HomeMy WebLinkAboutGrant Lake Falls Creek Aquatic Technical Work Group Meeting 2009Kenai Hydro, LLC
' Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
Aquatic Technical Work Group Meeting
USFS Work Center, Kenai, Alaska
September 22-23, 2009 9am -3pm
Kenai Hydro, LLC
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
Aquatics Technical Work Group Meeting
USFS Work Center, Kenai, Alaska
September 22-23, 2009 9 am-3 pm
In Attendance-Site Visit (September 22, 2009)
Jenna Borovansky, Long View Associates (LV A)
Jeff Anderson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Erin Cunningham, HDR
Gary Fandrei, Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association (CIAA)
Ricky Gease, Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA)
Jason Kent, HDR
Ginny Litchfield, Alaska Department ofFish and Game (ADF&G)
Lee McKinley, ADF&G
Paul McLamon, HDR
John Morsell, Northern Ecological Services (NES)
Ron Rainey, KRSA
Kim Sager, Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR)
Sue Walker, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Brad Zubeck, Kenai Hydro, LLC (KHL)
In Attendance-Technical Workgroup Meeting (September 23, 2009)
Jenna Borovansky, LV A
Jeff Anderson, USFWS
Erin Cunningham, HDR
Gary Fandrei, CIAA
Jim Ferguson, ADF&G
Ricky Gease, KRSA
Eric Johansen, U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
Jason Kent, HDR
Ginny Litchfield, ADF&G
Lee McKinley, ADF&G
Paul McLamon, HDR
John Morsell, NES
Gary Prokosch, ADNR
Kim Sager, ADNR
Mike Tracy, KHL
Sue Walker, NMFS
Brad Zubeck, KHL
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13212/13211)
Kenai Hydro, LLC Page 1
TWG Draft Meeting Summary (10/15/2009)
September 22-23,2009
Draft Meeting Summary
Agenda
• September 22, 2009: I 0 am - 3 pm, Site Visit to Grant Creek
• September 23, 2009 9 am-3 pm, Technical Workgroup (TWG) Meeting
Review of September 22, 2009 Grant Creek Field Visit
During the TWG meeting on September 23, Paul McLamon (HDR) summarized characteristics
of Grant Creek, and summarized highlights of the field visit to Grant Creek on September 22,
2009 (Attachment I). Brad Zubeck (KHL) noted that that there were several questions during
the field day about whether Falls Creek was included in the Project proposal; he confirmed that
Falls Creek is a part ofthe Project.
TWG Meeting Summary
Attachment 2 contains the PowerPoint presentation for the day. Brad Zubeck summarized
Project features as proposed in the PAD (Attachment 2, slides 4-6). He noted that while a table in
the PAD states that the maximum elevation of the Lake under the current operating proposal is
706 feet, that 709 feet is the correct number, reflecting the potential for the lake level to rise 9
feet.
Jason Kent (HDR) summarized hydrology and temperature data collected to date (Attachment 2,
slides 8-18).
• Comment: Susan Walker (NMFS) asked where the current year's (and available
historical flow data) fall relative to the entire historic flow record. She also stated that it
would be interesting to determine ifEl Nino or PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) events
occurred in the period of record.
Response: Jason Kent said that he felt the 2009 hydrology data indicate that this was not
the lowest flow on record, but that it is likely a low to average flow year. HDR will
review the record ofEl Nino and PDO event timing.
Jason Kent noted that on slide 14, there is an example of flows around 423 cfs, which HDR
noted was the upper limit of safety for hydrologic data collection.
Jason Kent discussed Grant Lake temperature data, highlighting that Grant Creek temperatures in
2009 closely matched the water temperature profile at 1.5 meters depth in Grant Lake. Jason
also noted Grant Creek appears to exhibit uniform temperatures longitudinally (upstream to
downstream), and differences between surface temperatures and pools measured was slight
(maximum difference of about o.tC.)
• Comment: Gary Fandrei (CIAA) asked whether the temperature data loggers would be
left overwinter.
Response: HDR stated that the surface-level thermistors would be removed prior to ice
up, but the thermistors in the deep pools would be left over the winter.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13212/13211)
Kenai Hydro, LLC Page 2
TWG Draft Meeting Summary (10115/2009)
September 22-23, 2009
Paul McLamon provided a summary of data collected in the Fish and Aquatic Habitat Studies
through August 31 (Attachment 2, slides 19-32).
Jason Mouw (ADF&G) noted that results of piezometer work done by ADF&G and HDR
indicate a simple system with little groundwater influence. Most sites showing neutral or slight
downwelling characteristics. Jason noted that the results were consistent with the shallow
bedrock characteristics obsetved in most areas, noting that where there was a shallow colluvium
layer over the bedrock, it seemed more likely to find the slight downwelling areas.
Paul McLamon reviewed spawning foot sutveys and minnow trapping data to date. He noted
that coho had not been seen spawning in the Creek to date, but that YOY coho were obsetved,
indicating that coho spawning is likely. Sutveys would continue into the falL
Erin Cunningham (HDR) reviewed fish use data from snorkeling sutveys (Attachment 2, slides
33-50, and Attachment 3).
• Comment: Jason Mouw noted that the shallow backwater areas seen in the field looked
to be important habitat, and inquired about sampling effort in these areas.
Response: Erin Cunningham noted that some of these shallow backwater pocket areas
were included in the snorkel sutveys. Minnow traps were also placed in these areas,
although capture results differed. Erin said the shallow backwater areas are difficult to
sample by snorkeling, but some snorkeling was completed, and that future sampling
would include these areas.
• Comment: Gary Fandrei noted that the timing of the 2009 studies missed sockeye
emergence, and that minnow trapping may not be effective for Chinook.
Response: Paul McLamon replied that work will begin in May 2010, utilizing
electrofishing and/or netting.
• Comment: Jeff Anderson (USFWS) stated that sizes offish obsetved indicate that there
may be overwintering Chinook (greater than 80 mm), and asked if scales had been
collected for aging.
Response: Paul McLamon stated that scales have not been collected to age fish, but
agreed that Chinook sizes indicate overwintering, or fish moving into the system. John
Morsell (NES) and Paul noted that data have not shown many juveniles moving into the
system yet, and that over-wintering is likely.
• Comment: Lee McKinley (ADF&G) asked if any marking was done during resident fish
studies.
Response: Paul McLarnon stated that no marking of juvenile fish was done, but that an
informal caudal fin mark was done upon the initial capture of larger fish, and in June
there were two or three recaptures during angling sutveys. Once new fish began moving
into the system later in the summer, no additional recaptures occurred.
Overall HDR found many more fish than historic studies. Paul McLarnon noted that the foot
sutveys were intense, and that he is confident in the "zeros" recorded at the end of the spawning
sutveys.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13212/13211)
Kenai Hydro, LLC Page 3
TWG Draft Meeting Summary (10/15/2009)
September 22-23, 2009
• Comment: Gary Fandrei stated that he could look into the timing of weir installation in
the 1980s, though he agreed that given the target species at the time was coho, it is likely
that the weir did not go in until later in the season.
• Comment: Ginny Litchfield (ADF&G) noted that many more fish than expected were
seen in Grant Creek, and that the south bank group did not observe any adult fish present
or passing into Reach5 during the site visit. She indicated that information on where in
the Creek fish use/distribution tapers off would be useful. Jim Ferguson (AD&G) agreed
that determining the location where fish use becomes less intensive will be important.
Response: He indicated that there appears to be a gradient of fish use in the creek, and
that use appears to drop off near the reach 4 and 5 break, but this information will need to
be confirmed in next year's studies. During field work, crews stopped at the reach break
between 4 and 5 for half an hour at the end of each survey, and did not observe any adult
fish passage this summer.
• Comment: Jim Ferguson asked where anadromy ends.
Response: Paul McLamon stated that the current assumption is that there is anadromous
use all the way to the currently mapped fish barrier location, but this is not confirmed by
data to date. HDR will get further into Reach 5 during next year's study to determine the
extent of anadromy.
• Comment: Gary Prokosch (ADNR) asked if any recreational fishing was observed during
the field season.
Response: Erin Cunningham noted that she did not see any recreational fishing when she
was snorkeling in June. Paul McLamon stated that other sampling crews saw less than
five recreational anglers this season, and that two were seen in the fall last year (2008).
• Comment: Jeff Anderson asked if any larger Chinook were observed in June snorkeling.
Response: Erin Cunningham stated she believed that nearly all of the Chinook were
young of the year; although some larger Chinook were observed(> 60 mrn). All
Chinook had visible parr marks, and the behavior observed did not indicate the fish were
on their way out
Instream Flow Study
Jason Kent reviewed information from the historic instream flow study developed for the
previous dam proposal (Attachment 2, slides 51-64; Attachment 4).
• Comment: Mike Tracy (Kenai Hydro) asked if there was a precipitation gauge near the
Project area that may also have historic information that could be reviewed relative to the
historic information.
Response: Eric Johansen (USFS) stated that the USFS keeps some precipitation
information for fire monitoring purposes at the Kenai Work Center, but is not sure of the
length of the record. The Seward airport may also have data.
• Comment: Jason Mouw agreed with the limitations identified in the existing study,
notably, he stated that the habitat curves used by Estes and Vincent-Lang did not seem
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13212/13211)
Kenai Hydro, LLC Page 4
TWG Draft Meeting Summary (10/15/2009)
September 22-23, 2009
applicable. He also noted that given the other limitations of the study (limited range of
flows examined, etc), that examining the historic data with updated habitat curves may
not be useful.
• Response: Jason Kent stated that the purpose of introducing this study was to provide
background information, but that a new instream flow study will be conducted by HDR.
John Morsell and Paul McLarnon noted that in the evaluation of effective spawning habitat, the
studies will take into consideration that effective spawning area is only as available as
incubation/survivability overwinter. John cited an example of the Bradley River, where
spawning habitat was considered in conjunction with incubation criteria developed by
participants. Paul noted that if winter flows are a limiting factor in the Grant Creek system,
increased winter flows may increase incubation success, and effective spawning area. This will
be examined in the studies.
• Comment: Jim Ferguson noted that past studies identified temperatures as a concern.
Response: Jason Kent noted that pool thermistors will be left in over the winter and
downloaded when access is available in the spring. Jason also stated that Grant Creek
temperatures track the temperature profile of the Grant Lake thermistor at 1.5 meters of
depth. Paul McLarnon stated that HDR will leave the thermistor string in the Lake
overwinter, but that there will be logistical challenges with maintaining it.
• Comment; Jeff Anderson noted that targeting water withdrawal from this area [the top
1.5 m] in the lake would be useful.
Comment: Susan Walker asked if water would be available from the top 1.5 m of Grant
Lake year round.
Response: Brad Zubeck stated that the engineers on the Project will need to review the
feasibility ofyear round surface withdrawal, if necessary. The current proposal allows
for a low level release to maintain canyon flow.
• Comment: Lee McKinley asked if gravel recruitment downstream could be impacted by
flow regulation at the dam.
Response: Jason Kent noted on the hydrograph that peak flows greater than 750 cfs
could be characterized as flushing flows, though it is unknown if reduced flows would
impact spawning gravel recruitment with current information.
• Comment: Susan Walker noted that the future precipitation predications may result in
more extreme events in the future, and that the Project design should take this into
consideration.
• Comment: Jim Ferguson asked if the proposed structure could accommodate spill at
higher flows.
Response: Brad Zubeck noted that the preferred operation would be to limit spill, but
that flushing flows could be considered based on study results and agency input. The
current operations proposal includes operation with up to 350 cfs, with I 00 cfs unit
running continuously.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13212113211)
Kenai Hydro, LLC Page 5
TWG Draft Meeting Summary (10/15/2009)
September 22-23, 2009
John Morsell introduced the instream flow methodology, which was designed to focus on areas
of known fish use. Jason Kent explained the elements of the instream flow approach (Attachment
2, slides 66-89). The approach discussed is summarized in Attachment 5.
• Comment: Gary Fandrei noted that temperature is a key habitat parameter for many life
stages, and that even I" C change could have a large influence.
Response: Jason Kent noted that hydrology studies will collect information to determine
the thermal regime in the Creek, and potential temperature changes can be assessed later
in the instream flow study after baseline data has been collected.
• Comment: Jeff Anderson noted that current proposed study locations do not account for
coho spawning, and requested that additional study sites be added if coho spawning is
observed.
Response: HDR agreed that if different areas were used for coho spawning, additional
study sites would be added.
• Comment: Jeff Anderson asked if changes in velocity (higher in winter) due to Project
operations would alter fish use.
Response: Jason Kent noted that the assumption of this method is that since habitat is
being used, current velocities are acceptable. Available habitat parameters may be
evaluated based on winter conditions and proposed operations, but velocities will not be
measured. However, the agencies should have enough information from studies to
evaluate effects.
• Comment: Ginny Litchfield also noted that if winter use is limiting, habitat areas
identified may not be the key winter habitats.
Response: Jason Kent noted that the instream flow model will be able to predict when
areas go dry. John Morsell added that winter habitat can be estimated using the proposed
method, and that additional transects could be added if studies show new use areas in the
winter. Paul McLarnon added that it may be difficult to get in and look at winter use
until after break-up, but noted that potential winter habitat areas could be identified now
(e.g., pools), and an effort could be made to look at these areas during the winter.
• Comment: Jeff Anderson noted that the operations proposal could provide more winter
habitat for fish.
• Comment: The group discussed whether it was possible to install thermistor strings in
Chinook redds over winter. Jason Mouw noted that the literature supports an average
depth of 40 em for Chinook. This would be too deep for sockeye, but would still provide
information on the source of water in the redd.
• Comment: The group noted that winter survey (in rearing areas) information, where
feasible, may be useful. It was also noted that winter observation of ice presence would
be useful.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13212/13211)
Kenai Hydro, LLC Page 6
TWG Draft Meeting Summary (10/15/2009)
September 22-23, 2009
• Comment: Jason Mouw noted he is in support of this instream flow study approach. He
stated that a tendency in instream flow studies is to ignore important shoreline and
pocket habitats, and this approach allows for considering those areas.
• Comment: Susan Walker noted that a sediment transport study would provide useful
information.
Response: Jason Kent stated that a limited sediment transport analysis will be included
as a part of the fluvial geomorphology component of the hydrology study.
• Comment: Jim Ferguson asked if overwinter temperatures change, availability of food
sources, etc should be considered.
Response: John Morsell noted that temperature data will provide necessary information
to evaluate operations proposals, as more information becomes available through the
studies to develop the proposal based on resource considerations.
• Comment: Lee McKinley asked ifthere were potential changes to wood recruitment.
Response: Paul McLamon noted that the habitat mapping methodology includes the
collection of information on wood distribution, and based on observation, wood sources
appear plentiful in Grant Creek.
Jason Kent walked through information on slide 75 describing habitats for instream flow
consideration, and gathered feedback on priorities.
• Comment: Susan Walker noted that the fundamental function of the stream should be
considered when designing studies and evaluation effects.
Response: John Morsell stated that salmonid spawning and incubation, and early life
stage refugia for Chinook are important considerations for Grant Creek.
• Comment: Gary Prokosch asked if parameters for winter habitat were considered a
primary function of the stream.
Response: Paul McLamon noted that there is limited winter use, with observations of
YOY only.
• Comment: Gary Prokosch stated that proposed operations could open up rearing habitat
in the winter. Jeff Anderson noted that overwintering habitat is generally the bottleneck
for Chinook, so Project could reduce this bottleneck.
Response: John Morsell noted that the wetted perimeter analysis in the side channel
habitat will be an essential index for evaluating this use. Overall, analysis will focus on
parameters that are most likely to be impacted by changes in flow.
• Comment: Jason Mouw stated that from preliminary data on downwelling, this may not
be a key limiting factor of use. He stated that intergravel flow depth may be limited in
areas.
• Comment: Susan Walker noted that in spawning areas, since current use is known, she
does not envision flow changes having a negative effect.
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13212/13211)
Kenai Hydro, LLC Page 7
TWG Draft Meeting Summary (10/15/2009)
September 22-23, 2009
• Comment: Jeff Anderson asked the range of flows that could be analyzed with this
approach.
• Response: Jason Kent noted that staff gages can be read from the bank at any high flow.
However, flows in the creek will likely not be measured at flows higher than 450 cfs, so
there likely will not be verification of the stage-discharge curve at these flows. On the
low end, flow measurements will be taken at low flows when ice impact is minimal. The
instream flow method allows extrapolation of 40-60% of the high/low ranges, so the total
flow range will depend on measured flows in the hydrology study.
Closing
The agency representatives were offered the opportunity to mark habitat study areas in the field
the following day, but no participants chose to attend. The proposed study areas and approach
presented in the meeting was generally supported, with feedback recorded in the notes. A full
study plan will be presented by HDR in November, and a technical memo outlining the instream
flow methodology is provided as Attachment 5.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3 pm.
Attachments
Attachments are available on the September 22-23, 2009 TWG meeting calendar page at
www. kenaihydro.com.
Attachment 1: September 22, 2009 Field Observation Summary and Reach Map
Attachment 2: September 23, 2009 PowerPoint Presentation
Attachment 3: Fish Use by Reach (2009) Figures
Attachment 4: Summary of 1986-1987 Instream Flow Study
Attachment 5: Instream Flow Methodology Technical Memo
Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13212/13211)
Kenai Hydro, LLC Page 8
TWG Draft Meeting Summary (10115/2009)
September 22-23, 2009
Kenai Hydro In stream Flow Technical Working Group Site Visit
Aquatic Habitat and Fish Use Observational Considerations
Tuesday September 22, 2009
Reach 1
• Primarily fastwater riffle habitat
• Large angular substrates
• Spawning at stream margins
• Sockeye spawning aggregate in middle reach area at head of dis-tributary
• Thermistor location on north bank at head of dis-tributary
• Includes dis-tributary
o Lower flow, juvenile rearing
Reach 2
• Contains old USGS gage station and new gage station
• Primarily fastwater riffle habitat -stream margin spawning
• One large scour pool a upper end of reach
• Isolated areas of undercut bank
• Remnant channel on south bank
o Large woody debris
o Overflow channel at head of remnant channel
Reach 3
• Island Complex with side channel on south bank
• Fast water riffle habitat
• Large backwater pool
• Large scour pool
• Side channel is bedrock controlled
• Stream margins with undercut bank
• Stream margin spawning
Reach 4
• Fast water riffle
o Stream margins with isolated areas of undercut bank
• Large scour pool at top of reach
• Overflow channel on north bank
• Small back water areas-juvenile rearing
Reach 5
• Dominate Habitat is cascade
• large bolder substrate
• Source of substrate input to stream-colluvium inputs to stream from canyon walls
• fish use of this reach has been largely undefined, will be focus of future study efforts
Kenai Hydro, LLC.
Grant Lake Project, lnstream Flow Technical Working Group Meeting
Kenai Lake Work Center, Moose Pass Alaska
September 22 and 23 2009
Licensing Update
• Filed our NOI & PAD on August 6th
• FERC issued approval of the TLP "with early
scoping"
• Next Steps
-Plan Joint Meeting Nov 10, 2009?
-Intend to have draft study plans for joint meeting
Gr""'
Llll<•
PROJECT ENGINEERING UPDATE
Project Features
Intake
• Power House
-Access Road
-Diversion
Exlsttng Mlntng Road
Penstock
Transmission Une
Tunnel
Land OWnership
State
ARRC
• Private
-Seward Highway
....... Alaska Railroad
F«t
1,000 l,OOO
.....,f'nutcl ... NAO &l .. ~ z-• f"' o.a _..., HOI! Aluta . ----Ilk .
._,......., ................. lt ... Plotoi•-
IDn>ug-. AA lllllliNS
Author. 11011 Al•ka. ...
111111 27 Joh 2009
Tf!ew tn&pl •• f01 f'lfti ... pUICJOMi. Ofttt.
kenai llutlro LLC Wl
Anchorage
Pro.~~~/re'
~
•-•r
PROJECT ENGINEERING UPDATE
SUMMARY OF PROJECT FEATURES
Generating Units
•2 Francis units (1.2MW 3.3 MW)
Maximum Rated Turbine Discharge
•Unit 1 -100 cfs
•Unit 2 -250 cfs
Normal Maximum Reservoir Elevation Range
•675-706 feet-48,000 acre feet storage
Gross Head
•191 feet
Grant Creek Diversion
•1 0 foot high concrete gravity
•120 foot crest width
I
•60 foot spillway crest length
PROJECT ENGINEERING UPDATE
Lower Pressure Pipeline
•200 If welded steel, 96 inch diameter
Pressure Tunnel
•2,800 If horseshoe tunnel, 10 foot diameter
Penstock
•650 If welded steel, 66 inch diameter
Falls Creek Diversion
•Concrete gravity 10 foot high
•50 If crest length
•800 foot crest elevation I
Falls Creek Pipeline
•13,000 If welded steel, 42 inch diameter
Powerhouse
•Approximate Dimensions 45 feet x 60 feet x 30 feet high
I
Transmission Line I
•4, 100 If overhead line, 115k V
Access Roads
•3.4 miles single lane gravel surface
AGENDA
• Preliminary results of 2008-2009
hydrology study
• Preliminary results of 2009 fish & aquatic
habitat studies
• Review of 1987 instream flow study
• Proposed instream flow study approach
• Not included today: macroinvertebrates,
water quality, Grant Lake fish capture
results, work completed after August 31 5 t.
HYDROLOGY UPDATE
Summary of 2009 data collection
Grant Creek:
•Pressure transducer (stage) loggers at GC200 (old USGS site)
•Thermistor (temperature) loggers at:
•GC100 {surface and bottom of pool)
•GC200 {run)
•GC250 (pool)
•GC300 {riffle)
•Instantaneous discharge measurements:
•Four measurements, one in 2009 {422 cfs on 6/22/2009)
Falls Creek:
•Pressure transducer {stage) logger at FClOO
•Thermistor (temperature) logger at FClOO (run)
•Instantaneous discharges (six measurements, two in 2009}
MAP OF GRANT
CREEK AND FALLS
CREEK SURFACE
WATER GAGES AND
THERMISTOR
LOCATIONS
+ Thermistor
e Gage
~ Grant Lake Outlet
..A. Feet
NORTH 0 1,000 2,000
HISTORICAL GRANT CREEK {GC200) HYDROGRAPH
{1947 -1958)
700
600
500
-~ 400
G)
~ I -Mean daily discharge (cfs) ..c: -~ 300
Q
200
100
2008 -2009 Instantaneous Discharge
Measurements (cfs)
0 ...._,_---,---,~-..----.---.,.--r-T""
, ......
')'b<:-" «.if ~"' ~'6 ~"' > ~ ~~ > ')~<:f. -\~ ')~...., f:b~ ~~
t-.:; e:,0q,
•
r -r-1
J:> ~ ..d" 00 ~0 Q'1:r
HISTORICAL GRANT CREEK (GC200) HYDROGRAPH
(1947 -1958)
2500
2000
1500
i • j
(,)
.! 1000 c
500
0
USGS 15246000 GRANT C NR MOOSE PASS AK
WATER YEARS 1948-1958
-~ -.
8121/1947 112/1949 5/17/1950 9129/1951 2/10/1953 6/25/1954 11n11955 3121/1957 8/311958
£
~
GC200 6/10/2009 -8/30/2009 WATER
SURFACE ELEVATIONS (WSE) AND 6/22/2009
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
6/22/2009
Q = 423 cfs
Stage= 0.62 ft
IQ
-Mean daily water surface elevation relative to USGS datum (feet)
e Instantaneous d ischarge measurment (cfs)
0.0 -t-------,-------r--~--..,---~-----,-----.--_j
~Oj ,-s ~ ,~~ ,~0; ... /~ ,.-'0
t-~~
r(, ,,
t-~
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
~
Gl
e!' e .c
.!!!
Q
en 0 0 N ' N N w z
:l .....
I
z
0 -t-u w _. _.
0 u
~ <C c
0
0
N u
"
18
16
14
12
~ 10
D.
J 8
6
4
2
0
10-Jun
GRANT LAKE TEMPERATURES
Daily Mean Temperature by Depth
25-Jun 10-Jul 25-Jul 9-Aug
Date
0.2m
-o.5m
-1.5m
3.0m
-6.0m
9.0m
12.0m
15.0m
18.0m
19.5m
16
15
14
13
12
~
Q. 11 !
10
9
8
7
6
10-Jun
GRANTLAKEVS.GRANTCREEK
TEMPERATURES
Daily Mean Temperature of Lake and Creek
25-Jun 10-Jul 25-Jul 9-Aug
Date
0.2m
-o.5m
-l.Sm
3.0m
Grant Creek
Falls Creek gage 7/24/2009
GC200 gage install, 6/09/2009
Grant Lake outlet 6/1 0/2009
Grant lake outlet aerial view 7/24/2009
GC200 weather station 8/12/2009
MODELED FALLS CREEK (FClOO) HYDROGRAPH
(BASED ON USGS GAGE DATA WITH 73.5% BASIN AREA REDUCTION)
200
180
160
140
120
100
-Modeled mean daily discharge (cfs)
80
60 -2008-2009 Instantaneous discharge
measurements (cfs)
40
20
0 --
~/' ":,'li ~n;,"
~'li
~" ~1} " ~~ ~1}
~f}:J~
~~
-\f}:J~
~q,,
•
~'1-~
":,-s
~'1-~ ~'1-~ ,..,rV
":,-s 't--s C::J0'<
i'\ ~ nfo ~'}; ~;c r:~" ov ~0 Q(//
RESULTS OF 2009 FISH AND AQUATIC HABITAT
STUDIES
Study Purpose-Characterize resident and rearing fish use of
aquatic habitats, fish spawning abundance and run timing in Grant
Creek.
Five Primary Studies
1. Juvenile fish study
2. Resident fish study
3. Salmon spawning foot surveys
4. Aquatic habitat survey
5. Fish use reconnaissance study
a) Grant Creek
b) Falls Creek
The following study results are as of August 31, 2009-studies are
ongoing at the time of this presentation.
~ z UJ -0
<(UJ
C!:u
CJz
U<(
-V)
....JV) :)_
<(<(
e!:Z oz >-o :I:u
....J UJ
<(C!: u -...... a: UJ >
JUVENILE AND RESIDENT FISH STUDY, SAMPLE SITE
AND STUDY REACH LOCATIONS
0 MinnOW Trap Site
e Mlmow Trap and Elbh Sile
• MolinO Site
Grilnk Creek Wetted Edge
IIJ
Juvenile Fish Study
Species Composition and Relative Abundance
Gear Type: Minnow Trapping
Sculpin spp.
Sockeye (n=17)
salmon (n=l) -----
juvenile Rainbow
Trout (n=48)
juvenile Dolly
Varden
(n= 831)
c 0 ~ E c ::s c 0 ;;; 0 Cll ..... VI E "C I-;;; ..... ~ ~ IV 0 VI > 0 0 0 .;?: ..0 c .&:. c :c 0 0 ·n; u u 0 a: • • 9 4:>eaM
S 4:>eaM
to 4:>eaM ~ V) "' ::s ...., QO ::s -E 4:>eaM <
~
V) ..c Z4Je<JM
QJ u a:: ta
Ql
> a:
> -c "'C
~ ::1
4J ...., "' V') "'C to 4:>eaM
>
...c c 3
ta .... E 4:>eaM
V) ~.z ·-LL. c Z4Je<JM
0
QJ ~ t 4:>e<JM
·-> c ..c 9 4:>eaM
QJ w
> :::) s 4:>eaM
~ Q.. u to 4:>eaM -, Cll c ::s
E 4:>eaM ....
Z4Je<JM
t 4:>eaM
00 ...... I.D VI oo::t m N ~ 0
ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci
(Jno~f~sy) :lndJ
CPUE By Reach-Data Pooled for All Months
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Re ach 1 Reach 2
CPU E by Reach
Gear Type Minnow Trap s
Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 5
Threespine St ickleback
Sculpin
Arctic Grayling
• Sockeye Salmon
• Rainbow Trout
Do lly Varden
• Coho Sa l mon
• Chinook Salmon
Reach 6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
~,.e
Juvenile Fish Study/ CPUE By Habitat Type-All Months
CPUE Reach 1
Riffle Backwater/Pool
CPUE Reach 3
~ ~t:P
'!..ec..
.:1-'tj
~ <IJ,.c
~ ~~ <S'6
,f-0.:1-
d
• Chinook Salmon 0.35
• Coho Salmon 0.3
Dolly Varden
0.25
• Rainbow Trout
• Sockeye Salmon 0 .2
Arctic Grayling 0.15
Sculpin 0.1
Threespine Stickleback 0.05
0
CPUE Reach 4
0.45
0 .4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0 .05
0
~~fl., iY ,q,o
q,C..\
~ *.:to ~'li(J
~ ~~ <S'6
~0.:1-
d''Q
CPUE Reach 2
Riffle Backwater/Pool
CPUE Reach 5
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Cascade
Juvenile Fish Study,
Species Length Frequency-August
140
Juvenile coho salmon 70 -120
60 Juvenile Chinook salmon
>100
I > so u
; 80 u c: 40 ::l I QJ
cr 60 ::l ~ cr 30
LL. 40 ~ u.
20 ]
20 ~1_1 , I I 10
0 ,•,-, 0 I •.., JJ
~~ ~~ 'hr:::, ti' ~r;:, ~r:::, "r:::, 'J:Jr:::, 9Jr:::, r:::,r:::, -$> ~ ,r;:, ~ ~r:::,
...; ...,-..: ,_...; _,....; ~....; <-,...; roO..: "....; q,O..: ~~ ~..., ,......, ...;"" -:.:...,. -:.:...,
0, -$> ...,..., \.'\. ~ ""
length (mm)
r:::, ~ ~ ~~ ~ .("1 ,.r;:, _('\ ~ ~ r:::, ~ ~ .. ~ .. ~ ,..?3 ,..?' .. ~ .. :o-... , .. :tr .. ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~,
.,. \." ,_.,. ,... ~.,. "" 'o" '\.,. 'b" ~ ~ ....; ....; 0, -$> ...,..., .y.
6
5
~ 4
c
~ 3 cr
QJ
ak 2
1
0
Rainbow trout
• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tJl Ar:::, ~ ~ ~ r:::, 0..:~ ~"-...;"' ':-: -:-.;<-> ':-:v -:-.;' 0..:'8 ':-:Oj ~ ~~
..., "' , ~ " 'o '\ 'b ~ ~ ~
length (mm)
100
90
80
70
> u 60 c:
QJ 50 ::l cr
QJ 40 .... u.
30
20
10
0
length (mm)
Juvenile Dolly Varden
~~~ti'~~~~~~-$>~~~~~~~~ -..:~vo/*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o, -$> ...,..., .y. ~ "" {' ...,ro ~ ~
length (mm)
> -c
:::J
+-' V)
.c
V) ·-u..
+-' c
Q)
-c ·-
Resident Fish Study,
Species Composition and Relative Abundance
Gear Type: Rod & Reel
Arctic
.t=. ....., c 0 ~ "'C c ro
.t=. s 4Jea~
u v 4Jea~ ro ....
VI
QJ f 4Jea~ ::1
bl) a:: ::1
<!
> Z4Jea~
co 1 4Jea~
' V') s 4Jea~ ....., ....
::1 -bOO
:J £ .!: .= v 4Jea~ c:"EO::: V') 0 c: 0
QJ ~<t.o f 4Jea~ ~
> ~ .!: ::1 a:: .0 !U ......
w ~0:::
UJ :J "'-VI l4Jea~
0.. !U -~ u (IJ u :::> (,!) (IJ
1 4Jea~ 0.
Vl
~ u s 4Jea~
> v 4Jea~
"'C (IJ
:::J E 4Jea~ c:::
::1
+..J ......
V) Z4Jea~
.t=. 1 4Jea~ V') ·-u.. 0 0 0 8 0 8 Ll'l 0 Ll'l Ll'l ....., N N .,..j .,..j ci ci
c (Jn04/4S!J) 3ndJ
QJ
"'C ·-V')
QJ a::
3.5
3
2.5
> u c: 2
Cl.l
:::J
C"
~ 1.5 u..
1
0.5
0
Resident Fish Study, Ra inbow Trout Length Frequency
Comparison Between June and August
a) June 8 b) August I
7
' 6
5
I > u c
Cl.l 4 ::l l 0"
Cl.l .... u..
3
2
I 1
I ,,
:
0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~"' ~'V ');~ ~'V ');, ~'>) ~'>; ~, ~"' ');~ Jt' ,..ro ~ -f' ,, ~ ,ro ,q, '»~ '»"' '»'>-,ro ,q, ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~# ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'); q, ~ .y. ~ ,..ro ~ ,~ ,, ~ ,ro ,q, '»~ '»"' ~ '»ro . '»q,
Length (mm )
Length (mm)
.. c
~
8
f
~
Cll
!
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Adult Salmon, Foot Survey Results as of August 31,
2009
Foot Survey Counts Foot Survey Counts
Chinook Sockeye
600
Esc. = 352 Chinook -Esc.= 1,747 Sockeye
Sl. = 14 days Sl. = 9 days
OE. = 20% 500 OE. = 30%
400
..,._Chinook .. c
~ I ..,._Sockeye 0 u
> ~ 300
~
Cll ..
0
0 1.1.. 200
100
.,. r-,.. .,. 0
~'\:\\)\ '\.o-f".\)~ ,_o-f".\)~ ~o-f".\)~ 9.se'9 ~'\:\\)\ '\.o-f".\)~ ,_o-f".\)~ ~o-f".\)~ 9-se'Q
Date Date
FISH HABITAT SELECTION/USE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
GRANT CREEK, 2009
Goal:
Gain insight into the types of aquatic habitats occupied by fish in
Grant Creek
Two Primary Components:
l. Juvenile rearing and resident fish
-Chinook, sockeye and coho salmon
-Rainbow trout, Dolly Varden char*
2. Spawning salmon
-Chinook, sockeye, and coho salmon
*Arctic grayling & whitefish have been observed in Grant Creek but were not considered "target" species for this study.
JUVENILE & RESIDENT FISH HABITAT USE
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Objective:
Identify the habitat characteristics/areas that are important for
rearing and resident fish, based on those habitats occupied by fish
within representative habitat units in Grant Creek.
Three Primary Tasks:
1. Establish sample sites "representative" of the aquatic habitat in
Grant Creek
2. Identify discrete "microhabitat sample areas" based on
microhabitat characteristics observed
3. Record fish presence within each "microhabitat sample area"
JUVENILE & RESIDENT FISH HABITAT USE
METHODS/RESULTS
Task 1: Established 16 sample sites in Grant Creek
11 sites in the primary channel
-fast-water: 5 riffles, 1 cascade
-pools: 1 backwater, 1 slough, 2 scour
-variable: 1 small overflow channel
IIEPWHYDAO
ENYIR<HIENTAL IIASEUIE ST\JOI£5 ___
............. _
1!1 -OOONIIf---~~
5 sites in secondary channels:
-2 in distributary channel (Reach 1)
- 2 in secondary channel (Reach 3)
- 1 in tertiary channel (Reach 2/3)
+·
JUVENILE & RESIDENT FISH HABITAT USE
RESULTS
Task 2: Identified "microhabitat sample areas" based on:
-location relative to main channel (margin, midchannel, backwater pocket, etc).
-depth/flow regimes (shallow-Fast, shallow-Slow, deep-Fast, deep-Slow)
-cover (in stream: UCB, overhanging veg., large substrate size; or velocity; or no cover)
Main
Channel
Poollfastwater
Riffle/fastwater
Margin with
undercut bank
Margin without
undercut bank
LWDdam
Deep and fast, typically midchannel
Fast, typically michannel and margins
Stream margin with undercut bank; typically
along fastwater in main channel
Stream margin with no undercut bank; typically
along fastwater in main channel
LWD creates velocity break (site in Reach 1)
Margin shelf with j Shallow, wide stream margin with some
LWD overhanging vegetation or other instream cover
Large backwater/low velocity areas, can be located
alone stream marain near velocitv break
Small backwater/low velocity areas, can be located
JUVENILE & RESIDENT FISH HABITAT USE
RESULTS
Task 3. Identified fish presence within "microhabitat sample areas"
-identified fish to species
-estimated fork lengths using 20 mm size bins
-recorded cover type and substrate size for each fish observation
-measured depth/velocity where fish were {and were not) observed
Methods:
Snorkeling = primary method ( 15 sites)
Electrofishing =primarily used to confirm species identification & length estimates (2 sites)
JUVENILE & RESIDENT FISH HABITAT USE
RESULTS -REACH 1
Reach 1: primarily fastwater riffle with few pools (meso-habitat level)
large WOOdy debris (LWD)
side chaooel: variable
Site 2MT -J July
3ss,
n=2 DV,
n=l
Site 2MT -J August
JUVENILE & RESIDENT FISH HABITAT USE
RESULTS-REACH 2
; . --·A .. ' -·
r -· -~. I..._.,.... J ~ .......
Reach 2: primarily fastwater riffle with few pools {meso-habitat level)
JUVENILE & RESIDENT FISH HABITAT USE: RESULTS-REACH 3
....,_ •4
... i _.
-· ~.· €-'
·.' ..-.. ..
• DV•Dolly Varden char
• RBT =rain bow trout
Reach 3: primarily fastwater riffle and pools (meso-habitat); *also has a secondary and tertiary channel*
JUVENILE & RESIDENT FISH HABITAT USE
RESULTS-REACH 4
Reach 4: primarily fastwater riffle with few pools (at the meso-habitat level)
JUVENILE & RESIDENT FISH HABITAT USE: RESULTS-REACH 5
Fish Use By Habitat: Grant Creek
Reach 5 sample sites (June 2009)
Reach 5: primarily fastwater cascade, deep pools also present, note extent of sample area
JUVENILE & RESIDENT FISH HABITAT USE
RESULTS-ALL SAMPLE SITES
rainbow trout, 83 _. _
"::il
Dolly V•rden
char,71
sculpin-
..... unspecified, 2
All juvenile salmon were
young of the year, except
Chinook salmon
Species Composition and Relative Abundance, J u ne 2009
Chinook salmon
(FL>60mm) likely
overwintered in
Grant Creek
Chinook salmon
ages , June 2009
"wintered"
~-;. ... : .. ~\~; ' ,1 ", ,.. ·, t
,;i. . '·, '•.1 f .. ·.· . 1.
~ . ' . J ,:. . ,; . . ~-"" ·-.' '' ... ;. ~~--·4_" ~ < .. -~·""1:.111
;r. ·.--<1 'I '.h
-~-... ~,....~·
ii: ..... :--------Ch inook sa l mon
(FL>60mm), 119
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
MICROHABITATS OCCUPIED BY JUVENILE FISH , MAIN CHANNEL, IN JUNE 2009
(PRELIMINARY RESULTS)
Chinook coho Dolly rainbow sockeye
salmon salmon Varden trout salmon
char
Juvenile Chinook salmon:
backwater areas, margin shelf associated with LWD, stream
margins with UCB
Juvenile coho salmon:
stream margins with UCB, backwater areas, margin sh
associated with LWD
margin, no UCB (8%)
Main_Riffle_fastwater (26%)
• Main_pool_fastwater (18%)
• Main_LWD_Dam
Juvenile sockeye salmon:
backwater areas, stream margins with
UCB, margin shelf associated with LWD
Juvenile Dolly Varden char (<200mm):
variable : observed in 5 of the 7 microhabitats
Juvenile Rainbow Trout (<200mm):
variable : observed in 4 of the 7 microhabitats
60
so
40
30
20
10
0
MICROHABITATS OCCUPIED BY JUVENILE FISH, SECONDARY CHANNEL, IN JUNE 2009
(PRELIMINARY RESULTS)
Secondary_ UCB
• Seco ndary_pool_fastwater
• Secondary_fastwater
Chinook salmon coho salmon Dolly Varden ch ar r ainbow t rout sockey e salmon
FISH OBSERVED IN DISTRIBUTARY CHANNEL, IN JUNE 2009
(PRELIMINARY RESULTS)
sockeye salmon,
rainbow trout, 3
Dolly Varden char,
39
coho salmon, 28
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
MICROHABITATS OCCUPIED BY RESIDENT FISH >200MM, MAIN CHANNEL, IN JUNE 2009
(PRELIMINARY RESULTS)
1 t tt . _']
.. ~-. ~.. ·jO
' "·'
~
Main_Riffle_fastwater (26%)
~·. .. .;
~ • ; ¢~
."J
• Main_pool_fastwater (18%)
• Main_ Backwater (9%)
111:1
Iii
'II
II
I
~
-~~--.,--I
~-t' " IIi.... • 'I 1!!111
~~-----
Arctic grayling Dolly Varden char rainbow trout
9.2
9
8.8
8.6
8.4
8.2
8
7.8
7.6
7.4
MICROHABITATS OCCUPIED BY RESIDENT FISH >200MM, SIDE CHANNELS, IN JUNE 2009
(PRELIMINARY RESULTS)
• Secondary_pool_fastwater
• Secondary_fastwater
rainbow trout
MICROHABITATS OCCUPIED BY REARING AND RESIDENT FISH
IN JUNE 2009, (PRELIMINARY RESULTS)
Sample Site "Sample Areas"
nno.,.l"l
Riffle/fastwater
Margin with
Main l ~ndercut bank
Channel --· ··· -
LWDdam
T pical Characteristics
Deep and fast , typically mid channel
Fast, typically michannel and margins
Stream margin with undercut bank; typ ically
along fastwater in main channel
Stream marg1n wtth no ''""~'~"''""'
along fastwater in main channel
LWD creates velocity break (site in Reach 1)
=
Margin shelf with I Shallow , wide stream marg in with some
LWD overhana ina veaetation or other instream cover
Large backwater/low velocity areas , can be located
stream mara in near ve locitv break
Small backwater/low velocity areas, can be located
stream mara in near ve locitv break
Variable microhabitat & depth/flow regimes , all
microhabitats
Typically includes marg ins with undercut bank ,
margins without undercut bank , and faster velocity
areas in the midchannel. (Rea ch
Variable microhabitats ~~"'~"h
Q) V) ::> ·-
L..
ro
Q)
0:::
Q) -·-c:
Q)
> ~ -,
..::t:.'
Q)
Q)
L.. u
+-' c:
ro
L..
(.!)
lhh t IIIII! + .....
SYNOPSIS OF 1986-1987 GRANT
CREEK INSTREAM FLOW STU DY
KENAI HYDRO, INC.
Grant Lake
Hydroelectric
Project
FERC No. 7633-002
Additional Information
Final Report
with
Agency License Terms and Conditions
for
Selected Alternative I
and
Power Contract Information
September 4, 1987
SUMMARY OF 1987 GRANT CREEK
INSTREAM FLOW STUDY
•Description of Proposed Project
• Kenai Hydro Inc. in the 1980's (no relation to current Kenai
Hydro, LLC)
• Proposed powerhouse at bottom of canyon reach
• Multi-level intake, load following
• Negotiated MIF and ramping rates with Agencies
• MIF ranging from 50 cfs Nov through April to 100 cfs June
through mid-October
•Ramping rates to minimize stranding of juveniles
•Multi-level intake structure and temperature monitoring to
mitigate for temperature impacts
PROPOSED HYDROLOGIC IMPACT
NATURAL (AVERAGE) AND WITH -PROJECT FLOWS
F
L
0
w
I
N
c
F s
550T----------------------------------------------------,
500
HO DRAFT
-400
350
300 ~ • ~
250
200
150
100
50 r I ~ ~
0~~~~~--r-~~~~--r-~~~~--~~~-T~--r-~~
1 2 3 .. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
MONTH
+-AVE-WITH PRMCT -a-HIGH-WITH POOJECT-*-LON-WITH Rn.ECT-+-NATlRAL
-n '
PROPOSED TEMPERATURE IMPACT
"j
J
!.. ... a:
~
!(
a:
lol
C1.
2 ~ w ...
-
PROJECTED P"O~£CT
DISCHARGE
TEMPER .l T UftES ~
•
•
•
GRA.NT CREEK
TEMPERATURES
• • •
•
0 DEC MAR MAY OCT NOV JUN JUL AUG SEP JAN FEB APR
LEGEND
• GRANT CREEK TEMP!RATURE
(ADFG ~tl, USGS 1981 1 AEIDC 1982)
TIWE OF YE.AA
GA.IHT LAlli!. tt'I1)RO!I.lC'T"IC ~.t:CT
GRANT CREEK AND PROJECTE~
P~OJECT DISCHARGE
TEMPERATURES
FIGU._C ~-cS.A
1987 GRANT CR. INSTREAM FLOW STUDY
• KHI conducted stream
habitat survey in June 1986
• Work Group of agency
staff (ADFG, USFWS, NMFS)
determined Stations 4-8
were "most critical reach
of the stream" due to
spawning activity
1',.." llllaof ..... ~~.... 11 D!Wf•""
.,. .. • .., c,,
~ .. """'~ T*' W# ....... ~ ··#··-----
,..,. ~, ....... , J:,.,1 (.-.·~ (&~.(:..,. ....... '1t---·-~~~~· MtNf.lr,._,
.... lL.... --·-•·
..-v .,...,. ~-' -• ·-•• ,.,. """*'""" -
~~\ . __ ,.. fHt' ,..,.... f ..
..... ---~ ~ #II ....... l~t !\!..~, ~~l:;; ~-..... -...._... .. _, ~-~ \. 41-r_.., ~ II·'"
._,..,.,.., 11. .ar.t {PI it -tt• ,...
'· --· .. ,..,.,. ........
<t~•MI ¢ • U• I t'-f
-~ ...... '""' .
.. ~ •-:u·.r..~
0 __.;
tti~&. h1c:i'
\ \ ,.I ~ .r 'lt .... ....,. ..... ,. t_,.
I I r .. : , ........ ., .. ~t_. ,_~~we
..... iJ. I'Wio ··
rr-----v
1/r-------•.
l-----
mn~u~
1987 GRANT CR. INSTREAM FLOW STUDY
• October 1986, three cross
sections measured using
PHABSIM-type
methodology.
• Targeted spawning
habitat
• Measured flow 1'\J 250 cfs
• Used WSP/HABTAT
models-components of
modern PHABSIM
•Simulated 50-450 cfs
F1 I:TJRS "Z, . 1'):lj\A/~ \.«.A'tlo,) Fot.. 'STII!oSit,_. ~
Dcro~IL Yf, t 'f t(,.
-rt,a=
,~k
)(,,
---··-~~-_.._~ ;~ t.~ t T I
. --r,-.'
1"1& . ,.
' ~ :
! ~ •
I ,;, I
ST~n,.IJ !AI
TJ
. ""'="~ {?.. ___-:-·
w~~-~ ...,.,,."" ------.,,"'<' 6 , r;~ r}o~
I : I
~ .. ~ -tl!' ..
..1 .I .:: D li: ~ 0 • 0 ~ !?f; 0 t I: II: I. I. L
~' f ~~ 't ., ~~ 'f o• , I ~ I 0: I fil! ~~ ~~ .. I • • =~ I I I • • • • • • 0 0 0 ~ I: c 0 u I 0 :
I
I
v • • • 0
! I II ii ! I I l ' ! ! ii 8 I I .. l I I ii : • • ~ • • • ~ ... ... .. ... ... . . ..
w-Cloi~Mn ~--
1987 GRANT CR. INSTREAM FLOW STUDY
,....,....
t:~ '-'o •• 4ig
::J.c .... :: .....
W.U.A. CHINOO K SPAWNI N G
GRANT CREEK :: r----·----
32
30 l
-----------·--··----··--------------.
--------~,
""'-.....
I
~ ~ /
/ 24 i ' " .
( 22 ~ .
I ' I 20 -I
,8 -1 I i I I
I 1 6 -I I
1 4 l
12 ..J I
10 -11
8 ~------~------~----~------~-------r-----__,
so 100 150 200 250 300 ~50 400 450
DISCHARGE (CFS)
FIGURE 6. WEIGHTED USABLE AREA (WOA) FOR SPAWNING CHINOOK SALMON IN GRANT CREEK
1987 GRANT CR. INSTREAM FLOW STUDY
8
7.!5
7
6.:5
-s -· t:~
5.5 -a
~~ ~t. 5
-4.!5
....
3.5
3
!50 150
SOCKEYE SPAWNING W.U.A.
GRANT CREEK
250
DISCHARGE (CFS)
.350 -450
1987 GRANT CR. INSTREAM FLOW STUDY
W.U.A. 35-50 mm CH INOOK FRY REARING
GRANT CREEK
6
5.5
5
--t: ~ 4.5
_c
0
~~
:Jo ~t 4
3.5
3
2.5
50 100 1SO 200 250 300 350 400 450
DISCHARGE (CFS)
1987 GRANT CR. INSTREAM FLOW STUDY
--• • t:"tl -5 •• ~:l
:Jo .J: ~t
12
11
10 i
~ ~
8 ~ I
7 ~/
v
6 ..l
I
I
5
50 100
W.U.A. 50-1 00 mm CHINOOK FRY REARING
150
\
\
200
GRANT CREEK
'\ \"' ~
250
'•,
DISCHARGE (C~
.,
'---
.:500 .:550 400 450
1987 GRANT CR. INSTREAM FLOW STUDY
• Conclusions
• Chinook spawning-peaks at 350 cfs; 70% at 150 cfs
• Sockeye spawning-peaks 50-175 cfs
• <50 mm fry-peaks at 150 cfs; sharp drop <100 cfs
• 50-100 mm fry-peak 100-350 cfs; sharp drop <100 cfs
• Study targeted spawning habitat only
• Included low-level stranding analysis
LIMITATIONS OF 1987 GRANT CR.
INSTREAM FLOW STUDY
• 3 cross sections measured at key spawning habitat-does
not directly address utilized rearing habitat units
• Flow rate dropped 21% during measurements or error in
collection of velocities
• One flow rate measured at 250 cfs-too high for applying
to low flow conditions
• Study cannot be extrapolated upward because bank
geometry was not surveyed
LIMITATIONS OF 1987 GRANT CR.
INSTREAM FLOW STUDY
• Habitat Suitability Criteria
• Derived primarily from Burger et al. {1983}1 and Estes
and Vincent-Lang (1984)2 on Kenai River system/ with
modifications based on other regional habitat suitability
studies
• Spawning depth 1ft vs. 2ft
• Stratification for spawning substrate size
• Chinook fry surrogate for all salmonid species (RBT, DV1
sockeye)
1 -Burger, C.U., D.B. Wangaard, R.L. Wilmot, and A.N. Palmisano. 1983. Salmon
investigations in the Kenai River, Alaska, 1979-1981. USFWS, Nat. Fish. Res. Center, Seattle,
Alaska Field Station. Anchorage, AK. 178 pp.
2 -Estes, C. and D.S. Vincent-Lang, eds. 1984. Report No.3. Aquatic Habitat and instream
flow investigations (May-October 1983). Chapters 7 and 9. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies,
Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game. Report to the Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage, AK.
RELEVANCY OF 1987 GRANT CR.
INSTREAM FLOW STUDY
• Provides generic look at habitat availability as a function of
flow
•Provides a check on our assumptions for spawning habitat
use and preference
•Chinook and sockeye run timing align with peaks of spawning
WUA curves
:I: u <( 0 a:: a.. a..
<(
~
0 .....J
LL
~
<(
w a::
~
V') z
0 w
V')
0 a..
0 a::
0...
a:
0
LL
w
.....J
<( z
0 -~ a::
FACTORS INFLUENCING METHOD CHOICE
Cl Short Length of Stream and Useable Fish Habitat
No need for sub-sampling or extrapolation
Specific fish use areas can be feasibly identified
Allows direct sampling of known fish use areas
Cl Desire expressed by TWG to focus on fish use limiting factors that are
specific to Grant Creek and relate flow alterations to the availability of
those factors
Cl General criticism of traditional methods
Studies of IFIM/PHABSIM show that results are only weakly related to fish
use or biological productivity-labor intensive and expensive
Expert habitat mapping and habitat criteria mapping subjective and poorly
reproducible-cannot predict habitat changes for the full range of flows
FACTORS INFLUENCING METHOD CHOICE {CONT.)
Cl Difficult working conditions in Grant Creek
• Steep terrain prevents sub-sampling of all habitat types
• Not wadeable for much of the year
Habitat mapping techniques work best if stream can be waded over a range of
flows
IFIM depends on repeated measurements at wide range of flows-difficult to
accomplish
• Water turbid much of the year
Habitat mapping techniques are most applicable to clear streams
Cl Most fish use areas in Grant Creek are well defined and limited in
surface area
·-c:
~ ro a.
Vl
""0 c: ro
tl.O c: ·-1.-ro
QJ a::
QJ ·-c:
Q)
> :::J ....,
..:::t:."
QJ
QJ
1.-u
+-' c: ro
I.-
(!)
(
OVERVIEW OF SELECTED APPROACH
0 Emphasizes the identification of specific factors driving fish use within
known use areas in Grant Creek
0 Looks at the potential changes that might occur to fish use factors at
each use area under various flow regimes
0 In most cases changes are modeled using a single transect to define
stream geometry, combined with flow measurements collected as part of
the hydrology program
0 Additional transects or other specialized measurements may be
employed depending on the requirements of the sample site
METHOD COMPONENTS
0 Study fish use of Grant Creek-identify use areas and probable
site-specific limiting factors affecting that use
0 Select key habitat types/fish use categories for consideration
0 Select key criteria to be analyzed for each fish use area
0 Select range of suitability for each criteria
0 Select field sites suitable for analysis for each of the key fish use
categories
METHOD COMPONENTS {CONT.)
0 Select transect locations within field site
0 Collect field data
0 Integrate with measured stream flows
0 Model changes to key criteria for a range of altered flows
s 9 u..
~
<{ wz
a:: a ~-~~
-0::
a::UJ oo u..-Vl
VlZ
·~ 0 ru -co
<{ ::c
> UJ
~
KEY HABITATS FOR INSTREAM FLOW
CONSIDERATION
Assumptions
0 Individual fish tend to select the most favorable microhabitat conditions
from the total range of habitat present
0 Fish will use less favorable habitat conditions to a lesser frequency and
will eventually leave the area before habitat conditions become lethal
0 Individual fish will use more favorable habitats at a greater frequency
and are more likely to be observed with ~hose favorable habitats
HABITATS FOR INSTREAM FLOW CONSIDERATION
Species & life Stage Periodicity Key Habitat Parameters
Rainbow Trout Spawning May to early June Pending additional field study results
Chinook Spawning Early August to Early September Depth, Velocity, Substrate Size,
! Vertical Hydraulic Gradient
Sockeye/Coho Salmon Mid August through October Depth, Velocity, Substrate Size,
1
Spawning Vertical Hydraulic Gradient
Adult Resident Feeding May through November Pool tail-outs, Riffles
Incubation (salmon) August through May of following year Lateral Connectivity, Depth, Substrate J
Size, Vertical Hydraulic Gradient
Incubation (RBT) May through July Lateral Connectivity, Depth, Substrate
Size, Vertical Hydraulic Gradient
Juvenile rearing -Side May through November Lateral Connectivity, Depth, Velocity,
Channel Cover
Juvenile rearing -Backwater May through November Lateral Connectivity, Depth, Velocity,
Pools Cover
Juvenile rearing -Main January through December-likely very low in Access to undercut bank, instream
Channel winter months because of reduced flow cover/velocity refugia
-----·--------
z 0 -!((
a::V') wz
9o V') -z!((
Ou uo s_.
oz -10 u.-~tJ <(UJ UJV')
a::Vl r-Vl VlO z a:: ........ -"'""""" -u a::_.
Q<(
U--
V')l-~a:i t:::b
~Q.
J:
> w
~
\.0
0 z
<(
U1
V")
w :::c u
<(
UJ a:
: ,; I l ' II ·1lu1+ . lu t •••
:I: u <( 0 a:
0..
0..
<(
~ I 0
....J I
LL.
~
<(
UJ a:
1--
Vl z -
LL.
0
Vl
....J -~
UJ c
DETAILS OF I NSTREAM FLOW APPROACH
• 4-element approach
•Lateral habitat connectivity
•Selection of key microhabitats
•Spawning bed thermistor strings
•Lake & stream temperature monitoring
DETAILS OF INSTREAM FLOW APPROACH
Element 1-Lateral Habitat Connectivity
• Similar to Wetted Perimeter
Method
• Targets utilized habitat with known
use
• One survey, multiple water surface
elevation observations
::c u <( 0 a: ~ c.. ro c.. c
<( E
~ Q) ..... c.. -0 V)
...J c
u. .o
+-' ro
~ u
0
<( c
UJ 0 ·-a: +-' u r-Q)
V)
Vl V)
z V)
0 ..... u
u. "'C
0 Q)
V)
0
Vl c..
...J 0 ..... -c..
~
UJ
0
DETAILS OF INSTREAM FLOW APPROACH
Element 2-Selection of key microhabitats
•To determine which microhabitat factors are selected by fish in Grant
Creek
•Preference curves not required in this approach
•Observations at locations in Element 1
DETAILS OF INSTREAM FLOW APPROACH
Element 3-Spawning bed thermistor strings
•3 thermistors per string, spaced 20 em apart
•3 strings at known redds (utilized habitat)
•3 strings at suitable habitat without known spawning activity
(unutilized habitat)
•Measures temperature "tracer" as surrogate for upwelling or
downwelling
-----·-~---.... --.. ~--· 7 -7 ' ~-------~-·· -· .,.,/·)
-' -' . _ .. _ . ' ·. -~~ "' . . ~· .. -~ .. ' -.•
J~M
l
DETAILS OF INSTREAM FLOW APPROACH
Element 4-Stream flow & temperature monitoring
•Continues 2009 program
•Continuous flow monitoring at USGS gage site
•Temperature monitoring at multiple locations in Grant Creek
EXAMPLE OF INSTREAM FLOW ANALYSIS
Example Creek Cross Section
6
5
-4 £ t 3 • 0 2
1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
I Cross-Section Length (ft)
Example Creek Wetted Perimeter
7
6 J • •• • , • 5 ... ~4 -t• .... • ~3
E
-.:::2 i+ • ~1 • ..
~0
~ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Q (cfs)
EXAMPLE OF INSTREAM FLOW APPROACH
-as246000 GRANT C NR MOOSE PASS AK
WATER YEAR 1954
ill -----
BOO +-----------------------------------------------------------------------~
700+i~--------------------------------------------------------------------~
-~~~----------------------------------------------------~--------~ !
Q
ol I~ I 1_/ I I 1
10/1/1953 11/2011953 11911954 212811954 411911954 61811954 7/2811954 9116/1954
DETAILS OF INSTREAM FLOW APPROACH
Analysis & Synthesis
•Represents an in-depth analysis of utilized habitat areas
•Lateral connectivity study allows estimation of flows at which the
habitat unit is no longer available; flexible (i.e. depth)
•Habitat data and fish use data are spatially and temporally
connected to flow and temperature measurements
•Conclusions compared to historic hydrograph
•lntragravel temperature study goes beyond typical PHABSIM-type
analysis of spawning microhabitat parameters
Vl
~
UJ ._...
z
0 -._...
u
<(
0 z
<(
z
0
Vl
Vl
:::::> u
Vl -0
Fish
Species
Color
Key
ialmon
• DV=Dolly Varden char
• RBT zrainbow trout
• ss .. sockeye salmon
• AG:Arctlc grayling
nwrgln •-w/ln-m
...... -ody debrto (LWD)
old• channel: variable
Fish Use By Habitat: Grant Creek
Reach 2 sample sites (June 2009)
• DV=Dolly Varden char
• RBT o:rainbow trout
• SSasockeye salmon
AG=Arctic grayling
Fish Use By Habitat: Grant Creek
Reach 3 sample sites (June 2009)
rw ;ww a A*EZ &
---
• RBT =rainbow trout
• SS=sockeye salmon
• AG=Arctic grayling w+• .
• DV•Dolly Varden char
Fish • RBT =rainbow trout
Species • SS·sockeye salmon
Color
Key AG•Arctic grayling
L ~R I ONE COMPANY
c:I....L Many Solutions'" Memo
To Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric TWG
From: Jason Kent Project Grant Lake/Falls Creek
r---~~ -~-----~~ --~ --~---~----·-Hydroelectric
Copy: Brad Zubeck, Kenai Hydro LLC
Date: September 9, 2009 Job No: 91437
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.
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
HDR Engineering, Inc.
E:\Kenai Hydro\TWG Meetings\Sepl09 Field
Visit\KenaiHydrotnc_Negotiated_MIF _and_RampingRates_1987_.TWG.doc 1
1001 SW 5• Avenue
Suite 1800
Portland, OR 97204-1134 I
Phone (503) 423-3700
Fax (503) 423-3737
www.hdrinc.com
I Page1of13
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 100 cfs
• 10 cfs/hr at flows below 100 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 thernial 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_lnc_ Grant_Lake_Hydro _Project_Addtl_lnfo_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
HDR Engineering, Inc
E:\Kenai Hydro\TWG Meetings\Sept09 Field
Visit\KenaiHydrolnc_Negotiated_MIF _and_RampingRates_1987 _ TWG.doc 1
1001 SW s~ Avenue
Suije 1800
Portland, OR 97204-1134 I
Phone (503) 423-3700
Fax (503) 423-3737
www .hdrinc.com
I Page2of13
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
• Age 1+ observed year round (APA 1984), but low numbers observed during
March, May & June suggest they are either inactive or migrated elsewhere.
HDR Engineering. Inc.
• 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.
E:\Kenai Hydro\TWG Mee!ings\Sep109 Field
Visi~KenaiHydrolnc_Negotia!ed _MIF _and_RampingRates_1987 _TWG.doc 1
1001 SW 5~ Avenue
Suite 1800
Portland, OR 97204-1134 I
Phone (503) 423-3700
Fax (503) 42~3737
W\¥N.hdrinc.com
I Page 3of 13
• Sockeye
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 10-16 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."
HDR Engineering, Inc.
E:\Kenai Hydro\TWG Meetings\Sept09 Field
Visit\KenaiHydrolnc __ Negctiated_MIF _and __ RampingRates_1987 _ TWG.doc 1
1001 SW 5" Avenue
Suite 1800
Portland, OR 97204-1134 I Phone (503) 423-3700
Fax (503) 423-3737
IWIW.hdrinc.com
I Page4of13
T bl 1 L'f h' h d a e 1 e tstory pi ases o chinook an sockeye sa mon in G C rant reek.
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 100 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 cfs. 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 cfs, and for chinook 50-100mm fry the peak habitat is
somewhat steady between 100 and 350 cfs. For both sizes of chinook juveniles, habitat drops
sharply at flows less than 100 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. Kenai_Hydro_lnc_Grant_Lake_Hydro_Project_FERC_No_7633-
002_1nstream_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.
HDR Engineering, Inc.
E:\Kenai Hydro\TWG Meetings\Sept09 Field
VisitiKenaiHydrolnc_Negotialed_MIF _and_RampingRates_1987 _ TWG.doc 1
1001 SW 5• Avenue
Suite 1800
Po~land, OR 97204-1134 I Phone (503) 423-3700
Fax (503) 423-3737
ww.v.hdrinccom
I Page5ol13
• 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.
Kenai_ Hydro _Inc_ Grant_ lake _Hydro _Project_Addtl_lnfo _Finai_Report_ with_Agenc
y_ 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 in stream 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 d NMFS an sugg t d th following MIF regime: es e e
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
ddth ~II. . t recommen e e o ow1ng ramp1ng ra es:
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 100 cfs
Temperature
KHI anticipated that the project would impart a temperature effect on Grant Creek. The maximum
expected change would be -1 oc in the summer and +2°C 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."
HDR Engineering, Inc.
E:\Kenai Hydro\TWG Meetings\Sepl09 Field
Visit\KenaiHydrolnc_Negotiated_MIF ... and_RampingRates_1987 _ TWG.doc 1
1001 SW 5"' Avenue
Suije 1800
Portland, OR 97204-1134 I
Phone (503) 423-3700
Fax (503) 423-3737
www .hdrinc.com
I Page6of13
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.
HDR Engineenng, Inc.
E\Kenai Hydro\TWG Meetings\Sept09 Field
Visit\KenaiHydrolnc_Negotiated_MIF _and_RampingRates_1987 _ TWG.doc 1
1001 SW 5• Avenue
Suite 1800
Portland OR 97204-1134 I
Phone (503) 423-3700
Fax (503) 423-3737
www.hdrtnc.com
I Page 7 of 13
NATURAL (AVERAGE) AND WITH PROJECT FLOWS
551
5U
.CSD DRAFT
~DG
F 350
L liO 0
" 250
I 200 N
c 150
F tOO s
5D
0 ' 1 3 5 6 7 • 9 10 11
MOOH
-+-AVE -WITH PID.ICT -11--HIGI -WI1H ~CT--*-LON -WITH lm.ECT -+-NATUW...
Figure 1. Proposed project flows in Grant Creek
.....
Figure 2. KHI stream survey June 26, 1986
HOR Engineering, Inc.
E:\Kenai Hydro\TWG Meetings\Sept09 Field
Visit\KenaiHydrolnc_Negotiated_MIF _and_RampingRates_1987 _ TWG doc
1001 SW 5~ Avenue
Suite 1800
Portland, OR 97204-1134
Phone (503) 423-3700
Fax (503) 423-3737
www.hdrinc.com
I Page Sol 13
HDR Engineering, Inc.
11l.t>11~ L<><-t\~<o•} Fo<'-ST~<£1H< ~
t.>cro~"-24. t1tl..
Figure 3. Transect locations for KHI stream survey, October 24, 1986
"j
J
,.
'-"*'"'T !:!11:££1t TIIIIP1!J\.f.TI)JIItl
(AO"' 1'!tn, v!IG' l')t!, .u.roc. rttll
~-
ocr 1
I NOV
GR.\MT C~U:X A.HD PROJeCTEJ !
PAOJ£CT OtSCHAAOE
!E~P!iUTURES
-' --"" ....... t.~a..-.~-·
Figure 4. Anticipated post-project temperature regime in Grant Creek
E:IKenai Hydro\TWG Meetings\Sept09 Field
Visit\KenaiHydrolnc_Negotiated_MIF _and_RampingRates_1987 _ TWG.doc
1001 SW 5" Avenue
Suite 1800
Portland, OR 97204-1134
Phone (503) 423-3700
Fax (503) 423-3737
www.hdrinc.com
I Page9o!13
Velocity
1.0
... y~ ~ly
0.0 0.0
~ ... O.li 0.0
;;
.!1 0.4
=
0.1 1,0
u 1.0
4.1i 0.0 ...
0.0 • • wloclty ('pi,)
Depth
\.0
... Do!>lh Sui-J
0.0 0.0 r··
'! 0.4
0.5 0.0
2.0 1.0
.... 1.0
0.2
0.
Figure 5. Habitat Suitability Criteria for adult chinook salmon
V•locJiy • Fry: 35 to SO nun (Burotr et IlL 1113)
0. ·~ t:
0·o.o 0.2 0.& 0.11 0.1 1.0 1.2 1.. 1.1 1.1 2.0
nlodlyi'PO)
Vobc:~ . fry: 51 ID 100 mrn (Burger •t al. 1983)
l.ot---""'1
0.1
z: I o.
~ D
f
i
O.l
•. Jo_Lo-•. -.-o-.• -o.-.~.= .• =1.:0:1: .. =~.=.=1:; .• =1 .... -•. o
welocHr (if»)
O.plh. Fry: ca.rgor ot ot 1tl3)
1.1
I 0.1
0.1 •..
u
0.
0.0 0.2 •.. 0.6 0.1 1.0
-(\HI)
v-0.0
02
0.3
0.5
1.6
2.0
Voloc:ly
0.0
O.li
0.75
2.0
Sui!-O.li
1,0
1.0
O.li
0.1
0.0
Suabltilr
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.0
Depth Sull-0.0 o.o
0.1 0.0
0.2 1.0
1.0 1.0
Figure 6. Habitat Suitability Criteria for juvenile chinook salmon
HDR Engineering, Inc.
E:\Kenai Hydro\TWG Meetings\Sept09 Field
Visit\KenaiHydrolnc_Negotiated_MIF _and_RampingRates_1987 _ TWG.doc
1 001 SW 5• Avenue
Suite 1800
Portland, OR 97204-1134
Phone (503) 423-3700
Fax (503) 423-3737
www.hdrinc.com
I Page 10of13
1.0
0.8
•• •.. ...
co ••
Ooptr. (E•~<>• and Vinc~nt -Lang 1984j
0.2
2 •
••locCy (It>&)
Velocity
0.4 0.~
"'""'( (u<l
0.8 1.0
Dopth S\lllab~ljl
0.0 0.0
0.2 0.0
0.3 0.2
0.5 0.9
0.75 1.0
1.0 10
O.pih Suitabl·by
0.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
2.0 Q,5
3.0 0.1
H 0.0
Figure 7. Habitat Suitability Criteria for adult sockeye salmon
CHINOOK SPAWNING W.U.A.
12
11
10
!50 350 450
OISCHARCE (CfS
Figure 8. Weighted Usable Area for spawning adult chinook salmon
HDR Engineering, Inc.
E:\Kenai Hydro\TWG Meetings\Sepl09 Field
Visft\KenaiHydrolnc_Negoftated_MIF _and_RampingRates_1987 _TWG.doc
1001 SW 5~ Avenue
Suite 1800
Portland, OR 97204-1134
Phone (503) 423-3700
Fax (503) 423-3737
www .hdrinc com
I Page 11 ot13
GRANT CREEK a
5ll
~
fi 4.5
~~
<(! ;:,0 lit 4
3.~
3
2ll
50 100 150 200 250 JOO 350 400 450
oo;cHARCE (CFS)
Figure 9. Weighted Usable Area for juvenile rearing chinook salmon 35-50 mm
W.U.A. 50-100 mm CHINOOK FRY REARING
3.5
J.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
2.9
2.8
2.7 fi 2.6
~:; 2.5
.. ~ 2.4 ~l 2.3
2.2
2.1
2
1.9
1.1
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
50 100 150 350
Figure 10. Weighted Usable Area for juvenile rearing chinook salmon 50-100 mm
HDR Engineering, Inc.
E:\Kenai Hydro\TWG Meetings\Sept09 Field
Visit\KenaiHydrolnc_Negotiate<CMIF _and_RampingRates_1967 _ TWG.doc
1001 SW 5m Avenue
Suite 1800
Portland, OR 972()4.1134 I Phone (503) 423·3700
Fax (503) 423-3737
wwwMrinc.ccm
I Page12of13
SOCKEYE SPAWNrNG W.U.A.
CRAW CFtEEK
II ...---------
I I
7.:S ~
1 -i I
6.5 I
~ 6 I f~ I
-~ 5.5 I il I
I t 5 I
4.5 L~~~--~-I .. I
3.5 d 3 .--I
50 150 2!lO 350 450
:JISCHARG£ (CFS)
Figure 11. Weighted Usable Area for adult spawning sockeye salmon
HDR Engineering. Inc.
E:\Kenai HydroiTWG Mee!ings\Sept09 Field
Visi!\KenaiHydrolnc_Negotiated_MIF _and_RampingRates_19S7 _ TWG.doc
1001 SW s• Avenue
Suite 1800
Portland. OR 97204-1134 I
Phone (503) 423-3700
Fax (503) 423-3737
www.hdrinc.com
I Page13of13
Technical Memorandum
I Project Name: Grant Creek Hydroelectric Project
Task: Grant Creek, Aquatic Biology and lnstream Flow
Tech Memo Title: Study Approach for 2010 lnstream Flow Study
To: Grant lake/Falls Creek Project lnstream Flow Technical Work Group
From: HDR Alaska, Inc.
Primary Author: Jason Kent (HDR)
Date: October 9, 2009
Introduction
"'[_.....,.., I ONE COMPANY
C-J.A.' MIINJ Sollltio,u'w
The proposed methodology for the Grant Creek lnstream Flow Study was presented September 22-23,
2009 at a site visit and meeting in Moose Pass. In the meeting held at the Kenai Lake Work Center on
September 23, HDR staff presented to the lnstream Flow Technical Working Group (TWG) members the
methods and results of Grant Creek data collection in late 2008 and 2009 including the hydrology, fish
presence, and fish habitat studies. Following these presentations, Jason Kent and Paul Mclarnon of HDR
and John Morsell of Northern Ecological Services presented the proposed instream flow approach. TWG
discussion of the study approach followed.
During the discussion of the instream flow study approach, TWG members asked questions and
provided feedback, including suggestions on winter use, spawning gravel recruitment, and food sources.
These suggestions were added to the instream flow approach as described in this technical
memorandum. The TWG also collaboratively selected habitat use parameters to be studied.
This technical memorandum describes the technical approach for the 2010 Grant Creek instream flow
study that will be further described in the Grant Creek Aquatics Study Plan to be provided in November
2009.
Background
Several instream flow study approaches for the Grant Creek study were discussed in TWG meetings held
in April 2009 in Kenai, and May 2009 on a conference call. Comments from the TWG at those meetings
suggested that a focused, site-specific approach might be appropriate for this system. These comments
combined with the short length of Grant Creek make it feasible to directly address the potential effect of
flow changes on specific areas of known fish use.
1
For an instream flow study in Grant Creek, we propose an integrated effort that provides an efficient
way of obtaining information to most directly address questions the TWG members have raised
regarding the effects of the proposed project on fish habitat in Grant Creek. The approach includes: 1) a
series of single transect analyses with each transect going through a known fish use area such as high
use spawning or rearing areas; 2) fish studies that help identify microhabitat factors that affect fish use
within each key habitat type; 3) measuring vertical water temperature differences at spawning locations
to identify areas of upwelling or downwelling; and 4) monitoring temperature and flows at multiple
locations on Grant Creek to determine downstream flow accretion and temperature changes. These four
components will be analyzed and compared to historical flow data (USGS gage 15246000, water years
1948-1958) to determine effects of different flow regimes on several factors that are important in the
lifestages of Grant Creek resident and anadromous fish.
We believe this approach, which focuses on the specific needs of fish that use Grant Creek, addresses
the specific analysis needs of TWG members as expressed at the April meeting in Kenai and the
subsequent conference call in May. The more traditional approaches such as IFIM and habitat mapping
have been subjected to substantial criticism in recent years. The proposed approach overcomes some
of the limitations of IFIM and other approaches. Specifically, it does not require extensive data
collection to determine "habitat suitability" as required for IFIM/PHABSIM. The proposed approach
does require documentation of the rationale for the habitat use criteria selected.
Description of technical approach
1. Lateral Habitat Connectivity
Cross sections will be measured using methods developed for the Wetted Perimeter method.
The method provides a graphical plot of wetted perimeter versus discharge, on which the range
of flows at which a designated habitat area is unavailable can be determined visually. Site-
specific flows are not collected at each cross-section; neither are vertical hydraulic
measurements such as depth and velocity. Each site will include staff gages which will be read
at multiple times during the field season. The date, time, and gage height will be recorded in
order to correlate cross-section stage to the continuous gage. A one-time cross section survey
will be conducted to determine channel and overbank geometry and to tie the staff gage to the
monument to the continuous gage.
Proposed sites:
• Reach 1
o 2 sites on the Distributary channel in rearing habitat
o 4 sites on the main channel in rearing habitat
o 1 site on the main channel in spawning habitat
• Reach 2
o 2 sites on the main channel in rearing habitat
o 2 sites in off-channel pool rearing habitat
2
o 1 site on the main channel in spawning habitat
• Reach 3
o 1 site in off-channel pool rearing habitat
o 2 sites in secondary channel rearing habitat
o 1 site in tertiary channel rearing habitat
o 1 site in main channel spawning habitat
• Reach 4
o 3 sites in main channel rearing habitat
o 1 site in main channel spawning habitat
Proposed cross sections were located during a site visit September 24. The locations were set
based on presence of physical microhabitat (i.e. undercut bank, overhead cover, bedrock
outcrops, pocket water) and observations of fish during the site visit and during snorkeling
studies (Figure 1). The site locations will be refined and cross section geometry will be collected
in late spring 2010.
2. Microhabitat Selection Study
The purpose of the study is to learn what microhabitat factors the fish in Grant Creek select in
order to assess whether proposed Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project operations
would have an effect on instream habitat. In order to maximize the knowledge of habitat
selection factors for fish in Grant Creek, the observations would be made at the locations of the
lateral habitat connectivity studies as described in section 1 of this memorandum.
Fish spawning and rearing microhabitat values will be recorded in 2010 at programmatically-
selected sites (described in the lateral Habitat Connectivity component of this study approach)
in Study Reaches 1, 2, 3, and 4. Measured microhabitat use parameters will vary by habitat
units. In the TWG meeting on September 23, the following table of parameters and life stages
of interest was developed with input from TWG members.
Habitat use function by life history Habitat use parameters to measure
Salmon rearing Depth, cover, habitat connectivity
Salmon spawning Substrate, depth, temperature, vertical hydraulic gradient
Rainbow trout spawning TBD
Incubation Depth, temperature
Resident rearing and spawning Salmon rearing will be used as a surrogate
--
Use observations will be made from the bank for the spawning lifestage, and measurements will
be recorded from the left side, right side, and head of the observed redd as site conditions
3
allow. Snorkeling will be the method of observation of juvenile fish. Species, number, and
estimated size/age classes will be recorded at each observation, and microhabitat
measurements will be recorded at each location. During the high flow period in the stream
(typically July through mid-September), snorkeling would be limited to the stream margins.
Fish use of winter habitats will be characterized by sampling Grant Creek in late March or early
April and again in November or early December in 2010. Sample methods will include the use of
baited minnow traps and the use of an underwater camera to observe fish in suspected
overwinter habitat. Sample site selection will target suspected overwinter fish habitats such as
deep pools, and backwater areas that appear to contain suitable overwinter flow conditions.
For this exercise, site-specific Habitat Suitability Criteria will not be developed. HSC are not
required in the proposed assessment approach; however, the numbers of observations and
subsequent analysis will proceed to the level sufficient to determine selection factors for each of
the measured microhabitat variables. Since transects will, by definition, be within areas that
are known to be suitable for fish use, those factors that are most likely to be influenced by flow
changes will be emphasized.
The microhabitat selection study will be described in detail in the Fish Resources Study Plan.
3. Spawning bed thermistor strings
Spawning locations that have upwelling of groundwater or downwelling of surface water may be
highly selected by fish. However, this microhabitat variable is difficult to identify and measure
in the field. Since the temperature of groundwater is typically constant and surface water
temperature is highly variable, temperature is usually an effective water quality "tracer" that
can indicate the presence of groundwater upwelling areas.
Identifying the difference in water temperatures may be accomplished by the use of thermistor
strings buried in the substrate. Three strings will be deployed at known spawning locations
observed in the 2009 field season, and three strings will be deployed at spawning-appropriate
locations that were observed in 2009 to not have spawning activity.
Each thermistor string will include three HOBO Pendant-type temperature data loggers spaced
20 em apart. The top thermistor will be on the substrate surface, the middle thermistor will be
at 20 em depth, and the bottom thermistor will be at 40 em depth. The thermistor strings will
be deployed in the spring when flows are at their lowest, and will be recovered about one year
later in order to record temperatures for a full spawning and incubation cycle. Subsequent
analyses of the temperature will identify if temperature differentials between surface and
subsurface water indicate if upwelling or downwelling is occurring at each location.
Proposed sites:
• 3 sites suitable for spawning with known use in 2009
4
• 3 sites suitable for spawning with no observed use in 2009
4. Flow and temperature monitoring
Continuous flow and temperature monitoring stations that were set in 2009 will be continued
and/or reestablished in 2010. The data loggers will be downloaded at regular intervals to
contribute to analysis during the 2010 field season.
Site locations:
Analysis
• Flow -one site at the location of the USGS station (assumes no flow accretion
between Grant lake outlet and mouth of Grant Creek)
• Temperature -four locations on Grant Creek, including near the proposed
powerhouse location, the USGS gage, and two near the mouth of the creek.
The components of the instream flow study will tie utilized rearing and feeding habitat units with
hydrologic cycles to determine the periods of lateral connectivity for juvenile salmon and resident trout.
It will also include a study of vertical temperature differences at known utilized and unutilized spawning
sites to determine if upwelling or downwelling is a factor in redd selection. The results of the instream
flow study will be integrated with data and results of other studies, including the hydrology, fluvial
geomorphology, and aquatic biology studies.
• Hydrology Study. The lateral connectivity study includes measurement of staff gages that are
tied in elevation to the same benchmark as the continuous discharge gage near the former USGS
station. The date and time of the staff gage readings will tie the observed depths to flows
measured at the continuous gage. The observed flows can then be connected to the historical
hydrographs measured at the USGS gage to determine availability of habitat as a function of
depth and flow over the 11 year history. The temperatures recorded in the intragravel module
will also be analyzed against recorded discharges.
• Fluvial Geomorphology Study. The availability of spawning habitat can be affected by the
proposed project if spawning gravel is not transported to downstream spawning beds. The
results of the spawning gravel recruitment module of the fluvial geomorphology study will be
analyzed with the lateral connectivity study at known spawning locations to evaluate how a
potential change in flow regime can affect the availability of spawning habitat.
• Aquatic Biology Study. The presence, timing, and relative abundance of fish in Grant Creek is
evaluated in the fish resources study. These data are used in analysis of the microhabitat
s
module. The analysis of the instream flow study will be applied to the fish community in Grant
Creek.
Conclusion
The Grant Creek instream flow study approach was collaboratively developed based on input from the
Technical Work Group. Public meetings of the TWG were held in April and September, 2009, and a
conference call was held in May 2009; input and suggestions were solicited during these meetings and
also through email and phone communications with the TWG and TWG members.
The instream flow study approach represents a detailed study of utilized habitat types, and addresses
the desire of the TWG to examine how important individual habitat units may be affected by changes in
flow due to the operation of the project. Rather than applying a typical quantitative habitat study that
generalizes mesohabitat units in a study reach, this approach uses several techniques to tie physical
microhabitat to flow and timing, and applies in situ knowledge of fish habitat use in Grant Creek as tools
to determine potential effects of the Grant lake Hydroelectric Project.
6
Kenai Hvdro Environmental Baseline Studies Fiaure 1
lnstream Flow Study
Proposed Transect Locations
Legend
e P10pooed Transect Location
Sod<oyo solmon op8'Miino oboorved
Chinook ulmon tpe'Mling observed
Reering habitat (Miinoatlon ~JCimote)
A Feet
NORTH o 100 400
Nap ProjKtlon: NA.0 SJ Ala•t.a Statllt Plane Zontt 4 Fe4!t
0&~ Sowcu: HDR Alaska. ~c.; APA 1 984
Author: HDR Aluka, Inc.
Date: Octob.r 2009
Tlltt~M4tf'l,.... .... ~ ....... flf ............. ~
,.~~Mr. II'-' ...... ,..,....., .
.... ~II..._CIO ........... frDI'I'I ............. ..... ,.,.. .... ,...........-.. TlMM,.... .,. "'_._.,..,.... ~-
Kenai Hgdro LLC till
~flo/'