Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SuWa302
Alaska Resources Library & Information Services Susitna‐Watana Hydroelectric Project Document ARLIS Uniform Cover Page TK 1425 .S8 S92 no.302 Title: SuWa 302 Distribution of spawning Susitna River chinook Oncorhynchus tshawytscha and pink salmon O. gorbuscha, 2012 Author(s) – Personal: Richard J. Yanusz, Pete Cleary, Sam Ivey, Jack W. Erickson, Dan J. Reed, Raye Ann Neustel, and Jan Bullock Author(s) – Corporate: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish AEA‐identified category, if specified: AEA‐identified series, if specified: Series (ARLIS‐assigned report number): Existing numbers on document: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 302 Published by: Date published: [Anchorage, Alaska : Alaska Energy Authority, 2013] February 28, 2013 Published for: Date or date range of report: Alaska Energy Authority 2012 Volume and/or Part numbers: Final or Draft status, as indicated: Final review draft Document type: Pagination: iii, 39 pages Related work(s): Pages added/changed by ARLIS: Notes: All reports in the Susitna‐Watana Hydroelectric Project Document series include an ARLIS‐ produced cover page and an ARLIS‐assigned number for uniformity and citability. All reports are posted online at http://www.arlis.org/susitnadocfinder/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o. 0 0 0 () Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 14241) Distribution of Spawning Susitna River Chinook Oncorhynchus tshawytscha and Pink 0. gorbuscha Salmon, 2012 Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority SUSITNA·WATANA HYDRO Clean, reliable energy for the next 100 years. Prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Sport Fish Richard J. Yanusz, Pete Cleary, Sam Ivey, Jack W. Erickson, Dan J. Reed, Raye Ann Neustel, and Jan Bullock Final review draft: February 28, 2013 [As last step, internal review date will be replaced with "[February 2013]" of report submittal, as will the date in the footer] FINAL REPORT CHINOOK AND PINK SALMON SPAWNING DISTRIBUTION T AB~I; OF CONTI; NT$ ' 1. tn:troauction ........................................................................................................................ l 2. Study Objectives .................................................................. ~··············································2 3.~ Stu«:Jy Area ·········-························································-~··············~········~······~···~·····················2 4. MethOds .......................................... -: .................................................................................... 2 4; 1. Radio Tag Application fod:~hitlook sillmorr ...................................................... 2 4.2. Radio Tag Application for pink salmon ............................................................ .3 4.3. Radio Tag Relocation ....................... ~ ................................................................ 4 4.3.1. Tracking Stations ............................................................................ 4 4.3.2. Aerial Surveys ................................................................................. 5 4.4. Inter-observer Variation in Aerial Survey Counts of Chinook Salmon ............. 5 4.5. Deviations from~tudyPlarr ............................................................................... 6 5. R~sult~ ···~··,!~~········••,•••,•···········································································································6 6. 5.1. .5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. Rad~o,Tag Application ................................................................................•...... 6 Tra<;:k}n.g,St~tiqns~., ... ,., ......................................................................................... 6 ~ " i '\ '' f·+-, ,)i ~' Aerial S11fVeys ... , .. , ............................................................................................. 6 Spawning Locations ........................................................................................... 7 5.4.1. Chinook salmon .............................................................................. 7 5.4.2. Pink Salmon .................................................................................... 8 Inter-observer Variation in Aerial Survey Counts of Chinook Salmon ............. 8 ' ' '{ ' :. ''"'· Dis~,us~ipn Q-1:\d Conclusion ................................................................................................ 8 , 6:1. Chinook salmon spawning distribution .•.. ,; ...•.... : •.. ; ..........................•.... : .. :: ...... 8 6.2. Feasibility to Conduct a Capture-recapture Experiment for Chinook Salmon .. 9 6.3. Pink salmon spawning distribution .................................................................... 9 6.4. Inter-observer Variation in Aerial Survey Counts of Chinook Salmon ........... 1 0 ~ ' 7. Ackn~Wiedge:rrients .......................................................................................................... 1 o 8. References~ .... ;, ......................................................... ~.,~~ ........... , .................. ; ......................... 12 TABLES: .......................................................•............ l ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 13 FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ 28 Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Pagei Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] FINAL REPORT CHINOOK AND PINK SALMON SPAWNING DISTRIBUTION LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Total Chinook salmon catch, radio tags applied, and total daily fish wheel and gillnet effort at the mainstem Susitna River site (RM 30) in 2012 .................................................. 14 Table 2. Total daily pink salmon catch, radio tags applied; and total daily fish wheel effort at the Flathom (RM 24.5) tagging site in 2012 ...............•.............................................................. 16 Table 3. Locations of radio logger stations to monitor the movements ofradiotagged Chinook salmon in the Susitna River during 2012 .............................................................................. 18 Table 4. Definitions of movement patterns used to determine Chinook salmon spawning location . ............................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 5. Aerial survey distribution of Chinook salmon that were radiotagged at Susitna River RM 30 in 2012. ·····································································································•·······'······· 20 Table 6. Definitions of movement patterns used to determine pink salmon spawning location .. 21 Table 7. Aerial survey distribution of pink salmon that were radiotagged at Susitna River RM 24.5 (Flathom) in 2012 ....................................•...................................•................................ 22 Table 8. Unweighted spawning distribution (number of fish and percent) of radiotagged Chinook salmon in the Susitna River drainage in 2012, by tagging gear ......................................... ~ .. 23 Table 9. Susitna River Chinook and pink salmon radio tags returned to ADF&G by the public in 2012 ........................................................... ; .....................................•....... ; ............................. 24 Table 10. Unweighted spawning distribution (number of fish and percent) of radiotagged pink salmon in the Susitna River drainage in 2012, by tagging gear ....•........................ , .............. 25 Table 11. Comparison of helicopter counts of spawning Chinook salmon on six index tributaries of the Susitna River by three observers during 2012 ............................................................ 26 Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Pageii Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] FINAL REPORT CHINOOK AND PINK SALMON SPAWNING DISTRIBUTION LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Locations of the tagging sites and radiotelemetry stations used in this study for Chinook and pink salmon in the Susitna River in 2012 ........................................................ 29 Figure 2. Locations of the mainstem and Flathom sites for tagging Chinook and pink salmon, and river miles, in the lower Susitna River in 2012 .............................................................. 30 Figure 3. Spawning locations ofradiotagged Chinook salmon in the Susitna River for all capture gears combined, 2012 ............................................. ; ..... , ........................... ; ........................... 31 Figure 4. Spawning locations of Chinook sahnon radiotagged at fish wheel1 (west) in the Susitna River, 2012 ............................................................................................................... 32 Figure 5. Spawning locations of Chinook salmon radiotagged at fish wheel2 (east) in the Susitna River, 2012 ............................................................................................................................ 33 Figure 6. Spawning locations of Chinook salmon radio tagged from drift gillnets in the Susitna River, 2012 ............................................................................................................................ 34 Figure 7. Spawning locations ofradiotagged pink salmon in the Susitna River for all fish wheels combined, 2012 .................................................................................................................... ~ 35 Figure 8. Spawning locations of pink salmon radiotagged at fish wheel 1 in the Susitna River, 2012 ....................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 9. Spawning locations of pink salmon radiotagged at fish wheel2 in the Susitna River, 2012 ....................... :~: ............................................................................................................. 37 Figure 10. Spawning locations of pink salmon radiotagged at fish wheel 3 in the Susitna River, 2012 ....................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 11. Spawning loc"ations of pink salmon radio tagged at fish wheel 4 in the Susitna River, 2012 ....................................................................................................................................... 39 Susitna-W atana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page iii Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] FINAL REPORT CHINOOK AND PINK SALMON SPAWNING DISTRIBUTION LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SCIENTIFIC LABELS The following symbols and abbreviations, and others approved for the Systeme International d'Unites (SI), are used without definition in the following reports by the Divisions of Sport Fish and of Commercial Fisheries: Fishery Manuscripts, Fishery Data Series Reports, Fishery Management Reports, and Special Publications. All others, including deviations from definitions listed below, are noted in the text at first mention, ~s well as in the titles or footnotes of tables, and in figure or figure captions. Weights and measures (metric) General Mathematics, statistics centimeter em Alaska Administrative all standard mathematical deciliter dL Code AAC signs, symbols and gram g all commonly accepted abbreviations hectare ha abbreviations e.g., Mr., Mrs., alternate hypothesis HA kilogram kg AM, PM, etc. base of natural logarithm e kilometer km all commonly accepted catch per unit effort CPUE liter L professional titles e.g., Dr., Ph.D., coefficient of variation cv meter m R.N., etc. common test statistics (F, t, r}, etc.) milliliter mL at @ confidence interval CI millimeter mm compass directions: correlation coefficient east E (multiple) R Weights and measures (English) north N correlation coefficient cubic feet per second ftl/s south s (simple) r foot ft west w covariance cov gallon gal copyright © degree (angular) inch in corporate suffixes: degrees of freedom df mile mi Company Co. expected value E nautical mile mni Corporation Corp. greater than > ounce oz Incorporated Inc. .greater than or equal to ~ pound lb Limited Ltd. harvest per unit effort HPUE quart qt District ofColumbia D.C. less than < yard yd et alii (and others) etal. less than orequal to· ~ et cetera (and so forth) etc. logarithm (natural) In Time and temperature exempli gratia logarithm (base 10) log day d (for example) e.g. logarithm (specifY base) logz, etc. degrees Celsius oc Federal Information niinute (angular) degrees Fahrenheit oF Code FIC not significant NS degrees kelvin K id est (that is) i.e. null hypothesis Ho hour h latitude or longitude lat. or long. percent % minute min mo11etary symbols probability p second s (u.S.) $,¢ probability of a type I error months (tables and (rejection of the null Physics and chemistry figures): first three hypothesis when true) a all atomic symbols letters Jan, ... ,Dec probability of a type II error alternating current AC registered trademark ® (acceptance of the null ampere A trademark TM hypothesis when fulse) 13 calorie cal United States second (angular) direct current DC (adjective) u.s. standard deviation SD hertz Hz United States of standard error SE horsepower hp America (noun) USA variance hydrogen ion activity pH u.s.c. United States population Var (negative log of) Code sample var parts per million ppm U.S. state use two-letter parts per thousand ppt, abbreviations %o (e.g., AK, WA) volts v watts w FINAL REPORT CHINOOK AND PINK SALMON SPAWNING DISTRIBUTION 1. INTRODUCTION This report provides the results of the 2012 Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization Study (Chinook and Pink Salmon Spawning Distribution). The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is preparing a License Application that will be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 14241) using the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). The Project is located on the Susitna River, an approximately 300-mile long river in Southcentral Alaska. The Project's dam site will be located at river mile (RM) 184. The results of this study will provide information that will serve as the basis for the 2013-14 formal study program and in preparing Exhibit E of a license application (18 CFR 4.41) and for use in FERC' s National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) analysis for the Project license. In recent years, the Alaska Department ofFish and Game (ADF&G) conducted studies to determine the distribution and abundance of sockeye Oncorhynchus nerka, coho 0. ldsutch, and chum 0. keta salmon in the entire Susitna drainage. From 2006 to 2008 ADF&G estimated the .. abundance and distribution of sockeye salmon within the Susitna River drainage (Y anusz et a!. 100/, Yanusz et al. 2011a, Yaii"usz et al. 2011b). In 2009, ADF&G conducted a study to determine the spawning distribution of chum and coho salmon in the Susitna River (Merizon et al. 2010). From 2010 to 2012 ADF&G conducted annual studies to detennine both the distribution and abundance of spawning Susitna River chum and coho salmon (Cleary et al. in press, Cleary et al. in prep a, Cleary et al. in prep b). The spawning distribution of pink salmon 0. gorbuscha throughout the Susitna River drainage prior to 2012 was unknown. However, 100 pink salmon were scheduled to be radiotagged at one offourfish wheels operated by ADF&G near Flathom (RM 24.5) in 2012 (funded by the Alaska Sustainable Salmon Fund (AKSSF), Studies 45921 and 45912 and a CIP from the State of Alaska). This study deployed 100 tags at each of the 3 remaining fish wheels and tracked al1400 radiotagged pink salmon. Pink salmon were tracked via a network of ground-based radio receivers and a series of fixed-wing and helicopter flights. Prior to 2012, the spawning distribution of Chinook salmon 0. tshawytscha throughout the Susitna River drainage had not been comprehensively assessed. The Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization Study was developed to determine the spawning distribution of Chinook salmon in the Susitna drainage upstream of the confluence of the Y entna River in 2012 by deploying radio tags in Chinook salmon captured by 2 fish wheels and drifted gill nets. Chinook salmon were tracked in the same manner as the piiik salmon were tracked. The results from the 2012 field season will be used to design a capture-recapture study to estimate the distribution and abundance of Chinook salmon for the entire Susitna drainage in 2013 and 2014. Aerial survey counts of Chinook salmon have been conducted on 24 streams within the Northern Cook Inlet (NCI) Management Area since 1979 to provide an index of spawning escapement. Trends in Chinook salmon escapement are used to assist fisheries managers with future management strategies and refinement of escapement goals. Common practice is to use 3-5 observers on a given year to conduct these surveys. As part of this study, we examined variation between observers and identify areas for improvement in the current practice of using multiple observers to conduct annual aerial surveys in NCI. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] FINAL REPORT CHINOOK AND PINK SALMON SPAWNING DISTRIBUTION This report documents the results for the 2012 field season. 2. STUDY OBJECTIVES The purpose of this project is to determine the spawning distribution of Chinook salmon in the Susitna drainage upstream of the confluence with the Y entna River as well as the spawning distribution of pink salmon in the entire Susitna drainage. The i:qformation collected during the 2012 field season will be used to address the feasibility of conducting a basin-wide capture- recapture study of Chinook salmon in 2013. ' 3. STUDY AREA The Susitna River drainage comprises 49,210 km2 and originates in the Alaska Range north of Anchorage (Figure 1 ). It is the fourth largest drainage in the state of Alaska, and flows generally south from the Alaska Range for approximately 400 km before entering Cook Inlet west of Anchorage. The largest tributaries are theY entna, Chulitna, and Talkeetna rivers, and there are numerous small lakes (King and Walker 1997). The morphology of the Susitna River varies by location. Rivers in the drainage originate in the Alaska or Talkeetna Mountain ranges and some are clear water or glacially turbid (Sweet et al. 2003). 4. METHODS 4.1. Radio Tag Application for Chinook salmon Two fish wheels were operated in 2012 at the mainstem Susitna site (RMJO [R&M Consultants 1981]) to collect Chinook salmon, one on each bank (Figure 2, Table 1 ). Each fish wheel had 2 x 2 m baskets that were adjusted as needed to fish 0.3 m or lesS from the river bottom. Picket weirs, located between the fish wheel and the river bank, were used to lead migrating salmon into fish wheel baskets and were operated the entire season. Two crews worked 2 shifts, such that each wheel was operated for a total of 12 h per day, from 5 AM to 10 PM, with a break each day from 1 PM to 2 PM. It was assumed that there was no substantial diel variation in the stock composition offish passage and that all stocks offish were subject to some non-zero probability of capture during this fishing schedule. Fish wheels were checked at least bnce an hour during sampling shifts. Only uninjured Chinook salmon at least 400 mm in length from mid eye to tail fork (METF) were radiotagged. Most Chinook salmon less than 400 mm METF were jacks (males that spent only one winter at sea) and may not have had the sa:me capture probability at the fish wheels as older fish because of their small size; these fish were also too small for the size of the radio tags used in this study. To minimize handling effects, Chinook salmon receiving a radio tag were either 1) tagged immediately after capture 2) tagged if fish wheel live box ifthe hold time did not exceed 1 h (Y anusz et al. 1999; Carlon and Evans 2007). A radio tag was not applied to Chinook salmon if the live box hold time exceeded 1 h; these fish were counted and released. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page2 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] FINAL REPORT CHINOOK AND PINK SALMON SPAWNING DISTRIBUTION All captured Chinook salmon were counted, inspected, and recorded. All radiotagged Chinook salmon were sampled for tissue (axillary process clip) that was stored in ethanol for later genetic assay. An equal number of tags (200) was scheduled at each fish wheel to ensure that all stocks, no matter their abundance or distribution among the 2 wheels, had some non-zero probability of being marked. Crews started the season by radiotagging every healthy Chinook salmon. As the run continued, the tagging rate was adjusted to avoid running out of tags before the run was complete for the season (Table 1 ). Crews continued to operate the fish wheels to achieve the full 12 hi day of effort after the scheduled radio tags were deployed in order to establish a database of catch rates, run timing, and fish size. Drift gillnetting was conducted in the vicinity of the fish wheels with 100 tags scheduled to be deployed in net caught fish (Figure 2). Gillnets were 5% in or 7 in (stretch measure) mesh, multi-strand web, in nets 50 to 150ft long, and 60 meshes deep. Drift duration was dependent upon the fishing site. The net was watched continuously until corks began to bob, signaling a fish was the net, at which point the entire net was immediately pulled in. To reduce bias due to the run timing of any individual stock and to ensure that all individual .stocks of fish, regardless of run timing, had some non-zero probability of being marked, one crew of two technicians fished for up to 7.5 hid, with start times rotating daily, until a cycle was completed each week. Once the scheduled number of radio tags per day was deployed, the crew stopped netting to minimize stress to additional fish. The radio transmitters used in this study were manufactured by Advanced Telemetry Systems, Inc.1 (ATS, Isanti, MN) and operated on 11 :frequencies within the 150.000 to 151.999 MHz range. Each :frequency had 100 different transmitting patterns (i.e., pulse codes), resulting in 500 uniquely identifiable transmitters. All Chinook salmon received ATS model F1845B transmitters, which were 52 mm long, 19 mm in diameter, and had a mass of 26 g, a 30-cm external whip antenna, and a nominal battery life of 311 d :from activation. Each transmitter was equipped with an activity monitor as a mortality indicator. The activity monitor changes the signal pattern to an inactive mode if the transmitter was inactive for 24 h. Fish were tagged without anesthesia while restrained in a padded cradle held in a tub of river water. Radio tags were inserted tbrough the esophagus and into the upper stomach of the fish using a 1 0-mm diameter, 30-~long plastic tube. 4.2. Radio Tag Application for pink salmon C1!Eksru~ere radiotagged in conjunction with exis!in ADF&G research projects funded by the AKSSF, Studies 45921 and 459 , a lathorn, RM 24.5 o the Susitna River, where 4 fish wheels were operated, one on each b o the 2 c anne s m the river in that area (Figure 2, Table 2). The ADF&G Commercial Fisheries Division (CF) only operated fish wheel1 :from 10 July to 14 August 2012 as part of AKSSF Study 45912. During this period, Sport Fish Division (SF) crews were responsible for fish wheels 2, 3, and 4 (Figure 2). SF crews took over operations offish wheel 1 when the CF study concluded. 1 Product names used in this report are included for scientific completeness, but do not constitute a product endorsement. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page3 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] FINAL REPORT CHINOOK AND PINK SALMON SPAWNING DISTRIBUTION SF crews, working four 7 .5-h shifts each d~, operated fish wheels 2--4 during daylight hours until they.reached the goal of 12 hid of effort per wheel. CF crews, working two 9-h shifts each day, operated fish whe.el 1 until they reached the goal of 18 hid of effort, to achieve the sample size needed for AKSSF Study 45912. Fish wheel1 effort was reduced to 12 hid when the SF crew replaced the CF crew after 14 August. All four fish wheels were operated every day of the season, except for mechanical breakdowns, crew shortages, or unsafe weather (Table 2). A subsample of healthy pink salmon captured at Flathoin, as above, were marked with an internal (esophageal) radio transmitter. A nearly equal number of tags were deployed at each fish wheel so that all stocks, no matter their abundance or distribution among ~e 4 wheels, had a. non-zero probability of being marked (Table 2). Given that a fixed number of tags were to be deploy~d, .tags were deployed systematically based on 'lverage historical run timing. To minimize handling stress on pink salmon, only fish that had been held in the live box for less than 1 h were radiotagged. Three-person SF crews processed selected pink salmon one at a time and as quickly as possible, to reduce handling time and associated stress. Fish were in a holding tank onboard a boat during tagging. A bucket was used frequently to add fresh water to the tank. A padded, aluminum cradle (Larson 1995) was slipped around the fish to restrain it during tagging. One person restrained fish, the second inserted a radio tag into the stomach via the esophagtis, and the· third person recorded data. The crew meastrred METF and recorded the time taken to process the fish. Radio tags w~~ inserted through the esoP,hagus and into the upper ~tomach of ~e fish using a 1 0-mm diameter, 30.-cm long plastic tube. Pink salmon l~ss than 400 mm METF were not radiotagged because the. size and weight of the .radio tags (about 1.6% of th~ body weight of a 400-mm METF fish) might have had a greater negative effect on such small fish than on larger fish. Smaller radio tags were used for pink salmon between 400 and 420 mm METF. The plastic tube was marked with reference points to a8sist in proper tag insertion depths. All marked pink salmon were released into the river adjacent td each fish wheel immediateiy after all data were recorded. Pink salmon less than 420 mm METF received ATS F1835B transmitters, which are 48 mm long, 17 mm in di~eter, have ,a mass of 16 g, have a 30-cm extemru whip antel)Ila ~d a nominal battery life of 96 d after activation. All other pink salmon received ATS F 1840B transmitters, which are 56 mm long, 17 mm in diameter, have a mass,of20 g, a 30-ctn external whip antenna, and a battery life of 126 dafter activation. · 4.3. Radio Tag Relocation 4.3.1. Tracking Stations Radiotagged Chinook and pink salmon movement upriver was tracked by ADF &G and LGL Alaska Research Associated; Inc. (LGL) at 10 stations placed on major tiibutaries throughout the Susitna River drainage (Figure 1; Table 3; Nasset al. 2013). Tracking station equipment consisted of an ATS Model4500 receiver/data logger and a self-contained power system. The equipment was housed in a waterproof enclosure and attached to a 9-m inast. An ATS Model 200 antenna switch was coupled with 2 Y agi antennas at each tracking station. One antenna was Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page4 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] FINAL REPORT CHINOOK AND PINK SALMON SPAWNING DISTRIBUTION oriented downstream, and the other upstream. Signal strength and time of reception were recorded separately for each antenna and provided information on direction of travel. Reference radio tags were deployed at each station to emit regular pulses to document continuous station operation. The ATS receiver detected radiotagged fish and recorded signal strength, activity pattern of the transmitter (active or inactive), date, time, and location of each fish in relation to the station (i.e., upriver or downriver from the site). Data were written to the logger memory in 10-min intervals. ADF&G tracking sites were visited 4 to 12 times over the season, with the more remote sites visited less often due to the extensive travel required. 4.3.2. AeriaJ·sui"Veys ADF&G surveys were conducted with a fixed-wing aircraft, travelling at approximately 90 knots and 1,000-ft elevation above ground. The aircraft was equipped with two, 4-element Yagi receiving antennas, one mounted on each side of the aircraft and oriented forward. Two ATS Model 4520 receiver/data loggers, with integrated global positioning system (GPS), were used to identify radio tags and record locations. Each receiver had an operator that listened for tag frequencies, held the receiver on a detected frequency until all tags at that frequency appeared to be decoded, and then released the receiver from that frequency to continue scanning the remaining frequencies for other tags. The 11 possible frequencies were divided between two receivers to reduce scan times and reduce the chance of missing fish. Automatically recorded data included the following: date and time of decoding, frequency and pulse code, latitude and longitude, signal strength, and activity mode of each decoded transmitter. For Chinook salmon, the mainstem and major tributaries of the mainstem Susitna River were flown approximately every two weeks, and the Yentna River once. For pink salmon, the Yentna and Susitna rivers were flown approximately every two weeks. Aerial survey coverage described above augmented by rotary wing surveys by an affiliated AEA-sponsored project to examine the distribution offish in the Susitna River mainstem (Nass et al. 2013). 4.4. Inter-observer Variation in Aerial Survey Counts of Chinook Salmon In 2012, counts between three observers were compared on six streams draining into the east side of the Susitna River in order to assess count agreement: Willow, Little Willow, Montana, Clear, and Prairie creeks and the North Fork Kashwitna River. Survey methodology mirrored past annual surveys conducted by ADF&G (Oslund and Ivey 2010, Lafferty 1997). Standard procedure is to make a single pass survey by helicopter during peak spawning time. Observers wear sunglasses with polarized lenses and try to keep the sun behind their shoulders. The chosen air speed and height above the ground varies with light condition and terrain but generally the aircraft flies approximately 50 to 75 feet over the water. Generally, the streams were surveyed from their confluence with tidewater or a glacial river, upstream to the upper-most reach to which Chinook salmon can ascend. All major clear water tributaries of each stream were also surveyed. Observers used two hand-tally registers to count fish. One register was used to count single fish and the other register was used to count by 5s or 1 Os when estimation of aggregate fish was necessary. Total numbers of live and dead salmon were recorded in addition to date, Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] FINAL REPORT CHINOOK AND PINK SALMON SPAWNING DISTRIBUTION weather condition, stream level, and water visibility. In this study, each observer flew all six streams over a 2-d period with start dates staggered two days apart. In this way, each stream was counted two days apart over the course of six total days. Additional observations, such as number and general location of congregations where estimation of fish was necessary, presence of other fish species, and any other factors that might affect counting accuracy wete noted. 4.5. Deviations from Study Plan The study plan called for ADF&G to tag every adult Chinook salmon caught. High catch rates required modifying this protocol on 31 May to ensure fish were tagged throughout the run {Table 1 ). Because of a period ofhigh water around 10 June and the unexpectedly early end of the Chinook salmon run, we did not meet the target of 200 radio tags lJeing deployed from each fish wheel. 5. RESULTS 5.1. Radio Tag Application In 2012, fish wheels were operated from 25 May to 26 August at the mainstem Susitna tagging site, while the last Chinook salmon was captured on 18 August (Table 1 ). From the two fish wheels, a total of 1,690 Chinook salmon were caught, of which 338 were radiotagged (Table 1): 178 radio tags were deployed in Chinook salmon from fish wheel 1 and 160 from fish wheel 2. A total of 226 Chinook salmon were caught in drift gill nets, of wpich 1 05 were radiotagged {Tab~e 1). To capture pink salmon, fish wheels were operated at Flathom froth 10 July to 26 August 2012 (Table 2). Among 4 fish wheels, a total of37,490 pink salmon were caught, of which 401 were radiotagged {Table 2): 101 radio tags were deployed in pink salmon frcim fish wheel 1 and 100 each from fish wheels 2--4. · 5.2. Trac~ina Station$ Tracking stations were installed in theY entna River drainage between 9 May and 6 JU.ne and rt;moved between 12 September and 2 October 2012. The Skwentna tracking station was found to be nonfunctional oti 2 October, for unknown reasons. Tracking stations within the mainstem Susitna, Taikeetna, and Chulitna rivers were installed between 9 and 26 May and removed between 10 September and 4 October 2012. The Talkeetna station was destroyed by an extreme flood on 21 September 2012. Nasset al. (2013) describe the operational periods for the other tracking stations used to track fish tagged in 2012. 5.3. Aerial Surveys There were 360 Chinook salmon spawning locations (Table 4 and Table 5) and 390 pink salmon spawning locations determined by aerial surveys (Table 6 and Table 7). Of the 443 radiotagged Chinook salmon, one was never detected after release. Spawning locations were assigned to 385 Chinook salmon (including 25 that never migrated upstream of Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page6 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] FINAL REPORT CHINOOK AND PINK SALMON SPAWNING DISTRIBUTION the tagging site) based on aerial surveys and corroboration with ground tracking stations. Aerial survey efforts for Chinook salmon yielded four complete drainage-wide surveys of the Susitna River and one of the Y entna River drainage. These surveys relocated 406 different radio tagged fish (92% ofthe 442 detected by any means). Radio tags returned by anglers were not assigned spawning locations, given the possibility that Chinook salmon may have been intercepted prior to reaching their spawning site. Of the 401 radiotagged pink salmon, spawning locations were assigned to 390 (including 5 that never migrated upstream of Susitna Station) based on aerial surveys and corroboration with ground tracking stations. Aerial efforts for pink salmon yielded 4 complete drainage-wide surveys of the Susitna River and Yentna River drainages, These surveys relocated 390 different radiotagged fish (97% of the 401 released). 5.4. Spawning Locations Radiotagged Chinook and pink salmon were assigned a spawning location based on aerial surveys; tracking station data were used only to corroborate these locations. Radiotagged salmon were assigned one of eleven movement patterns (Table 4 and Table 6). This assignment was used to determine the most likely spawning location of each fish. No ground surveys were conducted to verify if radio tagged fish were indeed on spawning grounds or exhibiting spawning behavior at any time. 5.4.1. Chinook salmon Of the 443 radiotagged Chinook salmon, 360 (81 %) could be assigned to a spawning location (Table 5, Figure 3). There were 25 radiotagged Chinook salmon that never migrated upstream of the tagging site (Table 4). These fish were excluded from the experiment and locations were not reflected in the spawning distributions. One radiotagged Chinook salmon was never relocated by either ground or aerial methods. Approximately 8% of the radiotagged Chinook salmon were assigned to the mainstem Susitna River (Table 5). The spawning locations of Chinook salmon tagged at RM 30 suggest that fish showed bank orientation. Based on aerial relocations, 24 (17%) of 144 Chinook salmon tagged on fish wheel 1 migrated to the Yentna River, while two (1 %) of 139 Chinook salmon tagged on fish wheel2 migrated to the Yentna River (Table 8, Figures 4 and 5). Similarly, nine (6%) of 144 Chinook salmon tagged on fish wheel1 migrated to the eastside Susitna River tributaries, while 44 (32%) of 139 Chinook salmon tagged on fish wheel 2 migrated to eastside Susitna River tributaries (Table 8, Figures 4 and 5). Gillnet-caught Chinook salmon appeared to be more evenly distributed among the Yentna and eastside Susitna rivers tributaries. Based on aerial relocations, 5 (6%) of77 Chinook salmon captured with gi11nets migrated to the Yentna River, and 20 (26%) migrated to eastside Susitna River tributaries (Table 8, Figure 6). Anglers voluntarily returned 16 radio tags found in harvested Chinook salmon (Table 9). Locations of harvested fish were not used for spawning location calculations because we assumed these fish could have been intercepted prior to reaching their spawning sites. Tissue samples were collected from all radiotagged Chinook sahnon (443) and were stored at the ADF&G Gene Conservation Lab in Anchorage, AK. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page? Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] FINAL REPORT CHINOOK AND PINK SALMON SPAWNING DISTRIBUTION 5.4.2. Pink Salmon Spawning locations were assigned to 385 (96%) of the 401 radiotagged pink salmon (Table 7, Figure 7). There were five radiotagged pink salmon that never migrated upstream of the Susitna Station (Table 6). These fish were excluded from tlie experiment and locations were not reflected in the spawning distributions. Eleven radiotagged pink salmon were never relocated by aerial methods. The spawning locations of pink salmon tagged near Flathom suggest that fish showed strong bank orientation. Based on aerial relocations, 88 (92%) of96 pink salmon tagge,d on fish wheel 1 migrated to the Yentna River, while six (6%) of the 96 pink salmon tagged on fish wheel4 migrated to the Yentna River (Table 10, Figures 8-11). Similarly, zero (0%) of96 pink salmon tagged on fish wheel 1 migrated to the eastside Susitna River tributaries, while 25 (26%) of 96 pink salmon tagged on fish wheel 4 migrated to eastside Susitna River tributaries (Table 10, Figures 8-11 ). Anglers voluntarily returned three radio tags fltey foun,d, either in pink salmon they ha,n:ested or found on the ground (Table 9). Unlike for Chinook salmon, harvested fish wen~ included in spawning location calculations for pink salmon because ali three were captured in tributaries of the Susitna River and the aerial flights corroborated the, location of each fish. 5.5. lnter-ob=?erver Variation in Aerial Survey Counts of Chinook Salmon Surveys commenced on 16 July 2012. Stream level and visibility was considered normal and clear in most all streains throughout the period of study. Each stream was flown two days apart witli the following exce,ption: during the third set 'of surveys j]own by the third observer, Prairie and Clear creeks were counted one week later than scheduled due to poor weatlier (Table '11 ). Percent agreement between observers was greatest fotthe North Fork Kashwitna River (99% between observers 1 and 2; 96% between 1 and 3; 98% between 2 and 3) and lea8t for Montana Creek (97% between obserVers 1 and 2; 62% between 1 and 3; 64% oetween 2 a11d 3). 6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 6.1. Chinook salmon spawning distribution In 2012, ADF&G successfully radiotagged 443 Chinook salmon captured in fish wheels and gill nets in the Susitna River upstream from the confluence with the Yentna River (RM 30). Spawning locations were assigned to 360 (81 %) of the fish. Although Chinook salmon were not tagged in proportion to the daily fish wheel catches, radio tags were de,ployed throughout the entire run (Table 1 ). However, care should be taken in interpreting the results. First, the distributions (Figilres 3-6, Tables 5 and 8) are for radiotagged fish and should not be considered re,presentative of the distribution of the entire population of Chinook salmon. We did not tag in proportion to apparent abundance (i.e., fish wheel catches), and if the run timing of individual stocks differed it is possible that we tagged stocks at different Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 PageS Alaska Energy Auth0rity AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] FINAL REPORT CHINOOK AND PINK SALMON SPAWNING DISTRIBUTION rates. Second, we did not directly examine for size selective tagging in 2012. Similar to the effects of different run timing among stocks, size selective tagging could have influenced the distribution oftagged fish to represent the entire run. This study provides th~;: first drainage-wide documentation of spawning sites for Chinook salmon moving through the lower mainstem SusitnaRiver (upstream of the confluence with the Y entna River) using radiotelemetry on such a large scale. 6.2. Feasibility to Conduct a Capture-recapture Experiment for Chinook Salmon The results from this study are being used to design a capture-recapture abundance experiment to estimate the spawning escapement for the entire Susitna drainage in 2013 and 2014. Chinook salmon captured in fish wheels and gillnets will be marked with radio tags and recaptured at fish weirs established on upstream tributaries. The 2012 results suggest the weir ADF&G operates on the Deshka River will be a good recapture site because greater than 20% of the fish tagged at fish wheel1, fish wheel 2, or by gillnet is likely to be recaptured at the Deshka River weir (Tables 5 and 8). In 2013, ADF&G plans to establish and operate fish weirs on the middle fork ofthe Chulitna River (below the confluence with the east fork) and Montana Creek. In 2012, 25 (7%) of the radiotagged Chinook salmon (Table 5) were assigned a spawning location upstream of the proposed fish weir site on the middle fork of the Chulitna River and 8 (2%) were assigned to a spawning location upstream of the proposed fish weir site on Montana Creek. The number of tags to be d~loyed in2013 has been increased to 700 radio tags in order to increase the number of recaptures at the fish weirs and improve the precision of the escapement estimate. In 2012, fish radiotagged at RM 30 had bank orientation (Table 8), which would need to be accounted for in an abundance model unless. equal probability of capture is maintained throughout the marking event. When designing a capture-recapture experi1n,ent to estimate th~ abundance of Chinook salmon for 2013, we anticipate that assumption of equal probability of capture for all Chinook salmon may be violated during one or both sampling events. Diagnostic tests described in Seber (1982) and in more specific detail relative to the 2013 experiment in Cleary et al. (In press) will be usedto detect evidence of unequal probability of capture by size, across time, and between sampling sites. Sufficient radio tags out and recaptures will allow for the necessary diagnostic testing and model selection to produce an unbiased abundance estimate. The low probability of recaptures anticipated at Montana Creek may be marginal for diagnostic testing and testing of different tag rates among stocks, but a larger number of deployed tags planned for 2013 should help to address this issue. We did not examine for size-selective tagging in 2012 but this should be looked at in future years in the event that size stratification is required for an abundance estimate. 6.3. Pink salmon spawning distribution In 2012, ADF&G successfully radiotagged 401 pink salmon captured in 4 fish wheels in the Susitna Riverat Flathom (RM 24.5). Spawning location was assigned to 385 (96%) of the fish (Table 7). Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page9 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] FINAL REPORT CHINOOK AND PINK SALMON SPAWNING DISTRIBUTION As above, pink salmon were not tagged in proportion to the apparent abundance (fish wheel catch), but radio tags were deployed throughout the entire run (Table 2). The spawning distributions (Figures 7-11, Tables 6-7) reflect only radiotagged fish and not tl'le entire population of pink salmon. If different stocks were tagged at different rates, then the distributions would be biased. Although ADF&G estimated pink salmon escapement for the Susitna River in the 1980s (Thompson .et al. 1986), the data presented here are the first drainage-wide documentation of spawning sites for pink salmon in the Susitna and Y entna rivers. 6.4. Inter-observer Variation in Aerial Survey Counts of Chinook Salmon We found high agreement among the three observers who surveyed six streams over a 6-d period. Between observers on the escapement surveys, agreement in escapement estimates above 80% was considered to be acceptable for the purpose of this study and in most cases this standard was met. Several instances where agreement was less than 80% on Prairie and Montana creeks may be explained by variations in stream morphology between streams and in fish behavior. Prairie Creek is noted as a somewhat difficult system to count fish due to multiple pools of fish where estimation is necessary and the common occurrence of cut banks that make sighting fish difficult. Run timing is also rtiuch later in Prairie Creek relative to other NCI streams due to its location further upstream on the Susitna River drainage. In consideration of late run timing, Prairie Creek may not fit within this study design and the condition of peak spawning may not have been fully met. A better approach in the future might be to ponduct three cpnsecutive surveys flown late in July, e.g,; after about 26 July. In Lafferty (1997), agreement between observers was lowest (80%) in a 1994 survey of Prairie Creek. In Montana Creek, it is possible that fish noted by the first two observers as holding at the mouth may have been, at least in part, destined for upstream tributaries of the Susitna River because the third observer did not note any fish at the mouth and only counted about half what the first two observers counted. The phenomena offish holding at the mouth of Montana Creek has not been noted in past years' surveys. Agreement was highest in streams liolding fewer fish, which was expected. 7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We wish to thank Wayne Dyok and Betsy McGregor from the A.lClska Energy Authority for supporting this project. We wish to acknowledge the assistance received from Christopher Rutz (A.EA.) in 2012 with budgetary issues and helping draft the data sharing agreement between AEA andADF&G. From LGL Alaska Research Associated, Inc., Michael Link provided suggestions and assistance with the study design and review of the study proposal. LGL staff were quick to respond to comments regarding shared telemetry data sets. LGL staff also agreed to manage the operations of the Lane Creek and Devils Creek radio towers in 2012. This allowed ADF&G to focus on maintaining the other towers and tag salmon successfully. Many thanks to Steve Crawford, Brian Nass, and Dave Robichaud: each of these individuals provided assistance with sharing data files and data quality relating to GIS coverage and telemetry data sets from the two affiliated Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page 10 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] FINAL REPORT CHINOOK AND PINK SALMON SPAWNING DISTRIBUTION projects. Each of these individuals provided assistance with sharing data files and checking data quality relating to GIS coverages and telemetry data sets. Mark Willette and Robert Decino from the Division of Commercial Fisheries in Soldotna supervised the radio tag deployment and fish wheel operations associated with fish wheel1 at Flathom. Stephen Dotomain, Annette Oels, and Douglas Miller from the Division of Sport Fish in Palmer provided logistical support. Judy Berger and Andy Barclay from the ADF&G Gene Conservation Laboratory (GCL) provided instructions and supplies for collecting tissues samples. Chris Habicht and Bill Templin from the GCL provided valuable advice for questions relating to population genetics and sampling Chinook salmon within the Susitna drainage. We wish to thank Joseph Klein at ADF &G in Anchorage for his efforts coordinating meetings and conespondence between AEA and ADF&G relating to the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project. Samuel Hochhalter from the Division of Sport Fish in Anchorage assisted summarizing Chinook salmon aerial telemetry data, and Skip Repetto from the Division of Sport Fish developed numerous GIS tools for automating the process for summarizing the radiotelemetry data. Suzanne Hayes and Samantha Oslund assisted with the Chinook salmon inter-observer variation and aerial survey counts. Nicholas Logelin, Aaryn Valencia, and Ross Oleck conducted the aerial radiotelemetry surveys and stationary site downloads. Stephen Dotomain and Will Newbeey in Pahner provided field supervision and logistical support for the tagging camps. Clint McBride (crew leader), Keegan Egelus, Robin Simms, Luke Warta, Aaryn Valencia, and Ross Oleck tagged Chinook salmon at the mainstem Susitna camp. Taylor Hendricks (crew leader), LeifKorth, Sarah Woods, Misty McNellis, Chase Jalbert, Jesse Dahms, Herman Miller, Michael Knutson and Aaryn Widmyer, assisted with tagging pink salmon at Flathom for the Division ofSport Fish. We wish to thank our editor, Tania Vincent, at ADF&G in Anchorage for her assistance in editing, reviewing, and preparing this document. The radio tags and the tagging operation on fish wheel1 at Flathom for pink salmon, the operation of fish wheels 2-4 at Flathom, and the radiotelemetry stations were funded by the Alaska Sustainable Salmon Fund (Studies 45921 and 45912). The data were prepared by ADF&G staff under award #NS08NMF438059 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, administered by the Alaska Department ofFish and Game. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of theN ational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Department of Commerce, or the Alaska Department ofFish and Game. The telemetry stations were, in part, funded by a Capital Improvement Project from the Alaska State Legislature. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page 11 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] FINAL REPORT CHINOOK AND PINK SALMON SPAWNING DISTRIBUTION 8. REFERENCES Carlon, J. A., and D. Evans. 2007. Abundance of adult Chinook salmon in the Kenai River, Alaska, 1999-2003. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 07-81, Anchorage. eary, P.M., R. A. Merizon, R. J. Yanusz, and D. J. Reed. (In press). Abundance and Spawning Distribution of Susitna River chum Oncorhynchus keta and coho 0. kisutch salmon, 2010. Alaska Department ofFish and r http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/Fed.Aidpdfs/fds07-8l.pdf Game, Fishery Data Series No. YY-XX, Anchorage. __.. King, B. E., and S.C. Walker. 1997. Susitna River sockeye salmon fry studies, 1994 and 1995. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Regional Information Report 2A97 -26, Anchorage. http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs!RIR.2A.1997.26.pdf Lafferty, R. 1997. Summary of escapement index counts of Chinook salmon in the Northern Cook Inlet management area, 1958-1996. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 97-8, Anchorage. Larson, L. 1995. A portable restraint cradle for handling large salmonids. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 15:654-656. Merizon, R. A., R. J. Yanusz, D. J. Reed, and T. R. Spencer. 2010. Distribution of spawning Susitna River chum Oncorhynchus keta and coho 0. kisutch salmon, 2009. Alaska Department ofFish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 10-72, Anchorage. Nass, B. A., M. R. Link, J. J. Smith, D. Robichaud, S. E. Burril, K. E. English, S. T. Crawford, J. T. Priest, and M. J. Nemeth. 2013. Adult Salmon Distribution and Habitat Utilization Study, Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 14241). Prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., for Alaska Energy Authority, 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503. 141 p. +Appendices. Oslund, S. and S. Ivey. 2010. Recreational Fishers ofNorthern Cook Inlet, 2009-1010: Report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries, February 2011. Alaska Department ofFish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 10-50, Anchorage. R&M Consultants. 1981. Susitna River Mile Index, Mouth to Susitna Glacier. Prepared for Acres American Incorporated, Buffalo, NY. Seber, G.A.F. 1982. On the estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. 2nd. ed. Charles Griffin and Sons, Ltd., London. 654 p. Sweet, D., S. Ivey, and D. Rutz. 2003. Area management report for the recreational fisheries of Northern Cook Inlet, 2001 and 2002. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 03-10, Anchorage. http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/fmr03-10.pdf Thompson, F. M., S. N. Wick, and B. L. Stratton. 1986. Adult salmon investigations May-October 1985. Alaska Department ofFish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Report Series 13, Anchorage. Yanusz, R., R. Merizon, D. Evans, M. Willette, T. Spencer, and S. Raborn. . Inriver ab~ce and distribution of spawning Susitna River S<lckeve salmon Oncorhynchus ner 6. aska Department of 8,_ __ Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 07-83, ~chorage. Yanusz, R., R. Merizon, :M. Willette, D.G. Evans. and T.R. Spencer. 20lla. Inriv spawning Susitna River s~ salmon Oncorhynchus nerka, 2008. Game, Fishery Data Series No. 11-12, Anchorage. - Yanusz, R., R. Merizon, M. Willette, D.G. Evans. and T.R. Spencer. 2011b. I · r ~ndan~~ and distribution of spawning Susitna River S~¥ salmon Oncorhynchus nerka, .!22,..:. . Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 11-19, ~chorage. JYanusz, R. J., S. A. McPherson, and D. R. Bernard. 1999. Production of Chinook salmon from the Taku River, 1997-1998. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 99-34, Anchorage. http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/fds99-34.pdf Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page 12 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] TABLES Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page 13 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] Table 1. Total Chinook salmon catch, radio tags applied, and total daily fish wheel and gillnet effort at the mainstem Susitna River site (RM 30) in 2012. Date 5/25 5/26 5/27 5/28 5/29 5/30 5/31 6/1 6/2 6/3 6/4 6/5 6/6 617 6/8 6/9 6/10 6/11 6/12 6/13 6/14 6/15 6/16 6/17 6/18 6/19 6/20 6/21 6/22 6/23 6/24 6/25 6/26 6/27 6/28 6/29 6/30 7/1 Fish wheel1 (west) Total catch 2 4 3 4 3 7 14 38 71 62 42 38 75 58 37 78 3 14 26 32 17 36 41 40 36 15 14 12 12 8 5 5 1 6 4 4 2 6 Radio- tagged 2 3 3 4 3 7 12 10 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 2 6 5 6 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 7 7 3 3 1 1 4 0 1 1 2 Fish wheel2 (east) Total catch 0 1 2 3 0 6 14 38 62 46 11 16 39 14 12 16 7 20 23 21 33 56 60 72 41 29 17 18 19 8 6 8 5 12 11 8 6 6 Radio- tagged 0 1 2 3 0 5 13 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 6 5 6 5 6 5 5 5 3 4 8 3 3 2 4 1 4 2 0 2 0 Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Gil1net Total catch 3 0 2 4 3 6 8 6 16 8 10 15 9 11 7 11 3 2 4 24 9 15 21 5 4 7 2 5 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Radio- tagged 0 0 1 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 4 5 6 5 7 5 4 4 2 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -continued- Page 14 Total catch 5 5 7 11 6 19 36 82 149 116 63 69 123 83 56 105 13 36 53 77 59 107 122 117 81 51 33 35 35 18 11 13 6 18 15 12 8 12 Fish wheel Total Gil1net effort (min) radio- tagged 2 4 6 9 6 15 29 19 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 8 14 14 17 16 17 17 15 14 12 11 19 14 7 5 5 2 8 2 1 3 2 effort (min) 174 173 154 205 163 122 207 173 163 217 230 192 198 186 217 181 170 216 171 163 165 176 166 170 247 220 231 233 239 293 250 286 291 295 279 310 335 249 1 782 720 738 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 721 722 723 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 727 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 727 720 721 2 738 494 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 728 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 730 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 728 720 722 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] Table 1. Part 2 of 2. Fish wheel1 Fish wheel2 (west) (east) Total Radio-Total Radio- Date catch tagged catch tagged 7/2 6 0 7 0 7/3 1 0 6 1 7/4 0 0 0 0 7/5 0 0 0 0 7/6 1 0 5 1 717 3 2 1 0 7/8 0 0 2 0 7/9 1 0 2 0 7/10 2 0 2 0 7/11 1 1 1 0 7112 1 1 2 0 7/13 2 1 1 1 7/14 0 0 0 0 7/15 0 0 0 0 7/16 0 0 1 1 .8/18 1 1 0 0 Total 894 178 796 160 Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Gillnet Total Radio-Total catch tagged catch 13 7 0 0 6 4 2 3 4 2 3 3 0 0 1 1 226 105 1,916 Page 15 Fish wheel Total Gillnet effort (min) radio-effort tagged (min) 1 2 0 720 720 1 720 720 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 720 360 2 720 720 0 721 723 0 720 720 0 720 721 1 720 720 1 728 722 2 720 720 0 720 722 0 722 722 1 720 720 1 720 720 443 8,110 37,552 36,910 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] Table 2. Total daily pink salmon catch, radio tags applied, and total daily fish wheel effort at the Flathorn (RM 24.5) tagging site in 2012. Fish wheel I Total Radio- Date catch tagged 7/10 I 7/12 7 3 7/13 3 7/14 5 2 7/15 15 2 7116 18 3 7/17 25 3 7/18 33 3 7/19 67 3 7/20 101 3 7/21 145 3 7/22 595 4 7/23 640 5 7/24 941 4 7/25 973 3 7/26 2,050 2 7/27 2,396 3 7/28 3,045 4 7/29 2,438 4 7/30 1,825 4 7/31 670 4 8/1 453 5 8/2 386 6 8/3 308 3 8/4 392 3 8/5 707 7 8/6 193 1 8/7 130 6 8/8 85 2 8/9 61 2 8/10 59 0 8/11 12 0 8/12 6 8113 14 Fish wheel2 Total Radio- catch tagged 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 6 10 5 0 4 3 25 7 28 4 130 4 81 6 81 8 111 9 279 7 574 6 577 6 667 6 737 5 340 4 160 4 201 4 115 2 137 166 77 15 16 9 12 6 7 4 Susitna-W atana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Fish wheel3 Total Radio- catch tagged 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 6 4 10 7 51 4 95 6 103 8 151 9 775 7 1,214 6 1,251 6 1,212 6 828 5 249 4 221 4 215 4 145 2 225 167 58 43 20 9 8 7 3 0 2 -continued- Page 16 Fish wheel4 Total Radio- catch tagged 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 2 2 1 6 5 13 4 28 4 212 4 143 6 145 8 252 9 643 7 782 6 629 6 630 6 879 5 546 4 351 4 341 4 381 2 376 265 147 46 37 30 24 11 13 4 Fish wheel effort (min) 2 3 4 1,200 720 732 724 1,200 723 720 720 1,200 720 738 720 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 722 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 730 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 725 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 722 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 722 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 725 720 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 720 720 1,200 720 726 720 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] Table 2. Part 2 of 2. Fish wheell Fish wheel2 Total Radio-Total Radio- Date catch tagged catch tagged 8/14 6 0 4 1 8/15 5 0 1 0 8/16 0 0 3 8/17 0 0 0 0 8/18 0 0 0 0 8/19 0 0 0 8/20 0 0 0 8/21 0 0 0 8/22 0 0 2 0 8/23 0 0 2 0 8/24 0 0 0 8/25 0 0 3 b 8/26 0 0 0 Totals 18,811 101 4,605 100 Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Fish wheel3 Total Radio- catch tagged 6 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 7,091 100 Page 17 Fish wheel4 Total Radio- catch tagged 11 1 6 0 6 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 5 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 6,983 100 Fish wheeLeffort {min} 1 2 3 4 899 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 728 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 727 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 724 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 723 720 720 720 720 720 733 726 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 724 50,371 33,849 33,884 33,869 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] Table 3. Locations of radio logger stations to monitor the movements of radiotagged Chinook salmon in the Susitna River during 2012. River Station Susitna Susitna Station Deshka Mouth Sunshine Talkeetna Lane Creek (Middle Susitna River) Chulitna Devil Creek Yentna Lower Y entna Skwentna UEEer Yentna Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page 18 OEerator Miles from saltwater ADF&G 25.6 ADF&G 40.6 ADF&G 83.8 ADF&G 101.6 LGL 113.6 ADF&G 112.1 LGL 161.3 ADF&G 37.2 ADF&G 89.2 ADF&G 101.7 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] Table 4. Definitions of movement patterns used to determine Chinook salmon spawning location. a Criterion Movement patterns 1 Did not migrate upstream at least i river mile. 2 Progressive upstream movement through all aerial surveys. 3 Progressive upstream movement except the last 1-2 aerial surveys, assigned the furthest upstream location. 4 Initially display upstream movement but then display downstream movement >2 aerial surveys, assigned the furthest upstream location. 5 A cluster oflocations (within 20 miles), assigned a known location in the middle of cluster. 6 A cluster oflocations except one outlier, assigned location in the middle of cluster, unless the outlier was observed during a late season (> 15 September) survey; then it was assigned the furthest upstream location. 7 Migrated up river A and then had >2 locations up river B. If strong signal strengths (> 120) exist among cluster in river B then fish was assigned to river B, otherwise river A. 8 Single aerial relocation only. 9 Sport caught by angler. 10 Aerial records exist, but station is furthest upstream location. 11 No aerial records, furthest upstream station used. Total• Does not include one tag never located by any method. Chinook salmon Number Percent 25 5.7 81 18.3 106 24.0 13 2.9 57 12.9 42 9.5 27 6.1 34 7.7 16 3.6 5 1.1 36 8.1 442 100.0 Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page 19 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] Table 5. Aerial survey distribution of Chinook salmon that were radiotagged at Susitna River RM 30 in 2012. Radio tags River Major tributary Spawning location Number 8 Percent Susitna River Susitna River RM 0-30 Alexander Creek 1 0.3 Susitna River RM 31-98 mainstem 24 6.7 Deshka River 104 28.9 Willow Creek 20 5.6 Goose Creek 2 0.6 Little Willow Creek 22 6.1 Kashwitna River 12 3.3 Sheep Creek 9 2.5 Montana Creek 8 2.2 Talkeetna River mainstem 8 2.2 Chunilna Creek (Clear Creek) 27 7.5 Sheep River 2 0.6 Iron Creek 7 1.9 Prairie Creek I Stephan Lake 6 1.7 Susitna River RM 99-154 mainstem 4 1.1 Portage Creek 11 3.1 Indian River 6 1.7 Chulitna River mainstem 21 5.8 East Fork 7 1.9 Tokositna River 6 1.7 Troublesome Creek 2 0.6 Middle Fork 18 5.0 Susitna River above RM 154 mainstem 0 0.0 Kosina Creek 2 0.6 Yentna River Yentna River mainstem 1 0.3 Cache Creek 3 0.8 Peters Creek 10 2.8 Lake Creek 11 3.1 Johnson Creek 1 0.3 Kichatna River 1 0.3 Skwentna River mainstem 1 0.3 Talachulitna River 2 0.6 Talachulitna Creek I Judd Lake 1 0.3 Susitna!Y entna All All 360 100.0 a Does not include 16 fish that were reported captured, 36 that had no aerial detections, five with spawning locations detennined from stationary records, and 25 fish that did not move at least 1 mile upstream ofthe tagging site at RM 30. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page 20 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] Table 6. Definitions of movement patterns used to determine pink salmon spawning location. Criterion Movement patterns 1 Did not migrate upstream at least 1 river mile. 2 Progressive upstream movement through all aerial surveys. 3 Progressive upstream movement except the last 1-2 aerial surveys, assigned the furthest upstream location. 4 Initially display upstream movement but then display downstream movement >2 aerial surveys, assigned the furthest upstream location. 5 · A cluster oflocations (within 20 miles), assigned a known location in the middle of cluster. 6 A cluster oflocations except one outlier, assigned location in the middle of cluster, unless the outlier was observed during a late season (>15 September) survey; then it was assigned the furthest upstream location. 7 Migrated up river A and then had>2locations up river B. If strong signal strengths (> 120) exist among cluster in river B then fish was assigned to river B, otherwise river A. 8 Single aerial relocation only. 9 Sport caught by angler. 10 Aerial records exist, but station is furthest upstream location. 11 No aerial records, furthest upstream station used. Total Pink salmon Number Percent 5 1.3 54 13.8 123 31.5 136 34.9 51 13.1 5 1.3 5 1.3 9 2.3 2 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 390 100.0 Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page 21 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] Table 7. Aerial survey distribution of pink salmon that were radiotagged at Susitna River RM 24.5 (Flatborn) in 2012. Radio tags Number River Major tributary Spawnin~ location a Percent Susitna River Susitna River RM 25.8-98 mainstem 21 5.5 Deshka River 41 10.6 Willow Creek 16 4.2 Goose Creek 0 0.0 Little Willow Creek 5 1.3 Kashwitna River 4 1.0 Sheep Creek 0 0.0 Montana Creek 6 1.6 Talkeetna River mainstem 8 2.1 Chunilna Creek (Clear Creek) 20 5.2 Sheep River 0 0.0 Iron Creek 0 0.0 Prairie Creek I Stephan Lake 0 0.0 Susitna River RM 99-154 mainstem 1 0.3 Portage Creek 0 0.0 Indian River 5 1.3 Chulitna River mainstem 60 15.6 Byers Creek 30 7.8 East Fork Chulitna River 0 0.0 Tokositna River 4 1.0 Troublesome Creek 2 0.5 Middle Fork Chulitna River 0 0.0 Susitna River above RM 154 mainstem 0 0.0 Kosina Creek 0 0.0 Yentna River Yentna River mainstem 17 4.4 Cache Creek 0 0.0 Kahiltna River 9 2.3 Peters Creek 1 0.3 Lake Creek 49 12.7 Johnson Creek 5 1.3 Kichatna River 1 0.3 Skwentna River mainstem 10 2.6 Shell Creek 2 0.5 Talachulitna River 52 13.5 Ta1achulitna Creek I Judd 16 4.2 Lake Susitna!Y entna All All 385 100.0 a Does not include 5 fish that did not move upstream of Susitna Station (RM 25 .8). Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority FERC Project No. 14241 Page 22 AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] Table 8. Unweighted spawning distribution (number of fish and percent) of radiotagged Chinook salmon in the Susitna River drainage in 2012, by tagging gear. Fish wheel1 Gillnet (west) S~stem Number Percent Number Percent Alexander Creek 0 0 1 1 Yentna River 5 6 24 17 Chulitna River 10 13 22 15 Talkeetna River 16 21 14 10 Deshka River 15 19 56 39 East Side Susitna 20 26 9 6 Rivera Susitna River 4 5 11 8 RM99-154 Susitna River 7 9 7 5 RM31-98 Grand Total 77 100 144 100 a Willow, Little WilJow, Montana, and Sheep creeks, and Kashwitna River. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page 23 Fish wheel2 (east) Total Number Percent Number Percent 0 0 1 0 2 1 31 9 22 16 54 15 20 14 50 14 33 24 104 29 44 32 73 20 8 6 23 6 10 7 24 7 139 100 360 100 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] Table 9. Susitna River Chinook and pink salmon radio tags returned to ADF&G by the public in 2012. Frequency Pulse code Species 151.514 18 Chinook salmon 151.514 43 Chinook salmon 151.514 63 Chinook salmon 151.514 87 Chinook salmon 151.524 51 Chinook salmon 151.524 54 Chinook salmon 151.533 37 Chinook salmon 151.533 59 Chinook salmon 151.533 88 Chinook salmon 151.544 17 Chinook salmon 151.544 31 Chinook salmon 151.544 56 Chinook salmon 151.544 56 Chinook salmon 151.544 73 Chinook salmon 151.584 48 Chinook salmon 151.584 50 Chinook salmon 151.504 9 pink salmon 151.573 1 pink salmon 151.573 54 pink salmon Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Date recovered 6/16/2012 7/18/2012 6/8/2012 7/20/2012 6/12/2012 2nd week of August 7/10/2012 7/30/2012 7/10/2012 6/15/2012 6/19/2012 6/4/2012 6/4/2012 6/15/2012 8/19/2012 9/1/2012 9/15/2012 8/27/2012 7/18/2012 Page 24 Location of radio tag Deshka River DeshkaRM3 Deshka River mouth Sunshine Creek mouth Deshka River Chulitna River Clear Creek Willow Creek Clear Creek Deshka River Deshka River mouth Deshka River mouth Deshka River Deshka River mouth Sheep Creek Montana Creek Montana Creek Willow Creek Indian River Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] Table 10. Unweighted spawning distribution (number of fish and percent) of radiotagged pink salmon in the Susitna River drainage in 2012, by tagging gear. Fish wheel1 (west Fish wheel2 (east bank of west channel) bank of west channel) System Number Percent Number Percent Alexander Creek 0 0 0 0 Yentna River 88 92 39 40 Chulitna River 4 4 25 26 Talkeetna River 1 1 6 6 Deshka River 1 I 15 15 East Side Susitna 0 0 3 3 River• Susitna River 0 0 2 2 RM 99-154 Susitna River 2 2 8 8 RM31-98 Grand Total 96 100 98 1 • Willow, Little Willow, Montana, and Sheep creeks, and Kashwitna River. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page 25 Fish wheel3 (west Fish wheel4 (east bank of east channel) bank of east channel) Number Percent Number Percent 0 0 0 0 29 31 6 6 36 38 31 32 11 12 10 10 11 12 14 15 3 3 25 26 1 1 3 3 4 4 7 7 95 100 96 100 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] Total Number Percent 0 0 162 42 96 25 28 7 41 11 31 8 6 2 21 5 385 100 Table 11. Comparison of helicopter counts of spawning Chinook salmon on six index tributaries of the Susitna River by three observers during 2012. Observer Observer Index Stream 1 2 Clear Creek Date 17-Jul 19-Jul Count 1,177 990 Weather c c Stream c L Visibility E E Prairie Creek Date 17-Jul 19-Jul Count 853 970 Weather c c Stream c L Visibility N E Montana Creek Date 17-Jul 19-Jul Count 416 402 Weather c c Stream N N Visibility E E N. Fork Kashwitna Date 16-Jul 18-Jul Count 82 83 Weather 0 c Stream c N Visibili 0 E Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Observer 3 26-Jul 805 c c N 26-Jul 1,185 c L E 21-Jul 258 0 N N 20-Jul 85 0 N E Observer comments 1st-low water, excellent visibility 2nd-Viewing conditions were excellent. 3rd-Bright sun made for dark shadows in the water. Lots of other salmon in the 1st half not as many KS at mouth. Fish very spread out KS all the way to the end. Counted 1 week later than planned due to bad weather. 1st-Fish still holding at the mouth-not as many just below lake as normal. Grizzly Creek not counted 3rd-counted 1 week later than planned due to bad weather. 1st-At least 200 fish holding at the mouth, most fish just below forks (east) holding. Hardly any fish in forks. 2nd -60 at the mouth. Included group at forks with mainstem count. 3rd -none at mouth, solid rain came back to Wasilla at 3pm. 1st -Viewing conditions were dark due to dense cloud cover. Lots oflogjams first 2 miles. 3rd-Flew pretty fast, still some groups of 4-6 fish, no groups of 10. Page 26 -continued- Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] %Agreement 1&2 1&3 84% 68% 88% 72% 97% 62% 99% 96% 2&3 81% 82% 64% 98% Table 11. Part 2 of 2. %A~eement Observer Observer Observer 2& Index Stream 1 2 3 Observer comments 1&2 1&3 3 Little Willow Creek Date 16-Jul 18-Jul 20-Jul Count 437 427 494 1st-Viewing conditions were dark untiLparks hwy bridge, hard to see 98% 88% 86% Weather 0 0 0 into deep holes until reached bridge where conditions improved to good. Stream N N N Most fish upstream of power lines Visibility N E E 3rd -Few fish upper end, less than 10 last 5 miles. Small groups of fish, 1-10. Willow Creek Date 16-Jul 18-Jul 20-Jul Count 712 756 744 1st-Partly sunny conditions, most fish were above RR bridge. 94% 96% 98% Weather 0 c 0 2nd-Groups of 10-12 common from Parks Hwy to Ghett's bridge. Stream N N N 3rd-one dead Visibili N E E Note: Survey conditions for weather are C = clear, 0 = overcast, T = turbulent; conditions for stream are L = low, N = nonnal, H = high, C = clear, and S = silty; conditions for visibility are E = excellent, N = nonnal, and P = poor. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page27 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] FIGURES Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page 28 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] \ {~ Chulitna Station :~b1a 7 ~ N + River 0 15 30 60 Kilometers Deshka M T . ~almer ainstem aggbt~ ~it_e ~ r +--susittta ~ Station Figure 1. Locations of the tagging sites and radiotelemetry stations used in this study for Chinook and pink salmon in the Susitna River in 2012. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page 29 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] Fish 'Vheel 1 Flathorn Tagging Site ~Tentna River SusitnaRiver Fish 'Vheel 1 0 0 N A Miles 2 3 Kilometers 1 2 3 I I I Figure 2. Locations of the mainstem and Flathorn sites for tagging Chinook and pink salmon, and river miles, in the lower Susitna River in 2012. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page 30 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( N + l(l I ·~· ""·~tl<ltlt I ,- r--- .•.• Anchorage /. I " I Figure 3. Spawning locations of radiotagged Chinook salmon in the Susitna River for all capture gears combined, 2012. Note: RM is river mile. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page 31 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] 15 N + .lO I 60 Kilom~•~~ I Middle Fork Chufitna R Figure 4. Spawning locations of Chinook salmon radiotagged at fish wheell (west) in the Susitna River, 2012. Note: RM is river mile. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 0 Page 32 0 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] 0 0 15 N + JO I (,() Kilnm•l""' I J / Cooklnlet I Figure 5. Spawning locations of Chinook salmon radiotagged at fish wheel2 (east) in the Susitna River, 2012 Note: RM is river mile. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page 33 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] 15 N + JO I ' \ /_._Middle Fork Chulitna R ~East Fork Chulitna R .//' - .!"' Cr !b ~q,CS <1.0 a~ I/.. ,. (1/./ \\ ' H Figure 6. Spawning locations of Chinook salmon radiotagged from drift gillnets in the Susitna River, 2012. Note: RM is river mile. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 ococ 0 Page 34 0 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] 000 0 ( Dam Site 0 5 10 40 •-11:1•-=---=====--•Miles 30 20 Figure 7. Spawning locations of radiotagged pink salmon in the Susitna River for all fish wheels combined, 2012. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page 35 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] :'0 Dam Site ·•· s 0 5 10 20 30 40 • • Miles Figure 8. Spawning locations of pink salmon radiotagged at fish wheel I in the Susitna River, 2012. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page 36 0 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] 0 0 ·+ 5 0 5 10 40 •-.:::::::~--=---====:J--•Miles 20 30 Figure 9. Spawning locations of pink salmon radiotagged at fish wheel 2 in the Susitna River, 2012. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Page 37 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] 'ralachulitna Riv -~ 0 10 20 Figure 10. Spawning locations of pink salmon radiotagged at fish wheel 3 in the Susitna River, 2012. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 0 Page 38 0 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date] 00 40 Miles 0 0 5 10 20 30 40 --=::~•.::::J---===::::::.--Miles Figure 1 l. Spawning locations of pink salmon radiotagged at fish wheel 4 in the Susitna River, 2012. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix 1 -Page 39 Alaska Energy Authority AEA [Final] Review Draft: [date]