2012 Teslin River Chinook Sonar Project
CRE-01N-12
Prepared For: The Yukon River Panel
Restoration and Enhancement Fund
Prepared By: Brian Mercer
February 2013
BMA
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd.
Box 20046
Whitehorse, Yukon
Y1A 7A2
ABSTRACT
Multiple beam high resolution sonars were used to enumerate the 2012 Chinook salmon
(Onchorynchus tshawytscha) escapement to the Teslin River system. This was the first
year of a full sonar project at this site following a feasibility study in 2011. The sonar
was operated on the mainstem Teslin River at the site identified during the 2011
feasibility study; approximately 12 km upstream of the confluence of the Teslin and
Yukon Rivers at Hootalinqua. The camp and sonar station set-up was initiated on July 3.
Sonar operation began on July 17 and operated continuously through to September 3. A
total of 3,396 targets identified as Chinook salmon was counted during the period of
operation. An additional 58 Chinook were estimated to have passed during the 20.5
hours the sonars were inoperative over the course of the project. The total escapement
was estimated to be 3,454. The first Chinook salmon was observed on July 27, ten days
later than anticipated. A peak daily count of 186 fish occurred on August 21, at which
time 76% of the run had passed the sonar station; 90% of the run had passed the station
on August 25. A carcass pitch was conducted over approximately 120 km of the
mainstem Teslin River, yielding 147 sampled Chinook. Of these, 95 (66%) were female
and 52 (34%) were male. The mean fork length of females and males sampled was 853
mm and 773 mm, respectively. The DFO scale lab determined ages from 118 Chinook
sampled. Age-5 (68%) was the dominant age class, followed by age-4 fish (28%) and
age-3 fish (4%). A total of 106 tissue samples was collected for GSI analysis.
i B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... i
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
Multiple Beam Sonar ...................................................................................................... 2
Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 2
2. OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................ 5
3. METHODS .................................................................................................................... 5
Site Selection .................................................................................................................. 5
Regulatory Submissions and Permits .............................................................................. 5
Mobilization and Personnel ............................................................................................ 6
Sonar deployment and operation .................................................................................... 6
Target Identification and Species Apportionment ........................................................ 11
Carcass Pitch ................................................................................................................. 11
Hydrometric data and Weather ..................................................................................... 12
Communication ............................................................................................................. 12
4. RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 12
Chinook Counts ............................................................................................................ 12
Carcass Pitch ................................................................................................................. 15
Above Border Chinook Spawning Escapement Estimate ............................................. 15
5. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 16
6. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 20
Personal Communications ............................................................................................ 22
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. 22
ii B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. 2012 Daily counts of Teslin River Chinook salmon.......................................... 14
Table 2. Age, sex, and length summary of sampled and aged 2012 mainstem Teslin
Chinook. .................................................................................................................... 16
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Mainstem Teslin River and sonar site. ............................................................... 3
Figure 2. Daily minimum, maximum and mean discharge rates for mainstem Teslin
River at station 09AF001 from December 1955 through January 1973. Source:
Water Survey Board of Canada. ................................................................................. 4
Figure 3. Aerial view of sonar site depicting the camp, sonar locations and schematic
representation of ensonified portions of the river. ...................................................... 7
Figure 4. Sonar unit mounted on stand in deep water......................................................... 8
Figure 5. South Bank sonar configuration and related apparatus, upstream view. Note:
Inset illustrates Ampair® model UW100 in-stream water turbine out of the water. .. 9
Figure 6. Camp, NB sonar, and deflection fence ............................................................. 10
Figure 7. Daily Counts of Chinook entering the Teslin River system, 2012. Note: 2011
counts from feasibility study with 12 full days of sonar operation, Aug. 4-15. ....... 13
Figure 8. Cross sectional distribution of migrating Chinook at the Teslin sonar site, 2011
and 2012. ................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 9. Length Frequency histogram of sampled Teslin River Chinook, 2012............ 15
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Location of radio tagged Chinook during peak spawning in the Teslin River
drainage in 2003. ....................................................................................................... 23
Appendix 2. 2011 Mainstem Teslin River carcass pitch data. ......................................... 24
Appendix 3. Daily count of radio tagged Chinook (n=86) passing the Teslin telemetry
station in 2003. .......................................................................................................... 28
Appendix 4. Hydrometric data and weather observations, Teslin sonar site 2012. .......... 29
Appendix 5. Estimated proportions of Big Salmon River and Teslin River Chinook in
upper Yukon River Chinook escapements, 2002 through 2012. .............................. 30
Appendix 6. Estimated proportions of Blind Creek, Big Salmon and Teslin River
Chinook in upper Yukon River Chinook escapements based on observed radio tag
distributions 2002 – 2004.......................................................................................... 30
iii B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
1. INTRODUCTION
Background
The Yukon River system encompasses a drainage area of approximately 854,000 km2 and
contributes to important aboriginal, subsistence and commercial fisheries in the U.S. and
Canada. Of the five species of salmon entering the Yukon River, adult Chinook salmon
travel the farthest upstream and have been documented at the furthest headwaters of the
Teslin system in the McNeil River, 3,300 km from the river mouth (Mercer & Eiler
2004). Approximately 50% of Chinook salmon entering the Yukon River from the
Bering Sea is typically destined for spawning grounds in Canada (Eiler et al. 2004, 2006).
Canadian origin fish contribute approximately 47% to 67% of the total U.S. commercial
and subsistence fisheries (Templin et al. 2005; cited in Daum and Flannery 2009).
Canadian and U.S. fishery managers of the Yukon River Joint Technical Committee
(JTC) as well as members of the Yukon River Panel (YRP) recognize that obtaining
accurate estimates of spawning escapements is required for the management of Yukon
River Chinook stocks. The enumeration of genetically distinct stocks, coupled with a
representative genetic stock identification (GSI) sampling program can also be used to
obtain independent drainage wide above border Chinook escapement estimates1.
Quantified Chinook escapements and biological information on the stock is important for
post-season run reconstruction, pre-season run forecasts and the establishment of long
term biologically based escapement goals.
The Teslin River system has been identified, potentially, as a discrete Conservation Unit
(CU) under the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Wild Salmon Policy (WSP), (DFO
2007). One of the long term goals of the WSP is the establishment of biologically based
escapement goals for all species of salmon within designated conservation units. A
sufficiently long time series data set of salmon escapements coupled with stock
recruitment modelling is the primary recognized method for the establishment of
biologically based escapement goals. Currently, there is no in-season monitoring
specific to Teslin River Chinook.
Teslin River origin Chinook are an important contributor to aboriginal fisheries in the
upper Yukon watershed, and are of particular importance to the Teslin Tlingit Council.
Monitoring of Teslin River Chinook will assist in achieving long term management and
escapement objectives for the Teslin Tlingit Council (TTC).
1
For the purposes of this report border escapement is defined as the number of Chinook salmon estimated
to have crossed the Canada/U.S. border into the Upper Yukon River drainage minus the total Canadian
harvest. Representative GSI sampling of upper Yukon River Chinook stocks occurs at the Eagle sonar site
near the Canada/U.S. border in Alaska.
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 1
Multiple Beam Sonar
Fixed-location, side-view sonar techniques are currently the only means of obtaining inseason abundance estimates for anadromous fish stocks in rivers that are too wide for
conventional weir structures, too turbid for visual observations and where weir
emplacements would be a navigational impediment to water craft. Since 2002, the
DIDSON™ high resolution sonar apparatus has been used for enumeration of several
species of salmon in a broad range of environments (Galbreath and Barber 2005, Holmes
et al. 2006, Maxwell et al. 2004, Enzenhofer et al., 2010). In general, the DIDSON units
have been found to be reliable, does not require extensive operator training and provides
accurate counts of migrating salmon. The detection and counting of migrating salmon
with a properly positioned DIDSON imaging sonar is as accurate as visual counts of fish
migrating through an enumeration fence in a clear water river (Holmes et al., 2006).
Within the upper Yukon drainage DIDSON sonar has been used on the Big Salmon River
(Mercer & Wilson, 2005-2012) and the Klondike River (Mercer, 2009-2011) to
enumerate annual Chinook salmon escapements into these systems.
The 2012 Teslin sonar project deployed both a standard DIDSON sonar as well as a
second generation multiple beam sonar, the ARIS (Adaptive Resolution Imaging Sonar)
model. Both models are manufactured by Sound Metrics Corp.
The deployment configuration of the sonar is dependent on the characteristics of the
particular site, species involved, and the project objectives. Both sonar models produce
an ensonified field 29° wide in the horizontal plane and, depending on the transducer lens
configuration, from 1° to 12° deep in the vertical plane. The maximum ensonified
distance the sonars (with an 8° lens) can detect migrating Chinook is approximately 40
m. With a horizontally aligned 8° transducer lens the maximum ensonifiable depth at 40
m is 5.6 m. For the accurate enumeration of fish it is essential that the sonar is aimed so
the beams completely ensonify the area through which fish are migrating. In addition,
the bathymetric profile must preclude the presence of acoustic shadows or turbulence (air
entrained water) that could mask fish targets. Species identification and/or
apportionment should also be unambiguous.
Unlike split beam sonar the multiple beam sonar produces a real time image of the target.
This imaging capability can allow for the identification of the species based on size, form
and swimming characteristics. When mounted in a horizontal configuration the sonar
provides information on the distance the target is from the sonar but not the depth of the
target within the water column.
Study Area
The Teslin River system has a drainage area of 36,500 km2 that straddles the Yukon and
B.C. border (Figure 1). Teslin Lake is the largest water body in the system with a
surface area of approximately 354 km2. Teslin Lake is fed by several drainages in the
upper system and discharges at its outlet into the mainstem Teslin River. The lower
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 2
mainstem Teslin River has a mean annual discharge volume of 869 m3/sec (range 1080 –
643 m3/sec; Water survey of Canada, Station 09AF001; Figure 2).
The lower mainstem Teslin River area is remote with no highway access. Access to the
area is by riverboat from Lake Laberge or Johnson‟s Crossing (approximately 100 and
145 river km respectively) or by floatplane with a direct distance of approximately 95 km
from Whitehorse, Yukon.
Figure 1. Mainstem Teslin River and sonar site.
Digital map data source: Yukon Government spatial data collection. www.geomaticsyukon.ca.
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 3
Fish species documented in the mainstem Teslin River system include, but are likely not
limited to, Chinook and Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha and O. keta),
Grayling (Thymallus thymallus), Burbot (Lota lota), Inconnu (Stenodus leucichthys),
Round Whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum), slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) and
longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus) (DFO FISS database).
Figure 2. Daily minimum, maximum and mean discharge rates for mainstem Teslin
River at station 09AF0012 from December 1955 through January 1973. Source: Water
Survey Board of Canada.
A three year radio telemetry study conducted on Yukon River Chinook from 2002
through 2004 indicated that the Teslin River system received on average 19.6% (range
18.1% - 20.8%) of the total Canadian origin Chinook in the Yukon River watershed
(Mercer et al. 2004, 2005; Osborne et al. 2003). Based on this radio telemetry data,
approximately 70% of the radio tagged Chinook entering the Teslin River watershed
were located in the mainstem Teslin River (Appendix 1). The remaining 30% were
located throughout several headwater systems draining into Teslin Lake. This
proportional distribution within the Teslin system was consistent over the three years of
the study (mean 70%, SD = 2). The Chinook stock proportions in other upper Yukon
River basin as indicated by the telemetry results have been corroborated by subsequent
sonar enumeration projects on the Klondike and Big Salmon rivers (Mercer and Wilson
2005-2011). Genetic stock identification (GSI) data collected at the Eagle sonar site from
2008 through 2011 is also congruent with the stock proportions observed in the three
years of telemetry (Unpublished data, DFO Whitehorse).
2
This station, decommissioned in 1973, was located 300 m downstream of the sonar site.
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 4
2. OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the 2012 Teslin River sonar project were to:
1. Enumerate the Chinook salmon escapement and obtain information on run timing and
diel migration patterns.
2. Conduct spawning ground sampling for age-sex-length data and tissue from postspawn fish.
3. METHODS
Site Selection
The sonar site used in 2012 was the same as that selected as the best available site during
the 2011 feasibility study (Mercer 2012). This site, located approximately 12 km
upstream from the confluence with the Yukon River (Figure 1), was initially selected for
the following reasons:






It is a sufficient distance upstream of the mouth to avoid straying or milling Chinook
salmon destined for other headwater spawning sites.
The site is in a relatively straight section of the river and far enough downstream
from any bends in the river so that recreational boaters using the river have a clear
view of the in-stream structures.
The river flow is laminar and swift enough to preclude milling or „holding‟ behaviour
by migrating fish.
Bottom substrates consist of gravel and cobble evenly distributed along the width of
the river.
The stream bottom profile allows for complete ensonification of the water column by
two sonars.
The site is accessible by boat and floatplane.
Regulatory Submissions and Permits
A three year land use permit was granted by the Yukon Territorial Government (YTG)
Lands Branch for the sonar camp on the mainstem Teslin River. An application was
submitted in 2012 to Transport Canada (Marine Branch), Navigable Waters Protection
for approval to install partial fish diversion fences in a navigable waterway. Approval
was granted for a potential 2013 sonar operation.
The application for a land use permit and the proposed sonar project activities triggered a
Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment (YESSA) review of the project.
The in-depth YESSA review of the project and land use application required submissions
by the proponent pertaining to:
a) The depth of the Teslin River in the area of the proposed project and depth below the
river‟s surface the sonar units will be submerged.
b) The distance from the OHWM that the sonars will be placed.
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 5
c) How the units and stands with sand bags will be placed in the river and removed
seasonally.
d) The possible effects or risks on fish and aquatic mammals associated with sonar use.
The 2012 and subsequent projects were approved subject to the specified terms and
conditions of the YESSA review.
Mobilization and Personnel
Construction of the camp infrastructure began on July 3 with the transport of materials,
construction personnel and project manager to the site via river boat and aircraft. Two
tent frames and sanitation facilities were constructed on site. In addition a lean-to was
constructed to provide protection for the battery banks, inverters and sonar top boxes. A
swiveling frame for the mounting of solar panels was also built (Figure 6). On July 13st,
the transport of personnel, sonar equipment, fuel and other required supplies to the sonar
site was initiated.
The project supervisor was on site continually for the duration of the project, including
the carcass pitch. Two BMA technicians were employed on the project on a rotational
basis. The project manager was on-site for 10 days during the construction and start-up
phase and again at three different times over the course of the project.
Sonar deployment and operation
Arrangements were made with Sound Metrics Corporation, manufacturer of DIDSON
and ARIS sonars, for the rental of a standard range DIDSON sonar unit during the period
July 20 through August 20. A second ARIS3 sonar belonging to the contractor was
rented for the duration of the project (July 15 through September 3). Due to delivery
delays, a DFO owned ARIS sonar unit was loaned to the project from July 15-18. The
DFO sonar was a new and untested sonar unit with a beta software version. The DFO
unit worked intermittently for 4 days and due to unresolvable software issues was
returned to DFO and subsequently to Sound Metrics for repair.
The 2012 project operational plan involved emplacement of a sonar unit on each side of
the river. The sonar units were configured to aim across the river enabling ensonification
of as much of the migration corridor as possible (Figure 3). The ARIS sonar unit was
deployed for the full duration of the project (July 19 – September 3) from the north bank
of the river. The DIDSON sonar was deployed for 28 days (July 20 - August 19) from
the south bank. The results of the two week sonar deployment during the 2011 Teslin
sonar feasibility study indicated that 97% of the fish observed passing the site were
located within the range of the north bank sonar. The rationale for operating the south
bank sonar in 2012 a minimum of four weeks was to verify if the cross sectional
distribution of migrating Chinook observed in 2011 would also be observed over the
course of the 2012 run. The two sonar units were inter-changed for short periods on July
3
The ARIS and DIDSON sonars are both manufactured by Sound Metrics. The ARIS is considered the
“second generation” model of high resolution sonars produced by this company.
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 6
24 and August 6 and the counts cross referenced to ensure they were functioning
properly.
South Bank sonar
North Bank sonar
Camp
Flow
Figure 3. Aerial view of sonar site depicting the camp, sonar locations and schematic
representation of ensonified portions of the river.
Power for the sonar units, computer apparatus, and wireless transceivers was obtained
from 12 volt battery banks located on each side of the river. The 12 volt battery current
was converted to 120 volt AC using 1000 watt inverters. The north bank batteries were
charged using 4 solar panels as well as a commercial grade battery charger powered by a
2000 watt Honda® generator. The south bank sonar location was in perpetual shade
precluding the use of solar panels. These batteries were charged using an Ampair®
model UW100 in-stream water turbine (Figure 5), as well as a second Honda® generator
and battery charger.
The two sonar stands fabricated for the 2011 project (Mercer 2012) were again used in
2012. During the first 14 days of the project, when high water levels precluded
installation and use of the prefabricated stands, a different sonar mounting apparatus was
used. This consisted of two vertical aluminum pipes driven into the river substrate
parallel to the shore. The vertical pipes were connected with a cross pipe on which the
sonar was mounted in a similar manner as the prefabricated stand. The tops of the
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 7
vertical pipes were held in place using two adjoining pipes running 90° to the shore
(Figure 4). This allowed secure deployment of the sonar apparatus during periods of very
high water. However, with the sonar mounting apparatus fixed to the shore, the length of
the ensonified fields within the river was also fixed. This resulted in a gap between the
ends of the two ensonified fields of approximately 7m - 10m.
Figure 4. Sonar unit mounted on stand in deep water.
Two 8° concentrator lenses, purchased from Sound Metrics Corporation, were mounted
on the standard transducer lens of each sonar unit. The concentrator lens reduces the
vertical ensonified field from 14° to 8°. The reduced field size increases the acoustic
energy reflected and reduces interference from surface and bottom reverberation as well
as overall acoustical “noise”. This results in an increase in the resolution of all target
images and, more importantly, increases the resolution and detection of targets in the
outer range of the ensonified area where reflected acoustic energy is lowest. Due to the
high water levels during the initial period of sonar operation, the concentrator lenses were
not used in order to obtain the larger vertical ensonified field.
The sonar transducer lenses were positioned to a depth of approximately 12 cm below the
surface of the river and angled downward approximately 3º from horizontal. This
resulted in the upper edge of the ensonified field of view remaining parallel to the surface
of the river. The sonars have an incorporated compass and inclinometer that displays the
tilt and azimuth of the sonar beams on the computer display.
After the placement of the sonars a diversion fence was positioned 3 m downstream of
each sonar unit to deflect migrating Chinook away from the near field of the sonar. The
fences consisted of a log boom extending, perpendicular to the current, approximately 6
meters out from the shore (Figures 5 and 6). A 6 m x 2m length of page wire fencing was
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 8
attached to the length of the boom. The bottom margin of the fencing was weighted with
rocks so the wire would hang perpendicular to the surface.
Wireless
data
transmitter
Sonar unit
Deflection
boom/fence
Water turbine
in place
Figure 5. South Bank sonar configuration and related apparatus, upstream view. Note:
Inset illustrates Ampair® model UW100 in-stream water turbine out of the water.
For the DIDSON sonar the receiver gain was set at –40 dB, the window start at 5.0 m,
window length at 40 m, and auto frequency was enabled for the duration of the project.
With a 40 m window length the default operating frequency is 1.1 Mhz. The recording
frame rate was set at 4 frames per second. The ARIS sonar settings were also 4 frames
per second with a default frequency of 1.1 Mhz. and receiver gain of 23 dB. The ARIS
start and end ranges were 5.0m and 41.5m.
The ARIS sonar software requirements necessitated the acquisition of a newer computer.
A total of four laptop computers were used for the project. One computer was dedicated
for each sonar unit for file acquisition and reading. Since security firewalls on the sonar
computers had to be disabled, one computer was dedicated for satellite internet
communication. The fourth computer was on hand as a spare.
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 9
Deflection
Fence
NB sonar
Figure 6. Camp, NB sonar, and deflection fence
Chinook Enumeration
On July 22 the functioning ARIS sonar was in position on the NB. A DIDSON standard
sonar, rented from Sound Metrics was deployed on July 19 on the NB and moved to the
SB on July 22 with the arrival of the new ARIS unit. The NB sonar was operated
continuously over the course of the project with minor planned and unplanned stoppages
varying in duration from 15 minutes to 4 hours and 40 minutes. All stoppages were
recorded and potentially missed fish were added to the counts by extrapolation based on
the mean number of fish per hour recorded the previous 24 hours.
During the project the sonar data was collected continuously and stored automatically in
pre-programmed, 20 minute date stamped files. This resulted in an accumulation of 72
files over a 24 hour period for each unit. These files were subsequently reviewed the
following day and backed up on an external hard drive.
To optimize target detection during file review, the background subtraction feature was
used to remove the static river bottom structure. The intensity (brightness) was set at 40
dB and threshold (sensitivity) at 3dB. The playback speed depended on the preference
and experience of the observer, but was generally set between 40 and 50 frames per
second, approximately 10 - 12 times the recording rate. When necessary, the file review
was stopped when a target was observed and replayed at a slower rate to aid in
identifying passing fish. All targets identified as Chinook were visually counted and
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 10
entered into an excel spreadsheet. The position of each Chinook observed within the
cross section profile of the river was recorded in 5 m increments. This provided
information on the spatial pattern of migrating Chinook within the ensonified area of the
river. A record was maintained of each 20 minute file count as well as hourly, daily and
cumulative counts. The count data obtained from each sonar was combined and entered
daily into a master spreadsheet.
Target Identification and Species Apportionment
Fish identification and species apportionment was based on size, form and swimming
behaviour of detected sonar targets. The minimum size used to classify Chinook salmon
for the project was 50 cm. The target measurement feature of the DIDSON software was
used to estimate the size of the observed fish when required. With adequate training it
has been demonstrated that DIDSON sonar operators are able to differentiate, with a high
degree of accuracy, between resident fish species and migrating salmon (Enzenhofer et
al. 2010). Blind trials comparing both visual and DIDSON sonar counts of Chinook on
the Klondike River demonstrated that trained sonar operators detected and correctly
identified 100% of the visually observed (n=106) Chinook passing the Station (Mercer
2010).
Co-migrating Chum salmon could be incorrectly identified as migrating Chinook due to
similar form, size and swimming behaviour. Fall Chum salmon are documented
spawning in the mainstem Teslin River (DFO FISS database). However, it is unlikely a
temporal overlap of migrating fall Chum and Chinook occurs in the Teslin system. Test
fishing at the Eagle sonar station from 2007 through 2009 captured the first fall Chum
Salmon on August 8, 9, and 19 respectively (Crane and Dunbar, 2009 and 2011). The
first Chum salmon counted in 2012 at the Eagle sonar sites was on August 23.
(http://www.adfg.alaska. gov/sf/FishCounts/index.cfm?) The river distance from Eagle
Alaska to the Teslin sonar site is approximately 780 km. Mean migration rates for upper
Yukon River fall Chum have been documented at approximately 40 km/day (Boyce
1999). This suggests the Teslin Chinook migration would have been complete before the
arrival of fall Chum in the system.
Carcass Pitch
The carcass pitch on the upper mainstem Teslin River was conducted by a crew of two
technicians. Access to Chinook spawning areas was by a river boat powered by a 60 hp
outboard jet. The crew made two trips during the periods August 31 – September 2 and
September 7 – 10. The crew accessed the river from the sonar site to a point
approximately 100 km upstream on the first trip. For the second trip the river was
accessed at the Johnson‟s Crossing boat ramp, located approximately 4 km downstream
from the outlet of Teslin Lake (Figure 1). The second trip extended downstream
approximately 110 km from Johnson‟s Crossing. Only dead or moribund fish were
collected. Collection was by hand and an extendable spear.
Tissue samples for DNA analysis were collected from fresh (gills still red) carcasses
only. A portion of both the left and right axillary appendages was removed using
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 11
guillotine clippers and placed in paired vials containing 95% ethyl alcohol4. Sampling
for age, sex and length data was conducted on all moribund and dead Chinook located.
Five scales were obtained from all recovered fish for aging. The sex and mid-eye-fork
and post-orbital hypural lengths (to the nearest 5 mm) were also recorded for each
recovered fish. Tissue samples, scale cards and an electronic copy of the ASL data were
submitted to DFO Whitehorse on completion of the project.
Hydrometric Data and Weather
Air and water temperatures and levels were recorded daily at the sonar site. A referenced
water gauge was established so that relative water levels can be recorded in subsequent
years. Anecdotal weather observations were also recorded.
Communication
For safety purposes a satellite phone was present in the camp at all times as well as
carried during extended boat trips. In addition, a satellite internet system was installed at
the site. The satellite internet system facilitated communications between the field
personnel, the project manager and the technical support team from Sound Metrics. Biweekly sonar counts were passed on to DFO Whitehorse, the TTC Department of Lands
and Resources and other interested parties using email. The satellite internet proved to be
an important aid in resolving sonar hardware and software problems. The satellite
internet allowed direct real time communication and file sharing with technical staff at
Sound Metrics.
4. RESULTS
Chinook Counts
A total of 3,396 targets identified as Chinook salmon was counted during the period of
operation. Due to planned and unplanned stoppages in the sonar, a total of 20.5 hours of
sonar data collection was missed. Extrapolating the counts during the down time resulted
in the addition of 58 (1.7% of count) Chinook to the counted total. The estimated total
Chinook escapement count including the extrapolation is 3,454.
The first Chinook salmon was observed on July 27, 7 to 10 days later than anticipated. A
peak daily count of 186 fish occurred on August 21, at which time 76% of the run had
passed the sonar station; 90% of the run had passed the station on August 25. Daily and
cumulative counts are presented in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 7.
The cross sectional distribution pattern of the migrating Chinook is presented in Figure 8.
The distribution of Chinook passing the station was wholly skewed to the north side of
the river with no Chinook detected by the SB sonar. This pattern is similar to that
4
One of each pair of samples is sent to both the Pacific Biological Station in Canada and the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) Gene Conservation Laboratory for analysis.
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 12
observed in 2011 when 97% of observed Chinook were detected with the NB sonar.
There were more fish observed in the 5-10 m range in 2012 than in 2011. This was likely
due to the presence of the deflection fence downstream of the NB sonar in 2012. This
fence was absent during the 2011 feasibility study and therefore fish within the near field
of the sonar (<5m) would have been missed.
Figure 7. Daily Counts of Chinook entering the Teslin River system, 2012. Note: 2011
counts from feasibility study with 12 full days of sonar operation, Aug. 4-15.
Figure 8. Cross sectional distribution of migrating Chinook at the Teslin sonar site, 2011
and 2012.
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 13
Table 1. 2012 Daily counts of Teslin River Chinook salmon.
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 14
Carcass Pitch
A total of 146 dead or moribund Chinook was recovered during the carcass pitches. The
majority of these (141) were recovered during the second carcass pitch trip on Sept 7 -9.
The low recovery in the first trip was likely due to delayed spawning as a result of the
lateness of the run. Of the fish collected, 94 (64%) were female and 52 (36%) were male.
The mean mid-eye fork length of females and males sampled was 853 mm and 773 mm,
respectively. Complete age data5 was determined from 118 of the Chinook sampled; the
remaining 28 samples yielded partial ages or no ages due to regenerate scales. Age-5
(1.3) (68%) was the dominant age class, followed by age-4 fish (28%) and age-3 fish
(4%). A total of 106 tissue samples was collected for GSI analysis. Average length at
age data for male and female Chinook sampled are presented in Table 2 and Figure 9.
Complete age, length and sex data are presented in Appendix 2.
Figure 9. Length Frequency histogram of sampled Teslin River Chinook, 2012.
Above Border Chinook Spawning Escapement Estimate
The 2012 Eagle sonar project on the Yukon River downstream of the Canada/U.S. border
yielded a Chinook estimate of 34,747 and a spawning escapement6 estimate of 32,658
Chinook salmon (DFO Whitehorse unpublished data 2013). Genetic stock identification
(GSI) samples were also obtained at this site using drift nets. The GSI data provides
information on the proportional contribution of identified stocks to the total above border
Chinook escapement. The 2012 proportional contribution of the regional Teslin River
stock to the Chinook border escapement based on non-weighted analysis of the GSI
5
Scale age analysis was conducted for DFO Whitehorse by the Pacific Biological Station, fish
ageing lab in Nanaimo, British Columbia.
6
Spawning escapement is the Eagle sonar count minus the catches in the U.S. above the sonar station and
in the Canadian fisheries.
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 15
samples was 37.8% (SD 4.6), (DFO Whitehorse unpublished data). Using the 2012
Teslin sonar count and the proportion of Teslin origin stock derived from the Eagle GSI
sampling, the 2012 expanded Chinook border escapement estimate would be 9,138 (95%
CI, 7,380-12,035). This is significantly lower than the escapement derived from the
Eagle sonar estimate. This incongruity is examined in the discussion section below.
Table 2. Age, sex, and length summary of sampled and aged 2012 mainstem Teslin
Chinook.
SEX
F
Age
1.2
1.3
1.4
Average of MEF (mm)
Count of Age
M
1.2
1.3
1.4
Data
Average of MEF (mm)
Count of Age
Average of MEF (mm)
Count of Age
Average of MEF (mm)
Count of Age
Average of MEF (mm)
Count of Age
Average of MEF (mm)
Count of Age
Average of MEF (mm)
Count of Age
M Average of MEF
(mm)
M Count of Age
Total Average of MEF
(mm)
Total Count of Age
Total
770
2
855
14
854
60
853
76
800
3
762
19
765
20
766
%
42
821
35.6%
118
100.0%
1.7%
11.9%
50.8%
64.4%
2.5%
16.1%
16.9%
5. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In 2012 the water levels throughout the Yukon drainage were significantly higher than
average when Chinook began entering the Teslin River system ((USGC 2012; Appendix
4). The record high flows in 2012 were likely the reason the Chinook run was 7-10 days
later than average in the upper Yukon River. The first Chinook observed passing the
Teslin sonar site in 2012 was 11 days later than the first radio tagged fish was recorded
entering the system in 2003 (Appendix 3).
The high water levels at the Teslin sonar site in 2012 necessitated mounting the sonar
units close to the shore. This resulted in a 10 meter gap in the center of the river between
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 16
the ensonified fields during the first half of the project. Over the course of the project
this gap decreased as the lower water levels allowed the sonars to be moved further out
from the shore. The distribution of the fish as detected by the sonars suggests that all
passing Chinook were within the ensonified field of the NB sonar. As the NB sonar unit
was moved closer to the center of the river over the course of the project the ratio of
Chinook detected in the 40-45m range did not increase, suggesting the observed
distribution was correct. During the 2011 Teslin sonar feasibility study, due the lower
water levels, there was not a gap in the sonar coverage. The Chinook distribution
observed in 2011 indicated few Chinook migrated in the center of the river at the sonar
site during the study (Mercer 2012).
If the Teslin sonar project continues it is suggested the design of the sonar stands and
diversion fences be changed. A fixed diversion fence such as that employed on the Big
Salmon sonar project, and extending 10m from each shoreline would allow more latitude
in the positioning of the sonar units (Mercer and Wilson 2011). As well, this type of
fence would provide a higher degree of certainty that all passing Chinook are diverted out
from the shore and into the ensonified field. Larger and more robust sonar stands would
allow the sonars to be deployed at least 5m from each bank during periods of high water.
This would eliminate the non-ensonified space in the center of the river.
The 2012 above border Yukon River Chinook escapement estimate based on the Teslin
sonar count and the GSI derived stock proportions (9,138; 95% CI +/- 2,987) are
significantly incongruent with the escapement estimate obtained from the Eagle sonar
count of 32,656. The Teslin sonar derived above border escapement is also not
concordant with the above border estimate (38,104, CI 20,926 – 210,9927) obtained from
expansion of the 2012 Big Salmon River sonar counts (Mercer and Wilson 2013). It is
not within the scope of this report to examine all the possible causes of these
discrepancies. However, the value of accurate escapement data is increased if it can be
correlated with accurate stock composition information. An accurate count of a Chinook
stock or aggregate stocks coupled with accurate GSI stock proportions has the capability
of generating independent8 upper Yukon Chinook escapement estimates that are within
defined statistical parameters.
It is recognized that the collection and application of Yukon Chinook GSI data as a
method of population specific estimates of stock composition is an emerging technique in
development. As additions and refinements are made to the GSI database and sampling
protocol the value and accuracy of the GSI derived stock composition estimates will
increase. The following are some observations on the upper Yukon River Chinook GSI
sampling and analysis that may relate to the discordant 2012 data sets:
1. The 2012 GSI sample size of 344 obtained from the Eagle project is considerably
below the target sample size of 900 and also below the previously obtained sample
sizes (2008-2011 mean = 585, range 453-919).
7
The relatively small Big Salmon GSI stock proportion of 6.7% (SD 2.8) results in a wide margin of error
for the upper Yukon Chinook escapement estimate derived from expansion of the Big Salmon sonar count
(Mercer and Wilson 2013).
8
Using data separate from the Eagle or Pilot Station sonar projects.
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 17
2. The 2012 Teslin and Big Salmon GSI stock proportions obtained from sampling at
Eagle are both outside the ranges previously observed in 3 years of radio telemetry
data (2002-2004) and 4 years of sampling at Eagle from 2008 through 2011
(Appendix 5).
3. The 2012 analyzed GSI samples from Eagle were not weighted by run abundance.
4. It is not known if the GSI stock proportions from the Eagle sampling effort are
representative of the population. The GSI stock proportions derived from Eagle
sampling and the DFO operated fish wheels in 2008 were significantly different
(unpublished data, DFO Whitehorse). This suggests different stocks may have
different migration patterns within the river depending on water levels and bank
orientation.
5. The upper Yukon Chinook baseline GSI database is incomplete and in some cases
baseline stocks are mis-identified or are composed of an aggregate of sub-stocks. It is
probable that this contributes to biases that are not currently quantifiable. If some
stocks are biased high in a given year it follows that others will be biased low.
In addition to the Teslin sonar project there were two other escapement monitoring
projects in the upper Yukon watershed in 2012; the Blind Creek weir and the Big Salmon
sonar projects. The 2012 Blind Creek weir project counted 157 Chinook, the lowest
count in 10 years of operation (2003 -2011 mean = 564; range 270-1,155). The 2012 Big
Salmon sonar project counted 2,553 Chinook, the second lowest count in 8 years of
operation (2005-2011 mean = 5,272; range 1,329 – 9,261). Although there were only 12
days of complete counts from the 2011 Teslin project, comparisons between the 2011 and
2012 Teslin sonar counts indicate the 2011 counts were approximately double the 2012
counts (Figure 7), with a maximum count at the peak of the run of 14.3 fish/hour versus
7.7 fish/hour (Mercer 2012). These three indices suggest the 2012 upper Yukon Chinook
escapement was considerably below average.
With the discrepancies observed with the 2012 GSI stock compositions it may be
instructive to examine the 2012 escapement data using other available information on
upper Yukon Chinook stock proportions. The 2002 through 2004 Yukon River telemetry
program yielded stock proportions of Chinook in upper Yukon River tributaries based on
observed radio tag distributions. The radio tagged fish were tracked into all the terminal
areas and 95% of all radio tagged fish entering the upper Yukon watershed were
accounted for either in fisheries or in terminal spawning areas. It should also be noted
that the inter-annual variance9 of the relative stock proportions within all the larger
tributaries was low and consistent over the 3 years of the telemetry program (J. Eiler per.
Comm.). The telemetry derived stock proportions for Blind Creek and the Big Salmon
and Teslin Rivers are presented in Appendix 6. Using the combined 2012 counts (6,186)
from these three projects and the mean sum of the telemetry derived stock proportions
9
Between-year differences observed during 2002-2004 were analyzed using a multivariate test for
proportions. No significant differences were detected within the groups (SSB = 0.0048, p = 0.80),
suggesting that the stock compositions were comparable during the three years of the study. A
similar pattern occurred within regional areas, with equivalent composition estimates observed
for most of the larger individual stocks. Only the Little Salmon River showed significant inter-annual
differences based on 95% confidence intervals, with a higher proportion of the return
to this tributary in 2003 than in the other two years of the study.
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 18
(32.8%, SD 1.6) yields a 2012 upper Yukon Chinook escapement estimate of 18,860
(95% CI 17,231- 20,899). This estimate is significantly below the escapement estimate
of 32,656 derived from the Eagle sonar count. It is understood the telemetry derived stock
proportions may not be the same as the 2012 stock proportions. However, it may be
informative to use the historical telemetry stock proportions, as well as current GSI
information, until the problems with sampling error and the incomplete baseline
associated with the GSI data are satisfactorily resolved.
In summary, the 2012 Teslin sonar project demonstrated that it is a viable means of
obtaining accurate escapement counts as well as age, sex and length data of Chinook
salmon returning to the Teslin River system. With refinements to the fish deflection
fences and continued use of two sonars for at least 3-4 weeks over the course of the run it
will be possible to obtain accurate counts of future Chinook escapements into this system.
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 19
6. REFERENCES
Boyce, Ian. 1999. Upper Yukon Radio Telemetry Tracking Station Installation and
Spawning Ground Sampling/Tag recovery, 1998. R&E Project 09-98-Part 1.
Unpublished report for CRE project 09-98, Yukon River Panel.
Crane, A.B., and R. D. Dunbar. 2011 Sonar estimation of Chinook and fall Chum salmon
passage in the Yukon River near Eagle, Alaska, 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Fishery Data Series No. 11-08, Anchorage.
Crane, A.B., and R. D. Dunbar. 2009 Sonar estimation of Chinook and fall Chum salmon
passage in the Yukon River near Eagle, Alaska, 2007. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Fishery Data Series No. 09-30, Anchorage.
Daum, D.W. and B.G. Flannery. 2009. Canadian origin Chinook salmon rearing in nonnatal U.S. tributary streams of the Yukon River, Alaska, 2006-2007. Alaska Fisheries
Technical Report No. 102, May 2009.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Salmon and Freshwater Ecosystems Division,
Science Branch. 2007. Conservation Units for Pacific salmon under the Wild Salmon
Policy. Conservation Units for Pacific salmon under the Wild Salmon Policy. CSAS
Research Document 2007/070.
Eiler, J.H., T.R. Spencer, J.J. Pella, and M.M. Masuda, and R.R. Holder. 2004.
Distribution and movement patterns of Chinook salmon returning to the Yukon River
Basin in 2000 – 2002. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-AFSC-148.
Eiler, J.H., T.R. Spencer, J.J. Pella, and M.M. Masuda. 2006. Stock composition, run
timing, and movement patterns of Chinook salmon returning to the Yukon River Basin
2004. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-165.
Enzenhofer, H.J., Cronkite, G.M.W., and Holmes, J.A. 2010. Application of
DIDSON imaging sonar at Qualark Creek on the Fraser River for
Enumeration of adult pacific salmon: An operational manual. Can. Tech.
Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2869: iv + 37 p.
FISS database, DFO Yukon/Transboundary Rivers area. http://habitat.rhq.pac.dfompo.gc.c./fiss/dcf01.cfm
Galbreath, P.F. and P.E. Barber. Validation of Long-Range Dual Frequency
Identification Sonar for Fish Passage Enumeration in the Methow River. Unpublished
report for the PSC Southern Fund project. 2005.
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 20
Holmes, J. A., Cronkite, G. M. W., Enzenhofer, H. J., and Mulligan, T. J. 2006. Accuracy
and precision of fish-count data from a „„dual-frequency identification sonar‟‟
(DIDSON) imaging system. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63: 543e555.
Joint Technical Committee (JTC) of the Yukon River US/Canada Panel. 2010. Yukon
River Salmon 2010 Season Summary and 2011 Season Outlook. Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, Stock Assessment and Fisheries Management Section, Yukon and
Transboundary Area. Whitehorse, Yukon Territory.
Maxwell, S., D. Burwen, and C. Pfisterer. Testing the Range Limitations of the Long
Range and Standard Versions of the Dual Frequency Identification Sonar (DIDSON).
Draft report. Regional Information Report No. 2A04-XX April 2004.
Mercer, B. 2005. Distribution and Abundance of Radio Tagged Chinook Salmon in the
Canadian Portion of the Yukon River Watershed as Determined by 2004 Aerial
Telemetry Surveys. CRE project 77-04, Yukon River Panel.
Mercer, B. and J Eiler, 2004. Distribution and Abundance of Radio Tagged Chinook
Salmon in the Canadian Portion of the Yukon River Watershed as Determined by
2003 Aerial Telemetry Surveys. Unpublished report for CRE project 77-03, Yukon
River Panel.
Mercer, B. 2012. 2011 Teslin River DIDSON Sonar Feasibility Study. Unpublished
report for the Yukon River Panel, CRE-01N-11.
Mercer, B. 2009 through 2011. Klondike River DIDSON Sonar Feasibility Study
Unpublished report for Yukon River Panel, CRE projects 16-08 through 16-11.
Mercer, B. and J. Wilson, 2005 through 2012. Chinook salmon Sonar Enumeration on the
Big Salmon River. Unpublished reports for Yukon River Panel CRE project 41.
Water Survey of Canada. Archived hydrometric data.
http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/applications/H2O/ reporteng.cfm?station=09AF001 from
December 1955 through January 1973.
Osborne, C.T., B. Mercer, and J.H. Eiler, 2003. Radio Telemetry Tracking of Chinook
Salmon in the Canadian Portion of the Yukon River Watershed – 2002. CRE project
78-02, Yukon River Panel.
United States Geological Survey. Water Information System.
http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv/?cb_00060=on&cb_00065=on&format=
gif_stats&period=&begin_date=2012-01-01&end_date=2012-1230&site_no=15356000
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 21
Personal Communications
2013. John Eiler. Fishery Research Biologist. NOAA, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Auke Bay Laboratories, Juneau, AK.
2013. Wade Hanna. Water Survey of Canada. Environment Canada, Whitehorse,
Yukon.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Several individuals contributed to the 2012 Teslin River sonar project. Marcus Leijon
assisted with the camp construction and delivery of materials to the site. David
Macdonald, Al Macleod and John Bylenga assisted with the camp setup, conducted the
sonar operations and the carcass pitch. Jane Wilson assisted with logistics and expediting
and provided editorial support for this report. Elizabeth Macdonald of DFO Whitehorse
provided GSI data and other technical input. Funding for this project was provided by
the Yukon River Panel Restoration and Enhancement Fund.
.
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 22
Appendix 1. Location of radio tagged Chinook during peak spawning in the Teslin River drainage in 2003.
Source: Mercer and Eiler, 2004.
Sonar Site
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 23
Appendix 2. 2011 Mainstem Teslin River carcass pitch data.
DATE
31-Aug
31-Aug
31-Aug
1-Sep
1-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
7-Sep
FISH
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
SEX
F
F
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
F
M
F
F
MEF
(mm)
930
785
840
810
800
840
875
835
840
875
835
885
860
POHL
(mm)
820
685
750
710
695
740
790
725
730
770
725
720
790
780
670
720
770
770
745
775
760
710
770
660
790
750
790
670
750
770
760
735
785
755
900
905
890
845
735
860
685
860
860
795
810
795
750
640
750
590
765
770
880
870
825
870
890
835
870
810
865
750
890
850
890
785
850
875
860
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
SCALE BOOK
no.
82338
82338
82338
82338
82338
82338
82338
82338
82338
82338
82339
82339
82339
82339
82339
82339
82339
82339
82339
82339
82340
82340
82340
82340
82340
82340
82340
82340
82340
82340
82341
82341
82341
82341
82341
82341
82341
82341
82341
82341
82342
82342
82342
82342
BOOK
no.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
SCALE
no.
1-41
2-42
3-43
4-44
5-45
6-46
7-47
8-48
9-49
10-50
1-41
2-42
3-43
4-44
5-45
6-46
7-47
8-48
9-49
10-50
1-41
2-42
3-43
4-44
5-45
6-46
7-47
8-48
9-49
10-50
1-41
2-42
3-43
4-44
5-45
6-46
7-47
8-48
9-49
10-50
1-41
2-42
3-43
4-44
Age
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
M3
14
14
14
14
14
M4
M3
14
13
14
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
14
13
14
14
M4
Page 24
DATE
7-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
FISH
no.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
SEX
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
M
M
M
F
F
M
F
M
F
F
F
M
M
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
M
M
M
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
MEF
(mm)
860
735
895
905
940
895
830
845
855
790
720
930
935
830
850
895
920
835
770
750
905
890
700
770
680
720
750
760
690
775
870
740
835
650
720
850
825
795
865
770
890
865
830
845
POHL
(mm)
750
650
790
810
835
785
740
750
750
685
630
810
820
740
760
660
790
800
740
730
690
650
790
800
600
680
600
630
650
665
600
670
765
630
730
540
630
760
730
705
765
675
785
755
725
745
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
SCALE BOOK
no.
82342
82342
82342
82342
82342
82342
82343
82343
82343
82343
82343
82343
82343
82343
82343
82343
82344
82344
82344
82344
82344
82344
82344
82344
82344
82344
82345
82345
82345
82345
82345
82345
82345
82345
82345
82345
82346
82346
82346
82346
82346
82346
82346
82346
82346
82346
BOOK
no.
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
SCALE
no.
5-45
6-46
7-47
8-48
9-49
10-50
1-41
2-42
3-43
4-44
5-45
6-46
7-47
8-48
9-49
10-50
1-41
2-42
3-43
4-44
5-45
6-46
7-47
8-48
9-49
10-50
1-41
2-42
3-43
4-44
5-45
6-46
7-47
8-48
9-49
10-50
1-41
2-42
3-43
4-44
5-45
6-46
7-47
8-48
9-49
10-50
Age
14
14
14
M4
14
M4
M4
14
1F
13
14
13
14
13
14
14
M4
14
13
12
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
13
14
13
13
M4
14
14
14
M3
14
M4
14
14
14
Page 25
DATE
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
8-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
FISH
no.
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
SEX
F
F
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
M
M
F
F
F
F
M
M
M
M
F
F
M
M
F
M
F
F
M
M
M
M
M
F
F
M
M
F
F
M
M
F
M
M
M
M
M
MEF
(mm)
825
860
820
860
910
865
850
805
530
710
900
875
835
890
730
970
690
635
795
860
820
540
810
920
850
870
880
730
830
820
720
720
810
850
885
910
735
745
730
POHL
(mm)
735
765
720
770
815
760
755
710
810
455
615
810
775
735
775
630
840
590
560
700
780
730
470
720
820
750
780
760
640
710
445
720
715
630
630
730
710
730
780
705
750
790
640
650
630
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
SCALE BOOK
no.
82347
82347
82347
82347
82347
82347
82347
82347
82347
82347
82348
82348
82348
82348
82348
82348
82348
82348
82348
82348
82349
82349
82349
82349
82349
82349
82349
82349
82349
82349
82350
82350
82350
82350
82350
82350
82350
82350
82350
82350
95359
95359
95359
95359
95359
95359
BOOK
no.
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
SCALE
no.
1-41
2-42
3-43
4-44
5-45
6-46
7-47
8-48
9-49
10-50
1-41
2-42
3-43
4-44
5-45
6-46
7-47
8-48
9-49
10-50
1-41
2-42
3-43
4-44
5-45
6-46
7-47
8-48
9-49
10-50
1-41
2-42
3-43
4-44
5-45
6-46
7-47
8-48
9-49
10-50
1-41
2-42
3-43
4-44
5-45
6-46
Age
14
14
14
14
M4
14
14
12
13
14
14
M4
14
14
14
13
1F
14
14
M4
12
13
14
14
13
14
1F
13
12
1F
13
14
13
M3
14
14
13
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
M4
Page 26
DATE
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
9-Sep
FISH
no.
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
SEX
F
F
M
F
M
M
F
F
F
F
F
MEF
(mm)
825
790
760
960
750
POHL
(mm)
720
680
670
840
660
930
820
820
910
850
820
715
730
815
740
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
SCALE BOOK
no.
95359
95359
95359
95359
95360
95360
95360
95360
95360
95360
95360
BOOK
no.
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
SCALE
no.
7-47
8-48
9-49
10-50
1-41
2-42
3-43
4-44
5-45
6-46
7-47
Age
13
13
14
13
12
14
14
14
M4
14
Page 27
Appendix 3. Daily count of radio tagged Chinook (n=86) passing the Teslin telemetry
station in 2003.
Note: Black line is a 5 day moving average; Source: Mercer and Eiler , 2003
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 28
Appendix 4. Hydrometric data and weather observations, Teslin sonar site 2012.
Date
18-Jul
19-Jul
20-Jul
21-Jul
22-Jul
23-Jul
24-Jul
25-Jul
26-Jul
Time
0600
0800
0800
0800
0800
0800
0800
0800
0800
Air Temp. C
15.0
15.0
10.0
Water Temp. C
10.0
9.5
10.0
10.0
13.0
13.0
12.0
13.0
12.0
Water Level cm
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
148.59
142.24
134.62
27-Jul
28-Jul
29-Jul
30-Jul
31-Jul
0800
0800
0800
0800
0800
15.0
16.0
13.0
8.0
13.0
14.0
12.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
130.81
124.46
122.555
11.43
111.125
01-Aug
02-Aug
03-Aug
04-Aug
05-Aug
06-Aug
0800
0800
0800
0800
0800
0800
14.0
14.0
14.0
6.0
8.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
10.5
11.0
10.5
108.585
102.87
99.06
94.615
90.17
86.36
07-Aug
08-Aug
09-Aug
10-Aug
11-Aug
12-Aug
0800
0830
0830
0830
0830
0930
15.0
16.0
14.0
9.0
16.0
14.0
11.5
12.0
12.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
82.55
77.47
74.93
74.93
72.39
69.85
13-Aug
14-Aug
15-Aug
16-Aug
17-Aug
18-Aug
19-Aug
20-Aug
0830
0830
0830
0830
0830
11.0
9.0
13.0
12.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
0830
12.0
11.5
67.31
64.77
62.23
59.69
57.15
54.61
52.07
49.53
21-Aug
22-Aug
23-Aug
24-Aug
25-Aug
26-Aug
27-Aug
28-Aug
29-Aug
30-Aug
31-Aug
01-Sep
02-Sep
03-Sep
04-Sep
0830
0830
0830
0830
0930
0830
0830h
0930h
0800h
0800h
0800h
0800h
0800h
0800h
13.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
13.0
7.0
9.0
8.5
3.0
3.0
13.5
13/0
10.0
5.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
10.5
7.0
9.0
9.0
8.0
10.0
7.0
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
49.53
44.45
44.45
41.91
39.37
36.83
34.29
34.29
31.75
31.75
26.67
26.67
25.4
25.4
25.4
Comments
Water level refference point is 94 inches 238.76cm
water level checked at 1600h, Hot Hot day, mostly clear few
clouds in evening
water level checked at 1300h, Bright hot day with a few clouds
Windy, low pressure zone arrives. Cool and cloudy.
Mixed Weather. A few showers, some sunny time. Dramatic skies
Mixed Weather. Clearer morning. Increasing clouds
Cloudy, Windy. Cooler.
Sunny some clouds
Overcast and rainy
New post put in 50'' is equal to 35.5'' on the old. 108.5'' to primary
refference point. Recordings from here on in are on the new post.
Warm and sunny, clouding over in the afternoon
Cloudy, Rain
Overcast
Blue sky, sunny
Patchy clouds, rain overnight, rain in afternoon, New post put in
58" is equal to 42" on previous
Overcast and rainy
heavy fog, burning off to blue sky and sunny
Blue sky, sunny
Blue sky, sunny
Cool, overcast
Heavy rain opening up to sun, mixed cloud and a clear night
Mixed sun and cloud
Sunny Days…. 50inches on the old is equal to 37inches on the
new
Blue sky, sunny
mild, low cloud cover
cloudy, rain overnight
blue sky, sunny and breezy
low clouds, rainy
foggy, cool morning
Page 29
Appendix 5. Estimated proportions of Big Salmon River and Teslin River Chinook in
upper Yukon River Chinook escapements, 2002 through 2012.
Year
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Method
Telemetry
Telemetry
Telemetry
Fishwheel GSI Sampling
Fishwheel GSI Sampling
Fishwheel GSI Sampling
Eagle Gillnet GSI Sampling
Eagle Gillnet GSI Sampling
Big Salmon River
Estimated %
proportion of
border escapement
based on telemetry
or GSI sampling
9.2
15.1
10.0
10.7 (3.2)
10.6 (2.5)
9.3 (6.0)
16.9 (3.6)
11.7 (2.4)
2011
Eagle Gillnet GSI Sampling
8.0 (2.4)
16.4(3.4)
25.6(3.3)
33.0(4.6)
25.3(3.3)
2012
Eagle Gillnet GSI Sampling
Mean 20022011
Std. Dev.
6.7 (2.8)
37.8 (4.6)
11.3
2.4
19.6
1.1
Teslin River Estimated
% proportion of border
escapement based on
telemetry or GSI
sampling
19.8
18.1
20.8
14.2 (2.4)
9.6 (1.6)
Data source: DFO unpublished data, Osborne et al. 2003, Mercer and Eiler 2004, Mercer
2005. Note: Updating of GSI Baseline data may change the GSI based proportions.
Appendix 6. Estimated proportions of Blind Creek, Big Salmon and Teslin River
Chinook in upper Yukon River Chinook escapements based on observed radio tag
distributions 2002 – 2004.
Year
Blind
Creek
Big Salmon
Teslin
Total
2002
1.8
9.2
19.8
30.8
2003
2004
Mean
SD
1.4
2.2
1.8
0.3
15.1
10.0
11.4
2.6
18.1
20.8
19.6
1.1
34.6
33.0
32.8
1.6
Data source: Osborne et al. 2003, Mercer and Eiler 2004, Mercer 2005.
B. Mercer & Associates Ltd. Doc. 7-12
Page 30