NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-148


Distribution and Movement Patterns 

of Chinook Salmon Returning to the 

Yukon River Basin in 2000-2002 

by 

J. H. Eiler, T. R. Spencer, J. J. Pella, M. M. Masuda, and R. R. Holder

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

November 2004 
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS 

The National Marine Fisheries Service's Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum series to issue informal scientific and 

technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing 

are not appropriate or feasible. Documents within this series reflect sound 

professional work and may be referenced in the formal scientific and technical 

literature. 

The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center continues the NMFS-F/NWC series established in 1970 by the 

Northwest Fisheries Center. The NMFS-NWFSC series is currently used by 

the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. 

This document should be cited as follows: 

Eiler, J. H., T. R. Spencer, J. J. Pella, M. M. Masuda, and R. R. Holder. 

2004. Distribution and movement patterns of chinook salmon returning 

to the Yukon River basin in 2000-2002. U. S. Dep. Commer., NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-148, 99 p. 

Reference in this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by 

the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. 
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-148


Distribution and Movement Patterns 

of Chinook Salmon Returning to the 

Yukon River Basin in 2000-2002 

by 1 2 1 1

J. H. Eiler, T. R. Spencer, J. J. Pella, M. M. Masuda, and R. R. Holder3 

1

Auke Bay Laboratory 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

7600 Sand Point Way N.E. 

Seattle, WA 98115 

www.afsc.noaa.gov 

2

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

333 Raspberry Road 

Anchorage AK 99518 

3 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

101 12th Avenue 

Fairbanks AK 99701 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Donald L. Evans, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., U.S. Navy (ret.), Under Secretary and Administrator 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 

November 2004 
This document is available to the public through: 

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

www.ntis.gov 
Notice to Users of this Document 

In the process of converting the original printed document into Adobe Acrobat .PDF format, slight 

differences in formatting can occur; page numbers in the .PDF may not match the original printed 

document; and some characters or symbols may not translate. 

This document is being made available in .PDF format for the convenience of users; however, the 

accuracy and correctness of the document can only be certified as was presented in the original hard 

copy format. 

iii 

ABSTRACT 

A radio telemetry study was conducted on Yukon River chinook salmon from 2000 to 

2002 to provide information on stock composition and timing, migration patterns, and the 

location of important spawning areas. Feasibility work in 2000-2001 determined that drift gill 

nets were effective for capturing adequate numbers of fish in the lower river, and that the fish 

responded well to the capture and tagging procedures based on their subsequent upriver 

movements. A large-scale tagging and basin-wide monitoring program was conducted in 2002. 

Most (751, 97.8%) of the 768 fish tagged resumed upriver movements, with 270 fish harvested in 

fisheries and 481 fish tracked to upriver areas using remote tracking stations and aerial surveys. 

Stock composition estimates were developed for the 2002 chinook salmon return based on the 

distribution of daily releases of radio-tagged fish weighted for abundance and adjusted for fish 

harvested in fisheries. The chinook salmon run was composed primarily of Tanana River 

(20.9%) and upper basin (66.0%) stocks. Canadian-origin fish comprised the largest component 

of the return (53.4%), with most traveling to reaches of the Yukon River (50.7%) and only small 

numbers to the Porcupine River (2.7%). Canadian fish in the Yukon River returned to large 

headwater tributaries (35.5%), small tributaries associated with the main river (4.6%) and reaches 

of the Yukon River main stem (10.6%). Chandalar River and Sheenjek River fish (5.9%) were 

important U.S. stocks in the upper basin. Tanana River fish were predominantly Chena River, 

Salcha River, and Goodpaster River stocks (18.8%), with small populations located in other 

tributaries. Middle basin fish traveling to the Koyukuk, Melozitna, Nowitna, and Tozitna rivers 

were a minor component of the run (3.1%). Fish returning to lower basin tributaries (6.3%) were 
iv 

comprised primarily of Anvik River and Nulato River fish (4.8%). The two major stock groups, 

Canadian Yukon River and Tanana River fish, exhibited similar run timing with most fish 

passing through the lower river during the early and middle runs, although differences within 

regions were observed. In Canada, chinook salmon returning to the Klondike, Stewart, and 

White rivers were primarily early run fish, while upper headwater stocks displayed a later and 

more protracted run timing. Lower basin stocks consisted primarily of late run fish, although 

other stocks, particularly Canadian Yukon River fish, were also present during this period. 

Movement rates for radio-tagged fish averaged 51 km/day. Middle and upper basin stocks 

traveling through reaches of the Yukon River main stem averaged 54-61 km/day, although 

slower swimming speeds were recorded as the fish approached their natal streams. Movement 

rates for lower basin stocks were substantially less, averaging from 31 km/day to 37 km/day, 

possibly due to the shorter distances traveled to reach their spawning areas. 
v 

CONTENTS

 Page


Abstract.......................................................................................................................................iii

Introduction...................................................................................................................................1

Materials and Methods..................................................................................................................3

Fish Capture and Handling................................................................................................3

Tracking Procedures..........................................................................................................5

Stock Composition Estimates............................................................................................8

Migration Rates................................................................................................................14


Results..........................................................................................................................................14

Fish Capture and Tagging................................................................................................14

Fish Response to Tagging................................................................................................16

Fishery Recoveries...........................................................................................................17

Distribution of Radio-Tagged Fish..................................................................................18

Feasibility Phase 2000-2001................................................................................18

Basin-wide Study 2002........................................................................................19

Stock Composition...........................................................................................................21

Movement Patterns..........................................................................................................26

Discussion....................................................................................................................................28

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................39

Citations........................................................................................................................................41

Tables............................................................................................................................................45
vi


Figures...........................................................................................................................................69

Appendices....................................................................................................................................86
INTRODUCTION 

Large numbers of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) return to the Yukon 

River basin to spawn. These returns support important fisheries in both the United States and 

Canada and have been the focus of numerous discussions between the two countries over 

management and harvest allocations. Ultimately these discussions contributed to the passage of 

the Yukon River Salmon Agreement, which provides for cooperative management of salmon 

returns in the basin (Yukon River Salmon Act 2000). However, Yukon River chinook salmon 

have declined dramatically in recent years (Joint Technical Committee of the Yukon River 

U.S./Canada Panel 2002), a phenomenon observed in other major river systems in western 

Alaska, and information is needed to better understand and manage these returns and to facilitate 

conservation efforts. 

The Yukon River basin drains a watershed of more than 855,000 km2

. The main river 

alone flows for more than 3,000 km from its headwaters in Canada to the Bering Sea (Fig. 1). 

Several major tributaries flow into the Yukon River main stem, including the Koyukuk and 

Tanana rivers in the United States, the Stewart, White, Pelly, and Teslin rivers in Canada, and the 

Porcupine River, which transects both countries. Most reaches of the drainage consist of a 

primary river channel with occasional side channels and sloughs, although the Yukon River main 

stem is extensively braided between the villages of Rampart and Circle -- an area commonly 

referred to as the Yukon Flats. Sections of the Canadian main stem and the White River are also 

extensively braided. Water visibility in many areas is extremely poor, particularly in the Yukon 

River main stem, due to suspended sediments from the upper reaches of the drainage. The basin 

is remote with limited access to many areas. 
2 

Salmon are a major source of food in many remote communities within the basin, and 

often provide the primary source of income for local residents. Subsistence, commercial and 

personal use fisheries occur throughout the drainage with most fishing effort concentrated near 

villages along the Yukon River main stem. Fish are also harvested in reaches of the Koyukuk, 

Tanana, Chandalar, Porcupine, Stewart, Pelly, and Teslin rivers. Limited sport fishing takes 

place in a number of clearwater tributaries within the basin. The fisheries are managed to 

maintain essential spawning escapements, support adequate subsistence harvests for local 

residents, and provide commercial and sport fishing opportunities when appropriate. Chinook 

salmon harvests from 1961 to 2001 averaged 136,700 fish in the United States and 11,300 fish in 

Canada, with catches ranging from 45,300 fish (2000) to 198,400 fish (1983) in the United 

States, and 2,600 fish (1969) to 22,800 fish (1980) in Canada (Joint Technical Committee of the 

Yukon River U.S./Canada Panel 2002). From 1961 to 1999, commercial fishing accounted for 

over 76% of the U.S. harvest and 42% of the Canadian harvest. These fisheries have been 

severely restricted in recent years due to declining returns, resulting in harvests composed 

primarily of fish caught for subsistence. 

A basin-wide radio telemetry study was initiated in 2000 by the Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game (ADFG) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The primary 

objective of this study was to provide information on the run characteristics of Yukon River 

chinook salmon returns including stock composition and timing, country of origin, migration 

patterns, and the location of important spawning areas. Information was also collected to 

evaluate other projects in the basin that assess run abundance. The study faced severe logistical 

challenges due to the large size and physical characteristics of the drainage. In addition, the 
3


sizeable runs of chinook salmon returning to the basin to spawn required the tagging of large 

numbers of fish to obtain meaningful results. Chinook salmon reputedly travel deep during their 

spawning migration, further complicating efforts to monitor their movements. Work in 2000-

2001 focused on the development of capture methods, improved telemetry equipment for 

tracking the fish, and the infrastructure necessary for a study of this size and scope. Distribution 

and movement data collected during this exploratory phase were used primarily to evaluate the 

response by chinook salmon to the capture and handling procedures, and to provide preliminary 

information on migration patterns. A full-scale tagging and basin-wide monitoring program was 

conducted in 2002. 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 

Fish Capture and Handling 

Adult chinook salmon returning to the Yukon River basin were captured with drift gill 

nets at two sites in the lower river near the villages of Marshall and Russian Mission (Fig. 1). 

These sites were selected because they 1) consisted of relatively narrow, unbraided sections of 

river, increasing the probability of capturing a representative sample; 2) were downriver of most 

known chinook salmon spawning areas (i.e., only fish returning to the Andreafsky River, located 

approximately 190 km downriver, were not included); and 3) were upriver of significant 

commercial and subsistence fisheries lower in the basin. Local fishers were contracted to fish the 

sites from early June to mid-July (Table 1), with project personnel handling the fish and 

collecting data (Appendix A). Nets constructed with different materials (monofilament and seine 
4


twine), mesh sizes (16.5 cm, 19.0 cm, and 21.5 cm), hang ratios (2:1 and 3:1), depths (7.6 m and 

9.7 m), and lengths (37 m and 46 m) were used and evaluated in 2000-2001 (Spencer et al. 

2003). Gill nets used in 2002 were primarily 21.5 cm-mesh size made with No. 21 seine twine, 

46 m long, 7.6 m deep, and hung at a 2:1 ratio. This configuration was effective in capturing 

chinook salmon while minimizing chum salmon (O. keta) bycatch. Similar nets, with 

monofilament fiber instead of seine twine, were used on a limited basis. 

Nets were monitored continually and fish were removed immediately after capture. The 

netting was cut to facilitate removal and minimize injuries. A dip net, constructed with soft, finemesh netting, was used to lift fish into the boat. A maximum of two fish were tagged per drift to 

minimize both handling time and potential sampling bias if stocks of fish were poorly mixed. Fish 

selected for tagging were placed in a neoprene-lined tagging cradle submerged in a trough of fresh 

water. A pump was used to circulate river water into the trough while fish were being processed. 

Anesthesia was not used during the tagging procedure. 

Fish were tagged with pulse-coded radio transmitters (Eiler 1995) manufactured by Advanced 

Telemetry Systems (Isanti, Minnesota). The transmitters, which were 5.4 cm long, 2.0 cm in 

diameter, had a 30-cm transmitting antenna, and weighed 20 g, were gently inserted through the 

mouth and into the stomach using a plastic tube 0.7 cm in diameter. Each transmitter emitted a 

unique signal (i.e., transmitters were placed on 11 discrete frequencies within the 150-151 MHz 

frequency range spaced a minimum of 20 kHz apart, with up to 100 distinct pulse codes per 

frequency), making it possible to identify each individual fish. Based on work during the feasibility 

phase of the study, transmitters used in 2001 and 2002 were designed with higher output power (i.e., 

an increase of approximately 15 dB) to increase reception range. Transmitters were also equipped 
5


with a motion sensor and activity monitor. The motion sensor, an integrated tilt switch sensitive to 

movement, inserted additional signal pulses distinct from the basic signal pattern each time the 

transmitter moved. The activity monitor altered the signal pattern to an inactive mode (Eiler 1995) if 

the motion sensor was not triggered for 24 hours; the signal reverted to the original pattern if the 

motion sensor was activated. Transmitters had a minimum battery life of 90 days. Fish were marked 

externally with yellow spaghetti tags attached below the dorsal fin (Wydoski and Emery 1983). 

Selected fish were tagged with radio-archival tags, which recorded water depth and temperature every 

3 minutes as well as transmitting a signal. Fish with radio-archival tags were marked externally with 

pink spaghetti tags. 

Information on sex, length (mid-eye to fork of tail), and condition of the fish was also 

recorded. Data on gender were not used in the analysis because of difficulties in distinguishing the 

sexes in the lower river due to the lack of distinct external characteristics; information from upriver 

fisheries indicated that the gender of a large portion of the sample (e.g., 48% in 2002) was 

misidentified. A tissue sample was taken from the axillary process for genetic stock identification 

analysis, and scales were collected to provide age data. Fish were released back into the main river 

immediately after the tagging procedure was completed. Handling, from removal of the net from the 

water to release, took from 6 to 8 minutes depending on the number of fish tagged per drift. 

Tracking Procedures 

Radio-tagged fish that moved upriver were tracked by remote tracking stations (Fig. 2) 

located at sites throughout the basin (Table 2, Fig. 3). Sites selected were on important migration 
6


corridors and major tributaries of the drainage. When possible, the stations were placed on bluffs 

overlooking straight, narrow, single-channel sections of the river to maximize reception range and 

increase the probability of detecting fish moving past the site. Stations consisted of several integrated 

components, including a computer-controlled receiver developed by Advanced Telemetry Systems, 

and a satellite uplink (Campbell Scientific, Logan, Utah). A self-contained power system --

consisting of a bank of six 6-volt, sealed lead-acid batteries connected in series and parallel (12 V, 

610 Ah) and charged by two 80-W solar panels -- supplied power to the stations. Radio-tagged fish 

within reception range were identified and recorded by the stations. Information collected included 

the date and time tagged fish were present at the site, signal strength of the transmitter, and the 

orientation of the fish in relation to the station (i.e., upriver or downriver from the site). Information 

was recorded at 10-minute intervals. Because of the isolated nature of the sites, the telemetry data 

collected, including information on station operations (e.g., voltage levels for the station components, 

and whether the reference transmitter at the site was properly recorded) were transmitted every hour to 

a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration geostationary operational environmental satellite 

(GOES) and relayed to a receiving station near Washington DC. (Fig. 2). Information was accessed 

daily via the Internet, and uploaded into a computer database for analysis (Eiler and Masters 2000). 

Radio-tagged chinook salmon that passed the first set of tracking stations (hereafter referred to 

as Paimiut, Fig. 3), located approximately 42 km upriver from the Russian Mission tagging site, were 

considered to have resumed upriver movements. Fish tracked to terminal reaches of the drainage 

were classified as distinct spawning stocks. The status of fish that remained in non-terminal areas, 

such as sections of the Yukon River main stem, was less certain because these fish could represent 

local spawners or fish destined for spawning areas further upriver. Many non-terminal areas were 
7


turbid and hard to access, making verification of spawning activity difficult. Tracking station 

coverage was limited during the feasibility phase of the study. In 2000, stations were operated at the 

Russian Mission tagging site and four upriver locations: the lower Koyukuk River, lower Tanana 

River, Chena River and Rampart Rapids. In 2001, stations were operated at five locations on the 

Yukon River main stem: Paimiut, Yukon-Anvik River confluence, Yukon-Yuki River confluence, 

Rampart Rapids, and the U.S.-Canada border (hereafter referred to as the Yukon Border). Stations 

were also activated near the mouth of the Anvik, Innoko, Koyukuk, and Tanana rivers, and at the 

U.S.-Canada border on the Porcupine River (hereafter referred to as the Porcupine Border). The 

entire tracking system (Table 2, Fig. 3) was operational in 2002. Pairs of stations were operated at 

locations with special significance, including Paimiut, lower Koyukuk River, lower Tanana River, 

Rampart Rapids, Yukon Border, and Porcupine Border, to avoid potential loss of data from unforseen 

events (e.g., technical problems with equipment, damage from bears and other causes). 

Aerial surveys were conducted in selected reaches of the drainage to locate radio-tagged fish 

that traveled to areas between station sites and upriver of stations on terminal tributaries. Fish were 

tracked from fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters equipped with 4-element Yagi receiving antennas 

mounted on both sides of the aircraft and oriented forward. Tracking receivers contained an 

integrated global positioning system (GPS) receiver to assist in identifying and recording locations. 

Limited tracking was also conducted by boat near the tagging site to document movements of radiotagged fish immediately after release. 
8 

Stock Composition Estimation 

Returning chinook salmon passing through the lower Yukon River are composed of a number 

of distinct stocks. These stocks travel to spawning areas throughout the basin and differ in entry 

timing and magnitude. A portion of these fish are intercepted in Yukon River fisheries before 

reaching their spawning areas. Stock composition at the tagging site is assessed by capturing, radio 

tagging, and tracking individuals to their final destination. The upriver distribution of the fish tagged 

per day is weighted by daily measures of abundance at the tagging site and adjusted to account for 

tagged fish removed in upriver fisheries. This approach provides an estimate of the relative 

abundance of stocks passing through the lower river on both a daily and seasonal basis. 

The number of radio-tagged fish released on day t at the capture sites in the lower Yukon 

′ River are denoted as R = ( R1, , K RT ) . Radio-tagged fish are assumed to represent a random sample 

from the mixture of chinook salmon stocks passing the tagging site each day. A total of 45 separate 

stocks (Fig. 4) are considered in the analysis, and the unknown stock proportions of this mixture on 

′ day t are denoted by θ = (θ 1, , K θt ,45 ) . Final destinations include 41 terminal spawning areas and t t , 

4 non-terminal areas (i.e., U.S. reaches of the Yukon River main stem potentially used for spawning 

or as a travel corridor for fish traveling farther upriver; these areas potentially include main stem 

tributaries not surveyed during the study). The numbers of radio-tagged fish escaping to spawning 

′ areas from releases on day t are denoted as rt = (rt ,1,, K rt ,45 ) . A total of 15 fisheries that harvest fish 

upriver from the tagging site were defined during the study (Table 3, Fig. 4); 14 of these fisheries 
9


(Fisheries B through O, numerically indexed in the estimation formulas as Fisheries 1 through 14, 

respectively) presumably alter the initial stock composition because together they disproportionally 

intercept stocks traveling to upriver spawning areas. Stocks traveling farther upriver are exposed to 

more fisheries than lower river stocks. The first of the 15 fisheries, Fishery A, is lowest in the study 

area, below all spawning areas, and therefore is assumed to exploit the stocks equally. Hereafter, 

radio-tagged fish caught in Fishery A are subtracted from the initial releases to provide a corrected set 

′ of daily releases, namely, R = ( R1, , K RT ) ; fish caught in Fishery A are not considered further in this 

analysis. Tagged fish destined for any spawning stock, such as stock s, are exposed to a downriver 

subset of the14 fisheries, and the collection of these fishery indices is denoted by Fs . Catches in the 14 

′ fisheries from releases of day t are denoted by Ct = (ct1,, K ct ,14 ) and the corresponding exploitation 

rates, or fractions of tagged fish entering and removed by each fishery, are denoted by 

′ φ = (φ 1, , K φt ,14 ) . The set of stock indices of upriver stocks passing through fishery f will be t t , 

denoted by S f , f = 1,K,14 . 

Observed counts of radio-tagged fish among spawning areas and catches were modeled so the 

effects of unequal harvests among the stocks would not bias estimates of the stock composition at the 

tagging site. The naive estimate of stock composition, equal to the observed distribution of radiotagged fish escaping to spawning areas, was rejected out-of-hand because of its inherent bias. A 

probability model was developed using the schematic for the migration routes, fisheries, and 
10

 spawning areas in the Yukon River basin (Fig. 4). Counts of fish in the escapements and catches 

from a daily release are assumed to have the multinomial distribution, 

⎛ ⎞

=


⎜

⎜

⎜

⎜

⎝ ct f , ! 

⎟

⎟

⎟

⎟

⎠

45 14 Rt ! 

45 14 (θ ψ , . ) (μ , ) rt s, c

∏ ∏ t f ,

(,, t , , p r , , ) t,1 K K , r c c ⋅ , 45 t 1 t 14 ts ts t f

∏ ts ∏ s=1 f 1 ! = r , (1) s=1 f =1 

45 14 

∑θ ψts , t s, +
∑μ = 1, 1, , t K T
 t f , = , s=1 f =1 

where ψ ts , = ∏(1 − φt, j ) is the probability that a fish destined for stock s escapes downriver 

j F∈ s 

fisheries, μtf , = ∏(1 − φ , ) ⋅ φ tj tf , ⋅ ∑θts , is the probability that a tagged fish released on day t is 

j H f ∈ s S∈ f

caught in fishery f, and is the set of indices fo H r fisheries downstream from fishery f. The f 

Lagrange function for the unknowns given the recoveries and catches from day t, which is the 

likelihood function with an added term to constrain the probabilities to equal 1, is 

45 14 

log Lrc ( , ;θ φt , t ) = + κ ∑r ts , log (θ ψ , ⋅ , ) +
∑c log (μ , ) +
 ts ts tf , t f

s=1 f =1 

(2) 

∑

⎛

⎜

⎝

γ θ ψ ts , t s, −
 ⎞

⎟

⎠

1 ,


45 14 

+ ∑μt f ,

s=1 f =1 

where 6 is a constant and ( is a constant called the Lagrange multiplier. The Lagrange function is 

maximized by values of θ , given in Table 4 with known values of φ , given by t s t f
11


⎛ ⎞ = ⎜ = ⎜

⎝

Rt −
∑rts , −
∑

s Gf ∈ j H∈ f 

ct j , ⎟

⎟

⎠

φ ,
 f 1,K,14, (3) tf c , t f ,

∑1 

where Gf is the set of indices for stocks downstream from fishery f . 

Although the estimates of daily stock composition are of interest, they do not reflect the 

changes in magnitude of daily returns to the Yukon River. The unknown daily numbers of 

T 

i= 

fish passing the capture site are denoted as E1, E2,ÿ, E , and their season total be E T ⋅ = Ei .

The daily fractions of the total return passing the capture site are denoted as 

π i = E E i /, i = 1,K, T . (4) . 

Daily fractions of the total season return of chinook salmon to the Yukon River that pass the capture 

site are estimated from the catch rates of gill nets used to capture fish for tagging. Gill nets are 

expected to capture fish in proportion to daily effort. Daily catches, X1, , K X , are assumed to be T 

Poisson random variables with expected values, 

λ λ h Et = (λ . ) Et = λπ t , t = 1,K, T , (5) = t t E ht 0 ht E . 

where λ λ = E is a constant proportional to the total return, and h is the number of units of effort 0 . t

fished on day t. Maximum likelihood estimates of the daily migration fractions, π π = ( ,K,π )′ , 1 T 

can be shown to be the time series of normalized catch per effort, 
12


T T ⎛ ⎞ ( π$t = Yt ∑Y X ht) ⎜∑ X ht 1,K, T (6) ⎝ ⎟

⎠ j = t t ′ ′ , t = . j=1 t′ =1

T 

X h t t

$ The maximum likelihood estimate of λ0 is λ0

t 1 

Daily fractions of the total season return to the Yukon River basin that are destined for any 

particular stock equal the products of the stock’s daily proportions, θ , , and the corresponding daily t s

∑= 

fractions of the total season return passing the tagging site, namely, ω , = πθ . These stock- ts t ts , 

specific daily fractions of the total return are estimated by the daily products of the estimates of stock 

composition (Table 4) and the daily migration fractions, π$ , t = 1, ÿ,T, from Equation 6, t

∑= 1

ωts = πθ , $ , $t 

$

ts , s = 1,K,45; t = 1,K, T . (7) 

Finally, the estimated fraction of the total season return to the Yukon River basin that belonged to any 

stock s equals the sum,

T 

t 

= . 

α$s $ , = ωt s , 1, s = K,45 . (8) 

To evaluate the sampling variation in estimates, a parametric bootstrap was performed. First, 

* * * random bootstrap samples of daily gillnet catches, XX ,K, XT , were drawn from Poisson 1 , 2 
13


distributions with expected values of the X* determined from the maximum likelihood estimates and t 

equal to X$

t = λ π , $ ht $t , t = 1 2,K, T . These random catches were used to compute corresponding 0 

bootstrap catch rates Y Y2

* * , ,K,, and daily migration fractions, π*

, t = 1,K, T. Next, 1 YT 

* 

t 

independent daily multinomial samples of radio-tagged fish, either migrating to the possible stocks, 

* * * * r rt,2 ,K, rtS , or caught in the various fisheries, c *

1,, c , from the daily known numbers t,1, , t, K t,14 

released, R, were drawn with probabilities equal to the original maximum likelihood estimates, t

⎛ ⎞

)
=


⎜

⎜

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎟

⎟

⎟

⎟

⎠

! 

S * 14 Rt ! *

(θ ψ , . ) (μ , ) r c

∏ 

s=1 

∏
 $ t s, * * * * t f ,

p r( , $ t, K r c tS K, c ⋅ t,14 ,
 , , 1 , t ,1 S 14 ts ts t f

* 

rt s ! *

, ∏ ∏ f =1 . ct f , 

s=1 f =1 

Bootstrap samples of tagged fish in catches and escapements were used to compute the 

corresponding bootstrap estimates for stock proportions, such as θ

$

t 

* , just as with the original counts 

of tagged fish. Finally, bootstrap estimates for stock proportions were weighted by the bootstrap daily 

migration fractions. The next bootstrap sampling began with another draw of the daily gillnet catches 

and tagged numbers migrating to the possible stocks or caught in the fisheries, followed by 

computation of the bootstrap estimates of daily catch rates, daily migration fractions, daily stock 

compositions, and weighted stock compositions. 
14 

Migration Rates 

Migration rates for radio-tagged chinook salmon were calculated by comparing the date and 

time that the fish moved upriver past the Paimiut tracking stations with information (i.e., date and 

time of passage, and the distance traveled upriver from Paimiut) from the station farthest upriver that 

last recorded the fish. Movements by the fish between the tagging site and Paimiut were not included 

in these calculations to avoid incorporating tagging-induced behavior that would bias the results, 

although these data were used as a relative measure to evaluate how the fish responded to the capture 

and tagging procedures. Migrations rates between tracking stations were also calculated to determine 

movement patterns within different reaches of the basin 

RESULTS 

Fish Capture and Tagging 

Drift gill nets were an effective method for capturing large numbers of adult chinook salmon 

in suitable condition for tagging. Fishing commenced early in the run and continued until the end of 

the run when catch rates were low. During 2000, 180 hours were fished from 7 June to 13 July and 

760 fish were captured; 303 hours were fished in 2001 from 7 June to 20 July and 2,313 fish were 

caught (Table 5). Catch trends were similar during the two-year feasibility phase of the study, with 

higher CPUE observed in 2001 (26.8 at Marshall and 45.1 at Russian Mission) than in 2000 (19.0 at 

Marshall and 13.7 at Russian Mission). Fishing in 2000 included effort in areas not normally fished, 

as well as in locations known to be productive based on local experience, which would account for 
15


the lower CPUE observed. Record levels of debris in 2000 also hindered fishing efforts. Debris was 

less of a problem in 2001, even though water levels at the capture sites were relatively high during 

both years of the feasibility phase. 

A total of 428 hours were fished from 9 June to 13 July during the 2002 basin-wide study 

with 1,310 fish captured (Table 5). Catch rates were substantially less, particularly at the Marshall 

site, possibly due to lower water levels compared to the first two years of the study, which may have 

adversely affected fishing. Initially, two shifts (day and night) were fished at Marshall and one shift 

(night) was fished at Russian Mission. A second shift (day) was fished at Russian Mission from 20 

June through 13 July to increase catches. The day crew at Marshall was also relocated to Russian 

Mission from 5 July to 13 July due to poor catch rates at Marshall. Catch rates in 2002 were higher 

during the first two weeks of tagging (early to mid-June) and declined steadily during the remainder 

of the run (Fig. 5). 

Most fish captured during the study were 6-year-olds, ranging from 60.6% (2000) to 76.6% 

(2001) of the sample (Table 6). The remaining fish were primarily 5-year-olds, with smaller numbers 

of 7-year-olds and 4-year-olds. Fish length for chinook salmon captured at Marshall and Russian 

Mission averaged 783 mm in 2000, 816 mm in 2001, and 819 mm in 2002. (Table 7). 

Limited numbers of fish were radio tagged at Russian Mission during the first two years of 

the study. The primary focus during this phase was to evaluate the response by chinook salmon to the 

capture and handling procedures. Fifty-three fish were tagged from 11 June to 30 June 2000; 106 fish 

were tagged from 18 June to 24 June 2001 (Table 8). Most radio-tagged fish were 6-year-olds 

ranging from 61.4% (2000) to 76.3% (2001) of the sample (Table 6). The remaining fish were 

primarily 5-year-olds (33.3% in 2000 and 19.8% in 2001), with a small proportion of 4-year-olds 
16


(1.3% in 2001) and 7-year-olds (5.3% in 2000 and 2.6% in 2001). Length for radio-tagged fish 

averaged 783 mm (ranging from 490 to 1,000 mm) in 2000, and 806 mm (ranging from 555 to 935 

mm) in 2001 (Table 7). 

A total of 768 chinook salmon were tagged at Marshall and Russian Mission from 9 June to 

13 July during the 2002 basin-wide study (Table 8). Six-year-old and 5-year-old fish were again the 

dominant age groups tagged (63.2% and 21.2%, respectively), with smaller numbers of 7-year-olds 

(11.5%) and 4-year-olds (4.1%) (Table 6). Radio-tagged fish in 2002 averaged 819 mm in length, 

ranging from 400 to 1,060 mm (Table 7). 

Fish Response to Tagging 

Most fish were tracked upriver from the tagging site during the feasibility phase of the study, 

including 37 (69.8%) fish in 2000 and 103 (97.2%) fish in 2001 (Table 9). Differences observed 

between the two years were attributed to improvements in the transmitters used during 2001, which 

significantly increase detection rates, and the installation of additional tracking stations, which 

provided better coverage of the basin. Results comparable to 2001 were observed during the 2002 

basin-wide study when fish were also tagged with the improved transmitters and all stations were 

operational (Fig. 3); 751 (97.8%) fish moved past the Paimiut stations in 2002 and traveled to 

upriver reaches or were caught in upriver fisheries (Table 9, Fig. 6). Seventeen fish (2.2%) did not 

resume upriver movements after tagging, and either regurgitated their tags or died due to handling, 

predation, or undocumented encounters with fisheries. 
17


Localized tracking within the capture area indicated that most fish held in eddies of the main 

river (i.e., areas with limited current) for several hours after tagging, although some fish resumed 

upriver movements immediately after release. Nineteen fish were recorded passing the tracking 

station at the Russian Mission tagging site in 2000. These fish averaged 0.8 days to resume upriver 

movements and move out of the immediate area. Radio-tagged fish in 2001 averaged 2.2 days after 

release to travel past tracking stations at Paimiut (i.e., 42 km upriver from the capture site), an 

average movement rate of 22.8 km/day (Table 10). In 2002, Russian Mission fish averaged 1.5 days 

to pass the Paimiut stations, traveling an average of 33.8 km/day, while fish tagged at Marshall took 

an average of 3.5 days to pass these stations, a movement rate of 45.8 km/day (Table 10). 

Fishery Recoveries 

Radio-tagged chinook salmon were harvested in fisheries throughout the Yukon River basin 

(Appendix B), with harvest rates of 22.6% (2000), 26.8% (2001) and 35.2% (2002) of the tagged 

sample (Table 9). Most of the tagged fish harvested were caught in U.S. fisheries, with 75.0% to 

79.3% of the recoveries during the feasibility phase of the study, and 87.0% of the recoveries during 

the basin-wide study (Table 11). Aerial surveys, flown over villages along the Tanana River and the 

Yukon River main stem in 2002, documented that 49 of the 270 (18.2%) fish harvested were not 

reported by fishers. 

Relatively small numbers of fish were recovered in fisheries during 2000 (12 fish) and 2001 

(29 fish) due to the limited tagging effort during this phase of the study (Table 11). Harvest rates 

were comparable downriver of the Yukon-Tanana River confluence in 2000 (58.3%) and 2001 
18


(58.7%). Fewer fish were recovered in the Tanana River and the upper basin (i.e., the Yukon River 

above the Yukon-Tanana River confluence and the Porcupine River). Percentages of tagged fish 

similar to 2000 and 2001 were caught in U.S. fisheries from Marshall to Holy Cross (23.0%) and 

from Anvik to Ruby (27.8%) during 2002. However, 86 (31.8%) tagged fish were harvested in the 

Yukon River from the Yukon-Tanana River confluence to Eagle, roughly a 3-fold increase from 2001 

(Table 11). With the exception of the fishery near Eagle, these fish likely comprised both U.S. and 

Canadian stocks. Fish caught near Eagle were assumed to be destined for spawning areas in Canada. 

Twelve (4.4%) fish were harvested in the Tanana River. Thirty-five (13.0%) fish were recovered in 

the Canadian portion of the basin (Table 11). Thirty-four of these fish were destined 

for Yukon River spawning areas, with most of recoveries from Dawson, Carmacks, and the Pelly 

River. One fish was recovered in the Porcupine River near the village of Old Crow. 

Distribution of Radio-Tagged Fish 

Feasibility Phase 2000-2001 

Minimal information was obtained on chinook salmon distribution during the feasibility 

phase of the study due to both the limited tagging effort (Table 8) and partial tracking station 

coverage (5 sites in 2000 and 10 sites in 2001). Thirty fish moved upstream in 2000 and were 

subsequently recorded by upriver tracking stations or caught in terminal fisheries (i.e., harvested after 

reaching their final destination). Seventeen (56.7%) fish returned to the Tanana River and 13 (43.3%) 

fish returned to the upper basin (Table 12). At least six of these fish traveled to Canadian reaches, 
19


based on information from fishery recoveries and run assessment projects in Canada, including five 

Yukon River fish and one Porcupine River fish. No fish passed the tracking stations on the Koyukuk 

River (Table 12). 

Eighty-one fish moved upriver in 2001 and were subsequently recorded by tracking stations 

or harvested in terminal fisheries (Table 12). Eight (9.9%) fish remained in the lower basin (i.e., the 

Yukon River and associated tributaries downstream from the Yukon-Koyukuk River confluence), 

including three (3.7%) fish tracked to the Anvik River. No fish passed the Innoko River station. 

Three (3.7%) fish traveled to the Koyukuk River and nine (11.1%) fish were tracked to reaches of the 

Yukon River between Galena and the Yukon-Tanana River confluence (hereafter referred to as the 

middle Yukon River). Twenty-three (28.4%) fish traveled to the Tanana River, including three fish 

caught in the Tanana River fishery. Nine (11.1%) fish were tracked to U.S. reaches of the upper 

basin, while 29 (35.8%) fish returned to Canada, including 6 fish caught in the Canadian fishery 

(Table 12). 

Basin-wide Study 2002 

Radio-tagged chinook salmon traveled to areas throughout the Yukon River basin in 2002 

(Fig. 7). Upper basin fish comprised the largest component of the sample, with 291 (55.0%) fish 

returning to the upper Yukon and Porcupine rivers (Table 12, Fig. 8). A substantial number of these 

fish traveled to Canadian reaches, including 215 (40.6%) Yukon River fish and 9 (1.7%) Porcupine 

River fish. Most (136, 25.7%) Canadian fish were tracked to tributaries of the Yukon River main 

stem (Appendix C), including the Stewart (21, 4.0%), Pelly (32, 6.0%), Big Salmon (17, 3.2%), and 
20


Teslin (36, 6.8%) rivers (Appendix D). Small numbers of fish were also located in Coal Creek (1, 

0.2%), Chandindu River (1, 0.2%), Klondike River (6, 1.1%), White River (8, 1.5%), Tatchun Creek 

(4, 0.8%), Nordenskiold River (2, 0.4%), Little Salmon River (2, 0.4%), and in areas above the 

Yukon-Teslin River confluence (7, 1.3%). Fifty-five (10.4%) fish remained in reaches of the Yukon 

River main stem or traveled to associated tributaries not monitored by tracking stations or surveyed by 

aircraft (Appendix C). Little information is available on chinook salmon movements in the Canadian 

portion of the Porcupine River, although two radio-tagged fish were located in lower reaches of the 

Miner River during cursory aerial surveys of the area. 

Sixty-seven (12.7%) fish were tracked to the U.S. portion of the upper basin, including 50 

(9.5%) Yukon River fish and 17 (3.2%) Porcupine River fish (Table 12). Twenty-three (4.3%) fish in 

the upper Yukon River were tracked to tributaries (Fig. 8). Most of these fish returned to the 

Chandalar River (19, 3.6%), although small numbers were located in Beaver Creek (1, 0.2%) and the 

Charley (2, 0.4%) and Kandik (1, 0.2%) rivers (Appendix D). Twenty-seven (5.1%) fish remained in 

reaches of the Yukon River main stem or traveled to associated tributaries not monitored by tracking 

stations or surveyed by aircraft (Fig. 8), including 24 (4.5%) fish downriver from Circle and 3 (0.6%) 

fish upriver from Circle. Most Porcupine River fish returned to the Sheenjek River (12, 2.2%), while 

two (0.4%) fish were tracked to upper reaches of the Black River and three (0.6%) remained in the 

Porcupine River main stem or associated tributaries (Appendix D). 

Tanana River fish comprised a major component of the sample, with 118 (22.3%) fish 

returning to this section of the basin. Most (19.5%) Tanana River fish traveled to tributaries in the 

upper reaches of the drainage (Appendix C), including the Chena (30, 5.7%), Salcha (47, 8.9%), and 

Goodpaster (16, 3.0%) rivers (Appendix D). Fish were also located in the Kantishna (8, 1.5%) and 
21


Tolovana (2, 0.4%) rivers. Six (1.1%) fish remained in reaches of the Tanana River main stem or 

traveled to associated tributaries not surveyed, including one fish located in the upper reaches of 

the drainage (i.e., upriver of the confluence with the Salcha River). Nine (1.7%) fish were recovered 

in Tanana River fisheries; most (7, 1.3%) were caught near Nenana (Appendix B). 

Sixty-nine (13.0%) fish traveled to tributaries in the lower basin (Fig. 8). Anvik River (34, 

6.4%) and Nulato River (20, 3.8%) fish were most prevalent, with smaller numbers of fish traveling 

to the Innoko (5, 0.9%) and Bonasila (10, 1.9%) rivers (Appendix D). Nine (1.7) fish returned to 

tributaries associated with the middle Yukon River (Fig. 8), including the Melozitna (1, 0.2%), 

Nowitna (1, 0.2%), and Tozitna (7, 1.3%) rivers (Appendix D). Eleven (2.1%) fish returned to the 

Koyukuk River (Table 12, Fig. 8), including four (0.8%) Gisasa River fish, one (0.2%) Kateel River 

fish, and six (1.1%) fish that traveled to the upper reaches of the drainage (Appendix D). Thirty-one 

(5.9%) fish were last recorded in non-terminal reaches of the Yukon River main stem, including 22 

(4.2%) fish in the lower basin and 9 (1.7%) fish in the middle Yukon River (Appendix C). Some of 

these non-terminal fish may have traveled to mainstem tributaries not surveyed during the study. 

Stock Composition 

Stock composition estimates were derived for the 2002 chinook salmon return based on the 

distribution of radio-tagged fish, adjusted to account for both the harvest of tagged individuals in 

upriver fisheries and changes in run abundance at the Russian Mission tagging site. The chinook run 

was composed primarily of Tanana River (20.9%) and upper basin (66.0%) stocks (Table 13). 

Canadian fish comprised the largest component of the return (53.4%), with the majority (50.7%) 
22


traveling to reaches of the Yukon River and only a small percentage (2.7%) traveling to the 

Porcupine River (Fig. 9). Most Canadian fish (40.1%) returned to tributaries of the Yukon River 

main stem, primarily the Stewart (7.2%), Pelly (9.2%), Big Salmon (5.2%), and Teslin (9.9%) rivers 

(Fig. 10). Smaller stocks included the Klondike (1.5%), White (4.0%), Tatchun (0.7%), 

Nordenskiold (0.7%), and Little Salmon (0.2%) rivers and reaches upriver of the Yukon-Teslin River 

confluence (1.5%) (Appendix E). Canadian fish also remained in reaches of the Yukon River main 

stem and small associated tributaries (10.6%), including 1.8% downriver from Dawson (i.e., the lower 

Canadian Yukon River, including fish in Coal Creek and the Chandindu River), 3.9% between 

Dawson and the Yukon-Tatchun Creek confluence (i.e., the mid-Canadian Yukon River), and 4.9% 

upriver of the Yukon-Tatchun Creek confluence (i.e., the upper Canadian Yukon River). 

Chinook salmon stocks returning to U.S. reaches comprised a substantial proportion (46.6%) 

of the 2002 run, including 20.9% that were Tanana River fish and 12.6% that were upper basin fish 

(Table 13, Fig. 9). Fish returning to the Chena (5.2%), Salcha (10.8%), and Goodpaster (2.8%) rivers 

were the dominant Tanana River stocks (Fig. 11). Tanana River fish also returned to the Kantishna 

(1.1%) and Tolovana (0.4%) rivers (Appendix E). A small proportion of the return (0.6%) remained 

in reaches of the Tanana River main stem or traveled to small associated tributaries not surveyed 

during the study. Upper basin fish traveled to reaches in both the Yukon (9.1%) and Porcupine 

(3.5%) rivers (Fig. 9). Spawning populations were documented in Yukon River tributaries including 

Beaver Creek (0.1%), and the Chandalar (3.4%), Charley (0.3%) and Kandik (0.6%) rivers (Fig. 11). 

Fish also remained in reaches of the Yukon River main stem or small associated tributaries not 

surveyed during the study (4.6%), including 4.3% downriver from Circle and 0.3% between Circle 

and Eagle. Most (2.5%) Porcupine River fish returned to the Sheenjek River (Fig. 11). Porcupine 
23


River fish also spawned in upper reaches of the Black River (0.4%), and remained in the Porcupine 

River main stem or traveled to associated tributaries not surveyed during the study (0.6%). Although 

no tracking surveys were conducted, spawning chinook salmon were observed by local residents in 

the Coleen River, a tributary of the Porcupine River located downriver from the Porcupine Border. 

Chinook salmon also spawned in reaches of the lower basin and middle Yukon River. A total 

of 6.3% of the run returned to tributaries in the lower basin (Fig. 9), including the Innoko (0.7%), 

Bonasila (0.9%), Anvik (2.9%), and Nulato (1.9%) rivers (Fig. 11). Middle Yukon River tributaries 

comprised 1.6% of the return, with most fish traveling to the Tozitna River (1.2%), and smaller 

numbers spawning in the Melozitna (0.1%) and Nowitna (0.2%) rivers. Fish also remained in reaches 

of the Yukon River main stem downstream of the Yukon-Tanana River confluence or traveled to 

small associated tributaries not surveyed during the study (3.7%), with most of these in the lower 

basin (2.9%). Relatively small numbers of chinook salmon returned to the Koyukuk River (1.5%), 

with fish traveling to the Gisasa River (0.3%), Kateel River (0.1%), and upper reaches of the drainage 

(1.1%) (Fig. 11). 

Regional differences in run timing were observed for chinook salmon stocks passing through 

the lower Yukon River. Canadian Yukon River and Tanana River stocks were present throughout the 

return, but were most abundant early in the run (Fig. 12). A similar pattern was observed for fish 

returning to tributaries in U.S. reaches of the upper Yukon River, with these stocks prevalent 

primarily during early and mid-June. Porcupine River stocks in both the United States and Canada 

were also early and mid-run fish. Koyukuk and middle Yukon River tributary fish were present in 

small numbers throughout the return. Fish allocated to non-terminal areas in the Yukon River 
24


exhibited a similar pattern. Although present throughout the run, fish traveling to lower basin 

tributaries were more abundant during late June and July (Fig. 12). 

Run timing differences were also observed within regions of the basin. Chinook salmon 

stocks returning to lower Canadian reaches, including the Klondike, Stewart, and White rivers, were 

primarily early run fish, while the timing of fish returning to the Pelly, Big Salmon, and Teslin rivers 

was more protracted (Fig. 13). Fish remaining in middle and upper reaches of the Canadian main 

stem and associated tributaries, including Tatchun Creek, Nordenskiold River, and headwaters areas 

upriver of Hootalinqua, also exhibited a protracted and somewhat later run timing. Stocks returning 

to U.S. reaches of the upper basin were primarily early run fish. Most Chandalar and Sheenjek fish 

passed through the lower river in mid-June (Fig. 14). In the Tanana River, Salcha River chinook 

salmon were primarily early run fish, although this stock was present throughout the run. The timing 

of Chena River and Goodpaster River fish was somewhat later. Koyukuk River fish were present 

throughout the run, with upper headwater stocks observed during the early and late run, and Gisasa 

River fish present during the middle run. The timing for Anvik River and Nulato River fish, the 

dominant stocks in the lower basin, was later than that exhibited by middle and upper basin fish (Fig. 

14). 

Differences were also observed in the daily composition of stocks moving through the lower 

river (Appendix F). Canadian stocks were predominant throughout the run (Fig. 15), comprising an 

average of 48.8% of the fish passing the Russian Mission tagging site per day. These stocks were 

somewhat more prevalent during early and mid-June, with daily composition averaging 56.8% and 

40.2% during the first and last half of the run, respectively. Although less abundant than Canadian 

stocks, Tanana River fish (17.6% daily average) exhibited a similar pattern with daily averages of 
25


23.6% and 11.2% during the first and last half of the run, respectively. Fish returning to tributaries in 

U.S. reaches of the upper basin also tended to enter the river during the early and middle run. In 

contrast, fish returning to tributaries in the lower basin were more prevalent later in the run. 

Although relatively minor in terms of overall abundance (Fig. 9, Table 13), these stocks comprised a 

substantial portion of the late run with daily composition averaging 25.5% compared to an average of 

5.4% during early and mid-June. A similar pattern was observed for fish remaining in non-terminal 

area, with low daily averages throughout most of the run, and higher levels in July. 

Stock composition estimates derived for 2002 were based on the assumption that fish 

allocated to designated stock groups, including those in non-terminal areas, represented spawning 

populations. Non-terminal stock groups that included fish in-transit to areas farther upriver (i.e., fish 

that were harvested in fisheries but not reported, or died due to disease, injuries, or predation prior to 

reaching their final destination) would bias composition estimates, and underestimate the 

contribution of upriver stocks. To address this concern, stock composition estimates were 

recalculated with fish remaining in non-terminal areas categorized as in-transit and treated as fishery 

recoveries. Composition estimates for most stocks were similar using the two approaches (Fig. 16). 

The greatest difference was observed for Yukon River fish in Canada, with estimates ranging from 

50.7% of the return when non-terminal fish were categorized as spawning populations to 56.7% of 

the return when these fish were considered in-transit to spawning areas farther upriver. 
26 

Movement Patterns 

Information on chinook movements during the feasibility phase of the study was limited to 

regional comparisons due to partial tracking station coverage. Radio-tagged fish traveled an average 

of 51.3 km/day in 2000, ranging from 51.0 km/day for Tanana River fish to 53.3 km/day for upper 

basin fish (Table 14). The fastest migration rate recorded was 66.8 km/day for a 7-year-old fish 

returning to the Tanana River. Similar movement patterns were observed in 2001, with radio-tagged 

fish averaging 51.1 km/day. Tanana River fish traveled an average of 52.4 km/day compared to 52.8 

km/day and 54.2 km/day for upper basin fish in the United States and Canada, respectively (Table 

14). Small numbers of fish were tracked to lower and middle reaches of the basin. Fish returning to 

the Koyukuk River averaged 49.2 km/day, while fish tracked to reaches associated with the middle 

Yukon River traveled an average of 47.7 km/day. In the lower basin, Anvik River fish averaged 14.0 

km/day (Table 14). The fastest movement rate recorded in 2001 was 69.5 km/day for a 6-year-old 

fish returning to the Tanana River. 

Complete tracking station coverage in 2002 provided movement information for specific 

chinook salmon stocks. Upper basin fish traveled an average of 54.2 km/day. Fish returning to the 

Yukon River in Canada averaged 53.1 km/day, ranging from 49.3 km/day for fish traveling to reaches 

of the Yukon River main stem to 58.9 km/day for Klondike River fish (Table 15). Similar rates were 

observed for stocks traveling to U.S. reaches in the upper Yukon River, with averages of 58.6 km/day 

for tributary fish and 54.1 km/day for fish remaining in non-terminal areas (i.e., reaches of the main 

stem or associated tributaries not monitored during the study). Porcupine River fish traveled 

substantially faster than Yukon River fish, averaging 60.4 km/day for U.S. stocks and 63.3 km/day 
27


for Canadian stocks (Table 15). Tanana River fish exhibited slower migration rates (47.7 km/day), 

with Chena River, Salcha River, and Goodpaster River fish ranging from 45.3 km/day to 49.7 

km/day, while fish remaining in mainstem areas or associated tributaries not monitored during the 

study averaged 55.6 km/day. Tributary fish returning to the middle Yukon River averaged 54.8 

km/day; the same rate observed for non-terminal fish within this section of the basin. In the Koyukuk 

River, Gisasa River fish averaged 43.0 km/day, compared to 57.9 km/day for fish traveling to the 

upper headwaters of the drainage. Chinook salmon returning to reaches in the lower basin moved 

substantially slower than middle and upper basin stocks. Fish located in lower river tributaries 

averaged 31.3 km/day, ranging from 21.6 km/day for Innoko River fish to 42.0 km/day for Bonasila 

River fish (Table 15, Appendix G). 

Migration rates recorded for Chena River, Salcha River, and Goodpaster River fish were 

substantially slower than rates for most middle and upper basin stocks. However, the tracking 

stations used to monitor these tributaries were located relatively close to spawning areas, and the 

lower rates reflected slower swimming speeds as the fish approached their natal streams. When 

comparing swimming rates based on movements from Paimiut to the lower Tanana River, these 

stocks averaged between 55.8 km/day and 59.1 km/day (Table 16), movement rates comparable to 

upper basin fish. A similar phenomenon was observed for other stocks, including Gisasa River fish 

and fish traveling to Canadian reaches of the Yukon River main stem. In contrast, tracking stations 

on tributaries associated directly with the Yukon River main stem, such as the Chandalar, Sheenjek, 

Stewart, and Pelly rivers, were typically placed near the confluence, and often located a substantial 

distance from areas used for spawning. The average movement rates for fish passing these stations 

were comparable to rates observed lower in the basin. For example, Stewart River fish averaged 56.8 
28


km/day between tracking stations at Paimiut and the Stewart River (located approximately 20 km 

from the Yukon-Stewart River confluence), compared to 57.5 km/day for these fish between Paimiut 

and the Yukon border. A breakdown of the movements for fish traveling between areas of the basin 

shows a similar pattern, with Tanana River tributary stocks having comparable movement rates to 

upper basin fish while traveling through reaches of the Yukon River main stem, but exhibiting slower 

rates after entering the Tanana River and approaching their natal streams (Fig. 17). 

DISCUSSION 

Management of Yukon River chinook salmon is complicated by recent declines in abundance 

and the international nature of the drainage, which makes it necessary to address harvest allocation 

issues in both the United States and Canada. Radio telemetry has been used effectively to provide 

information on Pacific salmon (Burger et al. 1985, Eiler et al. 1992, Bendock and Alexandersdottir 

1993); however, the logistical problems associated with capturing, tagging, and tracking large 

numbers of highly mobile fish in the Yukon River basin are unique and severe. Results from this 

study demonstrate that large, basin-wide telemetry studies are feasible and provide useful information. 

Drift gill nets were effective in capturing adequate numbers of fish in the lower river in suitable 

condition for tagging, and the number of fish radio tagged in 2002 (i.e., the first year of large-scale 

tagging) was sufficient to analyze and compare different components of the run. Although problems 

tracking fish in the lower river were initially encountered during the feasibility phase of the study 

(Eiler and Holder In press), improved transmitters and receiving equipment developed to address 

limitations in depth and range reception were used successfully to track chinook salmon movements 
29


during their upriver migration. The system of satellite-linked tracking stations, in combination with 

the automated database and mapping program, was able to collect and summarize telemetry data inseason, making it possible to prioritize field activities and address management issues within the 

basin. Although technically feasible, large-scale, basin-wide telemetry studies are extremely 

challenging. The success of this study was largely due to the cooperation of numerous resource 

agencies and organizations, an adequate feasibility phase to establish suitable procedures and the 

necessary infrastructure, sufficient funding to support the various components of the project and to 

address unforeseen technical and logistical problems, and the personal dedication of the participants 

often working under less than ideal conditions. 

A primary assumption in tagging studies is that capture, handling, and tagging procedures do 

not adversely affect the fish (i.e., tagged fish behave the same as untagged fish), or that any effect is 

limited in severity and duration, and ultimately has negligible impact. Chinook salmon radio tagged 

during this study appeared to respond well to the procedures used, with most resuming upriver 

movements after release. This was particularly true in 2001 and 2002 when more than 97% of the 

tagged fish traveled to upriver areas or were recovered in upriver fisheries. The proportion of fish not 

moving upriver after release (< 3%) is lower than reported for most radio-tagging studies (Burger et 

al. 1985, Milligan et al. 1985, Johnson et al. 1992). The percentage of fish located upriver in 2000 

(70%) was substantially less, although this was probably due to incomplete tracking station coverage 

within the basin and the use of telemetry equipment less suited for Yukon River studies (i.e., prior to 

development of improved transmitters and receiving equipment used during 2001 and 2002). 

Fish adversely affected by tagging would likely show reduced vitality as they moved upriver, 

particularly those individuals traveling long distances. However, the movement rates observed during 
30


the study did not exhibit this pattern, with upper basin fish traveling an average of 54 km/day 

throughout their upriver migration. Untagged chinook salmon in the Yukon River are thought to 

travel between 48 km/day and 56 km/day based on estimated arrival times of distinct pulses of fish at 

village fisheries along the drainage (T. Vania, Fishery Management Biologist, Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, AK 99518. Pers. commun., February 2001) . 

These estimates are comparable to migration rates observed for radio-tagged fish during this study. 

Information from previous tagging studies also suggests that handling had negligible effect. Chinook 

salmon radio tagged at Rampart Rapids in 1998 traveled an average of 53 km/day (Joint Technical 

Committee of the Yukon River U.S./Canada Panel 1998), rates comparable to upper basin fish tagged 

during the 2002 study (54 km/day) even though these latter individuals traveled substantially greater 

distances after tagging. By comparison, radio-tagged chinook salmon in the Columbia River traveled 

between 43 km/day and 65 km/day through dam reservoirs in the lower basin (i.e., slow moving water 

with minimal current), and about half that rate in free-flowing rivers in the upper basin (Bjornn et al. 

2000). 

A common response observed in tagging studies is for fish to hold in localized areas or drift 

with the current immediately after release prior to resuming normal patterns of movement. Limited 

boat tracking near Russian Mission determined that some radio-tagged fish exhibited this behavior, 

restricting their movements and holding in eddies of the main river for several hours after release 

presumably to recover from tagging. The initial response (i.e., the movement rate between the 

tagging site and the Paimiut tracking stations) exhibited by fish tagged at Russian Mission also 

indicates that the fish experienced a delay or slower swimming speeds immediately after release 

(Table 10). However, movement rates increased substantially after passing Paimiut (Table 15) 
31


suggesting that any adverse effect was limited. The initial response of fish tagged at Marshall also 

supports this interpretation. These fish exhibited faster movement rates between their tagging site and 

Paimiut (a distance of about 150 km), suggesting that they had recovered from tagging and were 

swimming at a more typical rate as they moved farther upriver. Migration rates calculated for 

chinook salmon stocks (Table 15) were based on the movements of radio-tagged fish upriver from 

Paimiut to avoid including tagging-induced behavior that would bias the results and not reflect typical 

movements. 

Chinook salmon returning to the Yukon River in 2002 were primarily Tanana River and 

upper basin stocks, comprising approximately 87% of the return. Telemetry information from 2000-

2001 suggests a similar pattern, although these data are not based on representative sampling. 

Canadian fish were the dominant component in the upper basin, with most (35.5% of the return) 

traveling to large headwater tributaries, including the Stewart, White, Pelly, Big Salmon, and Teslin 

rivers. Smaller tributaries also supported spawning populations (4.6% of the return). Substantial 

numbers of fish remained in Canadian reaches of the Yukon River main stem (10.6% of the return), 

although turbid conditions made it impossible to verify spawning activity; this component may also 

include fish spawning in small associated tributaries not surveyed during the study. Chinook salmon 

spawning has been previously reported in Canadian reaches of the Yukon River main stem (Milligan 

et al. 1985), suggesting that these fish may represent spawning populations. Small numbers of fish 

also returned to Canadian reaches in the Porcupine River (2.7%). 

United States stocks were also an important component of the Yukon River chinook salmon 

return. Similar to the Canadian component, these fish were composed of a combination of major and 

minor stocks. Chinook salmon returning to the Tanana River (20.9% of the return) were 
32


predominantly Chena River, Salcha River, and Goodpaster River fish (18.8% of the return), although 

minor spawning populations were also documented in the Kantishna, Tolovana, and Nenana rivers. 

Although spawning has been reported for chinook salmon in U.S. reaches of the upper basin, these 

populations were previously thought to be insignificant. However, this stock group comprised about 

8% of the 2002 return, with Chandalar River and Sheenjek River fish as the primary components 

(5.9% of the run). Minor stocks were identified in small mainstem tributaries, and fish also remained 

in non-terminal areas. 

Stocks associated with the middle Yukon River were a minor component of the run 

compared to other regions of the basin. The small middle river tributaries (i.e., the Melozitna, 

Nowitna, and Tozitna rivers) comprised only 1.6% of the run combined. Although the Koyukuk 

River drains a large watershed, the percentage of fish returning to this tributary was comparable 

(1.5%). Lower basin tributary fish were also a relatively minor component of the run, comprising 

6.3% of the return. Chinook salmon returning to this region were predominantly Anvik River and 

Nulato River fish (4.8% of the return), with small numbers of fish traveling to other areas. 

Country of origin estimates, based on information from the 2002 telemetry study, indicate that 

Canadian stocks comprised approximately 53% of the Yukon River return, with most of these fish 

traveling to the Canadian portion of the Yukon River (50.7%) and a relatively minor component to 

the Porcupine River. These proportions are consistent with other estimates reported for the drainage. 

Scale pattern analysis from the early 1980s suggested that Canadian-origin fish comprised between 

42% and 54% of the return (Anon 1985). Milligan et al. (1985) estimated that approximately 50% of 

the chinook salmon return was made up of Canadian stocks, based on catch and escapement 

information, ranging from 44% to 51% in years with low returns and 48% to 57% during years of 
33


greater abundance. Genetic stock identification estimates of the Canadian contribution from 1987 to 

1990 averaged 53% of the return, ranging from 42% to 61% (Wilmot et al. 1992). However, not all 

stocks were included in the genetic baseline used for this analysis, including U.S. stocks in the upper 

basin, notably fish returning to the Chandalar and Sheenjek rivers, which could bias the results. 

Similarities were also observed between the run timing of the significant stock groups reported by 

Wilmot et al. (1992) and those observed during the 2002 study. Although differences existed, 

particularly when comparing results from the different years of genetic sampling, the general 

agreement between the two methods suggests that the estimates derived from the 2002 telemetry 

study are credible. 

The two major stock groups, Canadian Yukon River and Tanana River fish, exhibited similar 

run timing patterns, with most fish passing through the lower river during the early and middle run 

and declining in magnitude during the late run. (Fig. 12). However, differences in run timing were 

also observed within regions. For example, Stewart River and White River stocks were primarily 

early run fish, moving through the lower river in early June, while other Canadian stocks, such as the 

Pelly River, Big Salmon River, and Yukon River main stem, displayed a more protracted run timing 

that extended into the late run. Lower basin stocks were comprised primarily of late run fish. 

However, in general, most stocks were not temporally distinct, making it difficult to separate stocks 

based on run timing. 

Run timing and daily stock composition estimates for chinook salmon further illustrated the 

predominance of Tanana River and upper basin stocks. Canadian fish were the most abundant stock 

group moving through the lower river during the early and middle run. Although less abundant, 

Tanana River fish were also a prominent component during this period. Lower basin fish were 
34


prominent later in the run, but the Canadian contribution during this period was comparable. A 

similar pattern occurred when comparing daily stock composition at the Russian Mission tagging site 

(Fig. 15). Canadian fish were the most prevalent stock group throughout the early and middle run, 

and were comparable in number or slightly less abundant than lower basin fish late in the run. 

Tanana River fish displayed a similar pattern to Canadian fish, while fish returning to U.S. tributaries 

in the upper basin were present primarily during the early and middle run. 

Questions exist about the status of fish remaining in non-terminal areas (i.e., U.S. reaches of 

the Yukon River main stem). Non-terminal areas not only serve as migration corridors for fish 

traveling farther upriver, but potentially support spawning populations. However, many non-terminal 

areas are turbid and hard to access, making verification of spawning activity difficult. Stock 

composition estimates suggest that about 8% of the 2002 return remained in non-terminal areas, 

including 2.9% in the lower basin, 0.8% in the middle basin, and 4.6% in the upper basin. Stock 

composition estimates derived for the return assumed that fish in non-terminal areas were spawning in 

mainstem reaches or small associated tributaries not surveyed during the study due to personnel and 

funding limitations. Anadromous stream catalogs for the lower and upper basin indicate that chinook 

salmon spawners have been observed in tributary streams not surveyed during the study, although 

these populations are thought to be minor. Mainstem spawning has been reported for chinook salmon 

in the Canadian portion of the Yukon River. It is not known if suitable salmon spawning habitat 

exists in U.S. reaches, although evidence of non-salmonid spawning has been reported (Brown 2000). 

An alternative explanation is that non-terminal fish represent tagged individuals that have 

died while in-transit to upriver spawning areas due to handling, predation, disease, or injuries from 

encounters with fishing gear. These fish may also have been harvested in fisheries but not reported; 
35


reluctance by fishers to provide information on tag recoveries is often a problem as demonstrated by 

the substantial number (18.2%) of unreported recoveries in 2002. There is ancillary information that 

tags were periodically thrown back into the river or left on the shore, further limiting our ability to 

determine fish status. Incidents of radio-tagged fish regurgitating their tags when captured and 

removed from fishing gear have also been reported by fishers within the basin. Although it is 

difficult to substantiate or to rule out these factors, tracking data collected during the study does 

provide some insights. The distribution pattern of non-terminal fish was clumped in the lower basin 

between Holy Cross and Nulato, and in the upper Yukon River between Tanana and Fort Yukon --

both areas with intensive fishing -- while relatively few non-terminal fish were observed in the 

middle Yukon River between Galena and Tanana, and the upper Yukon River between Circle and the 

Yukon Border. Many non-terminal fish were last located in outlying areas near villages or in the 

general vicinity of fish camps (i.e., areas where their status could not be readily verified), suggesting 

some interaction with local fisheries may have occurred. 

Adverse impacts from handling are always a concern in tagging studies. Numerous studies 

have been conducted to assess tagging effects on fish, and anomalous behavior has periodically been 

reported (McCleave and Stred 1975, Mellas and Haynes 1985, Brown and Eiler 2000). However, 

the large percentage of fish that moved upriver (Table 9), the relatively fast, sustained movement rates 

observed (Table 15), and the presence of non-terminal fish in the upper basin, suggests that adverse 

impacts from tagging were minimal. 

Since the late 1990s, the fish disease Ichthyophonus has been reported in Yukon River 

chinook salmon (Kocan and Hershberger 1999). Recent sampling studies in the basin have suggested 

that infected fish destined for the Tanana River and the upper basin may succumb to the disease while 
36


in-transit to upriver spawning areas. Although some of the non-terminal fish may be infected 

individuals that died prior to reaching spawning areas farther upriver, the distribution pattern observed 

during the study does not fully fit this explanation. Although Ichthyophonus- related mortality would 

potentially explain the presence of non-terminal fish between Rampart and Fort Yukon, relatively few 

fish (0.5% of the return) remained in reaches of the Tanana River main stem, and several of these 

were located in likely spawning areas. Tanana River fish may not have been affected by the disease 

until after reaching their terminal spawning areas, and additional monitoring of fish in these areas may 

provide additional insights regarding potential impacts. Similarly, mortality due to the disease doesn’t 

address the concentration of non-terminal fish in the lower basin or the general absence of nonterminal fish in the middle basin, although it has been shown that the severity of the disease increases 

as the fish move farther upriver (Kocan and Hershberger 1999). Another explanation is that nonterminal fish result from a combination of factors, including fish that spawn in associated areas not 

monitored during the study, or that died while in-transit to spawning areas farther upriver due to 

undocumented encounters with fisheries, disease, or handling mortality. 

Stock composition estimates for the 2002 chinook salmon return were based on the 

assumption that fish in designated stock groups, including those in non-terminal areas, represent 

spawning populations. Stock groups that include fish that died while in-transit to spawning areas 

would bias these estimates and under-represent the contribution of fish traveling farther upriver, 

particularly for upper basin stocks, and to a lesser extent, Tanana River fish. However, estimates that 

assume all non-terminal fish were in-transit would potentially overestimate upper river stocks. 

Composition estimates derived for 2002 based on both assumptions were similar, suggesting minimal 

bias related to the treatment of non-terminal fish. In regard to country of origin, the estimates suggest 
37


that Canadian Yukon River stocks comprised from 50.7% to 56.7% of the Yukon River return; these 

proportions are consistent with other estimates reported for the basin. 

Migration rates exhibited by different stocks of Yukon River chinook salmon were 

remarkably similar. Upper basin fish traveling through sections of the Yukon River main stem 

averaged between 56 km/day and 61 km/day (Table 15). Similar migratory patterns were observed 

for middle basin fish (54 km/day to 58 km/day). These rates are noteworthy considering the 

distances traveled by the fish, with stocks returning to the uppermost Canadian headwaters traveling 

more than 2,300 km prior to reaching spawning areas. Lower basin fish exhibited substantially lower 

rates than middle and upper basin fish. The slower movements may be associated with the shorter 

distances these fish are traveling, and reflect reduced swimming speeds as the fish approach their 

natal streams. This phenomenon was documented for fish leaving the Yukon River main stem and 

traveling up the Tanana River, with movement rates dropping substantially as they approached their 

spawning tributaries (Fig. 17). Milligan et al. (1985) reported migration rates of 36 km/day for 

chinook salmon radio-tagged above the Yukon Border in 1982-83, compared to 53 km/day observed 

for Canadian stocks during this study. The slower speed reported in the 1985 report may 

relate to a variety of factors including differences in water levels, handling and tagging procedures, or 

tracking methods. 

In conclusion, the basin-wide telemetry study was successful in obtaining new information on 

the distribution, timing, and movement patterns of Yukon River chinook salmon. Adequate numbers 

of fish were captured, tagged, and tracked to upriver reaches, making it possible to identify and 

compare the principle components of the return. Stock composition and run timing estimates derived 

from these data provide a detailed look at the temporal and spatial dynamics of the 2002 return --
38


information needed to better address conservation and harvest allocation issues within the basin. The 

data collected will also be useful in addressing other research needs, such as expanding the genetic 

stock identification baseline by identifying spawning populations not currently included, evaluating 

abundance estimates from other assessment projects, and providing movement and behavioral data to 

address other concerns, such as the impacts of the disease Ichthyophonus on chinook salmon returns. 

Infrastructure provided by this study, particularly the system of remote tracking stations, has also 

made it possible to obtain information on other fish species within the basin, including inconnu 

(Stenodus leucichthys) and whitefish (Coregonus spp.). Although the study has spanned a 3-year 

period, large-scale tagging was only conducted in 2002 due to the need to develop the techniques and 

infrastructure essential for a project of this size and scope. The information presented only provides 

an initial look at the stock composition and timing of the Yukon River returns. Additional 

information is needed to further address questions related to study findings and annual variation, 

particularly in relation to run characteristics during years with greater abundance. 
39 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Primary funding for this study was provided by the Research and Prevention Relative to the 

1998 Bristol Bay, Kuskokwim, and Yukon River Salmon Disaster Fund, ADFG, and NMFS. 

Support was also provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Bureau of Land 

Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Bering Sea Fishermen’s 

Association (BSFA), Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association (YRDFA), National Park Service, 

U.S./Canada Yukon River Grant No. 03NMF4380185, and the Restoration and Enhancement Fund of 

the Yukon River Panel. We thank D. Argall, E. Barnhill, J. Baumer, F. Burke, J. Catlin, R. Chapell, 

T. DeWitt, R. Driscoll, L. Dunbar, S. Eager, C. Green, B. Hove, C. Kerkvliet, T. Lingnau, M. Martz, 

S. McNeil, P. Robinson, A. Senn, M. Telouchkina, P. Thompson, and J. Wyman for their assistance 

with field work. Local assistance provided by J. Duffy, J. Edison, L. Fitka, R. Housler, P. 

Kozevnikoff, W. Pitka, V. Sergie, and A. Stephanoff was invaluable to the success of the tagging 

effort in Russian Mission and Marshall. The Chalkyitsik Village Council graciously permitted the 

placement of a tracking station in their village. Pilots S. Gibbens and R. Swisher (Quicksilver Air), 

D. Lorring (Wrights Air Service), D. Miller (Caribou Air), K. Scholz (Fireweed Helicopters), D. 

Washington (Capitol Helicopters), and J. Webster (Webster Flying Service) provided aerial support 

for tracking surveys and logistical operations. We thanks R. Brown and T. Tanner (USFWS), B. 

Mercer (B. Mercer and Associates), C. Osborne (Haldane Environmental Services), J. Duncan and G. 

Couture (Yukon Salmon Committee), and I. Anderton (North Yukon Renewable Resources Council) 

for their assistance with aerial surveys; B. Mercer and C. Osborne also installed and maintained 

tracking stations in Canada. We thanks B. Busher, K. Boeck, P. Costello, A. Estes, and S. Sheryl 
40


(ADFG), K. Van Hatten and G. Beyersdorf (USFWS), P. Milligan and M. Jarvis (DFO), K. Gillis and 

C. Stark (BSFA), and J. Klein (YRDFA) for their help facilitating tag returns. Essential technical 

support for the telemetry equipment used during the study was provided by N. Christensen, L. 

Kuechle, A. Mayer and R. Reichle (Advanced Telemetry Systems). We are particularly grateful to M. 

Masters (NMFS) for developing and maintaining the database and GIS mapping program used during 

the study, and providing critical support in processing the data. The report was reviewed by D. 

Crawford and J. Hilsinger (ADFG), and R. Wilmot and J. Helle (NMFS). We thank L. Brannian and 

G. Sandone (ADFG), and M. Dahlberg and J. Helle (NMFS) for administrative support during the 

study. 
41 

CITATIONS 

Anonymous. 1985. Report on the status of salmon stocks, fisheries, and management programs in 

the Yukon River. Unpubl. report prepared by the scientific working group for the delegations 

from United States and Canada concerning the Yukon River, April 23-24, 1985. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, AK 99518. 

Bendock, T., and M. Alexandersdottir. 1993. Hooking mortality of chinook salmon released in the 

Kenai River, Alaska. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 13:540-549. 

Bjornn , T. C., M. L. Keefer, and L. C. Stuehrenburg. 2000. Behavior and survival of adult chinook 

salmon that migrate past dams and into tributaries in the Columbia River drainage as assessed 

with radio telemetry, p. 305-312. In J. H. Eiler, D. J. Alcorn, and M. R. Neuman (editors), 

Biotelemetry 15: Proceeding of the 15th International Symposium on Biotelemetry, Juneau, 

AK. International Society on Biotelemetry, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 

Brown, R. J., and J. H. Eiler. 2000. Performance of Yukon River inconnu tagged with external and 

internal radio transmitters, p. 145-153. In J. H. Eiler, D. J. Alcorn, and M. R. Neuman 

(editors), Biotelemetry 15: Proceeding of the 15th International Symposium on Biotelemetry, 

Juneau, AK. International Society on Biotelemetry, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 

Brown, R. J. 2000. Migratory patterns of Yukon River inconnu as determined with otolith 

microchemistry and radio telemetry. M.S. Thesis. University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 80 p. 

Burger, C. V., R. L. Wilmot, and D. B. Wangaard. 1985. Comparison of spawning areas and times 

for two runs of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Kenai River, Alaska. 

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42:693-700. 
42


Eiler, J. H., B. D. Nelson, and R. F. Bradshaw. 1992. Riverine spawning by sockeye salmon in the 

Taku River, Alaska and British Columbia. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 121:701-708. 

Eiler, J. H. 1995. A remote satellite-linked tracking system for studying Pacific salmon with radio 

telemetry. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 124:184-193. 

Eiler, J. H., and M. A. Masters. 2000. A database-GIS mapping program for summarizing salmon 

telemetry data from the Yukon River basin, p. 138-144. In J. H. Eiler, D. J. Alcorn, and M. 

R. Neuman (editors), Biotelemetry 15: Proceeding of the 15th International Symposium on 

Biotelemetry, Juneau, AK. International Society on Biotelemetry, Wageningen, The 

Netherlands. 

Eiler, J. H., and R. R. Holder. In press. Using radio telemetry to study chinook salmon returns in the 

Yukon River basin in Alaska, USA and Yukon Territory, Canada. In F. Schober (editor), 

Biotelemetry 16: Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Biotelemetry, Vienna, 

Austria. International Society on Biotelemetry, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 

Johnson, R. E., R. P. Marshall, and S. T. Elliot. 1992. Chilkat River chinook salmon studies, 1991. 

Fishery Data Series No. 92-49, 22 p. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 333 Raspberry 

Road, Anchorage, AK 99518. 

Joint Technical Committee of the Yukon River U.S./Canada Panel. 	1998. Yukon River salmon 

season review for 1998 and technical committee report, 95 p. Yukon River Joint Technical 

Committee, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory. 
43


Joint Technical Committee of the Yukon River U.S./Canada Panel. 2002. Yukon River salmon 

season review for 2002 and technical committee report, 178 p. Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, Commercial Fisheries Division Regional Information Report No. 3A02-44, 

Anchorage, AK. 

Kocan, R. M., and P. K. Hershberger 1999. Yukon River king salmon--Ichthyophonus pilot study 

(prevalence and pathology). Final Report to the Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association. 17 p. 

Anchorage, AK. 

McCleave, J. D., and K. A. Stred. 1975. Effect of dummy telemetry transmitters on stamina of 

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 32:559-563. 

Mellas, E. J., and J. M. Haynes. 1985. Swimming performance and behavior of rainbow trout 

(Salmo gairdneri) and white perch (Morone americana): Effects of attaching telemetry 

transmitters. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42:488-493. 

Milligan, P. A., W. O. Rublee, D. D. Cornett, and R. A. Johnston. 1985. The distribution and 

abundance of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the upper Yukon River basin 

as determined by a radio-tagging and spaghetti tagging program: 1982-83. Can. Tech. Rep. 

Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 1352, 161 p. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 80 - 6th Street, New 

Westminster, B.C. V3L5B3. 

Spencer, T. R., R. S. Chapell, T. Hamazaki, and J. H. Eiler. 2003. Estimation of abundance and 

distribution of chinook salmon in the Yukon River using mark-recapture and radio telemetry in 

2000 and 2001. Regional Information Report No. 3A02-37, 54 p. Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, Commercial Fisheries Division, Anchorage, AK. 
44


Wilmot, R. L., R. Everett, W. J. Spearman, and R. Baccus. 1992. Genetic stock identification of 

Yukon River chum and chinook salmon. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Progress Report, 132 

p. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, AK 

Wydoski, R., and L. Emery. 1983. Tagging and marking, p. 215-237. In L. A. Nielsen and D. L. 

Johnson (editors), Fisheries Techniques. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Yukon River Salmon Act. 2000. U.S. Public Law 106-450, Title II. 
45 

Table 1. -- Fishing schedule for capturing chinook salmon with drift gill nets in the lower Yukon 

River near the villages of Marshall and Russian Mission during 2000-2002. 

Capture Week 2000 2001 2002 

23 7-10 June 7-9 June 

24 11-17 June 10-16 June 9-15 June 

25 18-24 June 17-23 June 16-22 June 

26 25 June - 1 July 24-30 June 23-29 June 

27 2-8 July 1-7 July 30 June - 6 July 

28 9-13 July 8-14 July 7-13 July 

29 15-20 July 
-- --

46 

Table 2. Location of remote tracking stations used to monitor the movements of radio-tagged 

chinook salmon in the Yukon River. Distances from Paimiut, located 42 km upriver from the 

Russian Mission tagging site, and the previous downriver station are indicated. 

Distance Traveled (km)


Region Tracking Station From Paimiut From Previous Station1


Lower Yukon River Basin2 

Koyukuk River 

Mid-Yukon River Basin5 

Tanana River 

Upper Yukon River (U.S.)6 

Paimiut3 

Bonasila 

Anvik 

Innoko 

Yukon-Anvik4 

Nulato 

Lower Koyukuk3,4 

Gisasa 

Hogatza 

Upper Koyukuk 

Yukon-Yuki4 

Melozitna 

Nowitna 

Tozitna 

Lower Tanana3,4 

Nenana4 

Chena 

Salcha 

Upper Tanana 

Rampart Rapids3,4 

Chandalar 

112 

142 

261 

134 

396 

448 

522 

895 

934 

519 

566 

709 

732 

835 

1,012 

1,150 

1,158 

1,204 

811 

1,231


112 

142 

261 

134 

262 

314 

74 

447 

486 

385 

47 

190 

213 

316 

177 

138 

146 

192 

292 

420 
47 

Table 2. – Continued. 

Distance Traveled (km) 

Region Tracking Station From Paimiut From Previous Station1 

Upper Yukon River (U.S.)6 Circle4 1,401 590 

Upper Yukon River (Canada) Yukon Border3,4 1,704 303 

Stewart 1,901 197 

Yukon-White4 1,904 200 

Kluane 2,216 312 

Selkirk4 2,028 124 

Pelly 2,065 37 

Tatchun4 2,136 108 

Big Salmon 2,320 184 

Yukon-Teslin4 2,335 199 

Hootalinqua 2,354 19 

Porcupine River (U.S.) Black 1,405 594 

Sheenjek 1,313 502 

Lower Porcupine4 1,450 137 

Porcupine River (Canada) Porcupine 

Border3,4 

1,573 123 

Fishing Branch 2,062 489 

1

 Station located immediately downriver on migration route traveled by fish.


2

 Section of the Yukon River from Russian Mission to the Yukon-Koyukuk River confluence.


3

 Two tracking stations located at site.


4

 Located on primary migration route, and used to calculate rates of fish traveling farther upriver.


5

 Section of the Yukon River from Galena to the Yukon-Tanana River confluence.


6

 Section of the Yukon River from Yukon-Tanana River confluence to Eagle.

48 

Table 3. -- Fishery designations used to model stock composition estimates of Yukon River 

chinook salmon. The corresponding fishing districts managed by the Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game (ADFG) and Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada are noted. 

Fishery Area Covered by Fishery Fishing District 

A Yukon River from Marshall to Holy Cross ADFG District 3 

B Yukon River from Anvik to Nulato ADFG District 4a 

C Yukon River from Nulato to Ruby ADFG District 4b, 4c 

D Yukon River from Ruby to below Tanana ADFG District 4b, 4c 

E Lower Tanana River ADFG District 6a 

F Tanana River near Nenana ADFG District 6b 

G Tanana River near Fairbanks ADFG District 6c 

H Yukon River from Tanana to Beaver ADFG District 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d 

I Yukon River near Fort Yukon ADFG District 5d 

J Lower Porcupine River ADFG District 5d 

K Porcupine River near Old Crow Porcupine River Fishery, Canada 

L Yukon River near Circle ADFG District 5d 

M Yukon River near Eagle ADFG District 5d 

M Yukon River from the Border to Dawson Yukon River Fishery, Canada 

N Yukon River from Dawson to Carmacks Yukon River Fishery, Canada 

O Yukon River from Carmacks to Whitehorse Yukon River Fishery, Canada 
49 

Table 4. -- Yukon River chinook salmon stocks and the maximum likelihood estimates of their 

proportions among fish passing the Russian Mission tagging site. 

Stock Name Stock Index Estimates of Stock Proportions 

$θt 1 = r R r D 1 = 1 1 

Innoko 1 

Bonasila 2 

Anvik 3 

, t , t t , t , 

$θt , 2 = r R r D t , 2 t t = , 2 t , 1

$θt , 3 = r R r D t , 3 t t = , 3 t , 1

⎡ ⎤ C

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎢ ⎦

⎥

⎥

⎥

θ

$

t −


1 R t , =
r 3 

∑ θ

= 

$

ts , s 1 

, 4 t ,4 t

1−
 Lower Yukon 4 

rD =
 t ,4 t ,2 

θt = $

,5 r D t Nulato 5 

,5 t ,2 

θt = $

,6 Lower Koyukuk 6 r D t ,6 t ,2 

θt = $

,7 Gisasa 7 r D t ,7 t ,2 

θt = $

,8 Kateel 8 r D t ,8 t , 2 

θt = $

,9 Hogatza 9 r D t ,9 t ,2 
50 

Table 4. -- Continued. 

Stock Name Stock Index Estimates of Stock Proportions 

Upper Koyukuk 10 θ

$

t ,10 = rt ,10 Dt ,2 

$ t ,11 r θ = t ,11 C C t ,1 

− t ,2 R − 3 $ t 10

θ θ$ Melozitna 11 1 − ∑ ts , 1 − ∑ ts , s=1 s=1 

= r D t ,11 t ,3 

Nowitna 12 θ

$

t ,12 = rt ,12 Dt ,3 

$ r t ,13 θ = t ,13 C C C t ,1 

− t ,2 − t ,3 Rt − 3 $ 10 $ 12 

θ θ θ$ 1 − ∑ ts , 1
− ∑ tx , 1 − ∑ tx , s=1 s=1 s=1 

Tozitna 13 ⎡ ⎤ C 3 D − 

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎢ ⎦

⎥

⎥

⎥

D t , = r = r t , 13 t , 3 12 t ,13 t ,4

$ 1 − ∑ θtx ,

s=1 

Mid-Yukon 14 θ

$

t ,14 = rt ,14 Dt .4 

22 

∑ $θ ⎡

⎣⎢

6 22 

∑ ∑ ⎤

⎦⎥ = C + Dt ,4 r Entire Tanana 15-22 ts , tf , ts ,

s=15 f = 4 s =15
51 

Table 4. -- Continued. 

Stock Name Stock Index Estimates of Stock Proportions 

⎡ ⎤ C

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎢ ⎦

⎥

⎥

⎥

$θ − 

4 D t , = r t , 15 t , 15 t , 4 22 $ Lower Tanana 15 ∑ θts , s=15 

= r D t ,15 t ,5 

Kantishna $ 16 θt ,16 = r t ,16 Dt ,5 

Tolovana $ 17 θt ,17 = r t ,17 Dt ,5 

⎡ C

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎢

$θ − 

5 D t , = r t , 18 t , 18 t , 5 22 17 $θ $ Mid-Tanana 18 ∑ ts , − ∑ θts , s=15 s=15 

= r D t ,18 t ,6 

⎡ C

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎢

$θ − 

6 D t , = r t , 19 t , 19 t , 6 22 18 $θ $θ Chena 19 ∑ ts , − ∑ ts , s=15 s=15 

t , r = 18 Dt ,7 

Salcha 20 $θt , 20 t , r = 20 Dt ,7 

Goodpaster 21 $θt , 21 = t , r 21 Dt ,7 

Upper Tanana 22 $θt , 22 = t , r 22 Dt ,7 

= ⎡

⎣⎢ ⎤⎦⎥

45 14 45

θ

$( ) d

∑ ∑ ( ) d +
∑ ( ) d ( ) d

Entire Yukon above Tanana 23-45 ts , C tf , r ts , Dt ,4 s= 23 f = 7 s= 23 

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥

⎥
52 

Table 4. -- Continued. 

Stock Name Stock Index Estimates of Stock Proportions 

$ t ,23 r θ = t ,23 C t ,7 D t ,4 − 22 $ Upper Yukon (Rapids) 23 1 − ∑ θts , s=1 

= r D t .23 t ,8 

Beaver 24 θ

$

t ,24 = rt ,24 Dt ,8 

Chandalar 25 θ

$

t ,25 = rt ,25 Dt ,8 

29 10 

∑ ∑ Ct f , r +


29 t s,

∑ $ s= 26 θ = f = 9 

Ct , 

ts ,

s= 26 D t , 8 − 25 $ Entire Porcupine 26-29 1 −
∑ θts , s=1 

⎡

⎣⎢ ⎤⎦⎥

29 10 

= ∑ r ts , +
∑ Ctf , Dt , s= 26 f = 9 

r $θ t ,26

= 26 C t , 

D − t . 9

9 29 26 t , Black $θ ∑ t s, s= 26 

= r D t ,26 t .10 

Sheenjek 27 θ

$

t ,27 = rt ,27 Dt ,10 

U.S. Porcupine 28 θ

$

t ,28 = rt ,28 Dt ,10 

8 

9 
53 

Table 4. -- Continued. 

Stock Name Stock Index Estimates of Stock Proportions 

$

, 

, , 

, 

θ t 

t t 

t 

r C 

D 29 

29 10 

10 

= 

+ 

Canadian Porcupine 29 

=
⎡

⎣⎢

45 14 45 $ Upper Yukon above ∑ θ ∑ Ctf , +
∑ D

Porcupine 30-45
 r ts , ts , t ,

s= 30 f =11 s= 30 

$ t ,30 r θ = t ,30 C t ,11 D t ,9 − 45 Upper Yukon (Circle) 30 $θ ∑ t s, s= 30 

= r D t ,30 t ,11 

Charley $ 31 θt ,31 = r t ,31 Dt ,11 

Kandik $ 32 θt ,32 = r t ,32 Dt ,11 

$ t ,33 r θ = t ,33 C t ,12 Dt ,11 − 45 $ 32 Lower Canadian Yukon 33 θ $ ∑ ts , − ∑ θts , s= 30 s= 30 

= r t ,33 Dt ,12 

Klondike $ 34 θt ,34 = r t ,34 Dt ,12 

Stewart 35 θ

$

t ,35 = rt ,35 Dt ,12 

White 36 θ

$

t ,36 = rt ,36 Dt ,12 

⎤

⎦⎥

Pelly 37 θ

$

t ,37 = rt ,37 Dt ,12 

9 
54 

Table 4. -- Continued. 

Stock Name Stock Index Estimates of Stock Proportions 

$θt t t , , , Mid-Canadian Yukon 38 38 38 12 = r D

$ t ,39 r θ = t ,39 C t ,13 

Tatchun 39 Dt ,12 − 45 $ 38 $ ∑ θ − ∑ θ ts ts , , s= 30 s= 30 

= r D t ,39 t ,13 

t ,40 θ = $ r 

= r D t ,40 t ,40 t ,14 C Upper Canadian Yukon 40 t ,14 D t ,13 − 45 $ 39 $ ∑ θ − ∑ θ ts ts , , s= 30 s= 30 

Nordenskiold 41 $θt , 41 = t , r 41 Dt ,14 

Little Salmon 42 $θt , 42 = t , r 42 Dt ,14 

Big Salmon 43 $θt , 43 = t , r 43 Dt ,14 

Teslin 44 $θt , 44 = t , r 44 Dt ,14 

Hootalinqua 45 $θt , 45 = t , r 45 Dt ,14 
55 

Table 5. -- Chinook salmon captured with drift gill nets in the lower Yukon River near the 

villages of Marshall and Russian Mission during 2000-2002. 

Year Marshall Russian Mission Combined 

2000 431 329 760 

2001 1,294 1,019 2,313 

2002 539 771 1,310 
--

56 

Table 6. -- Age composition of chinook salmon captured with drift gill nets and radio tagged near 

the villages of Marshall and Russian Mission during 2000-2002. Sample size differences 

between the total number of fish captured (Table 5) and age composition data due to missing or 

unusable scale samples. 

Year Fish Status N 4 

Age in Y

5 

ears (%)

6 7 

2000 

2001 

2002 

Captured 

Captured and Radio Tagged 

Captured 

Captured and Radio Tagged 

Captured 

Captured and Radio Tagged 

660 

53 

1,736 

76 

708 

704 

1.4 

1.3 

1.3 

4.1 

4.1 

30.3 

33.3 

15.4 

19.8 

21.2 

21.2 

60.6 

61.4 

76.6 

76.3 

62.8 

63.2 

7.7 

5.3 

6.7 

2.6 

11.9 

11.5 
57 

Table 7. -- Lengths (mm) of chinook salmon captured with drift gill nets and radio tagged near 

the villages of Marshall and Russian Mission during 2000-2002. Sample size differences 

between total number of fish captured (Table 5) and length data due to missing records. 

Length (mid-eye to fork of tail) 

Year Fish Status N Average Range 

2000 Captured 737 783 470-1,010 

Captured and Radio Tagged 53 783 490-1,000 

2001 Captured 2,033 816 440-1,040 

Captured and Radio Tagged 106 806 555-935 

2002 Captured 773 819 400-1,060 

Captured and Radio Tagged 768 819 400-1,060 
58 

Table 8. -- Weekly and total numbers of chinook salmon captured and radio tagged in the lower 

Yukon River near the villages of Marshall and Russian Mission during 2000-2002. 

Capture Week1 

2000 

Russian 

Mission 

2001 

Russian 

Mission Marshall2 

2002 

Russian 

Mission Combined 

23 

24 11 46 81 127 

25 14 89 85 128 213 

26 28 17 93 129 222 

27 33 77 110 

28 22 74 96 

Total 53 106 279 489 768 

1

 Actual dates listed in Table 1.


2

 Timing information adjusted to be compatible with fish passage at Russian Mission.

59 

Table 9. -- Tracking results for chinook salmon radio tagged in the lower Yukon River near the 

villages of Marshall and Russian Mission during 2000-2002. Percentages of the total are in 

parentheses. 

Final Status 2000 2001 2002 

Moved Upriver 37 (69.8) 103 (97.2) 751 (97.8)

 Upriver Location* 25 (47.2) 74 (70.4) 481 (62.6)

 Harvested in Fishery 12 (22.6) 29 (26.8) 270 (35.2) 

Not Located Upriver 16 (30.2) 3 (2.8) 17 (2.2) 

Total 53 106 768 

* Fish recorded upriver from the tagging site and not caught in fisheries. 
60 

Table 10. -- Elapsed time and movement rates (km/day) for radio-tagged chinook salmon 

traveling between tagging sites in the lower Yukon River and the Paimiut tracking stations in 

2001 and 2002. 

95% Confidence Interval 

Year Tagging Site N1 Distance2 Days (xb) Rate Lower Upper 

2001 Russian Mission 78 42 km 2.2 22.8 20.7 24.9 

2002 Russian Mission 364 42 km 1.5 33.8 32.5 35.1 

2002 Marshall 195 150 km 3.5 45.8 42.6 49.0 

1

 Not including radio-tagged fish not recorded passing the Paimiut tracking stations 

2

 General distance from the tagging site; distance used to calculate movement rate based on the 

actual location where the fish were tagged and released. 
61 

Table 11. -- Harvests of radio-tagged chinook salmon in the Yukon River basin during 2000-

2002. Percentages of the total are in parentheses. 

Fishing Area 2000 2001 2002 

District 3 

District 4 

District 5 

District 6 

Combined U.S. 

Canada 

Canada 

Canada 

Combined Canada 

Total 

Marshall to Holy Cross 3 (25.0) 9 (31.1) 62 (23.0) 

Anvik to Ruby 4 (33.3) 8 (27.6) 75 (27.8) 

Yukon-Tanana confluence to Eagle 3 (10.3) 86 (31.8) 

Tanana River 2 (16.8) 3 (10.3) 12 (4.4) 

Marshall to Eagle 9 (75.0) 23 (79.3) 235 (87.0) 

Yukon River, Border to Dawson 1 (8.3) 2 (6.9) 15 (5.6) 

Yukon River, upriver of Dawson 1 (8.3) 4 (13.8) 19 (7.0) 

Porcupine River, Old Crow 1 (8.3) 1 (0.4) 

Yukon and Porcupine Rivers 3 (25.0) 6 (20.7) 35 (13.0) 

12 29 270 
--

--

-- --

62 

Table 12. -- Regional distribution of chinook salmon radio tagged in the lower Yukon River 

during 2000-2002. Fish harvested in terminal reaches of the basin are included. Portions of the 

drainage not monitored due to the partial deployment of tracking stations in 2000 and 2001 are 

designated (--) . Percentages of the total are in parentheses. 

Region 2000 2001 2002 

Lower Basin1 8 (9.9) 91 (17.2) 

Koyukuk River 3 (3.7) 11 (2.1) 

Middle Yukon River2 9 (11.1) 18 (3.4) 

Tanana River 17 (56.7)3 23 (28.4)3 118 (22.3)3 

Upper Yukon River (U.S.)4 7 (23.3) 9 (11.1) 50 (9.5) 

Upper Yukon River (Canada) 5 (16.7)3 29 (35.8) 215 (40.6)3 

Porcupine River (U.S.) 17 (3.2) 

Porcupine River (Canada) 1 (3.3)3 9 (1.7)3 

Total 30 81 529 

1

 Section of the Yukon River from Russian Mission to the Yukon-Koyukuk River confluence and


associated tributaries. 


2

 Section of the Yukon River from Galena to the Yukon-Tanana River confluence and associated


tributaries.


3

 Including fishery recoveries.


4

 Section of the Yukon River from the Yukon-Tanana River confluence to Eagle and associated


tributaries. 

63 

Table 13. -- Stock composition estimates of the Yukon River chinook salmon return in 2002 

based on the distribution of radio-tagged fish weighted by catch per unit effort information at the 

tagging site and adjusted for the harvest of tagged individuals in upriver fisheries. Bootstrap 

standard errors (SE) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on 1,000 bootstrappings are 

included. 

Region Stock Group Estimate (%) SE 95% CI 

Lower Basin1 Lower Yukon2 2.9 0.8 (1.6, 4.5) 

Lower Basin Tributaries 6.3 0.8 (4.7, 8.0) 

Koyukuk River Gisasa 0.3 0.2 (0.1, 0.6) 

Upper Koyukuk 1.2 0.5 (0.3, 2.3) 

Middle Yukon River3 Mid-Yukon2 0.8 0.3 (0.3, 1.5) 

Mid-Yukon Tributaries 1.6 0.5 (0.7, 2.8) 

Tanana River Tanana4 2.1 0.6 (1.1, 3.3) 

Chena 5.2 1.0 (3.4, 7.4) 

Salcha 10.8 1.7 (7.6, 14.2) 

Goodpaster 2.8 0.8 (1.5, 4.6) 

Upper Yukon River (U.S.)5 Upper Yukon2 4.6 1.0 (2.8, 6.6) 

Upper Yukon Tributaries 4.5 1.1 (2.6, 7.1) 

Upper Yukon River (Canada) Lower Canadian Yukon4 3.4 1.0 (1.7, 5.6) 

Stewart 7.2 1.5 (4.2, 10.3) 

Mid-Upper Can. Yukon4 15.8 2.4 (11.5,20.6) 

Pelly 9.2 1.7 (6.2, 12.5) 

Big Salmon 5.2 1.2 (2.9, 7.7) 

Teslin 9.9 2.2 (6.0, 14.3) 
64 

Table 13. -- Continued. 

Region Stock Group Estimate (%) SE 95% CI 

Porcupine River U.S. Porcupine 3.6 0.9 (1.9, 5.6) 

Canadian Porcupine 2.7 1.0 (1.0, 4.8) 

1

 Section of the Yukon River from Russian Mission to the Yukon-Koyukuk River confluence.


2

 Non-terminal areas and associated tributaries not surveyed during the study.


3

 Section of the Yukon River from Galena to the Yukon-Tanana River confluence.


4

 Including mainstem areas and associated tributaries.


5

 Section of the Yukon River from Yukon-Tanana River confluence to Eagle, Alaska.

65


Table 14. -- Movement rates (km/day) of chinook salmon radio tagged in the lower Yukon River 

during 2000-2001 based on fish passage by tracking stations located at Paimiut and the farthest 

upriver station site. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) and sample sizes are included. Sections 

of the drainage not monitored due to partial deployment of the tracking station system are 

designated (--). 

2000	 2001 

Region	 Average 95% CI N Average 95% CI N 

Anvik River 

Koyukuk River 

Lower Basin-Mid Yukon River1 

Tanana River 

Upper Basin (U.S.)2 

Upper Basin (Canada) 

Total 

-- -- -- 14.0 4.4 3 

49.2 2 

-- -- -- 47.7 5.2 8 

51.0 3.8 17 52.4 4.0 24 

53.3	 4.4 13 52.8 3.3 11 

-- -- -- 54.2 2.2 29 

51.3 2.9 30 51.1 2.4 77 

1

 Fish last located by tracking stations on the Yukon River main stem downriver from the Yukon-


Tanana River confluence.


2

 Section of the Yukon River upstream from Rampart Rapids.

66 

Table 15. -- Movement rates (km/day) of chinook salmon radio tagged in the lower Yukon River 

during 2002 based on fish passage by tracking stations located at Paimiut and the farthest upriver 

station site. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) and sample sizes are included. 

Region Stock Group Average 95% CI N 

Lower Basin1 Lower Yukon2 37.2 10.2 11 

Lower Basin Tributaries 31.3 3.3 64 

Koyukuk River Gisasa 43.0 3.3 4 

Upper Koyukuk 57.9 12.8 7 

Middle Yukon River3 Mid-Yukon2 54.8 11.3 8 

Mid-Basin Tributaries 54.8 6.8 8 

Tanana River Tanana4 55.6 8.2 6 

Chena 49.7 2.4 30 

Salcha 45.3 1.8 47 

Goodpaster 45.6 2.5 16 

Upper Yukon River (U.S.)5 Upper Yukon2 54.1 5.5 27 

Upper Yukon Tributaries 58.6 1.7 38 

Upper Yukon River (Canada) Lower Canadian Yukon4 57.9 6.6 8 

Klondike 58.9 7.5 6 

Stewart 56.8 2.2 21 

White 58.7 2.8 8 

Mid-Upper Can. Yukon4 49.3 1.0 62 

Pelly 54.6 2.4 32 

Big Salmon 52.5 2.4 17

 Teslin 52.9 1.9 36 
67 

Table 15. -- Continued. 

Region Stock Group Average 95% CI N 

Porcupine River U.S. Porcupine 60.4 2.5 16

 Canadian Porcupine 63.3 4.6 8 

1

 Section of the Yukon River from Russian Mission to the Yukon-Koyukuk River confluence.


2

 Non-terminal areas and associated tributaries not surveyed during the study.


3

 Section of the Yukon River from Galena to the Yukon-Tanana River confluence.


4

 Including stocks in mainstem areas and associated tributaries.


5

 Section of the Yukon River from Yukon-Tanana River confluence to Eagle, Alaska.

68 

Table 16. -- Comparison of movement rates (km/day) of chinook salmon traveling to tributaries 

in the Yukon River basin during 2002 based on the passage of radio-tagged fish by tracking 

stations. Average rates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) between Paimiut and the first station 

within the region the fish were destined for, and between Paimiut and the farthest upriver station 

are presented. 

Paimiut to First Regional Station1 Paimiut to Terminal Station2 

Stock Location Average CI Location Average CI 

Nulato Yukon-Anvik 47.4 6.5 Nulato River 35.5 5.1 

Gisasa Lower Koyukuk 51.7 12.8 Gisasa River 43.0 3.3 

Upper Koyukuk Lower Koyukuk 58.4 5.2 Mid-Koyukuk 58.2 12.6 

Mid Basin Tribs3 Yukon-Yuki 54.3 7.5 Tributary mouth 54.8 6.8 

Chena River Lower Tanana 58.7 2.4 Chena 49.7 2.4 

Salcha River Lower Tanana 55.8 2.0 Salcha 45.3 1.8 

Goodpaster Lower Tanana 59.1 3.8 Upper Tanana 45.6 2.5 

Up. Yukon U.S.4 Rampart Rapids 60.7 2.3 Tributary mouth 58.6 1.7 

Up. Yukon Can.5 Yukon Border 55.8 1.0 Tributary mouth 54.4 1.0 

1

 First station within the region containing the final destination of the fish (see Table 2).


2

 Last station passed by the fish prior to reaching its final destination.


3

 Including the Melozitna, Nowitna and Tozitna rivers.


4

 Including Chandalar, Sheenjek, and Black rivers.


5

 Including the Stewart, Pelly, Big Salmon, and Teslin rivers. 
69


 Tagging Site

 Town, Village 

Porcupine Rive

Ch

r

andalar River 

Old Crow 

Koyukuk River 

Yukon River 

Tanana 

Fairbanks 

Circle 

Fort Yukon 

Rampart 

Beaver 

Yukon River 

White R

Dawson 

Whitehorse 

Carmacks 

P e ll y R i ver 

Eagle 

Galena 

Ruby 

Nulato 

Stewart River 

Tanana River 

Nenana 

er

v

n Ri

okuY

Anvik iv

Teslin River 

er 

Marshall Russian 

Mission 

Holy Cross 

0 100 200 


km


Figure 1. -- Map of the Yukon River basin showing the Yukon River main stem and major 

tributaries of the drainage, as well as the tagging sites, and selected towns and villages. 
70


Receiving 

i

Satellite 

i i

Stat on 

(NESDIS) 

Internet 

(GOES) 

Juneau, AK 

Track ng Stat on Auke Bay Laboratory 

Figure 2. -- Remote tracking station and satellite uplink used to collect and access movement 

information of chinook salmon in the Yukon River basin. Radio-tagged fish passing the station 

are recorded; the information is transferred via satellite to a receiving station and downloaded for 

in-season analysis. 
71


 Tagging Site 

 Tracking Station

Porcupine Border 

Sheenjek Fishing Branch Chandalar Black 

Lower Porcupine 

Hogatza 

Upper Koyukuk Circle


Gisasa


Lower Koyukuk Rampart Rapids Melozitna 

Tozitna 

Chena Yukon Border Nulato 

Yukon-White 

Lower


Yukon-Yuki Nowitna Tanana Nenana


Salcha 

Upper Tanana 

Stewart 

Pelly 

Selkirk Tatchun


Yukon-Anvik
 Big Salmon 

Anvik 

Innoko 

Yukon-Teslin 

Bonasilla Kluane Hootalinqua 

Paimiut 

Marshall Russian 

Mission

0 100 200 

km 

Figure 3. -- Map of the Yukon River basin showing the location of remote tracking stations used 

to track the upriver movements of radio-tagged chinook salmon. 
72


B 

C D 

H 

E 

F 

G 

I L 

J 

K 

M 

N 

O 

Bonasila 

Anvik 

Nul

i

l

Mi

Sal

jek 

i

l

Whi

Mi

i

Li

i

i le) 

A 

i i i ions) 

i l i X

Innoko 

ato 

Gisasa 

Kateel Hogatza 

Upper Koyukuk 

Meloz tna Tozitna 

Kantishna 

To ovana 

d Tanana (Nenana) 

Chena 

cha 

Goodpaster 

Beaver 

Chandalar 

Sheen

U.S. Porcup ne 

Char ey 

Lower Canadian Yukon 

Klondike 

Stewart 

Pelly 

te Tatchun 

Upper Canadian Yukon 

d Canadian Yukon 

Black 

Now tna 

Lower Koyukuk 

Lower Tanana 

Nordenskiold 

Big Salmon 

ttle Salmon 

Teslin Hootal nqua 

Upper Tanana 

Lower 

Yukon 

Mid 

Yukon 

Upper Yukon U.S. (C rc

(F sh Passing Paim ut Track ng Stat

Term na Area Non-term nal Area Fishery 

Kandik 

Canadian 

Porcupine 

Upper Yukon U.S. 

(Rapids) 

Figure 4. -- Migration model for calculating stock composition estimates of chinook salmon 

returns in the Yukon River basin based on the distribution of radio-tagged fish. Spatial 

relationships of the fisheries and component stocks are indicated. Additional information on the 

fisheries, labeled as A through O, is contained in Table 3. 
73


10 

20 

30 

40 

Jul

Fi

June 9 June 16 June 23 June 30 y 7 July 14 

sh Tagged 

CPUE 

Number of Fish 

Capture Date 

Figure 5. -- Number of chinook salmon radio tagged per day in the lower Yukon River and daily 

catch per unit effort (CPUE) information for chinook salmon captured at the Russian Mission 

tagging site during 2002. 
74


Yukon Fishery (US) 

Non-terminal 

Not Located 

Upriver (2.2) 

Yukon Fishery (Can) 

Tanana Fishery Non-terminal (1.6) Reaches 

4.5 

7.3 

Termina

29.2 

55.2 

l Reaches 

N = 768 

Figure 6. -- Final status of chinook salmon radio tagged in the lower Yukon River near the 

villages of Marshall and Russian Mission during 2002. Percentages of the total number of fish 

tagged are indicated. 
75


ial

i

0 100 

km 

Final Aer Location 

Tagg ng Site 

200 

Figure 7. -- Final locations of chinook salmon radio tagged in the lower Yukon River and tracked 

upriver during their spawning migration based on aerial tracking surveys in 2002. 
76


iver 

iver (2.1) 

iver 

l) 

i

Mi

ibutaries (1.7) 

iver 

Tanana R

Lower Basin Tributaries 

Upper Yukon River 

(Canada) 

Koyukuk R

Upper Yukon R

(Non-termina

40.6 

4.3 

13.0 

22.3 

5.9 

5.1 

N=529 

U.S. Tributaries 

Upper Yukon River 

Lower Bas n-

(Non-terminal) 

ddle Yukon River 

Middle Yukon River 

Tr

Porcupine R

U.S. Tributaries (3.2) 

Porcupine River 

Canada (2.7) 

Figure 8. -- Distribution of chinook salmon radio tagged in the lower Yukon River near the 

villages of Marshall and Russian Mission during 2002 . Percentage of the total number of fish 

that moved upriver and were not caught in non-terminal fisheries are indicated. 
77


i

i i

i

i

i

l i i

ine Ri

4.5 

i i

i i

3.5 

4.6 l

Upper Yukon R ver 

U.S. Tr butar es 

Tanana River 

Lower Basin Tr butaries 

Upper Yukon R ver Canada 

Koyukuk R ver (1.5) 

Midd e Yukon R ver Tr butaries (1.6) 

Porcup ver 

Canada (2.7) 

Upper Yukon River 

(Non-terminal) 

20.9 

50.7 

6.3 

Porcup ne R ver 

U.S. Tr butar es 

3.7 

Lower Basin 

(Non-terminal) 

Midd e Yukon River 

Figure 9. -- Stock composition estimates of the Yukon River chinook salmon return in 2002 

based on the distribution of radio-tagged fish (Fig. 8) weighted by catch per unit effort 

information at the tagging site and adjusted for the harvest of tagged individuals in upriver 

fisheries. Percentages of the return are indicated. 
78


5.0 

10.0 

15.0 

Stock Composition (%) 

Lower Klondike Stewart White Pelly Mid Tatchun Upper Norden- Little Big Teslin Hoota- Porcupine 

Yukon Yukon Yukon skiold Salmon Salmon linqua Canada 

Canada Canada Canada 

Figure 10. -- Composition of chinook salmon stocks returning to Canadian reaches of the Yukon 

River basin in 2002, based on the distribution of radio-tagged fish weighted by catch per unit 

effort information at the tagging site and adjusted for the harvest of tagged individuals in upriver 

fisheries. Composition estimates and 95% confidence intervals are provided. 
79 

5.0 

10 

15 

in 

iver 

. 0 

. 0 

Stock Composition (%) 

Lower Bas

Middle Yukon and Koyukuk Rivers 

Tanana R

Upper Yukon and Porcupine Rivers 

ena 

cupine

ko 

asila 

vik 

el 

kuk 

elozitna 

Nowitna 

kon 

shna 

alcha 

er 

kon 

ar

kon 

ato 

sasa 

aver 

ack 

ek

ana 

Tozitna 

ana ana 

ana 

ate

Goodpast

al

eenj

In

no

An

Nul

Bl

Ch

Koyu

Yu

Yu

Yu

and

Tolov

an

Tan

Tan

Be

Gi

Bon

K

Kanti

T

S

Sh

Por

er 

er

Mid 

C

M

h

er 

er

Mid

w

Upp

Upper 

Low

Upp

Lo

U.S. 

Figure 11. -- Composition of chinook salmon stocks returning to U.S. reaches of the Yukon 

River basin in 2002, based on the distribution of radio-tagged fish weighted by catch per unit 

effort information at the tagging site and adjusted for the harvest of tagged individuals in upriver 

fisheries. Composition estimates and 95% confidence intervals are provided. 
80


i

i i

i

1.0 

2.0 

3.0 

4.0 

5.0 

1.0 

2.0 

Stock Composition (%) 

Upper Basin (Canada) 

Upper Basin (U.S. Tributaries) 

Tanana R ver 

Lower Basin Tr butar es 

Koyukuk River 

Middle Yukon R ver Tributaries 

9 June 16 June 23 June 29 June 7 July 

Figure 12. -- Run timing of Yukon River chinook salmon stock groups returning to terminal 

reaches of the basin in 2002, based on composition estimates for the entire return derived from 

the distribution of radio-tagged fish weighted by catch per unit effort information at the tagging 

site and adjusted for the harvest of tagged individuals in upriver fisheries. 
81


1.5

Stock Composition (%)


1.0 

0.5 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

1.0 

0.5 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

1.0 

0.5 

lin 

Bi

Pelly 

ike 

Mid-Upper Yukon 

Tes

g Salmon 

White 

Stewart 

Klond

9 June 16 June 23 June 29 June 7 July 

Figure 13. -- Run timing of major chinook salmon stocks in Canadian reaches of the Yukon 

River basin in 2002, based on composition estimates for the entire return derived from the 

distribution of radio-tagged fish weighted by catch per unit effort information at the tagging site 

and adjusted for the harvest of tagged individuals in upriver fisheries. The mid-upper Yukon 

stock group represents fish remaining in mainstem areas and associated tributaries. 
82


Nul

Anvik 

Stock Composition (%) 

0.2 

0.6 ato 

0.2 

0.6 Koyukuk 

0.2 

0.6 

0.2 

0.6 

1.0 Chena 

0.2 

0.6 

1.0 

1.4 

1.8 Salcha 

0.2 

0.6 Goodpaster 

0.2 

0.6 Sheenjek 

0.2 

0.6 Chandalar 

9 June 16 June 23 June 29 June 7 July 

Figure 14. -- Run timing of major chinook salmon stocks in U.S. reaches of the Yukon River 

basin in 2002, based on composition estimates for the entire return derived from the distribution 

of radio-tagged fish weighted by catch per unit effort information at the tagging site and adjusted 

for the harvest of tagged individuals in upriver fisheries. 
83


Daily Stock Composition (%)


1.0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.4 

0.2 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

1.0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

Canada 

Upper Yukon River (U.S. Tributaries) 

Tanana River 

Lower Basin - Middle Yukon River Tributaries 

9 June 16 June 23 June 29 June 7 July 

Figure 15. -- Daily stock composition of chinook salmon passing through the lower Yukon River in 

2002, based on the observed distribution of radio-tagged fish. 
60 

84


50 

40 

30 

20

Stock Composition (%) 

10 

Lower 

Basin 

Tributaries 

Koyukuk Middle 

Yukon 

Tributaries 

Tanana Upper 

Yukon (U.S.) 

Tributaries 

Porcupine 

(U.S.) Upper 

Yukon 

(Canada) 

Porcupine 

(Canada) 

Low-Mid 

Yukon 

(U.S.) 

Upper 

Yukon 

(U.S.) 

Non-terminal fish considered spawning populations 

i i i

inal 

Non-term nal fish cons dered n-transit 

Non-term

Areas 

Figure 16. -- Comparison of stock composition estimates of the Yukon River chinook salmon return 

in 2002 based on the distribution of radio-tagged fish weighted by catch per unit effort information 

at the capture site and adjusted for the harvest of tagged individuals in upriver fisheries, and the 

presumed status of fish remaining in non-terminal reaches of the Yukon River main stem. Nonterminal areas include associated tributaries not monitored during the study. 
85


Movement Rate (km/day) 

70 

50 

30 

10 

Chena l

jek 

lly 

l

(133) (517) (810) (835) (1010) (1399) (1702) (1148-1202)

(1900-2333) 

(1230,1312) 

Salcha 

Goodpaster 

Chanda ar 

Sheen

Stewart, Pe

Big Sa mon, Teslin 

Yukon-Anvik 

Confluence 

Yukon-Yuki 

Confluence 

Rapids Lower Tanana 

River 

Nenana Natal 

Streams 

Natal 

Streams 

Circle U.S.-Canada 

Border 

Natal 

Streams 

Tracking Station Location (km from Paimiut Station) 

Figure 17. -- Average movement rates (km/day) by area of radio-tagged chinook salmon 

returning to tributaries in the upper Yukon River basin in 2002. Distances from the Paimiut 

tracking stations are in parentheses. 
Appendix A1. -- Data sheet used to record fishing effort and capture results in the lower Yukon River basin during 2000-2002. 

Complete header at the start of each shift 

Date/Shift: % Cloud Cover: Page ___ of ___ 

Tagging Site: Wind Dir/Speed: Daily Comments: 

Captain and Crew: Water Temp: 

Complete one row for each drift 

Drift Mesh Net Drift Start Full Start Full Total Caught This Drift Kings Not Tagged This Drift 

Date No. Type Length Loc. Net In Net In Net Out Net Out King Chum Pink Other Recap Released Mortality Drift Com m ents 
Appendix A2. -- Data sheet used to record information for chinook salmon captured with drift gill nets and radio tagged in the lower 

Yukon River basin during 2000-2002. Fish length is recorded as mid-eye to fork of tail (MEFT). 

Date/Shift: Tagging Site: 

Complete one row for each king tagged 

Length Scale Genetic Release 

Drift# Color Injuries Sex MEFT (m m ) Card# Col# Sam ple Tag# Fish# Freq Code Tagger Latitiude Longitude Date Hr Com m ents 
88 

Appendix B. -- Fishery recoveries of chinook salmon radio tagged in the Yukon River basin 

during 2000-2002. Percentages of the total are in parentheses. 

Year 

Fishing Area 

District 3 

Fishery 

Marshall 

2000 2001 2002 

16 

Russian Mission 7 

District 4 

Holy Cross 

District 3 Combined 

Anvik 

3 

3 (25.0) 

1 

9 

9 (31.1) 

39 

62 (23.0) 

9 

Grayling 

Kaltag 

Nulato 

2 

3 

3 

10 

23 

12 

Allakaket (Koyukuk)1 

Galena 1 

1 

13 

District 5 

Ruby 

District 4 Combined 

Below Yukon-Tanana confluence 

2 

4 (33.3) 8 (27.6) 

7 

75 (27.8) 

4 

Tanana 2 

Rampart Rapids 

Rampart 

Yukon-Hess Creek confluence 

1 15 

15 

3 

Yukon Bridge 

Stevens Village 

Beaver 

1 11 

1 

4 

Ft. Yukon 16 

Circle 1 6 

District 6* 

Eagle 

District 5 Combined 

Lower Tanana River 2 

3 (10.3) 

1 

9 

86 (31.8) 

1 

Tolovana River 1 
89 

Appendix B. -- Continued. 

Year 

Fishing Area Fishery 2000 2001 2002 

District 6* 

Canada* 

Total 

Nenana 

Upper Tanana River 

Lower Tanana River 

Tolovana River 

Nenana 

Upper Tanana River 

Chena 

Salcha 

District 6 Combined 

Border-Dawson 

Stewart River 

Pelly River 

Minto Landing 

Tatchun Creek 

Carmacks 

Upper Yukon River 

Yukon-Takhini Creek confluence 

Old Crow (Porcupine) 

Canadian Fisheries Combined 

2 

2 (16.7) 

1 

1 

1 

3 (25.0) 

12 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 (10.3) 

2 

3 

1 

6 (20.7) 

29 

7 

1 

1 

1 

7 

1 

1 

1 

12 (4.4) 

14 

1 

7 

1 

1 

8 

1 

1 

1 

35 (13.0) 

270 

* Terminal fishery. 
-- --

--

-- --

-- --

--

-- --

-- --

-- --

--

--

-- --

90 

Appendix C. -- Regional distribution of chinook salmon radio tagged in the Yukon River basin 

during 2000-2002. Fish harvested in terminal reaches of the basin are included. Portions of the 

drainage not monitored due the partial deployment of tracking stations in 2000 and 2001 are 

designated (--) . Percentages of the total are in parentheses. 

Region Final Location 2000 2001 2002 

Lower Basin1 Yukon River main stem2 5 (6.2) 22 (4.2) 

Tributaries 3 (3.7) 69 (13.0) 

Koyukuk River Upper Koyukuk River main stem2 3 (3.7) 6 (1.1) 

Tributaries3 5 (1.0) 

Middle Yukon4 Yukon River main stem2 9 (11.1) 9 (1.7) 

Tributaries 9 (1.7) 

Tanana River Tanana River main stem2 13 (43.3) 20 (24.7) 6 (1.1) 

Tanana River fishery 4 (13.4) 3 (3.7) 9 (1.7) 

Tributaries3 103 (19.5) 

Upper Yukon5 Yukon River main stem (U.S.)2 7 (23.3) 9 (11.1) 27 (5.1) 

Tributaries (U.S.) 23 (4.3) 

Yukon River main stem (Canada)2 23 (28.4) 55 (10.4) 

Yukon main stem fishery (Canada) 5 (16.7) 6 (7.4) 24 (4.5) 

Tributaries (Canada)3 136 (25.7) 

Porcupine River Porcupine River main stem (U.S.)2 3 (0.6) 

Tributaries (U.S.) 14 (2.6) 

Porcupine River (Canada)2 6 (1.1) 

Porcupine River fishery (Canada) 1 (3.3) 1 (0.2) 
-- --

91 

Appendix C. -- Continued. 

Region Final Location 2000 2001 2002 

Porcupine River Tributaries (Canada) 2 (0.4) 

Total 30 81 529 

1

 Section of the Yukon River from Russian Mission to the Yukon-Koyukuk River confluence.


2 Includes associated tributaries not monitored with tracking stations.


3

 Includes fishery harvests in terminal tributaries.


4

 Section of the Yukon River from Galena to the Yukon-Tanana River confluence.


5

 Section of the Yukon River upriver from the Yukon-Tanana River confluence.

92 

Appendix D. -- Distribution of chinook salmon radio tagged in the lower Yukon River during 

2002, including fish caught in terminal fisheries in the U.S. and Canada. Percentages of total are 

in parentheses. 

Region Final Location 2002 

Lower Basin Yukon River main stem (above Holy Cross)1 22 (4.2) 

Innoko River 5 (0.9) 

Bonasila River 10 (1.9) 

Anvik River 34 (6.4) 

Nulato River 20 (3.8) 

Koyukuk Gisasa River 4 (0.8) 

Kateel River 1 (0.2) 

Upper Koyukuk River1,2 6 (1.1) 

Middle Yukon Yukon River main stem (above Galena)1 9 (1.7) 

Melozitna River 1 (0.2) 

Nowitna River 1 (0.2) 

Tozitna River 7 (1.3) 

Tanana Tanana River fishery 9 (1.7) 

Lower Tanana River (above Manley)1 2 (0.4) 

Kantishna River 8 (1.5) 

Tolovana-Chatanika River2 2 (0.4) 

Middle Tanana River (above Nenana)1 3 (0.6) 

Chena River2 30 (5.7) 

Salcha River2 47 (8.9) 

Goodpaster River 16 (3.0) 

Upper Tanana River (above Salcha River)1 1 (0.2) 

Upper Yukon (U.S.) Yukon River main stem (above Tanana)1 24 (4.5) 

Beaver Creek3 1 (0.2) 

Chandalar River 19 (3.6) 

Yukon River main stem (above Circle)1 3 (0.6) 
Appendix D. -- Continued. 

93 

Region Final Location 2002 

Upper Yukon (U.S.) Charley River 2 (0.4) 

Upper Yukon (Canada) 

Kandik River 

Yukon River main stem (above Border)1 

1 (0.2) 

6 (1.1) 

Yukon River fishery 24 (4.5) 

Coal Creek 1 (0.2) 

Chandindu River 1 (0.2) 

Klondike River 

Stewart River2 

6 (1.1) 

21 (4.0) 

White River 

Yukon River main stem (above White River)1 

Pelly River2 

Yukon River main stem (above Selkirk)1 

Tatchun Creek2 

Yukon River main stem (above Tatchun Cr)1 

8 (1.5) 

5 (0.9) 

32 (6.0) 

19 (3.6) 

4 (0.8) 

24 (4.5) 

Nordenskiold River 2 (0.4) 

Little Salmon River 2 (0.4) 

Big Salmon River 17 (3.2) 

Teslin River 

Yukon River main stem (above Teslin River)1 

36 (6.8) 

7 (1.3) 

Porcupine (U.S.) Black River 2 (0.4) 

Porcupine (Canada) 

Sheenjek River 

Porcupine River (above Sheenjek)1 

Porcupine River (above Border)1 

12 (2.2) 

3 (0.6) 

6 (1.1) 

Old Crow Fishery 1 (0.2) 

Miner River 2 (0.4) 

Total 529 

1

 Including areas of the mainstem river and tributaries not monitored by tracking stations.


2

 Includes fish caught in terminal fisheries.


3

 Minimum count based on partial aerial survey.

94 

Appendix E. Stock composition estimates of the Yukon River chinook salmon return in 2002 

based on the distribution of radio-tagged fish weighted by catch per unit effort information at the 

tagging site and adjusted for the harvest of tagged individuals in upriver fisheries. Bootstrap 

standard errors (SE) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on 1,000 bootstrappings are 

included. 

Region Stock Group Estimate (%) SE 95% CI 

Lower Basin1 Lower Yukon2 2.9 0.8 (1.6, 4.5) 

Innoko 0.7 0.3 (0.1, 1.4) 

Bonasila 0.9 0.3 (0.3, 1.5) 

Anvik 2.9 0.5 (1.9, 4.0) 

Nulato 1.9 0.5 (1.0, 2.8) 

Koyukuk River Gisasa 0.3 0.2 (0.1, 0.6) 

Kateel 0.1 0.1 (0.0, 0.2) 

Upper Koyukuk 1.1 0.5 (0.3, 2.2) 

Middle Yukon River3 Melozitna 0.1 0.1 (0.0, 0.5) 

Nowitna 0.2 0.2 (0.0, 0.8) 

Tozitna 1.2 0.5 (0.5, 2.3) 

Mid-Yukon2 0.8 0.3 (0.3, 1.5) 

Tanana River Lower Tanana River4 0.2 0.2 (0.0, 0.6) 

Kantishna 1.1 0.4 (0.4, 2.0) 

Tolovana 0.4 0.3 (0.0, 1.1) 

Mid-Tanana River4 0.3 0.2 (0.0, 0.7) 

Chena 5.2 1.0 (3.4, 7.4) 

Salcha 10.8 1.7 (7.6, 14.2) 

Goodpaster 2.8 0.8 (1.5, 4.6) 

Upper Tanana River4 0.1 0.1 (0.0, 0.4) 

Upper Yukon River (U.S.)5 Upper Yukon ( Rapids)2 4.3 1.0 (2.5, 6.2) 

Beaver Creek 0.1 0.1 (0.0, 0.4) 

Chandalar River 3.4 0.9 (1.8, 5.1) 

Upper Yukon (Circle)2 0.3 0.2 (0.0, 0.8) 

Charley River 0.3 0.3 (0.0, 1.0) 

Kandik River 0.6 0.7 (0.0, 2.2) 

Upper Yukon River (Canada) Lower Canadian Yukon 4 1.8 0.7 (0.6, 3.4) 

Klondike 1.6 0.7 (0.5, 3.2) 

Stewart 7.2 1.5 (4.2, 10.3) 

White 4.0 1.9 (0.8, 7.8) 

Pelly 9.2 1.7 (6.2, 12.5) 
95 

Appendix E. -- Continued. 

Region Stock Group Estimate SE 95% CI 

Upper Yukon River (Canada) Mid-Canadian Yukon4 

(%) 

3.9 0.9 (2.3, 5.9) 

Tatchun 

Upper Canadian Yukon4 

0.7 

4.9 

0.4 

0.9 

(0.1, 1.6) 

(3.2, 6.7) 

Nordenskiold 0.7 0.5 (0.0, 1.8) 

Little Salmon 0.2 0.2 (0.0, 0.8) 

Big Salmon 5.2 1.2 (2.9, 7.7) 

Teslin 9.9 2.2 (6.0, 14.3) 

Hootalinqua 1.5 0.6 (0.6, 2.8) 

Porcupine River, U.S. Black 0.4 0.3 (0.0, 1.2) 

Porcupine River, Canada 

Sheenjek 

U.S. Porcupine4 

Canadian Porcupine4 

2.5 

0.6 

2.7 

0.8 

0.4 

1.0 

(1.2, 4.2) 

(0.0, 1.6) 

(1.0, 4.8) 

1

 Section of the Yukon River from Russian Mission to the Yukon-Koyukuk River confluence.


2 Non-terminal areas.


3

 Section of the Yukon River from Galena to the Yukon-Tanana River confluence.


4

 Including stocks in mainstem areas and associated tributaries.


5

 Section of the Yukon River upriver from the Yukon-Tanana River confluence.

96 

Appendix F. -- Daily stock composition estimates of chinook salmon passing through the lower 

Yukon River based on the distribution of radio-tagged fish in 2002. 

Non-Terminal Reaches1 Terminal Reaches 

Upper Lower Basin- Upper Basin 

Lower-Mid Yukon Middle Yukon Tanana Tributaries 

Date Yukon (U.S.)2 Tributaries River (U.S.) Canada2 

9 June 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 

10 June 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.333 0.167 0.500 

11 June 0.067 0.075 0.000 0.333 0.000 0.525 

12 June 0.000 0.000 0.164 0.093 0.000 0.743 

13 June 0.000 0.096 0.279 0.144 0.192 0.288 

14 June 0.000 0.046 0.043 0.130 0.092 0.688 

15 June 0.000 0.053 0.053 0.316 0.064 0.515 

16 June 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.375 0.000 0.625 

17 June 0.097 0.035 0.032 0.097 0.176 0.563 

18 June 0.000 0.046 0.000 0.308 0.193 0.453 

19 June 0.040 0.000 0.074 0.295 0.045 0.545 

20 June 0.000 0.045 0.069 0.345 0.090 0.451 

21 June 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.270 0.099 0.594 

22 June 0.037 0.000 0.037 0.309 0.193 0.424 

23 June 0.035 0.035 0.100 0.277 0.173 0.381 

24 June 0.000 0.142 0.026 0.223 0.033 0.577 

25 June 0.053 0.056 0.000 0.105 0.000 0.786 

26 June 0.000 0.040 0.061 0.292 0.040 0.567 

27 June 0.037 0.000 0.304 0.165 0.165 0.330 

28 June 0.121 0.000 0.150 0.121 0.000 0.607 

29 June 0.000 0.131 0.277 0.000 0.000 0.592 

30 June 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.300 0.000 0.200 

1 July 0.042 0.101 0.252 0.000 0.151 0.454 

2 July 0.183 0.000 0.175 0.092 0.000 0.550 

3 July 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 

4 July 0.000 0.327 0.071 0.357 0.000 0.245 

5 July 0.155 0.090 0.149 0.155 0.000 0.451 

6 July 0.286 0.000 0.357 0.000 0.000 0.357 

7 July 0.210 0.000 0.328 0.126 0.000 0.336 

8 July 0.138 0.069 0.381 0.138 0.000 0.275 

9 July 0.091 0.133 0.273 0.106 0.000 0.398 

10 July 0.100 0.000 0.300 0.200 0.133 0.267 
97 

Appendix F. -- Continued. 

Non-Terminal Reaches1 Terminal Reaches 

Date 

Lower-Mid 

Yukon 

Upper 

Yukon 

(U.S.)2 

Lower BasinMiddle Yukon 

Tributaries 

Tanana 

River 

Upper Basin 

Tributaries 

(U.S.) Canada2 

11 July 0.100 0.233 0.200 0.000 0.117 0.350 

12 July 0.000 0.667 0.333 0.000 0.000 0.000 

13 July 0.143 0.000 0.286 0.143 0.000 0.429 

Average 0.055 0.069 0.152 0.176 0.061 0.488 

1

 Reaches of the Yukon River main stem and associated tributaries not monitored by tracking


stations.


2

 Including reaches of the upper Yukon and Porcupine rivers.

98 

Appendix G. – Movement rates of chinook salmon radio tagged in the Yukon River basin during 

2002 based on fish passage by tracking stations located at Paimiut and the furthest upriver station 

site. 

Average 

Region Stock (km/h) CI (95%) N 

Lower Basin Lower Yukon1 37.2 10.2 11 

Innoko 21.6 23.1 4 

Bonasila 42.0 9.4 10 

Anvik 27.1 4.5 33 

Nulato 35.5 5.1 17 

Koyukuk River Gisasa 43.0 3.3 4 

Kateel 58.7 1 

Upper Koyukuk 57.8 15.9 6 

Middle Yukon Mid-Yukon1 54.8 11.3 8 

River Melozitna 43.7 1 

Nowitna 47.8 1 

Tozitna 57.9 7.1 6 

Tanana River Tanana2 55.6 8.2 6 

Kantishna 53.1 4.1 8 

Tolovana 45.6 1 

Chena 49.7 2.4 30 

Salcha 45.3 1.8 47 

Goodpaster 45.6 2.5 16 

Upper Yukon Upper Yukon, Tanana-Circle1 53.8 6.1 24 

River (U.S.) Upper Yukon, Circle-Eagle1 56.7 11.8 3 

Beaver 58.5 1 

Chandalar 56.4 2.5 18 

Charley 60.3 2 

Kandik 66.4 1 

Upper Yukon Lower Canadian Yukon2 58.3 7.8 7 

River (Canada) Chandindu 55.6 1 

Klondike 58.9 7.5 6 

Stewart 56.8 2.2 21 

White 58.7 2.8 8 

Mid Canadian Yukon, White-Tatchun2 48.7 1.7 23

 Upper Canadian Yukon, Tatchun-Teslin2 49.5 1.9 24 

Upper Canadian Yukon, upriver of Teslin2 49.8 3.0 7 

Pelly 54.6 2.3 32 

Tatchun 48.3 4.8 4 

Nordenskiold 52.2 2 
99 

Appendix G. -- Continued. 

Average 

Region Stock (km/h) CI (95%) N 

Upper Yukon Little Salmon 52.8 2 River (Canada) 

River (Canada) Big Salmon 52.5 2.4 17

 Teslin 52.8 1.9 36 

Porcupine River Black 61.1 2 

Sheenjek 59.9 3.4 11 

U.S. reaches 61.9 10.0 3 

Canadian reaches 63.3 4.6 8 

1 Non-terminal areas.


2 Including stocks in mainstem areas and associated tributaries.

RECENT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS


Copies of this and other NOAA Technical Memorandums are available from the 

National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22167 

(web site: www.ntis.gov). Paper and microfiche copies vary in price. 

AFSC147 MCELDERRY, H., J. SCHRADER, D. MCCULLOUGH, J. ILLINGWORTH, S. FITZGERALD, and S. 

DAVIS. 2004. Electronic monitoring of seabird interactions with trawl third-wire cables on trawl vessels -

a pilot study, 39 p. NTIS number pending. 

146 WING, B. L., and D. R. BARNARD. 2004. A field guide to Alaskan corals, 67 p. NTIS number pending. 

145 RUGH, D. J., B. A. MAHONEY, and B. K. SMITH. 2004. Aerial surveys of beulga whales in Cook Inlet, 

Alaska, between June 2001 and June 2002, 26 p. NTIS No. PB2004-106479. 

144 ANGLISS, R. A., and K. L. LODGE. 2004. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments, 2003, 224 p. 

NTIS number pending. 

143 ZENGER, H. H. JR. 2004. Data report: 2002 Aleutian Islands bottom trawl survey, 247 p. NTIS No. 

PB2004-105068. 

142 STEVENSON, D. E. 2004. Identification of skates, sculpins, and smelts by observers in North Pacific 

groundfish fisheries (2002-2003), 67 p. NTIS No. PB2004-105817. 

141 HOFF, G. R., and L. L. BRITT. 2003. The 2002 eastern Bering Sea upper continental slope survey of 

groundfish and invertebrate resources, 261 p. NTIS No. PB2004-101668. 

140 STONE, R. P., and M. M. MASUDA. 2003. Characteristics of benthic sediments from areas open and 

closed to bottom trawling in the Gulf of Alaska., 40 p. + Appendices (111 p.). NTIS No. PB2004-100650 

139 JOHNSON, S. W., M. L. MURPHY, D. J. CSEPP, P. M. HARRIS, and J. F. THEDINGA. 2003. A survey 

of fish assemblages in eelgrass and kelp habitats of southeastern Alaska, 39 p. NTIS No. PB2004-

100139. 

138 PEREZ, M. A. 2003. Compilation of marine mammal incidental take data from the domestic and joint 

venture groundfish fisheries in the U.S. EEZ of the North Pacific, 1989-2001, 145 p. NTIS No. PB2004-

100649 

137 MASELKO, J. M., A. C. WERTHEIMER, and J. F. THEDINGA. 2003. Selection and application of a markand-recapture technique for estimating pink salmon escapements, 44 p. NTIS No. PB2003-107101. 

136 BARBEAUX, S. J., and M. W. DORN. 2003. Spatial and temporal analysis of eastern Bering Sea echo 

integration-trawl survey and catch data of walleye pollock, Theragra chalcogramma, for 2001 and 2002, 

34 p. NTIS No. PB2003-106479. 

135 DIETER, B. E., D. A. WION, and R. A. MCCONNAUGHEY. 2003. Mobile fishing gear effects on benthic 

habitats: A bibliography (second edition), 207 p. NTIS No. PB2003-105080. 

134 ROBSON, B. W. (editors). 2002. Fur seal investigations, 2000-2001, 80 p. NTIS No. PB2003-103825. 

133 ANGLISS, R. A., and K. L. LODGE. 2002. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments, 2002, 224 p. 

NTIS PB2003-103793.