The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGrant Lake Environmental Baseline Studies 2009Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies 2009 Interim Draft Report October 15, 2009 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies 2009 Interim Draft Report Prepared for: Kenai Hydro, LLC. 280 Airport Way Kenai, AK 99611 Prepared by: HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 15 October 2009 Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... v 1 Project History and Overview ......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project History .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Overview .......................................................................................................... 1 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 lnstream Flow .............................................................................................. 5 3.2.3 Grant Lake Zooplankton and Phytoplankton ................................................................... 6 3.2.4 Falls Creek Fish Resources ............................................................................................... 6 3.2.5 Grant Lake Fish Resources ............................................................................................... 6 3.2.6 Grant Creek and Falls Creek Macroinvertebrates and Grant Creek Periphyton ............. 7 3.3 Study Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................... 7 3.3.1 Study Goals ...................................................................................................................... 7 3.3.2 Study Objectives .............................................................................................................. 8 3.4 Field Sampling Methods ............................................................................................... 8 3.4.1 Establishment of Study reaches on Grant Creek ............................................................. 9 3.4.2 Grant Creek Fish Resources ............................................................................................. 9 3.4.3 Grant Creek lnstream Flow Study .................................................................................. 11 3.4.4 Grant Lake Zooplankton and Phytoplankton ................................................................. 12 3.4.5 Falls Creek Fish Resources ............................................................................................. 13 3.4.6 Grant Lake Fish Resources ............................................................................................. 13 3.4. 7 Grant Creek Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton ......................................................... 14 3.5 Results ........................................................................................................................ 15 3.5.1 Grant Creek Fish Resources ........................................................................................... 17 3.5.2 Grant Creek lnstream Flow Study .................................................................................. 19 3.5.3 Grant Lake Zooplankton and Phytoplankton ................................................................. 24 3.5.4 Falls Creek Fish Resources ............................................................................................. 24 Kenai Hydro, LLC. 3.5.5 Grant Lake Fish Resources ............................................................................................. 25 3.5.6 Grant Creek Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton ......................................................... 25 3.6 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 27 3.6.1 Grant Creek Fish Resources ........................................................................................... 27 3.6.2 lnstream Flow ................................................................................................................ 29 3.6.3 Grant Lake Zooplankton and Phytoplankton ................................................................. 29 3.6.4 Falls Creek Fish Resources ............................................................................................. 30 3.6.5 Grant Lake Fish Resources ............................................................................................. 30 3.6.6 Grant Creek Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton ........................................................... 31 4 Water Resources ............................................................................................................ 33 4.1 lntroduction ................................................................................................................. 33 4.2 Previous Studies ......................................................................................................... 33 4.2.1 Grant Creek Water Quality ............................................................................................ 33 4.2.2 Grant Lake Water Quality .............................................................................................. 33 4.2.3 Falls Creek Water Quality .............................................................................................. 33 4.2.4 Grant Creek and Falls Creek Hydrology ......................................................................... 34 4.3 Study Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................... 34 4.3.1 Study Goals .................................................................................................................... 34 4.3.2 Study Objectives ............................................................................................................ 35 4.4 Field Sampling Methods ............................................................................................. 35 4.4.1 Water Quality and Temperature ................................................................................... 35 4.4.2 Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... 38 4.5 Results ........................................................................................................................ 39 4.5.1 Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 39 4.5.2 Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... 42 4.6 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 43 4.6.1 Water Quality and Temperature ................................................................................... 43 4.6.2 Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... 45 5 References ...................................................................................................................... 47 6 Notes ............................................................................................................................... 49 Kenai Hydro, LLC. ii Tables Table 1 .............................................................................................................. 22 Appendixes Appendix A ................................................................................. Project Vicinity Map Appendix B ............................................................... Summary of In stream Flow Study Appendix C ...................................................................................................................... Tables Appendix D ..................................................................................................... Section 3 Figures Appendix E ..................................................................................................... Section 4 Figures Appendix F .................................................................................................... Plates Kenai Hydro, LLC. iii List of Acronyms ADF&G AEIDC AHRS APA AWC BLM oc cfs em CPUE Of DNR EPA FERC FL fps ft G&A GPS GWh HEP IFIM in KHI KHL KPB kWh LLC mg/L mi MIF mm MSL MW MWh NWI O&M RM Kenai Hydro, LLC. Alaska Department ofFish and Game Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (University of Alaska) Alaska Heritage Resources Survey Alaska Power Authority Anadromous Waters Catalog Bureau of Land Management Degrees Celsius cubic feet per second centimeter catch per unit effort Degrees Fahrenheit Alaska Department ofNatural Resources Environmental Protection Agency Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Fork Length feet per second feet general and administrative global positioning system gigawatt hours Hydroelectric Evaluation Program instream flow incremental methodology inch Kenai Hydro Inc. Kenai Hydro, LLC Kenai Peninsula Borough kilowatt hours Limited liability company milligrams per liter mile minimum instream flow millimeter Mean sea level Megawatt Megawatt hours National Wetlands Inventory Operations & maintenance river miles iv RVDs TL TWG US ACE USFS USFWS USGS YOY Recreation visitor days total length technical working group U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Forest Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey Young of the year Executive Summary An executive summary will be provided in the forthcoming final report. Kenai Hydro, LLC. v Draft -Grant Lake 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 near Moose Pass, Alaska. Draft interim 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 initial study results as of August 31 , 2009 with the intent of enhancing project planning and providing a basis for discussion of project effects. Field data collection efforts were ongoing at the time of writing this report. Results from subsequent data collection efforts in 2009 will be included in the final 2009 baseline study report to be submitted in early 201 0 as part of the FERC licensing process. 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 AP A 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 ofEngineers (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 period a preliminary application document was filed by Kenai Hydro, LLC (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. 1.2 Project Overview This draft report provides results of the preliminary environmental baseline data collected from 02 June through 31 August 2009. These preliminary data will provide information useful in the design of formal study plans needed to specifically address requirement of Kenai Hydro, LLC. 1 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 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 Draft-Grant Lake 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 3,0 16), 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 of2.6 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 I mi from the south end of Grant Lake to drain into the narrows 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. The Falls Creek watershed drains steep terrain between the Grant Lake and Ptarmigan watersheds, is 11.9 mi 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 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). Kenai Hydro, LLC. 3 Draft Grant Lake 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. 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. Grant Lake supports resident populations of sculpin (Cottidae) and threespine stickleback ( Gasterosteus aculeatus ), but salmon were not caught in Grant Lake or any of its tributaries during environmental assessments (USFWS 1961; AEIDC 1983; APA 1984); it is not included in the Anadromous Waters Catalog (AWC) published by Alaska Department ofFish and Game (ADF&G; Johnson and Klein 2009). Grant Creek is included in the A WC due to the presence of spawning Chinook, sockeye and coho salmon and rearing coho salmon (Johnson and Klein 2009). Zooplankton and phytoplankton in Grant Lake are the 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. 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 (Oncorhynchus tshattytscha ), sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka), and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), as well as rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) are found in the lower 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 Kenai Hydro, LLC. 4 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum) and Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) were caught during angling surveys ( AP A 1984). Upper Grant Creek is impassable to salmon 0.5 mi (APA 1984) to I mi (Johnson and Klein 2009) upstream of the mouth; fish habitat is most 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 electro fishing 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 fall and summer than in winter and spring (AEIDC 1983). Catches of Dolly Varden were generally most abundant 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 I ,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 "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 AWC (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 KHL found during an information gathering effort, additional instream flow and environmental analyses conducted on Grant Creek in the 1980s by Kenai Hydro, Inc. (KHI; unrelated to Kenai Hydro, LLC). These documents were compiled in support of a license application for hydropower development on Grant Creek. The documents include reports and written communications between 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 instream flow incremental methodology (IFIM) investigation and negotiated minimum instream flows (MIF) and ramping rates (Enviosphere 1987, KHI 1987a, and KHI 1987b ). A technical memorandum detailing the results of the previous instream flow study efforts is provided in Appendix B. 1 Anadromous Waters Catalog Stream Nomination #08-153, http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/FishDistrib/Nomination/FDDNomHome.cfm Kenai Hydro, LLC. 5 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 3.2.3 Grant Lake Zooplankton and Phytoplankton Zooplankton and phytoplankton samples were collected in Grant Lake in 1981-82 by ADF&G and 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 taxa in 1983 (Marcuson 1989). 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). Anadromous species, including juvenile Chinook salmon and juvenile Dolly Varden have been found in its lower section. A series of waterfalls prevents fish passage above the lower 2,300 ft ofthe stream (USFWS 1961, AEIDC 1982, Johnson and Klein 2009, HDR 2009a). USFWS sampled Falls Creek in 1961 by setting minnow traps in lower I mi ofthe creek. The results of that sampling effort found juvenile Chinook salmon to be present in the lower 600ft 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 in 1981. 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 200 yards of the creek. Six minnow traps were set for a total of 108 hours of trapping effort captured 21 Dolly Varden ranging from 45 to 98 mm in length. In 2008, ADF&G (Johnson and Klein 2009) placed minnow traps in the lower area of the Falls Creek below the rail road and highway bridges and found juvenile Chinook to be present. 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 2 2007 ADFG Stream survey referenced in Anadromous Waters Catalog Stream Nomination #08-153, http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARRJFishDistrib/Nomination/FDDNomHome.cfm Kenai Hydro, LLC. 6 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 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 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 (AP A 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 allochthonous input of leaves and other organic matter, along with input of phytoplankton and zooplankton from Grant Lake, was likely more important than periphyton as the basis of productivity in Grant Creek. 3.3 Study Goals and Objectives 3.3. 1 Study Goals The goals of 2009 fish and aquatic study program were to characterize fish use of aquatic habitats in Grant Lake and Grant Creek, and to describe anadromous fish habitat in Grant Creek. Another goal was to determine fish presence and general habitat characteristics of Fails Creek. Work completed in 2009 was built upon the data provided by previous studies in this area (AEIDC 1983, USFWS 1961; see Section 3.2 above). Specific study objectives are addressed below. All of the fisheries work completed in 2009 will provide preliminary background information necessary for a FERC environmental assessment. The goals of the non-fisheries aquatic biology studies in 2009 were perform preliminary assessments of macroinvertebrates, zooplankton, and chlorophyll a availability within Grant Creek and Grant Lake. Macroinvertebrates and periphyton were sampled in Grant Creek and phytoplankton and zooplankton were sampled in Grant Lake. Both periphyton and phytoplankton samples were analyzed to determine chlorophyll a concentrations. Zooplankton samples were analyzed to assess population densities in Grant Lake. Periphyton and phytoplankton are primary producers that support populations of zooplankton and macroinvertebrates, which in tum are a potential food source for fish. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 7 Draft Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Some of the work completed in 2009 was intended to supplement data collected during previous field studies, while other data was collected to address data gaps. Specific study objectives are discussed below. All of the aquatic biology work completed in 2009 will provide preliminary background information necessary for a FERC environmental assessment. 3.3.2 Study Objectives Objectives of 2009 field efforts were to: 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 the use of the Gorge Reach (e.g. Reach 5) by resident and rearing fish relative to down stream reaches. d) 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 3. Determine fish presence and distribution on 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. 9. Build upon data collected in previous studies. 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. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 8 Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 3.4. 1 Establishment of Study reaches on Grant Creek AEIDC, conducted field work in Grant Creek in the early 1980s and divided the lower half of the Creek into four uniform study reaches, each 0.125 mi long. In June 2009, a total of 6 study reaches were established on Grant Creek which were based on historical study reaches identified by AEIDC ( 1983 ). Study reach breaks were marked in the field using surveyor stakes and a handheld global positioning system (Figure 3.4.1-1 ). 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 best extent possible. 3.4.2 Grant Creek Fish Resources Rearing Fish Study Reaches 1 through 4 were sampled using ~ in mesh baited minnow traps. Traps were baited with cured salmon eggs. Due to the impassible terrain and high water flows in Reach 5 only three traps were placed. 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. Minnow trapping was conducted on a monthly basis June through August (Figure 3.4.1-1 ). All minnow trap sites were marked with a GPS and flagged for future identification (Figure 3.4.1-1). Reach 1 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. 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=IO 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 each monthly sampling event. Adult Resident Fish Angling surveys were used to characterize the use of Grant Creek by adult 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 Kenai Hydro, LLC. 9 Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 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 300m 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. Captured fish were observed for previous markings. If no previous marks were present, then :4 in of the upper lobe of the caudal fin was clipped for future identification. If the caudal fin was already marked indicating that the fish had been captured previously, then the fish was measured and it was noted as a recaptured fish on the filed datasheet. 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 and is used as a measure of relative abundance. Adult Salmon Foot surveys were conducted to estimate the abundance and determine the distribution of spawning anadromous fish in Grant Creek and Falls Creek. 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. thalweg inward to the streambank). The number of live fish and swimming carcasses counted was tallied by species for each survey. Number and location of active redds, areas of concentrated spawning activity, and number of carcasses was also recorded. Due to the high turbidity in the creek (which ranged from 0.66 to 9.38 NTUs), adult fish may have been missed. Escapement for each salmon species observed was estimated using an area-under-the- curve method that is based on a trapezoidal approximation that uses linear interpolation to estimate the number of 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). Survey life, the number of days a fish was alive in the survey area, observer efficiency, and the proportion offish actually seen by the observers were determined based on professional judgment. Escapement was estimated by dividing the area-under-the-curve by survey life and then adjusting for the proportion of fish actually observed. An estimate of the number of fish in the stream can be obtained by dividing the total number of fish days by the average number of days a fish was in the survey area (i.e. survey life). 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. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 10 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Quantitative estimates of either survey life or observer efficiency do not exist for the Grant Creek or Falls Creek. As such, subjective estimates of both values were made based on professional judgment by the fish biologists conducting the foot surveys and are believed to be reasonable values. 3.4.3 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 Kenai Hydro LLC (KHL). The primary goals 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 would meet three to four times throughout 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 instream flow study effort to occur in 2010. 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 Sample sites were 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, such as cascades or fast water in the mid-channel. Areas sampled were those 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. In an effort to include a subset of habitat 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 were also sampled. 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). 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 (USDA Forest Service 2001). Kenai Hydro, LLC. 11 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Meso-habitats were further broken down into micro-habitats. Micro-habitat sample areas were described and classified based on several criteria including: l. 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 Lake Zooplankton and Phytoplankton Zooplankton and phytoplankton samples were collected once during the 2009 field season. 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 3.4.4-1 ). These two locations were established in order to assess the conditions in the area 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 has a thermistor string installed to record water temperature and thus was named GLTS. Zooplankton One zooplankton sample was collected at both GLOut and GL TS. Samples were collected using an 18 inch diameter 80 )lm mesh plankton vertical tow net. The net was lowered into the water column using an attached weight to sink the net and to keep the net 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 bottle and preserved 70% isopropyl alcohol and the sample was returned to the HDR lab for processing. Each sample consisted of one vertical tow. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 12 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 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 I 00 milliliters 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 GLT,S. One liter samples were collected using a Niskin bottle sampler. 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-J.!m glass fiber filter attached to a hand vacuum pump. Filtered samples were preserved with 1-ml saturated magnesium carbonate (MgC03) solution added to the filter. The dry filter was wrapped in a larger filter (to absorb any additional 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 was calculated by dividing the total number of organisms collected by the total volume of water that passed through the zooplankton net giving a population density as number of organisms per liter of water. Percent dominant taxa was calculated by dividing the total number of organisms in the sample by the total number of organisms in each individual taxon, giving percent of the total number of organisms represented by a taxon. Phytoplankton samples were analyzed to determine concentration of chlorophyll a as mg/m3. Phytoplankton analysis results for each sampling site were averaged. 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 large woody debris, 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 1 0 days in conjunction with the Grant Creek foot surveys. 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. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 13 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Rearing Fish Minnow trapping was used in littoral habitats of Grant Lake and its tributaries during June and August. Sampling efforts in 2009 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. Electro fishing 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-l ). Two 1 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 8ft deep gill variable mesh gill net was added for the August sampling event with mesh sizes from I to 5 in. Gill nets were set at a variety of depths, both perpendicular and parallel to the shoreline and fished overnight. 3.4. 7 Grant Creek Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton Macroinvertebrates and periphyton samples were collected once during the 2009 field season. 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. Sampling occurred at two locations within Grant Creek (Figure 3 .4.4-1). These locations were selected based on preliminary project design and natural characteristics of the creek. GClOO is located immediately upstream of the natural split in the creek near the outlet into Trail Lake. GC300 is located in the area of the proposed project outlet into Grant Creek. Macroinvertebrates Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at two locations in Grant Creek; GC 100 and GC300. Two sampling methods, Alaska Stream Condition Index (ASCI) and Surber samplers, were used to collect macroinvertebrates. The ASCI sampling technique was used to begin developing baseline descriptions of macroinvertebrates in a range of habitats within the sampling reach. The ASCI method uses aD-frame kick net to sample 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. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 14 Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 In addition to the habitat associated ASCI samples, five samples of macroinvertebrate populations residing specifically in riffle/cobble areas were collected using Surber samplers. Each surber sample was bottled and preserved separately. Surber sampling techniques were used to estimate population densities in riffle/cobble habitat. All macroinvertebrate samples were returned to the HDR laboratory for sorting and identification. ASCI samples were subsampled until a target of300 (+/-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 the two macroinvertebrate collection sites, GCIOO and GC300 (Figure 3.4.4-1). Periphyton was sampled by removing material from I 0 cobbles selected from a riffle/cobble area that had not been disturbed. Material was scrubbed from a five centimeter square area on each cobble and rinsed onto a 45-J.lm glass fiber filter attached to a hand vacuum pump. Water was extracted from the sample and 1-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 additional 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/Plecoptera/Trichoptera (EPT), taxa diversity, 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. 3.5 Results The results of the 2009 fish resources study program contained in this report are reported herein as of3l August 2009. As ofthe date ofthis draft report field studies are ongoing and the results contained in this report will be included in the final report. The draft 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 1961, AEIDC 1983, APA 1984, and Marcuson 1989). Grant Creek consists primarily of fast water habitat. Reaches I 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 with a distributary channel that discharges to Middle Trail River. Reach 1 is dominated by riffle habitat with some scour and backwater Kenai Hydro, llC. 15 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 pools (Figure 3.5-l ). There is a large aggregate of spawning habitat just above the distributary (Figure 3.5-2). The distributary provides good rearing habitat conditions during the open water season but may go dry during the winter (Figure 3.5-2). Reach l is accessible to foot travel with trails on each side of the creek. The fish species present in Reach l are adult and juvenile sockeye, Chinook, and coho salmon, sculpin, rainbow trout, and Dolly Varden. • Reach 2 is dominated by riffie habitat with scour and backwater pools (Figure 3.5-l). 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-l ). 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 3.5-1 ). 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 ofGrant 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 with an approximate 300 m long shelf on the left bank side which permits access during the summer months. 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 300m 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 at the outlet of Grant Lake. It consists of series of falls with backwater, pools, and riffles interspersed between them (Figure 3.5-l). Reach 6 is most easily accessed via the Grant Lake outlet. There is no known spawning or rearing ofsalmonids in Reach 6 (Figure 3.5-2). The only fish present are sculpin and threespine stickleback. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 16 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 3.5. 1 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 3.5.1-1). Overwintering of juvenile salmonids in Grant Creek appears to be limited based on length frequency data from August for Chinook and coho salmon (Figures 3.5.1-2 and 3.5.1-3). Rainbow trout spawning likely occurs in Grant Creek but results are inconclusive as to spawning abundance. Angling effort at 18 sites in Grant Creek consisted of a total of81.18 hours (Table 3.4). Reaches 1-4 each had four angling sites with total effort per reach ranging from 17.0 to 18.5 hours. Reach 5 had two angling sites and received 9.65 hours. Total catch for angling from June through August in Reaches I through 5 was 68 rainbow trout, nine Dolly Varden, two sockeye salmon, and one Arctic grayling for a total of80 fish (Figure 3.5.1-4). Minnow trapping efforts in Grant Creek consisted of a total of 3,173.35 trap hours. Study Reach 3 received the most effort at 834.50 hrs followed by Reach 2 at 719.85 hrs, Reach 1 at 678.92 hrs and Reach 4 at 604.42 hrs. Study Reaches 5 and 6 received considerably less effort due to limited access (Table 3.5). A total of 1,558 fish were captured during minnow trapping events in June, July and August (Table 3.2). The most abundant fish in catches were juvenile Dolly Varden (831 fish, Figure 3.5.1-1, Table 3.2). Juvenile coho salmon were the next most abundant species (430), followed by Chinook salmon (176). Fifty-five threespine stickleback, 48 rainbow trout, 17 sculpin, and one sockeye salmon were also caught Sockeye salmon are rarely attracted to minnow traps. A total of 149 fish were electrofished at the minnow trapping sites in June and July (Table 3.2). Two sites per reach in Reaches I through 4 were electrofished. Coho salmon were the dominant species (57), followed by Dolly Varden (43), Chinook salmon (20), sculpin (12), and rainbow trout (7); six juvenile sockeye salmon were electrofished in June along with four threespine stickleback. Rearing Fish Spatial Distribution Study Reach 1 had the highest combined CPUE for all reaches across all months, followed by Reaches 4 and 5, then Reaches 3, 2, and 6 (Figure 3.5.1-5). Reach 1 also had the highest abundance of juvenile Chinook and coho salmon. Dolly Varden had the highest CPUE of all fish in all reaches except Reach 6 (Figure 3.5.1-5). 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 3.5.1-5). 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. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 17 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 In Reaches 1, 2, and 4, riffles had the highest CPUE of any habitat type (Figures 3.5.1-6, 3.5.1-7, and 3.5.1-8). 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 .5.1-9). It should be noted that Chinook salmon were not found in riffle habitat in Reach 3. In Reach 5, cascade had the highest CPUE of any habitat type; however, it was the only habitat type available in Reach 5 (Figure 3.5 .l-1 0). 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 I 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 these areas. Rearing Fish Temporal Distribution Between the months of June and August, CPUE was lowest in June (Figure 3.5.1-11). 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 1 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. Rearing Fish Age Class Length frequencies of juvenile coho and Chinook salmon in August indicate there are predominantly one age class present for juvenile salmonids in Grant Creek (Figure 3.5.1-2 and 3.5.1-3). YOY was the dominant age class, with a few possible age I fish present. Length frequencies for Dolly Varden in August indicate there was predominantly one age class of Dolly Varden in Grant Creek (Figure 3.5.1-12). YOY was the dominant age class, while smaller numbers of age I or older juvenile fish are present. Length frequencies for rainbow trout in August indicate the presences ofYOY fish and the presences of some age I or older juvenile fish (Figure 3.5.1-13). 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 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 Kenai Hydro, LLC. 18 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 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 3.5.1-14). Rainbow trout were the most abundant in Reach 3, followed by Reaches 5, 4, 2, and Reach 1. The relative abundance of Dolly Varden was the highest in Reach 1 and equal in Reaches 2 and 3. Adult Dolly Varden were not caught in reaches 4 and 5. A single Arctic grayling was caught in Reach 4. 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 and Reaches 1 and 2 in July 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 3.5.1-15a), which also corresponds with the arrival of Chinook salmon in Grant Creek. In August, Dolly Varden in Reach 1 had the highest relative abundance at 0.50 fish/hour {Figure 3.5.1-15b). Adult Resident Fish Age Class Length frequency data for rainbow trout in June indicate a majority offish caught were in the size range of22l mm 240 mm or 321 mm -340 mm (Figure 3.5.1-16). Length frequency data for rainbow trout in August indicate the majority offish caught were in the size range of 181 mm-220 mm (Figure 3.5.1-17). Length frequency graphs for Dolly Varden in Grant Creek in June and August indicate multiple age classes are present (Figures 3.5.1-18 and 3.5.1-19). Adult Salmon The 2009 escapement estimate based on foot surveys for Chinook salmon was 228 fish (Figure 3.5.1-20). Chinook salmon entered Grant Creek on 13 August and spawning abundance peaked on approximately 23 August 2009. By 31 August, Chinook salmon began to decline in numbers in Grant Creek. The 2009 escapement estimate based on foot surveys for sockeye salmon was 1,747 fish {Figure 3.5.1-21). Sockeye salmon entered Grant Creek on 13 August. As of31 August 2009 the numbers of sockeye salmon present in the creek were still increasing and as such the escapement estimates will likely increase with the addition of late season fish. Due to high flows around the end of July, one sampling event was skipped; otherwise, foot surveys occurred approximately every 1 0 days. 3.5.2 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 Kenai Hydro LLC (KHL ). The Kenai Hydro, LLC. 19 Draft Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 development of the Grant Creek instream flow study is a collaborative effort that includes the members of the Technical Working Group (TWG). The TWG met on several occasions in 2009 to discuss elements of the study design, starting with a kickoff meeting on March 24 and most recently an event September 22-24 that included a site visit. • 24 March 2009. Technical Work Group (TWG) presentation in Moose Pass. Included presentation and discussion of draft hydrology, water quality, aquatic biology, and instream flow study plans. • 21 April 2009. TWG 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. • I 0 June 2009. Jason Kent (HDR) sent TWG compilation of documents forwarded by Jason Mouw (ADFG) regarding instream flow study methodologies. • 01 July 2009. Jason Kent sent TWG a Technical Memorandum regarding the habitat use (snorkeling) work proposed for the 2009 field season. • 16 July 2009. TWG conference call. Included presentation of2009 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 TWG. • 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 September 22-24 meeting. Fish Use of Microhabitats A two-person field crew selected sample sites based on the variety of habitats available and suitable for sampling within Grant Creek. The field team was limited to those aquatic habitats that could safely be sampled. Therefore, portions of some habitat units were not included in the 2009 surveys due to safety concerns (i.e., cascades/fast water in the mid-channel). The field team sampled areas that were expected to contain high densities of fish, such as backwater areas; pools; along stream margins; side channels; and portions of the stream associated with large woody debris. In an effort to include a "representative" subset of habitat available in Grant Creek, the field team also sampled areas not necessarily Kenai Hydro, LLC. 20 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 expected to contain high numbers of rearing fish (i.e., fast water in the middle of the stream channel). 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 riffies, one backwater pool, one backwater slough, two scour pools, one cascade, and an overflow channel3• The "other" channel sites included two sites in a distributary channel (Reach I); two sites in a secondary channel (Reach 3); and one site in a tertiary channel (Reach 3)(Figures 3.4.3-l, 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 riffies, margins with undercut bank, margins without undercut bank, large woody debris dam, and margin shelf associated with large wood debris, and backwater pools, sloughs, and pockets, as shown in Table 3.1. The sample sites were lumped into three primary categories for analyses: main channel sites, backwater areas, and secondary channels, and subdivided based on microhabitat characteristics (Table 3.1 ). However, it should be noted that the microhabitats sample areas were also present in the "other" channels category. 3 The overflow channel was separated from the main channel by a gravel bar. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 21 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Table 3.2. General description of microhabitat sample areas surveyed in June 2009 Sample Site Sample Areas Typical Characteristics Locations Pool/fastwater Deep and fast, typically midchannel Riffie/fastwater Fast, typically michannel and margins Margin with undercut Stream margin with undercut bank; bank typically along fastwater in main channel Main Margin without Stream margin with no undercut bank; Channel undercut bank typically along fastwater in main channel LWDdam L WD creates velocity break (site in Reach 1) Margin shelfwith Shallow, wide stream margin with some LWD overhanging vegetation or other instream cover Backwater pool/ Large backwater/low velocity areas, can Backwater I slough be located along stream margin near Slough Areas velocity break Backwater pocket Small backwater/low velocity areas, can be located along stream margin near velocity break Distributary channel Variable microhabitat and depth/flow regimes, all microhabitats present (Reach 1) Other Channels Secondary channel Typically includes margins with undercut bank, margins without undercut bank, and faster velocity areas in the midchannel. (Reach 3) Tertiary channel Variable microhabitats (Reach 3) 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 3.5.2-1) Rainbow trout was 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 were YOY (<60 mm). A majority (92%) of Chinook salmon observed were YOY, only 8% were older (>60 mm; age I) (Figure 3.5.2-2). 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 subadultladults. The remaining 40% that were less than 200 mm were considered juveniles. The smallest size class of rainbow Kenai Hydro, LLC. 22 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 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 3.5.2-3). Chinook salmon were 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 3.5.2-3) was the farthest upstream sockeye salmon fry observation. Rainbow trout were observed in all reaches, excluding Reach 2 (Figure 3.5.2-3). 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 3.5.2-4). 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 (>60mm) age I Chinook, along with Dolly Varden, were observed using fast water (i.e., closer to velocity breaks) than the young of the year 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 rilles. Typically, the larger (>200mm) rainbow trout and Dolly Varden were observed using deeper and faster pool habitat in the main channel (Figure 3.5.2-5). For example, nearly 70% of the "subadult/adult" (>200mm) rainbow trout and 100% of Dolly Varden >200mm were observed in main channel pools and rilles. Smaller (juvenile <200mm) rainbow trout and Dolly Varden were observed throughout the various microhabitats, Kenai Hydro, LLC. 23 Draft Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 though typically areas with faster velocities compared to that of young of the year salmon observations. Young of the year 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 3.5.2-6). 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 3.5.2-6). 3.5.3 Grant Lake Zooplankton and Phytoplankton Zooplankton and phytoplankton were sampled at two sites in Grant Lake on August 7, 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. GLTS 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 taxa at both GL TS and GLOut were rotifers. At GL TS 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 3.5.3-1). Phytoplankton Chlorophyll a Chlorophyll a concentrations are reported as milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3). Concentrations ranged from 0.534 mglm3 at the lowest depth at the Grant Lake thermistor string site (GL TS) to 1.34 mg/m3 at the surface. The Chlorophyll a concentrations at GLOut was 0.801 mg/m3 at the middle of the water column and 1.07 mg/m3 at the surface (Figure 3.5.3-2). 3.5.4 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 August. Due to the high turbidity of the Falls Creek, there was a possibility that fish were missed. Falls Creek is a high gradient riffle stream with small amounts of undercut bank and moderate amounts of large woody debris. Falls Creek was minnow trapped from 21 to 22 July 2009 (Figure 3.4.5-1 ). A total of 24 fish were captured, all of which were juvenile Dolly Varden (Figure 3.5.4-1 ). Fork length ranged from 58 mm to 175 mm (Figure 3.5.4-2). The majority of the fish captured ranged in size from 58 mm-69 mm, indicating that YOY is the dominant age class of Dolly Kenai Hydro, LLC. 24 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 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. 3.5.5 Grant Lake Fish Resources Minnow trapping occurred at 28 sites in June and August (Figure 3.4.6-l). A total of 4,877 fish were minnow trapped. Seventy nine of them were sculpin and 4, 798 were threespine stickleback (Table 3.3 and Figure 3.5.5-1). A majority ofthe threespine stickleback were captured in the front basin of the lake. Tributaries at the back of Grant Lake were electro fished in June and August at 18 sites (Figure 3.4.6-1 ). Six threespine stickleback and 18 sculpin were captured (Table 3.3). Variable mesh gill nets were set in nine locations around Grant Lake in June and August (Figure 3.4.6-1 ). 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 (Table 3.3). No other species were caught. 3.5.6 Grant Creek Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton Macroinvertebrate and periphyton were sampled at two locations in Grant Creek on August, 6 2009. All macroinvertebrate samples were identified to genus or the lowest practicable taxon. Descriptive metrics calculated for ASCI samples included population density, percent Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera (EPT), taxa diversity, and percent dominant taxa. HilsenhoffBiotic Index (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 were calculated for Surber samples. Periphyton in Grant Creek was 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. Each sub-sample aims at sampling organisms from approximately 0.15 square meter of substrate, thus a total of approximately 3.1 square meters is sampled. Macroinvertebrate density at GClOO was 5475 organisms in approximately 2.0 square meters or 274 organisms per 0.1 square meter. At GC300 approximate population density was I 061 organisms per 2. 0 square meters or 53 organisms per 0 .l square meter. Surber Five Surber samples were collected at each site. The Surber sampler encloses 0.1 square meter of substrate. Individual Surber samples are examined to see the range of population densities in the riffle samples. The population density at GC1 00 ranged from 76 organisms per 0.1 square meter to 212 organisms per 0.1 square meter. The average Surber sample density at GC1 00 was 148.4 organisms per 0.1 square meter. GC300 had a range of 41 to 184 organisms per 0.1 square meter. The average population density for Surber samples at GC300 was 98.8 organisms per 0.1 square meter (Figure 3.5.6-l ). Kenai Hydro, LLC. 25 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 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. The ASCI sample percent EPT at GC 100 was 1. 90% of the total population. The ASCI sample percent EPT at GC300 was 3.59% of the total population. The percent EPT for surber samples at GClOO ranged from 3.28% to 16.92% of the total organisms. The average percent EPT at GC 1 00 was 7. 72%. The range of %EPT for surber samples at GC300 was 24.49% to 39.90% of the total organisms. The average percent EPT at GC300 was 31.49% (Figure 3.5.6-2). Macroinvertebrate Taxa Diversity Taxa diversity is the total number of different taxa found in a sample. The ASCI sample at GC 100 had a taxa diversity of 10 while the taxa diversity at GC300 was 12. Surber samples at GC 100 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 11 to 20 taxa. The average at GC300 was 15.2 taxa (Figure 3.5.6-3). Macroinvertebrate Percent Dominant Taxa The dominant taxa for the ASCI sample at GCIOO was Bivalvia with 83% of the total organisms (Figure 3.5.6-4). The dominant taxa for the ASCI sample at GC300 was also Bivalvia with 78% of the total organisms (Figure 3.5.6-5). Dominant taxa calculations for Surber sample data were averaged to determine overall dominant taxa for the sampling site. The dominant taxa for the Surber samples at GCIOO and GC200 was chironomidae with 85% and 48% ofthe total organisms, respectively (Figures 3.5.6-4 and 3.5.6-5). ASCI HBI and Habitat Assessment Scores Additional metrics that can be calculated using ASCI sample data include the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) score and Habitat Assessment scores. HBI values assigned to organisms range from 0-1 0, where 0 indicates the least tolerant and 10 indicates the most tolerant. These values are translated into a score of from 0-1 0 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 100 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. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 26 Draft Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Periphyton Chlorophyll a Chlorophyll a concentrations are reported as milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3). Chlorophyll a concentrations at GC100 ranged from 7.48 mg/m3 to 82 mg/m3. The ten samples are collected to calculate an average concentration. The average concentration at GClOO was 34.788 mg/m3. Concentrations at GC300 ranged from 2.94 mg/m3 to 23.2 mg/m3. The average concentration at GC300 was 12.704 mg!m3 (Figure 3.5.6-6). 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 3.5.1-1 and Table 3.2). 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 3.5.2-1). Daytime snorkeling often is not effective for Dolly Varden observations because of the stream bottom orientation ofDolly 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 (:4 in,) may have been too large to retain the very small salmon fry, especially in 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 FL ofthe fish increased (Figure 3.5.1-11). 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 3.4). Given the uniformity of the sampling effort in the reaches, they can be compared together. Rainbow trout were the dominant species caught (Figure 3.5.1-4) with an increase in relative abundance in August (Figure 3.5 .1-15a ). 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 3.5.1-14). This likely indicates that rainbow trout prefer the habitat available in Reach 3. Salmonids were not caught in Reach 6 (Figure 3.5.1-5). This is most likely due to a series of falls in this reach making it impassible to salmonids. As seen in Figure 3.5.1-5, 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 for coho and Chinook salmon (Figures 3.5.1-2 and 3.5.1-3) show 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 1 fish Kenai Hydro, LLC. 27 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 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 ). 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 3.5.1-13, 3.5.1 16, 3.5.1-17, 3.5.1-12, 3.5.1-18, and 3.5.1 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 .l-15a and 3.5 .l-l5b) throughout the summer, strongly suggests that a large aggregate of adult rainbow trout and Dolly Varden moved into Grant Creek concurrently with the arrival of adult salmon. Findings from this study are similar to the APA ( 1984) findings. AP A determined that Grant Creek supported 250 spawning Chinook salmon, whereas this study estimated an escapement of 228 spawning Chinook salmon (Figure 3.5.1-20). APA estimated that Grant Creek supported 1,650 spawning sockeye salmon. HDR estimated sockeye salmon escapement at 1,747 fish (Figure 3.5.1-21). However, based on at the time the HDR estimate was made, sockeye were still entering the stream and it is likely that this estimate is low. 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 3.5.1-6, 3.5.1-7, and 3.5.1-8). In Reach 3, backwater/pool had the highest CPUE per habitat type (Figure 3.5.1-9). In Reach 5, cascade had the highest CPUE per habitat type but it was the only available habitat (Figure 3.5.1-1 0). These results are indicative ofthe type ofhabitat available and also of the type ofhabitat 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. However, given the amount of riffle in Grant Creek, it is not surprising that Dolly Varden were the dominant species in minnow traps since Dolly Varden are normally associated with this habitat type. 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 Uuvenile <200 mm) rainbow trout and Dolly Varden were observed throughout the various microhabitats, though typically in areas with faster velocities compared to that ofthe 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 fish study showed Kenai Hydro, LLC. 28 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 a low number of age I fish present in Grant Creek, which suggests that overwriting of juvenile fish in Grant Creek could be 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 consisting of Study Reaches 1-4, contain a relative majority of suitable spawning and rearing fish habitats. Because of high velocity flow conditions 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 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 20 I 0 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 lnstream Flow Collaboratively, the TWG and KHL decided to select an instream flow study methodology with 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. Based on the fish and hydrological resources of Grant Creek identified through their respective studies, a proposed instream flow approach was presented to the TWG on 23 September. Revisions to this approach were made based on TWG input, and the instream study plan for 2010 will be prepared in October. 3.6.3 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 availability 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 of99% and 97% rotifers at GLOut and GLTS sites, respectively. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 29 Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 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 20 I 0 will help to better characterize these conditions. 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 water quality data collection indicate that sunlight does not penetrate much deeper than 7-10 feet. 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. 3. 6.4 Falls Creek Fish Resources As of 31 August 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 AWC 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 Klien 2009). However, the minnow trapping data is consistent with the AEIDC data (1983) in which investigators only trapped Dolly 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 3.5.5-l and Table 3.3); however, three spine stickleback were much more abundant in the front basin of the lake, which is consistent with previous reports (USFWS 1961, AEIDC 1983, and APA 1984 ). Minnow traps appear to be the most effective method for capturing fish in Grant Lake (Table 3.3). 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, and 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. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 30 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 3.6.6 Grant Creek Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton 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 sources in the area of the proposed powerhouse and near the outlet into Trail Lake. Differences in the results occurred between sites among both macroinvertebrates and periphyton. Overall variation in habitat, including gradient and canopy cover, could account for differences in the data between sites. Surber sampling conducted in Grant Creek in 1981 and 1982 revealed that benthic macroinvertebrate diversity was low, with the most abundant taxa being Chironomidae, followed by Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and clams. (AP A 1984). Continued sampling at GC 100 and GC300, over a variety of conditions, will help to further describe their baseline characteristics. Macroinvertebrate Population Density Population density estimates calculated from both ASCI and Surber samples indicate that populations of macroinvertebrates at GCIOO were greater than at GC300 (Figure 3.5.6-1). Population density also differed between sampling methods, which focus on different habitats. At GC I 00 population density over a variety habitats, as estimated from data collected by the ASCI methods, was somewhat greater than population density in riffie/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 percents of EPT taxa at GC300 from both ASCI and Surber samples were considerably higher than at GCl 00 (Figure 3.5.6-2). Riffie/cobble habitat, where the majority ofmacroinvertebrates tend to be EPT, dominates at GC300, whereas GC 100 has a wider variety of habitats available to macro invertebrates. The difference between sites in %EPT of Surber samples, which sample only riffie/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 Grant Creek study sites differed slightly as shown in the Surber samples (Figure 3.5.6-3). Taxa diversity at GC 1 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 previously described storm events or other habitat characteristics such as relative periphyton availability as food source. Macroinvertebrate Percent Dominant Taxa Some differences between GClOO and GC300 were recorded especially in samples collected by the Surber sampler method (Figures 3.5.6-4 and 3.5.6-5). The dominant taxa at both sites in samples collected using the ASCI method was Bivalvia. The dominant taxa at both sites collected using the Surber sampler method was Chironomidae, with Bivalvia dominant at two psuedo- replicates at GC300. GC300 had a lower percent dominant taxa which is indicative of Kenai Hydro, LLC. 31 Draft Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 conditions that allow successful inhabitation by a number of taxa, with no single taxa having an advantage. The rain event described above may have had a larger impact on larger taxa or taxa incapable of clinging to, or burrowing into 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 other 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 very 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 7 (on a scale of 1 ~ 10 where 1 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 normal, or may have been affected by events such as the rainfall in late July and early August. Periphyton Chlorophyll a Both Grant Creek sites had chlorophyll a concentrations that were much higher than those in Grant Lake samples. However, periphyton is attached algae while phytoplankton are free floating plants. The results cannot be accurately compared to each other, but instead should be compared to additional samples from the same locations from future sampling events. Average chlorophyll a concentration at GC I 00 was nearly three times higher than the concentration at GC300, 34.8 mg/m3 and 12.7 mg/m3 , 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 these sites. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 32 Draft -Grant Lake 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 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (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 up to August 31, 2009 are presented in this report. 4.2 Previous Studies The hydroelectric potential at Grant Lake (Figure 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 (ref?). Previous studies show that the water quality in Grant Creek corresponds very closely to that in Grant Lake. Such similarities are expected since very little additional water is added to Grant Creek by additional 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 (AEIDC 1983; Figure 2). 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. 33 Draft -Grant Lake 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 ofF ails Creek collected information on water temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, trace metals, and pH among many other analytes. The source water for Falls Creek is much different than that for Grant Creek and thus Falls Creek was found to have some notable differences from Grant Creek. Falls Creek was found to be generally colder and more turbid than 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. These studies generated information and studies listed here: • Historical Grant Creek stream gage data (USGS 15246000) -II years of continuous stream gage data from 194 7-1958. • Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis, EBASCO, 1987, that 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 Instream Flow Study to begin in 20 I 0 and the FERC licensing process. Goals included increasing the period of record for water quality analytes 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: Kenai Hydro, LLC. 34 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 • To increase the hydrologic period of record on Grant Creek and Falls Creek • 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 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 GL TS, respectively). • Collected baseline water quality information in Grant Creek ( GC I 00, CG200, GC300). • Collected baseline water quality information in Falls Creek (FC I 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 I 00, GC250, and GC300, and temperature was 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 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 FC 100. • Correlate water surface elevation data, or stage data, to discharge through instantaneous measurements taken at the gauging locations. At the time of this draft report, the Grant Creek and Falls Creek temperature and hydrology data collection effort is ongoing, as data is continually recorded until approximately mid-October. The hydrology data is most accurately and efficiently analyzed as one data set and the analyzed full 2009 set will be incorporated into the final 2009 report. The surface temperature data that is collected in conjunction with these data will also be incorporated into the final 2009 report. 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. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 35 Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 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 100 feet upstream of the railroad crossing at FC 1 00, where surface water temperature and water surface elevation data are also collected. Three water quality sites were established on Grant Creek; GC 100 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 area of the proposed powerhouse location were temperature data were also being collected. Site GC250 is just a surface water temperature site. Sites GC 100, GC250, and GC300 had HOBO Pro V2 temperature data loggers installed to continually collect water temperature. Temperature data at FClOO and GC200 were logged with HOBO U20 Water Level Loggers in conjunction with hydrology water surface elevation data logging. 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 I 0 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, 1.5 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 l 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-81 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 the sampler raises and lowers the bottle 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. 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 Kenai Hydro, LLC. 36 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 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 GL TS, samples were collected at three depths; surface, mid-depth (or just below the thermocline when present), and at one meter above 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 multi-parameter meter. In-situ parameters measured include; 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 collection locations. A four-meter cable was used to collect these parameters at each creek sampling site. The probe was placed in the flowing 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 each meter 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 in-situ water quality parameters, including temperature, were collected using a YSI 556 multi- parameter meter. Temperature readings were used to record the water temperature at the time that water samples collected and in situ measurements were recorded. 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 GCI 00, GC250, and GC300 were collected using HOBO Pro V2 temperature data loggers. Surface water temperatures at FCIOO and GC200 were collected with HONO U20 Water Level Loggers in conjunction with the hydrology data collection efforts. Data loggers at FC I 00, GC 100, 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 at a depth of 20 meters. Data loggers were attached to the string at depths of0.2, 0.5, 1.5, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 and 19.5 meters. The data loggers were programed 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 20 1 0. Temperature readings on the thermistor string will be used to create a temperature profile of the lake. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 37 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 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 Fa lis Creek. 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 which is related to water surface elevation with post-processing and has an accuracy of 0.015 feet. The data loggers were set to record water depth and temperature at 15 minute intervals. Data loggers were installed in June and will be removed in mid-October. The schedule for these installations and removal is dependent on individual site conditions (e.g., ice cover and water level). Each staff gage was four inches wide by four feet 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 one foot PVC housing was connected to the post at the channel bottom with steel clamps. Holes were drilled in the one foot long section of the PVC housing to allow unrestricted water pressure over the sensors. An additional four foot 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 one inch 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 one foot 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 does not affect the other. Figure 4.4.2-1 shows a side view of the staff gage and data logger installation. The anchoring posts were approximately six foot 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 will also be performed prior to removal in the fall. Cross sections at these locations are typically surveyed once per year. Multiple temporary benchmarks (TBMs) 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 DOT &PF control point because the historical USGS gauging site benchmarks were not relocated. Data from the data loggers were, and continue to be, downloaded periodically after installation until they are removed for the season (fall). Kenai Hydro, LLC. 38 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 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) It was not possible to wade Grant Creek during high and medium summer 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 McBimey 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 (0 C), specific and relative conductivity, dissolved oxygen percent (D.O. %), dissolved oxygen (D.O. mg/L), pH, oxidation reduction potential (ORP) and turbidity. Table 4.1, above, lists parameters analyzed in samples submitted for laboratory analysis. Table 4.2 shows the initial results for all parameters.: Temperature Water temperature at sites in Grant Creek where water quality samples were collected ranged from 7.40°C to 9.44°C during June and from 11.26°C to 12.32°C in August. In Falls Creek 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 where water quality samples were taken. At GL TS 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 12m to l4.87°C at the surface. Temperature is recorded continuously at four locations along Grant Creek (GC I 00, GC200, GC250, and GC300) and at the stream gage on Falls Creek (FC1 OO)(Figure 4.3- 1). 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. 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 5 days evenly spaced throughout the recording period. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 39 Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Conductivity Specific conductivity at Grant Creek sampling sites ranged from 84 JlS/cm to 89 11S/cm in June and was 87 JlS/cm at all locations in August (Figure 4.5.1-8). The relative conductivity ranged from 64 11S/cm to 66 11Sicm in June and 64 11Sicm to 65 11S/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 76J.1S/cm in June and 85 JlS/cm in August. Relative conductivity was 46 JlS/cm in June and 57 JlS/cm in August. 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 11S/cm to 140 JlS/cm (Figure 4.5.1 1 0). The relative conductivity at the outlet ranged from 52 JlS/cm to 77 JlS/cm 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 11Sicm at the surface to 92 JlS/cm at depths of 19 and 20m (Figure 4.5.1-12). In August, specific conductivity ranged from and 65 11S/cm at a depth of 16m to 210 JlS/cm at a depth of 5 m. However the 210 11S/cm 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 11Sicm at depths 16 to 20m to 63 JlS/cm near the surface in June (Figure 4.5.1-13). In August relative conductivity ranged from 41 JlS/cm at a depth of 4m to 156 JlS/cm at Sm. The 5 m depth reading was somewhat unstable. Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved oxygen measurements recorded in 2009 are listed in Table 4.2. Considering historical data for Grant Lake and Grant Creek (AEIDC, 1983 and APA, 1984), it appears that the results are anomolous. This was most likely the result of instrument malfunction in the field (see discussion below). pH The pH measurements in Grant Creek during the June sampling ranged from 7.30 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 I 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 12m to 7.47 STD units at a depth of8 m. Turbidity Turbidity in Grant Creek ranged from 0. 75 NTU to 0.82 NTU during June (Figure4.5.1-26). InAugustturbidityrangedfrom lO.IONTUto 11.90NTU. Falls Creek turbidity measured 8.17 NTU in June and 17.00 NTU in August. Turbidity in Grant Lake at GL TS during June ranged from 0.55 NTU at 18 m 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 17m. At GLOut turbidity in June was 0.82 NTU at the Kenai Hydro, LLC. 40 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 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. 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 CaC03 during 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 11g/L (Figure 4.5.1-31 ). In August it was not detected at all three Grant Creek sites. The Falls Creek sample for June had an undetectable level of total Pb. However, in August total Pb was detected at the site with a concentration of 0.252 Jlg/L. Total Pb in Grant Lake was not detected at both locations at most depths. There was one detectable concentration at GL TS in June of 1.100 11g/L at a depth of 8m (Figure 4.5.1- 32). Mercury Low level Hg was not detected at any of the three sites in Grant Creek during June (Figure 4.5.1-33). In August it was detected at GC1 00 and GC200 with concentrations of 1.48 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 GLTS 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. TKN 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 Kenai Hydro, LLC. 41 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 GLOut were 0.414 mg/L and 0.651 mg/L (Figure 4.5.1-38). TKN 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 events. However, total P was detected in June at GC300 at a concentration of0.0233 mg/L (Figure 4.5.1-39). In August total P 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 GL TS 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 GL TS 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 GL TS 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 Two stream gages, FC 100 and GC200 were installed on June 9th and June 1 01h of 2009, respectively. Continuous stage data is currently being recorded and will continue to be recorded at these locations until Octoberl2, 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 OOgage elevations were surveyed with respect to the closest ADOTP&F reference point (CP #131, in ft MSL 1929 NGVD). Continuous stage data recorded from June 1Oth though August 301h at GC200 is presented in Figure 4.5.2-1. The water level recorded as pressure has been converted to feet 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 Kenai Hydro, LLC. 42 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 the daily fluctuation. The thick, dark blue colored line represents mean daily water surface elevations. The aqua colored circles represent field staff gage observations. 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 June 22nd, 2009 was measured at 423 cubic feet per second (cfs) by the current meter method, employing a boat as described above. Three instantaneous discharge measurements were obtained in the fall of2008, which are not accompanied by a continuous record. These measurements are as follows: • 126 cfs I October 4th, 2008 • 108 cfs I October 23rd, 2008 • 4 7 cfs I December 3rd, 2008 Continuous stage data recorded from June 9th though August 31st, 2009 at FC I 00 is presented in Figure 4.5.2-2. The following two discharge measurements were made in the fall of2008: • 22 cfs I October 5th, 2008 • 14 cfs I October 24th, 2008 Additional analyses will be performed on these data and presented in the final 2009 report, as mentioned above. 4.6 Discussion 4.6.1 Water Quality and Temperature 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; Appendix E). As expected,temperatures in Grant Creek increased as the water moved towards the mouth of the stream 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 ac at the USGS gage site which was somewhat lower than what was found in 2009. The water temperature readings that correspond to water sampling events at Grant Lake were also consistent with seasonal changes. At the outlet of Grant Lake water temperature did not vary widely by depth during the month of June. The decrease in temperature over depth during August could be the result of the beginning of temperature stratification with seasonal change. The surface temperature at the Grant Lake thermistor string during the June sampling event was approximately 6 degrees colder than during the August sampling event. During the June event the temperature profile showed nearly uniform temperature throughout the depth range except in the immediate vicinity of 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. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 43 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 The continuous Grant Lake temperature record reflects stratified temperatures, with the warmer temperatures and greater fluctuation observed nearer the surface. 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 meters depth was 14.76 °C on July 19 111 • Surficial daily mean temperatures at 0.2 meters depth range from: 7.48 °C on June lOth to 15.59 °C on July 81 h. The stream temperature trends of Grant Creek are 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). 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 readings collected during previous studies. In the 1980s the relative conductivity ranged from 45 to 150 JJ.S/cm and the highest reading in 2009 was 57 JJ.S!cm. In 1960 the relative conductivity was measured at 94 JJ.S/cm. 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; Appendix E). Falls Creek measured DO values were 7. 96 and 10.65 mg/L in June and August, respectively. Measurements of dissolved oxygen in Grant Lake study sites were relatively unifonn 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. Both sets of data are somewhat perplexing because they are lower than what would normally be expected in freshwater systems. For example, DO at 10 degrees Celcius is normally expected to be approximately 11.29 mg/L (APHA 2005). The historical D.O. concentrations were also much higher than any concentrations found during 2009 at Grant Lake locations. In 1981 and 1982 D.O. concentrations ranged from 9.75 to 14 mg/L. 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 findings were the result of equipment malfunction in the field. DO values 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; 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 collected in the 80'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 Kenai Hydro, LLC. 44 Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 NTU. Additional data collected during the course of the baseline studies will be examined to determine trends in turbidity values. 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 1960 and the 1980s measurements. The results of the 2009 sampling for total dissolved solids (TDS) in Grant Creek range from 53.8 to 62.5 mg/L (Table 4.3; Appendix E). The historical TDS concentrations at Grant Creek ranged from 31 mg/L in June 1982 to 84 mg/L in March 1982, 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, 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. This range is somewhat consistent with 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 and correspond with the turbidity ranges seen in June. Grant Creek historical data for TSS concentrations ranged from 0.6 mg/L in October 1981 to 4.3 mg/L in August 1982. These concentrations are consistent with the concentrations found in 2009 (Table 4.3; Appendix E). 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. 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 possibly oligotrophic (Table 4.3, Appendix E). 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 peaks, 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 FC100 (Figure 4.5.2-2). The GC200 and FC 1 00 water surface elevation plots shows the staff gage readings fall below the logged water surface elevations for many of the staff gage readings. These data will be updated with the complete 2009 data record and data from the second survey. When the final 2009 data set is complete error bars will be added to the staff gage Kenai Hydro, LLC. 45 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 readings. Depending on the results from the analysis of the complete dataset, it may be necessary to employ a larger stilling well in 201 0 for the loggers in order to reduce the noise recorded in 2009. Additional analyses will be performed for hydrology data collected at these stations. As discussed above, data collection is continuing at the time of this report. Primary objectives for additional analyses include validating or calibrating the USGS stage/discharge data to estimate discharge for a given water surface elevation. Similarly, with more calibration points (instantaneous discharge measurements) ideally, a rating curve will be developed for the continuous record at FC 1 00. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 46 Draft -Grant Lake 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. 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. 1:240-250. Bailey, J.E., B.L. Wing and C.R. Mattson. 1975. Zooplankton Abundance and Feeding Habitats~( Fry~( Pink Salmon, Oncorhynchus Goruscha, and Chum Salmon, Oncorhynchus Keta, in Traitors Cove, Alaska, With Speculations on the Carrying Capacity ~(the Area. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Auke Bay, Alaska. English, K.K., R.C. Hocking, 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. Envirosphere. 1987. Instreamflow and habitat analysis Grant Lake hydroelectric project. Prepared for Kenai Hydro, Inc. HDR Alaska Inc. 2009a. Falls Creek Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Draft. Prepared for: Kenai Hydro, LLC. HDR Alaska Inc. 2009b. Grant Creek Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Draft. Prepared for: Kenai Hydro, LLC. Johnson, J. and K. Klein. 2009. Catalog ~(waters important for spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fishes-Southcentral Region, Effective June 1, 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Special Publication No. 09-03, Anchorage, AK. Kenai Hydro, Inc. 1987a. Grant Lake hydroelectric project additional il?formation. Kenai Hydro, Inc. 1987b. Grant Lake hydroelectric pr~ject FERC No. 7633-002 additional information final report with agency license terms and conditions for selected alternative I and power contract information. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 47 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 McHenry, T. 1981. Personal communication, October 12, 1981. Sport Fish Div., Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Seward, AK. Cited in AP A 1984. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis. Volume 2. Environmental Report. Rep. from Ebasco Services Incorporated, Bellevue, Washington. Marcuson, P. 1989. Coho salmon fry stocking in Grant Lake, Alaska. Prepared for: U.S. Forest Service, Seward Ranger District, Chugach National Forest. Neilson, J.D., and G.H. Geen. 1981. Enumeration of Spawning Salmon.from Spawner Residence Time and Aerial Counts. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society. Vol. 110. Pp. 554-556. Plafker, G. 1955. Geologic investigations of proposed power sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan, and Crescent Lakes, AK. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1031-A. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Rantz, S.E., and others. 1982. Measurement and Computation of Streamflow, Volume I: Measurement of Stage and Discharge. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2175. Sisson, D. 1984. Fishing the Kenai Peninsula. Alaska Fieldbooks Co. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1981. National Hydroelectric Power Study, Regional Report. Regional Report: Volume XX/11-Alaska. USACE North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon and Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska. USDA Forest Service 2001. FSH2090 Aquatic Habitat Management Handbook (R-10 Amendment 2090.21-2001-1. Chapter 20 Fish and Aquatic Stream Habitat Survey. 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1961. Ptarmigan and Grant Lakes and Falls Creek, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, progress report on the fish and wildlife resources. Department of the Interior. Juneau, Alaska. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 48 Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 6 Notes Kenai Hydro, LLC. 49 Appendix A Project Vicinity Map Kenai Hydro, LLC. Kenai Hvdro Environmental Baseline Studies Figure 2-1 2009 Fish and Aquatic Resources Study Area Legend 0 StudyArea -...Rail Seward Hi ghway ""'--Rivers ~ Contours (1 0ft) A Miles NORTH o o.s Map ~j.aion: NAD 83 1Jub State Plane Zonil 4 feet DatA Sources: HDR, k PI, USfS Author: HDR Aluka, Inc. Date : 07 October 2009 lNt ,..,,.,.. •• __.,.....~"'~· ..... ,., KlelftC¥. n. w.m.tiM'I ~ ... ,. ,.,...,. ~·""" l!!lliH........,......I'I •"--' c.....,... ctat.fl"om¥.tou. ,._. ...... """", .................. L n.-,....,.,.,,~,_,...,.,.,. Kenai Hgdro LLC li)~ - ~.,, Appendix B Summary lnstream Flow Study Kenai Hydro, LLC. Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 L_ ........,R I ONE COMPANY r:L.A. Many Solutions'" Memo To: Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric TWG From: Jason Kent Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Copy: Brad Zubeck, Kenai Hydro LLC I 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. (KH I) 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 in stream 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. Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix B -1 I i I I I I ; Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 KHI suggested the following proposed MIF regime: 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 100 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. Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix B - 2 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 Corin, 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. Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix B -3 Draft Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 "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. Ken a i H y d r o , L L C. Appendix B -4 • 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 43-1 06 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 at. 1982)." The HSC used for this study are presented in Figures 5 through 7. Details on Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix B -5 Draft Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 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." 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 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. Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix 8 - 6 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. • 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_lnc_Grant_Lake_Hydro_Project_Addtl_lnfo_Fina I_Report_with_Agency_ T _Cs_9-4-1987.pdf This document includes the communication between KHl and the agencies regarding negotiated minimum instream flows and ramping rates. The key documents are letters to KHl 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. Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix B -7 Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 USFWS and NMFS suggested the following MIF regime: November 1 April30 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 • 1 0 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°C in the summer and +2oC 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. Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix B - 8 NATURAL (AVERAGE) AND WITH -PROJECT FLOWS 551 500 450 DRAFT <lOG F 350 L 0 300 N Z50 I 201 N c 150 F 100 s 50 0 l 8 9 10 l1 u IOITH -+-AVE-WITH PAO..ECT -B-HIGi-WITH PROJECT--*-LOll-WITH fffi.ECT -t-NAMAL Figure 1. Proposed project flows in Grant Creek Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix B -9 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC. ~l·-· '<111.1 Figure 2. KHI stream survey June 26, 1986 Appendix B -10 'filA~ L""-"'"''} Foo!. ~TUitH SV""""'f (Jcro,.EL 2"1, l'lt{,. Figure 3. Transect locations for KHI stream survey, October 24, 1986 "1 J L~GE"40 '" loiAY ~ Jl,!t, AUG f-1111( 0# Tt.U GIIA"'t C~££1: 'TtlltPliUTLMf (AO¥'C ..,IU, JS'l! t':il!ll, .U:!O(; !912! S!~ OCT NOW DEC GRANT CRE!:k ANO PROJECT&:~ 'pfl().JEC'T CllSCHARGE T!.'WP£:A.lTURE5 Figure 4. Anticipated post-project temperature regime in Grant Creek Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix B -11 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC. 1.0 u o.• 0.4 0.2 ... 0 1.0 u li: •.• ~ i o.• •• .. Velocity I $ HIOCity (fpt) Depth 2 ••loaM) (,_t .ltp-1:~ (~) [)opl1l 0.0 0.5 2.0 4.0 s...-11' 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 o.o S<Joobllily 0.0 011 1.0 1.0 Figure 5. Habitat Suitability Criteria for adult Chinook salmon Appendix B -12 '· .. ~ o. i 0 o. Velocity • frt; 35 kl ISO nun (SIIflltr at al. 19!13) 0 ·u.o 0.2 o• o.e li.t U) 1.2 _, ... , .. ;;-0. ~ i o. V•!Qelty • Fry: 5t to 100 trW'ft (Butger et at 11J83) o. o.o o.l o.• o.e o.t 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.1 1-1 2.0 ve10eity (fpa• I. f ;: ... 02 o.• o.e -IIMI) •.. ... VtiO<IIy 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.!5 l.t 2.0 V-lly o.c 0.!5 0.75 2.0 0- 0.0 0.1 O.l! 1.0 Sui_, o.s 1.0 t.O O.li 0.1 0.0 Suitabllt!y 1.0 1.0 0.1 O.ll Sulttbllhy o.o c.o t.ll 1.0 Figure 6. Habitat Suitability Criteria for juvenile Chinook salmon Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix B -13 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Depth (Estos and Viocert • Lang 1984) Depth Suitablity 0.0 0.0 o.l1 0.0 0.!1 0.2 O.S 0.9 0.75 1.0 ID 1.0 Velocity LO •.. O.pib Sul!ablllty o.o 1.0 ~ oe 1.0 1.0 i 2.0 0.5 ~ o.c 3.0 0.1 u; o.o ·~ oc 0.0 u o• 05 0.8 10 hpth{ r • .-.) Figure 7. Habitat Suitability Criteria for adult sockeye salmon CHINOOK SPAWNING W.U.A. GRANT CRf£K 13 12 , 10 9 ~ fi e ~: ~i 7 6 5 .. ;s 2 !50 150 2SO 350 DISCHARGE CFS Figure 8. Weighted Usable Area for spawning adult Chinook salmon Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix B -14 GRANT CREEX 6 5.!1 5 fi 4.5 ~li ...:~ :>0 ~t 4 3.!1 3 2.5 5I) 100 151l 200 251) 300 351) 400 450 lltSCHARGE (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 ;!.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3 2.9 2.8 :2.7 fi 2.5 ~~ 2.5 ~!: 2.4 ,o ~t :2.3 2.2 2..1 z 1.!1 1.11 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 110 lOll 151) 200 Z50 300 351) 400 460 Figure 10. Weighted Usable Area for juvenile rearing Chinook salmon 50-100 mm Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix B -15 Draft Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 SOCKEYE SPAWNING W.U.A. GIWIT CREEK " 7.5 1 6.11 ,.... 6 fi ..... ~ 11.11 iJ t ll 4.5 4 3.5 J 50 150 2:50 3SG <lllO DlSCfWIGE (CFS) Figure 11. Weighted Usable Area for adult spawning sockeye salmon Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix B -16 Appendix C Tables Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 4.1 Catch table by gear type, Grant Creek Catch table by gear type, Grant Lake Angling effort (hours) Minnow trapping effort (trap hours) Water quality parameters Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix C 2 Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Table 3.2 Catch table by gear type, Grant Creek Species Scientific Name Number of Fish Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 68 --------···--··--------- Dolly Varden Salvelinus malmo 9 Arctic grayling Thymol/us arcticus Sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka 2 -----------·--·--- Total 80 Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 176 -------------··--··--··--·--·~ Coho Salmon Dolly Varden Rainbow trout Sockeye Salmon ----·--·---------- Sculpin Threespine stickleback Total Chinook Salmon Coho Salmon Dolly Varden Rainbow Trout Sockeye Salmon Sculpin Threespine Stickleback Total Kenai Hydro, LLC. Oncorhynchus kisutch Salvelinus malmo Oncorhynchus mykiss Oncorhynchus nerka Cottus spp. Gasterosteus aculeatus Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Oncorhynchus kisutch Salvelinus malmo Oncorhynchus mykiss 430 831 48 17 55 1,558 20 57 43 7 ----~---------··--··--··--··--··--·- Oncorhynchus nerka 6 Cottus spp. 12 Gasterosteus aculeatus 4 149 Appendix C - 3 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Table 3.3 Catch table by gear type, Grant Lake Scientific Name Number Sculpin Cottus spp. 18 Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus 6 Total 24 Gill Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus acu/eatus 4 Total 4 Sculpin Cottus spp. 79 Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus 4,798 Total 4,877 Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix C - 4 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Table 3.4 Angling effort (hours) Reach 1 2 3 4 Total June 6.00 6.00 6.33 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 Total 18.07 17.95 18.52 17.00 9.65 81.18 a One less angling site b Two less angling sites Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix C - 5 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Table 3.5 Minnow traeeina effort ~trae hoursl Reach 1 2 3b June 200.95 230.07 190.18 -~--~~--------- 295.97 263.53 372.40 182.00 226.25 271.92 Total 678.92 719.85 834.50 • Reach 4 had one less minnow trap than other reaches. " Reach 3 had three more minnow traps in August. c Reach 5 had three minnow traps. 1 Reach 6 had five minnow traps. Kenai Hydro, LLC. 4a 5c: 183.48 219.33 77.20 201.60 49.18 604.42 126.38 6d Total 103.87 908.55 ----- 1,228.43 105.42 1,036.37 209.28 3,173.35 Appendix C -6 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Table 4.1 Water Quality Parameters Parameter Units Nitrate/Nitrite Orthophosphate mg/L Total phosphorous Lead STD Temperature OC -------------···-----~-------·------·----~---· --···----- Dissolved % Specific and Relative mV NTU Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix C -7 GC300 6/11/2009 7.47 0.0890 64.00 61.30% 7.34 7.30 0.82 reading GlOut 6/11/2009 0.00 7.95 64.40% 7.64 7.27 0.82 reading unstable Con d. GlOut 6/11/2009 1.00 7.90 64.30% 7.61 7.26 reading GlOut 6/11/2009 2.00 7.52 63.80% 7.63 7.29 reading Cond. GLOut 6/11/2009 3.00 7.37 63.80% 7.67 7.32 reading Cond. GLOut 6/11/2009 4.00 7.27 63.80% 7.70 7.37 reading Cond. GlOut 6/11/2009 5.00 7.39 64.10% 7.73 7.98 0.90 reading Cond. GlOut 6/11/2009 6.00 7.23 64.00% 7.72 7.45 reading GlOut 6/11/2009 7.00 7.17 63.50% 7.67 7.43 reading GLOut 6/11/2009 8.00 7.09 63.10% 7.63 7.41 reading 4.18 Con d. GlOut 8/7/2009 2.00 12.70 0.1400 77.00 53.90% 5.63 7.30 reading Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix C -8 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Site Date Depth Temperature Specific (m) (•C) Conductivit Name y (mS/cm) GLOut 8/7/2009 8.00 11.02 0.0890 GLOut 8/7/2009 9.00 10.59 0.0850 GLOut 8/7/2009 10.00 9.76 0.0850 GLOut 8/7/2009 11.00 10.01 0.0880 GLOut 8/7/2009 12.00 8.28 0.0820 -------·--· GlTS 6/11/2009 0.00 8.64 0.0900 -·--·· GlTS 6/11/2009 1.00 8.09 0.0900 GlTS 6/11/2009 2.00 7.32 GlTS 6/11/2009 3.00 6.93 GlTS 6/11/2009 4.00 6.83 GLTS 6/11/2009 5.00 6.31 GLTS 8/7/2009 5.00 11.67 0.2100 Kenai Hydro, LLC. Relative DO* ('Yo) DO* Conductivi (mg/l) ty (IJ,S/cm) 65.00 51.50% 5.69 62.00 50.90% 5.67 60.00 50.10% 5.68 62.00 50.90% 5.75 52.00 50.50% 5.95 63.00 68.40% 7.96 63.00 66.20% 7.80 65.40% 7.86 64.40% 7.84 64.30% 7.83 63.70% 7.86 156.00 53.60% 5.80 pH Turbidity Notes (NTU) 7.47 7.38 7.35 ·------··--·--··-- 7.34 7.07 7.43 7.35 7.30 7.30 7.30 7.31 7.26 ··--··-- ··----·--··--··- 0.64 Cond. reading reading reading Cond. reading unstable Cond. reading Con d. reading Appendix C -9 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Site Name GLTSBOT Alk (mg/L caco,J Total Pb (118fL I Table 4.3 Water Quality Lab Results Hg NO,+NO, PO• TDS (mg/L) TKN (mg/L) (ng/L) (mg/L) Jun Aug Jun Aug Jun Aug Jun Aug Jun Aug Jun Aug Jun 2 4. 25. N N 1.6 0.4 0.3 N 45. Total P (mg/L} TSS (mg/L) Aug Jun Aug Jun Aug 0.8 GLTSMID 2 1 4. 24. 0 N 1.6 0.4 0.3 N 48. O.D2 1.0 5 6 0 NO D 4 21 03 D ND 68.8 8 NO NO 18 NO 00 2.580 ---~··-~·-~·-~·-~·-~·--·-~·--··--·----·-···----~·---~·--·-·--··----·--··--·-- GLTSSUR GLOUTS UR GLOUTM ID FC100 GC100 GC200 GC300 2 3. 2 24. N N 1.1 0.4 0.2 N 46. 0.7 3. 24. N N 0.4 0.2 N 32. 0.6 8 0 0 NO 0 1.4 14 68 _:::D _ _:_Nc.::Dc__..::5:::1:.·~3 _ _:5::.___:N..:.:D::.__:.:.ND=---.:.:N:::D __ N:.::.D::._ _ _::0.::.0 _ _:1:.::.9::.:6:.::0_ 2 3. 24. N N 2.0 0.6 0.2 N 47. 0.5 7. 21. N 0.2 4.4 0.1 N 70. 0.01 8.3 4 0 0 52 0 2 45 NO 0 __ N_0 ___ 48.:.::.8_..:0:...._--..:.N.:.::Oc_____cN:.:.:0=---..::.5;:__7 _ __:N..:.:O::.__.:..:OO 8.240 0. 2 5 4. 23. 9 2 0 5. 23. 9 2 3 N 1.4 0.4 0.2 N 62. N 1.5 0.4 0.2 N 43. 5. 23. 9 N 2.0 0.4 0.3 N 60. 0 0 2 NO 0 5 16 23 D NO 57.5 0 NO NO 0.02 33 ND 0.7 0.8 0.8 00 2.930 Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix C -11 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Site Date Depth Temperature Specific Relative DO*(%) DO* pH Turbidity (m) t•C) Conductivit Conductivi (mg/l) Notes Name y (mS/cm) ty (115/cm) (NTU) GLTS 8/7/2009 15.00 7.00 0.0910 91.00 49.80% 6.05 7.12 GLTS 8/7/2009 16.00 6.90 0.0650 89.00 49.30% 5.99 7.07 GLTS 8/7/2009 17.00 6.09 0.0960 62.00 48.40% 5.99 7.06 4.84 --··-··--·--- GLTS 8/7/2009 18.00 5.95 0.0870 61.00 48.00% 5.98 7.04 --··-··- Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix C -10 Appendix D Section 3.0 Figures Kenai Hydro, LLC. Kenai Hydro Environmental Baseline Studies Upper Trail Lake Fig ure 3 .4.1-l Fisheries Field Studies 2009 Grant Creek Sampling Sites and Reaches Legend 0 Minnow Trap I Efish Si te e A ngling Site ..rv--Gran t Cr ee k Wetted Ed ge ... NORTH Feet 250 500 Map Projection: NAD 8! Alaska Sta~ Plant Zone 4 Feet Dat a Sources: HDR Alaska, Inc., USFS, KPI, USGS, Aerumetrtc Autt.of: HOR Ala 1ka. Inc. Date: OS October 2009 ll*,...,,.,._,.._ptwf ...... d~·~~~~,.lrtd.cc::w-.y. Tf'MinfDmdln~t.. .,.,,. ..... ~Q· .... ....,.,..." aMwrt--... ... frotnwrioui~N!tnl .... P'-*.•rtd~- l'MM _.,. 11'1 fll ,.._.._,..,.,.......,. Kenai Hgdro LLC liR -- ~<# ....... Kenai Hvdro Environmental Baseline Studies Figure 3.4.3-1 lnstream Flow Microhabitat Sample Areas Reach 1, june 2009 Mlcroh•bltat Sample Areas -backwater/slow pockets m margin with UCB -margin with no UCB ~ poollfastwater ~ riflle/fastwater I· •. •j margin sheW w/ in stream cover ~ large woody dabris (LV'.U) dam side channel: variable • KS·Chinook salmon • cs-coho salmon • OV·Dolly Varden char 0 Sc=Sculpin-unspeclfled Feet 50 100 Map Projection: NAD IJ Alaska Stat• Plana Zon~ 4 fHt Data Sourc:u: HDR .Alaska, Inc.. Author: HOR Alaska, Inc. Dah:: October 6, 2009 .,..,..,,.,._ ..... _,...._.of.., ........ __,. n.~....,.,,_ .. lotpii~NV~" ... .... ..........,.,. ...... CIOfNIUM ......... wulol.a lrMifK ..... ,... ..... ,..,... ........ TMMini,.INfor,..,..,.~~. ID~ - c~-".V.... Fiaure 3.4 .3-2 lnstream Flow Microhabitat Sample Areas Reach Z, June 2009 Micr ohabitat Sample Areas -backwater/slaw pockets m margin with UCB -margin with no UCB ~ poollfastwater ~ rillte/fastwater I· • • • • margin shelf w/ instream cover f;-;=cj large woody debris (Lv.tl) dam side channel: variable • KS.Chinook $almon • CS•coho salmon • DV•Dolly Varden char • AG=Arctic gr ~yling Sc ·Sculpln·unspecifled Feet 50 100 Map Pro}Ktton: NAO IJ AJuh State P11ne Zont. 4 het Data Sources: HDR Ab.slr.a, Inc. Author: HDR Alaska, Inc. Date: October 6 , 2009 TMI.,_,.,..,...,. a __,eu.l .... lof~ ........ ___,. n.~....,.d-...tor,-,....,.,."0,.,. .... ...._._,. ~ CM'IIIIItl.fiM •• hm'MM~a ....... .... ,.._ ••• ~IMUI'OeoL n.. .,.,. • .-for r....,_I*'JIIMH ... ~ c~>"' Kenai Hvdro Environmental Baseline Studies Figure 3.4.3-3 Jnstream Flow Microhabitat Sample Areas Reach 3, June Z009 Mlcrohablut Sample Ar .. • -backwater/slow pockets llllllllll margin with UCB ~ margin with no UCB ~ poolllastwater ~ rifllalfastwater r;-. t:...: ~ margin shaW wl in stream cover large woody debris (l\".0) dam side channel: variable • Ks-chi nook sal m on • CS•coho salmo n • DV·Dolly Varden char 0 Sc=Sculpln-unspeclfl@d Feet so 100 Map Projtdton: NAD 85 Alaska StAt• Plant: Zon4 4 Feet O.ta Sources: HDR Alaska, Inc. Allt+lor: HOR AJ ad ;a, Inc. Dat•: October 5 , 2009 ll*,....""""",.._,...,.....,_~----MQnUy. ,. .. ,. • ....,.d ,_. .,... .. l'ltllll ,..._"....,. rt.MIIIhnNMoft ..... _..... ... htn...,... ... ,.., .............. ,.,...~ ltlew _,.. ... ,., ,..,........,..., ..,.,. :n::n -- Kenai Hydro Environmental Baseline Studies Figure 3.4.3-4 tnstream Flow Microhabitat Sample Areas Reach 4, June 2009 MlcrOhabltllt Sample Areas -backwater/slow pockats IIJlUIID margin with UCB rBj m~WQin w~h no UCB ~ poollfastwater ~ rifllelfastwater r=::::: margin shelf w/ instream cover f:-;:c-j large woody debris (LV.U) dam Fish Species Color Key side Channel: variable • KS-Chinook salmon • cs-coho salmon • DV•Oolly Varden char • AG~Arctic gr~yfing Sc~Sculpin..<Jnspedfied Feet 40 80 MAp Pro]ecOon : HAD U Alaska Sta~ Fbne Zone 4 Fut Data !oura:s: HOR Alaske, Inc, Author: HDR Aluka, Inc. Date: October 6, 2009 T..-rNop,.,...,..~·--Gfullty ....... ~. TMIMD~YMion...,..,_cl...,_._,.,~,..,._.'""f. ~ ........ " ....... _.... .............. ..,..,.. ..... .... ...-= .............. ... n..,.....,.,.,l'fth.J~UfpMHorlf'. lil1 - Kenai Hydro Environmental Baseline Studies Figure 3.4.3· 5 lnstream Flow Microhabitat Sample Areas Reach 5, june 2009 Mlcrohabllllt Samplo Areas -backwater/slow pockets illlllllllllll margin with UC B -margin with no UCB ~ pool/!astwater ~ riflleffastwater I· • • • 4 margin shell w/ instream cover ~ large woody debris (LV'.tll dan side charnel: variable • KS-Chinook salmon • CS.coho salmon • OV•Dolly Varden mar Sc.&ulpln-unspeclfled Feet 40 so Map "'o}Ktton: HAD 83 Alaska State Pl•ne Zon• 4 F"t D•ta Sovrets: HOR Alatlta. lnc. Author: HOR Alaska. Inc:. D1te: Oaober 6, 2009 ,.. ,., ,.,...,. . __,...'-lot...,. .......... ~ TN~~w. .. ,.,..,...,..,.._.o._ . .... -........on.,.___..., .. hftlvMoA. ... ftll, ...................... - n-..,.,...~,..,...'1111'~~· Iii~ - r~-"' Kenai Hydro Environmental Baseline Studies Upper Trail Lake Clout A Grant Lake GLTS A Figure 3.4.4-1 Aquatic Resources 2009 Grant Creek and Grant Lake Aquatic Invertebrates Legend Macrolnvertebrates and Perlphyton A Zooplankton and Phytoplankton ""'-r-Grant Creek Wetted Edge ~·\.~· Side or Overflow Channel .. NORTH Foot 250 500 Map Projtctton: NAO 11 Alaska Stats Plane Zone .. Feet Data Sourc:u: HDR Alaska, tnc., USFS, t:PI. USCS, Aerometrlc Author: HDR Alaska, Inc. O.te: 071ktober 2009 ,... ll'llp,.._ ...... c:onw~ .... ,of...,. . .e.l,llltll.o:u..,.. 1')111Holft'dtn ....... IMNIIfor.,....,.,..,_"...,· .... ~...__,...,. ... hm .............. ...... ""* ..... ,..... ...... .. n.. ... ~ ... ro,,.._purpo ... . HR - I ( -. .. .. . .. ,, ' ·IZi . .-~ .. ' .... ' . ..,._Jf., " . ,. f •. H "'. • • . ..... ''-------------' Kenai Hydro Environmental Baseline Studies Figure 3.4. 5-1 Fisheries Field Studies 2009 Falls Creek Minnow Trapping Legend 0 Minnow Trap Site Feet 250 500 Map ftvjKtton: HAD 83 Absb State Pla"e Zone -4 fHt Dau. Sourcu: HDR Alatka, Inc., U5FS. kPl. USGS Author: HOR Alaska, Inc. Oate: 09 October 2009 n.,..,.,........~,...,....,"" ........ ....,.~. TM IIIIIMNIMI .....,._.,_.II fltt ... m ............. ...... ... ~.._.,.c....et~AM-..t-om~-- ..... .....-.alld~a.,_ .. n...,... ............ """'""''""' liR - Kenai Hydro Environmental Baseline Studies Figure 3.4.6-1 Fisheries Field Studies 2009 Grant Lake Sampling Sites Legend ..t. Gill Net Site • Minnow Trap I Efish Site • Efish Only Site .... 2,000 4,000 Map ProjtctJon: HAD 83 Alaska StAtt Plant Zont1 4 fHt Data Sources: HDR Ala1ka, JrK., l.ISFS, KPB, USGS Author: HOR Alaska, Inc. Date: 0!'1 Octo'"-r 2009 .,.,.,..,_..OOMt,... ..... rl~.-.......,..ac:c:vM¥· ,.~~-,. .................... .... 111M HonNIDn•-.---. .._ II'Oiflw'*-... ret .... ldlt ..... (lllftllllllt---,. .. ,...,. .,.,.., ~,_.,._.,.,.. liR - Kenai Hydro Environmental Baseline Studies ) q; •*. ~ Upper Trail Lake Figure 3.5-1 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 Grant Creek Wetted Edge Side I Overflow Channel .... 250 500 Wap Ptojedlon: NAD 81 Alulta State Plane Zone 4 feet Data Sources: HDR Aluka, Inc., USFS, Kfl'l, USGS, Aeromdric: Author: HDR AJI!alr.a. tnc. Date: 07 Octokr 2009 tNI m., ,.,.. ...... _,.........,...,__, ......... c:a.nq. h~~h-.IIIIDt ..... ~ • ...,. .... ~" ....... contiiWH .. '""" ........... ,.., .... ,... .•• ,...-.eM. n. .. ,.....,.,.,,...._,..,........., Kenai Hgdro LLC }ill -- Kenai Hydro Environmental Baseline Studies Upper Trail Lake Figure 3.5-2 Fisheri es Field Studies Legend 2009 Grant Creek Fish Use Map Chinook Spawning Aggregate Sockeye Spawning Aggregate 0 • Historical Spawning (AEIDC, 1983) ADFG Anadromous Fish Distribution limit -.J\.,.-Grant Creek Wetted Edge ~·\·'· Side or Overflow Channel ... NORTH . ... 250 500 Map Projection: HAD IJ Alaska State l'tane Zone 4 Feet Data Sourcu: HDR Aluka, Inc .. USFS, KPI, USCiS, A•rometr1c Author: HDR Aluka, Inc. Oat•: 07 October 2009 ,. ,...repr ... ,.. __.,..,.. ..... "'~ .... .Mdao:vK~J. Tht .,.,_ • ....,. .... ".., .... ,.,.. P'I'P'"".....,. ..,......._.,_...__.,_.....~ll'omwrillw...,._ ........................ .-oM. TMee -~.,...,,.,._,...,..... ...,. Kenai Hgdro LLC 1iR - ~-&·f' Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 juvenile sockeye salmon (n=l) three spine stickleback (n=SS) juvenile Dolly Varden (n=831) juven i le Chinook salmon (n=l76) Figure 3.5.1-1 Catch by species in minnow traps in Grant Creek, June-August, 2009 140 120 100 > u c:: 80 C1.l ::I 0" 60 ~ u.. 40 20 0 length (mm) Figure 3.5.1-2 Length frequencies of juvenile coho salmon captured in minnow traps in Grant Creek in August, 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC . Appendix D -13 Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 70 1 60 j 50 > v c 40 Q) :::J tT 30 j ~ u.. 20 - 10 L 0 length (mm) Figure 3.5.1-3 Length frequencies of juvenile Chinook salmon captured in minnow traps in Grant Creek in August, 2009 Arctic grayli (n=l) sockeye salmon -----:::;;;iii (n=2) rainbow trout (n=68) Figure 3.5.1-4 Catch by species for angling surveys in Grant Creek, June-August, 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix D-14 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 2 1.8 1.6 -1.4 .... ::l _g 1.2 -~ 1 ~ ~ 0.8 Q.. u 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Reach 1 • Chinook Salmon • Rainbow Trout Sculpin Reach 2 Reach 3 • Coho Salmon • Sockeye Salmon Reach 4 Reach 5 • Dolly Varden Arctic Grayling Threespine Stickleback Reach 6 Figure 3.5.1-5 CPUE by reach and species from minnow trapping, Grant Creek, June -August, 2009 ~ 0.6 ::l 0 0.4 ..r::. -..r::. VI !!:.. 0.2 U.J ::::> Q.. 0 u Riffle • Chinook Salmon • Dolly Varden • Sockeye Salmon Sculpin Backwater /Pool • Coho Salmon • Rainbow Trout Arctic Grayling Threespine Stickleback Figure 3.5.1-6 Reach 1, CPUE by habitat, June-August, 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix D -15 Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 -0.4 .... ::J 0.3 0 L:. -L:. 0.2 Ill ~ w 0.1 ::> 0.. 0 u Riffle • Chinook Salmon • Dolly Varden • Sockeye Salmon Sculpin Backwater /Pool • Coho Salmon • Rainbow Trout Arctic Grayling Threespine Stickleback Figure 3.5.1-7 Reach 2, CPUE by habitat, June-August, 2009 0.5 .... 0.4 :l 0 .s; 0.3 ...... .s; "' !:!:. 0.2 w ::> 0.1 D.. u 0 Riffle Backwater/Pool Overflow Channel • Chinook Salmon • Dolly Varden • Sockeye Salmon Sculpin • Coho Salmon • Rainbow Trout Arctic Grayling .Threespine Stickleback Figure 3.5.1-8 Reach 4, CPUE by habitat, June-August, 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix D -16 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 0.3 ..... :::l 0 0.2 .r: ........ .r: "' £ 0.1 UJ ::::> a.. u 0 Riffle Backwater/Pool Overflow Channel • Chinook Salmon • Dolly Varden • Sockeye Salmon Sculpin • Coho Salmon • Rainbow Trout Arctic Grayling Threespine Stickleback Figure 3.5.1-9 Reach 3, CPUE by habitat, June -August, 2009 0.8 ..... :::l 0.6 0 .r: ........ .r: 0.4 "' £ UJ 0.2 ::::> a.. u 0 • Chinook Salmon • Dolly Varden • Sockeye Salmon Sculpin Cascade • Coho Salmon • Rainbow Trout Arctic Grayling Threespine Stickleback Figure 3.5.1-10 Reach 5, CPUE by habitat, June-August, 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix D -17 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 0.8 0.7 0.6 -._ :::J 0.5 0 ..c: .......... ..c: 0.4 11'1 £ w ::J 0.3 c.. u 0.2 0.1 0 _b._._.ik .. l I .~ I I I ', I .. I .-l N ('1') o::t a.n 1.0 .-l N ('1') o::t a.n 1.0 .-l N ('1') o::t a.n 1.0 ..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 I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll 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: June July August • Chinook salmon • coho salmon Dolly Varden rainbow trout Figure 3.5.1-11 CPUE by reach and species from minnow trapping for selected species, Grant Creek, June -August, 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix D -18 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 100 90 80 70 > v 60 c QJ 50 ::I 0" ~ 40 u.. 30 20 10 0 Length (mm) Figure 3.5.1-12 Length frequencies of Dolly Varden captured in minnow traps in Grant Creek in August, 2009 6 5 > 4 v c ~ 3 0" ~ u.. 2 1 0 (of\;) "~\;) 9;,1\;) <-,~ (o~ '\~ Length (mm) Figure 3.5.1-13 Length frequencies of rainbow trout captured in minnow traps in Grant Creek in August, 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix D -19 Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 4.5 4 3.5 '1:' 3 :::J 0 ..r:. 2.5 ....... ..r:. VI ~ 2 w ::> 0.. u 1.5 1 0.5 0 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 5 • Dolly Varden • Rainbow Trout Arctic Grayling Figure 3.5.1-14 CPUE by reach and species from angling surveys in Grant Creek, June- August, 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix D -20 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 2.50 a) rainbow trout 2.00 . -.... ~ 0 1.50 .c. -.c. Ill 'i= -UJ 1.00 ::::> 0.. u 0.50 0.00 .__ ---....__ '- .-4 N m ~ L/") ~ N m ~ L/") ~ N m ~ L/") .c. .c. .c. .c. .c. u u u u u (1l (1l (1l (1l (1l Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) a: a: a: a: a: ~ .c. .c. .c. .c. .c. .c. .c. .c. .c. ~ u u u u u u u u u (1l (1l (1l (1l (1l (1l (1l (1l (1l ~ Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) a: a: a: a: a: a: a: a: a: June July August 0.50 0.45 b)Dolly Varden 0.40 L:' 0.35 :::J 0 0.30 .c. -.c. 0.25 Ill !E. UJ ::::> 0.20 0.. 0.15 u 0.10 0.05 0.00 '-- ~ N m ~ L/") ~ N m ~ L/") ~ N IY) ~ L/") .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 (1l (1l (1l (1l (1l (1l (1l (1l (1l (1l (1l (1l (1l (1l (1l 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: June July August Figure 3.5.1-15 CPUE by month and reach for a) rainbow trout and b) Dolly Varden from angling surveys in Grant Creek, June-August, 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix D-21 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 3.5 3 2.5 > u 2 c CIJ :::::1 tr ~ 1.5 LL 1 0.5 0 length (mm) Figure 3.5.1-16 Length frequencies for rainbow trout angled on Grant Creek during June, 2009 8 7 6 > 5 u c ~ 4 tr ~ LL 3 2 1 0 I I I Length (mm) Figure 3.5.1-17 Length frequencies for rainbow trout angled on Grant Creek during August, 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix D -22 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 > v c: Q) J c- Q) ... LL 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 101-120 121-140 141-160 161-180 181-200 201-220 221-240 length (mm) Figure 3.5.1-18 Length frequencies for Dolly Varden angled on Grant Creek during June, 2009 2.5 2 > 1.5 v c: Q) J c- ~ 1 LL 0 .5 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'S.....; 'S ~ ~ '), ~ "'V ~ "'V ~ "V ~ ')) ~, ~, 'S, ~ '>) ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ o/ ~ ~ ~ ~ length (mm) Figure 3.5.1-19 Length frequencies for Dolly Varden angled on Grant Creek during August, 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix D -23 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 70 Esc. Est = 228 Chinook SL. = 14 days 60 O.E. = 30% -+-Chinook 50 ..... c :::l 0 40 u > <IJ c: :::l V) 30 ..... 0 0 u.. 20 10 0 Date Figure 3.5.1-20 Foot survey counts and estimated escapement for Chinook salmon, June - August, 2009 on Grant Creek Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix D -24 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 600 500 +-' 400 !:: ::I 0 u > ~ 300 ::I V'l +-' 0 0 ~ 200 100 0 Esc. Est = 1, 7 4 7 Sockeye SL. = 9 days O.E. = 30% -+-Sockeye Date Figure 3.5.1-21 Foot survey counts and escapement estimates for sockeye salmon, June- August, 2009 on Grant Creek Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix D -25 Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 ~--sculpin -unspecified rainbow trout (n=83) (n=2) Figure 3.5.2-1 Composition and relative abundance of fish species observed, June, 2009 Figure 3.5.2-2 Juvenile Chinook salmon ages observed: June, 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC. "wintered " Chinook salmon (FL>60mm) (n=119) Appendix D -26 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Reach 1 Reach 2 • Chinook salmon • coho salmon • sockeye salmon Arctic grayling Reach 3 Reach4 Reach 5 • Dolly Varden char • rainbow trout sculpin-unspecified Figure 3.5.2-3 Relative abundance of fish species observed by reach, June, 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix D -27 Draft -Grant Lake 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 3.5.2-4 Relative abundance rearing salmon and juvenile resident fish species observed in microhabitat units, June, 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix D -28 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 40 l 35 1 30 25 20 1 15 10 5 L 0 Arctic grayling Dolly Varden char rainbow trout • Main_Backwater (9%) • Main_pool_fastwater (18%) Main_Riffle_fastwater (26%) Figure 3.5.2·5 Relative abundance of resident fish (>200mm) observed in microhabitat units, June,2009 600 500 400 300 200 100 distributary channel • Chinook salmon • coho salmon • rainbow trout • sockeye salmon sculpin-unspecified secondary channel • Dolly Varden char Arctic grayling Figure 3.5.2-6 Relative abundance of rearing and resident fish observed in the distributary channel (Reach 1) and secondary channel (Reach 3), June, 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix D -29 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 100% IU 80% X ~ -60% c IU c ·e 40% 0 0 "*' 20% 0% Rotifers 0% 2% Copepoda Taxa • GLOut • GLTS Figure 3.5.3-1 Percent dominant taxa at Grant Lake -1.6 m E 1.4 -bl) 1.2 E -< 1 > 0.8 L. a. 0.6 0 .... L. 0.4 u c 0.2 0 -~ 0 c IU a. 0 Sur Mid -> L. 0.. Samples 1% 2% Protozoa Bot • Grant Lake Outlet • Grant Lake Thermistor String Figure 3.5.3-2 Phytoplankton Chlorophyll A at Grant Lake Kenai Hydro, LLC. Avg Appendix D -30 Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Figure 3.5.4-1 Total catch minnow trapping on Falls Creek, July, 2009 9 8 7 6 3 2 1 0 0 ...-! I ...-! 0 0 N m I I .-I .-I ...-! N 0 0 0 o::t Ll'l \.0 I I I .-I ...-! ...-! m o::t Ll'l 0 0 0 8 0 0 r-.. 00 ~ ...-! N I I I .-I .-I ...-! ...-! .-I .-I I I I \.0 r-.. 00 ...-! ...-! ...-! m 0 ...-! ...-! ...-! Length (mm) I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o::t Ll'l \.0 r-.. 00 ...-! ...-! .-I .-I ...-! ...-! I I I I I I ...-! ...-! ...-! ...-! ...-! ...-! N m o::t VI \.0 r-.. ...-! ...-! ...-! ...-! ...-! ...-! 0 ~ ...-! I ...-! 00 ...-! Figure 3.5.4-2 Length frequencies for Dolly Varden minnow trapped in Falls Creek, July, 2009 Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix D -31 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 threespine stickleback (n=4798) sculpin (n=79) Figure 3.5.5-1 Total catch by minnow traps in Grant Lake, June and August, 2009 250 e 212 .-I ci 200 -e.o 0 150 ~ 130 > +-' 100 ·v; c (11 0 c 50 0 +=i ~ 0 :J a. 0 Surber 1 Surber 2 Surber 3 Surber 4 Surber 5 Avgof c.. Surbers •GC100 •GC300 Figure 3.5.6-1 Surber population densities Kenai Hydro, LLC. Append ix D -32 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 50% 39.90% 40% ~ c.. 30% L&J ';ft. 20% 10% 0% Surber 1 Surber 2 Surber 3 Surber 4 Surber 5 Avg of Surbers • GC100 •GC300 Figure 3.5.6-2 Surber % EPT 25 > ..... 20 ·;;; .... 15 QJ > 0 10 ro X ~ 5 0 Surber 1 Surber 2 Surber 3 Surber 4 Surber 5 Avgof Surbers •GC100 •GC300 Figure 3.5.6-3 Surber taxa diversity Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix D -33 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 100% 89% 94% 90% ro 80% X 70% ~ ..... 60% c ro 50% c ·e 40% 0 0 30% '*' 20% 10% 0% ru Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql > ru ru 11) ru ru ru Iii 'U 'U 'U 'U 'U 'U > .E .E .E .E .E .E i:Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 s:: s:: c: c: s:: s:: 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... .... ·= ·= .... .... :c :c .J::. .J::. :c :c u u u u u u 1 2 3 4 5 Avg ASCI Surber Surber Surber Surber Surber Surber •GC100 Figure 3.5.6-4 Percent dominant taxa at GC100 100% ro 90% 78% X 80% ~ 70% ..... 60% c ro 50% c ·e 40% 0 30% 0 20% '*' 10% 0% ro CIJ CIJ ro CIJ ro CIJ ~ ro ro ~ ro ~ ro ro "0 :2 ~ "0 ro "0 > ·e E ·e > ·e iXi 0 0 iii 0 iii 0 c c c c 0 0 0 0 .... .... .... .... ~ ~ ~ ~ u u u u 1 2 3 4 5 Avg ASCI Surbe r Surber Surber Surber Surber Surber •GC300 Figure 3.5.6-5 Percent dominant taxa at GC300 Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix D -34 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 < 100 82.0 > 80 ..c 65.1 a. 0 60 51.5 .... -0"" - E 40.1 37.6 ..c......, 34.8 u bO 40 c E 0-.... 20 > ..c a. ·;:: 0 Q) 0.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AVG Samples •GC100 •GC300 Figure 3.5.6-6 Periphyton Chlorophyll A at Grant Creek Kenai Hydro, LLC . Appendix D -35 Appendix E Section 4.0 Figures Kenai Hydro, LLC. Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 • Cabin or associated building Figure 4.2.1-1. Sites sampled and types of samples collected at Grant Lake in 1981 -1982 (AEIDC 1983). Numbers represent sampling sites; 1 =variable mesh gill net sampling sites, 2= minnow trap sites, 3= plankton and water quality sampling sites, 4= benthos sampling sites. Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix E - 1 Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Kenai 11\'dro Environmental Baseli ne Studies -·--...... --... _.....,.. .... , ....... ._~.,_ ...... -.............. _. .............. _.u ..... _ Figure 4.3-1. Water quality, temperature, and hydrology Study Locations-2009 Kenai Hydro , LLC . AppendixE -2 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Figure 4.4.2-1. Example staff gauge and data logger installation Kenai Hydro, LLC . Appendix E - 3 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 14 12 G 10 !_. Q) .... 8 :::::J ..... ro .... 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 -..s::. 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 . AppendixE-4 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Temp oc 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 0 5 -.s .s:: 10 .. a. QJ c 15 20 Figure 4.5.1·3. 18 16 14 12 u 10 0 a. E 8 {! 6 4 2 0 10-Jun Figure 4.5.1-4. Kenai Hydro, LLC. -GLTS 6/11/09 -GLTS 8/7/09 Temperature at Grant Lake Outlet location taken during water quality sampling. 25-Jun 10-Jul 25-Jul 9-Aug -0.2m -o.5m -1.5m 3.0m -G.Om -9.0m 12.0m -15.0m -18.0m 19.5m Continuous temperature for all depth intervals in Grant Lake as daily mean values. Appendix E -5 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Temp c 5 7 9 11 13 15 0 .00 2.00 4 .00 6.00 -Ill ... Gl 8.00 ... Gl E 10.00 -~ ... 0.. 12.00 Gl c 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 -15-Jun -e-1-Jul ~1 5 -Jul ~1-Aug 1 5-Aug Figure 4.5.1-5. Continuous temperature in Grant Lake as daily mean values. 16 14 12 u 0 0.. 10 E ~ 8 6 4 9-Jun 23-Jun 7-Jul 21 -Jul 4-Aug 18-Aug -GClOO Stream Pool -GClOO Stream Surface GC250 Stream Pool GC 300 Stream Riffle ---GC200 Stream Gage -FClOO Stream Gage Figure 4.5.1-6. Continuous temperature at stream stations as daily mean values. Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix E - 6 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 16 15 14 13 u 12 0 c. 11 E ~ 10 9 8 7 6 10-Jun Figure 4.5.1-7. -E ~ VI E -> ..... ·:;; ~ v :::::1 "0 c 0 u v !E v Q) 0. VI -0.2m -0.5m -1.5m -3.0m ---GC200 25-Jun 10-Jul 25-Jul 9-Aug Continuous temperature at shallow depths in Grant Lake and Grant Creek stream gage as daily mean values. 0.090 0.087 0.085 0.080 0.075 0.070 0.065 June August • FC100 • GC100 • GC200 GC300 Figure 4.5.1-8. Specific Conductivity at stream sampling locations. Kenai Hydro, LLC. Append ix E -7 Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 -70 E u -'g_ 60 64 65 -50 > ..... ·::; 40 ~ u :::::1 "0 30 c: 0 u 20 Q) > :;; 10 ~ 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 -4.00 E -.s::. 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. K e n a i H y d r o, L L C . Appendix E -8 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Relative Conductivity (115/cm) 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 65.00 70.00 75.00 80.00 0.00 2.00 -4.00 E -.r:. 6.00 ..... c. cv 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 -4.00 L E -.r:. 6.00 ~ ..... c. cv 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 . AppendixE-9 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Relative Conductivity (IJ,S/cm) 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 0.00 2.00 -4.00 E -.s:::. 6.00 I ..... 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 '::J' 10 -tiD E -8 c:: Q) 8.22 tiD > 6 7.31 X 0 -o Q) ~ 4 0 VI ., 2 0 0 June August • FC100 •GC100 GC200 •GC300 Figure 4.5.1-14. Dissolved Oxygen Concentration at Grant and Falls Creek. Kenai Hydro, LLC . Appendix E -10 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 100% ~ 80% 68.7% c: Q) 1:1.0 60% > X 0 "C 40% Q) ~ 0 Vl Vl 20% i5 0% June August • FC100 •GClOO •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 .. 0. 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 . Appendix E -11 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Dissolved Oxygen (%) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0 5 -E 10 -..r: -Q. 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 -4 E -..r: 6 -Q. 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. Appendix E -12 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Dissolved Oxygen (%) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 2 4 -E 6 -.J::. +-' 8 a. QJ c 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 Vi 7.5 ~ c:: 7.4 ::J c 7.3 7.39 I- ~ 7.2 :I: 7.1 a. 7.0 6.9 6.8 June August • FC100 • GC100 GC200 • GC300 Figure 4.5.1-20. pH Concentrations at all Stream Locations. K e n a i H y d r o , L L C . Appendix E -13 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 pH (STD Units) 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 0 5 -E -..t::. 10 -a. Ql 0 15 20 -GlTS 6/11/09 -GlTS 8/7/09 Figure 4.5.1-21. pH Concentrations at Grant Lake Thermistor String Location. pH (STD Units) 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.2 0 2 -4 .§. ..t::. 6 -a. Ql 8 0 10 12 -GlOut 6/11/09 -GlOut 8/7/09 Figure 4.5.1-22. pH Concentrations at Grant Lake Outlet. K e n a i H y d r o , L L C . Appendix E -14 Draft-Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 20 -::l 15 1-z > 10 .~ "0 :0 .... 5 ~ 0 770.750.820 .820.64 • FClOO •GC200 June • Grant Lake Outlet •GClOO •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 5.20 5 -::l 4 1-z ~ 3 "0 :0 2 .... t:! 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. K e n a i H y d r o, L L C . Appendix E -15 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 40.0 -35.0 31'.4 m 0 u 30.0 fU u ...J 25.0 -1:10 20.0 E > 15.0 .. ~ s::::: fU 10.0 .:.f. <( 5.0 0.0 June August •GClOO •GC200 GC300 • FC100 Figure 4.5.1-25. Alkalinity at all Grant and Falls Creek Locations. 30.0 -m 25.0 0 u fU 23.5 24 .8 u ...J 20.0 -1:10 15.0 E > ~ 10.0 s::::: -fU .:.f. 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. Appendix E -16 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 30.0 -,., 25.0 0 u 10 u ...J 20.0 -bO 15.0 E -> -~ 10.0 c 10 .,:,(. 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 ::I -2.000 ~ -..c 1.500 0.. 10 1.000 ..... t2 0.500 0 .252 0.000 June August • GClOO • GC200 GC300 • FClOO Figure 4.5.1-28. Total Lead Concentrations in Grant and Falls Creek. Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix E -17 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 1.200 1.000 ::::1 0.800 -~ :::1. ..c 0.. 0.600 "' 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 ::::1 3 -~ 2.5 -~ 2 ::I: :::1 1.5 1 0.5 0 June August • GC100 • GC200 GC300 • FC100 Figure 4.5.1-30. Low Level Mercury Concentrations at Grant and Falls Creek. Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix E -18 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 2.5 2 :::; ......... 1.5 t:IO c -t:IO :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 :::; ......... 1.5 t:IO c -t:IO :I: 1 _, ..J 0.5 0 June August • GLOut SUR • GLOut MID Figure 4.5.1-32. Low Level Mercury Concentrations at Grant Lake Outlet. K e n a i H y d r o, L L C . Appendix E -19 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 0.700 0.600 :::1 0.500 0.461 0.455 - 1 ao E 0.416 -0 .400 N'l 0 0.300 z l + 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 :::1 0.500 -1:10 E 0.400 -('() 0 0.300 j z + N 0.200 0 z 0.100 0.000 0.415 0.421 0.410 0.280 0.303 0.319 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. Appendix E-20 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 0.700 0.600 :::; 0.500 -tiO E 0.400 tv') 0 z 0.300 + 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 :::; -0.0157 e o.o15 -Q.. 0.01 0.005 0 June August • GClOO • GC200 GC300 • FClOO Figure 4.5.1-36. Total Phosphorous Concentrations at all Grant and Falls Creek Locations. Kenai Hydro, LLC. AppendixE-21 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 0.025 0.0218 0.02 :::; .......... bO 0.015 E 0.. "' 0.01 ..... ~ 0.005 0 June August • GLTS SUR •GLTSMID GLTS BOT Figure 4.5.1-37. Total Phosphorous Concentrations at Grant Lake Thermistor String Location. 80.0 70.0 60.0 :::; 50.0 .......... bO E 40.0 -Vl 30.0 0 I- 20.0 10.0 0.0 June August • GC100 • GC200 GC300 • FClOO Figure 4.5.1·38. Total Dissolved Solid Concentrations at all Grant and Falls Creek Locations. K e n a i H y d r o, L L C . Appendix E -22 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 80.0 70.0 60.0 :::J 50.0 .......... tiD E 40.0 45.0 Vl 30.0 0 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 l 50.0 I :::J 40.0 .......... till E 30.0 -V'l 0 1-20.0 j 10.0 0.0 June August • GLOut SUR • GLOut MID Figure 4.5.1-40. Total Dissolved Solid Concentrations at Grant Creek Outlet Location. K e n a i Hydro, L L C. Appendix E -23 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 9.00 8.00 7.00 ::;-6.00 ......... 5.00 ti.O E Vl 4.00 ~ 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 8 .300 8 .240 June August •GC100 •GC200 GC300 • FC100 Figure 4.5.1-41. Total Suspended Solid Concentrations at all Grant and Falls Creek Locations. 3.00 2.50 ::;-2.00 ......... ti.O E 1.50 -Vl ~ 1.00 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. Appendix E -24 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 3.000 2.500 ::::;-2.000 ......... tiO E 1.500 -VI ~ 1.000 0.500 0.000 June August • GLOut SUR • GLOut MID Figure 4.5.1-43. Total Suspended Solid Concentrations at Grant Lake Outlet Location. 1.3 0 .9 0 .7 0 .5 0.3 +-----..-----~-----r----....----,.----- 9-Jun 23-Jun 7-Jul 21-Jul 4-Aug water surface elevations, 15 minute intervals -Water surface elevation, daily mean 18-Aug • Staff gage observations and instantaneous discharge measurement {cfs) Figure 4.5.2-1. Continuous and observed water surface elevation at GC200 Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix E -25 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 g c: 0 ., (Q > Q) w 8 (Q '1:: ::I (J) ~ ~ 475.4 475.2 475.0 474.8 474.6 474.4 4 7 4.2 +------,~--- 8-Jun 22-Jun 6-Jul 20-Jul water surface elevations, 15 minute intervals -water surface elevation, daily mean 3-Aug 17-Aug 31-Aug • Staff gage observations and instantaneous discharge measurements (cfs) Figure 4.5.2-2. Continuous and observed water surface elevation at FC100 Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix E -26 Appendix F Photos Kenai Hydro, LLC. Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Photo 1. Reach llooking upstream on the right bank during June, 2009. Photo 2. Grant Creek Reach 2 during June, 2009 . Kenai Hydro, LLC. Appendix F -1 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Photo 3. Grant Creek Reach 3 during June, 2009. Kenai Hydro , LLC . Appendix F - 2 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Photo 4. Grant Creek Reach 4 looking upstream during June 2009. Photo 5. Grant Creek in Reach 5 looking downstream from the right bank during May, 2009 . Kenai Hydro, LLC . Appendix F -3 Draft -Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Baseline Studies Report, 2009 Photo 6. Reach 6 looking upstream during June, 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 August 2009. Kenai Hydro , LLC . Appendix F -4 Draft-Grant Lake 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. Append ix F -5 Draft -Grant Lake 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. Appendix F -6