kosina Cr 19 1541 151.58 27 4 33 183 247
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 81 April 2013
16a. Effort at and fish species captured from each tributary sampled
Historic River Mile
and Stream Name
No. of
Sample
Units1
Length
Sampled
(Meters)
Gear
Effort
(minutes)1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.2 Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals 208.6-Jay Cr 19 754 55.97 65 26 4 7 102
231.0-Goose Cr 7 637 50.78 44 11 68 123
233.5-Oshetna River 11 608 42.67 10 1 47 110 168
TOTALS 182 7605 714.55 37 208 0 231 0 0 0 13 0 3 285 875 0 0 1652
16b. Minimum and maximum fish lengths (mm)
minimum size (mm) 54 26 27 18 68 25 23
maximum size (mm) 72 249 330 52 395 175 115
1 Effort was not recorded for 2 sample units in Tributary habitats. Dolly Varden (n=2), Arctic grayling (n=9), and sculpin (n=8) were captured from one sample
unit in Stream 174.2-Unnamed Trib. Arctic grayling (n=1), and sculpin (n=8) were captured from one sampl e unit in Stream 200.7-Unnamed Trib. Data
collected at the 2 sample units were excluded from this table.
2. Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 82 April 2013
Table 17. Catch-per-unit time (CPUE) (fish captured/minute) by stream for fish captured during backpack electrofish
surveys, in the Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012.
Historic River
Mile and Stream
Name
No. of
Sample
Units1
Length
Sampled
(Meters)
Gear
Effort
(minutes)1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Totals 152.4-Cheechako
Cr 1 175 16.75 2.09 0.72 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 3.04
157.0-Chinook Cr 3 180 16.33 0.00 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.43 1.78
161.5-Devils Cr 1 75 9.05 0.00 4.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.33 4.64
166.3-Unnamed
Trib 4 169 15.52 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 1.87
168.7-Unnamed
Trib 2 74 10.73 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.29 5.31
171.0-Unnamed
Trib 1 142 3.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.63 0.00 1.63
173.0-Unnamed
Trib 3 77 8.27 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.48 0.85
174.0-Unnamed
Trib 2 46 12.43 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.08 0.00 2.82 4.26
174.2-Unnamed
Trib 1 10 3.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.16 4.59
176.6-Fog Cr 39 1123 141.70 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.53 1.37
179.1-Unnamed
Trib 6 137 23.70 0.08 0.21 0.00 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.80 2.28
179.4-Unnamed
Trib 1 100 6.22 0.00 0.80 0.00 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.25
181.2-Unnamed
Trib 1 35 3.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.70 1.70
181.8-Tsusena Cr 3 107 10.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.26 2.92 4.86
192.0-Unnamed
Trib 12 205 23.60 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.64 1.19
194.1-Watana Cr 33 1202 84.20 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 2.29 3.80
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 83 April 2013
Historic River
Mile and Stream
Name
No. of
Sample
Units1
Length
Sampled
(Meters)
Gear
Effort
(minutes)1 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Salmonid spp.2 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.2 Totals 194.9-Unnamed
Trib 9 149 13.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.66 0.95
200.7-Unnamed
Trib 1 20 5.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.23 2.58
201.8-Unnamed
Trib 1 10 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
203.7-Unnamed
Trib 2 30 4.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.26 6.26
206.8-Kosina Cr 19 1541 151.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.22 1.21 1.63
208.6-Jay Cr 19 754 55.97 0.00 1.16 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.13 1.82
231.0-Goose Cr 7 637 50.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 1.34 2.42
233.5-Oshetna
River 11 608 42.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 1.10 2.58 3.94
TOTALS 182 7605 714.55 0.052 0.291 0.000 0.323 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.000 0.004 0.399 1.09
1 Effort was not recorded for 2 sample units in Tributary habitats. Dolly Varden (n=2), Arctic grayling (n=9), and sculpin (n=8 ) were captured from one sample
unit in Stream 174.2-Unnamed Trib. Arctic grayling (n=1), and sculpin (n=8) were captured from one sample unit in Stream 200.7-Unnamed Trib. Data
collected at the 2 sample units were excluded from this table.
2 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 84 April 2013
Table 18. Fish captured from the mainstem Susitna River by electrofishing, Upper Susitna River study area, July-August
2012.
18a. Effort at and fish species captured from each mainstem sampling area
Historic
River
Mile
Sample
Length
(m)1
Gear
Effort
(minutes)2 Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp.3 Salmonid spp.3 Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp.3 Fish, no taxonmy No fish captured Totals Downstream of proposed dam site
168.8 260 24.90 1 21 22
174.1 90 8.70 22 4 4 30
178.2 121 5.30 2 5 1 8
Upstream of proposed dam site
186.0 95 8.50 7 1 3 6 17
186.8 55 13.80 1 1 1 1 4
192.6 NA NA 1 1 1 1 4
194.0 261 NA 9 5 14
197.7 387 18.60 4 1 4 9
201.7 70 6.10 x 0
205.7 70 1.40 1 1
TOTALS 1409 87.30 0 0 0 37 1 0 0 0 3 21 8 39 0 109
18b. Minimum and maximum fish lengths (mm)
minimum size (mm) 37 290 410 20 57 32
maximum size (mm) 142 290 410 310 94 124
1 Sample length was not recorded for electrofish sampling that took place at RM 192.6.
2 Sample effort was not recorded for electrofishing that took place at RM 192.6; or for a portion of partial of sample effort at RM 194.
3 Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 85 April 2013
Table 19. Fish species presence in tributary and lake habitats in the Upper Susitna study area, combining historic data, and
data collected from July-August 2012.
Historic River Mile
and Stream Name
Target Habitat/
Name
Sampled in
2012 (yes/No) Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp. Salmonid spp. Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp. Rainbow Trout 152.4-Cheechako Cr Tributary habitat Yes •1 •2
157.0-Chinook Cr Tributary habitat Yes •1
161.5-Devils Cr
Tributary habitat Yes •1 •1
High Lake No •1
Little High Lake No •1
166.3-Unnamed Trib Tributary habitat Yes
168.7-Unnamed Trib Tributary habitat Yes
171.0-Unnamed Trib Tributary habitat Yes
173.0-Unnamed Trib Tributary habitat Yes
174.0-Unnamed Trib Tributary habitat Yes
174.2-Unnamed Trib Tributary habitat Yes
176.6-Fog Cr
Fog Creek Sub
Basin Yes •2 •2 •1 •1 •1 •1 •2 •1
Unnamed Lake Yes
179.1-Unnamed Trib Tributary habitat Yes
179.4-Unnamed Trib Tributary habitat Yes
181.2-Unnamed Trib Tributary habitat Yes
181.8-Tsusena Cr Tributary habitat Yes •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1
186.6-Deadman
Creek
Tributary habitat Yes •1 •1 •1 •1
Deadman Lake No •1 •1,4 •1,4 •1 •1 •1 •1
Lake N62.921,
W148.508 Yes
186.9-Unnamed Trib Tributary habitat No
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 86 April 2013
Historic River Mile
and Stream Name
Target Habitat/
Name
Sampled in
2012 (yes/No) Chinook salmon Dolly Varden Lake trout Arctic grayling Round whitefish Humpback whitefish Whitefish spp. Salmonid spp. Burbot Longnose sucker Slimy sculpin Sculpin spp. Rainbow Trout 192.0-Unnamed Trib Tributary habitat Yes
194.1-Watana Cr
Wantana Creek
Sub Basin Yes •2 •2 •2 •1 •1 •2
Sally Lake Yes •1 •1 •1
Big Lake No
194.9-Unnamed Trib Tributary habitat Yes
200.7-Unnamed Trib Tributary habitat Yes
201.8-Unnamed Trib Tributary habitat Yes
203.4-Unnamed Trib Tributary habitat No
Unnamed Lake Yes
203.6-Unnamed Trib Watana Lake No •4 •4
203.7-Unnamed Trib Tributary habitat Yes
206.8-Kosina Cr
Tributary habitat Yes •1,2 •2 •2 •1 •1 •2
Gilbert Creek Yes •2
Tsisi Creek Yes
Clarence Lake No •3,4 •3,4 •3
208.6-Jay Cr Tributary habitat Yes •1 •2 •1 •1 •1
221.5-Unnamed
Tributary Tributary habitat No
226.7-Unnamed
Tributary Tributary habitat No •2
231.0-Goose Cr Tributary habitat Yes •2 •1 •1 •2 •1
233.5-Oshetna River Tributary habitat Yes •2 •2 •2 •2 •1 •2 •2 •1
Black River Yes
1. ADF&G 1981, 1983, 1984; 2=Buckwalter 2011; 3=ADF&G 2012; 4=Three Rivers Fly & Tackle 2012.
● Historical Record
Grey highlighted cells represent fish species that were captured or observed during the July-August 2012 fish distribution sampling effort.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 87 April 2013
Table 20. Summary of Chinook salmon observations based on historical data and July-August 2012 sampling effort, Upper
Susitna River study.
Historic
River Mile
and
Stream
Name
Historical Record July–August 2012 Sampling Effort
Record
Available
(Yes/No)
Date Description
Sampling
occured
(Yes/No)
Date Description
152.4-
Cheechako
Cr
Yes1 8/1/1983
Habitat: NA
Count: 25
Lifestage: Adult
Yes3 8/16/2012
Habitat: cascade, mainstem margin in
boulders.
Count: 35
Lifestage: Juvenile (FL:55–75 mm)
Yes4
2012
(7/30–
8/11)
Habitat: NA
Count: 7
Lifestage: Adult
157.0-
Chinook
Cr
Yes1 8/1/1983
Habitat: NA
Count: 8
Lifestage: Adult
Yes4
2012
(7/24–
8/06)
Habitat: NA
Count: 6
Lifestage: Adult
161.5-
Devils Cr Yes1 8/1/1983
Habitat: NA
Count: 1
Lifestage: Adult
Yes4
2012
(7/24–
8/11)
Habitat: NA
Count: 16
Lifestage: Adult
176.6-Fog
Cr
Yes2 8/1/2003
Habitat: NA
Count: 2
Lifestage: Adult
Yes3 8/9/2012
Habitat: mainstem riffle (close
proximity to historic sampling
8/1/2003 and 8/13/2003)
Count: 0
Lifestage: --
Yes2 8/13/2003
Habitat: mainstem and side channel
margin
Count: 5
Lifestage: Juvenile (FL:56–91 mm)
Yes3 7/22/2012
Habitat: sub-tributary mainstem and
side channel (close proximity to
historic sampling 8/6/2011)
Count: 0
Lifestage: --
Yes2 8/6/2011
Habitat: sub-tributary mainstem
margin
Count: 8
Lifestage: Juvenile (FL:49–61 mm)
Yes4
2012
(7/30–
7/31)
Habitat: NA
Count: 1
Lifestage: Adult
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 88 April 2013
Historic
River Mile
and
Stream
Name
Historical Record July–August 2012 Sampling Effort
Record
Available
(Yes/No)
Date Description
Sampling
occured
(Yes/No)
Date Description
179.1-
Unnamed
Tributary
No -- -- Yes3 7/29/2012
Habitat: run, mainstem
Count: 2
Lifestage: Juvenile (FL:60–64 mm)
181.8-
Tsusena
Cr
Yes2 8/1/2003
Habitat: NA
Count: 1
Lifestage: Adult
No -- --
206.8-
Kosina Cr
Yes2 8/13/2003
Habitat: mainstem, riffle
Count: 1
Lifestage: Juvenile (73 mm) Yes3 8/12/2012
Habitat: mainstem run (close
proximity to historic sampling
8/15/2003 and 8/13/2003)
Count: 0
Lifestage: -- Yes2 8/14/2003
Habitat: NA
Count: 1
Lifestage: Juvenile
Yes2 8/15/2003
Habitat: mainstem
Count: 2
Lifestage: Juvenile (FL:70–75 mm) Yes4
2012
(7/24–
8/11)
Habitat: NA
Count: 53
Lifestage: Adult Yes2 7/27/2011
Habitat: NA
Count: 1
Lifestage: Adult
233.5-
Oshetna
River
Yes2 8/14/2003
Habitat: side channel
Count: 3
Lifestage: Juvenile (FL:52–67 mm)
Yes3 8/12/2012
Habitat: side channel (close proximity
to historic sampling 8/14/2003)
Count: 0
Lifestage: --
1.. ADF&G 1984, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Report No. 1.
2. ADF&G 2012, Synopsis of ADF&G's Upper Susitna Drainage Fish Inventory
3. Backpack electrofishing results
4. Aerial spawning survey results
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 89 April 2013
6. FIGURES
Figure 1. Upper Susitna River Adult Salmon Spawning Ground Survey Extent Showing the Peak 2012 Chinook salmon
Counts.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 90 April 2013
Figure 2. Study area for fish distribution sampling in the Upper Susitna River, July-August 2012.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 91 April 2013
Figure 3. Gear types used during fish species distribution sampling in the Upper Susitna River study area, July -August 2012, 1
of 2.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 92 April 2013
Figure 4. Gear types used during fish species distribution sampling in the Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012, 2
of 2.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 93 April 2013
Figure 5. Fish species distribution for areas sampled in the Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012, 1 of 2.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 94 April 2013
Figure 6. Fish species distribution for areas sampled in the Upper Susitna River study area, July-August 2012, 2 of 2.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 95 April 2013
Figure 7. Chinook salmon observations from recent fish distribution surveys throughout the Upper Susitna River drainage
(ADF&G 2011).
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A – Page 1 April 2013
Appendix A. Adult Salmon Aerial Survey Detail Map
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A – Page 2 April 2013
Map 1. Chinook salmon counts in the East half of the survey area during all four surveys.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A – Page 3 April 2013
Map 2. Chinook salmon counts near the proposed dam site and RM 180.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A – Page 4 April 2013
Map 3. Chinook salmon counts in the central portion of the survey area for all four surveys.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A – Page 5 April 2013
Map 4. Chinook salmon counts in Kosina Creek for all surveys.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A – Page 6 April 2013
Map 5. Chinook salmon counts in Watana Creek for all surveys.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A – Page 7 April 2013
Map 6. Chinook salmon counts in Jay Creek for all surveys.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A – Page 8 April 2013
Map 7. Chinook salmon counts in the southern portion of the survey area during all surveys.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B – Page 1 April 2013
Appendix B. Adult Salmon Aerial Survey Representative Photographs
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B – Page 2 April 2013
Photo 1. Typical whitewater section of Kosina Creek on July 25, 2012.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B – Page 3 April 2013
Photo 2. Typical whitewater section of Chinook Creek showing an adult Chinook salmon
as observed from the helicopter on August 5, 2012.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B – Page 4 April 2013
Photo 3. Chinook salmon in a typical cascade and pool complex in Devil Creek on August 5, 2012.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 1 April 2013
Appendix C. Descriptions of Tributary Streams in the Study Area Surveyed for
Fish Distribution
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 2 April 2013
This page intentionally blank.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 3 April 2013
Stream RM
Confluence
Drainage
Size (km2) Characteristics
Cheechako
Creek
152.4 94.3 Flows into the Susitna River from the south. Main channel is approximately 17.2 km (10.7 mi) in length.
Multiple falls located roughly 3.4 km (2.1 mi) upstream from mouth prevent the upstream movement of adult
salmon. Upstream from the falls, the drainage includes a few tributary streams and small lakes.
Chinook
Creek
157.0 58.0 Flows into the Susitna River from the south. Main channel is roughly 17.1 km (10.6 mi). Assessed for the
presence of adult salmon passage barriers in 2012; no barriers were ident ified. A small secondary channel flows
into Chinook Creek roughly 2.1 km (1.3 mi) upstream from mouth. A waterfall prevents upstream adult salmon
movement into the secondary channel.
Devils Creek 161.5 190.6 Flows into the Susitna River from the north. Includes a number of tributaries and lakes, including High Lake
and Little High Lake. Main channel is roughly 25.4 km (15.8 mi). Two large waterfalls located roughly 2.3 km
(1.4 mi) upstream from mouth prevent the upstream movement of adult salmon.
Unnamed 166.3 <50 Flows into the Susitna River from the south. Main channel is roughly 8.7 km (5.4 mi). Assessed for the
presence of adult salmon passage barriers in 2012; no barriers were identified.
Unnamed 168.7 <50 Flows into the Susitna River from the north. Main channel is roughly 4.2 km (2.6 mi). Multiple boulder
cascades and complex chutes located roughly 0.6 km (0.4 mi) upstream from mouth were identified as barriers
to adult salmon.
Unnamed 171.0 <50 Flows into the Susitna River from the north. Main channel is roughly 5.5 km (3.4 mi). Multiple complex chutes
identified as barriers to adult salmon in the main channel, starting at roughly 2.3 km (1.4 mi) upstream from
mouth. Drainage includes a number of secondary tributaries, of which only one is located downstream of the
first barrier.
Unnamed 173.0 <50 Flows into the Susitna River from the north. Main channel is roughly 8.7 km (5.4 mi). A set of multiple falls
located at a point roughly 0.3 km (0.2 mi) upstream from mouth was identified as a barrier to adult salmon.
Unnamed 174.0 <50 Flows into the Susitna River from the south. Includes a number of tributaries and lakes. Main channel is
approximately 8.9 km (5.5mi). Assessed for the presence of adult salmon passage barriers in 2012; no barriers
were identified.
Unnamed 174.2 <50 Flows into the Susitna River from the south. Includes a number of tributaries and lakes. Main channel is
approximately 13.8 km (8.6 mi). Assessed for the presence of adult salmon passage barriers; no barriers were
identified.
Fog Creek 176.6 381.2 Flows into the Susitna River from the east. Includes a number of tributaries and lakes (including the Fog Lakes
complex). Main channel of the stream is roughly 44.7 km (27.8 mi) in length. Assessed for the presence of
adult salmon passage barriers in 2012; no barriers were identified.
Unnamed 179.1 <50 Flows into the Susitna River from the east. Main channel is roughly 6.1 km (3.8 mi) in length. Forks at a point
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 4 April 2013
Stream RM
Confluence
Drainage
Size (km2) Characteristics
roughly 3.6 km (2.2 mi) upstream from mouth. On the north (river right) channel, a waterfall located roughly
4.5 km (2.8 mi) upstream from the mouth is a barrier to adult salmon. No barriers were identified on the south
(river left) channel.
Unnamed 179.4 <50 Flows into the Susitna River from the west. Includes several tributaries. Main channel is roughly 8.1 km (5
mi). Assessed for the presence of adult salmon passage barriers in 2012; no barriers were identified.
Unnamed 181.2 >200 Flows into the Susitna River from the north. Main channel is roughly 16.7 km (10.4 mi). A large tributary on
the stream’s right bank joins the main channel at a point roughly 1.3 km (0.8 mi) upstream from the mouth.
Upstream from this confluence, both channels flow through relatively steep canyons. A large, single waterfall
located on the main channel roughly 2.9 km (1.8 mi) upstream from the mouth is a barr ier to adult salmon.
Barriers were not identified on the secondary channel.
Tsusena
Creek
181.8 374.3 Flows into the Susitna River from the north. Includes many tributaries and lakes, including Clark Creek. Main
channel is roughly 49.4 km (30.7 mi). A large waterfall located roughly 6.1 km (3.8 mi) upstream from the
mouth is a barrier to adult salmon.
Deadman
Creek
186.6 453.5 Flows into the Susitna River from the north. Includes a number of tributaries and lakes, including Deadman
Lake. Mainstem is roughly 67.4 km (41.9 mi) in length. A large waterfall located roughly 1.0 km (0.6 mi) from
the mouth is a barrier to adult salmon. The barrier falls is located below the proposed reservoir elevation of
2,050-ft.
Unnamed 186.9 <50 Flows into the Susitna River from the north. Mainstem is roughly 2.9 km (1.8 mi) in length. High gradient
cascades and bedrock chutes located roughly 0.6 km (0.4 mi) upstream from the mouth are considered potential
barriers to adult salmon. This habitat is located below the proposed reservoir elevation of 2,050-ft.
Unnamed 192.0 >200 Flows into the Susitna River from the north. Includes a few tributaries and many lakes. Main channel is
roughly 11.4 km (7.1 mi) long. Assessed for the presence of adult salmon passage barriers in 2012; no barriers
were identified.
Watana
Creek
194.1 452.7 Flows into the Susitna River from the north. Includes a number of tributaries and lakes, including Sally Lake
and Big Lake. Main channel is roughly 43.3 km (26.9 mi). Melting permafr ost and other unstable soils create
turbid conditions throughout portions of this drainage. Assessed for the presence of adult salmon passage
barriers in 2012; barriers were not identified.
Unnamed 194.9 <50 Flows into the Susitna River from the south. Includes a number of tributaries. Main channel is roughly 8.7 km
(5.4 mi). The channel forks at a point roughly 1.2 km (0.75 mi) upstream from the mouth. Multiple falls located
on the main (west) channel roughly 2.1 km (1.3 mi) upstream from the mouth likely present a barrier to adult
salmon. This habitat is located below the proposed reservoir elevation of 2,050-ft.
Unnamed 200.7 <50 Flows into the Susitna River from the northeast. Includes a few secondary tributaries and lakes. Main channel
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 5 April 2013
Stream RM
Confluence
Drainage
Size (km2) Characteristics
is roughly 16.1 km (10.0 mi). A series of five permanent falls located roughly 0.3 km (0.2 mi) upstream from
the mouth present a barrier to adult salmon. The falls are located below an elevation of 2,050 ft.
Unnamed 201.8 <50 Flows into the Susitna River from the southwest. Includes a few tributaries and lakes. Main channel is roughly
10.0 km (6.2 mi) long. High gradient cascades and falls located roughly 0.6 and 1.0 km (0.4 and 0.6 mi)
upstream from the mouth were identified as potential barriers to adult salmon. These habitats are located below
an elevation of 2,050 ft.
Unnamed 203.4 <50 Flows into the Susitna River from the north. Originates from a small lake. Main channel is roughly 0.8 km (0.5
mi) in length. Free of adult salmon passage barriers to the unnamed lake.
Unnamed 203.7 <50 Flows into the Susitna River from the south. Includes a few tributaries and lakes, including Watana Lake.
Main channel is roughly 11.9 km (7.4 mi) long. Assessed for the presence of adult salmon passage barriers in
2012; no barriers were identified.
Kosina Creek 206.8 1,036.5 Flows into the Susitna River from the south. Includes numerous tributaries and lakes. Named secondary
tributaries include Tsisi Creek, Gilbert Creek, Terrace Creek, John Creek, and George Creek. Main channel is
roughly 47.5 km (29.5 mi). Assessed for the presence of adult salmon passage barriers in 2012; no barriers were
identified.
Jay Creek 208.6 160.1 Flows into the Susitna River from the northeast. Includes numerous tributaries; beaver pond complexes are
present in its upper reaches. Main channel is roughly 31.5 km (19.6 mi). Splits into multiple channels just
upstream from mouth. Assessed for the presence of adult salmon passage barriers in 2012; no barriers were
identified.
Goose Creek 231.0 269.1 Flows into the Susitna River from the southwest. Includes a few small tributaries, including Busch Creek.
Main channel is roughly 40.6 km (25.2 mi). Assessed for the presence of adult salmon passage barriers in
2012; no barriers were identified.
Oshetna
River
233.5 1,424.5 Flows into the Susitna River from the south. Includes numerous tributaries, including Black River, Little
Oshetna River, Conglomerate Creek, Roaring Creek, Landslide Creek, and Nowhere Creek. The basin contains
several hundred lakes including Black Lake, Crater Lake, and Square Lake. Main channel is roughly 89.5 km
(55.6 mi). Assessed for the presence of adult salmon passage barriers in 2012; no barriers were identified.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 6 April 2013
This page intentionally blank.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix D – Page 1 April 2013
Appendix D. Susitna River Mainstem and Mesohabitat Type Descriptions and
Substrate Size Classes
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix D – Page 2 April 2013
Classification
Level Type Description
Mainstem
Habitat Type
Main Channel
Channels of the river that convey streamflow throughout the year. Can include single or
multiple channels. In the Susitna River, they are visually recognizable during summer
months by turbid, glacial water and high velocities. In general, they convey more than 10
percent (approximate) of the total flow passing a given location. 2,3
Side Channel
Channels that contain streamflows during open water periods but may be dewatered in a
portion of the channel or entirely at low flows.1 These channels carry mainstem water so
also may be characterized by turbid, glacial water. Velocities often appear lower than in
mainstem sites. In general, they convey less than 10 percent (approximate) of the total
flow passing a given location. 1 Side channel habitat may exist in well-defined channels or
in areas possessing numerous islands and submerged gravel bars.
Tributary
Mouth
Clear water areas that exist where tributaries flow into Susitna River mainstem or side
channel habitats.1 The flow of this habitat type often manifests as a clear water plume
extending out into the turbid receiving water of the mainstem Susitna River. Tributary
mouth habitat also extends upstream into the tributary to the upper extent of any
backwater influence that might exist. The surface area of tributary mouth habitat is
affected both by tributary discharge and mainstem stage. 3
Tributary
Those reaches of tributary streams upstream of the tributary mouth habitats. Tributary
habitat may contain distinct mainstem channel types, off-channel waterbodies, and
mesohabitat types.
Off-Channel
Aquatic habitats located beyond a river’s active channel, yet still within the river’s active
valley. Off-channel habitats lack an upstream surface water connection to the main
channel at intermediate or low flows, although downstream surface water connections
may exist. Off-channel habitats convey water or contain water from small tributaries,
upwelling groundwater, and/or local surface runoff.
Off-Channel
Type
Side Slough
(Low flow
slough)
Overflow channels contained within the Susitna River floodplain that are separated from
the mainstem at the upstream end by exposed alluvial berm.1 These channels generally
contain clear water from small tributaries, upwelling groundwater, and local surface
runoff. Side sloughs have non-vegetated bars at their upstream ends that are overtopped
during periods of moderate to high mainstem discharge. The water surface elevation of the
mainstem Susitna River at the downstream end of a side slough generally causes a
backwater effect in the lower portion of the slough. Overtopping from mainstem flows
occurs multiple times for short durations June through August. 2 Except during periods of
overtopping the temperature of side sloughs is independent of the mainstem water
temperature.
Upland
Slough
(Slough)
Similar to side sloughs except they are separated from the mainstem channel or a side
channel by a well vegetated berm. Upland sloughs contain clear water from small streams,
upwelling, and/or local surface runoff. Upland sloughs are rarely overtopped by mainstem
discharge. 2,3
Backwater
Found along channel margins and created by mainstem flow eddies around obstructions
such as boulders, root wads, or in-channel wood. Part of active channel at most flows;
scoured at high flow. Substrate typically sand, gravel, and cobble. Generally not as long as
the full channel width. 4
Isolated Pond A self-contained off-channel waterbody that lacks a surface water connection to the river
when the main channel flow is less than bankfull. Substrate is highly variable.
Relic Channel An abandoned channel lacking active flow. 6
Mesohabitat
Type
Cascade
A fast water habitat with turbulent flow; many hydraulic jumps, strong chutes, and eddies
and between 30-80 percent white water. High gradient; usually greater than 4 percent
slope. Much of the exposed substrate composed of boulders organized into clusters, partial
bars, or step-pool sequences. 4
Pocketwater
A stream section intermediate in slope to the slopes observed for cascades and riffles in
the subject stream, but absent clear cross-channel steps characteristic of a cascade, and the
flow patterns are more complex and not characteristic of riffles (where turbulence is
visibly distributed more or less evenly across the channel). There are multiple, prominent
pockets of velocity refuges distributed across and along the channel that are downstream
of flow obstructions. The obstructions are mostly small boulders that are of a size scaling
with mid- to high-flow depth. The unit should be at least 1 channel width long to be
classified separately, otherwise lump in with most similar adjacent mesohabitat type.
Riffle A fast water habitat with turbulent, shallow flow over submerged or partially submerged
gravel and cobble substrates. 4 Gradients are approximately 2 to less than 4 percent.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix D – Page 3 April 2013
Classification
Level Type Description
Run
A fast water habitat with little surface turbulence. A run has generally uniform depth that
is greater than the maximum substrate size. 4 Gradients are approximately 0 to less than 2
percent.
Pool A slow water habitat with a flat surface slope and low water velocity that is deeper than
the average channel depth. Substrate is highly variable. 4
Beaver
Complex
A complex waterbody created by beaver dams that includes one or more ponded areas,
connecting channels, and outlet channel to the mainstem, side or a tributary channel.
Substrate is generally fine grained sand, silt and organic debris.
Pool Subtypes
Scour Pool
Formed by mid-channel scour or flow impinging against one stream bank or partial
obstruction (logs, root wad, or bedrock). Generally with a broad scour hole. Includes
corner pools in meandering lowland or valley bottom streams. 4
Backwater
Pool
Found along channel margins; created by eddies around obstructions such as boulders,
root wads, or woody debris. Part of active channel at most flows; scoured at high flow.
Substrate typically sand, gravel, and cobble. Generally not as long as the full channel
width. 4
Beaver Pond Water impounded by the creation of a beaver dam. Maybe within main, side, or off-
channel habitats. 4
Other
Alcove
An off-channel habitat that is laterally displaced from the general bounds of the active
channel and formed during extreme flow events or by beaver activity; not scoured during
typical high flows. Substrate is typically sand and organic matter. Generally not as long as
the full channel width. 4
Percolation
Channel
A slough habitat type that is characterized by groundwater percolation from the floodplain
through gravel bars. Its upstream surface water connection to the active river channel has
been cut off due to an accumulation of sediment and debris at the head of the formerly
open channel, yet main river flows continue to provide a groundwater source of flow to
the percolation channel. At high or overbank flows, an upstream surface water connection
to the active river channel may be present. 5
Isolated Pond
A self-contained off-channel waterbody that lacks a surface water connection to the main
channel when flow is less than bankfull. Substrate is highly variable. An isolated pond
may occur within the off-channel slough habitats or elsewhere in the off-channel portion
of the river valley. 3
Notes:
1. Table agreed upon by the ATWG for mesohabitat classifications
2. Source: Trihey (1982).
3.. Source: Schmidt et al. (1984).
4. Source: Adapted from Moore et al. (2006).
5. Source: Adapted from Peterson and Reid (1984).
6. Source: Adapted from Washington Department of Ecology (2012).
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix D – Page 4 April 2013
Substrate Classification
Substrate Type Size Range (mm)
Organic Organic
Sand/Silt < 2.0
Gravel 2.0-63.9
Small Cobble 64.0-127.9
Large Cobble 128.0-255.9
Small Boulder 256-512
Large/Med Boulder > 512
Bedrock Bedrock
Notes:
1. Appended from the USFS (2001) classification.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix E – Page 1 April 2013
Appendix E. Genetics Tissue Sampling Guidance
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix E – Page 2 April 2013
This page intentionally blank.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 1 April 2013
Appendix F. Representative Photographs, 2012
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 2 April 2013
This page intentionally blank.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 3 April 2013
List of Photos
Photo No. Page No.
Photo 1. Juvenile Chinook salmon captured from Cheechako Creek (RM 152.4),
August 16, 2012. PhotoBP1020676 ........................................................................................ 7
Photo 2. Dolly Varden captured from stream connecting Fog lakes (RM 176.6),
July 18, 2012. PhotoRP1010722 ............................................................................................. 7
Photo 3. Juvenile round whitefish captured from tributary plume (RM 181.2),
August 10, 2012. PhotoRP1020333 ........................................................................................ 7
Photo 4. Juvenile Arctic grayling captured from tributary stream (RM 192), July 17,
2012. PhotoJI0081 .................................................................................................................. 7
Photo 5. Longnose sucker captured from tributary plume at Jay Creek (RM 208.6),
July 25 2012. PhotoRP1010892 .............................................................................................. 8
Photo 6. Burbot captured from tributary plume at Jay Creek (RM 208.6), July 25 2012.
PhotoRP1010885 .................................................................................................................... 8
Photo 7. Lake trout captured from Sally Lake in Watana Creek basin (RM 194.1),
August 5, 2012. PhotoRP1020245 .......................................................................................... 8
Photo 8. Round whitefish captured from tributary plume at Tsusena Creek (RM 181.8),
July 27, 2012. PhotoRP102004 ............................................................................................... 8
Photo 9. RM 152.4-Cheechako Creek, near mouth, 35 juvenile Chinook salmon captured
August 16, 2012. PhotoBP1020673 ........................................................................................ 9
Photo 10. RM 157-Chinook Creek, upper site, sampled July 24, 2012. PhotoBP1020580 ........... 9
Photo 11. RM 161.5-Devils Creek, sampled upstream of waterfall on August 16, 2012.
PhotoBP1020679 .................................................................................................................... 9
Photo 12. RM 166.3-Unnamed trib., sampled July 31, 2012. PhotoRP1020101 ........................... 9
Photo 13. 168.7-Unnamed trib., sampled July 31, 2012. PhotoRP1020114 ................................ 10
Photo 14. 168.8-Susitna River, off-channel habitat sampled July 31, 2012.
PhotoRP1020116 .................................................................................................................. 10
Photo 15. 171.0-Unnamed trib., sampled August 6, 2012. PhotoRP1020192 .............................. 10
Photo 16. 173.0-Unnamed trib., sampled July 30, 2012. PhotoRP1020097 ................................ 10
Photo 17. 174.0-Unnamed trib., sampled July 30, 2012. PhotoRP1020090 ................................ 11
Photo 18. 174.1-Susitna River, off-channel habitat sampled July 30, 2012.
PhotoRP1020295 .................................................................................................................. 11
Photo 19. 174.2-Unnamed trib., sampled July 30, 2012. PhotoRP1020087 ................................ 11
Photo 20. 176.6-Fog Creek, at mouth (channel, river left). PhotoRP1010866 ............................. 11
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 4 April 2013
Photo 21. 176.6-Fog Creek, secondary trib., near previous Chinook salmon capture site
(Buckwalter 2011). PhotoRP1010831 .................................................................................. 12
Photo 22. 176.6-Fog Creek, side channel sampled on July 23, 2012. PhotoBP1020575 ............. 12
Photo 23. 176.6-Fog Creek, fyke net set in lake on July 23, 2012. PhotoRP1010717 ................. 12
Photo 24. 178.2-Susitna River, habitat sampled, looking upstream. PhotoBP1020621. .............. 12
Photo 25. 179.1-Unnamed trib., two juvenile Chinook salmon captured on July 29, 2012.
PhotoRP1020059 .................................................................................................................. 13
Photo 26. 179.1-Unnamed trib., sampled July 29, 2012, upstream of Chinook salmon
capture site, PhotoRP1020071. ............................................................................................. 13
Photo 27. 179.4-Unnamed trib., sampled August 10, 2012. PhotoBP1020620 ............................ 13
Photo 28. 181.2-Unnamed trib., snorkel survey on August 10, 2012. PhotoRP1020325............. 13
Photo 29. 181.8-Tsusena Creek, looking upstream, on July 27, 2012. PhotoBP1020609 ........... 14
Photo 30. 186.0-Susitna River, slough habitat sampled on July 27, 2012.
PhotoBP1020606 .................................................................................................................. 14
Photo 31. 186.6-Deadman Creek, upper stream during boat-electrofishing on July 2012.
PhotoRP1010869 .................................................................................................................. 14
Photo 32. 186.8-Susitna River, main channel backwater eddy, sampled August 5, 2012.
PhotoRP1020265 .................................................................................................................. 14
Photo 33. 186.9-Unnamed trib., sampled August 5, 2012. PhotoRP1020258 .............................. 15
Photo 34. 192.0-Unnamed trib., sampled July 17, 2012. PhotoJI0083 ........................................ 15
Photo 35. 192.6-Susitna River habitat sampled August 5, 2012. PhotoRP1020249 .................... 15
Photo 36. 194.1-Watana Creek, clearwater plume at mouth, sampled July 26, 2012.
PhotoRP101032 .................................................................................................................... 15
Photo 37. 194.1-Watana Creek, boat-electrofishing on July 20, 2012. PhotoRP1010787 ........... 16
Photo 38. 194.1-Watana Creek, flooded channel in large mud-slide area, July 20, 2012.
PhotoRP1010797 .................................................................................................................. 16
Photo 39. 194.1-Watana Creek, Sally Lake, sampled August 3, 2012. PhotoRP1020174 ........... 16
Photo 40. 194.1-Watana Creek, secondary tributary that drains Sally Lake, July 20, 2012.
PhotoBP1020550 .................................................................................................................. 16
Photo 41. 194.9-Unnamed trib., sampled July 19, 2012. PhotoBP1020539 ................................ 17
Photo 42. 194.9-Unnamed trib., mouth, sampled July 26, 2012. PhotoRP1010928 .................... 17
Photo 43. 200.7-Unnamed trib., sampled August 1, 2012. PhotoRP1020118 .............................. 17
Photo 44. 201.7-Susitna River, margin sampled on August 3, 2012. PhotoRP1020203 .............. 17
Photo 45. 201.8-Unnamed trib., sampled August 3, 2012. PhotoRP1020199 .............................. 18
Photo 46. 203.4-Unnamed trib. basin, Lake below 2050-ft. PhotoBP1020650............................ 18
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 5 April 2013
Photo 47. 203.7-Unnamed trib., at mouth, sampled August 2, 2012. PhotoRP1020153.............. 18
Photo 48. 205.7-Susitna River, slough downstream of Kosina Creek extensive plume,
sampled July 25, 2012. PhotoRP1010898 ........................................................................... 18
Photo 49. 206.8-Kosina Creek’s extensive clearwater plume, slough at RM 205.7 visible,
August 6, 2012. PhotoJB1589 .............................................................................................. 19
Photo 50. 206.8-Kosina Creek side channel, sampled on August 12, 2012.
PhotoBP1020636 .................................................................................................................. 19
Photo 51. 206.8-Kosina Creek, July 17, 2012. PhotoJM0550 ...................................................... 19
Photo 52. 206.8-Kosina Creek, sampled by boat-electrofisher on July 19, 2012.
PhotoRP1010748 .................................................................................................................. 19
Photo 53. 208.6-Jay Creek. Small plumes, multiple channels sampled by boat-
electrofisher
July 25, 2012. PhotoRP1010882 ........................................................................................... 20
Photo 54. 231.0-Goose Creek, July 29, 2012. PhotoRP1020051 ................................................ 20
Photo 55. 233.5-Oshetna River at the Black River confluence, June 22, 2012.
PhotoJB1411 ......................................................................................................................... 20
Photo 56. 233.5-Oshetna River, sampled July 26, 2012. PhotoBP1020601 ................................. 20
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 6 April 2013
This page intentionally blank.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 7 April 2013
Photo 1. Juvenile Chinook salmon captured from Cheechako
Creek (RM 152.4), August 16, 2012. PhotoBP1020676
Photo 2 Dolly Varden captured from stream connecting Fog
lakes (RM 176.6), July 18, 2012. PhotoRP1010722
Photo 3. Juvenile round whitefish captured from tributary
plume (RM 181.2), August 10, 2012. PhotoRP1020333
Photo 4. Juvenile Arctic grayling captured from tributary
stream (RM 192), July 17, 2012. PhotoJI0081
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 8 April 2013
Photo 5. Longnose sucker captured from tributary plume at
Jay Creek (RM 208.6), July 25 2012. PhotoRP1010892
Photo 6. Burbot captured from tributary plume at Jay Creek
(RM 208.6), July 25 2012. PhotoRP1010885
Photo 7. Lake trout captured from Sally Lake in Watana
Creek basin (RM 194.1), August 5, 2012. PhotoRP1020245
Photo 8. Round whitefish captured from tributary plume at
Tsusena Creek (RM 181.8), July 27, 2012. PhotoRP102004
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 9 April 2013
Photo 9. RM 152.4-Cheechako Creek, near mouth, 35
juvenile Chinook salmon captured August 16, 2012.
PhotoBP1020673
Photo 10. RM 157-Chinook Creek, upper site, sampled July
24, 2012. PhotoBP1020580
Photo 11. RM 161.5-Devils Creek, sampled upstream of
waterfall on August 16, 2012. PhotoBP1020679
Photo 12. RM 166.3-Unnamed trib., sampled July 31, 2012.
PhotoRP1020101
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 10 April 2013
Photo 13. 168.7-Unnamed trib., sampled July 31, 2012.
PhotoRP1020114
Photo 14. 168.8-Susitna River, off-channel habitat sampled
July 31, 2012. PhotoRP1020116
Photo 15. 171.0-Unnamed trib., sampled August 6, 2012.
PhotoRP1020192
Photo 16. 173.0-Unnamed trib., sampled July 30, 2012.
PhotoRP1020097
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 11 April 2013
Photo 17. 174.0-Unnamed trib., sampled July 30, 2012.
PhotoRP1020090
Photo 18. 174.1-Susitna River, off-channel habitat sampled
July 30, 2012. PhotoRP1020295
Photo 19. 174.2-Unnamed trib., sampled July 30, 2012.
PhotoRP1020087
Photo 20. 176.6-Fog Creek, at mouth (channel, river left).
PhotoRP1010866
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 12 April 2013
Photo 21. 176.6-Fog Creek, secondary trib., near previous
Chinook salmon capture site (Buckwalter 2011).
PhotoRP1010831
Photo 22. 176.6-Fog Creek, side channel sampled on July 23,
2012. PhotoBP1020575
Photo 23. 176.6-Fog Creek, fyke net set in lake on July 23,
2012. PhotoRP1010717
Photo 24. 178.2-Susitna River, habitat sampled, looking
upstream. PhotoBP1020621.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 13 April 2013
Photo 25. 179.1-Unnamed trib., two juvenile Chinook salmon
captured on July 29, 2012. PhotoRP1020059
Photo 26. 179.1-Unnamed trib., sampled July 29, 2012,
upstream of Chinook salmon capture site, PhotoRP1020071.
Photo 27. 179.4-Unnamed trib., sampled August 10, 2012.
PhotoBP1020620
Photo 28. 181.2-Unnamed trib., snorkel survey on August 10,
2012. PhotoRP1020325
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 14 April 2013
Photo 29. 181.8-Tsusena Creek, looking upstream, on July
27, 2012. PhotoBP1020609
Photo 30. 186.0-Susitna River, slough habitat sampled on July
27, 2012. PhotoBP1020606
Photo 31. 186.6-Deadman Creek, upper stream during boat-
electrofishing on July 2012. PhotoRP1010869
Photo 32. 186.8-Susitna River, main channel backwater eddy,
sampled August 5, 2012. PhotoRP1020265
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 15 April 2013
Photo 33. 186.9-Unnamed trib., sampled August 5, 2012.
PhotoRP1020258
Photo 34. 192.0-Unnamed trib., sampled July 17, 2012.
PhotoJI0083
Photo 35. 192.6-Susitna River habitat sampled August 5,
2012. PhotoRP1020249
Photo 36. 194.1-Watana Creek, clearwater plume at mouth,
sampled July 26, 2012. PhotoRP101032
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 16 April 2013
Photo 37. 194.1-Watana Creek, boat-electrofishing on July
20, 2012. PhotoRP1010787
Photo 38. 194.1-Watana Creek, flooded channel in large mud-
slide area, July 20, 2012. PhotoRP1010797
Photo 39. 194.1-Watana Creek, Sally Lake, sampled August
3, 2012. PhotoRP1020174
Photo 40. 194.1-Watana Creek, secondary tributary that
drains Sally Lake, July 20, 2012. PhotoBP1020550
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 17 April 2013
Photo 41. 194.9-Unnamed trib., sampled July 19, 2012.
PhotoBP1020539
Photo 42. 194.9-Unnamed trib., mouth, sampled July 26, 2012.
PhotoRP1010928
Photo 43. 200.7-Unnamed trib., sampled August 1, 2012.
PhotoRP1020118
Photo 44. 201.7-Susitna River, margin sampled on August 3,
2012. PhotoRP1020203
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 18 April 2013
Photo 45. 201.8-Unnamed trib., sampled August 3, 2012.
PhotoRP1020199
Photo 46. 203.4-Unnamed trib. basin, Lake below 2050-ft.
PhotoBP1020650
Photo 47. 203.7-Unnamed trib., at mouth, sampled August 2,
2012. PhotoRP1020153
Photo 48. 205.7-Susitna River, slough downstream of Kosina
Creek extensive plume, sampled July 25, 2012.
PhotoRP1010898
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 19 April 2013
Photo 49. 206.8-Kosina Creek’s extensive clearwater plume,
slough at RM 205.7 visible, August 6, 2012. PhotoJB1589
Photo 50. 206.8-Kosina Creek side channel, sampled on
August 12, 2012. PhotoBP1020636
Photo 51. 206.8-Kosina Creek, July 17, 2012. PhotoJM0550
Photo 52. 206.8-Kosina Creek, sampled by boat-electrofisher
on July 19, 2012. PhotoRP1010748
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 20 April 2013
Photo 53. 208.6-Jay Creek. Small plumes, multiple channels
sampled by boat-electrofisher July 25, 2012.
PhotoRP1010882
Photo 54. 231.0-Goose Creek, July 29, 2012. PhotoRP1020051
Photo 55. 233.5-Oshetna River at the Black River confluence,
June 22, 2012. PhotoJB1411
Photo 56. 233.5-Oshetna River, sampled July 26, 2012.
PhotoBP1020601
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix G – Page 1 April 2013
Appendix G. Length-frequency Histograms for Select Fish Species and Locations,
2012
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix G – Page 2 April 2013
This page intentionally blank.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix G – Page 3 April 2013
Figure G-1. Length Frequencies for Chinook salmon (n=35) captured in the RM 152.4 –Cheechako
Creek drainage, Upper Susitna River study area, July-August, 2012. Fish were captured by
backpack electrofishing.
0
4
8
12
16
20
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100Frequency
Forklength (mm)
Chinook Salmon
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix G – Page 4 April 2013
Figure G-2. Length Frequencies for Arctic Grayling (n=143) and Dolly Varden (n=145) captured
in tributary, tributary plume, and lake habitats in the Upper Susitna River study area, July-
August, 2012. Fish were captured by boat-mounted electrofisher, backpack electrofishing, minnow
traps, angling, and fyke nets.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400Frequency
Forklength (mm)
Arctic Grayling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400Frequency
Forklength (mm)
Dolly Varden
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix G – Page 5 April 2013
Figure G-3. Length Frequencies for Arctic Grayling (n=4) and Dolly Varden (n=75) captured in
the RM 176.6 – Fog Creek drainage, Upper Susitna River study area, July-August, 2012. Fish were
captured by backpack electrofishing, minnow traps, angling, and fyke nets.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400Frequency
Forklength (mm)
Arctic Grayling
0
2
4
6
8
10
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400Frequency Forklength (mm)
Dolly Varden
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix G – Page 6 April 2013
Figure G-4. Length Frequencies for Arctic Grayling (n=68) and Dolly Varden (n=5) captured in
the RM 194.1 – Watana Creek drainage, Upper Susitna River study area, July-August, 2012. Fish
were captured by boat-mounted electrofisher, backpack electrofishing, angling, and fyke nets.
0
4
8
12
16
20
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400Frequency
Forklength (mm)
Arctic Grayling
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400Frequency
Forklength (mm)
Dolly Varden
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix G – Page 7 April 2013
Figure G-5. Length Frequencies for Arctic Grayling (n=30) and captured in the RM 206.8 –Kosina
Creek drainage, Upper Susitna River study area, July-August, 2012. Fish were captured by boat-
mounted electrofisher, backpack electrofishing, and angling.
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix G – Page 8 April 2013
Figure G-6. Length Frequencies for Arctic Grayling (n=29) and Dolly Varden (n=65) captured in
the RM 208.6 – Jay Creek drainage, Upper Susitna River study area, July-August, 2012. Fish were
captured by boat-mounted electrofisher, backpack electrofishing, and angling.
0
4
8
12
16
20
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400Frequency
Forklength (mm)
Arctic Grayling
0
5
10
15
20
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400Frequency
Forklength (mm)
Dolly Varden
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix G – Page 9 April 2013
Figure G-7. Length Frequencies for Arctic Grayling (n=12) captured in the RM 233.5 –Oshetna
Creek drainage, Upper Susitna River study area, July-August, 2012. Fish were captured by
backpack electrofishing.
0
2
4
6
8
10
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400Frequency
Forklength (mm)
Arctic Grayling
FISH DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix G – Page 10 April 2013
This page intentionally blank.