eric prestegard- dipac duff mitchell- jhi max … dipac fish...• max schillinger- jhi • jennifer...

Juneau Hydropower, Inc.

PO Box 22775

Juneau, AK 99802

www.juneauhydro.com

Telephone: (907) 789-2775

Fax: (907) 375-2973

January 7, 2013

For the Record

Re: Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project Fish Collection and Transportation Meeting

On January 7, 2013 a meeting was held to discuss the proposed Fish collection barge and

transportation system developed in collaboration with Douglas Island Pink & Chum (DIPAC), a

not for profit hatchery and Juneau Hydropower, Inc.

Attending the meeting:

• Eric Prestegard- DIPAC

• Duff Mitchell- JHI

• Max Schillinger- JHI

• Jennifer Harper- FERC

• Matt Cutlip- FERC

• John Matkowski- FERC

• Monte Miller- ADFG

• Shawn Johnson- ADFG

• Judy Lum- ADFG

• Flip Pryor- ADFG

• Dan Teske- ADFG

Other Agencies invited, not attending: USFS, NMFS

The meeting commenced at 9:00 AM Alaska time with FERC representatives dialing in from

Washington DC and Portland, Oregon.

Prior to the meeting the following documents were distributed:

Power Point Presentation;

Agenda, dial in instructions and consolidated agency comments related to the fish collection and

transportation system;

JHI Proposed Design Drawing;

1994 ADFG Report on Sweetheart Lake Sockeye Program

The meeting agenda was as follows:

Introductions

History of Sweetheart Sockeye enhancement program (Eric)

DIPAC Program (Eric)

Current Status of Outmigration, Mortality and Return of Sockeye (Eric-Duff)

DIPAC/JHI collaboration on collection and outmigration (Eric-Duff)

2

Design concept (Eric Duff)

Enforceable Conditions Discussion (FERC requirements) (Duff-group discussion)

History of Sweetheart Sockeye enhancement program; DIPAC Program;

Current Status of Outmigration, Mortality and Return of Sockeye

Eric Prestegard, Executive Director of DIPAC provided a history of the Sweetheart Lake

Sockeye Program that began as an Alaska Department of Fish and Game lake project in 1989.

Mr. Prestegard provided the following stocking summary which shows some earlier plans to

heavily stock the Sweetheart Lake. Since DIPAC taking over the stocking program in 1997,

DIPAC has placing around 500,000 fry a year.

DIPAC operates a simple stocking program that consists of one day of egg take and one 15

minute flight from the Snettisham hatchery to Sweetheart Lake once a year. The sockeye

Brood Year

Broodstock

Source Fry Release Release Date Size (g)

Release

Location Agency

Otolith Banding

Pattern

1989 Speel L. 2,465,844 6/15 - 6/27/90 0.20 Sweetheart L. ADF&G 8H

1990 Speel L. 1,310,104 7/15/91 0.20 Sweetheart L. ADF&G 7H

1991 - - - - - - -

1992 Crescent L. 766,908 6/14/93 0.21 Sweetheart L. ADF&G 3,5H

1993 Crescent L. 1,739,605 5/11, 5/24/94 0.19 Sweetheart L. ADF&G 4,4H5

1994 - - - - - - -

1995 Crescent L. 728,798 6/7 - 6/13/96 0.18 Sweetheart L. ADF&G 4H

1996 - - - - - - -

1997 Snettisham 275,801 6/29/98 0.13 Sweetheart L. DIPAC 5,3H

1998 Snettisham 518,033 7/2/99 0.13 Sweetheart L. DIPAC 5,3nH





2003 Snettisham 266,355 5/27/04 0.13 Sweetheart L. DIPAC 5n,3H









Total Fry Released 13,941,181 Average Weight 0.16

STOCKING SUMMARY FOR SWEETHEART LAKE SOCKEYE ENHANCEMENT

3

salmon fry are flown in an Otter aircraft with a specialized tank. Upon arrival, the fish are

acclimated for about 15 additional minutes and then pump released into Sweetheart Lake. It is a

fairly simple and inexpensive lake stocking operation that provides a local benefit.

The fry are raised in the lake and then as smolt these juvenile salmon outmigrate the following

year down Sweetheart Creek. Sweetheart Creek is described as cavernous and treacherous stretch

of cascading falls in which most outmigrating sockeye do not make it to saltwater alive.

DIPAC is heavily experienced in hatchery operations and transportation of juvenile sockeye.

DIPAC plants sockeye in several lakes and has a detailed and clear understanding of

transportation densities and air handling protocol for sockeye fry and sockeye smolt. DIPAC

relies on decades of experience and know what works and what does not.

Flip Gaylord of ADFG provided harvest data from the Sweetheart Lake Personal Use Fishery.

Since 1993 a total of 61,400 sockeye have been harvested in the personal use fishery. The lowest

year was under a 1000 fish and the highest year was roughly 6700 fish. Based on his review the

fishery produced a harvest level between 1000 to 6000 fish. These results do not include any

commercial harvest interception that may have occurred. Further it was noted that weather could

affect harvest effort from year to year.

4

Matt Cutlip of FERC indicated that FERC’s point of compliance would be at the release point

and not consider returning salmon as an evaluation point because there are too many

uncontrollable variables with salmon and their life cycle in salt water. The parameters for the

purpose of license conditioning would be how many fish the system collects, releases below the

barrier falls and the resulting survival at that point.

Eric Prestegard provided insights into the fact that ADFG had previously investigated the

possibility of developing a smolt line for the Sweetheart Lake. Steve Reifenstuhl, who is not the

Executive Director at the Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (NSRAA)

climbed from Gilbert Bay to Sweetheart Lake to investigate and determine if the geography

would lend itself to a smolt line. Mr. Reifenstuhl is a recognized and avid extreme athlete. Mr.

Reifenstuhl has commented that he would never climb this bypass reach again. It was determined

through his investigation that it would be engineering impractical to design, construct and

operate a smolt line in order to decrease the mortality of outmigrating sockeye.

Year Permits1 Sockeye Harvest

1993 48 957

1994 184 3,820

1995 113 2,054

1996 105 1,815

1997 246 4,746

1998 316 5,922

1999 192 1,674

2000 149 1,560

2001 73 941

2002 88 1,588

2003 145 2,625

2004 221 4,028

2005 148 2,684

2006 175 4,297

2007 263 4,505

2008 339 6,739

2009 263 2,766

2010 259 2,967

2011 153 1,449

2012 181 4,245

Total 3,661 61,382

Sweetheart Creek Personal Use Harvest

1 Personal Use Permits are area wide and not exclusive to one creek.

This column represents permits reporting harvest in Sweetheart Creek.

5

According to both DIPAC and ADFG records an average of over 50% mortality occurs for

outmigrating smolts. DIPAC figures that mortality could be as high as 80% in some years and as

low as 20% in others. JHI 2012 fyke net was perhaps 80+ dead to perhaps 12 live of

outmigrating smolt (Note- a subsequent review of the JHI 2012 fyke net sets revealed a total of

91 dead to 18 live smolts).

DIPAC board continues to support the personal use fishery because it is inexpensive, it is simple

and it is appreciated by a segment of Juneau fishermen.

DIPAC/JHI collaboration on collection and outmigration

Duff Mitchell explained that JHI had met with DIPAC early in the permitting process because

JHI has a corporate philosophy to enhance rather than merely mitigate its environmental impact.

In this regard, JHI felt that it could improve the annual return of sockeye by incorporating a

smolt outmigration system into the hydropower operational design.

JHI met with DIPAC early on, but initially felt that a smolt line based on similar smolt lines at

Deer Lake at Baranof Island and at Spiridon Lake at Kodiak Island could be replicated. The Deer

Lake outmigration system is managed by NSRAA and stocks Coho salmon. The Spiridon Lake

outmigration system is an ADFG system cooperatively operated by the Kodiak Regional

Aquaculture Association.

Upon further consultation with DIPAC, it became clear that a smolt line at Sweetheart Creek

would be problematic for the following reasons: The terrain is steep and rocky which would

mean that installation would require rappelling, rock bolting the system into parts of the

cavernous creek shore. The system would be susceptible to avalanched and snow slides. Annual

maintenance and inspection would be required early in the year likely with snow and ice

conditions in order to ensure that the smolt line was in working order prior to outmigration. And

lastly, there would be issues if the smolt line had an avalanche or was not in working order prior

to the sockeye smolt outmigration.

Therefore another system was needed. The current design is based on a concept plan developed

by Eric Prestegard. The preliminary drawings of this concept plan were drafted by JHI. The

primary features are a 36 foot by 20 foot collection barge (A picture is depicted below, but larger

drawings were provided at the meeting); an intake on the bow of the barge that would funnel

smolt into the barge; a segregation system of screens that would separate smolt from rainbow

trout and dolly Varden; a holding system, a water draw system capable of up to 50 cfs; and

transportation tanks.

The smolt would be collected, held and then periodically transported to the powerhouse tailrace

area. A predesigned raceway would allow the tank to be inserted whereby water would be raised

to provide the smolt an ability to acclimate and allow their re-introduction into Sweetheart Creek

at the head of the new tailrace.

6

The flight from the lake to the powerhouse is 6 minutes. The system would be designed to

acclimate and reintroduce the smolts in 15 minutes. DIPAC would work with JHI to configure

the transport tank to ensure that smolt densities and water levels protocols would be in place to

ensure maximum survival of smolts during collection, transportation and reintroduction.

Additional items not depicted on the drawing is the possible integration of acoustic attraction.

Research into fish attraction suggests that outmigrating salmonids, to include sockeye are

attracted to surface draw. The salmon have a strong natural desire to outmigrate. Acoustical

research in fish behavior suggests that while salmonids do not have heightened hearing, they are

attracted to the sound of rushing water as means to find outmigration points. JHI would consider

incorporating underwater speakers to mimic rushing water to assist in the attraction of

outmigrating sockeye. JHI would also consider net systems that could be incorporated and

supplemented into the system design to increase attraction, guidance and to perhaps lessen the

chance of sockeye smolts sounding and attempting to outmigrate through the power tunnel.

Additionally entrance to the barge and exit from the reintroduction raceway would have fish

counters and video to determine number of fish entering the system and number of live fish

exiting the system to allow for record keeping for conditional compliance.

It was noted by Matt Cutlip of FERC that JHI’s proposed Francis Vertical turbines have high

survival rates on smolts going through the turbines and suggested that this be looked into since

the incidental smolt outmigration from the power tunnel might not incur high mortality rates. It

was discussed that power tunnel considerations and pressurization would also need to be

considered.

8

Enforceable Conditions Discussion

What is a reasonable number of smolt survivals for success? There are different ways to look at

success and agencies need to come up with a consensus with DIPAC and JHI. FERC must have

conditioning that is trackable and enforceable.

Issues:

Fish Collection Barge Intake system

Transportation

Release

DIPAC has detailed and specific experience in transporting sockeye smolts. The risk of success

of the system is less with the transportation and the release aspects of the system.

9

The body of research indicates that salmonids are attracted to the “draw” of the water flow in

sufficient water volume and velocity and in acoustic attraction.

According to Matt Cutlip’s experience these designs and developments are site specific.

Whatever license requirement, based on sustaining this fishery. Criteria will be needed in the

license to benchmark that these criteria are met. Typically these systems have proven to be

expensive to meet criteria and further to be verified. That does not mean that an inexpensive

system tailored to the conditions of this project will not work. The system will be evaluated for

compliance by number of fish you get down stream and survival of release, not what happens in

saltwater and what comes back.

Monte Miller of ADFG mentioned that we have average survivals, but there is variance between

years as some years are substantially higher in mortality than in other. Matt Cutlip suggested

that is something that the parties would need to agree to. For instance if 50,000 smolt are

collected and they all survive, then is that not success if it is stronger than the natural

outmigration?

There was discussion ensue that a baseline could be pre-construction success level. And if not

being met what is the fall back position?

Duff Mitchell outlined and broke down the risks: 1. Initial collection system and holding

2. Transportation and release.

The risk is less on the second component due to DIPAC’s experience and knowledge. The

primary risk and the risk that needs to be analyzed is attracting, collecting and holding the smolts

awaiting transportation. Eric Prestegard of DIPAC believes this design will work based on their

knowledge that the fish will be attracted to a surface draw and they will want to leave the lake.

The fish will leave the lake either through the surface attractant or that they will go through the

tunnel.

The discussion then evolved around fall back positions. One fallback position is to temporarily

shut down operations and surface draw water in sufficient quantity to release smolts through the

dam and allow a natural outmigration to exist. The pressure and energy from such a system

would not likely lead to success as this would create undue pressure and low survival. A second

fallback position might be to corral and seine smolts into a holding pen, differentiate and sort out

rainbows and Dolly Varden and transport. A third suggestion is to raise the fish to smolt stage at

the hatchery and then release them at the head of the tailrace to imprint smolt for stream

identification and stream fidelity which would completely bypass the need for lake stocking and

outmigration system. DIPAC indicated a high confidence that there would be little to no straying

or wandering.

10

A fourth discussion previously mentioned in the discussion was that smolts may have successful

outmigration through the tunnel and going through a Francis style turbine.

Max Schillinger, engineer for JHI, suggested that a fallback position discussion is good, but

every new design is untested and there is risk. However, this design could also set a precedent of

future applications.

JHI’s position is to try and make the fish system work.

The benchmark for trackable and enforceable criteria would be to do no harm. In other words,

have no lower mortality that what currently occurs and build from there.

Even though FERC is loathe having adaptive management regimes because they are difficult to

enforce, we could have a base benchmark that would also allow JHI/DIPAC to tweak the system

for increased survival.

Another issue is that if the system is too successful it will create luxury problem of additional

fish over and above what is needed for the personal use fishery and this would cause second and

third order effects that would need to be resolved.

Matt Cutlip of FERC. It appears that folks on the line are on board with the plan to move

forward. Encourage JHI and DIPAC to take into consideration if it does not work, what you can

do now to identify the fall back plan and place that in writing.

It was agreed that JHI dial conditioning with DIPAC, draft conditioning criterion and revised

drawings for the system and then bring back revised design plan with conditioning criteria for

another meeting for review and ADFG (and other agencies that want to participate) agreement

prior to license submission. JHI will draft criteria with DIPAC as identified in this meeting along

with benchmarks that are trackable and enforceable for FERC applicability. Agencies will be

able to review the revised drawings, base enforceable conditions and criteria, and fall back plans

prior to submission with license application.

Also the meeting record reflected by Monte Miller of ADFG that JHI has a record of working

well with agencies and responding to agencies that provide input. JHI agreed to ensure that

ADFG is provided adequate time to share within the agency and review the drafted fish

collection and transportation plans prior to filing for licensing.

Meeting summary prepared by Duff Mitchell, Juneau Hydropower, Inc.

AGENDA

1.History of Sweetheart Sockeye enhancement program (Eric-DIPAC)

2. DIPAC Program (Eric-DIPAC) 3.Current Status of Outmigration, Mortality and

Return of Sockeye (Eric-DIPAC, Duff-JHI) 4. DIPAC/JHI collaboration on collection and

outmigration (Eric-DIPAC, Duff-JHI) 5. Design concept (Eric-DIPAC, Duff-JHI) 6. Enforceable Conditions Discussion (FERC

requirements) (Duff-JHI lead group discussion)

SWEETHEART LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

PRESENTATION

Fish Collection & Transportation Meeting

January 2013 Juneau, Alaska

Introductions • Eric Prestegard- DIPAC

• Duff Mitchell- JHI

• Max Schillinger- JHI

• Matt Cutlip- FERC

• John Matkowski- FERC

• Monte Miller- ADFG

• Shawn Johnson- ADFG

• Judy Lum- ADFG

• Flip Pryor- ADFG

• Dan Teske- ADFG

Sockeye Collection Barge operating area

Sockeye Release Point

at head of tailrace

1.History of Sweetheart Sockeye enhancement program (Eric-DIPAC)

2. DIPAC Program (Eric-DIPAC)

Brood Year

Broodstock

Source Fry Release Release Date Size (g)

Release

Location Agency

Otolith Banding

Pattern

1989 Speel L. 2,465,844 6/15 - 6/27/90 0.20 Sweetheart L. ADF&G 8H

1990 Speel L. 1,310,104 7/15/91 0.20 Sweetheart L. ADF&G 7H

1991 - - - - - - -

1992 Crescent L. 766,908 6/14/93 0.21 Sweetheart L. ADF&G 3,5H

1993 Crescent L. 1,739,605 5/11, 5/24/94 0.19 Sweetheart L. ADF&G 4,4H5

1994 - - - - - - -

1995 Crescent L. 728,798 6/7 - 6/13/96 0.18 Sweetheart L. ADF&G 4H

1996 - - - - - - -







2003 Snettisham 266,355 5/27/04 0.13 Sweetheart L. DIPAC 5n,3H









Total Fry Released 13,941,181 Average Weight 0.16

STOCKING SUMMARY FOR SWEETHEART LAKE SOCKEYE ENHANCEMENT

3.Current Status of Outmigration, Mortality and Return of Sockeye

(Eric-DIPAC, Duff-JHI)

4. DIPAC/JHI collaboration on collection and outmigration (Eric-

DIPAC, Duff-JHI)

5. Design concept (Eric-DIPAC, Duff-JHI)

6. Enforceable Conditions Discussion (FERC requirements) (Duff-JHI lead

group discussion)

• A condition that the Commission can effectively administer is one that is "enforceable and trackable."

Go Forward

Monday January 7th

, 2013 9 AM Alaska time.

Call in number 1-800-610-4500

Access Code 9709410

There will be an agenda and design overview available over the web during the meeting.

You can view the agenda and collection system design by going to the following website at the

scheduled conference time:

http://www.freeconference.com/DesktopConnect.aspx?E=9afeed7748c25c92a552832b2c6eed60&B=12494261&AC=1

Agenda:

1.History of Sweetheart Sockeye enhancement program (Eric)

2. DIPAC Program (Eric)

3.Current Status of Outmigration, Mortality and Return of Sockeye (Eric-Duff)

4. DIPAC/JHI collaboration on collection and outmigration (Eric-Duff)

5. Design concept (Eric Duff)

6. Enforceable Conditions Discussion (FERC requirements) (Duff-group discussion)

Additional attachments:

JHI Proposed Design Drawing

1994 ADFG Report on Sweetheart Lake Sockeye Program

Fish Collection and Outmigration system comments from Juneau Hydropower Inc.’s Draft

License Application and Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment

FERC

Page 61: Under existing conditions, 500,000 juvenile anadromous sockeye salmon are annually

stocked by Douglas Island Pink and Chum, Inc. (DIPAC) into Sweetheart Lake. The juvenile

sockeye salmon annually emigrate through the existing lake outlet to Sweetheart Creek where

they migrate about 2 miles down Sweetheart Creek to access the marine environment for growth

into the adult life stage. The returning adults cannot migrate back upstream to Sweetheart Lake

because of natural passage barriers in Sweetheart Creek, but they do support a personal use

fishery in Gilbert Bay at the mouth of Sweetheart Creek. Because the dam would block the

downstream migration path for juvenile sockeye salmon through the existing lake outlet, the

project has the potential to alter the existing fish passage and survival rates for the hatchery

sockeye salmon population in Sweetheart Lake. To protect the existing sockeye salmon personal

use fishery in Gilbert Bay, you propose to modify the sockeye salmon hatchery program in

Sweetheart Lake to make it similar to other lake-system hatchery outmigration programs in

Alaska such as those implemented at Deer Lake and Spiridon Lake. You provide an internet link

to access an online summary of the system implemented at Deer Lake; however, you provide no

additional specific information on your proposed changes to the sockeye salmon hatchery

program, nor do you provide any further detailed information on your proposed fish collection

and downstream passage system.



It is unclear how the Deer Lake or Spiridion Lake hatchery programs are related to the proposed

project, and the information provided is insufficient to support an analysis of the potential effects

of the project on the hatchery sockeye salmon program in Sweetheart Lake and its associated

personal use fishery in Gilbert Bay. Therefore, please revise your APEA to include the following

additional information:

(1) your specific proposal for modifying the existing hatchery program to facilitate rearing and

downstream passage of juvenile sockeye salmon under proposed project operations (e.g., number

and type of net pens that would be deployed, the proposed timeframe for net pen deployment, a

description of how the net pens would be operated to accommodate an annual reservoir

fluctuation of up to 60 feet, and a description of how the net pens would be operated during the

winter ice-cover period);

(2) a specific description of the facilities that would be used to capture juvenile sockeye salmon

reared in the net pens and release them into the marine environment; and

(3) a description of whether the lake would continue to be used for juvenile sockeye salmon

rearing, and if so, a discussion of how any lake reared sockeye would be collected for

downstream transport.

Your APEA should include a description of the collection efficiency and survival criteria for

your proposed fish passage facilities that are developed after consultation with DIPAC, Alaska

DF&G, NMFS, FWS, and the Forest Service. In addition, any proposed fish hatchery, collection,

and passage facilities should also be described in detail in your description of project facilities in

section 2.2.1 of your APEA as well as all applicable exhibits of your final license application.

Page 73 to 75: The APEA does not adequately characterize reservoir fluctuations and the

potential effects of these fluctuations on aquatic habitat and fish populations in Lower

Sweetheart Lake and tributaries draining into Lower Sweetheart Lake. Please provide a clear

description of your proposed reservoir operations and additional analysis on the frequency,

timing, and duration of reservoir fluctuations; the areas dewatered under daily and seasonal

cycles; the likely effects on resident fish spawning and rearing habitat; and the potential for fish

stranding and redd dewatering.

ADFG Comments

Sockeye Smolt Collection and Transfer System

Sweetheart Lake is stocked annually with sockeye fry from Douglas Island Pink and Chum

(DIPAC) hatchery at Port Snettisham. These fish rear in the lake for one year (sometimes two)

before outmigrating down Sweetheart Creek into Gilbert Bay. As adults, they return to

Sweetheart Creek, providing a very popular personal use fishery for Alaskan residents. These

adult sockeye do not migrate to Sweetheart Lake because of barrier falls and consequently do not

reproduce. DIPAC carries out this stocking program as a public service to the community of

Juneau and plans to continue to do so post-project. ADF&G supports and appreciates DIPAC’s

efforts in providing this public service.

The proposed dam would prevent sockeye smolts from out-migrating down Sweetheart Creek to

Gilbert Bay. As such, JHI has proposed a sockeye smolt collection and transfer system to move

sockeye smolts from the lake down to the anadromous reach of Sweetheart Creek. The PDEA

provides a brief description of this system but more details and feasibility analyses are needed.

We understand that JHI has been discussing this system with DIPAC. We recommend JHI

continue working with DIPAC and the agencies in developing this system.

NMFS Comments

NMFS does not have sufficient information on the project or its effects on EFH to agree or

disagree with JHI’s EFH determination. The anadromous fish produced in Sweetheart Creek,

marine resources in Gilbert Bay, and the substantial sockeye fisheries from Sweetheart Lake

would potentially be affected by the project. Once a revised and complete preliminary

environmental document is prepared, and if NMFS believes based on that information that the

project would have substantial adverse effects, we may request expanded EFH consultation

including preparation of an EFH Assessment. This is likely.

USFWS NONE

NPS-NONE

USFS Comments

Fisheries:

Very little discussion of impacts and project design and implementation

Lacks information on plankton, a important food source of sockeye smolts

Statement that fisheries and habitat will be improved because of project implementation is not

supported.

Discussions of outmigration system lack critical details.

“The creek is indeed utilized by fish and quite necessary for both sockeye, Dolly Varden, and

rainbow trout to access salt water. It is highly likely that the Sweetheart watershed is a consistent

and perhaps even substantial producer of sea-run Dolly Varden and steelhead to the numerous

fisheries found along the east and west sides of Stephens Passage. The Applicant must

demonstrate the effects of flow diversion on fish habitat in the bypass reach, addressing the

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, forest-wide and for this particular LUD.”

1st paragraph -- “The Applicant has researched two other Alaska salmon outmigration

system developed and used at the Deer Lake Hatchery…” The applicant has not explained in

detail how this is going to work. Currently the applicant does not know the timing of

outmigration. How is he going to resolve this lack of knowledge? Why does the applicant think

his airlift downstream fish passage method is improved compared to the current outmigration?

This is a bold statement and it needs to be explained.

For instance, where is the information on the current survivability of the smolt outmigration?

The next paragraph states that the smolt will only be moved twice a week to a pool below the

barrier falls. What is the expectant mortality of the smolts if they are held in this type of system

for this time period? What happens if you get a large number of smolts in a short period of time?

Much more information and discussion is needed. Has DIPAC or ADF&G indicated to the

proponent a need for more sockeye? Perhaps with a decrease in mortality DIPAC/ADF&G will

simply decrease yearly fry production if they are happy with current escapement figures so they

can save funds. It would be good to include an assessment or statement from cooperators

regarding this concept before touting it as an enhancement.

Page 100: Aquatic Resource Solutions -- “…will be operated only for the outmigration window

of stocked sockeye.” What about the rainbow trout and Dolly Varden that migrate downstream?

How will they make it down to saltwater under the Proposed Action? Insufficient discussion

regarding the predicted impacts to native fish once a dam is built.

Page 100: Aquatic Resource Solutions -- “…will be operated only for the outmigration window

of stocked sockeye.” How many trips a year? How many fish at a time? How many fish can the

“recovery location” handle at one time? What happens to the early or late arrivals? How is

predation in the holding pen avoided? Insufficient discussion of this very important aspect of the

proposed action.

Page 212: -- “A sockeye smolt pen transfer system eliminates the need…” A photo is shown of

the above ground smolt line that this system would take the place of, but the pen transfer system

is not described here in terms of appearance and function. Please describe and explain.

2. This report mentions that sockeye fry is stocked in the lake every year, but it doesn’t discuss

the effects of the proposed action on these fry.

a. How will the proposed action affect their food source (phytoplankton)?

b. Will the vacillation of lake depths change the species composition of the phytoplankton?

c. How will it affect the outmigration of the sockeye?

d. Will they be going over the spillway or through the tunnel or other?

e. How will it affect the numbers of sockeye able to rear in Sweetheart Lake?

SOCKEYE SALMON SMOLT PRODUCTXON ANDEMXGRATXON SURVXVAL FROM THE

XNXTXAL STOCKXNG OF SWEETHEART LAKE.

by

Richard Yanusz

and

David Barto

FISHERY RESEARCH BULLETIN NO. XX-XX

Alaska Department of Fish and GameDivision of Commercial Fisheries

Management and DevelopmentP.O. Box 25526

Juneau, AK 99802-5526

XXXX 1995

12/94 DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF APPENDICES

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

Site Description

METHODS

Lirnnological Assessment--Field SamplingPhysical/ChemicalPrimary ProductionSecondary ProductionTertiary Production

Limnological Assessment--Laboratory AnalysisPhysical/ChemicalPrimary ProductionSecondary ProductionTertiary Production

Smolt ProductionStockingFyke TrapTow NetSize and AgeLake

Smolt MortalityMortalities Caught at FlatsTagging ExperimentInjury ExaminationsLatent Mortality

RESULTS

Limnological AssessmentPhysical/ChemicalPrimary ProductionSecondary ProductionTertiary Production

Smolt Production

12/94 DRAFT

12/94 DRAFT

Smolt MortalityTagging ExperimentLatent MortalityInjury Examinations

DISCUSSION

Present Production Potential and CharacteristicsIn-Lake Production Limits and possible Management StrategiesEmigration MortalityConclusionsRecommendations

LITERATURE CITED

TABLES

FIGURES

APPENDIX

12/94 DRAFT

AUTHORS

Richard J. Yanusz is the Assistant Area Limnologist for NorthernSoutheast Alaska, at the Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Division of Commercial Fisheries Management and Development, P.O.Box 240020, Douglas, AK 99824-0020.

David Barto is the Area Limnologist for Northern SoutheastAlaska, at the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division ofCommercial Fisheries Management and Development, P.O. Box 240020,Douglas, AK 99824-0020.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The UDSA-Forest Service, through Don Martin, is a cooperatingagency in this project. Katharine Savage asssisted in thelimnological and smolt evaluations and data tabulation. StevenJuhlin, Keith Canaday, Dave Dreyer, Andrew Journey, and BryAnneRounds constructed and operated the smolt field camps, andconscientiously performed all the sampling and trials. ClydeAndrews also assisted in the limnological evaluation.

PROJECT SPONSORSHIP

This investigation was partially financed by U.S./Canada GrantNo. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

12/94 DRAFT

ABSTRACT

Sweetheart Lake is an oligotrophic lake located near Juneau,Alaska. A series of falls on the outlet stream form a naturalbarrier to anadromous fishes. Fishery and 1imnologicalobservations, when applied to empirical sockeye salmon Oncorhynchusnerka production models for coastal Alaskan lakes, suggested thatthe lake's rearing potential was underutilized. Juvenile sockeyesalmon were stocked (2.47 x 10' in·1990 and 1.3 x 10' in 1991) inorder to realize more of the lake's rearing potential and create anew salmon fishery. Holopedium abundance and biomass decreasedduring stocking, but rebounded after stocking. Holopedium seasonal.mean body length increased during stocking but returned to prestocking condi tions when stocking ceased. Cyclops abundance,biomass, and seasonal mean body length decreased during and afterstocking. These changes occurred even though less than the sockeyeproduction model estimates were stocked. Stocked juvenile-to-age1.0 smolt survival was 32% for the 1990 stocking and.decreased to26% for the 1991 stocking, and age 1.0 smolts averaged 6.0 g in1991 and 6.3 g in 1992. Observed survival and growth exceededthose expected when rearing limitation occurs, and the smo1t sizewas near the optimum for ocean survival. These responses areconsistent with a density-dependent system currently belowcapacity, but near the management goal of the greatest number ofadults returning per fry stocked. Smolt emigration survival downturbulent Sweetheart Creek was estimated at 53%.

KEY WORDS: sockeye salmon, smolt, stocking, euphotic volume,zooplankton, survival

12/94 DRAFT

INTRODUCTION

The United States--Canada Pacific Salmon Interception Treaty made

funds available for enhancement programs so the United States could

mitigate lost salmon allocations. In northern Southeast Alaska,

the Stephens Passage sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) drift

gillnet fishery was identified by the Alaska Department of Fish and

Game (ADFG), Division of Commercial Fisheries Management and

Development (CFMD) as an enhancement opportunity. Enhancement by

initiation of salmon runs to barriered lakes has been successful

(Koenings and Burkett 1987; Kyle et al. 1988?; Blackett 1987), and

Sweetheart Lake was investigated for this technique because of its

geographic location, size, and lack of a natural salmon run (due to

barrier falls) .

ADFG policy requires pre- and post-enhancement evaluation of

enhancement projects, to ensure biologically sound effects occur.

Limnological conditions, smolt number and size, and zooplankton

population characterisitics have been used in salmon management

(Koenings and Burkett 1987; Kyle and Koenings 1991). This

project's objectives were to:

1) describe the limnological conditions before, during, and

after fry stocking,

2) determine the productive potential of the Sweetheart Lake

-1-

12/94 DRAFT

system using limnological models,

3) evaluate the sockeye smolt production by smolt number,

size, and survival,

4) estimate the smolt mbrtality in Sweetheart Creek by

comparing catches of upstream and downstream traps, and

5) recommend actions to maximize the number of

returning per number of fry stocked.

site Description

adults

Sweetheart Lake is located 68 km southeast of Juneau in Southeast

Alaska (Figure __1_ ) at 57° 56' N, 133° 38' W. The lake is about

8.5 km long and 1 km wide, and consists of three basins. One

small, shallow basin (maximum depth 40 m) is above the main basin

and another small, shallow basin (maximum depth 22 m) is below the

main basin (Figure ~ ). The lake's principal tributaries, an

unnamed creek and the outlet of Upper Sweetheart Lake, feed the

upper basin. Water then flows through the main basin, into the

lower basin, and finally down the outlet stream. Table

summarizes the physical characteristics of Sweetheart Lake and its

theoretical water residence time. The lake usually freezes over in

late November, and thaws during mid to late May.

The outlet, Sweetheart Creek (ADFG stream number 111-35-10200), has

a 166-m vertical and a 3.5-km horizontal course that enters

-2-

12/94 DRAFT

saltwater at Gilbert Bay. The creek has a mean annual flow of

10.0 m3 /s (Anonymous 1979; Koenings et al. 1987), and is turbulent

and swift, with falls up to 10 m tall that block anadromous fish

and threaten the survival of any fish descending Sweetheart Creek.

During a 1980 survey, a group of water-and-dye-filled ziploc bags,

baggies, and balloons were dropped over the furthest downstream

(and highest) falls on Sweetheart Creek, and a total of 56% broke

open (Erickson 1980). The creek is in a narrow canyon with 300 to

600-m sidewalls that make further evaluation on the ground

difficult. A videotape made during a helicopter flight is the

current best documentation of the creek.

In 1988, coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) salmon smolt (approximately

8.2 g average weight) were planted in Sweetheart Creek, and their

emigration survival was approximately 90% (Ron Josephson, ADFG,

Douglas, personal communication). Subsequently, 20,000 coded-wire

tagged coho smolt of the same size were planted directly into

Sweetheart Lake. Tag recoveries from the returning adult coho

caught in commercial fisheries showed that the stocked fry

emigrated as both age 1.0 and 2.0 smolts, and that the smolt-to

adult survival exceeded that of a control group of coho smolt

released directly from Snettisham hatchery in 1988.

Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) are considered native to Sweetheart

Lake. ADFG Sport Fish Divison stocked 40,000 Rainbow trout

-3-

12/94 DRAFT

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) eyed eggs in sweetheart Lake in 1954 and

20,000 rainbow fry in 1955 (Roger Harding, ADFG, Douglas, personal

communication). Some records imply that E.B. (Eastern Brook,

Salvelinus fontinalis 7) were stocked in 1938. A survey in 1972

caught no fish in gillnets or by hook and line, but reported

observing fry near shore. Another survey in 1980 caught many small

Dolly Varden and two Rainbow trout (Erickson 1980). No public

sport fishery was noted in any survey.

-4-

12/94 DRAFT

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Limnological Assessment -- Field Sampling

All portions of Sweetheart Lake were transected with a

hydroacoustic sounding unit (described later) to generate a

bathymetric map and calculate the lake volume (Hutchinson 1957) ..

physical, chemical, and biological data were collected at two

permanent sampling stations, one centered in Sweetheart's upper

basin and one centered in the main basin (Figure ~ ). Samples

were collected once each month during the ice-free (May to

November) period.

Physica1/Chemical

Euphotic zone depth (EZD) was defined as the depth at which 1% of

the subsurface light (photosynthetically available radiation, 400

700 nm) penetrates (Schindler 1971). This value is equivalent to

the Y-intercept determined by regressing depth against the natural

logarithm of the percent sub-surface light. Light penetration was

measured with a Protomatic submarine photometer above the water's

surface, 5 cm below surface, in 0.5-m increments down to 5 ill, and

then in 1-m increments until 1% of the above-surface light

intensity remained. The vertical extinction coefficient (Kd) was

calculated as the reciprocal value of the regression slope. Secchi

-5-

12/94 DRAFT

disk depth was determined by averaging the depth of disappearance

while lowering with the depth of reappearance while raising a

standard, 20-cm, black and white disk. Euphotic volume (EV) was

calculated as the product of the lake surface area and the mean EZD

(1 EV=10'm3 ; Koenings and Burkett 1987).

Water temperature and dissolved oxygen were measured with a YSI

model 57 telemeter in 1-m increments from surface to 20 m, and then

in 5-m increments from 20 m to the maximum sampling depth.

Conductivity was measured in similar increments using a YSI model

33 telemeter. The dissolved oxygen meter was calibrated each

survey against Winkler determinations taken from four depths

throughout the water column, and the water temperature was verified

at similar intervals with a mercury thermometer.

Approximately 8-L water samples were collected from two depths at

each station with multiple casts of a 4-L PVC VanDorn bottle.

Depths sampled at Station 1 were 1 and 50 m (bottom was 130 m), and

depths sampled at Station 2 were 1 and 30 m (bottom was 40 m), to

characterize the epilimnion and hypolimnion. Water samples were

stored in translucent, high-density polyethylene carboys for

transport, and kept cool and dark until processing at the

laboratory 1-6 h after collection.

-6-

12/94 DRAFT

Primary Production

Primary production (algal standing crop) samples were collected at

the same sampling sites from depths of 1-m, mid-EZD, and at the

EZD. EZD in the field was defined as the depth where 1% of the

above-surface light remained, and was measured on each sampling

trip as described above.

secondary Production

Replicate vertical zooplankton tows were collected from 50 m to

surface at Station 1 and 35 m to surface at Station 2, using an

0.5-m diameter, 153 )l-mesh, 1:3 length: diameter, conical

zooplankton net. The net was retrieved at a constant rate of about

0.5 mis, rinsed by back-washing with lake water, and the organisms

were immediately preserved in a solution of 10% neutralized

formalin.

Tertiary Production

Pre-stocking fish abundance and distribution surveys were conducted

on 4-5 October 1989 and on 7-9 June 1990. During each survey,

minnow traps, floating gill nets, a hydroacoustic sounder/recorder,

and a tow net were used to sample fish. Minnow traps were

cylindrical, 42-cm long by 22-cm in diameter, and constructed of

-7-

12/94 DRAFT

wire mesh with 6-mm openings. An inward-pointing cone at each end

of the cylinder led fish to a 2-cm opening into the trap. Each trap

was baited with approximately 20 ml of raw salmon roe, contained in

a perforated plastic film cannister suspended in the center of the

trap. Fifteen traps were fished at points throughout the shoreline

(Figure 3 ), 0.2 to 2-m deep, in substrates of sand, gravel,

bedrock, or sunken logs, set about midday and retrieved about

midday the following day. Captured fish were identified, counted,

and fork length measured to the nearest millimeter. Some were

dissected for sexual stage, but most were released alive.

The floating gill nets were comprised of (in order) 25, 40, 53, 75,

and 102-mm stretched-mesh panels, each panel being 7.4-m long by

2-m deep when hanging square. The 25-mm mesh was nylon

monofilament, and all others were fine-diameter, multistrand, nylon

twine. The largest mesh was· tied to shore, and the remainder of

the net was set purpendicular to the shoreline, with the small mesh

in water 9 to Il-m deep. The gill nets were set at about midday

and retrieved at about midday the following day. Substrate at

every site was gravel or cobble. The steep shoreline limited

setting the gillnets to a site near the outlet during October 1989,

and the outlet site and an upper basin site were used in June 1990

(Figure ~) . Captured fish were identified, counted, and fork

length measured to the nearest millimeter. Scales were collected

from some Rainbow trout. All fish found alive were released alive.

-8-

12/94 DRAFT

Pelagic fish populations were estimated with a BioSonics ' model 105

echosounder, with the echos recorded on a BioSonics model 115 paper

chart recorder and on a Pansonic digital audio tape recorder. A

dual-beam (9° and 15° nominal angle), downward-looking transducer,

mounted in a weighted fiberglass V-fin and suspended by davit

alongside the boat, was towed approximately 0.5-m deep at a rate of

1.5 m/s. A BioSonics model 171 tape interface encoded the echo.

signals for storage prior to recording on the tape. System gain

and stability (calibration signals) were measured and recorded in

the field immediately prior to and following each survey, using a

Tektronix model 212 oscilloscope and a Fluke model

multimeter.

8062A

Ten transects, all orthogonal to the lake's long aXlS, were sampled

with the hydroacoustic unit each survey (Figure ~) Transects

were chosen using a stratified random sampling design, by dividing

the.lake into 10 uniformly-spaced sampling areas, and then randomly

choosing one transect from each area for each survey. Transect

sampling was conducted during the hours of complete darkness,

assuming that the fish were more uniformly distributed during

darkness and therefore more available to the hydroacoustic unit.

A mid-water tow net was used to verify hydroacoustic target signals

1 Mention of commercial products and trade names does notconstitute endorsement by ADFG, CFMD.

-9-

12/94 DRAFT

and determine fish species composition. This sampling occurred at

the same time during the night immediately following the

hydroacoustic survey, and was done' in the pelagic areas along the

;,'longitudinal aX1S of the lake, just north of Station

(Figure L). The tow net had a 2 by 2-m square mouth, was 7.6-m

long, with a forward section of 38-mm stretch knotless nylon

netting followed by successively smaller meshes and finishing with.

a cod end lined with 3~2-mm stretch mesh netting (Gjernes 1979).

Six 3D-min, horizontal tows were done for each survey, two each at

15, 10, and 5-m deep, at a tow speed of about 0.6 m/s. All fish

captured were immediately preserved in 10% neutralized formalin.

Limnological A~~essment -- Laborato~ Analysis

Physica~/Chernica~

The water and zooplankton samples collected were analyzed by the

ADFG, CFMD laboratory in Soldotna, Alaska. After field collection,

the water samples were flown to the Douglas field office and

appropriate portions refrigerated, frozen, or filtered, following

Koenings et al. (1987). Within 18 hours of processing the samples

were flown to Soldotna in insulated containers. Subsequent

laboratory analyses also followed Koenings et al. (1987).

Conductivities (temperature compensated to 25 DC) were measured

-10-

12/94 DRAFT

using Yellow Springs Instrument model 32 conductance meter.

Turbidities (NTU) were determined using a model DRT-I00 laboratory

turbidimeter. Water color was determined on filtered lake water by

measuring the spectrophotometric absorbance at 400 urn and

converting to platinum cobalt (Pt) units using a standard

calibration curve.

Calcium and magnesium concentrations were determined from separate

EDTA (0.01 N) titrations after Golterman (1970). Total lron was

analyzed by reduction of ferric iron with hydroxylamine after

hydrochloric acid digestion using the Strickland and Parsons (1972)

method.

Filterable reactive phosphorus (FRP) was determined uSlng the

molybdenum-blue method as modified by Eisenriech et al. (1975).

Total (TP) and total filterable phosphorus (TFP) utilized the same

procedure following acid-persulfate digestion. Nitrate plus

nitrite were determined as nitrite following cadmium reduction of

nitrate, and total ammonia was determined using the

phenolhypochlorite procedure described by Stainton et al. (1977).

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) was determined as total ammonia

following sulfuric acid block digestion (Crowther et al. 1980).

Total nitrogen was reported as the sum of the TKN and nitrate plus

nitrite fraction. Reactive silicon was determined using ascorbic

acid reduction· to molybdenum-blue (Stainton et al. 1977), and

-11-

12/94 DRAFT

alkalinities were determined by a sulfuric acid (0.02 N) titration

to pH 4.5. TKN plus nitrate plus nitrite yielded total nitrogen

(TN), and TNIl4 (atomic weight of N) was compared with TP/31

(atomic weight of P) to derive the N:P ratio.

Primary

Chlorophyll a (Chl a) samples were prepared by filtering 1 L of

lake water through a Whatman 47 mm GF/F glass fiber filter using a

vacuum pressure ",15 mm of Hg. Prior to the compl"tion of the

filtration "'2 ml of 1 N MgCO" was added to the filter. Filters

were stored frozen in plexiglas Petri slides until processed.

Chl a, corrected for inactive phaeophytin was determined by the

direct flourometric method of Strickland and Parsons (1972) with

dilute acid addition method developed by Reimann (1978).

Secondary

Cladocerans were identified according to Brooks (1957) and Pennak

(1978), and copepod zooplankters after Wilson (1959) and Yeatman

(1959) . Zooplankters were enumerated from three 1-ml subsamples

collected with a Hensen-Stemple pipet and placed in a I-ml

Sedgewick-Rafter counting chamber. The total body length of the

first 30 organisms of each species in the 1-ml subsamples was

measured to the nearest 0.01 mm using a calibrated ocular

-12-

12/94 DRAFT

micrometer. Biomass was determined from live length to dry weight

regressions for individual macrozooplankters. The seasonal mean

density and mean body length (abundance-weighted) was used to

calculate the mean seasonal biomass for each species, which were

then summed (Koenings et al. 1987).

The 1989 seasonal means are biased because sampling was not begun

until July, and the spring populations were not represented.

Station 2 is in a much smaller, distinct basin with only a I-m deep

connection between basins. The water flows from Station 2's basin

into Station l's basin, which would inhibit the mixing of

zooplankton populations between basins. Fry were stocked only In

Station l' s basin, which further contributes to the discrepancy

between Stations. To create comparability between years and remove

the effects of Station 2, the seasonal means for zooplankton

abundance, body length, and biomass were adjusted by using only theN"lJ€"'< l.r>v-.

observations at Station 1 from July through OCtober.

Tertiary

All fish captured in the tow net were used for the collection of

species, age, length and weight data. Fish were measured after six

weeks of storage in 10% formalin, to standardize their shrinkage

(Johnson 1964). Dr. Richard Thorne of BioSonics Inc." analyzed the

"BioSonics, Inc., 3670 Stone Way North, Seattle, WA 98103

-13-

12/94 DRAFT

recorded hydroacoustic data with the duration-in-beam method

(Thorne 1988) to quantify the pelagic fish populations. The two

1989 hydroacoustic surveys were averaged to become the pre-stocking

population and estimate for non-sockeye pelagic fish.

Smo~t Production

Stocking

Sweetheart Lake was stocked with 2.47 X 10' sockeye salmon fry

(36,000 fry/EV) for the first time ever during 15-27 June 1990.

The gametes were from Speel Lake stock (17 km away by water),

incubated at ADFG' s Central Incubation Facility at Snettisham

(Figure __1_ ), and the fry averaged 30 rom in length and 0.2 g in

weight when stocked. Sweetheart Lake was stocked again with

1.31 X 10' sockeye fry (19,000 fry/EV) on 15 July 1991. Fry

averaged 31 rom in length and 0.2 g im weight. Fry stocked in 1991

were also from SpeelLake and incubated at Snettisham. ~ll fry

stocked both yea~had a characteristic thermal banding patterns

induced on their otoliths to indicate the location and year of

release~ No fry were stocked in 1992 due to inadequate sockeye

escapement to Speel Lake in 1991. In 1993, 0.767 x 10' sockeye fry

(11,000 fry/EV) were stocked. The average weight of the 1993

stocked fry was 0.18 g, and the fry were of Crescent Lake origin.

-14-

12/94 DRAFT

Smolt Sampling

A fyke trap was used at Sweetheart flats in 1991 to capture smolt.

The fyke trap consisted of a rigid, 1.2-cm angle aluminum frame

that was 4.6-m long, with a 2-m square mouth that tapered to a 15-

cm wide by 61-cm deep throat, and was covered on the bottom and

sides wi th 6. 4-mm opening, rigid plastic netting ("vexar"). A 2.5-

m long by 2-m wide by 1-m deep live box, constructed of 1.2-cm

angle aluminum, covered with 6.4-mm opening, rigid plastic netting

on the sides and aluminum perforated plate on the. bottom, was

attached to the throat and held captured fish. The tapering design

of the fyke trap, plus a water velocity of 1.0 m/sin the fyke

trap, prevented captured fish from swimming out. The front and

back of the live box had plywood deflectors to reduce the current

velocity in the live box.

The.fyke trap was placed as far upstream as the waterfalls allowed,

but it was still in the intertidal where tides >4.9 m would raise

the creek level (Figure ~). The depth of the trap mouth was

adjusted during tides >4.9 m to keep sampling the entire water

column, but almost all of these tides did not occur during peak

smolt movement times. When tidal height was <4.9 m, the stream

channel was 23 m wide, with the maximum flow along the south bank.

The maximum depth there was 1.4 m and the maximum veloci ty was

1.1 m/s. Substrate varied from gravel on the north bank to bedrock

-15-

12/94 DRAFT

on the south bank.

When the fyke trap was first installed on 29 April, 1991, the low

flows in Sweetheart Creek allowed setting the trap directly on the

creek bottom. Leads constructed of PVC pipe covered with 3.2-mm

opening nylon netting were angled from the trap mouth upstream.

The flow became too swift and deep as snowmelt increased, so a·

wood-and-stryofoam float system was added to the trap and live box,

and the leads were omitted. A 3.2-mm diameter steel cable was

suspended across the creek, and the trap was positioned on the

cable in mid-channel, where the current velocity was about 1.0 m/s.

The fyke trap fished at Sweetheart flats in this configuration from

15 May until 21 June 1991.

Since the fyke trap could not fish in the swiftest flow (>1.0 m/s),

a second smolt trap (a tow net) was operated at Sweetheart flats

from 25 May to 14 June, 1991, to verify the performance of the fyke

trap. The tow net was not fished continuously, but did operate

each day during the 21: 00 to 01: 00 hours period of peak smolt

movement. A pipe frame was attached to the mouth of a tow net (the

same type used in the pelagic fish sampling) to hold it in a 2 by

2-m square opening, and the cod end was fitted with a 114-mm i.d.

hose, which led to a polygonal live box with approximate interior

dimensions of 89 cm wide by 91 cm long by 48 cm deep. The tow net

bridle was attached to a point upstream along the south bank, and

-16-

12/94 DRAFT

the net fished along the south bank in the maximum flow

(Figure ~). The tow net was examined daily and repaired when

abrasion made holes in it.

necessary.

Debris was cleared from the hose as

The creek channel 3 m downstream of Sweetheart lake was 52-m wide,

0.5 to 1.2-m deep, and current velocity throughout the channel was

0.5 to 0.9 m/ s. Current velocity increased downstream of this

point. The wide channel and swift current prevented blocking the

entire creek to fish passage, due to the streambed scouring, debris

damage, and injury to smolt that occurs under such conditions.

Instead, a fyke net and live box were placed along the north bank

about 20 m downstream of the lake (Figure ~ ). The fyke net had

a I-m square mouth, was 3-m long, made of 3.2-mm opening nylon

netting, and tapered into a 1.2-m wide by 1.8-m long by 0.7-m deep

wooden 1 i ve box. Seven 1 by 2.4 -m wooden frames covered wi th

6.4-mm opening rigid plastic netting ("vexar") were placed in a

series angling upstream from the fyke net. An 2.4-m deep by 33-m

long seine of 3.2-mm opening nylon netting extended from the

upsteam end of the frames into Sweetheart Lake. The seine was tied

off to to a partially-submerged log in the lake that was 25 m from

shore. Captured fish were identified, counted, held for tagging,

and sampled for otoliths, length and weight. This configuration

fished from 6 June to 22 June, 1991, and 25 April to 21 June, 1992.

-17-

12/94 DRAFT

Trap efficiency trials were done to estimate the entire number of

smolt passing downstream, based upon the trap catches. During

1991, efficiency trials were done only for the fyke trap at

Sweetheart flats. Trap efficiency trials at Sweetheart Lake would

have been invalid because Bismarck Brown stain fades after 24 h,

and marked fish released into a lake have a tendency to linger for

a day or more (McDonald and Smith 1980).

A known number of healthy smolt (never exceeding 250, 6-g fish)

were placed in 38 L of aerated creek water containing 1.3 g of

Bismark Brown stain, and held for 30 min. Half of the stained fish

were then released on each bank as far upstream as the waterfalls

allowed, about 100 m upstream of the fyke trap (Figure ~ ). The

number of stained smolt captured was then noted, and the capture

efficiency was used to expand the daily fyke trap catches into

daily population estimates and 95% confidence intervals (Rawson

1984). Daily population estimates and confidence intervals for the

fyke trap were summed to estimate the total smolt population.

I2 (V-d)iVi = n i ' [ d +' d2

]

Var[fViJ = ni (ni+d) D (D-d)/d'

(1 )

(2 )

s = (Var[iViJ )-112 (3)

(1-a) Confidence Interval for Ni = [iVi-z.s,iVi+z.sJ (4)

where D = number of stained fish released upstream;d = number of stained fish captured;~ = number of unmarked fish migrating past the trap onnight i;

-18-

ni = number of fish caught in the trapz. = l-exl2 percentage point of thedistribution, or 1.96 when ex=O.05.

12/94 DRAFT

on night i; andstandard normal

using

When trap efficiencies were not significantly different, individual

efficiency trials were pooled to calculate one trap efficiency for

the entire operational period of each trap. Only the live, stained

smolts released were used to calculate the trap efficiencies, even

though all live and dead stained smolt were released during the

trials. Fifty stained smolt were held for 24 h after each marking,

to verify stain retention.

During 1992, trap efficiency trials were done at .Sweetheart Lake

staple tagsn~Jordan and Smith 1968), because there were nottt- '-1k -f'(fiA5

traps~to estimate the total smolt emigration and the staple

tags were retained by the smolt for a sufficient period. Aluminum

staples (Bostich B-8) were double marked by etching and painting.

A unique mark was used during each trial, when about 300 smolt were

anesthetized (following the above procedure) and an individual

staple was pinched into the each smol t· s dorsal muscle just

anterior of the doral fin. Smolt were then immediately revived in

another container of fresh water, and the entire group transported

to to the head of the lower basin (Figure L ) and released.

Immediate tagging mortalities were noted and subtracted from the

total number released. Fifty tagged smolt were held for 72 h after

each trial to quantify latent tagging mortality and tag retention.

-19-

12/94 DRAFT

Any latent mortality and tag loss was used to adjust the smolt

release by

where D' = adjusted release;NT = tagged smolt released alive,NM = tagged smolt dead after 72 h;NL = tagged smolt losing tags after 72 hNH = tagged smolt held for 72 h·,

(5 )

and then substitute D' for D in Rawson (1984) above.

Daily air temperature, cloud cover, water temperature, rainfall,

and stream gage height were recorded daily at Sweetheart Lake in

1991 and 1992, and at the flats only in 1991.

In 1993, three sampling trips were made to Sweetheart Lake to

capture smolt for size data. The trap was set up identically as in

1991 and 1992, and fished a total of nine days.

Smolt Age and Size

A maximum of 20 sockeye smolt were sampled each day for fork length

(to the nearest millimeter) and weight (to the nearest 0.1 g) each

day at Sweetheart Lake during 1991. Fish were randomly sampled

during the period of peak movement each day. No scales were

sampled during 1991 since all fish from the first ever smolt

migration were age 1.0. Two to twelve smol ts per day were

preserved in 100% ethanol, for future verfication of their otolith

-20-

12/94 DRAFT

thermal banding patterns. Fork length only was sampled on up to 20

dead sockeye smolts per day at Sweetheart flats during 1991, to

detect size-specific mortality.

A maximum of 40 sockeye smolt were sampled each day for fork

length, weight, and scales (for aging) at Sweetheart Lake during

1992 and 1993. Fish were randomly sampled during the period of

peak movement each day.

Smo~t Emigration Surviva~

The smolt emigration survival was estimated by comparlng the

downstream abundance of live smolt (Sweetheart flats) with the

upstream abundance of live smolt (Sweetheart Lake). With the lack

of a suitable method to directly measure the upstream abundance in

1991, downstream mortalities, a tagging experiment, the 1992 trap

efficiency, hydroacoustic surveys, and sockeye production models

were the alternatives used to estimate the upstream abundance in

1991.

The downstream mortalities were calculated by enumerating the daily

catches of mortalities in both the fyke trap and the tow net at

Sweetheart flats. The total of live plus dead smolt caught In the

fyke trap was expanded after Rawson (1984) to calculate the

upstream abundance.

-21-

12/94 DRAFT

A tagging experiment was done to estimate the number of smolt that

died and settled out in Sweetheart Creek, and thus never reached

the flats. A known number of smolt were marked at Sweetheart Lake

and released into Sweetheart Creek 100 m below the lake. The mark

was created by using a PANJET1 air injector to inject a dot of

Alcion blue dye on the smolt's caudal fin. Mark retention and

marking mortality was calculated by holding 40 marked smolts for

24 h and re-examining the marks and mortality. All fish captured

at Sweetheart flats were examined against a white background to

maximize mark recognition. The expected number of. marked fish

available for recapture at Sweetheart flats was calculated as:

RE = D' • E

where Re= expected number of recaptures at flats;D'= the adjusted release (equation 5); andE= the Sweetheart flats trap efficiency.

(6 )

The total trap catch (live plus dead smolt) at Sweetheart flats in

was then expanded to estimate the total number of smolt leaving

Sweetheart Lake (upstream abundance) as:

ups tream Abundance = fIT • (RE / Raj (7 )

where:fIT= total trap catch at flats;Ra= the observed recaptured, marked smolt; andRE= the expected number of recaptures (equation 6).

The trap efficiency generated at Sweetheart Lake in 1992 and the

1991 cumulative catch at the lake were applied to Rawson (1984), to

lWright Health Group Ltd., Dundee, Scotland.

-22-

12/94 DRAFT

estimate the upstream abundance in 1991.

Hydroacoustic surveys were conducted each fall after stocking

following the methods described above. The pre-stocking surveys

were averaged and subtracted from the 1990 post-stocking survey to

estimate the abundance of sockeye fry in the lake. The

hydroacoustic survey estimated fall fry abundance, so the EV

model's (Koenings and Burkett 1987) overwinter survival of 70% was

applied to the 1990 fall hydroacoustic survey to predict the

upstream abundance in 1991.

Three Alaskan sockeye production models, described more fully

below, were also used to estimate the upstream abundance of smolt

in 1991.

Latent mortality

Every three days 40 healthy smolt were placed in a holding pen in

quiet water, and the number of mortalities noted after 24 h, to

quantify the delayed effects of Sweetheart Creek on the smol t.

Latent mortality tests were done separately for the fyke trap, the

tow net and flown-in fish.

Latent mortality caused by the smolt traps was quantified by taking

smolts unstressed by Sweetheart Creek exposing them to the the

-23-

12/94 DRAFT

flats traps. Two replicates of 100 smolt each were captured in the

lake's fyke trap and placed in 19-L buckets, flown down to the

flats (about 10 min), poured into the mouth of a smolt trap, held

in the trap's live box for 1.5 h, and finally transferred to the

holding pen and held for 24 h. The smolt traps were blocked off

with 6.4-mm opening plastic screen during the trials to prevent

smolt in the creek from contaminating the flown-in groups. Control

groups were taken from the above flown-in fish and immediately

placed in the holding pens for 24 h, and as such were unstressed by

Sweetheart Creek and the flats traps.

Injury Examinations

The type and location of external injuries on the captured smolt

were noted, to define the types of stresses the smolt experience in

Sweetheart Creek and the smolt traps, and how much additional

injury was caused by handling the smolt. up to 50 live and 50 dead

smolt (if available) were examined daily from the fyke trap, tow

net, and the lake. All smol ts held for latent mortalities or

flown-in were examined. Groups of smolt were examined before and

after different treatements, to determine if handling injured the

smolt. Smolt stained for the trap efficiency trials were examined

for injuries after being captured. Some of the smolt held for

latent mortality trials were examined both before and after the 24

h holding period.

-24-

12/94 DRAFT

Smolt behavior was classified as alert,dazed, unresponsive (but

alive) or dead. The color (pale or bright) of the skin and gills

and the rigor mortis of the mortalities was noted. Scale loss

across the entire body was categorized as 0-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, or

76-100%. The locations of bruises (dark areas), scrapes (skin

unbroken), cuts (skin broken), and bleeding were noted on each

smolt. Any other injuries not fitting one of the above categories

were also noted. Due to the wide variety of injuries observed on

the eyes and opercula, all injury types to these areas were pooled.

Eye injuries included bleeding, collapsed, distended, or missing.

Opercular injuries included dented, bent, scraped, or missing.

Sockeye Production Models

Sweetheart data was applied to several sockeye models to estimate

the upstream smolt abundance, compare the Sweetheart's production

characteristics ~. other

returns (Ta~__~)) . The

Alaskan lakes, and to predict adul t

EV model was developed from Alaskan

sockeye systems at production limitation, whether due to density-

dependent or density-independent factors (Koenings and Burkett

1987). Freshwater survival (FWS) and smolt-to-adult survival (SAS)

are fixed, regardless of fry density or smolt size, and all smolt

are assumed to be threshold size. Threshold size is defined as the

slze which a sockeye fry much achieve after one season of

lacustrine growth in order to smolt the following spring (i.e. age

-25-

12/94 DRAFT

1.0 smolt), or about 64 mm and 2 g. Observed stockings were also

applied to this model and used the survival assumptions to predict

adult returns.

The zooplankton biomass model was developed from coastwide sockeye

systems (Koenings and Kyle in review), and relates the seasonal

mean zooplankton biomass

produced per lake area.

number of smolt, based on

per lake area with the biomass of smolts,I) 0-

Biomass of smoltAh~s Bge~converted to

t~sumed smolt sizeK shQ"!l4 {l...----

Leisure Lake (Cook Inlet, Alaska) and Sweetheart Lake have similar

physical and chemical characteristics, and fry density

manipulations at Leisure Lake yielded several models of density-

dependent smolt survival and growth (Koenings and Burkett 1987).

Observed stocking densities at Sweetheart were applied to these

models to see if Sweetheart displayed density-dependent

characteristics.

A SAS model for Alaskan sockeye, based upon smolt length, was used

to predict the number of adults returning from the observed smolt

emigrations (Koenings et al. ln press). Adult returns are

predicted using the observed smolt emigration survival of 53% and

a theoretical 100%.

-26-

12/94 DRAFT

Data Analysis

Data tabulation and most calculations were done in Lotus Symphony,

Quattro Pro, or Excel software, and most statistical tests were

done in SAS software, following Sokal and Rohlf (1981) .

Statistical tests and definitions were applied to the data where

possible, but many observations were not tested, and should not be

assumed to be statistically significant. Observations that were

actually tested ~ve the results of the test presented with

the observation.

-27~

12/94 DRAFT

RESULTS

LimnoIogicaI Assessment

Physical/chemical

The mean EZD was 13.8 m"for both stations combined during 1989-93,

wi th Station 1 consistently clearer than Station 2 (Table "2.--).

Light penetration generally decreased throughout the season each

year. The silt load increased and reduced light penetration on 27

September 1991, most likely due to heavy precipitation immediately

before that sampling trip. The vertical extinction coefficient

increased and Secchi disk depth decreased on the same date.

The EV of Sweetheart Lake is 68.3 EV units. Station 2 is In a

separate, much smaller basin than Station 1, and Station 2 nearly

always had a shallower EZD. Hence, Station l's EZD is more typical

of the maj ority of Sweetheart Lake. If only Station l' s EZD

(15.4 m) is used in the EV calculation, then the lake 76.2 EV

units. We will use 68.3 EV units in all calculations because it is

more conservative and uses more observations, but also recognize

the underestimation present.

Water temperatures < 15-m deep at Station I were warmer longer and

-28-

12/94 DRAFT

deeper every year than those at Station 2 (Figures ~ and ~ ).

Below 15 m, water temperatures were relatively consistent between

years, and very similar between stations. Water temperature

patterns at both stations show that 1989 had the deepest heating,

and that 1991 had the shallowest and shortest duration of heating.

The lake was thermally stratified from about early July to mid-

September each year. The thermocline was 10-12 m-deep at Station 1

in August of each year. The thermocline was less distinct at

Station 2 each year, and varied between 10-20 m.

Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations ranged between 35-122% of

saturation. Thirty-one of 1,248 DO measurements were <78%. All

,concentrations <78% of saturation occurred >30-m deep at Station 2

(which is within 10 m of bottom), or during a procedural error on

2 July, 1991. DO saturations >111% occurred 22 times out of 1,248

measurements, and 18 of these saturations were from Station 1 on

25 August 1989. No unusual conditions or malfunctions were noted

on that date.

Specific conductivity ~as low, with an overall mean of ~mho/cmDies A,I, - A.S-,

(Table l ; Appendi~ _ ). Conductivities in the epilimnetic

samples were slightly less than in the hypolimnetic samples, and

varied seasonally, being lowest in summer, while the hypolimnetic

samples were relatively constant. Late summer pH values were

slightly lower than at other times, otherwise, pH between stations,

-29-

12/94 DRAFT

depths, and years had a very narrow range. Alkalinities were

slightly greater at Station 2 compared to Station 1, and at both

stations the hypolimnetic values were slightly greater than the

epilimnitic values. Alkalinities at all stations and depths varied

seasonally, with summer being the lowest. Turbidity was always low

and varied moderately, tending to increase towards autumn in all

samples. Color varied widely and erratically, but tended to be

lowest in mid-summer at all stations and depths. Calcium varied

moderately, with epilimnetic concentrations usually lower than the

hypolimnetic concentrations, and Station 1 usually lower than

Station 2. Magnesium was always low and frequently below

detection, with no apparent trends. Iron generally increased in

all samples as each season progressed, Station 2 values were

usually greater than those at Station 1, and there was no

consistent relationship with depth. Epilimnetic silicon at each

station was consistently high each spring and autumn, and lowest

each summer. Hypolimnetic silicon concentrations at both stations

were greater than those in the epilimnion, with a muted a seasonal

pattern.

TP, FRP, and TFP did not vary systematically between stations or

over seasons. FRP tended to increase as each season progressed.

No consistent trends appeared in TKN. Epilimnetic nitrate plus

nitrite at both stations was always was lowest in mid-summer, but

the hypolimnitic values lacked such a pattern. Ammonia was below

-30-

12/94 DRAFT

detection in 1989, and decreased slightly over the season in 1990.

The N:P ratio usually decreased each season towards late summer and

.increased in late autumn, but there were notable inconsistencies.

The surface-specific P loading (Lp) , was calculated as:

Where PSPc = average spring overturn TP (the means of the 5/21/91,

6/3/91, 5/24/92, 6/5/93 concentrations; N=16), and Os = z/Tw . The

Lp for Sweetheart is then 355 mgP/m2 /yr, or 22% of the critical

loading, £'0 = 1,643 mgp /m2/yr (Vollenweider 1976)

ratio was 233:34:1.

The Si:N:P

Particulate carbon has only been analyzed for 1990, and the

epilimnetic particulate carbon concentrations peaked in mid-summer

while the hypolimnetic concentrations lacked the season pattern and

were usually less than the epilimnetic concentrations. TPP and TPN

have not been analyzed yet.

Primary Production

ChI a usually peaked during summer at all stations and depths

sampled, but the exact timing was quite variable, being as early ast:t5 8,1. - B. <{.

June or as late as September (Table ~ ; Appendi~ ). At both

stations there was no consistent relationship between chI a and the

three sampling depths. Station 1 chI a and phaeophytin peaks were

-31-

greater than those at Station 2.

12/94 DRAFT

Phaeophytin at both stations

tended to peak sometime during the summer, and the 1-m phaeophytin

concentrations were usually less than the deeper samples.

Secop.dary

The macrozooplankton community is not diverse and is dominated

numerically at both stations by the copepod Cyclops spp., which has

one peak in abundance, usually during June or July (Figure ~).

Even before fry were stocked, Cyclops spp. populations were

different between the two stations. Next most abundant was

Holopedium spp., which was present only at Station 1 and peaking

once in abundance during July and August (Figure ~). Present in

very low numbers, almost exclusively at Station 1, was Daphnia spp.

Bosmina spp. were occasionally present only at Station 1, but in

numbers too low to quantify.

The seasonal mean biomass for all species and stations combined in

1989 was 343 mg/m'. The adjusted (July-October at Station I)

zooplankton biomass for 1989 was 502 mg/m'. Adjusted zooplankton

biomass changed as the presence of planktivores changed, being

lowest during stocking and rebounding in the unstocked year

(Figure JQJ . Adjusted Holopedium spp. biomass rebounded

immediately when fry stocking ceased, but adjusted Cyclops spp.

biomass continued to decline. The adjusted abundance of each

-32-

12/94 DRAFT

zooplankton species changed similarly to its biomass (Figure __1/__ ) .

The adjusted seasonal mean body length of each zooplankton species

changed significantly between years (Figure _1_'_; Kruskal-Wallis

test; p<0.02 for each species), with the Holopedium spp. body

length greatest during fry stocking, and the Cyclops spp. body

length increasing over the entire study period.

Tertiary

The minnow trap and gill net catches in both pre-stocking surveys

were very similar, with many small Dolly Varden captured in the

--mlnnow traps (Figure /2-- ; Table ~ ), regardless of the trap

site. Only one Rainbow trout was captured in a minnow trap. Very

few Dolly Varden and Rainbow trout were captured in the gill nets.

The fork lengths (and ages In parentheses) of Rainbow trout in

October 1989 were 180, 450, 493 (7), and 585 mID, and in June 1990

were 112 (2), 257, 583 (9), and 670 (10) mID.

The population estimates for pelagic fish generated by

hydroacoustic surveys were similar for the two pre-stocking

surveys, and increased in fall 1990 after fry were stocked in

spring 1990 (Table ~ ). Subtracting the mean of the two pre-

stocking surveys (the indigenous, non-sockeye population) from the

fall 1990 survey yields 606,500 sockeye fry in Sweetheart Lake as

of October, 1990. The fall 1991 population estimate declined to

-33-

12/94 DRAFT

far below pre-stocking levels, despite the stocking of over one

million fry in spring 1991. While no fry were stocked in 1992, the

hydroacoustic population estimate was again below the pre-stocking

levels. Tow net catches were more reflective of stocking levels

rather than the hydroacoustic estimates, and captured only sockeye.

Smo~t Production

Downstream Trap

In 1991, the smolt population estimate was generated by the fyke

trap at Sweetheart flats (Table ~). No smolt were captured at

Sweetheart flats until 2 May 1991, smolt were not captured daily

until after 25 May, the peak catch occurred on 17 June, and

thousands of smolt were still emigrating when high water forced

pulling the traps on 21 June. (Figure ~ ). The trap did not fish

on 2 and 9 June due to extremely high water. Gage height or

rainfall and daily catch of either live smolts or mortalities in

the fyke trap were not related (Spearman's r s <0.08, p>0.75 for all

pairs) . Tides exceeded 4.9 m (maximum 5.8 m) on nine days, and

water velocity decreas~ about 60% during the peak of the highest. of, (til-

tides. The cumulativeAtrap catch was 26,041 live and 17,479 dead

sockeye smolt.

The fyke trap capture efficiency averaged 5.66% (Table ~ ).

-34-

12/94 DRAFT

Almost all stained fish released were recaptured wi thin 2 h of

release (personal observation), and five stain-retention trials

showed that 100% of the fish retained the stain for at least 24 h.

Capture efficiencies did not vary significantly between trials (X',

p>0.48, N=4).

No total population estimate was generated using the tow net. The

daily population estimates of live smolt in the fyke trap and the

tow net followed similar trends (Spearman's r s =0.92, p<O.OOOl,

N=14), and were not significantly different (Wilcoxon signed-ranks,

p>0.10) for the days both nets were fishing. The tow net capture

efficiency averaged 9.56% (Table ~ ). Almost all (personal

observation) stained fish released were recaptured within 2 h of

release. Gage height or rainfall and daily catch of live smolts or

mortalities in the tow net were not related (Spearman's r s <0.20,

p>0.42 for all pairs), but capture efficiencies differed

significantly between trials (X', p=O.OO). The number of stained

smol t recaptured in the fyke trap and the tow net were not

correlated (Spearman's r s =0.42, p=0.47). The cumulative tow net

catch was 7,075 live and 3,145 dead sockeye smolt.

Upstream Trap-Sweetheart Lake

Sweetheart Lake was mostly thawed by 30 May 1991. Smolt were

captured daily immediately, the peak catch occurred on 17 June, and

-35-

12/94 DRAFT

hundreds of smolt per day were still emigrating when the trap was

removed (Figure ~). The trap operated every day and the

cumulative trap catch was 36,090 live and 192 dead sockeye smolt.

Sweetheart Lake was mostly thawed by 15 April 1992. The smolt

population estimate was generated at the lake in 1992 (Table:L-).

No smolt were captured until 6 May, smolt were not captured daily,

until after 21 May, the peak catch was on 3 June, and only a few

hundred per day smolt were still emigrating when the trap was

pulled (Figure I~ ). The trap did not operate on ~6 and 27 May

and 2 June due to extremely high water. Daily catch was positively

correlated with gage height (Spearman's r s =0.36, p=O.Ol), but

negatively correlated with daily rainfall (Spearman's r s =-0.32,

p=0.02). The cumulative trap catch was 21,807 live and 1,871 dead

sockeye smolt.

The upstream trap capture efficiency averaged 5.99% in 1992 (Table

~). Tagged smolt were captured from 2-12 d after release.

Trial 1 was omitted because the trap was flooded and did not

operate when tagged smolt were expected to be recaptured. The

remaining capture efficiencies varied significantly between trials

(X'= , p> ), but trial 4 contributed 83% to the X' statistic.

The high mortality rate for trial 4 suggests fewer marked smolt

should have been recaptured, but instead more smolt were

recaptured. To include trial 4's data but ameliorate its extreme

-36-

12/94 DRAFT

results, trials 2-5 were were pooled to calculate the overall trap

efficiency. Tagging mortality was high for. all trials, so all

releases were adjusted when calculating the trap efficiency. Tag

loss for the held smolt was zero.

Sweetheart Lake was thawed by 17 May 1993. The sampling trips

occurred on 2-4 June, 8-10 June, and 14-16 June 1993. A total of

595 smolt were captured, with 513, 80, and 2 captured on each trip,

S . 1rlfectlve y.

Smolt Growth

Age 1.0 smolt size was nearly the same each year (Table 1- ).There were no age 2.0 smolt in 1991, while 86% of the smolt were

age 1.0 and 14% were age 2.0 in 1992. Smolts sampled at the flats

were 1.0 mm smaller than those sampled at the lake during 1991 (t-

test, p=O. 0008). There was no correlation between capture date and

daily length of smolt at the lake during 1991 (Spearman's r s=O.Ol,

. p=0.80; Figure ~ ). The percentage of age 1.0 smolt caught daily

increased as the season progressed in 1992 (Spearman's rs=O. 56,

p<O.Ol), and this was reflected in the decreasing daily average

size of smolt followed by a levelling off (Figure ~ ).

Only age 2.0 smolt were captured in 1993, since no fry were stocked

in 1992. No age 3.0 smolt were captured.

-37-

Average size of the

12/94 DRAFT

smolt is given in Table ~.

Smo~t Emigration Surviva~

Downstream Mortalities

Of the sockeye smolt captured at Sweetheart flats, 40% in the fyke.

trap were dead, and 31% in the tow net were dead. The daily percent

mortalities in each gear type were significantly correlated

(Spearman's r s =O.97, p<O.OOOl, N=18; Figure ~ ), but the daily

percent mortalities in the tow net was significantly lower

(Wilcoxon signed-ranks, p<O.Ol, N=18) than in the fyke trap. With

this method the upstream abundance is 779,000 smolt (Table ~).

The high current velocity in the downstream smolt traps (>1.0 m/s)

did impinge and kill some, unknown fraction of the smolt captured.

However, dead smolt were found upstream of the flats. Dead smolt

that had avoided impingement were observed floating freely into

each trap. Dead smolt were also observed in the creek floating

past the traps, and on the stream bottom upstream of the traps. A

survey of ~300 m along one bank above the 10-m fall found 36 dead

smolt on 13 June 1991. The current velocity and water depth

prevented most of the streambed from being examined, so this is a

very conservative survey. Most of the smolt were pale and limp,

suggesting they had been dead several days or more.

-38-

12/94 DRAFT

Tagging Experiment

Sixty-five marked smolt (live and dead) were captured in the fyke

trap at the flats, which was 45% of the number expected (144 marks

expected; Equation ~; Table I( ) . The upstream abundance

estimate is then 1.73 x 10' smolt (Equation~).

upstream Trap

The trap efficiency estimated in 1992 (5.99%), combined with the

cumulative trap catch of 36,090 smolt in 1991, expanded to 537,000

total smolt for 1991.

Model Estimates

The models used in Table ~ are the same sockeye production models

described above, and their results are presented below.

Latent Mortality

The latent mortality rates for both gear types at Sweetheart flats

were variable and high (Table ~ ). The latent mortality rate of

flown-in smolts was not significantly different from that of smolts

having swum Sweetheart Creek (Mann-Whitney U, p>0.2). The latent

mortality rate of control flown-in smolts, that did not experlence

-39-

12/94 DRAFT

the creek or the traps, was approximately half the rate for smolts

caught at the flats. Too few control trials were run to test the

significance of this difference. One trial of exposing the held

smolts to brackish water did not improve their survival. Latent

mortality of smolts at the lake was about one-fourth the latent

mortality of the smolts caught at the flats, but again the sample

sizes were too small to quantify the the significance of this

observation.

Injury Examinations

For all gear types combined, 4,123 smol ts were examined for

injuries and 1,979 had at least some type of injury (48%). Dead

sm01ts captured at Sweetheart flats had a higher frequency of all

types of injuries than did live smolts (Figure jjL ; Appendix C,/. ) .

Scale loss of 25% or less was the most frequent injury to live

smolt, and all other injuries occurred at <0.05 injuries per smolt,

with bruises and scrapes the most frequent.

For live and dead smolt, injury frequency in the fyke trap was

similar to that in the tow net. For only dead smolt, the fyke trap

had higher percent scaling, more cuts, bleeding, eye and opercular

injuries than did the tow net. The total number of injuries on

dead smolt between the two gear types was similar, though.

-40-

12/94 DRAFT

At Sweetheart Lake, both live and dead smolt had fewer injuries

than at the flats (Figure ~O ). Of 36,090 smolt captured at the

lake, only 192 were dead (0.05%). Twenty-five percent or less

scaling was the most frequent injury to live smolt, and virtually

no other injuries occurred. Likewise, scaling was the most

frequent injury to dead smolt, and other injury types occurred

about equally.

Smolts flown-in to the flats had similar types of injuries to those

that had swum Sweetheart Creek and survived, but almost always at

a higher frequency (Figure ~ ).

Sockeye Production Models

Sweetheart was stocked below limitation (EV model) and below

optimum densities (Leisure models) both years (Table ~). The

observed FWS for both stockings was higher than assumed for the EV

model. The observed FWS for the 1990 stocking was below that

predicted by the Leisure Lake model, and was off the model for the

1991 stocking. The observed smo1t numbers for the 1991 stocking

exceeded the EVand zooplankton biomass model predictions, but were

less than the Leisure Lake predictions. Smolt weight for the 1990

stocking was greater than threshold size (the EV model), and very

close to Leisure model. Smolt weight for the 1991 stocking again

exceeded threshold size, but the stocking density was off the

-41-

12/94 DRAFT

Leisure Lake model. Predicted losses of adults due to <100%

emigration survival range from 30,000 to 100, 000 for the 1990

stocking and 15,000 to 40,000 for the 1991 stocking.

-42-

12/94 DRAFT

DISCUSSION

Sockeye SAS increases as smolt size increases, and begins to peak

after smolt fork lengths of 90-100 mm (Koenings et al. xxxx). For

density-dependent sockeye systems, adult production is below

maximum when large numbers of small smolt are produced (high

stocking density results in low survivals), and when small numbers

of large smolt are produced (low stocking density results in high

survivals). Managing to produce the maximum number of age 1.0 smolt

as close as possible to 90-100 mm (target-size) should result in

the maximum number of returning adults per fry stocked (Koenings

and Burkett 1987, Koenings et al. in press), and- is the desired

goal.

Production Characteristics

Stocking density at Sweetheart Lake was moderate in 1990 and very

low in 1991, suggesting the system should not have been density

limited, and that the stocked fry should show enhanced growth and

survival. Alaskan lakes at rearing limitation (110,000 fry/EV)

produce age 1.0 smolts about 60 mm long and 2 g in weight (Koenings

and Burkett 1987), and Sweetheart smolt exceeded this both years.

FWS is about 21% at rearing limi tation, and Sweetheart smol t

survival also exceeded this both years. The majority of smolts

from the 1991 stocking being age 1.0 is another density-dependent

-43-

12/94 DRAFT

characteristic. As rearing limitation is approached, the majority

of smolt are age 2.0.

Age 1.0 smolt size was virtually identical in 1990 and 1991 at

Sweetheart, and FWS decreased for 1991 stocking, despite halving

the stocking level in 1991. This response conflicts with density-

dependent models, which predict even greater growth and survival as

stocking density decreases. Density-independent factors, such as

lake productivity, temperature regime, or growing season length,cwJJ ~

are likely/\. the limiting factors at the ob_s,<,J;v ed,?-"low stocking

levels. Since stocking density was below predicted maximums, and

this is a first-time stocking, these results should represent the

maxlmum growth possible for Sweetheart Lake sockeye.

To obtain the full range of density-dependent responses at

Sweetheart Lake, stocking densities up to 110,000 fry/EV would be

necessary. While this would be informative, it would conflict with

the goal of producing the maximum number of target-size smolt.

These results sufficiently demonstrate that Sweetheart Lake is a

density-dependent system currently limited by the number, not the

growth, of sockeye smolt produced. The question now is the maximum

number of target-size smolt possible.

-44-

12/94 DRAFT

NUmber of Target-Size Smolt

The FWS and growth of stocked fry to target-size smolt both years3"1 iY'JD

shows that 20,000 41, ggO fry/EV is not an excessive stocking

density, but such stocking levels did produce negative effects,

such as the decreased FWS in 1991 and decreased zooplankton biomass

in 1990 and 1991.

FWS and growth are closely associated (ci ts. ), and smol t size

decreased 2 mm while FWS decreased 6% between 1990 and 1991

stockings.

estimates.

However, the FWS is calculated from the smolt trap

If the 95% confidence intervals (CIl for FWS are

calculated using the upper and lower 95% CI for the trap estimates,

then the 1990 FWS is 32±8% and the 1991 FWS is 26±9%, and the two

estimates overlap. Thus the FWS is likely not different between

years. This is consistent with the hypothesis that density-

independent factors are controlling smo1t growth when stocking

density is <36,000 fry/EV.

The 1991 FWS 95% confidence interval also includes values below the

FWS at rearing limitation (21%), which conflicts with the excellent

smo1t growth observed. It may be that predation is a significant

factor or that the trap estimate was biased low in 1992. The fry

were stocked 2-4 weeks later in 1991 than in 1990, perhaps during

less favorable conditions. Stocking later in the year is usually

-45-

12/94 DRAFT

regarded as the best strategy, when warmer water and higher

zooplankton populations tend to enhance fry growth and survival

immediately after stocking, and zooplankton populations ln

Sweetheart Lake do bloom relatively late. Which condition (or some

other) is correct cannot be determined with the current data.

The species and sizes (>0.40 mm) of the macrozooplankton community

in Sweetheart Lake are known sockeye prey items (Eggers xxxx;

Koenings and Burkett 1987; Koenings et al. 1989; canadians), and

the decreased zooplankton abundance and altered lengt4-frequencies

during stocking are expected responses. Some of the zooplankton

variation may be due to other factors, but the rebounding of

Holopedium abundance and length-frequencies during the unstocked

year of 1992 demonstrates the effect of fry stocking. Since

Cyclops reproduce once per year, their recovery is expected to be

longer.

It is unknown how resilient Holopedium are to vertebrate predation,

but the preponderance of copepods and the lack of Daphnia and

Bosmina suggest a commmunity that could be easily over-grazed by a

planktivore as efficient as sockeye fry. Holopedium were

overgrazed in Ester Pass and Pass Lakes, and zooplankton recovery,

through fallow periods (no fry stocked) or nutrient addition, was

not immediate (Kyle and Koenings; in press). The stocking

densities at Ester Pass and Pass Lakes were much higher, at 110,000

-46-

12/94 DRAFT

fry/EV. The low productivity of Sweetheart Lake would increase the

recovery time for the macrozooplankton populations, and exacerbate

the detriments from over-grazing (Koenings and Kyle 1991).

The observed smolt production has already exceeded what the

zooplankton biomass model predicts is sustainable, using 1989's

zooplankton data. However, the short sampling season during 1989

and the physical differences between the two sampling stations

makes the zooplankton biomass prediction unrepresentative.

Subsequent zooplankton biomasses during 1990 and 19.91 were even

lower than during 1989, which suggests lower stocking densities

would be appropriate. The observed decrease in~jUsted biomass of

both zooplankton species are consistent with this suggestion of

over-stocking. The zooplankton community is expected to re-

structure to a predation-resistant assemblage, so a more

representative zooplankton biomass to smolt biomass relationship

may not be defined until that time.

The observed smolt growth at Sweetheart fit tRe Leisure models very~1 5'/.1~'J Y

well, and suggests that 36,000 fry/EV lS theftdenslLY of fry for

producing target-size smolt. The observed data at Leisure showed

that 54,000 fry/EV produced the maximum number of returning

adults/EV, while the Leisure models predicts 80 mm and 4.2 g smolt

at 54,000 fry/EV, just below target size. The slight loss in SAS

was apparently compensated by the increased smolt numbers,

-47-

12/94 DRAFT

suggesting the actual optimum smol t size for Sweetheart may be

slightly below 90-100 mm, and the optimum stocking density 1S

closer to 54,000 fry/EV, or 3.688 xl0 6 total fry.

Emigration Survival

The proportion of dead smolts captured at the flats is a fully

empirical method for estimating smolt emigration survival, but

requires the important assumption that live and dead smolt behaved

identicallY, both with respect to travelling the entire stream and

capture probability in the traps. The significantly different

proportion of mortalities between the gear types shows that dead

and live smolt did "behave" differently. This would invalidate the

emigration survival rate estimated by using the proportion of

mortalities captured in the fyke trap.

The hydroacoustic model prediction is clearly low, and its fit

would be even worse if all smolt had been counted in 1991. While

hydroacoustics have been widely used and well-correlated with other

methods of estimating sockeye smolt populations (cits.),

hydroacoustics estimates at Sweetheart Lake conflict with other

data. The 1990 fry stocking was apparent in the fall 1990

hydroacoustic survey, but the holdover smolt (age 2.0 in 1992) and

the 1991 stocking were completely absent in the fall 1991

hydroacoustic survey. The fall 1992 hydroacoustic estimate is also

-48-

below the

'5~~ 18%A

stocking.

12/94 DRAFT

pre-stocking estimates, when in fact there ~likelYA--.

(30,088) holdover smolt (age 2.0 in 1993) from the 1991

The pre-stocking fish community of Rainbow trout and

Dolly Varden may have had a population crash and caused these low

estimates in 1991 and' 1992. However, these species are not

typically pelagic and as such are undetectable wi th sonar. No

other pelagic species were captured that might have caused such

natural population fluctuations. The density and size of

zooplankton in Sweetheart Lake are typical of other sockeye systems

where hydroacoustics has been successful. Unusual sockeye fry

distributions might alter their availability to the hydroacoustics

from survey to survey, but such extreme variations have not been

apparent ..at other lakes. Dr. Richard Thorne has not noticed any

irregularities in the quality of the data tapes or the target

distributions, and the weather conditions during any of the

hydroacoustic surveys were not extreme. All equipment appreared to

be functioning correctly.

Observing dead smolt above and drifting into the flats traps

conflicts with the 110% emigration survival rate estimated by

hydroacoustics. The hydroacoustic method also required an assumed

over-winter survival for fall fry in order to predict the abundance

of age 1.0 smolt the following year. The EV model was used (70%

over-winter survival) b@cauee LlilS is a sQBs€lrv.. ti"\l €lstimat.T'but

it is for systems at rearing limitation, which was not the case at

-49-

Sweetheart Lake in 1990.

12/94 DRAFT

The larger fry should have survived

better over-winter, raising the number of smolt exiting the lake

and lowering the emigration survival to a more realisitic value.

The zooplankton biomass model predictions are clearly low, and its

fit would be even worse if all smolt had been counted in 1991. The

model was developed from a variety of lakes alo~ the eastern

Pacific coast, but these were all established sockeye producers.

First-time stockings usually do have exceptionally high survivals

and growth rates, so this poor fit is not a concern, but

compromises its applicability to this case. Observing dead smolt

above and drifting into

emigration survival rate

the flats traps conflicts with the'Is

estimated. Another detraction~that

101%

only

zooplankton data, no stocking or smolting observations, are used.

The short sampling season in 1989 and

between stations also compromises the

prediction.

the physical differences~~

quality of .theA model's

The EV model is for systems at rearing limitation, which was not

the case for Sweetheart Lake in 1990. Fry should have survived at

higher rates than predicted, so the predicted number of smolt

exiting the lake should be biased low. However, the EV model was

developed from a wide variety of Alaskan lakes and rearing

conditions and should be suitable for Sweetheart Lake at rearing

limi tation. For the 1990 fry, this model would represent an

-50-

12/94 DRAFT

overestimated emigration survival. Observed data (stocked fry

numbers and EZD) are used in the EV model, but a critical variable,

FWS, must be assumed.

The tagging experiment is the only fully empirical method that

accounts for the behavior differences between live and dead smolt.

Twenty-four-hour tag loss and tagging mortality were factored into

the number of fish available for recognition and recapture (D'),

but most smolt took only 2-6 hr to descend the entire creek. If

these losses were not factored in at their full 24-hr,values, then

the mortality estimate would be even greater.

The tagging experiment implies FWS was 70% (1. 73 x 10 6 smolt/

2.47 X 10 6 stocked fry), which is exceptionally high. A complete

smolt count would make the estimated survival rate even more

unreasonable. The first stocking of Leisure Lake gave only a 40%

stocked-fry-to-smolt survival (Koenings and Burkett 1987). While

the tagging experiment is the most direct method, the sharp

conflict with all other estimates suggests some aspect was not

properly addressed.

The small dot (about 1~2 rom) produced by the dye injector required

close examination of each fish under good light. A white

background and a lantern were used to further enhance mark

recognition during nighttime, but perhaps these methods were not

-51-

12/94 DRAFT

sufficient. A mark-recognition experiment, where a known number of

marked fish mixed with unmarked fish were examined, or double

marking the fish, would have addressed this possibility.

The Leisure Lake model gives the most reasonable survival of 46%

(1.01 x 10' smolt/2.47 x 10' spring fry). The survival using this

model would continue to increase, but not unreasonably so, if all

smolt had been counted. The Leisure Lake model is the most

acceptable, since it is a density-dependent model and Sweetheart

Lake smolt have shown density-dependent responses, and it uses the

most observed fish data (stocked fry numbers and smolt size).

with a complete smolt count, the observed 779,000 smolt may have

ended up quite close to the Leisure Lake model, further validating

it.

Using 1992' s lake trap efficiency with 1991' s lake trap catch

requires the assumption that smolt behaved identically each year,

that is, equaL capture probability. There is no way to validate

this. Factors such as lake level, precipitation, water

temperature, cloud cover, smolt density, or others could affect the

smolt's behavior around the trap and leads. However, it is fully

empirical, the only estimated value is the trap efficiency, and the

trap was fished identically both years.

The tagging experiment, the Leisure Lake models, and lake trap

-52-

12/94 DRAFT

methods use the most observed data, have the fewest conflicts with

other observations, and have the most reasonable assumptions. The

mean smolt emigration survival for these three methods is 53%.

The downstream abundance of live smolt was estimated only once, by

the fyke trap at Sweetheart flats, so all emigration survival

estimates depend upon the reliability of this abundance estimate.

Both the fyke trap and the tow net, fished in two separate

locations, gave comparable daily population estimates for live

smolt. Only live, healthy smolt were released during the trap

efficiency trials, and their close release above the traps

minimized inducing extra mortality before they reached the traps.

This design mimics the situation of live smolt reaching the traps.

Since live smolt were used for the trap efficiency trials, the trap

efficiencies should be the most representative of live smolt, not

dead smolt. The agreement of the live smolt daily population

mixed adequately prior to

1lA.t4-li-- Itut(fa"L T.e,)~7...vi I

estimates between gear types also demonstrates that the marked fish

~ >.a/.c"""'1 ()f',Stb"t''f1rn, .c,...reaching the trapsr

Size-specific mortality in Sweetheart Creek may occur, but it could

not be detected in 1991 due to only one age class emigrating.

Although the smolt at the lake were significantly longer than those

at the flats, the difference was only 1 rom, and is not likely to be

biologically significant. The slight difference is statistically

significant due to the large sample sizes.

-53-

Other studies have

12/94 DRAFT

shown smaller salmonids surVlve impacts better, while larger fish

survive pressure changes better (Bell and DeLacy 1972). Any

increase in emigration survival due to smaller smolt size would be

offset somewhat by decreased SAS, so the management goal to produce

target-size smolt would remain. If large smolt survived emigration

better, then producing target-size smolt is even more important.

While latent mortality of emigrating smolts was high, the

experiments with flown-in smolts from the lake demonstrated that

most of the latent mortality was due the capture method and

handling of the smolts at the flats. However, too few trials were

run to clearly quantify the true latent mortality, but the results

were consistent. Some latent mortality should be expected, but the

observed rates are likely biased high.

Improving Emi.gration Surviva~

The benfits of increased survival for large smolt are substantial.f0>\!'5rot.' aY\

with 100% c~k survival of 90-rum smolt, 89,000 additional adults

could return each year at a stocking density of 36,000 fry/EV.

Foot and helicopter surveys of Sweetheart Creek suggest a pipeline

would be difficult to install due to the steep-walled, narrow

canyon. Large amounts of material and labor would be needed,

because the barriers are distributed thoughout the entire creek and

-54-

12/94 DRAFT

the entire creek would need to be bypassed. The steep canyon also

has potential for snow avalanches and landslides, so a pipeline may

be susceptible to damage.

Alternatively, some of the obstacles could be modified by

explosives. However, there are many obstacles, and the smol t

mortality may be due to cumulative effects as well as specific

problem sites. Because there are so many obstacles, the benefit of

modifying (or bypassing with a pipeline) only the worst ones will

probably not be 100% emigration survival.

NUtrient Enrichment for Sockeye Production

It is currently hypothesized that salmon smolts export nutrients

from a lake in the form of biomass, and therefore make it more

difficult for a lake to sustain its productivity, especially when

the nutrient input, through the biomass of returning adults, is low

(Leisure, Karluk papers). With a barriered system, there would be

no return of nutrients through the spawning adults, and

productivity could actually decrease. However, the nutrient pool

in an aquatic system can be artificially manipulated, with the

results carried into the succeeding trohic levels. In systems such

as Sweetheart, with P limitation, good light penetration, and

suitable heating regimes, the chI a, macrozooplankton abundance,

and smolt abundance and size have shown dramatic increases when

-55-

12/94 DRAFT

inorganic nutrients have been added (Koenings and Burkett 1987;

Hyatt and Stockner 1985).

Sweetheart Lake can be classified as clear, based on its light

penetration, color and turbidity levels (Koenings et al. 1990). Of

nine clear Alaskan lakes, seven had a deeper EZD (Koenings and

Burkett 1987; Koenings et al. 1988; Barto and Koenings 1989), but

clear lakes are usually the more productive sockeye lakes In

Alaska.

Cool water temperatures «7°C) can restrict the growth of sockeye

fry that rear in deep, cool water continuously and never vertically

migrate into warmer surface water (Peltz and Koenings 198x).

Temperature limitation was not a problem in Sweetheart Lake because

1) the water column heated down to 20 m, 2) hydroacoustics showed

most fish were <20-m deep at night, and 3) the large smolt size

could not have occurred if the fry consistently occupied water

<7°C.

The levels of dissolved minerals in Sweetheart Lake are typical of

oligotrophic systems (Wetzel 1975). Of 16 Alaskan lakes, only

three had lower TN than Sweetheart, and Sweetheart had the lowest

TP of the lakes (Koenings and Burkett 1987; Koenings et al. 1988;

Barto and Koenings 1989). Considering only coastal Southeast

Alaska lakes, nearly all of which have high precipitation,

-56-

12/94 DRAFT

(unpublished data,

impermeable drainages, and short water

Sweetheart's low nutrient levels are typical

ADFG Limnology Section, Douglas).

residence times,

The desired Si:N:P ratios of 17:16:1 (Koenings et al. 1985x)

contrasts with the observed ratio of 233:34:1, and confirms the P

limi tation in Sweetheart Lake. Most Alaskan sockeye lakes with

similar chemical profiles are also P limited (Koenings et al.

1985a; Koenings et al. 1985b; Koenings et al. 1985c). An Lp that

was 22% of the critical loading, L10 ' also indicates p limitation.

The nutrient deficiencies are reflected 1n the low ChI a (an

indicator of the algal standing crop) observed. Sweetheart was the

lowest of 16 Alaskan lakes (Koenings and Burkett 1987; Koenings et

al. 1988; Barto and Koenings 1989), but similar to other coastal

Southeast Alaska lakes with high flushing rate and bedrock

drainages (unpublished data, ADFG Limnology Section, Douglas, AK).

Fast-reproducing cladocerans are present that should cause a rapid,

same-year, zooplankton (sockeye forage) bloom if phytoplankton

increased. Sweetheart Lake 1S essentially free of pelagic

competi tors, notably stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) , and

predators. Essentially all the nutrient additions should benefit

only the sockeye fry.

-57-

12/94 DRAFT

Conclusions

Limnological Conditions

1. Sweetheart Lake has low productivity due to P limitation,

but it also has deep light penetration and a good heating

regime.

2. Zooplankton are both clad,ocer~~? 1}Dd copepods of sui table-/irv. S~/. 1"'7 ~"1~<

size and abundance~ All populations peak once and late

(July or August) .

3. There are no pelagic competitors and few predators for

sockeye fry.

4. Zooplankton populations showed expected responses to

planktivory at a stocking rate of 36,000 fry/EV,

zooplankton responses were negligible at 11,000 fry/EV.

Production Potential

1. Sockeye smolt production models estimate Sweetheart Lake

could produce 1.2-1.4 x 10' 2-4 g smolt, or 1 x 10' 6-g

smolt. Depending upon freshwater survival, 2.5-6.8 x 10'

spring fry would be required.

-58-

12/94 DRAFT

Observed Smo1t Production

1. Freshwater survival, growth and smolt age structure of

stocked sockeye fry indicate Sweetheart Lake is density-

dependent system currently below rearing limitation.

2. Near-target-size smolts for SAS were produced at 36,000

and 19,000 spring fry/EV.

Emigration surviva1

1. The average of the three best methods was 53%.

2.

3.

No

Up

data was available to assess size-s~ifiCmortality.Ii~

to 89,000 adults could be gainedAwith 00% emigration

survival, when the stocking rate is 36,000 fry/EV.

4. L,;etewr _/b..()~ /.Jj';j- ~i4J{ Sl/\~ 5 W k 4fCl/fe,CManagement Actions

1. The best strategy is to produce the maximum number of

target-size smolt, about 90 rom.

Recommendation~

1. Continue sockeye fry stocking.

1.1 Stocking window should be 15 June-IS July

1.2 Target stocking levels that produce 90 rom smolt

-59-

( ) 12/94 DRAFT

(36,000 fry/EV initially).

2. Continue monitoring zooplankton and smolt populations.

3. Consider projects to increase emigration survival.

4. Consider nutrient enrichment to boost smolt production.

-60-

Table(2/

physical dimensions of Sweetheart Lake ana the calculatedmean annual outflow and theoretical water residencetime (Anonymous USFS 1979, Koenings et al. 1987).

Total Volume 363,900,000 m3

Mean Depth 74 m

Maximum Depth 155 m

Drainage Area 9,176 ha

Surface Area 495 ha

Altitude 166 m

Mean Annual Flow (Q):

Q= 0.0312 . p1.13 A,·03

150 =P (in mean annual precipitation)

35.4 = A (mi2 watershed)

354.0 = Q (cfs)

Theoretical Water Residence Time (Tw):

Tw = V / TLO

363.9 = V (l06 m3 total lake volume)

Q '·8. 92x105 = TLO (106m3 yr-' total lake outflow)

316.4 = TLO (106m3 yr-')

0.87 = Tw (years)

o (,,-

EUPH.XLS

Table~ Light penetration data obtained from Sweetheart Lake,indiqating the euphotic zone depth, vertical extinctioncoefficient, and Secchi disk depth by sample date, 1989-through 1993. N/S means not sampled .•

Euphotic Zone Vertical Extinction Secchi DiskDepth, m Coefficient, per m Depth, mStation Station Station

Year Date 1 2 1 2 1 21989 7/26 18.3 13.4 0.25 0.34 9 5

8/25 18 12.7 0.26 0.36 9 5.510/5 10.5 4.1 0.43 1.15 6.1 1.412/1 14.3 N/S 0.3 N/S 10.5 N/S

1989 Average 15.3 10.1 0.31 0.6 8.7 4.0

1990 5/21 16.6 13.5 0.27 0.33 11.2 8.86/19 18.2 15.9 0.24 0.28 6.4 8.37/18 17.2 14.7 0.27 0.29 14.8 78/13 13.7 9.8 0.33 0.47 11.5 4.19/11 15 10.4 0.3 0.45 8.5 10.2

10/13 11. 6 7.1 0.38 0.65 5.6 3.411/5 14.2 8.9 0.31 0.5 8.5 6.9

1990 Average 15.2 11.5 0.3 0.4 9.5 7.0

1991 6/3 13.8 12.3 0.33 0.37 10 8.37/2 16.3 17.8 0.27 0.25 10 8.1

7/31 19.1 15.6 0.24 0.28 8.8 6.48/30 16.9 10.3 0.26 0.44 10.8 4.89/27 9 5.1 0.53 0.94 9.2 2.911/5 13.1 "8.5 0.34 0.53 9.1 4.2

1991 Average 14.7 11.6 0.33 0.47 9.7 5.8

1992 4/27 14.6 N/S 0.29 N/S 13 .5 N/S5/23 13.2 10 .4 0.33 0.43 11.4 76/30 15.8 15.6 0.28 0.28 8.9 8.18/26 19.5 16.6 0.23 0.27 14.5 7.410/1 14.8 11.5 0.3 0.38 10.3 7],0/26 14.0 10.5 0.3 0.43 11. 8 7.3

1992 Average 15.6 12.6 0.29 0.37 10.6 7.5

1993 6/4 15.5 15.6 0.29 0.28 10.5 77/6 19 19 0.25 0.24 10.5 7.58/10 20 16.73 0.24 0.27 13 .5 10.89/8 17.2 10.~ 0.26 0.45 12.8 3.8

10/5 11.1 7.94'3'1- 0.40 0.56 8.8 4.5

1993 Average 16.6 13.9 0.29 0.36 11. 2 6.7

All Years ;c' -

Average 15.4 12.0 0.30 0.43 10.0 6.4

All Years andstations Average 13.8 0.36 8.3

Page 1

Sheet1

Table~ Seasonal (May-October) means for Sweetheart Lakewater chemistry variables for 1989 through 1993.

Station1 2 All

Depth. m Depth. m1 50 1 30 All

Conductivity (umho/cm) 26 29 29 36 30

pH 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.9

Alkalinity (ppm CaCO;) 10.9 12.3 12.6 15.4 12.7

Turbidity (NTU) 0.85 0.43 0.95 0.82 0.75

Color (Pt Units) 7.2 8.7 7.9 7.2 . 7.8

Calcium (mg/L) 5.0 5.5 5.6 6.7 5.7

Magnesium (mg/L) 0.54 0.54 0.48 0.50 0.52

Iron (ug/L) 26 23 61 75 45Total Phosphorus(ug/L as P) 3.56 2.76 3.69 3.85 3.44Total FilterablePhosphorus (ug/L as P) 2.51 1.93 2.02 1.58 2.02Filterable ReactivePhosphorus (ug/L as P) 1.34 1.34 1.38 1.15 1.30Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen .(ug/L as N) 38.5 33.0 36.4 37.4 36.3

Ammonia (ug/L as N) 4.3 4.3 4.5 5.3 4.6Nitrate + Nitrite(ug/l as N) 56.0 89.9 67.6 106.5 79.5Reactive Silicon(uglL as Si) 721 852 723 909 800Particulate Carbon(ug/L as C) 65 45 79 61 62Total Nitrogen A

(ug/L as N) 94.5 122.9 104.0 143.9 115.8

N:P Ratio 27 45 28 37 34

A- Nitrate + Nitrite + Total Kjeldahl

Page 1

4-Table Seasonal (May-November) means for chlorophyll aand phaeophytin concentrations in Sweetheart Lake during1989~93. EZD means euphotic zone depth.

Chlorophyll a PhaeophytinStation Zone Depth flg/ L flg/ L

1 Surface 1 ill 0.30 0.15

Mid-EZD 4-9 ill 0.31 0.19

EZD 11-18 ill 0.38 0.23

2 Surface 1 ill 0.35 0.17

Mid-EZD 3-8 ill 0.34 0.17

EZD 5-15 ill 0.34 0.23

Table 5 Catches during pre-stocking surveys of Sweetheart Lake.All gear was fished for 20-26 h, starting near noon onthe listed date. See Figurej~ for exact sitelocations.

Number CapturedStarting capture Dolly Rainbow

Date Gear Site Varden Trout

10/04/89 Minnow Trap 1 19 02 17 03 6 04 20 05 1 06 4 07 28 08 6 09 10 0

10 16 011 24 012 29 013 OA 014 15 015 7 0

Floating Gill Net Outlet 9 2Sinking Gill Net Outlet 17 2

Total 228 4

06/07/90 Minnow Trap 1 3 02 36 03 6 04 26 05 2 06 23 07 OA 08 39 09 9 0

10 5 011 29 112 15 013 3 -014 13 (O~\15 OA

~)Floating Gill Net Outlet 1sinking Gill Net Outlet 1 2

06/08/90 Floating Gill Net upper Basin 0 0sinking Gill Net Upper Basin 3 0

Total 214 4

Atrap did not fish properly

Table 6 Population estimates and catches of pelagic fish during pre- and post-stockinghydroacoustic surveys on Sweetheart Lake. Lengths and weights were taken aftersix weeks of preservation in 10% formalin. N/A mean not applicable.

Population Estimate Tow Net CatchSockeye Fry

Sockeye Mean Mean OtherDate Total Fry Number Length (mm) weight (g) species Comment

10/4/89 292,000 0 0 N/A N/A 0 pre-stocking

6/6-7/90 155,000 0 0 N/A N/A 0 pre-stocking

10/12-13/90 830,000 606,500 17 73.8 4.9 0 post-stocking

9/26/91 49,500 0 2 47.5 1.0 0 post-stocking

9/30/92 87,500 0 0 N/A N/A 0 post-stocking

.~

Table ~ Smolt trap population estimates and smolt size for Sweetheart Lake by year.There were no age 2.0 smolt in 1991 or age 3.0 smolt in 1992 because 1990 wasthe first ever stocking of sockeye fry. No fry were stocked in 1992, so no age1.0 smolt emigrated in 1993. N!A mean not applicable.

95% Mean MeanSmolt Smolt Population Confidence Length WeightYe:ar Site Age Estimate Interval FWSA (mm) (g) N Comment

1991 Flats 1.0 466,000 ±107,000 N!A 88.3 N!A 605 Live fish only

1.0 779,000 ±177,000 32% 88.2 N!A 1,049 Live + mortalities

1991 Lake 1.0 N!A N!A N!A 89.2 6.0 662 Live fish

1992 Lake 1.0 340,000 ±115,000 26% 87.4 6.3 812 Live fish

2.0 55,400 ±19,100 N!A 116.2 14.8 286 Live fish

1993 Lake 2.0 N!A N!A N!A 130 20.2 158 Live fish

AFreshwater survival: stocked fry to age 1.0 smolt

Table 2 Smolt capture efficiency of smolt traps at Sweetheart Flats during 1991.Percent recaptured=(100 o Fish Recaptured)/Fish Released Alive. N/A means notapplicable.

sA

Recaptured

Gage Total Released Total Fyke Tow Net'Height stained Alive

Date m Fish Fish Fish 9-- Fish 9-- Fish %0 0

6/4-5 0.53 102 50 15 30.0 4 8.0 11 22.06/11-12 0.75 119 104 27 26.0 8 7.7 19 18.36/13-14 1. 22 ' 500 477 59 12.4 23 4.8 36 7.56/16-17 0.64 330 320 36 11. 3 22 6.9 14 4.46/21-22 0.82 320 _30~_ 54_ 17.lL 14 4. lL_ _40 13.2

Sum 1,371 1,255 191 N/A 71 N/A 120 N/AMean N/A N/A N/A 15.22 N/A 5.66 N/A 9.56

'Height due to tidal influence.

Table 9' Smolt capture efficiency of the fyke trap at Sweetheart Lake during 1992. Alltrials were used to calculate the 72-h mortality rate of 53% (133/251), buttrial 1 was omitted from the overall trap efficiency due to flooding. Trials2-5 were pooled and the overall trap efficiency was 33/551, or 5.99%.

Date Tag Number Number Number 72-h Percent Adjusted PercentTri a1 Marked Colors Released Reacaptured Held Mortalities Mortalities ReleaseA RecapturedB Comments

1 OS/29/92 Blue+Red 292 3 51 17 33 194.7 1. 54 Flood on 6/1-22 06/03/92 Yellow+Ye"ow 290 8 50 20 40 174.0 4.603 06/06/92 Red+Red 292 6 50 27 54 134.3 4.474 06/09/92 Blue+Silver 293 12 50 41 82 52.7 22.75 No unusual conditions5 06/12/92 B1 ue+Si lver 299 7 50 28 56 131. 6 5.32

1,466 36 251 133 N/A 687.3 N/A Sum - all trials1,174 33 200 116 N/A 492.6 N/A Sum - omit trial

AEquat i on 56Percent Recaptured=(Adjusted Release)/(Number Released)

Table 10 Smolt emigration survival while descending Sweetheart Creek during 1991.Survival was calculated comparing the downstream abundance (466,000 livesmolt observed at Sweetheart flats) with the upstream abundance. Upstreamabundance was estimated by the methods listed. Models are explained andevaluated in the text.,

Method

1. Downstream Mortalities

2. Zooplankton Biomass

3. Hydroacoustic estimateplus EV model

4. EV model

5. Tagging Experiment

6. Leisure

7. Upstream Trap

Mean of methods 5, 6, 7

upstreamAbundance

779,000

454,000

424,000

525,000

1,730,000

1,010,000

537,000

EmigrationSurvival'

% Comment

60 assumes live and dead behave alike

101 uses less than one season's data;no fish observations used

110 empirical method plus EV model

89 assumes system is at limitation

27 fUlly empirical

46 density-dependent model

87 uses 1992's trap efficiency estimate

53

Table IIbf JKJ4- ire-

-Mark typ~ ~umber of smolt marke~ mark retention, and recaptured marks forsockeye smolt tagged with Alcion blue dye at Sweetheart Lake and recaptured inthe fyke trap" at Sweetheart Flats during 1991.

=~

Number of SmoltRecaptured at Flats

Number Released 24-Hour Mark Retention in Fyke Trap

Upper Lower Both Visi- Mortal- Upper Lower BothDate Caudal Caudal Caudal ble Faint None ity Caudal Caudal Caudal

6/12 200 0 0 NA NA NA NA 2 10 06/13 40 200 0 23 13 4 24 2 0 06/14 40 40 400 39 1 2 0 2 0 46/15 400 0 40 30 5 4 1 2 1 16/16 440 0 0 35 3 2 0 8 2 16/17 440 0 0 29 7 4 0 8 1 06/18 440 0 0 23 7 5 0 7 0 06/19 440 0 0 29 8 2 1 5 0 06/20 440 0 0 20 10 6 4 9 0 0

Totals 2880 240 440 228 54 29 30 45 14 6

NA means not available

Table rv .Results of 24-h latent mortality trials at Sweetheartflats and Sweetheart Lake during 1991, by site,treatment, and capture gear. Routine treatment wascapturing smolt in a trap, and holding them in quietholding pens in fresh water. Flown-in smolts wereflown from the lake to the flats, run through thetraps, and then held 24 h. Control smolts were flownfrom the lake to the flats, and only held for 24 h.

24-hNumber Mortal- Mortal-

Held ities itiessite Treatment Gear Date Fish Fish %

Flats Routine Tow Net 6/2 41 13 326/5 40 4 10

6/12 50 13 ~Mean 23

Fyke Trap 6/ 2 40 21 536/9 41 13 32

6/15 51 4 86/18 49 1 26/21 54 28 52

Mean 29

Flown-in Tow Net 6/14 100 23 236/16 86 42 496/20 50 36 72

Mean 48

Fyke Trap 6/14 100 32 326/16 76 15 206/20 51 16 31

Mean 28

Control 6/16 50 3 66/20 40 8 20

Mean 13

1 ppt Fyke Trap 6/15 50 10 20Salinity

23 ppt Fyke Trap 6/15 23 18 78Salinity

Lake Routine Fyke Trap 6/11 50 7 146/15 50 3 66/19 50 Omitted--predation6/20 50 1 ---f.

Mean 7

Table ;3 Model predictions and observed data for Sweetheart Lake sockeye production.Assumptions are in parentheses, and N/A indicates the data are notapplicable to the model. FWS means freshwater survival (stocked fry to age1.0 smolt), and SAS means smolt-to-adult survival.

Dependent Variables and Assumptions

'\Returning Adul ts

Independent Variable Total Total Smelt Emigration EmigrationNumber FWS Number Weight SAS Survival Survival

\:/Model Data Type Val ue Comment Spri n9 Fry % Smelt g % 53% 100%"J

~ EV's-+, s ,. IJS::j~,o'O 1'~r;88 l'il'l 000

EV' Euphotic Volume at limitation 6 j 188,6M (21) l,42v,OOcr (2) (12) 171 ~ 886(2/

Spri n9 Fry 2,500,,000 '90 stock i ng 2,500,000 (21 ) 525,000 (2) (12) 33,400 63,000Spri ng Fry 1,3~000 '91 stocking 1,300,000 (21) 273,000 (2) (12) 17,400 32,760

Zooplankton Zooplankton Biomass 343 mg/m2 '89 bi omass c N/A N/A 1,360,000 (2) N/A N/A N/ABi omass

B Zooplankton Biomass 343 mg/m2 '89 bi omassc N/A N/A 454,000 (6) N/A N/A N/A

Lei sure Lake~ Stocking Density 54,000 fry/EV optimum (3,300,000) 35 (1,160,000) 4 N/A N/A N/A

Stocking Density 41,000 fry/EV '90 stocking (2,500,000) 41 (1,010,000) 5.7 N/A N/A N/AStocking Density 21,000 fry/EV '91 stocking (off model)

SASO Smelt LengthSmaIt Length

89 mm87 mm

'91 age 1.0 smelt'92 age 1.0 smelt

N/AN/A

N/AN/A

(879,000)'(340,000)

N/A 26,S (123,490) (233,000)N/A 24.7 (44,500) (84,000)

N/AN/A

Observed Age 1.0Observed Age 1.0

N/AN/A

'90 stocking'91 stock i ng

2,500,0001,300,000

3223

779,000340,000

6.15.0

N/AN/A

N/AN/A

N/AN/A

6'k

AKoenings and Burkett 1987BKyle and Koenings xxxxcbiased due to an incomplete sampling season and station differencesPKoenings et al. 199x(466,000 live smolt/0.53 emigration survival

/1-1.Appendix---Summary of water quality analysis results within the epilimnionand hypolimnion of Sweetheart Lake during 1989 at sampling sites #1 and 2.

Sampling Date

sampling Site 1

07/26/89

,08/25/89

,10/06/89

1

12101/89

1

Depth (m) 1 50 1 30 50 30 50 1 50

Conductivity 23(umhos/cml

pH 7(uni ts)Alkalinity 10(mg!l as CaCa3)Turbidity 0.4(NTO)Color 4.2(Ft units)Calcium 4.3(mglllMagnesium <0.2(mg/l)Iran 12(uglllTotal Phosphorous 2.5(ug/1 as' P)Total Fil terable 1.5Phosphorous(ug/l as P)Filterable Reactive 0.6Phosphorous (ug/l as P)Total Kjeldahl 66.9Nitrogen (ug/l as N)Ammonia <1.1(ug!1 as N)Nitrate + Nitrite 26.7(ug!1 as N)

Reactive Silicon 769(ug/l as 8i)Particulate Carbon NA(ugll as clTotal Particulate NAPhosphorous (ug/! as P)Total Particulate NANitrogen (ug/l as N)

NA - indicates not analyzed

"6.9

12

o.

8.7

5.1

<0.2

3.9

1.8

0.4

41.7

<1.1

82.2

888

NA

NA

NA

23

7.1

10

0.7

3

4.7

<0.2

57

3. ,

1.4

0.5

49.5

<1.1

17.9

805

NA

NA

. NA

38

7

17

0.5

5.3

6.5

<0.2

54

6.1

1 .9

0.5

55.2

<1.1

114.3

1428

NA

NA

NA

22

7.1

10

o.8

5.3

.3

<0.2

, • 4

'.3

0.9

41.6

<1.1

10.1

560

NA

NA

NA

"6.9

12

o .4

8.7

4.8

<0.2

<3

'.1

.8

O.

27.4

<1.1

84.6

826

NA

NA

NA

23

7.1

11

.,5.3

6.

<0,2

36

3.'

'.1

0.5

35.2

<1.1

6.7

517

NA

NA

NA

38

6.9

16

0.7

.4

6.1

<0.2

47

3.8

2.4

0.7

37.3

<1.1

119.2

875

NA

NA

NA

"7

11

.5

7.5

4

<0.2

41

5.6

2.7

1

53.8

<1.1

34

616

NA

NA

NA

"7

12

0.3

12

4.5

<0.2

20

3.1

'.5

2

35.2

<1.1

84.6

765

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

"NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

754

NA

<0.2

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

40

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

732

NA

<0.2

NA

;1,2AppendilC_··_Summary of water qua!ily analysis results within the epilmnionand hypolimnion of Sweetheart Lake during 1990al sampling sites #1 and 2.

Sampling Date 05/21/90 06119/90 07118190

sampling Sile ; 2 ; 2 , 2

Depth (m) 1 50 1 30 1 50 1 30 1 .0 1 30

conducl'lv'~y 30 19 38 38 28 31 28 39 24 29 26 32(umhos/cm)pH 6.8 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.1 6.9(units)Alkalinity 13.0 14.0 18.0 21.0 12.0 13.5 12.0 17.0 11.0 13.0 12.0 15.0(mgll as CaC03)Turbidity 1.6 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.' 0.' 0.6 0.' 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.'INTU)Color 6 " 10 6 10 8 9 4 5 6 5 4

(PI units)Calcium '.3 5.3 7.1 8.0 5.5 4.5 4.5 6.' 7.' 17.8 7.' 10.4(mgtl)Magnesium <0.2 <:0.2 <0.2 <0.2 D.' 1.2 0.' 1.2 NA NA NA <0.2ImgA)lroo 18 28 46 46 26 18 60 88 38 34 48 42

(ugll)Tota) Phosphorous 2.1 2.; 2.6 3.4 2.6 1.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 3.6 7.4 6.1

(ugll as P)Total Filterable 1., 1.2 1-' 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.4 1.3 1.3 1.5 2.0 1.1Phosphorous (ug/l as P)Filterable Reactive 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.2 0.9 1.2 3.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8

Phosphorous (ug/! as P)Total Kjeldahl 27.0 30.9 34.0 46.5 30.9 31.6 29.3 28.6 66.7 51.9 88.5 49.5

Nitrogen (ug/l as N)Ammonia 2.9 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 1.9 2.4 2.4

(ugll as N)Nitrate + Nitrite 92.6 94.5 144.5 151.3 67.6 87.8 57.0 109.9 30.6 89.8 14.2 72.4

(ugll as N)Reactive Silicon 832 871 976 1029 1122 1328 1026 1356 687 912 670 814

(ugll as Si)Particulate Carbon 81 53 87 70 70 48 59 .6 51 34 48 42

(ugll as C)Total Particulate <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <02

Phosphorous (ugll as P)Total Particulate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANitrogen (ug!l as N)

N.A.. indicates not analyzed

~(;.Y=el-

A..~Appendix__Summary of water quality analysis results within the epilmnionand hypolimnion of Sweetheart Lake during 1990 at sampling sites #1 and 2 (continued).

Sampling Dale 08/13/90 09/11190 10/14/90

Sampling Site 1 2 2 1 2

Depth (m) ,. 50 1 30 1 50 1 30 1 50 1 30

Conductivity 22 29 25 38 22 26 27 39 27 29 33 36

(umhos/cm)pH 7.1 6.9 7.1 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.9 6.6 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.8

(units)Alkalinity 9.0 12.5 12.0 12.0 9.5 10.5 12.0 16.5 11.0 ".5 14.0 15.0

(mgll as CaG03)Turbidity 0.2 0.2 1.2 OA 4.8 0.8 1.4 0.7 0.7 OA 2.0 1.8

(NTUjColor 4 6 6 6 NA NA NA NA 8 13 9 "(Plunils)Calcium 4.7 4.7 4.7 6.5 3.9 4.8 4.8 6.7 4.6 4.6 6A 5.5

(mg/l)Magnesium <0.2 0.7 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.9 <:0.2 0.9 OA OA <0.2 <0.2

(mgtl)Iron 18 13 12 92 47 112 120 102 42 23 140 129

(ugll)Total Phosphorous 4.6 2A 4.3 3.8 2.3 2.0 5.7 4.3 2.6 4.0 4.6 4.6

(U911 as P)Total Filterable 3.5 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.5 1.6 3.0 0.3 1A 3.3 1.7 2.5

Phosphorous (ug/l as P)RlIerable Reactive 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.9 1A 1.3 3.0 1A 2.1

Phosphorous (ugll as P)

Total Kjeldahl 33.2 27.8 35.5 37.1 34.8 31.6 41.8 25.4 30.1 18.4 30.1 35.5

Nitrogen (U911 as N)Ammonia 2.6 2A 1.9 3.5 <1.1 <1.1 <:1.1 1.8 2A 1.9 1.9 2.1

(ugil as N)Nitrate + Nitrite 11.8 90.7 31.1 87.8 15.4 44.5 35.1 99.5 63.7 86.8 82.0 89.2

(ugll as N)Reaclive Silicon 659 949 630 967 581 643 588 817 623 772 754 794

(ugll as Si)Particulate Carbon 109 37 178 62 112 64 100 45 89 56 59 73

(ugll as C)Tolal Particulate <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Phosphorous (ugll as P)Total Particulate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANitrogen (ug!l as N)

N.A. - indicates not analyzed

~ ('""" )l/"~4_

#.2,Appendix__Summary of water quality analysis results within the epilmnionand hypolimnion of Sweetheart Lake during 1990 al sampling sites #1 and 2 (continued).

Sampling Dale 11/20/90

Sampling Site 1 2

Depth (m) 1 50 1 30

Conductivity 30 29 39 39(urnhos/cm)pH 6.7 6.8 7.0 7.1(units)Alkalinity 11.0 11.0 16.0 "16.5

(mglJ as Cae03)Turbidity NA NA NA NA(NTU)Color 9 9 10 9(PI units)Calcium 4.9 4.9 7.8 7.8(mg/l)

Magnesium 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.3(mg/l)Iron NA NA NA NA(ug/l)

Total Phosphorous 2.1 3.1 5.2 3.2(ugll as P)Total Filterable 2.5 1.3 4.1 1.5Phosphorous (ugll as P)Filterable Reactive 2.6 1.3 1.9 1.4Phosphorous (ugll as P)

Total Kjeldahl 21.5 41.0 33.2 33.2Nitrogen (ugll as N)

Ammonia 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.4

(ug/l as N)Nitrate + Nitrite 84.9 83.9 110.9 "1.8(ug!l as N)

Reactive Silicon '" 1012 1163 1163

(ugfl as 5i)Particulate Carbon 37 42 59 70

(ug/! as C)

Tolal Particulate <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Phosphorous (ugll as P)Total Particulate NA NA NA NANitrogen (ug/l as N)

NA· indicates not analyzed

Ik J,Appendix---summary of water quality analysis resul~s within the epilimnionand hypolimnion of Sweetheart Lake during 1991 at sampling sites #1 and 2.

Sampling Date

Sampling site

Depth (m)

conductivity(umhos/c:m)

pH(units)Alkalinity(mg/l as CaCe3)Turbidity(NTU)

Color(Pt units)Calcium(mg/l)Magnesium(mg/llIron(ug/I)Total Phosphorous(ug/l as P)

Total Filterablephosphorous·(ug/! as p}Filterable Reactivephosphorous (ug!l as p)Total KjeldahlNitrogen (ug/l as N)Ammonia(ugll as N)Nitrate ~ Nitrite(ugll as N)Reactive Silicon(ugll as silParticulate Carbon(ug/l as C)Total Particulatephosphorous (ug/l as P)Total ParticulateNitrogen (ug/l as N)

1

30

6.

13 .5

0.2

NA

4.8

o. 8

4

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

856

NA

<:0.2

NA

50

31

6.

14.0

0.2

NA

.8

<0.2

<3

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

832

NA

<0.2

NA

06/03/91

1

37

7.0

16.5

0.5

NA

6. B

0.8

22

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

8"NA

<0.2

NA

2

30

39

7.0

17 .5

0.4

NA

7.8

<0.2

32

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

894

NA

<0.2

NA

27

7.0

11.5

o. 5

NA

4 .9

<0.2

42

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

686

NA

<0.2

NA

50

31

7.0

12.0

0.3

NA

4.9

<0.2

23

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

838

NA

<0.2

NA

07/02/91

1

27

7.0

13.0

o.

NA

4 . 9

<0.2

70

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

610

NA

<0.2

NA

2

30

35

7.0

15.0

0.6

NA

5.9

<0.

92

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

768

NA

<0.2

NA

23

7.2

7.5

0.5

NA

3.7

<0.2

12

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

564

NA

<0.2

NA

50

31

7.0

10.0

0.4

NA

4.

o . B

<3

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

B18

NA

<0.2

NA

07131/9-1

1

24

7.1

7.5

o. 6

NA

4.6

<0.

23

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

541

NA

<0.2

NA

30

37

7.0

12.0

o.

NA

6.0

0.8

55

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

812

NA

<0.2

NA


- (~u--(,'~ -

,4.,3.Appendix___Summary of water quality analysis results within the epilimnionand hypolimnion of Sweetheart Lake during 1991 at sampling sites #1 and 2(continued) .

sampling Date 08/30/91 09/28/91 11/05/91

sampling Site 1 2 1 2 1 2

Depth 'm' 1 50 1 30 1 50 1 30 1 50 1 30

Conductivity 23 31 25 34 23 30 29 35 26 28 32 34(umhos/em)

pH 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.1 7.1 '.9 '.8 7.0 7.1(units)Alkalinity 10.0 12.5 12.0 13.0 10.0 13 .0 14 .0 16 .0 11.0 11.0 15.0 17.0lmg/l as CaCo3)Turbidity o.7 o. 4 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 1., 2 . , 0.5 0.5 1.2 1.2(NTU)

Color NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA(PC uni ts)Calcium 3 . 9 4 . 9 4.9 5.9 3 .8 4.8 4.8 5.8 4.7 4.7 5.7 5.7(mg/I)Magnesium o .7 NA NA o.7 o. 8 o . 8 o . 8 0.8 o. 8 <0.2 0.8 0.8(mg/I)Iron 36 8 62 59 40 20 101 192 42 24 94 107{ug/llTotal Phosphorous NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA(ug/l as P)

Total Filterable NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAPhosphorous(ug/l as P}Filterable Reactive N'. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAPhosphorous (ug/l as P)

Total Kjeldahl NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANitrogen [ug/l as N)Anuuonia NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA(ug!l as N)Nitrate + Nitrite NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA(ugll as N)Reactive Silicon 595 855 607 784 647 805 635 708 776 765 776 816(ug!l as 8ilParticulate Carbon NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA(ug!l as C)Total Particulate <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Phosphorous (ug!l as P)Total Particulate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANitrogen (ug!l as N)


Appendi(f"~u;"maryof water quality analysis results within the epilmnionand hypolimnion of Sweetheart Lake during 1992 at sampling siles #1 and 2.

Sampling Date 04/27/92 05/24/92 06/30/92

Sampling Site 1 2 2 1 2

Depth (m) 1 50 '0 1 50 1 '0 1 50 1 '0

Conductivity 29 29 NA NA 27 27 " '8 25 29 28 31(umhoslcm)pH 8.5 8.7 NA NA 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.9 6.8 7.0 7.0(units)Alkalinily 10.0 10.0 NA NA 12.0 11.0 14.0 17.0 '1.0 12.0 12.0 14.0(mgtl as CaC03)Turbidity 1.2 0.6 NA NA 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 D.' 0.5 0.6(NTU)Color 8 8 NA NA 10 8 9 8 9 8 6 4(PI units)Calcium 4.9 4.9 NA NA 5.6 4.7 5.6 6.5 12.0 6.8 6.8 7.8

(mg/l)Magnesium <0.3 <0.3 NA NA 0.9 <0.3 0.9 D.' <0:3 <0.3 <0,3 <0.3(mg/l)Iron <11 <11 NA NA 12 <11 40 58 <11 <11 15 21(ug/l)Total Phosphorous 3.7 8.' NA NA 3.' 2.3 2.6 2.8 2.' 2.6 2.' 6.7(ugtl as P)Total Filterable 2.' 6.9 NA NA 1.' 0.8 1.2 1.1 2.1 1.1 1.0 1.1Phosphorous (ugtl as P)Filterable Reactive 1.2 1.0 NA NA 1.5 0.6 1.2 0.' 2.2 1.2 0.9 1.2Phosphorous (ugll as P)Total Kjeldahl 25.5 41.2 NA NA 36.0 33.0 42.0 40.5 33.0 37.5 34.5 68.2Nitrogen (ugIl as N)Ammonia 4.2 2.1 NA NA 2.1 2.1 2.1 '.2 2.1 4.2 6.' 4.2(ugII as N)Nitrate + Nitrite 94.7 96.7 NA NA 100.5 99.6 184.5 181.6 75.2 102,5 97.6 20.5(ug/l as N)Reactive Silicon 839 810 NA NA 802 772 87' 951 839 810 597 692(ug/l as Si)Particulate Carbon NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA(ug/l as C)Total Particulate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAPhosphorous (ugll as P)Total Particulate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANitrogen (ugll as N)

N.A.• indicates not analyzed

- CC>1'f/~..,..

A. t.! .Appendix__Summary of water quality analysis results within the epilmnionand hypolimnion of Sweetheart Lake during 1992 at sampling sites #1 and 2 (continued).

Sampling Date 08126/92 10/26192

Sampling Site 2 1 2

Depth (m) 1 50 1 30 1 50 1 30

Conductivity 21 29 27 36 27 28 29 33(umhos/cmj

pH 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.8(units)

Alkalinity 9.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 12.0 14.0

(mgll as CaG03)

Turbidity 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.6 3.4 0.4 1.0 0.4

(NTU)Color 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 9(PI units)

Calcium 4.4 4.5 4.5 5.4 4.8 5.7 5.7 6.7

(mgA)Magnesium <0.3 <0.3 0.7 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

(mgA)Iron 16 14 79 56 36 24 54 556

("gA)Total Phosphorous 1.4 1.5 3.1 1.5 1.5 2.6 2.4 2.8

(ugll as P)

Tetal Filterable 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.2

Phosphorous (ugil as P)

Filterable Reactive 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8

Phosphorous (ugll as P)Total Kjeldahl 36.6 39.0 39.0 36.6 36.0 33.0 37.5 40.5

Nitrogen (ugll as N)

Ammonia 2.0 4.2 4.2 12.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1

(ugll as N)

Nitrate + Nitrile 23.9 102.5 33.2 120.2 72.2 89.8 68.3 76.1

(ug/l as N)Reactive Silicon 542 821 571 804 731 778 749 784

(ug/l as Si)

Pariiculate Carbon NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA(ug/l as C)

Total Particulate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAPhosphorous (ugll as P)

Total Particulate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANitrogen (ug/l as N)

N.A.• indicates not analyzed

11,5',Appendix__Summary of water quality analysis results within the epilmnion

and hypolimnion of Sweetheart Lake during 1993 al sampling siles #1 and 2..

Sampling Date 06/05/93 08/10/93 10105/93

Sampling Site 1 2 1 2 1 2

Depth (m) 1 50 1 30 1 50 1 30 1 50 1 30

Conductivity 28 30 27 38 24 30 25 37. 27 31 30 36(umhos'cm)

pH 6.5 6.5 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.7(units)

Alkalinity 15.5 17.0 12.0 15.0 10.0 12.0 11.5 17.0 10.5 11.5 12.0 15.0(mgtl as CaC03)Turbidity 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.3(NTU)Color 5 8 5 6 3 5 13 5 4 5 5 5(Pt units)

Calcium 5.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1(mg/I)

Magnesium <:0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 1.0 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.9 0.9 0.9 <0.3(mg/I)

Iron 24 34 69 87 14 <11 58 65 23 26 82 92

("gil)Tolal Phosphorous 8.2 2.3 5.5 4.7 1.8 1.6 2.8 3.4 1.9 1.5 2.9 3.6(ug/l as P)Total Filterable 1.6 2.1 3.4 1.9 1.3 1.1 2.5 1.5 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.2Phosphorous (ug/l as P)Filterable Reactive 0.6 1.1 2.2 1.1 0.7 0.6 4.2 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.9Phosphorous (ug/l as P)

Total Kjeldahl 55.4 36.2 36.2 39.9 36.2 32.6 31.1 46.6 46.6 24.4 35.5 42.9Nitrogen (ug/I as N)Ammonia 13.0 14.8 15.1 11.5 8.9 8.9 12.0 11.8 13.0 14.6 7.9 11.0

(ug/l as N)Nitrate + Njtrlte 82.0 100.7 70.7 130.1 19.5 101.5 12.0 130.1 43.6 103.0 42.1 95.5(ugll as N)

Reactive Silicon 833 840 638 908 624 974 586 974 698 846 716 858(ugll as Si)

Particulate Carbon 118 58 72 84 98 101 161 49 176 84 118 113(ugll as C)

Total Particulate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAPhosphorous (ugll as P)

Total Particulate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANitrogen (ugll as N)

NA • indicates not analyzed

APpendi~~Ummary of algal pigment analysisduring 1989 at sampling sites #1 and 2.

results within Sweetheart Lake

10/06/89

07/26/89Sampling Date

Sampling si te

Depth 1m)

ChI a(ug/1)Phaee a(ug/l)

----

Sampling Date

Sampling Site

Depth 1m)

ChI a(ug/1)Phaee a

(ug/l)

1

0.07

0.04

0.21

0.21

0.74

0.17

1

4

0.37

0.18

1

16

0.45

0.2

9

0.19

0.25

1

0.44

0.27

6

0.43

0.22

12

0.48

0.2

1

0.29

0.12

0.21

0.2

08/25/89

15

0.5

0.4

1

0.51

0.23

2

12

0.66

0.44

APpendix~~Gmmary of algal pigment analysis results within Sweetheart Lakeduring 1990 at sampling sites #1 and 2.

sampling Date OS/21/90 06/19/90

Sarnpl ing Si te 1 2 1 2

Depth (m) 1 7 14 1 7 13 1 B 15 1 7 14

ChI a 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.48 0.38 0.39 0.26 0.77 1. 00 0.34 0.24 0.15(ug/I)Phaeo a 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.17 0.16 0.23 0.35 0.45 0.22 0.18 0.11(ug/I)

----

Sampling Date 07/18/90 08/13/90

Sampling Site 1 2 1 2

Depth (m) 1 B 15 1 7 13 1 6 12 1 5

ChI a 0.22 0.19 0.54 0.18 0.41 0.46 0.32 0.22 0.54 0.43 0.53 0.80(ug/I)Phaeo a 0.07 0.24 0.91 0.10 0.26 0.30 0.10 0.22 0.38 O. 18 0.25 0.93(ug/I)

Sampling Date 09/11/90 10/14/90

Sampling Si te 1 2 1 2

Depth (m) 1 7 13 1 5 9 1 6 11 1 3

ChI a 0.44 0.26 0.24 0.64 0.55 o . 43 0.21 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.09(ug/I)Phaeo a 0.25 0.31 0.37 0.30 0.24 0.22 0.14 0.20 0.21 0.11 0,11 0.11(ug/1)

sampling Date 11/20/90

Sampl ing si te 1 2

Depth (m) 1 6 12 1 4 8

ChI a 0.11 0.11 O. 10 0.18 0.17 0.09(ug/1)Phaeo a 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.10(ugll)

------------------------------~-~~-

.3.1Appendix___ ummary of algal pigment analysis results within Sweetheart Lakeduring 1991 at sampling sites #1 and 2.

Sampling Date 06/03/91 07/02191


Depth lml 1 7 13 1 6 11 1 7 14 1 8 15

ChI a 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.11 0.15 D.B2 0.24 0.15 0.20(ugl1)

Phaeo a 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.09 0,17 0.06 0,12 0.16(ug/U

Sampling Date 07/31/91 08/30/91


Depth (m) 1 9 18 1 7 14 1 8 15 1 5 9

ChI a 1. 21 0.58 0.97 0.64 0.68 0.5:2 0.34 0.37 0.35 0.88 0.59 0.34(ug/1)Phaeo a 0.12 0.30 0.17 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.12 0.14 0.14(ugl1)

Appendix 13.. 1.summary of algal pigment analysis results within Sweetheart Lakeduring 1992 at sampling site #1 and 2.

Sampling Date 04/27/92 05/24/92


Depth 1 7 13 NA NA NA 1 6 12 1 5 9

Chi a 0.13 0.11 0.10 NA NA NA 0.06 0.11 0.08 0.16 0.25 0.11(ug~)

Phaeo a 0.05 0.06 0.06 NA NA NA 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.18 0.15(ug/l)

Sampling Date 06130/92 08/26/92


Depth 1 7 14 1 8 15 1 7 14 1 5 10

Chla 0.14 0.23 0.28 0.Q7 0.27 0.76 0.44 OA5 0.29 1.11 0.88 0.69(ug~)

Phaeo a 0.14 0.18 0.25 0.13 0.18 0.15 0.30 0.34 0.38 0.38 0.34 0.36(u~)

Sampling Date 10/26/92

Sampling Site 1 2

Depth 1 7 13 1 5 9

Chi a 0.18 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.09(ug~)

Phaeo a 0.23 0.20 0.26 0.21 0.20 0.22. (ug~)

---------------_.._--

Appendix a.;:Summary of algal pigment analysis results within Sweetheart Lakeduring 1993 at sampling site #1 and 2.

Sampling Data 06/05/93 08/10/93


Depth 1 7 14 1 7 14 1 9 17 1 7 15

Chi a 0.17 0.22 0.12 0.10 0.21 0.20 0.16 0.63 1.49 0.12 0.16 0.35(ugn)Phaea a 0.10 0.14 0.11 0.04 0,07 0.07 0.06 0.24 <.01 0.17 0.22 0.27(ugn)

Sampling Date 10/05/93

Sampling Site 1 2

Depth 1 5 10 1 4 7

Chi a 0.69 0.76 0.41 0.60 0.50 0.50(ug/l)Phaea a 0.30 0.28 0.30 0.24 0.20 0.23(ug/I)

~

fo/fl.""'A..i)<, rJ,;. ~'I!:Bhl e A ~ Number of sockeye ·smolt examined andt\observed injuries at Sweetheart Lake and

flats during spring 1991. 1D is a I w,,-J .l;6~code, where the first two lettersare location (flats or lake), the third and fourth letters are capture gear(fyke trap or tow net), and the fifth and sixth letters are the treatment.Dailys were any live smolt, morts were any dead smolt, flown were captured atthe lake and flown to the flats, recaptures were stained smolt recaptured andheld 24 h, prelatent were examined before being held 24 h, dyed were stained andheld for 24 h prior to examination, beach smolts were found on the beach,latents were captured in the traps and held for 24 h prior to examination,controls were flown from the lake to the flats and only held for 24 h_in holdingpens. UNRES means unresponsive, MORT means m.ortality , OPERe means erp~}ularinjury, ALL at the end of a column is the number of smolt having s ~~ type ofinjury, and ALL in a row is the total number (sum) of a type of inj . 9m'?~tswere sampled from a 24-h period beginning 9-t noon on the START date and e~I';jlt.

noon the following day. No observations (zero) is indicated by a period (.).

BEHAVIOR SCALE LOSS NUMBER OF INJURIES TOTAL------------------------------------ ---~~------------- ------------------- --------------------------------------------- NUMBER

10 CODES, FL-'LATS LA·LA'E I I I I ILOSS ILOSS ILOSS ILOSS l'OUI-I5ORA-1 I I I I I EXAMINED~X:~X~tvT~~~R~y;~~~~o:~·r::~i~~+ ~~:~~+~~::_+~~~:~+~~~_+~:~:_+~~::~+:~:::+:~::~+_~: __ +_~: __+_:~:_+~:::~+_:~:_+~~:~:+~:~:~+_~:: _________~APruRE CO-CONTROL BE-BEACH SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM INN

" -----------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- --------/ 10 START

FlFYO;A 05/16/91 ; Ii 1

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I J

I 05/30/91 ; 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • II06/02/91 J , 17 1 2 0 0 0 J 0 17 22... 06/03/91 12 I 3 " i 1 3 0 I 0 1 1 " 2.I

\,06/05/91 12 4 ; IS

i0 0 0 0 0 1 0 " SO! 06/07/91 17 4 21 8 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 3D SO06/10/91 14 3 10 25 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 SO06/12/91 " 2 3 " 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 SO

06/13/91 • 8 4 17 1 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 SO.L 06/14/91 22 5 • 31 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 SO~~ 06115/91 8 1 ,

20 0 0 0 1 0 0 , SO

-' \ 06/16/91 21 2 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 SO,- 06/17 /91 5j

5i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 SOr ,

06l16l91 18 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 SOSl"

06/19/91 7 2 3 8 4 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 12 SO

'""~ \i06(20/91 13 2 14 1 ; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 SOAL 17' 40 51 240 28 , 8 0 . 1 1 • I 270 '74"'\ FlFYFL

I f'J£CD s~. I06/15/91 7 1 2 44 ·25 10 7 12 18 0 8 0 I I 1 54 9406/17/91 4 1 3 13 21

10 j I 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 8.'-I" I 06[21/91 4 1 1 15 8 ; • 0 1 0 0 1 0 21 51 P4r11 C;;~f)AL 15 3 • '2 54 20 15 25 0 , 0 1 2 1 9. 231

\ FLFYLA

I (7'101J\, 06/02/91 2 1 1 21 25 ; 2

II I 0 2 0 0 0 25 .006/09/91 5 1 1 13 II 4 I 0 0 0 0 0 20 .,'\" 06/15191 • 2 3 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II 51

06/16/91 34 i I 4

2 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 49

06(21/91 10 28 14 25 " 0 7 0 0 0 0 43 59AL 2. , 3 •• .4 10 4 25 31 2 7 2 0 0 0 103 240------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_._-------------------------.

- (" ol'-•. I +" i!t.l"uJ -

-----.--.--------------------------- -------------_._.- ------------------- ------------------.----------------------.---ID COOE', FL-FLATS LA·LAKE I I I I ILOSS ILOSS ILOSS ILOSS bBAU'-lscRA-1 I I I I I6X:~X~CyT~~~R~yF~~~r~·E~:t~~~~~ ~::~~+~~::_+~~~::+~~~_+~:~:_+~~::~+:~:::+~~:~~+_:: __+_~: __+_:~~_+~:::~+_:~:_+~~:~:+~~~:~+_~::_RE-RECAPTURE CO-CONTROL BE-I5EACH SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM 1 SUM I SUM I SUM I H-----------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----ID STARTFLFYMO

{l~p~Ji j(; ~C. ( .faille 1';")" continued.

BEHAVIOR SCALE LOSS NUMBER OF INJURIES TOTALNUMBEREXAMINED

"

FLFYPL

FLFYRE

FLTODA

FLTOFL

FLTOLA

FLTOMO

FLTOPL

OS/22/9105/30/9105/31/9106/02/9106/03/9106/05/9106/06/9106/07/9106/09/9106/1019106/12/9106/13/9106/14/9106f1S/9106/16/9106/1719106/1B/9106/19/9106/20/91ALL

06/02/91ALL

06/12/9106/14/9106/17/9106/21/91ALL05/30/9106/02/9106/03/9106/04 /9106/06/9106/09/9106/11191ALL06/15/9106/17/9106/21/91ALL

06/02/9106/06/9106/13/91ALL

05/29/9105/30/9106/02/9106/04/9106/05/9106/06/9106/09/9106/11/91ALL

06/02/91ALL

"13

141,

1013

1,14

210oslS

5,2S

12

3

2S2S

1221222

12

i34

24

104

134

2'31

4

31

4

1••,4S2S20'02050'0'0'0,.49

"504949"0

,,1010

"

"""94

"42441

lS29,502S30304.

'"

4

4

••,41,

1134,.11lO

443

12

'"13

"34,1

11142413,16

1lS,.2S31

1'3

16•"43

111•4S,

11440

133

252S

25

1014,,••lS,

174

14,20

134

234

,1

14

1411

429

11

2•2

"4,•43

21

13,1,•4•215,2

os

2

2

2,•12

24

1,44,.

,,2

lO4

lS

"162421•,",262940lS

292

1011

""

10,11,

lS,42

oo21,

121

122,

11'0,.2,2

101

"143

oooooo2o1o1,1

12

2421

o,,11

oo1

lS12,

4

"14

oo

2o1o1oo2o,o1oooo1oo

11

oooooo3o11oo,1oo1,oo,2o2oo2oo,33

oo4224

""333.1~1'

315

1432lSlO

282

ooooo'I1oo2oooo2

1o

2122

oooo,1114

16,1

"oo

2oo1

10oooo21oo2oo4oo

22

oooooooo22oo24

10

oooo1oo1

ooooo4oo4

oo

o11,

13,,282313,11

44

111126,.16

lO8

ooo1oo1oooooooo1oo1

1oo1

215,o2,,

lO

oo

o224

lSo5

13,21

8424545

10,113

3,oooooo2ooooo2

oo11,oo,2,,o1214

22

oo

o1oo,oooo21oo1ooooo8

ooooooooooooooooooooooo4oo1oooo5

252S

1 18 ,8 8, ,

45 5025 2520 2050 5020 20SO 50SO SOSO 5050 5038 SO49 5039 SOSO 5049 SO49 SO

660 692

13 4113 41

5 8• •15 2311 1239 5115 3625 3613 2410 5017 50

1 '016 50

103 331

41 7542 7640 50

123 201

17 41• 40

27 5052 136

15 1529 30

9 1050 5025 2530 3030 3048 50

236 240

25 4125 41

- 'd.'1 r /1-1 (A.L'c( ~

Aff-..1[)C e, I,'I'il'Iiiile I '0 continued.

N

TOTALNIM8EREXAMINED

NUMBER OF INJURIESSCALE lOSSBEHAVIOR

-iO-COOES;-'c:,LAiS-CA:LAKE---------1 ---i-----i----'i-- ILOSS-iCO;S-iCOS;-iCOS' bB'ui:isc'A:i-----i-----i-----i-----i-----i---~X:~X~~yT~:~R~y;~~~~~~~r~:t:i~~i ~~:~:+~~::_+~~~::+~~~_+~::~_+:~=:~+:~:::+~~:~~+_:: __ +_~: __+_:~~_+~:::~+_:~:_+~~:~:+~:~:~+_~::_RE-RECAPTURE CO-CONTROL BE"BEACH 'SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SUM I SLn-1 I N-----------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----10 START ",.,....FLTORE

"~ ;

44

I'SI1440

124

• '014 4020 90

12 4021 SO22 5055 140

I 12 41 4, 14, 10

14 33

1 18 8, ,

12 .01 50

3 501 '03 '02 '01 50I 50I 503 .,.1 SO8 '0

36 763

3 3I 312 11I I3 3

34 34-44 83

122'102776

33

oooooooooooooooooooooII

oo

oooooooo01'ooooooo

3333

ooooo

ooooooooooIoI

oII

oo

oooooooo01'ooo1o1oo2

o2oo2

22

ooooooooooII2

o22

oo

ooo1oooo01'oI

oIIooo2

oooooooooooooo44

oo

ooooooo

ooooo

ooooooogroo

o3o2,ooo1I

oo,,ooooooo77

oo

ooooooogroooo1ooo1

ooooo

ooo1I

, 0o 0o 0, 0

o 0o 0o 0o Io Io 2

2 0o 12 I

o 0o 0

o51o•ooo22

o Io 0o 1o 0o 0o 0o 0

~Il il

o 3

o 0o 0I 1o 0I 0o 22 3

33

31

II•

2323

1919

12

15

33

22

••

: I

3I

281

;

: I,4

134

23,

11

I1314

,

3,,I23

3I32111

~f8

32

2II

1418

,16,

337

22,,

14,,.2

2'

: I'

1•,

122S

52457

33

2•10

74

2031

3I213

3444

3

4

2

112

.' I

2

213

3

3

-\

258

343

10

121

,,4

14I

19

.~.,t1.

3132

crl

06/12/9106/14/9106/17/9106/Z1/91ALL05/JO/91ALL06/17/9106/21/91ALL06/14/9106/17/9106/21/91ALL05/24/9105/25/91OS/27/9105/26/91OS/29/91ALLOS/25/9105/28/91ALL06/06/9106/07/9106/08/9106/09/9106/10/9106/11/9106/12/9105/13/9105/14/9106/16/9106/17/9105/18/9106/20/9106/20/91A

06/21/91ALL06/06/9106/07/9105/15/9106/16/9106/1a/9106/20/91ALL

LADA

FLBEMO

FLea

lAM<)

FLDY

FLUNHO

FLUNDA

---------------------------------------------------------._-------------------------------------------_._------------------_._-----------_.._-ARaw data sheets show two 9roups of smolt GKam1ned on this date, reason is unkown.~All but one mortality due to a malfunction in the live box that day only.

••• I'll-

LaiLL

•••

...

...

cd

I SpeelLake I(! C".,~~Ii-Sweetheart Lake

¥.:~ ;,-- "'{'to~ ""~of'

""".

I'!I·

Crescent Lake,

o .. 0 10 :JO "Cl .D..L·

I "

......

GULF OFALASICA

\,\\

,

'~

MO'

ALASKA

locations of Sweetheart Lake, Sp~el Lake,the Snettisham hatchery.

LOCATION MAP

The-and

.......~..

---,r'J'

r~,,'

•

.r_

...

'7"

•••

I

Ij

ii

~,

CIU~...

--r':

IU.~"L

\ ,/;:::::;::;:::7'I

"\

, /"Co ..1- tf?".<,. A'"r".

ISweetMan lake I

1km

MAnOll4L

tN

Co'T

-0'>-"""..">st',N\

-<,

Locations of the sampling stations on Sweetheart Lake.

F,} 2

4-5 October 1989

14

OUTLET

GILLNETS

7-9 June 1990

4

OUTLET

GILLNETS

14

UPPER BASrN

GILLNETS

4

Hydroacoustlc Transects Tow Netting 1 kIn /TRUE

NORTH

~, '1l'l~' J Locations of the pre-stocking sampling sites for fish

on Sweetheart Lake.

tV".v'

,

GRASS

(TIDE FLATS)

,iJ ,iY

"",,:a_A{ F4Lts~

~FLOW----

\.::J

j----. '"' -, '-, -,,,,,,,,,,/1 TO ,:,.. GILBERT "

" BAY,', I

, I

I I,

Release Sites

N

GRAVEL

(TIDE FLATS)

Layout of the fyke trap and tow net sites to capturesockeye smolt at Sweetheart flats in 1991.

...................... .

.................................. . SWEETHEART LAKE

. ...................................................................

. .. .

. ... . . . . . . . . ..

. . ... . ... ............................

.............. ........... .

................. ................... " .

. . . . . , . . . , . . .............. , ..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...................•..............................

............ . .

<::::::\$::::::):;:)\::\:::::~~.c.~~.~.c.~c~~~~:;:~:~c ::::.cccc~:.c. ............. .

:·::<·:<·:::::::«::::<·::::::::·:··<·N::::--::o::·:·.......................................................................... ..

.......... .-.. . ........ . ............................ .

.......... . ...... ......... , ..

................. ...................... .. ,. ..

..................... . .................................. .. ............ .

............ . .... . _ .

.............................. , , ................ , ....................... ..

LOG

......... ......... ......................... .

.................. , ................ .

. . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . , ... .. ........... ... , ..

... , , ..................... . ................. . ....................... .

FLOW

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. .. . . . . . . . ...... .

.. .. .

................................... ..

......... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... .

........ ...............

..................

Layout of the smolt trap at Sweetheart Lake.

.... '. "~,.~ .....,, '"-:'-': 0;':':

<

-' -',.1:..; ......

.~ ~.

10

8

6

6

4

;-',

,'"

4

4

6

8. 14

4

4

r=., l-:~~;:" ~.o:" _

16 :#f;~;'~:~: .. =~:::~~~:~;:'-~:01\ Illljlll]I(\~Jliil 1]((\\ i iii ,~141~,~.. ··:-·= ..~-~-j--,:,-·,·~·

J :::;, 'I f... I _I ,"\S.S:::: I '-

25

35

40

30

15

.6

--- 20EI\0...Wo

--

;- ..

"~""".iC

----......_..,. -" .,.,

45

60 ' , " ~ ~ 1 IJ I I IJ I 11 1iii iii i I Iii I I I I I I I i I I I I I

J A 0 D

1989M J J A SON

1990J J J A S N

1991A M J J A 0 0

1992J J A S

1993o

DATE

Figure(o. Temperature isopleths (C) for Station 1 at Sweetheart Lake, during 1989-93.

$------------------------------

~~ , ': '-,~ : ... n' - • ~:;:':~', .,:;' ,

~

:- ... .' : ' . . "." . ':::.

(" 0 ", ,~.

.. -. '. .~<f)

'1.,<

;- .'< .i!O

.'U . 1\ "-..,,, ' ."",

O~14 .~

•

0

.:J UII \17 I \ ~ I 4

I I 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I 11 \ \ \8,

15 J8--

-----------Ij \ '\ J t 14E.......-

I 2OJ---s I l '\ I I I l I \ I 11 I \ . I I i ""-.8I-0....W 1 \ I j \61 I I 1 I \ I Ii I '\60

25

301\

J \ J \4 V 1-1 l4

1 11 I 11 \ 11 \ 1 1 \ I35 I I 'I iii iii I I i I Iii iii' I i I I ,

J A

1989S MJJASON

1990JJJASNAMJJAOO

1991 . 1992J J A S

1993o

DATE

Figure1:" Temperature isopleths (e) for Station 2 at Sweetheart Lake, during 1989-93.

~

---------------- -- ------ ---- ----

CYCLOPS ABUNDANCE

250,000

::id 200,000

'"a: •w 150,000 .'0- -a: 100,000 • \

"W,

'" • ,::;

50,000 • ~

::> , .Z • " ,

aen en 0 0 0 0 ~ '" '" '" '" '" '"'" !!;' ~ Q! ~ en Q! ~ Q! ~

en en en Q! Q!

"' on en '" M '" ~ "- 0 "' "' '" '"~ 0 ~ ;a >::: 25 R s:1 ~ ~ s:1 ~ ~ ~ R"- 0 on '" '" "- en ;; "' '" 0 en0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DATE

STATION 1 - - - STATION 21

CYCLOPS BODY LENGTH

1.20

::i 1.00d'" 0.80a:w0- 0.60a:w 0.40

'"::;::> 0.20z0.00

en en 0 0 0 0

~ ~ '" '" '" '"~ !!;' Q! Q! ~ ~ Q! en en en enon en ;:: 0 "' "'~ R ~ ;a ;a 0 R s:1 ~ r;; ~ ~ ~0 on "' "- en '" 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DATE

STATION 1 - - - STATION 21

Monthly abundance and body length (duringfree season) of Cyclops at Stations 1 andLake.

the ice-2 in Sweetheart

~\~-

I-2' BODY LENGTH, mm NUMBER PER SQ.M.

>' ~ ~ >' >' ~ ~

'" 0 0;

,-S;>

I

0 0> '" <:> '" 0 0 0

07/2618970 0 0 0 0 0 "0 "0 "0I I I I I I I

0 0 0

\07/26/89 0 0 0 0

10/05/89t . I II 10/05/89

t-lt-h~

" 'i 0 05/21/90"'" ro ::Jro ro rt

'"I II 05/21/90

'-< 06/19/90'" f-'ro'-< 06/19/90

" ::t:

'" " 08/13190 ::t:

o 0""0 08/13/90 0

::J "

,....0

,....~::J 10/13/90 0

0.." 10/13190 ."

o " Im

Im

t-n::J 06/03191C C

r> C 07/02191 C::I:iro ~

:;: en :;:0 ':< g 07/31/91 Dl ~f-''' g 08/31/91 l>

o ::J 6 .... 0 6 Dl

I'd 0. Z m C .... C09/27/91 -< z m

ro ~~ 11/05/91

Z

0.0"",.... C

1-" 0m l>

" 0.04/27/92 Z

05/28/92Z

S'-<Gl 0-l m

" f-' 06/30/92::t:

rt ro07130192

::J0000 I 08/26/92 T ...... I II 09130192rtrt

" 0""rtI

10/26/92 1I-'.~ ~ I II 06/04193o 0.

::J " I'i 07/06/93 I ........... I II 08/10/93,... 1-'-

::J1-" 00 I 09/08/93 I \ I II 10105/93

" rt000"">: rororo 1-"rt r>o""roro I

"'irt

2

0.5

'<:1c:

1.5,g§o~u12en>fl:

2.5

1993

I ! I if I I 0

500

I " Fry.....450

400

350

Ec- 300~III

S 250en .en<:; 2000iii

150

100 1 I ICYClopslI

50

01989 1990 1991 1992

YEAR

f"l' (0-Seasonal mean zooplankton biomass of the dominant zooplankters atSweetheart Lake and the number of fry stocked each year. Seasonalmeans are July through November, for comparability with 1989, and Station1 only, where the fry were stocked.

0.00

0.20

o

20,000

Fry Slocked x10A 6: 0 2.5 1.3 0 0.77

120,000 1.20

I

i

• • •• •• •• •100,000 i I • . I 1.00•• •• •• •• •- . . . - - - - . . - - , • •••••

80,000 • 0.80• •

E • E•d' E0.. X~

~w60,000 0.60() zz w« ,,<,'< ,I

....Cl >Z C:::>

'" 0« I<l

40,000I',·,'

0.40

1989 1990 1991

YEAR

1992 1993

__HOLOPEDIUM I .' ICYCLOPS HOLOPEDIUM· •• CYCLOPS

_ I( l!cl;~.\ f.,)rLj , ~ '1\ Seasonal mean zooplankton abundance and size.

30~------------------------,

25 14-5 October 1989/

.r: 20rJ)

iI:-0~ 15Q)

..0E::JZ 10

40 70 100 130 160 190 220

25~-----'------------------------,

~-8 June 1990 I

20

.r:rJ)

15LL-0~

Q)..0E 10::J

Z

5

40 70 100 130 160 190 220Fork Length (mm)

Figure l'J.-Length frequency distributions of Dolly Varden captured in minnowtraps and gill nets during pre-stocking surveys of Sweetheart Lake.

TEMPGA Chart 1

~

~"c.Et!!o!!~o~Cl

2 ~"iii0:

~o

~ .

~

7I

"II +6I

II

,/ r,/

4

3

<0

~o

<0

~o

...~o

......... _--_ ..

N

~o

o~o

ro

~o

<0

~~o

..

~~0>~:g~~~§

0>-gj

Lake 75%Ice-Free

II -- ..... \ ,-/- /'......,..-"f .... -_/ ..... __ ...... \ /

""--------/ \ /.,.-../ \ /.... ,/---_ .....

_.~--_.- ..... - .....

01 .~, /", ~1 ; T=i'-.4',\ ; I I ~o...§

60000

80000

40000

20000

120000 I ,

100000

*.§Uiwc:o:;"Sc.oa.J!:

~

Oal..1991

I Smalt Water Temp.(e) - - - ••. Gage (m) Rain (em) I

Figur/~ Daily number of smolt, water temperature, gage height, and rainfall at Sweetheart flats during the 1991

smolt trapping.

Page 1

TEMPGA Chart 7

~--_._----_ .. __ .. _._-_._--_._-_ _ .

7;,'

;' ";'/ +6/

I

t5

l!!I

"~mI:;;IQ.

E-__ oJ

I!!.4 ~

~;=:;

3 ,;

'"m<.'l

~2 c;;a:

".---_/

~

---------_/--

7000

6000

5000

.c

*40000Q.

~...~ 3000mQ

2000

1000

0 , I I >" I I I I I 0on on ... '" '" 0 N '" .. on on ... '" '" 0 ~ N '"~

Q~ ~ ~ «; ;;; «; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ~ ~ ~

Non «; «; «; on «;

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Date-1991

I Smelt Water Temp.(C) •••••. Gage (m) Rain (em) I

Figure t'!'Daily number of smolt, water temperature, gage height, and rainfall at Sweetheart Lake during the 1991smolt trapping.

Page 1

DAILY Chart 1

3000 12

~;;a:

f"~c.E

{!!.."~•o,,;g'CI

4

10

2

8

6

"'1ao

,,..

"'~~

-

"'" • 1

'" I " ,I ..

\ \,,

.. J,,

~o

;,I',--. '.-.

..,.'.~ ,", ., ...

'"§

I •\ : II.. • .... ....,.. I

...., ....

'"~

' .... " IilI jill "'".....

s

····-, -

"".."

-.., -..

..,", ', .

.', r _' '. .',"\'....".,. ',:'- -- - :-' 3m: ....... --... ) ,- I,,, . .." I 0r=- nftn'" F i

'"~

o

500

2500

2000

"'¥c.l

If 1500I-,.,1il0

1000

Date-1992

Dally Smalt - - • Water Temp - - Gage{m) •••••• Rain(cm) I

Figure 1~Daily sockeye catch and physical data at Sweetheart Lake during 1992.

Page 1

7.5

.-O'l--

7 +-'..cO'l(])

~

6.5(])

O'lcu.....(])

>«6 >.

'cu0

5.5;/

!

~\/

.~ " ~.. '::.

.. / \ \ \1/ /'-' ~/'/\\

i 18

86

94

93

.- 92EE-- 91..c+-'O'lc 90(])

-'(])

~ 89.....(])

>« 88>. I .....".'cu0 87

85 I ' 15I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

06/06/91 06/10/91 06/14/91 06/18/91 06/22/91Date - 1991

-- Length at Lake Weight at Lake Length at Flats

I. D4;1(H" i 0' 11 ,., ~ h '" c:: i "7.:1 n f' 1 i 'n' ~ Q m f"1 1 r ,.. Q T"'I r " T' Q rl Q r c:: T.T Q Q t- 'h .0 Q T' ..... T!:J 1.- .0 Q ,.., rl f' 1 Q t- e rl" ..... ; ,.., r. 1 Q a 1

120 I I

5

14

13

12 ..-Ol--...-

11 .......cOl,-

10 Q)

:s:Q)

9 Olco'-Q)

8 >«>-7 'co0

6

~

'~/~'\/-....j

115

..-E 110E--...-..c0> 105cQ)

---lQ) 100Olco'-Q) 95>«>-

'co 900

85

06/1806/14

06/1006/01OS/26 06/06

Date - 1992

OS/2205/15

80 II iii iii I i I I05/07 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4

( Length at Lake Weight at Lake IFigure I} . Daily size of smolt captured at Sweetheart Lake during 1992.

80

70

60

0<l:

50w0

I-ZWU

40ll::W!l.

30

20

10

SWEETHEART LAKE 1991 SOCKEYE SMOLTPERCENT OF SMOLT CAPTURED DEAD

OS/29 05/03 05/05 05/10 05/13 05/15 05/19

o FYKE NETDATE

+ TOW NETd

~: .''i:~....

.~~~1-'3' t<;?

Daily percent of smolt captured dead at Sweetheart flatsduring 1991, by gear type .

Injury

Type

Injury

Type

Any Injury

0-25% Scaled

26-50% Scaled

51-75% Scaled

76-100% Scaled

Bruises

Scrapes

Cuts

Bleeding

Opercular Injury

Eye Injury

Other Injury

Any Injury

0-25% Scaled

26-50% Scaled

51-75% Scaled

76-100% Scaled

Bruises

Scrapes

Cuts

Bleeding

Opercular Injury

Eye Injury

Other Injury

ILIVE SMOLT II~~ke.t~w INi=674 ~=33h

~ ~ 1 ~

II MO'RTAL;TIES II~ f"ke .. t~wNi=692 ~=24b

! '!

o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Number of Injuries I Number of Fish Examined

Type and frequency of injuries to live and deadsmolt captured at Sweetheart flats during 1991,

by 5tA r 'ype.,

Any Injury ~. , j, ,0-25% Scaled I"'"

; !,i;

26-50% Scaled i, !51-75% Scaled - ! ,, ,, ,76-100% Scaled- i i

Injury, ,

.

I

,.. ;

Bruises i

Type '-, i

Scrapes, ,i

,

I- !- jCuts , i, ; ,

\I, ,

Injunes at lake IiBleeding,,,,

Opercular Injury,i : : :

l-i IR Uve _ Mort.

Eye Injury' i,,N-76~ N=831Other Injury

,i i i i i

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1


T'{ {"- a.-.-;{ +n~~«( uL ;\f .....'< > ~ flH.. ~

r ;~, '4-{> - ~J. ~'l<.,j(f c"'l'r.,r<A ~ ) ••w-d'--<.t:><r- La.-k .l.u.Y"'f (9 il.---------

Injury

Type

Any Injury

0-25% Scaled

26-50% Scaled ....

51-75% Scaled

76-100% Scaled

Bruises

Scrapes

cuts

Bleeding

Opercular Inju

Eye Injury

Other Injury

've and mortalities combinedFyke and tow combined

/ ,\- \5'

o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1


eric prestegard- dipac duff mitchell- jhi max … dipac fish...• max schillinger- jhi • jennifer...

Documents