HomeMy WebLinkAboutGrant Lake Falls Creek Environmental Baseline Studies 2009Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
{FERC P-13211/13212)
Environmental Baseline Studies, 2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
2525 C Street, Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99503
January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
(FERC P-13211/13212)
Environmental Baseline Studies, 2009
Final Report
Prepared for:
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
2525 C Street, Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99503
Prepared by:
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street, Suite 305
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
January 2010
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ ix
1 Project History and Overview ........................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project History ............................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Overview ............................................................................................................ 2
2 Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 3
3 Fish & Aquatic Resources ................................................................................................. 4
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Previous Studies ............................................................................................................. 4
3.2.1 Grant Creek Fish Resources ................................................................................. 4
3.2.2 Grant Creek In stream Flow .................................................................................. 5
3.2.3 Grant Creek and Falls Creek Macroinvertebrates and Grant Creek Periphyton .. 6
3.2.4 Falls Creek Fish Resources .................................................................................. 6
3.2.5 Grant Lake Fish Resources .................................................................................. 7
3.2.6 Grant Lake Zooplankton and Phytoplankton ....................................................... 7
3.3 Study Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................... 7
3.3.1 Study Goals .......................................................................................................... 7
3.3.2 Study Objectives .................................................................................................. 7
3.4 Field Sampling Methods ................................................................................................ 8
3.4.1 Establishment of Study reaches on Grant Creek .................................................. 8
3.4.2 Grant Creek Fish Resources ................................................................................. 9
3.4.3 Grant Creek Instream Flow and Microhabitat Preference Study ....................... 11
3.4.4 Grant Creek Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton ............................................... 12
3.4.5 Falls Creek Fish Resources ................................................................................ 13
3.4.6 Grant Lake Fish Resources ................................................................................ 14
3.4.7 Grant Lake Zooplankton and Phytoplankton ..................................................... 14
3.5 Results .......................................................................................................................... 15
3.5.1 Reach Descriptions ............................................................................................. 15
3.5.2 Grant Creek Fish Resources ............................................................................... 17
3.5.3 Grant Creek Instream Flow Study ..................................................................... 20
3.5.4 Grant Creek Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton ............................................... 23
3.5.5 Falls Creek Fish Resources ................................................................................ 24
3.5.6 Grant Lake Fish Resources ................................................................................ 24
3.5.7 Grant Lake Zooplankton and Phytoplankton ..................................................... 25
3.6 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 25
3.6.1 Grant Creek Fish Resources ............................................................................... 25
3.6.2 Grant Creek Instream Flow and Microhabitat Preference Study ....................... 28
3.6.3 Grant Creek Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton ............................................... 28
Kenai Hydro, LLC. January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
3.6.4 Falls Creek Fish Resources ................................................................................ 29
3.6.5 Grant Lake Fish Resources ................................................................................ 30
3.6.6 Grant Lake Zooplankton and Phytoplankton ..................................................... 30
4 Water Resources ............................................................................................................... 32
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 32
4.2 Previous Studies ........................................................................................................... 32
4.2.1 Grant Creek Water Quality ................................................................................ 32
4.2.2 Grant Lake Water Quality .................................................................................. 32
4.2.3 Falls Creek Water Quality .................................................................................. 32
4.2.4 Grant Creek and Falls Creek Hydrology ............................................................ 33
4.3 Study Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................... 33
4.3.1 Study Goals ........................................................................................................ 33
4.3.2 Study Objectives ................................................................................................ 34
4.4 Field Sampling Methods .............................................................................................. 34
4.4.1 Water Quality and Temperature ......................................................................... 34
4.4.2 Hydrology .......................................................................................................... 36
4.5 Results .......................................................................................................................... 38
4.5.1 Water Quality ..................................................................................................... 38
4.5.2 Hydrology .......................................................................................................... 41
4.6 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 42
4.6.1 Water Temperature and Water Quality .............................................................. 42
4.6.2 Hydrology .......................................................................................................... 44
5 References ......................................................................................................................... 45
6
7
8
9
Authors
Tables
Figures
Appendices
Kenai Hydro, LLC. ii January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Tables
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 3.7
Table 3.8
Table 3.9
Table 3.10
Table 3.11
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Figures
Figure
Figure 3.4.1
Figure 3.4.3-1
Figure 3.4.3-2
Figure 3.4.3-3
Figure 3.4.3-4
Figure 3.4.3-5
Figure 3.4.4-1
Figure 3.4.5-1
Figure 3.4.6-1
Figure 3.5-1
Figure 3.5-2
Figure 3.5.2-1
Figure 3.5.2-2
Figure 3.5.2-3
Figure 3.5.2-4
Figure 3.5.2-5
Figure 3.5.2-6
Figure 3.5.2-7
Figure 3.5.2-8
Angling effort
Minnow trapping effort
Catch table by gear type for Grant Creek
Rainbow trout recaptures by survey date
Spawning survey results by species and survey date
Microhabitat sample areas surveyed
Macroinvertebrates by sample type
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Metrics
Catch table by gear type for Grant Lake
Zooplankton, Grant Lake
Chlorophyll a concentrations
Water Quality Parameters
Water Quality Parameters (In-Situ)
Water Quality Analysis Results
Fish and Aquatic Resources Study Area
Fisheries Field Studies-Grant Creek Sampling Sites and Reaches
Instream Flow Microhabitat Sample Areas, Reach 1
Instream Flow-Microhabitat Sample Areas, Reach 2
Instream Flow Microhabitat Sample Areas, Reach 3
Instream Flow Microhabitat Sample Areas, Reach 4
Instream Flow Microhabitat Sample Areas, Reach 5
Grant Creek and Grant Lake Aquatic Invertebrates
Fisheries Field Studies Falls Creek Minnow Trapping
Fisheries Field Studies Grant Lake Sampling Sites
Fisheries Field Studies Grant Creek Major Habitat Categories
Fisheries Field Studies Grant Creek Fish Use Map
Catch by Species for Minnow Traps, Grant Creek
Length Frequencies of Juvenile Coho in Minnow Traps, Grant Creek
Length Frequencies of Juvenile Chinook in Minnow Traps, Grant Creek
Catch by Species for Angling Surveys, Grant Creek
CPUE by Reach and Species for Minnow Traps, Grant Creek
Reach I CPUE by Habitat
Reach 2 CPUE by Habitat
Reach 4 CPUE by Habitat
Kenai ro, LLC. iii January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Figure 3.5.2-9
Figure 3.5.2-10
Figure 3.5.2-11
Figure 3.5.2-12
Figure 3.5.2-13
Figure 3.5.2-14
Figure 3.5.2-15
Figure 3.5.2-16
Figure 3.5.2-17
Figure 3.5.2-18
Figure 3.5.2-19
Figure 3.5.2-20
Figure 3.5.2-21
Figure 3.5.3-1
Figure 3.5.3-2
Figure 3.5.3-3
Figure 3.5.3-4
Figure 3.5.3-5
Figure 3.5.3-6
Figure 3.5.4-1
Figure 3.5.4-2
Figure 3.5.4-3
Figure 3.5.4-4
Figure 3.5.4-5
Figure 3.5.4-6
Figure 3.5.5-1
Figure 3.5.5-2
Figure 3.5.6-1
Figure 3.5.7-1
Figure 3.5.7-2
Figure 4.2.1-1
Figure 4.3-1
Reach 3 CPUE by Habitat
Reach 5 CPUE by Habitat
CPUE by Reach and Species for Select Species using Minnow Traps,
Grant Creek
Length Frequencies of Dolly Varden in Minnow Traps, Grant Creek
Length Frequencies of Rainbow Trout in Minnow Traps, Grant Creek
CPUE by Reach and Species for Angling Surveys, Grant Creek
CPUE by Month and Reach for Angling Surveys, Grant Creek
Length Frequencies for Rainbow Trout, Grant Creek (June Angling
Surveys)
Length Frequencies for Rainbow Trout, Grant Creek (August Angling
Surveys)
Length Frequencies for Dolly Varden, Grant Creek (June Angling
Surveys)
Length Frequencies for Dolly Varden, Grant Creek (August Angling
Surveys)
Foot Survey Counts and Estimated Chinook Escapement
Foot Survey Counts and Estimated Sockeye Escapement
Composition and Relative Abundance of Fish Species
Juvenile Chinook Salmon Ages Observed
Relative Abundance of Fish Species Observed by Reach
Relative Abundance of Fish Species Observed by Microhabitat Unit
Relative Abundance of Resident Fish >200mm Observed by Microhabitat
Unit
Relative Abundance of Fish Species Observed in the Distributary and
Secondary Channel
Surber Population Densities
Surber Percent EPT
Surber Taxa Diversity
Percent Dominant Taxa at GC 100
Percent Dominant Taxa at GC300
Periphyton Chorophyll A Grant Creek
Total Minnow Trapping Catch, Falls Creek
Length Frequencies for Dolly Varden in Minnow Traps, Falls Creek
Total Minnow Trapping Catch, Grant Lake
Percent Dominant Taxa at Grant Lake
Phytoplankton Chlorophyll A at Grant Lake
Sites sampled and types of samples collected at Grant Lake in 1981 -
1982 (AEIDC 1983)
Water quality, temperature, and hydrology Study Locations-2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC. iv January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Figure 4.4.2-1
Figure 4.5.1-1
Figure 4.5.1-2
Figure 4.5.1-3
Figure 4.5.I-4
Figure 4.5.1-5
Figure 4.5.I-6
Figure 4.5.1-7
Figure 4.5.1-8
Figure 4.5.1-9
Figure 4.5.1-10
Figure 4.5.I II
Figure 4.5.l-I2
Figure 4.5.1-13
Figure 4.5.1-14
Figure 4.5 .I 15
Figure 4.5.1-I6
Figure 4.5.1-17
Figure 4.5.1-18
Figure 4.5.1-19
Figure 4.5.1-20
Figure 4.5.1-21
Figure 4.5.1-22
Figure 4.5.1-23
Figure 4.5.1-24
Figure 4.5.1-25
Figure 4.5.1-26
Figure 4.5.1-27
Figure 4.5.1-28
Figure 4.5.1-29
Figure 4.5.1-30
Example staff gauge and data logger installation
Temperature at Grant and Falls Creek during water quality sampling
Temperature at Grant Lake Thermistor String location taken during
water quality sampling
Temperature at Grant Lake Outlet location taken during water quality
sampling
Continuous temperature for all depth intervals in Grant Lake as daily
mean values
Continuous temperature in Grant Lake as daily mean values
Continuous temperature at stream stations as daily mean values
Continuous temperature at shallow depths in Grant Lake and Grant
Creek stream gage as daily mean values
Specific Conductivity at stream sampling locations
Relative Conductivity at stream sampling locations
Specific Conductivity at Grant Lake Outlet
Relative Conductivity at Grant Lake Outlet
Specific Conductivity at Grant Lake Thermistor String Location
Relative Conductivity at Grant Lake Thermistor String Location
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration at Grant and Falls Creek
Dissolved Oxygen Saturation at Grant and Falls Creek
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration at Grant Lake Thermistor String
Location
Dissolved Oxygen Saturation at Grant Lake Thermistor String
Location
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration at Grant Lake Outlet
Dissolved Oxygen Saturation at Grant Lake Outlet
pH Concentrations at all Stream Locations
pH Concentrations at Grant Lake Thermistor String Location
pH Concentrations at Grant Lake Outlet
Turbidity at all Grant and Falls Creek Locations with included
Turbidity of Surface of Grant Lake
Turbidity at all Grant Lake Locations and Depths
Alkalinity at all Grant and Falls Creek Locations
Alkalinity Concentrations at Grant Lake Thermistor String Location
Alkalinity Concentrations at Grant Lake Outlet by Depth
Total Lead Concentrations in Grant and Falls Creek
Total Lead Concentrations at the Grant Lake Thermistor String
Location
Low Level Mercury Concentrations at Grant and Falls Creek
Kenai Hydro, LLC. v January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Figure 4.5.1-31
Figure 4.5.1-32
Figure 4.5.1-33
Figure 4.5.1-34
Figure 4.5.1-35
Figure 4.5.1-36
Figure 4.5.1-37
Figure 4.5.1-38
Figure 4.5.1-39
Figure 4.5.1-40
Figure 4.5.1-41
Figure 4.5.1-42
Figure 4.5.1-43
Figure 4.5.2-1
Figure 4.5.2-2
Appendices
Low Level Mercury Concentrations at Grant Lake Thermistor String
Location
Low Level Mercury Concentrations at Grant Lake Outlet
Nitrate and Nitrite Concentrations at all Grant and Falls Creek
Nitrate and Nitrite Concentrations at Grant Lake Thermistor String
Location
Nitrate and Nitrite Concentrations at Grant Lake Outlet
Total Phosphorous Concentrations at all Grant and Falls Creek
Locations
Total Phosphorous Concentrations at Grant Lake Thermistor String
Location
Total Dissolved Solid Concentrations at all Grant and Falls Creek
Locations
Total Dissolved Solid Concentrations at Grant Lake Thermistor String
Location
Total Dissolved Solid Concentrations at Grant Creek Outlet Location
Total Suspended Solid Concentrations at all Grant and Falls Creek
Locations
Total Suspended Solid Concentrations at Grant Lake Thermistor
String Location
Total Suspended Solid Concentrations at Grant Lake Outlet Location
Continuous and observed water surface elevation at GC200
Continuous and observed water surface elevation at FC I 00
Appendix A ................................................................................ .Instream Flow Study Summary
Appendix B ........................................................................................................................ Photos
Kenai Hydro, LLC. vi January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
List of Acronyms
ADF&G
ADOT&PF
AEIDC
AHRS
APA
ASCI
AWC
BLM
oc
CaC03
cfs
em
CPUE
OF
DNR
DO
EPA
EPT
FERC
FL
fps
ft
G&A
GPS
GWh
HBI
HEP
Hg
IFIM
in
KHI
KHL
KPB
kWh
LLC
LWD
m2
MgC03
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (University of Alaska)
Alaska Heritage Resources Survey
Alaska Power Authority
Alaska Stream Condition Index
Anadromous Waters Catalog
Bureau of Land Management
Degrees Celsius
calcium carbonate
cubic feet per second
centimeter
catch per unit effort
Degrees Fahrenheit
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
dissolved oxygen
Environmental Protection Agency
Ephemeroptera/Plecopteraffrichoptera
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Fork Length
feet per second
feet
general and administrative
global positioning system
gigawatt hours
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index
Hydroelectric Evaluation Program
mercury
instream flow incremental methodology
inch
Kenai Hydro Inc.
Kenai Hydro, LLC
Kenai Peninsula Borough
kilowatt hours
Limited liability company
large woody debris
Square meters
magnesium carbonate
Kenai Hydro, LLC. vii January 201 0
Environmental Baseline Studies 2009
mg/L milligrams per liter
mglm3 milligrams per cubic meter
mi mile
MIF minimum instream flow
ml milliliter
mm millimeter
MSL Mean sea level
MW Megawatt
MWh Megawatt hours
ng/L nanograms per Liter
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
O&M Operations & maintenance
ORP Oxidation Reduction Potential
p phosphorous
Pb lead
PVC polyvinyl chloride
RM river miles
RVDs Recreation visitor days
STD standard
TDS total dissolved solids
TL total length
TSS total suspended solids
TWG technical working group
pg/L microgram per Liter
pm micrometer
pS/cm microSiemens per centimeter
US ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFS U.S. Forest Service
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WSE water surface elevation
YOY Young of the year
Kenai Hydro, LLC. viii January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Executive Summary
Kenai Hydro, LLC (KHL) contracted with HDR Alaska, Inc. to conduct environmental
baseline studies in 2009 to support a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license
application (FERC P-13211/13212) for a proposed hydroelectric project at Grant Lake near
Moose Pass, Alaska. This report describes preliminary environmental baseline information
collected from 02 June through 31 October 2009. These preliminary studies were intended to
aid in the design of formal study plans that will be needed to specifically address requirements
of Exhibit E of the FERC license application process. The following water-related study
programs are addressed in this document:
• Fish and Aquatic Resources
• Hydrology
• Water Quality
Project History
Hydroelectric potential at Grant Lake has been evaluated several times as a potential power
source for the Seward/Kenai Peninsula area. In 1954, R.W. Beck and Associates (cited by
APA 1984) prepared a preliminary investigation and concluded that a project at the site had
significant potential. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted geologic investigations
of proposed power sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan, and Crescent Lakes in the 1950s
(Piafker 1955). In 1980, CH2M Hill (cited by APA 1984) prepared a prefeasibility study for a
Grant Lake project and concluded that a project developed at the site would be feasible. The
Grant Lake Project was referenced in the 1981 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
National Hydroelectric Power Resources Study (US ACE 1981 ). The most extensive study
was performed by Ebasco Services, Inc. in 1984 for the Alaska Power Authority (now Alaska
Energy Authority; APA 1984 ). The studies included a detailed examination of water use and
quality; fish resources; botanical and wildlife resources; historical and archaeological
resources; socioeconomic impacts; geological and soil resources; recreational resources;
aesthetic resources; and land use (APA 1984 ). Two of the alternative project configurations
evaluated by Ebasco included the diversion of adjacent Falls Creek into Grant Lake to provide
additional water for power generation.
During the 1986-87 period a preliminary application document was filed by Kenai Hydro, Inc.
(no relation to the current Kenai Hydro, LLC) for a project at Grant Lake. Support for the
application included an instream flow study. Because of competing projects and political
considerations the project was never pursued beyond the preliminary application phase.
On August 6, 2009, Kenai Hydro, LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD), along with
a Notice of Intent to file an application for an original license for the Grant Lake/Falls Creek
project (P-13211/13212) under Part I of the Federal Power Act. On September 15, 2009,
FERC approved the use of the Traditional Licensing Process for development of the license
application and supporting materials. The PAD summarizes existing information and
describes the proposed project facilities, which includes a diversion dam at the outlet to Grant
Lake, and a powerhouse along Grant Creek. The proposal includes diverting water from Falls
Kenai Hydro, LLC. ix January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Creek into Grant Lake in the spring, summer, and fall months to provide additional flow and
power generation at the Grant Creek powerhouse.
This report provides results of the preliminary environmental baseline data collected from 02
June through 31 October 2009. These preliminary data will provide information useful in the
design of formal study plans needed to specifically address requirements of Exhibit E in
support of the FERC license application for the Grant Lake/Falls Creek hydroelectric project.
Some data requirements for Exhibit E are met by previous studies in support of earlier
feasibility and licensing efforts in the 1980s at Grant Lake. The scope of work was focused on
filling data gaps and providing current information regarding fish and aquatic resources,
stream hydrology, water quality analyses, as well as providing background information
needed for the development of an appropriate instream flow study approach.
Study Area
Grant Creek, Grant Lake, and Falls Creek are located near the community of Moose Pass,
Alaska (population 206), approximately 25 miles (mi) north of Seward, Alaska (population
3,016), just east of the Seward Highway (State Route 9) which connects Anchorage
(population 279,671) to Seward. The Alaska Railroad parallels the Seward Highway and is
adjacent to the study area. Cooper Landing, Alaska is located 24 mi to the northwest and is
accessible via the Sterling Highway (State Route I) which connects to the Seward Highway
approximately 10 mi northwest of Moose Pass.
Grant Lake is approximately 1.5 mi southeast of Moose Pass. It is located at an elevation of
approximately 709 feet (ft) above mean sea level (MSL), with a maximum depth of nearly
300ft and surface area of 2.6 square miles (APA 1984). Grant Lake's total drainage area is
approximately 44 square miles. Tributaries to Grant lake include Inlet Creek at the east end
and numerous other short, steep streams, some of which are glacier-fed. Grant Lake is
comprised of two basins separated by a natural constriction and island near the midpoint
(Figure 2-1 ). The lake is ringed by mountains of the Kenai Mountain Range to the east, north,
and south, with elevations ranging from 4,500 to 5,500 ft.
Grant Lake's only outlet, Grant Creek, runs west approximately 1 mi from the south end of
Grant Lake to drain into the Middle Trail River between Upper and Lower Trail Lake. Lower
Trail Lake then flows into Kenai Lake which drains into the Kenai River at its west end near
Cooper Landing (APA 1984).
Grant Creek has a mean annual flow of 193 cubic feet per second (cfs), and is 5,180 ft long,
with an average gradient of 207 ft/mi. Its substrate includes cobble and boulder alluvial
deposits and gravel shoals (APA 1984 ). The stream is 25 ft wide on average. In its upper half,
the stream passes through a rocky gorge with three substantial waterfalls and in its lower half,
the stream becomes less turbulent as it passes over gravel shoals and diminishing boulder
substrate (APA 1984).
Falls Creek is located approximately one mile south of the south end of Grant Lake; it flows
into Trail River just downstream of Lower Trail Lake (approximately 1.8 mi downstream of
the mouth of Grant Creek. The Falls Creek watershed is 11.9 square miles in area, draining
steep terrain between the Grant Lake and Ptarmigan Lake watersheds. It contains no lakes,
and has no major tributaries. Estimated mean annual flow of Falls Creek is 38 cfs. Stream
flow during the winter is minimal. Falls Creek is 42,240 ft (approximately 8 mi) long, average
Kenai Hydro, LLC. X January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
stream gradient is 418 ft/mi, and stream width averages I5 ft. Falls Creek substrate includes
cobble, boulder deposits, a few gravel bars, and a thin layer of fine silt near the mouth. The
lower I mi of stream has been extensively channelized and modified by placer mining (APA
1984). Three to four acres adjacent to the active channel in the lower 0.5 mi are covered with
tailings, and I 00 yards of streambed in this area have been relocated (AEIDC 1983).
Fish and Aquatic Resources
The goals of the 2009 fish and aquatic resources study program were to characterize fish use
of aquatic habitats in Grant Lake and Grant Creek, describe anadromous fish habitat in Grant
Creek, and characterize aspects of stream and lake biology that may be related to overall
productivity. Another goal was to determine fish presence and general habitat characteristics
of Falls Creek. Work completed in 2009 built upon the data provided by previous studies in
this area (AEIDC I983, USFWS I961 ). Specific study objectives are addressed in Section
3.3.2. The fisheries work completed in 2009 will provide preliminary background information
necessary for a FERC environmental assessment.
The results of the 2009 fish and aquatic resources study program were generally consistent
with the results of other studies conducted in the Grant Creek watershed with respect to
species presence and distribution (see Section 3.2, USFWS I96I, AEIDC 1983, APA I984,
Marcuson 1989).
Grant Lake. Previous studies have indicated that Grant Lake supports resident populations
of sculpin (Cottidae) and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus); salmon or other
salmonid fish such as Dolly Varden have not been caught in Grant Lake or any of its
tributaries during environmental assessments (USFWS 196I, AEIDC I983, AP A I984 ). The
2009 study program sampled a variety of habitat types and confirmed the results of the past
study efforts. The current study, in combination with past study efforts, provides convincing
evidence that no salmonid species are present in Grant Lake or its tributaries.
Zooplankton and phytoplankton were collected in Grant Lake in order to estimate the
productivity of the lake, with emphasis on the area of the natural outlet and the proposed
project intake. The population density at the sample site furthest from the lake outlet was 3.67
organisms per liter while the sample site closest to the lake outlet had densities nearly three
times higher at I 0.65 organisms per liter. This difference in population density may be
relevant to the availability of fish food organisms in Grant Creek. Contrary to the results of
the zooplankton sampling, abundance of phytoplankton (as measured by chlorophyll a
concentration) was greater at the sample site located further away from the lake outlet.
Grant Creek. Grant Creek is a short, high gradient stream that flows about one mile from
Grant Lake to Middle Trail River. Fish habitat quality and availability is largely controlled by
accessibility and steepness. A series of waterfalls about 500 ft. downstream from the lake
outlet blocks access to fish from downstream. The 2009 studies confirmed the results of past
studies that have indicated that salmonid fish from the Kenai River drainage are unable to
access Grant Creek above the falls. Fish species present within upper Grant Creek (above the
falls) are the same as those in Grant Lake, consisting only of sticklebacks and sculpins.
Downstream from the lower falls, Grant Creek flows through a canyon for about I800 ft.
This reach is characterized by cascades with boulder substrate. Fish habitat is limited by the
fast water. Small numbers of adult sockeye and Chinook salmon were observed at the lower
Kenai Hydro, LLC. xi January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
end of this reach in 2009. Except for the lower few hundred feet, the reach is inaccessible
during the open water season due to dangerous conditions. Information is lacking regarding
fish numbers and distribution within this upper stream segment.
The segment of stream between the canyon reach and Grant Creek mouth (2600 ft.) is
characterized by relatively fast water and dominant riffle type habitats. Substantial numbers
of Chinook and sockeye salmon spawn along the stream margin and within limited gravel
pockets. The 2009 studies estimated Chinook salmon escapement to Grant Creek at 235 fish
and sockeye salmon at 6300 fish. The number of sockeyes present was higher than observed
during prior studies. Six coho salmon were observed during the last survey period (late
September, 2009). Later surveys were not conducted; therefore, the extent of coho use was
not established. The overall distribution of salmon spawning and the locations of high quality
spawning areas were delineated within the accessible portion of Grant Creek.
Stream areas with slower water such as backwaters, side channels, and undercut banks
provide rearing habitat and refuge for juvenile Chinook and coho salmon, as well as for
juvenile Dolly Varden and rainbow trout. While slow water habitats were limited, the density
of juvenile salmonids within some of these areas was high. The locations and physical
characteristics of these important microhabitat areas were documented for potential input to
an instream flow study program.
Main channel pools and fast water areas are occupied by larger rainbow trout and Dolly
Varden. Seventy-two adult and subadult rainbow trout were caught during 91 hours of
angling effort. Some trout were present in the stream in early summer and more arrived in
late summer coincident with the salmon migration. Spawning by rainbow trout is suspected
but has not been confirmed. The presence of trout fry in Grant Creek in mid-summer 2009
provided evidence that spawning had likely occurred in the spring.
Macroinvertebrates and periphyton were collected in Grant Creek in order to characterize the
baseline condition of the creek relating to productivity and availability of food for resident
fish. Population density estimates indicated that macroinvertebrates were more abundant at
the creek outlet than at middle reach locations. Periphyton growth as measured by
chlorophyll a concentrations was also significantly higher at the creek mouth.
Falls Creek. Falls Creek is a high gradient stream characterized by riffle habitats, a small
amount of undercut bank, and a moderate amount of large woody debris. Foot surveys on
Falls Creek from the Seward Highway Bridge to the mouth of the creek found no adult
anadromous fish in July and August. Due to the high turbidity of Falls Creek, there was a
possibility that fish were missed. A larger portion of Falls Creek was sampled with minnow
traps from 21 to 22 July 2009. A total of 24 fish were captured, all of which were juvenile
Dolly Varden.
Water Resources
The primary goal of the 2009 water quality and hydrology study programs was to begin to
characterize the water quality, temperature, and hydrology of Grant Creek, Falls Creek, and
Grant Lake in support of the Instream Flow Study to begin in 2010 and the FERC licensing
process.
Kenai Hydro, LLC. xii January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek have been studied in the past for hydroelectric
feasibility. Previous hydrologic investigations in the project area include:
• Historical Grant Creek stream gage data (USGS 15246000) -II years of continuous
stream gage data from 1947-1958.
• Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis, EBASCO, 1987,
includes modeled Falls Creek data.
• Historical Falls Creek discharge data limited to several instantaneous discharge
measurements made over various years including 1963-70, 1976, and 2007-2008.
Grant Lake water quality and temperature data were collected between June 10 1h and October
6th; the 2009 hydrology and stream temperature data were collected between June 9th and
October Jth.
Hydrology. Stream gages were installed on Grant Creek and Falls Creek. Continuous stage
data was recorded from early June through mid-October 2009. The trends reflected in 2009
were consistent with the mean monthly flow distribution from the USGS data (period of
record 1947-1958).
Water Quality. Instantaneous water temperature readings associated with water sampling
events at Grant Lake were consistent with seasonal changes. At the outlet of Grant Lake water
temperature did not vary widely by depth during the month of June.
The surface temperature at the Grant Lake thermistor string during June was approximately 6
degrees colder than during August. During June the temperature profile showed nearly
uniform temperature throughout the depth range except in the immediate vicinity of the
surface. During August the temperature was higher at the surface than throughout the rest of
the depth profile. However, temperature began to decrease near a depth of 9 m, possibly
suggesting thermal stratification. By the end of September the water column was
approximately 9°C from the surface to a depth of 14m, where the temperature decreased to
closer to 7°C at 19.5 m depth, suggesting a break down in thermal stratification and fall
turnover. There appears to be some thermocline formation from late July through early
September with the top six meters having relatively uniform temperature.
The stream temperature trends of Grant Creek reflect seasonal air temperature changes and
were very similar to temperatures found in the upper 3 meters of Grant Lake.
The conductivity values measured in Grant Creek and Grant Lake during the 2009 sampling
season are consistent with the historical data from the 1960s and 1980s (Table 4.2; Appendix
E).
Measurements of concentrations of dissolved oxygen (DO) in Grant Creek ranged from 7.31
to 7.34 mg/L in June and from 8.22 to 8.40 mg/L in August. Falls Creek measured DO values
were 7.96 and 10.65 mg/L in June and August, respectively. DO measurements in Grant Lake
were relatively uniform throughout the entire depth profile during both sampling events. DO
values measured in Grant Lake in June 2009 ranged from 7.20 to 7.96 mg!L, while August
values were much lower-5.57 to 6.05 mg!L. These data are lower than what would normally
be expected in freshwater systems. This was most likely the result of instrument malfunction
in the field, and additional data collection will be needed to verify DO levels.
Kenai Hydro, LLC. xiii January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Grant Creek turbidity readings in 2009 ranged from 10.1 to 11.9 NTU, which are higher than
historical turbidity results collected in the 1980's (0.35 to 1.1 NTU). Falls Creek historical
readings ranged from 0.37 to 6.0 NTU, while 2009 readings were 8.17 to 17.00 NTU.
Laboratory tests in 2009 indicated that the following analytes were either absent or present at
extremely low levels: mercury, lead, nitrates,/nitrites, orthophosphates, and phosphorous. The
lack of, or minimal amounts of, nutrients in the samples indicate that the system may be
nutrient-limited and possibly oligotrophic.
Kenai Hydro, LLC. xiv January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
1 Project History and Overview
Kenai Hydro, LLC (KHL) contracted with HDR Alaska, Inc. to conduct environmental
baseline studies in 2009 to support a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
license application for a proposed hydroelectric project at Grant Lake (FERC P-
13211/13212) near Moose Pass, Alaska. Results for the following studies provided in this
report include:
I. Fish Resources and Aquatic Resources
2. Hydrology
3. Water Quality
This report provides a description of study results with the intent of enhancing project
planning and providing a basis for discussion of project effects.
1.1 Project History
Hydroelectric potential at Grant Lake has been evaluated several times as a potential
power source for the Seward/Kenai Peninsula area. In 1954, R.W. Beck and Associates
(cited by APA 1984) prepared a preliminary investigation and concluded that a project at
the site had significant potential. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted
geologic investigations of proposed power sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan, and
Crescent Lakes in the 1950s (Plafker 1955). In 1980, CH2M Hill (cited by APA 1984)
prepared a prefeasibility study for a Grant Lake project and concluded that a project
developed at the site would be feasible. The Grant Lake Project was referenced in the
1981 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) National Hydroelectric Power Resources
Study (US ACE 1981 ). The most extensive study was performed by Ebasco Services, Inc.
in 1984 for the Alaska Power Authority (now Alaska Energy Authority; APA 1984 ). The
studies included a detailed examination of water use and quality; fish resources; botanical
and wildlife resources; historical and archaeological resources; socioeconomic impacts;
geological and soil resources; recreational resources; aesthetic resources; and land use
(APA 1984). Two of the alternatives evaluated by Ebasco included the diversion of
adjacent Falls Creek into Grant Lake to provide additional water for power generation.
During the 1986-87 periods a preliminary application document was filed by Kenai
Hydro, Inc. (no relation to the current Kenai Hydro, LLC) for a project at Grant Lake.
Support for the application included an instream flow study that examined potential
impact to fish resources from altered flow regimes. Minimum instream flows were
negotiated with the regulatory agencies. Because of competing projects and political
considerations the project was never pursued beyond the preliminary application phase.
On 06 August 2009, Kenai Hydro, LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD), along
with a Notice of Intent to file an application for an original license for the Grant
Lake/Falls Creek project (P-13211/13212) under Part I of the Federal Power Act. On 15
September 2009, FERC approved the use of the Traditional Licensing Process for
development of the license application and supporting materials. The PAD summarizes
existing information and describes the proposed project facilities, which includes a
diversion dam at the outlet to Grant Lake, and a powerhouse along Grant Creek. The
Kenai Hydro, LLC. January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
proposal includes diverting water from Falls Creek into Grant Lake in the spring,
summer, and fall months to provide additional flows and power generation at the Grant
Creek powerhouse.
1.2 Project Overview
This report provides results of the preliminary environmental baseline data collected from
02 June through 31 October 2009. These preliminary data will provide information useful
in the design of formal study plans needed to specifically address requirement of Exhibit
E of the FERC license application process for the development of small-scale
hydroelectric energy generation at Grant Creek. Some data requirements for Exhibit E are
met by previous studies in support of earlier feasibility and licensing efforts in the 1980s
at Grant Lake. The scope of work was focused on filling data gaps and providing current
information regarding fish and aquatic resources, stream hydrology, water quality
analyses, and on providing background information needed for the development of an
appropriate instream flow study approach.
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 2 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
2 Study Area
Grant Creek, Grant Lake, and Falls Creek are located near the community of Moose Pass,
Alaska (population 206), approximately 25 miles (mi) north of Seward, Alaska
(population 3,016), just east of the Seward Highway (State Route 9) which connects
Anchorage (population 279,671) to Seward. The Alaska Railroad parallels the Seward
Highway and is adjacent to the study area. Cooper Landing, Alaska is located 24 mi to
the northwest and is accessible via the Sterling Highway (State Route 1) which connects
to the Seward Highway approximately 10 mi northwest of Moose Pass.
Grant Lake is approximately 1.5 mi southeast of Moose Pass. It is located at an elevation
of approximately 709 feet (ft) above mean sea level (MSL), with a maximum depth of
nearly 300ft and surface area of 2.6 mi (APA 1984). Grant Lake's total drainage area is
approximately 44 mi. Tributaries include Inlet Creek at the headwaters and other glacial-
fed streams in the watershed. Grant Lake consists of front and back basins, which are
separated by a natural constriction and island near the midpoint (Figure 2-1 ). The lake is
ringed by mountains of the Kenai Mountain Range to the east, north, and south, with
elevations ranging from 4,500 to 5,500 ft.
Grant Lake's only outlet, Grant Creek, runs west approximately 1 mi from the south end
of Grant Lake to drain into Middle Trail River between Upper and Lower Trail Lake.
Trail River drains Lower Trail Lake, and then flows into Kenai Lake. Kenai Lake drains
to the Kenai River at its west end near Cooper Landing (APA 1984).
Grant Creek has a mean annual flow of 193 cubic feet per second ( cfs ), and is 5, 180 ft
long, with an average gradient of 207 ft/mi. Its substrate includes cobbles and boulder
alluvial deposits and gravel shoals (APA 1984 ). The stream is 25 ft wide on average. In
its upper half, the stream passes through a rocky gorge with three substantial waterfalls
and in its lower half, the stream becomes less turbulent as it passes over gravel shoals and
diminishing boulder substrate (APA 1984 ).
Falls Creek is located approximately one mile south of the south end of Grant Lake; it
flows into Trail River just downstream of Lower Trail Lake (approximately 1.8 mi
downstream of the mouth of Grant Creek), see Figure 2-1 (Photographs of the study area
are provided in Appendix B.). The Falls Creek watershed drains steep terrain between the
Grant Lake and Ptarmigan Lake watersheds, is 11.9 mi 2 in area, contains no lakes, and
has no major tributaries. Estimated mean annual flow of Falls Creek is 38 cfs. Stream
flow during the winter is minimal. Falls Creek is 42,240 ft (approximately 8 mi) long,
average stream gradient is 418 ft/mi, and stream width averages 15 ft. Falls Creek
substrate includes cobble, boulder deposits, a few gravel bars, and a thin layer of fine silt
near the mouth. The lower 1 mi of stream has been extensively channelized and modified
by placer mining (APA 1984). Three to four acres adjacent to the active channel in the
lower 0.5 mi are covered with tailings, and 100 yards of streambed in this area have been
relocated (AEIDC 1983).
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 3 January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
3 Fish & Aquatic Resources
3.1 Introduction
Grant Lake and Grant Creek support different assemblages of fish species and possess
varying quality and quantity of fish habitat. Only non-anadromous fish have been found
in Grant Lake (AEIDC 1983, USFWS 1961, Johnson and Klein 2009), whereas
anadromous fish are present in Grant Creek. The following sections describe the 2009
aquatic and water resources baseline study results for fish and aquatic resources
associated with the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project.
Because of its geographic isolation, Grant Lake supports only resident populations of
sculpin (Cottidae) and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Salmon were not
observed in Grant Lake or any of its tributaries during environmental assessments
(USFWS 1961; AEIDC 1983; APA 1984); and are not included in the Anadromous
Waters Catalog (AWC) published by Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G;
Johnson and Klein 2009). Whereas, most of Grant Creek is accessible to anadromous fish
from the Kenai River drainage and is included in the A WC due to the presence of
spawning Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), sockeye (0. nerka), and coho (0.
kisutch) salmon and rearing coho salmon (Johnson and Klein 2009).
Other components of the aquatic ecosystem, such as macroinvertebrates and periphyton,
often serve as indicators of system productivity or health. Macroinvertebrates and
periphyton in Grant Creek are essential as food sources for fish. As the primary food
source for juvenile salmonids, macroinvertebrates are potentially a limiting factor in the
number of juveniles that survive and remain in Grant Creek. Some fish and many
macroinvertebrates depend on periphyton as their primary food source. Changes in water
quality can quickly affect periphyton and macroinvertebrate assemblages.
Similarly, zooplankton and phytoplankton in Grant Lake are a primary food source of
resident fish populations in Grant Lake. These organisms are also likely washed into
Grant Creek through the natural outlet of Grant Lake and may become a food source for
juvenile salmonids in the creek. Changes in the water quality in the lake or the flow
through the natural outlet may affect zooplankton and phytoplankton availability as a
food source.
3.2 Previous Studies
Previous FERC licensing efforts in the 1960s and 1980s for a proposed hydroelectric
project at Grant Lake included studies of fish resources in Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and
Falls Creek. The Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC 1983)
conducted fish sampling from 1981 to 1982 as part of comprehensive environmental
baseline study effort and USFWS ( 1961) conducted limited sampling from 1959 to 1960.
3.2.1 Grant Creek Fish Resources
Both anadromous and resident fish are present in Grant Creek, including salmon, trout
and other fish. Spawning Chinook, sockeye, and coho salmon, as well as rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) are found in the lower
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 4 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
reaches of Grant Creek (APA 1984, Johnson and Klein 2009). Rearing Chinook, coho
and rainbow trout are also present (APA 1984, Johnson and Klein 2009). Round
whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum) and Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) were
caught during angling surveys (APA 1984 ).
The upper portion of Grant Creek is impassable to salmon 0.5 mi (APA 1984) to 1 mi
(Johnson and Klein 2009) upstream of the mouth. The most favorable fish habitat is
likely concentrated within the lower portion of stream. Habitat for juvenile fish exists
mainly in stream margins, eddies, deep pools and side channels offering reduced
velocities (APA 1984). Substrate material is coarse throughout the entire length of the
creek due to high water velocity, which tends to wash away smaller gravels (APA 1984).
Isolated areas of suitable spawning gravels occur in the lower half of the stream (APA
1984).
Periodic minnow trapping on Grant Creek from July 1959 through January 1961 captured
Chinook salmon. coho salmon, Dolly Varden and sculpin (extent of sampling area
unknown; USFWS 1961 ). Minnow trapping and electrofishing in lower reaches of Grant
Creek for week-long periods in October 1981 and March, May, June, and August 1982
yielded higher catches of trout, salmon, and Dolly Varden in the fal1 and summer than in
winter and spring (AEIDC 1983). Catches of Dolly Varden were generally the most
abundant fish in minnow traps, followed by juvenile Chinook, juvenile rainbow trout, and
juvenile coho. Juvenile Chinook were the most commonly caught fish during
electrofishing surveys (APA 1984 ).
APA (1984) estimated that Grant Creek supported 250 Chinook spawners and 1,650
sockeye spawners. These estimates were likely biased low due to the limitations of visual
counting methods. The stream was also estimated to support 209 8-inch or larger "trout"
(including Dolly Varden and rainbow trout; APA 1984). Spawning coho were not
surveyed (APA 1984), but have been recorded as being present at unknown levels in the
stream by the A WC (Johnson and Klein 2009). Maximum counts from intermittent
stream surveys by ADF&G were 76 Chinook (1963) and 324 (1952) sockeye salmon.1
3.2.2 Grant Creek lnstream Flow
A limited instream flow study was conducted on Grant Creek in the 1980s by Kenai
Hydro, Inc. (KHI; unrelated to Kenai Hydro, LLC). The study related documents include
reports and written communications between KHI and State and Federal agencies in 1986
and 1987 relative to a FERC license application for the proposed Grant Lake
Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 7633-002). The documents include draft and final
reports of a limited instream flow incremental methodology (IFIM) investigation and
negotiated minimum instream flows (MIF) and ramping rates (Envirosphere 1987, KHI
1987a, KHI 1987b ). A technical memorandum detailing the results of the previous
instream flow study efforts is provided in Appendix A.
1 Anadromous Waters Catalog Stream Nomination #08-153,
http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR!FishDistrib/Nomination/FDDNomHome.cfm
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 5 January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
3.2.3 Grant Creek and Falls Creek Macroinvertebrates and Grant Creek
Periphyton
A number of previous macroinvertebrate and periphyton studies have taken place in and
near the project area.
Surber sampling conducted in Grant Creek and Falls Creek in 1981 and 1982 indicated
that benthic macroinvertebrate diversity was low, as is typical of cold, glacial fed streams
(APA 1984). The most abundant taxa in Grant Creek were midge species
(Chironomidae), followed by mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), and
clams. No seasonal variation in macroinvertebrate abundance was observed in Grant
Creek. The dominant taxa in Falls Creek were midges and mayflies, although stoneflies,
caddisflies, and other species of true flies (Diptera) were present. Densities of all insect
taxa, other than mayflies, were low. In Falls Creek, macroinvertebrates were typically
most abundant in late summer.
Investigations conducted in 1982 showed that the periphyton community in Grant Creek
was dominated by diatoms (APA 1984). Diatoms were most abundant in spring. APA
( 1984) concluded that input of leaves and other organic matter from along side the stream
(allochthonous contribution), along with input of phytoplankton and zooplankton from
Grant Lake, was likely more important than periphyton as the basis of productivity in
Grant Creek.
3.2.4 Falls Creek Fish Resources
Falls Creek is classified as anadromous in its lower 2,300 ft for the presence of Chinook
salmon (Johnson and Klein 2009). Juvenile Chinook salmon and Dolly Varden have been
found in its lower section. A series of waterfalls prevents fish passage above the lower
2,300 ft of the stream (USFWS 1961, AEIDC 1982, Johnson and Klein 2009, HDR
2009).
USFWS sampled Falls Creek in 1961 by setting minnow traps in the lower 1 mi of the
creek. The results of that sampling effort found juvenile Chinook salmon to be present in
the lower 600 ft of the creek. Additional investigations by USFWS in 1959 and 1960
indicated that no adult salmon use the creek and that cold water temperatures may limit
its production potential (AIEDC 1983).
Falls Creek was also previously studied by AEIDC (1983). The results of this study
determined the lower I mi of Falls Creeks to contain limited suitable salmon spawning
habitat. Dolly Varden were found below an active mining area located immediately to the
east of the rail road bridge in the lower 600 ft of the creek. Six minnow traps were set for
a total of 108 hours of trapping effort, and captured 21 Dolly Varden ranging from 45 to
98 mm in length.
In 2008, the ADF&G (Johnson and Klein 2009) placed minnow traps in the lower area of
Falls Creek below the rail road and highway bridges and found juvenile Chinook to be
present.
Kenai Hydro, LL . 6 January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
3.2.5 Grant Lake Fish Resources
Sampling during 1981-1982 by the Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center
(AEIDC) found no fish in any of the tributaries of Grant Lake (AEIDC 1983). Sculpin
and threespine stickleback were the only fish found to inhabit Grant Lake. A series of
impassable falls 2 near Grant Lake's outlet prevents colonization of the lake by salmonids
via Grant Creek (APA 1984 ). Grant Lake supports a "small" population of slimy sculpin
(Cottus cognatus) and a "dense" population of threespine stickleback (USFWS 1961).
Density of threespine stickleback was ten times higher in the lower basin than the upper
basin of Grant Lake (AEIDC 1983).
3.2.6 Grant Lake Zooplankton and Phytoplankton
Zooplankton and phytoplankton samples were collected in Grant Lake in 1981-82 by the
ADF&G and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Results of those studies indicated that the
zooplankton community in Grant Lake was dominated by rotifers and copepods (APA
1984 ). Non-rotifer zooplankton abundance was highest in August, likely following peak
abundance of the phytoplankton upon which they feed. Phytoplankton collection in 1982
showed that the dominant taxa were diatoms with the greatest phytoplankton abundance
occurring in August (APA 1984).
In 1983, four limnology sites were established in the upper and lower Grant Lake basins.
Water quality and zooplankton samples were collected in eight sampling events during
open water seasons from June 1983 September 1985 (Marcuson 1989). Zooplankton
and phytoplankton samples were identified to the lowest practicable taxa in 1981 -1983
(AEIDC 1983, Marcuson 1989).
3.3 Study Goals and Objectives
3.3.1 Study Goals
The goals of 2009 fish and aquatic resources study program were to characterize fish use
of aquatic habitats in Grant Lake and Grant Creek, with an emphasis on anadromous fish
habitat and to characterize other components of the aquatic ecosystem that relate to
overall productivity and/or system health. Another goal was to determine fish presence
and general habitat characteristics of Falls Creek. Work completed in 2009 was designed
to compliment but not necessarily duplicate work completed earlier (AEIDC 1983,
USFWS 1961; see Section 3.2). Specific study objectives are addressed below. The
fisheries work completed in 2009 will provide preliminary background information
necessary for input to the design of a more detailed study program required as part of the
formal FERC licensing process.
3.3.2 Study Objectives
Objectives of 2009 field efforts were to:
2 2007 ADFG Stream survey referenced in Anadromous Waters Catalog Stream Nomination #08-153.
http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR!FishDistrib/Nornination/FDDNornHorne.cfm
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 7 January 20 1 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
1. Characterize resident and rearing fish use of Grant Creek, specifically:
a) Determine the relative abundance and distribution of juvenile fish in Grant
Creek.
b) Determine relative abundance and distribution of Dolly Varden and rainbow
trout present in Grant Creek.
c) Characterize fish use of microhabitats.
2. Describe the use of Grant Creek by adult migratory fish.
a) Estimate the abundance and run timing of spawning salmon.
b) Estimate the abundance and run timing of spawning adult resident fish.
c) Delineate spawning habitat locations and characteristics.
3. Determine fish presence and distribution in Grant Lake.
4. Develop a Technical Working Group and determine instream flow study methods.
5. Determine fish presence and general distribution in Falls Creek.
6. Collect baseline information on the zooplankton and phytoplankton populations in
Grant Lake near the natural outlet to the lake and near the proposed intake.
7. Collect baseline information on the macroinvertebrate and periphyton populations
in Grant Creek.
8. Assess chlorophyll a concentrations in periphyton and phytoplankton samples as
an indicator of primary productivity in Grant Lake and Grant Creek.
3.4 Field Sampling Methods
Multiple sampling methods were used to characterize and enumerate fish presence on
Grant Creek, Falls Creek, and Grant Lake. Angling was employed to estimate relative
abundance of adult resident fish in Grant Creek. Minnow trapping was used to estimate
relative abundance of rearing anadromous and resident freshwater fish in Grant Creek,
Falls Creek, and Grant Lake. Electrofishing was used in areas around minnow traps to
verify catch results. Gill netting was employed in Grant Lake to document the species in
the lake outside of the littoral zone. Foot surveys were employed on Grant Creek and
Falls Creek to estimate the escapement of adult anadromous fish.
3.4.1 Establishment of Study reaches on Grant Creek
AEIDC conducted field work in Grant Creek in the early 1980s (AEIDC 1983) and
divided the lower half of Grant Creek into four uniform study reaches, each 0.125 mi
long. They divided the upper 0.5 mi of Grant Creek into two reaches based on land
topography (AEIDC 1983). In June 2009, a total of six study reaches were established on
Grant Creek to correspond with historical study reaches. Study reach breaks were marked
in the field using surveyor stakes and a handheld global positioning system (Figure 3.4.1
I, see Appendix B for photographs of the study area). Study reach breaks were plotted on
an aerial photograph and visually compared to the study reach map established in
previous studies, small adjustments were then made to the reach break boundaries as
needed to ensure that the historical study reaches were recreated to the best extent
possible.
8 January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
3.4.2 Grant Creek Fish Resources
Rearing Fish Study reaches I through 6 were sampled using 1;:4 in mesh baited minnow
traps. Traps were baited with cured salmon eggs. Minnow trapping was conducted on a
monthly basis June through September (Figure 3.4.1-1 ). Study reach 6 was sampled
opportunistically in concurrence with two sampling events at Grant Lake in June and
August. Minnow traps were set for approximately 24 hours.
All minnow trap sites were marked with a GPS and flagged for future identification
(Figure 3.4.1-1 ). Reach I had 10 minnow trapping sites, reach 2 had 10 minnow trapping
sites, Reach 3 had 13 minnow trapping sites, Reach 4 had nine minnow trapping sites,
Reach 5 had three minnow trapping sites, and Reach 6 had five minnow trapping sites.
(Due to the impassible terrain and high water flows in Reach 5 trap sites were limited.)
Fish captured were identified to the species level and released near the point of capture.
Sculpin were identified to the genus level. A target sample of fish were measured for
length to the nearest millimeter (n=20 per sampling event for salmonids and n= l 0 per
sampling event for threespine stickleback); salmonids were measured to fork length (FL)
or the tip of snout to the fork in their tail and other fish were sampled for total length
(TL) or the tip of snout to the end of their tail.
A subsample of the minnow trapping sites (n=2) were electrofished in order to identify
and enumerate fish that may not be readily captured in minnow traps, such as sockeye
salmon. Electrofishing, using a Smith-Root Model LR24 backpack electrofisher occurred
at two sites per reach, with the exception of Reach 5, which was not electrofished due to
high velocity flows and deep water conditions. Electrofishing occurred after the minnow
traps were removed from the stream in order to not interfere with trap catch. Fish
captured in the minnow traps were retained during the electrofishing effort, so as not to
recapture them. Each site was electrofished for approximately one minute. High flows
and turbid water conditions in Grant Creek during August made electrofishing
impractical. Effort was made to electrofish different sampling sites in each reach during
multiple sampling events.
Adult Resident Fish Angling surveys were used to characterize the use of Grant Creek
by adult and subadult rainbow trout and Dolly Varden. Four angling stations were
established within each study reach, with the exception of Reach 5, which contained two
angling stations (Figure 3.4.1 1). Angling did not occur in Reach 6 because of a known
fish migration barrier (see Section 3.2.2) and previous study results documenting the
absence of adult salmonids in Grant Lake (USFWS 1961, AEIDC 1983, and APA 1984).
Study reaches 1 through 4 contained the same number of angling stations (n=4) per river
mile (RM) so that the level of effort between reaches could be as uniform as possible.
Since only the lower 300 m of Reach 5 were accessible, only two angling stations were
contained in Reach 5. Each angling station was fished for 30 minutes using rod and reel
methods in accordance with ADF&G Sport Fishing Regulations and Fish Resources
Permit SF2009-130. Sampling events occurred approximately every 10 days, except
during the last week of July when sampling was not conducted due to flood stage water
levels. Lures included spinners, flies, and beads. Bait (e.g. preserved salmon eggs) was
used during one sampling event in August then discontinued to ensure that the results of
all sampling events were comparable. Captured fish were observed for previous
markings. If no previous marks were present, then 11-4 in of the upper lobe of the caudal fin
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 9 January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
was clipped for future identification. If the caudal fin was already marked the fish was
noted as a recaptured fish on the field datasheet. All fish caught were identified to the
species level, measured, and released near the point of capture. Notes were made as to the
spawning condition and sex of the fish.
Catch per unit effort (CPUE) for the resident and rearing fish study was calculated by
dividing the total number of fish captured within each study reach by the total amount of
sampling effort in each study reach. For the purposes of this study CPUE is defined as
fish per hour of sampling effort (angling hour or minnow trap hour) and is used as a
measure of relative abundance.
Adult Salmon Foot surveys were conducted every I 0 days June through September to
estimate the abundance and determine the distribution of spawning anadromous fish in
Grant Creek and Falls Creek. One sampling event was missed in late July due to high
water. A two person crew started at the mouth of the creek, with one person on each
bank. Each person surveyed upstream, counting fish within the nearest one-half of the
creek (i.e. mid-stream inward to the streambank). The number of live fish were counted
and tallied by species for each survey. Number and location of active redds, areas of
concentrated spawning activity, and the numbers of carcasses were also recorded. Due to
the high turbidity in the creek (which ranged from 0.66 to 9.38 Nephelometric Turbidity
Units; [NTUsJ), adult fish may have been missed.
An estimate of total escapement for Chinook and sockeye salmon was calculated based
on live fish counts using the area-under-the-curve (AUC) method described by Bue et al.
(1998). This method uses a trapezoidal approximation to estimate the number of live fish
present in the stream for the days not surveyed. This method has been in use for more
than 25 years (Neilson and Geen 1981, English et al. 1992, Bue et al. 1998, Hilborn et al
1999).
The AUC method relies on three critical types of data consisting of live fish counts, an
estimate of survey life and an estimate of observer efficiency (Hilborn et al. 1999). Live
fish counts are number of fish counted during each foot survey. Survey life is the average
number of days a fish was alive in the survey area and observer efficiency represents the
proportion of the true number of fish that are present and actually counted by the
surveyor.
Survey life can vary between species and within each season. Survey life estimates for
sockeye salmon for example, range from 7 to 26.5 days (Shardlow 2004). Survey life for
Chinook and sockeye salmon in Grant Creek is not known. An estimate of 14 days for
Chinook and 9 days for sockeye salmon was used in the calculations based on observer
experience and knowledge of the system.
Observer efficiency can vary spatially, temporally, and between surveyors depending
upon factors that affect the surveyor's ability to view an individual fish, such as stream
width, depth and water clarity. Observer efficiency values have been obtained through
the use of weir counts where the total number of fish in the stream is known and then
compared to foot survey counts (Fried et al. 1998). Since there was not a weir on Grant
Creek in 2009 nor have there been previous efforts on Grant Creek to determine observer
efficiency, subjective estimates of observer efficiency consisting of 0.30 for Chinook and
0.50 for sockeye were used based on observer estimates. A lower observer efficiency
10 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
value was used for Chinook because of more turbid water conditions in Grant Creek
during the time adult Chinook salmon were present.
The escapement estimate for Grant Creek was calculated by dividing the area-under-the-
curve (e.g. fish days) by survey life and then multiplying by an observer efficiency
correction factor to adjust for the proportion of fish actually observed. Naturally, if the
observer only sees a portion of the fish present, then the estimate will be biased low and
the adjustment for observer efficiency corrects this bias. The overall formula is as
follows:
E = (AUC/s) v
where E is escapement, AUC is area under the curve, s is stream life, and v is observer
efficiency
3.4.3 Grant Creek Instream Flow and Microhabitat Preference Study
The purpose of the Grant Creek instream flow study is to determine the potential effects
on physical habitat and water temperature in Grant Creek of a range of flow regimes that
could result from hydropower development proposed by KHL. The primary goal of the
2009 instream flow study program was to establish a technical working group (TWG)
consisting of state and federal resource agency staff, project staff and interested members
of the local community. Once established, the TWG met five times during the 2009 study
season to review the results of the 2009 aquatic baseline study efforts, discuss alternative
methodologies, and determine the need for additional information to support the primary
in stream flow study effort to occur in 20 I 0.
One outcome of the Instream Flow TWG meetings held in early in 2009 was the
identification of a need for site-specific information regarding key habitats and
identification of critical suitability factors influencing the use of those habitats that might
be altered by project effects. The intent was to use this information to develop a
methodology for instream flow analysis that would be tailored to the conditions existing
within Grant Creek. Consequently, a study was initiated to address these questions.
Selection of Study Sites Study sites were selected based on the variety of habitats
available that were suitable for sampling. Portions of some habitat units were not
included in the 2009 surveys due to safety concerns created by swift water conditions.
Study site selection also targeted sites that were expected to contain high densities of fish,
such as backwater areas; along stream margins; side channels; and portions of the stream
associated with large woody debris (LWD). In an effort to include a subset of habitats
available in Grant Creek, areas not expected to contain high numbers of rearing fish, such
as fast water in the middle of the stream channel was also sampled, where safety
conditions allowed. A total of 16 sample sites were established: II sites in the main
channel and five sites in other channels. The II sites in the main channel included five
riffles, one backwater pool, one backwater slough, two scour pools, one cascade, and an
overflow channel. The other channel sites included two sites in a distributary channel
(Reach 1); two sites in a secondary channel (Reach 3); and one site in a tertiary channel
(Reach 3) (Figures 3.4.3-1, 3.4.3-2, 3.4.3-3, 3.4.3-4, and 3.4.3-5).
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 11 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Description of Micro-habitat Areas Aquatic habitat was described at each sample site
by recording macro-, meso-, and micro-habitat characteristics. At the macro-habitat
level, the location of the sample site was noted, and described as either fastwater or pool.
These broad categories were then broken down into the meso-habitat level, such as glide,
riffle, cascade, backwater, scour, or slough (USFS 2001 ).
Meso-habitats were further broken down into micro-habitats. Micro-habitat sample areas
were described and classified based on several criteria including:
1. Location relative to the main channel
2. Depth and flow regime
3. Presence of cover
4. Type of instream cover when present
Fish Use of Micro-habitat Sample Areas Snorkeling was the primary method to
document fish presence. Electrofishing was used primarily to confirm species
identification and calibrate fish length estimates.
Fish presence was recorded in each discrete microhabitat sample area. This approach was
used with the intent to correlate fish presence with the microhabitat characteristics
present at location.
Fish were identified to the species level and their fork lengths were estimated (i.e. 20 mm
size bins). Dominant and subdominant types of substrate and cover were recorded in the
vicinity of each fish observation. The micro-habitat within the sample site was also
identified. Depth and velocity measurements were taken at a subset of fish observation
locations during snorkeling and also throughout the sample site where fish were not
observed nor collected during electrofishing. Qualitative judgments were made regarding
which factors were most influential in determining fish use and habitat suitability.
3.4.4 Grant Creek Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton
Macroinvertebrate and periphyton samples were collected once during the 2009 field
season, on 06 August. The sampling event was combined with water quality sampling in
Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek as well as with zooplankton and phytoplankton
sampling in Grant Lake. The event took three days, with one complete day spent
collecting macroinvertebrate and periphyton samples in Grant Creek.
Samples were collected at two locations within Grant Creek, GCIOO and GC300 (Figure
3.4.4-1 ). Sampling site selection was based on preliminary project design and natural
characteristics of the creek. GC 100 is located immediately upstream of the natural split in
the creek near the outlet into Middle Trail River. GC300 is located near the proposed
powerhouse discharge into Grant Creek.
Macroinvertebrates Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at two sites in
Grant Creek; GC 100 and GC300. Two sampling methods, the Alaska Stream Condition
Index (ASCI) method (Major and Barbour 2001) and the Surber sampler (Eaton et al.
1995), were used to collect macroinvertebrates. The ASCI sampling method was used to
begin developing baseline descriptions of macroinvertebrate populations in a range of
habitats within the sampling reach. The ASCI method uses a D-frame kick net to sample
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 12 January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
representative habitats in a 100 meter sampling reach. Twenty subsamples are collected
proportionately throughout these habitats. All organisms collected were composited into
one sample per site and preserved in 70% isopropyl alcohol. Habitat information, such as
riparian vegetation and stream substrate types, was also collected.
In addition to the habitat associated ASCI samples, five samples (pseudo-replicates) of
macroinvertebrate populations residing specifically in riffle/cobble areas were collected
using a Surber sampler. Surber sampling techniques were used to estimate population
densities in riffle/cobble habitat. Each sample was bottled and preserved separately.
All macroinvertebrate samples were returned to the HDR laboratory for sorting and
identification. ASCI samples were subsampled until a target of 300 ( +/-10%) organisms
were counted. All organisms were sorted from each Surber sample. Identification was
completed to genus or the lowest practicable taxon.
Periphyton Periphyton samples were collected at sites GC 100 and GC300, concurrent
with macroinvertebrate sampling (Figure 3.4.4-1 ). Periphyton were sampled by removing
material from 10 cobbles selected from a riffle/cobble area that had not been disturbed
(Eaton et al. 1995). Material was scrubbed from a five centimeter square area on each
cobble and rinsed onto a 45-micrometer (11m) glass fiber filter attached to a hand vacuum
pump. Water was extracted from the sample and !-milliliter (ml) saturated magnesium
carbonate (MgC03) solution added to the filter as a preservative. The dry filter was
wrapped in a larger filter (to absorb any residual water) and placed in a labeled zipper
seal bag with silica gel desiccant. Filters were frozen in a lightproof container for
shipment to the laboratory (ADF&G 1998 and pers. comm. Bill Morris, ADNR 2007).
Frozen samples were then sent to an Analytica Group laboratory in Juneau for
chlorophyll a analysis.
Data Analysis Organisms from both ASCI and Surber macroinvertebrate samples were
identified to genus or the lowest practicable taxon. Taxonomic data from the ASCI
samples was used to calculate several descriptive population metrics: population density,
percent Ephemeroptera/Plecopteraffrichoptera (EPT), taxa diversity, and percent
dominant taxa. In addition, Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) scores, and habitat assessment
scores were calculated for ASCI samples. Population density, percent EPT, taxa
diversity, and percent dominant taxa also were calculated for Surber samples.
3.4.5 Falls Creek Fish Resources
Falls Creek (Figure 3.4.5-1) was sampled on a reconnaissance level only. It was sampled
for juvenile fish using minnow traps in July 2009 to determine the species composition,
distribution, and relative abundance. Habitat characteristics such as habitat type, stream
gradient, cover, amount of LWD, and substrate type were also recorded.
Foot surveys were conducted from the Seward Highway Bridge to the mouth of the creek
to determine if spawning anadromous salmon utilize the creek. A two person field crew
walked the banks of the stream from the Seward Highway Bridge to the mouth of Falls
Creek, looking for anadromous salmonids. Foot surveys occurred approximately every 10
days in conjunction with the Grant Creek foot surveys.
13 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
3.4.6 Grant Lake Fish Resources
A total of two sampling events were conducted on Grant Lake, one in June and the other
in August. Each sampling event occurred over a period of three days. A combination of
sampling methods was used including minnow trapping, electrofishing, and gill netting.
Rearing Fish Minnow trapping was used in littoral habitats of Grant Lake and its
tributaries during June and August. The 2009 sampling effort targeted locations
previously sampled by AEIDC (1983), in addition to new sites (Figure 3.4.6-1). With the
exception of the tributary streams during the June event. all minnow traps were set for
approximately 24 hours, minnow traps that were placed in the tributaries during June
were set for between two and four hours. All fish were identified to species level with the
exception of sculpin, TL measured, and released near the point of capture.
Electrofishing occurred in the tributaries of Grant Lake near the east side of the lake in
the back basin (Figure 3.4.6-1 ). Most electrofishing occurred in areas around minnow
trapping sites for catch verification; however, some additional sites were electrofished to
determine species presence. Time electrofished was approximately one minute at each
site. Fish captured were identified to species level, TL measured, and released near the
point of capture. Sculpin were identified to the genus level.
Adult Resident Fish Variable mesh gill nets were deployed in approximately the same
locations as sampled in 1982 (AEIDC 1983) as well as other locations that appeared to be
representative habitats (n=9 locations, Figure 3.4.6-1 ). Two I 00 ft long by 6 ft deep gill
nets were fished in June with mesh sizes of% in, 1 in, 1.5 in, and 2 in. A third 100 ft long
by 8 ft deep variable mesh gill net was added for the August sampling event with mesh
sizes from 1 to 5 in. Gi11 nets were set at a variety of depths, both perpendicular and
parallel to the shoreline and fished overnight.
3.4. 7 Grant Lake Zooplankton and Phytoplankton
Zooplankton and phytoplankton samples were collected once during the 2009 field
season, on 07 August. The sampling event was combined with water quality sampling in
Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek as well as with macroinvertebrate and
periphyton sampling in Grant Creek. The event took three days, with one complete day
spent on Grant Lake.
Sampling occurred at two locations within Grant Lake (Figure 3.4.4-l ). Two sampling
sites were established to assess conditions in areas of the lake that may be directly
impacted by the proposed project. One sampling site was established near the natural
outlet of the lake and was named GLOut. The second site was established in the general
area of the proposed intake. This site, GL TS, also has a thermistor string installed to
record water temperature.
Zooplankton One zooplankton sample was collected at both GLOut and GLTS. Samples
were collected using an 18 in diameter 80 11m mesh plankton vertical tow net (Eaton et al.
1995). The net was lowered into the water column using an attached weight to sink it and
to keep it from drifting while being towed. The end of the net was capped with a
collection bottle into which all zooplankton were trapped. Any organisms attached to the
net were rinsed into the collection bottle. The sample was then transferred to a storage
Kenai Hydro, LL . 14 January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
bottle and preserved 70% isopropyl alcohol and the sample was returned to the HDR lab
for processing. Each sample consisted of one vertical tow.
Rose Bengal solution was added to the sample and allowed to stain the zooplankton for
24 hours before counting and identification. The sample was reduced to 100 mL and 5
mL draws were placed on a counting cell for identification. Draws of 5 mL continued to
be withdrawn from the concentrated sample until at least 300 organisms were counted
and identified.
Phytoplankton Phytoplankton samples were collected at both GLOut and GLTS. One
liter samples were collected using a Niskin bottle sampler (Eaton et al. 1995). The
phytoplankton samples were collected at the same time and the same depths as water
quality samples. Samples were collected at the surface and at mid-depth at GLOut.
Phytoplankton was collected at three depths at GLTS: surface, mid-depth, and a meter
above the substrate. The liter of sample was then filtered through a 45-f..lm glass fiber
filter attached to a hand vacuum pump. Filtered samples were preserved with 1-ml
saturated MgC03 solution added to the filter. The dry filter was wrapped in a larger filter
(to absorb any residual water) and placed in a labeled zipper seal bag with silica gel
desiccant. Filters were frozen in a lightproof container for shipment to the laboratory
(ADF&G 1998 and pers. comm. Bill Morris, ADNR 2007). Frozen samples were then
sent to an Analytica Group laboratory in Juneau for chlorophyll a analysis.
Data Analysis Organisms from the zooplankton samples were identified to order.
Zooplankton population density, the number of organisms per liter of water, was
calculated by dividing the total number of organisms collected by the total volume of
water that passed through the zooplankton net. Percent dominant taxa, the percent of the
total number of organisms represented by a taxon, were calculated by dividing the total
number of organisms in the sample by the total number of organisms in each individual
taxon. Phytoplankton samples were analyzed to determine concentration of chlorophyll a
as milligram per cubic meter (mg!m\ Phytoplankton analysis results for each sampling
site were averaged.
3.5 Results
The results of the 2009 fish and aquatic resources study program were generally
consistent with the results of other studies conducted in the Grant Lake watershed with
respect to species presence and distribution (see Section 3.2, USFWS 1961, AEIDC
1983, APA 1984, Marcuson 1989).
3.5.1 Reach Descriptions
Grant Creek consists primarily of fast water habitat. Reaches 1 through 4 are dominated
by fast water riffles with a low number of deep main channel scour pools and backwater
sloughs; cascade habitat dominates Reach 5. General habitat characteristics and fish use
within each reach is described below:
• Reach 1 is an alluvial reach at the lower end of Grant Creek, where a distributary
channel splits from the main channel. Both channels discharge into Middle Trail
River. Reach 1 is dominated by riffle habitat with some scour and backwater
pools (Figure 3.5-1 ). One of the more important salmon spawning areas in Grant
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 15 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Creek is just above the distributary split (Figure 3.5-2). The distributary channel
provides good rearing habitat conditions during the open water season but may go
dry during the winter (Figure 3.5-2). Reach 1 is accessible to foot travel with trails
on each side of the creek. The fish species present in Reach 1 are adult and
juvenile sockeye, Chinook, and coho salmon, sculpin, rainbow trout, and Dolly
Varden.
• Reach 2 is dominated by riffle habitat with scour and backwater pools (Figure
3.5-1 ). A remnant channel located on the south bank enters the main channel of
Grant Creek in this reach which provides good juvenile fish rearing conditions.
Salmon spawning is most abundant on the stream margins (Figure 3.5-2). Reach 2
is accessible via a trail on both banks of the stream. Fish present in Reach 2 are
adult and juvenile sockeye, Chinook, and coho salmon, rainbow trout, and Dolly
Varden.
• Reach 3 is dominated by riffle habitat with a larger portion of scour and
backwater pools than the previous reaches (Figure 3.5-1 ). There is a large island
complex in Reach 3. Chinook salmon as well as sockeye salmon spawning habitat
is present in the main channel area (Figure 3.5-2). The backwater areas as well as
the side channel contain good rearing fish habitat (Figure 3.5-l ). Reach 3 is
accessible via a trail on both sides of the creek, although on the left bank there are
two side channel crossings. During high flows, the crossings are impossible. Fish
present in Reach 3 are adult sockeye salmon, adult and juvenile Chinook and coho
salmon, Dolly Varden, rainbow trout, sculpin, and threespine stickleback.
• Reach 4 is dominated by riffle habitat with one large scour pool located near the
head (Figure 3.5-1). There is an overflow channel on the right bank of Grant
Creek in this reach. It provides the primary rearing habitat in this reach (Figure
3.5-2). Both Chinook and sockeye salmon have been documented spawning in
this reach (Figure 3.5-2). Reach 4 is accessible via a trail on both sides of the
creek. Fish present in Reach 4 are adult sockeye salmon, adult and juvenile
Chinook and coho salmon, Dolly Varden, rainbow trout, sculpin, and adult Arctic
grayling.
• Reach 5 is located in a canyon and is mostly inaccessible to foot traffic during the
open water season. The lower-most 300 m can be accessed during the summer
months because of a shelf on the left bank. Reach 5 is not accessible from the
right bank side or further up the left bank side. Reach 5 is dominated by cascade
habitat (Figure 3.5-1 ). Only the first 300 m of Reach 5 were investigated in 2009
due to impassible terrain. No spawning was documented in Reach 5; however,
foot surveys indicated that adult salmon were present in Reach 5 (Figure 3.5-2).
Fish observed in Reach 5 included adult Chinook and sockeye salmon, adult and
juvenile coho salmon, Dolly Varden, and rainbow trout.
• Reach 6 is located between the outlet of Grant Lake and the lower-most waterfall.
It consists of series of falls with backwater, pools, and riffles interspersed between
them (Figure 3.5-1 ). Reach 6 is most easily accessed via the Grant Lake outlet.
There is no known spawning or rearing of salmonids in Reach 6 (Figure 3.5-2).
The only fish present are sculpin and threespine stickleback.
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 16 January 2010
2009
3.5.2 Grant Creek Fish Resources
Rearing and Adult Resident Fish Overview Resident and rearing fish in Grant Creek
were found to consist of juvenile Chinook, coho and sockeye salmon, rainbow trout,
Dolly Varden, sculpin, and threespine stickleback (Figure 3.5.2-1). Minnow trapping
efforts in Grant Creek consisted of a total of 4,332.42 trap hours. Study Reach 3 received
the most effort at 1,147.27 hrs followed by Reach 2 at 990.27 hrs, Reach 1 at 957.57 hrs
and Reach 4 at 825.45 hrs. Study Reaches 5 and 6 received considerably less effort due to
limited access (Table 3.2).
A total of 2,081 fish were captured during minnow trapping events in June through
September (Table 3.3). The most abundant fish in catches were juvenile Dolly Varden
(925 fish, Figure 3.5.2-1, Table 3.3). Juvenile coho salmon were the next most abundant
species (776), followed by Chinook salmon ( 191 ). Eighty-three threespine stickleback, 82
rainbow trout, 22 sculpin, and two sockeye salmon were also caught. Sockeye salmon are
rarely attracted to minnow traps.
A total of 167 fish were electrofished at the minnow trapping sites in June through
September (Table 3.3). Two sites per reach in Reaches I through 4 were electrofished.
Coho salmon were the dominant species (59), followed by Dolly Varden (43), Chinook
salmon (20), rainbow trout (19), and sculpin (16); six juvenile sockeye salmon were
electrofished in June along with four threespine stickleback.
Angling effort at 18 sites in Grant Creek consisted of a total of 90.82 hours (Table 3.1 ).
Reaches 1-4 each had four angling sites with total effort per reach ranging from 19.0 to
20.5 hours. Reach 5 had two angling sites and received 10.65 hours. Total catch for
angling from June through August in Reaches I through 5 was 72 rainbow trout, 14 Dolly
Varden, three sockeye salmon, and one Arctic grayling for a total of 90 fish (Figure
3.5.2-4).
Rearing Fish Spatial Distribution Study Reach 4 had the highest combined CPUE for
all reaches across all months, followed by Reaches 1 and 5, then Reaches 3, 2, and 6
(Figure 3.5.2-5). Reach I had the highest abundance of juvenile Chinook and juvenile
coho salmon. Dolly Varden had the highest CPUE of all fish in all reaches except Reach
6 (Figure 3.5.2-5). The relative abundance of juvenile Chinook steadily decreased
moving upstream to Reach 5 where no Chinook were captured. This is consistent with the
snorkel survey results (see Section 3.5.4). Juvenile coho abundance decreased slightly
upstream although they were relatively abundant in the lower portion of Reach 5. Reach
6 was the only reach in which no salmonids were captured since it is not accessible to
salmonids (Figure 3.5.2-5). Excluding Reach 6, the relative abundance of juvenile
salmonids was lowest in Reach 2, followed closely by Reach 3, then Reaches 4 and 5,
and finally Reach I.
In Reaches I, 2, and 4, riffles had the highest CPUE of any habitat type (Figures 3.5.2-6,
3.5.2-7, and 3.5.2-8). However, it should be noted that minnow traps were always set in
relatively slow water near the channel margins; consequently, microhabitat characteristics
may be more important than the adjacent dominant habitat type. In Reach 3,
backwater/pool had the highest CPUE of any habitat type (Figure 3.5.2-9). It should be
noted that Chinook salmon were not found in riffle habitat in Reach 3. In Reach 5,
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 17 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
cascade had the highest CPUE of any habitat type; however, it was the only habitat type
available in Reach 5 and only a small portion of Reach 5 was sampled (Figure 3.5.2-10).
Some inconsistency exists between the minnow trapping results and the snorkel survey
results conducted for the instream flow study (see Section 3.5.4). Snorkel survey and
minnow trapping results both show a relative decrease in the number of juvenile Chinook
moving upstream in Reaches 1 through 4. Snorkel surveys found Chinook to be the most
commonly encountered species, followed by coho and Dolly Varden. Minnow traps also
captured these species, but Dolly Varden were the most abundant, followed by coho and
Chinook salmon. With the exception of backwater pool habitat in Reach 3, minnow traps
captured few juvenile salmon in backwater pool habitats, whereas the snorkel surveys
found an abundance of fish in these areas.
Rearing Fish Temporal Distribution Between the months of June and September,
CPUE was lowest in June (Figure 3.5.2-11 ). In July, minnow trapping catches showed a
marked increase in the relative abundance of Dolly Varden in Reaches 1 through 5 and an
increase in CPUE for juvenile coho salmon in Reaches I and 2. Minnow trapping catches
for August showed a substantial increase in all juvenile fish species captured, although
juvenile rainbow trout remained somewhat low across all months sampled. Relative
abundance of Chinook salmon appeared to have increased the most between July and
August. In the month of September, coho salmon where the most abundant species
captured in all reaches, followed by Dolly Varden, rainbow trout, and Chinook salmon.
Rearing Fish Age Class Length frequencies of juvenile coho and Chinook salmon in
August and September exhibit a bell shaped distribution (Figure 3.5.2-2 and 3.5.2-3).
This suggests that there is one age class predominating for these species, however no age
data was collected from scales or otoliths.
Juvenile Chinook salmon studies conducted by ADF&G (Bendock 1995 & 1996) in the
Kenai River and at Deep Creek reported mean lengths of age I Chinook salmon smolt in
May through July ranging from 85.5 mm to 98 mm. Bendock 1995 also reported age 0
Chinook at Deep Creek to have an average length of 70.9 mm in late July. The average
length of juvenile Chinook salmon captured in Grant Creek was 67 mm and 76 mm in
August and September respectively indicating that young of the year (YOY) appears to
be the dominant age class, with a few possible age I fish present.
A juvenile coho salmon study conducted by ADF&G (Carlon 1992) in the Kenai River
mainstem and two tributaries reported age 1 coho smolt in May and June to have an
average lengths ranging from 76 mm to 122 mm. The average length of juvenile coho
salmon captured in Grant Creek was 58 mm in August and September indicating that
young of the year (YOY) appears to be the dominant age class, with a few possible age I
fish present.
Length frequencies for Dolly Varden in August and September exhibit a bell shaped
distribution with a mode of 91 100 mm (Figure 3.5.2-12). Length frequencies for
rainbow trout in August and September indicate the presences of YOY fish and the
presences of some age I or older juvenile fish (Figure 3.5.2-13).
Adult Resident Fish Adult and sub adult resident fish present in Grant Creek include
rainbow trout and Dolly Varden. For purposes of this study, all rainbow trout and Dolly
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 18 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Varden larger than about 180 mm were considered to be "adults" even though many of
these fish were likely too small to be sexually mature. Adult rainbow trout likely moved
into Grant Creek in the spring with some trout remaining in the creek through the
summer and fall. The 2009 study found no direct evidence of spawning. The spawning
condition of rainbow trout caught during the month of June could not be determined and
there were no evident signs of spawning or spawned out rainbow trout in Grant Creek.
However, the presence of YOY rainbow trout fry provides convincing evidence that
some spawning may have occurred, possibly prior to initiating angling surveys on 02
June 2009. Additional rainbow trout likely moved into the creek in late summer in
response to the presence of salmon eggs.
Dolly Varden were present in Grant Creek in low numbers throughout the study period,
but were increasing in number as the salmon returned. Dolly Varden may spawn in Grant
Creek in the fall and early winter months, but studies to date have not investigated Dolly
Varden spawning.
Adult Resident Fish Spatial Distribution Across all months, Reach 3 had the highest
relative abundance for all species, followed by Reaches 5, 4, and I with Reach 2 having
the lowest relative abundance of adult fish (Figure 3.5.2-14 ). Rainbow trout were the
most abundant in Reach 5, followed by Reaches 3, 4, I, and Reach 2. The relative
abundance of Dolly Varden was the highest in Reach 1 followed by Reaches 3, 2, and 5.
Adult Dolly Varden were not caught in Reach 4. A single Arctic grayling was caught in
Reach 4.
A total of 72 rainbow trout were captured during angling surveys (Figure 3.5.2-4; Table
3.4 ). Anecdotal results on rainbow trout recapture indicate nine fish (12.5 %) were
recaptured over the course of the sampling season. Recaptures were relatively equal
throughout the sampling season, with June 12, having the highest rate at three fish
recaptured. As of June 12, only 10 fish had been marked, indicating a 30 % recapture
rate.
Adult Resident Fish Temporal Distribution CPUE for rainbow trout was highest in
August in Reach 3 when it was approximately 2.5 fish per hour. Reach 1 in June,
Reaches 1 and 2 in July, and Reaches 3 and 5 in September had the lowest CPUE with no
rainbow trout caught during those months. There is a clear increase in the CPUE in
August in all reaches (Figure 3.5.2-15a), which also corresponds with the arrival of
Chinook salmon in Grant Creek. In September, Dolly Varden in Reach 3 had the highest
relative abundance at 1.0 fish/hour (Figure 3.5.2-l5b). In September, a decrease in the
relative abundance of rainbow trout across all reaches was apparent. Also in September,
an increase in the relative abundance of Dolly Varden was apparent.
Adult Resident Fish Age Class Length frequency data for rainbow trout in June
indicate a majority of fish caught were in the size range of 221 mm -240 mm or 3 21 mm
-340 mm (Figure 3.5.2-16). Length frequency data for rainbow trout in August indicate
the majority of fish caught were in the size range of 181 mm-220 mm (Figure 3.5.2-17).
Length frequency graphs for Dolly Varden in Grant Creek in June and August indicate
multiple age classes are present (Figures 3.5.2-18 and 3.5.2-19).
Adult Salmon The 2009 escapement estimate based on foot surveys for Chinook salmon
is 231 fish (Figure 3.5.2-20). The highest individual survey count was 62 live fish
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 19 January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
observed on 23 August 2009. Chinook salmon entered Grant Creek on August l01h, and
spawning abundance peaked on approximately August 23rd. By August 31st. adult
Chinook salmon began to decline in numbers and by September 11 rh adult Chinook
salmon were no longer present in Grant Creek (Table 3.5).
The 2009 escapement estimate based on foot surveys for sockeye salmon is 6,293 fish
(Figure 3.5.2-21 ). The highest individual survey count was 1,351 fish observed on
September 11 rh. Sockeye salmon were first observed in Grant Creek on August 13 1h and
spawning abundance peaked on September 11th. By September 16 1h spawning sockeye
abundance began to decline and by September 29 1h spawning sockeye abundance
declined to 78 fish (Table 3.5). For the purposes of the escapement estimate it was
assumed that no spawning sockeye salmon were present in Grant Creek after October 91h.
A total of six adult coho salmon were observed in Grant Creek, all of which were counted
during the final foot survey event on September 29, 2009 (Table 3.5). It is recommended
that foot surveys conducted in future years include surveys during the months of October
and November to estimate adult coho salmon spawning abundance.
3.5.3 Grant Creek lnstream Flow Study
The purpose of the Grant Creek instream flow study is to determine the potential effects
on physical habitat and water temperature in Grant Creek of a range of flow regimes that
could result from hydropower development proposed by KHL. The development of the
Grant Creek instream flow study is a collaborative effort that inc1udes the members of the
TWO. The TWO met on several occasions in 2009 to discuss elements of the study
design. The following sequence of events occurred in 2009:
• 24 March 2009. TWO presentation in Moose Pass. Included presentation and
discussion of draft hydrology. water quality, aquatic biology, and instream flow
study plans.
• 21 April 2009. TWO meeting in Kenai. Included presentation of 2009 hydrology
and aquatic biology study plans, and discussion of draft instream flow study plan.
• 18 May 2009. Hydrology, water quality, and aquatic biology study plans uploaded
to www.kenaihydro.com website.
• 19 May 2009. TWG conference call. Included discussion of modification to 2009
hydrology study plan and applicable instream flow assessment methodologies.
• 10 June 2009. Jason Kent (HDR) sent TWO compilation of documents forwarded
by Jason Mouw (ADF&G) regarding instream flow study methodologies.
• 01 July 2009. Jason Kent sent TWO a Technical Memorandum regarding the
habitat use (snorkeling) work proposed for the 2009 field season.
• 16 July 2009. TWO conference call. Included presentation of 2009 mid-season
results of Grant Creek hydrology, water quality, and aquatic biology studies.
• 27 August 2009. Kenai Hydro, Inc. (KHI) 1984 instream flow study report and
associated documents uploaded to www.kenaihydro.com website; Jason Kent sent
announcement email to TWO.
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 20 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
• 08 September 2009. Jason Kent sent TWG summary of KHI 1984 instream flow
study (attached as Appendix A).
• 22-24 September 2009. TWG meeting in Moose Pass. Included field trip to Grant
Creek, presentation of 2009 hydrology, water quality, and aquatic biology studies,
and presentation and discussion of proposed instream flow study approach. Also
included optional field trip for instream flow study site selection.
• 07 October 2009. Jason Kent sent TWG summary Technical Memorandum
describing instream flow study plan revised based on input from TWG on 22-24
September meeting.
Fish Use of Microhabitats A total of 16 sample sites were established and distributed in
the creek as follows: II sites in the main channel and five sites in "other" channels. The
11 sample sites in the main channel included five riffles, one backwater pool, one
backwater slough, two scour pools, one cascade, and an overflow channel 3. The "other"
channel sites included two sites in a distributary channel (Reach 1 ); two sites in a
secondary channel (Reach 3); and one site in a tertiary channel (Reach 3)(Figures 3.4.3-1,
3.4.3-2, 3.4.3-3, 3.4.3-4, and 3.4.3-5).
The field team identified microhabitat sample areas: faster pools, fastwater riffles,
margins with undercut bank, margins without undercut bank, LWD dam, and margin
shelf associated with LWD, and backwater pools, sloughs, and pockets, as shown in
Table 3.5. The sample sites were lumped into three primary categories for analyses: main
channel sites, backwater areas, and other channels, each of which was further subdivided
based on microhabitat characteristics (Table 3.6).
Rearing and Adult Resident Fish Juvenile Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon;
juvenile Dolly Varden; juvenile and adult rainbow trout; adult Arctic grayling; and
sculpin were observed during the June snorkeling event. Overall, Chinook salmon was
the most abundant juvenile fish observed, followed by coho and sockeye salmon (Figure
3.5.3-l ). Rainbow trout were the most abundant resident fish species observed, followed
closely by Dolly Varden. Two adult Arctic grayling were also observed.
Fish Species by Age Class All coho and sockeye salmon observed in June 2009
appeared to be YOY (<60 mm). A majority (92 %) of Chinook salmon observed
appeared to YOY, only 8% were older (>60 mm; age I) (Figure 3.5.3-2).
Rainbow trout were the most abundant resident species observed with multiple size
classes present. Nearly 60 % of the rainbow trout were estimated to have fork lengths
greater than 200 mm; these fish were considered to be subadults or adults. The remaining
40 % that were less than 200 mm were considered juveniles. The smallest size class of
rainbow trout was estimated to be smaller than 40 mm. The majority (89 %) of Dolly
Varden were juveniles (<200 mm), with nearly half the fish length less than 100 mm.
Fish Species Spatial Distribution by Reach Juvenile Chinook and coho salmon
were observed throughout the lower 4 reaches (Figure 3.5.3-3). Chinook salmon were
3 The overflow channel was separated from the main channel by a gravel bar.
Ken a 21 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
especially abundant in Reaches 1 and 2, while coho salmon were the more abundant
species observed in Reaches 3 and 4. No juvenile coho or Chinook salmon were observed
in Reach 5.
Sockeye salmon fry were observed in Reaches 1 -3, with the highest concentration in the
distributary channel in Reach 1. Sockeye salmon were also observed at three main
channel sample sites. A deep undercut bank associated with backwater area in Reach 3
(Figure 3.5.3-3) was the farthest upstream sockeye salmon fry observation.
Rainbow trout were observed in all reaches, excluding Reach 2 (Figure 3.5.3-3). Larger
(>200mm) rainbow trout dominated the species composition in Reach 4 and Reach 5 and
were also observed in deep areas in Reach 3, likely due to the presence of deep pool
habitats. Dolly Varden were observed in all reaches with the exception of Reach 4. Dolly
Varden and rainbow trout dominated the species composition in Reach 5. Two adult
Arctic grayling were observed, both in Reach 5.
Fish Presence by Habitat As expected, juvenile salmon were typically observed
more frequently in areas with slower velocities and abundant cover. Based on the three-
day sampling event in June 2009, the three microhabitats occupied by juvenile rearing
salmon in Grant Creek include backwater areas (i.e., sloughs and pocket water) and
stream margins, especially those with undercut banks (Figure 3.5.3-4).
Backwater areas, margin shelves associated with large woody debris, and stream margins
with undercut bank appear to be important microhabitats for juvenile Chinook salmon.
Similarly, coho salmon occupied backwater areas and margins with undercut banks, some
of which were situated along fast stream margins. Sockeye salmon were most commonly
observed using backwater areas in the main channel. No juvenile fish were observed
along stream margins without undercut bank or large woody debris.
The larger (>60 mm) assumed age I Chinook, along with Dolly Varden, were observed
using fast water (i.e., closer to velocity breaks) than the YOY Chinook and coho salmon.
Based on observations from the three-day event, subadult/adult (>200 mm) rainbow trout
was the most abundant and commonly observed species occupying deep/fast pools and
fastwater riffles.
Typically, the larger (>200 mm) rainbow trout and Dolly Varden were observed using
deeper and faster pool habitat in the main channel (Figure 3.5.3-5). For example, nearly
70% of the "subadult/adult" (>200 mm) rainbow trout and 100% of Dolly Varden >200
mm were observed in main channel pools and riffles. Smaller (juvenile <200 mm)
rainbow trout and Dolly Varden were observed throughout the various microhabitats,
though typically areas with faster velocities compared to that of YOY salmon
observations.
YOY Chinook and sockeye salmon dominated the species composition of fish in the
distributary channel, while coho salmon, followed by rainbow trout, were the primary
fish species that occupied the secondary channel (Figure 3.5.3-6).
Coho salmon were observed using stream margins with undercut bank in the secondary
channel; rainbow trout was the only fish species observed using the middle portion of the
channel of the secondary channel, similar to the pattern observed in the main channel
microhabitats sampled (Figure 3.5.3-6).
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 22 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
3.5.4 Grant Creek Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton
Macroinvertebrates and periphyton were sampled at two locations in Grant Creek on 06
August 2009. All macroinvertebrate samples were identified to genus or the lowest
practicable taxon (Table 3.7).
Descriptive metrics calculated for samples collected using ASCI methods included
population density, percent EPT, taxa diversity, and percent dominant taxa. HBI scores
and habitat assessment scores also were calculated for each sampling site. Population
density, percent EPT, taxa diversity, and percent dominant taxa were calculated for
samples collected using Surber samplers (Table 3.8).
Grant Creek periphyton samples were analyzed for chlorophyll a concentration.
Macroinvertebrate Population Density
Alaska Stream Condition Index (ASCI) ASCI methods required collecting 20 sub-
samples in a 100 m stream reach. Organisms were collected from approximately 0.15
square meter of substrate in each sub sample, thus a total of approximately 3.0 square
meters (m 2) was sampled. Macroinvertebrate density at GCIOO was 5475 organisms in
approximately 2.0 m or 274 organisms per 0.1 m2 • At GC300 approximate population
density was 1061 organisms per 2.0 m2 or 53 organisms per 0.1 m2 •
Surber Five samples were collected using Surber samplers at each site. The Surber
sampler encloses 0.1 m2 of substrate. Surber samples were analyzed individually to
calculate a range of population densities in the riffle samples. The population density at
GClOO ranged from 76 organisms per 0.1 m 2 to 212 organisms per 0.1 m 2. The average
Surber sample density at GC 100 was 148.4 organisms per 0.1 m . GC300 had a range of
41 to 184 organisms per 0.1 m2. The average population density for Surber samples at
GC300 was 98.8 organisms per 0.1 m 2 (Figure 3.5.4-1 ).
Macroinvertebrate Percent EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera are
three families of macroinvertebrates that are typically regarded as indicators of aquatic
habitat quality because of their low tolerance to organic pollution and impaired water
quality relative to some other taxa.
Among macroinvertebrates collected using the ASCI method, percent EPT at GC 100 was
1.90 % of the total population and at GC300 was 3.59 % of the total population.
The percent EPT of macroinvertebrates collected using Surber samplers ranged from 3.28
%to 16.92 % at GCIOO and from 24.49 %to 39.90 % at GC300. The average percent
EPT among Surber collected samples at GCIOO was 7.72% and at GC300 was 31.49%
(Figure 3.5.4-2).
Macroinvertebrate Taxa Diversity Taxa diversity is the total number of different
taxa found in a sample. Macroinvertebrates in the ASCI sample at GC 100 had a taxa
diversity of I 0 taxa while the taxa diversity at GC300 was 12 taxa.
Surber collected samples at GC I 00 had a taxa diversity range of 18 to 20 taxa. The
average at GC 100 was 18.6 taxa. The taxa diversity at GC300 ranged from II to 20 taxa.
The average at GC300 was 15.2 taxa (Figure 3.5.4-3).
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 23 January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Macroinvertebrate Percent Dominant Taxa The dominant taxon among
macroinvertebrates in the ASCI sample at GC 100 was Bivalvia, which comprised 83% of
the total organisms (Figure 3.5.4-4). The dominant taxon among macroinvertebrates in
the ASCI sample at GC300 was also Bivalvia at 78% (Figure 3.5.4-5). Dominant taxon
calculations for Surber sample data were averaged to determine overall dominant taxa for
the sampling site. The dominant taxa among macroinvertebrates in the Surber samples at
GC 100 and GC300 was Chironomidae, which comprised 85% and 48% of the total
organisms, respectively (Figures 3.5.4-4 and 3.5.4-5).
ASCI HBI and Habitat Assessment Scores Additional metrics that can be
calculated using ASCI method collected data include the HBI score and Habitat
Assessment scores. HBI values assigned to organisms range from 0-10, where 0 indicates
the least tolerant and 10 indicates the most tolerant. These values are translated into a
score of from 0-10 indicating average tolerance of taxa present at the site. Habitat scores
range from 0-200 with 0 being the most impaired and 200 being the most
macroinvertebrate habitat rich environments.
The HBI score for the ASCI sample at GC I 00 was 7.5 and the habitat assessment score
was 200. The HBI score for the ASCI sample at GC300 was 7.1 while the habitat
assessment score was 190.
Periphyton Chlorophyll a Chlorophyll a concentrations at GC 100 ranged from 7.48
mg/m 3 to 82.00 mg!m-. The average concentration at GC100 was 34.79 mg/m 3•
Concentrations at GC300 ranged from 2.94 mg/m 3 to 23.20 mg/m 3. The average
concentration at GC300 was 12.70 mg/m 3 (Figure 3.5.4-6).
3.5.5 Falls Creek Fish Resources
Foot surveys took place on Falls Creek from the Seward Highway Bridge to the mouth of
the creek. No adult anadromous fish were seen during foot surveys from July -
September. Due to the high turbidity of the Falls Creek, there was a possibility that fish
were missed. NTUs ranged from 16.6-19.3 during August and September; however,
they dropped to 2.9 on 29 September.
Falls Creek is a high gradient riffle stream with small amounts of undercut bank and
moderate amounts of large woody debris.
A 700 m reach of lower Falls Creek was sampled using minnow traps from 21 to 22 July
2009 (Figure 3.5.5-1 ). A total of 24 fish were captured, al1 of which were juvenile Dolly
Varden (Figure 3.5.5-1). Fork length ranged from 58 mm to 175 mm (Figure 3.5.5-2).
The majority of the fish captured ranged in size from 58 mm -69 mm, indicating that
YOY is the dominant age class of Dolly Varden present in Falls Creek. Dolly Varden in
the range from 81 mm 140 mm likely represent age I fish and those sized 171 180
mm may represent age II fish.
3.5.6 Grant Lake Fish Resources
Minnow trapping occurred at 28 sites in June and August (Figure 3.4.6-1). A total of
4,877 fish were minnow trapped. Seventy nine of them were sculpin and 4,798 were
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 24 January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
threespine stickleback (Table 3.9 and Figure 3.5.6-l). A majority of the threespine
stickleback were captured in the front basin of the lake.
Tributaries at the back of Grant Lake were electrofished in June and August at 18 sites
(Figure 3.4.6-l ). Six threespine stickleback and 18 sculpin were captured (Table 3.9).
Variable mesh gill nets were set in nine locations around Grant Lake in June and August
(Figure 3.4.6-l ). The gill nets were set at depths from 3 m to 51 m. Four threespine
stickleback were capture alive in the gill nets in August (depths ranged from 4 m - 7 m)
(Table 3.9). No other species were caught.
3.5.7 Grant Lake Zooplankton and Phytoplankton
Zooplankton and phytoplankton were sampled at two sites in Grant Lake on 07 August
2009. Zooplankton were identified and taxa diversity, population density and percent
dominant taxa were calculated for each sample. Phytoplankton samples were analyzed for
chlorophyll a content.
Zooplankton Taxa Diversity, Population Density, and Percent Dominant
Taxa Zooplankton samples were identified to order. GL TS and GLOut both had three
identified taxa; rotifers, copepods and protozoans. The zooplankton population density at
GLTS was 3.67 organisms per liter. Population density at GLOut was 10.65 organisms
per liter.
The dominant taxon at both GLTS and GLOut were rotifers. At GLTS 97 % of the
organisms were rotifers and at GLOut 99% of the organisms were rotifers. Other taxa at
GLTS and GLOut were copepods and protozoans, with a range of percent dominance of
< 0.1% to approximately 2%. (Figure 3.5.7-l, Table 3.10).
Phytoplankton Chlorophyll a Chlorophyll a concentrations are reported as
milligrams per cubic meter (mglm\ Concentrations of Chlorophyll a ranged from 0.53
mg/m 3 at the lowest depth at the Grant Lake thermistor string site (GL TS) to 1.34 mg/m 3
at the surface. The Chlorophyll a concentrations at GLOut were 0.80 mg/m 3 at the middle
of the water column and 1.07 mg/m 3 at the surface (Figure 3.5.7-2, Table 3.11 ).
3.6 Discussion
3.6.1 Grant Creek Fish Resources
Findings from the minnow trap study indicated that Dolly Varden were the most
abundant juvenile species in Grant Creek (Figure 3.5.2-1 and Table 3.3). These results
are contrary to the snorkeling results, in which few Dolly Varden were observed and
Chinook and coho salmon were the dominant juvenile species fish species observed
(Figure 3.5.3-1). Daytime snorkeling often is not effective for Dolly Varden observations
because of the stream bottom orientation of Dolly Varden and tendency to be inactive
during the day. Consequently, the minnow trap results are likely more representative of
Dolly Varden abundance. On the other hand, the minnow trap results probably
underestimated the abundance of juvenile Chinook and coho salmon. Minnow trap mesh
size (lA in) may have been too large to retain the very small salmon fry, especially in
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 25 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
June, or stream velocity may have been too high to allow free movement of the fry into
the traps. In August, the numbers of Chinook and coho salmon caught in minnow traps
increased as the fork length of the fish increased (Figure 3.5.2-11 ).
Snorkeling is known to be an effective method of observing Chinook and coho salmon
presence because the fish are active during the day and tend to school in mid-channel
waters where they are easily visible. The relative abundance of juvenile salmon detected
by the snorkeling is likely more representative of stream conditions than indicated by the
minnow trapping.
Except for Reach 5, angling effort was fairly uniform throughout all reaches (Table 3.1 ).
Given the uniformity of the sampling effort in the reaches, they can be compared
together. Rainbow trout were the dominant species caught (Figure 3.5.2-4) with an
increase in relative abundance in August (Figure 3.5 .2-15a). This suggests that after
spawning occurred fish remained in Grant Creek to recover and feed, then an additional
aggregate of fish entered the creek when the spawning salmon arrived. Across all months,
Reach 3 had the highest CPUE for angling (Figure 3.5.2-14). This likely indicates that
rainbow trout prefer the habitat available in Reach 3.
Salmonids were not caught in Reach 6 (Figure 3.5.2-5). This is most likely due to a series
of falls in this reach making it inaccessible to salmonids. As seen in Figure 3.5.2-5, the
abundance of juvenile Chinook salmon decreased as distance from the mouth of Grant
Creek increased. This is consistent with the snorkeling results.
Length frequency graphs from August and September for coho and Chinook salmon
(Figures 3.5.2-2 and 3.5.2-3) indicate the presence of one primary age group with only a
few larger fish. This indicates that the dominant age class of Chinook and coho were
YOY with few age I fish present in Grant Creek. If this is the case, it is likely that older
juvenile Chinook and coho salmon are not overwintering in the creek and few are moving
into Grant Creek during the open water period. If Chinook and coho salmon are
overwintering in Grant Creek, then based on the length frequency graphs, their survival is
low. These results are in concurrence with APA findings (APA 1984).
Moreover, the length frequency graphs from August and September for coho salmon
(Figure 3.5.2-2) and rainbow trout (Figure 3.5.2-13) merit some explanation. It is
expected that larger fish will be trapped later in the year. However, this is not the case.
In both cases, there was substantial overlap in sizes between months and rainbow trout
encompassed a wider range of fish sizes. However as a whole, fish trapped in September
were somewhat smaller than fish trapped in August. Given the limited amount of data, it
is difficult to determine the actual cause. One likely explanation is lower stream flows in
September (Figure 4.5.2-1 ), may have made the traps more accessible to smaller fish.
When reviewed together, the length frequencies for the minnow trapping and the angling
suggest there are multiple age classes for both Dolly Varden and rainbow trout (Figures
3.5.2-13, 3.5.2-16, 3.5.2-17, 3.5.2-12, 3.5.2-18, and 3.5.2-19). This indicates that Dolly
Varden and rainbow trout likely use Grant Creek for rearing, spawning and adult feeding.
The increase in relative abundance for rainbow trout and Dolly Varden (Figures 3.5.2-15a
and 3.5.2-15b) throughout the summer, strongly suggests that adult rainbow trout and
Dolly Varden moved into Grant Creek concurrently with the arrival of adult salmon.
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 26 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Recapture of marked fish through the June 121h capture period, indicated that there was a
30 % recapture rate for rainbow trout. This may be indicative of a small spawning
population of rainbow trout in Grant Creek. However, the beginning of the study did not
coincide with the beginning of the rainbow trout spawning. Therefore, further study
needs to be conducted to include the spawning season, to determine the size of the
rainbow trout spawning population in Grant Creek.
Findings from this study are similar to the AP A ( 1984) findings. APA determined that
Grant Creek supported 250 spawning Chinook salmon, whereas this study estimated an
escapement of 231 spawning Chinook salmon (Figure 3.5.2-20). APA estimated that
Grant Creek supported 1 ,650 spawning sockeye salmon. HDR estimated sockeye salmon
escapement at 6,293 fish (Figure 3.5.2-21). Both estimates are likely low due to the
possible observer inefficiency associated with visual counting methods and the turbidity
of the water. The number of Chinook salmon entering, and presumably spawning, in
Grant Creek suggests a high density of spawners for such a short stream segment.
In Reaches 1, 2, and 4, riffle margins had the highest relative abundance of fish of any
habitat type (Figures 3.5.2-6, 3.5.2-7, and 3.5.2-8). In Reach 3, backwater/pool had the
highest CPUE per habitat type (Figure 3.5.2-9). In Reach 5, cascade had the highest
CPUE per habitat type but it was the only available habitat (Figure 3.5.2-10). These
results are indicative of the type of habitat available and also of the type of habitat that
these fish prefer. If more backwater/pools were available, there would most likely be an
increase in the number of Chinook and coho salmon.
Rainbow trout and Dolly Varden were the only fish observed during snorkel surveys
using fastwater habitat away from the stream margin. Typically, the larger (>200 mm)
rainbow trout and Dolly Varden were observed using deeper and faster pool habitat in the
main channel. Smaller (juvenile <200 mm) rainbow trout and Dolly Varden were
observed throughout the various microhabitats, though typically in areas with faster
velocities compared to that of the YOY salmon observations.
Grant Creek is a swift, glacially influenced stream that is somewhat narrow for the
amount of flow it supports during the peak flow period in July when high flow conditions
can exceed 500 cfs. During winter conditions Grant Creek contains relatively low flow
conditions ranging from 15 to 20 cfs. Results from the 2009 juvenile salmon study
showed a low number of age I fish present in Grant Creek, which suggests that
overwintering of juvenile fish and/or dispersal of juvenile fish into the creek from
downstream is limited.
Study Reaches 1-4 supports the greatest abundance of suitable fish habitat in Grant
Creek; and while Reach 5 is accessible to anadroumous fish, salmon presence there
appears to be somewhat diminished. This is likely due to a bedrock substrate, high flows
and a fish passage barrier in the upper end of the reach. Rainbow trout do appear to
occupy the lower portion of Reach 5 as indicated by the results of the resident fish study.
Although Study Reach 5 has not been fully characterized, it is evident that the lower
reaches of Grant Creek (Reaches 1-4 ); contain a relative majority of suitable spawning
and rearing fish habitats. In spite of high velocity flow conditions in the main channel,
the presence of lateral habitats such as backwater areas and stream margins with undercut
microhabitats in the main channel and the distributary channel appear to provide
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 27 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
important rearing habitats for rearing salmon and resident fish. Study Reaches 1-4
contain all of these critical habitat factors. However, they are not evenly distributed
between study reaches. Study efforts in 2010 will focus on identifying and defining the
distribution of critical micro habitats, and, in conjunction with the instream flow study,
provide an estimate as to how the proposed project could affect micro habitat conditions.
3.6.2 Grant Creek lnstream Flow and Microhabitat Preference Study
Collaboratively, the TWG and KHL decided to select an instream flow study
methodology based on the knowledge obtained from the summer 2009 aquatic resources
and hydrology studies. Data and analysis from these studies were shared with the TWG
in July and September. The microhabitat preference study suggested specific habitat
types that would be most appropriate for analysis to determine the impact of flow
alterations on fish population. A proposed instream flow approach methodology that
emphasizes specific high use habitats was presented to the TWG on 23 September.
Revisions to this approach were made based on TWG input, and will provide the basis for
preparation of a final instream flow study plan.
3.6.3 Grant Creek Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton
Macroinvertebrates and periphyton were collected in Grant Creek to begin to characterize
baseline productivity and nutrient and forage availability at GC300 and GC 100. The
results of analysis of both macroinvertebrate and periphyton data differed between
sitesGC 100 and GC300. Overall variation in habitat, including gradient and canopy
cover, could account for differences in the data between sites.
Macroinvertebrate Population Density Population density estimates indicated that
populations of macroinvertebrates at GC 100 were greater than at GC300 regardless of
sampling method (Figure 3.5.3-l ). However, population density also differed between
sampling methods, which focus on different habitats. At GC 100 population density over a
variety habitats, as estimated from data collected by the ASCI methods, was somewhat
greater than population density in riffle/cobble habitats, as calculated from Surber
sampler data. The reverse occurred at GC300. A large rain event that occurred in late July
through early August could have caused differential scouring of organisms from GC300.
Macroinvertebrate Percent EPT The percent of EPT taxa at GC300 was higher than at
GClOO (Figure 3.5.3-2). Riffle/cobble habitat, a habitat preferentially colonized by EPT,
dominates at GC300. GC I 00 has a wider variety of habitats available to
macroinvertebrates. The difference between sites in percent EPT of macroinvertebrates
collected by Surber sampler, which sample only riffle/cobble habitat, is possibly due to
other habitat characteristics, such as temperature and volume of winter flows. More data
will be needed to better understand this difference.
Macroinvertebrate Taxa Diversity Taxa diversity between the Grant Creek study sites
differed slightly, as shown in the data collected by Surber sampler (Figure 3.5.3-3). Taxa
diversity at GC I 00 is somewhat higher than GC300 using Surber collected data.
However, when using the ASCI collected data, taxa diversity was higher at GC300.
These results are possibly related to storm events or other habitat characteristics such as
relative periphyton availability as food source. Studies conducted in Grant Creek in 1981
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 28 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
and 1982 using Surber samplers revealed that benthic macroinvertebrate diversity was
low, with the most abundant taxa being Chironomidae, followed by Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera and clams. (APA 1984 ). Continued sampling at GC 100 and GC300, over a
variety of conditions, will help to further describe their baseline characteristics.
Macroinvertebrate Percent Dominant Taxa Some differences between GC I 00 and
GC300 were noted especially in samples collected by the Surber sampler method
(Figures 3.5.3-4 and 3.5.3-5). The dominant taxon at both sites in samples collected using
the ASCI method was Bivalvia. The dominant taxon at both sites collected using the
Surber sampler method was Chironomidae, with Bivalvia dominant at two psuedo-
replicates at GC300. GC300 had lower percent dominant taxa values which is indicative
of conditions that allow successful colonization by a number of taxa, with no single taxa
having an advantage.
The rain event described above may have had a greater impact on larger bodied taxa or
taxa incapable of clinging to, or burrowing into the substrate. It is possible that Bivalvia
were less affected by the rain event for this reason. Another reason could be that the
natural emergence timing of some macroinvertebrates in Grant Creek is earlier in the
summer. However, previous studies in 1984 showed that no seasonal variation in
macroinvertebrate abundance was observed (APA).
ASCI HBI and Habitat Assessment Scores The habitat scores at both sites indicate
that habitat availability and quality is high. The creek and riparian area is undeveloped
and there are a large variety of habitats for macroinvertebrates. This would indicate the
potential exists for a large diversity of organisms with low tolerance to pollution and
disturbance. However, the HBI scores are relatively high, greater than seven (on a scale
of I - I 0 where I is optimal). This is largely due to the high tolerance value of bivalves
and chironomids which were the dominant taxa at both sites. The large rainfall event
could have scoured many organisms with low tolerance values. More data is necessary to
discover if the results from this year are within the range of typical conditions, or may
have been affected by events such as the rainfall in late July and early August.
Periph!ton G_hlorophy/1 a Average ch~orophyll a concentration a\ GC 100 was nearll
three times higher than the concentratiOn at GC300, 34.8 mg!m-and 12.7 mg!m-,
respectively. The substrate at both sampling sites is similar, however, some features (e.g.
gradient, temperature, and canopy cover) that could affect periphyton growth at these
sites do differ. Continued sampling under different conditions will help to further
characterize the periphyton growth at these sites.
3.6.4 Falls Creek Fish Resources
As of 29 September 2009, no adult salmon were seen in Falls Creek. The water was
turbid and observation conditions were poor; consequently, some fish may have been
missed. Falls Creek is listed in the ADF&G A WC as having adult Chinook salmon
present
Only Dolly Varden were trapped in the minnow traps (Figure 3.5.4-1). This result differs
from 1959-1961 results when juvenile Chinook were trapped in the lower 600 ft of the
stream (USFWS 1961 and Johnson and Klein 2009). However, the minnow trapping data
is consistent with the AEIDC data (1983) in which investigators only trapped Dolly
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 29 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Varden. There is the possibility that since the juvenile Chinook salmon were trapped
within the lower 600ft of the stream, that they use Falls Creek infrequently.
3.6.5 Grant Lake Fish Resources
Contrary to the findings of AEDIC (1983 ), fish were present in the Grant Lake
tributaries; both sculpin and threespine stickleback were observed. Threespine
stickleback were present throughout the lake (Figure 3.5.6-1 and Table 3.9); however,
threespine stickleback were much more abundant in the front basin of the lake, which is
consistent with previous reports (USFWS 1961, AEIDC 1983, APA 1984 ).
Minnow traps appear to be the most effective method for capturing fish in Grant Lake
(Table 3.9). However, given the conflicting reports as to the presence of rainbow trout
and Dolly Varden (Sisson 1984) or absence of rainbow trout and Dolly Varden (USFWS
1961, AEIDC 1983, APA 1984, Marcuson 1989), multiple sampling methods were used.
Minnow traps were placed in the littoral zone of the lake, gill nets were placed at varying
depths around the lake, and electrofishing was performed in tributaries and around their
mouths. Results of the current study, in combination with past study efforts, provide
convincing evidence that no salmonid species are currently present in Grant Lake or its
tributaries.
3.6.6 Grant Lake Zooplankton and Phytoplankton
Zooplankton and phytoplankton were collected in Grant Lake in order to estimate the
productivity of the lake in the area of the natural outlet and the proposed project intake.
Zooplankton and phytoplankton in this area of the lake could be contributing to
availabi1ity of food resources in Grant Creek. The project design could affect how and
where these organisms enter the creek system.
Zooplankton There was no difference in the diversity of zooplankton between the Grant
Lake sampling sites; there were a total of three orders of zooplankton identified at each
site. The two factors that possibly illustrate best the availability of zooplankton as a
possible food resource are population density and percent dominant taxa. The population
density at the thermistor string site was 3.67 organisms per liter while the natural outlet
site is nearly three times higher at 10.65 organisms per liter. This indicates that
zooplankton in Grant Lake occur at higher concentrations in the natural outlet area.
Rotifers dominate the zooplankton population, which is comprised of 99% and 97%
rotifers at GLOut and GLTS sites, respectively.
Studies conducted in Grant Lake in the early 1980s show that rotifers were the dominant
taxa found in Grant Lake, but that copepods also were abundant in large numbers (APA
1984 ). Copepods have been found to be the dominant food found in fish stomachs even
when rotifers were the dominant organisms found in the water body (Bailey et al. 1975).
Continued sampling in 2010 will help to better characterize zooplankton conditions in
Grant Lake.
Phytoplankton Chlorophyll a Phytoplankton are free floating planktonic plants. Like
most plants, phytoplankton thrive in areas with greater sunlight. The results of the
chlorophyll a analysis show that there is greater concentration of these primary producers
in the near surface water. Turbidity analysis and Secchi disc readings recorded during the
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 30 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
water quality data collection indicate that sunlight does not penetrate much deeper than 7-
10 ft. The area of the lake near the proposed intake and natural outlet of Grant Lake is
predominantly shallow water. However, contrary to the results of the zooplankton
sampling, concentrations of chlorophyll a were greater at the thermistor string site as
compared the lake outlet site.
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 31 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
4 Water Resources
4.1 Introduction
Water quality and hydrology baseline studies were conducted in the summer of 2009 in
support of the FERC permitting process for the proposed hydroelectric developments at
Grant Lake. These baseline water resource studies included water quality and temperature
studies on Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek, and studies of the hydrology of
Grant Creek and Falls Creek. Baseline data collected during the 2009 field season
(approximately mid June through mid October) are presented in this report.
4.2 Previous Studies
The hydroelectric potential at Grant Lake (Figure 2-1) has been evaluated several times
as a potential power source for the Seward/Kenai Peninsula area. In 1954, R.W. Beck and
Associates (cited by APA 1984) prepared a preliminary investigation and concluded that
a project was feasible. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted geologic
investigations of proposed power sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan, and Crescent Lakes
in the 1950s (Plafker 1955). In 1980 CH2M Hill (cited by APA, 1984) prepared a pre-
feasibility study for a Grant Lake project and concluded that a project developed at the
site would be feasible. The Grant Lake Project was referenced in the 1981 U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) National Hydroelectric Power Resources Study (USACE
1981 ). The most extensive study was performed by Ebasco Services, Inc. in 1984 for the
Alaska Power Authority (now Alaska Energy Authority; APA 1984 ). Two of the
alternatives evaluated by Ebasco included the diversion of adjacent Falls Creek into
Grant Lake to provide additional water for power generation.
4.2.1 Grant Creek Water Quality
The USGS, USFS, USFWS, ADFG, and AEIDC have previously collected water quality
data in Grant Creek. Water chemistry and physical data for Grant Creek were collected
intermittently from 1950-1960 (Still 1976, 1980; USFWS 1961) and again in 1981-82
(AEIDC 1983). Previous studies show that the water quality in Grant Creek corresponds
to that in Grant Lake. Such a correspondence would be expected when there appears to be
little additional input to Grant Creek from tributaries.
4.2.2 Grant Lake Water Quality
Previous water quality studies have been conducted by the USGS, USFS, USFWS,
ADFG, and AEIDC in Grant Lake. Water quality and temperature profiles were
measured in Grant Lake in 1960, and again in 1981-1982 (Figure 4.2.1-1, AEIDC 1983).
Four limnology sites were established in the Grant Lake basins (upper and lower) in 1983
and water quality data were collected during eight open water sampling events from June
1983 -September 1985 (Marcuson 1989; Figure 4.2.1-1 ).
4.2.3 Falls Creek Water Quality
Falls Creek is approximately 8 miles long and drains directly from the surrounding
mountains being fed by numerous small tributaries. Previous studies conducted in the
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 32 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
area by USFWS, USGS, and AEIDC have included water quality data collection in Falls
Creek. The 1981-82 AEIDC study of Falls Creek collected information on water
temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, trace metals, and pH among other analytes. Falls
Creek was found to be generally colder and more turbid than Grant Creek. The source
water for Falls Creek is different than that for Grant Creek and thus Falls Creek was
found to have several differences in water quality from Grant Creek.
4.2.4 Grant Creek and Falls Creek Hydrology
Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek have been studied in the past for hydroelectric
feasibility. Previous hydrologic investigations in the project area included:
• Historical Grant Creek stream gage data (USGS 15246000) -11 years of
continuous stream gage data from 1947-1958.
• Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis, EBASCO, 1987
includes modeled Falls Creek data.
• Historical Falls Creek discharge data limited to several instantaneous discharge
measurements made over various years including 1963-70, 1976, and 2007-2008.
4.3 Study Goals and Objectives
This baseline report includes two studies: water quality and hydrology. Figure 4.3-1
provides the study area relevant to these two studies.
The primary goal of the 2009 water quality and hydrology study programs was to begin
to characterize the water quality, temperature, and hydrology of Grant Creek, Falls Creek,
and Grant Lake in support of the In stream Flow Study to begin in 20 1 0 and the PERC
licensing process. Goals included increasing the period of record for water quality
parameters in these systems, analyzing relationships between and among them, and
collecting surface water temperature data to support the Instream Flow Study.
4.3.1 Study Goals
The water quality study goals were:
• To gather data on a combination of water quality parameters in Grant Creek, Falls
Creek, and Grant Lake
• To assess potentially limiting nutrient factors in the natural water conditions
based on water quality samples
• To collect temperature data in Grant Lake to develop a temperature profile in the
proposed intake area of the lake
• To collect temperature data in Grant Creek and Falls Creek to allow development
of water temperature models
• To provide input to an Instream Flow Study and background information for
Project environmental assessment
The hydrology study goals were:
• To increase the hydrologic period of record on Grant Creek and Falls Creek
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 33 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
• To provide input to an Instream Flow Study and background information for
Project environmental assessment
4.3.2 Study Objectives
The water quality study goals were met by completing the following objectives:
• Collected baseline water quality information in Grant Lake near the natural outlet
to the lake and near the proposed intake (GLOut and GLTS, respectively).
• Collected baseline water quality information in Grant Creek (GClOO, CG200,
GC300).
• Collected baseline water quality information in Falls Creek (FC 1 00).
• Collected water temperature information in a vertical transect near the proposed
intake in Grant Lake (GLTS).
• Collected continuously recorded surface water temperature data at four locations
on Grant Creek to support the Instream Flow Study. Thermistors were located at
GC 100, GC250, and GC300, and temperature data were also collected at GC200
in conjunction with temperature data from the continually recording surface water
elevation data.
• Build upon data collected in previous studies.
The hydrology study goals were met by completing the following objectives:
• Increased hydrologic period of record by collecting continuous stage data with the
use of continually recording surface water elevation data loggers and staff gages
installed on Grant Creek at the historical USGS location (GC200) and on Falls
Creek at FClOO.
• Correlate water surface elevation data, or stage data, to discharge through
instantaneous measurements taken at the gauging locations.
The 2009 Grant Lake water quality and temperature data were collected between 10 June
and 06 October; the 2009 hydrology and stream temperature data were collected between
09 June and 12 October.
4.4 Field Sampling Methods
4.4.1 Water Quality and Temperature
Water quality and temperature studies were performed in Grant Creek, Falls Creek, and
Grant Lake. To consolidate efforts and to prevent the repetition of data collection these
studies were performed in concert with the biological sampling of macroinvertebrates and
periphyton in Grant Creek and zooplankton and phytoplankton in Grant Lake. Grant
Creek and Falls Creek temperature data collection efforts were often performed in
concert with the hydrology sampling efforts.
Site Selection and Instrumentation Sites for water quality samples in Grant Creek and
Falls Creek were selected to be co-located with temperature and hydrology study sites.
One site on Falls Creek was established approximately I 00 ft upstream of the railroad
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 34 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
crossing at FC I 00, where surface water temperature and water surface elevation data
were also collected. Three water quality sites were established on Grant Creek; GC I 00 is
directly upstream of the distributary near the mouth of Grant Creek and is co-located with
a temperature logging station, GC200 is located at the old USGS gage station where
surface water temperature and water surface elevation data were also collected, and
GC300 is located in the approximate location of the proposed powerhouse where
temperature data were also being collected. Site GC250 is only a surface water
temperature data collection site. Sites GC I 00, GC250, and GC300 had HOBO Pro V2
temperature data loggers installed to continually record water temperature measurements.
Temperature data at FCIOO and GC200 were logged with HOBO U20 Water Level
Loggers in conjunction with hydrology water surface elevation data recording.
Study sites in Grant Lake were selected to focus on the natural outlet to Grant Creek
(GLOut) and the general area of the proposed project intake (GLTS). One water quality
site was established in each of these locations. The site near the proposed intake was
established in a location in the lake that is approximately 20 meters deep. GLOut, near
the natural outlet into Grant Creek, was established in an area where the lake depth is
approximately 10 meters. Natural fluctuations in the lake level dictate that the actual lake
depths at these two locations will vary slightly throughout each year. A thermistor string
was installed and anchored at GLTS. The thermistor string was made up of HOBO Pro
V2 temperature data loggers at 0.2 meters, 0.5 meters, I.5 meters, and 3 meters below the
lake surface and every three meters after that to a depth of approximately 20 meters; for a
total of I 0 data loggers.
Water Quality Sampling Water quality samples at the three Grant Creek and one Falls
Creek sites were collected using one of three sampling techniques. Depth and width
integrated sampling with a DH-8I sampler was conducted when it was necessary to
collect water from multiple locations within the cross section of the creek. The DH-81
bottle collects one liter sub-samples; the bottle slowly fills as it is raised and lowered
through the water column, enabling the collection of water from the entire depth of the
water column. The sub-samples were mixed into one sampling bucket for a complete
integration of water from the entire width and depth of the cross section. In the second
technique, integrated grab samples were collected when the width of the stream was wide
enough to require multiple subsamples from the cross section, but the flow was not deep
enough to warrant depth integration. Integrated grab sampling was done by collecting
multiple grab samples from across the creek and mixing them in a sampling bucket for
one integrated sample. The third sampling technique, grab sampling, was used when the
creek was too narrow and too shallow to warrant integrated sampling, or when the creek
is very well mixed. In both cases, grab samples were collected from the most well mixed
portion of the stream and transferred directly into the sample bottles.
Water quality samples in Grant Lake were collected using a Niskin bottle which allows
collection of water at desired depths within the water column. Niskin samplers are
designed to be locked open on both ends and lowered vertically into the water column to
the desired depth. A messenger weight is then dropped down a line which triggers the
bottle to close. The sampler was raised to the surface and water was transferred from the
Niskin bottle to a sample bottle. At GLTS, samples were collected at three depths;
surface, mid-depth (or just below the thermocline when present), and at one meter above
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 35 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
the substrate. At GLOut, water samples were collected at two depths: surface and mid-
depth. Water near the substrate was not collected at GLOut because the outlet of Grant
Lake is only a few meters deep and collecting water quality data on the water flowing
into Grant Creek was the goal when establishing this site.
Water quality samples collected in the creeks and in the lake were all analyzed at SGS
Environmental Services in Anchorage, Alaska for the analytes listed in Table 4.1.
In addition to water quality samples sent to the laboratory for analysis, in-situ parameters
were measured using a YSI 556 multi-parameter meter. In-situ parameters measured
included: pH, dissolved oxygen, specific and relative conductivity, oxygen reduction
potential, and temperature. These measurements were collected at each of the creek and
lake water quality sampling sites. A four-meter cable was used to measure these
parameters at each creek sampling site. The probe was placed in the tlowing section of
the stream and measurements were allowed to stabilize before readings were recorded. At
the two lake sites a 20 meter cable, clearly marked at one-meter intervals, was used to
collect in-situ measurements at one meter intervals in the water column.
Water Temperature Data Collection Water temperature data were collected in two
ways in the creeks and in the lake. During each water quality sampling trip measurements
of in-situ water quality parameters, including temperature, were collected using a YSI
556 multi-parameter meter. Temperature measurements at the creek sites were collected
by placing the probe into the stream flow and allowing the temperature measurement to
stabilize before recording. Instrument readings at the two lake sites were collected using a
20 meter cable calibrated at one meter intervals. The measurements were used to create a
temperature profile at each lake sampling site.
Water temperatures at GC 100, GC250, and GC300 were collected using HOBO Pro V2
temperature data loggers. Surface water temperatures at FC 100 and GC200 were
collected with HOBO U20 Water Level Loggers in conjunction with the hydrology data
collection efforts. Data loggers at FC I 00, GC I 00, GC200, and GC250 were installed in
June 2009. The thermistor at GC300 was installed in July 2009. Temperature readings
were recorded every 15 minutes and data were used to create a temperature model for the
creeks.
HOBO Pro V2 temperature data loggers were also used at the proposed intake site on
Grant Lake. A thermistor string was installed in this location to a depth of 20 meters.
Data loggers were attached to the string at depths of 0.2, 0.5, 1.5, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 and
19.5 meters. The data loggers were programmed to record every four hours. The
thermistor string will remain in place and will continue to record at four hour intervals
through the winter and throughout 2010. Temperature measurements from the thermistor
string were used to create a temperature profile of the lake.
4.4.2 Hydrology
The 2009 Grant Creek and Falls Creek hydrology studies included measurements of
surface water discharge coordinated with continuously recorded stage data on Grant
Creek and Falls Creek.
nai Hydro, LLC. 36 January 20 1 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Stream Gage Installation (Continuously Recording Data Logger) A stream gage
consists of a staff gage and a continuous stage (CQ) data logger, each anchored
individually to posts temporarily driven into the stream bed near the shoreline to avoid
catching floating debris. HDR used HOBO U20 Water Level Loggers manufactured by
Onset Computer Corporation to continuously record water temperature and pressure.
Pressure is related to water surface elevation with post-processing and has an accuracy of
O.OI5 feet. The data loggers were set to record water depth and temperature at I5 minute
intervals. Data loggers were installed in June and were removed in mid-October. The
schedule for installation and removal is dependent on individual site conditions (e.g., ice
cover and water level).
Each staff gage was 4 in wide by 4 ft long, mounted vertically on a post anchored in the
stream bed. The data loggers were housed in a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) sleeve attached
to post anchored in the streambed. A prefabricated I ft PVC housing was connected to
the post at the channel bottom with steel clamps. Holes were drilled in the 1 ft long
section of the PVC housing to allow unrestricted water pressure over the sensors. An
additional 4 ft section of PVC was installed above the housing and connected to the post
with steel clamps. Two data loggers were suspended on a stainless steel cable affixed to a
screw cap at the top of the long PVC housing. One data logger was suspended
approximately I in from the top of the PVC housing to record barometric pressure. The
second data logger sat on a bolt passed through the bottom of the 1 ft PVC housing to
record water pressure. This bolt was the survey reference point for the data logger
elevation.
The staff gage installation and logger installation were placed far enough apart that the
minor flow disturbances from one did not affect the other. Figure 4.4.2-I shows a side
view of the staff gage and data logger installation. The anchoring posts were
approximately 6 ft long pieces of angle iron. Grant Creek and Falls Creek each had one
stream gage at GC200 and FCIOO (see Figure 4.4.2-1).
A differential vertical survey was performed for each of the data loggers and associated
staff gages following installation and prior to removal in the fall. Cross sections at these
locations are typically surveyed once per year. Due to high flows, the Grant Creek cross-
section was not surveyed in 2009. Multiple temporary benchmarks at each stream gage
location provide differential vertical datum checks for the gage equipment to monitor
movement. The Grant Creek stream gage is tied into the elevation of the historical USGS
gage. The Falls Creek stream gage is tied into the closest Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) control point because the historical
USGS gauging site benchmarks were not relocated.
Data from the data loggers were downloaded periodically after installation until they
were removed for the season in October.
Instantaneous Discharge Measurements Instantaneous discharge measurements from
Grant Creek and Falls Creek in 2009 were obtained applying the following methods:
• Current meter method -Wading method
• Current meter method-Boat method (for medium flow on Grant Creek)
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 37 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
It was not possible to wade Grant Creek during high and medium summer and fall flows,
making wading unfeasible for most of the open water season.
Instantaneous discharge measurements followed field procedures laid out in Rantz et al.
(1982).
A Marsh McBirney Flo-Mate 2000 current meter and a top-setting wading rod were used
for instantaneous discharge measurements. During high or fast water conditions a boat
was employed to obtain one discharge measurement at GC200.
4.5 Results
4.5.1 Water Quality
In situ water quality parameters included temperature CCC), specific and relative
conductivity, dissolved oxygen percent (D.O. %), dissolved oxygen (D.O. mg!L). pH,
and turbidity. Table 4.1, lists parameters analyzed in samples submitted for laboratory
analysis. Table 4.2 shows the results for all parameters.
Temperature In Grant Creek (sites GCIOO, GC200, and GC300) water temperatures
ranged from 7.40°C to 9.44°C during June and from 11.26°C to 12.32°C in August
during water quality sampling events. In Falls Creek (FCIOO) the temperature in June
was 5.06°C and 7.31 oc in August (Figure 4.5.1-1 ).
In Grant Lake there were two sites, GL TS and GLOut, where water quality samples were
collected. At GLTS the temperatures ranged from 4.34°C at a depth of 20m to 8.64°C at
the surface during the June sampling event (Figure 4.5.1-2). During the August sampling
event the temperatures ranged from 5.95°C at a depth of 18m to 14.66°C at the surface.
At GLOut in June the temperatures ranged from 7.09°C at a depth of 8 m to 7.95°C at the
surface (Figure 4.5.1-3). In August the temperatures ranged from 8.28°C at a depth of 12
m to 14.87°C at the surface. Water temperatures decreased by early October and ranged
from 4.7°C at a depth of 19.5 m to 8.9°C at the surface.
Temperature is recorded continuously at four locations along Grant Creek (GC 100,
GC200, GC250, and GC300) and at the stream gage on Falls Creek (FC l 00) (Figure 4.3-
1 ). Temperature was recorded continuously at 10 intervals within the upper 20 meters at
GLTS. Figure 4.5.1-4 shows temperature as recorded at each depth interval; Figure 4.5.1-
5 shows temperature by depth at eight days evenly spaced throughout the recording
period. Stream temperatures are illustrated in Figure 4.5.1-6. Temperature from the upper
three meters of Grant Lake was compared to the temperature at stream gage GC200 in
Figure 1.5.1-7.
Conductivity Specific conductivity at Grant Creek sampling sites ranged from 84
microSiemens per centimeter (flS/cm) to 89 flSicm in June and was 87 flS/cm at all
locations in August (Figure 4.5.1-8). The relative conductivity ranged from 64 flS/cm to
66 f1Sicm in June and 64 flSicm to 65 flS/cm in August (Figure 4.5.1-9). At GC200
during the June event the conductivity reading was unstable, therefore a measurement
could not be recorded.
The Falls Creek specific conductivity was 76 flS/cm in June and 85 flS/cm in August.
Relative conductivity was 46 flS/cm in June and 57 flS/cm in August.
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 38 January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
At Grant Lake in June, conductivity readings at GLOut were not stable and a reading was
not recorded. However, in August the specific conductivity ranged from 82 11Stcm to 140
11Stcm (Figure 4.5.1-1 0). The relative conductivity at the outlet ranged from 52 11Stcm to
77 11Stcm with the lower concentrations being in the lower depths and the higher
concentrations being near the surface (Figure 4.5.1 11 ). At the thermistor string location
on Grant Lake (GLTS) the specific conductivity in June ranged from 90 11Stcm at the
surface to 92 11Stcm at depths of 19 and 20 m (Figure 4.5.1-12). In August, specific
conductivity ranged from and 65 11 Stem at a depth of 16 m to 21 0 11 Stem at a depth of 5
m. However, the 210 11Stcm reading was somewhat unstable. During the June sampling
event the conductivity reading was unstable at the depth of 2 m to 5 m and was unable to
be obtained. Relative conductivity ranged from being 55 11Stcm at depths 16 to 20 m to
63 11Stcm near the surface in June (Figure 4.5.1 13). In August relative conductivity
ranged from 41 11Stcm at a depth of 4 m to 15611Stcm at 5 m. The 5 m depth reading was
somewhat unstable.
Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved oxygen measurements recorded in 2009 are listed in
Table 4.2. Measurements of concentrations of dissolved oxygen (DO) in Grant Creek
ranged from 7.31 to 7.34 mg/L in June and from 8.22 to 8.40 mgtL in August (Table 4.2).
Falls Creek measured DO values were 7.96 and 10.65 mgtL in June and August,
respectively. Measurements of dissolved oxygen in Grant Lake study sites were relatively
uniform throughout the entire depth profile during both sampling events. DO values
measured in Grant Lake in June 2009 ranged from 7.20 to 7.96 mg/L, while August
values were much lower at 5.57 to 6.05 mgtL. Both sets of data are lower than what
would normally be expected in freshwater systems. Considering historical data for Grant
Lake and Grant Creek (AEIDC 1983, AP A 1984 ), it appears that the results are
anomalous. This was most likely the result of instrument malfunction in the field (see
Section 4.6).
pH The pH measurements in Grant Creek during the June sampling event ranged from
7.30 standard (STD) units to 7.66 STD units. In August, Grant Creek pH ranged from
7.39 STD units to 7.72 STD units (Figure 4.5.1-20). In Falls Creek the pH was 7.46 STD
units at the sampling site in June and 7.15 STD units in August.
The pH at GLTS during the June sampling event ranged from 7.06 STD units at a depth
of 19 m to 7.55 STD units at a depth of 6 m (Figure 4.5.1-21 ). In August the pH ranged
from 7.04 STD units at a depth of 18 m to 7.56 STD units at the surface. At GLOut the
pH ranged from 7.26 STD units at 1 m depth to 7.98 STD units at 5 m depth in June
(Figure 4.5.1-22). In August the pH ranged from 7.07 STD units at a depth of 12 m to
7.47 SID units at a depth of 8 m.
Turbidity Turbidity in Grant Creek ranged from 0.75 NTU to 0.82 NTU during June
(Figure 4.5.1-26). In August turbidity ranged from 10.10 NTU to 11.90 NTU. Falls Creek
turbidity measured 8.17 NTU in June and 17.00 NTU in August.
Turbidity in Grant Lake at GLTS during June ranged from 0.55 NTU at 18m depth to
0.90 NTU at 8 m depth (Figure 4.5.1-27). In August the range was 3.52 NTU at a depth
of 8 m to 4.84 NTU at a depth of 17 m. At GLOut turbidity in June was 0.82 NTU at the
surface and 0.90 NTU at 5 m depth. In August the turbidity was 4.18 NTU at the surface
and 5.20 NTU at a depth of 6 m.
enai Hydro, L 39 January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Water Quality Analytes The results of laboratory analysis of water samples from Grant
Creek, Falls Creek, and Grant Lake for eight analytes are listed in Table 4.2.
Alkalinity Alkalinity in Grant Creek ranged from 24 to 25 mg/L calcium carbonate
(CaC03) in June (Figure 4.5.1-28). In August it ranged from 23 to 23.5 mg/L CaC03 . The
alkalinity in Falls Creek was 37.4 mg/L CaC03 at the sampling site in June. In August the
alkalinity was 21.0 mg/L CaC03.
Alkalinity concentrations at GLTS on Grant Lake ranged from 23.5 to 24.5 mg/L CaC03
in June and 24.6 to 25.4 mg/L CaC03 in August (Figure 4.5.1-29). The concentrations at
GLOut in June were 23.2 and 23.8 mg/L CaC03. In August the concentrations were 24.0
mg/L CaC03 at both depths (Figure 4.5.1-30).
Total Lead Total lead (Pb) in June was detected in Grant Creek in a range of 0.392 to
3.090 microgram per Liter (J.lg/L) (Figure 4.5.1-31 ). In August it was not detected at any
of the three Grant Creek sites. Pb was undetected in the Falls Creek sample for June
However, in August total Pb was detected at the site at a concentration of 0.252 J.lg/L.
In Grant Lake total Pb was undetected at GLOut in both June and August. There was one
detectable concentration at GLTS in June of 1.100 11g/L at a depth of 8 m, but no
detectable total Pb at any other depths in June or at any depths in August (Figure 4.5.1
32).
Mercury Low level mercury (Hg) was not detected at any of the three sites in Grant
Creek in June (Figure 4.5.1-33). In August it was detected at GCIOO and GC200 with
concentrations of 1.48 nanograms per Liter (ng/L) and 1.58 ng/L, respectively. At the
Falls Creek location low level Hg was detected in both June and August. In June the
concentration was 2.00 ng/L and in August 4.42 ng/L.
Low level Hg was not detected during the June sampling event in Grant Lake. However,
during the August sampling event detectable concentrations appeared at both sites, at all
depths. At GL TS low level Hg concentrations ranged from 1.15 ng/L to 1.65 ng/L
(Figure 4.5.1-34). At GLOut concentrations in August were 1.4 ng/L and 2.05 ng/L
(Figure 4.5.1-35).
Nitrate and Nitrite, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Nitrite plus nitrate was detected at all
locations in June in Grant and Falls Creeks (Figure 4.5.1-36). The Grant Creek locations
had concentrations that ranged from 0.416 mg/L to 0.461 mg/L in June. In August the
concentrations ranged from 0.292 mg!L to 0.323 mg/L. In Falls Creek the concentration
of nitrite plus nitrate was 0.145 mg/L during June sampling but was not detected in
August. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen was not detected at any location during either sampling
event.
Nitrite plus nitrate concentrations during the June sampling event ranged from 0.410
mg/L to 0.421 mg/L at the GLTS site on Grant Lake (Figure 4.5.1-37). In August the
concentrations ranged from 0.280 mg/L to 0.319 mg/L. In June the concentrations at
GLOut were 0.414 mg/L and 0.651 mg/L (Figure 4.5.1-38). Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen was
not detected at any sampling location during either sampling events.
Orthophosphate and Total Phosphorous Orthophosphate was not detected at any
location during either sampling event. However, total phosphorous (P) was detected in
June at GC300 at a concentration of 0.0233 mg/L (Figure 4.5.1-39). In August total P
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 40 January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
was not detected at any location in Grant Creek. Similarly, in June the total P
concentration in Falls Creek was 0.0157 mg/L but was not detected in August.
On Grant Lake the only location that had a concentration of total P was at GLTS during
the June sampling event with a concentration of 0.0218 mg/L (Figure 4.5.1-40).
Total Dissolved Solids The concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) at Grant
Creek locations during the June sampling event ranged from 53.8 mg/L to 60.0 mg/L and
in August from 43.8 mg/L to 60.0 mg/L (Figure 4.5.1-41 ). The concentration in Falls
Creek was 48.8 mg/L in June and 70.0 mg/L in August.
The concentration of TDS at GLTS on Grant Lake during the June sampling event ranged
from 61.3 mg/L to 75.0 mg/L (Figure 4.5.1-42). In August the concentrations ranged
from 45.0 mg/L to 48.8 mg/L. The concentrations at GLOut in June were 40.0 mg/L and
51.3 mg!L. In August the concentrations were 32.5 mg/L and 47.5 mg/L (Figure 4.5.1-
43).
Total Suspended Solids Concentrations of total suspended solids (TSS) at Grant Creek
sites during the June sampling event ranged from 0.700 mg/L to 0.800 mg/L (Figure
4.5.1-44 ). In August the concentrations ranged from 3.400 mg/L to 2.490 mg/L. In Falls
Creek in June the concentration was 8.300 mg/L and 8.240 mg/L in August.
Analysis of samples collected in June showed TSS concentrations of 0.70 mg/L to 1.00
mg/L at the GLTS site on Grant Lake (Figure 4.5.1-45). In August the concentration
range increased to 1.90 to 2.83 mg/L. At GLOut in June the concentrations were 0.50
mg/L and 0.60 mg/L (Figure 4.5.1-46). In August the concentrations increased to 1.96
mg/L and 2.77 mg/L.
4.5.2 Hydrology
Stream gages were installed on Falls Creek (FC I 00) and Grant Creek (GC200) on 09
June and 10 June of 2009, respectively. Continuous stage data was recorded at these
locations until 12 October 2009.
The stream gages were surveyed with respect to pre-established vertical elevation datum.
GC200 was surveyed with respect to the USGS Gage station 15246000 gage height
elevations for comparison with historical data. FC 1 00 gage elevations were surveyed
with respect to the closest ADOTP&F reference point (CP # 131, in ft MSL 1929 NGVD).
Continuous stage data recorded from 10 June though 12 October at GC200 is presented in
Figure 4.5.2-1. The water level recorded as pressure has been converted to ft with respect
to the USGS gage height. The actual recorded water surface elevations at 15-minute
intervals are displayed in the finer light blue colored line, which generally exhibit the
daily fluctuation. The thick, dark blue colored line represents mean daily water surface
elevations. The aqua colored circles represent field staff gage observations. Error bars are
indicated where a fluctuation in water level was recorded at the time of the staff gage
reading. Staff gage readings, without discharge measurements are recorded as an
additional point of comparison to the electronic record. Only one discharge measurement
was completed during the period displayed. The discharge on 22 June 2009 was
measured at 423 cfs by the current meter method, employing a boat as described above.
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 41 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Three instantaneous discharge measurements were obtained in the fall of 2008, which are
not accompanied by a continuous record. These measurements are as follows:
• 126 cfs I 04 October 2008
• I 08 cfs I 23 October 2008
• 47 cfs I 03 December 2008
Continuous stage data recorded from 09 June though 12 October 2009 at FCIOO is
presented in Figure 4.5.2-2. The following two discharge measurements were made in the
fall of 2008:
• 22 cfs I 05 October 2008
• 14 cfs I 24 October 2008
4.6 Discussion
4.6.1 Water Temperature and Water Quality
Stream temperatures were typical for Alaskan streams and were consistent with seasonal
changes; temperatures were lower during the June sampling event compared to the
August sampling event (Table 4.2). As expected, temperatures in Grant Creek increased
downstream, reflecting gradual warming due to contact with air and sun in the shallow,
turbulent stream. The historical data for Grant and Falls Creek do not show continuous
temperature data for June in any year. However, in 1958 there was a recorded
temperature of 10.5 oc at the USGS gage site (USFWS 1961 ), which was somewhat
lower than that measured in 2009.
The water temperature measurements recorded during water sampling events at Grant
Lake also changed seasonally. At the outlet of Grant Lake (GLOut) water temperature did
not vary widely by depth during the month of June. The difference between temperatures
near the surface and at depth was greater in August (Figure 4.5. 1 -3).
The surface temperature at the Grant Lake thermistor string during the June sampling
event was approximately 6 oc colder than during the August sampling event. During the
June event the temperature profile showed fairly uniform temperatures with some
increase near the surface. During the August sampling event the temperature was higher
at the surface than throughout the rest of the depth profile. However, temperature began
to decrease near a depth of 9 m, possibly suggesting thermal stratification. By the end of
September the water column was approximately 9 oc from the surface to a depth of 14 m,
where the temperature decreased to closer to 7 oc at 19.5 m depth.
The continuous Grant Lake temperature record reflects stratified temperatures. At GL TS
there appears to be some thermocline formation from late July through early September
with the top 6 m having relatively uniform temperatures (Figure 4.5. 1 -5). The greatest
difference in daily mean temperature across the entire depth profile is in mid-July, as
shown in Figure 4.5.1-5. The maximum daily mean temperature observed at 19.5 m depth
was 14.76 oc on 19 July. Surficial daily mean temperatures at 0.2 meters depth range
from: 7.48 oc on 10 June to 15.59 oc on 08 July. The water surface temperatures
decrease by the end of September with signs of lake turnover. The stream temperature
Kenai ydro, LLC. 42 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
trends of Grant Creek are very similar to temperatures found in the upper 3 m of Grant
Lake.
The conductivity values measured in Grant Creek and Grant Lake during the 2009
sampling season are consistent with the historical data from the 1960s and 1980s (Table
4.2; USFWS 1961, AEIDC 1983). The conductivity meter readings at GC200 during the
June sampling event were unstable and were not recorded. Although meters were
calibrated daily, these unstable readings could be due to equipment failure in the field.
Conductivity measurements will be monitored closely during future sampling events, and
a separate backup meter will be onsite for quality control in the event that measurements
are questionable.
Results of the Falls Creek conductivity measurements in 2009 were typical of freshwater
streams (APHA 2005) and were found to be similar to the Falls Creek conductivity
measurements collected during previous studies (USFWS 1961, AEIDC 1983). In the
1980s the relative conductivity ranged from 45 to 150 J.!Sicm (AEIDC 1983). The highest
reading in 2009 was 57 J.!Sicm. In 1960 the relative conductivity was measured at 94
J.tS/cm (USFWS 1961).
Measurements of concentrations of dissolved oxygen (DO) in Grant Creek ranged from
7.31 to 7.34 mg/L in June and from 8.22 to 8.40 mg/L in August (Table 4.2). Falls Creek
DO measurements were 7.96 and 10.65 mg/L in June and August, respectively.
Measurements of dissolved oxygen in Grant Lake study sites were relatively uniform
throughout the entire depth profile during both sampling events. DO values measured in
Grant Lake in June 2009 ranged from 7.20 to 7.96 mg/L, while August values were much
lower at 5.57 to 6.05 mg/L. Both sets of data are lower than what would normally be
expected in freshwater systems. For example, DO at I 0 oc is normally expected to be
approximately 11.29 mg/L (APHA 2005). The historical DO concentrations were also
much higher than any concentrations found during 2009 at Grant Lake locations. In 1981
and 1982 DO concentrations ranged from 9.75 to 14 mg/L (AEIDC 1983). The highest
concentration observed in 2009 was 7.96 mg/L. Although meters were calibrated on a
daily basis, it is possible that the low DO measurements were the result of equipment
malfunction in the field. DO measurements will be monitored closely in the field during
future sampling events and will be checked with a backup meter if necessary.
The range of pH at all sampling sites and all depths was between 7.04 and 7.98 STD
units, and were well within the neutral range for freshwaters (APHA 2005).
Due to the glacial origins of meltwater in the project area, turbidity results could be
expected to be somewhat higher than typical freshwater conditions. Turbidity measured
in Grant Lake in 1981 and 1982 ranged from 0.24 to 3.8 NTU (AEIDC 1983); results that
are similar to data collected in 2009 (0.55 to 5.20 NTU). Grant Creek turbidity readings
in 2009 ranged from 10.1 to 11.9 NTU, which are higher than historical turbidity results
from the 1980s (0.35 to 1.1 NTU) (AEIDC 1983). Falls Creek historical readings ranged
from 0.37 to 6.0 NTU (USFWS 1961, AEIDC 1983), while 2009 readings were 8.17 to
17.00 NTU. Additional data collected during the course of the baseline studies will be
examined to determine trends in turbidity values.
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 43 January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Alkalinity in Falls Creek was found to be 37.4 mg/L CaC03 in June and 21.0 mg/L
CaC03 in August of 2009, and these results are also similar to the results of the 1960s
and the 1980s measurements (USFWS 1961, AEIDC 1983).
The results of the 2009 sampling for TDS in Grant Creek range from 53.8 to 62.5 mg/L
(Table 4.3). The historical TDS concentrations at Grant Creek ranged from 31 mg/L in
June 1982 to 84 mg/L in March 1982 (AEIDC 1 983), indicating that this system can be
dynamic and that higher concentrations can occur. Falls Creek historical TDS
concentrations ranged from 24 mg/L in June 1982 to 60 mg!L in October 1981 (AEIDC
1 983), similar to what was found in 2009 ( 48 to 70 mg/L).
Grant Lake historical TDS concentrations ranged from 33 mg/L in June 1982 to 87 mg/L
in March 1982 (AEIDC 1 983). This range is similar to the range of concentrations that
were found in 2009 (32.5 to 75 mg.L).
The TSS concentrations in Grant Creek and Grant Lake were relatively low. Grant Creek
historical data for TSS concentrations ranged from 0.6 mg/L in October 1981 to 4.3 mg/L
in August 1982 (AEIDC 1983). These concentrations are consistent with the
concentrations found in 2009 (Table 4.3).
Falls Creek TSS concentrations were higher than the concentrations found in Grant
Creek, but were within expectations based on previous studies. The historical data has a
very wide range with non-detectable concentrations at the low end of the range and the
highest at 86 mg/L (AEIDC 1983). During the 2009 sampling, the concentrations were
8.30 mg/L in June and 8.24 mg/L in August These concentrations show more of a
consistent suspended load than those found in the 1980s.
Results of the following laboratory tests in 2009 were either not detected, or were
detected in low levels: low-level mercury, lead, nitrates/nitrites, orthophosphates, and
phosphorous. The lack of, or minimal amounts of nutrients in the samples indicate that
the system may be nutrient-limited and is oligotrophic (Table 4.3). Future studies will
further characterize the water quality conditions of these waterbodies.
4.6.2 Hydrology
The range of the dataset shown in Figure 4.5.2-1 for GC200 indicates two peak flows,
one receding in early June driven by spring melt-water and another driven by warm
summer temperatures in July. The trends reflected in 2009 are consistent with the mean
monthly flow distribution from the USGS data (period of record 1947-1958). The same
peaks are shown during the same time period for FCIOO (Figure 4.5.2-2). A smaller set of
peaks and a low-flow event in September were evident in both creeks and resulted from
rain events followed by a cooling trend in air temperatures.
The GC200 and FC l 00 water surface elevation plots show that the staff gage readings do
not always correspond with the logged water surface elevations for many of the staff gage
readings. These results suggest that a larger data logger stilling well should be employed
in 2010 in order to reduce the data variability. or noise, recorded in 2009 that was likely
caused by stream turbulence and high stream velocities.
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 44 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
5 References
Alaska Power Authority (APA). 1984. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed
Feasibility Analysis. Volume 2. Environmental Report. Rep. from Ebasco Services
Incorporated, Bellevue, Washington.
American Public Health Association (APHA). 2005. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater. 21st edition.
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC). 1983 Summary of
environmental knowledge of the proposed Grant Lake hydroelectric project area.
Final Report submitted to Ebasco Services, Inc., Redmond, Washington,
University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska.
Bendock, T. 1995. Marking juvenile Chinook salmon in the Kenai River and Deep Creek,
Alaska, 1993-1994. Fishery Data Series No. 95-17. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game,
Division of Sport Fish. Anchorage, Alaska.
Bendock, T. 1996. Marking juvenile Chinook salmon in the Kenai River and Deep Creek,
Alaska, 1995. Fishery Data Series No. 96-33. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game,
Division of Sport Fish. Anchorage, Alaska.
Bue, B.G., S.M. Fried, S. Sharr, D.G. Sharp, J.A. Wilcock, and H.J. Geiger. 1998.
Estimating salmon escapement using area-under-the-curve, aerial observer
efficiency, and stream-life estimates: the Prince William Sound example. North
Pacific Anadromous Fisheries Commission. Bulletin. No. I :240-250.
Bailey, J.E .. B.L. Wing and C.R. Mattson. 1975. Zooplankton Abundance and Feeding
Habitats of Fry of Pink Salmon, Oncorhynchus Goruscha, and Chum Salmon,
Oncorhynchus Keta, in Traitors Cove, Alaska, With Speculations on the Carrying
Capacity of the Area. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Auke Bay,
Alaska.
Carlon, J. 1992. Feasibility of capturing and marking juvenile coho salmon for stock
assessment in the Kenai River. Fishery Data Series No. 92-57. Alaska Dept. Fish
and Game, Division of Sport Fish. Anchorage, Alaska.
Eaton, A. D., L. S. Clesceri, and A. E. Greenburg. 1995. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater. 19'h ed. Prepared and jointly published
by American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association,
Water Environment Federation. American Public Health Association,
Washington, D.C.
English, K.K., R.C. Bocking, and J .R. Irvine. 1992. A robust procedure for estimating
salmon escapement based on the area-under-the-curve method. Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:1982-1989.
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 45 January 201 0
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Envirosphere. 1987./nstreamflow and habitat analysis Grant Lake hydroelectric project.
Prepared for Kenai Hydro, Inc.
Fried, S.M., Bue, B.G., Sharp, D., and Sharr, S. 1998. Injury to spawning areas and
evaluation of spawning escapement of pink salmon in Prince William Sound,
Alaska. Fish /Shellfish NRDA Study Number 1, Restoration Study Number 9, and
Restoration Study Number 60B, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Final Report. Alaska
Dept. Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish. Anchorage, Alaska.
HDR Alaska Inc. 2009. Falls Creek Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance
Report Draft. Prepared for: Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Hilborn, R., Bue, B.G, and Sharr, S. 1998. Estimating spawning escapement from
periodic counts: a comparison of methods. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56: 888-896
(1999)
Johnson, J. and K. Klein. 2009. Catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing, or
migration of anadromous fishes -Southcentral Region, Effective June I, 2009.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Special Publication No. 09-03, Anchorage,
AK.
Kenai Hydro, Inc. 1987a. Grant Lake hydroelectric project additional information.
Shardlow, T. 2004. Using time-lapsed video to estimate survey life for area-under-the-
curve methods of escapement estimation. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 24: 1413-1420,2004.
Kenai Hydro, LLC. 46 January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
6 Authors
HDR
Fish and Aquatic Resources
Paul McLamon
Scott Prevatte
Amanda Prevei-Ramos
Isaac Watkins
Heidi Weigner
Water Resources
Ingrid Corson
Adinda Demske
Cindy Milligan
Northern Ecological Services
John Morsell
Sally Morsell
Kenai Hydro, LLC. January 2010
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
7 Tables
Kenai Hydro, LLC. January 2010
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Table 3.1 Angling effort ~hours~
Reach 1 2 3 4 sb Total
June 6.00 6.00 6.33 4.55a 3.00 25.88
6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 3.00 27.00
6.07 5.95 6.18 6.45 3.65 28.30
September 2.05 1.99 2.03 2.12 1 9.64
Total 20.12 19.94 20.54 19.12 10.65 90.82
• One less angling site
b Two less angling sites
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Table 3.2 Minnow trapping effort (trap hours)
Reach 1 2 3b 48
June 200.95 230.07 190.18
295.97 263.53 372.40
182.00 226.25 271.92
September 278.65 270.42 312.77 ----... ---.. ·--~---
Total 957.57 990.27 1147.27
• Reach 4 had one less minnow trap than other reaches.
bReach 3 had three more minnow traps in August.
Reach 5 had three minnow traps.
d Reach 6 had five minnow traps.
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
sc
183.48
219.33 77.20
201.60 49.18
221.03 76.2
825.45 202.58
6d Total
103.87 908.55
1,228.43
105.42 1,036.37
1159.07
------~------------
209.28 4,332.42
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Table 3.3 Catch table by gear type, Grant Creek
Scientific Name Number of Fish
Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 72 ----------------------------------
Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma 14
Arctic grayling Thymal/us arcticus
Sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka 3
Total 90
Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 191
Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch 776
Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma 925
Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 82
---------------~----------
Sockeye Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka 2
----------------------~
Sculpin Cottus spp. 22 ------------------------------------------
Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus acu/eatus 83
Total 2,081
Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 20
Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch 59
Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma 43
Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 19
Sockeye Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka 6
Sculpin Cottusspp. 16
Threespine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus 4
Total 167
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Table 3.4 Number of rainbow trout recaptures by survey date
and total number of rainbow trout
Survey Date
6/2/2009
6/3/2009
6/12/2009
6/22/2009
7/1/2009
7/11/2009
7/21/2009
8/12/2009
8/22/2009
8/29/2009
9/10/2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Total number of
rainbow trout
marked to date
2
5
10
13
18
Number of
recaptures
0
0
3
0
1
·~~-------·-
18 0
23
36 2
52 0
68
72
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Table 3.5 Spawning survey results by species and survey date
Survey Date Species
Chinook Sockeye Coho
8/1/2009
8/10/2009
8/13/2009
8/23/2009
8/30/2009
9/11/2009
9/16/2009
9/29/2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Table 3.6 General description of microhabitat sample areas surveyed in June 2009
Sample Site Locations Sample Areas
Main Channel
Pool/fastwater
Riffle/fastwater
Margin with undercut bank
Margin without undercut bank
LWDdam
Margin shelf with LWD
Backwater/Slough Areas
Backwater pool/ slough
Backwater pocket
Other Channels
Distributary channel
Typical Characteristics
Deep and fast, typically midchannel
margins
typically along fastwater in main
channel
Stream margin with no undercut
bank; typically along fastwater in
main channel
Large backwater/low velocity
areas, can be located along
stream margin near velocity
break
Small backwater/low velocity
areas, can be located along
stream margin near velocity
depth/flow regimes, all
---------~----____ ~-------~--=microhabitats present (Reach 1)
Typically includes margins with
Secondary channel
Tertiary channel
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
undercut bank, margins without
undercut bank, and faster
velocity areas in the
midchannel. (Reach 3)
Variable microhabitats (Reach
3
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Table 3.7 Benthic Macroinvertebrates -Grant Creek, August 2009
Site Date Sample Type Order Family Genus
GC100 8/6/2009 Surber
Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Ameletus
Baetidae Unidentified
Acentrella
Baetis
Ephemerellidae Drunella
Ephemerella
Heptegeniidae Cinygmula
Epeorus
Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Unidentified
Haploperla
Neaviperla
Plumiperla
Nemouridae Zap ada
Perlodidae lsoperla
Trichoptera Brachycentridae Brachycentrus
Glossosomatidae Glossosoma
Hydropsychidae Arctopsyche
Limnephilidae Mosely ana
Diptera Chironomidae Unidentified
Empididae Unidentified
Chelifera
Clinocera
Simuliidae Simullium
Bivalvia (Class) Sphaeriidae Unidentified
Gastropoda (class) Lymnaeidae Lymnaea
Arachnida (Class) Hydracarina (Sub-Order) Unidentified
Oligochaeta (Class) Unidentified
Nemotoda (Phylum) Unidentified
Crustacea (Phylum) Ostracoda (Class) Unidentified
GC100 8/6/2009 ASCI
Ephemeroptera Baetidae Unidentified
Ephemerellidae Ephemerella
Heptageniidae Cinygmula
Epeorus
Plecoptera Nemouridae Zapada
Perlodidae lsoperla
Trichoptera Glossosomatidae Glossosoma
Diptera Chironomidae Unidentified
Bivalvia (Class) Sphaeriidae Unidentified
Arachnida (Class) Hydracarina (Sub-Order) Unidentified
GC300 8/6/2009 Surber
Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acentrella
Baetis
Ephemerellidae Drunella
Ephemerella
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Table 3.7 Benthic Macroinvertebrates-Grant Creek, August 2009
Site Date Sample Type Order Family Genus
Heptegeniidae Cinygmula
Epeorus
Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Unidentified
Haploperla
Neaviperla
Plumiperla
Triznaka
Suwallia
Nemouridae Zap ada
Perlodidae lsoperla
Trichoptera Brachycentridae Brachycentrus
Microsema
Glossosomatidae Glossosoma
Hydropsych idae Arctopsyche
Limnephilidae Ecclisomyia
Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila
Diptera Chironomidae Unidentified
Empididae Chelifera
Clinocera
Simuliidae Simullium
Bivalvia (Class) Sphaeriidae Unidentified
Gastropoda Unidentified
Arachnida (Class) Hydracarina (Sub-Order) Unidentified
Oligochaeta (Class) Unidentified
GC300 8/6/2009 ASCI
Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella
Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Plumiperla
Perlodidae lsoperla
Trichoptera Brachycentridae Brachycentrus
Diptera Chironomidae Unidentified
Empididae Chelifera
Clinocera
Simuliidae Simullium
Gastropoda Lymnaeidae Lymnaea
Planorbidae Unidentified
Bivalvia (Class) Sphaeriidae Unidentified
Arachnida (Class) Hydracarina (Sub-Order) Unidentified
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Table 3.8 Benthic Macroinvertebrates Metrics -Grant Creek, 2009
Site Date Sample Type Metric Result
Surber (average
148.4 organisms per 0.1 m2 GC100 8/6/2009 of 5 pseudo-Population Density
replicates)
%EPT 7.72%
Taxa Diversity 18.6
%Dominant Taxa 85% (chironomidae)
ASCI Population Density 27 4 organisms per 0.1 m2
%EPT 1.90%
Taxa Diversity 10
%Dominant Taxa 83% (Bivalvia)
HBI 1 7.5
Habitat Assessment2 200
Surber (average
98.8 organisms per 0.1 m 2 GC300 8/6/2009 of 5 pseudo-Population Density
replicates)
%EPT 31.49%
Taxa Diversity 15.2
"lo Dominant Taxa 48% (chironomidae)
ASCI Population Density 53 organisms per 0.1 m2
%EPT 3.59%
Taxa Diversity 12
% Dominant Taxa 78% (Bivalvia)
HBI 1 7.1
Habitat Assessment 2 190
1) HBI Habitat B1ot1c Index scale from 0-10 w1th 10 1nd1catmg highly Impaired water bodies
2) Habitat Assessment-scale of 0-200 with 0 being the most impaired macroinvertebrate habitat
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Table 3.9 Catch table by gear type, Grant Lake
Species Scientific Name Number
Sculpin Cottus spp. 18
Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus 6
Total 24
Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus acu/eatus 4
Total 4
Minnow tra.PP•fna
Sculpin Cottus spp. 79
Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus 4,798
Total 4,877
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Table 3.10 Zooplankton, Grant Lake, August 2009
Site Date Taxa # of Organisms % of Population
GLOut 8107109
Rotifer 1037 98.85
Copepoda 4 0.38
----·--··----····
Protozoa 8 0.76
GLTS 8107109
Rotifer 553 96.68
Copepoda 9 1.57
Protozoa 10 1.75
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Table 3.11 Chloro~hXII a concentrations in Grant Lake and Grant Creek, August 2009
Chlorophyll a
Site Date Sample Type Run Number Concentration *
m /M 3
GC100 8/06/09 Peri~h~on
12.50
2 51.50
···--
3 16.80
----····
4 15.00
5 40.10
6 19.80
7 37.60
-------·
8 82.00
9 7.48
10 65.10
Average 34.79
19.00
2 4.54
3 8.28
····---···
4 10.70
5 2.94
6 4.81
7 5.87
8 36.00
9 23.20
10 11.70
Average 12.70
1 (surface) 1.07
2 (mid-depth) 0.80
Average 0.94
------·
GLTS 8/07/09 Phytoplankton
1 (surface) 1.34
····---····
2 (mid-depth) 1.34
3 (bottom) 0 53
Average 1.07
• Rounded to two decimal places
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Table 4.1 Water Quality Parameters
Parameter Units
Total dissolved solids
Total suspended sediment (TSS)
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrate/Nitrite
Total phosphorous
Lead
STD
%
mS/cm, J..lS/cm
---
mV
NTU
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Table 4.2 Water Quality Parameters Measured In-Situ at Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek,
June and August 2009
Site
Name Date Depth
(m)
Temp
("C)
Specific Relative DO*
Conductivity Conductivity (%)
(liS/em) (t.tS/cm)
DO*
(mg/L) pH Turbidity*
(NTU)
FC100 6/9/2009 5.06 76 46 68.0 7.96 7.46 8.17
Notes
F=cfooa/s;2oo9 7.31 85 57 sa.3 10.65 7.15 17.oo ___ _
GC100 6/9/2009 9.44 84 57 68.7 7.85 7.39 0.77
GC100 8/6/2009 12.32 87 66 77.5 8.29 7.40 10.10 -----::---==---=---
GC200 6/11/2009 ... __ ldQ_ __ .... -~-·-.... ~~ .... --.....§Q_jl___.......l.d1_____Z.M__Q.?5=:--__
GC200 8/6/2009 ... ___ 11.26 87 64 75.1 -~ 7.39 11.10
GC300 6/11/2009 7.47 89 64 61.3 7.34 7.30 0.82
8C3oo-8;672oo9 -.. ·--11:49--87-==~5 -7IT-a4Cl--7J2--11:90 _____ _
GLOut 6/11/2009 0 7.95 64.4 7.64 7.27 0.82
GLOut 6/11/2009 1 7.90 64.3 7.61 7.26
GLOut . 6/11/2009 2 __ 7_.5? __ ···· ~_.8 __ 7.63 :::-7.729::----
_GG~LLOO~uo::.t _ _:6::'://c--11;.:.;://2:::0=-=079 __ __::3:-----::-7.:.::3:::-7 _____________ 763~.8~_='7.~67::----:7;"'.3;c:2:-----... -.-. -·--
ut 6 11 2009 4 7.27 63.8 7.70 7.37
GLOut 6/11/2009 5 7.39 64.1 7.73 7.98 0.90
GLOut 6/11/2009 6 7.23 64.0 7.72 7.45
GIOut 6/11/2009 7 7.17 63.5 7.67 7.43 ... ______ _
GLOut 6/11/2009 8 7.09 63.1 7.63 7.41 ..
GLOut 8/7/2009 0 14.87 88 71 55.2 5.57 7=-.2::-4:----:-4.718=---
GLOut 8/7/2009 1 13.30 87 _ __§1_ __ !:;4.3 5.68 7.24
GLOut 8/7/2009 2 12.70 140 77 53.9 5.63 7.30 -GIOlif-atl/2009 ___ 3 ___ 12~--a§--·-· .. --aT--~5.667:31--.. ·------
·----.. ------.. ·-
GLOut 8/7/2009 4 11.99 88 68 52.5 5.65 7.31
GLOut 8/7/2009 5 11.62 90 67 52.6 5.71 7.25
GLOut 8/7/2009 6 11.49 91 .... __ 5_7 __ ····· 52.3 5.71 7.24 5.20 ____ _
GLOut 8/7/2009 7 11.11 82 60 51.9 5.70 7.22
GLOut ... 8/7/2009 8 11.02 89 65 51.5 5.69 7.47
GLOut 8/7/2009 9 10.59 85 62 50.9 5.67 7.38
GLOut 8/7/2009 10 9.76 85 60 50.1 5.68 7.35 ... __ .... ___ _
GLOut 8/7/2009 11 10.01 88 62 50.9 5.75 7.34 ·--· .. --------GLOut 8/7/2009 12 8.28 82 52 __ ··· 50.5 5.95 7.07
GL TS 6/11/2009 ... _0___ 8.64 90 63 68.4 7.9€)~3 __ 0.&1__ ____ _
<3Ifs 6/11/2009 1 8.09 9o 63 66.2 7.8o 7.35 ••
GL TS 6/11/2009 2 7.32 65.4 7.86 7.30 GCfS ____ 611112oo9 ___ 3 ___ 6:93-----···· .. ---.. ·-------64X-7.84-~3o---.. ·--.... --.
-GL TS 6/11/2009--4-6.83 64.3 7.83 7.30
GLTS-6/11/2009 5 6.31 ------------==-·-~---... __ 6_3.7 7.86 7.31
GL TS 6/11/2009 6 6.04 91 58 63.5 7.89 7.55
GUS 6/11/2009 7 5.83 ··--~()=== 57 __ gz__~~--.. ·-----
. GL TS 6/11/2009 8 5.80 91 57 62.3 7.81 7.49 0.90
GLTS 6/11/2009 9 5.66 91 .--s7" 62.0 7.80 7.49 ··--.. ·--.. ·--
GLTS 6/11/2009-____ 1_0 ____ ~-----···9_1 __________ ~---· 61-~3___ i~7~ 7.~_9 ----.. --~
GL TS 6/11/2009 11 5.32 91 57 60.7 7.70 7.47 --------------------------------------· ..
GLTS 6111/2009 12 ... _5_.0_5_ . __ 9_1__ 56 60.1 7.65 ... _7_.4_7_ .... ______ _
GLTS 6/11/2009 13 4.87 91 56 59.2 7.58 ·::'7.:...:-45~--------
GLTS 6/11/2009 14 4.68 91 56 58.6 7.51 7.42 .. __ .. ___ _
GLTS 6/11/2009 15 4.52 91 56 58.0 7.49 7.42 GL TS-6711/2o09~-------;r.43--91~ .. --S-5---57:Q--:r.3i--7.0s--·-· .. ·---·-·----
-GLTS ... 6/11/2009 -17--·· 4.38 .... __ 9_1__ 55 56.3 -7.3() 7.41
GLTS 6/11/2009 18 4.35 91 55 55.8 7.25 7.38 0.55
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Table 4.2 (cont.) Water Quality Parameters Measured In-Situ at Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek,
June and August 2009
Site
Name Date
Temper Specific Relative DO*
Depth ature Conductivity Conductivity (%)
(m) ("C) {J.IS!cm) (f.IS/cm)
DO*
(mg/l) pH Turbidity*
(NTU) Notes
GLTS 6/11/2009 19 4.33 ---=-92=--------=5c-=:5 ___ -=-55=·-=-5--=-7.=2-=-0--'7=-=-.0::...:6::.._ _______ _
GL TS 6/11/2009 20 4.34 92 _5:::-5'-----c:5:-=5-c:.6:------c:7=-".2:C:2'---=7:.:::.3-=-6---:::-::c:::------
GLTS 8n/2009 _ ___:0.,__. 14.66 87 ---····_7_0___ 56.2 5.63 7=.5~6 __ 3.87
Cli.rs-am2oo9 1 13.o7 89 67 54.5 5.72 7.3o
GL TS 8/7/2009 2 12.65 89 ___ 6::-::9:------:=5-=-3·c::.3---::5-c:.6:c=-5--,7=-·-=-35::----------
GLTS 8/7/2009 3 12.16 87 66 52.9::----::5:=-:.679 7.31
GL TS 8n/2009 4 11.95 73 41 53.7 5.80 7.25
GLTS 8n/2009 5 11.67 210 156 53.6 5.80 7.26
GL TS 8/7/2009 6 11.23 81 ~63::---· 52.8 5.80 7.21
GLTS 8/7/2009 7 10.92 86 67'----5=-=2:.:_.4.:__--.:5=-=-·7'---'8=--~7.=.2=2 ________ _
GLTS 8/7/2009 8 10.71 85 68 52.4 5.81 7.25 3.52
GLTS 8n/2009 9 10.37 92 82 52.1 5.82 7.20
GLTS 8/7/2009 10 9.70 97 67 50.8 5.76 7.16
GLTS 8/7/2009 11 9.17 87 60 51.9 5.97 7.18
GLTS 8/7/2009 12 8.71 77 88 51.1 5.94 7.08
GL TS 81712009 13 8.46 63 43 51.1 5.97 7.13
GL~--81712009 ···-1-4-_·_··-_-7_.-9_1~~-·-··-_-_-_-8_9=---8-o---50.6 6-.o-o -~7~.13---···
GLTS 8/7/2009 15 7.00 91 91 _4_:..:9:..:...8=---6.::.:·-=-05=--.._,:7,:-.1:.::2=---------
GL TS 8/7/2009 16 6.90 65 89 49.3 5.99 7.07
GL TS 8/7/2009 17 6.09 96 62 48.4 5.99 7.06
GLTS 8n/2009 18 5.95 87 61 48.0 5.98 7.04
*=Turbidity was only measured at certain depths at the lake sites.
**=Conductivity reading unstable.
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
4.84
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Table 4.3 Water Qualitl Anallsis Results tor Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek, June and Auaust, 2009
Site Name Alk (mg!L Total Pb Hg (ng!L) N02+N03 P04(mg!L) TDS (mg!L) TKN (mg!L) Total P TSS (mg!L) CaC03} ~l!SIL l ~m 51 tq
Jun Aug Jun Aug Jun Aug Jun Aug Jun Aug Jun Aug Jun Aug Jun Aug Jun Aug
GLTSBOT 24.0 25.4 ND ND ND 1.65 0.410 0.319 ND ND 61.3 45.0 ND ND ND ND 0.80 2.83
GLTSMID 24.5 24.6 1.100 ND ND 1.64 0.421 0.303 ND ND ND ND
·-·-------· ··--··· ·-------------· ·---·--··· _____ __a_ _____
1.00 2.58
GLTSSUR 23.5 24.8 ND ND ND 1.15 0.415 0.280 ND ND 75.0 46.3 ND ND ND ND 0.70 1.90
-------·-
GLOUTSUR 23.8 24.0 ND ND ND 1.4 0.414 0.268 ND ND 51.3 32.5 ND ND ND ND 0.60 1.96 --·-------------------------··---------------·----------------------------------
GLOUTMID 23.2 24.0 ND ND ND 2.05 0.651 0.298 ND ND 40.0 47.5 ND ND ND ND 0.50 2.77
FC100 37.4 21.0 ND 0.252 2.00 4.42 0.145 ND ND ND 48.8 70.0 ----------'" ---------
GC100 24.0 23.0 0.597 ND ND 1.48 0.461 0.299 ND ND 53.8 62.5 ND ND ND ND 0.70 2.49 -------------,_ ____ -------------------------------.-----------------'"
GC200 25.0 23.5 3.090 ND ND 1.58 0.455 0.292 NO ND 60.0 43.8 ND ND ND ND 0.80 3.40 -----
GC300 25.0 23.0 0.392 ND ND 2.05 0.416 0.323 ND ND 57.5 60.0 ND ND '1 ND 0.80 2.93
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
8 Figures
Kena Hydro, LL . January 20 1 0
Kenai Hvdro Environmental Baseline Studies
Kenai
Lake Ptarmigan
Lake
Fiaure 2-1
2009 Fish and
Aquatic Resources
Study Area
Legend
D StudyArea
--+-+ Rail
Seward Highway
~ Lakes
~ Rivers
,-"----' Contours (10ft)
... Miles
NORTH o o.s
Map Project io n: NAD 83 Alaska State Plane Zone 4 Feet
Data Sources: HDR, KPB, USFS
Author: HDR Alaska, Inc.
Date: 07 October 2009
This map represents a conceptual level of uliity. detail. and accuracy.
The infOflllation displayed here is for planning purposes only.
Base information shown constitutes data from various federal,
state, public, and private sources.
These maps are for review purposes only.
Kenai Hudro LLC ID~
JIUASKA
\\of ..<1~ ci "'+..,
Kenai Hydro Environmental Baseline Studies
Upper Trail Lake
Figure 3.4.1-1
Fisheries Field Studies
2009 Grant Creek
Sampling Sites and Reaches
Lege nd
0 Minnow Trap I Efish Site
e Angling Si t e
..n.,-Grant C ree k Wetted Edge
• 0
NORTH
Feet
250 500
Map Projection: NAD 83 Alaska State Plane Zone 4 Feet
Data Sources : HDR Alaska, Inc., USFS , KPB,
USGS, Aerom etric
Author: HDR Al aska, Inc.
Date: 05 October 2009
This map represents a conceptual level of utility, detail,a nd accuracy.
The information displayed here is for planning purposes only.
Base information shown constitutes data from various federal.
state, plJ>Iic, and private sources.
These maps are for review purposes only.
Kenai Hudro LLC lill.
ALASKA
C>~~ of Alq.,~
Kenai Hvdro Environmental Baseline Studies
Trail Lake
Figure 3.4.3-1
lnstream Flow
Microhabitat Sample Areas
Reach 1, june 2009
Microhabitat Sample Areas
ffi1IIII]
~
~
~
~ 1.:......:.....
..
NORTH
backwater/slow pockets
margin with UCB
margin with no UCB
pool/fastwater
riffle/fastwater
margin shelf w/ instream cover
large woody debris (LWD) dam
side channel: variable
• KS=Chinook salmon
• CS=coho salmon
• DV=Dolly Varden char
• RBT =rainbow trout
• SS=sockeye salmon
• AG=Arctic grayling
Sc=Sculpin-unspecified
Feet
0 50 100
Map Projection : NAD 83 Alaska State Plane Zone 4 Feet
Data Sources: HDR Alaska, Inc.
Author: HDR Alaska, Inc.
Date: October 6, 2009
This map represents a conceptual level of utility, detail,and acc..-acy.
The information displayed here is for planning purposes only.
Base information shown constitutes data from various federal,
state, pl.Diic, and private sources.
These maps are for review purposes only.
Kenai Hudro LLC Ji):{
ALASKA
(J>~ of A/11..,~
dro Environmental Baseline Studies Fiaure 3.4.3-2
lnstream Flow
Microhabitat Sample Areas
Reach 2, june 2009
Microhabitat Sample Areas
1m
~
~
~
~ t.:....:.....:l
..
NORTH
backw ater/slow poc kets
ma rgin with UCB
marg in with no UCB
pool /fastwater
riffle /fastwater
margin shelf w / in strea m cov er
la rg e woody debris (LWD) dam
side channel: va ri able
• KS=Chinook salmon
• CS=coho salmon
• DV=Dolly Varden char
• RBT =rainbow trout
• SS=so ckeye salmon
• AG=Arctic g r ayling
Sc=Sculpin -unspecified
Feet
0 5 0 100
Map Projecti on: NAD 83 Alaska State Pl ane Zone 4 Feet
Data Sources : HDR Alaska, Inc.
Author: HDR Alaska, Inc.
Date : October 6 , 2009
This map represents a conceptual level of utility, detai.and accuracy.
The information displayed here is for planning purposes only.
Base information shown constitutes data from various federal.
state, p<blic, and private sources.
These maps a re for review purposes only.
Kenai Hudro LLC H)~
ALASKA
(>~\~ of AI~~
Kenai Hvdro Environmental Baseline Studies Figure 3.4.3-3
lnstream Flow
Microhabitat Sample Areas
Reach 3, June 2009
Microhabitat Sample Areas
!!IIIIIIIllill
~
~
~
r-v--vl L:.....:..-:1
~ ~
Fish
Speci es
Color
Key
• NORTH
·backwater/slow pockets
margin with UCB
margin with no UCB
pool/fastwater
riffi e/fastwater
marg in s helf w/ ins trea m cover
large woody debris (LWD) dam
sid e cha nnel: va riable
• KS=Ch inoo k salmon
• CS=coho salmon
• OV=Dolly Varden char
• RBT =rainbow trout
• SS=sockeye salmon
• AG=Arctic grayling
Sc=Scu l pin-unspecif ied
Feet
0 5 0 100
Map Projection: NAD 83 Alaska State Plane Zone 4 Feet
Data So urces: HDR Alaska , In c.
Author: HDR Alaska, Inc.
Date: Octo ber 6 , 2009
This map represents a c onceptual level of utility, det ai,and accuracy.
The information displayed here is for planning purposes only.
Base information shown constitutes data from various federal,
state, p.tllic, and private sources.
These maps are tor review purposes only.
Kenai Hudro LLC ID~
.ALASKA
u~\ofAI~~.s-~
Kenai Hydro Environmental Baseline Studies Figure 3.4.3-4
lnstream Flow
Microhabitat Sample Areas
Reach 4, June 2009
Microhabitat Sample Areas
backwater/slow pockets
ffiilliiiiiill
~
~
~
margin with UCB
margin with no UCB
pool/fastwater
riflle/fastwater
rvvl
t.:......:...:l
~ ~
margin shelf w/ instream cover
large woody debris (LWD) dam
side channel: variable
Fish • KS=Chinook salmon
Species
• CSzcoho salmon Color
Key • ov .. Dolly Va rd en char
• RBT =rainbow trout
• SS=sockeye salmon
• AG=Arctic grayling .. Sc=Sculpin-unspecified
Feet
NORTH 0 40 80
Map Projection : NAD 83 Alaska State Plane Zone 4 Feet
Data Sources : HDR Alaska, Inc.
Author: HDR Alaska, Inc .
Date: October 6, 2009
This map represents a oonceptuallevel of utility. detail.and accuracy.
The infonnation displayed here is for planning purposes only.
Base infonnation shown oonstitutes data fi"om various federal .
state. public, and private sources.
These maps are for review purposes only.
Kenai Hudro LLC
1-i)~
ALASKA
~of AI,,.~ (j~ "'Q
Kenai Hydro Environmental Baseline Studies Figure 3.4.3-5
lnstream Flow
Microhabitat Sample Areas
Reach 5, june 2009
Microhabitat Sample Areas
ffiiiiiiiilill
~
~
~
backwater/slow pockets
marg in with UCB
margin with no UCB
pool/fastwater
riffle/fastwater
[""'"'"V""Vl
t.:......:..... margin shelf w/ instream cover
large woody debris (LWD) dam
side channel: variable
..
NORTH
• KS,.Chinook salmon
• cs .. coho salmon
• DV,.Dolly Varden char
• RBT =rainbow trout
• SS=sockeye salmon
• AG=Arctic grayling
• Sc=Sculpin-unspecified
Feet
0 40 80
Map Projection : NAD 83 Alaska State Plane Zone 4 Feet
Data Sources: HDR Alaska, Inc.
Author: HDR Alaska, Inc.
Date: October 6, 2009
This map represents a conceptual level of utility, detai,and accuracy.
The information displayed here is for planning purposes only.
Base information shown constitutes data from various federal.
state, public, and private sources.
These maps are for review purposes only.
Kenai Hydro LLC H)~
ALASKA
~ofAI<l.s-~ (>V ....,
Kenai Hydro Environmental Baseline Studies
Upper Trail Lake
Glout
A
Grant
Lake
GLTS
A
Figure 3.4.4-1
Aquatic Resources
2009 Grant Creek and Grant Lake
Aquatic Invertebrates
Legend
0 Ma cro invertebrates and Per iphyton
A Zooplankton and Phytoplankton
...rv---Grant Cree k Wetted Edge
"'., ...... · Side or Overflow Channel
.. 0
NORTH
Feet
250 500
Map Projecti on: NAD 83 A laska State Plane Zone 4 Feet
Data Sources: HDR Alaska, Inc., USFS, KPB,
USGS, Aerometric
Author: HDR Alaska, Inc.
Date : 07 October 2009
This map represents a conceptual level of utility, detai,and accuracy.
The information displayed here is for p lanning purposes only.
Base information shown constitutes data from v arious federal.
state, pli>lic, and private sources.
These maps are fa< review purposes only.
Kenai Hudro LLC 1-il{
ALASKA
\\of A~ <>~ "'.fq
Kenai Hydro Environmental Baseline Studies Fig ure 3 .4. 5-.1
Fisheries Field Studies
2009 Fa ll s Creek
Minnow T rapping
Legend
0
~
NORTH
Minnow Trap Site
0
Feet
25 0 500
:J
Map Proj ecti o n : NAD 83 A las k a St ate Plane Zone 4 Fee t
Data Sou r ces : HDR Alaska , Inc., USFS , KPB, USGS
Author: HDR Al aska, Inc.
Date: 09 Oc t ober 2009
This map represents a conceptual level of utility, detai.and accuracy.
The informal ion displayed here is for p la nning purposes only.
Base information shown consl il utes data from v ari ous federal.
state. public, and p riva te sources.
These maps are for review purposes only.
Kenai Hudro LLC li)~
ALASKA
i.>~~ofAlq.,.~
Kenai Hydro Environmental Baseline Studies Figure 3.4.6-1
Fisheries Field Studies
2009 Grant Lake
Sampling Sites
Legend
6. Gill Net Site
• Minnow Trap I Efish Site
• Efish Only Site
..A. Feet
~ 0 2,000 4,000
NORTH
Map Projection: NAD 83 Alaska State Plane Zone 4 Feet
Data Sources: HDR Alaska, Inc., USFS, KPB, USGS
Author: HDR Alaska, Inc.
Date: 09 October 2 009
This map represents a conceptual level of utility, detail,and accuracy.
The infonnation displayed here is for planning purposes only.
Base infonnation shown constitutes data from various federal,
state, plblic, and private sources.
These maps are for review purposes only.
Kenai Hgdro LLC :li):-{
AlASKA
c}~ofAI~~
Kenai Hydro Environmental Baseline Studies
Upper Trail Lake
Figure 3.5-l
Fisheries Field Studies
2009 Grant Creek
Major Habitat Categories
Legend
Large Woody Debris
Cascade Dominated Habitat
Glide Dominated Habitat
Pool Dominated Habitat
Riffle Dominated Habitat
..rv---Grant Creek Wetted Edge
-·'-·-Side I Overflow Channel
~ 0
NORTH
Feet
250 500
Map Projection: NAD 83 Alaska State Plane Zone 4 Feet
Data Sources: HDR Alaska, Inc., USFS, KPB,
USGS, Aerometric
Author: HDR Alaska, Inc.
Date: 07 October 2009
This map represents a conceptual level of utility, detail,and accuracy.
The infonnation displayed here is for planning purposes only.
Base infonnation shown constitutes data from various federal,
state, pwlic, and private sources.
These maps are for review purposes only.
Kenai Hudro LLC ID~
ALASKA
\\of A~ <>~ .,..,.q
Kenai Hydro Environmental Baseline Studies
Upper Trail Lake
Figure 3.5-2
Fisheries Field Studies
Legend
2009 Grant Creek
Fish Use Map
Chi nook Spawning Aggregate
Sockeye Spawning Aggregate
juvenile Rear ing
0
•
Historical Spaw ning (AE IDC , 1983)
ADFG Anad romous Fi sh
Distribution Limit
~ Grant Creek Wetted Edge
..... \.'· Side or Overflow Channe l
~ 0
NORTH
Feet
250 500
Map Projection: NAD 83 Alaska State Pl ane Zone 4 Feet
Data Sources : HDR Alaska , Inc., USFS, KPB,
USGS , Aerometric
Author: HDR Alaska, Inc.
Date: 07 October 2009
This map represents a conceptual level of utility, detai,end accuracy.
The information displayed here is for planning purposes only.
Base information shown constitutes data from various federal.
state, plblic, and private sources.
These maps are for review purposes only.
Kenai Hudro LLC Iii~
ALASKA
\\of A~ v~. ~-+q
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
threespine
juvenile sculpin spp. stickleback
sockeye (n=22) (n=S 3)
salmon (n=2) -----__,:;...
juvenile rainbow
trout (n=82)
Chinook
salmon (n=191)
Figure 3.5.2-1 Catch by species in minnow traps in Grant Creek, June-September, 2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
100
> u 80 r::::
Q)
::J
0'" 60 ~ u..
40
20
• August • September
Figure 3.5.2-2 Length frequencies of juvenile coho salmon captured in minnow traps in Grant
Creek in August and September, 2009
70
60
50
> u 40 r::::
Q)
::J
0'" 30 Q) .... u..
20
10
0
<:) ~ !:) ~ !:) ~ ~"<:) ~ ~ ~ ... <:) ~ ~<:) ....;~ ....;~ ....;, ~" ....;q; ~~ ~~ ~ ... ~ ....;-..;, ... , ., ~ " (o '\ q, ....; ~ ... <:) ...... .,.,
Length (mm)
• August • September
Figure 3.5.2-3 Length frequencies of juvenile Chinook salmon captured in minnow traps in
Grant Creek in August and September, 2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
rainbow trout
(n=72)
Arctic grayling
(n=l)
Figure 3.5.2-4 Catch by species for angling surveys in Grant Creek, June-September, 2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
0.6
0.5
-.:::-0.4 ::J
0
..s:::. .........
..s:::. 0.3 VI
!:S
UJ
::::> a.. 0.2 u
0.1
0
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 5 Reach 6
• Chinook Salmon • Coho Salmon • Dolly Varden
• Rainbow Trout • Sockeye Salmon • Arctic Grayling
• Sculpin Threespine Stickleback
Figure 3.5.2-5 CPUE by reach and species from minnow trapping, Grant Creek, June-
September, 2009
-0.5 ...
::J 0.4 0
..s:::. 0.3 ......... ..s:::.
VI 0.2 ~
UJ 0.1 ::::> a.. 0 u
Riffle
• Chinook Salmon
• Dolly Varden
• Sockeye Salmon
• Sculpin
Backwater /Pool
• Coho Salmon
• Rainbow Trout
• Arctic Grayling
Threespine Stickleback
Figure 3.5.2-6 Reach 1, CPUE by habitat, June-September, 2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
-0.3 .... :::s
0 0.2 ..s:: -..s::
VI
~ 0.1 w
::> a.. 0 u
Riffle Backwater/Pool
• Chinook Salmon • Coho Salmon
• Dolly Varden • Rainbow Trout
• Sockeye Salmon • Arctic Grayling
• Sculpin • Threespine Stickleback
Figure 3.5.2-7 Reach 2, CPUE by habitat, June-September, 2009
0.5
.... 0.4 :I
0 ..r::. 0.3 ....... ..r::.
"' ~ 0.2
LLJ
::> 0.1 0.. u
0
Riffle Backwater/Pool Overflow Channel
• Chinook Salmon • Coho Salmon
• Dolly Varden • Rainbow Trout
• Sockeye Salmon • Arctic Grayling
• Sculpin Threespine Stickleback
Figure 3.5.2-8 Reach 4, CPUE by habitat, June-September, 2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
0.3 ...
:I
0 0.2 ..s::: ........ ..s:::
VI
~ 0.1 LLJ
::::> a.. u
0
Riffle
• Chinook Salmon
• Dolly Varden
• Sockeye Salmon
• Sculpin
-Backwater/Pool Overflow Channel
• Coho Salmon
• Rainbow Trout
• Arctic Grayling
Threespine Stickleback
Figure 3.5.2-9 Reach 3, CPUE by habitat, June-September, 2009
1 ...
:I
0 0 ..s::: ........ ..s:::
VI
!E. Cascade
LLJ
::::> a.. u • Chinook Salmon
• Coho Salmon
• Dolly Varden
• Rainbow Trout
• Sockeye Salmon
• Arctic Grayling
Figure 3.5.2-10 Reach 5, CPUE by habitat, June-September, 2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
0.8
0.7
0.6
-.:::-
::J 0.5 0 ..c ........ ..c 0.4 Ill
~
LU
::::> 0.3 a.. u
0.2
0.1
0 ILr..-'11 ~ ~ I I ._ lJu._l l Ill L I.
.-i N ("(')
"""
1.1) 1..0 .-i N ("(')
"""
1.1) 1..0 .-i N ("(')
"""
1.1) 1..0 .-i N ("(')
""" 1.1) 1..0
..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a::
June July Au~ust September
Ill Chinook salmon • coho salmon • DollyVar en • ra nbowtrout
Figure 3.5.2-11 CPUE by reach and species from minnow trapping for selected species, Grant
Creek, June-September, 2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
100
90
80
70
> 60 u c:
Q) so ~
0"
Q) .... 40 u...
30
20
10
0
~ ~ 'h~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r& ,~ i' <-,~ rS' ~~ fb~ oP ~~vv~~~~~~~<~~~~~~~ o,~..,_..,.y,~~{>~v ..,_fb
Length (mm)
• August • September
Figure 3.5.2-12 Length frequencies of Dolly Varden captured in minnow traps in Grant Creek in
August and September, 2009
18
16
14
12 > u c: 10 Q)
:::::J
0" 8 Q) .... u...
6
4
2
0
... 5?~ ... !o~ ... ';\~ ... ,~ ... 9>~ ~ -$> ~y "y (oY '\Y 'by 'S~ -s"'
Length (mm) 0} ....,~
• August • September
Figure 3.5.2-13 Length frequencies of rainbow trout captured in minnow traps in Grant Creek in
August and September, 2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
1.4
1.2
1
-....
::J
0 0.8 ..r::. ....... ..r::.
VI
!£
LIJ 0.6 ::::> a.. u
0.4
0 .2
0
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 5
• Dolly Varden • Rainbow Trout • Arctic Grayling
Figure 3.5.2-14 CPUE by reach and species from angling surveys in Grant Creek, June-
August, 2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
2.50
a) rainbow trout
2.00
-....
::::l
0 1.50 .s::::. -.s::::.
V\
~
LU
::::> 1.00
a.. u
0.50
0.00 I ._1t l_l~.,
I !
....... N ("'() '¢ II) ....... N ("'() <:;!" II) ....... N ("'() <:;!" II) ....... N ("'() <:;!" II)
.s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a::
June July August September
1.20
b)Dolly Varden
1.00
-....
::::l 0.80 0
.s::::. -.s::::. 0.60 V\
~
LU
::::> 0.40 a.. u
0.20
0.00 1 ·---------~
__ I l _
~ ....... I l
N m <:;!" II)! ..-I N m <:;!" II) ....... N m <:;!" II) ....... N m <:;!" II)
.s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. ..:c~..c .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. .s::::. u u u u U! u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl I rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl rtl
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) l Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) <lJ: Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) a:: a:: a:: a:: a::! a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: ; a:: a:: a:: a:: a::
i
June July August September
Figure 3.5.2-15 CPUE by month and reach for a) rainbow trout and b) Dolly Varden from angling
surveys in Grant Creek, June -September, 2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Length (mm)
Figure 3.5.2-16 Length frequencies for rainbow trout angled on Grant Creek during June, 2009
8 l 7
I
f
6 I
~
I
I
> 5 J
u i c i
Q)
4 ~ :::J
0" :
Q) .... w... 3 -
2
1 1" __ .J 1 I~, L_L~.--.,--0
Length (mm)
Figure 3.5.2-17 Length frequencies for rainbow trout angled on Grant Creek during August,
2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
> u c
Q)
::I
0"
Q) ....
Ll...
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
2009
101-120 121-140 141-160 161-180 181-200 201-220 221-240
Length (mm)
Figure 3.5.2-18 Length frequencies for Dolly Varden angled on Grant Creek during June, 2009
2.5
2
> u 1.5 c
Q)
::I
0"
Q) 1 ....
I I I
u...
0.5
0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ".) ~ ~ ~ '), ~ 'V -:; 'V ~ 'V -:; '? ~ '? ....; f)) -:; l)j ~ '? ":Yt;. ~t;,. ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ o/ ~ ~ ~ ~
Length (mm)
Figure 3.5.2-19 Length frequencies for Dolly Varden angled on Grant Creek during August,
2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
70
60
50 ..... c
:l
0 u 40
> <lJ > ....
:l 30 V1 .....
0
0 u..
20
10
0
\)., ... '\:~\)~
Esc. Est= 231 Chinook
Sl. = 14 days
..,._Chinook
Date
Figure 3.5.2-20 Foot survey counts and estimated escapement for Chinook salmon, June -
October, 2009 on Grant Creek
1400
1200
Esc. Est = 6,293 Sockeye
1000 Sl. = 9 days
...... c
800
5 600 u
~ :l 400
V1 ......
g 200 u..
Date
Figure 3.5.2-21 Foot survey counts and escapement estimates for sockeye salmon, June-
October, 2009 on Grant Creek
Kenai Hydro, llC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
rainbow trout
(n=83)
sockeye salmon
(n=179)
sculpin -
unspecified
(n=2)
Figure 3.5.3-1 Composition and relative abundance of fish species observed, June, 2009
Figure 3.5.3-2 Juvenile Chinook salmon ages observed: June, 2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
"wintered" Chinook
salmon (FL>60mm)
(n=ll9)
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 5
• Chinook salmon • coho salmon • Dolly Varden char • rainbow trout
• sockeye salmon • Arctic grayling • sculpin-unspecified
Figure 3.5.3-3 Relative abundance of fish species observed by reach, June, 200
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Chinook salmon coho salmon Dolly Varden char rainbow trout sockeye salmon
• Main_Backwater (9%) • Main_LWD_Dam (2%) • Main_Margin_Shelf (18%) .
• Main_Margin_UCB (19%) • Main_pool_fastwater (18%) • Main_Riffle_fastwater (26%)
• margin, no UCB (8%)
Figure 3.5.3-4 Relative abundance rearing salmon and juvenile resident fish species observed
in microhabitat units, June, 2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Arctic grayling Dolly Varden char rainbow trout
• Main_Backwater {9%) • Main_pool_fastwater {18%) • Main_Riffle_fastwater {26%)
Figure 3.5.3-5 Relative abundance of resident fish (>200 mm) observed in microhabitat units,
June,2009
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
distributary channel secondary channel
• Chinook salmon • coho salmon • Dolly Varden char
• rainbow trout • sockeye salmon • Arctic grayling
• sculpin -unspecified
Figure 3.5.3-6 Relative abundance of rearing and resident fish observed in the distributary
channel (Reach 1) and secondary channel (Reach 3), June, 2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
250
212
200 184 192
"' E
.!!! c:
Ill 150 ~
0 ....
0 ... 100 Ql
..t:l
E
::J z
50
0
Surber 1 Surber 2 Surber 3 Surber4 Surber 5 Avg of Surbers
•GC100 •GC300
Figure 3.5.4-1 Population Densities at GC100 and GC300 from five pseudo-replicate
macroinvertebrate surber samples (per 0.1 M3), August 2009 -Grant Creek
50%
39.90%
40%
1-30% a.
LU
'*' 20%
10%
0%
Surber 1 Surber 2 Surber 3 Surber 4
• GC100 • GC300
Surber 5
31.49%
Avgof
Surbers
Figure 3.5.4-2 Percent EPT at GC100 and GC300 from five pseudo-replicate macroinvertebrate
surber samples (per 0.1 M3), August 2009 -Grant Creek
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
25
~ 20
~
'0 15 ..._
~ 10
E
::1 z 5
0
Surber 1 Surber 2 Surber 3 Surber4
• GC100 • GC300
Surber 5 Avgof
Surbers
Figure 3.5.4-3 Taxa Diversity at GC100 and GC300 from five pseudo-replicate macroinvertebrate
surber samples (per 0.1 M3), August 2009 -Grant Creek
100% 94%
90% 83% 85% 85%
80%
ro 70% X
~ 60% ..... c ro 50% c
E 40% 0
0 30% '#..
20%
10%
0%
ta Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql
2: n:1 n:1 n:1 n:1 n:1 "' ta "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0
.2: .E .E .E .E .E .E
co 0 0 0 0 0 0 c: c: c: c: c: c:
0 0 0 0 0 0 .... ·= .... .... ·= .... :c ..c: :c :c ..c: ..c: u u u u u u
1 2 3 4 5 Avg
ASCI Surber Surber Surber Surber Surber Surber
Figure 3.5.4-4 Percent Dominant Taxa in macroinvertebrate samples collected at GC100 on
Grant Creek, using ASCI and five pseudo-replicate Surber samples, August 2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
100%
90% 78%
ro 80%
X
70% ~
+-' 60% c ro SO% c
E 40%
0
30% 0
*' 20%
10%
0%
ro Q) Q) ro Q) ro Q)
~ ro ro > ro > ro
ro "'0 ~ ro "'0 ro "'0
.~ .E E > .E > E al 0 0 ii:i 0 ii:i 0 c c c c
0 0 0 e ... ... ...
J:: J:: J:: J:: u u u u
1 2 3 4 5 Avg
ASCI Surber Surber Surber Surber Surber Surber
Figure 3.5.4·5 Percent Dominant Taxa in macroinvertebrate samples collected at GC300 on
Grant Creek, using ASCI and five pseudo-replicate Surber samples, August 2009
-100 l "' 82.0 E
........... 80 t:IO 65.1 E
0 60 51.5
> l. 40.1 37.6
..s;;: 40 ~ 36.0 34.8
0..
0 16.8 15.0 ... 20 0 8.3 11.7 J:: u 0 c ~
0 >. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AVG J::
0.. ·;:: Samples Q) a..
• GClOO •GC300
Figure 3.5.4·6 Periphyton Chlorophyll a concentrations (mg/m3) at GC1 00 and GC300 from ten
pseudo-replicate samples, August 2009 -Grant Creek
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Figure 3.5.5-1 Total catch minnow trapping on Falls Creek, July, 2009
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 I ..., 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... N C'l"l -=t 1.0 \.0 " 00 0'1 0 .... N C'l"l -=t 1.0 \.0 " 00 m I ' I I I I I I I .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... I I I I I I I I I I .... N C'l") -=t 1.0 \.0 " 00 .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
0'1 0 .... N C'l"l -=t 1.0 \.0 " 00 .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
Figure 3.5.5-2 Length frequencies for Dolly Varden minnow trapped in Falls Creek, July, 2009
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
threespine
stickleback
(n=4798)
sculp in
(n=79}
Figure 3.5.6-1 Total catch by minnow traps in Grant Lake, June and August, 2009
100%
"' 80% X
~ ..... 60% c
"' c .E 40%
0
Cl
~ 20%
0%
Rotifers
0% 2%
Copepoda
Taxa
1% 2%
Protozoa
Figure 3.5.7-1 Percent Dominant Taxa in zooplankton samples at GLOut and GL TS, August
2009 -Grant Lake
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
1.6
0
> 1.4
~ c. 1.2 e ::c-1 um
c::: E 0.8 0 ........ .... ti.O ~ E 0.6 c:::-
I'll
c. 0.4 0 >. 0.2 ~ a..
0
Sur Mid Bot Avg
• GLOut •GLTS
Figure 3.5.7-2 Chlorophyll a concentrations (mg/m3) in phytoplankton samples at GLOut and
GL TS, August 2009 -Grant Lake
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
• Cabin or associated building
Figure 4.2.1-1. Sites sampled and types ofsamples collected at Grant Lake in 1981 -1982
(AEIDC 1983).
Numbers represent sampling sites; I= variable mesh gill net sampling sites, 2= minnow trap
sites, plankton and water quality sampling sites, 4= benthos sampling sites.
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Kenai Hydro Environmental Baseline Studies
Upper
Trail Lake
Lower
Trail Lake
/
Figure 4.3-1
Water Quality, Temperature,
and Hydrology Study locations
2009
Legend
+ Thermistor
e Gage
0 Natura l Outlet Sa mp ling Po int
Falls Creek Wat ershed
Grant Creek Watershed
Roads
Seward Highway
Rail
~ Lakes
......rv--Rivers
/ Contours (10ft)
~ Miles
NORTH 0 0.5
Map Proj ecti on: NAD 83 Alaska State Pl ane Zone 4 Feet
Data So urces : HDR Alaska, Inc., USFS, KPB, USGS
Author: HDR Alaska, Inc .
Date : 1 2 October 2009
This map represents a ronoeptuallevel of utility, detai, and accuracy.
The information displayed here is for plan ning purposes only.
Base information shown constitutes data tom various federal,
state, public, and private sources.
These maps are for review purposes only.
Kenai Hudro LLC li):{
AlASKA
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Figure 4.4.2-1 . Example staff gauge and data logger installation
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
14
12
u 10 0 -Q) .... 8 :J ......
ctl .... 6 Q) a.
E 4 ~
2
0
June August
• FC100 • GC100 • GC200 • GC300
Figure 4.5.1-1. Temperature at Grant and Falls Creek during water quality sampling.
Temp oc
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
0
5
E -..c 10 ...... a.
Q)
0
15
20
-GLTS 6/11/09 -GLTS 8/7/09
Figure 4.5.1-2. Temperature at Grant Lake Thermistor String location taken during water
quality sampling.
Kenai Hydro, LLC .
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Temp oc
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
0
5
E
..c. 10 +-' a.
Q)
Cl
15
20
Figure 4.5.1-3.
16
14
12
u 10
0
a.
E ~ 8
6
4
2
-GLTS 6/11/09 -GLTS 8/7/09
Temperature at Grant Lake Outlet location taken during water quality
sampling.
-0.2m
-o .5m
-1 .5m
-3.0m
-G.Om
-9.0m
-12.0m
-15.0m
-18.0m
-19.5m
10-Jun 25-Jun 10-Jul 25 -Jul 9-Aug 24-Aug 8-Sep 23-Sep
Figure 4.5.1-4.
Kenai Hydro, LLC .
Continuous temperature for all depth intervals in Grant Lake as daily mean
values.
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
iii' ...
Cll ..
Cll
.§.
.c .. a.
Cll
0
~
a.
E
{!
s
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
7 9
Temp C
11 13 1S
~1S-Jun .._30-Jun ~1S-Jul -+-30-Jul ..._1S-Aug -+-30-Aug -1S-Sep ..._,30-Sep
Figure 4.5.1-5. Continuous temperature in Grant Lake as daily mean values.
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
9-Jun 23-Jun 7-Jul 21-Jul 4-Aug 18-Aug 1-Sep 1S-Sep 29-Sep
-GC100 Stream Pool -GClOO Stream Surface GC2SO Stream Pool
--• GC 300 Stream Riffle ---GC200 Stream Gage --FC100 Stream Gage
Figure 4.5.1-6. Continuous temperature at stream stations as daily mean values.
Kenai Hydro, LLC .
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
16
15
14
13
12 u
0
a. 11 E
{!!.
10
9
8
7
6
10-Jun 25-Jun 10-Jul 25-Jul 9-Aug 24-Aug 8-Sep 23 -Sep
-0.2m
-o.sm
-1.5m
-3.0m
---GC200
Figure 4.5.1-7. Continuous temperature at shallow depths in Grant Lake and Grant Creek
stream gage as daily mean values.
0.090 -
E 0.087 u -0 .085 V')
E
> .... 0.080 ·::;:
~ u
::J
"C 0.075 c
0 u
u 0.070 ~
'iJ
Q) a.
V') 0.065
June August
• FClOO • GC100 • GC200 • GC300
Figure 4.5.1-8. Specific Conductivity at stream sampling locations.
Kenai Hydro , LLC .
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
70
E
~ 60 64 V')
::1. -50 > ....., ·:;; 40 ·.p
u
::J -o 30 c:
0 u 20 Q) > :p 10 ro
Q) a:: 0
June August
• FC100 • GC100 • GC200 • GC300
Figure 4.5.1-9. Relative Conductivity at stream sampling locations.
Specific Conductivity (mS/cm}
0.0000 0.0500 0.1000 0.1500
0.00
2.00
E 4.00 -.r. 6.00 .....,
a.
Q) 8.00 0
10.00
12.00
-GLOUT 8/07/09
Figure 4.5.1-10. Specific Conductivity at Grant Lake Outlet.
Kenai Hydro, LLC .
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Relative Conductivity (!15/cm)
45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 65.00 70.00 75.00 80.00
0.00
2.00
E 4.00 -..c: 6.00 ...
0..
Q) 8.00 0
10.00
12 .00
-GLOUT 8/07/09
Figure 4.5.1-11. Relative Conductivity at Grant Lake Outlet.
Specific Conductivity (mS/cm)
0.0000 0.0500 0.1000 0.1500 0.2000 0.2500
0.00 I
2 .00
E 4.00 L -..c: 6.00 ~ ...
0..
Q)
8.00 0
10.00 />
12.00
-GLTS 6/11/09 -GLTS 8/07/09
Figure 4.5.1-12. Specific Conductivity at Grant Lake Thermistor String Location.
Kenai Hydro, LLC .
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Relative Conductivity (~S/cm)
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00
0.00
2.00 -4.00 E
..c 6.00 +" a.
Q)
8.00 c
10.00
12.00
-GLTS 6/11/09 -GLTS 8/07/09
Figure 4.5.1-13. Relative Conductivity at Grant Lake Thermistor String Location.
12
:::r 10 ........
llO
E
c: 8
Q) ge
6 X
0
"tJ
Q) 4 >
0
V)
V) 2 i5
0
June August
• FC100 • GC100 • GC200 • GC300
Figure 4.5.1-14. Dissolved Oxygen Concentration at Grant and Falls Creek.
Kenai Hydro , LLC .
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
100%
~ 80% 68.7%
c:::
Q)
llO 60% > X
0
"'C 40% Q) >
0
V')
V') 20% i:5
0%
June August
• FC100 •GC100 •GC200 •GC300
Figure 4.5.1-15. Dissolved Oxygen Saturation at Grant and Falls Creek.
D.O.(mg/L)
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
0
5 -E -~ 10 .... a.
Q)
0
15
20
-GLTS 6/11/09 -GLTS 8/7/09
Figure 4.5.1-16. Dissolved Oxygen Concentration at Grant Lake Thermistor String Location.
Kenai Hydro, LLC .
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Dissolved Oxygen (%)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
0
5
E 10
..r::. .... a.
Q) 15 0
20
-GLTS 6/11/09 -GLTS 8/07/09
Figure 4.5.1-17. Dissolved Oxygen Saturation at Grant Lake Thermistor String Location
D.O. (mg/L)
0 .0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
0
2
E 4
..r::. 6 .... a.
Q) 8 0
10
12
-GLOut 6/11/09 -GLOut 8/7/09
Figure 4.5.1-18. Dissolved Oxygen Concentration at Grant Lake Outlet.
Kenai Hydro , LLC .
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Dissolved Oxygen (%)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
0
2
4
E 6 -..c -8 a.
Q)
Cl 10
12
-GLOut 6/11/09 -GLOut 8/07/09
Figure 4.5.1-19. Dissolved Oxygen Saturation at Grant Lake Outlet.
7.8
7.7
7.6 -7.5 VI
-~ c 7.4 ::I
Cl 7.3 1-
~ 7.2
:::c 7.1 a.
7.0
6.9
6.8
June August
• FC100 • GClOO • GC200 • GC300
Figure 4.5.1-20. pH Concentrations at all Stream Locations.
Kenai Hydro, LLC .
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
0
5
E
..c 10 .... a.
Q)
0
15
20
7.0 7.1 7.2
pH (STD Units}
7.3 7.4
-GLTS 6/11/09 -GLTS 8/7/09
7.5 7.6
Figure 4.5.1-21. pH Concentrations at Grant Lake Thermistor String Location.
0
2
E 4
..c 6 .... a.
Q) 8 0
10
12
7.0 7.2 7.4
pH (STD Units}
7.6 7.8
-GLOut 6/11/09 -GLOut 8/7/09
8.0
Figure 4.5.1-22. pH Concentrations at Grant Lake Outlet.
Kenai Hydro, LLC .
8.2
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
20
::J 15 ..... z
> 10 .'!:
"0
..c ..... 5 ~
0
. 770.750.820.820.64
• FClOO
•GC200
June
• Grant Lake Outlet
•GC100
• GC300
August
• Grant Lake Therm String
Figure 4.5.1-23. Turbidity at all Grant and Falls Creek Locations with included Turbidity of
Surface of Grant Lake.
6 ~
5 -
::J 4 -1 ..... z
> 3 -.'!:
"0
:0 2 .....
::J .....
1 -
0
June August
• GLOut Surface • GLOut 5m • GLTS Surface • GLTS 8m • GLTS 18m
Figure 4.5.1-24. Turbidity at all Grant Lake Locations and Depths.
Kenai Hydro , LLC .
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
40.0 , -35.0 "" 0 u 30.0 ~ ro u
....J 25.0 .........
Ill)
E 20.0 _,
> 15.0 -1 ."!:: c
ro 10.0
~
<( 5.0 ~
0.0
June August
• GC100 • GC200 • GC300 • FC100
Figure 4.5.1-25. Alkalinity at all Grant and Falls Creek Locations.
30.0 -"" 25.0 0 u ro u
....J
20.0
.........
Ill)
E 15.0
> ."!:: 10.0 c
ro ~ 5.0 <(
0.0
June August
• GLTS SUR •GLTS MID • GLTS BOT
Figure 4.5.1-26. Alkalinity Concentrations at Grant Lake Thermistor String Location.
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
30.0
-"" 25.0 0 u
"' u
....J
20.0
..........
tiD
E 15.0
> .-t= 10.0 c:
"' ..:.:: 5.0 <(
0.0
June August
• GLOut SUR • GLOut MID
Figure 4.5.1-27. Alkalinity Concentrations at Grant Lake Outlet by Depth.
3.500
3.090
3.000
2.500
~ .......... 2.000 tiD
:::1.
..c 1.500 a..
"' 1.000 ....
{d
0.500
0.000
June August
• GC100 • GC200 • GC300 • FC100
Figure 4.5.1-28. Total Lead Concentrations in Grant and Falls Creek.
Kenai Hydro , LLC .
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
1.200
1.000
::J 0.800 .........
tlO
::::1.
..c a.. 0.600
I"'J 0.400 +-' ~
0.200
0.000
June August
• GLTS SUR • GLTS MID • GLTS BOT
Figure 4.5.1-29. Total Lead Concentrations at the Grant Lake Thermistor String Location.
4.5
4
3.5
::J 3 .........
tlO 2.5 c -tlO 2 :I: _. 1.5 .....I
1
0.5
0
June August
• GClOO • GC200 • GC300 • FClOO
Figure 4.5.1-30. Low Level Mercury Concentrations at Grant and Falls Creek.
Kenai Hydro, LLC .
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
2.5
2
::r ......... 1.5 tl.O c:
tl.O
I 1
....J
....J
0.5
0
June August
• GLTS SUR • GLTS MID • GLTS BOT
Figure 4.5.1-31. Low Level Mercury Concentrations at Grant Lake Thermistor String
Location.
2.5
2
::r ......... 1.5 tl.O c:
tl.O
I 1
....J
....J
0.5
0
June August
• GLOut SUR • GLOut MID
Figure 4.5.1-32. Low Level Mercury Concentrations at Grant Lake Outlet.
Kenai Hydro, LLC .
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
0.700
0.600
:J' 0.461 -0.500 00
E
CVl 0.400
0 z 0.300 + N 0.200 0 z
0.100
0.000
June August
• GC100 •GC200 •GC300 • FC100
Figure 4.5.1-33. Nitrate and Nitrite Concentrations at all Grant and Falls Creek.
0.700
0.600
:J' 0.500 -0.415 0.421 00 0.410 E 0.400
CVl
0 0.300 z +
N
0
0.200
z 0.100
0.000
June August
• GLTS SUR •GLTS MID • GLTS BOT
Figure 4.5.1-34. Nitrate and Nitrite Concentrations at Grant Lake Thermistor String
Location.
Kenai Hydro , LLC .
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
0.700
0.600
::J 0.500 .........
llO
E 0.400
N'l
0 0.300 z + 0.200 N
0 z 0.100
0.000
June August
• GLOut SUR • GLOut MID
Figure 4.5.1-35. Nitrate and Nitrite Concentrations at Grant Lake Outlet.
0.025 0.0233
0.02
::J .........
llO 0.015 E
a..
n:J 0.01 .....
~
0.005
0
June August
• GC100 •GC200 •GC300 • FC100
Figure 4.5.1-36. Total Phosphorous Concentrations at all Grant and Falls Creek Locations.
Kenai Hydro, LLC .
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
0.025
0.0218
0.02
:::J ......
tlD 0.015 E
0..
ro 0.01
+-' ~
0.005
0
June August
• GLTS SUR •GLTS MID •GLTS BOT
Figure 4.5.1-37. Total Phosphorous Concentrations at Grant Lake Thermistor String
Location.
80.0
70.0 _,
60.0
:::J 50.0 ......
tlD
E 40.0 -V')
30.0 0
f-
20.0
10.0
0.0
June August
• GC100 • GC200 • GC300 • FC100
Figure 4.5.1-38. Total Dissolved Solid Concentrations at all Grant and Falls Creek
Locations.
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
80.0
70.0
60.0
:J" 50.0 ..........
llO
E 40.0
II')
30.0 Q
1-
20.0
10.0
0.0
June August
• GLTS SUR • GLTS MID • GLTS BOT
Figure 4.5.1-39. Total Dissolved Solid Concentrations at Grant Lake Thermistor String
Location.
60.0
J
50.0
:J" 40.0 ..........
llO
E 30.0 -II')
Q 20.0 .., 1-
10.0
0.0
June August
• GLOut SUR • GLOut MID
Figure 4.5.1-40. Total Dissolved Solid Concentrations at Grant Creek Outlet Location.
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
9.00 8.300 8.240
8.00
7.00
:3" 6.00
.......... • GC100
llO 5.00 E • GC200
V') 4.00
~ 3.00 •GC300
2.00 • FC100
1.00
0.00
June August
Figure 4.5.1-41 . Total Suspended Solid Concentrations at all Grant and Falls Creek
Locations.
3.00
2.50
:3" 2.00
..........
llO
E -1.50
V')
V') 1.00 f-
0.50
0.00
June August
• GLTS SUR • GLTS MID • GLTS BOT
Figure 4.5.1-42. Total Suspended Solid Concentrations at Grant Lake Thermistor String
Location.
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
3.000
2.500
~ 2.000 -tl.O
E 1.500
V')
V')
1.000 1-
0.500
0.000
June August
• GLOut SUR • GLOut MID
Figure 4.5.1-43. Total Suspended Solid Concentrations at Grant Lake Outlet Location.
Kenai Hydro, LLC .
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
1.4
1.2
1.0
-.::= 0.8 -c
0
~ ro
0.6 i .,'II~~J D ' I ,, I
I 'f~lr'l/1\J\, 1~.~~ ~ ' > Q)
[ij
Q)
(J
{g 0.4
::::J
CfJ 0 .2 ,_
~
~ 0 .0
-0.2 +----..----.-------,-------r-----.----r----.-----,-----,
9-Jun
Kenai Hydro , LLC.
23-Jun 7-Jul 21-Jul 4-Au 9 18-Au 9 1-Sep
water surface elevations, 15 minute intervals
-water surface elevation, daily mean
15-Sep 29-Sep 13-0ct
• Staff gage observations and instantaneous discharge measurement (cfs)
Figure 4.5.2-1. Continuous and observed water surface elevation at GC200
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
475.3
-475.1 ...... --c
0
':Q co 474.9 > Q.)
w
Q.)
(.) 474.7 co
't
::l en
'-474.5 .$
~
474 .3
474.1 !-------~------~------~------r-------r-------r-------.-------r-------r
8~un 22-Jun 6-Jul 20-Jul 3-Aug 17-Aug 31-Aug 14-Sep 28-Sep 12-0ct
-water surface elevations, 15 minute intervals
-Water surface elevation, daily mean
• Staff gage observations and instantaneous discharge measurements ( cfs)
Figure 4.5.2-2. Continuous and observed water surface elevation at FC100
Kenai Hydro, LLC .
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
9 Appendices
Kenai Hydro, LLC. January 201 0
Appendix A
Instream Flow Study Summary
Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
"'[_ ~R I ONE COMPANY r-I.A. Many Solutions'" Memo
To: Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric TWG
From: Jason Kent Project: Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric
Copy: Brad Zubeck, Kenai Hydro LLC
Date: September 9, 2009 Job No: 97437
Re: Review of 1986-1987 Grant Lake FERC Application Documents for lnstream Flow Considerations
Introduction
During drafting of the Pre-Application Document (PAD), Kenai Hydro, LLC conducted due
diligence contacts to agencies and Tribes to collect existing information. During this
information gathering effort, some additional instream flow and environmental analysis
conducted in the 1980s by Kenai Hydro, Inc. (unrelated to Kenai Hydro, LLC) in support of a
license application for hydropower development on Grant Creek was provided to KHL.
The documents are an assemblage of reports and written communications between Kenai
Hydro Inc. (KHI) and state and federal agencies in 1986 and 1987 relative to a Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application for the proposed Grant Lake
Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 7633-002). The documents include draft and final reports
of a limited but complete IFIM investigation and negotiated minimum instream flows (MIF)
and ramping rates.
Summary of Kenai Hydro Inc. Documents
Originally, KHI's proposal was to route flow from Grant Lake to a powerhouse off Grant
Creek, effectively removing a large portion of the flow from the creek. An initial license
application included an instream flow proposal that was based on a Tennant Method book
analysis and negotiated with the agencies in 1982. The proposal was based on Tennant's
classification system and the assumption that "base flows of 40-60% would be outstanding
and the optimum range would be 60-100% of average flow."
After two years of negotiations with the agencies, Kenai Hydro Inc. determined that the
resulting loss of habitat would be considered unacceptable by the agencies and went forward
with a new alternative that returned water to the creek at the downstream end of the "canyon
reach." This new alternative was investigated in the 1987 instream flow study, and is similar
to the approach being proposed by Kenai Hydro LLC today.
KHI suggested the following proposed MIF regime:
Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix A - 1
October -May 50 cfs
May -October 1 00 cfs
The agencies (led by USFWS) countered with a proposal favorable to both parties that
featured a step increase with the purpose of limiting potential stranding.
November 1 -April 30 50 cfs
May 1-31 75 cfs
June 1 -October 15 100 cfs
October 16-31 75 cfs
The KHI proposal included load following as an important component. To offset the potential
impacts of load following on redd dewatering and stranding of fish, the USFWS suggested
the following ramping rate:
Increasing flow • Not to exceed 1 00 cfs/hr
Decreasing flow • 1 0%/hr at flows above 1 00 cfs
• 1 0 cfs/hr at flows below 1 00 cfs
KHI anticipated that the project would impart a temperature effect on Grant Creek. The
maximum expected change would be -1 "C in the summer and +2"C in the winter. The
USFWS stated that this change in temperature regime would impact fisheries by increasing
the time to button-up stage for Chinook fry. To mitigate these impacts, USFWS asked KHI to
construct a a multi-level intake structure in Grant Lake and operate the structure to draw
water from the uppermost levels of the lake.
In addition, USFWS recommended monitoring of post-operation thermal regime in Grant
Creek and evaluation of the changes from the pre-project conditions for a minimum of 6
years after commencement of project operations. NMFS requested a verification study of the
instream flow study that included a weekly census of adult Chinook and sockeye salmon in
August and September during construction and for a ten-year period thereafter.
Report Details
Document 1.
Kenai_Hydro _Inc_ Grant_Lake_Hydro _Project_Addtl_l nfo _2-15-
1987.pdf
The revised project, with the powerhouse at the bottom of the canyon reach and flows
diverted from Grant Lake, is discussed in this document. Proposed project flows are
presented in Figure 1.
On October 21-23, 1986, a meeting and site visit was held at the USFWS office in which an
alternate analysis method was selected. The discussion was centered on results of a stream
survey conducted by Kenai Hydro Inc. (KHI) on June 26, 1986 (Figure 2). The work group
determined the "most critical reach of the stream" that contained the highest amount of
spawning activity was near the mouth of Grant Creek between stations 4-8 as shown on
Figure 2. The work group selected a method that included the collection of 3 transects at
stations 5 and 6 (Figure 3}, and analysis using the computer model WSP/IFG-2, a precursor
to the PHABSIM suite of models that is used today. Later that month, a consulting firm
collected the stream surveys. The work group attendees included:
KHI -Dick Poole, Jonathan Hanson
ADFG-Don McKay, Christopher Estes
USFWS Lenny Gorin, Steven Lyons, George Elliott
NMFS Brad Smith
The work group determined that "spawning is the most critical factor since rearing occurs
mainly in the associated lakes." This assumption led to a study design that included one
transect flow measurement at three transects. KHI determined that one set of
measurements was justified because "conflicts are low and the stream is a simple stable
channel." KHI characterized Grant Creek as "a simple stream with steep gradients, minimal
side channels, few pools, and a rough bottom with a minimum of spawning gravel." The
selected study area where spawning was determined to occur the most, stations 4-8, was
considered the "the most sensitive to changes in stream flow due to the elevated gravel bar
and riffles that are present." Typical PHABSIM-style transect measurements were taken
during the field work conducted on October 24, 1986 (Figure 3).
KHI provides the following information regarding icing and winter flows:
"On a month by month basis, flows are lowest in the months of January, February, March
and April. During this period minimum daily flows of 11 cfs occur with the stream icing up.
Flows across the ice affecting stage-discharge relationships are recorded indicating anchor
ice and solid freezing are occurring.
"During this period egg incubation is occurring and for the four month period the eggs are
essentially in a holding phase due to the low temperatures which limit development. Stream
flow is restricted to the bottom of the channel and eggs which have been spawned on the
upper gravel bars freeze or depend on the availability of ground water for survival. Juvenile
rearing would be restricted to the channel and limited pools during winter. Ice cover may or
may not occur to protect the exposed eggs. Dewatering of alevins would of course cause
100 percent mortality."
The original KHI proposal included reservoir management regimes (reservoir filling in off-
peak months for use during the peak energy demand months of November through
February) and proposed ramping rates. KHI reports daily changes of 185 cfs/day were
observed during the period of record. KHI proposed a 100 cfs/hr rate of change for Grant
Creek.
Figure 4 presents the projected project temperature discharges in Grant Creek. The project
was projected to slightly flatten the temperature curve, warming the discharged water in the
winter and cooling it in the summer. The reason for this difference is that the water intake in
Grant Lake is below the surface, and the natural discharge is surface water that is exposed
to ambient air temperatures. Due to this impact, USFWS asked KHI to include a multi-level
intake structure in Grant Lake (this is discussed in the details of Document 3).
Details of Envirosphere's February 1987 lnstream Flow Study Report
The objectives of Envirosphere's instream flow study were to quantify the relationship
between habitat and flow for trout and salmon, to identify the physical habitat type that is
limiting production in Grant Creek, and to determine how daily flow fluctuations from load
following may potentially strand juvenile fish.
The report included a summary of existing data including fish resources of Grant Creek.
Summary of that summary:
• Chinook
o Adults
• spawn in August and September.
• Based on surveys (ADFG 1952-1981 and APA 1984), average peak
salmon spawning ground count was 19 fish. Weir counts by Cook Inlet
Aquaculture Association indicated that this number may be somewhat
larger but generally less than 50 returning adults each year.
o Juveniles
• Sockeye
• Age 1 +observed year round (APA 1984), but low numbers observed
during March, May & June suggest they are either inactive or migrated
elsewhere.
• Natural emergence may be later than June because no observation in
minnow traps until August (APA 1984). Some were observed during
electrofishing in May, but may have been stimulated from the gravel.
o Adults
• Spawn in August and September.
• Based on surveys (ADFG 1952-1981 and APA 1984 ), average peak
salmon spawning ground count was 61 fish. Weir counts by Cook Inlet
Aquaculture Association show higher numbers -400 in 1985 and 675
in 1986.
o Juveniles
• Likely rear in the downstream lake system and not in Grant Creek.
• Coho
o Adults
• No observations (ADFG 1952-1981 and APA 1984). However, very
small (<40 mm) coho fry were trapped in August 1984 (APA 1984),
indicating some natural spawning.
• Returns were observed in 1985 and 1986 by CIAA weir counts; these
fish were returns from the coho introduction program in Grant Lake
that has since been discontinued.
o Juveniles
• Previous studies (APA 1984) show some coho rear in the lower
reaches of Grant Creek but were less abundant and not as widely
distributed as juvenile Chinook.
• Rainbow Trout
o Spawning
• No spawning adults were observed, but small juveniles (45-50 mm)
were observed in October 1982, indicating some natural spawning
(APA 1984).
o Rearing
• RBT are evenly distributed in Grant Creek, and are found in most
habitat types. RBT captured in 1982 ranged in length from 43-106 mm
(APA 1984).
• Dolly Varden
o Spawning
• No spawning adults were observed (APA 1984).
o Rearing
• Larger fish may move into Grant Creek during the late summer to feed
and avoid the high turbidity of the Trail Lakes.
• DV observed ranged in length from 55-300 mm.
Envirosphere analyzed the data and determined that "as a result of the similarities among the
salmonid species present in Grant Creek ... an analysis of Chinook and sockeye salmon will
provide a relatively good indicator of the habitat relationships for coho, rainbow trout, and
Dolly Varden char. . .therefore the stranding analysis in this study can be broadly applied,
even though it is targeted on Chinook." They selected as the evaluation species for the
instream flow study the spawning and rearing lifestages of Chinook and the spawning
lifestage of sockeye.
Suitability curves "were developed from information found in the literature. This was believed
to be a reasonable approach because a considerable amount of information is available in
Alaska on suitability and some is directly available from the Kenai River system (e.g., Burger
et al. 1982)." The HSC used for this study are presented in Figures 5 through 7. Details on
the studies used to develop these criteria are given on pages 1 0-16 of the Envirosphere
report.
Timing of life history phases for Chinook and sockeye are presented in Table 1.
Envirosphere characterizes the incubation phase as "somewhat more difficult; however,
inferences have been made from observations of the appearance of small juveniles (less
than 50 mm) in the summer."
Table 1. Life history phases of Chinook and sockeye salmon in Grant Creek.
Stage When Present
Chinook
Adults August-September
Egg incubation and early intragravel August-May/June
Juveniles All year
Sockeye
Adults August-September
Egg incubation and early intragravel August-May/June
Juveniles Move downstream and rear elsewhere
Field data were collected on October 24, 1986 by KHI. Information collected on three
transects included depth, velocity, and substrate. Vertical intervals were 2-4 feet, and
velocities were measured at 0.2, 0.6, and 0.8 *depth. The calibration flow was
approximately 246 cfs.
The model was calibrated and flow simulations were run for 50-450 cfs using WSP (Bovee
and Milhous 1978). Stranding potential was examined using the methodology described by
Prewitt and Whitmus (1986). This methodology uses information on cross slope, substrate,
and discharge to determine stranding potential.
Results of Weighted Usable Area (WUA) are presented in Figures 8 through 11. In general,
flows greater than 1 00 cfs cover a majority of the stream bed. Chinook spawning area peaks
around 350 cfs, with about 70% of maximum spawning area available at 150 cts. Sockeye
spawning area peaks between 50 and 175 cfs and drops off sharply at flows greater than
175 cfs.
Chinook <50mm fry rearing peaks around 150 cts, and for Chinook 50-1 OOmm fry the peak
habitat is somewhat steady between 1 00 and 350 cfs. For both sizes of Chinook juveniles,
habitat drops sharply at flows less than 1 00 cfs.
The change in rate of stranding is relatively steady throughout the simulated flow range of
50-450 cfs with the exception of the range 50-120 cfs; in this flow range, stranding area rate
was very high. Incremental changes in flow greater than 350 cfs impart a large increase in
stranding area; the effect is lower for increments smaller than 350 cfs.
Document 2.
Ken a i_Hydro _Inc_ G ra nt_La ke_Hydro _Pro ject_FERC_No _763 3-
002_1 nstrea m_Fiow _Study _5-4-1987 .pdf
This document includes the final instream flow report and comments from the resource
agencies (USFWS, ADFG, NMFS) on the draft report.
Three agencies-ADFG, USFWS, and NMFS, provided KHI technical comments and
concerns with the instream flow study. These comments are summarized below relative to
the limitations of the study.
• The model (WSP) assumes steady flow during data collection. Flow measurements
show that the flow rate dropped 51.5 cfs (21 %) during the field study.
• USFWS applied a rule of thumb that flow simulations should not be applied to flows
less than 40% of the lowest calibration flow. In this case, 40% of 246 cfs is 98 cfs.
• The study would be more credible if data had been collected at flows between 1 00-
125 cfs.
• The model cannot be extrapolated upwards if the end of the cross sections were at
the water's edge.
• Habitat suitability criteria are questionable (multiple concerns -see original letter).
• Stranding analysis is unclear because the method used is unpublished and unknown.
• The Tennant Method was presented improperly and it is unclear how it fits into the
report.
Document 3.
Ken a i_Hydro _Inc_ G rant_Lake_Hyd ro _Pro ject_Addtl_l nfo _Finai_Re
port_ with_Agency _ T _ Cs_9-4-1987 .pdf
This document includes the communication between KHI and the agencies regarding
negotiated minimum instream flows and ramping rates. The key documents are letters to
KHI Vice President Richard Poole dated July 14, 1987 from USFWS and July 1, 1987 from
NMFS. The letters suggest modifications to KHI's proposed minimum instream flows,
thermal impacts, and ramping rates.
lnstream Flows
USFWS determined the instream flow study "inadequate for the purpose of evaluating the
fishery habitat currently available in Grant Creek, and the impacts (both positive and
negative) which would result from the current proposal. The basic and most important
concern with the study is poor data." USFWS interpreted the raw velocity data for transect
T1 as having errors of greater than 20% for 8 of 16 verticals. Considering this error, they
questioned the ability of the model to extrapolate to 100 cfs and beyond.
USFWS and NMFS suggested the following MIF regime:
November 1 -April 30 50 cfs
May 1-31 75 cfs
June 1 October 15 100 cfs
October 16-31 75 cfs
USFW also suggested installing a continuous flow recording gage at or downstream of the
tailrace.
Ramping Rates
Although the USFWS doubted the validity of the instream flow model, they acknowledged the
increased potential for stranding at flows below 100 cfs. To address this concern, they
recommended the following ramping rates:
Increasing flow • Not to exceed 1 00 cfs/hr
Decreasing flow • 1 0%/hr at flows above 1 00 cfs
• 10 cfs/hr at flows below 1 00 cfs
Temperature
KHI anticipated that the project would impart a temperature effect on Grant Creek. The
maximum expected change would be -1 CC in the summer and +2CC in the winter (Figure 4).
USFWS voiced concern that the change in the project temperature regime would affect the
time for Chinook fry to reach the button-up stage. "In consideration of temperature-related
concerns, Kenai Hydro, Inc., has agreed to utilize a multi-level intake structure. To minimize
adverse impacts to the fishery resources we recommend that the intake structure be
operated to draw water from the uppermost levels of Grant Lake."
Monitoring
USFWS also recommended monitoring of post-operation thermal regime in Grant Creek and
evaluation of the changes from the pre-project conditions for a minimum of 6 years after
commencement of project operations.
NMFS requested a verification study of the instream flow study that included a weekly
census of adult Chinook and sockeye salmon in August and September during construction
and for a ten-year period thereafter.
F
L
0
H
I
N
c
F s
NATURAL (AVERAGE) AND WITH -PROJECT FLOWS
550 l
500
~50
HO
350
300
250
200
150
I '::b
0 I
1 2
MONTH
I
8
I
9
DRAFT
1 I
10 11
~ AVE -WITH PROJECT ~ HIGH -WITH PROJECT~ LOW -WITH PROJECT --r-NATURAL
Figure 1. Proposed project flows in Grant Creek
I
12
..
Figure 2. KHI stream survey June 26, 1986
lf<A,oJ'Bf" \.oU\no•l FoiL ST.u'lt>-4 S<l"vE'f
Dcror7<"-H{. 1 'ti.
Figure 3. Transect locations for KHI stream survey, October 24, 1986
c-
]
PI:ICJ£C-EO P"fOJEC"'
OI~Ci"l .. RG£
n..-~ER.H .Jil[S',
J-~ i • ,
Gllt.a~; Cll:t:!>t
'T£.,.PE.ot.HU~ES
JUL Al:G
TlMf Of HAR
GAA"i C:Af.EK TEIIIPf:R.ATUA[
:.t.o,rG l,t!;, vSGS i':ll!!l, .lf.ICC ;!19~1
GRANT Cfi!!K ANO ?ROJECTE:>
PAOJECi DISCHARGii:
"!"E~PErU.TURE5
Figure 4. Anticipated post-project temperature regime in Grant Creek
1 0
0.8
? 0.8
~
!! o.• ~
02
0.0
0
10
0.8
-~ 0.6
~
] 0.4
0.2
0.0
0
Velocity
veloc,tv , ... ,
Depth
2
~o,.t-
J,ptt, Cl«+)
Velocity
0.0
0.5
0.8
3.8
4.8
Depth
0.0
0.5
2.0
4.0
Suitabilty
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
Suitability
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
Figure 5. Habitat Suitability Criteria for adult Chinook salmon
V~locliY ~ Fry: 35 to 50 mm (Buruer et al. 1983)
0·o.O 0.2 Oot OE 0.8 1.0 1.2
vtJocil:y (Ips)
Veloc~y ~ Fry: 51 lO 100 mm (Burger e1 al. 1983)
.. .. nL----=======-0.0 0.2 !,U 0 6 OJI 1.0 l.2 L4 1.8 1 8 2.0
nlO(nty {fpt}
Cepth • Fry: (Burger et at 1983)
L
..
··"'·'"··-4'--·.-2--.-.• ---.-.• ---•. -.-~,..
doolhUPl)
\lolodty
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.5
1.6
2.0
\lolo<}ty
0.0
0.5
0.75
2.0
D01>th
0.0
0.1
0.2
1.0
Suitablity
OS
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.0
Sui1abl1ily
1.0
1.0
0.1
M
Sullability
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
Figure 6. Habitat Suitability Criteria for juvenile Chinook salmon
Depth (Estes and Vincent • Lang 1984)
1.0
o a Depth Sultabilil)'
0,0 0.0
0,2 0,0
0.3 0.2
0.5 09
0.75 , 0
1 0 t 0
2
veloci:y {los)
Vo!ocity
1.0
0 .• O.pth Suila.bilil)'
0.0 1,0
{ e.s 1,0 1,0
2.0 o.s
l ''·' 3.0 01
4.5 00
0,2
oc
C.O 0.2 04 0.6 0,8 1.C
do.,t'l{ (, • .J)
Figure 7. Habitat Suitability Criteria for adult sockeye salmon
Ct-'INOOK SPAWNING W.U.A.
GAA'lT CREEK
13
12
11
10
~· J;:'l' !l
~~
<' :JO 7 ""' c
6
5
4
3
2
50 150 250 350 450
DISCHARGE ( CFS
Figure 8. Weighted Usable Area for spawning adult Chinook salmon
6
5.5
I
I
-4 jv 3.~
3
5
so 100
G~T CREEK
150 200 350 450
DISCHARGE (CFS)
Figure 9. Weighted Usable Area for juvenile rearing Chinook salmon 35-50 mm
W.U.A. 50-100 mm CHINOOK FRY REARII'.G
GRANT CRE!K
3.5 r JA
J.J
3.2
3.1 l 3 "1
2.9
2.8
27
f~ 2.6
~~ 2.5 ..
<" 2.4 u 2.3
2.2
2..1
:z
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
50 100 150 200 ~ 300 350 400 4.50
OISCHARG
Figure 10. Weighted Usable Area for juvenile rearing Chinook salmon 50-1 00 mm
SOCKEYE SPAWNING W.U.A.
GRANT CREEl<
"
7.5
7
6.5
~ 6
~· t-g
~~ 5.5 <~ ~_g c s
4.5
~
3.5
3
50 150 250 350 ~0
DISCHARGE (CF"S)
Figure 11. Weighted Usable Area for adult spawning sockeye salmon
Appendix B
Photos
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Photo 1. Reach !looking upstream on the right bank during June, 2009.
Photo 2. Grant Creek Reach 2 during June, 2009.
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Photo 3. Grant Creek Reach 3 during June, 2009.
Photo 4. Grant Creek Reach 4looking upstream during June 2009 .
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Photo 5. Grant Creek in Reach 5Iooking downstream from the right bank during May, 2009.
Photo 6. Reach 6Iooking upstream during June, 2009.
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Photo 7 . Measuring the discharge on Grant Creek in Reach 2 during June, 2009.
Photo 8. A gill netting set in the narrows of Grant Lake during Augu st 2009.
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Photo 9. A gill net set in the front basin of Grant Lake during June, 2009.
Photo 10. Falls Creek looking upstream from the mouth during July, 2009.
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009
Photo 11. Falls Creek below the canyon looking downstream during July, 2009.
Photo 12. Discharge measurement taken on Falls Creek during June, 2009.
Kenai Hydro, LLC.