SK

361

.U54

no. 82-

10.122

Library

Naltonal w~tta"ct. Rlleareb Center

U. S. Fish and WUdilie service

700 CaJundomt Boulevard

liaf.,etteJ La: 70&01

BIOLOGICAL REPORT 82(10.122)

SEPTEMBER 1986

HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX MODELS

AND INSTREAM FLOW SUITABILITY

CURVES: CHINOOK SALMON

....:_., and Wildlife Service

. Department of the Interior
MODEL EVALUATION FORM

Habitat models are designed for a wide variety of planning applications where habitat information is an important consideration in the

decision process. However, it is impossible to develop a model that

performs equally well in all situations. Assistance from users and

researchers is an important part of the model improvement process. Each

model is published individually to facilitate updating and reprinting as

new i nformat i on becomes avail ab 1e. User feedback on model performance

will assist in improving habitat models for future applications. Please

complete this form following application or review of the model. Feel

free to include additional information that may be of use to either a

model developer or model user. We also would appreciate information on

model testing, modification, and application, as well as copies of modified

models or test results. Please return this form to:

Habitat Evaluation Procedures Group

or

Instream Flow Group

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2627 Redwing Road, Creekside One

Fort Collins, CO 80526-2899

Thank you for your assistance.

Species _

Habitat or Cover Type(s)

Geographic

Location

Type of Application: Impact Analysis Management Action Analysis __

Baseline Other -------------------------

Variables Measured or Evaluated

Was the species information useful and accurate? Yes No

If not, what corrections or improvements are needed?----------
Were the variables and curves clearly defined and useful? Yes No

If not, how were or could they be improved?

Were the techniques suggested for collection of field data:

Appropriate? Yes No

Clearly defined? Yes No

Easily applied? Yes No

If not, what other data collection techniques are needed?

Were the model equations logical? Yes No

Appropriate? Yes No

How were or could they be improved?

Other suggestions for modification or improvement (attach curves,

equations, graphs, or other appropriate information)

Additional references or information that should be included in the model:

Model Evaluator or Reviewer Date ------------

Agency _

Address -------------------------------

Telephone Number Comm:----------- FTS _
Biological Report 82(10.122)

September 1986

HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX MODELS AND INSTREAM FLOW

SUITABILITY CURVES: CHINOOK SALMON

by

Robert F. Raleigh

P.O. Box 625

Council, 10 83612

William J. Miller

1244 S. Bryan

Fort Collins, CO 80521

and

Patrick C. Nelson

Instream Flow and Aquatic Systems Group

National Ecology Center

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2627 Redwing Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526-2899

Performed for

National Ecology Center

Division of Wildlife and Contaminant Research

Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Washington, DC 20240
This report should be cited as:

Raleigh, R. F., W. J. Miller, and P. C. Nelson. 1986. Habitat suitability

index models and instream flow suitability curves: chinook salmon. U.S.

Fish Wildl. Servo Biol. Rep. 82(10.122). 64 pp.
PREFACE

Information presented in this document is for use with the Habitat

Evaluation Procedures (HEP) and the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology

(IFIM). The information also should be useful for impact assessment and for

developing management recommendations and mitigation alternatives for the

species using methodologies other than HEP or IFIM. The comparison and

recommendations for use of HEP and IFIM presented by Armour et al. (1984)1

should help potential users of these two methodologies determine the most

efficient way to utilize the information in this publication.

The Suitability Index (S1) curves and graphs and Habitat Suitability

Index (HSI) models presented in this report are based primarily on a synthesis

of information obtained from a review of the literature concerning the habitat

requirements of the species. The HSI models and SI curves are scaled to

produce an index between 0 (unsuitable habitat) and 1 (optimal habitat).

Assumptions used to transform habitat use information into an index are noted,

and guidel ines for appl ication of the curves and model s are described. A

discussion of IFIM and chinook salmon SI curves available for use with IFIM is

included.

The SI curves and HSI models are starting points for users of HEP or IFIM

to develop their own curves and models. Use of the SI curves and HSI models

within project-specific applicational constraints is likely to require modification of the SI curves or graphs and HSI models to meet those constraints and

to be applicable to local habitat conditions. Users of the SI graphs and/or

HSI models with HEP should be familiar with the standards for developing HSI

models (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1981)1 and the guidelines for simplifying HSI models and recommended measurement techniques for model variables

(Terrell et al. 1982; Hamilton and Bergersen 1984).1 Users of the SI curves

with IFIM should be familiar with the Guide to Stream Habitat Analysis (Bovee

1982)1 and the User's Guide to the Physical Habitat Simulation System (Milhous

et a1. 1984). 1

The HSI models and SI curves are hypotheses of species-habitat relationships, not statements of proven cause and effect relationships. The curves

and model s are based on the 1iterature and professional judgment. They have

not been applied "in the field. For this reason, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

lCitation included in References.

iii
Service encourages model users to convey comments and suggestions that may

help us increase the utility and effectiveness of this habitat-based approach

to fisheries planning. Please send comments to:

Habitat Evaluation Procedures Group

or

Instream Flow and Aquatic Systems Group

National Ecology Center

U.S. Fish and.Wildlife Service

2627 Redwing Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526-2899

iv
CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

FIGURES vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vi i i

INTRODUCTION 1

HABITAT USE INFORMATION (HSI Model) 2

General Distribution and Life Cycle. 2

Specific Habitat Requirements, Sources, and Assumptions.... 4

HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX (HSI) MODELS .. 11

Suitability Index (SI) Graphs for Model Variables ,. 11

HSI Mode 1 App 1i cabi 1ity 22

Model Description.................................................... 22

Model 1, Limiting Factor............................................. 25

Model 2, Compensatory Limiting Factor.... 25

INSTREAM FLOW INCREMENTAL METHODOLOGY (IFIM) 29

Suitability Index Curves as Used in IFIM 30

Availability of SI Curves for Use in IFIM 30

Spawni ng mi gration 51

Spawning and Egg Incubation.......................................... 51

Fry 55

Juvenile............................................................. 56

REFERENCES 57

v
Number

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

FIGURES

Diagram illustrating the relationship among model variables,

components, and HSI .

Category one SI curves for chinook salmon passage depth and

temperature suitability .

Category two SI curves for migrating chinook salmon spawners;

velocity and depth utilization during migration holding .

SI curves for spawning/egg incubation velocity and depth, for

effective spawning habitat analysis .

Category one SI curves for chinook salmon spawning, egg

incubation, and intergravel fry velocity, depth, substrate,

percent fi nes, and temperature suitabil ity ..

Category one S1 curves for chinook salmon fry velocity, depth,

and temperature sui tabi 1i ty .

Category one S1 curves for chinook salmon juvenile velocity,

depth, and temperature suitability .

Category two SI curves for spring chinook salmon spawning

velocity and depth utilization (n = 252) .

Category two SI curves for fall chinook salmon spawning

velocity and depth utilization (n = 107) .

Category two S1 curves for fall chinook salmon spawning

velocity and depth utilization (n = 216) .

Category two S1 curves for spring chinook salmon spawning

velocity and depth utilization (n = 118) '" .

SI curves for chinook salmon spawning velocity (category two)

and de pt h (c ate gory 0 ne ), (n ::: 265) .

Category two S1 curves for chinook salmon spawning velocity

and depth utilization (n = 436) .

vi

28

31

32

33

34

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43
Number

14

15

16

17

18

19

FIGURES (Concluded)

Category two SI curves for chinook salmon fry velocity and

depth util ization (n = 202) .

Category two SI curves for chinook salmon fry velocity and

substrate utilization .

Category one SI curves for chinook salmon fry velocity and

depth suitabi 1ity .

Category two SI curves for chinook salmon juvenile velocity,

depth, percent cover, and cover type utilization .

Category two SI curves for chinook salmon juvenile velocity

and substrate utilization .

Category one SI curves for chinook salmon juvenile velocity

and depth sui tabi 1i ty .

vii

44

45

46

47

49

50
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge R. Behnke, Colorado State University, T. Bjorn,

Idaho Cooperative .Fishery Research Unit, F. Everest, Pacific Northwest Research

Station, M. Healey, R. Lauzier, W. Knopp, S. Samis, C. Clarke, and

S. Macdonald, Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, G. Hartman, Pacific

Biological Station, Nanaimo, B. C., A. Lowes Blackwell, University of Texas at

Arlington, and M. Odemar, California Department of Fish and Game, for review

comments which improved the quality and accuracy of this report. The reader

should not construe reviewer assistance as an endorsment of the Suitability

Index curves or the habitat model. The initial literature reviews were

conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game personnel, and T. Tatom.

J. Zuboy provided editorial assistance and C. Solomon coordinated the reviews

and manuscript production. Word processing was by E. Barstow, P. Gillis, and

D. Ibarra. The cover figure is from Freshwater Fishes of Canada, Bulletin

184, Fisheries Research Board of Canada, by W. B. Scott and E. J. Crossman.

vii i
CHINOOK SALMON (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

INTRODUCTION

This publication contains habitat models constructed and information

compiled for two distinctly different purposes. The Habitat Suitability Index

(HSI) model by Raleigh and Miller contains 17 habitat variables for chinook

salmon by life stage. The HSI model provides an objective quantifiable method

of assessing the existing habitat conditions for chinook salmon within a study

area by measuring how well each habitat variable meets the habitat requirements

of the species by life stage. The model thus provides an objective basis for

predicting probable project impacts, documenting post project impacts, and

guiding habitat protection, mitigation, enhancement, and management decisions.

The section by Ne 1son conta ins habi tat cri teri a curves for fi ve flowsrelated variables for use in the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM)

(Bovee 1982; Milhouse et al. 1984). The IFIM model is intended to provide an

objective method of assessing the effects of changes in water flow on habitat

of chinook salmon by life stage. The HSI model is presented first followed by

the IFIM section. Comments on model assumptions or performance, should be

addressed to the appropriate author of each section. A brief overview of the

HSI modeling procedures and IFIM curves follow.

The HSI model was constructed by searching the available technical literature, agency data files, and individual study progress reports for information

on the habitat requirements of chinook salmon. This information was used to

derive Suitability Index (SI) graphs for each habitat variable identified from

the information base. As many habitat variables as were located were included

to enable the user to evaluate a wide variety of habitat conditions useful in

evaluating, managing, or improving chinook salmon habitat, or in assessing

project impacts. The HSI model is flexible enough to utilize from one to all

of the available variables to suit the needs of the user.

The SI graphs for the HSI model were constructed by quantifying field and

laboratory information on the effect of each habitat variable (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, spawning gravel size, siltation) on the growth,

survival, or biomass of the species, by life stage. The graphs are based on

the assumption that increments of growth, survival, or biomass plotted on the

y-axis can be directly converted into an index of suitability from 0.0 to 1.0

for the species, with 0.0 indicating unsuitable conditions and 1.0 optimal

conditions. Measurements of each habitat variable taken at the proper time in

the field can be applied to the SI graphs to obtain an estimate of the

suitability of the variable in meeting the habitat requirements of the species.

Instream flow SI graphs may be based on literature, professional judgment,

lab studies, or field observations of the frequency of use of a habitat

1
variable (e.g., gravel size), within an available range of conditions, by

individuals of a species. The premise with field data is that individual fish

will select and occupy the best habitat conditions available to them. Optimal

conditions for a variable are considered to be those conditions under which

most individuals are observed. Range limits for a variable are the conditions

outside of which no individuals are observed. The Physical Habitat Simulation

System (PHABSIM) component of the IFIM uses four variables: water velocity,

depth, substrate composition, and cover. Wherever individuals of a species

are observed in a stream, measurements are taken on the above four variables.

In most cases to date SI curves have not been tested for cross-correlations

among variables, and only univariate curve functions have been developed. If

multivariate SI functions are not available for use with IFIM, then each

variable is treated independently of the others. It is also assumed that a

full range of preferred and tolerated variable values were available for

selection by individuals of the species at each study stream and data

collection site. If this assumption is not true, bias may occur in the

frequency analysis method, unless habitat availability limitations are factored

out (Bovee 1986).

It is sometimes diffi cult to determi ne if the full range of usable

conditions for a particular variable have been included in field and laboratory

studi es. For examp 1e, spawn i ng adul ts may have been observed us i ng gravel

ranging from 0.3 to 10 cm in size. Studies of the effects of siltation on

embryo survival for the species may indicate that the lower limit of 0.3 cm

appears acceptable. If different streams had been included in the studies,

however, the upper gravel size limit may have been greater than 10 cm.

Laboratory tests used in constructing the HSI model SI graphs can often

add more certainty to upper, lower, and optimal suitability values, especially

for variables such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH. Both laboratory

and field results, must be considered in 1ight of test conditions, e.g.,

acclimation conditions, handling, exposure times, control test results for

laboratory tests, and observation and data collection procedures and conditions

for fi e 1d studi es. For these reason s, some judgment is often necessary in

constructing SI graphs for both IFIM and HSI models, and some variability may

exist in the shape of the SI graphs.

The data base and SI graphs were reviewed by biologists familiar with the

ecology of chinook salmon, and suggested changes not at variance with published

study results were incorporated. The user is advised, however, to review each

SI graph to determine how well it represents known regional requirements for

the species. Changes should be made if warranted, but the reasons for each

change should be fully documented.

HABITAT USE INFORMATION (HSI MODEL)

General Distribution and Life Cycle

The information included in this chinook salmon model is restricted to

the freshwater habitat variables used by prespawning and spawning adults,

incubating embryos, preemergent fry, and postemergent juveniles. The ocean

habitat requirements of chinook salmon are not included.

2
Chinook salmon have the most diverse life history of any of the Pacific

salmon. Among the various recognized races of chinook salmon (spring, summer,

fall, and winter) there is dtve r st ty in time of entry into the river systems,

time of spawning, distance from the sea of spawning areas, length of freshwater

and ocean residence, and average size and age at maturity. The model contains

a synoptic overview of the life history and known freshwater habitat requirements of each race.

Chinook salmon are the largest in average size of the five species of

Pacific salmon. The largest known weight for a chinook salmon is 57.2 kg.

Chi nook sa 1mon ra.ngi ng from 6 to 23 kg are common in sport and commerci a1

catches.

The original range of chinook salmon in North America was from the Ventura

River, California, to Point Hope, Alaska, with 13 specimens reported from the

Coppermine River about 1,600 km east of Point Barrow, Alaska (Hart 1973; Major

et al. 1978; Behnke 1985). In the Far East, chinooks occur from the Anadyr

River in the U.S.S.R., southward along the Kamchatka Penninsula and into

Hokkaido, Japan (Major et al. 1978; Behnke 1985). Viable populations of

chinook salmon have been established in New Zealand and in the Great Lakes in

the United States. Attempts to establish chinook runs in other parts of the

world have not been successful.

Chinook salmon spawn in about 640 streams along the Pacific Coast of the

United States and Canada, but major populations are concentrated in only a few

of the larger river systems: the Sacramento, Columbia, Copper, Nushagak,

Kuskokwim, and Yukon Rivers in the United States, and about 14 rivers in

Canada (Aro and Shepard 1967). Vronskii (1972) attributes more than 90% of

the U.S.S.R. commercial catch to the Kamchatka River (Major et al. 1978).

As stated earlier, there is a large amount of life history diversity

within the chinook salmon species. Four races of chinook sal~on are recognized

from the Sacramento River system (Erkkila et al. 1950; Hoopaugh 1978; Behnke

1985). The fall run enters the Sacramento River in late summer and spawns

from 1ate October into December. The eggs overwi nter and the emergent fry

begin their seaward migration in the early spring within a few weeks of

hatching. The late fall run enters the river beginning in October, spawning

peaks in February, and seaward migration begins at the time of emergence from

the gravel. The winter run enters the river in winter and early spring.

Spawning begins in April and peaks in May to early June. The fry spend a year

in freshwater before smolting. The spring run enters the river primarily in

May and June, and spawn i ng occurs in September and October. The eggs overwinter and seaward migration occurs in the early spring.

There are three races of chinook salmon in the Columbia River recognized

by their time of entry, time of spawning, and age and time of smolt migration.

Spring chinook adults enter the river from February through May, summer chinook

June through August, and fa 11 chi nook from mi d-August through October (Fulton

1968; Major et al. 1978). Spawning occurs from late July into December, with

the order of spawning being loosely related to the time of entry into the

river (Fulton 1968).

3
From southern to northern latitudes of the chinook salmon range there

appears to be a tendency for: (1) the number of races to decrease from four

in the Sacramento to three in the Columbia, Fraser, and Nanaimo Rivers, to two

in lower Alaska, to one in northern Alaska rivers; (2) spawning to occur

earlier in the year with spawning peaks in late August through October in the

southern areas and in July and August in the northern portion of the range;

(3) length of freshwater residence by juveniles to increase from a few

weeks to 1 year in the southern portion of the range, to an average of 1 to

2 years and occasionally 3 years (Meehan and Siniff 1962) in the northern

porti on of the range; and (4) average age at spawn i ng to increase from 3 to

6 years in California rivers to 5 to 8 years in central to northern Alaska

rivers.

Spawning adults may use all available suitable sections over the entire

river system for spawning. Spawning may occur in chinook salmon rivers from

within a few miles of saltwater intrusions to as far as 3,000 km upstream from

the ocean in the Yukon River. Both the mainstem river and tributaries are

used by spawning chinook salmon. In general, fall run chinook tend to spawn

in larger mainstem rivers and the emergent fry tend to begin their seaward

migrat i on with a few weeks after emergence, whereas spri ng chi nook tend to

utilize smaller tributaries and upstream reaches of principal tributaries and

the young spend the first year in freshwater prior to smolting (Raleigh and

Ebel 1967; Fulton 1968).

Fecundity of chinook salmon varies by size and to some extent by race.

In general, fecundity varies from a few thousand to as many as 20,000 eggs per

female (Vronskii 1972). The demersal eggs are buried in two or more large

pockets excavated in the substrate grave 1 by the female. The fert i 1i zed eggs

are covered by gravel dislodged upstream of the redd by the female and carried

downstream by the river current. The length of time from fertilization to

hatching varies with average stream temperature, but requires roughly 900 to

1,000 thermal units (Seymour 1956). There is one thermal unit for each degree

Celsius above freezing for a 24 hour period. After hatching, the yolk sac fry

typically spend several more weeks in the gravel prior to emergence. Emergence

from the gravel occurs in early spring, generally from February to June,

depending on latitude, temperature, and time of spawning. The Sacramento

River winter chinook run is an exception. Winter chinook spawn in the spring

and the fry hatch and emerge from the gravel in midsummer.

Specific Habitat Requirements, Sources, and Assumptions

Chinook salmon adults stop feeding when they enter a river to spawn and

they die after spawning. Adult holding habitat in the form of large, deep,

pools is important to prespawners, some races of which may spend several weeks

in freshwater before spawning. The productive potential of the river system

is not important to the adults, but it is to the juveniles, which may spend

from a few weeks to as much as 3 years in freshwater pri or to migrati ng to

sea. In addition, juvenile summer and winter rearing habitat is a major

factor in the survival and production of chinook salmon. The HSI model

includes the freshwater habitat requirements of all life stages, but is most

concerned with embryo and juvenile habitat requirements.

4
Headwaters of high-gradient, coastal salmonid streams are relatively

unproduct i ve. Most energy inputs to the stream are in the form of

allochthonous materials, such as terrestrial vegetation and terrestrial insects

(Idyll 1942; Chapman 1966; Hunt 1971). Aquatic invertebrates are most abundant

and diverse in downstream, moderate-gradient riffle areas with rubble substrate

and on submerged aquatic vegetation (Hynes 1970; Binns and Eiserman 1979).

Optimal substrate for maintenance of a diverse invertebrate population,

however, consists of a mosaic of mud, gravel, rubble, and boulders, with

rubble dominant. A pool-to-riffle ratio of about 1:1 (approximately a 40% to

60% pool area) appears to provide an optimal mix of food-producing and rearing

areas for salmonids (Needham 1940). In riffle areas, the presence (>10%) of

coarse (~3.0 mm) fines reduces the production of invertebrate fauna (adapted

from Cordone and Kelly 1961; Crouse et al. 1981). The gradient, water

velocity, and substrate size tend to decrease downstream, whereas the pool to

riffle ratio, temperature, productivity, and species diversity tend to

increase.

Canopy cover is important in maintaining shade for stream temperature

control and in providing allochthonous materials in small to moderate sized

streams. Too much shade, however, can restrict primary productivity in a

stream (Chapman and Knudsen 1980). Shading becomes less important as stream

gradient and size increase. About 50% to 75% midday shade appears optimal for

most small salmonid streams (adapted from Chapman and Knudson 1980, and Oregon/

Washington Interagency Wildlife Conference 1979). In addition, a well

vegetated riparian area helps control watershed erosion. The presence of

fines in riffle-run areas can adversely affect embryo survival, food

product ion, and escape cover for juveni 1es. In low to moderate gradi ent

terra in, a buffer stri p about 30 m wide on each side of the stream, 80% of

which is either well vegetated or has stable rocky stream banks, provides

adequate erosion control and maintains undercut stream banks characteristic of

good salmonid habitat.

There is a definite relationship between the annual flow regime and the

quality of salmonid riverine habitat. Adequate flows must be maintained to

meet the needs of the developing embryos and yolk sac fry in the gravel, but

abnormally low or high flows can be destructive. Significant mortalities to

salmon embryos and yo l k sac fry have been reported due to dessication or

freezing of redds caused by too-low, late fall-winter flows, and from natal

gravel movement and downstream displacement of newly emerged fry during

abnormally high freshets (Andrew and Geen 1960). Bustard (1973) listed three

major factors contributing to overwinter losses of juvenile chinook and coho

salmon and steelhead in the Morice River: (1) stranding and freezing, (2) low

dissolved oxygen, and (3) predation. All three factors were correlated with

too-low winter flows. An annual base flow ~50% of the average annual daily

flow is considered excellent for salmonid production, a base flow of 25% to

50% is considered fair to good, and a base flow of <25% is considered poor

(adapted from Tennant 1976; Binns and Eiserman 1979; Wesche 1980). Nehring

and Anderson (1982, 1983) consider a peak flow of about five times the

magnitude of an excellent base flow, or about 2~ times the average annual

daily flow (Lister and Walker 1966) to be acceptable for good salmonid

production. Peak flows exceeding these 1imits are considered progressively

more destructive. Peak and base flow volumes that are controlled in dam

5
tailwater salmon and trout habitats can enhance production of chum, coho, and

chinook juveniles (Lister and Walker 1966) and trout (Nehring and Anderson

1982, 1983), or give a competitive edge to spring or fall spawning stocks

dependent upon timing and amplitude of flow releases.

Optimal value and range for pH were not located for chinook salmon.

Since chinooks are sympatric with other salmonid species, however, we accept

the average salmonid pH range of 5.5 to 9.0, with an optimal range of 6.8 to

8.0 (Behnke and Zarn 1976), as applicable to chinook salmon.

Adult stage. Chinook salmon enter North American streams to spawn nearly

year around. With the wide diversity in times and places of spawning it is

not surprising that spawning temperatures also range widely from 4.4 to 18°C

(Mattson 1948; Burner 1951), although temperatures >12.8 °C resulted in

increased mortality to females prior to spawning (Andrew and Geen 1960).

Spawning and embryo rearing temperatures for winter run chinook salmon are

wi thi n the above range, but appear to be more restri cti ve. Information for

winter run chinook will be reported in the embryo section that follows. No

further distinctions in chinook racial spawning requirements for water

velocity, depth, or substrate size will be made in the adult section, since

these variables appear to be size, not racially, related.

Chambers (1956) stated that the gravel used in constructing the redd must

be of a size that can be moved by the fish and the current. Therefore, the

water velocity and the maximum size of the spawning gravel utilized is related

to the size of the fish. Chinook, the largest species of Pacific salmon, tend

to use slightly higher water velocities and larger gravel for spawning than

other salmon. Burner (1951) reported that spring chinook redds in the Columbia

River consisted of about 6% fines, 59% to 86% gravel ~15 cm in diameter, and

8% to 35% rubble >15 cm; summer chinook redds were about 5% to 8% fines, 85%

to 95% gravel ~15 cm, and 0 to 7% rubble >15 cm; and fall chinook redds were

about 3% to 5% fines, 56% to 89% gravel ~15 cm, and 6% to 41% rubble >15 cm.

Summer chinook are smaller in average size (6.4 kg average) than fall chinook

(8.2 kg average) in the Columbia River (Fulton 1968). Chambers (1956) lists

percentages of gravel sizes for chinook salmon redds of about 21% for 0.3 to

1.25 cm; 41% for 1.25 to 6 cm; 24% for 6 to 10 cm; and 14% for 6 to 15 cm.

Briggs (1953) gives a mean spawning gravel size of 4.2 cm for chinook salmon

in California. Chambers (1956) lists an average size range of 3 to 15 cm for

Canadian chinook, and Hobbs (1937) reports that most New Zealand chinook use

gravel ~7.7 cm in diameter. An upper size limit on gravel would depend upon

the size of fish and was not reported for chinook salmon; however, since

gravel size of >15 cm composed only 0 to 7% of summer chinook redds, we assume

that spawning gravel 15 cm in diameter may be approaching the upper usable

size limit for average size chinook salmon. Huntington (1985) reported that

the most heavily used, prime spawning gravel beds of salmon tend to develop

parallel bands of elevated gravel. Bands 0.6 to 2.4 m amplitude with a

periodicity of 6.0 to 18.0 m have been reported. Huntington (1985) believes

the presence of these bands indicates prime spawning areas for salmon.

McNeil (1968) reported that while coarse bed materials allow better water

flow and oxygen levels in the redds, they also allow better access to eggs and

yolk sac fry by predators than smaller gravel sizes. McNeil (1968) attributed

6
a 32% greater egg loss from the coarsest gravel areas to probable predation by

sculpins. From the above information we conclude that suitable spawning

gravel for chinook salmon ranges in size from about 0.3 to 15 cm. The upper

size being dependent upon size of spawner. The optimal size range is estimated

to be about 2 to 10.6 cm.

Water velocity and minimal depth appear to be factors influencing spawning site selection and survival of embryos. Velocity appears to be a major

factor and mi ni ma 1 depth a secondary factor. Spawn i ng in productive chi nook

salmon streams has been observed at depths of ~0.2 m (Briggs 1953) to ?o7 m

(Chambers 1956). Sockeye salmon have been reported spawning in lakes at

depths >21 m (Canada Department of Fisheries 1959). Andrew and Geen (1960),

after a 3-year study on the Chilko River, reported that, beyond a minimal

figure, depth per se did not appear to exert a major influence on the selection

of spawning sites, but velocity did. Shallow gravel beds that go dry and are

exposed to freezing in the winter were never heavily populated, nor were they

the first choice of spawning salmon. Divinin (1952) observed that when the

distribution of salmon spawners over the spawning grounds was optimum, there

was no spawning in waters shallower than 0.2 m. At high spawner densities,

however, salmon have been reported to spawn on sand and silt substrates (Semko

1939) and at depths of ~0.1 m (Divinin 1952). Embryo mortalities would likely

be excessive under such extreme conditions. We concl ude that spawni ng of

chi nook sa 1mon can successfully take place over a wide range of depths, but

that depth per se, beyond a minimal level required to protect the embryos from

drying or freezing, does not significantly affect the selection of spawning

sites or the survival of embryos. An acceptable minimal spawning depth for

chinook salmon depends upon the amount of flow fluctuation, but in rivers with

relatively stable flow regimes (base flow ?o50% of the average annual daily

flow), we conclude that an acceptable minimal spawning depth for chinook

salmon would be ?oO.2 m.

The major functions of water velocity during spawning and embryo incubation are to: (1) move displaced substrate materials downstream during redd

construction, (2) carry dissolved O2 to the developing embryos, and (3) remove

metabolic wastes from the redd. Andrew and Geen (1960) list spawning velocity

ranges of 0.45 to 0.76 m/s for spri ng chi nook and 0.35 to 1.15 m/s for fa 11

chinook salmon. Few chinook were observed spawning in velocities >1.15 m/s.

Smith (1973) reported mean spawning velocities of 0.43 and 0.50 m/s for spring

and fall chinook salmon, respectively. In an Idaho stream with uncompacted

gravel, a velocity of 0.2 m/s was considered adequate for chinook spawners.

Gravel permeability affects the suitability of low velocity levels, whereas

fish size, swimming ability, and average substrate size dictate the suitability

of upper ve 1ocity ranges. From the above i nformat i on we concl ude that the

usable spawning and embryo incubation velocity range is about 0.2 to 1.15 m/s

with an optimal range of about 0.30 to 0.9 mis, dependent upon gravel

permeabi 1i ty, average substrate size, and average size of spawni ng adu 1t. It

is conceivable that chinook stocks spawning in colder, northern latitudes may

select slightly lower velocity water for spawning.

Embryo and yolk sac fry: the intergravel stage. With the exception of

winter run chinook that spawn in the spring, the developing embryos of spring,

summer, and fall runs spend the fall and winter months in the gravel. High

7
survival of developing eggs and intergravel yolk sac fry is primarily dependent

on the interactions of four variables: temperature, dissolved oxygen, water

velocity, and gravel permeability. Studies have indicated usable ranges and

optimal values for each of the above variables under a variety of conditions,

but some judgement is necessary in developing and using the SI graphs developed

for the model. Obviously, lower water velocities are more acceptable with

higher gravel permeability than with low permeability. Also, O2 saturation

and fish metabolism vary with temperature. Thus, as temperatures increase the

biological demand for O2 increases, but the available O2 supply decreases.

The habitat variables of water velocity and spawning gravel particle size were

discussed in the adult section. This section will contain information on the

effects of fines, dissolved O2 , and temperature on survival of chinook embryos.

Burner (1951) observed that chinook salmon redds averaged about 6 m2 in

size, and that chinook spawners tend to select areas relatively free of silt,

under normal to low spawning densities. When spawning densities are high or

suitable spawning gravel is scarce, however, chinook salmon have been reported

to spawn on sand and silt substrates (Major et a1. 1978). In the Kamchatka

River, Vronskii (1972) reported that about 95% of the chinook redds were

located on the gravel transition areas between pools and riffles. He expressed

the opinion that subsurface flows were ideal and the gravels relatively si1tfree in these areas.

It is well known that the presence of fines in redds can impede water

flow and cause impairment of water quality for sa1monid embryos (Cordone and

Kelly 1961; McNeil 1968). Other studies show that fines can impede the

emergence of fry (Koski 1966; Bjornn 1969; Phillips et a1. 1975). The size of

the fines appears important. McNeil and Ahnell (1964) reported that survival

of pink salmon embryos and intergrave1 yolk sac fry significantly decreased as

fines (~0.833 mm) exceeded 5% and approached 15% of the redd particulate

materials. Bjornn (1969) recorded a 28% average survival of stee1head embryos

implanted in a mixture of 30% sand and 70% gravel. Of the 28% that hatched,

only 74% emerged. Suitable incubation substrate for chinook embryos appears

to be gravel that is about 0.3 to 15 cm in size that is relatively free of

fines. Optimal gravel conditions are assumed to include s 5% small fines

(~0.8 mm) and <10% large fines (~3.0 mm); amounts greater than these are

assumed to result in increasingly low survival of embryos and emerging yolk

sac fry.

While spawning may occur over a wide range of water temperatures (4.4 to

18°C), suitable temperature regimes for incubating embryos are more

restrictive. Chambers (1956) reported that spring chinook usually spawned at

declining temperatures ranging from 12.8 to 4.5°C, whereas fall chinook

spawned during temperatures of 13.4 to 5.0 °C. Seymour (1956) observed high

chinook egg and fry survival rates at constant temperatures of 10,7.2, and

4.5 °C, but very low survivals at temperatures >16 °C. Seymour (1956) also

reported no survival among chinook eggs incubated at a constant temperature of

1. 0 °C. Eggs incubated at 12.8 °C for 3.5 weeks and thereafter at 1. 0 °C

suffered only a 3% loss while eggs incubated at 12.8 °C for only 2 weeks and

8
then at 1. 0 °e suffered a 42% mortal ity (Seymour 1956). It appears that a

period of incubation >2 but ~3.5 weeks at temperatures ~4.5 °C but ~12.8 °C is

necessary for good survival of late summer to fall spawned chinook embryos.

Winter run chinook from the Sacramento River and any spring spawning stocks in

the Great Lakes, however, would spawn in the spring while water temperatures

are increasing. The limited information available indicates that winter run

chinook in the Sacramento River system usually spawn at temperatures of about

5.9 to 14.2 °C, and that temperature suitability and survival is limited on

both the low and high side of this range (Slater 1963). We assume that this

temperature data would also apply to any spring spawners in the Great Lakes.

Survival of chinook eggs from fertilization to fry emergence ranged from

90% to 100% at constant O2 concentrations of 3.5, 5.0, 7.3, and 10.5 mg/l at a

water temperature of 10.5 °C. Survival dropped to 0 at a constant temperature

of 15 °e (Eddy 1972). From these temperature data (here and above) it appears

that a temperature ~15 °e may be 1etha 1 to chi nook embryos. Eddy (1972) a1so

reported that embryo to fry survival was highest at 10.5 mg/l O2 and lowest at

3.5 mg/l for all temperatures tested (10.5, 12.0, 13.5, and 15.0). Gangmark

and Bakkala (1960) found that survival of chinook salmon embryos in a cold

stream (4 to 9 °e) was highest at O2 concentrations of 13 mg/l and lowest at

5 mg/l. The greatest increase in survival occurred between 5 and 7 mg/l. In

another study, mean length of sac fry was greatest at 11.7 mg/l O2 and least

at 2.5 mg/l. These tests were conducted at a temperature of 11 °C (Silver

et al. 1963). Davis (1975), after reviewing the dissolved O2 requirements for

several Canadian fishes, suggested a minimum concentration of 8 mg/l for

developing salmonid embryos. From the above we conclude that the lower limit

of O2 concentration for survival with short term exposures is ~2.5 mg/l at

water temperatures ~7 °e with optimal levels of ~8 mg/l at temperatures ~7 but ~10 °e and ~12 mg/l at temperatures >10 °e.

Juvenile stream resident stage. There are two general freshwater life

history patterns for juvenile chinook salmon: (1) juveniles from stocks that

spawn primarily in larger mainstem rivers or close to the ocean and tend to

begin their seaward migration within a few weeks after emergence from the

gravel; and (2) juveniles from stocks that spawn in smaller tributary streams

and in more distant upstream areas that tend to spend one or more years in the

freshwater environment before smolting. In North America, both age-atmigration patterns are present in the southern portion of the range, but only

the second pattern is found in the northern or Alaskan portion (Major et al.

1978). Migration for both groups begins in the spring, primarily April through

June, but the peak of migration occurs later in northern latitudes. Seaward

migration of chinook smolts tends to be nocturnal and near the stream surface

(Gauley et al. 1958; Meehan and Siniff 1962; Major and Mighell 1969; Durkin

et a1. 1970).

The following synoptic freshwater life history for juveniles that spend

one or more years in the freshwater environment is taken from Everest and

Chapman (1972). Their study was conducted on spring chinook in two tributary

streams in Idaho. Spawning occurs in August and September. The embryos

9
overwi nter in the stream gravel. Fry emerge in March; feed and grow through

the summer and fall months; re-enter the gravel-rubble substrate in the late

fall as temperatures decline 'from 8 to s4 °C; overwinter in the gravel; emerge

in the spring; and begin the seaward migration in late MaY through early June.

From time of egg fertilization until smolting the juvenile chinook spend about

14 to 16 months in freshwater. About 50% of that time is spent in a dormant

to semidormant condition in the stream substrate during the cold weather

months. The 7 to 8 months of active stream. life, however, are extremely

important. This same pattern would apply to summer chinook juveniles that

spend a year in freshwater prior to smolting. Some variations in timing would

be expected due to racial and average temperature differences.

Upon emergence from the gravel, greatest densities of newly emerged

chinook were observed by Everest and Chapman (1972) some distance from shore

at depths ~15 cm in pools and eddies at velocities <50 cm/s. They observed

lesser densities in faster (~60 cm/s) water where the fish behaved

territorially. As the young chinook increase in size they move to faster and

deeper water with larger size substrate where they occupy and defend feeding

stations (Edmundson et al. 1968; Lister and Genoe 1970; Everest and Chapman

1972). Everest and Chapman (1972) state that the shift from shallow to deeper

water may be both food and cover re 1ated. Over the peri od of freshwater

residence juvenile chinook tended to select low-focal-point velocity water

(0.0 to <40 cm/s) above silt to >40 cm sized substrate.

Juvenile chinook use water depth (deep, low-velocity pools and bank

eddies), surface turbulence, instream structures, and substrate (primarily 10

to 40 cm in size) as cover, with substrate being a major source of escape and

winter cover (Hartman 1965; Everest 1969). Platts (1974) found greatest

densities of juvenile chinook associated with large, deep, low-velocity pools

with abundant instream cover, overhanging banks and vegetation, and rubble

substrate. Studies that estimated the amount of cover needed to support

average densities of chinook juveniles could not be found. We estimate that

about ~20% of the stream area should provide cover as described above. For

juvenile chinook stocks that overwinter in the stream habitat, we estimate

that ~15% of the stream area should be cover in the form of relatively siltfree 10 to 40 cm substrate.

Rainbow-steelhead fry have been observed at depths of 15 to 30 cm in the

substrate during the winter. Everest and Chapman (1972) report that both

steelhead and chinook juveniles either move downstream in the fall or enter

the substrate for the winter. This observation was confirmed by Edmundson

et al. (1968) and Chapman and Bjornn (1969). Bjornn (1971) found that late

fall downstream movement of juvenile steelhead and chinook salmon did not

occur if adequate overwinter habitat in the form of class 1 and 2 pools and

relatively silt-free substrate was locally available. Silt deposits >5% to

30% in gravel-rubble areas tend to impair and eventually prevent the use of

the gravel-rubble substrate for escape and winter cover by juvenile chinook

salmon.

10
In summary, we conclude that young-of-the-year chinook salmon tend to

select water velocities 0 to 60 cm/s with an optimal range of 0 to <40 cm/s at

depths of ~15 cm. Substrate occupied by juvenile chinook ranges from silt to

>40 cm in size, but optimal size substrate for escape and winter cover is

10 to 40 ern in diameter. Sand and silt deposits in the 10 to 40 cm size

substrate should be ~5% for optimal use; substrate use becomes increasingly

marginal as sand and silt deposits approach and exceed 30%. We estimate that ~20% of the stream area with an average water column velocity <60 cm/s at

depths ~15 cm is needed to provide suitable habitat area for an average density

juvenile chinook population. In addition, we estimate that ~15% of the stream

area must have a 10 to 40 cm sized, relatively silt free, gravel-rubble area

in order to provide adequate escape and winter cover for juvenile chinook

salmon. Most relatively silt-free chinook streams with a 40% to 60% pool area

will provide adequate juvenile habitat area.

Temperature data are scarce for chinook salmon juveniles. Brett (1952),

Black (1953), McAfee (1966), and Bidgood and Berst (1969) report a temperature

range of 0 to 25 °e for salmonids, primarily rainbow-steel head trout. Because

juvenile chinook are often sympatric with ra i nbow-stee l head trout and range

from coastal areas to hundreds of miles inland at elevations up to 1,200+ m,

we assume that they have a fairly wide temperature tolerance range, similar to

rainbow-steelhead trout. Brett et al. (1972) reported excellent growth of

juvenile chinook occurred at test temperatures ranging from 15-19 °e. Growth

slowed significantly at temperatures ~19 °e and mortality was excessive at

24.8±.4°e. From these limited data we suggest a temperature range of 0-24 °e

with an optimal range of 12-18°e for chinook. Northern stocks may have a

lower overall and optimal range (Behnke, review comments).

Bustard (1983) reported juvenile chinook winter mortalities occurred when

O2 levels were between 2-3 mg/l, but juveniles survived at O2 levels ranging

from 3-7 mg/l. He noted that there is growing evidence that natural oxygen

depression to levels below 5 mg/l in late winter is widespread in northern

environments. These data concur with oxygen data on chinook embryos. We

conclude that chinook juveniles can survive short term exposures to 3 mg/l O2

at temperatures ~5 °e, but optimal levels are ~9 mg/l at ~10 °e and 13 mg/l at

>10 °e.

HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX (HSI) MODELS

Suitability Index (SI) Graphs for Model Variables

This section contains SI graphs for 18 chinook salmon riverine habitat

variables. Instructions on where and when to take the habitat measurements to

obtain valid SI scores are included with each SI graph. The habitat measurements and SI graph construction are based on the premise that extreme, rather

than average, values of a variable most often limit the productivity of a

habitat. Thus, extreme conditions, such as maximum temperatures and minimum

dissolved oxygen levels, are often used in the graphs to derive SI values for

the model. Other premises are discussed in the Habitat Use Information

section. Instructions for obtaining an HSI score for chinook salmon habitat

from SIscores are included.

11
Variable 5uitabil ity graphs

....... 1.0

VI Annual maximal or minimal :>

pH. Measure during the ......

(/") 0.8

summer to fall season.

Use the measurement with x

OJ

the lowest 51 value. -0

s:: 0.6 ......

O. 'r-

'r-

.0

to 0.2

::3

(/") 0.0

5 6 7 8 9 10

pH

V2 Maximum temperature during

warmest periods when adults

or juveniles are present. 1.0 ........

N

Measure at locations where :> \ ...... \ problems may exist. Down- (/") 0.8 \ river, migration block x \8

areas and stream resident OJ \ -0

locations. s:: 0.6 \ ...... \

e-, \ A = prespawning adults 'r- 0.4 \ B= juveniles 'r- \ .0 \ to 0.2 \ 'r-

::3 l (/") 0.0

a 5 10 15 20 25

DC

V3 Minimum dissolved O2 1eve1 ....... 1.0

during egg and preemergent (Y)

:>

yolk sac fry period, and ......

(/") 0.8 during periods of occupation

by adults and juveniles. x

OJ

-0 0.6 A. :55 °c s::

...... B. >5 - :510 °c

C. >10 °c 0.4 'r-

'r-

.0

to 0.2

'r-

::3

(/") 0.0

a 3 6 9 12 15

mg/l

12
......... 1.0

""'"

::>

......

V4 Percent pools during the V') 0.8

late growing season low x

water period. OJ

"'C 0.6 s::

......

.,... 0.4

.,...

.c

rtl 0.2

.+J

.,...

:::::l

V') 0.0

a 25 50 75 100

%

Vs Pool class rating during

the late growing season

low flow period. 1.0 LO

A. ~30% of the habitat ::>

...... 0.8 classified as pools V')

is composed of 1st x

class pools. OJ

"'C 0.6

B. ~10% but <30% of the s::

......

habitat classified 0.4

as pools is composed ''''' of 1st class pools or .,...

~50% is 2nd class or .c 0.2 rtl

better pools. .+J

''''' C. <10% of the habitat :::::l

V') 0.0

classified as pools is

composed of 1st class A B C

pools and <50% is 2nd Pool Classes

class pools.

First-class pool: Large and deep. Pool depth and area are sufficient to

provide a low velocity resting area for several adult chinook. More than 30%

of the pool bottom is obscure due to surface turbulence, turbidity, or the

presence of structures such as logs, boulders, or overhanging objects. Or,

the greatest pool depth is ~1.5 m in streams ~5 m wide or ~2 m in streams >5 m

w.i de.

Second-class pool: Moderate size and depth. Pool depth and area are

sufficient to provide a low velocity resting area for a few adult chinook.

From 5 to 30% of the bottom is obscured by surface turbulence, turbidity, or

the presence of structures. Typical 2nd class pools are large eddies behind

boulders and low velocity moderately deep areas beneath overhanging banks and

vegetation.

13
Third-class pool: Small in area, or shallow, or both. Pool depth and

area are sufficient to provide a low velocity resting area for one to very few

adult chinook. Cover, if pre5ent, is in the form of shade, surface turbulence,

or very limited structure. Typical 3rd class pools are wide, shallow areas of

streams or smaller eddies behind boulders. The entire bottom of the pool may

be visible.

Variables

Maximum or mlnlmum

temperature at beginning

and end of first month of

spawning of late summer

or fall spawning stocks.

Use the temperature that

yields the lowest S1.

Minimum temperature must

remain ~4.5 °c for ~3.5

weeks after fertilization.

Suitability graphs

....... 1.0

\.0

>

......

V)

........ 0.8

x

QJ

-0 0.6 ......

..... 0.4

.....

oD

co 0.2

+oJ

.....

:::::l

V) 0.0

0 4 8 12 16 20

DC

*V 7 Maximum or mlnlmum ....... 1.0 r--,

temperature at beginning >

...... and end of embryo incuba- V) 0.8 tion period. Use the x temperature that yields QJ

-0 the lowest S1. 0.6 ......

*Use for spring spawning 0.4

stocks only. .....

.....

oD

co 0.2

+oJ

.....

:::::l

V) 0.0

0 4 8 12 16 20

DC

14
Va Percentage of spawning .-- 1.0 gravel in each of two co

>-

classes: A. 2-10.6 cm ......

t/) 0.8 B. 0.3-~2, and ~10.6-

15 cm. Measure during x

Q)

or within 30 days after "'0

s:: 0.6

spawning. ......

>,

-+J 0.4 Record total area (m") of rgravel in each class. To .0

deri v.e an SI score, use the co 0.2 -+J

best substrate (class A)

unt i 1 the sample contains t/) 0.0

an area equal to 5% of the 0 2 3 4 5 entire chinook habitat area

sampled. If class B em/sec

substrate must be included

to obtain a 5% sample,

derive an arithmetic mean

SI score from the two

individual SI scores

obtained from the graph.

VaSI = SIA + SIB

2

V9 Average water column 1.0

velocity (cm/s) over O'l

>-

areas of spawning gravel ......

t/) 0.8 used by chinook salmon

during period of spawning x

Q)

and embryo development. "'0

s:: 0.6

Measure only at depths ......

~20 cm and at same 0.4 location as gravel (Va). r-

.0

co 0.2

-+J

t/) 0.0

0 25 50 75 100 125

em/sec

15
VlO Average percentage of fines 1.0 in spawning gravel in major a

spawning areas. Measure :>

within 30 days after ......

(/) 0.8

spawning is over and at x the same sites as Va. <lJ

-0 0.6 c:

A. Fines :s:0.8 mm in ......

size (silt). b 0.4

B. Fines >0.8 to 30 mm

in size (sand). .c: 0.2 ro

.f-l

::l

(/) 0.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

%

V1 1 Average annual base flow 1.0

during the late summer to

winter low-flow period as :>

......

a percentage of the average (/) 0.8

annual da i ly fl ow. For x

embryo and preemergent fry <lJ

"'0 0.6 c: use the average and low ......

flows that occur during >,

.f-l 0.4 intergravel occupation ......

period. .--

.r:J 0.2 ro

.f-l

::l

(/) 0.0

0 25 50 75 100

%

V1 2 Average annual peak fl ow as N 1.0

a multiple of the average .--

annual daily flow. For :>

......

embryo habitat suitabi 1i ty (/) 0.8

use the peak flow measurment x

<lJ that occurs from time of "'0 0.6

egg deposition until two c:

......

weeks after fry emergence >, 0.4 from the gravel. .f-l

.c:

ro 0.2 .f-l

::l

(/) 0.0

1 2

Multiples

16

3 4 5 6

of Average How
V13 Predominant (~50%) substrate

type in riffle-run areas for

food production indicator. --- 1.0 Measure in juvenile rearing M

and upstream areas. >

......

(/) 0.8

A. Rubble or small bou.l ders x

(or aquatic vegetation in OJ

-0 0.6

spring areas) dominate; c:

......

limited amounts of gravel, t' 0.4 - large boulders, or slab 'rrock may be present. 'rB. Rubble, gravel, and ..0

t1:l 0.2

boulders occur in +J

'rroughly equal amounts, :::::l

(/) 0.0

or gravel or sma 11 A B C boulders predominant.

Fines, large boulders, Substrate Class

or slab rock may be

present in moderate

quantities (~25%).

C. Fines, slab rock, or

large boulders predominate. Rubble or

gravel are insignificant

(~25%) .

V14 Average percentage of ---. 1.0 fi nes «3 mm) in rifflerun areas. Measure in >...... juvenile rearing areas (/) 0.8

during average flow x period. OJ

-0 0.6 c:

......

+J

>, 0.4

..0 0.2 t1:l

+J

:::::l

(/) 0.0

a 10 20 30 40 50

%

17
LO 1.0

>......

(/) 0.8

V15 Leve 1s of late summer

nitrate-nitrogen (mg/l). x

OJ 0.6 Measure after -0 spawner ~S::

die off. ......

>,

+J 0.4 ......

......

..0 0.2 n:l

+J

......

::l

(/) 0.0 ----r- ,

0 .01-.04 .03- .09 .1-.14 .15-.25 or or or or >2.0 .91-2.0 .51-.90 .26-.50

Nitrate-Nitrogen

V16 Percentage of stream area mg/l

providing escape cover. 1.0 Measure during 1ate \.0

summer-fall average >...... to low flow period (/) 0.8

at depths ~15 cm and x with bottom velocities OJ

-0 0.6

:::;40 cm/s. s::

......

+J

>, 0.4 ......

»r-

..0 0.2 n:l

+J

......

::l

(/) 0.0

0 10 20 30 40 50

%

1.0 *V 1 7 Percentage of stream area r--,

with 10 to 40 cm average >

...... sized boulders. Measure (/) 0.8

at same time and areas x as V1 6 • OJ

-0 0.6 s::

...... *Use only for juveniles

that overwinter in 0.4 ...... the freshwater. ......

..0

n:l 0.2 +J

»r-

::l

(/) 0.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

%

18
Table 1. Literature sources and assumptions for chinook salmon

suitability index graphs.

Variable and source

Behnke and Zarn 1976

Mattson 1948

Burner 1951

Brett 1952

Black 1953

McAfee 1966

Bidgood and Berst 1969

Behnke 1986 (review

comment)

Gangmark and Bakkala 1960

Eddy 1972

Davis 1975

Bustard 1983

Needham 1940

Hartman 1965

Edmundson et al. 1968

Lister and Genoe 1970

Everest and Chapman 1972

Platts 1974

Hartman 1965

Edmundson et al. 1968

Lister and Genoe 1970

Everest and Chapman 1972

Platts 1974

Assumptions

We assumed that an acceptable pH range

and optimal values were similar to other

sympatric salmonid species.

Because chinook salmon are often sympatrie with rainbow-steel head trout,

range from coastal areas to elevations

of 1200+ 01, and from California to

Northern Alaska, we assumed they would

have a fairly wide temperature tolerance

range, similar to rainbow-steel head, but

with a lower maximum and optimal range.

Northern and high elevation stocks may

have a more restricted range.

Dissolved oxygen concentrations below

minimum levels associated with temperature

thresholds affect the development and

survival of chinook salmon embryos and

juveniles.

A pool to riffle ratio of about 1:1

(about 40%-60% pools) provides an optimal

mix of prespawning adult holding area,

juvenile cover and resting area, and

stream food-producing habitat for chinook

salmon.

Pools differ in their ability to provide

cover and adequate resting habitat. Pool

classes utilized by prespawning adults,

schools of juveniles, and as summer and

winter cover by chinook salmon were

considered essential.

19
Table 1. (Continued)

Variable and source Assumptions

Chambers 1956

Seymour 1956

Gangmark and Bakkala 1960

Eddy 1972

Brett et al. 1982

Behnke (correspondence)

Slater 1963

Hobbs 1937

Burner 1951

Chambers 1956

Fulton 1968

McNei 1 1968

Andrew and Geen 1960

Smith 1973

Burner 1951

Cordone and Kelly 1961

McNeil and Ashell 1964

Koski 1966

McNeil 1968

Bjornn 1969

Phillips et al. 1975

Andrew and Geen 1960

Tennent 1976

Binns and Eiserman 1979

Wesche 1980

Nehring and Anderson

1982, 1983

Lister and Walker 1966

Nehring and Anderson 1982,

1983

Temperatures associated with high

survival of spring spawning stocks were

considered optimal. Those associated

with poor survival were considered

suboptimal.

Temperatures during the first 3.5 weeks

of embryo development associated with

high embryo survival were assumed

optimal. Temperatures associated with

developmental abnormalities and poor

survival were considered suboptimal.

Gravel size ranges selected for spawning

by chinook salmon were used to set the

size range. The optimal size range was

those gravel sizes associated with the

best permeability, survival of embryos,

and emergence of yolk sac fry.

Average water column velocities selected

by spawning adult chinook salmon and

associated with high survival of embryos

were considered in selecting velocity

ranges and optimal values.

The percentages of fines in spawning

gravel areas associated with high embryo

survival and emergence of yolk sac fry

were considered optimal. Suitability

decreased as the percent fines and

embryo mortality increased.

Base flows as a percentage of the average

annual daily flows that were associated

with high embryo survival and high standing

crops of juvenile salmonids were considered optimal.

Average annual peak flows as a multiple

of the average annual daily flows that

were associated with high embryo survival

and high standing crops of salmonids

were considered optimal.

20
Table 1. (Concluded)

Variable and source Assumptions

Hynes 1970

Binns and Eiserman 1979

Cordone and Kelly 1961

Crouse et al. 1981

Binns and Eiserman 1979

Hartman 1965

Everest 1969

Platts 1974

Hartman 1965

Everest 1969

Chapman and Bjornn 1969

Everest and Chapman 1972

The predominant substrate type containing

the greatest numbers and kinds of aquatic

insects was considered optimal.

The percentage of fines in riffle-run

areas associated with the highest standing crops of aquatic food organisms was

considered optimal.

Nitrate nitrogen levels in rivers that

are associated with the highest standing

crops of aquatic food organisms and

fishes are considered optimal.

The percentage of instream and bank cover

in juvenile rearing areas associated with

the highest standing crops of juveniles

are optimal.

The size range of substrate selected most

often by juvenile chinook as escape and

winter cover was considered optimal.

Percentages needed were estimated.

21
HS1 Model Applicability

Geographic area. The following models are applicable over the entire

North American freshwater geographic range of chinook salmon.

Season. The models rate the freshwater habitat of chinook salmon by

season of occupation for each model component: prespawning and spawning

adult, intergravel embryo and yolk sac fry, and stream resident juvenile.

Cover types. The models are applicable to freshwater riverine habitat.

Minimum habitat area. Minimum habitat area is the minimum area of

contiguous habitat that is required by a species to live and reproduce.

Because chinook salmon can travel considerable distances to spawn or locate

suitable summer or winter rearing habitat, no attempt has been made to define

a minimum amount of habitat for the species, except that spawning adults often

utilize about 6 m2 of spawning gravel with a minimum width of 1 m.

Verification level. An acceptable level of performance for this chinook

salmon model is for it to produce variable SI scores between 0 and 1 that the

author and other biologists familiar with chinook salmon ecology believe is

positively correlated with the habitat requirements of chinook salmon for each

variable. Model verification consisted of observing the model outputs from

sample data sets developed by the author and model review by chinook salmon

experts.

Model Description

The chinook salmon HS1 model consists of three components: spawning

adults (CA), developing embryos (CE), and stream resident juveniles (CJ ) .

Each component contains variables specifically related to that component.

Two models are presented. The first model uses a simple limiting factor

theory. The model assumption is that all variables can have a significant

effect on chinook salmon survival and production, and that the high SI scores

of one or more variables cannot compensate for low SI scores of other model

variables.

The second model uses a partial compensatory limiting factor theory.

This method assumes that some compensation can occur among dependent variables,

such as water velocity, spawning gravel size, and percent fines.

Adult component. Variables pH (V 1 ) , maximum temperature (V 2 ) , minimum

dissolved oxygen (V 3 ) , percent pools (V 4 ) , and pool class (V s ) affect the

ability of chinook salmon adults to enter the spawning streams, to find

suitable holding habitat until time to spawn, and to survive and spawn successfully in freshwater, riverine habitats.

22
Embryo component. Variables minimum dissolved oxygen (V3 ) , maximum or

minimum temperature (V6 or V7 ) , average spawning gravel size (Va), average

water column velocity (Vg ) , percent fines (Vi O), average base flow (Vii), and

average peak flow (V1 2 ) all affect the ability of the developing embryos and

intergravel yolk sac fry to develop, hatch, and emerge from the gravel successfully.

Juvenile component. Variables pH (Vi), maximum temperature (V2 ) , and

minimum dissolved oxygen (V3 ) are water quality variables that directly affect

the ability of the juveniles to survive in the riverine environment. Variables

percent pools (V4 ) , pool class (Vs ), average base flow (Vll), average peak

flow (V12 ), percent riffle-run fines (V14 ), percent cover (V1 6 ) , and percent

substrate cover (V1 7 ), all affect the quantity and quality of the juvenile

rearing habitat. Variables substrate class (V1 3 ) , percent riffle-run fines

(V1 4 ) , and nitrate-nitrogen concentration (ViS) are indicators of stream

productivity and food supply necessary to sustain juvenile chinook stocks

during the period of freshwater residence.

Model Use and Interpretation

The primary purposes of aquatic HSI models are to: (1) provide reliable

information on the known habitat requirements of a species by 1ife stage,

(2) provide an extensive list of specific habitat variables for a species

along with brief instructions on when and where to measure them, (3) provide

an objective method of estimating how well specific habitat variables meet the

habitat requirements of a species by life stage, and (4) thus, provide an

objective, measurable basis for predicting or documenting project impacts,

guiding habitat management decisions, and habitat improvement procedures.

The field measurements of variables for HSI models can be as simple as

foot surveys and ocular estimates over small study sections, or as complex and

detailed as frequent transects using measuring tapes, velocity meters, and

substrate screens over the entire range of the species in a river system. The

importance of the decisions to be made, along with time and financial constraints, will dictate methods selected. The information derived is limit,ed

by the accuracy of the sampling methods and to the area sampled.

In practice, the habitat variables are measured in the selected study

area. The data collected for each variable are compiled and analyzed, SI

scores derived by use of the SI graphs provided, and the information arranged

in a matrix similar to Table 2. This will provide quantified information on

the relative condition of the habitat from which habitat management decisions

can be made. For project impact analysis purposes, habitat variable measurements should be done prior to project initiation to document existing habitat

conditions and as a basis for projecting probable project impacts. Such

information is extremely valuable in negotiating project design features and

conditions and timing of construction phases. The habitat variables are

measured again after construction is completed to document changes in specific

23
habitat variable suitabilities to guide post project mitigation and habitat

enhancement efforts.

For project impact analysis purposes it is often sufficient to measure

the selected habitat variables only in the project impact area. For species

management purposes, however, it may be desirable to collect habitat data over

the entire range of the species within a river system. For example,

individuals may move for considerable distances within the drainage

to locate suitable spawning, rearing, or overwintering habitat. Hence, the

lack of such habitat within anyone study section would not necessarily mean

that it is in sho~t supply or species limiting. The habitat character of the

entire range of the species in the drainage system would have to be considered

before this kind of decision would be warranted. The user must be judicious

in interpreting the outputs of the model.

We believe that the data base and S1 graphs are reasonably accurate. We

have done a fairly thorough job of reviewing the currently available data

base, and the model has received excellent peer review. The individual

variable S1 scores can be reasonably relied on to indicate the relative

suitability of each variable in meeting the habitat requirements of the

speci es, if the habitat measurments were correctly taken. We recogn i ze the

correlation between habitat condition and stock density, but past attempts to

produce HS1 model equations that yielded 1He stage or species HS1 scores

correlated with stock density have not been successful. Tests of the cutthroat

trout model HS1 against cutthroat trout stocks in Yellowstone Park streams

yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.37. Goertler, Wesche, and Hubert

(1985) tested an early brown trout HS1 model score against brown trout stocks

in 10 Wyoming streams. They found that using all 19 of the brown trout

variables in model equations only accounted for 10% of the variation in brown

trout population size in the test streams. They produced a three variable

model that accounted for 63% of the variations in brown trout standing stocks.

Models that estimate standing stocks of fishes are useful management tools.

Such models typically use a minimum number of variables identified by

regression analysis as accounting for significant percentages of variability

in stock size. Models with a limited number of variables have limited usefulness in evaluating a wide variety of possible project impacts. We provide

guidance on how to derive life stage and species HS1 scores for chinook salmon.

We assume that there is some correlation between species HS1 scores and population size, especially when carefully selected key variables are used. Tests

to date, however, using the whole array of variables, have indicated only

weak, insignificant correlations.

The aquatic HS1 models are not intended to be standing stock predictive

models. They are models offering the user a maximum number of habitat

variables for a species, which are useful in providing an objective method of

assessing a wide variety of project impacts and in guiding management

decisions. We advise the use of the individual variable S1 scores rather than

life stage or species HS1 scores as the most reliable guides in this process.

24
Table 2 displays hypothetical data sets for each chinook habitat variable

and 51 scores derived for these data from the appropriate suitability index

graphs. Table 2, Figure 1, and the preceding life stage discussions in the

narrative section indicate the relationships among model habitat variables and

chinook salmon freshwater life stages. A single H51 score can be obtained for

the species or for any life stage in the sample area as desired by the user.

We suggest selecting the lowest 51 score of key variables as the species or

life stage H51 (Table 2).

Modell, Limiting Factor

The limiting factor model assumes that each variable in the model can

significantly affect the ability of the habitat to produce chinook salmon;

therefore, high 51 values in some variables cannot compensate for low 51

values in other variables and, hence, the species H51 cannot exceed the lowest

51 value for any variable. The limiting factor model yields component 51

scores of 0.7 for adults, 0.5 for embryos, and 0.6 for juveniles with a species

H51 of 0.5 for the habitat represented by the 51 values shown in Table 2.

Model 2, Compensatory Limiting Factor

The compensatory limiting factor model also assumes that each variable

can significantly affect the ability of the habitat to produce chinook salmon.

This model, however, assumes that low 51 scores of dependent variables can be

partially compensated for by high 51 scores of other dependent variables in

the set. An 51 score ~0.3 cannot be compensated for. Two examples using the

compensatory limiting factor model follow:

1. Adult and juvenile components. It is assumed that the variables

percent pools (V 4 ) and pool class (Vs ) are dependent and compensatory

in their effect on chinook salmon habitat suitability (V 4 = 0.7,

Vs = 1.0, Table 2).

07+ 1 0 Lowest 51 = .' 2 . = 0.85

The percent pool variable (V 4 ) 51 for both adults and juveniles

would increase from 0.7 to 0.85. The adult component 51 would now

be dissolved oxygen limited so the adult component 51 score (lowest)

would now be 0.8.

The juvenile component 51 would still be limited by V1 2 and V1 3 and

would remain 0.6.

The species H51 would not change since the embryo component 51 score

is still the lowest component 51 score.

25
Table 2. Suitability indices (SI) scores for chinook salmon

habitat variables by life stage. a

Adul t Embryo Juvenile

Variables Data SI Data SI Data SI

V1 pH 6.8 1.0 6.8 1.0

V2 Maximum temperature (OC) 19°C 0.82 19 °C 0.82

V3 Minimum dissolved oxygen

O2 (mg/l) lOB 0.8 9A 1.0 lOB 0.8

V,. % pools 30 0.7 30 0.7

Vs Pool class A 1.0 A 1.0

V6 Maximum temperature

(embryo) 8.0 1.0

V7 Maximum or minimum

temperature

(embryo)b

Va Average substrate size

(embryo) 1.5 0.5

Vg Average velocity

(embryo) 40 1.0

VlO % fines (embryo) 12B 0.9

Vll Average base flowc 40 0.8 40 0.8

V12 Average peak flowc 1.5 1.0 3.5 0.6

Vl3 Substrate class B 0.6

V14 % riffle-run fines 8 1.0

V15 Nitrate-N concentration 0.12 0.75

V16 % cover 35 1.0

26
Table 2. (Concluded)

Adult Embryo Juvenile

Variables Data SI Data SI Data SI

V17 Substrate cover 20 1.0

HSI = lowest SI S40re for 0.7 0.5 0.6

the life stage or species

aThe data sets are from hypothetical measurements. The corresponding SI scores

are from the chinook salmon SI graphs.

bUse variable V7 for spring spawning chinook only.

cUse base and peak flow data for embryos only if the embryos and yolk sac fry

are still in the gravel during 'base and peak flow periods. If base or peak

flow occur after emergence, then use the minimum and maximum flows that occur

during the intergravel stage for variables V1 1 and V1 2 for the embryo

component.

27
Habitat variables Life regui sites

Average maximum or minimum pH (V,)--

Maximum temperature (V2)--------~

Minimum DO (VJ)----------------~~------Adult----------

% poo1s (V.) ------------------

Pool class (Vs)----------------~

% fines (V,.)

Embryo--------~

J

imum tem-

• or V,)

1 size (VB)

velocity (V.)

flow (V11)

flow V

Minimum DO (V )

Average peak

Average base

Average water

Maximum or min

perature (V

Average grave

1-------HS I

Juvenile------~

mum or mlnlmum pH (V ), Jerature (V2)

VJ)

Vs)

flow (V11)

flow (V'2)

ass (V'J)

es (V,.)

ogen (V, s)

Average peak

Nitrate-nitr

Average maxi

Maximum temp

Minimum DO (

% pools (V. )

Pool class (

Average base

Substrate cl

% riffle fin

% cover (V,.)--------------------

Substrate cover (V,,)-------------

Average velocity (V'B)-----------

Figure 1. Diagram illustrating the relationship among model variables,

components, and HSI.

28
2. Embryo component. It is assumed that the variables average gravel

size (Va), average water column velocity (V9 ), and percent fines

(VlO ) are interacting compensatory variables (Va = 0.5, V9 = 1.0,

and V1 0 = 0.9, Table 2).

Lowest SI = 0.5 + 1.~ + 0.9 = 0.8

The SI tor variable Va would increase from 0.5 to 0.8 and the embryo

component SI would now be gravel (Va) and base flow (V1 1 ) limited.

The embryo component SI would increase from 0.5 to 0.8.

The species HSI would increase from 0.5 to 0.6 (V1 2 and V1 3 ) this

being the lowest remaining SI score for any model component.

Model users are encouraged to devise other models or to make model alterations based on their knowledge of chinook salmon ecology. Alterations to the

models, however, should be fully documented.

INSTREAM FLOW INCREMENTAL METHODOLOGY

The Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) was designed to quantify

changes in the amount of habitat available to different species and life

stages of fish (or macroinvertebrates) under various flow regimes (Bovee 1982).

The IFIM can be used: to help formulate instream flow recommendations, to

assess the effects of altered streamflow regimes, on habitat improvement

projects, for mitigation proposals, for fish stocking programs, and to assist

in negotiating releases from existing water storage projects. The IFIM has a

modular design, and consists of several autonomous models that are combined

and linked as needed by the user. One component of the IFIM is the Physical

Habitat Simulation System (PHABSIM) (Milhous et al. 1984). The output from

PHABSIM is a measure of physical microhabitat availability as a function of

discharge and channel structure for each set of habitat suitability criteria

(SI curves) entered into the model. The output can be used for several IFIM

habitat display and interpretation techniques, including:

1. Habitat Time Series. Determination of impact of

species' life stage habitat by imposing project

over baseline flow time series conditions and

difference between the corresponding time series;

a project on a

operat i on curves

integrating the

2. Effective Habitat Time Series. Calculation of the habitat requirements of each life stage of a single species at a given time by

using habitat ratios (relative spatial requirements of various life

stages); and

29
3. Optimization. Determination of flows (daily, weekly, and monthly)

that minimize habitat reductions for a complex of species and life

stages of interest.

Suitability Index Curves as Used in IFIM

PHABSIM utilizes Suitability Index (SI) curves that describe the instream

suitability of the habitat variables most closely related to stream hydraulics

and channel structure (e.g., velocity, depth, substrate, and cover) for each

major life stage of a given fish species (e.g., spawning, egg incubation,

larval, juvenile, and adult). The National Ecology Center has designated four

categories of curves and standardized the terminology pertaining to the curves

(Armour et a1. 1984). Category one curves are based on 1iterature sources

and/or professional opinion. Category two (utilization) curves, based on

frequency analyses of field data, are fit to frequency histograms. Category

three (preference) curves are utilization curves with the environmental bias

removed. Category four (conditional preference) curves describe habitat

requirements as a function of interaction among variables. The designation of

a curve as belonging to a particular category does not imply that there are

differences in the quality or accuracy of curves among the four categories.

Availability of SI Curves for Use in IFIM

The SI curves available for IFIM analyses of chinook salmon habitat are

category one and two (Figures 2-19), based on combinations of judgement,

information derived from the literature, and field data. Investigators are

encouraged to revi ew the curves carefully and verify them before use in I FIM

analyses. Any discrepancies in the curves reproduced here are a result of

misinterpretation by the authors, and not attributable to the studies cited.

At the time of this writing, numerous investigators were collecting data

for chinook salmon SI curve development. Curve users may wish to contact the

Instream Flow and Aquatic Systems Group to determine the latest in available

criteria before undertaking an instream flow study.

30
Coordinates 1.0

x x y >:

em ft 51 ClJ

--- ] 0.8 H

0.0 0.0 0.0 >,

9.1 0.3 0.0 .~ 0.6

15.2 0.5 1.0 .,., 3048.0 100.0 1.0 ,D

13 0.4 ,,.,

::J

Cf) 0.2

0.0

0 10 20 30

Depth (cm) at velocities

less than 61 cm/s (2 ft/s)

x x y

°C of 51 1.

>:

0.0 32.0 0.0 ClJ

"0 O. 2.0 35.6 0.0 p

H

7.0 44.6 1.0 >,

13.0 55.4 1.0 +J

.,., 16.0 60.8 0.0 .,., 30.0 86.0 0.0 ,D

ctl O. +J

,,.,

::J

Cf)

O. 3

Temperature (OC)

Figure 2. Category one 51 curves for chinook salmon passage depth and

temperature suitability (from 5autner et al. 1984; Meyer et al. 1984).

31
Coordinates 1.0

x x y

cmls ft/s SI 0.8

0.0 0.00 0.00 l=:

0

15.2 0.50 0.00 ''';+J 0.6

22.9 0.75 0.08 til

N

38.1 1.25 0.24 ''';

0.4 53.3 1. 75 0.60 +J

83.8 2.75 1. 00 t>

99.1 3.25 0.60 0.2

129.5 4.25 0.36

144.8 4.75 0.24 0.0

152.4 5.00 0.00 a 100 200

3048.0 100.00 0.00

Velocity at 0.2 of depth

from stream bottom (cm/s)

x x y

cm ft S1 1.0

0.0 0.0 0.00 0.8 30.5 1.0 0.00 l=: 45.7 1.5 0.10 0

'''; 106.7 3.5 0.38 +J 0.6

til 137.2 4.5 0.81 N

'''; 198.1 6.5 0.90 r-i

0.4 228.6 7.5 1.00 ''';

+J

289.6 9.5 0.38

350.5 11. 5 0.10 0.2

365.8 12.0 0.00

3048.0 100.0 0.00 0.0

400

Depth

Figure 3. Category two SI curves for migrating chinook salmon spawners;

velocity and depth utilization during migration holding (from Burger

etal.1982).

32
Coordinates

x L

o 0

Vmin-.001 0

Vmin 1

Vc 1

Vc+.001 0

100 0

Vmin is the mlnlmum velocity

necessary to prevent siltation

of spawning sites; Vc is the

critical velocity, above which

scouring of spawning sites will

occur.

x L

0 0

Dmin-.001 0

Dmin 1

100 1

Dmin is either the minimum

depth required for egg incubation (~ 0.0) or ice depth (when

ice is present during egg

incubation).

1.0

Q)

'"0 0.8

H

>-. 0.6

.,-l

M

',-l

.o 0.4 Cd

.,-l

;:l

ir: 0.2

0.0 I

Vrnin Vc

Velocity

1.0

Q) 0.8 '"0

H

>-. J.6-

.,-l

M

.,-l

.g 0.4

',-l

;:l

ir: 0.2

0.0 I

Dmin

Depth

Figure 4. 51 curves for spawning/egg incubation velocity and depth,

for effective spawning habitat analyses.

33
Coordinates

x x y

cm/s ft/s 51

0.0 0.0 0.0

12.2 0.4 0.0

45.7 1.5 1.0

73.2 2.4 1.0

131.1 4.3 0.0

3048.0 100.0 0.0

0.8

i=:

H

G0.6 .,..,

..--i

.,..,

.g 0.4 .j.J

.,..,

::l (/} 0.2

a. O'-f-~-----.---_..........-r-""-'--'Ia 50 100 150

Mean column velocity (cm/s)

1.0 I

x x 0.8 Y Q)

'"Cl

cm ft 51 i=:

H

0.0 0.0 0.0 :>, 0.6- .j.J

.,.., 15.2 0.5 0.0 ..--i

.,.., 0.4- 30.5 1.0 1.0 ..0

co 3048.0 100.0 1.0 .j.J

'H

::l

(/} 0.2

0.0

a 50 100 150

Depth (em)

1.

O. X X Y Q)

inches 51 '"Clcm i=:

H

0.0 0.00 0.0 :>,

.j.J

0.4 0.16 0.0 'H

..--i

2.0 0.79 1.0 .,..,

..0

11. 0 4.33 1.0 co

.j.J

13.0 5.12 0.7 .,..,

::l

15.0 5.91 0.2 (/}

17.0 6.69 0.0 o.

100.0 39.37 0.0 a 5 10 15 20

Average substrate particle

size (em)

Figure 5. Category one 51 curves for chinook salmon spawning, egg

incubation, and intergravel fry velocity, depth, substrate, percent

fines, and temperature suitability.

34
Coordinates

x x y 1.0 Fines 0.8 mm Fines> 0.8 mm

or 0.03 inches or 0.03 inches ,

:>: \ (solid 1i ne) (broken line) 51 (lI 0.8 '""0 \

\ H

0.0 0.0 1.0 \

5.0 5.0 LO G 0.6 \ .,., \ 7.0 11.0 0.9 M

.,., \ 10.0 21.0 0.6 0.4 \

12.0 25.0 0.4 .IJ

.,., \

20.0 35.0 0.0 ;::J 0.2 \ en \ 100.0 100.0 0.0 \ .

0.0 L

100

Percent fines

1.0

:>:

.gj 0.8

H

G 0.6 .,.,

M.,., 0.4 .IJ

.,.,

a 0.2

,. • I ,

I , - I ,

I ,

I , - I ,

I ,

I ,

I ,

I , - I ,

I ,

II : ,

0.0 •

o 10 20 30

Temperature (OC)

x x Y

Egg incubation

Spawning and intergravel

(solid line) fry (broken 1ine)

0C (0 F) °C (OF) S1

0.0 (32.0) 0.0 (32.0) 0.0

0.5 (32.9) - 0.0 - 3.0 (37.4) 0.0

4.4 (39.9) - 1.0

6.0 (42.8) 1.0

12.8 (55.0) 1.0

14.0 (57.2) 1.0

15.0 (59.0) 0.0 - 18.0 (64.4) 0.0

30.0 (86.0) 30.0 (86.0) 0.0

Figure 5. (concluded).

35
1.0

Coordinates QJ 0.8

'"0

x X Y

cmls ft/s SI H

p..., 0.6 .I-J

0.0 0.0 0.25 'r-!

n

6.1 0.2 1. 00 'r-! 0.4 ..0

9.1 0.3 1. 00 Cll

.I-J

18.3 0.6 0.50 'r-!

;:l 0.2

39.6 1.3 0.10 CJ)

76.2 2.5 0.00 0.0 3048.0 100.0 0.00 a 50 100 150

Mean eolwnn velocity (em/s)

1.0

X X Y

ft SI QJ 0.8 cm '"0

H

0.0 0.0 0.0 p..., 0.6

3.0 0.1 0.0 .I-J

'r-!

27.4 0.9 1.0 n

'r-! 0.4 61.0 2.0 1.0

91.4 3.0 0.2 .I-J'r-!

152.4 5.0 0.0 ;:l

CJ) 0.2

3048.0 100.0 0.0

0.0

a 50 100 150

Depth (em)

x X Y QJ

°C of S1 '"0

H

0.0 32.0 0.0 p...,

.I-J

2.0 35.6 0.0 'r-!

n

7.0 44.6 1.0 'r-!

14.0 57.2 1.0 .I-J

16.0 60.8 0.0 -r-!

;:l

30.0 86.0 0.0 Vl

o.

a 10 20 30

Temperature (OC)

Figure 6. Category one SI curves for chinook salmon fry velocity,

depth, and temperature suitability.

36
Coordinates 1.0

x x Y

cmls ft/s 51 <J)

'"d 0.8

c

0.0 0.0 0.2 H

:>, 0.6 6.1 0.2 0.7 -i-J

'M 12.2 0.4 1.0 r-i

'M 21.3 0.7 1.0 0.4

24.4 0.8 0.7 -i-J

'M

30.5 1.0 0.5 ;:::l

tr: 0.2 39.6 1.3 0.2

45.7 1.5 0.1

91.4 3.0 0.0 0.0

0 1 0

3048.0 100.0 0.0

Mean column velocity (cm/s)

1.0

x x y

cm ft 51

<J) 0.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 '"d

c

9.1 0.3 0.4 H

0.6

24.4 0.8 0.9 :>,

-i-J

30.5 1.0 1.0 'M

r-i

61. 0 2.0 1.0 'M 0.4 ..0

91.4 3.0 0.5 Cd

-i-J

152.4 5.0 0.1 'M

;:::l 0.2

3048.0 100.0 0.1 sr:

0.0

0 50 100 150

Depth (em)

l.

<J) o.

X X Y '"d

°C of 51 l::

H

:>,

0.0 -i-J32.0 0.0 'M

2.0 35.6 0.0 r-i

'M

7.0 44.6 1.0 ..0 o.

eu

14.0 57.2 1.0 -i-J

'9

16.0 60.8 0.0 sr: o.

30.0 86.0 0.0

o.

0 10 20 30

Temperature (OC)

Figure 7. Category one 51 curves for chinook salmon juvenile velocity,

depth, and temperature suitability.

37
Coordinates 1.0

x x y

cmls ft/s 51

0.8

0.0 0.0 0.00 r:: 0.6 15.2 0.5 0.05 0

'M

27.4 0.9 0.90 +.J

C'il

33.5 1.1 1. 00 N

'M 0.4 51.8 1.7 1.00 .-i

'M

61. a 2.0 0.55 +.J

:=>

91.4 3.0 0.00 0.2

3048.0 100.0 0.00

0.0

a 50 100 150

Mean column velocity (cm/s)

1.

x x y

cm ft 51 o.

r::

0

0.0 0.0 0.0 'M+.J

9.1 0.3 0.2 C'il

N

24.4 0.8 1.0 'M

.-i

36.6 1.2 1.0 'M+.J

42.7 1.4 0.5 :=>

61.0 2.0 0.1

3048.0 100. a 0.1

o.

a 50 100 150

Depth (em)

Figure 8. Category two 51 curves for spring chinook salmon spawning

velocity and depth utilization (n=252; from 5ams and Pearson 1963).

38
Coordinates 1.0

x x y

cm/s ft/s 51 0.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 r::

0

'M 0.6 27.4 0.9 0.3 +-I

til

45.7 1.5 1.0 N

'M 64.0 2.1 1.0 M 0.4

'M

76.2 2.5 0.3 +-I

p

91.4 3.0 0.0 0.2 3048.0 100.0 0.0

0.0

0 50 100 150

Mean column velocity (cm/s)

1.

x x y

cm ft 51

o.

0.0 0.0 0.00 r::

9.1 0.3 0.05 0

'M O.

21.3 0.7 1.00 +-I

til

33.5 1.1 1.00 N

'M

36.6 1.2 0.40 M

'M

45.7 1.5 0.10 +-I

p

3048.0 100.0 0.10

O.

50 1 0 1 0

Depth (em)

Figure 9. Category two 51 curves for fall chinook salmon spawning

velocity and depth utilization (n=107; from 5ams and Pearson 1973).

39
Coordinates 1.0

x x y

cm/s ft/s 51 0.8

l=:

0.0 0.0 0.0 0

',-i 0.6 21.3 0.7 0.0 .jJ

co

27.4 0.9 0.2 N',-i

39.6 1.3 1.0 ,..,',-i 0.4

48.8 1.6 1.0 .jJ

0

88.4 2.9 0.2 0.2

137.2 4.5 0.0

3048.0 100.0 0.0

0.0

0 50 100 150

Velocity at 15.2 ern (0.5 f t )

above stream bottom (em/s)

x x Y LO

cm ft 51

0.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 l=:

0

9.1 0.3 0.0 ',-i

.jJ 0.6 18.3 0.6 0.2 co

N

24.4 0.8 1.0 ,.., ."

54.9 1.8 0.2 .".jJ 0.4

67.1 2.2 0.0 0

3048.0 100.0 0.0 0.2

0.0

0 50 100 150

Depth (ern)

Figure 10. Category two 51 curves for fall chinook salmon spawning

velocity and depth utilization (n=216; from Vogel 1982).

40
Coordinates 1.0

x x y

cmls ft/s S1 0.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 0

.~

+J 0.6 15.2 0.5 0.0 (1j

N

33.5 1.1 0.1 .~

57.9 1.0 r-l 1.9 .~ 0.4 +J

85.3 2.8 1.0 :::J

121. 9 4.0 0.0 0.2

3048.0 100.0 0.0

0.0

0 50 100 150

Mean column velocity (cm/s)

x x Y 1.0

cm ft S1

0.0 0.0 0.0 c

12.2 0.4 0.0 0

'..-i

27.4 0.9 1.0 +J(1j 0.6

36.6 1.2 1.0 N

.~

61.0 2.0 0.1 r-l

'..-i 0.4 91. 4 3.0 0.0 +J

:::J

3048.0 100.0 0.0

0.2

0.0

0 50 100 150

Depth (em)

Figure 11. Category two S1 cur~es for spring chinook salmon spawning

velocity and depth utilization (n=118; from Stempel 1984).

41
Coordinates 1.0

x x y

cmls ft/s SI 0.8

0.0 0.0 0.00 l::

0

·ri 0.6 9.1 0.3 0.00 C1l

24.4 0.8 0.25 N

51.8 1.7 1. 00 ·ri

.-f 0.4

·ri

70.1 2.3 1. 00

79.2 2.6 0.60 ;::J

0.2

137.2 4.5 0.00

3048.0 100.0 0.00

0.0

a 50 100 150

Mean column velocity (cm/s)

1.0

x x y

cm ft SI O. a- Cll

-e

0.0 0.0 0.0 l::

H

0.6- 15.2 0.5 0.0 :>-.

30.5 1.0 1.0 ·ri

121. 9 4.0 1.0 .-f

·ri 0.4:

3048.0 100.0 1.0 .cC1l

°ri

;:l 0.2- CJ)

O.u I I

a 50 100 150

Depth (em)

Figure 12. SI curves for chinook salmon spawning velocity (category

two) and depth (category one) (n=265; from Vincent-Lang et al. 1984).

42
Coo rd ina te s

x x Y l.0

cmls ft/s 51 ---

0.0 0.0 0.00 0.8

9.1 0.3 0.00 l:::

0

27.4 0.9 0.04 .r-! 0.6

.u

51.8 1.7 0.26 co

N

76.2 2.5 1. 00 'r-!

r-i 0.4

82.3 2.7 0.86 'r-!

.u

112.8 3.7 0.52

125.0 4.1 0.12 0.2

131.1 4.3 0.02

149.4 4.9 0.02 0.0

155.4 5.1 0.00 a 50 100 150

3048.0 100.0 0.00 Velocity at 15.2 em (0.5 f t )

above stream bottom (em/s)

x X Y l.0

cm ft 51

0.0 0.00 0.00 0.8

15.2 0.50 0.00 l:::

0

22.9 0.75 0.09 'r-! 0.6 .u

53.3 1. 75 0.37 co

N

68.6 2.25 0.84 .r-!

r-i 0.4

99.1 3.25 1. 00 .r-!

.u

114.3 3.75 0.53

160.0 5.25 0.05 0.2

216.4 7.10 0.01

219.5 7.20 0.00 0.0

3048.0 100.00 0.00 a 50 100 150

Depth (em)

Figure 13. Category two 51 curves for chinook salmon spawning

velocity and depth utilization (n=436; from Kurko 1977).

43
Coordi nates 1.0

x x y

cm/s ft/s 51 --- 0.8

0.0 0.0 0.00 c

0

9.1 0.3 0.25 'M 0.6 .w

12.2 0.4 1. 00 co

N

15.2 0.5 1. 00 'Mr-f 0.4

21. 3 0.7 0.50 'M.w

39.6 1.3 0.10 ;::J

91.4 3.0 0.00 0.2

3048.0 100.0 0.00

0.0

0 50 100 150

Mean colunm velocity (cm/s)

x x y l.0

cm ft S1

0.0 0.0 0.00 0.8c

30.5 1.0 0.10 0

'M

48.8 1.6 0.25 .w 0.6 co

70.1 2.3 1.00 N'M

82.3 2.7 1. 00 r-f

'M 0.4

91. 4 3.0 0.40 .w

;::J

121. 9 4.0 0.10 0.2 152.4 5.0 0.00

3048.0 100.0 0.00

0.0

0 50 100 1 0

Depth (em)

Figure 14. Category two S1 curves for chinook salmon fry velocity

and depth utilization (n=202; from Stempel 1984).

44
Coordinates 1.0

x x y

cm/s ft/s 51 0.8 ---

0.0 0.00 0.40 a

'M 0.6 1.5 0.05 0.95 +J

co

3.0 0.10 1. 00 N

'M

9.1 0.30 0.60 r-i 0.4 'M

48.8 1. 60 0.03 +J

57.9 1. 90 0.03 0.2

61.0 2.00 0.00

3048.0 100.00 0.00 0.0

0 50 100 150

Mean column velocity (cm/s)

n=948

x x Y 1.0

cm inches 51

0.0 0.00 0.00 0.8

0.1 0.04 0.40

1.6 0.63 1. 00 a

'M 0.6

2.2 0.87 1. 00 +J

co

3.0 1.18 0.20 N

'M 0.4 10.0 3.94 0.30 r-i

'M

12.0 4.72 0.05 +J

18.4 7.24 0,10 0.2

100.0 39.40 0.10

0.0

0 5 10 15 20

Substrate particle-size diameter (em)

n=909

Figure 15, Category two 51 curves for chinook salmon fry velocity

and substrate utilization (from Burger et al. 1982),

45
Coordinates

x x y 1.0

cm/s ft/s SI --- >::

aJ 0.8

0.0 0.00 0.50 "0

c::

4.6 0.15 1. 00 H

9.1 0.30 1.00 e-, 0.6 -IJ

12.2 0.40 0.50 'r-!

..-i

30.5 1. 00 0.30 'r-! 0.4 "§ 45.7 1. 50 0.18 -IJ

61. 0 2.00 0.10 .r-!

;l 0.2 106.7 3.50 0.00 Cf.l

3048.0 100.00 0.00

0.0

0 50 100 150

Mean column velocity (em/g)

x x Y 1.0

cm inches S1

>::

0.0 0.0 0.00 aJ 0.8 "0

3.0 0.1 0.00 c::

H

21.3 0.7 1. 00 :>--. 0.6

30.5 1.0 1.00 +J

'r-! 36.6 1.2 0.75 ..-i

',.-1 0.4 61.0 2.0 0.50 ..0

til 91. 4 3.0 0.15 +J

',.-1

121. 9 4.0 0.10 ;l

Cf.l 0.2

304.8 10.0 0.01

762.0 25.0 0.01

3048.0 100.0 0.00 0.0

0 50 100 150

Depth (em)

Figure 16. Category one S1 curves for chinook salmon fry velocity

and depth suitability (from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985).

46
Coordinates

y y 1.0

x x S1 (clear; S1 (turbid;

cmls ft/s sol i d line1 broken line) ---

0.8

0.0 0.00 0.18 0.42 J:: 1.5 0.05 1. 00 0

'M 0.6 6.1 0.20 0.57 .l-J

ell 10.7 0.35 1. 00 1. 00 N

'M 15.2 0.50 0.80 r-l 0.4 'M 19.8 0.65 1. 00 .l-J

24.4 0.80 0.68 0.38 0.2 33.5 1.10 0.44 0.25

42.7 1. 40 0.25 0.15 0.0 51.8 1. 70 0.18 0.07

61.0 2.00 0.12 0.02 0 50 100 150

70.1 2.30 0.06 0.01 Mean column velocity (em/s) 79.2 2.60 0.00 0.00

3048.0 100.00 0.00 0.00

y y

X x S1 (clear; S1 (turbid; 1.0

cm ft solid line) broken line)

0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.8

3.0 0.10 1. 00 J::

9.1 0.30 0.70 0

'M

.l-J 0.6

16.8 0.55 1. 00 ell

24.4 0.80 0.85 0.75 N

'M

32.0 1. 05 1. 00 r-l 0.4 ·M

47.2 1. 55 1. 00 0.55 .l-J

54.9 1.80 0.50 0.2

62.5 2.05 0.30 0.50

91.4 3.00 0.30 0.50 0.0 3048.0 100.00 0.30 0.50 0 50 100 150

Depth (em)

Figure 17. Category two S1 curves for chinook salmon juvenile velocity,

depth, percent cover, and cover type utilization (from Suchanek et al.

1984) .

47
Coordi nates

y y

x 51 (clear water; 51 (turbi d;

solid l~_ brok.en line)

0 0.0 0.56

SO 0.5

100 1.0 1. 00

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

a. Ol~""""'~~~---r----'-~~~"'--+-

a 50 100

Percent areal cover

1.

X Cover type y

Code description 51 o.

0

1 Debris 0.90 ....

.I-J

2 Undercut bank 1. 00 co

N

3 Rubble/cobble/boulder 0.20 ....

....-i

4 Aquatic vegetation 0.65 .... o. .I-J

5 Large gravel 0.25 t>

6 Overhanging veget?tion 0.38 o.

7 -Emergent vegetation 0.30

8 No cover 0.01 O.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cover type

(in clear water)

Figure 17. (concluded).

48
Coordinates

1.0 Y Y

Mean column Nose

x x 51 n=947 51 n=163 0.8

cmls ft/s ( sol id 1ine) (broken line) r::

0

'M 0.6 0.0 +.J 0.00 0.3 0.05 ('j

N

1.5 0.05 0.7 'M

3.0 0.10 0.20 .--i

'M 0.4

6.1 0.20 1. 00 +.J

7.6 0.25 0.8 0.2

12.2 0.40 1.0 1. 00

15.2 0.50 1.0

18.3 0.60 0.7 0.0

24.4 0.80 0.50 0 50 100 150

30.5 1. 00 0.5 Velocity (cm/s) 33.5 1.10 0.10

39.6 1. 30 0.2

42.7 1.40 0.05

67.1 2.20 0.00

70.1 2.30 0.0

3048.0 100.00 0.0 0.00

x x y

cm inches 51 1.0

0.0 0.00 0.00 0.8 0.2 0.08 0.60 r::

1.6 0.63 1. 00 0

'M

2.2 0.87 1. 00 +.J

('j 0.6

2.6 1. 02 0.20 N

'M

9.2 3.62 0.03 .--i

'M 0.4

10.0 3.94 0.20 +.J

18.4 7.24 0.20 0.2

0.0

0 5 10 15 20

Substrate particle-size diameter (em)

n=880

Figure 18. Category two 51 curves for chinook salmon juvenile

velocity and substrate utilization (from Burger et al. 1982).

49
Coordinates 1.0

x x y

cm/s ft/s S1

x 0.8

Q)

0.0 0.00 0.30 '"0

0

4.6 0.15 0.55 H

0.6 9.1 0.30 0.90 :>,

12.2 0.40 1. 00 'M

r-l 0.4 24.4 0.80 1. 00 'M

,.0

29.0 0.95 0.85 til

36.6 1. 20 0.30 'M 0.2 ::l

53.3 1. 75 0.15 (/)

106.7 3.50 0.05 0.0 137.2 4.50 0.01 0 50 100 150 152.4 5.00 0.00

3048.0 100.00 0.00 Mean column velocity (em/s)

x x y

cm ft S1 l.0

0.0 0.0 0.00 x

Q) 0.8 6.1 0.2 0.00 '"0

0

24.4 0.8 0.90 H

30.5 1.0 1. 00 :>, 0.6

76.2 2.5 1.00 'M

r-l

91.4 3.0 0.75 'M 0.4 121. 9 4.0 0.20

152.4 5.0 0.10 'M

::l 304.8 10.0 0.10 (/) 0.2

762.0 25.0 0.01

3048.0 100.0 0.01

1 0

Depth (ern)

Figure 19. Category one S1 curves for chinook salmon juvenile velocity

and depth suitability (from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985).

50
Spawning migration. The time period during which chinook salmon migrate

upstream to spawn is dependent on locale, and the investigator will have to

determine the time period and the stream segments within which migration

habitat is required. Little information was found in the literature concerning

migration habitat requirements of chinook salmon. We assume that the variables

that may limit migration in most instances will include depth, velocity, and

temperature.

SI curves for adult chinook passage (Figure 2) are category one and were

taken from several sources. Sautner et al , (1984) selected chum salmon for

development of passage criteria in the Susitna River, Alaska, because chum

were determined to be more susceptable to migration obstacles than were other

salmon species within the study area. Sautner et al. assumed that the length

of a passage reach at limiting water depths was the most important variable in

their area. Since passage criteria were not found for chinook salmon, the

authors assume that criteria for chum salmon will satisfy chl nock migration

requirements. Information on maximum water velocities that can be tolerated

by migrating chinook adults was not found, and investigators will need to

develop their own criteria for use in areas where velocity may be a problem.

The SI curve for relative suitability of migration temperatures is based on

several studies (Meyer et al. 1984) and may require tailoring for specific

spawning runs in areas of interest.

Burger et al. (1982) collected data to characterize migration holding

areas in the Kenai River, Alaska. Chinook salmon ranging in length from 74 to

117 cm (29 to 46 inches) were radio-tagged and followed to spawning areas.

Depths and velocities were measured at point locations of holding adults

(n = 54). Velocities were measured at 0.2 of the total depth from the bottom,

the point closest to where the individual fish were assumed to be located.

The category two SI curves for migration holding (Figure 3) were developed by

connecting the midpoints of frequency histogram class intervals.

Spawning and egg incubation. The time period during which spawning and

egg incubation habitat is required for chinook salmon is variable (depending

on locale), and should be determined before habitat quantification and simulation are conducted. SI curves available should be tailored to the time period

and study sites of interest.

There are two approaches for determining the amount of spawning and egg

incubation habitat for a stream reach. One approach treats spawning and egg

incubation as separate 1ife stages, each with its own set of criteria, and

assumes that weighted useable area (WUA) does not vary by more than 10% during

the spawning and egg incubation periods. The other approach measures effective

spawning habitat (Milhous 1982) and is recommended when WUA does vary by more

than 10% (as a result of streamflow variation), from the onset of spawning to

the end of the fry emergence period.

Effective spawning habitat is habitat that remains throughout the

spawn i ng, egg i ncubat ion, and i ntergrave 1 fry peri od. I n a gi ven reach, the

area of effective spawning habitat is equal to the area of suitable spawning

habitat minus the spawning habitat area that was dewatered, scoured, or

silted-in during egg incubation. Factors to consider when determining habitat

51
reduction because of dewatering include the depth of the eggs and fry within

the streambed, temperature and di sso 1ved oxygen requi rements of i ncubat i ng

eggs, and fry emergence requi rements. To determi ne habitat reduction from

scouring, the critical scouring velocity (Figure 4) can be determined by:

V

c = 22.35 (dbf) 1/6 [K (S - 1)]1/2 (065) 1/2

065 s s

where V

c

= critical velocity in ft/s

dbf = average channel depth (ft) at bankfull discharge

065 = substrate particle size diameter (ft) not exceeded by 65%

of the particles

K

s

= 0.080, a constant pertaining to the general movement of the

surface particles

Ss = specific gravity of the bed material, and ranges from 2.65

to 2.80

Factors to consider when determining habitat reduction from siltation

include suspended sediment concentrations, minimum velocities necessary to

prevent siltation (Figure 4), and dissolved oxygen concentrations among the

embryos. More detailed information about the analysis of effective spawning

habitat is presented in Milhous (1982).

At present there are no standard methods for co11 ect i ng or ana lyzi ng

habitat criteria data. Numerous investigators have compiled chinook spawning

habitat information and have developed criteria using a variety of techniques

(Chambers et al. 1955; Sams and Pearson 1963; Smith 1973; Kurko 1977; Hoffman

1979; Estes et al. 1981; Vogel 1982; Crumley and Stober 1984; Estes 1984;

Stempel 1984; Vincent-Lang et al. 1984; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985).

The curves selected for inclusion in this report (Figures 8-13) have two

things in common. First, they are all category two (utilization) curves fit

to frequency histograms and are based on at least 100 field observations.

Second, all of the data represent observations of lI act i veli redds where females

were observed fanning or cutting, or where other types of spawning behavior

were observed. All depth and velocity measurements were taken on, immediately

upstream, or immediately adjacent to each active redd. Criteria developed in

cases where spawners were absent were not included because conditions during

the survey may have been different from conditions during spawning. Criteria

that represented average, and not redd-specific, conditions within a spawning

area were not included because they usually desensitize the PHABSIM model.

Category one curves were not included only because such curves are developed

when field data are unavailable. Category three (preference) curves certainly

would have been included, but none were available as of this writing.

52
The category two curves (Figures 8-13) selected for this report have some

differences among them, Most of the differences may be primarily a function

of habitat availability. Spawners may select the best available redd sites

within the confines of their natal stream, but are unable to select optimal

conditions if those conditions are not available. Another possible explanation

for differences in the curves may b~ that species habitat preferences differ

among different stocks or in different parts of the country. Differences in

data collection, analysis, and interpretation techniques may also have affected

the configuration of the curves. In the future, the development of

standardized methods for the generation of category three curves may help to

answer many of the questions concerning differences often found among category

two curves.

All of the utilization curves developed for chinook spawning velocity and

depth were based on data collected either from relatively small streams, or

from larger streams during low-flow conditions. Sampling deeper, faster water

is difficult and often unsafe. Therefore, the curves may be biased towards

relatively shallow, low velocity water. Following are brief descriptions of

the background for each curve.

Sams and Pearson (1963) collected spawning velocity and depth utilization

data from several small streams in Oregon. Depth and mean column velocity

measurements were taken either 30.5 cm (1.0 ft) upstream or directly alongside

each active redd (where spawners were present). Data for spring chinook redds

(n = 252) were collected in 1961 from the Little North Santiam River (n = 59;

0.7 to 1.0 mJ/s or 25 to 35 cfs during study), and the Molalla River (n = 52;

1.0 to 1.3 mJ/s or 35 to 45 cfs during study); and in 1962 from the South Fork

McKenzie River (n = 141; 6.5 mJ/s or 230 cfs during study). Data for fall

chinook redds (n = 107) were collected during 1962 from Humbug Creek (n = 27),

East Humbug Creek (n = 22), Tillamook River (n = 22), and Moon Creek (n = 36).

Because of low variance, the 95% confidence limits for the mean spawning

velocities and depths were assigned SI values equal to 1.0, and all values

outside the 95% confidence limits were normalized to the highest frequency.

The curves (Figures 8-9) were then smoothed using professional judgement.

Vogel (1982) collected data in Battle Creek, California, during October

1982. Depth and velocity measurements (at 15.2 em or 0.5 ft above the substrate) were taken immediately adjacent to active or fresh chinook redds

(n = 216). Frequency ana lyses of the data were performed and category two.

curves (Figure 10) were developed using methods outlined in Bovee and Cochnauer

(1977). Velocities available ranged from 0.0 to 137.3 cm/s (0.0 to 4.5 ft/s),

and depths available ranged from 0.0 to 67.1 cm (0.0 to 2.2 ft).

Stempel (1984) collected data for spring chinook salmon spawning (n = 118)

in the upper Yakima and American rivers in south-central Washington during

August and October 1983. Snorkel ing was used to locate active redds; depth

and mean column velocity were measured on or adjacent to each redd. Category

two curves (Figure 11) were developed using methods from Bovee and Cochnauer

(1977) and smoothed using professional judgement. Velocities available ranged

from 0 to 122 cm/s (0 to 4 ft/s) , and depths available ranged to 158.6 cm

(5.2 ft). Streamflow during data collection was approximately 7.1 mJ/s (250

cfs) .

53
Vincent-Lang et al. (1984) collected data (n = 262) from Portage Creek

(n = 137) and the Indian River (n = 125), tributaries of the Susitna River in

Alaska, during July and August 1983. Active redds were located by visual

observation from the stream bank, and depth and mean column velocity were

measured at the upstream edge of each redd. Data were plotted as frequency

histograms with various increment sizes and starting values. Curves (Figure

12) were fit to the "best" histograms, i.e., those histograms with the best

combination of the lesser sample variances and coefficients of variation for

the frequency counts, and the lesser irregular fluctuations and peakedness.

The depth curve was modified based on the assumption that depths from 48.8 to

122.0 cm (1.6 to 4.0 ft) will not limit spawning activities.

Kurko (1977) collected data (n = 436) from the upper Skagit River in

north-centra 1 Washi ngton duri ng September and October 1975 and 1976. Boat

surveys were used to locate spawners; velocities (at 15.2 cm or 0.5 ft above

the substrate) and depths were measured at the upstream lip of each active

redd. Curves (Figure 13) were fit by hand to frequency histograms. Flows

during spawning generally ranged from 56.6 to 226.5 m3/s (2,000 to 8,000 cfs),

although observations were made during extreme low-water periods.

Category one curves (Figure 5) for spawning velocity and depth were

developed as a composite of the category two curves, in the event that investigators cannot develop their own curves or verify any of the category two

curves in this publication. The curves are meant only to represent relative

sui tabi 1i ty for depth and vel oci ty, not preference. The curves shoul d be

considered "interim" until category three curves become available.

The category one curves for chinook spawning substrate suitability

(Figure 5) were taken from the HS1 model section of this report (Va and VIO)'

Literature sources used in developing these curves may be found in Table 1.

No evidence was found in the literature to suggest that cover is utilized

by spawn i ng chi nook salmon. Therefore, we a ssume that a cover curve is not

necessary for 1F1M analyses of spawning habitat.

The category one S1 curve for chinook spawning temperature (Figure 5) was

taken from the HS1 model section of this report (V6), and it may require

modification before use in a specific locale.

Little information was found in the literature concerning velocity,

substrate, and depth requirements of incubating embryos. Until further

information becomes available, we assume that the S1 curves for spawning

velocity, depth, and substrate will satisfy habitat requirements for egg

incubation. No cover curve is deemed necessary because suitable substrate

should provide suitable cover for embryos. The temperature curve for egg

incubation was taken from the HS1 model section (V7) and may have to be

tailored to each given set of conditions.

54
Fry. After hatchi ng, fry may remain in the gravel for 4 to 6 weeks

(Dill--r968). The habitat requirements for intergravel fry are assumed to be

the same as for incubating embryos. Effective spawning habitat analyses may

be used to determine how much of the suitable spawning/egg incubation habitat

remained suitable for intergravel fry, from the onset of spawning through the

end of the fry emergence period.

Upon emergence, some fry may begin seaward migration immediately, whereas

others may rema in in freshwater for up to 3 years. Postemergent fry are

considered to be individuals less than or equal to 5.1 cm (2.0 inches) in

length. The category one curves for velocity and depth (Figure 6) developed

for 1F1M analyses of chinook salmon fry habitat are a composite of category

one and two criteria developed by Burger et al. (1982), Stempel (1984), Glova

and Duncan (1985), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1985).

Stempel (1984) used snorkeling to locate fry (n = 202; generally 2.5 to

7.6 cm or 1 to 3 inches in length at age 6 months) in the upper Yakima and

American Rivers of Washington. Mean column velocity and depth were measured

at each location, and category two curves were developed (Figure 14). See the

1F1M section on spawning and egg incubation for further information.

Burger et al. (1982) collected data from the mainstem Kenai River from

1979 through 1981. Chinook fry (n = 948; 3.6 to 5.1 cm or 1.4 to 2.0 inches

in length) and juveniles (n = 947; 5.1 to 10.2 cm or 2 to 4 inches in length)

were located by direct observation or electroshocking from the river mouth to

river kilometer 75 (river mile 45). Sample sites were located every other

1.7 km (1 mi1e) and were samp 1ed every month from Apri 1 to October. Mean

column velocity, nose velocity (where possible), and substrate were measured

at each point location where a fish was observed or captured. Category two

curves were developed for fry and juveniles (Figures 15 and 18). Mean annual

flow for the Kenai River is 141.6 m3/s (5,000 cfs). Associated fish species

included sockeye salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, Dolly Varden, sticklebacks,

sculpins, and rainbow trout.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1985) developed category one SI

curves for chinook fry (3.5 to 5.0 cm or 1.4 to 2.0 inches FL) and juvenile

(5.1 to 10.2 cm or 2.0 to 4.0 inches in length) velocity and depth suitability.

The curves (Figures 16 and 19) were derived from two years of American River

field studies, professional judgement, Bovee (1978), and a Sacremento River

habitat preference study . All curves were meant to represent habitat preferences in the lower American River of California.

Glova and Duncan (1985) collected data from the Rakaia River and two

other braided rivers in New Zealand. Electroshocking was used in wadeable

areas; deeper areas were seined. Depth, velocity, and substrate measurements

were taken where chinook fry (n = 530; less than or equal to 5.5 cm or 2.2

inches FL) and juveniles (n = 870; greater than 5.5 cm or 2.2 inches FL) were

collected. Data were analyzed and curves were developed using methods outlined

in Bovee (1978) and Orth and Maughn (1982). The SI curves could not be

reproduced because they were too small to take x,y coordinate pairs from them.

Glova and Duncan found that chinook fry occurred in shallow, low-velocity

areas along the river margin, near vegetation and debris. Juveniles inhabited

55
deeper waters, usually backwaters or pools, with velocities ranging from 20 to

30 cm/s (0.7 to 1.0 ft/s) and depths greater than 50 cm (1.6 ft).

No category one curves were developed for postemergent fry substrate or

cover. Burger et al. (1982), Glova and Duncan (1985), and Lister and Genoe

(1970) found most fry over gravel and cobble, whereas Everest and Chapman

(1972) observed fry associated with silt, sand, and rock. Chinook fry may

prefer certain substrate or cover types and amounts, but insufficient quantitative information was available for curve development. The SI curves for fry

temperature suitability (Figure 6) were taken from Meyer et al. (1984).

Juvenile. Chinook salmon juveniles are considered to be individuals

greater than 5.1 cm (2.0 inches) in length. In areas where fry migrate to the

sea immediately after emerging from the gravel, juvenile habitat is not

required. In other areas, juvenile habitat may be required year round. The

category one SI curves for juvenile velocity and depth suitability (Figure 7)

are a composite of curves developed by Burger et al. (1982), Suchanek et al.

(1984), Glova and Duncan (1985), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1985).

Suchanek et al. (1984) collected data from the Susitna River tributaries,

sloughs, and side channels between the Chulitna River confluence and Devil's

Canyon in Alaska during May through October 1983. Twenty-three sites were

samp 1ed from 3 to 7 times and 12 sites were samp 1ed only once or twi ce.

Shoreline and midchannel cells 1.8 m by 15.2 m (6 ft by 50 ft) were sampled at

each site using electroshocking in clear water and seining in turbid water.

Average depth, velocity, percent cover, and dominant cover type were characterized for each cell. Data were pooled over site and season separated by gear

type, and category two curves (Fi gure 17) were deve loped for mean co1umn

velocity, depth, percent cover, and cover type for both clear (n =871 cells;

less than 30 NTU) and turbid (n = 389 cells; greater than 30 NTU) water. The

curves are based on analyses of variance and least squares regressions used to

analyze differences in mean catch per cell by habitat attribute values. Over

99% of the fish captured were age 0+ (no size classes defined) and, therefore,

the curves may be biased toward smaller juveniles.

A description of data collection and analyses methods used by Burger

et al. (1982), Glova and Duncan (1985), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(1985) may be found in the IFIM section on fry in this report. Burger et al.

defined juveniles (n = 947) as individuals varying in length from 5.1 to 10.2

cm (2 to 4 inches); Glova and Duncan defined them as greater than 5.5 cm

(2.2 inches) FL; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service defined them as 5.1 to

10.2 cm (2 to 4 inches). The curves developed (Figures 7 and 17-19) should

satisfy juvenile nonwinter habitat requirements, assuming juveniles will

migrate out of a system by the time they attain a length of 10.2 cm (4.0

inches). Otherwise, SI curves will have to be developed for larger juveniles.

No ~ategory one curves were developed for substrate or cover. Investigators may wish to use curves (Figures 17 and 18) developed by Burger et al.

(1982) and Suchanek et al. (1984), or they may want to develop their own.

The category one SI curve for juvenile temperature suitability (Figure 7) was

56
taken from Meyer et a1. (1984) . No curve s were deve loped for smo It outmigration. We assume that spawning migration and passage curves (Figures 2

and 3) will satisfy outmigration requirements.

Summary. There exists a great deal of information pertaining to chinook

salmon habitat requirements and preferences that has not been included in this

report. Information included here is meant only to assist investigators with

instream flow studies. Before approaching an instream flow study, the development of a basin-wide species periodicity chart is recommended, to assist in

identifying study-specific research needs and potential habitat vs. development confl i cts. Investigators may wi sh to deve lop thei r own SI curves, or

select, verify, and/or modify curves contained in this report, for use in their

specific study area.

REFERENCES

Andrew, F. J., and G. H. Geen. 1960. Sockeye and pink salmon production in

relation to proposed dams in the Fraser River System. Int. Pacific Salmon

Fish. Comm. Bull. XI. 259 pp.

Armour, C. L., R. J. Fisher, and J. W. Terrell. 1984. Comparison of the use

of the Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) and the Instream Flow Incremental

Methodology (IFIM) in aquatic analyses. U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo FWS/OBS-84/

11. 30 pp.

Aro, K. V., and M. P. Shepard. 1967. Pacific salmon in Canada. Int. North

Pacific Fish. Comm. Bull. 23:225-327.

Behnke, R. J. 1985. Chinook salmon. Trout Magazine 26(2):50-54.

Behnke, R. J., and M. Zarn. 1976. Biology and management of threatened and

endangered western trout. U.S. For. Servo General Tech. Rep. RM-28. 45 pp.

Bidgood, B. F., and A. H. Berst. 1969. Lethal temperatures for Great Lakes

rainbow trout. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 26:456-459.

Binns, N. A., and F. M. Eiserman. 1979. Quantification of fluvial trout

habitat in Wyoming. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 108(3):215-228.

Bjornn, T. C. 1969. Embryo survival and emergence studies. Salmon and

Steelhead Invest., Proj. F-49-R-7, Job 5. Proj. Completion Rep. Idaho Dept.

Fish Game. 11 pp.

1971. Trout and salmon movement in two Idaho streams as related

to temperature, food, streamflow, cover, and population density. Trans. Am.

Fish. Soc. 100(3):423-438.

Black, E. C. 1953. Upper lethal temperatures of some British Columbia fresh

water fishes. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 10(4):196-210.

57
Bovee, K. D. 1978. The incremental method of assessing habitat potential for

coolwater species, with habitat implications. American Fisheries Society

Spec. Publ. 11:340-346.

1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the Instream

Flow Incremental Methodology. Instream FLow Information Paper 12. U.S.

Fish Wildl. Servo FWS/OBS-82/26. 248 pp.

1986. Development and evaluation of habitat suitability criteria

for use in the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. U.S. Fish and Wild.

Servo Biol. Rep. 86(7). 235 pp.

Brett, J. R. 1952. Temperature tolerance in young Pacific salmon, genus

Oncorhynchus. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 9(2):265-309.

Brett, J. R., W. C. Clar, and J. E. Shelbourn. 1982. Experiments on the

thermal requirements for growth and food conversion efficiency of juvenile

chinook salmon. Can. Tech. Rep. of Fish. and Ag. Sci. 1127. Pac. Biol.

Stat., Nanaimo, BC. 29 pp.

Briggs, J. C. 1953. The behavior and reproduction of salmonid fishes in a

sma 11 coastal stream. Ca1if. Dept. Fi sh Game, Fi sh Bull. 94. 62 pp.

Burger, C. V., D. B. Wangaard, R. L. Wilmot, and A. N. Palmisano. 1982.

Salmon investigations in the Kenai River, Alaska, 1979-1981. USDI Fish

Wildl. Servo Nat. Fish. Res. Cent., Seattle, WA. 178 pp.

Burner, C. J. 1951. Characteristics of spawning nests of Columbia River

salmon. U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo Fish. Bull. 52:96-110.

Bustard, D. R. 1983. Juvenile salmonid winter ecology in a northern British

Columbia river--a new perspective. Presented to: Amer. Fish Soc. (NPI

Chap.) Feb. 22-24, 1983 Bellingham, WA. Unpubl. Ms. 11 pp.

Canada Department of Fisheries. 1959. Annual report for 1957-1958. 93 pp.

Chambers, J. S., G. H. Allen, and R. T. Pressey. 1985. Research relating to

study of spawning grounds in natural areas. Washington Dept. Fish. Annual

Rep. to U.S. Army Corps of Eng. 175 pp.

Chambers, J. S. 1956. Research relating to study of spawning grounds in

natural areas. U.S. Army, Corps of Eng., North Pacific Div., Fish. Eng.

Res. Program. pp. 88-94.

Chapman, D. W. 1966. Food and space as regulators of salmonid populations in

streams. Am. Nat. 100: 345-357 .

Chapman, D. W., and T. C. Bjornn. 1969. Distribution of salmonids in streams

with special reference to food and feeding. Pages 153-176 in T. G.

Northcote, ed. Symposium on salmon and trout in streams. H. R. MacMillan

Lectures in Fisheries. University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

58
Chapman, D. W., and E. Knudson. 1980. Channelization and livestock impacts

on salmonid habitat and biomass in western Washington. Trans. Am. Fish.

Soc. 109(4):357-363.-

Cordone, A. J., and D. W. Kelly.

on the aquatic life of streams.

1961. The influence of inorganic sediment

Calif. Fish Game 47(2):189-228.

Crouse, M. R., C. A. Callahan, K. W. Malueg, and S. E. Dominguez. 1981.

Effects of fine sediments on growth of juvenile coho salmon in laboratory

streams. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 110(2):281-286.

Crumley, S. C., and Q. J. Stober. 1984. Skagit River interim agreement

studies, volume I, instream flow fish habitat analysis. Final Report

FRI-UW-8406, Univ. Washington School of Fisheries, Fisheries Res. Inst.,

Seattle. 126 pp + App.

Davis, J. C. 1975. Minimal dissolved oxygen requirements of aquatic life

with emphasis on Canadian species: a review. J. Fish. Res. Board Can.

32(12):2295-2332.

Dill, L. M. 1968. The subgravel behavior of Pacific salmon larvae. Pages

89-100 in T. G. Northcote, ed. Salmon and trout in streams. H.R. MacMillan

LectureS-in Fisheries. University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Divinin, P. A. 1952. The salmon of South Sakhalin. Izvestiia Tikhookeanskogo

Nauchno-Issledovatelskigo. Instituta Rybnogo Khoziaistvo i Okeanografii

(Izv. TINRO), Vol. 37:69-108.

Durkin, J. T., D. L. Park, and R. F. Raleigh. 1970. Distribution and movement

of juvenile salmon in Brownlee Reservoir 1962-65. Fish. Bull. 68(2):219-243.

Eddy, R. M. 1972. The influence of dissolved oxygen concentration and temperature on survival and growth of chinook salmon embryos and fry. M.S. Thesis.

Oregon State University, Corvallis. 45 pp.

Edmundson, E. F., F. H. Everest, and D. W. Chapman. 1968. Permanence of

station in juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead trout. J. Fish. Res. Board

Can. 25(7):1453-1464.

Erkkila, L. F., J. W. Moffett, O. B. Cope, B. R. Smith, and R. S. Neilson.

1950. Sacramento-San Joaquin delta fishery resources: effects of Tracy

pumping plant and delta cross channel. U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo Spec. Sci.

Rep. Fish. 56. 109 pp.

Estes, C., K. Hep 1er, and A. Hoffman. 1981. Wi 11 ow and Decept i on creeks

instream flow demonstration study, Vol 1. Alaska Dept. Fish Game, Anchorage.

135 pp.

Estes, C. C. 1984. Evaluation of methods for recommending instream flows to

support spawning by salmon. M.S. Thesis, Washington State University,

Pullman. 156 pp + App.

59
Everest, F. H. 1969. Habitat selection and spatial interaction of juvenile

chinook salmon and steelhead trout in two Idaho streams. Ph.D. Dissertation.

University of Idaho, Moscow. 77 pp.

Everest, F. H., and D. W. Chapman. 1972. Habitat selection and spatial

interaction by juvenile chinook salmon and steel head trout in two Idaho

streams. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 29(1):91-100.

Fulton, L. A. 1968. Spawning areas and abundance of chinook salmon

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Columbia River Basin - past and present.

U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 571. 26 pp.

Gangmark, H. A., and R. G. Bakkala. 1960. A comparative study of unstable

and stable (artificial channel) spawning streams for incubating king salmon

at Mill Creek. Calif. Fish Game 46:151-164.

Gauley, J. E., R. E. Anas, and L. C. Schlotterbeck. 1958. Down stream movement of salmon at Bonneville Dam. U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo Spec. Sci. Rep.

Fish. 236. 11 pp.

Glova, G. L., and J. J. Duncan. 1985. Potential effects of reduced flows on

fish habitats in a large braided river, New Zealand. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.

114(2): 165-181.

Hamilton, K., and E. P. Bergersen. 1984. Methods to estimate aquatic habitat

variables. U.S. Bur. Reclamation, Div. Planning Tech. Serv., Eng. Res.

Cent., Denver, CO. n.p.

Hart, J. L. 1973. Pacific fishes of Canada. Fish. Res. Board Can. Bull.

180. 740 pp.

Hartman, G. F. 1965. The role of behavior in the ecology and interaction of

underyearling coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead trout (Salmo

gairdneri). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 22(3):1035-1081. ------

Hobbs, D. F. 1937. Natural reproduction of quinnant salmon, brown and rainbow

trout in certain New Zealand waters. New Zealand Marine Dept. Fish. Bull. 6.

104 pp.

Hoffman, J. 1979. Trinity River instream flow study. USDI Fish Wildl. Servo

Draft Report. Sacramento, CA. 21 pp.

Hoopaugh, D. A. 1978. King (chinook) salmon spawning stocks in California's

Central Valley 1975. Calif. Dept. Fish Game. Adm. Rep. 77-12. 29 pp.

Hunt, R. L. 1971. Responses of a brook trout population to habitat development in Lawrence Creek. Wisconsin Dept. Nat. Res. Tech. Bull. 48, Madison.

35 pp.

Huntington, C. W. 1985. Deschutes River spawning gravel study, Vol. 1.

Final Report. Buell and Assoc., Inc. Beaverton, OR. Contr. study for U.S.

Dept. of Energy, Bonneville Power Admin. pp. 78-83.

60
Hynes, H. B. N. 1970. The ecology of running waters.

Press, Toronto. 555 pp.

University of Toronto

Idyll, C. 1942. Food of rainbow, cutthroat and brown trout in the Cowichan

River System, British Columbia. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 5:448-458.

Koski, K. V. 1966. The survival of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) from

egg deposition to emergence in three Oregon coastal streams. M.S. Thesis.

Oregon State University, Corvallis. 84 pp.

Kurko, K. W. 1977. Investigations on the amount of potential spawning area

available to chinook, pink, and chum salmon in the upper Skagit River,

Washington. M.S. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle. 76 pp.

Lister, D. B., and H. S. Genoe. 1970. Stream habitat utilization by cohabitating underyearlings of chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho (0.

kisutch) salmon in the Big Qualicum River, British Columbia. J. Fish. Res.

Board Can. 27(5):1215-1224.

Lister, D. B., and C. E. Walker. 1966. The effect of flow control on freshwater survival of chum, coho, and chinook salmon in the Big Qualicum River.

Can. Fish-Cult. 37(1):3-26.

Mattson, C. K. 1948. Spawning ground studies of Willamette River spring

chinook salmon. Oregon Fish. Comm. Res. Briefs 1(2):21-32.

Major, R. L., J. Ito, S. Ito, and H. Godfrey. 1978. Distribution and

abundance of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in offshore water of

the North Pacific Ocean. Int. North Pacific Fish. Comm. Bull. 38. 54 pp.

Major, R. L., and J. F. Mighell. 1969. Egg-to-migrant survival of spring

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Yakima River, Washington.

U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo Fish. Bull. 67:347-359.

McAfee, W. B. 1966. Rainbow trout. Pages 192-215 in A. Calhoun, ed. Inland

fisheries management. Calif. Dept. Fish Game, Sacramento, CA. 546 pp.

McNeil, W. J. 1968. Survival of pink and chum salmon eggs and alevins.

Pages 101-117 in T. G. Northcote, ed. Symposium on salmon and trout in

streams. H. R.-MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries. University of British

Columbia, Vancouver.

McNeil, W. J., and W. H. Ahnell. 1964. Success of pink salmon spawning

relative to size of spawning bed material. U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo Spec.

Sci. Rep. Fish. 469. 15 pp.

Meehan, W. R., and D. B. Siniff. 1962. A study of the downstream migrations

of anadromous fishes in the Taku River, Alaska. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.

91(4):399-407.

Meyer, P. R., M. D. Kelly, K. A. Voos, and W. J. Wilson. 1984. Assessment of

the effects of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project on instream

temperature and fishery resources in the Watana to Talkeetna reach. Alaska

Env. Inf. Data Cent., Anchorage. 130 pp .

61
Milhous, R. T. 1982. Working paper on the application of the Physical Habitat

Simulation System to water management: The use of the PHABSIM System for

incubation-spawning analysis. Draft Report. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.,

Instream Flow and Aquatic Systems Group, Fort Collins, CO. 21 pp.

Milhous, R. T., D. L. Wegner, and T. Waddle. 1984. User's guide to the

Physical Habitat Simulation System. Instream Flow Information Paper II.

U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo FWS/OBS-81143 (Revised). 254 pp.

Needham, P. R. 1940. Trout streams. Comstock Publ. Co., Inc., Ithaca, NY.

233 pp.

Nehring, R. B., and R. Anderson. 1982. Stream fisheries investigations. Job

Prog. Rep. Proj. F-51-R-7. Fed. Aid in Fish Wildl. Invest. Colorado Div.

Wildl., Fish Res. Sect., Ft. Collins. 185 pp.

1983. Stream fisheries investigations. Job Prog. Rep.

Proj. F-51-R-7. Fed. Aid in Fish Wildl. Invest. Colorado Div. Wildl., Fish

Res. Sect., Ft. Coll ins. 188 pp.

Oregon/Washington Interagency Wildlife Committee. 1979. Managing riparian

ecosystems (zones) for fish and wildlife in eastern Oregon and eastern

Washington. Riparian Habitat Subcommittee of the Oregon/Washington Interagency Wildlife Committee. 44 pp.

Orth, D. J., and O. E. Maughan. 1982. Evaluation of the Incremental Methodology for recommending instream flows for fishes. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.

111( 4): 413-445.

Phillips, R. W., R. L. Lantz, E. W. Claire, and J. R. Moring. 1975. Some

effects of gravel mixtures on emergence of coho salmon and steelhead trout

fry. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 104(3):461-466.

Platts, W. S. 1974. Geomorphic and aquatic conditions influencing salmonids

and stream classification, with emphasis on ecosystem classification. U.S.

Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Surf. Env. and Mining Prog. Boise, ID. 199 pp.

Raleigh, R. F., and W. J. Ebel. 1967. Effects of Brownlee Reservoir on

migrations of anadromous salmonids Pages 415-443 in Reservoir Fishery

Research Symposium. Am. Fish. Soc. Bethseda, MD.

Sams, R. E., and L. S. Pearson. 1963. Methods for determining spawning flows

for anadromous salmonids. Oregon Fish Commission Draft Report. 68 pp.

Sautner, J. S., L. J. Vining, and L. A. Rundquist. 1984. An evaluation of

passage conditions for adult salmon in sloughs and side channels of the

middle Susitna River. Chapter 6 in C. C. Estes and D. S. Vincent-Lang, eds.

Aquatic habitat and instream floW-investigations (May-October 1983). Alaska

Dept. Fish Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Report No.3, Anchorage.

Semko, R. S. 1939. Kamchatka pink salmon. IZV.TINRO, Vol. 16. 111 pp.

62
Seymour, A. H. 1956. Ef f ec t s of temperature upon young chinook salmon.

Ph.D. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle. 127 pp.

Silver, S. J., C. E. Warren, and P. Doudorff. 1963. Dissolved oxygen requirements of developing steel head trout and chinook salmon embryos at different

water velocities. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 92(4):327-343.

Slater, D. W. 1963. Winter-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento River,

California, with notes on water temperature requirements at spawning. U.S.

Fish Wildl. Servo Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 461. 9 pp.

Smith, A. K. 1973. Development and application of spawning velocity and

depth criteria for Oregon salmonids. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 102(2):312-316.

Stempe 1 , J. M. 1984. Deve 1opment of fi sh preference curves for spri ng chi nook

and rainbow trout in the Yakima River Basin. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.,

Ecological Services, Moses Lake, WA. 20 pp.

Suchanek, P. M., R. P. Marshall, S. S. Hale, and D. C. Schmidt. 1984.

Juvenile salmon rearing suitability criteria. Part 3 in D. C. Schmidt,

S. S. Hale, D. L. Crawford, and P. M. Suchanek, eds. Resident and juvenile

anadromous fish investigations (May-October 1983). Alaska Dept. Fish Game

Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Report No.2, Anchorage.

Tennant, D. L. 1976. Instream flow regimens for fish, wildlife, recreation,

and related environmental resources. Pages 359-363 in Proceedings of the

symposium and specialty conference on instream flowneeds. Vol. 2. Am.

Fish. Soc. Boise, ID.

Terrell, J. W., T. E. MacMahon, P. D. Inskip, R. F. Raleigh, and K. L.

Williamson. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Appendix A. Guidelines

for riverine and lacustrine applications of fish HSI models with the Habitat

Evaluation Procedures. U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo FWS/OBS-82/10.A. 54 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Standards for the development of

habitat suitability index models. ESM 103. U.F. Fish Wildl. Serv., Div.

Ecol. Servo n.p.

Vincent-Lang, D., A. Hoffman, A. Bingham, and C. Estes. 1984. Habitat suitability criteria for chinook, coho, and pink salmon spawning in tributaries

of the Middle Susitna River. Chapter 9 in C. C. Estes, and D. S. VincentLang, eds. Aquatic habitat and instreamflow investigations (May-October

1983). Alaska Dept. Fish Game Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Report No.3,

Anchorage.

Vogel, D. A. 1982. Preferred spawning velocities, depths, and substrates for

fall chinook salmon in Battle Creek, California. USDI Fish Wildl. Servo

Fisheries Assistance Office, Red Bluff, CA. 8 pp.

Vronskii, B. B. 1972. Reproductive biology of the Kamchatka River chinook

salmon [Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum)]. J. Ichthyol. 12(2):259-273.

63
Wesche, T. A.

application.

46 pp.

1980. The WRRI trout cover rating method: development and

Water Resour. Ser. 78. Water Resour. Res. Inst., Laramie, WY.

64
502n-l01

REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO.

Report 82(10.122) 1

2• 3. Recipient's Accession No.

PAGE Biological

4. Title and Subtitle 5. RepOrt Date

Habitat Suitability Index Models and Instream Flow Suitability September 1986

~Curves: Chinook Salmon L

7. Author(s) S. Performina Oraanlzetion Rept. No.

R. F. Raleigh, W. J. Miller, and P. C. Nelson

9. Performlna Oraanlzetlon Name and Addre.. iJati ona1 Ecology Center 10. Project/Tesk/Work Unit No.

Division of Wildlife &Contaminant

Research 11. ContractlC) Of' Grant(G) No.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service eel

2627 Redwing Rd. eGl Fort Coll ins. CO 80526-2899

ll. SpOnsorina Oraanization Name and Address National Ecology Center 13. Type of RepOrt & Period Covered

Division of Wildlife &Contaminant

Resea rch 14. Fish and Wildlife Service r- T

15. Supplementary Notes u.oJ. u"'tJ". u ""'" "'" u

Washington, DC 20240

16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)

A revi ew and synthesis of existing information were used to develop a Habitat Suitability

Index (HSI) model and instream flow suitability curves for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus

tshawytscha) . The model consolidates habitat use informati on into a framework appropriate

for field application, and is scaled to produce an index between 0.0 (unsuitable habitat)

and 1.0 (optimum habitat). HSI models are designed to be used with Habitat Evaluation

I~ Procedures previously developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

17. Document Anelysls a. Descriptors

Fishes

Habitabil ity

Mathematical models

b. Identlfiers/Open·Ended Terms

Chinook salmon

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Habitat suitability

Co COSATI Field/Group

~L Availability Statement 19. Security Class (This Report) 21. No. of Paaes

Release unlimited Unclassified 64

20. Security Class (This Page' 22. Price

Unclassified

(5.. ANSI-Z39.18)

"U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1986-672-850/45303

See Inatructions on Raverae OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77l

(Formerly NTlS-35)

Department of Commerce
•

••• ..__ .... J~.

' . '· 0 ,,-

Hawaiian Islands (>

-(:( Headq uarters . Division of Biological

Services, Wasnington, DC

x Eastern Energy anO Land Use Team

Leetown , WV

* Nationa l Coastal Ecosystems Team

Slidell, LA

• Western Energy and Land Use Team

Ft. Coll ins . CO

• Locat ions of Regional Off ices

REGION 1

Regional Director

U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lloyd Five Hundred Building, Suite 1692

500 N.E. Multnomah Street

Portland , Oregon 97232

REGION 4

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Richard B. Russell Building

75 Spring Street , S.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

I

J- - - - ---6 1

r-- - L, J

I : --

I I

1- - -'

I I

l,_ I 2 ,, -~-

-_.J

REGION 2

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 1306

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87 103

REGION 5

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

One Gateway Cente r

Newton Corner, Massachusetts 02158

REGION 7

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

lOll E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, Alaska 99503

- ..~,.

REGION 3

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and WildlifeService

Federal Building, Fort Snelling

Twin Cities, Minnesota 551 JI

REGION 6

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 25486

Denver Federal Center

Denver, Colorado 8022 5
u.s. FISH ..WILDLIFE f>ERVICE

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR hi?]

u.s.FISH ANDWILDLIFESERVICE "'-r rw T " "

As the Nation's pri ncipal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our ,nationally owned public lands and natural resources . This includes

fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife,

preserving th & environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places,

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that t heir development is in

the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major respons ibility for

American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under

U.S. adm inist ration.