Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa223sec9-7ptAAlaska Resources Library & Information Services  Susitna‐Watana Hydroelectric Project Document  ARLIS Uniform Cover Page  Title:   Salmon escapement study, Study plan Section 9.7 : Initial study report -- Part A: Sections 1-6, 8-10 SuWa 223  Author(s) – Personal:     Author(s) – Corporate:    LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish AEA‐identified category, if specified:    Initial study report AEA‐identified series, if specified:   Series (ARLIS‐assigned report number):   Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 223   Existing numbers on document:  Published by:    [Anchorage : Alaska Energy Authority, 2014]  Date published:   June 2014 Published for:   Alaska Energy Authority Date or date range of report:    Volume and/or Part numbers:     Final or Draft status, as indicated:  Document type:   Pagination:  231 pages in various pagings Related work(s):   The following parts of Section 9.7 appear in separate files: Part A ; Part B ; Part C ; Part D. Pages added/changed by ARLIS:  Notes:    Part A includes appendices A-I. 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) Salmon Escapement Study Study Plan Section 9.7 Initial Study Report Part A: Sections 1-6, 8-10 Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority Prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. & Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish June 2014 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page i June 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 2. Study Objectives................................................................................................................ 1 3. Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 2 4. Methods .............................................................................................................................. 2 4.1. Objective 1: Capture, radio-tag, and track adults of five species of Pacific salmon in the Middle and Upper Susitna River in proportion to their abundance. Capture and tag Chinook, coho, and pink salmon in the Lower Susitna and Yentna rivers. .................................................................................3 4.1.1. Fish Capture .....................................................................................3 4.1.2. Radio-tagging ...................................................................................4 4.1.3. Spaghetti-tagging .............................................................................5 4.1.4. Daily Tagging Goals ........................................................................5 4.1.5. Numbers and Size of Marked and Unmarked Fish at Selected Locations ..........................................................................................6 4.1.6. Examining Handling-Induced Changes in Behavior .......................7 4.1.7. Assessing Any Stock- and Size-selective Capture...........................8 4.1.8. Variances........................................................................................10 4.2. Objective 2: Determine the migration behavior and spawning locations of radio-tagged fish in the Lower, Middle, and Upper Susitna River ..................12 4.2.1. Fixed-station Monitoring ...............................................................13 4.2.2. Aerial Telemetry Surveys ..............................................................14 4.2.3. Boat and Ground Surveys ..............................................................16 4.2.4. Variances........................................................................................16 4.3. Objective 3: Characterize adult salmon migration behavior and timing within and above Devils Canyon ................................................................................16 4.3.1. Fixed-station Monitoring ...............................................................17 4.3.2. Aerial Telemetry Surveys ..............................................................17 4.3.3. Aerial Spawner Surveys .................................................................17 4.3.4. Assess the Feasibility of Using Sonar to Enumerate Salmon and Resident Fish at the Proposed Dam Site ........................................18 4.3.5. Variances........................................................................................18 4.4. Objective 4: Use available technology to document salmon spawning locations in turbid water...................................................................................18 4.4.1. Sonar Equipment and Methods ......................................................19 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page ii June 2014 4.4.2. Sonar Data Analysis and Reporting ...............................................19 4.4.3. Variances........................................................................................20 4.5. Objective 5: Compare historical and current data on run timing, distribution, relative abundance, and specific locations of spawning and holding salmon..20 4.5.1. Variances........................................................................................21 4.6. Objective 6: Generate counts of adult Chinook salmon spawning in the Susitna River and its tributaries .......................................................................21 4.6.1. Variances........................................................................................22 4.7. Objective 7: Collect tissue samples to support the Fish Genetics Study .........22 4.7.1. Variances........................................................................................22 4.8. Objective 8: Estimate the system-wide Chinook and coho salmon escapement to the Susitna River above Yentna River and the distribution of those fish among tributaries of the Susitna River.............................................................22 4.8.1. Variances........................................................................................23 5. Results .............................................................................................................................. 24 5.1. Objective 1: Capture, radio-tag, and track adults of five species of Pacific Salmon in the Middle and Upper Susitna River in proportion to their abundance. Capture and tag Chinook, coho, and pink salmon in the Lower Susitna and Yentna rivers. ...............................................................................24 5.1.1. Fish Capture ...................................................................................25 5.1.2. Radio-tagging .................................................................................26 5.1.3. Spaghetti-tagging ...........................................................................27 5.1.4. Numbers and Size of Marked and Unmarked Fish at Selected Locations ........................................................................................27 5.1.5. Examining Handling-Induced Changes in Behavior .....................30 5.1.6. Assessing Any Stock- and Size-selective Capture.........................30 5.2. Objective 2: Determine the migration behavior and spawning locations of radio-tagged fish in the Lower, Middle, and Upper Susitna River ..................34 5.2.1. Tag Returns ....................................................................................34 5.2.2. Stock Classifications and Spawning Locations – Lower River .....34 5.2.3. Stock Classifications and Spawning Locations – Yentna River ....35 5.2.4. Stock Classifications and Spawning Locations – Middle and Upper River ...............................................................................................35 5.2.5. Roaming Behavior in the Middle River .........................................38 5.3. Objective 3: Characterize adult salmon migration behavior and timing within and above Devils Canyon ................................................................................38 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page iii June 2014 5.3.1. Species, Number, and Destination .................................................38 5.3.2. Migration Timing for Fish Passing Above Devils Canyon ...........39 5.3.3. Relative Abundance of Salmon Passing Above Devils Canyon ....39 5.3.4. Size of Chinook Salmon Tracked In and Above Devils Canyon...40 5.3.5. Aerial Spawner Surveys .................................................................40 5.3.6. Assess the Feasibility of Using Sonar to Enumerate Salmon and Resident Fish at the Proposed Dam Site ........................................42 5.4. Objective 4: Use available technology to document salmon spawning locations in turbid water...................................................................................42 5.5. Objective 5: Compare historical and current data on run timing, distribution, relative abundance, and specific locations of spawning and holding salmon..42 5.5.1. Run Timing ....................................................................................42 5.5.2. Relative Abundance .......................................................................43 5.5.3. Spawning and Holding Salmon Locations .....................................43 5.6. Objective 6: Generate counts of adult Chinook salmon spawning in the Susitna River and its tributaries .......................................................................44 5.6.1. Observer Efficiency During Aerial Spawner Surveys ...................44 5.6.2. Chinook Salmon Mark Rates: Indian River vs. Portage Creek ....45 5.6.3. Estimated Abundance Above Curry (Chinook, Chum, and Pink Salmon) ..........................................................................................45 5.6.4. Estimated Abundance Above Devils Canyon (Chinook Salmon) .46 5.7. Objective 7: Collect tissue samples to support the Fish Genetics Study .........46 5.8. Objective 8: Estimate the system-wide Chinook and coho salmon escapement to the Susitna River above Yentna River and the distribution of those fish among tributaries of the Susitna River.............................................................47 6. Discussion......................................................................................................................... 47 6.1. Fish Capture and Tagging ................................................................................47 6.1.1. Catch Rates ....................................................................................47 6.1.2. Use of ARIS to Assess Fishwheel Effectiveness and Fish Approach Behavior ........................................................................48 6.1.3. Size Selectivity...............................................................................48 6.2. Use of Tributary Weirs (and Sonar) to Assess Numbers and Size of Marked and Unmarked Fish ..........................................................................................50 6.2.1. Indian River Weir ..........................................................................51 6.3. Migration Behavior and Spawning Locations of Salmon in the Lower, Middle, and Upper Susitna River ..................................................................................51 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page iv June 2014 6.3.1. Lower River ...................................................................................51 6.3.2. Middle and Upper River ................................................................52 6.4. Salmon Migration Behavior and Timing Within and Above Devils Canyon ..52 6.5. Use of ARIS to Document Spawning Locations in Turbid Water ...................53 6.6. Estimated Abundance of Chinook Salmon Above Devils Canyon .................54 6.7. Study Interdependencies ..................................................................................55 7. Completing the Study ..................................................................................................... 55 8. Literature Cited .............................................................................................................. 55 9. Tables ............................................................................................................................... 58 10. Figures .............................................................................................................................. 77 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page v June 2014 LIST OF TABLES Table 4.3-1. Aerial spawner surveys conducted in the Middle and Upper River by location and date, 2013. .........................................................................................................59 Table 4.4-1. Survey effort and observations using ARIS to identify Chinook salmon spawning behavior in turbid water, 2013. ..............................................................................60 Table 4.4-2. Survey effort and observations using ARIS to identify chum salmon spawning behavior in turbid water, 2013. ..............................................................................61 Table 5.1-2. Number of tagged and untagged adult salmon counted at the Deshka River, Montana Creek, and Indian River weirs in 2013, by species and size category. ...................62 Table 5.2-1. Fate classifications for radio-tagged fish in 2013, by species and release location. ..................................................................................................................................63 Table 5.2-2. The proportions of radio-tagged fish of known fate that were detected in the Middle and Upper rivers, and that subsequently returned downstream to enter a Lower River tributary, or that appeared to have a mainstem destination in the Lower River, 2013. ............................................................................................................................66 Table 5.2-3. Farthest upstream detection locations for radio-tagged fish that eventually entered a Lower River tributary, 2013. ..................................................................................67 Table 5.3-1. Details of the radio-tagged fish that approached or passed the Middle River impediments, 2013. ................................................................................................................68 Table 5.3-2. Destinations of radio-tagged Chinook salmon that passed each Middle River impediment, 2013. .................................................................................................................74 Table 5.5-1. Average percent distribution of spawning salmon in slough habitats of the Middle River from 1981 to 1985, and confirmed spawning locations in 2012 and 2013. .......................................................................................................................................75 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1. Susitna River watershed showing fish capture sites (fishwheels) and the locations of fixed-station telemetry receiver sites, 2013........................................................78 Figure 4.1-1. Middle River Segment showing sites for fish capture (sites 1, 2, and 3), ARIS, rotary screw trap (RST), Curry camp, and the Lane Creek and Gateway fixed- station receivers, 2013. ..........................................................................................................79 Figure 4.3-1. Aerial spawner survey extent for Indian River and tributaries in and above Devils Canyon, 2013. .............................................................................................................80 Figure 5.2-1. Fate classifications for radio-tagged fish released in the lower river (left panels) or at Curry (right panels), by species/life history stage, 2013. ..................................81 Figure 5.3-1. Daily numbers of Chinook salmon that approached and passed each of the three Middle River impediments in 2013. .............................................................................82 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page vi June 2014 Figure 5.3-2. Daily number of radio-tagged Chinook salmon that held below Impediment 3 in 2013. Each of the three fish is shown using a unique color. ..........................................83 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page vii June 2014 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Fish Capture and Tagging Table A-1. Number of salmon radio-tagged at two fishwheel sites and from gillnets in the Lower River, 2013. ........................................................................................................... 1 Table A-2. Number of Chinook salmon radio-tagged at two fishwheel sites and in gillnets in the Yentna River, 2013. ......................................................................................... 1 Table A-3. Number of salmon radio- and spaghetti-tagged at three fishwheel sites and in a beach seine in the Middle River, 2013. ................................................................................ 2 Table A-4. Number of fish sampled at the Middle River fishwheels (length, fin clip, and scales) and transferred to the FDA Study to be surgically radio-tagged, 2013. ..................... 3 Table A-5. Number of salmon captured at two fishwheel sites and in gillnets in the Lower River, 2013. ................................................................................................................. 3 Table A-6. Number of Chinook salmon captured at two fishwheel sites and in gillnets in the Yentna River, 2013. .......................................................................................................... 4 Table A-7. Number of salmon caught in the Lower River and Yentna River and their length statistics, 2013. ............................................................................................................. 4 Table A-8. Number of salmon captured at three fishwheel sites and in a beach seine in the Middle River, by size category, 2013. .............................................................................. 5 Figure A-1. Daily fishing effort (hours) and rotational speed (RPM) at two fishwheel sites in the Lower River, 2013. ............................................................................................... 6 Figure A-2. Daily gillnet effort (hours) in the Lower River, by mesh size, 2013. ........................ 6 Figure A-3. Daily fishing effort (hours) at two fishwheel sites in the Yentna River, 2013. ......... 7 Figure A-4. Daily gillnet effort (hours) in the Yentna River, by mesh size, 2013. ....................... 7 Figure A-5. Daily fishing effort (hours) and rotational speed (RPM) at three fishwheel sites in the Middle River, 2013. .............................................................................................. 8 Figure A-6. Daily number of radio tags applied to adult Chinook, pink, and coho salmon captured at two fishwheel sites and in gillnets in the Lower River, 2013. ............................. 9 Figure A-7. Daily number of radio tags applied to adult Chinook salmon captured at two fishwheel sites and in gillnets in the Yentna River, 2013. ...................................................... 9 Figure A-8. Daily number of radio tags applied to adult Chinook, sockeye, pink, chum, and coho salmon captured at three fishwheel sites in the Middle River, 2013. .................... 10 Figure A-9. Daily sampling effort, and the amount of imagery reviewed (review effort), for two ARIS units operated immediately downstream of the fishwheel at Site 1 in the Middle River, 2013. ........................................................................................................ 11 Figure A-10. Daily catch-per-unit-effort at the Lower River fishwheels, by species, and the Susitna River discharge at Sunshine, 2013. .................................................................... 12 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page viii June 2014 Figure A-11. Daily catch-per-unit-effort for Chinook salmon at the Yentna River fishwheels, and the Yentna River discharge at Lake Creek, 2013. ....................................... 12 Figure A-12. Daily catch-per-unit-effort at the Middle River fishwheels, by species, and the Susitna River discharge at Gold Creek, 2013. ................................................................ 13 Figure A-13. Daily number of radio tags deployed at the Middle River fishwheels relative to fishwheel catches in the 1980s, 2012, and 2013. ................................................. 14 Figure A-14. Daily number of spaghetti tags applied to adult pink, chum, and coho salmon captured at three fishwheel sites in the Middle River, 2013. ................................... 15 Figure A-15. Cumulative length-frequency distributions for salmon radio-tagged in the Middle River and inspected and recaptured at the Indian River weir site, by species, 2013. ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure A-16. Cumulative length-frequency distributions for salmon spaghetti-tagged in the Middle River and inspected and recaptured at the Indian River weir site, by species, 2013. ........................................................................................................................ 17 Figure A-17. Catch-per-unit-effort, or the number of targets counted per hour of imagery reviewed, on the ARIS (Unit 1) located immediately downstream of the Site 1 fishwheel, 2013. .................................................................................................................... 18 Figure A-18. Comparison of the number of adult salmon (≥ 50 cm METF) captured at the Site 1 fishwheel and concurrent net upstream counts of fish on the ARIS unit (Unit 1) located immediately downstream of the fishwheel, 2013. ...................................... 18 Figure A-19. Number of fish counted using ARIS at Site 1 as a function of the distance from each unit where they were first detected in the field of view, by time period and size category, 2013. ............................................................................................................... 19 Figure A-20. Diel migration of fish counted using ARIS (Unit 1) at Site 1, by size category, 2013. ...................................................................................................................... 20 Figure A-21. Cumulative length-frequency distributions for salmon captured in the Lower River, by species and capture site, 2013. ................................................................... 21 Figure A-22. Cumulative length-frequency distributions for salmon caught and radio- tagged in the Lower River, by species, 2013. ....................................................................... 22 Figure A-23. Cumulative length-frequency distributions for salmon radio-tagged in the Lower River and inspected and recaptured at the Deshka River and Montana Creek weir sites, by species, 2013. .................................................................................................. 23 Figure A-24. Cumulative length-frequency distribution for Chinook salmon captured in the Yentna River, by capture site, 2013. ............................................................................... 24 Figure A-25. Cumulative length-frequency distribution for Chinook salmon caught and radio-tagged in the Yentna River, 2013. ............................................................................... 24 Figure A-26. Cumulative length-frequency distributions for salmon captured in the Middle River, by species and capture site, 2013. ................................................................. 25 Figure A-27. Cumulative length-frequency distributions for salmon caught, radio-tagged, and spaghetti-tagged in the Middle River, by species, 2013. ............................................... 26 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page ix June 2014 Appendix B: Daily Fish Passage at Weir Sites in the Lower and Middle River Segments Table B-1. Deshka River weir daily passage rates and tag recaptures, by species, 2013. ............. 1 Table B-2. Length statistics for tagged and untagged adult salmon sampled at the Deshka River, Montana Creek, and Indian River weirs in 2013, by species. ...................................... 4 Table B-3. Montana Creek weir daily passage rates and tag recaptures, by species, 2013. .......... 5 Table B-4. Indian River weir daily passage rates and tag recaptures, by species, 2013. ............... 8 Figure B-1. Daily amount of video imagery collected at the Indian River weir and the type of sampling method used to review the imagery (15-min sub-sample, full-hour sample), June 26 to August 20, 2013. ................................................................................... 10 Figure B-2. Net passage of adult salmon that were inspected for tags, and the percent that were tagged (mark rate), at the Indian River weir from June 26 to August 20, 2013........... 11 Figure B-3. Number of rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, Arctic grayling, longnose sucker, round whitefish, and humpback whitefish counted on video imagery collected at the Indian River weir, by direction of movement, 2013. ............................................................ 12 Appendix C: Fixed-station Receiver Sites (Setup and Performance) and Mobile-tracking Survey Effort Table C-1. Location and antenna orientation of fixed-station receivers in the Susitna River drainage, 2013. .............................................................................................................. 1 Table C-2. Monitoring efficiency (percent operational) of fixed-station receivers in the Lower River Basin in 2013, by week. ..................................................................................... 3 Table C-3. Monitoring efficiency (percent operational) of fixed-station receivers in the Middle and Upper River basins in 2013, by week. ................................................................. 4 Table C-4. List of the aerial telemetry surveys conducted through September 21, 2013, by location, date, and vehicle type (helicopter, fixed-wing). .................................................. 5 Appendix D: Spawning Destinations Table D-1. Summary of monitoring effort at potential spawning sites, by species, as part of the Habitat Suitability Criteria (HSC) component of the Fish and Aquatics Instream Flow Study (RSP Section 8.5), 2013. ...................................................................... 1 Table D-2. Summary of monitoring effort at potential spawning sites for Chinook salmon in the Middle River, 2013. .......................................................................................... 2 Table D-3. Summary of monitoring effort at potential spawning sites for chum salmon in the Middle River, 2013. .......................................................................................................... 3 Table D-4. Summary of monitoring effort at potential spawning sites for pink salmon in the Middle River, 2013. .......................................................................................................... 4 Table D-5. Summary of monitoring effort at potential spawning sites for sockeye salmon in the Middle River, 2013. ...................................................................................................... 5 Table D-6. Details of impediment-passage events for radio-tagged fish, 2013. ............................ 6 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page x June 2014 Table D-7. Number of Chinook salmon counted during aerial spawner surveys, by location and survey period, 2013. ......................................................................................... 11 Table D-8. Summary of weather variability during the adult salmon aerial spawner surveys in the Middle and Upper rivers, 2013. ..................................................................... 12 Table D-9. Summary of survey condition rankings during the adult salmon aerial spawner surveys in the Middle and Upper rivers, 2013. ....................................................... 12 Figure D-1. Relative frequencies of tributary use by radio-tagged salmon released in the Lower River, by species, 2013. ............................................................................................. 13 Figure D-2. Potential mainstem spawning sites for radio-tagged Chinook salmon in the Lower River, 2013. ............................................................................................................... 14 Figure D-3. Potential mainstem spawning sites for radio-tagged coho salmon in the Lower River, 2013. ............................................................................................................... 15 Figure D-4. Potential mainstem spawning sites for radio-tagged coho salmon in the Middle River, 2013. .............................................................................................................. 16 Figure D-5. Potential mainstem spawning sites for radio-tagged pink salmon in the Lower River, 2013. ............................................................................................................... 17 Figure D-6. Potential mainstem spawning sites for radio-tagged pink salmon in the Middle River, 2013. .............................................................................................................. 18 Figure D-7. Relative frequencies of tributary use by radio-tagged salmon released in the Middle River, by species, 2013. ............................................................................................ 19 Figure D-8. Potential mainstem spawning sites for radio-tagged Chinook salmon in the Middle River, 2013. .............................................................................................................. 20 Figure D-9. Potential mainstem spawning sites for radio-tagged chum salmon in the Lower River, 2013. ............................................................................................................... 21 Figure D-10. Potential mainstem spawning sites for radio-tagged chum salmon in the Middle River, 2013. .............................................................................................................. 22 Figure D-11. Potential mainstem spawning sites for radio-tagged sockeye salmon in the Lower River, 2013. ............................................................................................................... 23 Figure D-12. Potential mainstem spawning sites for radio-tagged sockeye salmon in the Middle River, 2013. .............................................................................................................. 24 Figure D-13. Summary of Chinook salmon observations during aerial spawner surveys in the Middle and Upper rivers, 2013. .................................................................................. 25 Appendix E: Radio Tag Recoveries Table E-1. Tag recovery information for fish released in the Lower River and Yentna River, 2013. ............................................................................................................................. 1 Table E-2. Tag recovery information for fish released in the Middle River, 2013. ...................... 3 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page xi June 2014 Appendix F: Tracking Histories of Chinook Salmon Above Impediment 3 Table F-1. Summary of migration and spawning behavior for three radio-tagged Chinook salmon after they passed Impediment 3, 2013. ....................................................................... 1 Figure F-1. Tracking history of a radio-tagged Chinook salmon (tag #241) that was detected above Impediment 3, 2013. ...................................................................................... 2 Figure F-2. Tracking history of a radio-tagged Chinook salmon (tag #272) that was detected above Impediment 3, 2013. ...................................................................................... 3 Figure F-3. Tracking history of a radio-tagged Chinook salmon (tag #395) that was detected above Impediment 3, 2013. ...................................................................................... 4 Appendix G: Feasibility Study Assessing Fish Counts with Sonar in Watana Canyon, 2013 Table G-1. Characteristics of three sites surveyed with ARIS in July, 2013. ................................ 8 Figure G-1. Location of study sites in the Watana Canyon reach of the Susitna River for evaluating feasibility of sonar for counting fish, July, 2013. .................................................. 9 Figure G-2. Susitna River discharge at the US Geological Survey (USGS) gauge at Tsusena Creek for the period July 1 through August 31, 2013. ........................................... 10 Figure G-3. Series of still images (top left to right then bottom left to right) that show an adult Chinook salmon (inside the white circles) migrating through the ARIS sonar sample volume in Watana Canyon at Site 1 on July 20, 2013. ............................................. 11 Photo G-1. Aluminum H-mount frame used to deploy the ARIS 1200 sonar at Site 1 during the Watana Canyon sonar feasibility study, July, 2013. ............................................ 12 Photo G-2. Aerial view of Site 1 from the sonar feasibility study, July 22, 2013. ...................... 12 Photo G-3. Ortho-rectified aerial photograph of Site 1 assessed for sonar monitoring suitability in the Watana Canyon reach of the Susitna River, July, 2013. ............................ 13 Photo G-4. Aerial view of Site 2 of the sonar feasibility study, July, 2013. ............................... 13 Photo G-5. Ortho-rectified aerial photographs of Site 2 assessed for sonar monitoring suitability in the Watana Canyon reach of the Susitna River, 2013. .................................... 14 Photo G-6. Ortho-rectified aerial photographs of Site 3 assessed for sonar monitoring suitability in the Watana Canyon reach of the Susitna River, 2013. .................................... 14 Appendix H: Abundance Estimates for Chinook, Pink, and Chum Salmon above Curry, and Chinook Salmon Above Devils Canyon Table H-1. Estimated observer efficiencies during aerial spawner surveys for Chinook salmon conducted by AEA and ADF&G upstream of the Indian River weir on July 25, 2013. .................................................................................................................................. 1 Table H-2. Recapture matrix for large Chinook salmon radio-tagged at the Middle River fishwheels, and inspected for tags at the Indian River weir, 2013.......................................... 2 Table H-3. Estimated abundance of large Chinook, chum, and pink salmon above the Middle River Gateway fixed station (PRM 130.1), 2013. ...................................................... 3 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page xii June 2014 Table H-4. Recapture matrix for chum salmon radio-tagged at the Middle River fishwheels and inspected for tags at the Indian River weir, 2013........................................... 4 Table H-5. Recapture matrix for pink salmon radio-tagged at the Middle River fishwheels and inspected for tags at the Indian River weir, 2013........................................... 5 Appendix I: Abundance estimates for Chinook salmon in the Susitna River Drainage and Coho Salmon Above the Yentna River Table I-1. Tests for temporal and spatial variation in probability of capture for mainstem Susitna River Chinook salmon 50.0–65.9 cm METF, 2013. .................................................. 7 Table I-2. Tests for temporal and spatial variation in probability of capture for mainstem Susitna River Chinook salmon 66.0–77.4 cm METF, 2013. .................................................. 8 Table I-3. Tests for temporal and spatial variation in probability of capture for mainstem Susitna River Chinook salmon measuring 77.5 cm METF or greater, 2013. ......................... 9 Table I-4. Estimated abundance, number of radio tags deployed, and relative weights (number of spawners per tag) used to estimate abundance within size stratum for Chinook salmon spawning upstream from the lower mainstem tagging site in the Susitna River, 2013. .............................................................................................................. 10 Table I-5. Chinook salmon spawning distributions, based on weighted abundance (Table I-4), in the mainstem Susitna River above the lower river tagging site, 2013. ..................... 10 Table I-6. Tests for temporal and spatial variation in probability of capture for mainstem Susitna River coho salmon 40.0–47.9 cm METF, 2013. ...................................................... 11 Table I-7. Tests for temporal and spatial variation in probability of capture for mainstem Susitna River coho salmon 48.0–53.4 cm METF, 2013. ...................................................... 12 Table I-8. Tests for temporal and spatial variation in probability of capture for mainstem Susitna River coho salmon measuring 53.5 cm METF or greater, 2013. ............................. 13 Table I-9. Estimated abundance, number of radio tags deployed, and relative weights (number of spawners per tag) used to estimate abundance within size stratum for coho salmon spawning upstream from the lower mainstem tagging site in the Susitna River, 2013. ........................................................................................................................... 14 Table I-10. Coho salmon spawning distributions, based on weighted abundance (Table I-9), in the mainstem Susitna River above the lower river tagging site, 2013. ..................... 14 Figure I-1. Empirical cumulative distribution functions (ECDF) of length (in mm) of all Chinook salmon marked during first event sampling at the lower mainstem Susitna River tagging site and all recaptures during second event sampling, 2013. ......................... 15 Figure I-2. Empirical cumulative distribution functions (ECDF) of length (in mm) of Chinook salmon inspected for marks and all recaptured salmon during second event sampling at the Deshka River weir, 2013. ............................................................................ 16 Figure I-3. Empirical cumulative distribution functions (ECDF) of length (in mm) of Chinook salmon inspected for marks and all recaptured salmon during second event sampling at the Montana Creek weir, 2013. ......................................................................... 17 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page xiii June 2014 Figure I-4. Empirical cumulative distribution functions (ECDF) of length (in mm) of all coho salmon marked during first event sampling at the lower mainstem Susitna River tagging site and all recaptures during second event sampling, 2013. ......................... 18 Figure I-5. Empirical cumulative distribution functions (ECDF) of length (in mm) of coho salmon inspected for marks and all recaptured salmon during second event sampling at the Deshka River weir, 2013. ............................................................................ 19 Figure I-6. Empirical cumulative distribution functions (ECDF) of length (in mm) of coho salmon inspected for marks and all recaptured salmon during second event sampling at the Montana Creek weir, 2013. ......................................................................... 20 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page xiv June 2014 LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS Abbreviation Definition ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game AEA Alaska Energy Authority ARIS Adaptive Resolution Imaging Sonar ATS Advanced Telemetry Systems, Inc. cfs cubic feet per second CIRWG Cook Inlet Region Working Group cm centimeter CPUE catch per unit effort DIDSON Dual Frequency Identification Sonar FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FL fork length ft feet ft/s feet per second GIS geographic information system GPS global positioning system HSC Habitat Suitability Criteria ILP Integrated Licensing Process in inch ISR Initial Study Report km kilometer KS Kolmogorov-Smirnov LZ landing zone m Meter mi mile m/s meters per second METF mid-eye to fork MHW mean high water MHz Megahertz oz ounce PRM Project River Mile Project Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project RPM revolutions per minute RSP Revised Study Plan INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page xv June 2014 Abbreviation Definition RST revised statute trail SPD study plan determination USGS United States Geological Survey W watt INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 1 June 2014 1. INTRODUCTION On December 14, 2012, Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) filed its Revised Study Plan (RSP) with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 14241, which included 58 individual study plans (AEA 2012). Included within the RSP was the Salmon Escapement Study, Section 9.7. RSP Section 9.7 focuses on characterizing the current distribution, abundance, habitat use, and migratory behavior of all species of adult anadromous salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) across mainstem river habitats and select tributaries above the Three Rivers Confluence (i.e., confluence of the Susitna, Chulitna, and Talkeetna rivers). On February 1, 2013, FERC staff issued its study determination (February 1 Study Plan Determination [SPD]) for 44 of the 58 studies, approving 31 studies as filed and 13 with modifications. RSP Section 9.7 was one of the 13 approved with modifications. In its February 1 SPD, FERC recommended the following: We recommend the study be modified to require AEA to extend the operation of its Curry Station fishwheels at RM 120 through the entire month of September. We recommend the study be modified to require AEA to include in the initial study report an evaluation, based on site-specific data obtained during the 2013 study season, of the feasibility of putting in a weir or sonar counting station at or near the dam site during the 2014 study season to provide an accurate count of any resident or anadromous fish that are successfully able to migrate upstream through Devils Canyon into the project area. On April 26, 2013, the Commission issued a determination requiring no additional changes to this study. AEA adopted the modifications outlined in FERC’s February 1 SPD as part of the approved study plan. Following the first study season, FERC’s regulations for the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) require AEA to “prepare and file with the Commission an initial study report describing its overall progress in implementing the study plan and schedule and the data collected, including an explanation of any variance from the study plan and schedule.” (18 CFR 5.15(c)(1)) This Initial Study Report on Salmon Escapement has been prepared in accordance with FERC’s ILP regulations and details AEA’s status in implementing the study, as set forth in the FERC- approved RSP and as modified by FERC’s February 1 SPD (collectively referred to herein as the “Study Plan”). 2. STUDY OBJECTIVES The study objectives were established in RSP Section 9.7.1.2, and include: 1) Capture, radio-tag, and track adults of five species of Pacific salmon in the Middle and Upper Susitna River in proportion to their species-specific abundance. Capture and tag Chinook, coho, and pink O. gorbuscha salmon in the Lower Susitna River. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 2 June 2014 2) Characterize the migration behavior and spawning locations of radio-tagged salmon in the Lower, Middle, and Upper Susitna River. 3) Characterize adult salmon migration behavior and timing within and above Devils Canyon. 4) If shown to be an effective sampling method, and where feasible, use sonar to aid in documenting salmon spawning locations in turbid water in 2013 and 2014. 5) Compare historical and current data on run timing, distribution, relative abundance, and specific locations of spawning and holding salmon. 6) Generate counts of adult Chinook salmon spawning in the Susitna River and its tributaries to estimate the proportions of fish with tags for populations in the watershed. 7) Collect tissue samples to support the Fish Genetic Baseline Study (Study 9.14). 8) Estimate the system-wide Chinook salmon escapement to the entire Susitna River, the coho salmon escapement to the Susitna River above the confluence with the Yentna River, and the distribution of Chinook, coho, and pink salmon among tributaries of the Susitna River (upstream of Yentna River confluence) in 2013 and 2014. 3. STUDY AREA As established by RSP Section 9.7.3, the study area encompasses the Susitna River from Cook Inlet upstream to the Oshetna River, or as far upstream as Chinook salmon are detected (Figure 3-1), with an emphasis on wherever salmon spawn in mainstem habitats of the Susitna River. The mainstem Susitna River was divided into three segments: the Lower River (Project River Mile [PRM] 33–102.4), Middle River (PRM 102.4–187.1), and Upper River (PRM 187.1– 261.3). RSP section 9.7.3 used Historical River Miles (RM) which are: Lower River (RM 30– 98), Middle River (RM 98–184), and Upper River (RM 184–260). Devils Canyon extends from approximately PRM 153.4 to PRM 166.1 (RM 150 to 163, respectively). Within Devils Canyon, the channel constricts and increases in vertical gradient to form three potential fish passage impediments (referred to as Impediments 1, 2, and 3) that may block or delay fish passage (see Section 3.2 in AEA [2013] for more detail on the impediments). 4. METHODS Descriptions of the study methods are organized below by objective. This is a multi-year study initiated in 2012. The methods below refer to research conducted in 2013 and planned for a next year of study. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 3 June 2014 4.1. Objective 1: Capture, radio-tag, and track adults of five species of Pacific salmon in the Middle and Upper Susitna River in proportion to their abundance. Capture and tag Chinook, coho, and pink salmon in the Lower Susitna and Yentna rivers. AEA implemented the methods with respect to Objective 1 as described in the Study Plan with the exception of variances explained below (Section 4.1.8). Tasks to address Objective 1 were listed in RSP Section 9.7.4.1. 4.1.1. Fish Capture In the Lower River, two fishwheels and gillnets were used to capture adult salmon for tagging in 2013. The fishwheels were operated at locations that were fished in 2010–2012 (Figure 3-1). One fishwheel operated on the west bank of the Lower River at PRM 33.4 for 1,061 hours from June 3 to August 31, and the second fishwheel operated on the east bank at PRM 34.2 for 1,050 hours from June 3 to August 31 (Figure A-1). From June 3 to July 2, gillnets were fished in the vicinity of the fishwheels for a total of 39.6 hours (Figure A-2). The gillnets were 5.5 inch (in; stretch) or 7.5 in mesh, multi-strand web, 50–150 feet (ft) long, and 60 meshes deep. Seventeen percent of the effort was with 7.5-in mesh and 83 percent with 5.5-in mesh. In addition, two fishwheels and gillnets were used on the lower Yentna River, and in the same locations as had been operated for three decades (Figures 3-1). One fishwheel operated on the south bank of the Yentna River (river mile 6) for 167 hours June 3–30, and the second fishwheel operated on the north bank of the Yentna River (RM 6) for 166 hours June 2–29 (Figure A-3). There was effort for both fishwheels every day in 2013, and both fishwheels achieved the targeted effort (12 hours/day) on nearly every day. From June 3 to 22, gillnets (5.5 and 7.5-in mesh) were fished in the vicinity of the fishwheels for a total of 74.1 hours (effort was split equally between mesh sizes; Figure A-4). In the Middle River, three fishwheels and a beach seine were used to capture adult salmon for tagging in 2013. Two of the fishwheels were operated at the same two locations used in 1981– 1985 and in 2012 (sites 1 and 2; Figures 3-1 and 4.1-1). From June 9 to September 17, one fishwheel operated for 1,167 hours (48.5 percent of the time it was in place) on the west bank of the Susitna River at Site 1 (PRM 124.1; Figure A-5). Excluding the days it did not operate, daily fishing effort at Site 1 averaged 13.6 hours (range: 5.1–24 hours). The targeted amount of daily fishing effort at Site 1 varied by period: 18 hours from June 9 to 27 and July 4 to 22; 24 hours from June 28 to July 3; 10–12 hours from July 23 to August 22; and 9 hours from August 23 to September 17. The Site 1 fishwheel did not operate during high water and heavy debris loads (August 22–23), or during low-water periods (July 18–22, August 9–11, August 18, and after September 17). From June 13 to September 16, the second fishwheel operated for 1,150 hours (50.4 percent of the time it was in place) on the east bank of the river at Site 2 (PRM 123.0; Figure A-5). Daily fishing effort averaged 12.5 hours (range: 4.5–18.4 hours). Targeted daily fishing effort varied at Site 2: 18 hours from June 13 to 27 and July 4 to 16; 13–14 hours from June 28 to July 3; 12 hours from July 17 to August 21; and 9 hours from August 24 to September 16. The Site 2 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 4 June 2014 fishwheel did not operate during high water and heavy debris loads (July 19, July 22, and August 22–23). A third fishwheel was operated from July 17 to September 30 (550 hours of effort; 30.6 percent of the time it was in place) at a new site in 2013 (Site 3), which was located on the west bank of the Susitna River at PRM 126.0 (Figure A-5). Daily fishing effort averaged 10.2 hours (range: 2.2–12.5 hours). Targeted daily fishing effort varied at Site 3: 12 hours from July 18 to August 4 and August 8 to 20; 8 hours from August 5 to 7; and 9–10 hours from August 28 to September 30. The Site 3 fishwheel was not operational during high water (August 22–26, August 30–31, and September 2–16). On September 25, two sets were made using a beach seine (80 ft long, 7 ft deep, 0.75-in mesh) at the mouth of Fourth of July Creek targeting adult coho salmon for radio-tagging. The Middle River fishwheels consisted of aluminum pontoons, three baskets, and two partially submerged live tanks for holding fish in river water. A tower and winch assembly were used to adjust the height of the baskets and ensure that the baskets were fishing within 20 centimeters (cm; 7.9 in) of the river bottom. Net leads were installed between fishwheels and the adjacent riverbank to direct fish away from the bank and into the path of the fishwheel baskets. Fishwheels were operated 8–24 hours per day. A two-person crew staffed the fishwheels during operations; when the crew was absent from the fishwheel for more than one hour, the fishwheel baskets were raised from the water and stopped. Fishwheels operated in the Lower River were of similar construction, operated in a similar manner, and were staffed at all times during operation (Yanusz et al. 2011). 4.1.2. Radio-tagging Pulse-coded, extended-range tags by Advanced Telemetry Systems, Inc., (ATS; www.atstrack.com) were applied to a subset of salmon captured in the Lower and Middle rivers. There were 100 unique codes on each available frequency. Model F1835B transmitters were used for pink salmon (16 grams [g; 0.6 ounces (oz)], 30 cm [11.8 in] antenna, 96-day battery life); Model F1840B tags for chum, coho, and sockeye salmon (22 g [0.8 oz], 30 cm [11.8 in] antenna, 127-day battery life); and Model F1845B tags for Chinook salmon (26 g [0.9 oz], 41 cm [16.1 in] antenna, 162-day battery life). All transmitters were equipped with a mortality sensor that changed the signal pattern to an “inactive” mode for the remainder of the season once the tag became stationary for 24 hours. All of the radio tags were labeled with return contact information. Each tag was tested immediately prior to deployment to ensure it was functioning properly upon release. In the Lower River, only uninjured Chinook salmon with mid-eye to fork (METF) length of 50 cm (19.7 in) or greater (herein referred to as ‘large’), and coho and pink salmon with METF length of 40 cm (15.7 in) or greater, were radio-tagged. Unless otherwise noted, all subsequent references to adult salmon sizes refer to METF lengths. All fish to be tagged were placed in a water-filled cooler. No anesthesia was used in order to minimize handling time and tagging effects. Radio tags were inserted through the fish’s mouth into the stomach, using a piece of PVC tubing (1/3-in diameter and 18 in long), with the tag antenna left to protrude from the mouth. All radio-tagged salmon were measured to determine METF length (to the nearest INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 5 June 2014 centimeter), and Chinook and coho salmon only were tissue sampled (axillary process) for genetic baselines (see Section 4.7). In the Middle River, only uninjured adult fish that met or exceeded a specific length threshold were radio-tagged, including: large Chinook measuring 50 cm (19.7 in) or greater in length; Chinook measuring 30–49 cm (11.8–19.3 in) in length (herein referred to as ‘small’); and chum, coho, pink, and sockeye salmon measuring 40 cm (15.7 in) or greater in length. All fish to be tagged were placed in a water-filled, foam-lined, V-shaped trough. To minimize handling time (i.e., achieve less than 2 minutes per fish) and tagging-related effects on fish behavior, anesthetic was not used. Radio tags were inserted orally into the stomach of the fish using a piece of PVC tubing (1/3-in diameter and 18 in long) with the tag antenna left to protrude from the mouth. All radio-tagged salmon were measured to determine METF length (to the nearest centimeter) and sexed based on external morphological characteristics (coloration, body and fin shape, jaw morphology). All radio-tagged Chinook salmon (small and large) captured at the Middle River fishwheels were marked with a blue spaghetti tag to assess tag loss, evaluate the effects of spaghetti-tagging on post-handling behavior and final spawning destination, and provide an external mark for anglers to recognize fish that had a radio tag. Half of the radio-tagged Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon were sampled for scales (to age), and all radio-tagged salmon were tissue sampled (axillary process) for genetic baselines (see Section 4.7). To minimize any effects from fish holding, salmon were typically tagged immediately upon capture. All fish were released immediately after tagging. All fish captured were inspected for radio and spaghetti tags. 4.1.3. Spaghetti-tagging In the Middle River, spaghetti-tagging was used to augment the ability to test assumptions about the representativeness of fish captured in the fishwheels. The fishwheels captured more fish of some species than were needed for radio-tagging alone, and additional marking of these fish provided more information to test assumptions about how representative the captured fish were of the population of fish passing fishwheel sites than the radio tags alone. A portion of these additional fish captured were spaghetti-tagged, and this portion varied among species according to availability of fish above radio-tagging goals and the opportunities available for examining fish subsequent to the tagging event. Based on 2012 fishwheel catches at Curry, it was anticipated that a large number of chum salmon, a limited number of Chinook and sockeye salmon, and few to no coho salmon above those needed to meet daily radio-tagging goals would be available for spaghetti-tagging in 2013. It was also expected that an insufficient number of pink salmon could be spaghetti-tagged in order to develop defensible mark-rate estimates since it was an “off-peak” year. Unexpectedly, a large number of chum, coho, and pink salmon were available for spaghetti-tagging, so tags were implanted and fish were released. 4.1.4. Daily Tagging Goals Recent (2012) and historical (1981–1985) fishwheel catches, effectiveness, and salmon run timing guided tag application rates over the season. For the Lower River, the study team met or came close to the majority of the species-specific, 2013 tagging goals. For Chinook salmon the INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 6 June 2014 goal was to radio-tag 300 fish per fishwheel; numbers tagged were 385 salmon from the west bank fishwheel, and 195 from the east bank fishwheel (Table A-1; Figure A-6). The goal for gillnetting was 100 Chinook salmon, and 118 salmon were actually radio-tagged. For coho salmon at the Lower River site, the goal was to radio-tag 300 fish per fishwheel; actually tagged numbers were 343 coho salmon from the west bank fishwheel, and 253 from the east bank fishwheel (Table A-1; Figure A-6). The difference was the result of re-apportioning radio tags inseason according to catches. The number of pink salmon tagged was similar to the tagging goal of 100 fish per fishwheel, with 99 radio-tagged from the west bank fishwheel, and 98 from the east bank fishwheel (Table A-1; Figure A-6). The tagging goals for the Yentna River fishwheels were not met in 2013; however, the goal for tagging fish captured by gillnet was exceeded, so overall goal of tagging 700 Chinook salmon was almost met. The goal for radio-tagging Chinook salmon was 300 fish per fishwheel; instead, 145 fish were radio-tagged in the north bank fishwheel, and 278 in the east bank fishwheel (Table A-2; Figure A-7). The goal for gillnetting was 100 fish, while 267 fish were actually radio-tagged. Consistently low catches in both fishwheels, especially the north bank fishwheel, led to re-apportioning the radio tags in-season. In the Middle River, the revised goal of this study was to radio-tag 560 large Chinook salmon (from an initial goal of 400) and, as outlined in the Study Plan, 200 each of chum, coho, pink, and sockeye salmon. As was done in 2012, the early season radio-tagging rates of fish captured in the fishwheels were developed prior to the season, and were based on average historical run timing and expected daily fishwheel catches at Curry. These initial radio-tagging rates were adjusted in-season using run-timing information from the fishwheels in the Lower River, and the ratio of current year’s daily catch at Curry to the expected daily fishwheel catch based on historical data. All species-specific goals were met with the exception of sockeye salmon. Final 2013 radio-tagging numbers in the Middle River were 603 Chinook (536 large, 67 small), 201 chum, 242 coho, 200 pink, and 139 sockeye salmon (Table A-3; Figure A-8). 4.1.5. Numbers and Size of Marked and Unmarked Fish at Selected Locations 4.1.5.1. Lower River and Yentna River The primary goal of radio-tagging Chinook salmon in the Lower River and Yentna River was to estimate their system-wide abundance. This goal and tests of underlying assumptions are addressed under Objective 8 in Section 4.8. 4.1.5.2. Middle River To test if Chinook, chum, pink, and sockeye salmon passing the fishwheels were equally vulnerable to being captured and radio-tagged, fish were examined in a tributary stream (i.e., Indian River) to develop two primary metrics: estimates of the proportion of fish tagged (mark rate), and the size distributions of tagged and untagged fish. From June 26 to August 20, 2013, a picket weir was operated on the lower Indian River, approximately 1.6 river miles from the confluence with the Susitna River (Figure 3-1), to free- pass upstream and downstream moving adult fish past underwater video cameras. The weir was INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 7 June 2014 located far enough upstream to minimize the number of fish milling at the weir, yet far enough downstream to ensure the majority of fish returning to the river would be available to count passing through the video chute. The underwater video system at the weir was operated 24 hours a day, and collected 1,300 hours of video footage from June 26 to August 20 (Figure B-1). Two high-water events occurred during the operational period of the weir. During the first high-water event from July 19 (9:31 P.M.) to July 20 (3:26 P.M.), the video-recording equipment was temporarily removed from the chute for approximately 18 hours. The second high-water event occurred August 19–25; and on August 20 (12:00 P.M.) all video-recording equipment was permanently removed and weir operations ended for the season. Of the video imagery collected, 981 hours (75.5 percent) was reviewed in full (including all video obtained during the Chinook salmon run) and 319 hours (24.5 percent) was sub-sampled (15 minutes per hour; Figure B-1). Full review (24 hours/day) of video imagery for each hour was performed June 26 through August 1. From August 2 to 20, full review was performed from 0:00–1:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. to midnight, at a minimum, for each calendar day. For sub-sampled periods, species-specific counts were expanded (i.e., multiplied by four) to estimate the total count for each hour. For each salmon that passed through the chute, crews recorded the date/time, species, direction of travel (upstream, downstream), sex, fork length (FL; in cm), and whether a radio or spaghetti tag was observed. All fork lengths were converted to mid-eye to fork lengths using species-specific regression equations derived at Curry in 2012 (see Table 3 in AEA [2013]). The net upstream count of all salmon (by species) was estimated, and counts were made of all other fish species at the weir. Net passage of fish at the weir, by species, was determined by subtracting the total number of downstream-moving fish (tagged and untagged) from the total number of upstream-moving fish. A positive number indicated a net upstream movement of fish and a negative number indicated a net downstream movement of fish. Accounting for the direction of fish movement reduced the potential for bias when individuals moved back and forth through the video chute, in some cases repeatedly; as all five salmon species (as well as other fish species) milled in the vicinity of the weir. Species-specific mark rates were estimated by dividing the net numbers of marked fish estimated to have passed the weir by the total number of fish counted through the chute on the video imagery. The numbers of passing chum, coho, and pink salmon that were spaghetti-tagged in the Middle River were estimated from fish inspected for tags on the video imagery. The numbers of passing fish that were radio-tagged in the Middle River were estimated from detections at a fixed-station receiver site located at the weir, and from aerial telemetry surveys. Radio-tagged chum, coho, pink, and sockeye salmon did not receive a spaghetti tag at the Middle River fishwheels, so video imagery was not a reliable method for identifying radio-tagged fish (radio-tag antennas were difficult to see protruding from the mouth). Aerial spawner surveys were also used to count live and dead fish. Combined with fixed-station and aerial telemetry data, these provided a second set of counts of marked and unmarked fish in Indian River. 4.1.6. Examining Handling-Induced Changes in Behavior An assumption of this study is that the behavior of radio-tagged fish was not materially affected by the capture and handling process. By materially affected, AEA means that the capture and INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 8 June 2014 tagging did not affect the final spawning destination of a fish and/or its migration behavior once it had recovered from the tagging event and resumed its migration. If (and when) sufficient genetic structure can be found among stocks of various species in the Susitna River, genetics could offer a reasonably good test of whether handling may have influenced the final destination of tagged fish. Until then, this assumption cannot be tested directly, but there are several indirect ways to assess the potential for handling effect. As stated in RSP Section 9.7.4.1.6, potential handling affects were evaluated based on the survival and travel time of tagged fish, tag mark rates at spawning location, and the post-release migratory behavior of tagged fish recaptured in fishwheels. Note that a potential handling effect will not pose an analysis issue if the effect is binomial in nature, i.e., simply a significant “on” or “off” with any individual fish. The study design allowed for some fish dropping back and not resuming their upstream migration, by removing these fish from the experiment and subsequent analyses. The potential handling effects would be of issue if the effects were more subtle and went undetected but materially affected fish behavior. 4.1.7. Assessing Any Stock- and Size-selective Capture Fish were randomly selected from the fishwheels for tagging. To assess whether these fish were representative of all fish in the river, several assumptions were tested. The assumption of equal probability of capture across fish from all spawning destinations was tested indirectly by examining several sources of information. If there were unequal probabilities of capture among spawning stocks, it would be caused by, and manifest itself, in multiple ways. These issues were addressed for fish tagged at the Lower and Middle River sites. 4.1.7.1. Lower River The assumption that radio-tagged salmon represent the population of salmon passing the tagging site was evaluated for Chinook and coho salmon tagged at the Lower River site in the framework of the mark-recapture experimental design. Heterogeneity in probability of capture was investigated by fish size (length MEF), spatially and temporally using mark-recapture diagnostic tests described by Seber (1982). These diagnostic tests, along with model selection procedures based on test results to minimize bias in estimates of abundance and distribution of spawners, are described more explicitly in Cleary et al. (2013). These tests have not yet been performed for Chinook salmon radio-tagged in the Yentna River because length and date of passage data from the Talachulitna River ARIS sonar site were not available in time to be included in this ISR. The evaluations of the assumption of equal probability of capture and radio-tagging for all Chinook or coho salmon passing the lower mainstem tagging site are based on characteristics of all fish counted passing the Montana Creek and Deshka River weirs and of all marked fish “recaptured” at these weirs. Independent tests are performed for data from each weir site to evaluate equal probability of capture by size and temporally, while spatial tests require the data from both weirs. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 9 June 2014 4.1.7.1.1. Equal Probability of Capture by Size Equal probability of capture by size was evaluated using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) two- sample test. This test determines if the distribution of lengths from all fish passing a weir site are similar to recaptured (radio-tagged) fish passing the weir site. Under the null hypothesis, the probability that a fish is radio-tagged is independent of the size of the fish, and the cumulative distribution function of the lengths of all fish passing a weir site are expected to be similar to the function of all recaptured fish passing that weir site. A significant test statistic from the KS test provides evidence for rejecting the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative that the probability that a fish was tagged was related to fish size. 4.1.7.1.2. Equal Probability of Capture Over Time Equal probability of capture over time was evaluated using contingency table analysis with the χ2 test for independence. For a weir site, the observations of numbers of fish passing the weir by day and number of recaptures passing the weir by day are divided into 2 to 6 pairs of cells by time period with approximately uniform sample sizes in each pair of cells. For each pair of cells, one contains the number of recaptured fish and the second contains the number of unmarked fish accounted for in the time period. Under the null hypothesis that the probability that a fish is radio-tagged is independent of when it passed the tagging site, it is expected that the marked- unmarked ratios of fish observed at each weir site are independent of time. This analysis determines if the ratio of marked-unmarked fish observed at each weir site is independent of time. A significant test statistic from the χ2 test provides evidence for rejecting the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative that the probability that a fish was tagged was related to when it passed the tagging site. 4.1.7.1.3. Spatial Variation in Probability of Capture Spatial variation in probability of capture was also evaluated using contingency table analysis, using a 2x2 table containing the numbers of marked and unmarked fish observed at each of the 2 weir sites. This analysis determines if the marked-unmarked ratios of fish observed at each weir site are similar. If they are similar then the probability of tagging is independent of which tagging site (east or west bank (fishwheels) or midstream (gillnet sites) it passes. Under the null hypothesis that the probability that a fish is radio-tagged is independent of whether it passes the tagging site near the east or west banks (fishwheel sites) or nearer midstream (gillnet sites), it is expected that the marked-unmarked ratios of fish observed at each weir site are similar. A significant test statistic from the χ2 test provides evidence for rejecting the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative that the probability that a fish was tagged was related where or possibly when it passed the mainstem Susitna tagging site. Evaluation of a significant test statistic for this test requires consideration of both temporal and geographic variation in probability of capture, as a significant statistic could be a function of travel times from the tagging site to the weir site, as well as bank orientation of the salmon at the tagging site. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 10 June 2014 4.1.7.2. Middle River 4.1.7.2.1. Fishwheel effectiveness across time The main assumption of this study component is that the radio tags were deployed at the fishwheels in proportion to abundance for each species. To help evaluate this assumption at the Middle River fishwheels, the relative effectiveness of one Middle River fishwheel (at Site 1) was determined, from a ratio of the number of fish caught to the number of fish observed. Fish were observed with an Adaptive Resolution Imaging Sonar (ARIS) system operated in close proximity to the fishwheel across multiple time periods and river discharges. ARIS was also used to qualitatively assess fish approach behavior at the fishwheel relative to discharge and fish abundance. From June 7 to September 30, one ARIS unit operated 24 hours per day on the right bank of the Susitna River. The unit was located immediately downstream of the Site 1 fishwheel (Figure 4.1-1; Figure A-9). Daily review effort for Unit 1 varied over the season, and ranged from 24 hours per day (J une 7–26), every second day (June 27 to July 12, and September 1–30), to no review effort (July 13 to August 29). A second ARIS unit was installed to sample fish migrating farther offshore. Unit 2 was operated from September 12 to 30, with 100 percent review effort (Figure A-9). The sonar sampling area was 0.67–10.7 meters (m; 2.2–35.1 ft) for Unit 1, and 9.2–24.9 m (30.2–81.7 ft) for Unit 2, which provided a 1.5 m (4.9 ft) overlap in coverage between the units. The catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE; fish per fishwheel hour) for each fishwheel over time and across a range of discharges was also evaluated. 4.1.7.2.2. Differences among stocks To assess whether fish from a particular spawning area were right or left bank-oriented with respect to the capture site, the proportion of fish migrating into specific areas was compared to the collection bank. One concern was that mainstem fish could be more vulnerable to the fishwheels because they linger or mill upstream and downstream of capture sites. Recaptures of radio-tagged fish at the tagging site fishwheels provided a good test of whether milling fish were exposed to greater capture rates. In addition to quantitative and qualitative assessment of subsequent behavior of these recaptured fish, the final destinations (mainstem/tributary) of recaptured fish were compared to other tagged fish to determine whether fish that spawned in the mainstem were recaptured at a higher rate. Size-related selectivity was tested using (KS) two-sample tests. For each species, comparisons included the cumulative length-frequency distributions of (1) radio-tagged and spaghetti-tagged fish and those fish randomly sampled at the Indian River weir; (2) radio-tagged and spaghetti- tagged fish and all other fish sampled for length at the Middle River fishwheels; and (3) radio- tagged and spaghetti-tagged fish captured in individual fishwheels. 4.1.8. Variances 4.1.8.1. Fish Capture RSP Section 9.7.4.1 indicated that, if feasible, AEA would operate a fishwheel in Devils Canyon below the impediments from late June through late July in 2013 to supplement the Middle River INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 11 June 2014 fishing effort for Chinook salmon. The purpose of this recommendation was to explore whether it was possible to increase the sample size of radio-tagged Chinook salmon moving into and above Devils Canyon. However, land-access limitations precluded siting a fishwheel in Devils Canyon in 2013. Once it was determined that land access would not be available, AEA developed an alternative to increase the numbers of tagged fish in Devils Canyon, subject to the availability of additional tags from the tag vendor. Specifically, AEA increased the tag goal from 400 to 560 fish, and increased daily fishing effort at the fishwheels located near Curry (from a maximum of 12 hours/day to as high as 24 hours/day). This variance did not affect achieving study Objective 1. RSP Section 9.7.4.1 indicated that two fishwheels would be used at Curry, in a similar fashion to what was done in 2012. AEA began the season with two fishwheels at the same sites as in 2012, and in July deployed a third fishwheel. This was needed due to changes in the river channel that occurred following the 2012 field season which made water velocities slower at the right bank fishwheel site (PRM 124); considerable effort was required to keep this fishwheel operating effectively, particularly during low water. A new third site was found (Site 3, right bank, PRM 126) that was more effective at lower discharges. Fishing began at Site 3 on July 17. This variance increased the likelihood of achieving Objective 1. AEA plans to operate a third fishwheel for the next year of study. 4.1.8.2. Radio-tagging RSP Section 9.7.4.1.2 indicated that only large Chinook salmon would be radio-tagged in 2013. However, 536 large and 67 small Chinook salmon were radio-tagged. By late June, it became apparent that small Chinook salmon comprised a substantial portion of the total Chinook salmon catch in 2013, and the revised radio tag target for large Chinook salmon (560) might not be met. Given that small Chinook salmon behavior could help characterize spawning locations, it was deemed worthwhile to apply some tags to this segment of the population. Subsequently, all available large Chinook salmon were tagged while a sub-sample of small fish were tagged. All subsequent analyses stratified results by these two size groups, and therefore this did not bias results. This variance did not affect achieving study Objective 1. AEA plans to radio-tag small Chinook salmon again in the next year of study to ensure that all sizes are represented. 4.1.8.3. Assessing Any Stock- and Size-selective Capture RSP Section 9.7.4.1.5 indicated that Chinook, sockeye, and chum salmon would be examined on selected spawning grounds to test whether fish were equally vulnerable to being captured and radio-tagged. However, results from spawning ground surveys in 2012 indicated that it was going to be difficult to achieve useful sample sizes from surveying spawning grounds on foot and from the water. Therefore, AEA determined that a floating picket weir and underwater video system on the lower Indian River would be a more effective means of examining a large number of fish in 2013. The same two metrics (i.e., mark rate and size distribution of tagged/untagged fish) were developed from fish counts at the weir that would have been developed from spawning ground surveys. In addition, the weir allowed development of these metrics for pink salmon. This variance increased the likelihood of AEA achieving study Objective 1. AEA plans to operate the Indian River weir again in the next year of study. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 12 June 2014 In RSP Section 9.7.4.1.6, AEA indicated that the upstream movements of tagged fish that were subjected to different holding densities and times in the fishwheels would be compared. However, crews continuously monitored the fishwheels while they were operated and tagged individual fish soon after they were captured. This resulted in brief holding times, generally less than 25 minutes, and consistently low densities of fish in holding tanks. Due to the similarity of holding conditions for all tagged fish, a comparison of post-release survival and migration behavior was determined to be unnecessary in 2013. This variance did not affect achieving study Objective 1. AEA plans to use the same approach for the next year of study. RSP Section 9.7.4.1.7 indicated that the sex and age composition of radio-tagged fish would be used to assess fishwheel selectivity in 2013. Early on in the 2013 field season, it became clear that correctly identifying fish sex, based on external morphological characteristics, would be difficult at the Middle River fishwheels; therefore, these comparisons were not attempted. Results of scale analyses to determine fish ages were not available at the time this report was prepared. In light of the fact that size selectivity was tested in 2013, and that fish were randomly selected for tagging, this variance should not affect achieving study Objective 1. AEA plans to use the same approach for the next year of study. 4.2. Objective 2: Determine the migration behavior and spawning locations of radio-tagged fish in the Lower, Middle, and Upper Susitna River AEA implemented the methods with respect to Objective 2 as described in the Study Plan with the exception of variances explained below (Section 4.2.4). Tasks to address Objective 2 were listed in RSP Section 9.7.4.2. Three groups of radio-tagged fish were tracked: (1) adult Chinook, coho, chum, pink, and sockeye salmon radio-tagged at the Middle River fishwheels (PRM 123–126); (2) Chinook, coho, and pink salmon radio-tagged in the Lower River (PRM 33–34); and (3) Chinook salmon radio-tagged in the lower Yentna River (Figure 3-1). The three study components and data analyses were tightly coordinated. All mobile (aerial, boat, and foot) and fixed-station receiver data were analyzed together, and analysis products were characterized in a consistent manner. The primary function of the telemetry component was to track these tagged fish spatially and temporally with a combination of fixed and mobile receivers. Time/date stamped, coded radio signals from tags implanted in fish were recorded by fixed-station or mobile positioning. All telemetry gear (tags and receivers) was provided by ATS. The types of behavior characterized included the following: • Arrival and departure timing at specific locations/positions • Direction of travel • Residence time at specific locations/positions • Travel time between locations/positions • Identification of migratory, holding, and spawning time and locations/positions INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 13 June 2014 • Movement patterns in and between habitats in relation to water conditions (e.g., discharge, temperature, and turbidity) These data, in conjunction with habitat descriptions, allowed characterization of migratory behavior and final destinations for salmon in mainstem habitats (main channel, slough, side channel, and tributary deltas) and tributaries. In addition, observed spawning locations were characterized at a microhabitat level (e.g., depth, velocity, and substrate). Spawning or final locations of tagged fish were used to determine the number and proportion of the tagged fish of each species using mainstem habitats. 4.2.1. Fixed-station Monitoring Stand-alone operating telemetry arrays were deployed at strategic locations in the Lower, Middle, and Upper River to provide migration checkpoints, develop spawning ground inventories, and monitor the fates of individual tagged fish. Additional methods pertaining to the set-up and operation of fixed-station receiver sites were provided in RSP Section 9.7.4.2.1. Figure 3-1 shows the locations of the fixed stations in the Lower, Middle, and Upper River. Twelve fixed-station receiver sites operated in the Lower River in 2013, and 11 fixed-station receiver sites were operated in the Middle and Upper rivers (Tables C-1 to C-3). Locations of the fixed stations in the Middle and Upper rivers are listed below. The fixed stations at Lane Creek and the Upper Indian River were operated with two receivers (Table C-1). 1. Whiskers Creek (PRM 105.1) 2. Lane Creek area (PRM 116.7) 3. Middle River Gateway (PRM 130.1) 4. Fourth of July Creek (PRM 134.3) 5. Indian River confluence (PRM 142.0) 6. Indian River Weir (RM 1.6 on the Indian River) 7. Powerline (PRM 145.7) 8. Devils Island (PRM 166.9) 9. Deadman Creek (PRM 191.2) 10. Kosina Creek confluence (PRM 209.2) 11. Oshetna River (PRM 235.1) The Lower River fixed stations were chosen to represent significant tributaries that were known to contain Chinook salmon. The Middle and Upper river sites were chosen to both provide geographic separation of the Middle River area to describe migration and spawning behaviors, and monitor at the appropriate resolution through the Upper River to quantify passage through Devils Canyon. See Section 4.3 for additional details about the telemetric monitoring in Devils Canyon (Objective 3). INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 14 June 2014 4.2.2. Aerial Telemetry Surveys Aerial telemetry surveys of the mainstem Susitna were conducted from the mouth of the Yentna River (PRM 31.4) to PRM 307. Surveys were conducted by helicopter to allow relatively accurate positioning of tagged fish and to locate spawning areas, all with respect to mainstem habitat typing completed by Habitat Mapping, Study 9.9. The 2013 surveys began on June 22 and ended in late October (see Table C-4 for a summary of the surveys conducted). Survey timing was adjusted depending on the observed fishwheel catches in the Lower and Middle River. Surveys were scheduled to cover each section of the river (Lower, Middle, and Upper) each week. Once adult salmon were observed entering Devils Canyon, the Susitna River and its tributaries from Portage Creek to Devils Island were flown daily. Daily flights continued until upstream movement in Devils Canyon had stopped. During the peak chum and sockeye salmon migration and spawning periods in the Middle River, the stretch from the mouth of the Chulitna River to Devils Island was surveyed twice per week to monitor the movements of salmon into spawning locations. Helicopter surveys were conducted at lower elevations and at slower speeds than possible with fixed-wing aircraft, and therefore allowed more time for signal acquisition, higher spatial resolution, and fish habitat observations. The spatial resolution of helicopter surveys was approximately 300 m (1,000 ft). Higher precision was achievable in reaches where conditions were most favorable and observers could determine whether the fish was in off-channel or mainstem habitat. Geographic coordinates were recorded for each signal detected using an integrated communication link between the telemetry receiver and a global positioning system (GPS) unit. The position of the fish was determined by the position of the aircraft at the time of the highest signal power. Range testing of the mobile aerial setup was conducted in the Middle River to confirm detection ranges for typical flying heights, and receiver gains, as well as to work with the helicopter pilot to refine the methods for achieving highest spatial resolution. The mainstem aerial telemetry surveys covered over 200 river miles (Yentna River mouth to the Oshetna River and occasionally beyond), and multiples of that total when side channels and braids of the Lower River were included. To allocate survey effort efficiently and to the highest priority needs, resolution was a function of fish behavior. The highest priority and highest resolution needs were for fish that appeared to be holding or spawning. For migrating fish, resolution to the nearest 500 m (1,640 ft) of river was generally sufficient. Frequent surveys enabled high-resolution and time-intensive tracking effort to identify the exact locations of spawning and holding fish. During salmon spawning periods, the crew used a laptop computer with a Geographic Information System (GIS) based map containing the locations of each fish during the previous survey. Locations where fish were repeatedly observed were further investigated to ensure an accurate position for the fish and look for visual evidence of spawning activity. When aggregations of two or more tagged fish were found “stationary” (i.e., within 2 kilometers [km; 1.2 miles (mi)] on one or more surveys) or when visual observations of spawning fish were made from the helicopter-, ground-, or boat-based surveys, spawning locations were more intensely tracked to achieve relatively high-resolution geographic positions. This protocol was particularly important for ensuring coverage of any suspected Lower River habitats with the appropriate level of spatial resolution. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 15 June 2014 The habitat type (mainstem, side channel, or slough) and relative water turbidity was classified for each tag detected (time stamp, frequency, code, and power level). If other fish were seen in the area of the tag position, their relative abundance was noted to provide context for the tag observation. Tag identification and GPS coordinates were archived and systematically processed after each survey. A data-handling script was used to extract unique tag records with the highest power level from the receiver files generated during the survey. These records were imported into a custom database software application (Telemetry Manager) and incorporated into a GIS-based mapping database. Geographically and temporally stratified data for radio-tagged fish were provided to the habitat sampling team (Study 9.9) and Instream Flow Study (Study 8.5) to inform their field sampling efforts. In 2013, fixed-wing surveys of tributary systems of the Susitna and Yenta rivers were conducted by ADF&G, from approximately PRM 23 to Devils Canyon and in the upper Chulitna River, at 7–10 day intervals from June 24 through September. These surveys provided fish locations to the nearest river mile and helped to characterize the fates of fish tagged in the Lower and Middle River. Although these surveys provided less precise spatial resolution of fish locations (and habitat use) than the helicopter surveys, they more effectively covered the large lineal distances of the Susitna River tributaries where higher spatial resolution was not required. All tag frequencies for Chinook salmon released in the Lower and Middle River were scanned during surveys from June 24 to August 12. Tag frequencies for all coho salmon released were scanned during fixed-wing surveys on August 4 and later. Tag frequencies for chum, pink, and sockeye salmon released in the Middle River were not scanned during the fixed-wing surveys. 4.2.2.1. Lower River Surveys Helicopter surveys of the Lower River covered mainstem areas from the mouth of the Yentna River (PRM 31.4) to the confluence of the Chulitna River (PRM 102.4). This reach was highly braided with side channels and sloughs, so complete coverage required considerable effort and in-flight route tracking. 4.2.2.2. Middle River Surveys Helicopter surveys of the Middle River covered mainstem areas from the confluence of the Chulitna River (PRM 102.4) through Devils Canyon to the proposed Watana Dam site (PRM 187.1); this reach required approximately one day to complete. The river between Devils Island (PRM 166.9) and the proposed Watana Dam site was usually flown during surveys of the Upper River. 4.2.2.3. Upper River Surveys Helicopter telemetry surveys of the Upper River generally were triggered by detection of fish moving above the Devil Creek fixed station. Upper River telemetry surveys covered the mainstem areas from the proposed Watana Dam site (PRM 187.1) to the Oshetna River (PRM 235.1). This reach included approximately 48 relatively confined river miles. This survey required approximately one survey day; less when done in conjunction with Middle River surveys (i.e., when less conveyance time was involved). Radio-tagged fish above Devils Canyon INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 16 June 2014 were located at a spatial resolution in habitat types similar to the Middle and Lower river surveys. 4.2.3. Boat and Ground Surveys In support of Study 8.5 (RSP Section 8.5.4.5.1.1), telemetry surveys were also conducted by boat and on foot to obtain the most accurate and highest resolution positions of holding and spawning fish. Boat surveys were limited to the Susitna River mainstem. The resolution of these positions was within 5–10 m (16–32 ft) in turbid water and 2–3 m (6.5–10 ft) in clear water. A hand-held three-element Yagi antenna and judicious use of the signal gain control on the ATS receiver enabled radio-tagged fish to be located and GPS coordinates were recorded for each fish. These surveys were conducted opportunistically from July through September. 4.2.4. Variances Five of the fixed stations listed in RSP Section 9.7.4.2.1 were not used in 2013. CIRWG land access limitations precluded siting three of these stations (Portage, Cheechako, Chinook creeks); and the remaining two stations (Slough 11 and Slough 21) were sited elsewhere in the Middle River, where a larger number of tags would be detected (relative to the 2012 study). New fixed stations in 2013 (i.e., sites not used in 2012) that were not listed in RSP Section 9.7.4.2.1 included Whiskers Creek (PRM 105.1), Fourth of July Creek (PRM 134.3), Indian River Weir (RM 1.6 on the Indian River), and Powerline (PRM 145.7) in the Middle River; and Deadman Creek (PRM 191.2) and Oshetna River (PRM 235.1) in the Upper River. To address the lack of fixed stations at Portage, Cheechako, and Chinook creeks, AEA installed the Powerline station at PRM 145.7. This station was on the mainstem Susitna and provided monitoring to characterize the movement of fish into the area between Portage Creek and Devils Canyon. This provided an inventory of all tags in that area for aerial and boat-based surveys. The study team also flew aerial telemetry surveys daily, and at times twice daily, to monitor fish passage through Devils Canyon (Table C-4). In the end, these frequent aerial surveys provided more detailed information on geographic movements and holding periods below impediments than would have been provided by the previously proposed three fixed stations alone. Devils Canyon spans approximately 11 river miles (PRM 153.7–164.8). Fixed stations provide information only when the fish is near the station, whereas daily aerial telemetry surveys were able to locate tagged fish and characterize fine-scale movements within Devils Canyon and adjacent tributaries. The fixed station at Devil Island (PRM 166.9) was able to monitor for any tagged fish that may have moved above the third impediment; therefore, there was no gap in the study team’s understanding of the daily positions of tagged fish while in Devils Canyon. As a result, these variances enhanced AEA’s ability to achieve study Objective 2. 4.3. Objective 3: Characterize adult salmon migration behavior and timing within and above Devils Canyon AEA implemented the methods with respect to Objective 3 as described in the Study Plan with the exception of variances explained below (Section 4.3.5). Tasks to address Objective 3 were listed in RSP Section 9.7.4.3. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 17 June 2014 4.3.1. Fixed-station Monitoring A combination of aerial telemetry surveys and fixed stations above and below (e.g., Powerline Station) Devils Canyon was used to determine the migration timing and behavior of radio-tagged salmon that passed into the Upper River (Figure 3-1). Fixed stations were deployed at locations where they had the highest probability of detecting radio-tagged salmon (within permitted areas). The fixed stations deployed at the confluences with Kosina Creek and Oshetna River provided additional information that was used to assess the detection efficiencies for all mainstem fixed stations downstream from these sites. The data from these fixed stations was also used to guide the aerial and ground-based survey efforts needed to identify spawning areas in the Upper River. 4.3.2. Aerial Telemetry Surveys The mobile-telemetry survey data aided in confirming the presence of radio-tagged fish, and locating any tagged fish not detected at downstream fixed-station sites. These additional detections were combined with the aerial-survey data to estimate detection efficiencies for each fixed station. The timing and proportion of all tagged salmon that passed Devils Canyon was calculated and compared to the remaining tagged population, and their final spawning locations were identified. 4.3.3. Aerial Spawner Surveys Aerial visual-observation surveys to determine the distribution and relative abundance of adult salmon were conducted in the Susitna River and its tributaries within and above Devils Canyon, upstream to and including the Oshetna River. A total of five aerial spawner survey events were conducted at approximate weekly intervals from July 19 through August 16, 2013 (Table 4.3-1). The survey extent covered major tributaries and clear water areas of the Susitna River from Cheechako Creek to the Oshetna River. A total of 19 streams were surveyed during each of the five events; 13 tributaries to the Susitna River and six secondary tributaries (Table 4.3-1). Additionally, two lake systems in the Tsisi Creek drainage were surveyed during August specifically to look for spawning sockeye salmon. All streams were surveyed from their confluence up to 3,000 feet in elevation, or to a predetermined barrier to anadromous fish passage, or to the stream’s headwater origin, whichever came first (Figure 4.3-1). Survey confidence was estimated independently for each stream during each survey event by ranking three variables that may have affected the observers’ ability to see fish: (1) sun glare on the water; (2) clarity of the water (i.e., turbidity, not white water created by rapids); and (3) overhanging vegetation. Variables were ranked from zero to four, where four indicated optimal survey conditions and zero indicated poor survey conditions. Quality-control measures included employing two observers on all surveys, with one observer remaining consistent throughout the study. Observers communicated fish sightings to each other and when necessary, the flight was slowed or halted until both observers had confirmed the number of fish present. The helicopter pilot was consistent for survey events two through five. Observer efficiency was evaluated with a one-time paired independent aerial spawner survey, during the peak of Chinook salmon spawning in Indian River, through comparison with concurrent weir counts. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 18 June 2014 4.3.4. Assess the Feasibility of Using Sonar to Enumerate Salmon and Resident Fish at the Proposed Dam Site The FERC SPD recommended that AEA evaluate the feasibility of putting in a weir or operating a sonar counting station at or near the dam site in the next year of study to count fish migrating through Devils Canyon. Prior to the 2013 field season, operation of a weir near the dam site was determined to be not feasible (see Appendix G for further details). However, AEA assessed the feasibility of placing a sonar counting station at or near the dam site. This effort involved sonar surveys at three potential sites between PRM 184 and PRM 188. The feasibility study is provided in Appendix G. 4.3.5. Variances Lack of permission to access CIRWG land precluded siting fixed stations within Devils Canyon as described in RSP Section 9.7.4.3. To compensate for the absence of fixed stations within Devils Canyon and to ensure that the study objectives were achieved, helicopter surveys for tagged fish were flown through Devils Canyon daily starting in late June, and twice daily during the period of Chinook salmon passage (Table C-4). Daily surveys were attempted in and upstream of Devils Canyon and as long as there were fish above the first impediment. Section 4.2.4 provides additional information on the benefits of these additional aerial telemetry surveys. This variance did not affect achieving study Objective 3. 4.4. Objective 4: Use available technology to document salmon spawning locations in turbid water AEA implemented the methods with respect to Objective 4 as described in the Study Plan with the exception of variances explained below (Section 4.4.3). In 2013, ARIS was used to examine the feasibility of sampling turbid water to quantify spawning activity in mainstem habitats of the Susitna River. From July 24 to 31, 2013, 15 potential Chinook salmon spawning sites were visited (Table 4.4-1) and eight were surveyed using ARIS. Salmon were observed at seven sites, however, spawning activity (nest-guarding behavior) by Chinook salmon was only observed at one site (Indian River Delta). At many sites, the presence of chum salmon made identification of Chinook salmon in the sonar image difficult. Several potential spawning sites could not be accessed via boat and other sites had physical characteristics not suitable for salmon spawning (e.g., high water velocity, thalwag of the river, or rapids). On July 31 and August 12, two potential spawning sites for chum salmon were sampled using ARIS (Table 4.4-2). Chum salmon were observed at both sites, but spawning was only confirmed at one site. Confirmation of spawning, observed with ARIS, included nest-guarding behavior and visible redds. Additional site-specific information was collected and subsequently relayed to the Fish and Aquatics Instream Flow Study (Study 8.5) team (Tables D-1 to D-6). INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 19 June 2014 4.4.1. Sonar Equipment and Methods The sonar system consisted of the ARIS unit, X2 rotator assembly, data transmission cable, laptop computer loaded with ARISScope data-acquisition software, and portable external hard drives. The system was powered with a 2,000 watt (W) Honda generator. Data were acquired using an ARIS unit attached to a dual-axis rotator. The ARIS and rotator assembly were deployed from a winch-operated pole-mount secured to the gunwale of a jet boat. The rotator assembly allowed for panning and tilting of the ARIS; and depth was controlled by using the winch to raise and lower the assembly. Potential spawning locations were identified from 2012 and 2013 detections of radio-tagged salmon. At each site, the ARIS was lowered from the side of the boat to approximately 10 cm (3.9 in) above the substrate along the edge of the river. The boat was slowly walked along the bank with the ARIS oriented approximately perpendicular to the riverbank. Survey lengths varied depending on river conditions and the presence of potential spawning habitat. Only habitats with features known to support salmonid spawning (as defined by Groot and Margolis 1991; Quinn 2005) were surveyed. Sites were excluded if: • The location was in the thalweg of the mainstem Susitna River, with no structure providing relief from the river flow. • The location was an area of high velocity with no holding areas (i.e., greater than 1.5 meters per second [m/s; 4.9 feet per second (ft/s)]). • The location consisted of shallow water with high velocity. • The location was in the middle of a rapid or area with high velocity. • The location had unsuitable substrate (i.e., mud, silt; e.g., Gateway Slough). Data were initially collected using 10–20 m (33–66 ft) sample windows. The sonar unit was tilted down to allow the sample beams to spread along the substrate throughout as much of the sample range as possible. In reaches with a non-uniform slope or that had obstructions present, the ARIS depth and tilt angle was adjusted as necessary to maximize coverage of the substrate. When fish were located and spawning behavior activities were suspected, the boat was stopped and up to 30 minutes of data were collected. Adjustments of the pan and tilt angles were made as required to maintain visual observation of individual fish. 4.4.2. Sonar Data Analysis and Reporting Data were collected using a frame rate of eight frames per second in consecutive 10-minute files. Data were ported directly to external hard drives, and backed up and archived to additional hard drives after each survey. Locational data were collected during each survey using a hand-held GPS unit time-synchronized with the ARIS system to allow for geo-referencing locations of observed spawning activities. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 20 June 2014 Data processing involved playing back the streaming data files using ARISFish software. Files were reviewed to note the following for each survey: • Presence or absence of redds. If redds were identified, the length and width of each redd was estimated using the software’s sizing tool. The number of detected redds per square meter was estimated. • Presence or absence of adult salmon. When adult salmon-sized fish were detected, total lengths of individual fish was estimated using the software’s sizing tool. The number of adult salmon per cubic meter was estimated. • Presence or absence of spawning behavior activities. Behavior of individual fish was reviewed and observations of spawning activities (redd digging or covering, redd guarding, paired fish, aggressive territorial behaviors, egg laying, milt expulsion, quivering) were noted. 4.4.3. Variances RSP Section 9.7.4.4.2 indicated that side-scan sonar and Dual Frequency Identification Sonar (DIDSON) would be used for this component of the study; however, an ARIS sonar unit was used in 2013. Although 2012 side-scan images showed features of the river bathymetry and a variety of substrate types, no obvious salmon redds were observed and the utility of this method to identify features not observable with a DIDSON or ARIS sonar was minor at best. Thus, no side-scan sonar was deployed in 2013. ARIS is a second generation (after DIDSON) imaging sonar (www.soundmetrics.com) and the main improvement over DIDSON is its flexibility in setting the sampling window parameters. The size and start range of the sample window can also be customized to fit optimal sample volume configurations. This provided additional resolution and characterization of substrate features. ARIS provided all the capabilities of DIDSON and side-scan sonar for confirming salmon spawning in turbid water. Thus, the variance of using ARIS in 2013 instead of DIDSON and side-scan sonar did not affect achieving study objective 4. AEA plans to use ARIS again in the next year of study. 4.5. Objective 5: Compare historical and current data on run timing, distribution, relative abundance, and specific locations of spawning and holding salmon AEA implemented the methods with respect to Objective 5 as described in the Study Plan with no variances. A comparison was made of this study’s results from 2012 and 2013 to the historical results that characterized the relative abundance; locations of spawning and holding salmon; and use of mainstem, side channel, slough, and tributary habitat types by adult salmon. Research conducted in the early 1980s provided annual abundance estimates (1983 to 1985) relevant to at least four fishwheel sites along the Susitna River. These abundance estimates were apportioned to mainstem, sloughs, and tributaries. One weakness of the 1980s studies was that they relied heavily on visual observations of fish and abandoned late-season redds, and therefore, may have underestimated the use and relative importance of mainstem habitats, many of which occur in turbid water during a substantial portion of the spawning period. Another concern was INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 21 June 2014 that data collected approximately 30 years ago may not characterize the current habitat use by salmon in the mainstem Susitna River. This study addressed both of these concerns by deploying a similarly scaled study of the spawning runs to the Susitna River in 2012 and 2013, and by using radio telemetry and sonar technology not available in the 1980s. Both methods provide a more rigorous characterization of the use of mainstem habitats than methods used in the 1980s. To the extent spawning distribution and habitat use in the current study are similar to earlier studies, the current study greatly increased the sample size and confidence in the conclusions from studies in both periods. Therefore, the explicit comparison and contrast of the distribution and habitat use of salmon in the Lower, Middle, and Upper river habitats of the Susitna River is valuable. 4.5.1. Variances No variances from the methods described in the Study Plan occurred during the 2013 study season. 4.6. Objective 6: Generate counts of adult Chinook salmon spawning in the Susitna River and its tributaries AEA implemented the methods with respect to Objective 6 as described in the Study Plan with the exception of variances explained below (Section 4.6.1). This objective was addressed by operating weirs on tributaries (see Objective 8) and conducting aerial spawner surveys in Indian River (see Objective 3) in 2013. The purpose of this work was to establish survey-area mark rates (proportion of fish tagged in different areas), that would support inferences about the representativeness of tagging across spawning stocks. In addition, mark rates from these areas were used to estimate the abundance of salmon passing the tagging sites, and the abundance of Chinook salmon passing upstream of Devils Canyon. Assumptions were made and tested regarding the representativeness of tagging and proportion of the run detected visually and by telemetry. All aerial spawner survey data was stratified as ‘above’ or ‘below’ the Indian River weir. A combination of aerial- and weir-based counts were used. Weirs were placed on the Indian River and in selected Lower River tributaries (see Objective 8). Aerial telemetry surveys by helicopter were conducted in July and August 2013 (Table C-4). Protocols developed based on 2012 experience, were implemented in 2013 to survey the Portage Creek and Indian River tributaries of the Middle River. Aerial telemetry survey data were used to establish estimates of minimum and likely numbers of fish based on a range of observer efficiencies. The estimates were used to establish ranges of possible species-specific mark rates in 2013. Multiple aerial telemetry surveys were flown bracketing the peak timing of spawning. Survey aircraft were equipped with telemetry receivers and GPS to identify positions of radio-tagged fish, and visual observations were used to document the presence of Pacific salmon. The aerial spawner surveys did not provide a direct estimate of the total salmon abundance in tributaries. Instead, they provided a minimum count and then helped to establish minimum and likely tributary-specific mark rates, as was done for Portage Creek and Indian River tributaries in 2012. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 22 June 2014 4.6.1. Variances Results from the 2012 escapement study indicated that it would be unlikely to obtain sufficient numbers of fish through spawning ground surveys to address both the original objectives of RSP Section 9.7.4.6 (mark rates), and the additional goal of estimating the numbers of fish above Devils Canyon that was established during the FERC Study Dispute process. Therefore, a decision was made to replace spawning ground surveys with operation of a weir and an underwater video system on the Indian River to enumerate tagged and untagged fish, and establish mark rates (see Section 5.6.2). This variance provided more rigorous data and did not affect achieving study objective 6. 4.7. Objective 7: Collect tissue samples to support the Fish Genetics Study AEA implemented the methods with respect to Objective 7 as described in the Study Plan with no variances. The task for this objective was to collect genetic samples from adult anadromous salmon in conjunction with addressing Objectives 1 and 2. Tissue samples were taken from all radio-tagged salmon and from all untagged spawning fish that were sampled during spawning ground surveys. Sample collections were coordinated with the Genetic Baseline Study team (see ISR Study 9.14). Similar to 2012, this study identified the locations of spawning fish and whenever feasible, collected tissue for use with genetics studies by AEA. 4.7.1. Variances No variances from the methods described in the Study Plan occurred during the 2013 study season. 4.8. Objective 8: Estimate the system-wide Chinook and coho salmon escapement to the Susitna River above Yentna River and the distribution of those fish among tributaries of the Susitna River AEA implemented the methods with respect to Objective 8 as described in the Study Plan with the exception of variances explained below (Section 4.8.1). A commonly applied two-event, capture-recapture experiment was used to estimate the annual abundance of Chinook salmon in the entire Susitna River drainage, and the coho salmon abundance in the Susitna River, above the Yentna River confluence. In the Susitna River, the capture event was provided by fishwheels operated throughout the seasonal salmon migration. Radio tags were applied to fish as close to proportional of the migrating salmon as possible. Later in the salmon migration, to establish the proportion of each species that had a tag (also known as the species-specific and stock-specific mark rate), recaptures were collected from tributary and mainstem weir and sonar sites. Using relatively simple algebra and making some testable assumptions, a species-specific estimate of total abundance passing the tagging site was estimated; more specifically, the abundance and in- river escapement at the fishwheels sites on the Susitna (Chinook and coho salmon) and the Yentna (Chinook salmon) rivers. Length, sex, and genetics information from the tagged and INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 23 June 2014 untagged fish was used to assess the validity of most assumptions. Behavior of radio-tagged fish following tagging also provided information for evaluating two critical assumptions: knowing how many tagged fish have “entered” the experiment, and whether their behavior compromised the experiment. Two fishwheels and drift gillnets were operated on the Lower River from June 3 to August 31, 2013, to capture fish for marking with radio tags (Table A-1; Figures A-1, A-2, and A-6). Two fishwheels and drift gillnets were operated on the Yentna River (river mile 6) from June 2 to 30 to capture fish for marking with radio tags (Table A-2; Figures A-3, A-4, and A-7). Lengths of tagged and untagged fish, and a tissue sample from tagged fish (for genetics sampling), were collected at each site. Weirs or sonar on tributaries were used to recapture tagged fish and estimate the proportion of each species’ run that had a tag. At the weir recapture sites, Chinook salmon were counted visually and tagged fish were detected by a fixed-station receiver adjacent to the weir (Table C- 2). Fish length was sampled at each site for testing assumptions of the mark-recapture experiment. At the sonar sites, the total number of fish passing was counted by examining the recorded sonar files post season, and tagged fish were detected by a fixed-station receiver adjacent to each sonar site (Table C-2). Fish length samples were attempted by seining or hook- and-line capture. In the Susitna River drainage above the Yentna River confluence, a weir was operated on the Deshka River from June 9 to September 3, 2013, and on Montana Creek from June 17 to September 2, 2013. Sonar was operated on the Middle Fork Chulitna River from June 20 to August 5, 2013. In the Yentna River drainage, sonar was operated on the Talachulitna River from June 11 to July 31, 2013. Finally, fish tagged in the Lower River that were collected at the Curry fishwheels were examined for mark rates. The size characteristics of the tagged and untagged fish at Curry were used along with weir-based information to estimate escapement and for testing assumptions of the mark-recapture experiment each year. A two-event, capture-recapture experiment was also used to estimate the abundance of coho salmon in the Susitna River upstream of the confluence with the Yentna River. Only t wo fishwheels were used on the Lower River (PRM 33–34) to capture coho salmon for marking with radio tags, from July 6 to August 31, 2013 (Table A-1; Figures A-1, A-2, and A-6). Coho salmon were counted and inspected for tags at the weirs on the Deshka River and Montana Creek, as described above. In addition, the Middle Fork Chulitna River was evaluated as a possible site using the 2012 coho salmon telemetry analyses; but, the relative size of the 2012 coho salmon return indicated too few tags were likely to be recovered to justify using the Middle Fork Chulitna River as a recapture site in 2013. 4.8.1. Variances Montana Creek was selected as a weir site instead of Willow Creek in 2013. Montana Creek had a more uniform channel configuration and lower water velocity than Willow Creek. The two creeks were located near each other, had similar discharge and watershed characteristics, and had INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 24 June 2014 similar Chinook and coho salmon run sizes. This variance did not affect achieving study Objective 8. A weir was not operated on the Middle Fork Chulitna River in 2013. In June, the stream discharge was too high for weir installation; instead, the sonar unit designated for Lake Creek was reassigned to the Middle Fork Chulitna River in order to obtain the counts necessary for the abundance experiment. River discharges remained too high to install the weir at a later date. This variance may provide sufficient data to meet the abundance and distribution objectives for the Susitna River above the Yentna River, and may not affect achieving the Susitna abundance estimate component of study Objective 8. No weir or sonar operations occurred at Lake Creek in 2013. In June, the stream discharge remained too high for weir installation and was hazardous for boat operation. Also, direct access to a site suitable for either a weir or sonar operation was not possible. This variance will affect achieving the Yentna component of study Objective 8 as an abundance estimate will not be determined. A weir was not operated on the Talachulitna River in 2013. In June, the stream discharge was too high for weir installation; instead, a sonar unit was employed in order to obtain the counts necessary for the abundance experiment. Discharges remained too high to install the weir at a later date. No sampling at Lake Creek leaves only the Talachulitna River as a sampling site on the Yentna River. One site is not adequate for testing of the assumptions of the capture- recapture abundance experiment for Chinook salmon in the Yentna River. This variance will affect achieving the Yentna component of study Objective 8 as an abundance estimate will not be determined. Although not part of the Study Plan, a picket weir was operated on the Indian River through its entire Chinook salmon run (Section 4.1.5.2) and size-specific mark rates pertaining to Lower River tagged fish were obtained. This variance will improve the likelihood of achieving the Middle River component of study Objective 8 (see Section 4.1.8.3 for details). 5. RESULTS Data developed in support of the ISR is available for download at http://gis.suhydro.org/reports/isr/9/9.7 and include the files ISR_9_7_ESCAPE_LGL 2013 Fishwheel Catch Tag Dataset QC3-sub20131216.xlsx, ISR_9_7_ESCAPE_LGL 2013 Curry Sonar ARIS Dataset QC3-sub20131218.xlsx, ISR_9_7_ESCAPE_LGL 2013 Indian River Weir Passage Dataset QC3-sub20131218.xlsx, and ISR_9_7_ESCAPE_SuWa LGL ESCAPE TelemMgr Export Flat Tables QC3 DR 20131213. 5.1. Objective 1: Capture, radio-tag, and track adults of five species of Pacific Salmon in the Middle and Upper Susitna River in proportion to their abundance. Capture and tag Chinook, coho, and pink salmon in the Lower Susitna and Yentna rivers. Detailed summaries of fish capture and tagging are provided in Appendix A. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 25 June 2014 5.1.1. Fish Capture 5.1.1.1. Lower River A total of 2,063 Chinook (1,232 large, 831 small), 3,512 chum, 3,277 coho, 33,995 pink, and 624 sockeye salmon were captured in the mainstem of the Lower River (Table A-5). The peak of Chinook salmon catch was on June 12 (204), whereas peak catches for pink and coho salmon were over a month later on July 20 (4,551) and August 3 (186), respectively. Catch-per-unit- effort for pink salmon peaked at 201 fish per hour (west bank), whereas CPUE for Chinook and coho salmon peaked at 10.6 (west bank) and 9.1 (west bank) fish per hour, respectively (Figure A-10). Chinook salmon catches were substantially higher in the west bank fishwheel during the peak of the run, coho salmon catches were consistently slightly higher in the west bank fishwheel, whereas pink salmon catches were relatively balanced along each bank. 5.1.1.2. Yentna River Of the 2,295 adult Chinook salmon (1,201 large, 1,094 small) captured in the lower Yentna River, the majority (87 percent) were captured in fishwheels, and the remaining 13 percent in gillnets ( INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 26 June 2014 Table A-6). Daily catch peaked at 259 fish on June 17. The magnitude and timing of the peak CPUE for Chinook salmon was very similar for the north and south bank fishwheels (Figure A- 11). Chinook salmon captured in the Lower River and Yentna River were similarly sized (Table A-7). 5.1.1.3. Middle River In the Middle River, 616 large Chinook, 336 small Chinook, 3,417 chum, 1,734 coho, 15,695 pink, and 276 sockeye salmon were captured, including recaptures (Table A-8). The majority of Chinook and coho salmon were captured at Site 1, whereas the most sockeye salmon were captured at Site 2, and the most chum and pink salmon were captured at Site 3. Peak catches were earliest for Chinook salmon (July 1; 52 fish), followed by sockeye (August 1; 9 fish), chum and pink (August 3; 259 and 1,422 fish, respectively), and coho salmon (August 17; 139 fish). CPUE was highest for pink salmon (90.1 fish/hour; Site 3), followed by chum (11.3 fish/hour; Site 3), coho (9.7 fish/hour; Site 1), large Chinook (2.2 fish/hour; Site 1), and sockeye salmon (0.7 fish/hour; Site 3; Figure A-12). The mean length of large Chinook salmon captured in the Middle River (69.6 cm [27.4 in]; Table A-4) was greater than the mean length of large Chinook salmon captured in the Lower River and Yentna River (Table A-7). From largest to smallest, mean lengths for chum, coho, sockeye, and pink salmon captured in the Middle River were 59.0 cm, 51.1 cm, 44.8 cm, and 41.6 cm [23.2 in, 20.1 in, 17.6 in, and 16.4 in], respectively (Table A- 4). Six other fish species were captured and released at the Middle River fishwheels, including 104 round whitefish Prosopium cylindraceum, 59 rainbow trout O. mykiss, 54 Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus, 20 humpback whitefish Coregonus pidschian, 20 longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus, 14 Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma, and 2 burbot Lota lota (Table A-4). 5.1.2. Radio-tagging 5.1.2.1. Lower River In the Lower River fishwheels, 580 large Chinook, 596 coho, and 197 pink salmon were radio- tagged (Table A-1; Figure A-6). These tagged fish represent 31 percent of the Chinook, 18 percent of the coho, and 0.6 percent of the pink salmon in the total fishwheel catch. Between the two fishwheels in the Lower River, 66 percent of the radio tags were deployed in the west bank fishwheel. In the Lower River gillnetting, 118 large Chinook were radio-tagged, which was 71 percent of the gillnet catch. Daily radio-tag deployment in the Lower River peaked at 128 for Chinook salmon on June 9, 36 for coho salmon on July 16, and 17 for pink salmon on July 24 and 25, 2013. 5.1.2.2. Yentna River In the Yentna River fishwheels, 425 large Chinook salmon were radio-tagged (Table A-2; Figure A-7), which was 21 percent of the total fishwheel catch. In the gillnetting, 267 Chinook salmon were marked with radio tags, which was 86 percent of the gillnet catch. Between the two fishwheels in the Yentna River, 66 percent of the radio tags were deployed in the south bank fishwheel. Radio-tag deployment for Chinook salmon at the Yentna River peaked at 79 tags on June 14, 2013. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 27 June 2014 5.1.2.3. Middle River In the Middle River, radio tags were applied to 536 large Chinook, 67 small Chinook, 201 chum, 242 coho, 200 pink, and 139 sockeye salmon (Table A-3; Figure A-8). Of the untagged, healthy adult salmon captured at the Middle River fishwheels, radio tags were applied to 89.9 percent of large Chinook, 20.2 percent of small Chinook, 6.0 percent of chum, 13.7 percent of coho, 1.3 percent of pink, and 80.3 percent of sockeye salmon. The daily number of radio tags applied peaked at 50 for large Chinook, 7 for small Chinook, 20 for chum, 26 for coho, 25 for pink, and 8 for sockeye salmon (Figure A-8). Radio tags were deployed in proportion to catch for Chinook and sockeye salmon in 2013 (Figure A-13). In contrast, relative to fishwheel catches in the 1980s, 2012, and 2013, the early components of the 2013 chum, coho, and pink salmon runs were likely over-tagged, and the later components of these runs were under-tagged. 5.1.3. Spaghetti-tagging In the Middle River, spaghetti tags were applied as the primary mark to 1,959 chum, 962 coho, and 9,105 pink salmon (Table A-3; Figure A-14). The daily number of spaghetti tags deployed peaked at 139 for chum, 105 for coho, and 919 for pink salmon. Incidentally, seven Chinook (5 large, 2 small) and six sockeye salmon were also spaghetti-tagged. A number of previously radio- and spaghetti-tagged salmon were recaptured at the Middle River fishwheels, including 20 large Chinook, 4 small Chinook, 82 chum, 37 coho, 460 pink, and 3 sockeye salmon. Of these, four Chinook and two coho salmon were radio-tagged fish released at the Lower River fishwheels. 5.1.4. Numbers and Size of Marked and Unmarked Fish at Selected Locations 5.1.4.1. Deshka River Weir An estimated 18,003 Chinook salmon measuring 50 cm MEF or greater passed the Deshka River weir during June 9 to September 2, 2013, out of a total count of 18,531 Chinook salmon of all sizes. One hundred forty eight, or 0.82 percent, were radio-tagged fish (Table B-1) which were assumed to have spawned above the weir. The cumulative length-frequency distribution for Chinook salmon sampled at the Deshka River weir was significantly different than that for radio- tagged fish passing the weir (D = 0.243, p < 0.001), providing strong evidence of size biased sampling during the marking event. The cumulative length-frequency distribution for Chinook salmon sampled at the Deshka River weir was also significantly different than that for all radio- tagged fish above the tagging site (D = 0.245, p < 0.001) with the mean length of radio-tagged Chinook salmon (68.6cm) being smaller than that of Chinook salmon measuring 50 cm or greater that passed the Deshka River weir (73.4 cm; Table B-2). A total of 22,141 coho salmon were counted during July 10 to September 3, 2013, all of which were estimated to be 40 cm MEF or greater. Sixty seven, or 0.30 percent, were radio-tagged fish (Table B-1) which passed the weir when counting was being conducted and later assumed to have spawned above the weir. The cumulative length-frequency distribution for coho salmon sampled at the Deshka River weir was significantly different than that for radio-tagged fish passing the weir (D = 0.439, p < 0.001), providing strong evidence of size biased sampling during the marking event. The cumulative length-frequency distribution for coho salmon INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 28 June 2014 sampled at the Deshka River weir was also significantly different than that for all radio-tagged fish above the tagging site (D = 0.410, p < 0.001) with the mean length of radio-tagged coho salmon (50.3 cm) smaller than coho salmon that passed the Deshka River weir (55.4 cm; Table B-2). 5.1.4.2. Montana Creek Weir An estimated 1,949 Chinook salmon measuring 50 cm or greater passed the Montana Creek weir during July 8 to August 20 and August 26–27, 2013, out of a total count of 2,015 Chinook salmon of all sizes. Eleven, or 0.56 percent, were radio-tagged fish (Table B-3) which were assumed to have spawned above the weir. The cumulative length-frequency distribution for Chinook salmon sampled at the Montana Creek weir was not significantly different than that for radio-tagged fish passing the weir (D = 0.233, p = 0.663). The cumulative length-frequency distribution for Chinook salmon sampled at the Montana Creek weir was significantly different than that for all radio-tagged fish above the tagging site (D = 0.136, p = 0.006), with the mean length of radio-tagged Chinook salmon (68.6 cm) slightly larger than Chinook salmon measuring 50 cm or greater that passed the Deshka River weir (67.2 cm; Table B-2). A total of 765 coho salmon were counted during July 31 to August 20 and August 26 to September 3, 2013, all of which were estimated to be 40 cm or greater. Seven, or 0.92 percent, were radio-tagged fish (Table B-3) which passed the weir when counting was being conducted and later assumed to have spawned above the weir. The cumulative length-frequency distribution for coho salmon sampled at the Montana Creek weir was significantly different than that for radio-tagged fish passing the weir (D = 0.657, p = 0.005), providing strong evidence of size biased sampling during the marking event. The cumulative length-frequency distribution for coho salmon sampled at the Montana Creek weir was also significantly different than that for all radio-tagged fish above the tagging site (D = 0.263, p < 0.001) with the mean length of radio- tagged coho salmon (50.3 cm) smaller than coho salmon that passed the Deshka River weir (53.2 cm; Table B-2). 5.1.4.3. Middle Fork Chulitna River Sonar This data is currently under analysis. 5.1.4.4. Talachulitna River Sonar This data is currently under analysis. 5.1.4.5. Indian River Weir Net passage of Chinook salmon inspected for tags was 1,405 fish, including 1,137 large fish, 294 small fish, and minus 26 fish with an unknown length category (Table 5.1-2; Table B-4; Figure B-2). An additional net passage of 34 Chinook salmon were not inspected for tags, including 31 large fish and 3 fish with an unknown length category. Chinook salmon were counted at the weir from June 27 to August 19, and net passage peaked at 192 fish on July 10. Of the Chinook salmon inspected for tags, with a known length category, 72 (6.3 percent) were large fish and 13 (4.4 percent) were small fish with radio tags applied in the Middle River. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 29 June 2014 Net passage of chum salmon inspected for tags was 12,906 fish, including 12,847 fish measuring 40 cm (15.7 in) or greater in length, one fish measuring less than 40 cm (15.7 in) in length, and 58 fish with an unknown length category (Table B-4; Figure B-2). An additional net passage of 6 fish were not inspected for tags, including four fish measuring 40 cm (15.7 in) or greater in length and two fish with an unknown length category. Chum salmon were counted at the weir from June 27 to August 20, and net passage peaked at 884 fish on July 30. Of the 12,847 chum salmon measuring 40 cm (15.7 in) or greater in length that were inspected, 542 (4.2 percent) were tagged, which included 51 (0.4 percent) radio tags, and 491 (3.8 percent) spaghetti tags. Net passage of coho salmon inspected for tags was 525 fish, including 514 fish measuring 40 cm (15.7 in) or greater in length, 12 fish measuring less than 40 cm (15.7 in) in length, and minus one fish with an unknown length category (Table B-4; Figure B-2). An additional net passage of 20 fish measuring 40 cm (15.7 in) or greater in length were not inspected for tags. Coho salmon were counted at the weir from July 20 to August 20, and net passage peaked at 300 fish on August 19. Of the 514 coho salmon measuring 40 cm (15.7 in) or greater in length that were inspected, 53 (10.3 percent) were tagged, which included 17 (3.3 percent) radio tags and 36 (7.0 percent) spaghetti tags. Net passage of pink salmon inspected for tags was 37,181 fish (Table B-4; Figure B-2). An additional net passage of 66 fish were not fully inspected for tags. Pink salmon were counted at the weir from July 20 to August 20, and net passage peaked at 4,292 fish on August 10. Of the pink salmon inspected, 2,010 (5.4 percent) were tagged, including 35 (0.1 percent) radio tags and 1,975 (5.3 percent) spaghetti tags. Net passage of sockeye salmon inspected for tags was 127 fish, including 120 fish measuring 40 cm (15.7 in) or greater in length, six fish measuring less than 40 cm (15.7 in) in length, and one fish with an unknown length category (Table B-4; Figure B-2). Sockeye salmon were counted at the weir from July 20 to August 18, and net passage peaked at 16 fish on August 17. Of the sockeye salmon measuring 40 cm (15.7 in) or greater in length that were inspected for tags, three (2.5 percent) were radio-tagged. Other fish species counted at the weir included: rainbow trout (587 up, 274 down), Arctic grayling (93 up, 19 down), round whitefish (71 up, 24 down), humpback whitefish (22 up, 1 down), longnose sucker (8 up, 0 down), and Dolly Varden (12 up, 10 down; Figure B-3). A small number of juvenile salmon and sculpin species were also observed passing through the chute. The mean length of tagged Chinook salmon (68.0 cm [26.7 in]) measured from video imagery at the Indian River weir was slightly smaller than the mean length of untagged fish (69.8 cm [27.5 in]; Table B-2). However, cumulative length-frequency distributions for marked, inspected, and recaptured Chinook salmon were statistically similar, which indicates no evidence of size- selective radio-tagging for large Chinook salmon at the Middle River fishwheels or at the weir (Figure A-15). These results suggest radio tags were randomly applied to fish in the Middle River regardless of size. Cumulative length-frequency distributions for fish radio-tagged in the Middle River and those inspected at the weir were similar for small Chinook (Dmax = 0.10, P = 0.69), coho (Dmax = 0.11, INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 30 June 2014 P = 0.11), pink (Dmax = 0.09, P = 0.14), and sockeye salmon (Dmax = 0.17, P = 0.09; Figure A- 15). In contrast, the cumulative length-frequency distributions of chum salmon radio-tagged in the Middle River and those inspected at the weir were significantly different (Dmax = 0.13, P = 0.01); although the mean lengths of tagged (59.7 cm [23.5 in]) and inspected (60.4 cm [23.8 in]) fish differed only slightly. Nonetheless, for small Chinook, chum, coho, pink, and sockeye salmon, too few radio-tagged fish (n ≤ 4) were recaptured at the weir to make additional comparisons and test for size selectivity. There was evidence to suggest size-selective spaghetti-tagging occurred at the Middle River fishwheels for chum salmon, but not for pink salmon (Figure A-16). The mean length of chum salmon spaghetti-tagged at the Middle River fishwheels (59.0 cm [23.2 in]) was slightly smaller than the mean length of fish inspected at the weir (60.4 cm [23.8 in]). Spaghetti-tagged coho salmon released in the Middle River, and those fish inspected at the weir, had similar length distributions (Dmax = 0.06, P = 0.66); however, too few spaghetti-tagged coho salmon (n = 14) were recaptured at the weir for further statistical comparisons. 5.1.5. Examining Handling-Induced Changes in Behavior Of the 536 large Chinook salmon that were radio-tagged and released at the Middle River fishwheels, 14 (2.6 percent) were recaptured (i.e., captured twice) at one of the Middle River fishwheels. The elapsed time between tag and recapture events ranged from a few minutes to over eight days (median = 0.8 days). All recaptured fish were released and subsequently assigned spawning fates (i.e., classified into a specific tributary or mainstem spawning location). Four (6.0 percent) of the 67 radio-tagged small Chinook salmon were recaptured, of which three were assigned spawning fates (median time between capture events was 1.5 days). The elapsed time between capture events for chum (n = 3), pink (n = 10), and sockeye (n = 3) salmon was 0.3, 0.3, and 0.2 days, respectively; and all of these recaptures were assigned spawning fates. The relatively short time period between capture events and large proportion of recaptured fish that were assigned spawning fates suggests the additional handling time did not substantially influence behavior. 5.1.6. Assessing Any Stock- and Size-selective Capture 5.1.6.1. Use of ARIS to Assess Fishwheel Effectiveness and Fish Approach Behavior Catch-per-unit-effort data at the ARIS (Unit 1), or the number of targets counted per hour of imagery reviewed, showed several pulses of fish passing Site 1 in the Middle River (Figure A- 17). These included: two small pulses on June 10–11 (peak = 1.7 fish/hour) and June 16–17 (peak = 3.0 fish/hour), a moderate but steady pulse from late June to early July (peak = 6.0 fish/hour), a large pulse from August 30 to September 3 (peak = 17.0 fish/hour), and a small but steady pulse for the remainder of September. The number of adult salmon captured at the Site 1 fishwheel was compared to concurrent net upstream counts of fish on the ARIS (Unit 1; Figure A-18). The two pulses of fish observed in June on Unit 1 corresponded to peak catches of Arctic grayling, rainbow trout, and round whitefish at the Site 1 fishwheel. Although these pulses of smaller-sized fish measured 50 cm (19.7 in) or greater on the ARIS imagery, the vast majority of these species measured less than 50 cm (19.7 in) when sampled at the fishwheel (and thus are not INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 31 June 2014 reflected in the fishwheel catch data in Figure A-18). These results suggest that the length measurements collected from ARIS imagery in the first half of June may be biased high. The ARIS data provided a good indication that the leading edge of the Chinook salmon run was captured at the Middle River fishwheels. As counts at Unit 1 increased from late June through early July, there was a concurrent pulse in Chinook salmon catches at the Site 1 fishwheel (peak of 51 Chinook salmon on July 1). From August 30 to September 3, fishwheel catches at Site 1 were comprised largely of coho salmon. The ARIS data suggests that the trailing end of the coho salmon run was not well-represented by fishwheel catches. Despite the small but steady stream of fish observed using ARIS after September 4, which presumably was comprised largely of coho salmon, only five adult salmon (three coho, one chum, and one sockeye salmon) were captured at the Site 1 fishwheel from September 4 to 17. The decrease in turbidity in the first half of September (Figure A-17) likely contributed to the apparent low fishwheel catches, as fish would be able to see the fishwheel baskets and avoid being captured. From June 16 to July 12, when most fish measuring 50 cm (19.7 in) or greater passing Site 1 were Chinook salmon, the just over half (58.4 percent) of the targets at Unit 1 were within 6 m (19.7 ft) of the transducer (Figure A-19). From September 1–30, when most fish measuring 40 cm (15.7 in) or greater passing Site 1 were likely coho salmon, a larger proportion (69.4 percent) of targets at Unit 1 were within 6 m (19.7 ft) of the transducer. Counts at that range for Unit 2 in September indicated that relatively few fish migrated greater than 13 m (42.7 ft) from the transducer. Counts of upstream-moving targets on days when the full 24 hours of imagery were reviewed showed that the majority of fish (presumably Chinook salmon) passed between midnight and 11:00 A.M. from June 16 to July 12 (Figure A-20). In contrast, from September 1 to 30, fish passage (presumably mostly coho salmon) was highest from 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. 5.1.6.2. Bank Orientation & Capture Probability by Spawning Location (Middle River) Results of contingency table tests comparing the bank of capture to the bank where fish were assigned a spawning fate showed no evidence to suggest that radio-tagged large Chinook, chum, or pink salmon were bank-oriented when passing through the Middle River. However, due to small sample sizes, at least one cell in each of the species-specific tests had an expected value of less than five. In contrast, sockeye salmon appeared bank-oriented in the Middle River (χ2 = 13.9, df = 1, P < 0.001). Eighty percent (16 of 20) of sockeye salmon radio-tagged on the left bank (when looking downstream) were assigned to left-bank spawning areas, and 76 percent (19 of 25) of fish tagged on the right bank returned to right-bank spawning areas. All small Chinook salmon returned to right-bank spawning areas, regardless of whether they were captured on the left (n = 8) or right (n = 23) bank. Mainstem spawning populations did not appear more vulnerable to recapture than those fish bound for tributaries. Of the 31 radio-tagged salmon released and recaptured at the Middle River fishwheels that were subsequently assigned spawning fates, 27 (87 percent) were assigned to tributaries and only four (13 percent) were assigned to mainstem areas. Similar proportions were INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 32 June 2014 observed for radio-tagged fish that were never recaptured (88 percent to tributaries and 12 percent to mainstem areas). 5.1.6.3. Size-related Comparisons 5.1.6.3.1. Lower River Cumulative length-frequency distributions for all Chinook salmon captured at the Lower River tagging site showed significant differences between the size distributions of fish caught at the west bank fishwheel, the east bank fishwheel, and mid-river gillnetting sites. Chinook salmon caught in mid-river gillnets were larger than fish caught in the west bank fishwheel (D = 0.308, p < 0.001) and the east bank fishwheel (D = 0.615, p < 0.001). Chinook salmon caught in the west bank fishwheel were larger than those from the east bank fishwheel (D = 0.311, p < 0.001). Average lengths (MEF) of Chinook salmon for each capture station was 67.8 cm for mid-river gillnets, 57.4 cm for the west bank fishwheel, and 46.4 cm for the east bank fishwheel. Coho salmon caught in the west bank fishwheel were significantly larger than those caught in the east bank fishwheel (D = 0.073, p = 0.001). Average lengths were 50.0 cm for west bank fish and 49.2 cm for east bank fish. There was no difference detected between lengths of pink salmon caught at the two fishwheels (D = 0.070, p = 0.968), with average lengths of 43.0 cm for west bank fish and 42.8 cm for east bank fish (Figure A-21). For Chinook salmon measuring 50 cm or greater, a significant difference was detected between the length distributions of fish captured at the lower river tagging site and only those fish radio- tagged at that site (D = 0.153, p < 0.001). This difference is due largely to the tagging strategy used at the site, which called for Chinook salmon less than 58 cm to be tagged at approximated 1/3 the rate of larger fish. No significant difference was detected between the length distributions of Chinook salmon measuring 58 cm or greater caught at the Lower River site and those tagged (D = 0.058, p = 0.231). For coho salmon measuring 40 cm or greater, no significant difference was detected between the length distributions of fish captured at the Lower River tagging site and only those fish radio-tagged at that site (D = 0.038, p = 0.481). For pink salmon, length data were collected only for fish that were radio-tagged (Figure A-22). For Chinook salmon measuring 50 cm or greater, a significant difference was detected between length distributions of radio-tagged fish that spawned above the Lower River tagging site and fish recaptured at the Montana Creek and Deshka River weirs (D = 0.272, p < 0.001). There was a significant difference detected between the length distribution of Chinook salmon measuring 50 cm or greater passing the Deshka River weir and recaptured radio-tagged fish that spawned above the weir (D = 0.243, p < 0.001). No significant difference was detected at the Montana Creek weir between the length distributions of Chinook salmon measuring 50 cm or greater spawning above the weir and recaptures at the weir (D = 0.233, p = 0.663). For coho salmon measuring 40 cm or greater, no significant difference was detected between length distributions of radio-tagged fish that spawned above the lower river tagging site and fish recaptured at the Montana Creek and Deshka River weirs (D = 0.079, p = 0.754). There was a significant difference detected between the length distribution of coho salmon measuring 40 cm or greater passing the Deshka River weir and recaptured radio-tagged fish that spawned above the weir (D = 0.439, p < 0.001). Similarly, a significant difference was detected at the Montana Creek weir INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 33 June 2014 between the length distributions of coho salmon measuring 40 cm or greater spawning above the weir and recaptures at the weir (D = 0.657, p = 0.005; Figure A-23). 5.1.6.3.2. Yentna River Comparisons of cumulative length-frequency distributions for all Chinook salmon captured at the Yentna River tagging site showed significant differences between the size distributions of fish caught at the north bank fishwheel, the south bank fishwheel, and mid-river gillnetting sites. Chinook salmon caught in mid-river gillnets were larger than fish caught in the north bank fishwheel (D = 0.736, p < 0.001) and the south bank fishwheel (D = 0.579, p < 0.001). Chinook salmon caught in the south bank fishwheel were larger than those from the north bank fishwheel (D = 0.233, p < 0.001). Average lengths (MEF) of Chinook salmon for each capture station was 75.9 cm for mid-river gillnets, 50.3 cm for the south bank fishwheel, and 43.0 cm for the east bank fishwheel (Figure A-24). For Chinook salmon measuring 50 cm or greater, a significant difference was detected between the length distributions of fish captured at the Yentna River tagging site and only those fish radio-tagged at that site (D = 0.174, p < 0.001). This difference is due largely to the tagging strategy used at the site, which called for Chinook salmon measuring less than 58 cm to be tagged at approximated 1/3 the rate of larger fish. No significant difference was detected between the length distributions of Chinook salmon measuring 58 cm or greater caught at the Yentna River site and those tagged (D = 0.022, p = 0.995; Figure A-25). 5.1.6.3.3. Middle River Comparisons of cumulative length-frequency distributions for fish captured at the Middle River fishwheels showed significant differences for Chinook salmon captured at sites 1 and 2; chum salmon captured at sites 1 and 2, and sites 2 and 3; coho salmon captured at sites 1 and 2, and sites 1 and 3; and sockeye salmon captured at sites 1 and 2, and sites 1 and 3 (Figure A-26). Pink salmon were the only species with similar length-frequency distributions across all three sites. The mean lengths of fish captured at Site 1 were greater than those captured at Site 2 for Chinook (58.4 vs. 54.6 cm [23.0 vs. 21.5 in]), chum (59.1 vs. 58.4 cm [23.2 vs. 23.0 in]), coho (51.9 vs. 50.0 cm [23.3 vs. 19.7 in]). The mean length of chum salmon captured at Site 3 (59.2 cm [23.3 in]) was greater than at Site 2 (58.4 cm [23.0 in]). Results associated with Site 3 are limited to species other than Chinook salmon and are confounded with time. Fishing at Site 3 was limited to the latter part of the run (i.e., July 17 and later), and sample sizes were too small to compare period-specific data. It is worth noting that a larger proportion of Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon captured in 2013 were comprised of smaller-sized fish (commonly referred to as jacks) compared to 2012. In 2013, 35 percent (336 of 952) of Chinook salmon measured less than 50 cm (19.7 in) in length (versus 25 percent in 2012), and 36 percent (100 of 276) of sockeye salmon measured less than 40 cm (15.7 in) in length (versus 8 percent in 2012). When it became apparent in late June that there were a large number of small Chinook salmon being captured and the tagging goal for large Chinook (and sockeye) salmon would not likely be met, the decision was made to allocate some radio tags (n = 67) to small Chinook salmon. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 34 June 2014 Significant differences in the length distributions of radio-tagged and captured fish were found for small Chinook, chum, and pink salmon, but not for large Chinook, coho, or sockeye salmon (Figure A-27). In the three cases where significant differences were found, the mean lengths for radio-tagged fish were greater than mean lengths for those captured (38.1 vs. 36.3 cm [15.0 vs. 14.3 in] for small Chinook; 59.7 vs. 59.0 cm [23.5 vs. 23.2 in] for chum; and 42.9 vs. 41.6 cm [16.9 vs. 16.4 in] for pink salmon). For chum, coho, and pink salmon, the cumulative length- frequency distributions of spaghetti-tagged fish were similar to all other fish captured (Figure A- 27). For small Chinook salmon, results were consistent with tagging effort as it was not random across all sizes, but instead was limited to the larger segment of the small fish captured in the fishwheels. 5.2. Objective 2: Determine the migration behavior and spawning locations of radio-tagged fish in the Lower, Middle, and Upper Susitna River 5.2.1. Tag Returns Forty-six of the radio tags deployed in the Lower River and Yentna River were recovered by project field staff (Table E-1). This included 25 large Chinook salmon, recovered in the Deshka (5), Indian (3), and Talachulitna (1) rivers, as well as Johnson (1), Lake (6), Moose (1), Peter’s (3), Prairie (1), Willow (3), and 8 Mile (1) creeks. Twenty-one coho salmon tagged in the Lower River were recovered from a variety of locations, including the Deshka (2), Lower Susitna (2), Talachulitna (2), and Yentna (3) rivers; and Caswell (3), Chase (1), Clear (3), Johnson (1), Lake (1), Peter’s (1), Sheep (1), and Sunshine (1) creeks. Additionally, 54 of the radio tags initially deployed in the Middle Susitna River were recovered by an glers (8) and project field staff (46; Table E-2). Twenty-four large Chinook salmon were recovered from the Chulitna (1), Indian (17), and Middle Susitna (1) rivers, as well as Portage (2) and Troublesome (1) creeks. Recovery location information was not provided for two of the Chinook salmon tags recovered from this size cohort. Six small Chinook salmon were recovered from the Indian (4) and Middle Susitna (1) rivers, as well as one from Spink Creek, a tributary of the Chulitna River. Eleven pink salmon were recovered from the Indian (4) and Middle Susitna (6) rivers, along with one from Fifth of July Creek. One sockeye salmon was recovered from Slough 8A of the Middle River. Seven chum salmon were recovered from the Indian (4) and Middle Susitna (1) rivers, as well as Clear (1) and Montana (1) creeks. Lastly, five coho salmon were recovered from Indian River (1), as well as Clear (1), Lake (1), Sunshine (1), and Whiskers (1) creeks. 5.2.2. Stock Classifications and Spawning Locations – Lower River 5.2.2.1. Chinook Salmon Of the 689 Chinook salmon tagged in the Lower River, 621 (90 percent) were classified by destination. Of these, 617 (99 percent) went to tributaries (mainly the Deshka, Talkeetna, Chulitna, or Yentna rivers), and 4 (1 percent) went to destinations in the mainstem Susitna River (Table 5.2-1; Figure 5.2-1; Figure D-1 and D-2). The remaining 68 Chinook salmon, not able to INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 35 June 2014 be classified by a specific destination (see “Other Fates” classification in Table 5.2-1), exhibited movements that prevented conclusive assignment to the mainstem or tributaries. 5.2.2.2. Coho Salmon Of the 596 coho salmon tagged in the Lower River, 500 (84 percent) were classified by destination. Of these, 478 (96 percent) went to tributaries (mainly the Yentna, Deshka, Talkeetna, or Chulitna rivers), and 22 (4 percent) went to destinations in the mainstem Susitna River (Table 5.2-1; Figure 5.2-1; Figures D-1, D-3, and D-4). The remaining 96 coho salmon, not able to be classified by a specific destination (see “Other Fates” classification in Table 5.2-1), exhibited movements that prevented conclusive assignment to the mainstem or tributaries. Coho salmon were tracked to twelve potential spawning sites within mainstem habitats of the Lower River (Figure D-3). Sites included six main channel, five slough/side channels, and one tributary delta. During the survey period, mainstem water clarity was ideal for visual confirmation of spawning activity; however, none of the twelve potential spawning sites were confirmed for spawning. 5.2.2.3. Pink Salmon Of the 200 pink salmon tagged in the Lower River, 116 (58 percent) were classified by destination. Of these, 98 (84 percent) went to tributaries (mainly the Deshka or Yentna rivers, or Montana or Willow creeks) and 18 (16 percent) went to destinations in the mainstem Susitna River (Table 5.2-1; Figure 5.2-1; Figures D-1, D-5, and D-6). The remaining salmon (42 percent) were not classified to a specific destination due to insufficient telemetry data for the specific timing and distribution of pink salmon in the Lower River. This issue will be resolved in year 2 studies by enhancing fixed-station and/or mobile-survey coverage for pink salmon in the Lower River (Table 5.2-1). 5.2.3. Stock Classifications and Spawning Locations – Yentna River Chinook salmon radio-tagged in the Yentna River were expected to stay within this major tributary, and significant movement to other Susitna River tributaries was not expected (relative to Chinook salmon tagged in the Lower River). Of the 692 Chinook salmon released in the Yentna River, 596 (86 percent) were classified with a Yentna destination, and 6 (1 percent) were classified in other Susitna River tributaries (Talkeetna River, Montana Creek, and Chulitna River; Table 5.2-1). The remaining 90 salmon were not able to be classified by a specific destination. 5.2.4. Stock Classifications and Spawning Locations – Middle and Upper River 5.2.4.1. Chinook Salmon Of the 536 large Chinook salmon radio-tagged in the Middle River, 449 (84 percent) were classified by spawning destination (Table 5.2-1). Of these, 422 (94 percent) went to tributaries (mainly Portage Creek or Indian River; Figure D-7) and 27 (6 percent) went to destinations in the mainstem Susitna River (Table 5.2-1; Figures D-2 and D-8). Destinations of the remaining 87 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 36 June 2014 large Chinook salmon could not be classified, due to movements that prevented conclusive assignment to the mainstem or tributaries (Table 5.2-1). In addition to the large Chinook described above, 67 small Chinook salmon were radio-tagged and released in the Middle River. In all, 45 (67 percent) were classified by destination (Table 5.2-1). Of these, 42 (93 percent) went to tributaries (mainly Indian River or Portage Creek; Figure D-7) and 3 (7 percent) went to destinations in the mainstem Susitna River (Table 5.2-1; Figure 5.2-1). Destinations of the remaining 22 small Chinook salmon could not be classified (Table 5.2-1). Chinook salmon were tracked to 13 potential mainstem spawning sites in the Middle River between Lane and Chinook creeks (Table D-2; Figure D-8). To confirm spawning activity, each of these sites was visually examined during mobile surveys (e.g., by helicopter or boat, or on foot during HSC surveys). An ARIS unit was used at sites where water conditions were too turbid for visual examination. The only potential evidence of spawning was observed with ARIS at Site 9 (Indian River Delta; Table D-1), where a holding Chinook salmon exhibited behavior indicative of nest guarding; redds or redd digging behavior could not be confirmed. Six turbid water sites (five mainstem and one side channel) were not surveyed due to inaccessibility by the boat for ARIS sampling, and one mainstem site was not surveyed because the physical characteristics (e.g., water velocity and turbulence) of the river were considered unsuitable for spawning. One site (Site 13) was above Devils Canyon Impediment 1 and inaccessible by boat, and the river was too turbid for visual confirmation of spawning activity during aerial surveys. Holding behavior was observed, but only at tributary delta habitats. Groups of radio-tagged Chinook salmon (i.e., more than one) were detected at four sites (Indian River Delta, Portage Creek, Side Channel 21, and Site 11), but only the Indian River Delta was confirmed as a spawning site. The only repeat confirmed spawning sites in 2012 and 2013 were at tributary deltas. 5.2.4.2. Chum Salmon Of the 201 chum salmon tagged in the Middle River, 164 (82 percent) were classified by destination (Table 5.2-1). Of these, 147 (90 percent) went to tributaries (mainly Portage Creek, or Indian or Talkeetna rivers; Figure D-7) and 17 (10 percent) went to destinations in the mainstem Susitna River (Table 5.2-1; Figure 5.2-1; Figures D-9 and D-10). The remaining 37 chum salmon, not able to be classified by a specific destination, exhibited movements that prevented conclusive assignment to the mainstem or tributaries (Table 5.2-1). Chum salmon were tracked to nine potential mainstem spawning locations in the Middle River (Table D-3; Figure D-10). Each site was examined during mobile surveys (e.g., helicopter, boat, or HSC). An ARIS was used at sites where water conditions were too turbid for visual confirmation. Spawning by chum salmon was visually confirmed at five sites (four sloughs and one side channel). Two mainstem sites were not surveyed as the physical characteristics (e.g., water velocity and turbulence) of the river were considered unsuitable as spawning habitat, and one side channel site was not surveyed due to access difficulty with the boat for ARIS sampling. The only site where fish were observed holding, but spawning could not be confirmed, was at the delta of Jack Long Creek. Two sites (sloughs 8A and 9) had more than one tagged chum salmon detected. All 2013 confirmed spawning sites were also surveyed and confirmed in 2012. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 37 June 2014 5.2.4.3. Coho Salmon Of the 242 coho salmon tagged in the Middle River, 173 (71 percent) were classified by destination (Table 5.2-1). Of these, 154 (89 percent) went to tributaries (mainly Talkeetna, Chulitna, or Indian rivers) and 19 (11 percent) went to destinations in the mainstem Susitna River (Table 5.2-1; Figure 5.2-1; Figures D-3 and D-4). The remaining 69 coho salmon, not able to be classified by a specific destination, exhibited movements that prevented conclusive assignment to the mainstem or tributaries (Table 5.2-1). Coho salmon were tracked to 17 potential spawning sites within mainstem habitats of the Middle River (Figure D-4). Sites included seven main channel, seven side channel/sough, and three tributary deltas. During the survey period, mainstem water clarity was ideal for visual confirmation of spawning activity; however, none of the 17 potential spawning sites were confirmed for spawning. 5.2.4.4. Pink Salmon Of the 200 pink salmon tagged in the Middle River, 166 (83 percent) were classified by destination (Table 5.2-1). Of these, 151 (91 percent) went to tributaries (primarily Indian or Talkeetna rivers, and Portage, Fourth of July or Lane creeks; Figure D-7) and 15 (9 percent) went to destinations in the mainstem Susitna River (Table 5.2-1; Figure 5.2-1; Figures D-5 and D-6). The remaining 34 pink salmon, not able to be classified by a specific destination, exhibited movements that prevented conclusive assignment to the mainstem or tributaries (Table 5.2-1). Pink salmon were tracked to nine potential spawning sites in the Middle River (Table D-4; Figure D-6). Each site was examined during mobile surveys (e.g., helicopter, boat, or HSC). Sites where water conditions were too turbid for visual confirmation, an ARIS was used. Spawning by pink salmon was confirmed at two sites, both were tributary delta habitats. Holding behavior was observed at all sites, with the exception of Site 2. Fish observed in the sonar imagery could not be identified to species, at potential spawning sites, but only holding or migrating behavior were observed. Three sites had more than one tagged pink salmon detected, but only one site (Site 8) had spawning confirmed. All spawning sites confirmed in 2013 were also surveyed and spawning was confirmed in 2012. 5.2.4.5. Sockeye Salmon Of the 137 sockeye salmon tagged in the Middle River, 92 (67 percent) were classified by destination (Table 5.2-1). Of these, 44 (48 percent) went to tributaries (mainly Chulitna, Talkeetna or Indian rivers, or Portage Creek; Figure D-7) and 48 (52 percent) went to destinations in the mainstem Susitna River (Table 5.2-1; Figure 5.2-1; Figures D-11 and D-12). The remaining 45 sockeye salmon, not able to be classified by a specific destination, exhibited movements that prevented conclusive assignment to the mainstem or tributaries (Table 5.2-1). Sockeye salmon were tracked to 13 potential spawning sites in the Middle River (Table D-5; Figure D-12). Each site was examined during mobile surveys (e.g., helicopter, boat, or HSC). ARIS was used at sites where water conditions were too turbid for visual confirmation. Seven of the potential spawning sites had more than one tagged sockeye salmon detected, and three of the INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 38 June 2014 sites (Slough 8A, Slough 10, and Slough 11) included at least five fish. Spawning by sockeye salmon was confirmed at six sites (four sloughs, one side channel, and one tributary delta). Holding behavior was observed at all surveyed sites, except Site 1. Four sites with confirmed spawning in 2013 (sloughs 8A, 9A and 11, and side channel 21) were also surveyed and spawning was confirmed in 2012. 5.2.5. Roaming Behavior in the Middle River Several fish tagged at the Curry fishwheels moved downstream into a Lower or Middle River tributary (Table 5.2-2). These salmon appeared to have temporarily entered the Middle River in the course of migrating to final spawning destinations elsewhere. The purpose of this behavior was not clear, and was classified as roaming behavior. The proportions of salmon tagged at Curry that exhibited this roaming behavior were 25 percent of large Chinook, 24 percent of small Chinook, 61 percent of coho, 27 percent of chum, 29 percent of pink, and 29 percent of sockeye salmon. Similarly, salmon tagged in the Lower River also showed this same behavior: these fish migrated as far upstream as Lane Station (in the Middle River), then moved downstream into a Lower River tributary. These were also roaming fish in the Middle River, but were evaluated separately from fish tagged at Curry to discern any differences in roaming behavior between fish tagged in the Lower River versus those tagged at Curry. The proportion of fish tagged in the Lower River that exhibited this roaming behavior was 29 percent of Chinook salmon, 75 percent of coho, and 10 percent of pink salmon. The proportion of radio-tagged fish exhibiting this behavior in 2013 was greater than that observed in 2012, and this difference between years may be due to proportionately larger returns to the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers in 2013. Some roaming fish moved far up into the Middle River before dropping back to enter downstream tributaries (Table 5.2-3). One Chinook salmon (Fish 280) tagged at Curry on June 23 moved upstream to below Impediment 3 on July 13, and then dropped back to enter the Talkeetna River on August 7. 5.3. Objective 3: Characterize adult salmon migration behavior and timing within and above Devils Canyon 5.3.1. Species, Number, and Destination Chinook salmon was the only species tracked above Impediment 1 (Table 5.3-1). Of the 445 radio-tagged large Chinook salmon released at the Curry fishwheels that were detected above Gateway Station after tagging, 17 (3.8 percent) were tracked above Impediment 1, 13 (2.9 percent) above Impediment 2, and 3 (0.7 percent) above Impediment 3. Three of the Chinook salmon radio-tagged and released in the Lower River mainstem were tracked above Impediment 2, neither of which passed Impediment 3 (Table 5.3-1). One small Chinook salmon passed Impediment 1 (2.2 percent of the 45 small Chinook salmon that passed Gateway into the study area). The likely spawning areas for each of the 21 Chinook salmon that passed Impediment 1 are provided in Table 5.3-2. Of the 3 Chinook salmon that passed Impediment 3, 1 (33 percent) dropped back and likely spawned in a tributary downstream of Impediment 3 (Figures F-1 to F-3). Of the 13 Chinook salmon that passed Impediment 2 but not Impediment 3, 9 (69 percent) INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 39 June 2014 dropped back and likely spawned in tributaries downstream of Impediment 2. Of the five Chinook salmon that passed Impediment 1 but not Impediment 2, four (80 percent) dropped back and likely spawned in a tributary downstream of Impediment 1. Overall, 67 percent of the Chinook salmon that passed at least one of the three impediments likely spawned downstream of the last impediment they passed – 36 percent (5 of 14) of these drop-back fish likely spawned in Chinook Creek, and 29 percent (4 of 14) in Portage Creek. The three Chinook salmon that passed Impediment 3 showed a wide range of movement- distances and times (Figures F-1 to F-3). One Chinook salmon lived for 46 days after passing Impediment 3. It travelled upstream in the mainstem Susitna River to PRM 309 before dropping back below the impediments. The fish then spent three days in Portage Creek, followed by movement farther downstream in the mainstem, downstream of Sunshine Creek (PRM 96; Table 5.3-1; Table F-1). The other two fish lived for less than 20 days after passing Impediment 3 (Table F-1): one headed straight for Devil Creek, and died in 14 days; and the other fish was detected once near Deadman Creek, about 6.5 km (4.0 mi) beyond its eventual destination in Tsusena Creek, then it held for six days below the confluence of Tsusena Creek, before entering Tsusena Creek where it died after 11 days (Table F-1). 5.3.2. Migration Timing for Fish Passing Above Devils Canyon The first successful fish passage past Impediment 1 occurred on June 30 when flows at the Gold Creek and Tsusena Creek gages were 28,871 and 25,352 cubic feet per second (cfs), respectively (Figure 5.3-1). No other fish passed until the period from July 11–17, when Tsusena Creek gage flows declined to between 14,383 and 16,876 cfs. There was a period with no fish passage from July 18 to 22 (in which flows exceeded 17,000 cfs at the Tsusena Creek gage), and then the final passage event occurred on July 24 with Tsusena Creek flows at 16,884 cfs (Figure 5.3-1; Table D-6). The three Chinook salmon that passed Impediment 3 had passed Impediment 1 at the same approximate period (July 11–13) as those that only passed Impediment 1 or Impediment 2 (Table D-6). Fish showed noticeable milling or holding behavior below Impediment 1 and Impediment 3. Fish that moved past Impediment 1 held below it for an average of 3.8 days (Table D-6). Fish moved more quickly past Impediment 2, with only one of the 16 radio-tagged Chinook salmon holding below it for more than one day (Table D-6). Two fish that passed Impediment 1 did not attempt to pass Impediment 2, rather they moved into and out of Cheechako Creek, and eventually moved to their final destinations near Portage Creek. The three fish that passed Impediment 3 held below it for an average of 6.5 days, whereas those that did not pass, held for an average of 8.3 days before moving downstream. All of the fish that did not pass Impediment 3 were present above Impediment 2 from July 12 to 29, when all Impediment 3 passage events occurred (Figure 5.3-2). 5.3.3. Relative Abundance of Salmon Passing Above Devils Canyon Chinook salmon was the only species with radio-tagged fish detected upstream of Devils Canyon. Of the 445 Chinook salmon tagged at Curry and detected moving above Gateway INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 40 June 2014 Station, three (0.7 percent) successfully migrated through all three impediments located in Devils Canyon (Table 5.3-1). Given the extensive mobile survey effort, it is unlikely that any radio- tagged fish passed upstream of Devils Canyon undetected. 5.3.4. Size of Chinook Salmon Tracked In and Above Devils Canyon Of the 70 radio-tagged Chinook salmon that entered Devils Canyon, the mean body length of fish that approached but did not pass Impediment 1 (70.1 cm [27.6 in]) was not significantly different from that of fish that passed Impediment 1 (69.7 cm [27.4 in]; Table 5.3-1; t68 = 0.66, P = 0.51). Similarly, the mean length of fish that approached, but did not pass, Impediment 2 (78 cm [30.7 in], n = 2) was not significantly different from that of fish that passed Impediment 2 (65.8 cm [25.9 in]; Table 5.3-1; t16 = 1.54, P = 0.14). The mean length of fish that approached, but did not pass Impediment 3 (66.1 cm [26.0 in]) was not significantly different from that of fish that passed Impediment 3 (64.3 cm [25.3 in]; n = 3; Table 5.3-1; t14 = 0.25, P = 0.81). These observations are suggestive that length was not a factor in successful passage through Devils Canyon for Chinook salmon. 5.3.5. Aerial Spawner Surveys Chinook salmon were the only salmon species observed from Cheechako Creek upstream to the Oshetna River. No adult salmon were observed in the mainstem Susitna River. Adult Chinook salmon were observed in Middle River tributaries between Impediments 1 and 2 (Cheechako Creek), between Impediments 2 and 3 (Chinook Creek), and above Impediment 3 (Devil, Fog, and Tsusena creeks), and in one Upper River tributary (Kosina Creek; Figure D-13). In streams were they had been determined to be present, adult Chinook salmon were not consistently observed. They were documented in three streams during Survey 1, five during Survey 2, three during Survey 3, four during Survey 4, and three during Survey 5 (Table D-7). Cheechako Creek had the most Chinook salmon overall and was the only stream where Chinook salmon were observed during all five surveys. Devil Creek had the second-highest number of adult Chinook salmon, with significant numbers of fish present during the first four surveys. In all other streams where adult Chinook salmon were observed, they were present in low numbers. Peak observations for four of the streams occurred during the period of July 25–27, and during the period of August 8–9 for two of the streams. In Cheechako Creek, the number of Chinook salmon observed increased from five fish on July 21 to 40 fish on July 25. A steady decline in fish numbers was observed following the July 25 peak count, and by the final survey on August 15 only 1 fish was seen. Devil Creek followed a similar trend with seven fish present during the first survey, peak count occurring on July 25, and zero fish observed on the final survey. Cheechako and Devil creeks have similar geomorphology consisting of high-gradient, step pools within steep-walled canyons. Chinook salmon habitat in both streams terminates within three miles of the Susitna River confluence at large waterfalls. The turbulent water and confined canyon walls presented challenges to salmon observation in both streams. However, fish were observed throughout the anadromous reach of each stream and groups of five to seven fish were seen holding in pools. Note that in Cheechako Creek a no-fly zone around a raptor nest within the canyon prevented aerial observation of approximately 0.5 miles of stream during the peak survey. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 41 June 2014 Chinook Creek, located between Cheechako and Devil creeks, had a much lower relative abundance of Chinook salmon, with a peak observation of just two fish on July 25. Fish were only observed during two of the five surveys. Chinook Creek has long stretches of high-gradient cascades, but it does not have a barrier to Chinook salmon migration below 3,000 ft in elevation where the surveys terminated (at approximately tributary river mile 9). However, fish were not seen beyond 0.25 miles upstream of the Chinook Creek confluence with the Susitna River. Low numbers of adult Chinook salmon were observed in Fog Creek. The lower reach of Fog Creek is dominated by high-gradient riffle confined within a steep-walled canyon with no barrier to Chinook salmon migration below 3,000 ft in elevation where the surveys terminated (at approximately tributary river mile 20). The upper reach is much lower gradient and has long stretches of gravel and cobble substrate that appeared suitable for Chinook salmon spawning. An additional five miles of a tributary to Fog Creek was also surveyed up to 3,000 ft in elevation. One adult Chinook salmon was observed in Fog Creek during Survey 2 on July 25; no fish were found on Survey 3; two fish were seen on Survey 4; and then a pair of fish was observed during the final survey on August 15. The farthest upstream observation was approximately three miles from the Fog Creek confluence with the Susitna River. In Tsusena Creek, the next major tributary upriver from Fog Creek and the most upstream tributary within the Middle River, a peak count of four Chinook salmon was obtained on August 8. No fish were seen in Tsusena Creek prior to August 8, and then a pair of fish was observed on August 15. The fish were distributed throughout the anadromous reach, which terminates at a large waterfall at approximately tributary river mile 4. Kosina Creek was the only tributary within the Upper River where adult Chinook salmon were observed. Kosina Creek was the second largest tributary surveyed, and the lower reach was dominated by moderate gradient, boulder riffle within multiple channels, and the upper reach contained extensive shallow braided island complexes. During Survey 1 on July 21, one fish was seen at approximately tributary river mile 1.5, and another fish was found near tributary river mile 9. During Survey 2 on July 27, three fish were sighted near tributary river miles 11, 15, and 16. Although conditions were favorable for aerial observation, no fish were seen on subsequent surveys. Overall, weather conditions were favorable throughout the study duration. While weather was variable, it was not a limiting factor in observing fish, and did not delay survey completion (Table D-8). Wind was the most influential weather factor, occasionally limiting the ability to position the aircraft optimally above the stream, especially within canyons. Sun glare on the water was not a major factor in limiting fish observations; polarized glasses, helicopter orientation, and survey direction (some streams were surveyed from upstream to downstream) worked to improve visibility when glare was present. Water clarity, however, was a major factor in the observation of fish, with turbidity from both glacial and erosion sources impairing surveys in four streams. Overhanging vegetation, where present, completely obscured areas of stream (Table D-9). Overall, most streams had very clear water. The Black and Oshetna rivers were the only streams of glacial origin within the study area and were the most turbid. Turbidity severely limited visibility in the Black River and the Oshetna River downstream of the Black River confluence INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 42 June 2014 during all surveys. Visibility in Watana and Jay creeks was poor in the lower few miles due to erosion produced from landslides; whereas upstream of the landslides the water was clear. Kosina Creek experienced several erosion events upstream of the study area which reduced visibility. The most prevalent impairment to visibility was white-water turbulence, which was significant within all streams surveyed; white water was noted as limiting the observer’s ability to find fish during all surveys. 5.3.6. Assess the Feasibility of Using Sonar to Enumerate Salmon and Resident Fish at the Proposed Dam Site Results pertaining to the 2013 feasibility study are provided in Appendix G. The general conclusion of that study was that sonar could be used to enumerate fish in the area, but more work would be needed to determine the accuracy of such counts. 5.4. Objective 4: Use available technology to document salmon spawning locations in turbid water From July 24–31, 2013, 15 different sites were visited to assess Chinook salmon spawning activity (Table 4.4-1), of which eight were surveyed using ARIS. Fish were observed at seven sites, however, spawning activity (i.e., nest-guarding behavior) by Chinook salmon was only observed at one site (Indian River Delta). At many sites it was difficult to distinguish Chinook from chum salmon in the sonar images due to their overlap in length range. Several potential spawning sites could not be accessed with a boat, while others were not suitable salmon spawning habitat due to high water velocity, inappropriate substrate, or being located in the thalwag of the river. On July 31 and August 12, two potential spawning sites for chum salmon were sampled using ARIS (Table 4.4-2). Chum salmon were observed at both sites, but spawning was only confirmed at one of the sites. Confirmation of spawning with ARIS included nest-guarding behavior and visible redds. Seven HSC surveys were conducted from August 13 to September 2 (Table D-1). Locations surveyed included historic spawning sites (see Section 5.5), potential spawning sites as indicated from radio-telemetry analysis (see Section 5.2.3), and other sites that appeared suitable as spawning habitat. Fifty-eight redds were sampled in slough and side-channel habitats, including 34 for chum, 6 for pink, and 18 for sockeye salmon. All data are reported by the Fish and Aquatics Instream Flow Study (ISR Study 8.5). 5.5. Objective 5: Compare historical and current data on run timing, distribution, relative abundance, and specific locations of spawning and holding salmon 5.5.1. Run Timing In 2013, Chinook salmon were captured at the Middle River fishwheels from June 16 to August 10. The midpoint of catches occurred on June 29, which was earlier than in 1982, 1985, and INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 43 June 2014 2012 (range: July 2–9), but later than the midpoints in 1981, 1983, and 1984 (range: June 24– 25). Peak catches in 2012 and 2013 occurred at the start of July (Figure A-13). For chum salmon, the midpoint of catches at Curry in 2013 (August 5) was similar to those observed from 1983 to 1985, and in 2012 (range: August 3–7), but earlier than those in 1981 and 1982 (range: August 12–17). Catches in 2012 and 2013 both peaked in early August (Figure A-13). The first coho salmon captured at the Middle River fishwheels in 2013 (July 23) occurred five days earlier than in 2012 (July 28), but the midpoint of catches in both years occurred on August 15. In comparison, the midpoint of catches ranged from August 12–23 in the 1980s. The last fish was captured on September 21, 2013; however, ARIS sonar data collected at Curry indicated that coho salmon continued to migrate past Curry after September 21 (Figures A-17 and A-18). Pink salmon moved past Curry from July 8 to September 4, 2013, with the midpoint of catches occurring on August 3. The midpoint of catches in 2013 was later than in 1983 (August 1), but earlier than in previous odd-numbered years (August 8 in 1981; August 5 in 1985). The first sockeye salmon was caught at Curry on June 15, 2013, which was considerably earlier than in years past (range: June 26–July 17), and the last fish was caught on September 10. Catches in 2013 were relatively low and sporadic through July and August with no obvious peak. The midpoint of catches in 2013 occurred on August 3, which was four days later than in 2012 (July 30), but in between the midpoints observed during the 1980s (range: August 1–7). 5.5.2. Relative Abundance For all five species of salmon, catches of larger-sized fish at the Middle River fishwheels were higher in 2013 than in 2012 (by 1.5–6.5 times). Changes in catch rates between these years were largest for coho (1,711 in 2013; 264 in 2012) and pink (15,695 in 2013; 4,705 in 2012) salmon, and smallest for Chinook salmon (616 in 2013; 422 in 2012). Approximately twice as many chum (3,417 in 2013; 1,734 in 2012) and sockeye (176 in 2013; 92 in 2012) salmon were captured in 2013 compared to 2012. Catches of large Chinook and sockeye salmon in 2013 were 36 percent and 43 percent lower than the average catches observed at the Curry fishwheels from 1981 to 1985, respectively. In contrast, catches of chum, coho, and pink salmon in 2013 were roughly 2–8 times higher than the average catches observed for these species in the 1980s. Interestingly, the number of pink salmon captured in 2013 was substantially greater than catches observed during odd-numbered years in the 1980s (range: 234–1,172), and similar to the highest catches observed in even- numbered years (17,394 in 1984). 5.5.3. Spawning and Holding Salmon Locations Potential spawning sites of Chinook, chum, coho, pink, and sockeye salmon in the mainstem river were identified using radio telemetry (Sections 5.2.2 to 5.2.4) and HSC ground surveys. Spawning sites were confirmed visually or with ARIS (sonar) for Chinook, chum, pink, and sockeye salmon in the Middle River. Mainstem spawning occurred for chum, pink, and sockeye salmon primarily in slough habitats, and to a lesser extent in tributary deltas and side channels. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 44 June 2014 Most confirmed spawning sites in 2013 were also confirmed in 2012, and from 1981–1985 (Thompson et al. 1986; Table 5.5-1). In 2013, radio-tagged Chinook salmon were tracked to eight potential spawning sites in the Lower River (Figure D-2), and 13 sites in the Middle River (Figure D-8; see Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.4). The only confirmed spawning site for Chinook salmon was Indian River delta (Middle River). Similarly, tributary deltas were the only mainstem habitats confirmed for Chinook salmon spawning during the 1980s surveys (Barrett et al. 1985; Thompson et al. 1986). Chum salmon were tracked to no potential mainstem spawning sites in the Lower River (Figure D-9) and nine sites in the Middle River in 2013 (Figure D-10; see Section 5.2.4). All confirmed spawning sites in 2013 were previously confirmed sites from the 1980s or 2012 (Table 5.5-1; Barrett et al. 1985; Thompson et al. 1986), with the exception of one unknown slough (coordinates: N 62.58199, W 150.04903). Coho salmon were tracked to 12 potential spawning sites in the Lower River (Figure D-3), and 17 sites in the Middle River (Figure D-4). Water clarity between October and ice-up was suitable for visual confirmation of coho salmon spawning activity in mainstem habitats by aerial telemetry crews; however, spawning was not confirmed at any of the potential spawning locations indicated by radio-telemetry analysis. In 2013, tagged pink salmon were tracked to twelve potential spawning sites in the Lower River (Figure D-5), and nine sites in the Middle River (Figure D-6; see Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.4). All confirmed spawning sites in 2013 were previously confirmed as spawning sites during the 1980s or in 2012 (Table 5.5-1; Barrett et al. 1985; Thompson et al. 1986). Sockeye salmon were tracked to three potential spawning sites in the Lower River (Figure D-11), and 13 sites in the Middle River (Figure D-12; see Section 5.2.4). All confirmed sloughs, side channel 21, and Skull Creek were previously confirmed as spawning sites during the 1980s or in 2012 (Table 5.5-1; Barrett et al. 1985; Thompson et al. 1986). 5.6. Objective 6: Generate counts of adult Chinook salmon spawning in the Susitna River and its tributaries 5.6.1. Observer Efficiency During Aerial Spawner Surveys On July 25, 363 live Chinook salmon were counted above the Indian River weir during an aerial spawner survey conducted by AEA (2-person crew; Tables 4.3-1, D-8, and H-1; Figure D-13). During a concurrent survey conducted by ADF&G (1-person crew), 281 live Chinook salmon were counted above the weir (Table H-1; Sam Ivey, ADF&G, Sport Fish Division, personal communication). The net passage of Chinook salmon above the weir on July 25 was 1,094 fish (all sizes combined; Tables B-4 and H-1; Figure B-2). The same day, 71.7 percent (43 of 60) of all radio-tagged Chinook salmon last detected upstream of the weir were emitting a ‘live’ signal. Based on this proportion, an estimated 784 (71.7 percent of 1,094) live Chinook salmon were located above the weir at the time of the aerial spawner surveys. Therefore, assuming only live fish were available to count during aerial spawner surveys, the estimated observer efficiency INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 45 June 2014 during the AEA survey was 46.3 percent, which was considerably higher than during the ADF&G survey (35.8 percent; Table H-1). 5.6.2. Chinook Salmon Mark Rates: Indian River vs. Portage Creek On July 25, 868 live Chinook salmon were counted during an aerial spawner survey of Portage Creek conducted by ADF&G (S. Ivey, personal communication). If it is assumed that the observer efficiency on the Portage Creek survey was the same as that on ADF&G’s Indian River survey (35.8 percent; Table H-1), then the adjusted number of live Chinook salmon in Portage Creek on July 25 was 2,425. The same day, 174 (84.5 percent) of the radio-tagged Chinook salmon released at the Middle River fishwheels were last detected alive in Portage Creek. Therefore, the estimated mark rate for live fish in Portage Creek was 7.2 percent (174 of 2,425), which was statistically similar to the overall mark rate in Indian River (6.3 percent; χ2 = 0.9, df = 1, P = 0.36). These results support the hypothesis that Chinook salmon had an equal probability of being tagged at the Middle River fishwheels, regardless of their spawning location. 5.6.3. Estimated Abundance Above Curry (Chinook, Chum, and Pink Salmon) Two-sample mark-recapture methods were used to estimate the inriver abundance of large Chinook, pink, and chum salmon above the Middle River Gateway fixed station (PRM 130.1) in 2013. 5.6.3.1. Chinook Salmon A total of 536 large Chinook salmon were radio-tagged at the Middle River fishwheels, of which 445 (83.0 percent) entered the study area (i.e., were detected at or above the Middle River Gateway fixed station; Tables H-2 and H-3). At the Indian River weir, 1,137 large Chinook salmon were inspected for tags from June 26 to August 20, of which 72 (6.3 percent) were radio- tagged (Table H-2). The first two tagged large Chinook salmon passed the weir on June 28 (released on June 18 and 19 at Curry), and the last radio-tagged fish passed the weir on August 5 (released July 16 at Curry). Mark rates at the weir varied significantly across statistical weeks (χ2 = 12.1, df = 5, P = 0.03); however, weekly recapture rates were similar (χ2 = 6.3, df = 4, P = 0.18). These results indicated that no stratification by time was required to estimate abundance. Using a modified Petersen estimator, an estimated 6,952 large Chinook salmon (SE = 782; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5,536–8,724) passed the Middle River Gateway fixed station from June 18 to July 28 (Table H-3). 5.6.3.2. Chum Salmon Of the 201 chum salmon radio-tagged at the Middle River fishwheels, 149 (74.1 percent) entered the study area (Tables H-3 and H-4). Weekly proportions (range: 0.4–1.0) of radio-tagged chum salmon that entered the study area were used to estimate the number of spaghetti-tagged fish that entered the study area (1,365, or 69.6 percent of the 1,962 spaghetti tags applied; Table I-3). Since spaghetti-tagged chum (and pink) salmon were not uniquely identifiable at the Indian River weir, only radio-tagged fish could be used to evaluate whether mark and recapture rates varied over time. Similar to Chinook salmon, mark rates for radio-tagged chum salmon varied across statistical weeks (χ2 = 11.6, df = 3, P = 0.01), and weekly recapture rates were similar (χ2 = 7.4, df = 3, P = 0.06; Table H-4). By pooling all tagged fish, an estimated 36,010 chum INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 46 June 2014 salmon (SE = 1,511; 95% CI = 33,108–39,166) passed the Middle River Gateway fixed station from July 13 to August 24 (Table H-3). 5.6.3.3. Pink Salmon In total, 151 (75.5 percent) of the pink salmon radio-tagged at the Middle River fishwheels entered the study area (Tables H-3 and H-5). Of the 9,108 spaghetti-tagged pink salmon released at the Middle River fishwheels, 6,736 were estimated to have entered the study area (Table H-3). Similar to Chinook and chum salmon, mark rates for radio-tagged pink salmon varied by statistical week (χ2 = 9.9, df = 3, P = 0.02), and weekly recapture rates were similar (χ2 = 3.6, df = 3, P = 0.30; Table H-5). Using both radio- and spaghetti-tagged fish in the marked sample, an estimated 127,353 pink salmon (SE = 2,761; 95% CI = 121,909–133,041) passed the Middle River Gateway fixed station from July 8 to August 16 (Table H-3). 5.6.4. Estimated Abundance Above Devils Canyon (Chinook Salmon) Too few tagged and untagged Chinook salmon were observed above Devils Canyon to develop statistically precise estimates. Two different approaches were used to estimate the abundance of Chinook salmon above Devils Canyon (i.e., above Impediment 3). The first approach involved expanding the peak aerial count by the estimated observer efficiency during the spawner surveys. In 2013, the peak count of live Chinook salmon (all sizes combined) above Devils Canyon was 29 fish (25 in Devil Creek, 1 in Fog Creek, and 3 in Kosina Creek), which was obtained during the aerial spawner survey conducted from July 25–27 (Table D-7). If this number (29) is expanded based on an observer efficiency of 46.3 percent, which was obtained during the AEA aerial spawner survey in Indian River (Table H-1), then 63 live Chinook salmon were estimated to have been above Devils Canyon at the time of the survey. This would be considered a minimum number as the visibility of Chinook salmon during aerial surveys is better in Indian River than some of the tributaries above Devils Canyon. The second approach involved expanding the number of radio-tagged Chinook salmon detected above Devils Canyon by the marked fraction of Chinook salmon in the Middle River. Of the 445 radio-tagged large Chinook salmon that entered the study area in 2013, three (0.7 percent) were detected above Devils Canyon (Table 5.2-1). If AEA expands these three radio-tagged fish by the estimated marked fraction of large Chinook salmon (6.3 percent, or each tagged fish represented at total of approximately 15.9 fish), then it can be inferred that 48 large Chinook salmon migrated above Devils Canyon in 2013. As a sensitivity analysis of an extreme but unlikely event, if four or five radio-tagged large Chinook salmon had actually migrated above Impediment 3 in 2013, then the expanded counts would have been 63 or 79 fish, respectively. 5.7. Objective 7: Collect tissue samples to support the Fish Genetics Study Genetic samples were collected from 609 Chinook (small and large fish combined), 201 chum, 220 coho, 199 pink, and 138 sockeye salmon captured at the Middle River fishwheels (Table A- 4). Genetic samples were also collected from Arctic grayling (40), burbot (1), Dolly Varden (11), longnose sucker (5), rainbow trout (33), round whitefish (56), and humpback whitefish (10; Table A-4). In the Lower River, genetic samples were collected from 699 Chinook, 596 coho, INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 47 June 2014 and 200 pink salmon. Genetic samples were also collected from 691 Chinook salmon in the Yentna River and 200 coho salmon in Montana Creek. All genetic tissue samples were delivered to Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s (ADF&G’s) Gene Conservation Lab for analysis. Results are reported in the ISR for the Genetic Baseline Study for Selected Fish Species (ISR Study 9.14). 5.8. Objective 8: Estimate the system-wide Chinook and coho salmon escapement to the Susitna River above Yentna River and the distribution of those fish among tributaries of the Susitna River Results pertaining to Objective 8 are provided in Appendix I. This portion of Study 9.7 was carried out by ADF&G. 6. DISCUSSION 6.1. Fish Capture and Tagging 6.1.1. Catch Rates Ice-out in the Susitna River in 2013 was among the latest ever, approximately two weeks later than normal. In the Lower River, fish capture started on May 25 in 2012, but not until June 4 in 2013. By June 4 in 2012, 469 Chinook salmon had been captured. The total catch of 2,063 Chinook salmon in 2013 was very similar to the total catch of 1,916 fish in 2012 in the Lower River. This was the first year of sampling Chinook salmon on the Yentna River at tributary river mile 6. While the 2,295 Chinook salmon captured in all gear types combined exceeded the radio-tagging goal of 700 fish, the north bank fishwheel had chronically low catches. To achieve the radio- tagging goal, tags scheduled for the north bank fishwheel were instead deployed on gillnet- caught fish. In the Middle River, catches of all five species of salmon were higher in 2013 than they were in 2012 (1.7, 2.0, 2.1, 3.3, and 6.5 times higher, respectively, for Chinook, chum, sockeye, pink, and coho salmon). Even when catches at the Site 3 fishwheel (added in 2013) were excluded, catch rates in 2013 were still higher than those in 2012, with the exception of pink salmon. Similar to 2012, high catches at the Middle River fishwheels in 2013 were due largely to the physical characteristics of the sites, design and operation of the fishwheels, and use of leads. Sites 1 and 2 were protected from floating debris at low to moderate river discharges, yet for most of the season these sites had sufficiently high water velocities offshore to force fish against the bank and into the path of the fishwheels (2–3 m/s [6.6–9.8 ft/s] offshore of the outer fishwheel pontoon). These were undoubtedly the same characteristics that made these sites attractive to ADF&G biologists during the 1980s studies. However in 2013, river velocities and depths for a given discharge at sites 1 and 2 had changed significantly since the 2012 season, due to an apparent shift in channel morphology. These changes made it difficult to operate the Site 1 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 48 June 2014 fishwheel when river discharge decreased below around 17,500 cfs. As a result, the new site (Site 3) was located upstream of Curry, where a third fishwheel could be operated effectively at lower discharges. Although Site 3 was more exposed to floating debris, it proved very effective at capturing fish across a range of late-summer discharges. Again, similar to 2012, lead nets hung between the shore-side pontoons of the Middle River fishwheels and the adjacent riverbank also contributed to higher catch rates in 2013, particularly at Site 1 where the fishwheel was held up to 50 ft offshore with spar poles. ARIS imagery from Site 1 showed that the vast majority of fish migrated upstream within 13 m (43 ft) of shore, so without the lead net these fish would not have been directed offshore and into the path of the fishwheel. In the Middle River, radio-tagging goals were easily met for chum, coho, and pink salmon, but were not met for Chinook (96 percent of target) or sockeye (70 percent of target) salmon. Due to the unexpectedly high catches of chum, coho, and pink salmon, a disproportionately large number of radio tags were deployed on the early components of these runs relative to the later components. 6.1.2. Use of ARIS to Assess Fishwheel Effectiveness and Fish Approach Behavior The use of ARIS at Site 1 in the Middle River, to assess fishwheel effectiveness and fish approach behavior, was most valuable in June and September. In June, ARIS data confirmed that the leading edge of the Chinook salmon run was being covered by fishwheel effort. The ARIS data also assisted with placement of the lead net at the Site 1 fishwheel. In September, the ARIS data was useful for quantifying the relative abundance of passing coho salmon, particularly when water levels and turbidity decreased and the fishwheel could not be operated effectively or at all at Site 1. Under these river conditions, ARIS counts in September could be useful for informing coho salmon tag rates for an alternative capture method at Curry (e.g., beach seine). Information on diel pattern obtained from ARIS data was useful for informing the crew as to the best times to operate the fishwheels in order to achieve optimal catch rates. ARIS data at Site 1 was less useful in July and August when a large number of fish, as well as multiple species of salmon, began migrating through the Middle River. When large numbers of fish were passing, it took a substantial amount of effort to review the ARIS imagery, and the data was only marginally useful to guide fishwheel and tagging operations. Outside of large Chinook salmon, fish observed in the ARIS imagery could not be identified by species. 6.1.3. Size Selectivity Achieving the goals of this study was dependent on tagging a representative group of fish from the entire population. The size composition of tagged fish compared to the entire population was examined in this regard. Tagging particular stocks and/or sizes of fish at different rates than others might weaken inferences about habitat uses of the Lower, Middle, and Upper rivers, such as the relative distribution of spawning fish, migratory behavior, and any fish passage above Devils Canyon. Fishwheels have been shown to be size (and species) selective for adult salmon. Meehan (1961) showed that fishwheels on the Taku River caught a larger proportion of smaller- INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 49 June 2014 sized Chinook salmon compared to samples collected on the spawning grounds. Meehan (1961) also showed that Chinook and coho salmon were least susceptible to recapture in a fishwheel, while pink salmon were most easily recaptured. In 1981 and 1982 on the Susitna River, ADF&G (1983) compared observed and expected mark rates on the spawning grounds and found that fishwheels operated near Curry were species selective: Chinook and chum salmon catches were biased low, and pink salmon catches were biased high. Meehan (1961) hypothesized that size selectivity was due to larger fish avoiding the fishwheel, or migrating in faster and deeper water away from shore, relative to smaller fish. Species selectivity may also be a function of fish size, as there is a tendency for large salmon to swim upstream farther from the bank than smaller ones in locations where the river gradient is low and velocities offshore are modest (ADF&G 1983; Hughes 2004). In contrast, there is also evidence showing that fishwheels can catch a representative sample of salmon when deployed in areas where elevated water velocities force fish to migrate near shore (Link and Nass 1999). Based on the experience of the study team, the Curry sites were characterized as generally high gradient, and similar to locations where the least size selectivity in fishwheels was encountered. Radio-tagging of Chinook and coho salmon at the Lower River site and Chinook salmon in the Yentna River was conducted within the framework of a mark-recapture experiment. This approach provided for the use of robust diagnostic tools to evaluate assumptions of equal probability of capture (Seber 1982) during both radio-tagging and second event sampling at weir sites. When heterogeneity in probability of capture is detected, the results of diagnostics tests provide specific for selecting the proper models to minimize or eliminate biases due to unequal probability of capture when estimating abundance. These same tools are used to minimize or eliminate bias in estimates of numbers of spawners in different tributaries when heterogeneity in probability of capture is detected during marking. Size selective sampling was detected for Chinook salmon radio-tagged at the Lower River site when tagging was conducted using a combination of fishwheels and drift gillnets for sampling. The gillnet sampling was conducted to increase the probability of capture for larger Chinook salmon, as it was expected that fishwheels would provide biased samples favoring smaller fish at that site. Additionally, Chinook salmon <58cm were radio-tagged at approximately 1/3 the rate of larger fish based on the analysis of data from Chinook salmon tagged in 2012 that passed the Deshka River weir site. These measures were not sufficient to eliminate heterogeneity in probability of capture by size for the combined sample of radio-tagged fish. However, analysis of data from these radio-tagged fish in the framework of a mark-recapture experiment provided minimally biased estimates in the distribution of spawning Chinook salmon among tributaries of the Susitna River above the Lower River site. Size selective sampling was detected for coho salmon radio-tagged at the Lower River site where tagging was conducted using 2 fishwheels situated on opposing banks of the river. While the fishwheels were effective in capturing all sizes of coho salmon present, diagnostic test results indicated the fishwheels were biased in favor of smaller coho salmon. Similar to the Chinook salmon experiment, analysis of data from these radio-tagged fish in the framework of a mark- recapture experiment provided minimally biased estimates in the distribution of spawning coho salmon among tributaries of the Susitna River above the Lower River site. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 50 June 2014 In 2013, radio-tagged small Chinook, chum, and pink salmon tended to be slightly larger than those fish captured at all Middle River fishwheel sites. For smaller-sized Chinook and pink salmon in particular, this was likely due to the fact that the radio tags would simply not fit into their stomachs. This was reflected in the fact that spaghetti-tagged chum, coho, and pink salmon, for which the tag is just as easily inserted in small and large fish, were similar in length to those fish captured. To avoid this potential source of bias, some more appropriately sized radio tags should be purchased to accommodate the full range of fish lengths likely to be encountered for each species. No evidence of size selectivity at the Middle River fishwheels was detected for radio-tagged large Chinook salmon or spaghetti-tagged pink salmon when samples collected at the Indian River weir were used for comparison. There was evidence to suggest some size-selective spaghetti-tagging occurred for chum salmon; however, due to large sample sizes it was possible that the KS tests were detecting small differences between length-frequency distributions which have little potential to result in bias (e.g., during escapement estimation). 6.2. Use of Tributary Weirs (and Sonar) to Assess Numbers and Size of Marked and Unmarked Fish The combination of Deshka River and Montana Creek weirs provided a robust second event sample for evaluating sources of potential bias (heterogeneity in probability) of capture for the mainstem Susitna River Chinook salmon mark-recapture experiment. While size biased sampling was detected when using only these two sites for second event sampling, substantial numbers of all size classes of Chinook salmon in the mainstem Susitna River are detected at these sites. As such, capture heterogeneity can be detected and the appropriate remedial measure applied to minimize bias when estimating abundance and distribution of spawning Chinook salmon. Radio-tagged Chinook salmon that were recaptured at these sites were tagged across the entire time-frame of the marking event, ensuring a non-zero probability of capture for Chinook salmon tagged both early and late in the run of Chinook salmon passed the tagging site. As the numbers of fish that can be sampled at these two sites is “fixed” at the escapement for these two tributaries, the precision in estimates of spawning abundance and distribution can only be increased by increasing the number of radio-tags deployed during the marking event, or by identifying additional viable second event sampling sites. The combination of Deshka River and Montana Creek weirs provided a robust second event sample for evaluating sources of potential bias (heterogeneity in probability) of capture for the mainstem Susitna River coho salmon mark-recapture experiment. No size biased sampling was detected when using only these two sites for second event sampling, indicating that the size distribution of coho salmon spawning above these to weir sites is similar to, at least in combination, to the size distribution of all coho salmon spawning above the Lower River tagging site. Radio-tagged coho salmon that were recaptured at these sites were tagged across the entire time-frame of the marking event, ensuring a non-zero probability of capture for coho salmon tagged both early and late in the run of Chinook salmon passed the tagging site. As the numbers of fish that can be sampled at these two sites is “fixed” at the escapement for these two tributaries, the precision in estimates of spawning abundance and distribution can only be increased by increasing the number of radio-tags deployed during the marking event, or by identifying additional viable second event sampling sites. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 51 June 2014 6.2.1. Indian River Weir Mark rates for fish inspected at the Indian River weir that were tagged in the Middle River were highest for large Chinook salmon (6.3 percent), followed by small Chinook (4.4 percent), coho (3.3 percent), sockeye (2.5 percent), chum (0.4 percent), and pink (0.1 percent) salmon. Mark rates for Chinook, chum, and pink salmon were considered reliable for accuracy and precision with respect to estimating abundance. A few minor issues had the potential to introduce uncertainty into these mark-rate estimates (e.g., detection efficiency at the fixed-station receiver at the weir was less than 100 percent); however, given the short amount of time when video imagery was not being collected in 2013, and the fact that aerial telemetry surveys were conducted regularly, these issues had an inconsequential effect on the mark-rate estimates for any species. The results of size-selectivity tests using fish sampled at the Indian River weir should be viewed with caution, as some uncertainty exists. Length measurements collected from video imagery at the Indian River weir were less precise than those collected from fish that were physically handled, for a variety of reasons. Also, since fork lengths were collected at the weir, they had to be converted to mid-eye to fork lengths in order to make them comparable to the length measurements collected at the Middle River fishwheels. Regression equations, established during the 2012 study, were used to do this. The degree of bias introduced by this methodology was not quantified, but it was likely inconsequential to the results. Also, our overall conclusions about the degree or presence of size selectivity are relatively robust to imprecision. 6.3. Migration Behavior and Spawning Locations of Salmon in the Lower, Middle, and Upper Susitna River 6.3.1. Lower River The tracking results for salmon tagged in the Lower River indicated that at least 49 percent of the pink salmon and 90 percent of the Chinook salmon likely spawned in tributaries (Figure 5.2-1). Due to the high proportion of Chinook salmon that returned to tributaries, only four potential mainstem spawning locations were identified in the Lower River, all near the Deshka River and Willow Creek mouths (Figure D-2). Two additional possible mainstem sites were identified based on the behaviors of Chinook salmon tagged in the Middle River (Figure D-2). In contrast, many potential mainstem spawning sites were identified for pink salmon, located throughout the Lower River from the confluence of the Yentna River up to the Caswell Creek area, and between Sunshine and Whiskers creeks (Figure D-5). However, it should be noted that these results were likely biased towards an over-abundance of potential mainstem spawning sites. The bias exists because insufficient effort was made to track pink salmon during aerial telemetry surveys of the tributaries in the Lower River. Due to inadequate tributary coverage for this species, pink salmon classifications were biased away from tributary designations, thus creating the appearance of a higher proportion of mainstem spawning. This bias must be kept in mind when drawing conclusions about pink salmon spawning in the Lower River mainstem. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 52 June 2014 6.3.2. Middle and Upper River The tracking results for Chinook (small and large fish combined), chum, and pink salmon radio- tagged in the Middle River indicated that 73–77 percent of these fish likely spawned in tributaries (Figure 5.2-1). Nevertheless, the number of radio tags applied to these fish (200–603 per species) was adequate to identify several potential mainstem spawning locations in the Middle River (9–13 locations, depending on the species). For sockeye salmon, 13 potential spawning locations were located in the Middle River; sockeye salmon did not show the same preference for tributary spawning as was observed for the other salmon species (Figure 5.2-1). Of particular interest was Slough 8A, near which 15 spawning sockeye salmon were classified (Figure D-12), including 13 fish in the slough itself (Table 5.2-1). This number represents 11 percent of the total number of sockeye salmon tagged, 16 percent of the number that were successfully classified, and 31 percent of the total number that were classified with mainstem destinations. No radio-tagged fish were tracked to potential mainstem, slough, or side-channel locations in the Upper River. The frequent aerial telemetry surveys conducted on the Middle River, from Whiskers to Portage creeks, provided multiple detections for most of the radio-tagged fish in this portion of the river. These detections before, during, and after the spawning period allowed us to identify those fish that were likely holding and/or spawning in mainstem habitats. There was a high degree of consistency between the potential spawning sites identified for radio-tagged chum and sockeye salmon in 2013, and the visually confirmed redd sites for these species. This consistency provided further support as to the usefulness of using radio telemetry to detect spawning locations in mainstem habitats of the Susitna River. 6.4. Salmon Migration Behavior and Timing Within and Above Devils Canyon In 2013, only three radio-tagged fish (all Chinook salmon) passed Devils Canyon, which was down from the 12 tagged fish in 2012, even though more fish were tagged in 2013 than in 2012 (536 large Chinook salmon radio-tagged in 2013 versus 352 in 2012). Two of the three Chinook salmon in 2013 (Fish 272 and 395) headed almost directly to the their destination tributary (Fish 395 made a 6.5 km [4 mi] overshoot for approximately 1 day). In contrast, the third Chinook salmon in 2013 (Fish 241) showed considerable pre-spawning movements. This third fish moved more than 200 km (124 mi) beyond Devils Canyon to an area near the Susitna headwaters (PRM 309), before moving back downstream and spending three days in Portage Creek among other spawning fish. None of the 12 tagged fish above Devils Canyon in 2012 exhibited this degree of pre-spawn wandering (AEA 2013). This behavior suggests some interesting exploratory behavior, but with a sample of three tagged fish, it is difficult to characterize the relative significance of this wandering behavior to all fish above Devils Canyon. In 2013, there was evidence suggestive of Chinook salmon spawning upstream of Devils Canyon. This was consistent with the results from surveys conducted in previous years. For example, a few Chinook salmon (20–45 fish) were observed in tributaries above Devils Canyon in 1982–1983 (AEA 2011). In 1984, Chinook salmon spawning was observed in Chinook (n = 15) and Fog (n = 2) creeks. In 2003, juvenile Chinook salmon were sampled in Fog Creek, Kosina Creek, and as far upstream as the mouth of the Oshetna River; adult Chinook salmon INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 53 June 2014 were also documented in the Upper River (Buckwalter 2011). In 2012, radio-tagged Chinook salmon were detected and appeared to spawn in Kosina and Devil creeks (AEA 2013). Thus, the 2013 results add to the body of knowledge about the distribution and abundance of salmon spawning above Devils Canyon (see AEA 2011). In 2012, there were results to suggest that fish length and river flow rates influenced passage success through Devils Canyon (AEA 2013). In 2013, there was no effect of fish length on passage success, but results similarly suggest that passage was minimal when Susitna River flows were greater than 17,000 cfs (as measured near Tsusena Creek). Similar to 2012, our results were fairly limited in sample size, and were not part of a formal control-treatment experiment. Therefore, the degree to which lower flows played a primary causal role in the passage of Chinook salmon is difficult to quantify. Of particular concern is the potential confounding effects of “time of year.” Since, in both years, fish moved above the final impediment during lower-flow periods that occurred at around the same timeframe (July 17–20 in 2012 and July 13–30 in 2013), it is difficult to quantify the relative importance of flows versus time of year. In both years, there were Chinook salmon that approached Impediment 3 during periods of higher flows, in the latter half of July, and did not pass Impediment 3. In 2012, flows increased substantially after July 20 and remained above the 19,000 cfs level at Gold Creek through August 7 (AEA 2013). This flow at Gold Creek was roughly equivalent to 15,800 cfs at Tsusena Creek in 2012. In 2013, flows measured at Tsusena Creek increased after the second fish passed Impediment 3 on July 16 and remained above 16,500 cfs until late July. While four Chinook salmon that approached Impediment 3 after July 16 in 2013, only one of these fish passed Impediment 3. This was the only fish that held below Impediment 3 until July 28–29, when flows dropped below 16,500 cfs (Figure 5.3-1). This last Chinook salmon that passed Impediment 3 was detected upstream of Impediment 3 on July 30, and likely passed Impediment 3 at flows below 16,000 cfs on July 29, prior to the increase in flow to over 18,500 cfs on July 30. The rapid changes in flow over a 24-hour period observed in late July in 2012 and 2013 emphasize the benefits of having fixed-station receivers near each impediment to determine the precise timing of fish passage and assess the relationship between passage and flow levels. 6.5. Use of ARIS to Document Spawning Locations in Turbid Water ARIS was used successfully to confirm spawning behavior was confirmed for two species (Chinook and chum salmon) at two separate locations (Indian River, and Fourth of July side channel).; however, the limitations of ARIS should be considered before further surveys are conducted in the next year of study. These limitations were identified at a site where spawning by chum salmon was confirmed visually during times of decreased turbidity. Of particular concern is the use of ARIS to characterize spawning activity in shallow water and close to the shoreline. The equipment required to operate the ARIS is heavy and required a boat with a suitable gunnel- mount. To obtain the needed resolution and stability, the boat and sonar had to be positioned next to the shoreline; however, most spawning activity, with the exception of Chinook salmon, occurred in close proximity to the shoreline (10–15 ft). Chinook salmon (e.g., those confirmed spawning at Indian River delta) typically spawned farther offshore compared to observations for other salmon species. Shoreline-spawning made data collection with ARIS difficult, because the noise associated with the activity and the close proximity of the boat often spooked the target INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 54 June 2014 fish. Up to 20 minutes was required for the target fish to return to the original locations and continue pre-disturbance activities. In some cases, the target fish did not return until after the boat was moved. Another issue with the ARIS was related to detecting redds’ construction. In many instances, due to the slope of the substrate and the orientation of redd depressions, redds could not be visualized in the sonar images. However, fish could be seen on the sonar holding and displaying nest-guarding behavior. Redd digging was not captured on the sonar despite several hours of footage covering fish that could be visually observed constructing redds. When fish swam into a redd depression (e.g., to dig), they could not be detected by the sonar. In addition, when a fish was not perpendicular to the sonar beam, its signal became weak and made behavioral observations of fish traveling toward or away from the sonar difficult. Many of the potential spawning locations indicated by radio telemetry could not be accessed safely by boat, and thus could not be sampled with ARIS. As indicated above, the weight of the ARIS equipment precluded a smaller, more mobile platform. However, sites that were inaccessible by boat were also typically too shallow to sample with ARIS. It is worth noting that many locations considered inaccessible by boat were later confirmed as spawning sites for chum and sockeye salmon during aerial and HSC surveys (Study 8.5). Most turbid water sites identified as potential spawning locations for chum and sockeye salmon using telemetry were in areas that were eventually isolated from the turbid mainstem water and became clear; or the turbid water became clear due to decreased glacial input later in the season. As such, sonar confirmation of potential spawning by chum and sockeye salmon should be a lower priority than Chinook salmon, because Chinook salmon have a spawning window entirely within a period when the Middle River discharge and turbidity are generally high. At sites where multiple fish species with a large degree of overlap in body length could be present, ARIS was not able to positively identify species. This issue was most obvious during the spawning period for chum, pink, sockeye, and coho salmon, and was further complicated due to the relatively high abundance of chum and pink salmon in 2013. This is much less of an issue with Chinook salmon, which spawn, in part, during a period when few other species are present, and they are typically much larger than most other salmon species. 6.6. Estimated Abundance of Chinook Salmon Above Devils Canyon Given the large number of Chinook salmon that the mark rate was based on, the approach of estimating abundance by expanding the number of radio tags detected above Devils Canyon was a more robust approach than expanding the peak count from aerial spawner surveys. In any event, the two independent estimates were remarkably similar, and regardless of the approach used, it could be concluded that roughly 50–65 Chinook salmon migrated above Devils Canyon in 2013. No fewer than 29 fish migrated above Devils Canyon (i.e., the minimum aerial count). To conclude that 100 fish moved above Devil Canyon in 2013 would require that the mark rate on fish above Devils Canyon was half (i.e., 1 in 33 fish) that observed in 1,137 fish examined at the Indian River weir (1 in 16) – although a possibility, this was statistically unlikely. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 55 June 2014 6.7. Study Interdependencies Four Project studies provided predecessor information useful to the Salmon Escapement Study. The Upper River Fish Distribution and Abundance Study (ISR Study 9.5), and Middle and Lower River Fish Distribution and Abundance Study (ISR Study 9.6) provided salmon distribution and abundance information from aerial telemetry surveys that was useful for determining spawning locations (Objective 1) and estimating Chinook salmon escapement and relative distribution among tributaries (Objective 8). The Characterization and Mapping of Aquatic Habitats Study (ISR Study 9.9) provided habitat characterization information useful for describing spawning locations visited as part of turbid water and visual confirmation of spawning surveys (Objective 2). The Fish Genetic Baseline Study (ISR Study 9.14) provided information on Chinook salmon spawning locations (Objective 1) from sample collections conducted in 2012. The Salmon Escapement Study, along with the Upper River Fish Distribution Study (ISR Study 9.5), and Middle and Lower River Fish Distribution Study (ISR Study 9.6), provided genetic tissue samples for the Genetic Baseline Study (ISR Study 9.14). The Salmon Escapement Study also interrelates with other Project studies and provided useful output information in 2013. Weekly updates were provided via email to the various study leads that contained inseason information on the Salmon Escapement Study (e.g., Curry fishwheel catches, Indian River weir counts, and distribution of radio-tagged fish). These data provided guidance to potential spawning locations where the Genetics Baseline Study (ISR Study 9.14) might collect samples and the Instream Flow Study (Study 8.5) might collect Habitat Suitability Criteria data for redds. The Salmon Escapement Study provided extensive opportunity to collect fixed and mobile telemetry data for resident fish radio-tagged as part of the Upper River Fish Distribution and Abundance Study (ISR Study 9.5), and Middle and Lower River Fish Distribution and Abundance Study (ISR Study 9.6), and also provided catch from the fishwheels for tagging. Characterizations of migration behavior and spawning locations (Objective 2), and fish movement in and upstream of Devils Canyon (Objective 3) were provided to the Fish Passage Feasibility Study (ISR Study 9.11) and were used to inform target species, timing and location of potential passage alternatives. 7. COMPLETING THE STUDY [Section 7 appears in the Part C section of this ISR.] 8. LITERATURE CITED Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2011. Aquatic Resources Data Gap Analysis. Draft. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority, July 20, 2011. AEA. 2012. Revised Study Plan: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241. December 2012. Prepared for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by the Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. http://www.susitna- watanahydro.org/study-plan. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 56 June 2014 AEA. 2013. Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization Study. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 14241. February 2013. Anchorage, Alaska. http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Attachment-A-AS.pdf Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 1983. Phase 2 draft report. Volume 1. Synopsis of the 1982 aquatic studies and analysis of fish and habitat relationships. Appendices. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies, Anchorage, Alaska. Barrett, B.M., F.M. Thompson, and S.N. Wick. 1985. Adult salmon investigations: May– October, 1984. Report No. 6. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies, Anchorage, Alaska. Buckland, S.T. and P.H. Garthwaite. 1991. Quantifying precision of mark-recapture estimates using bootstrap and related methods. Biometrics 47:255-268. Buckwalter, J.D. 2011. Synopsis of ADF&G’s Upper Susitna Drainage Fish Inventory, August 2011. November 22, 2011. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, AK. 173 pp. Chapman, D.G. 1951. Some properties of the hypergeometric distribution with applications to zoological censuses. University of California Publication Station 1:131-160. Cleary P.M., R.A. Merizon, R.J. Yanusz, and, D.J. Reed. 2013. Abundance and Spawning Distribution of Susitna River chum Oncorhynchus keta and coho O. kisutch salmon, 2010. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 13-05, Anchorage. Darroch, J.N. 1961. Two-sample capture-recapture census when tagging and sampling are stratified. Biometrika 48: 241-60. Efron, B.I. and R.J. Tibshirani. 1993. An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall. New York. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Office of Energy Projects. 2013. Study Plan Determination for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Issuance: 20130201-3041. Groot, C. and L. Margolis. 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC, 564 pp. Hughes, N.F. 2004. The wave-drag hypothesis: an explanation for size-based lateral segregation during the upstream migration of salmonids. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61: 103-109. Link, M.R., and B.L. Nass. 1999. Estimated abundance of Chinook salmon returning to the Nass River, B.C., 1997. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2475: xi + 64. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 57 June 2014 Meehan, W.R. 1961. The use of a fishwheel in salmon research and management. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 90: 490-494. Quinn, T.P. 2005. The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and trout. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA, 328 pp. Schwarz, C.J. and G.A.F. Seber. 1999. Statistical Science. Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 427-456. Seber, G.A.F. 1982. The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. Charles Griffin and Company, Ltd., London. Thompson, F.M., S.N. Wick, and B.L. Stratton. 1986. Adult salmon investigations: May– October, 1985. Technical Data Report No. 13, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies, Anchorage, Alaska. Westerman, D.L. and T.M. Willette. 2013. Upper Cook Inlet salmon escapement studies, 2012. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 13-30, Anchorage, Alaska. Yanusz, R.J., R.A. Merizon, T.M. Willette, D.G. Evans, and T.R. Spencer. 2011. Inriver Abundance and Distribution of Spawning Susitna River Sockeye Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka, 2008. Alaska Fishery Data Series No. 11-12. Department of Fish and Game, Divisions of Sport and Fish and Commercial Fisheries. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 58 June 2014 9. TABLES INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 59 June 2014 Table 4.3-1. Aerial spawner surveys conducted in the Middle and Upper River by location and date, 2013. River Section Waterbody Confluence Project River Mile Miles Surveyed Middle River -Indian River Susitna 142.1 14.8 21-Jul 25-Jul 01-Aug 08-Aug 15-Aug Below Impediment 3 Cheechako Creek Susitna 155.9 2.4 21-Jul 25-Jul 01-Aug 08-Aug 15-Aug Chinook Creek Susitna 160.4 8.7 19-Jul 25-Jul 01-Aug 08-Aug 15-Aug Middle River -Devil Creek Susitna 164.8 2.5 19-Jul 25-Jul 01-Aug 08-Aug 15-Aug Above Impediment 3 Fog Creek Susitna 179.3 19.3 19-Jul 25-Jul 01-Aug 08-Aug 15-Aug Fog Creek Tributary L1 Fog Mile 5.1 7.6 20-Jul 26-Jul 01-Aug 08-Aug 15-Aug Unnamed PRM 184.0 Susitna 184.0 5.7 20-Jul 27-Jul 01-Aug 08-Aug 15-Aug Unnamed PRM 184.0 Tributary R1 Unnamed 0.8 8.2 20-Jul 27-Jul 01-Aug 08-Aug 15-Aug Tsusena Creek Susitna 184.4 3.6 20-Jul 25-Jul 01-Aug 08-Aug 15-Aug Upper River -Deadman Creek Susitna 188.4 0.3 20-Jul 27-Jul 01-Aug 09-Aug 15-Aug Within Reservoir Watana Creek Susitna 196.9 21.3 20-Jul 27-Jul 02-Aug 09-Aug 15-Aug Watana Creek Tributary R5 Watana 8.6 8.6 20-Jul 27-Jul 02-Aug 09-Aug No Survey Kosina Creek Susitna 209.2 18.8 20-Jul 26-Jul 02-Aug 09-Aug 16-Aug Gilbert Creek Kosina 6.2 6 20-Jul 27-Jul 02-Aug 09-Aug No Survey Tsisi Creek Kosina 7.3 6.4 20-Jul 27-Jul 02-Aug 09-Aug 16-Aug Tsisi Lake 1 Tsisi 7.2 2.8 No Survey No Survey No Survey 09-Aug 16-Aug Tsisi Lake 2 Tsisi 10.6 5.2 No Survey No Survey No Survey 09-Aug 16-Aug Jay Creek Susitna 211.0 13.3 21-Jul 27-Jul 02-Aug 09-Aug 16-Aug Upper River -Goose Creek Susitna 232.9 11.2 21-Jul 26-Jul 02-Aug 09-Aug 16-Aug Above Reservoir Oshetna River Susitna 235.1 26.3 21-Jul 26-Jul 02-Aug 09-Aug 16-Aug Black River Oshetna 6.2 21-Jul 26-Jul 02-Aug 09-Aug 16-Aug Survey Dates INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 60 June 2014 Table 4.4-1. Survey effort and observations using ARIS to identify Chinook salmon spawning behavior in turbid water, 2013. Site Date Sample Location Latitude Longitude ARIS Used Fish Observed Spawning Observed Redds Observed Comments 1 24-Jul 4th of July Creek 62.71482 -149.80826 Yes Yes No No Most fish (90% pinks and some chum) were just arriving and appeared to be entering creek. 2 24-Jul 4th of July Slough 62.71574 -149.80327 Yes Yes No No Fish appeared to be holding and waiting 3 25-Jul Indian River Delta Yes Yes Yes No Multiple salmon observed, including Chinook salmon that were holding in one location for > 1 hr. Likely one Chinook observed had already spawned as its behavior was indicative of redd guarding; several fish chased away during data collection. 4 26-Jul ID'ed by RT'ed CN (724-11)62.65749 -149.95197 Yes No No No Tag in small rapid running along edge of rock face - not a spawning location. 5 26-Jul ID'ed by RT'ed CN (724-0); near Gateway 62.67645 -149.89300 No No No -No potential areas for spawning or set-up of Sonar 6 26-Jul ID'ed by RT'ed CN (876-38); 1/4 mile d/s Indian on river right 62.78304 -149.66826 Yes Yes No No Single large fish observed on sonar; not holding and constantly moving 7 26-Jul ID'ed by RT'ed Chinook (876-22), below Sherman Creek No No No -Mortality signal upon arrival 8 27-Jul ID'ed by RT'ed Chinook (685-91)No No No -Mortality signal upon arrival 9 27-Jul 4th of July Creek mouth; just u/s 62.81764 -149.80300 No ---Tag not located 10 31-Jul Portage Creek mouth (200-yd stretch d/s); sites 12 & 13 in 2012 62.83092 -149.38589 Yes Yes No No Lots of fish holding/milling, none could be IDed as Chinook due to abundance of chum 11 31-Jul Site 11 in 2012 (d/s Portage)No ---Water too swift, did not sample 12 31-Jul Site 10 in 2012 (u/s Indian a ways)No ---Water too swift, did not sample 13 31-Jul Sites 7-9 in 2012 (u/s to d/s Indian)62.78601 -149.65587 Yes Yes No No Fish were migrating, holding, and milling 14 31-Jul Gold Creek area 62.76869 -149.68796 Yes Yes No No Couple of fish observed passing by 15 31-Jul 4th of July Creek Yes Yes No No > 1 hr imagery at the Creek/Slough; lots of PK trying to get up Creek 16 31-Jul Gateway No No No -No sites suitable for sampling INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 61 June 2014 Table 4.4-2. Survey effort and observations using ARIS to identify chum salmon spawning behavior in turbid water, 2013. Site Date Sample Location Latitude Longitude ARIS Used Fish Observed Spawning Observed Redds Observed Comments 1 31-Jul 4th of July Creek Yes Yes Yes No > 1 hr imagery collected at the Creek/Slough; lots of PK trying to get up the creek 2 31-Jul 4th of July Slough Yes Yes No No Lots of chum in the slough; no spawning, just milling/holding 3 12-Aug 4th of July Slough Yes Yes Yes Yes Nest guarding behavior and redds visible, but no nest building behavior INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 62 June 2014 Table 5.1-2. Number of tagged and untagged adult salmon counted at the Deshka River, Montana Creek, and Indian River weirs in 2013, by species and size category. Species1 Tagged Not Tagged 2 Total Tagged Not Tagged 2 Total Tagged Not Tagged Total Chinook Salmon METF < 50 cm 0 528 528 0 66 66 13 281 294 METF ≥ 50 cm 148 17,855 18,003 11 1,938 1,949 72 1,065 1,137 Total 148 18,383 18,531 11 2,004 2,015 85 1,346 1,431 Chum Salmon METF < 40 cm 0 1 1 METF ≥ 40 cm 542 12,305 12,847 Total 542 12,306 12,848 Coho Salmon METF < 40 cm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 METF ≥ 40 cm 67 22,074 22,141 7 758 765 53 461 514 Total 67 22,074 22,141 7 758 765 53 473 526 Pink Salmon All lengths 2,010 35,171 37,181 Sockeye Salmon METF < 40 cm 0 6 6 METF ≥ 40 cm 3 117 120 Total 3 123 126 1 Appendix B contains more detailed daily summaries of weir counts for each site. 2 Numbers of fish 'not tagged' were estimated. Deshka River Weir Montana Creek Weir Indian River Weir 3 3 These data are net upstream counts (or net passage). Subsampled data were expanded accordingly. Only fish released at the Middle River fishwheels were included in the 'Tagged' field, and only fish of known size category, and fish that were inspected for tags were included. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 63 June 2014 Table 5.2-1. Fate classifications for radio-tagged fish in 2013, by species and release location. Classification Lower River Middle River Yentna Middle River Lower River Middle River Middle River Lower River Middle River Middle River Tributary Destinations (total)617 422 602 42 478 154 147 98 151 44 Alexander Creek 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yentna River 72 0 596 0 153 1 0 17 0 0 Deshka River 155 0 0 85 1 0 18 0 1 Willow Creek 37 0 0 6 0 0 16 0 1 Little Willow Creek 22 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 Kashwitna Creek 21 0 0 11 0 0 7 0 0 Goose Creek 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 Sheep Creek 11 1 0 6 0 0 5 0 0 Montana Creek 12 4 1 0 10 1 5 17 4 0 Rabideux Creek 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Talkeetna River 134 30 4 4 59 20 26 7 21 9 Chulitna River 110 71 1 7 134 65 2 0 0 12 Whiskers Creek 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 Lane Creek 0 2 0 0 1 8 3 19 0 5th of July Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 Sherman Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4th of July Creek 1 4 0 0 3 1 0 12 1 Gold Creek 0 2 0 0 0 9 1 6 0 Indian River 11 88 18 4 42 59 3 62 11 Jack Long Creek 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Portage Creek 26 213 13 1 9 36 1 19 9 Devil Creek 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chinook Creek 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cheechako Creek 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tsusena Creek 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pink SalmonChinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) Sockeye Salmon Chum Salmon Chinook (< 50 cm)Coho Salmon INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 64 June 2014 Table 5.2-1. Continued. Classification Lower River Middle River Yentna Middle River Lower River Middle River Middle River Lower River Middle River Middle River Mainstem Destinations (total)4 27 0 3 22 19 17 18 15 48 Mainstem Proper 0 7 2 5 7 3 4 2 4 Downstream of Lane 0 2 0 5 3 1 4 0 1 no prior spawn location 0 1 0 5 3 1 2 0 0 was in Kashwitna 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 was in Talkeetna 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 was in Portage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Upstream of Lane 0 5 2 0 4 2 0 2 3 no prior spawn location 0 5 2 0 3 2 0 1 2 was in 4th of July 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 was at Portage Mouth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 was in Portage Creek 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Tributary Mouths 4 15 0 1 3 1 6 12 2 Yentna Mouth 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Deshka Mouth 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Willow Mouth 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Montana Mouth 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Talkeetna Mouth 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Mouth 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 5th of July Mouth 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 4th of July Mouth 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 no prior spawn location 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 was up 4th of July Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Indian Mouth 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 no prior spawn location 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 was up Indian River 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Jack Long Mouth 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Portage Mouth 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 no prior spawn location 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 was up Portage Creek 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Unnamed Creek Mouth 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Pink SalmonChinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) Sockeye Salmon Chum Salmon Chinook (< 50 cm)Coho Salmon INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 65 June 2014 Table 5.2-1. Continued. Classification Lower River Middle River Yentna Middle River Lower River Middle River Middle River Lower River Middle River Middle River Side Channels & Sloughs 0 5 1 16 9 13 8 1 42 Slough 8A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Slough 9 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 4 no prior spawn location 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 was up 4th of July Creek 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Slough 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Slough 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other areas 0 5 1 16 9 8 8 1 19 no prior spawn location 0 3 1 16 9 8 8 1 18 was up Portage Creek 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 was up Talkeetna River 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Other Fates (total)68 87 90 22 96 69 37 84 34 45 Other Mainstem 22 43 12 9 63 19 26 37 22 29 Max Zone downstream of Lane 20 0 12 0 61 0 0 35 0 0 Max Zone upstream of Lane 2 43 0 9 2 19 26 2 22 29 Downstream Only 10 30 29 8 12 32 7 0 11 16 Near Release Site 22 14 23 5 11 18 4 10 1 0 No or Single Detections 14 0 26 0 10 0 0 37 0 0 Total Tags Released 689 536 692 67 596 242 201 200 200 137 Notes: Fish that were detected on several occasions within a limited area were classified with a 'Mainstem Destination' (either in side-channel/slough locations, in a tributary mouth, or in the mainstem proper). Some of the fish that showed the ‘Mainstem Destination’ detection pattern did so after entering a spawning tributary (those that had at least one live detection in the mainstem location and that spent less than 6 days in the tributary location are noted in the table – otherwise the mainstem detection was ignored and the fish was assigned to the tributary location). Tags that were recovered or returned were included in this table either under the 'Other Mainstem' classification (if the recovery date was outside of the range of probable spawning dates) or within the row that was associated with the recovery location (if recoveries were from within a tributary, or were in a possible mainstem spawning location). Pink SalmonChinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) Sockeye Salmon Chum Salmon Chinook (< 50 cm)Coho Salmon INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 66 June 2014 Table 5.2-2. The proportions of radio-tagged fish of known fate that were detected in the Middle and Upper rivers, and that subsequently returned downstream to enter a Lower River tributary, or that appeared to have a mainstem destination in the Lower River, 2013. Tagged in Lower River Classification / Fate Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) Coho Salmon Pink Salmon Reached Lane Station 58 26 12 Unknown Fate 2 2 2 Known Fate (a)1 56 24 10 Mid/Upper-Susitna Tributary 40 5 8 Mid/Upper-Susitna Mainstem 0 1 1 Returned Downstream (b)1 16 18 1 Mainstem Destination 0 1 0 Chulitna River 14 11 0 Talkeetna River 1 5 1 Sheep Creek 0 1 0 Montana Creek 1 0 0 Proportion Wandering (c)1 28.6%75.0%10.0% Tagged in Middle River Classification / Fate Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) Chinook Salmon (< 50 cm) Chum Salmon Coho Salmon Pink Salmon Sockeye Salmon Tagged at Curry 536 67 201 242 200 137 Other Fates (from Table Table 5.2-1)87 22 37 69 34 45 Other Mainstem 43 9 26 19 22 29 Downstream Only 30 8 7 32 11 16 Near Release Site 14 5 4 18 1 0 No / Single Detections 0 0 0 0 0 0 Known Fate (a)1 449 45 164 173 166 92 Mid/Upper-Susitna Tributary 314 31 105 55 106 21 Mid/Upper-Susitna Mainstem 23 3 15 12 12 44 Returned Downstream (b)1 112 11 44 106 48 27 Mainstem Destination 4 0 2 7 3 4 Lane Creek 2 0 8 1 19 0 Whiskers Creek 0 0 1 10 0 0 Chulitna River 71 7 2 65 0 12 Talkeetna River 30 4 26 20 21 9 Montana Creek 4 0 5 1 4 0 Goose Creek 0 0 0 0 1 0 Sheep Creek 1 0 0 0 0 0 Willow Creek 0 0 0 0 0 1 Deshka River 0 0 0 1 0 1 Yentna River 0 0 0 1 0 0 Proportion Wandering (c)1 24.9%24.4%26.8%61.3%28.9%29.3% Notes: 1 c = a / b Fish released in the lower river (top panel) were included only if they were detected at or upstream of Lane Station. Fish tagged at Curry (bottom panel) include all fish released at Curry. See Table 5.2-1 for further details about classifications of fish 'fates.' INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 67 June 2014 Table 5.2-3. Farthest upstream detection locations for radio-tagged fish that eventually entered a Lower River tributary, 2013. Tagged in Lower River Farthest Upstream Location Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) Coho Salmon Pink Salmon Lane Station 3 6 0 Near Curry 2 1 1 Gateway 0 2 0 4th of July Ck. mouth 2 2 0 Slough 11 1 0 0 Gold Creek 0 1 0 Slough 21 1 0 0 Powerline 0 1 0 Jack Long Ck. mouth 1 0 0 Portage Ck. mouth 2 4 0 Above Portage Ck.2 1 0 Below Impediment One 2 0 0 Total number that reached Lane Station, then entered Lower River tributary 16 18 1 Tagged at Curry Farthest Upstream Location Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) Chinook Salmon (< 50 cm) Chum Salmon Coho Salmon Pink Salmon Sockeye Salmon Gateway 8 2 5 5 4 2 4th of July mouth 12 1 5 8 12 2 Indian R. mouth 12 1 0 7 0 1 Gold Creek 0 0 0 1 0 0 Above Indian R.2 0 0 0 0 0 Powerline 8 1 1 24 1 5 Above Powerline 1 0 0 0 0 1 Jack Long Ck. mouth 3 0 0 1 0 0 Portage Ck. mouth 7 0 0 23 0 2 Above Portage Ck.7 1 0 10 0 5 Below Impediment One 7 0 0 3 0 1 Below Impediment Three 1 0 0 0 0 0 Total number that reached Gateway, then went to a Lower River spawn location 68 6 11 17 82 19 Notes: Fish released in the lower river (top panel) were included only if they were detected at or upstream of Lane Station. Fish released at Curry (bottom panel) were included only if they were detected at or upstream of Gateway. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 68 June 2014 Table 5.3-1. Details of the radio-tagged fish that approached or passed the Middle River impediments, 2013. Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) that Passed Impediment 3 Tag Number Species Capture/ Release Site Capture Date METF Length (cm)Sex First Detection Above I-1 First Detection Above I-2 First Detection Above I-3 Comments 241 CN Curry, Site Two 21-Jun 64 Undetermined 13 Jul 14 Jul 16 Jul Approached headwaters, then moved down in Tsusena Creek (1 day), in Portage Creek (3 days), then down to below Sunshine 272 CN Curry, Site One 23-Jun 64 Undetermined 13 Jul 14 Jul 30 Jul Died in Devils Creek 395 CN Curry, Site One 26-Jun 65 Undetermined 11 Jul 12 Jul 13 Jul Died in Tsesena Creek Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) that Passed Impediment 2 but not Impediment 3 Tag Number Species Capture/ Release Site Capture Date METF Length (cm)Sex First Detection Above I-1 First Detection Above I-2 First Detection Above I-3 Comments 254 CN Curry, Site One 22-Jun 89 Undetermined 12 Jul 13 Jul -Died at mouth of Chinook Creek 280 CN Curry, Site Two 23-Jun 64 Undetermined 13 Jul 13 Jul -Last seen in Talkeetna River 309 CN Curry, Site One 24-Jun 58 Undetermined 12 Jul 13 Jul -Died Below I3 355 CN Curry, Site Two 25-Jun 55 Undetermined 14 Jul 16 Jul -Died in Cheechako Creek 418 CN Curry, Site One 27-Jun 74 Undetermined 13 Jul 13 Jul -In Chinook Creek (7/18-8/7), then quickly dropped to Chulitna mouth 528 CN Curry, Site One 28-Jun 52 Undetermined 16 Jul 19 Jul -Died in Cheechako Creek 555 CN Curry, Site One 29-Jun 80 Undetermined 24 Jul 24 Jul -Drifted downstream after 7/29, died downstream 658 CN Curry, Site One 30-Jun 67 Undetermined 12 Jul 12 Jul -Drifted downstream after 7/29, was near Slough 21 (8/3-8/2: was inaccessible at the time) then downstream 715 CN Curry, Site One 1-Jul 60 Undetermined 13 Jul 14 Jul -Died in Cheechako Creek 798 CN Curry, Site One 2-Jul 81 Undetermined 14 Jul 14 Jul -Died in maintem upstream of Chinook Creek 6535 CN Lower Susitna, Site Two 12-Jun 64 Undetermined 12 Jul 13 Jul -In Cheechako Creek (7/16 - 7/31), then downstream 6604 CN Lower Susitna, Site Two 8-Jun 60 Undetermined 17 Jul 18 Jul -In Cheechako Creek (7/23-7/31, as late an 8/4), then downstream 7082 CN Lower Susitna, Site Two 15-Jun 55 Undetermined 13 Jul 14 Jul -In Portage Creek (7/27-8/7) then various downstream locations INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 69 June 2014 Table 5.3-1. Continued. Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) that Passed Impediment 1 but not Impediment 2 Tag Number Species Capture/ Release Site Capture Date METF Length (cm)Sex First Detection Above I-1 First Detection Above I-2 First Detection Above I-3 Comments 219 CN Curry, Site One 21-Jun 93 Undetermined 30 Jun --In Portage Creek (7/7-8/8) then Jack Long Creek (8/10), then various mainstem locations 278 CN Curry, Site One 23-Jun 63.5 Undetermined 13 Jul --Died at Portage Mouth 353 CN Curry, Site Two 25-Jun 68 Undetermined 14 Jul --Died in Portage Creek 593 CN Curry, Site One 29-Jun 88 Male 16 Jul --Died in Cheechako Creek Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) that Approached Impediment 1 but did not Pass Tag Number Species Capture/ Release Site Capture Date METF Length (cm)Sex First Detection Above I-1 First Detection Above I-2 First Detection Above I-3 Comments 176 CN Curry, Site Two 17-Jun 60 Undetermined ---Last in Talkeetna River 178 CN Curry, Site Two 17-Jun 62 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek 210 CN Curry, Site One 20-Jun 82 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek 224 CN Curry, Site One 21-Jun 58 Undetermined ---Last in Chulitna River 299 CN Curry, Site One 24-Jun 52 Undetermined ---In Portage Creek 7/20 - 8/10 328 CN Curry, Site One 25-Jun 81 Female --- In Portage Creek 7/10 - 7/13, then in a side- Channel near Slough 21 332 CN Curry, Site One 25-Jun 82 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek 338 CN Curry, Site One 25-Jun 78 Male ---In Portage Creek 7/20 - 7/30 347 CN Curry, Site One 25-Jun 81 Female ---Died in Portage Creek 404 CN Curry, Site One 26-Jun 55 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek 447 CN Curry, Site One 27-Jun 53 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek 479 CN Curry, Site Two 27-Jun 80 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek 501 CN Curry, Site One 28-Jun 84 Undetermined ---Died in Below I1 517 CN Curry, Site One 28-Jun 85 Undetermined ---Died in Gold Creek 524 CN Curry, Site One 28-Jun 66 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 70 June 2014 Table 5.3-1. Continued. Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) that Approached Impediment 1 but did not Pass Tag Number Species Capture/ Release Site Capture Date METF Length (cm)Sex First Detection Above I-1 First Detection Above I-2 First Detection Above I-3 Comments 532 CN Curry, Site One 28-Jun 80 Undetermined ---In Portage Creek 7/17 - 7/24 541 CN Curry, Site One 29-Jun 64 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek 543 CN Curry, Site One 29-Jun 54 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek 550 CN Curry, Site One 29-Jun 61 Undetermined ---Last in Chulitna River 564 CN Curry, Site One 29-Jun 86 Male --- In Portage Creek (7/15-7/27), then various downstream locations 615 CN Curry, Site One 30-Jun 61 Undetermined ---In Portage Creek 7/7 - 8/11 632 CN Curry, Site One 30-Jun 71 Male ---Died in Portage Creek 671 CN Curry, Site One 30-Jun 80 Female ---Last in Chulitna River 700 CN Curry, Site One 1-Jul 56 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek 714 CN Curry, Site One 1-Jul 56 Undetermined ---Last in Chulitna River 746 CN Curry, Site One 1-Jul 63 Undetermined --- In Portage Creek (7/15-7/19) then died at Portage mouth 760 CN Curry, Site Two 1-Jul 62 Undetermined ---In Portage Creek (7/18) then downstream 762 CN Curry, Site One 2-Jul 75 Undetermined ---Died near Portage Mouth 764 CN Curry, Site One 2-Jul 72 Undetermined ---Last in Chulitna River 781 CN Curry, Site One 2-Jul 63 Undetermined --- In Portage Creek (7/22 - 7/31, maybe as long as 8/6), then downstream 815 CN Curry, Site One 2-Jul 86 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek 880 CN Curry, Site One 3-Jul 59 Undetermined --- o tage C ee (8/ 6), ded ea o tage mouth 920 CN Curry, Site One 4-Jul 67 Undetermined ---Died in Indian River 925 CN Curry, Site Two 4-Jul 83 Male ---Died downstream of I1 927 CN Curry, Site Two 4-Jul 82 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek 951 CN Curry, Site One 5-Jul 78 Female ---Died in Portage Creek 962 CN Curry, Site Two 5-Jul 67 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek 1004 CN Curry, Site One 8-Jul 91 Undetermined ---Died Below I1 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 71 June 2014 Table 5.3-1. Continued. Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) that Approached Impediment 1 but did not Pass Tag Number Species Capture/ Release Site Capture Date METF Length (cm)Sex First Detection Above I-1 First Detection Above I-2 First Detection Above I-3 Comments 1039 CN Curry, Site Two 9-Jul 63 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek 1056 CN Curry, Site One 10-Jul 54 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek 1061 CN Curry, Site One 10-Jul 84 Male ---In Portage Creek 7/15, then in Talkeetna River 1081 CN Curry, Site One 11-Jul 58 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek 1149 CN Curry, Site One 16-Jul 81 Female ---Died in Portage Creek 6811 CN Lower Susitna, Site Two 9-Jun 59 Undetermined ---In Chulitna River 6866 CN Lower Susitna, Site One 10-Jun 85 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek 6885 CN Lower Susitna Gillnets 15-Jun 72 Undetermined --- In Portage Creek (7/7-7/9, 7/13-7/27), then downstream 7063 CN Lower Susitna, Site One 10-Jun 84 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek 7203 CN Lower Susitna Gillnets 7-Jun 54 Undetermined ---In Chulitna River 7255 CN Lower Susitna, Site One 10-Jun 77 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek 7281 CN Lower Susitna, Site One 14-Jun 67.5 Undetermined ---In 4th of July Creek Chinook Salmon(< 50 cm) that Passed Impediment 1 but not Impediment 2 Tag Number Species Capture/ Release Site Capture Date Length (MEF cm)Sex First Detection Above I-1 First Detection Above I-2 First Detection Above I-3 Comments 1024 CNj Curry, Site Two 8-Jul 42 Male 26 Jul --In lower Portage Creek, then died in Indian River Chinook Salmon (< 50 cm) that Approached Impediment 1 but did not Pass Tag Number Species Capture/ Release Site Capture Date Length (MEF cm)Sex First Detection Above I-1 First Detection Above I-2 First Detection Above I-3 Comments 713 CNj Curry, Site One 1-Jul 40 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek 717 CNj Curry, Site One 1-Jul 35 Undetermined ---Drifted Downstream INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 72 June 2014 Table 5.3-1. Continued. Chinook Salmon (< 50 cm) that Approached Impediment 1 but did not Pass Tag Number Species Capture/ Release Site Capture Date Length (MEF cm)Sex First Detection Above I-1 First Detection Above I-2 First Detection Above I-3 Comments 959 CNj Curry, Site Two 5-Jul 35 Undetermined ---Died in Portage Creek 1117 CNj Curry, Site Two 13-Jul 39 Male ---In lower Portage Creek, then died in Indian Sockeye Salmon that Approached Impediment 1 but did not Pass Tag Number Species Capture/ Release Site Capture Date Length (MEF cm)Sex First Detection Above I-1 First Detection Above I-2 First Detection Above I-3 Comments 898 SO Curry, Site One 4-Jul 51 Undetermined ---Below I1, then mortality signals detected at the mouth of Portage Creek 1074 SO Curry, Site One 11-Jul 58 Female ---Portage mouth (7/15-7/28) then downstream, and up again to a Slough below Gold Creek (7/31-8/12) 1093 SO Curry, Site One 12-Jul 57 Undetermined ---In Portage Creek (7/18-7/20) then in a mainstem area near Birch Creek (7/25 then mort) 2011 SO Curry, Site Two 26-Jul 46 Undetermined ---Drifted Downstream 2216 SO Curry, Site Three 28-Jul 50 Undetermined ---Died in Indian River 2414 SO Curry, Site One 31-Jul 59 Undetermined ---Drifted Downstream 2724 SO Curry, Site Three 2-Aug 50 Male ---Died in Slough 11 2900 SO Curry, Site One 4-Aug 56 Male ---At mouth of Portage 3831 SO Curry, Site Two 10-Aug 56 Male ---Died in Indian River Coho Salmon that Approached Impediment 1 but did not Pass Tag Number Species Capture/ Release Site Capture Date Length (MEF cm)Sex First Detection Above I-1 First Detection Above I-2 First Detection Above I-3 Comments 2522 CO Curry, Site One 1-Aug 54 Undetermined ---Below I1 (8/10) then Chulitna 2705 CO Curry, Site Three 2-Aug 45 Undetermined ---Above Portage, Portage mouth, Below I1 (~8/22- 26) then Chulitna INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 73 June 2014 Table 5.3-1. Continued. Coho Salmon that Approached Impediment 1 but did not Pass Tag Number Species Capture/ Release Site Capture Date Length (MEF cm)Sex First Detection Above I-1 First Detection Above I-2 First Detection Above I-3 Comments 2805 CO Curry, Site Two 3-Aug 53 Undetermined ---Portage area, Below I1 (8/27 - ~29) then Whiskers Creek 3304 CO Curry, Site Three 6-Aug 55 Female ---Below I1 (8/11) then Chulitna 3511 CO Curry, Site Three 7-Aug 43 Male ---Below I1 (8/27 - ~29) then Chulitna 3626 CO Curry, Site Two 8-Aug 51 Male ---Portage mouth, then Below I1 (~8/29 8/30, ~9/1 - 9/2) then Mainstem in Zone 125 (2 live hits then mort) Notes: Fish characteristics include 'tag numbers' (unique numbers assigned to each individual radio-tagged fish), species (CN = Chinook salmon ≥ 50 cm; CNj = Chinook salmon < 50 cm; and SO = sockeye salmon), capture and release site, capture date, METF (mid-eye to fork length, in cm) and sex. Tracking details include the date of first detections above each impediment, and a comment about the general movments of the fish. Top panel: Chinook salmon (≥ 50 cm) that passed Impediment 3. Second panel: Chinook salmon (≥ 50 cm) that passed Impediment 2, but not Impediment 3. Third panel: Chinook salmon (≥ 50 cm) that passed Impediment 1, but not Impediment 2. Fouth panel: Chinook salmon (≥ 50 cm) that approached within 1 km of Impediment 1, but did not pass. Fifth panel: Chinook salmon (< 50 cm) that passed Impediment 1 but not Impediment 2. Sixth panel: Chinook salmon (< 50 cm) that approached within 1 km of Impediment 1, but did not pass. Seventh panel: sockeye salmon that approached within 1 km of Impediment 1, but did not pass. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 74 June 2014 Table 5.3-2. Destinations of radio-tagged Chinook salmon that passed each Middle River impediment, 2013. Chinook (< 50 cm) Passed I1 but not I2 Passed I2 but not I3 Passed I3 Total Passed I1 but not I2 Classification Tributary Destinations Talkeetna River 1 1 Indian River 1 Portage Creek 2 1 1 4 Cheechako Creek 1 5 6 Chinook Creek 1 1 Devils Creek 1 1 Tsesena Creek 1 1 Mainstem Destinations Near Slough 11 1 Near Slough 21 1 Near Portage 1 1 Near Chinook 1 1 Mort 2 2 Total 4 13 3 20 1 Downstream from Impediment Number 3 9 1 13 1 Percent 75%69%33%65%100% Notes: An “I” refers to “impediment.” Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 75 June 2014 Table 5.5-1. Average percent distribution of spawning salmon in slough habitats of the Middle River from 1981 to 1985, and confirmed spawning locations in 2012 and 2013. Slough River Mile Sockeye Chum Pink 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 1 99.6 0.3 0.1 - 2 100.2 0.2 1.5 0.1 3B 101.4 0.8 0.2 0.7 3A 101.9 0.4 0.1 2.2 4 105.2 --- 5 107.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 6 108.2 --- 6A 112.3 0.0 0.2 2.8 7 113.2 --- 8 113.7 0.1 3.3 20.7 Bushrod 117.8 0.1 1.2 4.0 8D 121.8 -0.5 - 8C 121.9 0.1 1.5 0.0 8B 122.2 0.2 6.3 4.1 Moose 123.5 1.6 2.9 1.0 A'124.6 -2.5 0.6 A 124.7 -0.5 3.0 8A 125.4 13.8 13.7 8.1 X X X X B 126.3 0.8 2.3 2.1 9 128.3 0.6 8.9 1.9 X X X X X 9B 129.2 1.9 1.2 - 9A 133.8 0.1 6.0 -X X X 10 133.8 0.1 0.2 -X X 11 135.3 65.6 20.9 17.6 X X X X 12 135.4 --- 13 135.9 -0.2 - 14 135.9 -0.0 - 15 137.2 0.0 0.7 19.4 16 137.3 -0.2 35.7 17 138.9 0.8 2.4 0.0 18 139.1 -0.1 - 19 139.7 0.8 0.2 1.3 X 20 140.0 0.0 2.5 13.6 Percent Distribution Confirmed Spawning (1981-1985 average)Sockeye Chum Pink INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 76 June 2014 Table 5.5-1. Continued. Slough River Mile Sockeye Chum Pink 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 21 141.1 13.2 22.1 4.5 X X X X 22 144.5 0.1 3.7 -X 21A 145.3 -0.1 -X Total Fish Count (1981-85)4,252 15,827 1,639 Notes: Average percent distribution data were synthesized from Barrett et al. (1985) and Thompson et al. (1986). Annual total counts for each species: 1981: sockeye (1,241), chum (2,596), and pink salmon (28) 1982: sockeye (607), chum (2,244), and pink salmon (507) 1983: sockeye (555), chum (1,467), and pink salmon (21) 1984: sockeye (926), chum (7,556), and pink salmon (1,069) 1985: sockeye (923), chum (1,964), and pink salmon (14) Percent Distribution Confirmed Spawning (1981-1985 average)Sockeye Chum Pink INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 77 June 2014 10. FIGURES INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 78 June 2014 Figure 3-1. Susitna River watershed showing fish capture sites (fishwheels) and the locations of fixed-station telemetry receiver sites, 2013. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 79 June 2014 Figure 4.1-1. Middle River Segment showing sites for fish capture (sites 1, 2, and 3), ARIS, rotary screw trap (RST), Curry camp, and the Lane Creek and Gateway fixed-station receivers, 2013. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 80 June 2014 Figure 4.3-1. Aerial spawner survey extent for Indian River and tributaries in and above Devils Canyon, 2013. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 81 June 2014 Figure 5.2-1. Fate classifications for radio-tagged fish released in the lower river (left panels) or at Curry (right panels), by species/life history stage, 2013. Top panels: Fish that were detected on several occasions within a limited area were classified with a 'Mainstem Destination' (either in side-channel/slough locations, in a tributary mouth, or in the mainstem proper). Some of the fish that showed the 'Mainstem Destination' detection pattern did so after entering a spawning tributary, and those that had at least one live detection in the mainstem location. See text and Table 5.2-1 for more detailed classifications. Middle Panels: Relative use of side-channel/slough locations, tributary mouths, and the mainstem proper, by fish that were classified with a 'Mainstem Destination.' Bottom Panel: Relative use of sloughs vs. side-channel habitats by fish classified with a 'Mainstem Destination.' 'tbd' = to be determined. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Chinook Salmon Pink Salmon Coho SalmonRelative FrequencyTributary Mainstem Other General Classification Releases from Lower River 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Chinook Salmon Pink Salmon Coho SalmonRelative FrequencyMainstem Proper Tributary Mouths Side-channel / Sloughs Mainstem Use Releases from Lower River 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Chinook Salmon Pink Salmon Coho Salmon Sockeye Salmon Chum Salmon Chinook (small) General Classification Releases from Curry 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Chinook Salmon Pink Salmon Coho Salmon Sockeye Salmon Chum Salmon Chinook (small) Mainstem Use Releases from Curry 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Chinook Salmon Pink Salmon Coho Salmon Sockeye Salmon Chum Salmon Chinook (small)Relative FrequencySlough 8A Slough 9 Slough 11 Slough 21 Side-channels Side -channel / Slough Use Releases from Curry INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 82 June 2014 Figure 5.3-1. Daily numbers of Chinook salmon that approached and passed each of the three Middle River impediments in 2013. Orange bars: fish that approached but did not pass. Blue bars: fish that approached and successfully passed. Figures show the date of first detection above the impediment (blue) or the date of first detection below the impediment (orange). Also shown is the average daily flow as measured at Tsusena Creek. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 6/30 7/3 7/6 7/9 7/12 7/15 7/18 7/21 7/24 7/27 7/30 8/2 8/5 8/8 8/11 8/14Number of Fish at I1Tsusena Discharge (cfs)Date (m/d) Chinook Salmon Impediment 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 6/30 7/3 7/6 7/9 7/12 7/15 7/18 7/21 7/24 7/27 7/30 8/2 8/5 8/8 8/11 8/14Number of Fish at I3Tsusena Discharge (cfs)Approached (did not pass) Passed Chinook Salmon Impediment 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 6/30 7/3 7/6 7/9 7/12 7/15 7/18 7/21 7/24 7/27 7/30 8/2 8/5 8/8 8/11 8/14Number of Fish at I2Tsusena Discharge (cfs)Chinook Salmon Impediment 2 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 83 June 2014 Figure 5.3-2. Daily number of radio-tagged Chinook salmon that held below Impediment 3 in 2013. Each of the three fish is shown using a unique color. Passage dates can be read by noting the date after which each of the tags disappears from the chart. The top panel includes the average daily flow of the Susitna River as measured at Tsusena Creek, and the bottom panel includes the average daily water temperature of the Susitna River as measured at Tsusena Creek. 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 1 2 3 6/30 7/2 7/4 7/6 7/8 7/10 7/12 7/14 7/16 7/18 7/20 7/22 7/24 7/26 7/28 7/30 8/1 8/3 8/5 8/7 8/9 8/11 8/13 8/15Tsusena Discharge (cfs)Radio-tagged Chinook SalmonTag 272 Tag 241 Tag 395 Flow Chinook Salmon that Passed Impediment 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 1 2 3 6/30 7/2 7/4 7/6 7/8 7/10 7/12 7/14 7/16 7/18 7/20 7/22 7/24 7/26 7/28 7/30 8/1 8/3 8/5 8/7 8/9 8/11 8/13 8/15Tsusena Temperature (°C)Radio-tagged Chinook SalmonDate (m/d) Tag 272 Tag 241 Tag 395 Flow Chinook Salmon that Passed Impediment 3 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 June 2014 PART A - APPENDIX A: FISH CAPTURE AND TAGGING INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 1 June 2014 Table A-1. Number of salmon radio-tagged at two fishwheel sites and from gillnets in the Lower River, 2013. Table A-2. Number of Chinook salmon radio-tagged at two fishwheel sites and in gillnets in the Yentna River, 2013. Radio Tag Species Target West Bank East Bank Gillnet Total Chinook salmon1 700 385 195 118 698 Coho Salmon 600 343 253 596 Pink Salmon 200 99 98 197 Total 1,500 827 546 118 1,491 1 Adult fish measuring 50 cm METF or greater. Fishwheel South Bank North Bank Gillnet Total 700 282 143 267 692 Notes: All tagged Chinook salmon measured 50 cm METF or greater. FishwheelRadio Tag Target INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 2 June 2014 Table A-3. Number of salmon radio- and spaghetti-tagged at three fishwheel sites and in a beach seine in the Middle River, 2013. Species Radio Spaghetti Radio Spaghetti Radio Spaghetti Radio Radio Spaghetti Total Chinook salmon (≥ 50 cm)560 449 81 6 536 536 Chinook salmon (< 50 cm)0 55 12 67 67 Chum Salmon 200 16 252 78 344 107 1,363 201 1,959 2,160 Coho Salmon 200 75 484 54 98 102 380 11 242 962 1,204 Pink Salmon 200 32 346 81 1,239 87 7,520 200 9,105 9,305 Sockeye Salmon 200 58 51 30 139 139 Total 1,360 685 1,082 357 1,681 332 9,263 11 1,385 12,026 13,411 Total Fishwheels Beach SeineRadio Tag Target Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 3 June 2014 Table A-4. Number of fish sampled at the Middle River fishwheels (length, fin clip, and scales) and transferred to the FDA Study to be surgically radio-tagged, 2013. Table A-5. Number of salmon captured at two fishwheel sites and in gillnets in the Lower River, 2013. Total Species Name Catch1 Min Max Mean n Tagged n DNA Scales Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm)616 50 110 69.6 576 542 283 Chinook Salmon (< 50 cm)336 23 49 36.3 320 67 33 Chum Salmon 3,417 27 70 59.0 1,358 201 Coho Salmon 1,734 31 67 51.1 1,030 220 120 Pink Salmon 15,695 31 61 41.6 1,696 199 Sockeye Salmon 276 24 64 44.8 261 138 86 Arctic Grayling 54 20 40 33.8 51 10 11 40 Burbot 2 41 45 42.8 2 1 2 1 Dolly Varden 14 19 43 28.6 14 2 3 11 Longnose Sucker 20 20 39 29.4 20 5 8 5 Rainbow Trout 59 15 46 32.1 52 8 11 33 Round Whitefish 104 14 42 27.2 102 12 18 56 Humpback Whitefish 20 24 38 28.7 17 2 6 10 1 Total catch for chum, coho, pink, and sockeye salmon includes all adult fish, regardless of length. 2 Mid-eye-to-fork Length Nose-fork Length Some fish captured at the Middle River fishwheels were transferred to Fish Distribution & Abundance (FDA) crews to be surgically radio- tagged at Curry; and a portion of these fish were released untagged. Length (cm)Transferred to FDA2 Biosamples Species West Bank East Bank Gillnet Chinook Salmon 1,120 789 154 2,063 Chum Salmon 1,337 2,175 3,512 Coho Salmon 2,164 1,113 3,277 Pink Salmon 16,177 17,818 33,995 Sockeye Salmon 364 260 624 Total 21,162 22,155 154 43,471 Notes: Totals include all adult salmon regardless of size, as well as all recaptured fish. Fishwheels All Gear Combined INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 4 June 2014 Table A-6. Number of Chinook salmon captured at two fishwheel sites and in gillnets in the Yentna River, 2013. Table A-7. Number of salmon caught in the Lower River and Yentna River and their length statistics, 2013. South North Gillnet 1,050 951 295 2,296 Notes: Totals include all adult salmon regardless of size, as well as all recaptured fish. All Gear Combined Fishwheels Location Total Species Name Catch Min Max Mean n Lower River Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm)1,232 50.0 106.0 65.7 1,232 Chinook Salmon (< 50 cm)831 24.5 49.5 36.6 831 Chum Salmon 3,512 ---- Coho Salmon 3,277 24.5 62.0 49.7 3,290 Pink Salmon 33,995 40.0 50.5 42.8 200 Sockeye Salmon 624 ---- Yentna River Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm)1,201 50.0 107.0 65.8 1,094 Chinook Salmon (< 50 cm)1,094 20.5 49.5 35.2 1,200 Length (cm METF) INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 5 June 2014 Table A-8. Number of salmon captured at three fishwheel sites and in a beach seine in the Middle River, by size category, 2013. Species Large Small Total Large Small Total Large Small Total Large Large Small Total Chinook Salmon 514 262 776 89 64 153 13 10 23 616 336 952 Chum Salmon 1,263 1,263 510 510 1,644 1,644 3,417 3,417 Coho Salmon 949 1 950 186 5 191 576 6 582 11 1,722 12 1,734 Pink Salmon 2,385 2,385 2,125 2,125 11,185 11,185 15,695 15,695 Sockeye Salmon 73 18 91 64 50 114 39 32 71 176 100 276 Total 5,184 281 5,465 2,974 119 3,093 13,457 48 13,505 11 21,626 448 22,074 Notes: Totals include all tagged fish recaptured at the fishwheels. Large Chinook salmon measured 50 cm METF or greater; and large chum, coho, pink, and sockeye salmon measured 40 cm METF or greater. Fishwheels Beach Seine All Gear CombinedSite 1 Site 2 Site 3 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 6 June 2014 Figure A-1. Daily fishing effort (hours) and rotational speed (RPM) at two fishwheel sites in the Lower River, 2013. Figure A-2. Daily gillnet effort (hours) in the Lower River, by mesh size, 2013. Date (m/d)Rotational Speed (RPM)Fishing Effort (h)0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 6/36/76/116/156/196/236/277/17/57/97/137/177/217/257/298/28/68/108/148/188/228/268/30Effort RPM West Bank 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 6/36/76/116/156/196/236/277/17/57/97/137/177/217/257/298/28/68/108/148/188/228/268/30East Bank 0 1 2 3 4 6/36/56/76/96/116/136/156/176/196/216/236/256/276/297/1Fishing Effort (h)Date (m/d) 7.5-in Mesh 5.5-in Mesh Gillnet INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 7 June 2014 Figure A-3. Daily fishing effort (hours) at two fishwheel sites in the Yentna River, 2013. Figure A-4. Daily gillnet effort (hours) in the Yentna River, by mesh size, 2013. Fishing Effort (h)Date (m/d) 0 2 4 6 8 6/26/46/66/86/106/126/146/166/186/206/226/246/266/286/30South Bank 0 2 4 6 8 6/26/46/66/86/106/126/146/166/186/206/226/246/266/286/30North Bank 0 2 4 6 8 6/36/56/76/96/116/136/156/176/196/21Fishing Effort (h)Date (m/d) 7.5-in Mesh 5.5-in Mesh Gillnet INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 8 June 2014 Figure A-5. Daily fishing effort (hours) and rotational speed (RPM) at three fishwheel sites in the Middle River, 2013. Date (m/d)Rotational Speed (RPM)Fishing Effort (h)0 2 4 6 8 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/159/229/29Effort RPM Site 1 (west bank) 0 2 4 6 8 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/159/229/29Site 2 (east bank) 0 2 4 6 8 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/159/229/29Site 3 (west bank) INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 9 June 2014 Figure A-6. Daily number of radio tags applied to adult Chinook, pink, and coho salmon captured at two fishwheel sites and in gillnets in the Lower River, 2013. Figure A-7. Daily number of radio tags applied to adult Chinook salmon captured at two fishwheel sites and in gillnets in the Yentna River, 2013. Date (m/d)Radio Tags Applied0 50 100 150 6/36/106/176/247/17/87/157/227/298/58/128/19Gillnet East Bank West Bank Chinook 0 5 10 15 20 6/36/106/176/247/17/87/157/227/298/58/128/19Pink 0 10 20 30 40 6/36/106/176/247/17/87/157/227/298/58/128/19Coho 0 20 40 60 80 100 6/36/56/76/96/116/136/156/176/196/216/236/256/276/29Radio Tags AppliedDate (m/d) Gillnet North Bank South Bank Chinook INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 10 June 2014 Figure A-8. Daily number of radio tags applied to adult Chinook, sockeye, pink, chum, and coho salmon captured at three fishwheel sites in the Middle River, 2013. Date (m/d)Radio Tags Applied0 15 30 45 60 6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/159/229/29Site 3 (west bank) Site 2 (east bank) Site 1 (west bank) Chinook (≥ 50 cm) 0 2 4 6 8 10 6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/159/229/29Chinook (< 50 cm) 0 2 4 6 8 10 6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/159/229/29Sockeye 0 5 10 15 20 25 6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/159/229/29Pink 0 5 10 15 20 25 6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/159/229/29Chum 051015202530 6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/159/229/29Coho INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 11 June 2014 Figure A-9. Daily sampling effort, and the amount of imagery reviewed (review effort), for two ARIS units operated immediately downstream of the fishwheel at Site 1 in the Middle River, 2013. Date (m/d)Sampling Effort (hours)Review Effort (hours)0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 6/76/146/216/287/57/127/197/268/28/98/168/238/309/69/139/209/27Unit 1 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 6/76/146/216/287/57/127/197/268/28/98/168/238/309/69/139/209/27Sampling Effort (h) Review Effort (h) Unit 2 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 12 June 2014 Figure A-10. Daily catch-per-unit-effort at the Lower River fishwheels, by species, and the Susitna River discharge at Sunshine, 2013. Figure A-11. Daily catch-per-unit-effort for Chinook salmon at the Yentna River fishwheels, and the Yentna River discharge at Lake Creek, 2013. Catch-per-unit-effort (fish per hour)Discharge (cfs)Date (m/d) 0 30,000 60,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 6/16/86/156/226/297/67/137/207/278/38/108/178/248/31Discharge East Bank West Bank Chinook 0 30,000 60,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 0 50 100 150 200 250 6/16/86/156/226/297/67/137/207/278/38/108/178/248/31Pink 0 30,000 60,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 0 2 4 6 8 10 6/16/86/156/226/297/67/137/207/278/38/108/178/248/31Coho 0 15,000 30,000 45,000 60,000 75,000 90,000 - 2 4 6 8 10 12 6/26/46/66/86/106/126/146/166/186/206/226/246/266/286/30Discharge (cfs)Catch-per-unit-effort (fish per hour)Date (m/d) Discharge North Bank South Bank INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 13 June 2014 Figure A-12. Daily catch-per-unit-effort at the Middle River fishwheels, by species, and the Susitna River discharge at Gold Creek, 2013. Date (m/d)Discharge (cfs)Catch-per-unit-effort (fish per hour)0 15,000 30,000 45,000 60,000 75,000 90,000 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/159/229/29Discharge Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Chinook 0 15,000 30,000 45,000 60,000 75,000 90,000 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/159/229/29Sockeye 0 15,000 30,000 45,000 60,000 75,000 90,000 0 20 40 60 80 100 6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/159/229/29Pink 0 15,000 30,000 45,000 60,000 75,000 90,000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/159/229/29Chum 0 15,000 30,000 45,000 60,000 75,000 90,000 0 2 4 6 8 10 6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/159/229/29Coho INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 14 June 2014 Figure A-13. Daily number of radio tags deployed at the Middle River fishwheels relative to fishwheel catches in the 1980s, 2012, and 2013. Date (m/d)Relative Proportion of Curry Fishwheel Catch and Radio Tags Deployed0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 6/16/86/156/226/297/67/137/207/278/38/108/178/248/319/79/149/212013 Tags 2013 Catch 2012 Catch 1981-85 Catch Chinook (target =560 tags) 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 6/16/86/156/226/297/67/137/207/278/38/108/178/248/319/79/149/21Sockeye (target = 200 tags) 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 6/16/86/156/226/297/67/137/207/278/38/108/178/248/319/79/149/212013 Tags 2013 Catch 2012 Catch 81/83/85 Pink (target = 200 tags) 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 6/16/86/156/226/297/67/137/207/278/38/108/178/248/319/79/149/21Chum (target = 200 tags) 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 6/16/86/156/226/297/67/137/207/278/38/108/178/248/319/79/149/21Coho (target = 200 tags) INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 15 June 2014 Figure A-14. Daily number of spaghetti tags applied to adult pink, chum, and coho salmon captured at three fishwheel sites in the Middle River, 2013. Spaghetti Tags AppliedDate (m/d) 0 250 500 750 1,000 6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/159/229/29Site 3 (west bank) Site 2 (east bank) Site 1 (west bank) Pink 0 50 100 150 6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/159/229/29Chum 0 50 100 150 6/96/166/236/307/77/147/217/288/48/118/188/259/19/89/159/229/29Coho INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 16 June 2014 Figure A-15. Cumulative length-frequency distributions for salmon radio-tagged in the Middle River and inspected and recaptured at the Indian River weir site, by species, 2013. Cumulative ProportionMid-eye to Fork Length (cm) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Chinook (≥ 50 cm) Radio-tagged in Middle River Inspected at Weir Recaptured at Weir 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Sockeye 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Pink 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Chum 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Coho 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Chinook (< 50 cm) INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 17 June 2014 Figure A-16. Cumulative length-frequency distributions for salmon spaghetti-tagged in the Middle River and inspected and recaptured at the Indian River weir site, by species, 2013. Cumulative ProportionMid-eye to Fork Length (cm) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Pink 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Chum Spaghetti- tagged in Middle River Inspected at Weir Recaptured at Weir 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Coho INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 18 June 2014 Figure A-17. Catch-per-unit-effort, or the number of targets counted per hour of imagery reviewed, on the ARIS (Unit 1) located immediately downstream of the Site 1 fishwheel, 2013. All ARIS data were included, regardless of whether the Site 1 fishwheel was operational. From June 7 to July 12, only targets measuring 50 cm or greater were recorded from ARIS imagery, whereas from August 30 to September 17, targets measuring 40 cm or greater were recorded. Turbidity measurements at Site 1 are also shown. Figure A-18. Comparison of the number of adult salmon (≥ 50 cm METF) captured at the Site 1 fishwheel and concurrent net upstream counts of fish on the ARIS unit (Unit 1) located immediately downstream of the fishwheel, 2013. From June 7 to July 12, only targets measuring 50 cm or greater were recorded from ARIS imagery, whereas from August 30 to September 17, targets measuring 40 cm or greater were recorded. Discharge of the Susitna River at Gold Creek is also shown. 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 6/76/146/216/287/57/127/197/268/28/98/168/238/309/69/139/209/27Turbidity (NTU)Catch-per-unit-effort(fish/hour)Date (m/d) CPUE Turbidity 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 0 30 60 90 120 150 6/76/146/216/287/57/127/197/268/28/98/168/238/309/69/13Discharge (cfs)Net Upstream ARIS Countsand Fishwheel CatchDate (m/d) Discharge ARIS Count Fishwheel Catch INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 19 June 2014 Figure A-19. Number of fish counted using ARIS at Site 1 as a function of the distance from each unit where they were first detected in the field of view, by time period and size category, 2013. Relative Proportion (%)0 8 16 24 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 June 16 -July 12 (≥ 50 cm) September 1-30 (≥ 40 cm) Unit 1 0 8 16 24 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distance from ARIS Unit 1 (m) September 1-30 (≥ 40 cm) Unit 2 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 20 June 2014 Figure A-20. Diel migration of fish counted using ARIS (Unit 1) at Site 1, by size category, 2013. Only upstream-moving fish counted during periods when 24-hours of imagery was reviewed were included. The top panel shows counts from June 16 to July 12 when mainly Chinook salmon were being captured at the Site 1 fishwheel. The bottom panel shows counts from September 1–30 when chum and coho salmon were presumably the predominant species migrating through the Middle River. ARIS CountsTime of Day 0 20 40 60 80 01234567891011121314151617181920212223METF ≥ 50 cm (n = 1050)June 16 -July 12 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 01234567891011121314151617181920212223METF ≥ 50 cm (n = 1184) METF = 40-49 cm (n = 476) September 1-30 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 21 June 2014 Figure A-21. Cumulative length-frequency distributions for salmon captured in the Lower River, by species and capture site, 2013. Cumulative ProportionMid-eye to Fork Length (cm) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Chinook West Bank East Bank Gillnet 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 35 40 45 50 55 60 Pink 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Coho INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 22 June 2014 Figure A-22. Cumulative length-frequency distributions for salmon caught and radio-tagged in the Lower River, by species, 2013. Cumulative ProportionMid-eye to Fork Length (cm) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Chinook West Bank East Bank Gillnet 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 35 40 45 50 55 60 Pink 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Coho INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 23 June 2014 Figure A-23. Cumulative length-frequency distributions for salmon radio-tagged in the Lower River and inspected and recaptured at the Deshka River and Montana Creek weir sites, by species, 2013. Cumulative Proportion Mid-eye to Fork Length (cm) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Montana Weir Chinook Tagged in Lower River Inspected at Weir Recaptures at Weir 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Montana Weir Coho 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Deshka Weir Chinook 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Deshka Weir Coho INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 24 June 2014 Figure A-24. Cumulative length-frequency distribution for Chinook salmon captured in the Yentna River, by capture site, 2013. Figure A-25. Cumulative length-frequency distribution for Chinook salmon caught and radio-tagged in the Yentna River, 2013. Cumulative ProportionMid-eye to Fork Length (cm) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Chinook South Bank North Bank Gillnet Cumulative ProportionMid-eye to Fork Length (cm) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Chinook Caught Radio-tagged INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 25 June 2014 Figure A-26. Cumulative length-frequency distributions for salmon captured in the Middle River, by species and capture site, 2013. Mid-eye to Fork Length (cm)Cumulative Proportion0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Chinook Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Sockeye 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Pink 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Chum 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Coho INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 26 June 2014 Figure A-27. Cumulative length-frequency distributions for salmon caught, radio-tagged, and spaghetti- tagged in the Middle River, by species, 2013. Cumulative ProportionMid-eye to Fork Length (cm) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Chinook (≥ 50 cm) Captured in the Middle River Radio-tagged Spaghetti-tagged 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Sockeye 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Pink 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Chum 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Coho 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Chinook (< 50 cm) INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 June 2014 PART A - APPENDIX B: DAILY FISH PASSAGE AT WEIR AND SONAR SITES IN THE LOWER AND MIDDLE RIVERS INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix B – Page 1 June 2014 Table B-1. Deshka River weir daily passage rates and tag recaptures, by species, 2013. Daily Cum.Radio Daily Cum.Radio Daily Cum.Daily Cum.Daily Cum. Date Count Count Tags Count Count Tags Count Count Count Count Count Count 09-Jun 43 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-Jun 382 425 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11-Jun 141 566 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12-Jun 89 655 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13-Jun 206 861 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14-Jun 98 959 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15-Jun 89 1,048 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16-Jun 155 1,203 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17-Jun 262 1,465 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18-Jun 174 1,639 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19-Jun 44 1,683 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-Jun 110 1,793 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21-Jun 752 2,545 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22-Jun 1,810 4,355 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23-Jun 2,583 6,938 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24-Jun 481 7,419 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25-Jun 3,055 10,474 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26-Jun 1,313 11,787 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27-Jun 1,072 12,859 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28-Jun 310 13,169 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29-Jun 295 13,464 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30-Jun 563 14,027 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01-Jul 1,158 15,185 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02-Jul 215 15,400 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03-Jul 474 15,874 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04-Jul 842 16,716 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05-Jul 557 17,273 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 06-Jul 529 17,802 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 07-Jul 37 17,839 1 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 2 08-Jul 8 17,847 0 0 0 0 16 28 0 0 0 2 09-Jul 63 17,910 0 0 0 0 10 38 0 0 0 2 Sockeye SalmonChinook Salmon Coho Salmon Pink Salmon Chum Salmon INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix B – Page 2 June 2014 Table B-1. Continued. Daily Cum.Radio Daily Cum.Radio Daily Cum.Daily Cum.Daily Cum. Date Count Count Tags Count Count Tags Count Count Count Count Count Count 10-Jul 17 17,927 0 2 2 0 3 41 0 0 0 2 11-Jul 81 18,008 0 14 16 0 0 41 0 0 0 2 12-Jul 46 18,054 0 3 19 0 4 45 0 0 0 2 13-Jul 24 18,078 0 7 26 0 8 53 0 0 0 2 14-Jul 5 18,083 0 1 27 0 7 60 0 0 0 2 15-Jul 45 18,128 0 1 28 0 10 70 0 0 0 2 16-Jul 16 18,144 0 0 28 0 3 73 0 0 0 2 17-Jul 11 18,155 0 0 28 0 9 82 0 0 0 2 18-Jul 43 18,198 0 8 36 0 5 87 0 0 0 2 19-Jul 28 18,226 0 14 50 1 13 100 6 6 3 5 20-Jul 9 18,235 0 10 60 1 45 145 0 6 0 5 21-Jul 6 18,241 0 9 69 0 553 698 2 8 1 6 22-Jul 8 18,249 0 26 95 1 584 1,282 1 9 2 8 23-Jul 16 18,265 0 12 107 0 266 1,548 0 9 0 8 24-Jul 9 18,274 0 6 113 0 353 1,901 1 10 0 8 25-Jul 2 18,276 0 2 115 0 1,842 3,743 0 10 0 8 26-Jul 5 18,281 0 10 125 0 1,407 5,150 0 10 0 8 27-Jul 5 18,286 0 11 136 0 964 6,114 0 10 0 8 28-Jul 4 18,290 0 1 137 0 281 6,395 0 10 0 8 29-Jul 4 18,294 0 3 140 0 1,537 7,932 0 10 0 8 30-Jul 2 18,296 0 0 140 0 1,439 9,371 0 10 0 8 31-Jul 2 18,298 0 0 140 0 593 9,964 0 10 0 8 01-Aug 4 18,302 0 2 142 0 260 10,224 0 10 0 8 02-Aug 12 18,314 0 11 153 0 167 10,391 1 11 0 8 03-Aug 8 18,322 0 10 163 0 211 10,602 0 11 2 10 04-Aug 6 18,328 0 58 221 0 676 11,278 0 11 1 11 05-Aug 7 18,335 0 167 388 0 2,017 13,295 0 11 4 15 06-Aug 3 18,338 0 131 519 0 4,676 17,971 0 11 4 19 07-Aug 5 18,343 0 296 815 0 2,792 20,763 1 12 2 21 08-Aug 0 18,343 0 269 1,084 0 1,603 22,366 0 12 0 21 09-Aug 1 18,344 0 616 1,700 2 749 23,115 2 14 0 21 Sockeye SalmonChinook Salmon Coho Salmon Pink Salmon Chum Salmon INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix B – Page 3 June 2014 Table B-1. Continued. Daily Cum.Radio Daily Cum.Radio Daily Cum.Daily Cum.Daily Cum. Date Count Count Tags Count Count Tags Count Count Count Count Count Count 10-Aug 0 18,344 0 178 1,878 0 1,384 24,499 0 14 1 22 11-Aug 0 18,344 0 539 2,417 0 320 24,819 3 17 1 23 12-Aug 49 18,393 0 8,119 10,536 21 446 25,265 5 22 3 26 13-Aug 14 18,407 0 1,519 12,055 6 155 25,420 0 22 0 26 14-Aug 8 18,415 0 1,132 13,187 3 393 25,813 0 22 0 26 15-Aug 10 18,425 0 664 13,851 2 1,173 26,986 0 22 0 26 16-Aug 4 18,429 0 484 14,335 0 198 27,184 0 22 2 28 17-Aug 6 18,435 0 1,052 15,387 3 154 27,338 1 23 0 28 18-Aug 16 18,451 0 843 16,230 2 109 27,447 3 26 2 30 19-Aug 7 18,458 0 243 16,473 1 89 27,536 1 27 0 30 20-Aug 3 18,461 0 490 16,963 3 111 27,647 0 27 0 30 21-Aug 4 18,465 0 747 17,710 3 79 27,726 3 30 1 31 22-Aug 8 18,473 0 3,745 21,455 15 31 27,757 9 39 5 36 23-Aug 11 18,484 0 430 21,885 3 21 27,778 0 39 0 36 24-Aug 9 18,493 0 31 21,916 0 23 27,801 0 39 0 36 25-Aug 10 18,503 0 25 21,941 0 83 27,884 0 39 1 37 26-Aug 9 18,512 0 48 21,989 0 11 27,895 4 43 0 37 27-Aug 5 18,517 0 19 22,008 0 3 27,898 0 43 0 37 28-Aug 5 18,522 0 30 22,038 0 4 27,902 5 48 0 37 29-Aug 1 18,523 0 25 22,063 0 10 27,912 3 51 0 37 30-Aug 3 18,526 0 16 22,079 0 5 27,917 0 51 0 37 31-Aug 3 18,529 0 10 22,089 0 7 27,924 1 52 0 37 01-Sep 0 18,529 0 9 22,098 0 4 27,928 0 52 0 37 02-Sep 2 18,531 0 42 22,140 0 1 27,929 2 54 0 37 03-Sep 0 18,531 0 1 22,141 0 0 27,929 0 54 0 37 Total 18,531 148 22,141 67 27,929 54 37 Sockeye SalmonChinook Salmon Coho Salmon Pink Salmon Chum Salmon INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix B – Page 4 June 2014 Table B-2. Length statistics for tagged and untagged adult salmon sampled at the Deshka River, Montana Creek, and Indian River weirs in 2013, by species. Species Tagged Not Tagged Total Tagged Not Tagged Total Tagged Not Tagged Total Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) Min 50 51 50 56 50 50 51 51 51 Max 96 108 108 89 105 105 96 114 114 Mean 72.0 73.4 72.9 68.1 67.2 67.3 68.0 69.8 69.7 n 148 273 421 11 207 218 80 1,131 1,211 Chinook Salmon (< 50 cm) Min 45 45 38 38 33 24 24 Max 50 50 49 49 42 46 46 Mean 47.7 47.7 46.7 46.7 36.9 37.2 37.2 n 8 8 7 7 4 369 373 Chum Salmon (≥ 40 cm) Min 48 44 44 Max 71 75 75 Mean 58.7 61.0 60.4 n 299 988 1,287 Coho Salmon (≥ 40 cm) Min 40 42 40 45 43 43 44 42 42 Max 60 65 65 52 65 65 57 63 63 Mean 50.4 55.4 54.4 47.9 53.2 53.1 50.1 51.2 51.1 n 67 267 334 7 200 207 15 249 264 Pink Salmon Min 33 29 29 Max 62 58 62 Mean 41.3 41.7 41.4 n 930 623 1,553 Sockeye Salmon (≥ 40 cm) Min 42 42 Max 63 63 Mean 53.2 53.2 n 86 86 Notes: Lengths are mid-eye to fork (METF). Deshka River Weir Montana Creek Weir Indian River Weir INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix B – Page 5 June 2014 Table B-3. Montana Creek weir daily passage rates and tag recaptures, by species, 2013. Daily Cum.Radio Daily Cum.Radio Daily Cum.Daily Cum.Daily Cum. Date Count Count Tags Count Count Tags Count Count Count Count Count Count 17-Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18-Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19-Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21-Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22-Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23-Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24-Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25-Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26-Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27-Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28-Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29-Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30-Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01-Jul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02-Jul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03-Jul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04-Jul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05-Jul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06-Jul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07-Jul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08-Jul 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09-Jul 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-Jul 201 210 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11-Jul 336 546 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12-Jul 4 550 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13-Jul 323 873 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14-Jul 54 927 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15-Jul 161 1,088 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16-Jul 69 1,157 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17-Jul 160 1,317 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chinook Salmon Coho Salmon Pink Salmon Chum Salmon Sockeye Salmon INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix B – Page 6 June 2014 Table B-3. Continued. Daily Cum.Radio Daily Cum.Radio Daily Cum.Daily Cum.Daily Cum. Date Count Count Tags Count Count Tags Count Count Count Count Count Count 18-Jul 96 1,413 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19-Jul 8 1,421 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-Jul 20 1,441 0 0 0 0 26 26 4 4 0 0 21-Jul 70 1,511 0 0 0 0 26 52 17 21 0 0 22-Jul 73 1,584 0 0 0 0 61 113 39 60 0 0 23-Jul 13 1,597 0 0 0 0 9 122 6 66 0 0 24-Jul 21 1,618 1 0 0 0 25 147 13 79 0 0 25-Jul 103 1,721 0 0 0 0 1,420 1,567 118 197 0 0 26-Jul 181 1,902 0 0 0 0 2,380 3,947 348 545 0 0 27-Jul 12 1,914 0 0 0 0 575 4,522 86 631 0 0 28-Jul 3 1,917 1 0 0 0 77 4,599 29 660 0 0 29-Jul 4 1,921 1 0 0 0 144 4,743 23 683 0 0 30-Jul 4 1,925 0 0 0 0 38 4,781 7 690 0 0 31-Jul 3 1,928 0 0 0 0 87 4,868 185 875 0 0 01-Aug 2 1,930 0 1 1 0 217 5,085 255 1,130 0 0 02-Aug 5 1,935 0 0 1 0 115 5,200 190 1,320 0 0 03-Aug 0 1,935 0 4 5 0 312 5,512 295 1,615 0 0 04-Aug 4 1,939 0 7 12 0 266 5,778 499 2,114 0 0 05-Aug 14 1,953 0 17 29 0 498 6,276 948 3,062 0 0 06-Aug 9 1,962 0 10 39 0 307 6,583 409 3,471 0 0 07-Aug 2 1,964 0 8 47 0 136 6,719 161 3,632 0 0 08-Aug 6 1,970 0 8 55 0 122 6,841 111 3,743 0 0 09-Aug 4 1,974 0 11 66 0 387 7,228 204 3,947 0 0 10-Aug 8 1,982 0 28 94 0 499 7,727 580 4,527 0 0 11-Aug 6 1,988 0 17 111 1 126 7,853 201 4,728 0 0 12-Aug 12 2,000 0 30 141 1 169 8,022 218 4,946 0 0 13-Aug 4 2,004 0 13 154 0 192 8,214 130 5,076 0 0 14-Aug 1 2,005 0 12 166 0 227 8,441 93 5,169 0 0 15-Aug 1 2,006 1 11 177 1 401 8,842 131 5,300 0 0 16-Aug 3 2,009 0 7 184 1 101 8,943 308 5,608 0 0 17-Aug 1 2,010 0 14 198 0 149 9,092 370 5,978 0 0 Chinook Salmon Coho Salmon Pink Salmon Chum Salmon Sockeye Salmon INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix B – Page 7 June 2014 Table B-3. Continued. Daily Cum.Radio Daily Cum.Radio Daily Cum.Daily Cum.Daily Cum. Date Count Count Tags Count Count Tags Count Count Count Count Count Count 18-Aug 2 2,012 0 7 205 0 109 9,201 337 6,315 0 0 19-Aug 1 2,013 0 10 215 0 243 9,444 137 6,452 0 0 20-Aug 1 2,014 0 454 669 2 281 9,725 288 6,740 0 0 21-Aug 0 2,014 0 0 669 0 0 9,725 0 6,740 0 0 22-Aug 0 2,014 0 0 669 0 0 9,725 0 6,740 0 0 23-Aug 0 2,014 0 0 669 0 0 9,725 0 6,740 0 0 24-Aug 0 2,014 0 0 669 0 0 9,725 0 6,740 0 0 25-Aug 0 2,014 0 0 669 0 0 9,725 0 6,740 0 0 26-Aug 0 2,014 0 4 673 0 10 9,735 21 6,761 0 0 27-Aug 1 2,015 0 8 681 0 16 9,751 40 6,801 0 0 28-Aug 0 2,015 0 16 697 0 9 9,760 67 6,868 0 0 29-Aug 0 2,015 0 17 714 0 7 9,767 37 6,905 0 0 30-Aug 0 2,015 0 15 729 0 5 9,772 31 6,936 0 0 31-Aug 0 2,015 0 10 739 0 2 9,774 26 6,962 0 0 01-Sep 0 2,015 0 26 765 0 0 9,774 31 6,993 0 0 02-Sep 0 2,015 0 0 765 0 0 9,774 0 6,993 0 0 03-Sep 0 2,015 0 0 765 0 0 9,774 0 6,993 0 0 04-Sep 0 2,015 0 0 765 0 0 9,774 0 6,993 0 0 05-Sep 0 2,015 0 0 765 0 0 9,774 0 6,993 0 0 Total 2,015 11 765 6 9,774 6,993 0 Chinook Salmon Coho Salmon Pink Salmon Chum Salmon Sockeye Salmon INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix B – Page 8 June 2014 Table B-4. Indian River weir daily passage rates and tag recaptures, by species, 2013. Daily Radio Daily Radio Daily Radio Spag.Daily Radio Spag.Daily Radio Spag.Daily Radio Date Count Tags Count Tags Count Tags Tags Count Tags Tags Count Tags Tags Count Tags 26-Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27-Jun 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28-Jun 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29-Jun 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30-Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01-Jul 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02-Jul 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03-Jul 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04-Jul 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05-Jul 64 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06-Jul 37 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07-Jul 36 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08-Jul 21 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09-Jul 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-Jul 170 16 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11-Jul 51 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12-Jul 35 3 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13-Jul 89 4 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14-Jul 76 9 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15-Jul 22 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16-Jul 11 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17-Jul 26 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18-Jul 25 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19-Jul 48 5 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-Jul 27 1 14 0 9 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 9 0 21-Jul 42 2 3 0 6 0 0 3 0 0 6 0 0 11 0 22-Jul 34 0 -2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 23-Jul 26 1 5 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 24-Jul 29 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 25-Jul 24 1 7 0 23 0 0 -1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Sockeye SalmonMETF ≥ 50 cm Chinook Salmon METF < 50 cm Chum Salmon Coho Salmon Pink Salmon INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix B – Page 9 June 2014 Table B-4. Continued. Daily Radio Daily Radio Daily Radio Spag.Daily Radio Spag.Daily Radio Spag.Daily Radio Date Count Tags Count Tags Count Tags Tags Count Tags Tags Count Tags Tags Count Tags 26-Jul 14 0 6 1 74 0 1 3 0 0 17 0 1 1 0 27-Jul 17 0 18 3 128 1 10 0 0 0 27 0 1 1 0 28-Jul 12 0 23 0 314 2 12 0 0 0 74 0 0 4 0 29-Jul 13 1 10 0 609 1 21 4 0 0 172 0 5 2 0 30-Jul 22 2 14 0 884 2 13 1 0 0 408 0 14 3 0 31-Jul 8 0 16 0 637 1 20 2 0 0 421 0 17 1 0 01-Aug 3 1 5 0 637 1 20 2 0 0 707 0 44 2 0 02-Aug 15 1 7 0 705 1 28 0 0 0 1,514 0 85 4 0 03-Aug 1 0 18 2 772 0 42 2 0 0 1,828 0 115 2 0 04-Aug -4 0 8 0 660 0 26 2 0 0 2,015 0 116 0 0 05-Aug 9 1 4 0 760 17 31 11 0 0 2,619 13 144 1 0 06-Aug 14 0 5 0 730 0 35 3 1 0 2,923 0 104 13 0 07-Aug 0 0 11 2 794 0 27 17 0 0 3,288 0 213 12 0 08-Aug 17 0 8 0 604 0 4 5 0 0 3,422 1 191 4 0 09-Aug 5 0 2 0 589 0 39 16 0 0 3,128 1 190 -1 0 10-Aug 9 0 0 0 694 13 26 13 2 1 4,292 5 241 10 0 11-Aug 5 0 0 0 440 0 15 17 1 4 1,156 0 53 2 0 12-Aug 0 0 0 0 567 5 31 20 1 0 2,234 9 135 5 0 13-Aug 4 0 0 0 389 0 15 21 0 2 1,633 0 62 5 0 14-Aug 4 0 0 0 404 0 11 20 1 0 1,218 1 70 4 0 15-Aug 0 0 0 0 336 0 11 5 0 1 787 0 41 4 1 16-Aug 0 0 0 0 173 0 0 19 1 0 523 0 17 0 0 17-Aug 0 0 0 0 198 4 9 19 2 0 853 4 38 16 2 18-Aug 0 0 0 0 215 1 19 7 1 0 525 1 36 0 0 19-Aug 2 0 0 0 463 0 25 292 4 28 1,369 0 41 0 0 20-Aug 0 0 0 0 20 2 0 4 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 Total 1,137 72 294 13 12,847 51 491 514 17 36 37,181 35 1,975 120 3 Notes: These data are net upstream counts (or net passage). Subsampled data were expanded accordingly. Only fish released at the Middle River fishwheels were included in the tag totals. Only fish of known size category, and fish that were inspected for tags were included. Sockeye SalmonMETF ≥ 50 cm Chinook Salmon METF < 50 cm Chum Salmon Coho Salmon Pink Salmon INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix B – Page 10 June 2014 Figure B-1. Daily amount of video imagery collected at the Indian River weir and the type of sampling method used to review the imagery (15-min sub-sample, full-hour sample), June 26 to August 20, 2013. 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 6/266/297/27/57/87/117/147/177/207/237/267/298/18/48/78/108/138/168/19Sample Effort (h)Date (m/d) 15-min Subsample Full-hour Sample INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix B – Page 11 June 2014 Figure B-2. Net passage of adult salmon that were inspected for tags, and the percent that were tagged (mark rate), at the Indian River weir from June 26 to August 20, 2013. Date (m/d)Net Passage (# fish)Mark Rate (%)0 10 20 30 40 0 40 80 120 160 200 6/276/307/37/67/97/127/157/187/217/247/277/308/28/58/88/118/148/178/20Inspected for Tags Percent Tagged Chinook (≥ 50 cm) The mark rate on 6/28 was excluded here (2 tagged fish passed, 1 fish was inspected) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6/266/297/27/57/87/117/147/177/207/237/267/298/18/48/78/108/138/168/19Pink 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 6/266/297/27/57/87/117/147/177/207/237/267/298/18/48/78/108/138/168/19Chum 0 20 40 60 80 0 60 120 180 240 300 6/266/297/27/57/87/117/147/177/207/237/267/298/18/48/78/108/138/168/19Coho 0 10 20 30 0 5 10 15 20 6/266/297/27/57/87/117/147/177/207/237/267/298/18/48/78/108/138/168/19Sockeye 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 6/276/307/37/67/97/127/157/187/217/247/277/308/28/58/88/118/148/178/20Chinook (< 50 cm) INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix B – Page 12 June 2014 Figure B-3. Number of rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, Arctic grayling, longnose sucker, round whitefish, and humpback whitefish counted on video imagery collected at the Indian River weir, by direction of movement, 2013. Date (m/d)Number of Fish Counted on Underwater Video Imagery-50 -25 0 25 50 Upstream Downstream Rainbow Trout -4 -2 0 2 4 Dolly Varden -6 -3 0 3 6 9 Arctic Grayling 0 1 2 3 4 Longnose Sucker -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 Round Whitefish -1 1 3 5 6/266/297/27/57/87/117/147/177/207/237/267/298/18/48/78/108/138/168/19Humpback Whitefish INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 June 2014 PART A - APPENDIX C: FIXED-STATION RECEIVER SITES (SETUP AND PERFORMANCE) AND MOBILE-TRACKING SURVEY EFFORT INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix C – Page 1 June 2014 Table C-1. Location and antenna orientation of fixed-station receivers in the Susitna River drainage, 2013. Site Location Receiver No. Project River Mile Latitude Longitude River Bank Antenna Antenna Orientation Lower Yentna 12 61.66359 -150.62567 Right 1 Downstream Yentna River 2 Upstream Yentna River Skwentna 14 61.87268 -151.35259 Right 1 Downstream Skwentna River 2 Upstream Skwentna River Upper Yentna 19 62.19382 -151.58783 Left 1 Downstream Yentna River 2 Upstream Yentna River Talachulitna Weir 15 61.86028 -151.43159 Right 1 Downstream Talachulitna River 2 Upstream Talachulitna River Deshka Mouth 8 40 61.69127 -150.30632 Right 1 Downstream Sustina River 2 Upstream Susitna River Sunshine 18 83 62.17300 -150.17428 Left 1 Downstream Sustina River 2 Upstream Susitna River Talkeetna 9 62.34754 -150.01463 Left 1 Downstream Talkeetna River 2 Upstream Talkeetna River Chulitna 46 62.55397 -150.23167 Left 1 Downstream Chulitna River 2 Upstream Chulitna River Deshka Weir 24 61.78585 -150.34572 Right 1 Downstream Deshka River 2 Upstream Deshka River Montana Creek Weir 45 62.10556 -150.04861 Right 1 Downstream Montana Creek 2 Upstream Montana Creek Middle Fork Chulitna Weir 44 63.05900 -149.58222 Left 1 Downstream Middle Fork Chulitna River 2 Upstream Middle Fork Chulitna River Montana Creek 1 62.11816 -150.03607 Left1 1 Downstream Montana Creek 2 Upstream Montana Creek Whiskers Creek 2 105 62.37468 -150.16802 Left1 1 Downstream Whiskers Slough 2 Upstream Susitna River 3 Upstream Whiskers Slough Lane Creek 5,10 117 62.52792 -150.11407 Right 1 Downstream Susitna River 2 Upstream Susitna River 3 Across Susitna River INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix C – Page 2 June 2014 Table C-1. Continued. Site Location Receiver No. Project River Mile Latitude Longitude River Bank Antenna Antenna Orientation Gateway 15 130 62.67645 -149.89303 Right 1 Downstream Susitna River 2 Upstream Susitna River 4th of July Creek 17 134 62.71538 -149.80478 Right 1 Downstream Susitna River 2 Upstream Susitna River 3 Up 4th of July Creek Indian River 25 142 62.78530 -149.65793 Right 1 Downstream Susitna River 2 Upstream Susitna River 3 Up Indian River Upper Indian River 26,27 62.80930 -149.66245 Left1 1 Across Indian River 2 At weir Powerline 31 146 62.81904 -149.57602 Right 1 Downstream Susitna River 2 Upstream Susitna River Devils Island 50 167 62.80926 -149.00268 1 Downstream Susitna River 2 Upstream Susitna River Deadman 58 191 62.82991 -148.41756 Right 1 Downstream Susitna River 2 Upstream Susitna River Kosina Creek 60 209 62.78389 -147.93802 Right 1 Downstream Susitna River 2 Upstream Susitna River 3 Up Kosina Creek Oshetna River 65 235 62.63997 -147.38348 Left 1 Downstream Susitna River 2 Upstream Susitna River 3 Up Oshetna River 1 These stations were located primarily on tributaries; river bank orientations are with respect to the tributary not the Susitna River. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix C – Page 3 June 2014 Table C-2. Monitoring efficiency (percent operational) of fixed-station receivers in the Lower River Basin in 2013, by week. Week Lower Yentna Upper Yentna Skwentna River Talachulit na River Deshka Mouth Deshka Weir Montana Weir Montana Creek Sunshine Mouth Talkeetna Station Chulitna Station Middle Chulitna 5/20 - 5/26 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 100 nd nd nd 5/27 - 6/2 100 nd nd nd 100 100 nd nd 100 nd nd nd 6/3 - 6/9 100 100 100 nd 100 100 nd 100 100 nd nd nd 6/10 - 6/16 74 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 nd nd 6/17 - 6/23 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 nd 100 6/24 - 6/30 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 nd 100 7/1 - 7/7 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 7/8 - 7/14 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 7/15 - 7/21 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 7/22 - 7/28 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 7/29 - 8/4 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 8/5 - 8/11 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 nd 8/12 - 8/18 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 nd 8/19 - 8/25 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 nd 8/26 - 9/1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 91 100 100 nd 9/2 - 9/8 100 nd nd nd 100 100 100 100 10 100 100 nd 9/9 - 9/15 100 nd nd nd 100 100 nd 100 64 nd 100 nd 9/16 - 9/22 100 nd nd nd 100 100 nd 100 100 nd 100 nd 9/23 - 9/29 100 nd nd nd 100 nd nd 100 100 nd 100 nd Notes: Red = full memory caused loss of data; Yellow = low power/dead battery. Fixed-station Receiver Percentages were calculated as the number of hours of recorded receiver activity divided by the number of hours for which it was deployed, summed by week; "nd" = 'not deployed.' Receivers were considered active in a given hour if at least one fish detection, beacon-tag hit, or noise event was recorded during the hour. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix C – Page 4 June 2014 Table C-3. Monitoring efficiency (percent operational) of fixed-station receivers in the Middle and Upper River basins in 2013, by week. Week Whiskers Creek Lane Station (LR Tags) Lane Station (MR Tags)Gateway 4th of July Creek Indian River Indian Weir (salmon)Powerline Devils Station (salmon)Deadman Kosina Creek Oshetna Creek 5/27 - 6/2 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 6/3 - 6/9 100 100 100 100 100 100 nd nd nd nd nd nd 6/10 - 6/16 100 100 100 100 100 100 nd 100 nd nd nd nd 6/17 - 6/23 100 100 100 100 100 100 nd 100 nd nd nd nd 6/24 - 6/30 100 100 100 100 39 100 100 38 100 nd 100 4 7/1 - 7/7 100 100 100 100 91 100 100 92 100 100 100 0 7/8 - 7/14 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 68 100 100 100 34 7/15 - 7/21 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 35 100 100 100 100 7/22 - 7/28 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 79 100 100 100 100 7/29 - 8/4 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 37 100 8/5 - 8/11 100 100 100 100 100 95 100 100 100 100 0 100 8/12 - 8/18 100 100 100 100 100 43 100 100 100 100 17 100 8/19 - 8/25 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 92 100 8/26 - 9/1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 9/2 - 9/8 100 100 100 100 100 100 nd 36 100 100 100 100 9/9 - 9/15 100 100 100 100 100 100 nd 64 100 100 100 100 9/16 - 9/22 100 100 100 100 100 100 nd 100 80 nd 100 100 9/23 - 9/29 100 100 100 nd nd 100 nd nd 93 nd 100 100 Notes: Two receivers were deployed at Lane Station, one to monitor tags released in the Lower River('LR tags') and one for tags released in the Middle River ('MR Tags'). Gray = receiver not scanning; Red = full memory caused loss of data; Yellow = low power/dead battery. Fixed-station Receiver Percentages were calculated as the number of hours of recorded receiver activity divided by the number of hours for which it was deployed, summed by week; "nd" = 'not deployed.' Receivers were considered active in a given hour if at least one fish detection, beacon-tag hit, or noise event was recorded during the hour. For hours in which no beacon tags, radio tags, or noise events were recorded, crew notes were consulted to determine the cause of the data gap. In some instances, the receiver was determined to be fully active despite a lack of detection data (i.e., beacon tags were malfunctioning, or poorly placed). INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix C – Page 5 June 2014 Table C-4. List of the aerial telemetry surveys conducted through September 21, 2013, by location, date, and vehicle type (helicopter, fixed-wing). Zone Name From To 6-226-236-246-256-266-286-296-307-17-27-37-47-57-67-77-87-97-107-117-127-137-147-15MOB - Little Susitna River --3 MOB - Beyond Confluence --4 F F MOB - Confluence - Yentna 3.5 32.4 5 F F H MOB - Yentna River 32.4 -22 H F H H F MOB - Yentna - Deshka 32.4 45.0 35 H F H H F MOB - Deshka River 44.9 -42 H F H H F MOB - Willow and Little Willow 52.2 55.6 53 H F H H F/H MOB - Kashwitna River 64.7 -54 H F H H F MOB - Deshka - Kashwitna 45.0 64.7 55 H F H H H F MOB - Caswell area tribs 65.8 76.3 63 F H F/H MOB - Kashwitna - Montana 64.7 80.7 65 H F H H F H MOB - Montana Creek 80.9 -71 H F H F H MOB - Montana - Sunshine 80.7 88.5 75 H F H H F H MOB - Sunshine Creek 88.1 -76 F MOB - Rabideux Creek 87.4 -77 H F H MOB - Talkeetna River 101.0 -81 H F H H F MOB - Chulitna River 101.7 -83 H F F H MOB - Sunshine - Talkeetna 88.5 102.3 85 H F H H F H MOB - Talkeetna - Lane 102.3 116.8 95 H H H H H H MOB - Whiskers Creek 104.8 -97 H MOB - Trib off zone 95 110.5 -98 MOB - Lane - Gateway 116.8 130.1 105 H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Lane Creek 117.1 -106 H MOB - 5th of July Creek 127.3 -108 MOB - Slough 8A 129.2 129.8 109 MOB - Gateway - 4th of July 130.1 134.3 111 H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Slough 9 131.4 133.5 112 MOB - Sherman Creek 134.1 -114 MOB - 4th of July Creek 134.3 -116 H H H H H MOB - 4th of July - Slough 11 134.3 140.2 117 H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Slough 11 138.6 -118 H PRM Zone # Survey Date (m-d) INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix C – Page 6 June 2014 Table C-4. Continued. Zone Name From To 7-167-177-187-197-207-217-227-237-247-257-267-277-287-297-307-318-18-28-38-48-58-68-7MOB - Little Susitna River --3 MOB - Beyond Confluence --4 F F MOB - Confluence - Yentna 3.5 32.4 5 F F MOB - Yentna River 32.4 -22 H F H H MOB - Yentna - Deshka 32.4 45.0 35 H F H H F MOB - Deshka River 44.9 -42 H F H H F MOB - Willow and Little Willow 52.2 55.6 53 H F H H F MOB - Kashwitna River 64.7 -54 F H F MOB - Deshka - Kashwitna 45.0 64.7 55 H F H H F MOB - Caswell area tribs 65.8 76.3 63 F H H MOB - Kashwitna - Montana 64.7 80.7 65 H F H H F MOB - Montana Creek 80.9 -71 H F H H MOB - Montana - Sunshine 80.7 88.5 75 H F H H F MOB - Sunshine Creek 88.1 -76 MOB - Rabideux Creek 87.4 -77 H MOB - Talkeetna River 101.0 -81 H F H H F MOB - Chulitna River 101.7 -83 F H H F MOB - Sunshine - Talkeetna 88.5 102.3 85 H F H H F MOB - Talkeetna - Lane 102.3 116.8 95 H H H H MOB - Whiskers Creek 104.8 -97 H H MOB - Trib off zone 95 110.5 -98 MOB - Lane - Gateway 116.8 130.1 105 H H H H MOB - Lane Creek 117.1 -106 H H H H MOB - 5th of July Creek 127.3 -108 MOB - Slough 8A 129.2 129.8 109 H H H MOB - Gateway - 4th of July 130.1 134.3 111 H H H H MOB - Slough 9 131.4 133.5 112 H H H MOB - Sherman Creek 134.1 -114 H H MOB - 4th of July Creek 134.3 -116 H H H H MOB - 4th of July - Slough 11 134.3 140.2 117 H H H H MOB - Slough 11 138.6 -118 H H PRM Zone # Survey Date (m-d) INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix C – Page 7 June 2014 Table C-4. Continued. Zone Name From To 8-88-98-108-118-128-138-168-178-198-208-238-248-258-268-278-308-319-29-39-49-59-209-21MOB - Little Susitna River --3 MOB - Beyond Confluence --4 F F F MOB - Confluence - Yentna 3.5 32.4 5 F F F MOB - Yentna River 32.4 -22 F F H H H F F MOB - Yentna - Deshka 32.4 45.0 35 H H H F H F F MOB - Deshka River 44.9 -42 H H H F H F F MOB - Willow and Little Willow 52.2 55.6 53 H H H F H F F MOB - Kashwitna River 64.7 -54 H H H F H F F MOB - Deshka - Kashwitna 45.0 64.7 55 H H H F H F F MOB - Caswell area tribs 65.8 76.3 63 F H H F F F MOB - Kashwitna - Montana 64.7 80.7 65 H H H F H F F MOB - Montana Creek 80.9 -71 F H H H F H F F MOB - Montana - Sunshine 80.7 88.5 75 H H H F H F F MOB - Sunshine Creek 88.1 -76 H H H H MOB - Rabideux Creek 87.4 -77 H H H MOB - Talkeetna River 101.0 -81 H H H F H F F MOB - Chulitna River 101.7 -83 H H H F H F F MOB - Sunshine - Talkeetna 88.5 102.3 85 H H H F H H F F MOB - Talkeetna - Lane 102.3 116.8 95 H H H H H H MOB - Whiskers Creek 104.8 -97 H H H H H H H H H MOB - Trib off zone 95 110.5 -98 H H H H H H H MOB - Lane - Gateway 116.8 130.1 105 H H H H H H H H MOB - Lane Creek 117.1 -106 H H H H H H H H MOB - 5th of July Creek 127.3 -108 H H H H H MOB - Slough 8A 129.2 129.8 109 H H H H H H H H MOB - Gateway - 4th of July 130.1 134.3 111 H H H H H H H H MOB - Slough 9 131.4 133.5 112 H H H H H H H H MOB - Sherman Creek 134.1 -114 H H H MOB - 4th of July Creek 134.3 -116 H H H H H H H H MOB - 4th of July - Slough 11 134.3 140.2 117 H H H H H H H H MOB - Slough 11 138.6 -118 H H H H H H H H Survey Date (m-d)PRM Zone # INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix C – Page 8 June 2014 Table C-4. Continued. Zone Name From To 9-239-249-279-3010-110-210-710-910-2110-2210-2310-24MOB - Little Susitna River --3 MOB - Beyond Confluence --4 MOB - Confluence - Yentna 3.5 32.4 5 H MOB - Yentna River 32.4 -22 H H H MOB - Yentna - Deshka 32.4 45.0 35 H H H MOB - Deshka River 44.9 -42 H H H MOB - Willow and Little Willow 52.2 55.6 53 H H H MOB - Kashwitna River 64.7 -54 H H MOB - Deshka - Kashwitna 45.0 64.7 55 H H H MOB - Caswell area tribs 65.8 76.3 63 H MOB - Kashwitna - Montana 64.7 80.7 65 H H H MOB - Montana Creek 80.9 -71 H H H H MOB - Montana - Sunshine 80.7 88.5 75 H H H H MOB - Sunshine Creek 88.1 -76 H MOB - Rabideux Creek 87.4 -77 H H H H MOB - Talkeetna River 101.0 -81 H H H H MOB - Chulitna River 101.7 -83 H H H H MOB - Sunshine - Talkeetna 88.5 102.3 85 H H H H MOB - Talkeetna - Lane 102.3 116.8 95 H H H H H H MOB - Whiskers Creek 104.8 -97 H H H H MOB - Trib off zone 95 110.5 -98 H MOB - Lane - Gateway 116.8 130.1 105 H H H H MOB - Lane Creek 117.1 -106 H H H H MOB - 5th of July Creek 127.3 -108 MOB - Slough 8A 129.2 129.8 109 H H H H MOB - Gateway - 4th of July 130.1 134.3 111 H H H H MOB - Slough 9 131.4 133.5 112 H H H MOB - Sherman Creek 134.1 -114 MOB - 4th of July Creek 134.3 -116 H H H H MOB - 4th of July - Slough 11 134.3 140.2 117 H H H H MOB - Slough 11 138.6 -118 H H H H PRM Zone # INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix C – Page 9 June 2014 Table C-4. Continued. Zone Name From To 6-226-236-246-256-266-286-296-307-17-27-37-47-57-67-77-87-97-107-117-127-137-147-15MOB - Gold Creek 140.1 -119 MOB - Slough11 - Indian 140.1 142.1 125 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Indian trib 141.8 -132 H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Indian - Slough 21 142.1 145.7 135 H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Slough 21 145.1 145.6 136 MOB - above Powerline 145.7 146.0 138 H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - abv Powerline - Portage 146.0 152.3 145 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Jack Long Creek 148.2 -146 H H H H H MOB - Portage trib 152.3 -152 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Portage - Impediment1 152.3 155.2 153 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Impediment1 - Cheechako 155.2 157.4 157 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Cheechako Creek 155.9 -158 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Cheechako - Impediment2 157.4 160.2 163 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Impediment2 - Chinook 160.2 160.5 167 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Chinook Creek 160.4 -168 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Chinook - Impediment3 160.5 164.8 173 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Devils Creek 164.8 -176 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Impediment3 - Devil Stn 164.8 166.9 177 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Devil Stn - Fog 166.9 179.4 185 H H H H H H MOB - Fog Creek 179.3 -192 H MOB - Fog - Dam Site 179.4 186.8 195 H H H H H MOB - Tsusena Creek 184.5 -197 H MOB - Dam Site - Deadman 186.8 189.4 201 H H H H H MOB - Deadman Creek 189.3 -203 MOB - Deadman - Watana 189.4 196.9 205 H H H H MOB - 'Creek 192'194.8 -207 MOB - Watana Creek 196.8 -212 MOB - Wantana - Kosina 196.9 209.3 215 H MOB - Kosina Creek 209.1 -222 H MOB - Kosina - Oshetna 209.3 235.2 225 H H MOB - Oshetna River 235.1 -232 MOB - above Oshetna 235.2 321.1 235 PRM Zone # Survey Date (m-d) INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix C – Page 10 June 2014 Table C-4. Continued. Zone Name From To 7-167-177-187-197-207-217-227-237-247-257-267-277-287-297-307-318-18-28-38-48-58-68-7MOB - Gold Creek 140.1 -119 H H H MOB - Slough11 - Indian 140.1 142.1 125 H H H H H MOB - Indian trib 141.8 -132 H H H H H MOB - Indian - Slough 21 142.1 145.7 135 H H H H H H MOB - Slough 21 145.1 145.6 136 H H H H H MOB - above Powerline 145.7 146.0 138 H H H H H H MOB - abv Powerline - Portage 146.0 152.3 145 H H H H H H MOB - Jack Long Creek 148.2 -146 H H H MOB - Portage trib 152.3 -152 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Portage - Impediment1 152.3 155.2 153 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Impediment1 - Cheechako 155.2 157.4 157 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Cheechako Creek 155.9 -158 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Cheechako - Impediment2 157.4 160.2 163 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Impediment2 - Chinook 160.2 160.5 167 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Chinook Creek 160.4 -168 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Chinook - Impediment3 160.5 164.8 173 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Devils Creek 164.8 -176 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Impediment3 - Devil Stn 164.8 166.9 177 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Devil Stn - Fog 166.9 179.4 185 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Fog Creek 179.3 -192 H H H MOB - Fog - Dam Site 179.4 186.8 195 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Tsusena Creek 184.5 -197 H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Dam Site - Deadman 186.8 189.4 201 H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Deadman Creek 189.3 -203 H H MOB - Deadman - Watana 189.4 196.9 205 H H H H H H H MOB - 'Creek 192'194.8 -207 MOB - Watana Creek 196.8 -212 H H MOB - Wantana - Kosina 196.9 209.3 215 H H H H H H H MOB - Kosina Creek 209.1 -222 H H MOB - Kosina - Oshetna 209.3 235.2 225 H H H H MOB - Oshetna River 235.1 -232 H H H MOB - above Oshetna 235.2 321.1 235 H H H H H H H H H H H H H PRM Zone # Survey Date (m-d) INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix C – Page 11 June 2014 Table C-4. Continued. Zone Name From To 8-88-98-108-118-128-138-168-178-198-208-238-248-258-268-278-308-319-29-39-49-59-209-21MOB - Gold Creek 140.1 -119 H H H H H H H H MOB - Slough11 - Indian 140.1 142.1 125 H H H H H H H H H MOB - Indian trib 141.8 -132 H H H H H H H H H MOB - Indian - Slough 21 142.1 145.7 135 H H H H H H H H MOB - Slough 21 145.1 145.6 136 H H H H H H H H MOB - above Powerline 145.7 146.0 138 H H H H H H H H MOB - abv Powerline - Portage 146.0 152.3 145 H H H H H H H H MOB - Jack Long Creek 148.2 -146 H H H H H H H H MOB - Portage trib 152.3 -152 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Portage - Impediment1 152.3 155.2 153 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Impediment1 - Cheechako 155.2 157.4 157 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Cheechako Creek 155.9 -158 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Cheechako - Impediment2 157.4 160.2 163 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Impediment2 - Chinook 160.2 160.5 167 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Chinook Creek 160.4 -168 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Chinook - Impediment3 160.5 164.8 173 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Devils Creek 164.8 -176 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Impediment3 - Devil Stn 164.8 166.9 177 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MOB - Devil Stn - Fog 166.9 179.4 185 H H H H MOB - Fog Creek 179.3 -192 H H H H MOB - Fog - Dam Site 179.4 186.8 195 H H H H MOB - Tsusena Creek 184.5 -197 H H H H MOB - Dam Site - Deadman 186.8 189.4 201 H H H H MOB - Deadman Creek 189.3 -203 H H H H MOB - Deadman - Watana 189.4 196.9 205 H H H H MOB - 'Creek 192'194.8 -207 H H H MOB - Watana Creek 196.8 -212 H H H H MOB - Wantana - Kosina 196.9 209.3 215 H H H H MOB - Kosina Creek 209.1 -222 H H H H MOB - Kosina - Oshetna 209.3 235.2 225 H H H H MOB - Oshetna River 235.1 -232 H H H H MOB - above Oshetna 235.2 321.1 235 Survey Date (m-d)PRM Zone # INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix C – Page 12 June 2014 Table C-4. Continued. Zone Name From To 9-239-249-279-3010-110-210-710-910-2110-2210-2310-24MOB - Gold Creek 140.1 -119 H H H H MOB - Slough11 - Indian 140.1 142.1 125 H H H H MOB - Indian trib 141.8 -132 H H H MOB - Indian - Slough 21 142.1 145.7 135 H H H H MOB - Slough 21 145.1 145.6 136 H H H H MOB - above Powerline 145.7 146.0 138 H H H H MOB - abv Powerline - Portage 146.0 152.3 145 H H H H MOB - Jack Long Creek 148.2 -146 H H H MOB - Portage trib 152.3 -152 H H H H H H H MOB - Portage - Impediment1 152.3 155.2 153 H H H H H H H MOB - Impediment1 - Cheechako 155.2 157.4 157 H H H H H H H MOB - Cheechako Creek 155.9 -158 H H H H H H H MOB - Cheechako - Impediment2 157.4 160.2 163 H H H H H H H MOB - Impediment2 - Chinook 160.2 160.5 167 H H H H H H H MOB - Chinook Creek 160.4 -168 H H H H H H H MOB - Chinook - Impediment3 160.5 164.8 173 H H H H H H MOB - Devils Creek 164.8 -176 H H H H H H MOB - Impediment3 - Devil Stn 164.8 166.9 177 H H H H H MOB - Devil Stn - Fog 166.9 179.4 185 H H H H MOB - Fog Creek 179.3 -192 H H H H MOB - Fog - Dam Site 179.4 186.8 195 H H H H MOB - Tsusena Creek 184.5 -197 H H H H MOB - Dam Site - Deadman 186.8 189.4 201 H H H H MOB - Deadman Creek 189.3 -203 H H H MOB - Deadman - Watana 189.4 196.9 205 H H H H MOB - 'Creek 192'194.8 -207 MOB - Watana Creek 196.8 -212 H H H H MOB - Wantana - Kosina 196.9 209.3 215 H H H H MOB - Kosina Creek 209.1 -222 H H H H MOB - Kosina - Oshetna 209.3 235.2 225 H H H H MOB - Oshetna River 235.1 -232 H H H H MOB - above Oshetna 235.2 321.1 235 PRM Zone # INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 June 2014 PART A - APPENDIX D: SPAWNING DESTINATIONS INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 1 June 2014 Table D-1. Summary of monitoring effort at potential spawning sites, by species, as part of the Habitat Suitability Criteria (HSC) component of the Fish and Aquatics Instream Flow Study (RSP Section 8.5), 2013. Survey Date Presence Spawning Presence Spawning Presence Spawning 13-Aug Indian River Delta X X X 4th of July Slough/Side Channel X 14-Aug Slough 10 X X Slough 8A X X X X X 15-Aug 4th of July Slough/Side Channel X X X 16-Aug Slough 1 Slough 2 Slough 4 Slough 5 Slough 6A Oxbow 1 Slough ?1 X X X 18-Aug Slough 21 Side Channel 21 X X Slough 20 Slough 17 Slough 14 Slough 11 X X Slough 9A X X Slough 9 X X X X X 01-Sep Slough 21A X X X X X slough 21 X X slough 22 X X X X X Slough 19 X Slough 11 X X X X Slough 10 X X X X X 02-Sep Slough 9A X X X X 5th of July Slough X X Slough ?1 X X Sockeye Pink Chum INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 2 June 2014 Table D-2. Summary of monitoring effort at potential spawning sites for Chinook salmon in the Middle River, 2013. Habitat Survey Survey Site #Fish #Location Type Date Type None Migrating Holding Spawning 1 295 Lane Creek Tributary Delta NA NA 2a,b 696 Lane Creek - Gateway Mainstem 24-Jul Boat 3b 783 Lane Creek - Gateway Mainstem 24-Jul ARIS X 4b 516 Lane Creek - Gateway Mainstem 24-Jul Boat 5a 739 Gateway - Slough 11 Mainstem 26-Jul Boat 6 731 4th of July Creek Tributary Delta 24-Jul ARIS X 27-Jul Boat X 31-Jul ARIS X 7a 548 Gateway - Slough 11 Mainstem 27-Jul Boat 8a 474 Gateway - Slough 11 Mainstem 27-Jul Boat 9 Cluster Indian River Tributary Delta 25-Jul ARIS X X X 31-Jul ARIS X X 10a 723, 734 Side Channel 21 Side Channel *Aerial 11a 346, 328 Slough 21 - Portage Creek Mainstem 31-Jul Boat 12c Cluster Portage Creek Tributary Delta 31-Jul ARIS/Visual X X 13 254 Chinook Creek Tributary Delta *Aerial a Indicates a site that was visually assessed and considered too difficult to sample with ARIS. b Indicates a site that was visually assessed and not considered suitable for spawning based on physical characteristics. c Indicates a site where sonar detected fish, but species could not be determined. * Indicates a site that was monitored on a regular basis, but spawning was not observed or confirmed. Most are turbid water locations. Site not surveyed Too turbid to assess Site not surveyed Too turbid to assess Fish Observed Site not visited Site not surveyed Site not surveyed Site not surveyed Site not surveyed INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 3 June 2014 Table D-3. Summary of monitoring effort at potential spawning sites for chum salmon in the M iddle River, 2013. Habitat Survey Survey Site #Fish #Location Type Date Type None Migrating Holding Spawning 1 2908, 3808, 5247 Slough 8A Side Slough 14-Aug HSC X X 16-Sep HSC X 29-Sep HSC X 2 Cluster Slough 9 Side Slough 18-Aug HSC X X 17-Sep HSC X 3b 2079 Gateway - Slough 11 Mainstem *Aerial/Boat 4b 2291 Gateway - Slough 11 Mainstem *Aerial/Boat 5 3502 Gateway - Slough 11 Side Slough 07-Sep Aerial X X 6 3631 Slough 9A Side Slough 18-Aug HSC X 02-Sep HSC X X 29-Sep HSC X 7a 2578 Indian River - Slough 21 Side Channel *Aerial 8 3596 Side Channel 21 Side Channel 18-Aug HSC X X 01-Sep HSC X X 15-Sep HSC X 28-Sep HSC X 9 4483 Jack Long Creek Tributary Delta 01-Sep HSC X *Aerial X a Indicates a site that was visually assesed and considered too difficult to sample with ARIS b Indicates a site that was visually assessed and not considered suitable for spawning based on physical characteristics c Indicates a site where sonar detected fish, but species could not be determined * Indicates a site that was monitored on a regular basis, but spawning was not observed or confirmed. Most are turbid water locations. Fish Observed Site not surveyed Site not surveyed Site not surveyed INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 4 June 2014 Table D-4. Summary of monitoring effort at potential spawning sites for pink salmon in the Middle River, 2013. Habitat Survey Survey Site #Fish #Location Type Date Type None Migrating Holding Spawning 1 2972 Lane Creek Tributary Delta 13-Aug HSC X X 2b 3876 Lane Creek - Gateway Mainstem *Boat/Aerial 3 2255 5th of July Creek Tributary Delta 02-Sep HSC X 4b 2059 Gateway - Slough 11 Mainstem *Boat/Aerial 5c 1498, 2106, 2302 4th of July Creek Tributary Delta 31-Jul ARIS X X 12-Aug ARIS X X 6c 8188 4th of July Side Channel Side Channel 31-Jul ARIS X X 13-Aug ARIS X X 7b,c 1571 Gateway - Slough 11 Mainstem 31-Jul ARIS X *Aerial 8 Cluster Indian River Tributary Delta 12-Aug HSC X X X 13-Aug HSC X X X 9c 2306, 2349 Portage Creek Tributary Delta 31-Jul ARIS X X 31-Jul Visual X X a Indicates a site that was visually assesed and considered too difficult to sample with ARIS b Indicates a site that was visually assessed and not considered suitable for spawning based on physical characteristics c Indicates a site where sonar detected fish, but species could not be determined * Indicates a site that was monitored on a regular basis, but spawning was not observed or confirmed. Most are turbid water locations. Fish Observed Site not Surveyed Site not Surveyed INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 5 June 2014 Table D-5. Summary of monitoring effort at potential spawning sites for sockeye salmon in the Middle River, 2013. Habitat Survey Survey Site #Fish #Location Type Date Type None Migrating Holding Spawning 1 2568 Slough 8B Side Slough *Aerial X 2 4533 Skull Creek Tributrary Delta 07-Sep Aerial X X 14-Sep HSC X X 30-Sep HSC X X 3b 4060 Lane Creek - Gateway Mainstem *Boat 4 Cluster Slough 8A Side Slough 14-Aug HSC X X 29-Sep HSC X X 5a,b 3390 Gateway - Slough 11 Side Channel *Boat/Aerial 6 Cluster Slough 9 Side Slough 18-Aug HSC X 17-Sep HSC X 7c 4553, 4347 4th of July Side Channel Side Channel 31-Jul ARIS X X 13-Aug ARIS X X 17-Sep HSC X 8b 2516 Gateway - Slough 11 Mainstem *Boat/Aerial 9 4034 Slough 9A Side Slough 18-Aug HSC X 02-Sep HSC X X 10 Cluster Slough 10 Upland Slough 14-Aug HSC X 01-Sep HSC X X 11 Cluster Slough 11 Upland Slough 18-Aug HSC X 01-Sep HSC X X 12 1982, 2896 Slough/Side Channel 21 Side Channel 18-Aug HSC X 01-Sep HSC X 15-Sep HSC X X 28-Sep HSC X X 13c 1041, 2900 Portage Creek Tributary Delta 31-Jul ARIS X X a Indicates a site that was visually assesed and considered too difficult to sample with ARIS b Indicates a site that was visually assessed and not considered suitable for spawning based on physical characteristics c Indicates a site where sonar detected fish, but species could not be determined * Indicates a site that was monitored on a regular basis, but spawning was not observed or confirmed. Most are turbid water locations. Fish Observed Site not surveyed Site not surveyed Site not surveyed INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 6 June 2014 Table D-6. Details of impediment-passage events for radio-tagged fish, 2013. Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) that Passed Impediment 3 Tag Number First Detection Above I-1 First Detection Above I-2 First Detection Above I-3 Hold Time Below I1 (d) Hold Time Below I2 (d) Hold Time Below I3 (d) Flow at I-1 Passage (cfs) Flow at I-2 Passage (cfs) Flow at I-3 Passage (cfs) 241 13 Jul 14 Jul 16 Jul 1.0 0.5 2.0 14,383 15,410 16,672 272 13 Jul 14 Jul 30 Jul 8.5 0.5 16.0 14,383 15,410 18,848 395 11 Jul 12 Jul 13 Jul 3.0 1.0 1.5 16,876 15,058 14,383 Average 12 Jul 13 Jul 19 Jul 4.2 0.7 6.5 15,214 15,293 16,634 Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) that Passed Impediment 2 but not Impediment 3 254 12 Jul 13 Jul -6.0 0.5 1.5 15,058 14,383 - 280 13 Jul 13 Jul -1.0 0.5 4.5 14,383 14,383 - 309 12 Jul 13 Jul -6.0 0.5 1.5 Mort *15,058 14,383 - 355 14 Jul 16 Jul -6.0 1.0 13.0 15,410 16,672 - 418 13 Jul 13 Jul -4.0 0.0 4.0 14,383 14,383 - 528 16 Jul 19 Jul -2.5 3.5 9.5 16,672 19,202 - 555 24 Jul 24 Jul -1.5 0.5 4.8 16,884 16,884 - 658 12 Jul 12 Jul -3.0 0.5 17.0 15,058 15,058 - 715 13 Jul 14 Jul -5.0 0.5 16.5 14,383 15,410 - 798 14 Jul 14 Jul -2.0 0.5 14.5 15,410 15,410 - 6535 12 Jul 13 Jul -2.5 0.5 0.5 15,058 14,383 - 6604 17 Jul 18 Jul -2.0 0.5 4.5 15,872 17,353 - 7082 13 Jul 14 Jul -1.5 0.5 9.0 14,383 15,410 - Average 14 Jul 15 Jul 3.3 0.7 8.3 15,232 15,640 Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) that Passed Impediment 1 but not Impediment 2 219 †30 Jun --4.0 d.n.a.-25,352 -- 278 13 Jul --4.0 d.n.a.-14,383 -- 353 14 Jul --2.5 1.0 -15,410 -- 593 16 Jul --7.0 1.5 -16,672 -- Average 12 Jul 4.4 1.3 17,954 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 7 June 2014 Table D-6. Continued. Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) that Approached Impediment 1 but didn't pass Tag Number First Detection Above I-1 First Detection Above I-2 First Detection Above I-3 Hold Time Below I1 (d) Hold Time Below I2 (d) Hold Time Below I3 (d) Flow at I-1 Passage (cfs) Flow at I-2 Passage (cfs) Flow at I-3 Passage (cfs) 176 †---2.5 ----- 178 ---4.0 ----- 210 ---2.0 ----- 224 †---4.0 ----- 299 ---11.5 ----- 328 ---6.0 ----- 332 ---3.0 ----- 338 ---2.0 ----- 347 ---6.0 ----- 404 ---1.0 ----- 447 ---2.0 ----- 479 ---3.5 ----- 501 ---5.5 ----- 517 ---3.0 ----- 524 ---2.0 ----- 532 ---5.0 ----- 541 ---6.0 ----- 543 ---1.0 ----- 550 ---2.5 ----- 564 ---1.0 ----- 615 ---1.0 ----- 632 ---2.0 ----- 671 ---2.0 ----- 700 ---4.0 ----- 714 ---1.0 ----- 746 ---1.5 ----- 760 ---3.0 ----- 762 ---0.5 ----- 764 ---1.0 ----- 781 ---7.0 ----- INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 8 June 2014 Table D-6. Continued. Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) that Approached Impediment 1 but didn't pass Tag Number First Detection Above I-1 First Detection Above I-2 First Detection Above I-3 Hold Time Below I1 (d) Hold Time Below I2 (d) Hold Time Below I3 (d) Flow at I-1 Passage (cfs) Flow at I-2 Passage (cfs) Flow at I-3 Passage (cfs) 815 ---1.0 ----- 880 ---4.0 ----- 920 ---3.5 ----- 925 ---2.0 ----- 927 ---10.5 ----- 951 ---2.0 ----- 962 ---0.5 ----- 1004 ---4.5 Mort *----- 1039 ---1.0 ----- 1056 ---3.5 ----- 1061 ---1.5 ----- 1081 ---3.5 ----- 1149 ---2.0 ----- 6811 †---1.5 ----- 6866 ---7.0 ----- 6885 ---1.0 ----- 7063 ---7.0 ----- 7203 ---1.0 ----- 7255 ---4.5 ----- 7281 ---1.0 ----- Average 3.2 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 9 June 2014 Table D-6. Continued. Chinook Salmon (< 50 cm) that Passed Impediment 1 but not Impediment 2 Tag Number First Detection Above I-1 First Detection Above I-2 First Detection Above I-3 Hold Time Below I1 (d) Hold Time Below I2 (d) Hold Time Below I3 (d) Flow at I-1 Passage (cfs) Flow at I-2 Passage (cfs) Flow at I-3 Passage (cfs) 1024 26 Jul --6.0 d.n.a.-17,386 -- Average 26 Jul 6.0 17,386 Chinook Salmon (< 50 cm) that Approached Impediment 1 but didn't Pass 635 ---2.5 ----- 638 ---0.5 ----- 713 ---0.5 ----- 717 ---2.0 ----- 959 ---0.5 ----- 1117 ---1.5 ----- Average 1.3 Sockeye Salmon that Approached Impediment 1 but didn't Pass 898 ---5.5 ----- 1074 ---0.5 ----- 1093 ---0.5 ----- 2011 †---9.0 ----- 2216 ---0.5 ----- 2414 †---8.0 ----- 2724 †---3.5 ----- 2900 †---2.0 ----- 3831 ---0.5 ----- Average 3.3 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 10 June 2014 Table D-6. Continued. Coho Salmon that Approached Impediment 1 but didn't Pass Tag Number First Detection Above I-1 First Detection Above I-2 First Detection Above I-3 Hold Time Below I1 (d) Hold Time Below I2 (d) Hold Time Below I3 (d) Flow at I-1 Passage (cfs) Flow at I-2 Passage (cfs) Flow at I-3 Passage (cfs) 2522 ---1.0 ----- 2705 †---4.5 ----- 2805 †---2.0 ----- 3304 ---1.0 ----- 3511 †---2.0 ----- 3626 †---3.5 ----- Average 2.3 Notes: Details include the date of first detections above each impediment, the duration of holding time below each impediment, and the flow (measured at Tsusena Creek) at the time of the first detection upstream of the impediment. "d.n.a" = Did Not Approach next upstream impediment. Fish that died while holding below an impediment were not included in calculations of average hold time. Hold times for fish noted with a dagger (†) were interpolated since surveys were not conducted every day during the period when the fish was present. Top panel: Chinook salmon (≥ 50 cm) that passed Impediment 3. Second panel: Chinook salmon (≥ 50 cm) that passed Impediment 2, but not Impediment 3. Third panel: Chinook salmon (≥ 50 cm) that passed Impediment 1, but not Impediment 2. Fouth panel: Chinook salmon (≥ 50 cm) that approached within 1 km of Impediment 1, but did not pass. Fifth panel: Chinook salmon (< 50 cm) that passed Impediment 1 but not Impediment 2. Sixth panel: Chinook salmon (< 50 cm) that approached within 1 km of Impediment 1, but did not pass. Seventh panel: sockeye salmon that approached within 1 km of Impediment 1, but did not pass. Eighth panel: coho salmon that approached within 1 km of Impediment 1, but did not pass. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 11 June 2014 Table D-7. Number of Chinook salmon counted during aerial spawner surveys, by location and survey period, 2013. Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 31 Survey 42 Survey 53 (July 19-21)(July 25-27)(Aug 1-3)(Aug 8-10)(Aug 14-16) Cheechako 5 40 24 16 1 Chinook 0 2 1 0 0 Devil 7 25 15 12 0 Fog 0 1 0 2 2 Fog L1 0 0 0 0 0 PRM 184.0 0 0 0 0 0 PRM 184.0 R1 0 0 0 0 0 Tsusena 0 0 0 4 2 Deadman 0 0 0 0 0 Watana 0 0 0 0 0 Watana R5 0 0 0 0 0 Kosina 2 3 0 0 0 Gilbert 0 0 0 0 0 Tsisi 0 0 0 0 0 Tsisi Lakes 0 0 0 0 0 Jay 0 0 0 0 0 Goose 0 0 0 0 0 Oshetna 0 0 0 0 0 Black 0 0 0 0 0 Susitna 0 0 0 0 0 Indian River - above weir 336 363 192 69 1 Indian River - below weir 90 90 14 2 0 Notes: 1 An estimated 2,600 other salmon (1,650 below weir): 85 percent pink, 10 percent chum, 5 percent sockeye salmon. 2 An estimated 4,475 pink (2,355 below weir), 1,310 chum (20 below weir), and 35 sockeye (19 below weir) salmon. 3 An estimated 1,355 pink (1,030 below weir), 80 chum (0 below weir), and 3 sockeye (0 below weir) salmon. Stream INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 12 June 2014 Table D-8. Summary of weather variability during the adult salmon aerial spawner surveys in the Middle and Upper rivers, 2013. Table D-9. Summary of survey condition rankings during the adult salmon aerial spawner surveys in the Middle and Upper rivers, 2013. Date Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Light Rain Rain Wind July 19–21 x x x x July 25–27 x x x x August 1–2 x x x August 8–9 x x x x August 15–16 x x x Weather Condition Variable Average Rank Reported Range Standard Deviation Sun Glare 2.8 1 to 4 0.55 Water clarity 2.8 0 to 4 1.32 Vegetation Cover 2.5 0 to 4 0.94 Notes: Variables were ranked from 0 to 4, with 4 being optimal and 0 being poor. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 13 June 2014 Figure D-1. Relative frequencies of tributary use by radio-tagged salmon released in the Lower River, by species, 2013. Relative Frequency0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%Chinook Salmon 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%Yentna RiverDeshka RiverWillow Ck.Little Willow Ck.Kashwitna Ck.Goose Ck.Sheep Ck.Montana Ck.Talkeetna RiverChulitna RiverLane Ck.5th of July Ck.4th of July Ck.Gold Ck.Indian RiverJack Long Ck.Portage Ck.Devil Ck.Cheechako Ck.Chinook Creek.Tsusena Ck.OtherStock Pink Salmon 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%Coho Salmon INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 14 June 2014 Figure D-2. Potential mainstem spawning sites for radio-tagged Chinook salmon in the Lower River, 2013. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 15 June 2014 Figure D-3. Potential mainstem spawning sites for radio-tagged coho salmon in the Lower River, 2013. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 16 June 2014 Figure D-4. Potential mainstem spawning sites for radio-tagged coho salmon in the Middle River, 2013. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 17 June 2014 Figure D-5. Potential mainstem spawning sites for radio-tagged pink salmon in the Lower River, 2013. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 18 June 2014 Figure D-6. Potential mainstem spawning sites for radio-tagged pink salmon in the Middle River, 2013. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 19 June 2014 Figure D-7. Relative frequencies of tributary use by radio-tagged salmon released in the Middle River, by species, 2013. Relative Frequency0% 15% 30% 45% 60%Chinook Salmon (≥ 50 cm) 0% 15% 30% 45% 60%Pink Salmon 0% 15% 30% 45% 60%Chinook Salmon (< 50 cm) 0% 15% 30% 45% 60%Chum Salmon 0% 15% 30% 45% 60%Yentna RiverDeshka RiverWillow Ck.Little Willow Ck.Kashwitna Ck.Goose Ck.Sheep Ck.Montana Ck.Talkeetna RiverChulitna RiverLane Ck.5th of July Ck.4th of July Ck.Gold Ck.Indian RiverJack Long Ck.Portage Ck.Devil Ck.Cheechako Ck.Chinook Creek.Tsusena Ck.OtherStock Sockeye Salmon 0% 15% 30% 45% 60%Coho Salmon INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 20 June 2014 Figure D-8. Potential mainstem spawning sites for radio-tagged Chinook salmon in the Middle River, 2013. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 21 June 2014 Figure D-9. Potential mainstem spawning sites for radio-tagged chum salmon in the Lower River, 2013. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 22 June 2014 Figure D-10. Potential mainstem spawning sites for radio-tagged chum salmon in the Middle River, 2013. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 23 June 2014 Figure D-11. Potential mainstem spawning sites for radio-tagged sockeye salmon in the Lower River, 2013. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 24 June 2014 Figure D-12. Potential mainstem spawning sites for radio-tagged sockeye salmon in the Middle River, 2013. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 25 June 2014 Figure D-13. Summary of Chinook salmon observations during aerial spawner surveys in the Middle and Upper rivers, 2013. All survey observations were combined; and observation points may represent multiple fish. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 June 2014 PART A - APPENDIX E: RADIO TAG RECOVERIES INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix E – Page 1 June 2014 Table E-1. Tag recovery information for fish released in the Lower River and Yentna River, 2013. Tag Date Recovery Species Number Recovered Description Latitude Longitude Method Chinook Salmon 6547 7 Aug Willow Creek 100 yd upstream of railroad bridge 61.7658 -150.0417 Field Crews (METF ≥ 50 cm)6561 12 Aug Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 6570 11 Aug Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 6628 22 Jun Deshka river mile 6 61.7735 -150.3419 Field Crews 6649 6 Aug Prairie Cr.62.6167 -149.0554 Field Crews 6687 24 Jun Willow mouth 61.7785 -150.1662 Field Crews 6734 24 Jun Willow mouth 61.7785 -150.1662 Field Crews 6882 30 Jun Deshka River mile 2 61.7294 -150.3192 Field Crews 7105 1 Jul Deshka River mile 2 61.7294 -150.3192 Field Crews 7124 8 Jul Deshka R., above weir (RM7)61.7886 -150.3398 Field Crews 7126 5 Jul mouth of Peters Cr.62.1765 -150.8787 Field Crews 7131 7 Jul mouth of Clear Cr.62.3799 -150.0162 Field Crews 7227 13 Jul Peters Cr., 5 mi. downstream of Forks Roadhouse 62.3053 -150.7257 Field Crews 7258 22 Jun Deshka ~1 mi. upstream 61.7121 -150.3238 Field Crews 7263 25 Jul Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 7397 26 Jun Lake Cr. near mouth 61.9092 -150.9096 Field Crews 7588 1 Jul Talachulitna river mile 1 61.8564 -151.3886 Field Crews 7637 1 Jul Johnson Creek (Yentna tributary)62.0655 -151.6068 Field Crews 7744 7 Jul Moose Cr. (Yentna trib.)61.7971 -150.6966 Field Crews 7803 21 Jun 8 Mile Cr. on Skwentna R.61.9548 -151.1964 Field Crews 7825 5 Jul Lake Creek near Yenlo Creek 62.0627 -150.9906 Field Crews 7881 3 Sep Lake Creek, ~6 miles downstream from Chelatna Lake 62.3664 -151.2955 Field Crews 7959 26 Jun Lake Cr. near mouth 61.9092 -150.9096 Field Crews 8005 22 Jun Lake Cr. river mile 1.5 61.9307 -150.9127 Field Crews 8017 5 Jul Lake Creek near Yenlo Creek 62.0627 -150.9906 Field Crews Recovery Location1 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix E – Page 2 June 2014 Table E-1. Continued. Tag Date Recovery Species Number Recovered Description Latitude Longitude Method Coho salmon 6006 19 Aug Peters Creek 62.3053 -150.7257 Field Crews 6012 13 Sep Chase Cr, middle Susitna ~2 mi. downstream of Lane Cr.62.4956 -150.0951 Field Crews 6038 4 Aug Sustina River at Susitna Landing (Kashwitna confluence)61.9110 -150.1033 Field Crews 6106 10 Aug Caswell Creek mouth 61.9392 -150.0839 Field Crews 6131 21 Aug Susitna River, mouth of Trapper Creek 62.2578 -150.1685 Field Crews 6133 15 Aug Clear Creek (Talkeetna River)62.3799 -150.0162 Field Crews 6151 18 Aug Malone Slough (Yentna R. near Johnson C. confluence)62.0841 -151.4969 Field Crews 6200 7 Aug Talachulitna river at Friday Creek 61.7108 -151.4597 Field Crews 6212 20 Aug Johnson Creek (Yentna tributary)62.0655 -151.6068 Field Crews 6238 14 Aug Sheep Creek mouth 61.9712 -150.0875 Field Crews 6241 1 Aug mouth of Caswell Cr.61.9392 -150.0839 Field Crews 6256 20 Aug Yentna River 61.7971 -150.6966 Field Crews 6309 3 Aug Deshka mouth 61.6976 -150.3173 Field Crews 6349 3 Aug Yentna River, 20-mile Slough 61.8265 -150.7918 Field Crews 6410 10 Aug Caswell Creek mouth 61.9392 -150.0839 Field Crews 6460 22 Aug Clear Creek (Talkeetna River)62.3799 -150.0162 Field Crews 6490 13 Aug Deshka River, ~RM 4 61.7475 -150.3215 Field Crews 6491 17 Aug Lake Creek mouth 61.9092 -150.9096 Field Crews 7422 17 Aug Clear Creek (Talkeetna River)62.3799 -150.0162 Field Crews 7433 6 Aug Sunshine Creek (Susitna trib.)62.1782 -150.1032 Field Crews 7496 19 Aug Talachulitna River 61.8564 -151.3886 Field Crews 1 Recovery coordinates are estimates, based on the site description. Recovery Location1 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix E – Page 3 June 2014 Table E-2. Tag recovery information for fish released in the Middle River, 2013. Tag Date Recovery Species Number Recovered Description Latitude Longitude Method Chinook Salmon 178 31 Jul Portage Creek 62.8367 -149.3729 Field Crews (METF ≥ 50 cm)214 14 Jul no info --Field Crews 298 1 Aug Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 305 17 Jul Above Indian Weir 62.8112 -149.6592 Field Crews 348 16 Jul Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 387 24 Aug no info --Field Crews 440 5 Aug Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 479 30 Jul Portage Mouth 62.8290 -149.3800 Field Crews 569 12 Aug Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 578 24 Jul Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 718 3 Aug Troublesome Creek 62.6687 -150.2250 Angler 727 5 Jul Fishwheel Site 1 Curry 62.6165 -150.0161 Field Crews 744 16 Jul Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 777 22 Jul Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 789 24 Jul Above Indian Weir 62.8112 -149.6592 Field Crews 805 18 Jul Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 812 2 Aug Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 841 22 Jul Chulitna River 62.4910 -150.2480 Field Crews 897 11 Aug Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 955 20 Jul Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 993 22 Jul Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 1003 3 Aug Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 1062 5 Aug Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 1123 29 Jul Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews Recovery Location1 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix E – Page 4 June 2014 Table E-2. Continued. Tag Date Recovery Species Number Recovered Description Latitude Longitude Method Chinook salmon 491 21 Jul Spink Creek (Chulitna)62.7280 -150.2410 Angler (METF < 50 cm)1024 11 Aug Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 1067 14 Aug Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 1117 3 Aug Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 1138 30 Jul Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 1157 7 Sep West bank of Susitna 62.3238 -150.1381 Angler Pink salmon 1503 14 Aug Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 1504 14 Aug 1/2 mile up Indian River 62.7918 -149.6615 Field Crews 1986 23 Aug Fishwheel Site 3 Curry 62.6374 -149.9775 Field Crews 2094 7 Aug RM 138 - sandbar 62.7840 -149.6630 Angler 2106 2 Aug Slough 8A 62.6641 -149.9053 Field Crews 2157 17 Aug RM 148 62.8280 -149.4530 Field Crews 2321 18 Aug Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 2586 11 Aug Slough 8A 62.6709 -149.9000 Field Crews 2595 8 Aug Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 2770 no info Fishwheel Site 3 Curry 62.6374 -149.9775 Field Crews 3490 28 Aug 5th of July 62.6536 -149.9578 Field Crews Sockeye salmon 3863 no info Slough 8A 62.6666 -149.8932 Field Crews Chum salmon 1855 10 Aug Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 1980 13 Aug Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 2116 2 Aug Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 2196 10 Aug Indian Weir 62.8124 -149.6624 Field Crews 2502 12 Aug Fishwheel Site 3 Curry 62.6374 -149.9775 Field Crews 3877 13 Aug Clear Creek 62.4950 -149.8770 Angler 4106 17 Aug Montana Creek weir 62.1056 -150.0486 Field Crews Recovery Location1 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix E – Page 5 June 2014 Table E-2. Continued. Tag Date Recovery Species Number Recovered Description Latitude Longitude Method Coho salmon 2739 17 Aug Mouth of Indian 62.7853 -149.6582 Field Crews 4917 28 Aug Whiskers Creek 62.3747 -150.1690 Field Crews 2721 8 Aug Sunshine 62.1850 -150.1410 Angler 2732 15 Aug Lake Creek (Yentna)61.9440 -150.9130 Angler 2711 20 Aug Clear Creek 62.4950 -149.8770 Angler 1 Recovery coordinates are estimates, based on the site description. Recovery Location1 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 June 2014 PART A - APPENDIX F: TRACKING HISTORIES OF CHINOOK SALMON ABOVE IMPEDIMENT 3 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix F – Page 1 June 2014 Table F-1. Summary of migration and spawning behavior for three radio-tagged Chinook salmon after they passed Impediment 3, 2013. Max Max Max Max Total Tag Capture METF Spawning First Last Upstream Upstream Downstream Downstream Live Number Date (cm)Sex Area Live Live Days Location Distance Days Location Distance Days Days1 241 21-Jun 64 Undetermined Unknown -30-Aug -Near headwater --Below Talkeetna --45 272 23-Jun 64 Undetermined Devils 30-Jul 12-Aug 14 Devils Creek 0 0 Devils Creek 0 0 13 395 26-Jun 65 Undetermined Tsesena 22-Jul 01-Aug 11 near Deadman Creek 6.5 1 Tsusena Creek 0 0 19 Average 26-Jul 14-Aug 12.5 3.25 0.5 0 0 25.7 1 Total days the fish was alive after passing Impediment 3 (accounts for the 1 day that tags must be motionless before going into mortality mode). Notes: Distances are in kilometers (1 km = 0.62 mi) Spawning Period Explorations Before Spawning Downstream After Spawning INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix F – Page 2 June 2014 Figure F-1. Tracking history of a radio-tagged Chinook salmon (tag #241) that was detected above Impediment 3, 2013. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix F – Page 3 June 2014 Figure F-2. Tracking history of a radio-tagged Chinook salmon (tag #272) that was detected above Impediment 3, 2013. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix F – Page 4 June 2014 Figure F-3. Tracking history of a radio-tagged Chinook salmon (tag #395) that was detected above Impediment 3, 2013. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 June 2014 PART A - APPENDIX G: FEASIBILITY STUDY ASSESSING FISH COUNTS WITH SONAR IN WATANA CANYON, 2013 INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix G – Page 1 June 2014 1. INTRODUCTION The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) has selected a site for the proposed development of a hydroelectric dam within Watana Canyon on the Upper Susitna River. The degree to which fish, in particular adult salmon, use this area as a migration corridor is currently not well understood. Reliable estimates of the number of fish that migrate through Watana Canyon will help describe the potential impacts on fishery resources of constructing and operating a hydropower project. Additionally, information regarding fish use of Watana Canyon as a migration corridor will inform discussions concerning fish passage facilities at the hydropower project. In its study plan determination (SPD), the FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) requested that AEA modify Study 9.7 to include an evaluation of the future feasibility of counting fish at or near the Watana Dam site as follows (FERC 2013, page B-20): “We recommend the study be modified to require AEA to include in the initial study report an evaluation, based on site-specific data obtained during the 2013 study season, of the feasibility of putting in a weir or sonar counting station at or near the dam site during the 2014 study season to provide an accurate count of any resident or anadromous fish that are successfully able to migrate upstream through Devils Canyon into the project area.” Assessing the potential to accurately count fish requires a number of different considerations, including physical site characteristics, the ability to effectively operate gear, and whether the counts are indices, estimates, or a complete census. The life history and behavior of each fish species can further affect these considerations – resident fish, for example, can migrate both upstream and downstream, and thus may require a different study design than salmon migrating only upstream. AEA followed up on FERC’s recommendation by evaluating the feasibility of using sonar to detect and count fish in the Watana Canyon area in July of 2013. AEA chose multi-beam imaging sonar because it provided the highest likelihood of being able to observe fish behavior and movement, and, to a lesser extent identify species or species groups. As stated in Section 4.3.4, a weir was deemed physically impossible due to the high volume and variability of water flow (summer flows in Watana Canyon range from about 15,000 to over 40,000 cfs), depth, and complex bathymetry. This report describes the site feasibility study in July of 2013, evaluates the ability to count fish given site conditions and other considerations, and describes the plans for 2014. 1.1. Study Objectives The specific objectives for this feasibility study were: 1. Identify suitable deployment sites and verify that multi-beam imaging sonar can detect fish in Watana Canyon near the Watana Dam site. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix G – Page 2 June 2014 2. Combine field results with study design considerations to evaluate the potential for using sonar to accurately count fish species migrating upstream through Devils Canyon and into the Watana Canyon area. 3. Describe logistical considerations and equipment necessary to establish a monitoring station, if sonar counts of fish were determined to be feasible. 2. STUDY AREA The study area was in the Watana Canyon reach of the Susitna River near the proposed Watana Dam site, between PRM 184 and PRM 187 (Figure G-1). Lack of CIRWG land access limited study sites to places where a helicopter could land below mean high water (MHW). Additional criteria for site selection included the presence of a level area above MHW that could be used to operate electronic equipment if the site were chosen for future use, laminar water flow, a river bottom with a consistent, gradual slope, and a width narrow enough to be completely ensonified by sonar directed from shore. These latter features are usually found in straight, moderately constrained stretches of river with a gravel bottom and no bedrock outcrops. 3. METHODS The Watana Canyon reach was surveyed by helicopter on July 19, 2013 to locate potential sites for installing an Adaptive Resolution Imaging Sonar (ARIS) system to monitor fish. Three sites were chosen, each of which was evaluated for one day from July 20–23 (Figure G-1). All fieldwork, including helicopter landings, was done below the MHW of the Susitna River. Each site was then assessed for overall suitability for future sonar studies. Sonar imaging was conducted using an ARIS 1200 (www.soundmetrics.com) mounted to an aluminum H-mount frame (Photo G-1). The ARIS 1200 can be operated with two different frequencies (1.2 and 0.7 megahertz [MHz]) and has a sample volume defined with a 29 degree (horizontal) by 14 degree (vertical) field of view. Maximum range for viewing fish measuring 26 in or greater in length is about 200 ft. The ARIS system consisted of a sonar head, 50 ft data transmission cable, topside switch box, Ethernet cable, Toughbook laptop computer, and portable external hard drives. The system was powered by a gasoline-powered Honda 2000 generator. Data were collected using ARIScope software in consecutive 10-minute files, and the system was typically configured to use an imaging frame rate of between four and seven frames per second. Both operational frequencies (0.7 and 1.2 MHz) were used at each site. All data were ported directly to the external hard drives, and backed up and archived to additional hard drives. Data were processed using ARISFish software (www.soundmetrics.com) to assess fish presence. Processed data were reviewed in echogram mode, which allowed entire 10-minute data files to be viewed on the computer screen with time on the X-axis and sonar range on the Y-axis. Fish present in the data were shown as echo traces. When traces were observed, the data segment containing the trace was played back in streaming data mode, which allowed direction of travel and fish length to be characterized. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix G – Page 3 June 2014 4. RESULTS 4.1. Site Characteristics The ARIS was tested on one day at each of three sites in the Watana Canyon Area, for three to five hours at each site (Table G-1; Figure G-1). The three sites were selected based on access permission and the basic shoreline criteria described above. Additional potential study sites likely existed, but were not accessible because they would have required a helicopter landing above MHW. River discharge during the July 19–23 study period decreased from 21,840 to 16,953 cfs over the four-day study period, based on data from the Tsusena Creek gauge (Figure G-2; data obtained from http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?15291700). All sites had a helicopter landing zone (LZ) below MHW, and suitable areas above MHW for a battery bank and electronics. Site locations, physical characteristics, and basic testing details are provided in Figure G-1 and Table G-1. The ARIS was deployable and operable at each site. The ARIS detected multiple species of fish at Site 1, demonstrating that Objective 1 (detection of fish in the Watana Canyon area using sonar) is technically feasible. Each site, however, presented its own set of challenges that must be addressed before Objective 2 (accurately counting fish) can be met. These challenges differ for the type of counts and the species of interest. Site 1 was near PRM 184, approximately 3 miles downstream from the proposed Watana Dam site (Photo G-2). A dry gravel beach extended 65 ft from MHW on the river right bank (looking downstream) to the water’s edge (Photo G-3). The ARIS was operated at the wetted edge of this beach on July 20 from 10:15 to 14:15, for a total of four hours. The ARIS was able to ensonify most of the water column (proportion of the water column ensonified is unknown since water depth during the time of the survey was also unknown) out to halfway across the river (98 of 196 ft). Substrate could be seen in the field of view out to 98 ft in range. The inability to see substrate beyond this indicated a change in bed slope. Along river left, velocities were high and a large boulder caused rapids. It is conceivable that the swift water could deflect upstream- moving fish to the calmer water on river right, where they would be ensonified; if so, all fish moving upstream at this site could be counted. The low frequency setting provided better resolution (more clear imagery of the substrate and water column) than did the high-resolution setting. This was likely the result of greater amounts of noise generated with the high frequency setting associated with the turbid water conditions. The low frequency setting afforded a greater signal to noise ratio than did the high frequency setting. Site 2 was just upstream of the Watana Dam site near PRM 187 (Figure G-1; Photo G-4). The river had an approximately 262 ft wetted channel at this site (Photo G-4). The ARIS was placed on the river right bank and operated on July 21 from 10:15 to 14:20, for a total of 4.08 hours. The ARIS was able to sample out to 20 m (65 ft) before the channel slope increased, based on how far substrate could be seen in the field of view (Photo G-5). As with Site 1, the low frequency setting provided better resolution than did the high frequency setting. Approximately 60 m (192 ft) of the river cross section was outside of field of view, based on substrate in the sample volume. Although the field of view was not as long as at Site 1, it may be possible to operate a second ARIS from the opposite bank at Site 2. This second ARIS would need to have a field of view of approximately 200 ft to ensonify all potential fish; this distance is within the INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix G – Page 4 June 2014 specifications of the ARIS, but would require a favorable river bed topography (flat to gradually sloping). Site 3 was located at PRM 187.8 (Figure G-1; Photo G-6). The wetted channel was approximately 134 ft wide (Photo G-6). The ARIS was operated from the river left bank on July 22 from 11:03 to 14:10, for a total of 3.12 hours. The ARIS was able to see the river bottom for only 4 m (13 ft) before the channel slope increased. As at Site 2, ensonification of the river channel would require a second ARIS unit operated from river left, with a gradual enough bed slope to allow a field of view of approximately 120 ft. 4.2. Detection of Fish with Sonar Fish were detected at Site 1, where the imagery showed promise for counting fish if suitable locations or designs can be identified. At Site 1, three distinct large fish greater than 80 cm (31 in) in estimated total length passed between 12 m (39 ft) and 16 m (52 ft) from shore all moving upstream (e.g., Figure G-3). Based on their body length it is likely these fish were Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Other fish (typically five to eight individuals) from 20 cm (7 in) to 40 cm (15 in) in total length were observed milling within the sonar sample volume for the entire data collection period. Most of the milling fish were between 3 m (9 ft) and 12 m (39 ft) from shore. Thirty fish were caught by angling in the vicinity of this site in an attempt to identify the ensonified fish; all thirty were Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus. No fish were observed in the sonar beyond a sonar range of 16 m (52 ft). 4.3. Accurate Counts of Fish The entire river channel could not be ensonified at any of the three sites using a single ARIS unit. Other forms of sonar (such as non-imaging) would also be limited by the bed slope bathymetry at these sites. The three main options for using sonar to attain fish counts appear to be (1) finding another site where the river bed slopes more gradually than at the sites tested in 2013, (2) to use multiple ARISs in combination at one site (with overlapping fields of view), or (3) to use ARIS in combination with another method such as mark recapture. Adult Chinook salmon can probably be distinguished from other species due to their longer body length; all other fishes would need to be actively sampled to identify to species. If complete counts of fishes are not required, indices could be developed for some or all fish. The development of indices would be most consistent at Site 1 due to the high water velocities offshore and the likelihood that fish would be more bank-oriented, and thus more likely to be ensonified. 5. DISCUSSION 5.1. Site Feasibility The three sites tested in this study were the most promising of those where access was permitted. It is likely that there are other equally good or superior sites that would be feasible if access above the MHW in the Watana Canyon reach was permitted by landowners. The ARIS 1200 has a maximum range of about 200 ft for detection of fish less than 26 inches in length, but in a riverine application such as the Susitna River in Watana Canyon, the bottom profile may limit this range. None of the three sites tested had suitable underwater bed slopes for verifying distances beyond 98 ft (substrate was clearly seen up to this point). Substrate visibility is a INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix G – Page 5 June 2014 critical feature of sonar monitoring sites to ensure that low-lying channels or troughs are not present in the substrate where fish might move undetected by the sonar. Based on the testing in 2013, the inability to ensonify the entire river width in the Watana Canyon area can be broken down into the following short list of potential solutions: 1. Find an alternate site with a bed slope and streamside features suitable for using a single ARIS to ensonify the entire river. This seems unlikely, given the river’s width. 2. Find a site in which two ARIS units operated from opposite banks can have overlapping fields of view. This seems more likely to be feasible. 3. Demonstrate at Site 1 (or elsewhere) that the rapid on river left pushes upstream- migrating fish to river right, into the beam of an ARIS operated from that shore. This has potential and may be supported by published studies from elsewhere and by on-site water velocity measurements, but could remain vulnerable to changes in water levels during low-flow periods. In addition to being able to ensonify the desired river width, a suitable site will also have to be accessible by air (i.e., a viable LZ), and have an area above MHW able to house the equipment (two areas if using the ARIS on opposite banks). 5.2. Fish Image Detection Within the field of view, the ARIS was able to effectively detect fish (Site 1). The ARIS was able to document fish movement direction, another essential component. Importantly, some targets were distinctly larger than others, indicating that adult Chinook salmon greater than 20 in METF length can be differentiated by their larger body size from resident fish species. This differentiation relies on the assumption that Chinook salmon are the only salmon species present above Devils Canyon. All historic fish data as well as fish sampling and radio telemetry studies conducted by AEA in 2012 and 2013 indicate that this assumption is accurate. The ARIS will not be able to differentiate among most other fish species. ARIS may be able to identify the group of species with anguilliform (sinuous) swimming motions, such as burbot Lota lota and Arctic lamprey Lethenteron camtschaticum and Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentate. While burbot are known to be present in the Upper River, lamprey species have not been documented above Devils Canyon. The common approach in mixed species environments is to use direct capture methods to apportion species, and apply this apportionment to sonar counts to yield an estimate of the total number of each fish species present (e.g., Westerman and Willette 2013). To summarize, it is likely that the ARIS alone can provide counts of Chinook salmon larger than 20 inches; for most other fish, ARIS images will need to be paired with direct capture sampling to determine species composition. Finally, future sonar work will also need to assess the detectability of fish at range to properly calibrate counts. The detectability of fish will likely decline with distance from the sonar; there are ways to quantify this phenomenon, usually involving multiple sonar units at different ranges from shore. Direct capture sampling to estimate the species composition of fish besides Chinook salmon is a common need in sonar studies; potential direct capture sampling methods to use in Watana Canyon include beach seining and drift or set gillnet sampling. Sampling could be used INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix G – Page 6 June 2014 periodically (e.g., daily or weekly) throughout the sonar operation period. Once apportioned to species, sonar counts of anadromous fish could be developed for corresponding time periods. 5.3. Using Sonar to Accurately Count Fish It is possible the ARIS can be used to generate counts of adult salmon in Watana Canyon, but it is unlikely to be feasible for resident fish for several reasons. First, there would be no effective way to count resident fish holding below or above the sonar site. Second, a resident fish would only be counted if it migrated past the sonar, and the migration times of various species of resident fish are temporally separated such that operation of the sonar would be required year- round. Freeze-up in the fall would limit the operational period of the sonar. Neither of these limitations applies to adult salmon because they all originate from downstream, and because the possible migration upstream would be during the open water period. Accurate (i.e., unbiased) counts of fish would require either a complete census or some means of estimation. A complete census would require ensonifying the entire river width, as described in Section 5.1. The two best options for counting Chinook salmon in Watana Canyon are to find a place where ARIS can cover the entire river channel, or to demonstrate that swift-moving water such as the rapids at Site 1 push upstream-moving fish into a part of the channel that can be entirely ensonified. This latter approach would require testing of the assumption that the rapids pose a velocity barrier under all relevant flow conditions. An estimate would require subsampling part of the river, but must be paired with other information to know how the number of fish in the sub-sample (e.g., the ensonified area) represents the entire fish population. Two common approaches to estimation are to expand the sub-sample counts by a quantity thought to represent the unsampled area, and to use any of several forms of mark-recapture methods. Both approaches have been used extensively to count fish in riverine applications similar to Watana Canyon. Both hold promise, but are sufficiently complicated that a full discussion is beyond the scope of this report. In each case, the species apportionment sampling discussed in Section 5.2 would still be needed (except for large Chinook salmon). The mark-recapture approach for estimating total fish abundance is possible because salmon are already being marked downstream with radio tags as part of the Escapement Study (Study 9.7). At Watana Canyon, a combination of telemetry receivers, the ARIS, and both marked and unmarked salmon would be used to assess sonar efficiency and ultimately expand sonar counts to estimate total abundance. This is most feasible with relatively low numbers of salmon passing the site each hour. Further simplifying this approach, it is likely that only Chinook salmon migrate through Watana Canyon en route to spawning destinations. Juvenile and adult Chinook salmon are the only salmon species confirmed to be in the Upper River by historic studies, ADF&G studies and AEA’s extensive radio tagging and fish sampling studies conducted in 2012 and 2013. If other salmon species migrate through Watana Canyon, then alternate sampling methods would be needed to apportion fish counts to species. One alternative to both complete counts and estimates of salmon abundance is to provide an index over time and a minimum estimate of salmon abundance; this would be more feasible, and may be sufficient to meet the intent of the FERC recommendation. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix G – Page 7 June 2014 5.4. Using Fish Counts at Watana Canyon to Estimate Fish Migrating Through Devils Canyon Part of FERC’s recommendation was that AEA evaluate the ability to use the Watana Canyon site(s) to count fish able to migrate up through Devils Canyon. Taken literally, this would require counting fish, by species, migrating through Devils Canyon and then reaching Watana Canyon. This would also require adjusting for additions and subtractions (e.g., due to spawning and/or movement between tributaries and the mainstem river), and would be beyond the scope of a weir or sonar site at Watana Canyon alone. For resident fish, a sonar monitoring station located in Watana Canyon can only be used to assess numbers of resident fish that use the reach; it would not be able to assess whether these fish originated from above or below Devils Canyon. 5.5. Logistical Needs for Future Work The 2013 sonar site selections and assessments were limited to locations with a gravel bar to accommodate a helicopter landing and sonar operation below MHW during a 4-day period. Other sites likely exist within the area of interest, but further assessment requires permission for access above MHW A two-person crew would be needed to set up, operate and maintain the monitoring station(s). Daily site visits by helicopter (approximately 15 minutes each way) would be required to maintain the sonar system(s), switch out and backup external hard drives and conduct direct capture sampling. Each ARIS system (sonar head, data transmission cable, sonar switch box, laptop computer, and multiple portable external hard drives), fabricated aluminum mount, also requires twelve 6-volt AGM sealed batteries, a 2,000-Watt gas generator and a 15-gallon fuel containment unit housed above the MHW mark. A sheltered platform is needed to house the electronic equipment. A small boat with an outboard motor would be necessary to tend and maintain the systems at both sites and conduct the direct capture sampling. 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The ARIS technology could be used to count fish in Watana Canyon, but providing an accurate count for Chinook salmon is more feasible and likely to be more effective than providing counts for other species. Providing an accurate count will require more assessment to find a site where the entire river channel slopes gradually enough to be ensonified; alternatively, an area where high water velocity pushes fish to a part of the river that can be ensonified would work as well. If other salmon species are present in Watana Canyon, active sampling methods would be needed to apportion fish counts to species. Although commonly done in other riverine sonar applications for salmon, this species apportionment would require a substantial amount of additional effort. In conclusion, sonar counts of fish in Watana Canyon are much more feasible for Chinook salmon than for other anadromous or resident fish species. During the next study year, implementation in late June or early July may enable a sonar unit to count Chinook salmon in mid-to late July and early August, when the Chinook salmon run presumably passes through Watana Canyon. The plan for project implementation in June of the next study year is as follows: INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix G – Page 8 June 2014 1. Determine whether the scope of fish counts can be limited to index and minimum counts, and whether the target species can be limited to Chinook salmon. Such limitations would then affect feasibility plans and sonar sampling design. 2. Clarify whether the location in Watana Canyon matters – e.g., upstream or downstream of the proposed dam site and major tributaries such as Tsusena Creek. 3. Obtain land access to more sites. 4. Perform aerial reconnaissance of the study area in early June, when water levels are low and provide the best view of channel configuration. From these, determine whether to attempt ensonification of the entire channel or a portion. 5. Measure water velocity at key site/sites in July to bolster any assumptions about fish use of offshore areas beyond any potential reach of the sonar. 6. Mobilize a crew and gear near the site, using daily site visits through the migration period. Table G-1. Characteristics of three sites surveyed with ARIS in July, 2013. Site Date Lat Long River Discharge (cfs) Wetted Channel Width (ft) Maximum Field of View (ft) Hours of Video Collected Fish Detected 1 20-Jul 62.81917 -148.64011 21,837 196 98 4.00 yes 2 21-Jul 62.82312 -148.53665 21,312 257 65 4.08 no 3 22-Jul 62.82582 -148.52315 18,634 134 13 3.12 no INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix G – Page 9 June 2014 Figure G-1. Location of study sites in the Watana Canyon reach of the Susitna River for evaluating feasibility of sonar for counting fish, July, 2013. Site 1 is located near PRM 184 and the dam site is located near PRM 187.1. Flow is from right to left. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix G – Page 10 June 2014 Figure G-2. Susitna River discharge at the US Geological Survey (USGS) gauge at Tsusena Creek for the period July 1 through August 31, 2013. The dates when the sonar feasibility study was conducted are shown with the gray column. 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 7/1 7/7 7/13 7/19 7/25 7/31 8/6 8/12 8/18 8/24 8/30Discharge (cfs)Date (m/d) INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix G – Page 11 June 2014 Figure G-3. Series of still images (top left to right then bottom left to right) that show an adult Chinook salmon (inside the white circles) migrating through the ARIS sonar sample volume in Watana Canyon at Site 1 on July 20, 2013. Flow is from left to right. The fish is estimated to be 95 cm (37 in) TL. The white objects in the foreground are cobble on the river substrate. Note range bands are shown in 1-m (3.3 ft) increments. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix G – Page 12 June 2014 Photo G-1. Aluminum H-mount frame used to deploy the ARIS 1200 sonar at Site 1 during the Watana Canyon sonar feasibility study, July, 2013. Photo G-2. Aerial view of Site 1 from the sonar feasibility study, July 22, 2013. Direction of river flow is from bottom to top of the photo. A conceptual depiction of ARIS sonar sampling area is shown with black triangle; actual sample volume is an expanding trapezoid with the longest axis in the upstream-downstream direction. River discharge at the time the photograph was taken was 18,634 cfs at the Tsusena Creek gage. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix G – Page 13 June 2014 Photo G-3. Ortho-rectified aerial photograph of Site 1 assessed for sonar monitoring suitability in the Watana Canyon reach of the Susitna River, July, 2013. The line projecting from shore depicts the effective range (30 m [98 ft]) of the sonar tested during the feasibility study. Photo G-4. Aerial view of Site 2 of the sonar feasibility study, July, 2013. Direction of river flow is from bottom to top of the photo. A conceptual depiction of ARIS sonar sampling area is shown with black triangle; actual sample volume is an expanding trapezoid with the longest axis in the upstream-downstream direction. River discharge at the time the photograph was taken was 21,313 cfs at the Tsusena Creek gage. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix G – Page 14 June 2014 Photo G-5. Ortho-rectified aerial photographs of Site 2 assessed for sonar monitoring suitability in the Watana Canyon reach of the Susitna River, 2013. The line projecting from the sample site location depicts the effective range (20 m [65 ft]) of the sonar tested during the feasibility study. Photo G-6. Ortho-rectified aerial photographs of Site 3 assessed for sonar monitoring suitability in the Watana Canyon reach of the Susitna River, 2013. The line projecting from the sample site location depicts the effective range (4 m [13 ft]) of the sonar tested during the feasibility study. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 June 2014 PART A - APPENDIX H: ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES FOR CHINOOK, PINK, AND CHUM SALMON ABOVE CURRY AND CHINOOK SALMON ABOVE DEVILS CANYON INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix H – Page 1 June 2014 Table H-1. Estimated observer efficiencies during aerial spawner surveys for Chinook salmon conducted by AEA and ADF&G upstream of the Indian River weir on July 25, 2013. AEA ADF&G AEA ADF&G 1,094 784 363 281 46.3 35.8 Notes: a On July 25, 71.7 percent (43 of 60) of all radio-tagged Chinook salmon last detected upstream of the weir were emitting a 'live' signal. Number of Fish Counted Above the Weir During Aerial Spawner Survey Estimated Observer Efficiency (%)Net Passage at the Weir (July 25) Estimated Number of Live Fish Above Weir a INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix H – Page 2 June 2014 Table H-2. Recapture matrix for large Chinook salmon radio-tagged at the Middle River fishwheels, and inspected for tags at the Indian River weir, 2013. Not Recapture 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Recaptured Recaptured Marked a Rate 25 2 2 1 1 6 49 55 0.109 26 1 2 20 4 1 28 169 197 0.142 27 2 11 12 1 2 28 115 143 0.196 28 3 2 5 30 35 0.143 29 1 1 1 1 4 5 9 0.444 30 0 5 5 0.000 31 1 1 0 1 1.000 32 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 Marked 3 6 32 21 4 5 1 0 0 72 373 445 0.162 Unmarked 11 139 386 214 182 69 49 13 2 1,065 Inspected 14 145 418 235 186 74 50 13 2 1,137 Mark rate 0.214 0.041 0.077 0.089 0.022 0.068 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.063 Notes: Bold numbers were used in contingency table tests (Chi-square) to evaluate whether mark and recapture rates varied by week. Adjacent shaded cells were pooled. Period of Recapture (Statistical Week)Period of Marking (Statistical Week) a 91 of the 536 large Chinook salmon released at the Middle River fishwheels were never detected at or above the Middle River Gateway fixed station; and these fish were censored from the marked sample. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix H – Page 3 June 2014 Table H-3. Estimated abundance of large Chinook, chum, and pink salmon above the Middle River Gateway fixed station (PRM 130.1), 2013. Large Chinook Salmon Parameters/Statistics Radio Tags Radio Tags Spaghetti Tags All Tags Radio Tags Spaghetti Tags All Tags Tags Released at Curry 536 201 1,962 2,163 200 9,108 9,308 Tags that Entered the Study Area (M) a 445 149 1,365 1,514 151 6,736 6,887 Inspected at the Indian River Weir (C)1,137 12,906 12,906 12,906 37,181 Tagged Fish Recaptured at the Weir (R)72 51 491 542 35 1,975 2,010 Abundance Estimate (N) b 6,952 37,231 35,834 36,010 156,990 126,768 127,353 Standard Error (SE)782 5,104 1,583 1,511 25,797 2,774 2,761 Lower 95% Confidence Limit 5,536 28,448 32,807 33,108 113,760 121,301 121,909 Upper 95% Confidence Limit 8,724 48,660 39,140 39,166 216,041 132,480 133,041 Notes: b For chum and pink salmon, abundance estimates were generated using radio- and spaghetti-tagged fish separately, as well as by pooling both tag types. Chum Salmon Pink Salmon a Radio-tagged fish not detected at or above the Middle River Gateway fixed station were censored from the marked sample (M). The weekly proportions of radio-tagged chum and pink salmon censored from the marked sample were used to estimate the number of spaghetti-tagged fish that entered the study area. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix H – Page 4 June 2014 Table H-4. Recapture matrix for chum salmon radio-tagged at the Middle River fishwheels and inspected for tags at the Indian River weir, 2013. Not Recapture 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Recaptured Recaptured Marked a Rate 25 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 28 0 1 1 0.000 29 0 2 2 0.000 30 1 6 7 1 15 12 27 0.556 31 2 21 3 1 27 50 77 0.351 32 2 5 1 8 23 31 0.258 33 1 1 8 9 0.111 34 0 2 2 0.000 Marked 0 0 0 0 1 8 30 9 3 51 98 149 0.342 Unmarked 0 0 0 11 244 4550 4801 2498 751 12,855 Inspected 0 0 0 11 245 4558 4831 2507 754 12,906 Mark rate 0.000 0.004 0.002 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.004 Notes: Bold numbers were used in contingency table tests (Chi-square) to evaluate whether mark and recapture rates varied by week. Adjacent shaded cells were pooled. Period of Marking (Statistical Week) Period of Recapture (Statistical Week) a 51 of the 201 radio-tagged chum salmon released at the Middle River fishwheels were never detected at or above the Middle River Gateway fixed station; and these fish were censored from the marked sample. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix H – Page 5 June 2014 Table H-5. Recapture matrix for pink salmon radio-tagged at the Middle River fishwheels and inspected for tags at the Indian River weir, 2013. Not Recapture 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Recaptured Recaptured Marked a Rate 25 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 28 0 2 2 0.000 29 1 1 2 3 0.333 30 13 9 22 52 74 0.297 31 6 3 1 10 47 57 0.175 32 2 2 9 11 0.182 33 0 4 4 0.000 34 0 0 0 Marked 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 14 1 35 116 151 0.232 Unmarked 0 0 0 1 67 5124 21667 8390 1897 37,146 Inspected 0 0 0 1 67 5124 21687 8404 1898 37,181 Mark rate 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 Notes: Bold numbers were used in contingency table tests (Chi-square) to evaluate whether mark and recapture rates varied by week. Adjacent shaded cells were pooled. Period of Marking (Statistical Week) Period of Recapture (Statistical Week) a 49 of the 200 radio-tagged pink salmon released at the Middle River fishwheels were never detected at or above the Middle River Gateway fixed station; and these fish were censored from the marked sample. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 June 2014 PART A - APPENDIX I: ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES FOR CHINOOK SALMON IN THE SUSITNA RIVER DRAINAGE AND COHO SALMON ABOVE THE YENTNA RIVER Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix I – Page 1 June 2014 1. INTRODUCTION Additional data analyses were required to estimate the Chinook salmon escapement to the entire Susitna River and the coho salmon escapement in the Susitna River above the Yentna River confluence, leading to the Results and Discussion for these objectives being presented separately in this appendix. 1.1. Study Objective From ISR 9.7, Section 2, Objective 8: 8) Estimate the system-wide Chinook salmon escapement to the entire Susitna River, the coho salmon escapement to the Susitna River above the confluence with the Yentna River, and the distribution of Chinook, coho, and pink salmon among tributaries of the Susitna River (upstream of Yentna River confluence) in 2013 and 2014. 2. STUDY AREA See ISR 9.7, Section 3. 3. METHODS See ISR 9.7, Section 4.8. 4. RESULTS 4.1. Estimated Abundance 4.1.1. Chinook Salmon A total of 2,049 Chinook salmon were captured in drift gillnets and two fishwheels at the lower mainstem Susitna River tagging site (PRM 34) from June 4 to August 15, 2013. Radio tags were deployed on 699 Chinook salmon measuring 50 cm METF or greater. Based on observations made at fixed tracking stations and using aerial radio-telemetry, 568 of these radio-tagged fish moved upstream and remained upstream of the tagging site, comprising the first event in the mark-recapture experiment. The remaining 131 radio-tagged Chinook salmon were not used in the experiment, as they migrated to the Yentna River drainage or the Susitna River below PRM 34, were taken by anglers prior to spawning, possibly regurgitated the radio tag, possibly failed to migrate due to handling stress, or while unlikely, were above the tagging site and not detected. Second event sampling was conducted at weirs on Deshka River and Montana Creek. A total of 18,531 Chinook salmon were counted through the Deshka River weir from June 9 to September 2, 2013, with 18,003 of these fish estimated to be 50 cm METF or greater. At the Montana Creek weir, 2,015 Chinook salmon were counted from July 8 to August 27, of which 1,949 were estimated to be 50 cm METF or greater. Second event sampling was also conducted at a site on the Chulitna River using ARIS sonar. However, estimates of Chinook salmon passage and length composition from the sonar data were not available as of this ISR, so these data were not INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix I – Page 2 June 2014 used to compute the estimates. The estimated numbers of Chinook salmon measuring 50 cm METF or greater that passed the Deshka River and Montana Creek weirs comprise the second event of the mark-recapture experiment. Based on observations made at fixed tracking stations and using aerial radio-telemetry, 148 radio-tagged Chinook salmon passed the Deshka River weir and were assumed to have spawned above the weir. Similarly, 11 radio-tagged Chinook salmon passed the Montana Creek weir and were assumed to have spawned above the weir. These 159 fish comprise the recaptured fish for the mark-recapture experiment. Tests for size biased sampling were conducted using the KS two-sample test (Cleary et al. 2013; Appendix A). The test for the second sampling event provided significant evidence of size biased sampling (p < 0.001; Figure I-1). The test for the first event using data from fish passing the Deshka River weir provided significant evidence of size biased sampling (p < 0.001; Figure I-2). A similar test for first event using data from fish passing the Montana Creek weir provided no evidence of size biased sampling (p = 0.663; Figure I-3). Based on these test results, the data were stratified into three size strata: 50.0–65.9 cm METF, 66.0–77.4 cm METF, and 77.5 cm METF or greater. Length data were not available for eight radio-tagged fish caught with gillnet gear in the first event sample, one each of which was recaptured at the Montana Creek and Deshka River weir sites. These fish were allocated among the three size strata based on the size distribution of the 84 known length fish captured in gillnets in the first event sample. Tests for temporal and/or spatial variation in probability of capture were conducted within each of the three size strata (Cleary et al. 2013). Tests for variation in probability of capture during the first event were only approximate, because the number of fish inspected for marks during second event sampling within each stratum was not known, but was estimated using size composition data collected at each weir. For the 50.0–65.9 cm METF stratum, significant variation in probability of capture was detected for the second sampling event on a spatial scale (p = 0.003; Table I-1a) but not on a temporal scale (p = 0.548; Table I-1b). No significant variation in probability of capture was detected for the first sampling event on either a spatial scale (p = 0.887; Table I-1c) or a temporal scale (p = 0.907, p = 0.347; Tables I-1e,f, respectively). These results indicate that the Chapman (1951) model is appropriate for estimating abundance for the 50.0–65.9 cm METF stratum. For the 66.0–77.4 cm METF stratum, significant variation in probability of capture was detected for the second sampling event on a spatial scale (p = 0.023; Table I-2a) but not on a temporal scale (p = 0.786; Table I-2b). Significant variation in probability of capture was detected for the first sampling event on a spatial scale (p = 0.011; Table I-2c) but not on a temporal scale (p = 0.127; Table I-2d). However, given the differences in run timing of fish past the Deshka River vs Montana Creek weirs, significant results from the test reported in Table I-2c (and Tables I-1c and I-3c) may well indicate temporal variation instead of or in addition to spatial variation in probability of capture during the marking event. These results indicate that the partially stratified model described by Darroch (1961) is necessary for estimating abundance for the 660– 774 mm METF stratum. Attempts to fit a Darroch-type model that reflected the variation in probability of capture detected during both sampling events were unsuccessful. As a result, an INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix I – Page 3 June 2014 estimate of abundance based on the Chapman (1951) model is reported and these results are assumed to be biased to an unknown degree. For the 77.5 cm METF or greater stratum, no significant variation in probability of capture was detected for the second sampling event on a spatial scale (p = 0.068; Table I-3a) or on a temporal scale (p = 0.596; Table I-3b). No significant variation in probability of capture was detected for the first sampling event on either a spatial scale (p = 0.347; Table I-3c) or a temporal scale (p = 0.202, p = 0.947; Tables I-3d, e). These results indicate that the Chapman (1951) model is appropriate for estimating abundance for the 77.5 cm METF or greater stratum. Abundance for each stratum was estimated using the Chapman (1951) model with variances estimated using a bootstrapping approach (Efron and Tibshirani 1993), adapting the methods described by Buckland and Garthwaite (1991) to this experimental design. Within each size stratum, the probability that a marked fish was recaptured was modeled as a binomial process with observed numbers of fish marked and recaptured as model parameters. For each of the two weir sites, the numbers of fish per strata inspected for marks was modeled as a multinomial process with total observed passage at the weir and the empirical size distribution data collected at each weir used to define model parameters. The allocation of the eight fish of unknown length among size strata was modeled as a multinomial process with total number of known length fish caught with gillnet and the size distribution of these fish used to define model parameters. One million bootstrap samples were generated. Confidence intervals reported are percentiles of the bootstrap distributions of estimated parameters (Table I-4). The abundance of Chinook salmon measuring 50 cm METF or greater spawning in the Susitna River above the Lower River mainstem tagging site in 2013 is estimated to be 89,463 (SE = 9,523). 4.1.2. Coho Salmon A total of 3,278 coho salmon were captured in two fishwheels at the lower mainstem Susitna River tagging site from June 4 to August 15, 2013. Radio tags were deployed on 596 coho salmon measuring 40 cm METF or greater. Based on observations made at fixed tracking stations and using aerial radio-telemetry, 411 of these radio-tagged fish moved upstream and remained upstream of the tagging site, comprising the first event in the mark-recapture experiment. The remaining 185 radio-tagged coho salmon were not used in the experiment, as they migrated to the Yentna River drainage or the Susitna River below PRM 34, were taken by anglers prior to spawning, possibly regurgitated the radio tag, possibly failed to migrate due to handling stress, or while unlikely, were above the tagging site and not detected. Second event sampling was conducted at weirs on Deshka River and Montana Creek. A total of 22,141 coho salmon were passed through the Deshka River weir from July 10 to September 3, 2013, with all of these fish estimated to be 40 cm METF or greater. At the Montana Creek weir, 765 coho salmon were counted from July 31 to August 20 and August 26 to September 3, all of which were estimated to be 40 cm METF or greater. The Montana Creek weir was under water and no counting was conducted from August 21 to late on August 26. The estimated numbers of coho salmon 40 cm METF or greater passing the Deshka River and Montana Creek weirs comprise the second event of this mark-recapture experiment. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix I – Page 4 June 2014 Based on observations made at fixed tracking stations and using aerial radio-telemetry, 67 radio- tagged coho salmon passed the Deshka River weir when the weir was operational and were assumed to have spawned above that site. Similarly seven radio-tagged coho salmon passed the Montana Creek weir when the weir was operational and spawned above that site. These 74 fish comprise the recaptured fish for the mark-recapture experiment. Tests for size biased sampling were conducted using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) two-sample test (Cleary et al. 2013). The test for the second sampling event provided no evidence of size biased sampling (p = 0.754; Figure I-4). The test for the first event using data from fish passing the Deshka River weir provided significant evidence of size biased sampling (p < 0.001; Figure I-5). A similar test for first event using data from fish passing the Montana Creek weir also provided significant evidence of size biased sampling (p = 0.005; Figure I-6). These test results indicate that no stratification by size is necessary to provide an overall estimate of abundance. However, due to the size biased sampling detected during the marking event it was necessary to stratify these data in order to provide the necessary weights for radio-tagged fish to provide unbiased estimates of spawning distribution. Therefore, the data were stratified into three size strata: 40.0–47.9 cm METF, 48.0–53.4 cm METF, and 53.5 cm METF or greater. Tests for temporal and/or spatial variation in probability of capture were conducted within each of the three size strata (Cleary et al. 2013). Tests for variation in probability of capture during the first event were only approximate, because the number of fish inspected for marks during second event sampling within each stratum was not known, but was estimated using size composition data collected at each weir. For the 40.0–47.9 cm METF stratum, no significant variation in probability of capture was detected for the second sampling event on a spatial scale (p = 0.607; Table I-6a) or on a temporal scale (p = 0.757; Table I-6b). Significant variation in probability of capture was detected for the first sampling event on a spatial scale (p = 0.002; Table I-6c) but not on a temporal scale (p = 0.151, p = 0.273; Table I-6e, f, respectively). However, given the differences in run timing of fish past the Deshka River vs Montana Creek weirs, significant results from the test reported in Table I-6c (and Tables I-7c and I-8c) may well indicate temporal variation instead of or in addition spatial variation in probability of capture during the marking event. These results indicate that the Chapman (1951) model is appropriate for estimating abundance for the 40.0– 47.9 cm METF stratum. For the 48.0–53.4 cm METF stratum, significant variation in probability of capture was detected for the second sampling event on a spatial scale (p = 0.005; Table I-7a) but not on a temporal scale (p = 0.215; Table I-7b). No significant variation in probability of capture was detected for the first sampling event on a spatial scale (p = 0.167; Table I-7c) or on a temporal scale (p = 0.785; Table I-7d). These results indicate that the Chapman (1951) model is appropriate for estimating abundance for the 48.0–53.4 cm METF stratum. For the 53.5 cm METF or greater stratum, no significant variation in probability of capture was detected for the second sampling event on either a spatial scale (p = 0.341; Table I-8a) or on a temporal scale (p = 0.296; Table I-8b). No significant variation in probability of capture was detected for the first sampling event on a spatial scale (p = 0.476; Table I-8c) or on a temporal INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix I – Page 5 June 2014 scale (p = 0.081; Table I-8e). These results indicate that the Chapman (1951) model is appropriate for estimating abundance for the 53.5 cm METF or greater stratum. Abundance for each stratum was estimated using the Chapman (1951) model with variances estimated using a bootstrapping approach (Efron and Tibshirani 1993), adapting the methods described by Buckland and Garthwaite (1991) to this experimental design. Within each size stratum, the probability that a marked fish was recaptured was modeled as a binomial process with observed numbers of fish marked and recaptured as model parameters. For each of the two weir sites, the numbers of fish per strata inspected for marks was modeled as a multinomial process with total observed passage at the weir and the empirical size distribution data collected at each weir used to define model parameters. One million bootstrap samples were generated. Confidence intervals reported are percentiles of the bootstrap distributions of estimated parameters (Table I-9). The abundance of coho salmon measuring 40 cm METF or greater spawning in the Susitna River above the mainstem tagging site in 2013 is estimated to be 130,026 (SE = 24,342). 4.2. Estimated Distribution of Spawning Salmon 4.2.1. Chinook Salmon Results from the mark-recapture experiment indicate that radio tags were not deployed in Chinook salmon proportional to the size distribution of fish in the population. To estimate abundance of spawning salmon in different tributaries within the mainstem Susitna River drainage, the number of spawners among tributaries was first estimated within each size stratum. Numbers of fish by tributary within a size stratum was then calculated as the product of the proportion by tributary within size stratum and estimated abundance for that size stratum (Table I-4). Numbers of fish were then summed over size strata for each tributary (Table I-5). 4.2.2. Coho Salmon Results from the mark-recapture experiment indicate that radio tags were not deployed in coho salmon proportional to the size distribution of fish in the population. To estimate abundance of spawning salmon in different tributaries within the mainstem Susitna River drainage, the number of spawners among tributaries was first estimated within each size stratum. Numbers of fish by tributary within a size stratum was then calculated as the product of the proportion by tributary within size stratum and estimated abundance for that size stratum (Table I-9). Numbers of fish were then summed over size strata for each tributary (Table I-10). 4.2.3. Pink Salmon See ISR 9.7, Section 5.2.2.3. 5. DISCUSSION The objective to estimate the system-wide Chinook salmon escapement was not fully met, as no estimate could be produced for the Yentna River, due to the lack of any sampling at Lake Creek INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix I – Page 6 June 2014 and sonar operated at only one site, the Talachulitna River, as described in ISR 9.7, Section 4.8.1. An estimate for the Susitna River above the Yentna River was generated, although with some unknown bias. However, the bias is restricted to one size class, 66.0–77.4 cm METF, which is likely only about 11 percent of the escapement (9,482/89,463). The objective to estimate the coho salmon escapement for the Susitna River above the Yentna River was successful, as variations in probability of capture could be compensated for. The objective to estimate the distribution of the Chinook and coho escapements among the tributaries of the Susitna River above the Yentna River was successful, as knowledge of the marked fraction for each size stratum allowed adjusting for unequal marked rates to reduce bias. 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS To meet the objective to estimate the system-wide Chinook salmon escapement, sampling methods other than weir or sonar on Yentna River tributaries should be attempted, such as an additional fishwheel and gillnet site on the mainstem Yentna River. Tagging different size strata of Chinook salmon at different rates should be investigated as a way to reduce size bias. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix I – Page 7 June 2014 Table I-1. Tests for temporal and spatial variation in probability of capture for mainstem Susitna River Chinook salmon 50.0–65.9 cm METF, 2013. Event Tested Parameter a) Second eventa Gear Gillnet Fishwheel 1 west Fishwheel 2 east Marks 35 127 102 Recaptured 1 25 7 Not recaptured 34 102 95 b) Second eventb Julian day 155-160 161-164 165-180 Marks 77 98 88 Recaptured 7 14 12 Not recaptured 70 84 76 c) First eventc Weir site Deshka R Montana Cr Inspectedd 5,012 1,045 Marked 27 6 Unmarked 4,985 1,039 d) First evente Deshka weir Julian day 160-174 175-177 178-182 183-247 Inspectedd 1,876 1,311 919 905 Marked 8 8 5 5 Unmarked 1,868 1,303 914 900 e) First eventf Montana weir Julian day 169-193 194-197 198-258 Inspectedd 360 397 563 Marked 3 2 1 Unmarked 357 395 562 a Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 11.933, P = 0.003. b Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 1.203, P = 0.548. c Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 0.020, P = 0.887. d Number of fish inspected for marks is estimated. e Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 0.554, P = 0.907. f Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 2.117, P = 0.347. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix I – Page 8 June 2014 Table I-2. Tests for temporal and spatial variation in probability of capture for mainstem Susitna River Chinook salmon 66.0–77.4 cm METF, 2013. Event Tested Parameter a) Second eventa Gear Gillnet Fishwheel 1 west Fishwheel 2 east Marks 16 105 41 Recaptured 5 66 19 Not recaptured 11 39 22 b) Second eventb Julian day 155-160 161-164 165-180 Marks 51 63 74 Recaptured 30 34 39 Not recaptured 21 29 35 c) First eventc Weir site Deshka R Montana Cr Inspectedd 4,814 451 Marked 89 1 Unmarked 4,725 451 d) First evente Deshka weir Julian day 160-173 174-176 177-182 183-247 Inspectedd 1,131 1,590 1.224 869 Marked 24 19 26 20 Unmarked 1,107 1,571 1.198 849 a Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 7.505, P = 0.023. b Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 0.482, P = 0.786. c Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 6.516, P = 0.011. d Number of fish inspected for marks is estimated. e Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 5.704, P = 0.127. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix I – Page 9 June 2014 Table I-3. Tests for temporal and spatial variation in probability of capture for mainstem Susitna River Chinook salmon measuring 77.5 cm METF or greater, 2013. Event Tested Parameter a) Second eventa Gear Gillnet Fishwheel 1 west Fishwheel 2 east Marks 33 72 29 Recaptured 6 24 4 Not recaptured 27 48 25 b) Second eventb Julian day 155-160 161-164 165-180 Marks 53 49 32 Recaptured 14 14 6 Not recaptured 39 35 26 c) First eventc Weir site Deshka R Montana Cr Inspectedd 8,177 452 Marked 31 3 Unmarked 8,146 459 d) First evente Deshka weir Julian day 160-173 174-176 177-182 183-247 Inspectedd 1,922 2,700 2,079 1,477 Marked 4 8 10 9 Unmarked 1,918 2,692 2,069 1,468 e) First eventf Montana weir Julian day 169-193 194-197 198-258 Inspectedd 64 70 99 Marked 1 1 1 Unmarked 63 69 98 a Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 5.364, P = 0.068. b Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 1.036, P = 0.596. c Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 0.884, P = 0.347. d Number of fish inspected for marks is estimated. e Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 4.623, P = 0.202. f Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 0.109, P = 0.947. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix I – Page 10 June 2014 Table I-4. Estimated abundance, number of radio tags deployed, and relative weights (number of spawners per tag) used to estimate abundance within size stratum for Chinook salmon spawning upstream from the lower mainstem tagging site in the Susitna River, 2013. Size Strata Estimated Abundance Estimated SE Radio Tags Deployeda Relative Weight spawners/tag 50.0-65.9 cm METF 46,667 7,981 263 175.2 66.0-77.4 cm METF 9,482 711 161 58.3 ≥77.5 cm METF 33,315 5,239 134 242.9 a Does not include two radio-tagged fish for which final spawning locations were not determined. Table I-5. Chinook salmon spawning distributions, based on weighted abundance (Table I-4), in the mainstem Susitna River above the lower river tagging site, 2013. Estimated Abundance Intervals Location SE 95% lower 95% upper Susitna River above the mainstem tagging site 89,463 9.523 77,720 114,954 PRM 34–102.4 mainstem Susitna River a 2,432 259 2,112 3,124 Deshka River 18,469 1,573 16,643 22,801 Eastside Susitna River 16,867 1,873 14,541 21,860 Talkeetna River 24,408 3,008 20,619 32,362 PRM 102.4–153.4 mainstem Susitna River b 7,680 898 6,560 10,066 Chulitna River 19,607 2,161 16,907 25,352 a PRM 34 upstream to the Chulitna River Confluence b Chulitna River Confluence to Devils Canyon INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix I – Page 11 June 2014 Table I-6. Tests for temporal and spatial variation in probability of capture for mainstem Susitna River coho salmon 40.0–47.9 cm METF, 2013. Event Tested Parameter a) Second eventa Gear Fishwheel 1 west Fishwheel 2 east Marks 79 75 Recaptured 14 11 Not recaptured 65 64 b) Second eventb Julian day 190-203 204-207 208-232 Marks 62 40 52 Recaptured 11 5 9 Not recaptured 51 35 43 c) First eventc Weir site Deshka R Montana Cr Inspectedd 912 37 Marked 21 4 Unmarked 891 33 d) First evente Deshka weir Julian day 190-223 224 225-228 229-246 Inspectedd 100 334 157 322 Marked 3 4 7 7 Unmarked 97 330 150 315 e) First eventf Montana weir Julian day 190-231 232-246 Inspectedd 10 27 Marked 2 2 Unmarked 8 25 a Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 0.264, P = 0.607. b Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 0.558, P = 0.757. c Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 10.035, P = 0002. d Number of fish inspected for marks is estimated. e Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 5.302, P = 0.151. f Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 1.200, P = 0.273. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix I – Page 12 June 2014 Table I-7. Tests for temporal and spatial variation in probability of capture for mainstem Susitna River coho salmon 48.0–53.4 cm METF, 2013. Event Tested Parameter a) Second eventa Gear Fishwheel 1 west Fishwheel 2 east Marks 74 74 Recaptured 23 9 Not recaptured 51 65 b) Second eventb Julian day 190-207 208-211 212-232 Marks 80 24 44 Recaptured 20 2 10 Not recaptured 60 22 34 c) First eventc Weir site Deshka R Montana Cr Inspectedd 5,888 270 Marked 29 3 Unmarked 5,859 267 d) First evente Deshka weir Julian day 190-223 224 225-233 234-246 Inspectedd 643 2,159 1.908 1,178 Marked 2 12 8 7 Unmarked 641 2,147 1.900 1.171 a Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 7.815, P = 0.005. b Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 3.071, P = 0.215. c Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 1.911, P = 0.167. d Number of fish inspected for marks is estimated. e Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 1.066, P = 0.785. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix I – Page 13 June 2014 Table I-8. Tests for temporal and spatial variation in probability of capture for mainstem Susitna River coho salmon measuring 53.5 cm METF or greater, 2013. Event Tested Parameter a) Second eventa Gear Fishwheel 1 west Fishwheel 2 east Marks 59 50 Recaptured 11 6 Not recaptured 48 44 b) Second eventb Julian day 190-208 209-212 213-232 Marks 54 18 37 Recaptured 11 1 5 Not recaptured 43 17 32 c) First eventc Weir site Deshka R Montana Cr Inspectedd 15,341 458 Marked 17 0 Unmarked 15,324 458 d) First evente Deshka weir Julian day 190-224 225-233 234-246 Inspectedd 7,300 4,971 3,070 Marked 5 5 7 Unmarked 7,295 4,966 3,063 a Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 0.908, P = 0.341. b Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 2.435, P = 0.296. c Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 0.508, P = 0.476. d Number of fish inspected for marks is estimated. e Test of equal probability of capture during second event sampling: χ2 = 5.038, P = 0.081. INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix I – Page 14 June 2014 Table I-9. Estimated abundance, number of radio tags deployed, and relative weights (number of spawners per tag) used to estimate abundance within size stratum for coho salmon spawning upstream from the lower mainstem tagging site in the Susitna River, 2013. Size Strata Estimated Abundance Estimated SE Radio Tags Deployeda Relative Weight spawners/tag 40.0-47.9 cm METF 5,666 1,129 154 36.8 48.0-53.4 cm METF 27,805 4,585 147 189.1 ≥53.5 cm METF 96,556 23.880 109 885.8 a Does not include 1 radio-tagged fish for which final spawning location was not determined. Table I-10. Coho salmon spawning distributions, based on weighted abundance (Table I-9), in the mainstem Susitna River above the lower river tagging site, 2013. Estimated Abundance Intervals Location SE 95% lower 95% upper Susitna River above the mainstem tagging site 130,026 24,342 100,411 193,403 PRM 34–102.4 mainstem Susitna Rivera 31,204 6,604 23,224 48,365 Deshka River 29,215 5,386 22,629 43,231 Eastside Susitna River 11,038 1,837 8,764 15,839 Talkeetna River 13,372 2,277 10,568 19,324 PRM 102.4–153.4 mainstem Susitna Riverb 8,313 1,566 6,402 12,383 Chulitna River 36,844 6,726 28,684 54,413 a PRM 34 upstream to the Chulitna River Confluence bChulitna River Confluence to Devils Canyon INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix I – Page 15 June 2014 Figure I-1. Empirical cumulative distribution functions (ECDF) of length (in mm) of all Chinook salmon marked during first event sampling at the lower mainstem Susitna River tagging site and all recaptures during second event sampling, 2013. Note: The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test results for equal probability of capture based on METF length during second event sampling were D = 0.272, P < 0.001. 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100Cumulative Relative Frequency Length METF - D = 0.272, p < 0.001 ECDF - Marks vs. Recaptures Marks (560) Recaptures (157) INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix I – Page 16 June 2014 Figure I-2. Empirical cumulative distribution functions (ECDF) of length (in mm) of Chinook salmon inspected for marks and all recaptured salmon during second event sampling at the Deshka River weir, 2013. Note: The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test results for equal probability of capture based on METF length during first event sampling were D = 0.243, P < 0.001. 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100Cumulative Relative Frequency Length METF - D = 0.243, p < 0.001 ECDF - Deshka Captures vs. Recaptures Captures (273) Recaptures (147) INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix I – Page 17 June 2014 Figure I-3. Empirical cumulative distribution functions (ECDF) of length (in mm) of Chinook salmon inspected for marks and all recaptured salmon during second event sampling at the Montana Creek weir, 2013. Note: The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test results for equal probability of capture based on METF length during first event sampling were D = 0.233, P = 0.663. 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100Cumulative Relative Frequency Length METF - D = 0.233, p = 0.663 ECDF - Montana Captures vs. Recaptures Captures (207) Recaptures (10) INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix I – Page 18 June 2014 Figure I-4. Empirical cumulative distribution functions (ECDF) of length (in mm) of all coho salmon marked during first event sampling at the lower mainstem Susitna River tagging site and all recaptures during second event sampling, 2013. Note: The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test results for equal probability of capture based on METF length during second event sampling were D = 0079, P = 0.754. 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 400 450 500 550 600 650Cumulative Relative Frequency Length METF - D = 0.079, p = 0.754 ECDF - Marks vs. Recaptures Marks (596) Recaptures (74) INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix I – Page 19 June 2014 Figure I-5. Empirical cumulative distribution functions (ECDF) of length (in mm) of coho salmon inspected for marks and all recaptured salmon during second event sampling at the Deshka River weir, 2013. Note: The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test results for equal probability of capture based on METF length during first event sampling were D = 0.439, P < 0.001. 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 400 450 500 550 600 650Cumulative Relative Frequency Length METF - D = 0.439, p < 0.001 ECDF - Deshka Captures vs. Recaptures Captures (267) Recaptures (67) INITIAL STUDY REPORT SALMON ESCAPEMENT STUDY (9.7) Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix I – Page 20 June 2014 Figure I-6. Empirical cumulative distribution functions (ECDF) of length (in mm) of coho salmon inspected for marks and all recaptured salmon during second event sampling at the Montana Creek weir, 2013. Note: The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test results for equal probability of capture based on METF length during first event sampling were D = 0.657, P = 0.005. 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 400 450 500 550 600 650Cumulative Relative Frequency Length METF - D = 0.657, p = 0.005 ECDF - Montana Captures vs. Recaptures Captures (200) Recaptures (7)